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
As of 2010, all official sites of ALF in the United States of America were closed. The Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Canada with its website, www.Adventist Alert.com, is now the only official Adventist Layman's Foundation established by Elder Grotheer worldwide.
The MISSION of this site -- to put works of the Foundation online.
Any portion of these works may be reproduced without further permission by adding the credit line - "Reprinted from Adventist Layman's Foundation, AdventistAlert.com, Victoria, BC Canada."
Thank you for visiting. We look forward to you coming
WWN 2002 Jan - Mar
2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary" -- Editors Preface -- With this first issue of WWN for 2002, we will begin an analysis of a basic teaching of Adventism with the goal of seeking to "learn" - finding new incites - and to note areas wherein we need to "unlearn," so that the truth we hold may be "pure and unadulterated." We do not set forth these findings as infallible, but rather as suggestive where there needs to be deeper study.
The key doctrine of Adventism is the teaching and understanding of the Sanctuary of which God gave the blueprint to Moses. The Psalmist could sing, "Thy way, O God is in the sanctuary" (77:13). The God of Israel was revealed as One who "dwellest between the cherubim" (80:1). The conclusions drawn and the lessons to be learned are based on the principle of type and antitype. But to correctly state the truth of the antitype, one must be sure that all that the type reveals is included in the deductions made. One cannot take one part of the type as just ceremonial, and a corresponding part typical. For example: On the Day of Atonement, Aaron in his capacity as High Priest was instructed to provide a bullock "for a sin offering ... for himself and for his house." He provided the sacrifice, but he did not place his hands on it in confession as he did the bullock he was required to bring should he lead the people into sin. Is one situation to be considered just a literal ceremonial act with no typical significance, and the other typical, or were both to have typical significance? We dare not make an interpretive error on this point, as the blood of the bullock provided by the High Priest for the Day of Atonement became a part of the blood used in the final cleansing at the Altar in the Court.
While preparing this issue of WWN (in October) we received a copy of a page from the August issue of OFF (really "off "). It is tragic, yet revealing how far the corrupted heart of man will take their theology and vent their antipathy. (See p. 7).
p 2 -- "We have many things
to learn, and many, many things to unlearn.
In the holy city, New Jerusalem, there is "no temple for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22). However, Scripture reveals another tabernacle, designated "the true tabernacle (skhnhV), which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2). Here the contrast is emphasized. The one at Sinai, man was asked to make; the heavenly, the Lord "pitched." The relationship between the two as defined in Scripture forms the basis of the doctrine of the sanctuary.
Perhaps we should summarize what the above revelation in Scripture is
telling us: 1) Both the tabernacle "pitched"
by Moses, and the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched"
were of temporary duration,
The heavenly "tabernacle" was pitched" to serve as the place of ministry for Jesus Christ as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec. The earthly tabernacle "reared" by Moses (Ex. 40:17-18) was served by the Order of Aaron. The relationship between these two Orders needs to be clearly understood for this is basic in the doctrine of the sanctuary.
"The pattern . . shewed . . in the mount"-- Following the directive that Israel make a sanctuary, Moses was instructed that it be made according to "the pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount" (Ex. 25:9, 40). Linguistically, the Hebrew word translated, "pattern," in both of these verses - tavnith - is translated as "likeness," "similitude," "figure," "form," as well as "pattern," in other Old Testament references. The LXX renders the Hebrew word for pattern in verse 9 by paradeigma , and in verse 40 by tupoV, from which our English word, "type" is derived. We would designate it today as either a "blueprint," or a "scale model." In Hebrews 8:5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the LXX is followed (kata ton tupon). Actually in Hebrews 8:5, the variant ('upodeigma ) of the Greek word used in Exodus 25:9 ( paradeigma ) is used and in the KJV is translated, "example."
The question that must be determined is whether the relationship between the earthly tabernacle and the heavenly is structural or is it the services performed by the priests which typify the reality of Christ's priestly ministry. The context in Hebrews 8:4-5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the KJV translation indicates the service motif over the structural comparison. It reads, speaking of the earthly temple: There are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenlv things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount."
On the other hand, the NIV reads: There are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. [The NKJV follows the NIV closely)
Which is right? Both the words "example" ('upodeigmati) and shadow (skia) are in the dative case. A. T. Robertson observes that in the use of the dative case, there was "originally no idea of place in it." It is purely a grammatical case "used of a person, not
p 3 -- place." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 536). The emphasis is not that the priests served in a "copy" (NIV, NKJV); but that they "serve unto the example and shadow" (KJV) of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.
This distinction is basic to a Biblical doctrine of the sanctuary. The doctrine of the sanctuary is based in typology. Is the emphasis of this typology, a typology of structure, or a typology of service? The latter can be sustained Biblically as well as linguistically, as noted in the above paragraph. On that concept we shall seek to find answers to questions raised in a study of the doctrine of the sanctuary as we "learn" as well as "unlearn."
In the earthly "pattern," many priests served. (Heb. 7: 23). In the heavenly tabernacle, only One. In the earthly, various animals were offered, and their blood mediated. In the heavenly, there was but one sacrifice, "the Lamb of God , which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).
Note: The book of Revelation indicates that certain
services performed by the common priest in the earthly tabernacle, are
performed by "redeemed" men and angels in the heavenly. (4:8-10;
The main services of the earthly can be divided into two divisions, the daily and the yearly.
The Sin Offerings-- While a morning and evening sacrifice was offered daily (Ex. 29:38-42), there were also prescribed offerings by which corporate and individual confession was to be made for sins committed. These required offerings are listed in Leviticus 4. Four categories of sinners are given and what each was to offer and the result to be expected stated. The corporate transgressions involved the high priest - "the priest that is anointed" (4:3) - when acting in his official capacity; and the whole congregation (4:13). Individual transgressions involved the rulers (4:22), and the common people (4:27).
The result to be grasped by faith was forgiveness. In each category, save one, the statement is made - "it shall be forgiven them" or "him" (4:20, 26, 31, 35). Further, the forgiveness followed the mediation by the officiating priest. "The priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." There was an atonement made in these confessional sacrifices. There were also other variations. The high priest - "the priest that is anointed" - officiated at the sacrifice of confession for corporate guilt (4:5, 16), while the common priest officiated in the sacrifice brought by the ruler or common person (4:25, 30, 34).
The application of the blood of the sacrifice varied. The blood of the
offering confessing corporate guilt was taken within the sanctuary, and
sprinkled before the veil separating between the holy and most holy place,
and a record was made by placing some of the blood on the horns of "the
altar of sweet incense before the Lord" (4:6-7, 17-18). In the case
of the individual sin offering, whether offered by ruler or common person,
the blood was not
taken into the sanctuary, but the common priest marked the record of confession
in blood on the horns of the Altar in the Court (4:25, 30, 34), and ate
a small bite of the sacrifice (6:25-26). In all four categories of these
sin offerings the remaining blood was poured at the base of the Altar
of Burnt Offering (4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). In the sacrifice of the sin offerings,
the focus was centered around the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court,
not in the sanctuary.
The focus of the Christian faith is centered in the cross set up on earth upon which the Lamb of God was offered in making provision for the sin of the world. It was the Word made flesh Who provided the atonement by which forgiveness can be offered. He, as a common priest, officiated in the sacrifice of Himself for the individual who would come to Him in confession of sin. It was the atonement of the cross which provided the forgiveness. But the sinner requires more than forgiveness; he needs to be cleansed (I John 1:9). This must await His ministry as High Priest in "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:1-2).
Returning to the instruction regarding the sin offerings, we find that these offerings were for sins of ignorance. The preface reads: If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, . . . (4:2)
Then "when the sin which they have sinned ... is known" (4:14) confession is required. The directive reads for the ruler and common persons: "if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge," then he shall bring a sacrifice. Not only did the sinner place his hand upon the head of the victim, thereby giving evidence of his intent to transfer the guilt so that the victim paid the price for the sin committed, death; but
p 4 -- he also was to "confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (5:5). The sin had already been committed and a record made even though the sinner was in ignorance. But when convicted, he was to respond with a proper confession. That made it necessary for an offering to be made so that the sin might be forgiven.
