Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Jul 7, 1853
THE ANTITYPICAL TABERNACLE.
By J. N. Andrews
EVERY ordinance under the law had a significance, by which the Holy Ghost communicated important truths. And it is not improbable that the inspired teachers of the Jewish dispensation comprehended their meaning, as well as Paul who wrote at a later period. Whether they did, or not, is however foreign to the question under consideration.
The "Sabbath Herald," has become not a little mystified respecting the significance of the Jewish Tabernacle; but as it exhibits a great appearance of sincerity in its reasonings we are not indisposed to show wherein, in our opinion, it has misconceived the subject.
The Jewish "Tabernacle" and "vessels of the ministry," are called by Paul, "the patterns of things in the heavens." Because the Jewish Tabernacle had its two apartments—the first called the "Sanctuary," (Heb. 9:1,) and after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the "Holiest of all," (Ib. 9:3,)—our Sabbath friends argue that "the heavenly things themselves" are comprised in two corresponding apartments; and they claim that at CHRIST's death, he entered into the first, and that he has within a few years gone into the second, to fulfill the counterpart of the inner Tabernacle.
We do not know just how material their views are of heaven; or whether their idea of a pattern leads them to believe that in heaven there are places thus curtained off; but their mode of speaking of these things makes them open to such suggestions. Therefore we will first explain what we understand by the earthly things being patterns of the heavenly.
They are not "patterns" in the sense in which one machine is modeled after another. If the word was used in that sense, the things in the heavens would be fac similes of those on earth, and would in no respect take precedence of them. The word used is a metaphor, and conveys a corresponding meaning. The Jewish Tabernacle was a figure of the true; and by its observances were prefigured important truths connected with man's salvation. The ceremonies of the law, taught by a figure how man might approach to GOD and be saved. By the blood shed, was brought to view the shedding of the blood of CHRIST which was to take away sin. And by the Tabernacle, the place of these observances, was typified, heaven, the place where CHRIST after he had offered himself, was to sit down at the Father's right hand to make intercession for sinners. (NOTE 1.)
The peculiarity of the Tabernacle in consisting of two apartments, was not without its significance:—"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."—Heb. 9:6, 7. The distinction in the time and manner of the service in the two apartments teaches important lessons, if we may comprehend them. As the services of each, teach how we may have access to GOD, the two show that at one time man may approach in a manner different from what he might at a former time. We shall now proceed to show that at the death and ascension of CHRIST was fulfilled the significance of the "Holiest of all;" (v. 3d;) whence it follows that the worldly sanctuary, the services of the first apartment, signified as the way of approach to GOD during the period anterior to his death. (NOTE 2.)
The way of salvation has been one in all ages, with this difference: Before the offering of the Great Sacrifice, the saints relied on a work to be done; since then, they trust in a work already accomplished. A way into the holiest of all was to be made manifest by the death and ascension of CHRIST: "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing."—Heb. 9:8. (NOTE 3.)
Previous to its manifestation, they approached GOD in expectation of it. As the priest at all times went into the first apartment of the tabernacle, so could the saints at all times approach GOD; but his going occasionally into the inner tabernacle, signified that there was to be a work performed in heaven, which should enable man to approach GOD in a more perfect manner. (NOTE 4.)
There can be nothing more holy than the "holiest of all," and CHRIST's going into the holiest of all in heaven, can be typified only by the priests going into the holiest of all in the inner sanctuary. To typify it by the first apartment, is to set aside all consistency in the use of types. (NOTE 5.) And that CHRIST did go into the holiest of all, on his ascension, and not into some inferior relation to GOD, is expressly affirmed by the apostle: "CHRIST being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Heb. 9:11, 12. (NOTE 6.) "For CHRIST is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself were to appear in the presence of GOD for us."—Ib.v. 24th.
