I agree with the point that EGW is not saying that Christ began His MHP ministry at this point, as she clearly explains in many places that He began this ministry in 1844. However, she is not saying that only after the death of Christ could a believer approach God directly. There was never any time when any believer could approach God in any way other than through Christ, and that approach was just as direct before Christ's death as it is now. Ellen White is simply saying is that type had met antitype.



There was never a time when any human being depended upon a human mediator to get to God. Always, every human being had access to God through Jesus Christ. If the Jews thought they were dependent upon human mediators to have access to God, they were just as mistaken on this point as Catholics are today, and so are we, if that's what we think.



Notice that "these lessons" were taught to the chosen people of God thousands of years ago. What are these lessons?

1.God is approached through Jesus Christ, the Mediator, the only way through which He forgives sins.

2.There are no sins He will not forgive in and through the Lord Jesus Christ.

3.This is the sinner's only hope, and if he rests here in sincere faith, he is sure of pardon and that full and free.

4.There is only one channel and that is accessible to all, and through that channel a rich and abundant forgiveness awaits the penitent, contrite soul and the darkest sins are forgiven.

The way to approach God did not change. There has always only been one mediator between God and man, and that is Christ. The ceremonial system simply *taught* this truth; it was no substitution for it.

Note, in particular, the first lesson: "God is approached through Jesus Christ, the Mediator, the only way through which He forgives sins."

This has always been the case, since the fall of man.



Again, the purpose of the sacrificial system was to teach, as clearly as possible, that man can have access to God only through Christ. This has always been the case. It did not change at the death of Christ.

Tom,

Your insistence is becoming irrational. Obviously what I mean is that, in human terms, the believer could only approach God through the priest and that this, obviously, was symbolical of a greater truth. So, please, read all my statements in this context.

The sins of the people were transferred in figure to the officiating priest, who was a mediator for the people. The priest could not himself become an offering for sin, and make an atonement with his life, for he was also a sinner. Therefore, instead of suffering death himself, he killed a lamb without blemish; the penalty of sin was transferred to the innocent beast, which thus became his immediate substitute, and typified the perfect offering of Jesus Christ. Through the blood of this victim, man looked forward by faith to the blood of Christ which would atone for the sins of the world (ST March 14, 1878).

How so? I've demonstrated to you that what you've been claiming is wrong, yet you keep on saying it. How am I the one being irrational?



I gave you all sorts of chances to correct what you wrote. I stated that I might be misunderstanding you, that perhaps you misspoke, at least 3 times I did this, but rather than correct your error, you've continued to repeat it.



This is in error because it implies:

1.We used to need a human mediator to go to God.
2.We didn't used to be able to go directly to God through Christ.

However, as my previous post pointed out, the sanctuary services were given to teach the exact opposite of what you are claiming, namely that "God is approached through Jesus Christ, the Mediator, the only way through which He forgives sins." and "There is only one channel and that is accessible to all."

So you don't think that EGW really meant He was in the MHP?

But then why does she put Him unmistakably there in the inauguration quote I posted? She references the mercy seat.



So if I understand you correctly, you DEMAND literal holy and most holy places in heaven based on the type. But you try to make anything EGW says very non-literal because otherwise she contradicts herself and the Adventist position?



Yes. Because the context determines what is being spoken of. Just as in the same way the "tent" was used of the singular compartments, and the whole. Same with ta hagia.


And actually I think 28 encompasses both parts of the offering, the death and presentation--for both happened once. They did not need to be repeated.



There is no need to mention the entrance if the point is only the death.

The last part is just reiteration of the previous argument. But as to Paul speaking about the dedication in 24,

There was only one entrance. Therefore all entrances were taken up in the one. He describes the same sacrifice and the same ascension as fulfilling multiple services. The red heifer, daily, inauguration of the covenant (Ex. 24) dedication of the temple (Ex. 29 and Lev. 8), and the day of atonement sacrifices were fulfilled in one. But so too were the entrances for the day of atonement, the entrance for the sin offering into the hp and the entrance for the inauguration. It was a once for all sacrifice, and only one entrance:



Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption for us.


Will have to finish the rest later, as I am off to see some family for the day.

One last thing to clear up here that probably shouldn't wait.
Yes it is, which is why I quoted it, as you already admit He inaugurated. It shows that this inauguration according to even EGW extended to the MHP. Therefore He clearly did minister in the MHP and the new and living way extends to there. The removal of the veil also refers to the MHP, and the direct presence of God.

But there was only one entrance, and only one sacrifice. It included it all.

Incidentally, can you show me in the OT type where blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the inauguration? It was oil that Moses used.

