Leading off the latest online edition of the Adventist Review is an article aimed squarely at young Adventists entitled, “The Sanctuary Truth”.  Written by Jennifer Jill Schwirzer, described in the biography as a “wife, mother, author, songwriter, and musician”, the article opens a new apologetic effort to salvage this oft-maligned doctrine.  In its original form, the sanctuary doctrine was the Adventist attempt to explain the events of 1844 and to describe the searching scrutiny under which professed Christ-followers would be subjected–if one unconfessed sin was found in the heavenly records, there would be no application of Christ’s blood to the sinner’s account.  With the fallout of Glacier View in the early 1980s, the focus shifted to a more palatable sanctuary doctrine whereby God was placed under searching scrutiny and His character vindicated before the whole universe.  The Adventist Review would now have us believe a third incarnation of the sanctuary doctrine.  This new “sanctuary truth” allows God to have a relationship with sinful humans.  Without a heavenly sanctuary, there would be no cleansing of sin and therefore God would not be able to draw close to sinners.  Schwirzer writes, “A bride and groom can’t be truly intimate when there’s something between them. The sanctuary in heaven is where Jesus cleanses away the sin that separates Him from His bride.” Apparently the Christian church was separated from God for its first nineteen centuries because the sin problem had not yet been dealt with and the cross was a mere prelude to what would finally begin in 1844.  Schwirzer does not stop there, but argues to reclaim the sanctuary doctrine for evangelistic use, describing an interaction with a prospective convert named Emily.  The progressive Adventist blogger Ron Corson has written some thoughts about the article here, and they are well-worth reading.  For more thoughts on this latest incarnation of the sanctuary doctrine, read on below.

After a lengthy evangelistic encounter with her friend Emily, Schwirzer recounts a story where both are sitting in the pews, listening to a weighty Adventist sermon.  Concerned about the content of the sermon, Schwirzer thinks to herself, “She can’t comprehend what the pastor is saying...he’s using too many ‘code’ words, and the concepts are too abstract for her.” What was so confusing to poor Emily? “The subject matter of the sermon we were listening to was the final atonement as it related to the marriage supper of the Lamb–not the stuff of sermon fluff.”

One wonders if abstract sermons on the marriage supper of the Lamb are really the best material with which to introduce friends to Adventism.  It is no wonder that many Adventists are reluctant to bring their friends to church.  Imagine having to continuously parse and decode the words being preached from the pulpit, words that a Christian from any other denomination would also have serious trouble following.  Contrast this with the clarion call of the gospel and the message of the cross, a message simple enough for a child to understand and so elementary that the apostle Paul described it from the world’s perspective as “foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Reflecting on one of her first encounters with eager Emily and their discussion of the prophecies in Daniel, Schwirzer says, “The birdie’s beak was still wide open enough to receive the parallel prophecies of the four beasts, the ram and the goat, and the little horn, and to make the acquaintance of Belshazzar, Gabriel, and Constantine. Truth built upon truth until we found ourselves hammering out the 2300-day prophecy math on a piece of scrap paper.” Again, I must pause in wonder that any basic evangelistic encounter would need to center upon a piece of scrap paper and some prophetic mathematics.  There’s no question that the study of Old Testament prophecy is a fruitful endeavor, but the goal of evangelism is not to prove that something happened in heaven on the morning of October 22, 1844, but to point the way to Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of all of the Law and the Prophets (John 5:39-40).  If presenting the gospel requires knowledge of mathematics and calculations–let’s face it–most of the world will never come into “the truth”.  Thankfully the true gospel of Scripture knows nothing of speculation about where Christ may or may not be within some heavenly structure, but that it rests upon the finished work of our Lord and Savior who is now where He was since He rose to heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, “waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet” (Hebrews 10:12-13).

