Warning from M. L. Andreasen

The history of this movement shows that we have not always profited by heresies as we might. Ballenger headed a movement attacking the doctrine of the sanctuary. This occasioned a review of this question, but the study was mostly aimed at refuting charges leveled against us and did not involve the larger aspects and inspirations of our teaching. As soon as the immediate crisis was past, we did little or no further official study, though sharp differences and divergent views had been revealed that should have called for an exhaustive investigation of the subject.

When Conradi had his hearings, we were not much better off; and Fletcher was perplexed by the many different views he met among our men in Washington. True, we did some studying as we were faced with the necessity of meeting theissue; but again, as soon as the crisis was past, we felt our work done. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no official or authorized study since then. We shall be unprepared when another crisis occurs.

I doubt that we fully appreciate how much these heresies have undermined the faith of the ministry in our doctrine of the sanctuary. If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger’s views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital – and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is notof secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology.

I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions.

M.L. Andreasen, field secretary of the General Conference, to J. L. McElhany and W. H. Branson, letter of December 25,1942.

Summary of Argument from Hebrews

We would plead that the reader give the most thorough attention to these few introductory pages to our chapter on Hebrews. If these are wrong in their central thesis, then our whole case collapses. On the other hand, if the central thesis here is correct, then our traditional mode of expressing the sanctuary truth is erroneous. The central thesis referred to is that Hebrews clearly affirms that in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement type, Christ by the cross- resurrection-ascension event entered upon the ministry prefigured by the sanctuary’s second apartment.

Let us observe the testimony of Hebrews regarding this matter:

p.104

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Heb.1:3 NIV)

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess … Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Heb. 4:14,16 NIV)

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on ourbehalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. (Heb.6:19, 20 NIV)

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. (Heb. 8:1, 2NIV)

But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into theMost Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standung … He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption … For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.(Heb. 9:7, 8,12, 24, 25 NIV)

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body. (Heb. 10:19, 20 NIV)

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. (Heb. 13:11,12 NIV)

(Compare also KJV, RSV, NEB renderings.)

The most important expressions in these passages are the right hand of God,” “the throne of grace,” “within the veil,” “through the veil,” “the way into the holiest of all,” “Into the holiest… by a new and living way,” “into the holy place,” “minister of the sanctuary,” “as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year,” “blood is brought into the sanctuary,” (KJV) or their equivalents.

It is vital that we understand that in the last six allusions it is the same expression which is variously translated “the holiest of all,” “the holiest,” “the holy place,” “the sanctuary,” “the holy place.” That expression is ta hagia. Thus, repeatedly, Hebrews affirms that Christ had by the time of the writing of that letter already entered and remained in ta hagia – He had thus been engaged upon a ta hagia ministry for at least thirty years. The NIV is correct in using “the Most Holy Place.”

“Ta hagia” is a plural form with a singular meaning. Modern lexical authorities include it in their lists of words of this ilk. Our own SDA Bible Commentary recognizes this fact, and points out that hagia is used for the first apartment in verse 2 and for

105

the second in verse 3 of Hebrews 9. Ta hagia is used repeatedly in the references given above for the place of Christ’s heavenly entrance. Thus according to Hebrews, ta hagia is the place (or, as most would prefer, represents the form of ministry) entered upon by Christ at His death and ascension. Context, not philology, must decide the meaning of this key term.

Practically every scholar of the Christian age has believed that Hebrews by ta hagia means the innermost sanctuary – the second apartment called “the holy place” in Lev. 16:2, 3,16,17, 23, 27. SDAs have traditionally questioned this on the basis of the Greek plural form, but no competent Greek scholar amongst us maintains such a position today – or if he does, he is a strange rarity in the denominational scholarship. We repeat, Hebrews clearly says Christ entered ta hagia and was there in Paul’s day, and the term applies to a single place or that represented by the second apartment.

The context makes it quite clear that “ta hagia” is the place “within the veil” or “through the veil” It is the place entered once a year. It is “the holiest of all” and is the equivalent of “the second. “It is where the throne of God is located. Anyone there is at “the right hand of God.” See the above texts.

Heb. 6:19, 20; 10:19, 20 are emphatic that Christ at the time of the writing of Hebrews had already passed through the veil into “ta hagia.” That new and living way into “ta hagia” was symbolized by the rending of the second veil at the time of Calvary and it is to this that 10:19, 20 obviously refers. 9:7, 8 tell us that “ta hagia” is the equivalent of “the second” – the fact that the high priest only was permitted into the second, and that but once a year, showed that the way into the true second (the holiest of all – “ta hagia”) was not yet manifested because Jesus had not yet come. Heb. 9:12, 24, 25 as well as 9:7, 8 make this same point that it was the “ta hagia” into which the high priest alone went once every year on the Day of Atonement. The writer is saying repeatedly that what the high priest did once a year Christ has now already done.

