How to Present the Investigative Judgment
In several previous posts we noted that the Investigative Judgment builds on two other Adventist doctrines – Biblical Arminianism and Soul Sleep. Second, we saw that in the Sanctuary, Adventists have a solid basis for assurance. I also shared the rationale behind the Adventist perspective on the Close of Probation.
Image © Justinen Creative from GoodSalt.com
In this article I want to describe a better approach for sharing the Investigative Judgment with others. I will call it the Pyramid Approach.
Think for a second about the last time you gave a Bible study on the Investigative Judgment to someone without an Adventist background. Chances are you started with the prophecies of Daniel 7, 8 & 9, you then moved to the book of Hebrews and cross-referenced this with Leviticus, and finally, you introduced the idea of a pre-advent Investigative Judgment. Now there is nothing wrong with this approach in and of itself as it mimics the path that Adventists took to first discover the doctrine. But this approach opens the way for critics to create doubt regarding this doctrine on the grounds that the doctrine rests on too complicated a foundation. There are too many variables, any of which, if wrong, would allegedly cause the entire doctrine to collapse.
But in reality, as explained in the first article, this doctrine rests on much more solid a foundation than our critics insinuate: It rests on an Arminian understanding of the Protestant gospel. We believe that salvation is by grace through faith, and that human beings have free will both to accept Christ and to later reject Him, if they so choose. What distinguishes us from other Arminian denominations is the belief that people rest in their graves until the resurrection and, therefore, a judgment to differentiate between who remained in Christ and who did not, does not need to take place until right before the Second Coming.
So going with our pyramid analogy, the foundation of the pyramid is firmly established in Biblical Arminianism and Soul Sleep. When it comes to the timing of the Investigative Judgment, however, we have only established that it must take place some time shortly prior to the second coming. But before going to Daniel 8 to pinpoint the exact dates, as most Bible teachers often do, I recommend first determining a more general time frame for when this pre-Advent judgment should be expected. Is there any reason in Scripture to expect a judgment some time around 1844 besides the Daniel 8 passages? If so, this would constitute the second level of our pyramid. Thus, when the tip of the pyramid (the 2300 day prophecy) is set in place, it can rest on top of an already solid structure.
Consider with me that when the Bible is read chronologically, there is at every step a general expectation for the unfolding of the next set of events. Abraham expected that his descendants would live in a far country for some time. The Israelites in Egypt expected to return to Canaan some day. When captive in Babylon, the Hebrews expected that Jerusalem would be rebuilt. The people in Jesus’ time were expecting the Messiah to come. In the same way, the Christian church was also founded on a set of expectations. Before departing, Jesus promised to return one day and take His followers home. Unlike previous Bible promises, however, where these expectations were realized after a few generations at most, we have been waiting for Jesus’ promise for two millennia now. As rational beings, we have to ask ourselves if the Bible provides any sort of explanation regarding how much longer we can expect to wait. Is there any kind of timeline for Christ’s return, or is there a good chance we could still be waiting for Him 10,000 years from now? 50,000 years from now?
This isn’t some unimportant question we can just ignore or something we have no business asking, like some Christians insist. If all through the Bible God’s promises were fulfilled in a timely manner, thus giving the people of that time evidences on which to hang their faith, it stands to reason that there should be some explanation for why Christ’s promise has not seen fulfillment for so long. Especially is this the case in this era of scientific advancement when people have been taught to expect satisfactory evidence before being asked to believe something.
And the Bible does give us a general idea of God’s timeline even before consulting the prophetic passages. The apostle Paul explains in 2 Thessalonians that something needs to take place before Christ can return:
‘…we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled… as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.’ 2 Thess. 2:1-3 KJV
The reign of the Antichrist is mentioned here as the delay factor – that thing which must take place before Jesus could return.
Now consider with me that in the books of Daniel and Revelation, there is one time period that appears seven different times (in various formats):
- Daniel 7:25 He shall speak great words against the most high, and shall wear out the saints of the most high, and think to change times and laws — and they shall be given into his hands until a time and times and the dividing of a time.
- Daniel 12:7 It shall be for a time, times, and half a time that he can scatter the power of the holy people.
- Revelation 11:2 The holy city they tread under foot forty and two months.
- Revelation 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophecy a thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.
- Revelation 12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.
- Revelation 12:14 And the woman was given wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
- Revelation 13:5 And there was given to the beast a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and power was given to him to continue forty and two months.
