Cleansing Tobiah’s Chambers

I went over a few of that person’s presentations at random. They provide a case study of the risk represented in some well-meaning laymen. I have nothing against this person, nor is it my purpose to embarrass. I will not directly identify him. But our study today is an opportunity to discover principles that will help us better discern truth from error; that will serve us well throughout our lives. Today, I want to be Berean with you, and to share tools to help enable us to weigh for ourselves what is wheat and what is chaff. Remember—I chose the presentation we now review very much at random. I know not what may be contained in his many other presentations. The same errors in method tend to be found throughout all a writer's work, for these are the errors that he remaisn themost unaware of.

Background

The presentation we compare with Scripture is titled, “The Applications of the Outer Court.” The indicated basis for the studies of the presenter is the sanctuary.

But first, let’s orient ourselves with the sanctuary diagram we are familiar with (Handout, p. 1, #1). See here the sanctuary in overhead view. The bottom part of the diagram is east, the top, west. There is one entrance into every space, always from east to west (here, bottom to top). The largest space is the courtyard. In the east side of the courtyard you have the bronze altar of sacrifice. Closer to the center, you have a circle representing the laver, a fount for the priest’s hands and feet to be washed.

Just west of the laver is a rectangular building with two apartments. The first room is the Holy Place, in which are three key items: the table of shewbread on the north side, the seven-branched golden candlestick on the south, and the incense altar just in front of the veil separating the Holy apartment from the last room, the one farthest west, called the Most Holy Place. In the Most Holy Place you have one center of attention: the ark of the covenant with lid. Atop the lid, representations of two golden angels facing each other. Inside the ark are two tables of stone inscribed with the Ten Commandments. Just above the lid hung the Shekinah glory, the visible manifestation of God.

What we have just described is the basic design of the sanctuary with Tabernacle. This is the pattern that Seventh-day Adventists have used for many years to teach the truths surrounding the sanctuary on earth and in heaven. We have used this pattern on the principle of, “crowd in the clear-cut truth” (Evangelism, p. 195).

We also want to be careful with our terminology. The sanctuary and the Tabernacle are not the same. Sanctuary, literally, "holy place," (MIQDOSH, or sometimes simply QDOSH) refers to the whole of the complex: courtyard, altar of burnt offering, laver, Tabernacle, and everything inside. It all has to do with making it possible for God to dwell in the midst of His people in a sin-impacted environment (Exodus 25:8).

The Tabernacle (MISHKAN) is specifically the tent with the two apartments designated Holy and Most Holy. Yet another word is used for the clothe hangings and poles surrounding the courtyard, and which the Jewish translation (JPS) calls the “enclosure”: HATZIR. HATZIR is used with other words in later times to designate more specific locations within the sanctuary compound.

We should be careful not to confuse Tabernacle with Temple. Remember, the wilderness Tabernacle and sanctuary is only one of five similar structures spoken of in inspired writings (Handout, p. 2, #3):

1. Original wilderness Tabernacle and sanctuary (c. BC 1250 - 957)
2. Solomon’s Temple (c. BC 957 - 586)
3. Second Temple (c. BC 538 - 20)
4. Herod’s Temple (second temple renovated c. BC 20 - 70 AD)
5. Third Temple (Ezekiel’s Temple—described in Ezekiel chs. 40-46, never built).

The temples differ somewhat in form from the wilderness Tabernacle.

A Novel Theory

Now, onward to the theories of the earnest presenter. At the beginning of his message, he says that because the Bible speaks of an “outer court,” this implies the existence of an “inner court.” But he immediately asserts that the inner court is the Tabernacle structure itself; not anything or any space in the courtyard, but the actual Tabernacle.

Let’s make this clear in our minds. On your handout, you have the Seventh-day Adventist understanding on the left (Handout, p.1, #1). The bulk of the rectangular area is called the court or the courtyard. Not the “outer court.” There is no “outer” court in the original wilderness sanctuary; only a court. If you have a writing instrument, take it now and write “court” or “courtyard” there in the largest space. You can also write “Tabernacle” there where the Holy and Most Holy Place rooms are in the smaller rectangle on the uppermost portion of the schematic.

