1989 Oct-Dec




Special Report --


ABOUT "Watchman, What of the Night?"

WWN 1970s Start online:

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)


WWN 1980s

1980 Jan-Mar

1980 Apr-Jun

1980 Jul-Sep

1980 Oct-Dec


1981 Jan-Mar

1981 Apr-Jun

1981 Jul-Sep

1981 Oct-Dec


1982 Jan-Mar

1982 Apr-Jun

1982 Jul-Sep

1982 Oct-Dec


1983 Jan-Mar

1983 Apr-Jun

1983 Jul-Sep

1983 Oct-Dec


1984 Jan-Mar

1984 Apr-Jun

1984 Jul-Sep

1984 Oct-Dec


1985 Jan-Mar

1985 Apr-Jun

1985 Jul-Sep

1985 Oct-Dec


1986 Jan-Mar

1986 Apr-Jun

1986 Jul-Sep

1986 Oct-Dec


1987 Jan-Mar

1987 Apr-Jun

1987 Jul-Sep

1987 Oct-Dec


1988 Jan-Mar

Feb Knight Descends On Jones. 1of 4.

Mar Knight Descends On Jones. 2 of 4.

1988 Apr-Jun 3 & 4 of 4.

1988 Jul-Sep

1988 Oct-Dec


1989 Jan-Mar

1989 Apr-Jun

1989 Jul-Sep

1989 Oct-Dec


WWN 1990s

1990 Jan-Mar

1990 Apr-Jun

1990 Jul-Sep

1990 Oct-Dec


1991 Jan-Mar

1991 Apr-Jun

1991 Jul-Sep

1991 Oct-Dec


1992 Jan-Mar

1992 Apr-Jun

1992 Jul-Sep

1992 Oct-Dec


1993 Jan-Mar

1993 Apr-Jun

1993 Jul-Sep

1993 Oct-Dec


1994 Jan-Mar

1994 Apr-Jun

1994 Jul-Sep

1994 Oct-Dec


1995 Jan-Mar

1995 Apr-Jun

1995 Jul-Sep

1995 Oct-Dec


1996 Jan-Mar

1996 Apr-Jun

1996 Jul-Sep

1996 Oct-Dec


1997 Jan-Mar

1997 Apr-Jun

1997 Jul-Sep

1997 Oct-Dec


1998 Jan-Mar

1998 Apr-Jun

1998 Jul-Sep

1998 Oct-Dec


1999 Jan-Mar

1999 Apr-Jun

1999 Jul-Sep

1999 Oct-Dec


WWN 2000s

2000 Jan-Mar

2000 Apr-Jun

2000 Jul-Sep

2000 Oct-Dec


2001 Jan-Mar

2001 Apr-Jun

2001 Jul-Sep

2001 Oct-Dec


2002 Jan-Mar

2002 Apr-Jun

2002 Jul-Sep

2002 Oct-Dec


2003 Jan-Mar

2003 Apr-Jun

2003 Jul-Sep

2003 Oct-Dec


2004 Jan-Mar

2004 Apr-Jun

2004 Jul-Sep

2004 Oct-Dec


2005 Jan-Mar

2005 Apr-Jun

2005 Jul-Sep

2005 Oct-Dec


2006 Jan-Mar

2006 Apr-Jun

2006 Jul-Dec

last of WWN published

Site Overview









Publisher of the
"Watchman, What of the Night?" (WWN)... More Info
William H. Grotheer, Editor of Research & Publication for the ALF

- 1970s
- 1980s
- 1990s
- 2000s

SHORT STUDIES - William H. Grotheer -
"Another Comforter", study on the Holy Spirit
1976 a Letter and a Reply: - SDA General Conference warning against WWN.
Further Background Information on Zaire -General Conference pays Government to keep church there.
From a WWN letter to a reader: RE: Lakes of Fire - 2 lakes of fire.
Trademark of the name Seventh-day Adventist [Perez Court Case] - US District Court Case - GC of SDA vs.R. Perez, and others [Franchize of name "SDA" not to be used outside of denominational bounds.]


Interpretative History of the Doctrine of the Incarnation as Taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, An
- William H. Grotheer

Bible Study Guides
- William H. Grotheer

End Time Line Re-Surveyed Parts 1 & 2 - Adventist Layman's Foundation

Excerpts - Legal Documents
- EEOC vs PPPA - Adventist Laymen's Foundation

Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, The - William H. Grotheer

Hour and the End is Striking at You, The - William H. Grotheer

In the Form of a Slave
- William H. Grotheer

Jerusalem In Bible Prophecy
- William H. Grotheer

Key Doctrinal Comparisons - Statements of Belief 1872-1980
- William H. Grotheer

Pope Paul VI Given Gold Medallion by Adventist Church Leader
- William H. Grotheer

Sacred Trust BETRAYED!, The - William H. Grotheer

Seal of God
 - William H. Grotheer

Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956
 - William H. Grotheer

SIGN of the END of TIME, The - William H. Grotheer

- William H. Grotheer

Times of the Gentiles Fulfilled, The - A Study in Depth of Luke 21:24
- William H. Grotheer

Elder William H. Grotheer



Song of Solomon - Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary

Ten Commandments - as Compared in the New International Version & the King James Version & the Hebrew Interlinear


Additional Various Studies --
"Saving Faith" - Dr. E. J. Waggoner
"What is Man" The Gospel in Creation - "The Gospel in Creation"
"A Convicting Jewish Witness", study on the Godhead - David L. Cooper D.D.

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

Sanctuary Service, The
- M. L. Andreasen

So Much In Common - WCC/SDA

Spiritual Gifts. The Great Controversy, between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and his Angels - Ellen G. White

Under 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 back.

Share your thoughts
with us




WWN 1989 Oct - Dec


1989 Oct -- XXII -- 10(89) -- The Genocide Convention -- Part 2 -- The final proviso recommended by the Committee on Foreign Relations and passed by the Senate was the declaration - "That the President of the United States will not deposit the instrument of ratification until after the implementing legislation referred to in Article V has been enacted." Article V of the Genocide Convention required that "the Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or of any of the other acts enumerated in Article III." This would include beside the act of genocide itself, the conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to do the same; any attempt whether successful or unsuccessful; and complicity in the act.

Inasmuch as the language of Article V of the Genocide Convention was nebulous in regard to the meaning of the phrase, "in accordance with their respective constitutions," the Senate Committee made it very specific in their second reservation. This phrase could be intrrpreted to mean the Constitutional process, but the Senate Committee wanted it very clear that no law would be enacted, even if suggested by the Convention, which in anyway was prohibited by the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution was supreme. Thus the act of "incitement to commit genocide" could not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedom of the press, or the right of public discussion.

The implementing legislation was inserted as a new item into the United States Code under title 18 and noted as chapter 50A - Genocide, with three sections: Genocide, Exclusive Remedies, and Definitions. (See pp. 2 & 3) It has been properly called the "Proxmire Act" in honor of the Senator from Wisconsin who singlehandedly kept the issue before the United States Senate until approved and implemented. Before the

p 2 -- Judiciary Committee of the Senate, the committee to which the implementing legislation was assigned, Senator Proxmire testified:      There is no more monstrous crime against human rights than the genocide that would destroy innocent human lives not because the victims of genocide had done anything wrong, but because they happened to worship God in their own way or happened to belong to a certain ethnic or racial group.

The Public Law, as voted, follows the Senate provisos limiting genocide to "the specific intent" to destroy "the whole or substantial part of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group." The emphasis is that the crime of genocide is an act against large numbers of people. By emphasizing "substantial," the intent would include the liquidation of enough individuals so that their eradication would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity. This is exactly what was voted in "Section 1093; Definitions (8)."

Subsection 7 of these definitions defines a "religious group" as "a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals; ..." It is in this area of the law, its interpretation and application, wherein the greatest danger exists for those who wish to hold to truth above everything else. For example, would the eradication of a few dissidents cause the destruction of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a viable identity? By no means! In the days of Christ, it was the opinion of the Jewish hierarchy that it was better for one man to perish than that the whole nation should be destroyed. And they turned that one Man over to the Romans for execution.

An honest appraisal of the Genocide Convention and its implementation by the Congress of the United States protects the Seventh-day Adventist Church from the coming "death decree" at least here in the United States, where according to the book of Revelation, it will be enacted. However, it does not protect any "dissident" who is at variance with the main body because of truth. These can be turned over to the State so as to secure the preservation of the main body.

PUBLIC LAW 100-606-NOV. 4,1988

Public Law 100-606
100th Congress

An Act

To implement the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

This Act may be cited as the "Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 (the Proxmire Act)".

(a) IN GENERAL . -Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 50 the following:


1091. Genocide.
1092. Exclusive remedies.
1093. Definitions.

p 3 --"§ 1091. Genocide

   "(a) BASIC OFFENSE. - Whoever, whether in time of peace or in time of war, in a circumstance described in subsection (d) and with the Specific intent to destroy, in whole or in substantial part, a natioal, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such -
"(1) kills members of that group;
"(2) causes serious bodily injury to members of that group;
"(3) causes the permanent impairment of the mental faculties of members of the group through drugs, torture, or similar techniques;
"(4) subjects the group to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part;
"(5) imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group; or
"(6) transfers by force children of the group to another group; or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

   (b) PUNISHMENT FOR BASIC OFFENSE. - The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) is -
"(1) in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and imprisonment for life; and
"(2) a fine-of not more than $1,000,000 or imprisonment for, not more than twenty years, or both, in any other case.

"(c) INCITEMENT OFFENSE. - Whoever in a circumstance described in subsection (d) directly and publicly incites another to violate subsection (a) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

  "(d) REQUIRED CIRCUMSTANCE FOR OFFENSES. - The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (c) is that

29-139 0 - 88 (606)

PUBLIC LAW 100-606-NOV. 4, 1988

      "(1) the offense is committed within the United States; or
      "(2) the alleged offender is a national of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101)).

  "(a) NONAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. - Notwithstanding section 3282 of this title, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(1), an indictment may be found, or information instituted, at any time without limitation.

"§ 1092. Exclusive remedies
"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws to the conduct proscribed by this chapter, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding.

"§ 1093. Definitions
  "As used in this chapter -
    "(1) the term 'children' means the plural and means individuals who have not attained the age of eighteen years;
"(2) the term 'ethnic group' means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common cultural traditions or heritage;
"(3) the term 'incites' means urges another to engage imminently in conduct in circumstances under which there is a substantial likelihood of imminently causing such conduct;
  "(4) the term 'members' means the plural;
   "(5) the term 'national group' means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of nationality or national origins;
   "(6) the term 'racial group' means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of physical characteristics or biological descent;
  "(7) the term 'religious group' means a set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals; and
  "(8) the term 'substantial part' means a part of a group of such numerical significance that the destruction or loss of that part would cause the destruction of the group as a viable entity within the nation of which such group is a part."

p 4 -- Well has it been written - though its authenticity is denied by the White Estate:           I saw the nominal church and the nominal Adventists, like Judas, would betray us to the Catholics to obtain their influence to come against the truth. (EGW, Dorchester Vision. Spalding & Magan Collection, p. 1)

While the wording of this early vision is couched in the language of the time, and the term, "nominal Adventist" then referred to those who had rejected the sanctuary truth, this term is now applicable to the main body who has likewise gone "soft" on this same truth. The fact remains that because of the Genocide Convention and its enabling legislation becoming the Law of the land, the safest place to be, to escape the "death decree" as foretold in Revelation, is to stay under the protective care of the General Conference. To stand up for the truth and denounce the apostasy from the truth by the Church is to put one's self outside the protective provisions of the Genocide Treaty.

Bibliography -- "Genocide Convention" (Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 99th Congress, 1st Session, Exec. Rept., 99-2, 1985)

"The Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1988" (Senate, 100th Congress, 2nd Session, Report 100-333)

THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION & EXTRADITION -- In an issue of Waymarks (#219) captioned - "The Genocide Treaty and the Coming Crisis" - Vance Ferrell attempts to give "a predictive look at the future" though "tentative." He formulates questions, and then gives his own "opinions" as answers. One question reads:      What is this about a foreign court? Do you mean that American citizens found guilty of violating the Genocide Treaty could be taken outside the U.S. to be tried in a law court somewhere else?

This question itself reveals ignorance in legal matters. For an American citizen to have been "found guilty," he would already have been tried. One is innocent until proven guilty before a jury of his peers. Since as assumed by the question, the American citizen is found to be guilty, he would be sentenced under American law defining genocide, and not extradited.

The proviso of the United States Senate to the Genocide Convention (II:3) makes it abundantly clear - "That the pledge to grant extradition in accordance with a state's laws and treaties in force found in Article VII [of the Genocide Convention] extends only to acts which are criminal under the laws of both the requesting and the requested state and nothing in Article VI effects the right of any state to bring to trial before its own tribunal any of its nationals for acts committed outside a state." (See WWN, XXII-9, p. 6, Col. 2)

The Senate document on the Genocide Convention further amplifies this aspect of the Treaty. It reads:      Article VI states that those accused of genocide are to be tried by a municipal court of the state where the act was committed. The second half of the Committee's understanding makes clear that this is not the only place where trial may be had. Any state may try its nationals for acts of genocide regardless of where the acts took place. Were, for example, a Unites States citizen accused of genocidal acts abroad, the United States could meet its obligations under ArticleVI [of the Convention] by prosecuting him under United States law. ("Genocide Convention," Senate Exec. Rept. 99-2. p. 24)

Ferrell's "opinion" in answering his own question reads:      Yes, this is part of the agreement that our nation

pledged itself to, when it bound itself to this treaty. Those found guilty under this treaty may be taken to a court in Switzerland for trial. But an added proviso states that our government, when it deems advisable, can choose instead to try that person here in the United States. (WM 219, p. 1, col. 3)

This answer still contains the erroneous concept that one guilty stands trial, rather than that one tried may be found guilty. Ferrell does admit, though misconstrued, that there is a proviso for trial of one accused of genocide by a foreign power to be held in the United States. Anyway one looks at the question and "opinion" given, it is a distortion of truth so as to play on the fears and emotions of the readers. In this instance, the distortion of truth lends itself to sensationalism, which the headlines captioning this "questions and opinion" issue evidence.

p 5 --Let us take a candid look at the facts involving the possibility of a trial before an international tribunal or a foreign court.

The Genocide Convention does contemplate an "international penal tribunal" by which those accused of committing acts of genocide could be tried. (See Article VI, WWN, XXII-9, p. 5) The Senate proviso (II-5) clearly placed the members of the UN on notice that U.S."participation in any such tribunal" will only be recognized by a separate "treaty entered into specifically for that purpose with the advice and consent of the Senate." No such treaty has as yet been negotiated, neither is there any indication that such a treaty is being contemplated.

"Extradition procedures in the United States are set out in chapter 209 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code and in the case law construing that chapter. A state seeking extradition must furnish 'evidence of criminality.' The evidence is presented to a U.S. magistrate or Federal district court judge who decides if it is 'sufficient to sustain the charge.' In making the determination whether an individual is extradictable, the presiding officer must find that the acts for which extradition is sought would be a crime had they been committed in the United States. (Collins v, Loisel, 259 U.S. 309 (1921))

"These conditions apply to all extradition requests, whether the individual sought is a United States Citizen, a citizen of the state requesting extradition, or a citizen of a third state. Thus, for example, if a citizen of a third state was sought for extradition from the United States on the grounds that he had incited others to commit genocide, extradition would lie only if the offending words would constitute incitement under U.S. law. ("Genocide Convention" op. cit.)

If, however, the U.S. magistrate or Federal district judge did issue a finding adverse to the defendant, an application for a writ of habeas corpus could follow. Finally, the Secretary of State would still retain discretion to deny a request for extradition regardless of any ruling by the courts. The only restriction placed on the Secretary of State is that the allegation of genocide could not be considered a "political" crime.

To predict the "coming crisis" there would have to be some other changes in the rights of the accused before the sensationalism of Ferrell's opinions could be considered as a foreseeable reality. Ultimately it will come - and sooner than we may think - when the "saints" of God will have no "rights" before the tribunals of earth. It will not be that the protective laws of human rights have been abolished, but rather, as in the trial of Jesus, they will be ignored. He shall see "the travail of His soul" in His own "seed."

It is sad the confusion to which God's concerned people are subjected by sensational mongers.

FERRELL'S OPINION -- BECAUSE IT IS A TREATY -- As mentioned earlier, a primary worry about this treaty was the fact that it would impose a law on America that was superior to the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments, simply because it was an international treaty, rather than a domestic law. You see, it is specifically stated in our U. S. Constitution that any treaty that we make with a foreign power has precedence over all aspects of the Constitution! (WM 217. p. 1. col. 3)


THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES -- "Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:      ' This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; ... '

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting or ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in 'Pursuance' of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect.

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined. [i.e. a Treaty]

p 6 --"There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy vs Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, 10 S.Ct. 295, 297, 33 L.Ed. 642, it declared:      ' The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a session of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.'

"This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument." ( Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 15, 77 Supreme Court Reporter pp. 1230, 1231)

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AN EXAMPLE - SDA - USSR RELATIONS -- On December 9, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed unanimously the Genocide Convention. Two days later, December 11, the UN delegates from such major nations as Australia, Brazil, France and the United States signed the document. The USSR among others did not sign at that time. When the USSR did sign and what implementing actions were taken by that government is not available to us at present. However, when our Ambassador to the UN, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, appeared before the Committee on Foreign Relations in 1984 in behalf of the Genocide Convention, she emphasized the fact that "the Soviets and others hostile to the United States have long focused on the United States' failure to ratify the Convention as part of their anti-American propaganda." (Senate, Exec. Rept. 99-2, p. 2) This would indicate that somewhere between 1948 and 1984, the USSR did ratify the Convention. And that Convention read that Genocide meant an attempt to destroy "in whole or in part" a "religious group." [The U.S. Senate provisos inserted the word, "signficant" part.]

To what lengths the Church will go in being a party to genocide is illustrated in the relationships between the hierarchy and the USSR as they developed under the Pierson administration. Attention has again been focused on this series of events by a book published in 1987 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association. It was written by Elder Alf Lohne, a former vice president of the General Conference who served as the official intermediary of the Church in its approachment to the Soviet government. This book is reviewed in the latest issue of Spectrum (Vol. 19, #5, 58-61) by Dr. Roland D. Bleich, Chairman of the Department of History at Walla Walla College. He wrote concerning Lohne's book:      The book implicitly raises some questions. The main one is, to what extent is the church leadership prepared to sacrifice Christian principle and the members of Christ's body in order to preserve the organizational structure? (p. 60)

This reopens the whole Shelkov issue wherein this noble saint of God was sacrificed on the altar of atheism to preserve the organizational structure of the SDA Church in the USSR. The fallout of the service performed by Alf Lohne for the Soviet rulers during the Pierson administration is still being experienced by the Wilson hierarchy in their preferential treatment by the Russian leadership today. [We reported in detail the Shelkov persecution at the time in several issues of WWN.] In brief, here is the picture:

1)  The recognized Seventh-day Adventist Church in Russia in the 70's was fractured into several groups. (Review, Oct. 26, 1978 pp. 6-7)
2)  The True and Free Seventh-day Adventists were active and well organized under the leadership of Elder Vladimir Shelkov. He had been released from prison in 1969, and went into hiding in the mountainous area of Tashkent. There under his leadership a large publishing work developed to which the Soviet government objected but were unable to stop because they could not locate the printing press nor Shelkov.
3)  Into this picture enters Lohne. In 1977, he made a trip to Russia to prepare the way for a "state visit" by Pierson. After a visit to Moscow and USSR officials, he went to Tashkent because "there were many believers" in the locality. (Review, July 14, 1977, p. 4)
4)  After Elder Lohne's visit, Shelkov was arrested. (He could not be found for years by the Russian authorities, but now was quickly apprehended.)
5)  Approximately the same time, one of the leaders of the recognized Adventist Church in Russia was in Washington D.C. to finalize the arrangements for Pierson's trip to Russia to be accompanied by Lohne.
6)  Pierson on his trip never went near Tashkent where Shelkov was in prison awaiting trial. Keep in mind that in the Tashkent

p 7-- area were "many believers," so many that it was made a part of Lohne's itinerary the year before. Neither did Pierson speak in behalf of Shelkov to any Russian leader. (See Reviews, October 19, 26, 1978)

7)  After this "state visit" by Pierson and Lohne, the shameful trial of Shelkov took place. During the trial the breakdown of legality and justice was so apparent even for a Soviet Court that the officially appointed defense counsel defied the Judge. (p. 206, "V. A. Shelkov Religion in Communist Lands, Vol. 8, #3)

If this sequence of events were only coincidental, then it stands unique in the annals of history. The result of removing Shelkov and his successor has caused the True and Free Seventh-day Adventist to cease to be a viable entity in Russia. This has been reported with a degree of satisfaction in the Adventist Review (August 3, 1989, "Scene 5: Other Adventists," p. 11; Reprinted from Spectrum, Vol. 19, #4, pp. 4-5.)

(The source of the article in the Adventist Review, by Robert W. Nixon, an associate in the office of General Council of the General Conference, is not given. In fact it was heavily edited, with three scenes as given in Spectrum omitted in the Adventist Review. The "Scenes" omitted were - "Lenin's Tomb" - "Right Neighborly" - "Gorbachev's Sermonettes." It points up that the Adventist Review gives only "managed news" in its reporting.")

The fact is clear for all to see that the action against Shelkov was a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Genocide Convention. He was a thorn in the flesh of the Soviet government and also a threat to the leadership of the recognized Adventist Church in Russia. The hierarchy of the Church in Takoma Park entered into the conspiracy to eliminate Shelkov.

