WWN 1994 Jan - Mar

1994 Jan -- XXVII -- 1(94) -- The North American Division Calls to former Members: -- "COME HOME" -- COME HOME TO WHAT? -- TRUTH?    ERROR?     LIBERALISM? -- Near the end of October, last year, both my wife and I received a form letter from the North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Written by Elder H. M. S. Richards, Jr., it told us that Sabbath, November 20, was being designated as "Homecoming." The letter stated that "months of planning and prayers" had gone into organizing this special day. (See Letter on page 3) No doubt many others also received this letter because Richards frankly admitted "that Jesus' church is fragmented: people are missing. Empty seats have taken the place of vibrant, loving Christians!"

Richards indicated that this was "probably one of the most difficult letters" he had ever been asked to write. He explained why. He wanted to communicate "just how deeply you're missed from active fellowship with your local group of believers." I do not question Richards' sincerity nor motive, but ironically with all the vaunted preparation which supposedly went into the planning for this day, not a single call was made by either the local pastor, or a member of two near-by local churches telling us of this "Homecoming," or conveying this supposedly deep love for what the church has assumed to be a lost soul. The whole tenor was farcical.

I remember distinctly when working with Elder Fordyce Detamore in evangelism, that his visitation schedule during the weeks prior to the presentation of the Sabbath question were devoted to people who were at one time committed members of the Church. I, too, followed this practice when Conference evangelist during a number of years of my ministry. There remain vivid memories from these visits. One such experience comes to mind now. A sister who had served as a matron in an Academy had married a non-believer. Her children, except for one child, were grown, and all were out of the Truth. Her husband was bitterly opposed to the Message. The day we found this sister
during an evangelistic campaign in the hills of old

p 2 -- North Georgia, she had laid all of her plans to commit suicide in the evening. Instead she came to the meeting that night. The result, she came "home" and her daughter and husband followed her.

Granted, today we have a different church than the Church of the late 1940s. Herein lies the problem. Until we are willing to frankly address the problem, one on one, or in a truly open study conference, all such planning as supposedly went into the November 20, "Homecoming," will remain farcical. Further, it appears from the "requests" appearing in Ministry that the Ministerial Department of the North American Division is planning an outreach to all former ministers of the Church. But this, too, will end in a farce unless the basic issues are addressed. The courage and forthrightness to come to grips with these issues does not seem to be a hallmark of the present leadership of the Church, either in its North American Division officer's corps, or ministerial department.

Elder Richards' frank admission that the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America is fragmented needs to be carefully weighed and addressed. What he says about the North American Division, could apply as well to the South Pacific and with varying emphases to the other divisions of the World Field.

When one's own Christian experience becomes fragmented and he wonders which way to turn so as to restore his shattered relationship with the Lord, a word of counsel indicates that he return to the place where he last saw the light. Abraham after his disastrous trip into Egypt returned to      "where his tent had been at the beginning...unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first." (Gen. 13:3-4)

Another factor is how thorough is the work we do when we return to the place of the altar. Again Abraham comes into the equation. He did not return Hagar to Egypt, but later he had to send her away after resultant problems arose, problems which are still with us. So how far back do we go? What do we do in bringing the present into line with the last point of light?

In 1903, the servant of the Lord plainly wrote that at that time the Church was being leavened
with its own backsliding. Her exact words were      "Unless the church, which is now being leavened with her own backsliding, shall repent ard he converted, she will eat the fruit of her own doing, until she shall abhor herself." (8T:250)       Where is the repentance? Where is the the abhorrence? Has she passed the point of no return? This last question introduces a very real possibility. In this same testimony was the warning that      "in the balances of the sanctaury the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed." (p. 247)       Down the stream of time from 1903, when the leavening began, at some point, God would render a fatal decision from the Heavenly Sanctuary if certain criteria had not been met. Such a decision would place the Church at a point of no return, even if, as Esau, she "sought it carefully with tears." (Heb. 12:17) Over the answer to this possibility a great part of the present fragmentation has come. It must be addressed not through "church bashing," but by a plain revelation from the Word of God. What God said through Amos, He still adheres to today.      "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth his secret unto His servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)       We can know through the revelation of His Word, whether this weighing "in the balances of the sanctuary" has been done, and the decision rendered.

There is no historical evidence that a repentance occurred between 1903 and 1950, the year when a call for "denominational repentance" was made to the officers of the General Conference. While the call in 1950 did not address the "backsliding" of 1903, and those making the call have not done so to this day, other factors have now entered the picture which have intensified the "backsliding."

In 1903, the membership of the Church stood at 67,150. By 1950, the adherents numbered
716,538. In 1990, the church books record 6,183,585 members. In 1950, when Elder W. H. Branson assumed the office of president of the General Conference, he called for doubling the church's membership in four years. However, by 1958, two sessions later, the membership stood only at 1,102,910. During this last period 1954-1958, came the SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-1956. Those conferences were highly contributive to Church growth statistically. From one million prior to the conferences the membership grew to over six million in thirty years. It had taken one hundred years to show a growth of one million members. If numbers were the name of the game, compromise with truth was the sure means to win!

What did the SDA-Evangelical conferences do to the truth committed in sacred trust to the Seventh-day Adventist Church? That is the question that needs to be addressed. In 1980, the General Conference, convened in Dallas, Texas, gave official recognition to the

p 3 --compromises of these conferences with the Evangelicals by adopting a new Statement of Fundamental Beliefs. Following this General Conference session, the fragmentation of the Church accelerated to the present crisis in Adventism. The end is not yet in sight. The fragments are further fragmenting. Basic questions remain unanswered and issues remain unaddressed.

The tragedy of tragedies is that in this picture, there are a few, sadly only a few, who are climbing the high way, while others are groping on the low, and in between on the misty flats the rest, the majority, are drifting to and fro, enamored with videos, unmindful that they have merely exchanged one Laodiceanism for another.

H. M. S. RICHARDS' LETTER
October 25, 1993

Dear Mr. Grotheer:

Do you remember the time you asked a bank manager for a loan you really needed, or went for a "dream job" interview, or went on a first date with the person you knew was the one for you, the person you eventually felt you couldn't live without?

In situations like these, words are critical. They suddenly take on a new importance and value, don't they? I remember when I met my wife, Mary. No matter how hard I tried, my words came out tongue-tied. And I've even thought that beating around the bush would somehow change the outcome of a particular decision-like talking about the weather for a half-hour before asking for the loan.

That's how I feel right now, because this is probably one of the most difficult letters I've ever had to write. I know it's among the most important. Why? Because a great deal hinges on my ability to talk to you through this page of type. Perhaps because so much depends on communicating just how deeply you're missed from active fellowship with your local group of believers, that I don't know where to begin . . .

You see, people are praying this letter will bring you to a point where you'll consider returning home. People who, like myself, know that Jesus' church is fragmented - people are missing. Empty seats have taken the place of vibrant, loving Christians!

We need you to come hack home on November 20. Months of planning and prayers have gone into organizing this special Homecoming. We're anticipating November 20 as a day of new beginnings.

Time has long since passed when healing among our fellowship should have started, and oneness take the place of fragmentation. Church leaders nationwide have listened carefully to the issues that have led to so many of our committed members becoming discouraged. Christians like you who are searching earnestly for a worship experience that not only nourishes them spiritually, but also meets the need God placed in each of us for a sense of belonging.

I feel the reconciling power of the Holy Spirit working more than ever before in our church. Listen to this powerful statement from Good News for the End Times, "Christians at the end of time will be known as the fellowship of the loved. And they'll be known as the fellowship that loves, too, because the two are inseparable." That describes God's ideal for our church, how He wants us to relate to each other.

We'd love to see you on November 20. But please understand you'll attend a "church-in-the-making," a church that hasn't yet reached God's ideal. It is still your home, though. Please mark this special day on your calender.

Yours sincerely,
[signed] HMS Richards, Jr.

OUR RESPONSE
November 3, 1993

Elder H. M. S. Richards, Jr.
North American Division of SDA
Silver Spring, MD 20904

Dear Elder Richards:

This week my wife and I received your letter which you prepared in response to the request of the North American Division to write to those whom the division consider as "backsliders." I will not question the sincerity of the attempt, nor the motive which may have prompted it.

We gave the prime time of our lives to the ministry of the Church - twenty-three years, as district pastor, city pastor, conference evangelist, and finally the last head of the Bible and History Department of old Madison College before its demise. We lived through the terrible compromise which the leadership of the Church made with the Evangelicals. We felt the wrath of T. E. Unruh because we dared to stand up and call heresy for just what it was - the betrayal of the sacred trust God gave to its people. In the end we took a leave of absence in good and regular standing because we felt that we should be free from any encumberance so as to be able to speak out on issues confronting the Church. Twenty-six years have passed and we have not regretted the step then taken. We have seen satisfying years of continued service in the cause of truth. By God's grace, He has granted health

p 4 -- and strength to continue to cry out against the apostasy that has enveloped the Church. As long as He gives us breath, we shall continue to do so.

