|
XXVII - 05(94)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
THEOLOGY OF
THE SANCTUARY
- IV -
The Day of Atonement
The ritual which was to be followed on the Day of Atonement is outlined in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. Certain explanations of word usages in the KJV are in order before one notes the ritual. The second apartment of the sanctuary is called "the holy" with the word "place" added by the translators. (16:2) The first apartment is denoted as "the tabernacle." (16:16)
Certain questions should be asked in advance so that accurate answers can be determined as the ritual unfolds: 1) How many times did the high priest enter the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement? 2) How was he attired? 3) How many phases or steps were involved in this ritual before the final atonement was achieved? and 4) At what point did the atonement end and with what results?
The first instruction given involved Aaron the high priest at the time of the inauguration of the ritual. It must be ever kept in mind that in this service he stood as a type of the High Priest to come. (Heb. 8:5) Aaron was to provide "a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering." (Leviticus 16:3) The ram for the burnt offering was not involved in the cleansing ritual of the day's services. Not until he had laid aside his linen garments, and had put on once more his pontifical attire was he to offer the ram. (16:23-24) The focus of the cleansing ritual centered in his sacrifice of the bullock.
The bullock provided by the high priest, while used to "make atonement for himself, and for his house" (v. 6), had no hands placed on its head in confession or transfer of guilt. Its blood was the first blood to be brought into the most holy place and sprinkled seven times before the mercy seat. (v. 14) A failure to understand this part of the type blurs the final antitypical picture.
1
There is, in the record of the ritual prescribed, a close relationship between Moses and Aaron. "The Lord spake
Page 2
unto Moses;" "the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother." (vs. 1-2) The chapter closes with the reference that Aaron "did as the Lord commanded Moses." (v. 34) It must be remembered that it was Moses who first erected and then anointed the sanctuary before Aaron performed a single service in it. (Exodus 40:2-11) The relationship between the two of them had been defined in Egypt. (Exodus 4:16) In type and in prophecy both Moses and Aaron reflected the Messiah to come.
2
Paul in introducing his presentation of the office of Christ Jesus as both "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession," introduces the concept of "house," declaring that Christ "was faithful to Him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house." (Heb. 3:1-2) The faithfulness of Moses "in all his house" is declared to be "a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." Why? Because Christ is "a son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (3:5-6) This hope "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." (Heb. 6:19-20)
To perceive of the earthly ritual involving the blood of the bullock brought by Aaron as pertaining only to him as an individual and his house as his own tribal house is to miss the typical significance of the act. He in type represented the great High Priest, and his actions cast light on the significance of the High Priestly ministry of Jesus as He offers His blood in the final atonement.
3
On this day, Aaron was to lay aside his pontifical robes and minister solely in linen attire. The text reads:
"He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with a linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on." (Lev. 16:4)
"He was to put on, not the state-costume of the high priest, but a body-coat, drawers, girdle, and head-dress of white cloth, having first bathed his body, and not merely his hands and feet, as he did for ordinary service, to appear before Jehovah as entirely cleansed from the defilement of sin and arrayed in clothes of holiness. The dress of white cloth was not the plain official dress of the ordinary priests, for the girdle of that dress was colored (Ex. 39:29); and in that case the high priest would not have appeared in the perfect purity of his divinely appointed office as chief of the priesthood, but simply as the priest appointed for this day. Nor did he officiate (as many of the Rabbins suppose) as a penitent praying humbly for the forgiveness of sin. For where in all the world have clear white clothes been worn either in mourning or as a penitential garment? The emphatic expression, "these are holy garments," is a sufficient proof that the pure white color of all the clothes, even of the girdle, was intended as a representation of holiness...
"The white material, therefore, of the dress which Aaron wore, when performing the highest act of expiation under the Old Testament, was a symbolical shadowing forth of the holiness and glory of the one perfect Mediator between God and man." (Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. II, pp. 396-397)
It must be repeated that not only did Aaron minister his bullock as a symbol of the sacrifice of Him which was to come, but he was clothed entirely in "linen." This places a final atonement concept upon the vision of Ezekiel and the service performed by the man "clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side." (Eze. 9:2)
A second sin offering was also presented on the Day of Atonement besides Aaron's bullock. However, this offering was to be taken "of the congregation of the children of Israel." (Lev. 16:5) Two goats were to be presented "before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (v. 7) Over them lots were to be cast, and only one of them - "the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell" was to be "a sin offering." (vs. 7-9) No hand was laid upon the Lord's goat in confession. Having been taken from the congregation, the goat stood "for the people." Again another aspect of the sacrifice of Christ is portrayed. He would be that "Prophet" taken "from among their brethren" who would speak for the Lord. (Deut. 18:18) Jesus Christ not only "offered Himself without spot to God" (Heb. 9:14), but "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son." (John 3:16) This dual aspect of the one act on Calvary has been given only slight consideration in the theology of the sanctuary.
