Sin Transfer to the Sanctuary: A Doctrine of Devils

[vooks]

The broken law of God demanded the life of the transgressor. The blood, representing the forfeited life of the sinner, whose guilt the victim bore, was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary.

Great Controversy ,Page 418

-Sin was transferred to the sanctuary

Important truths concerning the atonement are taught by the typical service. A substitute was accepted in the sinner's stead; but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim.A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. By the offering of blood the sinner acknowledged the authority of the law, confessed his guilt in transgression, and expressed his desire for pardon through faith in a Redeemer to come; but he was not yet entirely released from the condemnation of the law.

The Great Controversy, page 420
-Sin was not cancelled
-Sin was transferred to the sanctuary

As anciently the sins of the people were by faith placed upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary.And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement.

Great Controversy page 421

- sins were transferred to the sin offering and then to the sanctuary by its blood
-our sins are placed upon Christ and transferred to HEAVEN
- the earthly sanctuary was polluted by sins and it had to be cleansed to remove these
-the heavenly sanctuary stands defiled/polited by sins and must be cleansed
- the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is by deleting/blotting/removing recorded sins

 

[vooks]

But before this can be accomplished, there must be an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of His atonement.

This examination of books of record is what is known as Investigative/pre-advent Judgement and lately heavenly forensic pre-advent audit. It is taught by SDAs to have started in 1844 and will last until Jesus returns.

When I sought to understand the historicity of this doctrine from BobRyan our resident Adventist, this is what I got
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2226093&postcount=62
For those interested in the birth and evolution of this doctrine, please refer to this thread;
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99811

The purpose of this this thread is to examine one foundational ASSUMPTION OF the doctrine; sin transfer under Moses.
Sin offerings and Day of atonement are types/shadows of Christ the antitype. We will for now focus on the type and by God's grace move on to the antitype.

It will be amply proved, from scriptures that;
1. sins were never transferred to the sanctuary
2. The sanctuary was never defiled by the blood of the sin offering
3. Sin offering produced forgiveness and not transfer

 

[vooks]

Leviticus 17:11 (KJV)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

The life of the sacrifice makes atonement. That life is in the blood of the animal. Let's look at Sin Offering in detail
Leviticus 6:25-29 (KJV)
Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. 26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. 27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy

-The sin offering is HOLY
-The sin offering is to be eaten in the HOLY place
-Whatever the sin offering touches is HOLY

Sin offering transfers holiness not sin.
Our sins were transferred to Jesus and he paid for them with his death

Leviticus 4:27-31(KJV)
27 And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.
31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the Lord; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

Again note the animal dies in his place. He lays his hand on the animal to show transfer of sins and then kill it. The priest makes atonement and he is forgiven.
I believe death of an animal shows price of sin, cost of pardon/forgiveness

Note that the priest was involved in the atonement. The killing and laying of hands on the sacrifice did not suffice. I will expound on this in the next post

 

[vooks]

Leviticus 10:17-18 (KJV)
Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? 18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded

Let us set the context of this incidence.
Not long before, Nadab and Abihu, Aaron's sons had been struck dead. They offered 'strange fire' and God struck them with fire. This set Aaron their dad mourning and for this, he neglected his priestly role for a while. Moses wondered why and Aaron explained it. Here is his explanation;

Leviticus 10:19-20 (KJV)
And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord; and such things have befallen me: and if I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the Lord? 20 And when Moses heard that, he was content.

Note Moses concern was why Aaron was not bearing the iniquity of the congregation. I personally don't believe sins were transferred to the Levites at any point, but given their crucial role in atonement (sacrifices were only acceptable from their hands) they were said to bear iniquity.

Numbers 18:23 (KJV)
But the Levites shall do the service of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they shall bear their iniquity: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, that among the children of Israel they have no inheritance

The reason I dwelt on this is because I have heard it severally pushed as evidence of sin transfer somewhat as follows;
Sinner~~~~>priest~~~>animal~~~>sanctuary

We saw earlier laying hands on the animal but the point remains, the sacrifice was holy and it transferred that not sin.

