3116112
Seventh-Day Idventists
questions on doctrine
^
illlllil^^
jjjttij
ll^
SEP 8
3 1989
MAI SEP 20, $90
<UL
QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Seventh-day Adveutists
AN EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN MAJOR ASPECTS
OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST BELIEF
Prepared by a Representative 'Group of
Seventh-day Adventist Leaders, Bible Teachers,
and Editors
REVIEW -AND HERALD
PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
COPYRIGHT 1957 BY THE
REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION
OFFSET IN U.S A.
Contents
Introduction 7
Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists 1 1
I. PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
1. Doctrines We Share With Other Christians 21
2. The Bible, Only Rule of Faith and Practice 26
3. Seventh-day Adventist Relationship to Past Positions 29
II. QUESTIONS ABOUT CHRIST
4. Deity and Eternal Pre-existence of Christ 35
5. Deity of Christ and Church Membership 42
6. The Incarnation and the "Son of Man" 50
7. The Bodily Resurrection of Christ 66
8. Christ, and Michael the Archangel 71
III. QUESTIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF ELLEN G. WHITE'S
WRITINGS TO THE BIBLE
9. Ellen C. White's Writings and Their Relation to the Bible 89
IV. QUESTIONS ON THE LAW AND LEGALISM
JO. Christ the Heart of the Advent Message 101
11. The Basis and Fruitage of Christian Experience 105
12. The Ten Commandments, God's Standard of Conduct ._ 121
13. Distinction Between the Decalogue and the Ceremonial Law 129
14. The Relationship of Grace to Law and Works 135
V. QUESTIONS ON THE SABBATH, SUNDAY, AND THE MARK
OF THE BEAST
15. The Foundation of Sabbath Observance
16. The Sabbath and the Moral Law - 15
17. Saturday Observance a Valid Criterion 177
18. Historic Concept of the Mark of the Beast _... 179
19. When the Mark Will Be Received _ 183
20. Who Constitute the "Remnant Church'"/ 186
21. What Constitutes "Babylon"? 197
VI. QUESTIONS ON PROPHECY, DANIEL 8 AND 9, AND THE
2300 DAYS
22. Basic Principles of Prophetic Interpretation 205
23. Christ Pre-eminent in Daniel 8 and 9 244
6 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
24. Problems Pertaining to Daniel 8 - 252
25. Relation of Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 to 2300 Days of
Daniel 8 - - 268
26. The Seventieth Week of Daniel 9 and the Gap Theory .... 296
27. Scholarly Precedents for 1S44 Ending of 2300 Year-Days 309
28. Antiochas Epiphanes and the Prophetic Specifications of
Daniel - 3 1 7
VII. QUESTIONS ON CHRIST AND His MINISTRY IN THE
SANCTUARY
29. A Wider Concept of the Atonement 341
30. Sacrificial Atonement Provided; Sacrificial Atonement
Applied - 349
31. Salvation Prefigured in the Sanctuary Service 356
32. The Heavenly Sanctuary Figurative or Literal Concepts .... 365
33. The High-Priestly Ministry of Christ 369
34. The Meaning of Azazel 391
35. The Transaction With the Scapegoat 396
36. The Investigative Judgment in the Setting of the Arminian
Concept 402
VIII. QUESTIONS ON THE SECOND ADVENT AND THE
MILLENNIUM
37. The Second Coming of Christ 449 *
38. Varied Concepts of the Millennium 465
39. Adventist Understanding of the Millennium 489
IX. QUESTIONS ON IMMORTALITY
40. Innate or Conditional Immortality 511
41. The Condition of Man in Death 520
42. The Punishment of the Wicked 533
43. The Rich Man and Lazarus - 544
44. Champions of Conditional Immortality Span the Centuries 567
X. MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS
45. Intent of the Term "Everlasting Gospel" 613
46. Satan, Demons, and Angels 618
47. The Question of Unclean Foods 622
48. Adventist Relationship to World Missions Program 625
Representative Adventist Doctrinal Literature 629
XL APPENDIXES AND INDEXES
A. Christ's Place in the Godhead 641
B. Christ's Nature During the Incarnation 647
C. The Atonement 661
Scripture Index 693
General Index 7 1
Introduction
This book came Into being to meet a definite need.
Interest concerning Seventh-day Adventist belief and
work has increased as the movement has grown. But in
recent years especially, there seems to be a desire on the
part of many non-Adventists for a clearer understanding
of our teachings and objectives. Uncertainty regarding
our basic beliefs is abundantly evident in much of the
literature published concerning us. There are already
many books purporting to give the story of this people.
Recently, however, one of the large Protestant pub-
lishing houses here in the United States planned the
production of still another book. An author of several
works dealing with the history and beliefs of certain
religious groups was requested to produce this new
book, the purpose of which was to present a general
review of our history and belief. It was to be an objec-
tive analysis, with particular emphasis in those areas
wherein Adventist teachings differ from some other
Christian groups.
In order to be factual in his treatment of the subject
this author did what authors in general have failed to
do: he visited our denominational headquarters in
Washington, B.C., and obtained firsthand information.
Moreover, he came not for just a single visit, but in
company with other scholars made a number of trips
to the General Conference covering a period of almost
8 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
two years. Hundreds of hours went Into this research,
and hundreds of books and pamphlets, both Adventlst
and non-Adventlst, were examined. In addition there
were a large number of interviews. During these many
months of study, the major aspects of Adventist teach-
ing were carefully analyzed. The inquiries growing out
of this investigation were ultimately couched in a series
of searching questions to which comprehensive answers
were requested.
The replies were prepared by a group of recognized
leaders, in close counsel with Bible teachers, editors,
and administrators. The goal was to set forth our basic
beliefs in terminology currently used in theological cir-
cles. This was not to be a new statement of faith, but
rather an answer to specific questions concerning our
faith. It was natural that these answers would come
within the framework of the official statement of Fun-
damental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists which ap-
pears in our Church Manual and is included in this
volume, pages 11-18. In view of this fact, these answers
represent the position of our denomination in the area
of church doctrine and prophetic interpretation.
As the work on the answers progressed, it was felt
that our church members would be equally benefited
by the material being prepared, and therefore it was
decided to publish the completed work in book form.
So this volume came into being. While the form of the
work is rather unusual, it will, we trust, meet a definite
need.
The writers, counselors, and editors who produced
the answers to these questions have labored conscien-
tiously to state accurately the beliefs of Seventh-day
INTRODUCTION 9
Adventists. But because of the very nature of the Sev-
enth-day Adventist Church organization no statement
of Seventh-day Adventist belief can be considered of-
ficial unless it is adopted by the General Conference
in quadrennial session, when accredited delegates from
the whole world field are present. The answers in this
volume are an expansion of our doctrinal positions con-
tained in the official statement of Fundamental Beliefs
already referred to. Hence this volume can be viewed
as truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Those who have prepared these answers make no
claim that they have provided the final word on Chris-
tian doctrine. Seventh-day Adventists believe that man's
understanding of God's truth is progressive. "The path
of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and
more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18). We surely
should know more of God's will and purpose than did
righteous men of earlier ages. And in days to come we
should rightly expect further unfolding of Bible truth.
While we accept the Bible and the Bible only as our
rule of faith and practice, we clearly recognize that
we do not understand perfectly all truth which God
would have His children know today. Nor have we ever
claimed such knowledge. We honor the noble line of
witnesses such as Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Calvin,
Knox, Wesley, and other great leaders of the past, whose
advance into new light led the church forward in its
fuller understanding of God's will. And we believe that
God has given special light in these last days that is in
advance of the gospel light perceived by earlier Chris-
tian leaders.
10 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
In harmony with the apostolic injunction, "Be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and
fear" (1 Peter 3:15), we have here sought to give reasons
for our faith. We invite our Christian friends to examine
these answers in the light of the Word of God.
The officers of the General Conference of Seventh-
day Adventists felt that the material appearing in this
volume would not only be helpful to the members of
their own church but that it would also furnish re-
liable information on Adventist beliefs and teachings
to the many inquiries, that, in recent years, have arisen
regarding Adventist doctrines. They have therefore re-
quested that this book be published for general use
with the fervent prayer and hope that it may be useful
in making clearer the way of salvation through our Lord
Jesus Christ.
THE EDITORIAL COMMITTEE
Fundamental Beliefs of Scvcntli-day Adwntists
Seventh-day Adventists hold certain fundamental
beliefs, the principal features of which, together with a
portion of the scriptural references upon which they
are based, may be summarized as follows:
1. That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments were given by inspiration of God, contain
an all-sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are
the only unerring rule of faith and practice (2 Tim.
3:15-17).
2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the
Eternal Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent,
omnipresent, omniscient, infinite In wisdom and love;
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father,
through whom all things were created and through
whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be ac-
complished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the
Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work
of redemption (Matt. 28:19).
3. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the
same nature and essence as the Eternal Father. While
retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the
nature of the human family, lived on the earth as a
man, exemplified In His life as our example the prin-
ciples of righteousness, attested His relationship to God
by many mighty miracles, died for our sins on the cross,
was raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father,
where He ever lives to make intercession for us
11
12 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
(John 1:1, 14; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:1, 2; 4:14-16; 7:25).
4. That every person in order to obtain salvation
must experience the new birth; that this comprises an
entire transformation of life and character by the re-
creative power of God through faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ (John 3:16; Matt. 18:3; Acts 2:37-39).
5. That baptism is an ordinance of the Christian
church and should follow repentance and forgiveness
of sins. By its observance faith is shown in the death,
burial, and resurrection of Christ. That the proper
form of baptism is by immersion (Rom. 6:1-6; Acts
16:30-33.)
6. That the will of God as it relates to moral con-
duct is comprehended in His law of ten command-
ments; that these are great moral, unchangeable pre-
cepts, binding upon all men, in every age (Ex, 20:1-
17).
7. That the fourth commandment of this un-
changeable law requires the observance of the seventh-
day Sabbath. This holy institution is at the same time a
memorial of creation and a sign of sanctification, a sign
of the believer's rest from his own works of sin, and
his entrance into the rest of soul which Jesus promises
to those who come to Him. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11;
31:12-17; Heb. 4:1-10.)
8. That the law of ten commandments points out
sin, the penalty of which is death. The law cannot save
the transgressor from his sin, nor impart power to keep
him from sinning. In infinite love and mercy, God
provides a way whereby this may be done. He furnishes
a substitute, even Christ the Righteous One, to die in
man's stead, making "him to be sin for us, who knew
FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS 13
no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him" (2 Cor. 5:21). That one is justified, not
by obedience to the law, but by the grace that is in
Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ, man is reconciled to
God, justified by His blood for the sins of the past, and
saved from the power of sin by His indwelling life.
Thus the gospel becomes "the power of God unto sal-
vation to every one that believeth" (Rom. 1:16). This
experience is wrought by the divine agency of the Holy
Spirit, who convinces of sin and leads to the Sin Bearer,
inducting the believer into the new covenant relation-
ship, where the law of God is written on his heart, and
through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ,
his life is brought into conformity to the divine pre-
cepts. The honor and merit of this wonderful transfor-
mation belong wholly to Christ. (1 John 2:1, 2; 3:4;
Rom. 3:20; 5:8-10; 7:7; Eph. 2:8-10; 3:17; Gal. 2:20;
Heb. 8:8-12.)
9. That "God only hath immortality" (1 Tim.
6:16). Mortal man possesses a nature inherently sin-
ful and dying. Eternal life is the gift of God through
faith in Christ (Rom. 6:23). "He that hath the Son
hath life" (1 John 5:12). Immortality is bestowed
upon the righteous at the second coming of Christ,
when the righteous dead are raised from the grave and
the living righteous translated to meet the Lord. Then
it is that those accounted faithful "put on immortality."
(1 Cor. 15:51-55.)
10. That the condition of man in death is one of
unconsciousness. That all men, good and evil alike, re-
main in the grave from death to the resurrection.
(Eccl. 9:5, 6; Ps. 146:3, 4; John 5:28, 29.)
14 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
11. That there shall be a resurrection both of the
just and of the unjust. The resurrection of the just will
take place at the second coming of Christ; the resur-
rection of the unjust will take place a thousand years
later, at the close of the millennium. (John 5:28, 29;
1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:5-10.)
12. That the finally impenitent, including Satan,
the author of sin, will, by the fires of the last day, be
reduced to a state of nonexistence, becoming as though
they had not been, thus purging God's universe of sin
and sinners (Rom. 6:23; Mai 4:1-3; Rev. 20:9, 10;
Obadiah 16).
13. That no prophetic period is given in the Bible
to reach the second advent, but that the longest one,
the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, terminated in 1844, and
brought us to an event called the cleansing of the sanc-
tuary.
14. That the true sanctuary, of which the taber-
nacle on earth was a type, is the temple of God in
heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and on-
ward, and of which the Lord Jesus, as our great high
priest, is minister; that the priestly work of our Lord
is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests
of the former dispensation; that this heavenly sanc-
tuary is the one to be cleansed at the end of the
2300 days of Daniel 8:14, its cleansing being, as in
the type, a work of judgment, beginning with the en-
trance of Christ as the high priest upon the judgment
phase of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, fore-
shadowed in the earthly service of cleansing the sanc-
tuary on the day of atonement. This work of judg-
FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS 15
ment In the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844. Its
completion will close human probation.
15. That God, in the time of the judgment and in
accordance with His uniform dealing with the human
family in warning them of corning events vitally affect-
ing their destiny (Amos 3:6, 7), sends forth a procla-
mation of the approach of the second advent of Christ;
that this work is symbolized by the three angels of
Revelation 14; and that their threefold message brings
to view a work of reform to prepare a people to meet
Him at His coming.
16. That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary,
synchronizing with the period of the proclamation of
the message of Revelation 14, is a time of investigative
judgment; first, with reference to the dead, and sec-
ond, with reference to the living. This investigative
judgment determines who of the myriads sleeping In
the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first
resurrection, and who of Its living multitudes are
worthy of translation. (1 Peter 4:17, 18; Dan. 7:9, 10;
Rev. 14:6,7; Luke 20:35.)
17. That the followers of Christ should be a godly
people, not adopting the unholy maxims or conform-
ing to the unrighteous ways of the world, not loving its
sinful pleasures or countenancing its follies. That be-
lievers should recognize their bodies as the temple of
the Holy Spirit, and that therefore they should clothe
that body in neat, modest, dignified apparel. Further,
that in eating and drinking and In their entire course
of conduct they should shape their lives as becometh^
followers of the meek and lowly Master. Thus the fol-
lowers of Christ will be led to abstain from all intoxi-
16 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
eating drinks, tobacco, and other narcotics, and to
avoid every body- and soul-defiling habit and practice.
(1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 9:25; 10:31; 1 Tim. 2:9, 10; 1 John
2:6.)
18. That the divine principle of tithes and offerings
for the support of the gospel is an acknowledgment of
God's ownership in our lives, and that we are stewards
who must render account to Him of all that He has
committed to our possession (Lev. 27:30; Mai. 3:8-12;
Matt. 23:23; 1 Cor. 9:9-14; 2 Cor. 9:6-15).
19. That God has placed in His church the gifts of
the Holy Spirit, as enumerated in 1 Corinthians 12 and
Ephesians 4. That these gifts operate in harmony with
the divine principles of the Bible, and are given for the
perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, the
edifying of the body of Christ (Rev. 12:17; 19:10;
1 Cor. 1:5-7). That the gift of the Spirit of prophecy
is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church.
(1 Cor. 1:5, 7; 12:1, 28; Rev. 12:17; 19:10; Amos 3:7;
Hosea 12:10, 13.) They recognize that this gift was
manifested in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White.
20. That the second coming of Christ is the great
hope of the church, the grand climax of the gospel and
plan of salvation. His coming will be literal, personal,
and visible. Many important events will be associated
with His return, such as the resurrection of the dead,
the destruction of the wicked, the purification of the
earth, the reward of the righteous, the establishment of
His everlasting kingdom. The almost complete fulfill-
ment of various lines of prophecy, particularly ^those
found in the books of Daniel and the Revelation, with
existing conditions in the physical, social, industrial,
FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS 17
political, and religious worlds, indicates that Christ's
coming "is near, even at the doors" (Matt. 24:33). The
exact time of that event has not been foretold. Believers
are exhorted to be ready, for "in such an hour as ye
think not the Son of man" (Matt. 24:44) will be re-
vealed. (Luke 17:26-30; 21:25-27; John 14:1-3; Acts
1:9-11; Rev. 1:7; Heb. 9:28; James 5:1-8; Joel 3:9-16;
2 Tim. 3:1-5; Dan. 7:27; Matt. 24:36, 44.)
21. That the millennial reign of Christ covers the
period between the first and the second resurrections,
during which time the saints of all ages will live with
their blessed Redeemer in heaven. At the end of the
millennium, the Holy City with all the saints will de-
scend to the earth. The wicked, raised in the second res-
urrection, will go up on the breadth of the earth with
Satan at their head to compass the camp of the saints,
when fire will come down from God out of heaven and
devour them. In the conflagration which destroys Satan
and his host, the earth itself will be regenerated and
cleansed from the effects of the curse. Thus the universe
of God will be purified from the foul blot of sin. (Rev-
elation 20; Zech. 14:1-4; 2 Peter 3:7-10.)
22. That God will make all things new. The earth,
restored to its pristine beauty, will become forever the
abode of the saints of the Lord. The promise to
Abraham, that through Christ he and his seed should
possess the earth throughout the endless ages of eter-
nity, will be fulfilled. "The kingdom and 'dominion,
and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole
heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the
most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
and all dominions shall serve and obey him" (Dan.
18 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
7:27). Christ the Lord will reign supreme, and every
creature which is in heaven and on the earth and under
the earth, and such as are in the sea, will .ascribe "bless-
ing, and honour, and glory, and power" unto "him that
sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and
ever" (Gen. 13:14-17; Rom. 4:13; Heb. 11:8-16; Matt.
5:5; Isaiah 35; Rev. 21:1-7; 5:13; Dan. 7:27).
I Preliminary Questions
Doctrines We Sliare With Other Christians
QUESTION 1
What doctrines do Seventh-day Adventists
hold in common with Christians in general^ and
in what aspects of Christian thought do they
differ?
Christians in general are divided into various
schools of thought on practically every doctrine of the
Bible. On some doctrines Seventh-day Adventists find
themselves in one group, and on other doctrines we
may be classified quite differently. With some religious
groups we hold many doctrines in common. With
others we may find little common doctrinal ground.
We do not accept certain doctrines held by some Chris-
tians because we feel they are not based oh the Word
of God.
Practically all Seventh-day Adventist beliefs are
held by one or more Christian groups. A few are dis-
tinctive with us. Our beliefs could be classified in re-
lation to the beliefs of other Christians under the fol-
lowing headings:
I. In Common With Conservative Christians and the
Historic Protestant Creeds, We Believe
L That God is the Sovereign Creator, upholder,
21
22 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
and ruler of the universe, and that He Is eternal,
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
2. That the Godhead, the Trinity, comprises God
the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
3. That the Scriptures are the inspired revelation
of God to men; and that the Bible is the sole rule of
faith and practice.
4. That Jesus Christ is very God, and that He has
existed with the Father from all eternity.
5. That the Holy Spirit is a personal being, shar-
ing the attributes of deity with the Father and the Son.
6. That Christ, the Word of God, became incar-
nate through the miraculous conception and the virgin
birth; and that He lived an absolutely sinless life here
on earth.
7. That the vicarious, atoning death of Jesus
Christ, once for all, is all-sufficient for the redemption of
a lost race.
8. That Jesus Christ arose literally and bodily
from the grave.
9. That He ascended literally and bodily into
heaven.
10. That He now serves as our advocate in priestly
ministry and mediation before the Father.
11. That He will return in a premillennial, per-
sonal, imminent second advent.
12. That man was created sinless, but by his sub-
sequent fall entered a state of alienation and depravity.
13. That salvation through Christ is by grace alone,
through faith in His blood.
14. That entrance upon the new life in Christ is
by regeneration, or the new birth.
DOCTRINES >WE SHARE 23
15. That man is justified by faith.
16. That man is sanctified by the indwelling Christ
through the Holy Spirit.
17. That man will be glorified at the resurrection or
translation of the saints, when the Lord returns.
18. That there will be a judgment of all men.
19. That the gospel is to be preached as a witness
to all the world.
II. On Certain Controverted Doctrines Among Conserva-
tive Christians, We Hold One of Two or More Alternate
Views. We Believe
1. That man is free to choose or reject the offer
of salvation through Christ; we do not believe that
God has predetermined that some men shall be saved
and others lost.
2. That the moral law of ten commandments, or
the Decalogue, is the standard of life and conduct for
all men of all ages; we do not believe that the Deca-
logue has been either changed or abolished.
3. That baptism is to be administered by single
immersion; we do not believe that it may be admin-
istered by sprinkling, pouring, or trine immersion,
4. That man was endowed at creation with con-
ditional immortality; we do not believe that man has
innate immortality or an immortal soul.
5. That the wicked will be punished by suffering
and complete destruction in the lake of fire; we do not
believe in an eternally burning hell in which souls are
tormented without end.
6. That the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath;
we do not believe that the Sabbath has been abolished,
24 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
changed to the first day, or Is merely a seventh part of
time.
7. That the principle of tithing is God's plan for
the support of His church; we do not believe that tith-
ing was only for the Jews.
8. That God created the world in six literal days;
we do not believe that creation was accomplished by
long aeons of evolutionary processes.
9. That the correct view of prophetic interpretation
is best set forth by what is known as the historical school;
we do not accept the systems followed by either the
preterists or the futurists.
10. That church and state should operate in en-
tirely separate spheres; we do not believe that in an
attempt to control men's religion or religious activities
the church should dominate the state, or that the state
should govern the church.
11. That the ordinance instituted by Christ that
of washing one another's feet at the time of the Lord's
Supper is to be practiced; we do not believe that this
was merely an accommodation to the customs and neces-
sities of those times.
12. That we should abstain from such practices as
the use of alcohol and tobacco; we do not believe that
Indulgence in these things Is fully representative of the
character of our Lord.
III. In a Few Areas of Christian Thought, Our Doctrines
Are Distinctive With Us. We Believe
1. That there Is a sanctuary In heaven where
Christ, our High Priest, ministers In two distinct phases
of His mediatorial work.
DOCTRINES WE SHARE 25
2. That there is to be an investigative judgment in
which the destinies of all men are decided before Christ
comes in the clouds of glory.
3. That the Spirit of prophecy, or the prophetic
gift, is one of the gifts of the Spirit promised to the
church in the last days, and that that gift was manifested
to the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the work and
writings of Ellen G. White.
4. That the seal of God and the mark of the
beast, mentioned in Revelation, are the symbols of the
opposing forces of good and evil in the last great con-
flict before Christ comes the second time.
5. That the three angels of Revelation 14 repre-
sent the proclamation of God's last message to the world
in preparation for the coming of our Lord.
Tfte Bible, Only Rule of Forth and Practice
QUESTION 2
Regarding the inspiration of the Bible, do
Seventh-day Adventists teach that the Bible is
the very word of God, the only infallible rule for
faith and practice?
Seventh-day Adventists believe that "all scripture,"
both Old and New Testament, from Genesis to Revela-
tion, was "given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16),
and constitutes the very word of God the truth that
"liveth and abideth for ever" (1 Peter 1:23). We rec-
ognize the Bible as the ultimate and final authority on
what is truth. The Holy Scriptures came to us through
the ministry of the prophets who spake and wrote "as
they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21).
The apostles declared that the God who made the
heavens and the earth spake through the mouth of
David and the prophets of old (Acts 4:24-26; Matt.
1:22; 2:15; Acts 3:18-20; 28:25, 26; Heb. 1:1; 4:7).
And these chosen messengers of God declared that
what was given through them was the very word of
God (Isa. 43:1; 45:1; Jer. 17:19, 20; 18:1, 2; 22:1, 2;
26:1, 2). Paul reminded his converts that when they
listened to the Scriptures being read, they were hearing,
26
BIBLE, RULE OF FAITH 27
not the words of men, but in truth, the word of God
(1 Thess. 2:13).
Through the ministry of these messengers of old,
Jehovah declared His truth to the world. Quoting the
message of Moses: "I will raise them up a Prophet from
among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my
words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all
that I shall command him" (Deut. 18:18). And Jere-
miah records the Lord as saying, "Behold, I have put
my words in thy mouth" (Jer. 1:9). The word which
these men spake and wrote was not their own; it was
the word of the living God. And to Ezekiel God said,
"Son of man, go, get thee unto the house of Israel, and
speak with my words unto them" (Eze. 3:4).
Expressions such as "Hear the word of the Lord";
"I heard the voice of the Lord, saying"; "The word of
the Lord came unto me," et cetera, occur more than
1,300 times in the prophetic writings of the Old Testa-
ment. And the New Testament writers make much
the same claim. The apostle Paul says, "I have received
of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (1
Cor. 11:23). "If any man think himself to be a prophet,
or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord"
(1 Cor. 14:37).
We take the Bible in its entirety, believing that it
not merely contains the word of God, but is the word
of God.
We believe in the authority, veracity, reliability,
and truth of the Holy Scriptures. The same unioh
of the divine and the human that is manifest in Christ,
exists in the Bible. Its truths, revealed, are "given by
28 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
inspiration of God." (2 Tim. 3:16), yet are couched in
the words of men.
Seventh-day Adventists hold the Protestant position
that the Bible and the Bible only is the sole rule of
faith and practice for Christians. We believe that
all theological beliefs must be measured by the living
Word, judged by its truth, and whatsoever is unable to
pass this test, or is found to be out of harmony with its
message, is to be rejected.
True Christianity receives the word of God as the great
treasure house of inspired truth and the test of all inspiration.
The Great Controversy , p. 193.
We are to receive God's word as supreme authority. Testi-
monies, vol. 6, p, 402.
In our time there is a wide departure from their [the Scrip-
tures'] doctrines and precepts, and there is need of a return to
the great Protestant principle the Bible, and the Bible only,
as the rule of faith and duty. The Great Controversy, pp. 204,
205.
Seventh-day
to Past Positions
QUESTION 3
Have Seventh-day Adventists changed
from some of the positions advocated by certain
adherents of earlier years, from whom citations
are still currently circulated? Do such citations
misrepresent the present teachings of Adventist
leadership?
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the unfolding
light of Bible truth is progressive, and is to shine "more
and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18). And we
have sought to walk in the advancing light of truth. We
have never driven in formal creedal stakes, and said,
"This is the truth; thus far, and no farther." Ellen G.
White, one of our leading writers, wrote in 1892:
New light will ever be revealed on the word of God to him
who is in living connection with the Sun of Righteousness. Let
no one come to the conclusion that there is no more truth to be
revealed. The diligent, prayerful seeker for truth will find precious
rays of light yet to shine forth from the word of God. Counsels
on Sabbath School Work, p. 34.
The founding fathers of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church over a century ago came out of various denom-
inational backgrounds. While all were premillennialists,
some were Trinitarian; others were Arian. The major-
ity were Arminians; a few were Calvinists. Some insisted
on immersion; a few were content with sprinkling.
There was diversity on these points. And as with various
29
30 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
other religious groups, our early days were characterized
by transition and adjustment. A church was being
brought forth. As these men were already born-again
believers, the initial study and emphasis was placed
upon the distinctive teachings of the movement. And
they were similarly occupied in developing an effective
organization.
In those early years relatively little attention was
paid to the respective merits of Arminianism in contrast
with the Calvinist position. The historic differences of
thought involved had reached back to Augustine and
Chrysostom. They did not concern themselves with
"absolute decrees," "divine sovereignty," "particular
election," or "limited atonement." Nor did they, at
first, seek to define the nature of the Godhead, or the
problems of Christology, involving the deity of Christ
and His nature during the incarnation; the personality
and deity of the Holy Spirit; the nature, scope, and
completeness of the atonement; the relationship of law
to grace or the fullness of the doctrine of righteousness
by faith; and the like.
But with the passage of years the earlier diversity of
view on certain doctrines gradually gave way to unity
of view. Clear and sound positions were then taken by
the great majority on such doctrines as the Godhead,
the deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ, and the
personality of the Holy Spirit. Clear-cut views were
established on righteousness by faith, the true relation-
ship of law and grace, and on the death of Christ as the
complete sacrificial atonement for sin.
A few, however, held to some of their former views,
and at times these ideas got into print. However, for
RELATIONSHIP TO PAST POSITIONS 31
decades now the church has been practically at one on
the basic truths of the Christian faith.
The very fact that our positions were now clarified
seemed to us to be sufficient. Our teachings, we felt, were
clear. And no particular statement of change from those
earlier ideas appeared necessary. Today the primary
emphasis of all our leading denominational literature,
as well as the continuous presentation over radio and
television, emphasizes the historic fundamentals of the
Christian faith.
But the charges and attacks have persisted. Some con-
tinue to gather up quotations from some of our earlier
literature long since out of date, and print. Certain
statements are cited, often wrested out of context, which
give a totally distorted picture of the beliefs and teach-
ings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of today.
Another consideration should be taken into account.
It is that Seventh-day Adventists, having no formal
creed, do not rigidly bind the thinking of their ministry.
It would be strange indeed if from some Adventist
writer there did not appear an occasional statement that
was out of line with the consensus of Seventh-day
Adventist belief. Most religious bodies face this prob-
lem and embarrassment from time to time.
All this has made it desirable and necessary for us
to declare our position anew upon the great fundamen-
tal teachings of the Christian faith, and to deny every
statement or implication that Christ, the second person
of the Godhead, was not one with the Father from all
eternity, and that His death on the cross was not a full
and complete sacrificial atonement. The belief of Sev-
enth-day Adventists on these great truths is clear and
32 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
emphatic. And we feel that we should not be identified
with, or stigmatized for, certain limited and faulty con-
cepts held by some, particularly in our formative years.
This statement should therefore nullify the stock
"quotations" that have been circulated against us. We
are one with our fellow Christians of denominational
groups in the great fundamentals of the faith once
delivered to the saints. Our hope is in a crucified, risen,
ministering, and soon-returning Saviour.
II* Questions About Christ
Deity and Eternal Pn-existence of Christ
QUESTION 4
It is frequently charged that Seventh-day
Adventists deny the actual deity and eternal pre-
existence of Christy the Eternal Word. Is this con-
tention true? Do you believe in the Trinity?
Please give the Biblical basis for your beliefs.
I. Believers in Deity of Christ and Trinity
Our belief in the deity and eternal pre-existence of
Christ, the second person of the Godhead, is on rec-
ord in our "Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Ad-
ventists," appearing annually in our official Yearbook
and in our authoritative Church Manual (1951 ed.,
pp. 29-36). Moreover, those who are baptized Into the
Adventist Church subscribe to the "Summary of Doc-
trinal Beliefs" appearing on our standard Baptismal
Certificate, article 2 of which reads:
Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, and the eter-
nal Son of God, is the only Saviour from sin; and man's salvation
is by grace through faith in Him.
The candidate signs this statement, in affirmation
of belief, before baptism. And in Appendix A, on
pp. 641-645, appears a compilation of statements on the
deity and eternal pre-existence of Christ and His posi-
35
36 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
tion In the Godhead from one of our most represent-
ative writers, Ellen G. White.
As to Christ's place in the Godhead, we believe
Him to be the second person in the heavenly Trinity
comprised of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are
united not only in the Godhead but in the provisions
of redemption. A series of succinct statements on the
Trinity also appears in Appendix A, "Christ's Place in
the Godhead," clearly presenting (1) that Christ is one
with the Eternal Father one in nature, equal in power
and authority, God in the highest sense, eternal and
self-existent, with life original, unborrowed, underived;
and (2) that Christ existed from all eternity, distinct
from, but united with, the Father, possessing the same
glory, and all the divine attributes.
Seventh-day Adventists base their belief in the Trin-
ity on the statements of Holy Scripture rather than on a
historic creed. Article 2 of the statement on Funda-
mental Beliefs, is explicit:
That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal Father,
a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnis-
cient, infinite In wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and
through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accom-
plished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, the
great regenerating power in the work of redemption. Matt. 28:19.
Another representative statement appears in the
"Summary of Doctrinal Beliefs" on the Certificate of
Baptism:
1, The true and living God, the first person of the Godhead,
is our heavenly Father, and He, by His Son, Christ Jesus, created
all things. (Matt. 28:18, 19; 1 Cor. 8:5, 6; Eph. 3:9; Jer. 10:10-22;
Heb. 1:1-3; Acts 17:22-29; Col. 1:16-18.)
ETERNAL PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST 37
2. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, and the
eternal Son of God, Is the only Saviour from sin; and man's sal-
vation is by grace through faith in Him. (Matt. 28:18, 19; John
3:16; Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:21; 2:5, 6; Acts 4:12; I John 5:11, 12;
Eph. 1:9-15; 2:4-8; Rom. 3:23-26.)
3. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is
Christ's representative on earth, and leads sinners to repentance
and to obedience of all God's requirements. (Matt. 28:18, 19;
John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-15; Rom. 8:1-10; Eph. 4:30.)
II. Biblical Basis for in Deity of Christ
The deity of our Lord Jesus Christ is established by
at least eleven separate lines of evidence, which, taken
collectively, completely establish His deity. These are:
1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE TITLE "SON OF GOD"
BY CHRIST HIMSELF. While here among men Christ
acknowledged Himself to be the Son of God (Matt.
27:41-43; John 5:23; 9:35-37; 10:36; 17:1). He con-
firmed the testimony of others that He was the Son of
God (Matt. 16:15-17; John 1:32-34, 48, 49; 11:27).
And numerous other statements attest the fact that He
was what He declared Himself to be the Son of God
(Matt. 3:16, 17; John 19:7; 20:30, 31; Acts 9:20; Rom.
1:1-4; 2 Cor. 1:19; Heb. 4:14; 2 Peter 1:16, 17).
Christ employed the title "Son of God" without the
slightest reservation, and with the utmost freedom and
frankness. It is the one title that embodies, in a most
explicit way, His unique relationship to the Father.
2. APPLICATION TO JESUS CHRIST OF A SCORE OF
NAMES AND TITLES RESTRICTED TO DEITY. In the Old
Testament some 70 names and titles are ascribed to
Jesus Christ, and in the New Testament some 170
more. Those restricted exclusively to Deity include
38 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
"God" (John 1:1); "God with us" (Matt. 1:23); "the
great God" (Titus 2:13); "God blessed for ever"
(Rom. 9:5); "Son of God" (some 40 times); "only
begotten Son" (five times); "the first and the last"
(Rev. 1:17); "Alpha and Omega" (Rev. 22:13); "the
beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:13); "Holy One"
(Acts 3:14); "Lord" (used constantly); "Lord of all"
(Acts 10:36); "Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8); "King of
glory" (Ps. 24:8-10); "Wonderful" (Isa. 9:6); "Ever-
lasting Father" (Isa. 9:6); "Word of God" (Rev. 19:
13); "Word" (John 1:1); "Emmanuel" (Matt. 1:23);
"mediator" (1 Tim. 2:5); and "King of kings, and
Lord of lords" (Rev. 19:16).
3. ASCRIPTION TO CHRIST OF ATTRIBUTES BELONG-
ING SOLELY TO DEITY. These include omnipotence
(Matt. 28:18), omniscience (Matt. 9:4), omnipresence
(Matt. 18:20), immutability (Heb. 13:8) appearing
in scores of texts.
