“Repent ye therefore, and be converted , that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before waspreached unto you; whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (KJV)

Luke, the physician, was particularly interested in the circumstances in which Peter preached this homily: Peter, accompanied by John, had performed the miracle of healing a man born blind who was sitting at the gate of the temple, begging for a mite.Instead of giving the expected alms, Peter, restored the man’s sight, as his master had earlier done for blind Bartimeus (Mark 10:46-52). As soon as he could see, the man reacted with such enthusiasm that he attracted a crowd of curious worshippers. This is the moment Peter chose to address them.He revealed the source of his healing powers, the God of the Jewish patriarchs whom they worshipped. He spoke of Jesus as God’s servant, and identified his listeners as those responsible for his death. Their leaders had disowned him before Pilate and requested the release of a murdered in his stead. [His sermon, incidentally, should have been addressed to Pilate, the real executioner, and his Roman legions, whose merciless tyranny had slaughtered multitudes.[1]]. The miracle they witnessed, Peter affirmed, was the result of his faith in this servant of the Lord. He then called upon them to repent of this odious deed, in the words cited above.
 

Historical Usage

This text is quite familiar to Seventh-day Adventists. It was already used by Enoch Jacobs, the editor of the Western Midnight Cry as early as December 1844, a short time after the great disappointment. It was most probably current among the Millerites who inherited the ideas of the English literalists. When Adventists gathered to regroup at the Albany Conference of April 1845, they used this very text as their new marching-orders to call men to repentance.[2]. In his first public letter, Hiram Edson, famous for his “cornfield vision,” twice cited this text.[3]. His silence about his vision in this letter, and the contents of the letter do not witness favorably for the authenticity of the vision. Edson was then convinced that the saints were about to enter the “dispensation of the fullness of times” (Ephesians 1:10). In fact, he set the date for this major event in August 1845! The “blotting out,” of sins was then about to take place in the new dispensation. His letter did not link this text with the great Day of Atonement in the heavens. He seemed to understand it in the spirit of Peter, as concurrent with the “times of refreshing.”Moreover, his letter as well as the two pamphlets he published in 1849,[4] profess the doctrine of the shut-door, quite unlike the renewed missionary zeal of his vision. It is not quite clear whether Edson in 1845 believed, with certain Millerites,[5] that Israel would be converted and restored to their Jerusalem home before the Second Advent. In his letter, he considers the two wave-offerings of Lev. 23:7 as types of “Jews and Gentiles, both houses of Israel.” This he does while enumerating all the types yet to be fulfilled before the coming of the new dispensation. There is evidence that some form of dispensationalism was current in Western New York at that time.[6]. The return of the Jews to Israel was a feature of this belief, and there is no doubt that in 1849 Edson believed it would occur in 1850. Peter’s words in Acts were among many biblical passages that were used to support the belief that Jewish repentance would occur before the Second Advent. It was to usher the apokatastasis[7], the time of the “restitution of all things.” In fact modern dispensationalists have seen the contemporary return of the Jewish people to Israel as an undeniable sign of the nearness of the Advent, and their generous support for the State of Israel has been the object of political controversy. Judaism also thought at various times throughout history that national repentance would bring the expected Messiah.

O. R. L. Crozier, the main architect of the Sanctuary doctrine,[8] was probably the first Adventist to use this text of Acts as a support for the notion that “blotting out” of sins was the final cleansing performed on the Day of Atonement. Indeed he implied that first century Christians, even if they responded to Peter’s appeal to repentance, would only receive forgiveness, which was not a final atonement, according to him. The “blottingout” of their sins would only occur in a distant future, when the times of refreshing would come. He identified that time as starting in 1844, the beginning of the final Day of Atonement in the heavens. Crozier made a strict distinction between “forgiveness,” that followed immediately upon repentance, and “blotting out” which was still in the future for early Christians. He considered expiation as comporting two phases in the Hebrew ritual. Daily sin-offerings only brought forgiveness, but the Day of Atonement wiped out the “record of sins” that had accumulated on the altar throughout the year. That dual system was also projected into the Heavenly Sanctuary. From the ascension of Christ to 1844, men were only forgiven but on the 22^nd of October 1844, “our High Priest entered the most holy Place to proceed with the ‘blotting out’.” In the Hebrew ritual, Crozier discerned a systematic “transfer” of sins, starting with the worshipper laying his hands on his sacrifice. The blood of the sacrificial victim, polluted by the sin it bore, was then sprinkled or daubed on the altar by the priest. It defiled the sanctuary that was not cleansed until the Day of Atonement.

