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 2000 Apr - Jun
Apr XXXIII 4(00) -- The Signifance of the Wilderness
Preface -- In
writing to the Hebrews, Paul indicates that the Gospel was preached unto
the Israelites as well as it had been preached to those to whom he was
writing (4:2). The gospel message to the children of Israel, though not
a different gospel, was revealed in "types" and "shadows."
These examples and shadows, while prefiguring the true, could never take
away sin. However, they did serve a purpose. Through these we can understand
the service now being ministered in the heavenly sanctuary by our great
High Priest, who when He has finished His priestly work will come a "second
time without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28). Within the "review"
of "The Significance of the Wilderness Sanctuary," we note the
faulty translation by the NIV of Heb. 8:5 in contrast to the strict adherence
to Greek grammar by the KJV. There are certain traditional perceptions
of the types and shadows for which no Scriptural justification can be
found. These we had to question, and seek to present their meaning in
the light of what is actually stated in the book of Leviticus. Where there
is silence, assumptions are not justifiable.
In the previous issue of WWN, in the "Editor's Preface,"
we mentioned some exegesis which made us cringe without identifying the
source or the text that was being mutilated. In thinking about it, we
did not believe this was fair to our readers, so in this issue we discuss
this text and note the source of the faulty exegesis.
The editorial - "Let's Talk It Over" - touches a very vital
issue - Honesty or Policy. If we give our word, should we keep it, or
can we just ignore what we have said? It also enters into another area.
What obligation is incumbent upon one who publishes? Does he have a right
to be discourteous,and not even acknowledge the receipt of an inquiry
which might question what he writes? It would seem that if a response
challenges his position, if he sincerely wants truth, pure and unadulterated,
he would be willing to dialogue and let his position be thoroughly discussed
and questioned. We talk about righteousness by faith, but we see very
little of it.
p 2 -- " Review, and then Review again, and Review all that you've Reviewed"
Signifance of the Wilderness Experience
-- In the previous issue of WWN, we discussed not
only the experience of Israel in their consent to the Old Covenant, but
also the lesson it conveys to us today; namely, that man is powerless
to keep His commitment to God. Another way must be found.
While in the mount with God (Ex. 24:18), Moses received the blueprint
for the Sanctuary to be built in the Wilderness (Ex. 25:8-9). This Sanctuary
and its services were integrated into the "type" covenant that
God made with Moses and with Israel (Ex. 34:27). The "old" covenant
which Israel broke in the worship of the golden calf no longer had validity.
The stated purpose of the wilderness Sanctuary was that God wanted to
dwell among His people (Ex. 25:8). The Psalmist describes the "Shepherd
of Israel" as He "that dwellest between the cherubim" in
the most holy apartment of the Sanctuary (Ps. 80:1). In another Psalm,
Asaph sings, "Thy way, 0 God, is in the sanctuary" (Ps. 77:13).
But access to God was limited. Only the High Priest, and then only once
a year, could enter the second veil into the presence of the Divine Glory
which enshrouded the ark of the covenant. The common priests could enter
the first apartment or holy place. The individual Israelite was restricted
to the court which surrounded the Sanctuary. There he brought his confessional
The offerings and their objective were outlined in a separate book -
Leviticus. All sins were not covered, only sins of ignorance when brought
to memory (Lev. 4:27-28). In other words as stated in the book of Hebrews,
"it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take
away sins" (10:4). "The law made nothing perfect" (7:19).
What then was the purpose that God had in mind in having this wilderness
sanctuary erected? Nothing is indicated in the Old Testament, except that
Moses was to build the sanctuary and its furniture according to the blueprint
shown to him at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 25:40). Paul in the book of Hebrews uses
this verse in connection with the ministry of the priests (Heb. 8:4-5).
The KJV reads - "There are priests that offer gifts according to
the law who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things."
However, 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." These translations are not saying the same
thing. Is it the sanctuary that is "a copy and shadow or is it the
service of the priests which is "the example and shadow of heavenly
things"? Both "example" or "copy" ('upodeigati)
and "shadow" (skia) are
in the dative case. Robertson
"the accusative, genitive and dative are all cases of inner relations,
but the dative has a personal touch not true of the others. The dative
is not a local case. There was originally no idea of place in it. It is
thus a purely grammatical case. (It) is used of a person, not place"
(A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p.536). Thus
Paul is saying that the "example and shadow" are related to
the service of the priests, and not the "place" they serve.
The sanctuary reflected a service, and was not intended to convey the
reality of heaven. This should be readily grasped by one simple comparison.
In the sanctuary built by Moses, the first apartment, or holy place, contained
as one of its articles of furniture, the Table of Shewbread (Ex. 25:23-30).
While in the New Testament, one can find reference to the other two articles
of furniture, the candlesticks and the altar of the incense as a part
of a heavenly sanctuary, there is no reference to a "heavenly Table
While there are many spiritual lessons which can be drawn from the typical
pattern given to Moses, we need to be constantly mindful in the study
of the sanctuary that the emphasis is not on the "place" symbolized
but upon the ministry of the One who serves - The "minister of the
sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not
man" (Heb. 8:2). This is indicated to be "the sum" or chief
point (v.1). If we had been as diligent in focusing on that ministry as
we have been on seeking a significance for every article, and aspect
p 3 -- of the physical structure of the sanctuary, we would be
well in advance of where we are now in our perception of truth.
Daily Service -- "The altar of burnt offering, which stood
in the court outside of the tabernacle, was always In use; that is, there
was always a sacrifice on the altar. Each morning a lamb was offered for
the nation, and this lamb, after being prepared by the priests, was placed
on the altar, where it was slowly consumed by the fire. It was not permitted
to burn quickly, for it was to last till evening, when another lamb was
offered, which was to burn till the morning offering was ready. (See Ex.
"Thus there was always a sacrifice on the altar, day and night,
a symbol of the perpetual atonement
"This morning and evening oblation was offered every day of the
year and was never to be omitted. Even though there might be special occasions
that called for more elaborate sacrifices, the morning and evening burnt
sacrifice for the nation was always offered. On the Sabbath day this offering
was doubled: two lambs were offered in the morning and two in the evening.
Even on the Day of Atonement this ritual was carried out. Sixteen times
in chapters 28 and 29 of Numbers does God emphasize that no other offering
is to take the place of the continual burnt offerings. Each time another
sacrifice is mentioned, it is stated that this is besides the 'continual
burnt offering.' From its perpetual nature it was called the continual,
or daily, sacrifice. ...
"It ... needs to be emphasized that the temporary provision made
for sin in the daily sacrifice for the nation became efficacious only
as the offender made personal confession of sin and brought his individual
sacrifice for sin, just as a sinner is now saved by Christ's sacrifice
on Calvary only if he personally accepts Christ. The death of the Lamb
of God on Golgotha was for all men, but only those who accept the sacrifice
and make personal application of it will be saved. In the light of these
considerations the statement in I Timothy 4:10 becomes luminous: Christ
'is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.' From day
to day the lives of sinners have been spared; they have been saved temporarily
and provisionally. But this extended grace will not avail unless they
repent and turn to God. ...
"Spiritually viewed, the national burnt offering signified two things:
first, Christ sacrificing Himself for man, providing atonement for
all; second, the people dedicating themselves to God by putting
all on the altar. (It was the whole lamb that was offered in contrast
to certain parts as required in the sin offerings.) It is to this latter
that Paul referred when he admonished Christians, 'Present your bodies
a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is youi reasonable
service.' Rom. 12:1." (M. L. Andreasen, The Book of Hebrews,
Sin Offerings -- The sin offerings are defined in Leviticus
4. Again it must be emphasized that these offerings covered in a ceremonial
aspect only sins of "'ignorance" (4:1), which at the time when
committed the sinner was not conscience that he had sinned (4:28). The
purposeful sin was not provided for in the ceremonial sacrifices. David
was well aware of this when after his sin of adultery compounded by murder,
he acknowledged, "For Thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give
it: thou delightest not in burnt offering" (Ps. 51:16). Paul emphasized
this weakness in the ceremonial law when he presented Jesus in the Jewish
synagogue at Antioch in Pisidia. He said: Be
it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is
preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe
are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by
the law of Moses. (Acts 13:38-39)
This emphasizes the fact that the law of Moses could not take away sin, and that the services were but "examples and shadows" of the heavenly reality in and through Jesus Christ "who was delivered
p 4 -- for our offences, and raised for our justification"
(Rom. 4:25). He ministered on earth as a common priest of a different
order than the Aaronic, and now in the heavenly sanctuary, He continues
as our great High Priest after the Order of Meichisedec. (Heb. 7:21).
