Question 3: Why does Revelation

NEW SERIES TO AIR EACH WEEK FOR 7 WEEKS! This clip is taken from a larger interview conducted 2 years ago. Enjoy!
__________________________________________________
REFUTATIONS OF SEVEN THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS, QUESTION 3.
OBJECTION: If there is a heavenly Sanctuary, why does Rev. 21:22 say that John saw “no temple therein?”
RESPONSE: The reason for this claim is to attack the very biblical, yet distinctly Adventist understanding that there is a Heavenly Sanctuary of which the earthly one was modeled after. But the critic has not taken various things into account:
A. Moses was told to make the earthly Sanctuary “according to the pattern showed to you on the mountain” (Heb. 8:5, cf. Exo. 25:9). Since Paul said that there is a very real, or “true” Sanctuary in heaven which the Lord “erected” (Heb. 8:2), and since the heavenly Sanctuary had to also be anointed with blood (Heb. 9:19-23), it follows that there are real and true Sanctuary articles in heaven, otherwise they could not be neither “erected” nor “anointed.”
B. Revelation is littered with sanctuary imagery in heaven. For example, Jesus walks among the seven candlesticks in Revelation 1. In Revelation 4-5, Jesus is described as appearing in the Holy Place of the sanctuary in heaven (Rev. 5:6). We know this because these chapters describe the candlesticks and bowls of incense, articles which were found in the Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary (Rev. 4:5, 5:8). In Revelation 11:19, a view is given to John of the Most Holy Place in heaven where he sees the “ark of the covenant” and Rev. 15:5 literally describes a tabernacle in heaven where the testimony (Ten Commandments) are housed. Notice: “And after that I looked, and, behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.”
C. Finally, there are other portions in the scriptures where a heavenly sanctuary is described. I’ll give you two. In Psalms 102:19, David wrote, “For he hath looked down from the height of his sanctuary; from heaven did the LORD behold the earth.” (see also Psa. 11:4) and in Isaiah 6, the prophet sees a vision of God in a heavenly Temple by a heavenly Altar.
So, why does John suddenly say that there was “no temple in it” in Revelation 21:22? Because the context is describing, not heaven, but New Jerusalem! See: verses 9-21, and verse 23.
I want to quickly answer a follow up question I typically get from critics. How do I differentiate between what is obviously not literal and what is literal in Revelation? After all, while Revelation does describe a Heavenly Temple, it also describes a dragon with seven heads and ten horns.
First, as I just described, the scriptures indicate that what Moses was shown in heaven were to be replicated on earth in the wilderness (Heb. 8:5). Since Paul said that there is a very real, or “true” Sanctuary in heaven of which the Lord “erected” (Heb. 8:2), and since the heavenly Sanctuary had to also be anointed with blood (Heb. 9:19-23), it follows that there are real and true Sanctuary articles in heavenly, otherwise they could not be neither “erected” nor “anointed.”
The second hermeneutical point is one of logic. If I can compare what is in Revelation to actual things on earth that I myself can see and feel, they are real. For example, candlesticks are something I can see and feel, as are thrones, doors, altars, etc. But a dragon with 7 heads, souls under an altar, etc, these are obviously symbolic, as those things do not actually exist. And in this manner, we are able to decipher between that which is not literal, and that which is. Either way, it is all “symbolic,” yet real things can be symbolic. So, the attempt to make the Heavenly Sanctuary something that is not real in heaven fails against these two hermeneutical principles.
READ THE ARTICLE! REFUTATIONS OF SEVEN THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS: adventistdefen...

[@Remnant144000]

Truth. Press forward!

[@rogermetzger7335]

I believe other followers of Jesus and I are called to encourage people to trust him. I’m not called to convince or convert anyone. That is the office of the Holy Spirit.
I am, however, interested in how other people understand various Bible topics - which is why I watched this video.
I can’t imagine there is any value in arguing for or against the temple in heaven being “real” or “literal” but it is curtain that people who read the “whole” protestant Bible are more likely to think of it as real than people who read only the Gospels and the Epistles.
Watching this video was a difficult experience, even for someone who is inclined to think of the temple in heaven as a real or literal temple.
I keep attending the worship services of various congregations in various denominations because I’m looking for congregations whose services are of such a nature that I could invite other people to attend services with me. Such congregations were relatively easy to find forty or fifty years ago. There seem to be much fewer now.
One of the things that makes me cringe (and makes me unlikely to invite visitors) is preachers who punctuate their sermons with a word that sounds like it is intended as a question - “Amen?”
The word, “Right?” as used in this video falls in that same category. Once or twice would be one thing. Nearly once per minute in a twelve-minute video is __________ (fill in the blank).

[@onesneak7668]

Can't get more confusing than this

[@vegacool1]

Because there isnt...

[@FishermensCorner]

Hey man, I haven't seen you in a while. After years of reading your ridiculous comments, I recently became a Seventh-Day Adventist. I uploaded my testimony, thanking people like you.

[@vegacool1]

@@FishermensCorner that's so sweet, you are definitely loving your neighbor. 😜

[@FishermensCorner]

@@vegacool1 I know, it's awesome. Law of Christ, I'm giving a sermon on that in a month.