It must not be assumed that the present writer hereby affirms all those positions on the right and denies those on the left. The significance of some of these points will become apparent later. Several have bearing on the nature of inspiration and the issue of inerrancy.
When one considers this list on the right, one wonders how much is left of traditional Adventist sanctuary teaching, and the inevitable inquiry arises: “What should be preached in explaining Dan. 8:14?”
The practical intent of the present document is to attempt an answer to this question which will be intellectually responsible, Biblically defensible, and yet sustain our eschatological understanding of the Day of Atonement as a work of pre-Advent judgment. Obviously, this cannot be accomplished without some divergence from our usual apologetic so readers are invited to shun the hope for a square circle, or a living corpse.
To further motivate the conviction that this project is vital, some straws waving in the wind of recent Seventh-day Adventist history will be plucked.
For approximately twenty years, some leading Seventh-day Adventist scholars have contended that it is impossible to Biblically prove our doctrine of the investigative judgment. (For example, Raymond Cottrell and Don Neufeld. These have so affirmed in the presence of others, but many others have so believed without making public statements. See the articles on the sanctuary and on inspiration in the most recent issue of Spectrum [April, 1980]. This whole edition should be read most carefully by all who are concerned regarding the current sanctuary discussion. Previous numbers of the same journal have also relevant articles.) In 1958, a questionnaire on Dan. 8:14 was sent to twenty-seven of our top men in language and exegesis. All twenty-seven replied that it was impossible to make a linguistic connection between Dan. 8:14 and Leviticus. 16. They pointed out that “cleansed” was a faulty translation, and that “justified” or “restored” was more accurate, though quite unlinked with the Day of Atonement.
On the basis of this questionnaire, F. D. Nichol asked Elder Figuhr for a committee on problems In Daniel a confidential committee which would not keep minutes. For five years the committee met and studied together, but without reaching agreement on the basic problems. Finally, Elder Figuhr declared it was not necessary to make a written report of the findings. To this day, the problems canvassed and postures taken by individual members remain confidential except where those members have publicly expressed themselves.
Few are aware that today most Adventist New Testament scholars admit that Hebrews 9 teaches Christ’s entrance into “the Most Holy Place” at His ascension. These scholars recognize that “within the veil” of Heb. 6:19 refers to the second apartment ministry which, according to Hebrews, Christ had already commenced. They further see that 10:19-20 clearly teaches that identical truth, and likewise 9:8, 12, 24-25. (2)
Both Old and New Testament scholars amongst us frequently confess that it is scripturally impossible to prove the year-day principle, and it is well-known that Dan. 8 and 9 constitute a nest of unsolved exegetical problems. For example, there is no way of demonstrating that Christ died in AD 31, and it is well known amongst scholars that there is no way of proving that the decree of 457 BC is the one referred to in Dan.9:25. There Is nothing in Ezra 7 giving permission to rebuild the city, and Ezra 6:14 and context show that the decree by Artaxerxes concerned the temple and not the city.
One thing is sure unless the church works in this area with promptness and efficiency, the sanctuary doctrine as traditionally taught will become an increasing source of embarrassment, and a cause of loss of membership among both ministry and laity. With our increasing number of graduate students proficient in the original languages of Scripture and the tools of grammatico-historical exegesis, awareness of the problems under consideration is inevitably going to spread and multiply.
W. E. Read in Doctrinal Discussions noted, “The Seventh-day Adventist view of the investigative judgment has come in for a good deal of criticism during the years,” (p. 43). And Edward Heppenstall speaks even more strongly:
Among the friends and critics of Seventh-day Adventists nothing has aroused more discussion and opposition than the teaching of an investigative judgment in heaven reserved for the people of God prior to Christ’s return. For many this doctrine seems to shatter all possibility of assurance here and now and leaves uncertain one’s standing with God. How can a Christian in this life be sure of his destiny and future with God until the pro-Advent judgment has laid bare the facts of each person, and judgment is pronounced? [p. 202]
How shall we understand the “investigative judgment” of God’s people? Such a judgment can hardly mean that God needs to make such an investigation on the presumption that He is ignorant of the facts about His people.
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. 2:19). I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine (John 10:14).
Obviously, there can be no doubt or question in the mind of God concerning those who have kept the faith. Through all the years the saints cannot stand in jeopardy until the judgment hour. What about Enoch, Moses, and Elijah in heaven, and the multitude of captives resurrected when Christ had completed His work on earth, and taken to heaven? Do they have to wait until the pre-Advent judgment begins to learn whether their position in heaven is secure? Do they anticipate the possibility of a reversal of the divine verdict that led God to resurrect and translate them to heaven? Obviously not.