The lesson should be clear. When the chips are down in the final controversy as it will be enacted here in the United States of America according to the prophecy, where will the hierarchy stand in regard to the "dissidents" who will dare to speak out? Will all those who are now seeking to be under the umbrella of the Church so as to have access to the facilities of the Church - Wieland, Short, Spear, Osborne, Standish, Marcussen, you name them - will they then do the same? Remember, the "mark of the beast" is more than a mere day; it is a mark of conformity.

Keep in mind that the implementing law in the United States for the Genocide Convention, while protecting large groups and a "substantial" part of the same, does not exclude from liquidation (death decree) those individuals of the group who may choose to speak up on what will then be "state" issues as well as religious issues because church and state will be united!

Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!

Sir Walter Scott

Husband a lie, and trump it up into some extraordinary emergency.
Joseph Addison, English essayist

--- (1989 Oct) --- END --- TOP

1989 Nov -- XXII -- 11(89) -- "THE SPIRIT SPEAKETH EXPRESSLY" -- If there is one message above another which the book of Acts conveys, it is that the Holy Spirit speaks to the believers in Jesus. Observe in Acts 8:29 what the Spirit said to Philip, and it expresses the fact that it was the Spirit that spoke. "Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." The Spirit spoke just as expressly to Peter as recorded in Acts 10:19-20 "While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arisetherefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them."

In Acts 13, we find the Spirit speaking to the pneumatikoi of Antioch. The record reads: "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." (verse 2) We find that as Paul and his companions were on his second missionary tour, the Spirit intervened in their plans: "Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Spirit to preach the word in Asia [the province], after they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not." (Acts 16:6-7) You will also find as one comes to the closing events of the book of Acts that the Spirit is still speaking. In Chapter 21, it reads: "And finding disciples, we tarried seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem." (verse 4) Then when Agabus came down to Caesarea, the record reads:      "He took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Spirit, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles." (verse 11)

That Spirit,which spoke so pointedly and so expressly in the days of the Apostles, speaks to us today. And I want you to notice carefully what the Word of God says the Spirit declares. Turn

p 2 -- to I Timothy 4:1: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils."

I would have you note that the Spirit does not say that some would depart from the church, but some shall depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils! They will apostatize from the truth. They will step aside from the faith. They will give heed to seducing spirits and we are told that these seducing spirits will not be in the appearance of demons but transformed into ministers of righteousness and angels of light. (II Cor. 11:13-15) They will give heed to teachings of demons that would manipulate truth, that would manipulate the Scriptures, that would manipulate the Writings, ignoring "time and place" of the contents.

The intensity of this deception will be inversely proportional to the time remaining. If you'll turn to Revelation 12 and note the "b" part of verse 12, it reads: "Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down to you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." Now if you believe, if you understand, that we are living in the very closing hours of human history and that the end of all things is upon us, then what can you understand from this text? You can know that the wrath of the enemy to deceive is even greater now than it was ten years ago.

The intensity of the deception is greater but that intensity will not be that which is obvious. It is a deception, a camouflaged deception! And if you understand the terms, "sea" and "earth" -"Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and the sea" - in a prophetic sense and compare it with Revelation 13 where two beasts come up, one out of the sea, and the other out of the earth, you can understand where the intensity of the deception is to be focused. You are living in that area described as the beast that cometh up out of the earth.

Furthermore, we are told that there is going to be manifest miracles. Turn to Revelation 16, and I want you to take a good look at verses 13 & 14:      And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils. working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

First let us focus our attention, on the word, "miracles." In our English understanding of "miracles," we usually perceive of them as a manifestation of cures and healings. But the Greek word is simeia and means signs by which the one performing attests to his genuineness. In other words, these "demons" are going to give "signs" by which they attest their genuineness, not as demons, but as ministers of righteousness. Through this deception and under this false guise, they will deceive the nations and the kings of the earth and bring them to the battle of the great day of God Almighty.

The final battle of earth is over truth versus error. This is the picture portrayed in Revelation. Go back to Revelation 13, to the work of the beast that comes up out of the earth. It says - "And he doeth great wonders ... and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth ["Woe to the inhabiters of the earth ... for the devil is come down unto you."] by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast." (verses 13-14) Here is the same word for "miracles" as in Rev. 16 - semeia, a word which means a manifestation by which one attests to the genuineness of his message.

There is something else. Besides the prophesied deception, there is a promise. Turn to the word of Jesus in John 14:16,-17. Jesus, anticipating his role as the great High Priest, said, "I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you - (How long?) forever; even the Spirit of truth; ..." How long will the Spirit of truth abide with us? Forever! There never will be a time that we will not need the Spirit of truth and there will never be a time when the Spirit of truth will not abide with us. Even though Jesus shall step aside from His High Priestly intercession in the presence of the Father, and even though the Spirit of God will be withdrawn from the earth, it never says anywhere, nor is it even mentioned anytime that the Spirit of God will be withdrawn from His own. "I will, He says, abide with you forever."

We may no longer have a divine-human Intercessor when probation's hour closes for no man can enter in, but the all-divine Spirit maketh intercession before the Father in

p 3 -- groanings which cannot be uttered.(Rom. 8:26-27) We can know when probation's hour closes that if we are in the truth that the Spirit of truth will still be abiding with us and will keep us when the enemy would seek to destroy us. Likewise, even now as he comes down with great wrath of deception, we can have the Spirit of truth to keep us from being deceived.

Recently a fellow minister sent me an article from the Christian Inquirer (April, 1985) This article was the first of a series of feature articles by David Hunt. You recognize the name? He is the author of the Godmakers and The Seduction of Christianity, and an authority on the new-age movement. He captions his first article - "The Delusion." I am going to read several paragraphs from this article, and I want you to listen very, very carefully. He wrote:      Are we living in the last days? For much of my Christian life I considered that question to be an invitation to fruitless speculation. The prophetic visions in Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation seemed impossible to unravel, and the best proof of that was the many conflicting views held by equally devout and sincere Christians.

Consequently I avoided those parts of the Bible that dealt with the "end times, not wanting to join the ranks of those who, it seemed to me, kept crawling out on the limbs of doubtful interpretations that inevitably broke off beneath them.

Some years ago, however, I began to see that our Lord and His apostles, as well as Old Testament prophets, described the last days as though they expected that some generation would eventually recognize the prophesied "signs of the times" and on that basis take appropriate action.

Indeed, I noticed that Jesus specifically rebuked the Jewish people and their leaders in His day for failing to recognize the days in which they lived:   "You hypocrites! You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time?" (Luke 12:56)

If He so severely criticized them for not being alert to the time of His first coming, would He not criticize us even more if we fail to recognize this time of His Second Coming?

There can be no reasonable doubt that the Bible describes the "last days" with the obvious intent that some generation at some time would thereby be able to recognize that Christ's coming "is near, right at the door." (Matthew 24:32-33) If we are that generation, how would we be able to know?

There is a standard list of "signs" that is usually given, which includes such things as wars, famine, pestilence and earthquakes. Attention is directed to the Middle East, the threat of World War III, a nuclear holocaust and Armageddon. While such things are indicated in the Bible, there are signs of the "last days" that I consider to be far more important for us to recongize.

When asked for the signs of His return, the first thing Jesus said was: "See to it that no one misleads you." (Matthew 24.4) He went on to warn that the "last days" just prior to His return would be characterized by the greatest deception the world has ever known; and it would involve three specifics: (1) false Christs, (2) false prophets, and (3) false miracles. (Matthew 24:5, 11, 24)

Moreover, Christ and His apostles emphasized these signs more than any others, because the consequences of being deceived by the forces of antichrist are far worse than being victimized by famine, disease or war. (p. 4, emphasis his)

Now think about what this is saying. To be victimized by war, victimized by famine, victimized by disease, what would that do? Kill the body! But what about deception? It would kill the soul! You can survive in eternity should famine, war or disease overtake you; but you cannot survive in eternity if deception overtakes you! ...

[(This is the introduction to the sermon given August 12, at the close of the 1989 Annual Fellowship. you may have a copy of the full text by writing to the Adventist Laymen's Foundation. P. 0. Box 69, Ozone, AR 72854. Please include $1.00 for postage and handling.] "Studies in Acts" (Grotheer) 3 tapes.

p 4 -- ETHICS - GONE WITH THE WIND? -- OPINIONS? ALLEGATIONS? INFERBNCES? FACTS AND DOCUMENTATION? -- WHICH? -- This week (October 2) on the same day from two different sources, one on the West Coast and one to the East of Arkansas, we received two of the latest releases of "Waymarks." (#252 & #254) Number 252 is a book review of the most recent publication of Dr. George R. Knight. This book - Angry Saints - is a sequel to his pre-1888 Celebration work From 1888 to Apostasy. Those who availed themselves of the opportunity to hear first hand the John W. Osborn Lectureship series at Riverside, California where Knight spoke, and his presentation at the Minneapolis Celebration '88 knew what was coming in this latest book. In fact this book was released earlier in the year.

Number 254 concerns the Adventist Celebration Church which was begun by the former pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Azure Hills, California. There is a similar church in Oregon, the Milwaukie church in the Portland area. I attended it to see first hand their format of worship, and reported on the same in the June issue of WWN. (XXII-6, "Amazing Facts," p. 3) However, the report on "The Celebration Church" as found in WM #254 was prefaced with the announcement that Morris Venden was now the pastor of the Azure Hills Seventh-day Adventist Church. Yet the report is solely on the nature of the worship service in the Celebration Church where Dan Simpson is the pastor. What is the connection? Nothing, except that Morris Venden was appointed to pastor the same church where once Dan Simpson had been the pastor - Azure Hills. The connection created by Ferrell leaves the reader with the impression that somehow Morris Venden is also involved with "pentecostalism" without the tongues!

Ferrell's "opinion" is that Elder Stephen Gifford, president of the Southeastern California Conference, backed the creation of the Celebration Church as a diversionary tactic to offset the adverse publicity Venden has been receiving as a result of alleged immoral conduct in Keene, Texas. No proof is given that this was Gifford's intention, but just another undocumented "opinion." (See XXII-10, p. 4) One must ask, Is this latest "guilt by succession" involving Venden a further attempt "to get him"? Why do I ask this question?

A number of months ago, I received a telephone call asking if I would advertize two small booklets in WWN. These were written by a woman in Texas. One of the booklets alleged moral misconduct on the part of Venden, while the other was a dissertation on righteousness by faith by the same person who "confessed" that she was the other party in the indiscretion. The two booklets are incongruous. I was told that Venden was guilty and "they" were going "to get" Venden by this means. It was later determined that one of the "they" was Ferrell. The reason the "they" were going "to get" him was that "they" did not agree with Venden's theology. Neither do I! But you do not answer a man's false theology by an attempted character assassination! You reply by the use of the Word of God. This neither Ferrell nor the one calling can do, not that it cannot be done, but because neither spend much time in the study of theology. Ferrell forthrightly admitted to our contributing editor that he studies theology very little, and when he has spare time, he reads science and history.

I told the one calling that I would have to read the material before advertizing the same. I purchased the two booklets at full price - it was exorbitant! Now these book.lets have been subsidized so as to increase circulation. But to our knowledge, the underwriter has not been identified. Is the underwriter also interested in "getting" Venden, or is the underwriter one of the original "they"? We do not know?

Now Venden may be guilty as alleged, but the charge has notbeen adjudicated in a court of law before a jury of his peers, nor has the one bringing the allegations been cross-examined before such a jury. Neither has Venden for that matter. But when men set themselves "to get" an individual, and when equity is set aside, and his Constitutional right under the American Bill of Rights is disregarded, then something is wrong. Two grievous wrongs do not make one right.

p 5 -- Article V of the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution reads:      No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ... nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...

It is evident that Ferrell who claims to read history in his spare time neither understands Article VI nor V of the American Bill of Rights. (See WWN, XXII-10, p. 4)

It is claimed that the Scripture forbids going to Law before "the unjust" (I Cor. 6:1) but the one giving this counsel, exercised his rights as a Roman citizen, and said to Festus, - "I appeal unto Caesar." (Acts 25:11)

We have more recently received another call from one of the "they" indicating that this attempted "getting" is not working as it was intended to work. Then this WM release #254 comes suddenly to the fore. One is left to wonder if there is a connection, and is this a parting shot of the original intent "to get" Venden? Then one wonders - "Who is next on the 'hit list'?" Keep in mind that this is all in the name of keeping the professed people of God informed about the terrible things going on in the midst of "Israel." The sad thing is that many are relying on this type of reporting, thinking they are being kept informed, but in reality are being deceived.

Questionable things are taking place in the Church, but do we abandon Christian ethics in our "zeal" for the Lord of hosts? Do we substitute "opinions" for a "Thus saith the Lord"? Do we indulge in a misreading of the Constitution of the United States in order to produce sensational headlines in an attempt to misguide the unwary? Would not Jesus repeat today His words of yesterday - "Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment." (John 7:24)

A News Item -- A retired evangelist gave a copy of "Watchman What of the Night?" to a fellow church member who requested it. It was shown to the pastor of the church. The retired minister was placed under church censure for 90 days! Who doesn't want you to read what?

RELEVANT - "As the end nears, the most dangerous place for the true people of God will be in the professed church, the synonym of apostate Israel in Herod's day." - Wm. N. Glenn, Signs of the Times, Jan. 18, 1899. [William Newton Glenn (1837-1906) was editor of Our Little Friend from 1893 to 1901, and assistant editor of the Signs from 1900-1906. --- (1989 Nov) --- End --- TOP

1989 Dec XXII-- 12(89) -- CHURCH AND STATE IN THE NEXT DECADE -- Editor's Note:   Both your editor and contributing editor attended the 42nd National Conference of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In this issue, both of us give our summary and observations of this conference. Stump gives arv overview along with his impressions. You might wish to read it first. If so, [it is called An Overview With Comments]

"Decade of Decision" was the theme of the 42nd National Conference on Church & State sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. It was held in Alexandria, Virginia, September 23-26. After listening to the various speakers who addressed the Conference, from my viewpoint the next decade, as far as religious liberty and the separation of church and state are concerned, can be summarized by two words - DARK and FOREBODING.

As one catches the picture of the issues at stake and the forces presently arrayed against our heritage received from the founding fathers of this nation, there comes into the human heart the same indescribable fear which grips us when we hear of disasters such as the recent San Francisco. earthquake, and the devastation of the hurricane, Hugo. Truly a storm, relentless in its fury, is breaking upon us, and we stand as helpless before it, as were the victims of either Hugo or the earthquake.

Consider the recent Red Mass which is conducted annually by the Roman Catholic Church and dedicated to members of the legal profession. On October 1, Anthony J. Bevilaqua, archbishop of Philadelphia addressing the assembly in Washington D.C., declared that the wall between church and state must be removed to improve the nation's moral fiber. "This opposition, this impregnable wall ... cannot endure much longer," Bevilaqua stated. (See Church & State, November, 1989, p. 3) In attendance at this Red Mass was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist, and associate justices, Brennan, Kennedy and Scalia, all sitting in front rows of the

p 2 -- Cathedral. Two Bush administration officials were also in attendance - the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Interior Secretary.

In a recent Supreme Court Decision - County of Allegheny v. ACLU - Justice Anthony Kennedy writing for the minority declared - "Substantial revision of our Establishment Clause doctrine may be in order." Herein the battle joins over the Bill of Rights for the first amendment reads - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Kennedy's minority view' was in a 5-4 decision, one vote shy of effecting the change. We are only a heartbeat away from a radical departure from the freedoms that have been the glory of the United States for 200 years. The Chief Justice is on record as declaring - "The 'wall of separation between church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved a useless guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." This crisis is the legacy of the Reagan years which began in 1980, - the date marking the close of "the times of the nations." (Luke 21:24)

Our culture has been the embodiment of the Judeo-Christian heritage. Today it is under severe stress and strain. In the history of Israel, law and religion were one. It was operated as a theocracy. Even in the Kingdom era, the king was suppose to rule only as a vicegerent. To the Christian, his first allegiance was to God, but he respected the State so long as its mandates did not conflict with his duty to God. In our American society, church and state were separated, but in this separation, religion and law have complimented each other. Religious principles undergirded a moral society. In other words, the commandments of God which enunciated man's relationship to his fellow man were made a part of the law of the land. By law these moral principles were maintained and offenders prosecuted. But now from within and without, law itself is under attack.

Professor John Witte of the Emory University School of Law, addressing the Law & Theology Student Seminar conducted in conjunction with the National Conference on Church and State, said:      From Within, the law has been subject to the skeptical and cynical attacks issued by jurists and judges in the past few decades. These skeptics have dismissed legal doctrine as malleable, self-contradictory rhetoric. They have depicted law as an instrument of oppression and exploitation of women, of minorities, of the poor. They have derided the legal system for its promotion of the political purposes of the powerful and the propertied. This assault from within the law, from within the legal academies and within the courts - however meritorious it may be - reflects a cynical contemptuousness for law and government, a deep loss of confidence in its integrity and efficacy.

From without, the radical transformation of economic life and the rapid acceptance of new social forms and new social customs have stretched traditional legal doctrines to the breaking point. Traditional marriage, family, and inheritance laws, for example, have been reformed several times over to accommodate new social and economic roles for women, new concerns to remove discrimination based on sex and sexual preference, new means of fertilization and contraception, new acceptance of single parents, of unmarried cohabitants, of homosexual couples. The same patterns of radical change are evident in our traditional laws of contract, property, and tort, in our traditional criminal, commercial, and constitutional laws. Many of these changes may well be necessary to modernize the law, to conform it to contemporary social needs, to purge it of its obsolete ideas and institutions. But, as a consequence our law - always something of a patchwork quilt - has become a collection of disjointed pieces, with no single thread, no single spirit holding it in place and giving it direction. This has also led to disillusionment with and distrust of the law.

Religion has not escaped. There has been decay from within and disillusionment from without. On this point Witte stated:      From within, the traditional problems of clerical corruption and immorality (captivating as they may be to us and our media) are not the primary concern. More disconcerting are the dramatic changes in theological doctrine and religious organization of the past two decades. All major religious traditions in America - Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, [Adventist], and Jewish traditions alike - have become sharply divided between old lights and new lights, traditionalists and innovators, conservatives and liberals. These divisions have resulted from disputes not only over dogma and polity. but also and increasingly over society and politics. Some believers have thus separated themselves into ever smaller religious groups, sacrificing collective strength for the sake of doctrinal purity. Others have subsumed themselves into ever larger ecumenical groups, sacrificing doctrinal purity for the sake of collective strength. (Injection and emphasis mine)

From without, new philosophies, new customs, and new social movements have seriously challenged traditional religious doctrines and institutions. Many have grown disillusioned with traditional dogma and distrustful of ecclesiastical forms. A range of theistic and atheistic sects have emerged, offering teachings and experiences that are radically new. A variety of

p 3 -- oriental and Islamic cults have flourished, offering doctrines and practices of ancient vintage.

These dramatic changes in our law and in our religion, Harold J.Berman poignantly observes in his path-breaking work The Interaction of Law and Religion have led western culture into "an integrity crisis ... a deep loss of confidence in fundamental religious and legal values and beliefs, a decline in commitment to any kind of transcendent reality that gives life meaning, a decline in commitment to any structures and processes that provide social order and social justice. Torn by doubt concerning the reality and validity of those values that sustained us in the past, we come face to face with the prospect of death itself" - death of our law, death of our religion, death of our very culture.

It must be kept in mind that when the Roman Empire broke up, and the established order was crumbling, the Papacy entered the picture as the "saviour" of life and culture. 1  Today it is again entering the scene as the arbiter of human morals and precepts. We are standing on the threshold of another "dark ages" when "darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people." (Isa. 60:2)

The Founding of Our Nation -- To understand the present conflict over the separation of church and state, one must know something about the history which marked the founding of our nation and the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

The world into which Christianity was born, the State controlled religion and sponsored it. When apostate Christianity gained the ascendancy, the Church dominated the State. When Protestantism became a viable force, the dominance returned to the State as a sponsor of . a particular Creed. For example the ruler of England is the governor of the Anglican Church. This Protestant concept of church-state relations came to America. In the colonies of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Maryland, the state church was Anglican, while in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, the state supported the Congregationalist Church. Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey had none, and in New York it was a form of "local option." During the Colonial Period and on into Nationhood, the support of a State Church was gradually modified to the State taxing for religious purposes, with the taxes going to the church of the tax payer's choice. In this setting, "establishment" meant the support of the State of one or more churches through taxation. It was not until 1833 that Massachusetts ended its establishment of religion; and not until 1876 did New Hampshire erase from its laws a religious test for state office.

Connected with this religious issue was the States Rights controversy at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The newly formed United States of America , was composed of two parties - the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. There was no question, the Constitution did create a Federal government. The only mention of religion in the Constitution proper is in Article VI where it reads - "no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office of public Trust under the United States." The reasoning was very simple for the Federalist. That which was not specifically delegated to the Federal government was not in its province to deal with, and thus there was no necessity of a Bill of Rights to exclude the Federal government from entering the field of religion. Alexander Hamilton in his publication, Federalist, expressed it this way:      For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed. (Quoted in The Establishment Clause, p. 65) 2

Edmund Randolph of Virginia declared that "no power is given expressly to Congress over religion," and added that only power "constitutionally given" could be exercised. However, to get the Constitution ratified, a Bill of Rights had to be promised.

