There is a striking difference between the blood sprinkled “before the veil” and that sprinkled “within the veil.” If the type had been perfect, the high priest would have sprinkled his own blood “within the veil” just as Christ entered with “his own blood.” But as God would not countenance human sacrifices in the typical system, therefore the priest was allowed to enter within the veil with the blood of the Lord’s goat instead of his own blood; but the reader must see that bad the type perfectly represented the reality, the priest would have sprinkled his own blood upon the mercy seat instead of the blood of the Lord’s goat, and this clears the way for a better understanding of the difference between the blood which the priest sprinkles before the veil, and that which he sprinkles within the veil.
PRAYER FOR PARDON NOT THE PRICE OF PARDON.
The blood sprinkled “before the veil” was the blood which the priest had received from the hand of the repentant, believing sinner; the blood sprinkled “within the veil” was the blood of the goat chosen by the Lord, called “the Lord’s goat,” and stood for the high priest’s own blood. The blood sprinkled before the veil, inasmuch as it was brought by the sinner, was nothing more than the sinner’s confession of sin, and prayer for pardon through faith in the blood of Christ. It sustained the same relation to the death of Christ that the bread and wine of the Lord’s table sustains today to that same death. The blood sprinkled “within the veil” was not a prayer for pardon received at the hand of the sinner, but was the blood of the sinner’s substitute, which was the price of pardon. It is not the sinner who furnishes the price of pardon, but the sinner’s substitute. The penalty of the law is not paid by the prayer of the penitent, but by the blood of his substitute.
“It is not thy tears of repentance, nor prayers, But the blood that atones for the soul.”
The reason why the priest did not enter the holy place within the veil until the day of atonement was because he did not have the blood of the Lord’s goat, a substitute for his own blood, to offer until that day. He could present the prayers of the penitent, represented by the blood which the penitent brought – he could present this “before the veil,” and obtain pardon for the sinner – in and through the merits of Christ’s coming death on the day of atonement; but he, being the sinner’s substitute, could not enter within the veil until he had the substitute for his own blood, which alone could, in type, meet the penalty of a broken law.
“THE SIN OFFERING OF ATONEMENT.”
There was a sin offering offered for the whole congregation on the day of atonement, “besides the sin offering of atonement” (Num. 29:11), but the priest would have lost his life, if after sprinkling the blood of this common sin offering “before the veil,” he had gone “within the veil,” and attempted to sprinkle that same blood on the mercy seat. And why? Because it was but a prayer for pardon in the name of Christ, and not the blood of the “sin offering of the atonement.” After the priest had sprinkled the blood of the sin offering, which was merely the sinner’s prayer for pardon, he changed his garments, putting on the white linen of the atonement day, and with the blood of another goat, which the Lord had chosen, whose blood was a substitute for the priest’s own blood, he entered within the veil, and sprinkled that blood upon the mercy seat, which, being a substitute for his own blood, and typifying the blood of our great High Priest, met the penalty of the law in type.
The priest did not dare enter “within the veil” at the beginning of the yearly service, because he did not then have his own blood to offer. It was not until the day of atonement that the Lord chose for him a goat, whose blood was offered in the place of the high priest’s own blood. So Christ did not enter “within the veil” at Creation, when sin first entered, and when he became man’s substitute and surety, the one Mediator between God and man, because he did not then have his own blood to offer in payment for the penalty of sin. That blood was not shed until four thousand years later; and when his blood is shed at Calvary, the veil of the temple is rent in twain, and the way into the holiest is laid open, and Christ, now in possession of his own blood, enters “within the veil,” and sprinkles that blood upon the mercy seat once for all, in payment of the penalty of a broken law. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.”
It might be asked, Why was not the Lord’s goat slain at the beginning of the yearly service, instead of on the day of atonement?
Answer: For the same reason that Christ was not crucified at Creation, but at Calvary. It was the plan of Cod that a long ministry should take place in the sanctuary before the substitute should die beneath the load of a world’s guilt.
THE DAILY ATONEMENT IN THE HEAVENLY.
