GOD'S OBJECTIVE FOR THE SANCTUARY
- 2
-
Editor's
Preface
In this issue, we discuss the
typical Day of Atonement, both its ritual as outlined in Leviticus 16, and its
place as one of the "feasts of the Lord." We observe that in the listing of
these feasts, the Day of Atonements (Hebrew text) is placed on a par with the
Sabbath as far as the command of "no work" on that day in contrast to the other
annual feasts. Then in the giving of the First Angel's Message of Revelation 14,
two adjuncts of the "everlasting Gospel" are the commands: 1) "Fear God" because
"the hour of His judgment is come; and 2) "Worship Him" because He is the
Creator. Again, there is a "par" placement of two concepts which can be related
to the same two as in Leviticus 23.
When we take a historical
perspective of the Advent Movement as begun by William Miller in America, and
consider that out of the Great Disappointment there was committed in sacred
trust these two same paired doctrines to a small remnant of that Movement, we
have cause for thoughtful contemplation, as well as the alarm over what has
happened within the community of Adventism during the past five decades
regarding these two doctrines. In regard to the Sabbath, the issue is its
observance; in regard to the sanctuary teaching, it is a rejection by many. Yet
those involved in this dual declension still profess themselves to be
Seventh-day Adventists - an
impossibility
- except in name only!
We recognize there are questions
in the study of the sanctuary teaching; but these involve in some instances
simply a correct application of type to the antitype. Some of these we list in
"Questions that Call for Answers" on page 7.
Page
2
God's Objective
for the
Sanctuary - 2
In this issue of WWN, we turn our
attention to the yearly service which was performed by the High Priest alone on
the 10th day of the 7th month. While the central service for that day is
detailed in Leviticus 16, some important aspects of the Day in relationship to
the other annual feasts of
The command connected with the
Sabbath which is emphasized in Leviticus 23 is "ye shall do no work." This is
also the command given in connection with the Day of Atonement (v. 28), and
emphasized with a strong penalty attached (vs. 30-31). All the other feast days,
carried the command - "Ye shall do no servile ("customary" - NKJV) work therein"
(vs. 7, 21, 25, 35). "Literally, no work of
labour, no work that belongs to one's
worldly calling," while food preparation was permitted (Ex. 12:36) which was not
permitted on either the Sabbath, or the Day of Atonement.
Another item of interest in
Leviticus 23 is the fact that the designation of the tenth day of the seventh
month as the Day of Atonement is in the plural form in the Hebrew text - "day of
atonements" (vs. 27-28). Is this to be understood as the use of the pluralis
majestatis (majestic plural), or the simple plural because of the number of
individuals and things cleansed on that day? (Lev. 16:33).
With this feast day as with none
of the others, not only was a severe penalty connected with the violation of the
restriction placed on the day - "no work" - but also with the failure to enter
into an experience described as soul affliction. The warning reads:
Whatsoever soul it be that shall not be
afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And
whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I
destroy from among his people. (Lev. 23:29-30).
How is this to be understood? It
cannot be interpreted on a vertical type-antitype basis because it is not
involving a priestly ministration; however, the seriousness of the instruction
given would indicate a linear type-antitype interpretation with a spiritual
meaning. The fact that in describing the services to be performed by the high
priest, the emphasis is placed that he alone ministered on that day (Lev.
16:17), the conclusion can be drawn that no works of man can avail in the final
cleansing. In his soul affliction, he can only wait the atonement obtained by
the High Priest. Even as the penitent accepted the atonement of forgiveness
provided by the common priest, so on the Day of Atonement, the same penitent
accepts the cleansing provided by the high priest. In the reality of the
antitype, it is the same Priest Who offered Himself on the Cross for us, and
Who now as High Priest ever
liveth to make intercession for us, Who
in His last act of ministration, ministers the final atonement of
cleansing.