The record of the sacrifice marked in blood upon the Altar in the Court, or on the Altar of Incense did not record the sin (it had already been recorded); but the confession, which was made so that the sin might be forgiven. (I John 1:9; Lev. 4:26) The Scripture is clear that our sins are known and recorded (Eccl. 5:6), even though we may be in ignorance. If the confession of sin is the means by which the sins are recorded, then the best way to have a clean record is not to confess or recognize the Substitute. This concept strikes at the very heart of the plan of redemption.
The Day of Atonement
-- The day of
Atonement is listed among the "feasts of the Lord" in Leviticus
23. Today, in Judaism, this Feast is the most important day of their yearly
religious rites; yet in the Old Testament, there is no record of any celebration
of this feast. In the Gospels there is no mention of Christ ever attending
this feast as He did the Passover. This we can understand; Jesus needed
no cleansing since He did no sin. There is an allusion to the day in Acts
27:9. "The day" in Hebrews 10:25 could refer to the Day of Atonement.
The preface to the listing of the "feasts" in Leviticus 23
notes the Sabbath commandment as a "holy convocation" even as
the "feasts" were to be so proclaimed (verses 2-3). There is
a reason. Concerning the Sabbath, the commandment specifies - "ye
shall do no work therein: it is a sabbath of rest in all your dwellings"
(ver. 3). All the other feasts - the Passover, Pentecost, the Memorial
of the Trumpets and the Tabernacles, the command was simply - "Ye
shall do no servile work therein" (verses 8, 21, 25, 35). However,
the command concerning the Day of Atonement carried the same injunction
as the Sabbath - "Ye shall do no manner of work" (ver. 31).
The significance of the Sabbath rest would likewise be the significance
of the rest for the Day of Atonement. In Hebrews (4:10) speaking of the
Sabbath in connection with the "rest" of God promised in Christ
Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30), it reads that one who enters into that rest "hath
ceased from his own works." Likewise, the one who receives the final
atonement must cease from his own works, and rely solely on the High Priest.
If not, he will be destroyed "from among his people" (Lev. 23:30).
There is another interesting aspect to the Day of Atonement not indicated
in the KJV. The text reads: On
the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements
(plural in the Hebrew):
it shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall afflict your souls,
and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work
in that same day: for it is the day of atonements (plural
in the Hebrew), to
make atonement for you before the Lord your God. (Lev. 23:27-28).
Why the plural? There are two possibilities. In the outline of the services
to be performed on the tenth day of the seventh month, there is enumerated
a series of atonements to be accomplished by the High Priest (Lev. 16:32-33),
thus it was literally a "days of atonements." The other possibility
is that it is the use of the
pluralis majestaticus v. excellentiae (majestic plural) as
is ascribed to the word, Elohim, the plural form for God in the Hebrew.
If it is this later possibility, the use elevates this day above all the
other ceremonial feast days.
The services to be performed by the High Priest alone on that day are
outlined in Leviticus 16. There are some details of a typical nature that
need to be carefully considered not only for "learning" but
also for some "unlearning." [It needs to be kept in mind that
the term, "holy" coupled with the supplied word, "place"
in this chapter refers to what we often call the "Most Holy Place,"
or the inner apartment of the sanctuary. The phrase, "tabernacle
of the congregation" (v.17) is used to designate the first apartment,
which we often refer to as, "The Holy Place."]
The instruction given to Moses for Aaron begins with a specific warning.
He was not to come into the Most Holy Place except on one day of each
year the Day of Atonement (v.2). He was told what to bring: "a young
bullock as a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering" (v.3). The
first thing which must be decided is the question - Is this offering to
be considered typical, or was it just a part of the ceremonial procedure?
In other words, did Aaron function on the Day of Atonement in his High
Priestly capacity as a type of the ministry of the great High Priest of
the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched"?
If Aaron so functioned, then there is significance in the fact that he provided the "young bullock" which he offered. Since the great High Priest must Himself "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3), He pres-
p 5 -- ents Himself as the Mediator of His own blood. In the typical
services of this day, the blood of the young bullock is carried into the
Most Holy Place prior to the blood of "the Lord's goat" (16:14).
Further, when the last act of atonement was made on the Day, the blood
of the bullock, and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled to accomplish
the final cleansing (v.18). This is saying something. The accomplishment
of the last act of the atonement is by the power of both Him that sits
between the cherubim, and He who ministers as the Divine Intercessor.
This typical message dare not be overlooked. It will appear again as we
continue our study.
Two other factors need to be observed in regard to Aaron's offering.
In both his corporate capacity, should he lead the congregation into sin,
and now in his functioning on the day of Atonement, a "young"
bullock was involved (Lev. 4:3; 16:3). In the reality of the offering
provided for both forgiveness and for cleansing, it was made by One who
"was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isa. 53:8). He
gave Himself in the prime of His earthly experience.
In Leviticus 16, the offering of Aaron is defined as "for himself,
and for his house" (v.6). Is this to be considered as "for himself"
as a sinner, or is it typical of the fact that the great Antitype gave
Himself for us, as just noted above? No hands of confession were laid
on this bullock by Aaron, even though designated as a "sin offering."
It was a sin offering "for his house." Was this for his own
family? It does say in a summary of the "atonements", that one
was an "atonement for the priests" (v. 33). It needs to be kept
in mind that the take off point in the book of Hebrews for the discussion
of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was His being "a son
over his own house."
Hebrews 1 presents Christ as God, worthy of worship, and as a Son through
whom God has spoken. Hebrews 2, presents Him as a man of "the seed
of Abraham, ... made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful
and faithful high priest." Then Chapter 3 asks us as "partakers
of the heavenly calling" to "consider the Apostle and High Priest
of our profession." The first thing Paul presents is a comparison
between two "houses" - the house of Moses, and the house of
Christ. It also needs to be remembered that Aaron was to be only a spokesman
to Moses (Ex. 4:16). It was Moses who erected and anointed the tabernacle
of the congregation, as well as dedicating Aaron to the priesthood (Exodus
40). Aaron served as Moses' "alter ego" with whom God had made
the "typical" covenant (Ex. 34:27).
Returning to the services performed on the Day of Atonement, we note
that besides the "young bullock," there were to be two goats
provided by the congregation, both of which were to be for "a sin
offering" (v. 5). Lots were to be cast over these goats, and one
was to be the Lord's goat and the other for Azazel (v. 8; margin). Both
goats in the type would bear the consequences of sin, one vicariously,
the other as the recipient of the due judgment on sin.
On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went three times into the Most
Inasmuch as the live coals were taken from the Altar of Burnt Offering,
and each of the two sacrifices were made at the same altar, the High Priest
on the Day of Atonement moved three times from the Altar in the Court
into the Most Holy Place, and then returned to the same Altar to complete
the Atonement. In type, the High Priest did not go into the Most Holy
Place and remain there the entire day. Here is one facet of the typical
services on the Day of Atonement where there is needed, not only "learning"
but also much "unlearning," so that the presentation of the
Antitypical Day of Atonement will coincide with the type.
The ministration of the blood in the Most Holy Place is twofold: 1)
"Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and 2)
"Because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v.16).
Here is the record of all sins, yet no blood was ever brought into the
Most Holy Place, whether for corporate or individual sins via the sin
offerings prescribed. At this point, in type, the record was cleansed;
but "the uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final ministration
at the Altar in the
The passing from the Most Holy to the Alter of Incense in the Holy Place is only briefly noted (v. 16b). The instruction as what was to be done is given in
p 6 -- Exodus 30:10. Atonement was "to be made upon the horns
of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements."
