The Investigative Judgment cannot stand against Scripture

[tall73]

Adventists generally recognize that the sacrifice of Jesus, which only happened once, is the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement as well. As they agree that Jesus' one sacrifice suffices for all the various sacrifices in the earthly rites.

However, the entry by means of blood is also said to be once for all.

The entry is compared to the blood of bulls and goats. Goats blood went into the sanctuary on two occassions, the Day of Atonement and the inauguration.

Both are fulfilled in the one entry here.

 

[Keachian]

My best guess is they are waiting fo Jesus to come out of the Most Holy Place and appear to them and prove it is done and He lives therefore God has accepted His ministry.

bugkiller

I had the realisation just this morning as my Pastor was preaching about the Resurrection, that this happened, Christ returned from the Most Holy Place, appeared to his disciples and sent them out.

 

[tall73]

I had the realisation just this morning as my Pastor was preaching about the Resurrection, that this happened, Christ returned from the Most Holy Place, appeared to his disciples and sent them out.

Some connect this possibility to the statement of Jesus to Mary to not hold on to Him because He had not yet ascended to His Father.

On the other hand, to my thinking Hebrews tends to indicate that He is reigning on the throne now until His enemies are made into His footstool. Then He would leave the sanctuary.

But it is an interesting thing to look at.

Also Hebrews, nor the NT in general does not reference the fulfillment of the scapegoat portion. But that happened OUTSIDE the sanctuary, and, at least in the earthly type, after the other portion which was inside.

What is spelled out is the part inside.

 

[Stryder06]

Still waiting for that passage to say that Christ's work on the Cross was only half finished. If you think it is in Leviticus 16 then post it and explain how it supports your position (it doesn't)

Not here to give you a bible study. I told you what you need to do. If you're actually trying to understand, then you'll study. If you're not, then you'll continue on as you always do, speaking about things you don't understand.

 

[tall73]

Not here to give you a bible study. I told you what you need to do. If you're actually trying to understand, then you'll study. If you're not, then you'll continue on as you always do, speaking about things you don't understand.

If you won't show him what his supposed error is then drop it. He hasn't shown a lack of understanding in seeing that

a. blood
b. entry
c. into God's presence
d. in comparison with the high priest yearly

is the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.

And you have not posted anything to legitimately call that into question. If you don't want to participate then don't.

 

[Stryder06]

If you won't show him what his supposed error is then drop it. He hasn't shown a lack of understanding in seeing that

a. blood
b. entry
c. into God's presence
d. in comparison with the high priest yearly

is the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement.

And you have not posted anything to legitimately call that into question. If you don't want to participate then don't.

I've asked the young man a question he has not yet answered, and I suggested to him where it is that he needs to look. We won't accomplish anything trying to battle scripture with scripture. So as I said, it he wants to know, he needs to start by looking at the entire process which is found in Leviticus 16, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[bugkiller]

Jesus' sitting at the right hand of God indicates His authority, but Hebrews also uses it to illustrate the completed work in contrast with the earthly priest:

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
Heb 10:12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
Heb 10:13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.
Heb 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.


Not only does 9:28 affirm that Jesus' entry was the fulfillment of the cleansing of the heavenly things, and Hebrews 10 indicate that He sat down, but Hebrews 1:3 indicates that by the time He sat down He had made purification for sin

Heb 1:3b After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Excellent.

bugkiller

 

[Keachian]

There are 4 roles in play for the DoA.

The High Priest, a bull for the High Priest's cleansing, a goat for the cleansing of the people of God and the temple, and the scape goat.

Heb 9:12 has Christ fulfilling three of the four roles; that of the High Priest, Bull and first Goat, the SDA would hold that we need a new player to play the fourth role, if this were the case then Christ wouldn't be able to play the three roles that he already is.

My next post will back up my assertion that Christ fills the role of the scape goat from Scripture

 

[Stryder06]

There are 4 roles in play for the DoA.

The High Priest, a bull for the High Priest's cleansing, a goat for the cleansing of the people of God and the temple, and the scape goat.

Heb 9:12 has Christ fulfilling three of the four roles; that of the High Priest, Bull and first Goat, the SDA would hold that we need a new player to play the fourth role, if this werethe case then Christ wouldne be able to play the three roles that he already is.

My next post will back up my assertion that Christ fills the role of the scape goat from Scripture

Let's establish that the bull was used to make atonement for the priest and his house (Lev 16:11) before he entered the sanctuary. Christ would not fulfill that role since he was sinless, and as such didn't need to make an atonement for Himself or His house.

Second, you really need to examine what the scapegoat's purpose was before trying to compare it to Christ.

Third, you also need to examine what the Lord's goat made atonement for.

Fourth, the goats for the cleansing of the temple, and for the people were separate, thus you actually should have five elements here. Not four.

