Chapter 23

THE TWO GOATS

David Lin

ON the Day of Atonement, the most prominent animals involved are two goats, one of which is slain as a type of Christ. The other one, which is "for Azazel," is sent to the wilderness never to return. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary explains:

The pseudepigraphical Book of Enoch, for instance, characterizes Azazel as the one who "hath taught all unrighteousness on earth," ch 9:6, and adds that "the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin." ch 10:8. Azazel is also pictured as being bound hand and foot and being cast into an abyss somewhere in the desert, awaiting "the day of the great judgment" when "he shall be cast into the fire." ch 10:4, 6.

In the Bible, two familiar names of angels are Michael (Who is like God?) and Gabriel (might of God). In Isaiah 14:12 Helel (shining one) is the Hebrew name translated Lucifer (light-bearer) in the Latin and English Bibles, and Heosphoros (morning star) in the Septuagint. Since these three Hebrew names of angels all end with el (God), we may surmise that Azazel is another name of the fallen angel, being a combination of Azaz (strength) and el, meaning strength of God. It is synonymous with Gabriel, which means might of God. This similarity in meaning lends support to the supposition that Gabriel is the angel who filled the position vacated by Azazel when he was cast out of heaven.

Some try to discredit the traditional Adventist teachings on the sanctuary by asserting that (1) sacrificial blood never defiles; it always cleanses, and (2) it is the "little horn" that defiles the sanctuary, not the sins of the saints.

Seventh-day Adventists do not teach that sacrificial blood defiles the sanctuary, but we do believe that the sanctuary is defiled by the "uncleanness of the children of Israel." Leviticus 16:16. The following text also deals with this problem:

It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. . . . now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. . . . So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:23-28

Note these facts: (1) There are "patterns of things in the heavens," (2) "the heavenly things themselves" need to be purified, implying that they have been defiled, and (3) Christ was "offered to bear the sins of many," and will "appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

We gather from the above that the heavenly sanctuary has been defiled by the sins of penitent sinners, and needs to be purified, which process was figuratively enacted on the Jewish Day of Atonement. Note that this purifying process is not a "washing," but a "bearing" process. The Day of Atonement ritual demonstrates how the defilement of sin is transferred from the sanctuary to the high priest by the blood sprinkled on the mercy seat. The high priest bears the sin upon himself, then lays his hands on the live goat, and confesses "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 the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited." Leviticus 16:21-22. Note that the "put" and the "bear" refer to the sins of the people symbolically transferred to the goat and then removed forever from the congregation. This object lesson shows how Christ will "put away" sin by finally transferring it to Satan, the author of all sin.

We see then that sacrificial blood functions as a vehicle for the transfer of sin to and from the sanctuary. Ellen White speaks of the defiling process thus:

Day by day the repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and, placing his hand upon the victim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them to the innocent sacrifice. The animal was then slain, and the blood or the flesh was carried by the priest into the holy place. Thus the sin was, in figure, transferred to the sanctuary. . . . The continual transfer of sins to the sanctuary, rendered a further work of ministration necessary in order for their removal. The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 263

Note that the verse says, "the blood or the flesh," indicating that either the blood or the flesh of the victim served to transfer the sins of the penitents into the sanctuary. The blood was sprinkled before the veil, or the flesh was eaten by the priests. But the animals whose blood was sprinkled were not eaten. We have this record in Leviticus 10:16-17: And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt: and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar . . . saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought within the holy place: ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place.

This passage indicates that the Lord employed two vehicles for the figurative transfer of sin--blood and flesh. If the blood of the sin offering was not sprinkled before the veil in the holy place, the priests were to eat its flesh and thereby bear the iniquity of the congregation.

After this function of the sacrificial blood and flesh is clarified, the problem of defiling and cleansing is easily solved. Since the blood and the flesh are used as vehicles to transfer sin, then every transfer involved both cleansing and defiling. That is, when sin is transferred from A to B, A is cleansed, and B is defiled. In the first stage of the atonement process, sin is transferred from the penitent (who is cleansed) to the sanctuary (which is defiled). In the second stage, sin is transferred from the sanctuary to the goat for Azazel. Thus the sanctuary is cleansed and the goat is defiled, or to be precise, the author of sin finally gets back what he originated. Strictly speaking, we note that sacrificial blood in itself does not defile, but the sin which it conveys defiles the recipient. On the other hand, sacrificial blood cleanses the object from which it removes sin.

