The Sanctuary Doctrine
|
Contents |
|
1. Introduction |
Introduction
Happy Rock: Dear Father in Heaven,
We thank you for this day that we can come to the foot of the Cross for
cleansing. We thank you for all that you
are teaching us in these last days that we are living in.
Guide us all this day, that our minds will be open as never before to
receive your words from your humble servant on this New Moon. Be with those who are connecting so that they
can share with us the blessings likewise.
May your spirit rest upon us we pray in the name of your dear Son, Amen.
100thSheep: Amen.
Qinael: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Tain: Amen.
Peterson: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Zahakiel: This month’s study is going to be about a very important topic, at least as far as Seventh-day Adventism goes. It will involve an explanation of the “Sanctuary Doctrine” as Adventists understand it, and as most of the rest of Christianity rejects it. But in addition to going over what it actually IS, we are going to do something rather unique today, and that is tie this concept to a much disputed verse in the Book of Hebrews that is so controversial that the mainstream SDA Church has lost a number of “great men” over its interpretation.
Now for some of you this is going to be a little in depth theology, but as Ellen White rightly said several times, and as I’ll quote to you during the course of this study, our proper understanding of these matters is vital to our ability to properly represent the interests of the Heavenly Kingdom. As such, if you have any questions, or need me to repeat something, or to further clarify something, please ask, and I’ll be happy to do so. Does everyone agree to that?
Qinael: <nods.>
100thSheep: Yes.
Happy Rock: Ok.
Guerline: Ok.
Tain: Yes.
Naraiel: Ok.
Crystle: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Zahakiel: Now, the idea for this topic actually came to me a couple weeks ago when Giselle was going over some of the material that Luke, Barb and Annetta left during their visit here, and she came across a DVD of the John Ankerberg show. This is sort of like a talk show for religious topics, and while I’ve never seen one before, she and I watched it together one day.
Well, the program itself made me angry for a number of reasons. It consisted of the host (Mr. Ankerberg) interviewing two people, Walter Martin – an author who once exonerated the SDA Church from the status of “cult” in some of his writings, and the editor of the Adventist Review magazine, whose name I can’t recall at the moment.
Naraiel: I found the show on Youtube if you want to see it later.
Zahakiel: Right. Anyway, they got into a number of issues, such as the inconsistent approach that Adventists take to Ellen White’s writings. Some claim she is infallible, or at least the “proper” way to interpret the Bible, while others see her as less important to the process of Bible study. They got into the subject of the book Questions on Doctrine, and the inconsistent way in which the Conference has dealt with the material contained therein, affirming it on one hand, while actually firing some pastors and elders who teach based upon what it contains.
But the thing that caught my attention most of all was the discussion of the Sanctuary Doctrine, and the controversy over a verse in Hebrews 9. Martin and the host of the show were explaining to the audience that Hebrews 9, if interpreted properly, directly contradicts fundamental SDA doctrine, and various statements of Ellen White. Thus, they concluded, in order to be a faithful student of the Bible, one must reject the traditional SDA interpretation of the Sanctuary doctrine, and admit that Ellen White erred on this point.
The Review editor did a fairly poor, in my opinion, job of defending the doctrine. But to be fair, this level of defense of the doctrine is the best that mainstream Adventists have been able to muster, because they have not continued to be led into the full light of this matter, as with the Feasts and New Moon doctrines – and it is not a coincidence, for these are all connected.
The Translation Issue
Zahakiel: To explain the issue very simply, the sanctuary on earth, which is a pattern of the true and Heavenly Sanctuary, (Exo 25:9, Heb 8:5) consists of two sections or “apartments” for the work of the priest. Adventist doctrine teaches that Yahshua, upon His resurrection, went into the “holy place” or the first apartment, to do a general work of redemption for mankind. Thus, there is a time, which we teach took place in 1844, when He entered into the second apartment or the “most holy place” to begin the work of final redemption, which includes the Investigative Judgment. Ellen White’s writings support this view based upon the various visions that she had of these events taking place. She wrote, for example, “Thus those who followed in the light of the prophetic word saw that, instead of coming to the earth at the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, Christ then entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to perform the closing work of atonement preparatory to His coming.” [The Great Controversy (1911), page 422]
But now more a modern and (we would agree) more accurate translation of Hebrews 9:12 says something different from this. It reads (in the KJV), “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood, He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” (Heb 9:12) While the phrase “holy place” from the Greek hagion, may be translated as both “holy place” and “most holy place,” it is the consensus of most (non SDA) scholars that the proper term in that verse should be “most holy place.”