 

[vooks]

Next let us look at the transfer to the sanctuary, the crux of IJ. Again looking at the first quote of the post, the theory is the sprinkled blood in the sanctuary is actually the means with which the sins are transferred in the sanctuary. If this can be proven in the type, then the same should be demanded of the antitype.

No scripture says this nor do any hint thus. This is pure conjecture. How do we disprove it?
1. We can demand for proof of this
2. We can prove that the sanctuary was never defiled and from sins borne by the sacrifice

 

[vooks]

Leviticus 16:16-20 King James Version (KJV)

16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.

19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:

These verses make it clear that on the Day of Atonement, the sanctuary/holy place is cleansed. From v20, the Holy Place, the Tabernacle and the ARK are reconciled.

Note that. The ark is also atoned for. Just for emphasis, look at v33
Leviticus 16:33 (KJV)
And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation
-The Holy Place
-The tabernacle
-The Altar
-The priests
-The people of the congregation

The sanctuary was cleansed because of the uncleanness of Israel. Investigative Judgement theory reckons that it is the confessed sins that defile the sanctuary. This cleaning was during the Day of Atonement.

 

[targus]

Oops... Bob Ryan has a lot of SDA cut and paste / circular talking to do.

 

[vooks]

Let us pause at this point and think through what we have learnt so far;
1. Ellen White taught that confessed sins were not forgiven but rather transferred to the sin offering and then to the altar by the blood sprinkled throughout the year
2. The confessed sins defiled/polluted the sanctuary as a result
3. The polluted sanctuary had to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement
In other words, the sanctuary was a tank, a reservoir continually receiving/collecting confessed sins throughout the year only to be emptied ONCE on the Day of Atonement.

We know the High Priest entered Most Holy/Holy of Holies ONCE in a year on the Day of Atonement.

Question
How were sins transferred to the Most Holy seeing no sin offering entered the place throughout the year?

 

[vooks]

Meet Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

As you may guess, he was an Adventist apologist in chief and a good historian. When he started differing with Ellen White, they started spreading rumors that he was a Jesuit sleeper agent inserted into Adventism by the 'papal Rome'.
Let's hear what he has to say about the sanctuary defiling.
Part 1

Defilement of the Sanctuary by Defiant Sins.
There are few passages in the Old Testament that explicitly mention the defilement of the sanctuary by wilful and defiant sins that were never confessed. For example, God ordained that child sacrifice to Molech was to be punished with death, because "he has given one of his children to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name" (Lev 20: 3; cf. Ez 23:29). By following "all the abominations of the nations," the Jews "polluted the house of the Lord which he had hallowed in Jerusalem" (2 Chr 36:14; cf. Jer 7:30; Zeph 3:4).

Abominable sinful acts defiled the sanctuary, though such sins were not transferred into the sanctuary complex by means of any ritual. The reason is that these unpardonable sins defiled "the land in the midst of which I [God] dwell" (Num 35:34). The defilement of the land was tantamount to the defilement of the sanctuary, because God dwelt not only within the sanctuary but also among His people in the land. The expressions used in Leviticus 20 to describe the death sentence for those guilty of a variety of defiant sins, reveal that the sanctuary could be defiled by the contamination of the land (Lev 20:3).

Wilful, unrepented sins could not be expiated by a substitutionary animal sacrifice (1 Sam 3:14; cf. Is 47:11).8 The people who defiled the sanctuary by their defiant sins, could not be cleansed even on the Day of Atonment, because their sins had not been confessed and atoned for prior to that day. In such cases the defilement of the sanctuary was cleansed by the punishment of the sinners themselves who were "cut off" from the people (Lev 23:29; cf. Num 35:33-34). When rebellious conduct developed into national apostasy, it was punished by natural disasters, foreign invasions, and captivity, but it was never atoned through the sacrifices of the sanctuary system.

