Friday, April 16, 2021


 By Russell Earl Kelly, PHD


Introduction: 1

Dan 8:8-14: 11

Sanctuary: 23

2300: 31

Daily: 82

Pattern: 87

Sin Transfer: 113

Biblical Sanctuary: 119-169

Books: 170

Veils: 203

Scapegoat: 208





1. The Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 and 23:23-32 is wholly concerned with national Israel and its ritual which prefigured the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The ritual contained nothing which depended upon the deeds of any pagan entity such as the little horn or (SDA) anti-Christ power such as the papacy. The ritual was repeated once a year and was preceded by ten days of retrospect by Israelites. Those who were aware of remaining un-confessed minor sins of ignorance and omission were to bring sacrifices before the tenth day of the month. Is this biblical? If not, then why not?


2. The one-day-a-year Day of Atonement immediately preceded the Feast of Booths and the year-end Ingathering celebrations. The Ingathering was a typical celebration of entering into Canaan ---itself a type of the kingdom-rest of God. Is this true?  If not, why?


3. The ritual Day of Atonement was part of one day which was both preceded and followed by the evening and morning offering of the daily sacrifice. Jesus died in part of one day. Is that true?  If not, why?


4. Most Christians teach that the one-day once-for-all-time atonement of Jesus Christ at Calvary fulfilled the typical Day of Atonement. He was the final and only perfect sacrifice sufficient to atone for all sins of mankind. He ended the necessity of repeating the daily sacrificial rituals of Israel. Is that true?  If not, why?


***5. Jesus Christ would have died to fulfill the Day of Atonement whether or not a little horn, or anti-Christ, existed. There is no intrinsic biblical necessity to connect the events of the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 to any event in the book of Daniel.  Is that true?  If not, why?


6. The Investigative Judgment doctrine is the doctrine of Seventh-day Adventism which is the main reason for their existence? Is that true? If not, why?


7. The Investigative Judgment is built on the presupposition that the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:8-12 is correct and that 8:14 correctly answers the question of 8:13. Is that true?  If not, why?


8. Daniel 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken /// and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.


Verse 22 states that the "he goat" was Greece and the "great horn" was its first king, Alexander the Great. Do SDAs agree with others on this?


9. Daniel 8:22 "Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power."


History records that, after Alexander the Great died his empire was divided by four of his generals into GreeceMacedoniaSyria and EgyptRome did not emerge along with four other nations when Greece fell.


SDAs ignore the connection between 8:22 and 8:8b. They argue that the emphasis is on the four "winds" and that pagan Rome emerged from the western "wind." Is this what SDAs teach?  If not, then what?   


10.       Daniel 8:9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.


Daniel 8:23 "And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up."


Most interpret the little horn as Antiochus IV who desolated the Temple by desecrating the altar of the "daily" burnt offering in 168 BC. SDAs disagree by arguing that Antiochus IV was not greater than the "great" Persia (8:4) and the "very great" Alexander. In reply the history of Daniel is seen through the eyes of Israel and, from the viewpoint of Israel, Antiochus IV was "exceeding great" because he did something which Persia and Alexander had not done --- he desecrated the daily sacrifice of the Temple and caused all Temple worship to cease.


SDAs reject Antiochus IV in favor of pagan

Rome. They argue that Antiochus IV (171-164 BC) did not appear in the "latter time." Alexander died in 323 BC and Rome conquered Palestine in 64 BC. To say that Rome appeared in the latter time is somewhat ridiculous since Rome conquered all of the Greek kingdoms. It appeared 'at the last time' of Greeks time. How do SDAs explain this?




Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.


Daniel 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.


Daniel 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.


Daniel 8:10-12 and 14, are the foundation of the most bizarre convoluted doctrine ever to be presented to man as a biblical Christian doctrine ---the investigative judgment. In these four texts SDAs teach with their manipulated view of history:


(1) The little horn of Daniel 8:10-12 was originally pagan Rome and not Antiochus IV.

(2) Pagan Rome opposed Christ and destroyed the Temple in AD 70. TRUE

(3) Pagan Rome became Christian Rome.  TRUE

(4) Christian Rome supported the early Church after AD 321. TRUE

(5) Christian Rome outlawed paganism in AD 346. TRUE

(6) The (still) little horn of Christian Rome changed into the little horn of papal Rome.

(7) The little horn was supreme for 1260 years from 538 until 1798.

(8) The sanctuary changed from the literal sanctuary in Jerusalem to the one in heaven.

(9)  The "daily sacrifice" is the Gospel.

(10) The confessional which became mandatory in AD 1215 cast down the truth and the heavenly sanctuary.

(11) The saints changed from the Jews to Protestant Christians to mostly Seventh-day Adventists.

(12) The necessity for restoring the sanctuary changed from defilement by the little horn to defilement by the atoned sins of Christians ---the Investigative Judgment.


The most common answer is that 8:10-12 concerns Antiochus IV who began enticing Hebrew boys to adopt Greek culture around 171 BC, arrested the high priest Onias III and desolated the Temple in 168 BC by offering a pig on the altar of daily sacrifices, thus defiling the temple.


SDAs disagree.




Daniel 8:13 KJV: "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?"


Daniel 8:13 NAS: "How long will the vision about the regular sacrifice apply, while the transgression causes horror, so as to allow both the holy place and the host to be trampled?"


Dan 8:13 NIV: How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled — the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?"




Daniel 8:14 KJV: Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.


Daniel 8:14 ‘Ad (until) / ereb-boqer (evening-morning) / al-pa-yim u-shlosh mee-ot (2300) / wa-ni-tsa-daq (then shall be made righteous) / qo-desh (sanctuary; holy place).


Daniel 8:14 (SDA interpretation): "At the end of 2300 prophetic years beginning in BC 457 and ending on October 22, 1844 Jesus will enter the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary and begin investigating  the books in heaven beginning at Adam to judge who has remained faithful and who will be recreated as spirit and body from annihilation at the second coming."




11.       None of the 12 SDA "events: of 8:10-12 began or ended in 1844. How do SDAs explain this?


***12.   The question in 8:13 asked how long the daily sacrificethe transgression of desolation, the sanctuary and the host would be trodden under foot? None of this began or ended in 1844. How do SDAs explain this?


13. The Roman Catholic confessional was made law in AD 1215. How does this relate to the beginning or end of the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 (from 457 BC to AD 1844)?


14. Did the RC confessional prevent Christ from saving souls and ministering in the heavenly sanctuary?


15. How did the RC Church 'cast down" the "place" of the heavenly sanctuary in 8:11? Did it destroy heaven itself?


16. The "daily" both preceded and followed the Day of Atonement ritual. Why does the context of 8:11-13 focus on the removal of the "daily sacrifice" but the SDA answer focus on the cleansing of only the Most Holy Place?


***17. The question of 8:13 concerned the entire sanctuary from 8:10-12. Why does not the SDA answer ignore the fact that the whole sanctuary was cleansed on the Day of Atonement per Leviticus 16:16-20?


18. The question of 8:13 concerned the "host" or "saints" who were being "trodden under foot" by the RC little horn along with the daily and the sanctuary. Did the RC church stop persecuting the saints in 1844? How does the answer of "1844" answer the question?


19. The SDA answer in 8:14 to the question of 8:13 is that the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven will only "begin" to be cleansed in 1844. Yet nothing "ended" in 1844.  How do they explain this?


20. The SDA answer in 8:14 to the question of 8:13 is that only the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven will begin to be cleansed in 1844. Yet 8:10-13 discuss the entire sanctuary and not merely the Most Holy Place.  How do SDAs explain this?


21. The SDA answer in 8:14 to the question of 8:13 is that the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven will begin to be cleansed in 1844. Yet the entire sanctuary is still being defiled when Jesus offers His blood for the forgiveness of sins. How can Jesus blood both clean and defile?


22. The SDA answer in 8:14 to the question of 8:13 is that the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven will begin to be cleansed in 1844. How did the sanctuary change from being defiled by the little horn to being defiled by atoned sins?