Before entering with any blood into the most holy place, Aaron was to take "a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense
Page 3
beaten small, and bring it within the vail." (Lev. 16:12) Then he returned to
the Court and brought the blood of the bullock into the presence of God. Having
ministered it, he returned to the Court, killed the Lord's goat, and brought of
its blood into the most holy place and performed with it the same ritual as with the bullock's blood. (16:14-15)
There are two reasons given for the atonement in the most holy place: 1) "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel," and 2) "because of their transgressions in all their sins. (v.16) Inasmuch as the removal of the uncleanness did not take place until the third step in the ministry at the altar in the court (v. 19), and since the acts of sin would not cease till such a cleansing would be accomplished, one is left with the conclusion that the atonement in the most holy was of an objective nature, making provision for the accomplishment of the cleansing so that sin would cease.
After completing the three-fold entry into the most holy place, the high priest brought of the goat's blood to the altar of incense in the "tabernacle." (16:16b) As a part of the instruction for the use of the altar of incense, the Lord had indicated that "Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements." (Exodus 30:10) It was here that the record of corporate confession of sin had been placed in the daily ministration. (Lev. 4:7, 18) This ministration for the cleansing of corporate guilt was the second step or phase of the Day of Atonement ritual.
The final step or phase involved the altar in the court.4 Here during the year, the individual sinner came and offered his sin offering. Here the blood was placed by the common priest on the horns of this altar as a record of his confession of guilt. An atonement was then effected which brought to the penitent, forgiveness. Now he is to be cleansed. In the type, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled before being placed on the horns of the altar. (vs. 18-19) This becomes the last act of the final atonement. Once cleansed, there would be no further acts of transgressions to record. The final judgment on sin could be executed. He with whom sin originated symbolized by the scapegoat, could be brought into the picture. The directions of the ritual read:
"And when [the high priest] hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both of his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness." (16:20-21)
Within the instruction regarding the performance of the ritual of the Day of
Atonement is a message. "There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the
congregation when [the high priest] goeth in to make an atonement in the holy."
(16:17) He typically alone in the presence of the Shekinah glory accomplished the objective. That objective is clearly defined: "And on that day shall [the high priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." (16:30)
Furthermore, this cleansing by blood is pictured as a united application of what the high priest provided, the blood of the bullock; and what was taken from the congregation, the blood of the Lord's goat. Man's part was stated simply, "ye shall afflict your souls." (16:31) This affliction reflects a true humility whereby the one cleansed grasps the meaning of the question asked by Job "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" (14:4) And the answer is - "not one." Every aspect of redemption from justification to glorification is laying the glory of man in the dust and doing for him what he cannot do for himself. Men's righteousness's ever remain as filthy rags. (Isa. 64:6) Those who seek to magnify works know not what soul affliction is.
5
This aspect of the Day of Atonement is emphasized in the visions of
Zechariah. Joshua the high priest stands before the Lord "clothed with filthy
garments." (3:3) The command is given, not to Joshua, but to those that stood
before the Lord - "Take away the filthy garments from him." Joshua could not
even remove them, only permit their removal. Then once done, the Lord declared,
"Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment." (v. 4) The Lord alone effected the atonement of cleansing. In the process, the high priest became naked. Only "the change of raiment" can cover the shame of nakedness, and it cannot be man-made.
When certain basic factors of this yearly ritual are kept in mind, the relationship between the typical Day of Atonement and "the visions of God" in Ezekiel 9 become apparent. The high
Page 4
priest was clothed in linen, and finished his cleansing work at the brazen
altar in the court. This is what Ezekiel saw. Six men "stood beside the brazen
altar." One man among them was "clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side." (v. 2) "The glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon He was, to the threshold of the house." (v. 3) This movement on the part of God was to give a command to the man in linen at the brazen altar - "Set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst" of Jerusalem. (v. 4) There is a sealing work indicated in connection with cleansing.