On it only was placed the record of confessed corporate guilt. Is the
brevity of the instruction concerning the ministration in the Holy Place
indicative of how hard it is for religious leaders to acknowledge their
transgression in leading God's people into apostasy, or for corporate
groups to confess their guilt as a body, and thus so little repentance,
if any, is recorded.
The final cleansing at the Altar in the Court needs careful study. While
the ministry in the Most Holy cleared the record of sin, the atonement
at the Altar reached to "the uncleanness of the children of Israel"
(v.19). Unless the source of sin is cleansed, the acts of sin will not
cease. The combined blood was placed on the horns of the Altar where the
record of acknowledgment and confession had been placed (Lev. 4:30). It
covered over the blood which had been placed there during the year. The
antitype is summarized concisely by John when he wrote, "If we confess
our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9). Here is the whole yearly
typical service regarding sin in one sentence, and the one single act,
we do in that full redemption, confess ourselves to be what we are, and
from which we cannot deliver ourselves.
Let us review so as to see the overall picture. Let us retrace the steps
placing ourselves in the typical yearly services. We sin, and becoming
conscious of our guilt, we bring the specified offering. On it we place
our hands in full weight, confessing our sin. We then slay the victim.
The officiating priest takes of the blood, and by it, places the record
of confession on the horns of the Altar. In his priestly ministration,
the priest makes the atonement for us, and we are forgiven. The Day of
Atonements comes. The record of sin is to be confronted, and carried away.
We are to be cleansed. What can we do? Afflict our souls, and cease to
trust in any of our works. Again it is a priest that ministers; however,
on this day, it is the High Priest, and he alone.
He ministers with the blood from victims on which no hands of confession
are laid. For the final phase, part of the blood of cleansing, he himself
has provided; the other part is blood from a goat that has become by lot
the Lord's. We come in the words of the hymn, "nothing in our hands
to bring" but simply to the Cross to cling.
"And when (the High Priest hath made an end
of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of
the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev.
16:21). This live goat, by lot belonged to Azazel, as much as the sacrificed
goat belonged to the Lord. (ver. 8, margin). While the two goats were
taken for "a sin offering" (v.5), only the Lord's goat was so
sacrificed. With the live goat, "an atonement" was to be made
with him, but not a blood atonement (v. 10). After "an end"
of reconciliation was made with the mingled blood, then the goat for Azazel
was brought into the typical ceremony. The High Priest was to place both
of his hands on the head of the live goat, and "confess over him
all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression
in all their sins" (v.21).
It should be observed that the High Priest bore the sins of Israel, but not their uncleanness (Heb. 7:26). The sins were transferred to the goat for Azazel, but only the sins of Israel, not the rest of the world. No blood atonement was made by this scapegoat, only a judgment because of those sins. The great antitypical High Priest who in "His own self (bore) our sins in His own body on the tree" (I Peter 2:24), has every right to take what He paid for, and assign the accounting to the source of that which cost Him so much.
To "Learn" and
to "Unlearn" --
p 7 -- not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.
A Connecting Link
-- On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for
the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre
to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other
Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in
In Ezekiel 9, the man with a "writer's inkhorn" by his side was "clothed with linen" (v.2). This is emphasized three times (vs. 2, 3, 11). In Zechariah 3, there is another symbolic representation of filthy garments and a change of raiment. An interesting comment is made concerning this text of Scripture: "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" (5T:472). We shall note these two visions of Scripture as we continue our "learning" and "unlearning" investigation.
-- On September 11, 2001 the terrible tragedy which occurred,
both in New York and the nation's capital, accelerated the course the
American democracy was taking under the Bush administration. The loss
of human life, and the way in which it was lost, strikes horror to the
human heart. Not alone in the tragedy is the "terroristic attitude"
revealed, but the reaction to that tragedy by communities sympathetic
with its perpetrators was shocking.
In World Press Review (November 2001, p.45) is a picture of Palestinians
in Lebanon celebrating exuberantly what had happened, after hearing the
news. This reaction was quite widespread in the Middle East. But such
a terroristic attitude is not limited alone to the world of politics,
but manifests itself even within the community of Adventism.
Since 1950, Elders Wieland and Short have sought to bring to the church
the grave consequences of rejecting the message of 1888. In 1967, the
General Conference made a final rejection of the manuscript submitted
by these brethren in 1950. Then in 1994 a Primacy of the Gospel Committee
studied the understandings of the 1888 Message Study Committee which had
been formed since the 1967 rejection. This past year the convictions of
the Study Committee were rejected.
One reaction to the rejection - echoing the same "terroristic"
mind set as the Palestinians - is found in Our
(OFF), (August, p.14). It reads: We
applaud the General Conference for rejecting the "message" of
the 1888 Message Committee, with its diabolical teachings of Donald K.
Short, Robert J. Wieland, and Jack Sequeira. Their teachings and twisting
of the gospel are indeed dangerous winds of doctrine.
Basically, it is a choice between the Pauline concept of faith that works,
and the Counsel of Trent's position of faith and works as a basis of salvation.
OFF's position coincides with the Council of Trent. This is only
one of OFF's "network" of questionable doctrines. In
describing the Incarnation, Ron Spear wrote - "In the prenatal experience,
while in her womb, Christ was inheriting Mary's love for God." (Waymarks
of Adventism, 2nd Edition , p.39) Was the incarnation not God
manifest in the flesh, and is not God the very essence of love? Why all
of this Mariology? Papal oriented? Then they charge "dangerous winds
of doctrine"! OFF further compounds their "network"
of dangerous doctrines by advocating the doctrine of the Incarnation as
taught by the Holy Flesh advocates at the turn of the 20th Century, that
Christ came "born, born again."
While there are certain points that have been connected by Wieland and Short to their presentation of the 1888 Message which need further study and clarification, there can be no justification of applauding the decision of a church which is itself in apostasy. --- (2002 Jan) --- End --- TOP
Feb -- XXXV -- 2(02) -- "Mark
a Tau" -- Editors
preface -- Whenever Ezekiel 9, which can be related to the
ritual of the typical Day of Atonement, is studied, the question follows
as to what is the "seal of God," as well as to what is its prophetic
antithesis, the "mark of the beast." In this issue we follow
the same sequence of study. The "man clothed in linen" places
a mark on the foreheads of certain inhabitants of Jerusalem. What is that
"mark"? There is no way to arrive at the conclusion that the
"mark" in Ezekiel 9 is the same as the "seal" in Revelation
7 if we use the format which mark some seals as used in today's legal
The conflict between God and the "beast" is about worship.
We worship either "Him who made," or we worship the beast, and
his image and receive a mark. However, associated with the message to
worship the Creator, is the "everlasting gospel." Is there a
"gospel" involved with the "beast"? All of these factors
must be considered to arrive at a correct answer as to the "mark."
Back in 1998, the current Pope issued an Apostolic Letter discussing the Dies Domini. He suggested that "Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy" (#67). This caused widespread comment. However, three years earlier this same call was made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2188) and little was said. The real emphasis in both the Catechism, as well as the Apostolic Letter, was the altering of the Catholic explanation and claim for the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Further, the emphasis on Sunday worship is centered in the celebration of the Eucharist the Mass. This sacrament of the Eucharist is considered "the source and summit of the Christian life." (#1324. 1st ed.)
2 -- "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many
to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible."
a Tau" -- The Tau is the last letter of the Hebrew
alphabet. This was the mark which the "man clothed in linen, with
a writer's inkhorn by his side" was instructed to place on the foreheads
of those "that sign and cry for all the abominations that be done
in the midst" of Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 9:2, 4). The margin in the KJV
gives the literal rendering to verse 4, "mark a mark." Besides
being the name of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, it had a word
meaning as well. It meant a mark or a sign "especially in the form
of a cross." "It is related of the synod of Chalcedon, and other
oriental synods, that the bishops who could not write their names affixed
the mark of the cross instead of them; and this is common at the present
day in the case of persons who cannot write" (Gesenius, Hebrew
& English Lexicon of the Old Testament, art., "tau,"
All of this data could open up speculative interpretations which should
be avoided. The context within this vision given to Ezekiel suggests that
the concept of the Tau as the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet has merit.