If God needs no investigation, then why have one? If God has known all along who are saved and who are lost, why bring the saints to judgment? If a person is a forgiven, redeemed child of God to the end of his life, why bring up the past for consideration? [pp. 207-208] Why is an investigative judgment of the saints necessary? Did not Jesus teach? ” ‘in very truth, anyone who gives heed to what I say and puts his trust in him who sent me has hold of eternal life, and does not come up for judgment, but has already passed from death to life. ” (John 5:24 NEB)? If Christ promised immunity from judgment to His followers, how can God hold such a judgment without breaking His promise?
Second, we must also take into account that “the Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim.2:19). “I … know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14). According to this, God does not need to postpone His verdict of acquittal concerning His people until the last-day judgment. One can hardly affirm that God is not certain who the saved are until a final formal judgment takes place. For if this were true, how could there be any experience of security for the saints while on earth? Does not their very security here and now rest on the clear assurance that “there is.. no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1)? Are we not commanded here and now to make our calling and election sure (see 2 Peter 1:10)? If even God does not make the final decision until after 1844, how could Paul confidently affirm: “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:8)? How could Paul have been so sure at that time? [p. Page 108).
Not one non-Adventist scholar has ever been favorably impressed by our traditional sanctuary presentation. (So claimed Dr. Raymond Cottrell in his Loma Linda address on the sanctuary, Feb. 20, 1980.) it has been declared “stale, flat, and unprofitable” and a mere “face-saving device.” For example, a leading theological journal has published the following:
Is not the doctrine that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary in Oct., 1844 a pure assumption? It was suggested by Hiram Edson’s vision in the corn field. It was also endorsed by a vision of Mrs. White. Of course, if one holds that those visions were inspired, nothing more is needed. But we wonder if a real biblical justification for the doctrine can be given? Dan. 8:14 states, “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” but the text does not say who shall cleanse it or where the sanctuary is located. The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of a heavenly tabernacle and of Christ entering it. But in Hebrews is not His entrance and atoning work always spoken of as a past fact? Was not His High Priestly intercession continuous from the time of His exaltation? He had already “entered within the veil” at the time when the Epistle was written (Heb. 6:19-20). He was available as a High Priest for the readers of the Epistle (Heb. 4:14-16). “Through his own blood he entered once for all” (not will enter) “into the holy place” (Heb. 9:12). His atoning work is all connected with His death on the cross (Heb. 9:26-28). Note statements like the following: “Christ entered not into the holy place made with hands.., but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). “He, when he had offered one sacrifice for sin forever, sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). “We have such a High Priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle” (Heb. 8:1-2).
But Mrs. White would seem to put Christ’s entrance into the sanctuary in the year 1844.
Now we ask: Why does He delay His coming so long when He started the final judgment in 1844? We feel sure the early Seventh-day Adventists felt that the time till the Advent would be short, but it has been more than 100 years since the judgment started. Why has it not been completed? We do not wish to seem facetious, but we may well ask: Does it take the omniscient Judge more than 100 years to examine the books? Or do we say, man’s probation is still continuing, and He is waiting for more generations to be born and die before the judgment is finished? If so, why did He start the judgment in 1844? Of course, if we had clear biblical teaching that He did start investigation in 1844, we might be content not to know the reason. But since such clear evidence is lacking, we wonder if this problem of the hundredodd years investigation does not call for a new appraisal of the validity of the whole doctrine?
Such criticisms have in recent years moved from the outside of the church to the inside. Years ago, this writer warned the GC that a storm was coming over this topic and that we should begin to prepare. That storm broke at Riverside, California, early in 1979, when R. D. Brinsmead began to circulate his 1844 Re-Examined and to lecture upon its contents. The winds reached Angwin, California, where the Forum of Adventist Scholars requested a public meeting on the topic of the investigative judgment. The October 27 meeting was an attempt to indicate the dimensions of our denominational problems in this area, and to suggest a solution. Some, traumatized by the former, failed to listen to the latter. Thus the present document hopes to remedy that situation, but it is written in tentative spirit, and is accompanied by the request for all available help from its readers.
Limitations
Many of the topics listed in the 19th and 20th century series above would be sufficient challenge on their own for a six-month research project. Indeed, we have not settled a number of them after 130 years of study. Of necessity, strict limitation is needed in this initial presentation. Time alone imposes severe limitations in topics discussed, and in less important themes particularly, the amount of attention given, is of necessity, minimal. We would be happy to study any significant area but not all of them at the same time, and with the vain hope of one tiny mouth sucking the ocean dry at a single intake.
