A. My view is simply that ongoing mediation is on the basis of a previous sacrifice and presentation. Nor did they all seem to see it as you present it. For instance I quoted Gill saying:



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.

B. The author of Hebrews also uses the example of the red heifer service in relation to the ongoing work of cleansing.

The red heifer was killed at one point in time, but the water made from it was used in ongoing mediation.

C. Whether it is still ongoing is not really the issue for Adventists. If the yearly type STARTED in 1844 then that undoes the Adventist view. Therefore I am willing to let rest the question of whether Jesus is STILL presenting blood for mediation. I think He already did that. But even if He is still doing so the point is that the text describes this entering in and presentation of blood using the yearly type. If it started then it could not have started in 1844.



It makes reference to the red heifer, the daily, the yearly, the inauguration, etc. Christ was the sacrifice for all of them. And His entrance was a once for all entrance.

Now you say it cannot be but you don't seem to address the very specific allusions to the event in verses 23-25, or the references to time in those passages that were spelled out.

Why do Adventist scholars recognize that verse 24-25 are references to the day of atonement if that is not what is being referenced?



I am not aware of the view you are attributing to protestants. In any case, it is not my view.

Now, please address the specific comments in verses 24-25 that they and I base this on. Why is the day of atonement language used?




A. There is more than one allusion. There is the HIGH Priest, not just every priest. There is the entering by means of blood, which refers back to the day of atonement language at the beginning of the chapter. There is the yearly aspect, etc.

B. why would the author even raise the day of atonement in the first part of the chapter if he did not intend to show that Christ was BETTER than the old system here too? That has been his point throughout the letter.



Indeed, and He did have something to offer. But you can't take "every priest" from Hebrews 8:3 and ignore the High Priest, yearly, with blood references in Hebrews 9.



Undoubtedly the author refers to the inauguration, as I myself assert. He also talks about the red heifer, the daily, and the yearly.

However, in 24-25 he is clearly referring to the day of atonement. There is no other yearly high priestly ministry requiring blood that involves entering into God's presence that is a cleansing of the heavenly things.

Our own scholars have acknowledged this, including Davidson, the biggest proponent of the inauguration view. These were the men entrusted by the denomination to respond to this issue in the Daniel and Revelation Committee Series. They recognized the several DOA allusions.I will post their statements so you can see their reasoning. It is not just one factor, but several.


William Johnsson in "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]

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.


Richard Davidson, notes that vs. 25 is an unmistakable reference to the day of atonement, though he tries to show that it is a reference to the future. But as my analysis in the previous posts show the historical actions were not in the future, but in the past. s trying to make. What Jesus did went far beyond the old system.


I agree with Young that Hebrews 9:7 and 9:25 refer to Day of Atonement, because of the clear references to “once a year” and “every year” respectively.
Inauguration or Day of Atonement? Andrews University Seminary Studies, Spring 2002, pg. 79




I have already asserted that he references more than one service. That doesn't really help your view as the Adventist contention is that He only was doing one--the daily--until 1844. However, when referring to the entrance it does use day of atonement language. Jesus was fulfilling that. To say that he uses both is nearly admitting my point. He used both because Jesus was fulfilling both. Otherwise there is no reason to speak of His actions in clear day of atonement language. Moreover he says that He has made purification for sins.



The issue is that there is no examination of the blood. There is no stated examination of the sins. There is a cleansing of the sins by bringing the blood into God's presence. This is precisely what we see in the fulfillment in Hebrews 9. It is the Adventist position that reads in more than what is there.




I did not argue otherwise. But that does not make them part of the type in Lev. 16.




Indeed they were judged on their sincerity and compliance with the prescriptions. But the type itself was not about investigation but about cleansing. And that is what we see in Hebrews.





Hebrews describes the actions of Jesus in day of atonement language as our own scholars admit. Jewish tradition certainly does not give much weight to Hebrews, but I must. Therefore I want to examine the text, both in Lev. and Hebrews. It is interesting to look at Jewish tradition to see how they understood it. But it does not change what the text says.

Now because I have encountered a number of different views on this subject in my discussions with Adventists on these things I want to ask a simple question just to see where you are at on this. Some of your above comments left me uncertain.

Do you agree with Johnsson, Davidson, Salom, etc. that vs. 24-25 allude to the day of atonement?