Now this question: Since "the heavenly things themselves" should be purified "with better sacrifices than these," how have they been defiled? Here is Ellen White's explanation: As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. . . . When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of his people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty. The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 266-267

One may object to the idea that Christ's blood first defiles the sanctuary and then cleanses it. But that is not true. Christ's blood never defiles the sanctuary; it simply serves as a vehicle to convey the sins of penitent sinners to the sanctuary. It is their sins which defile it.

Daniel 8:9-14 states that it is the little horn which defiles (treads under foot) the sanctuary. Some modernist interpreters say the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes, and the sanctuary is the temple in Jerusalem. Thus, they believe, Daniel 8 was fulfilled in pre-Christian times, having nothing to do with our day. Desmond Ford tries to use this theory to overthrow the entire system of Adventist interpretation, divorcing the 2300 days from the 70 weeks. His interpretation is not original. Many modernists held it before him.

The traditional Adventist interpretation holds to the year-day principle in counting the 2300 days. Since the only starting point given in Daniel 8 and 9 is found in Daniel 9:25, therefore we begin the 2300 days in October, 457 B.C., and terminate them on October 22, 1844. Since the earthly Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, the only sanctuary existing in 1844 was the heavenly one. This line of reasoning is sound, although the matter of the defiling of the sanctuary by the little horn has not been thoroughly explained to fit into the atonement scheme. Fordite scholars imagine they have found a flaw in the sanctuary doctrine by pointing out that the little horn is not related to Leviticus 16.

The contexts in the two chapters deal with two completely different situations. In Leviticus 16 the sanctuary issue is between God and His people Israel; but in Daniel 8 the sanctuary issue is between God and the apostate horn, the antichrist. See "The Pre-Advent Judgment" by Edward Heppenstall, Ministry, December 1981, 12

Our first step in resolving this seeming discrepancy is to identify the little horn. Many papers have been written to disprove the Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation, so we need spend no time on that score. The overwhelming body of evidence identifies this horn of Daniel 8 with that of Daniel 7. It is the same papal antichrist described in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation 13:17-18. In studying Daniel 8:9-14 we must keep a full picture of the little horn in mind, and not confine ourselves to Daniel 8. The full picture presents this major antichristian power in all its aspects, and the basic point we should grasp is the identity of the little horn with Satan the dragon, who "gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." Revelation 13:2. Our next step is to note how Inspiration recorded Satan's fall and rebellion under the names of his agents, the king of Babylon, (Isaiah 14:4-23), and the king of Tyre, (Ezekiel 28:1-19). Bible students have wondered why, in both these texts, God did not address Satan directly, but spoke to his representatives instead. I believe God's purpose was to help us identify the prime culprit in Daniel 8. The little horn, like the kings of Babylon and Tyre, is the devil in disguise.

Daniel 8:10-11 reads, "And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host." If we adhere to the principle of explaining Scripture with Scripture, we should note that in the Bible "stars" are not used to symbolize the saints. Daniel 12:3 says that "those who have taught many people to do what is right will shine like the stars for ever" (TEV), but it does not actually call them "stars." Revelation 22:16 says that Christ is "the bright and morning Star;" Lucifer was also a "morning star." Job 38:7 says that "the morning stars sang together." The star of Revelation 9:1 is obviously also an angel. Stars are consistently used in the Bible as figures of heavenly beings. Hence Daniel 8:14-15 is most significantly related to Revelation 12:4, where the dragon's tail "drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth." We understand this verse to refer to Satan's work in drawing away a third of the angels. Note that the sentence in Revelation 12 is a parenthetical remark referring to an incident which happened at a much earlier time, interpolated here to identify the dragon. It provides a clue for us to understand Daniel 8:10 in the same way: "It cast down some of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them," refers to the incident mentioned in Revelation 12:4. The "stamping" and "treading under foot" are graphic expressions meaning to "defile" and "degrade," as in Hebrews 10:29, which speaks of him "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God."

