2002 Jan-Mar





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 2002 Jan - Mar


2002 Jan -- XXXV -- 1(02) -- "Let Them Make Me A Sanctuary" -- Editors Preface -- With this first issue of WWN for 2002, we will begin an analysis of a basic teaching of Adventism with the goal of seeking to "learn" - finding new incites - and to note areas wherein we need to "unlearn," so that the truth we hold may be "pure and unadulterated." We do not set forth these findings as infallible, but rather as suggestive where there needs to be deeper study.

The key doctrine of Adventism is the teaching and understanding of the Sanctuary of which God gave the blueprint to Moses. The Psalmist could sing, "Thy way, O God is in the sanctuary" (77:13). The God of Israel was revealed as One who "dwellest between the cherubim" (80:1). The conclusions drawn and the lessons to be learned are based on the principle of type and antitype. But to correctly state the truth of the antitype, one must be sure that all that the type reveals is included in the deductions made. One cannot take one part of the type as just ceremonial, and a corresponding part typical. For example:  On the Day of Atonement, Aaron in his capacity as High Priest was instructed to provide a bullock "for a sin offering ... for himself and for his house." He provided the sacrifice, but he did not place his hands on it in confession as he did the bullock he was required to bring should he lead the people into sin. Is one situation to be considered just a literal ceremonial act with no typical significance, and the other typical, or were both to have typical significance? We dare not make an interpretive error on this point, as the blood of the bullock provided by the High Priest for the Day of Atonement became a part of the blood used in the final cleansing at the Altar in the Court.

While preparing this issue of WWN (in October) we received a copy of a page from the August issue of OFF (really "off "). It is tragic, yet revealing how far the corrupted heart of man will take their theology and vent their antipathy. (See p. 7).

p 2 -- "We have many things to learn, and many, many things to unlearn.
God and heaven alone are infallible."

"Let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." -- In the directive given to Moses by God on the mount - "Let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them" - two factors are indicated:   1)   The sanctuary was to involve human construction - "Let them make Me" - and   2)   God would dwell therein - "I will dwell among them." The very essence of this directive was prophetic. Of the Word, John would write:
"The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (1:14). Here again are the same two factors. The Word came to be (egeneto ) flesh - He came into humanity - and tabernacled (eskhnwsen ) among us." Further, it shall ever be. In the revelation of the earth to come, a great voice out of heaven is heard saying, "Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them" (Rev. 21:3).

In the holy city, New Jerusalem, there is "no temple for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it" (Rev. 21:22). However, Scripture reveals another tabernacle, designated "the true tabernacle (skhnhV), which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2). Here the contrast is emphasized. The one at Sinai, man was asked to make; the heavenly, the Lord "pitched." The relationship between the two as defined in Scripture forms the basis of the doctrine of the sanctuary.

Perhaps we should summarize what the above revelation in Scripture is telling us:  1)   Both the tabernacle "pitched" by Moses, and the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched" were of temporary duration,
2)   Only the "Word made flesh" who in Himself embodied all that the "tabernacle" pitched by Moses symbolized remains eternally. It was He who could say to John: "I am the Living One, and was dead; and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen" (Rev. 1:18, Gr.).
3)   The "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched" was set up in Heaven. It was not heaven itself.

The heavenly "tabernacle" was pitched" to serve as the place of ministry for Jesus Christ as High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec. The earthly tabernacle "reared" by Moses (Ex. 40:17-18) was served by the Order of Aaron. The relationship between these two Orders needs to be clearly understood for this is basic in the doctrine of the sanctuary.

"The pattern . . shewed . . in the mount"-- Following the directive that Israel make a sanctuary, Moses was instructed that it be made according to "the pattern, which was shewed thee in the mount" (Ex. 25:9, 40). Linguistically, the Hebrew word translated, "pattern," in both of these verses - tavnith - is translated as "likeness," "similitude," "figure," "form," as well as "pattern," in other Old Testament references. The LXX renders the Hebrew word for pattern in verse 9 by paradeigma , and in verse 40 by tupoV, from which our English word, "type" is derived. We would designate it today as either a "blueprint," or a "scale model." In Hebrews 8:5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the LXX is followed (kata ton tupon). Actually in Hebrews 8:5, the variant ('upodeigma ) of the Greek word used in Exodus 25:9 ( paradeigma ) is used and in the KJV is translated, "example."

The question that must be determined is whether the relationship between the earthly tabernacle and the heavenly is structural or is it the services performed by the priests which typify the reality of Christ's priestly ministry. The context in Hebrews 8:4-5 where Exodus 25:40 is quoted, the KJV translation indicates the service motif over the structural comparison. It reads, speaking of the earthly temple:      There are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenlv things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount."

On the other hand, the NIV reads:      There are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. [The NKJV follows the NIV closely)

Which is right? Both the words "example" ('upodeigmati) and shadow (skia) are in the dative case. A. T. Robertson observes that in the use of the dative case, there was "originally no idea of place in it." It is purely a grammatical case "used of a person, not

p 3 -- place." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 536). The emphasis is not that the priests served in a "copy" (NIV, NKJV); but that they "serve unto the example and shadow" (KJV) of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ.

This distinction is basic to a Biblical doctrine of the sanctuary. The doctrine of the sanctuary is based in typology. Is the emphasis of this typology, a typology of structure, or a typology of service? The latter can be sustained Biblically as well as linguistically, as noted in the above paragraph. On that concept we shall seek to find answers to questions raised in a study of the doctrine of the sanctuary as we "learn" as well as "unlearn."

In the earthly "pattern," many priests served. (Heb. 7: 23). In the heavenly tabernacle, only One. In the earthly, various animals were offered, and their blood mediated. In the heavenly, there was but one sacrifice, "the Lamb of God , which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

Note:   The book of Revelation indicates that certain services performed by the common priest in the earthly tabernacle, are performed by "redeemed" men and angels in the heavenly. (4:8-10;

The main services of the earthly can be divided into two divisions, the daily and the yearly.

The Sin Offerings-- While a morning and evening sacrifice was offered daily (Ex. 29:38-42), there were also prescribed offerings by which corporate and individual confession was to be made for sins committed. These required offerings are listed in Leviticus 4. Four categories of sinners are given and what each was to offer and the result to be expected stated. The corporate transgressions involved the high priest - "the priest that is anointed" (4:3) - when acting in his official capacity; and the whole congregation (4:13). Individual transgressions involved the rulers (4:22), and the common people (4:27).

The result to be grasped by faith was forgiveness. In each category, save one, the statement is made - "it shall be forgiven them" or "him" (4:20, 26, 31, 35). Further, the forgiveness followed the mediation by the officiating priest. "The priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him." There was an atonement made in these confessional sacrifices. There were also other variations. The high priest - "the priest that is anointed" - officiated at the sacrifice of confession for corporate guilt (4:5, 16), while the common priest officiated in the sacrifice brought by the ruler or common person (4:25, 30, 34).

The application of the blood of the sacrifice varied. The blood of the offering confessing corporate guilt was taken within the sanctuary, and sprinkled before the veil separating between the holy and most holy place, and a record was made by placing some of the blood on the horns of "the altar of sweet incense before the Lord" (4:6-7, 17-18). In the case of the individual sin offering, whether offered by ruler or common person, the blood was not taken into the sanctuary, but the common priest marked the record of confession in blood on the horns of the Altar in the Court (4:25, 30, 34), and ate a small bite of the sacrifice (6:25-26). In all four categories of these sin offerings the remaining blood was poured at the base of the Altar of Burnt Offering (4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34). In the sacrifice of the sin offerings, the focus was centered around the Altar of Burnt Offering in the Court, not in the sanctuary.

The focus of the Christian faith is centered in the cross set up on earth upon which the Lamb of God was offered in making provision for the sin of the world. It was the Word made flesh Who provided the atonement by which forgiveness can be offered. He, as a common priest, officiated in the sacrifice of Himself for the individual who would come to Him in confession of sin. It was the atonement of the cross which provided the forgiveness. But the sinner requires more than forgiveness; he needs to be cleansed (I John 1:9). This must await His ministry as High Priest in "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:1-2).

Returning to the instruction regarding the sin offerings, we find that these offerings were for sins of ignorance. The preface reads:      If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done, . . . (4:2)

Then "when the sin which they have sinned ... is known" (4:14) confession is required. The directive reads for the ruler and common persons: "if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge," then he shall bring a sacrifice. Not only did the sinner place his hand upon the head of the victim, thereby giving evidence of his intent to transfer the guilt so that the victim paid the price for the sin committed, death; but

p 4 -- he also was to "confess that he hath sinned in that thing" (5:5). The sin had already been committed and a record made even though the sinner was in ignorance. But when convicted, he was to respond with a proper confession. That made it necessary for an offering to be made so that the sin might be forgiven.

