WWN 2003 Jul - Sep

2003 Jul XXXVI 7(03) -- The Ancient of Days Did Sit -- Editor's Preface -- When we began this series of studies on the Sanctuary, we noted what Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse, one of the Evangel ical conferees of the infamous SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956, said in regard to the "investigative judgment." [4(03)]. He also wrote that he and his fellow conferees did "not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position." In this issue of WWN, we study closely Daniel 7 in which is found the declaration, "the judgment was set and the books were opened" (ver. 10). It becomes evident when such a study is made that there is no suggestion of an "investigative judgment" in the chapter. Rather, it is noting the first session of a two part judgment which is concluded when the books are again opened, "and the dead (are) judged out of those things which (are) written in the books" (Rev. 20:12; see footnote, p. 4, col. 1).

Since the objective of God is to bring an end to sin so that it will never arise a second time, we develop the premise that for sin to be eradicated, the judgment must begin where sin began and the issue that sparked sin must first be adjudicated.

There is also the matter of the "books." In the final session of the Heavenly Assize, the books are revealed as containing the record of the "works" done in this life, while a single book, "the book of life," contains but "names." This "book" is pictured as belonging to the "Lamb" (Rev. 13:8). The whole picture of the judgment must be considered in the light of Jesus' own declaration that "the Father . . . hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), with the "authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man" (5:27). All - incarnation, atonement, judgment - are one theme. The "everlasting gospel" includes them all as fundamental truths.

First, what was the issue which ignited the rebellion against God? Our Bible opens with a revelation of God's intent and purpose in the creation of man - "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let him have dominion" (Gen. 1:26). But there was at the Throne another - Lucifer - who desired the status that was to be accorded man. He said in his heart - "I will be like the most High" (Isa. 14:14). This discontent with his place as a "covering cherub" infected the angelic host, and war ensued in heaven. Lucifer was cast out (Isa. 14:12; Luke 10:18).

In pursuit of his continued rebellion against God's design, Lucifer attacked man himself. The divine likeness was corrupted in man. His success in overcoming Adam also gave him the opportunity to vent his jealousy against Him who made man, and who would come to redeem man, so that the original plan might be carried out.

Since Daniel 7:9-10 introduces the sitting of the Ancient of days in judgment which ultimately ends when "all dominions shall serve and obey Him" (verse. 27), we need to give careful attention to this initial session of the judgment convened to settle the sin problem. It was the sitting of the Ancient of days that set the judgment and caused the books to be opened. To this session were called the angelic hosts. For what purpose? This is the question that must first be answered. Too often, we have pictured the assembled hosts of heaven as merely "traffic cops" verifying the citations they gave to the speedsters of earth on the highway of life. There are other questions of far more import involving man, such as, the original plan and the purpose God had in his creation. Can God re-make man as He originally designed him to be, "in His likeness," and give to him the "dominion" He intended to bestow? Then, what about the "books"?

Let us, first, observe what the Bible states in regard to God's original placement of man whom He created in His own "likeness." David sang:     What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou hast visited him? For thou madest him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet. (Ps. 8:4-6)

The "sanctuary" book of the New Testament, in its preface to the consideration of Jesus Christ as High Priest of our profession, gives a unique interpretation to these verses from Psalms 8. It reads - "Thou madest him a little while inferior to the angels" (Heb. 2:7 margin). The Greek bracu ti - when used of time signifies, "a short time, or for a little while" (Thayer; see also, Arndt & Gingrich.) Then, in comment on "dominion," Paul wrote - "For that He put all in subjection under him, He left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus who was made a little while inferior ( bracu ti ) to the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour (vs. 8-9; emphasis supplied).

As Jesus was for only a little while inferior to angels, so likewise "the many sons" whom He, the captain of their salvation, will bring to glory shall be for only a little while lower than the angels. In Christ, the "divine likeness" was

p 3 -- once more revealed in humanity, and through Him as High Priest, the "divine likeness" is to be restored to man. The "first dominion," lost by the first Adam, is regained by the second Adam as He stands at the head of the human race. (Micah 4:8).

Not only does Paul present this understanding of the redemptive process in Hebrews, where he sets forth the sanctuary doctrine of the new covenant, but in his general Epistle to the Ephesians. He wrote:     That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what (are) the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly places, . . . and hath put all things under His feet. . . .

But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by whose grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. (1:17-20, 22; 2:4-7; emphasis supplied).

What was done "in Christ Jesus" will be revealed "through Christ Jesus" in the "many sons" whom He will be bringing to glory. As High Priest, He prayed - "Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am" (John 17:24). Can the Father answer that prayer in the planned "exaltation of the redeemed" and "one pulse of harmony" still beat "through the vast creation"? It didn't the first time when He attempted to carry out His plan. Rebellion ensued among the host of heaven led by the highest ranking angel of that innumerable creation - the covering cherub, Lucifer. Thus when the Judgment is set, the angelic host are the first to be assembled. The original objective of God in the creation of man is at issue. "The hour of the judgment of Him is come."

In the typical sanctuary service, there had been given a unique representation of this. The high priest provided his own bullock for himself and his "house." Though an "offering for sin," no hands of confession were placed on this bullock. Its blood was the first to be sprinkled in the most holy place on the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14). It did not enter into the services of that day again until it was mingled with the blood of the Lord's goat with the objective of removing "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (v. 19). This was performed at the Altar in the Court. Further, the antitypical significance of this first ministration in the most holy place on the typical Day of Atonement is alluded to by Paul in Hebrews as he wrote his call to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus" (Heb. 3:1-6). Aaron stood for Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1), who was as Christ, faithful in "all his house."

The first witness in the judgment before the Throne is the "Lamb as it had been slain" (Rev. 5:6); and the first question before the Heavenly hosts was: Has God paid enough to carry out His original plan regarding man?" There can be but one answer, as they look upon the One standing before them. They could but recall those hours in Gethsemane, when the cup trembled in the hands of that Divine Sufferer. Their mind's eye could see again the agony He endured at Calvary.

We need to see this Judgment scene given in prophetic vision to Daniel in the context of the whole vision before considering the second aspect of the prophetic scene - "the books were opened." It is a prophecy in continuity, and must be carefully studied from that viewpoint.

Four "great beasts" arise before Daniel in vision. "The first was like a lion." (7:4). The very word, "first" indicates a sequence. It is followed by "another beast, a second, like to a bear." (7:5). "After this . . . lo another, like a leopard." (7:6). "After this . . . behold a fourth beast." Then there arose a "little horn" out of the beast, which was never separated from the

p 4 -- beast (7:8). Next to appear before the eyes of Daniel was the judgment scene. (7:9-10).

The continuity continues. "I beheld then" and he continued to behold "till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame" (7:11; see also Rev. 19:20). This is followed in the "night visions" by the coming of the "Son of man . . . to the Ancient of days" (7:13) not to enter into judgment but to receive lian everlasting dominion." (7:14).

In the explanation which follows, Daniel was told that "the little horn" would have dominion for a period of time - "until a time and times, and the dividing of time" (7:25); "but the judgment shall sit."(7:26). In other words, the sitting of the judgment comes between the time allotted to the "little horn" and the "great words" which that "horn" spoke (7:11). It must be noted that the "words" which the "little horn" spoke "against the most High" during the time of dominion (the 1260 prophetic days) are not the "great words" which the horn utters after the "judgment was set." (The word, "great" is supplied in Dan. 7:25.)