It is placed upon the foreheads of a "last" people of God. Throughout
this vision, the "man" who places the tau is described as "clothed
in linen" (vs. 2, 3, 11). This was the type of cloth of which the
attire of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was made. (Lev. 16:4).
The "man clothed in linen" with the other six having slaughtering
weapons in their hands, come and stand at the brazen altar where the last
act of reconciliation was performed ceremonially on that day. (Lev. 16:18-20).
He who was enthroned above the cherubim moved to the threshold of the
sanctuary, and gave commandment to the man clothed in linen at the Altar.
In the typical service of the Day of Atonement, the objective concerned
a select group of people - only those who had confessed their sins, and
received the results of the first atonement, forgiveness. Likewise the
placing of the special mark is confined to a select group, those who sigh
and cry for the abomination done in the midst of a special city, a city
where God had placed His name. In this vision of Ezekiel, the same One
who would provide forgiveness, placed the mark on the recipients of that
forgiveness. When "the man clothed in linen" completed his work,
he reported back to the One seated on the cherubim (v.11).
The Chapter also contains a revelation of a description of the work of
the men with slaughtering weapons. These execute the wrath of God against
those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment"
(v.9, margin), a stretching or bending of what is right, while making
it more acceptable, mitigates its witness. On the typical Day of Atonement,
there was to be soul affliction, and the one not so doing, would be cut
off. (Lev. 23:29). "Soul affliction" is incompatible with "a
wresting of judgment." While the "man clothed in linen"
is doing his work of "marking" those sighing and crying in their
"soul affliction;" others also under the direct command of God
do their work against those who are perverting the way of God. They slay
"utterly" beginning at God's sanctuary with "the ancient
men which are before the house" (9:6). There is much to learn from
this prophecy, so as not to make a wrong interpretation or application.
The "man clothed in linen" does not pass from view, for in
the next phase of this extended vision shown to Ezekiel, He again appears,
but minus "the writer's inkhorn" (10:2, 6, 7). The marking had
been done. (9:11). Now another command awaits him. This command and the
symbolism connected with it demands our careful study.
From the throne (10:1) the "man clothed in linen" was instructed
in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with
coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city."
These cannot be considered "coals" of destruction, because the men with slaughtering weapons had already slain "utterly" all who had not been marked (9:6). Those remaining in the city were only the marked ones, and on these were scattered "the coals of fire from between the cherubim." Here again we see the mingled blood (Lev. 16:18) of the final atone-
p 3 -- ment - the Man clothed in linen, who marked His people with a "mark of redemption;" and the One on the throne who provided "coals of fire" for their cleansing. (See Isaiah. 6:6-7) Then "the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory" (Eze. 10:4). Is this again alluded to in Revelation 18:1 - "and the earth [the court] was lightened with his glory"?
"Joshua was Clothed with Filthy
Garments" -- The revelation given to Zechariah in
the vision of the third chapter demands careful study. Joshua, the high
priest stands in judicial review before, "the angel of the Lord"
with "Satan standing at his (Joshua's) right hand to resist him"
(v.1). As the vision unfolds, this Angel is designated simply as "the
Lord" (v. 2) and His redemptive powers as the Messiah are revealed
(v. 4). Further, this Divine Messenger proclaims the promise and the objective
of the Lord of hosts to be realized by His messianic servant, "the
BRANCH" (vs. 7-8). There is a close relationship between these verses
and the revelation in Chapter 6:12-13, which reveals "The BRANCH"
as the One who will accomplish the design of "the counsel of peace
which was between the Two of Them" (Heb).
Here in Zechariah 3 are all the elements symbolized in the services of
the typical Day of Atonement: the mingled blood of the bullock and the
Lord's goat to accomplish the final cleansing (the action of the Messianic
Lord and the decree of the Lord of hosts); the scapegoat for Azazel (Satan
standing at the right hand of Joshua); the High Priest carrying in himself
the sins of the children of Israel, and placing them on the head of the
scapegoat (Joshua clothed in filthy garments); and the ultimate atonement,
the removal of the uncleanness of the children of Israel (the change of
raiment and the removal of all iniquity). (See Leviticus 16).
In this vision given to Zechariah, the High Priest is standing for the people as the mediator between them and Jehovah. When the office was instituted, not only was the high priest to carry Israel in symbol in the two onyx stones set in gold placed on his shoulders (Ex. 28:11-12) and in the breastplate (28:29); but there was a special significance to the plate of pure gold which he was to wear on his forehead on which were engraved the words, "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" (28:36) The instruction states: And it (the plate) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the inequity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow in their holy gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord" (Ez. 28:38)
Keil & Delitzsch make a very enlightening comment on this verse. It reads: The high priest was exalted into an atoning mediator of the whole nation, and an atoning sin-exterminating intercesion was associated with his office. The qualification for this he received from the diadem upon his forehead with the inscription "holiness to the Lord." Through this inscription, which was fastened upon his head-dress of brilliant white, the earthly reflection of holiness, he was crowned as sanctified to the Lord, and endowed with the power to exterminate the sin wich clung to the holy offerings of the people on account of the unholiness of their nature, so that the gifts of the nation became well-pleasing to the Lord, and the good pleasure of God was manifest to the nation. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Vol.1, pp.203-204)
When we understand that the Aaronic priesthood was but typical of the
reality, Jesus Christ, High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec,
then the "sin exterminating intercession" which was basic in
the final atonement, takes on renewed significance in the light of the
vision to Zechariah. First, Joshua, standing for the people, could not
remove his filthy garments. They had to be taken from him. The command
was given by the Divine Messenger, "Take away the filthy garments
from him" (3:4). Joshua could refuse, knowing the result - he would
at some point be naked before the Lord. He had a choice. Either respond
as did Adam, and make himself a garment of "fig leaves," or
accept the provision of the Divine Mediator: "I have caused thine
iniquity to pass from thee, and I will give thee a change of raiment."
It is either faith or works, my works to achieve perfection, or faith
to believe what the great High Priest says He will and can do. The message
of the type declared plainly that the High Priest alone accomplished the
cleansing on the typical Day of Atonement. The vision given to Zechariah
states likewise that the Divine Messenger, The BRANCH, will do for man
that which he cannot do for himself, take away his "filthy garments"
and give him a change of raiment.
The concept that the high priest stood for Israel before God is echoed in the New Testament motif of being "in Christ." "Ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:10); "Your life is hid with Christ in God" (3:3); "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5:17). Even the hope of the resurrection is based in this relation-
p 4 -- ship: "the
dead in Christ shall arise first" (I Thess. 4:16). "For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor.
15:22). It was Paul's desire to "be found in Him, not having [his]
own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith
of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:9).
There are two other revelations in this vision given to Zechariah which need further and careful study: 1) The results of the mediation of the Divine Messenger produce "men wondered at" (v.8). The margin, indicating the Hebrew, states that these cleansed ones will be "men of wonder." What does this mean? And 2) The "Lord of hosts" declares that He "will remove the iniquity of the land in one day" (v.9). The question is, does this apply to the final cleansing of the earth by fire at the end of the age, or is this speaking of the final "manifestation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:19) just prior to the close of probation?
The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast -- Any discussion of Ezekiel 9 involving "the mark" is then associated with Revelation 7 involving the "sealing" of the 144,000. The text in Revelation reads: I saw another angel ascending from the east having the seal of the living God: ... And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel (vs. 2, 4).
The antithesis of the "seal of God" in Revelation is the "mark
of the beast" (14:9). Because of little study and much less reflection
on the Scriptures, many in Adventism give an elementary answer to what
this "seal" and "mark" is. These quickly respond that
the "seal" is keeping the Sabbath, and the "mark"
is keeping Sunday. It is true the Roman Church claims in their catechisms,
and other publications, that the change in the day of worship from Saturday
to Sunday is an evidence of her power "to institute festivals of
precept." Further, they boast that this change accepted by Protestants
"is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority
of the [Roman] Church." However, these admissions and boastings carry
the "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" of that Church.
