THE ANTITYPICAL TABERNACLE by John Nevins Andrews

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Aug 28, 1853

"THE ANTITYPICAL TABERNACLE."

By John Nevins Andrews

THE Advent Herald of July 30th has another article on this subject. It is written in reply to the remarks in the ADVENT REVIEW of July 7th, on their previous article. As the REVIEW gave the article of the Herald entire, we entertained the hope that the Herald in replying to us, would give its readers some general idea, at least, of the arguments of the REVIEW. But in this we are much disappointed.—We are glad, however, that the Herald keeps this subject before its readers, as we trust that it will call the attention of some, at least, to the investigation of this question.

The Herald begins by declining the discussion respecting a literal tabernacle in heaven of which the Jewish was a copy. It says:

"We shall spend no time in the discussion of that question, because it is not material to the question at issue, and because the application of the scriptures quoted to sustain it, shows a want of knowledge of the nature and laws of symbols and tropes to which violence is thus done. The point at issue is whether Heb. ix teaches that Christ had entered on the work typified by the services of the inner apartment of the Jewish tabernacle; or whether it was on that only which was symbolized by the outer."

We will not call in question the sincerity of the writer, but the truthfulness of these remarks we are compelled to deny. We deny the violation of the "laws of symbols and tropes" in proving the existence of a literal temple of God in heaven. As proof on that point we presented without comment seven texts of scripture, from Revelation, Psalms and Hebrews. The texts from Revelation are the only ones where we could violate the laws of symbols, as the Psalm from which we quoted, and the book of Hebrews are not symbolic visions. We were not ignorant of the fact that Bro. Bliss, in applying the laws of symbols to the book of Revelation, explains the tabernacle in heaven to be heaven itself; and the New Jerusalem, which contains the throne of God and the Lamb, and the river and tree of life, he explains to be "the redeemed Church." Now we have no complaint to make against the acknowledged laws of symbols; we only claim that in these cases, Bro. B. has misapplied them. We suppose that the Herald in charging us with the violation of the laws of symbols, reasoned on this wise: "All agents or objects seen in symbolic visions are symbols;" the book of Revelation is a symbolic vision; therefore the temple in heaven seen by John must be a symbol.

The reader will perceive at once that this same argument will prove that the Lord Jesus Christ, [Rev. i, 12-18,] the throne of God with him who sits upon it, [Rev. v, 2, 3,] the whole company of the redeemed before the throne, with all the angelic host, [Rev. vii, 9-12,] the new heavens and new earth, and the river and tree of life, [Rev. xxi; xxii,] are all symbols.—All these objects are proved to be symbols by the same argument that proves the temple in heaven a symbol. Another admitted law of symbols will, however, explain all that is difficult on this point. It is this: "Symbols that are of such a nature, station or relation, that there is nothing of an analogous kind that they can represent, symbolize agents, objects, acts, or events of their own kind. Example, Dan. vii, 9." This law of symbols fully justifies us in believing that the representation of the temple in heaven, and of the New Jerusalem, and of the new earth, were symbols or representations of these glorious objects.

But we are not left to doubtful conclusions on this subject. That there will be a literal new heavens and new earth, as shown to John, is proved in the most positive manner by another Apostle, who certainly is not using symbolical language. I refer to him who said, "The heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." 2 Pet. iii, 12, 13. We will say the same respecting the New Jerusalem. The book of Hebrews, which is not a symbolic vision, proves that there is a literal city for the saints. Chap. xi, 10. "For he [Abraham] looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." Surely this is a real city. Verse 16. "But now they desire a better

country, that is, an heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city." Chap. xii, 22, testifies that this city is the heavenly Jerusalem. We reject the view, therefore, that the New Jerusalem, which John saw, was a symbol of the redeemed saints, and believe it to be a faithful representation of that beloved city.

The book of Hebrews bears equally decisive testimony respecting the existence of the greater and more perfect tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. Chap. ix, 11, 12; viii, 1-5. And the existence of the temple in heaven being established, we are constrained to believe that when John saw that temple with its ark, its censer and its altar, he had a just representation of that building of which Moses erected a pattern. The testimony of the book of Hebrews cannot be set aside as symbolic. But Bro. Bliss claims that the word "tabernacle" in Chap. viii, 2; ix, 11, and the word "pattern," in Chap. viii, 5; ix, 23, are metaphors. It is because we receive these words literally and not as metaphors that Bro. B. accuses us of having violated the laws of tropes. But we think that the REVIEW of July 7th clearly proves that the Herald has no ground for calling these words metaphors. If there is any farther evidence that these words are metaphors, we kindly invite the Herald to present it. If not we shall be constrained to receive these statements in their literal import. To us, there would be greater propriety in calling the tabernacle which Moses erected, a metaphor, than in calling that a metaphor which Paul says was greater and more perfect, and built by God himself.

