Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of David Shin

1. The Shaking

David Shin

Description

Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. A look at pivotal points in Adventist history – when challenges shook the bedrock of Adventism.

Presenter

David Shin

Pastor, Hillside O'Malley Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Anchorage, AK

Conference

Recorded

  • December 29, 2016
    9:15 AM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2016 Generation of Youth for Christ.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.

SPONSORED

Audio Downloads

Attachments

This transcript may be automatically generated

(All right, good morning, everyone. They’ve asked if you could move in toward that way a little bit. What’s that? Yeah, as much as possible, toward the edges, if possible, to make room for people that are still coming in. It will make it easier. Thank you so much. And then we’ll have a word of prayer and get started here in a little bit…Does anyone have the time on you? Oh, 9:15, well, we better get started then. Okay. Yeah, it’s go time.)

 

All right, well, good morning, everyone. I trust you’ve had a wonderful GYC experience thus far and that you had a good night’s rest. My name is David Shin, and I am presenting a seminar entitled “Sanctuary Under Siege,” and we will be covering what I believe are some of the most pivotal issues in Adventism. And as we go on, it may get a little bit controversial for some, but that’s okay, as long as we’re biblical. And I want to invite you to bow your heads with me as we open with a word of prayer.

 

Father in Heaven, we thank You so much for this opportunity that we have to study the Word of God in freedom. We praise you for this opportunity to study the sanctuary, which makes us distinctively Seventh-day Adventists. We pray that You would bless us as we open Your Word. May the Spirit that inspires also be the Spirit that instructs. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

 

I want to begin by doing a brief overview of the seminars that we’re going to be doing during GYC, and if you open your seminar booklet to page 15, you will see “Sanctuary Under Siege,” and today we’re talking about “The Shaking.” We’ll be doing a brief historical reflection in terms of the sanctuary in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, specifically the sanctuary being questioned.

 

The second seminar is “The Hijacking,” and I believe this is one of the pivotal notions that has helped me to understand Protestantism as well as Catholicism. (Whew, got some feedback there.)

 

Number three we’re doing, “The Central Pillar,” and it is a fundamental teaching that if you miss, we really don’t have an understanding of what it means to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

 

The next seminar is entitled “Gospel Wars” and what I describe as the Holy Grail of living a balanced theology. We have this pendulum that swings back and forth.

 

On Friday we have a topic entitled “Last Generation Theology,” wow, okay, and it seems to be a term that many are allergic to in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I’m going to be doing a brief history of M.L. Andreasen’s theology, questions on doctrine, and then Heppenstall’s theology who is arguably the most influential theologian of our generation. In fact, he’s the theologian that no one has heard of, but many people are influenced by his theology. All right, then I’ll do a personal reflection after that.

 

The sixth seminar on Saturday is “The Omega Apostasy.” Ellen White described the alpha apostasy in 1902-1903 with Kellogg and what took place in Battle Creek. She said that she looked forward to the future and saw the omega apostasy, and she saw that, and she trembled for her people.

 

So we’re going to be doing an analysis of what happened back during the time of Kellogg and then look at the omega apostasy and look at how the Protestant movement and the Catholic movement and the Muslim movement are all coming together on this platform built on mysticism, and even how that is making inroads into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I wish I had more time for that topic, but I wanted to make sure to at least give a brief synopsis in the hour that we have.

 

All right, so that gives you a picture of what we’re going to be doing through this. Believe it or not, the sanctuary is something that many Seventh-day Adventists do not incorporate into their theological structure, and I believe that this is a pivotal thing that we need to study in this seminar.

 

(All right, they are still coming in, and if you have room next to you, scoot in toward the edges. All right, there we go. I didn’t have a lot of faith; I thought this would be empty, but thank you for coming. Praise the Lord.)

 

All right, so let’s start right off here in the beginning. The sanctuary, The Great Controversy, page 423, “The subject of the sanctuary was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of 1844. It opened to view a complete system of truth, connected and harmonious, showing that God’s hand had directed the great advent movement and revealing present duty as it brought to light the position and work of His people.” Notice that Ellen White uses a term here; she says that the sanctuary “opened to view a complete system of truth.” Now, this is code indicating that the sanctuary is more than a doctrine. The sanctuary is a framework for doing theology.

