1975 Jan-MarVIII 1(75) - VIII 3(75)
1975 Apr-Jun VIII 4(75) - VIII 6(75)
1975 Jul-Sep VIII 7(75) - VIII 9(75)
1975 Oct-Dec VIII 10(75) - VIII 12(75)
1976 Jan-Mar IX 1(76) - IX 3(76)
1976 Apr-Jun IX 4(76) - IX 6(76)
1976 Jul-Sep IX 7(76) - IX 9(76)
1976 Oct-Dec IX 10(76) - IX 12(76)
1977 Jan-MarX 1(77) - X 3(77)
1977 Apr-Jun X 4(77) - X 6(77)
1977 Jul-Sep X 7(77) - X 9(77)
1977 Oct-DecX 10(77) - X 12(77)
1978 Jan-Mar XI 1(78) - XI 3(78)
1978 Apr-Jun XI 4(78) - XI 6(78)
1978 Jul-Sep XI 7(78) - XI 9(78)
1978 Oct-Dec XI 10(78) - XI 12(78)
1979 Jan-Mar XI 1(79) - XI 3(79)
1979 Apr-Jun XI 4(79) - XI 6(79)
1979 Jul-Sep XI 7(79) - XI 9(79)
1979 Oct-DecXI 10(79) - XI 12(79)
Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.
Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.
1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.
last of WWN published
ADVENTIST LAYMEN'S FOUNDATION OF CANADA (ALF)
SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation
- Legal Documents
Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer
Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer
the Form of a Slave
In Bible Prophecy
Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer
Seal of God
Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer
of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary
Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear
OTHER BOOKS, MANUSCRIPTS & ARTICLES:
Various Studies --
Bible As History - Werner Keller
Canons of the Bible, The - Raymond A. Cutts
Daniel and the Revelation - Uriah Smith
Facts of Faith - Christian Edwardson
Individuality in Religion - Alonzo T. Jones
"Is the Bible Inspired or Expired?" - J. J. Williamson
Letters to the Churches - M. L. Andreasen
Place of the Bible In Education, The - Alonzo T. Jones
Sabbath, The - M. L. Andreasen
So Much In Common - WCC/SDA
Which Banner? - Jon A. Vannoy
The MISSION of this site -- is to put the articles from the WWN in a searchable Essay form. It is not our purpose to copy WWN in whole.
Any portion of the thought paper may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from WWN, Victoria, BC Canada."
Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming back.
WWN 1985 Jul - Sep
1985 Jul -- XVIII -- 7(85) -- "THE JESUS DIFFERENCE" -- Was the Word Made Flesh or Not? -- Back in 1965 when Elder Donald G. Reynolds was pastor of the White Memorial Church in Los Angeles, he wrote an article - "Adam and Evil" - for the Review in which he stated, "Christ became the second Adam. He took Adam's nature, but never took Adam's sin. Jesus was not like you and me when He was here upon earth, for He was never a sinner. He came to this earth as Adam before Adam fell." (July 1, 1965) Now twenty years later, Elder Reynolds, now president of the Upper Columbia Conference, has written another paper - "Jesus - Divine Human Saviour." He indicates that this constitutes a revision from his former position. He now writes: Those who take the "sinlessness" of Christ to the extreme say that because Christ was sinless in nature He had an advantage over us in dealing with sin. Thus we can't hope to overcome as Christ overcame because we are not like Him.
Those who take the "sinfulness" of Christ's nature to the extreme say that we can live in sinless perfection.
What is needed is the balance between these two positions which this paper has attempted to show. That is to say; Christ was not identical in every respect to Adam before the Fall. Nor was He in every respect like Adam after the Fall. (p. 7)
In the fourth issue of the Adventist Review for 1985, the editor, Dr. William G. Johnsson, began a series of editorials telling why he is a Seventh-day Adventist. The second editorial seeks to set forth "The Jesus Difference." He wrote: Some Adventists argue over the human nature of Jesus. While one group asserts that Jesus came in the nature of Adam before the Fall, the other holds that He took the nature of Adam after the Fall. Both sides seek to safeguard the person of Jesus: the former, from any suggestion of sinfulness; the latter, from any tendency to deny the reality of His humanity. The issue is not specifically addressed in the church's Statement of Fundamental Beliefs.
Whatever the view held on this specific matter, all Adventists can say Amen to the following facts about Jesus Christ: (1) He is fully and eternally God; (2) He is fully man; (3) He is a single, undivided person; (4) He was absolutely sinless in propensity and act; and (5) His temptations and struggles were real, with the possibility of failure and loss. (January 31, 1985, p. 2)
The editor in his typical form seeks to sidestep the issue over the nature Christ assumed in humanity by hiding behind the apostate Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas. He knows full well that this issue was addressed by our spiritual forefathers, in previous statements of belief. However,
p 2 -- what the editor holds to be "facts about Jesus Christ" presents a mixture of truth and error which strikes at the very heart of the Gospel.
Observe carefully Johnsson's first two assertions for he claims all Adventists can say, "Amen." "(1) He is fully and eternally God; (2) He is fully man." We do not question the "eternally God" concept neither do we question his third proposition which relates to the first two - "He is a single, undivided person." But in putting all this together is where the error arises. If Jesus was fully man in the incarnation, and this is when He became a man, then He was a sinner, for man is a sinner. On the other hand, if Jesus came as "fully God" and existed in an undivided, single person, then He did not die, for God cannot die. Calvary, then, was only a mirage. The Bible declares the death of Jesus basic and primary to the Gospel. Paul told the Corinthians - "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." (I Cor. 15:3)
The truth of the Incarnation hinges around two concepts. Two questions only need to be asked, and then the simple answers expanded. (1) Who was He who came in the flesh having existed in another form previously? And (2) What was the nature of the flesh, He assumed in the Incarnation? Jesus Himself answered the first question. He told the Jews unequivocally - "Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58) Paul answers the second question. He wrote: God [sent] His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." (Rom. 8:3)
The I AM - the self-existent One (I am); the ever-existent One (I AM) - became flesh. He was pre-existent, and in the preexistence was holy, and undefiled. That pre-existent Identity did not cease to be, when the Messiah (Michael) became the Man, Christ Jesus. None of us can claim such a preexistent state of being. In this Jesus was not like us, or in this aspect are we like Jesus, nor ever will be. Would He remain holy and undefiled? That would be determined and was determined by the decisions He made during His incarnation. Whether we become holy and undefiled - like Him - and ultimately separated from sinners - is determined by the decisions we make in our probationary time.
An expansion of the first question leads to another - What did the I AM lay aside when He became man? Or did He lay aside nothing and come as fully God? The Scripture plainly teaches - "God was manifest in the flesh." (I Tim. 3:16) This brings us to the issue of what the great controversy is all about. Was it God's power or God's character that was called into question? In the very first approach to Eve, the question was asked - "Yea, hath God said...?" (Gen. 3:1), not "What did God do?"
