WWN 1994 Apr - Jun

1994Apr -- XXVII -- 4(94) -- THEOLOGY OF THE SANCTUARY -- Part 3 --

The book of Hebrews
"has long been neglected by the people of God.
We rightly place stress on Christ as our high priest,
yet there is a tendency to neglect
the only book in which this work is emphasized.
In all the rest of the New Testament there is no discussion
of His priestly work;
in fact, outside of the book of Hebrews the term 'high priest' is not even once mentioned as referring to Christ.
On the other hand,
in chapter after chapter in Hebrews
is Christ as high priest the subject,
and ten times the title is applied to Him directly;
in seven other instances He is compared or contrasted with the high priests on earth, besides numerous incidental references.
Deprived of this book, Seventh-day Adventists could not easily maintain their doctrine of Christ, or present Biblical confirmation for certain positions on the sanctuary question."
   M. L. Andreasen

" Understand ... at the time of the end, the vision. "

Three times a year the males of Israel were to appear before the Lord. (Exodus 23:14-17) These were the three major feasts in the religious life of the nation:    the feast of unleavened bread which began with the Passover on the fourteenth day of the first month (Leviticus 23:5-8);    the feast of the first fruits, or Pentecost, which came fifty days later (23:15-17);    and finally the Feast of Tabernacles beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month (23:34).     Connected with these feasts were "holy convocations." On these days, "no customary work" was to be done (23:7-8, 21, 35 NKJV).

Besides these annual feasts to which the males of Israel were commanded to appear, the seventh month had two other convocations, one on the first day noted as "a memorial of blowing of trumpets." (Lev. 23:24-25) Again no "customary work" could be performed on that day. On the tenth day of this month was the "day of atonements." (23:27 Heb.) Different from all of the other "holy convocations" was the command - "Ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonements, to make atonement for you before the Lord your God." (23:28)    1    Connected with this were two anathemas:    1)     If a person did not enter into the "soul affliction" required, he was to "be cut off from among his people" (23:29) and    2)     If anyone did "any work," God would destory him from among his people (23:30). This day was appointed as the day on which in the Year of Jubilee, the trumpet proclaiming liberty was to be sounded. (25:9-10)

Apart from the Passover, none of the convocations have the ritual connected with their services given in as much detail as the service performed on the Day of Atonement. (See Exodus 12 & Leviticus 16) Yet in the entire Old Testament, there is not a single reference to the celebration of this day. This is not saying that

p 2 -- the Day of Atonement was not observed, but simply that its observances were not recorded.
The Passover, on the other hand, was celebrated and the events connected with each of its recorded celebrations noted. After its inauguration in Egypt, it was observed again "in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt." (Numbers 9:1) The next record of celebration is as Israel "encamped in Gilgal" after crossing the Jordan River. This convocation coincided with the cessation of the manna, and the eating of the "corn of the land." (Joshua 5:10-12)

The Passover was used to initiate revivals in Israel because it appealed to the national spirit of Israel as well as being a call to religious rededication. After the northern kingdom had been taken into captivity, Hezekiah called for a passover, sending messengers "throughout all Israel from Beersheba unto Dan." However, because "the priests had not sanctified themselves sufficiently," the passover was celebrated one month late. (II Chronicles 30:1-5) As a result of this passover, a religious revival followed in which all the symbols of idolatry were removed from the land. (31:1)

In the days of King Josiah, another passover celebration is recorded. This one, however, followed an extensive purging of the land from idolatry under the direction of the king himself. Of this passover, it is recorded:      "Surely there was not holden such a passover from the days of the judges that judged Israel, nor in all the days of the kings of Israel, nor the kings of Judah." (II Kings 23:22)

In the New Testament, there is one positive reference to the Day of Atonement, and that
merely to date the time during the voyage to Rome. (Acts 27:9, margin) Nowhere is recorded that Jesus ever joined in the observance of the Day of Atonement. The closest contact to the day was his attendance at the Feast of Tabernacles in A.D. 30. (John 7:2) Even in this recorded episode, He went up late. (7:9-10) Such an attitude on the part of Jesus is not difficult to understand. He had no sin of which to be cleansed. His soul affliction was not to be for Himself, but His would be in Gethsemane when He struggled to yield Himself to accept the cup He must drink for the redemption of man.

In the book of Hebrews where both the daily and yearly services are noted as a part of the ritual in which the priests "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (8:5), the emphasis is placed on the daily. Every Old Testament reference in the book of Hebrews is from the Septuagint (LXX). Its use of words for sanctuary designations varies. For example:    In Leviticus 16, in speaking of the most holy place, the Greek word used in the LXX is hagion, the neuter singular of the adjective, hagios, meaning "holy." In Hebrews 9:1, Paul uses this same Greek word and applies it to the earthly sanctuary as a whole as does also the LXX in Exodus 30:13 and Leviticus 21:23. This would be confusing to the Christian Jewish reader of the Epistle, if the writer desired to distinguish between the two apartments of the sanctuary. The LXX was "the first Christian Bible" and the Old Testament of "the early Christian Church" molding "the religious vocabulary of the New Testament." (The SDA Bible Dictionary, p. 1149) Since the same word was used in different ways in the LXX, for Paul and his associates to use variants of that word to express their thoughts required some defining. Having used the neuter plural of the word, hagia, to describe Christ as "a minister of holy things" (8:2), Paul proceeds to define his continued use of that word. He writes:     "For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread, which is called Hagia." (9:2)

Then he adds -      "And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called Hagia Hagiõn" (9:3).

Throughout the rest of the Epistle, the word, Hagia, is used in reference to the first apartment, whether typical or antitypical.    2     The defined term for the most holy place, Hagia Hagiõn, is not used again. Paul does note that the high priest did go "once every year" (hapax tou eniautou) into the "the second" tabernacle. (9:7) This was in contrast to the sacrifices "offered during the year (kat' eniauton)" which could not make those offering such sacrifices perfect. (10:1)    3

After describing the second tabernacle or apartment with its ark of the covenant and "over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat," Paul wrote, "of which we cannot now speak particularly." (9:5)       And he didn't. In the light of this declaration, and his defined use of hagia, we find a probable allusion to the Day of Atonement. He writes:     "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the hagia by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh, and having a high priest over the house of God; let

p 3 -- us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;...and let us provoke one another unto love and good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day approaching." (Heb. 10:19-25)

"The day" is not designated as "the day of the Lord" as is used in other references when the
esehaton is meant. (See I Thess. 5:2) It is called simply - he hemera - the day. The context is full of sanctuary imagery - "sprinkled," "washed," "a high priest over the house of God" - and even the concept of "judgment" is introduced. (10:27) This latter concept had been introduced previously. Having spoken of the sacrifice of Christ, Paul stated -      "And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (Heb. 9:27-28)      There was to be a judgment for the putting away of sin. In the context of Hebrews 10:25-27, that judgment is connected with "the Day." Typically, it was the uay of Atonement.

"The Day of Atonement was the great day in Israel. It was peculiarly holy, and on it no work was to be done. The Jews called it Yoma, The Day." (The Sanctuary Service, p. 170)       "The idea developed also in Jewish circles that on the first of Tishri [the seventh month], the sacred New Year's Day and the anniversary of creation, man's doings were judged and his destiny decided; and on the tenth of Tishri the decree of heaven was sealed." (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 281)

We ask why the silence in both the Old and New Testaments in regard to the Day of Atonement and its projection into the future. The early church could not then speak in particular concerning the services of the most holy place. It was "the day" that was approaching. Their immediate concern was to enter into the "holy place" with boldness by the new and living way which Jesus had made through His flesh. There they would find "the throne of grace" so as to obtain mercy. (Heb. 4:16) They could speak of the first "veil" but into the "second veil" went the high priest alone. The concepts of its meaning must await the hour of the transition.