Thomas Tredwell, an antiratificationist, of New York, during the debate in that state over ratification declared:       I could have wished also that sufficient caution had been used to secure to us our religious liberties, and to have prevented the general government from tyrannizing over our consciences by a religious establishment - a tyranny of all others most dreadful, and which will assuredly be exercised whenever it shall be thought necessary for the promotion and support of their political measures. (Ibid. p. 71. [Rather prophetic] )

At the first session of the first Congress, James Madison introduced in the House of Representatives a series of amendments which included a religious clause. The religious clause as introduced read: - "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account

p 4 -- of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."

Madison's amendments were referred to a select committee, and in committee, the words, "civil rights" and "national" were deleted from the article on religion. After further debate in and with the Senate, the first amendment of the Bill of Rights as voted reads in its entirety as follows:      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

You will observe that it is limited solely to the Federal government - "Congress shall make no law..." The bottom line of this article is, the framers of the Constitution had not empowered Congress to act in the field of religion; and by this express prohibition of power, it does not invest or create the power previously non-existent to aid religion by aiding all religious groups as is presently contemplated by those seeking to break down the wall of separation.

The application of the Bill of Rights to the several States did not come until the 14th Amendment in 1868 which declared that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key in this amendment is "the equal protection of its laws." Presently all "Sunday closing laws" are State statutes. Thus for equal protection under the law, there would also have to be "Saturday closing laws." This we would not want, and assuredly those pushing Sunday closing laws do not want such equal protection.

A New Ominousness -- With the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Webster case on abortion, a new and ominous era is opening. The emotional fervor raised over abortion itself has clouded the basic issue in this case. The preamble to the Missouri statute which was upheld establishes Catholic dogma and forces it upon the whole of the people of that State. Lost in all the legal conflict was the 14-page dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens. Drawing from a friend-of-the-court brief prepared by Americans United which cited the teachings of Thomas Aquinas that male fetuses receive a soul 40 days after conception and females 80 days, Justice Stevens wrote:      If the views of St. Thomas were held as widely today as they were in the Middle Ages, and if a state legislature were to enact a statute prefaced with a "finding" that female lite begins 80 days after conception and male life begins 40 days after conception. I have no doubt that this Court would promptly conclude that such an endorsement of a particular religious tenet is violative of the Establishment Clause.

In my opinion the difference between the hypothetical statute and Missouris preamble reflects nothing more than a difference in theological doctrine.

The Webster decision returned the issue of abortion back to the States. While there is little or no possibility of "local option" being attached to the issue of abortion, other issues, such as the sale of alcoholic beverages, have been localized. In Canada, when the matter of the application of the Lord's Day Act of Canada was considered by the Ontario Provincial Parliament, "local option" was the way out of the tense situation. Such an application in the United States would leave the cities the bastions of religious liberty and the small communities in the rural areas the enclaves of intolerance. [Where then would we flee?] The Webster decision is definitely an "establishment of religion" and to let the issue of abortion override our judgment is to place "blinders" on our eyes. Coming events are ,casting their shadow before.

We would do well to review Rome's plans as stated in 1939 as the deadly wound was being healed. They read:      When the time comes and men realize that the social edifice must be rebuilt according to eternal standards, be it now, or be it 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. Those whom this may annoy, will have to put up with the annoyance. Respect will not be refused to the

p 5 -- Creator nor repose denied to the creature simply for the sake of humoring certain maniacs, whose phrenetic condition cause them stupidly and insolently to block the will of a whole people ...

In a word, Catholic society will be Catholic and the dissenters whom it will tolerate will know its charity, but will not be allowed to disrupt its unity. (Louis Veuillot, The Liberal Illusion, pp. 63, 64; The National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington, D.C.: 1939)

Now ask yourself some questions. What has caused the breakdown of "law" from without? Go back and reread Witte's comments. (p. 2, Col. 2 - "From without") Note again the emphasis on "social" factors - society. Then note the objectives of the Catholic Church in regard to "society." Is the issue of abortion a social as well as a moral issue? Has it been interwoven with Papal Dogma?

Note again the Catholic objectives: What does "incognito" mean? How would one observe the true Sabbath, "incognito"? What would be required for "the religious observance of Sunday"? What preserves for us the freedom to worship as we choose, and openly? The answer is the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Reread that right. (p. 4, col. 1) "Revoking the permit" means simply what? Altering the religious freedom Clause of that amendment. What is the attitude of the Chief Justice, and the Catholic appointees - Scalia and Kennedy - to the Court? It doesn't take a prophet to tell you about the fate of "the Establishment Clause" in the next decade.

The Catholic hierarchy of America boasts that it now has over 50% of Congress in its pocket. It is rapidly obtaining a "working majority" of the Supreme Court. There is only one factor which inhibits its desired objective and that is the growing pluralism of the American population. Islam has taken the third place in the major religions of the States ahead of Judaism. We do well to consider how the full objectives of the Roman Catholic Church will be realized. The answer reads:      In the last days Satan will appear as an angel of light, with great power and heavenly glory, and claim to be Lord of the whole earth. He will declare that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, and as Lord of the first day of the week, he will present this spurious sabbath as a test of loyalty to him. Then will take place the final fulfillment of the Revelator's prophecy. [Rev. 13:11-18 quoted] (Ms. 153, 1902)

-- 1 -- 'The assumption of power by the Papacy the first time was the result of the breakup of the social and political structure. This is described in Historical Studies, pp. 26-27,30:      Gregory was chosen Pope (590) by the united voice of the clergy, the senate, and the people of Rome. and the emperor Maurice confirmed the election. But Gregory shrunk from assuming the holy office with real alarm. He even fled in disguise into the forest, but a pillar of fire hovering over his head betrayed him. He was seized and carried by force to the Church of St. Peter, and was there consecrated Supreme Pontiff.

He might well have trembled at the thought of being intrusted with the destiny of Christianity in those dark and hopeless days; he might well have believed, as he ever did, that the end of all things was at hand. The world was full of anarchy and desolation, and a universal horror rested upon the minds of men. From his insecure eminence at Rome, Gregory saw everywhere around him the wreck of nations and the misery of the human race. ...

Gregory the Great died in 604, having established the power of the Roman bishopric. and his successors assumed the title of pope.

-- 2 -- Leonard W. Levy, The Establishment Clause (Macmillan Pub1ishing Company, New York, 1986) This book was frequently referred to by Professor Herman Schwartz of the American University School of Law, Washington D.C., in his presentation at the 42nd National Conference on Church & State.

p 6 -- An Overview With Comments -- Allen Stump -- The 42nd National Conference of Americans United for Separation of Church and State was held in Alexandria, Virginia, September 23-26. The 1989 conference was billed as the "Decade of Decision - Church and State in the 1990's."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is "a nonprofit educational corporation dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation."

An outline of some of the more interesting topics discussed at the 3 1/2 day conference were: "Overview of Religious Liberty: Europe and America" - Dr. Robert Maddox, Executive Director of Americans United and former aide to President Carter; "Formation of the Bill of Rights" - Professor Herman Schwartz, Amercan University School of Law, Washington D.C.; "Church/State and the Supreme Court: New Directions" - Professor A. E. Dick Howard of the Department of Law and Public Affairs, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; "Congress and Religious Liberty" - Dr. Robert Alley, Professor of Humanities, University of Richmond (Virginia); "Public Schools and Parental Choice" - Dr. Bruce Hunter, Associate Director, Government Relations, American Association of School Administrators; "Religious Liberty & the Abortion Debate" - Dr. Paul Simmons, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky; and "Religion and the Public Schools" - Dr. Charles Haynes, Americans United Research Foundation.

Also discussed, involving public schools, was the Equal Access Act. Equal Access is designed to give Christians or other groups equal access with certain restrictions to school facilities for group meetings such as would be allotted clubs and other organizations. Americans United are currently split down the middle on this issue. To discuss the pro side was Sam Ericsson, Esq., Executive Director, Christian Legal Society. Professor Steven Green, Vermont Law School presented the opposing viewpoint.

The list of speakers and their credentials were impressive; however, these very well educated men did not carry the atmosphere of being so "heavenly minded" that they were of no "earthly good." Quite the contrary, instead of speaking with large words and mystic phrases, the presentations, with one or two exceptions, were down to earth and practical in application.

Elder Gary Ross was the leading Adventist personality in attendance at the conference. Ross, well respected by those attending the conference, is with the General Conference Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty, and serves the Church as congressional liaison. Also in attendance was Dr. B. B. Beach, Elder John Stevens of the Pacific Union,. as well as others from various unions and conferences.

An annual feature of the Conferences of Americans United is the presence of a large delegation of seminary and law students from leading universities all across America. Americans United helped sponsor these students to come to the conference so that these future leaders of the pulpits and courts might have a better understanding of church and state issues.

Mixing with the theological students proved to be a very enlightening experience. The prevailing attitude appeared to be one approaching the far left wing. Not only did the men voice their opinion in favor of women's ordination, but a noticeable number of seminary students were women who expect to be pastoring churches as ordained ministers in the next year or two. The attitude of most of the seminary students with whom I conversed leaned toward a "social gospel " One of the students I talked to betrayed religious freedom concepts by advocating legal reforms to cure social ills as being more important than the preaching of the pure gospel of Christ. With such thinking among the future ministry of America, their presence at the conference could be providential.

The law students were no less intriguing. While some of the seminary students attended the meetings casually dressed, even to the

p 7 -- extreme of short pants and sport shirts, the law students dressed their profession with few exceptions. While appearing somewhat liberal in their views of contemporary issues, the law students, as a group, showed great interest in upholding the principle of complete separation of church and state.

The climax of the conference was the Monday evening banquet with Representative Don Edwards of California giving the address. Rep. Edwards warned Americans United that many of the extreme right wing causes already have a simple majority (51%) in Congress to carry through their programs which bridge the principle of church-state separation. Without a concerted effort by such groups as Americans United, that simple majority could become a two-thirds majority so as to attempt to amend the Constitution. Further, he pointed out that Americans need to be better educated on church/state issues. As he said this, I wondered what about Seventh-day Adventists? How slow we have been to take strong stands concerning the separation of church and state.

The 42nd Conference was informative and enlightening. With the recent court decisions, the movements of the Papacy, and the formation of the image of the beast, the "Decade of Decision" may soon be the "Year of Decision."

Musings -- This week a staff member received an announcement of a meeting to be held in an Arkansas Seventh-day Adventist Church. The meetings were featuring "The Glorious 1888 Gospel." One of the items listed in the resume of the speaker was - "He holds credentials from the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists." I thought about this and the message which was to be proclaimed. Then I began to muse: Did Christ go to the Sanhedrin - the General Conference of His day - to obtain "credentials" to speak in the synagogues of Judaism? I find no such record. When He was denied access to the churches of Israel, He preached from the hillsides, and from the shores of Galilee. How often it is we seek to proclaim the Righteousness of Christ, yet in conduct deny the Example of right doing as demonstrated in His life.

A recent Adventist Review (October 5, 1989) took one on a pictorial tour of the new General Conference Headquarters. One could muse about this. However, within its pages was an article on the unification of the Adventist Church in Hungary. I noted that confession had been made for past errors of leadership. That was something new! My attention was later called to the joint declaration signed by both the Hungarian Union and the Egervari group. It read:      "The declaration acknowleges that members within our church have the liberty to express their convictions freely as long as their participation in the life, worship, and witness of the church is constructive to the church and in harmony with 77 fundamental beliefs ...

Recently quite a furor was raised in Australia over Dr. Colin Standish's credentials from the Potomac Conference. When it was noted that to receive credentials one had to b ein harmonywith the 27 Fundamentals, Standish denied signing any such papers. There is more than one way to convey allegiance - lip service by conveying "truth" and "church" as synonyms. This summer a member of the Egervari group made the rounds at the Hope International Campmeetings. Did Ron Spear encourage the reuniting of the group with the regular church? Was this a part of his rumored pledge to Neal C. Wilson? Spear refuses to take a stand on the 27 Fundamentals saying that he would word them a bit differently. Is this Statement a matter of semantics? Absolutely not! It signalled a major change in some of the basic doctrines held previously.

To say that one is preaching the "gospel" be it the "1888 Gospel" (I didn't know we had two gospels) or the "Three Angels' Messages" and then in practice give allegiance to error is to practice deception of the darkest hue. But tragically, as in the days of Jeremiah - "The prophets [preachers] prophesy falsely, ... and my people love to have it so" - BUT - "what will ye do in the end thereof?" Truly, "a wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land." (Jer. 5: 31, 30) .--- (1989 Dec) ---End---- TOP 

1989 Special 1 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 1 -- EDITORIAL -- While the name Seventh-day-Adventist is cherished by some, and overly cherished by others, the sanctuary teaching is the heart of Adventism. Many besides Adventists keep the Sabbath. There are those who believe in the near return of Jesus a second time; albeit, the how and manner in which these perceive that Coming to be, differ widely from the eschatology of Adventism. But no others have understood the meaning and the significance of the sanctuary teaching. To remove this teaching from Adventism is to leave it merely a corpse without life and mission. This is what has occurred in Adventism over the past four decades.

Centennial 88 failed to restore the Church's life and mission. The sanctuary and its message was ignored in the John W. Osborn Lectureship series on the West Coast. One "Study Hour" presentation at Minneapolis by the now Associate Editor of the Adventist Review was billed as "One Pulse of Harmony: the Consumation of the Atonement." It was followed by a panel discussion which sought to interrelate and show that Statement #23 of the 27 Fundamentals is in accord with the message as given 100 years ago. The presentation set forth the Cross as the "completed" atonement, the consumation of which will be realized "when one pulse of harmony and gladness beats through the vast creation." (GC, p. 678) A panel member attempted to clarify the atonement of the Cross as a "completed sacrifical atonement." The new associate would have none of it. The "final atonement" was not discussed in the light of Christ's mediatorial work in the Most Holy Place.

On the other hand, there are those in Adventism who dress in duplicated vestments of the High Priest and lecture on details of the earthly sanctuary,.as if the model given by God to Moses was "the very image" of the reality. To borrow the words of the Lord to ancient Israel - "Ye have dwelt long enough in this mount." (Deut. 1:6) This is not saying we should leave the sanctuary. No, we take it with us! But even as our spiritual forefathers restudied the message of William Miller and freed it from its false presuppositions in regard to the sanctuary, so we need to likewise rethink some of our positions which we have held over the decades to see if they tru1y conform to the revelation of the Scriptures. This will be the object of this issue of Commentary and the one to follow. We may not draw concrete conclusions but merely review some aspects of the factual revelations in the Bible, so that we can bring the structure of our doctrinal perceptions in regard to the sanctuary and its message in line with what the Word of God is actually saying. Until we get the structure of our belief in place, we will be unable to form a proper exterior - right conclusions from the data given. A corrective process could help us better understand the issues of the present time; what is taking place in the Heavenly Places now; and restore our confidence in the heart of the message committed in sacred trust to the Advent Movement.

Since the way of God, the way of holiness, is in the sanctuary, and we are admonished to follow "holiness, without which no man shall see God," it is mandatory that we know and understand the light which came from the Throne of God. (Ps. 77:13; Heb. 12:14) "If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin." (I John 1:7) Is not this cleansing the promised result of Christ's final atonement? Would not the "fellowship" fulfill the High Priestly prayer which Christ prayed just before entering the Garden of Gethsemane? (John 17:21-23; 18:1) Then let us walk progressively and understandingly in the light from the Throne, and soon we may walk in that light at the Throne.

We would suggest that this Commentary, and the one to follow, be read only with the use of the Bible, and that every text cited be carefully checked and studied. It would be well not to read these issues unless one has
time to think about what he is reading. In other words, do not read it hurriedly, but meditatively, comparing Scripture with Scripture and conclusion with conclusion. All human work is fallible, and only truth with a
solid basis in the revealed Word of God gives a firm foundation. All else is sand. "But the path of the just is as a shining light which shineth more and more unto the perfect day." (Prov. 4:18) As we approach that perfect day, we can expect the brilliancy of that light to increase. To ignore or to discard past light - the sanctuary truth - is to take us from the pathway to the Throne, and leave us stumbling on in darkness. God

Light From the Throne -- Part 1 -- At the John W. 0sborn Lectureship Series held in Riverside, California, October 23-25, 1988, commemorating the historic message given at the 1888 General Conference session, William G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review, presented a paper on "The Biblical Message of Righteousness by Faith." In this presentation, he said:      We gain insight into the biblical message of righteousness by faith as we look at the language of salvation the biblical models of salvation.

The Bible sets forth a series of models to describe the message of righteousness by faith. What God has done and, is doing for us in Jesus Christ is too rich to be encompassed by any one term. Among the many expressions the principal ones are justification, reconciliation, forgiveness, adoption, and sanctification. (p. 12)

While the New Testament does use these illustrations - illustrations drawn from a court of law, financial transactions, human relations, and family ties - the editor omits -other major illustrations, except by allusion - warfare, and the model revealed in the Scriptures for man's redemption, the sanctuary. The book of Hebrews clearly declares that the saving work of Christ can be understood by the model which the Hebrew sanctuary services revealed. In that book, Jesus Christ is presented as the great High Priest, who at the Throne of Grace ministers, to those who come boldly, the mercy of God. (Heb. 4:14-16) The sum of the whole matter is declared to be that we have an High Priest who is able to save to the uttermost, seated at the right hand of that Throne, "a minister of the sanctuary," even'"the true tabernacle." (Heb. 7: 25; 8:1-2) Paul further testifies that the Aaronic priesthood served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (8:5) He further writes that when the wilderness tent had been erected, "the priests went daily into the first" apartment "accomplishing the service; but into the second, the high priest alone once every year." (See 9:6-7)

It should be thoughtfully noted that it was the Holy Spirit who signified that this dual service was "cast down beside" the heavenly reality that we might understand its ministry (Heb. 9:8-9; see below on parabole). The Holy Spirit sent to guide into all truth unequivocally set forth the duality of the Hebrew sanctuary service as the model.

This sanctuary model dominated the Old Testament revelation and became the foundation of Adventist theology. This is not saying that the New Testament illustrations are not found

p 2 -- In the Old Testament, nor is it saying that Adventist theology rejects these New Testament illustrations. It is saying that true Adventist theology accepts the dictum of Jesus that "salvation is of the Jews." (John 4:22) This dictum must be understood in context. Jesus was conversing with a woman of Samaria. The different places held sacred by the Jews and the Samaritans had been interjected into the conversation. Jesus declared plainly - "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Basically, the two religions did not differ much at the time of Christ, but Jesus declared the model associated with the temple revealed the way of salvation. Today in terminology, there is little difference between Adventism and Evangelicalism, but the salvation model as revealed in the sanctuary is the truth, and spells the difference between. salvation and the false redemption offered in Evangelical theology.

The relationship of the earthly sanctuary model to the Heavenly reality is expressed by different words:
1)   Hupodeigma. In Hebrews 8:5, it is translated, "example" and in Hebrews 9:23, the word, "patterns," is used. It means: figure, copy, representation, or a delineation of a thing.
2)   Skia. In both Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1, it is accurately translated, "shadow." The language of Hebrews 10:1 is emphatic that skia is the exact opposite of "the very image (eikon). Now eikon transliterated into English is "icon" or an idol. How often we have been guilty of making the "shadow" the very image, and have theologically worshipped the idols thus created by going into great detail, giving significance to every article and symbol of the sanctuary structure beyond the meaning and purpose revealed in Scripture. Whole series of studies have been built around the furniture, curtains, walls, and vestments of the ancient sanctuary layout, neglecting the objective indicated by the Holy Spirit
the significance and lessons of the service performed.
3)   Tupos. Transliterated this word is "type," but translated "pattern" in Hebrews 8:5. It means "the pattern in conformity to which a thing is made."
4)  Parabole. This word is translated "figure" in Hebrews 9:9. Transliterated it is our word, "parable," and means literally - "to cast down beside." It is a comparison of one thing with another.

This last concept, that the earthly sanctuary is a figure, a comparison - "symbolic" (NKJV) - needs to be rigidly adhered to; and that in comparing the two, we dare not project onto the reality, the limitations of the "shadow." The prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the Temple needs ever to be kept in mind. He asked - "But will God in very deed dwell with men on earth?" Then in answering declared - "Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house which I have built!" (II Chron. 6:18)

A Comparison and a Contrast -- The wilderness tent was 30x10x10 cubits. See Exodus 26, and the explanation in the SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 640. The Temple built by Solomon was 60x20x30 cubits. (II Chron. 3:3; 1 Kings 6:2). The extra 10 cubits in height can be explained by the size of the cherubim for the most holy place which "stood on their feet" rather than made a part of the mercy seat. (I! Chron. 3:10-13) Besides this enlargement, a moulten sea was made - ten cubits across - in which the priests washed. Then ten lavers were formed for the washing of the sacrifical offerings. Instead of one candlestick and one table of shewbread in the holy place, there were ten of each in the Temple of Solomon. (II Chron 4:1-8) The text states that "Solomon was instructed for the building of the house of God." (II Chron 3:3) This instruction came from David of "the pattern ... that he had by the Spirit." (I Chron. 28:12) Thus in each instance, the two sanctuaries were built from divinely revealed patterns, and each structure when completed was filled with the visible glory of God. (Ex. 40:33-35; 11 Chron. 7:1-3) Why the difference, and each constructed from adivine blueprint? Each was adapted to the time then present. In the wilderness a structure that would be mobile was required; but made permanent in the established kingdom.

