The Hebrew Sanctuary

[Richard Myers]

Amen, Brother Allen!

"The Pharisees had declared themselves the children of Abraham. Jesus told them that this claim could be established only by doing the works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham would live, as he did, a life of obedience to God."

The Sanctuary teaches this as does the gospel. One of the difficulties today is that so few teach this in the church. And, so few are seen living the truth. Many just don't believe it to be possible. We must believe what the Bible says and trust in Jesus to do what we cannot do.

Good to see your post, dear brother! It always is.

[Liane H]

Titus:

1:16   They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.

Without works what we believe has no merit to it. It is through works of obedience that we do indeed show our love for God.

Jesus did not just speak and believe, He lived the life required of Him in His works of obedience right up to the cross.

Without both faith and obedience we cannot please God.

2 Timothy:

3:17   That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  

This says it all.    

------------------
Liane, the Zoo Mama
Romans 8:19   For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

[ian rankin]

Hi Richard,
This is a hot topic and so it should be. Amen
I see many postings since the one I am here replying too, I hope my thoughts are still revelant to where the discussion has come?

You ask for clarification concerning my contention that the Bible teaches that there was no sanctuary sacrifice available for an Old covenant believer who deliberately broke the commandments.

You write:- ‘This thought has come up before. I have never heard a good explanation of how these deliberate sins could be forgiven if there were no sacrifice made for them. Can you explain your thinking on this, Brother Ian? Thank you’.

As always, the challenge delights me. I will try my best to meet it.
My reply also an attempt to respond to Brother Steve Billiter’s response to my post.

How is sin forgiven?
It is always God’s initiative.
In Old Testament times it was faith in the promise of God that He would provide a Redeemer.
In New Testament times it is faith that Jesus Christ is that Redeemer.
Forgiveness is and ever has been a matter of a faith response to God’s grace. It is never His response to our worth or works. It is always God’s initiative.

Pagan thinking, both ancient and modern, believes we can make an offering that atones for our sin. It is also imbedded in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

The sanctuary sacrifice that atoned for sin was the priest’s offering of the morning and evening sacrifice of the lamb of God.
It was not the peoples’ sacrifice, it was God’s sacrifice.

The individual Israelite’s offerings were for ceremonial defilement and were for the purpose of keeping them in covenant relationship, under the covering of this morning and evening continually burning offering.

It was the mediation of the priests that provided salvation and this culminated in the high priest’s ministry on the Day of Atonement.
Again I draw your attention to the RC church teaching that salvation comes through the church and the mediation of the priest.

An Israelite’s assurance was in being in the covenant, being born an Israelite, being circumcised and being accepted into the covenant responsibilities when he became of age.

Isn’t this true of you and I as Christians? We are saved, are we not, by being born again in Christ, being in the New Covenant? We are not saved by any sacrifice we make, that would be salvation by works. Salvation is only and only ever has been by faith in the Redeemer, the Lamb of God.

An Israelite’s covenant assurance was conditional on the Israelite being careful to maintain his covenant relationship. That was maintained by his attention to providing the offerings required for ceremonial defilement such as touching a dead body, birth of a child etc etc.
His covenant relationship was tested once a year on the Day of Atonement.

There was provision for becoming aware of having unintentionally broken the commandments. Leviticus 4, Numbers 15:22-31, Hebrews 9:7.
But when David was faced with his wilful adultery and murder, Ps 51, there was no avenue of forgiveness through sanctuary offerings. It wouldn’t matter how many thousand sheep he sacrificed, his action had separated him, cut him off from the covenant privileges.

David suddenly recognised his position of separation from covenant protection and did the only thing he could do. He humbled his heart and pled for God’s forgiveness, and for his restoration to covenant membership.

Ps 51, ‘according to your loving kindness…greatness..compassion’. ’create in me a clean heart’, ‘take not your Holy Spirit from me’.

As always, God answered such a prayer and David was accepted back into covenant relationship and once again covered by the Lamb of God.

That is how I understand it, but I am also aware that this is a huge subject with many, many grey areas, so I don’t offer these thoughts as definitive answers, just discussion points.
God bless,
Ian

[John1]

Thanks for allowing me to plug in here Richard.

As you know, I am only now beginning to study SDA beliefs and so my questions may seem self-evident or uninformed to most of your participants. Everyone's patience is appreciated.

On reply # 36 you wrote:

"The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; 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 Atonement."

