Archive for July, 2009

Because the sanctuary truth is such a prominent part of our doctrinal platform, It is vital that our exposition of it be such as will recommend it to the best minds of non-Adventists, as well as our own people, and be able to survive the most searching scrutiny. The issue is not just theoretical, for as R. A. Anderson has said, “A misconception of the great sanctuary truth has robbed many of the very assurance they need when we will have to stand without a Mediator just prior to our Lord’s return” (“Review and Herald”, Aug. 3, 1962, p.9).

Our history shows that loyal leaders in our ranks have undergone agony of soul as they contemplated our traditional teaching on the investigative judgment and tried to reconcile it with Scripture. Some of these men ultimately left us for this reason, including A.F. Ballenger, E.S. Ballenger, L.H. Crisler, I. Kech, W.W. Fletcher, L.
R. Conradi, R.A.Grieve, etc, while others, such as W.W. Prescott and L.
E. Froom and many contemporarieschose to remain with us, though deeply troubled and perplexed.

Our twentieth century scholars have called into question many pillars of our usual sanctuary presentation. Study of recent documents on the sanctuary by our scholars shows a great departure from the nineteenth century positions. For example, it is now admitted that blood from the offerings of the common people never went into the sanctuary, and that sacrificial blood never defiles. The sanctuary was defiled by the act of sin, not by the transfer of it through blood. Neither is there any Scripture which teaches an investigative judgment of the saints beginning long before the Advent. Doctrine cannot be established by types or prophetic interpretation – these may only be used to illustrate and confirm what is clearly taught elsewhere, and in non-symbolic language. Key texts originally used by us to teach ajudgment of the saints have now been recognized by many as pointing rather to a judgment of the wicked. For example, the context of Dan. 7 makes it clear that the little horn, not believers, is being investigated. The same is true of Rev. 14:7,8.

In the 1960′s a special Daniel committee met for five years to deal with such problems but reached no unanimity. A previous questionnaire sent to our leading scholars brought the reply that it is impossible to so exegete Dan. 8:14 as to derive the investigative judgment. Dr.Raymond Cottrell, former associate editor of the SDA Bible Commentary and the “Review”, has often told that story, and recently published it in the April issue of Spectrum. He affirms that the traditional sanctuary interpretation cannot be derived from Scripture, and that most of our scholars know that to be the case.

While no teacher amongst us holds to the Ballenger schema of years ago, which taught a pre-cross sanctuary ministry of 4000 years, yet many acknowledge that Ballenger was at least correct on Christ’s entrance within the veil at His ascension. (Contemporary SDA New Testament scholars interpret Heb. 6:19,20 and 10:19,20 quite differently to 19th century Adventist writers.)

E. G. White agreed with Ballenger on this aspect also, as is made clear by Desire of Ages 757 and Signs of the Times, April 19, 1905, though simultaneously holding to a first apartment ministry culminating in 1844. The words of veteran scholar, W.E. Read, summarize her Day of Atonement emphasis:

2
“The Day of Atonement in days of old foreshadowed not only the work of Christ on Calvary but also the final events in tho great controversy, which envisioned the cleansing of the universe by the removal and destruction of all iniquity. “When this takes place, and all that relates to sin is finally eradicated from the universe of God, then we shall see “new heavensand a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” (“Review and Herald”, Nov. 8, 1962, p.4)

CHAPTER TWO

The only book of the New Testament which discusses the meaning of the Day of Atonement, the significance of the first apartment ministry, and the fulfillment of the cleansing of the sanctuary is Hebrews. Chapter 9 deals with all three topics, but in no place gives the traditional Adventist position on these points.

Hebrews 6:19; 10:19,20; 9:8,12, 24-25 teach Christ went into the equivalent of the Most Holy Place at His ascension. Today our New Testament scholars admit that “within the veil” means within the second veil, and Greek scholars acknowledge that ta hagia in 9:8,12,24;10:19 means the second apartment only. Even the English translation makes this clear, for ta hagia is only reached through that veil which the High Priest penetrated solely on the Day ofAtonement. Heb. 9:7,8,12,24.

According to the writer of Hebrews, the significance of the first apartment was to underline the inadequacy of the Jewish typical sacrificial service, and to show that only the coming of the true Sacrifice could bring forgiveness of sins, and entrance into the presence of God. See 9:7-12; 10:1-12. This New Testament book, far from saying that the heavenly sanctuary is just like the earthly, only larger, often contrasts it with the earthly. The same is true of the heavenly ministry. Christ is not a Levitical priest, but one after the order of Melchizedek–a king-priest who has completed His sacrificial work and sat down on his heavenly throne. Nowhere in Hebrews do we find the early Christians waiting for Christ to go into the second apartment. On the contrary, it teaches that at that time He was already there, and they were waiting for Him to come out. See 9:28. The Day of Atonement is applied throughout Hebrews to what Christ had already done by the Cross and His ascension to heaven. Hebrews does not teach that the Day of Atonement points to some event eighteen centuries then future. It teaches the opposite. Scholars such as F.D. Nichol, and our contemporary New Testament exegetes, admit that our sanctuary teaching cannot be found in the only book of the New Testament which discusses the significance of the sanctuary services. This has been acknowledged by well-known Adventist writers around the world.

The cleansing of the sanctuary is mentioned in Heb. 9:23, but it is applied to what Christ has already done by His death, not to some future judgment work. Nowhere does Hebrews draw on Dan. 8:14 and project its fulfillment to a later Day of Atonement towards the end of the world. The cleansing of the sanctuary is identical with His making “purification for sins” on the Cross prior to His ascension to “the right hand of the Majesty on high.” See Heb. 1:3 and compare Rom. 5:9-11,18 with Heb. 9:22-26.

CHAPTER THREE

Our Daniel scholars this century have for the most part concluded that, as with Hebrews, in this book also, there is neither contextual nor linguistic evidence to support our traditional interpretation of Dan. 8:14. This has been admitted repeatedly by such men as Don Neufeld, Raymond Cottrell, E. Heppenstall, and many others.

There is no Biblical basis for assuming that the year-day be applied to Dan. 8 and 9. Dan. 9 nowhere mentions days that could be turned into years. It speaks of “seventy sevens,” not seventy weeks of days.