Now switch your focus to the identical schematic on the right side. We can add his theory here by writing “Outer Court” in the space where the court is, and “Inner Court” in the space where the Tabernacle is. By the way, he agrees that the Tabernacle is there too, but he designates that space also as the "inner court." Now there are two ideas on your page side-by-side. Does it matter that they are different? Isn’t there room, according to the Bible, for both interpretations?

Let’s study the Bible. Consider

• 2 Chronicles 4:9 (court of the priests, great court, that is, “inner court” and “outer court,” cf. Jeremiah 19:14; 26:2).
• 1 Kings 6:36 (inner court)
• Jeremiah 36:10 upper court (that is, the “inner court”).
• Jeremiah 35:4 (chamber of the officials)
• Ezekiel 8:16 (inner court)

These passages inform us about the "inner court." Not during the time of the wilderness Tabernacle, but in following Temples, an additional walled space was built surrounding the Holy and Most Holy Places in the Temple. In its sides were additional chambers. Scholars remain uncertain exactly where the court was divided between the “outer court” and “inner” (2 Chronicles 4:9; 1 Kings 7:12).

Additional Bible information is found when we turn to Ezekiel’s explanation of the Third Temple and the inner court (Ezekiel 40:44). (KJV: “And without [i.e. outside] the inner gate were the chambers of the singers in the inner court. . .” ESV: “On the outside of the inner gateway there were two chambers in the inner court. . .” JPS: “There were chambers for the singers in the inner forecourt. . .”) Look at a diagram of the Second or Third Temple. While questions remain concerning the exact details, at least one item is agreed upon by almost everyone: the inner court contains the altar of sacrifice and the laver; none place these in the outer court. (For example, on your Handout, on p. 2, #4, with the four renditions of the Second Temple, about half the total space is devoted to a square to the east of the Tabernacle structure—the bottom half of each rendition.) This is also the way the Temple was organized in the time of Christ.

Even if the presenter missed all those Bible passages, there is this from Ellen White (Handout, p. 2, #5):

In the temple at Jerusalem there was a partition wall separating the outer court from the inner one. Gentiles were permitted to enter the outer court, but it was only lawful for the Jews to penetrate to the inner enclosure. Had a Samaritan passed this boundary, the temple would have been desecrated, and his life would have paid the penalty of its pollution (Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 2, pp. 149, 150).

Here, then, is a problem: the presenter ignores the biblical information, which cannot be reconciled with his assertion that the Tabernacle structure itself is the inner court. He fails to investigate well documented alternative understandings, and proclaims as certainties his own notions.

By only being more careful, he could have avoided this problem. He could have asked himself why Adventists have not blended representations of the four temples with the wilderness Tabernacle, and he could have studied more closely what the Bible and Ellen White say about the inner and outer courts.

Alas, the central premise of his message (as we shall see, that there is are prophecies disclosed by the laver and the altar of burnt offering because they are located in the “outer court”) is destroyed by the fact that they are not located in the outer court.

Separation of Worship and Purification

The presenter’s next error follows. He states that the outer court “housed the articles of purification” while the inner court “contained the articles for worship.” But this purification vs. worship dichotomy is a false distinction. Purification was involved in what happened in the courtyard and in what happened in the Most Holy Place. Worship also occurred in both places. In the Temples the addition of a further subdivided space between its Holy/Most Holy Place structure, and outer or great court with bronze altar of sacrifice, did not mean that one place was for worship and the other for purification. Is it not clear from the Bible that these as well, actually, everything connected to the sanctuary—involve worship?

The presenter makes the bronze altar of sacrifice and the laver, on the eastern end of the courtyard in the wilderness sanctuary, part of the “outer” court. But in the Bible (for example, in Ezekiel 40:28-43), it is clear that these are positioned in the “inner court.” The presenter seeks to find “prophecies” in the “outer court,” but his arbitrary separation between “worship” and “purification” conventiently means that he does not need to find them in the “inner court.”

Here then, another problem: the introduction of false, arbitrary distinctions.