By contrast, the Heavenly Sanctuary in size, even in the Most Holy Place, accommodates an angelic host numbering "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands." (Rev. 5:11; Dan. 7:9-10) Even in the articles of furniture, there is a contrast between the "shadow" and the reality. The golden candlestick of the Mosaic structure was a single column with six branches topped by bowls to hold oil for light. (Ex. 25:31-32) The representation of the heavenly as seen by John is declared to be "seven torches of fire burning before the throne." (Rev. 4:5 Greek)

What is all of this saying? The earthly models were "not the exact image"; but the services performed in each were a "delineation" (hupodeigma) of the reality. The emphasis is on the priests "who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (Heb. 8:5) Even in their service, there were the "shadowy" sacrifices which could not "make the comers thereunto perfect." (Heb. 10:1)

What is it not saying? 1)  It does not deny the reality of "a Heavenly Temple." (Rev. 11:19) Heaven is not the sanctuary, no more than the earth was when so taught by William Miller. There is in the Heaven of Heavens asanctuary. 2)  Neither is it denying a movement of God's throne from one apartment to the other as the ministry of Jesus, the High Priest, changes. At the time of judgment, thrones were placed, "and the Ancient of days did sit." (Dan 7:9) The place where God is pictured enthroned in Revelation 4, is not the place described when "the temple of God was opened in heaven." (Compare Rev. 4:5 with 11:19) The "movement" of God and Christ in the heavenly ministration is from the "throne of grace" on which Christ sat at the Father's right hand upon entering His high priestly ministry to "the throne of judgment" before which He appears to receive His kingdom. (Heb. 4:14-16; Dan. 7:13-14) Then following the judgment, "shall He sit upon the throne of HIs glory." (Matt. 25.31), and "He shall reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11.15).

p 3 -- The Covenants and the Sanctuaries -- Light f rom the Throne -- (Continued) -- The sanctuary in type cannot be disassociated from the first or "type" covenant. In Hebrews Paul stated - "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary." (Heb. 9:1) This text does not say - There was a worldly sanctuary and with it was associated the first covenant. The primary instrument was the covenant. The secondary - the "ordnances of divine service" - provided for breaches by those under the covenant. Neither can the ministry of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary be disassociated from the new covenant.

In setting forth Jesus as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchisedec, Paul declares the "sum" or chief point of the whole matter is that Jesus is "a minister of the sanctuary" and that "He is the mediator of a better covenant." (Heb. 8:1-2, 6) The word translated, "minister" (leitourgos), is a compound word derived from leitos meaning public, and ergon meaning work. It referred to a person with sufficient means who performed a public duty or rendered a service to the state at his own expense. How much greater the.ministry of Christ who though "rich" rendered a service to the universe at a personal cost difficult for the human mind to grasp. One who died amid the agonies of Calvary, and who chose to be evermore associated in nature with those for whom He rendered such a aservice is the "minister of the sanctuary." But He is also a mediator (mesites), an internuncius, the medium of communication between God and man, and man and God.

Prior to the communication of a single sanctuary ritual, the relationship between the "type" covenant and the earthly sanctuary was established.

The 40-Day Covenant -- Before the proclamation 'of the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, God sent a message to "the children of Israel." - If they would "obey [His], voice and keep [His] covenant" then they would be a "peculiar treasure" to God, a "kingdom of priests and an holy nation." Without waiting to hear His voice, the people responded, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." (Ex. 19:3-9) But when "the children of Israel" heard God's voice, they had second thoughts. They said to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die." (Ex. 20:19) God obliged, and had Moses set before them "judgments." (Ex. 21:1 23:19) These "judgments" were prefaced with a very specific command - 'Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold." (Ex. 20:23) After receiving from the people a verbal affirmation, Moses wrote these judgments and the preamble in a book which he read to them in a solemn convocation. They reaffirmed. their commitment and Moses sprinkled the blood of sacrifice on both the altar and the people declaring - "Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord made with you concerning all these words." (Ex. 24:3-8) [This "altar" was not the altar associated with the sanctuary, but an altar of worship in harmony with the instruction found in Ex. 20:24-26] Following this service, Moses repaired to the mountain and was there forty days. (Ex. 24:18)

There was a condition in this covenant which needs to be especially noted. It was a covenant without mercy. The "Angel" who would go before Israel to the promised land would "not pardon [their] transgressions." (Ex. 23:20-21) Further, it was based on human promises. A - single transgression would annul it and break the covenant relatonship.

Two things happened while Moses was in the mount. First, God gave to Moses a plan whereby mercy could be extended to a transgressor, and through that mercy, He would dwell among the people whom He had chosen. God said "Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them." (Ex. 25:8) This instruction is recorded in Exodus, Chapters 25-31. God also gave to Moses, the Ten Commandments which He had spoken 40 days prior, but which now He had engraved in stone to be placed in the heart of the sanctuary. (Ex. 32:15-16; 25:16) This would be fundamental in the covenant God would make with Moses, and the basis of the "new" covenant of which Christ would be the mediator.

The other thing which occurred during the forty days was a continuing experience even as Moses descended the mount. The people had induced Aaron to make a golden calf in direct violation of the preamble of the covenant to which they had so solemnly committed themselves. Their worship of the calf had turned into a licentious orgy which was in progress as Moses entered the camp. (Ex. 32:1-6, 25)

The enormity of Israel's sin and the fact there was no pardoning provision in the covenant caused Moses to become deeply involved. He said to them - "Ye have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin." (Ex. 32:30) He did plead with the Lord that if forgiveness could not be granted, then "blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (ver. 32) The intercession of Moses resulted in a "type" covenant. After a prolonged interchange between the Lord and Moses, God said - " I make a covenant." (Ex. 34:10) But it was on a different basis. He instructed Moses - "Write thou these words" - similar to the 40-day Covenant, but much abbreviated - "for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." (Ex. 34:27) Moses was to be the "surety" of this covenant and under it, the "worldly sanctuary" functioned. (See diagram, page 4)

If there was one lesson above all others which the 40-day Covenant taught, it was that

p 4 -- man is unable to keep his promises, or to do what God commands, no matter how sincere his intentions. Centuries later, Jeremiah the prophet would express it in these words - "0 Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (23:10) However, there was a way, and that way, the way of God, was in the sanctuary. (Ps. 77:13)

A Microcosm of the Reality -- The experience at Sinai reflected the experience of the human race. When God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden, He said to them - "Of every tree in the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2:16-17) It was a commanded covenant. It was obey and live; disobey and die. There was no mercy revealed. Our first parents chose to disobey, and had not One stepped in, as did Moses, they would have died. A promise was given. (Gen. 3:15) In fulfilling this promise, Jesus, the Surety of a better covenant, suffered in reality what Moses offered to suffer. Jesus experienced the meaning of having one's name blotted out, when from the darkened, clouded skies that hung mercifully about Calvary, He cried - "My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

Adam's transgression necessitated another covenant. With a second Adam, God entered into a covenant. He would deal with humanity again, in and through Jesus. Paul wrote that "we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:1) The ancient prophet declared that "the counsel of peace shall be between the Two of Them." (Zech. 6:13, Heb.) This Mediator between God and man ministers in the Heavenly Sanctuary, which is the sanctuary of the New Covenant.

A Continual Service -- Before a single act of work had been performed on the sanctuary - it was merely in blueprint stage - God gave instruction concerning the morning and evening sacrifice. The revelation of all other sacrifices - including the, sin offerings - did not come till after the sanctuary was completed and erected. The only thing that preceded the instruction for the morning-evening sacrifices was the provision for the priesthood.

Concerning this continual burnt offering, God commanded:      This is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer in the evening ... This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. And there will I meet with the children of Israel and [Israel (margin)] shall be sanctified by my glory. (Ex.. 29:38-39; 42-43)

Before instruction was given as to how sin could be confessed and forgiven, provision was made to continually cover Israel. Even as the morning and evening sacrifices of a lamb formed the foundation of the whole typical system, so Christ was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world and on Him the whole redemptive process rests. While we were yet in sin, Christ died for us. It must also be realized that this was a covering for a covenant people. Those outside of Israel could only realize this blessing, when, they too, joined "themselves to the Lord" and took "hold of [His] covenant." (Isa. 56:6)

The place of meeting between God and His people, and where God would converse with Moses is defined as "the entrance of the tabernacle of the congregation." Thus the meeting which would bring "sanctification" to Israel was focused on the first apartment of the sanctuary. It was not the Shekinah glory of the Most Holy Place which Israel needed, but the glory of the revelation for which the symbols of the first apartment stood. When Christ came, the glory He revealed was the fullness of grace and truth. (John 1:14) It was this truth that sanctifies. (John 17:17) Only once each year was Israel to appear before God' in the Most Holy Place, and then only through a representative. Grace and truth were revealed at the Altar and at the entrance of the tabernacle the first apartment.

The Erecting of the Sanctuary -- One year following the Exodus, the sanctuary was ready for erection. This became the responsibility of Moses in the first month of the second year "on the first day of the
month." (Ex. 40:17) When all things were in order, Moses annointed "the tabernacle, and all that is therein." He also annointed "the altar of burnt offering" as well as "the laver" at the base of the altar. (Ex. 40:9-11) Thus Moses entered into the Most Holy Place before any services were performed by

p 5 -- Aaron, the high priest. (40:20-21)

Further, Moses set the bread in order on the Table of Shewbread; he lit the lamps of the Golden Candlesticks; he burnt incense upon the Golden Altar before the veil. Then upon the Altar of Burnt Offering, he offered sacrirfice. All of this was done before Aaron entered into his priestly ministry. (40:22-32) The final act was the erecting of the curtain about the court and tabernacle. (40:33) Then the text reads -- "So Moses finished the work."  "The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" and from that time on the priestly ministry began. immediately from the tabernacle, the Lord, in conversation with Moses, started the instructions concerning the sacrifices and offerings to be performed by priests and people. (Lev. 1:1-2)

The significance of these typical acts dare not be overlooked. God had told Moses that He would raise up a "Prophet" from the midst of Israel "like unto thee" and in His mouth would be the words of God. (Deut. 18:15, 18) Thus Jesus Christ, that "Prophet," when He too, had "finished" His work (John 19:30) would go into "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched" (Heb. 8:2) and "anoint" the Holy Places of Heaven prior to the beginning of His service as the great High Priest after the Order of Melchisedec. All during His earthly ministry, Jesus was revealing what He would do and be. He lit the lamps. He was "that true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9) He declared Himself to be "the light of the world." (John 8:12) He was the true "candle of Israel." (II Sam. 21:17, Heb) He provided the bread for the table of the Lord. He said, "I am the living bread." (John 6:51) The symbolic bread of the communion service represents His body which He gave for the life of man. He provided in that sacrifice,' the "incense" to be offered with the prayers of the saints on the Golden Altar before the throne. (Eph. 5:2; Dan. 9:24; Rev. 8:3)

Combining in Himself not only the typical role of Moses, but also He is an High Priest ministering according to "the example and shadow" of the Aaronic priesthood. Yet much more, He is a Priest-King after the Order of Melchisedec. The prophet declared that in building "the temple of the Lord," He would "be a priest upon His throne." (Zech. 6:12-13) This throne, Paul tells us, is "the throne of grace" from whence we obtain "mercy and find grace ... in time of need." (Heb. 4:14-16) It is the ministry of the light and bread of Heaven in answer to the prayers of the saints made acceptable through the meritorious righteousness of the High Priest which meets the need. It is the ministry of the First Apartment, and there on "the Throne of Grace", Jesus and the Father have joined together. "The counsel of peace shall be between them Both." (Zech. 6:13)

It must not be forgotten that when the ministry moves to the second apartment, mankind faces the Throne of Judgment (Dan. 7:9-10), as prepar.ation is made for Christ to take His "throne of glory." (Matt. 25:31; Rev. 11:15-17) The sanctuary in type and shadow reveals how we can face the throne of judgment, and be included in the kingdom of glory.TIMELINE  - Abraham to the Cross [Ref: M. L. Andreasen, THE BOOK OF HEBREWS, pp. 281-305




p 6 -- Basic Principles From God's Viewpoint -- Light From the Throne -- Continued -- Can God forgive sin as a matter of fact? The answer is - NO! Consider the terms of the 40-Day Covenant. Moses was told - which he in turn conveyed to the people - "Behold, I send an Angel before thee .... Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him." (Ex. 23:20-21) To forgive sin per se would reflect upon the very character of God, and place in jeopardy the entire universe. A whole series of questions arise. Is God just? Does He mean what He says? Is He infallible? Are there alternatives? Can pluralism exist in the universe? Or is there just one way of righteousness? These questions are as new as today, and as old as eternity, yet basic to the question - Can God forgive sin?

Does God forgive sin? The answer i s YES. When Israel sinned and broke the 40-Day Covenant, Moses told the people that he would "go up unto the Lord; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin." In speaking with the Lord, Moses made confession for Israel "This people have sinned a great sin." Then he said - "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their, sin -;" (Ex. 32:31-32) An extended pleading followed on the part of Moses, climaxing in the request - "I beseech thee, show me thy glory." (Ex. 33:18) To this God consented, and placing Moses "in a clift of the rock" and covering him with His hand, He passed by proclaiming "the name of the Lord." In this self-revelation, God declared Himself to be "merciful and gracious ... keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin." (Ex. 33:22; 34:5-7)

How then do we reconcile the Name of the Lord which cannot pardon transgression, and the revelation of that God as merciful, "forgiving ... transgression and sin"? Paul answers this question by stating that "through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"God can remain "just" and yet show forgiving mercy to the one believing "in Jesus." (Rom. 3:24-26) This reconciling revelation of God's character is portrayed in the sanctuary services of types and shadows.

Another basic principle from God's viewpoint can be recongized by asking the question - "Can I provide for the forgiveness of my sins?" The answer is an emphatic - NO! To do so would be my demise for time and eternity. This is what the Judgment of the Great White Throne is all about. Those who stand to be judged before that Throne must provide for their own transgressions. These can be satisfied only in the second death. (Rev. 20:12-15) God is just. There is a wrath of God against sin. The Third Angel's Message reveals how His wrath will be manifest against those who persist in worshiping the epitome of iniquity. (Rev. 14: 9-10) There is only one escape. Having been justified by the blood of Christ, "we shall be saved from wrath through Him." (Rom. 5:9) Again the sanctuary reveals the way.

Vignettes -- In the book of Genesis, there are vignettes revealing man's inability to face his Maker in an acceptable way. The record states that as soon as the first pair sinned, they perceived their nakedness, and made for themselves "aprons" of fig leaves. (Gen. 3:7) But when the Lord God called to Adam - "Where art thou?" - he responded - "I was afraid because naked I (am); and I hid myself." (3:10, Heb. ) You will observe that in the KJV, the word, "was," is supplied. The word order of the Hebrew would indicate the use of "am" rather than "was". Even though Adam, and Eve had covered their nakedness with a garment of their devising; when facing God, they sensed how totally inadequate was the "apron" of their making. To meet their need, God Himself took the first life ever taken in the universe from all eternity, and made for them "coats of skins." (3:21) In the lightof this sketch, how vain is the hope that man can by his works obtain the favor of God, and thereby atone for his transgressions.

The word sketch from the life of Cain and Abel reveals a fundamental principle upon which the message of the sanctuary is based. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground and expected the Lord to accept his offering. He perceived of it as something he had produced, even as his parents had made "aprons" from the things of nature. Abel, on the other hand, brought of the flock, and life was taken. God can forgive sin, but only when the penalty of that sin is met. Abel provided his recognition of that fact. "The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect." (Gen. 4:4-5) How is man to regain acceptance with God? Through his works? A thousand times - No! How then? Through the acceptance from God of the Offering He has provided. In other words, Abel "obeyed" the gospel. He accepted the basic principle upon which God could be just and the justifier of those who would accept His provision for sin. Tragically, there will be untold millions even professed Christians - who will suffer the "vengeance" of "flaming fire" because they "know not God and ... obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thess. 1:8) God is just and cannot condone sin. Because man cannot provide for his own nakedness, God has provided a covering in Jesus Christ. This is the gospel. This is the way of God in the sanctuary. The acceptance of that way is to "obey the gospel."

The Basic "Gospel" In Leviticus -- The unfolding of the "gospel" revealed in the sanctuary is found in the book of Leviticus. In the instruction for the first offering - the law of the burnt offering - fundamental

p 7 -- principles were enunciated. First, the offering was to be "voluntary" - no coercion. (Lev. 1:3) Even as God freely provided for man's redemption, so man's acceptance of the means of redemption must be from a willing heart. Secondly, it was to be offered at "the entrance of the tabernacle of the congregation." A significance of this rule will be seen when we study the sin offerings in particular.

Thirdly, the offerer "put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering." (Lev. 1:4) The Hebrew word, samach, means "to lean upon in full support." This word is also used in Amos 5:19 describing a man who leaned with his hand upon a wall. This placing of the hand in full support upon the offering signified total dependence.

Fourth, the offering was "accepted for him to make atonement." This principle is fundamental and applies to all offerings wherein the hand is laid upon the victim. It is especially significant when understood in relationship to the sin offering. In the Hebrew, one word - chatta' th - is used for both "sin" and "sin offering." The sacrificial animal became sin, and was accepted in the place of the offerer. In the elementary burnt offering and in the sin offering, the one offering sacrifice slew the victim. (Lev. 1:5) The disposition of the blood differed, and in the elementary burnt offering, the whole of the animal was burned on the altar. (Lev. 1:7-9) Of Christ, Paul wrote - God "hath made Him to be sin for us." (II Cor. 5:21) Jesus is accepted in our stead to make atonement. Upon Him, we must place our full dependence.

There is deep meaning in the fact that the one bringing the offering, slew the sacrificial victim. I, by my sin, slew the Lamb of God. I, at Calvary, pounded the nails; I, too, pierced His side. I placed the crown of thorns - the curse because of sin (Gen. 3:18) upon that holy brow. I mocked; I derided; and I scoffed because my pride would not accept such a provision. In all the actions and the attitudes of the people who literally surrounded Golgathals hill, I can see myself as I am, or ought to be. But when I am willing to go "without the camp, bearinghis reproach" (Heb. 13:13), 1 will find peace with God once more at one with Him - at the altar.

What Is Sin ? -- The basic purpose of the sanctuary rituals was to deal with the sin problem so that communion between God and man might be restored - an at-one-ment be realized. God desired to dwell among His people whom He had chosen. In the services prescribed were outlined how man could approach God; and God revealed through them how He planned to eradicate that which had separated -sin. But first, what is sin? We have a very pat definition for sin -- "Sin is the transgression of ;the law. " But it is more than that. The text reads - note all the words: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (I John 4;3)

Sin is more than merely the outward act by which the law is violated.

Consider, what God is, not who He is. In the song of Moses, God is declared to be "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He." (Deut. 32:4) He with whom sin began "abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him." (John 8:44) Deviation from truth leads to sin, and thus separation from God, who is truth., The way back to God must be a way of truth. That way is in the sanctuary. (Ps. 77:13) This is why the sanctuary truth as entrusted to Adventism is so vital.

Because God is just and right, He demands that justice be met. Every sin must be accounted for. None - not a single one, no matter how small - dare be overlooked. Every vestige must be ultimately removed from the universe - root and branch. (Mal. 4:1) To ensure this, the most meticulous record system ever devised was set up in Heaven. There the record of every sin is recorded and by whom committed; for all must give an accounting. The Bible is specific that there are books in heaven and the nature of the records contained therein. (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12) With our knowledge of computer technology and recording devices, a text strikes at us:      Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice." (Eccl. 5:6)

In this time when we wish to project God as only a God of love, we must keep in mind that the Bible plainly teaches - . "Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29'); and "it is afearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31). God is just and requires that justice be meted out against sin and those who persist in sin.

In the first two categories of the law of the sin offerings, the bullock which had been accepted for those confessing was burned without the camp. The text says:      The skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head, and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the whole bullock shall he carry forth without the camp unto a clean place, ... and burn him on the wood with fire. (Lev. 4:11-12; See also verse 21)

The symbol is very clear. Either a substitute was to be "accepted" for the sinner, or else he himself would suffer extinction. God is serious about the sin problem. It will never arise the second time.

In the sanctuary of the Heaven of heavens, all sin will be accounted for, and all sinners will give an accounting. The earthly sanctuary, as a parable, was cast down beside to show how a sinner can escape the final judgment of God against sin. For just as surely as we live, we face a judgment. There is only one exception to this rule. Jesus, the way, the truth, and the life - the living tabernacle in flesh - declared - "Verily verily, I say unto you, He that is hearing my word, and is believing on Him that sent Me, hath life eternal, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life." (John 5:24, Greek) While the Heavenly Sanctuary involves the whole universe, the earthly "model" pictures a way - light from the Throne -- whereby those who enter into covenant relationship with Christ as "minister ... of the true tabernacle" and "mediaor of a better covenant" escape the wrath of God against sin. (The Sanctuary Studies will be continued in Commentary, Vol. III, Number 2.) --- End --- 1989 Special 1 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 1 -- TOP

1989 Special 2 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 2 -- EDITORIAL -- This first quarter of 1989, the Sabbath School lessons for the Adult Division center on the book of Leviticus. Written by two conservative Seventh-day Adventist scholars, there was cause for hope that someof the previously questionable conclusions regarding the sanctuary service might be corrected. However, this is not the case.

In Lesson 4, January 28, near the close of Section I, subtitled - "Sins of Ignorance" - the traditional explanation is found as to what was transferred to the sanctuary. The first sentence of the note reads - "Priest transfers sin to the sanctuary:" This error should be transparent. It was blood only that the priest took into the sanctuary for sin and fingerprinted on the Altar of Incense, and sprinkled before the veil. Now the blood is the life. It is the blood that maketh atonement. (Lev. 17:11) If. therefore, it is sin, then sin makes the atonement. No, a thousand times no! The blood is the record that the penalty has been paid, and the sinner forgiven.

