Some evidence I find in the Bible about a pre-Advent judgment:

1) Lev. 23:28, 29 Yom Kippur was both a day of atonement (“And you shall do no work on this same day; for it is a day of atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God” – v. 28) and judgment (“For whoever is not afflicted on this same day shall be cut off from his people” – v. 29. God evaluated whether or not each person was really depending on His cleansing power and forgiving grace). So this is a judgment carried out while people can benefit from the atonement.

2) Matt. 22:1-14 In the parable of the wedding garment, the king inspects “both bad and good” guests who had been invited to the wedding feast of his son, and the inspection is done before the wedding feast.

3) Dan. 7:21, 22 "As I looked, this horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom (RSV).” I see this text as parallel to Rev. 18:20: “Rejoice over her [Babylon], O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!” (RSV); or “Rejoice over her fate, O Heaven, and all you saints, apostles and prophets! For God has pronounced his judgment for you against her!” (Phillips). So a verdict is pronounced in favor of the saints and against the little horn/Babylon. Since there are two parties, the court must first examine the evidence regarding the two parties before deciding who is right and who is wrong.

4) Rev. 14:7 Here I will quote from the Handbook of SDA Theology, p. 833:

“In the Apocalypse the angelic messenger announces that ‘the hour of his judgment has come’ (Rev. 14:7). This ‘hour of his judgment’ is placed in the apocalyptic end-time. Within the sequential flow of recapitulated events presented in the Apocalypse, the three angel’s messages appear (verses 6-12). The first angel flies in midheaven ‘with an eternal gospel’ for all humankind with the call ‘Fear God and give him glory, for the hour of his judgment has come’ (verse 7). The reason for this final call of the ‘eternal gospel’ to all humankind is given with a causal clause, ‘because [hoti] the hour of his judgment has come’ (NIV). The reference here is to a time before the return of Jesus Christ, as Revelation 14:14 clearly indicates. ‘The hour of his judgment’ refers to the final period before the return of Jesus Christ in glory. The ‘hour’ is not a single moment or literal hour in time. ‘The hour of his judgment’ precedes ‘the hour to reap’ (verse 15). ‘The hour to reap’ is the time when the harvest is brought in at the second coming of Christ. But before the harvest is brought in, there must be ‘the hour of his judgment,’ a time when decisions are made as to who will be gathered in the subsequent harvest at ‘the hour to reap.’”

Tall, I am having a hard time understanding your objections to the SDA message regarding the sanctuary. Please, if you don't mind, state in simple summary form what you believe and how it differs from what the SDA church teaches. Thank you.

For example, I believe the sanctuary teaches us that Jesus earned the legal right to own our sin and second death by living and dying the perfect life and death, that He offers to pardon us, that He reconciles us to God, that He mediates on our behalf, that He empowers us to be like Him, that He will judge us, that He will blot out our record and memory of sin, that He will place our sin and second death upon Satan, that He will eliminate our sin and second death in the lake of fire, and that He will restore paradise.

Tall, it seems to me that this text equates defiling the sanctuary with profaning God’s holy name, which implies misrepresenting the character of God or a violation of the third commandment.

In other words, since we are God’s “witnesses”, could it mean our choices and behavior have a direct impact upon what other people think about God and the sanctuary (the visible symbol of God)?

This text doesn’t say we defile the sanctuary with our sins in the same way it is defiled when our confessed sins are transferred to the sanctuary via the sacrificial offering. Do you see what I mean?

I hear you saying that “sat down” means Jesus no longer serves as our Substitute, that He does not apply the benefits of His sacrifice on our behalf, that He is simply waiting until the day His enemies become His footstool. Where is this idea reflected in the sanctuary service?

I can't believe any Jew participating in the sacrificial services would come to this conclusion. Given what the sacrificial systems meant to the cultures of the time (the Hebrews and their contemporaries), can you give any evidence that it would have been interpreted this way? In particular, where is there any hint of a legal issue being at the forefront of the minds of any of the participants of these cultures?

