The Origin of the Adversary (Satan)

Continuing chapter one of Conversations About God, by Graham Maxwell, edited from the oral text by Jon Paulien.

Conversations About God 1:2

Looking far in the past when there once was peace, a crisis of distrust broke out in God’s family. Sin in its essence is a breach, a breakdown of trust. And thus sin entered our universe for the first time. We all know the story if we’ve ever read the Bible through. It begins with the most brilliant of all God’s creatures. He is pictured in Ezekiel 28 as standing in the very presence of God. He is pictured in Isaiah 14 as knowing God so well that he went forth from the presence of God bearing light and truth to his fellow angels. That is why he was given the name Lucifer (Isa 14:12, KJV), which is a Latin term for “bearer of light” or teacher of truth. A Greek version of the same name is applied to Jesus Christ Himself in Revelation (Rev 22:16 [morning star], see also John 1:4-5). So Lucifer had a Jesus-like role among the angels before sin.

But moved by jealousy and pride, this brilliant, most trusted, even revered angel, set out to undermine trust in God by circulating misinformation and lies about our heavenly Father. And thus he became, not a bearer of light and a teacher of truth, but a bearer of lies. The name Lucifer no longer applies to him. He no longer bears light, he is now the bearer of lies. His real name is Satan, the opponent, the adversary.

And how this adversary worked among the angels! In a pious manner he insinuated that God Himself was an untrustworthy liar. Specifically, he charged that God did not respect the freedom of His children; He was arbitrary, exacting, vengeful, unforgiving, and severe. With carefully chosen words he hoped to turn his fellow angels away from God, and win them to worship him instead. It seems unbelievable that a creature could presume to think of himself as God, and suggest that angels worship him. But the Bible records that Satan (Lucifer) is actually capable of such insanity (Isa 14:12-14):

How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, (Lucifer in the KJV) son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.” (RSV)

Later on Satan even asked his creator to get down on His knees in the wilderness of temptation and worship His own creature (Matt 4:8-11):

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Begone, Satan! for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and ministered to him. (RSV)

The angels watched that whole experience. They must have been stunned to see one of
their fellow angels, a created being, asking God to get down on His knees and worship.

God bore long and patiently as He watched this insurrection developing in His family. He watched until one-third of His brilliant, intelligent angels agreed with Satan that God was not worthy of their trust. This means that even God, though infinite in power, could not persuade one-third of the brilliant angels that Satan’s charges were false. Finally, as we saw in Revelation 12, war broke out in Heaven.

Satan not only shared these false charges (that God is an untrustworthy liar) with the angels, he wasted no time passing them on to our first parents in the garden, thus involving us in the conflict as well (Gen 3:1-5):

Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (RSV)

The word “subtle” in this text means the serpent was more cunning or crafty than any other creature God made. I don’t blame Eve for wanting to be like God, isn’t that your prayer as well? But here the serpent (Satan) deceived her into thinking there was a miraculous shortcut to becoming like God.

The Conflict in God’s Family

With this blog we begin chapter one of Conversations About God, by Graham Maxwell, edited from the oral text by Jon Paulien.

Conversations About God 1:1

Even though our heavenly Father is so incredibly gracious, even toward those of us who have misbehaved, the Bible describes an amazing reality. Conflict broke out in God’s family, even to the extent of war in heaven. The most vivid description of this war is presented in the last of the sixty-six books of the Bible, the book of Revelation (12:7-12):

“Then war broke out in heaven! Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, who fought back with his angels; but the dragon was defeated, and he and his angels were not allowed to stay in heaven any longer. The huge dragon was thrown out! He is that old serpent, named the Devil, or Satan, that deceived the whole world. He was thrown down to earth, and all his angels with him.
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven saying: “Now God’s salvation has come! Now God has shown his power as King! Now his Messiah has shown his authority! For the accuser of our brothers, who stood before God accusing them day and night, has been thrown out of heaven. Our brothers won the victory over him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the truth which they proclaimed; and they were willing to give up their lives and die. And so rejoice, you heavens, and all you who live there! But how terrible for the earth and the sea! For the Devil has come down to you, and he is filled with rage, for he knows that he has only a little time left.” (TEV)

As we hear these words, it’s good to reflect that before there was war, there was peace throughout the whole universe. There was peace because all the members of God’s vast family trusted each other, and all of them trusted their heavenly Father. The Father in turn could safely trust in them. Where there is such mutual trust and trustworthiness, there is perfect freedom. Perfect peace. Perfect security. And that’s the way it’s going to be in the hereafter. The Bible never talks about prisons in eternity. There will be no police on every corner. And women can safely walk the streets alone at any hour.

