Or did Christ pay for our sins at the cost of His life?

This is the Bible study forum. See what you think these texts in Hebrews are saying about the author's view on the question. Is Jesus storing sin or did He deal with it by His once for all Sacrifice and presentation of the sacrifice in God's presence?


Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;


Heb 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.



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.

Heb 10:11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
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.
Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

What does "pay for our sins" mean? Pay whom? Why? Hebrews doesn't talk about Christ "paying for our sins," does it? (or anywhere else, for that matter).



I think the answer to the question depends upon what the problem is. First of all, I agree with you that it doesn't make any sense to say that Jesus is storing sin.

If the problem is a wrong relationship, and the reason for that wrong relationship is sin, then Christ's sacrifice paved the way for man to be made right with God by His sacrifice. As Peter puts it, Christ bore our sins in His body to "bring us to God."

You seem to impute to Christ's sacrifice a forensic meaning. Crossen's book "In Search of Paul" makes it clear that these forensic meanings of the sacrifice did not exist during the time of Paul. The following excerpt of the his book is on-line: http://books.google.com/books?id=cr7dpSL...8-wUk#PPA385,M1

That's a really long link, so if it doesn't work, you can google "crossan 'in search of paul' preview" and it's the first choice. The pages around 381 and following have some information, but unfortunately not the best part in terms of dealing with the meaning of sacrifice in the time of Paul.

This is related, although it's talking about Mark, and might be of interest: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18753_1.html

Indeed I do, though I don't see it as exclusively forensic, nor can it be reduced to only one model.

I don't think my view of a forensic element will change anytime soon. I may take some time to read your link at a later point in time.

However, if I take that view then I think there are a number of other issues I would have to reconcile and would involve me resigning from the ministry anyway to take time to work it all through.

So at this point I am going to assume the forensic element because of previous evidence that has been persuasive with me, and will stick to the question of whether sin is transferred.

If one is married to the forensic perspective, I think the best presentation of that viewpoint is the one given by the 1888 Message Study Committee. If you google "Gospel Herald 1888" you can find a site which has some material which discusses various things. You could take a look at it and see if it resonates at all with you.

I wish you well.

Tall,

I’ve arrived from a trip, and tried to comment on the main points of your posts.

The phrase "to bear sin/iniquity" is a legal expression, and it indicates that the person bearing sin is legally responsible for the sin committed, and liable to punishment. God's justice requires that sin be carried to judgment. However, when sin is judged, God cannot but manifest His wrath against it, and the sinner who committed it is crushed under the weight of God’s wrath. Now, what prevented the wrath of God from immediately falling upon Adam?

“As soon as there was sin, there was a Saviour. Christ knew that He would have to suffer, yet He became man's substitute. As soon as Adam sinned, the Son of God presented Himself as surety for the human race, with just as much power to avert the doom pronounced upon the guilty as when He died upon the cross of Calvary.” {AG 23.5}

As soon as man sinned, Christ became his Substitute, taking responsibility for his sin. He was bearing the sins of the world on the basis of what He would do on the cross. Now He bears the sins of the world on the basis of what He has done on the cross. He continues to assume the responsibility for sin until probation closes because, during this time, people have the opportunity of accepting salvation or reverting their decision at any moment.

“By pledging His own life Christ has made Himself responsible for every man and woman on the earth. He stands in the presence of God, saying, ‘Father, I take upon Myself the guilt of that soul. It means death to him if he is left to bear it. If he repents he shall be forgiven. My blood shall cleanse him from all sin. I gave My life for the sins of the world.’” {HP 42.5}

Why do you think people sin today and continue to live? When you sin, what prevents you from dying immediately, before you have time to repent and ask for forgiveness? Just the fact that Christ is still the Substitute of man – He is still assuming the responsibility for the sins of the world, on the basis of what He has done on the cross. He is not paying for sins today – He has already done that once and for all. But, on the basis of what He has already done, He is still responsible for the sins of humanity, preventing the wrath of God from falling upon man.

The whole process of figurative transference of sin in the sanctuary service just symbolized the sinner’s appropriation (or professed appropriation) of this truth by faith.