The record of the sacrifice marked in blood upon the Altar in the Court, or on the Altar of Incense did not record the sin (it had already been recorded); but the confession, which was made so that the sin might be forgiven. (I John 1:9; Lev. 4:26) The Scripture is clear that our sins are known and recorded (Eccl. 5:6), even though we may be in ignorance. If the confession of sin is the means by which the sins are recorded, then the best way to have a clean record is not to confess or recognize the Substitute. This concept strikes at the very heart of the plan of redemption.

The Day of Atonement -- The day of Atonement is listed among the "feasts of the Lord" in Leviticus 23. Today, in Judaism, this Feast is the most important day of their yearly religious rites; yet in the Old Testament, there is no record of any celebration of this feast. In the Gospels there is no mention of Christ ever attending this feast as He did the Passover. This we can understand; Jesus needed no cleansing since He did no sin. There is an allusion to the day in Acts 27:9. "The day" in Hebrews 10:25 could refer to the Day of Atonement.

The preface to the listing of the "feasts" in Leviticus 23 notes the Sabbath commandment as a "holy convocation" even as the "feasts" were to be so proclaimed (verses 2-3). There is a reason. Concerning the Sabbath, the commandment specifies - "ye shall do no work therein: it is a sabbath of rest in all your dwellings" (ver. 3). All the other feasts - the Passover, Pentecost, the Memorial of the Trumpets and the Tabernacles, the command was simply - "Ye shall do no servile work therein" (verses 8, 21, 25, 35). However, the command concerning the Day of Atonement carried the same injunction as the Sabbath - "Ye shall do no manner of work" (ver. 31). The significance of the Sabbath rest would likewise be the significance of the rest for the Day of Atonement. In Hebrews (4:10) speaking of the Sabbath in connection with the "rest" of God promised in Christ Jesus (Matt. 11:28-30), it reads that one who enters into that rest "hath ceased from his own works." Likewise, the one who receives the final atonement must cease from his own works, and rely solely on the High Priest. If not, he will be destroyed "from among his people" (Lev. 23:30).

There is another interesting aspect to the Day of Atonement not indicated in the KJV. The text reads:       On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew): it shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is the day of atonements (plural in the Hebrew), to make atonement for you before the Lord your God. (Lev. 23:27-28).

Why the plural? There are two possibilities. In the outline of the services to be performed on the tenth day of the seventh month, there is enumerated a series of atonements to be accomplished by the High Priest (Lev. 16:32-33), thus it was literally a "days of atonements." The other possibility is that it is the use of the pluralis majestaticus v. excellentiae (majestic plural) as is ascribed to the word, Elohim, the plural form for God in the Hebrew. If it is this later possibility, the use elevates this day above all the other ceremonial feast days.

The services to be performed by the High Priest alone on that day are outlined in Leviticus 16. There are some details of a typical nature that need to be carefully considered not only for "learning" but also for some "unlearning." [It needs to be kept in mind that the term, "holy" coupled with the supplied word, "place" in this chapter refers to what we often call the "Most Holy Place," or the inner apartment of the sanctuary. The phrase, "tabernacle of the congregation" (v.17) is used to designate the first apartment, which we often refer to as, "The Holy Place."]

The instruction given to Moses for Aaron begins with a specific warning. He was not to come into the Most Holy Place except on one day of each year the Day of Atonement (v.2). He was told what to bring: "a young bullock as a sin offering, and ram for a burnt offering" (v.3). The first thing which must be decided is the question - Is this offering to be considered typical, or was it just a part of the ceremonial procedure? In other words, did Aaron function on the Day of Atonement in his High Priestly capacity as a type of the ministry of the great High Priest of the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched"?

If Aaron so functioned, then there is significance in the fact that he provided the "young bullock" which he offered. Since the great High Priest must Himself "have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3), He pres-

p 5 -- ents Himself as the Mediator of His own blood. In the typical services of this day, the blood of the young bullock is carried into the Most Holy Place prior to the blood of "the Lord's goat" (16:14). Further, when the last act of atonement was made on the Day, the blood of the bullock, and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled to accomplish the final cleansing (v.18). This is saying something. The accomplishment of the last act of the atonement is by the power of both Him that sits between the cherubim, and He who ministers as the Divine Intercessor. This typical message dare not be overlooked. It will appear again as we continue our study.

Two other factors need to be observed in regard to Aaron's offering. In both his corporate capacity, should he lead the congregation into sin, and now in his functioning on the day of Atonement, a "young" bullock was involved (Lev. 4:3; 16:3). In the reality of the offering provided for both forgiveness and for cleansing, it was made by One who "was cut off out of the land of the living" (Isa. 53:8). He gave Himself in the prime of His earthly experience.

In Leviticus 16, the offering of Aaron is defined as "for himself, and for his house" (v.6). Is this to be considered as "for himself" as a sinner, or is it typical of the fact that the great Antitype gave Himself for us, as just noted above? No hands of confession were laid on this bullock by Aaron, even though designated as a "sin offering." It was a sin offering "for his house." Was this for his own family? It does say in a summary of the "atonements", that one was an "atonement for the priests" (v. 33). It needs to be kept in mind that the take off point in the book of Hebrews for the discussion of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ was His being "a son over his own house."

Hebrews 1 presents Christ as God, worthy of worship, and as a Son through whom God has spoken. Hebrews 2, presents Him as a man of "the seed of Abraham, ... made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest." Then Chapter 3 asks us as "partakers of the heavenly calling" to "consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession." The first thing Paul presents is a comparison between two "houses" - the house of Moses, and the house of Christ. It also needs to be remembered that Aaron was to be only a spokesman to Moses (Ex. 4:16). It was Moses who erected and anointed the tabernacle of the congregation, as well as dedicating Aaron to the priesthood (Exodus 40). Aaron served as Moses' "alter ego" with whom God had made the "typical" covenant (Ex. 34:27).

Returning to the services performed on the Day of Atonement, we note that besides the "young bullock," there were to be two goats provided by the congregation, both of which were to be for "a sin offering" (v. 5). Lots were to be cast over these goats, and one was to be the Lord's goat and the other for Azazel (v. 8; margin). Both goats in the type would bear the consequences of sin, one vicariously, the other as the recipient of the due judgment on sin.

On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest went three times into the Most Holy Place:
1)  With a golden censer "full of live coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense" (v.12).
2)  With the blood of the bullock which was spinkled once upon the mercy seat, and seven times before it. (v.14).
3)  With the blood of the Lord's goat which was ministered the same as the blood of the bullock. (v.15).

Inasmuch as the live coals were taken from the Altar of Burnt Offering, and each of the two sacrifices were made at the same altar, the High Priest on the Day of Atonement moved three times from the Altar in the Court into the Most Holy Place, and then returned to the same Altar to complete the Atonement. In type, the High Priest did not go into the Most Holy Place and remain there the entire day. Here is one facet of the typical services on the Day of Atonement where there is needed, not only "learning" but also much "unlearning," so that the presentation of the Antitypical Day of Atonement will coincide with the type.

The ministration of the blood in the Most Holy Place is twofold:  1)  "Because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and  2)  "Because of their transgressions in all their sins" (v.16). Here is the record of all sins, yet no blood was ever brought into the Most Holy Place, whether for corporate or individual sins via the sin offerings prescribed. At this point, in type, the record was cleansed; but "the uncleanness" was not cleansed until the final ministration at the Altar in the
Court, when the blood of the bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled for that objective (vs. 18-19).

The passing from the Most Holy to the Alter of Incense in the Holy Place is only briefly noted (v. 16b). The instruction as what was to be done is given in

p 6 -- Exodus 30:10. Atonement was "to be made upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements." On it only was placed the record of confessed corporate guilt. Is the brevity of the instruction concerning the ministration in the Holy Place indicative of how hard it is for religious leaders to acknowledge their transgression in leading God's people into apostasy, or for corporate groups to confess their guilt as a body, and thus so little repentance, if any, is recorded.

