EARTHLY SANCTUARY

Prepared by: M.N. Opena

References: Holy Scripture, Handbook of Theology, Spirit of Prophecy
Early Writings of EGW
30 “
OT and NT
(The Witness of Biblical Doctrine of Priesthood)
In exploring the richness and depth of the biblical doctrine of the
priesthood of Christ, we must consider the witness of both the OT and
NT.
For the Christian both Testaments form an indivisible unity of divine
revelation. There is one Author of Scriptures who in the past revealed
Himself through different instruments and who now has spoken to us
through the Son (Heb. 1:1, 2).

Interestingly, the origin of sacrifice is not explicitly stated anywhere in

the OT. The first time one is mentioned no particular reason is given for
it and the issue of its origin is not addressed (Gen. 4:2–5
OT and NT
(The Witness of Biblical Doctrine of Priesthood)

The priestly ministry of our heavenly high priest was prefigured in the
OT sacrificial system, especially as seen in the Hebrew sanctuary, made
according to a ―pattern‖ shown by God to Moses (Ex. 25:9) and
pointing to the heavenly sanctuary. The sanctuary services were a
lesson book in salvation. For this reason, the study of the sanctuary and
its services not only clarifies the meaning of the rituals followed, but it
also sheds light on the heavenly ministry of Christ.
Origin of the Sacrificial System

• The sacrificial system of the

OT originated immediately
after the Fall. In Eden God
revealed Himself as the
Redeemer of the human
race.
 Origin of the Sacrificial System

• The penalty of eternal death

was not applied to Adam and
Eve at once because the Lord
provided a means of
redemption through which
He would put an end to the
serpent, the devil, and his
works (Gen. 3:15; cf. Rom.
16:20; Heb. 2:14).
Origin of the Sacrificial System
• God‘s gracious act in providing
Adam and Eve with garments of
skin was in fact a promise of
redemption (Genesis 3:21
• The implicit death of the animal
becomes a sacrificial act.
(Theological Context)
• Adam and Eve, after committing
sin, were destined to
experience ultimate death
(Gen. 2:17).
Origin of the Sacrificial System

• Surprisingly, their life was

preserved. But precisely in that life-
threatening context the death of an
animal took place.

• The death penalty was not

executed on them but on the
animal.
Origin of the Sacrificial System

• The death of the animal

provided the means of
restoring their relationship
with the Lord.
• Out of death came hope and
restoration. That God made the
garments and dressed the
erring pair suggests that God
did for them what they were
unable to do for themselves.
SPECIFIC SACRIFICE