Excellent point highlighted there all backed by scriptures;
-Sanctuary being defiled minus rituals but by virtue of being in a polluted land
-Animal sacrifices could not expiate defiant sins

 

[vooks]

Continuing with Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

Defilement of the Sanctuary by the Blood of Forgiven sins.
The sanctuary was defiled also by the sins which were confessed and atoned for through the daily sacrificial system. These sins were symbolically transferred into the sanctuary through the manipulation of the sacrificial blood, or in some cases through the eating by the priest of the flesh of the sacrifice. The blood of the sacrifices offered for penitent sinners defiled the sanctuary, because it was used to symbolically carry their sins into the sanctuary where they were kept until the Day of Atonment. The sacrificial system operated on the principle of substitutional interchange (cf. Is 53:10-11).

On the one hand the purity of the sacrificial animal (Lev 4:3, 23; Num 19:2) was transmitted symbolically through the blood rites to the impure, sinful person. On the other hand, the sins of the penitent sinners were transmitted to innocent animals by confession and the laying on of hands on their heads. In turn the sins assumed by the animals were brought into the sanctuary through the manipulation of the blood or the eating of the flesh by the priest. The result was that the sanctuary was defiled by the sins deposited there and needed to be cleansed on the Day of Atonment.89

The function of blood in the Old Testament sacrificial system was equivocal, since it was both a cleansing and defiling agent. The blood of sacrifices purified penitent sinners defiled by sin, yet the same blood defiled the sanctuary because it symbolically carried there the sins which had been atoned for. The daily accumulation of sins deposited in the sanctuary necessitated its annual cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonment.

"During the year," as Alberto Treiyer points out. "the blood was deposited in the place which God had sanctified with His glory–His sanctuary (Ex 29:43). In this manner sin was transferred to the sanctuary complex and contaminated it. At the end of the year, on the Day of Atonement, the paradox of the substitutional principle operated again, and the blood became the element for the purification of the sanctuary from all the sins which had contaminated it to that point. Then in the figurative ritual the sins were blotted out totally from Israel."10 This process of transference of sins into the sanctuary where they were symbolically kept until the Day of Atonment when they were disposed of in a final and permanent way, typifies an important aspect of the plan of salvation: the process leading to the ultimate eradication of sin and its effects.

Shortly we will address the question of why were sins deposited and kept in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonment, though they had been atoned for during the daily services. At this juncture we wish to consider briefly how sins were symbolically transferred to the sanctuary.

Function of the Sacrificial System.
We already noted that sins were atoned for and transferred to the sanctuary through the sacrificial system. Such system was divinely established as a means to restore a relationship between God and man broken by sin. The sacrifice of an animal functioned as a substitution for the offender, by bearing the punishment of the person to be sacrificed (Ex 32:30; Is 53:6-10). Sin offerings served the double function of cleansing penitent sinners of their sins, and carrying their contamination to the sanctuary. The value of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament lie in the fact that they were prophetic, pointing to "the lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). Hebrews explains that "it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" (Heb 10:4).

The process of transferring sin from the offender to the sanctuary involved first of all the laying of hands upon the head of the victim and making confession of sin (Lev 1:4; 4:4, 24, 29, 33; Lev :5-6). "The laying on of hands on the head of the victim symbolizes, together with the confession of sins, a transfer of sin from the offerer to the victim. The victim ‘carries’ the offerer’s sin, and is his substitute, as the sacrifice takes the place of the sacrificer."10

The rite of the laying on of hands fulfilled a double function. On the one hand it removed the sin from the guilty person or group and made them clean. On the other hand it transferred the sin of the offerer to the sacrificial animal who in turn carried it to the sanctuary. The latter process needs further clarification.

The Rite of Blood Manipulation.
Sins were symbolically carried into the sanctuary through the rite of blood manipulation or through the rite of eating sacrificial flesh by the priests. Through these rites the sanctuary (that is, God) assumed accountability for the sins of repentant sinners who had confessed their sins and placed them upon the Lord through the mediation of the priests.

The rite of blood manipulation is described in Leviticus 4:1-21. The sin offerings for an individual (Lev 4:1), "the anointed priest" (Lev 4:3), and the whole Israelite community (Lev 4:13-21), required the slaying of a "bull without defect" (Lev 4:3) after the laying on of hands. Then the priest handled the blood according to this specified ritual: "And the anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull and bring it to the tent of meeting; and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the Lord in front of the veil of the sanctuary. And the priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of fragrant incense before the Lord which is in the tent of meeting, and the rest of the blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which is at the door of the tent of meeting" (Lev 4:5-7).