In these years, we have seen the Church make official the compromises made with the Evangelicals. We have seen written into the Church's Statements of Belief, the very wording of the Constitution of the World Council of Churches. We have seen the Church move from a single position in regard to the Incarnation of Jesus to a multiple position with each one free to believe what he wishes within the range, even including the teaching of an Anglican divine. Then you ask that we return to this situation without any changes being made on the Church's part. Is not this being a bit presumptive?

The Church is to be the pillar and ground of the truth. I Tim. 3:15. When this witness becomes once again the hallmark of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, we shall be happy to consider your invitation.

Sincerely yours for both of us,
[signed] Wm. H. Grotheer, Editor

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- In retrospect, as I look back over 1993, what lessons have I learned as editor. One lesson has been pointedly etched on my mind as a result of two incidents involving data which I had assumed to be accurate. In the October issue of WWN (p. 7), I noted an "Architect's drawing of the future home of the pope in Jerusalem." The article quoted was from the Prophetic Observer (July, 1993), a publication of the Southwest Radio Church, and had been sent to me in good faith by a friend. It was even documented, "Jerusalem Post, (April 3, 1993)" I presumed it to be correct; however, I sent for The Jerusalem Post. When it arrived, I discovered on the centerspread a colored photo of the Drawing. It was a part of a "Feature" article in the April 3, edition. The article was captioned - "Jerusalem of Dreams" - with a subtitle reading - "A new exhibit features visions of Jerusalem that never came to be." In describing the Architect's drawing the article read:         "Almost as ambitious was a proposal in 1912 for shifting the papal residence from Rome to Jerusalem. . . The proposed new residence, conceived in Vienna by a student of the noted architect Otto Wagner, included a papal church whose dome was more than twice the diameter of the Dome of the Rock" (pp. 12B-C)

The Prophetic Observer had pulled the picture out of context to make a point. I had noticed that the article also alluded to a "secret rapture" of the Church. This should have alerted me. It didn't, but it has now taught me a lesson. Those who teach error will not refrain from stooping to falsify facts to sustain a position they wish to document. Dishonesty in regard to truth leads to dishonesty in regard to documentation.

A second reinforcement of this fact came in regard to Dr. Desmond Ford's evaluation of Elder
Kai Arasola's dissertation, The End of Historicism. After reading Ford's article, "J'Accuse" which had been sent to me, I made some comments during our annual Fellowship, and they are no doubt on tape or video. When I obtained a copy of the book, and read what Dr. Arasola actually wrote, I then realized that Ford will bend documentation to sustain his false teachings. The greatest want of the world is still men who in their inmost souls are true and honest. The greatest need of the world is the righteousness of Christ which is "pure and unadulterated truth." God's concerned people are famishing for this "bread of heaven" because they are being fed so much straw which is packaged as truth.

So what is my resolution? Only publish as fact that which I can personally document as being correct and in context. Will this resolution be difficult to keep? Perhaps so, but these experiences of 1993 have etched themselves into my mind and consciousness.

In reference to the article in the Prophetic Ohserver, it is not that there is no factual data today in regard to the papal designs on Jerusalem. There is. In The Catholic World Report (November 1993) a news article on Israel (pp. 26-28) describes the slow progress in the full diplomatic recognition of Israel by the Vatican. It lists as the key to the solution - Jerusalem. "Rome has never hidden the fact that diplomatic relations hinge on the status of Jerusalem," wrote Jean-Marie Guenois, director of the Rome news agency I Media. Guenois quotes John Paul's vision for the city:            "Jerusalem, the sacred capital, belongs by moral right to the faithful of the three great monotheistic religions." "Today the Holy See hopes to obtain an international guarantee regarding the rights of the city,"         wrote the news director. When this occurs, who knows what will happen in detail. We do know that Daniel 11:45 will he fulfilled, followed by Daniel 12:1. Who knows how soon the final events will be accelerated? The question is are we ready and do we cherish the truth as it is in Jesus?

p 5 -- OSBORNE REWRITES HISTORY -- MISAPPLIES PROPHECY --      "Are You Ready for the Time of Trouble?"       This is the question John Osborne asks in the October issue of Historic Adventist Landmarks (pp. 16-19)       It appears from the contents that he is confused on which time of trouble he is writing about. He quotes Matthew 24:21-22 which reads:       "For then shall he great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of this world, no, nor ever shall be, and except those days be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

Commenting he writes -      "This means that it will he worse than any persecution that has ever come ilpon this earth. Are we really ready for this?"       We see that he is applying this "tribulation" to the end time persecution of God's people. However, Jesus says, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her sight; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken." (Matt. 24:29)        If Osborne had just read these words of Jesus, he would have seen that the time of trouble described was the 1260-year period of papal persecution from 538 to 1798. This would have been in keeping with historic Adventism.

The Bible speaks of two times of trouble so severe that there will not be another like it. The 1260-year persecution was also prophesied in Revelation:      "And it was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue and nation." (13:7 NKJV)       Up to this time God had never given His faithful people up to be overcome by persecutors on such a scale as this. This is the one thing which makes this time of trouble different from any preceding it or to follow it.

Daniel also speaks of a time of trouble such as never was:      "At that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book." (12:1 NKJV)       The word "nation" is the Hebrew, gohy, which is also translated, "heathen" or Gentiles." It is the people of earth who are involved in this time of trouble. While God's people are not free from suffering, they will be delivered.

The time of trouble involving God's people at this time is called "the time of Jacob's trouble."
Osborne, commenting on this writes:     "We hear about the time of trouble, and then we hear about a special part of this time of trouble known as Jacob's time of trouble. During Jacob's night of wrestling, through the entire time he was struggling, he feared that his sin had not been forgiven. Though he had confessed and repented, he feared that he had not obtained forgiveness. During this time of trouble, God's people realize that there is no more forgiveness for sins. There is an awful realization that they are either saved, or lost, and that the plan of salvation is over. They will also be concerned as to whether they failed to do anything during the time of salvation." (pp. 18-19)

The time of Jacob's trouble is mentioned once in the Bible - Jeremiah 30. The entire chapter speaks of the restoration of Israel and Judah to their land. Verse 7 reads:      "Alas, for that day is great, so that none is like it; it is the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it."

In Genesis 32, we read that when Jacob heard that Esau was coming to meet him with 400 armed men, he was afraid. His prayer was:      "0 God of my father Abraham and God of my father Isaac, the Lord who said to me, 'Return to your country and to your kindred, and I will deal well with you.' I am not worthy of the least of all the mercies and of all the truth which you have shown your servant; for I crossed over this Jordan with my staff, and now I have become two companies. Deliver me, I pray, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and attack me and the mother with the children. For you said, 'I will surely treat you well, and make your descendants as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude."' (9-12)

Jacob reminded God of His promises to him. He relied in faith on God to deliver him. After he did what he could to assure the safety of his family, he spent the night alone. The only thing the Scripture says of this night is -      "Then Jacob was left alone, and a Man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. Now when He saw that He did not prevail against him, He touched the socket of his hip: and the socket of Jacob's hip was out of joint as He wrestled with him. And He said, 'Let me go for the day breaks.'

p 6 -- But he said, 'I will not let You go unless You bless me.' So He said to him, ' What is your name?' And he said, 'Jacob.' And He said, 'Your name shall no more he called Jacob, but Israel; for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed."' (24-28, NKJV)

This is what is involved in the time of Jacob's trouble. Jacob knew God's promises. He had faith that God would do what He said. He had confessed his sin, and obtained forgiveness. He was doing what God told him to do, which was to return to his old home. It seemed that he was about to fall a victim to his hrother's anger. His brother's anger was not unjustified. Jacob had defrauded him, but Jacob was not the same man he had been. He had been changed by the power of God. God would protect him. He knew this, but his faith had not yet been perfected. He had done everything he knew how to do to protect his family and his goods, but he had done this because he was afraid. Fear drove him to try to protect himself and his things. This fear and his reliance on his works to deliver himself had to be surrendered to God. This was accomplished during the night of hand to hand combat with God. When he realized Whom he was fighting, he totally yielded and cast himself on God's mercies.

This will be the experience that all of God's people who are alive on the earth when probation closes will go through. Satan will he allowed to tempt then severely. Every wrong act and word will come to their memories. All they can do is to say, "You are right, Satan. There is nothing good in me. I see it clearly now, but Jesus gave himself for me. I have confessed and forsaken every sin. He has accepted me, and I am now his." Thus clinging by faith to God's promises, his people will be victorious. "It is the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it."