4. ASCRIPTION TO CHRIST OF OFFICES AND PREROGA-
TIVES POSSESSED AND EXERCISED ONLY BY DEITY.
These embrace creation of the universe (John 1:1-3);
preservation of the universe (Heb. 1:3); right and
power to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-12); right and power
to judge all men (Acts 17:31); authority and power to
raise the dead (John 5:28, 29); to transform our
bodies (Phil. 3:21); to bestow immortality (1 Cor.
15:52, 53).
5. APPLICATION OF THE "I AM" OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT TO JESUS CHRIST IN THE NEW. When
Christ told the Jews, "Before Abraham was, I am,"
(John 8:58), He was claiming deity, and His hearers
ETERNAL PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST 39
recognized the Implications of His words, for they took
up "stones to cast at him" the Jewish punishment for
high-handed blasphemy. He obviously used the words
of God In the Old Testament, "I AM THAT I AM"
(Ex. 3:14), long recognized as the symbol of deity,
applying to Himself the attribute of self-existence.
6. IDENTIFICATION OF JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTA-
MENT WITH JESUS IN THE NEW. There are a number
of Old Testament texts containing the name Jehovah
that have been applied by New Testament writers to
Jesus Christ.
The word "Lord" (Yahweh) In Psalm 102:22, and
the related verses 25-28, Is applied to Jesus In Hebrews
1:10-12. The same divine name (Yahweh} appears also
in Habakkuk 2:2, 3, and Is applied to Christ in He-
brews 10:37.
Three other instances where either Yahweh or
Elohim are applied to our Lord can be seen In the
following: In Jeremiah 31:31 Yahweh is used, and Is
referred to the work of Christ in Hebrews, chapters 8
and 10. The reference to Yahweh in Haggai 2:6 is also
Messianic, and is applied to the work of Jesus in He-
brews 12:26. The divine name Elohim in Psalm 45:
6, 7, is applied to the Son of God in Hebrews 1:8, 9.
7. NAME OF THE SON COUPLED, IN THE NEW TES-
TAMENT, IN FULL EQUALITY* WITH THE FATHER. This
*Christ's equality with God the Father is demonstrated in many different ways
in the New Testament.
1. To honor the Son is to honor the Father (John 5:23).
2. To see Christ is to see God (John 14:7-9).
3. To know Christ is to know the Father (John 14:7).
4. To believe in Jesus is to believe in God (John 12:44).
5. Christ does the same things as does the Father (John 5:19).
6. Christ raises the dead as does the Father (John 5:21) .
7. Christ has life in Himself as does the Father (John 5:26).
40 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
appears in the apostolic benediction (2 Cor. 13:14);
the baptismal formula (Matt. 28:19); and in other texts
where their names are united.
8. DECLARED SINLESSNESS OF JESUS CHRIST
THROUGHOUT His LIFE AMONG MEN. This was clearly
foretold in the Old Testament (Ps. 45:7; Isa. 53:9;
Jer. 23:5; Zech. 9:9). And it was expressly declared in
the New Testament as the "Holy One of God"
(Mark 1:24), "holy thing' (Luke 1:35), "holy child
Jesus" (Acts 4:27), "hath done nothing amiss" (Luke
23:41), "no unrighteousness ... in him" (John 7:18),
"Holy One and the Just" (Acts 3:14), "knew no sin"
(2 Cor. 5:21), "without spot" (1 Peter 1:19), "with-
out blemish" (1 Peter 1:19), "did no sin" (1 Peter
2:22), "separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26).
9. DIVINE WORSHIP AND PRAYER TO JESUS, WHICH
Is DUE ONLY TO GOD. There were many instances
where Jesus Christ, as God and Creator, without hesita-
tion accepted worship which even angels as well as
good men, as creatures, declined with fear and horror
(Rev. 19:10; Acts 10:25, 26). The prerogative of deity
was assumed and asserted throughout Jesus' New Testa-
ment life in a score of instances (Matt. 14:33; 28:9, 17).
10. THE AWARENESS OF CHRIST CONCERNING His
DIVINE PERSON AND MISSION. At twelve He recog-
nized God as His Father (Luke 2:41-52); at thirty this
awareness of His divine mission was revealed at His
baptism (Matt. 3:13-17); it appears in the record of
the temptation (Matt. 4:1-11); in the calling of the
twelve and the seventy; in claims of the Sermon on the
Mount (Matthew 5 to 7).
ETERNAL PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST 41
11. CONVERGENCE OF MULTIPLE OLD TESTAMENT
PROPHETIC SPECIFICATIONS AS FULFILLED IN JESUS CHRIST,
CONSTITUTES THE CULMINATING EVIDENCE. Quite a
number of separate, specific, and minute predictions
pinpoint Him as the One who was to come from God
(such as Isa. 7:14; 9:6).
Deity of Christ and Church Membership
QUESTION 5
If a Unitarian or an Arian (rejecting the
trinity of the Godhead, and denying the deity
of Christ) should seek admission into your
churchy would a Seventh-day Adventist minister
baptize and receive such into membership?
Is it possible for an individual to remain
in good and regular standing if he consistently
refuses to submit to church authority regarding
the historic doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ?
While the first question seemingly touches upon a
highly important problem, it is nevertheless hypotheti-
cal for the simple reason that an avowed Unitarian
or Arian does not seek membership in an avowedly
Trinitarian church while still holding his old views
on the Godhead. A poll of numerous ministers of long
experience connected with our denominational head-
quarters shows that no minister in this large group has
ever been faced with such a request.
Seventh-day Adventist ministers are required thor-
oughly to instruct all candidates for membership pre-
paratory to baptism. This period of instruction usually
continues for some months. If a candidate persists in
holding erroneous views concerning our Lord and
42
DEITY AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 43
Saviour, who alone can save the sinner, then only one
course could be followed: the applicant would have to
be told frankly that he is totally unprepared for bap-
tism, and could not be received into our fellowship.
He would be counseled to study further until he under-
stood and had fully accepted the deity of Jesus Christ
and His redemptive power. We could not permit one
who denies what we believe, and believes what we deny,
to become a member, for we could never dwell to-
gether in harmony. Strife and disintegration would
result.
Furthermore, the Seventh-day Adventist Church
uses a uniform four-page Certificate of Baptism, which
is given the candidate at the time of his baptism. On
pages 2 and 3 appears a "Summary of Doctrinal Be-
liefs of Seventh-day Adventists." Following article 1,
which deals with the Trinity, the second article reads:
2. Jesus Christ, the second person of the Godhead, and the
eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour from sin; and man's
salvation is by grace through faith in Him. (Matt. 28:18, 19;
John 3:16; Micah 5:2; Matt. 1:21; 2:5, 6; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:
11, 12; Eph. 1:9-15; 2:4-8; Rom. 3:23-26.)
Then on page 4 is found the candidate's "Bap-
tismal Vow," with thirteen terse declarations to be
made in the affirmative before baptism is administered,
following which the certificate is signed and dated. The
first of these affirmations pertains to our belief in God
the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The
next in the list of questions to be answered, reads:
2. Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as an
atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and believe that through
faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty?
This is the procedure preparatory to baptism into
44 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
the Adventist faith. That this Baptismal Certificate is
authoritative, and in constant use in the church, is seen
from its inclusion in our official Church Manual. It
would, therefore, seem that there is less likelihood of
one who holds Arian or Unitarian positions entering
the Seventh-day Adventist Church than of his entering
some other Protestant communion.
The second question, like the first, is largely hypo-
thetical. Our position can be seen in the official in-
struction for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the
Church Manual, covering the duties, responsibilities,
and procedures in church relationships. This book was
approved and issued by the General Conference in
regular session. Cjncerning the authority and respon-
sibility of the church in such matters, we read on pages
218 and 219 (1951 ed.):
"The world's Redeemer has invested great power with His
church. He states the rules to be applied in cases of trial with its
members. . . . God holds His people, as a body, responsible for
the sins existing in individuals among them. If the leaders of the
church neglect to diligently search out the sins which bring the
displeasure of God upon the body, they become responsible for
these sins. ... If wrongs are apparent among His people, and if
the servants of God pass on indifferent to them, they virtually
sustain and justify the sinner, and are alike guilty, and will just
as surely receive the displeasure of God; for they will be made
responsible for the sins of the guilty."
On page 224, under the heading "Reasons for
Which Members Shall Be Disciplined," there are listed
seven definite departures, any one of which could be
grounds for disfellowshiping a member. The first reads:
1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in
the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines con-
trary to the same.
DEITY AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 45
These "fundamentals of the gospel," or "fundamen-
tal beliefs," twenty-two in number, are found on pages
29-36 of the Church Manual. The second and third of
these fundamentals deal with the doctrine of God, em-
phasizing our belief in the Trinity, the omnipotence,
omniscience, and eternal existence of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. We quote:
2. That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the Eternal
Father, a personal, spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of the Eternal Father, through whom all things were
created and through whom the salvation of the redeemed hosts
will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the third person of the
Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of redemp-
tion. (Matt. 28:19.)
3. That Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature
and essence as the Eternal Father. While retaining His divine
nature, He took upon Himself the nature of the human family,
lived on earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our example
the principles of righteousness, attested His relationship to God
by many mighty miracles, died for our sins on the cross, was
raised from the dead, and ascended to the Father, where He ever
lives to make intercession for us. (John 1:1, 14; Heb. 2:9-18; 8:
1,2; 4:14-16; 7:25.)
The fourth of these "fundamental beliefs" stresses
the nature of our salvation:
4. That every person, in order to obtain salvation, must ex-
perience the new birth. This comprises an entire transformation
of life and character by the re-creative power of God through
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 3:16; Matt. 18:3; Acts 2:
37-39.)
Salvation, then, comes about solely through "faith
in the Lord Jesus Christ/' One who refuses to recognize
the deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ can,
therefore, neither understand nor experience that di-
vine re-creative power in its fullness. Not only is he dis-
46 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
qualified for membership by his very unbelief, but he
is already outside the mystic body of Christ, the church.
And there would be nothing else for the church to do
but to recognize this separation through unbelief, and
to act in harmony with the instruction already referred
to in the Church Manual. Section 5 of the reasons
given for disfellowshiping a member reads:
Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church
authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.
Although the authority of the church to act in such
a case is recognized, disfellowshiping a member is
never entered into hurriedly, but only after much
counsel, prayer, and effort to reclaim the erring one.
Usually, in actual practice, either the person who loses
faith in the fundamentals of the gospel finds himself
so out of harmony with his brethren that he withdraws
voluntarily, or his conduct is such that the church must
take action in his case.
The historic doctrine of the deity of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ is a cardinal belief of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church.
The Historic Basis for a Misunderstanding
Seventh-day Adventists have often been misunder-
stood relative to their belief concerning the deity of
Christ and the nature of the Godhead. The basis for
this misunderstanding lies somewhat in matters of defi-
nition and historical background.
In the interdenominational Millerite movement to
which the early Seventh-day Adventists had belonged,
a few of the leaders were members of a denomination
known as "Christians." This group had sounded their
DEITY AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 47
no-creed, Bible-and-Bible-only rallying cry in the early
nineteenth century Arminian revolt against the domi-
nant ecclesiastico-political New England Calvinism, in
which assent to the Westminster Confession of Faith
was a sine qua non. In their zeal to reject everything
not found in the Bible, the * 'Christians" were betrayed
by overliteralism into interpreting the Godhead in
terms of the human relationships suggested by the
words "Son," "Father," and "begotten," that is, into
a tendency to disparage the non-Biblical word "Trin-
ity" and to contend that the Son must have had a
beginning in the remote past. (However, these people,
in spite of being called Arian, were at the opposite pole
from the liberal, humanistic Arians who became Uni-
tarians, and whose view of Christ represented Him to
be a mere man.)
Some of these "Christians," committed to the Bible
as their guide and making Christian character rather
than belief the only test of church membership, were
inclined to give a sympathetic hearing to the revivalist
preaching of William Miller in the 1840's and to wel-
come the Millerites when other churches closed their
doors to them. However, in the Millerite movement
speculation on the nature of the Godhead played no
important part.
TEe earliest Seventh-day Adventists had been Mil-
lerites, coming from various denominations, and among
them were two "Christian" preachers, and possibly
several lay members as well. Their proportion in our
early membership is unknown, and their dwindling
descendants have not molded the thinking of our mem-
bership, nor did their, understanding of the Godhead
48 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
become a part of our essential message to the world.
Today probably only a minute portion of our mem-
bership has ever even heard of any dispute as to
whether Christ once had a beginning in the unmeas-
ured aeons of the past. And even the few so-called
"Arians" among us though erring in their theoretical
theology of the nature of the relationships of the God-
head have been as free as their more orthodox breth-
ren of any thought of detracting from the glory and
divine lordship of Jesus as Creator, Redeemer, Saviour,
and Advocate.
Our people have always believed in the deity and
pre-existence of Christ, most of them quite likely un-
aware of any dispute as to the exact relationships of
the Godhead. Nor has our public preaching discussed
Christology, but has placed the emphasis on the distinc-
tive message of the Lord's coming. However, we have
statements from Ellen G. White, at least from the 1870's
and 1880's, on the deity of Christ, and on His oneness
and equality with God; and from about 1890 on she
expressed herself with increasing frequency and posi-
tiveness in an endeavor to correct certain erroneous
opinions held by some such as the literalistic notion
that Christ as the "only begotten" Son had, in the
remote ages past, had a beginning.
Why did she not make her stronger emphasis from
the beginning? Doubtless for the same reason that she
advised against pursuing theological controversy with
respected but mistaken brethren for the sake of unity
on the main features of the message of the imminent
return of Christ, which they all felt called of God to
proclaim to the world. Her advice was, in substance:
DEITY AND CHURCH MEMBERSHIP 49
No matter how right you are, do not stir up the sub-
ject at the present time because it will cause disunity.
Quite possibly our toleration of a few variant
theories has not been too high a price to pay for free-
dom from creedal dogmatism and controversy, and for
unity of spirit and effort in our world task.
The Incarnation and the "Son of Man
QUESTION 6
What do Adventists understand by Christ's
use of the title "Son of man"? And what do you
consider to have been the basic purpose of the
incarnation?
The Inspired Word and the Incarnate Word, or the
Word made flesh, are twin pillars in the faith of Seventh-
day Adventists, in common with all true Christians. Our
entire hope of salvation rests on these two immutable
provisions of God. Indeed, we consider the incarnation
of Christ to be the most stupendous fact, in itself and
its consequences, in the history of man, and the key to
all the redemptive provisions of God. Everything before
the incarnation led up to it; and all tfyat follows after
grows out of it. It undergirds the whole of the gospel,
and is absolutely essential to the Christian faith. This
union of the Godhead with humanity of the Infinite
with the finite, the Creator with the creature, in order
that Divinity might be revealed in humanity passes
our human comprehension. Christ united heaven and
earth, God and man, in His own Person through this
provision.
Furthermore, at His incarnation Christ became what
He was not before. He took upon Himself a human
50
THE INCARNATION 51
bodily form, and accepted the limitations of human
bodily life, as the mode of existence while on earth
among men. Thus Deity was wedded to humanity in
one Person, as He became the one and only God-man.
This is basic in our faith. The vicarious atoning death
of Christ on the cross was the inevitable outgrowth of
this primary provision.
Again, when Christ identified Himself with the hu-
man race, through the incarnation, the eternal Word
of God entered into the earthly relationships of time.
But from thenceforth, ever since the Son of God became
man, He has not ceased to be man. He adopted human
nature, and when He returned to His Father, He not
only carried with Him the humanity which He had
assumed at the incarnation, but He retained His perfect
human nature forever thenceforth eternally identify-
ing Himself with the race He had redeemed. This has
been well expressed by one of our most prominent writ-
ers, Ellen G. White: "In taking our nature, the Saviour
has bound Himself to humanity by a tie that is never
to be broken. Through the eternal ages He is linked
with us." The Desire of Ages (1940), p. 25.
I. The Son of God Becomes the Son of Man
Through the incarnation, the majesty and glory of
the Eternal Word, the Creator and Lord of the uni-
verse (John 1:1-3), was veiled. And it was then that
the Son of God became the Son of man a term used
more than eighty times in the New Testament. Taking
humanity upon Himself, He became one with the hu-
man race that He might reveal the fatherhood of God
to sinful man, and that He might redeem lost mankind.
52 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
At His incarnation He became flesh. He hungered
and thirsted and was weary. He needed food and rest
and was refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of
man, craving human sympathy and needing divine as-
sistance. Nevertheless, He ever remained the blameless
Son of God.
He sojourned on earth, was tempted and tried,
and was touched with the feelings of our human infir-
mities, yet He lived a life wholly free from sin. His
was a real and genuine humanity, one that must pass
through the various stages of growth, like any other
member of the race. He was subject to Joseph and
Mary, and was a worshiper in the synagogue and Tem-
ple. He wept over the guilty city of Jerusalem, and at
the grave of a loved one. He expressed His depend-
ence upon God by prayer. Yet all the while He retained
His deity the one and only God-man. He was the
second Adam, coming in the "likeness" of sinful hu-
man flesh (Rom. 8:3), but without a taint of its sin-
ful propensities and passions. (See also Appendix B.)
The first time the title "Son of man*' appears in the
New Testament it is applied to Jesus as a homeless
wanderer, without a place to lay His head (Matt. 8:20);
the last time as a glorified, returning King (Rev. 14:
14). It was as the Son of man that He came to save the
lost (Luke 19:10). As Son of man He claimed authority
to forgive sins (Matt. 9:1-8). As Son of man He sowed
the seed of truth (Matt. 13:37), was betrayed (Matt.
17:22; Luke 22:48), was crucified (Matt. 26:2), rose
from the dead (Mark 9:9), and ascended to heaven
(John 6:62).
It is likewise as Son of man that He is now in
THE INCARNATION 53
heaven (Acts 7:56) and watches over His church on
earth (Rev. 1:12, 13, 20). Moreover, it is as the Son
of man that He will return in the clouds of heaven
(Matt. 24:30; 25:31). And as Son of man He will exe-
cute judgment (John 5:27) and. receive His kingdom
(Dan. 7:13, 14). That is the inspired record of His role
as Son of man.
II. Miraculous Union of the Divine and the Human
Christ Jesus our Lord was a miraculous union of the
divine nature with our human nature. He was the Son
of man while here in the flesh, but He was also the
Son of God, The mystery of the Incarnation is expressed
clearly and definitely in the Holy Scriptures.
" Great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest
in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16). "God was in Christ" (2 Cor.
5:19). "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"
(John 1:14).
What a wonderful truth! This has been referred to
by Ellen G. White as follows:
He clothed His divinity with humanity. He was all the while
as God, but He did not appear as God. He veiled the demonstra-
tions of Deity which had commanded the homage, and called
forth the admiration, of the universe of God. He was God while
upon earth, but He divested Himself of the form of God, and in
its stead took the form and fashion of a man. He walked the
earth as a man. For our sakes He became poor, that we through
His poverty might be made rich. He laid aside His glory and His
majesty. He was God, but the glories of the form of God He for
a while relinquished. The Review and Herald, July 5, 1887.
The more we think about Christ's becoming a babe here on
earth, the more wonderful it appears. How can it be that the
helpless babe in Bethlehem's manger is still the divine Son of
God? Though we cannot understand it, we can believe that He
who made the worlds, for our sakes became a helpless babe.
54 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Though higher than any of the angels, though as great as the
Father on the throne of heaven, He became one with us. In Him
God and man became one, and it is in this fact that we find the
hope of our fallen race. Looking upon Christ in the flesh, we
look upon God in humanity, and see in Him the brightness of
divine glory, the express image of God the Father. The Youth's
Instructor, Nov. 21, 1895. '
The Creator of worlds, He in whom was the fulness of the
Godhead bodily, was manifest in the helpless babe in the manger.
Far higher than any of the angels, equal with the Father in dignity
and glory, and yet wearing the garb of humanity! Divinity and
humanity were mysteriously combined, and man and God became
one. It is in this union that we find the hope of our fallen race.
Looking upon Christ in humanity, we look upon God, and see
in Him the brightness of His glory, the express image of His
person. Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896.
In both His natures, the divine, and the human, He
was perfect; He was sinless. That this was true of His
divine nature there can be no question. That it was
so of His humanity is also true. In His challenge to the
Pharisees of His day, He said, "Which of you convinceth
me of sin?" (John 8:46). The apostle to the Gentiles
declared that He "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21); that He
was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners"
(Heb. 7:26). Peter could testify that He "did no sin"
(1 Peter 2:22); and John the beloved assures us that
"in Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5). But not only did His
friends emphasize the sinlessness of His nature; His
enemies also declared it. Pilate was forced to confess that
he found "no fault" in Him (Luke 23:14). Pilate's wife
warned her husband to have "nothing to do with that
just man" (Matt. 27: 19). Even the devils were compelled
to acknowledge His Sonship and hence His deity. When
commanded to come out of the marf they had possessed,
they retorted, "What have we to do with thee, Jesus,
THE INCARNATION 55
them Son of God" (Matt. 8:29). Mark's gospel gives "the
Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24).
Ellen G. White has written:
He took "the nature, but not the sinfulness of man/'
Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.
"We should have no misgivings in regard to the
perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ."
The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.
Why did Christ take human nature? This has been
well expressed as follows:
Laying aside His royal robe and kingly crown, Christ clothed
His divinity with humanity, that human beings might be raised
from their degradation, and placed on vantage-ground. Christ
could not have come to this earth with the glory that He had
in the heavenly courts. Sinful human beings could not have borne
the sight. He veiled His divinity with the garb of humanity,
but He did not part with His divinity. A divine-human Saviour,
He came to stand at the head of the fallen race, to share in their
experience from childhood to manhood. That human beings
might be partakers of the divine nature, He came to this earth,
and lived a life of perfect obedience. ELLEN G. WHITE in The
Review and Herald, June 15, 1905. (Italics supplied.)
Christ took upon Himself humanity, that He might reach
humanity. . . , It required both the divine and the human to
bring salvation to the world. The Desire of Ages, p. 296.
Taking humanity upon Him, Christ came to be one with
humanity and at the same time to reveal our heavenly Father to
sinful human beings. He was in all things made like unto His
brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and
thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by
sleep. He shared the lot of man, and yet He was the blameless
Son of God. He was a stranger and sojourner on the earth in
the world, but not of the world; tempted and tried as men and
women today are tempted and tried, yet living a life free from
sin. Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 286.
We emphasize again that in His human nature Christ
was perfect and sinless.
56 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
In this respect, something of vital import must be
considered. The Sinless One, our blessed Lord, voluntar-
ily took upon Himself the burden and penalty of our
sins. This was an act in full counsel and cooperation
with God the Father.
God "laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Isa. 53:6).
"When thou shah make his soul an offering for
sin . . ." (verse 10).
And yet, this was a voluntary act of our blessed
Saviour, for we read:
"He shall bear their iniquities" (verse 11).
"He hath poured out his soul unto death" (verse
12).
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on
the tree" (I Peter 2:24).
*"" As a member of the human family He was mortal, but as a
God He was the fountain of life to the world. He could, in His
divine person, ever have withstood the advances of death, and
refused to come under its dominion; but He voluntarily laid
down His life, that in so doing He might give life and bring
immortality to light. . . . What humility was this! It amazed angels.
The tongue can never describe it; the imagination cannot take
it in. The eternal Word consented to be made flesh 1 God became
man! It was a wonderful humility. ELLEN G. WHITE in The
Review and Herald, July 5, 1887. (Italics supplied.)
Only the sinless Son of God could be our substitute.
This our sinless Redeemer did; He took upon Himself
the sins of the whole world, but, in doing so, there was
not the slightest taint of corruption upon Him. The
Holy Bible, however, does say that God "made him to
be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21). This Pauline expression
has puzzled theologians for centuries, but whatever it
means, it certainly does not mean that our Immaculate
Lord became a sinner. The text states that He was made
THE INCARNATION 57
"to be sin." Hence it must mean that He took our place,
that He died in our stead, that "he was numbered with
the transgressors" (Isa. 53:12), and that He took the
burden and penalty that was ours.
All true Christians recognize this redemptive act of
Jesus on Calvary's cross. There is an abundance of scrip-
tural testimony to this fact.
The writings of Ellen G. White are entirely in har-
mony with the Scriptures on this point.
The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All
the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer,
the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the
propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was
One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him. Signs
of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897. (Italics supplied.)
As one with us, He must bear the burden of our guilt and
woe. The Sinless One must feel the shame of sin. The peace lover
must dwell with strife, the truth must abide with falsehood, purity
with vileness. Every sin, every discord, every defiling lust that
transgression had brought, was torture to His spirit. . , . Upon
Him who had laid off His glory and accepted the weakness of
humanity the redemption of the world must rest. The Desire of
Ages, p. III. (Italics supplied.)
The weight of the sins of the world was pressing His soul, and
His countenance expressed unutterable sorrow, a depth of anguish
that fallen man had never realized. He felt the overwhelming
tide of woe that deluged the world. He realized the strength of
indulged appetite and of unholy passion that controlled the
world. The Review and Herald, Aug. 4, 1874.
Entire justice was done in the atonement. In the place of the
sinner, the spotless Son of God received the penalty, and the
sinner goes free as long as he receives and holds Christ as his
personal Saviour. Though guilty, he is looked upon as innocent.
Christ fulfilled every requirement demanded by justice. The
Youth's Instructor, April 25, 1901. (Italics supplied.)
Guiltless, He bore the punishment of the guilty. Innocent,
yet offering Himself as a substitute for the transgressor. The
guilt of every sin pressed its weight upon the divine soul of the
58 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
world's Redeemer. Signs of the Times, Dec 5, 1892. (Italics
supplied.)
All this He bore vicariously. He took it upon His
sinless soul and bore it on the cruel cross.
There is another aspect of this question which needs
to be emphasized, and that is, that Jesus not only took
and bore the "iniquities of us all," He took and bore
something else, something, however, which was inti-
mately associated with our sins.
"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our
sorrows" (Isa. 53:4). "A man of sorrows, and acquainted
with grief" (verse 3).
Matthew refers to this passage:
"Himself took our infirmities and bare our sick-
nesses" (Matt. 8:17).
The Weymouth translation reads:
" 'He took on Him our weaknesses, and bore the
burden of our diseases/ "
And the Twentieth Century gives:
" 'He took our infirmities on himself, and bore the
burden of our diseases.' "
As He bore (Gr. pherd LXX) our iniquities (Isa.
53: 1 1) so He bore (Gr. anaphero) our weaknesses (Matt.
8:17, Weymouth).
But let us observe further what is implied in this.
Notice the words used to express the thought, both in
Isaiah 53 and Matthew 8. He bore our griefs, our sor-
rows, our infirmities, our sicknesses. The original words
are also translated pains, diseases, and weaknesses.
On this note the following in the writings of Ellen G.
White:
He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which
THE INCARNATION 59
man is encompassed, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken
by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and
bare our sicknesses." He was touched with the feeling of our
infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And
yet He "knew no sin" He was the Lamb "without blemish and
without spot." . , . We should have no misgivings in regard to the
perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ. Signs of the
Times, June 9, 1898. (Italics supplied.)
He was unsullied with corruption, a stranger to sin; yet He
prayed, and that often with strong crying and tears. He prayed
for His disciples and for Himself, thus identifying Himself with
our needs, our weaknesses, and our failings, which are so common
with humanity. He was a mighty petitioner, not possessing the
passions of our human, fallen natures, but compassed with like
infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are, Jesus endured
agony which required help and support from His Father. Testi-
monies, vol. 2, p. 508. (Italics supplied.)
He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in possessing like
passions. As the sinless One, His nature recoiled from evil. He
endured struggles and torture of soul in a world of sin. His hu-
manity made prayer a necessity and privilege. He required all
the stronger divine support and comfort which His Father was
ready to impart to Him, to Him who had, for the benefit of man,
left the joys of heaven and chosen His home in a cold and thank-
less world. Ibid., p. 202. (Italics supplied.)
It could hardly be construed, however, from the rec-
ord of either Isaiah or Matthew, that Jesus was diseased
or that He experienced the frailties to which our fallen
human nature is heir. But He did bear all this. Could
it not be that He bore this vicariously also, just as He
bore the sins of the whole world?
These weaknesses, frailties, infirmities, failings are
things which we, with our sinful, fallen natures, have to
bear. To us they are natural, inherent, but when He
bore them, He took them not as something innately His,
but He bore them as our substitute. He bore them in
His perfect, sinless nature. Again we remark, Christ
60 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
bore all this vicariously, just as vicariously He bore the
iniquities of us all.
It is in this sense that all should understand the
writings of Ellen G. White when she refers occasionally
to sinful, fallen, and deteriorated human nature. We
read that Jesus took "our nature" (The Desire of Age*,
p. 25); He "took upon Himself human nature" (The
SDA Bible Commentary,, vol. 5, p. 1128); He "took the
nature of man" (The Desire of Ages, p. 117); He took
"our sinful nature" (Medical Ministry, p. 181); He took
"our fallen nature" (Special Instruction Relating to the
Review and Herald Office, p. 13, May 26, 1896); He
took "man's nature in its fallen condition" (Signs of the
Times, June 9, 1898).
All these are forceful, cogent statements, but surely
no one would designedly attach a meaning to them
which runs counter to what the same writer has given
in other places in her works. Notice the setting in which
these expressions are used.
He took "the nature but not the sinfulness of man."
Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901.
He took "man's nature in its fallen condition," but
"Christ did not in the least participate in its sin."
The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.
"He is a brother in our infirmities, but not in pos-
sessing like passions." Testimonies, vol. 2, p. 202.
In "identifying Himself with our needs, our weak-
nesses, and our feelings, . . . He was a mighty petitioner,
not possessing the passions of our human, fallen na-
tures." Testimonies, vol. 2, pp. 508, 509. (Italics sup-
plied.)
"We should have no misgivings in regard to the per-
THE INCARNATION 61
feet sinlessness of the human nature of Christ!' The
SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131. (Italics sup-
plied.)
The Son of God ''became like one of us, except in
sin/' The Youth's Instructor, Oct. 20, 1886. (Italics
supplied.)
"Not a taint of corruption was upon Him." Signs
of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897. (Italics supplied.)
It will be noted in the statements quoted above that
while the writer mentions that Jesus took our nature,
He Himself was not sinful, but sinless.
Whatever Jesus took was not His intrinsically or in-
nately. His taking the burden of our inherited weakness
and failings, even after four thousand years of accumu-
lated infirmities and degeneracy (The Desire of Ages,
pp. 49, 117), did not in the slightest degree taint His
human nature. "He took upon His sinless nature our
sinful nature." Medical Ministry, p. 181. "We should
have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of
the human nature of Christ/' The SDA Bible Com-
mentary , vol. 5, p. 1131.
"He voluntarily assumed human nature. It was His
own act, and by His own consent/' The Review and
Herald, July 5, 1887.
He voluntarily subjected "Himself to all the hum-
bling conditions of man's nature" (Testimonies, vol. 4,
p. 458), and "took upon him the form of a servant"
(Phil. 2:7); He "took on him the seed of Abraham"
(Heb. 2:16), that He was made "to be sin for us" (2 Cor.
5:21), and that He was made in all things "like unto his
brethren" (Heb. 2:17).
All that Jesus took, all that He bore, whether the
62 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
burden and penalty of our iniquities, or the diseases and
frailties of our human nature all was taken and borne
vicariously. Just as bearing vicariously the sins of the
whole world did not taint His perfect, sinless soul,
neither did bearing the diseases and frailties of our
fallen nature taint Him in the slightest degree with the
corrupting influences of sin.
Let us ever remember that our blessed Lord was
sinless. "We should have no misgivings in regard to the
perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ."
The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.
In treating upon the humanity of Christ, you need to guard
strenuously every assertion, lest your words be taken to mean more
than they imply, and thus you lose or dim the clear perceptions
of His humanity as combined with divinity. His birth was a
miracle of God. . . . "That holy thing which shall be born of
thee [Mary] shall be called the Son of God." . . . Never, in any
way, leave the slightest impression upon human minds that a
taint of, or inclination to, corruption rested upon Christ, or that
He in any way yielded to corruption. He was tempted in all
points like as man is tempted, yet He is called "that holy thing."
It is a mystery that is left unexplained to mortals that Christ
could be tempted in all points like as we are, and yet be without
sin. The incarnation of Christ has ever been, and will ever remain,
a mystery. That which is revealed, is for us and for our children,
but let every human being be warned from the ground of making
Christ altogether human, such an one as ourselves; for it cannot
be. The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, pp. 1128, 1129.
What a wonderful Saviour is Jesus our Lord!
III. Could Christ Have Sinned?
On this aspect of this vital question there is diversity
of opinion in the Christian church at large. Some feel
that it was impossible for Jesus to sin; others that it was
possible. We join with the latter in our understanding
THE INCARNATION 63
of this matter and, as in many other phases of Christian
doctrine, eminent scholars in the church through the
centuries have expressed themselves much as we do. Our
position on this is well expressed by Ellen G. White:
Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome
by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's
position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed
to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had
Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour
took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man,
with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing
to bear which He has not endured. ... In man's behalf, Christ
conquered by enduring the severest test. The Desire of Ages,
p. 117. (Italics supplied.)
That revered and honored theologians in the past
have held the same view is evident. Note the following:
Had He been endowed from the start with absolute impec-
cability, or with the impossibility of sinning, He could not be a
true man, nor our model for imitation: His holiness, instead of
being His own self-acquired act and inherent merit, would be an
accidental or outward gift, and His temptation an unreal show. As
a true man, Christ must have been a free and responsible moral
agent: freedom implies the power of choice between good and
evil, and the power of disobedience as well as obedience to the
law of God. PHILIP SCHAFF, The Person of Christ, pp. 35, 36.
If the truth . . . viz., that the force of temptation was
strong enough to create the consciousness of a struggle be over-
looked, then the whole curriculum of moral trial through which
Jesus passed on earth degenerates at once into a mere stage per-
formance. ... In modern times this doketic view finds no ac-
ceptance; theologians of all schools being agreed that the forces
of evil, with which the Son of Man fought so noble a fight, were
not shadows, but substantial and formidable foes. ALEXANDER B.
BRUCE, D.D., The Humiliation of Christ, p. 268.
Whenever we attribute, in a proper manner and in the sense
of Scripture, all the moral elements of man to Jesus, we are not
to disjoin from them the freedom which is the power of choosing
between good and evil; and for this very reason we are to admit
it as conceivable, that he might at some time have been influ-
64 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
enced to a departure from the will of God. Unless this be sup-
posed, the history of the temptation, however it may be ex-
plained, would have no significancy; and the expression in the
Epistle to the Hebrews "he was tempted in all points as we"
would be without meaning.
As Jesus was a complete man, this susceptibility and this pos-
sibility must be supposed to coexist in Him. Did they not thus
coexist, he would cease to be an example of perfect human
mortality. KARL ULLMANN, An Apologetic View of the Sinless
Character of Jesus (1841), p. 11.
We must not understand by the term [sinlessness of Jesus]
an absolute impossibility of sinning but only the actual fact of
not sinning, and, what is in a rational and free nature inseparable
from this fact, the highest moral perfection and holiness. Ibid.,
p. 13.