The blood that was brought into the Holy Place for sprinkling against the veil and upon the horns of the altar of incense, served to symbolically transfer into the sanctuary the sins which had been atoned for. There the sins remained until the Day of Atonment, when the sanctuary was cleansed of the accumulated sins of the people. This blood ritual of the daily services was not "a ritual detergent for purging the sanctuary,"11 because it is explicitly stated that "the priest shall make atonment for them [the people]" (Lev 4:20), and not for the sanctuary. By contrast, it is explicitly stated that on the Day of Atonment the blood ritual served to cleanse the sanctuary (Lev 16:16) as well as the altar of burnt offerings (Lev 16:18-19).

The Rite of Eating Sacrificial Flesh.
A different blood ritual was used in the case of a sin offering for a leader (Lev 4:22-26) and the common Israelite (Lev 4:27-35). In these instances the blood of the sin offering was not brought inside the sanctuary for sprinkling against the veil and upon the altar of incense (Lev 4:25, 30), but was sprinkled only on the altar of burnt offerings located in the court. "The priest shall take some of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and pour the rest of its blood at the base of the altar of burnt offering" (Lev 4:25). In this case the transferance of sin occurred by the eating of the flesh by the priest in the sanctuary.

Leviticus 10:17-18 suggests that when the blood of a sacrifice was not brought into the sanctuary, the priest had to eat some of its flesh in the sanctuary. Moses inquired of Aaron and his sons, saying: "Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonment for them before the Lord? Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded" (Lev 10:17-18).

The reference to the earlier command seems to go back to the instruction given in Leviticus 6:26, "The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it; in a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting." The purpose of the eating rite is explicit, "[It] has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonment for them before the Lord" (Lev 10:17). By eating the sacrificial flesh the priest became the carrier of the sin which had been symbolically transferred from the sinner to the sacrificial victim. The Lord stated: "You shall bear iniquity in connection with the sanctuary" (Num 18:1). It must be remembered that the priesthood was an integral part of the sanctuary. Consequently, whatever affected the priesthood affected the sanctuary also. However, since the priests could not atone for sin with their own life, they needed to bring a sin offering that provided for the transferance of sin to the victim whose blood was then sprinkled in the sanctuary (Lev 4:6).

Summing up, all repented and confessed sins were transferred to an innocent victim by the laying on of hands. Through the sacrificial rites the guilty sinners were forgiven and cleansed, but their sins were not nullified. The sins borne by the sacrificial victim were transferred to the sanctuary either through the ritual of the blood sprinkling in the Holy Place or through the eating of the sacrificial flesh by the priest in the sanctuary complex..

 

[vooks]

and finally, still with Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

Two Phases. The transferance of sins by means of sacrificial offerings, taught something more than a simple recording of sins. It taught that even when God forgives His people of their sins, the consequences of their sins were not immediately eliminated. One must wait until the forgiveness granted by God is reviewed and vindicated before the heavenly court, so that the character of God would be vindicated from all accusation (Rev 15:4; 1 Cor 4:5) when He disposed of the sins of His people on the Day of Atonment.

The daily transferance of the atoned sins of Israel into the sanctuary resulted in the defilement of the sanctuary. The day of atonment was the annual day of cleansing of the sanctuary from the accumulated sins of Israel. The two stages process of dealing with sins, first by removing them from the penitent through the daily sacrificial services and then by removing them permanently from the sanctuary at the annual Day of Atonment, typologically represents the two phases of Christ’s redemptive ministry.

Ellen White alludes to these phases, saying: "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonment; so in the type the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the Day of Atonment."12 We shall review the rites and services of the Day of Atonment in the second part of this chapter.