In this article, Osborne also attempted to rewrite history. He wrote:     "Do you realize that in A.D. 69 when Cestius had surrounded Jerusalem, problems were encountered in the homeland and the Romans suddenly withdrew? This was a sign that had been given by Jesus nearly forty years earlier. The Christians, following Jesus' instructions, fled the city and not one was lost. The following year, Titus, another Roman general, again surrounded the city." (p. 18, col. 1)

The facts are, Cestius began his siege in late A.D. 66. After his withdrawal and defeat by Jewish insurgents in what became almost a rout, it was 3½ years before the city was again attacked and destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70. We could perhaps say that A.D. 69 was a typographical error if it were not for the statement that Titus came the following year.

These are the most glaring examples from this article of very careless and slipshod Biblical interpretation and historical documentation.

Another very serious short-coming is the lack of Scripture as authority. In this entire article, there are only four references to Scripture. Of these four, two are included in quotations from Ellen G. White, and one is misinterpreted. There are 17 quotations from the Writings. This seems strange coming from one who professes to he a "historic Adventist" inasmuch as Ellen White, truly a pioneer historic Adventist wrote:         "But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrine and the basis of all reforms." (GC, p. 595)

A publication that calls itself Historic Adventist Landmarks should do more careful editing of the articles published. One wonders, are the editors of this magazine aware of what constitutes truth? Do they read the articles submitted for publication? Or, are they in this instance afraid to ignite Osborne's temper by pointing out obvious serios errors in his work?

In the same issue, the editor-in-chief, John Grosboll writes:     "Departure from Bible truth must also be repented of, confessed, and forsaken...Whenever anyone becomes involved in error, when it is pointed out, he must go to the Lord, repent, confess and forsake it. If others have been hurt by their teaching, they need to go to them and confess and tell them they have forsaken their erroneous belief. If the offending person does not confess it, he must he separated from God's professed people." (p. 8)

Well said!

This definitely points up the fact that everything one reads in today's publications, or hears from the pulpit must he carefully checked to see if it squares with the Word of God. It also shows the necessity of personal Bible study coupled with prayer for the Holy Spirit's interpretation. We want, we need, truth "pure and unadulterated." (TM, p. 65) -- article by George McDaniel

p 7 -- OF INTEREST -- [An advertisement appearing in The Catholic World Report (p. 37) for the New Oxford Review. In large bold type the ad was headed: "Loyal Catholics: Don't Be Distressed"]

After Vatican II the number of converts to Catholicism slowed to a trickle. But now that the papacy has regained its bearings and confidence, the Church has attracted a new wave of converts, including highly literate people like Malcolm Muggeridge, Richard John Nuehaus [Editor-in-chief of First Things], and Lewis Lehrman.

What infuriates the neo-Modernists in the [RC] Church is that the new converts are being drawn to the Magisterium, the papacy, the Catholicism of the ages - all those things the dissenters want to dilute or dismember.

If you're distressed, consider: The dissenters are even more distressed! They know that orthodox Catholicism is back with new life and vigor, that the tide is turning. But do you know?

The forum for the new generation of converts is the New Oxford Review, a monthly magazine which takes its name from the 19th-century Oxford Movement in England, and its inspiration from John Henry [Cardinal] Newman....

According to Boston's Cardinal Law, "What is fascinating about the New Oxford Review is that it is a sign of contradiction." At a time when decadent Western culture has invaded the [RC] Church, and well-publicized quisling Catholics are openly defiant of Church teaching, here is a counter-tendency celebrating the fullness of the Truth. Yes, as Newsweek says, we're "cheeky." What's more, we' re "influential," to quote the Los Angeles Times.

But don't get us wrong: We're not just for converts. We're not out to repeal Vatican II. We welcome Protestant writers, solid "mere Christians" of the C. S. Lewis variety. We don't equate Catholicism with Americanism or Western Civilization. We're for Catholics with catholic tastes and inquiring minds.

Observation: The Papacy is on the move again!

" These are the things that ye shall do;
Speak ye every man the truth to his neighbor;
execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates. "
Zechariah 8:16

--- (1994 Jan) --- End --- TOP

1994 Feb -- XXVII -- 2(94) -- THEOLOGY OF THE SANCTUARY -- Part 1 -- INTRODUCTION -- In 1955, as Donald Gray Barnhouse and Walter R. Martin contemplated their up-coming talks with leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they perceived that the Adventist teaching of "the investigative judgment" would be one doctrine on which it would be impossible to come to any accord which would permit them to consider Adventists as Christians believing in the finished work of Christ. Why? Because      "the doctrine of the 'investigative judgment'...is a doctrine never known in theological history until the second half of the nineteenth century and which is a doctrine held exclusively by the Seventh-day Adventists." (Eternity, September, 1956)       This evaluation is true on both counts.

One can trace other major doctrines of the Church, such as the observance of the Sabbath back through history, and in the record of salvation history back to Creation. Among those who ohserve the Sabbath, and there are many who do, other than Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Adventists are the only Sabbath keeping group who teach the concepts of a judgment based on a theological understanding of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary ritual. Sanctuary theology constitutes the uniqueness of Adventism.

Adventism is rooted in the Great Second Advent Movement of the first half of the 19th Century. The name most prominently known in connection with this movement is that of William Miller's. Yet very little of what Miller taught was carried over in Seventh-day Adventism. He even objected to the specific date, October 22, 1844, for the coming of Christ until two weeks before that time. (Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism, p. 128)      Joseph Bates in the first issue of The Review & Herald (November, 1850) published in Paris, Maine, wrote that the Laodicean Church period began in 1845 at a conference chaired by William Miller in Albany, New York. He advised his readers      "to flee from the laodiceans, as from Sodom and Gomorrah."       He declared their teachings to be false and delusive leading to utter destruction. (pp. 7, 8)

Actually, William Miller concluded that Jesus would come       "sometime between March 21st, 1843 and March 21st, 1844."       This is as specific as he really wished to be. His original concluding date for the 2300 Days of Daniel 8:14 was 1843. Miller overlooked the fact that there was no year zero. This was finally pointed out to Miller by Samual Snow, the one who began "the seventh month" movement (Lev. 23:27) after the disappointment in the Spring of 1844. Following this disappointment, Miller was no longer in control of the direction of the Movement. The tenth day of the seventh month as the day for the coming of Jesus based in Hebrew sanctuary typology was not Miller's exegesis but rather that of Snow and Storrs. (Arasola, op. cit., p. 148) The birth of Seventh-day Adventism is rooted in this Seventh-month movement. (See SDA Encyclopedia, RV edition, "'Midnight Cry,"' p. 885; "Seventh-Month Movement," p. 1337)

"For some reason Snow or other Millerites never realized that they were no longer interpreting Daniel when they got involved with the festal calendar. The interpretation was rather that of Leviticus 16. Daniel's prophecy was only secondary. It showed the year, but the day as indicated by the Jewish festal calender. Leviticus 16 was presented as the primary interpreter of Daniel 8, while in fact focus was on an eschatological jom kippurim which was timed with Daniel 8:14" (ibid, p. 156)

While the Millerite Movement went no further than the implantation of the date of the day of
atonement upon their eschatology, Seventh-day Adventism became a combination of typology and historicism. This is its uniqueness, and the heart of the present attack on its validity. Either the

p 2 -- basis for Adventism is substantiated, or there exists no reason for its continued existence.

TYPOLOGY -- Is typology an acceptable hermeneutic? Is it Biblically based? This must be first determined. The Christian Church perceived of themselves as the new Israel of God (Gal. 6:16), hence, God's dealings with ancient Israel foreshadow God's dealings with the new Israel, only on a greater scale as Christ was greater than Moses. As "the fathers" were baptized unto Moses (I Cor. 10:2), so "the disciples" were baptized into Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19 Gr.; Rom. 6:3). From this rela-tionship, experiences from Israel's history became types of warnings to Christians. One such example is found in Paul's letter to the Corinthian Church. He cites events from Israel's "wilderness" history, and declares:       "Now these things were our examples (tupoi), to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also listed...Now all these things happened unto them for examples (tupikos): and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." (I Cor. 10:6, 11)

It should be noted that Paul restricts his "typology" in this comparison to the wilderness wanderings. Thus our understanding of events, people, and things as to their typological significance should be strictly governed by the designations of the Bible itself.

A few examples will illustrate this guideline. Jesus Christ is noted as the second or "last Adam." (I Cor.15:45) Paul specifically designates the first Adam as "the figure (tupos) of Him that was to come." (Rom. 5:14) How are we to interpret this type? Is the typology between the first Adam who was given "dominion" (Gen. 1:28), and the second Adam to whom the "first dominion" is to be restored (Micah 4:8)? Or is the typology teaching that the same nature with which the first Adam was created is the nature taken by the second Adam in the Incarnation? To answer this question, other texts must be considered, lest the interpretation given to the type be contradictory to the plain Word of God. (See Romans 1:1, 3-4)

Consider Melchizedec. In the letter to the Hebrews, Jesus Christ is set forth as having become an High Priest after the Order of Melchizedec which priesthood is superior to the priesthood of Aaron. (Heb. 7:22, 27) This priesthood of Christ is stated to be "after the similitude of Melchizedec." (7:15) But the basis that Paul   ¹     uses for the conclusion is taken from a Messianic Psalm. (110:4) Thus even in the Old Testament, there is an inferred typology between Meichizedec and Jesus Christ. This typology would be vertical, the earthly a type of the heavenly.

In considering Moses as a type, we have both prophecy and typology mingled. Moses was told that God would raise up a Prophet from the midst of Israel, of his brethren, and one "like unto thee," meaning Moses. (Deut. 18:15-18) Further, we find Paul in Hebrews, as he begins his dissertation on the High Priestly ministry of Jesus, writing that He "was faithful to Him that appointed Him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house." (3:2) The purpose of this faithful witness of Moses was to be "a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." (3:5)

Here is a very interesting typology. When Israel broke the "old" covenant which they made at
Sinai, a covenant without any provison for forgiveness (Ex. 23:20-21), God made a covenant with Moses and through him with Israel. (Ex. 34:27) It was under this covenant that the sanctuary service functioned, offering the provision of mercy, forgiveness and cleansing (Heb. 9:1). Moses became the mediator for Israel (Gal. 3:19). The transition of the mediatorship is seen in the emphasis the Scripture places on the communion in the Mount of Transfiguration between Moses and Jesus. Moses and Elijah spoke to him "of His decease (Gr. - exodos) which He should accomplish at Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31) This "way out" - and that is what exodos means - is represented as the "new and living way, which He has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say His flesh." (Heb. 10:20)

Moses stands as a type of the One who became the mediator between God and man when Adam broke the covenant of life which likewise had no provision for forgiveness. It was obey: live; disobey: die. (Gen. 2:16-17) The bondage of God's chosen people in Egypt, their exodus beginning the night of the Passover, the leadership and pleadings of Moses, all are placed in the New Testament as a type of the work and ministry of Jesus Christ. The bondage in sin (Heb. 2:15), the deliverance through the Passover Lamb (I Cor. 5:7), the new "house of Israel" with the appointed High Priest (Heb. 3:6; 5:9-10), are perceived as typified in the man, Moses, and his work "as a servant" (Heb. 3:5).

With no specific statement to be found in the Old Testament that such an event, or such a

p 3 -- person was a type of some event or Person to come; yet in the New Testament there is such direct testimony, how can such conclusions on the part of the New Testament writers be justified? The Old Testament is history, but not secular history per se; rather it is salvation history. Only a small fragment of what occurred in human history or in the history of Israel is recorded in the Old Testament, but those things which were      "written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." (Rom. 15:4)       The Old Testament is a directed record. Its records, its prophecies, its biographies were all directed by "the Spirit of Christ." (1 Peter 1:11) Before Jesus returned to the Father, He opened His disciples' "understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." (Luke 24:45) These "scriptures" were the Old Testament. Upon His return to the courts of heaven, He sent, as He had promised, the Spirit of truth, to guide into all truth. (John 14:16-17; 16:13). Thus what the "Spirit of Christ" preserved as the Old Testament, the Spirit of truth opened the minds of the writers of the New Testament to discern its true significance.

It was "the Lord" who called Abraham (Gen. 12:1) It was the "I AM" who appeared unto Moses and sent him to deliver the enslaved people of Israel (Ex. 3:14). It was that "Lord" who said unto Moses, I want to be "like unto thee" when I come into humanity (Deut. 18:18). It was "the Lord" who directed Moses to build a sanctuary according to a pattern He had designed (Ex. 25:8-9). It was the same Lord who outlined the ritual to be performed in that sanctuary (Lev. 1:1). It was the Holy Spirit of truth which speaks in the New Testament telling us what these things signify.

The typology found in the New Testament is both horizontal and vertical.   2     The types cited by Paul in I Corinthians represent the horizontal nature of typology, while many of the types used in the book of Hebrews illustrate the vertical nature of typology - the earthly figuratively revealing the heavenly.

Modern scholarship   3     usually disassociates itself strongly from the vertical form of typology. When the Millerite Movement was taken over by the "Seventh Month" advocates, a horizontal
typology drawn from the Hebrew sanctuary services was implanted upon the time prophecy of
Daniel 8:14 establishing the date of October 22, 1844. It was after the disappointment on that day, that a vertical typology, associating the earthly sanctuary services with the heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ, became the basis for the sanctuary theology which is the heart of Seventh-day Adventism. Is there a Biblical justification for this vertical typological hermeneutic? Are there limitations?

After establishing the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ as superior to the Aaronic, Paul declares "the sum" of the matter to be that He is set "on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" as "a minister of holy things" (Gr.) in "the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched." (Heb. 8:1-2) How is this ministry in the heavenly tabernacle to be understood? The priests of the earthly "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."     4     ( 8:5) What reference is cited to confirm this typology? "Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern (tupos) shewed to thee in the mount." (ibid.)

It should be clearly kept in mind that it was the services performed in connection with the sanctuary which were the examples and shadow of heavenly things, not the tabernacle itseif. Here is a Biblical basis for the typology which designates the priestly ministration of the earthly sanctuary as illustrative of the heavenly, but with a limitation. The type was shown to Moses in the mount, but its typological significance was in the services performed in the priestly ministration.

Failing to give heed to the limitation placed on the use of sanctuary detail leads to an allegorized typology. Seventh-day Adventist students of the sanctuary are not alone in this use of sanctuary detail. Others, Evangelical in their orientation, hold that those who study the intricate detail - the "precise measurements and construction of the tabernacle", with the offerings and feasts - prayerfully, will      "find them full of the deepest teaching concerning Christ and spiritual things, and of the wisest counsels for the right ordering of our daily life." (Quoted by Arasola, op. cit, p. 166)

It is true that inasmuch as the way of God is revealed in the sanctuary, the way to holiness (Ps. 77:13), that we should be able to find revealed His purpose for the human soul.    5     But how much of that purpose is derived from eisegesis rather than exegesis? In Adventism it has been taught, and still is, that the court represents the Christian experience of justification. At this point, we find Biblical support. The sacrifices were offered in the

p 4 -- court. Paul writes that we are "now justified by [Christ's] blood." (Romans 5:9) Then we pass to the holy place which is interpreted as representing sanctification. But where is the plain, "Thus saith the Lord"? We reason our way to this deduction through the articles of furniture: the table of shewbread representing the Word of God (John 17:17), yet there is no Biblical text telling us there is a Table of Shewbread in the Heavenly Sanctuary; the candlesticks symbolizing the Holy Spirit (Revelation 4:5; Romans 15:16); and the Altar of Incense uplifting a life of prayer (Revelation 8:3). Then the last step is the most holy place representing perfection. Here we need much exegesis. The High Priest alone went into the Most Holy Place; He alone procured the at-one-rnent. Failing to perceive this aspect of the sanctuary teaching, there is proclaimed a works motivated drive to reach perfection.

Not only are the services performed declared to be "the example and shadow" of the heavenly, but the specific services are stated - the daily and the yearly. After describing the "worldly" sanctuary, Paul writes:     "Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always [daily; Gr. -"at all times"] into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people." (Heb. 9:6-7)

These services were perceived as a "figure" (parabole) for the time then present because in and of themselves they "could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience." (9:9) Thus in reality the only purpose they served was to typify for us heavenly things - that Christ through His ministry could obtain eternal redemption for us. (9:11-12)

To summarize:     There is a plain Biblical basis to interpret the services of the earthly sanctuary as representing a vertical typology revealing the work and ministry of Jesus Christ as priest, and as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec. This work is typified in the daily and yearly ministration of the Aaronic priesthood.