How the prophets must have enjoyed describing the peace, security, and freedom of the hereafter! They do this in many places. Isaiah, for example, says there will be wolves, leopards and lions mixed in with the farm animals. And little children will lead them (Isa 11:6-9). While there may be lions in heaven, there will be no reason to be afraid. Zechariah offers another beautiful picture. He says that in the city to come, elderly men and women will sit in the streets with staff in hand, while boys and girls play safely there (Zech 8:4-5). But not yet.

Preface to Conversations About God, by A. Graham Maxwell, edited by Jon Paulien

Beginning today, I am taking renowned oral presentations made in 1984 and shaping them into a readable book. I have taken on this book project and give you a sneak preview here with permission of Maxwell’s surviving family. The words that follow are from the Preface of the in-progress book.

Conversations About God 0

This book is entitled Conversations About God not only because of its content, but in order to make available in written form a series of twenty programs by that name presented at the Loma Linda University Church in 1984. In that memorable series, Dr. A. Graham Maxwell opened each evening’s topic with a presentation, followed by questions and comments from the audience, moderated by then-pastor Louis Venden. The book you hold in your hands is an edited version of the original “conversations.” The editor, Jon Paulien, has sought to preserve the flavor of the original conversations as much as possible.

These conversations offer another look at our heavenly Father in the larger setting of a universe-wide conflict over His character and government. God is infinite in majesty and power. Yet when He came in human form, He didn’t try to intimidate or overwhelm people with a show of majesty and power. Instead, He sat down among them. He conversed with them. He even invited their questions. As a matter of fact, Jesus taught some of His most important truths while reclining at a table, eating supper with His audiences.

As indicated in the title of this book, these twenty conversations will be primarily about God. But one could fairly raise the question, whose God are we going to talk about? God is not the exclusive property of Seventh-day Adventists. The Methodists and the Baptists worshipped God before Adventists came on the scene. The Lutherans were worshiping God before the Methodists and Baptists came on the scene. The Jews were worshipping centuries before there were any Christians. Adam and Eve were worshipping before there were any Jews and, before there were any people on our planet, so were the loyal angels throughout the universe.

God belongs to all of us. While there are religious differences among us, and those differences may be important, we are all members of His family. Or should we rather say that only the good ones among us are members of God’s family? Is it the way you count your children? Today you report you have one child; tomorrow maybe three. And the next day only two? Because you only acknowledge the children who are behaving well? Frankly we have all misbehaved. And yet God recognizes every one of us, counts every one of us, as members of the family of the universe. It is this amazing, gracious God that is the subject of this book. And “conversations” like this are needed today and will continue, because even eternity will not be long to enough to fully understand and celebrate our God.

Conversations About God

I have exciting news. For a little over a year now I have been editing a famous series of lectures (1984) called “Conversations About God” by Graham Maxwell. These 20 lectures were each followed by questions and answers with Lou Venden, pastor of the LLU Church at the time. This series most articulately sums up Maxwell’s theology of the Great Controversy over the character and government of God, but has never come out in print due to it’s oral nature. With the encouragement of his family and a close friend of his, I have been going through the lectures, updating and editing them into language more appropriate to book form than the original. While publication is still probably a year or more away, I have just received permission to publish excerpts in my blog, which I will begin to do in the next week. For those who knew him, this will be a wonderful reminder. For those who have never heard or read him, you will be amazed at his passion for God and the clarity of his vision. Feedback is not only welcome, it will be greatly appreciated. Stay tuned.

Fundamental Belief Number 28 (The New Earth)

On the new earth, in which righteousness dwells, God will provide an eternal home for the redeemed and a perfect environment for everlasting life, love, joy, and learning in His presence. For here God Himself will dwell with His people, and suffering and death will have passed away. The great controversy will be ended, and sin will be no more. All things, animate and inanimate, will declare that God is love; and He shall reign forever. Amen. (Isa. 35; 65:17-25; Matt. 5:5; 2 Peter 3:13; Rev. 11:15; 21:1-7; 22:1-5.) (2 Pet. 3:13; Isa. 35; 65:17-25; Matt. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; 21:1-7; 22:1-5.)

