Actually, I am looking for a Bible text to show that, as EGW basically said, that the sin of the person/people through the blood of the sacrifice was transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary.

If a direct Bible text can't be found, then an implicit Bible text will be second best.

Lev. 16

16 and he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; and so he shall do for the Tent of Meeting, that dwells with them in the midst of their uncleanness.

18 He shall go out to the altar that is before Yahweh and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the bull's blood, and some of the goat's blood, and put it around on the horns of the altar.

19 He shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and make it holy from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

20 When he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat.

33 Then he shall make atonement for the Holy Sanctuary; and he shall make atonement for the Tent of Meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.


Atonement was made not only for the priests and the people, but also for the sanctuary, which was unclean because of the sins of the people. The fact that it was necessary to make atonement for the most holy place, for the holy place and for the altar shows that the sins of the people had been symbolically transferred to them. And how could this have been done except by the blood of the sin offerings?

I have moved the remainer of the off-topic posts here into a new topic named The Concept of Sin, of Punishment, Etc.

People at the Good News Unlimited organization accuse the church of many contradictions about the IJ, one of them having to do with blood as both a purifying and defiling agent. I’ve quoted the main objections they present to the IJ and my opinion about these objections.


It’s not that the blood of one service defiles while the blood of the other cleanses. In both cases, the blood cleanses. In the first case, the blood cleanses the sinner. Of course, in the process of cleansing the sinner from his sins, there is a temporary defilement of the sanctuary because of the record of these sins. In the second case, the blood cleanses definitively from sin both the sinner and the sanctuary, fulfilling the promise of the New Covenant: "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jeremiah 31:34).


It’s not “our SDA trandition” which teaches this, but the sanctuary service, which shows that sin did not simply disappear or cease to exist when the sinner was forgiven, but remained in the sanctuary until the day of atonement.


It’s not “our tradition” which affirms this, but the Bible.

"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned"
(Matt. 12:36, 37).

“But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who ‘ will render to each one according to his deeds.’ ... For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; ... in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel” (Rom. 2:5-16).


This is by no means true. Either the blood of the offering was brought inside the holy place, or the priest ate it and bore the guilt of the sinner. Notice that he bore the guilt of the sinner after the sinner had presented the sin offering, not at the moment the sinner committed the sin. Therefore, the sanctuary was defiled when the sinner confessed his sin, not when he committed it.

"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? See! Its blood was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded" (Lev. 10:17,18).

“Then the LORD said to Aaron: ‘You and your sons and your father’s house with you shall bear the iniquity related to the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear the iniquity associated with your priesthood’” (Num. 18:1).


Although forgiveness leaves us under no condemnation, the Bible clearly teaches that it may be cancelled if we reject Christ. Matt. 18:23-35. That’s why the registry of our sins must remain until we die or until probation closes.


It seems to me that in the parable of Matt. 22, the event described cannot represent Christ’s coming, for it is the King who comes in to see the guests before the wedding of his son.


Why should this happen? I have to think about the IJ as much as I have to think about my death - of course if I die today I will be judged today. But I have nothing to worry about my death - or the IJ - if I'm in a saving relationship with Christ. As to the judgment of the living, it's my conviction it will occur at the sealing time. At this time, everybody will definitively have chosen their side in the great controversy and won't desire to change sides - so the judgment is just a ratification of each person's choice.

Something to bear in mind is that the cleansing of the sanctuary is concerned with the cleansing of human beings. Here's are a couple of statements from E. J. Waggoner:





The important thing is not the cleansing of a building, but of a people. This work is accomplished by means of the Gospel.

First of all, let me note that Daryl started this thread to address some questions I was having. I appreciate him doing that. He then pointed me this direction.

Now as to the defilement of the sanctuary, notice the following texts:

LEV 20:1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: `Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3 I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name.


The text says that he defiled the sanctuary by his actions. There was no sacrifice because the man paid for his own sin by death.

NU 19:11 "Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days. 12 He must purify himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day; then he will be clean. But if he does not purify himself on the third and seventh days, he will not be clean. 13 Whoever touches the dead body of anyone and fails to purify himself defiles the LORD's tabernacle. That person must be cut off from Israel. Because the water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, he is unclean; his uncleanness remains on him.

