Chapter 13

David Lin

A study of the Old Testament proof texts quoted by New Testament writers reveals that they may be classed into two categories. One represents a second fulfillment of prophecies that apparently had an earlier fulfillment (e.g. Isaiah 7:14f) or were a historical episode having prophetic significance (cf. Zechariah 11:12f). Another category comprises prophecies which could not have been fulfilled earlier and were not fully comprehended by the men who heard, read or even wrote them, but were understood only after they were explained by men inspired by the Holy Spirit after the prophesied events had occurred. One example of such a prophecy is Psalm 16:8-11.

I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.

This text is central to Peter's sermon on Pentecost. We note that he used the proof-text method plus a logical appeal to reason. The persuasion in his sermon lies in Peter's explanation that (1) this passage could not have applied to the writer of this psalm, but (2) it finds fulfillment in the resurrection of Christ. He says:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. . . . For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool. Acts 2:29-35

The enlightening power of the Holy Spirit was no doubt abundantly present. But it was not then that Peter first perceived the significance of this psalm. For he and the other disciples had been with Jesus, and He had opened "their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures." He had explained to them that "all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44f. We note, moreover, that even before His resurrection Jesus had quoted Psalm 110:1 in reference to the Messiah. Peter is therefore using Jesus' method of interpretation, and long before he preached that powerful sermon, the Holy Spirit had already prepared his mind for its delivery. And he spoke not in a trance--like Balaam against his own will--but was in full possession of his mental powers as he reasoned with thinking men and women. God also worked this way in the Millerite awakening, and continues to work this way with us today. It is His proven method--prophetic proof texts logically explained to the satisfaction of our mental faculties. He does not want us to accept an arbitrary dogma on the force of His authority alone, but He gives scriptural evidence to convince the minds of His creatures.

We do not reject the historical method of interpretation, but maintain that for prophetic Scripture it is not applicable. If we insist with Ford that prophecy always had direct relevance for the people first addressed, and try to discover what Psalm 16:8-11 meant to its readers in 1000 B.C., we will get nowhere. We must recognize that the people first addressed did not comprehend these words. In fact, even 1000 years later nobody in that throng addressed by Peter understood this text until Peter explained it. Note also that this important prophecy was explained by the mouth of an unlearned fisherman, not by the scholarly Gamaliel, who was Peter's contemporary. In fact, if Gamaliel had been asked, "Is Peter right?" the professor would have lifted his brows and said, "I fear not. What can an illiterate fisherman from Galilee know about this profound text? After all, he's not a theologian."

What should we gather from this? The secret of arriving at an understanding of prophetic Scripture does not lie in methodology alone, but depends on the direct illumination of the Holy Spirit.

Now let us turn to the apostle Paul. What was his method of interpreting prophetic scripture? In Acts 13:33-37 he uses the same psalm quoted by Peter and also Psalm 2 as proof texts for the resurrection of Jesus. Paul argues in similar vein: "For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption." This repetition of Peter's logic shows that Psalm 16:8-11 was a classic argument used by the apostles to prove that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

We note also that Paul has no scruples about lifting proof texts out of their original context in violation of the historical method. For instance, he ends his sermon with the words of Habakkuk 1:5: "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." Turning to the context, we read, "For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation . . ." However, Paul is not speaking of the Chaldeans, but about Christ's resurrection. Then in his next sermon he quotes Isaiah 42:6, commonly understood to refer to Christ, as God's command to the apostles, saying, "For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, 'I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.'" Acts 13:47. Paul's use of this text shows that he understood "My servant" to refer to Christ and His representatives, not to any person in the days of Isaiah. This fact again refutes Ford's thesis that prophecy always had direct relevance for the people first addressed.

Another example of Paul's proof-text method of interpreting Old Testament prophetic Scripture is his quotation of Psalm 68:18, "When He ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men." Ephesians 4:8. Unlike Peter's interpretation of Psalm 16:8-11, which was evidently learned from Jesus, Paul's application of this text could only have been received by direct unction of the Holy Spirit, for this particular truth became clear only after Christ's ascension. Again we take note of the fact that this text in Psalms 68 did not have direct relevance for the people first addressed.

Now we turn to a third apostolic witness for the methodology approved of God. James, presiding at the council in Jerusalem, quoted Amos 9:11 in regard to the conversion of the Gentiles: And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:15-17

The historicist would say, this prophecy written by Amos in the eighth century, pointed to the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity. In this sense it had relevance for the people first addressed. But the second clause regarding "all the Gentiles" seeking after the Lord was not fulfilled until the time of the apostles in the first century. The complete realization of this prophecy was not witnessed by the people first addressed, but by those who lived 800 years later. Yet by that time the Lord had already pronounced the doom of the temple in Jerusalem, so this prophecy of building again "the tabernacle of David" apparently pointed beyond its fulfillment in the days of Ezra to the inauguration of the mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

Summing up the evidence, we may safely say that in the exposition of Old Testament prophecies extending to New Testament times the historical method is not applicable. The very nature of such prophecies precludes their acceptance as historical material. Now we shall turn to Daniel 8:14.

