Message 100
(2)
Scripture Reading: Heb. 9:1-12; Exo. 26:33-35; 40:3, 21; Num. 4:5; Matt. 27:51; Heb. 10:19-20
As we have pointed out a number of times, our aim is to study the book of Exodus in the way of experience and to apply the points as much as possible to our spiritual experience. It is not our purpose simply to know the pattern, materials, and measurements of the tabernacle in a doctrinal way. In the New Testament Paul established a good example of studying and interpreting the Old Testament types. Instead of applying these types in a doctrinal way, Paul applied them in an experiential way, either to Christ Himself or to the believers. Following his example, our emphasis will not be on the doctrinal significance of the types. Rather, we need to pray that we may be brought into the proper spiritual understanding of the types so that we may receive help in our spiritual life. In this message we shall consider the spiritual significance of the veil hanging on the pillars within the tabernacle.
Concerning the veil hanging on the pillars, we need to consider further why there was the need to have a veil separating the tabernacle into two parts. The Old Testament speaks of just one tabernacle. But when Paul refers to the tabernacle in Hebrews 9, he speaks of a first and a second tabernacle. If Paul had not written these words, we would not have the boldness to speak of two tabernacles. Instead, we would say that there was one tabernacle with two sections, an inner section called the Holy of Holies and an outer section called the Holy Place. Hebrews 9:2 and 3 say, “For a tabernacle was prepared, the first, in which were both the lampstand and the table and the loaves set forth, which is called the Holy Place; and after the second veil, a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies.” According to verse 2, the Holy Place was the first tabernacle. Paul’s reference to “the second veil” indicates that he must have regarded the curtain at the entrance to the Holy Place as the first veil. The first veil was at the entrance to the first tabernacle, the Holy Place, and the second veil was at the entrance to the second tabernacle, the Holy of Holies. In Hebrews 9:6 and 7 Paul speaks of the first and second tabernacles. Why did he regard the one tabernacle as two tabernacles? When Paul was writing the book of Hebrews, he was heavily burdened by the fact that the Hebrew Christians still held the Old Testament concept regarding many things. Therefore, Paul was burdened to show them that the old tabernacle was absolutely over. He considered that the tabernacle was actually two tabernacles, not one tabernacle with two sections.
There is an important difference between two tabernacles and one. For example, there is quite a difference between a duplex and two houses. According to the Old Testament, the tabernacle was a duplex. But according to Paul’s writing in Hebrews, it was two houses. There is nothing contradictory here, for both the Old Testament and the New Testament are accurate. The crucial matter is our understanding. When Paul was writing Hebrews, his feeling was so strong and his understanding was such that he considered the tabernacle in the Old Testament as two separate tabernacles, just as the old covenant and the new covenant are two distinct covenants. We cannot say that the two covenants are one covenant with two sections. In like manner, Paul regarded the tabernacle as two tabernacles, not as one tabernacle with two sections.
Hebrews 9:8 and 9 say, “The Holy Spirit showing by this, that the way of the Holy of Holies has not yet been manifested while the first tabernacle still has its standing; which is a figure for the present time.” Here Paul does not say “the first section of the tabernacle”; he speaks of “the first tabernacle” having its standing. The relative pronoun “which” in verse 9 refers not to standing, but to the first tabernacle. This pronoun is emphatic and refers definitely to the first tabernacle. This clearly indicates that the first tabernacle is a figure for the present time.
Bible translators and expositors have debated the meaning of the phrase “the present time.” This expression refers to the New Testament age. Thus, the first tabernacle was a type of the New Testament age. It was a figure, not the reality. Likewise, the table and the lampstand in the first tabernacle are also types, figures, not realities. Those in the Old Testament did not have the reality in the first tabernacle. What they had was only a type, a figure. We today have the reality. The first tabernacle was a picture, a figure, a type, of the present time, of the New Testament age.
Although the first tabernacle, the Holy Place, was a type, Paul does not say that the second tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, was a type or figure. The reason for this is that the first tabernacle was a figure of the New Testament age, but the second tabernacle was the reality of the New Testament age. The showbread on the table in the Holy Place was not a reality; it was not Christ Himself. Rather, it typified Christ. Hence, it was a figure. Likewise, the lampstand shining in the Holy Place was also not Christ Himself shining. It was a figure, a type, of Christ. However, the shekinah glory of God in the Holy of Holies was a reality, not a type or a figure. God was actually in the second tabernacle. Therefore, when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, he could actually see the glory of God and receive a word from God. Hence, the second tabernacle was not a figure of the New Testament age. Instead, to some extent, it was the reality of the New Testament age.
The two tabernacles also typify the two covenants — the old covenant and the new covenant. The first tabernacle, a type of the present age, signifies the old covenant. The second tabernacle, the reality of the New Testament age, signifies the new covenant.
