When I told an Adventist pastor that I'm doubting the Sanctuary Doctrine, he told me to refute the whole DARCOM report before I even think of leaving the Church. It's an overwhelming task, and I can't possibly take to that task as I'm not a professional theologian! The least I can do is to identify the defeaters and the assumptions that underlie the whole Sanctuary Doctrine. Those defeaters are what I focused on in my main article. Instead of refuting 2400+ pages of the DARCOM Series, I only responded to the chapters that intersect with my positions. I admit that I haven't comprehensively dealt with DARCOM, and I don't intend to. All my objections against DARCOM are in my mind. Readers of my article can talk with me personally to know my answers.
Needless to say, what I did was not easy at all. It still took me a lot of reading from both sides of the issue to get a real grip. I fear that Adventists could be trapped inside the system by the sheer amount of time needed to evaluate the truthfulness of the Sanctuary Doctrine. Hopefully, my answers to the assertions of DARCOM could help others in their quest for truth. I will be adding more to this page as I encounter more arguments against my position.
1. The best translation of τὰ ἅγια (ta hagia)
My view on the heavenly sanctuary grants that the best translation of τὰ ἅγια(ta hagia) in Heb. 9:8 and 12 is "the sanctuary." I have no disagreement with the suggested translation of DARCOM. The author of Hebrews is quite clear that the New Covenant has a heavenly sanctuary where Christ ministers. The disagreement lies in the nature of the heavenly sanctuary. Is it a literal structure in Heaven? Or is it Heaven itself?
My article stipulates that Jesus went to Heaven as the Most Holy Place from the zoomed-out perspective of the Plan of Redemption (what the earthly sanctuary typified). But if zoomed in from the perspective of the New Covenant, Jesus went to the heavenly sanctuary. It is not a literal sanctuary in Heaven with two compartments, but Heaven itself - the dwelling place of God.
The translation only removed a single proof text for the claim that Jesus went directly to the Most Holy Place. For that, we have another categorical reference in Heb. 6:19-20. The DARCOM tasked G.W. Rice to exegete this verse to see if it meant what most scholars almost unanimously think it means. In the next section, I will present why I think he's wrong.
2. Exegesis of Heb. 6:19-20 - Where did Jesus go?
Aside from Heb. 9:12, Heb. 6:19-20 is also used as a proof text that Jesus went into the Most Holy Place. DARCOM deflects this verse by pointing out the fact that the curtain could mean any curtain in the earthly sanctuary (Ex. 38:18; 39:40; Lev. 16:2,12,15; 21:23; Num. 3:26; 4:26; 18:7). But the identification of the curtain is just another red herring. What matters is not which curtain Jesus went through, but where Jesus went.
Jesus went to the ἐσώτερον (esoteron). It was translated as "inner place" by ESV, "inner shrine" by RSV, or "the Presence behind" by NKJV. The most literal translation among them is "inner place" (ESV). The "place" inside the curtain that is "inner" could only mean one thing - the Most Holy Place. The use of the descriptor "inner" doesn't make sense if the author was only talking about the 1st compartment. For the same reason, the use of "upper" in "upper room" doesn't make sense if it only meant the 1st floor. Furthermore, the more common adverb or preposition ἐσώ (eso) "inside" would have been enough if the author was not trying to be specific.
Finally, the most obvious clue that Jesus went to the Most Holy Place is in Heb. 6:20. It says that Jesus entered as a high priest. What do high priests do when they enter the sanctuary? They go to the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9:7). How much clearer can the author get?
After I wrote my exegesis of Heb. 6:19-20, I checked the analysis of others regarding this passage. There's a theologian named Dr. Fred Mazzaferri who wrote a comprehensive exegesis of these verses. You can check Dr. Mazzaferri's paper for a more scholarly rebuttal of G.W. Rice's interpretation.
3. Is the Heavenly Sanctuary Figurative or Real?
In Volume 4 of the DARCOM series, Dr. William G. Johnsson dedicated a whole chapter that deals with this question.
When reading the book of Hebrews, Dr. Johnsson suggests that we can think of the heavenly sanctuary in three ways. Firstly, metaphorical; secondly, literalistic; and thirdly, literalizing. He concludes that the best way is literalistic. Dr. Johnsson dismissed the metaphorical framework by showing how Philo's framework is incompatible with the book of Hebrews. He concludes:
It seems then that Hebrews, although employing terminology and some concepts that parallel Philo’s usage, has its own distinctive content of meaning. It should be studied on its own terms without reading in ideas from Philo.