Desmond Ford et al. hold that Daniel 8:14 points to the restoration of the temple services in Jerusalem after they were suspended by Antiochus Epiphanes. That accounts for their insistence on the historical method of interpretation as "the only valid means of doing full justice to the meaning of scripture." If this view is credited, it would naturally follow that the book of Daniel should be regarded as a historical document written in prophetic style; the planks would be pulled from under the platform of our faith, and Seventh-day Adventists would thereby forfeit their raison d'ˆtre.

Thank God for His assurance that the book of Daniel is not merely a historical, but is primarily a prophetic book. Where can we find this assurance? In Mark 13:14, where Jesus said, When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand), then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.

Christ tells us that Daniel was a prophet and that the events foretold in Daniel 9:27 would extend to the first century after Christ, indicating that the time prophecies of Daniel are not numbered in terms of years, but rather in hundreds of years. Furthermore, the fact that the visions of Daniel 2, 7, and 8 all extend to the end of the world, gives us grounds for determining the general dimensions of the time periods in Daniel, assuring us that the 2300 days are in fact so many years, and deal with an event occurring not in ancient times, but in the "time of the end."

Desmond Ford maintains that "the New Testament does not contemplate 20 centuries after Christ. . . . Christ could have come back in the first century after the cross." What evidence does Ford have for this assertion? He quotes Mark 13:30, "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

Ford capitalizes on the word "all." "All these things" refers to everything Christ said about the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the world. So, using Ford's way of driving a point home, it seems that there's no way out, round, or through it. When Christ said "all," He meant "all." But we propose that there is a way out, round, and through it. We point out that the word "all" has an absolute sense and also a relative one, just as the words "eternal," "everlasting," and "forever" have their absolute and relative applications. Ford himself knows that "eternal fire" does not mean a perpetually burning hell. In similar vein we may argue that when Christ said, "this generation shall not pass till all these things be done," He was using "all" in the relative sense, referring only to the first cycle of events culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem, which was a foreshadowing of the end of the world. Christ used this word in the relative sense also in the statement, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Here the "all men" refers only to those who look to Him by faith. We quote a few more examples:

"And so all Israel shall be saved." Romans 11:26 (Except those who will not be saved.)

"[He] told me all that ever I did." John 4:39 (Except what He did not tell.)

"For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's." Philippians 2:21 (Except those who, like Timothy, seek the things of Jesus Christ.)

"These all died in faith." Hebrews 11:13 (Except Enoch, who was translated.)

"When He saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." 1 Corinthians 15:27

In his attempt to bolster his theory of God's planning for the Second Advent in the first century, Ford presents an array of Bible texts which seem to support it. But a close examination reveals that he is willfully ignorant of their correct applications. One text reads, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matthew 16:28. Here is a purposeful misapplication of scripture. A theologian of his caliber cannot plead ignorance of the widely accepted interpretation of these words of Jesus as referring to His transfiguration. Peter, James, and John were the "some" who stood in His presence when He spoke to them, and what they saw a week later was a miniature preview of the Second Advent. Moses represented the resurrected saints, and Elijah the translated ones. "Practically every Bible commentary in the world," including the Seventh-day Adventist, takes cognizance of this view. Now Ford thinks he can hoodwink his audience by applying these words of Christ to His second advent in reality. Are they indeed so gullible?

After all, did God really plan for His Son to return in the first century? No. Absolutely not. When after the resurrection the disciples asked the Lord, "Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel?" He answered, "lt is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1:7. Why didn't Christ say, Before this generation shall pass? Because that was not God's intention. It is true that some did look for the parousia in the first century. But John and Paul wrote specific messages to counter this view. John wrote, Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? John 21:23

Paul wrote: Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind . . . as that the day of Christ is at hand . . . for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3

The events spoken of here envisage a gradual development that would entail centuries of time. The "falling away" and the appearance of the "man of sin" sitting in God's temple suggest a protracted unfolding of events. And we have reason to believe that Paul had scriptural basis for his prophetic utterances. The horn speaking great words against the Most High in Daniel 7:25 is obviously the power Paul calls "the man of sin." Paul must have understood what the "time, times and dividing of time" stands for. We see then that both the Old Testament writings and the New speak of the great medieval apostasy that is to bear sway for many centuries before Christ returns to destroy this wicked power. How then can we say that He was planning to come again in the first century? Ford's rationale, which refuses to see the relative sense in the word "all," and his taking symbolic time for literal, reveal that he is either rigid and unimaginative in his thinking, or is purposely indulging in theological sophistry to undermine our faith.

