Cast Out for the Cross
of Christ
A. F. Ballenger
1909
PREFACE
Four years ago the writer was separated from the ministry of the Seventh-Day Adventist
Church, and from fellowship in that body, because of convictions entertained regarding the
mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.
When asked by the brethren what my future plans would be, I replied that I would go
aside and labor with my hands and earn my bread, and that of my family, with the sweat of
my face, and see how my convictions would stand the test of stress and storm, of toil and
time. I told them that I would not then become aggressive, but as my friends and
acquaintances in the denomination should ask the reason of the hope that is within me, I
would try to give it in meekness and fear.
Besides, it seemed but fair to give the brethren time to carefully examine my position
and refute it from the Word if they were able. This I did in response to their pleas
that, while I had given the subject much study, they had not had time to carefully
consider it.
I have failed to respond to all the calls of my brethren and sisters for copies of my
manuscript, as my time and strength have been largely taken up in providing food, clothing
and shelter for my family. When the crisis came, it found me in the position of most
of the earlier ministers of the denomination, without means for the care of my
family. But this will not excuse my failure to answer the calls for copies of my
position. If I had always sought first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness,
"all these things" would have been added, as in many cases they were: and I
hereby testify to the faithfulness of God and the kindness of his children in this matter.
I have felt condemned when friends, anxious to possess copies of the manuscript, have
gone to the expense of time and means to make copies for themselves, and it is for this
reason that the matter now appears in print.
Yes, dear reader, it is possible for me to be in error in these things, but it would be
feigned humility to appear not to believe them with all my heart; for I do believe them,
and have shown my faith by sacrificing for them all that the human heart holds dear, save
life itself.
Now let the reader follow the noble Bereans in searching the Scriptures to see whether
these things are so, and if they are found to be in harmony with the Word, believe them;
if not, reject them, and then like one who is his brother's keeper, attempt to show the
writer where his convictions of truth contradict the plain "thus saith the
Lord."
To the timid soul, whose love of peace and unity leads him to fear the consequences
that may follow an investigation of the subject, let me say there is something more
blessed than church conformity, and that is the stately, triumphant, onward march of
truth; something more to be desired than stagnant peace, and that is a Jerusalem Council,
a Diet of Spires, or a Minneapolis Conference, from whose "No small dissentions and
disputations," truth, less shackled, bounds onward toward the perfect day.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a
sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter
against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
Matt. 10:34,35.
The reader is urged to read the following quotation from the pen of Mrs. E. G. White
(Test. 33, pp. 234-236), as presenting the writer's convictions on this important subject.
Peter exhorts his brethren to
"grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
When the people of God are growing in grace they will be constantly obtaining a clearer
understanding of his Word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred
truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it
will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the
tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with
the light already received from God's Word and discourage any further investigation of the
scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.
The fact that there is no
controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence
that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may
not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are
started by investigation, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to
searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth there will be
many now, as in ancient times who will hold to tradition and worship they know not what.
I have been shown that many who
profess to have a knowledge of present truth, know not what they believe. They do
not understand the evidences of their faith ... When the time of trial shall come,
there are men now preaching to others, who will find, upon examining the positions they
hold, that there are many things for which they can give no satisfactory reason.
Until thus tested they know not their great ignorance. And there are many in the
church who take it for granted that they understand what they believe, but, until
controversy arises they do not know their own weakness. When separated from those of
like faith, and compelled to stand singly and alone to explain their belief they will be
surprised to see how confused are their ideas of what they had accepted as truth.
Certain it is that there has been among us a departure from the living God, and a turning
to men, putting human in the place of divine wisdom.
God will arouse his people; if
other means fail, heresies will come in among them which will sift them, separating the
chaff from the wheat. The Lord calls upon all who believe his word to awake out of
sleep. Precious light has come appropriate for this time. This light should
lead us to a diligent study of the Scriptures and a most critical examination of the
positions which we hold...... God
would have all the bearings and positions of truth thoroughly and perseveringly searched,
with prayer and fasting. Believers are not to rest in suppositions and ill defined
ideas of what constitutes truth. Their faith must be founded on the Word of God.
Your brother in Christ,
A. F. BALLENGER.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTORY.
No one who has not experienced it can realize the soul anguish that overwhelms one, who,
in the study of the Word finds truth which does not harmonize with that which he has
believed and taught during a whole lifetime to be vital to the salvation of the
soul. This is the position to which I have been brought by a most earnest and
prayerful study of the Word, and I am stating my difficulties in this pamphlet, praying
that, if there is light that will harmonize the old position with the new, or show the new
position to be unscriptural, the reader may be able to make it plain to me. I appeal
by this to those in places of greatest responsibility down to the humblest believer in
present truth. I care not through whom the help may come, only so it come. I
fear not the valley of humility, for those who have read the little book Power for
Witnessing, know that in my Christian experience there set forth, my greatest
victories were gained through humbling myself under the mighty hand of God. I plead
with my brethren and sisters not to condemn me suddenly, but to examine carefully the
scriptures which have led me to take the position I have, and if possible, see wherein I
have missed the path of truth.
From a child I have been taught to demand a "Thus saith the Lord" in proof of
every doctrine, and I have looked forward to the time when the great controversy should
reach its crisis, and we would be called upon to stand for our lives, at which time, we
have been taught that we should say, when the powers of earth demand submission to the
laws of men in opposition to the law of God, "Show us from the Word our
error." I repeat, all my life long I have been taught that "before
accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its
support"; that
God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only,
as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of
learned men, the deductions of science, the decrees or decisions of ecclesiastical
councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, and the
voices of the majority, -- not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence
for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or
precept, we should demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord" in its support...
Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was
maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for
themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the Church,
and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in the
Scriptures, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their
church. There are today, thousands of professors of religion who can give no other
reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so taught by their
religious leaders. They pass by the Savior's teachings almost unnoticed, and place
implicit confidence in the words of the ministers.
But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance,
unless we know from God's Word that they are light-bearers?
A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world leads
many to follow in the steps of learned men and by their reluctance to investigate for
themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error.
CHAPTER II.
"ON THE
THRONE"
My first difficulty with the doctrines taught by Seventh-Day Adventists is the teaching
that Christ began his ministry at his ascension, in the first apartment of the heavenly
sanctuary. All my life I have believed that he did, but that belief was not the
result of personal investigation of the Scriptures, but was the result of accepting as
truth the deductions of others. As, in the quotations given above, I trusted to my
religious teachers and did not investigate for myself. When I came to present these
things to the general public and to defend them with the Word of God, I found myself in
difficulty.
The Scriptures of truth again and again declare in the most explicit terms that Christ,
at his ascension, went directly to the Father's throne. And this he must do that the
scriptures be not broken, for God himself, by the mouth of David, had long ago published
to the world that he would invite his Son to share his throne when he returned from the
earth after completing the work of redemption. Here is the invitation:
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine
enemies thy footstool.
Ps. 110:1.
The New Testament writers unite in testifying that this predicted invitation was given
and accepted at the ascension of Christ. Peter applied this scripture to his
ascended Lord in his Pentecostal sermon, thus:
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, the Lord said
unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool.
Acts 2:34,35.
The Apostle Paul repeatedly refers to this exaltation of Christ to the right hand of
the throne of God. Some of those references follow:
When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
majesty on high.
Heb. 1:2.
But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand until I
make thine enemies thy footstool.
Heb. 1:13.
Now of the things which we have spoken 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.
Heb. 8:1.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on
the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies he made his footstool.
Heb. 10:12,13.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy set
before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down on the right hand of
the throne of God.
Heb. 12:2.
Which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the dead and set him at his
own right hand in heavenly places.
Eph.
1:20.
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ
sitteth at the right hand of God.
Col.
3:1.
As the Psalmist David was used to proclaim the prophetic promise of God to seat his Son
on his throne at his ascension, so the beloved Apostle John was used by the Son to testify
that his Father had fulfilled his promise, as follows:
To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also
overcame and AM SET down with my Father in his throne.
Rev.
3:21.
The martyr Stephen closed his testimony and sealed his doom with this glorious truth,
so much emphasized in the apostolic teaching:
But he being full of the Holy Ghost looked steadfastly into heaven and saw the
glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of God standing on the right hand of God. Then they
cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and ran upon him with one accord, and
cast him out of the city and stoned him.
Acts 7:55,58.
From the foregoing it is evident that in the apostolic church, a church filled with the
Holy Spirit, the fact that Christ at his ascension, sat down on his Father's throne, was a
most important gospel truth. This gospel truth is the "chief point" of the
whole epistle to the Hebrews, as stated in Heb. 8:1.
Now in the things we are saying, the chief point is this: We have such a high
priest, who sat down 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.
Heb. 8:1.
(Both Revised and
American Standard.)
Which is the "Throne
Room"? |
The next all important question is, Which apartment of the heavenly sanctuary contains the
throne of God? which apartment is the "throne room" of Jehovah?
In the Mosaic sanctuary, the pattern of the true tabernacle, God's dwelling place in
heaven, the throne of God abode in the second apartment.
Let them make me a tabernacle that I may dwell among them.
Ex. 25:8.
And thou shalt put the mercy seat ABOVE UPON THE ARK, and in the ark thou shalt
put the testimony which I shall give thee. And THERE will I meet with thee, and I
will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are
UPON THE ARK of the testament, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto
the children of Israel.
Ex. 25:21,23.
Inasmuch as the Mosaic tabernacle was a shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, it follows
that the "throne-room" of God in the heavenly sanctuary is in the second
apartment. The following quotation is in harmony with this Scriptural truth:
In the sanctuary and the temple, that were the earthly symbols of God's dwelling
place, one apartment was sacred to his presence. The veil inwrought with cherubims
at its entrance, was not to be lifted by any hand save one. To lift that veil, and
intrude unbidden into the sacred mysteries of the most holy place, was death. For
above the mercy seat and the bowed, worshiping angels, DWELT THE GLORY of the Holiest,
glory upon which no man might look and live. On the one day of the year appointed
for ministry in the most holy place, the high priest, with trembling, entered God's
presence, while clouds of incense veiled the glory from his sight.
Testimonies to the Church,
Vol. 8, page 284.
And beyond the second veil was the Holy Shekinah, the visible manifestation of
God's glory, before which none but the high priest could enter and live. The
matchless splendor of the earthly tabernacle reflected to human vision the glories of that
temple where Christ our forerunner ministers for us BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD.
Great Controversy,
page 414.
In the temple in heaven, the dwelling place of God, his throne is established in
righteousness and judgment. In the most holy place is his law, the great rule of
right by which mankind are tested. The ark that enshrines the tables of the law, is
covered with the mercy seat, BEFORE WHICH CHRIST PLEADS HIS BLOOD in the sinner's behalf.
Ibid., page 415.
Nowhere in the Scriptures are we taught that the throne of God dwelt in the first
apartment, either of the earthly or heavenly sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary was a
shadow of the heavenly; and the reason why the shadowy throne was in the second apartment
in that sanctuary, is that the real throne was in the second apartment of the real
sanctuary in heaven. It therefore follows that since Christ at his ascension, sat
down as priest on his Father's throne in the heavenly sanctuary, he must have entered into
the holy of holies, "within the veil" at that time.
Those who are well informed regarding the teachings of the Seventh-Day Advent denomination
will be prepared to admit that when Christ ascended, he sat down on the throne with his
Father in the heavenly sanctuary; but some of these will maintain that the throne of God
was moved from the holy of holies to the first apartment at that time, and there remained
until 1844. However, there are a goodly number, even of ministers, who have
expressed surprise when it was stated that this was the denomination's position.
One minister who has preached the message for many years, writes as follows concerning
this point:
I am sure there cannot be found a single line in any book, pamphlet or
periodical, written by our people, that ever intimates that the throne of God ever abode
in the holy place or first apartment; and I have never heard it mentioned either in public
or private... It is the most unscriptural position that could be taken and involves
more unreasonable and absurd positions than the Sunday keeper offers for keeping
Sunday. Why was one part of the sanctuary called "the most holy
place"? Was it not because that part contained the throne of God which was
between the cherubim over the mercy seat under which was the constitution of the
universe? Now, if the throne made that place most holy, then if it be moved into the
first apartment, would it not make that apartment the most holy place?
For the benefit of those who desire, like the brother referred to above, a definite
statement from the denomination in proof that it teaches that the throne of God was in the
first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary at the ascension of Christ, the following is
submitted:
When Christ commenced his ministry above, on the throne of his Father, that
throne was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.
Looking Unto Jesus,
page 134.
Thus the scene opens with the commencement of Christ's ministry, and at that
time the throne of God was in the first apartment of the sanctuary, where the antitype of
the golden candlestick was seen.
Ibid.
This teaching that God's throne was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary,
raises some very serious questions.
If the throne of God was moved into the first apartment at the ascension of Christ, did
that include the ark?
The denomination, through its Sabbath School lessons, has taught that the ark with its
mercy seat, its cherubim, and its shekinah, was a representation of God upon his throne in
the heavenly sanctuary. In the Sabbath School lessons for Feb. 8, 1890, questions 12
and 13, the following appears:
12. What was the cover of the ark called ? -- Heb. 9:5; Ex. 25:21.
13. Why was it called the mercy seat ? -- Ans. It was there
that mercy was dispensed. The sanctuary was God's dwelling place; the ark
represented his throne; and from his throne he dispenses grace, or favor, or mercy.
See Heb. 4:16.
Again, in Bible Reading Gazette, authorized by resolution of the General
Conference and published in book form in 1888, is found the following:
What was there in the type that represented God on his throne in heaven?
Lev. 16:2. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come
not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat which is upon
the ark, that he die not; for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat.
Reading No. 1, The Sanctuary.
Sub-question 14, under
Question 92.
And still again:
21. What covered the ark in the worldly sanctuary? -- Exodus
25:17,21. (The mercy seat.)
22. What covered it in the heavenly? -- Heb. 10:19,20; 4:19.
(The throne of grace).
Reading 101, questions 21, 22.
If this teaching of the denomination be true and the mercy seat of Exodus is a type of
the throne of grace of Heb 4:16 then it must follow that if the throne of God was located
in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary from the ascension of Christ to 1844;
then the real ark was in the first apartment during all that time. But this does
violence to the type which put the ark in the second apartment with a veil between it and
the rest of the furniture of the sanctuary.
It also does violence to the type by putting all the furniture of the heavenly
sanctuary in one apartment and leaving the holy of holies empty and abandoned for eighteen
centuries.
Separating the Throne
from the Ark |
Some have seen the dilemma into which this teaching leads, and have tried to escape the
difficulty by separating the throne of God from the ark of God, and placing the throne of
God in the first apartment in the heavenly sanctuary, and leaving the ark of God in the
holy of holies as represented in the type. While this relieves the situation in the
one direction, it greatly complicates it in another.
If God moved his throne from the holy of holies at the ascension of Christ, did he
leave the mercy seat or throne of grace behind him in the holy of holies? And did he
then minister the gospel for eighteen centuries from another seat than the mercy seat,
from another throne than the throne of grace?
If the throne was moved into the first apartment and not the ark containing the law,
was the gospel ministered for eighteen centuries divorced from the law?
In the type all gospel ministry centered at the mercy seat above the law, as is
forcibly stated in the following quotations:
Beyond the veil was the holy of holies, where centered the symbolic service of
atonement and intercession; and which formed the connecting link between heaven and earth.
Great Controversy,
p. 348.
The law of God enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and
judgment. The law pro- nounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was
the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of
the atonement, pardon was granted to repentant sinners. Thus in the work of Christ
for our redemption symbolized by the sanctuary service, mercy and truth are met together;
righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Patriarchs and Prophets,
p. 349.
Beyond the second veil, the sacred ark with its mystic cherubim, and above it
the holy shekinah, the visible manifestation of Jehovah's presence, all but a dim
reflection of the glorious temple of God in heaven, the great center of the work for man's
redemption.
Ibid.
It is not without significance that the mercy seat and the law of God were so
closely associated, and that God's presence was manifested just above them between the
cherubim. Here all the services of the sanctuary centered. Here the presence,
character and government of God was represented. The law of God is the "justice
and judgment" which are the habitation of his throne.
Note 2, under S.S. Lessons
for Jan. 26, 1895.
Moving Salvation's Center |
At this point there arises to the thoughtful mind a number of serious questions:
1st. If God moved his throne into the first apartment at
the ascension of Christ, and left the sacred ark enshrining his law and covered by the
mercy seat, did he move the center of salvation away from the law and mercy seat into
another apartment?
2nd. Did God minister pardon for eighteen centuries
from a throne which was not the mercy seat but which was separated from that mercy seat by
a separating veil?
3rd. Did God minister the gospel for eighteen centuries
from a seat whose foundation was not his eternal law, from a throne which was divorced
from that law by a veil of separation?
4th. Did God pardon sin from another seat than the one
which is the habitation of justice and judgment?
5th. If God could minister the gospel for eighteen
centuries divorced from the law, why can he not continue to do it; as taught by the No-Law
advocates?
6th. Did Christ as High Priest plead his blood for
eighteen centuries before a throne whose foundation was not the broken law which demanded
the transgressor's blood?
7th. Did Christ minister his blood before a throne
where mercy and truth did not meet together, and where righteousness and peace did not
kiss each other?
Does the reader not see that this doctrine which moves the throne from the holy of holies
into the first apartment, divorces God and his Son from the mercy seat and the law, and
changes the center of God's government and gospel from the mercy-covered law in the holy
of holies to the first apartment which according to the type never contained either law or
mercy seat; and that for a period of eighteen hundred years?
This latter horn of the dilemma is much more serious than the former. The first
did violence to the type by moving the ark to the first apartment, and thereby making that
apartment contain all the furniture of both apartments and leaving the holy of holies
empty and desolate; but it still recognized that the law and the gospel are inseparable,
that there can be no salvation which does not have its center at the mercy seat above the
law. But this latter theory separates God and his Son from the ark of his testament,
from his law and mercy seat, and centers the plan of salvation in a department of the
heavenly sanctuary where abode neither God's holy law nor his mercy seat.
The Difficulty Un- explained |
Some of my brethren have tried to make it appear that I was in error in my teaching, that
at his ascension Christ entered "within the veil" and sat down on the
antitypical mercy seat or throne of grace in the holy of holies in the heavenly sanctuary,
by stating that God's throne is movable and living and not immovably fixed to any one
place in the heavenly sanctuary. No one, with the most rudimentary knowledge of the
Scriptures, would think of denying that God's throne is living and movable. The
question is not, Is God's throne movable? But, Is the holy of holies in the heavenly
sanctuary, the center of atonement and intercession, as was taught in the type?
Some time ago I met a member of the General Conference Committee and he raised the
issue over which I was cast out from the denomination as unclean.
He said in substance, "Bro. Ballenger, do you not know that God's throne is living
and movable, and could therefore easily be moved from the holy of holies into the first
apartment?"