Today, the Day of Atonement,
Yom Kippur, is the most sacred of Hebrew holy days. Yet, nowhere in
either the Old or New Testaments is there a record of its celebration. It is
alluded to in Acts 27:9. (See margin.) Yet following the Great Disappointment in
1844 both the Sabbath and the significance of the Day of Atonement became the
heritage of those raised up to proclaim the Three Angels' Messages. Not only did
the First Angel's Message call for a "worship" of Him who "made heaven, and
earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters;" but also to "fear God, and
give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come" (Rev. 14:7). While the
instruction given in regard to the typical observance of the Day of Atonement
places it on a par with the Sabbath, and the giving of "the everlasting gospel"
in earth's final hour places the Sabbath, and the hour of God's judgment on a
par, our problem seems to be, harmonizing "the hour of the judgment of Him"
(Rev. 14:7 Gr.) with the anti-typical Day of
Page
3
Atonement, as well as working
Daniel 7:10 "the judgment was set" - and Daniel 8:14 "then shall the sanctuary
be cleansed" - into the same Biblical picture. What does the typical "example
and shadow" performed by the earthly high priest on the Day of Atonement teach
us? To answer this question, one must pursue a careful study of Leviticus
16.
Leviticus
16
The designations for the divisions
of the Hebrew sanctuary as given in Leviticus 16, vary
from the terms which we have used commonly for the two apartments. The most holy
place, or the second apartment, is termed, "the holy within the vail" with the
word, "place" added by the translators (v. 2). The first apartment, which we
term the holy place, is designated as "the tabernacle of the congregation" (vs.
16-17).
The instruction begins with how
the high priest is to come into the most holy place to appear in the presence of
Him who would "appear in a cloud upon the mercy seat" (Lev. 16:2). It
reads:
"Thus shall Aaron come into the holy
place with a young bullock for a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering.
(v.3).
The high priest provided his own
offering. It is defined as a "sin offering" yet no hand of confession was placed
upon its head. It is emphasized that it is "for himself" so as "to make
atonement for himself and for his house" (vs. 6, 11). At this point, a decision
must be made. Was this just a part of the ritual for the Day, or was this also a
part of the instruction which the "example and shadow" was to provide of
heavenly things? Two factors must be kept in mind:
1)
Aaron was a type of
Christ's priestly ministry though an inferior priest ministering under an
inferior covenant. See Hebrews 8:1-5.
2. The concept of "his house" is
Paul's take off point for the discussion of the priestly ministry of Jesus
Christ in the book of Hebrews (3:1-3). The Moses/Aaron "house" was declared to
be "a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after" (v. 5; see also
Ex. 4:14-16).
The high priestly attire for the
services of the Day of Atonement is next described:
He shall put on the holy linen coat, and
he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and he shall be girded with a
linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy
garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. (v. 4).
Again no service reflecting the
"example and shadow" of heavenly things can be assigned to the attire of the
earthly high priest on the Day of Atonement; however, there are other Biblical
references which emphasize persons clothed "in linen." The question does arise;
do these references refer to activity connected with the great High Priest's
ministry during the time of the antitypical Day of Atonement?
The type indicates movement and
activity by the high priest on the Day of Atonement from the most holy place to
the court of the sanctuary. The prophecy of Daniel 7 indicates activity from the
setting of the judgment till the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of days
to receive His kingdom (vs. 10-14), but it does not define what He was doing.
The outline of the Three Angels' Messages also indicates a time between the
announcement of the "hour of His judgment is come" and the appearing of "the Son
of man" to reap the harvest of earth (Rev. 14, 7, 14-15), and it places the
giving of those messages as occurring during this period of time.
As one example of what this
activity might be, we can cite Ezekiel 9 and the "man, clothed with linen" (vs.
2, 3, 11). While this prophecy does not conform to a
sanctuary type-antitype relationship, it does emphasize the same dress worn by
the high priest on that day, and focuses on the same place of the sanctuary
where the typical service of the Day of Atonement ended, prior to the
introduction of the scapegoat. (Lev. 16:20). The six men with
Page
4
slaughtering weapons, and the "man clothed
with linen" who had a "writer's inkhorn by his side" came to the "brazen altar."