The sin offerings of Leviticus 4 are divided into four categories - the
High Priest when he sinned in such a way "so as to bring guilt on
the people" (4:3 ARV), the whole congregation, the rulers, and the
common people." There are common factors in all four categories.
The first is
the act in each instance of laying the hand upon the head of ihe designated
sacrifice, whether it be the individual sinner or the elders of Israel
in case the whole congregation sinned. (4:4, 15, 24, 29, 33) This represented
confession, transfer, and dependence on the part of the offerer(s). This
last representation is not readily perceived inasmuch as we think of the
laying on of the hand the same as is done in anointing the sick, or consecrating
one to an holy office. The word used In the Hebrew - samach
- "shall lay" is used In Ps. 88:7 where It is translated - "Thy
wrath lieth hard upon
me;" and in Amos 5:19 translated,
leaned, implying full weight. Gesenius in commenting on the
use of the word in Leviticus states the meaning as "to lay the hand
upon anything, so as to lean upon it." Then the offerer had to slay
the victim. His sin caused the necessity for the animal to die. This typical
point dare not be overlooked. I have contributed to the murder of the
Lord Jesus Christ; I, too, have sinned and do sin.
The second common
factor in three of the four categories of the sin offering is the fact
that through the ministration of the priest, forgiveness resulted to the
sinner (4:20, 26, 31, 35). He cannot forgive himself; he must trust in
the forgiveness extended through the mediation of the priest. In the interpretation
of this symbol, we see the gulf between Romanism and Protestantism. The
Protestant accepting it as typical, perceives the priestly ministry of
Jesus Christ, while Romanism adopting it in a literal sense interposes
a human mediatorial system between the sinner and God.
It is in the priestly ministry of the sin offerings that distinctions
are made in the four categories. When the High Priest ("the priest
that is anointed") sins so as to bring guilt on the people, or the
whole congregation sins, it was a corporate
sin. The blood of the sin offering - a bullock - was mediated
by the high priest (4:16). The blood was taken within the sanctuary and
sprinkled before the veil that separated the holy from the most holy place.
A record of confession was finger printed on the horns of the altar of
incense. The remainder of the blood was poured at the base of the altar
in the court (4:17-18). Only certain parts of the sacrificed bullock were
burned on the altar. The rest was carried without the camp and burned
"where the ashes are poured out" (4:8-12).
When the ruler, or common person sinned, the common priest ministered
the sacrifice. The blood was not taken within the sanctuary, but a record
of the confession was finger printed on the horns of the altar in the
court, and the balance of the blood was poured at its base (4:25). A special
law was given concerning the sin offering for a ruler or common person.
It read: This
is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering
is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the Lord: It is most
holy. The priest that oftereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place
shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation
Certain points need to be itemized: 1) The place
where the sin offering was killed was the same "where the burnt offering
was killed." This was at "the door of the tabernacle of the
congregration before the Lord" (1:3). 2)
The whole of this priestly ministry was done "in the court,"
and 3) The common priest became a sin bearer by eating
of the offering to which the sin had been transferred by the sinner.
Nowhere in the typical services was provision made for the common priest
to transfer this sin that he carried to the sanctuary. He accepted it
and bore it in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
The antitypical significance of this law of the sin offering needs to be carefully studied. In the symbolism, the court is the earth (Rev. 11:2). To this earth Christ came, partaking of our flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14). Paul writes that God "hath made Him to be sin for us" (II Cor. 5:21). Further, since "it is of ne-
5 -- cessity that (Christ) have somewhat also to offer" before
He could become high priest (Heb. 8:3) and since He could not be a priest
in the Hebrew temple because he was of the tribe of Judah and not of the
house of Aaron, He ministered as a common priest during His earthly life
on the journey to the Cross. (See Hebrews 7:12-16; 8:4)
The highest atonement the common priest could minister was the atonement
of forgiveness (Lev.4:31). This Christ made plain that He as the Son of
man could do. To the man who had been let down through the roof, Jesus
said - "Man, thy sins are forgiven thee" (Luke 5:20). The scribes
and Pharisees present began reasoning in their minds that this was blasphemous.
When Jesus perceived their thinking, He declared: What
reason ye in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven
thee; or to say, Rise up and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of
man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (He said unto the sick of the
palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine
house. And immediately he rose up before them. (Luke 5:22-25)
This distinction in the type needs more and careful study. The common
priest ministered the sin offering for the individual;
the high priest for the corporate
sins of the nation. The atonement of forgiveness for the individual was
consummated at the Altar in the court, and the ultimate sin transfer was
to the common priest where it stopped. The blood of corporate confession
was taken within the sanctuary by the high priest and the confession recorded
there. Why the difference, and what is this difference in type telling
us? This is an area for continued study.
We suggest that the symbolism used in the transfer of sin and the forgiveness
extended to the individual in the court but echoes the thought that the
highest place man of himself can attain is at the foot of the cross where
he can look "up to the One who died to save him," and "rejoice
with fullness of joy; for his sins are pardoned."
Consideration also needs to be given to the category in which the priest
as an individual sinner would be classified. In Numbers 3:32, "Eleazar
the son of Aaron" is placed as "chief over the chief of the
Levites." This word, "chief" (nahsee') is the same word
as is used in Leviticus 4 for "ruler" (v. 22). When a priest
sinned, his offering would be mediated through a common priest, and thus
the confession and atonement of forgiveness would be culminated in the
court at the Altar of Burnt Offering, the same as for any other ruler,
chief, or prince.
In their official capacity as ministering common priests, Moses declared
plainly to "Eleazar and Ithamar, sons of Aaron" - "God
hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation to make atonement
for them before the Lord" (Lev. 10:17). "To bear" does
not mean "to transfer." Christ as the Lamb of God bore the sins
of the world. (Isa. 53:11; John 1:29, margin). Christ did not transfer
what He took. Any endeavor to transfer to the sanctuary the sin the common
priest assumed symbolically by eating of the sin offering of a ruler,
or a common person is without Scriptural basis. Nowhere on record is there
a single incident recorded of such a transfer. To do so would destroy
the type of the ministry of Jesus Christ as a common priest before His
elevation to the office of High Priest after His resurrection.
Facets -- In the "law of the sin offering," it is
stated of the sin offering - "It is most holy" (Lev. 6:25).
One reacts in amazement. The animal upon which sin was confessed - "most
holy"? Yes, and it was that victim of which the common priest was
to eat in providing the atonement of forgiveness for the sinner. It stands
as a symbol of Him who partook of our fallen nature and whose "soul"
was made "an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10). Though bearing
our nature, He was most holy. Even a demon when confronted by Jesus cried
out - "I know thee who thou art: the Holy One of God" (Luke
In discussing above the first act the sinner did in bringing his sin offering, that of laying his hand on the victim's head, we noted that it represented confession, transfer and dependence (p.4). There we emphasized the dependence aspect, but the other aspects need also to be enlarged upon. The confession was not to be a general confession but was required to be specific. Beside the sin offerings, there were trespass offerings. In the presentation of these offerings, the rule was stated - "It shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things,
p 6 -- that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing"
(Lev. 5:5). The same would apply to the sin offerings. In the New Testament,
"confession" is the one condition given for forgiveness. "If
we confess our sins, (Christ) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins,
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9).
Closely connected with confession is transfer. Since we can neither forgive
ourselves, nor bear the consequence of our sins, the guilt and its penalty
must be borne by someone else. In the typical services outlined for the
wilderness sanctuary, there was transferred either to the sanctuary, or
to the common priest the guilt of sin via the prescribed victim. Now was
this done so as to record sin, or was it the record of confession of a
sin already recorded? The specifics of these ceremonial offerings limited
the sin to "ignorance" Lev. 4:2), and that when convicted, the
sinner responded with the designated offering (4:23, 28). The sin had
already been committed, and the record made. If the sin offering was the
means whereby the sin was placed on record, then the best way to have
no sin registered against one was not to bring a sin offering.