Secondly, where is there anything in Scripture, and to start with, let's limit this to the Old Testament only, since that's all the Jews participating in the service would have access to, that supports the above idea? (i.e., where is some Scripture in the OT, that a Jew could read, that would lead him or her to come to the conclusion that you are suggesting).

Good question, Tom. The word justified or justification implies something legal, doesn't it? What was it about confessing sins, laying hands on animals, killing them, taking the blood into the sanctuary, sprinkling it on the veil, etc - that resulted in Jews being pardoned and declared sinless? Seems to me a transfer took place, that sins were transferred from the sinner to the animal, to the priest, to the sanctuary, later to be removed and transferred to the scapegoat. Sinners were declared sinless, another legal term. This was all done according to the law, a legal document. So much of it resembled things legal, why wouldn't the Jews have gotten the idea that something legal was happening?

I thank you all for the recent responses. I am currently reading a pile of papers and a book that the scholars asked me to before my upcoming trip, which happens in a couple of days. When I get a chance I will try to answer this too, but my mental energy right now is a bit low.

Let us all pray that the truth will prevail between tall73 and the scholars, whoever they are, that he will be meeting with in the next couple of days.

But if the text says that it will not be accepted then how can his sin be transferred to Christ?



The issue is not pain but whether He LITERALLY carries our sins as EGW says. He already literally became sin for us so that He might be the Sacrifice and pay for the sins. Therefore no, He is not still ACTUALLY bearing sin.

Is He the one Who assumed responsibility? Yes. But that provision is already made.



A. Note that the text clearly labels the little horn power and the saints. There is no confusion over which is which.

B. The little horn power is a POWER. The IJ deals with individuals, not powers.

C. “until the Ancient of Days came and adjudication was granted to the saints of the Most High”?

The little horn power was wearing out the saints, and God heard their plea and judged the power. If someone is abusing you and your family and you take the matter to court and the verdict is in your favor does that mean that the judge was examining you? No. It means the judge put an end to the abuse that was going on against you.

This is a judgment in the classic sense, which the Hebrews looked forward to. They looked forward to it because it was not a judgment on them but a welcomed deliverance from the oppressive power of the little horn.

Dan 7:21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
Dan 7:22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.


The judgment of God on the little horn was what interrupted the war made on the saints. God was not confused on who the saints were, and neither were the angels unless they were pretty dense. God stepped in to judge the horn and give vindication to the saints, who then received their reward.




a. Revelation says they will be on thrones, etc. No problem there.

b. You have not yet demonstrated that I Cor. has a bearing on this text. It well may. It may not. The point being that there is little said about who the saints are judging or what is going on in Revelation itself. What is clear is that this is not the time when the saints appear before the judgment seat.




A. you have not demonstrated that all saints are alive during the 1k years.

B. You have not explained when you feel it is that Paul's words are true that we APPEAR in the judgment to give an account to God.

C. As to the timing of God's judgment I can only state what it says. Can you point to another text where it happens?

D. As to counting them worthy God knows who His own are at any moment. They "hear His voice." But this does not rule out Paul's words that we must all appear and give an account. Clearly that happens at some point.






A. Provision was made for it yes, in Christ bearing our sins and dying for them, which is my point. He is not currently bearing sins. The Scriptures say He already did that.

B. Do sins still exist in the world? Yes. They do. But the price has already been paid for forgiveness.

C. If it is until sins cease to exist, when do you see that happening? When is sin and the sinner done away with?




Actually, I agree that my choice there was not the best, though the concept is similar. The point being that the purpose of their action was to MAKE ATONEMENT not to make transfer for later atonement.


But note how other versions render it again:

(NASB) bear away the guilt

(NRSV) remove the guilt

(NIV) take away the
(HSCB) take away the guilt

(NLT) remove the guilt

As to rendering the same word two different ways, it is done all the time as translations show. The key question is one of context. In Numbers the context is that of bearing responsibility for the temple procedures etc.

