This week’s lesson is redolent with the gospel. The whole of it is, but especially an enlargement of the words found in the first comment on page 91: "Any theology that denies the blood atonement of Christ denies the heart and soul of Christianity. A bloodless cross can save no one."

The writer, no doubt, thinks highly of our pioneer Uriah Smith, but he is far removed from Smith’s warning that it should forever be fixed in the mind that the atonement was not made on the cross.1

Only since the printing of Questions on Doctrine have Adventists felt free to use the term "atonement" for the sacrifice on Calvary, despite the fact that Ellen White so used it in Early Writings.2 The writer also departs from Smith throughout the lesson, in that he says nothing about "apartments" in heaven or even "phases" of ministry.

The traditions Smith represented, however, are followed to some degree in intimating that all the Israelites’ sins could be "bought off" by blood sacrifice, which became the instrument of transferring the guilt and the specific sin to the sanctuary by sprinkled blood. The sins for which sacrifice could atone were only in a minor category. S. H. Kellogg expresses the universal understanding of exegetes when he comments on the sin offerings of Leviticus 4:

There was indeed a limitation to the application of this offering; for if a man, in those days, sinned willfully, presumptuously, stubbornly, or, as in the phrase is, "with a high hand," there was no provision made in the law for his restoration to covenant standing. "He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witness; "he was cut off from his people." But for sins of a lesser grade, such as resulted not from a spirit of willful rebellion against God, but were mitigated in their guilt by various reasons, especially ignorance, rashness, or inadvertence, God made provision, in a typical way, for their removal by means of the atonement of the sin—and the guilt—offerings.3

Israelites dealt with more heinous sins on the Day of Atonement, when deliberate transgressions from which they repented were placed on the head of the goat, slain by the priest prior to his entrance into the Most Holy Place. This is quite distinct from the usual ritual with the daily sin offering. Also, it must be pointed out that not one drop of blood from the sin offering of the ordinary worshiper was ever taken into the sanctuary. This was done only in the instance of a corporate sin by the entire congregation (Lev. 4:13–30). The sanctuary was immediately defiled by the sin of the worshiper (Num 19:13). If sin is only transferred when confessed, it would be pragmatic not to confess!

If one compared this lesson from the Quarterly with others on the same topic over past years, one would be impressed with the tremendous difference. It has taken a long time for us to recognize that we are meant to take at face value the words of Hebrews 9:24: "Christ did not enter a manmade sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself now to appear for us in God’s presence" (NIV emphasis mine).

Through most of their history, Seventh-day Adventists have failed to accept an implicit warning in the The Great Controversy:

The abiding place of the King of kings, where thousand thousands minister unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stand before Him (Daniel 7:10); that temple, filled with the glory of the eternal throne, where seraphim, its shining guardians, veil their faces in adoration, could find, in the most magnificent structure ever reared by human hands, but a faint reflection of its vastness and glory.4

One hundred million angels aren’t crowded into a heavenly building, but minister spaciously before the King of Kings at the center of the universe. Thus, Hebrews says nothing about apartments in heaven or about phases of ministry there. Instead, it glories in the fact that having atoned for the sins of the world, Christ "sat down" in glory, not being under the pressure of the old priests who were forever engaged in their incomplete ministry, and who would never have dreamed of "sitting" in either of the Holy Places.

The title of the lesson is appropriate for a study that centers on Hebrews 9 and 10. The memory verse climaxes the contrasts between the Old and New Covenants as symbolized by the contrasts between the two apartments of the sanctuary and their respective ministries. The repetition of the world "first" in the opening two verses should be noted especially. The succeeding verses tell us that the ministry of the first apartment represented the days of the First Covenant, that of Old Testament times. But the second apartment, entered only once a year, only by the high priest, only with blood, and only for moments, pointed to the Calvary atonement that sealed the New Covenant.

For enlightenment, one should read several translations of Hebrews 9:1–15, one of which can be found in Moffatt’s version:

The priests constantly enter the first tent, in the discharge of their ritual duties, but the second tent is entered only once a year by the high priest alone—and it must not be without blood, which he presents on behalf of himself and the errors of the People. By this the Holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest Presence was not disclosed so long as the first tent (which foreshadowed the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices which cannot possibly make the conscience of the worshipper perfect, since they relate merely to food and drink and a variety of ablutions—outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period of the New Order.5

Verses 8 and 12 of Hebrews 9 should be compared with verse 25. Our great High Priest ratified the New Covenant by offering himself and then entering into the very presence of God as represented by the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. Observe the following from The Desire of Ages, where Ellen White exegetes Scripture, in contrast to her words in The Great Controversy, in which she records the history of Adventist doctrine after the Great Disappointment of 1844.

No one but the high priest ever lifted the veil separating this apartment from the rest of the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement for the sins of the people. But lo, this veil is rent in twain.…

The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest. Henceforth the Savior was to officiate as priest and advocate in the heaven of heavens.6

The giraffes among the readers of these notes would profit by the discussions between Norman Young and Richard Davidson in the recent fall and spring issues of Andrews University Seminary Studies. These four articles contain much that bears on this week’s lesson. On one hand, Young—correctly I think—takes the position that the references of Hebrews 9:8, 12, 25—as with 6:19 and 10:120—relate to Christ’s entrance into heaven itself on the antitypical Day of Atonement, of which Calvary was the heart.

On the other hand, Davidson suggests that at least the last two passages point only to the dedication of the heavenly sanctuary. We are at a loss to perceive why the second (the dedication) could not have been part and parcel of the triumphant offering and entrance by our Melchizedekan high priest, as he accomplished the fulfillment of the typical Day of Atonement.

The writer of this week’s lesson is to be congratulated for his careful choice of Ellen White’s quotations. They beautifully express the New Testament gospel, whereas had quotations been taken from The Great Controversy, the book usually cited on the matter of the sanctuary, this would have been much more difficult.

Consider, for example, the quotation from The Faith I Live By, on page 91 of the Quarterly, and compare it with The Great Controversy, pages 482–83.

Reading this lesson from our present Quarterly brings both encouragement and hope for those who, with Ellen White, believe that "we have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn."7

Notes and References

1. Uriah Smith, Looking unto Jesus: or, Christ in Type and Antitype (Chicago: Review and Herald, 1898), 237.
2. Ellen G. White, Early Writings of Mrs. White. Experience and Views, and Spiritual Gifts, Volume One (Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald, 1882), 260.
3. S. H. Kellogg, "The Book of Leviticus," The Expositor’s Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1891), edited by W. Roberton Nicoll, 109–10.
4. Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1950), 414.
5. Heb. 9: 6–10, Moffatt, A New Translation of the Bible, emphasis supplied.
6. Ellen G. White, Desire of Ages (Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Press, 1898), 757.
7. Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors: A Grouping of Messages of Counsel Addressed to Writers and Editors (Nashville, Tenn.: Southern), 37.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE