"To anoint the most Holy."
All other things mentioned in Daniel 9:24 occurred at the cross. Could this phrase be referring to the baptism of Christ? It has been suggested that this phrase refers to the baptism of Christ, but the Hebrew words used for, "most holy" are, "qodesh haq-qodashim". They are used several times in the Old Testament, and cannot and never do refer to a person. It only ever refers to the Most Holy Place, or furniture in the Most Holy Place i.e. the Ark of the Covenant. Could it be referring to the anointing of the Ark of the Covenant in heaven, on the anti typical Day of Atonement?
Christ began pleading His blood before the heavenly Ark in 1844, so it cannot be referring to that, as the prophecy has to be fulfilled during the 70 weeks (before 34 AD). Is this phrase referring to the inauguration that took place in heaven, in order to initiate the sanctuary service there? It has also been suggested that after the resurrection, Christ ascended to the heavenly sanctuary and anointed all the furniture, in preparation for it's use, as did Moses (Ex 30:26, Lev 8:10). Is this what the phrase is referring to? In order to prove that this phrase in Dan 9:24 cannot be referring to the heavenly Ark of the Covenant, requires a study of the whole verse. "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy." Dan 9:24 Each one had to occur on earth. "to finish the transgression"- There was no transgression in heaven, especially transgression that was finished with by 34 AD.
"to make an end of sins"- There are no sins in heaven, especially sins that have been made an end of by 34 AD.
"to make reconciliation for iniquity"- There are no iniquities in heaven, none that were reconciled for by 34 AD.
"to bring in everlasting righteousness"- This did not occur in heaven before 34 AD.
"To seal up the vision and the prophecy"- All the prophets had visions of the Messiah coming to earth (Matt 5:17), fulfilled before 34 AD.
I believe that the clinching evidence is to be found just by a simple, superficial reading of the phrase, in Daniel 9:24. The very words of the verse say that this prophecy has to be fulfilled on earth, "Seventy weeks are determined upon...thy holy city...to anoint the most Holy." When Gabriel was talking to Daniel, and he said, "thy holy city", which city was he referring to? Obviously Danielís city was Jerusalem on earth. This phrase says that it will be seventy weeks before Jerusalem is to anoint the Most Holy. We can hear God calling Jerusalem, His holy city, and in this verse He has left no room for doubt or misunderstanding. It is Jerusalem here on earth, that is given the prophecy of anointing the most Holy.
Does Christ's blood on the Mercy Seat suggest that the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled, and therefore, 1844 done away with?
Jesus fulfilled many things on the cross, one of which was making an atonement for man's sins, (Ex 29:36, Rom 5:11). "Our crucified Lord is pleading for us in the presence of the Father at the throne of grace. His atoning sacrifice we may plead for our pardon, our justification, and our sanctification." Our Father Cares 203.
The atonement was not completed at the cross, but the first part of the atonement was finished (John 19:30). The Day of Atonement is when the atonement for sin is completed, but this discovery cannot be the fulfillment of the Day of Atonement as blood and water was not used together on the Day of Atonement. When the accusation against the sinner is put forward during the investigative judgment, Christ reminds the courts of what He did on the cross. Jesus is standing before the Ark of the Covenant in heaven, and pointing back to the atonement He made on the cross (Rom 5:11).
So Jesus had to have spilled His blood on the Mercy Seat in order to remind the heavenly courts of the atonement He has made. He isn't just reminding them of His death, but that His blood was applied to the Mercy Seat, and an atonement made. This does not mean that the atonement was completed at the cross. It is as if someone who is in debt, finds a gold mine. He is not, at that moment, out of debt. He must go through the process of claiming the gold, cashing it in and paying off his debts. So Jesus' blood fell on the Mercy Seat in AD31, but only since 1844 have the wages of sin begun to be paid off. Again I must stress, if this is a Biblical fact, and it does not fit with our understanding, then it is our understanding that is lacking. God has the freedom to illustrate the fulfillment of type and anti type however He wants, and it is not for us to say that it does not fit.