So it is evident that if we get nothing else out of Bible prophecy, this time period is definitely one thing that God wants us to understand. Nonetheless, the Christian world is virtually silent when it comes to providing a coherent explanation for what this time period means and why it is so important. Adventists, on the other hand, do have a very sound explanation for this time period and it becomes immediately evident why this period is important: it refers to the reign of the Antichrist which, even without specific dates, has to fall somewhere between 500 AD and 1800 AD. Anyone who disagrees with our interpretation is obligated to first provide a better explanation since it cannot be denied that God is going out of His way to bring this time period to our attention.
In summary, the foundation of our Investigative Judgement doctrine is firmly planted in Arminianism and Soul Sleep. This already tells us to expect the judgment some time prior to Christ’s coming. Paul tells us that the ‘man of sin’ or antichrist must come before Christ can return and Daniel/Revelation tell us his reign ends around the 1800’s. Thus, before ever opening Daniel chapter 8, we already have the general time frame when the Investigative Judgment must begin. And therefore, the chances are extremely high that we are also correct in our interpretation of the specific dates.
(15)
Print/PDF/Email
Thanks for this, Mike. I believe it is important to present the Investigative Judgment in the context of our whole understanding of biblical beliefs, and you have provided a good basis for doing so.
I was wondering why there were no comments on this topic, and when I checked it was clear that it was because no comment form appeared due to an error in publishing this post.
I trust that some of our readers will share their ideas now that the comment form is visible.
Suppose I had no biblical background, how do you justify 500 to 1800 for dates? Why not 33?
You can look up the history of the Holy Roman Empire. While it's not always easy to pinpoint exact dates for something like this in history since empires don't come to power over night, the timeframe would have to be somewhere between 500 and 1800 AD.
Paul who wrote the "except there come a falling away" also wrote vs 7. "already".
I can see how in that day they were confused and saw that Jesus would come at any time. I live on the other side of 1798 and Berthier, the man who pulled down the throne at the behest of Napoleon.
The problem with these historical events is that the tides of humanity cannot read. They do not relate men's actions to the heavenly realm. If God set a timetable in Dan and Revelation, it's for our GOOD. It's a warning and a promise... " this is where you should look, ye modern wise men. Seek the Savior HERE! "
Much of the nominalist denominations wrote their theology/doctrine prior to 1800. Those glasses don't change, but the progression towards our deliverance demands a new perspective.
A one room Sanctuary is much the same as once saved always saved. Our perspective drives the value of Dan 7:9, 13. The Father sat, then the Son moved to him. What once was fluid is becoming fixed. The books were in progress, are soon to be finished. The result is Dan 7:14: a finished kingdom. Jn 18:36. No earthly war determines the finish of that kingdom...
Sorry, but not sure what you are trying to say.
I know nothing about Dutch Reform theology or Calvinism. If anyone is interested in Solo scriptura, I would be inclined to discuss something pertinent to our understanding of 2Tim.3:15,16 and 2Peter 1:20,21.
Hi Paul,
Sola Scriptura is a great principle and one that we need to apply, particularly in our discussion of the Investigative Judgement. However we all know that there are many churches who also claim Sola Scriptura and use it as an assertion to claim that what they believe is right.
We all come to our beliefs carrying baggage from our upbringing and education. It is well known that in the pre-Seventh-day Adventist formative years there were several heated discussions carried on in meetings and tracts concerning major issues of belief. Each participant holding that they were arguing from Scripture. Each person reflected their own background and understanding into the discussion. The fact that they reached any consensus at all is I believe due to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Against that background, it is worth looking at the doctrine of the Investigative Judgement. Many of us have been Seventh-day Adventists for a long time (for some of us that means 3,4 or 5 generations) and all too often we have grown up with and accepted Adventist doctrine as a given and have not had to face the issue of discovery and development, that our forefathers did. We already have the mindset that it is correct.
The Investigative Judgment came to the Adventist Church from discussions among people who had a spectrum of beliefs (all claiming Sola Scriptura) from Calvanism to Arminianism. They had to argue among themselves about it and pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Not everyone was convinced and there were many who simply gave up on the discussion and went away.
With that background in mind, it is a worthwhile study to examine the background and precursors that lead us to the Investigative Judgement. We should then have the opportunity to decide for ourselves, whether we are kidding ourselves that the Investigative Judgement is Sola Scriptura or not.