Leaving the type, let us examine the reality. When Abel offered his offering at Creation, what did his ministering angel receive at the hands of Abel to present before the throne of grace? Not the literal blood of Abel’s lamb, for that blood was only a channel of faith, like baptism, and the Lord’s supper. What then, I ask, did Abel’s minister have to present to him who dwelt between the cherubim? Surely only that which the offering voiced – a confession of sin, and a prayer for pardon. With this prayer, his minister could go before the veil, and together with the incense burning on the altar before the throne, or Christ’s own righteousness, present Abel’s confession and prayer for pardon, and receive from the throne of grace the prayed-for pardon, which he could then minister to the sin-troubled heart of Abel. But why could he not go “within the veil” with that prayer, which he had received at the hand of Abel? For the sufficient reason that the prayer of a sinner for pardon is not the price or penalty of a broken law. If a ministering angel had gone “within the veil,” at creation, and attempted to pay the penalty of sin with the prayer of a penitent, he would have perished; but, with Christ’s promise to pay the penalty of sin with his own blood at Calvary, the ministering angel could approach the veil, and obtain pardon for the penitent through the merits of Christ’s blood, which should be shed four thousand years later; but no priest dare enter “within the veil” until he has that which alone can meet the penalty of a broken law – his own precious blood. And this is why it is written after Christ’s death and ascension, “When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” “But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God.” “By his own blood, he entered once into the holy place (holies), having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
Let us then no longer confound the offerings which the priest received at the hand of the sinner and offered on behalf of the sinner “before the veil,” which offerings were but a confession of sin, and a prayer for pardon – let us not confound this offering with that offering which was received at the hand of God, and which was a substitute for the priest’s own blood, which alone could meet, in type, the penalty of a broken law. Remember that the first offering was but a prayer for pardon, while the second was the payment of the penalty of sin. Let it be kept in mind that the priest could for four thousand years, present before the veil in the heavenly sanctuary the prayers of the penitent, voiced by the blood of his offering and obtain through the merits of Christ’s coming death, the prayed-for pardon; but when the hour comes when the penalty of sin must be paid, it requires infinitely more than the prayer of a sinner to meet that penalty; it requires nothing less than the precious blood of God’s only begotten Son.
Nothing is clearer than that Christ was man’s substitute from creation. “He hath made him to be sin for us” could have been said as truly by the patriarchs as by the apostle Paul. “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself,” not merely from the cross onward, but from creation. After righteousness had been ministered to Abel, in response to his prayer of faith, the Lord no longer regarded him as bearing sin; but if he is not the sin-bearer, who is the sin-bearer? To this question the Father could make answer by pointing to his only begotten Son.
Reader, can you not see that from the fall of man, Christ became man’s substitute, and being thus counted a sinner, there must be a ministry before the veil until he is in possession of his own precious blood, with which to sprinkle the mercy seat “within the veil”?
The veil in the earthly sanctuary was decorated with figures of angels, representing the real angels which guarded the approach to the throne of God, and it is before this cordon of living angels that the Melchisedek priesthood ministers from creation to the cross. For four thousand years, the sins of a world separated God’s only begotten Son from his place at the side of his Father on the throne. For four thousand years, Christ was barred from his Father’s face because he was the sinner’s substitute. How full of meaning then, are these words in the prayer of our Savior, offered but a few hours before he was to pay the penalty of a world’s sin in his death on Calvary, and then return to his Father’s side:
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself, with the glory which I had with thee before the world began.” John 17:5.
The full meaning of this tremendous truth is brought out in the Twentieth Century New Testament. Here is the translation:
“And now do thou honor me, Father, at thine own side, with the honor which I had beside thee before the world began.”
