1975 Jan-MarVIII 1(75) - VIII 3(75)
1975 Apr-Jun VIII 4(75) - VIII 6(75)
1975 Jul-Sep VIII 7(75) - VIII 9(75)
1975 Oct-Dec VIII 10(75) - VIII 12(75)
1976 Jan-Mar IX 1(76) - IX 3(76)
1976 Apr-Jun IX 4(76) - IX 6(76)
1976 Jul-Sep IX 7(76) - IX 9(76)
1976 Oct-Dec IX 10(76) - IX 12(76)
1977 Jan-MarX 1(77) - X 3(77)
1977 Apr-Jun X 4(77) - X 6(77)
1977 Jul-Sep X 7(77) - X 9(77)
1977 Oct-DecX 10(77) - X 12(77)
1978 Jan-Mar XI 1(78) - XI 3(78)
1978 Apr-Jun XI 4(78) - XI 6(78)
1978 Jul-Sep XI 7(78) - XI 9(78)
1978 Oct-Dec XI 10(78) - XI 12(78)
1979 Jan-Mar XI 1(79) - XI 3(79)
1979 Apr-Jun XI 4(79) - XI 6(79)
1979 Jul-Sep XI 7(79) - XI 9(79)
1979 Oct-DecXI 10(79) - XI 12(79)
Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.
Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.
1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.
last of WWN published
ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CANADA (ALF)
SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation
- Legal Documents
Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer
Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer
the Form of a Slave
In Bible Prophecy
Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer
Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer
of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear
OTHER BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS & ARTICLES:
Various Studies --
Bible As History - Werner Keller
Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts
Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith
Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson
Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones
"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson
Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen
Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones
Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen
So Much In Common - WCC/SDA
Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy
The MISSION of this site -- is to put the articles from the WWN in a searchable Essay form. It is not our purpose to copy WWN in whole.
Any portion of the thought paper may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from WWN, Victoria, BC Canada."
Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming back.
2003 Apr XXXVI 4(03) -- God's Objective for the Sanctuary -- Part 1 -- With this issue of WWN, we begin an analysis of the Sanctuary doctrine as originally taught and believed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. While we plan to go back to the origins of this belief arising out of the Great Disappointment, we begin with the Biblical justification for the belief, and the point of betrayal of the sacred trust - the SDA-Evangelical Conferences. Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, one of the key Evangelical conferees, declared the "investigative judgment" concept "the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history!" He added - "We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable!" (Eternity, Sept., 1956).
We recognize that the NIV was not in existence at the time of the Conferences in 1955-1956, but the dissatisfaction with existing versions began to manifest itself among the Evangelicals in the 1950s. We contrast the KJV translation of Hebrew 8:5 with the NIV translation which reflects their thinking, and reveals their gross mistranslation of the Greek text to justify such thinking.
We also give consideration to Hebrews 9:11-12, one sentence in the Greek text, translated differently in the RSV than in the KJV. This editor was told by one of the Adventist conferees that this verse was a factor which contributed to the Adventist compromise. Need it have been so? But, are there aspects of our sanctuary doctrine which need to be corrected? What were the daily and yearly sanctuary services typifying?
p 2 -- God's Objective for the Sanctuary -- Part 1 -- In 1981 Baker Book House released a book by Jack P. Lewis - The English Bible/ From KJV to NIV. The first sentence of the chapter on the NIV reads - "The New International Version . . . arose out of evangelicals' dissatisfaction with existing translations." While the NIV "is a completely new translation from the original languages of the Bible," it reflects evangelical concepts. This becomes evident in the translation of Hebrews 8:5, clearly a definitive text on the purpose of God for the ancient Hebrew sanctuary. In the NIV, this verse in context reads: If he (Christ) were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven.
This reduces the sanctuary teaching to a study of a structure, which merely reflected a shadowy representation of the heavenly reality. In this structure just a round of ritualistic services were conducted by priests under an inferior covenant. The relationship between type and antitype was structural rather than instructional.
The KJV reads: If he (Christ) were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.
There is a difference between serving in a typical structure according to a prescribed ritual, and serving as an example of what the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was and is to be. The latter is the heart of the sanctuary truth, or as stated in Hebrews 8:1-2: - "This is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man" How do we know what the High Priest is doing in that tabernacle? The earthly priests served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."
Drs. Sakae Kubo and Walter F. Specht, in their book, So Many Versions?, commenting on the New Testament Greek text which was used for the NIV, wrote: According to the preface (in the NIV), the Greek text is "an eclectic one" based on "accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism" in consultation with "the best current printed texts of the Greek New Testament" (p. ix). A careful examination of the NIV New Testament shows that in general its text follows modern critical Greek texts such as Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Society text but not always (p. 245; emphasis supplied).
The NIV translation of Hebrews 8:5a falls into the "not always" category. The Greek Text of the United Bible Societies' New Testament (Second Edition) is: oi tineV 'upodeigmati kai skia latreuousin twn epouraniwn.
Literally translated this reads - "They unto example and shadow serve of heavenly things." The oi tineV is a demonstrative pronoun modifying "priests" of verse 4. Both "example" ('upodeigma) and shadow (skia) are in the dative case. By the use of the dative, the "example and shadow" are focused on persons, "they serve" - not a material object such as the tabernacle being the shadow and example as the NIV infers. See A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, p. 536.