I know that many of us would like to think that we have an "a priori" argument for the IJ. We do not have that luxury because we are already the result of our history. We therefore have to take the "a posteriori" approach and examine the pathways that led us to where we are. If we are careful and critical in our examination then we may be able to claim Sola Scriptura with some justification.
Hi Maurice
I agree with most if not all of what you have mentioned. I am probably less interested in some facets of historical interest, and would know what appeals to some, quite naturally appeals to others. To some including myself, are not lettered theologically, and must trust God to lead where He would have us go. Differences of opinion regarding scripture as you have noted have existed for longer than we might imagine. A current viewpoint might be,the form of liturgy that has changed in some worship services as progressive, have cause for what may be seen as acceptable or not, depending on ones persuasion. Sola scriptura for me says, if I understand everything that God has for me, which I do not, then as was promised, the Holy Spirit is sent to guide us into all Truth.
Paul, I think you're talking apples and paper bags, or something like that. Liturgy is not prescribed in the Bible. It is cultural tradition.
"Sola scriptura" is intended to convey that the Bible alone is our rule of faith and doctrine. It cannot be used to support liturgy or music or style of clothing.
Going back to the subject: It is probably wise not to comment on topics about which you "know nothing." (Your words.) Instead, it may be more profitable to read prayerfully and seek to learn.
i am personaly blessed by your vivid explanation about our doctrine as Adventist regarding the Investigative Judgement. Thank Mike
Thank you
[Moderator's Note: We do not usually publish links with little commentary, but sometimes a bit of music does the heart good. Enjoy!]
Jesus as our High Priest and its effects explained brilliantly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ6QaZcPphM
Last Sabbath, while teaching the lesson which included the the Final Judgment, I spent a little time reviewing the Investigative Judgment, mentioning that it was a doctrine much questioned both inside and outside the church. (I noticed some vigorous head nodding.) I used your approach of demonstrating the necessity of some kind of investigative judgment, given our belief in free will and Christ bringing His reward with Him at the Second Advent. From what I could tell, this approach was really helpful, as everyone could see the logic of it.
I also compared the Investigative Judgment to an Investigative Hearing, which is part of our court system in this part of the world: An investigative hearing is held to determine whether there is a case against the accused. And in the spiritual realm, there is no case against the accused when we are "in Christ" because He takes our place. Case dismissed! Thus those who are "in Christ" never have to enter into judgment. (The only question to be determined is whether or not they are actually "in Christ.")
That's good Inge. I agree with the 'In Christ' idea in principle but don't use it much because people don't always know what to make of it. 'How do I know if I'm in Christ or not? Is it just a decision I made a long time ago? Is it a daily decision where I can be in and out of Christ 50 times in a day and then I have to worry about being unlucky enough to die at the wrong moment?'
I agree with Mike Manea that it is best to build on a protestant foundation before introducing the doctrine that the 2300 days ended in 1844. I submit, further, that it is best to build on a protestant foundation before trying to explain what occurred (or began) in 1844.
My parents were adventists before I was born (1944). I grew up thinking of adventists as being more protestant than members of other denominations. I still think there are thousands (and there may well be hundreds of thousands) of adventists who are more protestant than members of other denominations.
Between 1846 (the publication date of the famous Day Star extra by Crosier) and 1888, there was so much emphasis on what Ellen White would later call, “the law, the law, the law”, perhaps it should come as no surprise that the language employed by adventists for explaining the cleansing of the sanctuary was designed to encourage law keeping.
I think we should continue to emphasize law keeping but only in ways that are compatible with protestant principles. Which means that we should rethink HOW the cleansing of the sanctuary is explained. To the extent that the explanation can be consistent with protestant principles, protestants in other denominations will find it much more attractive.
It wasn’t until I was in my thirties that I thought I could explain the cleansing of the sanctuary in ways that were compatible with protestant principles. Over the years, I have encountered a number of adventists who have taught things that are not essential to that doctrine as I understand it--things that create significant barriers to dialogue between protestant adventists and other protestants. Examples include the adventist who told me the core of the adventist message is that “Satan is our sin-bearer”, the teacher of an adult Sabbath School class who insisted that no one’s sins are forgiven until his name comes up in the investigative judgment and the teaching that God will arbitrarily close human probation.
The subject of building adventist doctrines on bedrock protestant principles deserves much more study.