Chapter 12

David Lin

IN his article, "Daniel 8:14 and the Day of Atonement," Desmond Ford says, "I follow the 'grammatical-historical' method as the only valid means of doing full justice to the meaning of Scripture." Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, 30 In the same issue of Spectrum Raymond Cottrell's article, "The Sanctuary Review Committee and Its New Consensus," contains the following passages:

Use of the historical method by the decided majority of our Bible scholars, and of the proof text method by most non-scholars, has been responsible for practically every theological difference of opinion over the past 40 years, including that posed by Ford. The traditional Adventist interpretations of Daniel 8:14 and Hebrews 9 were formulated by the proof text method. Prior to about 1940, a very few Adventists--among them A.F.Ballenger, W.W.Prescott, L.R. Conradi and W.W.Fletcher--had begun to use some elements of the historical method; it was this that made them aware of some of the problems of exegesis of our traditional interpretation, and precipitated their individual crises.

The proof-text method of Bible study consists essentially of a study of the Bible in translation (English for instance), of reliance on the analogy of Scripture on the verbal level with little if any attention to context, of giving, at best, inadequate attention to the historical setting of a statement or message and what it meant to the people of its own time, and of permitting subjective preconceptions to control conclusions arrived at deductively.

By contrast, the historical method consists of a study of the Bible in its original languages, of accepting the literary context of every statement and message as normative for its meaning, of determining what the messages of the Bible meant to the various reading audiences to which they were originally addressed, in terms of the intention of the inspired writer and the Holy Spirit, of accepting that original meaning as a guide to an accurate understanding of their import for us today, and of reasoning inductively, arriving at conclusions on the basis of the evidence. Ibid., p. 18

The contention that the historical method is "the only valid means of doing full justice to the meaning of Scripture" cannot be supported by facts, because we can cite many instances of competent scholars using the historical method who hold widely divergent opinions regarding the translation of certain Bible texts, proving that this method does not guarantee accuracy and unity in Bible interpretation. On the other hand, a study of the methodology of New Testament writers who cite Old Testament proof texts reveals that these texts are almost invariably applied out of context. We present three examples:

Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, "Behold, a virgin shall be with child. . . ."

Matthew 2:17-18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15, "In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation . . ."

Matthew 27:9-10 quotes Zechariah 11:12-13, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver . . ."

We can imagine that when the apostles quoted these texts to prove that the birth and betrayal of Jesus were foretold by the prophets, the scribes and Pharisees who opposed them could have used the historical method to deny the validity of their claims. "No," they would have said, "you are using these passages wholly out of context. Your proof-text method is not acceptable."

There are scholars in our day who use the same argument to ridicule the arbitrary use of these texts by the gospel writers. They maintain that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Isaiah's day, Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfilled in Jeremiah's day, and Zechariah 11:12-13 was fulfilled in Zechariah's day. They agree with Ford's assertion that "prophecy always had direct relevance for the people first addressed." But we contend that prophecy did not always have direct relevance for the people first addressed. We cite three more examples:

Isaiah 9:6. Unto us a child is born. . . . His name shall be called . . . the mighty God.

Micah 5:2. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah . . . out of thee shall he come forth . . . whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 53:1-12. Who hath believed our report? . . . he bare the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

These three Old Testament texts did not have direct relevance for the people first addressed (though it is true that they were eligible for a share in the salvation proffered), because they did not fully understand their meaning and witness their fulfillment. Only when the Holy Spirit opened the eyes of Christ's disciples after their fulfillment did the truths hidden in these texts shine forth.

The prophet Daniel admitted that he did not comprehend all the visions he recorded for our benefit. And Peter said, "Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." 1 Peter 1:10-12

Therefore we conclude that the only valid means of doing full justice to the meaning of Scripture and prophetic passages in particular, is to depend on the illumination of the Spirit who inspired them. Ever since antiquity the Holy Spirit has held the key to Bible interpretation, and every student who has tried to depend on scholarship alone has come short of a clear understanding of God's will, and has at times even been led astray.