The defiling happens through ceremonial uncleanness.


EZE 5:8 "Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself am against you, Jerusalem, and I will inflict punishment on you in the sight of the nations. 9 Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. 1011 Therefore as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, because you have defiled my sanctuary with all your vile images and detestable practices, I myself will withdraw my favor; I will not look on you with pity or spare you. 12 A third of your people will die of the plague or perish by famine inside you; a third will fall by the sword outside your walls; and a third I will scatter to the winds and pursue with drawn sword. Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.

He says plainly He will not spare them. Therefore, how can it be transfer of sin to the temple in this case, when He is not sparing them from their sins? Yet the temple is still defiled, by the act of idolatry.


MAL 2:11 Judah has broken faith. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves, by marrying the daughter of a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the LORD cut him off from the tents of Jacob--even though he brings offerings to the LORD Almighty.

Here offering will not be accepted. The man is to be cut off. The temple is ALREADY defiled, and he will be cut off even if he eventually tries to offer sacrifice.

Clearly it is not the sacrifice that defiles.

Now, about the sin offering, notice this text:

LEV 6:24 The LORD said to Moses, 25 "Say to Aaron and his sons: `These are the regulations for the sin offering: The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the LORD in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting. 27 Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy, and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in a holy place. 28 The clay pot the meat is cooked in must be broken; but if it is cooked in a bronze pot, the pot is to be scoured and rinsed with water. 29 Any male in a priest's family may eat it; it is most holy. 30 But any sin offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place must not be eaten; it must be burned.


A. Anything the sin offering touched, any person, etc. became holy--not defiled--holy.

B. The community daily offering, and the blood taken from it ATONED in the holy place, not defiled.

There is no defilement. There is atonement and making holy.

We have emphasized a “two-phase” ministry. But there is no two-phase ministry. There is the usual ministry and a number of special feasts. The high point of the sacrificial imagery was no doubt the day of atonement. But it pointed to the same realities as the other—cleansing. The daily emphasized forgiveness, atonement, cleansing. The yearly emphasized forgiveness, atonement, cleansing.
In each case the person could avail themselves of it or not.

The day of atonement also relates to the final putting away of sin. I have no issue with that. But this is at the final judgment where sin is ACTUALLY put away. More on that to come.


When we come to Hebrews there is ONE sacrifice. It fulfills the various sacrifices in the old system, including that on the day of atonement. More on that to come as well.

Now, to address the two texts you offered in support of a transfer:


Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.

This is speaking of Aaron’s responsibility as high priest, to keep defilement from the sanctuary. They would bear the iniquity of defilement. They were to be responsible for what happened there. We see this later played out with Aaron’s sons, and later Eli’s. Notice the rest of the context:



Num 18:2 And thy brethren also of the tribe of Levi, the tribe of thy father, bring thou with thee, that they may be joined unto thee, and minister unto thee: but thou and thy sons with thee shall minister before the tabernacle of witness.
Num 18:3 And they shall keep thy charge, and the charge of all the tabernacle: only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar, that neither they, nor ye also, die.
Num 18:4 And they shall be joined unto thee, and keep the charge of the tabernacle of the congregation, for all the service of the tabernacle: and a stranger shall not come nigh unto you.
Num 18:5 And ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary, and the charge of the altar: that there be no wrath any more upon the children of Israel.


Later in the passage:


Num 18:28 Thus ye also shall offer an heave offering unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and ye shall give thereof the LORD'S heave offering to Aaron the priest.
Num 18:29 Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the LORD, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.
Num 18:30 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, When ye have heaved the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshingfloor, and as the increase of the winepress.
Num 18:31 And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households: for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of the congregation.
Num 18:32 And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, when ye have heaved from it the best of it: neither shall ye pollute the holy things of the children of Israel, lest ye die.



The priest was to be in charge of what happened in the temple to make sure that no defilement occurred through improper handling.

The context does not support that this was about bearing the sins of the people through sacrifice.

As to the second verse:


"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to bear the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? See! Its blood was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded" (Lev. 10:17,18).


