DANIEL 8:14, THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, AND THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT by Desmond FordDEDICATED To those who, believing that God raised up the Advent movement to proclaim the truth for earth's last hour, value truth more than position, comfort, or reputation. For such, "New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth, They must upward still and onward Who would keep abreast of truth.” (513, Church Hymnal)INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY OF THIS MANUSCRIPT CHAPTER ONE Because the sanctuary truth is such a prominent part of our doctrinal platform, it is vital that our exposition of it be such as will recommend it to the best minds of non-Adventists, as well as our own people, and be able to survive the most searching scrutiny. The issue is not just theoreti cal, for as R. A. Anderson has said, "A misconception of the great sanctuary truth has robbed many of the very assurance they need when we will have to standwithout a Mediator just prior to our Lord's return" (Review and Herald, Aug. 3, 1962, p. 9). Our history shows that loyal leaders in our ranks have undergone agony ‘of soul as they contemplated our traditional teaching on the investigative Judgment and tried to reconcile it with Scripture. Sone of these men ulti- nately left us for this reason, including A. F. Ballenger, E. S. Ballenger, L. H. Crisler, 1. Kech, W. W. Fletcher, L. R. Conradi, R. A. Greive, etc, while others, such as W. W. Prescott and L. E. Froom and many contemporaries chose to remain with us, though deeply troubled and perplexed. Our twentieth century scholars have called into question many pillars of our usual sanctuary presentation. Study of recent documents on the sanc- tuary by our scholars shows a great departure from the nineteenth century positions. For example, it is now admitted that blood from the offerings ‘of the common people never went into the sanctuary, and that sacrificial blood never defiles. The sanctuary was defiled by the act of sin, not by the transfer of it through blood. Neither is there any Scripture which teaches an Investigative judgment of the saints beginning long before the Advent. Doctrine cannot be established by types or prophetic interpretation--these may only be used to illustrate and confirm what is clearly taught elsewhere, and in non-symbolic language. Key texts originally used by us to teach a judgment of the saints have now been recognized by many as point= ing rather to @ judgmont of the wicked. For example, the context of Dan. 7 makes it clear that the little horn, not believers, is being investigated. The same is true of Rev. 14:7,8. In the 1960's a special Danie! committee met for five years to deal with such problems but reached no unanimity. A previous questionnaire sent to our leading scholars brought the reply that it is Impossible to so exegete Dan. 8:14 as to derive the investigative judgment. Or. Raymond Cottrell, former associate editor of the SDA Bible Commentary and the Review, has often jold that story, and recently published it in the Apri! issue of Spectrum. He affirms that the traditional sanctuary interpretation cannot be derived from Scripture, and that most of our scholars know that to be the case. While no teacher amongst us holds to the Ballenger schema of years ago, which taught a pre-cross sanctuary ministry of 4000 years, yet many acknow= ledge that Ballenger was at least correct on Christ's entrance within the veil at His ascension. (Contemporary SDA New Testament scholars interpret Heb. 6:19,20 and 10:19,20 quite differently to 19th century Adventist writers.) E. G. White agreed with Ballenger on this aspect also, as is made clear by Desire of Ages 757 and Signs of the taneously holding to a first apartment ministry culminating in 1844. The mes, April 19, 1905, though simul~ words of veteran scholar, W. £. Read, summarize her Day of Atonement emphasis: The Day of Atonement in days of old foreshadowed not only the work of Christ on Calvary but also the final events in the great contro- versy, which envisioned the cleansing of the universe by the re- moval and destruction of all iniquity.When this takes place, and all that relates to finally era- dicated from the universe of God, then we shal! see "new heavens ‘and a new earth, wherein dwel leth righteousness." (Review and Herald, Nov. 8, 1962, p. 4) CHAPTER TWO The only book of the New Testament which discusses the meaning of the Day of Atonement, the significance of the first apartment ministry, and the fulfillment of the cleansing of the sanctuary is Hebrews. Chapter 9 deals with all three topics, but in no place gives the traditional Adventist posi- tion on these points. Hebrews 6:19; 10:19,20; 9:8,12,24-25 teach Christ went into the equiva- lent of the Most Holy Place at His ascension. Today our New Testament scholars admit that "within the veil" means within the second veil, and Greek scholars acknowledge that ta hagia in 9:8,12,24; 10:19 means the second apartment only. Even the English translation makes this clear, for ta hagia is only reached through that veil which the High Priest penetrated solely on the Day of Atonement. Heb. 9:7,8,12,24. According to the writer of Hebrews, the significance of the first apart ment was to underline the inadequacy of the Jewish typical sacrificial ser- vice, and to show that only the coming of the true Sacrifice could bring for— giveness of sins, and entrance into the presence of God. See 9: 7-12} 10: 1-12. This New Testament book, far from saying that the heavenly sanctuary is Just like the earthly, only larger, often contrasts it with the earthly. The same is true of the heavenly ministry. Christ is not a levitical priest, but one after the order of Melchizedek--a king-priest who has completed His sacrificial work and sat down on his heavenly throne. Nowhere in Hebrews do we find the early Christians waiting for Christ to go into the second apartment. On the contrary, it teaches that at that time He wasalready there, and they were waiting for Him to come out. See 9:28. The Day of Atonement is applied throughout Hebrews to what Christ had already done by the Cross and His ascension to heaven. Hebrews does not teach that the Day of Atonement points to some event eighteen centuries then future. It teaches the opposite. Scholars such as F. D. Nichol, and our contemporary New Testament exegetes, admit that our sanctuary teaching can= not be found in the only book of the New Testament which discusses the sige nificance of the sanctuary services. This has been acknowledged by wel I- known Adventist writers around the world. The cleansing of the sanctuary is mentioned in Heb. 9:23, but it is applied to what Christ has already done by His death, not to some future Judgment work, Nowhere does Hebrews draw on Dan. 8:14 and project its ful- fillment to a later Day of Atonement towards the end of the world. The Cleansing of the sanctuary is identical with His making "purification for sins" on the Cross prior to His ascension to "the right hand of the Majesty on high." See Heb. and compare Rom, 5:9-11,18 with Heb. 9:22-26, CHAPTER THREE Our Daniel scholars this century have for the most part concluded that, as with Hebrews, in this book also, there is neither contextual nor linguistic evidence to support our traditional interpretation of Dan. 4. This has been admitted repeatedly by such men as Don Neufeld, Raymond Cottrell, E. Heppenstall, and many others. There is no Biblical basis for assuming that the year-day principle must be applied to Dan, 8 and 9. Dan, 9 nowhere mentions days that could be turned into years. It speaks of "seventy sevens," not seventy weeks of days. Neither is it possible to be dogmatic on any of the dates focussed onby’ our prophetic exegesis of these Daniel chapters. No man knows the year of our Lord's death, nor the exact time of His birth or baptism. Neither is