When I was a budding Adventist back in the late 1990s, I heard that many years ago, there was an Adventist theologian named Dr. Desmond Ford who questioned the Sanctuary Doctrine. His questions started a great controversy within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But that has since been settled after the Biblical Research Institute conducted a massive study that showed how biblical it is. My SDA pastors and mentors gave me the impression that the issues have been dealt with already. I can now take comfort in the fact that the Sanctuary Doctrine is really in the Bible, and therefore the Seventh-day Adventist Church remains the true Church.
Since then, I have heard of many more Adventists, non-Adventists, and former Adventists who still dared to question it. The debate seems to be far from over. As a curious student of the Bible, this made me uneasy. I have to figure out for myself if the doctrine is valid by looking at both sides with the least bias. But I shelved the topic for many years, believing that the issues were too complicated for me to assess. I was also afraid of what I'll find. For me, if the Sanctuary Doctrine turns out to be false, then what else has Adventism got wrong? I could be embarking on a journey out of Adventism, and I was terrified of that idea. On the other hand, if I can prove beyond doubt that the Sanctuary Doctrine is true, then I can proclaim the Gospel and the Adventist message with even more conviction. I have to settle it once and for all!
The opportunity came during the pandemic when I got more time and motivation to study. Just as I feared, settling the issues meant embarking on a journey out of Adventism. I believe that this doctrine is so foundational that to debunk it is to destroy the whole Adventist identity and worldview. However, I do recognize that the reaction of individual Adventists could vary depending on how relevant the doctrine is to them. But to me, without the Sanctuary Doctrine, I have no reason to identify as a Seventh-day Adventist.
If Seventh-day Adventism is a house of cards, the Sanctuary Doctrine is the one card that could collapse it all. So Adventist scholars defended it with all their might, even publishing a 7-volume DARCOM Series with 2,400+ pages of scholarly work. Regardless of their efforts, many truth-seeking Adventists still left the Church because they falsified the doctrine for themselves. Others rejected it, but chose to remain in the ultra-progressive wing of Adventism.
In this article, I'll be presenting the arguments that made me conclude that the Sanctuary Doctrine isn't biblical.
What are the issues?
As I studied the Sanctuary Doctrine deeper, its fragility became more apparent. It is an intricate and elaborate system of fundamental components. Each of these components has to be true for the whole doctrine to be valid. By refuting just one of these components, the doctrine collapses.
Chief of these components is the interpretation of Daniel 8:14. But because there is already a wealth of material on this subject, I will not discuss it here. A comprehensive discussion of history and principles of prophetic interpretation is required to point out the errors in the traditional Adventist understanding. I don't think it's necessary to discuss it because there is another component that's far easier to falsify.
Another component is the concept of an eschatological Day of Atonement, also known as the Investigative Judgement. Many former Adventists identify it as their primary reason for leaving. They believe that the Investigative Judgement compromises the true Gospel and makes Adventism a works-based religion. But since Adventism has evolved to be more evangelical these days, highlighting this issue doesn't make a convincing case against the doctrine. Modern Adventists hold a view of the Investigative Judgement that doesn't contradict what they understand to be the Gospel of righteousness by faith.
In my case, I found that the component that's easiest to falsify is the idea that Jesus commenced the 2nd phase of his heavenly ministry in 1844. If the Bible precludes this idea, then the whole doctrine fails. SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14 will look forced, and rescuing it by defending the historicist approach can't help. The Investigative Judgement will also have no technical basis as it depends on the 2-phase ministry of Jesus in Heaven.
So, did Jesus enter the 2nd compartment of the heavenly sanctuary on Oct. 22, 1844? This contention hangs on three fundamental premises. The first premise is that there is a literal sanctuary in Heaven. Second, this Sanctuary also has two compartments like the earthly one. Third, Jesus has a 2-phase ministry like the Levitical Priests. If these premises are false, then Jesus didn't move anywhere in 1844, and the whole Sanctuary Doctrine fails.
Where Adventists Went Wrong
The Bible is clear that the earthly sanctuary is a copy of heavenly things (Heb. 8:5, Exo. 25:40). So for Adventists, it's only logical to think that the heavenly sanctuary must also have two compartments. They postulated that the heavenly sanctuary is a literal structure in Heaven with the same layout as the earthly sanctuary. But is this really what the Bible says about the heavenly sanctuary?