We do not mean to reject the historical method, but maintain that it is inadequate for a correct understanding of what the Holy Spirit originally intended. The Bible is not just another ancient historical document. If we treat it as such, we will arrive at the same conclusions as many atheistic scholars. Take the book of Revelation: Friedrich Engels (close colleague of Karl Marx) studied it as a historical source document. (See Complete Works of Marx & Engels, vol. 20 under "Revelation," and vol. 22, under "History of the Early Church.") He concluded that it was written circa A.D. 67-68, most probably by John the apostle. The beast of Revelation 13:1-10, he believed, referred to Nero, and he even demonstrated how the number 666 is found in the title of this emperor. Engels followed the grammatical-historical method of Bible interpretation, but he did not grasp the prophetic message which God put there for His people. Why? Because he left the Holy Spirit out of his reckoning. Like all modernist interpreters, Engels believed that "prophecy always had direct relevance for the people first addressed," so all the prophecies of Revelation had to do with events occurring in the first century of the Christian era.

If Adventist Bible scholars think they have a wonderful method of Bible interpretation in the historical method and that it is adequate for a correct understanding of Bible prophecy, they are sadly mistaken. They imagine they are in good company. But upon closer examination they will discover that in spite of the church affiliation of many modernist theologians, they are in their very core atheist and infidel. "God is not in all their thoughts." The Bible is to them just another ancient document of bygone days. They have no use for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Any mention of the Holy Spirit having a part in directing their search for truth is just so much superstitious nonsense. Their historical method is the only correct method to follow. Yet in the end the scholars who use this method are just as hopelessly divergent in their views as nonscholars who use the proof-text method.

Men who confine their methodology to either the proof-text method or the historical method overlook the most important and decisive element. If we indeed believe that the Bible was written by God through men inspired by His Spirit, then we must recognize that this Book is radically different from other historical documents. God Himself reveals one unique principle followed in His revelation of truth.

In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. Luke 10:21

Jesus tells us that (1) God's revelation is selective: He chooses to reveal the truth to a certain class of people and at the same time to hide it from another class. (2) The "wise and prudent"--those who trust to their own scholastic ability--are denied the privilege of comprehending His truth. (3) The "babes"--those who are teachable and obedient--are given this privilege.

And the fascinating thing about this revealing and hiding is that it is all done through this one same Book. In it one reader sees the truth and exclaims, "I rejoice at thy word, as one that findeth great spoil." Psalm 119:162, while another one says, "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" John 6:60

We have a modern example. Desmond Ford is a learned man with two top scholastic awards, having studied in two universities of the world. He may be classed among the "wise and prudent." Now what particular truth has God hidden from him? Let Ford tell us. He says, "There is no biblical basis for the year-day principle." Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, 32

How can this wise man make such a positive assertion (and incidentally, many other wise men agree with him)? Because God has hidden this key to the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation from him. God could have followed the conventional method of writing algebraic formulas and clearly stating in the context what abc and xyz stand for. But He chose not to be so explicit, so that Ford can find the pretext he wants. Yet God did give us Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Even then Ford will close his eyes and say, "I note that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 do not yield the day-year principle." Thus God has hidden a truth from the wise and prudent: by purposely making it not explicit enough to satisfy them. But the honest searcher finds sufficient evidence for a solution of the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.

As a matter of fact, Ford is not as blind as he pretends to be, for he has presented sane and sound arguments in favor of the year-day principle and has applied it to all the time prophecies of Daniel in his book on that subject. Now for some untold reason he has decided to turn traitor to the Advent cause in joining our enemies in fighting the truth. "Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." Isaiah 6:10. There is no man so blind as he who will not see. And there must be a hidden sinister motive behind this pretended blindness.