The presence of GOD was symbolized by the cloud over the mercy-seat, between the cherubims in the inner tabernacle; consequently when it is affirmed that CHRIST does now appear in the presence of GOD for us, it affirms that he is where the service of the inner tabernacle signified his presence. (NOTE 7.)—And this is farther shown by verses 25th and 26th, where the holy place where he has entered, is particularly contrasted with that where the high priest entered once a year. He entered into heaven, not "that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the 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." He has done all that was typified by the yearly acts of the high priest. (NOTE 8.) And because of this,—because he hath consecrated for us a new and living way "through the veil," which closed the inner tabernacle, we may have "boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus."—Heb. 10:19, 20. (NOTE 9.)
"Seeing then that we have a great High Priest, that is passed into the heavens, JESUS the Son of GOD, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. 4:14–16. If our Sabbath brethren are correct, then Paul was entirely mistaken in supposing that the way into the holiest of all had been made manifest. But it is because it was then manifested that we may hope for salvation.
When the Jewish high priest had gone in with a sin-offering and finished his work in the inner tabernacle, his final act was to come out and bless the waiting congregation. This only is future in the antitype. "This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of GOD; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified."—Heb. 10:14. "As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so CHRIST was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him he shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation."—Ib. 9:27, 28.
Nothing can be more clear and positive than the teachings of the apostle respecting the work which CHRIST came to accomplish. It was nothing less than the entire fulfillment of the things signified by the inner tabernacle—the outer, being the way in which before that time man might approach his Maker. (NOTE 10.)
NOTE 1. We are gratified to see that the Herald is pursuing the investigation of the Sanctuary subject. We believe that good can hardly fail to result from a serious and attentive examination of the important truths embraced in this subject. We thank the conductors of the Herald for attempting, in a kind manner, to point out what they consider our error, and we beg them to listen with candor while we reply. The position and reasoning of the Herald, may, we believe, be correctly stated thus, in short: 1. There is no literal tabernacle of God in heaven; but heaven itself is the antitypical tabernacle. 2. Therefore there is no temple "curtained off" there, while heaven being the tabernacle of God. 3. Hence there cannot be two "holy places" in which our High Priest should minister for us. 4. Consequently our High Priest entered the only place of his ministeration when he ascended; and, therefore, when it is said that the earthly tabernacle with its two apartments and the sacred vessels of the tabernacle were patterns of things in the heavens, the statement must be metaphorical, and cannot be literally true; for there are no such things there. 5. Finally, from all this it follows that the doctrine that Christ began to minister at his ascension in the first apartment of the heavenly Sanctuary, and in the second apartment at the end of the 2300 days, must be erroneous.—We believe that we have not misstated the position of the Herald—the reader can judge—and we will now take up its arguments separately as the notes are appended.
The root of the error into which our friends of the Herald have fallen, is found in the closing sentence of the paragraph to which this note is appended. The sentiment to which we refer is this, namely: that there is no literal tabernacle of God in heaven. "By the tabernacle," says the Herald, "was typified heaven." Here is the point, then, where we separate, namely: whether the temple of God where our High Priest ministers is a real temple in heaven, or heaven itself. Let the error be on either side, here is the point where it commences. If we establish the fact of the existence of a real temple in heaven, then we shall have proved that the Herald, in denying it, has taken the first step in error, itself. We invite attention to the following testimony:26
Rev. xi, 19. "And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament."
Rev. xiv, 17. "And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven."
Rev. xv, 5. "And after that I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened."
Rev. xvi, 17. "And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done."
Ps. xi, 4. "The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in heaven."
Heb. ix, 11, 12. "But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
Heb. viii, 1, 2. "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens: a minister of the Sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man."
Other testimony might be adduced, but we regard this as amply sufficient. If these texts can be set aside, any number of similar texts could, also, be explained away. Our views of heaven are sufficiently "material" to enable us to credit these testimonies. If the Herald admits the existence of a real temple in heaven, one that can be "opened" to use the Bible expression, then it believes in a place "curtained off" in heaven, as really as ourselves; but if it denies the existence of such a temple, then it contradicts a multitude of plain testimonies. As we have clearly proved that there is a greater and more perfect tabernacle in heaven, we now respectfully represent that it is the Herald that "has become not a little mystified," and not ourselves.