 

[Keachian]

Let's establish that the bull was used to make atonement for the priest and his house (Lev 16:11) before he entered the sanctuary. Christ would not fulfill that role since he was sinless, and as such didn't need to make an atonement for Himself or His house.

That is true, however Heb 9:12 still has Christ's blood as being more proficient than both the blood of bulls and goats. The book of Hebrews deals with Christ's superiority to the High Priest in sinlessness earlier on and still highlights Christ's blood being more powerful than that of bulls to enter into the sanctuary. (cf. Heb 4:14-5:10, 7:1-8:13)

Third, you also need to examine what the Lord's goat made atonement for.

I'm not sure I do, the contention between the SDA and every other Christian is whether Christ can be the Scapegoat, we agree on Christ being the Lord's goat. We are cleansed by his blood.

Second, you really need to examine what the scapegoat's purpose was before trying to compare it to Christ.

Lev 16:10 presented before Yahweh and then sent away, v20-21 the High Priest lays the iniquities of the house of Israel upon the goat, v22 the Goat bears the iniquities of the people into the wilderness and is freed.

Do you want to add something?

 

[Keachian]

Fourth, the goats for the cleansing of the temple, and for the people were separate, thus you actually should have five elements here. Not four.

I assume you're talking about the Ram which is only mentioned in Lev 16:5?

I also find your claim that the goat for Yahweh does not make atonement for the people to go against v17 which shows that is for both the Tent and the People.

 

[Stryder06]

That is true, however Heb 9:12 still has Christ's blood as being more proficient than both the blood of bulls and goats. The book of Hebrews deals with Christ's superiority to the High Priest in sinlessness earlier on and still highlights Christ's blood being more powerful than that of bulls to enter into the sanctuary. (cf. Heb 4:14-5:10, 7:1-8:13)

Christ's blood is more superior then the blood of bulls and goats and any other thing that was sacrificed. But to keep it within perspective, Christ would not fit the role of the bull sacrificed during the day of atonement, simply because of the role it played.

I'm not sure I do, the contention between the SDA and every other Christian is whether Christ can be the Scapegoat, we agree on Christ being the Lord's goat. We are cleansed by his blood.

Here sir is where you need to really take a look at the text of scripture and see what's going on. What did the blood of the Lord's goat make atonement for?

Lev 16:10 presented before Yahweh and then sent away, v20-21 the High Priest lays the iniquities of the house of Israel upon the goat, v22 the Goat bears the iniquities of the people into the wilderness and is freed.

Do you want to add something?

Nope. That's what the text says exactly. Now that we know what the text says, we have to understand what it means and see how it applies, given that this entire service is a symbol the the actual "service" performed by Christ. Carrying the sins from the sanctuary, once having made atonement for it, the high priest would transfer those sins to the Lord's goat. The goat was then lead out alive to a barren wasteland by a strong man, where it was released. We can see that the purpose of the Lord's Goat was to carry away from the camp the sins of the people that had polluted the sanctuary. How then does this apply to Christ?

 

[Stryder06]

I assume you're talking about the Ram which is only mentioned in Lev 16:5?

Let's see what the scripture says:

And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering. - vs 5

And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people - vs 24

I also find your claim that the goat for Yahweh does not make atonement for the people to go against v17 which shows that is for both the Tent and the People.

Verse 17 does not say that the goat was for the people. It says that no one may enter in until after atonement is complete. Examine verses 11-20 and see what the subject is. I'm only going by what the scripture specifically says. Notice how verse 20 says - And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:
There is no mention of atonment for the people having been made yet. Not until after the live goat is lead away. Once this is complete we read the following in verses 23 and 24

And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.

 

[tall73]

The scapegoat having to happen at the same time is a smokescreen anyway.

The scapegoat OUTSIDE didn't happen at the same time as the cleansing by blood INSIDE even in the type.

The scapegoat happened later after the high priest left the sanctuary.

And the timing in the fulfillment is not the same completely anyway because Jesus' doesn't die over and over, or enter over and over. He died once and entered once, and those are the fulfillments. And it says He made purification for sins, and it describes His cleansing of the heavenly things.

So when the text speaks of cleansing of the heavenly things then goes on to say that Jesus presented Himself in God's presence, comparing it to the entry on the Day of Atonement by the high priest yearly, we know what that means.

We don't need to explain why a portion that it doesn't mentioned isn't explained in the text. We can insist that you not ignore the part it does spell out.

And Hebrews 1:3 confirms Jesus made purification for sins.

The part in the sanctuary was the corporate cleansing by blood. That is done. There will be no more sacrifices, no more entries into God's presence by means of blood. That is fulfilled.

People still come in real time to avail themselves of it.