In the type, the Day of Atonement was to be a day of cleansing. A prophecy in Daniel set the time for its cleansing (8:14). When that time came, the message of "the hour of God's judgment" was entrusted to a people marking them and their theology - the theology of the sanctuary - as unique. The silence of Scripture with its projection into the future of The Day, and the coming of a people to proclaim the typology of the Hebrew sanctuary service was not an accident, but the unfolding of the scroll as the Spirit of truth continued to guide "the house of God" into all truth.      "Understand, 0 son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.' (Daniel 8:17)

Notes:     1  --  The same regulation regarding work on the Day of Atonement, was also the requirement in the Law of God in respect to the Sabbath. (Exodus 20:10) The first Angel's Message of Revelation combines "the hour of [God's] judgment" and the worship of Him as the Creator. The memorial of that creation is defined in the Law itself as the Sabbath (Ex. 20:11). The facts of history speak loud and clear. When God raised up a people revealing to them the unique theology of the sanctuary, He also gave to them His Sabbath as their day of worship. The relationship of the cessation from labor on the Sabbath - the "entering into His rest" (Heb. 4:1, 10-11) - has not been studied as it should be in the light of the Day of Atonement. The book of Hebrews introduces the consideration of "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus" (3:1) with His ministry "over His own house" (3:6) and the admonition "to labor to enter into that rest" as provided by the High Priest. (4:11) Into this picture is introduced the cessation from works, and the Sabbath. (4:10, 4)

2 -- After the definition of Hagia in Hebrews 9:2, the word is used six more times. Honesty requires that its use in these six times be consistent with the defined intent of the writer. These six times are as follows:

1)     "The Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the hagia was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing." (9:8)

Paul had defined the sanctuary as a whole by the word, hagion. (9:1) For each section which we term either as the holy place or most holy place, the word, "tabernacle," is used. Now he uses the term "first tabernacle" as he used it in verse 2, meaning the first apartment. The force of the phrase, "was yet standing," is well translated by Knox as meaning - "as long as the former tabernacle maintained its standing." Norlie renders it - "while the old covenant was still in force." It is the "first" or "old" covenant which is the subject of this section (9:1). The "old" covenant ended at the Cross, hence the way was opened for Christ's ministry in the Hagia.
2)     "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His

p 4 -- own blood, He entered in once into the hagia, having obtained eternal redemption for us." (9:12)

This verse is the last of one complete sentence in the Greek which includes also verse 11. The main verb is, "entered in," in the aorist, or Greek past tense. There are two dependent participial clauses in the same past tense; one, "being come" or "appeared" (RSV) in verse 11, and the second, "having obtained," in verse 12. While the Greek aorist participle is most frequently used to denote action prior to the time of the main verb, there is, however, a use of the aorist participle, called, "identical action," in which the action is identical with the time of the main verb. In such cases, as in this verse, the main verb is in the aorist indicative. This sentence is translated in RSV as follows:      "But when Christ appeared as a high priest of good things to come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption."

The KJV renders this verse in such a way as to indicate a completed atonement at the Cross, which would violate the type. While an atonement was made at the Altar in the Court resulting in forgiveness, there was to be a final atonement mediated by the High Priest in heaven itself, resulting in eternal redemption.     3 & 4)      "For Christ is not entered into the hagia made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itseif, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the hagia every year with the blood of others." (9:24-25)

Two clauses in the above verses are misunderstood. Both are interpreted to mean that the word, hagia, does not mean, 'holy place," but rather "most holy." The first, "to appear in the presence of God" is seen as a declaration that Christ entered into the inter sanctum where abode, in the type, the Shekinah glory. But within the book of Hebrews as the priestly ministry of Christ is considered, it is urged that we come "boldly unto the throne of grace." (4:16) The "throne of grace" is not "the throne of judgment." The "throne of grace" is the place to which the "new and living way" leads that Christ, the way, the truth, and the life, consecrated for us through His flesh. (10:20) This was prefigured in the Table of Shewbread, representing the Bread of Life which came down from God. This bread, His flesh, (John 6:51) dwelling in humanity, was full of grace and truth. (John 1:14) Jesus was also to be a priest upon His throne, with the counsel of peace between both He and His Father. (Zech. 6:13). This throne of grace is further illustrated in Revelation in sanctuary symbolism. There before the throne were the "seven lamps of fire", and "in the midst of throne...stood a Lamb as it had been slain." (Rev. 4:5; 6:6) As for the clause, "entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others," see Note # 3.

5)       "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the hagia by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh. (10:19-20)

In the sanctuary type, the penitent had limited access to God. He could come into the court to the Altar, but beyond this, he was denied access. Now through Christ, through "His flesh," the believer can go one step further, to the Throne of Grace, where the counsel of peace is ministered. The first veil has been opened, and we can enter in. Our hearts are "sprinkled from an evil conscience" ("purged from dead works" - 9:14), and our bodies washed with pure water" even as the typical priests washed before entering the tabernacle. (9:22) We look, however, for "the day" (9:25) when the second veil will be swept aside, and we enter into God's presence, cleansed. This is the objective of the final atonement.

6)     "We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the hagia by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp." (13:10-11)

This language accords with the type. When the blood was taken into the sanctuary by the high priest as a confession of sin, the whole body was "burned without the camp." (Lev. 4:12) While the same rule applied to the victims used in the Day of Atonement ritual (16:27), the contrast in these verses is with the altar at which Christians may eat, and which those who serve "the tabernacle" have no right to eat. This is the Communion Table of the New Covenant whose emblems typify the sacrifice made on the Cross. The typical lesson is drawn for a needful experience at that time. Even as the body of the typical sin offering when the blood was carried into the sanctuary, was burned without the camp, so Christ whose blood would be ministered in the Heavenly Sanctuary, "suffered without the gate." (10:12) The admonition was simply that the believing Christian should separate himself from those who in reality could not fellowship with him, and go out unto Christ "without the camp, bearing His reproach." (10:13)

3 -- Throughout the discussion in the book of Hebrews where the word hagia is used, it is associated with "the blood of goats and calves," or "the blood of bulls and goats." (9:12, 13, 19; 10:4) This is inferred as the description of the ritual on the Day of Atonement. It is true that two goats and one bullock were used, but only the blood of one goat, and the blood of the bullock were taken into the most holy place. Goats (plural), bulls (plural), and calves (plural) were a part of the daily sin offerings, but the blood of only one goat, and only one bull entered the ritual for the Day of Atonement.

The differentiation between the yearly service and the daily is further heightened by the Greek used. When the factual information is noted, of the high priest going "alone once every year" into the second apartment (9:7), the Greek wording is hapax tou eniautou monos.
However, when Paul refers to the daily ministry which would involve the high priest, the KJV gives an interpretive translation - "entereth into the hagia every year with the blood of others" (9:25; see also 10:1). The Greek text reads differently than in the 7th verse - kat' eniauton - meaning simply "during the year." The Day of Atonement eisegesis cannot be sustained. The exegesis is clearly that hagia is used just as it was defined to be used - denoting the first apartment of the sanctuary.

p 5 -- LET'S TALK IT OVER -- Four days ago, just before the old year closed, Yossi Beilin, Deputy Foreign Minister for Israel and Msgr. Claudio Maria Celli, Vatican Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs, signed an historic pact which will establish diplomatic relations between the two governments. (This is being written January 3, 1994) This is but another step in the steady tread toward the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45. Since 1948 when Israel once again became a State, a series of events have occurred, some of which have fulfilled Biblical prophecy, and some, as this most recent happening, have been merely the shadow of coming events.

I remember well the events in 1948 when Israel once again became a nation. It sent shock waves through the Church. Just the year before, the Pacific Press had released an evangelistic paperback, The Jews and Palestine, by Roy F. Cottrell. He had written -      "The God of heaven who overthrew the city and nation [of Israel] and who because of their apostasy dispersed the inhabitants to the ends of the earth, forever settled the question of a complete return and institution in old Canaan by asserting that it 'cannot be."' (p. 61)       But it did happen! At the time I was pastor of the First Church in Toronto, and still have the notes of the sermon I preached the Sabbath following the re-establishment of Israel as a nation.

At the 1952 Bible Conference, Arthur S. Maxwell, in his presentation, acknowledged the historical fact, and while stating it did not of itself fulfill prophecy, there was a prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21:24 which needed to be carefully considered. His exact words were:     "There is one prophecy concerning Palestine that we should all be watching with special care. Said Jesus, 'Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' " (Our Firm Foundation, Vol. 2, p. 230)

It was perceived by Maxwell that by this prophecy, Jesus meant the close of all probationary time. When in 1967, Jerusalem again was brought under Israeli control, the Church found themselves without an answer. So the way out was a denial of any significance to the fulfillment of the prophecy, or to the event which cast its shadow before. At the North American Bible Conference in 1974, Dr. Herbert Douglass declared -      "Adventists do not see theological importance in the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948 or the annexation of Old Jerusalem in 1967." ("The Unique Contribution of Adventist Eschatology," p. 6)

Thirteen years passed, and then in 1980, the Knesset of Israel voted that Jerusalem, as one united city, was the capital of all Israel. The government of Israel was moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now another thirteen years have passed, and a pact has been signed with the Vatican. The significance of this act is the objective that Rome has in regard to the city of Jerusalem.