We read at Matthew 26:28  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The blood of Jesus, as I understand this, was shed for the remission or cancellation of sins for those who believe.

The "condemnation of the law," as I understand it, is that for obedience to 613 mitsvot to grant pardon the entire Torah would have to be perfectly obeyed (which is not possible, hence the condemnation -- Gal 3:10) and is why the shedding of blood is required.

Are you saying that the shed blood of Jesus on the cross is not sufficient of itself?

[Richard Myers]

Welcome to our study, dear brother!

No, that is not what we understand the Bible to teach. The blood of Jesus is all sufficient to forgive the most evil of sins when the sinner has come to true repentance having accepted Christ as his righteousness.

We need to go back to the beginning of the sanctuary service where the lamb was offered. When the sinner did as he was instructed according to the law of Moses, he would walk through the veil of the outer court and proceed to the altar of burnt offering. Here is a description of how I see the the sacrifice working in its basic simplicity. Where you question any of it, we will go through Bible verses to answer your questions.

The sinner brings his lamb because he is convicted of sin and has been told to do so. There does not need to be repentance at this stage. Is this true? Now, if there is no repentance, God desires to give it. We see this in the life of Christians today. They want to serve God but have no deep repentance. They strive to do God's will but fail, not having Christ in the heart.

God has a purpose in bringing the sinner into the sanctuary. What is the purpose? To lead the sinner to repentance. How is this done? By a revelation of the love of God for the sinner while is he is a sinner. What is the great revelation of God's love? It is the cross.  The sinner must be led to the foot of the cross and there he will be brought to repentance. It is just the same today.

So, let's go back to the sinner under conviction of the broken law. He must take his lamb to the sanctuary. He sees it afar off and begins his walk. What is the sight as he approaches?  Is it not the white curtain? What is this to represent? The righteousness of Christ? Yes.  He sees the entrance, the veil, Jesus Christ.  He is walking toward Christ who is able to give him the goodness he desires, His righteousness. He must continue his coming to Christ just as he is, dirty and filthy. He may not understand yet, what God has provided, but he is trusting in God's requirements and he continues moving toward Christ. He must pass through the veil, showing that Christ is the way. Now inside the outer court, he must still walk to the altar of sacrifice with his lamb. He knows he will have to kill the innocent lamb. He is thinking about the reason why. He is taught that the lamb is a symbol just as the veil and the white curtains were. The lamb also represents Christ. He is commanded to kill the innocent lamb he brought.  Let's stop here for a moment and ask a question.

Who enjoys killing? Who enjoys even killing a bug in the garden? It is sad that there is death and it is especially sad when we must do the killing. Now, move up the scale of being and imagine killing a mammal such as a lamb, a cow, a horse, or a dog.  A dying horse or dog needs to be putdown to end it s suffering. But now imagine killing a healthy horse or an unblimished lamb. What was God trying to teach at the altar of sacrifice which in type represents the foot of the cross?

The sinner who is ready to confess his sin is told to confess his sin over the head of the innocent lamb thus transferring his sin in symbol to the real Lamb of God. The sinner is told the wages of sin is death, so the innocent Lamb must die in the sinners place. OH..........it is not fair for the innocent to die for the guilty. NO, it is not, but that is God's right and He does it because He loves us. Go ahead and kill HIM. NO, I will not kill the Son of God. Then you will have no part with Him. The sinner yields his heart to the God of heaven who has promised to sacrifice His Son so that the sinner may live. He kills the lamb (Jesus) who has taken his sins away. By the revelation of this love at the foot of the cross the sinner is brought to repentance, for "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance."

[Richard Myers]

There is always more than we see. It will be that way for eternity. God will continue to teach us! What an amazing thought for those of us who like to learn, especially of Him who gave all for us!!!

The "more" that is involved in what you quoted about sin not being canceled is not hard to comprehend when we think about it. God is perfectly just. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.  2 Cor. 5:10. 

There are those who teach that God is going to burn for eternity all who do not accept Christ as Saviour. Very sad that some think that God would do this. It would not be perfect justice by anyone's standard. What is the truth? Just what we read from 2 Cor. Each will receive according to his sin. That presents a problem if the record of sins is erased when one confesses his sin and is forgiven. The sacrifice of Christ is sufficient, but it does not erase the record of sin.