The word here translated “bear” is referring to forgiveness, not merely transfer or carrying. The Daniel and Revelation Committee Series itself notes its use in other texts. Here are some of the ones it is found in:


Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."

Gen 50:17 'Say to Joseph, Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.'

Psa 32:5 I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD," and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

Psa 85:2 You forgave the iniquity of your people; you covered all their sin. Selah.

Hos 14:2 Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, "Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

Mic 7:18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love.



The word means to forgive iniquity, to pardon, to take away. This usage of the term appears to have come from the idea of bearing a wrong, rather than retaliating or demanding redress, or even bearing it away into oblivion.

If we look at usage of this word we could therefore translate it like this:


"Why have you not eaten the sin offering in a holy place, since it is most holy, and God has given it to you to forgive the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD? See! Its blood was not brought inside the holy place; indeed you should have eaten it in a holy place, as I commanded" (Lev. 10:17,18).


Notice how these versions handled it:


(NASB) Leviticus 10:17 "Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD.

(NRSV) Leviticus 10:17 "Why did you not eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and God has given it to you that you may remove the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement on their behalf before the Lord.

(NIV)Leviticus 10: 17 "Why didn't you eat the sin offering in the sanctuary area? It is most holy; it was given to you to take away the guilt of the community by making atonement for them before the LORD.

(HSCB) Leviticus 10:17 "Why didn't you eat the sin offering in the sanctuary area? For it is especially holy, and He has assigned it to you to take away the guilt of the community and make atonement for them before the LORD.

(NLT) Leviticus 10:17 “Why didn’t you eat the sin offering in the sacred area?” he demanded. “It is a holy offering! The LORD has given it to you to remove the guilt of the community and to purify the people, making them right with the LORD.

(GNT) Leviticus 10:17 Why didn't you eat the sin offering in a sacred place? It is very holy, and the LORD has given it to you in order to take away the sin of the community.

(CEV) Leviticus 10:17 "Why didn't you eat the meat from this sacrifice in an acceptable place? It is very holy, and the LORD has given you this sacrifice to remove Israel's sin and guilt.


From the literal NASB and NRSV to the more interpretive CEV, etc. they recognize the usual meaning of the word.

Now the reason the priests hadn’t eaten it is related to your first text--they were unclean and would have defiled the temple.

I should also note that I have no issue with a record in the judgment. My issue is that we say the daily was for transfer. It was not. It was for forgiveness and atonement. The yearly was another symbol of the SAME sacrifice of Christ, that also atoned and forgave.

Jesus offered Himself once and presented the offering once and then sat down, completing the necessary sacrifice for sin. It is still up to the individual to accept that, just as the priest made atonement and the people either afflicted themselves and looked for atonement, or did not. The judgment will bear out who is in the book of life or not. But we see that judgment in the Great White Throne judgment scene, where these things are particularly referred to, and after which sin is completely dealt with.



I will discuss that more in the next post.

Here is my take on the related section, Hebrews 9 and 10.


Heb 9:1 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness. 2 For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence. It is called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place,
4 having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant. 5 Above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail. 6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people.


The author begins with a review of the sanctuary service noting that only once per year did the High Priest go into the most holy.

This sets the stage for the whole comparison in the following verses. The Day of Atonement was the highpoint of the Jewish typology. The author’s whole thrust throughout the book is that Jesus is superior to Moses, to angels, His covenant is superior, He is the superior High Priest (which he is enlarging on now), and He is the superior sacrifice. He is superior in every way, and those who are considering falling away from Him, in this case, likely back to Judaism, in the face of persecution, are in great danger.

The fact that he raises this high point of the typology indicates that he is going to relate this too to Jesus’ work, showing how Jesus is better. And indeed, the major theme of these chapters is that Christ did what the old system could not do, truly forgiving and giving direct access, which they did not have


Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

It mentions that Jesus is the High Priest, and entered in by means of His own blood, not that of goats and calves. The comparison is striking. The High Priest went in every year and offered things that could not really cleanse. Jesus entered in once for all time with His own blood and bought eternal redemption.