On June 30, 1980, the Charge d'Affaires of the Permanent Observer Mission of the Vatican to the United Nations lodged with the President of the Security Council a statement of the position of the Holy See on the status of Jerusalem. This statement was circulated as a document of the Security Council. It called for the "territorial internationalization" of Jerusalem. "The Holy See considers the safeguarding of the Sacred and Universal character of Jerusalem to be of such primary importance as to require any Power that comes to exercise sovereignty over the Holy Land...to not only protect the special character of the City, but also the rights connected, on the basis of an appropriate juridical system guaranteed by a higher international body."

While in the present pact signed by Israel and the Vatican on December 30, 1993, the status of Jerusalem was not addressed, it was not dropped but merely passed to "the peace process" for decision. Rome has not changed its objective.

On April 20, 1984, John Paul II addressed an Apostolic Letter to the Roman Catholic Church on      "the city of Jerusalem, the Sacred Patrimony of all believers and the desired meeting place of peace for all peoples of the Middle Fast."       He described Jerusalem as      "the historic site of the biblical (sic) revelation of God, the meeting place, as it were, of heaven and earth, in which more than in any other place the word of God was brought to man."      (Did not God speak from Mt. Sinai? But are we not told that in "the last days" it would be declared that "the word of the Lord [would go forth] from Jerusalem"? Isa. 2:2-3)

The Pope also wrote that       "Jerusalem stands out as a symbol of coming together, of union, and of universal peace for the human family . . thus making Jerusalem the living sign of the great ideal of unity, of brotherhood and agreement among peoples according to the illuminating

p 6 -- words of the Book of Isaiah: 'Many peoples shall come and say: 'Come let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that He may teach us His ways and that we may walk in His paths.' (Isa. 2:3)"

Only a totally blind Laodicean is unable to see where this pact signed between Israel and the Vatican is leading. While the other events in the saga of modern Israel from 1948 to the present ranged in increments of time from nineteen to thirteen years, the final movements will be rapid ones. The final fulfillment of Daniel 11:45 is not a decade from now, but in the immediate future. The Revelation of Jesus Christ calls for the "spirits of demons" to gather "the kings of the whole world" to "the place which is called in Hebrew, Har-Magedon." (Rev. 16:i4, 16 ARV) That place is Har-Mo'ed, Mount of the Congregation, and forms a part of the objectives of Lucifer. (Isa. 14:12-13)

If one has eyes to see, he surely must be aware that Satan, who "has long been preparing for his final effort to deceive the world," will reach his objective "in the last remnant of time." In connection with this, the "messenger of the Lord" quoted Revelation 16:13, 14, and added -      "Except those who are kept by the power of God, through faith in His word, the whole world will be swept into the ranks of this delusion. The people are fast being lulled to a fatal security, to be awakened only by the outpouring of the wrath of God." (Great Controversy, pp. 561-562)

Beyond Daniel 11:45 is the ominous event -      "And at that time shall Michael stand up." (12:1) "Coming events cast their shadows before." (DA, p. 636)       The establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 without Jerusalem foreshadowed what took place nineteen years later in 1967, and 1967 fcreshadowed what took place thirteen years later in 1980. Now after another thirteen years, comes the event of December 30, 1993 fcreshadowing the fulfillment of Daniel 11:45, but it will be a short shadow. Then in a rapid chain of events, Daniel 12:1.

If this is not enough to startle a lukewarm Laodicean, added to this picture is the immediate prospect of a false latter rain and loud cry promoted by a segment of the "independent" ministries. Unable to perceive the meaning of fulfilled events which have taken place, they now are launching a multimillion dollar project to give "the loud cry" and receive "the latter rain." This is in clear contradiction to where and how Jesus said the final Spirit-filled witness will be given.

As a part of His eschatological discourse, Jesus said:     "But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

"And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

"But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit." (Mark 13:9-11)

It should be obvious that those who bear the final witness will be filled with the Holy Spirit to the extent that their very voice apparatus will be used by the Holy Spirit; in other words, they will have the Spirit of prophecy - they will speak for God in "a testimony against them." Further, this final witness comes after the gospel has been published to all nations, not as that gospel witness.

We may think, however, there is still a great work to be done. When God gives His sign that "the times of the nations" are "fulfilled," then those who are living "through faith in His word," will alter their program and thinking to come into harmony with that revelation.

In connection with the closing events of probationary time is the final atonement in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and on earth there is to be "soul affliction," not a multi-million dollar extravaganza to satisfy an ego mania. As gross darkness covers the inhabitants of earth under the cloak of an angel of light, perhaps we need to be seeking to understand the meaning of the counsel that the Lord gave through the prophet Isaiah which reads:

"Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. For, behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain." (26:20-21)

p 7 --

(1994 Apr) --- End --- TOP

1994 May-- XXVII -- 5(94) -- THEOLOGY OF THE SANCTUARY -- Part 4 -- The Day of the Atonement -- The ritual which was to be followed on the Day of Atonement is outlined in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. Certain explanations of word usages in the KJV are in order before one notes the ritual. The second apartment of the sanctuary is called "the holy" with the word "place" added by the translators. (16:2) The first apartment is denoted as "the tabernacle." (16:16)

Certain questions should be asked in advance so that accurate answers can be determined as the ritual unfolds:    1)     How many times did the high priest enter the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement?    2)     How was he attired?    3)     How many phases or steps were involved in this ritual before the final atonement was achieved? and    4)     At what point did the atonement end and with what results?

The first instruction given involved Aaron the high priest at the time of the inauguration of the ritual. It must be ever kept in mind that in this service he stood as a type of the High Priest to come. (Heb. 8:5) Aaron was to provide "a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering." (Leviticus 16:3) The ram for the burnt offering was not involved in the cleansing ritual of the day's services. Not until he had laid aside his linen garments, and had put on once more his pontifical attire was he to offer the ram. (16:23-24) The focus of the cleansing ritual centered in his sacrifice of the bullock.

The bullock provided by the high priest, while used to "make atonement for himself, and for his house" (v. 6), had no hands placed on its head in confession or transfer of guilt. Its blood was the first blood to be brought into the most holy place and sprinkled seven times before the mercy seat. (v. 14) A failure to understand this part of the type blurs the final antitypical picture.   1

There is, in the record of the ritual prescribed, a close relationship between Moses and Aaron. "The Lord spake

p 2 -- unto Moses;" "the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother." (vs. 1-2) The chapter closes with the reference that Aaron "did as the Lord commanded Moses." (v. 34) It must be remembered that it was Moses who first erected and then anointed the sanctuary before Aaron performed a single service in it. (Exodus 40:2-11) The relationship between the two of them had been defined in Egypt. (Exodus 4:16) In type and in prophecy both Moses and Aaron reflected the Messiah to come.   2

Paul in introducing his presentation of the office of Christ Jesus as both "the Apostle and High Priest of our profession," introduces the concept of "house," declaring that Christ "was faithful to Him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house." (Heb. 3:1-2) The faithfulness of Moses "in all his house" is declared to be "a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." Why? Because Christ is "a son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (3:5-6) This hope "entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 6:19-20)

To perceive of the earthly ritual involving the blood of the bullock brought by Aaron as pertaining only to him as an individual and his house as his own tribal house is to miss the typical significance of the act. He in type represented the great High Priest, and his actions cast light on the significance of the High Priestly ministry of Jesus as He offers His blood in the final atonement.   3

On this day, Aaron was to lay aside his pontifical robes and minister solely in linen attire. The text reads:      "He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with a linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on." (Lev. 16:4)

"He was to put on, not the state-costume of the high priest, but a body-coat, drawers, girdle, and head-dress of white cloth, having first bathed his body, and not merely his hands and feet, as he did for ordinary service, to appear before Jehovah as entirely cleansed from the defilement of sin and arrayed in clothes of holiness. The dress of white cloth was not the plain official dress of the ordinary priests, for the girdle of that dress was colored (Ex. 39:29); and in that case the high priest would not have appeared in the perfect purity of his divinely appointed office as chief of the priesthood, but simply as the priest appointed for this day. Nor did he officiate (as many of the Rabbins suppose) as a penitent praying humbly for the forgiveness of sin. For where in all the world have clear white clothes been worn either in mourning or as a penitential garment? The emphatic expression, "these are holy garments," is a sufficient proof that the pure white color of all the clothes, even of the girdle, was intended as a representation of holiness...