Further, in the explanation given to Daniel, only two decisions are noted as coming from the judgment before the Ancient of days in this first judicial session of the Heavenly Court:   1 

1)   I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High. (7:21-22).

2)   The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end. (7:26).

1 -- "The books of record in heaven, in which the names and the deeds of men are registered, are to determine the decision of the judgment. Says the prophet Daniel, ' the judgment was set, and the books were opened.' The revelator, describing the same scene, adds, 'Another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."' The Great Controversy, p. 480

The time when the Judgment is set, and the books opened in the continuity of Daniel 7 is between the end of the allotted time given to "the little horn," 1798, and 1854 when the "horn" promulgated the first of its "great words" in the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Thus the time when "the cleansing of the sanctuary" (8:14) was to begin, 1844, coincides with the sitting of the judgment. But it is to be noted that nowhere in the visions given to Daniel is there a suggestion of an investigation of the individual records contained in those books. That awaits the final session of the Heavenly Assize. (Rev. 20:12).

Another picture also emerges from the prophecy. The little horn "made war with the saints" even to the point of wearing "out the saints of the most High," until the Ancient of days came. (7:21-22, 25). This prophetic picture is paralleled by the fifth seal in Revelation, with the souls under the brazen Altar (6:9-11); however, in taking away the "dominion" of the "little horn" by the judgment (Dan. 7:26), the focus changes. It moves to the sanctuary (8:14), and to the "great words" spoken by the little horn. The taking away is done by the same ones over which during the 1260 day period the "horn" prevailed, in other words, "the saints." (Note 7: 21 - "them;" and 7:26 - "they") We dare not forget that the last great conflict is a battle "between the religion of the Bible and the religion of fable and tradition."

We turn our attention next to the "books." There can be no question, but that these books from the archives of Heaven contain a precise record of the deeds of each human that has ever lived. (Rev. 20:12). It is also an inescapable fact that they are still being written. In each prophetic description in Daniel and in Revelation, there is associated along with the "books," the fact "that another book was opened" (Rev. 20:12; Daniel 12:1). While "works" are associated with the "books," only "names" are emphasized in reference to "the book" (Rev. 13:8). With this prophetic differenttiation, there must be recalled the confession

p 5 -- of Isaiah - "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (64:6).

The first reference to "the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" is found in Moses' petition in behalf of Israel. There it is called "Thy book which Thou has written" (Ex. 32:32). Moses was in communion with the same I AM who had appeared to him at Horeb before (Ex. 3:1, 14); and Who was to come as a Surety for those whose names,are recorded in the book. (John 8:58, Heb. 7:22-25). It should be carefully noted that the Scriptures indicate clearly that the I AM writes the names in His book. They, and they alone, escape the judgment. This Jesus stated plainly:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation (Gr. krisiV judgment), but is passed (metabebhken - perfect tense) from death unto life. (John 5:24).

A Biblical example of this acquittal is the thief on the cross paying the penalty for his transgression against society, hearing the promise of Jesus - "Verily I say to thee today, thou shalt be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). While the penalty for his sins was being paid that very day by Another, he passed in relationship to God, "from death unto life."

The typical service on the Day of Atonement indicates plainly that all records are blotted out even the recorded confessions finger-printed on the horns of the altars. The former shall not come into mind. There remains only the identity, the name, for the "life is hid with Christ in God" (Col. 3:3).

Returning to the theme of Bible prophecy, the great controversy between good and evil, we find the elements of Daniel 7 re-emphasized as the second section of Revelation (Chapters 12 through 19) is introduced. The first beast of Revelation 13 is "like a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority" (v. 2). Here are parts of the very symbols of Daniel 7 in identical reverse order as given in Daniel, now a part of another non-descript beast. The time of this latter beast's authority to act, is the same time as was given "the Little Horn" of Daniel 7. He also does the same thing - "it was given him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them" (13:7). However, into this picture a new factor is introduced - the dragon. This "dragon" is clearly defined - "that old serpent, which is the devil and Satan" (Rev. 20:2). Here again, are the same two antagonists, as presented in the services of the Day of Atonement - the Lord's goat, and the one standing for Azazel.

The prophetic scene in Revelation 12 presents the warfare between the two contenders. Michael overcomes; sin is condemned in the flesh, the Man-child is caught up to God and His throne, there to be High Priest and Surety of the everlasting covenant. A loud voice is heard proclaiming the restoration of the kingdom of God, and "the power of His Christ."

In this prophetic continuum (Rev. 12-14), a series of angelic voices are heard proclaiming the everlasting gospel which produces a group of saints which keep, not are trying to keep, the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (14:6-12) The first angel announces that the hour of God's judgment has come, thus paralleling Daniel 7:9-10; and setting the time factor - 1844.

Once the angelic host assents that God has paid a sufficient price to carry out his original plan in the creation of man, then God will "set His hand the second time to recover the remnant of His people" (Isa. 11:11; Rev. 12:17) Against the dragon's wrath, they too shall prevail. They will overcome him, "by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony" (12:11). It should be evident to any observant student of the picture in Revelation, that the conflict begins with the attack on the woman and the "Man-child." It was the "Seed" of the woman who was to bruise the serpent's head (Gen.3:15). That "Seed" was the Man-child.

p 6 -- In the Greek, there are three words for "man." One is anqrwpoV, a human being, from which is derived our English word, "anthropology". A second is anhr, an adult male as opposed to a child, or a female. The third is arsen, the male sex. An example of its use in Scripture is Rom. 1:27. This is the word which is used in Rev. 12:5. Christ did not come into the world bereft of the powers and forces which plague human kind. He was "made of a woman, made under law" including the law of heredity. (See Gal. 4:4-5; in each use of the word "law" in these verses, the article is omitted in the Greek text) Also, it is on this issue - the incarnation - that the battle ground of theology begins.

The Three Angels' Messages is "the everlasting gospel." This "gospel of God" is declared to be concerning "His Son Jesus Christ which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." (Rom. 1:1, 3). No sooner had God begun the final work toward His original objective, than the "beast" which received its authority and power from the "dragon" uttered its first "great words" (Dan. 7:11). In the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, promulgated in 1854, it was declared that Mary, "unlike the rest of the children of Adam . . . was never subject to sin, even in the first moment of (the soul's) infusion into the body. She alone was exempt from the original taint." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 171, 88th edition).

The tragedy of this whole picture is that the "saints" which God raised up to "take away" the dominion of the "little horn" (Dan. 7:26), so compromised the faith, that they were willing to declare of Christ, that "although born in the flesh, He was nevertheless God, and exempt from the inherited passions that corrupt the natural descendants of Adam" (Questions on Doctrine, p. 383; emphasis supplied). How can they overcome the dragon with a corrupted testimony?

THREE GREAT WORDS -- As we have noted in the above study, the Papacy in 1854 promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In his book, Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons quotes that Dogma as proclaimed:      We define that the Blessed Virgin Mary in the first moment of her conception, by the singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of the original sin. (p. 171)

Since we have already noted its conclusion in contrast to the Biblical "Seed" of the woman, we pass to the next dogma which validated such papal promulgations as infallible. In 1870, Vatican Council I formulated a new article of faith in these words:     We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal church, . . . is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith and morals. (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. V, p. 489)

Cardinal Gibbons declares this decree of Vatican Council I to be "the keystone in the arch of Catholic faith," (op. cit., p. 125), yet seems to modify its thrust by first stating what the dogma is not establishing, and then asking and answering the question, "What, then, is the real doctrine of Infallibility?" In answer, he wrote:    The Pope, therefore, be it known, is not the maker of Divine law; he is only its expounder. He is not the author of revelation, but only its interpreter. (ibid., pp. 123-124).