The SDA "answer" to the question asked in 8:13 does not answer the question! Nothing SDAs discuss in 8:11-12 ended in 1844. (1) The little horn did not stop persecuting Christ or His saints in 1844. (2) The little horn did not stop destroying paganism in 1844. (3) The confessional did not end in 1844. (4) The little horn did not expose the errors of the confessional in 1844 (the Protestant Reformation claims this in the 16th century). (5) The events of 1798 did not occur in 1844. (6) Jesus did not stop saving souls and ministering his blood in 1844. (7) SDAs teach that their Investigative Judgment only BEGAN in 1844. Therefore, no part of the vision of 8:10-12 ended in 1844 and the question of 8:13 is still unanswered in SDA theology. How do SDAs explain this?




Leviticus16:16 "And he shall make an atonement for the holy place [MHP], 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 [HP], that remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness."

Leviticus 16:18 "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."


Leviticus16:20 "And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place [MHP], and the tabernacle of the congregation [HP], and the altar, he shall bring the live goat."


23. Leviticus 16:16-20 states twice that the entire sanctuary was cleansed in one day on the Day of Atonement. How could Christ minister in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary while its patterned "daily sacrifice" from 8:11-13 of the burnt offering was still defiled? Why don't SDAs explain the necessity for cleansing the other parts of the sanctuary?


24. How could Christ minister in the Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary before 1844 while the patterned Most Holy Place was still defiled?


25. If one part of the sanctuary was unclean, then all of it was unclean and all of it required cleansing. This was true of the original dedication and also all rededications. Israel never cleansed only one part of the sanctuary. How do SDAs explain that Christ was able to minister in one part while other parts were defiled?


26.       How can the Most Holy Place of the heavenly Place (or any part of the sanctuary) be defiled and not the remainder of the sanctuary be defiled?


27. When the sanctuary and Temple were initially dedicated or re-dedicated the daily burnt offering was consecrated first and the Most Holy Place last. However on the Day of Atonement the MHP was cleansed first and the daily burnt offering was cleansed last. Is this true as per Lev 16:16-20?


28. According to the pattern of Leviticus 16 the Holy Place and the altar of the daily sacrifices were cleansed after the Most Holy Place. Why don't SDAs adhere to this in their interpretation?


29.       Daniel 8:11 "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."


Daniel 9:17 "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake."


The word "sanctuary" in Daniel 8:14 is  nearest 8:11 and 9:17 which refer to the literal sanctuary in Jerusalem. The SDA declaration that 8:14 is the sanctuary in heaven is dependent on the interpretation of the 2300 ereb-boqer as prophetic days. Is this true?


30. How do SDAs justify making the word "sanctuary" only refer to the Most Holy Place?




31. Numbers 14:34 "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day [yom] for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise."


The Hebrew words ereb-boqer in 8:14  which are translated "day" in the KJV literally mean "evening-morning" and refer to the evening and morning daily sacrifices in the Temple. The word for "day" in the prophetic "day-for-a-year" text of Numbers 14:34 is the normal word yom. If God meant for the "2300 period of time" to be interpreted prophetically, why did He not use yom? Ezekiel 4:5.


32. Genesis 1:5, 8, 13 19, 23, 31 "And the evening and the morning were the (1st - 6th) day."


The Hebrew construction in Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31 is not ereb-boqer. Unlike Daniel 8:14 the verb separates them. Also, if the two words meant "day" there would be redundancy in the texts in Genesis 1.  Is that true?


33. Yom is used for prophetic days in Numbers 14:34 and not ereb-boqer. Is that true?


34. The Hebrew words for "day" in 8:14 and 8:26 ereb-boqer refer to the 'daily" evening and morning sacrifices. These were also called " the "continual" and the "perpetual." Therefore the "2300 ereb-boqer" could very easily refer to the total sacrifice count performed in only 1150 days. This was fulfilled by Antiochus IV between 168-165 BC. Why do not the SDAs use this calculation?


35. SDAs teach that the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16 was also prophetic of a future cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary beginning in 1844. However, even if the "day-for-a-year" principles in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5 were applicable, the fulfillment would only last for only one YEAR (1844-1845). What principle do SDAs use to justify teaching that it has been continuing since 1844?


36. How can "2300 ereb-boqer" mean one year per day but the "Day (yom) of  Atonement mean "since 1844"?


37. Is not Christ as God omniscient? Why is it taking him so long to investigate the books of heaven since 1844?


38.       Second Peter 3:8 "One day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."


Is that a prophetic principle?  Will the Investigative Judgment continue for 1000 years after 1844 years before Christ returns? Could it also refer to 2, 300, 00 or 2.3 years?


Why did God wait so long to clean his own house?


39.       Why do SDAs say that the 8:1-13 context of Daniel 8 gives no beginning point for the 2300 ereb-boqer prophecy and teach that both time periods (8:14 and 9:24) must begin at the same point in history?


In reality, they mean that Daniel 8 provided no beginning point that would satisfy their own theory. Actually there are quite a few beginning points which better fit the context of Daniel 8. (1) “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me” 8:1; (2) the vision literally began when the Persian ram emerged in 8:2; (3) the emergence of the goat in 8:5-7; (3) the breaking of the great horn in 8:8; (4) the emergence of the little horn in 8:9; (5) the persecution of the host in 8:10 and, especially, (6) the desolation of the sanctuary in 8:11-12 which is definitely the focus of 8:13-14. Therefore, the next desolation of the sanctuary in 168 B. C. should be the most obvious beginning point. However, almost certainly, if Christ has not returned by 2133, somebody will again subtract Antiochus’ desolation in 167 B. C. from 2300 to promote that date.


40.       Why do SDAs teach that the 2300 years must get their beginning from the vision of Daniel 9:24-27?


This is pure speculation. Any of the starting points previously discussed would better fit the context. Adam Clarke’s Commentary said it started with the conquests of the great Greek horn (Alexander) of 8:8 in 334 B. C. Cumming, began the period with the decline of Persia in 480 B. C. On the other hand, the historical date of December 25, 167 B. C. for the desolation by Antiochus Epiphanes is predominant.


41.       SDAs teach that William Miller correctly preached the first and second angels' messages. Why did Miller not use Ezra 7 and 457BC as the beginning point of the 2300 years?


42. Daniel 9:25 gives the beginning of the 70 week prophecy (not the 2300 day prophecy) as from "the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." This is found in Nehemiah 2 in 444 BC. Ezra only discusses the Temple and not the city. How do SDAs justify using Ezra 7 which has no mention of rebuilding Jerusalem?


43.       Why don't SDAs use the decree found in Nehemiah 2 from BC 445 which exactly meets the description of Daniel 9:25?


44.       Should not the beginning date for the 2300 ereb-boqer vision also be the beginning date for the desolation of the sanctuary? Why do not SDAs teach that the sanctuary became defiled in 457 BC?


45. Doesn't the question in 8:13 ask how long the desolation should continue? Why do SDAs ignore this conclusion?


46. Historically, the literal Jerusalem Temple was fully functioning in 457 B. C. when SDAs teach that the 2300 "days" began. It functioned continuously from Ezra's restoration in 515 B.C. until 168 B. C. when it ceased for 1150 literal days when Antiochus IV defiled it. It again functioned continuously until pagan Rome caused it to cease in A. D. 70. Therefore, the beginning desolation of the 2300 evening-morning can be historically documented as December 25, 167 B. C.


Why do SDAs totally ignore the historical context of the literal sanctuary on earth?


47.       Why do SDAs ignore other theories of the 2300 prophecy for modern times?


In 1452 Krebs of Cusa taught that it started with the rise of Persia (Dan. 8:3) and ended between 1700-1750The Matthew Henry Commentary mentioned that Cumming placed the end of the 2300 “years” in 1821. In 1825, the Methodist Adam Clarke’s Commentary stated that the little horn of 8:9 was Antiochus IV, but might be pagan Rome. He reasoned that, if the 2300 years began with the emergence of Alexander in 334 B. C., it would end with a Jerusalem sanctuary being built in the A. D. 1966. Like Adventists, Clarke interpreted the little horn of Daniel 7:25 as the Roman Catholic Church and predicted that its power would last 1260 years from A. D. 755 to 2015. Views such as Clarke’s were well-known to the early Adventists, many of whom came from the Methodist Church.


48. Barnes Notes goes into great detail to demonstrate that the 2300 days were literally fulfilled beginning in 171 BC and he quotes two sources earlier than himself in Prideaux and Stuart. Why do SDAs teach that nobody has been able to explain the 2300 day prophecy but themselves?


49. Why do SDAs change the answer to the question in 8:13 to “After” (not “before” or “not until”) 2300 years, then the heavenly sanctuary will "begin to be restored”?