To which I replied in substance: "No one denies that the throne of God is living
and movable, but the question is, Did God move his throne into the first apartment? and if
so Did he move the mercy seat and the law? or Did he leave the mercy seat and the law
behind, and minister the gospel from a throne separated from his law and mercy seat?"
After a few moments' reflection he replied, "I had not given that point any
thought."
During the last four years I have laid this difficulty before the leading men of the
denomination and no one has ventured an explanation. No one has dared to say that
when the throne was moved out into the first apartment the ark and law went with it; and
on the other hand no one has dared to affirm that the law and mercy seat were deserted
-- left behind in the holy of holies, while the gospel was ministered for eighteen
hundred years from a seat which was not the mercy seat and from a throne divorced from the
divine law by a separating veil. Reader, if you accept the plain, "thus saith
the Lord," you need not tamper with the throne of the Infinite but leave it in the
holy of holies above the law, "the great center of the work for man's
redemption," where the whole testimony of Scripture places it.
On the day of atonement, the high priest, having taken an offering from the
congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood, and sprinkled it upon the
mercy seat above the tables of the law. Thus the claims of the law which
demanded the life of the sinner, were satisfied.
Patriarchs and Prophets,
p. 356.
In view of the foregoing and the many Scriptures which declare that Christ sat down
with his Father on his throne, within the veil, at his ascension, some serious questions
arise.
Did Christ sit down "On the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the
heavens" before the law, which demanded the life of the sinner, and which is the
foundation of that throne, was satisfied?
Did the law continue to claim the life of the sinner's substitute, the Son of God, for
eighteen hundred years after he had "offered one sacrifice for sins forever" and
"set down on the right of God?"
Did Christ remain under the curse of the law for eighteen hundred years after his
exaltation to the throne of God? If he had not sprinkled his blood upon the mercy
seat, thereby satisfying the claims of the law, could he be said to be free from its
curse?
The law enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and
judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the
mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which by virtue of the
atonement, pardon was granted to the repentant sinner. Thus in the work of Christ
for our redemption, symbolized by the sanctuary services, mercy and truth are met
together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Patriarchs and Prophets,
p. 349.
Since mercy (the gospel) and truth (the law) met together at the throne of grace above
the law, did Christ our great High Priest sit down upon that throne before he sprinkled
the blood upon the mercy seat which caused mercy and truth to meet together, and
righteousness and peace to kiss each other?
Or did God separate mercy from truth? Did he move his throne away from the law
into the first apartment and minister mercy for eighteen hundred years divorced from the
law by a separating veil? Before investigating further, let the reader ponder the
following glorious gospel words, descriptive of the ascension of Christ and his reception
at his Father's throne.
After describing the triumphal ascension of Christ and the eagerness of the heavenly
host to glorify their King, we read:
But he waves them back. Not
yet; he cannot now receive the coronet of glory and the royal robe. He enters into
the presence of his Father. He points to his wounded head, the pierced side, the
marred feet: He lifts his hands bearing the prints of the nails. He points to the
tokens of his triumph; he presents to God the wave sheaf, those raised with him as
representatives of that great multitude who shall come forth from the grave at his second
coming. He approaches the Father, with whom there is joy over one sinner that
repents; who rejoiceth over one with singing. Before the foundations of the earth
were laid, the Father and the Son had united in a covenant to redeem man if he should be
overcome by Satan. They had clasped their hands in a solemn pledge that Christ
should become the surety for the human race. This pledge Christ has fulfilled.
When upon the cross he cried out, "It is finished," he addressed the
Father. The compact had been fully carried out. Now, he declares,
"Father, it is finished. I have done thy will, O my God. I have completed
the work of redemption. If thy justice is satisfied, I will that they also whom thou
hast given me be with me where I am."
The voice of God is heard proclaiming
that justice is satisfied. Satan is vanquished. Christ's toiling struggling
ones on earth are accepted in the beloved. Before the heavenly angels and the
representatives of unfallen worlds they are declared justified. Where he is, there
his church shall be. "Mercy and truth have met together righteousness and peace
have kissed each other." The Father's arm encircled his Son and word is given
"Let all the angels of God worship him."
Desire of Ages,
p. 834.
Could this glorious scene take place at the throne of the universe, and the voice of
God be heard proclaiming that "justice is satisfied," -- could the sinner
be "declared justified" "before the heavenly angels and the representatives
of unfallen worlds" while the law was still demanding the life of the sinner's
substitute, the triumphant Son of God?
The Throne in the
Book of Revelation |
A desperate effort is made to find scriptural proof that Christ sat upon the throne with
his Father in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary until 1844. The
Scriptures used are as follows:
And behold there was a throne set in heaven and one sitting upon the throne. .
. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne.
Rev. 4:2,5. R.V.
And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there
was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints
upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Rev. 8:3.
It is argued that inasmuch as the candlestick and the altar of incense were always in
the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, therefore when these were seen by John in
the heavenly sanctuary, he must have been looking into the first apartment; and as he saw
the throne at the same time, the throne must have been in the first apartment.
But the logic is faulty. One might just as consistently argue that inasmuch as
the second apartment was always the abode of the ark or typical throne, therefore when
John saw the altar and candlestick at the same time that he saw the throne, they must have
been in the second apartment. But both conclusions are wrong, for both contradict
the type because in the type, the ark, or typical throne was never seen in the first
apartment; and the altar and candlestick were never seen in the second apartment.
The candlestick and altar as seen by John, were in the exact position they occupied in
the earthly sanctuary, and the throne in the exact position it occupied in that
sanctuary. In the earthly sanctuary, the candlestick was in the first apartment
before the veil, "before the Lord," and the altar was "before the
ark."
Note the two following Scriptures and see how the earthly sanctuary as built by Moses
agreed with the heavenly sanctuary as seen by John, as regards the relative positions of
the altar and the throne. Moses placed "the golden altar for incense before the
ark." Ex. 40:5. John saw "the golden altar (for incense) before the
throne." Rev. 8:3.
But it may be asked, How could John see the throne at the same time he saw the altar
unless the throne were moved out into the first apartment, or the altar moved into the
second? For the simple gospel reason that when Christ died on Calvary as the
antitype of the Lord's goat, the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom;
symbolizing the rending of the heavenly veil that our great High Priest might enter within
the veil and offer his blood at the mercy seat or throne of grace.
But this man, after that he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down
on the right hand of God.
Heb. 10:12.
The rending of the veil of the temple showed that the Jewish sacrifices and
ordinances would no longer be received. The great sacrifice had been offered, and
had been accepted, and the Holy Spirit which descended on the day of Pentecost carried the
minds of the disciples from the earthly sanctuary to the heavenly, where Jesus had entered
by his own blood, to shed upon his disciples the benefits of his atonement.
Early Writings,
page 122.
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul both sure and steadfast, and which
entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
made an High Priest forever, after the Order of Melchesedec.
Heb. 6:19,20.
Having then a great High Priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the
Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not an High Priest that
cannot be touched by the feelings of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points
tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us, therefore, draw near with boldness
unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace to help us in time
of need.
Heb. 4:14-16 R.V.
How much more reasonable and scriptural to believe that the heavenly veil was rent at
the death of Christ so that the mercy seat, or throne of grace, could be seen at the same
time with the altar and candlestick; than to move the throne of God from its foundation,
the law, and place it for 1800 years in the first apartment, with Christ as High Priest
ministering in the presence of his Father, with the veil behind them both, and separating
them from the law and mercy seat, the only place where the gospel has its center; and
this, too, in the face of the fact that the type calls for a ministry "before the
veil," while God is enthroned "within the veil" above the mercy seat and
the broken law; and still more, in opposition to the plain statement that Christ has
entered "within the veil" and "is set down on the right hand of the throne
of the Majesty in the heavens."
CHAPTER III.
"WITHIN
THE VEIL"
That Christ entered the holy of holies at his ascension seems clearly proved from the
Epistle to the Hebrews.
In Heb. 6:19,20, we have the following statement concerning Christ:
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which
entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus,
made an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.
This Scripture says plainly that at the time the Hebrew letter was written, Christ had
entered "within the veil." Now, to which of the two apartments does this
term refer? It will be noticed that the apostle refers to this place "within
the veil" as if it were a place perfectly familiar to the readers. He does not
stop to define it, but passes on, taking it for granted that the term is familiar to them;
just as Matthew in his gospel refers to "the Sabbath" in Chap. 12:1. He
does not stop to define which day is "the Sabbath," although there were other
days in the Jewish system to which the term "Sabbath" was applied; he takes it
for granted that when he uses the term "the Sabbath day," all will understand
from their previous knowledge of the Old Testament that he is referring to the seventh
day. Again, in the second chapter of Acts, the writer speaks of the "Day of
Pentecost"; he does not stop to explain what day that is, but assumes that the
reader, from his knowledge of the Old Testament, will know which day the "Day of
Pentecost" is.
The only Scripture in all the Bible that is used to prove that the term "within the
veil" refers to the first apartment, or within the curtain which formed the door of
the tabernacle, is the Scripture found in Heb. 9:3. Paul, here, in describing the
Mosaic temple says:
And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all.
"There," said my teachers, "that proves that the first curtain was a
veil." Yes, it does; but it also proves that the first curtain was the first
veil. It will not do to demand that the logic of Paul's statement makes the first
curtain "a veil," and then shrink from accepting the full result of that same
logic which makes it the first veil. Here, therefore, we have the Apostle Paul
calling the second curtain the "second veil" and the first curtain the
"first veil." Now, if the Scripture in Heb. 6:19 had said that Christ had
entered the "first veil," then the question would be settled; but he simply says
that Christ has entered "within the veil." Now, inasmuch as he uses the
term without explaining it, taking it for granted that his readers understand to what
place he refers, the all-important question arises: To which place within the first veil,
or within the second veil-would the reader understand the term "within the veil"
to apply? If the term "within the veil" applies to the first apartment,
then we would expect that it had been thus applied so universally in the Old Testament
Scriptures, that the reader would not hesitate in applying it to the first
apartment. But when I came to study the matter carefully I found that the term
"within the veil," in the Old Testament never applied to the place within the
door of the tabernacle, or the first apartment, but always to the holy of holies, within
the veil which separated the holy from the most holy. I found that the Hebrew
Scriptures never call the curtain at the door of the tabernacle "a veil," much
less "the veil." On the other hand, the term "veil" is
applied to the curtain separating the holy from the most holy; and the term "within
the veil" applies only to the holy of holies.
The Veil in the Hebrew --
The Book of Exodus |
For the benefit of the reader, every passage in the Hebrew Scriptures which mentions
"the veil" is here quoted. The Hebrew term for "veil," when
referring to the sanctuary is Pah-roh-cheth. It occurs just twenty-five
times. In every case it is applied to the "second veil," or the curtain
between the holy and the most holy. The reader is also asked to note carefully that
the name which the Scriptures give to the first curtain all through the Old Testament is
"door of the tabernacle," with its modifications.
And thou shalt make [1] a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and
fine-twisted linen of cunning work; with cherubims shall it be made: And thou shalt
put the mercy seat upon the ark wood overlaid with gold; their hooks shall be of gold,
upon the four sockets of silver. And thou shalt hang up [2]
the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within [3] the veil the ark of the testimony; and [4] the veil shall divide unto you between the holy
and the most holy. And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony
in the most holy place. And thou shalt set the table without [5]
the veil, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle
toward the south: and thou shalt put the table on the north side.
And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and
fine-twined linen, wrought with needlework.
Ex.
26:31-36.
Note how the first curtain is called in verse 36 "the door of the tent," in
contrast to the "veil."
And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil
olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always. In the tabernacle of
the congregation without [6] the veil, which
is before the testimony.
Ex.
27:20,21.
And thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of shittim wood shalt thou
make it.... And thou shalt put it before [7]
the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over
the testimony, where I will meet with thee.
Ex.
30:1,6.
Note again how the Lord calls the first curtain the "door of the tabernacle,"
in the forty-second verse of the previous chapter, in contrast to the term
"veil," which is again applied to the second curtain.
The ark, and the staves thereof, with the mercy seat, and [8]
the veil of the covering.... And the incense altar, and his staves, and the
anointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging for the door
at the entering of the tabernacle.
Ex.
35:12,15.
Again, the second curtain is called "the veil of the covering" while the
curtain at he door of the tabernacle is called "the hanging for the door at the
entering in of the tabernacle."
And he made [9] a veil of blue, and
purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubims made he it of cunning
work.... And he made an hanging for the tabernacle door
of blue and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, of needlework.
Ex.
36:35,37.
The reader is asked to notice once more that the Lord calls the curtain between the
holy and the most holy, "a veil," and in distinction, calls the first curtain
"a hanging for the tabernacle door;"
And of the hundred talents of silver were cast the sockets the sanctuary, and
the sockets of [10] the veil; an hundred
sockets of the hundred talents, a talent for a socket.... And therewith he made the
sockets to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Ex.
38:27,30.
The first curtain is called "the door of the tabernacle," here as elsewhere,
in contrast to "the veil."
And the covering of ram's skins dyed red, and the covering of badger's skins,
and [11] the veil of the covering....
And the golden altar, and the annointing oil, and the sweet incense, and the hanging for the tabernacle door.
Ex.
39:34,38.
Once more the curtain at the door of the tabernacle is called "the hanging for the
tabernacle door," in contrast to "the veil".
And thou shalt put therein the ark of the testimony and cover the ark with [12] the veil.... And thou shalt set the altar
of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony, and put the
hanging of the door to the tabernacle.
Ex.
45:3,5.
Again the Lord carefully distinguishes the two curtains, calling the first curtain
"the door."
And he brought the ark into the tab- ernacle, and set up [13]
the veil of the covering, and covered the ark of the testimony; and as the Lord
commanded Moses.
And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the side of the
tabernacle northward, without [14] the veil.
And he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation before [15] the veil.
And he set up the hanging of the door of the tabernacle.
Ex.
40:21,22,26,28.
The reader must by this time be deeply impressed with the careful distinction which the
Lord universally makes in discriminating between the two curtains. Here again the
curtain between the holy and the most holy is three times called "the veil"; and
in contrast to this, the first curtain is called "the hanging at the door of the
tabernacle."
We have now examined fifteen out of the twenty-five instances where "the
veil" is referred to in the Old Testament. Every one of these fifteen instances
refers unmistakably to the curtain separating the holy from the most holy. The term
"the veil" thus far is the name which the Holy Spirit gives to the second
curtain, and to that curtain only; while "the door of the tabernacle" is the
name which the same Spirit gives to the first curtain.
The Veil in the
Levitical Law |
We are now about to pass to the Book of Leviticus. In this book we have the law of
God regulating the sacrificial system. The terms used in the book are legal
terms. They must be definite, for they are for the information of the priests who
were to offer the sacrifices. The names given by this Levitical law to the two
curtains are as rigid and binding as is the name "Sabbath," as applied by the
ten commandments to the seventh day. It will not be denied for a moment that the
first curtain, or the curtain at the door of the tabernacle was a veil, both as to its
construction and its use; but the question we are now examining is -- does the Lord
apply the term "within the veil" so universally to the space within the first
curtain that when one reads in Heb. 6:19 that Christ has entered "within the
veil," he will have no hesitation in applying it to the first apartment?
Thus far in our study the terms "the veil" and "within the veil"
are applied rigidly to the second curtain, and the holy of holies; and now that we have
come to the book that gives the legal names to the sanctuary and its offerings, let us see
what names are given to these two curtains by the Levitical law.
In Lev. 1:5 we read, concerning the burnt offerings:
And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord, and the priests, Aaron's sons,
shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar, that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Here, the Levitical law names the first curtain, not "the veil," but the
"door of the tabernacle of the congregation."
And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle the blood seven
times before the Lord, before [16] the veil of
the sanctuary. And 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.
Lev.
4:6,7.
Here, the Levitical law gives the legal name of "veil of the sanctuary" to
the curtain between the holy and the most holy; and the legal name of "door of the
tabernacle" to the first curtain.
And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven
times before the Lord, even before [17] the veil.
And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord,
that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the
bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of
the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev.
4:17,18.
Here again, the Lord designates the curtain between the two apartments as "the
veil," and the first curtain as "the door of the tabernacle."
And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at
all times into the holy place, within [18] the veil
before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the
cloud upon the mercy seat.
And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar
before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within [19] the veil.
Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and
bring his blood within [20] the veil.
Lev.
16:2,7,12,13.
Here, as always, the Levitical law makes a rigid distinction between the two curtains,
calling the one separating the two apartments "the veil," and the first one
"the door of the tabernacle."
Only he shall not go in unto [21] the veil,
nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish.
Lev.
21:23.
Command the children of Israel that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the
light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.
Without [22] the veil of the
testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening
unto the morning before the Lord continually: it shall be a statute forever in your
generations.
Lev.
24:2,3.
And when the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they
shall take down [23] the covering veil, and
cover the ark of the testimony with it.
And they shall bear the curtains of the tabernacle, and the tabernacle of the
congregation, his covering, and the covering of the badgers' skins that is above it, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Num.
4:5,25.
Again we have the two curtains carefully distinguished.
Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for
everything of the altar, and within [24] the veil.
Num.
18:7.
And he made [25] the veil of blue, and purple, and
crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubims thereon.
2
Chr. 3:14.
These are the twenty-five instances in the Hebrew Scriptures where the term
"veil" appears, and the reader must recognize that the Lord invariably applies
the term to the curtain separating the holy from the most holy. Never has He called
the first curtain "the veil" in the Hebrew Scriptures. Bear in mind, it is
not denied that the first curtain was a veil, both as to its construction and use; but the
Lord was careful, in naming the two curtains, to give the first one the name of "the
door of the tabernacle," and the second one the name of "the veil."
The Veil in the
Septuagint |
An effort has been made to weaken the force of this rigid distinction which the Hebrew
Scriptures make between the two curtains, by referring to the Septuagint, which as all my
brethren know, is a translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew into the Greek.
It is claimed that in the Septuagint the first curtain is sometimes called a veil.
This is true. And that the first curtain was a veil, both as to construction and use
has never been denied. But I have contended that God had so clearly distinguished
between the two curtains that when he uses the term "within the veil" in the
book of Hebrews, the reader is compelled to apply it to the holy of holies in the heavenly
sanctuary. Never in the Septuagint is the first curtain called a veil except in the
directions for the making and moving of the tabernacle and then only when the connection
plainly shows to which curtain it is applied. To illustrate: In Ex 28:16 we have
"the veil of the gate of the court" and in Ex. 37:5 we have "the veil of
the door of the tabernacle." Whenever the term veil appears in the Septuagint
without qualification it refers to the veil separating the holy from the most holy.
Never in the Septuagint is the first curtain called a veil in the book of Leviticus,
which contains the law governing the sacrificial system.