Further thought reveals why sin is not transferred to the sanctuary. It is already recorded at the moment of transgression. The whole ceremony of Leviticus 4 has to do with sins of ignorance, not on God's part, but on the sinner's part. When the sinner was convicted, a prescribed ritual was performed. Why then double record sin? This is not what the sinner needs. He needs the assurance of forgiveness and that the penalty for his sin as recorded has been paid. We nullify a key lesson of Leviticus 4, when we assume that it is teaching the transfer of sin to the sanctuary. There was a transfer of sin, but it was the transfer to the sacrifice.

It was the recognition that a sin had been committed; the transfer of that guilt through the substitute required; and the assurance of forgiveness which is taught in the law of the sin offering. I repeat, while the animal became sin through transfer and was destroyed when the blood was taken within the sanctuary, it was the blood, the life, indicating that the penalty for sin had been paid that was recorded.

The other method to get sin into the sanctuary as noted by the authors of the Sabbath School lessons was, that the priest who ate of the victim in the case of a ruler or common person's sin, ministered in the daily services offering incense, thereby "symbolically transferred" the sin "to the sanctuary." (Teacher's Quarterly, p. 54) Transfer is accomplished in the type by the symbolic laying on of the hand. Where is such a record in the type for the transfer of sin to the sanctuary when the priest ate of the sacrifice? In fact, even in the services on the Day of Atonement, the bullock which was offered as a sin offering for Aaron and his house, never had a hand laid upon its head. (Lev. 16:6)

There is further evidence from the Day of Atonement ritual that sin was not transferred to the sanctuary, but had been previously recorded. During the year, no blood was ever taken into the Most Holy Place. The closest the blood, denoting that the penalty had been paid, ever came to the Most Holy Place, was that blood which was sprinkled before the veil separating the two apartments. On the Day of Atonement, when the cleansing ritual did bring blood into the Most Holy Place, it was stated that it was being done "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." (Lev. 16:16) If for sake of argument, we should grant that the record of blood was a record of sin, and not a record of the penalty paid for sin, then how did the transgressions and sins get into the Most Holy Place when no such blood over which confessions were made ever entered there?

What we have failed to realize is that the sanctuary services in type are an adjunct to the Reality of the Heavenly Sanctuary explaining how an individual in covenant relationship with God can escape the finality of the judgment. We refuse to face up to the meaning of Jesus' promise in John 5:24. This verse does not destroy the sanctuary doctrine as some have sought to do with it; but rather it does focus on an area of teaching which needs to be corrected and brought into line with the true revelation of the sanctuary model. This issue of the Commentary will seek to do just that, as well as the issue to follow.

Some hve citeed Jeremiah (17:1) as proof that sin was transferred to the sanctuary. I, too, have so used this text in times past. Sensing that such a use of this text violates the meaning of the ritual of the sin offering in Leviticus, I checked the context in which Jeremiah was writing. The verse in Jeremiah reads:      "The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond: it is graven upon the table of the heart, and upon the horns of your altars."

The next verse introduces "the Asherim" (KJV - "groves") which were worshiped by the green trees on the high hills. The connection between the idolatrous worship or the "hills" and the blood placed on the horns of the altars of the temple must be related to the prophecy of the verses that follow. God would give these "high places for sin" to the spoiler (ver. 3), and Judah herself would serve their enemies in a strange land because what they did provoked the anger of the Lord (ver. 4). The sin that came upon the altars was a sin so engraved upon their hearts that it could not be erased. Keil and Delitzsch comment as follows:       "It was because the altars and the images of the false gods had entwined themselves as closely about their hearts as their children, so that they brought the sin of their idolatry along with their sacrifices to the altars of Jahveh. The offerings which they bring, in this state of mind, to the Lord are defiled by idolatry and carry their sins to the altar, so that, in the blood which is sprinkled on its horns, the sins of the offerers are poured out on the altar. Hence it appears unmistakably that ver. 1 does not deal with the consciousness of sin as not yet cancelled or forgiven, but with the sin of idolatry, which, ineradically implanted in the hearts of the people and indelibly recorded before God on the horns of the altar, calls down God's wrath in punishment as announced in vers. 3 and 4." (Vol. 8, p. 278)

p 2 -- To cherish the sin for which we ask forgiveness and for which we present the Substitute is duplicity and makes of "the blood of the covenant ... an unholy thing." The sin of the heart is retained while outwardly confessing its surrender. This is hypocrisy which God hates. In the typical service, this stage acting brought sin upon the altars of the sanctuary which God did not intend should be done.

A second error occurs in this same section of the Quarterly. It states - "In the case of the sin offering for a fellow priest, or for the whole congregation" the blood was taken into the first apartment of the sanctuary. The authors failed to see, and the editors did not catch, that the offering for the priest wherein the blood was taken into the sanctuary, only pertained to the High Priest when he in his official capacity had sinned causing the whole congregation to transgress. The text reads - "If the anointed priest shall sin so as to bring guilt on the people, then let him offer for his sin ... a young bullock." (Lev. 4:3 ARV) As an individual sinner, the priest was included in the category of a ruler. See Numbers 3:32, where the same Hebrew word translated "ruler" in Levitucus 4 is there translated, "chief."

We suggest a careful study of all the material which is presented in this Commentary comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Light From the Throne -- Part 2 -- The most important service performed in the daily ministration of the sanctuary rituals was that performed in behalf of individuals the sin offerings. The sin offering did not relate to sin or sinfulness in general, but to a particular manifestation. "If a soul should sin through ignorance" (in error), prefaced the explanation of the law of sin offerings (Lev. 4:2) These were sins which arose out of the weaknesses of the flesh. Those committed with a high hand, that is, "presumptiously," were to be punished by extermination. The offender was to be"utterly cut off." (Num. 15:28-31)

The appeal of the Gospel was b ased upon the superior ministration of Jesus Christ because "through this Man is preached unto you 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) Jesus Himself declared that there was only one sin which could not and would not be forgiven "in this world" nor "in the world to come" and that was the sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 12:31-32)

While the law of the sin and trespass offerings are one (Lev. 7:7), the steps of the ritual are given only for the sin offerings. (Lev. 4) It is through this outline that we catch glimpses of the reality of the provision made for man to receive victory over the sin problem. The sin offerings pertained to two categories of sin - corporate and individual - and to two groups in each category; namely, the high priest in his official capacity and the entire congregation; the rulers and the ordinary individuals. It was under the category of "ruler" that the priests as individuals were covered. In Numbers 3:32, the word translated, "chief" (nasi) is the same as translated "ruler" in Lev. 4:22.

In the sin offerings, the kind of animal sacrificed, the disposition of the blood, and the status of the priest who ministered, differed depending whether the sin was corporate or individual. Being a burnt offering, rules governing the basic burnt offering as first outlined in Leviticus applied. It was to be offered "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation." (Lev. 1:3; 4:4) The offerer was to place his hand upon the head of the sacrifice. (Lev. 1:4; 4:24) The sacrificial animal was to be "accepted for him to make atonement for him." (Lev. 1:4; 4:26) In each instance, the one bringing the sacrifice, slew the animal. (Lev..1:5; 4:29)

The first category of corporate guilt concerned the High Priest, the spiritual leader of the people. The instruction was that "if the annointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people" (Lev. 4:3 NKJV), he was to bring a bullock, the largest of all the sacrificial animals, and equal to that required for the whole congregation. (Lev. 4:3,14) While the priest brought the offering as a corporate individual, he ministered the sacrifice in his office as high priest. (4:4-5) The blood was brought into the sanctuary and sprinkled seven times before "the vail of the sanctuary." It was fingerprinted "upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord," and the remainder of the blood was poured at the base of the altar of the court. (4:6-7) The fat was removed from the inwards, the kidneys and the folds above the liver. The fat and the kidneys were burned upon the Altar of Burnt Offering. (4:8-10) The rest - "the whole bullock" - was carried "without the camp" and there burned." (4:12)

The same procedure was to be followed when the whole congregation sinned. (4:13-21) Note again - it was the high priest who ministered the sacrifice, and the blood was brought into the sanctuary. It is important t,o note these two basics in the law of the sin offering. These applied to corporate sin; individual sin was dealt with differently.

When a ruler or a "common" person sinned, the sacrificial animal became a goat instead of a bullock. Three other distinct differences need to be noted. For the individual, be he a ruler or a common person, one of the sub-priests ministered the sacrifice. The blood was not taken into the sanctuary, and the whole animal was not burned without the camp. Instead, the blood of the sacrifice was placed on the horns of the altar of the court, and the balance of the blood poured at the base of the altar. (4:22-26) The officiating priest was to eat of the victim in the court, designated in this instance as a"holy place." (Lev. 6:25-26) This was explained by Moses to mean that by this act these common priests were to "bear the iniquity" of the individual members of the congregation "to make atonement for them before the Lord." (Lev. 10:17-18) The result to the individual and to the congregation as a whole of the mediation of the sin offering was forgiveness. (4:20, 26, 31) Only in the case of the high priest, when he sinned in such a way as to cause guilt to come upon the whole congregation, is it omitted that forgiveness resulted.

The significance of this difference in the mediating of forgiveness needs to be pondered long by those who stand as spiritual guardians of the people. The record of confession was marked on the horns of the altar of incense, but how God related to it in type, and how He will relate in reality is not given. Chri st spoke fearful woes upon the spiritual leaders of His day who caused the people to reject truth. (Matt. 23:13-33) [See Chart below outlining the details noted above.]

The lessons and glimpses of the Reality as revealed in the Law of the Sin Offering need to be carefully considered.

p 3 -- WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED? -- Basic to salvation is transferrence. We cannot pay a penalty for our sins and live. What, then, was transferred when in the sanctuary ritual, the sinner placed his hand upon the head of the sacrifice he brought to the door of the tabernacle? This is no idle question. It was over this question that E. J. Waggoner stumbled. A letter was found on his desk after his sudden death, May 28, 1916, which he wanted the one to whom it was written to consider it "as a confession of faith." In it he wrote:      The self-evident truth that sin is not an entity but a condition that can exist only in a person, made it clear to me that it is impossible for there to be any such thing as the transferring of sins to the sanctuary in heaven, thus defiling that place; and that there could, consequently, be any such thing, either in 1844 A.D., or at any subsequent time, as the "cleansing of the sanctuary." (The Confession of Faith, p. 14)

It can be seen that the question as to what was transferred in the typical sanctuary ritual has been a source of contention in the teaching of the sanctuary truth. Actually, there was and is no need for the transference of sin to the sanctuary, whether in type or Heavenly Reality. As we noted in the previous Commentary , all sin the moment committed is recorded in "books", or in modern terminology, a "computer bank." (III-1, p. 6, col. 2) The very inferrence of the language used in outlining the sin offering ritual indicates the recording of the sin committed. The law reads - "If his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge." (Lev., 4:23, 28) The fact of sin preceded the perception of that sin. When perceived, it was not the recording of the sin that the sinner needed, but the means to escape from the penalty of the sin.

Review the steps outlined in the model for one category. When the common person became conscious of his sin, he brought the designated animal. Putting his hand upon the head of the victim, he confessed "that he hath sinned in that thing." (Lev. 5:5) The sacrificial animal was "accepted for him to make an atonement for him." (Lev. 1:4) What did the atonement require? Death! Life had to be forfeited, for the wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23) The sinner slew the animal. The blood, which "is the life of all flesh" (Lev. 17:14), was taken by the priest and fingerprinted on the Altar in the court. This record is saying loud and clear, the penalty had been paid. Confession had been made; therefore, forgiveness can be extended to the transgressor. This is exactly what the law of the sin offering stated - "and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." (4:31, 35) It does not say that the priest shall make an atonement for him and record his sin. What salvation would that be?

"The offerer transferred the consciousness of sin and the desire for forgiveness to the head of the animal that had been brought in is stead, by the laying on of his hand; and after this the animal was slaughtered, and suffered death for him as the wages of sin." (Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. I, p. 305) Thus the record of sin already there is offset by the fact that thee penalty has been paid for by some other living creature.

THE LAW OF THE SIN OFFERING -- 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 prieft that offereth it shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. (Lev. 6:25-26)

So full of meaning was this law that when the sons of Aaron violated it, Moses beame "angry" with them. (Lev. 10:16) He asked emphatically - "Why have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, for it is most holy, and He has given it to you to take away the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Jehovah? Behold, its blood has not been brought into the holy place inside. You should certainly have eaten it in the holy place as I have commanded." (Lev. 10:17-18 Heb.)

The offering was a "goat," thus a sin offering for an individual. (Lev. 4:23,. 38) Such being the case, the common priest ministered the blood (4:25, 30), and because it was not brought into the sanctuary, he should have eaten of the sacrifice, so as to bear in himself the sin.

In the sin offerings over which the High Priest ministered, the blood was brought into the sanctuary. In this differentiation between the individual and corporate sins as to whom ministered, and what each category of ministering priests did, we see the dual role of Christ both as common priest, and as High Priest.

Every high priest was taken from among men (Heb. 5:1), so Christ to become the great High Priest had to become man. In becoming man, He "partook of the same" flesh and blood as is common to humanity. (Heb. 2:14) He "took upon Himself the slave-form of man" (Phil. 2:7, Gr.) coming in "the likeness of sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3), being made "to be sin for us." (II Cor. 5:21) 'In His earthly ministry, Jesus was both "that prophet" (John 1: 21) , and "common pri est. " As "that Prophet" He would "build the temple of the Lord" even as Moses the earthly type. As "the Common Priest," He "offered sacrifice, Himself the priest, Himself the victim." (See AA, p. 33) Ministering in the "court" of this earth, He bestowed "forgiveness" even as the common priests of Israel did upon the individual offerer. To the scribes and Pharisees who became incensed because He said to a palsy stricken man - "Thy sins are forgiven thee" - Jesus demonstrated "that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins" by telling the man, "Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house." And he did! (Luke 5:18-24)

Here in the court of earth, the shadowy type was meeting "the very image" of the good things which it prefigured. In ministering the law of the sin offering, the priest would "make atonement" for the sin which the individual "committed, and it .[would] be forgiven him." (Lev. 4:35) So Jesus the "anointed One" declared forgiveness to the sin-burdened souls who came to Him. Not only did He forgive sins, but He provided a "forgiveness of sins" which "justified from all things" beyond the scope of the shadowy "law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39) Having provided the sacrifice, He ministers, at the Throne of Grace ,mercy and grace to all who come boldly "in full assurance of faith." (Heb. 4:16; 10:22)

The earthly high priest ministered only corporate sin offerings wherein the blood was brought into the sanctuary, and thus did not eat of the offering partaking of its symbolic sin. Christ preserving the purity of His divine character, was called to be the High Priest after the Order of Melchisedec. In this mediatiorial work, He is not only "able to save to the uttermost" those who "come unto God by Him," but He is also "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and

p 4 -- made higher than the heavens." (Heb. 7:2526) In Christ, the law of the sin offering finds its reality, both in His work as a Common Priest while on earth, and in His work as High Priest in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

THE FAT OF THE SIN OFFERINGS -- Four times during the instruction of how the sin offerings were to be ministered, the Lord told Moses the f at was to be removed and burned "as the fat of the sacrifice of the peace offerings." (Lev. 4:10, 26, 31, 35) The peace offerings had been detailed just prior to the instruction concerning the sin offerings. (Lev. 3) All "the fat that covereth the inwards, ... and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul (fold) above the liver ' with the kidneys, it shall [the priest] take away." (3:9-10) These were to be burned upon the altar.

The fat and the kidneys are declared to be "the food [Heb. - bread] of the offering made by fire for a sweet savour" unto the Lord. (Lev. 3:11, 16; 4:31) "All the fat" the Lord claimed as His, and with the blood, forbad that it should be eaten. (3:16-17)

What is the significance of this part of the ritual? What do the kidneys represent? What is the meaning of the fat and why is it cut away and burned?

First, the kidneys:  The kidneys "were regarded as the seat of the tenderest and deepest emotions." (Keil & Delitzsch, op cit., p. 306) Gesenius in his Hebrew lexicon states that the word for kidneys (k'layoth) was used metonymically to represent "the mind, soul as the seat of the desires, affections, passions," and is often coupled with "heart" (lev). Observe closely the following texts. Note the use of the Hebrew word for "kidneys" as a figure of speech. In each instance, the word is translated "reins" in the KJV:
The righteous God trieth the hearts and reins. (Ps. 7:9)
Examine me, 0 Lord, and prove me; try my reins and my heart. (Ps. 26:2)
Thus was my heart grieved, and I was prickedin my reins. (Ps. 73:21)
But, 0 Lord of hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the reins and the heart. (Jer. 11:20)
I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, ... (Jer. 17:10)

How are we to understand this in relationship to the sin offering? God met Israel at the level of their perception. The "seat of emotion, desires and passions" was removed from the body and burned on the altar. But before this could be done, the "fat" had to be stripped from the kidneys and also burned. The full comment found in Keil & Delitzsch is interesting. It reads:      Now, if the flesh of the victim represented the body of the offerer as the organ of the soul, the fat portions inside the body, together with the kidneys, which were regarded as the seat of the tenderest and deepest emotions, can only have set forth the better part or inmost kernel of the man. (op. cit.)

While this comment relates the separation from the body of certain parts of the sin offering, and differentates between the "outer" and "inner man," it still leaves unexplained, why the fat had to be separated from the kidneys. Paul addresses the "outer" and "inner" man concepts. He wrote, "For delight in the law of God after the inner man." (Rom. 7:22) To him, "though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." (II Cor. 4:16) He explained how this could be. He wrote - "I die daily." (I Cor. 15:31) Self, "the reins," was crucified with Christ. (Gal. 2:20) The kidneys were burned on the altar. Yet the offerer lived because he was forgiven.

In this service, the fat stripped from the inwards parts as well as the kidneys, was also burned. Into "smoke" it was consumed away. What does this mean, and what is this ritual saying to us? In the Scriptures, the Hebrew word, "fat" (helev) was used to refer to the best, and most abundant. Pharaoh offered Joseph for his family, the "good of the land of Egypt," and said that they "shall eat of the fat of the land." (Gen. 45:18) But "fat" is also associated with disobedience, sins, and backsliding. Observe the following texts:
Samuel said to Saul - "To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (I Sam. 15:22) In this experience, the "fat" was substituted for obedience. To have followed fully the instruction God gave in reference to the Amalekites (15:3), there would have been no fat to offer.

God through Isaiah said of Israel - Thou hast not "filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities." Then God declared of Himself - "I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for my own sake, and will not remember thy sins." (Isa. 43:24-25) How was this "blotting" out not symbolized by Israel? Israel had not brought the "fat of [the] sacrifices."

Ezekiel stated, of the priests who had charge of the sanctuary, that "when the children of Israel went astray" from God, they were to come near and offer to God "the fat and the blood." (Eze. 44:15)

It is objected that "fat" cannot be associated with sin because nothing which represented sin was permitted on the Altar of Burnt Offering. Besides, the offering of the fat of the sin offering was considered a "sweet savour unto the Lord." (Lev. 4:31) How then could this be associated with sin? It is further questioned, how can "fat," if it symbolized sin in any way, be considered as "the bread of the offering," and as being "the Lord's"? (See Lev. 3:11, 16)

In support of the first objection, the exclusion of "leaven," a symbol of sin, from the meal offering is cited. (Lev. 2:11) There is, however, a difference between leaven and fat. Leaven would be introduced into the meal, while fat is an integral part of the animal sacrifice. In the case of the individual sin offering, major parts of the sacrifical animal became the actual possession of the ministering priest. But in all istances, the fat was excluede, cut away, and burned.

The whold of the sin offering was considered "most holy" unto the Lord. (Lev. 6:25) Is it unreasonable to assume that any representation whereby sin is removed either from the

p 5 -- sinner, or whereby provision is made for its extinction, that such a sacrifice would be as a "sweet savour" unto God?

The fat cannot be considered in the same category as the "kidney" as it was separated from it, even though both were burned. if the "kidney" stood for the very "reins" of the person, and was burned on the altar, is the concept of sin not introduced to the altar? Does not the Scripture teach that "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"? (Jer. 17:9) Is not the significant meaning of this part of the ritual saying - Since you have been forgiven; the wages of sinhave been paid in the mediation of the blood; but to go and sin no more, excesses and abundance must be cut away. And the how is clearly indicated. While the sinner slew the victim, taking its life, it was the priest who separated the fat from the kidneys and the inward parts. The offerer could not do it, and not until he died symbolically in the sacrifice could the priest do it!

How does this pertain to the Reality? We must be crucified with Christ. Then living by the faith of the Son of God," we are "strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man." (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 4:16) The excesses of life are cut away; the abundances are placed in God's service; and we become "a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God." (Rom. 12:1) Whenever sin is separated from the life, and all is surrendered to God, it is indeed to Him, "a sweet smelling savour."

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HOLY PLACE -- As the sinner (except the priests as individuals) stood at the Altar of Burnt Offering, he had approached the closest he could ever come to the presence of God in the Most Holy Place. He had come willingly exercising his own will in harmony with what God required. (Lev. 1:3) He had placed his hand upon the head of the sacrifical victim, confessed his sin, and had slain the animal. Then he had watched as the priest took of the blood, fingerprinting it on the horns of the Altar before him, pouring the residue at its base. He had observed the priest separate the fat from the inward parts of the animal and place it on the Altar with the kidneys. Then he heard the priest say to him - "Thy sin is forgiven thee."