There is no hint in Hebrews that Christ had gone into the ta hagia only to come out and return to the first apartment – indeed the first apartment is not applied to any special ministry of Christ in heaven above. There is no hint that at some time in the future according to the author of Hebrews Christ would enter upon a second phase of ministry, a future entering into the place He had already entered. This would make nonsense of the clear testimonies of these chapters. On the contrary it is a coming out, not a going in, that Hebrews expects. See 9:28.

It must be emphasized that “within the veil” is acknowledged by our New Testament scholars today to apply to within the second veil. This is not only my own position but is held by E. Heppenstall, S. Kubo, J. Cox, W. Johnsson, F. Veltman, R. Cottrell, B. Neal, N. Gulley, N. H. Young, and many others. This present writer knows no New Testament scholar amongst us whose protests against such an understanding would be taken seriously by his fellows.

Hebrews is saying as clearly as words can say it that Christ already in the first century was engaged in the equivalent ministry to that which the typical high priest performed in the second apartment of the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement. No competent SDA New Testament scholar has offered any written rebuttal of this truth which has been acceptable to his fellows. The consequences of these facts are momentous for the church, but if we are to be blessed of heaven they must be faced and acknowledged.

Heb. 9:6.8

Let us now look at these same truths from other angles.

The significance of the two apartments of the sanctuary, and the cleansing of the second is found in detail only in the book of Hebrews, and specially in chapter 9.

106

Regarding the ministry of Christ, as already stated, Hebrews unequivocally asserts that He entered “within the veil” at His ascension, and that believers In that day anticipated He would soon come out to bless the waiting congregation (9:28). It knows nothing of a future entrance into a second apartment, or a special ministry so prefigured. Rather, the emphasis is upon atonement already made, redemption already acquired – a work already done, and done once for all in contrast to the protracted Levitical services. By the time of this letter, sin had already been put away (9:26; 1:3; 10:11-14; 9:12), and our King-Priest had sat down at the right hand of God.

SDAs in the past have avoided the force of the plain statements in Hebrews by the following arguments:

1. “Within the veil” means within the first veil.

2. Ta hagia is a plural term, and therefore the references to Christ’s entering the ta hagia means His entrance into a sanctuary with two apartments to perform two phases of ministry.

3. The fact that the earthly sanctuary was a shadow and type of heavenly things makes it essential that Christ’s ministry consist of two phases.

The problems with these arguments are:

1. It is impossible to support that “within the veil” means within the first veil. See our pages 199-202, 206, 194-195.

2. Hagia is acknowledged by all Greek scholars to be a plural form with a singular meaning. It is applied to the first apartment (9:3), and also to the second (repeatedly in vs. 8,12, 24; 10:19). Ta hagia is said to be “within” or “through” the veil. Christ had to pass through the veil to enter ta hagia. Ta hagia is the place the high priest entered only once a year. These truths, set forth clearly in 10:19, 20 (cf 6:19, 20); 9:7, 8, 12,24, make it impossible to contend that the term embraces both apartments. (Note that the plural form in verse 2 for the first apartment, as some other anarthrous forms, points to quality. The first apartment is never mentioned again after verse 6, but the second is mentioned repeatedly and always in the plural form, and with the article (except when contrasted with the first apartment and linked with hagion; verse 3 only). It is within the veil that the real holy place lies, just as in Lev. 16:2,3,16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 33.

Our traditional arguments have ignored the plain meaning of Heb. 9:6-8. These verses assert that the significance of the regular use of the first apartment (rather than the second) was that the real way of access, “the new and living way through the veil” “into the holiest” (10:19, 20) was not yet available so long as there was a first apartment ministry (9:8). That is, a first apartment ministry would only be relevant until the cross and never after, and it represented the limited blessings of the typical era.

It is clearly said in 9:6-8 that the first tabernacle (i.e. the first apartment, see verses 2,6) into which the priests went daily, only had standing (status) until the reality symbolized by the types arrived. See verses 9-14. The writer is affirming that now “Christ being come” and having “by his own blood entered in” to ta hagia, the first apartment ministry no longer exists. That is, the earthly first apartment ministry has now no meaning, for in heaven above there is only the ministry of ta hagia – that holiest of all presence of God typified by the second apartment. The limited access to God, and the ever unfinished work of the priests taught by the first apartment, is in contrast with the boldness wherewith all believers may now enter into the second with the great High Priest because of His once for all completed atonement. See Heb. 10:19, 20, and the preceding verses of the same chapter.