Never in the Septuagint is the term "within the veil" applied to any other
than the holy of holies. Lev. 16:3,12,15.
Never in the Septuagint are the terms "before the veil" and "without the
veil" applied to any other than the first apartment. Lev. 24:3.
In the Septuagint the first curtain is referred to twenty-two times in the hook of
Leviticus, and every time it is called the door of the tabernacle, in distinction from the
second curtain which in every instance (seven times) is referred to as the veil in such
expressions as "the veil," "the veil of the sanctuary," "within
the veil" and "outside the veil."
And now let us examine every instance where the term "within the veil" is used,
and see how invariably it is applied to the most holy place.
The first use of the term is found in Ex. 26:33:
And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in
thither within the veil the ark of the testimony; and the
veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.
The next three instances are found in Lev. 16:2,12,15, which verses read as follows:
And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron, thy brother, that he come not at
all times into the holy place within the veil before the
mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon
the mercy seat... And he shall take a censer full of burning coals from off the
altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the veil... Then, shall he kill the goat of the sin
offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the
veil, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle
it upon the mercy seat.
The next and last instance of its use in the Old Testament is found in Num. 18:7,
Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for
everything of the altar, and within the veil.
Thus again it is made plain that the term "within the veil," in the mind of
the student of the Hebrew Scriptures, meant in the holy of holies, and not in the first
apartment.
It must be evident to the reader that if the term "within the veil" refers to
the first apartment instead of the second then the terms "without the veil" and
"before the veil" would necessarily mean outside the first apartment, or outside
the door of the tabernacle, where the altar of burnt offering was located. And now
let us read all the references that use the terms in the Hebrew Scriptures, and see that
they always refer to the place before the veil of the sanctuary, and not before the door
of the tabernacle.
The first is in Ex. 26:35.
And thou shalt set the table without the veil, and
the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south; and
thou shalt put the table on the north side.
The next use of the term is in Ex. 27:20, 21
And thou shalt command the children of Israel that they bring thee pure oil
olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always in the tabernacle of the
congregation, without the veil, which is before the
testimony.
The next instance is found in connection with the erection of the sanctuary. Ex.
40:22,26.
And he put the table in the tent of the congrega- tion, upon the north side of
the tabernacle without the veil and he put the golden altar in the tent of the
congregation before the veil.
The next two occurrences of the term are found in Lev. 4:6,17.
And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood
seven times before the Lord, before the veil.
And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven
times before the Lord, even before the veil.
The next and last instance is found in Lev. 24:1-3:
And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Command the children of Israel, that they
bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn
continually without the veil, of the testimony, in the
tabernacle of the congregation.
Thus it is again made plain that the term "within the veil" must apply to the
second apartment, or holy of holies, inasmuch as every time the terms "without the
veil" or "before the veil" are used, they invariably apply to the holy
place, or first apartment, and not outside the sanctuary, as it would of necessity be, if
the term "within the veil" applied to the first apartment, as the denomination
teaches.
Reader, it is for believing that "without the veil" and "before the
veil" always refers to the first apartment of the sanctuary, and the term
"within the veil" always refers to the second apartment, that I have been cast
out of the church and declared an enemy of God and man. But I appeal to your honest
convictions, have I a "thus saith the Lord" for my belief or have I not?
The Veil of the New
Testament |
Passing from the Old Testament into the New, we find the Holy Spirit, still referring to
the curtain between the holy and the most holy as "the veil." The Greek
word translated "veil" is katapetasma, and it appears six times in the
New Testament. The first reference is in Matt. 27:50-52,
And Jesus when he had cried with a loud voice, yielded up the Ghost; and behold,
the veil of the temple was rent in twain from top to the
bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened, and many
bodies of the saints which slept arose.
The next instance of the use of the term "veil" in the New Testament, as
applied to the sanctuary, appears in Mark 15:37,38.
And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the Ghost: And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the
bottom.
The third instance occurs in Luke 23:44,45,
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth
until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened, and the veil
of the temple was rent in the midst.
The reader will notice that the Holy Spirit in all these three instances calls the veil
between the holy and the most holy places "the veil of the temple."
An effort is made to break the overwhelming force of this argument by saying that the
reason why the Spirit of God was not more accurate, and did not say "second
veil," was because there was only one veil in the temple at the time of Christ's
crucifixion; but this is not borne out by the facts. Conybeare & Howson's Life
and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 581, states that in the temple of Herod there was a veil
at the door of the first apartment as well as a veil between the holy and the most
holy. Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews, book XV, chapter 11, par.
3, speaks of the veils that adorned the doors of the temple. This objection loses
its force also when we consider that at the time when there were two curtains, only one of
them, and that one between the holy and the most holy, was called "the veil of the
sanctuary."
And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood
seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the sanctuary.
Lev.
4,6,7.
The Holy Spirit did not call the veil between the holy and the most holy "the veil
of the temple" because there was but one veil, but because that was one name of the
curtain separating the holy from the most holy.
There are but three more instances where this Greek word appears in the New Testament,
and all of these three instances are to be found in the book of Hebrews. And can we
suppose for a moment that the Holy Spirit in the hook of Hebrews would contradict the
whole testimony of the Old Testament Scriptures, and its own previous testimony in the
New, with this overwhelming evidence, both from the Hebrew Scriptures and the New
Testament, that the term "veil" when used without qualification applies
invariably to the curtain between the holy and the most holy, and the term "within
the veil" applies just as invariably to the most holy place, let us now read again
the Scripture in Heb. 6:19:
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which
entereth into that within the veil, whither our forerunner is
for us entered, even Jesus, made an High Priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.
I appeal again to the reader: How can I, in the face the testimony of Scripture, teach
that this term refers to the FIRST APARTMENT?
The next reference is in Heb. 9:3,
And after the second veil, the taber- nacle, which
is called the holiest of all.
Here, as before stated, we have the Lord calling the second curtain the "second
veil," and by implication calling the first curtain "the first veil."
And now from our study of the Old and New Testaments, which one of these veils does the
Lord refer to when He uses the term "within the veil"? Unquestionably, the
second.
An illustration will help to impress this thought.
A builder in a cold climate often has two doors at the entrance of his home. The
first one is called "the storm door," and the second one "the
door." To distinguish them, he writes these names with chalk upon the
doors. He afterwards speaks of "the door" as "the second door,"
which would make the storm door the "first door." Now, if be tells his
painter to go and paint "the door," which one of the doors would the painter
paint? Surely not the storm door, for the storm door is not named "the
door." It is the second door that is called "the door." So it
is with these two curtains. God calls the first curtain "the door of the
tabernacle," and the second curtain "the veil"; but in one instance only he
refers to "the veil" as "the second veil," and by implication calls
the first curtain the "first veil." Then when in the same epistle he
speaks of "the veil," surely he cannot possibly be referring to the first
curtain, because that is not the name of the first curtain, but the name of the second.
The last reference is found in Heb. 10:19,20. After proving that the Lord had, at
the time of Paul's writing, offered the offering which was typified by the offering made
by the high priest every year at the mercy seat, within the holy of holies, and after
declaring that there is "no more offering for sin," the apostle continues,
Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of
Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is
to say, his flesh.
The high priest of the Mosaic sanctuary made his yearly offering, (which typified the
offering of Christ), within the veil, at the mercy seat, and since Christ has made the one
offering for sin, which that offering typified, it follows, inevitably, that Christ made
that offering upon the mercy seat, "within the veil," or in the most holy
place. How very fitting, then, it is for the apostle to encourage us to follow our
great High Priest "within the veil."
And now I appeal to the reader: When the Holy Spirit in Heb. 6:19 tells us that Christ,
our forerunner, has entered "within the veil," which department am I to
understand is referred to by this term? Let me again call attention to the fact that
the term "within the veil" is used in Heb. 6:19 without qualification, it being
taken for granted that the reader is familiar with the term, and will know without
explanation to which apartment it refers. Never for a moment would the student of
the Hebrew Scriptures think of applying that term to the first apartment. When we go
to the Old Testament to see which apartment is referred to by the expression "within
the veil," we find the term applied invariably to the holy of holies. How dare
I, then, in the face of this overwhelming testimony of Scripture, apply the term
"within the veil," to the first apartment, a place to which the Spirit of God
never applied it?
If I should teach that "within the veil" applies to the first apartment, the
Word of God would condemn me. When I teach that it refers to the second apartment my
church condemns me. May the Lord have mercy upon me and sustain me in the trial!
Hear the Word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word; your brethren that hated
you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but he will
appear to your joy, and they will be ashamed.
Isa.
66:5.
CHAPTER IV.
SERVICES
IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY
BEFORE THE CROSS.
Just here the conscientious, thoughtful reader who trembles at the Word of God and still
is anxious to be loyal to his former teaching will ask:
Was not the earthly sanctuary a type of the heavenly? Yes, certainly.
Did not the earthly sanctuary have two apartments and was there not a ministry in
both? Most certainly.
Then ought there not be a ministry in both apartments of the heavenly sanctuary?
Yes.
But if Christ entered into the second apartment at his ascension, when is the ministry
conducted in the first apartment?
Answer: From the fall of man to the death of Christ.
Then you place the first apartment ministry of the heavenly sanctuary, or the ministry
"before the veil," from creation to the cross?
Yes, a hundred times, Yes! And here is where a flood of light from the sanctuary
falls on the path of the searching praying pilgrim.
But was not the earthly sanctuary and its services a shadow of things to come?
Yes, some of the things were yet to come, but not all. The true sanctuary was not
yet to come, for it had existed long before the shadow was built. Heb. 8:5, and Ex.
25 :40. And God was enthroned above the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary when
the earthly was built.
The Lord is in his holy temple.
The Lord's throne is in heaven.
Ps.
11:4.
He sitteth between the cherubim.
Ps.
99:1.
For he hath looked down from
the height of his sanctuary;
From heaven did the Lord
behold the earth.
Ps.
102:19.
Not only was God seated upon the throne in the heavenly sanctuary when the earthly
sanctuary was built, but services were in progress there while the services were going on
in the earthly sanctuary. This is shown first by the prayer of Solomon on the day of
the dedication of the temple; and by the promise of the Lord which followed that prayer.
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven, and heaven of
heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded.
I
Kings 8:27.
Solomon well knew that the temple which he had built was but a kindergarten toy faintly
representing the dwelling place of God in heaven. And he also knew that the real
sanctuary service on behalf of sinning men was at that very time going on in heaven.
For in continuing his prayer he says:
And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant, and of thy people Israel,
when they shall pray toward this place: and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place;
and when thou hearest forgive.
I
Kings 8:30.
If my people . . . shall humble them- selves, and pray and seek my face, and
turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their
sin.
II
Chron. 7:14.
Had Solomon shared the views of those brethren who believe that the heavenly sanctuary
was closed until after Christ's death and that, therefore, no pardon was ministered from
the sanctuary during that time, he would not have prayed as he did and the Lord would not
have promised to minister pardon from the heavenly sanctuary.
Eight times is this truth repeated in the prayer of Solomon. And as this prayer
is repeated in 2 Chron. 6, this all important truth is told sixteen times in the two
chapters.
Why did the Lord indict this prayer at the dedication of the temple? Why did the
Lord lead Solomon eight times to call Israel's attention to the heavenly sanctuary and to
the fact that it was from that sanctuary that he would hear their prayers and forgive
their sins and not from the temple made with hands? For the solemn reason that he
wanted the people to know that the earthly sanctuary was only a shadow of the heavenly,
and that the service before the veil in that earthly sanctuary was only an index finger
pointing to the heavenly sanctuary, where God, enthroned, "within the veil,"
between the cherubim, was then and there pardoning the sins of the people.
The Lord well knew that the devil would try to hide the heavenly sanctuary from their
view by putting the earthly in the place of the heavenly; and so to persuade them that the
only services carried on at that time were the earthly services and that their pardon was
coming from the earthly instead of the heavenly.
As Seen by the Children
of Israel |
Besides this prayer, we have the prayer which the Lord directed each man in Israel to make
on the presentation of the first fruits, by which every soul in Israel would have his
attention called to the heavenly sanctuary and to the fact that all real blessings came
therefrom. This is a part of that prayer:
Look down from thy holy habi-
tation, from heaven, and bless
thy people Israel.
Deut.
26:15.
Notwithstanding these precautions the devil did succeed in persuading the people to
believe that the only services conducted on behalf of sin anywhere in all God's universe
were those conducted in their sanctuary; and that all the pardon granted from any mercy
seat was the pardon granted from their mercy seat. In fact, the devil persuaded them
to believe that God's salvation for the whole human race centered in their twenty by sixty
sanctuary.
The Lord, through the prophets, tried to direct their minds back to the heavenly sanctuary
in the following words, but failed:
Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool:
Where is the house ye will build unto me? And where is the place of my rest?
For all those things have my hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord;
but to this man will I look even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and
trembleth at my word.
Isa.
66:1,2.
Another solemn effort of the Lord to show that pardon was ministered from the heavenly
sanctuary before the cross is found in the vision which Isaiah saw of the heavenly
sanctuary as recorded in Isa. 6:1-7:
In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne,
high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims:
each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his
feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said
Holy, holy, holy,
is the Lord of hosts:
the
whole earth
is full of his glory.
And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and
the house was filled with smoke. Then said I, Woe is me, for I am undone; because I
am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine
eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.
Then flew one of the seraphims
unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the
altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this that touched thy lips; and thy
iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged.
The scripture proves that the heavenly sanctuary was open in Isaiah's time and that the
altar of incense was burning with live coals not cold and dead, and that the ministering
angels were present to minister pardon from the sanctuary to the sinner.
Notwithstanding all this testimony the Jews lost sight of the heavenly sanctuary and
worshipped the creature instead of the Creator and were ready to cast out anyone from the
synagogue who tried to call their attention back to the true tabernacle.
As Seen by the Martyr
Stephen |
For his effort to show that the earthly sanctuary was only a "fashion" of the
heavenly, the martyr Stephen was stoned to death. Their charge was that:
This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the
law.
From Stephen's defense, which follows, we can see that it was for teaching the same
truth taught in the prayer of Solomon, and by Isaiah that he was stoned.
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness as he had appointed,
speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had
seen. But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in
temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, HEAVEN IS
MY THRONE and earth is my footstool:
What house will ye build me? saith the Lord: Or what is the place of my rest?
Acts
7:47-49.
For telling the truth about the typical sanctuary and calling attention to the real
sanctuary where God's throne was always to be found, the first Christian martyr lost his
life. And it is for telling this same truth that Solomon prayed, and Stephen
preached, and Isaiah prophesied, that the writer has been cast out as unclean from among
his people. I have taught that the Mosaic sanctuary was only a shadow, and that the
real sanctuary, and the real mercy seat with God enthroned thereon, were in heaven at the
time that the earthly was made. I have taught that at the time of the earthly
ministry the real ministers carried the prayers to the real mercy seat in the real
sanctuary in heaven, from whence pardon was ministered in harmony with the prayer of
Solomon. And I appeal from the sentence pronounced upon me by my brethren, to the
sanctuary which Solomon saw, and to the Father whom the martyr beheld enthroned in that
sanctuary, and I make my appeal through my great High Priest whom the same martyr saw
"standing on the right hand of God."
CHAPTER V.
THE DAILY
AND THE
YEARLY ATONEMENT
CONTRASTED.
There is a striking difference between the blood sprinkled "before the veil" and
that sprinkled "within the veil." If the type had been perfect, the high
priest would have sprinkled his own blood "within the veil" just as Christ
entered with "his own blood." But as God would not countenance human
sacrifices in the typical system, therefore the priest was allowed to enter within the
veil with the blood of the Lord's goat instead of his own blood; but the reader must see
that had the type perfectly represented the reality, the priest would have sprinkled his
own blood upon the mercy seat instead of the blood of the Lord's goat, and this clears the
way for a better understanding of the difference between the blood which the priest
sprinkles before the veil, and that which he sprinkles within the veil.
Prayer for Pardon Not
the Price of Pardon |
The blood sprinkled "before the veil" was the blood which the priest had
received from the hand of the repentant, believing sinner; the blood sprinkled
"within the veil" was the blood of the goat chosen by the Lord, called "the
Lord's goat," and stood for the high priest's own blood. The blood sprinkled
before the veil, inasmuch as it was brought by the sinner, was nothing more than the
sinner's confession of sin, and prayer for pardon through faith in the blood of
Christ. It sustained the same relation to the death of Christ that the bread and
wine of the Lord's table sustains today to that same death. The blood sprinkled
"within the veil" was not a prayer for pardon received at the hand of the
sinner, but was the blood of the sinner's substitute, which was the price of pardon.
It is not the sinner who furnishes the price of pardon, but the sinner's substitute.
The penalty of the law is not paid by the prayer of the penitent, but by the blood of his
substitute.
It is not thy tears of repentance,
nor prayers, But the blood that
atones for the soul.
The reason why the priest did not enter the holy place within the veil until the day of
atonement was because he did not have the blood of the Lord's goat, a substitute for his
own blood, to offer until that day. He could present the prayers of the penitent,
represented by the blood which the penitent brought -- he could present this
"before the veil," and obtain pardon for the sinner -- in and through the
merits of Christ's coming death on the day of atonement; but he, being the sinner's
substitute, could not enter within the veil until he had the substitute for his own blood,
which alone could, in type, meet the penalty of a broken law.
"The Sin Offering of
Atonement" |
There was a sin offering offered for the whole congregation on the day of atonement,
"besides the sin offering of atonement" (Num. 29:11), but the priest would have
lost his life, if after sprinkling the blood of this common sin offering "before the
veil," he had gone "within the veil," and attempted to sprinkle that same
blood on the mercy seat. And why? Because it was but a prayer for pardon in
the name of Christ, and not the blood of the "sin offering of the
atonement." After the priest had sprinkled the blood of the sin offering, which
was merely the sinner's prayer for pardon, he changed his garments, putting on the white
linen of the atonement day, and with the blood of another goat, which the Lord had chosen,
whose blood was a substitute for the priest's own blood, he entered within the veil, and
sprinkled that blood upon the mercy seat, which, being a substitute for his own blood, and
typifying the blood of our great High Priest, met the penalty of the law in type.
The priest did not dare enter "within the veil" at the beginning of the
yearly service, because he did not then have his own blood to offer. It was not
until the day of atonement that the Lord chose for him a goat, whose blood was offered in
the place of the high priest's own blood. So Christ did not enter "within the
veil" at Creation, when sin first entered, and when he became man's substitute and
surety, the one Mediator between God and man, because he did not then have his own blood
to offer in payment for the penalty of sin. That blood was not shed until four
thousand years later; and when his blood is shed at Calvary, the veil of the temple is
rent in twain, and the way into the holiest is laid open, and Christ, now in possession of
his own blood, enters "within the veil," and sprinkles that blood upon the mercy
seat once for all, in payment of the penalty of a broken law.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at
the right hand of God.
