the heavenly sanctuary doctrine (and the sabbath)

[VictorC]

Hopefully mrsell will be back.

Pastor Marc Rasell has a long history on discussion forums. During that time I have observed that what he writes is driven by a motive that is not hard to see, although it is rarely spoken clearly. In this case, he is promoting a couple of books he has written that toe the Adventist party line. Discussion on the topics one would assume he knows well from authoring books on them is not the primary consideration.

In a way, that is too bad.

I have noticed that nearly all the discussions concerning 1844 and the IJ happen on the General Theology forum (used to happen on the Denomination-Specific forum, but not in recent history), or else on the Traditional Adventist forum, where critical review isn't permitted by their SoF rules. Discussion over 1844 and the IJ don't happen here on the Progressive/Moderate Adventist forum. I submit that this is largely because the membership here has already come to conclude that 1844 and the IJ can't be reconciled with Scripture, and remains a unique component of the SDA church no one else will accept. Comments such as cornfield theology are common here.

And yet it is 1844 and the mutating doctrines that were formulated to apologize for that date that are the foundation of the "Little Flock" that became the seventh-day Adventist church.

The [sanctuary] doctrine is, to me, the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. ... We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. ... [It is] unimportant and almost naïve.

Donald Barnhouse was Walter Martin's companion during the interviews with members of the SDA General Conference in the 1950's. The GC published Questions on Doctrine in 1957 to address this perception from those outside Adventism, and it has largely been dismissed as a heresy from the GC by those within Adventism (I have seen Adventist clergy welcome QoD's "demise" on their own websites, but it would take a lot of effort to document this here).

I think pastor Rasell is likely to return. I don't think he understands the topic he wrote about as well as others ready to critique it.

 

[mrasell]

When we look at Genesis 2:2-3, we find the origin of God's "My rest" that Hebrews 4 speaks of so eloquently. As Hebrews reminds us, this rest was a promise yet to be attained by the people who were already observing the sabbath.

The problem was not sabbath keeping, it was a lack of faith, and keeping the law as a means of salvation.

Hebrews 4:4 is a direct quote from Genesis 2:2.
The seventh day was God's rest, and not man's rest. The sabbath didn't exist until it was ordained thousands of years later. Moreover, the rest documented on the seventh day never repeated nor ended. The sabbath repeated every week, and was a mere shadow of God's rest that was not attained by the sabbath: "a promise remains of entering His rest", a comment directed to those who already had the sabbath.

The Sabbath began at Creation, because it was sanctified (Genesis 2:2-3) which means set apart for holy purposes.

Marriage is a shadow of our relationship with Christ, do we now abandon literal marriage? Of course not, neither do we abandon a literal Sabbath which we need. Otherwise man becomes self centered and forgets God, which was why the Sabbath was given at Creation.

The blood of the offering did not defile the sanctuary, and Hebrews 9:22 specifies that the blood was the agent of cleansing: "according to the law almost all things are purified with blood".

When someone committed a sin and repented of it, he would bring a sacrificial animal to be slaughtered (Leviticus 5:5-6, 10). He would confess his sin, then the priest would make atonement for him and he would be forgiven. During this rite the guilty person would lay his hands on the animal signifying transference of guilt to the innocent animal (Leviticus 4:29; 16:21). The laying on of hands is used in the Bible to signify transfer: such as to transfer guilt to a blasphemer before stoning him (Lev. 24:14), or when installing someone in a new office (Num. 27:18; 8:10; 1 Tim. 4:14), in the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18), and it is also used for healings (Mark 9:18; 16:18; Acts 28:8).

In the sacrificial rites we have a picture of Jesus, the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

The story is not finished, because either the blood was taken and sprinkled in the tabernacle, or the priest ate some of the flesh (Leviticus 6:30; 10:18). This signified a further transference of sin to God’s sanctuary. So when a repentant sinner confessed his sins, he was polluting God’s temple! It seems strange that something holy can be polluted at the same time, yet God permitted this paradox to exist for a time. God was taking upon Himself and His dwelling the garbage of repentant sinners. Yet even though the tabernacle was defiled it remained holy, just as Jesus remains holy even though He bore our sins.

Moreover, the entire narrative of Hebrews 9-10 presents the rites in the heavenly sanctuary in the past tense, including the entrance into the Holiest of Holies (or MHP, "most holy place"), showing that the sanctuary rites were completed before this epistle was written. This is plainly evident in Hebrews 9:

This speaks of the inauguration rites when Christ entered the "ta hagia" holy places. Hebrews never says Christ entered the "hagia hagion".

The high priest entering the "hagia hagion" is used as a symbol of entry into the presence of God, but it is a symbol and not referring to the heavenly temple.

If there is an allusion to the Day of Atonement, it would not exhaust the full meaning, as the Jews recognise this rite to symbolise the day of judgement when the fate of every soul would be sealed. Certainly there was an initial fulfilment of the Day of Atonement at the Cross, but the major fulfillment began in 1844.

Christ was offered once, and atonement is not a continued rite. It exists only as a component of the law ordained under the first covenant, and does not exist in the new covenant at all. As Hebrews 9:15 states concerning this: And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. In order to assert that atonement is a continuing process ("the cleansing is happening now", quoting Marc Rasell), one needs also reject the new covenant in order to claim a rite authorized only under the first covenant is continuing, as the two covenants are not compatible and cannot coexist: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9).

He only entered once, and inaugurated the heavenly temple once, and was only sacrifices once. Yet Hebrews speaks of his ongoing intercession in Hebrews 7:25.

 

[VictorC]

When we look at Genesis 2:2-3, we find the origin of God's "My rest" that Hebrews 4 speaks of so eloquently. As Hebrews reminds us, this rest was a promise yet to be attained by the people who were already observing the sabbath.

The problem was not sabbath keeping, it was a lack of faith, and keeping the law as a means of salvation.

The problem is that you threw out a comment that has no relation to the point you responded to. I was addressing God's My rest that was yet to be attained by those already having the sabbath, and the sabbath wasn't even the topic here.

Hebrews 4:4 is a direct quote from Genesis 2:2.
The seventh day was God's rest, and not man's rest. The sabbath didn't exist until it was ordained thousands of years later. Moreover, the rest documented on the seventh day never repeated nor ended. The sabbath repeated every week, and was a mere shadow of God's rest that was not attained by the sabbath: "a promise remains of entering His rest", a comment directed to those who already had the sabbath.

The Sabbath began at Creation, because it was sanctified (Genesis 2:2-3) which means set apart for holy purposes.

Marriage is a shadow of our relationship with Christ, do we now abandon literal marriage? Of course not, neither do we abandon a literal Sabbath which we need. Otherwise man becomes self centered and forgets God, which was why the Sabbath was given at Creation.

Again you threw out a comment that has no relation to what I wrote. Hebrews 4:4 quotes from Genesis 2:2 to show the origin of God's My rest, and not the sabbath that Jesus stated was "made for man" that we can document the origin of thousands of years later. The Genesis account contains the origin of marriage, but it is silent about the sabbath.

The blood of the offering did not defile the sanctuary, and Hebrews 9:22 specifies that the blood was the agent of cleansing: "according to the law almost all things are purified with blood".

When someone committed a sin and repented of it, he would bring a sacrificial animal to be slaughtered (Leviticus 5:5-6, 10). He would confess his sin, then the priest would make atonement for him and he would be forgiven. During this rite the guilty person would lay his hands on the animal signifying transference of guilt to the innocent animal (Leviticus 4:29; 16:21). The laying on of hands is used in the Bible to signify transfer[/SIZE]: such as to transfer guilt to a blasphemer before stoning him (Lev. 24:14), or when installing someone in a new office (Num. 27:18; 8:10; 1 Tim. 4:14), in the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:18), and it is also used for healings (Mark 9:18; 16:18; Acts 28:8).

In the sacrificial rites we have a picture of Jesus, the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29).

The story is not finished, because either the blood was taken and sprinkled in the tabernacle, or the priest ate some of the flesh (Leviticus 6:30; 10:18). This signified a further transference of sin to God’s sanctuary. So when a repentant sinner confessed his sins, he was polluting God’s temple! It seems strange that something holy can be polluted at the same time, yet God permitted this paradox to exist for a time. God was taking upon Himself and His dwelling the garbage of repentant sinners. Yet even though the tabernacle was defiled it remained holy, just as Jesus remains holy even though He bore our sins.

Did you forget about the scapegoat, onto which the sins of the whole congregation were confessed by the laying of hands, which was chased into the wilderness never to be seen again? This is where the sins of the congregation went, never to be seen again - and they never entered the sanctuary at all. Hebrews 9 draws its pattern from the annual rite of atonement, which is the only rite that addresses the sins of the entire congregation (Leviticus 16:33).

Moreover, the entire narrative of Hebrews 9-10 presents the rites in the heavenly sanctuary in the past tense, including the entrance into the Holiest of Holies (or MHP, "most holy place"), showing that the sanctuary rites were completed before this epistle was written. This is plainly evident in Hebrews 9:

This speaks of the inauguration rites when Christ entered the "ta hagia" holy places. Hebrews never says Christ entered the "hagia hagion".

The high priest entering the "hagia hagion" is used as a symbol of entry into the presence of God, but it is a symbol and not referring to the heavenly temple.

I had addressed this before you even responded:

BTW, I already know that Hebrews 9:25 refers to the plural ta hagia that renders "Holy Places" as the "Most Holy Place" in this translation (NKJV). It was the annual rite of atonement provided by the earthly high priest that Jesus followed, which was the only time the high priest entered into the Holy Places in the plural - both the HP and MHP. This entrance is documented as a completed act.

Entrance into the MHP was already completed with the offering performed as a requisite for entrance: "But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people's sins committed in ignorance" (Hebrews 9:7). This was the pattern established in the law, that Jesus followed:

Hebrews 9:24-26
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another -
26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

I had already qualified why the NKJV renders ta hagia as the Most Holy Place, as the plural entrance into both parts of the sanctuary was done only in the annual cycle by the high priest, and it was that annual pattern that Jesus followed.

If there is an allusion to the Day of Atonement, it would not exhaust the full meaning, as the Jews recognise this rite to symbolise the day of judgement when the fate of every soul would be sealed. Certainly there was an initial fulfilment of the Day of Atonement at the Cross, but the major fulfillment began in 1844.

Two points:
1) "IF" is a moot point on your behalf, as the annual Day of Atonement rite was the only rite that addressed the whole congregation, as Leviticus 16 documents:

32 "And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father's place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments;
33 "then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.