Blank-Check Prophecy Mechanism

Next, the presenter asserts that the sanctuary is “prophetic in nature.” Certainly, the earthly sanctuary serves as a type of the heavenly sanctuary. We understand that God has arranged prophetic time periods that are connected with certain movements of Jesus in Heaven in God’s process of judgment and atonement. But we need to be careful. If we declare that the sanctuary is “prophetic in nature,” not being careful to specify precisely what we mean by that, any number of aspects of the sanctuary could be claimed to mean many things that the Bible never suggests. (As an aside, it is interesting that Ellen White never uses such wording when she speaks about the sanctuary.)

There are those who, all well-meaning, “find” all manner of “messages” which they declare to be truth. And yet, often these are not made clear by Scripture, or even implied. Our task is neither creative guesswork nor theory-spinning.

The presenter includes with his assertion that the sanctuary is “prophetic in nature,” this precious text: Amos 3:7:

“Surely the Lord God will do nothing but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Following which, the presenter adds, “One can safely deduct that this sanctuary, revealed to Moses the prophet, was, in and of itself, prophetic in nature.”

Amos did say that God reveals His secrets to His prophets. And, Moses was a prophet of God. And, the sanctuary is used by God in connection with certain prophetic developments. There is a type (on earth) and an antitypical original sanctuary (in heaven). But let’s pause to study Amos chapter three.

Israel has sinned (3:1). Now God speaks a word against her. A series of seven questions are asked. Typical is this from verse six: “Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?” After seven such statements—all making clear that when A happens, B inevitably follows—comes the declaration that God reveals to His prophets what He is about to do. Verse eight sums the warning: “The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?” With verse nine, Amos completes the oracle—a sweeping prophetic before-telling of the judgment about to be sent against the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

That is, Amos three itself is not teaching that everything that God does in His interaction with humans is preceded by a detailed prophetic declaration. Rather, God gives warning when a major episode of judgment is imminent. It is true in a general sense that God gives warnings of many things that He does at hinge-points in history. But it would be pushing Amos 3:7 farther than its context permits to view it as offering a prophetic “blank check.”

Still, one may argue that 3:7 says that God will not act without giving warning through His prophets. The text says that He does “nothing” unless He first warns. Here we take care. The object is not to take the word literally. Many things in the Bible are indeed to be so taken, but many are figurative, or involve rhetorical devices.

Genesis 3:14 sentences the serpent to eat dust all the days of his life. Snakes do not eat dust. The Bible says that after Jesus’ crucifixion His body would be in the earth “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40), but it was literally in the ground only two nights. The rabbit is described as an unclean animal that chews the cud (Leviticus 11:6). Rabbits do not chew cud; they only appear to. What Moses was saying was not that the rabbit chews the cud but he was identifying this animal in part by its visually distinctive jaw movement while chewing.

What we want is not necessarily a literal reading of the Bible, but to understand the meaning intended by the author of the writing. (Naturally, Ellen White understood this. Her counsel was, “Do not overstrain the meaning of sentences of the Bible in an effort to bring forth something odd in order to please the fancy” (Selected Messages, vol. 1, p.170).

The Amos passage does not suggest that the various details mentioned in the Scriptures in the construction of the Tabernacle must contain some prophetic message. Nevertheless, what happens as the presenter offers his teaching? He very loosely defines the sanctuary as being "prophetic in nature," because he will next extract “prophecies” from certain items. Here is a another serious problem: the arbitrary assignment of matters not clearly and specifically identified in the Bible as prophecies as being prophecies.

Tortured Argumentation

The presenter offers further inconclusive argumentation in favor of parts of his views. We will not track all of that here. He does point to Isaiah 46:9, 10 and then, arbitrarily, to Psalm 77. Isaiah says that God tells of the things of the end before they happen. And yes, He does. But Asaph is not addressing such questions in Psalm 77:13.