This is where the problem for mainstream SDAs comes into play. The scholars will tell them, “It is clear from the context and language that Hebrews 9:12 and a couple other verses show that Christ entered into the most holy place upon His ascension to Heaven. However, Adventist theology, in conjunction with Ellen White’s writings, indicates that Christ did NOT enter the most holy place when He ascended. You teach that this took place in 1844. You need to decide, then, whether the Bible is correct, or whether SDA Theology is correct, since they differ on this point.”
This is exactly the choice that was given to the Review editor during that interview… and he tried (unsuccessfully, I think) to fumble his way out of it.
Does everyone see the problem?
Tain: Nods.
Qinael: Yeah.
Naraiel: Yes.
100thSheep: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Zahakiel: Ok, so now we need to ask, is the decision a fair one to impose on people? In other words, what did Ellen White truly see in vision? It is true she wrote about Christ entering the most holy place in 1844, but if you read what she actually saw, you find something interesting in addition to that. She wrote, “Type . . . met antitype in the death of God's Son. . . . The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. No longer need sinful, sorrowing humanity await the coming of the high priest. Henceforth the Saviour was to officiate as priest and advocate in the heaven of heavens. . . . There is now an end to all sacrifices and offerings for sin.” [The Faith I Live By, page 201]
So here she is actually agreeing with the proper interpretation of the Hebrews 9 verse. But that doesn’t yet really solve any problems. Hebrews 9:12 says that Christ entered “once” into the holiest place, and here we have Ellen White saying that He entered into the “holiest” after the cross (in The Faith I Live By), but then again she has Him entering the most holy place in 1844 (in The Great Controversy). At the very least, the critics will claim, she is not consistent in her understanding of this matter, while at the same time teaching it as a vital element of Adventist doctrine. She even said, in one place, “The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative Judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise, it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time, or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill.” [The Great Controversy (1888), page 488]
Those are very powerful words! But now I would contend that NO mainstream Adventist, and NO member of an offshoot, independent ministry, properly understands the Sanctuary doctrine or the investigative Judgment as they should. This is a large part of the reason why they are not able to “occupy the position which God designs them to fill,” concentrating on either some pet doctrine, or the defense of an earthly kingdom against imaginary threats, rather than spreading the true Gospel to those in infinite need of truth and salvation. This is the reason why there is no unity among them, and the Third Angel is a uniting angel. All who truly follow the Three Angels’ Message, the Bible and what the writings of Mrs. White teach, will become one – united – people who follow the one Lamb whithersoever He (not they) goeth. (1Cor 1:10, Rev 14:4) [Selected Messages Book 2, page 407; Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, page 488] These are all in agreement on that point.
The statements made by Ellen White about when Christ entered the most holy place, both shortly after the cross and again in 1844, are actually the key to understanding this properly, and showing the more honest of Adventism’s critics that they truly have no basis for claiming there is a discrepancy between genuine SDA doctrine and the Bible. Now, to be very clear, there IS a difference between the Bible and what MOST Seventh-day Adventists (incorrectly) believe on this matter, and this is the reason why some people, even very experienced Adventist teachers, have left the church for the wrong reason… for this matter of Hebrews 9.
But before I clarify that, I’d first like to back up a little bit and briefly examine the issue of the “cleansing of the Sanctuary” from the Old Testament, and then we will settle this matter so that a perfect harmony will be seen between the Old Testament, the New Testament (specifically the Book of Hebrews), Adventist doctrine, and the visions of Ellen White. And in this case, I specify the “visions” not necessarily the “writings” of Ellen White, for a very good reason.
Is everyone with me so far?
100thSheep: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Tain: Did I understand this correctly? That Yahshua entered the most holy place, twice? When He first died, and now again in 1844? I think I am confused.
Zahakiel: Well, the confusion is part of the problem that I will clear up :) Some have said that SDAs are wrong in claiming He entered in 1844. Some are saying the Bible should be translated from Greek differently. And some are saying even Ellen White wasn't certain about when this "entrance" took place.