The rites contained in Leviticus 4 addressed only the individual making them.

2) The reference to 1844 was another comment simply thrown out by you with no support. The documentation contained in Hebrews 9 describe a rite that was performed in the past-tense, long before 1844.

Christ was offered once, and atonement is not a continued rite. It exists only as a component of the law ordained under the first covenant, and does not exist in the new covenant at all. As Hebrews 9:15 states concerning this: And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. In order to assert that atonement is a continuing process ("the cleansing is happening now", quoting Marc Rasell), one needs also reject the new covenant in order to claim a rite authorized only under the first covenant is continuing, as the two covenants are not compatible and cannot coexist: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9).

He only entered once, and inaugurated the heavenly temple once, and was only sacrifices once. Yet Hebrews speaks of his ongoing intercession in Hebrews 7:25.

As I mentioned a long time ago, Hebrews 7:25 describes Christ's intercession in the present-tense. 1844 made no change to that intercession that we continue to enjoy. 1844 made no transition, and was a non-event. You also failed to note that our redemption of transgressions under the first covenant mentioned in Hebrews 9:15 was done by a rite requiring Christ's death, and is not an ongoing affair. Jesus is not going to die again, the very assurance we have for His continuing intercession: "Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them" (Hebrews 7:25). As Hebrews 9:28 states, "Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many" and the rite mandating His death is finished, never to be repeated. The rite authorizing atonement no longer exists, as Hebrews 10:9 states "He takes away the first" covenant that contains atonement.

The "second and final phase of atonement" suggested by SDA Fundamental Belief #24 is a complete fallacy.

 

[VictorC]

Why do we have as an anchor that He was "within the veil"? Hbr 6:19 and not on the other side of it?

This is a reference to the earthly temple, Paul uses the veil of the wilderness tabernacle as a symbol of the high priest gaining access to the Presence of God. It is just a symbol of Christ's entry to the heavenly temple into the presence of God.

However in the heavenly temple, there are difference as I mentioned before. And we are never told exactly what is in the heavenly temple in the book of Hebrews, or where Christ is in that temple. In Hebrews, location is outside of the context of the epistle, it was not relevant to the discussion, for that we have to look to Revelation.

I agree with you that Hebrews 6:19 is a reference to the temple on earth, as opposed to a reference to the heavenly sanctuary I hear from other SDA apologists. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a long narrative that flows fluidly, and Hebrews 6 addresses the location of the veil that the reader is going to think of immediately, right where they are: Herod's Temple, which refurbished and expanded on Solomon's Temple. It isn't until later in the narrative that the heavenly sanctuary that Moses patterned the tabernacle after is introduced, and Hebrews 9:8 mentions "the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing", a fait accompli when Solomon built the temple and retired the tabernacle.

Now, refer again to Hebrews 6:19-20:

19 This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters the Presence behind the veil,
20 where the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus, having become High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

The probable reason that "the veil" is mentioned in the singular is for the very reason that there was only one veil in the temple. The "first veil" on the tabernacle was replaced by double-hinged wooden doors overlaid with gold on the temple (1 Kings 6:31-35), but it is apparent that Herod didn't follow Solomon's pattern of the doors for the MHP, as the Gospel accounts refer to the veil, also in the singular (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45).

There was only one veil in the temple.
The only location that covers "the Presence behind the veil" refers to the Mercyseat, where the high priest met with God in the annual period (Leviticus 16:2).
The only veil referred to in Hebrews 6:19-20 is the entrance to the MHP.
The reference to "the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus" is before the Mercyseat, located in the MHP.
That entrance was written in the past-tense, and didn't wait for 1844.

 

[mrasell]

Did you forget about the scapegoat, onto which the sins of the whole congregation were confessed by the laying of hands, which was chased into the wilderness never to be seen again? This is where the sins of the congregation went, never to be seen again - and they never entered the sanctuary at all. Hebrews 9 draws its pattern from the annual rite of atonement, which is the only rite that addresses the sins of the entire congregation (Leviticus 16:33).

The rite of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement symbolised the destruction of Satan. One goat was for the Lord and the other for Azazel which the most ancient Jewish and Christian sources attribute to an evil being. The fact that the Lord is a personal being suggests that Azazel is also a personal being. The rite of the scapegoat was only preformed after the sanctuary had been cleansed (Lev. 16:20). This goat was not sacrificed but led out into the wilderness to perish; it was not a sin offering as the Lord’s goat was (Lev. 16:15-16), rather it says that atonement was made over it (Lev. 16:10). We find a fulfilment of this during the millennium (Revelation 20:1-4) when Satan is bound figuratively to the desolate earth for a thousand years. Then he will be banished from the presence of God and from God’s people, and finally be destroyed. Sin returns to where it originated from and is blotted out.

I had already qualified why the NKJV renders ta hagia as the Most Holy Place, as the plural entrance into both parts of the sanctuary was done only in the annual cycle by the high priest, and it was that annual pattern that Jesus followed.

If Jesus entered the MHP briefly at the inauguration of the heavenly temple I have no problem with that. However, Hebrews does not say that, it just says he entered the "ta hagia" without specifically telling us which apartment.

To say he must have entered the MHP in heaven based on what the high priest did on earth is to miss the point that the heavenly temple is not a carbon copy of the earthly. In the heavenly Jesus can enter the direct presence of God in the Holy Place, because the heavenly temple is greater than its shadow.

