The Sanctuary Study Pt. 18

2000 Apr XXXIII 4(00)William Grotheer -- The Signifance of the Wilderness Sanctuary -- Editor's Preface --
In writing to the Hebrews, Paul indicates that the Gospel was preached unto the Israelites as well as it had been preached to those to whom he was writing (4:2). The gospel message to the children of Israel, though not a different gospel, was revealed in "types" and "shadows."
These examples and shadows, while prefiguring the true, could never take away sin.
However, they did serve a purpose.
Through these we can understand the service now being ministered in the heavenly sanctuary by our great High Priest, who when He has finished His priestly work will come a "second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28).
Within the "review" of "The Significance of the Wilderness Sanctuary," we note the faulty translation by the NIV of Heb. 8:5 in contrast to the strict adherence to Greek grammar by the KJV. There are certain traditional perceptions of the types and shadows for which no Scriptural justification can be found. These we had to question, and seek to present their meaning in the light of what is actually stated in the book of Leviticus. Where there is silence, assumptions are not justifiable.
In the previous issue of WWN, in the "Editor's Preface," we mentioned some exegesis which made us cringe without identifying the source or the text that was being mutilated. In thinking about it, we did not believe this was fair to our readers, so in this issue we discuss this text and note the source of the faulty exegesis.
The editorial - "Let's Talk It Over" - touches a very vital issue - Honesty or Policy. If we give our word, should we keep it, or can we just ignore what we have said? It also enters into another area. What obligation is incumbent upon one who publishes? Does he have a right to be discourteous,and not even acknowledge the receipt of an inquiry which might question what he writes? It would seem that if a response challenges his position, if he sincerely wants truth, pure and unadulterated, he would be willing to dialogue and let his position be thoroughly discussed and questioned. We talk about righteousness by faith, but we see very little of it.
"Review, and then Review again, and Review all that you've Reviewed"
The Signifance of the Wilderness Experience -- In the previous issue of WWN, we discussed not only the experience of Israel in their consent to the Old Covenant, but also the lesson it conveys to us today; namely, that man is powerless to keep His commitment to God. Another way must be found.
While in the mount with God (Ex. 24:18), Moses received the blueprint for the Sanctuary to be built in the Wilderness (Ex. 25:8-9).
This Sanctuary and its services were integrated into the "type" covenant that God made with Moses and with Israel (Ex. 34:27).
The "old" covenant which Israel broke in the worship of the golden calf no longer had validity.
The stated purpose of the wilderness Sanctuary was that God wanted to dwell among His people (Ex. 25:8).
The Psalmist describes the "Shepherd of Israel" as He "that dwellest between the cherubim" in the most holy apartment of the Sanctuary (Ps. 80:1). In another Psalm, Asaph sings, "Thy way, 0 God, is in the sanctuary" (Ps. 77:13). But access to God was limited. Only the High Priest, and then only once a year, could enter the second veil into the presence of the Divine Glory which enshrouded the ark of the covenant. The common priests could enter the first apartment or holy place. The individual Israelite was restricted to the court which surrounded the Sanctuary. There he brought his confessional sin offering.
The offerings and their objective were outlined in a separate book - Leviticus. All sins were not covered, only sins of ignorance when brought to memory (Lev. 4:27-28). In other words as stated in the book of Hebrews, "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins" (10:4). "The law made nothing perfect" (7:19).
What then was the purpose that God had in mind in having this wilderness sanctuary erected? Nothing is indicated in the Old Testament, except that Moses was to build the sanctuary and its furniture according to the blueprint shown to him at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 25:40).
Paul in the book of Hebrews uses this verse in connection with the ministry of the priests (Heb. 8:4-5). The KJV reads - "There are priests that offer gifts according to the law who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." However, the NIV reads - "There are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." These translations are not saying the same thing. Is it the sanctuary that is "a copy and shadow or is it the service of the priests which is "the example and shadow of heavenly things"?
Both "example" or "copy" ('upodeigati) and "shadow" (skia) are in the dative case. Robertson stated that "the accusative, genitive and dative are all cases of inner relations, but the dative has a personal touch not true of the others. The dative is not a local case. There was originally no idea of place in it. It is thus a purely grammatical case. (It) is used of a person, not place" (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.536).
Thus Paul is saying that the "example and shadow" are related to the service of the priests, and not the "place" they serve.
