Sanctuary - Copy
13) Sanctuary "Cleansing" & Lesson 4, Sab. School BSG
from Gerald M Reynolds
Diving right into this beautiful topic, I like what it is AGM has done
in approaching this lesson. First, he has several in the class read
various translations. Some render Dan 8:14 as "...then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed..." (KJV) Other translations give us: "Then the
holy place will be repaired." (New Century Version=NCV); "...then the
holy
place will be properly restored." footnote says, 'literally, vindicated'
(New American Standard Bible Version=NASV); "...then the Temple
will be restored." (New Living Translation=NLV); "...then the sanctuary
will be purified." (New American Bible for Catholics=NABV). Dr. Maxwell
states a preference for wording like that in "...then shall the sanctuary
be restored to its rightful state." (Revised Standard Version=RSV) or
words similar to "put right, set right."
All of this denotes something which has happened to "unright" the
holy of holies in heaven itself. For those of us who see this in the
horizon of the "larger view," it was simply what went wrong when Satan
became jealous of Christ and started his gossiping campaign. Because
of the extensive use of symbols and mental pictures or images of pieces
of furniture and the many and different types of functions surrounding
the
whole, AGM states he would choose Jesus Christ to teach the lesson.
And I heartily agree! And he further states that he would ask Christ to
not
use dark speech, riddles and parables, but to speak plainly, hoping that
we might qualify as "friends" as was Abraham and Moses and the disciples
in the Upper Room when Christ spoke plainly to the disciples about the
Father.
With this I would like to refer to Elder Roy Adams noble effort to
penetrate with
objective scholarship certain aspects of this subject. The first deals
with
Exodus 25:9 & 40, where God instructs Moses: "According to all that I
show
you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture,
so you
shall make it." At first it sounds very straightforward. But the Hebrew
word for
"pattern" is, in English letters, "tabnith." Adams cites a 1981
dissertation by
Richard M. Davidson, in which Davidson tried to determine whether or not
the
original meaning of "tabnith" implies "a vertical correspondence," that
is to say
an "earth to heaven" correspondence. Davidson found a wide range of
inter-
pretations which he categorized into six possibilities, five of which
Adams uses.
And that is where I stop for this time. Best wishes to you all as you
study.
Gerald
I thought the following texts helpful.
B.
http://www.egwestate.andrews.edu/
The Power of the Will
{MH 176.1} & see {MH 175.1}
God has given us the power of choice
{MH 176.2}& see {MH 176.3}
Satan Takes Advantage of Inherited Weakness
DA 122, 123 (1898). {1MCP 145.3}
Conversion Changes Inherited Tendencies
Lt 105, 1893.(6BC 1101.) {1MCP 145.4}
Not to Be Enslaved by Inheritance
SpT Series A, No. 9, p 56, 1897. (TM 421.) {1MCP 146.1}
Angels Help Fight These Tendencies
RH, Apr 16, 1895. (ML 03.) {1MCP 146.2}
Faith Purifies Inherited Imperfections
6T 238 (1900). {1MCP 146.3}
I taught the Sabbath School Lesson in Ellsworth, Maine, this past Sabbath.
I am very uncomfortable with much of the perspective being presented, ie.,
God as judge, prosecutor, and investigator. One authority quoted explained
that God serves as judge and prosecutor. I believe there are two problems
here. First, in our legal system the "prosecutor" is the one who does the
accusing in court. If I am not mistaken, Satan is called "the accuser" in
Scripture. To say that God accuses raises a MAJOR "red flag" for me. The
second issue, though perhaps primary issue, is that modern systems are
patterned more after the Roman legal system than the Hebrew system which is
the system the Bible pictures of Judgment and the Sancturary are based on.
I'm afraid I may very quickly find myself in quicksand if I try to apply
modern legal principles (or even Roman principles) to the Bible teachings.
Let me share how we approached things this past Sabbath in Ellsworth.
First, we defined judgment and looked at several types of judment in our
system-- I judge myself when I commit a crime, the police judge me when they
investigate, the prosecuting attorney judges when he decides he has a case
against me, the judge judges when he hears my case, if a jury is involved
they must judge, the verdict is a judgment, and when I am sentenced, I am
judged. There may well be many more. We also looked at "who pays the wage"
in Romans, but I am overshooting my space...
