167

OUTLINE OF CHAPTER THREE

Daniel and the Day of Atonement

The Current Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169

Non-seventh-day Adventist Scholars and Apocalyptic . . . . . . . . . . .170

Traditional Prophetic Dating and the Investigative Judgment. . . . . . .174

Does Divine Sponsorship Guarantee Infallibility? . . . . . . . . . . . .177

Chronological Problems, Including the Year-Day Principle . . . . . . . .178

Is the Year-Day Principle Compatible With a First Century End of the World?178

The Intelligibility of Prophecy: Is It History Written in Advance? . . .188

Chronological Problems Continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191

The Basic Pillars for the Year-Day Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

Daniel 9 and the Year-Day Principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

The 1260-Year Period, Etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209

Were Adventists Wrong Concerning Daniel 8:14?. . . . . . . . . . . . . .215

The Contextual Problem for the Traditional Interpretation. . . . . . . .216

The Linguistic Problem for the Traditional Interpretation. . . . . . . .216

The Relationship Between the Contextual and the Linguistic Evidence. . .217

The Judgment Focuses on Unbelievers, Not Believers . . . . . . . . . . .219

Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Judgment. . . . . . . . . . .220

The Judgment of Daniel 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229

The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8 . . . . . . .232

Daniel 8:14 and Antiochus Epiphanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234

The Little Horn: Its Meaning for Ancient Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . .235

Antiochus Epiphanes and Daniel 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239

The Daniel 8:14 Context and the “Daily” Controversy. . . . . . . . . . .246

Daniel 8:14 the High Point of Daniel’s Symbolism . . . . . . . . . . .247

Daniel, the Day of Atonement, and 9:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248

The Meaning of “kippur”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249

Relationships Between Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252

Judgment the Theme of Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254

Daniel 8:14 As Interpreted by Scripture Itself . . . . . . . . . . . .257

Daniel 8 in the Apocalypse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

The Divine Purpose in the 1844 Movement and the SDA Church.. . . . . . .260

Footnotes

Appendices particularly relevant to this chapter:

12 Studies in the Book of Daniel (R. Cottrell)

13 Parallels between Dan. 8 and 9

14 Should a Question Be Answered?

15 Importance of Antiochus Epiphanes

16 The Connection Between Dan. 8:14 and Dan. 12:13

17 Summary on Dan. 8:14 and 1844

18 The Daniel Committee of 1937-1952 and the Chronological Problems of the 2300 Days

19 Extracts From Dr. R. Cottrell’s Presentation at Loma Linda, February, 1980

20 The Conditional Nature of the Time of the Advent

21 The Year-Day Principle

22 Daniel 8 Its Relationship to the Kingdom of God

168

23 Daniel 9:24-27 Recognized as Containing Jubilee and Day of Atonement Allusions

24 The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the U.

Special Note: The writer has not attempted to do again what he has already attempted in his Daniel
commentary (SPA), exegesis of the basic verses. He refers readers to that source for that purpose. Here, in
the limited time and space available, he has chiefly dwelt on the problems which make some aspects of the
traditional exposition untenable. No doubt more than one tentative solution will be forthcoming from others,
but no progress can be made in that direction until the problems are clearly seen.

169

THE CURRENT SITUATION

In 1978, the missionary book of the year was The Power and the Glory, (R&H) by Raymond H.
Woolsey. It is a summary of our prophetic faith and includes eight small pages on Dan. 8 and 9. While the
usual argument about blood from the daily sacrifices going continually into the first apartment is used, the
“judgment” verses are interpreted as pointing not only to a cleansing of the sins of the saints, but also as
divine vindication and a declaring of the “little horn” to be guilty. See pages 40, 45, 41. On Dan. 9 we are
told that “weeks of years” is a better translation, for the “angel was actually saying that seventy seven-year
periods, or 490 years, would be allotted to Daniel’s people, the Jews” (page 42).

Thus this easy-to-read little volume in its brief summary of the vital sanctuary doctrine offers an
amalgam of nineteenth and twentieth century Adventist positions. It is admitted that the original of Dan.
8:14 means “justified” or “vindicated” rather than cleansed; the actual prophetic statement of ch. 9 uses
years rather than days; and the judgment of Dan. 7 at least includes the wicked.

The current equivalent volume, Dick Winn’s God’s Way to a New You (PPPA, 1979), also discusses
Dan. 8:14, and like the above volume, is eminently readable. But it makes no reference to the investigative
judgment. Instead, Dan. 8:14 is interpreted in terms of the Hebrew concept of restoration. The contrast
between the two books is instructive. But neither book deals with the grave problems in exegesis that our
traditional interpretation faces. Despite the wide variety of new literature through our presses every year, for
a whole generation we have produced nothing of depth on the sanctuary doctrine except Heppenstall’s Our
High Priest exceptional also because of its departure from the usual Adventist presentation at several key
points.

With every passing year, evangelists find it harder to convince people that the time of the end began in
the seventeen hundreds, and the judgment in the mid-nineteenth century. Even neophytes in religion are hard
to convince that the omniscient God takes so long ferreting Out the evidence about His creatures, especially
when Scripture so clearly affirms that He reads the thoughts and intents of each soul, and that every heart is
open to Him with whom we have to do.

Meanwhile, on the outside, critics at every opportunity refer to our investigative judgment teaching as a
face-saving device (hardly flattering, though at least conceded to be the greatest of all historical devices of
that ilk) which is stale, flat, and unprofitable. On the inside, our scholars talk to each other more often than
to administrators, and sometimes concur with the opposition.

It would, however, be wrong to conclude that nobody cared, and nobody worried about our perpetuating
a teaching that for many holds grave problems. One prominent man amongst us, as already told, cared so
much as to send out a questionnaire to our leading theologians, linguists, and writers. The questionnaire
went to university and college departments, administrative centers, and editorial chairs. We wish to allude
once more to the results of that questionnaire. It is not necessary to draw from the documents of the Daniel
committee. The information has been given in meetings at both our universities and is available on tape.

Those who replied to the questionnaire and all requested, did reply included E. E. I-Heppenstall,
Earle Hilgert, S. H. Horn, A. G. Maxwell, W. F. Specht, E. R. Thiele, R. Hammill, D. Neufeld, T. H.
Jemison, R. E. Loasby, O. Christensen, S. Kubo, W. G. C. Murdoch, P. E. Heubach, and others well-known
to us. In response to the inquiry “What linguistic basis is there for translating nitsdaq as ‘cleansed’?”
twenty-one out of the twenty-seven had nothing to offer, five had next to nothing, and one surmised

170

that there may have existed an unknown Aramaic original. As to the query regarding linguistic or
contextual reasons for applying Dan. 8:14 to the antitypical day of atonement and the investigative judgment,
all twenty-seven affirmed the nonexistence of any linguistic or contextual reasons for applying Dan. 8:14 to
the antitypical day of atonement and the investigative judgment, all twenty-seven affirmed the non-existence
of any linguistic or contextual basis.

Such conclusions offered by the cream of our scholarship assert in effect that our traditional teaching on
Dan. 8:14 is indefensible. Yet today our traditional teaching is reiterated by laity and ministers in Bible
studies, in print by our publishing houses, in schools by our teachers, from the public platform by our
evangelists. Despite our awareness of problems discussed by our best scholars over five years, today we go
merrily on regardless. But all theological problems neglected, like personal health problems, have a habit of
springing back like a whiplash. A neglected hole in a ship’s timbers can mean the loss of the whole
company.

When the results of this questionnaire were discussed on the Daniel committee, the same current tapes
tell us that our scholars were much divided over the issues, with a majority wishing to ignore the problems,
and as a temporary measure, at least provide something to give reassurance to our own people. Others
admitted the problems frankly, and declared that the Scripture did not countenance the Adventist
interpretation, but we could strongly support our case from the Spirit of Prophecy. And there the matter
rested and almost died. Perhaps it did die certain it is that there is a very active ghost that refuses to-be
confined to coffin quarters even in holy places.

NON SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST SCHOLARS AND APOCALYPTIC

But exegesis is not dead. While we seem to have become more and more shy about attending-to the
themes of Daniel and Revelation, and have relied chiefly on the outdated commentary produced in
after-hours a century ago, non-Adventist scholars have turned to eschatology with a vengeance.

Exegesis has been more active in the twentieth century in the area of Biblical apocalyptic than in all
previous centuries combined. Prestigious, learned journals such as Interpretation and Journal of Theology
and Church have devoted whole issues to the topic, and books have swarmed like bees. While it was in the
year 1844 that the word “eschatology” entered literature as a strange Cinderella, there have been times this
century when that theme has seemed to reign as queen. Some German scholars have affirmed that
“apocalyptic is the mother of New Testament theology,”1 and others concede that though Jesus Himself was
not an apocalyptic, “the views of the apocalyptic tradition are everywhere the presuppositions of what He
said and did.”2

An American scholar has expressed the attitude of many post-WW2 theologians when he wrote: “To
determine our Lord’s attitude towards the subject of apocalyptic is one of the really urgent tasks at the
present time confronting Bible scholars.”3 Others frankly acknowledge that such themes as the Son of Man,
the kingdom of God, the judgment, the resurrection, Antichrist, the Second Advent all so prominent in
the teachings of Jesus, not only belong to apocalyptic, but are derived from the teachings of a book long
derided by many Old Testament scholars Daniel. Says Karl Helm:

At least in its main features Jesus accepts the vision of the future of the world given by
Daniel. For He solemnly adopts the principal part in the final act of the cosmic drama seen in
the book of Daniel … The “Kingdom of Heaven” also, which He had announced in His first
call to repentance, is the eternal Empire that according to Daniel is to follow the terrestrial
empires. For the import of this solemn declaration by

171

Jesus it is immaterial whether the author of Daniel lived about 600 BC under Jehoiakim in the
Babylonian exile, as he says himself, or whether the book was written in the first half of the
second century BC.4

Since the invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, the study of ethics has ceased to be of chief
interest for certain sociological and philosophical scholars alone, and has become recognized as vital for
human survival. But has ethics any supra-human support? That is the inevitable question. And does
Scripture have anything specific to say about the future? That inquiry is almost as inevitable. Thus the new
attention to apocalyptic.

The tables have been turned drastically this century from last. Most reputable scholars of our early
Adventist years saw in millennialism a topic for scorn. The philosophy of progress controlled most
theological discussions on eschatology. In the nineteenth century, post-millennialism far outstripped her poor
sisters premillennialism and amillennialism. But it is so no more. Few exegetes today espouse the once
popular tenets of post-millennialism.

One hotly debated issue this century has been whether the Olivet discourse was indeed uttered by Jesus.
The question is important because it is widely recognized that that discourse is a pesher on the apocalyptic
portions of Daniel. Theologians outside our church who were contemporary with such men as A. G.
Daniells, W. E. Prescott, W. C. White, etc., pictured Jesus as a nineteenth century Western intellectual who
could not possibly have believed in such chimeras as the end of the world. Since the thorough investigation
by G. R. Beasely-Murray of all the significant literature on the topic (see Jesus and the Future), inventions
such as the “little apocalypse” theory, coined to explain the origin of Mark 13, have fallen out of favor. The
recently revised Peake’s Commentary says on page 814 that “the attempt to remove the eschatological
element from the teaching of Jesus is without justification.” Such acknowledgements from scholars of all
countries could be multiplied.

This new attitude to Jesus, and the recognition of His respect for the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel is
accompanied by a similar reversal of attitude in at least some areas of Danielic studies. Let us illustrate.

The major attack upon the Adventist interpretation of Dan. 8 has been the criticism that the little horn
there sketched applies only to Antiochus Epiphanes and that therefore Dan. 8 does not go beyond a second
century BC perspective. In recent years, however, there has been a willingness to acknowledge that all the
visions of Daniel have their climax in the kingdom of God. It is doubtful whether there is any scholar of note
who would not agree that Christ’s references te the “kingdom of heaven” stem from His intimate knowledge
of the prophecies of Daniel and their kingdom climaxes. H. H. Rowley, in his article on Daniel in the
Dictionary of the Bible edited by himself and F. C. Grant, declares: “The visions and their interpretations all
culminate in the final establishment of the Kingdom of God” (page 200). The Frenchman, Lagrange, says the
same in his volume, Le Judaisme avant Jesus-Christ (page 62-69). The German scholar Gerhard von Rad
tells us that in Daniel there is “A much more precise delineation of the Kingdom of God,”5 than anything
known hitherto. John Bright speaks in a similar vein in his The Kingdom of God.6

A ten-year doctoral study entitled, No Stone on Another by Lloyd Gaston, suggests that the little horn of
Dan. 8 is reflective of the description of Lucifer in Isa. 14. Gaston says:

The “abomination” in Daniel seems much worse than that of 1 Maccabees 1:54,… We must
beware of reading Daniel too much in the light of what actually happened according to 1
Maccabees. In particular, the cleansing measures which satisfied the Maccabees would surely
not have satisfied Daniel – .. it is significant that there is in Daniel no men-

172

tion of a hoped-for rebuilding or rededication of the temple. In Daniel 2 a great stone “not
made with hands” shatters the fourth kingdom and becomes a “kingdom that shall never be
destroyed” (2:44). In 7:14, 27 it is again a kingdom which is given to the people of the saints
of the Most High, when the fourth kingdom is destroyed. Accordingly, it may very well be
that we should interpret 9:24, “To anoint a Holy of holies” in accordance with the usage of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, to refer to a community. The strange statement of 8:14 “the Sanctuary
will be justified” will then refer to “the many” who are “justified” by the wise (12:3). 7

In another place Gaston adds, “We have already suggested that the Sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 and 9:24
should be interpreted figuratively in terms of the holy community.”8 The recently translated (1979)
commentary on Daniel by Andre Lacocque takes the same position. We quote him.

“In that case, the expression ‘Holy of Holies’ not only designates the restored Temple, but
also the faithful priesthood around whom is gathered the community of Israel.” J. de Menasce
turns up his nose at any timidity on this point: 1 Chron. 23:13 concerns “the priestly
consecration of Aaron and his sons.”

We believe J. de Menasce is correct. We see confirmation of this in the very structure of the
text and in the identification constantly established by Daniel since chapter 7 between the
Temple and the People. We saw the most recent instance of this in verses 20-21. It is again
the doctrine from chapter 7 which is determinative . -. There can be no dichotomy between
the two aspects of a single reality. When the Temple in Jerusalem is purified anointed by
an ultimate anointing the People-sanctuary will at the same instant be restored to its
perfect priesthood.9

Another writer who sees beyond the limited Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation is Berth Gartner. We
read in The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament a reference to the prophecy of
Dan. 8, the little horn, and the cleansing of the sanctuary in the last days.

… we find in Daniel a combination of “the saints of the Most High” and the idea of the “new
temple” which is to be established in the last days. On the subject of the evil to come it is said
that one of the “horns” of the “he-goat” shall … defile the temple … but the good to come also
stands related to the temple; atonement shall be made for the evils of the people and eternal
righteousness shall be established, “to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a Most
Holy place.”… This vision of the future has sometimes been interpreted in special categories,
the implication being that “the saints” make up a new temple, a spiritual temple. It is the
kingdom of “the saints” which is called an anointed sanctuary upon which rests the presence
of God(7:13, 14)… It is important to note that the concept of the “anointed sanctuary” is
connected with the ideas of the Son of Man and the “Saints of the Most High.”10

This writer certainly sees Dan. 8:14 in connection with a final atonement which ushers in the kingdom of
God. It is also significant that this writer links with Dan. 8:14 Dan. 7 and its passage on the judgment and the
Son of Man.

Adventists have not always capitalized as they should have done on the fact that in the corresponding
sequences of the visions in chapters 7 and 8 of Daniel, while the former chapter culminates Its portrayal by
the scene of the judgment and the coming of the Son of Man, the following chapter at its climax promises
that “the

173

sanctuary shall be cleansed.” Thus we have the following parallel which shows that the sanctuary’s
cleansing is identical with the judgment.

Babylon (lion) Belshazzar of Babylon (8:1)

Medo-Persia (bear) Medo-Persia (ram)

Greece (leopard) Greece (he-goat)

Rome – pagan and papal Rome – pagan and papal

(beast with ten horns and little horn) (little horn)

Judgment scene Cleansing or vindication of the sanctuary

We are familiar with the fact that the word translated “cleansed” might be better translated “vindicated”
or “justified.” Ellen G. White frequently used the latter terms when speaking of the closing work of God in
heaven and earth, and thus gave evidence of her insight into the fullness of meaning present in the Hebrew
original of Dan. 8:14. See, for example, COL 178,179; DA 26,763-764; PP 68; GC 504,671; SDABC 7:986.

In the last half century particularly, many non-Adventist scholars have written a great deal on the topic of
“the Son of Man,” stressing the fact that this prophetic symbol is a figure representing vindication or
justification, and therefore points to the same event as Dan. 8:14. C. F. D. Moule says, for example,
concerning the expression, “The Son of Man: This vindication-theme attaches to it more readily than any
distinctively redemptive associations.11 And Gaston reminds us that “The concept of the Son of Man in
Daniel is very close to that of the Kingdom of God.”12 Another well-known New Testament scholar,
Matthew Black, speaking about the meaning of the Son of Man in the teachings of Jesus says: “The old
biblical Son of man apocalyptic has not therefore, been foisted upon the teachings of Jesus through the
tradition; it represents the substance of His teaching about the coming Judgment.”13 Dan. 8:14 with its
reference to cleansing (justification and vindication) thus parallels the reference to the judgment in Dan. 7
which pictures the Son of Man, and the great majority of modern commentators now admit that this last
figure indeed points to a work of vindication by divine judgment.

For over a century, Adventist evangelists and Bible workers have labored hard to prove to those people
with whom they were studying that Dan. 7:13, 14; 8:14; 9:24 were to be connected in order to understand
God’s last message, and what heaven would teach us regarding the judgment. It is now possible to point to
statements by Bible scholars of England, France, Germany, and America, not, of our faith, who likewise link
these three passages. For example, Feuillet says, “The three oracles of 7:13, 14; 8:14 and 9:24 are mutually
complementary and contribute to explaining the same reality” 14 (translation from the French).

Another line of study concerning Daniel which is of particular interest to Seventh-day Adventists has to
do with the theme of the book as recognized by non-Adventist scholars. Commentator after commentator has
employed the word “vindication” in interpreting this book of prophecy.15 The theme of vindication has been
recognized as permeating both the narratives and the visions of Daniel. Only in one verse of the book is the
actual word “vindication” found, and that is in Dan. 8:14. It is interesting also that the word here appears in a
unique form out of the hundreds of the uses of this root in the Old Testament. Furthermore, this verse which
strikes the keynote of the book by its reference to “vindication” is also the climactic point of the symbolism
of the book.

Commentators have been far from unanimous as to where a natural division in this book occurs. For
example, is chapter 7 to be seen as belonging to the first section of the book or the second? In Dan. 8:14 we
have a distinct literary dividing point, for this verse terminates the use of visionary symbols requiring
interpretation. Hereafter, all

174

is explanation. In the following verses we hear an admonition from heaven for Gabriel to make Daniel to
understand the vision. After a threefold reference to the need for understanding we have an explanation
given of the symbols of chapter 8 except for the climax of that presentation in verse 14. And the rest of the
book is devoted to explaining in greater detail the vision of chapter 8. S. B. Frost, when commenting upon
Dan. 8:14 says, ….. in the third vision the imagery is laid aside. – - the fourth vision, the last and longest of
them all, drops the symbolism entirely He was not prophesying when the rededication as such was going to
take place, but.., the eschaton.”16 Thus Frost declares Dan. 8:14 to be the point at which symbolic imagery
is laid aside, and eschatological in import, having to do with heaven’s last work for man.

When we thus read from scholars not of our faith that Dan. 8:14 points to the atonement whereby the
saints of God are vindicated, and that this same vindication is pictured in Dan. 7:9-13, and that the literary
dividing point of the book and the thematic heart are both found in Dan. 8:14, we should not therefore
assume that such writers view the Scriptures entirely as we do. In most instances these commentators are
what we would call liberal and do not even consider that the book of Daniel was written in the 6th century
BC. These facts, however, make it the more significant that in attempting to honestly interpret the text they
should reach similar conclusions in some respects to ourselves.

We have given just a sample of the evidence from recent non-Adventist scholars that many such have
come to recognize from the Biblical text itself that Dan. 8:14 should not be limited to the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes but rather points to the vindication in the judgment of God’s loyal people. Writers such as
Gaston, Feuillet, Gartner, Lacoque and others would paraphrase “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” as
“then shall the holy community be declared righteous by the judgment of God.” In this connection we should
remember that Ellen G. White viewed the worshippers in the heavenly sanctuary and those of the
church-temple of earth as one. Thus she could not only describe believers as God’s tabernacle or sanctuary
in this world, but also stressed that this earthly temple constituted the courts of the heavenly, and that
together the two made a single reality.17

Having shown that the essence of Adventist teaching on Dan. 8:14 now finds strong support among
non-Adventist scholars, we wish in contrast to point out that our traditional presentation of that essence has
been marred by non-essential dogmatism on doubtful matters.

TRADITIONAL PROPHETIC DATING AND THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT

The great saving truths of the Christian faith never depend upon inferential reasoning from a single text.
That God is our Creator, that Christ died for our sins that we might be forgiven, that salvation is through
faith, that faith always bears fruit in obedience, that Christ will return to earth, that now He intercedes for us
on high all such truths rest on substantial immovable foundations of Holy Writ. Should certain texts on
any of these topics be ambiguous, it matters not, for there are plenty of others which are not ambiguous.
Pillars of the faith are firmly established, they do not rest on fluid, uncertain, equivocal interpretations.

When, however, we come to our traditional sanctuary interpretation of 1844 and the investigative
judgment, such Is by no means the case. It is dependent, not upon plain didactic statements from Scripture,
but upon a prolonged series of assumptions and inferences most of which are highly debatable. We set
forth dogmatic conclusions where honesty should compel us to confess that the evidence is either ambiguous
or contrary to our claims.

For example, consider our perilous dependence upon the following assumptions, many of which are
interlocking in such a way that if one falls, so do the others.

1. That Dan. 8:4 speaks of 2300 days. (While Dan. 12 repeatedly uses the Hebrews
175

word for days, it is not to be found in 8:14. Instead we have the ambiguous “evening-morning” which
most apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings. Thus Instead of 2300 days, if these exegetes are
correct, only 1150 days are in view.)

2. That these 2300 “days” equal 2300 years. (Though it is quite impossible to prove that the year-day
principle is a Biblical datum, and even if we could, days are not mentioned in either 8:14 or 9:24, so there is
no basis to apply the principle in these instances.)

3. That these 2300 years begin centuries before the “little horn” began his attack on the sanctuary.
(Though in the context, the 2300 has been understood by many as applying to the length of time the little
horn is trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending its daily offerings.)

4. That the 2300 years begin at the same time as the seventy weeks. (Though there is no scripture to say
so. The Hebrew chathak means “cut” or “decree,” and there is no way of proving that the cutting off of the
490 from 2300 is intended.)

5. That it is possible to be certain of the exact year that the seventy weeks begin. (Though exegetes have
been agreed on this point. Is the decree like that of 9:23, a heavenly one from God, or one from an earthly
king?)

6. That the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7 has to do with the restoring and building of
Jerusalem? (Though there is nothing in Ezra 7 that says this. The context says that this decree, like those of
Cyrus and Darius, had to do with the temple. The magistrates were to enforce the temple laws. See Ezra 6:14
which places this decree among the temple decrees.)

7. That the decree of Ezra 7 “went forth” in 457 BC when Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem and set to work.
(Though Ezra never says this, and the decree had been announced at least six months earlier. There is
nothing in Daniel-to say that this decree should be dated from the time of its implementation rather than its
enunciation.)

8. That we can show 408 to be the time when the restoration of the city was completed. (Admitted even
by Adventist scholars to be an impossible task.)

9. That we can show that AD 27 was the date of Christ’s baptism. (A similarly difficult -feat.)

10. That AD 31 was the date of the crucifixion. (Almost all scholars hold to other years, not this one.
Evidence from Grace Amadon’s researches, often used by Seventh-day Adventists, is based on doubtful
assumptions, as admitted by our own commentary.)

11. That AD 34 was the date of the gospel going to the Gentiles. (Though there is no way of proving that
AD 34 was the time of the stoning of Stephen, and Acts 13:46 presents the turning to the Gentiles at a much
later date.)

12. That the 2300 days end with the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement. (Though the Day of
Atonement revolved around the sacrifice for sin, an event we believe took place about eighteen centuries
earlier. The divesting of his glorious robes by the high priest prefigured the incarnation of Christ which did
not take place in 1844. The book of Hebrews clearly applies the Day of Atonement in antitype to Christ’s
priestly offering of Himself on Calvary, though the Christian era is included as we wait for our High Priest to
come out.)

13. That until this date was reached, Christ was doing that work prefigured by the first apartment outside
the veil. (Though Hebrews tells us that the work of that apartment symbolized the ineffectual offerings of the
Levitical era when men had restricted access to God, and experienced outward ceremonial cleansing rather
than perfection of the conscience.)

14. That the work symbolized by the second apartment of the sanctuary was not to begin till over 1800
years after the cross. (Though Heb. 9:8,12, 24, 25; 10:19, 20; 6:19, 20 says Christ entered “within the veil” at
His ascension.) The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat took place immediately after its shedding.

176

15. That the sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven. (Though the context is about the
sanctuary on earth.)

16. That “cleansed” is an accurate translation in Dan. 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case.)

17. That the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was cleansed from defilement occasioned by the
confession of sin and ministration of blood. (Though Nu. 19:13, etc., indicate that the sanctuary was defiled
when a person sinned, regardless of whether confession was made. In most cases, blood never went into the
sanctuary.)