If this structure in Heaven also has two compartments, then Jesus must also perform a 2-phase ministry like the Levitical Priests. This premise assumes that Jesus must follow the pattern of the Levitical Priesthood. But is this really what the Bible says about the ministry of Jesus?
By reading Hebrews 6-10, we'll get a clearer understanding of what the heavenly sanctuary truly is and what the ministry of Jesus is all about. A closer look at these chapters could show us why we can't depend on these premises.
Premise #1: The Heavenly Sanctuary is a Literal Structure in Heaven
Each element of the earthly sanctuary is a shadow (σκιᾷ/skia) of heavenly things (ἐπουρανίων/epouraniōn) according to Heb 8:5. By using the term "shadow," the author is pointing out that they are lesser copies, not exact copies. So we have to be careful how we imagine what these shadows mean. It's better to let the Bible identify what they meant.
- Lamb = Jesus the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:9)
- Priests = Jesus, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:17,26, 9:11)
- Shewbread = Jesus, Bread of Life (Jn. 6:35)
- Menorah = Jesus, the unquenchable Light (Jn. 1:4-5, 8:12)
- The Veil/Curtain = The Body of Jesus (Heb. 10:20)
- Incense = Prayers of Saints through the Holy Spirit (Ps. 141:2, Rom. 8:26, Rev. 5:8, Rev. 8:3)
- Rod of Aaron that Budded = The Messiah, the rod of God (Ps. 110:1-2)
- Manna = Jesus, the Bread from Heaven (Jn. 6:51)
- The Tablets of the 10 Commandments = Jesus, the fulfillment of the Law (Mat. 5:17, Psa. 40)
- Covering Cherubs and Shekhinah = God the Father on His Throne (Heb. 9:24)
- The 1st Compartment (Holy Place) = Present Age or the Old Covenant (Heb. 9:2,8-10)
- The 2nd Compartment (Most Holy Place) = Heaven itself, the Sanctuary of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15,24)
When we put all these symbols together, what we get is not a location nor a structure, but the whole Plan of Redemption as implemented by Jesus in unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The "heavenly things" that Moses saw was a pattern and not an actual sanctuary in Heaven (Heb. 8:5,9:23, Exo. 25:40).
To say this is not to deny the fact that there is a heavenly sanctuary. It's just that the terms "heavenly sanctuary" and "sanctuary in Heaven" need to be differentiated. "sanctuary in Heaven" connotes a literal structure within Heaven, while "heavenly sanctuary" can mean something more direct: Heaven itself. We will never find any verse in the Bible that could give us the idea that Jesus went to Heaven to enter a sanctuary within it. As Heb. 9:24 said, Jesus entered a sanctuary not made with hands, Heaven itself. The concept of two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary can only come from the mix up of these two terms.
As the symbolisms suggest, the earthly sanctuary is a pattern of the whole Plan of Redemption, not just of a sanctuary in Heaven. In this grand plan, the ascension of Jesus is akin to the high priest's entry into the Most Holy Place (Heb. 6:19-20, 9:6). There is no reason to think that Jesus still has to fulfill a 2-phase ministry in Heaven. It will become more apparent in the next section, where we'll study the verses that show that there are no compartments in the heavenly sanctuary.
Premise #2: The Heavenly Sanctuary has Two Compartments
The 1st compartment of the earthly sanctuary is “symbolic of the present age” (Heb. 9:2,8-10). Furthermore, Jesus our great priest removed the concept of divisions in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:24, 10:20).
- The present age (Old Covenant) is now obsolete (Heb. 8:13, 9:26)
- On the death of Jesus, the curtain was torn open (Mk. 15:38)
- The curtain represented the Body of Jesus broken for us (Heb. 10:20, 1 Cor. 11:24)
- The throne of God (symbolized by the Most Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary) is now accessible because the curtain is the Body of Jesus. His flesh doesn't separate us from God but brings us to Him (Heb. 10:19-20)
- Therefore there is no more 1st compartment in both earthly and heavenly sanctuary
Since the 1st compartment typifies the Old Covenant, the idea that it typified the 1st phase of Jesus's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary has no basis. If the Old Covenant is now obsolete, then the heavenly sanctuary has no more divisions. If the Body of Jesus is an open curtain (Heb. 10:19-20), then there truly is no reason to think that the heavenly sanctuary has two compartments. When Jesus went to Heaven, he had nowhere else to go but the Most Holy Place, where the presence of God is (Heb. 9:24).