Next, we compared, as best we could with our limited legal knowledge, our
legal system to the Hebrew system. We compared our judge, unbiased as he is
supposed to be, with the Hebrew judge who is "on the defendant's side" in
court. We also looked at who presses charges and who defends in each
system. In doing this we arrived at a very different picture of judgment
and God from the one "pushed" by the quarterly. While we have only 30
minutes, I'm the pastor : -) so we took an hour. (No, I didn't shorten the
sermon! -)
from Joyce Griffith
The short answer I get whenever I dare to suggest that our
understanding of the investigative judgment may be awry is
a thundering response that "Ellen White said..." More than
one person has gone so far as to say that if we question the
validity of our traditional SDA view of the investigative judgment,
we are denying Mrs. White's prophetic role. If she was able to
make a mistake even after having visions from God, this line
of reasoning goes, everything she wrote is vulnerable, and our
doctrines risk irreversible erosion.
And it's certainly true that it was the shift from predicting the
second Advent in 1844 to explaining that it was the beginning of the
investigative judgment that salvaged our church from the junk heap.
On the other hand...If we do not give Ellen White the capability of
making a mistake, even a doctrinal one, we have elevated her writings
to a position of infallibility, on a higher level even than Scripture. I
think
that is a real and present danger in our church, which it leads
inevitably
to two extreme positions: "Throw E.G.W. out. She's a fraud," and
"Believe
every word E.G.W. ever wrote no matter what." The middle ground between
those two extremes has another set of perils in determining who decides,
how, and with what impact.
I am in fear and trembling on this issue because I can see serious
problems
either way the top spins, but our formal church structure does not seem
to be capable of reasonable, open discussion on the issue. (Imagine
asking your
local pastor a question about the investigative judgment...) God help us
all. We
need wisdom from above.
With this I would like to refer to Elder Roy Adams noble effort to
penetrate with
objective scholarship certain aspects of this subject. The first deals
with
Exodus 25:9 & 40, where God instructs Moses: "According to all that I
show
you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture,
so you
shall make it." At first it sounds very straightforward. But the Hebrew
word for
"pattern" is, in English letters, "tabnith." Adams cites a 1981
dissertation by
Richard M. Davidson, in which Davidson tried to determine whether or not
the
original meaning of "tabnith" implies "a vertical correspondence," that
is to say
an "earth to heaven" correspondence. Davidson found a wide range of
inter-
pretations which he categorized into six possibilities, five of which
Adams uses.
And that is where I stop for this time. Best wishes to you all as you
study.
Gerald
from David Borecky
To CorrineVanderwerff:
The article "The Sanctuary Doctrine -- Asset or Liability?" was a 49
page xerox copied booklet that was handed out during a presentation of
the San Diego Adventist Forum meeting on 2/9/02. Raymond Cottrell was
there but has had some health problems so someone read excerpts from his
article, then there followed a question and answer period. (Which I had
to miss, unfortunately.) If anyone would like a copy of the tape of the
meeting or the article, contact:
San Diego Adventist Forum
P.O. Box 3148
La Mesa, CA 91944-3148
phone: (619) 561-2360
Or you can E-mail Jim Kaatz at ak-jk@cox.net
for more info. There will probably be a charge for the tape or booklet
or both.
Dr. Cottrell even gave his E-mail address of r.rc@gte.net
Thank you to those who have responded so far on this issue. I think
incorporating our understanding of the Larger View into our
understanding of the Sanctuary Doctrine is very helpful and helps it to
make more sense in my mind. Unless, of course, the entire Sanctuary
Doctrine should be thrown out as non-biblical. But even then, the
Larger View stands as a big help in understanding salvation, judgement,
atonement, etc.
David
"1844 Made Simple," Clifford Goldstein
Continuing from where I left off last night, 1. did Moses see "a
miniature model of the earthly sanctuary either in the form of
a scale representation or in the form of an architect's plan"?;
2. did Moses see "a miniature model of the heavenly sanctuary"
In both cases of 1 & 2, they both imply that "he would not necessarily
have seen the heavenly sanctuary as it really exists." Nos. 3 & 4
both involve Moses having been "shown the heavenly sanctuary
itself" and provided with "a miniature model of it (scale represent-
ation of it or architect's plans) for constructing the earthly" or
"without
benefit of a miniature model of any kind, simply told to pattern the
earthly sanctuary directly after it;" and in 5. "Moses was not shown
either the heavenly sanctuary or any representation of it, rather,
he was given a subjective vision or a burst of inspiration, the
recollection of which he was to use in building the earthly sanctuary."