Two points:
1) "IF" is a moot point on your behalf, as the annual Day of Atonement rite was the only rite that addressed the whole congregation, as Leviticus 16 documents:

32 "And the priest, who is anointed and consecrated to minister as priest in his father's place, shall make atonement, and put on the linen clothes, the holy garments;
33 "then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary, and he shall make atonement for the tabernacle of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.

The rites contained in Leviticus 4 addressed only the individual making them.

I'm not sure what your getting at here, but the daily levitical service covered any individual who sinned, so it was comprehensive in that sense.

2) The reference to 1844 was another comment simply thrown out by you with no support. The documentation contained in Hebrews 9 describe a rite that was performed in the past-tense, long before 1844.

Certianly the death of the Lord's goat shows an initial fulfilment at the cross, leading to the inauguration of the heavenly temple, a long time before 1844. But that does not exhaust the meaning of the rite, and judgement is still future in the Book of Hebrews. And as the rites have a christological, ecclesiological and eschatological fulfillment there is no problem with that.

As I mentioned a long time ago, Hebrews 7:25 describes Christ's intercession in the present-tense. 1844 made no change to that intercession that we continue to enjoy.

I agree with you so far. 1844 did not stop intercession which was available on the Day of Atonement as the daily rites were conducted as usual. However something was added - the final judgment.

I've never said Christ needs to die again, both his intercession and final judgment are based on the once for all sacrifice. Those who are saved in the judgement are saved on the basis of their acceptance of the once for all sacrifice. A judgement is necessary for the onlooking universe to see that justice is done. And also because there is no once saved always saved, a person can renounce his faith in Christ and deliberately keep on sinning as indicated in Hebrews.

 

[mrasell]

I agree with you that Hebrews 6:19 is a reference to the temple on earth, as opposed to a reference to the heavenly sanctuary I hear from other SDA apologists. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a long narrative that flows fluidly, and Hebrews 6 addresses the location of the veil that the reader is going to think of immediately, right where they are: Herod's Temple, which refurbished and expanded on Solomon's Temple. It isn't until later in the narrative that the heavenly sanctuary that Moses patterned the tabernacle after is introduced, and Hebrews 9:8 mentions "the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing", a fait accompli when Solomon built the temple and retired the tabernacle.

its good to see we agree on something.

Now, refer again to Hebrews 6:19-20:

The only veil referred to in Hebrews 6:19-20 is the entrance to the MHP.
The reference to "the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus" is before the Mercyseat, located in the MHP.
That entrance was written in the past-tense, and didn't wait for 1844

I agree that the veil referred to is the MHP, I disagree that it referrs to a veil in the heavenly temple. As you have stated this is not referring to the heavenly temple.

Again your assuming the heavenly temple is a carbon copy of the earthly one, but as God's presence is not limited in the heavenly temple, Jesus can enter the presence of God in the Holy Place. We are dealing with a shadowy symbol here of entrance to God's presence as represented by the tabernacle, and a shadow is not the reality, there are difference, of which Paul points out a few.

 

[Laodicean]

its good to see we agree on something.

Now, refer again to Hebrews 6:19-20:


I agree that the veil referred to is the MHP, I disagree that it referrs to a veil in the heavenly temple. As you have stated this is not referring to the heavenly temple.

Again your assuming the heavenly temple is a carbon copy of the earthly one, but as God's presence is not limited in the heavenly temple, Jesus can enter the presence of God in the Holy Place. We are dealing with a shadowy symbol here of entrance to God's presence as represented by the tabernacle, and a shadow is not the reality, there are difference, of which Paul points out a few.

mrasell, did the earthly sanctuary not have two veils, the first one between the outer court and the Holy Place and the second before the Most Holy? I need to go back and check, but what is your position on this? And if there are two veils, whether on earth or in antitype, why would "within the veil" in Hebrews have to exclusively refer to the MHP?

 

[mrasell]

mrasell, did the earthly sanctuary not have two veils, the first one between the outer court and the Holy Place and the second before the Most Holy? I need to go back and check, but what is your position on this? And if there are two veils, whether on earth or in antitype, why would "within the veil" in Hebrews have to exclusively refer to the MHP?

Some theologians believe it can refer to the outer veil, others that it refers to the inner veil.

My own opinion is that Hebrews 6 does not refer at all to the heavenly temple, but is simply using the wilderness tabernacle as a symbol of access to God's presence. Hebrews does not address the question of where Jesus is located in the heavenly temple, its not relevant to the context. I think this is why there is so much speculation, because this question is not addressed in the Book of Hebrews. The question and context was about access rather than location. The Hebrews now had direct access to God's Presence.
The question of location is addressed in the Book of Revelation.

Added an edit: I do believe there is a temple in heaven with two apartments, but in my opinion Hebrews 6:19-20 is not a reference to the heavenly temple. When Hebrews refers to the heavenly temple it says he entered the "ta hagia" holy places, which does imply two rooms. And Revelation 4-5 affirms that after his ascension he entered the holy place in the presence of God.

 

[VictorC]

I agree that the veil referred to is the MHP, I disagree that it referrs to a veil in the heavenly temple. As you have stated this is not referring to the heavenly temple.