You have the right to disagree, but Ellen White's position is biblical, logical and coherent. Christ is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


God doesn’t need to judge anyone. “The Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). The judgment is for the benefit of God’s unfallen creatures, who aren’t omniscient. And since they aren’t omniscient, God, who is a just judge, must make the truth in relation to both parties clear to them. Criminals may abuse other criminals; liars may abuse other liars. For God to pronounce a verdict in favor of the saints, He must show that they are worthy of this.


As I said, the Day of the Lord is not a 24-hour day, and the events which mark the beginning and the end of the millennium are many times presented together, because in God's perspective they are indissolubly intertwined. Often the furnace of fire is mentioned together with Christ’s coming. But if the wicked will be punished at Christ’s coming, a millennium makes no sense. Then you have two alternatives - discard Revelation as a spurious book, or harmonize all the passages of the Scriptures.


Although this point is not crucial for our discussion, I disagree. Christ was made sin for us in the same way that we become the righteousness of God in Him – by imputation. Sin was not intrinsic to Him, in the same way that righteousness is not intrinsic to us.


Which symbolizes that Christ’s sacrifice made possible all the phases of the plan of salvation: our redemption (Passover); Christ’s resurrection, which is the basis for our resurrection (First Fruits); the gift of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost); the final cleansing of sin in the sanctuary and in the believers’ lives (Day of Atonement); and the final gathering of the saints in the heavenly home (Tabernacles).
It’s interesting that the antitypical Passover was fulfilled literally on Passover’s day; the antitypical wave sheaf was fulfilled literally on the day the sheaf was waved; the antitypical Pentecost was fulfilled literally on the day of Pentecost. These are the Spring feasts – which were fulfilled at the beginning of the history of the church. The logic is that the antitypical Day of Atonement should fall on a Day of Atonement, and that both the Day of Atonement and Tabernacles, which are the Fall feasts, should happen at the end of the history of the church.


As long as we sin, there is the need for an ongoing ministry.
Besides, in the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. Of course this will be fulfilled at Christ’s second coming. But if Christ fulfilled the cleansing and presentation of the blood long ago, why is He waiting 2000+ years to come and bless His waiting people with eternal life?

I have no issue with the idea that Christ is the basis for God withholding His wrath. Romans makes it clear that God looked with forbearance on sins committed before hand. But it was the atoning sacrifice of Christ that made Him just and the One who Justifies.

But that does not change the fact that Christ accomplished the work of presenting His own blood at His ascension. By doing this He cleansed sins. There is no reason for them to still be hanging around the Sanctuary. He accomplished the type of presenting His blood, cleansing the heavenly things. More on this to come.



You haven't demonstrated this. You have leaned on one text which as we noted makes use of a term which other places is associated with removal of sin, and is translated that way in some versions.

One text does not make a system.

On the other hand the sin offering spells out that anything it touches is HOLY not defiled, not polluted. There is no transfer of sin, but a bestowing of holiness.

The blood was brought into the holy place for ATONEMENT according to the text, not for transfer. So if EGW's system is Scriptural, where are all the Scriptures describing the system?

I haven’t leaned on one text. I have taken a long time to explain that the idea of “sin-bearer” is clearly that of someone who takes responsibility for sin in order to prevent the wrath of God from falling upon the sinner. Christ was the sin-bearer before the cross, since the Bible says He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” He continues to be the sin-bearer today, since the wrath of God hasn’t yet fallen upon sinners. Therefore, could you please tell me what is wrong with the idea of Lev. 10, of the priest bearing the sins of the congregation (that is, assuming the responsibility for their sins)? I’m having difficulty to understand exactly what you agree with and what you disagree with.


Hebrews says that the priests "serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" (8:5).

If the sacrifices offered daily and yearly pointed to the future sacrifice of Christ, the application of the blood of these sacrifices in the earthly sanctuary must point to two future ministries of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

You seem to believe, instead, that they point just to a once-for-all act of Christ of presenting His blood. Does this mean all sins were blotted out before they were committed (for those who lived after the cross)? Exactly whose sins were blotted out? Those of the whole world, or just the sins of some?