50. Although much of the SDA scenario has ended, none of it ended in 1844. (1) The ripped veil in the Temple at Christ's death both ended the significance of the old sanctuary (Heb. 9:8) and began the priesthood of believers, thus allowing every believer to boldly enter directly into the Most Holy Place (Heb. 4:16; 7:19-20; 10:19-20). Sadly, though, admitting this truth would force SDAs to correct their doctrine. (2) The A. D. 70 desolation of the Jerusalem Temple has not ended because it has not been rebuilt. (3) In the 1500s the Protestant Reformation corrected (or ended by exposing) the doctrine of the Roman Catholic confessional. (4) The only thing that did not end in 1844 is the Investigative Judgment which allegedly only began in 1844. How do SDAs explain this?


51.       When interpreting Revelation 9:15 SDAs say that "hour" is prophetic time of 15 days. Why don't SDAs say that "hour" in Revelation 14:7 is also 15 days ending soon after October 22, 1844? (GC334-335).


52.       The SDA doctrine of the 2300 “days” means that it would have been impossible for Christ to return before 1844. Why did Paul think that Jesus could come back in his own day? Why have Christians in all ages thought that Jesus could return in their day?




53. William Miller did not know Hebrew and did not know the difference between tsadaq in Daniel 8:14 and taher in Leviticus 16. Is that true?


54. The Hebrew verb for "cleansed" in 8:14 is tsadaq and should be translated as "restored" or "justified." This word is not used in Leviticus 16 for "cleansed" nor in Leviticus for "clean." If God wanted a direct link to the Day of Atonement, why did He not use taher from Leviticus 16 in Daniel 8:14?


55.       If tsadaq has a deeper meaning to describe the Day of Atonement than taher, why was it not used in Leviticus 16?


56.       The full Hebrew verb form for "cleansed" in 8:14 is wa-ni-tsa-daq which is correctly translated "then shall be restored or justified." It does not mean "then shall begin to be cleansed." How do SDAs justify saying that the heavenly sanctuary only BEGAN to be cleansed in 1844?


57.       The wording of 8:14 is "until … then shall be restored." What part of the vision from 8:11-12 ended in 1844?


***58. Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.


Note: Since Adam and Eve had committed a presumptuous sin, there was no sin offering allowable.


Since SDAs teach that, in 1844, Christ began investigating the list of professed believers, beginning with Adam, then their own logic should demand that the heavenly sanctuary first became defiled with the very first sin forgiven by God in Genesis 3:21. (See GC480, 483, 644.) When the LORD (Yahweh) forgave Adam, He must have begun His ministry as mediator inside the heavenly sanctuary and, therefore (as SDAs claim) defiled it.


When do SDAs teach that the heavenly sanctuary first became defiled?


***59.   GC421 “In the New Covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary."


Therefore Christ’s blood (SDAs teach) causes the greatest defilement of the sanctuary! Was Jesus Christ Himself the greatest desolater and defiler of the heavenly sanctuary?


60.       How can the Roman Catholic confessional which was first made mandatory in 1215 be part of the desolation of Daniel 8:12?


61.       How does the confessional explain the 2300 SDA years from BC 457 until 1844? (28)


62.       Was not the confessional error exposed by the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s? What part of the confessional ended in 1844?


63.       Did God not defile His own Temple on earth when He ripped the veil at Calvary?


64.       Don't SDAs miss the whole point that Calvary was the one day fulfillment of the Day of Atonement with a once-for-all sacrifice for all sins for all time? Heb. 9:8


65.       The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, 1960, page 656, "little horn": “In chapter 8 at the close of the specified period of time the sanctuary is ‘cleansed’ of the ‘transgression of desolation’ erected in it by the little horn (vs. 13, 14)."


Has this surprisingly true statement ever been repudiated?


66.       Since Daniel 8:14 is the only time (in 41 instances) that tsa-daq is translated “cleansed” in the KJV, is it not llikely that William Miller did not know about the mistranslation and thus preached a false first and second angels' message?


67.       In the SDAs’ own explanation of 8:9-12, the context of 8:14, they stated that the little horn:  

a.         opposed the host of heaven

b.         cast down some of the host and stars to the ground

c.         stamped upon them (8:10)

d.         magnified himself to the prince of the host

e.         took away the daily sacrifice

f,          cast down the place of his sanctuary (8:11)

g.         was against the “daily sacrifice”

h.         “cast down the truth” (8:12).

Very clearly, the little horn, and not God's saints, defiled and took away the “daily sacrifice.”


After admitting all of this, how can the SDA explanation of 8:14 ignore their own explanation and reverse the need for the cleansing of the sanctuary?


68.       SDAs teach in error that defiling the “daily sacrifice” in Daniel 8:14 required a Day of Atonement-type of cleansing. What simple evidence do they have that is does not refer to a non-Day of Atonement restoration? Exodus 24:3-8; 29:36-43; 30:23-30; Eze 43:23


69. If God intended for Daniel 8:14 to refer only to the Day of Atonement, why does the context (8:11-13) refer to both the daily sacrifice and the entire sanctuary?


70. In their 1844 pattern-fulfillment scenario, SDAs restrict the cleansing to only the Most Holy Place. How do they explain that the entire sanctuary was required to be cleansed on the Day of Atonement per Leviticus 16:16-20, 33?


71. Is the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary the most holy place in the universe or is it the most defiled-by-sin place in the universe?


72.       Was Jesus ministering in the heavenly sanctuary before His incarnation?


73.       When did Jesus consecrate the patterned altar of burnt offerings, laver and holy place in the heavenly sanctuary?


74.       When did Jesus consecrate the patterned Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary?


--75. Comparing the holiness of God to SDA reasoning how could anything unholy remain in heaven?


76. According to SDA reasoning how could Christ present His blood and only dedicate part of the heavenly sanctuary?


77.       According to SDA reasoning why did Jesus not dedicate ALL of the heavenly sanctuary on the same day and in less than one day as was done in reality of the earthly sanctuary?


78.       According to SDA prophetic reasoning why did Jesus not dedicate ALL of the heavenly sanctuary in ONE YEAR following the day-for-a-year prophetic pattern?


79.       Even on the Day of Atonement, the “daily sacrifice” never ceased and always preceded (and followed) the other rituals. This means that the altar of burnt offering was used “first” and “third” for the daily sacrifice even on the Day of Atonement. “First” for the evening (‘ereb) daily sacrifice, “second” for the Day of Atonement cleansing and “third” for the morning (boqer) ”daily sacrifice.” How do SDAs explain this in the context of 1844?


80.       The S.D.A. Bible Dictionary, “Atonement, Day of":(following the cleansing of the Most Holy Place“In this manner the holy place [MHP] was cleansed, and atonement was made for the sins of the people (Lev. 16:16). In a similar manner the altar was cleansed (verses 18, 19).” Also GC419.


This admission contradicts their own doctrine in several ways: (1) As discussed previously, absolutely no ministry could be performed in either the earthly (or heavenly) sanctuary until ALL of it had been restored after defilement. (2) Since the cleansing of the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement was immediately followed by the cleansing of the Holy Place and the great altar, the cleansing of these should be explained in SDA theology. (3) Christ could not have begun a ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (in either room) unless the entire sanctuary had first been completely dedicated.


How do SDAs justify teaching that Christ only moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in 1844 to BEGIN cleansing it?


81.       The SDA interpretation of 8:11-14 would require three completely different kinds of cleansings. (1) The first would require a non-Day of Atonement dedication when the temple was rebuilt. (2) The second defilement (according to SDAs) would be restored by the “truth” taught by the SDA remnant church since 1844 to repudiate the confessional. (However, as Protestants they should teach that this refutation was actually given by the Reformers 300 years earlier.) (3) Only the third requires a Day of Atonement type of cleansing similar to Leviticus 16. Why is there so much disconnect  between these three concepts?




82. Did not “desolating the daily” in Daniel 8:11-12 cause the entire sanctuary to be defiled? How can "desolating" the "daily" defile the Most Holy Place and not the "daily sacrifice" itself (which would require cleansing in 1844)?


83.       SDAs deny that Christ has been performing this uniquely high priestly ministry inside the Most Holy Place since His ascension. Does not this teach that Christ was not ministering as a high priest until 1844?