There were no changes in this fundamental, other than the usual rearrangement of Bible texts. Revelation 21-22 are the key chapters behind this fundamental. These chapters build very strongly on a number of Old Testament contexts; Genesis 1-2, the Hebrew sanctuary, the historical accounts of the original Jerusalem and Ezekiel 47. This fundamental focuses on the conclusion of the Great Controversy story when “sin and sinners will be no more.” One of the mysterious things promised in these chapters is the “healing of the nations” (Rev 22:2). This is not so much a reference to the healing of human bodies and minds, but rather healing between peoples and nations. But as a part of this prophecy, it is a call for readers to anticipate the New Jerusalem by seeking social justice on this earth now.

There are a couple of other beautiful promises in Revelation 22:1-4. It is said that the saved will “see His face.” It is not clear if the “His” refers to “God” or the “Lamb” (Jesus Christ). Face to face contact with God was extremely limited in Old Testament times but became real on earth with the incarnation of Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14). The ultimate privilege of human existence is to be face to face with God, but without any fear (unlike Genesis 3:10).

Both the Bible and this fundamental belief indicate that death itself will have passed away. That makes sense on the large-scale human perspective. But does that cover all forms of death? Cell death and replacement are an important piece of healthy existence as we know it. The death and decay of plants provides nutrients for the soil. The human process of eating involves the extinction of plants and their fruits. So how literally are we to take the “no more death” (Rev 21:1-4)? Death itself is literal, but some death is necessary for life, at least as we experience it. Since the Bible was not written in the distant past to provide modern scientific information, we should probably be cautious as to how far we take this assertion.

Also, what does it mean that suffering will have passed away? Will we never stub a toe? Bump heads accidentally? Some suggest that true enjoyment is enhanced when you have something else to compare it to. In The Matrix it was argued that the complete absence of suffering would not be a desirable state for human beings. It is contended that suffering at some level is necessary for paradise and true happiness to exist. So FB 28 is clear in practical terms, but doesn’t answer all the questions that could be asked. When it comes to eternity, our ignorance exceeds our knowledge.

The statement talks about a “perfect environment.” This suggests a new ecological order, one that is symbiotic (where creatures co-operate with each other in meeting their daily needs) rather than predatory. Such a return to the original order of things is forecast in texts like Isaiah 11:6-9, where predators and prey are on genial terms with each other. The new earth signals the end of predation. Ethicists speak of moral evil, natural evil and ecological evil. God’s new order will overcome all three.

God’s willingness to dwell with His people is amazing, given the size and scope of the universe as we have come to know it through astronomical science. While not stated explicitly, this reality implies a divine commitment to human well-being that exceeds all other divine/creature relationships. God chooses to be with humanity on earth in eternity, to permanently share His life with us. The promise of special relationship that is experienced in the Sabbath will fill the whole of eternity.

While the new earth will be real, it would probably not be wise to make too much of the details (streets of gold, gates of pearl). These are imaginative visions couched in the language of the ancient world and the historical context of God’s people as chronicled in the Old Testament. The details of such prophecies are tied more closely to the traditions of the past than to some movie of the future. This is evident, for example, in Isaiah 11, which was referenced above. Verses 15 and 16 are a prophecy of the exile to Babylon and the return. This picture of the future is grounded in the Exodus and in Isaiah’s own context. According to the chapter, Israel will come out of Assyria when a wind from God dries up the Euphrates so Israel can escape on foot through the dry river bed. Not one detail this prophecy is fulfilled as written. It is Judah that escapes Babylon, not Israel that escapes from Assyria. Why the discrepancy? Because Babylon as an empire did not exist in Isaiah’s day, it was assumed under the Assyrian Empire. And Israel had not yet been destroyed. Isaiah met people where they were at the time of the prophecy. In reality the Euphrates was not dried up by a wind from God either but through the efforts of Cyrus’ engineers. And the people of God crossed the river on bridges not the river bed. Why the discrepancy? Because the Exodus was the model for the prophecy. God projected the future in the language of Israel’s past.