It might be asked, Why was not the Lord's goat slain at the beginning of the yearly
service, instead of on the day of atonement?
Answer: For the same reason that Christ was not crucified at Creation, but at
Calvary. It was the plan of God that a long ministry should take place in the
sanctuary before the substitute should die beneath the load of a world's guilt.
The Daily Atonement in
the Heavenly |
Leaving the type, let us examine the reality. When Abel offered his offering at
Creation, what did his ministering angel receive at the hands of Abel to present before
the throne of grace? Not the literal blood of Abel's lamb, for that blood was only a
channel of faith, like baptism, and the Lord's supper. What then, I ask, did Abel's
minister have to present to him who dwelt between the cherubim? Surely only that which the
offering voiced -- a confession of sin, and a prayer for pardon. With this
prayer, his minister could go before the veil, and together with the incense burning on
the altar before the throne, or Christ's own righteousness, present Abel's confession and
prayer for pardon, and receive from the throne of grace the prayed-for pardon, which he
could then minister to the sin-troubled heart of Abel. But why could he not go
"within the veil" with that prayer, which he had received at the hand of Abel?
For the sufficient reason that the prayer of a sinner for pardon is not the price
or penalty of a broken law. If a ministering angel had gone "within the
veil," at creation, and attempted to pay the penalty of sin with the prayer of a
penitent, he would have perished; but, with Christ's promise to pay the penalty of sin
with his own blood at Calvary, the ministering angel could approach the veil, and obtain
pardon for the penitent through the merits of Christ's blood, which should be shed four
thousand years later; but no priest dare enter "within the veil" until he has
that which alone can meet the penalty of a broken law -- his own precious
blood. And this is why it is written after Christ's death and ascension, "When
he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on
high." "But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for
ever, sat down at the right hand of God." "By his own blood, he entered
once into the holy place (holies), having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Let us then no longer confound the offerings which the priest received at the hand of
the sinner and offered on behalf of the sinner "before the veil," which
offerings were but a confession of sin, and a prayer for pardon -- let us not
confound this offering with that offering which was received at the hand of God, and which
was a substitute for the priest's own blood, which alone could meet, in type, the penalty
of a broken law. Remember that the first offering was but a prayer for pardon, while
the second was the payment of the penalty of sin. Let it be kept in mind that the
priest could for four thousand years, present before the veil in the heavenly sanctuary
the prayers of the penitent, voiced by the blood of his offering and obtain through the
merits of Christ's coming death, the prayed-for pardon; but when the hour comes when the
penalty of sin must be paid, it requires infinitely more than the prayer of a sinner to
meet that penalty; it requires nothing less than the precious blood of God's only begotten
Son.
Nothing is clearer than that Christ was man's substitute from creation. "He
hath made him to be sin for us" could have been said as truly by the patriarchs as by
the apostle Paul. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,"
not merely from the cross onward, but from creation. After righteousness had been
ministered to Abel, in response to his prayer of faith, the Lord no longer regarded him as
bearing sin; but if he is not the sin-bearer, who is the sin-bearer? To this
question the Father could make answer by pointing to his only begotten Son.
Reader, can you not see that from the fall of man, Christ became man's substitute, and
being thus counted a sinner, there must be a ministry before the veil until he is in
possession of his own precious blood, with which to sprinkle the mercy seat "within
the veil"?
The veil in the earthly sanctuary was decorated with figures of angels, representing
the real angels which guarded the approach to the throne of God, and it is before this
cordon of living angels that the Melchisedek priesthood ministers from creation to the
cross. For four thousand years, the sins of a world separated God's only begotten
Son from his place at the side of his Father on the throne. For four thousand years,
Christ was barred from his Father's face because he was the sinner's substitute. How
full of meaning then, are these words in the prayer of our Savior, offered but a few hours
before he was to pay the penalty of a world's sin in his death on Calvary, and then return
to his Father's side:
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I
had with thee before the world began.
John
17:5.
The full meaning of this tremendous truth is brought out in the Twentieth Century New
Testament. Here is the translation:
And now do thou honor me, Father, at thine own side, with the honor which I had
beside thee before the world began.
Thus it is plainly declared that Christ, our substitute, occupied a place at his
Father's side on the throne, before the world began, which he did not occupy after sin
entered; but when he was about to pay the penalty of sin in his own death, he asks that he
be allowed to return to his Father's side. Oh, how full of meaning is the Father's
answer to that prayer! At the moment of his Son's death, when he had uttered that
triumphant cry, "It is finished," and his thorn-crowned head fell lifeless upon
his breast, the hand of God who had suffered the cruel separation from his Son for four
thousand years, on account of that terrible thing called "sin" tore the veil of
the temple from top to bottom, not the first curtain, but the one which had separated the
high priest, the type of God's Son from the throne of his Father's glory; thereby saying
in tragic tones to the angelic guard that had barred the way of the sinner's substitute,
the Son of God, from the throne of his Father, "Stand aside! make way for the
home-coming of my Son. The debt is paid that separated my only begotten Son from his
place at my side." When, therefore, Christ arose from the grave freed from sin
("He that is dead is freed from sin") the way into the holiest was laid open and
the angelic guard stood waiting to pass the all-conquering world's Redeemer on to the
welcoming arms of his waiting Father.
When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high.
Oh! the breadth, the length, the height, and the depth, of the love of God in Christ
Jesus!
Atonement for the Sinner
And Atonement For
His Sin |
The very fact that the offerings during the year did not in any sense meet the penalty of
transgression, but left the sanctuary uncleansed to be atoned for by the blood of the
Lord's goat on the day of atonement, ought to convince anyone that there is a marked
difference between the offerings which the individual or the congregation brought from day
to day during the year, and the one offering made on the day of atonement.
But the reader will ask, when the priest sprinkled the blood before the veil, is it not
clearly stated,
And the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them?
Lev.
4:20.
Most assuredly it is. But, reader, if the penalty of sin had been met by this
blood, why is it that the sanctuary must be cleansed on the day of atonement? Why is
it that there must be another offering made, whose blood shall be sprinkled above the
mercy seat, before the penalty of sin is met? Can you not see that if the first
blood had met the penalty of sin, there would have been no need of a day of atonement to
cleanse the sanctuary of the sins of the people?
Then you ask, What was the need of the daily offerings, and in what sense was atonement
made for the people which would make it necessary for another atonement to be made for
iniquity on the day of atonement? The whole matter is made clear when we realize
that the offerings which the sinner brought during the year were but a channel of faith
through which they acknowledged their sin, and expressed their faith in the coming Lamb of
God, who would die to take away their sin. The offerings which the people made
during the year sustained the same relation to the cross of Calvary that the bread and
wine of the Lord's supper sustains today to that same cross. One was a channel of
faith in the Lamb of God to come and die for the sins of men; the other -- the
bread and wine -- is but a channel of faith for us to express our faith in the Lamb
of God, who has come and died for our sins. Another has expressed it beautifully
thus:
The patriarchs, prophets, and all the holy martyrs, from righteous Abel, looked
forward to the coming Saviour, in whom they showed their faith by sacrificial
offerings. At the crucifixion, the typical system of sacrifices was done away by the
great Anti-typical Offering.
Sufferings
of Christ, p. 3.
It is as essential, no more so and no less, that we have faith in the Redeemer
who has come and died -- our sacrifice, as it was for the ancients to believe in
the Redeemer to come, whom they represented by their typical sacrifices.
Ibid.,
p. 4.
Illustrating the Distinction |
Let me illustrate the relation which the atonement for the sinner, which was made during
the year sustained to the atonement for iniquity which was made on the day of
atonement. We will say that I am renting a house in Ballymoney, Ireland, from a Mr.
Hanna. Let it be supposed that I am unable to pay my rent, and am therefore in
distress. I am anxious to leave for America, but Mr. Hanna brings suit against me,
and levies upon my goods. In my distress, my friend, Mr. McClelland, steps up and
says: "Mr. Hanna, charge the two pounds which Mr. Ballenger owes you, to me. I
will pay it on the first of next June. Let Mr. Ballenger go to America."
Mr. Hanna, perfectly satisfied with my substitute, transfers my debt from myself to Mr.
McClelland, and says to me, "Mr. Ballenger, you are free to go. I hold Mr.
McClelland in your stead." Mr. Hanna and I are now one. An atonement has
been made for me which has reconciled me to Mr. Hanna, Reader, cannot you see that when
Mr. Hanna accepted Mr. McClelland as my substitute in that acceptance an atonement is made
for me, I am free from the debt? But the reader will recognize that no atonement has
yet been made for the debt. The debt has not been paid. Mr. McClelland, my
substitute, has assumed the debt, and Mr. Hanna has accepted him in my place, but he has
not yet paid the debt. This payment will not be made until the 1st of June.
And so, during the four thousand years, from creation to the cross, the sinner is
pardoned but the sin is not atoned for until the day when it is laid upon the Lamb of God.
He hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.
Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.
Inasmuch as God forgave the sinner from creation to Calvary, and did not inflict the
penalty of the sinner's sin, either on the sinner or his substitute, it follows that God's
throne and his sanctuary have assumed the responsibility of man's sin.
Thus it was in the sanctuary service during the year. The sinner brought his sin
offering, which was merely a channel through which he confessed his sin, and expressed his
faith in the death of Christ yet to come. By his faith he was made to realize a
oneness with God; but his sin, in type, still defiled the sanctuary until the day of
atonement. On this great day, the service was changed. The Lord did not leave
the sinner to choose the offering, but he chose the offering himself. He did not
permit the sinner to lay his hands upon the head of this goat, for this was not the goat
which was a channel for the faith of the repentant, believing sinner; but this goat was
the one victim of the year which symbolized, from God's stand-point, his giving his only
Son to die to atone for the sins of the world. The offerings during the year
symbolized man's accepting, by faith, God's offering for sin; but this one offering on the
day of atonement symbolized God's giving his Son to be the sin-offering for the
world. And, inasmuch as he, God, laid upon him, Christ, the iniquities of us all, it
was not fitting for the sinner to lay his hands upon this, the Lord's goat. By
keeping in mind this clear distinction between the purpose of the daily offerings, and the
offering on the day of atonement the whole sanctuary system becomes clear and plain.
Halting Christ "Before
the Veil" |
When we stop our great High Priest in the first apartment for more than 1800 years, we not
only violate the type, which required that the high priest should pass, with the blood of
the Lord's goat, immediately into the holy of holies; but, by placing him before the veil
for all those centuries, we put him in the position of the priest against whom was charged
the accumulated sins of the people, and who was awaiting the death of the day of
atonement, whereby he was to unload his burden of sin. But why load up our Savior
again with the very same sins with which he was already burdened when he suffered on
Calvary's cross? Must he bear the same sins twice? If, after his ascension, he
is again laden, in the first apartment, with the sins of the world, will not he have to
die again to meet the penalty of these sins? But this is impossible, for the Apostle
Paul says in the 6th of Rom.:
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no
more dominion over him: For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth,
he liveth unto God.
Christ is no longer the sin-bearer. All the sins he ever will bear, he bore on
Calvary's cross. If he were still laden with sin, he would still have to minister
before the veil, and he could not enter into the presence of God, and sit down with him on
his throne. It was not until he had purged our sins in his death, that he was
allowed to pass into the presence of God, and sit down on his throne.
When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high.
Heb.
1:3.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at
the right hand of God.
Heb.
10:12.
But the objection may be raised: When the sinner sins today, and confesses his sin,
does not Jesus Christ load that sin upon himself? God forbid. That sin was
already borne by him on the cross of Calvary, and all he needs to do is to raise that
pierced hand, and plead that he has already borne that sin to Calvary, and paid its debt
in his death. If he again loads himself up with sin, then he must offer himself
again, and if he offers himself again, he must suffer again.
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the
holy place every year, with the blood of others. For then must he often have
suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he
appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb.
9:25-26.
But does not God and his Son still suffer because of the sins of men? Yes, in the
same sense that a parent suffers when a child is afflicted or is wayward. The love
of the father for the son, causes the father to suffer when his son suffers or when the
son is led into sin. In this sense God and his Son suffered with a sinning world
from the fall to the cross, and from the cross to the end of sin; but this suffering is no
part of that vicarious suffering which pays the penalty of sin. The wages of sin is death,
not sympathetic suffering with the sinner. The sacrificial lamb pointed forward to
the death of Christ on the cross and the emblematic bread and wine point back to that same
death.
Then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once
in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
There is another conspicuous violation of the type in the present position that it is
strange we have not discerned. All must admit that the Lord's goat as the antitype
of Christ, was slain on the day of atonement. Ought not Christ, then, to be slain on
the day of atonement? and has not the day of atonement begun when atonement for iniquity
is made? The Lord declared to the prophet Daniel that the atonement for iniquity was
to be made within the seventy weeks. This proves positively that the day of
atonement began before the seventy weeks ended. When I say "day of
atonement," I do not refer to a day of twenty-four hours, but to a period. The
type, in order to correspond with our present position should have had the Lord's goat,
which especially typified God's giving his Son to die to put away sin, slain considerably
earlier in the year, and the high priest should have sprinkled his blood, for months
before the veil, and then on the day of atonement, he should have carried the rest of the
blood, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat. But this, as anyone knows, is not the
plan of the type. The first great act on the morning of the day of atonement was the
slaying of the Lord's goat, which typified the death of Christ; therefore, when the cross
of Calvary is upreared and the Lamb of God is nailed to the cruel tree, the great
anti-typical day of atonement has begun.
When a crime is committed in a state, the government is responsible for the purging
away of that crime; and though the criminal may be already tried and sentenced to death,
yet the government has not purged itself of this crime until it has inflicted the penalty
of the law on the transgressor. In like manner, so long as God has pardoned the
sinner, but has not inflicted the penalty of the sinner's sin upon his Son, the sanctuary
in heaven was responsible for the putting away of that sin. So Abel was forgiven and
went free, and thousands of years before the debt was paid, he was resting in his grave,
God having transferred his sin to his substitute. God was holding Abel for the sin
no longer. Yet it was not met in Christ's death until four thousand years later.
Year after year, during these centuries, the sins of men were accumulating in the
sanctuary above, and God became responsible for them, and they were charged against his
Son. But there came a day of reckoning, when the promise of the Son to pay the debt
must be fulfilled. At that time we see Jesus Christ, with the accumulated sins of
the centuries, which God had laid upon him, groaning under the load on Calvary, and paying
the penalty of the world's sin in his own death. But not only did he suffer under
the load of vile sins of the past, but he suffered for the sins of the future.
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at
the right hand of God.
Heb.
10:12.
And when he hangs dead on Calvary's cross, he is free from sin for he that is dead is
freed from sin. Christ raised from the dead, stands in the position of the high
priest, when on the day of atonement, he held in his hand the blood of the Lord's goat.
And why, I ask again, should we stop our great High Priest for more than 1800 years in
the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, there to receive upon himself again the
accumulation of sins which he has already borne in his death on Calvary?
And thus, we see that the ministry in the first apartment of the Mosaic sanctuary, was
a perfect type of the ministry on behalf of the sinner from creation to the cross, during
which time the sins of men were actually accumulating in the heavenly sanctuary.
Again the day of atonement in Israel was a perfect type of the actual putting away of sin,
on which day the sins of men which had accumulated in the sanctuary were met in type by
the blood of the Lord's goat. So on the great day of atonement, God laid upon his
Son the iniquity of us all -- the accumulated iniquity of the centuries, and the
Lamb bore them, and paid their penalty in his death. Nothing is clearer than that
the day of atonement began with the death of Christ. The Lord's goat, typifying
Christ's death, was slain on the day of atonement; consequently Christ, in order to be the
antitype, must himself be slain on the day of atonement.
No Ministering Priest for
Forty Centuries |
Our old position leaves the world for the first 4000 years without an interceding
priest. We admit that there was a sanctuary in heaven during that time; we admit
that God dwelt between the cherubim, above the mercy seat; we admit that there was a world
of sinners in need of pardon; we admit that those sinners prayed to God who dwelt upon the
mercy seat, between the cherubim; but we have given them no priest, no advocate, no
intercessor, to present those prayers before God. We have admitted that there was an
altar of incense before the throne, but it was cold and deserted. No holy flame
burning upon it, and no incense offered with the prayers of the saints.
When we are anxious to collect tithes from the people, we argue that the priesthood of
Christ today, is but a continuance of a similar priesthood which existed in the days of
Abraham. "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec." If this is a good argument with which to collect tithes from the
people, and it is, and the people should pay their tithes, it is also an excellent
argument to prove that there was a priesthood during the first 4,000 years -- a
priesthood after the order of Christ's priesthood today, through whose intercession the
prayers of the patriarchs were made acceptable to God in heaven. If we begin the
priesthood in heaven at Christ's ascension, and say, as we have said, that only those sins
which were carried in by the priest into the first apartment find forgiveness, then there
is no forgiveness for the sins of the first four thousand years, for there was no one to
carry them into the sanctuary, there being no priest.
In other words: the ministry in the first apartment during the year was a type of the
ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until the cross, and the ministry in the second
apartment was a type of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary from the cross
onward. And just as the sin offering for the atonement was slain on the day of
atonement, so Christ, the antitypical sin-offering, was slain on the day of atonement.
But it is argued that the heavenly sanctuary could not have been open prior to the
cross according to Heb. 9:8. The scripture says that the way into the holiest of all
(or more literally, "the way of the holies"), was not yet made manifest, while
the first tabernacle was standing. If the "first tabernacle" applies to
the worldly sanctuary as a whole, and we understand this scripture to say that Christ had
not entered into the heavenly sanctuary so long as the worldly sanctuary was standing,
then Christ did not enter into the heavenly sanctuary until A.D. 70, when the worldly
sanctuary was destroyed, for this earthly sanctuary did stand until that time. It
may be replied that the word "standing" does not mean the literal standing of
the sanctuary, but so long as its services had a standing in the sight of God, that is,
were recognized as services of divine appointment; but as soon as one takes this position,
they interpret this term "standing" in the very way I have interpreted it.
But it must be applied to the work of the first apartment, and not to the whole sanctuary;
for the antecedent is "first apartment" and not first, or worldly
sanctuary. Therefore we have this scripture saying that the way of the holies is not
yet manifested while the first tabernacle, (first apartment) "hath a standing,"
that is, while services are being conducted there.
Oh! how striking the rending of the veil of the sanctuary from the top to the bottom at
the moment of Christ's death, thus saying in tragic words, -- The services in the
first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary are finished, and the way is now open for Christ
to enter into the holy of holies, and offer his blood on behalf of a sinning world.
And so we read:
When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the
Majesty on high.
And again,
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at
the right hand of God.