Footnotes:
1    We will recognize Paul as the author of Hebrews in this study of Sanctuary Theology. 'The earliest manuscript of the Pauline letters, p. 46, dating from about 200, includes it (the early Church assumed Hebrews to be Pauline),..." (Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New
Testament, p. 49)

2    Dr. Kai Arasola in his dissertation, The End of Historicism, devotes several pages to a background discussion of typology as it related to the Millerite and Advent Movements (pp. 161-168) Excerpts of his findings and evaluation should prove most enlightening to the reader:

"Typology has a background distinct from that of general historicism. The Christian church has from its beginning seen many Old Testament images and passages as types and prophecies of Jesus Christ. As one looks back further one finds a pattern in the writings of the Old Testament. The prophets were the first to use typology. As Israel was facing national disasters ' they looked for a new David, a new Exodus, a new covenant, a new City of God: the old became a type of the new and important as pointing forward to it.' This pattern was taken up by the NT writers who saw the Old Testament as a prefiguration of the Christ-event. The number of types found is vast...

"The typology of the NT is both horizontal, referring to historical fulfillments, and vertical, illustrating things considered as heavenly realities....It was this horizontal typology that Snow employed in his calculations of the day of the end. Some of the clearest examples of vertical typology are found in the book of Hebrews. Modern scholarship usually disassociates itself strongly from this form of scholarship....

"The New Testament thus sowed the seeds for both historical and heavenly antitypes....During the period of Protestant orthodoxy ' Types were regarded as OT facts which were ordained by God to adumbrate or foreshadow aspects of Christ or the Gospel in the NT.' This view has in succeeding centuries been accepted as the traditional understanding of Biblical typology. It is still regarded as the true concept on the subject by many with a Biblicist view on the Scriptures.

"Within Protestant Biblicism there were two main lines of prophetic typology. On one extreme there was the so-called Cocceian school with an elaborate and imaginative exegesis ' impregnated with typology.' Sensus allegoricus was so important to the Cocceian interpretation of types that Harnack's term, ' Biblicalalchemy' [given for Origen's exegesis] suits perfectly some of these fanciful expositions. On the other extreme there was the Marshian typology representing a reaction from the prevelant undisciplined method. Marsh looked for Scriptural sanction for each type and gained fair scholarly but little popular support for his method. However Cocceian typology was prominent in Britain and North-America until mid-nineteenth century.

"Even though the scholarly nineteenth-century commentaries promoted the sober Marshian typology, popular books and pamphlets applied typology to any number of aspects within the sphere of Christian life....

p 5 -- "Another feature of American typology is its interest in the termini technici of the sanctuary, the sacrifices and the feasts - types which became important for the seventh-month movement and later for Adventism. Yet the literature available for this research has not provided any examples of Old Testament typology combined with prophetic exegesis that would parallel with Snow's typological ideas."

Comment: Herein is an aspect of the "uniqueness" of Adventism, and a question that must be addressed in any study of Sanctuary Theology. Is there a clear connection between Leviticus 16 and Daniel 7 and 8?

3   A prime example of the position of modern scholarship in regard to the book of Hebrews is the dissertation by Wm. G. Johnsson for his doctoral degree in New Testament received at Vanderbilt University. The tragedy of this type of scholarship is the carryover of such teaching into the Church by the placement of those so imbued in positions of influence in the Church.

4    The concept that the services ministered by the priest is the type of the heavenly reality rather than the structure itself is challenged by the way this text is translated in the NIV which is much in vogue in Adventism today. The NIV reads - "They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven." In the Greek text, both the words, example (hupodeigmati) and shadow (skia) are in the dative. Literally translated this part of the verse would read - "Who in example and in shadow serve of the heavenly." A. T. Robertson points out that the idea of the dative      "is that of personal interest." Its primary use is of "a person, not a place" - an object such as the sanctuary itself. (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 536)

5    "Through Christ was to be fulfilled the purposes of which the tabernacle was a symbol, - that glorious building, its walls of glistening gold reflecting in rainbow hues the curtains inwrought with cherubim, the fragrance of ever-burning incense pervading all, the priests robed in spotless white, and in the deep mystery of the inner place, above the mercy-seat, between the figures of the bowed, worshiping angels, the glory of the Holiest. In all, God desired His people to read His purpose for the human soul." (Education, p. 36)       Too many in reading this perceive its meaning to be a detailed study of every feature and facet of the tabernacle to capture some typical meaning. A reading in context helps keep it all in perspective. In the preceding paragraph are found these sentences -       "But this ideal they were, in themselves, powerless to attain. The revelation at Sinai could only impress them with their need and helplessness."       The sanctuary was not to be perverted into a works-oriented theology, but rather a revelation of a gospel where one's trust and commitment is to his or her great High Priest who alone is able to save them to the uttermost. (Heb. 7:25; Acts 4:12)

LET'S TALK IT OVER -- With this issue of WWN, we begin, the Lord willing, an in-depth study of Sanctuary Theology which will continue through most of 1994. The need for such a comprehensive study was impressed upon my mind after reading the dissertation on The End of Historicism by Dr. Kal Arasola of Finland. It became evident that Seventh-day Adventists have never been given a complete picture of their "roots" in the Millerite Movement, nor a full revelation of all that William Miller taught at that time. For a number of years, I had access to Joseph Bates' article in the first issue of The Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald. (See page 1) From this article, it was very evident that a decided break between the founders of Seventh-day Adventism and the leaders of the Millerite Movement had occurred. As one noted how little of the actual message given by Miller was retained by our spiritual forefathers, the reason demanded clarification. The carryover centered in the basics of the the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 as enlarged in the explanation given by Gabriel in Daniel 9.

Writing of the specific "Seventh-month Movement" which has been defined in our denominational history books as the Midnight Cry, Arasola summarized: [See F. D. Nichol, The Midnight Cry, 1944]       "The exegetical elements, apocalyptical prophecy from Daniel, sanctuary typology, a parable of Jesus, were all put together into a package which aroused unforeseen interest in prophetic interpretation." (p. 161)

This combination is attested to in a brief biographical sketch on Samuel S. Snow in the SDA Encyclopedia. Snow had received but slight acceptance of his relating the Day of Atonement typologically to the prophecy of Daniel 8:l4. However, on July 21, 1844, he spoke in the large Boston Tabernacle on the text, "Behold the Bridegroom cometh [on the tenth day of the seventh month]; go ye out to meet Him." This introduced the parable of Jesus into the picture. At a campmeeting in Exeter, New Hampshire, three weeks later, the message was wholeheartedly accepted, and the 'seventh-month' message spread with seemingly irresistible power. (p. 1357).

Inasmuch as Seventh-day Adventism is theologically involved in not only a prophetic

p 6 -- date based in Historicism, but also in a typological understanding of the sanctuary, in all honesty one must ask, is such, a Biblically sound position? We believe it is, and plan to set this Biblical basis forth in a series of studies in the upcoming issues of WWN. This issue discusses typology.

We are aware that such a study must include the premise that       "we have many things to learn, and many, many to unlearn." (TM, p. 30)       We further recognize that the truth committed to our trust      "is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light." (R&H, March 25, 1890)       It also must be kept in mind that       "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines." (S P, IV, p. 413)       To these guidelines and factors, we intend to rigidly adhere.

The combination of the understandings which formed the real "roots" of Seventh-day Adventism - Daniel 8:14 interpreted according to the historistic hermeneutic, the typological application of the sanctuary ritual, and the message of Jesus' parable in Matthew 25 - all must be candidly evaluated. This last element to be introduced into the Millerite Movement - the understanding of Matthew 25:1-13 - presents a "touchy" problem echoing into the present agitation stirring the Adventist Community today. This is the eschatological emphasis in Adventism reflected in The Great Controversy, and the vivid projection it is receiving today on billboards, in the press, as well as the reaction engendered in certain "independent" journals and in the Union papers of the Church itself.

Consider for a moment the facts which cannot be controverted: 

1)     The vision which forms the basis for The Great Controversy was given twice, in 1848 and 1858. During the second vision at Lovett's Grove, Ohio, Ellen G. White was instructed to write it out. This she did, and the book is known as Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I. The Great Controversy, as such, was first published in 1884 as the forth volume of a set either called The Spirit of Prophecy, or The Great Controversy.

2)    In 1888, The Great Controversy was revised. Questions have been raised over this publication in an unpublished manuscript - Ellen G. White ard the Protestant Historians: The Evidence from an unpublished Manuscript on John Huss. The manuscript by Dr. D. R. McAdams remains inpublished because the Ellen G. White Estate will not release certain documents upon which this research is based, so I have been informed by reliable sources.

3)    In 1911, a final cosmetic revision of The Great Controversy was published which is now a part of the Conflict of the Ages series.

4)    All three editions of The Great Controversy teach that Matthew 25:1-13 was fulfilled in the Midnight Cry experience connected with the "Seventh-month Movement in 1844. (1884 edition - Chapter XVII; 1888 edition - Chapter XXII; 1911 edition - Chapter 22)

The problem to be faced is that between 1888 and 1911, Ellen White was given added light of eschatological significance which was not included in the 1911 revision, and which alters the picture as related to the other two.

In 1896, reporting the first campmeeting in Tasmania, at Hobart from November 28 to December 9, 1895, Ellen White interjected into her report, this comment -      "My mind was carried into the future, when the signal will be given, 'Behold the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him."' (R&H, February 11, 1896)

In 1901, Ellen White wrote in a letter -      "In the twenty-first chapter of Luke, Christ foretold what was to come upon Jerusalem, and with it He connected the scenes which were to take place in the history of this world just prior to the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Letter 10, 1901)        By focusing on Luke 21, to the exclusion of Matthew 24 and Mark 13, the emphasis is on the specific reference in Luke 21 concerning Jerusalem which is not found in the other two synoptics. This brings Jerusalem into the esehatological picture.

These two factors are not included in the 1911 revision of The Great Controversy. No provision was made for this advanced understanding given to Ellen G. White. This additional revelation makes the 1884 and 1888 editions incomplete as a picture of the final events in human history. There may be still more light given besides these two cited above which has not been taken into account.

It is not difficult to square the advanced understanding of the Midnight Cry with Matthew 25, or to explain why it was so perceived in 1844. In Matthew 25, there are two "coming outs" noted. In the first, is the bringing together of the "Ten Virgins." These "went forth (exelthon) to meet the bridegroom." (25:1) In

p 7 -- the second going out, "at midnight, there was a cry made, Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out (exerchesthe) to meet him." (25:6) Both Greek verbs are from the same root word, one is past tense, the other, present tense. Both are describing the same type of experience, but at different times.

It is understandable that in 1844, when the Millerites believed the end would come in a matter of months, they could perceive of only one call to come out, and this they understood to be the second call at midnight. The significance of the textual evidence and the fact that "the Bridegroom" did not come in 1844 makes their exegesis of Matthew 25 untenable today. However, the implications of a corrected understanding are also unacceptable to many. In Manuscript Release #1216, Ellen White wrote:       "I was confirmed in all I had stated in Minneapolis, that a reformation must go through the churches. Reforms must be made, for spiritual weakness and blindness were upon the people who had been blessed with great light and precious opportunities and privileges. As reformers they had come out of the denominational churches, but they now act a part similar to that which the churches acted. We hoped that there would not be the necessity for another coming out." (1888 Materials, Vol. 1, pp. 356-357)

It should be obvious to any reader that here is a direct allusion to the parable of Matthew 25. If this parable is indeed prophetic in its application, there is to be a second calling out by "a voice at midnight."

We are now left with a second problem which must be considered. How do we account for this change in what we had perceived to be the events leading to the eschaton? A suggested answer is in typology, the same typology used by Paul in his letter to the Corinthian Church. He wrote that the events of the wilderness experience (and he limited the typology to that period) were written for our learning. (I Cor. 10:5-11) A parallel between the wilderness experience and the experience of the Adventist Church has been used by Adventist leaders. For exrnaple, there is the series of thirty-six sermons delivered during the Sabbath afternoon vesper services in the Battle Creek Tabernacle by Tylor G. Bunch. The syllabus of these studies captioned - The Exodus and Advent Movement in Type and Antitype.

During the wilderness journey, when Israel stood on the borders of the land of Canaan, the rebellion at Kadesh-barnea consigned them to continued wandering for forty more years. Concerning this edict on the part of God, the Scriptures read:       "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." (Numbers 14:34)

The margin reads - "Ye shall know the altering of my purpose." The question that must be
answered is - Did the experience of 1888, 1901, and 1903 alter the schema of the esehatology which had been outlined in The Great Controversy editions of 1884 and 1888? Did not Ellen White write in 1901:      "We may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel, but for Christ's sake, His people should not add sin to sin by charging God with the consequences of their own wrong course of action." (Letter to P. T. Magan, dated December 7, 1901)

Note: Between Christmas and the New Year, representatives from the Nora Springs, Iowa, Seventh-day Adventist Church and Back to God and the Bible Ministry met with us on campus to document from Scripture with explanatory notes the Statement of Beliefs previously formulated. This completed Statement is now available free upon request. ---(1994 Feb) ---End---- TOP

1994 Mar -- XXVII -- 3(94) --THEOLOGY OF THE SANCTUARY -- Part 2 -- The Sin Offerings of the Daily Ministration -- While Israel was still under the old covenant which provided no mercy, Moses was in the mount receiving from God the design for the sanctuary which would reveal the mercy of God. (Exodus 23:20-21; 24:18; 25:8-9) The structure of the sanctuary and its articles of furniture were all detailed to Moses during his first forty days in the mount. The establishment of the house of Aaron as the priests of Israel was confirmed. (Exodus 28:1) One offering was outlined, and it was to be a part of the daily ministration - the morning and the evening sacrifice. (Ex. 29:38-43)

The revelation of all the other offerings, both daily and yearly, was not given until after the tabernacle was completed and erected. Both by day through the morning sacrifice, and by night through the evening sacrifice, the individual Israelite was covered until he could bring his prescribed sin offering. Between the revelation of the glory of God within the tabernacle and the sinful Israelite was the Altar of the Court with its continual sacrifice.

It would be difficult not to see here a revelation of God's dealing with the human race. Man was placed in the garden of Eden under a commanded covenant - Obey: Live; Disobey: Die. (Genesis 2:16-17) Though man knew it not, there had been "a counsel of peace" by which the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world would stand between the Glory of God, and himself should he choose to disobey. That Lamb would also be a priest to minister the mercy of God. (Zech. 6:13). It was after man sinned that the provision was made known to him, the same as with Israel at Sinai. (Gen. 3:15, 21)

In the inauguration of the morning and evening sacrifice, is found language which is used in the prophecy of Daniel 8. In Exodus 29 is the first use of the word, tamid, "daily" or "continual" in the Bible. (verse 42). In the book of Daniel, tamid is used as a substantive with the word, "sacrifice" added by the translators in the KJV. (8:11-13) In Daniel 8:14 the

p 2 -- phrase "evening and morning" is substituted for the word, "days " (see Hebrew as noted in Margin)

THE SIN OFFERINGS -- At the very beginning of the book of Leviticus are set forth rules with significance in regard to the sacrifices required of the individual, or a group of individuals. If it were to be a "burnt sacrifice," it first must be voluntarily offered and presented      "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord." (Lev. 1:3)      The offerer was to place his hand upon the head of the victim and it      "shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him." (ver. 4)

Two things need to be noted:    1)     The placing of the hand of the offerer upon the sacrifice was not just a laying of the hand upon the head as ordinarily perceived, but putting the full weight upon the victim. The Hebrew word is sahmach, and is translated in Amos 5:19 as "leaned." His total dependence was to be in the sacrifice. It would "uphold" him or "sustain" him, two other translations of the same word. (See Isa. 59:16; 63:5)    2)     The sacrifice "shall be accepted for him." Here is substitution, one in place of the other, a transfer of the guilt to a sacrifice.

The offerer was to kill the sacrifice, and then the priest would mediate it, making "atonement for him." (ver. 5) The book of Leviticus, as the offerings are outlined, will reveal a dual atonement - one resulting in forgiveness, and the other, in cleansing.

The sin offerings are described in Leviticus 4. Before detailing them, we need to observe that the sins to be atoned for were sins of "ignorance." (4:2) When committed, they were not perceived by the one doing the act, but had nevertheless become a matter of record. When convicted, the sinner had a prescribed ritual to perform in connection with the priest so that confession could be registered against his name.