We, too often, forget what makes God, God. This is not theoretical, nor abstract. Is God love, truth, righteousness, gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness? (I John 4:8; Deut. 32:4; Ex. 34:6) Is God also, omnipotent, omniscience, and immortal? (Gen. 17:1; Col. 2:3; I Tim. 6:15-16) Do the latter produce the former, or do they compliment the former? Who would want to live in a universe where omnipotence, omniscience, existed eternally in one who was hateful, a liar, unrighteous, and full of vengeance? The issue was not, the "power" aspects of God, but that which revealed a character worthy and qualified to handle unlimited power. Therefore, in becoming incarnate, Christ emptied Himself of "the form of God" (Philippians 2:6) But "full of grace and truth," He was truly God in the flesh. (John 1:1-2, 14 )
becoming flesh, what was the nature of the flesh, He assumed? What is
the force of Paul 's expression - "in the likeness of sinful flesh"?
Reynolds would have his readers believe that "this mode of expression
occurs nowhere else." (Op. cit., p. 3) In this he is mistaken.
The same prepositional phrase en
homoiomati (in likeness of) - is also used by Paul in Phil.
2:7 - "in the likeness of men." In fact, Paul is saying the
same thing in both places. When Jesus laid aside
p 3 -- God sent His Son in the form of a slave, in the likeness of the flesh of sin. In that "slave form" which He took upon Himself were all the forces of the flesh, to which we yield in sin, but to which Christ did not yield. Herein is the glory of the Incarnation.
Continuing to note the new position that Elder Reynolds is now taking, we observe he is using some of the texts used previously by those, who as he once taught, believed that Christ came wholly in the nature of Adam prior to the Fall. There are two texts which he links together Hebrews 7:26 and Luke 1:35. (Ibid., p. 5) Let us examine these verses. Hebrews 7:26 reads: For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, and undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.
It is obvious from the context that the High Priesthood of Jesus is the subject of this verse. So the question arises - Does the phrase - "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners" - apply to the time when Jesus "became us" (KJV), or is this speaking of His exaltation as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchisedec? The part we leave out of the combined description says He was "made higher than the heavens." The fact is that the rendering of the KJV is misleading in its choice of "became us" to translate the Greek. The NKJV corrects this former unfortunate translation and now reads. "For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens." Arndt & Gingrich in their Lexicon translate the clause "For such an High Priest became us" thus: "It was fitting that we should have such a high priest." This verse is not talking about the nature Christ assumed in the incarnation, but rather the kind of High Priest we have before the Father. And such is declared to be "fitting." Why distort the Scripture to seek support for an untenable position?
Luke 1:35 also invited critical analysis. The first thing that become obvious in noting the Greek text is that the word, "thing" ("holy thing") is not there. It has been supplied by the translators, although the KJV fails to note this by placing the word in italics. The word for "holy" is hagion a neuter adjective and corresponds back to the same identical word which designates the Spirit as the Holy (hagion) Spirit. The resulting action of the Holy Spirit upon the womb of Mary was to be called "the Son of God." Paul says that while "Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit," and is "the Lord from heaven." (I Cor. 15:45, 47) The best comment that I know on this verse - Luke 1:35 - reads: Think of Christ's humiliation. He took upon Himself fallen, suffering human nature, degraded and defiled by sin. ... He united humanity with divinity: a divine spirit dwelt in a temple of flesh. He united Himself with the temple. (YI Dec. 20, 1900:4BC, 1147)
The word, "holy" in Luke 1:35 is not used to describe the human nature Christ assumed but rather the identity of the One Who assumed it - the Lord from heaven, the Holy One of Israel. Though "the temple" was "degraded and defiled by sin" which in us breaks forth into sin, but did not in Him "who did no sin." (I Peter 2:22)
As Reynolds continues his revision of position, the confusion intensifies. He mixes the sins laid upon Christ as our Sin-bearer, with the nature Christ took upon Himself in coming into humanity. He wrote - "Our sinful nature was imputed to Him or reckoned as His." If He compares this imputation to the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. Then he concludes - "The one nature Jesus had; the other nature He 'took.' That is, He had a sinless nature; He 'took' upon Him our sinful nature. In a sense He had a sinless nature in Him and took a sinful nature on Him -- a nature that was placed upon Him; as Scripture says there was 'laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' (Isa. 53:6)" (Op. cit., p.7 Emphasis his)
If one nature is "in" Him, and the other "on" Him in the sense of imputation - a vicarious arrangement [Question on Doctrine terminology, implied but not stated. See pp. 59-60, 61-62] how does one harmonize this position with the Editor of the Review who says that all Adventists can say "Amen"
p 4 -- to the concept that Christ was and is "a single, undivided person." Perhaps it would be well for Reynolds to tell us what mental gymnastics we are going to need to take to reconcile his "on"-Christ-concept-of-the-fallen-nature he is suggesting with the statement - "Christ did in reality unite the offending nature of man with His own sinless nature." (R&H, July 17, 1900) I have never known that "unite" and "on" were synonyms! Perhaps he has a newer edition of Roget's Thesaurus, than I have. 1
Near the end of his revision, Elder Reynolds asks a question. After quoting I Timothy 3:16 - "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh" - he asks: "If it is a mystery then are we on solid ground when we advocate our special or extreme view on this subject?" ( Op. cit., p. 8) Keep in mind that Reynolds considers his own previously held view that Christ took the nature of Adam before the Fall as "special or extreme" as well as the view that Christ took the nature of Adam after the Fall to be extreme. Thus for Reynolds both the neo-Adventist position, and the historic position held by the pioneers of the Advent Movement constitute extreme views. This new position as now advocated by Reynolds could be known as the post neo-Adventist teaching. And the basis for it - Paul declares the manifestation of God in the flesh a great mystery. Again Reynolds has failed to do adequate "home work." He places upon the word, "mystery," a transliterated word from the Greek, the English meaning, rather than the intent of the word as used by Paul in the lingua franca of his day. In the manuscript In the Form of a Slave (Order form) the very first paragraph, I wrote and documented: In the Bible the incarnation is referred to as a mystery. Paul wrote to Timothy stating - "No one can deny that this religion of ours is a tremendous mystery, resting as it does on the one who showed himself as a human being, and met, as such, every demand of the Spirit in the sight of the angels." [I Tim. 3:16, Phillips] But the word, mystery (musthrion), as used in the New Testament does not carry the concept of incomprehension that is often associated with the use of the word in English. Quoting J. A. Robinson, Moulton and Milligan state that "in its New Testament sense a mystery is 'not a thing which must be kept secret. On the contrary it is a secret which God wills to make known and has charged His Apostles to declare to those who have ears to hear it.'" (James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 420, Emphasis Robinson)
Perhaps Laodicea is not only blind but also deaf, and needs a "hearing aid" so that the "mystery" of the incarnation might be perceived by them. Or perhaps, Laodicea has lost its "Apostolate" and, therefore, no longer possesses the commission to proclaim truth, and thus is propagating error.
l Roget's Thesaurus, 1936 Revised Edition has the following synonyms for the verb, "unite": "join, combine, connect, couple; merge, fuse, conflate (as two variant readings), coalesce, blend, cement, weld; centralize, consolidate, solidify, coadunate, unify, concentrate; harmonize, reconcile; federate, ally, confederate, league, associate, band together, conjoin, amalgamate, incorporate."
p 5 -- WILSON AND THE TRUTH -- The Pacific Union Recorder (Feb. 18, 1985) told of a meeting in Bakersfield, California, for the churches in the southern San Joaquin Valley. At this meeting, the featured speaker was Elder Neal C. Wilson, President of the General Conference. The Recorder bannered the objective - "GC PRESIDENT WILSON'S BAKERSFIELD MEETING SPARKS SPIRIT OF UNITY." (p. 4) A careful evaluation of the reports concerning Wilson's answers to questions asked at a "President's Forum" revealed that if unity was achieved, it was based on falsehood. Here is one question and Wilson's answer: "Q. Do we still believe the way we used to believe about the beast and its image? What is the view today?