According to the entire book of Hebrews, the first tabernacle, or the Holy Place, is a type or figure of our soul, whereas the second tabernacle, or the Holy of Holies, is a type of our spirit. Hebrews 4:16 says, “Let us therefore come forward with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace for timely help.” We have seen that the throne of grace is the propitiatory cover upon the ark within the veil. To come forward to the throne of grace is to come forward to the propitiatory cover on the ark in the Holy of Holies. The word about the dividing of soul and spirit in Hebrews 4:12 is related to this: “For the word of God is living and operative and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, both of joints and marrow, and able to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.” When our soul is divided from our spirit, we are at the threshold of the spirit. This means that we are at the threshold of the Holy of Holies within which there is the throne of grace. The soul and the spirit are not two aspects of one thing, but are two distinct matters. The soul is typified by the first tabernacle, and the spirit is signified by the second.
We all need to ask ourselves whether experientially, actually, and practically we live in the soul, the first tabernacle, or in the spirit, the second tabernacle. A certain brother may truly love the Lord and may be burning for the Lord. But to love the Lord and to be burning is one thing, and to be in the Holy of Holies may be an absolutely different thing. There is a great difference between living in the first tabernacle and living in the second. To be sure, these tabernacles were right next to each other. But no matter how close they may be, we should not confuse them. There must be a clear distinction between the old covenant and the new covenant and between the soul and the spirit. However, the Hebrew Christians were not clear regarding this distinction, and for the most part were living in the soul, in the first tabernacle. In like manner, we may be very zealous for the Lord, but nevertheless still be living in the soul, in the first tabernacle. To be in the first tabernacle means that we are actually still living in the old covenant. Furthermore, to remain in the old covenant experientially and practically means that we are still in the Old Testament age. This is the situation of many Christians today. The Catholic Church has confused the New Testament and the Old Testament in the matter of ritual, but many in Pentecostalism have confused the Old Testament and the New Testament in the way of speaking for the Lord. Instead of speaking in the way exemplified by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, they follow the Old Testament pattern to prophesy by saying, “Thus saith the Lord.” Even many of us in the Lord’s recovery are still living in the first tabernacle and thus are living in the Old Testament age.
As we consider the two tabernacles, we shall see that in the first we do not have God Himself. We may have the enjoyment of the life supply and the shining of the lampstand, but we do not have God Himself. We may feel that we are very close to God. This is true, because He is in the house, the tabernacle, next door. In a very real sense, God is our next-door neighbor. But although He is nearby, in the first tabernacle we do not have God Himself as our enjoyment. Some may find this difficult to understand. They may ask, “When we call on the name of the Lord Jesus, don’t we enjoy the Lord Himself?” This enjoyment, however, may not be the direct enjoyment of the Lord Himself. Yes, in the first tabernacle we have spiritual enjoyment. We have the life supply and the light of life. We are nourished and we are enlightened. This may cause us to feel quite satisfied. We are not hungry, and we are not in darkness. We enjoy the Lord’s nourishment and enlightenment. But this does not mean that we have God Himself or the direct speaking of God. The oracle, God’s speaking, is in the second tabernacle, not in the first. This means that we may have light in the first tabernacle, but may not have God’s direct speaking.
Many believers today are still in the outer court. They have not yet come into the Holy Place. Their experience is limited to the altar and the laver, for they are yet outside the realm of God’s dwelling. Are you still in the outer court with the altar and the laver? Most of the saints in the Lord’s recovery have come into the Holy Place and enjoy the Lord’s nourishment and enlightenment. Although they have not passed through the second veil, they have passed through the first veil. But now we all must realize that next door to the Holy Place there is a place which has something richer and higher. In this place is God Himself.
It is very difficult to explain doctrinally how God can be in the Holy of Holies, but not in the Holy Place. Experientially we know that it is possible to be close to God and experience things of God without experiencing God Himself directly. Many of the Hebrew Christians to whom the Epistle of Hebrews was addressed were very good. They suffered much persecution, including the plundering of their possessions (Heb. 10:32-34). Nevertheless, as Paul points out, they were still in the Holy Place, still in the soul. They had not experienced the dividing of soul and spirit. As a result, they remained in the old covenant. Some even went to the temple to offer sacrifices. Even though they were genuine New Testament believers, experientially they remained in the Old Testament age. The same may be true of some in the Lord’s recovery today. We need to recognize, admit, and confess that even we are not absolutely in the spirit, not absolutely in the Holy of Holies. In a certain sense, we may remain in the Old Testament age. We may enjoy the supply of the Lord and walk in the light of the Lord without being in the Holy of Holies. I do not care to argue this matter doctrinally. I simply wish to testify of what I have learned through years of experience. Experience has taught me that we may enjoy something of the Lord without having direct contact with Him.