With the above in mind we can say that until a prophecy is fully fulfilled, it is unwise to project every detail in advance. When God gives a vision to a prophet, that vision views the End as a natural extention of the prophet’s time and place. When the fulfillment comes, all will be clear (John 13:19; 14:29). But until then, we don’t get to decide just how the prophecy will be fulfilled. Our job is to study, pray, and wait.

While the previous paragraph may disappoint some, it is important to remember the purpose of prophecy. Prophecy was not given to satisfy our curiosity about the future, but to teach us how to live today. These texts are much more powerful than the details of their picture of the future. They are designed to change who you are. They are in the form of stories that teach principles and shape people. They give clues to the future in order to shape who we are today. Getting the details right is less important than being transformed by the vision of the prophet.

Daily healing and transformation is what Loma Linda University Health is all about. Something similar can be said about the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. They have been carefully crafted and each line is important. But unless we allow these ideas to transform our lives they are but “sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1). While they can help to shape our ideas, what really counts is whether we allow them to shape our lives, to change who we are. As we conclude this series on the 28 Fundamentals, I invite you to do just that.

Fundamental Belief Number 27 (The Millennium and the End of Sin)

The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections. During this time the wicked dead will be judged; the earth will be utterly desolate, without living human inhabitants, but occupied by Satan and his angels. At its close Christ with His saints and the Holy City will descend from heaven to earth. The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever. (Jer. 4:23-26; Ezek. 28:18, 19; Mal. 4:1; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Rev. 20; 21:1-5.) (Rev. 20; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3; Jer. 4:23-26; Rev. 21:1-5; Mal. 4:1; Eze. 28:18, 19.)

There were no changes in this fundamental, other than the usual rearrangement of Bible texts. When first introduced to the millennium many wonder as to its purpose. Why a resurrection of all the wicked simply to face a second death? Sigve Tonstad, in his dissertation at St. Andrews University in Scotland, notes the odd reality that everything seems settled and the victory of Christ is assured at the Second Coming, yet there is a new resurrection and a new conflict after the millennium. This only makes sense in light of the cosmic conflict articulated in Revelation 12 (and FB8) and hinted at in many other parts of the Bible. There are broader issues in the universe than simply the salvation of humanity or the superior power of God. There are issues in the cosmic conflict of the character of God and the accusations of Satan. These issues require one final confrontation at the end of the millennium, where God’s character is finally vindicated and Satan’s character finally and fully exposed. So in the larger picture of a cosmic conflict, the millennium plays an important role.

The release of Satan at the end of the millennium is a big surprise. After all, he is the ultimate villain of universal history. Confining him (Rev 20:1-3) seems like the intelligent thing to do. Yet at the end of the millennium he is not only released, the text says that he “must be set free.” Why does this happen? Clearly the capture and release of Satan means that he is an extremely important character in the story. In spite of all the suffering and anguish he has caused, it is necessary for him to be released one last time to demonstrate what happens to an individual who nurtures rebellion and sin. After a thousand years to contemplate his deeds, his character is completely exposed by his actions after his release. Repentance and reform are no longer of interest to him, he is bent on destruction of the most magnificent thing any creature has seen, God’s amazing New Jerusalem. But he also contains within his sinful self the seeds of his own destruction (Ezek 28:18).

As noted in this fundamental, Revelation 20 describes the destruction of the wicked as “fire from God” (Rev 20:9). The cosmic conflict is often portrayed in graphic military language (see Rev 19:14-15, for example, see also Rev 12:7-8). Yet under the surface of the military language there is a spiritual reality in play (Rev 12:11-12; 19:11, note also the spiritual context of Armageddon—16:15). So one can read Revelation through two different lenses. The first is the more popular reading which focuses on the surface of the text and seems to portray earthly battles, sometimes even in a Middle Eastern context (Rev 16:12). But a careful re-reading of the book shows a deeper dimension, a cosmic conflict behind all the earthly conflicts, a universal war of words over the respective characters of Christ and Satan. This more detailed reading can reconcile the seeming conflict between the idea that God destroys the wicked and sin’s own tendency to self-destruction. Throughout the Bible, the wrath of God often turns out to be God sadly turning away from those who no longer want Him and allowing them to reap the consequences of their own choices (Ezek 28:18; Hos 11:1-9; Rom 1:24-28). Why would it be any different at the End?