This document is limited chiefly by the key positions taken at the Oct. 27 Forum presentation, where the problem of Heb. 9 was stressed and a solution offered. On that occasion, it was stated that Dan. 8:14 does not have any linguistic connection with the Day of Atonement chapter in Leviticus, and neither does Hebrews in its exposition of the sanctuary refer us back to Dan. 8:14. It was suggested that the well-known theological concepts of inaugurated and consummated eschatology, whereby events to be materially fulfilled in connection with the end of the world had a prior legal application at the cross, offer us a key to our chief problem.
The chapter outline on page 17 indicates the areas treated. Even these limited Themes are actually too many to fully canvass, for any one of them fully developed would require the equivalent of a Ph.D. dissertation. But this writer hopes to say enough to make clear his general direction for purposes of review and evaluation. It is hoped that these pages will pave the way for more thorough subsequent work by other writers and committees.
Particularly, it should be pointed out that chapter six does not propose to cover the ground essayed by F. D. Nichol in Ellen G. White and Her Critics. This writer believes in the divine inspiration of Ellen G. White and her special mission, but he does not here intend to solve all the problems raised by such a faith. Instead, he proposes to chiefly set forth the support he finds in Ellen G. White for the thesis proposed, and to attempt a tentative answer to some urgent problems.
Another aspect of limitation should be emphasized: the first five chapters deal with the topics from scripture only. This is done in deference to the counsel found in Evangelism 356 and many other places.
The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God’s Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word . . – Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. (5)
Our statement of Fundamental Beliefs in the Church Manual assures us that our doctrines are based on Scripture only. It is not the writer’s intention to neglect any of the special guidance given this people, but to keep it in its right place subordinate to Holy Writ, “the only unerring rule of faith and practice” (Fundamental Beliefs, Article 1); “the one unerring guide” (ST 389); “the only infallible authority” (GC 177); the “only sufficient, infallible rule” (GC 173). “The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union” (ISM 416).
Organization
Every theological issue is raised in a historical context and our first chapter offers such orientation. Explanation may be needed for the place of chapter two. The only place in Scripture where the significance of the ministry in the first apartment of the sanctuary is commented upon is Hebrews 9. Similarly, the only place in Scripture where the ministry of the second apartment is didactically expressed is Hebrews 9. Thirdly, the only place in the New Testament where the meaning of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is set forth in Hebrews 9.(6) Yet Adventism has never written a book, or offered a scholarly document, exegeting Heb. 9 with special reference to our sanctuary doctrine. (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary deliberately separates the one from the other, i.e. the Bible chapter from our sanctuary teaching.)
We hope the reader will not pass by these three points on Heb. 9 without givingthem due weight. As Christians, to ignore the only New Testament chapter which actually discusses the themes central to our basic teaching is, to say the least, strange. (7) Hebrews 9 is the divine Word on the meaning of the sanctuary ritual, and anything that conflicts with that explanation cannot be urged upon others as a doctrine to be believed and taught. We must not make the mistake of trying to prove doctrine from types or parables these have a legitimate place in illustrating and enforcing only that which elsewhere is didactically presented in literal terms. Even prophecy must never be so interpreted as to clash with clear apostolic proclamation. Either our basic sanctuary doctrine is found in the New Testament chapter which alone deals with that theme, or it is not found in Scripture at all. This is the rock which has brought untold numbers of thoughtful Seventh-day Adventist ministers to a hard place, including such men as W. W. Prescott, and L. E. Froom. (8)
The reason for chapter three is obvious our prophetic and doctrinal conclusions drawn from Dan. 8:14 must be the fruit of the rules of grammatico-historical interpretation or they are invalid. This chapter suggests that Dan. 9 indeed explains 8:14, and that in Dan. 9 the Day of Atonement in anti-type is clearly predicted.
Chapter four is concerned with the relationship between inaugurated (or proleptic) and consummated eschatology, and shows that themes already set forth in the gospels and epistles as fulfilled by Christ at His first advent yet have a final application to the end-time including the kingdom, the judgment, and the Day of Atonement. Revelation is the book of the New Testament on eschatology, and our positions on the end-time must be supported by it or be surrendered.
The titles of chapters five and six are self-explanatory. The chief burden of the final chapter is to show that Ellen G. White is Biblical in applying the Day of Atonement soteriologically to the first advent in her books on that theme, and eschatologically in that book which deals specifically with latter-day events and the end of the world.