He left the court to return to his daily routine. He was still a sinner by nature. He would hear Moses proclaim the word of Jehovah to all the congregation - "Ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy." (Lev. 19:2) As holy in his sphere as the One who dwelleth between the cherubim is in His? How was this to be? He was not left to forget that beyond the Court, other services were being performed, and he was to be involved in that mediation both individually and collectively as a member of a covenant people. While his sin had been forgiven him, there was an on-going atonement.

In the Holy Place were only three articles of furniture. Into this place, only the priests could come to minister. In the original sanctuary services, it appears that only Aaron, the high priest, could come and minister at the Altar of Incense; could fill the lamps of the Candlestick; could place the bread upon the Table of Shewbread. (See Ex.1 30:7-8; Lev. 24:1-8) Further it appears that when the two of the sons of Aaron intended to offer incense, they were killed by a flash of "fire from the Lord." (Lev. 10:1-2) However, when the priestly functions were set up by courses, the common priests ministered in the holy place as evidenced in the service of Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. (See Luke 1:9)

Whatever the meaning of the three articles of furniture, the fact remains that the significance to the individual, who had comt to the Court with his sin offering, required the mediation of a priest. The sinner was, however, to be involved in this on-going daily and weekly service as a member of the collecctive community. The congregation was to supply the "pure olive oil" for the lamps, and the "fine flour" for the shewbrfead. (Lev. 24: 1-8) Among the very first directives which God had given to Moses for the erection of the sanctuary and its services was the instruction that along with the "oil for the light," the children of Israel were to bring an offering of "spices for annointing oil, and for sweet incense." (Ex. 25:6)

We have recognized in our perceptions of the typical sanctuary that the articles of furniture in the Holy Place were symbolic of the promised Messiah (Anointed One) as the Word or Bread of Life, as the Light of the world; and the Holy Spirit as the continuance of that Light guiding into all truth. We have connected the Altar of Incense with prayer, even as the children of Israel did. (See Luke 1:9-10) In the Old Testament, little is found giving definitive symbolic significance to these articles. Isaiah captures the imagery of the golden candlesticks as the Spirit which was to rest upon the promised Messiah, the Branch who would grow out of the stem of Jesse. The central column was itself "the spirit of the Lord" and the six branches describe the fulness of that Spirit: - "the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord." (Isa. 11:1-2)

p 6 -- The Table of Shewbread - literally "the bread of His presence" - was to be renewed each Sabbath, and eaten by the priests. Malachi states that the priest was to be "the messenger of the Lord of hosts" and that his "lips should keep knowledge" and that the people "should seek the law at his mouth." (Mal. 2:7) This was vital to the spiritual well-being of the people in the time when the instruction which God had given for Israel could not be reproduced as can be done to day, through printing presses. The priests were to function as "the messengers of the Lord of hosts," Apostasy in Judah was marked when "for a long season Israel had been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law." (II Chron 15:3) The linchpin in this situation was the priest and his failure to teach the people the Word of God on the Sabbath. He would eat of the symbolic bread; he would carry out the ceremonial functions; but the real need he did not meet to help the covenant people in their on-going atonement with God. Forgiven sinners they were - they had brought the penalty for their transgression - but they were still in their uncleanness. Only the word and the blood applied, cleanses. (John 15:3; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 1:5) The word reveals the lost image of God in man, and the provision for its restoration - the Spirit of life sent forth because of the mediation of the true blood. (Eph. 4:23-24; Rev. 5:6)

The same spiritual decline as was evidenced in ancient Israel is all too vivid in the experience of God's professed Israel today. Again the linchpin are the men of the pulpit who do not understand that the gift of pastoring on the Sabbath is but one gift interlocked with teaching. (See Eph. 4:11 Greek) The ritual is performed - the order of service or liturgy is carried out - but for the most part, the people who come to be fed the Word of God, the bread of His presence, leave the service as starved as when they came.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus on the Sabbath is pictured as walking in the midst of His people, and holding in His right hand, His messengers. {Gr. angelos; KJV - "angels," a word transliterated, but not translated] It ws God's intention that His people be fed with the bread of His presence ministered by Jesus through the Spirit on the Holy Sabbath. Here is the basis for the cold formality and lukewarmness which marks many of the Sabbath services of Laodicea. And the substitution of "celebration" is but offering of "strange fire" before the Lord. There is no substitute for the preaching of the Word!

[It should be noted the seven golden candlesticks in the first chapter of Revelation are not the same as the "seven lamps of fire burning before the Throne" in chapter four (4:5). The candlesticks are defined as "the seven churches," while the "lamps of fire" are denoted as "the seven spirits of God. " That there is a close relationship cannot be denied for to each of the seven churches is given the admonition to "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."]

In the sanctuary service of the model, God gave only three symbols to represent the means whereby the sinner could experience a victorious life day by day. These symbols stand for prayer, the hearing of the Word, and the guidance by the light of the Holy Spirit into all truth. Connected with each syribol was the ministry of the priest. He could not "walk" alone. The reality of this symbolism can be summarized by one verse "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him. " (Col. 2:6) As the sinner places his full dependence in the sacrifice provided at Calvary, so he must also place his full and unreserved confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide his daily life, "for it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." (Jer. 10:23)

COMMUNICATION RESTORED -- If one word could be used to summarize the significance of the Holy Place, that word would be - communication. This is not a communication of managed news releases, or propaganda, but rather an educational process of spiritual development. In the on-going at-one-ment, God would commune with those who had complied with the provisions made for the penalty for sin. In speaking with Moses concerning the Ark of the Covenant, God had said:      And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel. (Ex. 25:21-22)

Moses was to stand in relationship between God and the people as that "Prophet" whom God would raise up in Whom He would put the words of His mouth. (Deut. 18:18; John 12:49-50) However, after detailing the morning and evening offering, God said to Moses:      This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. And I will meet with the children of Israel, and Israel shall be sanctified by my glory. (Ex. 29:42-43, margin)

God would commune with "justified" Israel. It would be done from the Holy Place, and in the communication, Israel would be "sanctified" by His glory. Even as the typical service indicated the ministration of priests in behalf of the individual, so also the rality reqires the ministry of Jesus at every step of the way, even in the process of sanctification. For Jesus "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and, redemption." (I Cor. 1:30) He came to identify with us, to tabernacle among us as the revealed glory of God, "full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) In becoming the Substitute for the penalty of sin, He revealed the fullness of grace. ~ In being in Himself, the truth, He provided the means of sanctification. He prayed - "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17:17) The Word made flesh revealing the glory of the Father sanctifies His covenant people through the truth, pure and unadulterated.

p 7 -- Paul puts it this way: Jesus "was delivered for our offences, and was raised for our justification. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God [and can once more communicate with Him] through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." (Rom. 4:25-5:2)

Due to our American system of education, we f ail to grasp the significance of the communication envisioned in the typical "holy place." In the Hebrew system, a teacher (rabbi) and his students constituted a school. In this "school, there was communication built on confidence, love and respect. This resulted in the pupils reflecting the ideas and philosophy of their teacher. As a man thinketh in his mind, so is he. Jesus formed such a school, and after three years, there were eleven graduates and one drop-out The same hierarchy who had delivered Jesus over to the Romans for crucifixion, when confronted with graduates from this school of Christ "marvelled; and took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." (Acts 4:6, 13)

"In the highest sense the work of education and the work of redemption are one." Sanctification is not perfection but communication, an education whereby we come to reflect the philosophy, ideas and thoughts of Jesus. "God ... hath shined in our [minds], to give the light of the knowledge of [His] glory in the face of Jesus. But we have this treasure [from communion with Jesus] in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." (II Cor. 4:6-7)

The "model" reflected the simplicity of the process - just three articles - symbolic of the Word, the Spirit of truth ("a teacher of righteousness"- Joel 2:23, margin), and the science whereby we interrelate to the instruction received, prayer.

This message of the Holy Place is desperately needed today when every wind of doctrine is blowing, and "false prophets" abound professing to be teachers of "historic Adventism," seducing God's concerned people. John wrote that the alternative to "them that seduce you" was "an unction from the Holy One" and. this"anointing teacheth you all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him." (I John 2:26, 20, 27)

I have heard the voice of Jesus;
Tell me not of ought beside.
I have seen the face of Jesus;
All my soul is satisfied.

--End --- 1989 Special 2 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 2 -- TOP

---1989 Special 3 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 3 -- EDITORIAL -- If you do not wish to think new concepts based on fundamentals of truth, then read no further. Either put the paper away until you are willing to do so, or throw it immediately into "File 13."

Whether we want to admit it or not, we do have problems with the sanctuary doctrine. Many, too many, have discarded the teaching altogether, accepting Barnhouse's evaluation that it "is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history." (See Manuscript - The Seventh-day Adventist-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956) Those who recognize that there are problems, but perceive the sanctuary truth to be light from the Throne of God can do one of two things:   1)  Ignore the problem and put their heads in the sand; or   2)  Face the problem and offer a solution, refining their concepts. -The rest will continue in their blind traditionalism.

Several years ago, I was invited through the instrumentality of a young couple to speak at a church gathering here in Arkansas made up of a group of people dedicated to what became known as the "new theology." In discussing the agreed to subject on the sanctuary and the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, it was anticipated by the group leaders that I would use nothing but the Writings. This I did not do. After reading from the Writings the place of the Sanctuary doctrine and Daniel 8:14 in the original Adventist theology, I proceeded to give the Bible basis for that faith. When I finished, one young lady on the front row exclaimed - "I do not have to give up my belief in the sanctuary, I can now believe it from the Bible." Not all shared that new found joy, and some of the local leaders ranted and raved referring to Crosier's apostasy, but they could not refute the Word of God.

This brings us to another grave, but fundamental question. What do we do with the Writings in regard to the Sanctuary teaching? There are those, who if one does not accept the Writings of Ellen G. White as infallible, are willing to spread the propaganda that that one does not believe in Ellen G. White. First, one must understand that there is only One in whom one must "believe" for salvation, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ - no human being ! Secondily, one must realize that to recognize that the Writings of Ellen G. White are not infallible is to accept her own testimony. She wrote:       In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallable.His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning. (Letter 10, 1895; quoted in SM, bk. i , p. 37)

We compound our problem when we do not recognize the difference between "impeccable" and "infallible." Ellen G. White never even intimated that she was impeccable, for she recognized that she along with the rest of us were sinning, erring mortals. She also did not claim "infallibility" which means "incapable of error: unerring (in memory); sure, certain (in remedy);" and "incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals" (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary). Further, she emphatically taught in the book, Great Controversy, that because there is a widespread departure from the doctrines and teachings of the Scriptures, "there is need of a return to the great Protestant principle, - the Bible and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty."(pp. 204-205) Then she told why this is essential: - "Satan's manner of working against God and His word has not changed; he is still as much opposed to the Scriptures being made the guide of life as in the sixteenth century." Today the enemy has produced a masterpiece of deception. He has taken the works of the "messenger of the Lord" and led the professed people of God to accept them as an infallible substitute for the Bible.

We need to go one step further. We have this councel in regard to doctrinal unity:      We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they well never have to give up a cherished view, never have an occasion to change an opinion will be disappointed. (TM, p. 30)

In college, the professor to New Testament Greek used to quote this reference frequently when we were reading the text. It would wrankle me no end. I thought him to be a heretic. But today in retrospect, he was my best Bible teacher on the undergraduate level. He taught me to do in thinking and study what Jesus told the disciples to do in fishing - "Launch out into the deep." We have been doing too much "surface" studying of the Word of God. We have been advised:      We do not go deep enough in our search for truth... God wants our minds to expand. (TM, p. 119; read whole page)

This is what the current issue of the Commentary is all about. If you wish to explore with me some questions and expand your thinking, then with your Bibles open, begin reading this issue.

p 2 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 3 -- In beginning the study of the services of the Day of Atonement, we need first to outline in detail what was done under the shadowy services of the type. The instruction found in Leviticus 16 followed closely after the death of Aaron's two sons who "offered strange- fire before the Lord." "(Lev. 10:1; 16:1) Even Aaron, the High Priest, was not to come "at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy seat,which is upon the ark." (16:2)

(You will observe that in the KJV the word, "place," is in italics, being supplied. In the Hebrew, the word is kodesh, the same word as used in Psalm 77:13 - "Thy way, 0 God, is in the sanctuary (kodesh). The LXX uses the Greek word, to hagion, the same as is used in Hebrews 9:1, and translated "sanctuary." However, in Leviticus 16, it is clearly defined as to its application the second apartment or most holy place of the sanctuary.)

When Aaron was to come into the most holy place on the Day of Atonement, he was to bring a young bullock for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. (16:3) The "bullock" was to be "for himself, and for his house." (16:11) But no hands were laid upon the head of this bullock in either confession or transference, yet it was called a "sin offering." One might reply that because this was a sin offering, the law of the sin offering required that this be done. No blood carrying the confession of sin could cleanse, and in the final step of the cleansing the cleansing of the Altar of the Court the blood of the bullock was mingled with the blood of the Lord's goat. (16:18)

On the Day of Atonement, throughout the ministry of cleansing, Aaron was to wear the "holy garments" made of linen. (16:4) These were not removed until he had finished the whole ritual of the day up to and including the transfer of sin to the head of the live goat. (16:23)

Two kids of goats were taken from the congregation, and were presented before the Lord at the door of the tabernacle. (16:7) Over these, lots were cast, one goat becoming the Lord's goat, and the other for Azazel, or the scapegoat. A comment found in Keil Delitzsch explains well the significance of "one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the scapegoat" (Heb. - Azazel; 16:8, margin) It reads:      The words, one lot for Jehovah and one for Azazel, require unconditionally that Azazel should be regarded as a personal being in apposition to Jehovah ... We have not to think, however, of any demon, who seduces men to wickedness in the form of an evil spirit, as the fallen angel Azazel is represented as doing in Jewish writings ..., like the terrible fiend Shibe, whom the Arabs of the peninsula of Sinai so much dread ..., but of the devil himself, the head of the fallen angels, who was afterwards called Satan; for no subordinate evil spirit could have been placed in antithesis to Jehovah as Azazel is here, but only the ruler or head of the kingdom of demons. (Vol. 1, p. 398)

Three times Aaron enters the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. First to burn incense, so that "a cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony." (16:12-13) Next he brings the blood of the bullock, and sprinkles it seven times before the ark. (16:14) Finally the blood of the Lord's goat is brought in and the same procedure is followed as for the blood of the bullock. (16:15) Then the text reads:      He shall make an atonement for the holy place [most holy], because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins. (16:16)

Here we must pause and do some thinking. If in fact, the blood of the sin offerings represented the transference of sin to the sanctuary, how did the sin get into the Most Holy Place, inasmuch as no blood was ever taken into that Most Holy Place during the year? Further, none of the blood on the Day of Atonement which was taken in was laden with sin. The truth is, the record of the sins of Israel were already recorded there, and the blood of the sin offerings merely indicated that the penalty had been paid for a life had been given. Now the record had to be expunged, and the final penalty for sin adjudicated. But along with sin is introduced the "uncleannessess of the children of Israel." This facet enters the ritual services again as the cleansing continues. While the record of the sins and transgressions could be expunged in the Most Holy Place, the uncleanness could not. The question remains - what does this phase of the cleansing mean? This must be addressed, and this we shall do as the study continues.

Following the cleansing of the Most Holy Place, the High Priest also cleansed the holy place, or first apartment, noted as "the tabernacle." (16:16) This was performed because of the record placed on the horns of the Altar of Incense. The instruction read:      And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it [Altar of Incense] once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements. (Ex. 30:10)

p 3 -- It must be kept in mind that on this Alter during the year was recorded only the blood of corporate confession.

Then Aaron went to the Court. (16:18) Here the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled for the cleansing of the Alter of Burnt Offering. Two things should be observed:  1)  This Alter carried the record of the confessed sins of the individual, and the fact that the pennalty had been paid. And  2)  Only the uncleanness of the children of Israel is mentioned in this cleansing, not their sins. (16:19)

After Aaron had "made an end of reconciling the [most] holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar" (16:20), then the live goat entered the picture. On him the High Priest placed "both" of his hands and "confessed" over the goat "all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins." (16:21) This goat was then dispatched by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness, to "a land not inhabited." (16:22) Again it should be observed that the uncleanness of the children of Israel was not included, only that which had been adjudicated in the Most Holy Place. The cleansing of the uncleanness ended at the Altar of the court.

It is well to note in passing that after Aaron had assumed his official attire, he offered his burnt offering, and a sin offering for the congregation, thus bringing the blood of confession once again into the sanctuary. (Cmp. Lev. 16:24 & Num. 29:11) The new year had begun and with it came the same round of services which could not make the comer there unto perfect. It was but shadowy. The Reality to which it pointed could and would accomplish the objective of God and the longing of the contrite soul.

OTHER ASPECTS AND QUESTIONS -- The Day of Atonement was more sacred than a regular Sabbath. It is called a "Sabbath of sabbaths." (Lev. 23:32, Heb. ) "All the various elements effecting atonement are in a marked degree combined in the Day of Atonement ... It is called - 'shabbat shabbaton,' the holiest of rest days." (Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. II, p. 280; quoted in Messiah in His Sanctuary, p. 67) On this day, as on the weekly Sabbath, no work was to be done, while on the other feast days, "servile work" - the performance of a trade - alone was prohibited. (Lev. 23:28, cmp. with 23:7) It was to be fast day, a day for soul affliction. It was called "the fast" by Luke. (Acts 27:9, margin)

The blood of the Lord's goat is noted in Scripture as "the sin offering of atonements" (Ex. 30:10) The same emphasis is to be found in Leviticus 23, though not apparent in the KJV. Literally, the record reads: "On the tenth of this seventh month is a day of atonements ... and ye shall do no work in this same day: for it is a day of atonements, to make an atonement for you." (27-28)

This day called for soul affliction, fasting and no work. In contemplating .the significance of these requirements, it would be well to ponder the message of Isaiah 58:1-7. An observation worthy of much thought is to be found in the chapter. "The Seal of God." (Testimonies, Vol.5) It reads:      In the time when (God's) wrath shall go forth in judgments, ["the little company who are standing in the light", the] humble devoted fullowers of Christ will be distinguished from the rest of the world by thier soul-anguish, which will be expressed in lamentation and weeping, reproofs and warnings. (p.210)

The Day of Atonement cannot be disassociated from the concept of the sealing. The modern orthodox Jews in their celebration of The Day, pray during its closing hours the following prayer:      Our Father, our King, seal our name in the book of life; our Father, our King, seal our name in the book of rememberance; our Father, our King, seal our name in the book of success and prosperity. ("Prayers for the Day of Atonement" quoted in Messiah in His Sanctuary, p. 69)

The Jewish Encyclopedia contributes to this concept:      Down to the first century, the idea of the divine judgment was mainly eschotological in character, as deciding the destiny of the soul after death rather than of men on earth. But ... the idea developed also in Jewish circles that on the first of Tishri [the seventh month] the sacred New Year's Day, ...man's doings were judged and his destiny decided; and on the tenth of Tishri [the Day of Atonement] the decree of Heaven was sealed. (Vol. II, p. 281)

F. C. Gilbert after quoing the above reference comments:      The belief in the sealing work on this most holy day has been prevelent and accepted among the seed of Abraham for many centuries. This idea is found in their literature through the ages. (Messiah in His Sanctuary, p. 71)

The relationship between the Day of Atonement and the Sealing work is further suggested by the vestments worn by the High Priest while ministering the atonement. The High Priest was to put on what is called "the holy linen garments." (See Lev. 15:4) In Ezekiel 9, the one who is commanded to "mark a mark" in the foreheads of the men "that sigh and cry" is designated as "the man clothed in linen." (9:2; 10:2)

In detailing the ritual for the Day of Atonement, we observed that when the cleansing process reached the Alter of the Court, only the "uncleannessess" of the children of Isreal was cleansed. This was accomplished with the High Priest "for himself and his house" and the blood of the Lord's goat. In this shadowy type, it must bekept in mind that the High Priest was prefiguring the work of Christ the Great High Priest. The book of Hebrews tells us that Christ is "a son over His own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." (3:6) One must ask himself if the final cleansing at the Alter in the court was a prefiguring of the prophetic utterances found in Zephaniah 3;13 and Revelation 14:5.

The prophecy of Zechariah 3, also enters the picture. Here in symbolism, Joshua is clothed in filthy (unclean) garments. But Joshua does not remove them. They are removed by the attendants of the "Angel of the Lord." Then this "Angel" declares - "Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment." (3:4) No work was to be done on the Day of Atonement; neither did Joshua work in the removal of the filthy garments. His part in this transaction was to consent - surrender to the Divine objective.

If there is, as it appears, a connection between the ministry at the Alter in the Court on the Day of Atonement and these prophecies noted above, then we must develop with caution the conclusion to e drawn. Zephaniah says "the remnant of Israel shall do no iniquity" and the removal of "a deceitful tongue" finds its echo in Revelation 14:5. But to interpret the cleansing of "the uncleannesss" - the taking away of the filthy garment - as the removal of the fallen nature would invoke the theology of the Holy Flesh Movement. But then, if as is prefigured in the type, the cleansing of the record of sin and iniquity is accomplished in the Most Holy Place, then what does this "uncleanness" represent and when will it be done? Over this point, much prayerful study most be made, and conclusions drawn only as light comes from the Throne.

p 4 -- DANIEL SEVEN -- The seventh chapter of Daniel sheds light upon the final atonement when we relate it to the shadowy type of Leviticus 16, and helps us to see where we are in the progression of that Heavenly judgment. This key prophecy above all others in Daniel, gives us a sequence of symbols and imagery by which we can identify in history the "little horn." The attack on this prophecy today in the form of prophetic speculation is reprehensible. For individuals to profess "historic" Adventism, to promote the sales of "Spirit of Prophecy" books, such as Great Controversy, and then to undermine the force of this God-given prophecy in Daniel is to reveal themselves as the "agents" of Satan. Those who promote such "agents" have themselves become instruments of the evil one to confuse God's professed people.

