It was the blood that was to defile according to Adventist teaching.

In the typical service only those who had come before God with confession and repentance, and whose sins, through the blood of the sin offering, were transferred to the sanctuary, GC, 28

The blood was the means of defilement. Now perhaps what you have objection to is the idea of a record of sin being left by the blood. I don't know of EGW drawing this parallel. But I do know of some Adventists who have. For instance, here is Joe Crews on the subject:


Patiently he reviews the familiar prescription for choosing and consecrating men to the Levitical priesthood. In quite lengthy detail, he outlines the tabernacle services in which the blood of animals was sprinkled in the holy place to make a record of sin.

Either way my point was not that the blood actually defiles, since I don't think it does anyway. I think blood cleansed. My point is that we don't see an indication in what took place in the actual temple, with the high priest, that the major thrust was judgment. Instead it was purification. The sins were cleansed not examined by the high priest.

And as already stated the people either accepted that cleansing or not. But the types themselves did not picture investigation.



First off what happened INSIDE the temple, involving the high priest (the part parallel to Jesus work) was in fact cleansing. The reception of that cleansing was the judgment.

In salvation history is it only during the day of atonement that people afflict themselves and gain forgiveness based on their response?

By your argument then it would make sense to have the investigative judgment going on EVER SINCE Jesus entered so that everyone would be afflicting themselves while it went on. The cleansing is the act of the presentation of the blood. The judgment deals with the response by each person, whether they appropriate what was done. The two need not happen at the same moment in literal time. just as the cross event does not stretch on forever in salvation history, but people still make their decision regarding it centuries later.

But if you prefer to think of it as an ongoing ministration then you must start it from Jesus' ascension when He entered into God's presence. This is when Hebrews uses day of atonement language to speak of Jesus' past actions.

There is no changing of order. The first temple, for instance, was dedicated in the seventh month (1 Ki 8:2), and the second temple in the 12th month (Ezra 6:15). So the dedication of the temple could occur at any date, independently of the order of the feasts. Besides, Pentecost, like all the other feasts except Atonement, required no presentation of blood (although a sin-offering was made on every day of every feast, including new moons).


No, this doesn’t need to be necessarily the case, for His entry was a multipurpose entry. The antitype of the Day of Atonement, to be consistent with the pattern we have of the fulfillment of Passover, Wavesheaf and Pentecost, had to occur on a Day of Atonement.


What passage(s) are you referring to?


No, the agent of defilement is sin, not the blood. The blood is the means through which sins can be transferred to the sanctuary, instead of remaining upon the sinner. Not a physical means, to be sure (that is, the blood did not carry sins), but the merits of the blood made it possible for sins to be registered in the sanctuary and subsequently blotted out.
Why is a record of sins so important? As I said previously, 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 a registry of our sins must remain until we die or until probation closes. Then it is blotted out.
In fact, in my opinion SDAs are the only ones who offer a reasonable explanation to this parable of Matt. 18. Notice what Gill says: “But inasmuch as this man was fully and freely pardoned before, how comes it to pass, that full payment of debt is yet insisted on? It is certain, that sin, once pardoned by God, he never punishes for it; for pardon with him is of all sin; he forgives all trespasses, though ever so many, and remits the whole debt, be it ever so large; which act of his grace will never be revoked.” Therefore, he says, sin “is blotted out, and entirely done away, and that for ever. Hence some think this man had only the offer of a pardon, and not that itself. ... Others think, that this was a church forgiveness. ... Others, this forgiveness was only in his own apprehensions: he presumed, and hoped he was forgiven, when he was not.” In the end, he presents no satisfactory explanation.
In fact, the only satisfactory explanation is that sins are not blotted out at the moment they are forgiven.


No, it was simultaneous. While the cleansing lasted, God was judging His people.


No, the distinct factor here is that those who did not afflict their souls (that is, those who did not repent of their sins) would be cut off from God’s people. To be sure, God didn’t strike anyone dead during the day of atonement, but in heaven a separation was made between the sincere ones and the insincere ones. The insincere ones were no longer considered part of God’s people.

It seems to me that Daniel needs to be considered in conjunction with Hebrews. For example, if there's any merit to the 2300 day prophesy, as SDA's understand it, then *something* happened in 1844. The author of Hebrews would no doubt have been aware of that.

Regarding the points Rosangela has been making about the cleansing involving judgment, Daniel seems to bring this out. One would assume that the writer of Hebrews would not be writing in a vacuum, but taking Daniel into account.