 

Now, there is a fundamental difference between a doctrine and a framework. Now, the sanctuary is a doctrine; please don’t misunderstand me. But this indicates that the sanctuary is more than a doctrine. It is like a road map that gives us a theological understanding. Now, here is a blueprint of the Mosaic sanctuary; it’s a bird’s eye view of the sanctuary, and you can see that it’s divided into three main compartments, the courtyard, the Holy Place, the Most Holy Place. The Most Holy Place has the Ark with the mercy seat. The Holy Place has three articles of furniture, the table of shewbread, the altar of incense, the lampstand. And the courtyard has the laver and the altar of burnt offering. This is a road map for understanding the work of Christ.

 

Adam and Eve, in Edenic perfection…(Let me see if I can get this thing going here. Oh, here we go, all right.), were in the presence of God in the Most Holy Place. They had open, face-to-face communion with God. Because of sin, we are outside, here, and the sanctuary is like a kindergarten illustration that shows us how God will bring us back to here, just a very simple, kindergarten model. Adam and Eve were here, all right. Eden lost. Eden restored. All right? This is just a very kindergarten framework, so God is attempting, or, I should not say “attempting,” but bringing this heavenly theme down to a human level of understanding. Here Adam and Eve were, here we are, and we are going to come back.

 

Now notice that you do this in three distinct stages. You come into the courtyard: Justification—God delivers us from the penalty of sin. You come into the Holy Place: Sanctification—God delivers us from the power of sin. And then here, you have final glorification. And remember in Revelation, chapter 22, the Bible says, “And they shall see His,” what? “They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their,” what? Foreheads. It indicates that when Eden is restored, we will have the character of God reproduced in us, all right? That’s the reason we can have this face-to-face communion with God.

 

Now, when we talk about gospel wars, we will be addressing this whole notion that the whole of Christian theology, when it comes to our understanding of salvation, is really divided when it comes to the courtyard and the Holy Place experience. Evangelicals pretty much camp out here in the courtyard, all right? Catholics are more in the sanctification paradigm, but it is meritorious sanctification through the seven sacraments, all right?

 

John Wesley came along and said we need to have both, justification and sanctification, and the unique contribution of Seventh-day Adventists is, we need the whole thing. We need the courtyard, we need the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place.

 

Now, Ellen White says in the book Education (and I apologize, the reference is off the screen here; it’s at the bottom), “The central theme of the Bible, the theme about which every other in the whole book clusters, is the redemption plan, the restoration in the human soul of the image of God. From the first intimation of hope in the sentence pronounced in Eden to that last glorious promise of the Revelation, ‘They shall see His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads’ (Revelation 22:4), the burden of every book and every passage of the Bible is the unfolding of this wondrous theme,—man’s uplifting,—the power of God, ‘which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’” Notice that this concept is of restoration; it is to bring us back. And Ellen White says that this is the framework around which the whole Book of the Bible clusters.

 

So, if you want to have a framework for understanding the Bible, it is about restoration. It is to bring us all the way back, all right? And God does this by taking of the penalty of sin, by character transformation, and then finally glorification in which our physical bodies and our mental faculties are brought all the way back, and that is in glorification. Now, I always joke and say, you know, when I get to Heaven, I’ll be tall, you know? So, we’re going to get an upgrade; we’re going to be brought back to the original of Adam and Eve before the fall.

 

Now, that is just a brief introduction. We want to talk about this notion of the shaking, and Ellen White in 6 Testimonies, 332, it says, “We are in the shaking time, the time when everything that can be shaken will be shaken.” And notice she said this back in 1900. She said this is the shaking time that they are going through. This is talking about a doctrinal shaking, and this is what took place at the turn of the century, 1902-1903. You had three individuals, Dudley Canright, a profound preacher that commented to his friend and said, “You know, if we weren’t preaching the Adventist message, I would be a very popular preacher.” And he defected from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. His book is still used today. Then you have J.H. Kellogg, and we’ll be talking more about him when we talk about the omega apostasy, the head of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, a brilliant man, world renowned. J.H. Kellogg wrote the book The Living Temple.

 

And then you have A.F. Ballenger who was an evangelist over in Europe that stated that he believed that Jesus went directly into the Most Holy Place upon His ascension in A.D. 31. All right? So this was a real defection. Around this time as well, A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner also defected from the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So you’re talking about, like, whole institutions just defecting from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and this is called the alpha of apostasies. The defenders were S.N. Haskell, F.C. Gilbert, and E.E. Andross. Now, I’m not going to go through the other two, but this was a pivotal moment. And then in the 1930s you have L.R. Conradi, W.W. Fletcher. The defender was Andreasen. In the 1980s you have this topic come up again. You have Robert Brinsmead, Desmond Ford, Dale Ratzlaff, and Raymond Cottrell. The defenders were DARCOM or the “Daniel and Revelation (study) Committee.”

