Old Errors Revived by William Ambrose Spicer

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 10, 1910

Old Errors Revived

By William Ambrose Spicer

CHRISTENDOM is filling in the prophetic outline of the second of Isaiah. The “many people” are talking of exulting the Lord’s house to the mountain tops of national favor and support; and while the war-clouds are gathering, there is talk of coming peace, and of beating swords into plowshares, as the prophet said. Verses 2-4.

More and more, also, we see Christendom being “replenished from the East.” Verse 6. The old Eastern philosophies are coloring religious thought everywhere. A Buddhist writer, noting this, says of the Eastern doctrine, “Its thoughts are stealing unseen through the whole West.”

The Word of God gives the warning for these times when old errors are reviving under new forms; and in the definite advent message and movement we have the Lord’s answer to the delusions of the last days. A striking word, just in harmony with the Scripture warnings, was spoken by the spirit of prophecy fifteen or more years ago:—

Prophecies are being fulfilled, and stormy times are before us. Old controversies, which have apparently been hushed for a long time, will be revived, and new controversies will spring up; new and old will commingle, and this will take place right early.

It is more than interesting, it is highly instructive as well, to note how errors that have come in recent years to test and try us, and to draw away unwary or self-confident souls, are but a revival of errors that were met in the early days of the advent movement.

That spiritualistic philosophy of God in the tree and in the grass, that we heard much of a few years ago, was also abroad in the early days. In the REVIEW of March 2, 1852, a Brother Patten and wife recorded their return to the faith after a sad experience with error and apostasy. They wrote:—

In short, the fire of Spiritualism soon burned up the person of Jesus, the heavenly Jerusalem, and all the glories of heaven. We began to talk about God and heaven in us.

And in those times Elder James White wrote down the unscriptural character of the pantheistic doctrine in vigorous words, as in the following (from the REVIEW of June 18, 1861):—

God is in heaven. This we are taught in the Lord’s prayer: “Our Father, which art in heaven.” But if God, who is in heaven, is as much in every place as he is in any one place, then heaven is also as much in every place as it is in any one place, and the idea of going to heaven is all a mistake. We are all in heaven. And the Lord’s prayer, according to this foggy theology, simply means, Our Father, which art everywhere, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is everywhere.

Another unscriptural teaching that has in recent years led some out of the truth into a confused mysticism, is based on the idea that Christ, at his ascension, took up his priestly ministry in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. This has been one of the ideas of popular theology, set forth by commentators who do not understand the truths of the sanctuary and its cleansing. It is not strange that such should err in the matter; but it is sad that any who have ever known the way of the sanctuary truth, in the light of fulfilling prophecy in the advent movement, should be led astray by such a doctrine.

In the earliest days of our work the brethren were meeting this error by the clear Word of God. In fact, in Volume I, of the Advent Review—the paper that preceded this REVIEW AND HERALD—was reprinted an article by O. R. L. Crosier, himself a First-day Adventist, dealing with the common First-day Adventist idea, that Christ entered the most holy on his ascension. Their argument was based on the Authorized Version of Heb. 9:8, “the holiest of all,” and on Heb. 6:19, “within the veil.” That old-time article said of these scriptures:—

The word in chapter 9:8 [and] 10:19, is hagion, “of the holies,” instead of the “holiest of all;” and shows that the blood of Christ is the way, or means, by which he, as our High Priest, was to enter both apartments of the heavenly tabernacle. Now if there be but one place in the heavens, as many say, why were there two in the figure? And why, in applying the figure, does Paul speak of two? Perhaps those who “despise the law” and “corrupt the covenant of Levi” can explain this; if not, we advise them to abide by Paul’s exposition of the matter.

Chapter 6:19, 20, is supposed to prove that Christ entered the holy of holies at his ascension, because Paul said he had entered within the veil. But the veil which divides between the holy and the holy of holies is “the second veil” (chapter 9:3); hence there are two veils, and that in chapter 6, being the first of which he speaks, must be the first veil, which hung before the holy, and in Exodus was called a curtain. [In the Greek Septuagint of Ex. 26:37 it is called the same as in Heb. 6:19.] When he entered “within the veil, he entered his tabernacle, of course the holy, as that was the first apartment; and our hope, as an anchor of the soul, enters within the veil, i. e., the atonement of both apartments, including both the forgiveness and the blotting out of sins.