"The white material, therefore, of the dress which Aaron wore, when performing the highest act of expiation under the Old Testament, was a symbolical shadowing forth of the holiness and glory of the one perfect Mediator between God and man." (Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. II, pp. 396-397)

It must be repeated that not only did Aaron minister his bullock as a symbol of the sacrifice of Him which was to come, but he was clothed entirely in "linen." This places a final atonement concept upon the vision of Ezekiel and the service performed by the man "clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side." (Eze. 9:2)

A second sin offering was also presented on the Day of Atonement besides Aaron's bullock. However, this offering was to be taken "of the congregation of the children of Israel." (Lev. 16:5) Two goats were to be presented "before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (v. 7) Over them lots were to be cast, and only one of them - "the goat upon which the Lord's lot fell" was to be "a sin offering." (vs. 7-9) No hand was laid upon the Lord's goat in confession. Having been taken from the congregation, the goat stood "for the people." Again another aspect of the sacrifice of Christ is portrayed. He would be that "Prophet" taken "from among their brethren" who would speak for the Lord. (Deut. 18:18) Jesus Christ not only "offered Himself without spot to God" (Heb. 9:14), but "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son." (John 3:16) This dual aspect of the one act on Calvary has been given only slight consideration in the theology of the sanctuary.

Before entering with any blood into the most holy place, Aaron was to take "a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense

p 3 -- beaten small, and bring it within the vail." (Lev. 16:12) Then he returned to the Court and brought the blood of the bullock into the presence of God. Having ministered it, he returned to the Court, killed the Lord's goat, and brought of its blood into the most holy place and performed with it the same ritual as with the bullock's blood. (16:14-15)

There are two reasons given for the atonement in the most holy place:    1)     "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel," and    2)     "because of their transgressions in all their sins. (v.16) Inasmuch as the removal of the uncleanness did not take place until the third step in the ministry at the altar in the court (v. 19), and since the acts of sin would not cease till such a cleansing would be accomplished, one is left with the conclusion that the atonement in the most holy was of an objective nature, making provision for the accomplishment of the cleansing so that sin would cease.

After completing the three-fold entry into the most holy place, the high priest brought of the goat's blood to the altar of incense in the "tabernacle." (16:16b) As a part of the instruction for the use of the altar of incense, ihe Lord had indicated that "Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements." (Exodus 30:10) It was here that the record of corporate confession of sin had been placed in the daily ministration. (Lev. 4:7, 18) This ministration for the cleansing of corporate guilt was the second step or phase of the Day of Atonement ritual.

The final step or phase involved the altar in the court.    4     Here during the year, the individual sinner came and offered his sin offering. Here the blood was placed by the common priest on the horns of this altar as a record of his confession of guilt. An atonement was then effected which brought to the penitent, forgiveness. Now he is to be cleansed. In the type, the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled before being placed on the horns of the altar. (vs. 18-19) This becomes the last act of the final atonement. Once cleansed, there would be no further acts of transgressions to record. The final judgment on sin could be executed. He with whom sin originated symbolized by the scapegoat, could be brought into the picture. The directions of the ritual read:    "And when [the high priest] bath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the ocngregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both of his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness." (16:20-21)

Within the instruction regarding the performance of the ritual of the Day of Atonement is a message.       "There shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when [the high priest] goeth in to make an atonement in the holy." (16:17)      He typically alone in the presence of the Shekinah glory accomplished the objective. That objective is clearly defined:      "And on that day shall [the high priesti make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." (16:30)

Furthermore, this cleansing by blood is pictured as a united application of what the high priest provided, the blood of the bullock; and what was taken from the congregation, the blood of the Lord's goat. Man's part was stated simply, "ye shall afflict your souls." (16:31) This affliction reflects a true humility whereby the one cleansed grasps the meaning of the question asked by Job "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" (14:4) And the answer is - "not one." Every aspect of redemption from justification to glorification is laying the glory of man in the dust and doing for him what he cannot do for himself. Men's righteousnesses ever remain as filthy rags. (Isa. 64:6) Those who seek to magnify works know not what soul affliction is.    5

This aspect of the Day of Atonement is emphasized in the visions of Zechariah. Joshua the high priest stands before the Lord "clothed with filthy garments." (3:3) The command is given, not to Joshua, but to those that stood before the Lord - "Take away the filthy garments from him." Joshua could not even remove them, only permit their removal. Then once done, the Lord declared, "Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment." (v. 4) The Lord alone effected the atonement of cleansing. In the process, the high priest became naked. Only "the change of raiment" can cover the shame of nakedness, and it cannot be man-made.

When certain basic factors of this yearly ritual are kept in mind, the relationship between the typical Day of Atonement and "the visions of God" in Ezekiel 9 become apparent. The high

p 4 -- priest was clothed in linen, and finished his cleansing work at the brazen altar in the court. This is what Ezekiel saw. Six men "stood beside the brazen altar." One man among them was "clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side." (v. 2) "The glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon He was, to the threshold of the house." (v. 3) This movement on the part of God was to give a command to the man in linen at the brazen altar - "Set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst" of Jerusalem. (v. 4) There is a sealing work indicated in connection with cleansing.

The basic typology which has been discussed in reviewing the ritual of the daily sin offerings and the ritual of the annual Day of Atonement must now be shown to be linked with the prophetic revelation of Daniel for the basis of Adventism to remain valid. The prophecy of Daniel in chapter seven speaks of the fact that at a certain point of time "the judgment was set, and the books were opened." (7:10) Chapter eight states that after "two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (v. 14)

What has the type established?

1)     The acts of sin were either corporate or individual. Confession of guilt in regard to these two categories was ministered differently. Corporate confession was ministered by the high priest and the record placed on the horns of the altar of incense. Individual confession was ministered by the common priest and the record placed on the horns of the brazen altar in the court.

2)     The ministry of the high priest on the day of atonement was in three steps, first in the most holy place; secondly, in the first apartment which involved the record of corporate confession; thirdly, at the brazen altar in the court upon which the individual confession has been recorded.

Can this data be related to the prophetic revelation of Daniel? This is at the heart of Adventist theology of the sanctuary.

Notes:
1 --     Either the high priest on the Day of Atonement was serving in a literal sense and the biood of the bullock was for his personal cleansing, and for the cleansing of his sons who ministered with him in the priestly office, or he was typically representing Jesus Christ, the High Priest to come. Aaron provided the bullock. He did not place his hands on the head of the bullock indicating any type of transfer. Its blood was the first to be taken into the most holy place after the cloud of incense covered the Shekinah glory. Aaron was also to bring a ram for a burnt offering although its sacrifice is not connected with the day's ritual. Is the statement of its requirement by Aaron seeking to tell us something of the typological import of this part of the ritual? There is a condition stipulated in the law of the burnt offering which must be factored into the symbolism. The one bringing the burnt offering must "offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Lev. 1:3) Since "it is of necessity that [Jesus] have somewhat also to offer," He, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," is here typified in first offering Himself, and then secondly the Father gave Him as symbolized in the Lord's goat which was taken from the congregation. (Heb. 8:3; Rev. 13:8) If we give typological significance to the Lord's goat, then the bullock, whose blood was mingled with the goat's blood in the final act of cleansing, must also be given its typological import.

2 --    In the Messianic prophecy given to Moses, God stated plainly that He would raise up for Israel "a Prophet" who would speak for Him. (Deut. 18:18) In the days of Jesus, the expectation was such that the delegation, sent from Jerusalem to interview John the Baptist, asked "Are thou that prophet?" (John 1:21) Then when Jesus fed the five thousand in the desert place, the people concluded, "This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world." (John 6:14) "Prophet" designates one commissioned to speak for God. The word, "Apostle" refers to one bearing a commission from God. The two words are closely allied. So when Paul begins his discussion of the priestly aspect of Christ's work in the book of Hebrews, he asks us to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." (Heb. 3:1) To portray the full aspect of Christ's ministry, two types were required, Moses and Aaron. The "house" of Moses had its priestly ministry in Aaron with his "bullock" and "ram." The "house" of Christ was served by His willing sacrifice in the offering of Himself without spot to God. (Heb. 9:14)

3 --    The division of the daily services between individual and corporate offerings for the guilt of sin, and the dual ceremonial efficacy, of the blood of the bullock and the goat, pictured in the yearly service is reflected in the book of Revelation. There is a distinct group who "sit with [Him) in [His] throne" (3:21), who "serve Him day and night in His temple" (7:15), who "follow [Him] whithersoever He goeth" (14:4) Then, there is pictured also "the nations of them which are saved" which walk in the light of the city into which "the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor." (21:24) It must be remembered that the blood of the Lord's goat was used

p 5 -- only to cleanse the altar of incense whereon the record of confession of corporate guilt was piaced; while it was the mingled blood of both bullock and goat which was used to cleanse the altar in the court whereon the individual confession of guilt was registered.