The following diagram will present to the eye the relation which the services in the
first apartment of the earthly sanctuary sustained to the work in the first apartment of
the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the sacrifice of Christ; and also the relation
which the work in the holy of holies, on the day of atonement in the earthly sanctuary,
sustains to the work of the great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary from the death of
Christ onward. The parallel is complete, as the reader will readily see. This
presentation of the matter relieves the awkward situation of having a sanctuary in heaven
for four thousand years, in which no services on behalf of sinful man are being carried
on, -- God dwelling in the holy of holies of that sanctuary, upon the mercy seat,
between the cherubim, and yet no ministry on behalf of man! This is too unreasonable
to be entertained for a moment.
Of that which we have spoken this is the sum: The daily services in the earthly
sanctuary, up to the day of atonement, were an exact type of the work on behalf of the
sinner in the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the coming of Christ; and the ministry
in the holy of holies in the earthly sanctuary, was an exact facsimile of the work wrought
on behalf of the sinner, on the great day of atonement, which began with the coming of the
Lord, and ends with his second coming.
HEAVENLY SANCTUARY
|
Holies
|
Holy of
Holies |
1. Sin pardoned
in reality. |
1. Sinner's Substitute dies
in reality |
2. Sinner released
in reality. |
2. Blood sprinkled upon mercy seat in
reality. |
3. Sin not yet atoned for
in reality. |
3. Penalty of sin paid
in reality. |
4. Day of Atonement yet future
in reality. |
4. Sinner's sin atoned for
in reality. |
5. Christ is held as the
sinner's Substitute
in reality. |
5. Last act of Day of Atonement -- cleansing
of the Sanctuary
in reality. |
6. Christ to pay the penalty of sin
on the Day of Atonement
in reality |
|
EARTHLY SANCTUARY
|
| Holies |
Holy of Holies |
| 1. Sin pardoned in type. |
1. Sinner's Substitute dies in type. |
| 2. Sinner released in type. |
2. Blood sprinkled on mercy seat in type. |
| 3. Sin not yet atoned for in type. |
3. Penalty of sin paid in type. |
| 4. Day of Atonement yet future in type. |
4. Sinner's sin atoned for in type, but
Sanctuary not yet cleansed. |
| 5. Priest held as the Sinner's substitute in
type. |
5. Last act of Day of Atonement cleansing the
Sanctuary in type. |
| 6. Priest to pay the penalty of sin on the
Day of Atonement in type. |
|
CHAPTER VI.
HOW THE
SANCTUARY WAS
DEFILED.
Before taking up a study of the day of atonement, and the cleansing of the sanctuary at
the end of the 2300 days, let us study the Scriptures and see how the sanctuary was
defiled. By this study we will clear away a fundamental error and be better prepared
to appreciate the truth.
Hear the word of the Lord, ye that tremble at his word.
Isa.
66:5.
And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, Again thou shalt say unto the children of
Israel; whosoever he be of the children of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn in
Israel, that giveth any of his seed to Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people
of the land shall stone him with stones. And I will set my face against that man,
and will cut him off from among his people: because he hath given of his seed unto Molech,
to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
Lev.
20:1-3.
This Scripture plainly teaches that when a man in Israel offered his children in
sacrifice to the idol Molech, this sinful act defiled the sanctuary of the Lord and
profaned his holy name, because his name was associated with his sanctuary. Deut.
12:5,6.
But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall
be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord.
Num.
19:20.
This Scripture again plainly declares that it is the uncleanness of the sinner that
defiles the sanctuary. The sanctuary is defiled before he confesses his uncleanness,
and if he never confesses it and is cut off, still he hath defiled the sanctuary of the
Lord.
Again the same truth is repeated in the following passage:
Thus shall ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness when they
defile my tabernacle that is among them.
Lev.
15:31.
The Sanctuary Defiled by
the Sinning of
the Sinner |
Now that we see that it was the sinning of the sinner that defiled the sanctuary, and not
his confession of the sin, let us notice why sin defiled the sanctuary. The
scripture last quoted gives the clue to the answer.
When they defile my sanctuary which is among them.
When God ordered the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, it was built that he
might "dwell among them." And his choosing Israel as the place of his
dwelling, identified him with the children of Israel. He was their God and they were
his people. The nations therefore would look to Israel for a manifestation of the
character of their God. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord."
Consequently, when Israel sinned, their sinning cast dishonor upon the Lord; it defiled
the sanctuary, God's dwelling-place, and profaned his name.
Both male and female (lepers) shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put
them, that they defile not the camp in the midst whereof I dwell.
Num.
5:3.
Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned my holy things; neither have
they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my
sabbaths and I am profaned among them.
Ezek.
22:26.
Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt in their own land, they defiled it by
their own ways, and by their own doings. . . Wherefore, I poured out my fury upon
them, for the blood that they had shed upon the land, and for their idols wherewith they
had polluted it. And I scattered them among the heathen . . . according to their
doings, I judged them. And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went,
they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These be the people of the Lord and
are gone forth out of his land. But I had pity for my holy name, which the house of
Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. Therefore say unto the
house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but
for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went, and
I will sanctify my great name.
Ezek.
36:17-23.
The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she
profaneth her father.
Lev.
21:9.
Should my child steal something from the village merchant, that sin would reflect upon
me; that sin would defile my sanctuary -- it would dishonor my home and
household. If a neighbor's child steals from the same merchant, that act does not
defile my sanctuary -- my home, for I am not responsible for the acts of that
child. I am not her father; she is not my child. Again, when one member of a
church sins, it casts a reproach upon the whole church and that church cannot he clean
from that defilement unless the sinner repents and makes restitution or is cut off from
the congregation. The family is not defiled by the child's confession of the sin;
the confession belongs to the process of cleansing. The church is not defiled by the
confession of the sinning member but by the sinning of that member.
When the father has punished the child for the sin which defiled the home, then that
home is cleansed from that defilement; the people are able to see that the acts of the
child are condemned by the father.
So when Israel sinned, God, who had taken the position of head of the family of Israel,
must see to it that the sin which defiled his sanctuary was cleansed away. And this
could only be done by the shedding of blood, for "without the shedding of blood is no
remission." Heb. 9:22.
Moreover, ye shall take no
satisfaction for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put
to death.
So ye shall not pollute the land wherein
ye are, for blood it defileth the land and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that
is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it.
Defile not therefore the land which ye
shall inhabit wherein I dwell, for I, the Lord, dwell among the children of Israel.
Num.
35:31,33,34.
Here the whole question is clearly stated. The sin of murder, (represented by
shedding the blood of the murdered man) defiled the land. And this sin could he
cleansed from the land only by the death of the murderer, whose death was represented by
his blood. The blood of the sinner or the sinner's substitute instead of defiling
the land or the sanctuary, cleanses the land or the sanctuary.
And now we are able to understand how the heavenly sanctuary was defiled. The
scriptures describing how the earthly sanctuary was defiled were intended to teach us by
way of type and antitype how the heavenly sanctuary was defiled. When God created
this world, it became a part of his household. Adam is "the Son of
God." Luke 3:38. "We are also his offspring." Acts
17:28. "Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool." Thus
closely is God and his throne connected with the earth and its people; consequently, when
Adam, the son of God sinned, his sin defiled the sanctuary of God and all the universe
would look to God to purge his sanctuary of that sin. And what is true of the sin of
Adam is true of the sin of all of Adam's posterity. Consequently, the heavenly
sanctuary was defiled as was the earthly, by the sinning of the sinner, and not by the
sinner's confession of that sin. His sin defiled the sanctuary whether he ever
confessed it or not.
The Blood of the Sacri-
fice Never Defiles |
This Biblical position relieves us from several embarrassing conclusions, one of which is,
that when the priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice upon the altar of burnt offering
or the altar of incense, he sprinkled sin upon it, inasmuch as sin, it is asserted, was
carried in in the blood. But the blood of the sinner or his substitute, instead of
defiling, always cleansed.
Without shedding of blood is no remission.
If the blood of bulls and goats sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ," etc.
Heb.
9:13,14.
And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood,
and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
Heb.
9:22, R.V.
This and many other scriptures plainly declare that blood cleanses, and nowhere in the
scriptures is the blood of the sinner or the sinner's substitute ever represented as
defiling the sanctuary or the land.
And again, if the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar of incense sprinkled sin upon
it and thereby defiled it, how could that same altar be cleansed from that sprinkled sin
on the day of atonement by the sprinkling of more sin-laden blood on that same altar?
There is another conclusive proof that the sprinkled blood did not defile the
sanctuary. This proof lies in the fact that the holy of holies was defiled by sin
and needed to be cleansed on the day of atonement although no blood was sprinkled upon it
during the daily service.
Again, sin cannot adhere to the blood of the sinner. The blood of the sinner
represents the death of the sinner and sin cannot adhere to death.
He that is dead is freed from sin.
Rom.
6:7.
Blood is the evidence that the sinner is dead and is freed from sin in that he has paid
the penalty of sin, which is death.
Did Christ's Blood Defile
the Heavenly
Sanctuary? |
But still worse, if the blood sprinkled by the priest upon the altar defiled it, then,
inasmuch as the earthly sanctuary and its services were a type of the heavenly sanctuary
and its services, it follows that the heavenly sanctuary was free from defilement until
Christ ascended and sprinkled his blood and thereby defiled it; and again, that the holy
of holies was free from sin until Christ entered that apartment in 1844 and sprinkled his
blood upon the mercy seat and thereby defiled it.
Who is willing to take the responsibility of declaring that the blood of Christ, which
the Holy Scriptures call "precious blood," was so defiled with sin after Christ
had paid the penalty on Calvary that when he sprinkled that blood, it defiled the
sanctuary? The blood of Christ is represented in the scriptures as cleansing -- never
defiling. "And washed us from our sins in his own blood." Rev.
1:5. "The blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanseth (not defileth) us from all
sin." I Jno. 1:7.
A tree is known by its fruits. Now let the reader note the fruit that is borne
from this error that only confessed sins defiled the sanctuary.
1. It is taught that only confessed sins go into the
sanctuary.
2. That only these confessed sins are placed upon the
head of the scapegoat, which is Satan.
3. Therefore only confessed sins or the sins of the
saved are placed upon Satan. And this is given as a reason for the great activity
of the Evil One. He is working hard, it is asserted, to ruin men, because if he
don't ruin them, he will have to bear the sins which they committed and from which they
are saved; but, if he succeeds in ruining them, he will not have to suffer for the sins
which they have committed, but they will have to suffer for them themselves.
I once believed this terrible doctrine myself and based it upon the same error that only
the sins of the saved went into the sanctuary. But I believed it because I had not
given it personal study, but had accepted it as part of a system, which, to doubt any
single point, was to be condemned already. But, when I investigated it carefully, I
saw that it placed God in the position of putting a premium on deviltry. It made God
say in substance to the devil: "If you are persistent in your deviltry, and succeed
in holding my children under your hellish influence until they are eternally lost, I will
reward you for your diligence by exempting you from the punishment due to the sins which
you have led them to commit, and I will place all these sins on the victims of your
Satanic cunning and they will have to bear the punishment themselves and you shall escape
this punishment. But, on the other hand, if you are not diligent in your work of
destruction and your victims escape from you, you will be punished, as a result of your
lack of diligence, by having to suffer for all the sins of these escaped ones, none of
which you would have had to hear, had you been more diligent and successful in ruining
these souls forever."
Into the Camp of the
Calvinists |
Another baneful fruit of this error lies in the fact that it logically leads to the view
that Christ died only for those sins which are confessed by the sinner. For, if it
be true that the sinning of the sinner did not defile the sanctuary, but only the sins
which the sinner confessed over the head of his victim, then it follows that Christ died
under confessed sins only. If the sin of the sinner passed from himself to the lamb
when he laid his hands on it and confessed his sins, then it follows that Christ, the
antitype of the lamb, died for those sins only, which are confessed by the sinner and for
no others. To state it another way; if no sins defiled the earthly sanctuary except
those that were confessed on the head of the lamb before it was slain, then it follows
that no sins were laid upon the "Lamb of God" except those sins which the
repentant sinner placed there. This as before stated, leads directly into the camp
of the Calvinists who teach that the death of Christ was on behalf of those only who will
repent.
But if the sins of the sinner did not pass from the sinner to his victim when he
confessed them over his head, what was the meaning of this ceremony? Let us see.
All will admit that the sanctuary service was an object lesson expressing:
1. God's plan of saving men from sin through the death of his Son; and
2. Man's faith in that plan.
The blood of the Lord's goat, which the Lord chose, which was sprinkled upon the mercy
seat, "within the veil," but once in the year, and which satisfied the demands
of the law, illustrated God's giving his Son to die "once for all" to redeem us
from the curse of the law.
On the other hand, the daily sacrifices which were brought by the people, gave
opportunity for them to express their faith in Christ's death for them. The lamb was
but a channel of faith, just as the bread and wine of the Lord's supper are channels of
faith today; but no one but a Roman Catholic would say that our sins pass from us to the
emblems at the time we partake of them. No, no! The lamb furnished the
Israelite an opportunity to express his faith in the death of Christ yet to come, and the
Lord's supper furnishes us with an opportunity to express our faith in the death of Christ
which has come.
Yet again, the sinner has no right to place his sins on Christ. God alone
exercises this prerogative. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us
all." And we not only have no right to do this but no opportunity to do it,
because it was already done before we were born.
The foregoing errors, briefly summarized, are as follows:
1. The sanctuary was defiled by sin-polluted blood and
then cleansed from that defilement by the sprinkling upon it of more sin-polluted blood.
2. The blood of Christ, called in Scripture
"precious blood," was so polluted with sin that when be sprinkled it he defiled
the sanctuary thereby.
3. Only confessed sins, or the sins of the saved, go
into the sanctuary and out again upon the head of Satan, thus making Satan suffer under
confessed sins only and thereby putting a premium on deviltry by exempting him from the
penalty of those sins which are committed by those whom He eternally ruins.
4. The sufferings of Christ on Calvary were, as claimed
by the Calvinist, limited to those sins only which are confessed by the sinner.
All these and many other fatal errors are escaped by the simple Scriptural truth that all
the sins of men defile the sanctuary and are cleansed by the blood of the sinner or his
substitute.
CHAPTER VII.
HOW THE
SANCTUARY IS CLEANSED.
But the conscientious believer in "present truth" will ask at this point, Will
not this conclusion destroy the truths of the sanctuary so vital to the first angel's
message? Will it not undermine the truth and the message of 1844? To which I
answer, No indeed; but on the other hand, it clears that movement of errors that have
impeded its progress from the beginning. No movement will lose by changing error for
truth. The question may be asked? If Christ began his work in the holy of
holies at his ascension, then what was the work that began in 1844?
The work which began in 1844 is the work which the Scriptures of truth say should begin
at the end of 2,300 days, viz: the cleansing of the sanctuary. If I should quote the
text thus, would I quote it correctly? "Unto 2,300 days then shall atonement be
made for iniquity." Everyone familiar with this scripture would immediately
correct me and say, "It does not say that atonement shall be made for iniquity, but
that the sanctuary shall be cleansed." But, in our teaching, we have made the
cleansing of the sanctuary to mean the atonement for iniquity; whereas the Scriptures
place the atonement for iniquity within the seventy weeks, and not at the end of the 2,300
days.
The Atonement for
Iniquity |
Dan. 9:24 reads thus:
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish
the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to
bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint
the Most Holy.
It will be noticed that I have used the words "atonement for iniquity"
instead of "reconciliation for iniquity" and the reason why I have done this is
that the word here translated "reconciliation" is Kepher, and is the word used
for "atonement" in Lev. 16, in describing the work of the day of
atonement. It is translated "to atone for iniquity" in the Lesser or
Jewish translation.
And now since the Scriptures declare that the atonement for iniquity was made within
the seventy weeks, but that the sanctuary is not cleansed until the end of the 2,300 days,
what right have we to deny that the "atonement for iniquity" was made within the
seventy weeks, and to teach that it was made at the end of 2,300 days? And where in
type did the High Priest make atonement for iniquity? Assuredly, "within the
veil," in the holy of holies. If, therefore, our great High Priest, Christ,
made atonement for iniquity within the seventy weeks, it follows that he must have entered
"within the veil," into the holy of holies, in order to make that atonement,
before the seventy weeks were ended. Sixty-nine of those weeks reached to the
baptism of Christ at the river Jordan. The seventieth week reached to the cutting
off of the Jews, as God's depository for his truth.
It was during this same time that he ascended to the heavenly courts, and received from
the Father the assurance that his sacrifice was accepted.
Jesus refused to receive the homage of his people until he had the assurance
that his sacrifice was accepted by the Father. He ascended to the heavenly courts,
and from God himself heard the assurance that the atonement for the sins of man had been
ample, that through his blood -- all might gain eternal life.
Desire
of Ages, p. 790.
In harmony with this statement of Daniel that atonement was made within the seventy
weeks, we find the apostle Paul, bearing positive testimony. However, before
introducing it, let us go back and interrogate the patriarchs as to the meaning of their
sacrifices:
Questioner: Abel, what do you mean by offering this lamb? Does the blood of
this innocent lamb atone for your sin?
Abel: No, no. This offering is but a channel by which I acknowledge my sin,
and express my faith in the promise of God to put my sins upon his Son, whose death will
pay the penalty of my sin.
Q: Abel, can you tell me when this great transaction will take place?
A: No, I cannot.
Q: Abraham, what do you mean by offering this lamb? Can the blood of an
animal atone for the sin of man?
Abraham: Oh, no; it is but a channel through which I confess my sin to be worthy
of death, and an expression of my faith in the promise of God to find in his Son a
substitute for me, who, dying in my stead, shall pay the penalty of my sin.
Q: Abraham, can you tell me when it will be?
A: I cannot.
Q: Daniel, what do you mean by this offering which you offer? Many of your
people have come to consider the death of this lamb to be the atonement for the
sinner. Is this the way you regard it?
Daniel: Oh, no; it is but a channel through which the sinner acknowledges his
guilt, and manifests his faith in the promise of God to place our sins upon his Son, whose
death shall atone for our sins.
Q: Daniel, can you give me any idea as to when this long expected event shall
take place?
D: Yes, the Lord has shown me that it will take place within the seventy weeks,
for he has said that "seventy weeks are determined upon thy people to make atonement
for iniquity;" and in-asmuch as sixty-nine weeks are to reach to Messiah who makes
this atonement; consequently, this great event takes place sometime during the seventieth
week.
Q: Paul, why have you ceased to offer a lamb as a sin-offering?
Paul: Because the great sacrifice to which the sin-offering pointed has been
offered. Daniel declared that within the seventy weeks, atonement for iniquity would
be made, and the seventy weeks are in the past, and the promised atonement has been made.
Testimony of the Apostle
Paul |
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the
things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year make the comers
thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because
that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in
those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year; for it is not
possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sins. Wherefore, when he
cometh into the world, he saith: Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast
thou prepared me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no
pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come: In the volume of the book it is written of me, to
do thy will, O my God... By the which will we have been sanctified (R.V.) through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth
daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away
sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the
right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
Heb.