Modern cosmology has certainly changed the size of the universe in our minds. It is infinitely larger than anything the ancients might have had reason to suspect. The ancients did, however, know that the universe was very big. Because of electric lights, we don’t see the sky as clearly as they did, so we miss many things. Modernity has a certain superiority complex that we know infinitely more than the ancients did. That certainly true in some ways, but the opposite is also true in some matters.

Fundamental Belief Number 26 (Death and Resurrection)

The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed. Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people. When Christ, who is our life, appears, the resurrected righteous and the living righteous will be glorified and caught up to meet their Lord. The second resurrection, the resurrection of the unrighteous, will take place a thousand years later. (Job 19:25-27; Ps. 146:3, 4; Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10; Dan. 12:2, 13; John 5:28, 29; 11:11-14; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Tim. 6:16; Rev. 20:1-10.) (Job 19:25-27; Ps. 146:3, 4; Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10; Dan. 12:2, 13; Isa. 25:8; John 5:28, 29; 11:11-14; Rom. 6:23; 16; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; Col. 3:4; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 20:1-10.)

There were no changes in this fundamental other than the usual rearrangement of Bible texts. The Adventist view on the “state of the dead” actually depends on the “state of the living.” The foundation of this perspective is the unified view of human nature (see FB 7, The Nature of Humanity). In the Adventist view, which increasing numbers of scholars consider the biblical view, body and “soul” are necessarily interconnected, the one cannot live without the other. When the body dies, therefore, all consciousness ceases. There are no thoughts or plans without the body, and there is no return to life without the body, hence a bodily resurrection is needed for life to return.

In spite of its strong biblical foundation, this is one of the most controversial of Adventist doctrines in the wider world. Major figures like Rob Bell and Nancy Murphy, who have adopted positions on death similar to Adventists, have faced more opposition on this issue than any other. Many people recoil from the doctrine because it seems to take away the assurance that “mom is in heaven now.” The idea that the person is “asleep” in death does not strike them as comforting. But in fact, the Adventist teaching takes nothing away and gives much in return. If the person is completely unconscious with no sense of the passage of time, then the next thing the believer experiences after death is the face of Jesus. In their experience their “ascension to heaven” will truly have occurred in an instant. But the bonus in the biblical perspective is that the whole community is resurrected together, at the same time (1 Thess 4:15-18). So the community is preserved. Mom is not up in heaven alone for a time, but is immediately joined in resurrection by all her loved ones, living or dead, at the Second Coming of Jesus.

This fundamental mentions two resurrections, a resurrection of the righteous and a resurrection of the unrighteous, separated by a thousand years. So everyone who ever lived will be resurrected, it is their relation to Jesus that will determine the timing. But an important aspect of the biblical teaching on resurrection is missing. John 5:28-29 is mentioned in the text list because it describes the two resurrections mentioned in the statement. But John 5:24-25 is left out. There resurrection is not just a future bodily event, it becomes a metaphor for the life transformation that occurs when the gospel is received and the Holy Spirit enters the believer’s life. In the words of Paul, believers in Christ can “know the power of His resurrection” (Phil 3:10). The life-giving power of God, which raised Christ from the dead and will one day raise all others, can also bring resurrection life into our experience today. This theme is widespread in the New Testament.

I was once talking with Lyn Behrens, former president of Loma Linda University. She said something quite startling. She said, “I have come to believe that it is possible to die whole.” Death is inevitable in this life, but how one dies matters. It is possible to face death as a whole person in spite of the deterioration of the body. She felt that Loma Linda University should be the place where people can experience a “good death,” if there is such a thing. The biblical doctrine of death and resurrection should not only benefit those who remain living but also those going through the process of dying itself.

In our faculty discussion at the School of Religion, someone raised the issue of “baptism for the dead” (1 Cor 15:29). This mysterious text has baffled scholars through the years, it is a concept unique to that text in Scripture and neither the biblical context nor ancient practices illuminates what Paul was talking about. The most that can be said is that it must have been a local practice of the church at Corinth that Paul wasn’t sure he could buy into, but was willing to use as an illustration of his larger point on death and resurrection. He was meeting them where they were. The core message of 1 Corinthians, which we do understand, is that the resurrection of Christ guarantees the resurrection of those who trust Him. Faith is not for this life only, but is the beginning of a beautiful relationship with God that climaxes in a new order at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12-23).