 

I want to talk a little bit about Desmond Ford. One of my professors was actually a colleague of Desmond Ford, and he commented how Desmond Ford had the closest thing that he knew to a photographic memory; he was brilliant. They didn’t have CD-ROM back then, and they said it was actually quicker to go to Desmond Ford for an Ellen White quote rather than going to the Ellen White index. This man was a genius. He started off in Australia, was teaching some interesting things. He had been trained by an Evangelical theologian, and we need to remember that Evangelicals are courtyard-centered, all right? So, he was trained by the Evangelical, and he started teaching in Avondale, and the brethren got together and said, “You know, Desmond Ford, he has a lot of promise, but he’s got some interesting ideas. Why don’t we bring him to the United States where he can be a little fish in a big pond?”

 

Little did they know that he would be a big fish in a big pond. He started teaching at Pacific Union College, and then the teachings came to view even more. And then in 1979 they had this big meeting at Glacier View in 1979-1980, and the fallout of Desmond Ford was so huge that a third of the Seventh-day Adventist pastors in Australia left the church. I had one of my professors that told me that during this time, he almost left the church. He wrote a 900-page document against the notion that Christ went into the Most Holy Place in 1844, attacking Ellen White, and this was the first time that someone had brought many of the arguments that we had never thought of before. And the Daniel and Revelation (study) Committee, over the course of a decade, essentially responded to these arguments.

 

Now, I want to look at the arguments that Ford and Ballenger brought forth, and Ford and Ballenger argued that Jesus went directly into the Most Holy Place ministry in A.D. 31. That was their thesis. They said, “This notion that Jesus went from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place in 1844, it’s biblically unfounded.”

 

Now, what does this do to Adventism? I want you to think about this. What does this do to Seventh-day Adventism? If we do not believe that Jesus went from the Holy Place ministry to the Most Holy Place ministry in 1844, do you know what it does to Seventh-day Adventism? We have no reason to exist. This is not just a peripheral concept in Seventh-day Adventism; this is core; this is central. I want to read this quote from Ellen White. In The Great Controversy, page 409, “The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’” Notice the language that Ellen White uses. She says, “The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar.”

 

Now, we have several pillars in Adventism. What are the pillars? I’m going to write it here on the board. They all start with S, all right? You have, what? The Second Coming, Sabbath, state of the dead, sanctuary, and the Spirit of Prophecy, now, depending on which framework you use, but these are essentially the core. Ellen White singles out this one as being the central pillar of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and it’s not by accident that every 20 to 40 years it is this doctrine that is attacked. It is this doctrine that is attacked, every generation it seems. The sanctuary is the one that is attacked over and over and over again because, if you remove the sanctuary framework, we are no longer Seventh-day Adventists. It totally fundamentally changes who we are.

 

This notion that Jesus transitioned in 1844 from a Holy Place ministry to a Most Holy Place ministry, that is fundamental. The first angel’s message, “Fear God, give glory to Him for the hour of His judgment has come,” is a judgment-hour context in Revelation, chapter 14, the first, second and third angels’ messages, I mean, it changes our identity, it changes our mission, it changes who we are. So this is so pivotal, and Ford and Ballenger brought forth arguments that stated that Jesus, upon His ascension, went directly into the Most Holy Place ministry, which makes 1844 ludicrous and irrelevant. Everyone following me here? So this is the argument that is used.

 

Now, I want to, this morning, look at these three problem texts that are used by Ford and Ballenger. They’re found in the book of Hebrews, and hopefully I can get through this in quick enough time so that we can deal with these problem texts. And it has to do with this notion of “within the veil.” How many of you have read those texts before? All right. That Jesus went “within the veil” upon His ascension. So I want you to look in your Bibles, open your Bibles to Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20, and look at these three problem texts that Ford and Ballenger used to state that Jesus went directly into the Most Holy Place ministry upon His ascension in A.D. 31. Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20; Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20, all right, here we are, “This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast, one which enters” (what does it say?) “within the veil” (Does everyone see that?), “one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” So there’s the first one.

 

I’m just going to read through these three very quickly and then make some commentary afterwards. Now, Ford and Ballenger say that this “within the veil” indicates that He went within the second veil. Now, there are two veils in the sanctuary, but they argue that He went within the second veil.

 

So let’s go to the second text here, Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20. Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20; Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated,” or consecrated or dedicated, “for us through the veil, that is, His flesh.” All right, so there we have the notion of Jesus going within the veil again. All right, now, let’s go to the last text that is used. Let’s go to Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12, a chapter back, Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12. Let’s actually read verse 11, Hebrews, chapter 9, verses 10 and 11, “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place,” or if you have a New King James Version or another version actually it says the Most Holy Place, which is really problematic, isn’t it? All right, “…the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

 

All right, so there we have it. We have three texts that are used by Ballenger and Ford they say proving that Jesus went directly within the veil and started His high priestly ministry. Now, if you believe that, it really begs to question why we are here at a Seventh-day Adventist conference, doesn’t it? This really changes our identity.

 

So let’s examine each one of these. Now, just as a brief side note before we begin, the book of Hebrews was written to Jewish Christians that were Greek-speaking. They had something called the Septuagint. Now, before Jesus came to this earth, about 100 years before, there was a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek. It was done by the rabbis. It’s known as the Septuagint or the LXX. Now, Paul actually uses the Septuagint in many of his writings. It is a Greek translation of the Old Testament. Now, this is a very valuable resource because, when we read the New Testament, and a certain Greek word is used, we can actually go to the Septuagint and find its Greek equivalent. All right, so everyone following me along these lines? The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament, which was written in Hebrew, or Aramaic in the book of Daniel.

 

All right, now this is important for us to recognize as well before we go into our study. Bill Shea or William Shea, who was part of the Biblical Research Institute, made the observation that the book of Hebrews is actually in a chiastic structure. A chiasm is a form of Hebrew poetry, and it essentially does this parallelism and builds at an apex there at the top. Now, the interesting part of this chiasm is that Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20, which we read, and Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, according to scholars, are parallel verses. They are talking about the same thing in the chiastic structure. And Richard Davidson makes the observation that, in order for us to understand what is taking place here, we need to go to here, because this actually gives us the Old Testament framework. So, these two are actually parallel, and what one is talking about, the other is talking about as well.

 

So here’s the conclusion from the chiastic structure, and this is fundamentally agreed upon by New Testament scholars: Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20, equals or is parallel to Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20. And these are talking about this notion of Christ going within the veil. Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, gives us the Old Testament background.

 

Now, let’s go back to Hebrews, chapter 10, verse 19 and 20, and look at exactly what Paul is talking about here. Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He…,” now, what does your translation say? Which He what? “Consecrated”? “Consecrated,” right? All right, I have the NASB, and actually it says “inaugurated.” Now, remember that word consecrated “for us through the veil.” That word consecrated, my translation actually says “inaugurated.” Now, I want to look at this word consecrated because this gives us the Old Testament context that is being addressed in this verse and also in Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20.

 

Everyone following me? “Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh.” That word consecrated is the Greek word transliterated “enkainizo.” It’s the Greek word “enkainizo.” When you do a cross reference with the Pentateuch, in the Old Testament there is only one book and one chapter in which this term enkainizo is used, and it’s in Numbers, chapter 7.

 

So, open your Bibles with me to Numbers, chapter 7. I want you to read this in your own Bible. There is only one chapter in the Pentateuch that this term enkainizo is used in the Septuagint. Numbers, chapter 7, and let’s actually begin by reading verse 1, Numbers, chapter 7, verse 1, “Now on the day that Moses had” (what does it say?) “finished setting up the tabernacle, he anointed it and consecrated it with all its furnishings and the altar and all its utensils; he anointed them and consecrated them also.” Now, we want to understand what is taking place here. The tabernacle was what? Finished. So, before the tabernacle was to be put into use, they had to do a ceremony of consecrating the building, much like when you have an opening of a church, you have a consecration or a dedication of the building. That’s what took place in Numbers, chapter 7. The tabernacle was finished, and before the tabernacle could be put into use, there was a ceremony, an inauguration, a dedication of the tabernacle, and Moses did the consecration.

 

Now, there’s something very interesting that took place in this consecration. It was the only other time in the sanctuary service that every compartment of the sanctuary was entered. The courtyard, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place was entered during the inauguration. The other time, of course, is in Leviticus, chapter 16, on the Day of Atonement. So, this is the inauguration that is taking place.

 

Now, there are several different verses that indicate this notion of inauguration. Now, remember the word enkainizo in the Greek. Now, Numbers, chapter 7, verse 10, “The leaders offered the dedication,” enkainizo, and I looked this up in the Septuagint last night just to make sure. I looked it up before, but here it is, enkainizo. Now, “The leaders offered the dedication,” enkainizo, “offering for the altar when it was anointed; so the leaders offered their offering before the altar.” Here it is again. (Ever so quickly…all right.) “For the Lord said to Moses, ‘They shall offer their offering, one leader each day, for the dedication,’” enkainizo, “‘of the altar.’”

 

Here we have it again, Numbers, chapter 7, verse 84, “This was the dedication,” enkainizo, “offering for the altar from the leaders of Israel, when it was anointed: twelve silver platters, twelve silver bowls, and twelve gold pans.” Here we go again, our last one [verse 88], “And all the oxen for the sacrifice of peace offerings were twenty-four bulls, the rams sixty, the male goats sixty, and the lambs in their first year sixty. This was the dedication,” enkainizo, “offering for the altar after it was anointed.”

 

Now, Paul was a rabbi. He was a member of the Sanhedrin. He knew the Septuagint. He was writing to the Hebrews who were using the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. So, in Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, when he talks about Jesus going “within the veil,” he sets up the Old Testament context and lifts this term from the Septuagint that is only found in one chapter, Numbers, chapter 7. This is huge because what it is indicating is that when Jesus went to Heaven, He was anointed as High Priest, beginning a new role. He transitioned from the Lamb to the High Priest, but not only was He anointed and dedicated for that role, the heavenly sanctuary was dedicated for that role. Amen? Amen.

 

So, what Paul is talking about in Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, the term enkainizo is referring to, not the antitypical Day of Atonement, but the inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary, the anointing of Jesus as High Priest. This really…When I had first learned this, I was like, “Wow, this makes so much sense!” I mean, this is amazing. When you look at what Paul was doing in the book of Hebrews establishing this notion of the inauguration. Throughout the Pentateuchal references to sacrifices in the LXX or the Septuagint, the word group enkainizo is found in only one chapter, Numbers, chapter 7, Numbers, chapter 7, verse 10, 11, 84 and 88, which we’ve read, which describes the inauguration of the sanctuary as its services started up. The word enkainizo never refers to the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament.

 

Friends, this is significant. I believe that this might have kept many Seventh-day Adventists from doing away with the sanctuary notion that Jesus transitioned in 1844 from a Holy Place ministry to a Most Holy Place ministry. The inauguration of the sanctuary.

 

Now, the Most Holy Place was entered on the inauguration, the inauguration of the sanctuary, Moses acting in his priestly function before the ordaining of Aaron, went in both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place as found in Exodus, chapter 40, verses 9 through 10, and Numbers, chapter 7, verse 1. There were two times that the Most Holy Place was entered: Once in the inauguration and then every year in the yearly, annual cycle on the Day of Atonement. So, we can see that in Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, he’s not talking about the antitypical Day of Atonement; he’s actually talking about the inauguration, which makes sense. When Jesus went to Heaven, the sanctuary was inaugurated for use. Jesus was anointed; there are references to the anointing of Jesus as well. So, as we’ve seen, Hebrews, chapter 6, verses 19 and 20, is parallel to Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, and both refer to the inauguration of Christ upon His ascension.

 

Now, moving very quickly here, I want to go to our next and final text, Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12. Open your Bibles to Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12, as we look at this text that was used by Ford and Ballenger. Hebrews, chapter 9 and verse 12, let’s pick up in verse 11. Hebrews, chapter 9, verses 11 and 12: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”

 

Now, we’ll deal with this whole notion of the Most Holy Place that is used in some translations, but Richard Davidson makes this interesting observation. The word “goat” there that is translated goat, in the Greek is transliterated (I hope I’m doing this right) “tragos.” This is a particular term that is used for a goat, and he cross-referenced it with the Septuagint, and there is only one place that this Greek word for goat is used again. Anyone want to guess where it’s used? All right, now, if this is used in the Day of Atonement, friends, we’re in trouble, okay? There are actually two terms for a goat that are used in the Septuagint. This is one term, and the other one (I hope I’m not slaughtering the Greek here), okay, chimaros is the other one.