There is a literal temple in heaven, or there is not. If there is a literal temple there, then we are correct in believing that when Moses was commanded to construct the earthly tabernacle and its sacred vessels according to the pattern of that true tabernacle, it meant just what it plainly imported, namely: that he should make the earthly, as near like the one that had been showed to him, as an earthly object could be made like a heavenly one. On the other hand, if there is no literal temple in heaven, then the word "pattern" must be a metaphor, indeed, for it would be hard to construct an edifice, the model of one that did not exist, or to construct a model of heaven itself. But we have proved that God has a real tabernacle in heaven; consequently when it is stated that Moses made a tabernacle after that pattern, we understand that he actually made it like that building.
But the Herald says, that if the word, pattern, be understood in the sense of a model, then the heavenly things "would in no respect take precedence" of the earthly. We marvel that it should make such a statement. Could I not possess a correct pattern of Bunker hill monument, so small that it could sit on the table before me, so cheap that it could be purchased for a few shillings, and so frail that a fall to the floor would be its ruin? Might not a pattern of the house which you occupy be so correctly constructed that it would exhibit an accurate and just view of that building, and yet be no approach to it in size, beauty or value? Finally, might not Moses, with the Lord to help him, be able to construct a just model of the true tabernacle, and yet that true tabernacle be far greater, more perfect and glorious than the tabernacle, of Moses? The answer to this is obvious.
NOTE 2. The Herald thinks that in understanding the two holy places in the pattern to have corresponding holy places in the true tabernacle, we are entirely mistaken. The true view according to that paper is this: The two apartments signify the two dispensations; the first apartment representing the Mosaic dispensation; the second, signifying the Christian. There is quite a difference here, certainly, and either the Herald or ourselves are here "not a little mystified." The position of the Herald is, however, in this respect quite consistent with itself: for if there is no temple of God in heaven, then it is very evident that there can be no literal holy places there, the counter-part of those in the earthly tabernacle. But the existence of a real temple in heaven being established by plain statements of the Scriptures, it follows that the starting point of the Herald is wrong, and its reason for calling the word pattern, a metaphor, entirely disproved. We will now present some of our reasons for believing that that real temple in heaven has two holy places. If we make this fact plain, we have disproved the Herald's second point.—The following testimony on this point is conclusive. We gather it from the Old and New Testaments, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
1. The tabernacle erected by Moses, after a forty days inspection of the one showed to him in the Mount, and under the strict charge to "make it according to the fashion that he had seen," [Acts vii, 44,] consisted of two holy places, [Ex. xxvi, 33,] and is declared to be a correct pattern or model of that building. Ex. xxv, 8, 9, 40, compared with chapter xxxix, 32–43. That the pattern showed to Moses was a representation of the heavenly Sanctuary, see Heb. viii, 1–5. But if the earthly Sanctuary consisted of two holy places, and the great original from which it was copied consisted of only one, instead of likeness there would be perfect dissimilarity. 2. The temple was built in every respect according to the pattern which God gave to David by the Spirit. 1 Chron. xxviii, 10–19. As the language of the Apocrypha, in repeating this sentiment, is quite remarkable, we quote it. "Thou hast commanded me [Solomon] to build a temple upon thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest, a resemblance of the holy tabernacle, which thou hast prepared from the beginning." Wisdom of Solomon ix, 8. The temple was built on a larger, and a scale more grand than the tabernacle; but its distinguishing feature, like the tabernacle, consisted in the fact that it was composed of two holy places. 1 Kings iv; 2 Chron. iii. This is clear proof that the heavenly tabernacle contains the same.