IV. The Purpose of the Incarnation
As to the purpose of the incarnation, the answer
appears in the texts supporting the following six points,
which summarize the reasons for His coming to earth
in human form.
1. HE CAME TO REVEAL GOD TO THE WORLD.
See John 1:14, 18; 3:1-36; 17:6, 26; 1 John 1:2; 4:9.
2. HE CAME TO BRING GOD AND MAN TOGETHER.
See John 1:51 (compare Gen. 28:12); Matt. 1:23;
1 Peter 3:18.
3. HE CAME TO IDENTIFY HIMSELF WITH MAN BY
NAME. He is called "Son of man" some seventy-seven
times in the Gospels, such as in Luke 19:10,
4. HE CAME TO BEAR THE SINS OF MANKIND. See
Isa. 53:6, 11; John 1:29, margin; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John
3:5.
5. HE CAME TO DIE IN OUR STEAD. See Isa. 53:
540; Matt. 26:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 4:25; 5:6-10; 1 Cor.
15:3; Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9; 1 Peter 1:18,
19; 2:24; 3:18.
THE INCARNATION 65
6. HE CAME TO DESTROY THE DEVIL AND His WORKS.
See John 12:31; 16:33; Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8.
V. An Unfathomable Mystery
In considering a subject of such transcendent and
vital importance as the incarnation of Christ, we must
ever remember that there are many aspects of it that
we can never fathom. Even when we catch a glimpse
of the truth, human language seems altogether inade-
quate to express the wonders and the beauties of the
matchless and inimitable mystery of the incarnation of
Jesus Christ. Ellen G. White has written:
In contemplating the incarnation of Christ in humanity, we
stand baffled before an unfathomable mystery, that the human
mind can not comprehend. The more we reflect upon it, the
more amazing does it appear. Signs of the Times, July 30, 1896.
Even though this is true, there are, thank God, some
phases of the truth that have been revealed. And what
has been made known in the Word of God is for us to
study. The same author has written the following on
this point:
When we want a deep problem to study, let us fix our minds
on the most marvelous thing that ever took place in earth or
heaven the incarnation of the Son of God. Manuscript 76,
1903.
The Bodily Resurrection of Christ
QUESTION 7 ~
What is the Seventh-day Adventist posi-
tion regarding the physical, or bodily, resurrec-
tion of Christ?
Seventh-day Adventists believe in the physical, or
bodily, resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as
verily as they believe in His atoning death on Calvary.
This is a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, for
Christianity rests upon the indisputable fact that Christ
rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:17).
The resurrection of Christ is not to be understood
merely in a spiritual sense. He actually rose from the
dead. He who came from the tomb was the same
Jesus who lived here in the flesh. He came forth in a
glorified body, but it was real so real that the women
who went to the sepulcher, as well as the disciples, saw
Him (Matt. 28:17; Mark 16:9, 12, 14). The two dis-
ciples on the way to Emmaus talked with Him (Luke
24). He Himself said to the disciples, "Behold my
hands and my feet" (Luke 24:39). He had "flesh and
bones" (verse 39). He ate with them (verse 43).
Thomas had reason to know it was the same Jesus,
for he was invited to "reach hither thy finger, and be-
hold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust
66
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST 67
It Into my side" (John 20:27). Yes, It was the Saviour
Himself. It was not a spirit, not a ghost. It was the real
divine Son of God who came forth from the grave.
The resurrection of Jesus our Lord was a vital
part of the message of the early church. When the apos-
tles preached, they preached of Christ the Messiah,
who was raised from the dead. "They . . . preached
through Jesus the resurrection from the dead" (Acts
4:2); they "gave . . . witness of the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus" (verse 33); Paul "preached unto them
Jesus, and the resurrection" (Acts 17:18).
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is of vital impor-
tance in God's great plan of salvation. Even the death of
Jesus, sublime as it was, would have been of no avail,
were it not for His resurrection from the dead. The
great apostle to the Gentiles makes this clear in his
ringing testimony to the living Christ. In that wonder-
ful chapter on the resurrection, in his message to the
Corinthian church, we see the vital place that this
great transaction has in the purpose of God. Note what
the situation would be if Christ had not been raised
from the dead.
1. There would be no benefit from preaching the
gospel: "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preach-
ing vain" (I Cor. 15:14).
2. There would be no forgiveness of sins: "And if
Christ be not raised, ... ye are yet in your sins" (verse
17).
3. There would be no purpose in believing in
Jesus: "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain"
(verse 17).
4. There would be no general resurrection from
68 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
the dead: "Now If Christ be preached that he rose from
the dead, how say some among you that there Is no
resurrection of the dead?" (verse 12).
5. There would be no hope beyond the grave: "If
Christ be not raised, . . . then they also which are
fallen asleep In Christ are perished" (verses 17, 18).
This is a message of power, for It Is by the power
of His resurrection that we live the Christian life, and
His life is lived out In the life of the believer.
Those who are buried with Christ in baptism are
represented as rising with Him In His resurrection
(Rom. 6:5, 8, 11; Eph. 2:4, 5; Col. 2:12, 13). As a
result of this union with Christ, a new life Is Imparted
to the believer (Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 4:10, 11; Col. 3:10).
The power of Christ's resurrection Is thus made avail-
able to him (Eph. 1:19, 20; Phil. 3:10; Heb. 7:16).
Once we were dead In sins; now we are alive in
Christ. We were crucified with Christ; now Christ lives
in us (Gal. 2:20). Our personal experience o this
quickening of the soul, this liberating action of the
Spirit of life, is the inward witness and the supreme
evidence of the reality of the resurrection.
Above all, the resurrection of our Lord Is the assur-
ance that we, too, shall be resurrected at His second
coming (1 Cor. 15:20, 23).
The Historicity of the Resurrection
Many evidences of this astonishing event were given
to the early Christians. There were at least ten appear-
ances of Jesus after His resurrection. (1) To Mary
Magdalene: Mark 16:9; John 20:14-17. (2) To the
women on the way to tell the disciples that Christ had
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST 69
risen: Matthew 28:9. (3) To Peter: Luke 24:34. (4)
To the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: Mark
16:12; Luke 24:15, 31. (5) To the assembled disciples
on the evening of the resurrection day: Mark 16:14;
Luke 24:36; John 20:19. (6) To the assembled dis-
ciples a week later: John 20:26-29. (7) To the disciples
at the Sea of Galilee: John 21:1-22. (8) To the eleven
on a mountain in Galilee, five hundred brethren being
present: Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:7; 1 Corinthians 15:
6. (9) To James: 1 Corinthians 15:7. (10) To the
eleven disciples at the time of the ascension: Mark 16:
19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:442.
A. T. Robertson comments on the meeting with
the five hundred disciples:
The strength of this witness lies in the fact that the majority
(hoi pleious) of them were still living when Paul wrote this
Epistle, . . . not over 25 years after Christ's resurrection. Word
Pictures in the New Testament, 1931, vol. 4, p. 188.
Besides the testimony of the apostles and the wit-
ness of the women, there is the testimony of the Jewish
council (Matt. 28:11-15), and also of the Roman au-
thorities, according to early church writers. Pilate be-
came acquainted with the facts, and recorded them in
his regular report to the emperor. Eusebius, fourth-
century bishop and church historian, wrote:
And when the wonderful resurrection and ascension of our
Saviour were already noised abroad, in accordance with an
ancient custom which prevailed among the rulers of the prov-
inces, of reporting to the Emperor the novel occurrences which
took place in them, in order that nothing might escape him,
Pontius Pilate informed Tiberius of the reports which were
noised abroad through all Palestine concerning the resurrection
of our Saviour Jesus Christ from the dead. He gave an account
also of other wonders which he had learned of him, and how,
70 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
after his death, having risen from the dead, he was now believed
by many to be a god.
That Pilate made an official report to Tiberius is stated also by Tertullian
(Apol 21), and is in itself quite probable. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 35 and 48) men-
tions certain Acts of Pilate as well known in his day, but the so-called Acts of Pilate
which are still extant in various forms are spurious, and belong to a much later
period. They are very fanciful and curious,
'Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. I, p. 105.
The populace must have known about it, for at the
time of the resurrection there was an earthquake and
many of the saints arose. These were the antitype, in
part at least, of the wave sheaf that was offered in olden
days. The record says: "And the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and
came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went
into the holy city, and appeared unto many" (Matt.
27:52,53).
Commenting on this experience, Ellen G. White
has written:
As Christ arose, He brought from the grave a multitude of
captives. The earthquake at His death had rent open their
graves, and when He arose, they came forth with Him. . . . Now
they were to be witnesses for Him who had raised them from the
dead. . , . These went into the city, and appeared unto many,
declaring, Christ has risen from the dead, and we be risen with
Him. Thus was immortalized the sacred truth of the resurrec-
tion.The Desire of Ages, p, 786,
Christ, and Michael the Archangel
QUESTION 8 -
It has been charged that Seventh-day
Adventists hold the same belief as do the Jeho-
vah's Witnesses concerning Michael that Mi-
chael the archangel was Jesus Christ prior to His
incarnation, and that He was a created being,
Is this accusation valid? If Michael is Christy
how do you explain Jude 9?
We emphatically reject the idea set forth in this
question, and the position held by the Jehovah's Wit-
nesses. We do not believe that Christ is a created being.
We, as a people, have not considered the identification
of Michael of sufficient prominence to dwell upon it at
length either in our literature or in our preaching.
But we do have clear views on the subject, and are pre-
pared to set them forth. And our views concerning
Michael, it might be added, have been held by various
eminent scholars through the centuries. We are there-
fore not alone in our understanding.
We believe that the term "Michael" is but one of
the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second
person of the Godhead. But such a view does not in
any way conflict with our belief in His full deity and
eternal pre-existence, nor does it in the least disparage
His person and work.
72 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Michael is referred to in the book of Jude as the
archangel. And were it not for other Scripture refer-
ences, which present Him in another relationship, one
might at first conclude that He was a created being, as
are the angels in general. We believe, however, that
those other relationships indicate His real status, and
that, in addition, He serves as supreme leader of the
angelic hosts. But His serving in that capacity does not
make Him a created angel. A number of important
factors must be considered in a study of this question.
I. Christ in Relation to Angelic Hosts
Angels are created beings (Col. 1:16), and as such
are not to be worshiped (Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10). They
are God's messengers to those who shall be heirs of
salvation (Heb. 1:13, 14).
But Christ has "a more excellent name" than the
angels (Heb. 1:4). He has "a name which is above every
name" (Phil. 2:9), above that of every angel in heaven
(Eph. 1:21). The angels are subject to Him (1 Peter
3:22). They bow before Him (Phil. 2:10), and worship
Him (Heb. 1:6). Angels of God refuse the worship of
men (Rev. 22:8, 9).
II. The Son of God in the Old Testament
In the Old Testament there is record of a divine
Being who is called the "angel of the Lord" (Ex. 3:2),
the "angel of God" (Ex. 14:19), and the "angel of his
presence" (Isa. 63:9), "messenger of the covenant" (Mai.
3:1); also "an Angel" (Ex. 23:20), "mine Angel" (verse
23), and "his angel" (Dan. 3:28). Let us note certain
of these references:
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 73
1. THE "ANGEL OF THE LORD/' (a) As manifested
to Gideon (Judges 6:11-22). The "angel of the Lord''
(verse 11) is equated with "the Lord" (verse 14); and
"Gideon built an altar there unto the Lord" (verse 24).
(b) As manifested to Manoah (Judges 13:3-21). Ma-
noah's wife refers to the "angel of the Lord" (verse 3)
that she had seen as "a man of God" (verse 6), and
Manoah said they had "seen God" (verse 22). (c) As
manifested to Joshua (Zech. 3:1-6). "The angel of the
Lord" causes iniquity to pass away, and gives change of
raiment, or righteousness (verse 4). This is the preroga-
tive of Deity.
2. "THE ANGEL" WHO APPEARED TO JACOB. This
Angel (Hosea 12:4) appeared to Jacob in the form of a
man (Gen. 32:24). The Angel (man) blessed Jacob
(verse 29), and Jacob said, "I have seen God face to face"
(verse 30). Worship of angels is not permitted (Col.
2:18; Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9). This is an important differ-
ence between Christ and angels.
3. THE "ANGEL OF His PRESENCE." This Angel
"saved," "redeemed" (Isa. 63:9), hence is equated with
Deity (cf. Isa. 43:11; 44:6).
4. "MINE ANGEL." This "Angel" (Ex. 23:23) could
pardon transgression, and God's "name is in him" (verse
21). As forgiveness of sin is the prerogative of God
(Mark 2:7), the conclusion seems inevitable that "mine
Angel" is a member of the Godhead. With this back-
ground, it is not difficult to recognize that there was
with God, in ancient days, One who was known in the
foregoing instances as "the angel of the Lord," or "mine
Angel," and then later as "my Son" (Ps. 2:7). At the
same time He was "mine anointed" (Heb., Meshiach).
74 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
He Is also called "a child," "a son" (Isa. 9:6). And
this "son" is none other than "The mighty God, The
everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" (verse 6).
The Tar gum on Isaiah 9:5 (Hebrew versification varies
from KJV) reads: "Wonderful counsellor, Mighty God,
He %vho lives for ever, the Anointed one [or, Messiah]."
III. Identity of "Prince of Princes"
The expression "Prince of princes" occurs but once
In the Divine Record Daniel 8:25. In the vision seen
by Daniel an opposing power "magnified himself even
to the prince of the host"; In the angel's explanation
to Daniel this power Is said to "stand up against the
Prince of princes." The "prince of the host" is equated
with "the Prince of princes." Reference is obviously
here made to Deity. The expression is similar to other
expressions in the Word. Psalm 136:3 speaks of the
"Lord of lords," Deuteronomy 10:17 of the "God of
gods," and Revelation 19:16 of the "King of kings."
Doctor Slotki, in his Commentary on Daniel, shows
the term "Prince of princes" (Dan. 8:25) to be the same
as the "prince of the host'* of verse 11. And In comment-
ing on these two expressions, the Cambridge Bible says,
"I.e. God." But this "Prince of princes," or "prince of
the host," is also referred to as Michael. Daniel 10:21
tells of "Michael your prince," and Daniel 12:1 of
Michael, "the great prince." But this Prince is also the
Messiah, for we read of "Messiah the Prince" in Daniel
9:25. Others agree. Joseph Parker states:
Michael was known amongst the ancient Jews as the angel or
prince who had special charge of the nation of Israel. The very
best Jewish writers concur in teaching that the name "Michael"
is the same as the title "Messiah/' It is held by them that the
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 75
few passages in which he is referred to can be most satisfactorily
explained on this supposition. The man speaking in the text was
"a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with
fine gold of Uphaz. His body also was like the beryl, and his face
as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and
his arms and his feet like in colour to polished brass, and the
voice of his words like the voice of a multitude" (vers. 5, 6).
This is the dazzling and nameless personage that has appealed
to the religious imagination through all the known centuries of
time. One day not one of earth's cold, grey days, but a day of
brighter cast we shall see that Personage, and name him, and
thank him for the tender veiling of a light that might have
struck creation blind. The People's Bible, vol. 16, p. 438.
The One unnamed in Daniel 10:5, 6 but described
as having the appearance of lightning is well known
in apocalyptic vision. A similar description of Him is
found in Revelation 1:13-15. Is not He who is unnamed
in Daniel 10:5, 6 now named in Daniel 10:13, when He
is designated as Michael?
New Testament writers also take up this thought
and apply the terminology of Daniel to Jesus Christ our
Lord. He is declared to be "the Prince of life" (Acts
3:15); "a Prince" and "a Saviour" (Acts 5:31); and "the
prince of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).
This Prince, or Messiah, of the apocalyptic visions of
ancient days, is thus equated with Michael. Hence the
name Michael is, we believe, one of the titles of the
Son of the living God. But Michael is called the Arch-
angel (Jude 9) and this term, we believe, also applies
to Jesus our Lord.
IV. The Term "Archangel"
Having given consideration to Christ as the "Angel
of the Lord" and having made mention of the fact that
"Michael" and "archangel" are titles of our Lord, let
76 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
us observe the significance of the first part of the term
"archangel."
"Arch" is from the Greek prefix archi, but related
words such as arche and arch on should also be con-
sidered.
Arche means beginning, and can also involve the
ideas of rule and authority. It is rendered in the KJV
as "rule" (1 Cor. 15:24); "principality" (Eph. 1:21);
and "first principles" (Heb. 5:12). Archon means
"prince," "ruler." Arche and archon are used at times in
relation to our Lord as in the term "Angel of the Lord."
Arche is used Messianically in Isaiah 9:6 where in the
LXX (Bagster's translation) it is rendered "govern-
ment" in the expression, "whose government [arche] is
upon his [Messiah's] shoulder."
In the New Testament, Jesus our Lord is called "the
beginning" [arche] (Col. 1:18), also the "Alpha and
Omega, the beginning [arche] 11 (Rev. 21:6; see also
Rev. 22:13).
Archon is often rendered "ruler," "prince," et cetera.
But once in the New Testament it is used in relation to
Jesus "the prince [archon] of the kings of the earth"
(Rev. 1:5).
Archon is used on occasions Messianically, and so
refers to Christ our Saviour. He is "a prince [archon]
and commander to the Gentiles" (Isa. 55:4, LXX,
Bagster's translation); He is the One that is "to be a
ruler [archon] of Israel" (Micah 5:2, LXX, Bagster's
translation).
Another Greek word with the same prefix archi is
archegos, derived from archi and hegeomai or ago "to
lead," etcetera.
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 77
Archegos as found In the LXX Is generally rendered
by Bagster's translation as "head," "captain," "chief/'
"ruler," "prince," et cetera. But in the New Testament
it Is used only with reference to our Lord. He is referred
to as captain "The captain [archegos] of their salva-
tion" (Heb. 2:10); as author "The author [archegos]
... of our faith" (Heb. 12:2, margin, "beginner"); as
Prince "A Prince [archegos] and a Saviour" (Acts 5:
31); and "the Prince [archegos] of life" (Acts 3:15,
margin, "author").
The study of the above Greek words shows that at
times they have been applied to Christ our Lord; further,
that archegos in its use In the New Testament is in
every Instance applied to Jesus.
V. Christ in Relation to the 'Angel Hosts
In the light of the foregoing we believe that the
divine Son of God, one of whose titles Is "Michael the
archangel," is the leader of the angelic hosts. But to us,
this does not in any way whatsoever detract from His
deity, any more than when He became man and took
our flesh. He certainly became "the Son of man," but all
the while He was on earth as man, He was at the same
time God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 4:10). Further-
more, He is also revealed in Scripture as leader of the
hosts of Israel, under the title of the "angel of Jehovah,"
the "angel of his presence," et cetera. But being such,
did not restrict, or detract from, His deity. Why could
He not, then, be considered "Captain General" (LXX)*
of the hosts of angels without equating Him with angels
* Joshua 5:14, Eng, tr. by Charles Thomson.
78 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
as created beings? The being who appeared to Joshua
as "captain of the host of the Lord" was a divine being,
whom Joshua worshiped (Joshua 5:14). Thus the hosts
of the Lord are under command of a divine being
worthy of worship, and whose presence makes a place
holy (verse 15). This Divine Being we believe was none
other than our Lord Jesus Christ.
We believe, therefore, that there Is good reason for
recognizing our blessed Lord as the leader of the heav-
enly hosts.
VI. Michael in Jewish Literature
In Jewish writings Michael is recognized as the
Advocate in Israel, who mediated in many ways. Thus:
He prevented Isaac's being sacrificed (Yalkut
Reubeni, section Wayera); wrestled with Jacob (Tar-
gum, Gen. 32:25); was Advocate when Israel deserved
death at the Red Sea (Exodus Kabbah, 18:5); led Israel
t during the forty years in the wilderness (Abravanel to
Ex. 23:20); gave Moses the tables of stone (Apoc. Moses,
1); instructed Moses at Sinai (Bk. Jubilees, i. 27, ii. I);
destroyed the army of Sennacherib* (Midr. Exod. 18:
5); was one of the angels who visited Abraham* (Yoma,
37 a ; Shebuoth, 35 b , footnote); was Israel's guardian
angel (Yoma, 77 a ); ministers in the heavenly sanctuary
(Mmahoth, HO).
VII. Michael in the Setting of Jude's Epistle
Jude's epistle was written to combat a heresy that
had invaded the church of that day, for false teachers
were corrupting and making of none effect "the faith
*This statement refers to "the angel of his presence," which the Jewish Encyclo-
pedia says is Michael.
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 79
which was once delivered unto the saints" (verse 3).
J tide's letter was an appeal to the loyal members to
break from the association of these subverters of truth.
The author does not go into detail concerning this
heresy, for his letter is not a systematic theology, but is
rather a battle cry.
This book is small, but rich in allusions and quota-
tions. It is apparent that the corrupt teachings against
which Jude was warning the church were libertinism
and antinomianism. Not only was this false philosophy
basically wrong in concept, but when followed out in
the life, it led to depravity and revolting immorality,
Those who had introduced this subversive heresy had
evidently entered the church surreptitiously, and were
threatening to undermine the very structure of the
temple of truth.
I. ULTIMATE END OF REBELLION. The depravity
of this teaching is evidenced by the writer's reference to
the gross immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah, while
the attitude of the teachers themselves he illustrated
by the rebellion of Korah. "Woe unto them," he warns,
that "have gone in the way of Cain" (verse 11). Em-
phasizing the ultimate end of these defamers of right-
eousness, he refers particularly to the destiny of the
rebellious angels. These celestial beings, "which kept
not their first estate, but left their own habitation"
(verse 6), are reserved unto judgment. They are await-
ing the coming day of final punishment.
The reason Jude refers to the rebellion of the angels,
and the rebellion of ancient Israel against authority,
is clear. He warns the church that all who "speak evil
of those things which they know not" will perish (verse
80 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
10). He speaks of these heretics as defilers of the flesh,
and declares that not only did they set at naught the
counsel of church authority, but they actually denied
the authority of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Their "hard speeches" (verse 15), or railing accusations,
were not only denunciations against apostolic authority,
but utterances against God Himself.
2. JUDE'S REFERENCE TO MICHAEL. It was obviously
not Jude's purpose to identify Michael, except to call
attention to the fact that He is the archangel. His ref-
erence to Michael is really by way of contrast. This
contrast is drawn between those who brought a railing
accusation, and Michael who would not do so. On the
one hand he contrasts those "filthy dreamers" who
"despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities" (verse
8), with Michael, the archangel, on the other hand. He,
a heavenly being, even when in dispute with the prince
of evil, though there was just reason for doing so, "durst
not" bring a railing accusation. This is the contrast:
They, mere men, so despised authority as to rail against
those in high authority; whereas Michael, the archangel,
would not act thus even when disputing with Satan.
The devil, the prince of evil, could rightly be said
to deserve a railing accusation, but to such a thing
Michael would not stoop. To say that Michael could
not, in the sense that He did not have the power or the
authority to do so, would not be true. It is not that
Michael could not, in the sense of being restricted, but
rather that He would not take such an attitude. Scott's
Bible remarks:
He yet dared not to utter any reviling expression: not from
fear of the devil; but because even in those circumstances, it
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 81
1
would not have been consistent with the perfection of his charac-
ter.
What these carping critics dared to do, Michael
would not do. They were abusive, defamatory, slander-
ous, even blasphemous. But Michael, even in dealing
with the devil, revealed dignity and heavenly bearing.
He could not descend to such a level of defamatory
speech. Instead of multiplying words, He authoritatively
declared, "The Lord rebuke thee" (verse 9).
The use of the expression "The Lord rebuke thee"
is significant. It is found in but one other place in the
Holy Scriptures Zechariah 3:2. There the speaker is
"the angel of the Lord" (verse 1); but in verse 2, it is
expressly the "Lord" who speaks. Here we find the
"angel of the Lord" equated with Jehovah Himself, and
it is He who says to Satan, "The Lord rebuke thee."
This is a unique expression. The first Biblical use
of it is by the Lord in dealing with Satan. The same
expression is used in Jude. Might it not be, then, that
the same Divine Being is revealed here? In Zechariah
He was manifested under one of His titles, "the angel
of the Lord," in Jude under another of His titles,
"Michael."
Furthermore, the archangel is referred to but twice
in the Sacred Scripture I Thessalonians 4:16 and
Jude 9. Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, speaks of
the "voice of the archangel" and associates that with the
general resurrection of the saints; whereas in Jude,
the reference specifically concerns the body of Moses.
Another reference to Michael as leader of the angelic
host is seen in Revelation 12:7-10. Many scholars
through the centuries have applied this to the days when
82 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Satan rebelled, before ever our world was made. Then
there was war in heaven, Michael and His angels fought
against the dragon and his angels. Here is evidently the
beginning of the great controversy between the forces
of righteousness and of evil. In this passage Michael and
Satan are placed in contrast. Who is the Michael of this
apocalyptic passage? If Christ is the leader of the angel
hosts, then we see here the first battle in the great con-
flict between Christ and Satan.
There is good reason for this concept, for we read
that it was through "the power of his Christ" that "the
accuser of our brethren" was cast down (Rev. 12:10).
Victory for the saints is possible only through our risen
Lord. It was Christ who triumphed over Satan in the
original encounter. And it is through Christ that we
overcome in the continuing encounters against the devil
and his evil hosts.
Matthew Henry remarked on this passage:
. , . "Michael and his angels*' on one side, and "the dragon
and his angels" on the other. Christ, the great angel of the cove-
nant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instru-
ments.
VIII. Summary of the Evidence
1. Terms used concerning Christ are similar to those
used of Michael: (a) of Christ, as "Prince of princes/'
as "prince of the host," as "Messiah the Prince," and
as the "Prince of life"; (b) of Michael, as "your prince,"
and as the "great prince."
2. As archangel is used of Michael, so is archegos
and archon used of Christ. Thus: Christ is the archegos
the "captain" (Heb. 2:10); the "author" (Heb. 12:2);
the "Prince" (Acts 3:15).
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 83
3. The beginning of the great controversy between
Christ (Michael) and Satan is seen in Revelation 12:
7-10.
4. Michael exercises the same prerogative as does
Jehovah when He says to Satan, ''The Lord rebuke
thee."
5. Michael is equated with Christ by many Bible
scholars.
From the foregoing it will be seen that our concept
of Michael, as just another title for the Lord Jesus
Christ, is vastly different from the views of others who
teach that Michael is merely a created, angelic being,
and not the Eternal Word of God. In direct contrast
to such a depreciating Christology, Seventh-day Advent-
ists hold that Jesus is "very God of very God, of the
same substance as the Father" coequal, coexistent, and
coeternal with God the Father. We believe that there
never was a time when Christ was not. He is God for-
evermore, His life being "original, unborrowed, unde-
rived."
Additional Notes
1. CHRIST AS THE "ANGEL OF THE LORD"
On Ex. 23:20:
"Behold, I send a messenger before thee. Jewish commentators
regard the messenger as Moses, who, no doubt, was a specially
commissioned ambassador for God, and who might, therefore,
well be termed God's messenger. But the expression 'He will not
pardon your transgressions,' and 'My name is in him,' are too
high for Moses. An angel must be intended probably 'the Angel
of the Covenant,' whom the best expositors identify with the
Second Person of the Trinity, the Ever-Blessed Son of God.
George Rawlinson, Pulpit Commentary, "Exodus," vol. 2, p. 212.
"Others suppose it ["an angel," Ex. 23:20; "mine angel," Ex.
23:23] to be the Son of God, the Angel of the covenant; for the
84 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Israelites in the wilderness are said to 'tempt Christ/ and we
may as well suppose him God's messenger, and the church's re-
deemer, before his incarnation, as the lamb slain from the founda-
tion of the world." Matthew Henry's Commentary, Exodus 23,
general note.
"There seems to be no reason to doubt that, in this Messenger
of Yahweh, we catch a glimpse of some mystery in the Godhead.
For contrast with the inferior messenger, see chap. 33:2, 3."
J. B. Rotherham, The Emphasized Old Testament (1916), note
on Ex. 23:20.
On Judges 6:
"The person that gave him the commission was 'an angel of
the Lord; 1 it should seem, not a created angel, but the Son of
God Himself, the Eternal Word, the Lord of the angels. . . .
This angel is here called Jehovah, the incommunicable name of
God, ver. 14, 16; and he saith, 1 will be with thee.' " Matthew
Henry's Commentary.
On Judges 13:
"And this angel . . . was the Lord himself, that is, the Word
of the Lord, who was to be the Messiah, for his name is called
Wonderful, ver. 18, and Jehovah, ver. 19." Ibid.
On Daniel 3:
"There was a fourth seen with them in the fire, whose form, in
Nebuchadnezzar's judgment, was 'like the Son of God;' he ap-
peared as a Divine person, a messenger from heaven, not as a
servant, but as a Son. 'Like an angel,' so some; and angels are
called 'sons of God,' Job xxxviii. 7. In the apocryphal narrative of
this story it is said, 'The angel of the Lord came down into the
furnace;' and Nebuchadnezzar here saith, (ver. 28,) that God
sent his angel and delivered them; and it was an angel that shut
the lions' mouths when Daniel was in the den, ch. vi. 22. But some
think it was the eternal Son of God, the angel of the covenant,
and not a created angel. He appeared often in our nature before
he assumed it for good and all [in his incarnation]; and never
more seasonably, nor to give a more proper indication and pres-
age of his great errand into the world, in the fulness of time,
than now, when to deliver his chosen out of the fire he came and
walked with them in the fire." Ibid.
"In reality it was Christ, the Son of God, who appeared at this
time in human shape." T. Robinson, Preacher's Homiletic
Commentary (1892), "Daniel," p. 72.
MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL 85
"In ver. 28, the king calls him God's 'angel,' which He no
doubt was the 'angel of the Lord,' otherwise called the 'Mes-
senger of the Covenant/ the Son of God, who in the fulness of
lime was 'made flesh and dwelt among us/ " Ibid., p. 73,
On Hebrews 12:
"This is by many modern Expositors referred to God; but
by the ancient and some modern ones, to Christ; which is far more
agreeable to the context. S. T. Bloomfield, Greek New Testa-
ment (1847) (vol. II, p. 475), on Heb. 12:25.
" The voice sounding from Sinai/ See supra v. 19. The best
Expositors are in general agreed that the [word] oil refers (as
grammatical propriety would require) to Christ, notwithstand-
ing that the thing is in Exodus ascribed to God. Nor is there any
inconsistency, since the N. T. and the Rabbinical writings agree
in representing it as the SON OF GOD, who appeared to the
patriarchs, who delivered the Law by angels, and who was the
ANGEL-JEHOVAH worshipped in the Hebrew Church. See Acts
7:53, and 1 Cor. 10:4, 9." Ibid., (vol. II, p. 475), on Heb.
12:26.
2. CONCERNING MICHAEL AS A TITLE OF CHRIST
On Daniel 10:
"Some . . , think Michael the archangel is no other than Christ
himself, the angel of the covenant, and the Lord of the angels; he
whom Daniel saw in vision, ver. 5. He 'came to help me/ ver. 13;
'and there is none but he that holdeth with me in these things/
ver. 21. Christ is the church's prince, angels are not." Matthew
Henry's Commentary.
On Daniel 12:
"Jesus Christ shall appear his church's patron and protector.
'At that time/ when the persecution is at the hottest, 'Michael
shall stand up/ ver. 1. The angel had told Daniel what a fast
friend Michael was to the church, ch. x. 21. He all along shewed
it in the upper world, the angels knew it; but now 'Michael shall
stand up' in his providence, and work deliverance for the Jews,
'when he sees that their power is gone/ Deu. xxxii. 36. Christ is
that 'great prince/ for he is the 'Prince of the kings of the earth/
Rev. i:5." Ibid.
On Jude 9:
"Of this personage many things are spoken in the Jewish writ-
ings. 'Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh says: Wherever Michael is said to
appear, the glory of the Divine Majesty is always to be under-
86 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
stood/ Shemoth Rabba, Sec. ii., fol. 104, 3. So It seems as if they
considered Michael in some sort as we do the Messiah manifested
in the flesh." Clarke's Commentary (6 vol. ed.).
"The word Michael . . . he who is like God; hence by this
personage, in the Apocalypse, many understood the Lord Jesus."
Ibid.
On Rev. 12:7:
"Michael was the man child which the woman brought forth."
Clarke's Commentary.
"This being- 'a war in the heaven/ and waged by Michael,
who is Christ (whose warfare is not like that of earthly kings), and
by His messengers, is an intellectual and polemical warfare."
J. D. Glasgow, Commentary on the Apocalypse (1872).
"We have shown elsewhere that the Archangel Michael is an
image of Christ victoriously combatant. Christ is an Archangel
in His quality of Judge; and He appears as Judge, not only at
the end of the world, but also in the preservation of the purity of
His Church." Lange's Commentary (1874), on Rev. 12:1-12,
Exegetical and Critical Synoptic View, p. 238.
" 'Michael and his angels' on one side, and 'the dragon and
his angels' on the other. Christ, the great angel of the covenant,
and his faithful followers; and Satan and all his instruments. This
latter party would be much superior in number and outward
strength to the other; but the strength of the church lies in having
the Lord Jesus for the Captain of their salvation." Matthew
Henry's Commentary.
"The idea of the heavenly being who thus comes to view as
a feature in old apocalyptic tradition is the source of the concep-
tion of the heavenly Messiah the Son of Man. ... We have
already seen that the heavenly being like unto a son of man' of
Dan. 7 was probably identified by the author . . . with Israel's
angel-prince Michael; this angelic being was later, it would
seem, invested with Messianic attributes, and so became the
pre-existent heavenly Messiah." Abingdon Bible Commentary,
p. 846,
(See also Calvin's Commentaries on "Daniel," vol. 2, pp.
253, 368, also p. 13).
Ill Questions on the Relation of Ellen
0. White's Writings to the Bible
Ellen G. White's Writings and
Their Relation to the Bible
QUESTION 9
Do Seventh-day Adventists regard the
writings of Ellen G. White us on an equal plane
with the writings of the Bible? Do you place
her in the prophetic class with such men as
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel? Are her
interpretations of Bible prophecy regarded as
final authority, and is belief in these writings
made a test of fellowship in the Seventh-day
Adventist Church?
Whatever the intent of these questions may be,
we would note, as is more fully developed later on in
this chapter:
1. That we do not regard the writings of Ellen G.
White as an addition to the sacred canon of Scripture.
2. That we do not think of them as of universal
application, as is the Bible, but particularly for the
Seventh-day Adventist Church.
3. That we do not regard them in the same sense as
the Holy Scriptures, which stand alone and unique as
the standard by which all other writings must be
judged.
Seventh-day Adventists uniformly believe that the
canon of Scripture closed with the book of Revelation.
89
90 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
We hold that all other writings and teachings, from
whatever source, are to be judged by, and are subject
to, the Bible, which is the spring and norm of the
Christian faith. We test the writings of Ellen G. White
by the Bible, but in no sense do we test the Bible by
her writings. Ellen G. White and others of our writers
have gone on record again and again on this point.
In her first book, in 1851, she said concerning the
Bible:
I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule
of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged.
Early Writings, p. 78.
Later she wrote:
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 experi-
ence must be tested. The Great Controversy, Introduction,
p. vii.