With that, I agree. But my article proposes a reading of Hebrews that sees it from the overall context of the Bible. In this bigger context, I posit that the most natural way to understand the earthly sanctuary is that it is a metaphor for the whole Plan of Redemption, nothing more. The book of Hebrews itself gave us the symbolic meaning of some parts of the earthly sanctuary. According to the author's symbolism, the first compartment is symbolic of the Old Covenant (Heb. 9:8), while the second is symbolic of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15,24). As for the other symbols, we can extrapolate from what was given by the book of Hebrews and consult the whole Bible.
Hence, I can concur with Dr. Johnsson that the "heavenly sanctuary" is a literal place. It is Heaven. But Dr. Johnsson thinks that the literalness of the heavenly sanctuary is in its structure. He believes it is a literal building, a sanctuary within Heaven. That is the nuance where our views diverge. I have explained in my other article why the terms "heavenly sanctuary" and "sanctuary in Heaven" should be differentiated. However, the strength of my argument does not only depend on understanding the difference between the two terms. For even if we grant that heavenly sanctuary is a literal structure in Heaven, we still don't have a reason to think it has two compartments. We also don't have a reason to believe that Jesus's ministry has to follow the Levitical Priesthood's ministry.
The idea that the heavenly sanctuary must also have two compartments depends on the assumption that the "earthly" is identical to the "heavenly." I have refuted that in my other article. Unbeknownst to him, Dr. Johnsson said something that supports my case:
The heavenly is the genuine, the true, so we should see the earthly in light of the heavenly, rather than vice versa.
I think that the main weakness in his position is that he failed to heed his own advice. He sees too much of the earthly in the heavenly.
4. Typology of the Compartments
In my article, I posited that τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς (he prōtē skēnē) or "first tent" in Heb. 9:8 is the symbol of the Old Covenant. My position is in line with ESV's formally equivalent translation as they translated it as "the first section." However, DARCOM's Dr. Herbert Kiesler insists that:
...the total context of the book makes better sense to translate hē prōtē skēnē (the first tent) in terms of the whole tabernacle as in 8:5; 9:11, 21 and 13:10.
Dr. Kiesler recognizes that other reputable scholars think that the expression must refer to the first apartment as in verse 2. But he still begged to disagree because τὰ ἅγια (ta hagia) is best translated as "the sanctuary."
It appears that ta hagia here is the heavenly counterpart to prōtē skēnē (first tent) or the earthly sanctuary. In this case the author is saying that access to the heavenly sanctuary was historically not available as long as the earthly sanctuary was still standing.
Unfortunately, Dr. Kiesler's position is the weaker of the two possible interpretations. First, we must recognize and emphasize that Heb. 9:1-10 can be scoped within the same sub-context. The primary particle δὲ (but) in verse 11 serves as the delimiter of this sub-context. After describing the Old Covenant in verses 1-10, the use of "but" is the segue to describing the New Covenant. It would have been too abrupt for any writer to change the meaning of the terms "mid-thought". Therefore, the context is the strongest indicator that πρώτης σκηνῆς in Heb. 9:8 refers to the same σκηνὴ πρώτη in Heb. 9:2 and 6.
What comes next in verse 11 makes the author's point clearer. He contrasted Jesus, the high priest, against ordinary priests. We first saw this contrast in verses 6 and 7, where the priest does the daily rituals in the 1st compartment, while the high priest goes to the Most Holy Place once a year. In using this contrast of priest versus high priest, the author conveys that the Old Covenant, symbolized by the "first section," is now obsolete because the real high priest has entered the true Most Holy Place in the Plan of Redemption.
Finally, the irrefutable evidence that τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς points to the "first section" is in Heb. 9:9. Notice the usage of the word παραβολή (parabole), which means "symbolic." If τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς is the earthly sanctuary or the Old Tabernacle, why did the author say that it is symbolic of the Old Covenant? The earthly sanctuary is the Old Covenant! Can the reality of a symbol be its own symbol? It doesn't make sense! Hence, we can't avoid concluding that the author was referring to the "first section" because the alternative interpretation doesn't make sense.
Once again, DARCOM presented a red herring. They go through hoops and loops just to avoid an interpretation that falsifies their doctrine. They grasp at anything they can find just to make it say something different from what it obviously says.