Another question needs to be raised regarding the blood of the sin offering.
Did it defile the sanctuary? I find no Scriptural record so stating. How
can the blood of that which is declared to be "most holy" defile?
In fact, there is on record the rule that if a man does not avail himself
of the provisions of the ceremonial code in regard to uncleanness, he
shall be cut off from the congregation "because he hath defiled the:
sanctuury of the Lord" (Numbers 19:20). This was concerning the provisions
of the offering of the red heifer. Thus it would appear that failure to
bring the prescribed offering would defile rather than the blood of the
sin offering brought. It is also of note that the blood of any sin offering
which required the laying on of the hand in confession is involved with
the registry of guilt and confession, while the blood of the sin offerings
on the Day of Atonement on which no hand was laid in confession, cleansed
not only the sanctuary, but also was "for the priests, and for all
the people of the congregation" (Lev. 16:33). But this must await
transliterations from the Hebrew in the above article are taken from the
Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance.
Bible Texts"? -- In the "Editor's Preface"
of the March issue of WWN,
Robert Young, who authored the Analytical Concordance to the Bible,
also produced a Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. From this
translation, we shall quote the verse in Isaiah: For
a child hath been born to us, a Son hath been given to us, and the princely
power is on his shoulder, and He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor,
Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.
The author of the article, "Answers to Difficult Bible Texts"
(Old Paths, January, 2000, p. 6), Lynnford Beachy ,chose Isaiah
9:6 as one of those texts. This text is difficult only to one who is trying
to sustain the position that the pre-existent Word was derived, instead
of being as He was, the I AM - the self-existent and ever-existent One.
Dr. Young's literal translation clearly places the Incarnate Word as being
from eternity, in language than cannot be construed in any other way -
"Father of Eternity."
Beachy wants to make this designation as future, translating that part
of the verse - "The everlasting [forever (of future time)] Father."
Jesus Christ already spoke to this point. He declared to John on the Isle
of Patmos: I
am (Egw Eimi)
the first and the last, even the Living One, and I did become dead and
behold I am (only eimi
used) living unto the ages
of the ages. (Rev. 1:17-18, Greek)
True Jesus Christ will ever be - everlasting - but He declared of Himself - I ever was, "the first and the
p 7 -- last."
In the list of names ascribed to the coming Messiah, two -"Everlasting
Father and Prince of Peace"- are in the Hebrew construct state denoting
the genitive. The governing nouns in these two names are "Prince"
and "Father." In the KJV, only "Prince of peace" is
correctly translated. In the other designation, the genitive noun is translated,
"everlasting," as if it were an adjective. There is a difference
between "Prince of peace" and "peaceful Prince" so
likewise there is a difference between "everlasting Father"
and "Father of eternity." The Hebrew word used as a genitive
in the designation, "Father of eternity" is gad.
This word is translated "forever" or "forever and ever"
in most of the Old Testament texts (KJV) where it is found. In Isaiah
57:15 it is rendered "eternity" - "thus saith the high
and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity." In this Messianic prophecy,
Isaiah is saying loud and clear that "the son to be born" was
from all eternity. Further, the prophet did not elect to use the phrase
- "Son of eternity" - but rather the designation, "Father
of eternity." This puts to rest, or should, the absurd speculation
that the Word was begotten before "eternity."
Why are we so anxious to have a "derived" Son of God as set
forth in the Nicene Creed, and then reject the other part of the Creed
which teaches a Trinitarian concept? Why not just set it all aside and
build our concept of God on the Bible? The Scriptures plainly teach that
"in the beginning" there were Two beings - the Logos and the
Theos (John 1:1-2) - no Trinity. Between these Two, there was "the
counsel of peace" (Zech. 6:13). To achieve the desired peace (Rom.
5:1), the Logos became flesh (John 1:14). At this point, the Holy Spirit
is introduced (Luke 1:35), and the "Mystery of godliness" begins
to unfold. Would it not be far better to devote our study to the unfolding
of this mystery to comprehend it, as far as mortals can, rather than seeking
to rob the "Father of eternity" of His claim to be the "I
AM" (John 8:58)?
Talk It Over -- Some twenty plus years ago, I attended
a Sabbath morning service of a Reformed Seventh Day Adventist Campmeeting
in central Arkansas. The speaker for the service was Elder Francisco Devai,
then president of their General Conference. The attendance, as I recall,
counting the several who came with me, was about two dozen people. Three
years ago, I attended another Sabbath convocation of a campmeeting in
Northwest Arkansas. The attendance hovered at about one hundred. The speaker
was the dynamic, youthful, Peter Lausevic. During his sermon, he made
a challenge to discuss with "anyone" his faith for he knew that
the Reform Seventh Day Adventists had the truth which could not be gainsaid.
In the afternoon, I visited with him in the presence of Elders Devai and
Burek and accepted his challenge. To this day there has been no meeting
Because of the apostasy in the regular Church, the Reform Movement has
gained many new adherents from the SDA ranks. These need to know the organization,
and the men in control, to which they have transferred.
Recently, the retired editor of publications, Elder Alfons Balback released
his extensive history of the Movement. In it were some extremely questionable
assumptions. I wrote to him - now twice - and yet no reply. I have talked
on the telephone with Elder Benjamin Burec, who promised to get back with
me, after their General Conference Session, concerning these matters.
To date not a word. I write these things because the rank and file, especially
those who have joined the movement from the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
need to know if those in positions of leadership are "in their inmost
souls true and honest." The former members of the Seventh-day Adventists
have come from an organizaton where "policy" dominates instead
of truth. Have they merely changed for the
May XXXIII 5(00) -- The Final Atonement - Part
1 -- Editor's Preface -- This issue of WWN is different
than any previous issue. It will be a true "thought paper,"
as others have been. A "thought paper is written to stimulate thinking.
It is not perceived as an infallible or dogmatic pronouncement on the
subject discussed, but rather a discussion of the subject from a viewpoint
not previously investigated. In this issue, we intend not only to stimulate
thinking but also to explore as far as possible all texts which relate
to the subject of the Final Atonement. It is admitted from the start that
in so doing, there is the possibility that cherished traditional concepts
will come under close scrutiny. It is also possible that some of these
traditions will be found to be at variance with the Biblical data. This
has been the record of religious contention in all time. This was a key
factor of conflict between Christ and the Pharisees of His day. (Matt.
15:2-3). Is not the counsel given in connection with the 1888 experience
still apropos today? It read:
"If the pillars of our faith will not starnd the test of investigation,
it is time that we knew it. There must be no spirit of Pharisaism cherished
among us" (TM. p. 107).
Standing as we are at the end of time with the coming of the Great High
Priest as King of kings and Lord of lords, should we not carefully explore
every aspect of the Final Atonement? Since the book of Revelation (15:8)
indicates a brief period of time between the close of the High Priestly
ministry of Christ and His return as King of kings during which the saints
must live in the sight of a holy God without
an Intercessor, should we not be sure that our position is truly Biblically
This issue will not complete our intended study on the subject of the Final Atonement: others will follow.
p 2 -- " Review, and then Review again, and Review all that you've Reviewed"
Final Atonement - Part
1-- The typical services
of the Wilderness Sanctuary evidenced a dual atonement. The convicted
sinner who brought the prescribed offering in confession of his guilt
was, through the ministry of the officiating priest, forgiven. The text
reads - "The priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning
his sin, and it shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:26). The second atonement
was typified in an annual yearly service. The tenth day of the seventh
month was called the "Day of Atonements" (Plural in the Hebrew,
Leviticus 23:27-28). On that day the High Priest alone ministered an atonement
which resulted in cleansing. The text reads - "For on that day shall
(the high priest) make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may
be clean from all your sins before the Lord" (Lev.16:30).
It was around these typical services and their anti-typical significance
that the present theological crisis in Adventism evolved. Following the
Great Disappointment, a small group seeking to find an answer as to why
Jesus did not return according to expectation on October 22, 1844 turned
their attention once again to the services of the wilderness Sanctuary.