The reader should observe that “the second” in verse 7 is identical with ta hagia of verse 8. That is to say, the second apartment, the focus of the writer’s attention, was “the holiest of all” (or “the holy place” in the sense of Lev. 16:2, 3,16,17, etc.), the ta hagia now made manifest (or “open”) by Christ’s redeeming act on the cross. 9:8 with its reference to “way” must be compared with the use of that same term in 10:20 – where it is clearly stated to be a “way” “through the veil.”

p.107

Yet another feature of importance is that the following passages of chapters 9 and 10 expand verse 6, 7 and 8. In 9:9,10 we have commentary on the ministry of the first apartment (verse 6), while verses 11,12 comment upon verse 7, the ministry of the second apartment. This is repeated again, with verse 13 pointing back to the ceremonies involved in the ministry spoken of in verse 6, while verse 14 parallels verse 7, and “the way into ta hagia” of verse 8. But there are two more repetitions of this same contrast between the ministry of the first apartment and that represented by the second. Verses 18-23 parallel what is spoken of in verse 6, while verses 24-28 speak of the antitype represented by the “second” of verse 7. And in chapter 10, the first eleven verses speak of the type as enacted by the ministry of the earthly first apartment, but verses 12-20 give the antitype. See the accompanying graph of these parallels.

The comments upon time limitation should not be ignored. In verse 8 we have a “so long as” or “while,” but in verse 10 we have the parallel “until.” Thus (verse “so long as the first apartment ministry had significance” is in meaning identical with “outward ordinances in force” (verse 10). Thereby we see that “the time of reformation” is the equivalent to what was represented by “the second,” “the holiest of all,” theta hagia. This same thought is found in 10:1, where we are told that the typical offerings pointed forward to the good things yet to come. Thus the contrast is ever between the time before the cross represented by the limited and continuous ministry of the typical blood of animals by earthly priests, and the time after the cross where Christ opens unrestricted access and confers the “good things” of forgiveness, the law written on the heart, etc. The first apartment stands for the era before the cross, but the second apartment for the era after the cross.

The fact that according to Heb. 6:19,20; 9:8,12,24,25; 10:19, 20; Christ entered the equivalent of the second apartment at His ascension is confirmed by a multitude of other inspired evidences.

It does not matter whether we understand by prote skene either the tabernacle first in time (the Mosaic sanctuary), or first in space (the outer apartment). The significance remains the same, and it is clearly expressed in verses 7-9. What the first apartment was to the second, so was the first sanctuary of the Levitical age to the heavenly sanctuary. Thus it follows that the first apartment stands for the entire Mosaic sanctuary, and the second apartment represents the entire heavenly sanctuary. Never, after verse 6, does the apostle apply the first apartment, inasmuch as from now on his chief concern is with the heavenly sanctuary and it is always set forth as the true ta hagia “within the veil.”

Some have suggested that the term “sanctuary” is the best translation for ta hagia as leaving open whether a two-apartment schema is envisaged, or the ministry of a single apartment. But even those who so contend admit that the ta hagia references have chief reference to the second apartment. The evidence from translators and commentators is that “sanctuary” to them meant only the second apartment when used for ta hagia. This corresponds with the singular form “holy place” (the literal meaning of sanctuary) in Lev. 16 for the second apartment. We repeat, the fact that the high priest entered ta hagia yearly with blood (verse 25) makes it clear that ta hagia is that innermost sanctuary only open for entrance on the Day of Atonement. See Lev. 16:33 RSV and compare Heb. 9:2, which uses “sanctuary” for a single apartment (KJV).

To make “ta hagia” in verse 8 and elsewhere mean holy places (plural) would make nonsense of most verses employing the term. It would make 9:25, for example, say that the high priest once a year entered the two apartments, whereas the obvious meaning is that the high priest entered the inner room once a year. It would make 10:19, 20 say that there were two holy places beyond the innermost veil. And it would make two places the equivalent of “the second” in 9:8, instead of one.

p.108

The chapter in which we find this crucial passage of 9:6-8 is the Day of Atonement chapter of the New Testament. Its emphasis is on the high priest, ta hagia, once a year, the blood of bulls and goats, access within the veil – all of which are motifs of Yom Kippur. The entrance of our Meichizedekan King-Priest through the veil to the throne of God is found throughout the letter. See 1:3; 2:17; 4:16; 6:19, 20; 8:1 9:8,12, 24-25; 10:19; 13:11. This entrance fulfilled the Day of Atonement. The typical sprinkling of the warm, uncoagulated blood immediately on the mercy seat after the slaying could not possibly point to 1844.