10:1-14.
Thus, we have it clearly stated by the apostle Paul that the great sacrifice so long
looked forward to by the patriarchs, promised of God within the seventy weeks, had taken
place when the apostle Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. Nothing is more clearly
stated in the Hebrew letter than that Christ at the time the letter was written, had made
the one great offering which was typified by the sacrificial system. This is evident
from the scripture we have just quoted, and from the one which follows:
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 by 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. For if the blood of bulls and
of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying
of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit
offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the
living God?
Heb.
9:11-14.
When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high.
Heb.
1:3.
Thus, it is stated again and again that Christ at the time of the writing of this
epistle, had offered his blood to God on behalf of sin, in fulfillment of the yearly
typical offering of the high priest on the mercy seat. The argument has been made
that although Christ shed his blood at Calvary, as the antitype of the Lord's goat slain
on the day of atonement, yet he did not sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat in
satisfaction for the sinner's transgression of the law, until 1844. But what a
violation of the type we have here! Every careful reader of the Old Testament knows
that as soon as the high priest had caught the blood of the Lord's goat, he went
immediately "within the veil," not stopping for a moment in the first apartment,
but passing immediately to the holy of holies, he sprinkled the blood upon the mercy seat,
and there made atonement for iniquity, the blood being evidence that the death of the
sinner, who had broken the law, had taken place.
I appeal to the candour of the reader: Does not Christ, after he has died as the
sinner's substitute, and has been raised from the dead, and is about to enter into the
presence of him "who dwelleth between the cherubim," -- is he not then in
the position of the high priest on the day of atonement, when he has caught the blood of
the Lord's goat, and is prepared to enter "within the veil," and sprinkle that
blood on the mercy seat? No man can deny this truth. Then why stop him in the
first apartment for eighteen hundred years before he sprinkles that blood? The high
priest did not stop in the first apartment, but passed immediately into the second.
The question may now be asked: What was the work which began at the end of the 2,300 days?
or in other words, What is the cleansing of the sanctuary? Inasmuch as it has been
shown that the atonement for iniquity was made within the seventy weeks, it is evident
that the cleansing of the sanctuary after 1844 cannot be the work of atonement for
iniquity, for that work according to the Scriptures, was accomplished within the seventy
weeks. But someone will ask, Did not the atonement for iniquity cleanse the
sanctuary? No, for if it did, there would be no announcement that the sanctuary
would be cleansed after 2,300 days. The very fact that the Lord separates the
atonement for iniquity and the cleansing of the sanctuary by more than 1800 years, proves
positively that the atonement for iniquity is not the cleansing of the sanctuary, and that
the cleansing of the sanctuary is not the atonement for iniquity.
One reason why the atonement for iniquity, made within the seventy weeks, did not
cleanse the sanctuary, is because there are two sinners involved in every sin of man; and
the atonement for iniquity, made within the seventy weeks, was an atonement made for but
one of these sinners, and not for the other. The two sinners involved in man's
sinning are, Satan, the instigator of all sin, and man, the agent through whom he works.
The spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.
Eph.
2:2.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar and
the father of it.
John
8:44.
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the
beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the
works of the devil.
I John 3:8.
All will admit that wherever the righteousness of God appears in a man, there the
Spirit of God is at work, and that wherever unrighteousness appears in a man, there the
spirit of Satan is at work. You cannot separate unrighteousness from the working of
Satan any more than you can separate righteousness from the working of God.
Consequently, there is involved in every sin of man two sinners, Satan, the instigator,
and man, the agent. While there is but one act of sin, there are two guilty parties
to that one sin. Satan is guilty of instigating the sinner to sin, and the sinner is
guilty of yielding himself to perform the sinful act. Let it be illustrated thus:
Satan |
Satan's
Guilt |
Man's
Sin
|
Man |
Man's
Guilt |
From the above illustration, it is evident that while there is one act of sin wrought
by the hand of man, there are two guilty parties involved. One of them is Satan, who
persuaded man to commit the sinful act, and the other is man, who yielded to the tempter.
Now, when Christ made the atonement within the seventy weeks, he made the atonement for
the guilt of man, and not for the guilt of Satan, which was unpardonable. It must be
evident to the reader that when Christ made atonement at the mercy seat on account of the
iniquities of men, he did not make an atonement for the iniquities of Satan; and
consequently man's sin still remains on the books of record in the heavenly sanctuary, not
now against man, but charged against the other guilty party, Satan.
And this is why there were two goats chosen on the day of atonement to deal with the sins
of the sanctuary. On this great day, there were two atonements made, the first on
the mercy seat, on account of the iniquities of man; the other atonement on the head of
the scapegoat, the type of the instigator of sin, Satan. The first atonement was
made with the blood of the Lord's goat, and the second atonement was made upon the head of
the scapegoat. The first atonement was made in mercy on behalf of the guilty man;
the second atonement was made in judgment upon the head of the type of Satan. The
first atonement is made in mercy, with the blood of the substitute; the second atonement
is made in judgment upon the head of the offender himself.
This atonement in judgment is brought clearly to view in the case of Achan's sin as
recorded in Joshua 7. God said to Israel, "Neither will I be with you any more
except ye destroy the accursed from among you," (12th verse). Here, God
declares that he is not at one with Israel, and that he will not be "at one"
with them until they have destroyed the accursed thing; but when they have destroyed the
accursed thing, he promises to be at one with them again. Therefore when every man
in Israel throws a stone at Achan, thereby repudiating Achan's sin, and taking sides with
God against him, atonement is made in judgment upon the head of Achan, and Israel and God
are "at one." Although the word "atonement" is not used in this
scripture, yet it is very clearly inferred. However in Num. 25, we have God
separated from Israel again by the sin of Baal-Peor. Phineas, the high priest, rises
up from among the praying lsraelites, and with his javelin destroys the offenders.
Of this act, God says:
Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace: And he shall have it, and his seed
after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his
God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
Verses
12,13.
The Psalmist in speaking of this act of Phineas, says:
Then stood up Phineas and executed judgment; and the plague was stayed.
Ps.
106:30.
Here, we have an atonement made in judgment, similar to the atonement that was made
upon the head of the scapegoat. God calls upon man not only to accept the atonement
for iniquity that was made on his behalf at the mercy seat, but he asks man to join with
him in condemning to banishment for ever from the congregation of Israel, him who was the
instigator and author of man's sin.
Let me repeat the illustration given above:
Satan |
Satan's
Guilt |
Man's
Sin
|
Man |
Man's
Guilt |
Now, when a substitute is found for man, and this substitute takes man's place, and dies,
his death atones for man's share of the guilt of his sin. Thus:
Satan |
Satan's
Guilt |
Man's
Sin
|
Christ |
Man's
Guilt |
But man's sin still remains on the record books, -- still defiles the sanctuary,
not any longer against man, but against Satan, who is guilty of man's sin, and so long as
man's sin defiles the sanctuary so long the sanctuary cannot be said to have been
cleansed. It is true that the atonement for iniquity disposed of man's share of the
guilt of that sin, but as it did not touch Satan's share of that guilt, it remains in the
sanctuary until the judgment sits and it is placed upon the head of the original offender,
and the sanctuary is cleansed.
The Atonement in
Judgment |
And now we can see what work began in 1844. The Lord began with the work of
atonement which is made in judgment, and which has for its goal the head of the
scapegoat. When he had made the atonement for iniquity on behalf of men, (as
promised in Dan. 9:24), when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down on the right
hand of the throne of God, or as brought to view in Heb. 10:12, "This man, after he
had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God: from
henceforth expecting (waiting) until his enemies be made his footstool." The
scriptures place a time of waiting between the atonement that was made for iniquity in
mercy at the mercy seat, and the final atonement that is to be made in judgment upon the
head of the enemy of God. When our great High Priest had made atonement for our
iniquities at the mercy seat, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting for men to
accept of this atonement and separate from Satan, so that when the long-deferred heel of
judgment shall come down upon Satan, the sinner, for whom Christ made atonement, would not
perish with him. This is the meaning of the "waiting" that has taken place
since Christ took his seat at the right hand of God.
But there comes a time when the original offender must be dealt with; there comes a
time when the judgment begins, when the cleansing of the sanctuary must begin, when the
judgment is set, and the books are opened, when the cases of men are investigated, not to
see whether Christ made an atonement for them -- for he made reconciliation for the
sins of the whole world, (see Rom 5:8-11,18,20, II Cor 5:19-21; I John 2:2; Lev. 16:33),
but to see who have and have not accepted this reconciliation. Those who have
rejected the atonement will be cut off from among the people of God; and at the close of
this judgment the sins of men, which are held now against their originator, Satan, will be
placed upon his head, and he will suffer, not as the substitute for sinning man, but he
will suffer for his own guilt in causing men to sin.
And right here, through a misunderstanding of the sanctuary, a sad mistake has been
made. Not understanding the foregoing, some have taken a position regarding the day
of atonement, which really makes Satan man's Savior instead of Jesus Christ. The
reader will certainly admit that if Satan suffers any or all of man's guilt, which man
deserved himself to suffer, to that extent Satan becomes man's savior. But the devil
is not man's substitute and savior. That place and glory belongs alone to Jesus
Christ, "who gave himself for our sins."
For fear the reader may think l am wrongly stating the position, I will here quote from
standard works wherein it is declared that the devil and not Christ, is the one who is
really punished for man's guilt. I shrink from bringing to light these terrible
quotations and should this paper fall into the hands of any of the enemies of my people,
let me say here that while thus making Satan to be the substitute and savior of men is a
logical result of a misunderstanding of the sanctuary service, yet it has not been
logically followed by all those who preach the glorious gospel of the blessed God among
them.
My first quotation is from the work, entitled Looking unto Jesus. On
page 268 I find these words:
If Satan is punished for the sins of the righteous, are not those sins, it is
asked, punished twice, once in the person of Christ, who suffered for our sins, and again
in the person of Satan, upon whom they are finally laid?
Now, let the reader note this statement carefully. Three positions are open to be
taken. The first position would be to state that God does punish the guilt of sin
twice, once in the person of his Son, and again in the person of Satan. The second
position would be to deny that God punishes the same guilt twice, by stating that the
guilt which God laid on his Son, was man's share of the guilt, and not the same guilt that
was laid upon Satan, which guilt was his own share in man's transgression. The third
position is to deny that Christ really bore man's guilt, and that this guilt is borne by
Satan. The reader will note that in the following quotation, the author takes the
third position, and denies that Christ bore man's guilt, asserting that Satan bears it
himself:
The trouble arises from a
misapprehension of the part which Christ acts as our substitute. The idea seems to
be generally entertained that Christ in his own person suffered all the punishment, that
is, the bodily agony, due to the sins of all the saved, which they themselves would have
endured, had they been lost. This leaves those who believe in eternal misery to
grapple with an insurmountable problem; and it leads to the most ultra Calvinism. . .
. We have seen from the type that the removal of sin from the penitent did not
cancel the sin itself, but only transferred it to some other party who was then held in
place of the sinner. The forgiveness was relative, not absolute; that is, as
relating to the sinner it was forgiven, but the sin itself was considered still in
existence to be disposed of in some other way. Christ has done for us in fact, what
the ancient offering did for the sinner in figure; that is, he has provided a means
through which sin, with its guilt, may be removed from us, and transferred to some other
party (the devil). Thus, we can be saved; but the sin must meet its just deserts in
some other quarter.
Let us now consider where this desert in
the case of the sinner, would naturally fall. Sin did not have its origin with
mankind. They were not the original agents of this evil, but were seduced and led
away under the power of temptation by another (Satan).... The practice of sin may,
therefore, be represented as a partnership business. Satan is the senior partner,
the sinner the junior. The latter having been seduced into that position, is
allowed, under certain conditions, to leave the company, and step out from under the
obligations of the firm. Upon whom will these responsibilities then fall? Upon
the only remaining member of the firm, of course, the instigator of the whole evil
business, the senior partner, Satan. If the sinner chooses to maintain the
partnership in that illegitimate business, he can do so, and receive in his own person at
last the punishment of his deeds. But it is in his power, if he so desires, to
change his present relation to that commerce of hell, unite himself to Christ, and leave
his former business with him (Satan) who is the head of the firm, and primarily
responsible for it all.
In this quotation, we have the terrible statement that Christ does not suffer all the
punishment, that is, the bodily agony due to the sins of all the saved, which they would
themselves have endured had they been lost, but that Satan suffers for this guilt, thus
making Satan the real substitute and sin-bearer in place of Jesus Christ.
Another quotation to the same end is found in the "Bible Students' Library,"
entitled The Judgment: Its Events and Their Order, page 81. In explaining
the sanctuary service, and the part the scapegoat takes, the author says:
Every sin committed by man is instigated by Satan. This part of the
transgression is the sin of Satan alone, and belongs solely to him, whether the man
repents or not. But consenting to the tempter, and obeying him, is the sin of the
one tempted. This part of the transgression, will, in the case of all who avail
themselves of the work of the great High Priest be placed upon the anti-typical scapegoat
Satan, and he will have to bear the full punishment of such sin.
Thus again, Satan is made to bear the guilt which properly belonged to man, as well as
his own guilt in connection with man's sin. Before I found these quotations in our
books, I discovered that the logic of our position, concerning the Day of Atonement, would
make Satan instead of Christ, man's substitute and savior; and on consulting these works,
I found unhappily that my fears were too true. Now I do not feel like condemning
these men. They wrote according to the best light they had, and if clearer light
comes to us, let us correct their mistakes and go on in that "light which shineth
more and more unto the perfect day."
It is with joy that I present a quotation from a later author, who, while not correcting
the premises upon which the foregoing errors are built, yet repudiates the terrible
conclusion and presents the truth as it is in Christ.
Satan is the author and instigator of all sin, hence he is guilty of every sin
which has ever been committed. He deceives and tempts into sin, and is, therefore,
justly held responsible for it. By yielding to Satan's temptations man becomes a
partner in Satan's guilt. Satan does not bear the sins of the righteous as Christ
bore the sins of the world on Calvary. Christ gave himself as a voluntary offering
for sin. He took the penalty of the law upon himself, dying in our room and stead,
that we might live. Satan does not die for our sins, because he is not a sin
offering. As a vehicle he bears away the sins of the righteous, because he is guilty
of them all. He planned them, and executed them as far as he is able, and therefore
in being punished for them he will be punished only for his own guilt.
M.H.
Brown, in
Christ
Our Advocate, p. 108.
Those who make the scapegoat to represent Christ, have no opportunity to throw stones
on this occasion, for they make Jesus Christ, after he has risen from the dead, and is
freed from sin, -- they make him so unclean that he must be driven forever from the
camp of Israel, and separated from his people for whom he died; and that is too abhorrent
to be entertained for a moment.
But the reader may ask, Does it not plainly state that "the priest shall confess over
the head of the scapegoat all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions, and all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat?"
Yes, it does say so, but the illustration given above clearly explains it. I will
here introduce it again:
Scape Goat |
Scape Goat's
Guilt |
Israel's
Sins
|
Israel |
Israel's
Guilt |
And now when the Lord's goat dies as Israel's substitute and its blood is sprinkled above
the broken law, upon the mercy seat, Israel's guilt is met on the day of atonement; but
the reader will notice that the scapegoat has still charged against him the sins of
Israel, and must needs meet his own guilt pertaining thereto. Now let us leave the
type and illustrate the reality:
Satan |
Satan's
Guilt |
World's
Sin
|
World |
World's
Guilt |
And now, let us introduce the world's substitute, Jesus Christ.
Satan |
Satan's
Guilt |
World's
Sin
|
Christ |
World's
Guilt |
Thus it is seen that when Christ becomes the substitute for the world, and tastes death
for every man, he meets in his death the penalty which should have been inflicted upon the
world. But this leaves Satan still guilty of the sins which he caused the world to
commit; and it is this guilt that Christ never bore on Calvary, which falls upon the head
of Satan at the conclusion of the judgment. And all those who "neglect so great
salvation," or reject the atonement so freely made for them in the death of Christ,
must be cut off with Satan at the close of the judgment. This is the work which
began in 1844, and will close with the placing upon Satan the guilt of the sins of all the
world, -- not the guilt which Christ bore, but his own guilt, which he himself must
bear.
Before leaving this point, let me emphasize the fact, that if Satan bears the guilt of
the sin which man himself should have borne, but did not bear, either in himself, or in
his substitute, Christ, then Satan becomes to that extent man's substitute and
savior. But God forbid that we should give to Satan the credit of that great
salvation which was wrought out by Jesus Christ, when he suffered the penalty of the
world's sin upon Calvary; and rob the Son of God of the glory which alone belongs to him,
the marks of which, in his hands, feet, and side, are to constitute his unspeakable glory
throughout the ceaseless cycles of eternity.
CHAPTER VIII.
WHO SERVED
IN THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY
BEFORE THE CROSS.
Inasmuch as it seems clear from Heb. 7:28 that Christ did not become high priest until
after his incarnation, "who then," it is asked, "was priest in the first
apartment of the heavenly sanctuary for the first four thousand years?"
The Lord, speaking of the priesthood of Christ by the mouth of David said:
The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the
order of Melchisedec.
Ps.
110:4.
One thing impresses the thoughtful reader of this solemn utterance, and that is the
exalted position ascribed in this oath of Jehovah to the priest Melchisedec.
Some have labored to show that Melchisedec was only a mortal man -- a sinning,
dying man; but such a view belittles not only Melchisedec, and the priesthood of Christ,
but God himself; for it represents God as taking a solemn oath, swearing by himself
because "he could swear by no greater," "Thou (Christ) art a priest for
ever after the order of Melchisedec, a mortal sinning man, now dead." If
Meichisedec was only a mortal man who lived and sinned and died, in what respect was the
Melchisedec order of priests greater than the Aaronic order, whose priests lived and
sinned and died? Let this solemn truth impress the reader: He who degrades the
priesthood of Melchisedec, thereby degrades the priesthood of Christ, for Christ is a
priest of the same order as Melchisedec. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews,
unlike some modern writers, found it in harmony with the theme of his epistle, to show the
exalted character of Melchisedec in every possible way. He interprets the name
Melchisedec, which means "King of Righteousness;" and then his title, "King
of Salem," which is King of Peace. Melchisedec was therefore King of
Righteousness and Peace. Heb. 7:2.
He declares that Melchisedec was without father, without mother, without descent,
having neither beginning of days not end of life, but made like unto the Son of God,
abideth a priest continually.
Here it is declared of Melchizedec that he abideth a priest continually, unlike mortals
who have a beginning and end of life. It is further stated that Melchisedec is
"like unto the Son of God." Heb. 7:3.