"WILSON: Our position is not changed. But our work is not to denounce the Roman Catholic Church. We speak the truth and let the truth do the cutting. We have not consigned anything to the ' trash heap,' as one publication has charged. We are not watering down or diluting the message. I regret that statements get into print that do not give an accurate picture." (p. 4)
As one reads the answer, one wonders to which "publication" Wilson is referring. Is it to the Reply Brief filed for the defendants in the EEOC vs PPPA Federal Court case, or is Wilson referring to the manuscript produced by the Adventist Laymen's Foundation which reproduced facsimile excerpts from the Brief. Both could only say the same thing! In the Brief it, is stated: "Although it is true that there was a period in the life of the Seventh-day Adventist Church when the denomination took a distinctly anti-Roman Catholic viewpoint, and the term, ' hierarchy' was used in a perjorative sense to refer to the papal form of church governance, that attitude on the Church's part was nothing more than a manifestation of widespread antipopery among conservative protestant denominations in the early part of this century and the latter part of the last, and which has now been consigned to the historical trash heap so far as the Seventh-day Adventist Church is concerned." (p. 4, Footnote)
A "composite" now in circulation noted as "Document #5" - perhaps as a result of Wilson's prevarication at Bakersfield - indicates that Wilson himself authorized this statement by the attorneys in the Brief. For proof, this "composite" cites a "Reporter's Transcript, March 30, 1975,
p 6 -- p. 0345. (This documentation we cannot verify as we do not have access to the Recorder's Transcription. Anyone having a facsimile copy of the page, we would be most happy to receive a photocopy of the same.)
A current analysis of Wilson and the truth is to be found in Betrayal , written by one of the plaintiffs in the Pacific Press case. Describing Neal C. Wilson's testimony under oath during one aspect of the trial before Judge Renfrew in Federal Court, Merikay relates: "Joan [Bradford, Merikay's Lawyer] asks to recall Wilson to the stand, and once again Wilson takes the stand.
"Joan reads Wilson the passage from his deposition where he said there was no attempt to persuade each other. She asks him if that statement, made under oath, is true.
"' That is correct,' he says. 'And I think you will notice the sentence, it says, ' I entered into conversation with her in trying to help her... understand other points of view that should be taken into consideration.' And I spent considerable time. She asked me the question, ' What have I done wrong? Why is everybody unhappy with me?' '
"Neal C. Wilson, SDA world leader, is fabricating lies. Right there on the stand. He is making up a conversation that never happened. His characterization doesn't even sound like me. I am shaking my head - no. I can barely sit still.
"'And did you counsel?' Joan Bradford asks.
" ' ... I urged her and told her that she was taking the wrong route....'
"' Did you counsel her?'
"No one stirs in the courtroom. Wilson stares at Joan, a half smile on his face, one hand laying casually on top of the other. He lifts his top hand up about three inches, and then drops it back, just looking at Joan.
"He never counseled me. I know that he knows that, and he knows that I know that. I wonder what he's thinking in this long silence.
"Then in a loud voice, he says, ' I did tell her that she ought to submit this to the General Conference if she felt she wanted to. She said that if she trusted the General Conference of the Church, she would, but at that point, she didn't trust the Church.'
"I nearly jumped off my pew. I can't believe the dialogue he is inventing. I can't believe what I am hearing, what's coming out of his mouth. My face burns. That man, probably the most powerful individual in my denomination, is lying. And he thought about the lie a long moment before he uttered it. And he knows that I know he is lying." (pp. 313-314)
ANOTHER SERIES OF EVENTS FROM BETRAYAL -- "Kim [Merikay's husband] and I have started attending Milpitas [California] Church. The Mountain View congregation is filled with Press employees. I don't feel comfortable there any more. At Milpitas my old friend Elder Leonard Mills is pastor. Elder Mills was a friend back in Michigan when I was a teenager. Now he wants us to join his congregation. He and his wife come over Sabbath afternoon and spend most of their visit asking Kim and me to transfer our membership to their church.
"'I'd love to be a member at your church.' I say, 'but I don't think that will be good for you.'
"He I smiles. He's a tender man with a peace-filled heart. ' The brethren are just crusty and hardheaded,' he says. ' But they won't hurt you. Not really."' (p. 195)
"At church this morning I discover that Elder Mills is no longer pastor. A parent whose children attend the church day-care center filed child-molesting charges against him, and the Conference asked him to step aside. ... My paranoia springs to the surface, and I wonder how all this relates to the fact that I'm a member of his church. How have the leaders worked this one." (p. 276)
"MARCH 13, 1975 The big day! ... (p. 290)
eating and talking about the attorneys and the issues, I head back for
the courtroom. Kim and Marc and our friends are going to visit the government
p 7 -- book store; then they'll join me.
"When I step out of the elevator, I nearly bumped into Joan [Bradford] and John [Rea, Lawyer for EEOC]. Joan is crying and saying, ' I have never been so horrified!' and John is drained of color
"' What's wrong?' Fear grips me.
"'Come here, come here,' Joan pulls me into one of the little side rooms off the main hall. ' My husband was in the cafeteria, and overheard Neal Wilson threatening your minister,' she says.
"I look at her in disbelief. 'Wilson said, ' If you testify in Merikay's behalf you'll be disfellowshipped; and you lose your job and your retirement! ' " (p.295)
"Last night Elder Mills called. He said that his case was thrown out of court and all charges dropped because the little girl who supposedly told her mother he molested her won't repeat the charges to anyone. The mother says the little one told her, but the little girl doesn't say anything to anybody.
"Elder Mills said he went to the police station and saw the records of his case. It appears that the president* of his local, employing conference, the Northern California Conference told the police that the conference and he would cooperate in any way necessary to secure Mills' conviction.
."' They wanted to put me in prison,' he says, his gentle voice shaking. ' They really wanted to put me away!' " (p. 329)
How many times has this happened before and since?
*Records indicate that Elder Helmuth C. Retzer was president of the Northern California Conference at that time.