The New Testament writers followed Christ's method of explaining the Scriptures. We shall now try to discover the peculiarities of His method. In the three prophetic texts quoted above we recognize from their context that they pointed primarily to incidents which occurred within a few years of the time these prophecies were uttered. For instance, Isaiah 7:16 says, "Before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." These words were spoken to King Ahaz, and the fate which was to befall Rezin and Pekah was to come within a few years after the birth of the child mentioned. The other two prophecies were all historical incidents recorded in the past tense. In the New Testament the Holy Spirit cited these texts as applying to (1) Christ's virgin birth, (2) the slaying of the children of Bethlehem, and (3) the betrayal of Christ by Judas.

Because of the historical nature of the context, and because these contextual details were not a part of the later and final fulfillment of the prophecies quoted, we may call them "outcrops" of seams of prophetic ore lying beneath the topsoil of Old Testament history. These words quoted out of context represent a second fulfillment. The first fulfillment is primary in time; the second fulfillment is primary in significance. And because of their significance, we may presume that even if the Spirit had not directed men to quote these Old Testament texts, later readers of the Old Testament would have noticed the striking correspondence of these words with incidents in the life of Jesus and recognized their prophetic import.

Yet without specific quoted references in the New Testament, no modern expositor would dare affirm that these texts and others of similar nature were intended by God to refer to the life of His Son. Here we have clear instances of the Holy Spirit directly authorizing such applications of Old Testament Scripture in violation of the requirement of the historical method to confine the bounds of interpretation within contextual limits.

Prophetic "outcrops" require direct reference by inspired writers for authorization. But prophetic "nuggets" are so clear, even to the casual reader, that they cannot be mistaken. Isaiah 53 is one "super nugget" that continues to amaze every true child of God with its striking description of the crucifixion, and at the same time confound the infidel with its uncanny accuracy. Orthodox Jews forbid their children to read this chapter, for even a ten-year-old can see that it is speaking of Jesus Christ. But if you insist on adhering strictly to the historical method, you can argue, with Ford, "prophecy always had direct relevance for the people first addressed," and so should look in the eighth century for some personage Isaiah is talking about in chapter 53. After all, you can not ignore the context. But no. The Holy Spirit has always inspired men to write words of eternal significance foretelling events due to take place in the distant future. These words stand out from their context like so many nuggets encased in the soil. Here again we see how the historical method alone comes short of helping us arrive at a full understanding of Bible prophecies.

In John 1:51 and 3:14 Jesus explains the prophetic significance of Jacob's ladder and the brazen serpent. We presume that Jacob was enlightened by the Holy Spirit to grasp the meaning of his dream. But we know that that dream also had direct relevance for all generations before and after Christ's crucifixion. As for the brazen serpent, we may be sure that only those who know of Jesus' comment can fully appreciate its significance. It is true that this allegory had direct relevance not for the people first addressed, but for the people of the New Testament period. Before Christ, its symbolism was misunderstood. As late as the eighth century the Israelites still burned incense to the brazen serpent. See 2 Kings 18:4. And to this day Jews who reject the New Testament testimony can give no plausible interpretation for that Old Testament miracle. So again, dependence on the historical method alone would not yield the truths Jesus drew from these two historical incidents.

Prophetic Enigmas Without the help of the Holy Spirit certain prophetic enigmas will keep men forever puzzled. Yet one hint from the inspired pen solves the riddle. Desmond Ford capitalizes on the fact that the year-day principle is not given contextually in Daniel. So, says he, we are not justified in applying it to the 2300 days. Here Inspiration comes to our aid. Jesus tells us the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel the prophet will "stand in the holy place" before the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke 21:20 simply says, "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." These words refer directly to Daniel 9:27, which follow the prophecy of verse 26, "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."

What problem do these words solve? They clinch the year-day principle for the prophecy of the 70 weeks. Daniel 9:25 gives the starting point: "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Daniel 9:27 gives the finishing point of the 70 weeks--the destruction of Jerusalem marking the "consummation" some time after the seventieth week. Here we can skip the prophetic details in between, pin down the beginning and the end of this span of time, and ascertain that the 70 weeks cannot be 490 days, but must be 490 years. This prophecy is an example of an inspired statement in the New Testament contributing to the solution of an Old Testament time prophecy. It also proves that Daniel 9:25-27 did not have direct relevance for the people first addressed. The fact that the beginning point of the 70 weeks is the only beginning point found in Daniel 8 and 9, plus the familiar demonstration that the 70 weeks are "cut off" from the 2300 days, justify our applying the year-day principle to the latter span of time. The evidence presented here is as plain as any honest scholar can expect.