But the Herald thinks that the existence of a literal tabernacle in heaven, consisting of two holy places like the Jewish tabernacle, is not material to the question at issue; that is, it has no connection with the time of Christ's entrance into the holiest. The existence of a tabernacle in heaven consisting of two holy places, and the fact of Christ's ministration in those holy places, after the "example" of the Levitical priests in the earthly holy places, [Heb. viii, 5; ix, 1-7,] is actually all that has ever been claimed by the REVIEW. It was because that the whole frame-work of the Herald's argument rested upon the denial of this doctrine, that this part of the subject was taken up at length in the REVIEW of July 7th. We think that the unsoundness of the Herald's position on this point, was clearly shown in that paper; and we deeply regret that they did not either acknowledge the point or else show us our error. Its reasons for declining the discussion of this part of the question, we have here seen to be not valid. If the Herald will show just reasons for denying the existence of the temple of God in heaven, we will not prolong the discussion of this subject.

After declining the discussion of this part of the subject, the Herald re-states its former argument from Heb. ix and x, in proof that Christ began to minister in the holiest at his ascension. As we gave this argument entire, with a reply appended to each point, in the REVIEW of July 7th, we will not occupy space in presenting it a second time. But though our brethren of the Herald thus carefully state their own argument the second time, they omit every argument presented by the REVIEW in reply, with the exception of a single item, viz: the fact that the word rendered "holiest of all" in Heb. ix, 8, is plural, literally signifying holy places. On this the Herald says:

"Admitting that point, it would still be true that when the Jewish tabernacle ceased to be significant, Christ would have entered into whatever the holy places signified, and therefore into that typified by the second as well as by the first."

We think the Herald draws very hasty conclusions from this text. Admitting this literal translation of the word, it would then follow that the two holy places of "the pattern" had corresponding holy places in the true tabernacle. And that the continuance of the "figure" or "pattern" through the typical dispensation, signified that the way of the true holy places was not yet manifested. The statement of Paul does not prove that the Lord Jesus began to fulfill the work in both apartments at the same time. On the contrary, it is in perfect accordance with his own statement in another place, viz: that the priests in their ministration in the two holy places of the pattern, served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things; that is, of Christ's more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle.

The Herald presents in conclusion the criticism of a correspondent on the word rendered "holiest of all" in Heb. ix and x. The writer says:

"In Heb. ix, 3, 8, 12, 24, 25; and x, 19 and xiii, 11, the plural of hagion is used in some one of its cases. To build a hypothesis on the use of this plural form in these cases, though it must, according to the usage of our own language, imply more than one object, will appear ridiculous to any one who is at all familiar with Hebrew, or with any of its cognate dialects, as Chaldnic or Syriac."

The reason assigned is that "the Hebrew has a plural of excellence applied to objects that in their nature are singular." And that in the Septuagint and New Testament Greek, this Hebrew usage is followed in many instances. The writer cites Lev. xxi, 22, as an instance in which this plural of excellence, is in the original applied to each of the holy places. But he also shows that in other cases they are written in the singular as in English.

The writer of this criticism labored under a mistake in supposing that the view of Christ's ministration in the two holy places of the heavenly Sanctuary, grew out of the fact that the word hagion in Heb. ix, 8, is plural, literally signifying holy places. This is a mere item among many important facts on which our faith is based. The fact that the Herald, in replying to us, based its main argument on the expression "holiest of all" in Heb. ix and x, made it perfectly proper that we should name the fact that the word is plural, simply signifying holy places, and that these texts are, therefore, in perfect harmony with the plain statements which we argue in behalf of our faith. But we are willing to receive with all candor, the facts presented in this criticism. We inquire then, does this criticism furnish a very firm foundation for the Herald's argument? The facts being given us by this writer, we may be allowed to judge of the amount of support which they furnish the Herald.—We will state the matter in few words, requesting the reader to observe the amount of argument presented.

1. In Hebrew and Greek, a plural of excellence is sometimes applied to each of the holy places.

2. Therefore the plural used in Heb. ix, 8, must be the plural of excellence, and a single apartment is all that is designated.

3. That single apartment is certainly the holiest. Does the fact named in the first statement, prove the points named in the second and third? By no means. All that can be claimed is, that in view of the fact named in the first statement, the second and third might perhaps be true. The second statement is pure assumption, but if we could add as a fact the second statement to the fact named in the first, the third statement would not even then be proved. Can this syllogism fortify the Herald with an invincible argument? We think not.