Another Verse - Hebrews 9:12 -- But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither bv the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us (KJV).
Hebrews 9:11-12 is
one sentence in the Greek text with one main verb in the aorist or past
tense and two dependent aorist participial clauses. The question which
confronts the translator is: Should the last participial clause read,
"having obtained eternal redemption" (KJV) or "thus obtaining
eternal redemption" (RSV). The basic sentence is - "He entered
in" (eishlqen). If prior to His
p 3 -- entering in, Jesus obtained eternal redemption, then the atonement was completed at the cross. If, however, by His entering in, He obtains eternal redemption, there is a continuing ministration as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedec. If Hebrews 8:5 is understood as the KJV translates it in accordance with the Greek text, the meaning of Heb. 9:12 is clear. He enters in "thus obtaining eternal redemption for us." The type indicates a priestly ministration beyond the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court which typified the Cross, to a final ministry in the Most Holy Place.
Hebrews 9:11-12 is a linguistic example of the Aorist Participle of "Identical Action." Nunn in his Short Syntax of New Testament Greek comments: The Aorist Participle sometimes denotes action identical with that of the main verb, but described from a different point of view. In this case the action is obviously not antecedent in time to that of the main verb. . . . The Aorist Participle of identical action most frequently accompanies a verb in the Aorist Indicative (Par. 264).
In Hebrews 9:12 the main verb, as noted above, is in the Aorist Indicative. Further, the first participial clause, "being come an high priest" can only be understood grammatically as "identical action" since Christ did not become a high priest till after "He entered in" (Acts 2:33). Thus both participles indicate activity subsequent to Christ's ascension rather than antecedent to His entering is.
The Revised Standard Version (RSV) translates Hebrew 9:11-12 thus: But when Christ entered as a High Priest of the good things that have come, through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
It is the blood shed on Calvary ministered in the Holy Place which secures "eternal redemption." This was the position held by the Church until the betrayal of "the sacred trust" in the compromises with the Evangelicals. From those conferences in 1955-56, came the position stated in Questions on Doctrine, that when Christ "appeared in the presence of God for us," "it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross" (p. 381; emphasis theirs).
The controversy over the sanctuary doctrine should be a corrective one, not a denial of the basic truth and its teaching. The "example and shadow" of the priestly service must be accurately translated in its application to the heavenly reality. Wherein this has not been done, needs to be done; and if erroneously done, corrected. Two distinct services marked the type, one a daily, and the other a yearly. This was called an "individual atonement" and a "national atonement" in the first researched study on the subject by 0. R. L. Crosier in 1846. This article will be noted in detail in a future issue of WWN.
The "individual atonement," or the daily services, was both individual and corporate, and involved the common priests, as well as the High Priest, while the "national atonement," or the yearly service, though likewise corporate and individual, was ministered solely by the High Priest. The distinctions made in the type need to be carefully noted for some of the comparisons made call for correction. We shall first study the daily services as outlined in Leviticus 4 noting the four categories of "sinners," the officiating priest in each category, the disposition of the blood, and the result to the sinner whether individual or the corporate body.
(A chart with references is included as one of the pages of this issue.)
Some general observations should first be made. The only sins covered were sins of ignorance. The chapter is headed - "If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord." (v. 2). Premeditated and deliberate sins were not included. Only when the sin would "come to [the sinner's] knowledge" (vs. 23, 28) was the prescribed sacrifice to be presented at the sanctuary. Even then "the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing of a better hope did" (Heb. 7:19). This "better hope" was the thrust of the gospel. Paul in his sermon delivered in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia stated:
p 4 -- Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses. (Acts 13:38-39)
This inadequacy of the ceremonial law, as noted by Paul, points up the fact that the service of the priests in the earthly sanctuary was instructional in regard to the Lamb of God, and His ministry as High Priest after the Order of Melchizedec, rather than mere ritual. "They served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."
In the four categories of "sinners," the blood of confession was recorded in two different places, as well as two different orders of priests ministering those confessions.
If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock (4:3 ARV).
Then this same "anointed priest" - the high priest - was to take of the bullock's blood and "bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation" (4:5) There he was to perform the following:
1) The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle the blood seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary.
2) The Priest shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord which is in the tabernacle of the congregation.
3) The priest shall pour all the blood of the bullock at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation (4:6-7).
The same three steps were performed when the whole congregation confessed their sin collectively (4:16-18).
In the two other categories of "sinners" which involved individuals as individuals, the first two steps as outlined for corporate confession altered. They differed as to who the officiating priest was, and where the record of confession was recorded. The instruction reads:
The (common) priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering. (4:25, 30, 34).
A further step involved the offering of confession for the individual. The common priest ate a part of the sacrifice. This requirement stated:
This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord; it is most holy. The (common) priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Lev. 6:25-26).
The result to each confessor whether the congregation corporately, or the individual, be he ruler or one of the common people, was the atonement of "forgiveness." This atonement was secured through the ministry of the priest by the blood of the substitute (4:20, 26, 31, 35). There is one exception. The dictum, "the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him" is not stated for the High Priest when he sinned "so as to bring guilt upon the people." This should serve as more than a warning light to those in positions of religious leadership when they make decisions that affect the entire church. It should be a red light! Does this say anything about compromises of 1955-56?