The sprinkling of defiled persons, and ashes of a heifer is a reference to Numbers 19 and the procedure of cleansing after touching a dead body, etc. Jesus is seen as fulfilling this.

Exodus 24 relates the initial covenant agreement with the people, which included the blood of bulls. It also blends this with the dedication of the sanctuary.

Heb 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 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.


The new covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ. Just as the first covenant involved blood so this one did too. Here everything is sprinkled. This seems to be a reference to the services of the inauguration of the covenant and the dedication of the temple.

Some modern Adventist scholars have recognized the importance of this and state that Jesus went into the MHP to dedicate. This inauguration is then used to reconcile the Most Holy Place references with the traditional view that the MHP ministry did not start until 1844, noting that Christ inaugurated and then went back to the HP ministry.

Now if Christ fulfilled the dedication that included entering the most holy place as Moses anointed all of the vessels.


Lev 8:10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the tabernacle and all that was in it, and consecrated them.


Therefore Davidson, Hasel, etc. take the view of the inauguration, admitting that Christ went into the Most Holy Place. There is no way to inaugurate it all and fulfill the type if not. They note that this entry to dedicate is the reason for the MHP language in Hebrews, but does not conflict with the Adventists view of a later ministration.

But it appears to me that this is a modification of the traditional view that shows Jesus entering the MHP only at 1844.

EGW for her part notes the inauguration in the Acts of the Apostles:


"It is expedient for you that I go away," Christ had said to His disciples; "for If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you." "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come." John 16:7, 13. Christ's ascension to heaven was the signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven's communication that the Redeemer's inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people. {AA 38.3}


However, she makes no reference to the Most Holy Place that I have seen, and notes in another place that the Father and Son’s thrones were located in the HP until 1844 when they moved into the MHP.

The Fathers person I could not behold for a cloud of glorious light covered him. I asked Jesus if his Father had a form like himself; He said he had, but I could not behold it; for, said he, if you should for once see the glory of his person, you would cease to exist. Before the throne was the Advent people, the Church, and the world. I saw a company bowed down before the throne, deeply interested while most of them stood up disinterested and careless. Those who were bowed before the throne would offer up their prayers and look to Jesus, then he would look to his Father and appeared to be pleading with him. Then a light came from the Father to his Son and from him to the praying company. Then I saw an exceeding bright light come from the Father to the Son and from the Son it waved over the people before the throne. But few would receive this great light. Many came out from under it and immediately resisted it. Others were careless and did not cherish the light and it moved off from them. Some cherished it and went and bowed down before the throne with the little praying company. This company all received the light, and rejoiced in it as their countenances shone with its glory. Then I saw the Father rise from the throne and in a flaming chariot go into the Holy of Holies within the vail, and did sit. There I saw thrones which I had not seen before. Then Jesus rose up from the throne, and most of those who were bowed down rose up with him. And I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude after he rose up, and they were left in perfect darkness. Those who rose up when Jesus did, kept their eyes fixed on him as he left the throne, and led them out a little way, then he raised his right arm and we heard his lovely voice saying, wait ye, I am going to my Father to receive the Kingdom. Keep your garments spotless and in a little while I will return from the wedding, and receive you to myself. And I saw a cloudy chariot with wheels like flaming fire. Angels were all about the chariot as it came where Jesus was; he stepped into it and was borne to the Holiest where the Father sat. Then I beheld Jesus as he was before the Father a great High Priest.





In other statements the pioneers indicate that Jesus did not enter the MHP until 1844.


Sabbath, March 24th, 1849, we had a sweet, and very interesting meeting with the Brethren at Topsham, Me. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I was taken off in the Spirit to the City of the living God. There I was shown that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not be separated, and that the time for the commandments of God to shine out, with all their importance, and for God's people to be tried on the Sabbath truth, was when the door was opened in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Ark is, containing the ten commandments. This door was not opened, until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the Holy Place of the Sanctuary in 1844. Then, Jesus rose up, and shut the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the faith of Israel now reaches. {RH, August 1, 1849 par. 2}

The door was not opened until 1844, which if taken in the literal language used, referring to place, is incompatible with an inauguration in the MHP which the scholars indicate.