The basic typology which has been discussed in reviewing the ritual of the daily sin offerings and the ritual of the annual Day of Atonement must now be shown to be linked with the prophetic revelation of Daniel for the basis of Adventism to remain valid. The prophecy of Daniel in chapter seven speaks of the fact that at a certain point of time "the judgment was set, and the books were opened." (7:10) Chapter eight states that after "two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (v. 14)
What has the type established?
1) The acts of sin were either corporate or individual. Confession of guilt in regard to these two categories was ministered differently. Corporate confession was ministered by the high priest and the record placed on the horns of the altar of incense. Individual confession was ministered by the common priest and the record placed on the horns of the brazen altar in the court.
2) The ministry of the high priest on the day of atonement was in three steps, first in the most holy place; secondly, in the first apartment which involved the record of corporate confession; thirdly, at the brazen altar in the court upon which the individual confession has been recorded.
Can this data be related to the prophetic revelation of Daniel? This is at the heart of Adventist theology of the sanctuary.
Notes:
1 -- Either the high priest on the Day of Atonement was serving in a literal sense and the
blood of the bullock was for his personal cleansing, and for the cleansing of his sons who ministered with him in the priestly office, or he was typically representing Jesus Christ, the High Priest to come. Aaron provided the bullock. He did not place his hands on the head of the bullock indicating any type of transfer. Its blood was the first to be taken into the most holy place after the cloud of incense covered the Shekinah glory. Aaron was also to bring a ram for a burnt offering although its sacrifice is not connected with the day's ritual. Is the statement of its requirement by Aaron seeking to tell us something of the typological import of this part of the ritual? There is a condition stipulated in the law of the burnt offering which must be factored into the symbolism. The one bringing the burnt offering must "offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Lev. 1:3) Since "it is of necessity that [Jesus] have somewhat also to offer," He, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," is here typified in first offering Himself, and then secondly the Father gave Him as symbolized in the Lord's goat which was taken from the congregation. (Heb. 8:3; Rev. 13:8) If we give typological significance to the Lord's goat, then the bullock, whose blood was mingled with the goat's blood in the final act of cleansing, must also be given its typological import.
2 -- In the Messianic prophecy given to Moses, God stated plainly that He would raise up for Israel "a Prophet" who would speak for Him. (Deut. 18:18) In the days of Jesus, the expectation was such that the delegation, sent from Jerusalem to interview John the Baptist, asked "Are thou that prophet?" (John 1:21) Then when Jesus fed the five thousand in the desert place, the people concluded, "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." (John 6:14) "Prophet" designates one commissioned to speak for God. The word, "Apostle" refers to one bearing a commission from God. The two words are closely allied. So when Paul begins his discussion of the priestly aspect of Christ's work in the book of Hebrews, he asks us to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." (Heb. 3:1) To portray the full aspect of Christ's ministry, two types were required, Moses and Aaron. The "house" of Moses had its priestly ministry in Aaron with his "bullock" and "ram." The "house" of Christ was served by His willing sacrifice in the offering of Himself without spot to God. (Heb. 9:14)
3 -- The division of the daily services between individual and corporate offerings for the guilt of sin, and the dual ceremonial efficacy, of the blood of the bullock and the goat, pictured in the yearly service is reflected in the book of Revelation. There is a distinct group who "sit with [Him) in [His] throne" (3:21), who "serve Him day and night in His temple" (7:15), who "follow [Him] whithersoever He goeth" (14:4) Then, there is pictured also "the nations of them which are saved" which walk in the light of the city into which "the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor." (21:24) It must be remembered that the blood of the Lord's goat was used
Page 5
only to cleanse the altar of incense whereon the record of confession of corporate guilt was placed; while it was the mingled blood of both bullock and goat which was used to cleanse the altar in the court whereon the individual confession of guilt was registered.
4 -- Was "the altar that is before the Lord" upon which the mingled blood was placed (Lev. 16:18), the altar of incense, or the brazen altar in the court? It is argued that "before the Lord" must be understood as before the veil which separated the most holy from the holy. Within the context of the ritual to be performed on the Day of Atonement, Aaron was instructed to "take the two goats and present them before the Lord." (16:7) This is defined as being at "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." In the rules governing the burnt offering. "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" is defined as "before the Lord." (1:3) To omit the altar in the court from cleansing on the Day of Atonement, would be to exclude from the services of that day the very place where most of the activity had transpired during the year.