What Was Cleansed on the Day of Atonment?
Scholars have great difficulty in determining the reason for cleansing the sanctuary on the Day of Atonment. According to some the Day of Atonment dealt with sins which had not been atoned during the year and thus had accumulated until that day.13 Others maintain that the cleansing of the Day of Atonment was for the whole nation, while the cleansing of the daily services was only for the individual.14 Still others suggest that the cleansing of the Day of atonment had to do with deliberate sins or sins of ignorance.15

What militates against these theories of a limited atonment, is the inclusive nature of the cleansing accomplished on the Day of Atonment. The expression "all their sins" is used twice in Leviticus 16:16, 34, to describe the inclusive nature of the cleansing of the Day of Atonment. This suggests that "all the sins" that were brought into the sanctuary during the daily services, were removed from the sanctuary on the Day of Atonment.

A basic reason for the conflicting views regarding the cleansing of the Day of Atonment, is the failure to differentiate between the atonment made for the individual during the year and the atonment made for the sanctuary on the Day of Atonment. It is important to underscore that all the sacrifices for sins offered throughout the year were intended to atone for the individual, and not for the sanctuary. There is never a mention of daily sacrifices offered to atone for the sanctuary. The atonment of the daily sacrifices is always for the individual, as indicated by the recurring phrase, "The priest shall make atonment for him, and he shall be forgiven" (Lev 4:31, 35; 5:6, 10, 13;12:6-8).16

By contrast, the sacrifice and blood ritual of the male goat offered on the Day of Atonment served to cleanse the sanctuary. The cleansing was accomplished by the High Priest sprinkling the blood seven times first upon the mercy seat in the most Holy Place, and then upon the altar of burnt offering in the court (Lev 16:16-19). "Thus he shall make atonment for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all their sins" (Lev 16:16). The altar of burnt offerings was also sprinkled with blood seven times in order to "cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the people of Israel" (Lev 16:19).

Both passages distinguish between the object and reason for the atonment. The object of the atonment is the holy place and the altar of burnt offering. The reason is the uncleanness of the Israelites. These meanings are evident in Hebrew where the verb kipper, usually translated "to atone" or "to cleanse," is followed in the first instance by the particle ‘et, which is the sign used in Hebrew to indicate the direct object, that is, the sanctuary, and in the second instance by the preposition ‘al, which expresses a relational sense, that is, with respect to the people of Israel. The syntactical construction indicate that the direct object of the atonment is the sanctuary, while the beneficiaries are the Israelites.17

Another good example is found in Leviticus 16:33 where both constructions occur. "And he shall make atonment [kipper + ‘et, direct object sign] for the sanctuary, and he shall make atonment [kipper + ‘et, direct object sign] for the tent of meeting and for the altar, and he shall make atonment [kipper +’al, with respect to] for the priests and for the people of the assembly." The meaning is clear. The ritual of the Day of Atonment cleansed the sanctuary with respect to the uncleanness of the Israelites, which had been transferred to the sanctuary during the daily services.

Alberto Treiyer rightly points out that "The distinction between the daily ritual and that of the Day of Atonment is emphasized further in the use of kipper and ‘et, the sign of direct object, used only in the final purification or cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonment. It clearly indicates that it is the sanctuary itself that is to be cleansed on the Day of Atonment. In the daily sacrificial rituals the sins and impurities of individuals were atoned for and transferred to the sanctuary. The Day of Atonment now focuses upon the cleansing of that sanctuary."17 Summing up we can say that the daily rituals transferred sins to the sanctuary, while the yearly ritual of the Day of Atonment removed the accumulated sins away from the sanctuary.

Reasons for Transferring Sins into the Sanctuary.
The foregoing survey of the process of transferance of pardoned sins from the penitent into the sanctuary by means of the ritual of the blood or of the eating of the flesh, raises some fundamental questions. Why were sins symbolically transferred and recorded in the sanctuary after they had been repented, confessed, and atoned for through the sacrificial offerings of the daily services? Was the forgiveness granted through the daily sacrificial services only partial or conditional? Why did God wait until the Day of Atonment for cleansing the sanctuary and thus disposing of the accumulated sins in a final and permanent way?

The Bible does not provide explicit answers to these questions. This is not unusual because we have found the same to be true with the Feast of Trumpets where no explicit reason is given for the command to blow trumpets on the first day of the seventh month. Often the Scripture assumes that the reader understand the reason for certain divine ordinances.