Again, there are those who believe once a person has been converted that he cannot lose his salvation no matter how much he sins. Not true. Then what happens when a man who was truly converted and had his sins forgiven, falls away and is lost? Will past sins that were forgiven, not be held against him in the judgment?  Only those who have remained faithful will have their sins covered by the blood of Christ in the judgment.

[John1]

Thanks Richard,

Two points:

1. This quote brings a question I was not going to comment on when I first read it, however, you say Jesus is both the "white curtain" and the "lamb."

At Jesus' physical death that same curtain was ripped in two (Matt 27:51) by God, signifying a new way had been provided to enter the temple for forgiveness of sins (correct?). How then can this curtain reference Jesus? We might suppose that God replaced the "curtain" with the "door" -- with Jesus (John 10:27) symbolically -- but otherwise I see no way this is consistent, as our teachings must always be.

This is part of my concern with these types of interpretative teachings. Clearly there are biblical "types", "foreshadows" and so on (Abraham offering Isaac was a foreshadowing of HaShem offering Y'shua etc.), however our understandings of "types" must always be consistent with all the scriptures, otherwise we can easily get into man's wisdom rather than God's. 

2. Your comment that I had requested clarification on was: "The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin; it would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement; 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 Atonement."

Do you agree with my understanding of what the "condemnation of the law" means?

The "condemnation of the law," as I understand it, is that for obedience to 613 mitsvot to grant pardon the entire Torah would have to be perfectly obeyed (which is not possible, hence the condemnation -- Gal 3:10) and is why the shedding of blood is required.

Your comment included the phrase: "... until the final atonement"
I only see one atonement in the New Testament:

Hebrews 10:11  And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

As I read it, Y'shua offered his sacrifice and then "sat down" with the words: It is finished (John 19:30).  He did not add, "for now." What is the "final atonement" if not what he did on the cross? Are there New Testament references that he did not complete his work at Calvary? This is partly why the sanctuary teaching is so troubling to me.

Neither we nor the Jews (who used the Earthly temple) were/are "saved" merely by 'seeing the curtain" -- or by having an intellectual understanding that Jesus is our sin propitiation (or in the case of the Jews, that forgiveness lies beyond the curtain in the sacrifices). We are "saved," to use the temple analogy, when the lamb is actually sacrificed and the blood is actually offered to God on our behalf (which is to say in terms of the New Covenant, when we personally accept Jesus' offering as the atonement for our sins). Once that sacrifice is made (or accepted) our sins are:

Psalm 103:12  As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

... from that point. Is this not correct?

One of the things that makes Protestant Christianity (and the teachings of Y'shua) unique among the religions is found here:

I John 5:13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

As Believers we can KNOW that we HAVE (both present tenses) eternal (unending) life. If the blood of Y'shua does not absolutely cancel our sins until 1844 or later then those living prior to those events could not have known for absolute certainty that their sins had been forgiven nor can we until our deaths. We can only hope or have faith, but will not know for certain. And again,

Luke 5:20  And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

"Are forgiven" (present tense).

Once more (although there are many)

Romans 4:7  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

My understanding is that once a person accepts Y'shua as their once and forever sin atonement God no longer imputes sin to them, their sins "are" (present tense) covered by the offered blood. This is what makes the reforms of Y'shua unique among the world's religions. As Believers we can know for an absolutely certainty that we have eternal life right now and for ever. No other religion teaches this. The question of our salvation is resolved. The SDA sanctuary teachings, as I understand them, removes this certainty, this "blessed assurance."

This is one of my main difficulties with these teachings. The "Law of Grace" was in some ways patterned after the temple sacrifices, however as Paul scorns:

Galatians 3:1  O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
Gal 3:2  This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Gal 3:3  Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Gal 3:4  Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Even under the 613 commandments of the Torah forgiveness was really due only to God's Grace (Micah 6:6-8). Under the New Covenant this is clarified as we are specifically told this (as recorded at Ephesians 2:8,9 and elsewhere).

The very act of approaching the Temple (or Y'shua) for forgiveness is an act of repentance. Metanoia or repentance refers not to actions or sacrifices but to compunction, to a sense of personal guilt. That conviction leads us to reformation of previous misdeeds as we are made 'God's workers in Christ Jesus." However we make these reformations because we are forgiven, not to be forgiven. As we take that first step and approach the temple of Y'shua "just as we are" God grants us His grace by which we are saved, and so even that faith and initial repentance is not of ourselves but a gift of God, lest we might boast (Eph 2:8,9). We don't even provide the sacrifice!