LETTERS -- "We had a visit by Bauer and Nicolici, but not Vannoy. Unfortunately those organizing the function lacked experience, so we had many problems. Advertising was on a non-revelatory basis, with only a phone number. [Name] believes in being quite open and giving our name, address and telephone number.
much useful material was given, particularly by Bauer, the following
"In conversation, Bauer told me that there was no bank in the USA that could pay all its depositors all their money at once. It surprised me that he did not know the basic economic fact that no bank, savings and loans, or credit union can pay out 100% at any one time. This is the art of the banking operations. I have had a suspicion that Bauer (and others) are not very knowledgeable in economics, nor are they well versed in current affairs, no matter how good they are in theological areas. For example, Wheeling told us that USA interest rates would rise in 1984; in fact, they declined." -- Australia
(From a letter to The John Ankenberg Show regarding the Walter Martin - Wm. G. Johnsson Confrontation)
"The book, Questions on Doctrine, will forever remain a monument to the liberal's perfidious misuse of their salaried time to destroy confidence in those doctrines they were employed to uphold. And it is a unique book in that two opposing views have become amalgamated by rhetorical sophisms that it is presented to Adventists as the original and orthodox beliefs, while at the same time, convincing non-Adventists that our doctrines are the same as theirs." -- Oregon --- (1985 Jul) --- End --- TOP
1985 Aug -- XVIII -- 8(85) -- "TAMID" AND DAN. 8:14 IN CONTEXT -- Does "Tamid" Symbolize Paganism ? -- "Tamid" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word translated five times in the book of Daniel as "daily." Three of these five times are in the same context as Daniel 8:14. The other two times are to be found in Daniel 11:31, and 12:11. Basically, the word, tamid, in Hebrew is used either as an adjective or an adverb, and is translated continual, or continually. However, in the book of Daniel , it is used as a substantive, in other words, an adjective standing for a noun. The translators of the KJV sensing this, realized that to give meaning to the text, a word would have to be supplied for it to modify. They chose the word, "sacrifice." Did the translators err in this? Should they have left the word stand alone, and let it be interpreted as a prophetic symbolism? Or, does it have real significance in the context of the sanctuary and its services? It must be kept in mind that Daniel 8:14 is an answer given to a question involving the "daily." Let us note the verses involved in the context for Daniel 8:14. They read: And out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed exceeding great, toward south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by [margin - "from"] him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of the transgression, and it cast the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Daniel 8:9-14)
Elder A. T. Jones in writing on this prophecy, observing that the word, sacrifice, had been supplied, nevertheless knowing that it could not be a symbolic representation of paganism wrote: In Numbers 28 and 29 alone the word is used seventeen times, referring to the continual service in the sanctuary.
And it is the continual service of Christ,
2 -- the
true High Priest, "who continueth ever," and "who
is consecrated forevermore in
What is interesting in this incisive analysis of Daniel 8:9-14 by Jones is that in the 27 times that the word, tamid, is used in Numbers 28 and 29, without exception, it is combined with the "burnt offering." In fact, in one instance where the translators of the KJV wished to contrast the monthly burnt offering from the morning and evening sacrifice, the word, "daily" is used. (Num. 29:6) It cannot be denied that a "burnt offering" was a sacrifice. The connection then in Daniel of "sacrifice" with the daily was not too far a field.
Applying the rule of first usage as an interpretive tool , we find the first use of tamid as an adjective in connection with the morning and evening sacrifice. In Exodus 29:42-43, God said to Moses: This shall be a continual (tamid) burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there with thee.
And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.
The setting of the instruction concerning the morning and evening sacrifice is significant. Israel had covenanted with God to do all that He would tell them to do.
This 40-day Covenant was ratified in blood. (Ex. 24:4-8) However, this covenant contained no provision for forgiveness broken. (Ex. 23:20-21), Israel asked for no such provision; they sensed no need, they would keep the words of this covenant. Moses then went up into Mount Sinai where he received instruction for the making and setting up of the sanctuary to operate under a "type" covenant. Apart from the service for the consecration of the priesthood, the only other ceremonial service outlined for Moses during the forty days was the instruction concerning the morning and evening sacrifice. The details for the daily services on behalf of sin, and the yearly service of the Day of Atonement are given in Leviticus after the sanctuary was in place.
The message is clear. Before the need arose, provision was made by God to cover the transgression of Israel until they could be convicted of their need and turn to Him for forgiveness. This provision for mankind was met in Him who was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8) This "daily," "continual," and "perpetual" need of man provided in Christ Jesus, the "abomination of desolation" sought to take away. In the prophecy of Daniel 8:9-13, it is "the little horn" which takes away "the daily" burnt offering "by reason of transgression." In the explanation given by Gabriel in 8:23-25, this power stands "up against the Prince of princes." What pagan Rome did literally, papal Rome has sought to accomplish in the realm of the spiritual.
say that the "daily" is paganism is to teach contrary to the
Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When outlining the future for His disciples,
Jesus did not
say - "When ye shall see the daily spoken of by Daniel the prophet
stand in the holy place." He said rather - "When ye shall
see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet,
stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)."
(Matt. 24:15) It was the abomination of desolation in its pagan form
which caused the morning and evening sacrifices to cease in the temple
where Jesus stated "Your house is left unto you desolate."
It is the papal form, "whose coming
p 3 -- is after the working [energy] of Satan" which has blasphemed God's name, "and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven," (I Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:6) through the Confessional and the Abomination of the Mass.
The bottom line in the context of Daniel 8:9-14 is that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the "daily" must be understood in the light of the typical services of earthly sanctuary built by Moses. The relationship between the time of verse 14, and the "daily" is further strengthened by the language employed in the text to designate "days". The usual Hebrew word would have been yom, but the 2300 days is called the vision of "the evening and the morning" (Daniel 8:26, 14 margin), the very language of the daily burnt offering.
Because of this usage for day, instead of Yom, there are those who seek to make the 2300 evenings and mornings merely half days, or 1150 days, thus destroying the whole prophecy in relationship to the culminating date in 1844. In other words, their reasoning is that since the morning and evening sacrifice represented just one's days service in the morning and in the evening, the 2300 days are half days. There is, however, one difference. In setting up the continual burnt offering, the word sequence was "morning and evening;" while the word sequence of the prophecy is "evening and morning" - the reversal. This form harks back to creation. "There was evening, there was morning, day one." (Gen. 1:5 Heb.) Applying this language of Genesis, we would have - There were 2300 evenings, there were 2300 mornings, 2300 days. Thus the very language of Daniel, while borrowing the words connected with "the daily," structures the sequence of those words to connect it with the usage for full days in Genesis.
Within the very text itself - verse 14 - there is a definite connection between it and the services of Leviticus 16, linguistically. In the Septuagint (LXX), the verb, "shall be cleansed," is katharisthesetai, a future passive (3rd person, singular) Leviticus 16:30, summarizing the services of the day of atonement in the LXX reads: For on this day he shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse you from all your sins before the Lord, and ye shall be purged.
The verb - "shall be purged" in the Greek is identical to the verb translated -"shall be cleansed" - in Daniel 8:14, differing only in person and number.
The application of type and antitype between the ancient sanctuary service and the heavenly reality involving an inter-relationship between Leviticus 16, and Daniel 8:14, stands on solid ground linguistically. "Unto 2300 evenings and mornings, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES -- THE HE "THE LITTLE HORN" OF DANIEL 8? -- The reason for discussing Antiochus Epiphanes in relationship to "the little horn" of Daniel 8 is that most modern prophetic commentators consider this Seleucid king as the fulfillment of prophecy as "the abomination of desolation." ["Transgression of desolation (8:13); "the abomination that maketh desolate" (11:31; 12:11)]
Antiochus Epiphanes was the eighth ruler in the Seleucid dynasty which arose out of the divisions of Alexander the Great's Empire. This dynasty was more or less continuous from 312-65 B.C. Son of Antiochus the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes reigned from 175-164 B.C. He designated himself as Theos Epiphanes - "God Manifest." A devotee of Zeus, probably perceiving himself as an incarnation of this chief Greek deity, he sought the advancement of Greek culture and religion throughout the regions he controlled. This brought him into direct conflict with the Jews. He wrought the most damage upon the city of Jerusalem since the siege and destruction under Nebuchadnezzar. The key act in Antiochus' relationship with the Jews was his desecration of the Temple by offering a pig on the sacred altar, and then forcing the people to eat the sacrificed swine. In I Maccabees 1:54, it is stated - "They builded an abomination of desolation upon the altar." Three years later to the day, a new altar was "dedicated afresh." (4:53-54) These historical facts form the basis for the identification of Antiochus Epiphanes as "the little horn" of Daniel 8. A review of the specifications of the prophecy and the statement of Jesus Himself negate such an interpretation.