While we may have some reservations to these limitations placed by Gibbons because of the attempted change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week which alters "Divine law;" however, there can be no question, this dogma empowers the Pope to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. This was a direct challenge to true Protestantism which had declared "the Bible and the Bible only" as its religion. If the "Everlasting Gospel" is God's design to "consume and destroy" the "dominion" of the little horn "unto the end,"

p 7 -- then care needs to be exercised so that we do not establish a "magesterium" of our own to interpret the Bible.

In 1950, the reigning pope, Pius XII, proclaimed a "holy year," and being a devotee of the Virgin Mary, defined the church's teaching on her bodily assumption into Heaven. The year was closed in Fatima, Portugal, at one of the great Marian shrines of the Catholic world. This Dogma opened the door to manifestations of Spiritism under the guise of apparitions of the Virgin Mary. In the book, Thunder of Justice, this summary statement is made:     As the number of Marian apparitions throughout the world have increased at an alarming rate, especially in the past ten years, we are reminded of the writings of Saint Louis de Montfort (1673-1716), in which he shared his conviction "that a Reign of the Blessed Virgin would precede a Reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Mary preceded the first coming of Jesus on earth, so too the Trinity has ordained that she would precede Christ's Second Coming." Never before in history have we experienced the number of apparitions and supernatural phenomena as we have in this century, particularly the latter half. On December 8, 1990, Mary stated to Father Gobbi: "I was driven by the Most Holy Trinity to become the Mother of the Second Advent, and thus my motherly task of preparing the Church and all humanity to receive Jesus, who is returning to you in glory. (p. 20; emphasis supplied)

It is not difficult to see how this dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven, opens the door for these spiritistic manifestations.

The current Pope, also a strong devotee of the Virgin Mary, would like to promulgate the Dogma that Mary is the co-mediatrix with Jesus Christ. Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Propagation of the Faith, authorized the writing and release of information about this intended dogma. It was published May 27, 1993. It is being put on hold because of the negative reaction it might have on current ecumenical dialogues.

IN THE WRITINGS -- Not only is the Great Controversy motif emphasized in the Writings, but also certain specific statements are made as to the beginning of the conflict, and God's purpose in the creation of man.

Lucifer was "once an honored angel in heaven, next to Jesus Christ." Further, he "wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man." The status planned for man by God triggered the rebellion. See Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 1, p. 17.

This status is also clearly defined:      All heaven took a deep and joyful interest in the creation of this world and of man. Human beings were a new and distinct order. (R&H, Feb. 11, 1902; emphasis supplied)

God created man a superior being; he alone is formed in the image of God, and is capable of partaking of the divine nature; of cooperating with his Creator and executing His plans. (R&H, April 21,1885)

Man was the crowning act of the creation of God, made in the image of God, and designed to be a counterpart of God; . . . (R&H, June 18, 1895; emphasis supplied)

When the catalyst which sparked the sin problem is understood, the session of the judgment described in Daniel 7:9-10 takes on new meaning, as well as the validity of the premise that the sin problem must first be settled where, and over what, it began. Further, in our consideration of the judgment of Daniel 7:9-10, we must limit our conclusions as to the renderings of that session of the Heavenly Assize to what is actually stated to Daniel in the explanation. (7:22, 26). There are two other factors which dare not be overlooked:

1)   God has "committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22; emphasis supplied).

2)   The Son says: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment; but is passed from death unto life" (5:24; same Greek word in both verses - krisiV - for "judgment"). --- (2003 Jul) --- END --- TOP

2003 Aug -- XXXVI 8(03) -- TA HAGIA -- Editor's Preface -- Elder M. L. Andreasen in his book on Hebrews commenting on Paul's declaration - "the Holy Spirit this signifying" - wrote:      This pronouncement by the Spirit raises the sanctuary and its services from the level of mere history to the high plane of an inspired account of a prophetic institution of symbolic significance" (p. 324.)       However, he noted -      "There are three expressions that need definition before we shall be able to determine what is meant by 'the Holy Spirit this signifying. '''        One word was "ta hagia" which we shall discuss in this issue. We hope to make it simple enough so that all may understand what is meant by the use of this Greek word, and not utter the proverbial comment, "Its all Greek to me."

A number of years ago, we prepared a study on "1844 ReExamined." As a corollary to this study we added an examination of the word, Ta Hagia. We based its eight uses in Hebrews on the meaning affixed in the definitive verses of Hebrews 9:2-3. A further study of the word in context led us to realize that while we still have many things to learn, we have some things also to unlearn. While it still stands that Paul used the expression ta hagia ton hagion (long "o"), defined as the Most Holy Place only once, and stated plainly, that he would not discuss in his treatise this part of the heavenly ministry, other uses of the word, hagia, found in the book of Hebrews, need further study in context. This we have endeavored to do in this issue of WWN.

Recognizing that the High Priest moved from the Most Holy to the Court on the Day of Atonement, we have considered Christ's ministry in those same three phases.

p 2 -- TA HAGIA -- (ta 'agia) -- This Greek word, an adjective, meaning, "holy," appears eight times in the book of Hebrews in the plural form, and once in the singular form (Heb. 9:1). In its singular form and one half of its plural uses, it refers to the earthly typical sanctuary built at Mt. Sinai. The other four times the reference is to the heavenly antitype. It is used once compounded hagia hagion (long "o") ["holies of holies"] to refer to the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary. (9:3).

The KJV is not consistent in the translation of this word. The references where the word is found and the translation given in the KJV are as follows:

Hebrews 8:2 - "sanctuary"
Hebrews 9:2 - "sanctuary"
Hebrews 9:8 - "holiest of all"
Hebrews 9:12 - "holy place"
Hebrews 9:24 - "holy places"
Hebrews 9:25 - "holy place"
Hebrews 10:19 - "holiest"
Hebrews 13:11 - "sanctuary"

The ARV translates the word in Hebrews 8:2 the same as the KJV, but in all the rest of the texts the translation reads - "holy place." The NIV also translates Hebrews 8:2 the same as both the KJV and ARV. It follows the ARV for Hebrews 9:2, and translates 9:24 - "man-made sanctuary." In all the rest of the references the NIV reads: "Most Holy Place." This is a gross mistranslation of ta hagia, and the basis for the teaching that Christ upon His ascension began his priestly ministry in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary.

Andreasen, while noting the consistency of the ARV translation, considers the translation "holy place" a faulty translation because the word, hagia, is plural and the translation, singular. But it needs to be observed that in Hebrews 9:2 where only the first apartment is described, the plural form, Hagia, is used as its designation. Why a plural use to refer to a singular object? We would suggest that the Hebrew language usage of the "majestic plural" is employed in this book. This would answer Andreasen's problem in the use of the singular in the ARV translations, as well as confirm the conclusion that the NIV translations are gross errors. Further, the definitive designation of the second apartment as hagia hagion (long "o"), and this compound designation for the second apartment not used again in the book of Hebrews, would appear to justify the translation of ta hagia in each text following Hebrews 9:2-3 as the "holy place," meaning the first apartment, as was done in the ARV. But how do we translate hagia when the plural genitive form (hagion) is used by itself as is done in Hebrews 9:8 and 10:19?

Let us consider each usage in context: -- In Hebrews 8:2 prior to the definitive statements given in Hebrews 9:2-3 the plural form is used. Hebrews 8:2 reads literally: "Of hagion (long "o") a minister and of the tent, the true, which (tent) pitched the Lord, not man." This use of hagion is best translated as given in the margin of the KJV - "of holy things." This then conveys the meaning that Christ becoming High Priest, seated "on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" (ver. 1), is minister of holy things as well as serving in the "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched, not man. Paul previously noted that Jesus having "passed into the heavens" was, as High Priest, ministering at "the throne of grace" (Heb. 4:14-16). Now in summary - "this is the sum" the chief point being that Jesus upon His ascension shared the "Throne of God," from which as the Throne of Grace is dispensed the redemption made possible by His blood. See also Rev. 5:6.

The second use of hagia (Heb. 9:2) introduces some linguistic problems. The case ending (a) is the same for the feminine singular nominative as for the neuter plural nominative. The translators of the KJV evidently perceived it as singular and

p 3 -- translated it, "sanctuary." In 9:2, there is no article used which could have helped determine whether the singular or plural was intended; however, when used in 9:12, 25, and 13:11, the article ta is used which is the mark of the neuter plural. Frieburgs, a husband and wife linguistic team, in their monumental work, the Analytical Greek New Testament, note all eight uses of hagia in Hebrews as neuter plural.

The definitive use of hagia hagion in 9:3 to designate the second apartment of the sanctuary also needs careful consideration. As stated above, the term is not used again in the book of Hebrews although the most holy place is noted in 9:7, but there simply designated as the "second." It should be observed that after Paul describes the second apartment, and defines it by the compound expression, hagia hagion, he writes "of which, we cannot now speak particularly" (ver. 5). Simply stated, Paul informs his readers that he will not be writing in the book of Hebrews concerning the second phase of Christ's High Priestly ministry. Thus when he uses the designation, hagia, he means the first apartment or "holy place," unless there are mitigating factors in the context.

After stating clearly that he did not intend to discuss the high priestly ministry in the second apartment, Paul summarizes the priestly ministries in the two apartments (9:6-7), and then declares -   "The Holy Spirit this signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle was yet standing" (9:8). The Holy Spirit considers the type as conveying truth that needs to be understood, even though in parable form. The word, "figure" in verse 9 in the Greek text is parabolh (parable). Andreasen makes a very pointed observation on "the Holy Spirit this signifying.- He wrote:     Some Christians see little of value either in the sanctuary or its services. The Holy Spirit here announces that there is value and spiritual import in the Hebrew ritual. This pronouncement by the Spirit raises the sanctuary and its services from the level of mere history to the high plane of an inspired account of a prophetic institution of symbolic significance. (Book of Hebrews, p. 324)

It should be obvious that at the time of the writing of Hebrews the successor temple was still standing and priestly ministrations were still being performed (8:4). But there was a significant difference. A new and living way had been opened. The truth conveyed by the construction of this text (9:8) needs to be carefully considered. The text literally reads - "the of the holies way " - ton hagion (long "o"), the plural form used so as to include both apartments. This same concept of "the way" is again used in Hebrews 10:19-20 with a challenge to boldly enter by the open door into the holies (ton hagion - the same form as in 9:8). This consecrated way was made possible by Christ's entrance into the flesh, so that being "touched with the feelings of our infirmities" (4:15), He would be "able to succour them that are tempted" (2:18). In these two uses of the plural form of hagia, the context would indicate the translation, "holy places."

The introduction of the concept of the "way" also needs consideration. It was used by Luke, a companion of Paul, in the historical record of Acts. It is first noted in Paul's attempt to eradicate the Christian faith in Damascus. He received letters from the high priest in Jerusalem to bring bound from the synagogue at Damascus any "of the way" (9:2, margin). During Paul's ministry in Ephesus, he "separated the disciples" from those in the synagogue who "spake evil of the way" (19:9). What constituted "the way" became the testing truth of Paul's ministry in the establishment of the Christian Church in Ephesus. The continued proclamation of the gospel in Ephesus resulted in "no small stir about the way" (19:23). [The text indicates "the way" rather than "that way" as in the KJV] When in Jerusalem after his rescue from the Jews who sought to kill him, Paul reviewed for the mob his former zeal for Judaism declaring that he persecuted to the death those who followed "this way" (22:4). When making his defense before Felix, Paul confessed "that after the way which (the Jews) call heresy, so worship I the

p 4 -- God of my fathers, believing all things written in the law and the prophets" (24:14). More study needs to be given to the gospel as proclaimed by Paul, called "the way" in Acts, and the emphasis on that "way" as given in the book of Hebrews.

This all echoes the message found in Psalms "Thy way, 0 God, is in the sanctuary" (Ps. 77:13). The first encounter of Christ with the appointed guardians of the Temple set forth the premise of a new tabernacle, and indicated that through His flesh it would be accomplished (John 2:18-22). The Apostolic Church was slow to comprehend the transition from the earthly to the heavenly. While "breaking bread from house to house," they still continued "daily with one accord in the temple" (Acts 2:46). The conflict came to a head as Paul completed his third missionary tour, and reported to the leadership in Jerusalem. He "declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry" (Acts 21:19). Paul had "separated" the believers from the synagogues forming them into ekklhsiai, -called out" assemblies. In response to Paul's report, James and the elders at Jerusalem responded - "Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law" (21:20). These "thousands" were still in the synagogues (James 2:2, margin), and were still performing temple rites which no longer had any validity (Acts 21:22-24). The crisis in the early church came over the sanctuary question, as now; from a different angle, yes, but nevertheless basic in God's message for that hour.

In a previous issue of WWN [4(03)], we discussed Hebrews 9:12 where ta hagia is used again. The preposition "into" (Gr. eiV) requires the use of the accusative; however, Paul did not use hagia hagion, but simply, hagia, the term by which he designated the first apartment of the sanctuary. It was in the tabernacle "not made with hands" that Christ as High Priest obtained eternal redemption for us. He was not a High Priest at Calvary, but there, as a common priest, He offered sacrifice, "Himself the priest, Himself the victim."

The next two uses of hagia in Hebrews are found in 9:24-25 and are a part of one thought. In verse 24, Paul declared the earthly hagia - the very word he had used to designate the first apartment - to be typical of the true into which Christ entered. Then he compared the single sacrifice of Christ with the yearly entries of the earthly high priest "into the hagia " (ver. 25). The question which arises from this verse and its use of hagia is - Was Paul referring to the daily ministry, or the yearly ministry of the high priest? When Paul referred to the high priestly ministry in the most holy place - he wrote "alone once every year" (9:7 - 'apax tou eniautou monoV). But now in 9:25 referring to the high priestly ministry he uses the wording kat' eniauton - "during the year." It was during the year, when corporate confession was made, that the high priest ministered and carried the blood into the holy place (Lev. 4:13-21).

In the last use of hagia in the book of Hebrews (13:11), this same ministry of the high priest "during the year" is referenced. Paul declares emphatically that the "altar" at which the Christian eats, those who "serve the tabernacle" have no right to eat (13:10). Here is indicated a clear separation, either the clinging to the type as reality, or the acceptance of the Reality. He admonishes that since Jesus "suffered without the gate," "Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp bearing His reproach. For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come" (13:12-14)

It is interesting to observe that in Paul's use of the type, he chose to reference that which involved corporate guilt, the very guilt of which the nation on the Day of Pentecost was charged. See Acts 2:36-40. To escape the resultant judgment, one had to "save (sever) themselves from this untoward generation." This was a difficult decision to make, and thirty some years after this initial warning by the Holy Spirit through Peter, there were still thousands of Jews who professed to believe, but were still zealous for the temple rites and ceremonies. They had not gone out unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.

p 5 -- The "way" of God has not changed. It is still in the sanctuary. We can abandon it because of the reproach placed upon it by Evangelical theology; or we can accept it, and by faith follow that "way" into the holiest of all there to appear "faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24) and before the Lamb "in the midst of the throne" who has 'redeemed us to God by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev. 5:6, 9).

