Tall,

Since I'll be preaching every night of this week as part of the Holy Week evangelism we are having here, I couldn't finish replying to all the points you presented. I hope I can post a reply tomorrow or the day after tomorrow at the latest.

Obviously the veil which was rent at Christ’s death was the second veil. But the comparison she makes with Heb. 10 is the following:

“When as a sinless offering Christ bowed His head and died, when by the Almighty's unseen hand the veil of the temple was rent in twain, a new and living way was opened. All can now approach God through the merits of Christ. It is because the veil has been rent that men can draw nigh to God. They need not depend on priest or ceremonial sacrifice. Liberty is given to all to go directly to God through a personal Saviour.” {7BC 932.4}

Ellen White’s point is that there is no longer any veil separating the believer from God. The believer no longer depends on a human priest or a ceremonial sacrifice to go to God. The comparison, however, ends here.


The text says, “For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true ones.” So, Paul says that the holy places on earth are copies of the true ones, which are located in heaven itself. This means the sanctuary on earth, with its two compartments, is a copy of the sanctuary in heaven which, therefore, must also have two compartments (which is confirmed by the descriptions in Revelation). It is not beyond dispute that there is a literal veil in heaven separating both compartments, but the fact is that, like the two compartments on earth, the two compartments in heaven mean distinct aspects of Christ’s work in behalf of sinners.


Again, in the Bible the sequence we find is exaltation (throne) after the cross, without any reference whatsoever to presentation of blood. Since 1:3 mentions the exaltation, it’s only natural that the reference to “purification of sins” would be to the cross, to the sacrifice. This is confirmed, for instance, by Heb. 10:12: “But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God.” You may think there was a presentation of blood connected with this, but there is no concrete evidence that Paul, or any other biblical writer, had this in mind.


As I see it, the idea of v. 25 doesn’t need to be dependent on the idea of v. 24, and OUDE doesn’t need necessarily to be translated “nor yet.” As I mentioned previously, Barclay translates this verse as “It is not that he has to offer himself repeatedly...”
And, as I’ve also already pointed out, if v. 25 refers back to v. 24, and if v. 24 speaks about the presentation of blood made on the day of atonement, Paul’s thought would be incoherent. He would be speaking first about the presentation of blood, and then about the sacrifice.
I disagree with Vincent when he says that “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.” First, because v. 26 confirms that Paul is referring to Christ’s sacrifice. Second, because just three verses ahead the same verb “offer” is used referring unequivocally to Christ’s sacrifice: “So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many.” And third because, besides 9:25, Christ’s sacrifice is Paul’s theme in 9:26, 9:28, 10:10, 10:12, and 10:14.


I’m not understanding you. You said that the first compartment is symbolic of the separation under the old covenant. But the second compartment is still more symbolic of this separation. As you said, the mediator could go there just once a year. So, what then would the second compartment be symbolic of?
Now, if you mean that the whole earthly sanctuary is symbolic of this separation, this view is still wrong, because the Bible says that the earthly sanctuary is symbolic, not of any separation, but of heavenly things. The priests “serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Heb. 8:5). “For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true ones” (Heb. 9:24).


The text says clearly that “He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death,” and Revelation says clearly when death will be destroyed:

Revelation 20:14 “And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire.”


Spiritually ready.


I don’t think there is a place more holy than the other in heaven, but I do believe there are places for different purposes.

Daniel 7:9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated.”


I don’t see how I break the type. Passover is symbolic of Christ’s death – which lasted more than one day. The Wave Sheaf is symbolic of Christ’s resurrection, so it symbolizes a single day. Pentecost – the special outpouring of the Spirit - lasted for some 70 years. Atonement – the cleansing of the sanctuary - is lasting for some 150 years. And Tabernacles – the reunion of the saints in heaven – symbolizes an unknown period of time, which may even be the whole eternity.
Neither the change of priesthood nor the impact of the once-for-all sacrifice explain the change of order of a feast. If God is omniscient, and if He knew that the Day of Atonement would be fulfilled before Pentecost, why didn’t He just place the Day of Atonement before Pentecost? Why place it at the end of the year, close to Tabernacles? Besides, the ritual of the Day of Atonement is very clear. Just after the cleansing of the sanctuary, the high priest leaves it, puts the sins of Israel on the head of the scapegoat and sends him to the wilderness where, after a time, he dies. The SDA view explains the fulfillment of all these aspects in a logical and coherent way, which is not the case of the view you are proposing.

I'm not disagreeing with your post as a whole, Rosangela, but I couldn't help but comment on the following point, where perhaps you just misspoke a bit.



There never was any veil separating the believer from God. No believer every depended upon a human priest or a ceremonial sacrifice to have access to God. All believers at all times have had the same access to God, by faith in Jesus Christ, which is the only way any believer ever had any access. Jesus Christ is and always has been the door.

Tom,

It's Ellen White who says this, not me. This is the whole quote for better context:

"Anciently believers were saved by the same Saviour as now, but it was a God veiled. They saw God's mercy in figures. ... Christ's sacrifice is the glorious fulfillment of the whole Jewish economy. The Sun of Righteousness has risen. Christ our righteousness is shining in brightness upon us. ... When as a sinless offering Christ bowed His head and died, when by the Almighty's unseen hand the veil of the temple was rent in twain, a new and living way was opened. All can now approach God through the merits of Christ. It is because the veil has been rent that men can draw nigh to God. They need not depend on priest or ceremonial sacrifice. Liberty is given to all to go directly to God through a personal Saviour." {7BC 932.4}

Before Christ came God's children did not see God's mercy clearly as we see it today. Since Adam's sin people had to approach God through sacrifices and yes, through a priest.