it possible to prove that "the going forth of the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" can only mean Autumn of 457 B.C. There is nothing in Ezra 7 that speaks of rebuilding Jerusalem's walls. Neither can we estab- lish that Stephen was stoned in A.D. 34, or that the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell on Oct. 22. Scholars say rather that the Day of Atonement in 1844 fell a month earlier, and was so observed even by most Karaite Jews. The evidence of the New Testament is that Christ could have returned in the first century had the church taken the gospel to the whole world. See Matt. 24:14,34 (the expression "this generation which occurs over a dozen times in the gospels always means the generation of Christ's contempora- ries); Heb. 1:1; 9:26; | John 2:17; Rom. 13:13; Acts 3:19,20. The SDA Commentary clearly teaches this in several places. See 4:26-33; ‘the Review similarly has thus affirmed. Thus all the Daniel prophecies are conditional, and their primary meaning was not to affirm a two thousand year gap between the advents. In the New Testament we find the Daniel prophecies re-interpreted, but again not in such a way as to indicate that many centuries must necessarily transpire before the end of the world. Revelation, which draws on Daniel, speaks seven times of the imminence of Christ's return in John's day. In Dan. 9:24-27 we have an eschatological prophecy which is explanatory both of Dan, 7:9-13 and 8:14, Five terms occur in verse 24 which are only found together in one other chapter of Scripture--Lev. 16. Here we read of the fulfillment and consummation of the Day of Atonement type. Gut the New Testament applies this not only to the Cross of Christ, but also to the end of the world. Christ's Second Advent sermon is a commentary on Dan, 9:24-27and uses its key motifs for the last things but in such a manner as to show that He is projecting the latter-day consummation for the world of what was to overtake Him at His passion. This shows conclusively that Lev. 16 finds its legal fulfillment in Christ's sacrificial atonement, but its empirical consummation in the final cleansing of the universe from sin and sinners. See Patriarch and Prophets 358. In recent years, non-Adventist scholars have shown an unparalleled interest in apocalyptic, and many have seen that Dan. 7:9-13; 8:14; 4-27 apply to the last judgment and the end of the world. CHAPTER FOUR Not only Hebrews, but Revelation, contains references to the Day of Atonement. In this book the type is applied eschatological ly rather than soteriologically. I+ is connected with the last judgment, and God's wrath prior to the setting up of the kingdom of glory. Non-Adventist scholars for centuries have pointed out the prominence of Yom Kippur imagery In the Apocalypse. In the seventh seal, the seventh trumpet, the seven last plaques, the climactic chapters of 13, 14, 17 and 20 we have allusions to the Day of Atonement as the final wiping away of sin is contemplated. Thus in the Bible's last book we find strong evidence for the Adventist eschatological use of the Day of Atonement, though not for a protracted in- vestigative judgment. CHAPTER FIVE Twentieth century scholars, our own and others, point out that the New Testament views the "end of the world" as launched by the Christ event. Thus all great eschatological themes such as the kingdom, judgment, the giftof the Spirit, eternal life, resurrection, the destruction of Satan, the abolition of death, are applied to the Cross and its fruits. See Heb. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:10; John #24; 12:31; Matt. 12:28; Acts 2:16; Eph. 2:1; Col. | 3: 3 Heb. 6; | John 2:17, etc. But these same motifs figure again in the prophetic promises of the times associated with the return of Christ. Thus the Passover is not only applied to the first advent, but to the second. The same is true of Tabernacles, the Jubilee, and the Day of Atonement. Thus lev. 16 has an application to the Cross, but also to the last judgment. While the rest of the religious world hes seen the soteriological application of the Day of Atonement but not, as a rule, the eschatological, Seventh-day Adventists have done the reverse--with the exception of Ellen G. White, who saw_and taught both applications. When this is linked with the fact that many Old Testament scholars in recent years have admitted that Dan. 8:14 was not exhausted by the Maccabean era, but applies to judgment at the end of time, Adventists find that they do have foundations for their basic pro- phetic postulate--that Dan. 8:14 and Lev. 16 point to “the last things" and contain important truths for modern Christians. This, however, does not guarantee the accuracy of subsidiary positions such as the investigative judgment. CHAPTER SIX A misunderstanding of the issues of authority, inspiration, and iner- rancy have been responsible for the majority of doctrinal controversies the SDA church has experienced. The scriptural doctrine of authority has to do with the primacy of the Word as interpreted to loyal believers through the Holy Spirit. Inspira~ tion's primary purpose is to lead men to Christ. See John 20:31. It isperfect for God's purpose and may, like the Living Word, challenge and up= set our prior prejudices. Inerrancy is never claimed for prophets, and E. G. White specifically denied any claim to it. Not one doctrine came to this church through E. G. White. First, truth was established through the Word and only then confirmed through the Lord's messenger. Ellen G, White, according to W. C. White, had an imperfect grasp of truth as shown particularly by some of her early expres- sions. She changed several doctrinal positions, including systematic bene- volence versus tithing, the law in Galatians, the covenants, time to keep the Sabbath, the eating of pork, etc. Furthermore, W. C. White tells us that it was quite possible for his mother to sometimes misunderstand and misinterpret her own visions. She told the brethren that they should under- stand the significance of the revelations from heaven made to her better than herself. She erred regarding the meaning of her first vision, thinking it confirmed the shut door doctrine. Our major error has been to make the writings of E. G. White have veto Power over Scripture. But in matters of scriptural debate where good men were ranged on both sides, it was not Ellen White's practice to decide doc- trinal Issues. When tithing was first introduced in the 1880's, many op- posed it because E. G, White had advoceted @ different system for many years-- systematic benevolence. When the new view of the daily came (actually the old view of the Reformers) extreme conservatives opposed it on the basis of a single statement from Early Writings. At Minneapolis in 1888 U. Smith opposed Waggoner and Jones on the grounds that in Sketches from the Life of Paul Ellen White had, set forth the law in Galatians as the ceremonial law. Repeatedly, her writings have been misused to prevent progress in understand- ing Bible truth.’ Against this she vigorously protested. See SelectedMessages 1: 164. To understand the Great Controversy exposition of the sanctuary doc~ trines we should study how other prophecies are applied in this same book. I+ comes as a surprise to many to learn that prophecies such as Rev. 6:12; 2 Thess. 