Thoughts on the Inauguration and Bible Prophecy

I’ll do my best to be non-partisan in my remarks below. Some have wondered if the election of Trump and the threats to the inauguration would have prophetic significance. I would suggest that we tend to blow current events out of proportion, simply because they are what we know and our fears for the future magnify them. A lesson or two from history may be helpful.

John Adams was so contemptuous of Thomas Jefferson that he left the White House in the middle of the night on March 4, 1801, refusing to attend the inaugural ceremony of the man who had vanquished him.

Democrat Samuel Tilden, who won the popular vote in 1876, was urged to lead an army into Washington to stop the “corrupt” handover of power by Congress to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes; luckily, Tilden declined. Nonetheless, Tilden and his backers insisted they had been robbed. President Hayes was thereafter called “His Fraudulency.”

So bitter was the rivalry between Herbert Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt that they said not a word to each other during the 1933 inaugural drive from the White House to the Capitol. Hoover and Roosevelt never reconciled, and they hurled insults at one another with regularity. The last three paragraphs are are deeply indebted to a brilliant essay posted earlier today: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_larry_j_sabato/the_end_of_the_beginning.

As riveting as the current election and its aftermath have been, in many ways it is nothing new, so breathe out slowly everyone, relax, and enjoy the ride, wherever it leads. Prophecy is not concerned with the ins and outs of political intrigue. It is written to provide direction and hope to the people of God. No matter how out of control things appear, God is still in control.

Fundamental Belief Number 25 (The Second Coming of Christ)

The second coming of Christ is the blessed hope of the church, the grand climax of the gospel. The Saviour’s coming will be literal, personal, visible, and worldwide. When He returns, the righteous dead will be resurrected, and together with the righteous living will be glorified and taken to heaven, but the unrighteous will die. The almost complete fulfillment of most lines of prophecy, together with the present condition of the world, indicates that Christ’s coming is near imminent. The time of that event has not been revealed, and we are therefore exhorted to be ready at all times. (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; John 14:1-3; Acts1:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:1-6; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; Rev. 1:7; 14:14-20; 19:11-21.) (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; John 14:1-3; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Cor. 15:51-54; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:1-6; 2 Thess. 1:7-10; 2:8; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; Rev. 1:7; 14:14-20; 19:11-21.)

There was just one minor change in this fundamental in San Antonio, the word “imminent” was changed to “near” because the latter word is a biblical term, the former is not. As with the other FBs, the biblical reference texts have been reorganized.

We cannot overestimate the importance of the doctrine of the Second Coming to Adventist theology and experience. For many Adventists this is probably the single most important of all the fundamentals. At the very center of Adventism is the conviction that whether or not we live until the Second Coming, the first face we will see is that of Jesus.

While this fundamental speaks about heaven, there is no mention at all of what heaven is or where it is located. The Adventist fundamentals are written for Adventists and often assume things that others would not understand. Adventists have tended to take the Second Coming very literally, hence the location of heaven in the general direction of Orion has been for many an important insight. But the framers of these fundamentals were often wise in leaving out things that were not central or were held by some Adventists but not most.

The imminence of Jesus’ return has been a central theme within Adventism until very recently. Most Adventists have thought that Jesus would return within five or ten years, certainly within their lifetimes. But it is hard to maintain that kind of urgency, certainly not over several generations. This doctrine has also been infused with a lot of fear. The Second Coming is not so much a beacon of hope as a time of trouble and many other horrible things. It is the destruction of wicked people as much as the rescue of the righteous. But as time goes by Adventists are increasingly realizing that the time of trouble theme in the Bible is not nearly as pervasive as the narratives that have grown up around it.

More recently Adventists have assumed more of a New Testament approach to this doctrine, the Second Coming is about a theology of hope. It is the experience of Christ’s presence in the here and now that creates the anticipation of the “then.” The Second Coming provides the vision and incentive for Loma Linda’s mission of healing. So one of the goals of healing at Loma Linda is to provide a down payment on the glorious wholeness of God’s New Earth. While our efforts today can never equal that future, they can provide a foretaste of it. But because of this focus on healing, the how and when of the Second Coming seems less important than the meaning of the Second Coming. The Second Coming means that human suffering, as in refugee camps and Ebola clinics, is not the end of all things. Something better is coming. It is particularly when you lose someone close to you that the theology of hope that we find in the Second Coming becomes more real.