Whether Heb. 9:8 is rendered “holy place,” as by the American Standard Revision, or “holy places,” as by other translators, one thing is undebatably sure,—no one can limit the reference to the “most holy.” And all these chapters show that the apostle is writing of Christ’s full ministry in the two apartments of the heavenly sanctuary, then present and future, from the time when he entered upon it with his own shed blood to the end, when he comes “the second time without sin unto salvation.”

In interpreting the phrase “within the veil,” in Heb. 6:19, advocates of this theory have insisted that it must mean within the second veil; whereas Heb. 9:3 shows that when Inspiration in the book of Hebrews wishes to specify the second veil, it says “second veil.” No one can arbitrarily add “second” where Inspiration refuses to say it. Moreover, in this sixth of Hebrews the context does not suggest any distinction as between the antitypical ministries in the two apartments, but rather the whole priestly service of our Advocate, who entered heaven for us, veiled from mortal eyes, just as the earthly priest, in his daily and yearly ministry, entered the sanctuary through the first veil, and was veiled from the eyes of the congregation without.

This old Advent Review reprint went on to point out the fact that when the high priest entered the second apartment of the typical sanctuary, it was the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary. Therefore, to infer that Christ entered upon the antitypical ministry of the most holy place at his ascension, is necessarily to assert that the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary began at his ascension. And this is utterly to contradict the great historic prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, “Unto two thousand and three hundred hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

Again and again in our earlier days these ideas were shown to be unscriptural. In the REVIEW of July 7, 1853, Elder J. N. Andrews reviewed an argument in a First-day Adventist paper to the effect that Christ’s ministry in the first apartment of the heavenly was before the first advent, and that on his ascension he entered upon his ministry in the most holy place. After showing that the theory was mainly based on

a mistranslation of Heb. 9:8, Elder Andrews wrote:—

The typical dispensation had an earthly tabernacle with two holy places, and a ministration in both those holy places. That tabernacle was the pattern of one in heaven, consisting also of real holy places; and that ministration in those holy places was “the example and shadow” of Christ’s more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle of God. Now there is not the smallest ground for question—that we can see—as to the point when the sanctuary of the first covenant was superseded by that of the new, and the ministration of the one sanctuary done away by the existence of the more excellent ministry in the other. Heb. 9:1-12; 8:1-5. Now we ask, in view of these facts, On what principle is the fulfilment of a large part of the shadow of good things to come, located in the very period of that shadow? On what principle of interpretation can it be shown that the antitype of the daily ministration existed contemporary with that type, and ceased with it?

One of three positions seems to be before the Herald: (1) To say that the ministration in the first apartment typified nothing; or (2) to say that it met its antitype contemporary with its existence as a type; or (3) to say, with us, that the shadow of good things to come, as presented in the ministration of the two holy places, must meet its antitype, since our High Priest has become a minister of those good things to come in the greater and more perfect tabernacle. The first of these positions charges God with folly. The second involves the absurdity of making the type and antitype exist parallel with each other. The third view, we believe, is consistent with itself, and in harmony with the whole Bible. . . .

The next argument of the Herald is drawn from verses 25, 26: “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with 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.” From this text, the Herald argues that Christ at his ascension became the antitype of the priest in entering the holiest. To this we answer that instead of the ministration in the second apartment, it is the yearly round of ministration in both apartments that Paul here places in contrast with the work of Christ in the true tabernacle. In verse 24, the holy places (plural) are set in contrast with the true holy places. In verse 25, where Paul contrasts the work in the typical tabernacle with that in the true, the same word, holy places, plural, is used, though in our version it stands in the singular. But Macknight and the Douay Bible both give it in the plural. It follows, therefore, that it is the yearly round in the two holy places, as in chapter 10:1, and not the work in the holiest, merely, that Paul thus places in contrast with the work of our Lord in the true tabernacle. This shows that the antitype of the work in both the holy places is to be found in the work of our Lord since his ascension. The two holy places (verse 24) have corresponding holy places in the true tabernacle. The work in the typical holy places (verse 25) has its corresponding work in the true holy places. The work in the earthly tabernacle was repeated once a year. But our great Sacrifice is slain once for all, and once for all completes his round of ministration in the true tabernacle.

Thus, as we turn over the records of the early days of the message, we see our brethren wielding the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God, against the same errors that now and then reappear in our own time, with variations. Old errors are being revived, and new controversies will arise. If such did not appear, there would be lacking one of the signs that show that we have reached the time of shaking and of the latter rain. But that time has come. And the definite advent message, which rose when the hour of the cleansing of the sanctuary came, according to the “sure word of prophecy,” goes speeding on its way with light and joy and saving power for all who heed it. W. A. S.