Desmond Ford's chief argument against the traditional Seventh-day Adventist teaching on the sanctuary service is, "The book of Hebrews distinctly teaches that Christ went directly into the Most Holy place at His ascension. There's no way out, round, or through it."--Forum Talk, October 27, 1980. Ford adds that he has held this view from his early years, even before his baptism. He was reading Hebrews 9, and discovered that there was "something wrong" with Seventh-day Adventist teachings on the sanctuary. He says many other Adventist scholars also noticed this problem and challenged the church on it. He calls Albion Ballenger "a man of undoubted integrity and spirituality," implying thereby that he must have been right. We pause to remark that even if we grant that Ballenger was a man of integrity and spirituality, that does not necessarily mean that he was right. There are men of integrity and spirituality in some parts of the world who don't even profess Christianity. Then there are men today who say that Ford is also man of integrity and spirituality. On this we have evidence to the contrary. It is a well-known fact that Ford's book on Daniel follows the traditional line of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. His 991-page paper openly challenges these beliefs. By this inconsistency Ford demonstrates that he has been practicing duplicity all these years. On October 27, 1979, he came out in the open to attack the sanctuary truth, supposing that he had enough backing among Adventist scholars and was popular enough among the laity to withstand any opposition he might stir up. But he miscalculated. All his profession of loyalty to Adventism failed to cover up the fact that he is dedicated to the work of destroying Adventism.

Ford's advocacy of the historical method is aimed at supporting his claim that it is the "little horn that defiles the sanctuary, not the sins of the saints." His hermeneutic confines the fulfillment of Daniel 8:11-14 within the space of 1150 literal days. In this period Antiochus Epiphanes defiled the temple, and at the end of this period Judas Maccabeus restored the temple services. Thus, Ford claims, Daniel 8:14 has nothing to do with the sanctuary in heaven.

Here is our reply: (1) Mark 13:14 proves that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 extend to the first century after Christ, thus validating the use of the year-day principle in Daniel. (2) Pertinent details show that the "little horn" of Daniel 8 is identical with that of Daniel 7, which prevails for "a time and times and the dividing of time." This period of 1260 years cannot possibly apply to a person, thus disqualifying Antiochus Epiphanes as the antitype of the "little horn." (3) "Unto 2300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed," does not necessarily mean that the sanctuary will be trodden underfoot for the same length of time. Evidently there is a connection between the treading and the cleansing, but this fact does not prove that the sanctuary needs cleansing only because it has been trodden. (4) Our scriptural basis for believing that the sanctuary in heaven is defiled by the confessed sins of the saints is as follows: In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanliness. Leviticus 16:16 NlV

lt was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. Hebrews 9:23. NIV

From these texts we gather that the heavenly as well as the earthly sanctuary is defiled by the sins of the saints, and must be cleansed on the day of atonement.

Here again is a question of methodology. The historicist is reluctant to see any real connection between Daniel and Leviticus or Hebrews. Since the writing of these books is separated by many centuries, any reference in them to the same subject is regarded as a coincidence of little import. The modernist theologian denies the supernatural element in the writing and redacting of the books in the Bible. But Seventh-day Adventists believe that God is its Author, and He has scattered the truth "here a little, there a little" for the diligent searcher to discover in its time, but worldly-wise readers will "fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:13. Our proof-text method of quoting one text from Leviticus and another from Hebrews to clarify our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 may be rejected as unscholarly. But it is God's way of explaining Scripture with Scripture. Moreover, the historical method, be it ever so scholarly, is not applicable here, because Daniel 8:14 had no direct relevance for the people first addressed. Daniel himself failed to understand this vision. See Daniel 8:27.

The Bible theme of the church being the true temple of God (cf. Ephesians 2:20ff) suggests that the cleansing, restoration, and vindication of the sanctuary in heaven has a corresponding fulfillment in the Sabbath reformation and purification of the church beginning in 1844. Both processes involve growth and development, even as the investigative judgment must occupy a certain length of time. This fact justifies our belief that the cleansing of the sanctuary was not completed on October 22, 1844, but commenced on that day, even as 1 Peter 4:17 declares that "judgment must begin at the house of God." A beginning naturally connotes progression and a conclusion. It cannot be instantaneous.

As to the "little horn" treading the sanctuary underfoot, we should look for its most significant aspect. Where is the most sacred part of the sanctuary? It is the Most Holy Place. What is the most sacred object in the Most Holy Place? It is the tables of the Law of God. What is the most sacred part of the Law of God? It is the fourth commandment. Here is Ellen White's testimony:

I saw the ten commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table were four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter than the other six. But the fourth, the Sabbath commandment, shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set apart to be kept in honor of God's holy name. The holy Sabbath looked glorious--a halo of glory was all around it. Early Writings, 32-33The treading down of the sanctuary is directly associated with the down-trodden Sabbath, and reminds one of the words, "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath . . ." "thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in." Isaiah 58:13, 12. Thus we see that the work of ceremonial cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary is paralleled by the work of repairing this breach of God's law on earth. This restoration is very real and basic, because it has to do with the most vital part of the sanctuary.

