Loosening the Foundations
By Editor
THIS advent movement represents an effort to preserve and restore “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” It seeks a return to primitive Christianity, basing all its doctrines upon the plain teaching of the Word of God, and rejecting human philosophy and the traditions of men. It emphasizes the fundamental importance of those phases of truth which were obscured during the great apostasy of the Dark Ages, and aims to proclaim the complete gospel of salvation through faith in Christ, as it is set forth by apostles and prophets. Its purpose is “to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” The one teaching which separates Seventh-day Adventists, not only from all so-called orthodox bodies but also from all other Adventists, is their teaching concerning the sanctuary and its services. One or more of the various denominations teach with more or less clearness the truth concerning the Sabbath, the nature of man, the near advent, etc., but no other denomination interprets, according to the Scriptures, the meaning and application of the typical sanctuary and its services so as to bring into prominence the position and special atoning work of the Son of God in this last generation. It is this teaching which has given shape to this denominational organization and work since the disappointment of 1844. Many years ago it was said through the spirit of prophecy that “such subjects as the sanctuary, in connection with the twenty-three hundred days, the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus, are perfectly calculated to explain the past advent movement and show what our present position is, establish the faith of the doubting and give certainty to the glorious future.” It is perfectly plain, therefore, that the doctrine of the sanctuary and its services, as taught by Seventh-day Adventists, occupies a prominent place among the foundation principles of the message which they are endeavoring to give to the world. Other religious teachers have dwelt in general terms upon the ministry of Christ our High Priest, usually giving it a more or less figurative interpretation, and regarding the earthly sanctuary as typical of the church in its different experiences, or of the work of Christ upon earth and in heaven, or of the human body, but it remained for Seventh-day Adventists to present to the world the teaching concerning a literal sanctuary in heaven, where a real priest conducts an actual service in behalf of sinful men, of which the earthly sanctuary and its services were a copy and a pattern. “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. . . . The passing of the time in 1844 was followed by a period of great trial to those who still held the advent faith. Their only relief, so far as ascertaining their true position was concerned, was the light which directed their minds to the sanctuary above. Some renounced their faith in their former reckoning of the prophetic periods, and ascribed to human or satanic agencies the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit which had attended the advent movement. Another class firmly held that the Lord had led them in their past experience; and as they waited and watched and prayed to know the will of God, they saw that their great High Priest had entered upon another work of ministration, and, following him by faith, they were led to see, also, the closing work of the church. They had a clearer understanding of the first and second angels’ messages, and were prepared to receive and give to the world the solemn warning of the third angel of Revelation 14.” It thus appears that much more is involved in this question than simply the theoretical interpretation of some types and shadows. Some thoughtful men may be able to draw certain lessons from the earthly sanctuary and its services, and others may suggest other lessons equally helpful, and the acceptance or the rejection of these lessons would not be essential to the existence of any general religious movement. But the interpretation given to this subject by the Seventh-day Adventists is of fundamental importance to their existence as a separate denomination. The whole explanation of the disappointment in 1844 turns upon the sanctuary question. The understanding of the threefold message of Revelation 14 rests upon the same foundation. The really distinctive work of this people could not be justified upon any other basis than their teaching concerning the present work of our great High Priest in his closing work in the heavenly sanctuary. For these reasons, and because other religious teachers make a merely figurative application of those scriptures which deal with the sanctuary and its services, it is necessary that the true meaning of this subject should be constantly emphasized. In view of these facts, we are surprised and pained that a publication which claims a place in connection with this advent movement should advocate such an interpretation of the typical sanctuary as is found in the following paragraphs taken from an editorial entitled “The Earthly Sanctuary”:— The human system has two compartments in which Christ ministers. These correspond with the holy and most holy places of the typical sanctuary. In the old sanctuary there were two compartments. Into the first the priest entered every day, “accomplishing the service of God.” Into the second, or inner, compartment the high priest went alone once a year. This inner apartment was the abode of the Shekinah, or visible manifestation of God’s dwelling with his people. The first was sacred, to be sure; but the second was peculiarly so, being solely the abiding-place of the divine presence. This sanctuary, thus arranged, was typical and temporary. It served as a kindergarten lesson for people who were but children in spiritual discernment. It had its antitype in the mediatorial offices of Jesus Christ as our great high priest, and also its counterpart in the human body, and its experiences under the ministration of Christ. Man is a dual being, intellectually speaking. He is created with an intelligence which is formed of his bodily, or, as we might say, his animal, propensities and desires. This is called “the flesh,” the “carnal mind,” the “body.” This intelligence is possessed by all animals. . . . This department of human nature corresponds with the first compartment of the sanctuary. It is the body, or the flesh. In this God ministers continually. Here he is constantly at work. Even in our sins we make him to serve. This body is the temple of God, though it is often defiled. But here the Saviour of men graciously manifests himself in sinful flesh. Here the lamp of consecration should always burn. Here the sweet incense of a godly life should be continually offered. Here is the bread of his presence. . . . But man is also endowed with an intelligence that is distinct from his animal nature, and infinitely superior to it. This is called the “inward” or “inner man.”