Neither is it possible to be dogmatic on any of the dates focused on by our by our prophetic
3
exegesis of these Daniel chapters. No man knows the year of our Lord’s death, nor the exacttime of His birth or baptism. Neither is it possible to prove that “the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” can only mean Autumn of 457 B.C. There is nothing in Ezra 7 that speaks of rebuilding Jerusalem’s walls. Neither can we establish that Stephen was stoned in A.D. 34, or that the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell on Oct. 22. Scholars say rather that the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell a month earlier, and was so observed even by most Karaite Jews.

The evidence of the New Testament is that Christ could have returned in the first century had the church taken the gospel to the whole, world. See Matt. 24:14,34 (the expression “this generation” which occurs over a dozen times in the gospels always means the generation of Christ’s contemporaries); Heb. 1:1; 9:26; 1 John 2:17; Rom. 13:13; Acts 3:19,20. The SDA Bible Commentary clearly teaches this in several places. See 4:26-33; 7:29. And the “Review” similarly has thus affirmed. Thus all the Daniel prophecies are conditional, and their primary meaning was not to affirm a two thousand year gap between the advents.

In the New Testament we find the Daniel prophecies re-interpreted, but again not in such away as to indicate that many centuries must necessarily transpire before the end of the world. Revelation, which draws on Daniel, speaks seven times of the imminence of Christ’s return in John’s day.

In Dan. 9:24-27 we have an eschatological prophecy which is explanatory both of Dan.7:9-13 and 8:14. Five terms occur in verse 24 which are only found together in one other chapter of Scripture–Leviticus 16. Here we read of the fulfillment and consummation of the Day of Atonement type. But the New Testament applies this not only to the Cross of Christ, but also to the end of the world. Christ’s Second Advent sermon is a commentary on Dan.9:24-27 and uses its key motifs for the last things but in such a manner as to show that He is projecting the latter-day consummation for the world of what was to overtake Him at His passion. This shows conclusively that Leviticus 16 finds its legal fulfillment in Christ’s sacrificial atonement, but its empirical consummation in the final cleansing of the universe from sin and sinners. See Patriarch and Prophets 358.

In recent years, non-Adventist scholars have shown an unparalleled interest in apocalyptic, and many have seen that Dan. 7:9-13; 8:14; 9:24-27 apply to the last judgment and the end of the world.

CHAPTER FOUR

Not only Hebrews, but Revelation, contains references to the Day of Atonement. In this book the type is applied eschatologically rather than soteriologically. It is connected with the last judgment, and God’s wrath prior to the setting up of the kingdom of glory. Non-Adventist scholars for centuries have pointed out the prominence of Yom Kippur imagery in the Apocalypse.

In the seventh seal, the seventh trumpet, the seven last plagues, the climactic chapters of 13, 14, 17 and 20 we have allusions to the Day of Atonement as the final wiping away of sin is contemplated.

Thus in the Bible’s last book we find strong evidence for the Adventist eschatological use of the Day of Atonement, though not for a protracted investigative judgment.

CHAPTER FIVE

Twentieth century scholars, our own and others, point out that the New Testament views the “end of the world” as launched by the Christ event. Thus all great eschatological themes such as the kingdom, judgment, the gift of the Spirit, eternal life, resurrection, the destruction of Satan, the abolition of death, are applied to the
4
Cross and its fruits. See Heb. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:10; John 5:24; 12:31; Matt. 12:28; Acts 2:16;Eph. 2:1; Col. 1:13; 3:1; Heb. 1:1; 9:26; 1 John 2:17, etc. But these same motifs figure again in the prophetic promises of the times associated with the return of Christ. Thus the Passover is not only applied to the first advent, but to the second. The same is true of Tabernacles, the Jubilee, and the Day of Atonement. Thus Leviticus 16 has an application to the Cross, but also to the last judgment. While the rest of the religious world has seen the soteriological application of the Day of Atonement but not, as a rule, the eschatological, Seventh-day Adventists have done the reverse–with the exception of Ellen G. White, who saw and taught both applications. When this is linked with the fact that many Old Testament scholars in recent years have admitted that Dan. 8:14 was not exhausted by the Maccabean era, but applies to judgment at the end of time, Adventists find that they do have foundations for their basic prophetic postulate–that Dan. 8:14 and Leviticus 16 point to “the last things” and contain important truths for modern Christians. This, however, does not guarantee the accuracy of subsidiary positions such as the investigative judgment.

CHAPTER SIX

A misunderstanding of the issues of authority, inspiration, and inerrancy have been responsible for the majority of doctrinal controversies the Seventh-day Adventist church has experienced.

The scriptural doctrine of authority has to do with the primacy of the Word as interpreted to loyal believers through the Holy Spirit. Inspiration’s primary purpose is to lead men to Christ. See John 20:31 It is perfect for God’s purpose and may, like the Living Word, challenge and upset our prior prejudices. Inerrancy is never claimed for prophets, and E. G. White specifically denied any claim to it.

Not one doctrine came to this church through E. G. White. First, truth was established through the Word and only then confirmed through the Lord’s messenger. Ellen G. White, according to W. C. White, had an imperfect grasp of truth as shown particularly by some ofher early expressions. She changed several doctrinal positions, including systematic benevolence versus tithing, the law in Galatians, the covenants, time to keep the Sabbath, the eating of pork, etc. Furthermore, W. C. White tells us that it was quite possible for his mother to sometimes misunderstand and misinterpret her own visions. She told +he brethren that they should understand the significance of the revelations from heaven made to her better than herself. She erred regarding the meaning of her first vision, thinking it confirmed the shut door doctrine.

Our major error has been to make the writings of E. G. White have veto power over Scripture. But in matters of scriptural debate where good men were ranged on both sides, it was not Ellen White’s practice to decide doctrinal issues. When tithing was first introduced in the 1880′s, many opposed it because E. G. White had advocated a different system for many years–systematic benevolence. When the new view of the daily came (actually the old view of the Reformers) extreme conservatives opposed it on the basis of a single statement from Early Writings. At Minneapolis in 1888 U. Smith opposed Waggoner and Jones on the grounds that in Sketches from the Life of Paul Ellen White had set forth the law in Galatians as the ceremonial law. Repeatedly, her writings have been misused to prevent progress in understanding Bible truth. Against this she vigorously protested. See Selected Messages 1:164.