Thus it is plainly declared that Christ, our substitute, occupied a place at his Father’s side on the throne, before the world began, which he did not occupy after sin entered; but when he was about to pay the penalty of sin in his own death, he asks that he be allowed to return to his Father’s side. Oh, how full of meaning is the Father’s answer to that prayer! At the moment of his Son’s death, when he had uttered that triumphant cry, “It is finished,” and his thorn-crowned head fell lifeless upon his breast, the hand of God who had suffered the cruel separation from his Son for four thousand years, on account of that terrible thing called “sin”‘ tore the veil of the temple from top to bottom, not the first curtain, but the one which had separated the high priest, the type of God’s Son from the throne of his Father’s glory; thereby saying in tragic tones to the angelic guard that had barred the way of the sinner’s substitute, the Son of God, from the throne of his Father, “Stand aside! make way for the home-coming of my Son. The debt is paid that separated my only begotten Son from his place at my side.” When, therefore, Christ arose from the grave freed from sin (“He that is dead is freed from sin”) the way into the holiest was laid open and the angelic guard stood waiting to pass the all-conquering world’s Redeemer on to the welcoming arms of his waiting Father. “When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
Oh! the breadth, the length, the height, and the depth, of the love of God in Christ Jesus!
ATONEMENT FOR THE SINNER AND ATONEMENT FOR HIS SIN.
The very fact that the offerings during the year did not in any sense meet the penalty of transgression, but left the sanctuary uncleansed to be atoned for by the blood of the Lord’s goat on the day of atonement, ought to convince anyone that there is a marked difference between the offerings which the individual or the congregation brought from day to day during the year, and the one offering made on the day of atonement.
But the reader will ask, when the priest sprinkled the blood before the veil, is it not clearly stated, “And the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them?” Lev. 4:20. Most assuredly it is. But, reader, if the penalty of sin had been met by this blood, why is it that the sanctuary must be cleansed on the day of atonement? Why is it that there must be another offering made, whose blood shall be sprinkled above the mercy seat, before the penalty of sin is met? Can you not see that if the first blood had met the penalty of sin, there would have been no need of a day of atonement to cleanse the sanctuary of the sins of the people?
Then you ask, What was the need of the daily offerings, and in what sense was atonement made for the people which would make it necessary for another atonement to be made for iniquity on the day of atonement? The whole matter is made clear when we realize that the offerings which the sinner brought during the year were but a channel of faith through which they acknowledged their sin, and expressed their faith in the coming Lamb of God, who would die to take away their sin. The offerings which the people made during the year sustained the same relation to the cross of Calvary that the bread and wine of the Lord’s supper sustains today to that same cross. One was a channel of faith in the Lamb of God to come and die for the sins of men; the other – the bread and wine – is but a channel of faith for us to express our faith in the Lamb of God, who has come and died for our sins. Another has expressed it beautifully thus:
“The patriarchs, prophets, and all the holy martyrs, from righteous Abel, looked forward to the coming Saviour, in whom they showed their faith by sacrificial offerings. At the crucifixion, the typical system of sacrifices was done away by the great Anti-typical Offering.” “Sufferings of Christ.” p.3.
“It is as essential, no more so and no less, that we have faith in the Redeemer who has come and died – our sacrifice, as it was for the ancients to believe in the Redeemer to come, whom they represented by their typical sacrifices.” Ib. p.4.
ILLUSTRATING THE DISTINCTION
Let me illustrate the relation which the atonement for the sinner, which was made during the year sustained to the atonement for iniquity which was made on the day of atonement. We will say that I am renting a house in Ballymoney, Ireland, from a Mr. Hanna. Let it be supposed that I am unable to pay my rent, and am therefore in distress. I am anxious to leave for America, but Mr. Hanna brings suit against me, and levies upon my goods. In my distress, my friend, Mr. McClelland, steps up and says: “Mr. Hanna, charge the two pounds which Mr. Ballenger owes you, to me. I will pay it on the first of next June. Let Mr. Ballenger go to America.” Mr. Hanna, perfectly satisfied with my substitute, transfers my debt from myself to Mr. McClelland, and says to me, “Mr. Ballenger, you are free to go. I hold Mr. McClelland in your stead.” Mr. Hanna and I are now one. An atonement has been made for me which has reconciled me to Mr. Hanna, Reader, cannot you see that when Mr. Hanna accepted Mr. McClelland as my substitute in that acceptance an atonement is made for me, I am free from the debt? But the reader will recognize that no atonement has yet been made for the debt. The debt has not been paid. Mr. McClelland, my substitute, has assumed the debt, and Mr. Hanna has accepted him in my place, but he has not yet paid the debt. This payment will not be made until the 1st of June.