In interpreting the sermon for her friend Emily, Schwirzer recounts, “Knowing that her appetite for depth was not matched by a grasp of church-speak, I leaned toward Emily and whispered a translation: ‘Em, what the pastor is saying is that Christ is the husband and His church is the bride. A bride and groom can’t be truly intimate when there’s something between them. The sanctuary in heaven is where Jesus cleanses away the sin that separates Him from His bride.’ Emily relaxed her brow and nodded in agreement.”

Ron Corson astutely observes that if this is supposed to make poor Emily relax, her happiness will soon turn to shock when she realizes that before 1844, the Christian church had no way to come to the Father because of their sin, as atonement for sin had apparently not yet been made.  Corson writes, “If I were Emily, that would not relax me, ‘You mean for these last 1600 years no one on earth could be intimate with their God until sins somehow in heaven are cleansed?’ ‘That’s right Em, our sins are not forgiven and forgotten when we ask God to take them away, God must store a record of our sins in heaven and then starting in 1844 He began to cleanse the record of our sins at least of the people who are dead He has not gotten to us yet.’ I would guess that this would upset Emily even more.  ‘So we can’t even now have that intimate relationship with Jesus until He has cleansed our sins in heaven?’ ‘That’s right Em, isn’t the sanctuary doctrine the most wonderful truth you have ever heard?’”

The new incarnation of the sanctuary doctrine leads us directly to this difficult conclusion, does it not?  Yet this harmonizes with much of what the early Adventists taught about so-called “apostate Christians” who had not been loyal keepers of the faith.  But in placing historic Christianity in the cross hairs of these unique Adventist teachings, the very apostolic pillars of the Christian church are also called into question as having inferior Christian truth.  After all, the apostles knew nothing of this Adventist sanctuary doctrine, apparently foolishly preaching “Christ and Him crucified” instead of “Christ in the sanctuary”, where atonement for sin was to finally be made nineteen centuries later.  The conclusion is inescapable–every Christian from the disciples all the way to Protestant Reformation and beyond lived the entirety of their lives with unforgiven sin hanging over their heads.

We learn more about this new and improved sanctuary doctrine by reading just a little further.  “‘There’s so much injustice in the world!’ Emily complained. ‘And it seems as if God doesn’t care.’ Yet the sanctuary told her otherwise, because there the most whitewashed sins are recorded with searing clarity.” Yes, the sins are recorded, even those committed after death as a result of an action committed while alive.  Even one of those, if found, will disqualify the professed believer from heaven.  Now isn’t that good news?  Of course not.

The good news is that Jesus Christ made final and complete atonement for sin on the cross (2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:10-13, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 3:21-26).  There is no “searing record” waiting to judge those who have placed their faith in Him.  Jesus has put an end to the condemnation that results from sin (Romans 8:1), making a new creation out of the helpless sinner (2 Corinthians 5:16-17).  Now this is truly good news that poor Emily can really get excited about, free of the theological gymnastics required to reconcile an extra-biblical teaching with the words of Truth.

----
Please also read Ron Corson’s thoughts.

Thanks for highlighting this article, Greg. I read this after you referenced another Review article. I actually thought aspects of Jennifer Jill’s article were compelling, as she gave more of a spiritual rationale for the sanctuary than what I think has been offered before. I also think it’s worthwhile to point out that at least in Jennifer Jill’s friend’s particular case, she was “attracted” to the idea of God and salvation through an interest in prophesy. So I don’t see any harm in the fact and in recognizing that there is not necessarily any one size fits all way of reaching people--we know God reaches people where they are; and in some cases, what initially prompts people to re-examine their lives may be Bible prophesy or some other aspect of Christianity that may not necessarily center around those issues that most concern us. Moreover, as Jennifer Jill aludes to, the sanctuary ultimately points out the problem of sin, and the solution for that problem.

I did, however, have some issues with the essay along the lines of what your critique was. I sent an email to the Review discussing those. I may repost it here when I have more time. And I’ll read Ron Corson’s take as well. 