In Summary -- In the services on the typical Day of Atonement, there was a threefold cleansing. The Scripture reads:      And when (the high priest) hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation (first apartment), and the altar, he shall bring the live goat. (Lev. 16:20).

The first phase involved the cleansing of the records of those who had made confession. The blood of both the bullock provided by the high priest, and the Lord's goat taken from the congregation were presented separately before the Shekinah glory in the most holy place. The reason is clearly stated -      "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins" (16:16).      While the record of sins is mentioned no more, until after the three fold cleansing is completed (16:21), the "uncleanness," which caused the sins, is again noted in the final act of the Day of Atonement when the blood of bullock and goat were mingled for the cleansing of the altar in the Court that is "before the Lord."(16:18-19).

During the year, the sin offerings of confession presented at the tabernacle were of a dual nature, corporate and individual. The record of confession for the individual was placed by the common priest on the horns of the Brazen Altar in the Court, while the blood for corporate confession was recorded by the high priest on the horns of the alter of incense "in the tabernacle of the congregation" (Lev. 4:7, 18). On the Day of Atonement, the blood of the Lord's goat was placed on the horns of the altar of incense as the second phase of the three part cleansing prior to its being mingled with the blood of the bullock for the final phase at the altar in the court.

Little study has been given to the Biblical differentiation made between the "individual" as an individual and the "corporate" individual as a nation or people collectively. The accountability of the corporate for the sin of the individual is illustrated in the experience of Achan (Joshua 7:11-13). On the other hand, the Spirit speaking through Peter held accountable the individual of "the house of Israel" for the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jewish leadership, even though many of them were not even present at the time the act was committed and did not take part in the condemnation (Acts 2:36). In the case of Achan, the corporate body had to act in relationship to the individual, and those corporately involved in him (his family); and in the case of the crucifixion of Christ, the individual had to act in relationship to the action taken by the Sanhedrin, the corporate religious leadership of Israel.

In the daily service, a specific distinction was made between individual confession and corporate confession. On the Day of Atonement the cleansing of the Holy Place, where the record of corporate confession - if any - had been made during the year, preceded the individual cleansing. Corporate judgment precedes individual judgment in the type.

It should be noted that Andreasen in his comments on the significance of the Spirit's pronouncement in Hebrews 9:8 stated that by this pronouncement the Spirit of God raised the sanctuary and its services to "a prophetic institution of symbolic significance." (See quotation page 3, col. 1) In the typical service, the blood of the dual sacrifices - bullock and goat - cleansed the records of those who had made confession, and their names either

p 6 -- remained in or were transferred to the Lamb's book of life. With all heaven united in God's original purpose in the creation of man, three mighty angels were dispatched to carry the "age long gospel" to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (Rev. 14:6) All these words from "nation" to "people" are corporate designations, even as the ritual of the typical day of atonement passed from the most holy to the holy where were recorded the confessions of corporate guilt. It should be observed, however, that the Third Angel's Message involves the individual, "if any man" (14:9).

Israel as a nation was given a probationary time period. Seventy prophetic weeks of years were set by God (Dan. 9:24). It closed its probation in an act by the same Sanhedrin which forced the hand of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus. Time lingered for another thirty six years during which time, the individual Jew was given an opportunity to make a decision regarding the religious leadership of Israel whether to concur in their decision to crucify their Messiah, or to "separate themselves from this crooked generation" as admonished by the Spirit through Peter (Acts 2:40).

During this same period, "the times of the Gentiles (nations)" began. This time was also limited, not by a specific length of prophetic time as in the case of Israel, but by an event. Jesus prophesied - "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations (ta eqnh) until the times (keairoi - probationary time) of the nations (eqnwn)be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). In 1967, the control of Jerusalem lost in 70 AD passed once again to Israel. In 1980, by the act of the Knesset , Jerusalem united became the capital of Israel. Does this event signal the ending of the second phase of the antitypical Day of Atonement, and the beginning of its third and final phase? This question must be answered. We are now into the 36th year from the "signal" given by Jesus! The days ahead are momentous. (See the tract - "Jerusalem in Bible Prophecy." ) order form on Welcome page

WHICH ALTAR? -- In the type, the cleansing of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was done in three stages. The instruction reads -      "And when he (the high priest) hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev. 16:20). The "altar" is designated as "the altar before the Lord" (verses 12, 18).

There were two altars involved in the sanctuary services which are defined as "before the Lord," the Altar of Incense, and the Brazen Altar in the Court. In the daily services, where the instruction is given as to the placing of the blood of confession for corporate transgression on the horns of "the altar of sweet incense before the Lord" the added definitive phrase is found - "which is in the tabernacle of the congregation" (Lev. 4:7, 18). At the time of the dedication of the temple, the offerings made by Solomon were too great for the Altar of Burnt Offering to accommodate them. In the Biblical reference, this Altar is designated as "before the Lord" (I Kings 8:64). In the construction of the earthly sanctuary, there was no provision made for grates in the Altar of Incense, as in the case of the Altar of Burnt Offering (Ex. 27:4). There would be no "burning coals of fire" on the Altar of Incense for the High Priest to place in his censer as directed (Lev. 16:12). The conclusion is inescapable that "the Altar" involved in the third stage of the cleansing on the Day of Atonement was the Brazen Altar in the Court.

It is understandable why the position is taken that the "altar before the Lord" is the Golden Altar of Incense. Crosier, in his essay on the Sanctuary, so stated. After quoting Lev. 16:18-19, he commented:     The Altar was the golden altar of incense in the Holy upon which the blood of individual atonements was sprinkled during the daily ministration. Thus it received the uncleanness from which it is now cleansed. Exodus 30:10: "Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once a year, with the blood of the sin offering of atonement."       [Here Crosier made his first mistake in regard to the Attar of Incense. None of "the blood of the individ-

p 7 -- ual atonements" was ever sprinkled on the Altar of Incense; only the blood of corporate confessions (Lev. 4:7, 18).]      We see from verse 20, that at this stage of the work 'he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar,' i.e. the Holy of Holies, the Holy, and the Altar in the latter. We have before seen that atone, reconcile, cleanse, etc., signify the same hence at this stage he had made an end of cleansing these places. As the blood of atonements for the forgiveness of sins was not sprinkled in the courts, but in the tabernacle only, the entire work of cleansing the Sanctuary was performed within the tabernacle" (Advent Review, September 1850)

If as Crosier stated, the entire ministry on the Day of Atonement was "performed within the tabernacle," then the "altar" would have been the Altar of Incense. But it was the first mistake that led to the faulty conclusion. The daily sin offerings offered by the individual were by far the major offerings offered daily on the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court. These confessions were marked on the horns of the Brazen Altar (Lev. 4:25).

