THE BIBLICAL INSTITUTE

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · May 24, 1877

THE BIBLICAL INSTITUTE.

HELD IN OAKLAND, CAL., APRIL 1–17, 1877.

The following is a synopsis of the lectures presented at this Institute, the aim being to give principal facts, dates and references, with as few words as will serve to connect them. The lessons are not intended to measure the recitations; for instance, the subject of the Sanctuary is presented as one lesson, but two days were occupied with that subject in the class.

CLASS QUESTIONS ON LESSON V. WITH ANSWERS.

(Continued.)

7. Who was mediator between God and man while Christ was upon earth, and especially from the time of his death till the commencement of his ministry in Heaven?

Ans. We understand that Christ has been the mediator between God and man ever since the plan of salvation was devised. Down to the cross the fact of a Redeemer to come was the great fact in reference to which men acted in approaching to God. They signified their faith from Adam to Calvary by the offering of the blood of beasts. Since Calvary the great fact has been a Redeemer already come, in whom we show our faith through the ordinances of the gospel. The time for decision to be made up in any case, with a few exceptions, does not come till the work of atonement in the closing up of the service of the Heavenly sanctuary. And the decision will be rendered in every case according to the faith manifested in that Redeemer, whether before or after Christ, as the evidence shall appear in the record of the books above. And whether or not Christ was in the presence of his Father, at the time such faith was manifested, would be immaterial. Man’s acts of faith would go on record as well while Christ was on earth as while he was in Heaven; as well while he was in the grave, as when among the living; as well at any time before he commenced his work of ministry in Heaven, as after.

8. Was the daily round of service in the tabernacle performed on the day of atonement?

Ans. The daily round of general sacrifices was performed on the day of atonement as upon other days, besides some special general offerings upon that day, as upon other feasts, and besides the specific offering of the atonement. Num. 29:7–11. But while the work of atonement was going forward, the ordinary individual offerings at the door of the sanctuary could not be offered. There was no occasion for these, since all the people were represented in the offering which the priest was presenting in the most holy place. For a person at the same time to be offering at the door of the tabernacle would be to present two different offerings at once, which would be uncalled for, and manifestly improper; and what would be more objectionable still, it would divert to another service the attention which the Lord required all to fix upon the work of atonement.

9. In the first tabernacle God’s glory was manifested between the cherubim over the ark in the most holy place. Can it be inferred from the type that that is also God’s position in the Heavenly sanctuary? But Rev. 4:5 shows us the throne of God in the holy place. How can this be reconciled?

Ans. By not supposing that God or his throne is always confined to the same place or position. We do not understand the Scriptures to teach that the Lord was always in one place. Sometimes he met with Moses at the door of the tabernacle. Ex. 29:43. His throne is represented as a movable living throne. Eze. chapters 1 and 10. When the scene of the cleansing of the sanctuary opened, the Ancient of Days, Jehovah, took a position which he had not before occupied. Dan. 7:9. On the change of ministration from the holy into the most holy place, God’s throne was evidently moved from the one to the other.

10. How can Christ be a sanctuary, and at the same time be administering as high priest in the same. Eze. 11:16; Isa. 8:14?

Ans. These texts can have no reference to the sanctuary in Heaven. They do not say that Christ should be the sanctuary, but “as a sanctuary,” and “for a sanctuary.” The word sanctuary is sometimes used to signify a place of refuge and defense. And Christ would be such to his people, while dispersed through the land of their captivity. But the word rendered sanctuary in the texts referred to is not hagion, the word used to describe the sanctuary of worship, both as type and antitype, but hagiasma, a sacred or consecrated place.

11. Please give an explanation of the original of Rom. 3:25. How can Christ be said to be the mercy-seat?

Ans. He cannot. Those who make this assertion from Rom. 3:25, as some of our opponents do, are simply misled by their ignorance of the language they try to handle. There is a neuter Greek noun, hilasterion, which means mercy-seat. There is another in the masculine gender, hilasterios, which means “one who makes expiation, a propitiator, or propitiatory sacrifice.” In the accusative singular this latter word takes the same form as the other, hilasterion. The construction of Rom. 3:25 demands the use of the accusative case; and hence, this masculine noun being of the same form as the neuter noun, our friends have mistaken it for the neuter noun, and declare that Christ is the mercy-seat. They think thereby to break down the idea of the antitypical sanctuary, held by S. D. Adventists. But their attempt is wholly abortive; for the word is the masculine noun hilasterios, and means, a propitiator, or one who makes expiation.

12. Rom. 5:11. What does Paul mean by saying, “We have now received the atonement,” when the atonement did not begin until 1844? This is urged as an objection against our views of the Heavenly sanctuary.

Ans. The whole difficulty lies in giving a wrong meaning to the word there rendered atonement. The word is katallagee, and simply means “reconciliation, restoration to favor,” never atonement. The words used in the Old Testament for atonement are exilasis, exilasmos, and the verbs, exilaskomai, and exilaeo. Reconciliation the church has all along received through Christ; but we receive the atonement only when it is made as the closing service of our Lord in the sanctuary above.

13. Is the antitypical table of show-bread in the Heavenly sanctuary? What was it designed to typify?

Ans. Inasmuch as the candlestick and altar of incense were seen in the Heavenly sanctuary, it would seem fair to infer that the table was not lacking though it seems nowhere to be brought directly to view. Its significance as a type may be perhaps inferred in a measure from its use in the earthly sanctuary. Bread was kept upon it before the Lord, a loaf for each tribe. New fresh loaves were placed upon the table every Sabbath, and the old were to be eaten by the priests in the holy place. The other instruments symbolized channels through which the blessings of the Lord come to us; as the candlestick, the Spirit of God; the altar of incense, the acceptance of our prayers with God; the mercy-seat, the way of pardon and peace; and when it is said in the Scriptures that man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord, does it not bring to view that which may fitly be illustrated by the show-bread which the priests were to eat. Does it not represent these words of the Lord by which we live, his grace and favor which continually sustain us? In the absence of positive testimony it becomes no one to do more than suggest; and these remarks are offered only as such.