Again, I look forward to your thoughts

[John1]

Taking it one step further: What will be placed on Satan will be the sins of every person who has ever lived, confessed, repented of or NOT. He will carry the burden of all. We on the other hand carry only our own and any sins that we have caused others to do. But Satan will be held in judgment and passed sentence for ALL. <P>Jesus blood covers every sin, repented of or not, the High Priest confessed all the sins and placed them on the scapegoat. The High Priest has no way of knowing which had been repented of, all he could do was place ALL the sins on the scapegoat. It is only if that person lived to the next atonement is it know if his sins had been repented of. As it will be on the day of judgment, we will not know who is saved or who is lost. Only the Father knows. <P>Liane

What?
Is this official SDA doctrine?
The sins of the whole world on placed on Jesus as the lamb of God, not on Satan.
I John 2:2  And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Is there any scripture saying sins are placed on Satan?

Also, as I noted in my previous reply,

I John 5:13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

As Believers we have assurance that we have eternal life. There is absolute certainty.

What am I missing? You folks don't actually believe Satan is our sin bearer?

[Richard Myers]

No, this is not a statement of what the church teaches. You will read personal beliefs here, not so much "official" statements of belief.

Jesus is the sin bearer. He suffered for every sin that every person who lived or will live did. There is more to the story there always is. Each will suffer on account of their sins IF they are not covered by the blood of Christ. Unconfessed sins and unforsaken sins are not covered by Christ's blood. Satan, like unrepentant sinners will suffer for each sin he is responsible for. That is another story. I am and have been working on a reply to your first post. Let me finish it and I will post it. If we begin at the beginning, when we get to the end, it will make sense. We need a solid foundation. That foundation is Christ Jesus.

[John1]

K thanks Richard.

Not to jump the gun... but following this line of thought I did some research and found the following that seems to confirm what was stated. Again it seems as though most of my issues with the SDA revolve around the Sanctuary teachings, in this case with the "Investigative Judgment" teachings. Ms White wrote:

"... When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty" (The Great Controversy p. 422). -- http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc23.html

This is very unbiblical and credits Satan, at least partially, with our salvation! Has the SDA church dropped this teaching then?
Some things may become clear, but if this is the teaching it is biblically unsupportable and denies the efficacy of Jesus' atonement.

I await your replies.
Thanks again for the time you are putting into this.

[Richard Myers]

Thanks Richard,

Two points:

1. This quote brings a question I was not going to comment on when I first read it, however, you say Jesus is both the "white curtain" and the "lamb."

At Jesus' physical death that same curtain was ripped in two (Matt 27:51) by God, signifying a new way had been provided to enter the temple for forgiveness of sins (correct?). How then can this curtain reference Jesus? We might suppose that God replaced the "curtain" with the "door" -- with Jesus (John 10:27) symbolically -- but otherwise I see no way this is consistent, as our teachings must always be.

This is part of my concern with these types of interpretative teachings. Clearly there are biblical "types", "foreshadows" and so on (Abraham offering Isaac was a foreshadowing of HaShem offering Y'shua etc.), however our understandings of "types" must always be consistent with all the scriptures, otherwise we can easily get into man's wisdom rather than God's. 

Yes, I agree, the types and shadows must be consistent with Scripture. If I could ask a favor, Brother John, we are not fluent in either Greek or Hebrew. Our studies are from the Bible, mine and most here from the KJV. When the Greek and Hebrew are brought into a discussion, we are not in a position to accept or reject what is offered, not being fluent in either language. Thank you for considering our handicap.

How can Jesus be represented by the veil in the Hebrew Sanctuary? If we begin with the very simple idea that God was teaching the plan of salvation through the sanctuary and its services, then we begin to look for the meaning of the symbolism being used.  The Lamb is a good example. How do we know the Lamb is Jesus? John the Baptist did not know that the Lamb had to die. Such a deception!

When the sinner brought his lamb to the sanctuary, there was only ONE way in, it was through the outer veil. Some may not see a shadow in this, but it surely it there. If salvation was to be found in the sanctuary, then how can one be wrong in saying that the only way to enter into salvation is through the only door, Jesus Christ? There are not multiple paths to God, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!

Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." God was very specific about where the lamb was to be sacrificed. There was only one place and only one door. To do otherwise was prohibited. Jesus went on to say "He that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep." Christ is both the door and the shepherd. He enters in by Himself. It is through His own sacrifice that He becomes the shepherd of the sheep. "To Him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear His voice: and He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know His voice."