And in her last appearance before the assembled
delegates at the session of the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists in Washington, B.C., in 1909,
after her message to the vast congregation, she held
the Bible aloft in hands trembling with age, and said,
"Brethren and sisters, I commend to you the Book." It
was typical of her lifelong attitude ever exalting,
high above all, the Holy Scriptures as the foundation
of our faith.
We have never considered Ellen G. White to be in
the same category as the writers of the canon of Scrip-
ture. However, apart from the chosen writers of the
canonical books of Scripture, God used a line of proph-
ets or messengers who lived contemporaneously with
the writers of the two Testaments, but whose utterances
ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE BIBLE 91
were never a part of Scripture canon. These prophets
or messengers were called of God to give encourage-
ment, counsel, and admonition to the Lord's ancient
people. Among these were such figures as Nathan,
Gad, Heman, Asaph, Shemaiah, Azariah, Eliezef, Ahi-
jah, Iddo, and Obed in the Old Testament, and Sim-
eon, John the Baptist, Agabus, and Silas in the New.
The line also included women, such as Miriam,
Deborah, and Huldah, who were called prophetesses,
in ancient times, as well as Anna in the time of Christ,
and Philip's four daughters, "which did prophesy"
(Acts 21:9). The messages that came through these
prophets, it should be recognized, came from the same
God who spoke through those prophets whose writings
were included in the Sacred Canon.
That some of these prophets not only spake but
also wrote their inspired messages Is evident from Scrip-
ture itself:
Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are
written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan
the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer (1 Chron. 29:29).
Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they
not written in the book of Nathan the piophet, and in the
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the
seer against Jeroboam the son of Nebat? (2 Chron. 9:29).
It is in this latter category of messengers that we
consider Ellen G. White to be. Among Seventh-day Ad-
ventists she was recognized as one who possessed the
gift of the spirit of prophecy, though she herself never
assumed the title of prophetess. In 1906 she explained
why. Church members who believed that she was called
to the prophetic office were puzzled by one of her public
statements. Here is her explanation:
92 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Some have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not claim
to be a prophet. . . . Early in my youth I was asked several times,
Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's mes-
senger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have
made no claim to this title. . . . Why have I not claimed to be a
prophet? Because in these last days many who boldly claim that
they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and be-
cause my work includes much more than the word "prophet"
signifies. . . , To claim to be a prophetess is something that I
have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no
controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines
that I can not call myself other than a messenger. The Review
and Herald, July 26, 1906.
Seventh-day Adventists regard her writings as con-
taining inspired counsel and instruction concerning
personal religion and the conduct of our denomina-
tional work. Under the same inspiration she also wrote
much in the great field of sacred history, covering the
experiences of God's people from the creation of the
world to the ultimate establishment of the kingdom of
God, with special emphasis on eschatology. That portion
of her writings, however, that might be classified as
predictions, actually forms but a small segment. And
even when she deals with what is coming on the earth,
her statements are only amplifications of clear Bible
prophecy.
It is significant that in her counsels, or "testimonies,"
the attention of the reader is constantly directed to the
authority of the Word of God as the sole foundation of
faith and doctrine. In the Introduction to one of her
larger books she sets forth important principles:
In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge nec-
essary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as
an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the
standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of
ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE BIBLE 93
experience. "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness; that the man of God may be complete, furnished
completely unto every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17, Revised Ver-
sion.
Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men through
His Word, has not rendered needless the continued presence and
guiding of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Spirit was prom-
ised by our Saviour, to open the Word to His servants, to illumi-
nate and apply its teachings. And since it was the Spirit of God
that inspired the Bible, it is impossible that the teaching of the
Spirit should ever be contrary to that of the Word. The Great
Controversy, Introduction, p. vii.
While Adventists hold the writings of Ellen G.
White in highest esteem, yet these are not the source of
our expositions. We base our teachings on the Scrip-
tures, the only foundation of all true Christian doctrine.
However, it is our belief that the Holy Spirit opened
to her mind important events and called her to give
certain instructions for these last days. And inasmuch
as these instructions, in our understanding, are in har-
mony with the Word of God, which Word alone is
able to make us wise unto salvation, we as a denomina-
tion accept them as inspired counsels from the Lord.
But we have never equated them with Scripture as
some falsely charge. Mrs. White herself stated explicitly
the relation of her writings to the Bible:
Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a
lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light. The
Review and Herald, Jan. 20, 1903.
"The Lord designs to warn you, to reprove, to counsel,
through the testimonies given, and to impress your minds with
the importance of the truth of His word." Testimonies for the
Church, vol. 5, p. 665.
While Seventh-day Adventists recognize that the
Scripture canon closed nearly two thousand years ago
94 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
and that there have been no additions to this compila-
tion of sacred books, yet we believe that the Spirit of
God, who inspired the Divine Word known to us as
the Bible, has pledged to reveal Himself to the church
through the different gifts of the Spirit. The apostle
Peter in giving his explanation of the happenings of
Pentecost quoted from the prophecy of Joel and ap-
plied that prophecy to the evident outworking of the
Holy Spirit on that memorable day. And the .apostle
Paukspeaking of the different gifts that God had placed
in the church, said: "And he gave some, apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pas-
tors, and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of
Christ" (Eph. 4:11, 12).
And how long were these gifts to continue in the
church? "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and
of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of
Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed
to and fro, and carried about with every wind of
doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning crafti-
ness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (verses
13, 14).
So long as God's children would be beset by the
cunning craftiness of the spirit of evil, just so long
would the church need these special gifts. Moreover,
the same apostle declared that the church that would be
waiting for the coming of the Lord Jesus would "come
behind in no gift," that they "may be blameless in the
day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:7, 8).
It is not our understanding that these gifts of the
ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE BIBLE 95
Spirit take the place of the Word of God, nor does theii
acceptance make unnecessary the Scripture of truth. On
the contrary, the acceptance of God's Word will lead
God's people to a recognition and acceptance of the
manifestations of the Spirit. Such manifestations will,
of course, be in harmony with the Word of God. We
know that some earnest Christians have the impression
that these gifts ceased with the apostolic church. But
Adventists believe that the closing of the Scripture
canon did not terminate Heaven's communication with
men through the gifts of the Spirit,* but rather that
Christ by the ministry of His Spirit guides His people,
edifying and strengthening them, and especially so in
these last challenging days of human history. And it is
the Holy Spirit who divides "to every man severally as
he will" (1 Cor. 12:11). It is God who bestows the
gifts, and it is God Himself who takes the responsibility
for these manifestations of the Spirit among the be-
lievers. He calls one here and one there and makes them
the depositories of specific spiritual gifts. He calls one
to be an apostle, one an evangelist, another a pastor or
a teacher, and to another He gives the gift of prophecy.
It is our understanding that all these gifts will be
in evidenc%in the church which will be "waiting for
the coming of our Lord'* (I Cor. 1:7). Our interpreta-
tion of Bible prophecy leads us to believe that those
who make up the remnant people of God in the last
days of the history of the church will meet the full fury
of the dragon's power as he goes forth to make war on
those who "keep the commandments of God, and have
the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 12:17). That
* See A. G. Daniells, Abiding Gift of Prophecy.
96 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
expression "testimony of Jesus" Is clearly defined, we
believe, by the angel In Revelation 19:10. He says to
John: "The testimony of Jesus Is the spirit of prophecy."
Commenting on this, James Moffat says:
"For the testimony or witness of (i.e., borne by) Jesus is (i.e.,
constitutes) the spirit of prophecy." This . . . specifically defines
the brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus as possessors of
prophetic inspiration. The testimony of Jesus is practically equiv-
alent to Jesus testifying (xxii. 20). It is the self-revelation of
Jesus (according to i. 1, due ultimately to God) which moves the
Christian prophets. The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. 5,
p. 465.
The Spirit of prophecy is Intimately related to the
gift of prophecy, the one being the Spirit that indites
the prophecy, the other the evidence of the gift be-
stowed. They go together, each inseparably connected
with the other. The gift is the manifestation of that
which the Spirit of God bestows upon him whom, ac-
cording to His own good purpose and plan, He selects
as the one through whom such spiritual guidance Is to
come. Seventh-day Adventists believe that this gift was
manifested in the life and ministry of Ellen G. White.
Briefly then, this is the Adventist understanding of
Ellen G. White's writings. They have been for a hun-
dred years, to use her own expression, "a lesser light"
leading sincere men and women to "the greater light."
To answer the last part of the question, concerning
the matter of church fellowship, we would say that
while we revere the writings of Ellen G. White, and
expect all who join the church to accept the doctrine of
spiritual gifts as manifested in her experience, we do
not make acceptance of her writings a matter for church
discipline. She herself was explicit on this point. Speak-
ELLEN G. WHITE AND THE BIBLE 97
ing of those who did not fully understand the gift, she
said:
Such should not be deprived of the benefits and privileges of
the church, if their Christian course is otherwise correct, and
they have formed a good Christian character. Testimonies for
the Church, vol. 1, p. 328.
J. N. Andrews, one of the founding fathers of the
Advent Movement, wrote in 1870:
We therefore do not test the world in any manner by these
gifts. Nor do we in our intercourse with other religious bodies
who are striving to walk in the fear of God, in any way make
these a test of Christian character. The Review and Herald,
Feb. 15, 1870.
James White, thrice General Conference president,
speaking of the work of Ellen G. White, expressly
declares that Adventists believe that God called her "to
do a special work at this time, among this people.
They do not, however, make a belief in this work
a test of Christian fellowship." The Review and
Herald, June 13, 1871, p. 205.
And this has been our consistent attitude throughout
our history. However, if one who holds membership in
our church loses confidence in these counsels and later
stirs up enmity among the believers, we reserve the right
to disfellowship such from the body. But such action
will not be taken because of one's lack of confidence in
these writings, but rather because the one disaffected
is stirring up strife among the believers.
After men and women have had evidence that the work is of
God, and then join hands with those who fight against it, our
people claim the right to separate from such. Ibid.
F. M. Wilcox, for thirty-five years editor of the
Review and Herald, our church paper, says:
98 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
In the practice of the church it has not been customary to
disfellowship one because he did not recognize the doctrine of
spiritual gifts. ... A member of the church should not be ex-
cluded from membership because of his inability to recognize
clearly the doctrine of spiritual gifts and its application to the
second advent movement. The Testimony of Jesus, pp. 141-143.
These statements reflect our consistent attitude
through the years, and this Is our position today.
IV. Questions on the Law and Legalism
Christ the Heart of the Advent Message
QUESTION 10
Are not the spiritual content and evan-
gelical emphasis of your "Voice of Prophecy"
radio program and "Faith for Today' 9 telecast
a rather far cry from the doctrinal and legal core
of Adventismf Are they not rather a bid for good
will, and a subtle attempt to draw those who
enroll in your proffered Bible courses to gradu-
ally accept the doctrinal and legal heart of Ad-
ventism? Is this doctrinal and legalistic emphasis
a reflection of the counsels of Ellen G. White?
In the evangelistic activities of Seventh-day Advent-
ists, whether by means of radio programs, public serv-
ices, or literature, there is no attempt at subtlety or
effort to deceive. The heart of the Advent message is
Christ and Him crucified.
May we say in simple sincerity that Seventh-day
Adventists hold that Christianity is not merely an in-
tellectual assent to a body of doctrines, no matter how
true or orthodox. We believe that Christianity is a real
experience with Christ. Christianity is a relationship
to a Person our blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
It is possible to know a thousand things about Christ,
and yet never know Him. Such a situation, of course,
101
102 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
leaves the professing Christian as far from God as is the
lost sinner.
We, as Adventists, definitely believe in doctrine.
We hold a unified body of Biblical truth. But that
which saves is grace alone, through faith in the living
Christ. And similarly, that which justifies is His free
and blessed grace. We likewise believe in works, and in
full obedience to the will and commandments of God.
But the works in which we believe, and that we seek
to perform, are the result, or fruitage, of salvation, not
a means to salvation, in whole or in part. And the
obedience that we render is the loving response of a
life that is saved by grace. Salvation is never earned; it
is a gift from God through Jesus Christ. Otherwise,
however sincere the effort may be, works frustrate the
grace of God (Gal. 2:21).
We also believe that a specific message is due the
world today, and that we were called into being to have
a part in proclaiming it. But again, that message is
simply the everlasting gospel in the setting of God's
great judgment hour, the imminent second coming of
our Lord, and the preparation of men to meet God.
But that which prepares people to meet God is not
merely a warning message, but the saving gospel. This
great fundamental truth is ever before us, and in our
hearts and our endeavors.
We repeat, this emphasis is not something subtle, as
suggested in the question. It is not a lure, or trick, or
bait. It is, instead, a serious endeavor to put first things
definitely first in our public presentations, and to let
the world see and hear and know that the heart burden
of Adventism is Christ and His salvation.
HEART OF THE ADVENT MESSAGE 103
As to Ellen. G. White's counsels on these matters,
her messages for more than half a century have con-
sistently called for an uplifting of Christ and for pri-
mary emphasis upon full salvation in Him. Here are a
few excerpts from her writings:
Of all professing Christians, Seventh-day Adventists should
be foremost in uplifting Christ before the world. . . . The great
center of attraction, Christ Jesus, must not be left out. It is at
the cross of Christ that mercy and truth meet together, and right-
eousness and peace kiss each other. Gospel Workers, p. 156.
Lift up Jesus, you that teach the people, lift Him up in ser-
mon, in song, in prayer. Let all your powers be directed to
pointing souls, confused, bewildered, lost, to "the Lamb of God."
. . . Let the science of salvation be the burden of every sermon,
the theme of every song. Let it be poured forth in every suppli-
cation. Bring nothing into your preaching to supplement Christ,
the wisdom and power of God. Ibid., p. 160.
Present the truth as it is in Jesus, making plain the require-
ments of the law and the gospel. Present Christ, the way, the
truth, and the life, and tell of His power to save all who come to
Him. Ibid., p. 154.
Christ crucified for our sins, Christ risen from the dead,
Christ ascended on high, is the science of salvation that we are to
learn and to teach. ... It is through the gift of Christ that we
receive every blessing. Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, pp.
287, 288.
No discourse should ever be preached without presenting
Christ and Him crucified as the foundation of the gospel. Min-
isters would reach more hearts if they would dwell more upon
practical godliness. Gospel Workers, pp. 158, 159.
Christ and His righteousness, let this be our platform, the
very life of our faith. The Review and Herald, Aug. 31, 1905.
The sacrifice of Christ as an atonement for sin is the great
truth around which all other truths cluster. In order to be rightly
understood and appreciated, every truth in the Word of God,
from Genesis to Revelation, must be studied in the light that
streams from the cross of Calvary. Gospel Workers, p. 315.
The message of the gospel of His grace was to be given to the
church in clear and distinct lines, that the world should no
104 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
longer say that Seventh-day Advendsts talk the law, the law, but
do not teach or believe Christ. Testimonies to Ministers, p. 92.
From these typical quotations it is evident that Ad-
ventists do not and could not logically derive any
legalistic emphasis from Ellen G. White.
The and Fruitage
of Christian Experience
QUESTION 11
Can one who holds Seventh-day Adventist
views have the assurance in his soul of present
salvation, of sins forgiven, and of full acceptance
with the Lord? Or does he have to live in un-
certainty, pending whatever decision might be
rendered in the investigative judgment? And is
not this uncertainty reflected in the writings of
Ellen G. White?
One who truly understands and accepts the teach-
ings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church can assuredly
know that he is born again, and that he is fully ac-
cepted by the Lord. He has in his soul the assurance
of present salvation, and need be in no uncertainty
whatsoever. In fact, he may know this so fully that he
can truly "rejoice in the Lord" (Phil. 4:4) and in "the
God of his salvation" (Ps. 24:5). As the foregoing
questions touch the whole plan of God's salvation for
man, we would call attention to the following provi-
sions.
I. God's Plan and Provision of Redemption
1. THE INITIATIVE IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION Is
FROM GOD, NOT FROM MAN. "All things," we read,
"are of [Gr. ek, "out of"] God" (2 Cor. 5:18). We
105
106 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
know that He "hath reconciled us" (verse 18); that
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto him-
self" (verse 19); that it was not we who first loved
God, but He loved us (1 John 4:9, 10); that Christ
is the "propitiation for our sins" (1 John 2:2); and
that ."we were reconciled to God by the death of his
Son" (Rom. 5:10). All this comes to us "according to
the gift of the grace of God" (Eph. 3:7). And inasmuch
as the writings of Ellen G. White have been mentioned,
we shall quote a number of her statements that are
clear and consistent on the fundamental principles of
personal salvation and Christian experience. For ex-
ample, on this point:
Grace is an attribute of God exercised toward undeserving
human beings. We did not seek for it, but it was sent in search of
us. God rejoices to bestow His grace upon us, not because we are
worthy, but because we are so utterly unworthy. Our only claim
to His mercy is our great need. The Ministry of Healing, p, 161.
!?. CHRIST Is THE ONLY SAVIOUR OF LOST MANKIND.
There is, and can be, no other Saviour. This thought
was long ago brought home to God's ancient people.
Said Jehovah, "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me
there is no saviour" (Isa. 43:11); "There is no God
else beside me; a just God and a Saviour. . . . Look unto
me, and be ye saved" (Isa. 45:21, 22). (See also Isa. 60:
16; Hosea 13:4.)
Jesus Christ our Lord is the only foundation (1 Cor.
3:11); His name is the only name "whereby we must
be saved" (Acts 4:12). This thought that there is
salvation in no other was highlighted in the statement
made to Joseph concerning the work of Jesus, "He
shall save his people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21).
BASIS AND FRUITAGE 107
The literal rendering of the Greek text is, "He himself
shall save his people/' "Christ Jesus came into the
world to save sinners" (I Tim. 1:15); He alone "is
able also to save them to the uttermost" (Heb. 7:25).
That understanding is basic. Only in and through Christ
can we be saved.
3. MAN CANNOT SAVE HIMSELF; IN AND OF HIMSELF
HE Is HOPELESSLY LOST. (a) There is no salvation In
man for man. No man can "redeem his brother" (Ps.
49:7). (6) Without the salvation provided in Christ
Jesus our Lord, man would be hopelessly lost. "There is
none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10); "There is
none that doeth good, no, not one" (verse 12); "All
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"
(verse 23). There is therefore no hope outside of
Jesus the Saviour. Isaiah graphically describes the nat-
ural condition of man: "The whole head is sick, and
the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even
unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds,
and bruises, and putrifying sores" (Isa. 1:5, 6).
Jeremiah adds, "The heart is deceitful above all
things, and desperately wicked" (Jer. 17:9). The
apostle Paul declares that the man who is "without
God" has "no hope" (Eph. 2:12). He is even "dead in
trespasses and sins" (verse 1). Consequently, if man
is to be saved, help divine help must come to his aid.
4. SINCE MAN Is DEAD IN SIN, EVEN THE INITIAL
PROMPTINGS TO A BETTER LIFE MUST COME FROM GOD.
Christ is the true light, who "lighteth every man that
cometh into the world" (John 1:9). This light, in some
way known only to Divine Providence, penetrates the
darkness of human hearts and kindles the first spark
108 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
of desire after God. If the soul begins to seek for God,
then "the Father which hath sent me [Christ]" will
"draw him [the seeker]" (John 6:44). Again, "And I,
if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
me" (John 12:32). So even the desire to repent comes
from above, for Jesus our Saviour gives "repentance"
and grants "forgiveness of sins" (Acts 5:31).
The complete change thus wrought in the human
heart is not by an act of our own wills, certainly not by
ethical uplift or social reform endeavor, but wholly by
the new birth. We are to be "born again ["from
above," margin]" (John 3:3); "born of God" (1 John
3:9); born of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5, 6); born
through the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23, R.S.V.).
Truly then, this is a work of divine grace. In a very real
sense we are "his workmanship" (Eph. 2:10). In the
act of "regeneration" God saves us; it is He who sheds
on us the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5, 6).
5. NOTHING WE CAN EVER Do WILL MERIT THE
FAVOR OF GOD. Salvation is of grace. It is grace that
"bringeth salvation" (Titus 2:11). It is "through the
grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved" (Acts
15:11). We are not saved by "works" (Rom. 4:6; Eph.
2:9; 2 Tim. 1:9), even though they be good works
(Titus 3:5), or even "wonderful works" (Matt. 7:22).
Neither can we be saved by "law" (Rom. 8:3), nor by
the "deeds" or the "works" of the law (Rom. 3:20,
28; Gal. 3:2, 5, 10). And neither the "law of Moses,"
nor the Decalogue can save us (Acts 13:39; Rom. 7:
7-10). The law of God was never designed to save men.
It is a looking glass, in which, when we gaze, we see our
sinfulness. That is as far as the law of God can go with
AND FRUITAGE 109
a sinful man. It can reveal his sin, but is powerless
to remove it, or to save him from its guilt and penalty
and power.
But, thank God, "what the law could not do, in that
it was weak through the flesh" (Rom. 8:3), God did
in the person of His Son, In Him a fountain is open
"for sin and for uncleanness" (Zech. 13:1). And into
this fount all may plunge and be "washed" from their
sins by Christ's own blood (Rev. 1:5). Wonderful as it
may seem, the redeemed can rejoice now that they
"have washed their robes, and made them white in the
blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7:14). True it is that by
His grace (Eph. 2:5, 8), His mercy (Titus 3:5), His
gift (Eph. 2:8), His gospel (Rom. 1:16), and according
to His purpose (Rom. 8:28), we are saved.
6. WHILE SALVATION Is OF GOD, A SURRENDER OF
THE WILL Is CALLED FOR. After the primary prompt-
ings of the Spirit of God, and the magnetic draw-
ings of the love of God, the soul must accept, and
must yield to, its great Deliverer. This act of surrender,
prompted by divine grace, makes it possible for God to
extend to the soul all the wonderful provisions of His
bounty. This act, or attitude, of the soul is expressed
in various ways in Holy Scripture:
We are to believe "whosoever believeth in him"
(John 3:16); to yield "yield yourselves unto God"
(Rom. 6:13); to submit "submit yourselves therefore
to God" (James 4:7); to "mortify the deeds of the
body" (Rom. 8:13) literally this means "put to
death"; to present our bodies to God "present your
bodies a living sacrifice" (Rom. 12:1); to reckon our-
selves dead to sin "reckon ye also yourselves to be
110 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
dead indeed unto sin" (Rom. 6:11); and to die unto
sin "if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of
sin" (Rom. 8:10).
Whatever is represented by these acts of the will is
certainly not in the nature of "works," and does not
in the least degree add to the efficacy of salvation. No!
It rather denotes the attitude of the soul, responding to
the overtures of God's free grace in making possible
the application, to our hearts, of the boundless bestowal
of the grace of God.
7. CHRISTIAN LIFE AND EXPERIENCE Is A GROWTH
IN GRACE. The Christian life is more than the initial
act of faith, or that act of surrender in accepting Jesus
Christ as Lord. By that act we pass "from death unto
life" (John 5:24) and are "born again" (John 3:3);
but from there on we must grow. It is the same in physi-
cal human life. Birth is one thing. It is the beginning of
life. But none would find satisfaction in a child that did
not grow. It is similarly God's purpose that we should
"grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 3:18). As spiritual
babes we are to partake of "the sincere milk of the
word" (1 Peter 2:2), but there must be growth so
that we may partake of needful "strong meat" (Heb.
5:12, 14).
II. Believing in Jesus
Our Christian life is to be a constant attitude of
believing in Jesus. We begin by believing, and by grace
we are to keep on believing. We are not only to "yield,"
but to keep on yielding. We are to "submit," and keep
on submitting. We are not only to "die" to sin, but
BASIS AND FRUITAGE 1 1 1
we are to ''reckon" ourselves dead unto sin, and keep
on reckoning. We are to "present" our bodies to God,
and keep on presenting them to God. All this is a work
of grace.
The Christian life calls for constant surrender, con-
stant consecration, constant yielding of the heart and
life to God. We, who were dead in sin (Eph. 2:1), are
now dead to sin (Rom. 6:11). We have identified our-
selves with Jesus in His death, and so have died with
Him (Col. 2:20); in fact, our "life is hid with Christ
in God" (Col. 3:3).
This thought is beautifully expressed through the
Greek tenses in the New Testament. In John 3:18, 36,
where we read "he that believeth," the Greek form is
the participle in the present tense, the idea being that
"the one believing on Him who continues to believe"
and who "makes it a life habit" will be saved. The
present tense with the idea of continuance is also seen
in the phrase "mortify the deeds of the body" (Rom.
8:13). The idea is that of a continuous attitude of
putting to death the lusts of the flesh.
Ellen G. White stated it this way:
It is not safe to be occasional Christians. We must be Christ-
like in our actions all the time. Then, through grace, we are safe
for time and for eternity. Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and
Students, p. 487.
Again:
Divine grace is needed at the beginning, divine grace at every
step of advance, and divine grace alone can complete the work.
. . . We may have had a measure of the Spirit of God, but by
prayer and faith we are continually to seek more of the Spirit.
Testimonies to Ministers, p. 508.
112 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
III. Have No Confidence In the Flesh
In the Christian life there is a constant warfare.
'Tor the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the
other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would"
(Gal 5:17). One who lives after the flesh cannot please
God (Rom. 8:8), for he who sows to the flesh will reap
corruption (Gal. 6:8). Living according to the flesh
means death (Rom. 8:13). The fact is, that in our flesh
is no good thing (Rom. 7:18).
So we are to "have no confidence in the flesh" (Phil.
3:3). While here in this vale of tears our hope lies
solely in Christ our Lord. If we "walk in the Spirit"
we shall not "fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16).
And even here and now, victory may be ours if we enter
into the experience of the apostle Paul: "I live; yet not
I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now
live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,
who loved me, and gave himself for me" (Gal. 2:20).
IV. Growth m the Christian Life
Growth in the Christian life means intimate fellow-
ship with Jesus Christ our Lord. It means joy and as-
surance; and it means constant gratitude to God for the
wonderful deliverance He has wrought for us. But there
is a serious side to this experience. Observe:
It calls for daily self-denial "If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross
daily, and follow me" (Luke 9:23).
It calls for daily sacrifice "I beseech you therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your
BASIS AND FRUITAGE 113
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God,
which is your reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1).
It calls -for daily surrender " Yield your members
servants to righteousness unto holiness" (Rom. 6:19).
" Yield yourselves unto God" (verse 13).
And again Mrs. White attests:
It is not only at the beginning of the Christian life that this
renunciation of self is to be made. At every advance step heav-
enward it is to be renewed. All our good works are dependent
on a power outside of ourselves. Therefore there needs to be a
continual reaching out of the heart after God, a continual, ear-
nest, heartbreaking confession of sin and humbling of the soul
before Him. Only by constant renunciation of self and depend-
ence on Christ can we walk safely. Christ's Object Lessons, pp.
159, 160.
V. Complete Distrust of Self Imperative
There is no place for pride in the Christian life.
We have nothing of which to boast (Eph. 2:9). Well
might we all learn the lesson of humility seen in the
life of Paul: "I am the least of the apostles" (1 Cor.
15:9); "Unto me, who am less than the least of all
saints, is this grace given'* (Eph. 3:8).
After all, we can do nothing of ourselves. Jesus
said, "Without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:5). We
know nothing of ourselves (1 Cor. 4:4; 2 Cor. 3:5).
Well might we cry out, "Who is sufficient for these
things?" (2 Cor. 2:16). But in the Scripture we are as-
sured that "our sufficiency is of God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
And this sufficiency is all-sufficient. Our faith is to "rest
... in the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:5, R.S.V.). The
power in our life and ministry is to be "of God, and
not of us" (2 Cor. 4:7). We live "by the power of God"
(2 Cor. 13:4), for it is His "power that worketh in us"
114 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
(Eph. 3:20). "It is God which worketh in you both
to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13),
"working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight,
through Jesus Christ" (Heb. 13:21).
Once more Mrs. White attests:
None of the apostles or prophets ever claimed to be without
sin. Men who have lived nearest to God, men who would sacri-
fice life itself rather than knowingly commit a wrong act, men
whom God had honored with divine light and power, have con-
fessed the sinfulness of their own nature. They have put no con-
fidence in the flesh, have claimed no righteousness of their own,
but have trusted wholly in the righteousness of Christ. So will it
be with all who behold Christ. Ibid., p. 160.
VI. Hungering and Thirsting After God
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after
righteousness" (Matt. 5:6). This will be the mark of the
true child of God. Having none of his own, he longs for
the righteousness of God. Thank God for the assurance,
"Ye shall be filled'' (Luke 6:21). Christ was here em-
phasizing the experience of David of old: "My soul
thirsteth for thee, my flesh longeth for thee" (Ps. 63:1);
"My soul thirsteth for God" (Ps. 42:2); "My heart and
my flesh crieth out for the living God" (Ps. 84:2). This is
the true hunger of spirit, the longing of the human heart
to be made like unto Christ. It is under such conditions
that God "satisfieth the longing soul, and filleth the
hungry soul with goodness" (Ps. 107:9).
1. THERE WILL BE GENUINE FRUITAGE IN THE LIVES
OF GOD'S FAITHFUL CHILDREN. There will be genuine
progress in the bearing of fruit in the Christian life.
And this will develop as we go on from faith to faith.
In John's Gospel we read of "fruit" (John 15:2),
BASIS AND FRUITAGE 115
"more fruit" (verse 2), then "much fruit" (verse 5), and
finally that "your fruit should remain" (verse 16). So
we are to go on "from strength to strength" (Ps. 84:7)
and from victory to victory, because it is God who
"giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ"
(1 Cor. 15:57). "Thanks be unto God, which always
causeth us to triumph in Christ" (2 Cor. 2:14).
Then there are the "fruits of righteousness" (Phil.
1:11; compare James 3:18). "The fruit of the Spirit
is in all goodness and righteousness and truth" (Eph.
5:9). The fuller outline appears in the epistle to the
Galatians "The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,
temperance: against such there is no law" (Gal. 5:22,
23).
What a wonderful portrayal! The paramount fruit
of the Spirit is love. All that follow are but aspects of
this divine quality. Just as various colors make up sun-
light, so these graces together constitute love. Thus,
joy is love exulting; peace is love in repose; long-suffer-
ing is love untiring; gentleness is love enduring; good-
ness is love in action; faith is love in confidence; meek-
ness is love under discipline; while temperance is love
in self-control.
This fruitage is to be seen in the life of the Christian.
These graces do not grow by any effort of our own,
but they are manifested in our lives because Christ
dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17). These graces
are in Christ; and when Christ dwells in us, He lives
out in us the wonderful qualities of His own perfect
character.
Works as a means of salvation have no place in the
116 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
plan of God. We cannot be justified at all by any kind
of works. Justification Is wholly an act of God, and we
are but the recipients of His unbounded grace.
But works as the fruitage of salvation do have a
definite place In the plan of God. This is seen In the
spiritual graces to be manifested in the children of God,
as already noted. We are to "work the works of God"
(John 6:28). There is the "work of faith" (1 Thess. I:
3); and every one that is "born of him" "doeth right-
eousness" (1 John 2:29). "Good works" are referred to
many times in the New Testament (see Eph. 2:10),
but it is to be borne in mind that in all our work of
faith (2 Thess. 1:11), our faith must be activated by
the love of God (Gal. 5:6). So, In all things "the love of
Christ" Is to constrain us (2 Cor. 5:14).
Ellen G. White writes:
No outward observances can take the place of simple faith
and entire renunciation of self. But no man can empty himself
of self. We can only consent for Christ to accomplish the work.
Then the language of the soul will be, Save me in spite of my-
self, my weak, unchristlike self. Lord, take my heart; for I cannot
give it. It is Thy property. Keep it pure, for I cannot keep it for
Thee. Mold me, fashion me, raise me into a pure and holy at-
mosphere, where the rich current of Thy love can flow through
my soul. Ibid., p. 159.
It will be noted that the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal.
5:22, 23) Is in full harmony with the law of God, for
against the manifestation of these graces in the life
"there is no law" (verse 23). In other words, the per-
son in whose life these graces are seen, will fulfill the
commandments of God. He cannot do this of himself;
he is not expected to. But with Christ dwelling in the
life, Christ's own righteous life (John 15:10) Is both
BASIS AND FRUITAGE 117
Imputed and imparted to the child of God. Thus David
exclaimed, "Great peace have they which love thy
law: and nothing shall offend them" (Ps. 119:165).
Hence the beloved apostle could write: "And hereby we
do know that we know him, if we keep his command-
ments." "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is
the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are
in him" (1 John 2:3, 5). And, "by this we know that we
love the children of God, when we love God, and keep
his commandments" (1 John 5:2).
We are to keep a balanced view of the plan of God.
His purpose is that His people be righteous. They are
not naturally righteous. But in the gospel of the grace
of God there is provision "that the righteousness of the
law might be fullfilled in us, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4). So, "circumci-
sion is nothing; and want of it is nothing; but to keep
the commandments of God is everything" (1 Cor. 7:19,
Twentieth Century).
2. THE CHILB OF Goi> MAY HAVE CONFIDENCE AND
ASSURANCE. It is our privilege, and really our herit-
age as the blood-bought children of God, to have "full
assurance" (Col. 2:2), to enjoy "full assurance of
faith" (Heb. 10:22), and to know the "full assurance
of hope unto the end" (Heb. 6:11). We have confidence
in Him (1 John 5:14), "confidence toward God" (1
John 3:21).
To the true children of God, this experience is not
hearsay; it is not veneer or make-believe; it is a real,
genuine experience. They can say with all confidence,
yet with humility, "We know that we have passed from
death unto life" (1 John 3:14); We know "that we are
118 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
in him" (1 John 2:5); "We know that he abideth in us"
(1 John 3:24).
VII. Three Tenses in Salvation
Salvation from sin is set forth in three "tenses" past,
present, and future. It is a progressive work. The
child of God may properly say, "I have been saved
from the penalty of sin"; also, "I am being saved from
the power of sin." And he can also say, with truth, "I
shall be saved from the very presence and possibility
of sin."
Concerning the first expression, "I am saved/' Paul
wrote to Titus, "According to his mercy he saved us"
(Titus 3:5); likewise, "We are saved by hope" (Rom.
8:24). In both instances the Greek verb is in the aorist
form. For example, this last text could more accurately
read, "We were saved" (R.S.V.), or "We have been
saved" (Weymouth). This stresses an aspect of salva-
tion that is an accomplished fact,
But it is also true that as sincere believers in Christ
we are being saved. This is something in process of
being accomplished day by day. We read, "Unto us
which are saved" (1 Cor. 1:18). But again the better
rendering of the Greek is "to us who are being saved"
(R.S.V.). This same thought is seen in Acts 2:47 where
the correct translation is "those who were being saved"
(R.S.V.).
Then there is the expression, '7 shall be saved."
We also read, "We shall be saved" (Acts 15:11; Rom.
5:9).
This is the threefold way in which the work of sal-
vation touches human hearts. Thus we have been
BASIS AND FRUITAGE 119
saved justification; we are being saved sanctifica-
tion; and we shall be saved glorification.
VIII. God's People Delight to Rejoice in the Lord
When God forgives our sins and gives us the as-
surance in His Word that they are forgiven (Eph. 4:32),
we have no need to worry and concern ourselves about
the future. It is true that there will be a judgment
where the sins of men will be dealt with. But that
need cause no concern to the child of God, for as a
Christian he now abides in God, and God abides in
him (John 14:20). "Your sins are forgiven you for his
name's sake" (1 John 2:12). Faith lays hold of His word
and rejoices in the knowledge of sins forgiven.