3. Paul plainly states that "the holy places [plural] made with hands" "are the figures [plural] of the true;" or as Macknight renders it, "the holy places made with hands, the images of the true holy places." The Apostle, also, testifies that the tabernacle and its sacred vessels are "patterns of things in the heavens." Heb. ix, 23, 24. This is direct evidence that in the greater and more perfect tabernacle there are two holy places, even as in the "figure," "pattern" or "image." 4. The Apostle actually uses the word holies, [plural,] in speaking of the heavenly Sanctuary. The expression in Heb. ix, 8; x, 19, is not "holy of holies" as in Heb. ix, 3, which is "hagia, hagion"; but is simply, "hagion" holy places. It is the same word that is rendered Sanctuary in Heb. viii, 2. In each of these three texts, [Heb. viii, 2; ix, 8; x, 19,] Macknight renders the word "holy places." The Douay Bible renders it "the holies." The heavenly Sanctuary consists of two "holy places." Consequently the Herald is incorrect, also, in its second position. It reasons ingeniously, but not well. No real temple in heaven, no real holy places in a temple there. These are its premises, and no wonder that it should conclude that the word pattern was a metaphor; or that the two holy places of the earthly tabernacle, were the figures of the two dispensations. But we have shown that its premises are false; and however carefully it may reason, its conclusions must be erroneous also.
NOTE 3. The paragraph to which this note is attached, further lays open the argument of the Herald, which is on this wise: Our Lord at his ascension began his ministration in the holiest; wherefore, it follows that the ministration in the first apartment must have met its antitype before the death of our Lord; and hence, the ministration in the two apartments of the earthly tabernacle signifies the Mosaic and Gospel dispensations. This is the Herald's chain of reasoning. Let us see if its first point is not erroneous; for it all grows out of that. To prove the first point, Heb. ix, 8, is quoted: "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest while as the first tabernacle was yet standing."
But this text, we believe, does not furnish the proof that it is supposed to furnish. We have already remarked—and we think the Herald will not dispute the point—that the expression here is not "holiest of all," as in verse 3, but is simply holy places, plural. It is certain that Paul wrote the word in the plural, and if it be expressed in the English language, as written by the Apostle, the argument from this text is gone. We believe that Macknight's translation of this text is correct:—"The Holy Ghost signifying this, that the way of the HOLY PLACES was not yet laid open, while the first tabernacle still standeth." Now say, Brother, does not this literal translation of the phrase completely remove the difficulty which you find in the text, with regard to us. We think that this truth shines out from the text with vivid distinctness, namely: that while the first tabernacle with its two holy places was standing—that is, while the typical dispensation lasted—the way into the greater and more perfect tabernacle was not laid open.—But when the typical dispensation ended, and the pattern was superseded by the true tabernacle, the way of the heavenly holy places was laid open, and we have boldness to enter where our High Priest is ministering for us.27
We now examine the conclusion which the Herald draws from this part of its reasoning, namely: the idea that the antitype of the ministration in the first apartment occurred at the same time with that ministration itself. It will not be denied that the ministration in both apartments was the shadow of good things to come, and that that shadow did continue until the death of our Lord. In other words, it reached to the holy, which is Christ, and expired with the actual commencement of the good things to come—the offering of the great Sacrifice. The shedding of blood that could take away sin, laid the foundation for a better ministration, and the shadow ceased in the presence of the substance. Col. ii, 14–17. The death of our Lord is the dividing point between the shadow and the substance. It was the end of one, and the beginning of the other.
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. ix, 1–12; viii, 1–5. Now we ask in view of these facts, on what principle is the fulfillment 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 cotemporary 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 cotemporary 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.