But the blood only went on the Mercy Seat on the Day of Atonement, not on the Passover, when Christ died? The blood being sprinkled on the Mercy Seat was not the only thing to happen on the Day of Atonement. A goat and a bullock were also sacrificed (Lev 16:11 & 15), a sacrifice that found it's fulfillment on the Passover of AD31. Also on the Day of Atonement, a scapegoat was released into the wilderness (Lev 16:10), and this is not to be fulfilled until after the second coming of Christ. So the Day of Atonement does not just represent the cleansing of the sanctuary, but is in fact a mini plan of salvation. It takes us through AD31, to 1844, to the end of the 1000 years. Actually, all the feast days had sacrifices, all of which were a shadow of the Passover. There was a daily sacrifice that found it's fulfillment on the Passover of AD31, when Christ died once (Rom 6:10, Heb 7:27, 9:25 & 26, 10:10 & 12). "Christ made one great offering in giving His own life, which all their former offerings had foreshadowed..." RH 04-29-75 para 2.
In the symbol, sacrificial blood was sprinkled on the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense and also on the Ark of the Covenant. But all these were fulfilled once for all when Jesus' blood was sprinkled on just one place, only once- the Mercy Seat. The confirmation of the Old Covenant, was not just a ceremony that represented ratification. Sacrifices took place, so there was also a symbol of atonement. So an exact correspondence between type and antitype is not necessarily biblical. It would be an error, and unscriptural, to try to make every detail correspond precisely.
Appendix 3. Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same."
The white blood cells were analyzed, and chromosomes contributed by the mother were present. However, those ordinarily contributed by the father were not present, except for the one Y chromosome. This would bring the total chromosome count, in this very unique blood, to 24 chromosomes. This accounts for 23 from Mary, the earthly mother, but only one Y chromosome from God.
The normal total of chromosomes in human blood is 46 chromosomes.As Jesus' blood lacks the chromosomes from His Father (except for the sex determinant Y chromosome), the question has been raised, does this contradict Hebrews 2:14? This verse is saying that Christ was human, with human flesh and blood. The sample of blood on the Mercy Seat is human. Children with Downs Syndrome have more chromosomes than you and me, but they are human, and Hebrews 2:14 says that Christ had the same blood as we all have - human blood, no matter what the chromosome count! Hebrews 2:14 cannot be saying that Jesus must have a set of chromosomes from an earthly father as we do, because He did not have an earthly father. That would be impossible. Imagine the implications if the blood did have chromosomes from an earthly father, perhaps Joseph. Then the Jews would feel justified in their assessment of Mary. The only other option God would have had would be to give Jesus a "full set" of the Father's 23 chromosomes via the Holy Spirit. This would have been entirely possible for God to do, but then it seems that Jesus would have been half God and half human. The impact of the God-portion of Jesus' genetic structure would have totally dominated His "earthly" body.
This would give a message compatible with New Theology. Jesus would then be half God and half human, thus having an unfair advantage over us, in being able to overcome sin. But this sample of blood proves that Jesus had no genetic make-up, and therefore no help, from the Holy Spirit. He truly put off His Godhood in order to enter into human flesh. All His genes, and therefore His inherited tendencies came from Mary. The Holy Spirit did have to contribute the sex determinant Y chromosome, in order to ensure Jesus was male. In order for someone to say that the analysis of the blood is definitely wrong, he is then saying that he fully understands Divinity combined in humanity in the incarnation of Christ.
Something that Sister White says we cannot understand. "We cannot explain the great mystery of the plan of redemption. Jesus took upon Himself humanity, that He might reach humanity; but we cannot explain how divinity was clothed with humanity." RH 1889-10-01.009 "In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human mind cannot understand." Lift Him Up 75, 76.
"The humanity of the Son of God is everything to us. It is the golden chain that binds our souls to Christ, and through Christ to God. This is to be our study. "Christ was a real man;" He gave proof of His humility in becoming a man. "Yet He was God in the flesh". When we approach this subject, we would do well to heed the words spoken by Christ to Moses at the burning bush, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place where on thou standest is holy ground." We should come to this study with the humility of a learner, with a contrite heart." SDA Bible Commentary Vol 7A p443.
<back 1 2 3 4
designed and maintained by peppercorn web design agency