This is not the case when dealing with the single quotation from a papal
source which designates this act as a "mark" of "her ecclesiastical
power and authority in religious matters," and which is then used
to define Sunday, as "the mark of the beast." Simple handlIng
of truth demands that we have more substantial evidence than this, to
so interpret Biblical symbolism which is given such prominence in prophecy.
First, let us consider the letter which is the basis for the documentation
of the conclusion drawn. It was written in 1895 by J. F. Snyder of Bloomington,
Illinois, to James Cardinal Gibbons, the leading Roman prelate in America
at that time. H. F. Thomas, the office manager of the Diocesan office
in Baltimore replied.
Currently, the only source available to me of this exchange is in the book, Facts of Faith (pp. 292-293), One part of Snyder's letter, quoted verbatim is the phrase, "as a mark of her power" in reference to the change of the Sabbath. The Chancellor's reply is
p 5 -- quoted (in full, or in part is not indicated) and reads: Of
course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. It could
not have been otherwise, as none in those days would have dreamed of doing
anything in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical without her. And the
act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.
The word, "mark" used by Thomas, was suggested by Snyder. However,
the Chancellor's letter does not carry the official
imprimatur of the Papal Church. To base a concept of what is
"the mark of the beast," which is so pointedly discussed in
the book of Revelation, on this single letter in which the idea of "mark"
was suggested by the questioner is itself open to question.
In 1995, the first 825 page English edition of the new Catechism of
the Catholic Church was published by Doubleday, to be followed in
1997 by a 904 page second edition revised in accordance with the official
Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Both editions carried the
Apostolic Constitution, Fidei
Depositum in which the Pope declared the Catechism "to
be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate
instrument for ecclesial communion" (p. 5, 2nd Edition).
Nowhere in this new Catechism do you find stated as is to be found in
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine. It read:
This Catechism not only carried a double
imprimatur as well as a nihil
obstat, but also its author, Peter Geiermann, received a letter
of commendation from the Vatican bestowing the Apostolic Blessing of Pius
X, expressing the Pope's appreciation of his "zealous efforts ...
for the spread of the knowledge of the True Faith" (p.3).
Nor can there be found as stated in A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen
Keenan which read:
This catechism carried the imprimatur
of Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York (circa 1876).
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church holds: The
celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature
in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular
worship "as a sign of His universal beneficence to all." Sunday
worship fulfils the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up the rhythm
and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of His
people. (#2176, 2nd Edition)
Prior to this conclusion, it sets for the Sabbath as "the seventh
day" giving Scriptural reference, noting that it not only recalled
the creative acts of God, but that it also serves as "a
memorial of Israel's liberation
from bondage in Egypt" (#2170, 2nd ed.; emphasis theirs).
Further, it is stated: "God entrusted the sabbath to Israel to keep
as a sign of the irrevocable
covenant. The Sabbath is for the Lord, holy and set apart for
the praise of God, His work of creation, and His saving actions on behalf
of Israel" (#2171, ibid.) Following this section on the Sabbath
is a section on "The Lord's Day." How is its observance in place
of the Sabbath justified? As an edict of Rome to show the power of the
Church to change the day? Does it become a "mark" of her authority
in religious matters? No! Note carefully: Jesus
rose from the dead "on the first day of the week." Because it
is the first day," the day of Christ's Resurection recalls the first
creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath,
it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For
Christians it has become the first of all days, the first feast of all
feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) - Sunday (#2174,
They reason further - "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the
sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its
ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover,
Sunday fulfils the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces
man's eternal rest in God" (#2175).
[It is of interest to observe that "sabbath" is never captialized in these sections of the Catechism, while "Sunday" and "the Lord's Day" are. It is also of interest to observe that the text of Scripture used to preface the section on "The Lord's Day" is from the Psalms (118:24) - "This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it" - a text frequently used by Protestants in their justification of
p 6 -- Sunday, especially the Church of Christ. In his encyclical,
Dies Domini, John Paul II declares, "Rightly, then, the Psalmist's
cry is applied to Sunday" and quotes this text. (#2)]
The next section in the Catechism is captioned - "The Sunday Eucharist." It dare not be overlooked. The first sentence reads - "The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life" (emphasis supplied). Then the Codex luris Canonici is quoted: "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (#2177). This same Codex is quoted further as "the law of the Lord" stating that "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice" (#2181). It is on this point that the Catechism calls for legislation: In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give to everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. (#2188).
This objective, officially stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflects the plans of Rome as stated in The Liberal Illusion by Louis Veuillot in 1866 which read: When the time comes and men realize that the social edifice must be rebuilt according to eternal standards, be it tomorrow or centuries from now, the Catholics will arrange things to suit said standards. ... They will make obligatory the religious observance of Sunday on behalf of the whole of society, and for its own good, revoking the permit for free-thinkers and Jews to celebrate incognito, Monday or Saturday on their own account. (p.63; the author's emphasis).
Observe closely the wording - "revoking the permit ... to celebrate
incognito" (in secret) the Sabbath. This gives an enlarged perspective
to the whole question. It will not only be what is perceived as necessary
for the good of "the whole of society" - "the religious
observance of Sunday" - but also what you individually will be forbidden
to do, even secretly, that which God commands to done - "Keep my
sabbaths" (Lev. 26:2). The test will not be a Sunday closing law
which forbids work on Sunday such as could be termed a "National
Sunday Law" but what is perceived by Rome as "the religious
observance" of Sunday. This "religious observance" is clearly
defined in the Catechism - the celebration of the Mass!
Another factor in this picture needs to be considered. As noted above,
the Catechism declares "the Sunday Eucharist" as "the foundation
and confirmation of all Christian practice." (par. 2181) Further,
participation in the Sunday Eucharist "is a testimony of belonging
and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church" (par. 2182). In
light of the fact that the Scripture indicates that the "mark"
can be received in the forehead, or in the hand (Rev. 14:9), the significance
of how the Mass is received needs careful consideration. In a section
captioned - "How to Receive Communion" - the first sentence
reads, "Holy Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand
..." (Handbook for
Today's Catholic, p.42). The desired response is then indicated: When
the minister of the Eucharist addresses the communicant with the words,
"The Body of Christ," "The Blood of Christ," the communicant
What is the meaning and significance of this mental assent? When
the minister raises the eucharistic bread or wine, this is an invitation
for the communicant to make an Act of Faith to express his or her belief
in the Eucharist, to manifest a need and desire for the Lord to accept
the good news of Jesus' paschal mystery.
A clear and meaningful "Amen" is your response to this invitation. In this way you profess your belief in the presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread and wine as well as in his Body, the Church. (ibid.)
Whether the "bread" rests in my hand, or in my mouth, my mind, literally my fore-head gives consent, and I am a member of the Body of Rome. However, I have also given consent recognizing the blasphemous assertion of Rome that a man (the priest) can create the Lord Jesus Christ and offer him in sacrifice. This is truly "in place of," the significance and meaning of the Greek word, AntiChrist (anticristoV), in place of Christ. [The Greek preposition, anti, means "in place of " rather than our English usage of "anti" - against.]
The Three Angels' Messages place in direct contrast
two calls "to worship." One, in connection with the "everlasting
gospel," is "to worship Him" who has the genuine power
to create (Rev. 14:7). The other is a dire warning of judgment for "any
man" who worships "the beast and his image" (v. 9). It
must be clearly understood, that one does not worship a day, but he worships
on a day some Person, or object Who or
p 7 -- which is declared worthy of adoration.