[quote author="Greg"]With the fallout of Glacier View in the early 1980s, the focus shifted to a more palatable sanctuary doctrine whereby God was placed under searching scrutiny and His character vindicated before the whole universe.

Hmmm. Actually the idea of the sanctuary doctrine and investigative judgment as a “God on Trial” doctrine predates Glacier View. It was expounded as early as the 1940’s by M.L. Andreason, the forefather of today’s Last Generation Theology and theologians. But you’re right that since Glacier View, the church has tended to downplay the record-keeping aspect of the investigative judgment (even relabeling it the pre-advent judgment). And the church has tended to downplay some of the most troubling implications of an 1844 theology, such as the idea that before 1844, and perhaps not even until later, we really weren’t truly reconciled to God because He still had our sins to review, a problem that Ron Corson addresses quite forcefully. 

Glenn, thanks for your observations.  I’ve heard Desmond Ford say that Adventist scholars had basically stopped teaching the investigative judgment doctrine prior to his challenge of it.  He also said that he was asked to present his views at an Adventist Forum meeting at PUC and he somewhat reluctantly agreed to do so.  One wonders what would have happened if he had just kept his mouth shut, like so many Adventist theologians before and since.

Ford’s subsequent manuscript on the sanctuary brought the issue to a head and forced a decision regarding whether the church as a body would choose to follow the Bible or the prophet.  As William Johnsson (former Review editor) later recalled, “the brethren did not see light in Ford’s views.” The lesser light carried the day in the 1980s, and as this article illustrates, it still does.

Glenn, I’d be very interested to read your letter to the Review if you would like to share it here.

Also, regarding your point about prophecy not being a bad thing to study or to use in evangelism, I agree.  The Old Testament is filled with prophetic references to Jesus and this is one of the most powerful arguments sustaining his Messianic claim.  When we lose sight of this in favor of studying Scripture to support a remnant mindset, something profound has been lost.

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]Also, regarding your point about prophecy not being a bad thing to study or to use in evangelism, I agree. The Old Testament is filled with prophetic references to Jesus and this is one of the most powerful arguments sustaining his Messianic claim. When we lose sight of this in favor of studying Scripture to support a remnant mindset, something profound has been lost.

I agree.  It’s also regrettable that so much else in Bible prophesy or in prophetic books tends to be neglected. This is probably because it can be much easier for some people (including me at times) to get fascinated about numbers, i.e. the “math” of prophesy while missing or to not be as easily stimulated by the plain texts, so much of which, admittedly, require a good length of time and commitment to read and digest. However, I am finding this to be more rewarding then the concentration over numbers or on one or two particular texts in isolation. I’ve often wondered why the early SDA’s did not weigh the numbers and message of Daniel with the other prophesies in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekial, Zephaniah, and the like. The best reading of their behavior I think is that they were eager to meet their Savior, and believed the writings of Daniel and Revelation indicated His very soon return. I don’t want to pour water on that belief and longing. But there is much else in scripture for us to become acquainted with.

I’ll post my email letter in a separate post. 

Here is my letter to the Review on Jennifer Jill’s Sanctuary article.

-----------------

I appreciated Jennifer Jill Schwirzer’s article on the
Sanctuary in the context of relating to the
non-Christian, post-modern, secular world. She makes
some very good points about the contrast between
traditional Adventist teaching on ethics as it relates
to the Sanctuary and the more common teaching among
many evangelical Christians today that seems to
emphasize the Christian’s own special saved status at
the expense of any demonstration of grace in their
lives or love for humanity. I also suspect Jennifer
Jill is right to note that one primary objection to
the Sanctuary doctrine among current and former SDA’s
is it’s implication for our approach to sin in the
Christian life and of that prospect that Christians,
not just non-Christians, will be held accountable to
the God who judges and saves.