The transfer just means that Christ assumed the responsibility for our sins. Our sins are in the heavenly sanctuary because Christ is there preventing the wrath of God against sin from falling upon the world.


There is no question who the saints are? Since both groups profess to be the people of God, and since there are genuine and false Christians in both groups, the subject is not so simple as you want to make it appear. A verdict is pronounced in favor of the saints, who then receive the kingdom. But the question is, Who are the saints? All those who profess to be Christians? All those who profess to be Christians but are not Catholic? Who are the saints who will receive the kingdom?


Not everything there is hard to understand, and the information about the millennium and the resurrections is clearly presented.


Revelation mentions a group of "those to whom judgment was committed" and a group of "those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God” – and says that they “came to life, and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (so this resurrection definitely marks the beginning of the millennium). It is also said that “the REST of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended” (so this resurrection marks the end of the millennium). So what is your contention? That just some martyrs will be raised at the beginning of the millennium, but that the great mass of Christians will be raised at the end of the millennium? But Paul (1 Thess. 4:16ff) says exactly the opposite - that the great mass of Christians will be raised at Christ’s coming – that is, at the beginning of the millennium. As I said, either you harmonize the texts or you have to discard Revelation entirely.


By your insistence on the ministration of blood at Christ’s ascension, you are virtually altering the order of the feasts, and making the Day of Atonement to be fulfilled before Pentecost. Pentecost occurred when Christ was enthroned (Acts 2:33), which, according to you, happened after He had made the presentation of blood.
By the way, you did not comment on the fact that the antitype of the spring feasts occurred on the exact day these feasts were celebrated.


One day each? Did the Pentecostal movement last one day? Or did it start at a specific day?


Of course. Certainly this is not the reason why the pre-advent judgment hasn’t been completed yet.


On the basis of this reasoning there would never be a last generation. God is just waiting for His people to get ready. When this occurs, they will give the final message to the world, everybody will choose sides (receive either the seal of God or the mark of the beast), and then the judgment of the living will take place just before probation closes, ratifying the decision every person has made. Christ will then cease to bear sins, leave the sanctuary, and the wrath of God will begin to fall (Rev. 15:8). He will then come back to take His people home.

Note. I have decided at this time to terminate my employment with the conference and to leave the SDA church.

I don't know if Daryl wants me speaking here or not at this point as he has not clarified that. If he does not I understand.

I am still looking at evidence on this and other questions. But I am fairly convinced at this point.






That appears to be because we are talking about two different concepts as though they were the same.

Christ was said in the Scriptures to BEAR sin at the cross. Now I have no issue with the notion that Christ is the basis for our forgiveness from beginning to end. But there was a set time where He accomplished certain things, including actual bearing of sins, whatever the biblical record means by that.

Now the topic here in this thread is whether the blood defiles. This is a topic dealing with the Hebrew cultic system, not generic references to Who it is that bears sin.

The question that I have is what are the texts that Adventists use to show a transfer of sin to the sanctuary during the sacrifices.

You have offered one text to support that there is transfer during the sacrifices, and it was to the priest, not the temple.

I have offered a counter rendering of the text based on other translations and usage of the word in other Scriptures. I have also offered a clear text that says the sin offering made HOLY everything that it touched, not defiled.

Therefore you have only ONE clear text on this transfer of sin issue and it is called heavily into question.

That is the issue.

Now the larger issue is that Christ is seen as dealing with sin at His ascension, making provision for all other actions. The forward looking in the OT and the backward looking in the New are all predicated on that one sacrifice and offering of it. That is when He bore sin and then it was said he put away sin, made purification for sin, etc.



A. It said it was once for all. This was covered at greater length above.

B. Sins before hand were left unpunished on the basis of future ministration of blood. Sins after were cleansed by the same ministration of blood in the past. That is why it says sins were put away etc.