Some other observations should be made in regard to the daily services.
Rulers -- The Hebrew word translated "ruler" is nasi'. It is used of tribal chiefs, princes and kings. It is also used of priests: "And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall be chief (nasi') over the chief (nasi') of the Levites, and have oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numbers 3:32).
Thus all, from the kings and princes, including the priests to the most insignificant of the common people, found their forgiveness at the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court of the sanctuary. There their confession of sin committed was made and recorded. This atonement was in turn ministered by a common priest.
p 5 -- The antitype of this "example and shadow" is to be found in the earthly ministry of Jesus. The Altar of Burnt Offering symbolized the Cross. There is no status at the foot of the Cross, for we become all one in Christ Jesus. He ministered the atonement of forgiveness in His own blood, partaking of the nature of man so that He could die, "Himself the priest; Himself the victim."
We may question, Jesus as a priest on earth. So did the religious leadership of Israel when Jesus said to the palsied man let down into His presence, "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Luke 5:20). To these vaunted custodians of religion, Jesus responded:
That ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (He said to the sick of palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house" (v. 24).
Luke records the reaction of the forgiven man and the "multitude" gathered in the house:
Immediately (the healed man) arose . . . departed. . . glorifying God. (The rest) were all amazed, and they glorified God, and were filled with fear, saying, We have seen strange things today (vs. 25-26).
Confession and Transfer -- In each instance, whether for a corporate transgression, or for the individual's sin and confession, there is found the instruction, that the sinner was to "lay his hand upon the head of the" victim (vs. 4, 15, 24, 29, 33). The confession was to be specific: "He shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (5:5). This laying on of the hand was more than casually doing so. The same word used in Leviticus 4 is found in Amos 5:19 where a man "leaned his hand on the wall" thus supporting himself. In other words the ones bringing their sacrifices placed their full weight on the victim. In the reality, we too, must place our complete dependence on "the Lamb of God which beareth away the sin of the world" (John 1:29 margin).
The question comes to the fore as to the objective of this ritual. Was it a means of the transfer of sin to the sanctuary? Or was it a confession of the sin which had come to remembrance which had been committed in ignorance, thus seeking forgiveness? This "example and shadow" pre-figured the promise as found in the New Testament: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins" (I John 1:9). The same three elements in the type - the sinner making confession, the blood of the sacrifice, and the ministering priest with the resulting atonement - forgiveness - are in the antitype. We must not forget that while Jesus is at the right hand of God exalted as High Priest forever after the order of Melchizedec, He ever liveth to make intercession for us. (Heb.1:3; 7:15-17, 25). In the symbolism of Revelation, He is the "Lamb as it had been slain" (5:6). Never does His intercession as common priest cease until His work as High Priest is finished. The dual ministry of Christ is prefigured in the dual atonements of the "example and shadow" of heavenly things.
Now to another aspect of the question, is sin transferred to the sanctuary via the sin offering? In the ritual of the type - "the example and shadow" - the sinner was unaware that he had sinned; he was in ignorance. But had no record been made of the sin he had committed? What then was the purpose of the books in which are recorded the deeds of those who are eternally lost? (Rev. 20:12). The blood of the sin offering is the means by which the guilt is removed for the sin previously recorded. The confession is recorded; the sin is forgiven.
We have believed that the blood of the sin offering defiled the sanctuary. The sin offering is declared to be "most holy" (Lev. 6:25). Can that which is most holy defile? Further, the burning of the fat of the sin offering was declared to be "a sweet savour unto the Lord" (4:31). Can such be a means of defilement? Can such be a means to confer sins already recorded to the sanctuary? The whole purpose of the plan of redemption is the removal of sin so that this present state "shall not be remembered nor come into mind" (Isa. 65:17). The only remembrance of the past will be the nail-scared hands and pierced side of Him who died, but is alive forevermore, so that sin shall never arise again a second time. (John 20:27; Rev. 1:18; Hab. 3:4 margin)
In the daily service, the blood of the confessional
p 6 -- sin offerings of the individual was recorded on the horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court. None was brought by the officiating common priest into the sanctuary. The recognition of this fact in the "example and shadow" of the daily services will require a corrective interpretation of the final work of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.
The High Priest and the Daily Services -- While it is evident from a study of Leviticus 4, that by far most of the ministry of the sin offerings would be performed by the common priests, there were two categories in which the High Priest alone officiated:
1) When he sinned so as to bring guilt upon the people corporately (4:3 ARV).
2) When the whole congregation sinned.
In the first incident, the High Priest, not only brought a confessional sacrifice of a bullock, but he also offered it, and he himself sprinkled the blood before the vail within the sanctuary, and placed a mark on the horns of the Altar of Incense in the Holy Place. Yet there is no statement that "he shall make atonement for himself, and it shall be forgiven him." More study needs to be given to the meaning of this service if considered as an "example and shadow" of heavenly things. It could not be of Christ as High Priest.