The disappointment which overwhelmed the Millerite Adventists following October 22, 1844, made the solution of many prophetic enigmas supremely urgent. Ellen White wrote: "I saw that Jesus regarded with the deepest compassion the disappointed ones who had waited for His coming; and He sent His angels to direct their minds that they might follow Him where He was." Early Writings, 244. Picture the Lord of inspiration so concerned for His people! At this crucial moment He heard the weeping of His disappointed children. Hiram Edson wrote:

We wept, and wept, till the day dawn. I mused in my own heart, saying, My advent experience has been the richest and brightest of all my Christian experiences. If this had proved a failure, what was the rest of my Christian experience worth? Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God, no heaven, no golden home city, no paradise? Is all this but a cunningly devised fable? Is there no reality to our fondest hope and expectation of these things? Damsteegt, P. G., Foundations of the SDA Message & Mission, 99

We may be sure the Lord would not let His people long remain in darkness. The Paraclete, who was promised to guide them into all truth, brought light to the grieving saints. The very next morning Edson saw the light. He wrote: After breakfast I said to one of my brethren, "Let us go and see, and encourage some of our brethren." We started, and while passing through a large field I was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, that He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming to this earth. That He came to the marriage at that time, in other words, to the Ancient of days to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and we must wait for his return from the wedding. Ibid., 117

Edson also saw that the experience of the Millerites was a fulfillment of the sweet-and-then-bitter experience described in Revelation 10. He said, The seventh angel had begun to sound; we had eaten the little book; it had been sweet in our mouths, and it had now become bitter in our belly, embittering our whole being. Ibid., 105

Thereafter, in February 1845, the Holy Spirit gave Ellen White a vision to confirm the truth regarding the cleansing of the sanctuary, first revealed to Edson, and then elaborated upon by O.R.L.Crosier in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. She wrote: "I feel fully authorized by the Lord to recommend that Extra to every saint." Ibid., 125

Thus in the early years of the Seventh-day Adventist movement the Spirit of inspiration was actively engaged in molding our theology, using men and means according to God's choosing. Some have made light of the idea of a man receiving divine illumination in a cornfield, as though it were more becoming for God to communicate with men in the halls of higher learning. But God does not need men to be His advisers. He spoke to Elijah by the brook Cherith, to Paul on the road to Damascus. Why can't He speak to Edson in a cornfield?

During those first years of Adventist church history there were several divergent views regarding the cleansing of the sanctuary, and its relation to the investigative judgment was not developed until several years later. If the people of God were left to thrash out their problems without the aid of the Holy Spirit, they would very likely have split into several groups, and no one group would have possessed the harmonious system of truth with which the Seventh-day Adventist church is blessed today.

We are what we are by the grace of God, because He has given us direct guidance in His Paraclete--the gift of prophecy. This gift was particularly needed in the formative years of our church. For then was laid the foundation of our beliefs. Ellen White had just received her call to be the Lord's messenger; she was young, frail, and timid. She had received no theological training, and would have been the last to open her mouth in public and debate on Bible doctrines with her elders. That was exactly why God chose her to speak in His name. "That the excellency of the power may be of God," not of her. She wrote: In the early days of the message, when our numbers were few, we studied diligently to understand the meaning of many Scriptures. At times it seemed as if no explanation could be given. My mind seemed to be locked to an understanding of the word; but when our brethren who had assembled for study came to a point where they could go no farther, and had recourse to earnest prayer, the Spirit of God would rest upon me, and I would be taken off in vision, and be instructed in regard to the relation of Scripture to Scripture. These experiences were repeated over and over again. Thus many truths of the third angel's message were established, point by point. Selected Messages, Book 3, 38

Coming back to the question of the two methods of Bible interpretation, we note that when knotty problems are encountered in the study of prophecy, neither method is adequate for arriving at a unified and consistent solution. The active guidance of the Holy Spirit is the indispensable element. We should be sobered by the thought that the Lord has blessed our church with the living testimony of His promised Paraclete to guide us into all truth and to reveal to us things to come. We are indeed a favored people, unworthy though we may be!