The enemies of the present truth have been trying to open the door of the holy place, that Jesus has shut, and to close the door of the most holy place, which He opened in 1844, where the ark is, containing the two tables of stone on which are written the ten commandments by the finger of Jehovah. {EW 43.1}


Here she describes it in terms of the open and shut doors. It was again not until 1844 that He entered, which again would be incompatible with the dedication pictured in Hebrews.

Ellen White is also in accord with the statement of Hiram Edson in his account of the cornfield vision where the idea was first raised:


“Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that he for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth.


Uriah Smith
http://www.adventistarchives.org/doc...-07/index.djvu


We are now prepared for the inquiry, Has the
cleansing of the Sanctuary commenced'?. It was told
Daniel,, "Unto two" thousand and three hundred days
then shall ,the Sanctuary be cleansed." Clearly
enough those days are in the past. Unless: there-
fore the words of the angel have failed, a work has
commenced called the cleansing of the Sanctuary
but there is no work either in the type or out of the
type, to which this expression ever has been, or ever
can be, applied, except to the entrance of the high
priest into the Most Holy place, and his ministration
while there. …
God's people are permitted to look
by an eye of faith, into the inner apartment of the
true Tabernacle : they there behold the ark of God,
and their attention is called at once to the law con-
tained within it ; and the fact that there is now a spe-
cial movement taking place in regard to that violated
law, is proof that the second apartment of the Sanc-
tuary has been opened, and the ark of the testament
is seen.


Just as EGW does Smith relates the moving of Jesus into the Most Holy place to the opening of a door which had previously been closed.

Andross, in replying to Ballenger, seems to be the first one who used an inauguration theory of Christ going into the MHP then coming out again.


So I have a hard time reconciling the pioneers very literal language of location with the modern Adventist scholar’s assertions. But I also find that scholars to not go completely with the text, as will be seen below. I don’t find a convincing argument for a second ministry of cleansing after 1844.


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. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Now we begin to see clear day of atonement references:

A. Verse 25 makes it plain that Jesus paralleled and exceeded the day of atonement ritual. Once a year the High Priest would go into the holy places with blood not his own. But Christ did it once, going into God’s presence. This reference to the every year ministry is an allusion back to the first verses, outlining that this happened on the day of atonement. The dedication is not in view here because it was carried out not by the high priest but by Moses, (the leader of the people, Jesus is both Priest and King), and it was not done every year.

It is the High Priest who Jesus is contrasted with, who had this one very distinct role, emphasized at the beginning of the chapter in the description of the earthly service. He is contrasted with the yearly work, year after year, of the High priest. Therefore it seems inescapable that these are day of atonement imagery.

B. He appeared once at the end of the ages to put away sin. There is no reference to applying of blood for atonement later.

C. He appeared in God’s presence. In the earthly type God made it clear where His presence was most completely manifested, though various areas were said to be “before Him”:


Exo 25:21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you about all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.

Lev 16:2 and the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat that is on the ark, so that he may not die. For I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.

Num 7:89 And when Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with the LORD, he heard the voice speaking to him from above the mercy seat that was on the ark of the testimony, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him.


Note also this text from Hebrews expressing a similar note:


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. 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. 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.

Here we see reference again to the High Priest and we may approach him at the throne of grace, which certainly seems a parallel idea to the mercy seat, where God said He would meet with them.


There is also no idea expressed of a later cleansing ministry. In fact we have another text in Hebrews that relates to Christ’s Priestly ministry that also references cleansing as a past work accomplished at the ascension:


Heb 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification (καθαρισμὸν ποιησάμενος, having made cleansing) for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Here we see the cleansing for sins offered in the past tense. This is the fulfillment of the ministration of blood in the day of atonement, as well as all the other sacrifices. There is no indication of a later application of the same blood.


Heb 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins

Here again we have reference to the yearly sacrifices of blood and goats, another reference to the day of atonement. The old service was an annual reminder of sin, but Christ’s actually took away sin.

Here is a quote from William Johnsson in the Daniel and Revelation committee work in his article "Day of Atonement Allusions". He lists 9:24, etc. as a passage among those that clearly allude to the day of atonement.