Adopting this pattern as a type of the heavenly procedure involved Crozier in a problematic view of Christ’s function as a High Priest. He affirmed that the heavens were “defiled by mortals through His agency, and for them cleansed by the same agency.”[9] [We need not suggest how the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews might have considered the thought of Christ’s blood as a means of defilement.] In spite of his evident intelligence, Crozier’s rather limited education[10] did not enable him to discern the errors remaining in the King James Version of the Scriptures. The intricacies of Greek grammar were beyond his purview even when he consulted concordances. His theory held out among Sabbatarian Adventists after he himself had repudiated it in 1848.[11] His present successors, however, do not suffer from similar deficiencies as is evident in their recent scholarly publications.

Linguistic Analysis

On rereading this text, the use of specialized language is inevitable, but it may be reduced to a minimum. The text of the King James Version allows Crozier’s reading, for it clearly implies a wiping of sins linked with a future time of restitution. But the original contains two well-known Greek conjunctions of purpose, each preceding a segment of the text:

      lst segment: conjunction pròs, (for, with view to, in order to)  +  a verb in the infinitive:
            exaleiphthenai a passive verb (to be blotted out, wiped, obliterated)  from exaleíphe,
               (to wipe out)  + hamartías (sins) in the genitive case, with its possessive adjective your).
               A literal translation: “for the blotting out of your sins,” does not contradict the KJV, that
               your sins may be blotted out.”

     2nd segment: conjunction hópos, (in order that) + verb in the subjunctive  mode élthosin
              (come), from  the  infinitive érchomai) + karoì anapsýxeos  (times of refreshing). Here the
              original demands a correction of  the KJV, for both conjunctions are synonymous and
              the proper translation cannot possibly be when, but again, so that. “So that times of refreshing
              may come.”[12]

In most romance languages, conjunctions of purpose are followed by the subjunctive, as in Greek, because that mode denotes an action or state viewed as possible, or contingent. Moreover the subjunctive present is really a “non-past,” still allowing for a future connotation. Recent study has shown that Greek verbs like Hebrew verbs mark aspect rather than time.[13]. But the two parallel segments make it evident that “blotting out” is not something to wait for in a distant future, but in an immediate future, as a direct consequence of repentance:

          “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing
          may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you –
          even Jesus. (NIV)

But this is not the end of the matter. The Greek verb exaleípho (wipe out, blot out) used in the New Testament , as in most occurrences in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, corresponds to a Hebrew root maha, a verb translated to blot out, destroy, put out, wipe out, abolish in the KJV. Even-Shoshan’s Hebrew concordance lists 35 occurrences of this verb in the Hebrew Bible[14]. It is found with similar meanings in Ugaritic, Phoenician, Arabic, and possibly Akkadian.[15]. To extinguish and to exterminate are added meanings found in these languages. The verb is still in use in Talmudic literature as well as Modern Hebrew with very similar meanings.
 

Lexical Features

The following tables are an attempt to classify its usages by meaning and grammatical associations:[16]

      1. maha  +  nouns of tangible entities. (physical, literal wiping or erasing or destroying):
                    + a dish (2 Kgs 21: l3
                    + water (Num. 5:23
                    + mouth (Prov. 30:20)
                    + tears (Isa. 25:8)
                    + writing (Exod. 32:33)
                    + idolatrous objects
                    + a city (2 Kings 21:l3)
                    + stains and spots (Isa. 44:22)
     2.  maha  +  nouns referring to moral, mental, or psychological experiences (figurative meaning:
                    blot out, wipe away, erase, obliterate, put out):
                    + sins, guilt rebellions, iniquity (Neh. 3:37; Ps. 51:3, 11; Ps.109:14, 2 Sam 44:22;
                   Jer. 18:23)
                    + kindnesses, merit, virtue (Neh. 13:14)
                    + name (from a register), or in the sense of reputation: (Ezek. 6:6; Ps. 9:6; Exod. 32:32;
                   Deut. 25:6)
                    + remembrance (Exod. 17:14; Deut. 9:14; 25:6,19; 29:19 [20])
                    + disgrace, reproach (Prov. 6:37)
     3.  maha  +  nouns describing persons ( destroy, exterminate, blot out of a book):
                    + people (Gen. 6:7; 7:4; Deut. 9:14; 25:19)
                    + a tribe (Judg. 21:17)
                    + a king’s enemies (Ps. 69:9)