Thus we see that the little horn is, like the kings of Babylon and Tyre, the devil in disguise. The next logical step is to identify Satan as Azazel of Leviticus 16:8. Here the connection between verses 13 and 14 in Daniel 8 becomes clear. The sins of the saints which defile the sanctuary are traced to the evil genius behind the little horn--Azazel, who appears as the prime culprit in the last judgment. And now we can better understand the question: "How long shall be the vision . . . to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" A paraphrase of this would be: "How long shall be the vision . . . to give both the sanctuary and the saints to be defiled by Azazel's sins?" And the answer in Daniel 8:14 is, "Unto 2300 days, then shall all defilement return to Azazel the author of all sin, and the sanctuary will be cleansed."

Desmond Ford sees no connection between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16. The fact is, in Leviticus 16 is found the key (Azazel) to the proper interpretation of Daniel 8:14. The traditional Adventist doctrine on the sanctuary stands fully vindicated. It encompasses a wide range of vital truths, such as our knowledge of the origin of evil, our interpretation of other passages in Daniel and Revelation and our understanding of events connected with the millennium. Most important of all, it magnifies the work of our High Priest in shedding and offering His blood for the removal of sin. Like so many jewels arranged in a golden casket, these truths remain unsullied by the rubbish in which strangers have attempted to bury them. We praise God for this rich legacy of truth, and we can say with fullest assurance, "We have the truth." Let none be ashamed of it. All the world must hear of it.

"But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Proverbs 4:18. The history of the people of God is a history of progress--from the darkness of Egypt into the light of present truth--unto the perfect day. Some say that people in Bible times did not have to cope with the powerful temptations we meet with today. There were no modern playgrounds to divert their attention. True, but neither did they have the flood of gospel light we are basking under today. Since we live in a day of unprecedented revelation, God expects perfection of all who are so privileged. A passage in Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, 163, touches on this point:

The minds of all who embrace this message are directed to the Most Holy place where Jesus stands before the ark, making His final intercession for all those for whom mercy still lingers, and for those who have ignorantly broken the law of God. This atonement is made for the righteous dead as well as for the righteous living. Jesus makes an atonement for those who died, not receiving the light upon God's commandments, who sinned ignorantly.

This quotation indicates the fact that we today enjoy the light on God's commandments, particularly the Sabbath commandment. It brings in its train all the precious truths revealed through the gift of prophecy. This added light is given to strengthen us to withstand the modern temptations which some say are stronger than in ancient times. So if we still yield to Satan's wiles, we will be without excuse.

The above quotation answers the question about ignorant and knowing sins committed since Jesus entered the Most Holy Place. In the real service in heaven, sins of ignorance as well as conscious sins of human weakness, which were formerly dealt with in the first apartment, are still atoned for in the Second Apartment. Atonement is also made for the righteous dead who failed to keep the Sabbath, as well as for the righteous living who, before the Sabbath light came to them, broke the Sabbath.

However, the words, "the righteous dead . . . who died, not receiving the light upon God's commandments, who sinned ignorantly," include more than those who have known the name of Christ.

Among the heathen are those who worship God ignorantly, those to whom the light is never brought by human instrumentality, yet they will not perish. Though ignorant of the written law of God, they have heard His voice speaking to them in nature, and have done the things that the law required. Their works are evidence that the Holy Spirit has touched their hearts, and they are recognized as the children of God. The Desire of Ages, 638

The question is raised: If the heathen can be saved through the influence of the Holy Spirit, and Christ's blood can cover even unconfessed sins of ignorance (as indicated in the above quotation), what point is there in sending missionaries abroad? The answer is in Proverbs 4:18. God's ultimate aim is not merely the rescuing of lost souls, but their perfection. He is determined to have a group of living saints who will be without blemish at His coming, which can be realized only through a complete revelation of gospel truth. Their past sins will have been atoned for, but only as their soul temples are thoroughly purged by the blood of the lamb, will their lives reach perfection. A knowledge of the efficacy of His blood will result in an intelligent appreciation of God's love and righteousness. He is waiting for a complete restoration of His image in the sons and daughters who make up His church in the last generation of believers. It will be the result of a full revelation of gospel light accompanied by a rich outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This ultimate purpose is expressed in the commission, "Go ye into all the world, and teach all nations." God anticipates the final fruition of His plan, when He can point to a company of living saints and say to Satan, "Hast thou considered these my servants, that there is none like them in the earth, perfect and upright souls that fear God and eschew evil?" Anything short of this result will be a failure of God's purpose and a vindication of Satan's charges.