4 --    Was "the altar that is before the Lord" upon which the mingled blood was placed (Lev. 16:18), the altar of incense, or the brazen altar in the court? It is argued that "before the Lord" must be understood as before the veil which separated the most holy from the holy. Within the context of the ritual to be performed on the Day of Atonement, Aaron was instructed to "take the two goats and present them before the Lord." (16:7) This is defined as being at "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." In the rules governing the burnt offering. "the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" is defined as "bofore the Lord." (1:3) To omit the altar in the court from cleansing on the Day of Atonement, would be to exclude from the services of that day the very place where most of the activity had transpired during the year.

5 --    Along with required "soul affliction" the humbling of one's self - on the Day of Atonement, is the command - "Ye shall do no work in that same day." (Lev. 23:28) This is the only annual day of the "feasts" of Israel on which all work was prohibited. The other feast days prohibited "customary work." (See 23:7, NKJV) The command to desist from work on the Day of Atonement parallels the command of God regarding the weekly Sabbath. "in it thou shalt not do any work." (Ex. 20:10). In Hebrews as the revelation of the priestly work of Christ is developed, the concept of "rest" is introduced and compared with the Sabbath rest of God. (Heb. 4:4) It states trat the one who enters into the "rest" provided by God ceases "from his own works, as God did from His." (4:10) To do works on the Day of Atonement was to face destruction from among the people of God. (Lev. 23:30) Basically, this is what the message of righteousness by faith is all about, ceasing to rely upon our righteousnesses and our dependency upon men, and placing our trust in the Great High Priest who alone can "save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him." (Heb. 7:25) The ritual of the Day of Atonement teaches that the cleansing comes as the result of the ministry of the high priest alone for all who humble themselves before God and cease to rely upon works.

" Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhahiteth eternity, whose name in Holy;
I dwell in the high and holy place,
and with him also what is of a contrite and humble spirit,
to revive the spirit of the humble
and to revive the heart of the contrite ones. "
Isaiah 57:16

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- In a pamphlet released by the General Conference Committee, April 8, 1897 - Special Testimonies for Ministers and Workers - No. 9 - two questions were asked by Ellen C. White, with her answers given. The questions and answers are:

"What is justification by faith? - It is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself. When men see their own nothingness, they are prepared to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ. When they begin to praise and exalt God [instead of self] all day long, then by beholding they are becoming changed into the same image. What is regeneration? - It is revealing to man what is his own real nature, that in himself he is worthless." (p. 62)

This is the whole of the message of the sanctuary which God revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai. In the sin offering ritual, the penitent brought his "substitute," the demand of the Law could not be abrogated, but it was the mediation of the priest alone which brought the atonement of forgiveness. Man could not of, or for himself atone. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest alone accomplished the cleansing. Man could only humble (afflict) his soul as he awaited the final atonement.

I have often asked myself, "Why did God have to revive for His last day chosen people, the message of justification by faith?" Basically, the doctrine of justification by faith should have been no different in 1888 than when proclaimed by Paul in Romans and his other Epistles. Neither should it be at odds with the fundamental presentation as given by Luther and the other Reformers. But God's professed people had "preached the law until [they] were as dry as the hills of Gilboa which had neither dew nor rain." It meant simply that they had preached works as a means of salvation. The final generation was facing the atonement by which they were to be cleansed and fitted for translation. No other group of people in human history had ever had this hope set before them. How was this regeneration to be achieved? By works? No, not if man perceived his worthlessness. He would realize that there was no way for him to bring a clean thing from an unclean thing. The recognition of his filthiness would cause him to place his total dependence on

p 6 -- the Great High Priest. God needed to take His people through the first step again - they had stepped off the platform - so they could perceive the meaning of the final regeneration. He would have His Holy Spirit through ministering angels take away the filthy garments. He would cause their iniquity to pass from them. He would clothe them with a change of raiment. (Zech. 3:4)
Late in 1993, I received in the mails a "Special Report" through the 1888 Message Study Committee Newsletter (Nov.-Dec. 1993) I was amazed. Elders R. J. Wieland and D. K. Short do not usually name names and go on the offensive. But in this Report they did. They named Dr.Colin Standish and Elder Ron Spear. The open attack on the heretical teachings of these men was justified. I had noted in letters to individuals and had commented in WWN that Colin Standish was teaching papal doctrine in at least a couple of areas. This "Special Report" not only quoted Standish's papal theology in regard to Justification by Faith, but also its source in papal teaching.

Even more amazing is the attitude of both Standish and Spear toward the Bible. Because they cannot feel "comfortable" with certain things Paul wrote in Romans so as to harmonize them with their papal theology, they prefer to cast out that part of the Bible. Since they hold with Peter that Paul wrote "some things hard to be understood," they go so far as to suggest that Rornans 5:18 should be disregarded. They would substitute quotations from the Writings which they believe support their papal theology, thus making it appear that Ellen White teaches such papal concepts.

This approach by Standish to difficult problems in salvation theology is the same approach he used in seeking to answer Desmond Ford regarding sanctuary theology. If he could not support a position by the Bible, he quoted Ellen White. This kind of scholarship, or better stated, lack of it, is one of the basic causes of the present confusion which grips the Adventist Community today.

In response to this type of pseudo-scholarship in trying to sustain error by misquoting Ellen White, Wieland wrote a classic response. It reads:      "We respond: Sister White continually points us to the Bible....She uses a beautiful American illustration to make this legal justification clear. On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that legally freed every slave held in the Confederate territories. But no slave was experientially free until he heard the good news and believed it. And we can be sure that whenever any oppressed, half-starved, beaten, abused slave believed the good news, he acted upon it immediately! So, says Sister White, ' with His own blood [Christ] has signed the emancipation papers of the race.' (MH 90). The signature took place on His cross. Every soul who truly believes the Good News will act immediately! But if there is any legalistic Bad News mixed in with the Good News, he is spiritually paralyzed and is doomed to lukewarmness; hence the importance of our finding ' the truth of the gospel.' (Gal. 2:5, 14)" (Emphasis his)

What we are seeing taking place in the Adventist Community is the revival of the 1888 teachings of Butler, Smith and Morrison by Standish and Spear, as opposed to the teachings of Jones and Waggoner which over the years have been presented by Wieland and Short. A clearer understanding of the present day situation and the nearness to the end would be helped greatly if Wieland likewise would abandon some of Uriah Smith's teachings which fall into the same category as his understanding of justification by faith.

In the documentation supplied by Wieland which included transcriptions from various messages which Standish is presenting around the country attacking the 1888 Message, there is found an interesting repeated assertion on the part of Standish. When referring to contacts with the president of the Potomac Conference in which Colin Standish resides, he repeatedly uses the expression - "my conference president." Is his brother saying the same thing in Australia, or are the conference presidents over there different from the ones in America? Are the "independents" in Australia being fed a different line than the groups which are addressed in America? Or is the situation that Dr. Russell Standish and Dr. Colin Standish have different concepts on what their relationship should be to the corporate structure? Then one further question - Is this difference due to the flow of funds in America and Australia? In other words is policy involved and principle is out the door?

There is another factor in this 1888 Message issue which needs to be carefully noted. One reason is clearly stated by the "messenger of the Lord" as to why the message of 1888 was so needful. She wrote:      "Now it has been Satan's determined purpose to

p 7 -- eclipse the view of Jesus, and lead men to look to man, and trust to man, and be educated to expect help from man. For years the church has been looking to man, and expecting much from man, but not looking to Jesus, in whom our hopes of eternal life are centered. Therefore, God gave His servants [Jones and Waggoner] a testimony that presented the truth as it is in Jesus, which is the third angel's message in clear, distinct lines." (TM 93)

Now the third angel's message states, "If any man worship the beast..." (Rev. 14:9) But what is that? "Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of man, and his number is Six hundred threescore and six." (13:18; lit. Gr.) 666 - perfection of imperfection. Three digits, one shy of seven. It is man perfecting works instead of entering into the rest of God whereby man ceases from his works as Cod did from His. (Heb. 4:10)

What do we see today? Look at the videos coming out of Florida. Note the expressions on the faces of many as the camera focuses on the audience. What does one see? Worshipful adulation! Listen to the voices groveling to men as they seek to maintain their connection with the corporate structure and at the same time berate the Church and its leadership, all in view of keeping funds flowing to their "independent ministries." There is a desperate need for the message of 1888 to do its intended work. But if the chief promoters are likewise worshiping men, their voices are muted. It is a sad day in Israel.