18. That the cleansing of the sanctuary in 8:14 has to do with the sins of the professed believers in Christ.
(Though the context has to do with a defilement accomplished by Antichrist, not the host of God’s people
who are suffering, not sinning, in the context.)

19. That this cleansing of 8:14 Is also found in Dan. 7 in its judgment scene, and that the latter also has
to do with investigation of the sins of the saints. (Though again in Dan. 7, as in 8, it is a wicked power which
is the focus of the judgment.)

20. That Rev. 14:7 has to do with the same investigative judgment of the sins of the saints. (Though John
never uses the word krisis other than in a negative sense for unbelievers, and though the very next verse
tells us that it is Babylon which endures the judgment, as the later chapters of Revelation also testify.)

21. That verses like Acts 3:19 point to the investigative judgment. (None of such verses studied in
context yield any such conclusion.)

22. That much depends upon Oct. 22, 1844, as the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement.
(Though Oct. 22, 1844 was not the day observed by contemporary Jews, even the majority of Karaites.
Neither is there evidence that the baptism of Christ, or the stoning of Stephen took place on the Day of
Atonement, which would have been necessary if the 49 years, the 434, 490, and 2300 years are each precise
in terminus. In contrast, observe that Ellen G. White could write: “I saw that God was in the proclamation of
the time in 1843. .. Ministers were convinced of the correctness of the positions taken on the prophetic
periods” (SG 232). Observe she is talking about the 1843 terminus, not Oct. 22, 1844. Furthermore she is
speaking of periods ending then, not just one period. Miller had over a dozen, including the 6000 years, the
seven times, the 1335 days, etc.)

In contrast to this traditional precision and convoluted series of assumptions, the chapter in our own SDA
Bible Commentary, “Interpretation of Daniel,” shows that such precision is contrary to the whole history of
prophetic exegesis of the prophetic periods of Daniel. Furthermore, when our own Bible Dictionary refers to
Dan. 8:14 in its articles on Antichrist and the little horn, it makes no reference to an investigative judgment,
but speaks of Dan. 8:14 as pointing to judgment upon the little horn and restoration of true worship.

Consider the following from the Whedon commentary on Dan. 9:

No prophecy of Scripture is more difficult to explain than this. Anyone who thinks it easy
proves thereby that he does not understand it. The more confident the explanation the less
likely is it to be of any value. Like all apocalyptic calculations, these have doubtless been left
enigmatical on purpose if not, the aim of the writer has been sadly defeated, for scarcely
two scholars of the old school or of the new school can agree as to the meaning of these
mathematical combinations. (Daniel, 290)

It should also be pointed out that some other long-cherished dates of supposed prophetic fulfillment have
proved erroneous those used for Rev. 11:9; 9:15; Dan. 12:11,12. Others, such as 538 and 1798, were
questioned by leaders amongst us long ago, such as W. W. Prescott. (See SDABC note at close of
commentary on Dan. 7.)

177

DOES DIVINE SPONSORSHIP GUARANTEE INFALLIBILITY?

Why then should some Adventist scholars have grave reservations regarding our traditional exposition of
Dan. 8:14? We answer: Not because we have applied .the verse eschatologically, not because we see in it a
heavenly court vindicating the saints, not because of our relating the passage to Dan. 7:9-13 and 9:24-27
all this and more, non-Adventist scholars of the highest order have also done. Our embarrassment rather
comes because of extra trappings which are impossible to exegetically defend, including our denial of some
concepts plainly present in the periscope. We turn now to these, but with the assurance that our central
concern is still the subject of the Day of Atonement in Daniel.

May we suggest first that some words spoken by E. G. White at Minneapolis almost a century ago are
most pertinent for our present concerns. She declared:

“That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty
years ago, but it is God’s message for this time.18

Great truths are rarely virgin born. Whether it is the great Reformation movement, the Wesleyan revival,
or the surgings of the Spirit in the days of Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, etc., truth has never been
unmixed with error. We are poor fallen creatures who cannot live either in complete darkness or complete
light. Jesus said long ago, “I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.” Even when
Truth incarnate came to our world, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and all truth has been so wrapped
ever since. Such swaddling clothes need to be released like the cerements of Lazarus, when the hour comes
for resurrection activity. This hour is dawning for the Adventist church.

Ellen White herself indicates this principle when she speaks of the hand of God being over the error of
William Miller. We need to ask whether even our own movement, like John the Baptist of old, has had but a
partial understanding of its God-given message? Has God had His hand over some errors in our early
positions until we were able to bear further light?

It is certain that all our pioneers understood the shut door of the first apartment in 1844 to mean the
rejection of “the whole wicked world.” Even in 1853 we find James White writing in the Review: “While the
great work of saving men closed with the 2300 days, a few are now coming to Christ …” 19

Ellen G. White shared such convictions also, though nothing in her visions plainly taught such ideas. We
were stumbling along towards the light in those troubled days with one disappointment after another.20

It took another several years after the last of the Sabbath conferences where the landmarks were
presented, before we laid down another landmark namely that the world was ripe for evangelism and not
rejected of God.

About six years after that advance, we were still struggling to explain the significance of 1844, and the
doctrine of the investigative judgment was born, approximately thirteen years after the event supposed to
have marked its opening. We were certainly right in seeing the doctrine of judgment in Dan. 8:14, but were
we just as right in affirming that this judgment was only one for professed Christians, and that it was a new
procedure whereby God had decided to turn to records for guidance on how to treat those who called upon
His name? Were we soundly based when we concluded that in 1844 Christ began a new form of ministry
which had to be pursued to the bitter end for more than fourteen decades before His living saints could see
His face? Did we do the right thing in severing Dan. 8:14 from its context about the damage to the sanctuary
being done by the wicked little horn? Were our linguistic conclusions sound when we followed the KJV
rendering “cleansed,” faulty though it was, and saw in it the basis for identifying the promise of 8:14 as the
antitype of Lev. 16? These are questions which the denomination cannot hope to dodge, for our opponents
will press them more and more. As those who love truth

178

more than life, should we not be sure ourselves of our answers in an area so central? Are we now
sufficiently mature to be able to agree with Ellen G. White that what was adequate for truth for a people
many years ago may not be adequate now? With these inquiries as background we turn to the year-day
principle, and similar matters.

CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING THE YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE

Big doors swing on little hinges, we have often been reminded. It is true in all doctrinal structures. Some
of Adventism’s distinctive teachings rest upon the genuineness of the year-day principle. Though one would
never guess this from our literature for the principle is ever assumed rather than proved. Take away the
year-day principle and what would happen to 1798, Aug. 11, 1840, and Oct. 22, 1844?

Let it first be made clear that Adventists did not invent the year-day method of exegeting apocalyptic
chronological prophecies. Theirs was an inheritance from centuries back. Jews not long after Christ taught
that in prophetic symbolism a day represented a year, and by the time the Reformation was established so
was this hermeneutical dictum.

But there are problems we should frankly acknowledge. This present writer believes that it was in the
providence of God that the year-day principle was espoused after the Advent hope of the early church had
faded away. Prophecy had been so written that what could have quickly been fulfilled would also match the
march of centuries if God’s people tarried in the discharge of their task. But now our prophetic termini are
far back in the past and nothing has happened since. It is time to look again at the evidence.

Where is the proof for the year-day principle? Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6 and Dan. 9:24-2 7 are usually
volunteered, but these certainly do not yield what is demanded of them. (None of these passages state it as a
rule for all symbolic prophecy that a day signifies a year. Num. 14:34 is not symbolic prophecy, and it speaks
of years in the future not days. In Eze. 4:6 the years are in the past, and actual days ahead are
contemplated. Dan. 9:24, as with Dan. 8, does not use the word “day.” The Hebrew term translated “weeks”
is actually “sevens,” and is not related to days at all. See next page.) To that we will turn shortly. But first, of
much greater importance is the whole weight of New Testament testimony that God’s ideal plan was that
Jesus should have returned in the first century AD, not long after His ascension to heaven. This is clearly
taught from Matthew to Revelation and recognized by the vast majority of New Testament scholars. The fact
helps us to understand why Hebrews could apply the Day of Atonement to Christ’s ascension “within the
veil” and promise that soon He would emerge to bless those who outside in the earthly courtyard were
eagerly looking for Him. See Heb. 9:26-28. (See Westcott and other commentators who so apply Heb. 9:27,
28.)

This thought should not be revolutionary. Ellen G. White says it clearly in Prophets and Kings 703-704.
What we are now doing to warn the world in order that the eternal kingdom might be set up was originally
the task of Israel after the return from Babylon, and should have been fulfilled by the end of the seventy
weeks of years. Our own SDA Bible Commentary is also emphatic that the end of all things should have
come in the first century. (See SDABC 7:729.) But the real evidence is within Scripture itself.

IS THE YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE COMPATIBLE

WITH A FIRST CENTURY END OF THE WORLD?

Consider the following passages:

Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matt.
24:34 RSV)

179

When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not
have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes. (Matt. 10:23 RSV)

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the
Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:28 RSV)

The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did
not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is
that to you?” (John 21:23 RSV)

Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing
may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ . . – (Acts 3:19, 20
RSV)

Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For
salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at
hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Rom. 13:11,12
RSV) I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who
have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not
mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as
though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings
with it. For the form of this world is passing away. (1 Cor. 7:29-31 RSV)

Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our
instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. (1 Cor. 10:11 RSV)

In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last
days … (Heb. 1:1 RSV)

For then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,
he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb. 9:26 RSV)

Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many
antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. (1 John 2:18 RSV)

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches
have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their
rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure
for the last days. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at
hand. Do not grumble, brethren, against one another, that you may not be judged; behold, the
Judge is standing at the doors. (James 5:1-3, 8, 9 RSV)

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to her servants what must soon
take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. – . Blessed is he
who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep
what is written therein; for the time is near. (Rev. 1:1,3 RSV)

Let us give special attention to Matt. 24:34. The blacksmith’s sign: “All sorts of twistings and turnings
done here” is appropriate to the exegesis usually applied to

180

to this text. But the evidence is overwhelming that Christ was saying He planned to return to that very
generation He was addressing.

The decisive tact is that the expression “this generation” occurs fourteen times in the gospels, and
always refers to Christ’s contemporaries. The context itself is clear enough. The siege of Jerusalem spoken
of in verse 15 launches a terrible time of trouble see verse 21. It is quite impossible to legitimately
separate the great tribulation from the attack on Jerusalem. Next, we read verse 29 which assures us that
immediately after the terrible days of Jerusalem’s suffering there would be signs in the heavens climaxed by
Christ’s own appearance in the clouds of heaven.

When we turn to what was probably the original version of the Olivet discourse Mark 13 the case is
at least as strong. The description of verses 24-27 is today overwhelmingly taken as applying to the end of
the age and the Parousia. The verses stand in strong contrast to the merely terrestrial phenomena of verse 7
forward. The convulsion of the heavens appears to be a fitting accompaniment of the manifestation of the
Son of Man to the world which has rejected Him. Vincent Taylor writes, “In the light of Sf (wars,
earthquakes, famines) and 26 (the coming of the Son of Man with clouds), it seems probable that objective
phenomena are meant.”21 The “gathering of Israel” is frequently pictured in the Old Testament as an event
of the end-time. See Isa. 60:4ff, Micah 4:1-7, etc. There does not seem to have been any plainer language
Christ could have used to convey the message of the Son of Man’s literal coming than verse 26. We must
ask those who apply this verse and its context metaphorically just how could Christ have made the point
of His return, if words as clear as these are capable of another meaning? We would also inquire whether the
New Testament teaching on the resurrection and the age to come is not evaporated by such exegesis. While
it is true that the fall of Jerusalem helped the young church to attain independence, it remains to be doubted
whether those Christians persecuted after AD 70 considered themselves to be in the age of glory.

Each and all of the statements preceding and succeeding the picture of the Son of Man coming in the
clouds, bear witness to significance of this central description. The great tribulation, described as occurring
just before the convulsion of the heavens, is linked with “the time of the end” in its Old Testament source.
See Dan. 12:1-4. Verse 32, by its reference to he hemera ekeine pinpoints the event of the great day of
Yahweh so often referred to in the prophets, 22 while the parables of the fig tree and the master of the house,
which bracket the reference to he hemera ekeine echo the need for alertness in view of its proximity.23

The case is similarly overwhelming for the interpretation of verses 14-19 as local and historical. V. G.
Simkhovitch long ago lunged at the heart of the matter when he asked, “If it refers to the end of the world,
what difference does it make whether that end is to come in the winter or in the summer?”24 And C. H.
Dodd in similar vein affirmed that the description in these verses fits precisely a condition of besiegement.25

Unless these verses have reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christ has not truly
replied to the inquiry from His disciples which provoked the discourse. Furthermore, the setting of this
passage in Mark’s Gospel is particularly important as scholars recognize. Christ had warned the church
leaders of His day that they were shortly to witness the judgment of God.26 The temple had been declared
abandoned.27 It is then that we have the announcement to the disciples regarding the dissolution of the
sacred building. Because Mark has given Christ’s prophecy with this context, it is an immediate presumption
that the discourse discusses the very issue which raised it, and in the manner of the prophets rather than that
of the apocalyptists. Chapter 11 to 15 each refer to the temple, and such an extended description of its fate as
13:14-19 might have been expected.

What should be said of the view that the discourse includes both the crisis of AD

181
70 and the greater crisis at the end of the world, yet separates them one from the other? (Scholars who have
taken this view include W. Beyschlag, F. Godet, E. F. K. Muller, A. B. Bruce, B. Rigaux, C. Cranfield, and
G. E. Ladd.)

Not all who see both the end of Jerusalem and the end of the age in this same chapter, interpret it along
identical lines. Lagrange and Rigaux, for example, differ considerably. The former considers the
arrangement of Mark 13 to be the work of the Evangelist as he blended two discourses of Christ, one
concerning the ruin of the temple, and the other the Second Advent. Not so Regaux, who holds that the two
perspectives were indissolubly united by Christ in the single presentation. Cranfield’s position is similar to
Rigaux’s. He says: “Neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is
satisfactory, we must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.”28

From a faith standpoint such viewpoints may seem acceptable, but exegetically they are hardly tolerable.
Some commentators, for example, point to the twofold question of Matt. 24:3. But when one takes into
consideration the accounts of the same inquiry found in Mark and Luke, it is evident that the disciples had in
view a single event only, of which the fall of Jerusalem was a significant part. (Matthew probably
distinguished the two events because, at the time he wrote, the first had already transpired.) Note the
parallelism in Mark 13:4.

pote – ti/to semeion

tauta- tauta panta

estai – melle sunteleisthai

In effect, the question of the disciples is, “When will this take place, and what will be the sign of it?”

The most obvious difficulty for commentators of this school, particularly those who view the discourse
as separating the two crises, is finding the precise point of division between the two. Some select verse 24,
but it is obviously tied to the preceding verse. Others prefer verse 20, despite its obvious link with verse 19.
Still others fix upon verse 21, but only by ignoring tote in this same verse, which links the statement to the
preceding and following passages. The majority settle for verse 19 despite the fact that hai hamerai ekainai
connects the verse to the previous description.

It must ever be kept in mind that verse 24 which introduces the Parousia is riveted just as closely to the
tribulation heralded by the coming of the bdelugma against Jerusalem, and without any hint of a separating
chasm of centuries.

Mark 13:30 must be understood as belonging to a similar genre as Jonah’s “Yet forty days and Nineveh
shall be overthrown.’ Here was the fiat of the Almighty to Nineveh. Hardly could a prediction be more
definite as to what and when. The whole book of Jonah revolves around it. Yet the forty days passed, and
according to the narrator, Nineveh still pointed its proud towers to the heavens. Jonah was certainly angry,
but he was not surprised. He seems rather to have anticipated it. “I knew that thou are a gracious God, and
merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repentant of evil.”

Jonah was familiar with the principles expressed in later days by Jeremiah and Ezekiel:

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down
and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will
repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or
a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and If it does evil in my sight, not listening to my
voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18:7-10 RSV)

182

“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not
just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his
righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has
committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has
committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life.” (Eze. 18:25-27 RSV)

Another Old Testament example is that of Isaiah’s words to Hezek

When Conradi had his hearings, we were not much better off; and Fletcher was perplexed by the many different views he met among our men in Washington. True, we did some studying as we were faced with the necessity of meeting theissue; but again, as soon as the crisis was past, we felt our work done. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there has been no official or authorized study since then. We shall be unprepared when another crisis occurs.

I doubt that we fully appreciate how much these heresies have undermined the faith of the ministry in our doctrine of the sanctuary. If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger’s views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital – and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is notof secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology.

I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions.

M.L. Andreasen, field secretary of the General Conference, to J. L. McElhany and W. H. Branson, letter of December 25,1942.

Summary of Argument from Hebrews

We would plead that the reader give the most thorough attention to these few introductory pages to our chapter on Hebrews. If these are wrong in their central thesis, then our whole case collapses. On the other hand, if the central thesis here is correct, then our traditional mode of expressing the sanctuary truth is erroneous. The central thesis referred to is that Hebrews clearly affirms that in fulfillment of the Day of Atonement type, Christ by the cross- resurrection-ascension event entered upon the ministry prefigured by the sanctuary’s second apartment.

Let us observe the testimony of Hebrews regarding this matter:

p.104

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. (Heb.1:3 NIV)

Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess … Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. (Heb. 4:14,16 NIV)

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on ourbehalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. (Heb.6:19, 20 NIV)

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man. (Heb. 8:1, 2NIV)

But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into theMost Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standung … He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption … For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own.(Heb. 9:7, 8,12, 24, 25 NIV)

Therefore, brothers, since 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 NIV)

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. (Heb. 13:11,12 NIV)

(Compare also KJV, RSV, NEB renderings.)

The most important expressions in these passages are the right hand of God,” “the throne of grace,” “within the veil,” “through the veil,” “the way into the holiest of all,” “Into the holiest… by a new and living way,” “into the holy place,” “minister of the sanctuary,” “as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year,” “blood is brought into the sanctuary,” (KJV) or their equivalents.

It is vital that we understand that in the last six allusions it is the same expression which is variously translated “the holiest of all,” “the holiest,” “the holy place,” “the sanctuary,” “the holy place.” That expression is ta hagia. Thus, repeatedly, Hebrews affirms that Christ had by the time of the writing of that letter already entered and remained in ta hagia – He had thus been engaged upon a ta hagia ministry for at least thirty years. The NIV is correct in using “the Most Holy Place.”

“Ta hagia” is a plural form with a singular meaning. Modern lexical authorities include it in their lists of words of this ilk. Our own SDA Bible Commentary recognizes this fact, and points out that hagia is used for the first apartment in verse 2 and for

105

the second in verse 3 of Hebrews 9. Ta hagia is used repeatedly in the references given above for the place of Christ’s heavenly entrance. Thus according to Hebrews, ta hagia is the place (or, as most would prefer, represents the form of ministry) entered upon by Christ at His death and ascension. Context, not philology, must decide the meaning of this key term.

Practically every scholar of the Christian age has believed that Hebrews by ta hagia means the innermost sanctuary – the second apartment called “the holy place” in Lev. 16:2, 3,16,17, 23, 27. SDAs have traditionally questioned this on the basis of the Greek plural form, but no competent Greek scholar amongst us maintains such a position today – or if he does, he is a strange rarity in the denominational scholarship. We repeat, Hebrews clearly says Christ entered ta hagia and was there in Paul’s day, and the term applies to a single place or that represented by the second apartment.

The context makes it quite clear that “ta hagia” is the place “within the veil” or “through the veil” It is the place entered once a year. It is “the holiest of all” and is the equivalent of “the second. “It is where the throne of God is located. Anyone there is at “the right hand of God.” See the above texts.

Heb. 6:19, 20; 10:19, 20 are emphatic that Christ at the time of the writing of Hebrews had already passed through the veil into “ta hagia.” That new and living way into “ta hagia” was symbolized by the rending of the second veil at the time of Calvary and it is to this that 10:19, 20 obviously refers. 9:7, 8 tell us that “ta hagia” is the equivalent of “the second” – the fact that the high priest only was permitted into the second, and that but once a year, showed that the way into the true second (the holiest of all – “ta hagia”) was not yet manifested because Jesus had not yet come. Heb. 9:12, 24, 25 as well as 9:7, 8 make this same point that it was the “ta hagia” into which the high priest alone went once every year on the Day of Atonement. The writer is saying repeatedly that what the high priest did once a year Christ has now already done.

There is no hint in Hebrews that Christ had gone into the ta hagia only to come out and return to the first apartment – indeed the first apartment is not applied to any special ministry of Christ in heaven above. There is no hint that at some time in the future according to the author of Hebrews Christ would enter upon a second phase of ministry, a future entering into the place He had already entered. This would make nonsense of the clear testimonies of these chapters. On the contrary it is a coming out, not a going in, that Hebrews expects. See 9:28.

It must be emphasized that “within the veil” is acknowledged by our New Testament scholars today to apply to within the second veil. This is not only my own position but is held by E. Heppenstall, S. Kubo, J. Cox, W. Johnsson, F. Veltman, R. Cottrell, B. Neal, N. Gulley, N. H. Young, and many others. This present writer knows no New Testament scholar amongst us whose protests against such an understanding would be taken seriously by his fellows.

Hebrews is saying as clearly as words can say it that Christ already in the first century was engaged in the equivalent ministry to that which the typical high priest performed in the second apartment of the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement. No competent SDA New Testament scholar has offered any written rebuttal of this truth which has been acceptable to his fellows. The consequences of these facts are momentous for the church, but if we are to be blessed of heaven they must be faced and acknowledged.

Heb. 9:6.8

Let us now look at these same truths from other angles.

The significance of the two apartments of the sanctuary, and the cleansing of the second is found in detail only in the book of Hebrews, and specially in chapter 9.

106

Regarding the ministry of Christ, as already stated, Hebrews unequivocally asserts that He entered “within the veil” at His ascension, and that believers In that day anticipated He would soon come out to bless the waiting congregation (9:28). It knows nothing of a future entrance into a second apartment, or a special ministry so prefigured. Rather, the emphasis is upon atonement already made, redemption already acquired – a work already done, and done once for all in contrast to the protracted Levitical services. By the time of this letter, sin had already been put away (9:26; 1:3; 10:11-14; 9:12), and our King-Priest had sat down at the right hand of God.

SDAs in the past have avoided the force of the plain statements in Hebrews by the following arguments:

1. “Within the veil” means within the first veil.

2. Ta hagia is a plural term, and therefore the references to Christ’s entering the ta hagia means His entrance into a sanctuary with two apartments to perform two phases of ministry.

3. The fact that the earthly sanctuary was a shadow and type of heavenly things makes it essential that Christ’s ministry consist of two phases.

The problems with these arguments are:

1. It is impossible to support that “within the veil” means within the first veil. See our pages 199-202, 206, 194-195.

2. Hagia is acknowledged by all Greek scholars to be a plural form with a singular meaning. It is applied to the first apartment (9:3), and also to the second (repeatedly in vs. 8,12, 24; 10:19). Ta hagia is said to be “within” or “through” the veil. Christ had to pass through the veil to enter ta hagia. Ta hagia is the place the high priest entered only once a year. These truths, set forth clearly in 10:19, 20 (cf 6:19, 20); 9:7, 8, 12,24, make it impossible to contend that the term embraces both apartments. (Note that the plural form in verse 2 for the first apartment, as some other anarthrous forms, points to quality. The first apartment is never mentioned again after verse 6, but the second is mentioned repeatedly and always in the plural form, and with the article (except when contrasted with the first apartment and linked with hagion; verse 3 only). It is within the veil that the real holy place lies, just as in Lev. 16:2,3,16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 33.

Our traditional arguments have ignored the plain meaning of Heb. 9:6-8. These verses assert that the significance of the regular use of the first apartment (rather than the second) was that the real way of access, “the new and living way through the veil” “into the holiest” (10:19, 20) was not yet available so long as there was a first apartment ministry (9:8). That is, a first apartment ministry would only be relevant until the cross and never after, and it represented the limited blessings of the typical era.

It is clearly said in 9:6-8 that the first tabernacle (i.e. the first apartment, see verses 2,6) into which the priests went daily, only had standing (status) until the reality symbolized by the types arrived. See verses 9-14. The writer is affirming that now “Christ being come” and having “by his own blood entered in” to ta hagia, the first apartment ministry no longer exists. That is, the earthly first apartment ministry has now no meaning, for in heaven above there is only the ministry of ta hagia – that holiest of all presence of God typified by the second apartment. The limited access to God, and the ever unfinished work of the priests taught by the first apartment, is in contrast with the boldness wherewith all believers may now enter into the second with the great High Priest because of His once for all completed atonement. See Heb. 10:19, 20, and the preceding verses of the same chapter.

The reader should observe that “the second” in verse 7 is identical with ta hagia of verse 8. That is to say, the second apartment, the focus of the writer’s attention, was “the holiest of all” (or “the holy place” in the sense of Lev. 16:2, 3,16,17, etc.), the ta hagia now made manifest (or “open”) by Christ’s redeeming act on the cross. 9:8 with its reference to “way” must be compared with the use of that same term in 10:20 – where it is clearly stated to be a “way” “through the veil.”

p.107

Yet another feature of importance is that the following passages of chapters 9 and 10 expand verse 6, 7 and 8. In 9:9,10 we have commentary on the ministry of the first apartment (verse 6), while verses 11,12 comment upon verse 7, the ministry of the second apartment. This is repeated again, with verse 13 pointing back to the ceremonies involved in the ministry spoken of in verse 6, while verse 14 parallels verse 7, and “the way into ta hagia” of verse 8. But there are two more repetitions of this same contrast between the ministry of the first apartment and that represented by the second. Verses 18-23 parallel what is spoken of in verse 6, while verses 24-28 speak of the antitype represented by the “second” of verse 7. And in chapter 10, the first eleven verses speak of the type as enacted by the ministry of the earthly first apartment, but verses 12-20 give the antitype. See the accompanying graph of these parallels.