The perfecting of God's people is the cleansing of the "host." The question, "How long shall be the vision . . . to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" embraces two objects--the sanctuary and the host. The answer given in Daniel 8:14 mentions only the sanctuary, but the cleansing of the "host" should be recognized as concomitant with the cleansing of the sanctuary. From Daniel 8:24 we understand that the "host" refers to "the mighty and the holy people" (as distinct from the "stars" mentioned in Daniel 8:10). As already observed, the "treading under foot" refers to defilement.

We are therefore justified in stating that Daniel 8:14 answers fully, though implicitly, the question posed in verse 13, and virtually says, "Unto 2300 days, then shall the sanctuary and the host be cleansed." The cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven is attended by a simultaneous soul-cleansing of God's people on earth. In The Great Controversy, 425, we read: Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth. . . .

When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing. . . . Then the church which our Lord at His coming is to receive to Himself will be a "glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27

These two points: (1) just before the Second Advent the saints must stand before God without a mediator, and (2) the final perfection of God's church, are inescapable conclusions when one follows the gospel plan to its ultimate end. Even non-Adventist theologians who believe in the mediatorial work of Christ and His second coming must admit that there should naturally be a brief interval before His coming when He will cease to mediate and prepare to execute vengeance. They must also admit that the grand ideal pictured in Ephesians 5:27 should ultimately be attained, or God's word would be false. Therefore these passages in The Great Controversy bring home to us the rationality as well as the reality of God's ideal for His children. This "special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth" is even now in progress. Are you taking part?

All complaints of "irresistible" temptations encountered in our modern age are so many excuses to sin. God has furnished us with equally modern weapons to make us invincible to all attack. Men in olden times did not have them. Among these powerful weapons is the book, The Great Controversy, whose object is "to unfold the scenes of the great controversy between truth and error; to reveal the wiles of Satan, and the means by which he may be successfully resisted." The Great Controversy, author's Introduction. Do you feel helpless in the face of the world, the flesh and the devil? Sit down and read this book through, and you will no longer feel so helpless, but will be wise to parry Satan's every thrust and foil his plans to trip you. You will be keen to detect his inroads and discern his decoys. You will learn to keep your eyes on Christ, relish the word of God and persist in prayer. You will stay on the narrow way and be saved at last. This is the process of the cleansing of the host on earth, which is concurrent with the work of cleansing the sanctuary in heaven.

The sanctuary service deals with sin as a substance that can be borne and transferred by the blood or flesh of the sacrificial victim, and also by the priest who sprinkles its blood or eats its flesh. Any defilement involved is not caused by the blood or the flesh, but by the sin which is transferred by them. The text, "Almost all things are by the law purged with blood," (Hebrews 9:22), includes other ceremonies than those of the Day of Atonement ritual, which is strictly a transferring process--removing the accumulated sins from the sanctuary to the goat for Azazel. This process results in the cleansing of the sanctuary.

The casting down of the "stars" mentioned in Daniel 8:10 and Revelation 12:4 identifies the little horn as Satan (Azazel), the author of all sin. He defiles the sanctuary by defiling the "host," whose sins are transferred to the sanctuary by the blood of Christ. The question then in Daniel 8:13 is much to the point; it traces all defilement to its source. The question refers to "the sanctuary and the host," so the reply in Daniel 8:14 should be understood to refer to both. The cleansing of the sanctuary predicates the cleansing of the host.

The cleansing of the host is the perfecting of the church. Therefore the first apartment of the sanctuary stands for forgiveness; the second for perfection. Forgiveness is probationary (see Matthew 18:34-35); perfection is final. In the pre-1844 period, God's people sinned ignorantly because they knew not the Sabbath truth. In the post-1844 period, if they sin, they sin knowingly. A flood of gospel light given in the Testimonies of the Spirit is for the perfecting of the saints.