Psalm 46 does not say that God reveals everything ahead of time, but that some things are revealed. Psalm 77 should be understood as a whole. In its first portion, the psalmist despairs as he feels that God has forgotten him, and no longer acts on behalf of Israel. But the last portion shows that whether God acts as one desires Him to or not, He did act for Israel in the past. God’s way is in the sea, when He delivered the Hebrews in the time of Moses. And, His way is in the QDOSH, the “holy,” the “sanctuary.” This is a beautiful truth, that His way is seen in His deliverence of Israel and in His work for our salvation in the sanctuary. But there is no proof here that the sanctuary is embedded with obscure “prophecies” such as those the presenter is about to spring.

After asserting the existence of these prophecies, the presenter uses Matthew 24:3 to indicate that

“The articles, and services, in the ‘outer court’ are prophesying of events that will take place on planet earth, all having to do with ‘purification’—prior to Christ’s Second Coming.”

But Matthew 24:3 has Jesus foretelling events that have to do with certain kinds of signs that will accompany His Second Coming and the end of the world. The passage offers no suggestion that the sanctuary contains hidden prophecies about the end-times. So, another problem: ill-considered argumentation complete with problems in basic logic.

Backwards Prophesying

The presenter comes to the portion of his message that seems to be central to him. He focuses on the laver between the altar and the Tabernacle structure. He claims to find a “prophetic message” “in the construction of the laver.” Regarding the laver, he claims that “the absence of exact measurements is, in itself, a very important message.” He suddenly lands in Jeremiah 5:22-25 and the illustration of God setting boundaries for the oceans but how Israel, in contrast, rejects behavorial boundaries. He believes that in 5:25 the declaration that “your iniquities have turned away these things” means that what has been turned away is “water with boundaries.” This he connects to the lack of measurements (“boundaries”) for the construction of the laver. He points out the laver’s having an upper part for handwashing and a lower fount for foot washing. In this he claims to have “a very clear prophetic message and application”: The laver is used for purification first, so he relates this to Noah’s flood. “The prophecy of the laver,” he says, “was fulfilled in every detail.” That is, the laver, which came long after the flood, was actually a prophecy of the flood.

But Jeremiah 5:22-25 in context is about the disobedience of God’s people and of judgment upon them. And prophecy, by definition, is given before rather than after an event. There is no need to introduce confusion here. Prophecy is very important to us as Adventists. Prophecy is such an extraordinary phenomenon, and the prophecies of Daniel are so powerful, so inescapable in their importance, that many scholars have tried to say that Daniel was not written in the sixth century BC but the second! Such a theory makes Daniel’s prophecies into “prophecies” written after the fact. Were the theory true, it would destroy the power of those prophecies and the authority of the book of Daniel.

Could someone point to the presenter’s theory—that prophecy can refer back to something that happened before it was given—then the strength of God’s prophetic end-time message would be discredited. Put simply, novelties like this are destructive. Nothing is gained by the alleged backwards prophecying, but much lost. This problem? The introduction of novelties in the place of truth. “Backwards prophecy” is an example.

By the way, the flood was not a judgment against God’s people but against unbelievers. We need to be careful so that we do not mix and match these things.

“Prophecy” of the Altar of Burnt Offering

The presenter has one more item. “Just as the prophecy of the ’laver’ was fulfilled,” he says, “so too will the prophecy of the ’altar of burnt offering’ be fulfilled.” He uses texts from 2 Peter, Revelation 20, and 14. His concluding appeal is, “Has the prophecy of the Outer Court spoken to your heart?”

The presenter teaches the necessity of choosing God and of avoiding the fires of final destruction. There will be a final fire; there are flames of destruction to avoid. However, the altar of burnt offering in particular is not a prophecy of this. The altar of burnt offering was a type, and it foretold the offering of Jesus Christ. Thankfully, graciously, Jesus offered Himself on Calvary for us once for all (Hebrews 10:10). He is now present in the heavenly sanctuary as our Intercessor changing us. It is a confusing distraction to make the altar of burnt offering into yet another prophecy. And if one makes it a prophecy of the end-time, it becomes a dual application of some kind. Not helpful.

How much wiser to use the best arguments. Ellen White nailed it:

No one is to put truth to the torture by placing a forced, mystical construction upon the Word. Thus some are in danger of turning the truth of God into a lie (Evangelism, p. 213).