2:3,4; Matt. 25:1-13; and Dan. 8:14, etc. which in Great Controversy are applied to 1844 or times earlier, are also applied by E. G. White to events yet future at the end of the world, Ellen G. White used the apotelesmatic principle whereby prophecy is interpreted as applying to more than one time and one event. She applied such passages as Joe! 2:28; Mal. 4:5,6; Matt. 24; Rev. 6:14; Matt. 25:1-135 Rev. 14:8; and Dan. 8:14 to separate eras. Particularly do we find her applying eschatological motifs such as the shut door, the marriage, the mid- night cry, the shaking, the sealing, the signs in the heavens, to events associated with 1844--but also she applies the same themes to the end of the world yet future. For example, she used Matt. 24:1-13 as a prophetic parable of the Miller movement (GC 428), but In Christ's Object Lessons ap- plied the same passage to the worldwide church at the end of the world. Here she makes no reference whatever to the Miller movement. The midnight cry becomes the Loud Cry of Rev. 18:1-4, and the marriage is the union of the church with Christ at His coming (instead of His entrance into the Most Holy Place to be married to the New Jerusalem as taught in Great Contro- versy) The Great Controversy application of Matt. 25:1-13 and Dan. 8:14 had some appropriateness for an age that could have witnessed the return of the Lord had al! who professed the name of Christ been true to duty. As it is, it is no longer valid to interpret the eschatological prophecies in the identical way that our Millerite pioneers did. Thus Ellen White can declarein letters about the turn of the century that the bride is the church (though in Great Controversy the opposite is declared); She made plain in her first Pronouncements on the topic, that the heavenly signs are yet future. See Early Writings 41. If the marriage, the shut door, heavenly signs, the sealing, the shaking, the seventh trumpet (all of which were applied to the times surrounding 1844 by our pioneers) are all yet future, it is quite consistent to say that the full application of Dan. 8:14 likewise so applies. Patriarchs and Prophets 358 and the last pages of Great Controversy (where such terms as "vindicate," "purify," "clean," or cognates are common) in= dicate that this was Ellen White's position also. Similarly, most of the later statements by €. G. White about the Day of Atonement apply it to both advents, with Christ entering the Most Holy at His ascension. Nowhere does E. G. White equate the cleansing of the sanctuary with the inves gative judgment. (0. Neufeld also in the Review of Feb. 14, 1980, warned against such an identification.) The former is one of the landmarks being clearly established before the end of the 1840's, whereas the doctrine of the investigative judgment was not held by us as a people till near the end of the 1850's. The doctrine of the investigative Judgment is not one of the landmarks, and there is no vision from Ellen White that teaches it. Neither is there any Biblical basis for a judgment ‘that began over a hundred years ago. Scripture does teach pre-advent judg~ ment=-namely Christ's sealing as His own through His imputed merits all whose names are still in the book of life on the eve of probation's close. This is no attenuated affair. See Dan. 12:1. The judgment of Dan. 7:9-13 and 814, like that of Rev. 14:7, is a judgment upon the wicked which simul~ taneously vindicates the righteous. It is essential to have a better view of inspiration than most Seventhday Adventists have at present. Only the picture given in Selected Messages ! 5-39 will suffice,where inspiration is pointed out as perfect for prac- tical purposes, but involving a union of the human with the divine whereby the inspired writers become God's penmen but not His pen, subject to error, and certainly not representing God in rhetoric or logic. Ellen White never claimed infallibility, and demonstrable error is present in her writings. There is neither historical nor exegetical evidence for the Great Controversy application of the fate of the two witnesses to the events of the French Revolution. Neither is there any evidence for Aug. I, 1840, as a fulfillment of prophecy. Our scholars have known about both of these errors for nearly a hundred years. Ellen White's conceptual expres- sion of the investigative judgnent is as surely drawn from Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews as her other prophetic expositions were drawn from such men. But none of these interpreters was infallible. According to £. G. White, her writings are not to be used as the basis of doctrine or to solve doctrinal issues. She refused over the decades of the "daily" controversy to decide the issue, and forbade men to use her writings to that end. The same applies to present-day controversy over sanctuary interpretation. On the Bible and the Bible only our doctrinal beliefs must rest. When fierce doctrinal contro- versy was waging over the identity of the law in Galatians, she affirmed that it was God's will that the issue be solved from Scripture and not from her writings.’ The same principle applies today. Nevertheless, those who wish to reject Ellen White as a special mes- senger with the gift of prophecy should remember that Adventism could never have become what It has but for God's providential leading through Ellen G. White. In crisis after crisis she proved a worthy prophetess, and a guide and protector to the tiny church. This includes the 1844 disappointment,the Minneapolis conference, the Holy Flesh movement, the Kellogg crisis, etc. Neither her use of multiple sources, or her errors of exposition dis- qualify her from her place as @ worthy servant of God, His providential agency to aid His people In the last days. But we honor her best if we see her writings as she herself declared them to be--but a "lesser light" when compared with Holy Scripture, "the greater light." To use her own words: The Spirit was not given--nor can it ever be bestowed=-to super- sede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicjtly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. God wil! have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and ‘the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. (GC 11, 595) See pages 643ff., for our summary of the conclusions of this manuscript including our comments on the unique nature of the message God has given ‘this church for the world, and see pages 227ff., for the essence of what the New Testament teaches regarding the two apartments of the sanctuary.TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I: History of Sanctuary Problems In Seventh-day Adventist Church and Recognition of these Problems: by Adventist Writers Chapter 2: ‘The New Testament Exposition of the Sanctuary and the Day of Atonement, as found in Hebrews Chapter 3: Daniel and the Day of Atonement Chapter 4: The Book of Revelation and the Day of Atonement Chapter 5: Rehearsal and Resolution of the Problem Chapter 6: Ellen G. White, 1844, and the Day of Atonement Some Important Questions Appendices For chapter 1: I. Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment 2. The Problem of Dan.8:14 and Its Context 3. The Checkered History of the Phrase "Within the Veil" 4. CUC Course Outline on the Sanctuary and 1844 For chapter 5. Quotations on the D.A. in Hebrews 6. Quotations Regarding Hebrews 9:6-9 7. Quotations Regarding Hebrews 10:20 8. Quotations Regarding the Significance of the First Apartment 9. Quotations Regarding the Antithetical Nature of the Sanctuary Type 10. References in the New Testament to the Day of Atonement Apart From Those in Hebrews and Revelation Page 23 155 21 439 464 530 673 A=39 An45, nA A-SI A-55Il. The Gospels and the Day of Atonement For chapter three: 12, Studies in the Book of Daniel ( R. Cottrell) 13, Parallels Between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 14. Should @ Question be Answered? 15. The Importance of Antiochus Epiphanes 16. The Connection Between Danie! 8:14 and Daniel 12:13 214 and 1844 17. Summary on Daniel 18. The Danie! Committee of 1936-1952, and the Chronologica Problems of the 2300 Days 19. Extracts from Or. R. Cottrell's Presentation, Loma Linda, February, 1980 20. The Conditional Nature of the Time of the Advent 21. The Year-Day Principle 22. Daniel 8 --Its Relationship to the Kingdom of God 23. Daniel 9:24-27 Recognized as Containing Jubilee and Day of Atonement Allusions 24. The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment For chapter_four: 25. A. Farrer on the D.A. and Dan.8:14 In Revelation 26. Dan. 9:24-27 and the Olivet Discourse 27. The Apocalypse, the Day of Atonement,and the Latter Days AnTS An79 A-B3 A-87 A-91 A-97 An125 Aa135 W137 An145 An149 AAI5I An153 An159 An163For chapter five: 28. Quotations on Inaugurated Eschatology 29. The Practical Implications of the New Testament Gospe! 