The drama of the two goats is a call to moral perfection. To us God gives the strongest assurance of His help, saying, "I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect." Genesis 17:1

David Lin

November 3, 1983

Chapter 24

THE April 1985 issue of the Ministry reprinted an Adventist Review article, "Issues in the Book of Hebrews," which addressed the questions, "Does Hebrews 6:19-20 indicate that Christ entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension?" and "Does Hebrews teach that the Day of Atonement type was fulfilled at Calvary?" This article represents the official attitude of the General Conference regarding these questions, since it was prepared by the officially appointed Daniel and Revelation Committee.

A study of the answers to the two questions posed above reveals at best a weak defensive posture. In fact, this article by the committee virtually concedes that Christ entered the Most Holy Place at His ascension, though this admission is veiled by an adroit wording of key statements, so that only a careful reading will reveal their true import. Here is an answer to the first question:

It may be admitted that if the author is using Day of Atonement imagery in chapter 6:19, 20 (a view held by most scholars), it does indeed heighten and sharpen the message he wished to convey to his readers that by virtue of Christ's death and priesthood they now had direct access to God. Through the ministry of their ever-living high priest they could draw near to God "in full assurance of faith" (chaps 7:25; 10:19-22). His efficacious blood would be mediated for them in the very presence of the Deity (chap. 9:14,24)."

Note that four positive arguments are advanced in favor of the "Day of Atonement" imagery in chapter 6:19-20: (1) It is a view held by most scholars; (2) it heightens and sharpens the message that "they now had direct access to "God," (3) "they could draw near to God "in full assurance of faith" and (4) "His efficacious blood would be mediated for them in the very presence of the Deity." Then follows another paragraph which again affirms the plausibility of the same "imagery":

It is the conviction of the committee that if the author of Hebrews had Day of Atonement imagery in mind (in chap. 6:19,20), his application neither exhausts the meaning of the Day of Atonement ritual nor negates a two-apartment priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. In view of the author's evident purpose, Day of Atonement imagery would simply underscore the point that Christ had opened the way to the immediate presence of God, that every barrier between them and God had been removed. Hope in Christ, their living high priest in God's presence, could be to them "an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast."

Thus three more positive arguments are added to the list: (5) Day of Atonement imagery would underscore the point that Christ had opened the way to the immediate presence of God; (6) every barrier between them and God had been removed; (7) hope in Christ . . . could be to them "an anchor of the soul. . . ." Note that all seven points are arguments in favor of the Day of Atonement imagery in chapter 6:19-20.

Now to clarify the "imagery" idea. It simply means that if the writer of Hebrews 6:19-20 had Day of Atonement imagery in mind, he meant that Christ entered the second veil when he said that Jesus entered "within the veil," because the high priest entered the second veil on the Day of Atonement. Why then did the committee not answer a plain question with a bare "Yes" or "No"? Well, they would just as soon say "Yes," except that such a blunt reply would draw fire from certain quarters. The best thing to do was to reword the proposition--use the "imagery" clause. In case readers catch on to the true intent of their words and accuse them of following A.F. Ballenger and Desmond Ford, they can point out that they have not positively affirmed anything, but have simply considered a conditional proposition--notice that "if" clause.

To that response we pose two questions: (1) "Why has the committee only considered the 'if' proposition and ignored the converse 'if not' proposition? Why not tell us what is to be gained if the writer of Hebrews 6:19-20 did not have the Day of Atonement imagery in mind?" (2) The remark, "(a view held by most scholars)" has no "if" to it. It is not a conditional, but a positive assertion. And an intriguing one too. Does the Daniel and Revelation Committee take exception to this view which most scholars hold? If so, it should say so; if not, that parenthetical remark should say, "a view held by the committee." Anyhow the seven points listed above suffice to show that the committee members accord with the "most scholars," and believe that Hebrews 6:19-20 refers to Christ's entry to the Most Holy Place. And because "entered" is the past tense, the time of Jesus' entry is generally assumed to be at His ascension. If this is the assumption also of the Daniel and Revelation committee, it represents a major capitulation on the part of the General Conference on this mooted issue.