The message as had been given by William Miller was focused in the summer
of 1844 on Daniel 8:14 - "Unto two thousand and three hundred days,
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" - and was related to the annual
date for the Day of Atonement - "the tenth day of the seventh month."
One who had embraced this message, 0. R. L. Crosier, after the disappointment,
produced a lengthy and detailed study on "The Sanctuary." In
this study, he designated the two atonements of the typical services as
"the individual atonement" and "the National Atonement."
In meeting objections to his emphasis of the National Atonement as the
answer to the Disappointment, he rejected the position taken by the mainline
churches' theologians, that the atonement had been completed at the cross.
In doing so, he denied that there was an atonement made at the cross,
holding that the cross was merely the sacrifice by which the atonement
was made in the sanctuary in heaven by Christ as the great High Priest.
The early pioneers of Adventism adopted Crosier's position publishing
his study in 1850, along with other articles, in a 48 page pamphlet called
the Advent Review. In 1853 into all unsold copies, James White
"tipped" a leaf which contained this comment regarding the Crosier
study - "The subject of the sanctuary should be carefully examined,
as it lies at the foundation of our faith and hope." The 1872 Statement
of Beliefs, the first to be drawn up after the organization of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church in 1863, echoed Crosier's position. It read concerning
Jesus Christ - He "ascended on high to be our only mediator in the
sanctuary in Heaven, where with His own blood He makes atonement for our
sins; which atonement so far as being made on the cross, was but the offering
of the sacrifice, is the very last portion of His work as priest"
During the 1955-1956 Conferences with the Evangelicals, the Adventist
conferees not only adopted the position that the atonement was completed
on Calvary, but denied the final atonement, thus reversing the original
position. In the published answer to questions asked by the Evangelicals,
Questions on Doctrine, the new position taken is stated with emphasis: Adventists
do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. "Christ hath redeemed
us" (Gal. 3:13) once for all" (Heb.10:10). (p.390)
This denial of faith ruptured Adventism. If the Adventist conferees really were convicted that the positions of the Evangelicals had merit, then the only honest approach would have been to say, "It appears we have some 'home work' to do, so that our positions harmonize with the Word of God." Then there should have followed a prayerful and diligent study of the Word to bring our doctrinal concepts into harmony with the revealed truths of the types and their fulfilment in the reality of Jesus' sacrifice and high priestly ministry. There should have been no abandonment of the original position, nor a denial of the faith, until such was done. It is true that research was permitted, as in the case of Dr. Desmond Ford, but it was to defend a position assumed, not to discover truth. In this there is a dis-
p 3 -- tinct difference.
It is our objective in this "review" of the final atonement
to: 1) Consider the Scriptural facts and data given regarding
the typical Day of Atonement; and 2) Note other texts which
contribute to the questions raised which reflect on traditional perceptions.
After examining carefully the questions and problems which surface from
the data thus obtained, we will detail the actual services performed on
that day by the high priest.
23 -- The 23rd chapter of Leviticus lists with instructions
"the feasts of the Lord, even holy convocations" which were
to be observed during the ceremonial year beginning with the Passover
on the fourteenth day of the first month (vs 4-5). The anti-typical fulfilment
of this "feast of the Lord" is noted in the New Testament. Paul
writing to the Corinthian church declared, "Christ our passover is
sacrificed for us" (I Cor. 5:7). Thus this ceremonial year of ancient
Israel as outlined in the services of the wilderness Sanctuary could serve
as an overlay of the Christian era beginning with the sacrifice of the
Lamb of God and finding Its climax in the High Priestly ministry of Jesus
Christ during the anti-typical Day of. Atonement.
In the Hebrew, as we noted in the first paragraph, the word "atonement"
is in the plural form - "Day of Atonements" (23:27-28). Is this
the "majestic plural" thus denoting its prime importance, or
is it simply a plural which is accounting for the multiple objectives
obtained ceremonially by the high priestly ministry on that day? (16:33).
The single distinct difference as to how the congregation of Israel was
to relate to this day in contrast to the other feast days gives weight
to the recognition of the use of the plural form as a "majestic plural."
On each of the other major feast days, the injunction was given - "Ye
shall do no servile (occupational) work therein" (23:8, 21, 25, 35,
36) - while for the Day of Atonements, the command was - "Ye shall
do no work in
that same day" (23:28). This placed the Day of Atonements on the
same level as the Sabbath day (23:3).
Not only did the Day of Atonements provide ceremonial cleansing for the
people from all their "sins before the Lord" (16:30); but it
also provided for a judgment to be executed if something was done, and
if something was not done: 1) "Whatsoever soul it be that
shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among
his people" (23:29). 2) "Whatsoever soul it be that doeth
any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his
people" (23:30). How it was determined who did and who didn't is
not given in the Biblical record, but some kind of an investigative judgment
is implied on the part of God. The Day of Atonements was thus a day of
cleansing and a day of judgment. This dual aspect of the day is reflected
in the prophecies of Daniel (7:10; 8:14), and in the book of Revelation
and Daniel -- Let us turn our attention to one verse from each
of these books. First, Revelation 14:6-7, which reads: And
I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting
gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth ..., saying with a
loud voice, Fear God and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment
Literally, the last clause reads - "Because came the hour of the judgment of Him." The Greek word for "is come" is hlqen, a second aroist (past tense) indicative, and can be translated by either the simple English past tense, or in this case by the perfect tense as is done in the KJV. However, how is the phrase, "the judgment of Him," to be understood? It could indicate a simple possessive sense - "His judgment" - or it could mean that God goes on trial, that He faces a judgment - "the judgment of Him" (thV krisewV autou). The book of Revelation gives a picture of both concepts. In Chapter 20, John sees the "great white throne" and before this throne of God, stand the "dead," and they are "judged" by "those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (vs. 11-12). This is God in judgment - "His judgment." In Chapter 12, after the symbolic representation of a war between "the dragon" and "Michael," a loud voice is heard saying in heaven - "Now is come ... the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ (Messiah)" (ver. 10). Has the kingdom of God, thus God, been in question? Paul indicates that God abdicated in favor of Christ, "till He hath put all enemies under His feet" (I Cor. 15:24-28). The question follows - Did
p 4 -- the sin problem place God on trial? If answered in the
affirmative, then Revelation 14:7 could mean as it literally reads - "the
judgment of Him."
We shall leave in abeyance any conclusions, but must also note in passing,
that in Revelation a single book is introduced - "the book of life"
(Rev. 20:12). This book is also called, "the book of life of the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). Further,
since the names of those redeemed are in this book, and evidently not
in the "books," Paul's comment to the Corinthian church is significant
in a full consideration of any heavenly "judgment." He wrote
- "We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (II
Turning next to Daniel, let us note Chapter 8 verse 14 which reads: And
he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall
the sanctuary be cleansed.
The margin in the KJV indicates that the word translated, "cleansed"
in the Hebrew means "justified." Other translations in this
final clause read:
Interestingly, the NKJV translates the verb "shall be cleansed"
without a marginal reference to the Hebrew. In the KJV, there are two
marginal notations in this verse both giving the reading of the Hebrew
text. The NKJV retained only one of them, the first. This could be saying
one of two things: 1) That the Hebrew word, nisdaq,
can mean, "cleansed," and should be so translated in this instance,
or 2) That this word appearing in the Massoretic Hebrew
text is incorrect, and that the LXX and the Vulgate should be followed
which would have been translated from a different Hebrew and/or Aramaic
text of Daniel than the text used by the Massorites.
The first of these possibilities is pressed by theologians at Andrews
University as well as other research scholars of the Church. One problem,
in determining the meaning of the verb nisdaq,
is that it is in the Niphal form in Daniel 8:14, and used only this one
time in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew Lexicon by Brown, Driver and
Briggs, the meaning is given in translation as "the holy place shall
be put right." Also, "be justified," following Gesenius
who so defines the word as well as giving the definition, "vindicated."
However, Gesenius makes an interesting comment. Noting the Vulgate he
adds - "Not unaptly mundabitur,"
the Latin verb, "shall be cleansed."