Hebrews adds details we didn't have previously, drawing attention to the similarity of the DOA and inauguration types.

It seems to me the important thing regarding type and anti-type is not what that anti-type looks like, but what is happening there. In 1844 Christ began a special work to prepare the world for His coming. After His resurrection, He went into the presence of God to present Himself to the Father, as completing the work He was given to do, which was to reveal the Father.

EGW is simply saying the same thing Hebrews is saying, in that Christ presented Himself to the Father in His presence. I'm not seeing what's not literal about what EGW says, or if "literal" is even the right word to use. She presents Christ as presenting Himself to the Father, which is clearly Scriptural, isn't it? Now she also clearly believed that Christ began a special work in 1844 corresponding to the anti-type of the Day of Atonement. So where's the contradiction?

You must make a distinction between the extraction of spiritual lessons from things and the exposition of beliefs, otherwise you will arrive at wrong conclusions. It’s clear that in the passage you quoted Ellen White is just extracting a spiritual lesson. However, she was explaining a belief when she wrote the GC chapter about the sanctuary.

For instance, another spiritual lesson Ellen White extracts from the imagery of the Day of Atonement is the following:

“As the high priest laid aside his pontifical dress, and officiated in the white linen dress of a common priest, so Christ emptied Himself, and took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. As the high priest, after performing his service in the holy of holies, came forth to the waiting congregation in his pontifical robes, so Christ will come the second time clothed in glorious garments of the whitest white, ‘such as no fuller on earth can whiten them.’” (MS 113, 1899). {1BC 1111.5}

Should we conclude from this that the Day of Atonement in fact began at the incarnation? Of course not, because this was not her belief, as explained in other places.



“So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many.” How could this refer to presentation of blood according to your view?


But if the point was the entrance, then Paul would have said “Not that He should offer HIS BLOOD many times, and it’s not this that Paul says, but “Not that He should offer HIMSELF many times.” Besides, I don’t see how the expression “offer Himself” can adequately describe presentation of blood. When Paul wanted to expresses the offer of blood, he said that, as in 9:7.


No, it’s completely different, because the sacrifice is associated with the provision of forgiveness (the paying of the penalty), but the presentation of blood (intercession) is associated with the appropriation of this forgiveness by the sinner, so it couldn’t have been done before the sins themselves had been committed. Besides, the presentation of blood on the Day of Atonement was for the cleansing of the sanctuary, and of course the sanctuary can’t be cleansed while there are sins there.


As I said previously, the inauguration could occur in any month of the year, and this was independent of the feasts. The feast would only be celebrated in its season. As I also said, the dedication of the sanctuary occurred at Christ’s ascension, but the fulfillment of Pentecost occurred only ten days later.


As you said, Hebrews says it unequivocally. But we also have evidence in the OT that this happened. Ex 40 is a brief account, and mentions only that Moses anointed with oil the tabernacle and all its utensils (v. 9) and Aaron and his sons (vv. 13-15). However, we have more detail about this in Ex 29. There we see that the priests should be consecrated not only with oil (vv. 4-9) but also with blood (vv. 20,21), and their inauguration lasted for seven days (v. 35). The text mentions also that the altar had to be sanctified for seven days (v. 37), not only with oil but also with blood (v. 36). While Ex. 40:10 mentions only oil for the altar, Ex. 29:36 mentions both oil and blood. Thus, we can safely conclude that this was the case for the tabernacle and all its utensils. And Paul confirms this in Hebrews.

Before I answer some of your points, I need some clarification. Do you think that Jesus uses literal blood every time someone sins? Do you think there was literal blood brought to heaven to inaugurate? Do you think Jesus used literal blood in 1844?

Now while I wait on that clarification, there are a few things I will still comment on.



As you said, Hebrews says it unequivocally. But we also have evidence in the OT that this happened. Ex 40 is a brief account, and mentions only that Moses anointed with oil the tabernacle and all its utensils (v. 9) and Aaron and his sons (vv. 13-15). However, we have more detail about this in Ex 29. There we see that the priests should be consecrated not only with oil (vv. 4-9) but also with blood (vv. 20,21), and their inauguration lasted for seven days (v. 35). The text mentions also that the altar had to be sanctified for seven days (v. 37), not only with oil but also with blood (v. 36). While Ex. 40:10 mentions only oil for the altar, Ex. 29:36 mentions both oil and blood. Thus, we can safely conclude that this was the case for the tabernacle and all its utensils. And Paul confirms this in Hebrews.


So essentially you agree, it never said it in the OT. Yes, it described the blood on the ear and on the altar. But it did not describe blood taken in to anoint the items of the sanctuary.