APPENDIX to Chapter 7
ascension for the obvious reasons set
APPENDIX
One scholar raises the following
helpful points regarding my remarks
on page 91:
You correctly say that on the Day
of Atonement (Lev 16) the high
priest ministered in both
apartments of the tabernacle.
They go something like this don’t
they? (a) into the Most Holy place
with incense and out again (v. 12).
(b) into the Most Holy Place with
bull’s blood and out again (v. 14).
(c) into the Most Holy place with
the goats blood (verse 15)
(d) then out to the incense altar
with the blood of the bull and the
goat (v. 18)
(e) then out to the live goat (v. 20-
22) and back into the holy place to
take off his linen clothes.
The first three rituals (a,b,c) are in
the Most Holy Place and the last
two (d,e) are in the Holy Place.
Does Jesus fulfill these entrances in
the same sequence? Or is the order
reversed in the antitype? That is,
does the Day of Atonement begin
or end for Jesus in the Holy Place?
There are three Day of Atonement
distinctives in the earthly sanctuary
which cannot apply to Jesus’
ministration in the heavenly
sanctuary. The first is the high priest
offered bull’s blood as a sin offering
for himself and his family. (Lev 16:6,
11, 17, 24; Heb 5:3). This figure
cannot apply to Christ after His
i
out in Heb 7:26-28.
The second is that the earthly
sanctuary is but a shadow of the
heavenly (Heb 8:5) therefore the five
rituals referred to in steps ‘a’ to ‘e’
cannot be applied to Christ’s
ministrations in the heavenly
sanctuary because His blood is
superior to that of sacrificial animals
(Heb 9:12-14) and it is a once and for
all sacrifice (Heb 9:12; 26-28).
The third is the depiction in the book
of Hebrews of a “veil-less” heavenly
sanctuary, rendering debate about
apartments in the heavenly sanctuary
futile. (see page ii).
What is apparent from the type is that
the high priest ministered in both
apartments of the sanctuary and also
in the outer courtyard. It is much
safer to export a global view of the
earthly sanctuary to the heavenly
sanctuary than to fixate on each
single cultic process of the earthly
of which many clearly cannot apply
to Christ as High Priest. (eg
changing garments, evening and
morning sacrifice, sacrificial animal
blood, High priest’s sin offering for
himself and family etc).
Having regard to all of chapter 7 and
the generic use of the word
“sanctuary” (except in Heb 9:3),
the eschatological Day of Atonement
began for Jesus in the heavenly
sanctuary as a whole without
apartment-restrictions. This is
consistent with the rent veil on earth,
the breaking down of barriers and the
i
 APPENDIX to Chapter 7
gaining of direct access to God
through Christ (Heb 10:19-22).
Since His ascension the essence of
Christ’s ministration in the heavenly
sanctuary as High Priest has been
mediation, forgiveness and
intercession on behalf of believers.
Since 1844 the essence of Christ’s
ministration as High Priest is
identical save for the additive of
blotting out believers’ sins.
In Heb 6:19-20 we have (i) a high
priest (ii) who entered (iii) within
the veil. How can it be said (page
92) that there are no Day of
Atonement allusions in Hebrews 6?
The expression “within the veil” does
not always mean second apartment
ministration. The same expression is
used in Numbers 18:5-7 where it is
used to signify the curtain separating
the courtyard from the first
apartment. Verse 5 reads that Aaron
and his sons are in charge of the
“altar” and the “sanctuary” and verse
7 reads they are in charge of the
“altar” and that which is “within the
veil”, a clear indication the term
“within the veil” means within the
sanctuary as a whole. Let it not be
overlooked that Aaron was high
priest.
Hebrews 6:19-20 depicts the entire
sanctuary to which Christ has given
us access and in which our hope is
anchored. The heavenly sanctuary is
not about apartments. The essence of
the heavenly sanctuary is Christ’s
mediation as High Priest for all
believers who gain forgiveness of sin
through His intercession and direct
access to the Father. Direct access
ii
was achieved through Christ’s once-
only atoning death at Calvary.
Typical sanctuary barriers to God’s
presence were removed. The
heavenly sanctuary cannot therefore
be limited by discrete apartments.
The heavenly sanctuary is “veil-less”
because the presence of sin requires
God’s presence be veiled.
SDA pioneers used expressions such
as “first apartment”, “holy place”,
“second apartment” and “Most Holy
Place” when referring to the heavenly
sanctuary. It is easy to conceive from
these expressions that the heavenly
sanctuary comprises two apartments.
However the book of Hebrews
teaches Calvary removed the old
cultic barrier to God’s presence (as
typified by the veil) and we now have
direct access to the Father. Was not
the veil in the temple rent when Jesus
died (Matt 27:51)? This is the
clearest indication that the heavenly
sanctuary is veil-less. Why should it
be otherwise? Veil-less because
there are no sinful priests or sinful
beings in heaven. Veil-less because
Jesus is the perfect, sinless High
Priest (Heb 10:19-21) the moment He
offered Himself at Calvary. Veil-less
because of direct access to the Father
through Jesus. Veil-less because
Hebrews is silent about first
apartment ministration. That is not to
say that the distinction between
‘daily’ and ‘yearly’ ministration
cannot be maintained. Since 1844,
these ministrations exist
contemporaneously.
Such a view accords with the
Adventist position (See GC 427 last
para) and with the message in the
book of Hebrews. Since the Cross,
ii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 7
Jesus has been the source of
forgiveness and has served as
intercessor and mediator pleading His
once-shed blood. The daily priest
typified these precise services save
for the fact that sacrificial animal
blood was used each morning and
evening. Such was the work of the
Savior since the Cross save for the
fact that His blood was once-shed,
achieving a once-only perfect
atonement. After Calvary there was
no need for re-occurring daily animal
sacrifices but there was need indeed
for forgiveness, intercession and
mediation. These elements were very
much part of daily ministration in the
typical service and they continued
after Calvary. It is this ‘daily’ work
of Jesus since His ascension that the
little horn usurps. Since 1844 Jesus
has been engaged in work identical to
the ‘daily’ (as defined) save for the
additive blotting out of sins which
was a Day of Atonement distinctive.
These ministrations accord with
Christ’s role as Savior and with the
truths found in the book of Hebrews.
They do not diminish the Adventist
position except in pioneer use of
terminology.
Pages 34 and 42-45 make it clear that
the activity of the little horn in taking
away the daily extends right up to the
Second Advent, indicating Christ’s
daily ministration continues past the
Cross and past 1844. Table 5 (page
96) reveals that John the Revelator
depicts Christ in both Holy Place and
Most Holy Place ministrations in the
heavenly sanctuary. Although Jesus
is predominantly depicted in Holy
Place scenes until the 7th trumpet