"In the beginning the head of each family was considered ruler and priest of his own household. Afterward, as the race multiplied upon the earth, men of divine appointment performed this solemn worship of sacrifice for the people. The blood of beasts was to be associated in the minds of sinners with the blood of the Son of God. ... By the act of sacrifice the sinner acknowledged his guilt and manifested his faith, looking forward to the great and perfect sacrifice of the Son of God, which the offering of beasts prefigured." {SR 50.3}

Just because one interprets Ellen White in a certain way, does not mean that Ellen White is really saying what the interpreter asserts. If one's interpretation leads one to assert things which are contrary to Scripture, one needs to rethink the interpretation.

The following points are undeniably Scriptural

1.There never was any veil separating the believer from God.
2.No believer every depended upon a human priest or a ceremonial sacrifice to have access to God.
3.All believers at all times have had the same access to God, by faith in Jesus Christ, which is the only way any believer ever had any access.
4.Jesus Christ is and always has been the door.

This should be clear to see. Ellen White does not contradict these Scriptural ideas.

In the first quote you cite, she says:



She correctly points out that anciently believers were saved the same way we are, which is by faith in Jesus Christ. God was veiled because Jesus Christ had not yet come to reveal Him. But even though He had not been clearly seen, as He would be through Christ, it was still faith in Christ that gave access to God, not a priest or ceremonial sacrifice.





I assume you mean in the first sentence that God's children did not see God's mercy as clearly as we see it today. There were certainly saints who saw God's mercy clearly, but it cannot be denied that we, after Jesus' having fully revealed God's character, should be able to see it more clearly than they. The second is a bit unclear to me as you have used the word "approach" instead of the word I used, "access." All my assertions had to do with one's access to God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ alone, the same as it always has been.



This is a universal truth, the same for all believers at all times. Salvation is, and always has been, through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to establish by quoting SR50.

I'm curious if you think any of my 4 assertions is unScriptural, and if so which. If you will identify an assertion you think is incorrect, we can discuss that.

Here are a couple of statements from the SOP I found by looking for "believer, access, God"





She correctly identifies our access to God as being by way of Christ. I know you are familiar with the following quote:



This brings out clearly that there is no difference in how we or earlier believers come to God. No one has access to God except by following in the steps of faithful Abraham, the father of all who believe.

Tom,

I'm not understanding what you are finding fault with. I just repeated what Ellen White said.

"Anciently believers were saved by the same Saviour as now, but it was a God veiled. They saw God's mercy in figures. ... All can now approach God through the merits of Christ. It is because the veil has been rent that men can draw nigh to God. They need not depend on priest or ceremonial sacrifice. Liberty is given to all to go directly to God through a personal Saviour." {7BC 932.4}

Ellen White’s point is that there is no longer any veil separating the believer from God. The believer no longer depends on a human priest or a ceremonial sacrifice to go to God. The comparison, however, ends here.

Either you misspoke, or didn't understand her meaning, or I'm misunderstanding you. I stated the following points:

1.There never was any veil separating the believer from God.
2.No believer every depended upon a human priest or a ceremonial sacrifice to have access to God.
3.All believers at all times have had the same access to God, by faith in Jesus Christ, which is the only way any believer ever had any access.
4.Jesus Christ is and always has been the door.

Do you disagree with any of these statements? If not, we should be able to find common ground here. If so, which, and why. (please give some reason, please don't just cite an EGW quote; it's fine to cite her, but explain what you think she means if you do).



There never was any veil separating a believer from God. The veil is removed in Christ, for any believer.



This is not a new experience for those who were fortunate enough to live after Christ died. It's always been the case that when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Faith in Christ removes the veil.

We have access to God by faith in Christ, and only by faith in Christ, and by no other means. Jesus Christ is, and always has been, the way to God. He is the way. He is the door.

In Christ, we are brought near to God. This is just as true for OT believers as believers now.

Any believer could approach God through the merits of Christ at any time. This has not changed. At no time did anyone ever gain access to God in any other way than by the merits of Christ.

I'm surprised you would dispute this (if you are). It is obvious to me that EGW could not possibly have intended that her words be taken to convey the meaning you are apparently giving to them (but hopefully, I'm misunderstanding you).

Let me just ask a couple of questions.

1.Do you believe that, since the fall, it was possible for man to become right with God in some other way than by faith in Christ? If so, what would that be?

2.Was man less dependent upon the merits of Christ in the past than now?

3.Do you think there was a time when someone did not have liberty to go directly to God through a personal Savior?

4.Do you think that salvation different in the OT than now, that in the OT believers were saved in some other way than by faith in Jesus Christ alone?

These are just basic tenants of righteousness by faith, Rosangela. An interpretation which leads one to conclusions contrary to truths as basic as these should give one pause. Again, hopefully I'm just misunderstanding you.

The option that you missunderstood Ellen seems to be missing Tom, is that as it should be?

If I'm misunderstanding EGW, and I'm correct that the assertions I made are Scriptural, then EGW would be contradicting Scripture, which is a possibility I didn't allow for.

I'm quite sure the assertions I made are Scriptural. What do you think?

Tom, I’m puzzled. I’m not disputing anything nor am I giving any meaning to Ellen White’s words. I just quoted her and then summarized her thought using, as far as possible, her own words.
To me, what she is saying is that before Christ’s death, God’s love hadn’t been so perfectly understood as after it. The manifestation of His presence was seen just by the priests (to a certain degree) and by the high priest. People depended on the ceremonial sacrifices and on the high priest to obtain forgiveness for their sins – at least this was the rule. After Christ’s death a new and living way was opened – there is no longer a need for ceremonial sacrifices and high priests. Reality has come.


People didn’t understand fully that they had a Mediator in heaven and that they could come to God through Him. But if you want to discuss this further it would be better to open a new thread.