|
I am surprised by Roy Gane’s response to my
article entitled "Sanctuary in the Year 2000" in the last issue of
Adventist Today. My article is undoubtedly hard to follow, as Gane
says, if one reads it in terms of traditional Adventist explanations of
time prophesy. Actually, I have high regard for Adventist time
prophecies. The Seventh-day Adventist Church would not exist today had
our pioneers not used such prophetic interpretations. But Adventists
have always understood that the Jewish sanctuary service represented
more than a time chart of the end. It represents the multifold glories
of Christ. In my article I seek simply to draw attention to the
spiritual and moral implications of the sanctuary doctrine for today.
In my thesis that 1844 represents a prophetic
fulfillment of a pattern of presence/defilement/restoration, I can only
plead that I was following the lead of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel,
Habakkuk, Matthew, Luke, and John the Revelator. All interpreted their
own history in light of the simple covenant described in Leviticus,
which says that the sanctuary was established as the spiritual center of
God’s presence in Israel, that sin defiles this covenant, and yet even
when we sin, God stands ever ready to restore his relationship with his
people. (See Jeremiah 7-9, Ezekiel 8-11, 34-43, Daniel 9, Habakkuk 3,
Matthew 21, 23, Acts 7, and Revelation 21,22.)
Interestingly, Ellen White herself understood the
experience of God’s people in 1844 as fulfilling another page in this
long drama of salvation history. While Ellen White in the Great
Controversy repeats the theological arguments of the pioneers in defense
of the date 1844, her own emphasis lies elsewhere.
For her, "The message, Behold the Bridegroom
cometh! was not so much a matter of argument, though the Scripture proof
was clear and conclusive." Rather, "there went with it an impelling
power that moved the soul." (See Great Controversy p. 402.) For Ellen
White, the evidence that confirmed the movement was of God was the fact
that "it bore the characteristics that mark the work of God in every
age..." (See Great Controversy p. 400.)
Not only does Ellen White locate her discussion of
1844 and the meaning of the sanctuary in the context of God’s work of
restoration in every age, but she explicitly states that "The history of
ancient Israel is a striking illustration of the past experience of the
Advent body..."
If all who had labored unitedly in the work in
1844 had received the third angel’s message and proclaimed it in the
power of the Holy Spirit, the Lord would have wrought mightily with
their efforts. A flood of light would have been shed upon the world.
Years ago the inhabitants of the earth would have been warned, the
closing work completed, and Christ would have come for the redemption of
his people. (Great Controversy p. 458)
And what is the work of restoration God calls us
to? It is a work that stands in contrast to those who "trust to their
creeds, theories, and theological systems" (Great Controversy p. 456).
It is a work set apart from those who persist in the error of fixing
dates, for "those who persist in this error will at last fix upon a date
too far in the future for the coming of Christ." (Great Controversy p.
457). It is a work that differs as night from day from those who "act
from policy rather than principle in religious things" (Great
Controversy p. 460). It is simply and explicitly the work of spiritual
and moral renewal.
If he restore the pledge, give again that he had
robbed, confess his sins, and love God and his fellow men, the sinner
may be sure that he has found peace with God. Such were the effects that
in former years followed seasons of religious awakening. Judged by their
fruits, they were known to be blessed of God in the salvation of men and
the uplifting of humanity. (Great Controversy p. 463)
Gane says that "Greenwalt’s superficial biblical
interpretations appear designed to serve a sociological agenda to
redefine Adventism." I wish to point out, however, that my article
presents theology as Ellen White conceived it. For Ellen White, Christ’s
work in the heavenly sanctuary is inseparable from its effects on earth.
Separating Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary from his work on
earth, Gane rejects the pastoral concerns of my article as representing
a sociological agenda. His attitude is alarming, especially as it
indicates a growing trend in Adventism.
I must admit that I am shocked when a concern for
people in their everyday hurts and anxieties is termed superficial or
unbiblical. Gane claims I am turning Adventism on its head by drawing
attention to the fact that God’s grace stands ever ready to restore
hurting and disappointed people. Then so be it. I would call it keeping
Adventism on its feet.
Glen Greenwalt teaches theology at Walla Walla
College. He recently presented a paper on sanctuary at a meeting in
Switzerland and also contributed a chapter to the book Why I Believe in
a Creator.
AToday:
Magazine Archives:
Jan/Feb 1995:
articles |
Top