84. Roman Catholics teach that the confessional exists because Christ has indeed been ministering in heaven since his ascension and priests are His representatives on earth. Is not the SDA error that Christ's blood defiled the sanctuary greater than the RC error?


85. The “daily” was called the “continual” because it never ceased, not even on the Day of Atonement. The Old Covenant Day of Atonement always followed the regular morning "daily sacrifice" and preceded a regular evening "daily sacrifice. Why is this ignored in SDA theology?


86. A defiled “daily sacrifice” such at that by BabylonGreece and Rome could only be restored by “dedication” (hanukah) and not by a Day of Atonement taher. Why does SDA theology not point this out? 




87. GC420: "And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly sanctuary is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary." 


How do SDAs explain the daily and weekly burnt offerings, laver washings, bread-replacing, candle-stick-lighting and incense burning in the heavenly sanctuary?


88.       Once a year the High Priest entered the Most Holy Place of the earthly Temple and then left it for another year.  Why did Christ not follow this pattern and leave again after one day or one prophetic year?


89.       GC418-419: The new “light from God” was in their “discovery” that the cleansing is necessary because of sacrificial blood which defiled the heavenly sanctuary with the forgiven sins of God's people.


Where does the Bible teach that sacrificial blood defiles?


90.       GC420): "This was because the sin had not been canceled by the blood of the sacrifice." 


Where is this taught in the Bible?


91.       GC421: Since the sins of the saints still remain on the books of record in heaven, they must be removed before Christ can return.


Where is this taught in the Bible?


92. The book of Hebrews contains at least 48 descriptions of Christ from Hebrews 1:1 to 7:28 which contrasts pattern-fulfillment. Why do not SDAs teach this?


93. Christ as a king-priest and type followed the order of a Gentile priest-king. This was NOT a pattern-fulfillment of the Law.  Why do SDAs not point that out?


94. If pattern-fulfillment were necessary for the heavenly sanctuary there would be: (1) many Aaronic priests and Levites, (2) daily evening and morning sweet savor offerings, (3) weekly Sabbath-day offerings, (4) monthly new moon offerings, (5) seasonal Passover, Pentecost and the Day of Atonement offerings, (6) replacement of the 12 loaves of bread, (7) refilling of the candlestick oil, (8) burning of incense, (9) a laver for washing and many other comparable pattern-fulfillments. Why is this not pointed out in SDA theology?


95.       GC417-418 quotes Hebrews 9:9, 23; 8:5; and 9:24 to prove that OT patterns of the sanctuary must be followed by the heavenly sanctuary. However when these are studied in sequence and in context, chapters 8 and 9 clearly teach that the patterns only lasted as long as the Old Covenant sanctuary and have no continuing relevance to New Covenant believers. Why is this not true?


96.       Hebrews 8:1 “Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.”


Do not SDAs miss the point by teaching that Christ only performed non-high priestly ministry until 1844?


97. Christ was “seated at the right hand of the throne” because He had already fulfilled His High Priestly Day of Atonement pattern and was/is already in the very Presence of the Father. What does "right hand" signify?


98. Hebrews 8:6 But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."


Does not this mean that Christ was no longer obligated to follow the Old Covenant patterns?


99. Hebrews chapter 7 is about pattern-dissolution, not pattern-fulfillment. (1) Christ was “out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spoke nothing [in the law-pattern] concerning priesthood” (7:14). (2) Since Christ was after the order of Melchizedek, it was “far more evident” that he was not following the law-pattern (7:15). (3) Christ's priesthood came into existence specifically “not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life” (7:16B meaning that it was not patterned “according to the law.” Is this true?


100. Heb 8:5 "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount.

Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."


Does not "but now" of 8:6 dissolve the “example and shadow of heavenly things” for the Old Covenant?


101. Heb 8:7 "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah."           


Was the new covenant "new" or merely a “revision” of the “old” law-pattern (8:8)?


102. Heb 8:9 "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

Does not the phrase "
not according to” the [old] covenant" dissolve the pattern?


103. Heb 8:10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." (1 Pet 2:9-10)


Does not the NT doctrine of the priesthood of all believers dissolve the priest-pattern?


104. Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.


Does not the phrase "their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” dissolve Old Covenant patterns?


105. Does not the phrase "their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” apply immediately after Calvary


106. Why does Ellen White say that the New Covenant promise of "their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more” only applies to after 1844? GC485


107. When were confessed, forgiven and atoned sins of believers washed away by the blood of Jesus Christ, never to be remembered again?


108. Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away.    


According to Hebrews 8:13 did the Old Covenant patterns "vanish away" at Calvary or begin to vanish in 1844?


109. Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.


Does not “holiest of all” in 9:8 refer to the "holiest sanctuary of all," that is, the heavenly sanctuary and not merely the Most Holy Place?


110. Hebrews 9:9 "Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience."


Can this be interpreted to mean that they were not figures of the New Covenant?


111. Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


Could this be interpreted to mean that the patterns ended in Christ died?


112. Does the New Covenant sanctuary in heaven have literal reality counterparts for twice-daily burnt offerings, daily animal sacrifices, grain offerings, drink offerings and ritual washings?




113. GC418: "By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary."


Where does the Bible say that the sin itself was transferred to the sanctuary?


114. GC419 "Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary."


Why would God want to store sin itself in His own presence, the Most Holy Place in the universe?


115. GC419: "A special work became necessary for their removal."


Why would God not want to clean defilement from His own presence as soon as possible?


116. GC420: "The sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim."


Where is this found in the Bible?


117. GC420: "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."


Where is this last sentence found in the Bible?


118. GC421: “As anciently the SIN of the people were placed by faith 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.”


It is not biblical to say that sin was transferred to the sanctuary on earth and especially to the sanctuary in heaven. This would make Jesus Himself the greatest polluter of the sanctuary and not the little horn. How do SDAs explain this?




***119. Lev 4:2 "If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them." See all of Leviticus, chapters 4-6, 11, 13-15, 19 and Numbers 5 and 15.


Only sins of ignorance, omission and obligation were brought to the sanctuary for atonement and forgiveness. How do SDAs explain this fact? (11)


***120. Since Old Covenant deliberate high-handed willful sins were never confessed over sacrificial animals and, therefore, were never brought by the priests into the sanctuary, then how could they defile the sanctuary by the daily ministry of priests?


121. Num 15:30 But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproaches the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Num 15:31 Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.


Pre-meditated (high-handed, intentional, deliberate, willful) sins were brought to the judges for punishment under the Law. How do SDAs explain this fact in the Investigative Judgment doctrine?


122.  When a person committed most pre-meditated sins, there was no prescribed sacrifice to bring. No appeasement could be made to God. That person must suffer the disciplinary consequences and responsibility of his/her sin. He/she was totally at the mercy of God, the judges, the accusers and those whom he/she had sinned against. How do SDAs explain this fact?


123. Ex 31:14 You shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defiles it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.


Death --not a sacrifice-- was the punishment for witchcraft (Ex 22:18), idolatry (Ex. 22:20; Lev 20:2-3), a priest who was not clean before sacrificing (Ex 30:21; Lev 22:3), working on the Sabbath (Ex 31:14), eating the peace offering after the third day (Lev 7:21), eating the fat of an offering (Lev 7:25), eating blood (Lev 7:26-27), offering strange fire (Lev 10), approaching the altar while being unsanctified (Lev 10:3), adultery and many sexual sins (Lev 18; 20:10-15, 18, not punishing idol worshippers (Lev 20:4-5), cursing parents (Lev 20:9) and blasphemy of God’s name (Lev. 24:16). How do SDAs explain this in their investigate judgment theology?


124.  The SDA sanctuary doctrine completely ignores these facts. It teaches (at the least) that all confessed sins of believers have been brought by God’s sacrificial provisions into the Most Holy Place of the universe and have defiled it. How do SDAs reply to this information?


125. Even if the SDA doctrine that confessed sins defiled the sanctuary were correct (and it is not), deliberate sins committed by Old Covenant Hebrews and New Covenant Christians do not qualify as “accidental sins” and the entire SDA doctrine becomes unnecessary and irrelevant. How do SDAs reply to this?


126.  Is there any reason to "investigate" deliberate willful sins of believers which have already been punished?


127.  Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

Lev 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.