30. The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment 31. The Relationship Between Inaugurated Eschatology (First Advent) and Consunmated Eschatology (Second Advent) (See also Ap. 37) For chapter six: 32.Quotations from Church Leaders Relevant to the Topics of the Authority, Inspiration, and Errancy of Ellen 6. white 33. The Major Sources of the Great Controversy Sanctuary Chapters 34. Ellen G. White and Exegesis 35. An Analysis of "Prophetic Tension” in the Eschatology, of Ellen G. White 36. Ellen G. White and the Charge of Plagiarism 37. Dr.K. Strand . . .and the Apotelesmatic Principle A-169 Arig A-185 AW 184 A= 189 A-259 A-265 A-275 A-287 A= 293ABBREVIATIONS 6 Arndt, W. F., and Gingrich, F. W., edd., A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (E.1., Cambridge~ Copyright laws should be remembered by the readers of this manuscript and Chicago, 1957) Ap Appendix B08 Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon cg Christianity Today od. editor £8 The Expositor's Bible HERE, Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics tec The International Critical Commentary JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JThCh —-Journal_for Theology and Church KB Koehler-BYumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testame ros Lx The Septuagint ned. no date N.T. New Testament 0. T. Old Testament Rsv Revised Standard Version of the Bible SDABC ‘The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary ONT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. G. Kittel, and G. Friedrich, €.1. by G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, 1964-74) it should not be quoted or reproduced without permission.CHAPTER ONE HISTORY OF SANCTUARY PROBLEMS IN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AND RECOGNITION OF THESE PROBLEMS BY ADVENTIST WRITERS25 QUTLINE OF CHAPTER CHAPTER PAGE 1. Introduction a Validation of the Project 2 Limitations 38 Objectives 42 Assumptions a2 Sources and Acknow|edgements 44 Section Il, History of Sanctuary Problems in the SDA 47 Church and’ Recognition of These Problems by Adventist Writers 0. R. L. Crosier 33 James White 53 D. M. Canr ight 55 E. J. Waggoner 58 A. F. Ballenger 61 E. Ballenger 2 W. W. Fletcher 3 L. R. Conradi 7 W. W. Prescott ee L. E. Froom 84 Harold Snide ae Greive 88 Brinsmead id Cottrel | a7 Tuland 99 gert 103 ley, 0. Ford 103 New Sanctuary Positions Assumed by Adventist Scholars (Issues) The Atonement 115 Literal Apartments 116 Was Moses Shown the Actual Heavenly Sanctuary? 119 Did Blood From the Offerings of the Common People 9 Go Daily into the First Apartment? Does Blood Defi le? 120 What Sins were Recorded by the Blood? 120 Within the Veil--Heb. 6:19 121 Nature of the Judament 124 Daniel 7:9-13 124 Revelation 14:7 124 Daniel 8:14 125 Terminus for Dan. 8:14 13 Little Horn of Daniel 8 tes Hebrews 9"Hol ies" in Hebrews 9 Texts Such as Acts 3:19; | Peter 4:17, | Timothy 5:23, Prove the Investigative Judgment The Year-Day Principle is a Biblical Datum The Prophecies of Daniel, Christ, and John are Not Conditional Justification of the Human Race Second Advent Could Not Come Til! After 1844 Prophecies of the End Footnotes Appendices Particularly Relevant to This Chapter: 1. Waggoner on the Investigative Judgment 2. The Problem of Dan. 8:14 and Its Context 3. The Checkered History of the Phrase "Within the Veil" 4, CUC Course Outline on the Sanctuary and 1844 26 136 136 136 iw Al aT Al? A2727 INTRODUCT 10N Validation of the Project The present writer has as his intent the defense of the church. For thirty-five years he has contended for its doctrines in public halls, pri- vate homes, churches, and the classroom. He has debated with opponents of the church publicly and privately, orally and in writing. Only in one area of our fundamentals has he felt embarrassment--the traditional mode of setting forth the sanctuary truth. Since 1955 he has found he is not alone in this. Innumerable discussions with fellow scholars, theologians, and administrators of the church have demonstrated that the embarrassment is widespread amongst us. Despite the contemporary discussions on righteousness by faith, this writer has spent more time over the years in studying how to better present Dan. 8:14 and the judgment than he has spent on the issue of justification ‘and sanctification. This study commenced in 1945, and has continued un- abated to the present. Both an M.A. and a Ph.0. program were dedicated to the task.! Over a period of years he has personally known several key figures connected with our sanctuary apologetic, particularly most of the members of the committee on Problems in Daniel, as well as prominent oppo nents of our position. Discussion and correspondence with such men as R. A. Anderson, R. Cottrell, H. Lowe, L. E. Froom, F. D. Nichol, W. E. Read, D. Neufeld, E. Hilgert, D. Sibley, W. . Murdoch, S. Horn, E. Heppenstall, and many others have only underlined the need of the present study. (This Is not meant to imply that those named aqree or disagree with the writer's tentative conclusions.)28 Not all of our administrators are aware of the many indications that our traditional mode of presenting the sanctuary truth has in recent years become almost passé. It Is a long time ince our leading theological insti- tution has taught @ course wholly dedicated to the sanctuary doctrine. (One has been recently planned for the Seminary.) for years it has been possible for young men to become SDA ministers without studying the topic, or even taking a course in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Almost unani- mously our scholars neglect the themo--the only publication in any depth of recent times has been Heppenstall's Our High Priest [1972], noteworthy both for its emphasis on the gospel and its departure from the traditional exposi- ton. In evangelism around the world some prefer not to present the sanctuary doctrine publicly, or if 50 presented, many experience gréat relief when what they consider a "ticklish" issue is In the past. Some speak of the increasing embarrassment the growing stretch of time since 1844 has brought upon us. The contrast with our pioneers who expected Christ's ministry in ‘the Most Holy to last only a few months is stark. Our doctrinal Maginot line in this area has increasingly crumbled since the time of the publication of Uriah Smith's Sanctuary [1887] and &. 6. White's Great Controversy [1889]. To illustrate (but documentation is left till later): 19th Century Positions held by most) 20th Century Positions (held by some) Christ moved from one apartment to The apartments are only symbolic of another in the heavenly sanctuary. phases of ministry in heaven. The judgment work inside the second The work has been going on for 136 apartment would be brief. "Its whole years-~a far cry from the single DAY duration is to be spanned by one of the atonement, and embarrassingly generation." Matt. 24:34. Looking or incomprehensibly long. Unto Jesus, 269.19th Century Positions continued The atonement was not made at the cross. The blood from the daily offerings of the common people was taken into the sanctuary. Blood defiles. “Within the veil" can only mean within the first veil. The Bible teaches the year-day principle for symbolic prophecy. Since 1844, God has been examining the books of record to find who should be saved. Dan. 7:9-13 pictures the judgment of the saints. Rev. 14:7 speaks of a judgment of be- Nevers only. Christ was not a priest at Calvary. The offering was one of sinful human nature. Christ wil! become King when His priestly work is completed. God the Father does the judging. Dan. 8 and 9 are separated by only a few months. Dan. 8:14 reads: "Then shall the sanc- tuary be cleansed." Dan. 8:14 is linguistically linked with Lev. 16. Dan. 8:14 is contextually an island, not related to the issues of the ques- ion in verse 13. 