And so, during the four thousand years, from creation to the cross, the sinner is pardoned but the sin is not atoned for until the day when it is laid upon the Lamb of God.
“He hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.”
“Behold, the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” Inasmuch as God forgave the sinner from creation to Calvary, and did not inflict the penalty of the sinner’s sin, either on the sinner or his substitute, it follows that God’s throne and his sanctuary have assumed the responsibility of man’s sin.
Thus it was in the sanctuary service during the year. The sinner brought his sin offering, which was merely a channel through which he confessed his sin, and expressed his faith in the death of Christ yet to come. By his faith he was made to realize a oneness with God; but his sin, in type, still defiled the sanctuary until the day of atonement. On this great day, the service was changed. The Lord did not leave the sinner to choose the offering, but he chose the offering himself. He did not permit the sinner to lay his hands upon the head of this goat, for this was not the goat which was a channel for the faith of the repentant, believing sinner; but this goat was the one victim of the year which symbolized, from God’s stand-point, his giving his only Son to die to atone for the sins of the world. The offerings during the year symbolized man’s accepting, by faith, God’s offering for sin; but this one offering on the day of atonement symbolized God’s giving his Son to be the sin-offering for the world. And, inasmuch as he, God, laid upon him, Christ, the iniquities of us all, it was not fitting for the sinner to lay his hands upon this, the Lord’s goat. By keeping in mind this clear distinction between the purpose of the daily offerings, and the offering on the day of atonement the whole sanctuary system becomes clear and plain.
HALTING CHRIST “BEFORE THE VEIL.”
When we stop our great High Priest in the first apartment for more than 1800 years, we not only violate the type, which required that the high priest should pass, with the blood of the Lord’s goat, immediately into the holy of holies; but, by placing him before the veil for all those centuries, we put him in the position of the priest against whom was charged the accumulated sins of the people, and who was awaiting the death of the day of atonement, whereby he was to unload his burden of sin. But why load up our Savior again with the very same sins with which he was already burdened when he suffered on Calvary’s cross? Must he bear the same sins twice? If, after his ascension, he is again laden, in the first apartment, with the sins of the world, will not he have to die again to meet the penalty of these sins? But this is impossible, for the Apostle Paul says in the 6th of Rom.: “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him: For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” Christ is no longer the sin-bearer. All the sins he ever will bear, he bore on Calvary’s cross. If he were still laden with sin, he would still have to minister before the veil, and he could not enter into the presence of God, and sit down with him on his throne. It was not until he had purged our sins in his death, that he was allowed to pass into the presence of God, and sit down on his throne.
“When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Heb. 1:3.
“But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.” Heb. 10:12.
But the objection may be raised: When the sinner sins today, and confesses his sin, does not Jesus Christ load that sin upon himself? God forbid. That sin was already borne by him on the cross of Calvary, and all he needs to do is to raise that pierced hand, and plead that he has already borne that sin to Calvary, and paid its debt in his death. If he again loads himself up with sin, then he must offer himself again, and if he offers himself again, he must suffer again. “Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year, with the blood of others. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:25-26.
But does not God and his Son still suffer because of the sins of men? Yes, in the same sense that a parent suffers when a child is afflicted or is wayward. The love of the father for the son, causes the father to suffer when his son suffers or when the son is led into sin. In this sense God and his Son suffered with a sinning world from the fall to the cross, and from the cross to the end of sin; but this suffering is no part of that vicarious suffering which pays the penalty of sin. The wages of sin is DEATH,” not sympathetic suffering with the sinner. The sacrificial lamb pointed forward to the death of Christ on the cross and the emblematic bread and wine point back to that same death. “Then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
There is another conspicuous violation of the type in the present position that it is strange we have not discerned. All must admit that the Lord’s goat as the antitype of Christ, was slain on the day of atonement. Ought not Christ, then, to be slain on the day of atonement? and has not the day of atonement begun when atonement for iniquity is made? The Lord declared to the prophet Daniel that the atonement for iniquity was to be made within the seventy weeks. This proves positively that the day of atonement began before the seventy weeks ended. When I say “day of atonement,” I do not refer to a day of twenty-four hours, but to a period. The type, in order to correspond with our present position should have had the Lord’s goat, which especially typified God’s giving his Son to die to put away sin, slain considerably earlier in the year, and the high priest should have sprinkled his blood, for months before the veil, and then on the day of atonement, he should have carried the rest of the blood, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat. But this, as anyone knows, is not the plan of the type. The first great act on the morning of the day of atonement was the slaying of the Lord’s goat, which typified the death of Christ; therefore, when the cross of Calvary is upreared and the Lamb of God isn ailed to the cruel tree, the great anti-typical day of atonement has begun.