Objectives
The first objective of this work is to make clear the doctrinal problem confronting our church. It is one which has troubled earnest believers over our whole history, and it has never been officially considered In adequate depth. As Christian growth depends upon overcoming all revealed sin, so church growth depends upon adequate resolutions of those problems revealed to the body corporate. We cannot have an effective apologetic for the non-Adventist world, nor successful soul-winning on a large scale, until this matter is resolved. The writer, as with many of his readers, has urged people to risk their employment and even their marriage and family relationships on the basis that Dan. 8:14 points to this movement as one of divine origin and should be joined at any personal cost. We have had many workers who have come to the place where they could no longer so urge others because of their personal problem with Hebrews 9. Furthermore, fears concerning personal standing in the investigative judgment have cut the nerve of joyous witness for many church members. Legalism is one result, and lack of assurance another, when the judgment is traditionally presented, for the primacy of grace and imputed righteousness is usually forgotten.
The second objective is to suggest a solution to the problem the writer has found effective and satisfying throughout his ministry.
Assumptions
Attempted demonstration of all beliefs would lead to an infinite regress of argumentation. No axiom can be proved, and complete proof regarding anything In the real world is impossible to mortals, requiring as it would an Infinite number of observations, perfect measuring instruments, and complete objectivity none of which is available to us. All research begins with assumptions that can only be supported, not by demonstration, but by a weight of evidence. This includes the assumption that the project is worthwhile.
In this instance the assumptions include the following:
There is a personal God who has by special revelation made Himself and His truth known through His divine Son and by the Inspired writings we call the Bible.
SDAs are indeed Protestants, and therefore believe in Sola Scripture, without denying that the Bible speaks of spiritual gifts and the special leading of the Spirit through prophets in times subsequent to the closing of the canon. But “the Spirit was not given nor can it be bestowed to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested” (GC vii).
The hermeneutical system of grammatico-historical interpretation is here assumed as the only valid means of doing full justice to the meaning of Scripture. The well-known five principles of exegesis lexical, grammatical, contextual, historical, and the analogy of faith are considered as basic for all serious work in Biblical research. This stands in sharp contrast to the proof-text method which sufficed in the days when the conclusions of the 19th century series above were formulated. Particularly should it be kept in mind that SDAs scholars today do not believe that types or prophetic interpretation should be used as the basis of doctrine.
The sixth century dating of Daniel is an assumption in this project not because it is without serious challenge, but because the answering of that challenge is outside the proposed scope of this work.
That Ellen G. White had the gift of prophecy is assumed, but common understandings of inspiration are not. This writer wholeheartedly embraces the view of inspiration found in Selected Messages 1:15-39, a passage which he feels has never been closely studied by most SDAs, and consequently leaves the vast majority of church members open to error and bewilderment.
While acknowledging this assumption of the inspiration of Ellen G. White, it seems to this writer that the warning found in the Teachers Helps of the Jan-Mar. 1980 Adult Sabbath School Lessons, “Redemption in Romans,” page 12, expresses aptly the caveat offered in chapter six of this document. We quote:
Among the complaints brought against Seventh-day Adventist teachings today is one that insists that we are not really biblical in our positions, that we do much talking about the Bible but do not really study the Bible itself. We are seen by some as particularly likely to take Ellen White’s comments on the Scriptures as reason to close off any further study or consideration. For many “Ellen White says” is the end of further (or even any) investigation.
Such an approach to Bible study seems particularly unfortunate when it flies in the face of the persistent appeal of Ellen White for church members, pastors, and teachers to study the Word, even to make the Bible the test of the special work of Ellen White. What is not assumed in this document is that “all our arguments are without a flaw,” that our exegesis of Dan. 8 and 9, Heb. 6-10 is adequate, that we fully understand the Day of Atonement, or God’s intention in raising up this church in 1844.
Finally, the Golden Rule is assumed to apply not only to the writer, but to the reader i.e. the latter should require no more of the former in this project than if he were the former. The present work, to quote the reference last given (ISM 20), is “for practical purposes” and is not an inquire-within upon everything.
Sources and Acknowledgments
The writer gratefully acknowledges the generous help of the White Estate and the GC Archives, and R. A. Olson, D. Yost, and B. Haloviak in particular, in the matter of researching some aspects of our denominational history which have bearing on the sanctuary doctrine. Other sources than historical documents are but the usual ones of Biblical scholarship, except for my own writings in earlier years from which I have freely drawn.
A special “thank you” is due to Mrs. Gwen Brown, who so ably typed this manuscript.