Daniel , in a night vision saw four beasts arise in succession from the sea "diverse one from another." (7:2-3) The first was "like a lion,, and had eagle's wings." (7:4) The identity of this beast, as can be shown both by Scripture and archeology, is Babylon. Jeremiah, a contemporary of both Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, used this same symbolism in describing Babylon's king. (Jer. 49:19, 22, 28) The lion was followed by the bear, leopard, and the non-descript beast. Out of the last beast with ten horns arose another "little horn" who plucked up three of the ten. It had the eyes of a man, and spake "great things." (7:8) It must be kept in mind that this "horn" never existed apart from the beast out which it arose. Its life and source of being was ever rooted in the non-descriptbeast.

The Powers which in succession followed Babylon were Medo-Persia, Grecia and Rome. Out of Rome and in the midst of the invading peoples who occupied the Roman Empire, there arose that unique power called the Papacy. It was to continue for "a time and times, and the dividing of time." (7:25) This would bring the sequence of the symbols as seen by Daniel down to 1798 A.D. From the earthly march of nations, Daniel's attention was then turned to the heavenly. He wrote - "I watched until the thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat ... the court was set and the books were opened. " (7:9-10 Heb.)

In the sequence of this prophecy, this "judgment scene" would follow 1798, and it did according to the next prophetic vision given to Daniel, in 1844. (8:14) But the setting of the judgment did not conclude the night of vision of Daniel 7. Two more events followed in the vision. He "beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake." He continued to see the history of the little horn "till" the beast [which nourished the horn] was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." (7:11)

Before considering the "great words" which the horn spoke after 1844, we should note the comparative prophecy in Rev. 19:20, where the beast, also non-descript, (13:2) is with "the false prophet," cast alive into "a lake of fire." Then follows the 1000 years and the judgment of the Great White Throne, before whom the "dead" [the lost] stand as individuals. (20:11-12) Corporate bodies of earth through which Satan worked during time cease at the Second Advent. Following the 1000 years, the Devil no longer operating through "agents" leads the host of the lost in the final confrontation. (20:8)

Now we return to a consideration of the "great words" which the "horn" spake after 1844. In 1854, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated. This fact assures us that in the final conflict the doctrine of the Incarnation will play a vital role. In 1870, the Dogma of Papal Infallibility was affirmed by Vatican Council I. The issue of "authority" and what is true "aufhority" cannot be treated lightly in the end-time. Then in 1950, Pius XII made official dogma for the Catholic Church the teaching that Mary was received bodily into Heaven. (See diagram below)

Chart: Dan. 7: Vision & Explanation

In the prophetic sequence of Daniel 7, after Daniel hears the "great words," he sees "one like unto the Son of man" coming not to earth, but to the Ancient of Days to receive "dominion, and glory, anda kingdom" made up of "the saints of the most High.". (7:13-14, 18) In this same night vision, Daniel

p 5 -- was told that the Judgment renders a decision in favor of the "saints of the most High," and the time came for them to possess the kingdom. (7:22) Further, when the judgment shall sit, one of its objectives was to take away "the dominion" of the horn, and "to consume and destroy it unto the end." (7:26)

How shall we harmonize the shadowy type of Leviticus 16, and the prophetic sequence of Daniel 7? On the typical Day of Atonement, the first entry of blood into the Most Holy Place was by the High Priest, not only for himself, but "for his house." (16:11) Then came the blood of the Lord's goat by the same High Priest. This was defined as necessary "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." (16:16) But the "uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final act at the Altar in the court where both the blood of the bullock and goat were mingled. It was at this Altar that the daily service for the individual provided forgiveness because through the blood of the sin offering confession was made, and the fact that the penalty had been paid was recorded by the placing of the blood on the horns of that Altar.

The prophetic symbolism of Daniel 7 fits the picture of Christ coming to the Ancient of Days having completed the cleansing of the "saints" of their uncleanness. Thus the "saints" can possess the Kingdom through "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" - God's grace in providing it, and Jesus' willingness, as Isaac's, to be "the propitiation." (Rom. 3:24-25)

The "great words" which began with a dogma concerning Mary, closed with a dogma concerning her in 1950. The events - both secular and within the Church - which took place at that date and since, take on a new significance for those who wish to walk in the light from the Throne. ( I John 1:7)

Consider the following data, now a matter of history. The World Council of Churches was formed in 1948. Israel was re-established a State the same year. An 1949, Bible Readings for the Home Circle was revised, and the doctrine of the Incarnation was the first doctrine to be altered. It was followed by other doctrinal changes in succeeding decades culminating in the adoption of the 27 Fundamental Statements of Belief in 1980. In 1950, Wieland and Short made their original presentation to the General Conference on the infiltration of Baal worship into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (See original manuscript - 1888 Re-Examined as reproduced in A Warning and Its Reception.) In 1952, a world-wide Bible Conference held in the Sligo Park Church discussed the significance of Luke 21:24. It has since been fulfilled. (See manuscript - The Times of the Gentiles Fulfilled.) All of this must now be understood and harmonized for the time has come for the saints to possess the kingdom. "The hour has come, the hour is striking, and striking at you, the hour and the end!" (Eze. 7:6-7 Moffatt)

DANIEL 8:14 -- The KJV reads "Unto two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." We have, therefore, associated this verse with the Day of Atonement, and have concluded that following the culmination of the 2300 days in 1844, the ministry of Christ would begin in the Heavenly Reality as prefigured in the type. However, the Hebrew Masoretic text reads sadaq in the Niphal or passive form and means "to be justified or vindicated." (Gesenius) It is obvious that should the Masoretic text stand without challenge, it would be difficult to associate Daniel 8:14 with Leviticus 16.

The Septuagint (LXX) a Greek translation of the Old Testament older than the manuscripts on which the Masoretic Hebrew text is based reads - "shall be cleansed" - using the future passive form of katharizo. Here there is a connection with Leviticus 16 for the same word is used twice in verse 30, once as an infinitive, and once using the same passive form as in Daniel 8:14. The Douay Bible following the Latin word used in the Vulgate -- mundabitur - reads also, shall be cleansed."

How can the difference between the Hebrew text and the LXX and Vulgate translations of the.Old Testament be reconciled in regard to Daniel 8:14? Hebrew scholars have long held that the Hebrew portions of Daniel (1-2:4a; 8-12) were translated . from Aramaic originals. This hypothesis was confirmed by the studies of Zimmermann in 1938 and 1939. Building on this, Dr. H. Louis Ginsberg, Sabato Morais Professor of Bible at The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, stated the Aramaic for Daniel 8:14 would read - "the sanctuary will become clean (or be cleansed)" He maintains that the Hebrew text which led to the Masoretic use of sadaq (to be justified) was a very poor rendering of the Aramaic by the translator. (See his Studies in Daniel, pp. 41-42, 79-80) Thus in all three languages, the language in which Daniel wrote, and the Greek and Latin translations of that text, the KJV is confirmed.

Both the LXX and the Vulgate use the future passive - "the sanctuary shall be cleansed" - to render the thought of the Aramaic. The end of the 2300 days in 1844, therefore marks the beginning of the process which shall end in a cleansed sanctuary. Daniel 7 outlines the events to be fulfilled on earth during the Heavenly judgment before the Ancient of Days. A continuum is noted "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." (7:22)

We are now at the end of the period as outlined in Daniel 7. The devil would rob us of the certainty of the truth committed in sacred trust to the Advent Movement by seeking to destroy the fundamental pillars of the sanctuary doctrine as based in the shadowy types and prophecies of the Old Testament. The simple refining of our perceptions of the truth leaves unmoved the basic foundation.

p 6 -- The Blending of the Light -- What relationship is,there between "the judgment was set" in Daniel 7, "the sanctuary shall be cleansed" in Daniel 8, and the typical Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16? It should be obvious that there is a relationship between Daniel 7 and 8. The prophecies are parallel. When one understands the textual background for Daniel 8:14, and the parallel choice of words in the LXX between Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16:30, one can sense there is a relationship there. But what is the relationship between Daniel 7 and Leviticus 16? This is not so obvious. Yet the sanctuary doctrine as understood by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the past decades stands or falls over this relationship. It is our failure to come to grips with this issue that has given cause for the assaults which the "new theology" advocates have made against the sanctuary teaching.

Our failure to recognize the distinct differences between the prophecy of Daniel 7 and the typical ritual of Leviticus 16 has not helped the cause of truth. Daniel 7 does reveal a "judgment," definitely pre-Advent, before which the "little horn" power is arraigned. This arraignment is before the assembled hosts of Heaven. (Dan. 7:9-10) On the other hand, the typical services of the sanctuary were connected with a covenant. The covenant is primary; the services secondary. The text in Hebrews does not say "The worldly sanctuary with its ordinances of divine service had also connected with it a covenant." (See Heb. 9:1) It was the covenant which had "also" the sanctuary with its services. Just so, Jesus as "the mediator of a better covenant" is also "a minister of the true taberancle which the Lord pitched and not man." (See Heb. 8:6, 2)

The "judgment" of Daniel 7 involves the whole problem of sin and the key players in that problem, while the shadowy ritual of the earthly sanctuary tells how a covenant people must relate to the provision for sin to escape the condemnation of the judgment.

It must be kept clearly in mind that the "little horn" of Daniel 7 is continued in symbolism in Revelation by the first "beast" of Chapter 13, and by the "woman in scarlet" in Chapter 17. Through these symbolisms, runs a continuous thread - "the dragon gave [the beast] his power, and his seat, and great authority." (Rev. 13:2) The final dictum upon "spiritual Babylon" is that "in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth." (Rev. 18:4) The "little horn" stands in the judgment as the embodiment of all wickedness and the symbol of rebellion against God. "The man of sin" in II Thess. 2, another designation of the "little horn", is noted as "the Wicked." (ver.8) The Greek is anomos defined by Thayer as "he in whom all iniquity has as it were fixed its abode." (Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, p. 48)

In the book of Hebrews, the message which God speaks "unto us in a Son" (Heb.1:2 Gr.) is that having become "in all things like unto His bretheren that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest" (2:17), He is first "a son over His own house."(3:6) Then seated as "a priest upon His throne" (Zech. 6:13), He dispenses mercy and "grace to help in time of need." (4:16) This is His first apartment ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary.

But what happens when the judgment is set and the books are opened before the Ancient of Days? Here the ritual agenda of Leviticus 16 provides the detail. The first entry with blood into the Most Holy Place on the day of Atonement was by the High Priest with the blood of a bullock which was for himself and "for his house." Not only is Jesus "the Lord's goat" but He also "offered Himself." (Heb. 9:14) Thus the dual entry on the Day of Atonement with "cleansing blood."

The agenda of Leviticus further indicates that the atonement of the Most Holy Place is necessitated "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins." (16:16) however, no blood of any sin offering ever reached the Most Holy Place during the yearly ritual, but the sins and transgressions of the children of Israel had been recorded in "the books." What was to be done?

The judgment must begin where and over what sin began. Sin began at the Throne of God and over the creation of man. The creation plan intended man to be only "a little while inferior to the angels." (Heb. 2:7 margin) But in sin man fell even lower than the "inferior" position. Now can God bring an end to sin, and carry out His original plan and none of the angelic host become jealous as did Lucifer? The judgment is set in the presence of that assembled host. (Dan. 7:10) Jesus coming with His sacrifice asks not only pardon full and complete for His covenant people, but a seat upon His throne. Was His sacrifice sufficient to grant this request?

p 7 -- The next step of the agenda was the blood of the Lord's goat. This was God's sacrifice. (See Gen. 22:8) Here the lots had been cast, a choice had been made. Standing in the Court was the other goat, representing Azazel. could God roll back on him the sins of His Son's "house"? Again the assembled host must respond, for they, too, had cast their lot, made their choice. Was the cost of Calvary sufficient so that God having paid the price could do with "sins" as He so chooses?

Another question must be settled. What about the "uncleanness" of the "children of Israel?" In the ageinda of the ritual service, this was the last act of the atonement. {Lev. 16:19-20) Is the "decree" for the romoval of the uncleanness then entered to be carried out at the time indicated in Daniel 7:13-14?

The second phase of the ritual agenda was concerning the registry on the horns of the Alter of Burnt Incense. Here has been made during the year the record of corporate confession. In Daniel 7, none could be found for the "little horn." Of this "horn" under the symbolism of "Jezabel," Jesus declared, "I gave her space to repent ... and she repented not." (Rev. 2:21) the "horn" and all corporate bodies who have not repented during the time allotted for repentance are at this point in the judgment declared "found wanting." In the time sequence of Daniel 7, this would occur just prior to the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom of "saints" - holy ones made holy by His cleansing.

The agenda next indicates a third phase of judgment. In the Levitical ritual, the final atonement involved a cleansing of the confession of guilt registered on the horns of the Alter in the court. Here in the daily service the individual only was involved. No blood was carried into the sanctuary recording the fact that confession had been made and the penalty paid. The common priest had eaten of the victim. He carried the record in himself. So likewise, Jesus as a common priest having in all things been "made like unto his brethren" offered the sacrifice of Himself and all who place their full dependence in Him are carried in Him. They do not come into judgment but pass from death into life. (See John 5:24, Gr.) In the typical ritual, the High Priest went in for the people, none even entered the court.

Having completed His work of cleansing, Jesus comes before the Ancient of Days to ask for His kingdom, and His people who have made a covenant with Him by sacrifice. And the Ancient of Days, declares, "Granted." All the host that witnessed the Judgment declare 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." (Rev. 5:12)

The "agenda" of the Judgment as revealed in the shadowy type gives us a clue as to where we are in the stream of time. It is after the corporate phase, the individual cleansing begins. According to Jesus' own prophecy, the times or probation of the nations (corporate bodies) would end with the fulfilling of the sign spoken of in Luke 21:24. This has occurred. This projects for our thinking some interesting questions:

1)  Is the "man clothed in linen" (Eze. 9:2-4) now sealing those among the porfessed house of Israel who have and are afflicting their souls, trusting not in their own works - doing "no work in that same day"? (Lev. 23:28) Do these become in the final hour "His own house" cleansed as represented by the mingled blood of the bullock and the Lord's goat at the Alter of the Court? Do these become marked with the mark of redemption, "the sign of the cross of Calvary"?

2)  Has the "man in linen" reported back to the One on the Throne saying - "I have done as thou has commanded me." (Eze. 9:11) Are we at the time when from the Throne will come the command to the "man clothed in linen" to "take coals from between the cherubim" so as to do for His "marked" people as was done for Isaiah? "Eze. 10:1-2; 6-7. See also Isa. 6:6-7, compare with Rev. 14:5)

The sanctuary teaching is not a "stale, flat, and unprofitable" doctrine, but vibrant with meaning for this very hour. A fulller understanding of Daniel 7, and its interrelationship with the agenda of Leviticus 16 challenges us today, even as the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 challenged those who perceived that prophecy as pointing to the beginning of the hour of God's judgment in 1844. "Light is sown for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart. Rejoice in the Lord, ye righteous; and give thanks to the memory of His sanctuary." (Ps. 97:11-12, margin)

"The Lord has made His people
the repository of sacred truth.
Upon every individual who has had the
light of present truth devolves the duty
of developing that truth on a higher scale than it hs hitherto been done." -- Ellen G. White

--- End --- 1989 Special 3 -- Light From the Throne -- Part 3 ----- TOP

1989 Special 4 -- Seize Upon Circumstances -- EDITORIAL -- Local option as voted by the Ontario legislature opened an opportunity for witness in many rural and small communities across the Province. It was soon discovered that this avenue had its advantages and disadvantages. The first major advantage was the reduced cost of advertising which permitted much larger ads to be placed in the local papers. However, without an Adventist presence in these small communities, which was the situation back in 1950, we were looked upon as an "intruder" disturbing the tranquil religious life of the community by seeking to destroy their "quiet" Sunday. Thus at that time, seizing the opportunity was merely a seed sowing evangelistic outreach. Today, how a small community with no Adventist presence would react has not been determined. There is even the possibility that only the distribution of a tract wherein the issue of religious liberty is the major thrust would be the way to spearhead the witness with a follow-up tract of the Biblical basis for the true Sabbath. If, however, there is a definite Adventist presence, a direct confrontation using even the $1, 000 Reward Offer, correctly worded, would be just as effective now as when used in Toronto in 1949.

The tragic part of the whole Puerto Rican affair is that something was not done at the very beginning when Sunday closing first became a major issue in San Juan. To consider every agitation for the enforcement or enactment of a Sunday closing law as creating an "image to the beast" and to exploit this situation for a solicitation of funds is to miss the opportunity afforded when such an issue is raised. It is true that Revelation 13 will be fulfilled, but it may not be fulfilled in the way we have thought it would be. To assume that the enforcement of the Sunday Closing Law in Puerto Rico is the beginning of the unfolding of a plot to enact a National Sunday Law is to manifest credulity. Even if a national Sunday Closing Law should be enacted, it would not meet the specifications of an "oppressive" law as indicated in the Writings. To close business activity on Sunday by law is not forcing one to go to church and worship on that day. However, agitation over these laws does give the opportunity to witness to religious liberty and the Biblical Sabbath. When the iron is hot, then it is time to strike; and the iron gets hot over the enforcement of Sunday closing for business.

While it is professed that Sunday closing laws are simply to provide the people with a day of rest, it becomes quickly evident that "religion" is involved. Many people in business and public office do not know how to meet the religious issue simply because they have not taken the time to investigate, or were unaware of the real difference between Sabbath and Sunday. This was the case in Toronto. One of the Controllers of the city who openly advocated the relaxation of the Lord's Day Act was deluged with material and letters quoting Bible to sustain Sunday. He called me privately and asked if I would help him formulate a general answer for these letters. However, if we are not publicly confronting the issue, these men have nowhere to turn for religious guidance which reflects the truth and are thus overwhelmed by the religious forces. Mere distribution of tracts at such a time is not the answer.

In this Commentary, we will include a flashback on an incident which occurred during the Toronto campaign. The position of the Catholic Cardinal is in marked contrast to the statement issued by the bishops in 1986. See article - "Balfour and the Cardinal."

Another item - quotes from a college text book as space permits - will speak for itself. See Bible-ography at the end of this Commentary.

Seize Upon Circumstances -- "We should seize upon circumstances as instruments by which to work." - Ministry of Healing, p. 500

When on January 2, 1950, the voters in the City of Toronto, Canada, approved a more "open" Sunday in what was termed an "upset" election, they by this vote "tossed the controversial question back at the members of the city council, most of whom had declared outright opposition to any changes in Toronto's observance of Sunday." (Globe and Mail, Jan. 3, 1950, p. 1) The city council accepted the mandate of the electorate and petitioned the provincial government for the authority to "open" Sunday afternoon for commercialized sports. By passing on the issue to the legislature, a new opportunity to witness was opened.

Elder 0. B. Gerhart and I formulated a letter which was sent to all members of the Ontario legislature and to the three major newspapers in the city. (See pp. 2 & 3) Besides this, Elder Gerhart made it his special work to visit personally with as many as possible of these legislators. The final result was that a local option law was passed permitting each city and town in the Province to vote or whether Sunday should be "opened" in its jurisdiction.

p 2 -- Among the first group of towns to take advantage of this local option proviso was Brampton, Ontario, a then rural community north and west of Toronto. (Brampton is now a part of - megalopolis which surrounds the western shore of Lake Ontario from Oshawa to Hamilton.) There was no Seventh-day Adventist Church in Brampton at that time and the Adventist presence was minimal. In entering into the Brampton plebiscite, we sought to focus on three major factors:  1)  The religious liberty issue;  2)  The Biblical basis for the true Sabbath; and  3)  The origin of Lord's Day of the Lord's Day Act. Elder Gerhart prepared a penetrating "news" release - "Ottawa Enacts Saturday Law" - which put the "shoe" on the other foot for those seeking to maintain a restrictive Lord's Day Act. This was printed as a small single-fold tract in a newspaper format as well as being published in the Brampton, Conservator. (See p. 3)

It will be readily seen that this article by Elder Gerhart can be adapted with but minor changes to any locality where there is an issue involving Sunday laws. For example, in Puerto Rico, it could read - "Commonwealth Enacts Saturday Law." Also a sentence or two which speaks of the Lord's Day Act of Canada could be modified to speak of the Sunday Closing Law of 1902 in Puerto Rico.

Two other ads were placed in the Brampton newspapers which set forth the religious issue. You will observe in one of the ads, while we used the original offer of Enright in 1899, we also used the offer which had been made during the Toronto campaign, thus utilizing the effect of a current offer noting that there were 1,000 ministers in the city and not one tried to collect. See pages 4 & 5.

The response was small compared to the reaction in Toronto. The clergy of Brampton led a concerted effort to keep Sunday closed. One of the Brampton papers reporting an organizational meeting of "Church Workers" quoted one of the clergymen as stating - "The plan of attack must be well organized." Another minister advised - "If we're going to win this thing it's got to be a political campaign." Still another said - "If it's going to be successful it's got to be done by laymen. The clergy would be suspect of having a professional interest."

The battle for truth is not for the weak and fainthearted. Those upholding error fight with no holds barred, while those advocating truth can only use an approach consistent with truth. Tragically many of God's professed people recoil from open confrontation. How would our salvation have been accomplished if Christ had not come and met the enemy head-on? We dare not do less in an hour of crisis.