The final cleansing at the Altar in the Court needs careful study. While the ministry in the Most Holy cleared the record of sin, the atonement at the Altar reached to "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (v.19). Unless the source of sin is cleansed, the acts of sin will not cease. The combined blood was placed on the horns of the Altar where the record of acknowledgment and confession had been placed (Lev. 4:30). It covered over the blood which had been placed there during the year. The antitype is summarized concisely by John when he wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9). Here is the whole yearly typical service regarding sin in one sentence, and the one single act, we do in that full redemption, confess ourselves to be what we are, and from which we cannot deliver ourselves.

Let us review so as to see the overall picture. Let us retrace the steps placing ourselves in the typical yearly services. We sin, and becoming conscious of our guilt, we bring the specified offering. On it we place our hands in full weight, confessing our sin. We then slay the victim. The officiating priest takes of the blood, and by it, places the record of confession on the horns of the Altar. In his priestly ministration, the priest makes the atonement for us, and we are forgiven. The Day of Atonements comes. The record of sin is to be confronted, and carried away. We are to be cleansed. What can we do? Afflict our souls, and cease to trust in any of our works. Again it is a priest that ministers; however, on this day, it is the High Priest, and he alone. He ministers with the blood from victims on which no hands of confession are laid. For the final phase, part of the blood of cleansing, he himself has provided; the other part is blood from a goat that has become by lot the Lord's. We come in the words of the hymn, "nothing in our hands to bring" but simply to the Cross to cling.

"And when (the High Priest hath made an end of reconciling the (most) holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat" (Lev. 16:21). This live goat, by lot belonged to Azazel, as much as the sacrificed goat belonged to the Lord. (ver. 8, margin). While the two goats were taken for "a sin offering" (v.5), only the Lord's goat was so sacrificed. With the live goat, "an atonement" was to be made with him, but not a blood atonement (v. 10). After "an end" of reconciliation was made with the mingled blood, then the goat for Azazel was brought into the typical ceremony. The High Priest was to place both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and "confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgression in all their sins" (v.21).

It should be observed that the High Priest bore the sins of Israel, but not their uncleanness (Heb. 7:26). The sins were transferred to the goat for Azazel, but only the sins of Israel, not the rest of the world. No blood atonement was made by this scapegoat, only a judgment because of those sins. The great antitypical High Priest who in "His own self (bore) our sins in His own body on the tree" (I Peter 2:24), has every right to take what He paid for, and assign the accounting to the source of that which cost Him so much.

To "Learn" and to "Unlearn" --
1)  We observed in our study, that both the sanctuary built under the direction of Moses according to the "pattern" given by God in communion with him on Mt. Sinai, and the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched," were of temporary duration.
2)  The "true tabernacle" which the Lord pitched" and in which He ministered was "pitched" in heaven, and was not heaven itself.
3)  The sin offerings were not to record sin, or to transfer it to the sanctuary, but were confessional of sins already committed, and the record of that confession.
4)  There was an atonement in connection with the daily sin offerings which resulted in forgiveness.
5)  The high priest on the Day of Atonements functioned in all his duties as a type of the high priestly ministry of Jesus Christ. This included his offering of the bullock for himself and his house.
6)  On the Day of Atonements, the High Priest went three times in and out of the Most Holy Place. He did

p 7 -- not remain in the Most Holy all day, in fact the last act of the Atonement was completed in the Court at the Altar of Burnt Offering.

A Connecting Link -- On the Day of Atonements, special holy garments were designated for the High Priest to wear. He was to be clothed in linen from his head mitre to his ankles. (Lev. 16:4). Careful observation of this fact, links other Scriptures into the study of the Day of Atonements and God's design in its realization.

In Ezekiel 9, the man with a "writer's inkhorn" by his side was "clothed with linen" (v.2). This is emphasized three times (vs. 2, 3, 11). In Zechariah 3, there is another symbolic representation of filthy garments and a change of raiment. An interesting comment is made concerning this text of Scripture: "Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing up of the great day of atonement" (5T:472). We shall note these two visions of Scripture as we continue our "learning" and "unlearning" investigation.

A Terroristic Attitude -- On September 11, 2001 the terrible tragedy which occurred, both in New York and the nation's capital, accelerated the course the American democracy was taking under the Bush administration. The loss of human life, and the way in which it was lost, strikes horror to the human heart. Not alone in the tragedy is the "terroristic attitude" revealed, but the reaction to that tragedy by communities sympathetic with its perpetrators was shocking.

In World Press Review (November 2001, p.45) is a picture of Palestinians in Lebanon celebrating exuberantly what had happened, after hearing the news. This reaction was quite widespread in the Middle East. But such a terroristic attitude is not limited alone to the world of politics, but manifests itself even within the community of Adventism.

Since 1950, Elders Wieland and Short have sought to bring to the church the grave consequences of rejecting the message of 1888. In 1967, the General Conference made a final rejection of the manuscript submitted by these brethren in 1950. Then in 1994 a Primacy of the Gospel Committee studied the understandings of the 1888 Message Study Committee which had been formed since the 1967 rejection. This past year the convictions of the Study Committee were rejected.

One reaction to the rejection - echoing the same "terroristic" mind set as the Palestinians - is found in Our Firm Foundation (OFF), (August, p.14). It reads:      We applaud the General Conference for rejecting the "message" of the 1888 Message Committee, with its diabolical teachings of Donald K. Short, Robert J. Wieland, and Jack Sequeira. Their teachings and twisting of the gospel are indeed dangerous winds of doctrine.

Basically, it is a choice between the Pauline concept of faith that works, and the Counsel of Trent's position of faith and works as a basis of salvation. OFF's position coincides with the Council of Trent. This is only one of OFF's "network" of questionable doctrines. In describing the Incarnation, Ron Spear wrote - "In the prenatal experience, while in her womb, Christ was inheriting Mary's love for God." (Waymarks of Adventism, 2nd Edition [1981], p.39) Was the incarnation not God manifest in the flesh, and is not God the very essence of love? Why all of this Mariology? Papal oriented? Then they charge "dangerous winds of doctrine"! OFF further compounds their "network" of dangerous doctrines by advocating the doctrine of the Incarnation as taught by the Holy Flesh advocates at the turn of the 20th Century, that Christ came "born, born again."

While there are certain points that have been connected by Wieland and Short to their presentation of the 1888 Message which need further study and clarification, there can be no justification of applauding the decision of a church which is itself in apostasy. --- (2002 Jan) --- End --- TOP

2002 Feb -- XXXV -- 2(02) -- "Mark a Tau" -- Editors preface -- Whenever Ezekiel 9, which can be related to the ritual of the typical Day of Atonement, is studied, the question follows as to what is the "seal of God," as well as to what is its prophetic antithesis, the "mark of the beast." In this issue we follow the same sequence of study. The "man clothed in linen" places a mark on the foreheads of certain inhabitants of Jerusalem. What is that "mark"? There is no way to arrive at the conclusion that the "mark" in Ezekiel 9 is the same as the "seal" in Revelation 7 if we use the format which mark some seals as used in today's legal transactions.

The conflict between God and the "beast" is about worship. We worship either "Him who made," or we worship the beast, and his image and receive a mark. However, associated with the message to worship the Creator, is the "everlasting gospel." Is there a "gospel" involved with the "beast"? All of these factors must be considered to arrive at a correct answer as to the "mark."

Back in 1998, the current Pope issued an Apostolic Letter discussing the Dies Domini. He suggested that "Christians will naturally strive to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy" (#67). This caused widespread comment. However, three years earlier this same call was made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2188) and little was said. The real emphasis in both the Catechism, as well as the Apostolic Letter, was the altering of the Catholic explanation and claim for the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. Further, the emphasis on Sunday worship is centered in the celebration of the Eucharist the Mass. This sacrament of the Eucharist is considered "the source and summit of the Christian life." (#1324. 1st ed.)

p 2 -- "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible." -- "Mark a Tau" -- The Tau is the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. This was the mark which the "man clothed in linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side" was instructed to place on the foreheads of those "that sign and cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst" of Jerusalem. (Ezekiel 9:2, 4). The margin in the KJV gives the literal rendering to verse 4, "mark a mark." Besides being the name of the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, it had a word meaning as well. It meant a mark or a sign "especially in the form of a cross." "It is related of the synod of Chalcedon, and other oriental synods, that the bishops who could not write their names affixed the mark of the cross instead of them; and this is common at the present day in the case of persons who cannot write" (Gesenius, Hebrew & English Lexicon of the Old Testament, art., "tau," p. 1121).

