It does apparently mean that He made purification for sins because the text says so.:


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 for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,



Here are some of the other descriptions of the results:


Heb 9:12 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.

Heb 9:26 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.

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.



So I cannot then depend on my interpretation of the type to say it did not happen if the text says it did.



I do question that.

Jesus fulfilled the part of presenting the blood in God’s presence when He entered in and sat down. He still mediates. I have no issue with that. But the presentation of the blood was done.

The fact that He entered in by blood, which was PART of the yearly ministry indicates that you cannot wait until 1844 to have Him entering, which was the pioneer’s position.

In other words Hebrews says that Jesus was the High Priest, going in by means of His blood, as the earthly priest did yearly to cleanse the heavenly things and put away sin.

What does that sound like? That sounds like the type we apply to something else.

At the very least you have the day of atonement STARTING at the ascension and going until now.

Or I think it indicates that He completed the type of the cleansing, though the type of the scape goat is not spelled out in the text. Therefore we have to speculate on its fulfillment based on the details of the type.

Let me ask this another way.

Which is a closer parallel to the type? Jesus entering into God’s presence to present His blood, or Jesus going over the books?

There were no books in Levit. 16. There was no investigation in the cleansing type. There was cleansing by blood, brought into God’s presence. And Hebrews indicates that it happened at the ascension, or at the very least previous to the author writing the book.



Indeed, and the now was way back in the author’s day was it not? Not in 1844? When did Jesus enter in and present the blood in fulfillment of the yearly High Priestly role?

That is the question.


Is He still there? Sure He is. That is why we have a new and living way. That is why we can boldly approach the throne of grace. But the entering in, parallel to the yearly act of the high priest—which can only be the day of atonement, is completed.




No issue with that. Did you notice it compares it to the presence of God in the Shekinah, which manifested itself above the ark?

That supports the notion of the yearly service.



This one is actually not warranted by the text, since it says He offered, not continues to offer.


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,


Nor did you quote it from the beginning, because that part shows again that they recognize here the yearly service:


Heb 9:24 -
Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands - He is not gone into the holy of holies of the tabernacle or temple, as the Jewish high priest does once in the year with the blood of the victim, to sprinkle it before the mercy-seat there; but into heaven itself, which he has thus opened to all believers, having made the propitiatory offering by which both he and those whom he represents are entitled to enter and enjoy eternal blessedness.





I agree in part with this. He certainly mediates since His completed entrance and offering.

And again Gill identifies the yearly typical service in the next verse:


as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; not his own, nor other men's, but the blood of goats and calves; but Christ entered into heaven with his own blood, he having been altar, priest, and sacrifice: the high priest went into the most holy place every year, but Christ has entered into heaven once for all, where he sits down and continues, having done his work effectually.




No issue with that necessarily. He continues to be the offering, but is not continually offered up in the literal sense.

The point being that He historically did one act that He now mediates based on.

And again the JFB commentary indicates entrance into God’s immediate presence, parallel with the Holy of Holies:


not ... into ... holy places made with hands — as was the Holy of Holies in the earthly tabernacle (see on Heb_9:11).
figures — copies “of the true” holiest place, heaven, the original archetype (Heb_8:5).
into heaven itself — the immediate presence of the invisible God beyond all the created heavens, through which latter Jesus passed (see on Heb_4:14; see on 1Ti_6:16).







No issue there.



Yes, He is still there in God’s presence.

But note what else is said:



His offering did not need repetition like the Levitical sacrifices. Offer himself refers rather to Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary and presentation of himself before God, than to his offering on the cross. See on Heb_9:14. The sacrifice on the cross is described by παθεῖν suffer, Heb_9:26, and is introduced as a distinct thought. The point is that, being once in the heavenly sanctuary, Christ was not compelled to renew often his presentation of himself there, since, in that case, it would be necessary for him to suffer often. Each separate offering would necessitate a corresponding suffering.

He offered himself once, not repeatedly.



The results of His sacrifice are ongoing. Either way it is a bit of a semantics game. We both agree that mediation continues based on what Christ did historically at that time. But what you seem to want to avoid is that His entering in WAS the fulfillment of the day of atonement type of the cleansing by blood being brought into God’s presence.

A. High Priest
B. Entered in by means of blood
C. Yearly

What else could it refer to? What other yearly act did the High Priest enter into in this fashion?

And yet this is what we apply to 1844 and the investigative judgment. It is my view that we misapply it. Books and investigation are NOT as accurate fulfillment of the type itself. And Hebrews spells out what the fulfillment was.




Does the text say that Jesus ENTERED into God’s presence by means of His blood, contrasting it with the yearly? Does it indicate He does this in the role parallel to the high priest?


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,

I don’t see how we can say otherwise. What Ellen White described as happening in 1844, Jesus going into the inner apartment as the fulfillment of the DOA type, happened according to Hebrews at His ascension.



Perhaps you need to ask a better question. Does the text say He made purification for sins?

It does.

Therefore whatever it means we have to take what the text says .



It was a prescription.

Can you point in the type itself to any investigation?

The cleansing was cleansing, not investigation.




But He also offered Himself once, entering into God’s presence.