In the Greek translation of the Bible, the Septuagint, the Hebrew root is translated mostly by exaleíph?, the New Testament term, and twice by apaleípho (to expunge, wipe off, but also to anoint). Four more words are found in the Septuagint with various meanings and in various voices (wash off from oneself, wash clean, escape notice, forget and cause to forget, makes omething melt away, slip from the mind). In classical Greek, similar meanings are found for exaleípho: anoint, plaster over, erase, destroy, blotout, cancel out, strike off[17].

The words found in poetry as Hebrew parallels shed extra light on the meaning: kipper (Atone, purge, forgive, expiate, cleanse, rub on or off); šabat in the causative voice (ruin, bring to an end, stop, put an end to); šabar (to break); hareb (waste, desolate, lit. pass by the sword); kasah (to cover); sur causative (remove, clearaway, getridof); matar causative (withholding rain from) š?mad, usually passive or causative (devastate, exterminate, annihilate), šamem, in all voices (be desolate, devastated, appalled).

Some parallels are found as figures of speech: in 2 Kgs. 21:13 we see the destruction of Jerusalem compared with wiping a dish, and the destruction of Samaria in judgement as “stretching a measuring line,” and the state of the dynasty of Ahab as verified by a plumbline. In what has beeninadequately called the ordeal of jealousy, (Numb 5:23) , the priest writes a curse on a scroll and washes it off with bitter water. Here the meaning is really to put on or rub on .
 

Is there a link between “blotting out” and cultic ritual?

The total absence of the Hebrew root from priestly sources and from the entire book of Leviticus, is particularly noteworthy. The usage found in Numbers (5:23) is connected with the “ordeal” of jealousy without reference to the forgiveness of the suspected woman, it merely concerns the ink on the scroll. In Deuteronomy there is no implication of atonement, but extermination of people (9:14; 25:19) or removing a name from a register (25:16). Had we found this root in the rite of the Day of Atonement in Lev.16, it might be conceivable that Peter had it in mind. But it is not present in any description of sacrificial procedure. The key words in atonement are kipper (to atone, purge, forgive), taher (to purify, be clean, pure) by opposition to tame' (defile, pollute, become impure), the corresponding noun tum'ah (impurity) and all the words referring to sin. The root m?h+?h, as we have seen, deals with sins of all sorts, but does not concern theiratonement by sacrificial procedure. Even in Jeremiah 18:23 where it is parallel to kipp?r and in Neh. 3.37 [4:5], parallel to kasah (to cover), it is not associated with a sacrificial rite.The Psalmist asks God to cover (kasah) his sin and forgive him (85:3), but such a prayer is not subsequent to a sacrifice, it is a plea for divine grace. When repentance precedes sacrifice, forgiveness is granted (Lev. 4:31).The same verb describes the spread of the skin disease, mistakenly identified with leprosy, covering the whole body (Lev. 13:12,13). On the Day of Atonement, it is found in the words of the ritual. But it merely describes how the smoke arisingfrom the incense will finally conceal the kaporet, (the golden lid of the ark of the testimony), the seat of the divine presence (Lev. 16:13). In that ritual, the smoke is indeed a result of the priest’s action, but the verb kissah describes the spontaneous spread of the cloud of incense that covers the ark. It is not a ritual gesture, but the expected effect of such a gesture. The context of Jeremiah 18:23, has to do with the prophet’s desire to punish those who plot to assassinate him. He asks God to deal with them in anger and to withhold mercy and forgiveness from them. The mood is that of imprecatory psalms.[18]. The prophet is not requesting the withholding of sacrifice from his enemies, since none is provided for murder.[19]. The verb kipper is here used as a synonym of to forgive, one of its various meanings. Jacob Milgrom has pointed out  that the possible origin of this verb lies in the notions of rubbing on and off.[20]. It is therefore not surprising to find our root echoing this meaning[21]. Both Jeremiah and Nehemiah are in the same predicament. They are trapped in the hands of enemies that are also God’s foes. Jeremiah castigates plotters and Nehemiah’s anger rises against the Samaritans and their leader, Sanballat.