There is another factor in the whole picture that dare not be overlooked. As we have noted there are two aspects to the sin question:    1)     "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" [that which is the cause for sin]; and    2)     "the transgressions in all their sins" [the acts of sins] (Lev. 16:16). It is not until the last act at the altar in the court by the mingled blood of both the bullock and the Lord's goat that the uncleanness is removed (Lev. 16:19). Further, there is a difference made in the cleansing of the two altars. The Altar of Incense is cleansed by placing the blood of the Lord's goat on the horns of the altar, while the Brazen Altar is cleansed by the combined blood of goat and buttock being sprinkled upon it. No mention is made of the record of confession which had been placed on the horns of the Altar. The emphasis is on the removal of the uncleanness, the very root cause of sin itself.

By limiting the final ministry of Christ to the Most Holy Place is to ignore the typical signifycance of the movements of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. To fail to focus on the final ministry depicted as transpiring in the Court is to sever the climax of the Three Angels' Messages from the sanctuary to which the first angel directed attention - "the hour of the judgment of Him is come" (Rev. 14:7; Gr.) These messages are to produce a people "who keep [not "are trying to keep"] the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" (verse 12).

Not only is the final atonement typified in the sanctuary service, but prophets of God saw, in visions given to them, activities related to that day. One command given in the instructions for the Day of Atonement was that the High Priest must wear the holy linen garments (Lev. 16:4). Ezekiel in vision saw that the man with a writer's inkhorn by his side was "clothed in linen" (9:2, 3, 11). He received instructions to place a mark on those that sigh and cry for the abominations committed in Jerusalem while standing "beside the brazen altar." He who was enthroned above the cherubim had moved to "the threshold of the house" to give this command. In the final ministry the One on the throne unites with the One clothed in linen. This follows the type of Leviticus 16:18 - the mingled blood of goat and bullock for the cleansing of the Altar.

In Zechariah 3, the "men of wonder" (v. 8; margin) are those whom the Lord has "caused (their) iniquity to pass from (them)" and whom He has clothed "with a change of raiment" (v. 4). This is a part of the final conflict between Christ and Satan (v. 1-2) which will be resolved in the "court." We have been reminded that:     Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement." (Testimonies Vol 5, p. 472) --- (2003 Aug) --- End --- TOP

2003 Sep -- XXXVI 9(03) -- The Bible -- Editor's Preface -- As this issue of WWN was being contemplated, I received a call from a friend who is a careful Bible student. He asked the question as to how one is to classify the answers which the "miserable comforters" gave Job. There was Eliphaz who confessed to a séance (4:12-16), and whom God singled out for a severe rebuke (42:7). How are his words to be considered? By the inspiration of God? Or is there a wider meaning to the concept of inspiration when each canon of the Old and New Testaments is considered as a whole? Did God only direct in the writing of the revelation of truth through "holy men," or did He also direct in the selection of the books which comprise the two canons of Scripture? If so, then what is the message which God intended by including certain books which give us questions, such as Job, Judges, and others in the Old Testament.

The preface for these observations on the Bible was motivated by a thought provoking article by Kenneth Richards, retired associate speaker for the Voice of Prophecy. The stated position of the Church on the Bible was different during the lifetime of Ellen G. White than the current position held by the Church. Even the president of the General Conference who openly denied any change in the major doctrines of the Church, has himself become party to such a change.

Adventists Affirm claims to be a publication of articles and studies by writers which affirm "Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs." For the most part this is true, but in the Spring 2003 issue an article slipped into its pages which "spiritual izes" away the force of an important prophecy in Revelation which speaks to the present.

p 2 -- The Bible -- In the 2003 March-April issue of Adventist Today, Kenneth Richards, retired associate speaker for the Voice of Prophecy, and son of H. M. S. Richards, Sr., tells of his convictions at the time he was baptized and United with the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He wrote:     One of the things about the Seventh-day Adventist Church that had impressed me was its claim that all its doctrines could be proved from the Scripture alone (p. 10).

He cites the Church Manual as the basis for his impression. True, the Church Manual so states. In the Foundation Library, we have a copy of the 1938 edition. In it my mother had written her name. It was the first copy she had procured after becoming an Adventist. The final section (XI) begins by stating:     Seventh-day Adventists hold certain fundamental beliefs, the principle features of which, together with a portion of the Scriptural references upon which they are based, may be summarized as follows;

1.    That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were given by the inspiration of God, contain an all sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and practice (p. 180).

I found also that my mother had placed in the Church Manual a tract entitled, "What Do Seventh-Day Adventists Believe?" It had been printed for the Iowa Book and Bible House when located in Nevada, Iowa. On the front page was a quotation from Chillingworth which read -      "There is no sufficient certainty but of Scripture only for any considering man to build upon." On the second page, the statement of what Adventists believe was prefaced by the commitment -      "Their only creed is the Bible from which they feel prepared to give a reason ' to every man that asketh.' - I Peter 3:15:"

Richards indicated that he heard people challenge this concept indicating that there were other sources apart from the Bible. He went more than once to discuss this matter with his father because in his radio ministry as the Voice of Prophecy, his father used the Bible and the Bible only. He likewise adopted this approach in his ministry. Then he commented:     So, when I first read, after being an Adventist minister for more than twenty years, of a particular official change in my denomination's view of Scripture, I was disappointed. (ibid)

Elder Richards cites, as evidence of the official change, the 1980 Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted at the General Conference Session in Dallas, Texas. Follow closely his analysis of of Statement #1 and the comparison with #17:     The belief spelled out in item No.1 had to do with the "Holy Scriptures" It upheld the Bible as the "written Word of God, given by divine inspiration." I liked that part. But it went on to call the Bible "the authoritative revealer of doctrines. . . ." That was certainly true. But why didn't it say that the Bible was the only rule of faith and practice?

As I read more of the affirmations of belief, I came to item No. 17. Here, it seemed, I found why the word, "only" was missing from item No.1. The new statement on the "Gift of Prophecy (No. 17) read: "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifest in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested." I had no problem with the writings of Ellen White being considered an "authoritative source of truth." But when I read the phrase declaring that "the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested," the absence of the word, "only" before the word, "standard" simply glared at me. Had someone decided that since the writings of Ellen G. White were an "authoritative source of truth," we could no longer with logical consistency, affirm that the Bible was the "only" rule of faith and practice? Could it be that now the denomination had decided to accept a two-tiered authority of faith and doctrine? I was not at all comfortable with the idea. (Ibid.)

Elder Richard's discomfort is the very heart of the problem in Adventism today. Tragically, there are those in the community of Adventism, especially among the "independent voices" who reverse the Divine arrangement, and place the Writings as the means by which the Scriptures are to be understood and tested. They deny the primacy of the Bible and adopt the "two-tiered" basis of faith as Elder Richards suggests is to be found in the 1980 Statement of Beliefs. Not

p 3 -- only does Richards suggest such a basis was written into the Fundamental Statement of Beliefs, but cites current usage of this two-tiered concept.

In the Spring of 2002, Adventist church leaders gathered together first in Greece and then in Turkey to consider the topic, -Theological Unity in a Growing World Church." The keynote address was delivered by Dr. Jan Paulsen, the president of the General Conference. It received such acclaim by the administrators and theologians present, that request was made for the address to be published in the Adventist Review, and that it be printed "as a stand alone publication." Elder Richards quoted a portion of the closing remarks made by Dr. Paulsen which evidenced this two-tiered concept. We will quote in full context these final remarks:     A further word needs to be said about our "being loyal to our heritage and to our identity." Some would have us believe that there have been significant shifts in recent times in regard to doctrines that historically have been at the heart of Seventh-day Adventism.