Other linguistic problems involving the entire book of Daniel; which
reflect on Daniel 8:14, need to be addressed. There are Hebrew scholars
(Zimmermann and Ginsberg) who contend that the whole of the book of Daniel
was originally written in the Aramaic, and that parts of it were translated
into the Hebrew. Ginsberg (Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological
Seminary of America, Vol. XIV, p.41-42) further maintains that the
Aramaic word in Daniel 8:14 did mean, "shall be cleansed" as
translated by the LXX and Vulgate. Interestingly, this position of Ginsberg
was challenged by an Andrews University scholar, Hans Erbes. It is evident
that more exploration needs to be done in regard to linguistics surrounding
Daniel 8:14, a key text in any study of the final atonement.
To summarize this linguistic problem, we need to keep in mind that we are discussing three texts of the Sacred Scriptures, one in Hebrew, the Massoretic; two translations, one in Greek, the LXX; and the other in Latin, the Vulgate. The latter two agree that Daniel 8:14 should read as is given in the KJV and NKJV - "shall be cleansed." The Massoretic text, which in point of time was last of the three uses a word in the Hebrew that is not used in Leviticus 16 for "cleansed," and which has as its primary meaning, "justified" or "vindicated." It seems to me that it would be much simpler to accept as a fact that both the LXX and Jerome in the Vulgate were translating from earlier manuscripts than are represented in the Massoretic text as far as the book of Daniel is concerned. Adventist scholarship, represented in Andrews University and the Biblical Research Institute, seeks to show that "one of the semantic nuances of nisdaq in Hebrew is 'cleanse,' as well as 'restore' and 'vindicate/justify,"' so as to harmonize all three ancient texts. It would seem however, that the translators of the LXX and Jerome
p 5 -- worked from a text of Daniel which read, taher,
"cleanse" rather than nisdaq.
Gesenius indicates that the adjective form of sadaq
is usually translated in the LXX by the Greek word, dikaioV,
meaning, "just or righteous." But the LXX does not use a form
of dikaioV, but rather, kaqarisqhsetai,
which Thayer says is the choice of the LXX for tihar,
the Piel form of the Hebrew, "to cleanse."
Gospel of John -- In a very sharp contention with the Jews
over Sabbath observance and His claim to equality with God, Jesus made
two pronouncements which relate to the judgment. He declared: The
no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not
come into condemnation (krisin
but is passed from death unto life. ... And (the
Father) hath given
Him authority to execute judgment (krisin)
also, because He is the Son of man. (John 5:22, 24, 27)
What is Jesus saying? First, let us analyze these words:
Into this picture, as noted previously, the prophecies of both Daniel
and Revelation inject for consideration "another book" (Rev.
20:12; Dan. 12:1). This is "the book of life" (Rev. 20:12),
which if one's name is found therein, he is "delivered" (Dan.
12:1). This "book" belongs to "the Lamb, slain from the
foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). It lists the names of those
who "overcome" through "the blood of (that) Lamb"
(Rev. 3:5; 12:11). This brings us to the second declaration of Jesus in
2) "The Father ... hath committed
all judgment unto the Son," and a reason is given in verse
27, "because He is a Son man" (No article in the Greek text).
First, what is meant by "all" judgment? It is obvious that two
aspects of judgment are involved first a determinate involving those "who
heareth (Christ's) word and believeth on Him that sent (Him)" (5:24),
and secondly, an execution of judgment (v.27). Paul speaks of Christ's
second coming as a time He will take "vengeance on them that obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (II Thess. 1:8). Are these
two "judgments" - determinate and executive - the meaning of
"all judgment"? Or is "all" limited to the ones "that
Further, this pronouncement of Jesus in John 5 presents a major conflict
with a long standing tradition. Jesus as the Son of man demonstrated His
authority to make determinate judgments. To the thief on the Cross, who
pled, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom,"
Jesus replied, "Verily I say to thee today, shalt thou be with me
in paradise" (Luke 23:42-43). Jesus gave His judgment that day. The
question arises, does that thief have to face an investigative judgment
again? If indeed the blood of the Lamb blots out sin, then the thief's
sins are no more, and neither his name nor his deeds can be found "in
the books," but his name is in "the book."
What would apply to the thief would equally apply to Enoch, Moses, Elijah,
and the "many ... saints" which arose at the resurrection of
Jesus (Matt. 27:52-53). Also included in this picture are the "four
living creatures" and twenty-four "elders" who pro-
p 6 -- claimed of the Lamb - Thou "has redeemed us to God
by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation"
(Rev. 5:9). The question is simply, do these who have been redeemed have
to face a second investigation to see if they can stay in heaven? This
is placing them in double jeopardy. Dare we impute to God such an injustice?
We dare not, for unto the Son all
judgment has been "committed." When He gives the
word - as to the dying thief - that word stands.
Further, there can be no question but the sequence which is emphasized
in the prophecy of Daniel 7, points to the fact that the judgment pictured
in verses 9-10, relates to the time indicated in Daniel 8:14, and that
"the judgment," the "cleansing of the sanctuary,"
and the "final atonement" all focus on the same activity in
the plans and purposes of God. It is left to us to carefully reconsider
our tradition and bring it into line with all divine revelation involving
judgment and the final atonement.
There is one important factor that is often, if not entirely, overlooked.
Judgment must begin with the
There is still more exploration to be made. (To be continued)
Parables -- In the Gospel of Luke there are two parables
of Jesus recorded unique to his Gospel. The significance and meaning of
one is obvious. We shall note it first. Jesus said: Two
men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other
a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God I thank
thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers,
or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all
that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up
so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God
be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house
justified rather than the other. (Luke 18:10-14)
The message comes through clear and distinct. Justification is the free
gift of God bestowed in answer to the prayer of faith which recognizes
one's sinful condition. The question then follows, does the forgiven sinner
return to his house to live as he lived before? The answer is, obviously
not if he truly loathes the sin he confessed and appreciates the mercy
of God which freed him from its guilt. The unmerited favor of God elicits
a love that fulfils the law. But the question is: Does this endeavor to
keep the law because of love constitute work merit toward one's salvation?
In other words, is sanctification merely the extension of justification,
being the contribution of man to his justification?
Here is where the second parable of Jesus enters the picture. He asked: Which
of you, have a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by
and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? (But)
will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird
thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou
shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things
that were commanded him? I trow not. [NKJV
- "I think not"] So likewise, when ye have done all those things
which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done
that which was our duty to do. (Luke 17:7-10)
This is sanctification - doing that which it is our duty to do. Does
this accrue merit? Never, because even in doing that which it is our duty
to do, there is so much of self woven into our every act, due to the encumbering
of our fallen nature, that we can only confess, we are still "unprofitable
servants." Servants, yes, but sustained by the grace and mercy of
God through the reldemption in Christ Jesus we become sons of God.
This is the gospel given to Paul by the risen Lord te proclaim. In the
Paul not only wrote: For
by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast (2:8-9).
But he also follows these verses with these words:
p 7 -- For
we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (v.10).
We are no longer to walk after the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof,
but after the Spirit to seek "the prize of the high calling of God
in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3:14). This is sanctification - "a work
of a lifetime" for one who has been justified by the grace of God.
He has been "set apart," consecrated to God, which is the meaning
of the word used in the Greek text.
All that is in the world ... is not of the Father" (I John 2:16). But of those whom Jesus intercedes, He prays - "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." For these He sanctified Himself "that they also might be sanctified through the truth" (John 17:16, 19). Is their life then filled with "meritorious works"? No, just the things "which (is) our duty to do." We are still in this "vile body" awaiting the final redemptive act of our Saviour who shall give us a body, "fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself" (Phil. 3:21). He is "the Alpha and Omega" of salvation. He is "made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Cor.1:30-31).
Update: -- The issues of WWN are prepared sometimes two to three months prior to the date of publication. Thus some articles reflect the situation at the time of writing, and are not current with the time of printing. Such was the case of the editorial, "Let's Talk It Over," in the April issue. In February, we received a letter from Elder Alfons Balbach indicating he would answer my previous correspondence upon his return from an overseas trip. This he did in a letter dated, February 29, which we received a few days ago. As soon as we find time to carefully read his response, we will write. The summary of the exchange, we will endeavor to note for the readers of WWN in a future issue.