Our survey of the numerous usages of “blotting out” makes it clear that the application of Acts 3:19 to a final cleansing of sins on Atonement Day cannot be sustained. Peter was offering his fellow-Jews immediate liberation, total eradication of their sins, on the condition of repentance and conversion. Their return (tešûbah) would hasten the promised coming of the Messiah during their lifetime.
 

Excursus: the nature of Atonement

Because of the above conclusions, we must briefly reconsider the function of the Day of Atonement in relation to that of the daily sacrifices in the Levitical system. We will then examine how the Epistle to the Hebrews understands the Hebrew sacrificial system and its “antitype” in the Christian age.

1. The pollution of the sanctuary:

That the purpose of the Day of Atonement is to cleanse the pollution left by blood on the altars throughout the year is less than convincing, because the terms used in Hebrew to describe the results of sacrifice are the same, whether daily or yearly. Sacrifices bring atonement, forgiveness, cleansing, removal of impurity and sin, and attract the divine presence. The priestly texts do not mention a “record of sins” or impurity remaining on the altars after sacrifice. If altars require cleansing, it is not because of the blood of sacrifices. Even assuming that sin is transferred to the sacrificial animal, a fact that is by no means explicit in Scripture,[22] its death ensures the forgiveness or cleansing of the repentant sinner. Its blood makes atonement for the life of the sinner. The sacrifice is a clean beast, and is slaughtered according to the law. Its blood is drained. Can a sacrifice whose flesh is declared “most holy,”[23] which must be consumed by a “consecrated” priest in a “holy” place,[24] and whose body must be burned in a “clean place”[25] still pollute the sanctuary?

Is there really a “legal defilement of the sanctuary?”[26]. Given the priestly concern to preserve the sanctuary from defilement by numerous laws, defilement cannot possibly be “legal.” This is a confusion of the holy with the impure, which no Israelite could ever embrace. These conditions are absolutely incompatible in any ancient society which professes these distinctions.[27]. Numerous episodes of the history of Israel illustrate the explosive dangers of the encounter of the Holy with the Profane.[28] The function of the priesthood is to keep them apart. In fact the priesthood is a divine institution that makes the priest incur the consequences of this possible confusion.[29] He must follow the prescriptions separating the holy and the profane “lest he die.”

2. The paradoxal nature of blood:

The affirmation that blood can sanctify as well as pollute is valid, but depending on specific conditions. Only the blood shed by murder pollutes the land. The periodic bleeding of a woman, and the blood of animals dead of a natural death defiles what it touches. But sacrificial blood is never associated with defilement of the temple, and is never the subject of the verb tame' that habitually refers to defilement of the sanctuary. Sacrificial blood does not pollute. On the contrary, It is expressly said to consecrate, to sanctify, to cleanse and to atone, when sprinkled or daubed on the altars,[30] on the veil of the temple, on people,[31] on a man afflicted with skin disease,[32] on a mildewed house,[33] on the scroll of the covenant,[34] on priestly garments,[35] on the right ear lobe, thumb and toe of priests[36] or of a victim of skin disease.[37] It is only by unjustified inference that sacrificial blood is assumed to defile. When such blood is spattered on garments or vessels, the cleansing prescribed may resemble rites of purification, but this does not mean that it defiles,[38] for whatever touches the flesh and blood of sacrifices “becomes holy.” (Leviticus 6:27-28). Moreover, blood never produces pollution and cleansing simultaneously. It is not equivocal. Its effect is predictable, depending on its origin.[39] This becomes so evident when one ponders over Crozier’s most paradoxal assertion that Christ’s blood may have two opposite effects in the heavenly sanctuary. Mary Douglas, the British social anthropologist, has shown that no ancient man, any more than any modern man, could confuse these two opposite concepts, especially in a society that sets such stringent boundaries between the two.[40]

3. The spatial dimension of rites:

Much has been made in recent scholarship with the fact that on the Day of Atonement the blood of the goat “for the Lord” is sprinkled on the very altars that were defiled during the year. This would imply that the yearly ritual was meant to purify these altars of defilement.[41] No daily sacrifice brings blood upon the kaporet (mercy seat), beyond the veil, yet it requires cleansing. Moreover, no daily sacrifice requires a “look-alike” to be efficacious. The spatial extent of the two rituals is utterly different: The daily sacrifices extend from the front of the veil in the Holy Place to a pure place of burning or an ash dump outside of the camp.[42] The Day of Atonement, however, extends from the Most Holy seat of the divine presence, all the way to the wilderness. Its spatial sphere is not merely that of the two altars of sacrifice. This difference, among others, suggests that yearly ritual has to do with something other than the record of sins left on the two altars.

4. Does the priest “bear sin” by ingesting the meat of sacrifice?

When the priest, or the whole assembly, offers a sin-offering for inadvertent transgression of a negative command, the blood is daubed with the finger on the horns of the altar of incense, and the remaining blood is poured out at the base of the altar of burnt-offerings.In that case, the remains of the offering are burned outside the camp in a ceremonially clean place.[43] But when a ruler or individual commits such a sin, the blood is sprinkled on the horns of the altar of burnt-offerings, and the rest poured out at its base. In that case the priest who offered it must eat it in a holy place.[44] The narrative of the death of Nadab and Abihu adds a further detail to the significance of the priest’s participation. After the tragic episode, Moses inquired about a goat offered as a sin-offering during the inaugural rites. Although its blood had not been brought into the Holy Place, it was not eaten as it should have been. Moses’ offered the following correction:

          “Why didn’t you eat the sin-offering in the Sanctuary area? It is most holy; it was given to you to take
          away the guilt of the community by making atonement for them before the Lord.” (Lev. 10:17, NIV)

The Adventist understanding of this passage is that ingestion of the flesh by the priest is an alternative to the sprinkling of blood on the inner altar.[45] Sacrificial blood transfers sin to the altar, but the consumption of flesh transfers sin to the priest who “bears it” until he transfers it to the sanctuary through his own offering. [There is no evidence, however, that the priest who ate the flesh transferred the defilement to the sanctuary by a sacrifice.]

Naturally, if the meat were simply a perquisite for the priesthood, Moses’ anger and Aaron’s justification for not eating would be incomprehensible. Eating must therefore be an essential part of the rite. The priestly directive is clear: “any offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to make atonement in the Holy place must not be eaten, it must be burned.”[46] Moses’ controversy with Aaron is over the same alternative: “Why didn’t you eat instead of burning?” There are blood rituals in both kinds of sin-offering. Daubing it on the horns of the altar of burnt-offerings is the procedure for a priest or the whole assembly (Lev. 4:18, 30). Daubing it on the horns of the altar of incense, and sprinkling it 7 times in front of the curtain concerns ruler and layman (Lev. 4:6, 17). In both cases, disposal of the remaining blood is by pouring out at the base of the altar of burnt-offerings. It cannot be assumed that ingesting is an alternative to blood sprinkling, or daubing. In Moses’ recommendation, it is the correlative of burning

Burning was a way of avoiding potential profanation by unqualified handlers. This is evident for the Passover offering, the thanksgiving offerings, offerings of well-being, and ordination offerings.[47] Consumption of the flesh, the alternative, must serve as the same precaution. This is why Moses stressed its “most-holy” status, it could not be eaten just by anyone, nor left untouched without instruction. Moses was satisfied with Aaron’s justification for not eating. In the High Priest’s opinion, a special circumstance, the death of his sons precluded eating. Had the sacrifice for sin lost its efficacy, Moses would have indicated it. It must therefore be concluded that eating was not a way of transferring sin. It was only indispensable to ensure the acceptability of the offering, as was burning. As long as holy flesh was not left available for profane use, the sacrifice remained valid.[48]

The explanation given by Moses for the ingestion is controversial among interpreters. In no other biblical passage is eating of flesh in itself a means of ingesting sin or atoning for the community.[49] Eating is only part of a larger ritual. It is not only a privilege of the priesthood’s but a duty to insure the non-profanation of the sacrifice by unsanctified consumers. Note the language of Leviticus 10:17: it is the sin-offering that was given, or assigned, to the priests to remove the guilt of the community, not the eating process.hata't (sin-offering) is a feminine word and so is 'otah (it), the pronoun direct object of natan (he gave, he assigned). Moses defines the duty of the priesthood as providing forgiveness and atonement for the community bymeans of the sin-offering. In other words, the priest was given the sin offering as the medium of atonement. Eating its remains is the rite that completes the offering and ensures its acceptance, by guaranteeing that no remains are left to be profaned. Moses insists on eating the remains, but certainly does not indicate that the priest becomes a “sin-bearer” by eating. In this particular circumstance, the priest did not eat the remains and yet the offering was considered acceptable. Moses was satisfied with Aaron’s justification when he invoked the fatal circumstance of his sons’ act on that day: “Had I eaten the sin offering today, would it have pleased the Lord?

5. Differences between the Day of Atonement and daily sacrifices:

What are the fundamental differences between daily sacrifices and those of the Day of Atonement? Both bring forgiveness of sin and both bring cleansing of impurities. The very same verbs, or close synonyms are used in both rites: kipper (atone, forgive) and taher, (be pure, cleanse). Forgiveness is expressed by nislah, in the passive voice, for daily sacrifices. On the Day of Atonement likewise, forgiveness is granted. It is expressed by the phrase (nasa ‘awôn) that has the meaning of carrying away as well as taking away sin, hence to forgive (with God as subject). (The Israelite who sees the scapegoat carried away by its guide truly grasps the nature of forgiveness: his misdeeds are visually removed.) The phrase not only deals with transport but with forgiveness, in this rite.[50] It is true that Yom Kippur is a collective sacrifice, while daily sacrifices are brought by individuals, but provision exists also for the unwitting sins of the whole congregation.[51] The blood of daily sacrifices is daubed on the altars, and divine forgiveness can be granted to the worshipper. The Day of Atonement cleanses the whole sanctuary, the contrite sinner and the repentant nation. All these facts do not suggest that Yom-Kippur erases the sacrificial pollution accumulated on the altars by sacrificial blood. It rather implies that Yom-Kippur has to do with sins that were never wiped off by sacrifice.

Why should daily sacrifices only bring partial atonement? The priest made an atonement for the sinner and he was forgiven (Lev. 4:6, 21, 3l, 35) or pronounced clean of his impurity (Lev. 12:7, 8; 14:31; 15: 30). There is no indication in the legislation that this atonement was not final. Should an Israelite, who brought his expensive sacrifice to the Temple, or even the turtledove of the poor, be told that he had to wait till next autumn to be reconciled with God? Sacrifices were made by people and for the people. They restored the presence of God in the community and brought back peace of mind to the individual. The social and cultural meaning of sacrifice is beginning to attract the attention of anthropologists. Each culture may produce its own sacrificial rituals, but viewing the phenomenon in a larger, comparative perspective is bound to bring some light on the subject.[52]

If the difference between the two rites does not lie in the results of sacrifice, it probably lies in the different kinds of sins cleansed. Daily sacrifices atone for sins of inadvertence, unwitting contacts with impurity, false oaths, false testimony, failure to keep one’s word, disloyalty, theft or desecration of holy things.[53] The sins cleansed on the Day of Atonement include uncleanness, iniquity, wrong doing, as well as rebellion. The Hebrew word peša’, that refers to rebellion is never found anywhere else in the priestly legislation.[54] It is usually associated with rebellion of a vassal against his suzerain, of a nation against another, or of an individual against God. The term is not only used in Leviticus 16:16 in reference to the cleansing of sacred places, but in Lev. 16:21 in connection with the sins of the people confessed over the head of the scapegoat. This has profound significance. Rebellion is purged out of the sanctuary as well as cleansed from the people. Elihu accused Job of adding rebellion to his sin (Job 34:37). This act is one of defiance. It is elsewhere called “sin with a high hand” (Numbers 15:30). It clearly implies an intentional choice of moral disobedience. The Day of Atonement, it appears, offers a last chance of pardon to a repentant sinner who had earlier chosen rebellion. This is a major distinction, since no daily sacrifice is specifically associated with the same kind of rebellion.

