Glen Greenwalt addresses a question in which all Adventists have a vested
interest: What happens to our originally apocalyptic movement in view of the
fact that deliverance from this world has apparently been delayed for 150
years?
Greenwalt cites Harold Bloom, who perceives the importance of our 1844
theology and our need to preserve the prophetic voice of Ellen White and to
extend the sanctuary doctrine from theory to everyday life. However, Bloom’s
suggestion that we move beyond maddening literalization of Leviticus betrays
his failure to understand Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary doctrine.
Agreeing with Bloom in principle, Greenwalt properly identifies two major
themes of the ancient Israelite sanctuary: the presence of God, and God’s
withdrawal of his presence, which indicates judgment. Furthermore, he points
out the contemporary need for God’s presence and uses the sanctuary as a
metaphor for the church. Through this profound idea, all three—the church, the
sanctuary, and God Himself—become more "friendly" to us and to our children. I
think Greenwalt would agree that this concept need not diminish our
appreciation for the kingly aspects of God, to whom we have limited access
until "atonement" is completed and divine-human coexistence can carry on
without boundaries necessitated by sin.
Greenwalt writes beautifully, almost poetically. However, his development
of the main idea that "1844 represents a prophetic fulfillment of a pattern of
presence/defilement/restoration" is hard to follow, unbiblical, and turns
Seventh-day Adventist theology on its head. If 1844 fulfills such a pattern,
to which part of the pattern does the 1844 event belong? Greenwalt does not
say it, but the most obvious answer would be "restoration," because Daniel
8:14, from which we get the date 1844, refers to the restoration of the
sanctuary. Greenwalt makes the unbiblical assertion that judgment should be
defined only in terms of divine withdrawal (see, however, Lev 23:29-30).
Therefore we infer that a restoration in 1844 meant the return of God’s
presence to his people (the church) after a time of judgment during which his
presence had been withdrawn. There is no evidence, of course, that the
sanctuary in the context of Daniel 8:14 is the church rather than God’s
sanctuary in heaven, but if Greenwalt is correct, 1844 would represent not the
beginning of a judgment, as taught by the Adventist Church, but the end of a
judgment!
The radical nature of Greenwalt’s revisionism is confirmed by his theology
of atonement, which has Israelite sacrifices throughout the year cleansing the
sanctuary rather than persons. The implications of this idea for Christian
theology are shocking, suggesting first that Christ’s blood does not cleanse
us, flying in the face of I John 1:9 for example, and suggesting also that as
our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary from the time of his ascension
onward (for example Heb 4:14-16), Christ was cleansing the sanctuary from the
sins of his people. Therefore, there is no need for another cleansing of the
sanctuary in a pre-advent judgment beginning in 1844. Again, the effect is to
wipe out the historical Adventist understanding of Daniel 8:14. Again, the
interpretation is unbiblical.
There is abundant evidence in the Bible for the Adventist view, namely that
the sins of God’s people are removed in two stages, first from the individuals
themselves when their sins are transferred to God’s sanctuary, and then from
the sanctuary. The most important passages on this subject are Leviticus 4,
which specifies sacrifices offered throughout the year for purification from
sins, and Leviticus 16, which outlines the yearly rites of the Day of
Atonement. In Leviticus 4, persons are cleansed. There is no indication here
that the sanctuary is cleansed at this time. In Leviticus 16, on the other
hand, the sanctuary is cleansed from all the sins of the entire community
which have accumulated in the sanctuary during the year. How did the sins get
into the sanctuary? They must have been transferred there as God accepted the
sacrifices of the people throughout the year. He gave cleansing by taking
defilement to himself, but he did not keep it forever. He had it removed from
himself on the Day of Atonement.
Greenwalt’s idea of a single-phase atonement is based on a theory of Jacob
Milgrom, my teacher and friend, who holds that sins or ritual impurities
automatically penetrated the sanctuary from afar, and sacrifices throughout
the year purged the sanctuary from these evils. At least one problem with this
hypothesis is the fact that sins reached the sanctuary from afar only in some
exceptional cases when flagrant violations of divine commands could not be
atoned for by sacrifices (Lev 20:3, Num 19:13, 20).
The sanctuary doctrine may appear complex, at times to a "maddening" degree,
but this is so because it unpacks the rich, multifaceted ministry of Christ
for us, which now continues an important phase begun in 1844: the cleansing/vindication
of God’s sanctuary in heaven (Read Dan 8:14 in light of Job 4:17). This can be
understood as the vindication of our salvation just before Christ’s Second
Coming. We have this hope, not this disappointment!
In the final analysis, Greenwalt’s superficial biblical interpretations
appear designed to serve a sociological agenda to redefine Adventism. Our
religion has important sociological implications, which should be emphasized,
but when it comes to defining Adventism, the only basis which we have
acknowledged is biblical theology. We must continually re-evaluate our
theology and its relevance, but Greenwalt’s approach creates more problems
than it solves.
Glen Greenwalt believes his respondent misunderstands both
his beliefs and his intentions. Greenwalt’s reaction will appear in the next
issue of Adventist Today.
|
Top
