Letters

Dear Brother Nichol:

I am not very happy over the way the references to the heavenly sanctuary are handled. In fact I am disturbed, and feel that unless some of the vagueness can be cleared up the material will do more harm than good when it reaches the field.

You mention that “the general conclusion we have reached with regard to the evidence in Hebrews concerning the apartments in heaven is found in the comment on Heb. 10:20.” My reading of the comment in question leads me to say that it practically destroys any idea of a sanctuary in heaven.

In the comments on chapter 6:19 the sanctuary is mentioned, but so many divergent views are given concerning the expression “within the veil” that the reader is left wondering if this is an SDA Commentary or merely one written to show the variety of views held by Seventh-day Adventists and Bible students in general without any expression of opinion as to what the Seventh-day Adventist church teaches. Again, in the comments on chapter 8:2 the sanctuary in heaven is affirmed, but at the same time the comment casts doubt on the matter of apartments. Again reference is made to the heavenly sanctuary in comment on chapter 9:8, with the summing up of Adventist belief, evading the question of two apartments.

In chapter 9:11 there is a brief positive statement affirming the existence of a heavenly sanctuary with a cross reference not yet complete, but the evidence in this text for the existence of the heavenly sanctuary is treated with much more feebleness than it deserves.

In chapter 9:12 the heavenly sanctuary is affirmed.

While the above references affirm a belief in a heavenly sanctuary, the general treatment of the subject would enable the reader, in my opinion, to question whether the Seventh-day Adventist church firmly believed in a sanctuary in heaven as an appointed place where a definite work of vital importance is being carried forward.

Then I would refer to the general teaching on the heavenly sanctuary, including two apartments, as taught in our books, both those generally circulated among our workers and people and those sold to the public by subscription. In the first group I would mention the “Book of Hebrews,” by M. L. Andreasen, pp. 325-331, 336-341, 356-357; the “Atoning Work of Christ,” C. H. Watson, pp. 154, 160-163, 186. By the way, Brother Watson is a most respected figure in Australasia, and the brethren do not consider his opinions lightly, since he wrote his book largely to rebut the sanctuary-destroying teaching of Brother W. W. Fletcher, the influence of which, some of our brethren feel, was responsible for our latest apostasies among the ministry.

Next I would mention “Our Firm Foundation,” vol. I, pp. 322, 334, 336, 358, 9; vol. 2, pp. 29, 32, 33, 40-42. 27 In some of the above works argument is put forth to establish two apartments. In most places it is taken for granted as something that is most surely believed among us.

Chapter 9:9 “Time then present.” It speaks of the apartments with their services being a parable of the then existing age. Should this not read in both instances parable for the then existing age. There is considerable difference in theology between the use of the words of and for in this case.

Chapter 9:23 “As a result of this the sinner’s conscience is purged,” etc. This teaches that the purifying of things in the heavens is really the purging of the sinner’s conscience. This seems foreign to the teaching of the denomination and the Spirit of Prophecy. I understand the purifying of heavenly things to be the cleansing from the heavenly sanctuary the record of confessed sin. “Great Controversy,” pp. 418-421.

Yours sincerely,

F. G. Clifford (9)

* * *

Dear Brethren:

The indictment you brethren bring against the Commentary on Hebrews is a

heavy one. None of the replies I received from our North American College Bible Departments, and from certain General Conference brethren, and others, on the Hebrews galleys, support your indictment. On the contrary, they were very commendatory.

The Commentary editors are not in the business of inventing theology for the denomination. Instead, we seek to ascertain precisely what the Bible writers have actually said, and then to discover the consensus of sound theological thought among Seventh-day Adventist leaders.

I am well aware of the long-standing problems in relation to the book of Hebrews. For years I lived in California where Ballenger fumed and stormed against us. I had hardly more than gotten to Washington, about thirty years ago, when I was placed on the committee that dealt with W. W. Fletcher. My task was to go through his bulky document and summarize his argument. Elder Spicer was in the chair. As a result of our meetings with Fletcher / drew certain conclusions regarding the book of Hebrews, as follows:

1. That some of the things Paul wrote that are hard to understand and that unstable souls wrest to their destruction, are found in the book of Hebrews.

2. That the construction of the argument and the construction of the Greek do not permit us to reach the dogmatic conclusions some of us have sought to reach on certain of the passages in Hebrews. This fact is clearly revealed in the variant interpretations that have been given to certain key passages in well-recognized Adventist works.