Un-atoned sins, not atoned sins, defiled the sanctuary on earth. This is the opposite of what SDA teach. Lev. 15:25-31; 18:28; 20:2-3; Numb 5:2-3; 19:13, 20; 35:34; Ezra 2:62. How do SDAs explain these texts?


128. Lev 1:3 If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.


Neither the penitent nor the live animal entered into the sanctuary itself to defile it. This death occurred at the “doorway” of the inner court which was reserved for the Levites and priests (Lev. 1:3; 3:2; 4:4; etc). Is this an important fact?


129. John 1:29 Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.


In the NT it is clear that sacrificial blood always refers to the sinless, perfect, most holy blood of Jesus Christ. There is not the slightest hint that Jesus’ blood defiled anything at any time. Is that true?


130.  The blood of Jesus Christ: (1) inaugurated the New Covenant: Mt 26:28, (2) allows for the forgiveness of sins: Mt 26:28, (3) activates the believer’s indwelling in Christ: Jn 6:53-56, (4) purchased the church: Acts 20:28, (5) is God’s means for justifying the believer through faith: Rom 3:24-25; 5:9, (6) is the unifying blessing by which believers assemble for fellowship: 1 Cor 10:16-17, (7) is God’s means for redemption: Rom 3:24-25, (8) is God’s means for reconciliation: Eph 2:13, (9) is God’s means for peace: Col 1:20, (10) Is the perfect sinless sacrifice in which sin is atoned, expiated or propitiated. Rom 3:24-25, (11) declares God righteous while passing over sins: Rom 3:25, (12) is a reminder in the communion of Christ’s death for sins: 1 Cor 10:25-27, (13) is the means by which God accepts sinners as His beloved: Eph 1:6-7, (14) enabled the high priest to enter into the Presence of God on the Day of Atonement: Heb 9:7, (15) enabled God to end the repetitious pattern with one sacrifice: Heb 9:12, 14, (16) is God’s perfect means for purging the conscience: Heb 9:14, (17) explains how God was righteously able to forgive sins during the OT era: Heb 10:4, (18) enables every NT believer to enter the Presence of God: Heb 10:19, (19) condemns those who change the holiness of the blood into an unholy thing (either by habitual sin or by conferring upon that blood a defiling function): Heb 10:29, (20) enables the believer to observe a spiritual Passover: Heb 11:28, (21) enables Jesus as our High Priest to mediate the New Covenant: Heb 12:24, (22) destroys the OT sanctuary pattern by positioning Christ’s reconciling altar among sinners: Heb 13:9-13, (23) activates sanctification of the believer: 1 Pet 1:2, (24) fulfills the OT sacrificial types: 1 Pet 1:18-19, (25) cleans the believer from both known confessed sin and residual sins of ignorance: 1 John 1:7-9, (26) washes away sin: Rev 1:5, (27) washes away sin and whitens: Rev 7:14 and (29) enables sinners to overcome: Rev 12:11.


Why do SDAs attempt to downplay all of these good things and teach that this SAME blood defiles the Most Holy Place in the universe where God still resides?


131. Lev 8:14 And he brought the bullock for the sin offering: and Aaron and his sons laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering.

Lev 8:15 And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.


In the O. T. sacrificial blood of the sin offering and trespass offering are called “most holy.” In Exodus 12:13 the blood allows the death angel to pass over all sin, both presumptive and otherwise. In Exodus 24:4-8 sacrificial blood sanctified both the covenant and the people. In Exodus 29:20-21 and Leviticus 8:14-15, 30; 9:9 sacrificial blood sanctified the priests, their garments and the altar to inaugurate usage. How can the SAME s sacrificial blood also defile the sanctuary?


132. Num 18:9 This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons.


All of the offerings, especially the sin offering, were called “most holy” (Lev 6:17, 25; 7:1; Num 18:7-10). How can something that is "most holy" defile the sanctuary?


133.  Ex 12:15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.


Sin, sinners and leaven which symbolizes sin cannot survive in the presence of God's holiness. Any doctrine which teaches otherwise reflects a faulty concept of God and His holiness. Ex 12:15, 19; 23:18; 29:44-45; 34:25; Lev 2:11; 6:17; 10:12; 22:3; 23:17. How do SDAs justify this with the idea that Christ's blood defiles the sanctuary?


134.  Priests who were determined to be unclean and defiled were to be "cut off." Lev 21:11-12; 21:23 and 22:2-3. Why would God command priests not to profane the sanctuary and then command them to defile the sanctuary with sin-ladened blood?


135. Lev 1:4 And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.


Lev 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.


Lev 12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.


After "atonement" had been made the priests declared the worshipper to be “accepted” (Lev 1:4), “cleansed” (Lev 12:8; Num 8:21) and “forgiven” (Lev 4:20, 35; 5:10, 13; 6:7). Where does the Bible say that those same atoned sins would ever be reintroduced to possibly re-condemn the penitent?


136. Isa 6:5 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.


Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel and John were humbled in the awesome holy presence of God. Ex 33:18-23; Isa 6:3-5; Eze 11-23; Rev 1:12-18. Yet SDAs convert God’s throne room into the storage room for all confessed and atoned sins since Adam. How can these two ideas be reconciled?


137. Lev 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcass of an unclean beast, or a carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.


Normally when something unclean touched something clean, the clean becomes unclean (Lev 5:2). The Jews were so careful not to defile themselves that they required lids for open pots and strained out their drinks to prevent consuming gnats (Mt 23:24; Num 19:15). Again, how can these meticulous laws exist while teaching that the priests routinely carried sin into the sanctuary?


***138. Ex 30:29 "And you shall sanctify them [with sacrificial blood], that they may be most holy: whatsoever touches them shall be holy."


The application of sacrificial blood (which was itself most holy) made every thing and every person it touched "most holy." (Ex 30:26-29; Lev 6:17-18, 25-27; Num 18:9.  How can sacrificial blood at the SAME TIME make something "holy" and "defiled"?


***139. Lev 12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.


Sacrificial blood washes away sin and cleans the worshipper when it is shed at the doorway.  Sin does not enter the sanctuary via sacrificial blood. When the sacrifice died as a sin offering at the entrance of the sanctuary, the payment for the confessed sin was complete and the sin itself was exterminated. The ministering “most holy” priest collected the “most holy” blood of the “now-most holy” sin and trespass offering and placed it on the various “most holy” altars or ate portions of the “most holy” sacrifice (Ex 29: 37; 30:26-29; Lev 6:17-18, 25-27; Num 18:9). The holiness was super-intensified! Why do SDAs teach that the atonement did not make all things involved most holy?


140.  Lev 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.


The blood was brought inside the sanctuary, not to defile it, but as a proof (receipt of payment rendered) that the redemption price had already been fully paid. The priest announced to the penitent that “an atonement for him before the LORD” had been made and that he was “forgiven” of his “trespass” (Lev. 4:20; 5:6 and 6:7).  Comment?


141. John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, 'It is finished' and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.


The blood was not brought into the sanctuary, as Ellen White wrote, “to make satisfaction for its claims” (GC420).The satisfaction had already been made and announced when the sacrificial animal’s blood was shed! Even at Calvary the redemption price was paid when Jesus shed his blood, pronounced forgiveness, announced “it is finished” and died.  Comment?


142.  Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.


Sacrificial blood is the redemption price for sin (Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:12). The sinner does not “give” his/her sins to God --the sinner asks God to wash them away and forget them. Redemption blood brings the sinner “near” to God by reconciliation -- not by defiling God’s dwelling place (Eph 2:13). God could not declare “peace through the blood” if that same blood had defiled His throne (Col. 1:20). How do SDAs reconcile this?


143.  GC418 “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.”


This statement is false! The blood of a sacrificial animal, like the blood of Jesus Christ did not “represent the forfeited life of the sinner.” Rather it represented the perfect sinless life of the sacrifice which effected the atonement! Sinless blood –not sinful blood-- paid the price for sin.  How do SDAs reconcile this?


144.  GC418 “By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary.”


This is also false. The “transfer of sin” stopped with the slain sacrifice. The sin-bearing sinless sacrifice died but its sinless essence [of Christ] overcame and its sinlessness was imputed backwards towards the penitent sinner. That which went forward into the sanctuary through the blood was the sinless redemptive power of the perfect sacrifice –not the sins! The sinless blood of the “most holy” offering was presented to God and recorded the finished atonement in heaven. How do SDAs reconcile this?