5 -- Along with required "soul affliction" the humbling of one's self - on the Day of Atonement, is the command - "Ye shall do no work in that same day." (Lev. 23:28) This is the only annual day of the "feasts" of Israel on which all work was prohibited. The other feast days prohibited "customary work." (See 23:7, NKJV) The command to desist from work on the Day of Atonement parallels the command of God regarding the weekly Sabbath. "in it thou shalt not do any work." (Ex. 20:10). In Hebrews as the revelation of the priestly work of Christ is developed, the concept of "rest" is introduced and compared with the Sabbath rest of God. (Heb. 4:4) It states that the one who enters into the "rest" provided by God ceases "from his own works, as God did from His." (4:10) To do works on the Day of Atonement was to face destruction from among the people of God. (Lev. 23:30) Basically, this is what the message of righteousness by faith is all about, ceasing to rely upon our righteousness's and our dependency upon men, and placing our trust in the Great High Priest who alone can "save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him." (Heb. 7:25) The ritual of the Day of Atonement teaches that the cleansing comes as the result of the ministry of the high priest alone for all who humble themselves before God and cease to rely upon works.
" Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabith eternity, whose name in Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
and with him also what is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. "
Isaiah 57:16
LET'S TALK IT OVER
In a pamphlet released by the General Conference Committee, April 8, 1897 -
Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers - No. 9 - two questions were asked
by Ellen C. White, with her answers given. The questions and answers are:
"What is justification by faith? - It is the work of God in laying the
glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to
do for himself. When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be
clothed with the righteousness of Christ. When they begin to praise and exalt
God [instead of self] all day long, then by beholding they are becoming changed
into the same image. What is regeneration? - It is revealing to man what is his own real nature, that in himself he is worthless." (p. 62)
This is the whole of the message of the sanctuary which God revealed to Moses
at Mt. Sinai. In the sin offering ritual, the penitent brought his "substitute,"
the demand of the Law could not be abrogated, but it was the mediation of the
priest alone which brought the atonement of forgiveness. Man could not of, or for himself atone. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest
alone accomplished the cleansing. Man could only humble (afflict) his soul as he awaited the final atonement.
I have often asked myself, "Why did God have to revive for His last day chosen people, the message of justification by faith?" Basically, the doctrine of justification by faith should have been no different in 1888 than when proclaimed by Paul in Romans and his other Epistles. Neither should it be at odds with the fundamental presentation as given by Luther and the other Reformers. But God's professed people had "preached the law until [they] were as dry as the hills of Gilboa which had neither dew nor rain." It meant simply that they had preached works as a means of salvation. The final generation was facing the atonement by which they were to be cleansed and fitted for translation. No other group of people in human history had ever had this hope set before them. How was this regeneration to be achieved? By works? No, not if man perceived his worthlessness. He would realize that there was no way for him to bring a clean thing from an unclean thing. The recognition of his filthiness would cause him to place his total dependence on
Page 6
the Great High Priest. God needed to take His people through the first step again - they had stepped off the platform - so they could perceive the meaning of the final regeneration. He would have His Holy Spirit through ministering angels take away the filthy garments. He would cause their iniquity to pass from them. He would clothe them with a change of raiment. (Zech. 3:4)
Late in 1993, I received in the mails a "Special Report" through the 1888 Message Study Committee Newsletter (Nov.-Dec. 1993) I was amazed. Elders R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short do not usually name names and go on the offensive. But in this Report they did. They named Dr. Colin Standish and Elder Ron Spear. The open attack on the heretical teachings of these men was justified. I had noted in letters to individuals and had commented
in WWN that Colin Standish was teaching papal doctrine in at least a couple of areas. This "Special Report" not only quoted Standish's papal theology in regard to Justification by Faith, but also its source in papal teaching.
Even more amazing is the attitude of both Standish and Spear toward the Bible. Because they cannot feel "comfortable" with certain things Paul wrote in Romans so as to harmonize them with their papal theology, they prefer to cast out that part of the Bible. Since they hold with Peter that Paul wrote "some things hard to be understood," they go so far as to suggest that Romans 5:18 should be disregarded. They would substitute quotations from the Writings which they believe support their papal theology, thus making it appear that Ellen White teaches such papal concepts.