If so we can then turn to your specific understanding of why day of atonement language was used.

It wasn't exactly soon. I don't always feel up to a response as soon as I read it over.

There are clearly related issues that come into play in examining this question. For example, what does one make of the 2300 day prophesy in Daniel? If the Adventist position is correct on that, then doesn't it seem reasonable that the author of Hebrews would be aware of this prophesy, and would have written with that prophecy in mind? So the Adventist positions on Daniel and Hebrews sink or swim together, don't they?

Another example would be the whole question as to whether there is a work of preparation that is needed in reference to Christ's second coming. The futurist position typically requires nothing more than one's having accepted Christ as one's personal Savior, at which point one is ready for Christ's second coming, most commonly seen as the secret rapture. The Adventist position is that as special preparation is necessary, which is prefigured by the preparations made by the Israelites for the Day of Atonement.

So one's perspective on the Second Coming of Christ seems to have an intimate tie in here as well.

A final observation would be that it seems to me what needs to be carefully considered is what is the *meaning* of the ceremony? That's key to understanding the timing. I suppose one could try to infer the meaning from the timing, but the other way around seems to me to be a more logical way to go about it. What is the author of Hebrews talking about? Does he have in mind a special preparation for the antitypical Day of Atonement as fulfillment of the prophecy in Daniel, and tied into Christ's Second Coming? Or is that not something he's concerned about?

Although all the several sacrifices of the OT were fulfilled on the cross, the meaning of each of them is different. The sacrifice of the red heifer was fulfilled on the cross, but there was no entrance in the sanctuary. The morning and evening sacrifices were fulfilled on the cross, but there was no entrance in the sanctuary to present blood, just to offer incense. The sacrifices of the daily sin offerings and of the yearly ritual were also fulfilled on the cross, but the application of the blood must occur as it is needed. The question is, Has the application of Christ’s blood to cleanse the sanctuary from His people’s sins already occurred? Obviously not, for if people still sin, how can there be no sins in the sanctuary?
If the position is taken that the cleansing of the sanctuary occurred as a punctiliar event at Christ’s ascension, this begs the question, Whose sins were there in the sanctuary? Those of the OT people of God? What about the sins of the people of God in the Christian era? Were they there before they were committed?
If you assume the position that the antitypical day of atonement just began at Christ’s ascension, you have the following problem to solve, which I pointed out previously in our discussion: the antitype of the feasts occurred in their order - Passover, wave sheaf, Pentecost. The antitype of Tabernacles will occur at Christ’s coming. Thus, the antitype of the Day of Atonement must logically occur after Pentecost and before Tabernacles. The antitype of the Day of Atonement occurring simultaneously with the antitype of Pentecost is something simply illogical.


Of course it is undeniable that in Heb. 9:25 Paul intends to make a point based on the ritual of the day of atonement. But I don’t see this point as being that the antitypical day of atonement began, or occurred, at Christ’s ascension, for the point he is trying to make is that Christ did not “offer himself repeatedly” (v. 25).
When Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, He must have His own blood with Himself, to present it as it was needed to make atonement. Again, as Heb. 8:3 says,

“For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer.”

Paul’s point is not about the moment when Christ would present His blood, but about the fact that blood was necessary for the atonement in the sanctuary in order to secure salvation, and this blood was provided by a once-for-all sacrifice. Paul emphasizes the aspect of the sacrifice in several subsequent verses of the same chapter and of the following chapter: “For then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world” (v. 26). “He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (v. 26). “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many” (v. 28). In chapter 10, as I pointed out, Paul uses both the yearly and the daily service to show that Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t need to be repeated (vv. 1 & 11). So, Paul’s point, as I see it, is that Christ was offered once, and that His blood is efficacious for every aspect of His work inside the sanctuary to save man, until salvation is complete and He can leave that place to take His people home:

“So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.”


Examination of the blood? This would make no sense at all. Besides, this would give a wrong impression, that is, that the sins were in the blood, when this is not true.
The examination of the sins would be logically implied in the idea of judgment. God would know if you had really repented from all your sins, or if you were still clinging to some of them. That's why people had to "afflict their souls".
About the idea of judgment, it is clearly evident in the ritual. So much so that the Jews also recognize it.

It seems that tall73 has given up discussing this here?