[Wally]

K thanks Richard.

Not to jump the gun... but following this line of thought I did some research and found the following that seems to confirm what was stated. Again it seems as though most of my issues with the SDA revolve around the Sanctuary teachings, in this case with the "Investigative Judgment" teachings. Ms White wrote:

"... When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty" (The Great Controversy p. 422). -- http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc23.html

This is very unbiblical and credits Satan, at least partially, with our salvation! Has the SDA church dropped this teaching then?
Some things may become clear, but if this is the teaching it is biblically unsupportable and denies the efficacy of Jesus' atonement.

I await your replies.
Thanks again for the time you are putting into this.

I hope this will help some.  The Lord's goat was was offered for a sin offering (Lev. 16:9).  This obviously represented Christ.  The scapegoat was not killed, but all the sins of those who were forgiven (the children of Israel, representing those who have received Christ's righteousness), were placed on the head of the scapegoat (Lev. 16:21), which I repeat, was not sacrificed.  Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.  The scapegoat, therefore, cannot represent Christ, as some believe.  It is only fitting that Satan, who led everyone into sin, should suffer more because of that.  He is not paying any penalty for our sins ins the sense that Jesus did, but he received greater punishment because of his role in instigating sin.  This in no way denies the efficacy of what Christ did at the cross.  It was that which secured our salvation.  Satan does not pay (he gets no credit for any part of our salvation) for our sins in way that Jesus did, but he suffers greater punishment for having caused us to sin.

I hope that clarifies it somewhat.

[Richard Myers]

K thanks Richard.

Not to jump the gun... but following this line of thought I did some research and found the following that seems to confirm what was stated. Again it seems as though most of my issues with the SDA revolve around the Sanctuary teachings,

Brother John, we are happy to study the sanctuary with you, but we must begin at the beginning. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.

in this case with the "Investigative Judgment" teachings. Ms White wrote:

"... When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty" (The Great Controversy p. 422). -- http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc23.html

This is very unbiblical and credits Satan, at least partially, with our salvation! Has the SDA church dropped this teaching then?

Brother Wally has answered your concern. There is no intent in that statement you quote to express any portion of salvation to satan. If you understood the sanctuary and its services, you would understand what Brother Wally has shared. The statement you quote is true. It has to do with judgment, not salvation. Satan will suffer just as any other sinner will. He is the father of sin and therefore will suffer more than any other.

Some things may become clear, but if this is the teaching it is biblically unsupportable and denies the efficacy of Jesus' atonement.

The statement is a true representation of what the Seventh-day Adventist Church believes and teaches. It is Biblical. Rather that come to a premature conclusion at to the truth of the statement before an explanation is given, you need to respect our desire to work with you without bringing such a serious charge against the church. We are here to entertain questions, but not charges against the church or its teachings.

We have a broad spectrum of people reading and participating in the various discussions here. Many have not studied into this subject and have no way of knowing what is truth.  Your words can cause some to lose faith in our teachings even though they are without merit.

Have you considered the post I made regarding Jesus being the door? You objected to this also. Is my reply satisfactory? Can you see that Jesus can be the "door" that all must enter through if they are to be saved?

[John1]

Hi again,

How can Jesus be represented by the veil in the Hebrew Sanctuary? If we begin with the very simple idea that God was teaching the plan of salvation through the sanctuary and its services, then we begin to look for the meaning of the symbolism being used.

We are told that the Torah ("the Law") is our school master (Gal 3:24) and so certainly there is much for us to learn, however to what degree is the B'rit Hadashah (New Covenant) to be understood by the Hebrew Sanctuary rites? Are there any scriptures advising us to interpret the Good News from the Temple rites? None that I am aware. Clearly not entirely, because Y'shua was not sacrificed in the temple (as demanded of blood sacrifices in the sanctuary rites) but at Golgoltha, a place unclean. We are told:

Galatians 3:23  But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24  Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25  But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

We are no longer under a schoolmaster.