In the face of such an alarming shift, the assurance about this view not exhausting the meaning of the Day of Atonement ritual and not negating a two-apartment priestly ministry sounds hollow and gives poor consolation. However, since the time of entrance is just an assumption, and the committee has not committed itself on this point, the present article will venture to solve the time problem in Hebrews 6:19-20 and to harmonize it with our understanding of Daniel 8:14. For even if we concede that the veil in Hebrews 6:19-20 is the second veil, the doctrine of Christ's entrance to the Second Apartment in 1844 is still tenable, provided we solve the time issue.

We propose to solve this issue with Revelation 13:8, which speaks of the "Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world." It refers to the all-time efficacy of Christ's blood, though it was shed in A.D. 31. For, as far as all mankind is concerned, the plan of redemption was completed since Creation, yea, even earlier--"before the world began." 2 Timothy 1:9. Nevertheless, Christ's mission and ministry had a sequence of development in time. Moreover, the daily, as well as the yearly, rituals performed in the earthly sanctuary should all find their counterparts in the heavenly sanctuary. Yet all these details spread over God's time schedule do not destroy, but rather augment, the truth of the all-time efficacy of Christ's work of atonement begun on the cross and finished in the sanctuary. The thesis that the first apartment of the sanctuary typified the Jewish dispensation, and the second the Christian dispensation, does not work out in practice. Can you find a single item in the Jewish dispensation that is typified by the sacrifices offered in the first apartment? "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Hebrews 10:4. They could only typify the blood of Jesus. But once you admit that, you make the first-apartment rituals point to Jesus, not to the Jewish dispensation. To this day all theologians holding this dispensationalist view have not been able to develop a rational typology for the first apartment, and no one ever will.

The harmony of the all-time efficacy of Christ's atonement with its time sequence was appreciated by Ellen White. Note this passage where she employed the wording of Hebrews 10:19 (AV) in connection with the crucifixion:

With a rending noise the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. . . . The most holy place of the earthly sanctuary is no longer sacred.

All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to slay the victim; but the knife drops from his nerveless hand, and the lamb escapes. Type has met antitype in the death of God's Son. The great sacrifice has been made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. The Desire of Ages, 757

Ellen White states that on the day of crucifixion, "The way into the holiest is laid open." She felt free to say it, in spite of all she had written in chapter 24 of The Great Controversy, because she did not confuse the all-time efficacy of Christ's atonement with the time sequence of its performance. This fact shows that Ellen White was a keener theologian than many scholars who insist that Hebrews 6:19-20 can only apply at Christ's ascension. Moreover, her application of this text to the first veil before 1844, and to the second after that date, also reveals that she was free from the rigid thinking of time-bound theologians.

Much of Hebrews should be understood in the light of the all-time efficacy of Christ's redemptive ministry. However, certain parts of Hebrews do deal with the sequential aspect of Levitical rites. Hebrews 9:6-7 speaks of the two apartments.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.

At this point the reader would naturally wonder about the significance of these two apartments. And right here the Holy Spirit makes a solemn declaration. The word used here is deloo, which occurs seven times in the New Testament, and is rendered "declare" three times in the A.V. Thus verse 8 should say:

The Holy Spirit declaring this ("this" is accusative in the Greek), that the way into the holiest is not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle (apartment) still stands (as a viable type).

The arbitrary adoption of the instrumental case, "by this," in many modern versions changes the original sense. A positive declaration of the Holy Spirit becomes at best the inspired judgment of the writer.

Some contend that here ta hagia should be rendered "the sanctuary," not "the holiest" as in the A.V. Let us now adopt this translation for Hebrews 9:8 and 10:19. Thus they would read:

The Holy Spirit declaring this: that the way into the sanctuary is not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle is still standing. Hebrews 9:8

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus . . . Hebrews10:19

The substitution of "the sanctuary" for "the holiest" does not resolve the contradiction between the free access and the "not yet made manifest" way into the sanctuary. The only way to harmonize the two is to distinguish between the all-time efficacy (Hebrews 10:19) and the time sequence (Hebrews 9:8) of the atonement ritual.