 

There are two terms for “goat” in the Septuagint. Now, the one that is used here in Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12, is the word tragos, and the only place that the term tragos is used for goat is in Numbers, chapter 7. Isn’t that interesting? Now, this was intentional. Paul could have used this one [pointing to screen], but he uses this one [pointing to screen]. This is the one that is used in Numbers, chapter 7, and what does Numbers, chapter 7, describe? The inauguration! The dedication. So, Paul lifts and uses this Greek term that is used in the LXX or Septuagint in Numbers, chapter 7. And I think I have some of these references here on the screen. (There it is, no, that’s not it.)

 

“But neither by the blood of goats,” tragos, “and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once and for all into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” In the LXX, the word tragos for goat only appears in one chapter of the Pentateuch describing the sanctuary rituals. Numbers, chapter 7, it appears 13 times. The setting of Numbers is the inauguration of the sanctuary. So very clearly by the linguistic tags here in the book of Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12, Paul is using a very specific term for goat.

 

Now, this term for goat is found in a different part of the Pentateuch, and it is found—anyone want to guess—Leviticus, chapter 16, the Day of Atonement. This is the term that is used in Leviticus, chapter 16. Paul does not use this word; he uses this one. And this one only is found in the Pentateuchal writings in Numbers, chapter 7, referring to the inauguration of Jesus and the sanctuary upon His ascension.

 

Leviticus, chapter 16, uses a different word for goat, chimaros, and it is referring to the Day of Atonement. Friends, this is very clear from a linguistic angle. This is clearly not talking about the Day of Atonement. If it was, Paul, who was very literate in the Septuagint because he used it in his own writings in the Bible, in the New Testament, he would have used this term, which is very clearly in terms of the antitypical Day of Atonement.

 

But he uses this one, and it’s only found in terms of the inauguration of the sanctuary. Everyone clear on that before we move on? This is very clear that Paul is not talking about that.

 

Now, let’s talk about this term “ta hagia” because, if you look in Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12, it says that He entered once and for all through his own blood. “He entered the Holy Place once and for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” Now, this term ta hagia does not refer to the Most Holy Place by itself when you look at the Septuagint. Matter of fact, it comes up 109 times in the Old Testament, and not once does it refer to the Most Holy Place.

 

Out of those 109 times, 106 of the times it refers to the entire sanctuary. It refers to the whole thing: the courtyard, the Holy Place, and the Most Holy Place. Three of those 109 times it refers to the Holy Place. Now, this is significant. Not once does it refer to the Most Holy Place alone. It refers to the whole structure, the whole thing, and three times it refers to the Holy Place. So the translation here is talking about, not the Most Holy Place; it is talking about either the whole sanctuary or the Holy Place alone. This is very, very conclusive.

 

So, just in summary before we move on, Hebrews, chapter 6, verse 19 and 20, and Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, are parallel. Hebrews, chapter 10, verses 19 and 20, is referring to the inauguration. Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 12, because of the term that is used here, tragos, he is referring to the tragos used in Numbers, chapter 7, referring to the inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary, not the antitypical Day of Atonement.

 

In summary, when Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, He entered to inaugurate it. To officially start up the services as Priest and King, He went into the entire sanctuary as in the type found in Numbers, chapter 7, verse 1, and Exodus, chapter 40. All right, do we have any questions before we move on. I think I ended a little bit earlier.

 

Yes.

 

(ATTENDEE: What was the role of the heavenly sanctuary before even Old Testament times…[inaudible]…?)

 

Yes, yes. Dr. Moskala who is the dean of the seminary. He’s an Old Testament scholar. He believes that the heavenly sanctuary was there prior to even the inception of sin, except it was for the purpose of worship. And then it was structured for the Plan of Salvation in that framework. So that is his take on it, and I think that’s the best explanation that I found in terms of the use and the function of the temple in the heavenly sanctuary prior to its inauguration and use during that time.

 

Yes.

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible])

 

Well, Jesus entered with His own blood, according to the book of Hebrews. So it was on that basis that I believe that the sanctuary was to be facilitated and used and dedicated.

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible]…How do we reconcile that with 1844?)

 

How do we reconcile that with 1844?

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible])

 

Yes. Repeat that question again.