Take especially our understanding of judgment and Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the prophetic messages in which these teachings are contained. Some are suggesting that since the 1980 (Glacier View) meetings, the very teachings that the church affirmed that year at those meetings have been abandoned, and the church has essentially moved to accept the very positions it rejected then. Such a claim is a distortion of reality, and nothing could be farther from the truth. The historic sanctuary message, based on Scripture and supported by the writings of Ellen White continues to be held to unequivocally. And the inspired authorities on which these and other doctrines are based, namely the Bible supported by the writings of Ellen White, continue to be the hermeneutical foundation on which we as a church place all matters of faith and conduct. Let no one think that there has been a change of position in regard to this. (Adventist Review, October 2002, p. 37)

To borrow the words of Christ, one must say that the position set forth by Paulsen "was not so from the beginning" as noted above. Further, Ellen White herself wrote, in one of the books attributed to her, that      "God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms." (Great Controversy, p. 595).       Paulsen has effectively by his pronouncement of what the Adventist hermeneutic is in regard to doctrine, removed the Adventist Church from being the people of God's choosing. It made his comments on "the remnant" (#4), to borrow again the words of Scripture, "as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

Dr. Paulsen's denial that there have been "shifts" in the doctrine of the church in recent times is difficult to comprehend inasmuch as the very position he enunciated was such a "shift." One is also left to ask, where he has been during the last half of the 20th Century. Has he not heard of Questions on Doctrine? Has he not read, Froom's Movement of Destiny? Has he not taken time to compare the Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas in 1980, with the previous Statements issued in the name of the Church?

There is much that needs to be written in regard to the primacy of the Scriptures, and to which we will devote this issue of WWN. Questions arising from the Scriptures themselves need to be addressed. But that the reader might know where we stand, we shall first quote from "A Statement of Beliefs" to which we and other "independent" ministries subscribed a decade ago. The preface stated:     We have no creed, articles of faith, or discipline apart from the Bible. There are certain beliefs which we do hold in common. Since there are many today who call themselves Adventists but who hold views with which we have no sympathy, and some of which, we believe to be subversive of the plainest teachings of the Word of God, we desire to set forth our beliefs in a concise and systematic way so that all may know where we stand. This statement of beliefs will reflect our spiritual heritage. It will express the guidance of the Holy Spirit as we have sought to walk in the advancing light which He has cast on our spiritual pathway. It is open to reformulation should any belief be shown to be at variance with the Word of God, or additional truth be revealed to us from that Word through the guidance of the Spirit of truth.

The first statement read:     

We believe that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, were given by the inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of His will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

[If you should wish a copy of the full statement, send your request to the Ozone address with $1.00 to cover postage expenses]

p 4 -- It should be observed that this first statement is identical with the statement on the Holy Scriptures as found in the first formulation in 1872, and which remained unchanged till the 1931 Statement which appeared in the Yearbook of that year. In other words, this concept of the primacy of the Bible, as "the only infallible rule of faith and practice" remained in place during the lifetime of Ellen G. White. Even then, the 1931 Statement retained the declaration "that the Holy Scriptures . . . are the only unerring rule of faith and practice." It was not until the 1980 Statement of Beliefs that the "two tiered" hermeneutic, as the means to arrive at truth, was adopted: first, by declaring the Bible to be "the authoritative revealer of doctrines;" and secondly, setting the Writings forth as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth."

"Given by inspiration of God" -- Paul in writing to Timothy declared that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" (II Tim. 3:16). What does this mean? Paul used the word, qeopneustoV, a combination of two words, "God" (qeoV), and "breathe" (pnew) to express what he meant by "inspiration." Does this concept of God-breathed writings mean that the authors were "pens" or "penmen," or at times both? We will discuss this in noting the New Testament in particular.

When Paul defined the origin of Scripture, in context, he was referring to the Old Testament. He had written (verse. 15) that Timothy "from a child had known the holy scriptures" - the Old Testament. This should cause us to pause, and ask some questions. Is all the Old Testament, equally God-inspired in the same sense that we consider the writings of Isaiah or Jeremiah? Or does "God-inspired- cover a wider concept? How do we relate to Judges, Job (the words of his "miserable comforters"), Esther, and the Song of Solomon? We need to recognize that the Spirit of God not only used prophet and priest as penmen, but also men as they preserved the records (Schools of the Prophets) and others as they assembled the "writings" into what became the Old Testament canon.

Consider the book of Judges with its record of the wanton ravishing of the concubine of a renegade Levite (Judges 19). God-inspired? Yet, in Hebrews, where Paul lists individuals of faith, stating that time would fail him should he detail their experiences exhibiting that faith, four of the six named are from the book of Judges. (Heb. 11:32). How then are we to consider the book? What makes it profitable "for instruction in righteousness"?

Careful consideration of the narrative links it with the final comments in Joshua. (Compare Judges 2:6-8 with Joshua 24:29-31.) This becomes the point of departure for the history which follows in the book of Judges until Samuel, who was the last of the judges. This "dark age" in Israel's history began with the demise of those who knew and respected the significance of the leading of the Lord in the past history of Israel. A new generation arose "which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10).

In the darkness which settled on Israel, lights appear in the narrative. The exploits of these "men of faith" are recorded, even those of Samson were preserved with all his failings. Besides the judges whom God raised up, there were individuals who maintained their integrity during this period as evidenced in the book of Ruth. Was the editor of the Book of Judges inspired? We do not even know who he might have been; but by Divine guidance Judges is a part of the canon of the Old Testament. Is this guidance an aspect of the meaning that "all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God"?

There are concepts to be avoided recorded in the Book of Judges. One is the verse which closes the book:      "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (21:25; 17:6).       This attitude was the cause of the darkness which marked the period of the Judges. While this verse permits one to date the time when the unknown editor brought together the incidents recorded in the book, it also stood as an unheeded warning against the "no organization" concepts, which became a curse to the pre-1980 voices raised up against the apostasy in the community of Adventism. It

p 5 -- was actually twisted out of its context and made to look like a God-given directive.

Consider the book of Job. How are we to receive this book? Are the statements of the three comforters to be given the status of pure unadulterated truth? The eldest, Eliphaz, spoke first. Observe closely the source of his counsel:     Now a thing was secretly brought to me. . . . In thoughts from the visions of the night, when deep sleep falleth on men, fear came upon me. . . . Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before my eyes, . . . and I heard a voice saying, Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker? Behold He put no trust in His servants; and His angels He charged with folly." (4:12-18).

Observe how God singled out Eliphaz and rebuked him declaring that he "had not spoken of Me the thing that is right" (42:7). What purpose then serves the book of Job? Is all that "the miserable comforters" said to be discarded, or are we given illustration of the mixture of truth and error used by the chief angel whom God charged with folly? Are we not also given insight into an aspect of the great controversy prior to the wresting of the "first dominion" from the control of Satan by "the power of His Christ" (Rev. 12:10)?

The New Testament Canon -- The four gospels compose the first section of the New Testament canon. Two, Matthew and Luke, begin with the birth of Jesus albeit from two different perspectives. Mark begins his gospel with the message of John the Baptist, while John prefaces his gospel with the eternity of the Word who became flesh. The first three gospels are called the Synoptics as they relate incidents in the life of Jesus, while John is noted as Didactic, focusing on the teachings of Jesus.

