The laver was understood to be commemorating the Red Sea experience. I provided a number of web sites where you could see this. As I pointed out, even Jews today know of this. (and even pagans!) Contemporary cultures would have understood this, as Israel's crossing of the Red Sea was widely known, as was its meaning. The sanctuary is filled with symbolism which we struggle to understand, but was simply a part of their culture, which is why it could have been such a great evangelistic tool.

This isn't something that you can just hear one time and get. It's dealing with a different culture, a different world outlook.



The laver is a symbol. The symbol tied back to the Red Sea experience, and pointed forward to Christ's resurrection, as the altar tied back to the Passover, and pointed to Christ's death.

The symbolism of the laver involves victory over evil. There are many examples of this in Scripture, including:
a)The parting of the Red Sea
b)The crossing of the River Jordon
c)Jesus' walking on water
d)The victorious standing on the sea of glass



Please take a look at the Blue Stone site please, which discusses this, and see if that makes sense to you. http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre17hstsblue.html

Rosangela, I just thought of something else. The following is from an SDA site: http://www.seventh-day.org/sanctuary.htm



Now you say that the tie between the Red Sea and the Sea of Glass makes sense to you. If the SDA site's explanation makes sense to you, then you should be able to see that the laver ties to the Red Sea. So this gives a connection to the laver and the Red Sea, plus a connection to the Red Sea and the Sea of Glass, which, together, gives a connection of the laver to the Sea of Glass.

Tom,

We will have to agree to disagree.

Do you disagree with what the SDA site said?

Switched to a night work schedule and it is really throwing me off on my timetable. I will try to look at some of the specific points here at some time. I have to catch up on my other conversations too.

As for the laver, it is not a huge issue to me either way, but I think it could be symbolic of it.

I did want to get your take on one fascinating EGW statement that I had somehow not come across before.



When the loud cry, "It is finished," came from the lips of Christ, the priests were officiating in the temple. The lamb prefiguring Christ has been brought in to be slain. Clothed in his significant and beautiful dress, the priest stands with lifted knife, as did Abraham when about to slay his son. With intense interest the people look on. But the earth trembles and quakes; for the Lord himself draws near. With a rending noise the veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. In this place the Shekinah once dwelt. Here God had once manifested his glory above the mercy-seat. No one but the high priest ever lifted the veil separating this apartment from the rest of the tabernacle; and he entered in but once a year, to make atonement for the sins of the people. But lo! the veil is rent in twain. No longer is there any secrecy there. {YI, June 21, 1900 par. 6} All is terror and confusion. The priest is about to plunge his knife into the heart of the victim; but the knife drops from his hand, and the lamb, no longer fettered, escapes. {YI, June 21, 1900 par. 7}

By the rending of the veil of the temple, God said, I can no longer reveal my presence in the most holy place. A new and living Way, before which there hangs no veil, is offered to all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest. {YI, June 21, 1900 par. 8}



Here EGW apparently

a. identifies the veil as the SECOND veil, hiding the ark.
b. Says that in the new and living way (reference to Hebrews 10) there is no veil obscuring the way.

The sacrifice included presentation of blood.

And I agree it was done for all time. So was the entry, and so was the blood.

Now Jesus dispenses the merits. And no, the type was a symbol of a greater reality. It will not correspond in every point or we would not have a once for all sacrifice to start with.

I still think the judgment portion and perhaps scape goat portion (which happened when the High Priest came OUT of the temple) may well be yet to come. But the part dealing with the sacrifice and blood was all done at once. Now we receive the benefits. Jesus is not slaving away. He is dispensing his kindness as we boldly come through the new and living way to the throne of grace. It is all based on the previous work of sacrifice and presentation of that sacrifice.

That does not prove that they are still separated. It calls the new sanctuary "heaven itself.

Moreover the book of Revelation is symbolic is it not? Are you convinced there are literal candlesticks, etc. in heaven?

I am also interested in your take on the EGW quote I posted regarding the idea that there is no longer any veil.