To understand the Great Controversy exposition of the sanctuary doctrines we should study how other prophecies are applied in this same book. It comes as a surprise to many to learn that prophecies such as Rev. 6:12; 2 Thess. 2:3,4; Matt. 25:1-13; and Dan. 8:14, etc. which in Great Controversy are applied to 1844 or times earlier, are also applied by E. G. White to events yet future at the end of the world.

5
Ellen G. White used the apotelesmatic principle whereby prophecy is interpreted as applying to more than one time and one event. She applied such passages as Joel 2:28; Mal. 4:5,6; Matt. 24; Rev. 6:14; Matt. 25:1-13; Rev. 14:8; and Dan. 8:14 to separate eras. Particularly do we find her applying eschatological motifs such as the shut door, the marriage, the mid-night cry, the shaking, the sealing, the signs in the heavens, to events associated with 1844–but also she applies the same themes to the end of the world yet future. For example, she used Matt. 24:1-13 as a prophetic parable of the Miller movement (GC 428) but in Christ’s Object Lessons applied the same passage to the worldwide church at the end of the world. Here she makes no reference whatever to the Miller movement. The midnight cry becomes the Loud Cry of Rev. 18:1-4, and the marriage is the union of the church with Christ at His coming (instead of His entrance into the Most Holy Place to be married to the New Jerusalem as taught in Great Controversy).

The Great Controversy application of Matt. 25:1-13 and Dan. 8:14 had some appropriateness for an age that could have witnessed the return of the Lord had all who professed the name of Christ been true to duty. As it is, it is no longer valid to interpret the eschatological prophecies in the identical way that our Millerite pioneers did. Thus Ellen White can declare in letters about the turn of the century that the bride is the church (though in Great Controversy the opposite is declared). She made plain in her first pronouncements on the topic, that the heavenly signs are yet future. See Early Writings 41. If the marriage, the shut door, heavenly signs, the sealing, the shaking, the seventh trumpet (all of which were applied to the times surrounding 1844 by our pioneers) are all yet future, it is quite consistent to say that the full application of Dan. 8:14 likewise so applies. Patriarchs and Prophets 358 and the last pages of Great Controversy (where such terms as “vindicate,” “purify,” “clean,” or cognates are common) indicate that this was Ellen White’s position also.

Similarly, most of the later statements by F. G. White about the Day of Atonement apply it to both advents, with Christ entering the Most Holy at His ascension. Nowhere does E. G.White equate the cleansing of the sanctuary with the investigative judgment. (D. Neufeld also in the “Review” of Feb. 14, 1980, warned against such an identification.) The former is one of the landmarks being clearly established before the end of the 1840′s, whereas the doctrine of the investigative judgment was not held by us as a people till near the end of the 1850′s. The doctrine of the investigative judgment is not one of the landmarks, and there is no vision from Ellen White that teaches it. Neither is there any Biblical basis for a judgment that began over a hundred years ago. Scripture does teach pre-advent judgment–namely Christ’s sealing as His own through His imputed merits all whose names are still in the book of life on the eve of probation’s close. This is no attenuated affair. See Dan. 12:1. The judgment of Dan. 79-13 and 8:14, like that of Rev. 14:7, is a judgment upon the wicked which simultaneously vindicates the righteous.

It is essential to have a better view of inspiration than most Seventh-day Adventists have at present. Only the picture given in Selected Messages 1:15-39 will suffice, where inspiration is pointed out as perfect for practical purposes, but involving a union of the human with the divine whereby the inspired writers become God’s penmen but not His pen, subject to error, and certainly not representing God in rhetoric or logic.

Ellen White never claimed infallibility, and demonstrable error is present in her writings. There is neither historical nor exegetical evidence for the Great Controversy application of the fate of the two witnesses to the events of the French Revolution. Neither is there any evidence for Aug. 11, 1840, as a fulfillment of prophecy. Our scholars have known about both of these errors for nearly a hundred years. Ellen White’s conceptual expression of the investigative judgment is as surely drawn from Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews as her other prophetic expositions were drawn
6
from such men. But none of these interpreters was infallible. According to E. G. White, her writings are not to be used as the basis of doctrine or to solve doctrinal issues. She refused over the decades of the “daily” controversy to decide the issue, and forbade men to use her writings to that end. The same applies to present-day controversy over sanctuary interpretation. On the Bible and the Bible only our doctrinal beliefs must rest. When fierce doctrinal controversy was waging over the identity of the law in Galatians, she affirmed that it was God’s will that the issue be solved from Scripture and not from her writings. The same principle applies today.

Nevertheless, those who wish to reject Ellen White as a special messenger with the gift of prophecy should remember that Adventism could never have become what it has but for God’s providential leading through Ellen G. White. In crisis after crisis she proved a worthy prophetess, and a guide and protector to the tiny church. This includes the 1844 disappointment, the Minneapolis conference, the Holy Flesh movement, the Kellogg crisis, etc. Neither her use of multiple sources, or her errors of exposition disqualify her from her place as a worthy servant of God, His providential agency to aid His people in the last days. But we honor her best if we see her writings as she herself declared them to be–but a “lesser light” when compared with Holy Scripture, “the greater light.” To use her own words:

“The Spirit was not given–nor can it ever 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. “God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. (GC 11, 595).”

See our summary of the conclusion of this manuscript including our comments on the unique nature of the message God has given this church for the world, and see chapter 2, for the essence of what the New Testament teaches regarding the two apartments of the sanctuary.

(i)
Since the Glacier View Conference, loyal Adventists who wish to see the Sanctuary message established on a Scriptural basis have requested a preface to this manuscript that the whole might be printed. Because the October, 1980 “Ministry” has seemed to most of our scholars a sadly one-sided presentation, and likewise many of the official reports of the Conference, this venture seems justified.

— — — —

As a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church for thirty-five years, and as one whose total energies have been devoted to the furtherance of that body, my present sympathies and loyalties remain closely Intertwined with It. There is, therefore, no intention that the present document should work harm to the people with whom I worship from Sabbath to Sabbath.

Why then was this manuscript originally written and now published? The explanation does not lie In the General Conference request for the document following the Forum meeting of Oct. 27,1979. By that date I had been writing on the theme for over twenty years, and much of what I had written (amounting to hundreds of printed pages) had been published by the denomination.