However, for some of us still within and committed to
the Adventist community and its message, it’s worth
pointing out that there other problems with the
sanctuary doctrine as it has traditionally been
taught. Most of these objections are familiar to
life-time Adventists. They include the context of
Daniel 7-12 and that of chapter 8 in particular, which
appear to be more concerned with the desecrating
actions of the little horn, not with the contaminating
sins of the sins. There are also some typological
problems with the sanctuary construct; namely that
there is no indication in Leviticus--which provides
the basis for most our understanding of the sanctuary
typology--that there were ever any “books of record”
documenting the sins of the saints and which stood on
record even after individual sins were confessed until
the typical Day of Atonement ritual. In addition,
Leviticus 4, which describes the sacrificial process,
indicates that for the sacrifice offered by
individuals, the blood from the animal sacrifice did
not enter into the sanctuary building itself--that is,
it did not enter into or become applied to anything in
the Holy Place or Most Holy Place; rather, the blood
from individual sacrifices was applied to the four
horns of the altar of burnt offering, and the
remaining blood poured out on the ground at the base
of the altar. Some Adventist writing has erred by
saying that the blood from the individual sacrifices
entered the Holy Place and Most Holy Place. Finally,
there are problems claiming as has traditionally been
done that Jesus did not begin His High Priestly
ministry “within the veil” until 1844--the book of
Hebrews seems to offer a range of data reflecting
Jesus’s constant, more perfect High Priestly ministry
as preceding from day one after His return to Heaven,
“within the veil” in the immediate presence of the
Father, before Whom He “ever lives to make
intercession for us”.

There are as Jennifer Jill has so ably written, valid
and compelling spiritual rationales for believing in a
judgment of the saints and for accepting some notion
of a pre-advent or investigative judgment. The gospel
accounts, for instance, seem to point towards such a
process in many of the parables and other teachings of
Jesus. But I would just caution against relying to too
great an extent on our traditional typological
teachings on the sanctuary from the apocalyptic books
of Daniel and Revelation.

Glenn, thanks for sharing your letter.  It will be interesting to see if the Review will print it, considering that you’re basically articulating Desmond Ford’s position on the meaning of “within the veil”.  This letter has the markings of a doctrinal trojan horse...I hope it gets through!

Greg

Here’s some reading material for the kids, courtesy of my friend Aaron:

http://www.adventistbookcenter.com/Product_Info/Big_Photos/851819big.jpg

The promotional line reads:

“A dark night of disappointment leads faith-filled Christians to find a message of hope in a puzzling time prophecy. Young people discover the good news about a time of final judgment in heaven--God is preparing to clean sin out of the universe forever.”

Source here.

[quote author="Greg"]Glenn, thanks for sharing your letter. It will be interesting to see if the Review will print it, considering that you’re basically articulating Desmond Ford’s position on the meaning of “within the veil”. This letter has the markings of a doctrinal trojan horse...I hope it gets through!

I think Des Ford’s “within the veil” understanding has permeated the denomination to a certain degree. In Now and Not Yet, a book about the end time and God’s present and future Kingdom, Adventist author John Brunt includes a section on it and basically echoes Ford’s view. In fact it’s almost so blatant it had me fearing for his occupational future. Not sure what the SDA commentary says. I also have a commentary on Hebrews written I think by the former Advent Review editor (William Johnson). I’ll check what he says. But the hardliners at greatcontroversy.org continue to deny the Ford position. I don’t believe Cliff Goldstein addresses this aspect of Hebrews in either of his books or in the lesson quarterly from a few months ago.

The church has also “officially” accepted another Des Ford point of view relating to the taking of the blood from individual sacrifices into the sanctuary, even attaching a footnote to the relevant graphs in Patriarchs and Prophets; but the claim continues to crop up here and there in various publications.

In one of this essays or Q and A’s on his website, Ford noted that despite his defrocking over the issue(s) associated with the sanctuary teaching, the church has in many ways ended up conceding many of his points, even if only by virtue of exclusion.