The comments upon time limitation should not be ignored. In verse 8 we have a “so long as” or “while,” but in verse 10 we have the parallel “until.” Thus (verse “so long as the first apartment ministry had significance” is in meaning identical with “outward ordinances in force” (verse 10). Thereby we see that “the time of reformation” is the equivalent to what was represented by “the second,” “the holiest of all,” theta hagia. This same thought is found in 10:1, where we are told that the typical offerings pointed forward to the good things yet to come. Thus the contrast is ever between the time before the cross represented by the limited and continuous ministry of the typical blood of animals by earthly priests, and the time after the cross where Christ opens unrestricted access and confers the “good things” of forgiveness, the law written on the heart, etc. The first apartment stands for the era before the cross, but the second apartment for the era after the cross.

The fact that according to Heb. 6:19,20; 9:8,12,24,25; 10:19, 20; Christ entered the equivalent of the second apartment at His ascension is confirmed by a multitude of other inspired evidences.

It does not matter whether we understand by prote skene either the tabernacle first in time (the Mosaic sanctuary), or first in space (the outer apartment). The significance remains the same, and it is clearly expressed in verses 7-9. What the first apartment was to the second, so was the first sanctuary of the Levitical age to the heavenly sanctuary. Thus it follows that the first apartment stands for the entire Mosaic sanctuary, and the second apartment represents the entire heavenly sanctuary. Never, after verse 6, does the apostle apply the first apartment, inasmuch as from now on his chief concern is with the heavenly sanctuary and it is always set forth as the true ta hagia “within the veil.”

Some have suggested that the term “sanctuary” is the best translation for ta hagia as leaving open whether a two-apartment schema is envisaged, or the ministry of a single apartment. But even those who so contend admit that the ta hagia references have chief reference to the second apartment. The evidence from translators and commentators is that “sanctuary” to them meant only the second apartment when used for ta hagia. This corresponds with the singular form “holy place” (the literal meaning of sanctuary) in Lev. 16 for the second apartment. We repeat, the fact that the high priest entered ta hagia yearly with blood (verse 25) makes it clear that ta hagia is that innermost sanctuary only open for entrance on the Day of Atonement. See Lev. 16:33 RSV and compare Heb. 9:2, which uses “sanctuary” for a single apartment (KJV).

To make “ta hagia” in verse 8 and elsewhere mean holy places (plural) would make nonsense of most verses employing the term. It would make 9:25, for example, say that the high priest once a year entered the two apartments, whereas the obvious meaning is that the high priest entered the inner room once a year. It would make 10:19, 20 say that there were two holy places beyond the innermost veil. And it would make two places the equivalent of “the second” in 9:8, instead of one.

p.108

The chapter in which we find this crucial passage of 9:6-8 is the Day of Atonement chapter of the New Testament. Its emphasis is on the high priest, ta hagia, once a year, the blood of bulls and goats, access within the veil – all of which are motifs of Yom Kippur. The entrance of our Meichizedekan King-Priest through the veil to the throne of God is found throughout the letter. See 1:3; 2:17; 4:16; 6:19, 20; 8:1 9:8,12, 24-25; 10:19; 13:11. This entrance fulfilled the Day of Atonement. The typical sprinkling of the warm, uncoagulated blood immediately on the mercy seat after the slaying could not possibly point to 1844.

The rest of chapter 9, after the preliminary Day of Atonement references (8,12) sets forth other types of cleansing from sin such as the red heifer ceremonial, the sealing of the covenant, the anointing of the sanctuary, and its cleansing. Each of these is so “tailored” by the author so as to “mesh” with his key theme. The red heifer type never involved sprinkling with blood, nor did the covenant sealing or sanctuary anointing – but our author wishes to invoke the great efficacy of atonement blood and chooses language to fulfill that task. He never mentions the sprinkling on the mercy seat, for he wishes to make Calvary the place of the atonement lest readers think it incomplete requiring additional heavenly aspersion. It is the “shedding” of blood, verse 22, which cleanses the heavenly sanctuary (verse 23). This cleansing is already past in the first century, and means the same as purification for sins” in 1:3. Heb. 9:23 cannot legitimately be exegeted as applying to the future. All Adventist usage of this verse as part of an 1844 apologetic is erroneous. The first word of verse 24 links the cleansing with what the high priest did yearly and affirms that Christ had now done that. See verses 26-28, which further elaborate that the cleansing of the sanctuary was Christ’s putting away of sin by the sacrifice of Himself (identical with the significance of the blood-shedding of verse 22).

Having looked at 9:8 in context and found its testimony to Christ’s entrance into the Most Holy at His ascension fulfilling the Day of Atonement type, it is appropriate to ask what the chapter should say if the traditional Adventist interpretation of a two-apartment heavenly ministry in successive phases is correct.

In verse 8 we would expect something like this: “the Holy Spirit thus signifying that there would also be two phases of heavenly ministry just as on earth.” But it says rather that the restricted and rare entrance into the Most Holy prefigured what Christ did by the way of His flesh at the cross.

Furthermore, we would expect that later in the chapter we might find reference to a heavenly first apartment ministry, and then also the promise that ultimately Christ would, some time in the future, enter upon his final work typified by that “within the veil.”

We might also expect that Dan. 8:14 would be invoked, or the thought of an investigative judgment to take place in the future before our High Priest returned. None of these likelihoods are realized, and it is no wonder that SDA scholars have told us not to look in Hebrews for support of our traditional two-apartment heavenly ministry schema.

The most common objection to the foregoing thesis is the third one listed earlier – that inasmuch as the earthly sanctuary was a shadow and type of heavenly things, there has to be a heavenly equivalent to the first apartment ministry succeeded by a later “second apartment” ministry.

This argument shows that the proposer of it has not given due weight to the many statements of Hebrews which contrast the type with the antitype. See, for example, 7:11-14; 7:27, 28; 8:4; 9:11-14; 10:1-4,11-14. In the type, the priest was a sinner whose ministry was imperfect and terminated by death. He was forever offering, and knew no successful climax to his work. He belonged to the tribe of Levi and at the best could only enter the presence of God once a year. What a contrast to our Priest in the

109

true sanctuary above. Christ does not belong to the tribe of Levi, His ministry is perfect and is never interrupted by death, and belongs to “a greater and more perfect tabernacle.” He needs not to offer sacrifices continually, but after a single “once for all” offering sat down as Priest-King at the right hand of God, forever in the presence of His Father. Thus the antitype not only exceeds the type but is frequently in contrast or antithesis to it. 9:6-12 shows that the first apartment was but a symbol of the ineffectual typical priestly ministry, and had meaning only until Christ manifested the way into the holiest of all – within the veil, which He did at the cross.

Let any read at one sitting Heb. 6:19 to 10:20 (preferably in several versions) prayerfully and carefully, and for most the desire for debate will disappear. It will be replaced by joy that our great King-Priest has already accomplished our redemption, and set us apart for Himself, soon to be claimed at His glorious appearing, if we abide in Him.

(We have not in this summary set forth all the details of argument involved in interpreting Heb. 9. The following pages do that. Commentators are only quoted when their statements indicate some Scripture truth that many of us might otherwise miss. They have no authority other than the truth they offer us from the Word. Nor have we.)

The following chart should be closely studied and also those on page 129-130.

FOOTNOTES

APPENDICES particularly relevant to this chapter:

5 Quotations on the D.A. in Hebrews

6 Quotations Regarding Hebrews 9:6-9

7 Quotations Regarding Hebrews 10:20

8 Quotations Regarding the Significance of the First Apartment

9 Quotations Regarding the Antithetical Nature of the Sanctuary Type

10 References in the New Testament to the Day of Atonement Apart from Those in Hebrews and Revelation

11 The Gospels and the Day of Atonement

2. See appendix, “The Checkered History of ‘Within the Veil. ”

3. Edward Heppenstall, Our High Priest (Washington, ‘72), 202, 207-208, 108.

4. James E. Bear, “The Bible and Modern Religions The Seventh-day Adventists,” Interpretation, Jan. 1956,/0(1), 53, 54-55.

5. Ev 256.

6. It should be kept in mind that we never find the expression “the cleansing of the sanctuary” in Leviticus. 16, though it is certainly implied, but we do find a clear statement in Heb. 9 on the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (V. 23).

7. Only in Hebrews is the priesthood of Christ discussed, and similarly only here do we find the sanctuary offered for our consideration.

8. Froom worried about the problem for forty years, but discussed it only with intimates. See later pages of this chapter for the discussion on the men, and their relationship to the sanctuary doctrine.

9. Letter from F. G. Clifford, president of Australasian Division of Seventh-day Adventists, to F. D. Nichol of Review & Herald Publishing Assn., Aug. 8, 1957. Emphasis ours throughout this manuscript, unless otherwise stated. G. C. Archives.

10. Letter from F. D. Nichol to F. G. Clifford and L. C. Naden of Australasian Division, Aug. 29, 1957. G. C. Archives.

11. P. G. Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), 123.

12. ibid., 132.

13. D. M. Canright, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced (N. V., 1889), 117, 118-120, 121 -1 23.

14. D. M. Canright, Life of Mrs. E. G. White (Cincinnati, 1919), 101, 102.

15. See Canright’s LMW, 106-107, and Damsteegt, 157.

16. E. J. Waggoner, “Confession of Faith” (1916), 14-20. For the rest of Waggoner’s statement see appendix, “Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment.”

17. A. F. Ballenger, “The Nine Theses,” before the ministers attending the General Conference, Washington, D.C., May 21, 1905, 5:30 a.m. GC Archives.

18. See A. F. Ballenger’s Cast Out for the Cross of Christ, 67-82.

19. Probably she would also have questioned the following Ballenger positions. “The veil in the earthly sanctuary was decorated with figures of angels, representing the real angels which guarded the approach to the throne of God, and it is before this cordon of living angels that the Melchisedec priesthood ministers from creation to the cross. For four thousand years, the sins of a world separated God’s only begotten Son from His place at the side of His Father on the throne. For four thousand years, Christ was barred from His Father’s face because He was the sinner’s substitute.

“How can men assert that Melchisedec was a mortal man who was born and died like other men when the Holy Spirit plainly declares that unlike mortal men

97

who live and die, he, like unto the Son of God abideth a priest continually? and again, that “he liveth,” in contrast to “men who die”?

“Since Melchlsedec was a priest of the heavenly sanctuary in the days of Abraham, it follows that the heavenly sanctuary, which all admit existed from the beginning with God upon the mercy seat in the holy of holies, was not closed to a fallen world, as some assert, for four thousand years, with no ministering priest to minister pardon and life (blessings of the New Covenant) from the mercy seat in the heavenly sanctuary to the penitent sinners of earth.

“Some of the more studious of my brethren in the ministry have admitted that there was a service conducted between the heavenly sanctuary and the sinning world, from the fail to the cross, carried on by ministering angels. But they are loath to admit that it was a priestly ministry. But if these ministering angels offered the penitent prayers of sinners before the heavenly veil, and carried back the new covenant blessings of pardon and life, what more could a priest do? This is just what the priest did in the first apartment of the typical tabernacle. 0 the power of a creed to shackle the mind of the search after truth” (A. F. Ballenger, Cast Out, 45, 84, 85, 87.)!

“The healing of the sick must, therefore, follow the preaching of the Word. ‘Preach the kingdom of God and ‘heal the sick, is the order In which the commission is given. It is therefore evident that if the Word is not preached, God will not confirm it with signs following. For God to confirm the preaching of anything but the Word, would be for Him to confirm the preaching of a lie. If there is, therefore, any failure in the preaching of the Word, there must inevitably follow a failure in the signs following.

“The absence, therefore, of the confirming signs is a sad and solemn witness to the fact that there is a failure somewhere in the preaching of the Word” (Ibid., 104, 105).

20. ibid., 106-112. In his Gathering Call journal of June 1921, p. 3, Ballenger wrote, ….. no reply was received from Sister White, though the letter was registered and a signed receipt received.” Of course, it is always possible that only W. C. White saw the letter rather than his mother.

21. A. F. Ballenger, An Examination of Forty Fatal Errors Regarding the Atonement, (Riverside, n.d.), 1-3.

22. See DA 757; AA 33; ST April 19,1905; EW55. This last reference uses “within the veil” for the second apartment, not the first.

23. Letter from A. G. Daniells to L. E. Froom, Feb. 27, 1929. GC Archives.

24. W. W. Fletcher, Reasons for My Faith, 11. Again we would remind the reader that our quoting of dissidents does not necessarily indicate agreement. The present writer finds considerable fault with the doctrinal positions of Waggoner, Ballenger, Fletcher, Conradi, etc., though aware they were correct in certain criticisms that they made.

25. A. G. Daniells, Fernando, Thursday morning, May 12, 1910, 5 am. Before the faculty of the Fernando Academy. GC Archives.

26. Statement of the Conradi Case, 4. GC Archives.

27. Ibid., 10.

28. ibid., 10.

29. ibid., 10. 98

30. Ibid., 10.

31. Officer’s Meeting Minutes, Jan. 22, 1934, 9:00 a.m. GC Archives.

32. Letter from W. W. Prescott to Elders W. H. Branson and I. H. Evans, Feb. 2,1934. GC Archives.

33. A. W. Spicer note, “Bro. Prescott’s Statement,” GC Archives.

34. Letter from E. S. Ballenger to W. W. Fletcher, July 4,1931.

35. Statement made by L. E. Froom, July 20, 1930. GC Archives.

36. Letter from A. O. Tait to L. E. Froom, Jan. 28,1930. GC Archives. A letter from R. A. Grieve to this writer in April of this year stated that L. E. Froom had promised to visit Brother Grieve but did not keep his promise when he discovered that the latter could not accept the doctrine of the investigative judgment.

37. Harold E. Snide, “Some Serious Questions for Studious S.D.A. s” question #7 and #5, in that order. (Housed in E. S. Ballenger’s library now owned by Donald Mote, Riverside, CA.)

38. Letter from R. A. Grieve to Lawson, June 12, 1956. GC Archives. We give some documents at full length so reader can see the full context, and be assured that contrary evidence has not been omitted.

39. Harold Lindsell, “What of Seventh-day Adventism?” Christianity Today, Mar. 31, 1958, 8. Emphasis his. (A second article appeared in the April 14 issue.)

40. D. G. Barnhouse, Eternity, Sept. 1956. Emphasis his.

41. “In the Critics Den,” The Eschatology of Daniel, 9-10. Unpublished manuscript.

42. See appendix for the latter.

43. C. G. Tuland, A Partial Re-examination of Seventh-day Adventist Interpretation of Dan. 8:14, 10, 16-19. Emphasis his, likewise stylistic forms. 44. For example, the document, “Dr. Ford’s Dangerous Doctrines” by G. Burnside.

45. This information was volunteered by the son-in-law of Elder Sinz after a conversation between the two in Jan. 1980. The article referred to was on the front page of Der Adventbote, May, 1928 (No. 9).

46. The chief Adventist apologetics on the sanctuary are: U. Smith, The Sanctuary and the 2300 Days (Battle Creek, 1877); U. Smith, Looking Unto Jesus (Battle Creek, 1898); E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry (Mountain View, 1912); S. N. Haskell, The Cross and Its Shadow (South Lancaster, 1914); C. H. Watson, The Atoning Work of Christ (Washington, 1934); F. C. Gilbert, Messiah in His Sanctuary (Washington, 1937); A. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service (Washington, 1937); A. Andreasen, Hebrews (Washington, 1948); W. H. Branson, Reply to Canright (Washington, 1933); E. Heppenstall, Our High Priest(Washington, 1972).

47. Reiner, Atonement 43.

48. In Fullest Confidence, (Nashville, 1979).

49. William Johnsson, In Fullest Confidence, 115.

50. ibid., 23.

51. R. F. Cottrell, Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly on Daniel, Jan-Mar., 1967. See our appendix summary of key statements from this quarterly.

52. We would stress that by “new position” in all this series we do not imply that there is unanimous agreement on such position, but only that the new view has

99

become prominent among our writers and teachers whereas such was unknown to the whole corpus of our 19th century literature (with the possible exception of the Spirit of Prophecy writings). Neither should it be assumed that this writer necessarily carte blanche endorses the new and discards the old. Another thing to keep in mind is that a mass of evidence on the new positions cannot here be shown because it belongs to the confidential documents of the Daniel Committee.

53. Desmond Ford, “The Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary,” 3-6.

54. Ibid., 5.

55. M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, 130-131.

56. E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Service, 52.

57. Beatrice S. Neall, “Anchored to the Throne” (n.d.), 4-5.

58. Norman H. Young, “The Checkered History of the Phrase ‘Within the Veil, “5, 6. See Ford’s “Dan. 8:14: The Judgment and the Kingdom of God.” Young’s article is an appendix of this present manuscript.

59. Letter from J. C. Stevens to L. E. Froom, Jan. 2,1930. GC Archives.

60. SDABC 5:1109.

61. See Doctrinal Discussions, 182.

62. W. E. Read, Doctrinal Discussions, R & H, 48, 49.

63. E. Heppenstall, Doctrinal Discussions, 168, 169.

64. Ibid., 171. See also the lesson quarterly on Daniel, first quarter 1967, which agrees with Heppenstall.

65. Bert Haloviak, “In the Shadow of the ‘Daily Background and Aftermath of the 1919 Bible & History Teachers Conference,” 35-36. (Written 1979.)

66. Ibid., 42.

67. W. A. Spicer, Certainties of the Great Advent Movement, 121.

68. Letter from W. W. Fletcher to conference presidents re Daniel 8, copied by G. B. Starr, and letter from G. B. Starr, Sept. 17, 1930. GC Archives.

69. Report of the Committee on Revision and Republication of the Book “Daniel and the Revelation,” 7-8. GC Archives.

70. Letter from M. R. Thurber to M. L. Neff, Jan. 15, 1942. GC Archives.

71. Letter from M. L. Neff to M. R. Thurber, Jan. 7,1943. GC Archives.

72. Letter from W. W. Prescott to W. C. White, April 6,1915. White Estate.

73. Letter from W. W. Prescott to A. O. Tait, Nov. 23, 1916.

74. Letter from W. A. Spicer to L. R. Conradi, Nov. 30, 1914. GC Archives.

75. DA 632.

76. From the files of F. C. Gilbert. GC Archives. Spelling as in document.

77. 1919 Bible Conference notes, 26, 26a. GC Archives.

78. SDABC 5:503.

79. Especially theological research since this is everybody’s ball park.

80. It will be noticed that we have almost ignored the apologetic works by Andross, Watson, Branson this is because they no longer have general scholarly

100

support. Similarly, Andreasen’s books on the sanctuary and Hebrews have grave inadequacies, and in apologetic areas are completely inadequate. One need only compare the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary pronouncements by way of comparison to see that such is indeed the case. Documents belonging to the Daniel Committee are replete with glaring evidence to the same end.

In an attempt to summarize many of the new positions and their relevance in such a way as to leave intact the Seventh-day Adventist teaching of the eschatological application of Dan. 8:14 and the reality of a pre-advent judgment there was prepared in 1974.75 a xeroxed booklet entitled Dan. 8:14 The Judgment and the Kingdom of God A Rebuttal of Criticisms of the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine. Copies were placed in the hands of officers of the General Conference and also at Andrews University. It has been used as a textbook in eschatology classes by the author for approximately five years, while most of its contents has been used prior to that time from 1961. It includes a classic study by Dr. Norman H. Young, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on “The Day of Atonement in the New Testament.” That study is found attached to this document as an appendix. Its title is “The Checkered History of the Phrase ‘Within the Veil.’

Much of the material delivered in the Oct. 27 Forum Lecture at PUG is available in this booklet which contains articles written between 1959 and 1974.

In the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary on Daniel by the same writer, which was written in 1974, approximately 250 pages (about of the book) are devoted to some of the problems discussed on Oct. 27. As stated at the New Orleans meeting of college Bible teachers and others in 1979 this commentary is actually an apologetic for our eschatological application of Dan. 8:14. Much space in the prefaces to Dan. 8 and 9 is devoted to evidence that this verse applies to the antitypical day of atonement the judgment of the world. It should be noted, however, that many of the traditional arguments have been either avoided or rejected and replaced by some the writer felt to be Biblically sound. Many of the “new” positions listed above are embodied in Daniel, particularly the concept of conditional fulfillment of prophecy which implies that God’s ideal plan was that the end of all things should have taken place in the first century, not long after the cross, if Israel had prepared the world for the Messiah’s coming. See PK 703-704. The relationship between inaugurated [or proleptic] and consummated eschatology is stressed as the key to otherwise insolvable problems.

*************

The reader should read the following appendices at the close of this manuscript which are pertinent to this chapter. We cannot urge too strongly their importance and they should not be overlooked or treated as of marginal significance. The four appendices are:

Appendix 1: Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment

Appendix 2: The Problem of Dan. 8:14 and Its Context

Appendix 3: The Checkered History of the Phrase “Within the Veil”

Appendix 4: CUC Course Outline on the Sanctuary and 1844

Dan. 11 has also come in for new attention. The 1919 Bible conference saw a strong emphasis on new positions which ultimately were to replace the old. Thus the revised Daniel and Revelation reduces Smith’s fifteen pages on Dan. 11:45 to four short paragraphs. R. F. Cottrell has traced the swing away from the old positions regarding the French Revolution and the Turk. Similarly, none of our scholars today see any reference in Rev. 16 to Turkey. “The sick man of the east” has at last come to his end as regards Adventist prophetic exposition, and with him many other “ailing” prophetic interpretations.

Matt. 24:34 was understood by our 19th century writers (and many in the first part of the 20th century) as teaching that those who saw the falling of the stars would witness the coming of Christ. The Desire of Ages certainly did not originate that view but it does express it as follows:

At the close of the great papal persecution, Christ declared, the sun should be darkened, and the moon should not give her light. Next, the stars should fall from heaven. And He says, ‘Learn a parable of the fig tree. When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that He is near, even at the doors” (Margin).

Christ has given signs of His coming. He declares that we may know when He is near, even at the doors. He says of those who see these signs, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” These signs have appeared. Now we know of a surety that the Lord’s coming is at hand. (76)

The following is found in the files of F. C. Gilbert:

The Last Generation as Located by the Spirit of Prophecy

At the General Conference at Battle Creek, May 27,1856,1 was shown in vision some things that concern the Church generally … I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus” (1T 131, 132).

The following list of names of those present was revised July 14,1911, by Sister M. P. Comings of Battle Creek, Mich., in consultation with Elder G. W. Amadon, Sister Caroline Dodge, and Matilda Marvin. The vision was given at five o clock in the morning.

Living January 1, 1918

Hannah S. Hastings
–

Aceneth Smith-Kilgore
–

J. E. White
70

W.C.White
66

T. B. Lewis
76

Ogden Lewis
68

Lorinda Nordyke
–

Asheal Smith
83

Mrs. D. W. Reavis
67

Anna L. Wilson
79

Julia K. McDowell
82

Smith Kellogg
85

Dr. J. H. Kellogg
68

Mrs. Emma Kellogg
70

Matilda Marvin
86

Griffin Lewis
78

Deceased

JamesWhite
Roxena B. Cornell

UriahSrnith
Clara Banfoey

Cyrenius Smith
Jennie F. Rogers

Deborah Lyon
Richard Godsmark

Sarah Beldon
Mrs. Richard Godsmark

H. N. White
David Hewitt

Dan R. Paimer
Mrs. David Hewitt

J.P.Kellogg
Waiter Grant

Mrs. J. P. Kellogg
Jesse Dorcas

Leonard Eggleston
EliasGoodwin

Cynthia Bachellor
S. W. Rhodes

Henry Gardner
George W. Amadon

Mrs. Henry Gardner
J. W. Bachellor

George Lowry
Loisa Bovee

S. B. Warren
E. G. White

Martin Phillips
Albert Kellogg

S. H. Lance
Martha L. King

S. E. Belden
Carioline S. Dodge

Samuel Warren
Laura E. Brackett

Jarvis Munsell
S. C. Bovee

Total number of those in attendance at the conference, 61. Of this number, 17 are living, and 44 are dead.

Between us and eternity stand 17 persons, the youngest of whom is 66 years of age; the oldest 86 years.

“Transgression has almost reached its limit. Confusion fills the world, and a great terror is soon to come upon human beings. The end Is very near. God’s people should be preparing for what is soon to break upon the world as an overwhelming surprise” (Mrs. E. G. White).

Note The last revision of this list was made by Mrs. D. W. Reavis, who was one of the number, and several names added at suggestion. (77)

Compare words spoken at the 1919 Bible Conference:

Can you decide in your own mind whether in this generation of the proclamation of the message we have gone far enough, so the children of parents who first heard it are old enough so that the generation In your mind has begun yet? Is there any way to tell whether the generation has started yet or whether or not it has started?

PRESCOTT: I can’t fix any date when it started. My father as a young

93

man he was 16 years of age when the time passed in 1844. He accepted with his father the message of William Miller, and they left their crops standing in the field in the fall of 1844, on the basis that the Lord was coming. I am his son, still living, trying to join with you in proclaiming this message. I am 64 years old. I think we have entered upon that generation surely, but I don t attempt to fix any date when it commenced or when it closed.