(Note that all quotation marks enclose statements made by Adams
from Davidson's thesis, as seen on pages 44 and 45 of Adam's
book, referenced earlier.)
I thought of another choice, that being that the pattern Moses saw
was an analogous pattern for purposes of a teaching device. And
I would underline those two key words, "teaching device." Jesus in
His pre-incarnate divinity is presenting in dark speech, parable, and
riddle, a lesson plan designed not alone for the Israelites or for us
3,000 years later, but a lesson plan designed also to teach the
creatures of the unfallen universe the rudiments of how He proposed
to effect the reconciliation of His fallen earth creation. I submit for
your careful analysis that this purpose behind the Sanctuary is most
critical for our understanding as well as for the Universe at large.
I would further submit that the unfallen angels and the intelligences of
the rest of the universe have a very serious investment of their own
future
in the outcome of this challenge to God's character and government.
Their own security is at serious risk if God does not show up as genuine!
We can take that for granted if we choose, but one-third of the angels
certainly didn't and made the wrong choice. Think of what these many
thousands of broken relationships meant to the angels who remained
loyal to God when their earlier and previous companions chose to go
with Satan. They were seriously hurt and the void created by that loss
was most keenly felt by everyone of them.
Tomorrow I would try to conceptualize the heavenly sanctuary so that by
Thursday night I can tie together some thoughts that stagger my mind in
gratitude for what God has done in giving us this tangible object lesson.
God bless you each and all. Gerald
The sacrificial system of which the sanctuary and day of atonement
(investigative judgement) are a part was given by God to His people for a
reason- possibly because the meaning of words change sometimes over the
centuries, God saw fit to convey a message in a concrete way.
According to Leviticus 16:30 the purpose of the day was to cleanse (heal)
"you" the people. Is not our experience in sin lodged in our subconscious?
I can not deal with that myself- God promises to "cleanse" my conscious and
subconscious- Jer. 17:10 "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even
to give every man according to the fruit of his doing." One Lexicon states
that in the Old Testament the meaning of "reins" is the seat of emotion and
affection;....Jer. 12.2 " near art thou in their mouth, and far from their
reins (affection):" hence as involving character, the object of Gods
examination. He must try our "reins" that our unconscious rebellion may be
purged- by Him, only when we are willing. In old-fashioned language, if we
are in sympathy with the work of the High Priest on the day of atonement.
(The people had to be present but the work was done for them by the High
Priest)
The daily service had to do with conscious sin that had to be confessed,
but the yearly service was the "healing", the cleansing from deepseated
"subconscious" sin. (Maybe a chapter on its own)
Let us keep on "reasoning" about this.
Adelheid and Fritz Radda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Part 3, Sanctuary "Cleansing" & S.S. BSG Lesson 4
from Gerald M Reynolds
Please notice in Exodus 25 to 27 and 1 Chron. 4 to 9, that the plans for
the two sanctuaries were both given by God. And that God was pleased
with each of them is evidenced by His Shekinah glory inhabiting them
each. But notice the many differences between the two. In the one in
the wilderness there was only ONE entrance into sacred enclosure.
In Soloman's temple there were six. In Moses' tent only ONE court,
in Solomon's TWO courts. In Moses' tent only ONE Menorah or 7-
branched candlestick, and only ONE Table of Shewbread, while in
Solomon's ten of each on each side of this double cube compartment
were present. (See 2 Chron. 4: 7 & 8) Moses' tent was collapsible,
Solomon's temple was a palatial stone edifice. (1 Kings 6: 7 cf Ex. 26:
1 & 7) We could talk about the bronze sea, or tank. in Solomon's temple
with its 12 metallic oxen, three together facing each of the four compass
points. Another object in Solomon's temple were the two rather tall
columns on either side of the entrance, crowned with lilies. There is
some indication that at the very top were bowls or vessels which made
possible a fire in each lighting the entire court.