Update: -- After completing the Special Issue on the "Accord
Between the Vatican and the PLO," we received the March 2 issue of
Origins, the CNS documentary service, which contained a
complete text of the Accord. The explanatory preface contained some pertinent
comments. These read in part: Israel
captured the Arab part of Jerusalem in 1967 and later annexed it, unilaterally
declaring the undivided city its capital. Aharon Lopez, Israel's ambassador
to the Vatican, told Catholic News Service he was "dismayed"
at the agreement because it had taken positions on controversial issues
that "are at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and are oil the
agenda of future negotiations." The accord called for an internationally
guaranteed statute for Jerusalem - which Israel always has rejected -
in order to protect basic religious freedoms.
The copy of the accord will be included among the documents offered to those interested. See the offer on p.7 of the Special issue.[Note: If you desire photocopies of the documents please send a # 10 self-addressed stamped envelope to "Documents," ALF, P. 0. Box 69, Ozone. AR 72854.]
is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that there Is no more truth
to be revealed,
Jun XXXIII 6(00) -- The Final Atonement --
Part 2 -- Editor's Preface --
With this issue of WWN, we close our "exploring"
of the Scriptures which could reflect upon the doctrine commonly called,
the Investigative Judgment. Even now, as we write, there comes to mind
two other texts which speak of the judgment: 1)
I Peter 4:17, "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the
house of God:" and 2) Acts 17:31,
"He hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness
by that Man whom He hath ordained." There may be others which we
have not included in the "exploration: we hope not many. In the next
issue, we shall begin drawing some conclusions based on this "exploration."
It should be obvious from the consideration we have given to major references
in regard to the judgment, that basic in the Biblical judgment doctrine
is a controversy between Christ and Satan. In the services for the typical
Day of Atonements, were the two goats, one for Jehovah, and the other
for Azazel (Lev. 16:8). We noted the comment by Keil & Delitzsch that
the wording of this verse requires "unconditionally that Azazel
should be regarded as a personal being, in opposition to Jehovah."
This controversy motif also appears in the prophecies of Daniel and the
Revelation, and the judgment scenes there must include such an understanding
if the nature of the pre-Advent judgment, and the final judgment on sin
and sinners is to be rightly understood. Then the controversy will be
ended, and "one pulse of harmony and gladness" will beat through
the vast creation, and all in "their unshadowed beauty" freed
from the results and influence of sin, will "declare that God is
It is also evident from the texts of Scripture that there is a "set of books" and that there is "another book." In the "set" are not only names, but also "works." In the other, only "names." Perhaps in the final analysis, what Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth has deep significance. "But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord" (I Cor. 1:30-31).
p 2 -- " Review, and then Review again, and Review all that you've Reviewed"
Final Atonement -- Part
2 -- The prophecy of Daniel 7 - "the judgment was
set" - and the expanded prophecy of Daniel 8 - "then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed" - reflect the objectives of the typical Day
of Atonement. The typical "Day of Atonements" involved both
judgment and cleansing. In this second study on the Final Atonement, we
shall continue our exploration by noting carefully some of the details
of the prophecies of Daniel.
Since the focus of this part of our continued "exploration"
will be centered on Daniel 7:9-14, we will but briefly cover the first
eight verses of the seventh chapter. Once the identity of the symbol of
the "lion" is established, we can move rapidly to the time of
the judgment scene portrayed in these verses.
Jeremiah, contemporary in time with Daniel, pictures Babylon and its
first king in the same descriptive language that Daniel sees in vision
describing the first of four beasts to come from "the great sea."
Daniel states "the first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings"
(v.4). Jeremiah, warning of the coming judgment of Edom, declared: Behold
he shall come up like a lion from the swelling of the Jordon against the
habitation of the strong. ... Behold he shall come up and fly as the eagle.
Then the prophet names him - "Concerning Kedar, and concerning the
kingdoms of Hazor which Nebuchadnezzer, king of Babylon shall smite..."
(V. 28) Archaeological excavation of the site of ancient Babylon has revealed
that a lion with eagle's wings was the emblem of that Empire.
The prophecy then moves rapidly through the centuries of history. "And
behold another beast, a second, like a bear" (v.5) Medo-Persia followed
Babylon. "After this" the prophet saw "another like a leopard"
(v.6) to be followed by "a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and
strong exceedingly" (v. 7). Medo-Persia was succeeded in world dominion
by Greece to be followed by Rome. The successive continuity is emphasized
by the language used: "another," and "after this"
used twice (verses 6 & 7). Then the fourth beast's activity is enlarged
by successive symbolisms arising from the beast itself. First, there arises
"ten horns," and from the midst of these, "another little
horn" which had the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things"
Certain points of this prophecy must be kept in mind: 1)
Daniel beholds this beast functioning through the "little horn"
until it is slain, and its body given to the burning flame" (v.11).
2) "The little horn" is never removed from
this beast and speaks "great things" both before the judgment
is set, and after it has convened. (vs. 8, 11). This facet of the prophesy
- a mouth that speaks - is emphasized, and the words uttered are noted
as "very great things" (v.20).
A period of time is allotted to the "little horn" - "a
time, and times and a dividing of time" (v.25). This gives us two
other important points to be derived from this prophecy: 1)
The emphasis from Heaven's point of view on the things spoken by the little
horn. It is after the judgment is set that the words of the little horn
are perceived as "great" words. What is spoken during the period
allotted are noted simply as "words against the most High."
(the word "great" in the KJV is supplied) 2)
By making application of the time revealed, 538 AD to 1798, the judgment
scene follows that date. Thus the date arrived at in the prophecy of Daniel
8:14 - 1844 - coincides with the judgment, but also marks the time when
"the great words" would begin to be spoken. It is after "the
judgment was set" that Daniel "beheld then
because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake" (v.11).
In the explanation of the vision (See vs. 15-16), the judgment is introduced twice, and both times, the "little horn is involved. 1) This horn "made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most high" (vs. 21-22). The adjudication of the judgment is made in favor of the saints against the "little horn." 2) "The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away (the little horn's) domin-
p 3 -- ion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end" (V.
26). Since the "little horn" ever exists in the "beast,"
the "end" would refer to the "beast" given to the
burning flame" (V. 11). This indicates that in the judgment pictured
in Daniel 7:9-10, at some point, the powers of earth are called to give
an account of how they have related to the "saints of the most High."
The prophecy indicates further, that the other beasts - the lion, bear
and leopard, though their dominion was taken away, "their lives were
prolonged for a season and time" (7:12). This suggests the judgment,
that was set over which the Ancient of days presided, to be a corporate
It is after Daniel
is given a picture of the beasts, to their final end, that he saw "one
like the Son of man coming to the Ancient of days" to receive "dominion,
and glory, and a kingdom" which would be "an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and His kingdom (that) shall not be destroyed"
(vs. 13-14). In the explanation of this part of the vision, Daniel is
informed that the kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints
of the most High" (v. 27). In a another revelation to Daniel, this
"people" are defined as those who "shall be found written
in the book" (12:1). This distinctly involves Michael who "standeth"
for those whose names are recorded therein. Gesenius in his definition
of this Hebrew word, gahmad,
indicates that in this text, it means "to stand by or for; to succour."
It is also used of those who minister "before the Lord" as either
priests and Levites, as well as prophets. Thus a conclusion could be sustained
that the ones whose names are found in the book, are the ones covered
by the judgment committed to the Son because He is "the Son of man"
(cmp. again Dan. 7:13 with John 5:22, 27).
Before considering the prophecy of Daniel 8, we shall list to date the
"great words which the horn spake" after the judgment was set.
In 1854, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated declaring
that from the first moment of conception, Mary "was preserved free
from every stain of original sin." In 1870, the dogma of papal infallibility
declared that when the pope spoke ex
cathedra, his utterances were infallible. Then in 1950, Pius
XII proclaimed "the Corporal Assumption of the Virgin Mary"
into heaven. Of importance for careful consideration is Heaven's differentiation
between the blasphemous words spoken during the period of time allotted
to the "little horn," and what was spoken after the judgment
was set. Those after are denoted as "great" words.