"Now consider," says the apostle, "how great this (person)
was." V. 4. (The word "man" is not in the original.) This
work of the Holy Spirit in showing how great Melchisedec is, is in striking contrast to
those modern writers who spend their time in trying to show how insignificant Melchisedec
is.
The greatness of Melchisedec is next shown by the fact that Abraham, the father of the
Aaronic priesthood, paid tithes to Melchisedec, the King of Righteousness and Peace.
Again, the King of Righteousness and Peace was so exalted that he blessed Abraham who
had the promises. The writer continues:
"Here (in the time of the Levitical priests) men that die (the Levitical priests)
receive tithes; but there (in the time of Abraham) he (Melchisedec) receiveth them, of
whom it is witnessed that he liveth."
How dare men assert that Melchisedec was a mortal man who was born and died like other
men when the Holy Spirit plainly declares that unlike mortal men who live and die, he like
unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually? and again, that "he liveth,"
in contrast to "men who die"?
One thing will not he disputed and that is that Christ's priesthood is not the
beginning of a new order of priests, like Aaron's priesthood was, but the continuance of
an old order which existed at least as early as the days of Abraham. "Thou art
a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec;" "after the similitude of
Melchisedec." Vs. 15 and 17.
Another truth which cannot he denied is that since Christ belongs to the same order of
priests as Melchisedec, the latter is therefore a priest of the same order as Christ,
Melchisedec, like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually. Heb. 7:3.
Putting these scriptures together, we have the positive statement that the Son of God
is a priest for ever after the similitude of Melchisedec and that Melchisedec
"abideth a priest continually" "like unto the Son of God." Vs.
3,15,17.
Since Melchisedec is of the same order of Priests as Christ, it follows that the order
of priests in which Christ now ministers, is an order of priests which existed as early as
the days of Abraham.
And since Christ is a high priest of the New Covenant and of the New Covenant
sanctuary, it follows that Melchisedec was a priest of the New Covenant and of the New
Covenant sanctuary as early as the days of Abraham.
Melchisedec a Priest
of the Heavenly
Sanctuary |
Since Melchisedec was a priest of the heavenly sanctuary in the days of Abraham, it
follows that the heavenly sanctuary, which all admit existed from the beginning with God
upon the mercy seat in the holy of holies, was not closed to a fallen world, as some
assert, for four thousand years, with no ministering priest to minister pardon and life
(blessings of the New Covenant) from the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary to the
penitent sinners of earth.
And it is only reasonable to conclude that if there was a ministry on behalf of sinners
in the heavenly sanctuary as early as the days of Abraham, that sanctuary was open to hear
the prayers of the penitent from the beginning.
Or, in other words; since the Meichisedec or New Covenant Priesthood extends as far
back as Abraham, it is only reasonable to conclude that it extends back to the fall of man
and is contemporaneous with the gospel.
The writer in reaching this conclusion is in substantial harmony with one of the
published positions of the denomination as it appears on page 39 of the pamphlet on
tithing, entitled Will a Man Rob God? and issued as No. 145 of Bible Students'
Library, and which reads as follows:
In Heb. 5:6 Christ is said to be a priest after the order of Melchisedec.
That order of priesthood existed from the fall of man till the introduction of the
Levitical order of priesthood; and then contemporaneously with the latter, and since the
Levitical order ceased (at the cross), the Savior has been a priest ... according to the
Melchisedec order.
Again in the next paragraph we read:
The Melchisedec priesthood is contemporaneous with the gospel.
Since we have before proved that the Melchisedec priesthood was connected with the
heavenly sanctuary, it follows that that sanctuary was not locked up for the first four
thousand years of the gospel ministry, but was open to the prayers of sinning men.
Angels as Priests of the
Heavenly Sanctuary |
Among the ministers connected with the heavenly sanctuary before the cross, we have the
ministering angels.
Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them which
shall be heirs of salvation?
Heb.
1:14.
Sent forth from where? From the heavenly sanctuary, of course, whence salvation was
ministered from the beginning. That this ministry includes a priestly work in the
first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary carried on before the cross, is proved by the
fact that a ministering angel ministered pardon to the prophet Isaiah from the altar of
incense before the throne.
Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand which he
had taken with the tongs from off the altar and he laid it upon my mouth, and he said, Lo,
this hath touched thy lips and thine iniquity is taken away and thy sin is purged.
Isa.
6:6,7.
"Another angel" is brought to view in Rev. 8:3 as offering "much
incense" "with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before
the throne."
That angels are ministering spirits, ministering from the heavenly sanctuary to the
sinners of earth, is clearly expressed by another, thus:
These (curtains) like the inner covering, which formed the ceiling were of the
most gorgeous colors, blue, purple, and scarlet, beautifully arranged, while inwrought
with threads of gold and silver were cherubim to represent the angelic host who are
connected with the work of the heavenly sanctuary, and who are ministering Spirits to the
people of God on earth.
Patriarchs
and Prophets,
p.
347.
In harmony with the foregoing evidence from Scripture some of the more studious of my
brethren in the ministry have admitted that there was a service conducted between the
heavenly sanctuary and the sinning world, from the fall to the cross, carried on by
ministering angels. But they are loth to admit that it was a priestly
ministry. But if these ministering angels offered the penitent prayers of sinners
before the heavenly veil, and carried back the new covenant blessings of pardon and life,
what more could a priest do? This is just what the priest did in the first apartment
of the typical tabernacle. O the power of a creed to shackle the mind of the
searcher after truth!
What did Angels Minister
"Before the Veil"? |
The objection has been made that there could be no ministry in the heavenly sanctuary
until Christ shed his blood, because, it is argued, that the ministers would have nothing
to offer. This objection betrays a sad misunderstanding of the type. The
Aaronic priests had no blood to minister which met the penalty of the law, until the blood
of the Lord's goat was shed. All they had was a prayer for pardon through the blood
of Christ, which the sinner expressed through the channel of the blood of the victim which
he brought and which the priest offered for him. The very fact that "on the day
of atonement, the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into
the most holy place with the blood of this offering and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat,
directly over the law, to make satisfaction for its claims;" (Great Con., p.
420) proves conclusively that the claims of the law were not satisfied by the blood
ministered "before the veil." This is positive proof that there was a long
ministry in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary before the blood was shed which
satisfied the claims of the law. Therefore there must be a long ministry in the
first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary before the blood is shed which satisfies the
claims of the law. And there was such a ministry.
What did the ministers offer? They offered the penitent prayers of faith
expressed by the offering which the sinner brought. And in response to these prayers
of faith, ministering angels ministered pardon from the heavenly sanctuary to the penitent
sinner for the space of four thousand years, before the blood of Christ was shed which
satisfied the claims of the law. Therefore if there had not been a ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary before Christ's blood was shed, the ministry there would not have
agreed with the ministry in the earthly sanctuary. Therefore he who argues that
there was no ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until the blood of Christ was shed which
satisfies the claims of the law, makes the ministry in the earthly contradict the ministry
in the heavenly.
CHAPTER IX.
SOME
FRAGMENTARY THOUGHTS.
One favorable feature of "present truth" is that it has tended toward the
presentation of the oneness that exists in the great plan of salvation, extending from the
creation to the crowning. It has corrected the view that men were saved by works
before the cross and by grace afterwards. It has exhibited to scorn the idea that
God was sore displeased with the transgression of his law before the cross, but now
well-pleased with the transgression of the same law; but while this has been the general
trend of the teaching, there is still lurking in the doctrines of the denomination that
which logically followed, teaches that all those who were saved before the cross were
saved by their own works, without the righteousness of Christ.
The Altar of Incense and
Salvation by Works |
What did the incense, which the priest offered morning and evening, and which was kept
burning continually night and day upon the altar in the typical tabernacle, and which was
offered with the prayers of the saints, -- what did this incense represent?
Our answer has always been "the righteousness of Christ," and the answer is, of
course, correct. But were the prayers of all those before the cross offered without
the righteousness of Christ? Did they offer up their prayers in their own
merits? This cannot be. Their prayers were clothed in the righteousness of
Christ as really as ours. But, when we admit this, we admit that the anti-typical
incense was being offered on the altar of incense in the heavenly sanctuary from creation
to the cross. And when we admit this, we admit that there was a priestly
ministration in the heavenly sanctuary for the first four thousand years, for the incense
was offered by the priest in the earthly sanctuary, and it must be the priest who offers
incense in the heavenly sanctuary. Consequently we are driven to one of two
conclusions: either men were saved by their own merits for the first four thousand years,
or else there was a priestly service connected with the heavenly sanctuary from creation
to the cross, as well as since that time.
But we are not dependent on so inevitable a conclusion as this to prove the existence
of a priestly ministration in the heavenly sanctuary before the cross. We have, as
before noticed, in Isa. 6:1-8 a definite description of that ministry.
By Isaiah's vision it is positively proved beyond all contradiction that the altar of
incense was burning in the heavenly sanctuary before the throne previous to the cross; and
that there was a ministry connected with the heavenly sanctuary; and that pardon was
ministered from that sanctuary to the sinner.
The Minneapolis
Conference |
It is interesting to note the progress which the truth concerning the gospel has made
among Seventh-Day Adventists during the last sixty years. Before the general
conference, held in Minneapolis in 1888, the teaching of the denomination did not extend
the New Covenant beyond the cross. Since the agitation which began then, the New
Covenant has been extended, in the teaching of the denomination, back to creation.
See Patriarchs and Prophets, Chap. 32.
A sample of the published position of the denomination prior to that time is found in
an old tract, entitled The Sanctuary of the Bible, republished as No. 25 of the
Bible Students' Library. On page 7 is found the following:
There are two covenants; the first or Old Covenant extends from the time of
Moses to the death of Christ; and the second, or New Covenant, began at the death of
Christ and extends forward to the consummation.
Again in an old pamphlet, entitled The Sabbath and the Law republished as No.
53 of the B.S.L., we find these, to us, strange statements:
This (Old Covenant) no longer exists; the New Covenant has taken its place.
Again,
The first Covenant, having waxed old, and vanished away, the New Covenant is
made by God in its place.
No one among us today would teach that the New Covenant took the place of the Old
Covenant, but that the New ran parallel with the Old, while the latter existed. If
the New Covenant took the place of the Old, then the Old occupied the place until the New
came, and this would make the Old Covenant the only covenant existing before the cross,
and since the Old had no power to save, then there was no salvation prior to the cross!
Since the Minneapolis conference the New Covenant has been extended back to creation,
but the New Covenant priesthood is still denied the patriarchs, as illustrated in the
following diagram No. 2.
When the denomination accepted the glorious truth that the New Covenant extended back
to creation, and that by it the first sinner found salvation, the foundation was laid for
the truth which I am now trying to bring forth. It follows of necessity that, if the
blessings of the New Covenant were granted the patriarchs, then there must have been a
priesthood by which these blessings were ministered from the New Covenant sanctuary to
sinful man. We have extended the law back to creation, and made sin the same in all
ages; but how serious to bring the patriarchs under condemnation and then fail to
administer to them the blessings necessary to save them.
Let me illustrate the old position in this way:
An angel steps to the battlements of heaven, and shouts to the sinners of earth that
heaven has decided to grant to them the mercies and blessings of the New Covenant that are
necessary for the perfection of Christian character, which are pardon and a new
life. And then he asks earth's dwellers to come up to heaven after these
blessings. But they cannot climb up to bring Christ down from above; therefore it
would be to taunt the sinner to offer him the blessings of the New Covenant and then give
him no priest -- no mediator, no minister, to convey those blessings from heaven to
earth. I repeat, there ought to be no difficulty in the way of the truth herein
presented, since the battle, following the Minneapolis meeting, was fought. The real
battle was fought then, and it as logically follows that the patriarchs were blessed with
the New Covenant priesthood, as that they were blessed with the New Covenant pardon.
Illustrating the Progress
of Truth |
In the accompanying diagrams, I have attempted to illustrate the growth in the knowledge
of the truth concerning the New Covenant.
No. 1 represents the view of the plan of salvation held by the denomination prior to
the Minneapolis general conference, held in 1888.
No. 2 represents the view held since that time.
No. 3 represents the truth as it should be held.
Prior to 1888 neither the New Covenant nor the New Covenant priesthood were represented
as extending further back than the cross, though it was admitted that the New Covenant
sanctuary existed from creation, but with its door closed to sinners until Christ
died. (See The Sanctuary of the Bible, p. 10, par. 3.)
| No. 3 -- The truth as it should
be held |
| Creation |
Calvary |
| NEW COVENANT SANCTUARY |
N.C. SANCTUARY |
| NEW COVENANT PRIESTHOOD |
N.C. PRIESTHOOD |
| NEW COVENANT |
NEW COVENANT |
| "Without the vail" |
"Within the vail" |
| No. 2 -- as taught by SDAs since
1888 |
| Creation |
Calvary |
| NEW COVENANT SANCTUARY |
N.C. SANCTUARY |
| NO NEW COVEN- ANT PRIESTHOOD |
N.C. PRIESTHOOD |
| NEW COVENANT |
NEW COVENANT |
| No. 1 -- as taught by SDAs
before 1888 |
| Creation |
Calvary |
| NEW COVENANT SANCTUARY |
N.C. SANCTUARY |
| NO NEW COVEN- ANT PRIESTHOOD |
N.C. PRIESTHOOD |
| NO NEW COVEN- ANT |
N.C. COVENANT |
Still There's More
to Follow |
Every one ought to be ashamed to teach today that:
With the introduction of the
New Covenant came the real sanctuary of God, the tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not
man. Heb. 8:1,2. While the first tabernacle stood it signified that the way
into the holy places of the heavenly temple was not opened. Heb. 9:8.
The ministration in the earthly sanctuary
was now finished, and that in the heavenly was about to commence. The sanctuary
therefore which at this time was anointed was that which at this very point took the place
of the earthly sanctuary.
The
Sanctuary of the Bible,
p.
13.
It seems incredible that any one should teach that the only sanctuary that a sinning
world had access to for forty centuries was a 10 by 30 moveable tent or a 20 by 60 temple!
It seems beyond belief that any one should think that the only throne of grace that was
accessible to a sinning world for four thousand years, was a 1-1/2 by 2-1/2
gold plated wooden box, which men carried about on two poles!
How could men believe that the only ministers between the Most High and the human race
were Aaron, Hophni and Phineas -- one man and his two sons!
How could they conceive that the salvation of the fallen world had its center above a
gold plated board between two hand made images, in a 10 by 10 room, roofed over with
badger skins!
Am I belittling the shadowy sanctuary? No indeed. I am exalting the real
sanctuary. My heart's burden is that of the wise man who in the presence of the
earthly in the zenith of its glory, said:
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens
cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
My burden is the same as that of Isaiah, who said, in the name of the Lord:
Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool,
where is the house that ye build unto me?
And as the martyr Stephen tried to get the angry Jews to see that the real sanctuary
was always in heaven, while its shadow stood, so I am pleading with Seventh-Day
Adventists, trying to get them to see what every Spirit-taught man from Moses till Stephen
saw, that the real sanctuary was in heaven, while its shadow was upon earth; that real
pardon was ministered from the heavenly sanctuary while the shadowy came from earth.
But some one will say, it is a mistake concerning the past. All now believe that
the real sanctuary is in heaven and the real service conducted there. Yes, but the
past mistake affects the present. The ministry "before the veil" which
should have been understood as in progress from creation to the cross has been applied to
the time from the cross to 1844. Thus Christ has been barred from the mercy seat for
more than eighteen centuries, no blood sprinkled upon the mercy seat to satisfy the
demands of the law; the law still demanding the death of the sinner, and not a subject of
grace in all the world that dare believe that the blood of Christ has been ministered at
the mercy seat to meet the demand of the law for his life! Who will dare to go
"within the veil" and approach boldly to the throne of grace, if the law beneath
that mercy seat has never been satisfied with the blood of his substitute?
It ought not to be difficult for SDAs to accept more light if it is supported by a
"thus saith the Lord," inasmuch as the Laodicean message, which the church
applies to itself, with fearful threats, warns the church not to be satisfied with what it
considers as its riches, but to seek the Lord for true riches.
Because thou sayest, I am rich and
increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched and
miserable, and poor, and blind and naked.
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire,
that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment that thou mayest be clothed, and that the
shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye salve, that thou
mayest see.
Rev.
3:17,18.
If there is anything that Seventh-Day Adventists boast of possessing it is "the
truth." And if there is any one "truth" in this creed, which they
glory in above another it is the doctrines of the sanctuary. Where they think they
are rich, God says they are poor. Where they think they see, God says they are
blind. Where they think they are "girt about with truth," God says they
are naked. And a failure to exchange their riches for God's riches will result in
their being spewed out as a people.
Surely, in view of this terrible warning we ought to be at least willing to carefully
compare that which we have thought to be true riches with the Word of God and see if it
will stand the consuming flame of that Word.
But have we not been warned against examining the foundations of our faith, the
platform on which we stand? In this connection the anxious soul may be encouraged
with the following quotation from Mrs. E. G. White, in Review and Herald, July
12, 1889.
INVESTIGATE EVERY JOT AND TITTLE
OF ESTABLISHED TRUTH
Very many teachers are content with a supposition in regard to the truth.
They have crude ideas, and are content with a surface work in searching for truth, taking
for granted that they have all that is essential. They take the sayings of others
for truth, being too indolent to put themselves to diligent, earnest labor, represented in
the word as digging for hidden treasure. But man's inventions are not only
unreliable, they are dangerous; for they place man where God should be.
They place the sayings of men where a
"Thus saith the Lord" should be.
The world's Redeemer alone possesses the
key to unlock the treasure house of the Old Testament. He explores hidden
things. He separates the precious truth from superstition and error and the
devisings and imaginings of men.
Sharp, clear preceptions of truth will
never be the reward of indolence. Investigation of every point that has been
received as truth, will richly repay the searcher; he will find precious gems. And
in closely investigating every jot and tittle which we think is established truth, in
comparing scripture with scripture, we may discover errors in our interpretation of
scripture. Christ would have the searcher of his word sink the shaft deeper into the
mines of truth. If the search is properly conducted, jewels of inestimable value
will be found. The Word of God is the mine of the unsearchable riches of Christ.
Oh, reader, when you are tempted to cast aside this humble plea for a more earnest
search after truth, on the ground that "we have the truth," -- we
"have need of nothing," listen to him who rebukes in love when he says:
"Thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked."
CHAPTER X.
RECAPITULATION.
TYPE VS. ANTITYPE.
The earthly sanctuary, which was a shadow of the heavenly, places the ark or throne of
God, in the holy of holies, or second apartment, while the priest was ministering in the
first apartment.
The denominational view of the heavenly sanctuary places the ark or throne of God, in
the first apartment while the priest ministers in that same apartment, in violation of the
type.
The teaching of the writer regarding the heavenly sanctuary and its service leaves the
throne of God in the holy of holies, while the priest is ministering in the first
apartment, in harmony with the type.