. . . As there was an inner apartment in the sanctuary, so there is an inner phase to human nature that is peculiarly sacred to the presence of the indwelling God. The first apartment of the sanctuary was a holy place because of the divine presence in it. The ministrations of God’s agents were always being carried on there, and so his ministrations are evidently being carried on in the body, in the temporal and tangible things of life. From him we derive life and breath and all things. Every function of life is carried on under his care. But in the soul, the heart of man, in his divine and godlike faculties, God has designed to manifest himself in glory. And as the Shekinah glory shone out over all the camp, so from man, God desires to shine out to his own praise. The way into the holy of holies was through the first apartment. The way into the soul is through the flesh. It is the flesh that veils the divine in us. Not only in Jesus was “divinity veiled in humanity,” but the same precious treasure is to be found in every human heart. [Italics ours.] There is much which might be said concerning this teaching, but we must content ourselves by calling attention briefly to some of the most important considerations connected with it. According to this interpretation it is, “the human system,” or “the human body,” which is the counterpart of the typical sanctuary, and apart from any personal faith in Christ or any union with the body of Christ, “this body is the temple of God, though it is often defiled.” It follows also that “the flesh,” “the carnal mind,” which “corresponds with the first compartment of the sanctuary,” is a sacred place where “God ministers continually,” although the Scripture plainly declares that “the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed4can be.” And the premises laid down force the writer to the logical conclusion, which ought to startle him, that “not only in Jesus was ‘divinity veiled in humanity,’ but the same precious treasure is to be found in every human heart.” This interpretation of the typical sanctuary leads to the same conclusion which is being urged by those who wholly reject the atoning work of Christ the only Saviour. Thus Felix Adler says, in an address delivered April 3, 1904:— If you want to find God, look for him in the beggar who passes under your window, in the neighbor who jostles you when he goes by on the street, in your own child, and in the man or woman with whom you keep house; and if you find not God there, you will not find him anywhere. . . . As the votaries of old used to cry out to their gods when they withdrew themselves into darkness, “O god, show thyself,” so do you say to your familiar friend and neighbor, “O God that is within, show thyself.” And the God, the divine power, will surely respond in some measure to your appeal. The trouble with this whole teaching is that it sets aside entirely, or at best places altogether in the background, the change which has come through the experience of sin, and bestows upon every man indiscriminately the benefits which are the result of faith in Christ and his work for the sinner. The writer who declares that the typical sanctuary had “its counterpart in the human body” may believe, and may at other times advocate, the truth concerning the heavenly sanctuary, but such views as are set forth in his article will prepare his own mind and the mind of his readers to place less and less stress upon the other view, and if he fully accepts his own conclusions, it may soon be difficult to see the need of any service in the heavenly sanctuary. This is not the teaching of the sanctuary question which brought light and comfort to this people after the disappointment in 1844, and it is not the teaching which will strengthen their faith in this movement now. It is only through the “exceeding great and precious promises” that men become “partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” It is only through faith in Christ that man may become a temple of the living God. Note the clearness of the following statements taken from “Desire of Ages,” pages 177, 178:— From eternal ages it was God’s purpose that every created being, from the bright and holy seraph to man, should be a temple for the indwelling of the Creator. Because of sin, humanity ceased to be a temple for God. Darkened and defiled by evil, the heart of man no longer revealed the glory of the divine One. But by the incarnation of the Son of God, the purpose of heaven is fulfilled. God dwells in humanity, and through saving grace the heart of man becomes again his temple. The same writer touches upon this same subject in a communication dated Jan. 26, 1904, in these words:— When Christ abides in the heart by faith, the Christian is the temple of God. Christ does not abide in the heart of the sinner, but hearts that are susceptible to the influences of heaven’s instrumentalities, and have been sanctified by obedience to the truth, are representatives of his righteousness. We do not see how the distinctive message which Seventh-day Adventists have been called to give to the world, in which the sanctuary question has such a prominent place, can be advanced by advocating an interpretation of the typical sanctuary which leads to the conclusion that all men have the treasure of divinity in them, just the same as Jesus of Nazareth. Instead of encouraging this belief, this message should point to the heavenly sanctuary, and to Jesus as the only hope of salvation, and should say, “Behold, the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.”