We shall turn next to the prophecy which begins in Daniel 8, and is not
concluded till Chapter 9. This prophecy brings into focus the second objective
of the final atonement - the cleansing.
Given to Daniel in the third year of Belshazzar, as the kingdom of Babylon
was waning, the symbolisms begin with Medio-Persia (8:20), and covers
the same historical period as covered in Daniel 7. While continuity -
one following the other - was emphasized in the vision of the beasts culminating
in the judgment; geographical direction is a key indicator marking the
vision as given in Daniel 8 leading to the pronouncement of the "cleansing
of the sanctuary." "The Ram" pushed "westward, and
northward, and southward" (8:4). The "he goat" "came
from the west" (8:5). This use of direction is a key in identifying
the "little horn" as Rome - albeit Rome in both of its phases,
pagan as well as papal.
It is in this phase of the vision, that "the daily" (tamid)
is introduced (8:9-12). Further, this is but one of three factors which
is connected with the pronouncement of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. Daniel
hears a question asked - "How long the vision, the daily, and the
transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to
be trodden under foot?" (v. 13 with all supplied words omitted) The
answer given is "Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall
the sanctuary be cleansed." The "vision" (chazon)
is the vision in its entirety which culminates in the time of the cleansing
of the sanctuary. The "daily," if understood in the context
of the cleansing of the sanctuary, would refer not only to the typical
services as outlined in Numbers 28 & 29, where the word tamid
is used seventeen times and translated either "daily" or "continual;"
but also to the reality of the antitypical ministry of Jesus Christ who
ever liveth to make intercession for us. The "transgression of desolation"
or the "abomination of desolation" (Mat. 24:15) is "the
little horn" in both of its phases, the papal reaching in time to
and beyond the culminating date for the beginning of the cleansing of
the sanctuary, thus paralleling the "little horn" in its relationship
to the judgment of Daniel 7.
p 4 -- It is of more than merely passing interest what A.
T. Jones wrote in comment on the "little horn" in
reference to "the daily:" In
Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; and 12:11, it will be noticed that the word, "sacrifice"
is in every case supplied. And it is wholly supplied; for in its place
in the original there is no word at all. In the original the only word
that stands in this place, is the word, tamid, that is here translated
"daily:" and in these places the expression "daily"
does not refer to the daily sacrifice any more than it refers to
the whole daily ministry or continual service of the sanctuary, of which
the sacrifice was only a part. The word tamid in itself
signifies, "continuous or continual," "constant,"
"stable," "sure," "constantly,"
"evermore." Only such words as these express the thought of
the original word, which in the text under consideration, is translated
"daily." In Numbers 28 and 29 alone, the word is used seventeen
times, referring to the continual service of the sanctuary.
And it is this continual service
of Christ, the true High Priest, "who continueth ever,"
and "who is consecrated forevermore" in "an unchangeable
priesthood"- it is this continual service of our great High
Priest, which the man of sin, the Papacy, has taken away. It is
the sanctuary and the true tabernacle in which this true High Priest exercises
His continual ministry that has been cast down by the "transgression
of desolation." It is this ministry and this sanctuary that the "man
of sin" has taken away from the church and shut away from the world,
and has cast down to the ground and stamped upon; and in place of which
it has set up itself "the abomination that maketh desolate."
What former Rome did physically to the visible or earthly sanctuary, which
was "the figure of the true" (Dan. 9:26,27; Matt. 24:15), that
the latter Rome has done spiritually to the invisible or heavenly sanctuary
that is itself the true." Dan. 11:31; 12:11; 8:11,13. ( The
Consecrated Way, pp.99-100)
In the previous issue of WWN, we discussed the word translated
"cleansed" in the KJV of Daniel 8:14, which in the Massoretic
(Hebrew) text is nisdaq
meaning "justified," as well as noung the word used in the LXX,
the Vulgate, mundabitur,
both of which translate, "shall be cleansed." (See pp. 4, 5).
We shall, therefore, pass to the next problem which confronts the student
of the book of Daniel, the connection between chapters 8 & 9.
Chapter 8 closes with no explanation as when to begin the 2300 "evening-mornings."
Gabriel merely tells Daniel, "The vision of the evening and the morning
which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall
be for many days" (8:26). Actually, there is a chronological time
break of about eleven years between the two chapters. The first suggestion
of a direct connection between the two chapters is to be found in Daniel's
comment. While praying for light on the prophecy of Jeremiah
regarding Jerusalem, he says: And
while I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of
my people Israel, and presenting my supplications before the Lord my God
for the holy mountain of my God; yea, while I was speaking in prayer,
even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning,
being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening
The previous "vision" was the vision of the ram, he-goat, and
little horn. The only unexplained part of that vision was the 2300 days.
The first thing that Gabriel tells Daniel is that he is "now come
forth to give (him) skill and understanding ... therefore understand the
matter, and consider the vision" (9:22-23). Immediately, Gabriel
outlines a prophetic time sequence (vs. 24-27).
Within the text itself, there is another connecting link. Two different
Hebrew words are used for vision." In verse 21, the word is chazon,
"the vision at the beginning;" while in verse 23, the word is
mar 'eh, "consider the vision." This word differentiation
connects the 2300 days with the explanation given by Gabriel to Daniel
in chapter 9. As chapter eight closes, Daniel is told that "the vision
(mar 'eh) of the
evening and the morning ... is true; wherefore shut thou up the vision
Then Daniel became sick and "fainted," but afterwards, upon
recovery confesses, "I was astonished at the vision (mar'eh),
but none understood it" (8:26-27). Gabriel returns to complete the
explanation of the mar'eh,
and thus fulfil his commission - "Gabriel make this man to understand
the vision (mar'eh)"
With the explanation given by Gabriel, the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14,
span the time from the going
p 5 -- the "judgment was set" after the period of time
allotted to the "little horn" (7:25) which closed In 1798, and
prior to "the great words" (7:11) which the horn spoke, beginning
in 1854. Thus the connecting link between "the judgment" in
Daniel 7 and the "cleansing of the sanctuary" in Daniel 8, is
(For a more comprehensive
study of the 2300 days prophecy, you may obtain the audio cassette - "The
Certainty of Our Faith." For a more involved analysis of the problems
involved In the study of Daniel 8:14, the tape - "1844 Re-Examined"
- should be enlightening. Both studies have diagram helps and may be obtained
through the Foundation office.
Let us next consider the actual services performed by the high priest
on the typical day of atonement as we continue our "exploration"
to find a possible explanation of Daniel 7:9-10 which harmonizes with
all the findings we have discovered thus far in the two "reviews"
of the Final Atonement. However, we need to retain in our minds two aspects
of the character of God which must remain inviolate - His justice, and
His omniscience. No final explanation dare impugn either.
Leviticus 16 contains the outline of the services of the typical Day
of Atonements. First certain designations need to be defined. In the KJV,
the word "holy" ("place" being supplied) refers to
the second apartment of the sanctuary - "within the vail before the
mercy seat" (16:2). The "tabernacle of the congregation"
is the phrase used for the first apartment (16:16). "The altar that
is before the Lord" (16:18) is the Altar of Burnt Offering in the
Court. All were to be ceremonially cleansed as the result of the services
performed during the year involving "the tabernacle of the congregation,
and the altar" (16:20).
On this day, the high priest was to provide "a young bullock for
a sin offering" (16:3). This was the same kind of offering that was
to be provided by the high priest during the year should he "sin
so as to bring guilt on the people" (Lev. 4:3 ARV). There was one
distinct difference between these two offerings. During the year, If such
a sin should occur, the offending high priest was to "lay his hand
upon the bullock's head" In confession (4:4). Not so in the services
of the Day of Atonement. No hand of confession was so laid; the blood
was used to cleanse the Altar of Burnt Offering "from the uncleanness
of the children of Israel" (16:19), after having been presented before
the Lord in the "holy" (16:14).