A. If no other feast included blood offering then what else could this be?
B. There was a change. Regardless of the month the dedication ocurred in it would seem that the temple should be dedicated before the rites of the temple were carried out. But we see all of these things happening at once--dedication, daily, red heifer, etc. And I would submit the day of atonement.

And again, the fact that there was ONE sacrifice is a HUGE alteration of the type. There is no way around it. So too is the change of the priesthood.




So despite the fact that it clearly says He entered in day of atonement language you reject that based on the OT pattern? Even though the sacrifice and the priesthood were both altered from the pattern? If it says that is what happened then I have no choice but to accept that, regardless of my view of the pattern.

How many by the pattern would expect a priest from Judah? In all ways Hebrews shows that Jesus both fulfills AND transcends the type. He did not enter a man-made temple but heaven itself. He did not present animal blood but His own blood. He did not have to suffer many times over many occasions but once. So what is the best way to tell what the fulfillment is? By what the text says or by our interpretation of the type?




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 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}

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.

I wrote up a long reply to the sin/defilement portion, but I think that is not going to be helpful. I was trying to illustrate something specific by my earlier statement and instead we have re-opened the old debate about transfer.





Did those people who lived before 1844 afflict their souls? Did those who lived before Christ have to afflict their souls to have forgiveness?

That is another whole topic to itself. Maybe we will get to it at some point.

Well, you'd have to assume the author of Hebrews was familiar with Daniel, and that Hebrews was dependent upon Daniel. So considering Hebrews without considering Daniel seems a bit fruitless.

The affliction of the soul is not so much to obtain forgiveness, but to understand what the high priest is doing. Jewelry was removed. Food and drink were not taken. All this was so the mind would be clear, to follow, by faith, what the high priest was doing.

As 1844 is the antitypical day of atonement, the people did not afflict their souls, because they did not have the realization that they were living in a day of judgment. Laodecia is the church of the judgment, so those living in this time have a unique experience.

By order, the first thing that needed blood was the dedication of the temple. Then, Christ would need to present His blood to fulfill the antitype of the daily ministration, and then of the yearly ministration.


I don’t see how it can be demonstrated that there was a change in the order of the feasts. You say that everything happened at once, but this is not true, specially in relation to the feasts. Although there was just a sacrifice for Passover (and Wavesheaf), Pentecost, Atonement and Tabernacles, we know that Passover (including Wavesheaf) and Pentecost were fulfilled in the correct order, and that Tabernacles wasn’t yet fulfilled, but will be fulfilled at Christ’s coming. What basis is there for saying that Atonement was fulfilled out of order, simultaneously with Pentecost?


No, not based on the OT pattern, but on the pattern of the New Testament fulfillment of the OT types. The fulfillment of Passover-Wavesheaf-Pentecost established a pattern.

Sorry, I obviously was aware of the passage you quoted, but I had understood you to mean the following: “And yet EGW made particular note of Christ's ENTRY for the day of atonement ... back at His ascension,” which I found strange.


I believe the phrase “afflict their souls” just means repentance from sin. And of course it is not this fact that I am saying indicates a judgment, but the fact that those who did not sincerely repent from their sins were, on that specific day, cut off from the people. This implies, as I have pointed out, a separation, or judgment, in heaven.

And yet again you have not explained why the entrance is explained then in day of atonement language. Why is that if it is not associated with the day of atonement.

And did Jesus go into the MHP to annoint?




You will note I did NOT say the passover was fulfilled then. I said Pentecost, dedciation, daily, red heifer, and according to the text the entrance of the day of atonement.

Why do I say it was simultaneous? Because the text does. Just as the text says the once for all nature of the sacrifice was changed.

Now you have yet to explain why Adventists do not have literal fulfillments of the fall feasts. The feast of tabernacles was allegorized to a time period rather than a day. The day of atonement is stretched out to 150 plus years rather than a day. And frankly nothing happened to demonstrate that it even occurred. Therefore I am not sure your argument on the feasts is at all consistent. If it is a pattern then why don't these feasts match up?

The bottom line is you admit it is a day of atonement reference. It is clear the author applies it to Jesus entrance. But you reject it based on your notion of what must be the order, rather than on what the text says. But you choose to accept feasts that do not really fulfill the type the way the Spring ones do.




No, not based on the OT pattern, but on the pattern of the New Testament fulfillment of the OT types. The fulfillment of Passover-Wavesheaf-Pentecost established a pattern.

See above.