Heb 4:14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
Heb 4:15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Heb 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

And as in the type there may be a fulfillment of the scapegoat when Jesus leaves the sanctuary and sin is removed from the world. And then again it might mean something else. Since it is not spelled out we cannot specify. That does not change what is spelled out.

 

[tall73]

I've asked the young man a question he has not yet answered,

It looked to me that you made statements rather than asked a question.

You assumed he had not looked at Lev.

and I suggested to him where it is that he needs to look. We won't accomplish anything trying to battle scripture with scripture. So as I said, it he wants to know, he needs to start by looking at the entire process which is found in Leviticus 16, if I'm not mistaken.

Which

a. I am quite sure he has done
b. does not in any way limit you from answering his question. If your answer is that he has the wrong idea then tell him how, don't say "study more" and then not elaborate.

 

[tall73]

That is true, however Heb 9:12 still has Christ's blood as being more proficient than both the blood of bulls and goats. The book of Hebrews deals with Christ's superiority to the High Priest in sinlessness earlier on and still highlights Christ's blood being more powerful than that of bulls to enter into the sanctuary. (cf. Heb 4:14-5:10, 7:1-8:13)

Yes, since it is a comparison to the earthly it still holds true, to show it superior. But Jesus woudn't need to fulfill that directly.


Also more than one service involved entry into the sanctuary, and more than one involved bulls.

Lev 4:13 "If the whole congregation of Israel sins unintentionally and the thing is hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do any one of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, and they realize their guilt,
Lev 4:14 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, the assembly shall offer a bull from the herd for a sin offering and bring it in front of the tent of meeting.
Lev 4:15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be killed before the LORD.
Lev 4:16 Then the anointed priest shall bring some of the blood of the bull into the tent of meeting,
Lev 4:17 and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD in front of the veil.

The sin offering for the whole congregation demanded that bull blood be brought in.

While the details show that Jesus fulfilled the entry and cleansing of the Day of Atonement in Hebrews 9-10, it also shows that he fulfilled other services as entries as well, and that is why He entered once, fulfilling all the entries according to verse 12.

It is unlikely that the sin offering for the congregation was in mind here though because it says He entered "by means of" blood. Blood was not required to enter the first compartment, as the priests had daily access to it for various tasks. But blood was required to enter in on the Day of Atonement.

So likely your thought on that is accurate, it is merely a comparison to the earthly, showing Jesus' superiority.

One other service, the inauguration, MAY have included taking in Blood from bulls.

Number 7-8 shows that bulls were part of the sacrifices for dedicating the altar and anointing the priests. It does not indicate blood was taken into the sanctuary.

Ex 40:9, also on the inauguration, indicates that oil was taken into the sanctuary to anoint it, but Josephus indicates blood was too

The same he did to the tabernacle, and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil first incensed, as I said, and with the blood of bulls and of rams, slain day by day one, according to its kind
Ant. III. 8, 6. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/ant-3.htm

This seems to be affirmed by Hebrews, though the type of blood is not specified:

Heb 9:21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.


Incidentally Adventist scholar Richard Davidson argues that 9:12 is referencing the inauguration, not the Day of Atonement, based on the particular word used for "goat" which is only used in that service.

However, even he is compelled to acknowledge that 9:25 references the Day of Atonement.

I would say both the DOA and inauguration (and the sin offering of the whole congregation) are in view in 9:12 because Jesus entered once, fulfilling all the entries.

 

[tall73]

Here sir is where you need to really take a look at the text of scripture and see what's going on. What did the blood of the Lord's goat make atonement for?

Lev 16:15 "Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.

Lev 16:16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.


The people are the issue all the way through, even when cleansing the sanctuary.

The sin offering is for the people.

It is the uncleanness of the people, all their sins, that causes the uncleanness of the sanctuary to begin with, because it is in the misdt of their uncleanness.


Lev 16:17 No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel.

 

[tall73]

Incidentally the Adventist belief statement indicates that the cleansing by blood of the sanctuary is what was begun in 1844.

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus


This is the portion already accomplished in the first century:

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Heb 9:23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, Heb 1:3b After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

 

[tall73]

Hate to break it to you, but you haven't actually described the atonement process. You should go back to the service as described in Leviticus so you can see the atonement process and how it was conducted.

Now let's see if your version matches the type.

In your version Jesus examines books.

I don't see that in the type.



However, our version shows

a. sacrifice
b. entry
c. purification by blood.

And that is what is described in the fulfillment.


Our version matches better.

 

[bugkiller]

It looked to me that you made statements rather than asked a question.

You assumed he had not looked at Lev.



Which

a. I am quite sure he has done
b. does not in any way limit you from answering his question. If your answer is that he has the wrong idea then tell him how, don't say "study more" and then not elaborate.

I wonder if the deal is not to put a person in a begging for information.

bugkiller