Beyond that you did not address the day of atonement themes attending that entrance. It is inescapable that He ENTERED into God’s presence by means of His blood. There is nothing else it can be.



A. In what way was it not?

B. What is the rationale for two being so and not others? But even if it is ongoing it still started with the entrance at Jesus ascension.





The cleansing part of the type was not the judgment. The judgment came on the basis of the people’s reception of the act. The cleansing OF THE SANCTUARY happened either way. Their benefiting from it was dependent on their response.





Yes, but that was not part of the type of cleansing. The sanctuary was cleansed regardless of those who did not respond. Their response sealed their fate. But the work was done.

Now, was the PRIEST investigating them during the type? No. The High Priest was making cleansing by blood.

The gospel is always bringing either a savor of life unto life or a savor of death unto death. It is always the fragrance of Christ. But our response determines our fate. The same was true here.

Just a note to let everybody know that Rosangela may not be on here over the next couple of weeks, therefore, if you don't hear from her, that is the reason.

I'm not going to discuss this, since you said it is not the key issue for you, but this is just a small comment to point out that, although this might not apply to the regular sin offerings, the sin offering made on the day of atonement did require the person who burned it outside the camp to wash (Lev. 16:27, 28).


But mediation involves the presentation of blood. I don’t know the position of modern protestant commentators, but there seems to be a consensus about this among the classical commentators. Although they see it as a fulfillment of the yearly service, all the classical commentators, as I quoted, agree that Christ is now presenting his blood before God for our forgiveness. Therefore, although Christ did offer Himself once for all, the presentation of His blood did not occur once for all. It must occur continually, as long as there is sin.
As for seeing this mediation as a fulfillment of the yearly service, this cannot be correct, for if Christ is doing the counterpart of the yearly service since His ascension, what was the daily service a type of? The book of Hebrews mentions both services (Heb. 9:6, 7), and makes clear that the priestly ministry on earth is a copy and shadow of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:4, 5). Since protestants see the yearly service as a type of Christ’s ministry in the Christian era, they see the daily service as a type of the Jewish era. But this cannot be correct, for three reasons: the priests would have served a copy and shadow not of Christ but of themselves, the type would have existed at the same time as the antitype, and the type would have met its fulfillment before Christ’s death.


I don’t see things in this way. Paul’s point may be that every priest who ministers at the sanctuary must minister having blood to offer for the forgiveness of sin. That's why it is said that Christ entered the sanctuary by His blood.

Hebrews 8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.

There is also good evidence that Paul may be referring to the inauguration of the heavenly temple, as others have pointed out, since he speaks about the inauguration of the wilderness tabernacle in this chapter. Ellen White makes a clear reference to the inauguration in this passage:

Still bearing humanity, He ascended to heaven, triumphant and victorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement into the holiest of all, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat and His own garments, and blessed the people. Soon He will appear the second time to declare that there is no more sacrifice for sin. {ST, April 19, 1905 par. 4}


No, I’m not trying to avoid this fact. What I see in Hebrews is that Paul mixes both the daily and the yearly services in his explanations of Christ’s work, so I don’t see an instance where he is using a comparison with the yearly service, for instance, as evidence that Christ began the counterpart of the yearly service at His ascension. Take a look, for instance, at Hebrews 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 which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. [here he refers to the yearly service]
2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin.
3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year.
4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.
5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired, but a body hast thou prepared for me;
6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings thou hast taken no pleasure.
7 Then I said, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,’ as it is written of me in the roll of the book."
8 When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), [here he seems to refer to both]
9 then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.
10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. [here he refers to the daily service]
12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God,
13 then to wait until his enemies should be made a stool for his feet.
14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
15 And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
16 "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,"
17 then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their misdeeds no more."
18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
20 by the new and living way which 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.

You will notice that in verses 1-4 Paul uses the yearly service to make the point that the blood of animals cannot take away sins, and that in verse 11 he switches to the daily service to make the same point.


Of course by requiring books you would be requiring too much from a mere type. There are no books to register people’s sins on earth. So how could there be books in Lev. 16? But the Bible is clear that sins are registered in heaven (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12). Besides, it’s clear in Lev. 16 that everybody was judged regarding their sincerity on the day of atonement. And, finally, the notion of books and judgment is also present in the Jewish tradition:

“God, seated on His throne to judge the world, at the same time Judge, Pleader, Expert and Witness, openeth the Book of Records. ... The great trumpet is sounded; a still, small voice is heard; the angels shudder, saying, this is the day of judgment. ... On New Year’s Day the decree is written; on the Day of Atonement it is sealed who shall live and who are to die.” – The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 286.

As I feel Rosangela has a good grip on this, it's good to see her back here responding to this.

I am personally learning a lot, as I endeavour to sort this all out in my own mind.

Daryl,

Like you, I'm also trying to sort this out in my mind. The Bible is a challenging book.

I have noticed Tall73 looking in on this topic now and then over the past few weeks, therefore, I expect him to be looking here again within the near future.

I also agree with you that the Bible is a challenging book.

AMEN!

If tall73 doesn't respond here soon, I will alert him of the new posts in this topic.

As Tall73 looked at this thread about 20 minutes ago, I expect we will soon be receiving a reply from him.