F.M. WILCOX: I got an article from W. C. White yesterday in which he referred to the time when he was seven years of age and someone preached in the tabernacle that the Lord should come in a few years. He asked the preacher how much a few years was, and they told him six or seven. He figured it out that the Lord would come when he was 14. But He didn’t, and he is now many years older than that, and the Lord still delays. But he expressed the thought that he had learned this, that he was to live as though the Lord were to come today, and he was to prepare himself for labor and provide facilities to carry this message to earth’s remotest bounds. The Lord says it isn t for us to know the times or the seasons, the Lord hath kept them in his own power. “But ye shall be witnesses unto me.” I think there is danger, brethren, of our catching up some expression in the Bible or the Testimonies, and we think this limits for certain things to be fulfilled, and we make a stir over it, and then the years go by and that thing isn t fulfilled. I can remember the time when I came into the truth, they preached that those who saw the dark day, that was the beginning of the generation. Then they changed it to 1798, then to 1833. We have advanced the dates as the years have gone by. (78)

Gilbert and his contemporary Adventist believers considered the end imminent, not only because of Ellen G. White’s prediction of 1856, but because of the Scriptural data in Matt. 24 regarding the signs in the heavens and the promise of Matt. 24:34.

In the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on Matt. 24:34 we read:

This generation. Commentators, generally, have observed that the expression “this generation” of ch. 23:36 refers to the generation of the apostles (see on ch. 23:36). Jesus repeatedly used the expression ‘this generation” in this sense (see ch. 11:16; cf. chs. 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; etc.; see on ch. 11:16).

Christ did not intend that His followers should know with exactitude when He would return. The signs foretold would testify to the nearness of His coming, but, He declared emphatically, the “day and hour” of that event “knoweth no man” (Matt. 24:36). To make the expression, “this generation,” the basis for reckoning a period of time supposedly terminating with His return violates both the letter and the spirit of His instructions (see on verses 36, 42) (79)

It should also be added that few New Testament scholars amongst us today believe that the events of 1755, 1780, and 1833 accomplished the prediction of our Lord in His Olivet sermon. The signs are reproduced in Rev. 6:12,13, and the first is a great earthquake. This earthquake of the sixth seal, on the verge of Christ’s coming, is found also in the later description of the seventh trumpet, and the seventh plague. See 11:19 and 16:18. This earthquake causes all the cities of the nations to fall, (and obviously has not yet transpired). Adventists who located the darkening of the sun within the 1260 prophetic days failed to notice that Mark 13:25 also placed the falling of the stars “in those days.” It has become obvious that the real accomplishment of

94

these signs is yet future. Today it is well understood that the Dark Day was not global, and that the meteoric showers of 1833 were the recurring display of the Leonids, which have been witnessed about every 33 years, though not as grandly as in 1833. The Lisbon earthquake, as regards loss of life involvement, pales before several since that time. In the providence of God, these historic events encouraged the second advent movement, but the complete fulfillment of the prophecies regarding such signs is yet future. See the section on this in our last chapter.

When one reads such works of the last century as Christ Our Advocate, it becomes clear how far we have traveled since that time in prophetic understanding, and in repudiating positions once erroneously cherished. But it is not always understood that the inquiry must be made as to whether the early understanding of 1844 is in any wise affected by these new insights into apocalyptic exegesis. If Dan. 9:24 does not use the year-day principle (the Hebrew mentions “seventy sevens” it does not refer to “days” at all), if, as the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary in its additional note on Dan. 7 declares, it is impossible to date precisely the rise and fall of the papacy, if the word for “hour” in Rev. 9:15 has nothing necessarily to do with a twenty-fourth of a day, if the three and a half days exposition of Rev. 11:9 is erroneous historically, if the “days” of Mark 13:24 extend till the end of the world, if it is impossible to date the beginning of the seventh trumpet in 1844, if the signs of the sixth seal have not yet transpired, if neither the French Revolution nor the demise of the Ottoman power are signs of “the time of the end,” if Christ’s use of “generation” always applied to His contemporaries, if the New Testament always locates the Second Advent as an event for that generation of readers, if the seven references in Revelation to the imminent return of Christ imminent in the first century cannot be dismissed by a misuse of 2 Peter 3:8, and if the literal fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies was dependent on Israel’s fidelity if these things be so, or if only some of them be so, how is our interpretation of Dan. 8:14 affected?

If we have failed to set forth Biblical evidence for the year-day principle, and have shunned the task because of its impossibility of fulfillment, where are we then left? Are we pleasing God if we permit the “urgent” ever to crowd out the “important”?

Furthermore, if the second advent movement was one raised up by God (as both this writer and his readers believe), how shall we understand its significance, and the message God intends this remnant to give to the world? What is the practical significance of Dan. 8:14 that should now be proclaimed to every nation, kindred, tongue and people? In what way does it decide the destiny of souls? How is it related to the grand central truth around which all other truths cluster the Cross of Christ? Is stress on celestial geography really that important for a generation dying through ignorance of the gospel?

The author of this paper is aware that his realm is often dealing with abstract ideas. He does not have to handle many of the practical and urgent burdens which those in administration have to wrestle with daily. But he does believe that this issue over the sanctuary and investigative judgment is only one case in a question of much wider scope, which has implications which are extremely practical and urgent.

He feels that many intelligent people in the church, including lay-people as well as employees of the church, while wishing to be loyal to the denomination, find it extremely difficult to advance in research in many areas (from history to science, but particularly in theological research), (80) since any position which seemingly differs or re-expresses what has gone before, especially as expressed by Ellen G. White, is looked upon as treason or “removing the landmarks.” He feels that such a climate puts a strangulation-hold on research and true progress, and that it is in the church’s temporal and eternal interest to deal with such questions openly and without fear. The chief problem in many questions is the nature of the inspiration of Ellen G. White. Though we have never taken the position of verbal inspiration (i.e. infallibility),

95

in our published literature, there is nonetheless much misunderstanding about the nature of how inspiration works. We plan to talk more about this in a later section of this paper, but believe that the present discussions on Ellen G. White will inevitably help the church to face honestly such problems as the sanctuary, without taking anything away from the true role of the Lord’s messenger.

Old Position: “Christ did not make the atonement when He shed His blood upon the cross. Let this fact be forever fixed in the mind.” U. Smith, Looking Unto Jesus, pg. 237.

New Position: (52) See Questions on Doctrine for representative statements, particularly noticing the Ellen C. White appendix on the topic. In essence, the Atonement was made at the cross, and let that fact be forever fixed in the mind. According to Questions on Doctrine, Adventists “fully agree with those who stress a completed atonement on the cross in the sense of an all-sufficient, once-for-all, atoning sacrifice for sin. They believe that nothing less than this took place at Calvary” (pp. 342-343).

The well-known “Declaration of Beliefs” in 1872 affirmed:

With His own blood He makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest, according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigures the ministry of our Lord in heaven.

This was omitted in the 1931 declaration. Note that the latter is not an entirely new statement, but one purposely written to preserve what was defensible from the old, and to omit the rest.

This change in the matter of the atonement becomes chiefly relevant as we remember that the Day of Atonement was the Day of THE Atonement. To contrast the two in our thinking is to miss the Biblical point. After all, even the most zealous of traditional Adventists have never believed that Christ was slain in 1844.

Literal Apartments in Heavenly Sanctuary

Old Position: Christ from AD 31 to Oct. 22, 1844, was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and then at the latter day entered a flaming chariot to enter the second apartment.

New Position: From 1931 our Yearbook official statement of Fundamental Beliefs speaks of “phases” of ministry, not “apartments.” In an article written in the mid-sixties I listed similar quotations from current sources:

“To speak in terms of the symbolism of the earthly sanctuary, which was ‘a copy of the true one (Heb. 9:24 RSV). On the great antitypical day of atonement, beginning in 1844, our great High Priest may bethought of as leaving the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and entering the most holy place. Accordingly, the ’shut door would be that of the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and ‘open door that of the most holy place, where Christ has been engaged in the work of the great antitypical day of atonement since that time (see GC 430, 431, 435; EW 42). In other words, the ’shut door indicated the closing of the first phase of Christ’s heavenly ministry, and the ‘open door, the beginning of the second phase” (SDABC 7:758, 759).

“… when Christ ascended to heaven, there to serve as our High Priest He began the first phase of His heavenly ministry, or to borrow the figure of Scripture, He entered the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. There, day by day through the long ages of the Christian Era, He has ministered His shed blood in behalf of all who come unto Him by faith. Then we believe that in 1844 He began the second phase of His priestly work, as prefigured by the work of the earthly high priest in the second apartment of the sanctuary on the typical Day of Atonement.

74

“We have believed from the beginning that the year 1844 marks a significant last-day experience for the children of God, and indeed for all men, because the second phase of our Lord’s priestly work concludes with the end of time, and the end of probation for all. We have always believed that the essence of this second phase of Christ’s labor is the making of the final decision as to who, among all the professing Christians of the world, has truly appropriated the proffered grace and forgiveness offered by our Lord, and who is thus ‘accounted worthy (Luke 20:35) of a place in heaven above. We have held this position consistently with our Lord’s statement describing last-day events: ‘He that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved (Matt. 24:13).

“We have therefore rightly seen in this second phase of our Lord’s priestly ministry, a work of judgment. We have always described it as the investigative judgment, because, as just stated, it is during this time that investigation is made as to who is accounted worthy, a preliminary of the great day when God shall execute judgment upon all. Hence, borrowing the language of the ancient typical service, we have spoken of this work of our Lord from 1844 onward as the great antitypical day of atonement.

“….. the ‘greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands (v. 11) is equated with ‘heaven itself ” (SDABC 7:456).

“In Heb. 6:19 Paul leaves the word ‘veil undefined. He wishes to call attention, not to the veil, but to that which is ‘within (or ‘behind ) the veil, namely, the place where Christ our High Priest ministers. In other words, Paul is using the word ‘veil (katapetasma), not in terms of a technical discussion of the structure of the heavenly sanctuary, but as a figure of speech to describe that which divides the seen from the unseen, the earthly from the heavenly. Hence, ‘within the veil means simply to be in the presence of God. According to this view, hope is represented as entering the very presence of God, where Christ Himself has gone (v. 20; cf. ch. 9:24)” (SDABC 7:437-438).

“….. the earthly sanctuary, with its two apartments, and its cycle of services, is a ’shadow, or outline, of the work of Christ for sinners on Calvary and in heaven above. Indeed, we can probably feel to speak with more certainty regarding the sanctuary service than we can regarding almost any other aspect of God’s ways toward man, for there is actually presented before us, as adequately as earthly symbols can do so, the great original in heaven.

“From what may be known of the earthly we can draw certain conclusions regarding the heavenly. As the earthly service could not begin until the priest had an offering to sacrifice, so Christ began His work as our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary following the offering of Himself. As the earthly sanctuary service has two phases, represented by two apartments, even so the heavenly has two phases. And as the earthly service was in terms of the first phase until the climactic Day of Atonement, even so the heavenly service was in terms of the first phase until that time, near the close of earth’s history, when our great High Priest entered upon the second phase of His priestly ministry. The prophecy of Dan. 8:14 (see comment there) reveals that He began that second phase in 1844.

“However, as noted in the comment on Ex. 25:9, it is futile to speculate

75

as to the dimensions, exact appearance, or precise arrangements of the heavenly sanctuary, for ‘no earthly structure could represent its vastness and its glory (PP, 357). Man is ‘In the image of God (Genesis. 1:27), yet only Christ is the ‘the express image of his person (Heb. 1:3). The earthly sanctuary was patterned after that in heaven to the extent that it was a vivid representation of the various aspects of Christ’s ministry on behalf of fallen man (PP, 357). We may rightly speak of the ‘holy place and the ‘most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, for thus we employ the language and symbols of the earthly sanctuary (Ex. 26:33, 34) to understand, as best we can, the truth regarding the heavenly sanctuary. But we should not permit any finite perplexity in visualizing a heavenly sanctuary on the order of the earthly, to glue in our minds the great truths taught by that earthly ’shadow, one of which is that Christ’s ministry for us is carried on in two phases or ‘two great divisions, to borrow the words of Ellen C. White (PP, 357). This truth is vital to a proper understanding of the work of our great High Priest. For a more extended discussion of this truth the reader is invited to see the comments on the texts cited.

The epistle of Hebrews discusses the work of Christ as our High Priest. In certain instances, for example chapter 9, Paul speaks of the two apartments of the earthly tabernacle and makes a certain application to Christ’s ministry in heaven. Hence, this book has sometimes been the center of theological discussion as to the interpretation of Paul’s words on the matter, particularly as to whether he teaches that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary or ‘two great divisions to Christ’s priestly ministry.

“Now this commentary believes unqualifiedly that Christ’s heavenly ministry is carried on in ‘two great divisions, or, to borrow the symbolism of Scripture, in the ‘holy and then the ‘most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary” (SDABC 7:468).

“We speak of all this in the language of men; for only so, by symbol and speech, could God convey any idea to men of the great work of the atonement and the judgment. Human mind cannot grasp the realities of that heavenly scene of judgment: the books of God not like our books or records, but inerrant and complete; the symbolic blood not actual blood but the life which the blood signifies; the holy place and the most holy not rooms as we conceive them but the ineffable above of the great God and His ministering spirits; the day of atonement not a literal day, but a period the length of which is known only to God. And so with all the other symbols (A. Spaulding, Captains of the Host, 103).

“While He does not minister in ‘places made with hands (Heb. 9:24), seeing He is sovereign Lord, yet the two types of ministry carried out in the ancient sanctuary first, that of reconciliation in the holy place, and second, that of judgment in the most holy illustrate very graphically the two phases of our Lord’s ministry as High Priest”. Questions on Doctrine, 389. (53)

Was Moses Shown the Actual Heavenly Sanctuary?

Old Position: Yes.

New Position: No.

“It is futile, however, to speculate as to the dimensions, exact appearances, or precise arrangements of the heavenly sanctuary, for ‘no

76

earthly structure could represent its vastness and its glory (PR, 357). Man is ‘In the image of God (Genesis. 1:27), yet only Christ is ‘the express image of his person (Heb. 1:3). Anything finite can at best but dimly resemble that which is infinite. Moses was shown not the heavenly sanctuary itself, but a representation of it. The earthly sanctuary was patterned after that in heaven to the extent that it was a vivid representation of the various aspects of Christ’s ministry on behalf of fallen man (PR, 357). We should focus our attention on what He is doing for us there as Paul does in Hebrews (Heb. 3:1; 10:12, 19-22; etc.)” (SDABC 1:636). (54)

Did Blood From The Offerings Of The Common People Go Daily Into The First Apartment?

Old Position: Yes. See Smith’s The Sanctuary. 203.

New Position: No. See Leviticus. 4:27-30 and note comments of Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. See also Andreasen’s The Sanctuary Service, 137.

Does Blood Defile?

Old Position: Yes. (All our old writers so affirm).

New Position: No. Blood cleanses. See Heppenstall’s Our High Priest, 82-83.

What Sins Were Recorded By The Blood?

Old Position: Transgressions of the Ten Commandments.

New Position: Only accidental or ceremonial errors never the deliberate transgression of any one of the Ten Commandments. See Andreasen’s The Sanctuary Service. (55)

Sin offerings sufficed only for sins done through ignorance. “If a soul shall sin through ignorance” (Leviticus. 4:2); “if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance” (v. 13); “if any one of the common people sin through ignorance” (v. 27); “if ought be committed by ignorance” (Numbers. 15:24); “if any soul sin through ignorance” (v. 27) these are statements connected with sin offerings. They concerned sins of error, mistakes, or rash acts, of which the sinner was unaware at the time, but which afterward became known to him.

Sin offerings did not cover sins done consciously, knowingly, defiantly, or persistently. When Israel sinned deliberately, as in worshiping the golden calf, and refused God’s proffered mercy when Moses called them to repentance, they were promptly punished. “There fell of the people that day about three thousand men” (Ex. 32:28). So with the man who despite God’s express command gathered sticks on the Sabbath (Nu. 15:32-36). He was put to death.

Concerning willful or presumptuous sins, the law reads, “But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among His people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken His commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him.” Verses 30, 31.

To this general rule there were some exceptions which will be discussed in the chapter “Trespass Offerings.” It should also be noted that though there was no provision in the daily ritual for conscious or willful sins, sins “done with a high hand,” the services of the Day of Atonement provided for such transgressions.

77

Within the Veil Heb. 6:19

Old Position: Can only mean “within the first veil” See works by Smith, Watson, Andreasen, etc.

New Position: It means “within the second veil” Said Andross:

Moses passed “within the veil” and poured the holy anointing oil upon the ark of the testament, and also sprinkled the blood of consecration upon it before the regular service in the sanctuary began. In like manner, Christ, after making His offering on Calvary, passed “within the veil” of the heavenly sanctuary and anointed the ark of the testament, and with His own blood performed the service of consecration. (56)

The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary allows for this position because so many among us now hold it. For example, a contemporary college Bible teacher has written:

The Adventist Problem

Seventh-day Adventists believe that Christ, at His ascension, began His high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. They see two phases to that ministry, corresponding to the two phases of the Levitical ministry: the daily and yearly services. Christ’s “daily” ministry began at His ascension when He entered the Holy Place of the sanctuary above to intercede for sinners; His “yearly” ministry began in 1844 when He entered the Most Holy Place above to begin the work of the investigative judgment.

But the writer of Hebrews describes Jesus entering the Most Holy Place at His ascension!

Where Did Christ Go At His Ascension?

According to the apostle, Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (1:3; 10:12); He is “seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up . . . by the Lord,” 8:1, 2; 12: 2, 3. He has entered “into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf,” 9:24, 25. God’s throne, in the sanctuary setting of the book of Hebrews, corresponds to the ark in the Most Holy Place. His presence on the throne corresponds to the Shekinah above the ark.

The author further states that He has “passed through the heavens” (4:14, 16), through every barrier, “into the inner shrine behind the curtain,” (6:19, 20). The Greek is eis to esoteron tou katapetasmatos difficult to translate literally. Esoteron is the comparative of eso, which means inner. The expression literally reads, into the inner of the curtain. Arndt & Gingrich render it “what is inside ( = behind) the curtain, the Holy of Holies” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 314). The Revised Standard Version adds a noun: “the inner shrine behind the curtain.” This seems to be a clear reference to the Most Holy Place. It is no doubt the same curtain (the one veiling the Holy of Holies) through which the believer is invited to enter in 10:19, 20. “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which He opened for us through the curtain . . .

The writer also states, “Through the greater and more perfect tent . . . He entered once for all into the Holy Place,” 9:11, 12. In verse 25 “Holy Place” (ta hagia) clearly means the Most Holy Place: “the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly.”

78

The picture in Hebrews is unequivocal. Jesus, at His ascension, passed through the heavens, through every barrier, through the curtain, right into the presence of God on His throne. He went into the inner shrine, the Most Holy Place. (57)

And another college Bible teacher, Dr. N. H. Young, writes:

The word itself then is hardly capable of deciding the issue over which veil is referred to in Heb. 6:19. There are some other factors, however, which can be considered as decisive.

1. The outer veil of the tabernacle was cultically unimportant, it was the inner veil which possessed the real significance. (C. Schneider, “katapetasma,” TDNT3:629.) The Epistle to the Hebrews is more likely to make reference to this theologically meaningful veil, that the more innocuous curtain at the tabernacle’s entrance. (An entrance into the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary would hardly represent the “better” motif that the author labors to project; for this would be less than what the Aaronic priesthood annually accomplished.)

2. The inner veil played a cultically rich r”le on the day of atonement. The Epistle to the Hebrews draws heavily upon the day of atonement imagery in portraying Christ’s self-offering and high-priesthood and thus presumably has the inner veil and its day of atonement role in view.

3. The immediate context of Heb. 6:19f speaks of Jesus entrance “within the veil” as the act of one who has “become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” The only place in the Old Testament where it is said that the high priest enters “within the veil” is on the day of atonement (Leviticus. 16:2, 12, 15), and it here had reference to the Holy of Holies.

4. The Epistle to the Hebrews has a penchant for the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament. The actual phrase to esoteron tou katapetasmatos ( = the inner of the veil) occurs in the Septuagint only in Ex. 26:33; Leviticus. 16:2, 12, 15 and refers always to the inner veil. We should notice that three of the four occurrences are found in the chapter referring to the day of atonement.

We conclude, therefore, on the ground of these considerations of Old Testament usage, Septuagint language, and the context of Heb. 6:19, that the phrase “within the veil” in Heb. 6:19 means “within the holy of holies.” (58)

Many years ago the pastor of Battle Creek Tabernacle wrote to L. E. Froom as follows:

As Moses, when He ascended, He went into the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, within the vail (Heb. 6:19). I do not think we are right in interpreting that to mean the first vail. In every place in the Bible where the expression “the vail” or “within the vail” or “without the vail” is used, it refers to the vail between the holy place and Most Holy place. There was the hope, within the vail. As Moses He anointed the Most Holy Place. Dan. 9:24; this was within the 70th week. (59)

Better than all such testimonies is the evidence of the author of Hebrews himself. A parallel passage to Heb. 6:19 is 10:20 where we also read of Christ’s entrance beyond the veil. The allusion of this passage is to the rending of the second veil when Christ died on Calvary. See Matt. 27:51. Ellen C. White is only one of many Seventh-day Adventists who has clearly recognized the significance of this historical occurrence.

79

The mercy seat, upon which the glory of God rested in the holiest of all, is opened to all who accept Christ as the propitiation for sin, and through its medium, they are brought into fellowship with God. The veil is rent, the partition walls broken down, the handwriting of ordinances cancelled. By virtue of His blood the enmity is abolished. Through faith in Christ, Jew and Gentile may partake of the living bread. (60)

It should be observed that if this new position is correct, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, then those who have claimed over the years that Christ at His ascension entered into that symbolized by the Most Holy Place were correct and the entire debate is over. All that remains is an apologetic showing that what was fulfilled with inaugurated eschatology is filled full with the events of consummated eschatology a not impossible task. See chapters four and five of this document.

Nature of the Judgment

Old Position: Since 1844 God has been examining the books to find whom He has the right to save.

New Position:”… not to be conceived as God’s poring over the record books. (61)

Old Position: The Father judges, and Christ is the mediator.

New Position: The Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment to the Son. John 5:22.

Daniel 7:9.13

Old Position: This passage pictures an examination of the sins of the believers in Christ. (All Seventh-day Adventist comments on this chapter before 1950 so affirm.)

New Position: This passage pictures an examination of the sins of the little horn, judgment upon that power for the sake of the saints.

This judgment issues in a condemnation of the little horn, and a verdict in favor of the saints … In this prophecy Daniel refers particularly to one group symbolized by the “little horn” which came in for examination, for sentence, and for condemnation… He does not aim to list all whose cases are to be considered, he mentions only the “little horn.”62 (In the GC Archives, with Brother Read’s magnum opus his unpublished manuscript is a letter from his secretary protesting the fact that he had departed from the traditional mode of presenting the investigative judgment as taking only the saints into consideration. Apparently, Brother Read was not persuaded.)

Judgment is declared and given against the little horn and the opposing powers in favor of the saints.. . The nature of the judgment embraces judgment upon the little horn. (63)

Revelation 14:7

Old Position: This judgment is the investigative judgment of the saints.

New Position: This judgment concerns the wicked world as well. (64)

Daniel 8:14

Old Position: Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed the investigative judgment will cleanse the heavenly sanctuary records.

On the basis of the KJV rendering (which is a mistranslation), Dan. 8:14 was linked with Leviticus. 16, and explained as the investigative judgment.

80

New Position: But in the twentieth century, an endeavor has been made to link the answer of 8:14 to the question of 8:13. Evangelists had had great difficulty in this area, and therefore the new view of the “daily” found enthusiastic acceptance, as well as energetic opposition of some such as S. N. Haskell, Leon Smith (the son of Uriah), J. S. Washburn, C. B. Starr, F. C. Gilbert and others who held extreme views on the nature of the inspiration of Ellen C. White. Such was the verdict of W. C. White as he surveyed the controversy.

Conradi, W. W. Prescott, A. C. Daniells, W. A. Spicer, W. C. White and others emphasized the new view of the “daily” as the ministration of Christ and thus made possible the interpretation of verse 14 as the restoration of the truth of the gospel. (This did not mean a denial of the investigative judgment but led to a de-emphasis of it.) Note the words of Prescott as recorded by Haloviak.

“Our message against the beast and his image centers right here, and that is to give Christ the place that belongs to Him. When we are preaching the person of Christ, as we have been doing here, we are preaching against the papacy, even though we do not mention the papacy… The vital thing is to give Christ His place as the living head of the church … His priesthood is a continual priesthood. His sacrifice is a continual sacrifice. His ministry is a continual ministry. All growing out of the fact that He in His own person continued. Now if you take away this, you despoil Christianity . . . Our continual experience is based upon His continual ministration. Our ability to continue as Christians, our ability to continue personally is based upon the Person of Him who continues, and that is based upon His work in His continual service for us… The continual sacrifice goes on. It is one sacrifice for sin continually, and we shall live because He gives Himself to us continually. So the whole question of our Christian experience, our ability to work for Him is all bound up in this one thing. Then when the papacy strikes at this one thing it strikes at that which will demolish Christianity. And that is its purpose: to abolish Christianity and put a man in Christ’s place. We must restore the law of God as interpreted by Christ. We must restore the dealing with that law as revealed in the scriptures. We must restore to the people the means of obeying that law, or else we are not giving this message to the world.”