Not long after I was saved, I read books which pointed out that, according to Romans 6:6, our old man was crucified with Christ. Galatians 2:20 says, “I have been crucified with Christ.” I fully believed these verses and was happy to learn that I had been crucified with Christ. However, although this was accurate doctrinally, according to my spiritual experience I was not crucified. I wondered what was wrong, since my experience did not correspond to biblical doctrine. Experientially speaking, have you been crucified with Christ? The New Testament says clearly that we have been crucified. Sometimes we may echo these words and declare, “I have been crucified with Christ!” But in your practical living day by day, have you really been crucified? Many of us must admit that experientially we have not been crucified. We need to understand this matter both according to the Bible and according to experience. According to the New Testament, we are in the Holy of Holies simply because we are believers. We are in Christ, and in Christ we have been crucified, buried, and resurrected. Surely, as those in resurrection, we are in the second tabernacle. But according to our actual living day by day, we may in fact still be in the first tabernacle.
It was the veil within the tabernacle which made a separation between the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place. Since this veil signifies the flesh of Christ, this separation between the two tabernacles involves the flesh. Hebrews 10:20 says, “By a new and living way, which He dedicated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.” Was the veil within the tabernacle a positive thing? We must answer that in a sense it was positive, for it was exactly the same as the first layer of the covering. It was made of fine linen, blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim. But Paul says that this veil is the flesh of Christ. Is this flesh positive or negative? We must answer this question very carefully. We know from John 1:1 and 14 that Christ, the eternal Word of God, became flesh. Ordinarily we say that Christ became a man. This, of course, is true and accurate according to the Bible. Nevertheless, the Gospel of John says that the Word, who is God Himself, became flesh. Furthermore, according to Romans 8:3, God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Then was Christ’s flesh sinless or sinful? We may say that in nature it was sinless, but in form it was in the likeness of sinful flesh. Let us use as an illustration a serpent made of gold. We all appreciate gold, and we may value a golden serpent because it is made of gold. However, we may feel uncomfortable because although the gold is valuable, it is in the form of a serpent. Thus, the form of the golden serpent, but not its nature, may bother us. This illustrates the fact that in nature there was nothing wrong with Christ’s flesh. He did not have the flesh of sin, but He was in the likeness of the flesh of sin. In nature His flesh was not of sin, but in form it was in the likeness of the flesh of sin.
We have pointed out that the veil, the flesh, was the factor which made the one tabernacle two tabernacles. This is true even today in our experience. Doctrinally speaking, the flesh has been crucified on the cross by God. When Christ was crucified, the flesh was crucified also. This is indicated by the tearing of the veil in the temple from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51). Although the flesh was riven when Christ was crucified, experientially our flesh may still be whole. It may not yet have been cleft or torn. The reason we may still be in the soul, the first tabernacle, is that our flesh has not yet been broken.
It is quite possible that in doing spiritual things our flesh may still not be broken. We may call on the Lord in an outward way in the flesh, instead of calling from deep within in the spirit. Sometimes when a brother and his wife are arguing, one of them may say, “Praise the Lord!” However, such an utterance in this case may not come from the spirit, but from the flesh. Thus, we may be in the flesh not only when we are gossiping and criticizing, but even when we are calling on the Lord and praising Him. The reason that as New Testament believers we remain in the soul, in the Old Testament age, is that our flesh has not been broken.
The veil within the tabernacle was placed on four pillars. We have pointed out that the pillars represent the extraordinary believers, who are the stronger members of the church. The pillars in the tabernacle were stronger than the boards. The boards were flat, but the pillars were thick. Applied to our experience, this means that when a board has been dealt with, it becomes a pillar. Among all the saints in the church, the pillars, the stronger ones, bear the testimony of God manifested in the flesh. No doubt, the leading ones in the church should all be pillars. According to 1 Timothy 3:15, the church must be the pillar of the truth of God manifest in the flesh.
If the flesh of the leading ones, the stronger ones, in the church, has not been broken, the entire church will be kept in the first tabernacle and frustrated from entering the second tabernacle. Whether or not an assembly can enter into the Holy of Holies depends on whether or not the flesh of the leading ones has been cleft. Galatians 5:24 says that those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh. If we are Christians walking by the Spirit, our flesh has been crucified. Romans 6:6 says that our old man, the self, has been crucified. Although we cannot crucify ourselves, we can crucify the flesh, and we must do this. If our flesh is crucified, it will become a riven veil as an entrance for the entire church to come into the second tabernacle and have the direct enjoyment of God. By this we see that the situation of the church depends on the breaking of the flesh of the leading ones. This exactly corresponds to what I have observed throughout the years. Whether or not the church in a particular locality can enter into the Holy of Holies depends entirely on the brokenness of the flesh of the pillars, on the brokenness of the flesh of the leading ones.