These sin offerings did not cover willful or premeditated sin. Paul in his discourse at Antioch in Pisidia preached "the forgiveness of sins" through Jesus that all who believe in Him "are justified from all things from which [they] could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39) Even David recognized that his willful sin of adultery compounded by a planned murder could not be atoned for by sacrifices at the sanctuary, or else he would have given them. (Ps. 51:14-17) Paul wrote that "those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually" could not "make the comers thereunto perfect" (Hebrews 10:1) What then was their purpose? They served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (Hebrews 8:5)

It should be obvious that the "sins of ignorance" were on record, and that the bringing of the required sacrifice, when convicted, was in recognition of that sin, and not a means of transfer of that sin to the sanctuary. It had already been recorded. If the sacrifices were the means whereby sin was transferred to the sanctuary, the way to keep sin from being registered against one's name, was not to offer the sacrifice. Such a position makes mockery of the whole ritual. Sin was transferred to another living creature in the sense that the condemnation for that sin was to be borne by an innocent victim. Acknowledgment was made by the offerer. (Lev. 5:5) The record of that confession and substitution was made in blood, finger printed on the horns of the altars. "Without shedding blood is no remission" of sins. (Heb. 9:22) It was the remission, and the record of that remission, not the sin, and the record of that sin which was symbolized by the typical sanctuary ritual.    1

The sin offerings which were a major part of the daily ministration involved corporate and individual sins. A different priest was involved in ministering the sacrifice of each of these categories. The registration of the confession was placed on different altars, but in every offering the blood was returned and poured at the base of the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court. (Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30)

The corporate sins were of two categories:    1)     A sin by the high priest which brought guilt upon the people, and    2)     a sin which involved the whole congregation. Of the first, the text reads:     "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering. He shall bring the bull to the door of the tabernacle of meeting before the Lord, lay his hand on the bull's head, and kill the bull before the Lord." (Lev. 4:3-4 NKJV)

In regard to the second category, the instruction is given:      "If the whole congregation of Israel sin...then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the

p 3 -- congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord." (Lev. 4:13-15)

Once the bullock was killed, the ministration of the blood was the same for each of these categories of corporate sin. The high priest ministered, and the blood was taken into the tabernacle. There it was sprinkled      "seven times before the Lord, before the vail of the sanctuary." (4:6, 17)       Then the high priest would      "put of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord which is in the tabernacle of the congregation." (4:7, 18)

The balance of the service was performed at the Altar in the Court. The fat was removed from the victim, and with the two kidneys and "the appendage of the liver" (4:9 RSV), was burned on the Altar. The balance of the bullock was carried forth "without the camp unto a clean place, where the ashes are poured out," and there burned by fire on a wood pyre. (4:12)

The sin offerings for the individual were also of two categories, for the ruler and for the common person.    2     The ruler included not only the chieftains of the tribes, but also the priests as individuals. Of Eleazar, son of Aaron it is written that he      "shall be chief over the chief of the Levites, and have oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary." (Numbers 3:32)       The word translated "chief " in this verse, nasi, is translated "ruler" in Leviticus 4:22. While the ruler was required to bring a kid of the goats, a male, the common people could bring either a kid of the goats, a female, or a female lamb for a sin offering. (4:28, 32) The ritual followed for the offering of the individual's confession was the same whether he was a ruler or a common person. After laying his hand upon the animal's head, symbolizing both dependence and transfer, the victim was killed by the offerer, and the common priest took of the blood and      "with his finger...put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering." (4:25, 30, 34)       The blood was not taken into the tabernacle. The ritual for the sin offering of ruler or common person was consummated at the Altar of the court.

When the blood was not taken into the sanctuary, there was a law which was to be followed. It read:      "This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: it is most holy. The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Lev. 6:25-26)

There are two declarations in this law which need to be carefully noted:

1)      The priest ate of this sin offering brought by the individual. He carried the sin in himself; it
became a part of him. Before Jesus could be High Priest, He had to      "have somewhat also to
offer." (Heb. 8:3)       He became      "sin for us, who knew no sin." (II Cor. 5:21)    3     He partook of our fallen nature. (Rom. 8:3) He was our "sin offering." Even as the "sin offering" was declared to be "most holy," so Jesus was declared to be "that holy thing" though taking upon Himself our fallen humanity. (Luke 1:35)

2)     The eating was performed by the common priest in the court, and this was declared to be "the holy place." The transfer of the penalty for sin for the individual stopped with the common priest in what became a holy place, even the court itself. There is no evidence of further transfer.    4     Just so, the individual finds his acceptance at the foot of the Cross, the highest place he can attain. It is holy ground for there the foot of the ladder was placed that reached to heaven. (Genesis 28:10-17)

Even as the individual was complete in the common priest, so we are "complete in Him" and "quickened together with Him," having been forgiven all our trespasses. (Col. 2:10-13)

The formula which closes the details of the prescribed ritual, with one exception, reads -      "and the priest shall make atonement for him [or "them" in the case of the congregation as a whole] and it shall be forgiven him." (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35).      Again two points must be noted:

1)      The Altar in the Court represents the Cross set up at Calvary. In the type, an atonement was made at that Altar in the daily ministration of the sin offerings. There was an atonement at the Cross. This cannot be denied.     5      2)     It was an at-one-ment with God - resulting from the forgiveness provided by the ministering priest. The sin was taken into himself, the penalty paid, and the sinner could stand before God as if he had never sinned. 0 glorious provision!

Before Christ became High Priest, He ministered on earth as a common priest.     6     In the Gospel of Luke, the incident is recorded of a man "taken with a palsy" who, when let down through the

p 4 -- roof into the presence of Jesus, heard Him say, "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee." This brought a reaction from the Jewish religious leaders who were present. They began to reason among themselves that this was blasphemy since only God can forgive sins. Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, asked a question:      "Which is easier to say, ' Thy sins be forgiven thee,' or to say, ' Take up thy bed and walk' ?"       Then He added,    "But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy) I say unto thee, Arise and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. And immediately he rose up before them." (Luke 5:24-25)

Again on the cross, to the thief who pled,      "Lord remember me, when thou comest into thy kingdom,"       Jesus responded,    "verily, I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with Me in paradise." (Luke 23:42-43)

Summarizing, the daily ministration of the sin offerings involved two categories of penitents - corporate and individuals. The corporate sacrifice was ministered by the High Priest, while the individual sacrifice was mediated by the common priest. The confession of corporate sin was registered in blood on the horns of the Altar of Incense within the sanctuary, while the confession of the individual was finger printed on the horns of the Altar in the Court. This sin offering, mediated through the priest, brought to the penitent forgiveness, a restored at-one-ment with God.

NOTES:
1     What sin is, was the issue which caused Dr. E. J. Waggoner to abandon the sanctuary teachings of the Church. Waggoner wrote in his "Confession of Faith":     "Sin is a condition, not an entity. It exists only in the individual, and can he removed only by a new life in the individual. It is not like grain or wood or stone, that can be removed from a place and deposited somewhere else. It is like a disease; it is, in fact, a mortal disease. It can no more be removed from a person, and carried by another person and deposited in some place at a distance from the sinner, than a fever can be taken away from a sick man by a physician and stored away in some warehouse provided for the purpose." (p. 9)

What then was transferred? The condition led to a wrong act and brought guilt and condemnation to the individual. The act could not be transferred, because the victim never committed it. Only a record could be made which had been done. The guilt which demanded death could be transferred. In the ritual of the sin offering, confession was made and by the laying on of the hand, the guilt was transfered. The victim was then slain, and the blood symbolizing that remission was recorded. This blood stood between the penitent, and the record of his sin. This still left the penitent a sinner, though forgiven. Something more had to be done. This was prefigured in the yearly service.

Waggoner's problem is still with us today - What is sin? Until the theology of the sanctuary is clarified, it will remain with us. We will continue to go about trying to establish our own righteousnesses, not only forgetting the question asked by Job -      "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?"      - but also ignoring the answer given -      "not one" ! (Job 14:4)

2     There are those who would interpret the designation of "common people" as non-Israelites. It must be remembered that the sanctuary functioned for a people under the covenant. (Heb. 9:1) Only as "the sons of the stranger" took hold of God's covenant would "their burnt offerings
and their sacrifices" be accepted on God's altar. (Isa. 56:6-7) "A common Isrealite, 'the people of the land,' i.e. of the rural population," was "an Israelite belonging to the people as distinguished from the chiefs who ruled over the people (2 Kings xi, 18, 19, xvi. 15)." (Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol.II, p. 309)

3     In the Hebrew, the word for sin and the word for sin offering is the same, chatta' th. Thus Christ, made to be sin for us, was also the offering for sin.

4     The final transfer of guilt for the individual sinner ended in the common priest who ate of the offerer's sin offering. The blood was not taken into the sanctuary, neither did the priest offer a sacrifice for himself to atone for the sins which he carried. It is true that the high priest and the common priests went into the first apartment of the sanctuary to trim the lamps of the Candlestick, to offer incense on the Altar therein, and to renew the cakes on the Table of Shewbread. (Ex. 27:21) On the Day of Atonement, on neither the head of the bullock, nor on the head of the Lord's goat, were any hands laid in confession. The blood of these two animals were mingled for the last act of cleansing at the Altar of Burnt Offering where the records of the individual's confession had been finger printed. (Lev. 16:18-20)

5       Because Protestant and Evangelical theologians have discredited the concept of a final atonement, many of the early Adventist exponents of the ministry of Christ in the most holy place of the Heavenly Sanctuary denied that there was an atonement at the Cross. See Crosier's article, "The Sanctuary" in the Day Star Extra 1846. In the typical services, the ministry of the common priest did result in an atonement which brought forgiveness to the penitent. There was, however, another atonement, the yearly. Of this atonement, the plural form (A Hebrew usage of the majestic plural?) of the noun is used. (Lev. 23:27) It was "a Day of the Atonements" (Literal translation) The objective of the priestly ministry in the sacrifice of the sin offerings, and the ritual outlined for the High Priest to follow on the Day of Atonement, the verbal forms are used in both instances "he shall atone," "atoning," and "to atone." The noun alone is used to designate the yearly service.