The glory of God moved from the cherubim (most holy place) "to the threshold of
the house" (v. 3). He instructed "the man clothed in linen" to place a mark on
the foreheads of those who "sigh and cry for all the abominations" that are done
in
It is recognized that this is
placing an eschatological interpretation on the apostasy which occurred in the
time of Ezekiel, and suggesting that this chapter which is a part of a larger
vision (Chapters 8 - 11), expands the perception of the High Priestly ministry
of Christ on the antitypical Day of Atonement. While the Writings follow this
hermeneutic approach to Ezekiel 9 (5T:207-216), a non-Adventist commentary, such
as, The Bible Commentary on the Old Testament, suggests the same.
In the introduction to Ezekiel the editor stated:
There is one feature in the writings of
Ezekiel, which deserves particular notice. This is (to use a modern term) their
Eschatological character, ie. their reference not merely to an end, but to
the very end of all. (p. 305)
While the editor notes that many
parts of Ezekiel "have special reference to the circumstances of the prophet and
his countrymen" so that "the local and the temporary seem to dominate;" however,
there is by closer observation, more to be found. He observes:
Then the editor
concludes:
These predictions of Ezekiel are
therefore not to be interpreted simply as illustrative of, but directly
predictive of the Church, . . . until the end of time.
. . . Their peculiar appropriateness to such a Book as that of Ezekiel is best
seen when we perceive that he is addressing, not simply the historical Israel of
his own day, but the whole body who have been, like Israel of old, called forth
to be God's people, and who will be called to strict account for the neglect of
their consequent privileges. (ibid.).
We are not seeking to interpret
nor apply the judgments predicted in Ezekiel 9, but rather to reinforce the
application of the sanctuary imagery as found in this chapter to the end time
Day of Atonement. It is also of interest to note the observation made in this
commentary to verse 2:
[Clothed with linen] The priestly garment (Ex. xxviii. 6, 8; Lev. xvi. 4). This
One Man (Cp. Dan. 10:5; Rev. 1:13) was the Angel of the Covenant,
the great High Priest, superior to those by whom He was
surrounded, receiving direct communication from the Lord.
This understanding of the
relationship between Ezekiel 9 with the typical services of the Day of Atonement
enlarges the perception of the ministry of Christ as High Priest during the
antitypical Day of Atonement. This prophetic "Identifier" - a "man clothed in
linen" - does not end in Ezekiel. Another prophet also saw in vision this "Man"
(Dan. 10:5; 12:6-7), which opens up another area for study and
understanding.
Returning to Leviticus 16, we find
that Aaron was instructed to "take of the congregation . . . two kids of the
goats for a sin offering" (v. 5). These two goats were to be presented "before
the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" (v. 7), and lots
were to be cast over them setting them apart, one for the Lord, and the other
for "Azazel" (Heb., ver. 8, margin). The Hebrew word construction, "for the
Lord" and "for Azazel" indicates the two are antithetical to each other, thus
introducing the "great controversy motif."
This controversy is the theme of
prophetic Scripture. The victory of Christ is the heart of the gospel (Rev.
12:10). Jesus referred to the devil as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31).
In Daniel 10, the "man clothed in linen" (v. 5) who came to the help of Gabriel
is identified as "the first of the chief princes." (v. 13, margin). The purpose
of Christ was to wrest back the dominion lost by Adam (Micah 4:8). Do then the
services of the Day of Atonement reflect the final phases of the wresting of the
lost dominion from the control of Satan even to the cleansing of the children of
Israel from their
Page
5
uncleanness (Lev. 16:16)? Then sin would
cease. This is the objective to which the services of the typical Day of
Atonement moved.
Having completed the preliminary
preparation, the high priest entered the first of three times "within the vail"
with his "hands full of sweet incense" which was poured on the censer full of
coals from the altar of burnt offering (vs. 12-13). Returning to the court, he
took of the blood of the bullock which he had provided and brought it within the
vail and with his finger sprinkled it once "upon the mercy seat eastward; and
before the mercy seat . . . seven times" (v.14). He again returned to the court
for the blood of the Lord's goat, and did the same as he had done with the blood
of the bullock (v. 15).