The context clearly points to a Day of Atonement allusion (high priest...yearly...blood [cf. 9:7]


Here he is again on 10:1-4

The specifications of "year after year" and "blood of bulls and goats" again indicate a Day of Atonement setting.

He then lists 8 other possible allusions which might point to the Day of Atonement.

Here is Alwyn Salom in his appendix article in the Daniel and Revelation committee series verse 12:

The characteristic service of the Day of Atonement here referred to (cf. vs 7), was located in the inner compartment of the earthly sanctuary.

And on 24:

The reference in the context of the Day of Atonement service of the earthly high priest is not to the outer compartment of the sanctuary.


These do not seem to make sense with the statements of the pioneers, including Mrs. White, and clearly point to some fulfillment of the day of atonement imagery, as foreshadowed by the author’s description of the earthly.


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

Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice and then sat down at the right hand of God. His work of applying the blood was done. He now intercedes from God's right hand in our behalf. It is contrasted with the earthly priests who can never take away sins. The earthly priest never sat down because his work never was finished. But Christ’s work is finished. This does not speak of another ministry to begin in 1844.

Jesus by one sacrifice perfected those who are being sanctified.

It should be noted that we now have a reference to the daily, with every priest, not just the High Priest. So now we have had reference to the red heifer, the inauguration of covenant, the dedication of the temple, the yearly apex of the day of atonement with the high priest, yearly, blood of bulls and goats entering with blood not his own. All of the sacrifices are summed up here. Jesus offered for all time one sacrifice. He ministered it once, then sat down.

Johnsson reconciles the day of atonement allusions by saying that the focus in Hebrews is on the sacrifice, not the details of the heavenly ministry. The sacrifice was for all the rites, including the day of atonement, but the details of the fulfillment are not spelled out.

However, this misses the point that

a. Hebrews speaks not only of the sacrifice but the offering of it once. He then sat down. He was finished with the ministration.
b. Direct access is given to the worshipper which was not possible before under the old system except once per year by the high priest. This is now open to all. This shows a transcending of the day of atonement service, not just a reference to the sacrifice.


The issue of whether the heavenly sanctuary has two apartments at all is another question asked by Johnsson. No specific reference is made to two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary in Hebrews, and in fact it seems plain to me that there are not two compartments, but this again is a contrast.

While we emphasize the type and its fulfillment the whole text, like the rest of Hebrews, is actually a contrast. Just as Jesus was better than Moses and better than angels His ministration is better.

The old High Priest would die and needed to be replaced as we learned in an earlier chapter. But Jesus had an indestructible life. The old High Priest had to be from the tribe of Levi. But Jesus was from Judah, after the order of Melchizedek--He was Priest and King. In the old service the High Priest went through the same cycle every year entering only once per year (limited access), only with blood not his own, only with incense to shield him, and with everything perfect or he would be destroyed. But this High Priest entered not with blood of bulls and goats, and not over and over, but once, for all with his own blood. He did not enter only once and then withdraw quickly to repeat it the next year but sat down in God’s presence and has made a new way for us to have direct access to God . That was the very thing they did not have in the old system. Only the High Priest had access. But now we can come boldly before the throne of grace through the new and living way opened for us.


Just as the above shows that the fulfillment often went beyond or even contrasted with the type, so this question over whether there are two apartments seems to be a contrast.

The earthly is spelled out in terms of a two apartment sanctuary in the beginning of the chapter. But the limited access of the old sanctuary is not what is pictured in the heavently sanctuary. Instead we see that it is heaven itself:


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.


Here it emphasizes that Christ entered heaven itself to appear in the presence of God. Heaven is heaven and it is not divided into two compartments. That was an illustration. But the heavenly reality is not a two apartment building but heaven itself in God's presence. Christ entered there for us to present His sacrifice before God. We appear to have made a mistake in interpreting the fulfillment in light of the type. The book of Hebrews shows over and over again how the type was not the reality. The reality far transcends the type. Since the NT indicates that heaven itself is the real sanctuary we should not read a two compartment sanctuary back in, just as we don’t insist that Jesus be of the tribe of Levi when the NT says otherwise.