The one who has truly passed from death unto life,
and maintains an attitude of constant surrender, does
not live his life in uncertainty. Having placed his case
in the hands of his mighty Advocate, he has no fear for
the future. Christ is his surety, and he lives his life in
an atmosphere of complete trust in God, rejoicing that
"perfect love casteth out fear."
In the light of such great salvation, ought not the
lives of God's people to be lives of rejoicing? Even the
Israelites long ago in Old Testament times knew what
this meant. Note their expressions of joy and gladness:
"Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous" (Ps. 33:1); "Be
glad then, ye children of Zion, and rejoice in the Lord
your God" (Joel 2:23). And the psalmist said, "Let
thy saints shout for joy" (Ps. 132:9); "Let them ever
shout for joy" (Ps. 5:11).
Over and over again came the refrain, "Praise ye
the Lord," and the people took this to heart, for we
120 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
read, "I will be glad and rejoice in thee" (Ps. 9:2);
"My soul shall be joyful in the Lord" (Ps. 35:9); "I
will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful
in my God" (Isa. 61:10); "I will declare what he hath
done for my soul" (Ps. 66: 16).
In the New Testament there is the same note of re-
joicing. "Joy" is one of the great words of the New
Testament. Indeed, the gospel itself is declared to be
"tidings of great joy" (Luke 2:10). And Jesus, the
author of eternal salvation (Heb. 5:9), wished His
disciples to partake of His joy, that in and through Him
their joy might be full (John 15:11; 16:24). The great
apostle to the Gentiles expressed the same thought,
when he exhorted the saints to "rejoice in the Lord"
(Phil. 3:1); to "rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I
say, Rejoice" (Phil. 4:4). Thus we may unite our voices
with the celestial choirs, "saying with a loud voice,
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power,
and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and
glory, and blessing" (Rev. 5:12).
Tfte Ten Commandments,
God's Standard of Conduct
QUESTION 12
Many Christians have gained the impres-
sion that Seventh-day Adventists are legalists
that they teach that it is necessary to keep the
law in order to be saved. Just what is the Advent-
ist attitude toward the law? And how does your
belief compare with the historic Protestant posi-
tion?
The Seventh-day Adventlst position on the Ten
Commandments is set forth briefly in our statement
of "Fundamental Beliefs." Section 6 reads:
6. That the will of God as it relates to moral conduct is
comprehended in His law of ten commandments; that these are
great moral, unchangeable precepts, binding upon all men, in
every age. Ex. 20:1-17.
The ten commandments spoken by God from
Mount Sinai are set apart from all the other commands
of God recorded in the Bible by their very nature and
the manner of their delivery. They themselves are the
best evidence of their enduring character. Man's moral
nature responds to them with assent, and it is impos-
sible for an enlightened Christian to imagine a condi-
tion or circumstance God still being God, and man
still being a moral creature where they would not
be operative.
121
122 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Correctly viewed, the moral law is much more than
a legal code; it is a transcript of the character of God.
Says A. H. Strong, Baptist theologian:
The law of God, then, is simply an expression' of the nature
of God in the form of moral requirement, and a necessary ex-
pression of that nature in view of the existence of moral beings
(Ps. 19:7; cf. 1). To the existence of this law all men bear wit-
ness. The consciences even of the heathen testify to it (Rom. 2:
14, 15). Those who have the written law recognize this elemental
law as of greater compass and penetration (Rom. 7:14; 8:4).
The perfect embodiment and fulfillment of this law is seen only
in Christ (Rom. 10:4; Phil. 3:8, 9). Systematic Theology, p. 538.
Ellen G. White has expressed these truths in some-
what different words:
The law of God is as sacred as Himself. It is a revelation of
His will, a transcript of His character, the expression of divine
love and wisdom. The harmony of creation depends upon the
perfect conformity of ail beings ... to the law of the Creator.
Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 52.
The divine beauty of the character of Christ, of whom the
noblest and most gentle among men are but a faint reflection;
of whom Solomon by the Spirit of inspiration wrote, He is "the
chiefest among ten thousand, . . . yea, He is altogether lovely"
(Song of Solomon 5:10-16); of whom David, seeing Him in
prophetic vision, said, "Thou art fairer than the children of
men" (Psalm 45:2); Jesus, the express image of the Fa-
ther's person, the effulgence of His glory, the self-denying Re-
deemer, throughout His pilgrimage of love on earth was a living
representation of the character of the law of God. In His life it
is made manifest that heaven-born love, Christlike principles,
underlie the laws of eternal rectitude. Thoughts From the Mount
of Blessing (1956), p. 49.
For a true and full understanding of what God
means by His moral law, the Christian must turn to
Christ. He it is who enables the newborn soul to live
the new life. This is really the indwelling of Christ in
his heart, and hence the believer, because of his sub-
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS 123
mission to his Lord, lives out the principles of God's
character in his heart and life.
The Adventist position on the relation of the Ten
Commandments to salvation is set forth In "Funda-
mental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists," section 8:
8. That the law of ten commandments points out sin, the
penalty of which is death. The law cannot save the transgressor
from his sin, nor impart power to keep him from sinning. In
infinite love and mercy, God provides a way whereby this may
be done. He furnishes a substitute, even Christ the Righteous
One, to die in man's stead, making "him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him." 2 Cor. 5:21. That one is justified, not by obedience to the
law, but by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. By accepting Christ,
man is reconciled to God, justified by His blood for the sins of
the past, and saved from the power of sin by His indwelling life.
Thus the gospel becomes "the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth." Rom. 1:16. This experience is wrought
by the divine agency of the Holy Spirit, who convinces of sin and
leads to the Sin-Bearer, inducting the believer into the new
covenant relationship, where the law of God is written on his
heart, and through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ,
his life is brought into conformity to the divine precepts. The
honor and merit of this wonderful transformation belong wholly
to Christ. 1 John 2:1, 2; 3:4; Rom. 3:20; 5:8-10; 7:7; Eph. 2:
8-10; 3:17; Gal. 2:20; Heb. 8:8-12.
This is in full harmony with what is taught in the
historic confessions of faith:
The Waldensian Catechism (c. 1500) and The Con-
fession of the Waldenses (1655) both cite the Ten
Commandments and the Lord's Prayer as "fundamen-
tals of our faith and our devotion/' Again, "Living
faith is to believe in God, that is, to love him and to
keep his commandments." (SCHAFF, The Creeds of
Christendom, vol. 1, pp. 572, 573, 575; vol. 3, pp. 757,
768.)
124 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Luther's Small Catechism (1529), following the
quoting of the Ten Commandments, says: "We should,
therefore, love and trust in him, and gladly obey his
Commandments." (SGHAFF, vol. 3, p. 77.)
The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), most popular of
all the Reformed symbols, and the first to be planted
on American soil, among the Dutch and German Re-
formed churches (ibid., vol. I, p. 549), after an ex-
tended series of questions on the Decalogue, states that
the Ten Commandments are strictly enjoined that we
may the "more earnestly seek forgiveness of sins and
righteousness in Christ"; and "become more and more
changed into the image of God." (Ibid., vol. 3, pp.
340-349.)
The (Lutheran) Formula of Concord (1576) says
that Christians are set free from the "curse and con-
straint" of the law, but not from the law itself. On
these Ten Commandments they are to meditate day
and night, and "continually exercise themselves in the
keeping thereof." It condemns as "false and pernicious"
the concept that the Decalogue is not the standard of
righteousness for the Christian. (Ibid., pp. 130-135.)
The Scotch Confession of Faith (1560), article XV,
stresses the perfection of the law and the imperfection
of man (ibid., pp. 456, 457).
The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647),
adopted by the Church of Scotland in 1648, by the
Presbyterian Synod of New York and Philadelphia in
1788, and by nearly all Calvinist, Presbyterian, and
Congregational churches. It is more extensively used
than any other, except the Small Catechism of Luther
and the Heidelberg Catechism (ibid., p. 676). It de-
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS 125
dared that the Ten Commandments, or moral law,
reveals the duty that God requires of man. And it adds,
"We are bound to keep all his commandments." (Ibid.,
pp. 678, 684, 685.)
New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833), accepted
in the Northern and Western States. Article XII, "Of
the Harmony of the Law and the Gospel," declares
that the law of God is "the eternal and unchangeable
rule of his moral government," and that we are, through
our Mediator, to give "unfeigned obedience to the
holy Law," as one great end of the gospel. (Ibid.,
p. 746.)
Not only so, but Adventists share with hundreds of
eminent men of various faiths Calvin, Wesley, Clarke,
Barnes, Spurgeon, Moody, G. Campbell Morgan,
Henry Clay Trumbull, Billy Graham belief in the
perpetuity of God's moral law of ten commandments,
and in its being in force in all dispensations, as attested
by these typical excerpts:
CALVIN ETERNAL RULE OF LIFE. We must not imagine
that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the
law; for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must,
therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it
embraced, is constant and uniform. Commentary on a Har-
mony of the Evangelists (1845), vol. I, p. 277.
WESLEY REMAINS IN FORCE. But the moral law contained in
the ten commandments, and enforced by the prophets, he did
not take away. It was not the design of his coming to revoke any
part of this. This is a law which never can be broken, which
"stands fast as the faithful witness in heaven." The moral
stands on an entirely different foundation from the ceremonial
or ritual law. . . . Every part of this law must remain in force
upon all mankind, and in all ages; as not depending either on
time or place, or any other circumstances liable to change, but
on the nature of God, and the nature of man, and their un-
126 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
changeable relation to each other. Sermons on Several Occa-
sions, vol. 1, pp. 221, 222.
MORGAN OBEDIENCE BY FAITH. It is only when grace en-
ables men to keep the law, that they are free from it; just as a
moral man who lives according to the laws of the country is
free from arrest. God has not set aside law, but he has found a
way by which man can fulfil law, and so be free from it.
The 'Ten Commandments (1901), p. 23.
SPURGEON THE LAW OF GOD PERPETUAL. Very great mis-
takes have been made about the law. Not long ago there were
those about us who affirmed that the law is utterly abrogated and
abolished, and they openly taught that believers were not bound
to make the moral law the rule of their lives. What would have
been sin in other men they counted to be no sin in themselves.
From such Antinomianism as that may God deliver us. ...
THE LAW OF GOD MUST BE PERPETUAL. There is no
abrogation of it, nor amendment of it. It is not to be toned down
or adjusted to our fallen condition; but every one of the Lord's
righteous judgments abideth for ever. . . .
Does any man say to me, "You see, then, instead of the ten
commandments we have received the two commandments, and
these are much easier." I answer that this reading of the law is
not in the least easier. Such a remark implies a want of thought
and experience. Those two precepts comprehend the te.n at their
fullest extent, and cannot be regarded as the erasure of a jot or
tittle of them. . . .
Christ has not, therefore, abrogated or at all moderated the
law to meet our helplessness; he has left it in all its sublime
perfection, as it always must be left, and he has pointed out how
deep are its foundations, how elevated are its heights, how meas-
ureless are its length and breadth. . . .
To show that he never meant to abrogate the law, our Lord
Jesus has embodied all its commands in his own life. In his own
person there was a nature which was perfectly conformed to the
law of God; and as was his nature such was his life. He could
say, "Which of you convinceth me of sin?" and again "I have
kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." . . .
By his death he has vindicated the honour of God's moral
government, and made it just for him to be merciful. When the
lawgiver himself submits to the law, when the sovereign himself
bears the extreme penalty of that law, then is the justice of God
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS 127
set upon such a glorious high throne that all admiring worlds
must wonder at it. If therefore it is clearly proven that Jesus was
obedient to the law, even to the extent of death, he certainly did
not come to abolish or abrogate it; and if he did not remove
it, who can do so? If he declares that he came to establish it, who
shall overthrow it? ...
The law is absolutely complete, and you can neither add to
it nor take from it. 'Tor whosoever shall keep the whole law,
and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said,
Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou com-
mit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor
of the law." If, then, no part of it can be taken down, it must
stand, and stand for ever. The Perpetuity of the Law of God,
published in Spurgeon's Expository Encyclopedia, by Baker.
BILLY GRAHAM PERMANENT AND UNCHANGING. The word
"Law" is used by the New Testament writers in two senses.
Sometimes it refers to the ceremonial law of the Old Testament,
which is concerned about ritual matters and regulations regard-
ing food and drink and things of that kind. From this law Chris-
tians are indeed free. But the New Testament also speaks of the
moral law, which is of a permanent, unchanging character and
is summarized in the Ten Commandments. Associated Press
Dispatch, Chicago Tribune Syndicate.-
MOODY LAW ETERNAL: OBEYED WITH LOVE IN THE HEART.
The question for each one of us is are we keeping them [the
commandments]? If God should weigh us by them, would we be
found wanting or not wanting? Do we keep the law, the whole
law? Are we obeying God with all our heart? Do we render Him
a full and willing obedience?
These ten commandments are not ten different laws; they
are one law. If I am being held up in the air by a chain with ten
links, and I break one of them, down I come, just as surely as
if I break the whole ten. If I am forbidden to go out of an en-
closure, it makes no difference at what point I break through
the fence. "Whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend
in one point, he is guilty of all." "The golden chain of obedience
is broken if one link is missing." . . .
For fifteen hundred years man was under the law, and no one
was equal to it. Christ came and showed that the commandments
went beyond the mere letter; and can any one since say that he
has been able to keep them in his own strength? . . .
128 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
I can imagine that you are saying to yourself, "If we are to be
judged by these laws, how are we going to be saved? Nearly every
one of them has been broken by us In spirit, if not in letter."
I almost hear you say: "I wonder if Mr. Moody is ready to be
weighed? Would he like to put those tests to himself?"
With all humility I reply that if God commanded me to step
into the scales now, I am ready.
"What!" you say, "haven't you broken the law?"
Yes, I have. I was a sinner before God the same as you; but
forty years ago I plead guilty at His bar. I cried for mercy, and
He forgave me. If I step into the scales, the Son of God has
promised to be with me. I would not dare to step in without
Him. If I did, how quickly the scales would fly up!
Christ kept the law. If He had ever broken it, He would have
had to die for Himself; but because He was a Lamb without
spot or blemish, His atoning death is efficacious for you and me.
. . . Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one
that believeth. We are righteous in God's sight because the
righteousness of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ, is unto all
and upon all them that believe. . . .
If the love of God is shed abroad in your heart, you will be
able to fulfil the law. Weighed and Wanting, pp. 119-124.
"MOODY MONTHLY" CHRIST AMPLIFIED THEIR
SCOPE. A few years ago a series of articles was printed
in the Moody Bible Institute Monthly under the
head "Are Christians Freed From the Law?" The
writer of the series says in his first article, "Let us
now see how the moral law is emphasized, enlarged,
and enforced in all its details in the New Testament/'
He shows how Christ and the apostles dealt with it:
So far from annulling any of the Ten Commandments, He
[Christ] amplified their scope, teaching that an angry thought or
bitter word violated the sixth, and a lustful look the seventh
(Matt. 5:21, 22, 27, 28).
The teaching of the apostles under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit, is even more emphatic and explicit concerning the
scope and obligations of the moral law. Moody Bible Institute
Monthly, October, 1933.
Distinction Between the Decalogue
and the Ceremonial Law
QUESTION 13
On what grounds do Seventh-day Advent-
ists consider as separate the "moral law" and
the "ceremonial law" in view of what our Lord
accomplished on Calvary's cross?
We feel that there are ample Biblical grounds for
making this distinction. The Ten Commandments, or
the Decalogue, constitute in principle God's eternal
law. Not only is this law eternal, but it is immutable.
It is the foundation of His throne; it is the expression
of His character. Since it represents His character
or what God Himself is we believe it is as eternal as
the everlasting God.
This thought can be seen in the following qualities
inherent in God and in His law:
God Is His Law Is
Righteous Ezra 9:15 Righteousness Ps. 119:172
Perfect Matt. 5:48 Perfect Ps. 19:7
Holy Lev. 19:2 Holy Rom. 7:12
Good Ps. 34:8 Good Rom. 7:12
Truth Deut. 32:4 Truth Ps. 119:142
But while this is true of the eternal law of God as
expressed in the Decalogue, it would not be true of the
5 129
130 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
ceremonial law that God gave to Israel. This cere-
monial law embraced the types and shadows that en-
tered into the sacrificial system of Israel. All the sacri-
ficial offerings, the feast days, and even the priesthood
all that was typical of the sacrifice and ministry of
Christ our Lord met its end on Calvary's cross. This
we believe is what is meant by the apostle Paul when
he wrote that Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity,
even the law of commandments contained in ordi-
nances" (Eph. 2:15).
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that
was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it
out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col. 2:14).
"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the
body is of Christ" (verse 17).
The distinction between the moral law of God
the Decalogue and the ceremonial law can be seen
in the following:
The Decalogue
1. Spoken by God Himself.
Ex. 20:1, 22.
2. Written by God. Ex. 31:18;
32:16.
3. On stones. Ex. 31:18.
4. Handed by God, its writer,
to Moses. Ex. 31:18.
5. Deposited by Moses "in the
ark." Deut. 10:5.
6. Deals with moral precepts.
Ex. 20:3-17.
The Ceremonial Law
1. Spoken by Moses. Ex. 24:3.
2. Written by Moses. Ex. 24:
4; Deut. 31:9.
3. In a book. Ex. 24:4, 7;
Deut. 31:24.
4. Handed by Moses, its writer,
to Levites. Deut. 31:25, 26.
5. Deposited by the Levites
"by the side of the ark."
Deut. 31:26, A.R.V.
6. Deals with ceremonial, rit-
ual matters. (See parts of
Exodus, Leviticus, Num-
bers, Deuteronomy.)
THE CEREMONIAL LAW
131
7. Reveals sin. Rom. 7:7.
8. Breaking of "the law" is
"sin." 1 John 3:4.
9. Should "keep the whole
law." James 2:10.
10. Because we ''shall
be judged" by this law.
James 2:12.
11. The Christian who keeps
this law is "blessed in his
deed." James 1:25.
12. "The perfect law of lib-
erty." James 1:25. (Cf.
James 2:12.)
13. Established by faith In
Christ. Rom. 3:31.
14. Christ was to "magnify the
law and make it honoura-
ble." Isa. 42:21.
15. "We know that the law is
spiritual." Rom. 7:14. (Cf.
verse 7.)
7. Prescribes offerings for sins.
(See book of Leviticus.)
8. No sin in breaking, for
now "abolished.". Eph. 2:
15. ("Where no law is,
there is no transgression."
Rom. 4: 15.)
9. Apostles gave "no such
commandment" to "keep
the law." Acts 15:24.
10. Not to be judged by it. Col.
2:16.
11. The Christian who keeps
this law is not blessed. (See,
for example, Gal. 5:1-6.)
12. The Christian who keeps
this law loses his liberty.
Gal. 5:1, 3.
13. Abolished by Christ. Eph.
2:15.
14. Blotted "out the handwrit-
ing of ordinances that was
against us." Col. 2:14.
15. "The law of a carnal com-
mandment/' Heb. 7:16.
It should also be noted that the leading confessions
of faith, and the historic creeds of Christendom, rec-
ognize the difference between God's moral law, the
Ten Commandments, or the Decalogue, as separate and
distinct from the ceremonial precepts. The following
are a few of them:
The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), of the
Reformed Church of Zurich, and one of the most au-
thoritative of all Continental symbols (PHILIP
SCHAFF, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1, pp. 391,
132 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
394, 395), In chapter 12, "Of the Law of God/' after
contrasting the "moral" and the "ceremonial" laws,
says of the moral law, "We believe that the whole will
of God, and all necessary precepts, for every part of
this life, are fully delivered in this law" (not that we
are to be justified by it, but that we shall turn to Christ
by faith). The types and figures of the ceremonial
law have ceased. "The shadow ceased when the body
came," but the moral law is not to be disdained or re-
jected, and all teachings against the law are condemned.
(See SCHAFF, vol. 3, pp. 854-856.)
Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of the Church of
England (1571). Article VII states that while "the lawe
geven from God by Moses" concerning "ceremonies and
rites" is not binding, "no Christian man whatsoeuer, is
free from the obedience of the commaundementes,
which are called morall." (See SCHAFF, vol. 3, pp.
491, 492.)
The American Revision of Thirty-nine Articles by
the Protestant Episcopal Church (1801) is identical
with the foregoing,^ (See SCHAFF, vol. 3, p. 816.)
The Irish Articles of Religion (1615) , believed to
have been composed by Archbishop Ussher, after stating
that the ceremonial law is abolished, says: "No Chris-
tian man whatsoever is freed from the obedience of the
Commandments which are called Moral." (See SCHAFF,
vol. 3, pp. 526, 541.)
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), after
showing the difference between the ceremonial and
the moral law, and the abrogation of the former and
the perpetuity of the latter, in chapter 19 declares "the
moral law doth forever bind all," not for justification,
THE CEREMONIAL LAW 133
but as a rule of life, In order to recognize the enabling
power of Christ. This law continues to be "a perfect
rule of righteousness." And it adds, "Neither doth
Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much
strengthen, this obligation." (See SCHAFF, vol. 3,
pp. 640-644.)
The Savoy Declaration of the Congregational
Churches (1658). There is no change in chapter 19,
"Of the Law of God," from the Westminster Confes-
sion. (See SCHAFF, vol. 3, p. 718),
Baptist Confession of 1688 (Philadelphia), based
on the London, 1677, confession, has no change from
the Westminster Confession in chapter 19, "Of the Law
of God." It deals with the distinction between the
moral and the ceremonial law, and asserts that no
Christian is free from obedience to the moral law.
(See SCHAFF, vol. 3, p. 738.)
Methodist Articles of Religion (1784). These
twenty-five articles, drawn up by John Wesley for
American Methodists, are an abridgement of the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and
declare: "Although the law given from God by Moses,
as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Chris-
tians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity
be received in any commonwealth, yet, notwithstand-
ing, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience
to the commandments which are called moral." (See
SCHAFF, vol. 3, pp. 807, 808.)
The conclusion from the foregoing is therefore
clear: The position maintained by Seventh-day Advent-
ists regarding their relationship to the Decalogue, and
their distinction between the moral and the ceremo-
134 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
nial law, Is fully sustained by the leading creeds, articles
of faith, and catechisms of historic Protestantism. The
concept that the Decalogue was abolished by the death
of Christ is a relatively recent one. Certainly it was not
taught by the founding fathers of Protestantism, for
such is in total conflict with their belief.
The Relationship of Grace
to Law and Works
QUESTION 14
It is generally understood that Adventists
teach that salvation is by the grace of God but
plus the works of the law. What is the actual
Adventist concept of the relation of grace to law
and to human works? Is not the emphasis of
Mrs. White on the necessity of works and obedi-
ence, rather than on the abounding saving grace
of Godf
There has been regrettable misunderstanding as to
our teaching on grace, law, and works, and their inter-
relationships. According to Seventh-day Adventist be-
lief, there is, and can be, no salvation through the law,
or by human works of the law, but only through the
saving grace of God. This principle, to us, is basic. This
transcendent provision of the grace of God is empha-
sized both in the Old and the New Testament, although
the truth of God's wondrous grace reaches its fullest
unfolding, and most complete manifestation, in the
New Testament times and record.
I. Grace Pre-eminent in the New Testament
The word "grace" (Greek, charts), occurs some 150
times in the New Testament. Paul made more use of
this significant term than did any other New Testa-
135
136 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
ment writer, there being some 100 occurrences in his
epistles. His close associate, Luke, used the word about
25 times in Luke and Acts, these two men thereby ac-
counting for about five sixths of all the New Testa-
ment occurrences. "Grace" was by no means a new
word invented by the apostles; the term was widely
used in a variety of associated meanings In the LXX
and in classical and later Greek literature. However,
the New Testament often seems to attach a special
significance to "grace'* that is not found fully expressed
elsewhere.
In the New Testament, grace is set forth as a dis-
tinctively divine quality. New Testament writers speak
of "the grace of our God" (Jude 4); "the grace of
Christ" (Gal. 1:6); and "the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ" (Gal. 6:18). Expressions like these constitute
the opening and closing salutations in the letters of the
apostles. They are found at the beginning of Peter's
two letters, as well as in the fourteen epistles of the
apostle Paul. They also appear at the close of these
letters of spiritual counsel and encouragement.
This divine grace is further described by a remark-
ably wide range of adjectives and adverbs. It is called
the "true grace of God" (1 Peter 5:12); abounding, or
"abundant," grace (2 Cor. 4:15); the "manifold grace
of God" (I Peter 4:19); the "sufficient" grace of God
(2 Cor. 12:9); the "exceeding grace of God" (2 Cor.
9:14). There is also the expression "grace for grace"
(John 1:16); and reference to Christ Jesus our Lord
as being "full of grace and truth" (John 1:14; compare
verse 17). It is also the "free gift" of God (Rom. 5:15,
18).
GRACE, LAW, AND WORKS 137
II. Bible Definition or Description of Grace
The distinctive meaning attached to the term
"grace" in the New Testament, and especially In the
writings of Paul, Is that of the abundant, saving love of
God toward sinners as revealed in Jesus Christ. Ob-
viously, since all men have sinned and are destitute of
the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), such favor and loving-
kindness on God's part are wholly undeserved and un-
merited by sinful man. Men have lived in hatred and
rebellion against God (Rom. 1:21, 31, 32), have per-
verted His truth (verses 18, 25), have preferred to
worship beasts and reptiles (verse 23), have defiled His
image in their own bodies (verses 24-27), have blas-
phemed His name (Rom. 2:24), and have even despised
God for His patience and forbearance (verse 4).
Finally, they murdered His Son, sent to save them
(Acts 7:52). Yet God has continued to regard man with
love and kindness, that the revelation of His goodness
may lead men to repentance (Rom. 2:4).
This is the grace of God in Its peculiar New Testa-
ment sense. It is God's unlimited, all-inclusive, trans-
forming love toward sinful men and women; and the
good news of this grace, as revealed in Jesus Christ, is
"the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. 1:16). It
is not merely God's mercy and willingness to forgive,
but It is an active, energizing, transforming power to
save. Thus it may fill a person (John 1:14), it may
be given (Rom. 12:3, 6), it is all-sufficient (2 Cor. 12:9;
compare Rom. 5:20), it reigns (Rom. 5:21), It teaches
(Titus 2:11, 12), it establishes the heart (Heb. 13:9).
In some instances "grace" seems almost to be equivalent
138 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
to "gospel" (Col. 1:6) and to the working of God
generally (Acts 11:23; I Peter 5:12). Ellen G. White
wrote:
Divine grace Is the great element of saving power. Gospel
Workers, p. 70.
Christ gave His life to make it possible for man to be restored
to the Image of God. It is the power of His grace that draws
men together in obedience to the truth. Counsels to Parents,
Teachers, and Students, p. 249.
The "grace of God" has been fittingly called the
"love of God"; that is, love, not so much in a general
sense as in a specific sense; not so much love merely as
love, but love directionally. Grace is the love of God
flowing flowing not upward or outward, but down-
ward. It is that wonderful divine mercy and undeserved
favor that flows from the great loving heart of God.
And specifically, it is His love that flows downward from
heaven to undeserving sinners here on earth. While
deserving nothing but the wrath of God, we become,
through this marvelous grace, the recipients of this
love, this grace, which we do not in the least merit.
III. Ellen G. White on the Sovereignty of Grace
As to the apparently misunderstood teachings of
Ellen G. White on the relationship of grace, law,
and works, please note the following expression, written
in 1905, Her writings are in pronounced harmony with
Scripture, as well as sound historical theology.
Grace is an attribute of God exercised toward undeserving
human beings. We did not seek for it, but it was sent in search
of us. God rejoices to bestow His grace upon us, not because we
are worthy, but because we are so utterly unworthy. Our only
claim to His mercy is our great need. The Ministry of Healing,
p 161.
GRACE, LAW, AND WORKS 139
More than that, the same writer adds that every-
thing we enjoy, in the matchless blessings of salvation
comes to us through the grace of God. Thus:
We owe everything to grace, free grace, sovereign grace. Grace
in the covenant ordained our adoption. Grace in the Saviour
effected our redemption, our regeneration, and our adoption to
heirship with Christ. Testimonies for the Church (1882), vol. 6,
p. 268.
Recognized theological classics have stated these
same truths in this way. Charles Hodge, formerly pro-
fessor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological
Seminary, declares:
The word [charts, "grace"] . . . means a favourable disposition,
or kind feeling; and especially love as exercised toward the in-
ferior, dependent, or unworthy. This is represented as the crown-
ing attribute of the divine nature. Its manifestation is declared
to be the grand end of the whole scheme of redemption. ... He
[God] raises men from spiritual death, "and makes them sit to-
gether in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come
he might show the exceeding riches of his grace." (Eph. 2:6, 7.)
Therefore it is often asserted that salvation is of grace. The gospel
is a system of grace. All its blessings are gratuitously bestowed;
all is so ordered that in every step of the progress of redemption
and in its consummation, the grace, or undeserved love of God,
is conspicuously displayed. Nothing is given or promised on the
ground of merit. Everything is an undeserved favour. That sal-
vation was provided at all, is a matter of grace and not of debt.
Systematic Theology (1871), vol. 2, p. 654.
With this, Adventists are in complete agreement.
IV. The Fruitage of This Divine Grace
Many and varied are the manifestations of the grace
of God. Our heavenly Father is called "the God of all
grace" (1 Peter 5:10). We may do "despite unto the
Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). "We have redemption
. . . according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7).
140 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
We are to preach "the gospel of the grace of God"
(Acts 20:24) and "the word of his grace" (Acts 14:3).
We are also "chosen by grace" (Rom. 11:5, R.S.V.).
Everything we enjoy In Christian experience comes
to us because of this matchless grace of God. We were
"called ... by his grace" (Gal. 1:15). We have "be-
lieved" through His grace (Acts 18:27). We were
"justified by his grace" (Titus 3:7). Paul could say, "I
am what I am" because of "the grace of God" (1 Cor.
15:10). We too are saved by His grace (Eph. 2:5,
8).
The grace of God gives us a unique and secure
standing before God. We are to "continue In the grace
of God" (Acts 13:43) and to "grow in the grace ... of
our Lord" (2 Peter 3:18, R.S.V.). As we do this, we
shall "stand" in the grace of God (Rom, 5:2).
So It is the grace of Christ alone that can save the
soul; this alone can lift the fallen from the depths of
degradation and sin. Ellen G. White's witness on this
point is both clear and unvarying:
Divine grace is the great element of saving power; without it
all human effort is unavailing. Counsels to Parents, Teachers,
and Students (1882), p. 538.
Christ delights to take apparently hopeless material, those
whom Satan has debased and through whom he has worked, and
make them the subjects of His grace. Testimonies for the Church
(1882), vol. 6, p. 308.
Further, she writes that it is also the grace of God
that keeps us from falling, and enables us to remain
steadfast and true to the divine calling.
There is only one power that can either make us steadfast or
keep us so, the grace of God, in truth. He who confides in aught
else is already tottering, ready to fall. Ibid. (1902), vol. 7, p. 189.
GRACE, LAW, AND WORKS 141
Again, It is the grace of God, manifested in the
lives of the children of God, that is the greatest argu-
ment as to the truth and power of the Christian faith.
By power of His grace manifested in the transformation of
character the world is to be convinced that God has sent His Son
as its Redeemer. The Ministry of Healing (1905), p. 470.
And when at last the redeemed surround the throne
of God, it will be by the wonderful grace of God.
If during this life they are loyal to God, they will at last "see
His face; and His name shall be in their foreheads." Revelation
22:4. And what is the happiness of heaven but to see God? What
greater joy could come to the sinner saved by the grace of Christ
than to look upon the face of God, and know Him as Father?
Ibid.,p. 421.
V. The Relationship of Grace and Works
Salvation is not now, and never has been, by law or
works; salvation is only by the grace of Christ. More-
over, there never was a time in the plan of God when
salvation was by human works or effort. Nothing men
can do, or have done, can in any way merit salvation.
While works are not a means of salvation, good
works are the inevitable result of salvation. However,
these good works are possible only for the child of God
whose life is inwrought by the Spirit of God. It is to
such believers that John writes when he bids them
keep the commandments of God (1 John 3:22-24; 5:
2, 3). This relationship and sequence is imperative,
but is often misunderstood or reversed.
Even in the days of old, men were not justified by
works; they were justified by faith. Thus the prophet
Habakkuk wrote: "The just shall live by his faith"
(Hab. 2:4; compare Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:8, 11; Phil. 3:9;
Heb. 10:38). God calls upon man to be righteous; but
142 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
man is naturally unrighteous. If he is to be prepared for
die kingdom of God, he must be made righteous. This
is something man cannot do in and of himself. He is
unclean and unrighteous. The more he works, and the
greater his effort, the more he reveals the unrighteous-
ness of his own heart. Therefore if man is ever to be-
come righteous, it must be by a power entirely outside
himself it must be by the power of God.
There is really no actual valid conflict between
grace and the law the Ten Commandments; each
serves its special purpose in the plan of God. Grace, as
such, is not opposed to the law, which is God's standard
of righteousness; neither is the law opposed to grace.
Each has its specific functions, and neither trespasses
on the functions of the other.
One thing is certain, man cannot be saved by any
effort of his own. We profoundly believe that no works
of the law, no deeds of the law, no effort however com-
mendable, and no good works whether they be many
or few, sacrificial or not can in any way justify the
sinner (Titus 3:5; Rom. 3:20). Salvation is wholly of
grace; it is the gift of God (Rom. 4:4, 5; Eph. 2:8).
Man in the beginning was made upright (Eccl. 7:
29). There was no taint of sin in him when he came
forth from the hand of his Creator. He was made in
the image of God, and his character was in harmony
with the principles of God's holy law. But man sinned.
Now, in and through the gospel, it is the purpose of
God to restore in man that lost image of God. He was
originally sinless; now he is sinful. But when the gos-
pel of the grace of God does its work in his heart, he
will be clothed with the robe of the righteousness of
GRACE, LAW, AND WORKS 143
Christ. That righteousness is imputed to him in justifi-
cation. It is imparted to him in sanctification. And
through Christ, and Christ alone, it will be his, and his
forever, in glorification.
But there are dangers against which the children of
God need to guard. This too has been forcefully stated
by Ellen G. White:
There are two errors against which the children of God
particularly those who have just come to trust in His grace
especially need to guard. The first ... is that of looking to their
own works, trusting to anything they can do, to bring themselves
into harmony with God. He who is trying to become holy by his
own works in keeping the law, is attempting an impossibility. All
that man can do without Christ is polluted with selfishness and
sin. It is the grace of Christ alone, through faith, that can make
us holy.
The opposite and no less dangerous error is, that belief in
Christ releases men from keeping the law of God; that since by
faith alone we become partakers of the grace of Christ, our works
have nothing to do with our redemption.
But notice here that obedience is not a mere outward com-
pliance, but the service of love. The law of God is an expression
of His very nature; it is an embodiment of the great principle of
love, and hence is the foundation of His government in heaven
and earth. If our hearts are renewed in the likeness of God, if
the divine love is implanted in the soul, will not the law of God
be carried out in the life? When the principle of love is implanted
in the heart, when man is renewed after the image of Him that
created him, the new covenant promise is fulfilled: "I will put My
laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them."