The rest of chapter 9, after the preliminary Day of Atonement references (8,12) sets forth other types of cleansing from sin such as the red heifer ceremonial, the sealing of the covenant, the anointing of the sanctuary, and its cleansing. Each of these is so “tailored” by the author so as to “mesh” with his key theme. The red heifer type never involved sprinkling with blood, nor did the covenant sealing or sanctuary anointing – but our author wishes to invoke the great efficacy of atonement blood and chooses language to fulfill that task. He never mentions the sprinkling on the mercy seat, for he wishes to make Calvary the place of the atonement lest readers think it incomplete requiring additional heavenly aspersion. It is the “shedding” of blood, verse 22, which cleanses the heavenly sanctuary (verse 23). This cleansing is already past in the first century, and means the same as purification for sins” in 1:3. Heb. 9:23 cannot legitimately be exegeted as applying to the future. All Adventist usage of this verse as part of an 1844 apologetic is erroneous. The first word of verse 24 links the cleansing with what the high priest did yearly and affirms that Christ had now done that. See verses 26-28, which further elaborate that the cleansing of the sanctuary was Christ’s putting away of sin by the sacrifice of Himself (identical with the significance of the blood-shedding of verse 22).

Having looked at 9:8 in context and found its testimony to Christ’s entrance into the Most Holy at His ascension fulfilling the Day of Atonement type, it is appropriate to ask what the chapter should say if the traditional Adventist interpretation of a two-apartment heavenly ministry in successive phases is correct.

In verse 8 we would expect something like this: “the Holy Spirit thus signifying that there would also be two phases of heavenly ministry just as on earth.” But it says rather that the restricted and rare entrance into the Most Holy prefigured what Christ did by the way of His flesh at the cross.

Furthermore, we would expect that later in the chapter we might find reference to a heavenly first apartment ministry, and then also the promise that ultimately Christ would, some time in the future, enter upon his final work typified by that “within the veil.”

We might also expect that Dan. 8:14 would be invoked, or the thought of an investigative judgment to take place in the future before our High Priest returned. None of these likelihoods are realized, and it is no wonder that SDA scholars have told us not to look in Hebrews for support of our traditional two-apartment heavenly ministry schema.

The most common objection to the foregoing thesis is the third one listed earlier – that inasmuch as the earthly sanctuary was a shadow and type of heavenly things, there has to be a heavenly equivalent to the first apartment ministry succeeded by a later “second apartment” ministry.

This argument shows that the proposer of it has not given due weight to the many statements of Hebrews which contrast the type with the antitype. See, for example, 7:11-14; 7:27, 28; 8:4; 9:11-14; 10:1-4,11-14. In the type, the priest was a sinner whose ministry was imperfect and terminated by death. He was forever offering, and knew no successful climax to his work. He belonged to the tribe of Levi and at the best could only enter the presence of God once a year. What a contrast to our Priest in the

109

true sanctuary above. Christ does not belong to the tribe of Levi, His ministry is perfect and is never interrupted by death, and belongs to “a greater and more perfect tabernacle.” He needs not to offer sacrifices continually, but after a single “once for all” offering sat down as Priest-King at the right hand of God, forever in the presence of His Father. Thus the antitype not only exceeds the type but is frequently in contrast or antithesis to it. 9:6-12 shows that the first apartment was but a symbol of the ineffectual typical priestly ministry, and had meaning only until Christ manifested the way into the holiest of all – within the veil, which He did at the cross.

Let any read at one sitting Heb. 6:19 to 10:20 (preferably in several versions) prayerfully and carefully, and for most the desire for debate will disappear. It will be replaced by joy that our great King-Priest has already accomplished our redemption, and set us apart for Himself, soon to be claimed at His glorious appearing, if we abide in Him.

(We have not in this summary set forth all the details of argument involved in interpreting Heb. 9. The following pages do that. Commentators are only quoted when their statements indicate some Scripture truth that many of us might otherwise miss. They have no authority other than the truth they offer us from the Word. Nor have we.)

The following chart should be closely studied and also those on page 129-130.