Related to whether there are two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary is the discussion of the term τα αγια.

In the Daniel and Revelation committee they note that the best translation is of ta hagia is simply sanctuary:


The committee believes that ta hagia should be regarded as a general term that should be translated in most instances as “sanctuary” unless the context clearly indicates otherwise (such as in chapter 9:2, 3).


Jesus entered into the heavenly sanctuary which is heaven itself.There is no indication of a holy and holy of holies in heaven.

Another question relates to the significance of Jesus being seated and interceding for us. Having made the sacrifice we see that Jesus is now pictured as seated at God’s right hand where He intercedes. We often picture Jesus interceding as High Priest, doing his work in the sanctuary, but this is not the theme I see in the Scriptures. He intercedes for us from the throne, having sat down. He is still High Priest, but He has completed the offering and presentation of it.

Note the following Scriptures which show Christ interceding from the right hand of God, having sat down.


Rom 8:34 Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died--more than that, who was raised--who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.

Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Col 3:1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

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

1Pe 3:22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

It does show him standing up for Stephen, but still at God's right hand.


Act 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.
Act 7:56 And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."




While it is also, undoubtedly, a symbol of Jesus’ kingly authority to be seated on the throne, it is applied in Hebrews as a contrast with the High Priest who did not sit down but continued on his futile round of duties continually.

The sitting down, illustrates His finished work. He now is waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool, and is reigning with God, according to Hebrews, 10:12-14

If the sacrifice is made, and cleansing happened, and He is now waiting to exit the sanctuary and judge the world, then where would there be room for another ministration in 1844?


Heb 10:16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
Heb 10:17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
Heb 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Heb 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.


There is a new and living way to enter the holy places by the blood of Christ and we have access to the great Priest.

This idea of a completed offering of the sacrifice is not in accord with Adventist teaching that an additional ministration started in 1844.

But the day of atonement does not seem to point to a pre-advent judgment, as Hebrews says that Jesus has already offered the sacrifice, and presented it (fulfilling the first part of the day of atonement ritual) and now waits to exit the sanctuary and greet the people, and then put away sin completely in the executive judgment (completing the second part of the day of atonement).

Very interesting posts. Thanks for taking the effort to do that.

It seems to me that the Day of Atonement, in antitype, is dealing with the preparation of a people for the coming of Christ. I think this is in harmony with EGW's visions. Where contradictions come in, IMO, is when one looks at things literally, as having to do with physical locations and physical tasks.

Regarding there only being one compartment in the heavenly sanctuary, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The sanctuary on earth was a type of the sanctuary in heaven. The sanctuary on earth had two compartments. So how could the antitype have one? Are you saying that the two compartments in the earthly sanctuary both correspond to the one compartment in the heavenly?

To me it makes sense to think of things in terms of phases of ministry, as opposed to physical locations.

Thank you all as well for considering this question.



Could you explain that a bit further?



The problem is it is not just a location issue but a timing issue. If Jesus presented the one sacrifice before God an then sat down, why would we expect a later ministry in 1844?



I am saying that the text says that the sanctuary is heaven itself. There were several points where the fulfllment went far beyond the type.

The two apartments emphasized the separation from God because the high priest alone, once per year, could go directly into God's presence. God met with the people through the sanctuary (let them build Me a sanctuary that I may dwell amont them). But it was a limited access.

In contrast Jesus went directly into heaven, in God's presence, and fulfilled the ministry one time--not like that of the Priests. In fact, Hebrews makes a big point of the fact that the earthly priest had to continually, year after year, offer the same sacrifices, which could never take away sin.

Was that the same in the fulfillment? No. It is a beautiful contrast where the type is overshadowed by the true.

Remember, the fulfillment is the true, not the type.

Jesus had FULL access, ever since ascension.



If there is no transfer of sin there is no phase of ministry.

The many earthly sacrifices were just constant reminders of the ONE Sacrifice of Christ. The blood did not first transfer then cleanse. If the animal represented Christ how could it transfer? Did Jesus' Sacrifice ever pollute? It always cleansed. The animal DIED for the sins of the offerer. If it died, why would the sin merely be transferred?

The text itself in Lev. says it atoned.