8 begins with a vision of a ram, designated as "the kings of Media
and Persia." (8:3, 20) This is followed by a he-goat declared to
be "the king of Grecia" with the single notable horn "as
the first king." (8:5, 21) The "great horn" is broken,
and in its place comes up "four notable ones toward the four winds
of heaven." (8:8) This is interpreted by Gabriel to
p 4 -- mean that "four kingdoms shall stand up out of that nation, but not in his power." (8:22) The Seleucid dynasty was one of those kingdoms, of which Antiochus Epiphanes was but one of that line not even the greatest!
The prophecy continues - "And out of one of them came forth a little horn." (8:9) Whether the "one" refers back to the "winds" of heaven, or to the "horns" involves the linguistics of verses 8 & 9. If "winds," indicating direction, a significant case can be made as to where "the little horn" was to arise, for direction of conquest, and thus origin, form a vital part of this prophecy. The "little horn" was to move "toward the south, toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Directions were also given for the movements of the ram and he-goat. (8:4-5) For example, the ram moved westward, northward, and southward. This means that he came from the east. See map below. Applying this same criteria to "the little horn" who moved south, east, and toward the pleasant land, he would have to originate in the north and west.
The conquests of Rome followed the directional sequence of the prophecy. First, Carthage to the south; then Greece to the east, and on to the Palestinian area.
There are other prophetic criteria identifying "the little horn." The ram "became great;" the he-goat "waxed very great;" but the little horn became "exceeding great." (8:4,8,9) The interpretation further indicated that the little horn would appear at "the latter end of their [horn's] kingdom." (8:23) Antiochus Epiphanes meets none of these specifications.
In The Historians' History of the World, Vol. V, p. 1 , is an observation which fits perfectly the prophecy if "one of them" refers back to the "horns." It reads: As a matter of fact, the West [or Greek part of Italy] was left by the mother country to its own devices. But it presently became evident that the development that took place, was fraught with consequences of the utmost moment to the Hellenistic political system. By abstaining from preemptory interference, while such interference was yet possible, the Macedonian kingdoms permitted a power to arise in Italy so strong that in a very short time it proceeded to aim a fatal blow at their own existence.
Jesus Christ Himself gave the final answer as to whether "the little horn" of Daniel 8 was Antiochus Epiphanes. He told His disciples that "the abomination spoken of by Daniel the prophet" was yet future in their day. See Matt. 24:15. [The above article on Antiochus Epiphanes will appear as Appendix D in the new Bible Study Guide, now in preparation.]
p 5 -- SUMMARY REPORT - 6 -- Editor's Note : Church and State , ( June, 1985, p. 12 ) reported that on May 7, Judge John P. Fullam dismissed a legal challenge by Americans United regarding the diplomatic ties between the Vatican and the U.S. government. He ruled "that the judiciary has no constitutional authority over foreign policy." This dismissal will be appealed. However, since the factual allegations in the Complaint contain important historical information, we shall continue to reproduce that section of the Complaint. Summary Report - 5 was in WWN:XVIII-6, pp. 6-7.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS (Continued) -- "On the 7th day of March, 1984, the Senate confirmed the appointment of William A. Wilson as Ambassador to the Holy See.
"Funds for the United States mission at the Holy See were reprogrammed by Congress, and additional moneys were thus made available for the funding of the diplomatic mission to the Holy See and the expenses of the United States Ambassador to the Holy See. Annual appropriation of funds by Congress will be required to maintain the diplomatic mission to the Holy See.
"Contrary to various public statements that were made at the time of the establishment of relations with the Holy See, the exchange of ambassadors contemplated was not with the State of the City of the Vatican, but rather was with the Holy See. This was confirmed by an address of Archbishop Pio Laghi, Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in the United States, at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., on April 6, 1984, wherein Archbishop Pio Laghi stated: Papal diplomacy has been referred to as sui generie because nowhere is it exactly paralleled. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only religious body that I know of that engages in direct relations with various states. You recall the confusion and controversy that arose in the media at the time it was announced that the United States and the Holy See intended to re-establish diplomatic ties. Some mistakenly tried to justify the American government's action by implying that it ' was entering into a diplomatic relationship not with the Roman Catholic Church as such, the Holy See, but rather with the sovereign Vatican City-State.
Papal Diplomacy rests essentially upon the spiritual sovereignty of the Holy See and not upon dominion over a few acres in the heart of Rome. (R. A. Graham, S.J., Vatican Diplomacy, p. 15)
"It is, therefore, the Pope's religious authority which confers upon him the classical right of legation, a diplomatic standing in the world. Those who interpret Papal Diplomacy as emanating from the Pope's temporal sovereignty are failing to understand the true nature of the mission of the Holy See. ...
"The Pro-Nuncio's statement above-referred to is consistent with the official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI, in his June 24, 1969, statement "On Papal Diplomats," issued norms regarding the office and the functions of pontified representatives which include the following statements:
I -- 1)
By the term of pontifical representatives, those ecclesiastics -- usually
endowed with episcopal dignity -- are here designated as those who receive
from the Roman Pontiff the charge of representing him in a fixed way
in the various nations or regions of the world.
IV -- 1) The primary and specific purpose of the mission of the
pontifical representative is to render ever closer and more operative
the ties that bind the Apostolic See and the local churches.
6 -- 2)
He furthermore interprets the solicitude of the Roman pontiff for
the good of the country in which he exercises his mission. In particular,
he must concern himself zealously with the problems of peace, of progress
and of collaboration of the peoples in view of the spiritual, moral
and material good of the entire human family.
V -- 1) The ordinary function of the pontifical representative is
to keep the Holy See regularly and objectively informed about the conditions
of the ecclesial community to which he has been sent, and the good of
X -- 1) Relations between the Church and the state are normally
cultivated by the pontifical representative, to whom the task is entrusted,
proper and particular, of acting in the name of the Holy See:
2) In pursuing these negotiations, it is fitting that the pontifical legate should ask, in the way and in the measure circumstances permit, for the opinion and the counsel of the episcopate and that he keep it informed on the development of the negotiations.
"The Pro-Nuncio's statement of April 6, 1984, above-referred to, is also consistent with the provisions of Chapter V of the Code of Canon Law, that being Canons 362-367, which chapter deals with papal legates. ...