Premise #3: The Ministry of Jesus is like the Levitical Priesthood
The author of Hebrews contrasted the superior ministry of Jesus against the Levitical Priesthood. First, he pointed out that Jesus is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20). Then, he identified Melchizedek as the type of Jesus (Heb. 7:1-22). Finally, he gave more examples of contrasts between Jesus and the Levitical Priests.
- Jesus does not need to offer sacrifices daily or yearly like the Levitical Priests (Heb. 7:27)
- Every year, the Levitical High Priest offers a blood sacrifice before entering the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9:7)
- Every day, the Levitical Priests stands to offer blood sacrifices at the outer court (Heb. 10:11, Heb. 9:6,9,10)
- Once and for all, Jesus sat down at the right hand of God after performing a single High Priestly sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-12, 10:12)
Because of these examples of contrasts, we don't have a reason to think that the Levitical Priesthood is a type of Jesus's ministry. The ascension of Jesus to Heaven and the entry of high priests into the Most Holy place was the only similarity that the author of Hebrews mentioned. (Heb. 6:19-20, 9:7,11,24). And even this similarity could not give us a hint that Jesus went to Heaven for a 2-phase ministry.
Jesus only needed to offer one sacrifice to accomplish a complete and final atonement, and for that, he is also our most worthy mediator (Heb. 9:15). He did all of that through his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension. In Heaven, his intercession and mediation for us will never cease until he comes back. The superior priesthood of Jesus accomplished what the inferior 2-phase Levitical Priesthood couldn't.
Conclusion
By contrasting shadows versus reality, earthly versus heavenly, the Old versus New Covenant, and Levitical versus Melchizedekian Priesthood, the author of Hebrews emphasized how the earthly sanctuary is similar to but also different from its heavenly counterpart. It is more reasonable to think that the biblical verses we studied suggest that the earthly sanctuary is a pattern of the whole Plan of Redemption. Imagining it as a miniature copy of a sanctuary in Heaven is too literalistic and frankly has no basis.
The ascension of Jesus to Heaven is akin to but unlike the high priest's entry into the Most Holy Place. He went there as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not as a Levitical priest. The earthly sanctuary's compartments were types of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The idea of divisions in the heavenly sanctuary is now obsolete because of Jesus's ministry. Furthermore, because the author of Hebrews contrasted the Levitical Priesthood against the superior priesthood of Jesus, we can't reasonably infer a two-phase ministry of Jesus from it. Jesus's priesthood is far superior to the Levitical, in that he can do the two phases all at once with just a single sacrifice and a once for all entry into the real presence of God.
The 2-phase ministry of Jesus in a literal sanctuary in Heaven is the concept that allowed some Millerites to save face in the Great Disappointment of 1844. Later on, they evolved to become the Seventh-day Adventist movement. If this concept is unbiblical, then the Investigative Judgement has no technical basis, and there's no point in showing how it obscures the Gospel. Additionally, interpreting Dan. 8:14 through the lens of a historicist becomes an exercise of futility. There is simply no ground for these ideas to stand on.
The implications of a debunked Sanctuary Doctrine for Adventists are devastating. It's why they had to hold on to it no matter what. Many of their other doctrines and their very reason for existence hang in the validity of this foundational doctrine. Simply put, if the Sanctuary Doctrine is false, their whole theological framework is questionable.
What about the DARCOM Series?
To understand and present the official view of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on the Sanctuary Doctrine, I have painstakingly read the chapters in the DARCOM Series that directly deal with my arguments above. I did not touch on the DARCOM research in this article to keep it concise and readable to a wider-range of readers. So for a more comprehensive discussion, I have created a separate page that addresses the assertions of DARCOM as they relate to my arguments. You can find the full content here.
No comments:
Post a Comment