As one reads the end-time texts of the Bible it is helpful to know that the visions of the end that God gave in the Bible were always natural extensions of each prophet’s time and place. As a result, the pictures of the End were constantly shifting and it is wise not to take the details too seriously, as the Pharisees did. The Pharisees had the future so carefully charted out that they rejected the Messiah when He came, because He didn’t fit their prophetic expectations. So it is important to study the prophecies carefully, but not to take the details so seriously that we miss the real thing when it comes.

In many ways, Adventist expectation of the End has been a lot like that of the Early Church. The Early Church passed through a period of intense and imminent expectation followed by a long-term settling in to the mission that Jesus left them. An important delay text is 2 Peter 3. A day with the Lord is like 1000 years. The answers to the delay in the New Testament are great ones, but they are not found in this fundamental or in the texts listed below it (although 2 Peter 3 is mentioned in Fundamental 28).

The doctrine of the Second Coming is important enough to Adventists that four different fundamentals are needed to address different aspects of it (FBs 25-28). And the story does not end with the Second Coming itself. In John 14 and 1 Thessalonians 4, the Second Coming means that we go to God. But at the end of Revelation 20, God comes to us. None of the Second Coming hymns talk about this! God is coming to us. He wants us in heaven, but then when the new earth is renewed, He comes to earth with us! He not only comes to us but He stays with us. In the larger picture of the Bible, God comes to us at least four times; in creation, in salvation, at the Second Coming and at the Third Coming (see also Fundamentals 27 and 28).

Fundamental Belief Number 24 (Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary)

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle that which the Lord set up and not humans man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. At His ascension, He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and (at the time of his ascension, He) began His intercessory ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry, which was typified by the work of the high priest in the most holy place of the earthly sanctuary. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus. The investigative judg­ment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the com­mandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent. (Lev. 16; Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Heb. 1:3; 2:16, 17; 4:14-16; 8:1-5; 9:11-28; 10:19-22; Rev. 8:3-5; 11:19; 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:11, 12.) (Lev. 16; Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6; Dan. 7:9-27; 8:13, 14; 9:24-27; Heb. 1:3; 2:16, 17; 4:14-16; 8:1‑5; 9:11-28; 10:19- 22; Rev. 8:3-5; 11:19; 14:6, 7; 20:12; 14:12; 22:11, 12.)

As you can see, there were a number of changes made in 2015 (the San Antonio General Conference session) toward the beginning of this fundamental. “That” replaces “which” to improve English usage. “Humans” replaces “man” in the service of inclusive language. “At His ascension” is a shifting of position for the idea behind “at the time of His ascension.” Then two major clauses were added to the FB. The original statement mentions Christ’s work of intercession and judgment without tying those acts to the sanctuary typology, where the High Priest ministered in both the holy and most holy places of the earthly sanctuary. These connections are provided by the two lengthy clauses added above. Note that this fundamental does not settle the issue of whether there is a heavenly building (upon which the earthly sanctuaries were modeled) or whether the earthly typifies heavenly realities without requiring a geographical component in heaven. For more on this, see the comments below on the three main views of the sanctuary within Adventism.

Sanctuary/temple language is found all through the Bible. There are sanctuary allusions in the stories of Genesis. Besides Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, references can be found throughout the Psalms, the prophets, the gospels, Hebrews and the book of Revelation. It is one of the richest threads in all of the Scriptures. But while this fundamental focuses on a number of important things, it is critical not to lose the big picture for all the details. Here is the big picture. All religions recognize the darkness of life. Everyone is looking to heaven for a word that we are not alone, that God cares. That is the heart of the sanctuary message. You are not alone. When you hit absolute bottom, it’s not over. You can begin again, God has opened the way. The sanctuary is a huge theme in the Bible and it is experientially very powerful when handled in a biblical way. Until you have fully grasped the darkness of human existence, you cannot fully appreciate the power of the atonement. The cross is not the great exception to how God works, it is the very embodiment of how God works.

In the sanctuary model, intercession is one of the more difficult concepts to understand. It expresses that God somehow sent His Son to be the one in-between even though there was no need to have anyone in between (John 16:23-27). God offers an intercessor because we need it. In reality, however, the Father Himself loves us and delights us to come to him. If the Father Himself had come down and lived among us He would have been no different than Jesus (John 14:9). But God provides what we need even if it isn’t what we think we need. Intercession is one of the ways God assures us that we don’t need to believe lies about Him. We can trust Him because we have seen the trustworthiness of Jesus.