This fits quite well with the overall thrust of Hebrews. The limited access of the old system with two compartments, the one only for the high priest, and once a year, was a symbol, according to Hebrews. It showed the limited access and the futility of the old system of symbols. The way into the true holy places was not revealed while the first tent still stood.

Now we go boldly into Christ's presence, without need for an obscuring veil.



We don't need to be shielded anymore. We go boldly before the throne of grace. That is the new covenant.




Did Jesus sit down at the cross or in heaven with the Father after the entry into the holy places?



A. vs. 23 refers to both services. You admit verse 24 is tied in. But look at 25 again:


Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;

Nor yet..... what?

It does not even form its own complete thought. It clearly refers back to verse 4 and the ENTRY described.

Nor yet refers back to verse 24's main point--Christ went into God's direct presence in heaven itself:


Heb 9:24 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:


Nor is vs. 25 just about the sacrifice.


Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
It clearly references the offering as the ENTRY with blood of the high priest.

He did not go into just the earthly sanctuary NOR YET did He go in often.

He went into heaven itself and entered once with His own blood.



Both of them refer to the the entry do they not? Notice the phrase "AS THE HIGH PRIEST YEAR BY YEAR ENTERS"

The offering is described by the phrase as the high priest year by year enters. That is the offering spoken of.

The two clauses are in apposition:


a. Nor yet that he should offer himself often,
b. as the high priest entereth into the holy places every year



Notice also what Vincet's Word Studies says which reinforces this point:

Offer himself refers rather to Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary and presentation of himself before God, than to his offering on the cross. See on Heb_9:14. The sacrifice on the cross is described by παθεῖν suffer, Heb_9:26, and is introduced as a distinct thought. The point is that, being once in the heavenly sanctuary, Christ was not compelled to renew often his presentation of himself there, since, in that case, it would be necessary for him to suffer often. Each separate offering would necessitate a corresponding suffering.



Have to go for now, so I will finish later.

You may consider it illogical. Note the following text:


Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:8 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 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


The way into the holiest of all was not revealed while the first tent stood. It's sacrifices were mere shadows of the true. It both showed God's continued care for the people AND their separation. They could not have direct access. They had to have a mediator, and he could only go in once a year.



The enemies are made the footstool at the second coming. But I didn't notice any reference to the 1k years there. And if you notice I Cor. 15 is a reference to the second coming and the resurrection when they would be changed.



Ready in what way?



I will let you all carry out the laver debate.


You may want to distinguish between introductory sanctuary imagery scenes and full visions in Revelation.

The introductory scenes of the lampstands, altar with incense, ark, etc. show the classic earthly sanctuary furniture in order of increasing holiness. But the actual prolonged vision of Chapter 4-5 is its own scene.

But I do find it interesting that Adventists have an actual box in heaven that is in a place even more holy than where God was supposed to be at for 1800 years.



Because I recognize that the type is not fulfilled in every respect. The once for all aspect of Jesus sacrifice irrevocably changed the type and the timing of certain fulfillments. The types also are simply symbols which can never truly capture the heavenly reality.




But then you break the type by introducing long periods, and you don't explain the change of priesthood and the once for all sacrifice and its impact.

Do you think the sanctuary was cleansed of something other than sin?

As for 23 having relation only to the dedication I addressed that above. It is related to both services.

Finally the exaltation of Christ came after His ascension, not just the cross. It followed His presentation of the sacrifice in God's presence, which would in fact involve that cleansing blood you referenced.

tall, I'll be interested in reading Rosangela's comments, as I'm sure she'll go through your posts point by point, but I have just a few comments and questions.

Regarding the laver, I already commented on your insight there. Many people don't see the connection.

Regarding the literalness of the symbols, I agree with your comment. For example, in the earthly sanctuary, the curtain had angels woven in. It would be pretty odd to have a curtain with angels woven in it in heaven when there are real angels there.



How is this different than what SDA's believe?



We're not doing anything different here than what the OT saints did, are we? That is, the throne of grace is in heaven. One goes before that throne by faith. The OT saints did this as well.



Sin isn't literally in heaven, right? So can this mean anything other than the purification from sin of those who partake of the benefits of Christ's ministry by faith?