But let us look at this matter still further. If any proof could be presented that a single apartment was all that Heb. ix, 8, designated, there would then be some reason to suppose that a plural of excellence is used in that text. But the reader will notice that in this text the word is used to designate the antitype of the two holy places, named in the six verses preceding; and that it evidently signifies the same as the greater and more perfect tabernacle named in verse 11.—Hence there is perfect propriety in believing that the whole building of the temple in heaven—the true holy places—is here designated.

Doubtless the writer of the criticism knows whereof he affirms respecting "the plural of excellence."—But in citing Lev. xxi, 22, as an instance, "perfectly decisive," in which it is applied to each of the holy places of the earthly tabernacle, he has made an unfortunate selection; the reference there being not to the holy places of the tabernacle, but to the fact that a priest in whom was a blemish, should not be allowed "to offer the bread of his God," but yet should be allowed to eat that bread, both of the holy and the most holy. With regard to this bread consult Lev. ii, 1-3, 10; vi, 14-18; xxiv, 5-9; xxii, 10-12. No bread pertained to, or was offered in, the most holy place.

In conclusion, we present for consideration, some of the leading facts on which our faith is based.

1. The Bible many times names the tabernacle, temple, or sanctuary, in heaven; we therefore believe that such a building exists. Heb. viii, 1, 2; Ps. cii, 19; Jer. xvii, 12; Ps. xi, 4; Isa. vi, 1-6; Rev. xv, 5-8; 2 Sam. xxii, 7; Ps. xviii, 6; Rev. vii, 15; xi, 19; xiii, 6; xiv, 15, 17; xvi, 1, 17; Heb. ix, 11.

2. The Bible repeatedly testifies that the earthly sanctuary which consisted of two holy places [Ex. xxvi, 33; Heb. ix, 1-5,] was made by Moses in strict accordance with the pattern showed to him in the mount; [Ex. xxv, 8, 9, 40; xxvi, 30-33; Acts vii, 44,] which pattern was a representation of the heavenly sanctuary itself. Heb. viii, 1-5; ix, 23. We therefore believe that the heavenly tabernacle consists of holy places also; and to this agrees the fact that the word rendered "Sanctuary" in Heb. viii, 3, and "holiest of all" in Chap. ix, 8; x, 19, is plural, literally signifying holy places.

3. The Bible testifies that the holy places made with hands are "the figures of the true," in the greater and more perfect tabernacle. Heb. ix, 11, 12, 23, 24. We therefore feel compelled to reject the view that the two apartments of the Jewish tabernacle were the figures of two dispensations, and believe that they represent corresponding holy places in the true tabernacle.

4. The Bible testifies that the ministration in the earthly tabernacle—the yearly round of service in its two apartments—was the shadow of good things to come; [Heb. x, 1;] and that that shadow continued till the death of Christ. Col. ii, 14-17. We therefore reject the view that locates the antitype of the ministration in the first apartment, before the death of Jesus, in the period of the shadow itself, and believe that the antitype of the service in both apartments belongs to the period in which our Lord is the High Priest of good things to come, which were shadowed forth by that ministration. Heb. ix, 11. In other words, the holy places of the worldly sanctuary, and the ministration therein belong to the shadow; the true holy places, and the ministration in them belong to the good things to come. The death of Jesus is the dividing point between the two.—Hence the antitype of the service in both apartments belongs to the gospel dispensation.

5. The Bible further testifies that the Levitical priests ministered first in the holy place, and second, in the holiest of all, [Heb. ix, 6, 7,] their final act being the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Lev. xvi. And it further declares that this round of service is the "example" of Christ's more excellent ministry in the true tabernacle. Heb. viii, 5. Webster defines the word "example" thus:

"A pattern; a copy; a model; that which is proposed to be imitated. A pattern in morals or manners; a copy, or model; that which is proposed, or is proper to be imitated. 'I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.'—John xiii."

We therefore believe that the Lord Jesus must perform his ministration in each of the holy places in the order of that service which Paul has called an example, as well as a shadow of Christ's more excellent ministry. In other words, his ministry must commence in the first apartment of the heavenly tabernacle, and end with the cleansing of the Sanctuary in the holiest of all. Heb. ix, 23; Dan. viii, 15; Rev. xi, 19.

The Herald exactly reverses the example, and teaches that Christ at his ascension entered into the holiest and began his work by cleansing the Sanctuary. We kindly, but urgently invite its conductors to re-examine this subject, and either to point out our error, or to acknowledge their own. J. N. ANDREWS.