And if the law is written in the heart, will it not shape the life?
Obedience the service and allegiance of love is the true sign
of discipleship. Steps to Christ (1892), pp. 64, 65.
The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of
man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness.
The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad
as the requirement made in Eden, harmony with God's law,
which is holy, just, and good. Christ's Object Lessons (1900),
p. 391.
144 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Ray C. Stedman has Impressively set forth the rela-
tion of grace and law, and some common misconcep-
tions, in the September, 1953, Our Hope, as follows:
If the question, "Is law opposed to grace?" were put to a
representative group of evangelical believers today, the answer
would be, in many instances, an emphatic "Yes." Even such a
selected group as students of conservative Bible institutes and
seminaries would probably give a strong affirmative to such a
question. And they would be wrong! Despite their wide-eyed
amazement at such a statement as this the fact remains that, bibli-
cally and theologically, they are dead wrong.
It is easy to understand why otherwise well-taught Christians
are confused on this matter. No theological drum is more soundly
thumped today than that of law vs. grace. No issue is more clearly
drawn than that which separates the camp of the legalists from
the adherents of grace. And this, of course, is pre-eminently right.
What is commonly overlooked and little understood in this pres-
ent day conflict between law and grace is that the issue is not be-
tween these two principles., as such, but between the abuse of the
law, on the one hand and grace on the other.
To put the matter another way, it is only when the law is
made a means of salvation or of restraint of sin that it comes into
conflict with the principles of grace. In every other respect the
two are complementary and not conflicting. But the law was never
designed to save. In its essential principle it is not, and cannot
ever be, opposed to grace, for the two operate in distinctly sepa-
rate fields and for widely divergent purposes. The law is designed
to reveal sin; grace is designed to save from sin. No conflict can
possibly exist between these two.
The difference does not lie in the commandments of law
versus the commandment-free life of grace, for the fact is that
grace has its commandments too! Those who always associate the
word "command" with the word "law'* have failed to read the
Bible accurately. After all, a command is but the expression of a
desire on the part of one who has authority. If Christ is Lord of
our lives, then He has authority in our lives and His requests be-
come commands to all who love Him. These are the command-
ments of grace. The difference between them and the command-
ments of law lies in the motive. Why does one obey the law?
For fear! Why does one obey a command of grace? For love!
GRACE, LAW, AND WORKS 145
There lies the difference. The command may be the same in
either case; the motive alone differs. What made the law so irritat-
ing was the sense of constraint it engendered. We were being
asked to do what we really did not want to do. The same com-
mand, in the relationship of grace, elicits a prompt and willing
obedience from us because we love the One who asks it of us.
The sense of constraint is utterly gone.
What happened, then, when grace superseded law? Did the
desire of God for men, as expressed in the law, change? No; it
was even intensified and made to be inward rather than merely
outward. What, then, changed? The motive of men's hearts! Once
we strove in vain to obey a just law, lashed on by our fears of
wrath to come. Now, as believers in Christ, we stand before God in
the perfect righteousness of Christ and, because we love Him who
first loved us, we seek to please Him something we find great
pleasure ourselves in doing and thus, unconsciously, fulfill the
law. "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through
the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, judged sin in the flesh, that the righteousness
of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:3, 4). The last clause is descriptive
of what grace makes us do. (Italics supplied.)
This statement of Adventist position may well close
with this admonition from Ellen G. White to our own
church:
Christ is pleading for the church in the heavenly courts above,
pleading for those for whom He paid the redemption price of His
own lifeblood. Centuries, ages, can never diminish the efficacy
of this atoning sacrifice. The message of the gospel of His grace
was to be given to the church in clear and distinct lines, that
the world should no longer say that Seventh-day Adventists talk
the law, the law, but do not teach or believe Christ. Testimonies
to Ministers, p. 92.
A Christian poet has well said:
I would not work my soul to save,
For that my Lord hath done;
But I would work like any slave
For the love of God's dear Son.
V. Questions on the Sabbath, Sunday,
and the Mark of the Beast
Tke Foundation of Sabbath Observance
QUESTION 15
Just what is the basis of Seventh-day Ad-
ventist observance of Saturday as the Sabbath,
instead of Sunday, commonly called the Lord's
day or the Christian Sabbath?
We believe that the Sabbath was Instituted in Eden
before sin entered, that it was honored of God, set
apart by divine appointment, and given to mankind as
the perpetual memorial of a finished creation. It was
based upon the fact that God Himself had rested from
His work of creation, had blessed His Sabbath, or rest
day, and had sanctified it, or set it apart for man (Gen.
2:1-3; Mark 2:27). We believe, further, that it was
none other than the Son of God Himself, the second
person of the eternal Godhead, who was the Creator of
Genesis 1:1-3, and who therefore appointed the original
Sabbath (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb.
1:1,2).
While the Sabbath is enshrined in the very heart of
the commandments of God, it must be remembered
that Jesus said, "The Son of man is Lord also of the
sabbath" (Mark 2:28). In other words, He is its
author and its maker. He is its protector. The Sabbath
is the "sabbath of the Lord [Jehovah] thy God" (Ex.
149
150 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
20:10). Hence Christ is its Lord; the Sabbath belongs
to Him. It is His day; it is the Lord's day. Inasmuch as
we, His blood-bought children, belong to Him and live
in Him, and He lives in us (Gal. 2:20), how natural
that Sabbath observance, among other expressions of
love and loyalty to Him, should be revealed in our
lives.
We understand that the Sabbath was not initially
given simply to provide rest from physical exhaustion,
but was for man's highest good spiritually, intellec-
tually, and physically. It was primarily for fellowship
with God, inasmuch as it is the presence of God that
gives rest and makes holy. But after man's fall, it also
provided needful physical rest as well
Many centuries later, the weekly seventh-day Sab-
bath was reaffirmed at Sinai (Ex. 20:8-11; 31:16, 17).
God gave His chosen people an organized system of
worship. This Sabbath precept was placed in the midst
of the moral law, or Ten Commandments, which were
given by God to man. The law enunciated principles
that are eternal and that, in their application to this
earth, are based upon the abiding relationships of man
to God and man to man. The Sabbath thus reminds
man of Christ's work as Creator, Preserver, Benefactor,
and now, because of sin, as Redeemer.
In addition, certain yearly festivals, or ceremonial
sabbaths, falling on specified days of the month and
connected with the Mosaic sacrificial services, were
introduced. These prefigured the gospel provision of
salvation through the coming "Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). But
the Decalogue, sealed with the lip and finger of God,
SABBATH OBSERVANCE 151
was lifted above all Jewish rites and ceremonies. This
is evident from the fact that the Sabbath was estab-
lished before man sinned, and therefore before he had
any need of a Redeemer. It was not a part of the cere-
monial regulations occasioned by the entrance of sin,
and which were annulled by the death of Christ (Col.
2:17). Thus the Ten Commandments and the gospel
in figure, in inseparable union, were affirmed to Israel
of old.
So the Sabbath, established in Eden, was kept by
patriarch, prophet, and people of God throughout the
centuries of pagan darkness. And when Christ came, at
His incarnation, He likewise observed the seventh day
as the Sabbath (Mark 6:1, 2; Luke 4:16, 31), and was
"Lord also of the sabbath" (Mark 2:28) the Creator
who had established the original seventh-day Sabbath
of creation week.
He also fulfilled, in antitypical reality, the Old
Testament types of redemption dying as the "Lamb of
God," a vicarious, completely efficacious, and atoning
death for man, on the specified fourteenth (or Pass-
over) day of the first month. The Saviour died, we be-
lieve, on the sixth day of the week. Then, after remain-
ing in the tomb over the seventh-day Sabbath, Christ
rose triumphant over death on the first day of the
week. The typical ceremonial system ceased when Christ
completed His great redemptive act. But the Deca-
logue and the gospel-in-actuality remained as the Chris-
tian's continuing guide, one setting forth the standard,
and the other providing the enabling power for its
observance.
The texts in the New Testament specifically men-
152 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
tioning the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark
16:1,2,9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7, 8; 1 Cor.
16:1, 2) cannot rightly be construed as enjoining the
observance of Sunday, or as transferring the Sabbath
from the seventh day to the first day.
The seventh-day Sabbath continued to be kept by
Christ's followers for several centuries. But along with
the Sabbath there was a growing observance of what
was known as the festival of the resurrection, celebrated
on the first day. This was observed at least from the
middle of the second century (see Socrates, Ecclesiasti-
cal History, V. 22). And the first recorded observance
was at Rome (Justin Martyr, First Apology, ch. 67).
Thus these two observances the Sabbath and the
"festival of the resurrection" came, in time, to paral-
lel each other. In the fourth century the apostatizing
church first, at the Council of Laodicea (in canon 29)*
anathematized those who continued to "]udaize," or
rest on the seventh day of the week, and decreed the
observance of the first day in its stead (Hefele, History
of the Councils of the Church, vol. 2, p. 316). Thus
ecclesiastical custom was first enforced by church coun-
cil action.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that this very change
was predicted in Bible prophecy, in Daniel 7:25. The
church in Rome led out in bringing about the change
to Sunday. Thenceforth Sunday was observed by most
Christians, before, during, and following the Protes-
tant Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Sab-
*The canons of the provincial Council of Laodicea were incorporated into the
law of the church by action of the general Council of Chalcedon, in 451, and thus
became obligatory for all churches.
SABBATH OBSERVANCE 153
bath, however, still continued to be observed by some
in various parts of Europe and elsewhere.
The revival of seventh-day Sabbath observance was
largely brought about in the seventeenth century by
the Seventh Day Baptist movement in Britain and on
the Continent. Seventh-day Adventists began the pro-
mulgation of the Sabbath truth about 1845-46 in
America.
We believe that the restoration of the Sabbath is
indicated in the Bible prophecy of Revelation 14:9-12.
Sincerely believing this, we regard the observance of
the Sabbath as a test of our loyalty to Christ as Creator
and Redeemer.
Seventh-day Adventists do not rely upon their Sab-
bathkeeping as a means of salvation or of winning merit
before God. We are saved by grace alone. Hence our
Sabbath observance, as also our loyalty to every other
command of God, is an expression of our love for our
Creator and Redeemer.
The Sablatk and the Moral Law
QUESTION 16 -
The Christian world generally holds (1)
that the moral law is eternal and has not been
abolished; (2) that the Sabbath principle,
anchored to the creation week, especially in the
distinction between the six-and-one days mark-
ing them off by divine authority for different
purposes is likewise permanent and eternal; (3)
that the specific seventh-day time element is but
ceremonial and typical, and therefore temporary
being fulfilled and abrogated by Christ at the
cross; and (4) that there is a clear continuity
between the Sabbath of Old Testament times,
based on creation, and the Lord's day of the New
Testament, based on redemption, with the re-
demption rest greater than the creation rest.
What is the position of Seventh-day Adventists
on these jour points?
Seventh-day Adventists are in full accord with
point 1 that the moral law is eternal in its very nature
and has not been abrogated. We believe that these
eternal moral principles are unchanged and unchange-
able. We further believe that these basic principles are
found in the Decalogue Ten Commandments, or the
moral law.
154
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 155
We believe that the moral law in its original form,
though the wording has not been recorded, finds com-
prehensive expression in the principles set forth by
Jesus loving God supremely and loving our fellow
men equally with ourselves. These primary principles
are the foundation of God's throne, and the eternal law
of His beneficent moral government.
We also believe that it is this moral law the
Decalogue that reveals sin: "By the law is the knowl-
edge of sin" (Rom. 3:20); "Where no law is, there is
no transgression" (Rom. 4:15); "I had not known sin,
but by the law" (Rom. 7:7); and "Whosoever commit-
teth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the trans-
gression of the law" (1 John 3:4).
It was the outbreak of sin in Eden, the transgres-
sion of the divine law, that made the plan of redemption
necessary. Because of man's sin the Saviour died a
vicarious, atoning death on Calvary to save lost man.
Hence, the moral law and the gospel are inseparably
related. One reveals the sin; the other, the Redeemer
who saves from sin.
We are also in agreement with most of point 2
that the Sabbath springs from creation week, and is like-
wise permanent and eternal. The "six-and-one day"
expression, from which we dissent, will be discussed
later. But on the basis of the fundamental Protestant
principle that the Bible is the Christian's sole rule of
faith and practice, we believe that the contention of
point 3 that while the moral nature of the Sabbath
as an institution is permanent, its specific time element
was only ceremonial and temporary, and thus lapsed at
the cross is inconsistent as a corollary argument. We
156 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
likewise reject the implication that while the moral
aspect of the Sabbath is firmly anchored in creation, its
time element is not.*
Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus do we find any
declaration to the effect that this time element, or
seventh-day-ness (if we may so term it), of the Sab-
bath command has been changed. We have not found
any questioning of the validity of this seventh-day-ness
on the part of Jesus, or any relaxation of the obligation
of its seventh-day-ness, but rather an implicit recogni-
tion of its continuance.
1. POINTS OF AGREEMENT AND DIFFERENCE. Ad-
ventists believe that the seventh-day Sabbath which
was "made for man" (Mark 2:27) was given to "man"
(i.e., mankind) in Eden, long before the Hebrew
people came into being. And it was observed through-
out the patriarchal age, long before it was placed in
the special custody of ancient Israel, following their exo-
dus from Egypt.f
The principles of the moral law were, we believe,
*Some think of the Sabbath as an institution related only to the Hebrews. Those
who press this point claim that the Deuteronomy version of the Decalogue em-
phasizes that the Sabbath was given exclusively to the Hebrews, because they had
been delivered from slavery.
fThe silence of the latter part of Genesis regarding the Sabbath is understandable
when one remembers that acquaintance of the patriarchs with God's commandments
was taken for granted. The author of the historical record in Genesis did not deem
it necessary to mention it in his sweeping survey of the centuries. But Abraham
kept the commandments of God (Gen. 26:5) the Hebrew word here used for
"commandments" being the same as that used for the Decalogue in Deuteronomy
5:10, 29. Kalisch mentions this as the law written in the heart of man, and the
Pulpit Commentary states that the word means "that which is graven on tables/'
Abraham acknowledged and obeyed the moral law of God. If so, would that not
include the Sabbath? The Companion Bible (Gen. 26:5) says Abraham had a
charge, to be observed; commandments, to be obeyed; statutes (decrees), to be
acknowledged; and laws (' 'instruction," the Torah) y to be followed.
And during their wilderness experience, God tested His ancient people as to
whether they would walk in the way of His commandments (Ex. 16:4). The tes,t
came on the subject of the Sabbath. And comparison of Exodus 16:1 with Exodus
19:1 shows that this occurred several weeks before the promulgation of the Deca-
logue. They must, therefore, have known not only of God's law but also of specific
commandments embraced therein, as evidenced by this reference to the Sabbath.
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 157
known to man before the Fall,* and were later com-
mitted to written form in the Decalogue, amid the awe-
some scenes of Sinai spoken and written by God
(Exodus 19 and 20; 32:15, 16). And we believe that
when Israel became God's special covenant people,
pledging to honor Him in keeping His commandments,
the Decalogue was given as the basis of that covenant.
We dissent, however, from the contention in point
4 of "continuity" transfer of the observance of the
seventh-day Sabbath to the festival of the resurrection,
on the first day of the week. We believe the basis of the
two observances to be totally different in the first, it
was to commemorate the rest of the Creator; in the
second, to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord.
We dissent from the suggestion that the seventh-
day Sabbath of the Old Testament had only a cere-
monial significance, or was in any way "fulfilled and
abrogated by Christ," or that the seventh-day -ness is an
"abrogated" aspect or "temporary" feature of the abid-
ing Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
We dissent from the change of the original word-
ing the "six days" and "the seventh day," of the fourth
commandment of Exodus 20 to the unbiblical expres-
sion "six-and-one days," or a mere proportion of time,
for to us such a change of phrasing involves a definite
change of intent to which we cannot agree.
We dissent from the proposition that the Lord Jesus
Christ transferred the observance from the last day of
the week to the first in order to point beyond the
original "creation rest" to a greater "redemption rest."
*At his creation Adam was untainted by sin. God "made man upright" (Eccl.
7:29). Man was created "in the image of God" (Gen. 1:27). That being 50, the
moral law would be written in his heart.
158 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
We find no scriptural evidence to sustain such a claim.
The Biblical and historical reasons for our views
follow.
2. MEMORIAL IN CHARACTER, NOT CEREMONIAL.
All Seventh-day Adventists, as creationists, believe in
the Genesis record of a fiat creation (Gen. 1:1 to 2:
2), with the seventh day as God's recorded and attested
rest day, and the Sabbath given as the perpetual me-
morial of that creation, blessed and sanctified (or set
apart) for man. The Sabbath had its inception before
sin entered the world (Genesis 2 and 3), and it was
given to commemorate a completed creation. If sin had
not entered, all would have kept the original Sabbath
day.
God did not make man in order that he might keep
the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). But having made man, He
gave him the Sabbath as a continual reminder and me-
morial of the mighty power of the Creator. And while
the principle of the Sabbath includes both physical and
spiritual rest, a memorial cannot be spiritualized away,
and does not expire with the lapse of time.
Inasmuch, then, as the Sabbath was instituted at
creation, before the entrance of sin, it was an in-
separable part of God's original plan and provision for
man. It did not, therefore, have any ceremonial
significance by foreshadowing something to come. On
the contrary, it has ever had a commemorative signifi-
cance, for it points back to something already done
the creation of the world and the human race.
Our observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is an
expression of our belief that Christ created the world.
And it is also a sign of our love, loyalty, and devotion to
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 159
Him as our Maker and King. The further fact that the
Lord of the Sabbath so loved us that He became man
and sacrificed His life to save us from sin's ruin, makes
His Sabbath all the more precious and glorious as the
Lord's day.
We believe that at His incarnation Jesus Christ
came to reveal the perfect character and will and love
of God, and to vindicate and fulfill the righteousness of
His moral law and government. In this way Christ's
perfect obedience and righteousness is first imputed
(through justification) and then imparted (through
sanctification) to all who accept His atoning death in
their stead. Provision was thus made for His perfect
Sabbathkeeping to cover all our Sabbathbreaking as
well as the infraction of the nine other precepts of the
Ten Commandments.
3. MORAL AND CEREMONIAL SABBATHS BASICALLY
DIFFERENT. We believe that a sharp and fundamental
distinction has been made between the weekly seventh-
day Sabbath of the Lord, and the seven annual cere-
monial or typical sabbaths of the tabernacle ritual
(Passover, Pentecost, Day of Atonement, et cetera).
These annual sabbaths each fell on a specified day of
the month, not on a specific day of the week, and only
occasionally coincided with the seventh-day Sabbath.
We believe that these annual typical sabbaths, with
their special sacrificial offerings, all pointed forward
to the one all-encompassing and all-sufficient offering
of Jesus Christ as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away
the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The Scripture states
that He is our Passover (I Cor. 5:7). His death oc-
curred on the designated day of the Passover (Nisan
160 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
14), which in that year fell on a Friday. His resurrec-
tion took place on the day of the wave sheaf, or first
fruits (Nisan 16), when, as the "firstfruits" of them
that slept (I Cor. 15:20, 23), He arose triumphant over
death. These tremendous events assure us of our ac-
ceptance in Him, and of our resurrection at the last
day. These typical annual sabbaths ended forever at
the cross, when all types met their complete antitype.
But this in no way affected the seventh-day Sabbath,
which was never a type, and consequently was not
abrogated.
4. SABBATH NOT ABROGATED BY CHRIST. The Sab-
bath of the fourth commandment had no ceremonial
or typical significance that could be either "fulfilled"
or "abrogated" in Christ. It was not instituted as part
of the tabernacle ritual at Sinai, and did not point for-
ward to the atoning sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. In-
stead, the Sabbath remained the established memorial of
the original creation, hence pointed back to the work of
the Creator. And this, by its very nature, could be
neither fulfilled nor abrogated as long as His work of
creation stands.
The Jewish traditions which encrusted Sabbath ob-
servance were indeed swept away by Christ not be-
cause He fulfilled them by His antitypical, sacrificial
death, but because they were simply the unauthorized
"traditions of men" that had never had any validity. So
it was the many added rules and rabbinical regulations
pertaining to the observance of the Sabbath the en-
cumbrances that were swept away by the teachings of
Christ. But this involved only the appendages, not the
Sabbath itself.
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 161
Isaiah prophesied that Christ would magnify the law
and make it honorable (Isa. 42:21). This He did.
And He magnified the Sabbath of that law, by showing
it tq be not a day of burden and restriction but a day of
rest and release from the burdens of sin and its conse-
quences. He observed the Sabbath throughout His life
and ministry, but exemplified what true Sabbathkeep-
ing means showing that it was lawful to do good on
the Sabbath, and on occasion healing the sick on the
Sabbath.
There were, moreover, the civil laws of Israel, given
when the nation was under a theocracy. Some of these
were related to the Sabbath, and entailed severe civil
penalties for desecration of the seventh day, such as
capital punishment for presumptuously picking up
sticks on the Sabbath (Ex. 31:14; 35:2, 3; Num. 15:
32-36). But these ended forever with the cessation of the
theocracy of Israel, and were in no way transferred
from, or continued beyond, that period.
Seventh-day Adventists hold the Sabbath to be for
all the world and for all time. We firmly believe that
there is nothing of a ceremonial or typical nature in
the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
5. ' 'SEVENTH-DAY-NESS'' AND ' 'SABBATH-NESS'* OF THE
SABBATH. Two characteristics stand out conspicuously
in connection with the original Sabbath institution,
which, for convenience, may be termed its seventh-day-
ness and its sabbath-ness that is, the specific time set
apart, and the nature of the observance, rest from labor.
As before noted, the entire ceremonial system was insti-
tuted after sin entered the world, with the specific pur-
pose of pointing sinners forward to the coming Saviour.
162 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
It was designed to inculcate faith in His power to save
them from their sins. But nowhere do the Scriptures
state, or even imply, that the time element of the original
Sabbath command was ceremonial. On the contrary,
they provide explicit evidence that its seventh-day-ness
could not have been ceremonial, for to be ceremonial
and typical the time element would have to be insti-
tuted after the entrance of sin, and the consequent
need of a Saviour.
The Sabbath command gives as the very reason for
its existence that "in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the
seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath
day, and hallowed it" (Ex. 20:11). The seventh-day-
ness of the Sabbath is therefore no less surely anchored
to creation than the moral quality that may be called its
sabbath-ness. And our recognition of the one should be
just as great as that of the other. To this undeniable
fact testifies the seven-day week, which comes down
to us from the time of creation (see Gen. 2:1-3).
God instituted the Sabbath on the seventh day of
the first week of time. Thus both aspects of the day
its seventh-day-ness no less than its sabbath-ness are
inseparably linked with creation. Except for some
explicit statement of Scripture in evidence to the con-
trary, to affirm the one and deny the other is clearly
inconsistent with the major premises we have surveyed,
especially in view of the Protestant position on the
supreme authority of Scripture.
There was nothing ceremonial, or typical, about the
several acts of creation, or about God's resting from His
work of creation, or about the fact that He chose to do
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 163
so on the seventh day of creation week. Thus the Scrip-
tures nowhere so much as imply that the seventh-day-
ness of the Sabbath ever pointed forward to the cross.
And only those things that pointed forward to the cross
were abolished at or by the cross. The seventh-day-ness
of the Sabbath was not one of those.
6. THE LOGIC OF THE CASE. The seventh-day-ness
of the Sabbath is frequently referred to by some as a
"temporary" feature, for Old Testament times and the
Hebrews only. But in view of the foregoing evidence,
it is proper to ask, If it is claimed that God's resting on
the seventh day implied a "temporary" feature, then
would not the same argument apply to the fact that He
rested at all? What is there more "temporary" about
the fact that God chose to rest on the seventh day of
creation week than about the fact that He rested at all?
Another common contention pertaining to this
seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath is that to observe the
Sabbath on the seventh day of the week involves the
observer in legalism. But we ask, In precisely what way,
and on what scriptural authority, can regard for the
seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath be declared to involve
us automatically in legalism? Was God legalistic be-
cause He chose to rest on the seventh day of creation
week, rather than upon the first day of the week, at its
outset; or interrupting His work of creation to rest
upon some other day part way through the week? And
if it was not legalistic for God so to rest, why then is it
legalistic for us to do so under His bidding? And if it
is legalistic for us to rest on the seventh day of the week,
why is it not as legalistic to rest on the first day, or any
other day, of the week?
164 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
And where does the Bible either explicitly affirm,
or even imply, that the sabbath-ness (or sheer rest) of
the Sabbath is not legalistic, but that the seventh-day-
ness, or rest on the particular seventh day, is legalistic?
Again, did God institute a ceremonial, or typical, side
of the Sabbath by choosing to rest on the specific seventh
day? Then by what process of logic can it be main-
tained that it is ceremonial for us to observe the Sab-
bath on the seventh day of the week, but not for God
to do so?
Moreover, it is sometimes affirmed that the essential
purpose (the sabbath-ness) of the Sabbath was in
harmony with the preservation and maintenance of life.
Does that imply that there is a necessary conflict be-
tween the seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath and the
preservation and maintenance of life? But in what way
was the seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath any more in
conflict with the preservation and maintenance of life
than its sabbath-ness? The sabbath-ness of the Sabbath
restricts activity on a specified day, while the seventh-
day-ness of the Sabbath simply specifies on which
day this is to take place.
It is also said that the sabbath-ness of the Sabbath
existed for the good of man, implying that Its seventh-
day-ness operates against his well-being. But in what
way does the seventh-day-ness of the Sabbath militate
against the good of man, any more than does Sunday,
the first day of the week? Did God's emphasis on the
seventh-day-ness of the world's first Sabbath militate
against the good of the Creator?
To sum up: We protest against the fallacious rea-
soning that would make it legalistic to observe the
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 165
seventh day of the week but not legalistic to observe the
first day of the week. Such lines of reasoning as these
that have been referred to in the foregoing discussion
are inconsistent with sound logic. To be consistent, it
would seem that one should either follow through, to
their logical conclusions, the accepted major premises
of points 1 and 2, by acknowledging the divinely insti-
tuted seventh-day-ness, as well as the sabbath-ness } of
the Sabbath, or else retreat from the declared major
premises and find another basis for retention of the
moral quality of the Sabbath. Otherwise, such a course
would seem to lead either to the position that the Ten
Commandments have been abolished, or to the Roman
Catholic position that the church has the authority
and power to alter the Decalogue.
7. "SIX-AND-ONE-DAY" POSTULATE UNTENABLE.
We dissent from the position implied in point 2 of the
question at the beginning of this discussion, that
moral significance attaches to the distinction of the "six-
and-one-day" proportion principle or merely ope un-
specified day in seven as the Sabbath but not to the
keeping of the day designated in Scripture. We believe
such a contention to be subjective reasoning, unsup-
ported by the wording of the fourth commandment, or
by any other command or sanction of Scripture. We
adhere to the Protestant principle of the Bible and the
Bible only, and ask for scriptural evidence for such a
change from the express wording and obvious intent
of Holy Writ.
And the implication that the "six-and-one-day"
principle or simply one day in seven is admittedly
inseparable from the moral essence of the Sabbath,
166 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
while specification of the seventh day as such reduces
it to a ceremonial relationship, is, we believe, neither
Biblically sound nor logically true. There is nothing
whatsoever in the specific seventh-day Sabbath that has
ceremonial significance in the life and work of Christ,
and c.onsequently affords any basis for being so con-
sidered. We take the fourth commandment without
emendations.
8. INTRODUCTION OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE. Turn-
ing now to the historical side, we dissent, first of all,
from the thesis that the Sabbath has actually been trans-
ferred from the seventh to the first day of the week,
called the "Lord's day" by many. The earliest authen-
tic instance, in early church writings, of the first day of
the week being called "Lord's day" was by Clement of
Alexandria, near the close of the second century (see
Miscellanies v. 14). And the first ecclesiastical writer
known definitely to teach that the observance of the
Sabbath was transferred by Christ to Sunday was Euse-
bius of Caesarea (died c. 349), who made the allega-
tion in his Commentary on the Psalms, on Psalm 92
(Psalm 91 in K.J.V), written in the second quarter of
the fourth century. (See Frank H. Yost, The Early
Christian Sabbath, 1947, ch. 5.)
Sunday observance as a church festival commemo-
rating Christ's resurrection but as supplementary to,
and not in lieu of, the Sabbath was introduced at
Rome about the middle of the second century. The
custom spread gradually from that time onward. Al-
though the Christians in Rome generally fasted instead
of celebrating communion on Sabbath days, Ambrose,
bishop of Milan (375-397), refused to follow this
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 167
practice in his diocese (Ambrose De Elia et Jejunio 10;
Paulinus Life of St. Ambrose 38; Augustine Epistle 36.
14 to Casulanus; Epistle 54. 2 to Januarius).
Augustine, bishop of Hippo (died 430), stated
that while the church of Rome fasted on the seventh
day of each week in his time, the practice was not gen-
erally followed elsewhere in Italy, making special men-
tion of Ambrose's refusal at Milan. He added that the
vast majority of the Christian churches throughout the
world, particularly in the East, had too much respect
for the Sabbath to do that. He likewise stated that while
some churches in North Africa followed Rome's ex-
ample in fasting on Sabbath days, others under his
care did not. (Augustine Epistle 36. 14 to Casulanus;
Epistle 54. 2 to Januarius; and Epistle 82 to Jerome.)
Church historian Socrates (Ecclesiastical History
v. 22), writing about A.D. 430, left the record:
Almost all Churches throughout the world celebrate the
sacred mysteries on the sabbath [seventh day] of every week, yet
the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some
ancient tradition, refuse to do this.
Socrates also wrote that the Arians similarly held
their meetings on both Sabbath and Sunday (ibid.
vi. 8). And fifth-century church historian Sozomen
(Ecclesiastical History vii. 19), confirmed Socrates'
statement, declaring:
The people of Constantinople, and of several other cities,
assemble together on the sabbath, as well as on the next day;
which custom is never observed at Rome, or Alexandria.
After the enactment of Constantine's first civil Sun-
day law, in 321, enforcing "the venerable day of the
sun" by rest from labor designed to sustain and en-
168 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
force already existing ecclesiastical legislation regard-
ing Sunday observance the Sunday festival became in-
creasingly popular and widespread with the passing of
the centuries. It was buttressed thereafter by increasing
ecclesiastical and civil legislation. However, at the time
of the great schism between the churches of the East and
West, In 1054, one of the principal issues of controversy
\vas Rome's practice of still observing the Sabbath day
by fasting. The Eastern churches, even at this late date,
still regarded the Sabbath too highly to do that, al-
though Sundaykeeping was then almost universal.
(Cardinal Humbert, legate of Pope Leo IX to the
Greeks, Adversus Graecorum Calumnias [Against the
Calumnies of the Greeks], in Migne's Patrologiae
Latina, vol. 143, cols. 936, 937; see also Gibbon, De-
cline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 60.)
Thus the eclipse of the Sabbath by Sunday in gen-
eral practice took place slowly, but with much contro-
versy and even bloodshed, as the history of the Celtic
church attests, according to Lange.* It required cen-
turies for Sunday to come to be regarded as the Sab-
bath.f And to this day in Spanish, Portuguese, Italian,
Polish, and a number of other languages, the seventh
*The Sabbath was observed by the Celtic church as late as the eleventh century.
(Andrew Lange, A History of Scotland, 1909, vol. 1, p. 96; see also William F.
Skene, Celtic Scotland, 1877, vol. 2, p. 349.)
fSeventeenth-century Edward Brerewood, of Gresham College, London (A
Learned Treatise of the Sabbath, 1630, p. 77), left the record:
"The ancient Sabbath did remain and was observed by the Christians of the
East Church, above three hundred years after our Saviour's death."
This is supported by Sir William Domville (The Sabbath: or an Examination of
Six Texts, 1849, vol. 1, p. 291), writing two centuries later:
"Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed
by the Christian Church as a Sabbath."
And historian Lyman Goleman, of Lafayette College (Ancient Christianity Ex-
emplified, 1852, ch. 26, sec. 2), concurs with these and many other witnesses:
"Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was con-
tinued in the Christian church, but with a rigour and solemnity gradually diminish-
ing."
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 169
day of the week is still called by some transliteration of
the old name "Sabbath."
9. PROPHESIED CHANGE OF SABBATH. We, as Ad-
ventists, believe there has been a wholly unauthorized,
unwarranted, and presumptuous change in the Sab-
bath by the Catholic, or great Roman, apostasy, as
prophesied by Daniel (recorded in Daniel 7, especially
verses 24 and 25).* The unblushing frankness of
Rome's claim of authority and power to change even
precepts of the "Ten Commandments of God" is seen
in Joseph Faa di Bruno's Catholic Belief (1884), which
has passed through many printings and various transla-
tions. On one page (page 311) are listed "The Ten
Commandments of God/' of Exodus 20, given in their
shorter form, with the third (fourth) reading, ''Re-
member that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." On the
next page (page 312) appear "The Commandments
of the Church/' the first of which is this: "We are
chiefly commanded by the Church 1. To keep the
Sundays and Holydays of obligation."
That this specifically involves the substitution of
Sunday for the Sabbath is seen from the explanation
of the expression "Apostolical and Ecclesiastical Tradi-
tions" appearing in the authoritative "Creed of Pius
IV," which was issued at the close of the Council of
Trent:
That is, I admit as points of revealed truth what the Church
declares the Apostles taught as such, -whether clearly or not
*Even Philip Melanchthon, on the prophecy on Daniel 7:25, declared: "He [the
papal Little Horn] changeth the tymes and lawes that any of the sixe worke dayes
commanded of God will make them unholy and idle dayes when he lyste, or of their
owne holy dayes abolished make worke dayes agen, or when they changed ye
Saterday into Sondaye. . . . They have changed God's lawes and turned them into
their owne tradicions to be kept above God's precepts." Exposition of Daniel the
Prophete (1545), tr. by George Joye, p. 119,
170 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
clearly expressed or not even mentioned in the Written Word of
God: as, for instance, . . . that Sunday instead of Saturday (called
the Sabbath) is to be kept holy. Ibid., p. 251.
Nothing could be plainer, or more bold.
While, as noted, the seventh-day Sabbath continued
to be observed in certain areas for centuries after the
cross, the festival of the resurrection came gradually
to parallel and then later to overshadow it. And at the
Synod of Laodicea, the predominating influence at
the council anathematized those who continued to ob-
serve the seventh-day Sabbath and enjoined the ob-
servance of Sunday.* The Sabbath-Sunday canons of
this Eastern council were incorporated into the canons
of the General Council of Chalcedon in 451, and thus
received legislative force for the entire church.
Then, in the next century, Justinian incorporated
the canons of the first four general councils (including
Chalcedon and Laodicea's Canon 29) into his famous
Code (Corpus Juris Civilis), with their infraction
now punishable by civil penalties. And this remained
*Canon 29, of the Council of Laodicea, is quoted by Hefele (A History of the
Councils of the Church, 1896, vol. 2, p. 316) as follows:
"Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday ["Sabbath," original],
but shall work on that day; but the Lord's day they shall especially honour, and,
as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are
found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ.**
Back in the seventeenth century William Prynne of Britain (A Brief Polemicall
Dissertation concerning the true time of the Inchoation and Determination of the
Lord's Day-Sabbath, 1655, pp. 33, 44), affirmed this fact:
"The seventh-day Sabbath was . . . solemnized by Christ, the ApostleSj and
Primitive Christians ... till this Laodicean Council did in a manner quite abolish
the observation of it." "The Council of Laodicea . . . first settled the observation
of the Lord's-day."
