E.Hilgert, D.Sibly, D.Ford…..

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

E.Hilgert, D.Sibly, D.Ford…..

Leave a Reply