This approach by Standish to difficult problems in salvation theology is the same approach he used in seeking to answer Desmond Ford regarding sanctuary theology. If he could not support a position by the Bible, he quoted Ellen White. This kind of scholarship, or better stated, lack of it, is one of the basic causes of the present confusion which grips the Adventist Community today.
In response to this type of pseudo-scholarship in trying to sustain error by misquoting Ellen
White, Wieland wrote a classic response. It reads:
"We respond: Sister White continually points us to the Bible....She
uses a beautiful American illustration to make this legal justification clear.
On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation
Proclamation that legally freed every slave held in the Confederate territories.
But no slave was experientially free until he heard the good news and believed
it. And we can be sure that whenever any oppressed, half-starved, beaten, abused
slave believed the good news, he acted upon it immediately! So, says
Sister White, 'with His own blood [Christ] has signed the emancipation papers
of the race.' (MH 90). The signature took place on His cross. Every soul who truly believes the Good News will act immediately! But if there is any legalistic Bad News mixed in with the Good News, he is spiritually paralyzed and is doomed to lukewarmness; hence the importance of our finding ' the truth of the gospel.' (Gal. 2:5, 14)" (Emphasis his)
What we are seeing taking place in the Adventist Community is the revival of the 1888 teachings of Butler, Smith and Morrison by Standish and Spear, as opposed to the teachings of Jones and Waggoner which over the years have been presented by Wieland and Short. A clearer understanding of the present day situation and the nearness to the end would be helped greatly if Wieland likewise would abandon some of Uriah Smith's teachings which fall into the same category as his understanding of justification by faith.
In the documentation supplied by Wieland which included transcriptions from various messages which Standish is presenting around the country attacking the 1888 Message, there is found an interesting repeated assertion on the part of Standish. When referring to contacts with the president of the Potomac Conference in which Colin Standish resides, he repeatedly uses the expression - "my
conference president." Is his brother saying the same thing in Australia, or are the conference presidents over there different from the ones in America? Are the "independents" in Australia being fed a different line than the groups which are addressed in America? Or is the situation that Dr. Russell Standish and Dr. Colin Standish have different concepts on what their relationship should be to the corporate structure? Then one further question - Is this difference due to the flow of funds in America and Australia? In other words is policy involved and principle is out the door?
There is another factor in this 1888 Message issue which needs to be carefully noted. One reason is clearly stated by the "messenger of the Lord" as to why the message of 1888 was so needful. She wrote:
"Now it has been Satan's determined purpose to
Page 7
eclipse the view of Jesus, and lead men to look to man, and trust to man, and
be educated to expect help from man. For years the church has been looking to
man, and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of
eternal life are centered. Therefore, God gave His servants [Jones and Waggoner] a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's message in clear, distinct lines."
(TM 93)
Now the third angel's message states, "If any man worship the beast..." (Rev. 14:9) But what is that? "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of man, and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (13:18; lit. Gr.) 666 - perfection of imperfection. Three digits, one shy of seven. It is man perfecting works instead of entering into the rest of God whereby man ceases from his works as Cod did from His. (Heb. 4:10)
What do we see today? Look at the videos coming out of Florida. Note the expressions on the faces of many as the camera focuses on the audience. What does one see? Worshipful adulation! Listen to the voices groveling to men as they seek to maintain their connection with the corporate structure and at the same time berate the Church and its leadership, all in view of keeping funds flowing to their "independent ministries." There is a desperate need for the message of 1888 to do its intended work. But if the chief promoters are likewise worshiping men, their voices are muted. It is a sad day in Israel.
whg
*****
Rome (EPS) -- A specially bound copy of the Catholic Edition of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV), produced under the auspices of a Protestant and Orthodox organization, was presented to Pope John Paul II (4 December 93) by Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the US National Council of Churches. On receiving the Bible, the pope declared that "the Holy Scriptures will bring all Christians together." The NRSV translation committee chaired by Bruce M. Metzger, included five Roman Catholic scholars, and the text has been approved for use in worship every Sunday by Catholics in the US, Canada, Great Britain and Australia. In her presentation, Campbell said "the use of the same Bible by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians in worship is a powerful symbol of ecumenism." Metzger, regarded by Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox scholars as a leader in Bible translation told the pope that the Catholic edition of the NRSV provides access to ancient manuscripts never before available, a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other archaeological discoveries.
(94.01.24)
*****
" So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true,
that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except
by the Holy Scriptures.
By their testimony every statement
and every miracle must be tested."
GC, p. 593
|