The true reason for the writing of these pages lies In the fact that from the time I was an Episcopalian to the present I have been conscious of inconsistences and incongruities in our eschatological presentations. Over the years it had become apparent that most of the research scholars of the church shared my discomforture but had concluded that little could be done. This is an attempt to do something constructive, to offer the apotelesmatic key which makes legitimate the applying of the Day of Atonement not only to the Cross where all the types were fulfilled at the Calvary hub of realized (that is, inaugurated or proleptic) eschatology, but also to “the last things” in consummation. We have long applied the apotelesmatic principle to passages such as Mt. 24, Lu. 21, Mk. 13, Joel 2:28, Dan. 8:10-13, and Mal. 4:5,6, but hitherto have not seen its importance for certain of our more vital prophetic positions.

Because we, as with all other Christians, have been entrusted with “the everlasting gospel,” it is essential that nothing in our doctrinal presentation should compete or clash with that gospel. To even infer that Christ’s atoning work at Calvary was not complete but required another phase; to suggest that the merits of the blood of the Saviour did not reach the Most Holy Place until 1844; to intimate that our Lord for over eighteen centuries was engaged in a ministry which represented the limited privileges of the Jewish pre-cross era (Heb. 9:6-9); to create the fear that one’s eternal salvation rested to any extent on the basis of works rather than faith alone, and that the issue of the Judgment depends in part on the extent (rather than the reality) of Christian growth is to imperil the blessed gospel, forget the warning of Jude 3 RSV, and invite the curse of Ga. 1:8. See Gal. 2:16-21; Rom. 3:19-28; Eph. 2:8; Tit. 3:4-7. These are serious matters, and even if the professional lives of some of us in the ministry are imperilled by heeding the voice of conscience, such a cost is more than warranted where disloyalty to the gospel Is involved. Surely all of us would agree with Whitefield’s choice when he cried “Let my name be forgotten, let me be trodden under the feet of all men, If Jesus may thereby be glorified.”

Another issue which calls for the publication of the present work is Adventism’s
(ii)
persistent wrong use of a good gift that is, our error of giving primacy to the writings of E. G. white over Scripture. As one familiar with those writings for many years, and deeply grateful for them, It seems to the present writer that E. G. White would have been horrified had she known her writings were to be used as a basis for doctrine rather than in support of obviously Biblical positions. See G.C. 595 and the introduction that that book where she affirmed that no spiritual gift should ever be given supremacy over Scripture. While officially we have denied that we give the White writings pre-eminence, in actual practice we have been continually guilty of that very procedure. Until we repent of this, recognizing that E. G. White herself frequently corrected her own positions by Scripture (e.g. use of swine’s flesh, the time to begin and end the Sabbath, the nature of the law in Galatians, the covenants, the Trinity, tithing as replacing systematic benevolence, etc.) and that her written doctrinal expressions were not original but borrowed from denominational literature, we will not make progress in Scriptural exegesis. We have forgotten Ellen White’s admonitions that “the Bible is yet but dimly understood,” that “we have many things to learn, and many to unlearn,” that “God sees our leading men have need of greater light.” See the chapters on “New Light” in CWE for these and similar statements.

The most natural reaction to this manuscript would be to protest: “But he is moving the landmarks.” It is essential that we heed the warning of Dr. Don Neufeld and others not to confuse the “cleansing of the sanctuary” with “the Investigative Judgment.” The former is a landmark, but the latter is not. Arthur White in his Messenger to the Remnant has listed the landmarks and their historical setting. The Investigative Judgment is not among them, and they were all formulated by 1848, three years before Seventh-day Adventists repudiated the shut-door heresy. It took another decade for our peculiar view of the pre-advent judgment to become a “pillar” of the faith, and it did not originate with Ellen White. Indeed her husband wrote against that concept in a “Review” of 1851. It is an Illuminating experience to search the records of E. G. White’s visions (of which she had approximately 2000) for revelations of an investigative Judgment. Such a search yields little or nothing to the surprise of all who have undertaken the task. (The Judgment does figure in her visionary account, but we here speak of the investigative Judgment.)

Both the “Adventist Review” and the “Ministry” have criticized the methodology of this manuscript, Its author would be the first to admit the imperfections of a document written in six months under many pressures. It was primarily written for administrators and does not resemble his doctoral theses. It endeavors to keep in mind what Aristotle called “the sorry nature of the audience” (that is, our mutual imperfections), and therefore tries not to be guilty of academic incest intercourse only with those of scholarly bent. It is written to be understood which, according to a fellow scholar, is its great crime. Both the “Review” and the “Ministry” have claimed that the manuscript Is guilty of quoting many statements out of context. it has seemed to this writer and many of his peers, that that claim has not been demonstrated by either Journal, or by those who have rehearsed the charge without personal investigation. Such a serious allegation warrants individual recourse to the manuscript itself where the challenged quotes can be found in their own context. Thus this printed edition hopes to make that possible for all.

May I join with Scripture, and with Christians of all ages, in pointing out that while “knowledge puffeth up” only love “builds up.” 1 Cor. 8:1. There should be nothing in a man’s creed which does not act upon his life, and the curse of religious controversy Is that it blinds men to the practical importance of the truths for which they are fighting. All of doctrine is meant to illuminate the Cross. Whatever does not reflect the saving gospel Is erroneous. All doctrine should lead to faith In the Saviour. But while that faith is first in Christian experience, love is greater. “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. Make love your aim 1 Cor. 13:13; 14:1.

(iii)
Unless we can disagree without being disagreeable, we should not even discuss varying viewpoints. The dictum of Augustine must be ours also: “in essentials unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity (love).” Not the knowledge of the righteousness of faith saves, but the humble acceptance of it resulting in a continual attitude of forbearance and forgiveness this is salvation. The faith which works by love and purifies the soul is the only instrumental condition of eternal life. May all who wrestle with the problems set forth in the following pages thank God for the simplicity of Jn. 3:16, resolve to preserve that gospel untarnished, and plead with the Lord our righteousness for that robe which alone can make us Christlike towards all who differ.

Copyright © 1980, Desmond Ford, Ph.D. All rights
reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced
in any manner, mechanical, or electronic for any purpose
without the written permission of the author.

EUANGELION PRESS
P. O. BOX 1264
CASSELBERRY, FL 32707
U.S.A.

“EUANGELION” IS THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK WORD FOR
THE GOOD NEWS OF THE GOSPEL.

by

Desmond Ford

To those who, believing that God raised up the Advent movement
to proclaim the truth for earth’s last hour, value truth more than
position, comfort, or reputation.For such,

“New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward
Who would keep abreast of truth.”

(513, Church Hymnal)

We are pleased to be able to present to you on the internet Dr Desmond Ford’s manuscript which was typed, duplicated and distributed to the delegates to the Sanctuary Review Committee which met at Glacier View Ranch, Colorado, August 10-15, 1980. After the Conference Dr Ford felt that it needed wider distribution. So it was published as a book. Details are in this document which was variously known as the Glacier View manuscript or Glacier View Document. In published form of about 695 pages it was titled “Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment.”

This work not only explains the problems with the SDA doctrine relating to the work of Christ as mediator and judge, known as the “Sanctuary Doctrine”, but also includes relevant historical documents, making it an extremely valuable resource. If it continues to fulfill its original purpose as a document for study and discussion the author will be well-pleased. It was Ellen White who wrote “Open the Heart to Light” in “Review and Herald” March 25, 1890: “No one has said that we shall find perfection in any man’s investigations, but this I do know, that our churches are dying for the want of teaching on the subject of righteousness by faith in Christ, and for kindred truths.” If this work leads you to that, it will suffice.

It is not our intention to alter the work but readers who detect typographical errors are invited to advise Good News Unlimited by e-mail so that these can be corrected online.

Readers will notice reference to JPEG images throughout the document. In the printed work these are either charts or photocopies. These are available by link and can be downloaded for examination. They are numbered according to the page and position in the document. Page numbers in the printed work are located at the bottom of the page. However in this version they are located at the beginning of each page to facilitate searches.

Finally, scattered throughout the document are numbers which are not part of the text itself. These refer to the endnotes and references listed in the FOOTNOTES which appear at the end of each chapter.

1. Endnote 59 on page 165 is probably incorrect because the text cannot be found to which it is supposed to be connected.

Please note that we are in the process of completing this book. There are references to for e.g. ‘ ‘See 0.14.jpg’ etc. and at this stage there are no links. We trust that this whole book will be finished soon and apologise for the delay.

There are in excess of 800 audio sermons, bible studies, gospel presentations and discussions in this audio library. For Dr Desmond Ford, it represents a lifetime of study and research. For those of us who listen it represents a gospel goldmine that will challenge our thinking about the Bible, the gospel and Jesus Christ for years to come. One sermon a day for a work-in-progress represents about three years of listening.

We invite you to browse through the folders and find the titles that interest you.

Please be aware of the Home and Back links in the top menu so you can back-track anytime to the previous pages.

Enjoy the experience.

It is the nature of the apocalyptic to climax with a focus on the end of this present evil age, when God would break into our world with salvation—an event that would bring destruction to the old age and introduce the age to come, in which all things would be made new. The New Testament, however, reveals that God’s breaking onto history with salvation, has two phases, the first with the First Advent of Jesus (Tit. 2:11) and the second, with his Second Advent (Heb. 9:28).

Daniel’s prophecies start with either Babylon or Medo-Persia and finish with God breaking into our world to conquer the evil kingdom and set up his own. In Daniel 2, God’s coming is pictured as a divine Rock, which crushes the kingdoms of this world, then grows into a great mountain.

Jesus was this Rock, who, by his death and resurrection at his first coming, fell upon the feet of iron (Rome) and clay (apostate Hebrew religion) and inaugurated his Spiritual kingdom.2 At his second coming, Jesus will literally crush the union of Church and State that oppresses his people, then consummate his kingdom.

Daniel 7 pictures the Antichrist (little horn) that persecutes God’s people. The judgement commences and the ‘little horn’s’ kingdom is taken away from him and given to the saints of the Most High. This is what happened as a result of Jesus’ death and resurrection. The ‘kingdom of God’ was taken from the Antichrist (little horn) and given to a people who would ‘produce its fruit’ (Matt. 21:43). This prophecy, however, will have another fulfillment at the end of time, when it will be consummated by Jesus.

Now just as the prophecies of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 climax with the first and second advents of Jesus, so does the prophecy of Daniel 8. The cleansing of the Sanctuary (Dan. 8:14 KJV) is an act of final judgement that takes place at ‘the appointed time of the end’ (Dan. 8:17, 19)—the time of God’s in breaking into our world with salvation (Mark 1:15).3

The Seventh-day Adventist announcement that the judgement hour arrived in 1844 (at the end of the 2300 days) ignores the fact that the apocalyptic chapters of Daniel 7 and 8 climax, not with 1844, but with the entry of God into our world with salvation. It was at the cross that the Antichrist-horn took ‘his stand against the Prince of princes’ (Dan.8:25); it was at the cross that ‘the daily’ was taken away (Dan. 8:11; it was at the cross that the Sanctuary was destroyed (Dan. 8:11; John 2:19-22) and it was at the cross that ‘truth was thrown to the ground’ (Dan. 8:12). But it was through Christ’s resurrection from the dead, that the desecrated Sanctuary and its ministry was restored and reconsecrated.

At the Second Coming of Jesus this prophecy will be consummated. Just prior to Jesus’ return the Antichrist horn will exalt himself against the Prince of princes (2 Thess. 2:3-4); the ‘daily’ (which, under the New Covenant is the Gospel, administered and empowered by the Holy Spirit) shall be taken away; the host of the faithful will be trodden underfoot and God’s dwelling place on earth (1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:22) will be brought low. But, at the appointed ‘time of the end’ (Dan. 8:19), when Jesus returns, the Sanctuary will be restored and reconsecrated.

A comparison of the three parallel prophecies of Daniel two, seven and eight (see below) reveals that the destruction of the earthly kingdom (chap. 2); the judgement in which the kingdom is taken from the Antichrist power and given to the saints of the Most High (chap. 7) and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary (chap. are parallel events. Each of these events—which were inaugurated through the death and resurrection of Jesus, will be consummated at his coming.