 

(ATTENDEE: What I’m trying to say…[inaudible])

 

I think I’m understanding your statement. Just to summarize, Jesus’ death on the cross, A.D.31. Upon His ascension, He transitioned into the high priest priestly role; that’s when the sanctuary was inaugurated. But His function after A.D. 31 was in a Holy Place function, in the Holy Place, all right? In 1844, He transitioned from the Holy Place function to the Most Holy Place function. Now, this is an interesting concept because…How do I say this without getting into trouble? The heavenly sanctuary is a model that illustrates to us a heavenly concept down to an earthly level. And not only for us but for the universe. But there is such a quantum leap between God and humanity; I mean it’s farther than us to an amoeba. You know what I’m saying? This is just a quantum…It’s like us trying to explain to an ant the internet. You know what I’m saying? It’s just like…So, what do you do?

 

You use analogy. You use analogy. So, we need to understand, when we’re talking about Christ in the Holy Place, I want to be very careful, I don’t believe that Jesus is bound in a physical space since 1844. I mean, I need to be very careful. It’s describing the function of Jesus, all right? Now, I believe that there is a time and space model in Heaven; please don’t misunderstand me, but we need to look at this beyond the space but in the function of what Jesus is doing during that time.

 

Now, we’ll unpack this some more, but if Jesus has transitioned from a Holy Place function to a Most Holy Place function, that has huge implication. I mean, just huge implications about how we live here and now. Now, I don’t have time to go into all the implications of that, but that has just a lot of implications. Also, there are implications that when that stops—now, we’ll unpack this when we address last generation theology and some of the nuances of that—when that stops, there is a time period in which, between that and the Second Coming, there is no mediation. There is no mediation.

 

Now, I have been in seminars or been taught by professors that I’ve looked up to very highly, but they really grappled with this notion of the ending of mediation, this notion of living without a Mediator. What does that mean?! What does that mean? And he said, I won’t tell you his name, but he said, “You know what Ellen White’s concept of living without a Mediator,” he said, “is borderline blasphemous.” I about fell out of my chair. But I understood where he was coming from because he was coming from an Evangelical perspective; it just didn’t make any sense.

 

Now, there is a pitfall that you can fall into in this notion of living without a Mediator, and I’ll unpack that a little bit more when we address last generation theology, but the real issue here is that it comes down to a people that are totally dependent upon the merits of Jesus. Living without a Mediator does not indicate that we no longer need Jesus. That’s not what it’s saying. We are still dependent. We are going to be dependent through that period, but there are implications about what that means in terms of Christian growth. There’s a lot to unpack in that, and then, when it comes to questions on doctrine, the pivotal issue they had was this whole notion of the sanctuary and the cleansing of the sanctuary because they believe that everything finished at the cross; that was done.

 

Now, the thing is, if you take that framework that everything was finished at the cross, it ended in the courtyard, then what are we doing here for 2,000 years? I have not heard a good explanation from my Evangelical brothers as to why we are here 2,000 years after the cross, and the answer is really in the sanctuary. It doesn’t make sense if you just look at the courtyard. What has Jesus been doing this whole time? The only frame of reference we can have is the sanctuary, and the implications of Jesus moving from a Holy Place to a Most Holy Place has huge ramifications for our living here and now. It has all types of ramifications and implications and nuances that I do not have all the time to go into.

 

Yes, question.

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible])

 

Yes, well, I mean, what we have just gone through today, it just turns the arguments of Desmond Ford and Ballenger in particular into just…it makes it invalid.

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible])

 

No, no. And this is not, I mean, I did not come up with this. I mean, this is really…Richard Davidson has done phenomenal work in this realm, and I’ll give you some articles that you could look up that have shown in greater detail. I mean, I just tried to take it and make it intelligible so that I can understand. So this is the framework.

 

But, friends, before we close, I want to point out that heresy does have its benefits. Ellen White actually says that sometimes God allows heresies into the church so that we can come to a deeper and fuller knowledge of the truth. And this is what’s happening now. The fallout of Desmond Ford was that many people left the church, but the positive side of what took place was that we have now a more fuller and grounded understanding of these texts and the whole notion of the heavenly sanctuary than ever before. I mean, this actually builds my faith. It shows us that, look, we’re not a bunch of crazy people that is turning off our brains and just believing something. This is rock solid.

 

This is rock solid, and when we come to our third seminar, I’m going to be going through and building on how rock solid our understanding of this whole notion of the cleansing of the sanctuary really is. It’s so rock solid, that if you believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah, you have to be a Seventh-day Adventist. I mean, that’s the logical conclusion that you have to come to in terms of the connection between the 70-week prophecy and the 2300 days. If you believe in Jesus, you have to be an Adventist from that framework.

 

Yes.