1. Sacrifice of Abel and Cain

• Whenever God accepted a
sacrifice, He also accepted
the offerer. Abel and Cain
SPECIFIC SACRIFICE
2. Sacrifice of Noah.
After the Flood, Noah offered
burnt offerings to the Lord.
These sacrifices were an
expression of gratitude for God‘s
loving care for Noah and his
family. The idea of expiation also
seems to be present.
SPECIFIC SACRIFICE
3. Sacrifice of Abraham
• The Lord provided a ram to be
sacrificed in place of Isaac, indicating
the importance of sacrificial
substitution. The death of the
sacrificial victim was required to
preserve the life of Isaac and the
relationship between God and
Abraham.
• Salvation was understood to come
from the Lord, bringing deliverance
through substitutionary sacrifice (cf.
Isa. 53).
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
1. The Israelite Sanctuary
ISRAELITE SANCTUARY
Lamb without
blemish
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
2.Priesthood
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
2.Priesthood
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
2.Priesthood
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
3. Sacrifices and Offering
• The burnt offering (Heb. ―ascending offering‖) was totally burned on the
altar. The person who brought it laid the hand on the head of the victim
(Lev. 1:4) and prepared the animal for the priest to perform the blood ritual
and place the sacrifice on the altar. This sacrifice could be a votive or
freewill offering (Lev. 22:17–19). It was also an expiatory offering through
which the person was accepted before the Lord; in 1 Samuel 13:12 the
burnt offering was associated with the idea of ―entreating the Lord,‖ a
phrase often used in the context of God‘s anger or displeasure (Ex. 32:11; 1
Kings 13:6). Thus, the burnt offering appears in the context of propitiation.
It was an expression of worship, gratitude, thanksgiving, joy, and total
dedication of the offerer to God. Since the individual was constantly in
need of forgiveness, it was also a means of expiation. The
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
3. Sacrifices and Offering
• The peace offering ( ―peace/well-being offering‖) was a voluntary
sacrifice brought as a thanksgiving or votive or freewill offering (Lev.
7:11–18). The sacrifice was a joyful occasion (see 1 Sam. 11:14, 15; 1
Kings 8:63) and served to strengthen the covenant relation through
communion with God and other Israelites (Deut. 27:7). Most of the
meat was given to the offerer who ate it before the Lord with family
and friends (Lev. 7:15). Part of the flesh went to the priest (verses 32–
34). The laying on of hands and the blood ritual indicate that this
sacrifice also had an expiatory function (Eze. 45:15, 17).
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
3. Sacrifices and Offering
• The sin offering was a sacrifice for the removal of sin. One type was offered
when a priest or the community sinned unintentionally (Lev. 4:1–21) and
the other when a layperson sinned unintentionally (verses 27–31). The
procedure for each was slightly different. When a priest brought the
sacrifice, the blood was sprinkled inside the tabernacle and some of it was
put on the horns of the altar of incense. The rest of the blood was poured
out at the base of the altar of sacrifices and the flesh of the animal was
burned outside the sanctuary. In the case of a layperson, some of the blood
was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering and the rest was
poured out at the base of the altar. Some of the flesh was eaten by the
priest. This sacrifice expiated any unintentional violation of the covenant
law. According
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
3. Sacrifices and Offering
• The guilt offering freed the individual from a state of guilt incurred before
the Lord through the unintentional misappropriation of the holy and for
cases of suspected sin (Lev. 5:15, 17; Num. 6:12). The Lord allowed the
sinner to bring a guilt offering in order to restore peace of mind. A guilt
offering was also required for the expiation of the intentional sin of
misappropriating someone‘s property and denying it (Num. 5:5–8) and for
sexual intercourse with a betrothed slave girl (Lev. 19:20–22). Whenever
possible, restitution and compensation were required in addition to the
sacrifice. The procedure for this sacrifice was the same as for the sin
offering (Lev. 7:7). The only difference was that its blood was ―thrown on
the altar round about‖ (verse 2) and was not placed on its horns. Through
the sacrifice, atonement was made for the repentant sinner (Lev. 5:18). The
ISRAELITE SACRIFICIAL SYSTEM
3. Sacrifices and Offering
• The meal offering was a non bloody offering. The term translated
―meal offering,‖ means ―gift, tribute.‖ This offering accompanied all
burnt offerings and peace offerings and consisted of wheat grain or
flour, oil, and incense (Num. 15:3–11). The drink offering made from
grapes was probably poured out at the base of the altar of burnt
offerings. As an offering from the fruits of the land, the was a
recognition of God‘s gracious provisions. It also may have been an
expression of the person‘s willingness to preserve the covenant
relationship with the Lord (Lev. 2:13). The
Functions of the OT Sanctuary System
Theological Aspects of the Israelite Sanctuary

• God‘s request for a tabernacle among the Israelites came after they
left Egypt and made a covenant with God (Ex. 25:8). This suggests
that redemption precedes access to the sanctuary because only those
who have been redeemed and have entered into a covenant
relationship with God can enjoy full communion with Him. The
sanctuary is, in a s
PURPOSE OF SANCTUARY

• a.Meeting place. The sanctuary is a meeting place for God and

humans. Its name, ―Tent of Meeting,‖ shows this function: to
provide a space where God and His people can meet (Ex. 40:32). The
idea of encountering God is important in the book of Exodus. Through
Moses, God made an appointment with the Israelites at Sinai (Ex.
3:12). They traveled to that mountain, prepared for the meeting (Ex.
19:10, 11), and on the third day met the Lord (verse 18). Sinai became
the first Israelite sanctuary (verse 12; 24:2–5, 12). The Hebrew
sanctuary perpetuated the Sinai experience, a place where God met
with His people (Ex. 29:43; Ps. 68:17).
PURPOSE OF SANCTUARY

• b.Center of divine revelation. God‘s glory was revealed at Sinai (Ex.