Rome (EPS) -- A specially bound copy of the Catholic Edition of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible (NRSV), produced under the auspices of a Protestant and Orthodox organization, was presented to Pope John Paul II (4 December 93) by Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the US National Council of Churches. On receiving the Bible, the pope declared that "the Holy Scriptures will bring all Christians together." The NRSV translation committee chaired by Bruce M. Metzger, included five Roman Catholic scholars, and the text has been approved for use in worship every Sunday by Catholics in the US, Canada, Great Britain and Australia. In her presentation, Campbell said "the use of the same Bible by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians in worship is a powerful symbol of ecumenism." Metzger, regarded by Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox scholars as a leader in Bible translation told the pope that the Catholic edition of the NRSV provides access to ancient manuscripts never before available, a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other archaeological discoveries. (94.01.24)

" So closely will the counterfeit resemble the true,
that it will be impossible to distinguish between them except
by the Holy Scriptures.
By their testimony every statement
and every miracle must be tested. "
GC, p. 593

---(1994 May) ---End---- TOP

1994 Jun -- XXVII -- 6(94) -- THEOLOGY OF THE SANCTUARY -- Part 5 -- The prophecies of Daniel which relate themsleves to the sanctuary typology, especially the ritual of the Day of Atonement, are found in chapters seven and eight. Daniel 8:14 (KJV) states plainly that after a certain point in time, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." in Daniel 7, "the judgment was set and the books were opened" (v. 10), with the decision being rendered in behalf of "the saints of the Most High" (v. 22). Daniel 8 relates the question of the time of the cleansing - "How long?" - with two other factors, "the daily," and "the transgression of desolation." (8:13) In Daniel 7, the context of the judgment is set in the symbolism of "beasts" and a "little horn." It covers from a period of time dominated by a "lion" to the time when the final beast symbol is "given to the burning flame." (v. 11) In explaining what Daniel saw in the vision of the third year of Belshazzar, the angel Gabriel introduced his explanation with the words, "Understand, 0 son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. (8:17)

To this picture must be added the factor that in Daniel 8, the time - the 2300 days - is left unexplained. Gabriel does not return till aproximately eleven years later and gives a breakdown of the "seventy weeks." (9:24-27) Is this a segment of the over-all time period? This question must be answered.

The interrelationship of these three chapters with the typology of the sanctuary forms the foundation for the Three Angels' Messages of Revelation 14 which is the centerpiece of the Adventist kerygma. The first angel proclaimed, "The hour of [God's] judgment is come." (v. 7) Is this the judgment of Daniel 7, and the "cleansing" of Daniel 8:14? Is this the judgment "of God"? Or is it God acting in judgment upon earthly forces? Or do both factors enter into the picture as given in the prophecies?

p 2 -- DANIEL 8:14 -- This verse presents several questions which need to be answered. It reads -       "Unto two thousand and three hundred days then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (KJV)       The usual word for "day" (yom) is not used but rather the Hebrew text reads, "evening morning." Does this mean, therefore, that 1150 full days are meant rather than 2300 days?        "The choice of so unusual a measure of time, derived from the two chief parts of the day, instead of the simple measure of time by days, probably originates with reference to the morning and evening sacrifice, by which the day was to be consecrated to the Lord, after Gen. i. 5, 8, 13, etc., where the days of the creation week are named and reckoned according to the succession of evening and morning. This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so as to number them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150 days, is shown to be inadmissible, both by the asyndeton [omission of the conjunction between] evening-morning and the usages of the Hebrew language. That in verse 26 ("the evening and the morning") stands for it, does not prove that the evening and morning are reckoned separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day or a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, for example, forty days and forty nights (Gen. vii. 4, 12; Ex. xxiv. 18; 1 Kings xix. 8), and three days and three nights (Jonah ii. 1; Matt. xii. 40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, "till 2300 evening-momings," could "evening-mornings" be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e. understand them of 2300 whole days." (Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IX, Bk III, pp. 303-304)

This revelation of the 2300 days by an holy one is being expressed in sanctuary language. The use of "evening-morning" for a "day" is borrowed from the "morning and, evening" sacrifices connected with the sanctuary ritual, but reversed to reflect the day of creation - "there was evening, there was morning, day one." (Gen. 1:5, lit.) Further, in the context of Daniel 8:14 (see verses 11-13), is the word, "daily" (tamid), an adjective, used five times in the book of Daniel as a substantive. The first use of tamid as an adjective in the Old Testament is in connection with the morning and evening sacrifice. (Ex. 29:42) In Numbers 28 & 29, the word is used no less that seventeen times in connection with the ministration of the sanctuary. In these chapters it is translated with one exception by the word, "continual."

The word, "cleansed," in Daniel 8:14 (KJV) is the translation given for the Hebrew word, tzadak, which in other translations is either "justified" or "vindicated." The word, tzadak is the word used in the Masoretic Hebrew text, and is properly translated, by either "vindicated" or "justified." However, both the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and the Latin Vulgate have in their respective languages, a word which can only be translated, "shall be cleansed." The LXX uses the very word as used in Leviticus 16 for cleansed, katharisthesomai.

In 1948, the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York published Studies in Daniel by Dr. H. Louis Ginsberg, Sabato Morais Professor of Bible at the Seminary. In this work, Dr Ginsberg stated that      "the Hebrew portions of Daniel (i,e, chs 1-2: 4a; 8-12) are...translated from Aramaic originals is a hypothesis of long standing, but was only demonstrated by Zimmermann [in] 1938 and 1939."       While it is admitted that some of Zimmermann's arguments are not cogent, others       "are so telling that they suffice to establish the thesis." (p. 41)       He cites various erroneous translations into the Hebrew from the Aramaic original, one of whicti is Daniel 8:14. In the Aramaic the word, wyiddaki, should have been rendered into the Hebrew, taher meaning to cleanse, rather than tzadak. Thus in three languages, the Aramaic, Greek and Latin the objective of Daniel 8:14 can be related linguistically to the Day of Atonement.

In Daniel 8, there is no terminus a quo given from which to begin the 2300 days. The angel
Gabriel was instructed to make Daniel understand the vision. (8:16) However, when Gabriel
reached the part of the vision referring to the 2300 evening-mornings, Daniel fainted. (8:26-27).
Not until eleven years later did he return in response to Daniel's prayer. (9:1-22) It was then that the "seventy weeks" prophecy ww given with its terminus a quo, "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build

p 3 -- Jerusalem." (9:25) However, can it be justified defining the "seventy weeks" as the initial part of the 2300 days thus giving to it the same beginning date?

In Daniel 8 & 9, two different Hebrew words are translated by the single English word, "vision" - chazon and mar'eh.    2    To the whole of the vision - the ram, he-goat, little horn, the daily, as well as the 2300 days - the word, chazon, is used. (8:2, 13, 17, 26b; 9:21) The word mar'eh is applied to the 2300 days as a distinct part from the whole. (8:16, 26a, 27; 9:23) It was the mar'eh that Gabriel was to make Daniel understand (v. 16); it was the mar'eh which Daniel did not understand when he fainted and the record of the eighth chapter closed (v. 27). It is this mar'eh which Gabriel, when he returns, asks Daniel to understand and consider. It is then that he introduces the "seventy weeks." (9:23-24 )    3

To establish a terminus a quo for the 2300 days without recognizing the connection between Daniel 8 & 9, interpreters of the little horn, "the abomination of desolation" of Daniel 8, have assigned its fulfillment to Antiochus Epiphanes, and the 2300 days as the time during which he desecrated the temple at Jerusalem. This was the position of the Jews in the time of Christ. Josephus, writing after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, so applied the prophecy. (See SDA Bible Dictionary [RV], p. 258). Not so Jesus. He nullified such an interpretation, stating - "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)." (Matt. 24:15) It was not Antiochus Epiphanes; that was past history when Jesus spoke. It was the pagan Roman power which would destroy the temple and terminate its services in A.D. 70.

This leaves as the only alternative the acceptance of the fact that Daniel 8 & 9 are connected both linguistically and contextually. Contextually, it was Gabriel who was commanded to make Daniel understand the vision in chapter 8; it was the same Gabriel who returned in chapter 9, to complete his assignment. Thus the terminus a quo for the "seventy weeks" - "the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem" in 457 B. C. (9:25) - becomes also the beginning date for the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.    4

The question that remains: What prophetic hermeneutic shall be used to rightly apply this time period of the 2300 days? The historistic method which has been the basis of Adventism's understanding of prophecy is that one day in prophecy equals one year of literal time.   5     From the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem in 457 B.C., the terminus ad quem would be then in 1844. With the "seventy weeks" focusing on the sacrifice of the Messiah (9:26), and the 2300 days centering on the cleansing of the sanctuary, there is overlaid on the two foci of the earthly sanctuary ritual - the daily services at the altar of the court, and the yearly involving the most holy - a prophecy which delineates in time the antitypical ministry of Jesus Christ both at the Cross and in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Thus typology and prophecy can unite in a justifiable Theology of the Sanctuary.   6

There remains but one more prophecy which involves "the hour of God's judgment" - Daniel 7 - which amplifies the significance of the Day of Atonement ritual.