145.  Leviticus 10:17 “Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy //  and God has given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?"


Only the second half is quoted in GC418. Does not the first half contradict the SDA interpretation of the second half?


146.  Ex 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.


Priests were commanded to wear their consecrated garments when they entered the tabernacle and approached the altar to minister “that they bear not iniquity, and die.” The SDA kind of “bearing iniquity” would cut them off! Is it not clear that "bearing iniquity" does not mean "bearing sin into the sanctuary"? Also Lev 22:14-16; Num 18:22.


147.  Ex 28:38 "And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the holy thingswhich the children of Israel shall hallow in all their holy gifts; and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the LORD."


Num 18:1 And the LORD said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons and thy father's house with thee shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary: and thou and thy sons with thee shall bear the iniquity of your priesthood.


Is it not very clear that "bear the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow" does NOT mean to bear sin into the sanctuary and defile it?  Does it not mean "bear away to exterminate through ministry of sacrifices"?


***148.  Num. 18:9 "This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons."


Is it possible for "most holy" offerings to make something defiled?  Also Lev 6:27.


149.  GC421 "In the new covenant the SINS of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, IN FACT, to the heavenly sanctuary.”


In view of all of the previous texts, is it not heresy to say that Jesus' sinless blood has always been and is still carrying sin itself into the sanctuary to defile it?


150.  Heb 9:26 "Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 


Did Jesus put away the guilt of sin at Calvary or in 1844? Also John 1:29.


151.  There were no personal sacrifices for willful pre-meditated sins and none were needed because they were ministered and disciplined by Israel’s judicial system which enforced the judgments of the law. Does not this fact destroy the SDA concept of the investigate judgment?


152.  The sanctuary was defiled, not by confessed and atoned sin, but by those sins which had not been brought into it and remained un-cleansed by atonement. Does not this fact explain why the priests did not carry sins into the sanctuary to defile it?


153.  “Clean,” “cleanse,” “cleansed,” and “cleansing” are extremely common words which occur in the everyday sanctuary routine. Every man who was "clean" must observe the Passover (Num 9:13). There was daily “cleansing” (1) of unclean vessels or garments which had touched unclean animals (Lev 11:30-32), (2) of mothers after childbirth: “The priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean” (Lev 12:6-8) (3) of skin eruptions (Lev 13:6, 13), (4) of the sick (Lev 13:17, 28, 34, 37, 39), (5) of lepers: “The priest shall make an atonement for him, and he shall be clean” (Lev 14:20), (6) of contaminated houses: “Make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean” (Lev 14:53), (7) from eating un-sacrificed meat (Lev 17:15), (8) of Levites offered for an offering (Num 8:6, 15, 21), (9) of purification by the ashes of the red heifer (Num 19:9), (10) from touching dead bodies (Num 19:19), (11) of spoils of war by fire (Num 31:23), (12) of the Temple at its re-inauguration (2 Chron 29:15) and (13) from sins of omission (2 Chron 30:18).


Is this not grounds for concluding that the Day of Atonement was merely a final residual "cleansing" and not a comprehensive "cleansing"?


154. Leviticus 16:16: "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 remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness."


Since only minor non-premeditated sins of ignorance were atoned in the sanctuary are these then the only kinds referred to in Leviticus 16:16? Also Lev 23:27, 29.


155.  Since premeditated high-handed sins were handled by the judges instead of the sanctuary, are they included in Leviticus 16:16?


156. Does God require the same sins to be atoned for more than once?


157. Could not the Day of Atonement be one final opportunity to recall sins of ignorance which prevented full fellowship with God?


158. Could the fact that the earthly sanctuary was "in the midst" of several million sinful Israelites explain how the sanctuary had been defiled by un-atoned sins?


159. Is this true of the sanctuary in heaven?


160. Numbers 5:2-3 "Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead: Both male and female shall ye put out without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell."


Is not this proof that the sanctuary was defiled by sins that had not been atoned?


161. Leviticus 15:31 "Separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile my tabernacle that is among them.”


Deuteronomy 23:14 “For the LORD thy God walks in the midst of thy camp.”


Do not these texts also prove that the sanctuary was defiled by un-atoned sin?


162. To name a few, Barnes Notes, the Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, the Keil and Delitzsch Commentary, the Matthew Henry Commentary  and the New Unger’s Bible Dictionary all agree that the cleansing of the Day of Atonement was for un-atoned sin. Is that not good evidence that the SDA position is wrong?


163. The yearly cleansing of the righteous of the Day of Atonement has no equivalent future fulfillment beyond Calvary because a) the heavenly sanctuary is not located “in the midst” of several million sinners, b) Jesus’ death once and for all time fulfilled the O.T. sanctuary shadows (Heb 9:25-28; 10:1-3), c) The O. T. sanctuary was only a figure for “the time then present” (9:9), d) the New Covenant is “not according to the Old Covenant” (8:9) and e) a key difference in the New Covenant is that God would no longer remember sins and iniquities as in the Day of Atonement (8:12). How do SDAs explain these differences?


164.  Psalm 51:7 “Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.”


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


Is there any indication from Scripture that previously atoned sins will once again be investigated in the future?


165.  John 3:16 "… that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."


Does the believer have "eternal life" at the moment of salvation or not until the books have been investigated after 1844 as SDAs teach?


166. John 5:24 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."


This text gives three reasons to refute the investigative judgment. a) at the moment one accepts Christ, everlasting life is bestowed as a gift, b) the believer will not come into a future process of judging the guilt removed by justification by faith [krisen] and c) the future perfect tense means "has already passed over" from death into life.


How do SDAs explain this text?


167. Romans 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.”


The Greek for "condemnation" is kata-krima, or

"contrary judgment." How can the assurance of salvation be possible if one fears a later condemnation again when the books are investigated after 1844?


168.  Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”


These complimentary texts teach that Christ substituted Himself for the sinner's future judgment appointment at Calvary. How do SDAs explain these texts?


169.  Why did God wait so long to begin the last-day judgment of 1844 for believers?




170.  GC421: "For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued [only until 1844] in the first apartment of the sanctuary [the holy place]…"


Does not the Bible teach that Jesus has been  sitting in the second apartment in the Most Holy Place at the right hand of the Father since his ascension?


171. GC421 … The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their SINS still remained upon the books of record."


Since Jesus has already "secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father," how can that "acceptance" be in jeopardy during the investigative judgment after death?


172.  Where does the Bible say that the atoned forgiven sins of believers remain on the books of heaven?  Haven't we been under the New Covenant since Calvary? Is not an important part of the New Covenant "their sins and iniquities I will remember no more"?


173.  GC409-422 says that the only sins while defiled the sanctuary were those which had been (1) confessed over sacrificial blood, (2) forgiven, (3) atoned and (4) brought into the sanctuary by the priests. Therefore, the Old Covenant books should only contain the forgiven sins of professed believers.


Is this a reasonable conclusion of SDA logic?


174.  GC480 "The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decisions of the judgment." 


According to EGW do the books of the investigative judgment only contain atoned sins or do they contain all deeds of men? See GC470-491, especially 480-482.


***175. GC482: "Every man’s work passes in review before God and is registered for faithfulness or unfaithfulness. Opposite each man’s name in the books of heaven is entered with terrible exactness every wrong word, every selfish act, every unfulfilled duty, and every secret sin, with every artful dissembling. Heaven-sent warnings or reproofs neglected, wasted moments, unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted for good or for evil, with its far-reaching results, all are chronicles by the recording angel.”


GC483: "Names are accepted [since 1844], names rejected [since 1844]. When any have SINS remaining upon the books of record, un-repented of and un-forgiven, their names will be blotted out of the book of life [salvation lost after death], and the record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance” [quotes Exod. 32:33 and Ezek. 18:24]. 


Read this carefully again. If God is going to "blot out" names from the book of life if even "unimproved opportunities, the influence exerted" are counted against believers, then nobody can be saved.  How do SDAs explain that?


177. Leviticus 23:27 "Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD." 


Was the literal investigation of the Day of Atonement made by God or made by believers? How does SDAs explain this contradiction?


178.  Was not the literal investigation completed before the beginning of the Day of Atonement?


How do SDAs explain this contradiction?


179. GC480 and GC662-678 (esp. 666) refers to Daniel 7:10 and Revelation 20:12 to argue that "the same books of record are now being used to judge the unbelievers at the Great White Throne Judgment."