24:16, 17); it dwelt later in the sanctuary (Ex. 40:34, 35). This glory
was not merely the brightness of His presence (Ex. 24:17), but
especially the mystery of His person. The impenetrable light of His
glory testified to His immanence and His transcendence (Ex. 33:18–
23). From the sanctuary God continued to reveal His will to His
people. The Ten Commandments, proclaimed by God from Sinai (Ex.
20:1–17), were now proclaimed from the sanctuary (Ex. 25:22). Also
from the sanctuary God revealed His power as king and judge; this
power reached beyond the borders of Israel to the whole world (Ex.
15:17, 18; 23:23; Amos 2:5). His localized presence in the sanctuary
did not limit Him in any way.
PURPOSE OF SANCTUARY

• c.Center of worship. For the Israelites, meeting with God at the

sanctuary was an act of worship (cf. Ps. 95:6). This was particularly
true during the festivals when they came joyfully to praise the Lord
(Ps. 68:24–26; 132:7). The people of Israel also went to the sanctuary
with their concerns and needs, hoping to find refuge and comfort in
God (Ps. 43:2, 4, 5). At times they came to confess their sin, seeking
forgiveness from the Lord in order to be counted among the righteous
(Ps. 32:1, 2, 5, 11). There they received blessing and righteousness
from the Lord (Ps. 24:3–5). d
PURPOSE OF SANCTUARY

• d.Place of access to the heavenly sanctuary.

Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
• Daily services. Each day the priests ministered in the court and the
holy place of the tabernacle on behalf of God‘s people. Twice every
day a public sacrifice was offered for all (Ex. 29:38–42). In addition,
repentant sinners came to the sanctuary bringing their sacrifices,
seeking atonement through the mediation of the priest. Different
aspects of these sacrifices deserve attention.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
(1)Laying on of hands. Hands were laid on
every sacrificial animal, but only in Leviticus
16:21, where sin and impurity are
transferred to the goat for Azazel, is the
ritual explicitly connected with the
transference of sin. Laying on of hands was
also practiced on noncultic occasions to
express the idea of transfer and, in some
cases, substitution (Lev. 24:14; Num. 8:10;
27:18–23). In the daily sacrifices the
repentant sinner transferred to the victim
his or her sin/impurity. This ritual seems to
have been accompanied, at least in some
cases, by a confession of sin on the part of
the penitent (Lev. 5:5, 6; 16:21).
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
(2)Slaughtering the animal.
The sacrificial victim was usually
killed by the offerer, although
sometimes the priest slaughtered
it (Lev. 1:14, 15; 5:8). Sin and
penalty cannot be separated from
each other. Sin was transferred to
the sacrifice as was its penalty.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
(3)Ritual of the eating of flesh.
According to the Levitical legislation, a portion of the flesh of the sin
offering belonged to the priests and was to be eaten in a holy place (Lev.
6:17, 18, 25, 26; 7:6, 7). By eating the flesh of the sacrificial victim the
priest bore the sins of the people and thus made atonement (Lev. 10:17).
This vicarious act did not affect his holiness.
The sinner came to the sanctuary bearing sin and transferred it to the
sacrificial victim. Finally the priest carried the sin and brought it before the
Lord, thus making atonement for the sinner (Ex. 28:38). Whenever a priest
brought a sacrifice for his own sin, he was not allowed to eat the flesh of
the sacrifice. He could not bear his own sin without dying (Lev. 22:9).
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
(4)Blood ritual.
The blood of some sacrificial victims was taken into the holy place by
the priest and sprinkled seven times in front of the veil (Lev. 4:6).
Sprinkling could mean consecration (Ex. 29:21; Lev. 8:11) or cleansing
(Lev. 14:7, 51; 16:19; Num. 8:7).
Whenever the flesh was not eaten the blood was taken to the holy
place, making these two rituals interchangeable. Their meaning was
the same: sin was brought before the Lord, transferred to the
sanctuary.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
• (5)Expiatory value of all sacrifices. All sacrifices had an expiatory function,
but the expiatory force of the sacrifice was determined by the blood ritual
and by what happened to the flesh of the victim. The blood ritual of the sin
offering was complex because its primary function was to make atonement
for the sinner. The blood of the guilt offering was tossed or scattered on
the sides of the altar of burnt offering and the priest ate the flesh.
Restitution and compensation were also required in the blood ritual. The
blood of the burnt offering—a multi-purpose sacrifice—was tossed on the
sides of the altar, and the whole sacrificial victim was burnt on the altar.
The main function of the peace offering was not expiatorial, but the laying
on of hands and the tossing of the blood on the sides of the altar suggested
an expiatorial aspect.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
(6)The daily burnt offerings.
There was always a burnt
offering on the altar on behalf of
the people of Israel (Ex. 29:38–
42; Num. 28:3–8), suggesting
that the daily acceptance of the
nation by God was made
possible through the sacrificial
lamb on the altar.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Daily services
• (7)Transfer and contamination. There is a sense in which the
transference of sin, in connection with the daily sacrifices,
did not contaminate the victim, the priest, or the sanctuary.
The illegal violation of the sanctity of the sanctuary was a
contamination, but in that case the sinner was to die (e.g.,
Lev. 15:31; 20:2, 3; Num. 19:13).
• Sin was transferred to the sacrifice, to the priest, and to the
sanctuary; but they all remained holy. Here we confront a
paradox. The person who took the flesh of the sin offering
outside the camp to burn it was to wash his clothes and
bathe his body before returning to the camp (Lev. 16:27, 28).
Yet, the flesh of the animal, described as ―most holy‖ (Lev.
6:24), was a source of contamination.
• The ashes of the red heifer (Num. 19:1–10) were mixed with
water and sprinkled for cleansing on a person who touched a
dead body (verses 11–13). Yet, the person who did the
sprinkling was contaminated (verse 21). Cleanness and
uncleanness were together in this rite. Something similar
happened with the blood: in some respects it was a source of
impurity (Lev. 12:7), in others it was a means of purification.
In
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Annual service: Day of Atonement
(1)Final cleansing of the people.
The sanctuary was to be cleansed ―because of the uncleanness's of the
people of Israel, and because of their transgressions, all their sins‖ (verse
16; cf. verses 21, 30, 34). The accumulation of these terms for sin
designates all kinds of sin, meaning that the sins expiated on the Day of
Atonement were not limited to any one category of wrong. The rituals of
the Day of Atonement purified the sanctuary and the altars (Lev. 16:16, 18;
Ex. 30:10), yet, those rituals benefited the people because their cleansing
was final.
Through the daily services the sin and impurity of the Israelites were
transferred to the sanctuary, its removal on the Day of Atonement made
their cleansing final.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Annual service: Day of Atonement
2)God judges Israel.
In the sanctuary God functioned as the judge of His people.
The Day of Atonement was a holy convocation, a day when the people
were to afflict or humble themselves (Lev. 23:27).
They humble themselves, fasting and dependence on and need of God.
On the Day of Atonement the Israelites felt and expressed their
dependence on God and their desire to preserve the covenant
relationship with the Lord, because only He could make their cleansing
final.
This day was also a day of rest, a ceremonial sabbath during which no
work was to be done (Lev. 16:31).
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Annual service: Day of Atonement
All Israelites were to humble themselves before the Lord, totally
dependent on God and abstaining from all secular activity. The resting of
the people contrasts with the activity of the high priest in the sanctuary.
While they rested, he was active on their behalf before the Lord. The final
cleansing they could not accomplish through their actions, the priest
would accomplish for them.
He also evaluated whether or not they were resting in Him (verse 30).
Those who did not afflict themselves and did not rest in the Lord were
found guilty and could no longer be part of God‘s people (verse 30). The
individual who, through pride and self reliance, rejected God‘s atoning
grace made useless the benefit of the daily services.
Resolution of the Sin Problem
Annual service: Day of Atonement
(3)Vindication of God and His sanctuary.
Through the daily sacrifices, the confessed sins of repentant sinners
were transferred to God‘s sanctuary. Sin and impurity were only
allowed to come into the very presence of God to make atonement
for them. But not even atoned-for sins could stay in God‘s holy
dwelling indefinitely. As long as those sins remained, the resolution of
the sin problem was not yet final.
The Day of Atonement proclaimed that holiness and sin, purity and
impurity, had nothing in common.