The committee's understanding of the "first tabernacle" in Hebrews 9:8 is based on a false context. We quote: "The committee considers that the context (which begins with chapter 8:1-2) is determinative and clearly resolves this question. . . . Thus the reference to 'the first tabernacle' is to be understood as a reference to the Sinai tabernacle-sanctuary."

Note however, that the context referred to by the committee never speaks of either the heavenly or the earthly tabernacle as "first" or "second," but only as the "true tabernacle" and a "worldly sanctuary." On the other hand, in the immediate context of chapter 9:8 the "first tabernacle" is twice used (in verses 2 and 6) to indicate the first apartment of the sanctuary. And in verse 7 the term "the second" refers to the second apartment. Thus we have two immediate precedents of "first tabernacle" definitely referring to the first apartment, and one context speaking of the "second," yet the committee wholly ignores this salient evidence, and insists that the "first tabernacle" in verse 8 does not refer to what it refers to in verses 2 and 6, but instead, to the "Sinai tabernacle-sanctuary." Then comes this puzzling statement, "The committee rejected the argument that the author is using the 'first tabernacle/tent' (first apartment) as a symbol for the whole Mosaic tabernacle (a part for the whole). . . ." The antithesis is garbled. The committee first states that "the first tabernacle" is to be understood as a reference to the "Sinai tabernacle-sanctuary," then it rejects the argument that the "first tabernacle/tent" was a symbol for "the whole Mosaic tabernacle?" Pray tell, what is the difference between the "Sinai tabernacle-sanctuary" and the whole Mosaic tabernacle?" And why the total silence on the evidence in verses 2 and 6, and the insistence on the "determinative" context which in fact deals with the "true tabernacle?"

Since the Lord pitched it in heaven before man pitched its replica on earth, that "true tabernacle" should have every right to be called the "first tabernacle," because it is truly first both in point of time and of importance. But actually, Hebrews nowhere compares the heavenly and the earthly sanctuaries in terms of antecedence, nor does it give grounds for the supposition that because the Mosaic sanctuary belonged to the first covenant, it may therefore be called the "first tabernacle."

Proponents of the dispensationalist view cannot properly explain Hebrews 9:9, which says that the first apartment "is a figure of the present time." (The "was" and the "time then present" of the A.V. are erroneous.) "The present time" cannot be construed in any way to refer to the Jewish dispensation, for Hebrews was written many years after the crucifixion.

A correct understanding of verse 9 supports the traditional Adventist doctrine on the sanctuary. Verse 8 says, "The Holy Spirit declaring this, that the way into the holiest of all is not yet made manifest while the first apartment still stands [is still viable as a type]." Verse 9 adds, "which is a figure of the present time . . ." The "is" tense is true to the Greek, as against the past tense in some versions.

This correct tense renders the dispensationalist view untenable, and validates the Adventist teaching that when Hebrews was written, the first apartment type for the period from the crucifixion to 1844 was still viable, and that the way into the Most Holy Place was not yet revealed.

Students of Hebrews have put much effort in examining the use of "within the veil" in the Old Testament, and conclude that this phrase points to the second veil. But few have studied it in the light of the all-time efficacy of Christ's atonement. We all agree that the blood of Christ shed in A.D. 31 availed for expiation of Adam's sin as well as for that of the last generation. In fact, the Old Testament Scriptures employ the future, past and present tenses in speaking of the Messiah, for example, Isaiah 53 says, "He shall grow up . . . as a tender plant. . . . He hath no form nor comeliness. . . . He was despised."

In many Scriptures dealing with God's work of redemption, He often regards it as an accomplished fact; for example, "whom He justified, them He also glorified." Romans 8:30. This grand truth should guide us in our study of Hebrews. As far as God is concerned, the atonement rites have been completed, and we "sit with Him in heavenly places." Ephesians 2:6. Hebrews combines this temporal aspect with the eternal, encouraging us to "enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus," meanwhile declaring in the first century, "the way into the holiest is not yet made manifest." The wording, "is not yet made manifest" indicates a withholding of light, for the vision of the 2300 days was yet sealed. Christ would have us appreciate His sovereignty over time. He who is the same yesterday, today, and for ever, was "slain from the foundation of the world," and entered within the veil "before the world began."

David Lin

January 26, 1986

RETURN TO INDEX