God never contradicts Himself. Scripture proofs are misapplied if forced to testify to that which is not true. Another and still another will arise and bring in supposedly great light, and make their assertions. But we stand by the old landmarks (Selected Messages, vol. 1, 161).

The presence of Scripture proves little. The important question: is it Scripture rightly applied?

Someone said “You cannot lie ever, because a lie destroys the credibility of the product, and credibility is more important than anything” (Frank Luntz).

It is Satan’s work to pervert the investigative powers of the mind. A certain pride is mingled with the consideration of Bible truth, so that men feel impatient and defeated if they cannot explain every portion of Scripture to their satisfaction (Steps to Christ, p. 108).

Here is a problem. Some have struck out on their own to sort minutia. It seems as though they want to explain all the detail if they can. But this is no new development.

We do not suggest that the earnest layperson, whose ideas we have taken as our example case, is motivated by pride. But he seems to have a tendency to try to explain the fine print of Scripture—which is a problem where God has not given fine print. We need not speculate or add to God’s Word. Truth matters. That which is mere speculation, fancy, and sensation, demeans the truth. It is not our work.

Conclusion

And so, to conclude, the “prophecy” of the outer court has not spoken to my heart. Nor can it speak to anyone’s heart; it is no prophecy. Rather, those who endure the presentation are subject to a well-intentioned hodge-podge of notion and speculation presented in God’s name.

Hear this and hear it well:

The unbeliever who comes into such a meeting will evaluate how we reach our conclusions based on the methods we—apparently—use to reach those conclusions. Thus, if the interpretations presented are unsound, we destroy our credibility. They walk away convinced that we do not have anything to tell them about Jesus or Present Truth.

The other issue is that by giving place for bizarre teachings, we train ourselves to be anti-Berean, to accept fables and novelties, to major in minors, and to take the sensational for our food rather than the solid, the uninspired for the inspired. But “many do not realize that "the manner in which Bible truth is presented has much to do with the impressions made upon minds, and with the Christian character afterward developed by those who receive the truth” (Evangelism, p. 168).

Remember the Bible study missteps we noted:

• failing to investigate well-documented points of understanding
• Proclaiming poorly-founded notions as certainties
• The introduction of arbitrary distinctions
• Outright disgareement with Scripture
• Arbitrary declaration that _______ is or has a prophecy
• Introduction of novelties in place of truth

How can Heaven make us Bereans for Jesus if we so mistreat Scripture? Are we mixing the profane with the holy? We must not make the mistake of Eliashib from our Scripture reading (Nehemiah 13:7-9), and open a space for error in our evangelistic presentations. When the wilderness Tabernacle was replaced by the Temple in Jerusalem, a new division was added—the inner and outer courts. The inner court included the altar of burnt offering and the laver, and also, Tobiah the Ammonite was permitted to move his stuff in to the “inner court” (Nehemiah 2:10, 19; 4:3, 7; 6:1, 12, 14, 17, 19; 13:4, 7). If the devil cannot keep us away from the sanctuary teaching, his second-best option is to deceive us into mingling the fanciful and the novel and the sensational with truth. But how much better for Satan if Tobiah moves into the temple complex itself with his household stuff—and if believers permit a mingling of the holy with the unholy.

Our task as restorers of the breach, as standard-bearers for Jesus’ end-time truths, is to train ourselves to be clear-minded in the differences between truth and error, and to be careful about the teaching that goes out in the name of God and His church. Our work is to hold to the clear-cut truth and avoid sideshows. We must be better Bible students, for then we will be better soul-winners. And that is indeed the bottom-line. Truth matters because it is the truth that cuts and the truth that heals; that which is not truth cannot heal, and always leads away from the footsteps of the Way the Truth, and the Life, our Jesus. We must be faithful to Him and not to our fancy. Then and only then we have a message from Heaven. GCO

© 2011 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.

Larry Kirkpatrick has served in the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church since 1994. He is a pastor of the American West, having led churches in Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. His writings include the books Real Grace for Real People, and Cleanse and Close. Larry and wife Pamela presently serve in the Upper Columbia Conference, ministering to the Bonners Ferry and Clark Fork churches in the incomparable beauty of Northern Idaho.