The fourth commandment has been trampled upon; therefore we are called upon to repair the breach in the law, and plead for the downtrodden Sabbath. The man of sin, who exalted himself above God, and thought to change times and laws, brought about the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. In doing this, he made a breach in the law of God. Just prior to the great day of God, a message is sent forth to warn the people to come back to their allegiance to the law of God which antichrist has broken down. By precept and example, attention must be called to the breach in the law. I was shown that the third angel, proclaiming the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, represents the people who receive this message and raise the voice of warning to the world, to keep the commandments of God as the apple of the eye, and that in response to this warning many would embrace the Sabbath of the Lord." Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, 76-77

Desmond Ford's strategy is to use his exposition of Hebrews 9 to overthrow our interpretation of Daniel 8:14. Our procedure is to use Daniel 8:14 as the key to interpret Hebrews 9. When he said, "There's something wrong here," he meant that our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 was wrong, because, says he, Hebrews 9 teaches that "Christ went directly into the Most Holy Place at His ascension." Therefore we must study Hebrews 9 closely to decide who is right.

To begin, we reiterate that we are not starting from zero. We start from the light we already have on Daniel 8:14. We have demonstrated that the time prophecies of Daniel are measured with the century yardstick, and Miller's exposition is basically correct. But so far our study has been based wholly on human reasoning. Do we have divine confirmation? That is the vital question. Yes, just when we needed it most, God gave us His confirmation in the first vision seen by Ellen White. We read,

At this I raised my eyes, and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were travelling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. Early Writings, 14

The Midnight Cry was based on Miller's view of Daniel 8:14. Here it is confirmed by God as the correct starting point for all our prophetic studies. We are on the right track. Some would quibble, but the angel says, "None of the wicked shall understand." Daniel 12:10. Then let them quibble. Here is God's methodology: He lets men search the Scripture first. After they have found the correct interpretation, He confirms it through His Paraclete. We praise God for His guidance.

Now for the second starting point. It is the meaning of the words, "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The Midnight Cry is correct in principle--the October 22, 1844 date and the call, "The Bridegroom cometh." But the meaning of "come" needs restudy. It does not refer to the Second Advent of Christ, but that He will "suddenly come to His temple." Malachi 3:1. More specifically, Christ came to the Most Holy Place to cleanse the sanctuary. This point was first seen by Hiram Edson the morning after the Disappointment, later presented in a systematic study by O.R.L.Crosier in the February 7, 1845, issue of the Day Star Extra and finally confirmed in a vision seen by Ellen White.

These two points--the October 22, 1844 date and the entrance of Christ into the Most Holy Place to commence His work of cleansing the sanctuary--comprise the keystone to the arch of Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. Knock out this keystone, and the arch will collapse. That explains why our enemies have always made this doctrine the target of their attacks. That is why we must fully comprehend these basic truths and know that Adventist traditions stands on soundest scriptural evidence.

Tradition must be judged by its source. Jesus condemned the rabbinical traditions which violated God's law (cf. Matthew 15:1-9), while Paul taught the saints to "hold the traditions which ye have been taught." 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Inasmuch as Adventist traditions are the fruitage of prayerful Bible study confirmed by prophetic visions, they are part of the faith for which we must contend.

Our enemies attack our doctrine on the sanctuary not only because it is our keystone, but also because they think it is our most vulnerable spot. Since it appears to have a minimum of scriptural support and a maximum of confirmation by the Spirit of Prophecy, they challenge us to prove this doctrine with "the Bible and the Bible only," and imagine we will fail.

As far as the 2300 days is concerned, the year-day principle and the 457 B.C. date can both be verified on the basis of Bible evidence and historical facts. As for Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place in 1844, we trust the scriptural proof is strong enough to stand by itself even with the Spirit of Prophecy "prop" removed. This evidence is found in one of the texts used by Ford to overthrow this basic Adventist tenet. And working on the principle of "the Bible and the Bible only," we will show that what he thinks is our most vulnerable spot has in fact been fortified with an explicit declaration by the Holy Spirit.

A comparison of various translations of Hebrews 9:1-10 reveals that there is a wide difference of renderings, which reveal the inadequacy of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which Ford et al. think is the only correct method to follow. Moreover, since Bible translators are all men of learning, how is it that, using this supposedly correct method of interpretation, they cannot agree as to the meaning of this text?

In Chapter 12 we met the hypothetical proposition of twelve theologians disagreeing with Ellen White. Here we have a real case of more than twelve theologians disagreeing with each other. For us this situation is in fact favorable, because the disparity of different translations of this one text is an indication of its obscurity, and leaves the field open for further exploration. Since so many scholars (mostly non-Adventist) fail to agree on the meaning of this passage, there exists no strong consensus to hinder our advance, and our exposition, be it ever so original, may at least stand on a par with other versions to vie for acceptance.