6     In the light of Hebrews 8:4 -      "If He were on earth, He should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law"     - it might be questioned as to whether Jesus functioned as a common priest while on earth. There is no question, He could not serve as a priest in the Temple. He was not of the tribe of Levi. (Heb. 7:14) But as priest-designate, He gave evidence of what His reign on the Throne of Mercy would bestow. (Zech. 6:13; Heb. 4:16) Of interest, one finds language such as this in the Writings: -      "Christ laid aside His royal robes, and garbed Himself with humanity, and offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim." (AA, p.33)

p 5 -- LET'S TALK IT OVER -- In the typical offerings for sin as outlined in Leviticus 4, the import of the division drawn between corporate and individual sins has been only lightly regarded. In the individual sin offering, the blood of the sacrifice upon which the guilt was transferred remained recorded on the horns of the Altar in the Court. The final step of the transfer was to the common priest who ate of the victim. There it stopped. He bore in himself all that was signified in this typical act. He stood for the individual.

This was not so in the case of the sin offering for corporate Israel. The high priest carried the blood into the holy place, and after having sprinkled it before the veil which separated the most holy from the holy, left on the horns of the Altar of Incense the record of the transaction. The high priest did not eat of the sacrifice. The question arises, does this type mean that corporate entities face God directly, while the individual faces God through Him who is symbolized in the common priest?

It is a fact that in our Western society, the individual with his rights and privileges dominates. We recognize the freedom of speech, the press, and religious exercise as rights to be carefully guarded. In the Bible, however, there is another entity, the corporate, a covenant people in relationship before God. While the Old Testament is replete with illustrations of God's dealings with Israel as a nation because of its failure to honor its covenant with God, the New Testament also recognizes a corporate involvement. Paul writes,      "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (I Cor. 15:22)       The facts of life are such that we have no choice in the first corporate identification, but we choose whether we remain in that corporate identity, or become a part of Christ. This is also a lesson found in the transfer symbolism of the indvidual sin offering. I become identified in Him for Whom the common priest stood.

As one continues to contemplate the force of the typical symbolism involved in the individual sin
offering, he must recognize that the whole transaction for the individual centered exclusively in the Court of the sanctuary. To the Altar of Burnt Offering the penitent came. It was the furtherest that he could come. He recognized himself a sinner, even though in ignorance he had committed the act. He was guilty, but could not pay the penalty and live. To be forgiven, the priest had to mediate the sacrifice. The antitypical significance is well expressed in the Writings:     "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 fullness of joy; for his sins are pardoned. Kneeling in faith at the cross, he has reached the highest place to which man can attain." (AA, pp. 209-10)

Here is the very heart of the tragic situation which existed in Adventism in 1888, and which has again raised its deceptive head in many of the "independent" ministries today. What can man attain? All of his "righteousnesses are as filthy rags." (Isa. 64:6) He is unclean. He has no power in himself to attain the "ideal which in his inmost soul he accepts as alone worthy." (Ed. p. 29) But he can come to the foot of the cross, and accept Him who in type not only ate of the sin offering, but became the sin offering.

There is still the force of the corporate sin offering as required in the type to be considered. An interesting esehatological parable was spoken by Jesus:      "When the Son of man shall come in his glory...before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." (Matt. 25:31-32)      Here are corporate bodies - the nations. They are faced with a single question with various manifestations - How did they relate to Jesus Christ in the person of His saints (individuals)? Their response as given in the parable is not, "When saw I" but corporate, "When saw we." (25:37, 44)

We must keep in mind that the First Angel's Message which announces "the hour of God's judgment," is followed by the second which proclaims the fall of Babylon "because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." (Rev. 14:7-8) The picture is further enlarged in Daniel where "judgment" was rendered in behalf of the saints against the "horn" who had made war upon them through the nations. (7:21-22)

The corporate sin offerings did not only involve the congregation as a whole, but also the high
priest in his office. The KJV does not accurately render the force of Leviticus 4:3. The NKJV
clarifies this. "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people," then he brings a

p 6 -- sacrifice equal to what the whole congregation would bring should they sin. Keil and Delitzsch translate the Hebrew of "to the sin of the people," as "to the sinning of the nation" and comment -      "If he sinned...in his official capacity as representative of the nation before the Lord, and not merely in his own personal relation to God." (Vol. 2, p. 303)       This is an interesting side aspect of the ritual and should suggest an important lesson to all religious leaders.

Religious leadership will be held accountable before God as to the direction they lead God's people. Further in this picture must be placed the fact that the formula which concludes all of the other sin offerings does not follow the prescribed ritual for the high priest who sins in such a way as to bring guilt on the people collectively. That formula was "and it shall be forgiven him." There is no suggestion that the sin removed the high priest from office because it was not forgiven, but the matter is left open to suggest the gravity of such an act.

Another aspect of the corporate sin offerings is that not only nations are corporate bodies, but also churches. Israel was not only a nation, but it was also "the church in the wilderness." (Acts 7:38) This brings us face to face with the clear statement of warning written by Ellen G. White immediatelly following the adjournment of the 1903 General Conference from Oakland to Battle Creek to complete its business. She wrote on April 21 as follows:       "In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages that she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her, if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her, on her will be pronounced the sentence, 'Found wanting.' By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged." (8T:247)

This is corporate language and dare not be disregarded. Individual accountability comes into play for the individual must respond to God's findings.

~~~~~

As some read the study on the Theology of the Sanctuary in this issue, they will ask, "How do you harmonize the position taken with the statement in Patriarchs & Prophets which reads:     "The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought the offering to the door of the tabernacle, and placing his hand upon the victim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice...By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place; but the flesh was then to be eaten by the priest,..." (p. 354)

In the 1931 edition of Patriarchs & Prophets, there is a footnote which directs the reader to - "See Appendix, Note 9." This note reads:     "When a sin-offering was presented...for the
whole congregation, the blood was carried into the holy place, and sprinkled before the vail, and placed upon the horns of the golden altar. . .

"When, however, the offering was for a ruler or for one of the people, the blood was not taken into the holy place, but the flesh was eaten by the priest, as the Lord directed Moses :..."

I wondered out loud to a brother who had a 1908 printing of Patriarchs and Prophets as to whether such a note was included in any edition prior to the death of Ellen G. White in 1915. He checked his book when he returned home and called me. It was also in this 1908 printing. Why was Ellen G. White not informed of this error and rather than a footnote being inserted have the text itself corrected by her? To search for an answer could raise other questions, as serious, if not more so, than this one. Thus the correction of our previous understanding of this typical ritual becomes a part of our learning and unlearning process as we seek to develop a theology of the sanctuary.

" Christians would do well to study more diligently
the sanctuary and its services.
They contain precious lessons for the devout student.
Too many have failed to give study to Christ's high priestly ministry and His session at the right hand of God.
They are not acquainted with Him as High Priest, though this work is the very essence of Christianity, the heart of the atonement. "
M. L. Andreasen

p 7 --

JERUSALEM -- On December 30, 1993, a historic agreement was signed in Jerusalem opening the way for full diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Israel. Special envoys will be replaced in two months by representatives of ambassadorial rank.

There are various issues which remain to be answered such as the taxation of the Roman Catholic institutions in Israel, the rules regarding the Church's educational system, and the status of church officials residing in Israel.

"Among the issues not covered by the agreement is the status of Jerusalem. In the past, the Varican had insisted that Jerusalem be internationalized, but during the past year church officials have said that this is a political issue to be decided in the peace process." [The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 25, 1993, p., 24)

In an editorial of a previous issue of The Post, two things were noted:    1)     "Jerusalem is a united city, in practice as well as in law." And    2)     "It is the religious component which makes the Jerusalem problem seem insurmountable. That the city is equally sacred to the three religions is, of course, a myth. It is unique and central only to the Jews, and only the Jewish religion calls for pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Christians honor it, with Bethlehem, as the cradle of the Christian faith. But no Christian denomination demands fealty to Jerusalem or pilgrimages to its many shrines. For the Moslems it is one of many holy sites called ' the third most important to Islam' after Mecca and Medina. There is not a single mention of Jerusalem in the Koran." (May 29, 1993, p. 8)

We will note more on this subject in the next issue of WWN 4(94) in "Let's Talk It Over." ---(1994 Mar) ---End---- TOP        2002