3. That our opponents can produce a plausible, though invalid, argument in support of their view by giving a certain value to some of the Greek terms used to describe the sanctuary and its apartments.

4. That if we take too literalistic a view of the heavenly sanctuary we aid our opponents. For example, Christ ascended to go into the presence of God for us; indeed His position since His ascension is in the presence of God where He is seated at God’s right hand. Various of our opponents argue that the presence of God is where the Shekinah glory is found, namely, in the second apartment. Therefore, since the ascension Christ has been ministering in the second apartment! /remember what Brother Spicer said to me at the time of the Fletcher hearings as we walked home one day. It was, in substance, this: “We must not press the figure too tar and think of two tight compartments in a building in heaven.” He felt, of course, that the two ompartments in the earthly sanctuary were intended to teach the great truth of the “two great divisions,” as Mrs. White expressed it, of Christ’s heavenly ministry in our behalf. We shall always have some honest differences of opinion as to how literally a symbol is to be understood, but so long as we keep clear the prime truth of “two great divisions” in Christ’s heavenly ministry, we have met our opponents squarely and have preserved our 1844 date, which is ever the focal point of attack. A symbol must always stand for something beyond itself, or else it is not a symbol but simply a literal statement. John saw, as he looked heavenward in vision, a Lamb as it had been slain, but we know that in heaven above there is found no slain lamb. However, we have no difficulty in understanding the import of the symbol. You will observe from what I say in the Additional Note on Chapter 10 that I consider it very proper to use the Biblical symbolism of two apartments because those symbols convey an important truth. But I don t want to press the symbol so literally as to play into the hands of our opponents in their argument about Christ’s going into the presence of God, and also some other arguments they can build upon ultra-literalism.

5. That because of the fact that some passages in Hebrews are difficult to understand, we ought never to allow our opponents to maneuver us into fighting the decisive battle as to the sanctuary doctrine on the battlefield of Hebrews. I believe we ought always to take our strong stand on the sanctuary doctrine, including its two apartments, on other and clearer scriptures. Having done that, I think we are well protected against the plausible, but invalid, conclusions that our opponents seek to reach by their attempts to make Paul’s passages in Hebrews support them. After all, this is the standard exegetical method we follow on many difficult matters of Scripture, as you brethren will agree. I have followed this procedure in my Additional Note for Chapter 10. Taking this procedure, we may willingly grant that it cannot be established with certainty as to what Paul may mean in a few places in Hebrews, but we can affirm with certainty that he does not mean what our opponents allege that he means. In other words, though we no longer attempt to find dogmatic proof for certain aspects of our sanctuary doctrine in Hebrews, we deprive our opponents of finding there any valid proof against that doctrine. To borrow again the figure of battle, we thus prevent them from bringing us into confusion on the field of Hebrews and make them fight their unholy warfare against us in the great areas of Scripture where we can win easily and completely.

6. That Paul is not seeking, in Hebrews, to focus upon the definite divisions of Christ’s work in heaven above, that instead he makes reference to this or that aspect of Christ’s heavenly ministry as a part of a grand argument to prove that the Jewish Christians could now avail themselves of “a more excellent ministry” than that of the earthly sanctuary. We have sought to make this great Pauline thesis stand out clearly in the rewritten section on “Theme” in the Introduction.

These conclusions that I reached about 30 years ago, I see no reason to change today.

Now, my dear brethren, my letter is very long, but I am trying to share with you my thinking, and I believe it is essentially the thinking of my brethren who have sent approving reports on the galleys. It is a line of reasoning that weakens in no way our sanctuary doctrine. Rather, I think, it greatly protects it. The fact that we do not attempt to prove a certain aspect of our sanctuary doctrine specifically in the book of Hebrews does not mean that we are letting that great doctrine ravel out. You contrast our treatment of the sanctuary with the strong support we have given to the Sabbath doctrine throughout the Commentary. If you will look again at the galleys you will note that we declare at some length that we do not believe that Hebrews 4:9 presents a valid argument for the Sabbath; I am sure some folks will grieve over this and perhaps even argue that we have weakened the Sabbath doctrine. We do not believe so. We simply believe that Hebrews is not the place to try to establish the Sabbath doctrine. I think the analogy is evident.

Sincerely your brother in Christ,

F. D. Nichol (10)