In presenting our interpretation of Hebrews 9:1-10, we propose to use the grammatical-historical method plus the proof-text method, with our chief emphasis on grammar, because we note that a number of translations, including KJV, deliberately alter the grammatical form of certain key words, thus highlighting the critical part played by grammar in this text. We list below seven major points of difference in the translation of Hebrews 9:1-10.

1. The identity of the "first tabernacle" in vss. 2, 6, and 8.

2. The rendering of "ta hagia" in v. 8.

3. In v. 8, "this signifying" as against "thus signifying."

4. In v. 8, "is" versus "was not yet made manifest."

5. In v. 8, "is yet standing" versus "was yet standing"

6. In v. 9, "present time" versus "time then present"

7. Identification of "the time of reformation" of v. 10.

Now let us tackle the first six problems in their order:

1. Some make the "first tabernacle" of v. 8 refer to the entire sanctuary, as opposed to the same word in vss. 2 and 6, which means the first apartment. They are wrong on two counts: (a) The word in v. 8 is identical with the two words in vss. 2 and 6. A complete change of referent of two identical words in such close proximity is wholly unwarranted and irrational. The burden of proof rests with those who make it. (b) The earthly sanctuary is nowhere else referred to as the "first tabernacle," because it is in fact second in order, being a model copied after the true sanctuary in heaven, which existed before it and is truly "first" both in time and importance. It is certain that the "first tabernacle" of v. 8 means the first apartment. Moreover, the context discusses the layout of the first and the second apartments, hence it is only logical to understand v. 8 as also speaking of these two apartments.

2. Having determined this point, we submit that the KJV rendering, "holiest of all" is the correct translation of "ta hagia" in v. 8, because it stands in antithesis to the first apartment.

3. Some violate the grammar of the original text by changing "this signifying" to "thus signifying" in v. 8. "This" is in the accusative case, hence it cannot mean "thus." We make it an issue because "thus" causes the sentence which follows to be understood as merely a product of human insight, while Inspiration tells us that the Holy Spirit is declaring a truth which cannot be discovered by human insight alone.

We pause here for a brief study of the word "deloo," rendered "signify" in v. 8. A canvass of the seven instances of the use of this word in the New Testament reveals that in the KJV it is translated "declare" three times, "signify" three times, and "show" once. The more exact word for "signify" is semaino, which is rendered "signify" in all cases. Hence we are justified here in translating "deloo" as "declare," and the passage in question as follows:

The Holy Spirit is declaring this: that the way into the holiest place is not yet disclosed while the first apartment is still valid, which symbolizes the present time.

The truth revealed here cannot be arrived at by human insight alone. No man can gather from a study of the Levitical rites and the layout of the sanctuary furniture that the first apartment is a figure of the "present time" at the time of the writing of Hebrews. Hence it was necessary for the Holy Spirit to make a specific declaration. That is why we should accept this text as a revelation of an important truth connected with the sanctuary.

Points 4 to 6 need no elaboration. Any one familiar with the Greek can check and see that the rendering of the KJV, changing the perfect tense to pluperfect, and supplying the word "then" in the phrase "the time then present," are all arbitrary and unjustifiable alterations. Our rendering restores the original Greek tenses. And we challenge Desmond Ford and "every Greek scholar in the world," to whom he often appeals for support, to find grammatical or semantical errors in the rendering produced above.

Inasmuch as Ford bases his thesis on an erroneous version of this text, our clarification of its original meaning takes the wind out of his sails and leads to the collapse of all his arguments on the sanctuary question.

Scholarship alone, studying Hebrews 9 in isolation, cannot arrive at a consistent and unified interpretation. Many scholars to this day feel free to change the grammatical forms of the Greek to suit their private views. Another class would not tamper with the grammar, but interpret "the present time" to mean the Old Testament period, taking as their excuse the ignorance of the Christian Jews in continuing to practice Levitical rites after the crucifixion. But that is a paradox. It is evident that Hebrews was written with the purpose of dispelling the ignorance of the Christian Jews with regard to the expiration of the Old Covenant and the establishing of the New. Hence the theme in Hebrews could not possibly be built on the erroneous understanding which it is seeking to correct, and it would contradict itself by referring to the Old Testament period as "the present time." Now Ford's theory of the sanctuary is built on the false premise that the first apartment symbolized the Old Covenant and the Second Apartment the New. We say to him, Since you claim to follow the grammatical-historical method, produce grammatical evidence. Every Greek scholar in the world knows that ton kairon ton enestekota means "the present time"--when Hebrews was written within the era of the New Covenant. No amount of human reasoning will help you "out, around, or through it."