Does that not contradict GC409-422 that only forgiven sins are recorded?


180.  Exodus 32:32 “If you will not forgive Israel’s sin then “blot me out of your book.

Exodus 32:33 “Whosoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.


Does not the "book of life" here refer to those who are living and physical life?


181. Ezra 8:1 “These are now the chief of their fathers and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king.”


Nehemiah 7:5 “And my God put into my heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy. And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein.”


First Chronicles 9:1 “So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression.”


Matthew 1:1 “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”


Did not Israel's books of genealogy only contain the names of eligible Hebrews and not sins?


182.  Ezra 2:59-62 "And these were they which went up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not show their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel. … And of the children of the priests … These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood."


Ezekiel 13:9, “And my hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and you shall know that I am the Lord GOD.”


Which book in heaven contains the record of sins which have already been atoned, washed away and separated as far as the east from the west?


183. Luke 10:20 “Rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”


What reason is there to rejoice if the names can be blotted out after death because of forgotten sins and even the influence of sins?


184. Philippians 4:3 “Whose names are in the book of life.”


Revelation13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."


Is not this a different book of life than the one mentioned in the Old Covenant?


185. Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,


Hebrews 12:23 “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven.”


Are not the saints of chapter 11 depicted as already being in heaven and looking down? How do SDAs explain this contradiction to their theology?


186. Daniel 7:10 "A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."


Dan. 7:22 "… until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was passed in favor of the saints of the Highest One, and the time arrived when the saints took possession of the kingdom."


Whereas the rest of Christendom interprets these texts as a judgment of and against the little horn, SDAs interpret them as a reference to the beginning of the investigate judgment and the atoned sins of saints in 1844. How do SDAs explain this difference?


187. GC483 "The record of their good deeds will be erased from the book of God’s remembrance”


Confessed sins are good deeds. Does this not mean that God will un-forgive previously forgiven sins?


188. Is this why SDAs teach that forgiven sins must still remain on the books of heaven until immediately before Christ returns (GC420-421)?


189. GC485: "Since the dead are to be judged out of the things written in the books, it is impossible that the SINS of men should be blotted out until after the judgment at which their cases are to be investigated. [quotes Acts 3:19-20] (Compare GC417-426 with 479-493.).


This means that nobody is in heaven yet and that Jesus could not have returned before 1844. How do SDAs explain this?


190. While those who have confessed and forsaken every sin will have their “sins” blotted out, those believers who failed to confess and forsake every sin will have the record of pardon against their confessed sins erased and their names will be blotted out of the book of life (GC483, 486).


Is this a correct interpretation of SDA theology?


191. Revelation 3:5 "He that overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels."


Arminians (opposed to Calvinists) teach that the names of those who do not continue to live a Christian life risk being blotted out of the book of life. However they do not teach that God will ever “re-investigate” previously forgiven sins before finally blotting names out of the book of life. Why do not SDAs agree with other Arminians?


192. 1 John 1:9 "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."


This text says that when believers confess known sins God not only forgives known sins, but also those which are still unknown. It that true?  If not, is it wrong to conclude that one un-confessed sin will cause believers to fall from grace?


***193. GC486: "Sins that have not been repented of and forsaken will not be pardoned and blotted out of the books of record, but will stand to witness against the sinner in the day of God."


Does this mean that even one unconfessed sin will cause a believer to fall from grace?


194.  GC484: "... when the names entered in the book of life come up in review [after 1844] before the Judge [the Father] of all the earth. The divine Intercessor [then] presents the plea that all who have overcome though faith in his blood [then] be forgiven their transgressions..."


Where is this in the Bible? Since the names of believers are already in the book of life, why do they need any further forgiveness? Do they fall from grace after they die? 


195. GC484 "He asks for his people not only pardon and justification, full and complete [not yet granted], but a share in his glory and a seat upon his throne [not yet granted]."


Since this occurs after 1844 per SDAs, does it not remove all assurance of salvation to believers who are still living? How do SDAs possibly teach any assurance?


196.  Rom. 3:25 "Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."


The text does not say that OT saints did not have complete atonement. The issue is that granting forgiveness before Calvary was an "unfair" accusation against God. How do SDAs explain this?


197.  Heb. 9:15 "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."


Again, the issue was not whether or not OT saints were fully forgiven. The OT priests were not being dishonest when the pronounced forgiveness and atonement. Until Calvary the price of forgiveness was the promise of God to provide a perfect sacrifice. The promise was redeemed at Calvary. How do SDAs explain this text?


198. GC418 “Remission, or the putting away of sin, is the work to be accomplished [after 1844].”


This is one of the most heretical statements ever made by Ellen G. White. The redemption of sins was purchased once for all time at Calvary. It is imputed to the believer at the moment of justification by faith. The redemption was effective because it granted full and complete forgiveness of sin. “Remission” means that the consequences of the sin have already been released, or canceled. Forgiveness brings remission. The pronouncement by the Old Covenant priest after the redemption for sin had been offered was “it shall be forgiven” (Lev. 4:205:10; 6:7).


However, SDAs place the “remission” of sins at the end of the Investigative Judgment. SDAs cannot grasp this simple formula which occurs ten times in the Leviticus ritual alone. Previously forgiven and atoned sins are never in jeopardy of being either erased or blotted out by subsequent sin. How do SDAs reconcile the biblical concept of remission with their own?




199. GC421: “For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued [only] in the first apartment of the sanctuary [the holy place]. ... " Also GC414-415.


Rev. 5:6 “And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb ….

Rev. 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne....”


SDAs teach that Jesus did not enter into the throne room, the Most Holy Place, into the presence of the Father until 1844. How do they explain the contrary description in Revelation 5:6-7?


200. Acts 2:33, “Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted.” Acts 2:34, “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit on my right hand.” Acts 5:31, “Him has God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior.” Acts 7:55, “But [Stephen], being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” Acts 7:56, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.” Romans 8:34, “[Christ] is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.” Ephesians 1:20, “[God] set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.” Colossians 3:1, “Christ sits on the right hand of God.” Hebrews 1:3, “[Christ] sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Hebrews 1:13, “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand.” Hebrews 8:1, “We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens.” Hebrews 10:12, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Hebrews 12:2, “[Christ] is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.” First Peter 3:22, “Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.” Revelation 5:7, “And [Christ] came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.”


For all except SDAs, the fifteen (15) “right hand” texts make it absolutely clear that Jesus was in His Father's presence inside the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary since His ascension. The texts are self-explanatory and unambiguous in their destruction of SDA theology. Wherever God is --there His throne is also-- and there the Most Holy Place is also! It is God’s Presence, His glory, that makes the Most Holy Place into the Most Holy Place! How do SDAs explain all of these texts which contradict them?



201. Exodus 25:22, “I will commune with you from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony.” Numbers 7:89, “[Moses] heard the voice of one speaking unto him from off the mercy seat that was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim: and he spoke unto him.” “The LORD of hosts, which dwells between the cherubim,” First Samuel 4:4; Second Samuel 6:2; Second Kings 19:15; First Chronicles 13:6; Psalm 80:1; Isaiah 37:16. “[God] sits between the cherubim,” Psalm 99:1. [God’s throne is] “between the cherubim,” Ezekiel 10:1-7.


The eleven (11) “between the cherubim” texts are also self-explanatory in their destruction of SDA theology. How do SDAs explain all of these texts which contradict them?



202. Doctrine of the Sanctuary [SDA], Editor Frank Holbrook, Biblical Research Committee, 1989, 218. “There is basic agreement that Christ at His ascension entered into the very presence of God, as symbolized by the earthly high priest’s entrance on the Day of Atonement. There is also general acceptance that neither Daniel nor a two-phased ministry are referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But we do deny that His entrance into the presence of God precludes (1) a first-apartment phase of ministry or (2) marks the beginning of the second phase of his ministry.”


This statement is considered as heresy among many Adventists because it is contrary to what EGW said. How do SDAs reply to this?




203. GC420-421: “The ministration of the priests throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, ‘within the veil,’ which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at his ascension. … Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in



No other denomination has ever taught this. All teach that Jesus entered immediately into the presence of God which would be equivalent to being inside the Most Holy Place. The "right hand" and "between the cherubim" texts prove this fact. How do SDAs explain this?


204. Hebrews 6:19-20 "Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which enters into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."