29 20th Century Positions continued The atonement was made at the cross. The blood from the daily offerings of the common people was NOT taken Into the sanctuary. Blood cleanses. It can and must mean within the second veil. The year-day principle is not a Bibli- cal datum, but a providential dis- Closure in church history. "God is not poring over books." "The Lord knoweth them that are his." Dan, 7: ‘the w -13 pictures the judgment on ked little horn. Rev. 14:7 speaks of judgment on the wicked, not the saints. Christ was priest at Calvary. The offering was of sinless human nature of infinite value because of the divine Person. Christ is already King as well as priest. God the Son does the judging. Dan. 8 and 9 are separated by about 12 years. Dan. 8:14 reads: "Then shall the sanc- tuary be restored to its rightful state" or "justified." Dan, 8:14 is not linguistically linked with Lev. 16. Dan, 8:14 is not an island, but is re- lated to the issue of the question in verse 13.loth Century Positions continued Dan. 8:14 applies to events in heaven, unlike verse 13. In Dan. 8:13, the "daily" is pagan Rome. In Dan. 11:31 the sanctuary is Rome. The little horn has nothing to do with Antiochus Epiphanes. Dan. 11, which expands Dan. 8, ends with Turkey. Acts 3:19 applies only to the blotting out of sins in the investigative judg- ment. | Peter 4:17 applies to the investiga- tive judgment. | Timothy 5:23 applies to the investi- gative judgment. The cleansing of the sanctuary points specifically to the investigative Judgment which closes before Christ comes . The doctrine of the investigative judgment was discovered just after the great disappointment in 1844 by Edson and others. The doctrine of the investigative judgment was one of the doctrines hammered out in the Sabbath confer- ences, and was there confirmed by the leading of the Spirit of Prophecy. The doctrine of the investigative Judgment is one of the "landmarks" of ‘the pioneers. The visions from the beginning, by their reference to Christ's special work in the Most Holy Place, clearly alluded to the investigative judgnent. 20th Century Positions continued Dan. earth, 8:14 must include events on ke verse 13, In Dan. 8:13, the "daily" is Christ's gospel ministry. In Dan. 11:31 the sanctuary is the sanctuary of God. The little horn, like Matt. 24, has more than one application, and has its first fulfillment in Antiochus Epiphanes. Dan. 11, which expands Dan. 8, ends with Antichrist. Acts 3:19 parallels 2:38, and refers to the forgiveness accompanying the gift of the Spirit. | Peter 4:17 does not so apply. 1 Timothy 5:23 does not so apply. The cleansing of the sanctuary points to the purification of the universe from sin and sinners and extends to the new earth, or it means... ? The doctrine of the investigative judgment was not part of the general beliefs of the SDA church unti! about fifteen years after the 1844 crisis. The doctrine of the investigative Judgnent was not one of the doctrines decided upon at the Sabbath conferences and confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy. It is not one of the "landmarks" of ‘the pioneers--was not taught by Edson, Crosier, or James or Ellen White in ‘the 1840's, The visions do not so allude.19th Century Positions continued The heavenly sanctuary is a building, ‘though, of course, much more vast than ‘the typical tabernacle. The human race was not justified at the cross. The Second Advent could not come until after the 1260 and 2300 year periods. That is, a judgnent period after 1844 was essential before the world could end. 124-27 uses the year-day prin- Dan. ciple. Rev. || points to the French Revolu- tion and climaxes with the beginning of "the time of the end" in 1798 and gave impetus to the Second Advent movement. 31 20th Century Positions continued The heavenly sanctuary, being "heaven itself" and "not made with hands" is not a building. "Real" and "literal" should never be equated. A building suggests limitations, but to reject @ building does not mean to reject the reality of the heavenly sanctuary. Buildings are what they are because of the imperfect conditions which characterize sin-cursed existence. We have walls and doors and a roof to keep out inclement weather, fierce animals, and untrustworthy people. Heaven is not threatened by any of these. EGW refers to the original home of our first parents as a "sanc- tuary," though it contained no build- ings, and was an extension of heaven (Paradise) on earth. The fact that EGW speaks of the heavenly sanctuary as the abode of the great God and all His angels makes this matter plain. As with otter prophets, EGW frequently used the language of the type, leaving it to the reader to make the transition. Compare John 1:29 and the whole book of Revelation. The human race was justified at the cross, but that justification only be- comes effective for an individual when he surrenders to Christ. The Second Advent could have come in the first century. A judgment period after 1844 was not es- sential before the world could end. Dan. 9:24-27 does not necessarily use the year-day principle. There is no way of proving that Rev. II applies to the French Revolution.I9th Century Positions continued Matt. 25: 1-13 applies to Christ's com ing 40 the Most Holy Place in 1844 as the Bridegroom to be married to the New Jerusalem. The sixth trumpet ended Aug. 11, 1840, Just as the cleansing of the sanctuary was about to commence. Mal. 3:1-2 applies to Christ's coming to the Most Holy Place in 1844. The High Priest wore his glorious gar- ments on the Day of Atonement, accord~ ing to some such as Haskel!. The scapegoat bears the sins of the saints. Heb. 9 teaches the SDA sanctuary doc trine. "Holies" in Heb. 9 points to a plural- ity of apartments in the heavenly sanc- tuary. Heb. 9:12 speaks of the first apart- ment. SDAs never taught that the shut door of the sanctuary pointed to the close of probation for the world. EGW never so believed (above). EGW's commentary on her visions of the shut door meant by that term something different to her contemporaries. The early visions were reproduced in full by later editions. ALL of that which we now have in such volumes as GC is EGW's own original or miraculously given insights Into doc- trinal truth-=the only outside Inter ference being a correcting of grammar. 32 20th Century Positions continued Matt. 25:1-13 applies to the Second Advent, when He will be married to His church. The sixth trumpet has nothing to do with Aug. 11, 1840, Mal. 3:1-2 points to the two visible comings of Christ. The High Priest wore the linen gar- ment of a common priest for his dis- tinctive work on the Day of Atonement. The scapegoat bears his part In the sins of the saints. ~ Heb. 9 says nothing on the distinctive Adventist doctrine of the two-apartment ministry. “Holies" in Heb, 9 does not necessarily point to a plurality of apartments in ‘the heavenly sanctuary. Heb. 9:12 is speaking of the second apartment, as verses 8, 24-25. SOAs did teach probation closed in 1844, EGW did so believe. EGW's commentary on her visions of the shut door meant by that term sonething similar to her contemporaries. The early visions were not reproduced in full by later editions. That which we have in GC and some other volumes includes a vast amount of matter which is not original, nor miraculously given. Furthermore, it was not unknown for secretarial help to omit some of EGW's own pages and substitute whole blocks of material from other19th Century Positions continued Histories of early Adventism by men such as Loughborough are reliable. The prophecy of 1856 re "some food for worms, sone for the seven last plagues, and some for translation" was not conditional. Those who saw the falling of the stars in 1833 would also see Jesus come after the investigative judgment. Matt. 24:34 so applies. The heavenly sanctuary was shown Moses in vision as a pattern. Dan. 8:14 clearly teaches the investi- gative judgment. 