The degree of emphasis being placed on this topic, especially when it comes to the appearance (at the least) that our individual works are being imputed in our salvation (not mention the idea I have only now learned of that Satan is viewed as our sin bearer) causes me grave concerns about SDA doctrine. This is also the reason for my initial question to you (Richard) privately about the verses in Daniel regarding the daily sacrifice (tâmı̂yd means daily or "regular sacrifice" according to every non-SDA source I can find including Strong's), about the final seven year "week" of Daniel (9:27) referenced by Paul in II Thessalonians and John from Revelation 4-the end, etc. I looks to me like this entire train of thought was developed to support William Miller's failed prophecy and it completely undermines the historic Christian faith and the New Testament conception of salvation through Jesus alone.

Ephesians 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.

I don't mean this as a barb, but as an honest appraisal.

And the section of Galatians (chapter 3) where Paul chides the people for wanting to return to the works of the Law rather than depending on Grace alone. Salvation under the B'rit Hadashah or New Covenant is exclusively and completely through Grace, "not of works lest any might boast." Shabbat, for instance, is the biblical holy day absolutely, but honoring it does not contribute to our salvation in any way according to the Bible (Colossians 2:16). As with baptism, we honor Shabbat because we are saved, not to be saved. We are saved solely through the work of Y'shua on the cross.

Romans 8:1  There is therefore now [present tense] no condemnation to them which are [present tense] in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me [present tense] free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned [past tense] sin in the flesh:

The Lamb is a good example. How do we know the Lamb is Jesus? John the Baptist did not know that the Lamb had to die. Such a deception!

We know this because the Bible says it:

We read:

Acts 8:32  The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

I Peter 1:19  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

Etc.

John 1:29  The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

What is this "deception" you speak of?

None of the Jews believe(d) Moshiach would die as a slaughtered lamb. The main Messianic prophecies speak of Moshiach taking his seat on David's throne, of ruling Israel as Theocratic King, of having the Gentile nations coming before him in Jerusalem seeking his counsel, of his ending the fear curse (referenced at Genesis 9) and thereby causing "the lion to lie down with the lamb" etc. Y'shua did not fulfill these prophecies in his first advent. Jewish scholars did not and do not see two advents taught in the Tanakh prophecies for Moshiach. Like them, we Believers are waiting for the coming of Moshiach the King if Israel.

This again is part of my concern about elevating these teachings to the degree they are. The Hebrew prophets taught/teach and believe that Moshiach would be an earthly king who would defeat the enemies of Israel, restore all of Eretz Israel (the Land promised to them by God) to the Jews (which began to be done in 1948), and rule the world as King of the Jews and overlord of the Noahide nations (as I and most non-Catholic Christians understand the prophecies to say).

When the sinner brought his lamb to the sanctuary, there was only ONE way in, it was through the outer veil. Some may not see a shadow in this, but it surely it there. If salvation was to be found in the sanctuary, then how can one be wrong in saying that the only way to enter into salvation is through the only door, Jesus Christ? There are not multiple paths to God, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!

I didn't say Jesus is not the only way to forgiveness. I said that identifying him with the curtain is not consistent biblically because the purpose of that curtain was not the same as the purpose of Y'shua as the door. Jesus as the door grants entrance to the sanctuary to all who approach him in faith (John 3:16,17; Rev 3:8 etc) whereas the purpose of the temple curtain was to bar those who were unworthy of entering. Only Jews could pass through the curtain and then only under certain conditions and preparations. For example:

Deuteronmy 23:1  He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Deu 23:2  A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Deu 23:3  An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

To pass through the curtain they had to already be ritually clean and authorized.

On the other hand, anyone and everyone can approach God through Jesus "just as I am without one plea." When the curtain was rent the sanctuary was thrown open so that all could enter. According to Adventist doctrine who enters the heavenly sanctuary? Not just anyone. I don't see how applying this curtain to Jesus works biblically or even according to SDA doctrine.

Jesus says "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." God was very specific about where the lamb was to be sacrificed....

True, and Y'shua was sacrificed at Golgotha, not in the sanctuary as required of blood sacrifices. The sanctuary analogy breaks down from the beginning of Jesus' work of atonement.

There was only one place and only one door. To do otherwise was prohibited. Jesus went on to say "He that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep." Christ is both the door and the shepherd. He enters in by Himself. It is through His own sacrifice that He becomes the shepherd of the sheep. "To Him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear His voice: and He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know His voice."

This is precisely my point. This is why we can't just take verses out of context and build interpretive doctrine on them. Y'shua is the only way to God. No debate there. He is "the door," the "Way" etc. However he is not the curtain of the temple, he is the sacrificial lamb.
 