DANIEL 2 DANIEL 7 DANIEL 8

Babylon Gold Lion

Medo-Persia Silver Bear Ram

Greece Bronze Leopard Goat with four horns

Rome Iron Fourth beast

Antichrist Clay Little Horn Little Horn

Judgement Crushed by stone Divine judgement Divine Judgement

Kingdom Mountain kingdom Kingdom of God Sanctuary reconsecrated

Desmond Ford’s research has shown that in Daniel 8 ‘the Sanctuary is a symbol of the Kingdom of God on Earth …’5 God’s kingdom has been trodden underfoot by the Antichrist (of whom Antiochus Epiphanes was a type), but God promised to enter human history to redeem his kingdom. At his first advent the Lord came to reclaim his kingdom, spiritually (Rev. 12:10), at the close of this age he will return to claim it literally (Rev. 11:15).

Daniel 8:14, therefore, points to the time when the Sanctuary (God’s kingdom) would be taken back from the Antichrist, Satan. At that time it would be ‘reconsecrated; restored to its rightful place and vindicated.’ The spiritual restoration of the Sanctuary was made possible only through Jesus’ sacrifice. All of us who have accepted Christ’s death on our behalf, have been reconsecrated; restored to our rightful place (in God’s kingdom) and vindicated. We now look forward to Jesus’ second advent, when that which is spiritual shall be consummated in the physical. Dan. 8:14 thus embraces both the first and second Advents of Jesus, distinct, but inseparable.

To apply Dan: 8:14 to an inscrutable event in 1844, is to debase the grand intent of this prophecy, which is to highlight the two occasions, in which God himself breaks into our world to redeem his people.

ENDNOTES:
1. Whether Jesus was crucified in AD30 or AD33 is not the issue here; the issue is not the date but the event.
2. For a fuller exposition, see the January 2005 issue of the South Pacific Good News Unlimited magazine.
3. The 2300 evening/mornings are a quality, rather than a quantity time. They signify the nature of the event, rather than the duration of the event. So what is the nature of that event? It points to the time when God himself would intervene in human history to redeem his kingdom.
4. See the SDA 12th Fundamental Belief, ‘The Remnant and its Mission.’
5. Desmond Ford, Daniel and the Coming King (Desmond Ford Publications, 1996,) p. 106.

The early Adventists believed the Sanctuary that would be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days was the Earth, which would be cleansed by fire when Jesus returned on October 22, 1844. When this did not happen, as they so earnestly believed, they sought to discover where they had gone wrong.

Hiram Edson and Owen R.L. Crossier subsequently concluded that the Sanctuary that was to be cleansed in 1844 was not the Earth but the Sanctuary in heaven above. This new understanding, which was advanced by James White in the Review and Herald, was fleshed out by 1857 and eventually adopted as one of the pillars of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The question we wish to address in this article is, What and where is the heavenly Sanctuary? The only book in the Bible that mentions the heavenly Sanctuary is the book of Hebrews, so we will need to look there for our answer.

The book of Hebrews was written mainly for Hellenistic Jews who had become Christians; hence its title. The author of Hebrews draws lessons from the cultus of these converts to Christianity, which explains the book’s many references to the Sanctuary, the sacrifices, and the work of the High Priest. To understand Hebrews, therefore, we need to understand the thought-world of First Century AD Judaism.

At the time this letter was written to the Hebrews, many people in the countries surrounding the Mediterranean believed—as Plato had taught—that the universe was divided into two separate levels, the imperfect physical world in which we live and the perfect spiritual world of heaven above. Our earthly world, according to Plato, was only a shadow of the eternal ideals in the heavenly world up in the sky. We find in Hebrews, for example, an ‘earthly Sanctuary’ (Heb. 9:1) that is ‘a copy and shadow of what is in heaven’ (Heb. 8:5). The fact that the earthly Sanctuary was copied from a heavenly pattern (Exod. 25:40) seems to give weight to the fact that there is a Sanctuary in heaven above.

IS HEBREWS TOTALLY PLATONIC?

While the author of Hebrews used Plato’s theoretical model of the universe, to explain to Christian converts from Hellenistic Judaism, that the services in the Jerusalem Sanctuary were just shadows of the ministry of Jesus, he wasn’t slavishly bound to Plato’s hypothesis, because some of the things he wrote about go completely against what Plato taught. Plato taught, for example, that heaven above was pure and perfect. If that is true, what explanation could be given for the fact that the heavenly Sanctuary, according to Hebrews 9:23, needed cleansing? If the heavenly Sanctuary needed cleansing, it can only be because it was defiled. But defilement in heaven is utterly contrary to Plato’s paradigm.

Also, according to Plato, the human body wasn’t the true reality, it was just an appearance of the true; for him the world of reality was the world of the immaterial human spirit. Such a view, however, cannot be reconciled with the teaching of the book of Hebrews, in which the resurrection of the physical body is one of the foundational teachings of the Church (6:1-2; see also 11:19 & 35).

Even more offensive to the Platonic viewpoint, is the teaching that believers, here in this world below, are encouraged to enter into the presence of a Holy God in the innermost part of the heavenly Sanctuary (Heb. 10:19-22). Defilement in heaven that needs to be cleansed; the resurrection of the physical body and the fact that people in their earthly bodies can now enter God’s presence in the Holy of holies, are concepts that were repugnant and totally unacceptable to any Platonist.

As there are things in the book of Hebrews that are clearly contrary to Plato’s paradigm, it would be wrong to automatically conclude the heavenly Sanctuary must be up in heaven above.

The Scriptures, for example, reveal that every detail of the earthly Sanctuary, including the altar of burnt offering, ‘pots, shovels, sprinkling bowls, meat forks and firepans’ etc. (Exod. 38:3), was copied from the pattern of the one in heaven (Exod. 25:40; Heb. 8:5). That, however, creates an immediate problem. If there is a literal Sanctuary in heaven above, why would it need an altar of burnt offerings and all the implements associated with it, such as meat forks and firepans? Is there really an altar of burnt offerings up in heaven? If there is, what is its purpose there? And what are the heavenly meat forks used for? Furthermore, if the omnipresent God cannot be confined in a finite temple—whether in heaven or on Earth (Acts 7:47-50)—what would be the purpose of a literal Most Holy Place in the heavenly Sanctuary?