NOTES:
l    We have record of the use of the Aramaic (Chaldee) in the Scripture by Laban in making his final covenant with Jacob. (Gen. 31:47) Centuries later the officers of King Hezekiah requested that Rabshakeh speak to them in Aramaic ("Syrian") for they said, "we understand it." (II Kings 18:26) Most officials seem to have been bilingual, or even trilingual, at that time. It was the court language of Babylon. (Daniel 2:4 "Syriac") When the Persians took over the empire, they made Aramaic its official language. Daniel served in the transitional government as chairman of the presidium (6:2), and "continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus." (1:21) He was no stranger to the Aramaic. The Aramaic could be considered the lingua franca of this period of Near Eastern history. With the coming of the Grecian kingdom of Alexander, it was replaced by the Koine Greek which prevailed from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. This Greek was the language of both the LXX and the New Testament.

2     Chazon and Mar'eh could be considered synonyms. Only the context indicates the distinctive use of the two words. Chazon covers the vision as a whole, while Mar'eh indicates a part of the vision which in this case is the communication involving the 2300 days. The following is the use of the two words in Chapters 8 & 9:

Daniel
8:1   -- "a chazon appeared unto me..."
8:2   -- "I saw in a chazon..."
8:3   -- "I saw in a chazon..."
8:13 -- "How long shall be the chazon..."
8:15 -- "I Daniel, had seen the chazon,..."
8:16 -- "Make this man to understand the mar'eh."
8:17 -- "At the time of the end shall be the chazon."
8:26 -- "The mar'eh of the evening and morning."
8-26 -- "Shut thou up the chazon."

p 4 --
8:27 -- I was astonished at the mar'eh."

9:21 -- "Seen in the chazon at the beginning."
9:23 -- "Consider the mar'eh."
9:24 -- "Seal up the chazon."

3     The Hebrew word for "determined" (KJV) , "decreed" (RSV) (NIV), is chathak. This word appears nowhere else in the Old Testament, therefore it is impossible to bring other Biblical usages to bear on its meaning in Daniel 9:24. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Brown, Driver & Briggs) renders the word according to late Hebrew as "cut, cut off, decide," and so also the Aramaic. (p. 367) Albert Barnes in his Notes on the Old Testament comments on the force of the word, chathak "The meaning would seem to be, that this portion of time - the seventy weeks - was cut off from the whole duration, or cut of it, as it were, and set by itself for a definite purpose." ("Daniel," Vol. 2, p. 141)

4     The "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" required three decrees by Persian rulers. Ezra wrote that the "elders of the Jews . . .builded and finished it according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and acccording to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia." (6:14) The decree in the 7th year of Artaxerxes restored to the Jews, administrative authority and judicial power. It also exempted all connected with the temple service from taxation. (7:24-26) The verification of the 7th year of Artaxerxes being 457 B. C. is documented in the book, The Chronology of Ezra 7 co-authored by Seigfried H. Horn and Lynn H. Wood.

5     The application of the year-day principle to prophecy is based Biblically on Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. In the case of Ezekiel, it was the Lord who stated to him, "I have appointed thee each day for a year." In the book of Daniel we observe that Daniel did not ask questions concerning what he already knew about. For example, in the vision of the four beasts, he only asked in regard to the fourth beast and little horn. (7:19) He didn't inquire about the first beast, the "lion with eagles wings," because it was a familiar symbol which he saw daily in governmental service. So likewise, he made no inquiry about the various "times" he was shown. Ezekiel had been instructed as to their interpretation. Even in his deep concern for Jerusalem, his prayer for Heaven's intervention was based on Jeremiah's prophecy, rather than on the still unexplained vision of the 2300 days. (9:2)

Jewish scholars as early as the 2nd Century A.D. adopted this principle. Later Jewish scholars of the 9th and 10th Century applied the principle to the 70 weeks and the 2300 days. (Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. I, p. 713; Vol. II, p. 195)

William Miller used this year/day principle in his interpretation of Daniel 8:14, and 9:24-27.He declared himself to be "in accordance with the opinions of all the standard Protestant commentators," which included Mede, Sir Isaac Newton and Thomas Newton. In fact, the Millerites found little need to defend themselves on this point because of the general acceptance of the use of this principle even by those who otherwise opposed them. (See Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism, pp. 86-88)

6     The "Seventy weeks" were divided into 7 weeks, 62 weeks (a total of 69 weeks), and one final week. During the final week, the "Messiah [was to] be cut off." (Daniel 9:26) In being "cut off" what did He accomplish? (The Hebrew word here translated "cut off" is not the same as is used for "determined" in verse 24. (See Note #3 above) During the "seventy weeks" or 490 days certain objectives were to be realized.    1)     Jewish probation would be extended 490 years.    2)     Transgression, sins and iniquity were to end.    3)     In their place would be established everlasting righteousness.    4)     The vision (chazon) would be sealed as well as that "prophet." (Heb., see margin KJV) And    5)    The Most Holy would be anointed.

Three different Hebrew words are used for transgression, sins, and iniquity. The word for "transgression" (peshag) also carries the idea of rebellion or defection against God (Gesenius). If this concept is to be considered a continuation of the preceding thought that an extension of probationary time would be allotted to the Jewish nation, rather than connected with that which follows, "to make an end of sins," this is indicating that within the period of the "seventy weeks," the Jews would fill up the cup of their iniquity. The word for "sins" (chatta'oth) could be translated "sin offerings" as well as sin. This Christ did when He, as the Lamb of God, became the once-for-all-time offering for sin. However, the plural form as is found in this text is so translated only in one other place (Neh. 10:33), otherwise it is translated, "sins" as in this verse. The word for "iniquity" (gavon) is coupled with the idea of atonement - "to make reconciliation" (kaphar). This Jesus accomplished in His giving of Himself in sacrifice. (Eph. 2:13-14)

During this period "everlasting righteousness" was to be brought in. Jeremiah prophesied that the day would come when the Lord would raise "unto David a righteous Branch," and He would be called "The Lord our Righteousness." (Jer. 23:6) This Branch was the Messiah, who in the flesh condemned sin and revealed the fulness of grace and truth.

Two other things to be accomplished involved the sealing of the vision, making it sure by all events being fulfilled on time, and also placing a seal on a "prophet" (KJV - "prophecy"). Both of these points are noted in the gospel of John. There is constant reference to the fact that Christ's life moved on a pre-arranged schedule. His hour had not yet come (John 7:6; 8:20), or He "knew that His hour was come." (13:1) In the same Gospel, Jesus is recognized as "that Prophet" (6:14), and the One whom the Father hath sealed (6:27).

The final objective was "to anoint the most Holy." Here is sanctuary language. Jesus as that "prophet" would fulfil the typical work that Moses did, who when upon the erection of the earthly type, anointed the whole prior to Aaron beginning his ministry in it. Likewise Christ, who "pitched" the Heavenly Sanctuary, anointed the whole before beginning His ministry in the "holy place" at the Throne of Grace. (Heb. 8:1-2; 4:16; 10:19-20).

p 5 -- LAODICEA'S NEED -- For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and aIso to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith." (Rom. 1:16-17)

The gospel is a power which saves all who believe it, or it is the Word that is powerful to rescue all who put their trust in it. The gospel is called the power of God in contradistinction to the power of man. The power of man is the ability by which man, according to his carnal opinion, obtains salvation by his own strength and performs the things which are of the flesh. This ability, God, by the cross of Christ, has utterly declared useless. He now gives us His own power by which the believer is empowered unto salvation. Man's own power must be laid in the dust, otherwise the power of God cannot operate in him. The rich and the mighty do not receive the gospel for it is written:      "To the poor [in spirit] the gospel is preached." (Luke 7:22)

It is true that whoever does not believe will be ashamed of the Gospel and contradict it in his heart and conduct, for he who finds pleasure in that which is of the flesh, cannot find pleasure in that which is spiritual. He is not only ashamed of the preaching of the Gospel, but personally fights against it, refusing to be converted. He hates the light and loves darkness even considering the gospel to be downright stupidity for      "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (I Cor. 2:14)     Therefore, he who believes the Gospel must become weak and foolish before men, in order that he might be strong and wise in the power and wisdom of God.      "The foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men....Not many wise men after the flesh...are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the, world to confound the wise; and...the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty." (I Cor. 1:25-27)