The objective of this ceremonial
ritual was twofold. It was to provide an atonement, first, "because of the
uncleanness of the children of
Before considering further "the
last act of the final atonement" we need to note that in passing from the most
holy to the court, the high priest was to do in the tabernacle of the
congregation the same as he had done in the most holy place (v. 16b). This had
been commanded at the time when the details for the construction of the Altar of
Incense had been given. The command read:
Aaron shall make an
atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the sin offering of
atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your
generations: it is most holy unto the Lord. (Ex. 30:10).
In the details describing the
Day
of Atonement, in Leviticus 16, it is emphasized "there shall be no man in the
tabernacle of the congregation" (v. 17). The high priest, alone, accomplished
the typical cleansing. This should speak loud and clear to all who, by their own
works of righteousness, seek to cleanse themselves. This fact as well as the
last act of the final atonement is symbolized in a vision given to Zechariah.
Writing of this vision, the Messenger of the Lord commented:
Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the
Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in
the closing up of the great day of atonement.
(5T:472; emphasis supplied).
Joshua, the high priest in the
times of Zechariah (Haggai 1:1), was pictured as "standing before the angel of
the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him" (1:1). Here is the
same "great controversy" motif as is evidenced in the sanctuary "example and
shadow" typical services on the Day of Atonement - the Lord's goat and Azazel.
Joshua, the chief priest of a nation that was to have been "a kingdom of
priests, and an holy nation" (Ex. 19:6),"was clothed
with filthy garments" (3:3). If he were to remove his garments, the "shame of
his nakedness" would appear with nothing available for covering.
It was the Lord who commanded
those who stood before Him - "Take away the filthy garments from Him" (v. 4).
To Joshua, he declared:
"Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to
pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment.” (ibid.)
He who can cleanse us from all
iniquity is the One only who can provide a change of raiment. Those "standing
by" will so do if we do not cling to those filthy garments. This gives us some
indication as to what the "soul affliction" (Lev. 23:29) commanded in the
"example and shadow" for the Day of Atonement means. "The battle which we have
to fight - the greatest battle that was ever fought by man - is the surrender of
self to the will of God, the yielding of the heart to the sovereignty of love"
(Mount of Blessings, p. 203,
Page
6
1946 ed.). Not only did those
"standing by" give Joshua a change of raiment, but also set "a fair mitre upon
his head" with the promise that he would be given "places to walk among (those)
that stand by" (vs. 5-7).
In the verses which close this
vision there are concepts which need to be amplified by prayerful study. Note
them carefully:
1) Those who receive the change of
raiment will become "men of wonder" or "men wondered at" (v. 8; margin). Into
this picture is interjected Him, whom "the Lord of hosts" calls "my servant the
BRANCH." This BRANCH would "grow up out of His place." He would "build the
temple of the Lord: and He shall bear the glory, and He shall sit and rule upon
His throne; and He shall be a priest upon His throne" (Zech.
6:12-13).
2) The Lord of hosts declares that
He would "remove the iniquity of the land in one day" (3:9). Connected with this
is the prophetic symbolism of "seven eyes" which in the book of Revelation is
associated with "the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth"
(5:6).
In the instructions for the ritual
to be followed on the typical Day of Atonement, it reads:
When (the high priest) has ceased making
atonement for the holy, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar,
he shall bring the live goat (16:20; Heb).
It would appear that in the high
priest's atonement for all divisions of the sanctuary from the record of the
sins in the most holy to the cleansing of the confession of those sins in the
tabernacle and at the altar, he had been gathering them unto himself. They had
become his. Aaron, serving in his capacity of "example and shadow" of the
heavenly, is instructed to place both of his hands on the head of the live goat
and confess over him "all the iniquities of the children of
There is an observation or two
that needs to be made. At no time during the services of this typical day was
confession, by the laying on of the hand, made upon the two victims designated
as "sin offerings." But when the high priest placed both of his hands on the
head of the goat that stood for Azazel, "all" sins, confessed and forgiven, of
the children of
This typical "example and shadow"
points us to the final judgment scene in Revelation 20:11-15. There are the same
"open books" as were described in Daniel 7:10. In them are the records of the
sins by which the "dead" are judged. These records were not expunged in the
final atonement. Each one who faces the "great white throne" must answer for
himself. There is, however, another book, "the book of life" in which
are the names only of those whose
records have gone before hand unto judgment. (I Tim. 5:24; Dan. 12:1; Rev.