But, sad to say, not all Adventists appreciate this gift. They have forgotten how the Lord has led us through a maze of erroneous theories to arrive in His sanctum of present truth. Instead, they are anxious to discount the past and to find fault with the faith once delivered to the saints. On page 29 of Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, we read,

The second question that Wilson treated was, What does one do if twelve theologians agree on a biblical interpretation against Ellen White's interpretation of the same biblical material?"

First of all we should point out that the wording of this proposition is not clear enough. The "twelve theologians" should be modified to read, "twelve Adventist theologians" to exclude theologians of other persuasions. Then we should further modify the word "Adventist," because there are all kinds of Adventist theologians today. If Ford is still regarded as an Adventist theologian, then you can muster eleven of his sympathizers, call them all theologians and have them vote against Ellen White. We call it "decision by majority vote." On the other hand, we can also find twelve theologians who will vote in favor of Ellen White. That is why we say the hypothetical question is not very well worded.

After all, is it safe to decide on doctrinal issues by majority vote? They did so in the Jewish Sanhedrin when they silenced a voice of dissension with the words, "Art thou also of Galilee? Search and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." John 7:52. They did so in the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 to ostracize Nestorius for opposing the use of the term "Mother of God" in honor of the Virgin Mary. Today if some think they can gather a group of theologians to overthrow a doctrine which God has explicitly affirmed through the gift of prophecy, they are sadly mistaken, because God is always a majority. If our theologians make issue of the fact that Ellen White was unlearned and should not be taken as an authority, they overlook the fact that God is not limited in His choice of media. He can, when He pleases, use an ass to rebuke His servant. At times some of us, like Baalam, need to be thus humiliated. "For with stammering lips and another tongue will He speak to this people." Isaiah 28:11

To be realistic, we should recognize the present controversy as a split over the authority of the writings of Ellen White. It is not a case of twelve theologians pitted against one "unlearned" woman. It is rather a case of one group of Adventist theologians who repudiate the authority of Ellen White's writings opposed to another group who accept them. The split likewise pertains to our lay members. What will be the outcome? The ship which has struck the iceberg head-on will shiver from stem to stern, and then sail right ahead on its charted course, while the iceberg will shatter into many pieces, float apart and melt away.

Doubters always raise the question, "How can we know Ellen White was inspired of God?" This question has been answered in many earlier publications, and we need not repeat. Suffice it to affirm that God is not restricted in His freedom of communication after the canon of the Scriptures has been declared closed. We must not commit the error of the Jews who said, "We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is." John 9:29. It is good to profess faith in the Scriptures, but we must not tie God's hands and limit the Holy One of Israel. We must not deny the possibility of His speaking to us through a modern agent. Since Ellen White's work has undergone the test of 70 years and is proven to be that of a messenger of God, then we should no longer regard her academic training as bearing any weight in our consideration of the message she brings, any more than the schooling of a postman would influence the contents of the letters he delivers.

Coming back to our subject of Bible interpretation, we see that the part played by the living testimony in solving exegetical riddles is exemplified in the reference to Isaiah 66:24 by the angel as follows: "I saw that some were quickly destroyed, while others suffered longer. . . . Some were many days consuming, and just as long as there was a portion of them unconsumed, all the sense of suffering remained. Said the angel, "the worm of life shall not die; their fire shall not be quenched as long as there is the least particle for it to prey upon." Early Writings, 294