In seeking to comprehend why the sins atoned for during the daily rituals were symbolically transferred to the sanctuary where they were kept until their removal on the Day of Atonment, we need to understand the typological function of the Day of Atonment in the overall plan of salvation. Our study of the typology of the feasts has shown that the Spring Feasts typify the inauguration of redemption while the Fall Feasts its consummation.

The Day of Atonment plays a vital role in the consummation of redemption, because it typifies the final cleansing and complete disposition of sin to be accomplished by Christ at His coming. This final disposition of sin is preceded by the heavenly judgment which was typologically announced by the Feast of Trumpets. Our study of the Feast of Trumpets has shown that the trumpets were blown in a massive way during the ten days preceding the Day of Atonment to call people to repent and stand trial before the heavenly court that would review their life of the past year.

 

[vooks]

Bacchiocchi is long dead. But I noticed when he ventured into how blood defiles the sanctuary he mentions two folks.

For a discussion of the defilement//cleansing of the sanctuary by means of the blood or flesh of the sacrifices, see, Gerhard F. Hasel, "Studies in Biblical Atonement: Continual Sacrifice, Defilement//Cleansing and Sanctuary," The Sanctuary and the Atonment (Washington, D. C., 1981), pp. 91-114; Alberto R. Treiyer, The Day of Atonment and the Heavenly Judgment (Siloam Springs, Arkansas, 1992), pp. 147-212.

Gerhard F Hasel and Alberto R. Treiyer.
These two are/were SDA scholars, and so far as I can tell, only SDAs teach transfer of confessed sins to the sanctuary by the blood. Not to demean these gentlemen but I would have expected extensive referencing for such a profound idea outside Adventism. Google their works and see how biased they are. They are basically SDA apologists.

I have noticed Adventists like BobRyan quoting 'pro-Sunday sources' such as Moody to make a point. On this basis, I had requested him to share with me ANYBODY outside his sect at any point in history who has ever espoused Investigative Judgement. He could not nor could he admit it. Instead, he pasted scriptures 'proving' that the doctrine is biblical. So I wonder, who else anywhere outside Ellen White and her disciples taught sin transference onto the sanctuary?

 

[vooks]

BobRyan the resident Adventist attempts a fickle apology
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2226736&postcount=1

Two things
1. He insinuates that rejecting confessed sins transferred to and defiling the sanctuary is rejecting Day of Atonement. That's typical of the apologists; strawman. Misrepresenting your opinion and viciously attacking it while ignoring your point.
2. Desperately clinging to straws. R C Sproul used the word 'accumulated sins' as defiling the sanctuary but nowhere does he claim that the confessed sins are the 'accumulated sins'. He is not on your side:tonofbricks:

Look at how you SHAMELESSLY quote a servant of God OUT OF CONTEXT. Sproul. Here are his 'accumulated sins defined;
1. Unconfessed/forgotten sins
2. 'Repeated sinning'

Even though God ordained regular burnt offerings and sin offerings to atone for the sins of Israel, propitiate His wrath, and cleanse the people of their wickedness (Lev. 1; 4:1–5:13), it is clear from the book of Leviticus that even all these rituals were not enough. Sins could be forgotten and not confessed when laying hands on the offerings. The ultimate inability of the blood of bulls and goats to deal with sin (Heb. 10:4) meant that animal sacrifices did not go far enough but were only a temporary measure to cover transgression. Finally, the repeated sins of priests and people alike could build up to the point where not only the tabernacle but even the throne room of the Lord — the Most Holy Place or Holy of Holies — would also be contaminated. The Day of Atonement was designed to deal with all these realities.

On #1 BobRyan, my contention and I will prove shortly is confessed sins NEVER defiled the altar and claiming they do and that the same defiles heavenly sanctuary is a doctrine of Devils.

On #2, you may turn the entire Andrews University and the entire KNOWN church history upside down but you won't find anybody outside EGW and her disciples claiming that confessed sins were transferred to the sanctuary defiling it in the process.