There can be no question but that the Sabbath is the memorial of the
creative action of God, blessed and sanctified by His resting thereon
(Gen. 2:3). Further, in the irrevocable Ten Words, God asked that this
day be remembered and kept holy, because He did create the "heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" in six days, and "rested
on the seventh day" (Ex. 20:8, 11). When this law was repeated to
Israel before they entered the Promised Land, the Sabbath was prefaced
with a second call to "remember" another and different manifestation
of the power of God.
Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Dies Domini, picks up on
this factor and uses it as the basis for the change from Sabbath to Sunday.
He wrote, "The connection between the Sabbath rest and the theme
of 'remembering' is found also in the Book of Deuteronomy where the precept
is grounded less in the work of creation than in the liberation accomplished
by God in the Exodus" (#17). After quoting Deuteronomy 5:15, he adds
- "This formulation complements the one we have already seen [creation],
and taken together, the two reveal the meaning of 'the Lord's Day
' with a single theological vision which fuses creation and salvation"
(ibid.) Then he concludes: What
God accomplished in creation and wrought for his People in the Exodus
has found its fullest expression in Christ's Death and Resurrection. ...
It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity ... came to know its new "exodus"
into the freedom of God's children who cry out with Christ, "Abba,
Father!" In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old testament
precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed
in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ. We move from
the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath,"
from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes dies Christi!
We must never forget that connected with the First Angel's Message to
"worship Him who made," is the "everlasting gospel"
(Rev. 14:6), with its deliverance from sin. On Friday, Jesus finished
the work given Him to do, and "rested the Sabbath day according to
the commandment." On the first day, He arose to begin a new phase
of His saving ministry - a Heavenly Priesthood - which will end when He
comes again the second time "without sin unto salvation" (Heb.
The Seal of God involves not only the observance of the Sabbath as the memorial of God's creative work, but also the Gospel of God's redemptive work in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Mark of the Beast involves the first day of the week of Rome's sanctification and the false gospel in the worship and sacrifice of a wafer-god created by man.
We would suggest to all that in reading the issues of WWN beginning with XXXV-1(02)until we complete our search of that which we need to both "learn and unlearn" that you check each reference carefully in your Bible. If you have either questions or challenges, we would be happy to receive them for our further study and/or reply. --- (2002 Feb) --- End --- TOP
2002 Mar -- XXXV - 3(02) -- "The Judgment Was Set" -- Editors Preface -- In the course of our Church history, we have had problems with the doctrine of the Atonement. Adopting the position of Crosier from his study on the Sanctuary following the Great Disappointment in 1844, we denied that there was an atonement made at the Cross, and declared that there was only one atonement, the final, which began with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 in 1844. The very use of the designation, "final" would indicate more than one atonement. Then in the infamous SDA-Evangelical conferences, we denied what we had taught regarding the final atonement and declared with emphasis - "Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. 'Christ has redeemed us' (Gal. 3:13) 'once for all' Heb. 10:10). Q on D, p. 390) In this compromise, we indicated plainly that a single atonement was completed on the Cross. In fact, the Adventist conferees went so far as to declare that Christ obtained nothing for us at the time of His entrance upon His priestly ministry, nor has He at any time since, because "He had already obtained it for us on the cross." (ibid., p. 381). If the typical priestly ministry in the Hebrew Sanctuary has meaning as the book of Hebrews indicates (Heb. 8:5), then there is a dual atonement, one involving forgiveness and one cleansing.
Beginning in earnest with Ballenger, and climaxing in Dr. Desmond Ford's
assault on the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, we have faced serious challenges
to a basic Adventist teaching. Ballanger based his thrust on the cry of
Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished." In this issue of WWN,
we discuss these words of Jesus, what He meant, as well as consider things
needed to be learned, and unlearned in our teachings regarding aspects
of the Sanctuary question. Perhaps, if we had done so before, we might
have escaped the tragedy of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences.
A. F. Ballenger,
a powerful preacher and revivalist, was one of the first to challenge
this core teaching. In the 1890s, his revival meetings in Battle Creek
centered on "Receive Ye the Holy Spirit," led many of the church
and college students to rededicate their lives to Christ and His service.
Ballenger carried this message to worker's meetings and campmeetings.
It was at one of these meetings in Indiana that S. S. Davis, the originator
of the Holy Flesh Movement, received his inspiration. (See The Holy
Flesh Movement 1899-1901, pp.5-6) At the turn of the century, Ballenger
accepted a call to the British Isles. While laboring in various large
cities, he was also developing new theological concepts. These were finally
published in a book, The
Proclamation of Liberty and the Unpardonable Sin. He would
the reader would know at once what is the central thought, - the all absorbing
theme, - the body, soul and spirit of this book, it is summed up in the
final words of our dying Lord, "It is finished" (p.5).
This is the pivotal point on which the whole of the core teaching of
the sanctuary doctrine turns. All who have followed Ballenger in challenging
the sanctuary teaching of the Church, including Dr. Desmond Ford, have
done little more than elucidate and enlarge on the original premise of
Ballenger. In simple application, the final, dying words of Jesus are
used to substantiate the concept that the death of Christ is the final,
once for all, atonement for sin. In other words, the atonement was finished
at the Cross; there is no final atonement. (See next article, "The
Final Words of Christ").
It also needs to be remembered that following the Great Disappointment
in 1844, 0. R. L Crosier wrote a lengthy analysis on "The Sanctuary,"
with the premise that "the sanctuary was the heart of the typical
system." He challenged the idea that the atonement was completed
on the Cross writing that Christ "did not begin the work of making
atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension,
when by His own blood He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us" (The
Advent Review, September, 1850, p.45). Neither can this position,
nor the one advanced by Ballenger, be sustained by the type.
In the daily service, provision was made for the individual who brought
his sin offering to the Altar in the Court, to receive an atonement which
resulted in forgiveness. The Scripture reads - "and the priest shall
make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:31;
see also 4:26, 35). This atonement for the individual was always at the
Altar in the Court and performed by a common priest. The atonement made
on the typical Day of Atonement was both corporate and individual (Lev.
16:33), and involved a high priestly ministry beginning in the Most Holy
Place and being completed at the Altar in the Court.
The emphasis placed on the Day of Atonement in the Scriptures dare not
be overlooked. While atonement was granted to each individual who confessed
his sin day by day, and was forgiven, it was not designated as a "Day"
of atonement. That designation was reserved for the tenth day of the seventh
month and involved a cleansing which is much more than just being forgiven.
The figurative intent was to be so cleansed as to sin no more. Further,
in the designation of this Day, the plural is used. The Scripture reads: On
the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements.
... And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonements.
(Lev. 23:27, 28; Heb.)
While it might be argued that because of the multiple aspects and wide
range of the atonement made by the High Priest on this tenth day (Lev.
16:33), it could be considered as a simple plural. However, the distinction
made between this day and the other feast days given to Israel, requires
that this be considered the Hebrew use of the plural as the pluralis
p 3 -- v. excellentiae,
even as in the use of Elohim. All the other feast days given in Leviticus
23 - the Passover, the day of Pentecost, "a memorial of blowing of
trumpets," and the two "holy convocations" connected with
the "feast of tabernacles" - required only the cessation from
"servile work" (vs. 7, 21, 25, 35-36). The Day of Atonements
was ranked with the seventh-day Sabbath - "ye shall do no work therein"
(23:3) - with a fearful judgment attached (23:30).
While the first of the "feast" days of Israel was the Passover,
which was fulfilled in the Offering at the Cross (I Cor. 5:7), it does
not receive the status accorded the Day of Atonement in the yearly typical
services of Israel. This should in no wise reflect on the centrality of
the Cross because it was not only the Blood of Calvary which provided
forgiveness, but it is also the same Blood which was offered "once
for all" that provides for the cleansing from sin. It is the dual
atonement made possible by the one and same sacrifice which we dare not
mitigate. Our Great High Priest, as a common priest, offered Himself confirming
the first step of reconciliation - forgiveness. Then as the High Priest,
He ministers the same blood for cleansing so that when He returns as King
of kings, and Lord of lords, He comes "without sin unto salvation"
(Heb. 9:28). If the typology has any meaning, then the emphasis on the
Atonement must be where Heaven places it - the final atonement via the
sacrifice at the Altar in the Court. We need to keep in mind that "a
kid of the goats" (Lev. 4:23. 28), and "the Lord's goat"
(Lev. 16:9), both offered on the Altar in the Court, pointed to the one
great Sacrifice made on Calvary. Calvary provided a provisional at-one-ment;
forgiven, though still a sinner. The ministration of the great High Priest
on the antitypical Day of Atonements provided for a complete at-one-ment,
a cleansed sinner to sin no more.