The Sanctuary Truth is simply a kindergarden sandbox play of the Plan of Redemption in which every part is played in real time by Jesus Christ. He is the Lamb of God. He is the Water of Life. He is the Light of the World. He is the Bread of Life. It is His prayer that is the incense that rises to Heaven. He is the Mercy Seat.  He is the Law and the Law Giver. He is the Divine One that “tented among us”. He is Our Advocate before the Throne of God. He is our coming King of Kings. When His flesh was torn, the veil in the temple was torn and the way into the Holy of Holies was open to all who believed upon Him!

He cleansed the Sanctuary once and for all! When we were children, we spoke as children, we understood as children,we thought as children. But when we became adults we put away childish things.!  The apology of Cliff Goldstein is childish. The Sancturay doctrine was hatched in a corn field. It is defended with such fevor because the entire edifice will collapse without it. From the moment Jesus cried out: “It is Finished”. We have had a High Priest at the Right Hand of the Throne of God. In real time. Away with sandboxes. Let us rejoice in the risen and soon coming Savior as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. 

Amen, Deacon.  It is time to put away childish things, even if the entire edifice collapses.  There’s too much fear among Adventists that if the doctrinal foundation crumbles, nothing distinctively “Adventist” will be left.  But this misses the point of what it means to be a Christian–we lose our identity and “specialness” when we join the body of Christ.  The disciples lost their occupational identities when they dropped everything to follow Christ.  The apostle Paul lost his Pharisaical distinctives (later calling them garbage) when he left them behind to follow Jesus (Philippians 3:4-9).

It is a privilege to be united with brothers and sisters who “name the name of Christ” and are found the world over.  The remnant church is not a building or a denomination, but a body.

Away with sandboxes indeed!

Greg

To me, I feel that there is a backlash against a view on the sanctuary that doesn’t exist anymore.

It is seen as:

1) We are not saved until our names come up in judgement. Then (and this might have occurred 20 years ago for me for all I know), my good deeds and bad deeds are weighed in the balance and my salvation outcome is either denied or assured.

One cannot preach the above scenario and call the IJ ‘hope and comfort’ that is being preached in the mainstream to defend it.

If this scenario is true, then SDAs believe in some sort of Calvinism. If I am deemed not worthy to be saved, then nothing I can do from then on can save me.

We know that the SDA church doesn’t believe this in the least. They ALWAYS believe that one can fall away and come back (another problem that some here protest).

This is not the view of the judgement I grew up with (and I became an SDA in the early 80s). This is nothing I have heard in the mainstream. I have yet to meet an SDA that feels that their salvation hinges on the outcome of the investigative judgment and in all the books I’ve read on the subject, I have yet to encounter that view.

The facts of the IJ as I know it is that our records are analyzed to show the ‘universe’ what God already knows. Why is ‘so and so’ going to be in heaven? Open the books...this is why. They lived a decadent and immoral lifestyle but they accepted Christ and he is not going to be there on his own merits’. ‘Ah, now I see Lord!’ As far as a ‘pre-Advent judgement. The gist of it is this: When Christ comes, He ‘rewards every man according as his works shall be’. This outcome needed to be established before hand just like a court trial. However, I see this as merely a formality to what God already knows.

Now IMO, such a ‘investigation’ needs to occur after the fact to be valid (for example, I would agree in the view that during the 1000 years, ‘reigning with Christ’ includes looking at the books). Why something like an investigative judgement needed to begin in 1844 and how this can be derived from Daniel 8:14 is the real problem I have with the SDA view on the IJ.

Are we fighting against something that really doesn’t exist and nobody takes seriously except on the fringe conservative wing?

Hi Guibox,

Desmond Ford’s defrocking and the utter lack of any movement on the part of the Adventist church to reinstate his credentials are all the evidence we need to realize that the old version of the sanctuary doctrine is alive and well.  If things have really changed, why not publicly apologize to him?

