NEW SANCTUARY POSITIONS ASSUMED BY ADVENTIST SCHOLARS

The Atonement

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.

“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

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

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

“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

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

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.

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).

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.

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

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:

NEW SANCTUARY POSITIONS ASSUMED BY ADVENTIST SCHOLARS

Leave a Reply