NOTE 4. The idea that the priests did not have that access to God, to obtain his blessing for the people, while ministering in the first apartment, that they had while ministering in the second, seems to be the argument on which the Herald relies, to prove that the ministration in the first apartment "signified the way of approach to God" in that dispensation. But this would make the ministration in the first apartment typify itself, and also typify the ministration in the second apartment; for the ministration in the two apartments was "the way of approach to God" before the death of Christ. Certainly this must be a mistaken view. We think that the Heraldsees with reference to the work within the second apartment. For it is certain that the forgiveness of sins was freely promised in the ministration in the first apartment; and though it is promised in connection with the service in the second apartment, yet this was but a part of the object of that ministration. The closing up of the yearly round of service, and the cleansing of the Sanctuary, being its great design.
NOTE 5. The Herald says: "There can be nothing more holy than the 'holiest of all,' and Christ's going into the holiest of all in heaven, can be typified only by the priests going into the holiest of all in the inner Sanctuary. To typify it by the first apartment, is to set aside all consistency in the use of types."
These remarks are truthful; but the inconsistency pointed out, does not belong to us, for we do not understand that Christ began to minister in the second apartment when he ascended. Having, as we think, shown the unsoundness of the principle that would locate the antitype of the ministration in the first apartment, in the very period of that ministration itself, we remark that if our brethren of the Herald still contend that Christ began to minister in the second apartment at his ascension, they must adopt one of two positions. 1.—Take the position that Christ's going into the holiest in heaven, is the antitype of the service in the first apartment, which is the very position that they have here shown up. Or 2. They must take the position that the service in the first apartment meant nothing, and can have no antitype; a position which we think no one disposed to adopt.
NOTE 6. But the Herald offers further testimony in proof that Christ began to minister in the holiest at his ascension. As an express affirmation, it cites Heb. ix, 11, 12. "But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." We beg that careful attention may be bestowed on this text. In our opinion it does not even seem to prove the position of the Herald. 1. It does prove the existence of a greater and more perfect tabernacle; that is, greater and more perfect than the first tabernacle, with which it is here contrasted. 2. But it does not prove that Christ entered the most holy place of that tabernacle at his ascension. 3. Nor does the statement that he had obtained "eternal redemption for us" prove that he had fulfilled the type of the priests' entrance into the holiest. The act of obtaining redemption for man, was the death of our Lord upon the cross; though men must become partakers of this by coming to God severally through our High Priest. Heb. ix, 15; Rom. iii, 24, 25; Gal. iv, 4, 5; Col. i, 14; Eph. i, 7; Gal. iii, 13.
NOTE 7. The next argument of the Herald is drawn from these words: "For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us."—Heb. ix, 24. This text first of all implies that Christ has entered into real holy places, of which the earthly holy places were figures. Read this text with care, and it will save you from believing that the earthly holy places were figures of two dispensations. No, the holy places made with hands are the figures of the true holy places. Or as Macknight renders the sentence, "Christ hath not entered the holy places made with hands, the images of the true holy places."
But the "Herald" draws its argument from the text on this wise: The cloud that was above the mercy-seat in the holiest, symbolized the presence of God. Hence, when it is said that Christ has gone into the presence of God in the true holy places, it follows that he must have entered into the holiest of all.—We are free to admit the fact on which this argument is based, but do not agree with the conclusion drawn from this fact. If the holiest were the only apartment of the tabernacle where God manifested his presence and glory, and where that cloud was manifested, perhaps the conclusion of the "Herald" would be just. But it is a fact that when God entered the tabernacle at the first, his glory filled both holy places. Ex. xl, 34, 35. See, also, with the temple. 1 Kings viii, 10, 11; 2 Chron. v, 13, 14; vii, 1, 2. In the door of the first apartment, the cloud, symbolizing the divine presence, met with Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Israel. Ex. xxxiii, 9–11; Deut. xxxi, 14, 15; Num. xii, 5. And it was in the daily ministration that God promised to meet with Israel at the door of the tabernacle throughout their generations, and to speak with them there, and to sanctify the tabernacle with his glory. Ex. xxxix, 42–44; xxx, 36.