Hebrews 9 teaches that the first covenant had an earthly sanctuary, and the second covenant a heavenly one. But scholars like Desmond Ford violate Greek grammar four times in rapid succession (in vss. 8 and 9) in order to establish their false view of a divided sanctuary--the first apartment on earth and the Second one in heaven. Do these grammatical changes materially affect the meaning of the text? Yes. The gulf of difference is as wide as are truth and falsehood apart. The false rendering buries the truth completely, while the correct translation reveals the truth. But what led the translators of the KJV and others to make such changes?--They were trying to resolve the contradiction between the open and the closed ways into the Most Holy. For how can one say that the way into the Holiest (ta hagia) is not yet manifest when it plainly says in Hebrews 10:19, we may "enter into the Holiest (ta hagia) by the blood of Jesus?" In order to make Hebrews agree with itself, these scholars thought they would help God out by changing the tenses of His words, but in fact they did Him a disservice. And in attempting to resolve an obvious disparity they inadvertently created a new one, and have upset the symbolism of the Levitical rites. In such an arrangement Christ would have no priestly work to perform in the first apartment, and the offerings of the daily service would have no counterpart in the mediatorial work of our Lord. In fact, the idea of a divided sanctuary obviates the need for a heavenly one, because it sees the Second Apartment as "heaven itself." We see how the grammatical changes made in Hebrews 9:8-9 involve serious consequences, virtually destroying the correspondence of the heavenly sanctuary with its earthly model.

Adventist scholars stand on vantage ground. We should first lay aside the above-mentioned contradiction and tackle Hebrews 9:1-10. For we possess a key which will unlock the mystery of what the Holy Spirit is declaring here. Daniel 8:14 is that key. Only in the light of this text can one fully understand Hebrews 9. Circa A.D. 64 the Spirit tells us: "The way into the Holiest is not yet disclosed while the first apartment is still valid, which symbolizes the present time." Clear enough! But does the "present time" extend to our day? Verse 10 gives the answer: "which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

Here we learn that the service in the first apartment occupied a span of time within the New Testament period--obviously beginning with the cross and ending at "the time of reformation." Most commentators take this "time of reformation" to refer to the first advent of Christ, as the next verse says, "But Christ being come . . ." But no. We have just noted that the first apartment is a figure of "the present time" within the New Testament period. Since this period commenced at the crucifixion, it cannot possibly also end at that time.

Here Daniel 8:14 provides the solution in that much-mooted word tsadaq. The KJV translates it "cleansed," others add that it means "justify," "set right," "restoration," or "vindication." Very good. Here is an array of terms agreeing very closely with diorthosis, which is translated "reformation" in the KJV. This event commenced in 1844, marking the close of "the present time" of Hebrews 9. Thus the tsadaq key opens the diorthosis lock.

Adventists have always sought some indication in Hebrews of the two-apartment ministry of Christ, but have been disappointed. The best they could make of the situation was to conclude that Hebrews neither teaches nor denies this doctrine.

But is that really the best we can make of it? If we indeed believe that God has revealed this truth, then we have reason to expect that He would have given some indication of it in Hebrews. But we must also recognize that because God instructed Daniel to seal up the vision until the time of the end, He did not intend that His people should understand it until then. If He should give any intimation of this truth in Hebrews, it must also be sealed in such a way as to prevent readers from comprehending it before the seal in Daniel 8:14 is broken. Otherwise it would give the secret away prematurely. Yet the seal must not be too tight, so that it can be opened in its time. Is there such a seal in Hebrews? Yes.

In the first place, we note that the writer of Hebrews deals with the truths of redemption only in their generality, not in their specificity, speaking only of their eternal significance, not of their temporal sequence. The phrase, "of which we cannot now speak particularly," Hebrews 9:5, appears to be more than a casual dismissal of the subject. We believe the Spirit restrained the writer from a systematic analysis of the typology of the sanctuary for the reason given in v. 8, which implies that the writer himself did not know when "the way into the Holiest" would be disclosed. But that does not mean that the specific application of the types will never be understood. For the thesis stated in Hebrews 8:5 is clear enough: every detail in the earthly sanctuary should have its antitype in the heavenly one.

Another fact made plain is that Christ is both Priest and Sacrifice: Hebrews 9:12. The yearly cycle of offerings and feasts under the Old Covenant symbolized the one true cycle of events in the heavenly sanctuary performed under the New Covenant; v. 25f. Furthermore, Christ could not commence His work in the first apartment before His crucifixion, because His blood had not been shed. Hence the first apartment could not have validity (stasis, v. 8) in the Old Testament period.

Christ's ministry in the first apartment could therefore commence only after His ascension--in the New Testament period. Because all the rites of the Old Testament were symbolic of services performed in the heavenly sanctuary after the crucifixion. Nothing in the sanctuary services in either the earthly or heavenly tabernacle symbolizes anything belonging to the Old Covenant. Old Testament rituals all point forward to the realities of redemption in Christ, who said, "They are they which testify of me." John 5:39

With this point made clear, the words, "imposed until the time of reformation" can be correctly understood: In the yearly cycle, the daily services were imposed until the Day of Atonement. In the antitype, the daily ministry of Christ in the first apartment terminated with the true Day of Atonement. Therefore it is clear that "the time of reformation" is the Day of Atonement in both type and antitype. It cannot mean anything else.