The second required service of the High Priest was for corporate confession made by the elders of the congregation for Israel. While the Scriptures are replete with corporate transgressions, there is little evidence of corporate confession of such sin. For some reason it is difficult for any group collectively to admit, we have sinned. This is evident in our own church history regarding the 1888 experience. There were individual confessions, but the call to "denominational repentance" has been resisted and rejected. The Jewish nation has never confessed nor repented of the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus the Messiah, our Saviour. Again, the question comes, how is this to be related to "the example and shadow of heavenly things"?
An Incident -- In the 10th Chapter of Leviticus is recorded an incident of a goat offered as a sin offering (16-18). While the gender is not indicated, it can be assumed to be a male goat, the offering required of a ruler. The Law of the Sin Offering, as given in Leviticus 6:26, required that the common priest eat of it. Because it was not done, Moses' anger was directed toward the sons of Aaron who were serving as common priests, and had not eaten of it. He questioned their failure:
Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded. (10:17-18).
There are two different "holy places" referred to in these verses, the first, the court of the tabernacle of the congregation as commanded in the Law of the Sin Offering (6:26), and the second, the first apartment of the sanctuary itself.
The main point made by Moses in his rebuke was the fact that the common priest was to bear the iniquity in himself in making the atonement for them. He became the sin-bearer in partaking of the sin offering. Here in "example and shadow" is the representation of the reality of which Paul wrote when he penned -
For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. (II Cor. 5:21).
The "example and shadow" reaches still further. Even as the sin-offering actually became a part of the priest, so Christ would partake of our flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14) so He could condemn sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us (Rom. 8:3-4).
p 7 --
NOTES: * "if the anointed priest sin as to bring guilt on the people" 4:3 ARV.
-- (2003April ) --- END --- TOP
2003 May XXXVI 5(03) -- God's Objective for the Sanctuary -- Part 2 -- Editor's Preface -- In thi s i ssue, 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.
p 2 -- God's Objective for the Sanctuary -- Part 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 Israel are to be found in Leviticus 23. Further, these feasts days are placed in connection with the weekly Sabbath which in the outline is listed as among the feasts of the Lord (v. 3), yet declared to be separate from them (vs. 37-38).
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 instructtion 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
p 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
p 4 -- slaughtering weapons, and the "man clothed with linen" who had a "writer's inkhom 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 Jerusalem (v. 4).
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: Israel represents the visible Church, brought into special relation with God Himself. The prophetical writings have therefore their applications to the Christian Church when neglectful of the obligations which such relation imposes. (p. 306).
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
p 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 vall" 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 Israel" and secondly, "because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v. 16a). Both the cause and the results from the cause were to be removed. While the removal of the record of the acts of sin was begun in the most holy place, it was completed in the transfer of the guilt of these sins to the scapegoat by the high priest (vs. 20-21). Likewise the atonement for the "uncleanness of the children of Israel" begun in the most holy place, was completed at the altar in the court with the mixed blood of both bullock and goat (vs. 18-19). It was the last act of the final atonement.
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,
p 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 Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins" (v. 21). The scapegoat is then taken by the hand of a fit man "unto a land not inhabited" or a land "of separation" (v. 22, margin).
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 Isreal were placed on his head.
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
p 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 Holy City, but in it he sees "no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (21:2, 22) Because of the Lamb "as it had been slain" (Rev. 5:6) -
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. --- (2003May) --- END ---TOP
2003 Jun XXXVI 6(03) -- The Roots of the Sanctuary Teaching -- Editor's Preface -- This issue of WWN will deal primarily with tracing the roots of a key doctrine of historic Seventh-day Adventism from the "seventh-month movement" led by Samuel Snow and George Storrs through the Great Disappointment with the perceptions gained by Hiram Edson, and a published study by 0. R. L. Crosier. It will be noted that the original question involved what constituted the "sanctuary." In those basic original studies there was no suggestion made of an "investigative judgment." In a series of articles, written by the late Don F. Neufeld, a highly respected associate editor of the Adventist Review, he stated that this concept came thirteen years after the passing of the time in 1844, and suggested that one should not equate "the cleansing of the sanctuary" with the "investigative judgment." However, there is a "judgment" (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 14:7).
Beyond the "roots" observed in this issue, there are other factors which will need to be considered. Si nce Christ will come "the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28), it means that the issue which initiated the sin problem will have been resolved prior to that time, and that resolution will have been be made at the Throne of God where sin began.
The New Testament book of Hebrews introduces the vertical typology hermeneutic. This is a basic interpretive tool for understanding the meaning of the ministry of those priests of the wilderness tabernacle, who served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." There are, however, questions which need to be considered involving a word usage found in the book itself. All of this must await future issues of WWN.
p 2 -- THE ROOTS OF THE SANCTUARY TEACHING
On September 5, 1822, William Miller signed a statement of 20 beliefs which constituted his faith. Article XV read - "I believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ is near, even at the door, even within twenty-one years, - on or before 1843." In so concluding, Miller had studied carefully various prophecies of the Bible. He found seven line prophecies which by applying the Biblical rule - a prophetic day equals one literal year - terminated in 1843 according to his calculations. (Arasola, The End of Historicism, Appendix 111, p. 220). One of these seven was Daniel 8:14. Connecting this prophecy with the explanation given by Gabriel (9:24-27) he began the prophetic reckoning from 457 B.C. with the terminus date, 1843.