This comment gives food for thought, and fills a gap in our eschatology, bringing us one step closer to a better understanding of last-day events. God's justice is vindicated as we comprehend His plan to requite the wicked for the suffering they have caused others by meting out their punishment in the duration of their own suffering. This helpful pointer given by the angel is worth more than the learned dissertations of 120 theologians, and we dare say that if they studied Isaiah 66:24 by their grammatical-historical- semantical method, not one of them would conclude that the "worm" in this text means "the worm of life." Thus we have a case of 120 theologians disagreeing with Ellen White. In fact you can muster all the theologians in the world--maybe there will be 120,000--to cast a vote against Ellen White. But we who believe in the active agency of the promised Paraclete are bold to say, All those theologians who cast that vote are wrong; Ellen White is right.

Raymond Cottrell makes this comment on the question of the correct approach in Bible study: In the thinking of the majority at Glacier View, Adventist tradition was the norm for interpreting the Bible, rather than the Bible for tradition.

Dr. Leslie Hardinge aptly described this approach when he said to the full assembly Wednesday afternoon, "I search the Bible for evidence that our message is true." This comment elicited a loud chorus of "Amens." In contrast, a majority of the Bible scholars present would have said: "I search the Bible to hear what it is saying, in order that my presentation of our message may be true to the Bible." Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, 18

Let us first ascertain the source of Adventist tradition. Earlier we quoted a statement by Ellen White telling us that Adventist tradition sprang from intense Bible study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If it were not for this guidance, the pioneers could not have worked out the harmonious system of truth which we now possess. True, we should rediscover it for ourselves--not take it for granted and assume that no more light will come, or that every detail is immutable. On the other hand we should not suppose that we must begin over again and start from zero, thinking we have more wisdom than our fathers and can lightly reject what the Holy Spirit has already revealed.

Cottrell's proposition that we search the Bible to hear what it is saying, in order that our presentation of our message may be true to the Bible, seems to imply that he starts out with some misgivings about our message being true to the Bible. Nevertheless he still feels we have a message to present. His proposition is not as objective and unbiased as it appears to be, for like Hardinge's proposition it also starts out with a belief that our message is true, otherwise he wouldn't want to present it.

To be strictly scientific in our approach, we should say, "I search the Bible to hear what it is saying, in order that I may know if what I believe and teach is true; and if it is not true, the sooner I find out the better."

Then there is the infidel's approach of searching the Bible with the express purpose of refuting the truth. Of this Thomas Paine gives us a good example.

Finally, the fifth, is Desmond Ford's approach: searching the Bible for arguments to refute the truth under the pretext of seeking for truth.

The first four approaches--be they truly objective or not--are honest approaches. Only Desmond Ford's approach is dishonest and most damaging. A man reading Paine's Age of Reason knows that the writer is an avowed infidel. But many readers of Ford's publications take him to be an honest Seventh-day Adventist. Paine's books are properly labelled. Ford's are sugar-coated poison.

Coming back to Hardinge's approach, we feel it has its merits. He starts out with strong faith in the certainty of our message. He has through years of service tasted of God's goodness and knows he is on the right track. He is not starting from zero, but has such a rich background of study and experience that now he studies the Bible with the assurance that he will find new light to add to his treasure of old truths. Ellen White's faith is in these words:

Think you that my faith in this message will ever waver? Think you that I can remain silent, when I see an effort being made to sweep away the foundation pillars of our faith? I am as thoroughly established in these truths as it is possible for a person to be. I can never forget the experience I have passed through. God has confirmed my belief by many evidences of His power. Selected Messages, Book 3, 38

The chorus of "Amens" which greeted Hardinge's words indicate that many share this conviction, and from that we gather courage. Cottrell's advocacy of what he calls the approach of "the majority of Bible scholars present at Glacier View" reveals that he takes pride in belonging to the "elite," but we can detect in him a corresponding lack of the conviction in the Adventist message which we expect of our leaders, including our scholars. They should be standing in the forefront in our encounter with the enemy, but instead we see some standing on the brink of skepticism, wavering between truth and error, and even pleading for the reinstatement of a super apostate. How is the gold become dim, and the most fine gold tarnished!