Three centuries later Roman Catholic catechisms still maintain that this Council
had been the turning point. Thus Peter Geiermarm (The Convert's Catechism of
Catholic Doctrine, 1910, . 50), whose treatise received the apostolic blessing of
Pius X, January 25, 1910, gives this answer:
*'Q, Which is the Sabbath day?
"A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
"Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
*'A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in
the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 336), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to
Sunday."
Some even place the date just before Nicea (325) ; others after Constantinople
(381). Most older writers fixed on 364.
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 171
the dominant law of Europe all through the Middle
Ages, until modification by the countries adopting
Protestantism, where decrees o tolerance were enacted
by their respective parliaments. Later this was super-
seded by the Code of Napoleon, after the French Revo-
lution at the end of the eighteenth century.
We, as Seventh-day Adventists and doubtless
many in other Protestant communions deny the
validity of such a change of the Sabbath as claimed by
Roman Catholics and repeatedly admitted by promi-
nent Protestants. We believe that the seventh day con-
tinues as the changeless memorial of God's original
creation; and further, that the regenerated believer in
Christ who, ceasing from sin, enters into spiritual rest,
can keep the Sabbath as the sign of his re-creation. We
therefore refuse to recognize, honor, and obey what we
believe to be the papal substitute of God's unchange-
able Sabbath. Taking the Bible as our sole rule of
faith and practice, and unable to find Scripture warrant
for such a change, we decline to follow what we believe
to be the traditions and "commandments of men."
While Catholics claim responsibility for the change
of the Sabbath, prominent Protestants from Reforma-
tion times onward admit that the change was not by
scriptural authority or apostolic act, but by human
churchly action. Thus:
The Augsburg Confession of 1530, Art. XXVIII,
declares:
They [the Catholics] allege the change of the Sabbath into
the Lord's day, contrary, as it seemeth, to the Decalogue; and
they have no example more in their mouths than the change of
the Sabbath. They will needs have the Church's power to be
172 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
very great, because it hath dispensed with a precept of the Deca-
logue. PHILIP SCHAFF, The Creeds of Christendom, vol. 3, p. 64.
German church historian, Johann August Neander,
in The History of the Christian Religion and Church,
Roses' translation (1831), volume 1, page 186, asserts:
The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only
a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the
apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from
them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws
of the Sabbath to Sunday.
English Congregationalist Robert W. Dale, in The
Ten Commandments (1891), page 100, says:
The Sabbath was founded on a specific Divine command. We
can plead no such command for the obligation to observe Sunday.
Anglican Dr. Isaac Williams, in Plain Sermons on
the Catechism (1882), volume 1, page 336, admits:
The reasons why we keep the first day of the week holy instead
of the seventh is for the same reason that we observe many other
things, not because the Bible, but because the church, has en-
joined it.
American Congregationalist Lyman Abbott, in
Christian Union, June 26, 1890, states:
The current notion that Christ and his Apostles authorita-
tively substituted the first day of the week for the seventh is ab-
solutely without any authority in the New Testament.
British Anglican Dean F. W. Farrar, in The Voice
From Sinai (1892), page 167, says:
The Christian Church made no formal, but a gradual and
almost unconscious, transference of the one day to the other.
Anglican Canon Eyton, of Westminster, in The
Ten Commandments (1894), page 62, adds:
There is no word, no hint, in the New Testament about
abstaining from work on Sunday.
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 1 73
N. Summerbell, In History of the Christians, page
418, avers:
It [the Roman Catholic Church] has reversed the fourth
commandment, doing away with the Sabbath of God's Word,
and instituting Sunday as a holy day.
And Statesman William E. Gladstone, four times
prime minister o Britain, in Later Gleanings, page
342, observes:
The seventh day of the week has been deposed from its title
to obligatory religious observance, and its prerogative has been
carried over to the first; under no direct precept of Scripture.
10. SABBATH CHANGED BY "AUTHORITY" OF ROMAN
CHURCH. The Papacy's formal answer to Protestant-
ism was given at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). It
was here that her deliberate and final rejection, and
anathema, of the Reformation teachings on the suprem-
acy of the Bible, and other clear doctrines of the
Word of God, took place. The real issue was the
equality, or actual superiority, of tradition to the
Scriptures as a rule of faith.
During the seventeenth session, Cardinal Casper
del Fosso, archbishop of Reggio, on January 18, 1562,
asserted that tradition is the outgrowth of continual
churchly inspiration residing in the Catholic Church.
He appealed to the long-established change of the
Sabbath into Sunday as standing proof of the inspired
authority of the Roman Church. He declared that
the change had not been made by command of Christ,
but by the authority of the Catholic Church, which
change Protestants accept. His speech was the determin-
ing factor in the decision of the Council. And ever
since Trent, the change of the Sabbath to Sunday has
174 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
been pointed to by Roman Catholics as the evidence
of the church's power to change even the Decalogue.
(See epitomizing Creed of Pius IV in Joseph Faa di
Bruno, Catholic Belief, 1884, pp. 250-254; Henry
Schroeder [dr.] Canons and Decrees of the Council of
Trent, 1937.
11. WHY WE OBSERVE THE SABBATH. We believe
that Protestants are on perilous ground when they
unwittingly follow the same subtle Sabbath argument
advanced in the Council of Trent, as recorded in the
Cathechism of the Council of Trent (Catechismus
Romanus}. In this it is held that while the Sabbath
principle is moral and eternal, the specific time element
is only ceremonial and temporary. And further, that as
the seventh day constituted the temporary time em-
phasis for the Jews of Old Testament times, so the
Catholic mother-church, in the plenitude of her dele-
gated power, authority, and insight, and as the desig-
nated custodian and only infallible interpreter of tradi-
tion and truth, has transferred the solemnity from the
seventh to the first day of the week, (Donovan, Cate-
chism of the Council of Trent, 1867, pp. 340, 342; see
also Labbe and Cossart, Sacrosancta Concilia; Fra Paolo
Sarpi, Histoire du concille de Trente, vol. 2; H. J.
Holtzmann, Canon and Tradition; T. A. Buckley, A
History of the Council of Trent; et cetera.)
In making this effective, most Roman Catholic cate-
chisms reduce the Sabbath commandment simply to
read, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day'*
(e.g., Geiermann's The Convert's Catechism of Catho-
lic Doctrine, p. 50; Butler's Catechism, p. 28; et cetera).
And in various vernacular catechisms the Sabbath com-
THE SABBATH AND THE MORAL LAW 175
mand actually reads, "Remember to keep the festivals/'
or ''feasts," instead of "Remember to keep holy the
Sabbath."
The Roman Church upbraids and challenges the
sincerity of Protestants who, professing to follow the
Bible as their sole rule of faith and practice, in reality
accept and follow the authority and example of Catho-
lic tradition.*
On the contrary, we as Adventists believe that Jesus
Christ Himself who was the Creator of all things
(John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6) and the original maker of
the Sabbath, and who is "the same yesterday, and to
day, and for ever" (Heb. 13:8) made no change in the
Sabbath. And He authorized no change to be made by
His followers. We therefore believe that until the Sab-
bath law is repealed by divine authority, and its change
made known by definite Scripture mandate, we should
solemnly "remember" and "keep" the unrepealed
original seventh-day Sabbath of the Decalogue, which
is explicitly on record.
We believe, without any reservations, that the Sab-
*Thus French prelate Mgr. Louis de Segur (Plain Talk About the Protestantism
of Today, 1868, p. 213, with imprimatur by Johannes Josephus), declares:
"It was the Catholic Church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has trans-
ferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord.
Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite
of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church."
The Catholic Mirror, official organ of James Cardinal Gibbons (Sept. 23, 1893),
in a series of four editorials, similarly asserted:
"The Catholic Church for over one thousand years before the existence of a
Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to
Sunday."
"The Protestant world at its birth [the sixteenth century Reformation] found
the Christian Sabbath too strongly intrenched to run counter to its existence; it was
therefore placed under the necessity of acquiescing in the arrangement, thus imply-
ing the Church's right to change the day, for over three hundred years. The Chris-
tian Sabbath is therefore to this day the acknowledged offspring of the Catholic
Church as spouse of the Holy Ghost, without a word of remonstrance from the
Protestant world."
(See also James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 1893, p. Ill;
J. I. von Bellinger, The First Age of Christianity and the Church, vol. 2, pp. 206,
207.)
176 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
bath Is the memorial of an immutable historical fact
a finished creation, and the Creator's rest on the
specific seventh day at the close of creation week. We
say it humbly, but we believe that nothing no person,
or group, or power on earth can change the commem-
orative, historical fact that God rested on the seventh
day of creation week and gave His rest day to mankind
as the perpetual memorial-reminder of a finished work
never repealed, and never to be repealed.
And we believe, furthermore, that the Sabbath will
ever be the eternal memorial of God's creative power
and righteousness (Isa. 66:22, 23), and will remain the
everlasting reminder of His justice and sovereign gov-
ernment, as well as of His wondrous plan of redemp-
tion and the re-creation of man through the wonders of
His grace.
Saturday Observance a Valid Criterion
QUESTION 17
Do Seventh-day Adventists believe that Sat-
urday is the only valid criterion for determining
full obedience to the law of God, or can one
worship sincerely on Sunday, but fail to keep
the Sabbath, and still be counted a faithful and
obedient Christian?
Seventh-day Adventists can not, and do not, read
hearts; that is God's prerogative. We believe in ad-
vancing light. Time, circumstance, knowledge, under-
standing, and conviction are determining factors. And
we believe, further, that at stated times there is a
special "present truth" due for emphasis (2 Peter 1:
12).
We likewise believe that light is to increase "more
and more unto the perfect day" (Prov. 4:18), and that
increasing knowledge and understanding unavoidably
carry with them increasing responsibility (John 9:41).
"To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to
him it is sin" (James 4:17). Repudiation of recognized
light then becomes a matter for which one is respon-
sible. "While ye have light, believe in the light, that
ye may be the children of light" (John 12:36). "Walk
while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you"
177
178 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
(verse 35). "Take heed therefore that the light which
is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore
be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall
be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle
doth give thee light" (Luke 11:35, 36).
As to the question itself, it should be noted:
When Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the
world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true
Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God, to
obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome,
will thereby honor popery above God. The Great Controversy,,
p. 449.
We recognize that the Sabbath was not a test in
medieval times. And we do not believe that it was a
test in the days of the great sixteenth-century Reforma-
tion, or even in Wesley's day. But in these "last days,"
when, we believe, all truth is to be restored before
Christ's second coming, and the message with divine
import is to come to mankind on the Sabbath of the
fourth commandment, there is a moral accountability
for obedience on the part of those to whom light and
conviction have come. God surely does not hold men
accountable for truth that has not yet come to their
knowledge and understanding.
Historic Concept of the Mark of the
QUESTION 18
Why do Adventists differ -from other
Christians in connecting the mark of the beast
with the Sabbath issue? And why do you put
so much emphasis on this question?
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Bible proph-
ecies predict a resurgence of papal power, with legal
enforcement of its mark of authority, in the last days.
That, we understand, is when the "mark of the beast"
will be imposed in connection with the last great
religious crisis affecting all mankind (Rev. 13:16, 17).
That is why Seventh-day Adventists have such deep con-
victions concerning the Sabbath as a coming test.
First, we are not alone in our deep convictions con-
cerning the Sabbath. Numerous Baptist scholars, back
in the seventeenth century, were so concerned over
this question of the Sabbath that, after painstaking in-
vestigation, they founded the Seventh Day Baptist
Church, not a few suffering imprisonment for their
faith.
Nor are we either isolated or unique in connecting
the mark with some form of subserviency to the Papacy,
of submission to its powers, laws, pressures, and man-
dates. We find Christian scholars of various lands and
179
180 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
races who studied and wrote on the question. For cen-
turies Christians pondered this coining mark, and had
inklings of its intent. Note them:
From the time of Wycliffe's associate, John Purvey,
onward, men have felt that the mark of the beast had
to do with the Papacy, and pertained to papal power
and decrees. Andreas Osiander (died 1552), Reforma-
tion pastor at Niirnberg, said that it was subserviency
to the Papacy. Luther's associate, Nikolaus von Ams-
dorf (died 1565), of Magdeburg, thought It had to do
with enforced papal ceremonies and decrees.
Heinrich Bullinger (died 1575), Zwingli's successor
at Zurich, took it to be the Papacy's excommunicating
power. Bishop Nicholas Ridley, o England (martyred
in 1555), declared it involved allegiance to the beast.
Scottish mathematician Sir John Napier (died 1617)
defined it as a profession of obedience to Rome. Pietist
Johann Lucius (died 1686) believed it to be the con-
fession of the Roman religion. And Sir Isaac Newton
(died 1727) placed the mark of the beast and the seal
of God in contrast.
In Colonial America, Puritan theocrat John Cotton
(died 1652) believed that those who receive the mark
of the beast are the ones who receive their orders
from the Church of Rome. Congregationalist Edward
Holyoke (died 1660) defined it as yielding to the
pope's law. Back again in England, Baptist theologian
Andrew Fuller (died 1815) placed the mark of the
beast and the seal of God in opposition. And to Ameri-
can Presbyterian minister Robert Reid (died 1844) it
was submission to Roman error. Such are samplings of
the historic applications of scholars covering five him-
THE MARK OF THE BEAST 181
dred years. (Ail are discussed in LeRoy Edwin Froom,
Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vols. 2 and 3.) None
of these expositors, of the centuries past, applied the
mark of the beast specifically to the Sabbath issue, but
they did connect it with the Papacy.
Sabbatarian Adventists all recognize that the Sab-
bath was not a test in centuries past, but believe the
restoration of the Sabbath to be part o the last great
revival of neglected and forsaken apostolic truths a
part that will be given emphasis in connection with
God's last message in preparation of a people to meet
their returning Lord.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that the prophecies of
Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, relating to the beast,
refer particularly to the Papacy, and that the activities
and future persecuting power will come into sharp
focus just before the return of our Lord in glory. It is
our understanding that the Sabbath will then become
a worldwide test.
Thus it was that the Adventist heralds of Sabbath
reform came to make a further logical application of
the mark of the beast holding it to be, in essence, the
attempted change of the Sabbath of the fourth com-
mandment of the Decalogue by the Papacy, its endeavor
to impose this change on Christendom, and the accept-
ance of the Papacy's substitute by individuals. We be-
lieve that in the end of time, in the light of clear divine
prohibition, all men will be brought face to face with
a decision to accept or reject Sunday observance. (See
Question 19, "When the Mark Will Be Received/')
That the Roman Catholic Church claims the
change as a mark of her authority can be seen from
182 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
the following excerpts from her catechisms. Thus Henry
Tuberville, of Douay College, France, in An Abridg-
ment of the Christian Doctrine (1649), page 58, three
centuries ago, stated the Catholic case:
Q. How prove you that the Church hath power to command
feasts a"nd holydays?
A. By the very act of changing the sabbath into Sunday,
which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict
themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other
feasts commanded by the same Church.
Stephen Keenan, in A Doctrinal Catechism (1865),
page 174, approved by Archbishop John Hughes of New
York, made a similar assertion:
Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has
power to institute festivals of preceptf
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that
in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not
have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the
week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change
for which there is no Scriptural authority.
Peter Geiermann, in The Convert's Catechism of
Catholic Doctrine (1910 ed.), page 50, repeats the
claim:
Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Sat-
urday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because
Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday, and the Holy Ghost
descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.
Q. By what authority did the Church substitute Sunday for
Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the
plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed
upon her.
When the Mark Will Be Received
QUESTION 19
Do Seventh-day Adventists teach in their
authorized literature that those who worship on
Sunday and repudiate in its entirety the Seventh-
day Adventist teaching as a consequence have the
mark of apostasy, or "the mark of the beast"?
Does not Mrs. White teach that those who now
keep Sunday already have the mark of the beast?
Our doctrinal positions are based upon the Bible,
not upon Mrs. White's writings. But since her name
has been introduced into the question, an explicit state-
ment from her pen should set the record straight. The
following was penned by her in 1899:
No one has yet received the mark of the beast. The testing
time has not yet come. There are true Christians in every church,
not excepting the Roman Catholic communion. None are con-
demned until they have had the light and have seen the obliga-
tion of the fourth commandment. But when the decree shall go
forth enforcing the counterfeit sabbath, and the loud cry of the
third angel shall warn men against the worship of the beast and
his image, the line will be clearly drawn between the false and
the true. Then those who still continue in transgression will
receive the mark of the beast. Evangelism, pp. 234, 235. (Ital-
ics supplied.)
This has been her uniform teaching throughout the
y ears excerpts twisted out of their setting by detrac-
183
184 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
tors notwithstanding. This position is sustained by
the same writer in The Great Controversy:
But Christians of past generations observed the Sunday, sup-
posing that in so doing they were keeping the Bible Sabbath;
and there are now true Christians in every church, not excepting
the Roman Catholic communion, who honestly believe that
Sunday is the Sabbath of divine appointment. God accepts their
sincerity of purpose and their integrity before Him. But when
Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall
be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath,
then whoever shall transgress the command of God, to obey a
precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will
thereby honor popery above God. ... As men then reject the
institution which God has declared to be the sign of His author-
ity, and honor in its stead that which Rome has chosen as the
token of her supremacy, they will thereby accept the sign of
allegiance to Rome "the mark of the beast." And it is not
until the issue is thus plainly set before the people, and they are
brought to choose between the commandments of God and the
commandments of men, that those who continue in transgression
will receive "the mark of the beast." Page 449. (Italics supplied.)
Sunday-keeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will
not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this
idol sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the
test, but that time has not come yet. Ellen G. White Manuscript
118, 1899.
To your inquiry, then, as to whether Mrs. White
maintained that all those who do not see and observe
the seventh day as the Sabbath now have the "mark of
apostasy," the answer is definitely No.
We hold the firm conviction that millions of devout
Christians of all faiths throughout all past centuries, as
well as those today who are sincerely trusting in Christ
their Saviour for salvation and are following Him ac-
cording to their best light, are unquestionably saved.
Thousands of such went to the stake as martyrs for
Christ and for their faith. Moreover, untold numbers
THE MARK RECEIVED 185
of godly Roman Catholics will surely be included. God
reads the heart and deals with the intent and the un-
derstanding. These are among His "other sheep' 1 (John
10:16). He makes no mistake. The Biblical principle is
clear: "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and
doeth it not, to him it is sin'* (James 4:17).
Seventh-day Adventists interpret the prophecies
relating to the beast, and the reception of his work,
as something that will come into sharp focus just before
the return of our Lord in glory. It is our understanding
that this issue will then become a worldwide test.
Who Constitute the "Remnant Church"?
QUESTION 20
It is alleged that Seventh-day Adventists
teach that they alone constitute the finally com-
pleted "remnant church" mentioned in the book
of Revelation. Is this true, or do Seventh-day Ad-
ventists recognize by the "remnant* those in
every denomination who remain faithful to the
Scriptures and the faith once delivered unto the
saints? Do Adventists maintain that they alone
are the only true witnesses of the living God in
our age and that their observance of the seventh-
day Sabbath is one of the major marks that iden-
tify them as God's remnant church?
The answer to this threefold question will depend
quite largely on the definition given to the word "rem-
nant." If, as is implied in the second part, "remnant"
is taken to mean the church invisible, our answer to
the first part is an unqualified No. Seventh-day Ad-
ventists have never sought to equate their church with
the church invisible "those in every denomination who
remain faithful to the Scriptures." If the word "rem-
nant" is used in terms of its definition in Revelation
12:17, a proper answer will call for the presentation of
certain background material.
186
THE "REMNANT CHURCH" 187
We believe that the prophecy of Revelation 12:17
points to the experience and work of the Seventh-day
Adventist Church, but we do not believe that we alone
constitute the true children of God that we are the
only true Christians on earth today. We believe that
God has a multitude of earnest, faithful, sincere follow-
ers in all Christian communions, who are, in the words
of the question, "true witnesses of the living God in
our age." Ellen G. White has expressed our view plainly:
"In what religious bodies are the greater part of the
followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in
the various churches professing the Protestant faith."
The Great Controversy, p. 383.
There is a historical background for our understand-
ing of Revelation 12:17.
All through the centuries there have been neg-
lected or forgotten truths that needed re-emphasizing,
departures and apostasies that needed protesting, re-
forms that needed to be effected. And God has laid the
burden on the hearts of some to proclaim these truths.
The Protestant Reformation broke away from the
papal church proclaiming the abandoned or forgotten
fundamentals of the gospel, a.nd repudiating the gross
apostasies of that time. Separation became inevitable
because of the attitude of the established church. But
before long, serious differences arose among the Re-
formed bodies as conscientious men in the various
communions emphasized different aspects of truth.
And various national and state churches soon came into
being. These held varying degrees of truth.
Thus, out of the Reformed group in England, the
Anglican Church developed. But because so much of
188 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Catholic ritual, form, and ceremony were retained,
various Separatist and Independent groups came into
being. Because of opposition and rejection of their
spiritual contributions, the Baptists and other Inde-
pendents arose in England and the Continent, not only
stressing the purer gospel, but emphasizing baptism
by immersion, soul liberty, and separation of church
and state. Theirs was another step away from certain
aspects of medieval theology retained In the Reformed
faiths.
John Wesley and his associates also, seeking holiness
of life and stressing free grace, were ridiculed and
ostracized, and in time were forced to form a separate
body. In the next century, in America, Alexander
Campbell and his followers, believing that reform was
needed, organized their own group. Many denomina-
tions were thus founded.
At the beginning of the twentieth century, when
rationalism and higher criticism had honeycombed
many of the churches with denial of the full inspira-
tion of the Word; the deity of Christ; His virgin birth,
sinless life, and vicarious atoning death; His literal
resurrection and ascension; the heavenly ministry of
Christ; and His second, personal, premillennial ad-
vent God raised up many courageous leaders to pro-
claim the faith once delivered to the saints. In time
this upsurge called for a break, and a separation took
place in the ranks of Protestantism. This is reflected in
such Antithetical groups as the National Council of
Churches and the National Association of Evangelicals.
Seventh-day Adventists believe there are special
truths ior today that we have been called of God to
THE "REMNANT CHURCH" 189
give. We definitely feel that we must emphasize certain
neglected truths, must restore others that most Protes-
tant bodies no longer stress, and must continue the
work of the Reformation. We hold the basic evangeli-
cal truths in common with conservative Christians gen-
erally. Baptism by immersion and soul freedom, or
separation of church and state, we share with the Bap-
tists, and some others; emphasis on godliness of life
and free grace we share with the Methodists; the sev-
enth-day Sabbath we share with the Seventh Day Bap-
tists; and so on. The particular emphasis on the near-
ness of the return of Christ was stressed during the
worldwide Advent awakening within the Christian
churches in the early decades of the nineteenth century.
This we have continued to proclaim.
We recognize that God has been leading in all
these revivals and reformations, but Seventh-day Ad-
ventists have the profound conviction that not only
must the world now be warned concerning the immi-
nence of earth's transcendent event the second com-
ing of Christ but a people must be prepared to meet
their Lord. Therefore we feel that an emphasis on
certain special truths is due the world at this time. We
believe we are living in the hour of God's judgment
(Rev. 14:6, 7), and that time is running out. We be-
lieve (in common with most historic creeds) that the
Ten Commandments are the standard of all Christian
living, and by that same law God will judge the world
(James 2:12). Moreover, it is our belief that the seventh-
day Sabbath is enjoined by the fourth precept of the
Decalogue.
But on this point we would- re-emphasize what we
190 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
have already stated on Question 11, that one's effort
to obey the law of God, however strict, can never be a
ground of salvation. We are saved through the right-
eousness of Jesus Christ received as a gift of grace, and
grace alone. Our Lord's sacrifice on Calvary is man-
kind's only hope. But having been saved, we rejoice
that the righteous requirements of the law are fulfilled
in the experience of the Christian "who walks not after
the flesh but after the spirit," and who by the grace of
God lives in harmony with the revealed will of God.
Following as we do the principles of the historical
school of prophetic interpretation, it is our conviction
that the events portrayed in Revelation 14 to 17 are in
process of fulfillment, or are about to meet their fulfill-
ment. And to prepare men everywhere for what is
coming on the earth, God is sending a special message
couched in the terms of the ''everlasting gospel ... to
every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people'*
(Rev. 14:6). That message urges men to turn from
every false way of life and to worship the true God who
created the heavens and the earth. Furthermore, we
believe that God has brought the Seventh-day Advent-
ist movement into being to carry His special message to
the world at this time.
Consistent with our understanding of prophetic in-
terpretation, we believe the book of Revelation pictures
the final scenes in the great drama of redemption. John,
looking down through the centuries, beheld the war-
fare of the dragon against the church. This contest be-
tween the forces of good and of evil is graphically
portrayed in the twelfth chapter. A "woe" is pro-
nounced on "the inhabiters of the earth and of the
THE "REMNANT CHURCH" 191
sea! for the devil Is come down unto you, having great
wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short
time" (verse 12).
Through the centuries the Lord protected His
church, often opening areas of refuge where the per-
secuted peoples could be ''nourished . . . from the face
of the serpent" (verse 14). Coming to the end of the
chapter the prophet describes the final struggle, say-
ing: "And the dragon was wroth with the woman
[the Christian church], and went to make war with the
remnant [the last segment] of her seed, which keep the
commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus
Christ" (verse 17). God will have His loyal and faithful
children down to the end of earth's history. In harmony
with our understanding of prophecy, we see in verse 17
a graphic description of the final warfare between Satan
and those who keep the commandments of God, and
have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Those who will
feel the full fury of the dragon's wrath are spoken of as
"the remnant of her seed," or in Adventist language,
"the remnant church."
It is in a spirit of deep humility that we apply this
scripture to the Advent Movement and its work, for we
recognize the tremendous implications of such an in-
terpretation. While we believe that Revelation 12:17
points to us as a people of prophecy, it is in no spirit of
pride that we thus apply the scripture. To us it Is
the logical conclusion of our system of prophetic inter-
pretation.
But the fact that we thus apply this scripture does
not imply in any way that we believe we are the only
true Christians in the world, or that we are the only
192 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
ones who will be saved. While we believe that the
Seventh-day Adventist Church is the visible organiza-
tion through which God is proclaiming this last special
message to the world, we remember the principle that
Christ enunciated when He said, "Other sheep I
have, which are not of this fold" (John 10:16). Sev-
enth-day Adventists firmly believe that God has a
precious remnant, a multitude of earnest, sincere be-
lievers, in every church, not excepting the Roman
Catholic communion, who are living up to all the
light God has given them. The great Shepherd of the
sheep recognizes them as His own, and He is calling
them into one great fold and one great fellowship in
preparation for His return. Our position on this point
is clearly stated by Ellen G. White:
Among earth's inhabitants, scattered in every land, there are
those who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Like the stars of
heaven, which appear only at night, these faithful ones will
shine forth when darkness covers the earth and gross darkness
the people. In heathen Africa, in the Catholic lands of Europe
and of South America, in China, in India, in the islands of the
sea, and in all the dark corners of the earth, God has in reserve a
firmament of chosen ones that will yet shine forth amidst the
darkness, revealing clearly to an apostate world the transforming
power of obedience to His law. Prophets and Kings, pp. 188,
189.
Every jewel will be brought out and gathered, for the hand of
the Lord is set to recover the remnant of His people. Early
Writings, p. 70.
We believe the majority of God's children are still
scattered in this way throughout the world. And of
course, the majority of those in Christian churches
still conscientiously observe Sunday. We ourselves can-
not do so, for we believe that God is calling for a
reformation in this matter. But we respect and love
THE "REMNANT CHURCH" 193
those of our fellow Christians who do not interpret
God's Word just as we do.
Our study of prophecy, according to the historical
school o interpretation, convinces us that just before
the appearing of our Lord and Saviour, great issues
will challenge both the church and the world. Circum-
stances will so shape themselves that every soul on earth
will be tested as to his loyalty to God. In accordance with
the teaching of Christ we believe that many who today
profess His name and claim to be followers of His truth
will at that time compromise their faith and actually
deny their Lord.
That which leads up to this crisis is outlined, we
believe, in Revelation 13. In this prophecy two great
powers appear under the symbols of a ten-horned
beast from the sea, and a two-horned beast from the
earth. These dominating powers are seen to unite in a
single purpose, that of opposing God and persecuting
His people. Their combined opposition will be uni-
versal, and so influential that they will succeed in
getting a decree passed, possibly through some world
court legislature, that those who withstand their edict
will be prohibited from doing any business whatso-
ever; even food will be denied them.
The effect of this decree will be upon all, "both
small and great, rich and poor, free and bond/' No
one will escape. It will result in worldwide boycott of
those who serve God. In that crisis many will compro-
mise their principles and deny their faith.
And it is our belief that God wants the whole
world, especially those who love and serve Him, to be
prepared for that tremendous issue. Therefore, He is
194 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
sending a special message to all the peoples of earth.
This message first calls men to accept salvation through
His grace, and then it sets the issues clearly before
them by unmasking the man of sin and revealing the
subtlety o his attacks, so that when the test comes,
each individual will be able to make intelligent choice.
In harmony with that interpretation of prophecy we
feel that God is giving tests of loyalty today, so that
when the final issue comes and the whole world will
divide itself on the matter of loyalty to God or com-
pliance with the satanic edict of the world, men will be
ready for the test.
In every great crisis God has had loyal, faithful
ones whose allegiance to Him has been more precious
than life itself. And in this coming hour of test we be-
lieve that He will have a loyal "remnant." We believe
that finally the "remnant' 7 people will include every
true and faithful follower of Christ. We believe God
has given us a solemn responsibility to carry His final
message of entreaty to the world ''the everlasting gos-
pel" (Rev. 14:6).
Our understanding of our place in preparation for
these events is outlined in the following statement from
Ellen G. White:
In the time of the end, every divine institution is to be re-
stored. The breach made in the law at the time the Sabbath was
changed by man, is to be repaired. God's remnant people, stand-
ing before the world as reformers, are to show that the law of
God is the foundation of all enduring reform, and that the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment is to stand as a memorial
of creation, a constant reminder of the power of God. In clear,
distinct lines they are to present the necessity of obedience to all
the precepts of the Decalogue. Constrained by the love of Christ,
they are to cooperate with Him in building up the waste places.
THE "REMNANT CHURCH" 195
They are to be repairers of the breach, restorers of paths to
dwell In. Prophets and Kings, p. 678.
To sum up the matter: We believe that through all
the ages God has had His elect, distinguished by their
sincere obedience to Him in terms of all the light re-
vealed to them. These constitute what may be described
as the church invisible. We also believe that at various
periods of earth's history God has called out a company
of people, making them uniquely the depositories and
exponents of His truth. This is strikingly illustrated by
the history of Israel, and as already mentioned, by cer-
tain reformatory movements in the history of the Chris-
tian church.
We believe that in earth's last hour God has a special
message for the world, to prepare all who will heed it
to withstand the deceptions of the last days and to make
ready for the second advent of Christ. We believe that
He has raised up a movement known as the Seventh-
day Adventist church for the express purpose of mak-
ing it, in a special way, the depository and exponent of
this message. While this company of God's children
may be described as a church, we believe the term
"movement" more accurately conveys the essential na-
ture and purpose of this distinctive group with its dis-
tinctive message.
We conceive our task to be that of persuading men
to make ready for the day of God, by calling on them
to accept Heaven's special message and thus to join with
us in proclaiming God's great truth for these days. Hold-
ing, as we do, that God raised up this movement and
gave to it its message, we believe that before the final
hour of crisis and testing all God's true children now
196 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
so widely scattered will join with us in giving obedi-
ence to this message, of which the seventh-day Sabbath
is a basic part.
Finally, we would say with all the earnestness and
directness we can command, that we repudiate any im-
plication that we alone are beloved of God and have a
claim upon heaven. We believe that all who serve God
in full sincerity, in terms of all the revealed will of God
that they now understand, are presently potential mem-
bers of that final "remnant" company as defined in
Revelation 12:17. We believe it to be the solemn task
and joyous privilege of the advent movement to make
God's last testing truths so clear and so persuasive as to
draw all of God's children into that prophetically fore-
told company making ready for the day of (Sod.
What Constitutes "Babylon" ?
QUESTION 21
Do Seventh-day Adventists teach or be-
lieve, as a body, that the members of the various
Protestant denominations, as well as the Catho-
lic, Greek, and Russian Orthodox churches, are
to be identified with Babylon, the symbol of
apostasy?
We fully recognize the heartening fact that a host
of true followers of Christ are scattered all through the
various churches of Christendom, including the Roman
Catholic communion. These God clearly recognizes as
His own. Such do not form a part of the "Babylon"
portrayed in the Apocalypse. The matter of loyalty or
disloyalty to truth is, in the ultimate, a question of
personal relationship to God and the fundamental
principles of truth. What is denominated "Babylon,"
in Scripture, obviously embraces those who have broken
with the spirit and essence of true Christianity, and
have followed the way of apostasy. Such are under the
censure of Heaven.
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND IMPERATIVE. In order
to set forth what Seventh-day Adventists believe on this
point, it is essential first to get the background of his-
torical applications that reach back some eight hundred
years. The earliest application of the symbolic term
197
198 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
"Babylon" to the Papacy, or the Roman Catholic
Church, appears in the writings of the twelfth-century
Waldenses and Albigenses. But along with their identi-
fication of the dominant ecclesiastical apostasy of their
day as the organization portrayed in the Bible proph-
ecies, they also stated that many of God's children
were still in papal Babylon. And these they were con-
strained to "call out," or urge to separate, from her
apostasies. A long list of spiritual-minded medieval
Catholics follow in the fourteenth and fifteenth cen-
turies including pseudo-Joachim, Olivi, Eberhard,
Wycliffe, Huss, and Savonarola all boldly asserting
that "Babylon" represents the corrupted church of
Rome, and warning of her coming retribution. And
for this some even went to the stake.
2. USED BY PROTESTANT FOUNDERS. During the
Protestant Reformation all leaders taught essentially
the same, from Luther, in 1520, onward. These men
were scattered over Germany, Switzerland, France, and
England. In Britain were men like William Tyndale,
Bishops Ridley and Hooper, Archbishop Cranmer,
Bishops Bale, Jewell, and Coverdale, and John Knox
and Lord Napier in Scotland. Ridley's farewell letter
before his martyrdom, in 1555, repeatedly referred to
"Babylon," and called for separation from Rome.
3. CONTINUED IN POST-REFORMATION. In post-Ref-
ormation times some thirty prominent expositors
maintained the same position, including such famous
men as King James I, Joseph Mede, Sir Isaac Newton,
Bishop Thomas Newton, Methodism's founder John
Wesley, and Johann Bengel and various other Con-
tinentals, Even in Colonial America, John Cotton,
WHAT CONSTITUTES "BABYLON"? 199
Roger Williams, Increase Mather, Samuel Hopkins,
and more than a score of others, down to President
Timothy Dwight of Yale in 1812, made similar appli-
cations. One was the noted Baptist historian Isaac
Backus, who in 1767 wrote: " 'She ['the church of
Rome'] is the mother of harlots, and all churches who
go after any lovers but Christ, for a temporal living,
are guilty of playing the harlot.' " (See Prophetic Faith
of Our Fathers, vol. 3, p. 213.) Earlier, Roger Williams
had complained to the British Parliament about Prot-
estants' clinging to the spirit and doing the deeds of
papal Babylon.
