Home » Sabbath: The Eschatological Day of Atonement    


Sabbath: The Eschatological Day of Atonement — 15 Comments

  1. On the typical day of attornment in the Israelites every one of them was to be holy in every areas of life and it was not possible for someone to repent after the scene of that day had taken place.Now i can see that the judgement for nowadays people is going on in heaven.Can it possible for a living person to be judged when still alive struggling with the evil?

    • Dusengumuremyi the decision for our case will be finalized only after the close of probation which will happen in three ways: death, sin against the Spirit and end of the High priestly ministry of Christ.

      The only reason that we will be judged with death with finality while still living is when we commit the sin against the Holy Spirit.

  2. Greetings, i have a question on the difference between Rome-pagan and Rome-papal anyone can help please,God bless.

    • Joachim, Pagan Rome is the political aspect while Papal Rome is the religious aspect of Rome.

      Pagan Rome was an empire that was ruled by the Caesars from 168 BC to 476 AD. It was divided into 10 kingdoms when it collapsed and they are now ENGLAND, GERMANY, SWITZERLAND, FRANCE, ITALY, PORTUGAL, SPAIN, (Vandals, Ostrogoths and Heruli). The last three do not exist anymore because they were uprooted by the Papacy.

      Papal Rome specifically is referring to the the Roman Catholic Church which is headed by the Pope and ruled the world from 538 AD and ended in 1798 AD when the Pope was taken captive by Napoleon and died in captivity.

      But the prophecy tells us that the wound of the Papacy WILL BE HEALED. In 1929, Italy and Vatican signed a Lateran Treaty which gave birth to the rise of Papacy again and now it grows to be the most influencial power in the world again.

  3. there is a statement on the 29th verse which says :whichever soul that shall not be afflicted on that day shall be cut off from among his people.what anti-typica incident that will happen the same in this anti-typical day of atonement?please help me.

    • Nomatter, you are referring to Lev. 23:29? Cleansing the sanctuary does not only mean blotting out of sins and sinners names from the book.

      Part of the cleansing that Christ is doing in the Most Holy Place today is sanctifying and perfecting His people. (To be cleansed is not only to be sinless but to be perfect which is only possible through Christ. This is the cleansing that we should aim.)

      When He comes out of the sanctuary, those who did not show sincerity to be made holy during the cleansing will surely die (cut off).

      That is why while Christ is still in the sanctuary, let us "work our own salvation with fear and trembling Phi. 2:12: because unless we are revived and reformed, we will surely receive the warning, "God will spit us out of his mouth".

    • Onyiri, where does the Bible say that all sins are equal?

      Any cherished sin, no matter how small, breaks our connection with God, but there are certainly differences between sins, as I understand it. The sin of pride probably comes near the top of evils, because it is the source of many other sins.

      There is only one "sin against the Holy Spirit." It is when we no longer listen to Him. Then we have closed off the way of communication with God. If we don't listen to the Holy Spirit, God cannot forgive us, since we don't recognize our need and do not confess any sin.

      "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:8-10) The only sin God can't forgive is the one we have no desire to confess.

  4. I was discussing this lesson with my mother, and a point that she made concerning tables like that shown in this lesson, struck me quite forcibly. I had pointed out to her that the table shows an unreasonable inconsistency. What she said was that she had seen such tables so many times that she didn't really pay much attention to them. As a scientist, I know that this also happens in science; It sometimes takes people looking at things with a novel perspective for the errors in understanding to be seen, and/or for new innovation to be possible. An excellent example I came upon recently was the recent invention of a revolutionary new birthing instrument by an Argentinian car mechanic. This was in a field where obstetricians and gynaecologists had been using forceps which hadn't changed much since the late 1800s, and the latest innovation (the vacuum extractor) though introduced in 1838 did not become a practical alternative until the 1950s (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25137800).

    The first and second columns of the table above shows elements of the visions in Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 that are to be compared with the interpretations shown in the third column. The first three rows show the comparisons “Lion == Babylon”, “Bear/Ram == Media-Persia” and “Leopard/He-goat == Greece”. The interpretation of the Lion as Babylon is provided using comparisons or “parallels” between the vision of the statue in Daniel 2 and the beasts in Daniel 7 (Daniel 8:37,38). By comparing elements of the visions in chapter 7 and 8 we are given the identities as Media-Persia and Greece for the second and forth animals of chapter 7 (Daniel 8:20 and Daniel 8:21). Everything is fine so far.

    The unreasonable inconsistency comes with the comparisons made on the fourth row. (Note that the rendering of the table shown above on this Blog has mangled the table from the correctly formatted table shown in the paper and PDF versions of this weeks lesson.) The inconsistency is clear just by looking at the information in the table's fourth row. The first and third columns for the row have two elements each whereas the second has only one. In the first column there is the fourth beast and the little horn, in the third column there is pagan Rome and papal Rome, but in the second column there is only one element – the “Little horn.' (Note that the identification of the empire involved as Rome is provided by history.)

    The inconsistency can also be approached column-wise and is possibly more obvious this way. For the first column representing Daniel 7 the rows showing the representations of the empires of Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece and Rome each have a different beast. This should also be compared with the vision of the statue in Daniel 2 where each empire is represented by different materials and also by different corresponding parts of the statue. This provides us with a vital key to understanding these visions and the correspondence between them. However, when it comes to column 2, representing Daniel 8, the table shows a different animal for each empire, only up to the third row, showing the He-goat. The next element in the row is, just the “Little horn!” (The first row has no entry.) It would seem here that a vital key to understanding the visions which works for the first two of Daniel's visions is being set aside for the vision in Daniel 8.

