Questions on the Sanctuary.
By Uriah Smith
A friend writes us from Fredericksburg, Iowa, that he is thrown into some difficulty in regard to our views by objections raised from an “age-to-come” standpoint; and this, strange to say, by one who keeps the Sabbath. The first difficulty of our friend in reference to our view of a literal sanctuary in Heaven, he states in these words:— “I. Heb. 10:20 calls the vail his flesh. Rev. 1:20 explains that the seven candlesticks are symbols of the seven churches. Now if the sanctuary in Heaven is literal and according to the one built by Moses, why this explanation?” We answer by saying that we do not understand Heb. 10:20 to call the vail his flesh. The verse reads: “By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh.” What is the subject upon which Paul treats in this verse? It is the new and living way which Christ hath consecrated for us. Through what does this way lead? Through the vail. And what is this way which he has provided for us? It is his flesh. Paul’s declaration is that Christ’s flesh is, not the vail, but the new and living way through the vail. And the meaning evidently is that it is by the flesh of Christ, or in other words by the offering which he has provided in the sacrifice of himself, that we are able to enter by faith through the vail into the sanctuary above for the forgiveness of our sins. This is simple and plain. But with the view that his flesh is the vail, the text would be both confused and imperfect; for then we should find Paul speaking of a way through Christ’s flesh which would be an incomprehensible idea; and secondly, we should find him introducing the subject of a new and living way, and then leaving it without telling us what that way is. This is neither like Paul, nor the Holy Spirit by which he wrote. In reference to the candlestick, we think it an entire mistake to regard the seven candlesticks of Rev. 1:12, 13, as the antitype of the candlestick of the sanctuary; for, first, these are seven distinct and separate candlesticks, or lamp stands, as the word here signifies; but the sanctuary candlestick was only one, with seven branches. Secondly. One like the Son of man was seen walking in the midst of the seven candlesticks; but the high priest never walked around amid the seven branches of the one candlestick of the sanctuary. They therefore have no connection with each other. The seven candlesticks are simply introduced as symbols of the seven churches. When we inquire for the antitype of the sanctuary candlestick, we find it in the seven lamps of fire which John saw before the throne. Rev. 4:5. The second difficulty of our friend is the following:— “Again, Heb. 10:12 says, ‘He sat down [past tense] at the right hand of God,’ which must have been in the most holy place. Now if Christ entered the most holy place on his ascension (as these texts plainly imply) the view you hold of the sanctuary and 2300 days is shaken to the foundation. I ask for information. I do not believe in probation in the age to come; but I feel I am in darkness.” There is no work we undertake with greater pleasure than trying to impart information to those who are candidly seeking it. And we would that those who have been laboring to unsettle the mind of our friend, might see from this case the nature of the work in which they are engaged. It is simply leading people into darkness and bondage. It is to obscure, not enlighten. It is to perplex and bewilder, not to encourage and establish upon the truth. It is not gathering with Christ, but scattering abroad. If they dare risk this course till the Judgment, they do so on their own responsibility. In reply to the objection, we answer that we entirely disagree with the conclusion that the expression “at the right hand of God,” means in the most holy place. Stephen said, Acts 7:55, that he saw Heaven opened, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Was this the most holy place? That apartment of the sanctuary was not opened nor anything seen there according to the evidence of the Scriptures, till the seventh trumpet commenced to sound, near the end. Rev. 11:19. Again, our Lord himself said, Matt. 26:64, “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” Is he in the most holy place when he is coming in the clouds of heaven? Yet he is, in that very act, sitting on the right hand of power, or which is obviously the same thing, sitting at the right hand of God. These texts show that this expression, at the right hand of God, simply denotes the position Christ holds in relation to God, as the second in exaltation, power, and glory. But, for the sake of the argument, we will take it in its strictest sense, as there are scriptures, Rev. 3:21; Zech. 6:12, 13, which speak of Christ as actually seated with the Father upon his throne. And this position of course he assumed when he ascended. Still we claim that there is not the least proof in this that when Christ ascended he entered into the most holy place; for God’s throne is not always and immovably in the most holy place. Where is the proof that it is? It will be answered, perhaps, that God is represented as dwelling between the cherubim, which were upon the ark in the most holy place. These expressions are all found in the Old Testament, and have evident reference to the arrangement of the earthly sanctuary. God told Moses that he would meet him from between the two cherubim; and there he manifested his glory. Now suppose that during that period when God communed with mankind through the earthly sanctuary, he ordained to meet them nowhere else but from between the cherubim, would it follow that while in Heaven he must be always in that particular place? This conclusion does not seem at all necessary. The law had a shadow, but not the very image of the things. If it be said that some of these expressions refer to God’s position in Heaven, as the prayer of Hezekiah, 2 Kings 19:15, 16, then it follows that he does not remain fixed in that place; for he left it to come down and communicate with Moses and the elders of Israel. If Ps. 99:1 be referred to, we answer that that verse evidently refers to the time when the earth is to be moved (margin, stagger), or reel to and fro like a drunkard, as Isaiah has it, at the voice of God. Isa. 24:20; Jer. 25:30; Joel 3:16; Rev. 16:17. And at this time his position is between the cherubim in the most holy place, where the priesthood of our Lord then terminates. But even here upon the earth, although the general rule was that God would commune with Moses from between the cherubim, if these were the cherubim of the mercy-seat, he did not always confine himself to that position; for he sometimes met Moses at the door of the tabernacle. Ex. 33:9; Num. 12:5; Deut. 31:15. Finally, the throne of God itself, as it exists in Heaven, is a living, moving throne. Read Ezekiel’s sublime description of this in his first and tenth chapters. Over the heads of living creatures of awful majesty, called cherubim, was the likeness of a firmament, and over that the likeness of a throne, and one above upon it, which the prophet calls “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” In chapter ten he calls it “the living creature that” he “saw under the God of Israel.” Beyond all question, the prophet here had a vision of God in his holy temple. He himself calls it “visions of God.” Chap. 1:2. And this wonderful being, full of eyes and the Spirit of God, is represented as moving about with the Lord of Israel, the Almighty; and the glory of the Lord appeared at times at the threshold of the house, or temple, not always in the most holy place. All these facts and considerations go to show that we are not to conceive of the throne of God as any earthly throne, composed of inert material, but one of awful life and majesty. Nor are we to conceive of it as an immovable structure, but borne up by the living creatures, and in a measure incorporated with them, who have the power to go and return like a flash of lightning. Eze. 1:14. Are not these the cherubim between which God dwells? And were not the cherubim placed upon the mercy seat to represent the fact that these were the foundation of God’s living throne? Whoever, therefore, builds a theory upon the idea that God’s throne is an unmovable structure, and always in the same place, is sure to build an erroneous one. Other points and queries in the communication of our correspondent, we are obliged, for want of time and space, to omit till next week.
U. S.