 

[vooks]

When Jesus cast out Devils, they came out screaming, so am not surprised at all that they scream when we examine this doctrine of Devils

Yet another example - of the Bible not being "doctrine of demons" -

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 5:4-6[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we see that the sinner must confess his sin as part of this act of seeking forgiveness.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 10:16-18 we see that sin is transferred in the daily as part of the sin offering -- from the people to the tent of meeting by the act of the Priests.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lev 10[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]16 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]But Moses searched carefully for the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned up! So he was angry with Aaron’s surviving sons Eleazar and Ithamar, saying,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]17 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Why did you not eat the sin offering at the holy place[/FONT][FONT=&quot]? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to bear away the guilt of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Lord[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot] 18 Behold, since its blood had not been brought inside, into the sanctuary, you should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, just as I commanded.”[/FONT]





[FONT=&quot]==========================================
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So the question is how does eating the meat of the sin offering or sprinkling the blood transfer sin unless sin had first been transferred as part of that act of confession in Lev 5.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A possible resolution --[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 4:15, 8:14, 18 Num 8:12[/FONT][FONT=&quot] we see that they were to lay their hands on the head of the sin offering.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In Lev 16:21 we see a case of laying hands on the head of the scapegoat and confessing sins.


[FONT=&quot]RC Sproul

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

The Devils will attempt to distract you with noise and other irrelevancies.

Let's stick to Leviticus.
Have we denied sin is transferred to the sin offering? No
All we aks for is proof that sin offering in turn transferred sins into the sanctuary. It would really help if we could hear from the '300 years of Protestant Reformation', or even Catholicism, or Targum, or scriptures themselves. But we have a so-called PhD scholar Bachiocchi who can ONLY quote his fellow SDA apologists as proof of whatever EGW garbage he is regurgitating.

 

[vooks]

We are examining a claim that confessed sins are transferred into the sanctuary thus defiling it and these have to be blotted out once in a year on the Day of Atonement.

We know the sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of atonement.We also know the altar was cleansed because of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel. Question is whether this uncleanness was the confessed sins transferred onto the sanctuary by the sprinkling of blood.

To the best of our knowledge, NOBODY outside Ellen White and consequently Adventism has EVER made this claim. Our resident SDA apologists are dumbfounded. They can't give us proof of anybody who ever did.

Let us again briefly examine verses that deal with cleansing of the sanctuary.
Leviticus 16:20 (ESV)
And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat

Note these places were atoned for;
1. Holy Place
2. Tent of Meeting
3. Altar

A question we now pose is, what and where is this altar in the antitype?

 

[vooks]

And now, let us turn to the sin offering. Was it EVER defiled by the confessed sins 'transferred' to it?
The inspired writer of Hebrews had this to say about blood
Hebrews 9:13-14 (ESV)
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

Hebrews 9:22 (ESV)
22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Blood of goats and bulls sanctify/purify in a limited sense and much more will the blood of Jesus do.

Where is the one verse that remotely hints at sin transfer? This verse has been thrown around.
Leviticus 10:17-18(ESV)
Why have you not eaten the sin offering in the place of the sanctuary, since it is a thing most holy and has been given to you that you may bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? 18 Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner part of the sanctuary. You certainly ought to have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.”

Which part of this verse shows;
1. Sin transfer to the Priest?
2. Sin transfer from the priest to the sanctuary?

None. So why is this verse offered as 'proof' of sin transfer onto the sanctuary? It is a classic cultist practice to throw obscure/irrelevant scriptures at you,leave them unexplained and thus pretend the truth in them is so obvious so as not to be missed. The truth is, they can't attempt a commentary on these because they would run into contradictions

To understand Moses' concern/question, let us turn to the actual sin offering instructions

Leviticus 6:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
24 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy.
26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

1. The sin offering is to be eaten by the priest who offered it IN the holy place, in the court of the tabernacle
2. The sin offering remains holy
3. The males among the priest may eat it
4. If the blood of the offering had been brought to the Holy of Holies, the sin offering MUST not be eaten, burn it with fire instead

In this case, a goat offering was made and it had been burned yet its blood had not been brought to the Holy of Holies. There was clear breach of #1 and #4

Why was there a breach of #1 and #4?
Leviticus 10:19-20 (ESV)
19 And Aaron said to Moses, “Behold, today they have offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord, and yet such things as these have happened to me! If I had eaten the sin offering today, would the Lord have approved?” 20 And when Moses heard that, he approved.