All of this data could open up speculative interpretations which should be avoided. The context within this vision given to Ezekiel suggests that the concept of the Tau as the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet has merit. It is placed upon the foreheads of a "last" people of God. Throughout this vision, the "man" who places the tau is described as "clothed in linen" (vs. 2, 3, 11). This was the type of cloth of which the attire of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement was made. (Lev. 16:4). The "man clothed in linen" with the other six having slaughtering weapons in their hands, come and stand at the brazen altar where the last act of reconciliation was performed ceremonially on that day. (Lev. 16:18-20). He who was enthroned above the cherubim moved to the threshold of the sanctuary, and gave commandment to the man clothed in linen at the Altar.

In the book of Revelation, this last group, those which are "redeemed from among men," have "the Father's name written in their foreheads" (Rev. 14:4, 1). We would not, nor could we conceive suggesting that God signs His name with an "x." However, the Father has been closely identified with the Cross. He "was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself" (II Cor. 5:19). In Revelation, the vision of God upon the throne includes the "Lamb as it had been slain" standing in the midst.

In the typical service of the Day of Atonement, the objective concerned a select group of people - only those who had confessed their sins, and received the results of the first atonement, forgiveness. Likewise the placing of the special mark is confined to a select group, those who sigh and cry for the abomination done in the midst of a special city, a city where God had placed His name. In this vision of Ezekiel, the same One who would provide forgiveness, placed the mark on the recipients of that forgiveness. When "the man clothed in linen" completed his work, he reported back to the One seated on the cherubim (v.11).

The Chapter also contains a revelation of a description of the work of the men with slaughtering weapons. These execute the wrath of God against those who have filled Jerusalem with "a wresting of judgment" (v.9, margin), a stretching or bending of what is right, while making it more acceptable, mitigates its witness. On the typical Day of Atonement, there was to be soul affliction, and the one not so doing, would be cut off. (Lev. 23:29). "Soul affliction" is incompatible with "a wresting of judgment." While the "man clothed in linen" is doing his work of "marking" those sighing and crying in their "soul affliction;" others also under the direct command of God do their work against those who are perverting the way of God. They slay "utterly" beginning at God's sanctuary with "the ancient men which are before the house" (9:6). There is much to learn from this prophecy, so as not to make a wrong interpretation or application.

The "man clothed in linen" does not pass from view, for in the next phase of this extended vision shown to Ezekiel, He again appears, but minus "the writer's inkhorn" (10:2, 6, 7). The marking had been done. (9:11). Now another command awaits him. This command and the symbolism connected with it demands our careful study.

From the throne (10:1) the "man clothed in linen" was instructed -       Go in between the wheels, even under the cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the cherubim, and scatter them over the city." (10:2)

These cannot be considered "coals" of destruction, because the men with slaughtering weapons had already slain "utterly" all who had not been marked (9:6). Those remaining in the city were only the marked ones, and on these were scattered "the coals of fire from between the cherubim." Here again we see the mingled blood (Lev. 16:18) of the final atone-

p 3 -- ment - the Man clothed in linen, who marked His people with a "mark of redemption;" and the One on the throne who provided "coals of fire" for their cleansing. (See Isaiah. 6:6-7) Then "the court was full of the brightness of the Lord's glory" (Eze. 10:4). Is this again alluded to in Revelation 18:1 - "and the earth [the court] was lightened with his glory"?

"Joshua was Clothed with Filthy Garments" -- The revelation given to Zechariah in the vision of the third chapter demands careful study. Joshua, the high priest stands in judicial review before, "the angel of the Lord" with "Satan standing at his (Joshua's) right hand to resist him" (v.1). As the vision unfolds, this Angel is designated simply as "the Lord" (v. 2) and His redemptive powers as the Messiah are revealed (v. 4). Further, this Divine Messenger proclaims the promise and the objective of the Lord of hosts to be realized by His messianic servant, "the BRANCH" (vs. 7-8). There is a close relationship between these verses and the revelation in Chapter 6:12-13, which reveals "The BRANCH" as the One who will accomplish the design of "the counsel of peace which was between the Two of Them" (Heb).

Here in Zechariah 3 are all the elements symbolized in the services of the typical Day of Atonement: the mingled blood of the bullock and the Lord's goat to accomplish the final cleansing (the action of the Messianic Lord and the decree of the Lord of hosts); the scapegoat for Azazel (Satan standing at the right hand of Joshua); the High Priest carrying in himself the sins of the children of Israel, and placing them on the head of the scapegoat (Joshua clothed in filthy garments); and the ultimate atonement, the removal of the uncleanness of the children of Israel (the change of raiment and the removal of all iniquity). (See Leviticus 16).

In this vision given to Zechariah, the High Priest is standing for the people as the mediator between them and Jehovah. When the office was instituted, not only was the high priest to carry Israel in symbol in the two onyx stones set in gold placed on his shoulders (Ex. 28:11-12) and in the breastplate (28:29); but there was a special significance to the plate of pure gold which he was to wear on his forehead on which were engraved the words, "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" (28:36) The instruction states:      And it (the plate) shall be upon Aaron's forehead, that Aaron may bear the inequity of the holy things which the children of Israel shall hallow in their holy gifts, and it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord" (Ez. 28:38)

Keil & Delitzsch make a very enlightening comment on this verse. It reads:      The high priest was exalted into an atoning mediator of the whole nation, and an atoning sin-exterminating intercesion was associated with his office. The qualification for this he received from the diadem upon his forehead with the inscription "holiness to the Lord." Through this inscription, which was fastened upon his head-dress of brilliant white, the earthly reflection of holiness, he was crowned as sanctified to the Lord, and endowed with the power to exterminate the sin wich clung to the holy offerings of the people on account of the unholiness of their nature, so that the gifts of the nation became well-pleasing to the Lord, and the good pleasure of God was manifest to the nation. (Commentary of the Old Testament, Vol.1, pp.203-204)

When we understand that the Aaronic priesthood was but typical of the reality, Jesus Christ, High Priest forever after the Order of Melchizedec, then the "sin exterminating intercession" which was basic in the final atonement, takes on renewed significance in the light of the vision to Zechariah. First, Joshua, standing for the people, could not remove his filthy garments. They had to be taken from him. The command was given by the Divine Messenger, "Take away the filthy garments from him" (3:4). Joshua could refuse, knowing the result - he would at some point be naked before the Lord. He had a choice. Either respond as did Adam, and make himself a garment of "fig leaves," or accept the provision of the Divine Mediator: "I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will give thee a change of raiment."

It is either faith or works, my works to achieve perfection, or faith to believe what the great High Priest says He will and can do. The message of the type declared plainly that the High Priest alone accomplished the cleansing on the typical Day of Atonement. The vision given to Zechariah states likewise that the Divine Messenger, The BRANCH, will do for man that which he cannot do for himself, take away his "filthy garments" and give him a change of raiment.

The concept that the high priest stood for Israel before God is echoed in the New Testament motif of being "in Christ." "Ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:10); "Your life is hid with Christ in God" (3:3); "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (II Cor. 5:17). Even the hope of the resurrection is based in this relation-

p 4 -- ship: "the dead in Christ shall arise first" (I Thess. 4:16). "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22). It was Paul's desire to "be found in Him, not having [his] own righteousness, which is of the law but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3:9).

There are two other revelations in this vision given to Zechariah which need further and careful study:   1)   The results of the mediation of the Divine Messenger produce "men wondered at" (v.8). The margin, indicating the Hebrew, states that these cleansed ones will be "men of wonder." What does this mean? And   2)   The "Lord of hosts" declares that He "will remove the iniquity of the land in one day" (v.9). The question is, does this apply to the final cleansing of the earth by fire at the end of the age, or is this speaking of the final "manifestation of the sons of God" (Rom. 8:19) just prior to the close of probation?

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary, but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor, who is at God's right hand, presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with merits of Christ's propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.

Oh, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving, must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat. (Manuscript 50, 1900)

The Seal of God and the Mark of the Beast -- Any discussion of Ezekiel 9 involving "the mark" is then associated with Revelation 7 involving the "sealing" of the 144,000. The text in Revelation reads:       I saw another angel ascending from the east having the seal of the living God: ... And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel (vs. 2, 4).