The current GC president is on the record in endorsing the historic sanctuary doctrine.  Even if they don’t believe it in their heart of hearts, the church administrators know that renouncing the historic sanctuary doctrine will cause a monumental rift in the church.

As a reminder, here’s what GC president Jan Paulsen said in 2002:

[quote author="Jan Paulsen"]
The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White, continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this.

Source here.

If things have really changed, why don’t we see any high-profile church official admitting it?  I submit that they can’t do this because it will call into question Ellen White’s prophetic status and the very reason for the church’s existence.

If Jesus is the focal point of the Christian (and Adventist) faith, why do we need to haggle over these questionable doctrines, doctrines that no Christian theologian outside of Adventism has ever discovered by Bible study alone?  Why do we need to worry about the effects of renouncing this doctrine when the body of Christ is about the Truth of Scripture and the Truth of who Jesus is and not the (little “t") truth of what some denomination teaches?

These efforts to repackage the sanctuary doctrine will continue ad infinitum until the church administrators lose their fear of admitting they have been wrong all these years and are willing to risk further erosion of the laity’s confidence in Ellen White.  Something tells me this isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Anonymous

Yet more evidence. The sda church has zeal, but not according to God’s double-edged sword. I find much of the teachings of the sda church to be spiritually bankrupt and its inability to see this is telling. Untill the sda church willingly applies the eye salve of Christ to their blinded eyes, untill the sda church hears what the Spirit is saying to all the churches, untill the sda church repents and accepts the pure white garments of Jesus Christ, like foolish virgins, all their lamps will go out (many have gone out already).

To the sda church: Stop the insanity! Cease trying to profit from the unprophet...able. Quit manufacturing excuse after excuse. God is not mocked. He is giving you time to repent. Repent, or you will be made to bow down and worship at the feet of those whom you currently despise.

[quote author="Anonymous"]I find much of the teachings of the sda church to be spiritually bankrupt and its inability to see this is telling.

I could say the same for some of Christendom’s other teachings too. Perspective and interpretation is everything.

[quote author="Anonymous"]Untill the sda church willingly applies the eye salve of Christ to their blinded eyes, untill the sda church hears what the Spirit is saying to all the churches, untill the sda church repents and accepts the pure white garments of Jesus Christ, like foolish virgins, all their lamps will go out (many have gone out already)...Quit manufacturing excuse after excuse. God is not mocked. He is giving you time to repent. Repent, or you will be made to bow down and worship at the feet of those whom you currently despise..

You are, like the rest of us here, entitled to your opinion. However, I must ask you if such prophet-like, pontifical rambling is productive? Or even accurate?

Here is an excerpt from Bacchiocchi’s latest newsletter on the feast days.

This is a part linking the day of Atonement in the OT to allusions to it in the NT. Again, to me I see that there is evidence for a ‘spiritual’ Day of Atonement when you compare the type to the anti-type.

My problem is saying that this occurs in two literal compartments that began in 1844 and is derived from Daniel 8:14.

Bacchiocchi in another newsletter makes a good biblical case for a ‘pre-advent judgement’ without even bringing the ‘sanctary doctrine’ and 1844 in the picture.I can believe in the ‘pre-advent judgment’ and still believe my atonment was done at the cross. I can believe in a ‘pre-advent judgment’ but deny the tenets of the ‘investigative judgment’.

Sorry for the length. Bolded sections are my own.

         The Day of Atonement in the OT.
  The Day of Atonement was the grand climax of the religious year in ancient Israel. The rites performed on that day concluded the atoning process of the sins of the Israelites by removing them permanently from the sanctuary. The judgment process that began on the first day of the seventh month (Feast of the Trumpet), terminated 10 days later on the Day of Atonement when God executed His judgment by giving life to those who had confessed their sins and availed themselves of the divine provision for their atonement. It was also a day of death for impenitent sinners who rejected God’s provision for the cleansing of their sins.
 