33 20th Century Positions continued sources--material often, but not al- ways, historical in nature. The Don McAdams study indicates this. The sanctuary chapters draw largely from the writings of J. N. Andrews and Uriah Smith. EG indicated +1 type of procedure in her introduction to GC. Histories of early Adventism by men such as Loughborough are not reliable. (e.g. His account of EGW and the family Bible.) The prophecy of 1856 was con tional. Those who saw the falling of the stars are dead. Matt. 24:34 does not so apply. What Moses saw was not the actual heavenly sanctuary. + 8:14 does not clearly teach the ative judgment. lt must not be assumed that the present writer hereby affirms al! those positions on the right and denies those on the left. The significance of some of these points will become apparent later. Several have bearing on the nature of inspiration and the issue of inerrancy. When one considers this list on the right, one wonders how much is left of traditional Adventist sanctuary teaching, and the inevitable inquiry arises: "What should be preached in explaining Dan, 6:14?" The practical Intent of the present document Is to attonpt an answer to this question which will be intellectually responsible, Biblically defensible, and yet sustain our eschatological understanding of the Day of Atonement as a work of pre-34 Advent Judgment. Obviously, this cannot be accomplished without some ‘diver- gence from our usual apologetic--so readers are invited to shun the hope for @ square circle, or a living corpse. To further motivate the conviction that this project is vital, some straws waving in the wind of recent SDA history will be plucked. For approximately twenty years, some leading SDA scholars have con- tended that it is impossible to Biblically prove our doctrine of the Investi- gative judgment. (For example, Raymond Cottrel! and Don Neufeld. These have so affirmed in the presence of others, but many others have so believed without making public statements. See the articles on the sanctuary and on inspiration in the most recent i sue of Spectrum [April 1980]. This whole edition should be read most carefully by all who are concerned regarding the current sanctuary discussion. Previous numbers of the sime journal have also relevant articles.) In 1958, a questionnaire on Dan. 8:14 was sent to twenty-seven of our top men in language and exegesis. All twenty-seven re~ plied that I+ was impossi le to make a linguistic connection between Dan. 8:14 and Lev. 16, They pointed out that "cleansed" was a faulty transla~ tion, and that "justified" or "restored" was more accurate, though quite un= linked with the Day of Atonement. On the basis of this questionnaire, F. D. Nichol asked Elder Figuhr for a committee on problems in Daniel--a confidential conmittes which would not keep minutes. For five years the committee met and studied together, but without reaching agreement on the basic problems. Finally, Elder Figuhr declared it was not necessary to make a written report of the findings. To this day, the problems canvassed and postures taken by individual members remain confidential except where those members have publicly expressed ‘thom selves.35 Few are aware that today most Adventist New Testament scholars admit that Hebrews 9 teaches Christ's entrance into "the Most Holy Place” at His ascension. These scholars recognize that "within the vel!" of Heb. 6:19 refers to the second apartment ministry which, according to Hebrews, Christ had already commenced. They further see that | 9-20 clearly teaches that identical truth, and likewise 9:8,12,24-25.2 Both Old and New Testament scholars amongst us frequently confess thet it is scriptural ly impossible to prove the year-day principle, and it is well-known that Dan. 8 and 9 constitute a nest of unsolved exegetical prob- lems. For example, there is no way of demonstrating that Christ died in AD 31, and It Is well known amongst scholars that there is no way of proving that the decree of 457 BC is the one referred to in Dan. 9:25. There is nothing in Ezra 7 giving permission to rebuild the city, and Ezra 6:14 and context show that the decree by Artaxerxes concerned the temple and not the city. One thing Is sure--unless the church works in this area with promptness and efficiency, the sanctuary doctrine as traditionally taught will become an increasing source of embarrassment, and a cause of loss of membership among both ministry and laity. With our increasing number of graduate stu- dents proficient In the original languages of Scripture and the tools of granmatico-historical exegesis, awareness of the problems under consideration is inevitably going to spread and multiply. W. E. Read in Doctrinal Discussions noted, "The Seventh-day Adventist view of the investigative judgment has come in for a good deal of criticism during the years," (p. 43). And Edward Heppenstal! speaks even more strongly: Among the friends and critics of Seventh-day Adventists nothing has aroused more discussion and opposition than the teaching of an investi- gative judgment in heaven reserved for the people of God prior to Christ's return. For many this doctrine seems to shatter all possibility of36 assurance here and now and leaves uncertain one's standing with God. How can a Christian in this life be sure of his destiny and future with God until the pre-Advent judament has laid bare the facts of each per- son, and judgment is pronounced? [p. 202] How shall we understand the "investigative judgment” of God's people? Such a judgment can hardly mean that God needs to make such an investi- gation on the presumption that He is ignorant of the facts about His people. Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his (2 Tim. 2:19). | am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine (ohn 10:14), Obviously, there can be no doubt or question in the mind of God con= cerning those who have kept the faith. Through all the years the saints cannot stand in jeopardy until the judgment hour. What about Enoch, Moses, and Elijah in heaven, and the multitude of captives resurrected when Christ had completed His work on earth, and taken to heaven? Do they have to wait until the pre-Advent judgment begins’ to learn whether their position in heaven is secure? Do they anticipate the possibility of a reversal of the divine verdict that led God to resurrect and trans- late them to heaven? Obviously not. If God needs no investigation, then why have one? If God has known all along who are saved and who are lost, why bring the saints to judgment? \f a person is a forgiven, redeemed child of God to the end of his life, why bring up the past for consideration? [pp. 207-208] Why is an Investigative judgment of the saints necessary? Did not Jesus teach? "'In very truth, anyone who gives heed to what | say and puts his trust In him who sent me has hold of eternal life, and does not come up for judgment, but has already passed from death to life.'"(John 5:24 NEB)? “If Christ promised immunity from judgment to His followers, how can God hold such a judgment without breaking His promise? Second, we must also take into account that "the Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. 