In light of these facts, Ford's thesis is seen to be an anomalous product of the imagination wholly alien to the teaching of Hebrews. At the same time we see that God has indeed given us corroborative evidence in Hebrews in support of Daniel 8:14 in the form of a text that matches it in obscurity, so that it would be fully understood only after the complete unsealing of Daniel 8:14.

At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be settled. We turn to a third witness--the seven thunders. This obscure text can be elucidated by Daniel 8:14. The sealing of Daniel (cf. Daniel 8:26, 12:9) refers chiefly to the vision of the 2300 days, which was not to be understood till "the time of the end." The angel said to John, "Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not." Revelation 10:4.

After the Great Disappointment Hiram Edson first noted that "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." (Damsteegt, Foundations of the SDA Message and Mission, 105). Since Revelation 10 depicts the Millerite disappointment, it is not hard to see the identity of the sealing up of the seven thunders with that of Daniel 8:26. First, it was Miller's failure fully to comprehend Daniel 8:14 that caused the Disappointment. In Revelation 10 we have it symbolized--the sealing up of the seven thunders followed by a bitter experience, and then the command to "prophesy again," implying that God's people would recover from the Disappointment and again proclaim the Second Advent. The parallel between these visions identifies the sealing up in Daniel 8:26 and 12:9 with the one in Revelation 10:4.

Two Complementary Aspects of the Truth Now we seek the Bible solution to the problem of the open and the closed ways. How can the Holy Spirit say in one place that the way into the Holiest is not yet disclosed and in another place call on us to "enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus"? We should face this question and admit that there is a contradiction. But the way to resolve it is not arbitrarily to twist the Greek tenses. Rather, we should note that it is a typical case of the truths of redemption having always their temporal as well as eternal aspects. Daniel 9:26 reads, "after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." Here is the temporal aspect of the death of Christ. Then in Revelation 13:8 we read of "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." This is the eternal aspect of the death of Christ. The two aspects appear to be contradictory, but are in fact complementary.

To prove that the writer of Hebrews was aware of such a dual application of the truths of redemption, we quote the context: "By a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." Hebrews 10:20. Now this verse seems to contradict Hebrews 6:19-20, which speak of Jesus entering a real veil. How to conceive of Him entering a veil which is His flesh? Can we use this to prove that there is no real veil in heaven?

The point we wish to make is that if the writer of Hebrews can speak of the real veil in chapter 6, but figuratively in chapter 10, then he can also speak of the way into the Holiest as closed in Hebrews 9:8 and declare it to be open in Hebrews 10:19. Because the temporal and the eternal aspects of the truths of redemption run parallel, and are equally valid. The way into the Holiest has been open since the foundation of the world, when the Lamb of God was slain. Yet the way into the Holiest would not be disclosed as long as the first apartment is valid. Ellen White's treatment of many details of the plan of redemption also takes cognizance of their complementary aspects. For instance, she adopts the wording of Hebrews 10:19-20 in The Desire of Ages, 757, thus:

The great sacrifice has been made. The way into the Holiest is laid open. A new and living way is prepared for all. . . . "By His own blood" He entereth "in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 10:7; 9:12

It is clear that when Ellen White wrote these words she did not thereby revoke what she wrote on the sanctuary truths in The Great Controversy. But Desmond Ford thinks she did, and would quote more passages to prove that she was a "rebel" and went directly "against Adventist traditions," and so on; but in the end it is the rigidity of his logic which prevents him from finding a way "out, round, and through" the problems he brings up to confuse us. His false thesis is based on four grammatical errors in the KJV, and we have employed his boasted grammatical-historical and "the Bible and the Bible only" methodology to prove him wrong.

People ask: What is the Ford controversy all about? It is this: Ford is trying to tell us that Seventh-day Adventists are a deluded lot, and our sanctuary doctrine is a theological makeshift--a "historical necessity"--invented to keep us happy in our delusion. But as a matter of fact, Ford's teaching on the sanctuary is proved to be a hopeless anomaly--with the first apartment on earth and the Second in heaven--and Christ having no work to do in the first apartment, which then becomes a meaningless superfluity, and the daily sacrifices and offerings lose all significance. In the end it is Desmond Ford who is really deluded, and his 991-page paper was written to keep himself happy in his delusion.

Our Foundation Truths Vindicated

Philippians 3:19 speaks of people "whose glory is in their shame." We will now speak of those who are ashamed of their glory. Let us ask, What is our glory? Christ says in His prayer, "The glory which thou gavest me I have given them." John 17:22. In what way was this glory given? Christ says, "The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." And Christ prayed, "I have given them the words which thou gavest me." John 17:8. To entrust a human mortal with a message from God above, is the very highest honor that Heaven can bestow. Even as it is written, "unto them were committed the oracles of God." Romans 3:2

The one substantial gift that Christ gave to His disciples was words. The Paraclete was sent for the express purpose of bringing "all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have said unto you." "He will guide you into all truth, . . . and He will show you things to come." John 14:26, 16:13. The glory which the Father gave the Son was His word of truth. And the Son has given this glory to His chosen people by entrusting them with the sanctuary truths, thus giving us light far in advance of the churches who rejected the Midnight Cry.