As the year commenced, Miller detailed the time more specifically. In the Millente movement's flagship publication, Signs of the Times (Jan. 25,1843), he wrote: I believe that time can be known by all who desire to understand and to be ready for his coming. And I am fully convinced that some time between March 21st, 1843, and March 21st, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come.
When the date March 21, 1844 passed and Christ did not come, Miller wished to keep the return of Christ imminent, with no specific date set. Not so, many of his supporters. Dr. Kai Arasola, in his doctoral dissertation submitted to the Theological Faculty of the University of Uppsala notes the results which followed: In February 1844 two men, Samuel Snow and George Storrs began promoting a typological solution to the problem of time. By the summer of 1844 they had concluded that October 22, 1844 was the exact date of the end and in an August camp meeting they attained massive support for their calculations against feeble polemic by Miller and his associates. They thus launched the final fervent phase of the revival, called the "seventh-month movement" or the "midnight cry." In its exegesis as well as in its emphasis this stage of Millerism has to be distinguished from the earlier revival. Snow and Storrs boosted the revival off to its Waterloo.
Literature on Millerism shows a general confusion in interpreting this stage of the revival. Miller is unfairly blamed for the failure of the October calculation in spite of his remaining unsympathetic to it, except for a fortnight before the disappointment. A comparison between Miller's exegesis and that of the seventh-month movement compels one to make a clear separation between original Millerism and this last stage of the revival. The seventh-month movement singled out one of Miller's many arguments and exegeted it with a method different from Miller's. Traditional historicist expositions developed and advocated by Miller, became secondary to sanctuary typology. The Levitical festal calendar was promoted by implication as the most important prophecy in all of the Bible.
The basic method remained unchanged while emphasis changed. Because the former leaders of the movement were no longer in control, as the arguments of Snow and Storrs swayed the faith and the emotions of the group, this interval in Millerism has been called a sectarian turn. The adoption of an exact date was a built-in explosive for the revival. During the late summer and early autumn the commitment, zeal, sacrifices, and number of supporters exceeded everything that had been seen so far in the history of this revival. The gravity of disappointment was to match the enthusiasm of expectation. As the morning of October 23 dawned it was again true that "the hour knoweth no man." Millerism had come to an end. As it died it gave birth to Adventism. (op cit., pp. 16-17).
Arasola in his research presses this point. In a footnote he states - "The birth of Seventh-day Adventism was dependent on the Seventh-month movement" (p. 90). This movement was not led by William Miller but rather by Samuel Snow and George Storrs. The first thing that Snow did was to straighten up Miller's error in his calculation of the time prophecies such as the 2300 days. Miller had overlooked the nonexistence of a year zero. Arasola comments that this "Indicates that no Millerite before 1844 did his home work thoroughly" (p. 144). Secondly, Miller himself had introduced a year earlier, in May 1843, the idea borrowed from Joshua Spalding that -
All the ceremonies of the typical law that were observed in the first month, or vernal equinox, had their fulfilment in Christ's first advent . . . The feasts and ceremonies in the seventh month or autumnal equinox can only have their fulfilment at his second advent -- (p. 154).
p 3 -- Applying this to the year, 1844, Snow was able to establish the 10th day of the 7th month, October 22, 1844, as the time of the Second Advent. Thus the typology of the Old Testament and the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 were fused. To this horizontal typology, Adventism would add the vertical typology as found in the book of Hebrews.
In his research, Arasola devoted a brief section to New Testament typology bringing both, the horizontal and vertical together. He wrote: The typology of the New Testament is both horizontal, referring to historical fulfilments, and vertical, illustrating things considered as heavenly realities. . . . (I Corinthians 10 is cited.) It was this horizontal typology that Snow employed in his calculation of the day of the end. Some of the clearest examples of vertical typology are found in the book of Hebrews. Modern scholarship usually disassociates itself from this form of typology. There is no reason to discuss the vertical typology any further as it is not important for the prophetic calculations in question until the birth of Seventh-day Adventism.
The New Testament thus sowed the seeds for both historical and heavenly antitypes. It is not necessary here to cover the background of typological hermeneutic through the centuries. The views vary from the illustrious allegories of Origen through the medieval quadrica to the more sober exegesis of the Reformers. During the period of Protestant orthodoxy Types were regarded as OT facts which were ordained by God to adumbrate or foreshadow aspects of Christ or the Gospel in the NT. This view has in succeeding centuries been accepted as the traditional understanding of biblical typology. It is still regarded as the true concept on the subject by many with a Biblicist view of the Scriptures. (op. cit., pp. 162-163).
THE MORNING AFTER -- October 22, 1844 passed, and Jesus did not come as expected; however, when the day arrived, groups had gathered in different homes to await His coming. One such group was at Port Gibson, New York, at the farm home of Hiram Edson, a mile south of the community. Closely associated with Edson, was Dr. Franklin B. Hahn who lived some fifteen miles southwest of Port Gibson. These two men had between them provided a home for an orphan boy named Owen R. L. Crosier. He was now in his early twenties and showed talent in research and writing. During 1844, Edson and Hahn published irregularly a paper, The Day Dawn, for which they invited Crosier to write.