TYPE AND ANTITYPE

Christians believe the sacrifices which were made on the altar in the courtyard of the earthly shadow-Sanctuary in Jerusalem, pointed to Jesus’ atoning sacrifice on the cross. Jesus, the Passover Lamb (1 Cor. 5:7), who was sacrificed for the sins of the world (John 1:29; Rev. 13:8), was not slain on an altar in a temple up in heaven, he was crucified outside the walls of old Jerusalem (Heb. 13:12). If, then, the cross of Jesus is the true altar in the heavenly Sanctuary of the book of Hebrews, we are forced to the conclusion that the courtyard ministry of the heavenly Sanctuary took place, not in heaven above, but here on Earth.

This brings us to the crux of our argument: Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was made, not in a celestial realm called heaven, but in a spiritual realm called heaven. The shadow-Sanctuary that was first built by Moses, did not point to another literal Sanctuary, any more than the altar of burnt offerings pointed to another literal altar (Heb. 13:10), or the curtain of the Most Holy Place to another literal curtain (Heb 10:20). The whole of the shadow-Sanctuary and its services pointed to Jesus’ redemptive ministry in the spiritual realm of heaven. In other words, the physical building and its furniture of the old covenant, illustrated the spiritual realities of the new covenant.

HEAVEN IS ACCESSED BY DEATH

According to the Hebrew Platonists, only the holy and perfect spirit, divested of its imperfect body at death, could draw near to God. But according to the author of Hebrews, Christians are now, at this very moment, able to draw near to God in their flesh, because they ‘have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (Heb. 10:10 emphasis supplied). ‘By one sacrifice (Jesus) has made perfect forever those who are being made holy’ (Heb. 10:14 emphasis supplied).

Now here is the key: The author of Hebrews is telling us that the ideal, or heavenly world (which Plato said came after death), has already arrived in Jesus. The ideal world, according to the gospel, is not achieved by our death but by his. When Jesus died on the cross he made it possible for us to enter that ideal world immediately. In other words, heaven is not made accessible to us at the time of our death; it was made accessible at the time of Jesus’ death. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice we can step through the curtain of death into God’s presence right now (Heb 10:19-22). Yes, we enter heaven the very moment we accept Jesus’ death in the place of ours.

If all that sounds too over the top, consider the following passage, also from Hebrews:

‘You have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the Church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God’ (Heb. 12:22-23, emphases added).

The verse does not say, ‘You will come,’ but ‘You have come.’ It’s past tense. Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection we are already in heaven. The shadow-Sanctuary revealed that the only way to get into God’s presence was through the curtain of death, but when Jesus’ body was rent on the cross, that curtain was rent, opening the way for us to enter boldly into God’s presence (Heb. 10:19-22).

There can be no question that the book of Hebrews, like Plato, presents heaven as the ideal spiritual kingdom. It would be difficult to give Hebrews 12:22-23 any other interpretation. There is a massive difference, however, between Plato’s heaven and the heaven of the book of Hebrews. Plato’s heaven is a cosmic heaven up in the sky; the heaven of the book of Hebrews, is God’s spiritual kingdom that was established here on Earth by Jesus when he died and rose again.

Platonism is a dualism of two worlds, one the visible world and the other an invisible ‘spiritual’ world … The biblical dualism is utterly different from this Greek view. It is religious and ethical, not cosmological … Salvation is achieved not by a flight from the world but by God’s coming to man in his earthly, historical experience. Salvation never means flight from the world to God; it means, in effect, God’s descent from heaven to bring man in historical experience into fellowship with himself. Therefore the consummation of salvation is eschatological. It does not mean the gathering of the souls of the righteous in heaven, but the gathering of a redeemed people on a redeemed earth in perfected fellowship with God.1

The book of Hebrews goes even a step further than Plato: The death that gives us access to heaven has already been made, which means we can be united with God the very moment we appropriate that death for ourselves.

‘We have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body …’ (Heb. 10:19-20).

No one can ever pass through the veil that separates this world from the next by Plato’s old way of the death of the body. Sin requires more than just the death of the body—it requires the total annihilation of the sinner (John 3:16; Rom. 6:23; 2 Thess. 1:8-9). The only way to pass throughthe curtain of death to God is to accept the reality that this curtain is the substitutionary death of Jesus (Heb. 10:19-20). Because he died in our place, we won’t have to die eternally. So heaven is still accessed by death—but it’s Jesus’ death, not ours. Furthermore, it is accessed now, not later. We ‘have come,’ not ‘will come,’ to heaven (Heb. 12:22-23).

THE CLEANSING OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

When the earthly Sanctuary was defiled by sin, it was cleansed by the blood of animal sacrifices. But the heavenly Sanctuary is cleansed or purified, not with the blood of goats and calves, but ‘with better sacrifices than these’ (Heb. 9:23)—the blood of Jesus. The question we shall attempt to answer next is: What exactly is this heavenly Sanctuary that is cleansed by the blood of Jesus?

Most knowledgeable Christians, if asked the question, ‘What, according to the Bible, is cleansed by the blood of Jesus?’ would invariably answer, ‘We are cleansed of our sin by the blood of Jesus.’ And if asked again, ‘Could you support your answer from the Bible?’ they would reply, ‘Yes, according to 1 John 1:7 (NASB), ’the blood of Jesus … cleanses us from all sin.’ Some might even refer to the experience of the apostle Peter, who was shown in a vision, that unclean people are made clean when they accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour (Acts 10:15; 11:9). The answer therefore is, it is people who are cleansed by Jesus’ blood.

Why is it then, that if I were to re-phrase the question and ask instead, ‘Tell me, please, according to the book of Hebrews, what is cleansed by the blood of Jesus?’ Many would answer, ‘The heavenly things are cleansed by the blood of Jesus’ (Heb. 9:23). And if a second question was put, ‘What are these heavenly things?’ Most would admit that they do not know.2 Some would reply, ‘These heavenly things are the Sanctuary building and its contents up in heaven.’ If this last answer is true, one would wonder how this knowledge could benefit the disheartened Jewish converts, to whom the letter to the Hebrews was sent.