5. The Sanctuary in Heaven
Adventist scholars like Gerhard Pfandl give more clarification on how Adventists understand the heavenly sanctuary. In his article entitled "The Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary" , Vol.19 Issue 3 (July 1, 2014) of Perspective Digest, he wrote:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, but it is made of heavenly material, not earthly stones. The heavenly sanctuary is much greater, grander, and more beautiful than any earthly tent or temple ever could be. What was shown to Moses and David were earthly models of the heavenly sanctuary—not miniature editions of the heavenly sanctuary but earthly representations that Moses and David could build at the time and place in which they lived.
A few paragraphs later, he emphasized:
The earthly sanctuary was but a “faint reflection of its vastness and glory.” The heavenly throne room, the seat of God’s government in the universe, where millions of angels stand before God, could never be adequately represented by an earthly structure.
I agree that the heavenly sanctuary is much grander than any earthly temple could ever be. But what we call "the heavenly sanctuary" should be thought of as Heaven itself and not a structure within it. Is there a part of Heaven that's not permeated by the glory and presence of God? If the answer is no, then a sanctuary in Heaven, even if made with heavenly materials and dimensions, doesn't make sense. If we insist on imagining the heavenly sanctuary like this, we could also legitimately ask: what is outside the sanctuary in Heaven? Wherever God is, that is the sanctuary. It's revealed in Rev. 21:22 that the new earth has no temples. The reason is that God himself is the temple.
Later in his article, Dr. Pfandl asked "Does the heavenly sanctuary have two apartments as did the earthly?" He cited Marvin Moore to point out that the veil is not necessary. I, Pfandl, and Marvin Moore are basically in agreement that there are no compartments in the heavenly sanctuary. But my disagreement would be in Pfandl's next statement:
The importance of the two apartments, however, was not just their geography, but also their symbolic function. The two apartments in the sanctuary represented two phases in Christ’s service.
I can agree that the two apartments are symbolic of the two functions. But why does it have to follow that it's symbolic of a two-phase ministry? The priest and the high priest have different functions in different schedules. Why should we think that Jesus's functions are scheduled in phases? He's far superior than levitical priests. He did all their functions at once. The only reason why one has to think this way is to have an explanation for Oct. 22, 1844.
Yes, the Levitical Priesthood could typify two functions of Jesus's ministry (the atonement and the intercessory). But it doesn't follow that Jesus has a two-phase schedule when performing his service. The author of Hebrews made it clear: Jesus is not limited by phases and time.
My Opinion on the DARCOM Series
In Volume 4 of the Series "Issues in the Book of Hebrews", DARCOM states that they delimited the issue into a twofold question:
- Does Hebrews explicitly teach Christ’s two-phased priestly ministry?
- Does Hebrews deny Christ’s two-phased priestly ministry?
Eventually, the Committee rendered a negative response to both questions.
I essentially agree with their negative response to question #1. There's nothing in the book of Hebrews that could give us a hint that Jesus also has a two-phased ministry. My disagreement is in their answer to question #2. For DARCOM, it's enough to show that Hebrews does not deny a two-phased ministry of Jesus. To them, if the book of Hebrews doesn't categorically deny it, they can look elsewhere in the Bible and from extra-biblical revelations to support the Sanctuary Doctrine. They further state their reasoning:
The argument for the Adventist doctrine is drawn from the sanctuary types which present in sequence two major divisions of priestly ministration. It is legitimate to infer such a ministry since the Levitical priests are said to serve "a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" in which Christ now ministers as high priest (Heb 8:1, 5).
But as I have shown in my main article, and in dealing with DARCOM's assertions on this page, the author of Hebrews laid out the framework on how to understand the earthly sanctuary. In this framework: inferring a literal structure of a sanctuary in Heaven is too much of a stretch; imagining a compartmentalized heavenly sanctuary is categorically rejected; a 2-phased ministry of Jesus is baseless. DARCOM tried to escape these conclusions by going against the majority of scholars and presenting poor exegesis of relevant texts.
In my opinion, DARCOM failed to demonstrate how the book of Hebrews allows some leeway for a two-phased priestly ministry of Jesus. Of course, Adventists can disagree. For various reasons I don't have, they can still accept DARCOM's report. But at the very least, if ever there is leeway, it is too small. But for the typical Adventist mindset, even that little allowance is enough to accept the Sanctuary Doctrine. For me, that is not enough. The Sanctuary Doctrine is an extraordinary doctrine, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! It's not reasonable for me to believe in an elaborate and convoluted doctrine that requires exegetical hoops and loops to make barely a case.
No comments:
Post a Comment