Qualified or Unqualified
Endorsement -- Into the historical perspective of this "learning"
and "unlearning" process, the endorsement of Ellen G. White
of Crosier's article must be considered. She wrote in a letter to Eli
Curtis, April 21, 1847 that Crosier "had the true light, on the cleansing
of the Sanctuary, & c." Was this an unqualified endorsement of
every facet discussed by Crosier, or was this limited to the question
which caused the great disappointment? Miller held that the "sanctuary"
was this earth, and therefore, the cleansing of the sanctuary could only
mean the second coming of Christ in fiery judgment. The very first section
of Crosier's article discussed fully and at length this question before
introducing Christ's priesthood. Ellen White herself prefaced the endorsement
with a confession of her own belief. She wrote - "I believe the Sanctuary,
to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple,
of which Christ is the minister." If we had not boxed ourselves in
by considering this endorsement as unqualified, we would have recognized
the atonement made by Christ on the Cross, and would have been able to
place the "dual" atonements in the light revealed by the types.
This raises another question. Another "messenger" wrote of
Christ's ministry in the introduction to his book, The
Consecrated Way. He stated: In
the manifestation of Christ the Saviour, it is revealed that He must appear
in the three offices of prophet, priest, and king. (p.3)
Then he observed: This
threefold truth is generally recognized by all who have acquaintance with
the Scriptures, but above this there is a truth which seems to be not
so well known that He is not all three of these at the same time.
The three offices are successive. He is prophet first, then after that
He is priest, and after that He is king. (p.4; emphasis his)
In the type, the atonement which resulted in forgiveness for the individual
sinner was obtained by the common priest. The text reads - "the priest
shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be
forgiven him" (Lev. 4:26). One of the early acts of Jesus, after
beginning His ministry, confirmed this priestly power in reality. Luke
records the faith of the friends of a palsy stricken man. Bringing him
to Jesus, the first thing they heard Jesus say to him was - "Man,
thy sins be forgiven thee" (Luke 5:20). This riled the attending
scribes and Pharisees. To their contentious questioning, Jesus replied: But
that ye might know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive
sins, (He said unto the sick of the palsy) I say unto thee, Arise, and
take up thy couch, and go into thine house. (5:24).
Before accepting the office
of High Priest, Christ had to have "somewhat also to offer"
(Heb. 8:3). "This He did once, when He offered up Himself" (7:27).
This offering began at Bethlehem when the glory of "the redemption
that is in Christ Jesus" began to be revealed. (See John 1:14; Rom.
3:24). To all who came, or were brought to Him, from the palsy stricken
p 4 -- man to the woman taken in adultery, Jesus offered divine forgiveness. He was a "common" priest, "the Son of man." By the resurrection, He would enter a new office. As the Son of God, He would become "a [High] Priest forever after the order of Meichisedec" (Heb. 5:6) [See also Rom. 1:4 and Heb. 5:5]
Before Whom Do
We Appear? -- Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church: For
we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may
receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether
it be good or bad (II Cor. 5:10).
Peter told Cornelius that the Apostles were given strict command by Jesus
"to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is He which was
ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (Acts 10:42).
This accords with the words of Jesus Himself that "the Father judgeth
no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22).
How then are we to understand the prophecy of Daniel? Was the Ancient
of days, intending to judge, and then changed His mind, and gave a different
revelation through Christ in the New Testament? Hardly, such a conclusion
is out of keeping with the revelation of Himself as One who changes not.
(Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). In fact, the Scripture reveals two scenes in which
the Ancient of days sits in judgment "and the books were opened"
(Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12). These scenes are a thousand years apart when
in fulfilment. Yet it is the same Judge, and the same books. While the
objective of the open books in Revelation 20 is stated - "the dead
were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according
to their works" (v. 12b) - no such statement is made in Daniel. It
is so assumed, but is the assumption correct?*
Another factor must be considered. When the First Angel of Revelation
14 descends for the final proclamation of the "everlasting gospel,"
he announces a reason why men of "every nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people" should "fear God and give glory to Him."
The reason given is that - "the hour of His judgment is come."
The Greek text reads. - ' oti hlqen 'h
'wra thV krisewV
autou - "Because is (or has) come the hour of the judgment
of Him." Is this to be understood as meaning God acting in judgment,
or is God Himself seeking a judgment for Himself? There is no question
that at the Judgment of the Great White Throne (Rev. 20), those termed
"the dead" are the ones facing that judgment. We have assumed
that the same conclusion can be applied to Daniel 7:10. Do we have some
"learning" as well as "unlearning" to do at this point?
Forgotten Motif -- Both in the services of the typical Day
of Atonement, and in the prophecy of Zechariah 3 which focuses on the
final cleansing, there is an alien power introduced. In the vision given
to Zechariah, at the right hand of Joshua is seen an "adversary"
(margin) to resist him. In the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement, there
is the scapegoat (Azazel - Lev. 16:8 margin) in apposition to the Lord's
goat, and on whom the High Priest placed the iniquities of a cleansed
Israel for final judgment. This typical service and prophetic vision suggest
a controversy between Jehovah and Satan, with man the object of the attack
by one, and the defence of man by the Other.
The redemption that is in Christ Jesus reveals further the objective
of God for man. Jesus, too, was "made a little while lower than the
angels for the suffering of death" (Heb. 2:9). In His victory, He
was "crowned with glory and honor," and "highly exalted"
being given "a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9).
That which God did "when He raised Him from the dead" (Eph.
1:20) not only reveals God's intent for man in creation, but also His
objective in redemption (Eph. 2:6-7). **
Between the time when God made man in His likeness and the "ages
to come" came the sin problem, which needs resolution. However, for
sin to be eradicated, and never arise the second time, the
resolution must begin where, and over the issue which initiated it. In
other words, can God carry out His original plan in the creation of man,
and every member of the angelic host concur. Sin began with an angel who
objected to God's plan because He desired to be what God was designing
man to be. Thus the first act when God seeks to bring all rebellion to
a conclusion, must be
p 5 -- the concurrence of the angelic host in His objective. They are still free moral agents and the contemplated exaltation of man is now under different circumstances than when man was first created. It is fallen man that is to be exalted, not perfect man from the hand of the Creator.
This is the picture in Daniel 7. The first item of business when the
judgment is set and the books are opened, is before the assembled hosts
of Heaven. (v. 10). They know what is in the books; they recorded the
deeds. They are not there as "traffic cops" to verify the "tickets"
they gave to the "speedsters" of earth for their violations
on the highway of life. They were accurate, remained honest, and not as
Lucifer, "abode in the truth" (John 8:44). Now the first question
comes: "Have I given enough; have I done enough so that my original
plan for man can be completed?" The hour of the judgment of Him began.
The details must be gathered from the revelation given in the type of
the services of the Day of Atonement. Jesus is there as the Great High
Priest. He holds forth His nail pierced hands. The angels remember that
scene on Golgatha's brow. They recall the darkness that surrounded the
cross when the Ancient of days hid His presence as He suffered with "the
Man that is my fellow" (Zech. 13:6, 7). With one shout of acclamation,
John sees and hears the Heavenly Host render their decision: And
I beheld, and I heard the voice ( fwnhn-
singular) of many angels
around about the throne and the living creatures and the elders: the number
of them was ten thousand times ten thousands, and thousands of thousands;
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the lamb that was slain to receive
power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory and
blessing. And every creature . . . heard I saying, Blessing and honor
and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto
the Iamb for ever and ever. (Rev. 5:11-13).