The Sanctuary in Leviticus 16
Zahakiel: We read from Leviticus 16, and you can find a fuller treatment of this subject in The Highway of Holiness, Volume 1, that there is a process that took place once a year in the Israelite religion on the Day of Atonement. Two goats were chosen by lot, one for Yahweh, and one for Azazel. The Yahweh-goat was sacrificed for the sake of the people, and the blood of this goat was used to cleanse the sanctuary from the sins that had been collected there throughout the religious year. The sins were, at that point, not destroyed or wiped away just like that… what happened was that they were transferred to the Azazel goat, which was sent away into desolation, never to return.
This is something that’s been discussed by Adventists in terms of Christ’s final acts of the atonement process for years, but what needs to be understood is that this final act of atonement means absolutely nothing if there was not, previously, a daily service where the sins of the people were transferred from their own souls to that sanctuary. Does everyone see what I mean by that? The cleansing of the sanctuary would be pointless if the sanctuary were not defiled by the presence of the sins there.
Tain: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Qinael: <nods.>
Happy Rock: Yes.
100thSheep: Yes.
Guerline: So Christ represented at the cross the Yahweh-goat?
Zahakiel: Yes.
Peterson: And why was the Azazel goat sent into the wilderness?
Zahakiel: To take the sins away from the people, so that it would not be among the congregation any longer.
100thSheep: Amen
Zahakiel: So now if we are to follow this pattern (and the Scriptures tell us we are) then the priestly ministrations must consist of two phases: a “daily” service where intercession is made for mankind because of the sins we confess and put away, and then a final act where the sanctuary is cleansed of these collected defilements.
But now if Hebrews 9:12 is interpreted the way many modern Christians do, then Christ entered the most holy place upon His ascension, AND remained there doing priestly acts from that day to this. This addition (though subtle) to the Word not only contradicts the type that is laid out in the Old Testament, but it also completely misunderstands the work of the Priests as exemplified by those under Aaron and perfected in the ministry of Yahshua. And here, again, is another place where an understanding of the Victory doctrine would help, for we teach that, as the Bible says, we accept the Cross as an atoning act for those “sins that are past,” (Rom 3:25) and thereafter enter into a life where no further guilt is acquired through deliberate sins. Most forms of Christianity teach that the Cross is for all the sins a Christian has committed, and all that he or she will commit. This is entirely false. The cross, the Bible tells us, is for sinners, that they may obtain forgiveness and become Christians, by which they obtain the “born again” experience in which they do not commit any sins worthy of death. (1John 3:9, 1John 5:17-18)
But of the sins of ignorance, the sins realized after the fact, these are confessed as often as they are discovered, and these are transferred, by the power of our Priest, and by the right gained through the Cross, to the sanctuary. This is a subtle, but important, distinction of which worldly Christianity knows nothing at all – though it is laid out quite plainly in the Book of Hebrews.
Are there any questions so far?
Ye: None here.
Naraiel: No.
Peterson: No.
100thSheep: No.
Qinael: No.
Tain: No.
Guerline: No.
Daphna: No.
Happy Rock: No.
The Sanctuary in Hebrews
Zahakiel: Now, Hebrews 9:12 tells us that when Christ entered the Heavenly Sanctuary, He entered the “holiest” or the most holy place. We CSDAs accept that translation as correct. But then, it appears we have a problem, because how can Christ have entered the most holy place, and yet be ministering on behalf of mankind in the outer chamber until 1844?
Well, that’s exactly what happened. And I’ll say, as I have said before, that a large portion of what people think are contradictions in the Bible, or conflicts between Adventism and the Bible, can be cleared up by continuing to read past the simple “proof text” raised as an objection. Here is another example of that, and I’ll read from Hebrews 9, verse 12 down to verse 22. This is a long reading, I will admit, but the reason there aren’t any other people who are able to reconcile Hebrews 9 and the Spirit of Prophecy writings is because not a lot of people have taken the time. We read, then (and let me know when you’ve finished)….
“Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place [we understand this to properly be translated as “the most holy place”], having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
“And for this cause He is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead, otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
“Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, ‘This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.’ Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.” (Heb 9:12-22)
Peterson: Done.
Qinael: Done.
100thSheep: Done.
Daphna: Finished.
Guerline: Done.
Ye: Finished.