When a crime is committed in a state, the government is responsible for the purging away of that crime; and though the criminal may be already tried and sentenced to death, yet the government has not purged itself of this crime until it has inflicted the penalty of the law on the transgressor. In like manner, so long as God has pardoned the sinner, but has not inflicted the penalty of the sinner’s sin upon his Son, the sanctuary in heaven was responsible for the putting away of that sin. So Abel was forgiven and went free, and thousands of years before the debt was paid, he was resting in his grave, God having transferred his sin to his substitute. God was holding Abel for the sin no longer. Yet it was not met in Christ’s death until four thousand years later.
Year after year, during these centuries, the sins of men were accumulating in the sanctuary above, and God became responsible for them, and they were charged against his Son. But there came a day of reckoning, when the promise of the Son to pay the debt must be fulfilled. At that time we see Jesus Christ, with the accumulated sins of the centuries, which God had laid upon him, groaning under the load on Calvary, and paying the penalty of the world’s sin in his own death. But not only did he suffer under the load of tile sins of the past, but he suffered for the sins of the future. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God.” Heb. 10:12. And when he hangs dead on Calvary’s cross, he is free from sin for he that is dead is freed from sin. Christ raised from the dead, stands in the position of the high priest, when on the day of atonement, he held in his hand the blood of the Lord’s goat.
And why, I ask again, should we stop our great High Priest for more than 1800 years in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, there to receive upon himself again the accumulation of sins which he has already borne in his death on Calvary?
And thus, we see that the ministry in the first apartment of the Mosaic sanctuary, was a perfect type of the ministry on behalf of the sinner from creation to the cross, during which time the sins of men were actually accumulating in the heavenly sanctuary. Again the day of atonement in Israel was a perfect type of the actual putting away of sin, on which day the sins of men which had accumulated in the sanctuary were met in type by the blood of the Lord’s goat. So on the great day of atonement, God laid upon his Son the iniquity of us all – the accumulated iniquity of the centuries, and the Lamb bore them, and paid their penalty in his death. Nothing is clearer than that the day of atonement began with the death of Christ. The Lord’s goat, typifying Christ’s death, was slain on the day of atonement; consequently Christ, in order to be the antitype, must himself be slain on the day of atonement.
NO MINISTERING PRIEST FOR FORTY CENTURIES.
Our old position leaves the world for the first 4000 years without an interceding priest. We admit that there was a sanctuary in heaven during that time; we admit that God dwelt between the cherubim, above the mercy seat; we admit that there was a world of sinners in need of pardon; we admit that those sinners prayed to God who dwelt upon the mercy seat, between the cherubim; but we have given them no priest, no advocate, no intercessor, to present those prayers before God. We have admitted that there was an altar of incense before the throne, but it was cold and deserted. No holy flame burning upon it, and no incense offered with the prayers of the saints.
When we are anxious to collect tithes from the people, we argue that the priesthood of Christ today, is but a continuance of a similar priesthood which existed in the days of Abraham. “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.” If this is a good argument with which to collect tithes from the people, and it is, and the people should pay their tithes, it is also an excellent argument to prove that there was a priesthood during the first 4,000 years – a priesthood after the order of Christ’s priesthood today, through whose intercession the prayers of the patriarchs were made acceptable to Cod in heaven. If we begin the priesthood in heaven at Christ’s ascension, and say, as we have said, that only those sins which were carried in by the priest into the first apartment find forgiveness, then there is no forgiveness for the sins of the first four thousand years, for there was no one to carry them into the sanctuary, there being no priest.