Moreover, it is inevitable, given human nature, that some sins were ignored during the year, impurities neglected, and transgressions of negative commands not acknowledged. Some worshippers may have entered the sanctuary in a state of impurity without being conscious of it. Sanctuary guards could not always detect impurity by sight. Many a rebellious misdeed defiled the sanctuary. Even if a sinner had been “cut off,” for his rebellion, his death did not atone for the pollution of the sanctuary. On Yom-Kippur, all those sins that defiled the sanctuary, even those for which no sacrifice were available had to be cleansed, that the Divine Presence might remain among men. But the Day of Atonement did not re-invoke sins that had been entirely wiped off by previous sacrifices. It was an annual offer of mercy to men who realized the depth of their former rebellions.

Heretofore, it was assumed that the sanctuary was defiled by direct contact, whether by impure persons or through the blood of sacrifices. But it is evident that certain sins defiled the sanctuary indirectly. When an unclean person or anyone in an improper cultic condition, entered the sanctuary it was usually called desecration, not defilement.[55] Desecration was not cleansed by atonement but by punishment or judgment. Defilement could occur at a distance, just as it could spread within the confines of a tent.[56]

In four specific instances the sanctuary is considered defiled without direct contact[57]

1. Unpurified, or delayed purification of uncleanness (Lev. 15:31)

2. Unpurified corpse contamination (Num. 19:13, 20)

3. Giving one’s offspring in sacrifice to Molech (Lev. 20:3)

4. Idolatrous worship (Ezekiel 23:29, 38, 39)[58]

For such sins, no sacrifices were available, yet they defiled the sanctuary. It is evident that the annual cleansing of the sanctuary also purified the defilement caused by these sins. In several recent studies, Professor Jonathan Klawans has stressed the defiling nature of moral sins, “abominations” which defile the sinner, the land and the sanctuary.[59] Unlike daily sacrifices that attract and maintain the divine presence, moral impurity repels it. But the Day of Atonement purifies the sanctuary and the sinners from “all their sins,” if genuine contrition exists.

6. Is the Christian priesthood Levitical?

The conviction that a heavenly Day of Atonement should follow a long period of continual intercession is based on the questionable understanding of Daily sacrifice discussed above. But the Epistle to the Hebrews subsumes all sacrifices into one, offered once for all. All sacrifices, inaugural and ritual performances of the Levitical system, including the yearly sacrifices of Yom-Kippur are replaced by that self-sacrifice. A supplementary Day of Atonement in the Christian era rests on the supposition that something has not been achieved during daily intercession, that some defiling element remains to be “blotted out.” This is putting less perfection in the Christian sacrifice than the Epistle triumphantly proclaims. By seeing continuity and correspondence between the priesthood of Aaron and that of Christ, Adventists extend the typology beyond measure. They do not observe that the essential difference between the Levitical priesthood and its “antitype” is that there were 2 categories of priests within the Hebrew system, simple priests and a high priest. Christ is more frequently called a High Priest, because his functions are on a par with the central event in which a human high priest came closest to the divine presence. The sphere of simple priests was the court and the holy place. The added prerogative of the high priest was to minister in the most holy place, that excluded ordinary priests. They were even excluded from the holy place while Aaron ministered in the most holy (Lev. 16: 17). None of these restrictions are typological, they are simply discontinued, and do not apply to heavenly places. Anterooms, priestly categories, veils, clouds of smoke, specific rites for specific sins, and time categories (daily, annual) served only as concessions for sinful priests and laymen approaching a Holy God. The Epistle to the Hebrews may preserve the image of a veil for heavenly places, but not as an obstacle to the divine presence (Hebrews 10:20). On the contrary it indicates a means of unrestricted access which has been finally crossed. This may be the intended meaning of the rending of the veil in the synoptics (Mark 15:38; Matt. 27:51; Luke 23:45). Whenever allusions are made to the heavenly sanctuary, it is usually considered as the whole “tent” (Heb. 8:2), because a distinction of rooms is irrelevant. “Heaven itself” is the sanctuary (Heb. 9:24).

