According to the pattern
by Roy Adams
AUDIO IS CURRENTLY UNAVAILABLE FOR THIS ARTICLE
"According to all that I show you
concerning the pattern of the taber
nacle, and of all its furniture, so you
shall make it" (Ex. 25:9, RSV).*
"They serve a copy and shadow of
the heavenly sanctuary; for . . .
[Moses] was instructed by God, say
ing, 'See that you make everything
according to the pattern which was
shown you on the mountain'" (Heb.
8:5, RSV).
How shall we understand these
scriptures? Many Adventists
insist that these passages in
dicate a one-on-one correspondence
between the earthly sanctuary and the
heavenly. In other words, a small table
of shewbread in the earthly sanctuary
points to a huge or grander one in the
heavenly; a small incense altar here, a
large one there; and so on.
Some may feel that this literal
understanding of the heavenly sanc
tuary is completely harmless. But
doesn't it constitute a serious impedi
ment in our sanctuary apologetics
that is, in the way we present the
doctrine to nonAdventists and even to
skeptics? More seriously, might it
actually destroy the message God
would have us present to people of
every culture and of every intellec
tual or philosophical persuasion? Does
extreme literalism help or hinder us
in our attempt to focus people's atten
tion on what we all consider to be the
essence the core of the sanctuary
message? These are important ques
tions. Surely the meaning and signifi
cance of the pattern concept invites
our careful study.
To help us better understand the
meaning and significance of the sanc
tuary message, I will address two prob
lems with the literalistic approach,
and then offer an affirmation on the
reality of the heavenly sanctuary.
Problem 1: the elusiveness of the
word "pattern"
In Exodus 25:9 God commands
Moses to build a sanctuary according
to the "pattern" (Hebrew tabnith) 1 of
what he had seen on Mount Sinai. At
first glance this seems a rather straight
forward statement, hardly needing any
interpretation. However, the situation
is not quite that simple.
Let us briefly examine those pas
sages in Exodus that relate to building
after a pattern. When we do this against
the background of what I call "sancti
fied common sense," we begin to get
an insight into the kind of freight that
the tabnith idea was not intended to
carry.
After its initial use in Exodus 25:9,
tabnith reappears in verse 40, at the
end of an extended description of the
ark of the covenant, the table of
shewbread, and the golden lampstands.
Conceivably, someone might
argue that these pieces of furniture,
perhaps because of their apparent el
egance, do possess sufficient dignity,
so to speak, to be actually found in the
heavenly sanctuary. Accordingly, this
instance does not substantially help
the case we are trying to build.
The third occurrence of the pattern
concept comes in Exodus 26:30. Here
God reminds Moses to erect the taber
nacle "according to the plan [mishpat]
for it which has been shown you on
the mountain" (RSV). Although mishpat (meaning "judgment" or
"rule"), rather than tabnith, is the
term used in this text, the context
makes it absolutely clear that we are
dealing with the same idea as in Exo
dus 25:9, 40. Mishpat here is equiva
lent to tabnith.
Notice now that the pattern idea
follows a detailed description of the
curtains of goats' hair, boards, sock
ets, and bars. At this point the sensi
tive mind begins to wonder about the
validity of assuming the presence of
such mundane and purely contingent
items in the heavenly sanctuary.
The fourth occurrence of the "pat
tern" idea, however, gives our sancti
fied common sense its first serious
jolt. Without the use this time of any
special term (like mishpat or tabnith)
the idea comes at the end of a descrip
tion of the altar of burnt offerings.
"And you shall make the altar of aca
cia wood, five cubits long. . . . And
you shall make its horns on its four
corners. . . . And you shall make its
pails for removing its ashes, and its
shovels and its basins and its forks
and its fire pans. . . . And you shall
make for it a grating of network of
bronze, and on the net you shall make
four bronze rings at its four corners.
And you shall put it beneath, under
the ledge of the altar, that the net may
reach halfway up the altar. And you
shall make poles for the altar.... You
shall make it hollow with planks; as it
was shown to you in the mountain, so
they shall make it" (Ex. 27:1-8,
NASB).+
It seems reasonable to conclude
here that though the instruments just
described followed the pattern given
to Moses on the mountain, such an
altar, with its accessories, is not to be
found in the heavens. This conclusion
is confirmed by the actual outwork
ing of the antitype. Calvary, as it must
be clear to all Christians, represents
the antitypical altar of burnt offer
ings. It is there our Lord was offered
up, but how different in physical form
it was from its typical counterpart!