"In keeping with the responsibilities of a papal legate, as set forth in the Code of Canon Law, Archbishop Pio Laghi, in his April 6, 1984, address at The Catholic University of America, reasserted a statement which had been previously made by him in February of 1981 which is as follows: The papal representative cannot be a stranger to the people of the country to which he exercises his mission. At the same time, he must necessarily look beyond the best interests of any particular group. His criterion is the universality of the church.
further show that Archbishop Pio Laghi in his April 6, 1984, address
as Pro-Nuncio in the United States, in referring the Pope John Paul's
diplomatic concerns, stated: The
Holy See believes that it finds itself in a unique position of spiritual
p 7 - defend, it is able to inspire the trust of an increasing number of nations.
"It is therefore clear that the United States Government, through the action of the President of the United States, has entered into an understanding and agreement, not with a secular power, but rather with the Roman Catholic Church." -- To Be Continued
FROM THE POSTAL BOX -- "Behold the Goat upon which the Lord's lot fell" is the message of modern EIijah who prepares the way for the Second Advent; but for the last 30 years we heard the voice of the enemies saying, "Behold the Kangaroo from Australia." The Adventists from the land under have taken the "leadership" in Washington DC Where could we find a weeping prophet to write another lamentation? - Illinois
NEXT MONTH'S ISSUE -- During the month of May and into June, the CBN Cable Network, and the PTL Satellite Network released the televised programs by The John Ankerberg Show on "Who Is Telling the Truth About Seventh-day Adventism?" This show featured a confrontation between Dr. Walter Martin of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56, and Dr. Wm. G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review. The Lord willing, we plan to devote the entire next issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" to a discussion of the issues raised on this telecast, and give an answer as to why Dr. Johnsson failed so miserably in his confrontation with Walter Martin. Anyone who saw this show, and those who did not have the opportunity will not want to miss this up-coming issue.
"In the May or June issue of Ministry, we are coming out with two articles dealing with the nature of Christ. One takes the position of the pre -fall nature, and the other the post-fall nature." (Spangler) --- (1985 Aug) --- End --- TOP
1985 Sep -- XVIII -- 9(85) -- MARTIN VS. JOHNSSON -- JUDGE (MODERATOR) JOINS PROSECUTION -- JOHNSSON UNABLE TO DEFEND FAITH -- Old issues and new issues involving the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church blended in a confrontation between Dr. Walter Martin, director of Christian Research Institute, and Dr. William Johnsson, editor of the Adventist Review. This exchange formed the basis of a series of telecasts for The John Ankerberg Show, and was seen by millions on the Christian Broadcasting Network, and the PTL Satellite Network during May and June of this year.
Johnsson indicated in an editorial that "the various segments were taped at one sitting in December" (1984). He wrote he appeared on the Show "basically, out of concern for the public image of the Seventh-day Adventist Church." He did so "after counseling with the General Conference brethren." (Adventist Review, June 20, 1985, p. 2)
In this telecast, the Leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church went on "trial." In fact the whole series was captioned -"Who Is Telling the Truth About Seventh-day Adventism?" At one point in the "trial," Martin declared - "The defense rests." (p. 24) This was a misstatement. He should have said - "The prosecution rests." It was evident from the very start that Johnsson was on the defensive. To add to the pressure on Johnsson, John Ankerberg did not maintain a posture of moderator-judge, but joined Martin in the attack on the teachings of the Church. It was simply a two against one court trial with the Church having a very poor "defense lawyer."
A side light on this whole program was provided at the pre-session of the General Conference. In the seminar on "Ellen G. White: Authority and Inspiration," Elder Kenneth Wood, former editor of the Adventist Review, commented that folk viewing the telecast took note of the differences in attitude between the contenders. He indicated Johnsson's "christian" attitude was in marked contrast to the viciousness of the "judge" and "prosecuting attorney." Admittedly, Johnsson was very mild even to the point of almost breaking down into tears. This, however, is not the attitude for a defender of the faith as revealed in the Bible, certainly not of an Elijah, or a John the Baptist. Even Jesus, while silent when He was on trial, revealed a very polemic and decisive attitude when truth was being misjudged by the religionists of His day. (Mark 3:1-5) A so-called "christian" attitude could not hide the fact that Johnsson was unable to defend the position as taken by the leadership of the Adventist Church.
Johnsson was in a no-win situation from the very start. He could not defend the neo-Adventist position without alienating a large share of the readers of the Church paper who still feel the Church is holding
p 2 -- to fundamental historic Adventism. They would get a too rude awakening. He could not defend the historic faith without giving Martin a basis for coming out and saying - "Adventism is still a cult." So Johnsson took the only road left open to him, and that was to stand behind the 27 Statements of Belief formulated at the Dallas, Texas, General Conference Session in 1980. By actual count, Johnsson referred to these Statements as his defense 18 times during the "trial." In his 13th reference to these Statements, he said - "No other statements have the authority of the fundamental beliefs. These are our statements of faith. This is what we expect people to affirm to before we accept them into the church." (p. 20) Before the end of the confrontation, Johnsson made the clear assertion that if anyone was "out of harmony with one of the statements of the faith of the church, ... they should not be teaching and being paid by the church members. Until the church changes its statements of faith, a man who cannot support those statements really has no job." (p. 30) At another point, he categorically declared - "The bottom line is the 27 fundamentals of belief." (p. 15)
During the show, Johnsson commented that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had not been fairly represented in the previous telecast involving Ford and Rea, and this was the primary reason he accepted the invitation to appear. This was stated near the end of the confrontation. He also, at the same time, expressed the idea that Martin was "reminding us [the SDA Church] of a real danger" which he appreciated as well as "the work [Martin] did for us back in the 1950's." To this Martin replied: I'm still working out there trying to help the body of Christ realize that we've got to work together. We can't work together if there's going to be people in Washington talking out of both sides of their mouths to us, and that's what they are doing to us. I didn't believe it at first, until I started compiling the information myself. I have letters from conference presidents. I have letters from people all over the world, letters from the White Estate. All of which I consider to be filled with duplicity, evasion, deliberate and willful attempts not to tell the public exactly what Mrs. White's role is, ..." (p. 29)
This double mouthing is truly the bottom line! This is what has been going on since the beginning of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-1956. Many are still hoodwinked by the hierarchy as to the true nature of what happened at these conferences. Millions of others do not know the facts of what happened - yes, millions, who have since those years come into the Church accepting a watered-down message. The duplicity reached its zenith in the 1980 Statement of Beliefs, and remained unchanged during the 1985 Session. Still there are those naive folk who think they can turn the church organization around in repentance.
The issues raised during the te1ecast primarily involved just two things - 1) The status of Questions on Doctrine as a doctrinal norm by which a non-Seventh-day Adventist can evaluate the teachings of the Church; and 2) The place and authority of Ellen G. White in determining the teachings of the Church in relationship to the Bible.