The antithesis of the "seal of God" in Revelation is the "mark of the beast" (14:9). Because of little study and much less reflection on the Scriptures, many in Adventism give an elementary answer to what this "seal" and "mark" is. These quickly respond that the "seal" is keeping the Sabbath, and the "mark" is keeping Sunday. It is true the Roman Church claims in their catechisms, and other publications, that the change in the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday is an evidence of her power "to institute festivals of precept." Further, they boast that this change accepted by Protestants "is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Roman] Church." However, these admissions and boastings carry the "imprimatur" and "nihil obstat" of that Church. This is not the case when dealing with the single quotation from a papal source which designates this act as a "mark" of "her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters," and which is then used to define Sunday, as "the mark of the beast." Simple handlIng of truth demands that we have more substantial evidence than this, to so interpret Biblical symbolism which is given such prominence in prophecy.

First, let us consider the letter which is the basis for the documentation of the conclusion drawn. It was written in 1895 by J. F. Snyder of Bloomington, Illinois, to James Cardinal Gibbons, the leading Roman prelate in America at that time. H. F. Thomas, the office manager of the Diocesan office in Baltimore replied.

Currently, the only source available to me of this exchange is in the book, Facts of Faith (pp. 292-293), One part of Snyder's letter, quoted verbatim is the phrase, "as a mark of her power" in reference to the change of the Sabbath. The Chancellor's reply is

p 5 -- quoted (in full, or in part is not indicated) and reads:       Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act. It could not have been otherwise, as none in those days would have dreamed of doing anything in matters spiritual and ecclesiastical without her. And the act is a mark of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.

The word, "mark" used by Thomas, was suggested by Snyder. However, the Chancellor's letter does not carry the official imprimatur of the Papal Church. To base a concept of what is "the mark of the beast," which is so pointedly discussed in the book of Revelation, on this single letter in which the idea of "mark" was suggested by the questioner is itself open to question.

In 1995, the first 825 page English edition of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church was published by Doubleday, to be followed in 1997 by a 904 page second edition revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Both editions carried the Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum in which the Pope declared the Catechism "to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" (p. 5, 2nd Edition).

Nowhere in this new Catechism do you find stated as is to be found in The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine. It read:
Q.  Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A.  We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (AD. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday (p.50)

This Catechism not only carried a double imprimatur as well as a nihil obstat, but also its author, Peter Geiermann, received a letter of commendation from the Vatican bestowing the Apostolic Blessing of Pius X, expressing the Pope's appreciation of his "zealous efforts ... for the spread of the knowledge of the True Faith" (p.3).

Nor can there be found as stated in A Doctrinal Catechism by Stephen Keenan which read:
Q.  Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A.  Has she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionist agree with her; - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the sevenith day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. (p.174).

This catechism carried the imprimatur of Cardinal McCloskey, Archbishop of New York (circa 1876).

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church holds:       The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of His universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfils the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up the rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of His people. (#2176, 2nd Edition)

Prior to this conclusion, it sets for the Sabbath as "the seventh day" giving Scriptural reference, noting that it not only recalled the creative acts of God, but that it also serves as "a memorial of Israel's liberation from bondage in Egypt" (#2170, 2nd ed.; emphasis theirs). Further, it is stated: "God entrusted the sabbath to Israel to keep as a sign of the irrevocable covenant. The Sabbath is for the Lord, holy and set apart for the praise of God, His work of creation, and His saving actions on behalf of Israel" (#2171, ibid.) Following this section on the Sabbath is a section on "The Lord's Day." How is its observance in place of the Sabbath justified? As an edict of Rome to show the power of the Church to change the day? Does it become a "mark" of her authority in religious matters? No! Note carefully:        Jesus rose from the dead "on the first day of the week." Because it is the first day," the day of Christ's Resurection recalls the first creation. Because it is the "eighth day" following the sabbath, it symbolizes the new creation ushered in by Christ's Resurrection. For Christians it has become the first of all days, the first feast of all feasts, the Lord's Day (he kuriake hemera, dies dominica) - Sunday (#2174, sec. ed.)

They reason further - "Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfils the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God" (#2175).

[It is of interest to observe that "sabbath" is never captialized in these sections of the Catechism, while "Sunday" and "the Lord's Day" are. It is also of interest to observe that the text of Scripture used to preface the section on "The Lord's Day" is from the Psalms (118:24) - "This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it" - a text frequently used by Protestants in their justification of

p 6 -- Sunday, especially the Church of Christ. In his encyclical, Dies Domini, John Paul II declares, "Rightly, then, the Psalmist's cry is applied to Sunday" and quotes this text. (#2)]

The next section in the Catechism is captioned - "The Sunday Eucharist." It dare not be overlooked. The first sentence reads - "The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life" (emphasis supplied). Then the Codex luris Canonici is quoted: "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church" (#2177). This same Codex is quoted further as "the law of the Lord" stating that "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass." "The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice" (#2181). It is on this point that the Catechism calls for legislation:      In respecting religious liberty and the common good of all, Christians should seek recognition of Sundays and the Church's holy days as legal holidays. They have to give to everyone a public example of prayer, respect, and joy and defend their traditions as a precious contribution to the spiritual life of society. (#2188).

This objective, officially stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, reflects the plans of Rome as stated in The Liberal Illusion by Louis Veuillot in 1866 which read:        When the time comes and men realize that the social edifice must be rebuilt according to eternal standards, be it tomorrow or centuries from now, the Catholics will arrange things to suit said standards. ... They will make obligatory the religious observance of Sunday on behalf of the whole of society, and for its own good, revoking the permit for free-thinkers and Jews to celebrate incognito, Monday or Saturday on their own account. (p.63; the author's emphasis).

Observe closely the wording - "revoking the permit ... to celebrate incognito" (in secret) the Sabbath. This gives an enlarged perspective to the whole question. It will not only be what is perceived as necessary for the good of "the whole of society" - "the religious observance of Sunday" - but also what you individually will be forbidden to do, even secretly, that which God commands to done - "Keep my sabbaths" (Lev. 26:2). The test will not be a Sunday closing law which forbids work on Sunday such as could be termed a "National Sunday Law" but what is perceived by Rome as "the religious observance" of Sunday. This "religious observance" is clearly defined in the Catechism - the celebration of the Mass!

Another factor in this picture needs to be considered. As noted above, the Catechism declares "the Sunday Eucharist" as "the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice." (par. 2181) Further, participation in the Sunday Eucharist "is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church" (par. 2182). In light of the fact that the Scripture indicates that the "mark" can be received in the forehead, or in the hand (Rev. 14:9), the significance of how the Mass is received needs careful consideration. In a section captioned - "How to Receive Communion" - the first sentence reads, "Holy Communion may be received on the tongue or in the hand ..." (Handbook for Today's Catholic, p.42). The desired response is then indicated:       When the minister of the Eucharist addresses the communicant with the words, "The Body of Christ," "The Blood of Christ," the communicant responds, "Amen."

What is the meaning and significance of this mental assent?       When the minister raises the eucharistic bread or wine, this is an invitation for the communicant to make an Act of Faith to express his or her belief in the Eucharist, to manifest a need and desire for the Lord to accept the good news of Jesus' paschal mystery.

A clear and meaningful "Amen" is your response to this invitation. In this way you profess your belief in the presence of Christ in the eucharistic bread and wine as well as in his Body, the Church. (ibid.)

Whether the "bread" rests in my hand, or in my mouth, my mind, literally my fore-head gives consent, and I am a member of the Body of Rome. However, I have also given consent recognizing the blasphemous assertion of Rome that a man (the priest) can create the Lord Jesus Christ and offer him in sacrifice. This is truly "in place of," the significance and meaning of the Greek word, AntiChrist (anticristoV), in place of Christ. [The Greek preposition, anti, means "in place of " rather than our English usage of "anti" - against.]

The Three Angels' Messages place in direct contrast two calls "to worship." One, in connection with the "everlasting gospel," is "to worship Him" who has the genuine power to create (Rev. 14:7). The other is a dire warning of judgment for "any man" who worships "the beast and his image" (v. 9). It must be clearly understood, that one does not worship a day, but he worships on a day some Person, or object Who or

p 7 -- which is declared worthy of adoration.

There can be no question but that the Sabbath is the memorial of the creative action of God, blessed and sanctified by His resting thereon (Gen. 2:3). Further, in the irrevocable Ten Words, God asked that this day be remembered and kept holy, because He did create the "heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" in six days, and "rested on the seventh day" (Ex. 20:8, 11). When this law was repeated to Israel before they entered the Promised Land, the Sabbath was prefaced with a second call to "remember" another and different manifestation of the power of God.
Moses said:       And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day" (Deut 5:15).

Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Dies Domini, picks up on this factor and uses it as the basis for the change from Sabbath to Sunday. He wrote, "The connection between the Sabbath rest and the theme of 'remembering' is found also in the Book of Deuteronomy where the precept is grounded less in the work of creation than in the liberation accomplished by God in the Exodus" (#17). After quoting Deuteronomy 5:15, he adds - "This formulation complements the one we have already seen [creation], and taken together, the two reveal the meaning of  'the Lord's Day ' with a single theological vision which fuses creation and salvation" (ibid.) Then he concludes:      What God accomplished in creation and wrought for his People in the Exodus has found its fullest expression in Christ's Death and Resurrection. ... It was in the Paschal Mystery that humanity ... came to know its new "exodus" into the freedom of God's children who cry out with Christ, "Abba, Father!" In the light of this mystery, the meaning of the Old testament precept concerning the Lord's Day is recovered, perfected and fully revealed in the glory which shines on the face of the Risen Christ. We move from the "Sabbath" to the "first day after the Sabbath," from the seventh day to the first day: the dies Domini becomes dies Christi! (#18).

We must never forget that connected with the First Angel's Message to "worship Him who made," is the "everlasting gospel" (Rev. 14:6), with its deliverance from sin. On Friday, Jesus finished the work given Him to do, and "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." On the first day, He arose to begin a new phase of His saving ministry - a Heavenly Priesthood - which will end when He comes again the second time "without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28).

The Seal of God involves not only the observance of the Sabbath as the memorial of God's creative work, but also the Gospel of God's redemptive work in and through the Lord Jesus Christ. On the other hand, the Mark of the Beast involves the first day of the week of Rome's sanctification and the false gospel in the worship and sacrifice of a wafer-god created by man.

What is the seal of the living God, which is placed in the foreheads of His people? It is a mark which angels, but not human eyes, can read; for the destroying angel must see this mark of redemption. The intelligent mind has seen the sign of the cross of Calvary in the Lord's adopted sons and daughters. The sin of the transgression of the law of God is taken away. They have on the wedding garment, and are obedient and faithful to all God's commands. (Letter 126, 1898)

We would suggest to all that in reading the issues of WWN beginning with XXXV-1(02)until we complete our search of that which we need to both "learn and unlearn" that you check each reference carefully in your Bible. If you have either questions or challenges, we would be happy to receive them for our further study and/or reply. --- (2002 Feb) --- End --- TOP

2002 Mar -- XXXV - 3(02) -- "The Judgment Was Set" -- Editors Preface -- In the course of our Church history, we have had problems with the doctrine of the Atonement. Adopting the position of Crosier from his study on the Sanctuary following the Great Disappointment in 1844, we denied that there was an atonement made at the Cross, and declared that there was only one atonement, the final, which began with the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 in 1844. The very use of the designation, "final" would indicate more than one atonement. Then in the infamous SDA-Evangelical conferences, we denied what we had taught regarding the final atonement and declared with emphasis - "Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement. 'Christ has redeemed us' (Gal. 3:13) 'once for all' Heb. 10:10). Q on D, p. 390) In this compromise, we indicated plainly that a single atonement was completed on the Cross. In fact, the Adventist conferees went so far as to declare that Christ obtained nothing for us at the time of His entrance upon His priestly ministry, nor has He at any time since, because "He had already obtained it for us on the cross." (ibid., p. 381). If the typical priestly ministry in the Hebrew Sanctuary has meaning as the book of Hebrews indicates (Heb. 8:5), then there is a dual atonement, one involving forgiveness and one cleansing.

Beginning in earnest with Ballenger, and climaxing in Dr. Desmond Ford's assault on the Doctrine of the Sanctuary, we have faced serious challenges to a basic Adventist teaching. Ballanger based his thrust on the cry of Jesus on the Cross, "It is finished." In this issue of WWN, we discuss these words of Jesus, what He meant, as well as consider things needed to be learned, and unlearned in our teachings regarding aspects of the Sanctuary question. Perhaps, if we had done so before, we might have escaped the tragedy of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences.

p 2 -- "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible." "The Judgment Was Set and the Books were opened" -- In recent decades, this prophetic "Judgment" scene in Daniel 7:10 has been called "the pre-Advent judgment," instead of "the investigative judgment" by which it was known at its inception when set forth as an explanation of what did occur when Christ entered His final ministry in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary. Closely associated with this "Judgment" is the focus of the paralleling prophecy in Daniel 8 on the sanctuary - "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (v.14). This introduces into the prophetic picture the typical Day of Atonement, when annually, the earthly sanctuary was figuratively cleansed. Add to this, the announcement of the First Angel of Revelation 14 - "The hour of His judgment is come" (v.7) - and you have the heart and core of Adventism.

A. F. Ballenger, a powerful preacher and revivalist, was one of the first to challenge this core teaching. In the 1890s, his revival meetings in Battle Creek centered on "Receive Ye the Holy Spirit," led many of the church and college students to rededicate their lives to Christ and His service. Ballenger carried this message to worker's meetings and campmeetings. It was at one of these meetings in Indiana that S. S. Davis, the originator of the Holy Flesh Movement, received his inspiration. (See The Holy Flesh Movement 1899-1901, pp.5-6) At the turn of the century, Ballenger accepted a call to the British Isles. While laboring in various large cities, he was also developing new theological concepts. These were finally published in a book, The Proclamation of Liberty and the Unpardonable Sin. He would write:       If the reader would know at once what is the central thought, - the all absorbing theme, - the body, soul and spirit of this book, it is summed up in the final words of our dying Lord, "It is finished" (p.5).

This is the pivotal point on which the whole of the core teaching of the sanctuary doctrine turns. All who have followed Ballenger in challenging the sanctuary teaching of the Church, including Dr. Desmond Ford, have done little more than elucidate and enlarge on the original premise of Ballenger. In simple application, the final, dying words of Jesus are used to substantiate the concept that the death of Christ is the final, once for all, atonement for sin. In other words, the atonement was finished at the Cross; there is no final atonement. (See next article, "The Final Words of Christ").

It also needs to be remembered that following the Great Disappointment in 1844, 0. R. L Crosier wrote a lengthy analysis on "The Sanctuary," with the premise that "the sanctuary was the heart of the typical system." He challenged the idea that the atonement was completed on the Cross writing that Christ "did not begin the work of making atonement, whatever the nature of that work may be, till after His ascension, when by His own blood He entered His heavenly Sanctuary for us" (The Advent Review, September, 1850, p.45). Neither can this position, nor the one advanced by Ballenger, be sustained by the type.

In the daily service, provision was made for the individual who brought his sin offering to the Altar in the Court, to receive an atonement which resulted in forgiveness. The Scripture reads - "and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:31; see also 4:26, 35). This atonement for the individual was always at the Altar in the Court and performed by a common priest. The atonement made on the typical Day of Atonement was both corporate and individual (Lev. 16:33), and involved a high priestly ministry beginning in the Most Holy Place and being completed at the Altar in the Court.

The emphasis placed on the Day of Atonement in the Scriptures dare not be overlooked. While atonement was granted to each individual who confessed his sin day by day, and was forgiven, it was not designated as a "Day" of atonement. That designation was reserved for the tenth day of the seventh month and involved a cleansing which is much more than just being forgiven. The figurative intent was to be so cleansed as to sin no more. Further, in the designation of this Day, the plural is used. The Scripture reads:      On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements. ... And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonements. (Lev. 23:27, 28; Heb.)

While it might be argued that because of the multiple aspects and wide range of the atonement made by the High Priest on this tenth day (Lev. 16:33), it could be considered as a simple plural. However, the distinction made between this day and the other feast days given to Israel, requires that this be considered the Hebrew use of the plural as the pluralis majestaticus

p 3 -- v. excellentiae, even as in the use of Elohim. All the other feast days given in Leviticus 23 - the Passover, the day of Pentecost, "a memorial of blowing of trumpets," and the two "holy convocations" connected with the "feast of tabernacles" - required only the cessation from "servile work" (vs. 7, 21, 25, 35-36). The Day of Atonements was ranked with the seventh-day Sabbath - "ye shall do no work therein" (23:3) - with a fearful judgment attached (23:30).