No, i have not given up discussing. But I took an extended break from extensive study or discussion.

We see more than one alteration in the type. For instance, you already seem to admit that pentecost and the dedication of the temple happened together at Jesus' ascension.The dedication did involve entering in. The fact that the sacrifice was once for all and just one not many was a major alteration of the type. There was also a change in priesthood. Once again Jesus made only one sacrifice and one entry. So it is no wonder that anything involving that entry occurred together. In fact all of salvation history coalesced around that series of events of Jesus death, resurrection, ascension, and presentation of His sacrifice in God's presence. It was the provision for cleansing of sins.






Alright, so it seems clear that you see it is a reference to the day of atonement. Now if you admit that it is a day of atonement reference but NOT a reference to His entering then perhaps you need to clarify a bit more.


Heb 9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

The entering into God's is in the past from the author's viewpoint, not in 1844. It is not just referencing a future entrance. It refers back to a previous entrance.





But Adventists DO say the sins were in the blood that defiled the sanctuary. I am speaking of the blood already defiling the temple.

The point is that it is not an investigation that is pictured but a CLEANSING.




It is clear in the aftermath of the ritual. Those who did not accept it were rejected. But the work that the priest did was a cleansing work, not a work of investigation.

Those who reject the cleansing are judged.

Tall,

In my opinion they happened not simultaneously, but in succession – dedication first, then Pentecost.


Yes, Jesus made one entry, in contrast with the high priest’s multiple annual entries in the earthly sanctuary which never could accomplish salvation. Christ, in contrast, entered once in the heavenly sanctuary, and when He leaves it the salvation of His people will be completed. There was, however, no need that everything related to man’s salvation occured simultaneously at the second Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary.


Yes, but it is said that He entered (past) to appear now (present) in the presence of God for us.
As I pointed out previously, many classical commentators, although believing in a day-of-atonement antitype initiated at Christ’s ascension, believed also that Christ’s blood is being continually presented for the forgiveness of sin after He entered the heavenly sanctuary.
Barnes, for instance, says, commenting on Heb. 9:24:
“As the Jewish high priest appeared before the shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence in the tabernacle, so Christ appears before God himself in our behalf in heaven. He has gone to plead for our salvation; to present the merits of his blood as a permanent reason why we should be saved.”

And he says, commenting on Heb. 9:12:
“Having made the atonement, he now pleads the merit of it as a ‘reason’ why sinners should be saved. It is not of course meant that he literally bore his own blood into heaven - as the high priest did the blood of the bullock and the goat into the sanctuary; or that he literally ‘sprinkled’ it on the mercy-seat there, but that that blood, having been shed for sin, is now the ground of his pleading and intercession for the pardon of sin - as the sprinkled blood of the Jewish sacrifice was the ground of the pleading of the Jewish high priest for the pardon of himself and the people.”

So the presentation of blood is not seen by all of them as a once-for-all event, and it is seen by many as a continual event.
As I understand it, Christ entered once for all, but the presentation of blood is continually made as it is needed. It had been made continually since Christ’s ascension for the forgiveness of sin, and after the beginning of the judgment the presentation of blood has also been made continually, now not only for the forgiveness of sin but also for the cleansing of the sanctuary.


Well, I don’t believe that, neither do I know of any modern SDA scholar who does. Ellen White also doesn’t say that.


You speak as if the cleansing excluded the idea of a judgment. This is not so. And the judgment clearly wasn’t something that happened in the aftermath of the ritual. While the cleansing was being made, they were expected to afflict their souls. God knew who had sincerely repented from his/her sins during the ceremony and who hadn’t. It was a judgment invisible to human eyes.

Both after the passover and feast of unleavened bread and the wavesheaf? Again, we have a changing of order.




Not just entered, but the entrance was described in day of atonement language, as even you acknowledge. This then had to be at least the start of the fulfillment of the type.





Does it matter to the Adventist argument whether you have it completed or merely started at the ascension? The entrance in day of atonement antitype was INITIATED already. EGW and the Adventist church place that in 1844. I think the type is something slightly different than Adventists do. But either way if the entrance was the beginning of the fulfillment of the type then that wipes out the Adventist view.






And yet EGW made particular note of Christ's ENTRY for the day of atonement which you seem to now be admitting Hebrews places, in day of atonement language, back at His ascension.