In other words: the ministry in the first apartment during the year was a type of the ministry in the heavenly sanctuary until the cross, and the ministry in the second apartment was a type of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary from the cross onward. And just as the sin offering for the atonement was slain on the day of atonement, so Christ, the antitypical sin-offering, was slain on the day of atonement.
But it is argued that the heavenly sanctuary could not have been open prior to the cross according to Heb. 9:8. The scripture says that the way into the holiest of all (or more literally, “the way of the holies”), was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was standing. If the”first tabernacle” applies to the worldly sanctuary as a whole, and we understand this scripture to say that Christ had not entered into the heavenly sanctuary so long as the worldly sanctuary was standing, then Christ did not enter into the heavenly sanctuary until A.D. 70, when the worldly sanctuary was destroyed, for this earthly sanctuary did stand until that time. It may be replied that the word “standing” does not mean the literal standing of the sanctuary, but so long as its services had a standing in the sight of God, that is, were recognized as services of divine appointment; but as soon as one takes this position, they interpret this term “standing” in the very way I have interpreted it. But it must be applied to the work of the first apartment, and not to the whole sanctuary; for the antecedent is “first apartment” and not first, or worldly sanctuary. Therefore we have this scripture saying that the way of the holies is not yet manifested while the first tabernacle, (first apartment) “hath a standing,” that is, while services are being conducted there.
Oh! how striking the rending of the veil of the sanctuary from the top to the bottom at the moment of Christ’s death, thus saying in tragic words, – The services in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary are finished, and the way is now open for Christ to enter into the holy of holies, and offer his blood on behalf of a sinning world. And so we read: “When he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” And again, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down at the right hand of God.”
The following diagram will present to the eye the relation which the services in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary sustained to the work in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the sacrifice of Christ; and also the relation which the work in the holy of holies, on the day of atonement in the earthly sanctuary, sustains to the work of the great High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary from the death of Christ onward. The parallel is complete, as the reader will readily see. This presentation of the matter relieves the awkward situation of having a sanctuary in heaven for four thousand years, in which no services on behalf of sinful man are being carried on, – God dwelling in the holy of holies of that sanctuary, upon the mercy seat, between the cherubim, and yet no ministry on behalf of man! This is too unreasonable to be entertained for a moment.
Of that which we have spoken this is the sum: The daily services in the earthly sanctuary, up to the day of atonement, were an exact type of the work on behalf of the sinner in the heavenly sanctuary from creation to the coming of Christ; and the ministry in the holy of holies in the earthly sanctuary, was an exact facsimile of the work wrought on behalf of the sinner, on the great day of atonement, which began with the coming of the Lord, and ends with his second coming.
HEAVENLY SANCTUARY
| 1. Sin pardoned in reality. | 1. Sinner’s Substitute dies in reality |
| 2. Sinner released in reality. | 2. Blood sprinkled upon mercy seat in reality. |
| 3. Sin not yet atoned for in reality. | 3. Penalty of sin paid in reality. |
| 4. Day of Atonement yet future in reality. | 4. Sinner’s sin atoned for in reality. |
| 5. Christ is held as the sinner’s Substitute in reality. | 5. Last act of Day of Atonement – cleansing of the Sanctuary in reality. |
| 6. Christ to pay the penalty of sin on the Day of Atonement in reality |
EARTHLY SANCTUARY
| 1. Sin pardoned in type. | 1. Sinner’s Substitute dies in type. |
| 2. Sinner released in type. | 2. Blood sprinkled on mercy seat in type. |
| 3. Sin not yet atoned for in type. | 3. Penalty of sin paid in type. |
| 4. Day of Atonement yet future in type. | 4. Sinner’s sin atoned for in type, but Sanctuary not yet cleansed. |
| 5. Priest held as the Sinner’s substitute in type. | 5. Last act of Day of Atonement cleansing the Sanctuary in type. |
| 6. Priest to pay the penalty of sin on the Day of Atonement in type. |
- 12. “But how about the Testimonies?” - September 22, 2022
- 11. Why the Confirming Signs are not Seen - September 15, 2022
- 10. Recapitulation: Type Vs. Antitype - September 8, 2022