As did other debaters on the “daily” question, Prescott believed he saw in the subject elements of truth that far transcended the immediate theological issue. As early as 1907 he stated that he believed his view of Dan. 8 established a “much more vital connection with the real heart of this message” than had been possible under the previous interpretation. He believed that the “new view” enabled a knowledge of the mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary that the denomination was especially called upon to present to the world just as the counterfeit mediatorial system was designed to encompass the world within its false system. He and others attached a special significance to the particular time in Adventist history when light was shining upon this view since it seemed to come at the time when Adventism was moving strongly into Roman Catholic countries. While the message exposed the false sanctuary, Prescott believed it also called the world to a restoration of the pure Word of God and supplied the power necessary for obedience to the law of God by faith in Christ’s mediatorial work. (65)

Haloviak later discusses the attitude of Daniells:

As did almost everyone who engaged in the debate, Daniells believed that

81

the real issues involved far transcended the question over whether or not the “daily” represented paganism and when it was taken away. If that was the only issue, said Daniells, “I would not waste much of my time arguing with men who persist in making claims utterly at variance with all the reliable history of the world” Daniells believed he received great blessing and deep insight into the glorious Biblical truths concerning the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary after having immersed himself in the study. Indeed, Daniells believed that the truth concerning the “efficacious work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary” should well have accompanied the presentation of righteousness by faith in 1888. No wonder, Daniells asserted, that Satan instituted the false system that he had through the Papacy. Daniells saw a controversy “whether the enemy shall bring in the most stupendous counterfeit that he has ever foisted upon the human family, and put it in place [of] the vital, fundamental truth regarding man’s salvation.” (66)

When W. A. Spicer wrote on the topic he emphasized that the meaning of 8:14 sprang from the issues set forth in verse 13.

The question was, “How long?” or, more literally, “Until when” shall apostasy work its way, seemingly unhindered? When will the truths trodden underfoot by human tradition be lifted up again? When will the Lord give answer to great apostasy?

And the answer was, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days [years]; then” then what? “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Then, according to the burden of the prophecy, we may look for God to lift up truths trodden underfoot by human tradition that has made void God’s law.

The cleansing of the sanctuary, then, brings God’s answer to error and apostasy. The cleansing of the sanctuary is to lead to the end of the way of error and the reign of sin. Apostasy may for a time exalt itself against God, and tread underfoot the people and the truth of God; but the just balances of the sanctuary will yet pronounce judgment, and the apparent prosperity of evil be cut short. (67)

Years earlier, A. T. Jones, in The Consecrated Way, had written at length on the significance of Dan. 8:14. We look in vain for any elaboration of the doctrine of the investigative judgment. Instead we find the new view of the daily, linking the eclipsing of the gospel by Antichrist in verse 13 and its restoration in verse 14. Jones equated the cleansing of the sanctuary with the finishing of the work of the gospel on earth, the destruction of the wicked, and the cleansing of the universe from all taint of sin. (See 120, 117, etc.) We quote from 112:

In 1844 also was the very time of “the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound,” and when “the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants the prophets.”

At that time there would be broken up the horror of great darkness by which the mystery of iniquity had hid from ages and generations the mystery of God. At that time the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, and the truth of it, would be lifted up from the ground where the man of sin had cast them down and stamped upon them, and would be exalted to the heaven where they belong, and whence they will shine forth in such light as that the earth shall be lightened with the glory. At that time the transcendent truth of the priesthood and ministry of Christ would be rescued from the oblivion to which the abomination and transgression

82

of desolation had consigned it, and would once more and forever stand in its true and heavenly place in the faith of the church, accomplishing in every true believer that perfection which is the eternal purpose of God which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

It should not be thought that this interest In the ‘daily” of 8:13 and its relationship to the reply of 8:14 was only a passing Interest. It has remained a center of attention since the stormy years at the turn of the century when the church was shaken to its foundations by the controversy. Not all, however, have seen its implications for the traditional mode of explaining 8:14 (the investigative judgment interpretation). Two men who did see the implications and who took opposing positions were W. W. Fletcher and C. B. Starr. The following should not only be read, but pondered.

In the eighth chapter of Daniel much is said about great calamities that would befall the “pleasant land,” the “host,” “the sanctuary,” “the continual burnt offering,” and the “place of the sanctuary.” The sanctuary and host are to be “trodden under foot.” Then it is predicted, that after a long period the sanctuary would be cleansed, or justified. It is manifest that this cleansing, this justifying, or setting right, must be a reversal of or deliverance from the conditions that are described as “treading under foot,” and “trampling upon.”

In Bible Readings 224-229, we have a setting forth of our interpretation of the eighth chapter of Daniel, from which I select the following passages.

“In Dan. 8:11-13, in the revised version, the words, “burnt offerings,” have been supplied by the translators after the word “continual” but this rendering seems to place too restricted a meaning upon the word “continual.” The fact that no word is connected with continual in the original text, although in the typical service of the sanctuary it is used with “burnt offering,” Ex. 29:42, with incense, Ex. 30:8, here rendered “perpetually,” and with “shew bread,” Numbers. 4:7, indicated that that which is continual represents the continual service or mediation of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, in which all that was continual in the typical service found its antitype and fulfillment. See Heb. 6:19,20; 7:1-3, 13-16, 23-25.

“The action which made the Pope the vicar of God and the high priest of the apostasy, really took away from Christ, as far as human intent and power were concerned, His place and work as the only mediator between God and man (I Tim. 2:5), and this took away from Him, as far as man could take it away, the continual mediation, according to the prediction of the prophecy.

In verse 13, R.V., the vision is clearly defined. It is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering (or continual mediation) and the transgression that maketh desolate, which results in giving both the sanctuary and the people of God to be trodden under foot.”

If this interpretation be correct and I believe it to be a good and scriptural interpretation we have a description of the conditions that called for the cleansing or justifying of the sanctuary. What are these conditions, according to the foregoing interpretations?

The sanctuary and the people of God are trodden under foot by the papacy. The continual service or mediation of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary is taken away from Him by a false system of the papacy.

83

Now if these things constitute the need for a work of justification or cleansing and I do not deny that they do, what must be the nature of the work of justification or cleansing? Manifestly it must be the setting right or correction of the wrong that has been wrought through the false system, by a vindication of the true service or mediation of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, and the relief or deliverance of those who with the sanctuary have been trodden under foot.

The other side of the teaching affirms that the sins of believing men and women are “transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary,” and that the actual cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out of the sins that are there recorded.

Do these two sets of teaching agree? I would earnestly urge upon the consideration of the brethren that they do not at all agree together.

W. W. Fletcher

Copied by Elder G. B. Starr

Loma Linda, Calif., Sept. 17, 1930.

I wish to add also that Fletcher’s interpretation appeals to me as consistent with the “New View of the DAILY,” and calculated to lead away from the entire Three Angel’s messages, as it has led him. And further, it led him to give up the teachings of the heavenly sanctuary, as a literal place, as shown to Moses, and to the spiritualizing of the “Most Holy Place,” as “the very presence of God.” It also leads to appointing another meeting place than that ordained and named by God, “as over the mercy seat, between the cherubims.

I wish to appeal to all Seventh-day Adventist ministers to return to the original and “correct view of the Daily,” as interpreted in 1844 and endorsed by the Spirit of God in Early Writings, 74, 75. That all the trumpets may give the same certain sound of the announcement of the “Hour of His judgment come, and that at the end of the 2300 days, in 1844 and onward, the sanctuary was to be, and is being cleansed. Here I have always stood and continue to stand.

Sincerely yours in faith and hope,

G. B. Starr. (68)

Such warnings as Starr’s have not prevented the church from pursuing the “new” insights on the “daily” insights which actually reflect the prophetic interpretations of the Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century. L. E. Froom has been prominent in recent decades in this as in other areas. See pages 60-65 in Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, volume 4, which we believe to be his work. See also Prophetic Faith, volume 4, pp. 1154-1156, which we now quote.

In inspired vision the prophet Daniel had seen apostasy entrenched in the church, magnifying itself against Christ, the “Prince of the host.” In historical fulfillment this perverting power took away man’s sole dependence upon Christ’s all-sufficient, vicarious, atoning sacrifice, made “once for all” for all mankind (Heb. 9:25-28). And it has also taken away the understanding of, and reliance upon, Christ’s unceasing priestly mediation thereafter for man, in the heavenly sanctuary. In this way this obstructing power robbed man of the supreme redemptive provisions of God Christ’s death as atoning Sacrifice on earth, eighteen centuries prior, followed by His mediatorial ministry as Priest in heaven ever since. And it has practiced and prospered long in its perversion and obscuring of the truth of these saving provisions (Dan. 8:11, 12).

84

“How long,” was the anxious inquiry heard by the prophet, shall this lawless power be permitted to tread underfoot the cardinal truths and provisions of redemption concerning “the sanctuary and the host” (verse 13)? Until the 2300 year-days shall expire, was the explicit response, and then shall the sanctuary be cleansed at the close of that long, fateful period (verse 14). Then these downtrodden truths that have such vital relationship to the judgment hour and its immutable standard, the law of God, will again be lifted up under the banner of last-day reformation and restoration. Then, according to the prophetic promise, at the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary its provisions will be vindicated and restored to their rightful place.

Thus O. R. L. Crosier and James White had reasoned and clearly declared, as we have seen, in 1846 and in 1851 respectively. And this principle began likewise to be clearly grasped and declared by some back in the Millerite movement.

Eventually the Sabbatarian Adventists came to see that this basic prophetic portrayal, given not only through Daniel the prophet but supported and amplified by John the revelator, included the vital fact that, as the hour of God’s judgment comes in heaven, a distinctive movement develops among men on earth, reviving and restoring these downtrodden truths. And this results in a people described as keeping “the commandments of God” and having “the faith of Jesus” (Rev. 14:6.1 2). They would thus lift up again, in this stipulated combination, the very truths that error, tradition, and gross departure had long trampled underfoot. And they would restore the larger understanding of the matchless ministry of Christ, first as all-sufficient Sacrifice, then as all-prevailing High Priest in the sanctuary above (Heb. 8 and 9), with its “ark of His testament,” and its mercy seat overshadowing the tables of the eternal law of God (Rev. 11:19).

Parallel with the teaching that 8:14 points to a restoration of the gospel taken away by Antichrist has been the insistence that the Hebrew term translated “cleansed” in the KJV should be given more accurate recognition. See Problems in Bible Translation 176-177, the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4:845, and the writings of Edward Heppenstall.

Terminus for Dan. 8:14

Old Position: The cleansing reaches to the end of the investigative judgment at the close of probation.

New Position: The “cleansing” involves the whole work of judgment and extends to the setting up of the earth made new. See Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4:845, and note the words of L. E. Froom in Prophetic Faith 4:1159-1160.

Just so, the Sabbatarians came to understand, the final cleansing of the antitypical sanctuary, accompanied by a heart cleansing among the people of God, not only is to end in the judgment of all men, and in the redemption of the saints, but is finally to eventuate in a clean universe, through the ultimate banishment of all sin and perversion and the total eradication of all of its effects forever. (Rev. 20:9.11)

Little Horn of Daniel 8

Old Position: Cannot be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.

New Position: Can be applied to Antiochus, though he does not exhaust it. This is

85

believed by S. Horn, R. Cottrell, D. Neufeld, Ford, etc. At the 1919 Bible Conference, Lacey, Wirth, M. Wilcox and others saw the prominence of Antiochus in Daniel

Hebrews 9

Old Position: A basis for our sanctuary doctrine. (All our early books so affirm.)

New Position: No basis for our sanctuary doctrine. From Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 7:468, we quote:

This commentary believes unqualifiedly that Christ’s heavenly ministry is carried on in “two great divisions,” or to borrow the symbolism of Scripture, in the “holy” and then the “most holy place” of the heavenly sanctuary (see especially on Ex. 25:9; Dan. 8:14); but that the book of Hebrews is hardly the place to find a definitive presentation on the matter.

See also Wm. Johnsson on Hebrews 9 in his In Fullest Confidence.

“Holies” in Hebrews 9

Old Position: The plural form in such verses as 8:2; 9:8,12,24,25; 10:19; 13:11 proves a reference to two apartments.

New Position: Inasmuch as the plural form is applied to each apartment separately it can never be used to prove plurality of apartments. The plural form may simply be an intensive plural with a singular application. In our next chapter we quote the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and others to this end.

Texts Such as Acts 3:19; I Peter 4:17, I Timothy 5:23, Prove the Investigative Judgment

Old Position: Yes.

New Position: No. Acts 3:19 means the same as 2:38, and I Peter 4:17 applied when Peter wrote. No text is known that directly teaches the investigative judgment.

The Year-Day Principle is a Biblical Datum

Old Position: Yes.

New Position: No. We quote the Review, April 5,1979, “This Generation Shall Not Pass,” by Don F. Neufeld.

If the events of Matt. 24 are supposed to apply both to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and to the events preceding Christ’s second advent, why does Jesus say specifically, addressing the disciples who asked Him about end events, “I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all” (verse 34, NEB)? Obviously He knew that the 2300-day prophecy needed to be fulfilled before His return.

Verse 34 in the King James Version reads, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

It seems obvious that if we had been one of the disciples who had asked the question, “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (verse 3) we would have interpreted Jesus response as The New English Bible states it. The “you” we would have applied to ourselves and the “this generation” we would have thought as designating the generation in which we were living.

The problem presented in this question has troubled many people, and

86

many solutions have been proposed. For myself I like best the solution hinted at by Ellen White in Selected Messages, book I, pages 66 and 67. In this passage Ellen White defends herself against the charge that she was a false prophet because she had indicated years ago that Christ’s coming was at hand. She says, “Am I accused of falsehood because time has continued longer than my testimony seemed to indicate?” Her response is, “How is it with the testimonies of Christ and His disciples? Were they deceived?” She then quotes the following passages: I Cor. 7:29, 30; Rom. 13:12, Rev. 1:3; 22:6, 7, in all of which the writers set forth the coming of Jesus as very near in their day. Although she does not quote Matt. 24:34, she refers to the Revelation passages as “Christ” speaking “to us by the beloved John,” and since her general question is, “How is it with the testimonies of Christ and His disciples?” we see no problem In including Matt. 24:34 in the same category, since it presents the coming of Jesus as occurring in “this generation,” most obviously the one represented by His hearers.

In view of the fact that some 1900 years later Christ has not yet come, she proceeds with her argument in this way: “The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me … Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional.”

Thus she represents the promises concerning the time Jesus would return as being conditional. This means that if certain conditions had been met, Jesus would have come earlier, seemingly as early as the generation specified in Matt. 24:34.

If this explanation is accepted, and Jesus had come long ere this, what would have happened to the long-term time prophecies, the 1260 days and the 2300 days?

It should be noted that these prophecies were not understood as ref erring to long periods of time until many centuries after the birth of Christ. According to the researches of Leroy Froom, the year-day principle (a day in prophecy represents a solar year in fulfillment) was not understood until about the ninth century AD. Therefore no one would have detected any breaking of prophecy if Jesus had come earlier.

It should also be noted that these prophecies were expressed in terms such as “days” (Dan. 8:14; Rev. 12:6), “times” (Dan. 7:25), “months” (Rev. 13:5). There Is no indication in the prophecies themselves that any scale measure ought to be applied to the “days,” “months,” or “times.” The Holy Spirit gave directions to do this only after the time was postponed. At whatever time the fulfillment would have come, the Holy Spirit could have provided the appropriate scale.

Some have felt that Numbers. 14:34 and Ezek. 4:6 establish the year-day principle as needing to be applied to all time prophecies. But a careful examination of these passages shows that the principle is applied only to specific cases and that there is no general statement in these passages suggesting that a universal principle Is set forth. In fact, Seventh-day Adventists do not apply the principle consistently to all time prophecies. For example, the length of the millennium is stated in Rev. 20:3, 5, 7 as being a “thousand years.” This is accepted literally. If the year-day principle were applied, the length would be 360,000 years.

87

To me, the Conditional element Ellen White applies to prophecy supplies the simplest solution to the problem of Matt. 24:34, one that is fair to the Biblical text. I know that people have proposed other solutions, all of which to my mind present certain problems. I suggest that those who have not previously considered the conditional element at least give it consideration.

The Prophecies of Daniel, Christ, and John are Conditional

Old Position: No.

New Position: Yes. See Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4:28-31; 7:728-729. We quote:

In one way or another the thought that the various events foretold in the book of Revelation were to take place in the not distant future is specifically stated seven times “things which must shortly come to pass [or, "be done"]” (chs. 1:1; 22:6), “the time is at hand” (ch. 1:3), and “Behold [or, "surely"], I come quickly” (chs. 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20). Indirect references to the same idea appear in ohs. 6:11; 1:12; 17:10. John’s personal response to these declarations of the soon accomplishment of the divine purpose was, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (ch. 22:20).

The concept of the imminence of the return of Jesus is thus both explicit and implicit throughout the book.

The second coming of Christ is the great climactic event of the age-long conflict between good and evil that began when Lucifer challenged the character and government of God. Statements in the Revelation and elsewhere concerning the imminence of Christ’s return must be understood against the background of this great conflict. God might justly have annihilated Lucifer when, in obdurate impenitence, he persisted in rebellion. But divine wisdom deferred the extermination of evil until the nature and results of sin became fully apparent to inhabitants of the universe (see PP 41-43). At any one of various critical points in the history of this world, divine justice could have proclaimed, “It is done!” and Christ might have come to inaugurate His righteous reign. Long ago He might have brought to fruition His plans for the redemption of this world. As God offered Israel the opportunity to prepare the way for His eternal kingdom upon the earth, when they settled the Promised Land and again when they returned from their exile in Babylon, so He gave the church of apostolic times the privilege of completing the gospel commission. Another such opportunity came with the great second advent awakening of the 19th century. But in each instance God’s chosen people failed to take advantage of the opportunity thus graciously accorded them.

Encouraged by inspired counsel, the Advent Movement, after 1844, expected Christ to come very soon. When, toward the end of the century, Jesus had not appeared, the Advent believers were repeatedly reminded that the Lord might have come “ere this” (see 6T450; 8T 115,116; 9T29; DA 633, 634; GC 458). When challenged as to why time had Continued longer than her earlier testimonies seemed to indicate, Ellen C. White replied, “How is it with the testimonies of Christ and His disciples? Were they deceived? … The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short … It should be remembered that the promises and threatenlngs of God are alike conditional” (EGW in F. M. Wilcox, The Testimony of Jesus, 99).

88

Thus it seems clear that although the fact of Christ’s second coming is not based on any conditions, the repeated statements of Scripture that the coming was imminent were conditional on the response of the church to the challenge of finishing the work of the gospel in their generation. The Word of God, which centuries ago declared that the day of Christ was “at hand” (Rom. 13:12), has not failed. Jesus would have come quickly if the church had done its appointed work. The church had no right to expect her Lord when she had not complied with the conditions. See Evangelism 694-697.

Thus the statements of the angel of Revelation to John concerning the imminence of Christ’s return to end the reign of sin are to be understood as an expression of divine will and purpose. God has never purposed to delay the consummation of the plan of salvation, but has ever expressed His will that the return of our Lord be not long delayed.

Justification of the Human Race

Old Position: This must not be said to have happened at the cross.

New Position: This must be said to have happened at the cross, though to be effective for individuals it must be accepted by faith.

Second Advent Could Not Come Till After 1844

Old Position: Affirmed.

New Position: Denied. See Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 7:728-728. (This has important implications for the investigative judgment doctrine. Where would it have fitted if Christ had come in the first century?)

Prophecies of the End

1844 As Beginning of the End Supported by Such Prophecies as Rev. 11 on the French Revolution, Rev. 9 on the Ottoman Power, Dan. 11 on the French Revolution and the Ottoman Power, Rev. 16 on the Euphrates and Armageddon, Ma ft. 24:34 “This Generation Shall Not Pass ..,” The Earthquake of Lisbon, The Dark Day, and the 1844 Meteoric Showers, and Dan. 12:4 Increase of Scientific Knowledge.

Old Position: Asserted that the atheistic revolution of France supported the “time of the end” beginning in 1798; the fulfillment of Litch’s interpretation regarding Aug. 11, 1840, indicated that the seventh trumpet began in 1844; the current deterioration of Turkey showed that the scroll of prophecy was almost completely unrolled; and the few still alive since the falling of the stars proved Christ must come within a few years.

New Position: None of these prophetic positions are reliable. All are based on erroneous exegesis, and history supports none of them.

Just prior to the research involved in preparing the new edition of Great Controversy, W. W. Prescott wrote a lengthy letter listing “errors” he felt needed correction. Prominent among these were the historical positions taken by 1888 Great Controversy on the French Revolution, and the sixth trumpet. Prescott pointed out that there was no evidence for a banning of the Bible in France for three and a half years, and that Litch’s prediction regarding Aug. 11 had not been made in 1838, and was quite invalid.

When the book Daniel and the Revelation came in for revision in the 1940 s, Prescott’s criticisms were revived and confirmed. The fruitless scouring of libraries in Europe and America that took place before the 1911 edition of Great Controversy was finalized now witnessed a replay. We quote the official statement of the revising committee on the matter of the trumpets.

89

It is interesting to note as an historical fact that when James White and even Uriah Smith, came to the subject of the seven trumpets they did not attempt an original interpretation of the first six but frankly state that they accepted and followed in the main an interpretation by Josiah Litch, which he had already repudiated. Like them your committee, while recognizing that a Bible student here and there among us has endeavored to improve on this interpretation, has found nothing better to recommend beyond some minor adjustments that the presentation found in the book as it comes to our hands. We therefore

Recommended, That the interpretation of the Seven Trumpets remain substantially as it is. (69)

During the work of the committee we find such comments as the following exchanged in letters:

I am still struggling with the problem of atheism and the French Revolution, and do not know yet just how
of these old ones, but I cannot find any good material. I do not believe the second one, mentioning the date Aug. 26, 1792, should be used. I can find nothing in any of the histories of the French Revolution to show cause why this should be an outstanding day against Christianity. (71)

Such comments only echo ones made years earlier by Prescott, Spicer, and others. We offer typical instances.

It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use our books as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things which we know to be untrue. I cannot feel that this is right. It seems to me that we are betraying our trust and deceiving the ministers and people. It appears to me that there is much more anxiety to prevent a possible shock to some trustful people than to correct error. (72)

I notice that in the issue of the Signs for Nov. 21, you have let loose the Turk and some other things besides. I had known for some time that the date, Aug. 11, 1840, would not stand the test of historical facts. Two years ago at the Fall Council we presented reasonably full information upon this subject, but nothing has been done and in the meantime our books and most of our publications are repeating the unwarranted statements concerning the chronology of the fifth and sixth trumpets.

I am rather glad to have this matter discussed, and the theological ice broken, but at the same time I am sorry that Brother Vuilleumier has tried to commit us to another scheme of interpretation which is just as unsound as the old one. I am writing Brother Vuilleumier about this matter, and am enclosing herewith a copy of the letter. I also enclose some further historical extracts, bearing upon this subject, and I would like to ask you to tell me why we should not select July 27, 1839, as the time when Turkey lost her independence, rather than some indefinite time in 1840, according to Brother Vuilleumier’s presentation of the subject.

Furthermore, if the Emperor John, who died in 1448, ‘never forgot that

90

he was a vassal of the Ottoman Empire,” why need we wait .until 1449 to find that the Greek Empire of the East was subject to Turkey?

Beyond all this the fact remains that Turkey did not lose her independence at any of these dates. If Turkey lost her independence, how could she conduct a war with Russia, a war with the Balkan States, a war with Italy, and now join in the present war? A declaration of war is the act of a sovereign state. Why should we not cast aside all this effort to make history fit our ideas of prophecy, instead of allowing history to be the interpreter of prophecy?

I shall be glad to hear from you concerning this subject.

Yours faithfully, (73)

I will also enclose some material that we have had out on the dates of the prophetic periods of Rev. 9. Some little time ago here the question was up, and Professor Prescott and I went down to the Congressional Library. He looked up the history of Pachymeris, translated into Latin by Possinus, to which Gibbon refers for his date, July 27, 1299. I looked up Von Hammer, who is the heaviest German author, apparently, on Ottoman history in those times.

It is very clear that Gibbon made a distinct error, which Von Hammer and others have corrected these years. Gibbon’s mistake is easily seen by looking at the book. He saw July27 at the opening of chapter 25, and then over in the chronological tables given by Possinus he saw the date 1299 for the beginning of the events dealt with in this chapter; but he failed to note that while the chapter began with July 27, it later went back, as this first paragraph suggests, and dealt with earlier events. These earlier events were the events of 1299, and it was not until 1301 or 1302, as various authorities compute the Mohammedan era, that the battle of July 27 took place.

Well, then about this time Professor Benson, who is now with us here, formerly of Union College, came on with Blue Books that he had received from London, showing conclusively that the ultimatum of the Powers was not delivered to the Pasha of Egypt on Aug. 11,1840. Then we began to look the thing up a bit, and presented some of these features to the recent council. You may well understand that some of the brethren had to sit up and take notice, as we say over here. The shadow of the “daily” controversy is still upon us. It is remarkable how loath people are to look at facts, or to correct any fact. But they had to agree that we must study this thing. I send you a copy of a statement presented by Professor Prescott on July 27, some notes presented by Professor Benson on Aug. 11, 1840,and a series of suggestive notes to help in the study of the question which the brethren asked me to prepare, giving some facts on the positive side. I told the committee that I would not endorse my own paper at the present time, but that I had merely tried to set down some facts that did seem to be established.

Personally, I would rather hold to 1840 if it could be done, but really it is pretty hard to figure out anything there. Our folks have taught right along that John Palaeologus died, one would infer, July 27,1449; but he didn’t, he died in the previous year. (74)

Litch had uncritically accepted an erroneous date in Gibbon for the beginning of his prophetic periods, forgotten about the omission of certain days in the new calendar, and wrongly interpreted events in the 1840 s, as well as displaying his ignorance of the original language of Rev. 9:15. Note how careful the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is on the matter:

E. HILGERT

This writer (Ford) spent much of 1959 in study at the Seminary in Takoma Park, and there engaged in discussions on the sanctuary with several of the faculty and students. He found that Dr. E. Hilgert had given much attention to the issues, and that his conclusions were essentially identical with those of some on the Daniel Committee with which he occasionally sat. The result of my discussion with Dr. Hilgert was a series of articles on the sanctuary published in the Ministry, and an MA. thesis entitled “Daniel 8:14 and the Latter Days.” Dr. Hilgert contended that it was impossible to prove the year-day principle from Scripture, and thus early in the articles mentioned above were two on this topic. He also referred to the contextual problem, and this prompted my writing of “The Problem of Dan. 8:14 and Its Context.” [See appendix.]