Ellen White makes reference to these as being the occasion for Christ's
remark about His being the light of the world. But regardless of the
differences, there were similarities. What seems to be the real thrust
of all this is NOT the articles of furniture or the ministerial procedures
that occurred, as much if not more, the theological implications involved.
These are not at all discussed in scripture. God leaves it with us to see for
ourselves. The one thing that I find in EGW's writing is that there were
two factors that were of critical importance: 1. That Christ was the center
of every facet of what took place in those facilities; 2. That the entire
service was designed to focus mankind's attention on one thing and one thing
only--that of the consequence of sin.
Note well that if Christ is the Bread of Life, there would be no need for
a Table of Shewbread, one or ten, or any number of Tables in the heavenly
Sanctuary. If Christ is the Light of the World, there was no need for a
seven branched candlestick in the heavenly sanctuary. If Christ in His
divine righteousness is seen presenting that righteousness as the MERITS
of His love, there is no need for an Altar of Burnt Incense in the
heavenly sanctuary. And if the author of Hebrews knows what it is he is saying,
and Christ is both the High Priest and the King, He is the officiating
mediator ministering before the Ark of the Covenant and the One before whom He
ministers. Going back to the Court for a moment. Christ is the
Sacrifice, but He was not burnt on a brazen altar, but was sacrificed on a wooden
Cross, held there by Roman nails. "In the type the blood beneath the
brazen altar flowed and touched its pointed horns through priestly
fingers; but no one cupped that crimson stream which flowed at Calvary."
To close out this section, I hope it can be seen that Christ is
EVERYTHING And His being "everything" is His taking full and complete responsibility
for all sin and being the One who effects reconciliation between the
estranged sinner and God!
1. Those who think this refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, and who, based on Daniel 8:11, believe this is 2300 literal days, set the end of this time as 165 or 142 B.C.. The "Millerite movement," believing this referred 2300 literal years, set the end of this time period at 1844. Adam Clarke, a famous Bible commentator, wrote in 1825 (in his commentary on this text) that the end of the time period was 1966. If the time period is years, and it starts with the time of the destruction of the temple, then the end would be 2370 (about 368 years in the future). Is the timing of this important? (The SDA Bible commentary on Daniel 8:11 discusses the Antiochus theory, the Roman Church theory and the Roman Empire theory. It discounts the Antiochus theory and concludes, "as with other difficult passages of Scripture, our salvation is not dependent upon our understanding fully the meaning of Daniel 8:11.)
8) To the member who has questions about Christ in the Sanctuary
from Per Houmann
Have you read the chapter called "Facing Our Life Record" in the Great
Controversy? It may help you in understanding how to put John 16:26 and 1
John 2:1 together.
One of the quotes from the chapter that I like is: "The intercession of
Christ in man's behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of
salvation as was His death upon the cross" (Page 488). The next sentence
goes
well with it: "By His death He began that work which after His resurrection
He ascended to complete in Heaven." So many people stress the cross and
Christ's resurrection as the victory for us, but salvation is still going on
in Heaven.
When I read this chapter in the Great Controversy I see a loving God who is
listening to the accuser and the Saviour. As the accuser tries to condemn
each person, the Saviour counters with infinite love and grace and God
responds with equally infinite love and grace. I see each human throughout
the world's history having his/her life examined and a loving and careful
decision is made whether or not they are safe to have in the Kingdom of
Heaven. Whom has each person chosen as his/her ally?
EG White says that the righteous dead are judged first then the righteous
living will be judged. She says, "Soon - none know how soon - it (the
judgment) will pass to the cases of the living." Could it be that the dead
have already been judged and the living are being judged right now and the
decisions that each individual is making are becoming final? If so, then,
when each person has made his/her choice the plan of salvation will no
longer
be in effect, since no one will be willing to change. Those who believe in
it will not swerve from their belief and those who do not believe in it will
refuse to accept it. The righteous will remain righteous and the
unrighteous
will remain unrighteous. At that time there is nothing more for Christ to
do
and God can no longer help those who refuse Him, so the work in Heaven ends
and Christ prepares to bring His friends home.
With this view of the sanctuary, Christ doesn't "ask the Father in our
behalf", because the Father already loves us (John 16:26), but He does
"speak
to the Father in our defense" against the accuser (1 John 2:1).
I hope this helps. Prayerfully read the whole chapter. I find it quite
exciting!