3 Awde Street, Toronto
Phone: KEnwood 0591

Hon. George H. Dunbar,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ont.

Dear Sir:

The Seventh-day Adventist churches of Toronto beg to place before you certain considerations regarding the current Sunday-law issue, which we believe merits serious attention.

Seventh-day Adventists are definitely opposed to restriction of Sunday sports because we are and have always been consistently opposed to all religious and anti-religious legislation.

The Lord's Day Act is a piece of religious legislation as indicated by: -
   1.     The name of the law itself, and the history of such legislation.
   2.     The fact that the original sponsors and most zealous guardians are a religious group known as the "Lord's Day Alliance."
   3.    The revealing observation that it was 114 churches that purchased a full page of advertising in the December 31, 1949 Toronto newspapers to oppose the proposed relaxation of this law. Would the churches have done this for any purely civil issue?

We hold that if the Government can properly enforce one religious act, it can with equal logic enforce any or all religious observance by law, as the temper of the times may indicate. This was the logic that produced the long centuries of cruel persecution of minorities during the Dark Ages. We do not share the complacency of those who think these times cannot return. Therefore, we earnestly oppose the retention of any law on our statute books that can serve as the "thin edge of the wedge."

We believe that in the eyes of the law all religions must be equal with favoritism to none. But the "Lord's Day Act," discriminates against Mohammedans, Jews, Seventh-day Baptists, and Seventh-day Adventists, all of whom observe a different day other than Sunday as their day of worship, thus depriving them of one of their rightful working days. The possible objection that these are a minority group is alien to our contention here that the Government has no right before God to discriminate in religious matters.

p 3 -- We desire to point out in this connection that religious tolerance is not religious liberty. While the Lord's Day Act tolerates citizens who observe a day other than Sunday as a day of worship, it does not permit them equality of liberty. To clarify this point one need only to picture the reaction if the Lord's Day Act were changed to "protect" only Saturday. Would not the religious observers of Sunday rightly protest that such a law advantaged the observers of Saturday to the disadvantage of Sunday keepers? Religious liberty requires equality of all religions before the law.

We are mindful of the virtues of legislation granting the laboring man a day of rest and maintain that this right could be as ably secured by requiring his release one day in seven without specifying the day.

Therefore, because Seventh-day Adventists oppose all religious laws in principle, we favour every step toward their relaxation. Hence we voted for Sunday sports and beg you, honourable sir, to consider the issue before you in the light of the fundamentals involved.

Respectfully yours,

Wm. H, Grotheer
O. B. Gerhart


OTTAWA ENACTS SATURDAY LAW - LORD'S DAY ACT AMENDED - Saturday Protected as All Sunday Bans Lifted -- Nonsense? Fantastic? Impossible? Granted. But come now, just suppose to-morrow's newspapers did carry such headlines as these.

After the first shock had passed the Canadians had began to realize what this new Saturday law would mean, some of our finest citizens would begin to say, "Why, this means I'm going to loose a day's pay every week, for I don't intend to work on Sunday whether the Government expects me to or not. Sunday is my day for worship. That's the day I go to church." But many would soon discover that more than a day's pay was at stake, for their employers might not want to employ at all a man who absents himself from work on a day the law designates as a working day. So these would either forfeit their jobs or smother their consciences and go to work on Sundays. In either case, a needless misfortune.

And what about the ministers of their churches? Would they complacently accept it as a law of the land which Christians are bound to obey? Rather, would they not unanimously protest that this Saturday law discriminates against them and caters to the groups who observe Saturday as the Sabbath? Would they not denounce this law as class legislation and opposed to religious freedom? And who could refute them?

Suppose the government were able to ride out the initial storm. In time business would adjust itself to Saturday closing, and the labouring man would find Saturday rest as acceptable as he found Sunday rest, for outside the field of religion, one day is as good as another.

Not so, however, in the realm of conscience. There would long remain a religious minority who would continue to observe Sunday, no matter what the sacrifice. They might eventually come to consider further protest useless and suffer the injustice of that law in silence. But would that make the law right, Who with an enlightened conscience could defend such a piece of legislation?

Did you ever stop to think that Canada has just such a law on its statue books? Of course it is a Sunday law, not a Saturday law, but it affects thousands of loyal, law-abiding citizens precisely as a Saturday law would affect conscientious Sunday observers.

Did you know that Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh Day Baptists, and Orthodox Jews do no work on Saturdays because that is the seventh day of the week and because one of God's Ten Commandments says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work"? (Exodus 20:10) These citizens are quiet, inoffensive people who almost without exception respect the consciences of their Sunday-keeping neighbours by granting an outward respect to their day that is rarely returned. More than that, thousands of these citizens have suffered loss of employment from time to time, because of the Lord's Day Act of Canada which all but compels Saturday labour by ordering all business closed on Sunday.

"But", some will say, "there must be one day a week protected by law, otherwise religion would perish from the earth." Did the Christian religion perish from the earth before the days of the Roman Emperor Constantine who in A.D. 321 passed the first Sunday law?

Are Seventh-day Adventists disappearing from the earth? Indeed, let such objectors ponder the phenomenon of this church which within the last one hundred years has spread itself over 228 countries of the world, prints and circulates its books in 195 languages, and whose membership in all these countries contributed in 1948 a per capita average of $62.49 to their church. (Taken from 1950 S.D.A. Year Book, p.355). All this without the aid of Saturday laws. Why, then, should Sunday laws be necessary for the protection of Sunday worship? Let those who advance this plea consider what they are implying.

Others object that Sunday laws are necessary for the protection of the labouring class. But a law requiring one day's rest in seven without specifying the day, would have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages of a Sunday law. Such a law would discriminate against no religious principle and could be supported by all who really have the working man's interests at heart.

When we dig back into church history we come out with this fact: All Sunday laws are but the remaining vestiges of those centuries when the laws of the Church were the laws of the State and dissenters were persecuted to the death. There is not a trace of Sunday legislation to be found anywhere in the Bible. The Lord's Day Act of our country can be defended only on the grounds that Sunday laws were defended during the Dark Ages. It cannot be defended on democratic principles, much less on Bible or humanitarian grounds.

p 4 -- Let no one think that this article is an attempt to vilify the motives of those who are agitating for the retention of Sunday laws. Let us be charitable enough to concede that good men may thoughtlessly urge legislation without studying its results. Rather, it is the purpose of this leaflet to call attention to the gross injustice and inhumanity of a law that has remained upon our law books too long unchallenged.

That there be no misunderstanding, let us state the issue clearly. No government has any God-given commission to distinguish between loyal citizens in matters of conscience. It has no right to favour one religious group and penalize another, or to judge which is right and wrong in such controversies. Before the law of the land all religions must stand on equal footing. For this right the blood of millions was shed during earlier centuries. For this right our country professes to stand and does stand.

In the current Sunday sports issue the opportunity is granted in a limited degree to voice whether as citizens we favour or disapprove the principle of Sunday laws. This is the true issue. The matter of Sunday sports is comparatively trifling.

We thank God for the liberties we do enjoy in this great Dominion. Let us treasure them and hasten the day when this last vestige of a dark past shall be completely erased from the laws of Canada. O. B. Gerhart -- For further information write to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Box 73, Brampton, Ontario.

THE LORD'S DAY of the LORD'S DAY ACT -- By W. H. Grotheer, B.A.
The electors of this municipality are being asked to vote on certain aspects of the Lord's Day Act of Canada/ In a preceding article "Ottawa Enacts a Saturday Law", we dealt with the question from the viewpoint of religious liberty and freedom of conscience. To the vast majority, this question is the basic issue involved. But to the authors of this law, and in the minds of those who desire most to keep it in force, there is a pure religious question. to these, The Lord's Day is Sunday, a day to be kept sacredly devoted for the worship of Jesus Christ. Naturally anyone who takes the Bible and the Bible only as the basis of faith and doctrine has a right to raise the question: - "Is Sunday, the Lord's day?" The Canadian act has so defined it; is it Biblically correct?

The Bible speaks of only one day, as the commanded day of worship. In the Ten Commandments we read: -

"The Seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." Ex. 20:10.

Here the Lord regards the seventh-day as His day. This is further emphasized in Isaiah 58:13, where the Lord calls the Sabbath, "My holy day". Jesus Christ when here as a Man among men proclaimed Himself as Lord of the Sabbath day. He said: -

"The Sabbath was mad for man, and not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:27-28.

Since it is clearly stated in the Holy Scriptures that God the Father, and God the Son have a day over which, in a special designated sense, they are Lord of; and that day being clearly stated as THE seventh-day of the week, the next question follows naturally, "which day is the seventh-day?" This is not hard to determine. Jesus, Christ, the Saviour of the world was crucified on what is now commonly called Good Friday, and arose on the day we now refer to as Easter Sunday. In Mark 16:9, we read: -

"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week."

Thus the resurrection day - Easter Sunday - was declared to be the first day of the week. It is not hard to determine, then the seventh day. But let us observe another series of verses. These are found in Luke 23:50 - 24:3. Quoting in part we find this: - (You can look up this reference and check for yourself.)

"And behold, there was a man, named Joseph ... This man went unto Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. Ad he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre ... And that day was the preparation (Good Friday), and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, ... beheld the sepulchre ... and they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested on the sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week (Easter Sunday), very early in the morning they came unto the sepulchre ... And they found the stone rolled away ... and they entered in and found not the body of the Lord Jesus."

It does not take a genius to see that the day between Friday, and Sunday is Saturday, which the Holy Scripture calls the "Sabbath day according to the commandment". This day then is the seventh-day, the true Lord's day, which was blessed and sanctified by God Himself.

No where in the sacred writings, is a counter command given which sets aside another day of worship. The Sabbath commandment is a part of the Ten Commandments, the great moral code of conduct. I do not believe anyone would be so naive as to suggest that this code is no longer applicable to mankind. What a tragedy would ensue, if the law which stated, "Thou shalt not kill," would be declared null and void.

Thus in conclusion number one, the Lord's Act of Canada, which is supposedly based on the Bible, defines as the Lord's day, a day which is not mentioned in the Bible as the day which the Lord blessed and sanctified. This Act then in definition is weighed in the balances and found wanting to the individual who takes the Bible as the basis of faith and doctrine.

But is Sunday a Lord's day? Yes, but a very different Lord's day than many a Christian would like to recognize. In the pagan world, the devotees of the sun-god devoted Sunday to the worship of their god. Jennings in his work, Jewish Antiquities, Book 3, chap. 3, tells us: -

"The day which the heathen in general consecrated to the worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which, according to our computation, was the first day of the week."

Thus this day devoted to the worship of the sun-god, was called the "Lord's day" by the pagans long before that term was used by Christians to refer to Sunday as a day of worship. A. Pavia in his book, O Mitraismo, p. 3, writes: -

"The first day of the week, Sunday, was consecrated to Mithra (sun-god) since times remote, as several authors affirm. Because the sun was god, the Lord par-excellence, Sunday came to be called the Lord's day, as was latter done by Christianity."

Arthur Weigall adds this testimony: -

"As a solar festival, Sunday was the sacred day of Mithra; and it is interesting to notice that since Mithra was addressed as Dominus, Lord, Sunday must have been the Lord's day long before Christian times." p. 145, The Paganism of Our Christianity.

The question is very clear. Can a Christian vote to sustain a law, which defines a day set aside first by pagans as the "Lord's day," and then accepted by a nominal Christian church as a "Lord's day," without Biblical sanction?

For your free booklet entitled: "The Early Christian Sabbath," write to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Box 73, Brampton, Ontario.

In 1899 - "I hereby offer $1,000 to anyone who can prove to me, from the Bible alone, that I am bound under pain of grievous sin, to keep Sunday holy." -- T. Enright CSSR (Catholic Church)

(This offer was reaffirmed in 1902, and 1905. No one ever collected.)

In 1949 in Toronto - "The undersigned offer to pay a total reward of $1,000 to any person or persons who can show from the Bible alone (King James Version), a single text where Christ or His Apostles specifically commanded the observance of the first day of the week (Sunday) in honour of His resurrection." -- Seventh-day Adventist Reward Committee.

(The Command was never produced - and there are 1,000 ministers in Toronto)

BECAUSE - "The Bible commandment says on the seventh day thou shalt rest. That is Saturday. Nowhere in the Bible is it laid down that worship should be done on Sunday. Tradition has made it a day of worship." -- Archbishop Philip Carrington of the Anglican Church in the Toronto Star, October 26, 1949.

"There was and is a Commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I have studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transfer be found/ Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence for the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week." -- Dr. E. T. Hiscox, author of the "Baptist Manual" in a paper read before a Baptist Minister's Meeting, Saratoga, N.Y., Aug. 20, 1893.

"The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a Divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic Church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps, at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had began to take place; for men appear by that time to consider labouring on Sunday a sin." -- P. 186 "The History of the Christian Religion and Church." By Dr. Agustus Neander. (Dr. Neander is considered to b e the "Prince of Church Historians.")

"Q.  Have you any way of proving that the Church (Catholic) has the power to institute festivals of precept?"

"A.  Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." -- P. 174. "A Doctrinal Catechism" by Rev. Stephen Keenan, R.C.

GOD SAYS - "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hollowed it." Ex. 20:8-11.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Matt. 15:9.

"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." Matt 15:6.

Send for your copy of "From Sunday to Sunday". Write to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Box 73, Brampton, Ontario.

BALFOUR AND THE CARDINAL -- The "Home Edition" of the Toronto Daily Star of December 2, 1949 headlined in heavy bold type - "Cardinal Opposes Open Sunday." In a letter to the Roman Catholic clergy of the city, James Cardinal McGuigan, Archbishop of Toronto made it clear that Sunday as a whole day "is to be given to God and kept holy." The full text of the Cardinal's letter was printed. It read in part:

The attempt that is being made to legalize commercial sport on Sunday calls for a reminder of the law of God and the teaching of the Catholic church on the keeping of the Lord"s Day. The third commandment of God forbids work on that day, which under the old law was the seventh day of the week, but which in the Christian dispensation is kept on the first day of the week in honor of our Divine Lord's resurrection.

The Catholic church has always zealously maintained the law of Sunday rest. The whole day is to be given to God and kept holy. It is to be kept for the benefit of our souls. The hearing of holy mass on that day is of strict obligation. There is a general obligation to keep in mind during the day our duties to worship the Almighty God, especially public worship, and Catholics are urged to assist at afternoon and evening devotions in the church on Sunday when they can do so without serious inconvenience.

Following our Divine Lord's teaching that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, the Catholic church approves of wholesome recreation on Sunday and she permits work on the grounds of necessity, custom, utility, piety and charity. These permissions are not extended so far as to be inconsistent with the character of Sunday as a day of rest and worship. The church deplores the laxity and abuses which in some places have desecrated the Lord's Day. The present Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, has expressed the mind of the church saying: "Sunday must again become the day of the Lord, the day of adoration, of glorification of God, of the holy sacrifice, of rest, of recollection and reflection, or happy reunion in the intimate circle of the family." (Ibid. pp. 1,2)

p 6 -- It Is most interesting and revealing to compare what was written in 1949 by this Catholic prelate with what the Catholic bishops of Canada wrote in 1986 on the same subject. (See WWN XXII-6, p. 2)

An article in the same edition of the Star next to the report on the Cardinal's position was captioned - "Up to Conscience States Balfour of Sunday Vote." Controller David Balfour, then the only Roman Catholic on the Toronto city council played a leading part in having the question put to the people. The article reported that he "received with incredulity the news" of the Cardinal's letter. Another Toronto daily was not quite so benevolent in reporting this difference between Balfour and the Cardinal. It placed above the news item on the Cardinal's letter the single message - "Balfour Retreats" and stated, "Con. Balfour's enthusiasm for Sunday sport suddenly cooled when he learned that Cardinal McGuigan had announced his opposition to changing the city's Sunday blue laws."

Balfour responded to questioning by the news reporter of the Globe and Mail by saying he wasn't going to campaign anyway for the open Sunday as "the people must make their own decision on the question." But when asked as to whether he was in favor of Sunday sport in view of the Cardinal"s opposition, he replied:

I don't think there's anything wrong with Sunday baseball, or golf, or any other sport which gets one out into the fresh air - but, at the same time, if the cardinal asked me not to do these things, then out of respect for his wishes, I would not do them.

This reaction of an elected official of the Roman Catholic faith reveals the influence of the hierarchy on such an official. Add to this the "time serving" Protestants in elective offices and you have the ingredients for the storm that "is coming, relentless in its fury." (8T:315) But to many, it will come as an "overwhelming surprise" because it will not come as they have pictured it should come. The Jews were looking for a Messiah when Jesus came the first time, but because He did not come as they preconceived He should have come, they knew Him not. The same danger faces us today.

BIBLE-OGRAPHY -- In Revelation 13, a second beast identified as "the false prophet" causes "the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast." (13:12) [For identification of this beast as "the false prophet," compare Rev. 13:14 with 19:20] Further, this "false prophet" says to "them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image" to this same first beast. The "false prophet" not only causes a mark to be placed upon individuals and enforces the acceptance of this mark through economic sanctions (13:16-17); but also he gives "life unto the image of the beast" that it is enabled to enact a death penalty against those who refuse to worship it. (13:15)

Behind both powers, - the beast and the false prophet - is the dragon, "the Devil and Satan" (Rev. 13:2, 11; 12:9) The Scripture indicates that these powers unite in gathering the rulers "of the whole inhabited world" Gr.) to "the war (Gr.) of the great day of God Almighty." (Rev. 16:13-14) If we accept our common historic understanding of these symbols, and there is no reason that we should not, then this tells us that the present religious elements that dominate the world - spiritism, Roman Catholicism, and apostate Protestantism - will unite the political powers of earth against God.

Today, we see a militant Muhammadanism in serious conflict with elements of Roman Catholicism in the Near East; we see a revitalized Roam Catholicism led by a very charismatic pope; and we see a vigorous rightest movement in Protestantism.

How does a Sunday issue fit into this picture? The Muhammadan world observes Friday. The Catholic and a vast majority of the Protestant world give allegiance to Sunday observance. A small minority of the Protestant world observe the seventh-day Sabbath. Into this picture has been injected since 1948 a reestablished Jewish State as a major political factor. There is within this Jewish State a strong, militant conservative element which promotes a rigid observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.

At present, there is only one common denominator and that is the expectation of a coming world Messiah with Jerusalem as the Holy City. Two prophetic Scriptures focus on this point. The "spirits of devils" gather the leadership of " the whole world" to a place called in the Hebrew - "Har-Magedon" (Rev. 16:16 ARV). This equates with Har-Mo'ed in the Hebrew, or "the mount of the congregation." (Isa. 14:13) From this mount a certain "God" will send forth "his law." (Isa. 2:3) The Lord God of Israel has already spoken from Mount Sinai. He will not "alter the thing that is gone out of His lips" (Ps. 89:34) It is in this setting that a universal Sunday law is projected. God's response is the seven last plagues. (Rev. 16:1) The counter response is the death decree upon those who are charged with bringing such "sudden destruction." (Compare I Thess. 5:3 with 9) Then God answers further with the 3rd plague. It is the "war" of the great day.

p 7 -- While certain prophecies indicate the high points ahead, the details leading to this confrontation of the war of the great day of God Almighty must await the unfolding of the scroll. May our enlightenment and understanding neither anticipate, nor lag behind the movement of the forces involved; but may we walk in the light of the fulfilling "sure word of prophecy" befitting children of the light.

~~~ Understanding Computers (Second Edition) by Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (USN Ret.) and Professor Steven L. Mandel (Bowling Green State University) -- THE CARD: WHO'S WATCHING WHOM? -- Blue Cross-Blue Shield issued the LifeCard, a wallet-sized card containing medical history stared by laser beam. In Japan, Nipponcoinco vending machines accept laser cards in payment for food. The machine reduces the card's value, originally forty dollars, each time the user buys food. Other cards will be used to record car repairs, guide a student's learning, and report economic news. The cards act almost like credit cards, and the owner controls their use.

'Why own so many cards? Why not have just one card containing a dedicated computer that performs all personal financial transactions? Such a card may be more of a reality than we think, says George Morrow, founder and chairman of the board of Morrow, Incorporated, maker of personal computers and computer equipment. Banks and creditors face mounting piles of paper, bad checks, and unpaid bills. They have already begun to solve the first problem through automatic tellers and EFT, and people now accept the use of credit cards. The next stop could be a card that would identify users, provide personal audits, balance checkbooks, and pay utility bills. The card would be used to buy food and clothing. The user would never have to balance a checkbook or worry about money being lost in the mail. Banks and stores would benefit because customers could not buy goods without having sufficient funds to cover their purchases. Criminals and thieves could be easily tracked; in a cashless society, they could make no purchases without their cards, and a remote computer could sense when a convicted criminal traveled more than two blocks from home. People with more than four speeding tickets could no longer buy gasoline because a remote computer would program their cards to deny them that privilege. Even governments would benefit. Cash-only deals would be eliminated, guaranteeing the federal government its income tax and state and local governments their sales taxes.

Yet such cards carry ominous implications. Governments would have control of everyone's money, and thereby could ensure "correct" behaviour. The cards could monitor the kind of things we buy. Perhaps we would only be able to buy "acceptable" publications, or our tastes in reading material would be recorded as "acceptable,""suspicious," or "criminal." ... Our lives would revolve around the cards. (pp. 379-380)

[In a forthcoming WWN, another section from the textbook - "Privacy and the Computer: the Demise of Confidentiality?"] --- End --- 1989 Special 4 -- "Seize Upon Circumstances"---