When midnight passed, and Jesus did not come, not only was keen disappointment felt but doubts were expressed by some of the group: "Was the Bible false? Could it be there is no God? " To this Edson responded: Not so brethren. There is a God in heaven, He has made Himself known to us in blessing, in forgiving, in redeeming; and He will not fail us now. Sometime soon this mystery will be solved. We shall know what God's purpose is, and this dark secret shall be made as plain as day. (A. W. Spalding, Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists, Vol. 1, p. 99)
We do well to let Spalding give the unfolding of the events as he has researched them, weighing variations of detail in the various sources available to him and choosing what he concludes to be the more accurate. [Spalding notes the variations in Appendix notes] He wrote: As the dawn came most of the believers slipped away to their now desolate homes. To those who remained, Hiram Edson said, "Let us go out to the barn and pray." They went out and entered an almost empty granary, for the corn had not been husked, and stood in shocks in the fields. They entered and shut the door behind them. There in the crisp air of that late October morning they poured out their souls in anguished supplication that God, would not desert them and their fellows in this hour of trial, nor hide from them His face and His design. They prayed until they felt the witness of the Spirit that their disappointment would be explained.
After breakfast Edson said to one who remained (some say it was Crosier), "Let us go out to comfort the brethren with this assurance." Perhaps because it was a short cut to their destination, perhaps because they shunned the road, where they might meet mocking enemies, they struck back through the farm, crossing the field where Edson's corn still stood in the shocks. About midway across the field Hiram Edson stopped as if a hand had been placed on his shoulder. As he lifted his face to the skies, there flashed upon his understanding the meaning of the sanctuary in heaven. Recalling the arrangement of the Mosaic sanctuary, he saw it as a type of the sanctuary in heaven, and realized that as Christ was the minister of the heavenly sanctuary, His ministration would change in due course of time from the holy place to the most holy. He wrote of this occasion: "I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenthp 4 -- day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary; and that He had a work to perform in the most holy before coming to this earth."
His companion, not noticing his pause, had reached the other side of the field. At the fence he turned, and seeing Edson far behind, he called, "Brother Edson, what are you stopping for?" And Edson replied, "The Lord was answering our morning prayer." Then rejoining his friend, he told him of his conviction. They went on their way, discussing the subject, recalling what little study they had made of the sanctuary, and shaping up the Bible evidence of the revelation.
Without doubt Edson and his company had received the new view of the sanctuary, as being in heaven, which came with the seventh-month movement. (ibid, pp. 99-102).
Spalding cites various publications available to the Port Gibson group which advocated "the seventh-month movement" and comments: Edson and his friends were doubtless in great debt to Fitch, Snow, and others who had begun to study the sanctuary question and who had led in the great step forward of correctly identifying the sanctuary. With the background of this advanced position, the gap between the early Adventists' understanding of the sanctuary and that revealed in Edson's vision, which became the Seventh-day Adventist position, was lessened. (p. 102).
This harmonizes with the research of Dr. Arasola as to the roots of Seventh-day Adventism being in the seventh-month movement, rather than in the original Millerite movement. In fact, Arasola states that "in Miller's view the sabbatarian Adventists who kept hold of the seventh-month movement exegesis were illegitimate children of Millerism" (op. cit., p. 19). Actually, all that Seventh-day Adventism has taken from Millerism is the time prophecy of Daniel 8 & 9, and that as corrected by Samuel Snow. The basic sanctuary teaching came out of the seventh month movement which was led by others than Miller. To this was now added the vertical typology set forth in the book of Hebrews, that the "priests" of the earthly "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."
Spalding in his historical research of the Great Disappointment observes a parallel between it and the disappointment which the disciples of Christ experienced at the time of the crucifixion. Calling Edson's perception "a revolutionary" concept, "the germ of a doctrine so radical as to bear a chief part in differentiating between the old and new Adventist bodies," he wrote: It is indeed comparable in its revolutionary character to the change in concept of the nature of the Messiah's mission, which came to Christ's disciples after their disappointment at the crucifixion. Consider the astounding impact of the new idea upon those disciples, and the alienation which came between those who accepted it and those who clung to the old concept of Christ as King of Israel. The patriots of Jewry had fixed their ideology upon the regal nature of the Messiah and His mission. How great a wrench it was to subjugate that boastful hope to the concept of a Messiah who was immediately merely a savior from sin, is evident in the experience of Saul of Tarsus. Doubtless tens of thousands of Jews who initially had hailed Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah the King, turned scornfully from the doctrine that He fulfilled the prophecies by dying on the cross. Thereafter they hailed successive pretenders to the Messiahship, with cumulative disappointments and final ruin. On the other hand, they who received the new doctrine were at first few and without influence. With painful sincerity and conviction they broke with their national leaders, and gradually drew further apart; yet in the end they became the great Christian church. . . .
