A Second Cleansing Foreshadowed in Old Testament Types

A type, in the correct theological use of the term, is a prophetic similitude or an acted prophecy. It must be given primarily for the purpose of definitely foreshadowing a particular fact that shall follow after, just as a spoken prophecy is a foretelling of a future event. A type is not merely a parallel that may be shown, nor an illustration that may be found of a present event in an event of the past. Paul refers to the foot-races of ancient Greece to illustrate the Christian’s race, but as that was not the purpose of those races, therefore they were not typical of the Christian’s race,

Those institutions given through Moses, such as the tabernacle, priesthood, offerings, and feasts, were given primarily for the purpose of pointing forward to the truths of Christianity. They were but another form of prophecy of Christ and His salvation. Of these institutions Paul says: “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ”* (Colossians 2:17); “Which was a figure for the time then present”* (Hebrews 9:9); “The example and shadow of heavenly things”* (Hebrews 8:5); “The figures of the true”* (Hebrews 9:24); “A shadow of good things to come.”* (Hebrews 10:1)

The Mosaic Tabernacle Typified a Second Cleansing

It is not unreasonable to believe that the work of complete salvation should be foreshadowed in Old Testament type. We have shown in the preceding chapter that it was typified in the anointing of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood. Our present purpose is to show that it was also typified in the tabernacle.

The tabernacle as the dwelling-place or house of God in that dispensation was typical of the church. Christ is “a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.”* (Hebrews 8:2) “The house of God… is the church of the living God.”* (1 Timothy 3:15) Christ built His church, which is His house and of which He is the priest. That ancient house was a figure (Hebrews 9:9). Christ is over “his own house; whose house are we.”* (Hebrews 3:6) This could refer to nothing else than the church. This agrees with Peter’s statement, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house.”* (1 Peter 2:5) These texts show clearly that the tabernacle as a house was typical of the church. But as a means for a system of sacrifice and divine service it also typified the work of salvation, or the way by which the sinner comes to God. This is the more common interpretation and is well supported by many scriptures and expressions in the Bible. This is clearly proved in Hebrews 10:19-22. That those sacrifices were typical of Christ’s blood, and those ceremonial cleansings of our cleansing from sin, does not admit of question. In saying the tabernacle typified both the church and the work of salvation, we do not allow a multiple sense of Scripture, because as a dwelling-place it represented the one and as a means of service represented the other. And this agrees perfectly with the fact that salvation makes us members of God’s church. What a wonderful type! Only the mind of the Infinite could have produced it.

The tabernacle was divided into two rooms, called the holy place and the holiest place. At the entrance of each of these two places was a veil. Two altars were placed, one before each of these veils. Blood was sprinkled upon each of these altars. What could be more perfectly typified by these two rooms, two veils, two altars, two sprinklings of blood, than the fact that there are two cleansings in the work of one’s salvation! Outside the first veil was the brazen altar and the laver. On this altar the blood of the offerings for sin was sprinkled. This sprinkling is generally allowed to be typical of justification from committed sin (Hebrews 9:13-14). At the laver they washed before entering the house of God. This has been generally and rightly understood as being typical of regeneration (Titus 3:5). But the blood of sin-offerings for the priests was also to be sprinkled on the golden altar inside the first room, before the second veil. Of what was this typical? Christ’s blood was shed to cleanse from sin. If that blood typical of Christ’s blood when sprinkled on the brazen altar typified justification, what must the sprinkling of it on the golden altar typify but the second cleansing or the entire sanctification of the believer?

This is clearly taught also in Hebrews 10:19-22: “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” Here the exhortation is to “brethren,” those already justified and regenerated, to go “into the holiest” from the holy place where they then were. They were to enter it “by the blood of Jesus,” by which believers have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (justified at brazen altar), and their bodies washed with pure water (regenerated at the laver), which admitted to the first apartment, after which they are urged to go on into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. This clearly teaches that these altars, veils, rooms, etc., foreshadowed the way of salvation and that there is a double phase to salvation entered by a twofold cleansing by the blood. And this agrees perfectly with the idea that the tabernacle was a type of the church, for is it not a fact that the church contains those merely converted as well as those wholly sanctified? This is in perfect harmony with the sanctifying of the church in Ephesians 5:26. Thus we see that the two apartments in God’s ancient house have a counterpart in His spiritual house, the church.

Some have objected to this interpretation of the tabernacle as a type on the ground that according to Hebrews 9:24 the holiest is a type of heaven. We believe it can be shown that such an objection is ungrounded and that the objection itself is open to objection. If this second room typified heaven, then in Hebrews 10:19-22 we have an exhortation to the converted to enter heaven. Such an exhortation would be improper, for at best we can only be ready for heaven; actually entering is never voluntary on our part. God is responsible for our entering, and even if we chose, we could not voluntarily enter, not even by means of suicide. But that which the text exhorts brethren to enter is that which may be entered voluntarily, which is true of entire sanctification, but is not true of heaven.

Also it should be noted in regard to Hebrews 9:24 that Christ’s mediation before God for us is the point under discussion, rather than the place. It is a service that is here represented in type, rather than a place. As the typical service was in the presence of God, so is the true mediation in God’s presence, regardless of where God is. Just as the ancient priest once each year on the great day of atonement appeared before God in the holiest as mediator, so Christ appears before God in heaven to mediate for us. Careful study shows that the text under consideration has no bearing on the antitype of the holiest place.

Corroborative Argument

We have now considered five distinct classes of proofs of a second cleansing:

1. Two forms of sin, which we allowed was incomplete in itself.
2. Sin in the regenerated.
3. Sanctification for the converted.
4. Sanctification by the Holy Ghost.
5. Old Testament types.

To these may be added another line of argument which though not positive proof, yet is corroborative—that of experience. Experience is not a proper source of doctrine, but as a corroborative of Scripture teaching it is unanswerable. It is a fact that Christians generally have testified to the existence of native depravity after conversion. Also many of the most devout and learned have testified to a removal of that depravity after conversion, by a second cleansing. This cannot be gainsaid. It is true that some have noticed these things more than others in their experience, just as some notice a greater change in conversion than do others. This difference is due to the varying degrees of depravity in different persons. In view of these many proofs of several kinds, which as we have said constitute the best kind of proof, we confidently affirm a second cleansing.

We allow that there are difficulties in holding this doctrine as there are also in every other doctrine, but the least that can be said of it is that it is easier and more reasonable to hold it than to neglect or refuse to hold it, and we must do one or the other. The reason with some for weakness in holding the doctrine is not because the doctrine is not well supported or is unreasonable, but rather because of their lack of knowledge of the proofs and nature of sanctification.