The final work could now begin with all Heaven united for the objective
and accomplishment of God's design in the creation of man. The "Man
clothed in linen" could begin the sealing of His people (Ezekiel
9). The "filthy garments" can be removed from all who are willing
to be released of them, and a "change of raiment" given in their
place (Zech. 3). Three mighty angels can go forth mandated with the "Everlasting
Gospel" of God's design and purpose in Jesus Christ, "the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).
In the words of Jesus, describing and defining "the judgment,"
some conditions are imposed. All who pass "from death unto life"
are required to hear the words of the Messiah, and "believe"
on the God who sent Him (John 5:24). The entrance into sin is reversed.
The challenge of the "adversary," "Yea hath God said?"
(Gen. 3:1) is answered, "Yea, God hath said" and "I believe."
The "books are opened" both prior to the coming of Christ without
sin unto salvation, and the final judgment on sin in "the lake of
fire." There is no record in Scripture of the books being closed
once they are opened. The fact is that no one can face the record in the
"books" either before, or after they are opened. To do so is
to face eternal extinction in "the lake of fire" - "the
second death" (Rev. 20:14).
Into this prophetic picture is introduced another book, "another
book was opened, which is the book of life" (Rev. 20:12). This book
is first noted in prophetic record at the time "Michael stands up"
(Dan. 12:1). It had existed prior with the other books of record. When
Moses prayed for Israel to be spared or else his name be removed from
the book, the Lord God replied, "Whoever hath sinned against Me,
him will I blot out of my book" (Ex. 32:32-33). Paul speaks of this
book in his letter to the Philippians, where he writes of his fellowlaborers
"whose names are in the book of life" (4:3). There is a distinction
made between the "books" which contain the record of "things.
. . according to their works" by which they are judged, and the "book
of life" in which there are only "names" - no resumes.
One can assume that the first name entered was that of Abel's who "by
faith. . . offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb. 11:4).
All of this points up the significance of the command in the observance
of the typical Day of Atonement, that "no work" be done (Lev.
23:28,30). The high priest alone accomplished the cleansing. Those who
heeded the command, their names were retained in Israel. Just so, in the
final day of atonement, the Great High Priest alone will accomplish the
objective - "I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even
a man than the golden wedge of Ophir" (Isa. 13:12). Even as in the
first atonement - forgiveness - it is by faith alone, so the final atonement
- cleansing - is by
p 6 -- Cross to Him who "is able also to save them to the
uttermost who come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession
for them" (Heb. 7:25).
Supplementary (For Further
Final Words of Christ -- Only in the Gospel of John, do
we find recorded the words of Jesus, "It is finished" (19:30).
The synoptic gospels all note that Jesus cried with "a loud voice"
just before His final breath. (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46) Luke
also indicates that after the cry with a loud voice, He prayed, "Father
into thy hands I commend my spirit," and died. John does not record
that Jesus cried with "a loud voice." Are we, therefore, left
with the conclusion that the words uttered when Jesus cried with a loud
voice were, "It is finished"?
The gospel of John written near the end of the first century does fill
some gaps which are not covered in the Synoptics written decades earlier.
For example, in the Synoptics all the writers tell of the "Last Supper."
John, while writing about that Passover Supper, does not mention what
is called the Communion Service, but rather a service connected with it,
which the others had omitted - the ordinance of feet washing (John 13:3-17).
Are we, therefore again, left to draw the conclusion that the Holy Spirit
considered what Jesus said with "a loud voice" of such importance
that He had John record the words rather than just stating, "He cried
with a loud voice"? If these conclusions be correct, then there is
an importance to what Jesus uttered with a "loud voice" when
He cried, "It is finished," which we need to consider carefully.
In context, John records more than just the words Jesus spoke. He unveils
the thinking of Jesus: "Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished
(finished)" (John 19:28). The same Greek word (tetelestai
) is used in verse 28, as in verse 30, when He cried out - "It is
finished" (accomplished). What had Jesus accomplished which was then
God's word had been questioned; His authority challenged. The commandment
which had been intended to indicate the way of life could not give life
(Rom. 7:10). It was "weak through the flesh." Therefore, "God
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ... condemned sin
in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). This condemnation of sin in the flesh,
Jesus had accomplished. He could say, "The prince of this world cometh,
and hath nothing
in Me" (John 14:30). Yet He went one step further. Isaiah cries out,
"The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (53:6). In
the hours of darkness that enshrouded the Cross, He bore the reality of
separation from God and sensed the horror of "outer darkness"
into which He knew He would soon pass. As that final hour approached He
knew all had been accomplished, and in finishing His earthly mission,
He in submission uttered - "Father into Thy hands, I commend my spirit"
(Luke 23:46) - His very Being and Self Identity.
The Father, faithful to His commitment, raised Jesus from the dead "for
our justification" (Rom. 4:25) and to ever live so as "to make
intercession" (Heb. 7:25) for those whom He justifies. "In bringing
many sons unto glory," God made "the Captain of their salvation
perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10). It was accomplished by Jesus,
who had finished the work which He had agreed to do. The final at-one-ment
is still to come when "in the dispensation of the fullness of times
He might gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in
heaven and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:10).
In this we see the two-fold gospel of God, the "counsel of peace" which was "between the Two of Them" (Zech. 6:13, Heb.). One was to be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" to "condemn sin in the flesh" and the Other who would raise Him from the dead "with power" so He could save "to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him" (Rom. 1:3-4; 8:3; Heb. 7:25). At the Cross one phase of the Gospel was completed; It was finished.
p 7 --
Let's Talk It Over -- An editor who seeks to convey truth,
pure and unadulterated, and challenge theological error with all of its
deceptiveness, must in his own inmost soul be true and honest. As we were
completing this March issue of WWN, we received a copy of Old
Paths (Jan. 2002). The whole issue of Old Paths (save for one
page) was an article by David Clayton which the editor praised as a "powerful
message ... for Seventh-day Adventists." The last section of the
"message" was a compilation of quotations from the publications
of various "independent" ministries, quasi-denominational voices,
as well as from official Church publications.
Clayton also tried to assign to WWN the Triune God teaching of
Rome. To do so, he manipulated two paragraphs which appeared in the January
1998 issue. As entered in the compilation, the reader would think these
two paragraphs followed each other, when in reality they were three plus
pages apart, the first from page 2, and the other from page 6. The second
paragraph was actually a quotation from the SDA Bible Commentary
which was a correct analysis of Scripture but doesn't support Clayton's
distortion of the Word.
The first paragraph from page 2 was taken out of context. It was a part
of an analysis of Luke 1:35. After quoting and analyzing the text, we
wrote - "This text reveals the following data:" and list 3 datums.
Then it was suggested that certain conclusions are permitted from this
data. Three conclusions are stated, the last two are placed as a single
paragraph by Clayton. Following the conclusions is another paragraph suggesting
a "mystery" involved in the Incarnation. Nothing was set in
concrete. The facts are set forth, and suggested study points were given.
Some of the ignorance displayed by Clayton may be forgiven, but Stump knows well that we do not hold to the Trinitarian doctrine of Rome. Furthermore, we believe Proverbs 4:18 that "the path of the just is as a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." If we have not made progress in our understanding about God since 1998, we have not been meditating sufficiently on His Word by which He reveals Himself. If Clayton had wished to quote from some source which reveals our current thinking, all he needed to have done was to read carefully the first article in the December issue of WWN. Clayton could possibly claim that he had not seen it at the time he was working on his article due to the fact that he was living in Jamaica and had not received it. But Stump cannot hide behind the Postal Service as an "out." It is time that he begins to act ethically and honestly with truth if he wishes to be considered a creditable "editor." It is too late in the day to condone manipulation and pawn it off as truth. --- (2002 Mar) --- End ---