Naraiel: Done.
Happy Rock: Done.
Tain: Done.
Zahakiel: That last paragraph is key to understanding all this. Paul talks about the sanctuary being purged with blood, and speaks about Moses sprinkling the tabernacle, vessels, and other elements of the ministry with blood. But here is the thing just about everyone misses... MOSES was not the High Priest. Aaron was the High Priest.
The “sprinkling” and “purging” being done here, the type of when Christ “once entered” the most holy place upon His resurrection, is NOT the Day of Atonement ritual as performed by the High Priest at all, but rather the initiatory event found here, earlier in Leviticus, to prepare the Sanctuary for the work of atoning Israel:
“And Moses did as Yahweh commanded him; and the assembly was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them. And he slew [the bullock for the sin offering]; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.” (Lev 8:4, 10, 15)
The Book of Hebrews refers back not to the Day of Atonement, but the consecration of the Sanctuary, which allowed the atoning work to begin. It then goes on, in Chapter 10, to speak about Christ’s atoning work for us in just such a manner, after the manner of the priests; the difference being that while the priests must offer the daily sacrifices, Christ offered only one, and that one has power for the fulfilling of the entire work.
During the atoning process that is described in Hebrews, Christ is spoken of as a Priest that ever lives to make intercession for us, and this confirms our understanding here, for if He had truly completed the work of atonement by entering the Most Holy Place to cleanse it completely upon His Ascension, the priestly “work” would have been fully terminated. Some forms of Christianity actually do teach this, but they do so in contradiction with the Book of Hebrews’ clear revelations about the continuing work of the Priest in Heaven.
So to summarize all that, Christ DID enter the Most Holy Place of the Sanctuary upon His resurrection and ascension, but it was not to complete the work of atonement, for the Book of Hebrews describes the priestly labors as an ongoing process years later. It was to consecrate the tools of that ministry by His blood, as Moses did for Aaron in Leviticus 8. After this, we find Christ described as offering Himself for us continuously, as often as necessary (or, to be more specific, pointing to His once-given sacrifice as often as is necessary for that purpose), and this is not the cleansing of the sanctuary ritual. That cleansing process did indeed begin in 1844, when Christ, preparing to return for a purified people, entered upon the final phase of His priestly work – and this is what is described in Leviticus 16.
Is everyone clear on this?
100thSheep: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Tain: Yes.
Qinael: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
Guerline: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Zahakiel: This brings us to the issues facing us today. What the Review editor didn’t know, and could not therefore articulate when put on the spot for it, is that Ellen White saw this very clearly in vision, and saw it accurately. Yet, and this is very important, if Mrs. White used Heb 9:12 as evidence for this, she did indeed err. If Adventism – by means of it’s books, and commentaries, and other publications – has used Heb 9:12 as a proof text to support the doctrine, they would do better to stick with the other verses that are actually relevant, and truly do support the belief as stated by traditional Adventism. If SDA commentators try to argue (as the Review Editor did) that the translation should be maintained as it appears in the KJV, they are not going to be able to be very convincing, since the majority of scholars understand Hebrews 9 differently. And finally, if SDA theologians insist on misusing Hebrews 9 to support the sanctuary doctrine, the only alternative, as some honest but misguided theologians have concluded, is to acknowledge the conflict, and some have left (or been forced to leave) the SDA Church thinking that the Sanctuary doctrine itself is in error.
But this is not the case.
I teach in some of my classes that logical arguments are not really to be considered “true” or “false” but rather “valid” or “invalid.” They may be valid and still be false, because they began with the wrong principles. If I say, “Everything red is made of fire,” and then I say, “This ball is red, therefore it must be made of fire,” the structure of the argument itself is valid, but the first statement, “everything red is made of fire,” is incorrect – so my conclusion is wrong. Do you see what I mean by that? I started with a faulty assumption, so it doesn't matter how sound the logic is that I apply to it. The conclusion will still be wrong.
Tain: Yes.
Happy Rock: Yes.
100thSheep: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Ye: Yes.
Qinael: Yes.
Peterson: Yes.
Zahakiel: Conversely, arguments may be invalid and still have a proper conclusion. That is what is happening here. Traditional Adventism might say:
1) The Sanctuary in Heaven consists of two phases, a holy place and a most holy place.
2) Ellen White saw Christ entering into the Holy Place in 1844.