C. By the logic that they point to two SEPARATE ministries you could say that they pointed to two separate sacrifices, which was also true in the type. And then you don't just have daily and yearly. In fact you have daily, you have all the sacrifices of the feasts, you have the sin offerings, you have the red heifer, etc. All of these were taken care of by ONE sacrifice in the fulfillment. There is no denying that. You want the one exception to be the day of atonement. But once for all means once for all. And the type was clearly altered in this way.





Atonement means atonement. Transfer means transfer. Jesus did not die just to tranfer, He made cleansing for sins according to Hebrews. He made ATONEMENT according to the type. Nowhere does it say that the sacrifices transfered at all. It may make sense in your mind, but it never says it in the text.



Sorry, you are reading into the text again. The text says the saints and the little horn. God knows who was who and He intervened which is the whole point of the text. It is DELIVERANCE that is in view. Not judging God's saints.



Clearly presented how? Not the way we say it. The ones described as having a part in the first resurrection are a limited group.

This differs with the other texts of the NT. None of the other texts in the NT posit this notion of a 1k years at all, but speak of goats and sheep being divided at His coming, etc.

We say that the reign is in heaven. But the text in Revelation does not say that. In fact when Satan gets back he goes out to stir up the nations. Who are the nations? This is before the account of the dead being raised and the dead are only raised for the judgment.

it is not as we have said.



Now you are catching on. All the other texts say the exact opposite. But that does not make Revelation say what you want. It just means the others say the exact opposite.



Or you look again at the symbols because our harmonization doesn't fit the text. Harmonize does not mean alter to make it work.

If we haven't understood it then we can just say that.



Ah but I did, in some detail. Check here:

http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forum...rt=13#Post92198


Now, the point is that Jesus fulfilled ALL the sacrifices in one. This by its nature altered the type.

So let me ask this. How can the passover and wavesheaf be fulfilled before the inauguration of the temple?

When did the sacrifice and presentation of it happen for the passover fulfillment? What about the wavesheaf?

Far from being a point for your side this amply demonstrates my argument. Jesus' ONE sacrifice was all there was. The one presentation of it fulfilled the sacrifice for passover, for wavesheaf, for pentecost etc.

And my view is not in conflict with a later fulfillment of the non-sacrificial part of the day of atonement--the scapegoat. Therefore the timing of the feast is not altered. But the sacrifice and its offering, just like every other one, happened at Jesus' ascension when he made cleansing for sin.


So you feel Jesus is still being resurrected? Or the passover Lamb is still being offered?

In any case, even if you want to make the day of atonement a period the beginning of it was when Jesus ascended.



So the delay is not due to the IJ. Then why do you need an IJ to explain what Jesus is doing?

Or do you?


So we are now not dealing with the living? Or is it in standby mode dealing with folks as they die?

As to by this reasoning, I don't do any of the reasoning because I no longer accept an IJ of the Adventist sort.

Tall: But that does not change the fact that Christ accomplished the work of presenting His own blood at His ascension. By doing this He cleansed sins. There is no reason for them to still be hanging around the Sanctuary.

MM: I haven't taken the time to thoroughly read this thread, so please forgive me if the following questions have already been addressed:

1. What was the status of the sins of the world before Jesus "cleansed" them with His own blood at His ascension? How are they different? What changed?

2. Where were the sins of the world "hanging around" before Jesus presented His own blood at His ascension? Where are they now? When will they be placed upon Satan? When will they cease to exist?

3. Now that the sins of the world have been "cleansed" by the blood of Jesus at His ascension, is repentance and forgiveness still necessary? If so, why? If not, why not?

PS - Please feel free to answer these questions in brief summary form. I will ask for biblical support later on. For now, though, I am interested in the simple answer. Thank you.

Tall: I have decided at this time to terminate my employment with the conference and to leave the SDA church.

MM: It seems like you have made the honorable choice. Such transitions, however, can be very stressful. Changing employment is huge. Coupled with your theological shift - I cannot imagine what it is like to be in your shoes right now. You are in my prayers. I trust Jesus will bless your efforts to serve Him in accordance with your conscience and convictions. Please keep me up to date as God leads and opens doors. Thank you.