NOTE 8. 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 Chap. x, 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.
NOTE 9. Heb. x, 19 which the "Herald" next quotes is also plural, holy places, and not holy of holies. As Macknight is certainly correct in translating the word in the plural, we give his rendering: "Well then, brethren, having boldness in the entrance of the holy places by the blood of Jesus." This text, instead of proving that Christ began to minister in the holiest at his ascension, actually proves the existence of holy places in the true tabernacle. Indeed, Brother, as the text now stands in our version, does it not prove the existence of another apartment in the heavenly Sanctuary?—How can there be a holiest of all there if there is but one apartment?
NOTE 10. As further proof that Paul was at entire disagreement with the "Sabbath brethren," the "Herald" adduces Heb. iv, 14–16. But this does not affirm anything respecting the heavenly tabernacle; and so far from disagreeing with this statement respecting the High Priest through whom we can come boldly to the throne of grace, we rejoice in the precious truth, that this has ever been the privilege of the children of God.
The "Herald" next asserts that the work of our Lord as Priest, in fulfillment of the types, lacks but the act of coming out to bless the people of God, to stand complete. This statement may, at this time be almost the precise truth; but we disagree with the evident idea of the "Herald," that such has been the case ever since the time of his ascension. Nor does the citation of Heb. x, 14, establish the fact that his work as Priest, in the heavenly tabernacle was all accomplished by his act of taking his place at the Father's right hand. He had indeed offered the one great Sacrifice which is able to perfect forever those who are sanctified through it. But his work in the two holy places was only commenced when he began to minister as a great High Priest at the Father's right hand. The version of Macknight renders Heb. viii, 1, 2, thus: "Now of the things spoken the chief is. We have such an High Priest as became us, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the holy places, namely, of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man." Then our Lord while at the Father's right hand is a minister of the holy places, plural, the very point under discussion. And this great truth is further established by the statement, in verse 5, that the priests who ministered in the tabernacle which Moses made in all things according to the pattern of the true one, served unto the example and shadow of Christ's more excellent ministry.28
The statement of Hebrews ix, 27, 28, we receive in its literal import with all joyfulness.
The commencement of the final work of our Lord in the heavenly Sanctuary, namely: the ministration within the second apartment to cleanse that Sanctuary [Heb. ix, 22, 23] being plainly marked by the termination of the 2300 days, we are now, with solemn and prayerful interest, looking for Him to appear the second time, who once was slain for us. The opening of the inner tabernacle of the Sanctuary in heaven is located in the days of the voice of the seventh angel. Rev. xi, 19. The ministration of our Lord in that apartment will finish the great work of man's salvation, and the vials of the wrath of God will follow, to desolate a guilty world. Rev. x, 7; xv, 5.
J. N. ANDREWS.
The Sanctuary Question.
By Editor
We are much interested in the investigation of this subject that has been going on recently, and anticipate that it will result in much good. We are happy to have those who do not agree with us, meet us on bible ground. This the Herald seems disposed to do. Some others, who have made high professions of "free investigation," have met us with misrepresentations and bitter reproaches.
But we think the Herald of May 21st, in the following note, asks too much.
"The Sabbath Herald puts to us several questions, because of our articles on the Sanctuary, a few weeks since. If that paper will publish these articles, and will promise to copy our answers, it will give us great pleasure to answer its questions."
It is true that the articles referred to by the Herald are not very lengthy, but it cannot reasonably be expected that we can quote much from the articles of those who differ with us, in the small Semi-monthly Review; much less, that we should promise to publish "answers" probably not yet written. But this we will promise, that as soon as the Review shall be issued weekly, it will publish what has appeared in the Herald on the Sanctuary question, if the Herald will promise to publish Bro. J. N. Andrews' articles published in the Review in reply to the Herald. The following is a recent article from the Herald, and Bro. Andrews' reply. Let both be carefully studied. And may the Lord lead his people into all truth.—Ed.