3) Hebrews 9:12 supports the teaching that Christ entered the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place upon His ascension to Heaven.
4) Since the Bible verse in Hebrews and Ellen White’s visions support the doctrine, it is true.
5) Adventists teach the truth, and therefore accept and teach this doctrine.
The argument is invalid, because step 4 is not accurate, and step 2 is questionable (based on which "writings" you are talking about). But the Bible verse in question does NOT support the traditional Adventist teaching. Now, it doesn’t contradict it either (this is important) because it’s not speaking of the atonement ritual at all, but rather the initial steps involved in preparing the sanctuary for the ministry of Christ. The argument is invalid, but the conclusion (5) is still correct. It’s just that that specific verse is not a valid argument in support of it – but there are others, and those that properly speak about the phases of the priestly ministry, the time of judgment, and the role that we as Christians are to fulfill in terms of announcing this to the world.
Are there any questions?
100thSheep: No.
Peterson: No.
Naraiel: No.
Tain: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: In conclusion, then: true Adventists should never be afraid of dealing with controversial issues. If our doctrine is true, it will stand the test of any scrutiny. If it is false, we then find the opportunity to grow and develop. The problem is that once a religious organization (formerly a Church) gets to the point of developing a “creed” and using anything other than the Word of God as a test of doctrinal accuracy, it becomes very difficult for them to alter their fundamental beliefs.
To give an example: I shared with my brother a fairly recent declaration (I think it was in 2006) by the Roman Catholic Church’s head, the pope, endorsing such ideas as the big bang, a very old age of the earth, and the gradual appearance of life through an evolutionary process beginning with a single “primitive” organism. Naturally, for the Bible-believing Christian, these ideas present a tremendous problem. They not only contradict the Biblical account of “special creation” for each of the distinct kinds of animals (and the order of their creation) but there is a spiritual problem they introduce as well. These things now endorsed by the RC Church place death before Adam, (and thus before sin) invalidating the central purpose of the Cross, and the Gospel itself. But now, as a Roman Catholic, my brother considers (at least on paper) the papal declarations to be infallible statements of truth, and he is honor bound to accept these things despite his personal beliefs. Fortunately for him he, like most of the rest of my family, is not a devout Roman Catholic, and can still think for himself on this matter.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church has, to a very large degree, become this kind of a body. If Ellen White wrote or said something, it doesn’t matter what the Biblical text actually says, or what more accurate translations might reveal, the prophetic ministry needs to be upheld as flawless. This is a mistake, and has earned the SDA Church some much deserved criticism. I believe that Ellen White’s writings are all fundamentally correct in principle; and if she saw something in vision, I accept that. However, I do not believe her writings (and by that I mean things like her choice of words or her personal understanding of the things she saw) are infallible, and I would not use them as a test of fellowship for membership in the Church of which I am a member. This is, I believe, the proper balance to apply when discussing the writings that SDAS call the “Spirit of Prophecy,” and it is a sorely needed central approach when discussing potentially “difficult” matters like the Sanctuary doctrine.
And of that issue specifically, this study shows that a proper understanding of 1844, and a proper and full understanding of Hebrews 9, demonstrates a beautiful consistency between the teachings of the apostles and the teachings of the Remnant Church. Of course, the question becomes: Who IS that Remnant Church? Based upon our ability to teach the truth of “all things that pertain unto life and Godliness,” (2Pet 1:3) and the presence of the full Gospel message among Creation Seventh Day Adventists, (1John 3:9) I think that this is not one of the more difficult questions we are called upon to answer.
I'll ask Bro. Luke to close our study with a prayer.
Qinael: Our holy and loving Father,
We thank you for this opportunity to gather together in your Spirit,
though far apart physically, and learn of you.
We thank you for the ministration your Son is performing on our behalf,
and that you have not left us without a knowledge of these things, but have
revealed them clearly both in type and antitype for our benefit. We understand these to be important concepts,
particularly in this last generation, as we prepare to stand for a brief time
without an intercessor.
May all who are gathered here take firm steps to secure themselves,
knowing that you have provided all the means necessary by the death and the
ministry of your dear Son.
In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.
Peterson: Amen.
100thSheep: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Tain: Amen.
Ye: Amen.
Happy Rock: Amen.
Daphna: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