D. SIBLEY, D. FORD

Returning to Avondale at the close of 1960, Desmond Ford counseled with Pastor David Sibley, a leading administrator in the Australasian Division, as to how to teach the sanctuary doctrine to ministerial students. Should he present it traditionally, despite the defects of such an approach, or should he point out the problems and attempt to give answers? Elder Sibley had been appointed by the Australian leaders to study the Fletcher position, and to contest it around the country. He knew the issues intimately, and conceded that Fletcher was by no means entirely astray, and that therefore the new chairman of Avondale’s theology department should honestly admit the problems, but attempt the best possible resolutions of them. Some years earlier, Ford, at Elder Sibley’s request, had publicly discussed the issues raised by Elder R. A. Grieve, before the main church in Queensland Conference, of which Elder Grieve had been president. Thus, during the sixties, the apologetic offered through the pages of the Ministry by Ford became standard for ministers in training in the Australasian Division. On Hebrews 9, the following was handed out in classes from year to year. This material of the 1960’s is a key to the present manuscript.

HEBREWS 9 AND THE SANCTUARY

Problems of Hebrews 9: Paul undoubtedly refers to the Day of Atonement in connection withwhat Christ has already done. He makes no allusion to a coming Day of Atonement near theend of the world.

Answer: 1. Paul’s objective throughout Hebrews is to show the greater privileges ofChristians in this dispensation that the Jews possessed in the age prior to the cross. His mainpoint in Heb. 8-10 is that believers now have immediate, unrestricted access to God throughChrist, rather than only representative access through a high priest once a year. To this end heuses the Day of Atonement type but without any attempt to exhaust the fullness of the type.For example, there is no reference to the final disposition of sin upon Azazel.

2. All the Jewish feasts included types of Calvary and the first advent. Paul did wisely indrawing upon the Day of Atonement as well as upon the types of the daily ministry.Seventh-day Adventists have never contended that the antitypical goat was slain in 1844.

3. The feasts, all of which. were linked with the harvest, pointed to the reign of God, whichreign comprehends both the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory. The privilegeswhich will be available in all literal fullness at the time of the kingdom of glory appertainnow in spiritual outline. Thus we now have spiritual access to God, but at the kingdom ofglory we will have complete physical access. (Taught by

67

the Day of Atonement.) Similarly, the Passover pointed not only to the cross, but to timewhen Christ shall eat the Passover feast with us in the kingdom of God. See Matt. 26:29.Thus in I Cor. 11 Paul speaks of the communion service pointing, like the Passover, forward”till He comes.” This demonstrates that the fact that an inspired writer can apply a typicalfeast to the first advent does not negate a further application to the later kingdom of glory.

4. A similar illustration lies in the Jubilee type which Christ applied to the first advent. SeeLuke 4:18,19, and compare with Leviticus. 25. (Christ’s use of the phrase “preachdeliverance” parallels the expression in Leviticus. 25:10 “proclaim liberty.”) Allcommentators see the complete fulfillment of the Jubilee type in the kingdom of glory, butwhat will then be available literally is now available spiritually in Christ.

5. Furthermore, God’s original plan was that the kingdom of grace and glory should not befar removed from each other. The Old Testament prophecies always link the two proclaiming”the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow” in the one prophecy. Thus the NewTestament references to the “end of the world” having come with Christ’s first advent. SeeHeb. 9:26; 1:2. Had the church been faithful, the task of spreading the Gospel would havebeen completed in the first century and Christ would have returned. (See Seventh-dayAdventist Bible Commentary introduction and notes on Rev. 1.) Thus the Day of Atonementtype including the offering of the sacrifice, its presentation, and its final application ofjudgment would have quickly transpired each upon the other, and there would have beennothing remarkable in the application made by Paul in Hebrews of this significant OldTestament ceremonial.

6. Well-known scholars such as George Eldon Ladd have pointed out that the relationshipbetween the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory is that of fulfillment andconsummation. As the receiving of eternal life by faith now is an anticipation of immortality,and as the receiving of the Holy Spirit now is an earnest of His complete indwelling atglorification, so our free access to God’s immediate presence through Christ’s high priestlyministry points to the ultimate consummation at the final fulfillment of the antitypical Day ofAtonement. Paul’s application of the Day of Atonement to our present privilege should not beconsidered as denying the latter application when the type shall be consummated. (See Heb. 4for a similar parallel re the “rest” available now by faith, and the final “Sabbatismos” awaitingus in glory.)

The employment of Day of Atonement imagery eschatologically by the Revelator in 8:1-4;11:19; 13; 15:5, etc., is complementary to Paul’s usage of the type in Heb. 9.

Desmond Ford

* * *

ELLEN G. WHITE AND HEBREWS 9:23

Problem: Ellen G. White had often been criticized for applying Heb. 9:23 to a future work ofChrist, and for applying the Day of Atonement in general to such a future work.

Answer: 1. Ellen G. White has innumerable statements implying the

68

word “atonement” in such a way as to make it clear that she believed that the soteriological atonement took place at the cross. See the appendix to Questions on Doctrine for such references. In Early Writings, 251 and 253 she refers to Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary from 1844 to the end as a “special” and “final” atonement. These facts make it clear that she believed that the Day of Atonement had an initial application to the cross, but a subsequent, special, and final application from 1844 to the end.

2. The statement in Desire of Ages, page 25, regarding the atonement shows that Ellen G.White believed the Day of Atonement to have a very wide application indeed, including thetype of Christ’s incarnation, and also types of His final work for men which will culminate inHis return in glory. The relevant quotations in Desire of Ages and Acts of the Apostlesfollow.

“In stooping to take upon Himself humanity, Christ revealed a character the opposite of thecharacter of Satan. But He stepped still lower in the path of humiliation … As the high priestlaid aside his gorgeous, pontifical robes, and officiated in the white linen dress of thecommon priest, so Christ took the form of a servant, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest,Himself the victim” (DA, 24).

“As in the typical service, the high priest laid aside his pontifical robes, and officiated in thewhite linen dress of an ordinary priest; so Christ laid aside His royal robes, and garbedHimself with humanity, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim. As thehigh priest, after performing his service in the Holy of holies, came forth to the waitingcongregation in his pontifical robes, so Christ will come the second time, clothed in garmentsof whitest white, ’so as no fuller on earth can white them. He will come in His own glory andin the glory of His Father and of all the angelic host who will escort Him on His way” (AA,33).

3. The following quotation from the Signs of the Times, April 19, 1905, shows that Ellen G.White understood Heb. 9:23 to apply to the ascension of Christ and the dedication of theheavenly temple, and the inauguration of His priestly ministry as well as His final ministry inthe heavenly sanctuary after 1844.

Still bearing humanity, He ascended to heaven triumphant and victorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement Into the Holiest of all, sprinkled it upon the mercy seat and His own garments, and blessed the people. Soon He will appear the second time to declare that there is no more sacrifice for sin.

See The Sanctuary Service by Andreasen, p. 235.

Compare the foregoing quotation with Leviticus. 8 re the anointing of the priests and Ex. 40:9and 30:26 regarding the anointing of the sanctuary. See also Dan. 9:24 re the “anointing of theMost Holy.”

4. Paul places Heb. 9;23 midway between the discussion of the dedication of the twocovenants, and the Day of Atonement entrance into the Holiest of holies. He does thisbecause on both occasions in the type the immediate presence of God was entered by thepriest. This

69

demonstrates that Paul’s main purpose is to show available access rather than to exhaust themeaning of the Day of Atonement type.

The fact that the Jewish feasts fell into two main divisions, the second of which particularlyemphasizes the kingdom of glory, indicates that the Day of Atonement has its completeapotelesmatic fulfillment in connection with latter-day events. Many commentators have seenthis, and John the Revelator by his use of Day of Atonement imagery in chapters 8,11,13 and15 demonstrates it. Thus Paul’s presentation of the Day of Atonement with reference to thekingdom of grace is complemented by John’s presentation re the kingdom of glory, and EllenG. White in harmony with other inspired writers applies the type to both events.

Desmond Ford

* * *

These positions taken many years ago embody the essence of this present manuscript of 1980, and the following pages may be read with less trauma if the foregoing Avondale material is thoroughly understood. In essence, it asserts that Adventists have been right in asserting that the Day of Atonement applies to the judgment at the end of the age, but that we have erred in failing to see that it also pointed to the judgment of which Christ spoke in John 12:3 1. Ellen White saw both, while the rest of the Christian world, including ourselves, have seen only one or the other.

Inevitably, the attempt to strengthen our sanctuary conclusions by nontraditional arguments led to some misunderstandings. (44) Only a knowledge of our recent history added to understanding of our early church experience can alleviate such. The more the relevant materials of the White Estate and GC Archives are studied, the more apparent it becomes that Ellen C. White greatly feared a shift to subjective religion which minimized the objective atonement taught by the sanctuary doctrine. We have been caught up in that shift for over a decade, and only a correct understanding of the relationship between the sanctuary truth and the gospel can save the denomination from increasing trauma and loss. The recently discovered materials on the Minneapolis conference and the Bible conference of 1890 must become well-known to leaders and laity.

We have omitted much in this review, including less familiar protests from workers and laity overseas. For example, well-known in Germany and known to some in California is Curt Sinz, former chief editor of the Adventbote the equivalent to our Review. In 1925, he confided to L. H. Conradi his inability to reconcile the sanctuary doctrine with the book of Hebrews, particularly chapter 9. At this time he had never heard of Ballenger and Fletcher. According to Sinz, it was this discussion with Conradi that initiated the latter’s final break with the church. In 1928, Sinz published an article suggesting that the first apartment of the sanctuary represented the Old Testament era, and the second apartment the New Testament age, and that Christ at His ascension entered the Most Holy. This article provoked Elder L. H. Christian, president of the Central European Division to state at a public meeting: “We find articles in our church papers which do not reflect the teachings of the church.” Another who agreed with Sinz was Dr. Michael, principal of Marienhohe Academy. The latter was consequently relieved of his post. (45)

Also well-known to many was C. L. Price, brother of George McCready Price. Always a faithful Sabbathkeeper, this believer wrote at length to the General Conference president and others, protesting the denomination’s presentation of the sanctuary doctrine. There are a number of items in print representing his position which is akin to W. W. Fletcher s. Another old-time Adventist, still in good and regular standing, is Eryl Cummings, who has besieged the GC and its staff on the

70

same issue over a period of years. These names but represent a considerable group around the world, including administrators, pastors, scholars and laity, who find our current sanctuary teachings inadequate.

Influencing the current scene, is R. D. Brinsmead’s 1844 Re-Examined, which the BRI is now examining. Members of the present committee would do well to study it. It summarizes long-known problems with the traditional presentation. Compare and contrast it with the Forum presentation of Oct. 27, 1979, PUG, and the xeroxed volume, Dan. 8:14 the Judgment and the Kingdom of God, written years ago.

From 1844 to the closing up of the work of the Daniel Committee in 1965 and consequent events from James White’s protests against the investigative judgment doctrine to similar protests over a century later we seem to have come full circle, ending almost as we began. We wish now to show from our official literature of the second half of that period the gradual recognition of the inadequacy of the early denominational arguments. This review also will be incomplete, but we trust sufficient for the purposes of this document. (46)

Most of the following pages trace the printed recognition of sanctuary problems, and the concessions made in result. The instances given from our literature all come from loyal Seventh-day Adventist scholars who, along with this writer, believe that Dan. 8:14 has special significance for our church and the world. But first we will allude to sanctuary materials also from loyal Seventh-day Adventist teachers, but belonging to categories different to the above.

There has been over the years a continuing flood of popular materials which have not recognized the exegetical problems involved, and because these have taken over the traditional positions unchanged, we do not, for the most part, include them for special attention. Typical of these would be W. D. Frazee’s devotional interpretation in Ransom and Reunion Through the Sanctuary, and doctrinal works such as Reiner’s Atonement. The fact that such writers seem quite oblivious to the issues at stake does have significance.

For example, on page 35 of his book Elder Frazee speaks thus: “… in the holy place… the sin-bearing priest … He must bear this burden until the final blotting out ..” The priest referred to is Christ, and we can only say that doctrinally such a statement is unfortunate. Hebrews is emphatic that our victorious King-Priest is now seated at God’s right hand, claiming the benefits of His atonement not bearing guilt. Such works are helpful spiritually, but give no special aid to the troubled soul having difficulties reconciling Adventist positions on the investigative judgment with the facts of Scripture.

Let us cite another instance, this time from Reiner. Referring to Heb. 9:8, he says, “The author of Hebrews is simply saying that the heavenly sanctuary is more holy than the Hebrew one.” (47) Such a comment is amazing for its naivete. But this very naivete characterizes most of the sanctuary presentations in the church, whether in print, or from the pulpit of evangelistic platform.

Such presentations only disturb those who are informed, disappoint those who are troubled, and do little to energize a recalcitrant church towards fulfillment of its divinely appointed missionary task. Intellectually lacking, they leave us naked and defenseless towards our critics. While this continues, our attempt at a “Loud Cry” will yield but a muffled whisper, and all the trumpetings heralding new evangelistic endeavors will yield only disappointing results. Unless our doctrinal content can satisfy the greatest of honest minds, as well as humble, uneducated souls, much of our labor will be fruitless. “Error is never harmless” and “never sanctifies.”

A very small group of writers may lay claim to being in another category. Familiar with the problems, they have not yielded to them, or yielded very little. Some articles by W. E. Read seem to fit this category, but other articles by him do not. The significant and very carefully written articles by Gerhard Hasel and Alwyn Salom may

71

belong here, and these have much to offer the church today. Salom’s article on the linguistic issues of Heb. 9 is much more accurate than almost everything written prior to that time, with the exception of our Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. It is possible that both these writers, who are exceedingly well-informed, maybe most significant for what they do not say. Their articles will be discussed in the next chapter.

Also in this third category may belong the recently published work on Hebrews by William Johnsson. (48) Though doctrinally irenic, it is a superb contribution. Johnsson, after referring to the allusions to the Day of Atonement in Hebrews adds: “Not surprisingly, several students of Hebrews, among whom A. F. Ballenger is best known, have eventually parted company with the Seventh-day Adventist church.” (49) This volume is an excellent basis for researching the New Testament interpretation of the sanctuary and Christ’s priesthood, though it seems to us that certain of the issues affecting Adventist positions are not treated with the same thoroughness the author shows elsewhere. Johnsson reminds us that “In Hebrews… Jesus as High Priest is a dominant idea and the book works it out in great detail.” (50) But he himself has not felt it to lie in the domain of his own purpose to pursue those details where they touch on sensitive doctrinal positions. On page 116 we have a frank statement which stands in striking contrast to early Adventist claims. “The argument of Hebrews, then, does not deny the Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary doctrine, because basically it does not address the issue.” In other words, if we wish to get the sanctuary doctrine, we will need to look elsewhere than the New Testament, for this is the only New Testament book which discusses the meaning of the Old Testament tabernacle typology!

Also noteworthy is the clear statement of Christ’s present state as King, too often lacking in other Adventist literature. See page 128. And for the purpose of this present manuscript, Johnsson’s reference to inaugurated [or proleptic] and consummated eschatology is important. He speaks on page 129 of the “already of Calvary and not yet of the Parousia stamped on all New Testament thought.” When we apply this to the Day of Atonement in a much more comprehensive way than hitherto, some of our chief doctrinal problems in connection with Dan. 8:14 will dissolve.

Leaving now these subsidiary (for our purposes) categories of writers we turn to those who best indict the contemporary trend of Adventist scholarship on the sanctuary.

We wish to return to the work of one already named, in order to deal with a presentation of the sanctuary altogether unique in our history. From his quarterly on Daniel issued over a decade ago, just after the Committee on Problems in Daniel was dissolved, come most significant indications of new trends in Adventist scholarship regarding the interpretation of Dan. 8:14. As a significant official publication, this presentation on Daniel (51) is a fitting introduction to the second half of this chapter.

R. F. Cottrell has probably done more research on Daniel and the sanctuary issues than any other person in the denomination ever. W. E. Read was untiring in this area, but his work centered chiefly upon the linguistic issue of Dan. 8:14, whereas Cottrell has wrestled with the broader involvements, including the entire prophetic scope of Daniel. He has not only mastered the Hebrew chapters of that book, but memorized whole passages in the original. Over a thousand pages of closely argued exegesis on Daniel has been written, but not published, by Cottrell.

As associate editor of the Review, a leading editor of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary and a close confidant of F. D. Nichol, Raymond Cottrell has been thoroughly informed on the knotty problems facing the denomination doctrinally on Daniel and Hebrews. In volume 4 of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary we have his article, “The R”le of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy,” which is noteworthy for insights both vital and revolutionary. Some of these insights went to our world church in his lesson quarterly on Daniel in the first quarter of 1967. If we wish to understand some of the new approaches to the difficulties which face us, this quarterly should be closely studied.

72

As material prepared for lay consumption, it is not entirely frank, but nevertheless it is light years beyond all previous studies in published form on Daniel and the sanctuary.

Key concepts of the 1967 quarterly on Daniel include:

(1) The conditional nature of the prophecies of the Old Testament, including those of the seer in Babylon. This conditional nature means that because of Israel’s failure, the prophecies will never be fulfilled in the precise way set forth, but like those of the major and minor prophets they require that reinterpretation which is to be found in the New Testament. (This principle applied may mean, for example, the omission of so
assumes that the church would be faithful in spreading the gospel to the world in that generation, its reinterpretation of Daniel is also conditional. From Matthew to Revelation, it is taken for granted that Christ would return in the lifetime of the readers of the New Testament, and prophecy assumes a shape consistent with that expectation.

(2) Dan. 8:14 is related to its context (a very rare acknowledgment in Adventist sanctuary literature). The “new” view of the “daily” is strongly affirmed.

(3) The judgment of Dan. 7:9-13 and Rev. 14:7 apply primarily, not to professed believers in Christ, as we have traditionally taught, but to the wicked little horn. Babylon the great is judged.

(4) It is plainly stated that Dan. 9:24 does not refer to weeks of days. Therefore the year-day principle is not seen as present in this prophecy.

(5) When the author interprets Dan. 8:14, he omits any discussion of the investigative judgment.

In summary, Cottrell is saying that, to rightly understand Daniel’s prophecies, we must first study them in their original historical context, and according to God’s primary intent if His people were faithful. Because of Israel’s failure, we must not expect to be able to trace an absolutely “one for one” fulfillment now of these prophecies only in general lines do they apply to the Christian era. The year-day principle was no part of the original forecasts which point to a Messianic era that could have become universal ages ago, had Israel done her appointed work. The judgment brought to view in Dan. 7, and in Rev. 14, is primarily one focused on wicked powers, not the saints, and the cleansing of the sanctuary likewise. This is indeed revolutionary in Adventist literature, but it does express the thinking of some scholars who have worked individually and without collusion. In an appendix we quote some of the most relevant passages of Cottrell’s quarterly.

Let us underline the facts. In 1967 the world church was given an interpretation of Daniel and the sanctuary message quite distinct in its basic assumptions from anything hitherto presented. It was an attempt to wrestle with problems too long neglected. On the principle expressed in John 16:12 the writer did not feel free to say all that was in his thinking but he said enough to show the tremendous change in Adventist scholarly thought now commencing to assert itself. As regards the investigative judgment, the quarterly refuses to teach it and assumes the noncommittal objective “record of history” approach which is so prominent in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary wherever issues are strongly debatable. For example, we read on page 40, after a clear statement that the judgment pictured in Daniel concerns apostate powers, the additional comment that “Seventh-day Adventists have also thought of this scene as a portrayal of the judgment of individuals, as well as of organized human opposition to God and to the saints.” “Seventh-day Adventists have also thought” is an anaemic defense of a position acknowledged as difficult to defend. Such difficulties are recognized by many of our writers, as we will now illustrate.

Froom needs no introduction. It is doubtful whether any other Adventist is known who labored so untiringly at the task of church apologetics. He had an unusual faculty for pertinacity in research.

Well-versed in the issues raised by Ballenger and Fletcher, an intimate of Daniells, it is not strange that Elder Froom should have turned his extraordinary powers of microscopic concentration to the sanctuary issue. His files in the GC Archives demonstrate that the key areas were given intense research. The chief verses used by Ballenger and Fletcher are all listed according to approximately twenty different translations of each. Some lines he wrote concerning Fletcher after the latter’s trial are of interest.

After reading with an open mind all the material submitted by Brother Fletcher, and listening with prejudice through the hours of deliberate

52

verbal presentation, exposition and answer to related questions, I cannot but have certain personal reactions, and of course have come to certain definite conclusions. These I will state in condensed form, with no attempt to elaborate by inclusion of the Scripture basis. And I should perhaps repeat that they are solely my individual attitude, as I have conferred with no one else, and represent no one else.

I had hoped, before our conferences together, that the points in question were but technical, verbal, and secondary, and that satisfactory adjustment might yet be made by our brother. But it is evident that Brother Fletcher has developed an entire substitutionary system of teaching on the Sanctuary and the Judgment that, if accepted, involves abandonment of the denominational view.

I do not have a closed mind. I am open to advancing light. But I consistently believe that fuller light will not invalidate the light already received. It will not deflect the clear rays of the past. Rather, it will but fill with a fuller, deeper, richer content strengthening and supporting, amplifying and consummating the truths before delivered.

I am asked to cast away my confidence for uncertain inferences, private interpretations, and a speculative philosophy that to me is intangible and mysterious. This I cannot do. My personal duty appears very clear to me. I must earnestly contend for “the faith once delivered,” in accordance with my ordination vows. And being unable to see other than danger, darkness, and disaster in the three propositions submitted, and in the essential corollaries, I must not only clearly deny them but must warn against them.

And this is said with full recognition and sincerest appreciation of the high personal character, the fine spirit, and evident sincerity of our brother, but whose views I solemnly believe to be wrong doctrinally, and inimical to the faith.

As a minister in the church of God, and an officer in the Association of the ministers of this movement, I earnestly entreat you Brother Fletcher as a brother, to retrace your steps. Come back with us, Brother Fletcher, in faith, in hope, in doctrine. I sincerely appeal to you to abandon these divergent private views and to return to the platform of this movement.

I solemnly admonish you to take heed to the united entreaty of the Australasian Division leaders and to your ministering brethren at headquarters. Turn, I beseech you, from the path upon which you have started. Where, I pray you, does it lead? Where have these digressive paths led through all the years of the movement in the past? Let the manifest answer be a solemn warning and deterrent to you.

To what and to whom will you go? It is too late to start a separate movement eighty-five years too late. And the second coming of our Lord is too imminent. Stay by the old ship Zion.

For the sake of those across the seas, whom you will profoundly influence by your decision; for the sake of the unity and advancement in God’s remnant church, and for your own soul’s welfare, I plead with you to be admonished by the prayers and the appeals of your brethren. Start anew in a positive, confirmatory study of the truths which have been confirmed to this people, and that satisfy the minds of a conscientious, truth-loving host of God’s remnant children. Won’t you do it? (35)

53

What is not so well known is that Froom found himself unable to answer the heretic, and that that factgave him much mental anguish which he endured till his death over forty years later. It is not difficult to datethe beginning of his conflict for we have a letter from one of the editors of the Signs written in reply toFroom on Jan. 28, 1930. There we read:

I think that we have to educate the most of our people, especially certain ones of our leaders, in regard to the fact that there are certain questions that will be forced upon us for discussion. If we are not willing to discuss them frankly among ourselves, our enemies will drive us to this discussion. And if we could only get together and properly discuss these matters among ourselves and arrive at reasonable conclusions, we would not make such scattering shots when the enemy turn their guns upon us.

We have had warnings through the Spirit of Prophecy of how that every position among us will be tested, and that we will have to learn how to defend our faith in the battle that lies ahead of us; and we can all see that this battle is coming. In this conflict we will be tempted to doubt the positions of our faith first. Then we will be led step by step in our doubting of the Spirit of Prophecy. Then we will be led on further in the doubting of the Bible itself, so that the great arch-deceiver can swing us under his tremendous deceptions; and among all those that will be deceived in these last days, none will be more thoroughly deceived than the Seventh-day Adventist who allows himself to wander off in the fog of unbelief.

Now I note particularly what you say about your studies of the sanctuary question, and how that in some details your conclusions are brought into “conflict with the teaching of the Spirit of Prophecy,” and that you “find it necessary to make some readjustments.”

I think, Roy, that we need to be on our guard when we get onto that ground. Personally, I have never regarded the Spirit of Prophecy as being the infallible Word of God, but on the other hand a constant reading of the writings of Mrs. White for the last fifty years has led me to the conclusion that there can be no mistake in regard to the source from which her writings come. (36)

We should carefully observe Tait’s concern, not only about Froom but about the many who took extremepositions on Ellen G. White so much so that they neglected to make the Bible first in their study. His hopethat the doctrinal problems facing the church (such as the sanctuary ones raised by Froom) would bethrashed out by very frank and free discussion was never fulfilled, and has not been until this day. Hiswarning that “if we are not willing to discuss them frankly among ourselves, our enemies will drive us to thisdiscussion” is pertinent for 1980.