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible])

 

Yes. I mean, we’re going through the shaking, friends, I believe, to a certain degree where many teachings and doctrines are coming through the church, and I’ll address some of those teachings when we come to the Omega and talk about some of the things that are happening in the movements between Evangelicals, Catholics and even Islam.

 

All right, any other questions before we…Yes?

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible] If it was all done on the cross, what are we still doing here? If Christ completed the cycle in 1844, what are we still doing here? Are we going through another cycle?...)

 

That’s a good question. Wow, that’s a whole other…I mean…Because Ellen White says around 1900 Jesus could have come. And then when you look in Revelation, chapter 7, the beginning part of it, it says that four angels are holding the four winds. Now, when you look at the context of Revelation, you see that once those four winds are let loose, it implies that it begins certain events that domino effect, culminating with the Second Coming. So the angels are holding the four winds, and then a fifth angel, another angel comes and speaks to the four angels, and notice what he says. He said, “Hold them until” (what?) “until the servants of God are” (what?) “sealed on their foreheads.” Now, this has implication. God is not waiting for the pope. He’s not waiting for the separation between church and state to fall. I mean, all those pieces are there, and they could just happen just like that.

 

But notice that there is something that God is looking at; He’s looking at His church. And there’s a lot that we can unpack in terms of this. You know, the seal was, in the first century, it was something that was put into a document, a document that was signed and finished. Okay? It’s like a signature. You put your signature on something that is finished, when it’s completed. There are signatures in Genesis. God creates the earth in six days; He signs it with the Sabbath. Ezekiel, chapter 20, says that the Sabbath is a signature, a sign, not only of creation but redemption. So God took the earth, empty, void, forms and fills it. At the end, He signs it with the Sabbath. God takes us, re-creates us in the image of God, signs it. The signature is the Sabbath.

 

Now, the seal is placed on the forehead. In Revelation it also says that the Father’s name is on their foreheads. So, what I believe is that before Jesus comes, in Revelation, chapter 18, it tells us that the whole earth is lit with the glory of God. I believe that the earth is going to be able to see a picture of the character of Jesus reflected in us as a witness.

 

Now, I want to be very clear. It’s His work, not ours. The Sabbath is a sign that we rest in God’s work, that we can’t work our way to Heaven. So we need to be very careful when we frame this, but that is indicative of what we are talking about when we look at this trajectory. You know, why has it been so long? So, that, hopefully, answers some of those questions in terms of…Maybe not, but anyways, so hopefully.

 

Yes, we have another question here.

 

(ATTENDEE: [inaudible])

 

Her question was, what do the Evangelicals respond with as to why we’re still here 2,000 years after the cross? I honestly have not heard a cogent answer to that question, you know. I have not heard a cogent answer to that question.

 

I want to be very clear that when it comes to this notion of last generation theology, there have been some that have experienced legalism in that framework, and I’ll unpack some of that on day number five. But I want to be very clear that when we do our theology, we need to never judge something by its abuse, okay? Never judge something by its abuse. It is very, very clear in the book of Revelation and in the writings of Ellen White that there is going to be a people, however you frame it, however you nuance it, that are going to be translated without seeing death. And there are going to be a people, according to the book of Revelation and The Great Controversy and Ellen White’s writings, that are going to be living during a time when mediation in Heaven has ceased. Now, unpack that how you will, but I believe that the devil wants to ensure that that never takes place. Okay? So, we’re going to have a discussion on that, and I’m kind of going off into waters that I want to cover a little bit later.

 

Let’s close with a word of prayer and then take a 15-minute break, and we’ll come back. Father in Heaven, we thank You so much for the truth as found in Your Word. We thank You that there is a sure word of prophecy, and we thank You that we have a truth that is not founded upon cunningly devised fables, but it is a truth that is rock solid that we can build our faith upon. Thank You for hearing and answering our prayers. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

 

Here are a few other references that you can look at. Now, you can get these slides from this…I apologize for the complexity. This is a shortened link. If you go here, you can get all of the notes from today’s presentation. You can go there and download it. Go to that link, and there’s a download button. You can download all of these notes and use them for your reference, and I double-checked this a few times, so I know that it works. Make sure that the casing is right because that will make a difference. These need to be upper case and lower case, but that is the notes for today’s presentation that you can use there. We will meet back here in 15 minutes, at 10:30, and continue our presentation, and it is “The Hijacking,” an examination of the greatest coup in the history of Christian theology.

Share

Embed Code

Short URL

http://audiover.se/2jyW4E0