Why was Aaron convinced the Lord would not have approved of his eating? Is it because he was unclean following handling the bodies of his two slain sons? Whatever it was, he was unworthy to take the holy thing and Moses readily agreed

 

[vooks]

Let us examine the sin offering closely;
Leviticus 6:24-30 King James Version (KJV)
24 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy.
26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brasen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
30 And no sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of the congregation to reconcile withal in the holy place, shall be eaten: it shall be burnt in the fire.

The sin offering is given to the priest to bear the iniquity of the congregation. The end result is atonement and forgiveness. The offering takes the sin and becomes holy. And it transfers that holiness by contact. So where is it written that it contaminates the sanctuary with sins?

 

[vooks]

Leviticus 16:15- 20 King James Version (KJV)
15 Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins:and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar,he shall bring the live goat:

Let us revisit this question.
How do the confessed sins defile the sanctuary?
Ellen White reckons it is by the continuous sin sacrifice as blood is sprinkled infront of the veil(Lev 4:6,16-17,5:9). This happens throughout the year. On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest goes behind the veil with the blood of the goat and sprinkles it on the mercy seat-v15. This, we are told cleanses/reconciles the holy place-v20.

We don't have any mechanism for transferring sins onto the Holy of Holies, not even the alleged blood yet the place is atoned for. Its atonement as per Lev 16:15 entails sprinkling of blood on the Mercy seat and infront of it. This act clearly as per v20 cleanses and not defiles it.

So we have an imagined defiling by sprinkling contrary to all scriptures pointing to purifying/cleansing by the same, and then we have some non-existence mechanism for transferring the sins to the Holy of Holies.

 

[vooks]

BobRyan may quote the entire scriptures plus apocrypha backwards but EGW has robbed him of the joy and assurance of salvation. He has no idea whether his sins are blotted/forgiven or not :tonofbricks:

Ellen White’s emphasis on the believer having his character in full harmony with the law of God, coupled with the uncertainty of never knowing when one’s name might come up in the judgment, has been responsible for leaving several generations of Seventh-day Adventists uncertain of their salvation. While Hebrews 7:25 affirms that Christ is able to save completely those who come to God because he always lives to make intercession, Adventist live in fear of the day that Jesus will cease to be mediator for sin. Instead of having complete confidence to enter the most holy place by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19), they look within themselves to see if their characters are sufficiently sanctified. The more introspective they become, the more character defects, sin, and failure they see. Many feel overwhelmed with a sense of guilt and failure. They conclude that as much as they might desire to be Christians, they just will never make it. Others struggle on, ever guilty and uncertain as to when their names will come up and whether or not their names will be cleared in the judgment. It is in these believers’ guilt and fear that the legacy of the Shut-door and investigative judgment continues lives on today.

Page 101

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BobRyan may quote the entire scriptures plus apocrypha backwards but EGW has robbed him of the joy and assurance of salvation. He has no idea whether his sins are blotted/forgiven or not :tonofbricks:

Quote:
Ellen White’s emphasis on the believer having his character in full harmony with the law of God, coupled with the uncertainty of never knowing when one’s name might come up in the judgment, has been responsible for leaving several generations of Seventh-day Adventists uncertain of their salvation. While Hebrews 7:25 affirms that Christ is able to save completely those who come to God because he always lives to make intercession, Adventist live in fear of the day that Jesus will cease to be mediator for sin. Instead of having complete confidence to enter the most holy place by the blood of Jesus (Hebrews 10:19), they look within themselves to see if their characters are sufficiently sanctified. The more introspective they become, the more character defects, sin, and failure they see. Many feel overwhelmed with a sense of guilt and failure. They conclude that as much as they might desire to be Christians, they just will never make it. Others struggle on, ever guilty and uncertain as to when their names will come up and whether or not their names will be cleared in the judgment. It is in these believers’ guilt and fear that the legacy of the Shut-door and investigative judgment continues lives on today.

Page 101

Vooks talking to and of himself it looks to me.