2:19). "I. . . know my sheep, and am known of mine” (John 10:14). According to this, God does not need to postpone His ver- dict of acquittal concerning His people until the last-day judgment. One can hardly affirm that God is not certain who the saved are until a final formal judgment takes place. For if this were true, how could ‘there be any experience of security for the saints while on earth? Does not thelr very security here and now rest on the clear assurance that “there Is . . . no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1)? Are we not commanded here and now to make our calling and elec~ tion sure (see 2 Peter 1:10)? If even God does not make the final deci- sion until after 1844, how could Paul confidently affirm: "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto37 all them also that love his appearing" (2 Tim. 4:8)? How could Paul have been so sure at that time? [o. 1083 Not one non-Adventist scholar has ever been favorably impressed by our tra- ditional sanctuary presentation. (So clatmed Dr, Raymond Cottrel! in his Loma Linda address on the sanctuary, Feb. 20, 1980.) It has been declared “stale, flat, and unprofitable" and a mere "face-saving device." For example, a leading theological journal has published the fol lowing: Is not the doctrine that Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary in Oct., 1844 a pure assumption? It was suggested by Hiram Edson's vision in the corn field. It was also endorsed by a vision of Mrs. White, Of course, if one holds that those visions were inspired, nothing more is needed. But we wonder if a real biblical justification for the doctrine can de given? Dan. 8:14 states, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," but the text does not say who shall cleanse it or where the sanctuary is located. The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of a heavenly tabernacle and of Christ entering it. But in Hebrews is not his entrance and aton- ing work always spoken of as a past fact? Was not his High Priestly intercession continuous from the time of his exaltation? He had al- ready “entered within the veil" at the time when the Epistle was written (Heb. 6:19-20). He was available as a High Priest for the readers of the Epistle (Heb. 4:14-16). "Through his own blood he entered once for all" (not will enter) "into the holy place" (Heb. 9:12). atoning work is all connected with his death on the cross (Heb. 9:26-28). Note statements like the following: "Christ entered not into the holy place made with hands . . . but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us" (Heb. 9:24). "He, when he had offered one sacrifice for sin forever, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12). "We have such a High Priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle" (Heb, 8:1-2). But Mrs. White would seem to put Christ's entrance into the sanctuary in the year 1844, Now we ask: Why does he delay his coming so long when he started the final judgment in 1844? We feel sure the early Seventh-day Adventists felt that the time till the Advent would be short, but it has been more than 100 years since the judgment started. why has it not been com= pleted? We do not wish to seem facetious, but we may well ask: Does it ‘take the omniscient Judge more than 100 years to examine the books? Or do we say, man's probation is still continuing, and he is waiting for more generations to be born and die before the judament is finished? If so, why did he start the judgment in 18447 Of course, if we had clear biblical teaching that he did start the investigation in 1844, we might be content not to know the reason. But since such clear evi- dence is lacking, we wonder if this problem of the hundred odd years38 investigation does not call for 2 new appraisal of the validity of the whole doctrine?# Such criticisms have in recent years moved from the outside of the church to the inside. Years ago, this writer warned the GC that a storm was coming over this topic and that we should begin to prepare. That storm broke at Riverside, California, early in 1979, when R. 0. Brinsmead began to circu- late his 1844 Re-Examined and to lecture upon its contents. The winds reached Angwin, California, where the Forum of Adventist Scholars requested 2 public meeting on the topic of the investigative judgment. The October 27 meeting was an attempt to indicate the dimensions of our denominational problems in this area, and to suggest @ solution. Some, traumatized by the former, failed to listen to the latter. Thus the present document hopes to remedy that situation, but it is written in tentative spirit, and is accom panied by the request for all! available help from its readers. Limitations Many of the topics listed in the 19th and 20th century series above would be suffic nt challenge on their own for a six-month research project. Indeed, we have not settled a number of them after 130 years of study. OF necessity, strict limitation is needed in this initial presentation. Time alone imposes severe limitations In topics discussed, and in less important themes particularly, the amount of attontion given, Is of necessity, minimal. We would be happy to study any significant area--but not all of them at the same time, and with the vain hope of one tiny mouth sucking the ocean dry at a single intake. This document is limited ch fly by the key positions taken at the Oct 27 Forum presentation, where the problem of Heb. 9 was stressed and a solution39 offered. On that occasion, it was stated that Dan. 114 does not have any linguistic connection with the Day of Atonement chapter in Leviticus, and neither does Hebrews in its exposition of the sanctuary refer us back to Dan. 8:14. I+ was suggested that the well-known theological concepts of in- augurated and consummated eschatology, whereby events to be materially ful- filled in connection with the end of the world had a prior legal application at the cross, offer us @ key to our chief problem. The chapter outline on page 17 Indicates the areas treated. Even these limited themes are actually too many to fully canvass, for any one of ‘them fully developed would require the equivalent of a Ph.D. dissertation. But this writer hopes to say enough to make clear his general direction for purposes of review and evaluation. It is hoped that these pages wil! pave the way for more thorough subsequent work by other writers and committees. Particularly, it should be pointed out that chapter six does not pro- pose to cover the ground essayed by F. D. Nichol in Ellen G. White and Her Critics. This writer believes in the divine inspiration of Ellen G. White and her special mission, but he does not here intend to solve all the prob- loms raised by such a faith. Instead, he proposes to chiefly set forth the support he finds in Ellen G. White for the thesis proposed, and to attempt a tentative answer to some urgent problems. Another aspect of limitation should be emphasized: the first five chapters deal with the topics from Scripture only. This is done in deference to the counsel found in Evangelism 256 and many other places. The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God.40 Our statement of Fundamental Beliefs in the Church Manual assures us that our doctrines are based on Scripture only. It is not the writer's intention to neglect any of the special guidance given this people, but to keep it in its right place--subordinate to Holy Writ, "the only unerring rule of faith and practice” (Fundamental Beliefs, Article 1); "the one unerring guide” (5T 389); "the only Infallible authority" (GC 177); the "only sufficient, infallible rule" (GC 173). "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union" (15M 416). Organization Every theological issue Is raised in a-historical context and our first chapter offers such orientation. Explanation may be needed for the place of chapter two. The only place in Scripture where the significance of th ministry in the first apartment of the sanctuary is commented upon is Hebrews 9. Similarly, the only place in Scripture where the ministry of the second apartment is didactically expressed is Hebrews 9. Thirdly, the only place in the New Testament where the meaning of the cleansing of the heavenly sanc- tuary is set forth in Hebrews 9.6 Yet