While the first of the "feast" days of Israel was the Passover, which was fulfilled in the Offering at the Cross (I Cor. 5:7), it does not receive the status accorded the Day of Atonement in the yearly typical services of Israel. This should in no wise reflect on the centrality of the Cross because it was not only the Blood of Calvary which provided forgiveness, but it is also the same Blood which was offered "once for all" that provides for the cleansing from sin. It is the dual atonement made possible by the one and same sacrifice which we dare not mitigate. Our Great High Priest, as a common priest, offered Himself confirming the first step of reconciliation - forgiveness. Then as the High Priest, He ministers the same blood for cleansing so that when He returns as King of kings, and Lord of lords, He comes "without sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28). If the typology has any meaning, then the emphasis on the Atonement must be where Heaven places it - the final atonement via the sacrifice at the Altar in the Court. We need to keep in mind that "a kid of the goats" (Lev. 4:23. 28), and "the Lord's goat" (Lev. 16:9), both offered on the Altar in the Court, pointed to the one great Sacrifice made on Calvary. Calvary provided a provisional at-one-ment; forgiven, though still a sinner. The ministration of the great High Priest on the antitypical Day of Atonements provided for a complete at-one-ment, a cleansed sinner to sin no more.

Qualified or Unqualified Endorsement -- Into the historical perspective of this "learning" and "unlearning" process, the endorsement of Ellen G. White of Crosier's article must be considered. She wrote in a letter to Eli Curtis, April 21, 1847 that Crosier "had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, & c." Was this an unqualified endorsement of every facet discussed by Crosier, or was this limited to the question which caused the great disappointment? Miller held that the "sanctuary" was this earth, and therefore, the cleansing of the sanctuary could only mean the second coming of Christ in fiery judgment. The very first section of Crosier's article discussed fully and at length this question before introducing Christ's priesthood. Ellen White herself prefaced the endorsement with a confession of her own belief. She wrote - "I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is the minister." If we had not boxed ourselves in by considering this endorsement as unqualified, we would have recognized the atonement made by Christ on the Cross, and would have been able to place the "dual" atonements in the light revealed by the types.

This raises another question. Another "messenger" wrote of Christ's ministry in the introduction to his book, The Consecrated Way. He stated:       In the manifestation of Christ the Saviour, it is revealed that He must appear in the three offices of prophet, priest, and king. (p.3)

Then he observed:       This threefold truth is generally recognized by all who have acquaintance with the Scriptures, but above this there is a truth which seems to be not so well known that He is not all three of these at the same time. The three offices are successive. He is prophet first, then after that He is priest, and after that He is king. (p.4; emphasis his)

In the type, the atonement which resulted in forgiveness for the individual sinner was obtained by the common priest. The text reads - "the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him" (Lev. 4:26). One of the early acts of Jesus, after beginning His ministry, confirmed this priestly power in reality. Luke records the faith of the friends of a palsy stricken man. Bringing him to Jesus, the first thing they heard Jesus say to him was - "Man, thy sins be forgiven thee" (Luke 5:20). This riled the attending scribes and Pharisees. To their contentious questioning, Jesus replied:         But that ye might know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (He said unto the sick of the palsy) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house. (5:24).

Before accepting the office of High Priest, Christ had to have "somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3). "This He did once, when He offered up Himself" (7:27). This offering began at Bethlehem when the glory of "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" began to be revealed. (See John 1:14; Rom. 3:24). To all who came, or were brought to Him, from the palsy stricken

p 4 -- man to the woman taken in adultery, Jesus offered divine forgiveness. He was a "common" priest, "the Son of man." By the resurrection, He would enter a new office. As the Son of God, He would become "a [High] Priest forever after the order of Meichisedec" (Heb. 5:6) [See also Rom. 1:4 and Heb. 5:5]

Before Whom Do We Appear? -- Paul wrote to the Corinthian Church:      For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad (II Cor. 5:10).

Peter told Cornelius that the Apostles were given strict command by Jesus "to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is He which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead" (Acts 10:42). This accords with the words of Jesus Himself that "the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22).

How then are we to understand the prophecy of Daniel? Was the Ancient of days, intending to judge, and then changed His mind, and gave a different revelation through Christ in the New Testament? Hardly, such a conclusion is out of keeping with the revelation of Himself as One who changes not. (Mal. 3:6; James 1:17). In fact, the Scripture reveals two scenes in which the Ancient of days sits in judgment "and the books were opened" (Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12). These scenes are a thousand years apart when in fulfilment. Yet it is the same Judge, and the same books. While the objective of the open books in Revelation 20 is stated - "the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works" (v. 12b) - no such statement is made in Daniel. It is so assumed, but is the assumption correct?*

Another factor must be considered. When the First Angel of Revelation 14 descends for the final proclamation of the "everlasting gospel," he announces a reason why men of "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" should "fear God and give glory to Him." The reason given is that - "the hour of His judgment is come." The Greek text reads. - ' oti hlqen 'h 'wra thV krisewV autou - "Because is (or has) come the hour of the judgment of Him." Is this to be understood as meaning God acting in judgment, or is God Himself seeking a judgment for Himself? There is no question that at the Judgment of the Great White Throne (Rev. 20), those termed "the dead" are the ones facing that judgment. We have assumed that the same conclusion can be applied to Daniel 7:10. Do we have some "learning" as well as "unlearning" to do at this point?

A Forgotten Motif -- Both in the services of the typical Day of Atonement, and in the prophecy of Zechariah 3 which focuses on the final cleansing, there is an alien power introduced. In the vision given to Zechariah, at the right hand of Joshua is seen an "adversary" (margin) to resist him. In the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement, there is the scapegoat (Azazel - Lev. 16:8 margin) in apposition to the Lord's goat, and on whom the High Priest placed the iniquities of a cleansed Israel for final judgment. This typical service and prophetic vision suggest a controversy between Jehovah and Satan, with man the object of the attack by one, and the defence of man by the Other.
A careful study of the Scriptures casts further light on this controversy. Azazel, Satan the adversary, was once Lucifer, a covering cherub (Isa. 14:14; Eze. 28:14). A created being (Eze. 28:15), he desired to be "like the most High" (Isa. 14:14). This desire was nullified in the creation of man. The Elohim said to one another, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen. 1:26). Man's status at creation was but temporary. He was made only "a little while inferior to the angels" (Heb. 2:7, margin).

The redemption that is in Christ Jesus reveals further the objective of God for man. Jesus, too, was "made a little while lower than the angels for the suffering of death" (Heb. 2:9). In His victory, He was "crowned with glory and honor," and "highly exalted" being given "a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9). That which God did "when He raised Him from the dead" (Eph. 1:20) not only reveals God's intent for man in creation, but also His objective in redemption (Eph. 2:6-7). **

Between the time when God made man in His likeness and the "ages to come" came the sin problem, which needs resolution. However, for sin to be eradicated, and never arise the second time, the resolution must begin where, and over the issue which initiated it. In other words, can God carry out His original plan in the creation of man, and every member of the angelic host concur. Sin began with an angel who objected to God's plan because He desired to be what God was designing man to be. Thus the first act when God seeks to bring all rebellion to a conclusion, must be

p 5 -- the concurrence of the angelic host in His objective. They are still free moral agents and the contemplated exaltation of man is now under different circumstances than when man was first created. It is fallen man that is to be exalted, not perfect man from the hand of the Creator.

This is the picture in Daniel 7. The first item of business when the judgment is set and the books are opened, is before the assembled hosts of Heaven. (v. 10). They know what is in the books; they recorded the deeds. They are not there as "traffic cops" to verify the "tickets" they gave to the "speedsters" of earth for their violations on the highway of life. They were accurate, remained honest, and not as Lucifer, "abode in the truth" (John 8:44). Now the first question comes: "Have I given enough; have I done enough so that my original plan for man can be completed?" The hour of the judgment of Him began.

The details must be gathered from the revelation given in the type of the services of the Day of Atonement. Jesus is there as the Great High Priest. He holds forth His nail pierced hands. The angels remember that scene on Golgatha's brow. They recall the darkness that surrounded the cross when the Ancient of days hid His presence as He suffered with "the Man that is my fellow" (Zech. 13:6, 7). With one shout of acclamation, John sees and hears the Heavenly Host render their decision:       And I beheld, and I heard the voice ( fwnhn- singular) of many angels around about the throne and the living creatures and the elders: the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousands, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory and blessing. And every creature . . . heard I saying, Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Iamb for ever and ever. (Rev. 5:11-13).

The final work could now begin with all Heaven united for the objective and accomplishment of God's design in the creation of man. The "Man clothed in linen" could begin the sealing of His people (Ezekiel 9). The "filthy garments" can be removed from all who are willing to be released of them, and a "change of raiment" given in their place (Zech. 3). Three mighty angels can go forth mandated with the "Everlasting Gospel" of God's design and purpose in Jesus Christ, "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).