In Leviticus the context is making atonement and ministering the sacrifices.




It is your feeling that this is the only way. Why could it not mean that it was to take away sin by presenting the completed sacrifice just as the blood did, also said to “make atonement”?

The real question is why do you think this is the only meaning? There is no other text that speaks of it, or any other reason to think it other than EGW’s statements on the subject. The text says here and in the sin offering service that it is to make atonement—not transfer. If the meaning is that the priests take on the sins of the people then why is that never spelled out? The meaning of the animal taking the place of the people is spelled out.

Not only that but the text plainly says the flesh of the sin offering MAKES HOLY, not defiles or transfers guilt:

Lev 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy

How then can it be said that the priest eating the flesh becomes defiled?

Moreover, in the fulfillment what do we see? We see one Sacrifice of Christ, and Hebrews says,

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Jesus did not come to transfer sin but to put it away. This is the same thing the sacrifice symbolized in the earthly.

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Again Christ was ONCE offered to bear sin. He is not still bearing it. He will appear again without sin because He is done with that role. So whatever you may see in the earthly priests after the offering of the sacrifice it clearly does not indicate that Christ continues to bear sins which the Bible makes very plain He does not after the ONE offering to bear sin.

If you want to take one text to make a theology from an interpretation of the earthly type then show why it contradicts with this plain text of Hebrews stating that Jesus was offered once to bear sins…not continuing to bear sin for centuries even after the sacrifice that was made to put sin away. Again, what is the true? The type or the fulfillment?

I am not sure what scope Daryl wants this thread to have.

Essentially

A. I don't see that Daniel 8:14 is talking about the day of atonement. It is speaking of the defilement of the little horn, in answer to the question of v. 13.

B. I don't see that Christ is currently bearing sin but that He already made provision for it. He sat down, having ministered the Sacrifice, and there is no need of a later ministration of that Sacrifice in 1844 to complete atonement. The Sacrifice that He both made on the cross and ministered in Heaven also was delivered in day of atonement language. It fulfilled the sacrifice portion of the day of atonement, and indeed, all sacrifices in the earthly system. The next envisioned activity of note is Christ's return when His enemies are made His footstool:

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Heb 10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

What I see is that the land, the sanctuary, etc. were all defiled by sin.

But the larger issue is that you are assuming that the sanctuary was defiled via the sacrificial offering when it says what ever the offering touches becomes holy.

I dispute that it is defiled through the sacrifice.

You are also assuming that the cleansing of the sanctuary on the day of atonement is of the sins that were already sacrificed for, because you assume a transfer. My point is that there was already sin associated with the people and the temple due to their wickedness. There is no need to posit a transfer.




You misunderstand in one point. He ALREADY served as our Substitute. There is no more Sacrifice necessary and He already presented the one Sacrifice of Himself. He applies the benefits of course of that one sacrifice, so there is not issue there.

As to the idea being reflected in the sanctuary service, is it not what Hebrews says? I am not saying this just because I came up with it but because this is what the NT says the fulfillment is. Do you believe that Hebrews shows the fulfillment of the sanctuary Sacrifice? And do you recognize that the fulfillment goes beyond the limited types as the author emphasizes again and again?

Once the sacrifice was made the person had atonement—the sacrifice was accepted in their stead and the relationship with God was restored. The same is true here. Only in the fulfillment there is no need for a repeated sacrifice again and again. Jesus already did that for us. He does not need to bear sin any longer. He now applies the merits of that one Sacrifice.

The whole issue is whether we grasp what Hebrews says that the earthly was limited in its scope because it by nature was cyclical, teaching the same lesson again and again. But the fulfillment was not cyclical but was done once. The benefits from that do not disappear like the earthly which could never take away sin anyway. But they endure, and they make full atonement, granting us full access that goes beyond the earthly high priest, and indeed makes it possible for us to go boldly, directly, into God's presence.