When one reads Froom’s discussion on the sanctuary truth in volume 4 of Prophetic Faith, one finds thathis view of the “larger Intent” of the sanctuary doctrine tends to submerge the usual traditional exposition.

HAROLD SNIDE

Harold Snide was born before the turn of the century as a “blue-blood” Adventist whose ancestry wentback to the Miller movement. His grandfather, Elder H. W. Lawrence, was a Millerite in 1844 and was laterordained by James White as a Seventh-day Adventist Minister.

By 1914 Harold Snide was a colporteur, and the Review in the twenties carries

54

fervent material from his pen. He was the author of Prophetic Essays, a work which drew the attention ofL. E. Froom. By the 1940’s he was teaching at Southern Junior College after many years of dedicated serviceto the cause. While here he found difficulty with our traditional sanctuary positions, especially as he studiedHeb. 9. These he took to L. E. Froom and other denominational leaders but received, he claimed, no help. Avery studious man, he underwent great mental trauma and finally withdrew from the church, though hiswidow remains a faithful member to this day. After his defection he wrote Some Serious Questions forStudious Seventh-day Adventistsa tract calculated to arouse doubts concerning the Spirit of Prophecy andour doctrinal positions. Typical questions in his series include the following:

Does the author of the book of Hebrews make his Old Testament quotations mostly from the Hebrew or from the Greek (Septuagint)? What says M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews, p. 422? Do scholarly “Introductions” to the book of Hebrews refer to this fact? Do the texts of Westcott and Hart and of Nestle indicate by a different style of type the quotations from the Old Testament? Do these Greek New Testaments supply a key to indicate the Old Testament source of each quotation? Do they show that in Heb. 6:19 “within the vail” (______) is a quotation? From which Old Testament book and chapter is it quoted? Would this fact give this expression in Heb. 6:19 a precise meaning, and determine which vail is meant? Would it make it as definite as does the word “second” in Heb. 9:3? How many times in the Septuagint does this phrase, . . . . . . occur? What are the references?

In Daniel 8 what is the relationship between verse 13 and verse 14? Do they sustain the relation of question and answer? Is any light thrown on this by E. G. White in PK 554? By the comment on this verse in U. Smith, et aI., Daniel and the Revelation? By W. A. Spicer, Certainties of the Advent Movement, p. 120? By E. E. Andross, A More Excellent Ministry, pp. 160-161? Is the period of 2300 days a time “to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” In Daniel 8, is anything said about the ram’s taking away the daily sacrifice and treading down the sanctuary and the host? Did Persia, in fact, do this? In Daniel 8, is anything said about the goat or its first great horn’s taking away the daily sacrifice and treading down the sanctuary and the host? Did Greece under Alexander the Great, in fact, do this? In Daniel 8, is anything said about the oppression of God’s people by the four horns of the goat? Did they, in fact, notably oppress Israel before the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes? Is it true that in Daniel 8 the work of taking away the daily sacrifice and treading down sanctuary and host is predicted and predicated solely of the “little horn” which came out of one of the four horns? Does the reference to “the vision of the evening and the morning” in Dan. 8:25 refer specifically to the time prophecy of Dan. 8:14? Does the question in verse 13 and its answer in verse 14 refer specifically to the work of the “little horn” described in verses 9-12? What says M. L Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, top of page 264, in the last paragraph beginning on page 263? Does the time period of Dan. 8:14 as certainly delimit the persecuting program of the “little horn” of that chapter as the period “a time, and times, and the dividing of time” marks the career of the “little horn” of Daniel 7? Did Rome cease treading down sanctuary and host in 457 BC? Is it reverent exegesis to date the Roman oppression of Israel from a Persian decree to restore and to build Jerusalem given nearly three centuries before Rome contacted Israel. (37)

55

R. A. GRIEVE

About a decade passed, and the old controversy was revived in Australia over the case of conference president R. A. Grieve, a well-known member of a family whose members had served the church loyally and long at home and abroad in the mission fields. We do not propose to dwell on this history, but a single letter from him explains his view of problems connected with the sanctuary. Several ministers were separated from the work at the same time as Brother Grieve, and some members of the laity withdrew from the church. Here is the letter.

Dear Brother Lawson:

Word has been passed on to me by Brother Lee that like most of yourfellow-members of the church you are wondering why I have been dropped from theAdventist Ministry, and a reign of silence has been wrung down on the issue. Well I wouldnot want to enter upon a long explanation to justify myself. Actually self and what happens tooneself really does not matter. The really big thing that counts is the truth of God and Hissaving gospel realized in the lives of God’s people that really matters.

To begin with, what I preached in Queensland regarding two great truths was the start of thecontroversy. The Sinless Nature of Jesus Christ, and Justification were the twin truths Godimpressed me to preach before I left your conference. The extremists massed, if youremember, at the 1955 camp to oppose these truths. Criticisms were poured into the ears of F.G. Clifford, who himself was no more enlightened or understanding than those who appealedto him.

He commanded me not to preach these truths. What seemed to rile him most was that thepeople both in Queensland and New Zealand were rejoicing in the absolute forgiveness oftheir sins and the assurance of salvation. “Rejoicing in error” he styled their heart-stirrings,and ruled at the trial of Pastor Drain “That the denominational position is: God neitherforgives absolutely nor entirely.”

As a corollary to this heresy he added yet another, “That the same Spirit that inspired theBible also inspired the writings of Mrs. White, and THEREFORE WE MUST HAVE THESAME FAITH IN THE WRITINGS OF MRS. WHITE THAT WE HAVE IN THE BIBLE.”By this letter axiomatic deduction he automatically lifted the writings of Mrs. White to theplane of equality with the sacred scriptures.

The whole controversy I have had with the church leaders revolves around these twinheresies. I utterly rejected them as nauseating to the mind and intelligence of true Biblebelievers and Protestants. And in rejecting these untenable teachings at my trial, I was forcedby the committee, elected to support Clifford, to look the Sanctuary teaching of Seventh-dayAdventists fair in the face and decide whether that was correct according to the teaching ofthe great book of Hebrews. You may ask what the Sanctuary has to do with these issues. Ireply, “Everything!” Why, because the whole understanding of the gospel by Seventh-dayAdventistS, the forgiveness of sins, the Investigative Judgment, and the final blotting out ofsin all stem from this. Protestantism as inaugurated by Luther was founded on the book ofRomans, which book makes no reference to the old Aaronic Sanctuary, and therefore all thechurches in line with true protestantism, have believed in the blotting out of sins for thebeliever at the acceptance of Christ. It was the acceptance of the

56

Sanctuary teaching by the pioneers of the church that countermanded the teachings of Luther,Wesley and other great reformers, and set the teaching on the so-called pattern of Aaronism inopposition to Protestantism. Well I am getting ahead of myself for my understanding of thesetruths came after my trial not before.

At my trial I presented Justification in 25 pages of typewritten material. It was fairlyexhaustive, so I cannot repeat the ideas here, suffice it to say that I proved that Justification inscripture is equivalent to the modern term acquittal, so modern translations indicate, and allGreek scholars acknowledge. When a man is acquitted of all charges and stands innocent,”just as if he had never sinned,” he is justified.

Secondly, forgiveness and pardon, must not be confused with or made synonymous forjustification. In receiving forgiveness or pardon there is the acknowledgment of the deed, arecord of wrongdoing; but in justification there can be no sustaining of the charge, norecording of wrongdoing. So David discovered, “Blessed is the man against whom no sin isrecorded by the Lord” Rom. 4:8. So Peter declares, Acts 3:19. “He has forgiven you all yoursins: Christ has utterly wiped out the damning evidence of broken laws and commandmentswhich always hung over our heads, and has completely annulled it by nailing it over His ownhead on the cross.” Cal 2:14 Phillips trans. Letters to the Young Churches (Only 3/3 paperedition, well worth getting).

My conclusion was: True Protestantism recognizes that in justification the record as well asthe guilt must be blotted out, for record and guilt are indivisible. It is the very negation ofjustification to keep a man’s sins against his name after his acceptance of Christ. This raised astorm. The brethren began to quote “Great Controversy” by the yard. I asked for clear Bibleproof that our sins still remained upon the record. This they promised to do, but my brother itwas just a sham and a pretense. Three men were set up as a committee to study with meBattye, Stewart, Conley. In true Adventist style and in the most childlike way they set out togive me a Bible study on the Sanctuary. When they got to the point of the record remainingthere they broke down. They tried in good Jesuitical fashion to split the difference betweensin as guilt and condemnation and sin as record. They told me that I could believe that sin andguilt is blotted out entirely on the acceptance of Christ, but that the record remains. They readmany statements from E. G. White that Christ on the cross bore our guilt and condemnation.They said Sister White seems to make a difference between guilt and record. On this seem-sofrom the writings of Mrs. E. G. White I was asked to recant. I did agree to use this formulaein order to go as far as my enlightened conscience would allow and to have harmony with mybrethren, but F. G. Clifford although originally agreeing to this definition, this straw splittingterminology, refused to agree to it as a denominational position. He threw it overboard first inorder to force me into the extremist camp or out altogether. I rejected it too, but I went overinto Protestantism.

On my way back to N.Z. it became as clear as the noonday sun why the leadership of thechurch were in a dilemma over justification. For more than a century they had believed in atwo-apartment sanctuary in heaven. They had resurrected in toto the Aaronic sanctuary, theAaronic

57

priesthood and every detail connected with it and pushed it into heaven where Christ wassupposed to be after the order of Melchizedek, but in practice and service after the order ofAaron. This was the gigantic swindle.

Careful study of Hebrews 9:1-11 proves that the first apartment called the first tabernacle,was only for the time then present, was only to continue until the “new order,” verse 10Moffatt. That Christ as a High Priest went into the Holiest of All, verse 12, Phillips trans.verse 24, and 10:19. And the RSV on Heb. 6:19 says that Jesus enters into the inner shrinebehind the curtain.” Moffatt, “Enters the inner Presence behind the veil.” So there is no holyplace in heaven.

And if there is no holy place you would not expect Christ to be ministering after the patternand performance of the common priests or even the High Priest in the Holy Place. And this isthe very teaching of Heb. 7:26, 27. “Who needeth not daily as those high priests, etc. for thisHe did once for all when He offered up Himself.” In other words the practice and pattern ofthe priests in the first apartment met its complete and utter fulfillment in the one and only oneact of Jesus when He presented Himself to the Father. Heb. 10:11, 12 makes the dissimilaritybetween the two priesthoods most apparent. Then it is an absolute heresy to teach that Christwas making applications of blood like Aaron did on earth even to suggest that He is doing itantitypically from the time of the cross until now. Hebrews says that Christ sat down, ceasedfrom offering, was not involved in repeated actions such as the priest of old was, for he neversat down in the sanctuary. The only place in the sanctuary where there was a seat was in theMost Holy Place, and he did not stay long enough to sit down. Christ won a place in the MostHoly Place, realized the goal of Old Testament prophetic enactments, and having realized it,never to go back, sat down.

Well this brings us to the next revelation of the book of Hebrews 9 and 10 that the writer aftermentioning the activities of the priests in the first apartment, Heb. 9:6, then promptly forgetsthem. He is concerned to make a comparison between what the High Priest did on the greatDay of Atonement, Heb. 9:7, and what Christ did when He entered Heaven, verses 11-13, andhe continues to make a comparison between what the High Priest did on the great Day ofAtonement and the antitypical acts of Jesus concerning that final national ceremony. On thatday, and only on that day the High Priest went into the Holy Places (plural) verse 24. Thepriest went through the holy place on his way to the Most Holy; so Christ, verse 11, wentthrough a greater and more perfect tabernacle on the way to the presence of the Father Whowas in the Most Holy Place, verse 24. Nor did Christ have to sacrifice Himself repeatedlyafter the annual habit of the High Priest, verse 25. Nor does Christ have to keep offeringHimself after the pattern of the Day of Atonement. Both sacrifice and offering on the Day ofAtonement order is over, for on the day of resurrection Christ “appeared to put away sin” oras Moffatt and others translate “to abolish sin” verse 26. It was on the Day of Atonement thatthe high priest appeared to put away sin for Israel, and symbolically after that there was nomore remembrance of that year’s sins. So after saying that Christ put away sin, in 10:1-18Paul shows that since Calvary there is no more remembrance of sins for true spiritual Israel.When you grasp these two great facts, one apartment in heaven and one once for all atoningact of Christ, you can see how the message

58

of Romans on Justification meshes completely with the ministry of Jesus in Heaven.

To clinch the whole thing, Paul proves in Heb. 9:16,17 that a covenant is of force after menare dead, not before. In other words the repeated ceremonial acts of Jewish priests werenecessary because the testator Christ had not died, but after calvary when the testator hadbeen proved to have died, the covenant with all the benefits came into operation. We don thave to wait till 1844 for them. These benefits are enumerated in Heb. 8:12 and 10:15-17. Butaccording to a letter received from W. E. Battye for and on behalf of the denomination whowas about to sack me, only portion of the new covenant is of force now and that portion isHeb. 8:10 the law written on our hearts. He claimed that the other two sections were yetfuture, namely, ‘not teaching every man his neighbour and their sins and iniquities will Iremember no more. When I replied, “that just proves how foolish a man can become in thedefence of an heretical system that is out of harmony with the plainest teachings of the wordof God,” they promptly sacked me. I do not wish to be critical of the brethren, some of whomwere my superiors and some mine equal, but they were the smallest minded group oftheologians ever. They made me ashamed to think I had accepted everything on a platter asQ.E.D. and when I searched the Bible and the Bible alone, I found these apparently profoundteachings the veriest heresy ever.

The two-apartment sanctuary in heaven is based on very superficial reading of the Scriptures.Because Moses was told to make everything according to the pattern showed him in themount, the pioneers and their successors lumped to the unwarranted conclusions that the OldTestament sanctuary was an exact pattern of the one in the third heavens, whereas Pauldeclares, “It was necessary for the earthly reproductions of heaven realities to be purified.”Heb. 9:23. And again, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come” andnot the very image (Authorized) “instead of the true form of these realities.” Heb. 10:1 RSV.

Basing their whole interpretation of the sanctuary on Dan. 8:13,14, they made the ministrationof the priests in the first apartment apply to the ministry of Christ from His ascension till1844; and the ministry of the High Priest in the Most Holy to Christ from 1844 till He comes.Thus they gave a time value of 1800 years to the first apartment ministry; and a time value of112 years so far to the most holy ministration.

As the GC has laid it down that no doctrine can be built out of the types and shadows or fromthe symbolical books such as Daniel and Revelation, but on the clear unfigurative language ofscripture, I simply ask for one text from the clear unfigurative books of the Bible for thewarrant of giving time values to the shadowy ministry of the Aaronic priests. Just one text.

Further, the GC has stated that every sacrifice of the OT regardless of the time, place, ornumber, represents the one and only sacrifice made by Jesus on the cross. Well then on whatlogical grounds can we say that the priests who ministered and offered those numeroussacrifices, represent two and not one ministry of Christ? If many sacrifices represent but somany facets of one sacrifice made on Calvary’s cross, I ask on what logical grounds say, somany priestly actions and offerings do

59

not represent so many facets of the one offering of Jesus at His ascension, one act of offeringthat one and no more?

But postulating two apartments in heaven and two ministries the church has split theatonement. Read the statement made by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 355,bottom of page, “the offering of the blood in the daily service had not made full atonement, ithad only transferred sin to the sanctuary.” Elsewhere she speaks of the “final atonement”made in 1844. In other words, if the type be followed, during the first 1800 years since thecross, sins were confessed, the blood of Christ applied, but the blood of Jesus had not madefull atonement for sin.

In proof that this is the position read Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 356, first paragraph, that inthe daily service the sinner acknowledged the claims of the law confessed his sin, but he wasnot yet released from the condemnation of the law. So by parallel, those who lived before1844 and even those whose names have not come up in the judgment have not yet beenreleased from the condemnation of the law.

Why does this extraordinary position exist? Because it is stated in the same paragraph ofPatriarchs and Prophets, “Not until the day of atonement did the High Priest go in to the MostHoly and put blood over the mercy seat and consequently over the law ‘to make satisfactionfor its claims. ” In other words, according to the theory of the church and Mrs. White, thebroken law went unsatisfied for 1800 years until in 1844 Christ took the blood in! Hence noone could be entirely released from the condemnation of the law until after 1844!

Thirty years ago W. W. Fletcher was declared a false and heretical teacher because he said theblood of Christ did not transfer sin, but in fact expiated or blotted sin out. This is what thegreat theologians of the church claimed 30 years ago. “Hence it is that the sin offering (in thedaily service) did not completely expiate the guilt. The sinner was not entirely released fromthe condemnation of the law until the type was completed on the Day of Atonement; for theblood did not reach the mercy seat over the law until the type was completed on the Day ofAtonement.” Quoted in Reasons for My Faith, p. 34, W. W. Fletcher. What hereticalnonsense! Yet the same spirit of ignorance and bigotry prevailed at my trial. This time theyrefused to answer mean these paragraphs. They said that all those who have questioned theseparagraphs have trodden on dangerous ground. Dangerous because it is so damnably incorrectwith scripture. Paul said the law was satisfied in his day. Rom. 3:20, 21, “Therefore by thedeeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight; but now apart from the law, therighteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed, or attested by the law …” Towitness or attest the validity of righteousness is to be satisfied with it. The law was satisfiedall right for Paul says, “There is therefore now (in AD 50 not 1844) no condemnation.” Rom.8:1. He did not say like our theoreticians, “not completely expiated,” partly expiated, partlynot. He did not say like Mrs. E. G. White, “Not entirely released from the condemnation ofthe law.” No, he said, “There is therefore NOW NO CONDEMNATION.”

After all these pontifical pronouncements by the leaders of the church they discovered in theE. G. White archives (and they are always discovering when it suits them) this statementwhich contradicts both

60

Patriarchs and Prophets and Great Controversy, and the AUC statement made to Fletcher 30years ago. This is it “Still bearing humanity, He ascended to heaven, triumphant andvictorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement into the holiest of all, sprinkled it uponthe mercy seat and His own garments, and blessed the people.” E. G. White, “Signs of theTimes,” April 19, 1905. Quoted in The Sanctuary Service by Andreasen, p. 235.

Fletcher has been dead several years. They keep on quoting he died a frustrated man!Frustrated by a church which refuses to acknowledge that she has been wrong at any time inits history! Brother Froom, gentleman and scholar that he is, is making gigantic claims for thechurch, that we are the only true protestant church today, the successor and inheritor of allthat has gone before, and under the cloak of such statements the church is being slowlyaligned to the true protestant position. A young worker told me yesterday, “We don t holdrigidly to the types today as in Fletcher’s day, we don t have to believe in two apartments, wejust believe in two ministries.” Of course I rejoice that such young men believe that way, butone man is thrown out to satisfy caprice and jealousy. But the statement also proves that thechurch was wrong 30 years ago, and I very believe, is wrong now. In another 30 years theywill be where I am today, and I do not say that boastfully.

Well, brother, I have written you lengthily. I do not usually do this nor do I have anyintentions of writing at so much length to all my friends. I am too busy to be able to do so. Iam happy in my work though I have a pang of regret for the people that I cannot now ministerto, not even open my mouth in the church at all for I am under the interdict of the churchauthorities. Still the Lord Jesus is my Saviour and friend and I get big opportunities forwitnessing for Him.

Give my Christian regards to your wife and family, may see you some day.

Sincerely, yours,

R. A. Grieve (38)

In studying the correspondence between the Australian church leaders and the General Conference president, one finds that R. A. Grieve claimed support for several of his positions from veteran evangelist and editor, R. A. Anderson. Certain of these positions such as the sinless nature of Christ, and justification, have now become widespread in the church, and the former particularly came to the fore through the efforts of the then editor of the Ministry. On the matter of the sanctuary, R. A. Anderson was well known for his protests against over-literalization. His teachings on Heb. 9 in Australia in the forties had raised a storm, but none could sustain a charge of heresy against one who so ably and wholeheartedly served his church from childhood. At the time of his trial, R. A. Grieve used personal letters addressed to him by Elder Anderson.

The events of “down under” made it clear that the issue of Hebrews and the sanctuary was by no means dead. It was soon to be raised again in a deeply significant, though novel, approach from laymen.

R. D. BRINSMEAD

The end of the fifties in Australia saw the beginning of the “Awakening Movement” under the leadership of R. D. Brinsmead. While studying for the ministry at Avondale College, Robert Brinsmead became convinced that the church’s note on Dan. 8:14 had become strangely muted. Indeed, he asserted that the corpse of the

61

investigative judgment doctrine had been denominationally interred. Questions on Doctrine was affirmed to be a “sell-out” to apostate Protestants. The real truth about Dan. 8:14, said Robert Brinsmead, was that it contained a most precious promise concerning the removal of original sin from the hearts and lives of God’s faithful people who trusted in the merits of Christ. In order to give the Loud Cry, it was necessary that the Lord’s people should become as sinless in the flesh as Christ had become through the same miraculous operation of the Spirit.

As chairman of the Bible department of Avondale College from the end of 1960, this present writer was deluged with inquiries on the new teaching regarding the sanctuary. He had earlier written Robert Brinsmead from USA pointing Out that Heb. 9 gave a very different interpretation of the Day of Atonement to that proposed by the new movement. This was the opening sally of polemical interchanges in an unending “war” of approximately a decade until Robert Brinsmead wrote a paper renouncing all hope of eschatological perfectionism, and thereby repudiated his former sanctuary teachings. This is not to infer that Des Ford was responsible for Robert Brinsmead’s change of view, though some slight contribution may have been made to that end.

It was a new view of righteousness by faith which led R. D. Brinsmead to repudiate his former position on eschatological perfection. He frankly traced the development of his original and subsequent positions in a two-part paper entitled A Review of the Awakening circulated early in the 1970 s. simultaneously our general church paper changed Its view on perfection as any study of the journal over the last two decades makes clear but the direction was the opposite to Brinsmead s. Thus those in Australia, including the present writer, who had opposed the “Awakener s” position on Dan. 8:14 for over ten years, now found themselves at odds with the Review.

This was the setting for the Palmdale Conference where this writer as well as sharing In the discussions on righteousness by faith, also in private urged upon church leaders the necessity for studying problems In connection with our traditional sanctuary presentation. His booklet, “Dan. 8:14 The Judgment and the Kingdom of God,” was then placed in the hands of these brethren.

We gave this history to underline the relationship between the righteousness by faith message and our sanctuary teaching. They are closely intertwined, and to be wrong on one is to be simultaneously wrong on the other. R. D. Brinsmead inherited the traditional view of the sanctuary doctrine and it led him into eschatological perfectionism. In some respects his experience is a microcosm of that of many within the church, If living without a mediator after the close of the investigative judgment requires a character without blemish or shortcoming or any type of imperfection, how can perfectionism be avoided? On the other hand, if Gal. 2:16, 21; Rom. 3:20; 8:1, 23, 33, 34; and the doctrine of glorification are to be taken seriously, how can Adventists contend for perfection In the flesh at any time In this life?

R. A. COTTRELL

In 1959, Ford had talked at length with Raymond Cottrell on sanctuary and Daniel Issues, and contact has been maintained over the years with particular reference to these matters. From him he learned that the sanctuary problems had risen again to sharp focus here In Washington during the preparation of volume 4 of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Simultaneously had come the discussions between Walter R. Martin, Donald Grey Barnhouse, and such leaders as L. E. Froom, R. A. Anderson, W. E. Read. Indirectly, the editors of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary were Involved, as almost daily they engaged with their own brethren in the study of problems in Dan. 8 and 9

Brother Cottrell was asked by the editorial committee on Questions on Doctrines to review, summarize, and evaluate the articles by those opposing our sanctuary doctrine. Such statements as the following made such a project necessary.

62

SDA claims its teachings are based upon the Bible, but an examination of its “FundamentalBeliefs” published in the volume Questions on Doctrine reveals some interesting exceptions.”Fundamental Beliefs” contain 22 propositions, beginning with a statement on the Scripturesand the Trinity, then moving through the gamut of theology. in each instance the biblicalpassages are listed at the end of each statement showing the grounds on which theirconvictions are founded. Without biblical backing, however, are statements 13,14 and 15.These deal with one of the touchiest segments of Adventist teaching the 70 weeks and 2300years and the cleansing of the sanctuary. The date 1844, which involves the 2300 years andthe cleansing of the sanctuary, are pivotal of Seventh-day Adventist faith. Destroy these andcertain conclusions are self-evident. These would be no adequate basis for the existence ofSDA. But there are no definite statements in the Bible which support the view of SDA on thispoint. Their conclusions are derived from the teachings of Mrs. White, which, in turn, are theresult of her interpretation of the Bible. (39)

The latter doctrine [the investigative judgment], to me, is the most colossal, psychological,face-saving phenomenon in religious history We personally do not believe that there is even asuspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believethat any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. [Farther on he characterizes theinvestigative judgment concept as "unimportant and almost naive."] (40)

In counsel with Elder Nichol, Elder Cottrell wrote twenty-seven leading Adventist Bible teachers for their insights on the contemporary problems. All twenty-seven replied, and many at considerable length. But the replies yielded no additional help and, according to Elder Cottrell, the replies demonstrated that we still had no satisfactory answer to criticisms of our position. For example, all twenty-seven scholars admitted that there is no linguistic evidence for connecting Dan. 8:14 with Leviticus. 16. The majority also asserted that there is no contextual evidence in Dan. 8 for our doctrine of the investigative judgment.