[John1]

Thanks Wally,

Surely Satan must be held accountable, but where does the scripture say our sins will be placed on him?

[John1]

Hi Richard,

Brother John, we are happy to study the sanctuary with you, but we must begin at the beginning. You are misunderstanding what you are reading.

Perhaps. I thought that was what we were doing, beginning at the beginning. There is no clear beginning point for this topic as far as I can see however. I began with the first post in this thread and began reading from there.

There is no intent in that statement you quote to express any portion of salvation to satan.

Ms White wrote: .... He will place them [the sins] upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty..."

The one who bears the final penalty is not involved in our salvation? The scapegoat was directly involved in the forgiveness of sins in the sanctuary rites. Without that role the sins would have remained with the people. How does this teaching not give Satan a role in our salvation as the sin bearer?

It is Biblical. Rather that come to a premature conclusion at to the truth of the statement before an explanation is given, you need to respect our desire to work with you without bringing such a serious charge against the church. We are here to entertain questions, but not charges against the church or its teachings.

Perhaps I should move on then. This is why, as I stated at the outset, I was hesitant to post here. If questioning the biblical validity of the SDA teachings as they come up in the discussions is not permissible, then serious study of these teachings is not possible for those who know the Bible and who do not already accept them.

I appreciate the time you and others have put into answering my questions.

Shalom and Maranatha,
~ John of AllFaith

[Richard Myers]

You are right Brother John. It impossible to start at the end of the sanctuary service when you don't even see that Jesus Christ is the "door". Your mind is set in a certain direction and it will be hard to get around these points. Jesus is the sin bearer. He bore the sins of the world. That the sins he, Satan, has caused others to commit end up causing judgment to fall upon him in no way suggests in the least that he is a sin bearer. It is not what is being taught, not even close. We cannot make a stronger statement that Jesus bore the sins of the whole world. It is a clear teaching in our church. Also, the law is the school-master. Its purpose is to reveal sin. Man is saved by grace, through faith. Good works are the fruit born of salvation when the Spirit is in the heart.

You may want to take some time to read through some of the topics here and you will find that this has all been explained in detail. I am sorry that you did not respond to my posts on the Jesus being the door. It is quite Biblical even though you do not see it. I had hopes that we could have helped you at this most basic level. Thank you for your interest in our teachings. I will continue if you like in private.

[Wally]

Ms White wrote: .... He will place them [the sins] upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty..."

The one who bears the final penalty is not involved in our salvation? The scapegoat was directly involved in the forgiveness of sins in the sanctuary rites. Without that role the sins would have remained with the people. How does this teaching not give Satan a role in our salvation as the sin bearer?


Shalom and Maranatha,
~ John of AllFaith

The fact that Satan "bears the final penalty" does not make him involved in our salvation.  The righteous have already received their salvation; they have been reigning with Christ for 1000 years.  They are simply witnesses to his final punishment. 

The scapegoat was in no way involved in the forgiveness of sins in the sanctuary rite, since it was not sacrificed, and, as stated before, without the shedding of blood there is not remission or forgiveness of sins.

[John1]

Hi Richard,

I am sorry that you did not respond to my posts on the Jesus being the door. [/ul]

I did respond to this, in post 9 above. I replied:

I didn't say Jesus is not the only way to forgiveness. I said that identifying him with the curtain is not consistent biblically because the purpose of that curtain was not the same as the purpose of Y'shua as the door. Jesus as the door grants entrance to the sanctuary to all who approach him in faith (John 3:16,17; Rev 3:8 etc) whereas the purpose of the temple curtain was to bar those who were unworthy of entering. Only Jews could pass through the curtain and then only under certain conditions and preparations. For example:

Deuteronmy 23:1  He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Deu 23:2  A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
Deu 23:3  An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:

To pass through the curtain they had to already be ritually clean and authorized.

On the other hand, anyone and everyone can approach God through Jesus "just as I am without one plea." When the curtain was rent the sanctuary was thrown open so that all could enter. According to Adventist doctrine who enters the heavenly sanctuary? Not just anyone. I don't see how applying this curtain to Jesus works biblically or even according to SDA doctrine.

Jesus is the door etc. but interpreting him as the curtain of the temple does not fit what we know about the curtain and Jesus as the door.

[Richard Myers]

My reference was to the door at the entrance to the tabernacle. Let us continue privately and I think we can make progress. Thank you, dear brother.