In 1844-46 the old body of Adventists, holding to the King-of-glory-Advent idea, became split into factions, most of whom, without sound reasoning, suspected the accuracy of the date set, and some of whom went on, by devious reasoning, to set successive dates, in all of which they were again disappointed. The new party, accepting the High-Priest-in-the-sanctuary concept, and maintaining the reliability of the reckoning which came out at October 22, 1844, held that the last time prophecy had been fulfilled, and time should be no longer a tenet or a test. This party, accepting also the fourth-commandment Sabbath, finally took the name of Seventh-day Adventists. (pp. 102-103)
Recognition of this basic split which come the "morning after" is critical if we would understand our spiritual heritage. The Bulletin, published by the Adventist Heritage Ministry announced in its Jan/Feb Issue 2003 that the ministry "went on line with a new, multimedia web site aimed at bringing the 'past with a future' into the digital age." The article stated, "Each month a pioneer will be featured beginning with William Miller." Is this being an honest portrayal in the light of the fact that the origins of the Adventist church were rooted inp 5 -- the "seventh-month movement" rather than in Millerism? Further it might be asked, did the Heritage Ministry in featuring William Miller as a pioneer tell the viewers that he considered those who founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church, "Illegitimate children"? Isn't there a one word synonym for this designation as given by Miller? When will we with strict honesty report our past history telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
The days following the "morning after" found Hiram Edson, Dr. Hahn, and Crosier in some serious study of the typical sanctuary and how it related to the reality of Christ's ministry. Finally, in 1846, an article by Crosier appeared in the Day Star Extra summarizing their study. In 1850, a Publishing Committee headed by Hiram Edson and including James White, published a 48-page special of The Advent Review. The final article was Crosier's study taken from the Day Star Extra. In 1853 a leaf was tipped into all unsold copies of this 1850 48-page pamphlet. It was written by James White. The last paragraph read: The article on the sanctuary, by 0. R. L. Crosier, is excellent. The subject of the sanctuary should be carefully examined, as it lies at the foundation of our faith and hope.
Why, this noting of the various dates bringing us up to 1853? This was the ninth year of "the morning after" the great disappointment, and there had not been a suggestion of an investigative judgment in connection with 1844. That was still four years away. Don F. Neufeld, associate editor, wrote in The Adventist Review (Feb. 14, 1980), "it required some 13 years after the passing of time In the autumn of 1844 before the subject of the investigative judgment was fully developed" (p. 14). He counseled -"One should not, therefore, equate the cleansing of the sanctuary with the investigative judgment" (p. 15). Into this picture must also be introduced a paragraph from a letter written by Ellen G. White to Ell Curtis, April 21, 1847. It read: I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew (sic) me in vision, more than a year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. Ifeel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend the Extra, to every saint. (A Word to the "Little Flock, " p. 12)
The first obvious fact is that the "true light" Crosier presented focused on "the cleansing of the sanctuary" and made no reference to an "Investigative judgment." But how much is to be included in the words "the Sanctuary, &c," especially the "&c."? There can be no question that the identification of the sanctuary was the differing point between Miller and those who enlarged on the "seventh -month" views both before and after October 22, 1844. To this issue, - to what is the word, "sanctuary" applied in the Bible - Crosier devoted the first part of his article.
THE CR0SIER ARTICLE -- Crosier began his analysis by declaring, "The Sanctuary was the heart of the typical system," and then observes that while in the Old Testament the term, "Sanctuary" is applied to "several different things," the New Testament applies the term "only" to the typical tabernacle built by Moses, and the tabernacle "which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2).
There is in the New Testament a concept which Crosier overlooked. While not called "the sanctuary," the concept is projected. John, in the prelude to his Gospel, presents the incarnate Word as becoming a "tabernacle." The Greek text reads literally - "The Logos flesh came to be and tabernacled (eskhnwsen) in us (en 'hmin). Paul, speaks of the true Christian as "the temple of the living God" and recipient of the promise, "I will dwell in them and walk in them" (II Cor. 6:16; see also I Cor. 3:16). The wilderness sanctuary not only prefigured the Word becoming flesh; but also the revelation through which "God desired His people to read His purpose for the human soul" (Education, p. 36). Is not this, that which is in need of the most cleansing? Have we, as well as Crosier, overlooked the point that --
p 6 -- To restore in man the image of his Maker, to bring him back to the perfection in which he was created, to promote the development of body, mind, and soul, that the divine purpose in his creation might be realized, -- this was to be the work of redemption (ibid., pp. 15-16; emphasis supplied)?
And that - the services of the sanctuary were an "example" and "pattern" (upodeigma - Heb. 8:5; 9:23), as well as a "figure" (parabolh Heb. 9:9) of that redemption?
The second section of the article considers "The Priesthood of Christ." He introduced the section by stating -
The priesthood of the worldly Sanctuary of the first covenant belonged to the sons of Levi; but that of the heavenly, of the better covenant, to the Son of God. He fulfills (sic) both the Priesthood of Melchisedec and Aaron. (Emphasis his).
Crosier's emphasis dare not be overlooked. Christ was of the first - the Melchisedecian while the second - the Aaronic - was the "example and shadow" of that priestly ministry. Citing the admonition given to Moses - "See that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the Mount, He emphasized: None can deny that, in obedience to this admonition, Moses made or instituted the Levitical priesthood; it was then "according to the pattern" which the Lord showed him, and that pattern was of heavenly things, Heb. 9:23. If there was not another text to prove that the Levitical priesthood was typical of the Divine, this would abundantly do it. Yet some are even denying this obvious import of the priesthood; but if this is not its import, I can see no meaning to it. It is [then] an idle round of ceremonies without sense or use; but looked upon as typical of the heavenly, it is replete with the most important instruction. As this is the application made of it in the New Testament, so we must regard it, while we examine the atonement made under the Levitical priesthood.