The Status of Questions on Doctrine -- Johnsson was very clear on the point of the place of Questions on Doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He stated: In terms of the denomination's stand on the book, we have not repudiated Questions on Doctrine. The book went into eight printings, 150,000 copies. Now that is a lot of copies. It is still used in college classes. Some people feel it ought to be reprinted. We can get into that. There's another theological volume of Seventh-day Adventist biblical theology in process, and we can discuss that. I think that's a major reason why we are not reprinting Questions on Doctrine. But categorically I can tell you that the leadership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has not repudiated Questions on Doctrine. (p. 2)
statement on the Church's position on the book revealed the whole objective
of why a second series on the Seventh-day Adventist Church was arranged
by John Ankerberg. As soon as Johnsson made the above quotes, Ankerberg
responded - "Okay. Let's plunge in here, Walter [Martin]. Why don't
you start us off with some of the questions that you have already submitted
to the denomination, because you are saying that you've heard some things
and you are re-assessing what you were told the first time around, as
p 3 -- some of the contemporary events that are happening right now. Where would you like to start tonight?" To this Martin replied - "I think that you have to begin with the background we have already [a resume of the events leading up to the publication of Questions on Doctrine had been reviewed by Martin], and also with the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination today, to whom I addressed my questions, responded quite differently than the denomination in 1956." To Ankerberg's question - "How so?" - Martin continued: In 1956, Reuben Figuhr, who considered Questions on Doctrine and the dialogue, he said, to be the most important single contribution of his entire tenure as President, began in his later life to deplore the fact that there was a strong movement within Seventh-day Adventism to undercut what they had worked so hard to establish in Questions on Doctrine. So I, after a number of ex-Adventist ministers came to me, after I received literally hundreds and hundreds of letters, documents, boxes full of documents from all over the world. ... They were all telling the same story, these ministers and these people all over the world. They were saying, "We believe Questions on Doctrine. We cited Questions on Doctrine. We presented our views in the light of Questions on Doctrine and we were disfellowshipped; we were removed from the church. I'm now painting houses; I was a former teacher. I was doing this and now I am doing such and such. What went wrong?" So, I thought it would be a good idea to ask the question - What went wrong? So, I addressed three questions to Neal Wilson. (p. 2)
Before noting the three questions, and who replied for Wilson, this evaluation of Martin must be assessed. It is doubtful that a single person has been disfellowshipped, or a single minister evicted from the ministry for believing in or teaching from Questions on Doctrine. .Such was not the case during Figuhr's administration toward those who opposed Questions on Doctrine. This writer has personally conversed with a teacher in the department of religion at Southern College, who told me that for fourteen years he has taught his classes from that book. He is still teaching there. Further, he informed me that when Dr. Gordon Hyde returned to the College to quiet the troubled waters, he asked him if he was rightly presenting the church's views by teaching from that book. Hyde assured him that he was doing the right thing. What then is the problem that Martin can't get together?
It is true that many ministers have either voluntarily submitted their credentials, or have been fired for teaching the things as taught by Dr. Desmond Ford. But what is the relationship between Ford's teachings and the book, Questions on Doctrine? To state it bluntly - Fordism is simply the chickens come home to roost as a result of the compromises with Martin and Barnhouse in 1955-1956. Observe carefully this verification. The book, Questions on Doctrine teaches: How glorious is the thought that the King, who occupies the throne, is also our representative at the court of heaven! This becomes all the more meaningful when we realize that Jesus our surety entered the "holy places," and appeared in the presence of God for us. But it was not with the hope of obtaining something for us at that time, or at some future time. No! He had already obtained it for us on the cross. And now as our High Priest He ministers the virtues of His atoning sacrifice to us. (p. 381)
All the emphasis in this quotation is the emphasis placed there by those who authored the book. If Christ as High Priest obtains nothing for us as a result of His ministry in the sanctuary above - if it was all obtained for us on the cross - then what is the purpose of a "final atonement" and the ministry of Christ since 1844? This is what Ford has deduced from Questions on Doctrine and he had nerve enough to teach his deductions. Further, following the above quotation to its ultimate conclusion - if it be so, then the Seventh-day Adventist Church has no reason for its existence,and in reality is based upon a false perception of Scripture used, as Barnhouse suggested, as a face -saving device."
[If one wishes to honestly evaluate the truth about this whole disaster, he may obtain from the Adventist Laymen's Foundation a facsimile reproduction of the documents telling what took place at the SDA-Evangelical Conferences in 1955-1956. These were written by Barnhouse and Martin, and the Adventist Chairman of the Conferences. Order form.]
to the three questions asked by Walter Martin to find out where the
Church stands today in relationship to the conferences in 1955-1956.
The three questions are,
4 -- as revealed on the telecast:
These questions were sent to Neal C. Wilson who passed the buck to another person who in turn passed the buck to still another. They were finally answered by the now president of Andrews University, Dr. W. R. Lesher. According to Johnsson, referring to Lesher "He said straight out, 'We have not repudiated Questions on Doctrine."' (p. 29)
The Second Question -- The second question asked by Martin, the answer given by Lesher, plus other answers as researched by Martin and Ankerberg as given by other leading Adventist Church leaders formed the basis of most of the"trial" as aired on the Show. Martin claimed that the second question "was conspicuously left unanswered." (p.3) In a further discussion as to whether the question was answered or not, it seems that Martin was given a "statement about the relationship of Ellen White's authority to the Scriptures," while Martin wanted a straight, "Yes," or "NO" answer. Johnsson finally read a part of the statement.
We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are in addition to the canon of sacred Scripture. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen G. White may be used as a basis of doctrine. We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture. We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White. (p. 29)
This is only the beginning of the dilemma. Johnsson kept standing - 18 times - on the 27 Statements of Belief. Ankerberg, in turn, quoted to him from them. In full context, he said: We're talking about one specific doctrine, and, Dr. Johnsson, I'd like to come to you on this. You were quoting from the fundamental beliefs last week and I would like to go back to the fundamental beliefs concerning the gift of prophecy and the authority of Ellen G. White. One of the things that is a puzzle, I think, to me, as well as to a lot of folks, is underneath the paragraph concerning the gift of prophecy that you say, "As the Lord's messenger, Ellen White's writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth." What does it mean for her writings to be "a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provides for the church comfort, guidance, instruction and correction"? (p. 7)
The phrase - "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" - is as much neo-Adventism on the right, as the abridgment of the sanctuary doctrine is neo-Adventism on the left. Neither position can be sustained from a review of the Statements of Belief held by the Church in the past. But here we have the "both-sides-of -the-mouth" teaching which has so disturbed Martin. There is no question but that the Writings of Ellen G. White teach that Christ in His High Priestly ministry did obtain, and will obtain something for us in the "final atonement." The book - Questions on Doctrine says NO, He obtained it all on the cross. The Church in its 1980 Statement of Beliefs seeks to confirm the doctrine as contained in the book, and at the same time sustain the authority of Ellen G. White.
Johnsson affirmed that the Church has not repudiated the book, Questions on Doctrine, and he declared that the bottom line is the 27 Statements voted at Dallas, one of which declares the Writings of Ellen G. White to be "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" - yet they teach contrary to the book. How did Johnsson try to get off of the horns of that dilemma?
When asked about his understanding of the meaning of the language employed in the Statement of Beliefs, he skirted the real meaning and said - "I think it means we should take them seriously." (p. 7, emphasis mine) However, Martin produced quotes from Dr. Robert Olson of the White Estate (p. 6), Arthur White (p. 6), D. A. Delafield, formerly of the Estate (p.15), Neal C. Wilson (p. 7), and 1976 Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly which coincided with the language used in the Statement of Beliefs. Delafield openly affirmed in regard to Ellen G. White - "She was
p 5 -- canonical insofar as doctrinal interpretational authority is concerned." (p. 15) Arthur White went even further - relegating the Sacred Scriptures to a questionable and secondary level. He is quoted as saying; - "Seventh-day Adventists are uniquely fortunate. We are not left to find our way, drawing conclusions from the writing of 2,000 years, and more, ago that have come down to us through varied transcriptions and translations. With us it is almost a contemporary matter. We have a prophet in our midst." (p. 6) It is such as this that led Martin to charge that Ellen G. White has become to Seventh-day Adventists "a Pope above the Scriptures."