In the type we see a sacred court
yard ringed with curtains; in the
antitype, the naked, unconsecrated hill
of Calvary. In the type, an altar made
of bronze; in the antitype, a wooden
cross. In the type a sharpened knife
slit the victim's throat; in the antitype,
the victim's throat was untouched,
but His hands and feet were pierced
by Roman nails. The type reveals a
hapless animal victim in the clutches
of a priest; the antitype, the Son of
God, Himself both the priest and vic
tim. In the type the blood beneath the
brazen altar flowed and touched its
pointed horns through priestly fin
gers; but no one cupped that crimson
stream that flowed at Calvary.
And so we may go on, if space
permitted. The parallels are real, in
deed, but the contrasts equally sharp
and pointed. Nothing in the type por
trayed the glory of that resurrection
morning when Christ, the cosmic vic
tim, rose in triumph from the grave,
alive forevermore with the keys of
hell and death clutched tightly in His
nail-pierced hands!
The nature of the correspondence
between type and antitype in this par
ticular case is very instructive. It raises
the question as to whether the idea of
pattern should not be understood pri
marily on a deeper functional and
theological level.
In this connection notice how the
book of Hebrews handles the idea of
pattern. In Hebrews 8:5 the author
explains that the Levitical priests
served "a copy [hypodeigma] and
shadow [skia]" of heavenly things
an obvious reference, it would seem,
to Exodus 25:40, in which God en
joined Moses to construct the taber
nacle and all its appurtenances "ac
cording to the pattern [typos in He
brews] which was shown you on the
mountain" (Heb. 8:5, RSV).
So here three terms have been in
troduced: hypodeigma, skia, and ty
pos. How are we to understand them?
Hypodeigma generally means "ex
ample," "model," "pattern." Here in
our passage it has the sense of "copy"
or "imitation." Skia signifies a
"shadow," or a "foreshadowing." Ty
pos is translated "pattern" or "model." 2
More could be said about the mean
ings of these terms, but context is
more important, for it shows how the
author himself understood and used
these expressions. The context makes
the following points evident:
1. For the author of Hebrews, the
Hebrew term tabnith (used in Exodus
25:40 and to which he refers as proof
of his assertion) is adequately ren
dered by the Greek word typos ("pat
tern," "model"), else he would obvi
ously not have employed it in transla
tion (see Heb. 8:5).
2. Typos, in turn, is properly cap
tured in the words hypodeigma and
skia, for the author uses these two
terms to explain the relationship be
tween the earthly and heavenly min
istries, just as he does with typos in
the same verse (Heb. 8:5). Further
more, my reading of the context leads
me to conclude that hypodeigma and
skia are used synonymously.
3. This means that hypodeigma
and skia, both together as well as
separately, are equivalents of typos.
Thus we might properly substitute
either word for typos in Hebrews 8:5
in translation of the Hebrew word
tabnith.
If our reasoning so far is correct,
then it is possible to go one step
further. We will do this on the strength
of a very significant contrast made in
Hebrews 10:1. Here the limitation of
the law (of sacrifices) is based on the
fact that "it has only a shadow [skia]
of the good things to come and not the
very form [eikon] of [those] things"
(NASB). So the author puts skia and
eikon in sharp contrast.
Eikon, here meaning "form" or
"appearance," 3 is the word the New
Testament uses to translate the He
brew tselem (image), a word describ
ing the physical and spiritual corre
spondence between God and man in
the beginning, or between father and
son (see Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:3; cf. 1 Cor.
11:7; 15:49). It is a strong word and
has even been employed to describe
the relationship between Christ and
the Father (see Col. 1:15; cf. 2 Cor.
4:4). But however strong the word, no
careful Bible student would attempt
to draw a portrait of God based on His
reflection in humanity or even in
the earthly Jesus. A spiritual instinct
deters us from such a precarious com
parison.
The point is this: If a spiritual
instinct deters us from dogmatizing
even where we have a strong (eikon)
NOT DONE NEEDS THE REST