Adventists often struggle with issues of sanctuary and investigative judgment even though these very things were given to us for our encouragement and comfort. What was designed to encourage is often perceived as frightening. But let me summarize the positive side of the Adventist view of the sanctuary. The sanctuary helps us to view reconciliation in two important ways: 1) it helps us become reconciled to God, and 2) it illustrates the reconciliation of the entire universe. Thus the sanctuary is a window into the cosmic conflict and its implications for our daily lives.

Adventists have three main views of the sanctuary. The most traditional view is that the earthly sanctuary represents a literal heavenly building, with two apartments and services much like the earthly. While this is considered an acceptable view for Adventists to hold, it does face a major challenge. There are actually four sanctuaries in the OT (Mosaic tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, Zerubbabel’s temple and Ezekiel’s temple) and each of them is different. Which of these is the true model for the heavenly building? Because of the challenges that come with a literal view, most Adventist scholars see the earthly sanctuaries as representative of heavenly realities, the things that God is doing for our salvation in heavenly places. In this view “heavenly geography” is of lesser importance. What truly counts is the actual work God is doing in our behalf in heaven. This view is also acceptable for Adventists to hold and is the view most clearly implied in FB 24, particularly the new additions, which express this perspective without ruling out the possibility of a literal building in heaven. The third view was articulated by Kellogg, that the earthly sanctuaries represent what God is doing in our hearts. While that connection is clearly taught in the NT and by Ellen White, Kellogg’s view has fallen out of favor because of its presumed association with pantheism and Kellogg’s seeming denial of a heavenly sanctuary (although historical research has questioned whether or not these accusations are fair).

One Adventist leader recently said, no doubt provocatively, “I love the sanctuary but, I hate the sanctuary doctrine.” In its traditional form it doesn’t seem to address the deepest needs of today. Intercession based on fear may encourage study and investigation, but it doesn’t often lead to the joy and celebration that the bigger biblical picture of the sanctuary supports (see Luke 15 as an example). The beauty of the sanctuary is that there are so many paths to God illustrated there. There are lots of mini-stories that all point toward the big story.

Many other religions struggle with the concept of redemption. If human need is all about law-breaking, then if God hadn’t given the Ten Commandments there would be no need of an atonement. But if the core issue addressed by the sanctuary is relationship, it changes how we look at the doctrine. The sanctuary is all about reconciliation with God (2 Cor 5), drawing us back to the One who gave the sanctuary for that very purpose.

One side note that should be mentioned here is the desire of some sincere and faithful Seventh-day Adventists to practice the feast days of the Jewish calendar (Passover, Pentecost, Feast of Tabernacles, new moons). This FB makes no mention of this perspective at all, positive or negative. So the practice of the feast days is neither required nor forbidden by Adventist doctrine. How shall we relate to feast-keeping enthusiasm then? The lack of mention in this FB suggests that it is OK to practice these things and to even encourage others to follow them as a spiritual benefit. But when people seek to make these a requirement for all Adventists or all Christians, it tends to divide people and their churches. So “enthusiasts” should be cautioned to practice and share in such a way that it does not divide. Should they ignore that advice, churches and conferences may be tempted to discipline them on the grounds of schism (dividing the church) rather than theology.

The Loma Linda perspective recognizes that the sanctuary is one of the many and various ways (Heb 1:1) that God has tried to communicate with us (see also PP 364). So its significance should not be overplayed, especially since in its typical form it does not appeal to most people. At the same time, we should not be embarrassed about the sanctuary’s seeming irrelevance to most people today. This is our story. This is how the Adventist people found their way to God. It doesn’t have to be an either/or, either accept the tradition in every detail or throw it out entirely. Even if most people never figure out the depths of the sanctuary story (my own mother was an Adventist for seventy years when she confessed to me that she had no clue how to explain the doctrine to anyone else), it doesn’t have to be universal. It is one of many metaphors that Scripture provides for us to understand God and the way that He is reconciling us to Himself.

Seventh-day Adventists in FB 24, therefore, bear witness to one of the richest themes in all of Scripture. If we were to stop pointing to the sanctuary, it might be totally ignored by all readers of the Bible. So even if aspects of this doctrine don’t appeal to many or most people today, it is a witness worth preserving.