Is the book of Hebrews talking about something different from the rest of the New Testament, or is its message gospel truth? Hebrews 10:1 reminds us that ‘the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.’ What then is the ‘reality’ depicted by the cleansing of the Sanctuary? The ninth and tenth chapters of Hebrews contrast the shadow-cleansing that used to take place in the earthly Sanctuary, with the real cleansing that is now taking place in the heavenly Sanctuary, so a careful analysis of these two chapters should reveal the nature of the ‘reality’ to us. The following eight verses on cleansing are from these two chapters:

THE CLEANSING AGENT THE THING CLEANSED

9:9 Typical sacrifices cannot cleanse the conscience
9:14 The blood of Christ will cleanse our consciences
9:23 The typical sacrifices purified the copies of the true
9:23 Better sacrifices cleansed the heavenly things
9:28 Christ was sacrificed to take away the sins of many
10:11 Typical sacrifices can never take away sins
10:14 By one sacrifice Jesus has made us perfect
10:22 Sprinkled to cleanse us from guilt.

THE CLEANSING AGENT: Column on the left reveals that the animal sacrifices (printed in italics), were shadows that pointed forward to Jesus’ sacrifice (printed in bold type).

THE THING CLEANSED: Column on the right reveals that the earthly Sanctuary (printed in italics) which was cleansed by animal sacrifices, was a shadow that pointed forward to God’s people (printed in bold type), whose guilty consciences have been cleansed by Jesus’ sacrificial death.

It is clear, therefore, that the book of Hebrews is one with the rest of the New Testament in regard to what is cleansed by Jesus’ blood. It explains to those Jews who had become Christians, that ‘the heavenly things’ are God’s people who have been cleansed by Jesus’ blood. They are called ‘heavenly’ because they belong to the kingdom of heaven.

THE ANTITYPICAL HEAVENLY SANCTUARY

What, according to the book of Hebrews, is the heavenly Sanctuary—the building made without hands—in which Christ ministers the benefits of his atonement?

‘Fix your thoughts on Jesus, the … High Priest whom we confess. He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house … Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Christ is faithful as a Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast (Heb. 3:1-6 emphasis supplied).

It could hardly be clearer! The earthly Sanctuary, in which Moses ministered, pointed to the heavenly Sanctuary in which Jesus ministers. And the heavenly Sanctuary, in which Jesus, our High Priest, ministers, is the body of faithful believers here on Earth today. ‘The Sanctuary in which they worship God through Christ, is the fellowship of the new covenant; it consists in the communion of saints. The house of God, over which Christ, as his Son, is Lord, comprises his people …’3 The author of Hebrews says, ‘We are his house.’ And that not only makes a lot of sense, it is also consistent with the teaching of the rest of the New Testament (See 1 Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:19-22; also Rev. 21:9-10 where the bride of Christ is the antitypical Holy of Holies where God dwells).

Jesus is not in a heavenly temple in another part of the universe, dressed up in a High Priest’s regalia, swinging an incense burner and tending lamps on a menorah. What spiritual benefit would he provide by such actions? Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, is ministering his grace in a living temple here on Earth. And that temple is made up of all who accept him as their Lord and Saviour.4 ‘The redeemed community is the temple of God.’5

Because the blood of Jesus has cleansed this Sanctuary, God is now able to dwell in it through the Holy Spirit (Eph. 2:19-22). F. F. Bruce concludes:

‘It has frequently been asked in what sense ‘the heavenly realities’ needed to be cleansed; but our author has provided the answer in the context. What needed to be cleansed was the defiled conscience of men and women; this is a cleansing which belongs to the spiritual sphere. The argument of v.23 might be paraphrased by saying, that while ritual purification is adequate for the material order—which is but an earthly copy of the spiritual order—a better kind of sacrifice is necessary to effect purification in the spiritual order.

If we envisage the heavenly dwelling-place of God in something like material terms (and, surrounded as we are by the material universe, it is difficult to avoid doing so), we shall find ourselves trying to explain the necessity for its cleansing, in ways which are far from our author’s intention. But we have already had reason to emphasise the people of God are the house of God; that his dwelling-place is in their midst. It is they who need inward cleansing, not only that their approach to God may be free from defilement, but that they may be a fit habitation for him. Just as the tabernacle in the wilderness, together with its furniture, had to be anointed and sanctified so that God might manifest his presence there among his people and they might serve him there, so the people of God themselves, need to be cleansed and hallowed, in order to become ‘a dwelling place of God in the Spirit’6 (Eph. 2:22).

THE NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY ARRIVES AT THE SAME CONCLUSION:

What is this temple? The writer supplies a clue when he says that the heavenly Sanctuary was cleansed (9:23), i.e. made fit for use (cf. Num. 7:1). The assembly of the first-born (Heb. 12:23), that is to say, the Church triumphant, is the heavenly temple.7
We can conclude, therefore, that the heavenly Sanctuary, in which God dwells, is not a place somewhere out in the celestial universe, but the body of believers here in the kingdom of heaven on earth. Christ’s ministry in this heavenly Sanctuary (Heb. 3:6), is a ministry to the redeemed, through his Spirit, who applies the benefits that Jesus won for us on Calvary. Just as the earthly Sanctuary had to be cleansed by the blood of animals to make it a fit habitation for God, so this heavenly Sanctuary had to be cleansed by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 9:13-14, 23), so the Father could come and dwell in the midst of his people. That cleansing was provided by Christ’s death on the cross in AD30 and becomes ours, the moment we appropriate it for ourselves. To claim, therefore, that the cleansing of God’s people began in 1844 is to make a claim that strikes directly at the heart of the gospel.

ENDNOTES:

1. George Eldon Ladd, The Pattern of New Testament Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968) p.14.

2. William G. Johnsson confesses: ‘One searches in vain for any elaboration of 9:23 in the rest of Hebrews. It is a passing comment, pregnant with meaning, enigmatic and troubling to many commentators …’ (The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier: Hebrews (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1994), p.183.

3. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) p.34.

4. ‘The Jewish tabernacle was a type of the Christian church … the Church on Earth, composed of those who are faithful and loyal to God, is the ‘true tabernacle,’ whereof the Redeemer is the minister.’ (E. G. White, Signs of the Times, Feb 14, 1900, Ellen G. White/SDA Research Centre, Avondale College, Cooranbong, NSW, Australia).

5. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. ‘Temple’ by W. von Meding.

6. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, revised ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990) pp.228-229.

7. The New Bible Dictionary 2nd ed. (Tyndale House), s.v. ‘Temple,’ by R. J. McKelvey.