    I tried an experiment with my ten-year old daughters. I showed them a pictorial representation of the above table, which also included the elements from the vision in Daniel 2. I asked them what was the connection between the different parts of the columns. Initially it did take some open questioning for me to clarify what I was asking them to do. For the column representing the Daniel 2 vision they identified that each element (row) was a different part of the body. For the column representing the vision in Daniel 7 they easily identified each element as being a different beast. When I then asked them what connected the elements of the column for Daniel 8, without prompting they said, “Horns”. This surprised me somewhat, but they were right of course! Each element did contains a horn or horns. When I asked, “What are the horns connected to?” The elements containing the ram and the he-goat were tackled easily, as it was just a matter of identifying the animal. However, but they were at a loss to account for the “Little horn” because in the table it was not connected to anything.

    My conclusion from all this is that the vision shown in Daniel 8 would seem to represent only two empires, as defined by the key given in the previous two visions. And that the “Little horn” is connected to the he-goat and hence the Greek empire, in a similar way that the “Little horn” in Daniel 7 is connected to the Roman empire. This idea is backed up by the fact that the king represented by the “Little horn” come up toward the end of the Greek empire (Daniel 8:23), and is never connected with another animal as a Roman king would have to be, following the key provided by the previous visions. This is also in keeping with what one would expect Daniel to have seen and also with other visions in the bible which, however fantastic, have structural integrity and would not have a horn connected to nothing. This is why the table above which suggests otherwise, contains unreasonable inconsistencies. I believe that understanding this point leads to a better understanding of the message that Daniel 8 is giving us.

    • Lowel, why Antiochus IV cannot be the little horn of Daniel 8:

      He never magnified himself against the Prince of the host, as he died long before Christ lived on this earth.

      He did not cast down the place of His sanctuary, which was done by Rome in AD 70.

      He is not attributed with casting down truth to the ground in any significant way.

      He died some 190 years before the transgressors were “come to the full”, at the end of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

      He has no record of destroying “the mighty and the holy people”. This was Papal Rome for 1260 years, enlarged upon in the Revelation and recorded by historians for centuries.

      There are many other considerations you overlook in your conclusions as well. Daniel 8 covers the same sequence of events as Daniel 2 and 7, with exception of Babylon which was about to be overthrown by the Medes and Persians. God was showing Daniel the future, not the past, and Babylon was no longer a valid consideration. The similarities between the little horn of Daniel 7 and the little horn of Daniel 8 are too close to ignore and history bears out these facts unequivocally. The details of these visions of Daniel fit together to present a clear picture of the future from Daniels day to our day and beyond.

      Have you considered there is no 5th head on the leopard of Daniel 7? With the significance of the little horn in Daniel 8, this would be seen in the previous vision as well if the little horn could be connected to any of the 4 divisions of the Macedonian empire. What God is showing in Daniel 8 is the significance of this power which is similarly focused on in Daniel 7. God has made the connection clear to the student of prophecy.

    • Dear Robert,

      May I respectfully point out that my December 6 comment above concerns what I see as the inconsistencies of the table shown for the Sabbath lesson, and that I believe that the key given in the visions of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 leads us to understand that Daniel 8 represents only two empires: Media-Persia and Greece

      I made no mention of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in my comments. However, I do do so in my comments on the Monday's lesson (https://ssnet.org/blog/2013/12/monday-how-long/) where I believe that every point you make in your comment is answered: as to why I believe that Antiochus IV Epiphanes completely fulfils the description and actions of the little horn. I will not discuss them here, but am happy to look at what you have to add to the discussion there.

      You will also find in my comments on the Monday's lesson why I think that, though Daniel 8 does cover some of the events of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 in sequence, it covers only a subset of events - missing out references to the Roman empire and God's final kingdom.

      I consider that the last point that you make concerning why there is not a fifth head on the leopard of Daniel 7 is the only one pertinent to this discussion. In my understanding the four heads of the leopard represents the four kingdoms into which the Greek empire was subdivided. There was never a further subdivision nor addition to the empire, as history now tells us, so a fifth head would not be appropriate. This is why I think that the little-horn in Daniel 8 is described as coming out of one of the four existing horns, thereby relating a succession of kings rather than conquest by another kingdom.

      • Lowel, the chart for the Sabbath afternoon portion of lesson 10 is historically accurate. It fits the prophecies perfectly if the prophetic details are properly understood. The events covered in Daniel 8 are over the same period of history, though depicted after the Babylonian period. It extends to the final judgment, and must include the kingdoms previously noted in the prior visions. The continuity must remain or the prophecies would be unreliable and impossible to understand. Compare all the details in the 3 visions closely and see if this isn't true. As I mention in another response, Antiochus IV is out of sync with the time period of the events described. He simply cannot fit in any regard.

      • Lowel,
        We fit the puzzle pieces based on the picture on the box. In the interest of advancing the discussion let us say your interpretation is accurate. Given the context of the lesson what does this change significantly in the view of the big picture? Or what does this little horn view uproot, supplant or plant in the larger scheme of doctrine? What big doctrinal idea do we have to change if we adopt your understanding?

        Is this understanding connected to anything major in prophecy elsewhere in scripture, such as Paul's writings, or the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to John? Beyond historical information what is the major effect, if any on end time events or does it inform how we live our lives today? The 'so what' question was answered in the lesson. So it seems reasonable to address this with an alternative view.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>