13:8). It contains no resumes of meritorious human achievements; it is the
Lamb's Book of Life.
There is in this transfer of sins
to the goat which stood for Azazel some unsolved problems. In the previous issue
of WWN, discussing "Confession and Transfer" (p. 5, col. 1), we noted
that in the laying on of the hand, the Hebrew word used, samak, indicates
placing the full weight upon the sacrifice. In this we were following the
SDA Bible Commentary which comments on this instruction:
A solemn and essential part of the ritual
was the placing of the hand of the offerer upon the
head of the victim. The word, samak, "put," means "to lean" with one's
weight, an act by which the penitent sinner represented his utter dependence
upon the substitute" (Vol. I, p. 714).
In this act of the high priest by
placing his two hands upon the scapegoat, the same Hebrew word, samak, is
used. The problem is compounded by placing his two hands, rather than just the
one as required in the offering of the individual sin offering. To apply the
concept of "utter dependence upon the substitute" to this act of the High Priest
would be blasphemous. Study needs to be given to this typical "example and
shadow," or else the
Page
7
act of the laying on of the hand or
hands be simply recognized as a symbol of transfer. If to so conclude, what then
do we do about the basic meaning of the Hebrew word, samak, used in both
"examples"?
With this transfer of sin, and the
taking of the goat standing for Azazel to the wilderness, to a land not
inhabited, the ceremonial services ended. The high priest went back into the
tabernacle of the congregation, bathed, changed to his regular attire, returned
to the Altar in the Court and offered the burnt offerings provided at the
beginning of the day with the fat of the sin offerings. With this, a new year of
sacrifices for sin began. (Lev. 16:23-25).
Not so "the heavenly things:"
After John saw in vision the "wilderness" consignment of "Azazel," and the
judgment of the "great white throne," he wrote - "I saw a new heaven and a new
earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away" (Rev. 21:1).
He sees the
The entire universe is clean. One pulse
of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation. From Him who created
all, flow life and light and gladness, throughout the realms of illimitable
space. From the minutest atom to the greatest world, all things, animate and
inanimate, in their unshadowed beauty and perfect joy,
declare that God is love. (GC, p.
678).
Questions
Which Call for Answers
Having completed a brief survey of
the daily and yearly services, involving the sin offering, performed in the
ancient Hebrew sanctuary and having applied the dictum stated by Paul in Hebrews
8:5, that the priests of that earthly structure served "unto the example and
shadow of heavenly things," it should be obvious that some of the positions held
on the sanctuary teaching do not harmonize with the type. Some of these we will
list with the suggestion that further and deeper study be given to
those.
In the ritual for the individual,
be he ruler or a common person, the blood of his sin offering was not
taken into the sanctuary. The record of its presentation was made on the
horns of the brazen altar in the court, as well as the fact that all of the
remaining blood was poured at the base of the same altar. Even the blood of the
sacrifice for corporate guilt was poured at the base of the brazen altar, while
the record of its presentation was confirmed by the finger printing of the blood
on the horns of the altar of incense by the high priest.
For the confessing individual, it
was the common priest who made atonement for him at the altar in the court which
in type brought forgiveness, but still left him in his uncleanness, and his sin
on record. Another service would follow once a year which cleansed not only the
record but also the uncleanness. Thus the "example and shadow" clearly indicates
a dual atonement. While the atonement at the altar in the court foreshadowed the
cross, the Day of Atonement beginning in the most holy foreshadowed the final
ministry of the heavenly High Priest. To the typical Day of Atonement is applied
the pluralis majestatis of the Hebrew language. This must be
considered.
In the type, on the Day of
Atonement, the high priest did not confine his ministry solely to the most holy
place, but actually concluded it at the brazen altar with the combined blood of
both the bullock he had provided, and the goat designated as the "Lord's goat."
This has not been duly considered, as well as other questions. To the questions
these concepts raise, we shall continue to give study seeking to learn as well
as to be willing to unlearn.