Cottrell makes another statement which calls for study. He says, Let it be clear that Adventist Bible scholars using the historical method all accept the validity of 1844, Christ's day-of-atonement ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, an eschatological "restoration" of the heavenly sanctuary to its "rightful state" (or "vindication"), and a pre-Advent judgment, but they reject the proof text method reasoning on which these tenets of Adventist belief were originally based. Dr. Ford's apotelesmatic principle for interpreting Daniel 8:14 is one of the several that have been proposed in an attempt to build a bridge between a valid historical understanding of these passages, and the objective realities to which the traditional Adventist interpretation points. Before we criticize Ford's proposed solution to the exegetical problems, we have an obligation to offer a better one. Spectrum, Vol. 11, No. 2, 18

A casual perusal of this passage gives one the impression that Ballenger et al., using the "right" method of interpretation, ended up on the wrong side of the fence, while the Advent pioneers who used the "wrong" method ended up on the right side. Furthermore, Adventist Bible scholars using the historical method all accept the validity of the truths discovered by men using the "wrong" method, but insist on rediscovering the truths by using the "right" method.

We are perplexed, and ask, Since Advent pioneers discovered the truth by using the proof-text method, does that not show that this is the right method? And if Ballenger et al. made shipwreck of their faith by using the historical method, does that not reveal that it is a wrong method?

A careful reading of Cottrell's words reveals that this is not what he is saying. His statement that "they reject the proof text method reasoning on which these tenets of Adventist belief were originally based" is misleading, because the "tenets" he refers to are not the basic truths of Adventist tradition, but the four points he has listed. He deliberately avoids saying that our scholars all accept the validity of traditional Adventist beliefs, and yet tries to convey such an impression with the words, "Let it be clear that Adventist Bible scholars using the historical method all accept the validity of . . . but they reject the proof-text method of reasoning on which these tenets of Adventist belief were originally based." One who overlooks the words omitted in this quotation would gain the impression that "these tenets" refer to traditional Adventist beliefs. But no, they refer to four specific points which appear to be traditional, but are essentially something quite different:

(1) "1844" Just a bare figure. What does 1844 stand for? It can stand for much, and it can stand for nothing.

(2) "Christ's day-of-atonement ministry in the heavenly sanctuary." No mention of the critical question of the two apartments.

(3) "An eschatological 'restoration' of the heavenly sanctuary to its 'rightful state' (or 'vindication')." No

the heavenly sanctuary to its 'rightful state' (or 'vindication')." No mention of the cleansing of the sanctuary.

(4) "A pre-Advent judgment." No mention of the investigative judgment.

Therefore the words, "Let it be clear that. . ." are a misleading introduction to a faithful repetition of Des Ford's erroneous doctrines. Cottrell tries to create the impression that the scholars he is speaking for are loyal Seventh-day Adventists, but in the end we discover that they are Ford's disciples. Cottrell's claim that these "tenets" were originally based on the proof-text method is also misleading, because these tenets are errors introduced by men using the historical method. But he tries to ward off all suspicion by assuring us that the historicists will not tamper with the "tenets of Adventist belief," but only wish to change the method of arriving at them. Who is aware that in the very wording of his assuring statement he has deftly substituted contraband merchandise for the true?

It is quite clear then that the wares Cottrell is selling are typically Fordian; his style of presentation is likewise Fordian--rhetorical sleight-of-hand. And he goes on defending Ford with the challenge: "Before we criticize Ford's proposed solution to the exegetical problems, we have an obligation to offer a better one." Cottrell's enthusiasm for Ford is worthy of a better cause. In answer to his challenge we need only say that the problems Ford has raised are of his own creating, so no one else is obliged to offer any solution whatever. Moreover, as Dr. Shea points out, Ford first proposes to solve his problems with the apotelesmatic principle, but in the end he tells us that this principle cannot apply to these problems. When will Cottrell wake up to the fact that the man he admires is making a fool of him?

David Lin

December 1, 1981

RETURN TO INDEX