| Author | Message | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 149 Registered: 7-2011  |
Recall that the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees bought a woman to Jesus who had been caught in the act of adultery to try and trap Jesus. They asked Him, "The law of Moses says stone her. What do you say?" We are all familiar with the account. If Jesus is lax toward the law then He would be condemned in the eyes of the people. But if He held to the law of Moses then He would have allowed these men to prevail in their merciless treatment of this woman. Jesus understands their objective and outwits their conspiracy. We are familiar with Jesus reply and His mysterious writing in the dust. One by one the woman's accusers slipped away until there were none left. But wasn't there a more obvious relpy? Why didn't Jesus simply say to the woman's accusers, 'Let the woman take a turtle dove or a lamb to the temple and sacrifice it according to the law of Moses and she shall be forgiven her sin'? That would be a straight forward Biblical solution, wouldn't it? The Sanctuary Doctrine The SDA sanctuary doctrine teaches - just as the sins of the Israelites were laid upon a sacrificial animal and carried into the temple by the victims blood - so too are the confessed sins of Christians transferred into the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Jesus. 'Sin' in Adventist theology is 'transgression of the law' 1 John 3:4. The law is the Ten Commandments. [That is what I was taught]. Adultery is breaking the Ten Commandments. So why didn't Jesus didn't recommend that the woman make atonement for her 'sin' by going to the temple and 'offering a sacrifice'? Because there was no sacrifice for adultery in the law of Moses.. The penalty for adultery was death. Neither was there a sacrifice for breaking the Sabbath - the punishment for breaking the Sabbath was stoning to death. Neither was there a sacrifice for murder, or any of the Ten Commandments in the daily ordinances of the sanctuary. The Problem How does the sanctuary explain the confession of sin by Christian's today if that confession is theologically linked to sacrifices at the altar of burnt offering, the sprinkling of that blood before the vail (which, by the way, wasn't ever done on behalf of individuals of the laity). If the temple sacrifices didn't cover breaking the Ten Commandments, which defines 'sin' in SDA theology what did they they cover? Leviticus 1-7 provides an introduction. The Sanctuary doctrine tries to link sacrifices at the altar of burnt offering in 'type' and confession of sin by Christians today in 'antitype' - but it doesn't mesh? | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 150 Registered: 7-2011 |
I tried to edit the last part for clarity but "the computer said no". Here goes! The Problem How does the sanctuary explain the confession of sin by Christian's today if that confession is theologically linked to an Israelite making a sacrifice that was not related to breaking the Ten Commandments? If the temple sacrifices didn't cover breaking the Ten Commandments, which defines 'sin' in SDA theology what did they they cover? The Sanctuary doctrine tries to link sacrifices at the altar of burnt offering in 'type' and confession of sin by Christians today in 'antitype' - but it doesn't mesh. | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 1053 Registered: 2-2008  |
I actually had to look up the 10C's... I couldn't remember them. ha! Anyway, I had never thought about this little detail about adultery and breaking the sabbath were not covered by temple sacrifices. The beauty of Christ's death is that His sacrifice covers all sin... sinful nature and sins. Sda's just don't believe their sinful nature is covered by Christ's death... this is the part they believe they can overcome with Christ's help. SDA's only believe their sins were covered by His death... BUT only covered if they were found to be in "perfect harmony" with God's Law (the 10C's) at the IJ. So really, even as Christians (not only with the sanctuary doctrine), it doesn't make sense that Christ's sacrifice would cover adultery. It's the beauty and completeness of Christ's death. BTW, were the sins of coveting, lying and stealing all dealt by stoning? I thought that stealing was dealt by the person that was guilty had to return what was stolen and then some? ... and then sin offereings offered? vivian | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 159 Registered: 7-2011 |
Hi Vivian From what I can recall Achan was stoned for stealing the babylonish garment. Yes, there are specific sacrifices for stealing in certain circumstances, and further recompense to the person wronged (outlined in the opening chapters of Leviticus). As for coveting and lying there was not a sacrifice in terms of the way it was presented to us as Adventists. That is, an individual takes an animal and sacrifices it at the altar of burnt offering during the Jewish calendar year. There was no sacrifice for wilful sin - breaking the Ten Commandments (with some exceptions around stealing). The people knew the Ten Commandments, to break them was generally considered wilful sin. When King David sinned, he was not asked to make a sacrifice, as there wasn't one. He sinned wilfully as he knew the commandments. God forgave him. There was no sacrifice for adultery. Yet Jesus forgave the woman. This is the mercy of God. This is the Gospel. During the Jewish year the sanctuary services seem to be mainly (but not exclusively) concerned with ceremonial purity. If a woman bled longer than what was considered normal there was a sacrifice. If a person had leprosy there was a sacrifice. Unconfessed Ceremonial sin as well as wilful sin in the camp defiled the sanctuary. But this got sorted on the Day of Atonement. It's very interesting. My main contention is that we were not taught the truth about the sanctuary ordinances. It appears to me that the sda teachings related to the altar of burnt sacrifice and the priest's role in the sanctuary were trumped up to cover the 1844 disappointment. The sacrifices suggested by the sda doctrine are just not there. Not in the Bible. (Message edited by Kelleigh on October 16, 2011) | ||
| Kelleigh Registered user Username: Kelleigh Post Number: 160 Registered: 7-2011 |
PS - In the context above "no sacrifice" means "no sacrifice for individuals at the altar of Burnt offering during the Jewish calendar year" . The SDA Sanctuary doctrine teaches contrary to the law of Moses in this respect - to support the 1844 doctrine. Just in case my meaning wasn't clear! (Message edited by Kelleigh on October 16, 2011) | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13044 Registered: 12-2003  |
Kelleigh, you are right. The law did not provide sacrifice for willful sin, only for unintentional sin. Willful sins had to be punished. There is an excellent, short-ish article on this in a past Proclamation. The article is by Russell Kelley, and you can read it here: http://www.lifeassuranceministries.org/proclamation/2010/2/doesblooddefile.html Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3815 Registered: 10-2004  |
"Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39 NASB.) One of my favorite texts.  Jeremy | ||
| Mjcmcook Registered user Username: Mjcmcook Post Number: 176 Registered: 2-2011 |
~Jeremy~ Thank-you for sharing Acts 13:38&39 ~ I say~"AMEN & AMEN"~ !! ~*~mj~*~ | ||
| Indy4now Registered user Username: Indy4now Post Number: 1056 Registered: 2-2008 |
Jeremy... That verse makes total sense now! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 13049 Registered: 12-2003 |
Yes! Jeremy, thank you for that verse. I hadn't thought of it in the context of "no sacrifice for willful sins" before...I just hadn't put them together. That's a really profound connection! Colleen |