Except for SDAs, every denomination teaches that "within the veil" here means "inside the Most Holy Place because the "veil" must be the one between the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant. How do SDAs explain their disagreement? See GC421.


205. Matt 27:51 "And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent." Same as Mark 15:38 and Luke 23:45.


Heb. 10:19 “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

Heb. 10:20 By a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”


With one exception (Heb. 9:3), five of six references to “veil” in the New Testament clearly refer to the veil between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. There was no longer any necessity for a two-roomed ministry either on earth or in heaven. How do SDAs explain there opposite theology? See GC421.


206. The heavenly sanctuary does not have the "two compartment" counterpart. First, since Christ’s “flesh” was the “veil” of the Old Covenant sanctuary, then that divider-flesh was in both compartments at the same time. Second, since only one “veil” is mentioned, it is certainly the most important “veil” which separated the two compartments. Third, since that “veil” (Christ) is now seared at the right hand of the Father, then there is no longer a separating “veil.” Fourth, without a separating veil the old idea of “two” compartments (since Calvary) is now only “one” compartment. Fifth, “within the veil” clearly refers to the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:2, 12 and 15. How do SDAs respond to the "only one compartment" truth?


207. “Veil” (KJV: vail) in the Old Testament is the Hebrew paa-ro-ket (Strong’s 6532) and refers to the veil between the Holy Place and the Most Holy PlacePaaroket is translated “veil” 25 of 25 times in the KJV. See Exodus 26:31-35; 27:21; 30:6; 35:12; 36:35; 38:27; 39:34; 40:30; 40:21, 22, 26; Lev. 4:6, 17; 16:2, 12, 15; 21:23; 24:3; Numb. 4:5; 18:7; 2 Chron. 31:14.


The phrase, “within the veil (inside the vail)” occurs six (6) in the Old Testament and always refers to the Most Holy Place, particularly on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. See Ex. 26:33; Lev. 16:2, 12, 15; Numb. 18:7. The phrase, “without the veil (outside the vail)” occurs four (4) times in the Old Testament and always refers to the Most Holy Place. See Ex. 26:35; 27:21; 40:22; Lev. 24:3.


This is important! ---even though they are made of the same material, both the “veil” between the Holy Place and outer court and the “veil” at the entrance of the outer court are a different Hebrew word, maa-saak (Strong's 4539). This word is never translated as “veil” in the King James Version used by early Adventists or in any other version! Instead, these two veils are called the “hangings” or “coverings” (KJV), “screens” (NKJ, NAS, RSV) and “curtains” (NIV). Maasaak is called “hanging” or “covering” 25 of 25 times in the KJV. See Exodus 26:36, 37; 27:16; 35: 15, 17, 36, 18; 39:38, 40; 40:5, 8, 28, 33; Numb. 3:25,31; 4:25, 26. It is the “hanging for the door of the tent” in Exodus 26:36; 35:15; 36:37; 39:38; 40:5; 40:28 and Numbers 3:25; 4:25. It is the “hanging for the gate of the court” in Exodus 27:16; 35:17; 38:18; 39:40; 40:8; 40:33 and Numbers 3:26; 4:26. It is the “veil of the covering” for the mercy seat in Exodus 35:12; 39:34; 40:21 and Numbers 3:31; 4:5. Again, whenever maasaak is associated with the Most Holy Place, the wording is “veil of the covering” – “paaroket of the maacaak.” See Ex. 39:34. How do SDAs explain these facts which contradict their theory? See GC420.




208. Leviticus16:1 "And the LORD spoke unto Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they offered before the LORD, and died."


The Day of Atonement begins with a reminder that two of Aaron’s sons had been killed because they offered “strange fire” on the altar. This unclean defiled fire reminds us of the extreme holiness required of every thing and every person associated with the sanctuary. Like Aaron's sons the most holy high priest could not physically touch Satan himself on the most holy day of the year and remain undefiled and alive. How do SDAs explain this?


209. Leviticus 16:5 “And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering.”  


Both goats were to constitute one sin offering. Both goats had been chosen by the congregation from among the most spotless sacrificial animals which were all types of Jesus Christ. And both goats had been ritually cleansed by washing before being present “before the LORD” at the doorway of the sanctuary. This could not be said of Satan. How do SDAs explain these facts?


210. Leviticus 16:8 “And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat.”


Either goat could have been chosen because both were equally qualified. This is not true of Satan. It is unfortunate that most versions translate the Hebrew word for scapegoat rather than leaving it un-translated. The RSV leaves it as Azazel. Many linguists and commentaries prefer to interpret the term as merely “complete removal.” Does not the act of casting lots prove that both goats were equally qualified?


211. Leviticus 16:9-10 “And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.”


Numbers 18:9 "This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every oblation of theirs, every meat offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every trespass offering of theirs, which they shall render unto me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons."


It is clear from 16:5 that both goats were offered by the nation for one sin offering. Therefore, when it was presented “before the LORD” it must have already been "most holy" per Numbers 18:9. How do SDAs explain that a "most holy" "sin offering" can be Satan?


***212. Leviticus 16:19 [16-20] “And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it [the whole sanctuary] with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.”


Leviticus 6:27: 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."


The blood of sin offerings cleaned instead of defiled! Only "most holy" things or persons could touch the flesh or blood of the dead sin sacrifice. And anything it touched became most holy. There is no difference between the sin offering of the Day of Atonement and the sin offering on other days. This is the same most holy blood of the perfect most holy sinless sin offering which has been offered throughout the year. Whatever the sin offering touches becomes most holy (Lev 6:18, 27). How do SDAs explain that the most holy high priest can touch Satan on the holiest day of the year?


213. Leviticus 16:20-21 “And when he has made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness.”


A.  The text does not state that the high priest must first wash his hands before laying them upon the live goat. His hands were still wet with the blood of the bullock and goat which had just cleansed the Most Holy Place and the remainder of the sanctuary. And, since both the touch of the most holy high priest and also the blood of a most holy sin offering confers “most holiness” then it must be concluded that the live goat was also “most holy” (Lev 6:17-18, 25-27; Num 18:9). Unless this can be disproved, then the SDAs have no grounds to state that the live goat represented Satan himself. 


B. The sins were those of ignorance, omission and inadvertent sins which “remain” un-confessed and un-atoned at the end of the year. They were not pre-meditated high-handed sins which were punishable by the judges through cutting off from Israel.


C. There are two precedents for allowing sin-offerings to live after they have participated in atonement. In Leviticus 14:1-7 two clean birds were used to cleanse a leper and one of the birds was released alive. Also in 14:49-53 two birds were taken to “cleanse” a house from mold or mildew. Leviticus 14:52-53: “And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet: But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.” Since only one chapter separates the living birds and the living goat, it is extremely likely that both refers to the freedom and release resulting from cleansed sin. How do SDAs explain this?


214. Leviticus 16:22 “And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.”


A.  Once a year for a very brief time Israel could be assured that their sins had been removed from even the records and memory of God –until the very next sin offering and the cycle began all over again! (Compare Heb 10:1-3).


B. Jesus Christ is the ultimate sin-bearer and is even responsible for creating Lucifer and allowing Lucifer to become Satan. Compare Isa 14:12-15; 53:6, 12; Mt 26:42; Jn 1:3; Rom 3:25; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 2:9; Heb 1:3. Hebrews 9:28 “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Isa 53:6 “… and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The wording of Isaiah 53:6 and Hebrews 9:28 is comparable to the high priest’s laying on of hands and confessing all sin over the living goat on the Day of Atonement.


C. The living goat functioned as the second part of the one sin offering and atonement. The goat was for “complete removal” of sins in the view of the sinners. Prior to entering the blessed kingdom, it symbolized God’s final act of cleansing even the records of atoned sin. God chose to no longer remember atoned sin. The complete removal of sin by the living goat was the proto-type of the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:12; 10:17.


“As both goats were intended for a sin-offering, the sins of the nation were confessed upon both, and placed upon the heads of both by the laying on of hands; though it is of the living goat only that this is expressly recorded, being omitted in the case of the other, because the rule laid down in Lev 4:4 ff. was followed” Keil and Delitzsch Commentary.


How do SDAs explain these facts?

No comments:


Has Islam Improved to Become Better Than Christianity? Does Muhammad fulfill and complete the mission and purpose of Christ? Muhammad emphat...