8. Azazel, Satan and the Scapegoat, an unholy trinity?

Not only does a supplemental Day of Atonement diminish the perfection claimed for the High Priesthood of Christ, but the dismissal of the scapegoat, delayed until the millennium gives the 1844 atonement an ever incomplete character. Crozier, identified the scapegoat as a type of Satan and logically extended the atonement to the end of the millennium (Rev. 20). Sabbatarian Adventists followed him in his typology, not in his eschatology. To the perennial accusation that Adventism turns Satan into a redeemer of sins, apologists have always answered that Azazel only bears his own sin for inciting good men to do evil. Yet, Professor Roy Adams, [60] who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the doctrine of the sanctuary, candidly asks: “How is it that Satan’s part in the sins of the righteous comes to lodge in the sanctuary?” In the Day of Atonement ritual, the scapegoat was chosen by lot, a divine decision, and “presented alive before the Lord to be used for makingatonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.” (Lev. 16:10). The sins confessed over it are clearly those of the people of Israel, not Satan’s or the scapegoat’s inducements. If, as Crozier affirmed, the scapegoat was a type of Satan, what was Satan doing in the sanctuary, and what sins was he to atone? If Satan was part of the atonement, did he share Christ’s functions, and thus diminish the importance of his sacrifice? That is the source of the recurring accusation mentioned above.

Many a theological nightmare might have been spared if a clear distinction had been made between the scapegoat and Azazel, as Charles Beecher wisely reminded Crozier.[61] After all, the scapegoat is not Azazel. He is chosen for Azazel and sent to Azazel in the wilderness. Together with the sacrificed goat, the live goat is a means of atonement in Leviticus. Any typology that forgets this fact can only lead to utter confusion. The first goat atones, but the second goat takes away all the sins of the people of Israel. The two goats bring atonement together. From the community, the high priest takes two goats as a sin-offering (Lev. 16: 5). The first is sacrificed to purge holy places from the people’s sins. When that is done, the second atones for the sins of the people by bearing them away. As for Azazel, he is in the wilderness and has no active part whatsoever in the atonement ritual. The scapegoat has only a passive part in the rite. He receives the sins confessed upon him and is led away. In his dismissal there is an implicit understanding that Azazel’s domain is the realm of evil, to which sin must return, never to come back.The binding of Satan for a thousand years (Rev. 20:1-3) was not foreseen in the ritual. No punishment for the scapegoat or his infamous master is envisaged in it. The only restriction on the freedom of the scapegoat is that he is led to the wilderness by an appointed guide, far enough not to return, but after that he is free. Punishment for Azazel only occurs in apocryphal literature,[62] and even there the connection with Azazel is rather tenuous. The probable background of John’s binding of Satan is in Jewish Hellenistic literature. But In Revelation 20 there is no reference to Azazel and no link with the Day of Atonement. Moreover, Satan ‘s final doom is post-millenial, since he is released to deceive the nations a little while longer (Rev. 20:7-10).

This subject evidently requires a more elaborate study. It follows Peter’s invitation to his people to accept the “blotting out” of their sins, a notion that is not linked with atonement ritual. Such studies continuously invite Adventism to restore the pioneers to their status as very fallible human beings, no matter how genuine their religious experience. One of the most serious problems for the spiritual growth of Adventism is this persistent reliance upon the pioneers’ every experience as a “Word” of God. This trust gave William Miller and his colleagues, Hiram Edson and his neighbors, Dr. F. B. Hahn and O.R.L. Crozier, to cite only a few, an historical authority they do not deserve. Religious fervor is an inadequate measure of the perception of truth. One hundred and fifty years later, with the support of a remarkable educational system, this kind of veneration is inappropriate. To assume that the divine Spirit can dwell in human beings in His absolute plenitude is a total misunderstanding of the Scriptures, and a dangerous form of presumption. We are all too well aware of the relative value of our own conclusions to endow them with that kind of authority. All theological “conclusions” are only transits to further “conclusions.” May others draw new and better ones.[63]