Following closely on the heels of The John Ankerberg Show was the 1985 Session of the General Conference in New Orleans. Nothing was done to remedy the conflict and double-talk within the Statement of Beliefs. Rather there was a tightening of the organizational machinery which makes it resemble Romanism, though supposedly more democratic. Does all of this give a different, but telling meaning to the statement found in Great Controversy?? It reads: It was apostasy that led the early church to seek the aid of the civil government, and this prepared the way for the development of the papacy - the beast. ... So apostasy in the church will prepare the way for the image to the beast.
All that "received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" will be left to accept "strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." When this state of ungodliness shall be reached, the same results will follow as in the first centuries. (Pp. 443-444)
the Seventh-day Adventist Church formed its own image to the beast in
structure of organization and in the teaching authority assigned to
Ellen G. White?
to Scripture!" -- During the "trial," Johnsson
when confronted with specific quotations from the Writings of Ellen
G. White, which either he could not answer, or preferred not to
was in the room when they did it. When they got finished and the discussion
pursued from there, the general conclusion was that the text of Hebrews
left no doubt whatsoever that at the ascension Jesus Christ entered
into the holiest of all with His blood, having obtained that redemption
for us. 1844 was not included in Hebrews chapter 9. It was written long
before 1844. Crosier said, "No." Mrs White said, "No."
James White said, "No." The early Adventists
p 6 -- said, "No." They were wrong. The Greek text is right. It's a question of whether you're going to accept the text of the Scripture or the interpretation of Mrs. White over that text, which brings me back to the basic question I was discussing before. Is Mrs. White the interpreter of Scripture to the denomination? Answer: On the Investigative Judgment of the sanctuary she most certainly is. (p. 9, emphasis his)
When Johnsson responded, he missed the whole point and tried to center his answer around the meaning of ta hagia (Holy Place), instead of dealing with the issue concerning the text. Did Christ enter the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary upon His ascension? Was the atonement completed on the cross, and then Christ entered upon His priestly ministry? Does Hebrews 9:11-12 support these assumptions? Admittedly, the meaning of TA hagia is involved, but what Martin and the Evangelicals are trying to say is that these verses teach that after making a full and complete atonement for us on the Cross - "having obtained eternal redemption for us" - Jesus entered not into a first apartment ministry, but into the Most Holy Place. If TA hagia, means "sanctuary" as Johnsson sought to affirm, and the Heavenly Sanctuary has but one apartment, or is Heaven itself, what really is Johnsson saying differently than Martin?
The Greek text does not say what Martin tried to make it say. The Greek text of Hebrews 9: 11-12, literally translated reads: But Christ having come forth, a high priest of surely coming [alternate reading - having come] good things through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not handmade, (that is, not of this creation) and not through blood of goats and young bullocks, but through (His) own blood, He entered once for all into the holy place, age-long redemption having obtained.
In the KJV, these verses read: But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
There are those who seek to make a great case for the sole use of the KJV, but in the translation of these verses, the KJV is teaching what Dr. Desmond Ford, the Evangelicals, and Questions on Doctrine teach - a finished work of atonement prior to Jesus entering the High Priestly ministry. However, the RSV on this point gives a more correct translation of the Greek text. It reads: But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come; then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
carefully the contrast of thought:
In the Greek text, Hebrews 9:11-12 constitute one sentence with a single main verb, and two participles introducing subordinate clauses. The main verb is (KJV ) "entered in" (eiselthon). The two participles are (KJV) "being come" (paragenomenos) and (KJV) "having obtained" (heuramenos). The verb and the participles are in the aorist or past tense. Ordinarily this would mean that the actions indicated by the participial clauses preceded the action of the main verb. However, in Greek grammar there is what is called "identical action," where the events of the clauses are at the same time as the main verb. A. T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures of the New Testament, affirms that the participle of "obtain" indicates"simultaneous action" with the verb, "entered in." (Vol. 5, p. 399)
There is another participle in an attributive position within the first clause describing "good things." Is it talking relative to things to come (KJV) as a result of Christ's assumption of His High Priestly ministry, or is it speaking about things that have come (RSV)? The problem is that different ancient texts use different words to describe these "good things." The Sinaiticus and Alexandrian texts read - mellonton agathon - or "surely coming good things;" while the Vaticanus and Claromontanus texts read - genomenon agathon - "good things that have come." Robertson comments - "It is a nice question which is the true text. Both aspects are true, for Christ
p 7 -- is High Priest of good things that have already come as well as of the glorious future hope." (Ibid, p. 398)
However, the phrase - "good things to come" - as found in the Sinaiticus and Alexandrian texts is also used in Hebrews 10:1 when speaking of the foreshadowing of the ceremonial law. Thus the reality of that law, Christ as High Priest, with His own blood obtains a continuous flow of good things. It is a lively hope, a hope pregnant with life. (I Peter 1:3) This includes the final atonement. The hope in Christ does not end at the Cross, it only begins; likewise His ministry.
These verses - Hebrews 9:11-12 - amplified read: Christ becoming an high priest bestows continuously good things through His ministry in the Heavenly Tabernacle, however, not with the benign efficacy of the blood of goats and young bullocks; but by His own blood, pregnant with life, He entered into the Holy Place, securing for us eternal redemption.
The climax of the thought introduced in Hebrews 9:11-12 is reached in verse 28, when having completed His heavenly ministry, Christ comes the second time without sin unto salvation.
THE DISASTER? -- The confrontation between Martin and Johnsson
on The John Ankerberg Show was nothing short of a disaster for Johnsson,
and thus the leadership of the Church. Questions were asked; quotations
were given from church leaders and publications of the
Here is a man who holds a doctorate in New Testament Studies from Vanderbilt University, who taught at Andrews University, serving there as Associate Dean of the Seminary, and who is now Editor in Chief of the Official Organ of the Church, the Adventist Review - yet he could not stand before the adversaries of the Truth! Why?
The God we serve today is the same God who led Israel across the Jordan and broke down the walls of Jericho before them, bringing fear upon the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Yet at Ai, Israel failed miserably. However, there was one difference between then and now. Joshua recognized the failure and prayed before the Ark of the Lord. We have heard nothing of such a prayer on the part of Wilson because of this disaster. Yet the reason is the same. God told Joshua: THERE IS AN ACCURSED THING, IN THE MIDST OF THEE, 0 ISRAEL: THOU CANST NOT STAND BEFORE THINE ENEMIES. (Joshua 7:13)
This accursed thing - Questions on Doctrine - representing as it does a betrayal of the truth committed in trust to the Church as a vehicle of God's final movement, although out of print, is still honored by the church's leadership above the truth of God. Therefore, because of this, Johnsson was unable to stand before Martin, one of the very individuals with whom past leaders of the Church had an illicit relationship. -- (1985 Sep) ---