blows, allusions to God’s throne
iii
(Most Holy Place) are found in prior
verses (Rev 4:2; 7:15). Thus John
depicts Jesus in heavenly sanctuary
scenery reminiscent of both
apartments, although Holy Place
scenery dominates until the 7th
trumpet.
This concurs with a “veil-less”
heavenly sanctuary. This can be
readily tested by asking: “If the
earthly high priest was sinless, would
a veil have been necessary between
the two apartments?” Where sin
abounds a veil must exist. This is not
the case in heaven. Therefore any
fixation on heavenly apartments by
Adventists or their critics is bound to
miss the central message of Hebrews.
This view also accords with Hebrews
6:19-20 which depicts open access to
God’s presence through Jesus the
High Priest:
“We have this hope as an
anchor for the soul, firm and
secure. It enters the inner
sanctuary behind the curtain,
where Jesus who went before
us has entered on our behalf.
He has become our High Priest
forever in the order of
Melchizadek”.
To a first century Jew this would
have had Day of Atonement allusions
save for the fact that the author of
Hebrews presents a veil-less heavenly
sanctuary - an entire sanctuary to
which our hope has access. Nowhere
in Hebrews is there one reference to a
veil in the heavenly sanctuary which
creates separate apartments. Take
away a wall and two separate rooms
iii
 APPENDIX to Chapter 7
become one room. Take away a veil
and the two apartments become one
sanctuary. Thus there are no Day of
Atonement allusions in Hebrews
6:19-20 save for “enter” and “High
Priest” and these comply with Jesus
our High Priest entering a heavenly
sanctuary at His ascension, and not a
second apartment. (See Heb 10:19-
21). We are foolish to restrict God’s
heavenly temple to two cubicles
based on the cultic pattern!
Expressions such as “within the veil”
(6:19) and “through the veil” (10:20)
evidence that in a post-Calvary era
there is no veil in the heavenly
sanctuary. Placing a veil there
undoes the whole message of
Hebrews. The “veil” is defined in
Heb 10:19-20 as Christ’s flesh, not a
curtain in heaven. It is Christ’s blood
that allows our hope to enter within
the heavenly sanctuary, not an
apartment.
Therefore mention of a high priest
“entering” “within the veil” in a
post-Calvary scenario cannot mean
“Most Holy Place ministration” but
must mean a “veil-less heavenly
sanctuary ministration”.
In Dan 8:14 you found the Day of
Atonement despite there being no
mention of a high priest, the most
holy place or an entering such as in
Heb 6:19-20. Is this consistent?
The typical Day of Atonement was an
annual event succeeding the daily
ministry of priests. The
eschatological Day of Atonement
satisfies the criteria of Dan 8:13
which requires that event occur after
the vision of the whole of Dan 8 is
iv
fulfilled. It must also follow on after
the daily ministry of the Prince
(Dan 8:11) and not just any typical
earthly sanctuary priest. (see pages
33-34 and 51).
The typical Day of Atonement
addressed the problem of flagrant
rebellion against God. This satisfies
the criteria of Daniel 8:13 that the
event must address the question
“How long shall be the pesha’ (the
rebellion)..?” Daniel 8:11-14
therefore carried strong Day of
Atonement familiarity to Jewish
readers in Daniel’s day because the
word nitsdaq could only have had
Day of Atonement significance. (See
pages 46-51; App to Ch 1 pp xvi-
xxiv). For these reasons it would
have been impossible for Jewish
readers in Daniel’s day to
disassociate the Day of Atonement
from Dan 8:14.
Can we dismiss Day of Atonement
entrance language in Heb 9:11-12
and 25 simply because 'ta hagia'
means “sanctuary”? (page 90)
General reference terms do not
forbid specific reference if the
context requires it (eg Lev 16, 2,
17). A high priest who entered the
sanctuary by means of blood not
once a year but once for all would
mean the Day of Atonement for
any 1st century Jew. Why couldn’t
the author of Hebrews use the
language of the high priest’s
entrance on the Day of Atonement
to convey to his readers the
achievement of the death of Jesus?
It’s a graphic picture of the gospel:
the death of Christ opens for us a
new way back into fellowship with
iv
 APPENDIX to Chapter 7
God. How does that threaten the
healthy idea of a pre-advent
judgment of the people of God?
To a first century Jew Heb 9:11-12
and 25 would have had Day of
Atonement allusions save for the fact
that the author of Hebrews presents a
veil-less heavenly sanctuary.
Nowhere in Hebrews is there one
reference to a veil in the heavenly
sanctuary that creates separate
apartments. Indeed expressions such
as “within the veil” (6:19) and
“through the veil” (10:20) strongly
indicate there is no veil in the post-
Calvary era.
Therefore any mention of a high
priest entering within the veil in a
post-Calvary scenario cannot mean
“Most Holy Place ministration” and
must mean a superior veil-less
heavenly “sanctuary” ministration.
All of our difficulties with veils and
apartments arise from the humanity
within us. We seek to export far too
much of the typical service to the
heavenly and our removalist truck is
heavily laden with furniture, vessels
and veils which play no role in the
post-Calvary era.
The penny drops when we recognize
that Hebrews depicts a veil-less
heavenly sanctuary, the salvatory
essence of which is Christ’s
ministration in the temple of God as a
whole. Yes, Jesus did enter ‘within
the veil’ at His ascension because it
was rent on earth. Yes, He did sit at
the right hand of God. Yes, He did
mediate, intercede and plead His
blood on behalf of all believers since
His ascension, thus duplicating the
v
essence of ‘the daily’ - the target of
the little horn’s attacks. Yes, He has
been High Priest since His ascension
(Heb 10:19-21). Yes, He is engaged
in an additional work since 1844, the
blotting out of believer’s sins and the
vindication of the righteous, the plan
of salvation and God’s government to
a curious but reverent universe.
On earth our vision is shackled by
apartments created by veils. On earth
veils were necessary because sinful
humanity cannot approach God’s
presence direct. On earth the high
priest was a sinner. In heaven after
Calvary our vision is broadened to an
entire sanctuary in which there is no
veil thus no separate apartments.
Within that heavenly sanctuary Jesus
as High Priest since His ascension
ministers, pleading His blood on our
behalf as our mediator to secure our
forgiveness and cleansing. This is
the daily. It does not require
re-occurring sacrifice like the earthly.
It does not require veils and shrouds
to conceal God’s presence. Since
1844 this identical work continues
save for the additive blotting out of
believer’s sins. None of the two
heavenly ministrations constitute
atonement. Both are mediatorial
ministrations focusing on
forgiveness, cleansing, intercession
and blotting out of sin. Both are
founded on Christ’s once-only
atonement.
The only place where Hebrews
unequivocally depicts the Most Holy
Place is 9:3 and the expression
“hagia hagion” is used. The earthly
sanctuary depicted, not the heavenly.
The expression “hagia hagion” is
v
 APPENDIX to Chapter 7 vi