(In the first of this series of studies on the Sanctuary XXXVI - 4(03), we used the text in Heb. 8:5 to conclude the same as Crosier did above in citing Heb. 9:23. In both texts the same Greek word, 'upodeigma, is used, translated "example" in 8:5, and "patterns" in 9:23.)
Following the New Testament application, Crosier examined the atonement, dividing it by the terms, "daily" and "yearly," or "Individual" and "national." He began his discussion of the daily atonement with the morning and evening sacrifice as defined in Ex. 29:38-42. There is a linguistic connection between this text and Daniel 8:14. The latter - "Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" - is an answer to a question with three parts - "How long the vision, the daily, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" (ver. 13). the word, "daily" (Heb. Tamid) is first used in the Bible in Ex. 29:38-42, and translated either as an adjective, "continual," or as an adverb, "continually," in Exodus.
Here is where the problems begin. In passing from the morning and evening sacrifice to the individual sin offering, Crosier failed to differentiate between the high priest who ministered the blood of the sin offering of confession for the congregation, and the common priest who ministered the atonement of forgiveness for the individual. In so doing he has the blood taken into the Holy Place in all instances. He entirely overlooks the placing of the blood on the horns of the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court, and concludes that come the Day of Atonement "the entire work of cleansing the Sanctuary was performed within the tabernacle," which was not the case in the type.
Further, Crosier believed that by this blood "the iniquity was communicated to the sanctuary." He did not perceive that the sin was already on record, and having been brought to the consciousness of the sinner, he responds by confession and seeking forgiveness. Instead of defilement resulting, Jesus said there was "joy . . . in heaven over one sinner that repenteth" (Luke 15:7). The repenting sinner remained defiled by his uncleanness, but the type indicated that the Day of Atonement was for removal of the uncleanness of the Children of Israel. Crosier's misinterpretation of the type was carried forward into Adventist theology, and gives us the problem as footnoted in Patriarch and Prophets, p. 354.p 7 -- Further, while recognizing that an atonement was involved in the daily ritual on behalf of the individual, Crosier contrasts between the "forgiveness of sins" and the "blotting out" of sin: The atonement is the great idea of the Law, as well as the Gospel; and as the design of that Law was to teach us that of the Gospel, it is very important to be understood. [To this we can say, "Amen"] The atonement which the priest made for the people in connection with the daily ministration was different from that made on the tenth day of the seventh month. In making the former, they went no further than in the Holy; but to make the latter they entered the Holy of Holies - the former was made for individual cases, the latter for the whole nation of Israel collectively - the former was made for the forgiveness of sins, the latter for blotting them out - the former could be made at any time, the latter only on the tenth day of the seventh month. (Emphasis his).
In this conclusion, Crosier fails to recognize that in the typical provision for forgiveness, there was for Israel collectively a ministration by the High Priest in which the blood was taken into the Holy Place; and also a ministration for individuals by the common priests in which the blood was marked on the Altar in the Court. See again Leviticus 4. In the reality, the same blood that provided forgiveness by the Cross, is the same blood that Jesus as High Priest ministers in the heavenly (Heb. 9:23-24).
Using his contrasting picture between the "daily" and the "yearly," Crosier challenges the teaching that "the atonement was made and finished on the Cross." Here we come to the core of the current problem involving the doctrine of the Sanctuary. If the atonement was "made and finished" at the Cross, the final atonement is meaningless. If, as the type presents two atonements, one resulting in forgiveness, the other in cleansing, there is a dual atonement flowing from the death of Jesus on Calvary.
In testing "the foundation" on which the doctrine of a completed atonement at Calvary rests, Crosier lists six propositions. We shall note two of these. Number 2 reads: The slaying of the victim was not making the atonement: the sinner slew the victim, Lev. 4:1-4, 13-15 etc., after that the Priest took the blood and made the atonement. Lev. 4:5-12, 16-21.
Here he cites from Leviticus 4, only the corporate transgression in which the blood was taken in, but which resulted in "forgiveness" for the congregation, not a "blotting out." He ignores the other two categories involving the individual which were ministered by the common priest.
Proposition Number 4 reads: The atonement was made in the sanctuary, but Calvary was not such a place.
Here again, Crosier failed to recognize the ministry of the common priest, and the clear statement that in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering, the ministering priest made an "atonement" for the individual and it was "forgiven him" (Lev. 4:26, 31, 35).
It should be obvious, even to a casual observer that we have some things to learn as well as things to unlearn in order to bring our concepts of the heavenly in line with the type which God gave to Moses as an "example and shadow" of those heavenly things. But in so doing, there is neither the need to ignore nor to discard the doctrine of the sanctuary which was basic to original Seventh-day Adventism. It should also be recognized that not once during the time of "the basic roots" is there even suggested the concept of "an investigative judgment." The original emphasis was "the cleansing of the sanctuary" as it related to the atonement. --- (2003 Jun) ---