The sanctuary reflected a service, and was not intended to convey the reality of heaven. This should be readily grasped by one simple comparison. In the sanctuary built by Moses, the first apartment, or holy place, contained as one of its articles of furniture, the Table of Shewbread (Ex. 25:23-30). While in the New Testament, one can find reference to the other two articles of furniture, the candlesticks and the altar of the incense as a part of a heavenly sanctuary, there is no reference to a "heavenly Table of Shewbread."
While there are many spiritual lessons which can be drawn from the typical pattern given to Moses, we need to be constantly mindful in the study of the sanctuary that the emphasis is not on the "place" symbolized but upon the ministry of the One who serves -
The "minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2). This is indicated to be "the sum" or chief point (v.1). If we had been as diligent in focusing on that ministry as we have been on seeking a significance for every article, and aspect of the physical structure of the sanctuary, we would be well in advance of where we are now in our perception of truth.
The Daily Service --
"The altar of burnt offering, which stood in the court outside of the tabernacle, was always In use; that is, there was always a sacrifice on the altar. Each morning a lamb was offered for the nation, and this lamb, after being prepared by the priests, was placed on the altar, where it was slowly consumed by the fire. It was not permitted to burn quickly, for it was to last till evening, when another lamb was offered, which was to burn till the morning offering was ready. (See Ex. 29:38-41)
"Thus there was always a sacrifice on the altar, day and night, a symbol of the perpetual atonement provided in Christ. There was no time when Israel was not covered by a propitiatory sacrifice. At whatever time they sinned they knew that a lamb was on the altar and that forgiveness was theirs upon repentance. The Jewish Encyclopedia, volume 2, p.277, says, ' The morning sacrifice atoned for the sins committed during the previous night, the afternoon sacrifice for the sins committed in the daytime.'
"This morning and evening oblation was offered every day of the year and was never to be omitted. Even though there might be special occasions that called for more elaborate sacrifices, the morning and evening burnt sacrifice for the nation was always offered.
On the Sabbath day this offering was doubled: two lambs were offered in the morning and two in the evening.
Even on the Day of Atonement this ritual was carried out.
Sixteen times in chapters 28 and 29 of Numbers does God emphasize that no other offering is to take the place of the continual burnt offerings. Each time another sacrifice is mentioned, it is stated that this is besides the 'continual burnt offering.' From its perpetual nature it was called the continual, or daily, sacrifice. ...
"It ... needs to be emphasized that the temporary provision made for sin in the daily sacrifice for the nation became efficacious only as the offender made personal confession of sin and brought his individual sacrifice for sin, just as a sinner is now saved by Christ's sacrifice on Calvary only if he personally accepts Christ. The death of the Lamb of God on Golgotha was for all men, but only those who accept the sacrifice and make personal application of it will be saved. In the light of these considerations the statement in I Timothy 4:10 becomes luminous: Christ 'is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.' From day to day the lives of sinners have been spared; they have been saved temporarily and provisionally. But this extended grace will not avail unless they repent and turn to God. ...
"Spiritually viewed, the national burnt offering signified two things: first, Christ sacrificing Himself for man, providing atonement for all; second, the people dedicating themselves to God by putting all on the altar. (It was the whole lamb that was offered in contrast to certain parts as required in the sin offerings.) It is to this latter that Paul referred when he admonished Christians, 'Present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is youi reasonable service.' Rom. 12:1." (M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews, pp.372-374)
******Pausing here because there is just a lot to digest before we go on.
It's true that we need to understand the Sanctuary all of it. The structure as well as the service of it. When you build a house is it there just to look at? No. What good is an empty house to anyone? An empty house with no one to live in it will soon deteriorate. An empty house with no one to upkeep it will become unlivable.
The point to an empty house is exactly what?
Having a Sanctuary without any service would be what? An empty house, a place with no meaning, serving no purpose. So to expound on the fact that the service of the Sanctuary is important to understand seems only logical to me. The things of the Sanctuary have no purpose without the services attended to them.
I look forward to more of this study of the services of the Sanctuary, Jesus is OUR High Priest and as such we need to know what our High Priest in all His capacity does. The role of our Lord and Savior, as Sacrifice and Redeemer, as Lamb and Lord needs a lot of study, we need to know Him and have Him know us.
By the grace of God, by the will of the Father, by the mercy of our Lord and Savior...
Amen.