The shadow placed a veil between the priest and the ark, or throne of God, while the
priest ministered in the first apartment.
The denominational view has the priest minister in the heavenly sanctuary, in the first
apartment, with no veil separating him from the throne of God, but with a veil behind both
priest and throne, in violation of the type.
The position herein advocated agrees with the type and places a veil between the priest
and the throne God, while the priest is ministering in the first apartment of the heavenly
sanctuary.
The type represents the priest as performing a long ministry in the first apartment of
the sanctuary before the blood is shed which was sprinkled on the mercy seat to pay the
penalty of sin.
The denominational view teaches that the blood which was sprinkled upon the mercy seat
to pay the penalty of sin, was shed before the ministry begins in the heavenly sanctuary,
thus contradicting the type.
The view taught in this paper agrees with the type, and places a ministry before the
veil in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, long before the blood was shed,
which met the penalty of the law.
The type taught that the priest ministered for a long period in the first apartment,
during which time there was accumulated against him the sins of the people, before the
blood was shed, which met the penalty of those sins.
The denominational view locates the death of Christ before they have any ministry
performed in the heavenly sanctuary.
The view taught by the writer agrees with the type in placing a ministry in the
heavenly sanctuary, during which time the sins of the people were charged against Christ,
long before his blood was shed which met the penalty of those sins.
The shadow placed the death of the Lord's goat, whose blood met the penalty of the law,
in type, on the great day of atonement.
The denominational view places the death of Christ, whose blood meets the penalty of
the law, more than 1800 years before they begin the great day of atonement.
The writer agrees with the type in placing the death of Christ on the great day of
atonement.
The shadow represents the high priest as going from the court where the Lord's goat was
slain directly into the holy of holies, on the day of atonement.
The denominational view teaches that Christ went from his ministry in the first
apartment, and not from the earth where he died, into the holy of holies on the day of
atonement which they begin in 1844.
The writer agrees with the type in teaching that Christ went from the earth where his
blood was shed, directly into the holy of holies, and not from a ministry in the first
apartment in the heavenly sanctuary.
The type represents the priest as unloading forever through the blood of the Lord's
goat, the sins which had been accumulating against him during the year.
The denominational view represents Christ as loading himself up in the first apartment
with the same sins which he had before borne at the cross, and unloaded in his death.
The writer agrees with the type in representing Christ as unloading forever in his
death, the sins of the world.
He that is dead is freed from sin.
Knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no
more dominion over him, for in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth,
he liveth unto God.
The shadow sends the high priest directly through the first apartment into the holy of
holies as soon as he has in his hands the blood of the Lord's goat, or the blood that pays
the penalty of sin.
The denominational view stops our great High Priest in the first apartment when he has
his own blood which pays the penalty of sin.
The writer agrees with the type and teaches that Christ, after his resurrection, stands
in the place where the high priest stood in the typical system, when he had caught the
blood of the Lord's goat, and was ready to enter into the holy of holies. The writer
teaches that Christ at his resurrection entered immediately "within the veil" to
sprinkle his blood upon the mercy seat.
The shadow represents the high priest as going immediately with the blood of the Lord's
goat into the holy of holies, and sprinkling that blood upon the mercy seat "within
the veil."
The denominational view teaches that our great High Priest did not sprinkle his blood
on the mercy seat "within the veil," for more than 1800 years after it was shed.
The writer agrees with the teaching of the shadow and affirms that Christ entered
"within the veil" and sprinkled his blood on the mercy seat immediately after
his resurrection.
Show Me My Error From
The Word |
And now should any of my readers feel called upon to reply to the positions herein taken,
do not, I beseech you, pick flaws here and there and then throw the whole aside as
refuted, but with Christian fairness show by a "thus saith the Lord" that I am
wrong when I teach:
1. That the earthly sanctuary service was a shadow of the whole plan or salvation,
as carried on before as well as after the cross.
2. That a ministry on behalf of sinners was conducted
from the heavenly sanctuary prior to the death of Christ.
3. That the typical service "before the veil"
represented the plan of salvation as carried on in the heavenly sanctuary before the
incarnation.
4. That while the earthly sanctuary stood, the heavenly
sanctuary was the center of gospel ministry for man.
5. That enlightened men from Abel to Stephen always
understood that their prayers were heard in the heavenly sanctuary and answered from that
sanctuary.
6. That the brethren who teach that the earthly
sanctuary was the center of salvation and that the heavenly sanctuary was closed to the
cries of sinners for four thousand years, have adopted a similar position to that held by
the Jews in Isaiah's and Stephen's day.
7. That angels ministered the New Covenant blessings of
pardon and regeneration from the heavenly sanctuary to repentant believers, for four
thousand years before Christ died.
8. That the term "within the veil" in Heb.
6:19,20, refers to the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary.
9. That the throne of God in the heavenly sanctuary as
well as in the earthly, abode in the holy of holies, "within the veil," while
the ministry was conducted "before the veil."
10. That the throne of God abode above the law in the
heavenly sanctuary, as well as in the earthly, while the ministry "before the
veil" was in progress.
11. That the earthly sanctuary was defiled by the
sinning of the sinner and not by the blood of his sacrifice of confession.
12. That likewise the heavenly sanctuary was defiled by
the sinning of men and not by the "precious blood of Christ" offered for our
cleansing.
13. That Satan will suffer for his share in the sins of
the lost as well as the saved.
14. That the Lord does not give the Devil a rebate of
his share of the punishment of all those sins which are committed by those whom he
eternally ruins.
CHAPTER XI.
WHY THE CONFIRMING
SIGNS ARE
NOT SEEN.
(From Power for Witnessing, Chap. VII.)
One important office of the gifts of the Spirit is to bear Witness to the truthfulness
of the word preached. Of the ministry of the Great Teacher, Peter spoke thus on the
day of Pentecost:
A man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did
by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.
Acts
2:22.
Paul writes thus of the witnessing office of the gifts of the Spirit:
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began
to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also
hearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of
the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Heb.
2:3,4.
And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and
confirming the Word with signs following.
Mark
16:20.
Long time, therefore, they (Paul and Barnabas) tarried there (at Iconium),
speaking boldly in the Lord, which bare witness unto the Word of his grace, granting signs
and wonders to be done by their hands.
Acts
14:3, R.V.
The disciples understood the need of these confirming cures and witnessing wonders; and
we read how they prayed definitely for them, and how the Lord just as definitely gave them
that which they asked. Here is the prayer:
And now, Lord, behold their threaten- ings; and grant unto thy servants, that
with all boldness they may speak thy Word, by stretching forth thy hand to heal; and that
signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus. And when they had
prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the Word of God with boldness.
Acts 4:29,31.
Thus clearly do the Scriptures teach that the gifts of the Holy Ghost are given to
approve, to witness to, and to confirm the preaching of the Word. The signs and
wonders are not the things of greatest importance.
The all-important thing is the preaching of the Word, and the "signs and
wonders," and "divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost," follow to
bear witness that the Word spoken is the Word "which at the first began to be spoken
by the Lord."
The healing of the sick must, therefore, follow the preaching of the Word.
"Preach the kingdom of God" and "heal the sick," is the order in which
the commission is given. It is therefore evident that if the Word is not preached,
God will not confirm it with signs following. For God to confirm the preaching of
anything but the Word, would be for him to confirm the preaching of a lie. If there
is, therefore, any failure in the preaching of the Word, there must inevitably follow a
failure in the signs following.
That there is a failure in the preaching of the Word today, is plain to those who are
not entirely blinded by the god of this world. Of this time wrote the Apostle Paul
in his letter to Timothy, thus:
I charge thee in the sight of God and of Christ Jesus who shall judge the quick
and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the Word. . . For the
time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears,
will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from
the truth, and turn aside unto fables.
2
Tim. 4:1-4, R.V.
Will God confirm the preaching of fables? Then this falling away from the faith
to fables is reason enough why God should refuse to confirm such preaching with signs
following. Back to the Word, my brother, if you are seeking the witnessing
signs. Back to the Word which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, before
you begin to teach the fable that witnessing signs and wonders were for the apostles
only. God working with them! What a blessed association in labor!
"The Lord working with them, confirming the word with signs following."
What a glorious experience the early disciples must have had when the Lord worked with
them confirming the Word! But why look back? He is the same yesterday, today,
and forever. He will work with us again, and confirm the Word again, if the church
will get back to that Word; for at the time he was working with them, confirming the Word
with signs following, he promised his presence to us today, when he said:
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
Matt.
28:18-20.
And for what will he be with us? To work with us, of course. And how does
he work with us? It is by confirming the Word with signs following.
The absence, therefore, of the confirming signs is a sad and solemn witness to the fact
that there is a failure somewhere in the preaching of the Word.
Reader, does this touch your heart? Does it make any difference to you whether
the Lord works with the church and confirms the Word, or whether he does not? I
confess that it concerns us deeply, and "for Zion's sake will I not hold my peace,
and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest until the righteousness thereof go forth as
brightness and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth." Isa. 62:1.
And now, dear reader, I have tried in this pamphlet to give a reason for the hope that
is within me with meekness and fear. If you are able to see clearly where I have
missed the narrow way in my search after truth, point it out to me, giving scripture and
verse. Four years have passed since my separation from the denomination, and not a
single soul in the church has come to me, Bible in hand, desiring to show me from that
Word where I am wrong.
On the other hand, if you see light in anything presented here, don't reserve your
words of appreciation for the obituary, but say them now. Though the man with an
unpopular message must receive his encouragement from the same place he obtained his
message, yet it is a part of the reward of the man in the minority, to hear the witnessing
words of those who have been helped by his ministry. There will be plenty to
condemn, therefore the encouraging word of the few will be the more appreciated.
CHAPTER XII.
"BUT HOW
ABOUT THE
TESTIMONIES."
Many of the brethren, after listening to Scripture evidences of my position, have admitted
that from the standpoint of the scriptures, the teaching appeared sound; but invariably
they would remark in substance: "Yes; but how about the testimonies?" The
only answer I am able to make to this question is found in the following copy of a letter
recently addressed to Sr. White:
Dear Sr. White:
For some time I have been constrained to write to you regarding my convictions on the
sanctuary. Many of my friends have urged me to do this, while others have thought it
useless inasmuch as, in their opinion, the letter would never reach you.
Nevertheless I have decided to write, and state my difficulty frankly.
My first difficulty is with the interpretation which you give to the following
scripture found in Heb. 6:19,20,
Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which
entereth into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus
made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec.
I cannot help believing that this term "within the veil" refers to the holy
of holies of the heavenly sanctuary and the scriptures which convinced me, are given
below.
On one side I have placed the interpretation given this scripture by the Word of God
and on the other side the interpretation which you have given it. You will note that
you merely assert that this term applies to the first department of the heavenly
sanctuary, but you do not refer to any scripture which uses the term and applies it to the
first apartment. What I am pleading for in this letter, is, that if there be a
"thus saith the Lord" to support your statement, that, out of compassion for my
soul you furnish it.
"WITHIN THE VEIL" |
As the Bible Interprets It. |
As You Interpret It. |
"And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in
thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you
between the holy place and the most holy." Ex. 26:23."And
the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother that he come not at all times into
the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark that he die
not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat." Lev. 16:2.
"And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the
altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it
within the veil." Lev. 16:12.
"And he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people, and
bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the
bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat." Lev.
16:15.
"Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for
everything of the altar, and within the veil." Num. 18:7.
|
"The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of
the sanctuary, 'within the veil' which formed the door and separated the holy place from
the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His
ascension. It was the work of the priest in the daily ministration to present before God
the blood of the sin offering, also the incense which ascended with the prayers of Israel.
So did Christ plead his blood before the Father in behalf of sinners and present before
him also, with the fragrance of his own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers.
Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in Heaven."Thither
the faith of Christ's disciples followed him as he ascended from their sight. Here (in the
first apartment) their hopes centered, 'which hope we have,' said Paul, 'as an anchor of
the soul both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither
the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever.'"
G.C. pp. 420,421. |
Sr. White, you refer the terms "within the veil" to the first
apartment, while the Lord applies the terms "without the veil" and
"before the veil" to the first apartment, as appears from the following
scriptures.
|
| "And thou shalt set the table (of shew
bread) without the veil." Ex. 26:35.
"And thou shalt command the children of Israel that they bring thee pure
olive oil beaten for the light, to cause the lamp to burn always in the tabernacle of the
congregation, without the veil, which is before the testimony." Ex. 27:20,21.
"And he put the table in the tent of the congregation, upon the side of the
tabernacle northward without the veil." Ex. 40:22.
"And he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation before the
veil." Ex. 40:26.
"And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and
bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation: and the priest shall dip his finger in the
blood and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, before the veil of the
Sanctuary." Lev. 4:5, 6.
"And the priest that is anointed shall bring of the bullock's blood to the
tabernacle of the congregation, and the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood,
and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the veil." Lev. 4:17.
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Command the children of Israel that
they bring thee pure olive oil beaten for light, to cause the lamps to burn continually
without the veil of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation." Lev.
24:1-3.
|
|
Five times the Lord uses the term "within the veil" and in every case it is
applied to the second apartment of the sanctuary, and not to the first.
Seven times the Lord uses the terms "without the veil," and "before the
veil," and in every instance he applies it to the first apartment or tabernacle of
the congregation, and never to the court outside of the door of the tabernacle. But
if "within the veil" applies to the first apartment as you teach in your
interpretation of Heb. 6:19,20, then the term "without the veil" must apply to
the space in the court outside the tabernacle door. Every one of these seven
scriptures which plainly state that "without the veil" and "before the
veil" is in the first apartment, is a divine witness to the truth that "within
the veil" in Heb. 6:19,20, must apply to the second apartment.
There are therefore twelve witnesses, a twelve-fold "thus saith the Lord"
testifying that the term "within the veil" refers to the holy of holies, and not
to the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary as you assert.
At my secret trial four years ago, three leading brethren were chosen to answer
me. (It is interesting to note in passing that two out of the three were then and
are still under your condemnation inasmuch as they both teach that the "daily"
of Dan. 8:13 refers to the heavenly service instead of paganism as taught by you in Early
Writings.) In private conversation with me one took the position that
"within the veil" meant within the sanctuary, but did not refer to either
apartment. Another asserted at the trial that the term applied to the first
apartment as you have interpreted it. The third, compelled by the witnesses quoted
above admitted in his answer that the term "within the veil" does apply to the
holy of holies, but that it is spoken prophetically, and although the scripture says
Christ is entered "within the veil" we are to understand it to mean
that he will enter in 1844. This babel of voices did not help me to see my
error, if error it be.
Before publishing my MS, I sent it to several ministers holding official
positions, whose loyalty to the denomination is unquestioned, and asked them out of love
for the truth and my soul, to show me from the Scriptures, where I was in error. I
promised that should they do this I would never publish the MS.
Not one of these brethren attempted to show me my error from the Word. One wrote
thus:
Candor compels me to say that I can find no fault with it from a Bible
standpoint. The argument seems to be unassailable.
Another said:
I have always felt that it was safer to take the interpretation placed upon the
Scriptures by the Spirit of Prophecy as manifested through Sister E. G. White rather than
to rely upon my own judgment or interpretation.
This last quotation expresses the attitude of all those who have admitted that my
position seemed to be supported by the Scriptures, but hesitated to accept it.
Honestly, Sister White, I am afraid to act upon this suggestion; because it will place
the thousands upon thousands of pages of your writings in books and periodicals between
the child of God and God's Book. If this position be true, no noble Berean dare
believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he
first consults your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation.
This is the principle always advocated by the Roman church and voiced in the following
quotation:
Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine Tradition
contain the Word of God. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on
account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths,
still of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.
Catholic
Belief, p. 54.
It was against this putting of an infallible interpreter between the man and his Bible
that the Reformation waged its uncompromising war.
The Romanists robbed the individual of his Bible, denouncing the right of "private
interpretation"; while the Reformation handed the Bible back to the individual while
denouncing the papal dogma that demands an infallible interpreter between the child of God
and his Bible.
The brethren urge me to accept your interpretation of the Scriptures as clearer and
safer than what they call my interpretation. But I have not interpreted this
Scripture, I have allowed the Lord to do this and have accepted his interpretation.
Let me illustrate:
The first mention of the Sabbath in the New Testament is found in Matt. 12:1. It
does not there tell us which day is the Sabbath, assuming that the reader knows which day
is referred to, or if not, he will be able to learn from the Old Testament, which day it
is. When one turns to Ex. 20:8-12 and reads, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of
the Lord," is not that God's interpretation? Has any one the right to reply,
"That is your interpretation." Surely not.
In like manner, the first and only instance where the term, "within the
veil," is used in the New Testament, is found in Heb. 6:19. It is taken for
granted that the reader will know to which apartment the Holy Spirit refers; but if not,
the searcher can learn from the Old Testament which place is meant. Now, when I turn
to the Old Testament and find that in every instance this term is applied to the holy of
holies, can it honestly be charged that this is my interpretation? I have not
interpreted it, but have given that honor to the Holy Oracles themselves. And now
Sister White, what can I do? If I accept the testimony of the Scriptures, if I
follow my conscientious convictions, I find myself under your condemnation; and you call
me a wolf in sheep's clothing, and warn my brethren and the members of my family against
me. But when I turn in my sorrow to the Word of the Lord, that Word reads the same,
and I fear to reject God's interpretation and accept yours. Oh that I might accept
both. But if I must accept but one, hadn't I better accept the Lord's? If I
reject his word and accept yours, can you save me in the judgment? When side by side
we stand before the great white throne; if the Master should ask me why I taught that
"within the veil" was in the first apartment of the sanctuary, what shall I
answer? Shall I say, "Because Sister White, who claimed to be commissioned to
interpret the Scriptures for me, told me that this was the true interpretation, and that
if I did not accept it and teach it I would rest under your condemnation?"
Oh, Sister White, that this answer might be pleasing unto the Lord. Then would I
surrender to your testimony. Then would you speak words of encouragement to me
again. Then would my brethren, with whom I have held sweet counsel, no longer shun
me as a leper. Then would I appear again in the great congregation, and we would
weep and pray and praise together as before.
But on the other hand should the great and terrible God say to me on that day,
"But disobedient servant, what did I say?" Oh what could I
answer?
If I surrender my convictions to escape the testimonies of condemnation which you heap
upon my head; if I yield the Word of God that I might again enjoy the love and fellowship
of my brethren, how can I again look into the face of him who died for me? How could
I again lay my Bible open upon my bed, and kneeling, plead for light upon his Word?
No, no, I cannot do that. I must go on my pilgrimage alone. And while I would
not put myself in the company of Him who was despised and rejected of men, the Man of
sorrows, the Man of the lonely life, yet I am comforted in the thought that he knoweth my
sorrow and is acquainted with my grief.
Your younger brother in Christ,
A. F. BALLENGER.
Tropico, Cal.
|