Adventism has never written a book, or offered a scholarly document, exegeting Heb. 9 with special reference to our sanctuary doctrine. (The SDA Bible Commentary deliberately separates the one from the other, i.e. the le chapter from our sanctuary teaching.) We hope the reader will not pass by these three points on Heb. 9 with out giving them due weight. As Christians, to ignore the only New Testament chapter which actually discusses the themes central to our basic teaching is, to say the least, strange.7 Hebrews 9 is the divine Word on the mean- ing of the sanctuary ritual, and anything that confli ts with that explana- ‘tion cannot be urged upon others as a doctrine to be believed and taught.al We must not make the mistake of trying to prove doctrine from types or parables--these have a legitimate place in illustrating and enforcing only ‘that which elsewhere is didactically presented’ in literal terms. Even pro= phecy must never be so interpreted as to clash with clear apostolic proclama~ tion. Either our basic sanctuary doctrine is found in the New Testament chapter which alone deals with that theme, or it is not found in Scripture at all. This is the rock which has brought untold numbers of thoughtful SDA ministers to a hard place, including such men as W. W. Prescott, and L. E. Froom.8 The reason for chapter three is obvious--our prophetic and doctrinal conclusions drawn from Dan. 8:14 must be the fruit of the rules of granmatico- historical interpretation or they are invalid. This chapter suggests that Dan. 9 indeed explains 8:14, and that in Dan. 9 the Day of Atonement in anti- type is clearly predicted. Chapter four is concerned with the relationship between inaugurated (or proleptic) and consummated eschatology, and shows that themes already set forth in the gospels and epistles as fulfilled by Christ at His first advent yet have a final application to the end-time--including the kingdom, the Judgment, and the Day of Atonement. Revelation is the book of the New Testa~ ment on eschatology, and our positions on the end-time must be supported by it or be surrendered. The titles of chapters five and six are self-explanatory. The chief burden of the final chapter is to show that Ellen G. White is Biblical in applying the Day of Atonement soteriologically to the first advent in her books on that theme, and eschatologically in that book which deals speci- fically with latter-day events and the end of the world42 Objectives The first objective of this work is to make clear the doctrinal prob- lem confronting our church. It is one which has troubled earnest believers over our whole history, and it has never been officially considered in ade- quate depth. As Christian growth depends upon overcoming all revealed sin, so church growth depends upon adequate resolutions of those problems re~ vealed to the body corporate. We cannot have an offective apologetic for the non-Adventist world, nor successful soul-winning on a large scale, until this matter is resolved. The writer, as with many of his readers, has urged people to risk their employment and even their marriage and family relation- ships on the basis that Dan. 8:14 points to this movement as one of divine origin and should be joined at any personal cost. We have had many workers who have come to the place where they could no longer so urge others because of their personal problem with Hebrews 9. Furthermore, fears concerning personal standing in the investigative judgment have cut the nerve of joyous witness for many church members. Legalism is one result, and lack of assur- ance another, when the judgment is traditionally presented, for the primacy of grace and imputed righteousness is usually forgotten. The second objective is to suggest a solution to the problem which the writer has found effective and satisfying throughout his ministry. Assumptions Attempted demonstration of all beliefs would lead to an infinite regress ‘of argumentation. No axiom can be proved, and complete proof regarding any- thing in the real world is impossible to mortals, requiring as it would an infinite number of observations, perfect measuring instruments, and complete objectivity--none of which is available to us. All research begins with43 assumptions that can only be supported, not by demonstration, but by a weight of evidence. This includes the assumption that the project is worthwhile. In this Instance the assumptions include the following: There Is a personal God who has by special revelation made Himself and His truth known through His divine Son and by the inspired writings we cal! ‘the Bible. SDAs are indeed Protestants, and therefore believe in Sola Scriptura, without denying that the Bible speaks of spiritual gifts and the special leading of the Spirit through prophets in times subsequent to the closing of the canon. But "the Spirit was not given--nor can it ever be bestowed--to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the Word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested” (GC vii). The hermeneutical system of grammatico-historical interpretation Is here assumed as the only valid means of doing ful! Justice to the meaning of Scripture. The well-known five principles of exegesis--lexical, grammatical, contextual, historical, and the analogy of faith--are considered as basic for all serious work in Biblical research. This stands in sharp contrast to the proof-text method which sufficed in the days when the conclusions of the I9th century series above were formulated. Particularly should it be kept in mind that SDA scholars today do not believe that types or prophetic inter- pretation should be used as the basis of doctrine. The sixth century dating of Daniel is an assumption in this project-- not because it is without serious challenge, but because the answering of that challenge is outside the proposed scope of this work. That Ellen G. White had the gift of prophecy is assumed, but common understandings of Inspiration are not. This writer wholeheartedly embraces44 the view of inspiration found in Selected Messages 1:15-39, a passage which he feels has never been closely studied by most SDAs, and consequently leaves the vast majority of church members open to error and bewilderment. While acknowledging this assumption of the Inspiration of Ellen 6. White, it seems to this writer that the warning found in the Teachers Helps of the Jan-Mar 1980 Adult Sabbath School Lessons, "Redemption in Romans," page 12, expresses aptly the caveat offered in chapter six of this document. We quote: Among the complaints brought against Seventh-day Adventist teachings today is one that insists that we are not really biblical in our posi- tions, that we do much talking about the Bible but do not really study the Bible itself. We are seen by some as particularly likely to take Ellen White's comments on the Scriptures as reason to close off any further study or consideration. For many "Ellen White says" is the end of further (or even any) investigation. Such an approach-to Bible study seems particularly unfortunate when it flies in the face of the persistent appeal of Ellen White for church members, pastors, and teachers to study the Word, even to make the Bible the test of the special work of Ellen White. What is not assumed in this document is that "all our arguments are without a flaw," that our exegesis of Dan. 8 and 9, Heb. 6-10 is adequate, that we fully understand the Day of Atonement, or God's intention in raising up this church in 1844. Finally, the Golden Rule is assumed to apply not only to the writer, but to the reader--i.e. the latter should require no more of the former in this project than if he were the former. The present work, to quote the reference last given (ISM 20), is "for practical purposes” and is not an inquire-within upon everything. Sources and_Acknow! edgemonts The writer gratefully acknowledges the generous help of the White Estate