         The emphasis of the Day of Atonement on judgment and cleansing, sin and atonement, fasting and prayer was designed to drive home important lessons to the Israelites. It showed them the seriousness of sin and the divine provision for its eradication through confession, sacrifice, recording, judgment, and final disposition. It taught the Israelites that before their sins could be cleansed and permanently eliminated on the Day of Atonement, they had to be repented of, forsaken, and judged by the heavenly court.
 
         The Day of Atonement in the NT.

In the New Testament, the Day of Atonement is alluded to several times, especially in the books of Hebrews and Revelation. Its antitypical fulfillment is associated especially with the cleansing and removal of sin by Christ at His Second Coming. Hebrews recognizes that the work of cleansing and removing sins typified by the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement has a past, a present, and a future aspect. In the past, Christ “has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9:26). In the present ("now"), Christ “appears in the presence of God on our behalf” (9:24). In the future, Christ “will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him” (9:28). The last of these is accomplished by Christ at His Second Advent when He will appear, like the High Priest at the close of the Day of Atonement, not to atone for sins but to save the believers and punish the unbelievers.
 
         The past, the present, and the future ministries of Christ are in Hebrews ideologically connected because [bthey are all dependent upon the same “once for all” sacrifice on the Cross. It is the same atoning sacrifice that enables Christ to fulfill the two phases of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary: intercession and judgment.
        
         In Revelation, the vision of the Day of Atonement (Rev 11:19) occurs immediately after the announcement of the judgment (Rev 11:18), with the opening of the most Holy Place of the heavenly temple where the ark of the covenant is seen . “Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of the covenant was seen within the temple” (Rev 11:19). This is the first and clearest allusion to the Day of Atonement because only on that day the door to the Most Holy Place was open and the High Priest could see “the ark of the covenant” while he officiated in front of it.
 
         The opening of the Most Holy Place of the heavenly temple on the Day of Atonement is accompanied by the manifestation of the cosmic signs of the Second Advent. “There were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail” (Rev 11:19; cf. Rev 16:18; 6:12-14). The association of the cosmic signs of the Second Advent with the ritual of the Day of Atonement suggests that Christ’s coming is seen as the antitypical fulfillment of the disposition of sin typified by the Day of Atonement. The sequential order in Revelation, namely, announcement of the judgment, opening of the Most Holy Place, and the Second Advent, corresponds to the progression from the typology of the Feast of Trumpets to that of the Day of Atonement.
 
         The outcome of the coming of Christ is also similar to that of the Day of Atonement. Christ destroys the wicked by His “sword” (Rev 19:21), a reminder of the impenitent who were “cut off” on the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:29). Satan is bound and thrown into “the pit” (Rev 20:3), a reminder of the sending of Azazel into the desert (Lev 16:21). The righteous are resurrected and reign with Christ, a reminder of the cleansing of God’s people on the Day of Atonement which resulted in the jubilee celebration of new beginnings (Lev 25:9). This amazing correspondence between the typology of the Day of Atonement and its antitypical fulfillment at Christ’s Return, shows how important is the Day of Atonement in the New Testament for understanding the events associated with the coming of Christ.
 
         The Day of Atonement in the Old and New Testaments embodies the Good News of God’s provision for the cleansing of sins and restoration to fellowship with Him through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. This is an important message that our Adventist Church could proclaim more fully in the Fall at a specially designated Atonement Day Sabbath. At a time when many are experiencing the crushing isolation of sin, an Atonement Day Sabbath can offer a message of hope. It reassures Christians that Christ will soon appear the second time, like the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, to punish unbelievers, to bind Satan, to cleanse believers and restore them to an harmonious relationship with Him. Such a hope gives us reasons to encourage “one another, and all the more as . . . [we] see the Day drawing near” (Heb 10:25).