Then why do you contradict yourself by changing what veil Hebrews 6:19-20 refers to? The allusion in the narrative is to the temple that was in service at the time, in which there was only one veil - located before the Mercyseat. By the statement "the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus" found in Hebrews 6:20, it is evident to the reader of the epistle that Jesus gained access to the Mercyseat. This is confirmed later on in Hebrews 9, as I have pointed out before.

Again your assuming the heavenly temple is a carbon copy of the earthly one, but as God's presence is not limited in the heavenly temple, Jesus can enter the presence of God in the Holy Place. We are dealing with a shadowy symbol here of entrance to God's presence as represented by the tabernacle, and a shadow is not the reality, there are difference,

There is no allusion in the narrative that there is any reference to the temple or sanctuary in heaven. There is no allusion to the tabernacle that was in service before the temple was built, either. None of your comments are germane to the narrative presented in Hebrews 6:19-20.

of which Paul points out a few.

I'm not familiar with any other epistle addressing the type presented by the temple or tabernacle. In the interest of accuracy, I need to remind you that we can't document Paul as the author of Hebrews. If you attribute points made by Paul that help your cause, then you need to present them here.

 

[VictorC]

The rite of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement symbolised the destruction of Satan. One goat was for the Lord and the other for Azazel which the most ancient Jewish and Christian sources attribute to an evil being. The fact that the Lord is a personal being suggests that Azazel is also a personal being. The rite of the scapegoat was only preformed after the sanctuary had been cleansed (Lev. 16:20). This goat was not sacrificed but led out into the wilderness to perish; it was not a sin offering as the Lord’s goat was (Lev. 16:15-16), rather it says that atonement was made over it (Lev. 16:10). We find a fulfilment of this during the millennium (Revelation 20:1-4) when Satan is bound figuratively to the desolate earth for a thousand years. Then he will be banished from the presence of God and from God’s people, and finally be destroyed. Sin returns to where it originated from and is blotted out.

The Adventist model preserves sin indefinately - haven't you ever noticed that? But in order to preserve this model that keeps sin alive, you have to mutilate the Biblical types and draw on extra-Bibical sources to "suggest" support for your model.

• The scapegoat was not destroyed - it was chased into the wilderness and forgotten forever, never to be seen again: "the goat on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make atonement upon it, and to let it go as the scapegoat into the wilderness" (Leviticus 16:10). Suggesting that the scapegoat is a type of satan is to postulate that satan will never come to accountability nor be destroyed. Your own comments reveal that you don't accept that yourself.
• The scapegoat was selected by the same criteria that selected the Lord's goat, and was spotless and without blemish, as were all offerings that are called for in the law. Hence the scapegoat was as innocent and without blemish as the Lord's goat, and both goats are a type of what Jesus did in His offering: "a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Peter 1:19). The scapegoat carried our sins to a place never to be remembered again, and is a type of God's promise "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more" (Hebrews 10:17).

You're left suggesting that satan is without spot nor blemish, and will never be destroyed for his rebellion against God. It is nonsense.

I had already qualified why the NKJV renders ta hagia as the Most Holy Place, as the plural entrance into both parts of the sanctuary was done only in the annual cycle by the high priest, and it was that annual pattern that Jesus followed.

If Jesus entered the MHP briefly at the inauguration of the heavenly temple I have no problem with that. However, Hebrews does not say that, it just says he entered the "ta hagia" without specifically telling us which apartment.

There's only two "apartments. Using the plural term to describe them is inclusive of both.

Also, by stating "if Jesus entered the MHP ... I have no problem with that" is a concession on your part that admits Jesus did indeed enter the MHP. This was a later admission by Ellen White, and an admission by you that concedes Scripture's narration that He did. There's just one problem - "inauguration" is not described in the narrative anywhere. Just atonement that is complete and sufficient: "by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). That statement is made in the past tense, and doesn't leave atonement as a rite or process that is to be completed at a future date.

To say he must have entered the MHP in heaven based on what the high priest did on earth is to miss the point that the heavenly temple is not a carbon copy of the earthly. In the heavenly Jesus can enter the direct presence of God in the Holy Place, because the heavenly temple is greater than its shadow.

This isn't germane to the narrative contained in Hebrews 9.

I'm not sure what your getting at here, but the daily levitical service covered any individual who sinned, so it was comprehensive in that sense.

That was my point - Leviticus 4 describes only atonement made for individuals, and those individuals provided their own sacrifice. These two points make it clear that Hebrews 9 is not referring to those rites of atonement, which were made on-demand and not according to the annual period to atone for the whole congregation. Your view nullifies Hebrews 9:28, which states "Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many".

Certianly the death of the Lord's goat shows an initial fulfilment at the cross, leading to the inauguration of the heavenly temple, a long time before 1844. But that does not exhaust the meaning of the rite, and judgement is still future in the Book of Hebrews. And as the rites have a christological, ecclesiological and eschatological fulfillment there is no problem with that.

As I mentioned previously, there was no "inauguration" described in Hebrews - only a completed atonement. I had also mentioned in a earlier post that the law taken away by the covenant that contained it makes it impossible to continue a rite that is unauthorized by the new covenant. Go back and verify that you have ignored that point. Making an allusion to judgment isn't germane to the narrative at all.

As I mentioned a long time ago, Hebrews 7:25 describes Christ's intercession in the present-tense. 1844 made no change to that intercession that we continue to enjoy.

I agree with you so far. 1844 did not stop intercession which was available on the Day of Atonement as the daily rites were conducted as usual. However something was added - the final judgment.