If a man has faith in his own power and strength it is nothing less than pure idolatry and heathenism. The worldly perception of a heathen is an incorrect one. The heathen is the man who doesn't know the power of God. He may be a religious person, but God is not the source of his wisdom. This is the general condition of those professing truth in these last days. They will be "lovers of their own selves," but having only"a form of godliness," they "deny the power thereof." (II Tim. 3:1-5) To have a form of godliness, but to deny its power is to hold the truth in unrighteousness.      "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans l:l8)

The sin of omitting that which is good leads to the sin of committing that which is positively evil. After showing how the heathen sinned by neglecting the power of the true God, Paul reveals how they sinned by establishing the worship of false gods or idols.       "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (1:21-22)

Observe in the text the steps of heathen perversion:      The first step in idolatry was ingratitude; he was not thankful. Whoever enjoys God's gifts as though he had not graciously received them, thus forgetting the Donor, will soon find himself filled with self-complacency.      The next step is vanity: he "became vain in [his] imaginations" which caused him to delight in himself, enjoying only that which brought satisfaction to him. All his plans, efforts and endeavors expressed vanity.      The third step is blindness; for deprived of truth and steeped in vanity, a man naturally becomes blind, void of feeling and perverted in thinking.      The fourth step is total departure from God. This is the worst for when a man turns totally from God, there remains nothing else for God to do but to give him up to all manner of shame and vice according to the will of Satan.       "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things which are not convenient." (Rom. 1:28)

In the same way also, man sinks into spiritual idolatry, but of a more sophisticated kind, known
as the Laodicean condition.      "Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." (Rev. 3:17)       Ingratitude and vanity (of one's own wisdom and righteousness) perverts a man so thoroughly that he refuses to be reproved, thinking that his conduct is good and pleasing to God. This produces blindness, and

p 6 -- blindness produces idolatry, and idolatry leads to a whole deluge of vices.

God, in His great mercy, has provided a Divine remedy:     "I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see." (Rev. 3:18)        Just as there are certain steps on the downward path to idolatry, so God has provided a sure path to Christ. The Laodicean needs gold tried in the fire. He needs something to restore his gratitude to God. He needs a revelation of the Cross of Christ.       "If sinners can be led to give one earnest look at the cross, if they can obtain a full view of the crucified Saviour, they will realize the depths of God's compassion and sinfulness of sin." (AA:209)

One need look only at the evangelistic approach of the Apostles. It was twofold:    1)     They emphasized the terrible crime of men in putting to death the One who so clearly demonstrated in His life that He was the Son of God. And    2)     They exalted the Crucified One as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world, thus holding out to repentant sinners the offer of mercy and pardon through the shed blood of Jesus. This is the precious gold which restores gratitude in the heart of the lukewarm Laodicean.

"Without the cross, man could have no union with the Father. On it depends our every hope. From it shines the light of the Saviour's love; and when at the foot of the cross the sinner looks up to the One who died to save him, he may rejoice with the fulness of joy; for his sins are pardoned. Kneeling in faith at the cross, he has reached the highest place to which man can attain." (ibid., 209-210)

Though the Apostle Paul did not witness the crucifixion of Christ, it is evident that the revelation on the Damascus way, together with information received from eyewitnesses, made it absolutely real to him. The cross was ever the center of his teaching and the recognized source of his power to win men. He exalted the knowledge of Christ crucified as the one supreme and indispensable truth.       "For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him crucified." (I Cor. 2:2)

Not only should we be grateful that the Son of God suffered and died for us, but that He was resurrected. Because of this, at the throne of God is One who understands all the feelings of our infirmities having been tempted in all points as we are. He is able through His intercession to save to the uttermost all that return to God by Him.

"We cannot appreciate our Redeemer in the highest sense until we see Him by the eye of faith reaching to the very depths of human wretchedness, taking upon Himself the nature of man, the capacity to suffer, and by suffering putting forth His divine power to save and lift sinners up to companionship with Himself." ( That I May Know Him, p. 287)

Once gratitude is restored in the heart of the Laodicean, is it possible for him to remain vain?

"Looking upon the crucified Redeemer, we more fully comprehend the magnitude and meaning of the sacrifice made by the Majesty of heaven. The plan of salvation is glorified before us, and the thought of Calvary awakens living and sacred emotions in our hearts and on our lips; for pride and self worship cannot flourish in the soul that keeps fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary." (DA:661)

Our appreciation of the redemption wrought for us by the Saviour on the cross will be proportion to our realization of the depths from which we are rescued.

The Laodicean is counseled to "buy of Me...white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed." Jesus Christ       "took upon Himself, fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin" (4BC:1147),        and condemning sin in the flesh, He provided for us a robe of righteousness. This the believer accepts by faith only if there is felt a need to be clothed. The Laodicean senses no need for the Righteousness of Christ so long as his vanity tells him he is in need of nothing. A look at Calvary reveals how deceitful and desperately wicked the heart of man is (Jer. 17:9), how filthy our righteousnesses are (Isa. 64:6). It uncovers the nakedness of the Laodicean, who realizing his shame, reaches out the hand of faith and claims the white raiment so freely offered him.

When I survev the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

The third step to idolatry was blindness. The eyesalve offered in the message to Laodicea is that spiritual discernment that enables him to see the wiles and deceptions of the enemy so that he can shun them; to detect sin and abhor it; and to

p 7 -- see truth and obey it. It is the Holy Spirit that opens blind eyes to the light of truth and guides therein. The Lord in His great mercy, sent a most precious light to His people through Elders Waggoner and Jones in 1888.      "This message was to bring more prominently before the world the uplifted Saviour, the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world [gold tried in the fire]. It presented justification by faith in the Surety; it invited the people to receive the righteousness of Christ [white raiment], which was made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God. Many had lost sight of Jesus. They needed to have their eyes directed to His divine person, His merits, and His changeless love for the human family [heavenly eyesalve]." (TM:91-92)

This was the Third Angel's Message in verity. Jesus was pleading with His people to leave the pathway of idolatry and return to Him. But that precious message was despised, ridiculed and rejected, which has led to a total departure from God. Corporate Laodicea is now given over to the perversions of the heathen as listed in Romans 1:22-32. However, to the individual Laodicean, Christ "the power of God, and the wisdom of God" (I Cor. 1:24) stands at the door and knocks. The Gospel of Christ that is to lighten the whole earth with God's glory is calling for all to come off the pathway of idolatry to walk as did Enoch with the God who made the heavens and earth.

" 0 sinful man! how canst thou e'er repay
That love so deep, so infinite, so free?
Yield up to Him thy life, thy love, thine all,
In grateful homage bow thy stubborn knee. "
Terrie Lambert

Terrie in cooperation with her husband, Darren, maintains the office operations of the Adventist Laymen's foundation in Australia.

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- From the middle of February to the first of April, I was away from the desk visiting, speaking, and studying with various groups of concerned Adventists in Australia. The same divisions which haunt the "independents" in the States, plague the work in Australia. This year while the response was greater than last year at several appointments, the opposition was also more pronounced, coming from three sources, the regular church, the Standish cohorts, and the group at Kin Kin.

We discovered on the part of deeply concerned Adventists a desire to be given the word of God free from the church bashing which has become the hallmark of many of the independents in Australia. We found that heresy is just as rampant among the "many voices" in Australia as in the States. We also discovered, at least in part, why the confusion.

During the itinerary which took us from Melbourne to Bundaberg, and from Sydney to Perth, we had a free evening, and in the city where we stayed a meeting was being conducted by a spokesman for the "Concerned Brethren." While the objective was to "bash" a publication by one who had recently been in Australia from the States, I could hardly believe what I was hearing in the interpretation of the prophecies.

The small group that had come together were told that after 34 AD, the term "Jerusalem" whether used in a prophecy, or historical setting, referred to the church, and could not be understood as the literal city. I wondered what would have happened to the Christians in Jerusalem in 66 AD if they had so interpreted the prophecies of Jesus? Wrong principles of interpretation only lead to confusion and division.

To my surprise, the speaker interpreted Daniel 11:45 just as Robert Brinsmead had done in his essay on "The Vision at the Hiddekel." Yet inquiry revealed that this man had opposed him when Brinsmead was leading what was termed "The Awakening." Now he is teaching the same thing. Perhaps given a little time, if such should last, he will do the same with the book he was bashing that evening. Unless we are grounded in sound principles of Biblical interpretation we will vacilate like a reed shaken in the wind. Sound principles of interpretation plus the acceptance of the Biblical dictum, as well as the counsel found in the Writings, that truth is progressive would go far in eliminating the confusion in the community of Adventism especially among so-called historic Adventists. --- (1994 Jun) ---End---- TOP       2002