In the words of Jesus, describing and defining "the judgment," some conditions are imposed. All who pass "from death unto life" are required to hear the words of the Messiah, and "believe" on the God who sent Him (John 5:24). The entrance into sin is reversed. The challenge of the "adversary," "Yea hath God said?" (Gen. 3:1) is answered, "Yea, God hath said" and "I believe."

The "books are opened" both prior to the coming of Christ without sin unto salvation, and the final judgment on sin in "the lake of fire." There is no record in Scripture of the books being closed once they are opened. The fact is that no one can face the record in the "books" either before, or after they are opened. To do so is to face eternal extinction in "the lake of fire" - "the second death" (Rev. 20:14).

Into this prophetic picture is introduced another book, "another book was opened, which is the book of life" (Rev. 20:12). This book is first noted in prophetic record at the time "Michael stands up" (Dan. 12:1). It had existed prior with the other books of record. When Moses prayed for Israel to be spared or else his name be removed from the book, the Lord God replied, "Whoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of my book" (Ex. 32:32-33). Paul speaks of this book in his letter to the Philippians, where he writes of his fellowlaborers "whose names are in the book of life" (4:3). There is a distinction made between the "books" which contain the record of "things. . . according to their works" by which they are judged, and the "book of life" in which there are only "names" - no resumes. One can assume that the first name entered was that of Abel's who "by faith. . . offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb. 11:4).

All of this points up the significance of the command in the observance of the typical Day of Atonement, that "no work" be done (Lev. 23:28,30). The high priest alone accomplished the cleansing. Those who heeded the command, their names were retained in Israel. Just so, in the final day of atonement, the Great High Priest alone will accomplish the objective - "I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir" (Isa. 13:12). Even as in the first atonement - forgiveness - it is by faith alone, so the final atonement - cleansing - is by
faith alone: "I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will cloth thee with a change of raiment" (Zech 3:4). No man can cleanse himself by his own works, nor can he weave a robe in which there is not a single thread of human devising. All - forgiveness, cleansing - result from a surrender at the foot of the

p 6 -- Cross to Him who "is able also to save them to the uttermost who come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them" (Heb. 7:25).

Supplementary (For Further Thought) --
* -- Says the prophet Daniel, "The judgment was set and the books were opened." The revelator, describing the same scene, adds. "Another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." (The Great Controversy, p.480)

* * -- 1)  All heaven took a deep and joyful interest in the creation of man. Human beings were a new and distinct order. (R&H, Feb.11, 1902)
2)  God created man a superior being; he alone is formed in the image of God, and is capable of partaking of the divine nature; of co-operating with his Creator and executing His plans. (R&H, April 21, 1885)
3)  Man was the crowning act in the creation of God, made in the image of God, and designed to be a counterpart of God; ... (R&H, June 18, 1895)

The Final Words of Christ -- Only in the Gospel of John, do we find recorded the words of Jesus, "It is finished" (19:30). The synoptic gospels all note that Jesus cried with "a loud voice" just before His final breath. (Matt. 27:50; Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46) Luke also indicates that after the cry with a loud voice, He prayed, "Father into thy hands I commend my spirit," and died. John does not record that Jesus cried with "a loud voice." Are we, therefore, left with the conclusion that the words uttered when Jesus cried with a loud voice were, "It is finished"?

The gospel of John written near the end of the first century does fill some gaps which are not covered in the Synoptics written decades earlier. For example, in the Synoptics all the writers tell of the "Last Supper." John, while writing about that Passover Supper, does not mention what is called the Communion Service, but rather a service connected with it, which the others had omitted - the ordinance of feet washing (John 13:3-17). Are we, therefore again, left to draw the conclusion that the Holy Spirit considered what Jesus said with "a loud voice" of such importance that He had John record the words rather than just stating, "He cried with a loud voice"? If these conclusions be correct, then there is an importance to what Jesus uttered with a "loud voice" when He cried, "It is finished," which we need to consider carefully.

In context, John records more than just the words Jesus spoke. He unveils the thinking of Jesus: "Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished (finished)" (John 19:28). The same Greek word (tetelestai ) is used in verse 28, as in verse 30, when He cried out - "It is finished" (accomplished). What had Jesus accomplished which was then finished?

God's word had been questioned; His authority challenged. The commandment which had been intended to indicate the way of life could not give life (Rom. 7:10). It was "weak through the flesh." Therefore, "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ... condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). This condemnation of sin in the flesh, Jesus had accomplished. He could say, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me" (John 14:30). Yet He went one step further. Isaiah cries out, "The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (53:6). In the hours of darkness that enshrouded the Cross, He bore the reality of separation from God and sensed the horror of "outer darkness" into which He knew He would soon pass. As that final hour approached He knew all had been accomplished, and in finishing His earthly mission, He in submission uttered - "Father into Thy hands, I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46) - His very Being and Self Identity.

The Father, faithful to His commitment, raised Jesus from the dead "for our justification" (Rom. 4:25) and to ever live so as "to make intercession" (Heb. 7:25) for those whom He justifies. "In bringing many sons unto glory," God made "the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10). It was accomplished by Jesus, who had finished the work which He had agreed to do. The final at-one-ment is still to come when "in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ both which are in heaven and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:10).

In this we see the two-fold gospel of God, the "counsel of peace" which was "between the Two of Them" (Zech. 6:13, Heb.). One was to be "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" to "condemn sin in the flesh" and the Other who would raise Him from the dead "with power" so He could save "to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him" (Rom. 1:3-4; 8:3; Heb. 7:25). At the Cross one phase of the Gospel was completed; It was finished.

p 7 -- Let's Talk It Over -- An editor who seeks to convey truth, pure and unadulterated, and challenge theological error with all of its deceptiveness, must in his own inmost soul be true and honest. As we were completing this March issue of WWN, we received a copy of Old Paths (Jan. 2002). The whole issue of Old Paths (save for one page) was an article by David Clayton which the editor praised as a "powerful message ... for Seventh-day Adventists." The last section of the "message" was a compilation of quotations from the publications of various "independent" ministries, quasi-denominational voices, as well as from official Church publications.
The compilation was evidently done by Clayton, and Stump placed his imprimatur on the whole article thus as editor assuming full responsibility for its contents. The intent of the compilation was to show that only one independent "voice" was teaching the truth about God, and that truth about God was the basis of the Fourth Angel's Message. The doctrine about God which Clayton was zeroing in on was the Trinitarian teaching of the Roman Church, if he has quoted Vance Farrell (sic) correctly, who wrote that "the Roman Catholic Church" has the "correct view." Evidently, neither he nor Stump knows that there are teachings about the Godhead that perceive of Three Beings and do not uphold the Roman Trinitarian doctrine. For example, Ellen White spoke of the Godhead as "three living persons of the heavenly trio" (Special Testimonies, Series B, #7, p.62), which is distinctly different from the meaning of the word, "trinity" a term she never used.

Clayton also tried to assign to WWN the Triune God teaching of Rome. To do so, he manipulated two paragraphs which appeared in the January 1998 issue. As entered in the compilation, the reader would think these two paragraphs followed each other, when in reality they were three plus pages apart, the first from page 2, and the other from page 6. The second paragraph was actually a quotation from the SDA Bible Commentary which was a correct analysis of Scripture but doesn't support Clayton's distortion of the Word.

The first paragraph from page 2 was taken out of context. It was a part of an analysis of Luke 1:35. After quoting and analyzing the text, we wrote - "This text reveals the following data:" and list 3 datums. Then it was suggested that certain conclusions are permitted from this data. Three conclusions are stated, the last two are placed as a single paragraph by Clayton. Following the conclusions is another paragraph suggesting a "mystery" involved in the Incarnation. Nothing was set in concrete. The facts are set forth, and suggested study points were given.

Some of the ignorance displayed by Clayton may be forgiven, but Stump knows well that we do not hold to the Trinitarian doctrine of Rome. Furthermore, we believe Proverbs 4:18 that "the path of the just is as a shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." If we have not made progress in our understanding about God since 1998, we have not been meditating sufficiently on His Word by which He reveals Himself. If Clayton had wished to quote from some source which reveals our current thinking, all he needed to have done was to read carefully the first article in the December issue of WWN. Clayton could possibly claim that he had not seen it at the time he was working on his article due to the fact that he was living in Jamaica and had not received it. But Stump cannot hide behind the Postal Service as an "out." It is time that he begins to act ethically and honestly with truth if he wishes to be considered a creditable "editor." It is too late in the day to condone manipulation and pawn it off as truth. --- (2002 Mar) --- End ---

Read More