You don't agree with me.

• 1844 remains completely unsupported.
• Christ's intercession as our advocate remains as it was described in Hebrews 7:25.
• There are no "daily" rites described anywhere in Hebrews 8-10 outside those that are called a "shadow" that were taken away by the Hand of God.
• Judgment is not addressed at all, except as the next step in the sequence of events fortelling the second advent, as shown in Hebrews 10:12-13.

12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
It is impossible to shoehorn 1844 into this sequence; no room has been left for it - and you haven't found any event that 1844 allegedly accomplished. It remains a face-saving farce unique to the SDA church, exactly as Donald Barnhouse described it.

I've never said Christ needs to die again, both his intercession and final judgment are based on the once for all sacrifice. Those who are saved in the judgement are saved on the basis of their acceptance of the once for all sacrifice.

Then you concede that the Investigative Judgement is unnecessary.

A judgement is necessary for the onlooking universe to see that justice is done.

Then you return to the IJ postulated by Ellen White's Great Con hypothesis that is totally devoid of Biblical support. The event remains unsupported, and alleging a reason for it that isn't documented anywhere does not lend it that necessary support. It is a completely unBiblical thesis.

And also because there is no once saved always saved, a person can renounce his faith in Christ and deliberately keep on sinning as indicated in Hebrews.

This is a tangent I assume is meant to confuse those intent on following the topic this thread initiated.

 

[mrasell]

Then why do you contradict yourself by changing what veil Hebrews 6:19-20 refers to? The allusion in the narrative is to the temple that was in service at the time, in which there was only one veil - located before the Mercyseat. By the statement "the forerunner has entered for us, even Jesus" found in Hebrews 6:20, it is evident to the reader of the epistle that Jesus gained access to the Mercyseat. This is confirmed later on in Hebrews 9, as I have pointed out before.

Jesus has entered the presence of God as symbolised by the High Priest entering the MHP in the wilderness tabernacle.

 

[mrasell]

The Adventist model preserves sin indefinately - haven't you ever noticed that? But in order to preserve this model that keeps sin alive, you have to mutilate the Biblical types and draw on extra-Bibical sources to "suggest" support for your model.

I think there is a Jewish tradition that the scapegoat was pushed over a cliff to make sure it perished. And Satan was blameless before inquity was found in him according to Ezekiel/Isaiah.

Also, by stating "if Jesus entered the MHP ... I have no problem with that" is a concession on your part that admits Jesus did indeed enter the MHP. This was a later admission by Ellen White, and an admission by you that concedes Scripture's narration that He did. There's just one problem - "inauguration" is not described in the narrative anywhere. Just atonement that is complete and sufficient: "by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14). That statement is made in the past tense, and doesn't leave atonement as a rite or process that is to be completed at a future date.

I didn't say he did enter the MHP, Scripture does not reveal the answer to that question.

Hebrews 9 is all about the inauguration of the heavenly temple:

"18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

Its all about how the second covenant was put into effect by the blood of Christ, which is superior to the blood of bulls and goats.

That was my point - Leviticus 4 describes only atonement made for individuals, and those individuals provided their own sacrifice. These two points make it clear that Hebrews 9 is not referring to those rites of atonement, which were made on-demand and not according to the annual period to atone for the whole congregation. Your view nullifies Hebrews 9:28, which states "Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many".

Under the old system even the yearly rites had to be repeated, and access was granted to the direct presence of God only once a year. But in the new system Christ is offered once for all, and there is permanent access:

"25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Does this mean the Day of Atonement ended at the cross? Not at all, because there is a christological fulfillment of the Day of Atonement in the death of the Lord's goat which does not exhuast the full meaning and eschatological fulfillment.

Paul focuses on the yearly sacrifices because he is making a point about access to God, which is superior in the new system. But clearly even the daily sacrifices symbolised the death of Christ, or what else could they symbolise?

"It is impossible to shoehorn 1844 into this sequence; no room has been left for it - and you haven't found any event that 1844 allegedly accomplished. It remains a face-saving farce unique to the SDA church, exactly as Donald Barnhouse described it."

Hebrews neither affirms not denies 1844, but it leaves room for it.

Then you concede that the Investigative Judgement is unnecessary.

Not according to Daniel 7:9-10 where the great court setting, with the books and multitude of beings is presented, after which judgement is given in favour of the saints (verse 22)

 

[VictorC]

Jesus has entered the presence of God as symbolised by the High Priest entering the MHP in the wilderness tabernacle.

You see the type, and yet don't accept its fulfillment. Why?

 

[Sophia7]

Jesus has entered the presence of God as symbolised by the High Priest entering the MHP in the wilderness tabernacle.

That is the most biblical statement that I've seen from you on this topic. Yes, Jesus' entrance into the Father's presence at His ascension fulfilled the symbol of the high priest's entrance into the MHP on the Day of Atonement. That happened long before 1844. Your acknowledgment of that negates the IJ.

 

[VictorC]

I think there is a Jewish tradition that the scapegoat was pushed over a cliff to make sure it perished. And Satan was blameless before inquity was found in him according to Ezekiel/Isaiah.

You think there's some obscure tradition -not Scripture- that might lend support for your thesis? Marc, do you think it's normal to write a book on a subject that you don't comprehend? Your rendition of satan is that he is spotless and without blemish, and that he is forgotten and will never be judged. As I pointed out before, the thesis is so absurd you don't accept it yourself.

I didn't say he did enter the MHP, Scripture does not reveal the answer to that question.

Yes, Scripture does. Twice. Hebrews 6:19-20 draws from the example of the only veil installed in the temple in Jerusalem to show the reader of the epistle that Jesus had entered into the presence of the Mercyseat. Hebrews 9:24-25 shows how Jesus followed the example set by the earthly high priest (not just any priest authorized to perform the on-demand rites of atonement Leviticus 4 addresses), and that example specified entrance into the MHP in Hebrews 9:7 when it states "into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood".

Hebrews 9 is all about the inauguration of the heavenly temple:

"18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep." 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."

I was the one who pointed this out to you, in response to your previous claim that the blood representing our sin (?!?) defiled the sanctuary.

The blood of the offering did not defile the sanctuary, and Hebrews 9:22 specifies that the blood was the agent of cleansing: "according to the law almost all things are purified with blood".

The narrative in Hebrews 9 specifies the sanctuary was purified with a better sacrifice. But, the narrative doesn't stop there. Jesus atoned for our sin with a single offering that will never be repeated.

Hebrews 9
23 ¶ Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another----
26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.

The entire rite is completed, as shown in this passage describing an offering made "once" in the past tense. The Adventist rendition of events does not accept a completed atonement, having replaced it with a "second and final phase of atonement" revolving around a fictitious event in 1844. That's a "second and final phase" that there is no legal authorization for, by the way:

Christ was offered once, and atonement is not a continued rite. It exists only as a component of the law ordained under the first covenant, and does not exist in the new covenant at all. As Hebrews 9:15 states concerning this: And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. In order to assert that atonement is a continuing process ("the cleansing is happening now", quoting Marc Rasell), one needs also reject the new covenant in order to claim a rite authorized only under the first covenant is continuing, as the two covenants are not compatible and cannot coexist: "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9).

The significance of ending the first covenant and the rites contained in it continues to be lost on you:

Its all about how the second covenant was put into effect by the blood of Christ, which is superior to the blood of bulls and goats.

When the second covenant was established by the Testator's death, it ended the first covenant. From that point on, Christ's propitiation completed the law that authorized atonement. There is no "second and final phase of atonement" as called for by SDA Fundamental Belief #24.

Under the old system even the yearly rites had to be repeated, and access was granted to the direct presence of God only once a year. But in the new system Christ is offered once for all, and there is permanent access:

"25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Does this mean the Day of Atonement ended at the cross? Not at all, because there is a christological fulfillment of the Day of Atonement in the death of the Lord's goat which does not exhuast the full meaning and eschatological fulfillment.

But the eschatological fulfillment isn't the topic addressed in Hebrews, is it? The fall feasts represent the somber day of judgment when all those who are not atoned before God are cut off - and that topic falls outside the narrative in this epistle. Your comments are not germane to the narrative anywhere in Hebrews.

Paul focuses on the yearly sacrifices because he is making a point about access to God, which is superior in the new system. But clearly even the daily sacrifices symbolised the death of Christ, or what else could they symbolise?

I mentioned before that Paul is not documented as the author of Hebrews. If you have something written by Paul that helps your cause, then present it here.

"It is impossible to shoehorn 1844 into this sequence; no room has been left for it - and you haven't found any event that 1844 allegedly accomplished. It remains a face-saving farce unique to the SDA church, exactly as Donald Barnhouse described it."

Hebrews neither affirms not denies 1844, but it leaves room for it.

The sequence of events Hebrews 10:13 provides denies the insertion of 1844 as anything having significance.

Then you concede that the Investigative Judgement is unnecessary.

Not according to Daniel 7:9-10 where the great court setting, with the books and multitude of beings is presented, after which judgement is given in favour of the saints (verse 22)

The concession you had made that the Investigative Judgment is unnecessary isn't changed by inserting an off-topic tangent here. Ellen White defined the IJ as a judgment pertaining only to the "professed people of God", and the narrative contained in Daniel 7:11-12 shows that the beast kingdoms are the recipients of judgment - not the saints. The saints are awarded a gigantic parcel of real estate (planet earth) as a result of judgment that is passed on the beast:

Daniel 7
26 `But the court shall be seated, And they shall take away his dominion, To consume and destroy it forever.
27 Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.'

Daniel 7 contains nothing at all pertaining to an Investigative Judgment.
It doesn't exist outside a fable invented by Hiram and Ellen to apologize for their precious failure of 1844.
God has promised "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more", meaning that there is no entrance of evidence used to judge us in a court of "names selected, names rejected" question of salvation. The Judge fired your recording angel permanently.

 

[mrasell]

hello Victor,

We've had lots of discussion on CARM, but what really is the point of what you are saying?

Marc

 

[mrasell]

That is the most biblical statement that I've seen from you on this topic. Yes, Jesus' entrance into the Father's presence at His ascension fulfilled the symbol of the high priest's entrance into the MHP on the Day of Atonement. That happened long before 1844. Your acknowledgment of that negates the IJ.

I agree with your whole statement except the last sentence. Its not a case of one or the other, we can have both.

Without the judgement we would never enter heaven, so there has to be a judgment sometime, surely you agree with that.

added a comment: As I said to Victor, there is a christological as well as an echatalogical fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. So Christ's entering the presence of God, and the death of the Lord's goat does not exaust the full meaning of the rite. The Jews understood the Day of Atonement to equate with the judgement which Paul spoke of as a future event.

The Temple
Christological: Christ is a temple (John 2:19-22)
Ecclesiological: The church is a temple (Eph. 2:21-22)
Eschatological: The heavenly temple is cleansed (Daniel 8:14, 26)

Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread
Christological: Jesus the Passover Lamb is slain, provision is made for the removal of sin (Matthew 26:27-28)
Ecclesiological: The church is sanctified by the removal of the leaven of sin (1 Cor. 5:7)
Eschatological: We celebrate the supper of the Lamb, sin is finally removed (Rev. 19:7-9; 14:4-5)

Pentecost
Christological: Jesus is anointed by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:16-17)
Ecclesiological: The early rain is poured out on the church (Joel 2:23; Acts 2)
Eschatological: The latter rain is poured out on the church (Joel 2:23; Rev. 18:1)

The Day of Atonement
Christological: The Lord’s goat is slain (Lev. 16; Hebrews 9:25-26)
Ecclesiological: The church is cleansed/purified at the end of time (Malachi 3:2-3)
Eschatological: The heavenly temple is cleansed and the universe is cleansed of sin (Daniel 8:14; Rev. 11:19; 20)

Tabernacles
Christological: God was with us in Jesus (John 1:14)
Ecclesiological: Christ is among us through the Spirit (John 15:26; Matt. 18:20)
Eschatological: We will tabernacle with God in the New Jerusalem and the New Earth (Rev. 21-22)

The Priesthood
Christological: Christ became our High Priest by His death (Heb. 5:7-10)
Ecclesiological: Christ intercedes on our behalf in the heavenly temple (Hebrews 7:25)
Eschatological: Christ ministers in the Most Holy Place before returning to earth (Rev. 11:19)

 

[mrasell]

Yes, Scripture does. Twice. Hebrews 6:19-20 draws from the example of the only veil installed in the temple in Jerusalem to show the reader of the epistle that Jesus had entered into the presence of the Mercyseat. Hebrews 9:24-25 shows how Jesus followed the example set by the earthly high priest (not just any priest authorized to perform the on-demand rites of atonement Leviticus 4 addresses), and that example specified entrance into the MHP in Hebrews 9:7 when it states "into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood".

Hebrews 6:19-20 portrays the high priest entering the presence of God, this is just used as a symbol of Christ entering the presence of God at His ascension. This does not tell us where exactly Christ is inside the heavenly temple, unless you assume the heavenly is a carbon copy of the earthly. Clearly there are some differences which Paul speaks about.

Marc

 

[Sophia7]

I agree with your whole statement except the last sentence. Its not a case of one or the other, we can have both.

Without the judgement we would never enter heaven, so there has to be a judgment sometime, surely you agree with that.

added a comment: As I said to Victor, there is a christological as well as an echatalogical fulfillment of the Day of Atonement. So Christ's entering the presence of God, and the death of the Lord's goat does not exaust the full meaning of the rite. The Jews understood the Day of Atonement to equate with the judgement which Paul spoke of as a future event.

So we agree that Jesus fulfilled the symbol of the Day of Atonement entrance into the MHP at His ascension. Do you think that He made another entrance in 1844?

Also, I agree that there is an aspect of the Day of Atonement that is yet to be fulfilled, as described in these verses:

Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
​

However, that refers to the second coming and to the final judgment, which is executive, not investigative. The future judgment is the fulfillment of another aspect of the Day of Atonement imagery, not a dual fulfillment of Jesus' once-for-all entrance. Another entrance in 1844 would contradict the once-for-all entrance depicted in the book of Hebrews.

 

[VictorC]

Hebrews 6:19-20 portrays the high priest entering the presence of God, this is just used as a symbol of Christ entering the presence of God at His ascension. This does not tell us where exactly Christ is inside the heavenly temple, unless you assume the heavenly is a carbon copy of the earthly.

Perhaps it was a mistake on my part that I assumed you knew where the Mercyseat was. That was mentioned in my post to you as the place Jesus had gained access to, a point you disregarded. But the author of Hebrews explains it in detail:

Hebrews 9
2 For a tabernacle was prepared: the first part, in which was the lampstand, the table, and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary;
3 and behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All,
4 which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron's rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
5 and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
6 Now when these things had been thus prepared, the priests always went into the first part of the tabernacle, performing the services.

The Mercyseat is clearly placed "behind the second veil, the part of the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All". No assumption concerning the blueprint of the tabernacle is necessary; the author spelled out the location of the mercyseat for you.

Clearly there are some differences which Paul speaks about.

You haven't mentioned anything written by Paul yet.
But, Paul uses the same Greek word that is rendered "mercyseat" in Hebrews 9:5 in one of his epistles.

Romans 3
19 ¶ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference;
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Paul uses the Greek hilasterion in Romans 3:25 where it is rendered "propitiation", which is the same as "mercyseat" the author of Hebrews used in Hebrews 9:5. These are the only two places hilasterion is used in Scripture. Propitiation is the expiatory sacrifice that is written as a completed act, and the place where propitiation took place was at the mercyseat in the heavenly sanctuary, which was the location Jesus was demonstrated to have access to. Both authors show that atonement was completed before their epistles were written, and nothing was left for an event that didn't happen in 1844.