No Time for Cowards Now

But there are men among us who are ashamed of our sanctuary teachings. They are embarrassed by Desmond Ford's slurs about "heavenly geography" and "celestial furniture" and are not sure of the truth. They talk no more of the two apartments, but adopt the more euphemistic term, "two phases," whereupon Ford is gratified in having pulled them over thus far. No doubt he will continue to pull, to make them ashamed even to talk about the "two phases" and again change their vocabulary to suit his taste.

He is flattered to see that he can keep Adventists jumping--busy covering up this and that ugly spot in their "patchwork rug." Are Adventists indeed so impotent? No! We have every reason to be proud of the oracles of God which He has entrusted His people. It is a token of His confidence in us, and we dare not betray His trust. We will pray, "Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart." "For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." Psalm 119:111; 138:2

The sanctuary doctrine is an integral part of the everlasting gospel. Paul says, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation." Romans 1:16. In Roman times the cross was an instrument of torture and a symbol of humiliation, but Paul said, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Galatians 6:14. Today we should glory in this truth which Satan is making an object of ridicule. The more Desmond Ford rants about "heavenly geography," the more we will proclaim that the way into the Holiest was disclosed in 1844 when Christ entered the Second Apartment to finish His work of atonement.

Now is the time for us to lift up the sign of sanctification--the holy Sabbath which is being trodden under foot by men--and announce that the investigative judgment has begun. This grand work of restoration and reformation is to repair the breach made in the Law of God. "In the fullness of time," He who knows no haste or delay has given this truth to His people. In Daniel's day Gabriel said, "There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince." Daniel 10:21. But now "these things" are entrusted to us who are sent to proclaim the everlasting gospel. Is any man ashamed and cowardly among us? "Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early." Judges 7:3. But we will fight the battles of the Lord and lift high the banner of truth. For it is our glory.

We have seen that the apostles used proof texts quoted from the Old Testament to prove their points. They did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Adventist pioneers likewise used the proof-text method, making holy Scripture its own expositor. But when they had done their best and could not arrive at a consensus, the Holy Spirit confirmed the correct interpretation by prophetic vision. This confirmation was imperative in the case of a conflict of different views, all claiming to be based on the Bible. Then there is a case on record regarding early Sabbatarian Adventists trying to determine the correct time to begin Sabbath observance. They prayed for light, but no light came by vision. Why? Because the answer is in the Bible. They finally found it in Judges 14:18. From this incident we learn God's way of working. When men bring up a medley of interpretations all supposedly based on the Bible and cannot find their way out of their confusion, God will give direct guidance. But when the light we need can be found in the Bible, God will not necessarily repeat it by prophetic vision.

Now we come to this question: Today we have no living prophet among us. How can we receive confirmation by the Holy Spirit when we disagree on points of doctrine? If we take the writings of Ellen White as the norm for judging doctrine, do we not virtually set the bounds for our faith and put an end to progress? To this question we reply, The writings of the gift of prophecy contain much light that has not yet been appropriated. If there are any bounds here, they are always wider than the limits imposed by our own self-complacency. Our chief concern should be, Are we by our callousness and lethargy limiting the Holy One of Israel? Have we seen and accepted all the light God has graciously given?

Would we ask for another living prophet? Hear what God has to say: "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." Luke 16:31. The Testimonies of the Spirit of Prophecy are a veritable gold mine awaiting our exploration. Yet we are as men having eyes who see not. The people of God have not appreciated the value of His gift, and some are even ashamed of it. "They refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear." Zechariah 7:11. Because we close our eyes to light already given, how can we expect the Lord to give more light? Let us awake and repent, and apply ourselves to the rich store of present truth with which the Lord has favored us. Let us study the visions not in a spirit of idle curiosity, but in reverent awe and humility.

For God has said, "To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word." Isaiah 66:2. Only when we have fully exploited the treasures hidden in this "gold mine" will the Lord grant us additional revelations. "Although the Lord gives you the bread of adversity and the water of affliction, your teachers will be hidden no more; with your own eyes you will see them. Whether you turn to the right or to the left, your ears will hear a voice behind you, saying, 'This is the way, walk in it.'" Isaiah 30:20 f NIV

Today, as Ford, Rea, and Company, bent on the work of demolishing Seventh-day Adventism, try to wreak havoc with their rabid tirades, we will give tit for tat, announcing to all the world, "Here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus." "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." And here is the promised Comforter--the third Person of the Godhead--speaking to God's people in His name. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches."

For this is our glory.

David Lin

January 6, 1982

RETURN TO INDEX