Twice the text indicates that the bullock was for "himself, and
for his house" (16:6,11). In this typical service, the high priest
was a type of the great High A, Priest who was to come, who "of necessity"
had to "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3). In the typical
there is the added dimension, "and for his house." It is not
just a happenstance that, in the book of Hebrews, after the eternal Deity
and common humanity of Jesus Christ are confirmed, Paul asks that we "consider
the Apostle and High Priest of our profession" (3:1). He begins this
consideration by presenting Jesus Christ first "as a son over His
own house, whose house are we" (3:6). Chnst's sacrifice, from this
perspective, was for those whose names were to be placed in the Lamb's
Book of Life (Rev. 3:5). These are prophetically pictured in contrast
to those who "worship" the beast who makes "war with the
saints," and overcomes them (Rev. 13:7-8). This is the same language
used in Daniel 7:21-22 in connection with the judgment given to the saints
against the little horn. Thus any explanation involving the Judgment scene
of Daniel 7:9-10, must include the factor of "the Son of man"
(Dan. 7:13) "as a son over His own house."
Let us at this point recapitulate the same prophetic picture found in
both Daniel and Revelation. Observe the parallels:
I beheld, and the same horn
made war with the saints, and prevailed against them. (Dan. 7:21) -------
And it was given unto him (first beast) to make war with the saints, and
to overcome them. (Rev. 13:7)
Until the Ancient of days
came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High: and the time
came that the saints possessed the kingdom. (Dan. 7:22) ------- And all
that dwell on the earth shall worship (the first beast) whose names are
not written in the book of life of the Lamb ... (Rev. 13:8)
In Daniel, "the books were opened" (7:10), but when Michael stands up, "the great prince which
p 6 -- standeth for the children of thy people," those
whose names are in another book are delivered (12:1). Further, when "one
like the Son of man" came to receive His kingdom (7:1-14), the explanation
states that the kingdom "shall be given to the people of the saints
of the most High" (7:27). All is prefigured in a single type of the
Day of Atonement - the high priest shall "make an atonement for himself
and his house" Christ, "one like the Son of man," made
atonement for His house whose house are we if we hold fast the confidence
and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" (Heb. 3:6).
In Revelation, the picture is given of the final judgment before the
Ancient of days, the judgment of "the great white throne." Again
the same contrast between books is made. "The books were opened and
another book was opened which is the book of life." However, the
"dead" or the eternally lost ones, are judged out of the books
"according to their works" (20:11-12). No High Priest made an
atonement for them.
Next in Leviticus 16, the special dress of the high priest for the services
of the day is described. He is to be clothed in "holy garments"
of linen from his head to the ankles. Commenting on the significance of
the "linen" garments, Keil
& Delitzsch note that: (It)
was in baddim ("linen") that the angel of Jehovah was
clothed (Ezek ix. 2, 3,11, x. 2, 6, 7, and Dan. x. 5, xii. 6, 7), whose
whole appearance, as described In Dan. x. 6, resembled the appearance
of the glory of Jehovah, which Ezekiel saw in the vision of the four cherubim
(chap. 1), and was almost exactly like the glory of Jesus Christ, which
John saw in Revelation (chap. 1.13-15). The white material, therefore,
of the dress Aaron wore, when performing the highest act of expiation
under the Old Testament, was a symbolic shadowing forth of the holiness
and glory of the perfect Mediator between God and man, who, being the
radiation of the glory of God and the image of His nature, effected by
Himself the perfect cleansing of our sin, and who as the true High Priest,
being holy, innocent, unspofted, and separate from sinners, entered once
by His own blood into the holy place not made with hands, namely, into
heaven Itself, to appear before the face of God for us, and obtain everlasting
redemption. (Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol.1, p. 397)
The import of Keil & Delitzsch's comment that the "linen"
garment relates the vision of Ezekiel 9 to the typical services of the
Day of Atonement, enlarges our perception of what Christ's work as High
Priest involves in the final atonement. Further, the placing of a "mark"
by "the angel clothed in linen" (v.4) is in contradistinction
to the mark of the beast placed on those who join in war against God.
The next act of the typical services of the Day of Atonememt was the
selection of the Lord's goat by lot of the two goats taken from the congregation
(Lev. 16:5, 7-9). While the bullock offered by Aaron was provided by himself,
the Lord's goat was provided by the congregation. This casts light on
the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Not only did He willingly give Himself
for those who became "His house," but He became one with fallen
men presenting Himself as "an offering for sin" Isa. 53:10.
Three times on the Day of Atonement Aaron entered the most holy place.
First, with his hands full of incense and carrying a "censer full
of burning coals" which he placed before the Ark. Then having poured
the incense upon the burning coals a cloud of incense arose enveloping
the Ark. (16:12-13) Secondly, he brought the blood of the bullock and
sprinkled it with his finger seven times upon and before the mercy seat.
The final entry was with the blood of the Lord's goat. The text reads: Then
shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and
bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with
the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before
the mercy seat. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because
of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions
in all their sins. (16:15-16)
Two things are involved in this atonement: 1) the record
of the acts of sin; and 2) the cause of the sins, "the
uncleanness of the children of Israel." This last factor was not
completed until the atonement at the Altar.
After the presentation of the blood of the Lord's goat in the second
apartment, the next step was to cleanse "the tabernacle of the congregation"
(16:16b). The instruction that had been given in placing of the Altar
of Incense "before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony"
(Ex. 30:6), reads:
p 7 -- atonements" (30:10). A third step followed. After
the cleansing of the second apartment, "the holy", and the first
apartment, "the tabernacle," the high priest was "to go
out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make an atonement for
At this point, some thing occurred that dare not be overlooked. The blood
of the bullock that had been provided by the high priest was ministered
in the second apartment, as well as the blood of the Lord's goat. The
blood of the Lord's goat, designated as "the sin offering of atonements,"
was applied to the Altar of Incense in the tabernacle, but in the cleansing
of the Altar of Burnt Offering, where throughout the year the Individual
confession had been recorded, the two bloods are mingled so as to "cleanse
it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel"
(16:19) Here in the final act of the atonement for Israel, the "uncleanness"
is ceremonially removed. The accomplishment demanded the blood of both
the bullock and the Lord's goat. The record of the acts of sin had been
cared for by the atonement of the blood of the Lord's goat in the "holy,"
but not until the cleansing of the Altar in the Court, was the uncleanness,
the cause of the acts of sin, taken away by the application of both the
blood of the bullock and the Lord's goat. As indicated by Zechariah, "the
counsel of peace was between the Two of Them" (6:13, Heb.).
In the reality of the antitype, there is only one blood, the blood of
Christ that not only cleanses from all unrighteousness (I John 1:9), but
takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). However, He not only "offered
Himself" (Heb. 9:14), but He was also God's "offering for sin"
(Isa. 53:10), both prefigured in the "bullock" and the "Lord's
After the atonement is completed, the other goat, in the KJV called,
"the scapegoat" (Lev. 16:8), is brought before the high priest
(16:20-21). He places both of his hands upon the head of the goat, and
confesses "over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel,
and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the
head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into
the wilderness" (16:21). The Hebrew word for "scapegoat"
is "Azazel." Some comments found in Keil
& Delitzsch in regard to Azazel are not only of interest;
but also cast light on the judgment scene as portrayed in Daniel 7:9-10,
and Revelation 20: The
words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally
that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being in opposition to Jehovah.
(op. cit., p. 398)
Israel had also been brought by its sin into a distinct relation to Azazel, the head of the evil spirits; and it was necessary that this should be brought to an end, if reconciliation with God was to be perfectly secured. This complete deliverance from sin and its author was symbolized in the leading away of the goat, which had been laden with sins, into the desert. This goat was to take back the sins, which God had forgiven to His congregation, into the desert to Azazel, the father of all sin, on the one hand as proof that his evil influences upon men would be of no avail in the case of those who received expiation from God, and on the other hand as proof to the congregation also that those who were laden with sin could not remain In the kingdom of God, but would be banished to the abode of evil spirits, unless they were redeemed therefrom. This last point, it is true, is not expressly mentioned in the text; but it is evident from the fate which necessarily awaited the goat, when driven into the wilderness in the "land cut off." It would be sure to perish out there in the desert, that is to say, suffer just what a sinner would have to endure if his sins remained upon him. ... There is not the slightest idea of presenting a sacrifice to Azazel. The goat was a sin-offering, only so far as it was laden with the sins of the people to carry them away into the desert ... (ibid., pp.404-405) (To Be Concluded)
way, 0 God, is in the sanctuary: