Mike and Greg,

I noticed that you both emphasize the ‘approach’ perspective to interpreting the sanctuary. By the ‘approach’ perspective, I mean the idea that the elements closest to the shekinah glory, such as the mercy seat, represent the mature relationship between God and the sinner and those furthest away represent the early relationship at the time of conversion. There is validity to that, but there are some limitations too. I’ll make some comments first on where that perspective seems to fit best, and later if I have time, on its limitations.

The laws and regulations governing Ezekiel’s temple and the Mosaic model provided that only the priests were allowed to approach the most holy articles of the temple. This illustrates the goal of the plan of salvation to redeem a nation of priests, and bring them into close relationship to God. It is these ‘priests’, redeemed from every tribe and race of mankind, who handle the great, holy truths of scripture, rightly dividing the word of truth. This aspect of the sanctuary model not only points to the role of the remnant priesthood as custodians of holy truth, it confirms the scriptural requirement of holiness adorning the remnant as a beautiful garment.

Holiness of the person is not something we normally dwell on because we fear, for good reason, that we may become puffed up. But according to scripture, holiness is an essential characteristic of the redeemed sinner. It is not optional. We are admonished to “follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” Hebrews 12:14

In fact, this is the main point of Ezekiel’s temple – that God’s people will be holy, in fact, not merely holy, but most holy. “This [is] the law of the house; Upon the top of the mountain the whole limit thereof round about [shall be] most holy. Behold, this [is] the law of the house. Ezekiel 43:12

In the Mosaic model, the penitent brought his offering to the courtyard and presented it at the door of the tabernacle between the entrance to the Holy Place and the bronze altar. But, on pain of death, the worshiper was not allowed to approach any closer. Access to the Holy Place was restricted to the priests. None but the priesthood were permitted inside this part of the sanctuary. Furthermore, access to the Most Holy Place was denied even the priesthood. Only the High Priest was allowed here, and that only one time in the year. (In Ezekiel’s temple the restrictions are similar but more complex.)

Adventbeliever recently referred to an interesting SOP quote on this. "As we approach God through the virtue of Christ's merits we are clothed with his priestly vestment. He places us close by His side encircling us by His human arm while with His divine arm He grasps the throne of the Infinite." Letter 22, 1898. The imagry we have in this quote is that the penitent should not be content to stay at the door of the tabernacle. He is to continue his approach towards God. At conversion he has been born into a royal priesthood, and in coming within the holy places he puts on the holy dress, the wedding garments of the priesthood, the vestments of our High Priest.

Those who have on those garments participate in the priesthood of Christ.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the reason for the rule that no one can be in the Holy Place when the Most Holy is atoned for? See my Jan 9, 2002 post for the reference.

Well, Daryl, Bob, AB, and other friends, you’ve had some time to think about these things. I know that the sanctuary truth has historically been the most provocative subject for us as a church, but no one has opposed the main point that I opened this topic with. Shall I take it for granted by your silence that you all agree?

We can conclude this thread here if you like. I’ll recap the main point though so that anyone who would like to study this further can address it. Leaving aside my previous question in the post above, the main point that started the thread was that the ministry of Christ began in 1844, but that those living before 1844, for example, the early church, could appropriate the future work of Christ within the Most Holy Place.

A related idea, but less essential, was that the ministry of Christ is like his sacrifice, both of which transcend time.

I am still thinking about Daryl’s point on the eternal nature of Christ. My thanks to those who participated.

From my experience, I have found that some topics have a way of becoming inactive for awhile, and then later on suddenly becoming active again.

I'll take that for a "maybe" on whether you agree, Daryl.

At church yesterday after the service at the potluck I got into a friendly discussion with a new convert to Adventism on the meaning of 1844. He said that 1844 didn’t make sense to him because according to the Bible, when a person comes to Christ and repents, his sins are blotted out. They are not to be found anywhere in heaven because they have been born away at that point to the land of forgetfulness, thrown into the sea, blotted out like a cloud. He said that from conversion on, when God looks at you He sees no sin, only the righteousness of Christ that covers you like a beautiful garment.

That morning I had given a sermon on the history of the 1888 message. This brother had never heard of Jones and Waggoner before yesterday, so when he made his last point about the righteousness of Christ covering us, I was happily surprised because although I hadn't mentioned this in my sermon, one of the key points of the message of Jones and Waggoner was how the imputed righteousness of Christ covers us. So my ears perked up to listen to the man’s objections.

When it was my turn to talk I stated that the cleansing of the sanctuary is the fulfillment of Christ’s promise to prepare mansions for us. When I was watching 60 Minutes about 10 years ago, Dianne Sawyer was interviewing IM Pai (spelling), one of the world’s greatest architects. To my surprise and delight, as she wrapped up the interview she asked him what kinds of houses we will have in heaven. IM Pai answered her that he expected that out houses in heaven will be a reflection of our characters! I went on to tell my new convert friend that this is what the cleansing of the sanctuary is all about - being restored into the moral image of God and his character. It is true that the righteousness of Christ covers us and that the Father sees only His Son in us during this transformation process. But the high priestly ministry of Christ in the Holiest is essential to accomplish the transformation of our characters. At conversion our sins are blotted out and removed from us as far as the east is from the west, but our characters still have to be molded and shaped into the image of Christ. I left him with the point that all of the saint prior to 1844 whether they were aware of it or not, entered by faith with Christ into the Most Holy Place, believing in His future work for them.

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

I have wrestled with why God waited until 1844 to investigate and blot out past sins. And one day the thought occurred to me that sin reaches far into the future, unto the third and fourth generation (at least), thus the total impact of a sin cannot be known and fairly investigated until years after it is committed.

How long a wait is long enough? Apparently, God waited until 1844. Once a sin is blotted out of the record book it is gone forever. Thus in order for the effect of sin to be accurately traced from cause to consequence it had to remain on record long enough to be studied intelligently. And the cost and penalty of sin is reckoned according its impact and influence down through time. Thus it was necessary for God to leave it on record long enough for the facts to be clearly known.

Also, the most convincing evidence that God does not immediately blot out our sin the moment we receive and experience the gift of repentance is the simple fact we can still recall that sin later on. The moment we can no longer remember sin that's the moment it has been blotted out. But if God blotted out our sin the instant we repent then it would no longer remain to remind us not to sin again. The lesson would be lost and we would not benefit from our failure and recovery.

Hi Mike and welcome back! I hope you had a good expedition. Regarding your post above:

I believe that God earnestly wants us to trust His word when He says that our sins have been blotted out. It may be that the final blotting out is, as it seems to say in Acts 3:19, at the times of refreshing, but we can claim that promise today. If God says he will do it, it is as good as done.

God's promises are not like ours. As AB has often pointed out on other threads, God's word has creative power. So when he says that our sins are blotted out, there is creative power in that word today even though the actual judicial act may take place at a different point in time. God urges us to believe that regardless of when He does it, it has been done. He want us to trust Him implicitly that our atonement is complete on the one hand, yet He also wants us to grow in grace at the same time. Our repentance will deepen as we draw nearer to Him, as we come to appreciate the price of the atonement that has been made for us. That knowledge will inspire us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

I've quoted a couple of texts below in support of this:

quote:

---

To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba. Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. Psalms 51:1

Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. 51:9

I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee. Isaiah 44:22

---

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

Mark, thank you for welcoming me back. The expedition turned out nicely, although extremely bad weather prevented a successful summit bid. Maybe next time?

Yeah, I like your point about entering into this experience by faith, trusting that God will indeed blot out our record and memory of sin when our name comes up in judgment. The comfort and assurance can be known now, even though our mind is still aware of the sin. Not being able to recall the specifics of our sin will be nice too, but the assurance we have now is very nice.

Mike and Mark, if I may intrude on your conversation, I would say that perhaps the key to this seeming dilemma is that here we have two things which are different but are called by the same name! The Old Testament taught two different comings of Christ. They were called by the same name but they were entirely different. The Jews chose to dwell on the coming of the Messiah in glory and not as a suffering, humble Redeemer. They lost their eternal life because of failing to differentiate between the two comings.

There are two justifications. The justification which takes place at the moment of the new birth and which is without works and there is the justification which takes place at the time of the judgment which involves good works. They are two different justifications and yet they are called by the same name!

There are two seals. A daily seal which is a settling into the truth both intellectually and spiritually and which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit. There is also the final seal which will be received by those who successfully pass the great final test at the end of probation. Here again we have two different seals and yet they are called by the same name.

Likewise, I believe the Scriptures teach that there are two blotting out sins. The one we are most familiar with will take place when Jesus makes the final atonement at the end of probation in behalf of His people whose sins had been sent beforehand to judgment. (These sins had been forgiven and transferred to the sanctuary waiting to be cancelled or blotted out in the final atonement)

The fact that there was a blotting out of sins in the days of Peter tells us that here we are dealing with a different type of blotting out of sins in the sense of it being overcome. Again we have two things which are different but are called by the same name.

Otherwise, one would have to say that the blotting out of sins in the final atonement could have taken place in the days of the apostles and Jesus could have returned a few years after 34 AD. And I am not ruling that out either!

However, Mark's excellent quotes from the Old Testament, I believe, show that there is a blotting out of sin in the lives of the believers which is entirely different from the blotting out sin in the final atonement!

The ball is in your court!

[ February 04, 2002: Message edited by: adventbeliever ]