As mentioned earlier, Elder Nichol took the results of the inquiry to the president of the General Conference, with the result of the appointment of a select group for a highly confidential committee on the problems in the book of Daniel. The committee consisted of:

H. W. Lowe as chairman, and R. A. Anderson, Raymond F. Cottrell, Richard Hammill,Edward Heppenstall, W. G. C. Murdoch, D. F. Neufeld, Leo Odom, and W. E. Read. Otherslater invited to meet with the committee included Earle Hilgert, S. H. Horn, Alger Johns,Graham Maxwell, and M. R. Thurber. (41)

In order to make freedom of expression easier, no minutes were kept over the five years of the meetings of this committee. Forty-five papers were considered, including four by the present writer. (42) No unanimity was reached on the problems considered, the proposed written conclusions for the benefit of the church were never prepared. Elder Figuhr said it would not be necessary even for the committee to make any sort of official summary of their work for presentation to the officers. (This is the testimony of the committee members.)

Some members of the committee strongly affirmed that it Is quite impossible to legitimately deduce the denominational sanctuary teachings from the Scriptures, and that the answer to the dilemma was to view the inspired writings of Ellen G. White as the authority for “re-interpretation” of the Biblical passages. These members believed that Ballenger, Fletcher, Conradi, Prescott, Grieve and others had

63

been correct in their reading of Heb. 9) It is hardly possible to exaggerate the importance of this Daniel Committee for the church today. With the new administration, the committee was not continued, and has never been revived since. More on Cottrell’s work shortly.

C. G. TULAND

One Adventist scholar who spent a day with the Daniel Committee on special invitation was Dr. Carl Tuland. Dr. Tuland, a scholar and author in many languages, held pastoral and administrative responsibilities in the Middle East, USA and South America, etc. We quote from a paper on Dan. 8 prepared by him for the consideration of the church. (Style forms are his.)

Yom Kippur was the cleansing of the sanctuary itself from the accumulated sins of Israel, aswell as the cleansing of the people from sin. That, of course, is quite different from thedefilement brought upon the temple AND ITS MINISTRY by physical means such as theintroduction of idols under Ahaz, and with them of pagan worship and destruction of the trueworship, by pagan and papal Rome. These two different types of defilement, either by themoral wrongs of Israel, or its pollution by paganism and false religion, were two distinctproblems, and, therefore, required two different kinds of “cleansing.” Thus it seems that ourfundamental points of comparison are out of focus if we equate the annual cleansing of thesanctuary from the sins of Israel with the cleansing of the whole temple and its services fromidolatry. One leads to the moral purification of Israel, the other to the restoration of the wholecult. Thus, neither Hezekiah’s restoration nor Dan. 8:14 have any direct reference to YomKippur. Such an analogy can be used only by introducing the (last phase of) the ministry ofChrist, limiting it to the day of judgment (investigative judgment), which in my opinion is anarbitrary and unilateral exegesis.

It seems to be of extraordinary significance, the most prominent contemporary Seventh-dayAdventist writers, including publications printed under the auspices of the GeneralConference have recognized the actual meaning of as “be restored to its rightful state” or arendering close to this concept. However, this admission has always been made with certainreservations and hesitancy which will be understood as we read their observations. M. L.Andreasen agrees that the word sadaq means “justified” in Hebrew. “The word contains theidea of restoration as well as of cleansing.” (The Sanctuary Service, p. 29) While the first partof this statement Is right, the second is definitely incorrect.

Another instance how also Adventist authors can be prejudiced is found in George McCreadyPrice’s book, The Greatest of the Prophets, when he SAYS: “The literal Hebrew is not’cleansed, but rather ‘justified, or ‘vindicated, meaning that at the time specified thesanctuary or temple, in Daniel’s day lying in ruins, would again function as before, its servicesnaturally culminating in Yom Kippur, the climactic ceremony of the year. Indeed, thispassage might well be translated: ‘Then shall the sanctuary have made atonement for it. “(TheGreatest of the Prophets, p. 188) as right as his acceptance of the correct meaning of theHebrew term is, so incorrect is his conclusion and suggestion as to rendering that part of Dan.8:14.

But it seems that more than most of our authors, McCready Price has struggled with theproblem of correctly understanding the meaning of

64

the text. He also says: “In the light of these principles, we may well ask again, What is thereal meaning of the clause, Then Shall the Sanctuary Be Cleansed? (emphasis his).” (idem, p.197) He then proceeds quoting a number of translations which all support the Hebrew text incontradistinction to the KJV. (idem. pp. 197, 198) After that he makes a strenuous effort toreconcile the two different concepts, but not without sacrificing the meaning of the Hebrewterm by making a near equation of cleansing and justifying. “From all this discussion itshould become clear that this answer, Then Shall the Sanctuary Be Cleansed or justified, hasa depth of meaning in it, much more than might appear on the surface. In face, it may meaneither or all of the following: (idem, p. 198) In his subsequent interpretation he comesactually very close to the true meaning of the prophecy, yet he is not willing to give up theKJV. (idem, pp. 198, 199) But McCready Price has sensed the greater significance of thatprophecy.

We may assume that in the book Problems in Bible Translation (1954), prepared by acommittee specially appointed by the General Conference, we have an authoritative statementregarding the denominational interpretation of Dan. 8:14. The following excerpts are foundon pp. 174-177. “The Hebrew word sadaq is used here, for which no variant readings aregiven in any Hebrew Bible. All lexicons agree in giving the meaning of the word as ‘to bejust, to be righteous. In Dan 8:14 the word occurs in the Niphal form (the reflexive orpassive), and would ordinarily be translated ‘be justified, or ‘be made righteous. “(Problems,p. 175) After giving a few examples of translations supporting this right view, the writercontinues: “It therefore appears that the translators of the RSV as well as other versions haveapproached very closely to the correct translation of the word when they render ‘then thesanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state. Those versions that render it ‘be righted, ‘bedeclared right, ‘be justified, or ‘be vindicated have also handled the word acceptably.”(idem, p. 175) What follows is a quite accurate statement of the reason for our adherence toan inadequate interpretation: “The word itself does not really mean ‘to cleanse in the sense towash. That meaning is borrowed from the sanctuary ritual, as we shall note below.” (idem, p.175) Then, again, the writer reverts to what might be called as preconceived interpretation,but not a translation” -as well ss from the fact that the basic meaning of the word ‘tojustify, ‘to vindicate, or ‘to set right very definitely has a ceremonial aspect in all Semiticlanguages in which the word occurs.” (idem, p. 175) To the latter view I would hardlysubscribe, for the conclusions cannot be based on the premises that “to cleanse” and “tojustify” can be derived from the same word sadaq. But we can avoid the censure of incorrecttranslation by a better exegesis of the text, i.e. understanding the “cleansing” of the sanctuaryas what It is in reality, namely, only a part of the greater truth, which is the restoration of thesanctuary to its rightful state.

Another attempt in this direction if found in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary:”Be Cleansed.” From the Heb. sadaq, “to be just,” “to be righteous,” the verb occurs in theform here found (niphal) only this once in the OT, which may suggest that a specializedmeaning of the term is indicated. Lexicographers and translators suggest various meanings,such as “be put right,” or “be put in a rightful condition,” “be righted,” “be declared

65

right,” “be justified,” “be vindicated.” The translation “shall be cleansed” is the reading of theLXX, which here has the verb form from Katharisthesetai. It is not known whether thetranslators of the LXX gave an adapted meaning to the Heb. sadaq or translated frommanuscripts employing a different Hebrew word, perhaps tahar, the common Hebrew wordfor “to be clean,” “to cleanse.” The Vulgate has the form mundabitur, which also means”cleansed.” (Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 4:844) Of course, there are alwayspossibilities of errors, but as we have read in Problems in Bible Translation, there are novariant readings in the Hebrew Bible for this text. It seems that there is no need for asteadying of the ark by improbabilities, and the truth is not in need of being saved by doubtfulargumentation. We have been admonished to investigate the books of Daniel and Revelationfor the wealth of truth still to be discovered in them, and it seems to me that by interpretingDan. 8:14 in the larger context, as has been suggested, we can accept the Hebrew termwithout sacrificing our position.

In Questions on Doctrine (1957) additional information is found. “This, we believe, is thetemple that not only is to be ‘cleansed (Dan. 8:14), but is also to be ‘justified (margin), ‘putright, ‘vindicated, as will be noted shortly.” (Questions on Doctrine, p. 263) This is followedby a lengthy discussion.

9. Intent of “Cleansed.” The significance of the various terms used by translators to indicate the full intent of the “cleansing” (Hebrew tsadaq) of the heavenly sanctuary (Dan. 8:14) should not be lost. Eleven different renderings appear in standard translations. These are: (a) “Cleansed” (Septuagint, Rheims-Douay, Moulton, Boothroyd, Spurrell, Martin, Vulgate, Harkavy, Ray, Knox, Noyes, French-Osterwald, Segond, and Lausanne the KJV, and the ARV); (b) “be justified” (Leeser; Sawyer; ARV, margin; KJV, margin); “be victorious” (Margolis); (d) “be righted” (Smith-Goodspeed; (3) “(be) declared right” (Young); (f) “be restored to its rightful state” (RSV); (g) “be made righteous” (Van Ess); (h) “be restored” (Moffatt); (I) “be sanctified” (Fenton); (j) “be vindicated” (Rotheram); and (k) “be consecrated” (Luther). (idem, pp. 265, 266)

After a reference to Problems in Bible Translation, pp. 174, 175, a text already quoted abovewe again find the same kind of reasoning characteristic for this position: “We recognize thatthe justifying, vindicating, and making righteous of the Levitical sanctuary was accomplishedby the services on the Day of Atonement, when the sanctuary was cleansed from alldefilement (Leviticus. 15:16).” (idem, p. 266) We can only repeat that the restoration of thesanctuary encompassed more than its cleansing, if the ministry of Christ in the heavenlysanctuary shall be understood in its totality and not be confined to a single phase, even if thishappens to be one of great importance. (43)

Dr. Tuland proceeds to give an interpretation of Dan. 8:14 along the lines of Conradi, Prescott, Daniells, W. C. White in other words, the “new” view of the daily. But with Tuland, it is obvious that this is not an addition to the investigative judgment concept but the reality taught in the verse. Dr. Tuland also views Heb. 9 identically to Fletcher.

Edward Ballenger was even more vocal than his brother. At first an opponent of Albion, he became his most staunch defender among the administrators, pastors, and laity who espoused the heretical cause. It is chiefly Edward Ballenger’s name that is remembered with the Gathering Call publications which were a denominational gadfly for decades. An acquaintance of Ellen G. White s, Edward Ballenger headed up the work of education for the church in California until his defection. After that event he issued a spate of materials until the beginning of the fifties.

W. W. FLETCHER

When we move to the late 1920 s, we have a case even more poignant than Albion Ballenger s. The latter has never been successfully accused of unchristian behavior, and the situation is identical with the former. Daniells seemed close to tears when he wrote of this man whom he described as “a gentleman, a very devout, praying man. I have greatly enjoyed working with him.” Everyone believes in Brother Fletcher.” (23)

Even today, those who are vocal opponents of Fletcher’s theology speak with almost reverence of the man. Letters from Elder L. Jones to Drs. Olson and Ford so testify. (L. L. Jones is a retired minister in Victoria, Australia.)

Fletcher spanned the years between 1879 and 1947. After colporteuring, he became a public evangelist, and then entered foreign mission work. Returning from Singapore, he held city missions and then became the president of the South Australian Conference. He was Young People s, Home Missions, and Education secretary for the Australian Union Conference in 1914, and vice president of the union in 1915. During the following three years he was the president of the India Union Mission. Next he became field secretary, and then chairman of the Southern Asian Division, 1920.22. He returned to evangelism in Australia, then pursued further work as an administrative officer of the union prior to joining the faculty at Avondale College to teach Bible. We have never never found a word breathing suspicion on his

46

integrity and fidelity to the church over these twenty-five years of service.

Fletcher’s theological stance should not be equated with Ballenger s. He never accepted the “way-out” features of the Ballenger position, but its emphasis on Heb. 6:19-20 and Heb. 9 was appropriated by him with a sad fervor. He did not wish to believe it, but found himself compelled to do so, even as L. R. Conradi, W. W. Prescott, L. E. Froom, R. A. Anderson, E. Heppenstall, R. Cottrell, D. Neufeld, E. Hilgert, and a host of others in later years. (Certainly, the majority of our New Testament scholars assent to the essential accuracy of Ballenger’s exegesis of “within the veil.” Several studies by students of Andrews University in the last few years, including essays by denominational college Bible teachers, take the same position.)

Fletcher’s apologia sua vita is Reasons for My Faith. There he sets forth his fundamental positions, the answers of the brethren, and his answers to their answers. We quote the first:

The Propositions

1. That it was the immediate unveiled presence of God as manifested in the Holy Shekinah that constituted the inner apartment of the earthly sanctuary the most holy place, and that consequently when at the time of His ascension the Lord Jesus Christ sat down at the right hand of God, thus “appearing in the presence of God for us,” He entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. There can be no place in heaven more holy than the place of the unveiled presence of Almighty God.

2. That in the typical service of the earthly sanctuary the sprinkling of blood upon the altar and before the veil represented the expiation of sin, and not its transfer into the sanctuary.

3. That it is necessary to modify our view that the Testimonies are to be regarded as having the authority of a direct revelation from God. (24)

Scores, including ministers, were disfellowshipped from the Australian churches over the sanctuary issues in Fletcher’s time. Entire groups left the church and fellowshipped together away from its borders.

Some paragraphs from Fletcher’s Open Letter of Nov. 20,1930, may be of interest:

The truths of the Advent message are very dear to me. The knowledge of these truths stirred my heart in my youth, and the belief of them has molded my life ever since. I thank God for the day when one of the Lord’s messengers came to our home town in Northwest Tasmania preaching these things.

Thirty years have gone by since then. During all this time the great essential truths of the Advent message have been a constant inspiration and comfort to me. In tendering to the brethren my resignation as a worker employed by the Australasian Union Conference, I have done so with much regret, having feelings of the warmest affection for the Advent cause and people.

After all these discussions my convictions remain practically unchanged. I do not myself regard the divergence as sufficient to warrant the separation of a worker from the Advent ministry; but my conversations with the brethren here and in America have shown that many of our responsible men are not prepared to take that view.

While my change of conviction with regard to the sanctuary teaching will cause pain and perplexity to some of my dearest friends, I see a reformation of doctrine in that connection to be essential for the good of the

47

church. Although the first recognition of this may cause perplexity, a fuller and truer knowledge of the nature of the Saviour’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and the relation of that ministry to the work accomplished on Calvary’s cross, cannot but bring great joy and peace to all who truly believe.

I have felt it to be my duty to bring my convictions before my fellow-ministers, and still feel that it is our workers particularly that should give thought to these things. There are matters of interpretation of type and prophecy that are not essential to salvation. This does not mean, however, that they are unimportant. While these things should not be made a test of fellowship, we have rightly attached great importance to them.

I feel bound to the people among whom I have learned the ways of the Lord by ties of love that can never be broken. I would exhort one and all, both young and old, not to be unduly disturbed over some divergence of viewpoint in prophetic interpretation. Whatever may be the interpretation of particular passages, undoubtedly the second advent of Christ is near, even at the doors. We have not followed cunningly devised fables in making known the power and coming of the Lord. We must remember, however, that while the lamp of prophecy will shine more and more brightly until the day dawn, we are to look to Christ, and depend more upon Him than upon our own understanding of the times and the seasons. It is still true that the Father keeps these things more or less “within His own authority.” Let us keep our eyes fixed upon “Him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood.” “To Him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”

L. R. CONRADI

L. R. Conradi lived between 1856 and 1936. After studying for the Roman Catholic priesthood, he migrated to America at the age of seventeen and was there led to this message in 1878. In one-third of the normal four years he completed the ministerial course at Battle Creek, though working at typesetting over the same period. James White, noticing his poverty, bought for him a graduation coat. In 1882 he was ordained, and 1888 found him at the historic Minneapolis Conference. Not long afterwards he was back in his native Germany as a very active church leader, and according to the GC president, much appreciated.

Now Brother Conradi is not a speculative man at all, in his temperament. He is a well grounded man. He is a scholar, and a man of very keen foresight, of much insight; and he is building up a work in Europe that is simply marvelous; and he is building it on the old solid foundation of this cause. He is not wandering about.(25)

L. R. Conradi’s problems began very early. At the time of his defection he had labored for the cause over half a century, having been a student of Uriah Smith’s. Conradi was well read, eloquent by tongue and pen, and had captured the hearts of a large number of our people throughout Europe. But his sanctuary problems came to the fore in the last decade of the nineteenth century, though he never separated from our people till the 1930s when he was seventy-six years of age.

Particularly the relationship between the question and answer to Dan. 8:13-14 worried our German leader. After all, verse 14 was an answer to a specific question, and that question said much about the sins of antichrist, but nothing about the sins of true believers, and apparently nothing about the Day of Atonement. From Conradi we obtained, through this mental tumult, our present denominational teaching on

48

the “daily” which spread from him to A. T. Jones, A. G. Daniells, W. C. White, W. W. Prescott and other leaders. Conradi revived the teaching of the reformers that Dan. 8:13 pointed to the papal counterfeits of Christ’s gospel and mediatorial work. (Before going in print as the first SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST writer to set forth the “new” view of the “daily,” Conradi wrote Ellen G. White inquiring whether she had any light on that topic. He received no answer. Ellen G. White usually refused to settle doctrinal issues.)

Therefore, deduced Conradi, in company with the reformers, 8:14 pointed to a restoration of the long obscured gospel. (He also believe in another aspect of fulfillment to do with Mohammedanism’s attacks on Christians. This he picked up from scholars of other faiths who preceded him, or were contemporary with him, such as H. G. Guinness.)

Conradi also came to believe with Ballenger that Christ at His ascension fulfilled the ministry symbolized by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement he went “within the veil.” Not until June 12,1931, however, did Conradi publicly set forth his views. After he was rebuked for a statement on Dan. 7 in the journal he edited (Herold der Wahrheit) he wrote Elder H. F. Schuberth, chairman of the division committee and requested a hearing.

The discussion appointed for July 19,1931, was duly held in good spirit on both sides, and a sub-committee appointed to prepare a report for the Division Committee. This report was considered and adopted July 22, 1931. In this report appears the following summary of the discussion:

“Brother Conradi made these two questions prominent for discussion:

a) the sanctuary question,

b) the question of the Spirit of Prophecy.

The discussion took place in the following manner. Brother Conradi was granted an opportunity to present his ideas to the full committee in a series of three Bible studies. Brother F. C. Gilbert replied to his presentation in two Bible studies which were later supplemented by Brethren C. C. Crisler, G. W. Schubert, and W. Muller. These presentations took place alternatively.

At Brother Conradi’s request the discussion was broken off, as he desired time in which to study further that he might become clear. He then made the accompanying statement on Wednesday, July 22.

“In answer to this presentation of Bro. Conradi we declare definitely that we hold unconditionally to the Holy Scriptures and their teachings as the only authority in questions of faith (and doctrine). For this reason we hold to the teachings of the sanctuary in all their details as heretofore. Furthermore, we continue to appreciate spiritual gifts, among which is the Spirit of Prophecy, as taught in Holy Scriptures.” (26)

Three months later Conradi was heard in Omaha, Nebraska, by a committee of twenty-seven appointed by the General Conference, including all the officers at Washington, and four division presidents from abroad. After the hearing, Brother Conradi wrote C. H. Watson, assuring him that by accepting his resignation as field secretary of the General Conference the brethren would do him a favor. This was done.

49

The official Statement of the Conrad I Case offers asa typical reaction the following:

A lay business man in one church who entertained Brother Conradi, and who had received some of his documents, says: “When I asked him [Conradi] concerning his position regarding the sanctuary and Sister White he gave me his opinion on these two points.”

“Quite a number of brethren and sisters share the view of Brother Conradi, but one needs time to read it all.” (Letter from H. Fenner to E. Kotz, May 4,1932.)

Later the same brother wrote:

“Since there seems to be a preparation for a fight against Brother Conradi, I consider it my duty to warn you against participating in it. … Anyone who wants to fight against Brother Conradi must be well able to prove that his views are wrong (although he does not want to persuade anyone to share these views with him) else the people would be against those who oppose Brother Conradi. This I believe Is not only my own private judgment, but it is the view of about ninety percent of the brethren and sisters.” (Quoted In a letter from H. Fenner to E. Kotz, May 4,1932.)

Still later he wrote:

“A man like L. R. Conradi lives in the hearts of all. However, if his views are wrong, yet I would see my way clear to bear with this old pioneer. I agree with you and so do the churches in Bremen. Let us wait and see. If it is from God, ye cannot overthrow it, but if it be of men it will come to naught.” (Quoted in letter from H. Fenner to E. Kotz, May 4, 1932.) (27)

A different reaction also is recorded from a former field secretary:

“Now we have been greatly distressed. Brother Conradi has not only belittled the gift of prophecy, but has also repudiated all his own books that he has written. All the work that he has done during 55 years is now declared untrue. He says he avoids pork only on account of health principles. The threefold message has been proclaimed during the Reformation. The deadly wound in Rev. 13:3, the beast with the two horns of Rev. 13:11 all these things have already found their fulfillment in the fifth century.

“As to the effects of these presentations of Brother Conradi in the church, we shall have to wait and see. Personally, I did not receive a good impression. I would not have believed that Brother Conradi was thinking along that line.” (Letter from Aug. Kollosser to H. Fenner, May 16, 1932) (28)

We quote the last lines of the same Statement:

The following cablegram was received at the General Conference headquarters from the Central European Division office in Berlin, under date of August 13:

“Division recommends withdraw Conradi’s credentials.” (29)

On August 14, another cablegram came from the same division office, as follows: “Conradi arriving New York August 19 boat (Deutschland).” (30)

50

W. W. PRESCOTT

Present at the trials of Ballenger and Conradi was our veteran educator and administrator, W. W. Prescott (1844-1944). He was president of Union, Walla Walla, and Avondale, and head of the theology department of EMC. He served as field secretary of the GC, and editor of the Review (for seven years). He was the author of The Spade and the Bible, published by Revell. Hundreds of preachers and officers of the denomination received their Bible training from Prescott. The Doctrine of Christ, written by him in the twenties, summarizes his doctrinal presentations in the classroom.

In the Officer’s Minutes of March 2,1934, we find allusion to the need to save the denomination from “drifting into theories like Ballenger s.” In the Review of 1909 (Oct. 28 ff.) Prescott had replied to the heresies of Ballenger.

The Officer’s Minutes of Jan. 22, 1934, record that:

W. W. Prescott, who is teaching Bible at Emmanuel Missionary College had certain questions concerning our theology. When these had been considered by a small group it had been agreed that W. W. Prescott continue at EMC for the rest of this school year, and that he not teach in the classroom any of these matters upon which he differs with the denomination. It had also been agreed that at the end of the school year he would not be continued longer at EMC. A letter had been received by W. H. Branson from K. H. Holden asking that the General Conference call W. W. Prescott back to Washington to relieve them of the necessity of asking him to discontinue work. Considerable time was spent discussing just what would be the best procedure to follow in dealing with Elder Prescott. It was finally

Voted, That I. H. Evans and W. H. Branson draw up a statement to W. W. Prescott explaining to him that on the basis of conversations which have been had with him by members of the official staff, that we understand he is not in full harmony with the denominational beliefs, and that we believe that he cannot go on teaching in a Bible Department while his views are not in harmony with the denomination, and suggest to him that he cooperate with the Officers and with the Emmanuel Missionary College Board by withdrawing at the end of the school year; that we further suggest to him in the statement that if he wishes, he may have a hearing on his religious views with the Officers of the General Conference. (31)

February 2,1934, W. W. Prescott wrote to Elders Branson and Evans. We quote the first two paragraphs.

Dear Brethren:

In your letter of Jan. 29, received yesterday, you advise me to withdraw voluntarily from my place as a worker in this movement on the ground that I am “somewhat out of harmony with the established faith of the denomination on certain vital points, especially the doctrine of the sanctuary.” You do this without having had any conference with me over the serious question involved, and without expressing any regret that I have taken such a course as to forfeit your confidence in me as a proper representative of this work after having devoted about fifty years of my life to its advancement. Not only so, but you plainly imply that if I do not thus withdraw, the matter will be taken up with the Board of Trustees of this college with the purpose, of course, of preventing me

51

from being invited by them to continue my work here.

Now it Is an axiom in any court of justice that an accused person should have the opportunity of facing his accusers in court and be given a fair chance of disproving the charges against him, but it seems as if you had already decided the case against me, and were now advising me to avoid a public condemnation by quietly accepting your decision. It is true that you offer me the opportunity of coming to Washington to confer with you, but are the accusers the proper jury to consider the case? Is it not a fair procedure that the charge which you make against me should be considered by those who have not made the charge? It seems that way to me. (32)

In the archives is an interesting note in the handwriting of A. W. Spicer. Note that the first sentence is giving the words of Prescott, but the rest the words of Spicer.

1. “I have waited all these years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not yet seen or heard it.”

2. After a long discussion of the sanctuary, the Trinity and other questions you ask whether I felt you should resign seeing you were out of harmony with the church.

I replied that I was not competent to give advice but was sure that if you taught the things in your classes which you had talked to me the brethren would ask you to resign.

You assured me you were not teaching them but talked of them confidentially only to leading men. (33)

From the Heritage Room of Andrews University (File VFM 998) comes the following letter:

Another interesting item came to me from three different sources, viz: that Prof. W. W. Prescott has made it known that he no longer believes in-the investigative judgment. I wrote asking him what event marked the fulfillment of the 2300 days, if the investigative judgment did not begin at that time. It has been something like two months since I wrote him. As yet I have received no reply, and am confident he will not answer. So long as he is determined to maintain the denomination, his only safe course is to ignore my question. (34)

W. W. Prescott moved to Washington and served the church there. At his death ten years later, he was greatly honored both by the church and many beyond its borders.