never used again in the book. The

expressions “ta hagia”, “ton hagion”
and “hagia” must therefore translate
as “sanctuary” unless the context
dictates “Holy Place”. They cannot
ever depict “Most Holy Place”
otherwise “hagia hagion” would have
been used. Scholars have long
suggested the author of Hebrews was
influenced by the Septuagint which
never once used “ta hagia” to refer to
the Most Holy Place alone. One
study concludes the Septuagint uses
“ta hagia” 109 times in total; 106
times to refer to the entire sanctuary
and 3 times to refer to the Holy Place
but not once to the Most Holy Place1.
The unreliability of the NIV in this
regard is apparent. Dr William
Johnsson exposed its unreliability in
this regard in 1994 2. Yet it continues
to be recommended by Adventist
critics such as Dale Razlaff.

When confronted with a ‘log jamb’

verse on which a doctrine depends,
the only recourse is to set aside one’s
favorite English translation and read
the inspired writer’s instructions in
his own language, be it Greek or
Hebrew. There is no other way
forward.

1
Carl Coesart “A Study of Ta Hagia
in The LXX, Pseudoepigrapha, Philo, Josephus
and Its Implications in Hebrews” MA Thesis,
Nazarene Theological Seminary 2000
2
W. Johnsson “Hebrews” (Nampa, Idaho:
PPPA 1994) pp149-150

vi