Mark, often referred to as Peter's gospel, appears to have one distinctive comment. He reveals Christ's reaction to the unbelief of the 12 who did not accept the report of the witnesses who had seen Him following the resurrection (Mark 16:14). Matthew is unique in his recording of the Sermon on the Mount, and the Kingdom parables. The structure of his gospel reflects a skill his occupation as a tax collector required - balancing books. He sets forth the life of Christ as the balance sheet between Messianic prophecy and its fulfilment. (1:22; 2:15; 3:14; 21:4). Luke's gospel is clearly a summary of research which Luke did on the life of Christ, no doubt during the time he was with Paul when Paul was detained in Caesarea. (Acts. 24:27). He relates incidents from the birth of Jesus and His early childhood not found in the other gospels as well as unique parables - the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), the Pharisee and the Publican (18:9-14). Then in Luke alone is found the story of Zacchaeus (19:1-10).

These synoptic gospels clearly support the concept of "thought inspiration." In other words, the authors were God's "penmen" not his "pen." When we consider John's gospel, we have a different picture. Written near the close of the first century, among the last books to be written, if not the last, it is removed from the events and discourses of Jesus by over fifty years; yet it gives a verbatim report of what Jesus said and taught. No human mind can make such a recall. Only the Comforter could bring to John's remembrance the exact words which Jesus spoke decades previously (14:26). It was by direct inspiration that John wrote. He fills in various "gaps" which the Synoptic writers omit such as the Service of Humility performed in the upper room (Chapter 13). He tells of the night conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus (Chapter 3). He places the Word which came to be flesh in eternity with God (Chapter 1).

Then we must ask ourselves the question as to how we are to consider the book of James. While speaking of Jesus as "Lord" (1:1), there is nothing stated in regard to the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, nor of the blood of the everlasting covenant. Luther looked upon the epistle of James as epistola straminea or an epistle of straw. (Clark's Commentary, Vol. V1, p. 795). There can be no question but that James took the text which Paul used in correct context (Romans 4:3) and misused it out of context (James 2:23). How then can the concept of "God breathed" be understood in reference to the Epistle of James? The answer involves the concept that "God breathed"

We can safely rest our faith in the position taken by the pioneers of this Movement "that the Holy Scriptures, of the Old and New Testaments, given by inspiration of God, contain a full revelation of His will to man, and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice."

HAR-MAGEDON -- With the attention of the world being focused on the Euphrates River Valley, the Biblical connection based in Bible prophecy is being emphasized. With the drying up of the river Euphrates (Rev. 16:12), is associated "a place called in the Hebrew tongue, Armageddon" (16:16). In the Spring 2003 issue of Adventists Affirm, a publication affirming Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, was an article by Steve Wohlberg, "Israel and Armageddon." He was commenting on, and taking issue with, Book 11 of the best-selling Left Behind Series, Armageddon: The Cosmic Battle of the Ages.

Being of Jewish descent, Wohlberg seems, however, unable to distinguish between Israel and Jerusalem as used in the New Testament. His take-off in the article is in regard to Israel. He writes:      First of all - and this has seismic implications - the New Testament actually describes two Israels, not just one. (p. 15; emphasis his).

This is true. There is Israel of the flesh, and Israel of the Spirit. Both are peoples on earth; however when we come to Jerusalem, it is a different picture. There was and is a Jerusalem on earth, the city of David, now the capital of the modern State of Israel. The second Jerusalem is the heavenly, the New Jerusalem which will come "down from God out of heaven" (Rev. 21:2). To fail to recognize this difference between the use of "Jerusalem" and "Israel" in the New Testament leads to a failure to properly understand Jesus' own prophecy concerning the earthly Jerusalem.

In discussing the book of Revelation as he leads up to his answer to the question, "What is Armageddon?" is the emphasis of the fact that John was "in the spirit" and comments, "don't forget this." He accepts this statement of John's condition in vision as a justification to spiritualize the meaning of the prophetic revelation given. So he concludes:     In essence, "Armageddon" in Revelation depicts the final battle between King Jesus with His heavenly armies (19:11-19) fighting against the world-wide forces of Satan with "Mystery Babylon." (p. 21).

In analyzing the deception which Wohlberg is setting forth in this journal dedicated to the affirmation of what Seventh-day Adventists believe, let us note first a very simple fact as given in Revelation. Armageddon is not a battle but a place - a place where "the battle of that great day of God Almighty" focuses. (Rev. 16:14). The Greek word for "place" (topoV) is a part of our English word, topography. It was used by Jesus (John 14:2) when He promised the reality of the future - "I go to prepare a place for you." Jesus was not spiritualizing away Heaven when He declared, "In my Father's house are many mansions."

The word, topoV, is also used in Heb. 12:17, where it defines the experience of Esau who, in selling his birthright, passed the point of no return. This is equally true of those whom the "spirits of devils" gather to the "place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon." They have passed the point of no return in their rebellion against God.

A second factor which Wohlberg ignored whether in ignorance or intentionally is the fact that the plague is one thing in Revelation 16, and the cause is another thing. For example, the first plague, "noisome and grievous sores" fell on those who had received "the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image" (verse. 2). The "mark" and the "image" took place in probationary time, the plague comes after the close of probation. The same is true of the sixth plague: The gathering together into "the place" by the "spirit of devils" is prior to the close of probation, the drying of the water of the great river, Euphrates, is after the close of probation.

A third factor is that this specific place has a name, and that name is given in the Hebrew tongue. Wohlberg, claiming to be of Jewish descent , evidently did not receive a knowledge of the Hebrew language through that descent. Actually the word, "Armageddon" is better translated in the ARV - Har

(For a diagram of this use of the Greek, gamma, and the Hebrew, ayin, see Appendix D in the booklet, "The SIGN of the End of Time"). order form on Welcome page

The Hebrew word which meets most closely the textual as well as the linguistic demands and is called a mountain in the Old Testament, is Mo'ed, "Mount of the Congregation, in the sides of the north." Isaiah tells us that it is the design of Lucifer to be enthroned there (14:13), and John in Revelation indicates that the "spirits of devils" gather "the kings of the earth" to this place for "the battle of the great day of God Almighty" (Rev. 16:14, 16). The enthronement of Lucifier at a place in the Hebrew tongue called Har Mo'ed is the signal for the Lord God Almighty to take unto Himself His great power and reign. (See Rev. 11:15-19) How much more meaningful is the prophetic intent when carefully studied than the "spiritualizing" away of the Word of God as Wohlberg has done? Lo, another false prophet has arisen in "Israel."

IN THE NEXT ISSUE -- In the Ecumenical News International (ENI) for June 2003 was a section captioned, "Ecumenical Kirchentag in Berlin." This "Church Congress" was attended by senior politicians of Germany including the Chancellor, church leaders, writers, musicians, artists and journalists, as well as religious leaders from outside Germany. It was addressed by the Dalai Lama, by the Roman Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem and by Rabbi Michael Melchior, an Israeli politician.

One thing marred the event. When the plans for this congress had been formulated back in 1996, It had been hoped that the event would have culminated in a shared Eucharist. This was dashed by the Papal Encyclical on the Eucharist issued in April. This Encyclical we plan to discuss.in the next issue.

At the conclusion of this congress 16 German denominations signed the Charta Oecumenica, a set of guidelines for "promoting cooperation towards the 'visible unity ' of the church."

During the five day congress, a group gathered in a Protestant Church in East Berlin, for a service presided over by a Roman Catholic priest, who was a professor of systematic theology. The 2500 worshipers were invited by the professor to take the bread and wine. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's chief doctrinal watchdog condemned the event, and Cardinal Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said, "A general invitation to communion is for us Catholics simply not possible," We shall note, why, in the next WWN. --- (2003 Sep) ---End ---- TOP     2002