Meanwhile, several Old World Protestant writers
had noted that Babylon, the "mother" of Revelation 17,
had "daughters" that bore the same family name. And
believing that certain other Protestant bodies had re-
tained some of the characteristics and errors of the
Papacy, they began to include them under the family
name "Babylon." Among these writers were such non-
conformists as Browne, Barrow, and John Milton.
4. BABYLON, MOTHER AND DAUGHTERS. In the
early nineteenth-century Old World Advent awakening,
Lacunza, from within Catholicism, called Babylon
"Rome on the Tiber." And various Anglican and non-
conformist leaders such as Cuninghame, Brown,
M'Neile, and Ash pressed the application. The Prot-
estant Association, organized in Exeter Hall in 1835
with such men as Croly and Melville in 1839 sounded
the "out of Babylon" call, including both Protestantism
and Popery.
And the Dublin Christian Herald., edited by Angli-
can Rector Edward N. Hoare, asserted in 1830 that
200 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
the abominations of papal Babylon, the mother,
"covered all Christendom." Alexander Fraser, of Scot-
land, and Anglican David Simpson, of England, held
similar views. Fraser said that all churches were tinged
with the spirit of Babylon. And Simpson declared that
Protestant churches, of "whatever denomination,"
which partake of the same spirit and doctrines and cir-
cumstances, must be considered daughters.
In North America, passing Elias Smith and Lorenzo
Dow, who wrote strongly on the Protestant daughters
as related to Rome, Disciples churchman Samuel M.
McCorkle declared that Protestantism had been be-
fuddled by the wine of Babylon, and insisted that the
"mother" church had Protestant daughters. And prom-
inent Baptist clergyman Isaac T. Hinton (1799-1847)
plainly hinted that nationally established Protestant
churches are, because of church-state union and com-
promise, daughters of Babylon.
5. EMPLOYED IN ADVENT AWAKENING. Then, dur-
ing the Second Advent Movement in America in the
1830's and 1840's, there was growing proscription
among the larger Protestant bodies against those who
held premillennialist views, and increasing ecclesiasti-
cal opposition to emphasis on the Second Advent par-
ticularly among the Methodists and Congregationalists
of New England forbidding the dissemination of Ad-
ventism. This opposition led to the sounding of the
call to "come out" from the churches that rejected the
Second Advent message and that clung to the tainted
doctrines of Babylon. That was how the "call" came to
be sounded at that time. It was not a condemnation of
the host of godly individuals in the various Protestant
WHAT CONSTITUTES "BABYLON"? 201
churches, but of the official attitudes and actions in
rejecting the vital Second Advent truth. (A historical
record appears in Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vols.
1-4.)
6. A THOUSAND YEARS OF PRECEDENT. In the light
of the historical record of a thousand years, there is
nothing new or strange about Adventist employment
of the term that had constantly been used by other
bodies, as they felt that light and truth had been re-
jected and opposed. And the application of the term
"daughters" of Babylon has similarly been used for some
three hundred years.
Groups and organizations such as the Fundamen-
talists, the International Council of Christian Churches,
and the National Association of Evangelicals have with-
drawn from the older organizations because of what
they believed to be modernist apostasy entrenched in
the controlling leadership of various denominations.
7. EVIDENCES OF DEPARTURE. Such are the his-
toric precedents. Adventists believe that the term
"Babylon," referred to in Revelation 17, has been
rightly applied to the Papacy. Great Babylon, however,
according to verse 5, is mentioned as a "mother/' So
the term " Babylon " rightly belongs to others also. We
therefore believe that wherever there are individuals,
or groups of individuals, that hold to and advocate the
unchristian doctrines, practices, and procedures of the
papal church, such may justifiably be denominated
"Babylon" hence, part of the great apostasy. Wher-
ever such conditions obtain, Adventists, with others,
believe that the guilty organizations may rightly be
denominated "Babylon."
202 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
8. MATTER OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP. We be-
lieve that conditions in the religious world will worsen,
not improve, as we approach the world's climax (1
Tim. 4:1, 2; 2 Tim. 3:1, 5). And the gulf between
apostasy and fidelity to truth will become wider and
wider as prophecy fulfills before our eyes. But our
statements regarding Babylon do not have the defama-
tory character that some would impute to us. They are
uttered in sorrow, not for invidious comparisons.
We are conscious of the fact that membership in
any church is not, in itself, evidence either of fellow-
ship with Christ or of fidelity to the fundamentals of
the gospel. As was the case of Israel of old, the Chris-
tian church throughout the centuries has been plagued
by the presence of a "mixed multitude" (Ex. 12:38;
Num. 11:4; Neh. 13:3). And this is particularly true
of these latter times, when many have departed from
the faith, as clearly foretold in Bible prophecy (1 Tim.
4:1; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4). We firmly believe that God is
calling today for His children to break with everything
that is alien to the fundamental, apostolic principles of
truth.
VI* Questions on Prophecy, Daniel $
and 9, and the 2300 Days
Basic Principles of Prophetic Interpretation
QUESTION 22
What are the basic teachings of Seventh-
day Adventists in regard to the inspired proph-
ecies of the Bible? And wherein and why do
you differ from the postmillennialists and futur-
ists? What about the "kingdom" prophecies, and
the restoration of the Jews? Why do yon differ
from the postmillennialists and the futurists on
their interpretation? Please be specific.
Three things profoundly impress the student o
prophecy as he surveys the witness of the centuries: (1)
The immutable purpose of God (Isa. 14:27); (2) His
divine foreknowledge (Isa. 46:10; Acts 2:23), and the
inspired revelation of the outline of the ages through
the Bible prophets of old (Amos 3:7); and (3) His
infinite patience with willful human beings who fall
short of His plan for them.
As for the great outline prophecies of Holy Writ,
Seventh-day Adventists believe that they are a divinely
inspired portrayal of the ages. Most of our interpreta-
tion of prophecies of this type are not original with us.
They are based on the findings of many of the most
godly and eminent scholars of various faiths through
the centuries. With the early church we hold that
prophetic fulfillments are to be looked for in historical
205
206 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
events, and we find a progressive, contemporary recog-
nition of the advancing epochs and major fulfillments
of the prophetic outline in history.
We believe, with the majority of expositors from the
early Church Fathers to modern times, that the four
world powers of Daniel's outline prophecies were
the Neo-Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian (Mace-
donian), and Roman empires; that Rome was not to be
followed immediately by a fifth world power, but was
to be divided Into a number of strong and weak king-
doms; that this breakup was attested as in process of
fulfillment in the fourth and fifth centuries; that this
was to be followed by the appearance of a powerful
antichrist; and that antichrist would, In turn, be de-
stroyed at the Second Advent, which will be accom-
panied by the literal resurrection of the righteous dead,
and the binding of Satan during the millennium; and
that the millennium will then be followed by the eter-
nal kingdom of God.
We believe with many Reformation leaders that
Rome's division into the ten kingdoms representing
the various nations of Europe was followed by the papal
Antichrist as the predicted dominant power of the
Middle Ages (see p. 336). Thus we hold the historical
view of prophecy. We reject futurism and preterism
not merely because both systems were projected by the
Roman Catholics in the counter-Reformation against
Protestant positions, but because we find these inter-
pretations out of harmony with Scripture specifications.
Nor do we accept postmillennialism's now largely dis-
credited thesis of gradual world betterment and ap-
proaching universal peace in a man-made kingdom of
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 207
God. Seventh-day Adventists believe that the sole hope
of the world is the personal, premillennial second ad-
vent of Christ, which, we believe from the study of
Bible prophecy, is imminent, but for which we set no
date.
We believe that the prophecies simply form the
background for the great redemptive activity of God as
centered in the two advents of Christ. Christ came the
first time to live among men as the Sinless One, and to
die as the all-sufficient, vicarious, atoning sacrifice for
the redemption of a lost race. And His priestly ministry
in heaven spans the period between His ascension and
His second advent as King of kings, to gather the re-
deemed and to end the tragic reign of sin.
I. Adventist Views of Prophecy In Relation to Others
The subject of prophecy and prophetic fulfillment
is entirely too broad to be treated adequately here. This
answer will therefore be limited to points that seem
most relevant to the topics considered in these ques-
tions and answers.
1. CLASSIFICATION OF BIBLE PROPHECIES. The word
* 'prophecy' ' means both forthtelling and foretelling; a
prophet speaks forth the message of God, relaying re-
proof, correction, and instruction to man; he also at
times foretells events of either the immediate or the
distant future, announcing in advance the development
of God's purpose, or what will come to pass in the
working out of certain circumstances.
Sometimes a prophet was termed a "seer," mean-
ing one who sees with supernatural sight. Sometimes
God's message comes to the prophet orally; sometimes
208 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
pictorlally In vision. But whether the prophet hears or
sees the message of God, he speaks it forth as the word
of God, rather than of man. 'Tor the prophecy came
not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"
(2 Peter 1:21).
Prophecy may be classified in several ways:
By content, into
a. ethical messages of reform for contemporaries
as through Elijah, Jeremiah;
b. predictions, in which the ethical element may
often occur as through Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel.
By form, into
a. literal prophecies;
b. figurative or symbolic prophecies;
c. enacted prophecies;
d. prophetic parables.
As to range, into
a. Immediate or short-range prophecies;
b. predictions of single distant events;
c. long-range outline prophecies covering long
periods;
d. prophecies of double application (immediate
and future; or literal and figurative).
As to fulfillment, predictive prophecy may be di-
vided into at least three categories:
a. predictions of divine purpose (independent
of man's will or purpose);
&. predictions of divine foreknowledge (foretell-
ing man's actions);
c. predictions of divine reward or punishment
(conditional on man's good or evil actions).
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 209
Sometimes it may be difficult to determine whether
a given prophecy belongs in one category or another,
but all three classes of prophecy are sure, though in
different ways.
2. FULFILLMENTS OF THESE THREE CLASSES OF PRE-
DICTIONS. Examples of predictions of these last three
classes will make this clear:
Prophecies of the first class (God's immutable pur-
pose) include, for example, God's prediction that
Christ would die for man's salvation, and that the uni-
verse will ultimately be cleansed from sin. Prophecies
of this type must come to pass, for they are a statement of
God's eternal purpose or will to do something, inde-
pendent of man's will or action.
Prophecies of the second class (foreknowledge) in-
clude predictions of Jesus' betrayal and crucifixion.
This type of prophecy will come to pass, because God
cannot be mistaken in His foreknowledge. In His om-
niscience, knowing "the end from the beginning/'
He was aware that evil men would betray and crucify
Jesus, but the predictions did not force any of them to
sin. Although a prophecy may predict "what God's fore-
knowledge had seen would be," yet as one of our most
representative writers has said, "the prophecies do not
shape the characters of the men who fulfill them. Men
act out their own free will." ELLEN G. WHITE in The
Review and Herald, Nov. 13, 1900, p. 721.
Prophecies of the third class (those that promise
reward or threaten punishment) are exemplified by
Jeremiah's twofold prediction (ch. 17) of the perma-
nence or the destruction of Jerusalem. We might say,
further, that predictions of this class are equally sure,
210 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
but in a different way: It is certain, for example, that a
man will surely experience the fulfillment of either the
reward or the punishment predicted. If he fulfills the
conditions for receiving the blessings, the penalties are
not inflicted; if, on the other hand, he incurs the
threatened punishment the alternate predictions of
blessings are not fulfilled. The outcome is conditioned
on man's choice of good or of evil. Thus when God
utters either kind of prediction promises or threats
to the same man or nation, it is obvious, in the very
nature of the case, that any single prediction of re-
ward or punishment may or may not be fulfilled, de-
pendent on the freedom of the human will to comply or
not to comply with the conditions; yet the certainty of
prophecy is not in any way impaired, since either one
or the other alternative reward or punishment will
surely come.
It is true that fulfillment is one of the tests of true
prophecy. Though mere fulfillment of prediction does
not necessarily prove a prophet to be genuine (Deut.
13:1, 2), a failure of fulfillment proves a prophet false
(Deut. 18:20-22), unless there was a stated or implied
condition. Fulfillment as a workable test obviously ap-
plies only to immediate predictions, for long-range pre-
dictions to be fulfilled long after the prophet's death
can be of no use to his contemporaries in deciding
whether they should believe the prophet's messages and
regard him as a genuine messenger of God.
3. CONDITIONAL PROPHECIES. Prophecies that state
or imply either promises or threats are conditional, de-
pendent on man's actions. Conditionality is sometimes
stated (Ex. 19:5, 6); sometimes not (Jonah 3:4). In
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 211
such prophecies we may find one set of fulfillments re-
placed by another, according to the response to the
conditions, without in any way weakening the certainty
of prophecy (Jer. 18:7-10).
Some predictions are delayed in fulfillment because
of man's own actions or inaction; sometimes the fulfill-
ment is different from th.e original possibility. There
are obvious examples of both of these.
a. God had promised to take the Israelites from
Egypt to the land of Canaan and to drive out the
heathen inhabitants and give His people possession (Ex.
3:8; 15:17; 23:23; etc.). Yet when they neared the
borders 'of the land, at Kadesh-barnea, the adverse re-
port of the spies made them rebel and refuse to go on.
Consequently, God said, "Ye shall not come into the
land, concerning which I sware to make you dwell
therein" (Num. 14:30). They were to wander in the
wilderness until that generation perished. God even
called that "my breach of promise" (verse 34), for so it
apparently was; but the next generation, nearly forty
years later, did enter Canaan.
Today the long wait for the second coming of Christ
leads some to ask, "Where is the promise of his com-
ing?" The apostle answers, "The Lord is not slack
concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come to repentance"
(2 Peter 3:9).
b. An example of a transformed fulfillment was
the prophecy of the tribe of Levi, "I will divide them
in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel" (Gen. 49:7). Yet,
because of that tribe's loyalty in a crisis, the scattering
212 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
was turned Into a blessing. Levl became the tribe of
the priesthood, and so did not inherit a section of land
like the other tribes, and was not numbered as one of
the twelve, yet Levi lived scattered among all the
tribes, so as to be a blessing to all (Ex. 32:26; Num.
18:20-24). Sometimes Old Testament prophecies that
are primarily literal are fulfilled in a figurative manner
in the New Testament. But such fulfillments must be
identified for us by inspiration; otherwise there would
be no limit to speculative and fanciful interpretations.
As can be seen from these examples, the fact that we
cannot always find a literal fulfillment of every detail
of prophecy does not mean that the prediction has
failed or that we must look for some fanciful fulfillment
yet to come. Due allowance must be made, as even
"literalists" know, for figurative language In ancient, as
in modern, writing; also for Oriental modes of speech.
Further, parables or symbols must be understood in
terms of what the author intends to convey, not in
terms of the irrelevant details of the picture (such as
the spots on the leopard beast, or the five to five ratio of
the wise and foolish virgins). When we consider the
setting in which a prophetic message is given, seeking
first for the direct and primary meaning, and then for
any valid secondary or figurative meaning, we find that
the prophecies are neither a phantasmagoria that
means anything the imagination might wish to see in
it, nor messages In cipher with a rigid meaning for
every word messages that must be fulfilled in detail
or else the prophecy has failed.
4. VARYING VIEWS OF THE "KINGDOM PROPHECIES."
There has been much misunderstanding of the series
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 213
of promises and prophecies, chiefly In the Old Testa-
ment, concerning the place of Israel in God's plan
the so-called ' 'kingdom prophecies."
The ^ojJmillennialist interprets the ''kingdom
prophecies" as wholly symbolic descriptions of a future
golden age of the church, a millennium of worldwide
righteousness, to be brought about by a larger measure
of the present means of grace, not by the direct inter-
vention of God. This, it is claimed, will prepare the
whole world for the second coming of Christ at the end
of the millennium to usher in the final judgment and
eternity.
The ^ranillennialist expects the present reign of
evil to continue, and even grow worse, until the personal
coming of Christ ends this age by catastrophic and
supernatural means. He begins the millennium with a
literal first resurrection (of "the saints") and ends it
with the second resurrection (of "the rest of the dead"),
and the final judgment, followed by the eternal state
in the new heavens and new earth.
The amillennialist denies any millennial kingdom;
rather, he equates it, like Augustine, with the triumph
of Christianity in the present era. He agrees with the
premillennialist that the world is not to see a golden
age before the advent, that the wheat and tares will
grow side by side until the direct and cataclysmic intro-
duction of the next age by the advent of Christ, but he
agrees with the postmillennialist that the advent is fol-
lowed not by a millennial kingdom but by the final
judgment and the eternal state.
The resurgent premillennialism of the early nine-
teenth century reacted vigorously against the "spirit-
214 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
uallzlng" of the first resurrection and of the kingdom
prophecies by the then-dominant postrnillennialism.
The premillennialists, who came to be known in Brit-
ain as 'literalists," stressed not only a literal resur-
rection but also a literal kingdom on earth during the
millennium. This would be under the direct or indirect
rule of Christ, and would involve a literal application,
to the Jews, of the Old Testament prophecies made to
ancient Israel. Though historicists at first, most of these
literalists soon took the next logical step; they became
futurists. The fulfillments of the majority of the proph-
ecies were looked for either at, or after, the end of the
present age. All the kingdom prophecies that had not
been completely fulfilled down to the last detail
Israel's triumph over earthly kings, her re-establish-
rnent in Palestine with the rebuilding of the Temple
and the renewal of the animal sacrifices, and even the
divine withholding of rain from any nation that should
fail to come up to Jerusalem to the Feast of Tabernacles
all this, and much more, they held must be fulfilled
in a literal future Jewish kingdom on earth after the
second advent, during the millennium.
In North America the strong premillennialist
movement of the mid-nineteenth century at first in-
cluded literalists and Millerites. And since both were
historkist premillennialists, they were allies against
entrenched postmillennialism. But the Millerites be-
lieved, with the majority of the church through the cen-
turies, that the prophesied kingdom was to be realized
by the glorified church, not the Jews. They believed,
further, that the millennium was to be the beginning
of the eternal state.
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 215
Unlike most premillennlalists today, Seventh-day
Adventists hold that the kingdom promises are fulfilled
In the experience of the church today the ' 'kingdom
of grace" In the hearts of Christians, and eventually the
4 'kingdom of glory" in the eternal state. So we differ
from other Christian groups In our views on the king-
dom prophecies.
II. Adventist Views on the Kingdom Prophecies
1. PROMISES TO ABRAHAM. The Old Testament
makes it clear that the Hebrew people, the descend-
ants of the twelve sons of Jacob, were chosen especially
by God as the instruments for making known His pur-
pose of salvation. Through them the Scriptures were
given; through them the Messiah, the Christ, was to
come; and through them all the nations of the world
were to receive the blessings of salvation. Yet the Old
Testament makes equally clear a fact that is often
overlooked that this status of being the chosen people
was conditional.
God made promises on several occasions to their
ancestor Abraham that he would be blessed, that his
seed would be numerous and become a great nation,
that they would be given the land of Canaan, that
this land was to extend from the "river of Egypt"
(the Wadi el-Arish) to the river Euphrates. (See Gen.
12:1-3; 13:14-17; 15:5, 7, 18-21; 17:1-21; 18:18, 19;
22:15-18.)
2. PROMISES TO ISRAEL AT SINAI. When God be-
gan to fulfill these promises to Abraham's descendants
by bringing them out of Egypt to give them the
Promised Land and to make them a nation, He made
216 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
a covenant with them at Sinai. The conditional nature
of the promises to the new nation of Israel, as His
chosen people, was very clearly stated right at the
beginning:
Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above
all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a
kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (Ex. 19:5, 6).
Their status as God's special people hinged on an
if.
Nearly forty years later, as the second generation
was on the borders of the Promised Land, Moses in
his farewell address instructed them at length (Deut.
7:8), that if they hoped to see the fulfillment of the
promises made to their fathers they must keep faith
with the ever "faithful God, which keepeth covenant
and mercy with them that love him and keep his
commandments to a thousand generations" (Deut. 7:
9); that if they would "keep the commandments," the
Lord would "keep unto thee the covenant . . . which
he sware unto thy fathers" (Deut. 7:11, 12). On the
other hand, if they disobeyed God they would perish
like the nations that they were to dispossess (Deut.
8:1, 19, 20). Compare the warnings that the land
would spue them out also, as it had spued out their
predecessors (Lev. 18:26-28; 20:22). In a long series
of blessings and cursings (Deuteronomy 27-30) the fol-
lowing blessings are conditioned on obedience to God's
commandments: holiness, leadership, prosperity. The al-
ternate curses include pestilence, famine, poverty, defeat,
scattering among the nations with, however, a promise
of return from exile if they repented.
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 217
The alternatives presented make it clear that God's
saying, "I will give" the various blessings was equiv-
alent to "I am willing to give/' "I purpose to give/'
But the Israelites were not left in doubt as to the
conditions under which they would either gain or lose
the promised blessings.
Note the specific statements of the conditional na-
ture of the promises and prophecies to the literal na-
tion of Israel in connection with all the points cov-
ered in the promises to Abraham. In each case the
fulfillment of the promise was conditioned on obedi-
ence: (a) their status as the chosen people, Ex. 19:5, 6;
Deut. 28:9; (b) a great nation, Deut. 28:1, 7, 9, 10, 13
(compare verses 15, 25, 48); (c) a holy nation, Ex. 19:6;
Deut. 28:9; (d) blessings, Deut. 7:9-14; 28: 1-14 (compare
verses 15-68); 30:16, 19; (e) the land, Deut. 8:1, 7-9; 30:
19, 20 (compare Lev. 18:26-28; Deut. 28:15, 64);
1 Kings 9:3, 6, 7; 1 Chron. 28:8; 2 Chron. 7:16, 19,
20; Eze. 33:24-26; 36:26-28; (/) the Davidic line of
kings, I Kings 2:3, 4; 8:25; 9:4, 5; 1 Chron. 28:4-9;
2 Chron. 6:16; 2 Chron. 7:17-22; and (g) blessing to
the nations, Eze. 36:23, 33-36; 37:23, 28.
But since the conditions were only partly met,
the promises were only partially fulfilled in Hebrew
history.
3. PROMISES TO DAVID AND SOLOMON. To David,
whom God chose "to be king over Israel for ever"
(1 Chron. 28:4), and to his son Solomon, were ful-
filled many of the early promises made to Israel a
great name, a great nation, prosperity, victory and
peace, rule over other nations, dominion "from the
river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphra-
218 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
tes" (Gen. 15:18; compare 1 Kings 4:21). Further, in
David's time, God intended that Israel should "dwell
in a place of their own, and move no more" (2 Sam.
7:10; 1 Chron. 17:9).
This does not contradict the earlier statements that
Israel was to hold the land on condition of obedience
(Deut. 8:1, 19-20; etc.), nor is it invalidated by the
fact that they were later removed from it. It was not
God's desire that Israel should be cast out of the land
on account of their sins, any more than it is His desire
that anyone should be lost by rejecting salvation (Eze.
33:11; 2 Peter 3:9). David understood this promise to
be conditional, as is clear from his later address at the
coronation of Solomon, when he admonished the as-
sembled people: "Keep and seek for all the command-
ments of the Lord your God: that ye may possess this
good land, and leave it for an inheritance for your
children after you for ever" (1 Chron. 28:8).
Further, he recognized the promise concerning
Solomon as conditional also: "I will establish his king-
dom for ever, if he be constant to do my command-
ments and my judgments, as at this day" (verses 6, 7).
After the Temple was finished, God repeated the
same promise to Solomon himself, placing the con-
tinuance of the kingship, of the Temple, and of Is-
rael's possession of the land on condition of faithful-
ness to God (1 Kings 9:3-9; 2 Chron. 7:16-22).
God's statement of His purpose that Israel should
"move no more" (2 Sam. 7:10), and that David's
house would be established on the throne forever
(verse 13) shows that He was willing to fulfill the
promised blessings to Israel from the time of David
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 219
and Solomon. If the conditions had been met there
would never have been a series of captivities.
But Solomon apostatized, and although he saw the
folly of his ways before his death, his kingdom was
divided, and ten of the tribes were permanently lost
to his dynasty. It is true that his descendants ruled
Judah as long as it lasted as a nation, but the kingdom
eventually came to an end and the crown of David's
dynasty was removed ''until he come whose right it
is" (Eze. 21:27). This refers to the divine Son of David
(Matt. 21:5, 9). Though Solomon and the royal line
of David failed to realize the promises, the prophecy
of David's seed meets its fulfillment in Christ, who
will yet rule over an eternal kingdom (Ps. 89:3, 4; Isa.
9:6, 7; Jer. 23:5; Luke 1:32, 33).
4. THREAT OF CAPTIVITY CONDITIONAL. It was
the nation's sins that brought the end of the Jewish
kingdom in the Babylonian captivity (2 Chron. 36:
14-17). The Jews need not have been carried into
exile. Jerusalem, with its magnificent Temple, might
have stood forever and have been the metropolis into
which kings and princes would enter, if the Jews had
been faithful to their covenant even if they had
heeded Jeremiah's last-minute warning (Jer. 17:21-
27).
In the chapter following this warning message,
the acceptance of which would have averted the doom
of Judah, Jeremiah records God's clear and explicit
statement of the conditional nature of prophecies of
rewards and punishments:
At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and con-
cerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy
220 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from
their evil, I will repent* of the evil that I thought to do unto
them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in
my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent* of the good
wherewith I said I would benefit them (Jer. 18:7-10).
That this principle referred to Israel is made clear
by verses 11 and 13. National repentance even then
might have reversed the fate of the kingdom, but Jere-
miah's pleas went unheeded, and the result was exile.
5. RESTORATION PROPHECIES AND THE NEW COV-
ENANT. The Babylonian captivity, however, was not
the end of God's patience. Even in exile there was
yet hope for repentance that might avert the fulfill-
ment of the prophecy of national downfall. God re-
assured them through Jeremiah that this captivity,
though a punishment, was not "a full end" (Jer. 5:
10-18; 46:28). Beginning even before the exile, God
had sent prophetic messages promising a return, and
offering a full and glorious restoration under a new
covenant (Jer. 31:27, 28, 31).
Under the national covenant made with God at
Sinai and repeatedly reaffirmed, all Israel had failed
miserably, as was amply demonstrated throughout their
whole national history. The apostate ten tribes, long
separated from the sanctuary and the theocracy, had
already been swept away; now the remnant of Israel
the- kingdom of Judah which had fallen into apostasy
more slowly, but no less surely, was being carried into
* This repenting of the good or evil God has promised is a statement in human
terms that does not adequately represent the true nature of God, but is used in
order to express the change in outcome. It is not actually God who changes. God
hts impartially announced the alternate consequences of man's good or evil choice;
His attitude and His alternatives remain unchanged; but man s change of action
brings an altered relationship toward God and a reversal of the consequences.
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 221
captivity, and the royal line of David was to lose the
throne until the Messiah should come, "whose right
it is to reign." At this dark hour God sent through
Jeremiah in beleaguered Judah and through Ezekiel
among the earlier groups of exiles already in Baby-
lonia similar messages of a "new covenant," an "ever-
lasting covenant," under which He would bless the
exiles when they returned. He would restore them as
God's holy nation, as a living demonstration of His
love and care, and thus as an instrument of blessing to
the nations of the world (see Jer. 31:31-34; 32:36-
41; Eze. 37:19-28).
The people were evidently complaining that they
were suffering for the sins of their fathers, for Jere-
miah mentions their proverb, "The fathers have eaten
a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge"
(Jer. 31:29). Then he continues with the announce-
ment of the new covenant, in which God will deal,
not with the fathers, but directly with human hearts.
He would put His "law in their inward parts, and
write it in their hearts," and every man individually,
from the least to the greatest, was to know the Lord.
He would forgive their sins and remember them no
more (Jer. 31:31-34). In the next chapter Jeremiah
speaks of it as the "everlasting covenant" (Jer. 32:39,
40), which is the covenant made with Abraham (Gen.
17:7).
Under the "everlasting covenant" God promised
to put His "fear in their hearts, that they shall not
depart from me" (Jer. 32:40). In this connection God
would "give them one heart, and one way, that they
may fear me for ever" (verse 39).
222 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Ezekiel, the prophet to the exiles already in Babylon,
spoke of God's giving them "one heart," and "a new
spirit/' exchanging "the stony heart" for "an heart of
flesh" that they might "walk in my statutes," and prom-
ising that "they shall be my people, and I will be their
God" (Eze. 11:19, 20). Ezekiel elsewhere mentions
the "everlasting covenant" made with the restored
exiles of both Israel and Judah, and the rule of David
over a people cleansed from their sins (Eze. 37:19-
28). Isaiah also speaks of the everlasting covenant
(Isa. 55:3; 61:8).
6. GOSPEL IN THE EVERLASTING COVENANT.
Again Ezekiel uses almost the same words: "A new
heart also will I give you. . . . And I will put my spirit
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes"
(Eze. 36:26, 27). The purpose of the new covenant
was to enable them to obey, "that they may fear me
for ever," and "that they shall not depart from me";
"that they may walk in my statutes" (Jer. 32:39, 40;
Eze. 11:19, 20); and the means of enabling was, "I
will put my spirit within you" (Eze. 36:27). But in
Old Testament times, as in the New, the natural heart
"is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be" (Rom. 8:7). That is why the writing of the law
of God in the heart involves giving man a new heart
in place of his stony heart, a free and unmerited gift
that can be received only by faith.
The new covenant, then, is nothing less than sal-
vation by grace through faith, the reception of God's
Spirit, enabling one to walk in newness of life. This
is the New Testament gospel in the heart of the Old
Testament.
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 223
There is no incompatibility here between law and
grace. Even in the time of Israel there was no incom-
patibility between grace and the "ceremonial" law,
for until Jesus died the rites and sacrifices were God's
appointed way of directing the eye of faith to the
coming Saviour. Not until the offering of the Lamb of
God, once for all, was the ceremonial system abolished
(Eph. 2:15). Thereafter insistence upon the ceremo-
nial observances became a denial of faith in the all-
sufficient sacrifice of Christ (Acts 15:1, 10; Gal. 5:
1, 2). The new covenant, later ratified by the blood
of Jesus (Heb. 8:6-13; Matt. 26:28), and mediated by
His heavenly ministry (Heb. 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) the
covenant promising the divine writing of the law in the
heart, with the indwelling of the Spirit, which pro-
duces the righteousness of the law in the life (Rom.
8:4) is never at variance with the moral law of God,
then or now.
7. CONDITIONED ON INDIVIDUAL ACCEPTANCE. These
prophecies of the restoration of Israel offered the
new covenant to all, for all should know the Lord
"from the least of them unto the greatest" (Jer, 31:
34). God never offers forgiveness, cleansing from sin,
and a new heart except on condition of individual re-
pentance. The restoration connected with the new cov-
enant could go into effect only in so far as the individual
Israelite would accept the covenant. Those to whom
God would give a new heart "shall be my people, and
I will be their God." The next verse excludes those
who refuse to be cleansed: "But as for them whose
heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things
and their abominations, I will recompense their way
224 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
upon their own heads, salth the Lord" (Eze. 11:20, 21).
The everlasting covenant was made with Abraham,
who was called the father of the faithful (Gen. 17:
1, 2, 7; compare Gen. 26:5), Isaiah introduces the ever-
lasting covenant with the invitation, "Incline your
ear,'* ''come," "hear" (Isa. 55:3); and continues,
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found," "return
unto the Lord" (verses 6, 7). God pledges His word as
to His faithfulness (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:20-26); but
His covenant is offered, not imposed. Therefore, the
restoration promises under the new covenant are con-
ditioned upon the Israelites* voluntary acceptance and
their acting by faith upon that acceptance.
If all Israel, or even a large majority, had whole-
heartedly entered into the new covenant and experi-
enced the new heart through the indwelling of the
Spirit of God, resulting in wholehearted obedience,
what might have been the results! God still desired to
use Israel as His special instrument to share the bless-
ings of the new covenant with other nations.
8. RESTORATION PROPHECIES PARTLY FULFILLED.
The "restoration" or "kingdom" prophecies some
full of poetic imagery, others in literal language speak
of long life and Edenic conditions of the earth, of
Israel's righteousness and world leadership, drawing
the nations to her, and spreading the knowledge of the
Lord over the world. The house of David was to be
restored, and finally the Messiah was to come the
Messiah, who was to be "cut off," who was to be the
Lamb of God that would ratify the new covenant, and
who was to rule the kingdom in righteousness and
finally bring in eternal peace. However, the golden age
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 225
was not to be altogether one of peace; apparently the
jealousy of enemies was to bring war, which would end
in final victory for God's people (Ezekiel 38; 39) before
the second coming of Christ, and the transition to the
eternal state.
The restoration promises were connected with the
return from exile. To what extent were these predic-
tions fulfilled after the Babylonian captivity? Cyrus
granted the privilege of return to "all his people"
(Ezra 1:3), which would include any worshiper of
Jehovah from the northern tribes also. And under that
and subsequent edicts several groups of exiles did re-
turn. They rebuilt the Temple and reconstituted the
Jewish state under their own law (Ezra 6:14, 15; 7:11-
26) subject to Persia, of course. But the books of
Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi show
how they fell short of the restoration envisioned under
the new covenant.
Their zeal for the law found expression in legalism
and exclusiveness rather than in seeking the Spirit of
God. The promise of the return was fulfilled; but the
return was limited. Even the Temple that they built
was but a modest edifice in comparison with the former.
The glorious kingdom was not realized in the semi-
autonomous state under the Persian Empire and under
the Macedonian rule, or in the brief interval of inde-
pendence under the Maccabean rulers. Finally came
the subjection to Rome.
9. MESSIAH'S KINGDOM OFFERED AND REJECTED.
Then came the Messiah. The Carpenter of Nazareth
began to preach, "The time is fulfilled, and the king-
dom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15). What Jesus offered
226 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
was the blessing of the new covenant, of the renewed
heart, of the Spirit within. But this seemed a disap-
pointment to most of the Jews. They had so long set
their hearts on the material aspects of the kingdom
prophecies that they had forgotten the spiritual. They
wanted independence from Rome even vengeance
but they did not want the law of love written in their
'hearts. They wanted the conquest of the Gentiles, but
they were not interested in being a source of blessing to
all nations. They remembered the king who was to sit on
the throne of David, but they had forgotten the Suffer-
ing Servant. Consequently they could not recognize their
Messiah when He came, and had no desire for His king-
dom when He offered it to them.
If the Jews had accepted the new covenant and the
Messiah's proposed kingdom; if, instead of the little
handful of followers that Jesus sent out into the world
to give His message, He might have had the whole
nation, regenerated and dedicated, to use in evange-
lizing the world, what victories, what blessings, what
rewards, might have been theirs under the leadership
of the Son of God. The Lord was even yet ready to use
His chosen people as instruments of blessing, as He had
been in the days of the prophets of old. But they would
not.
10. LITERAL ISRAEL REPLACED BY CHRISTIAN
CHURCH. Jerusalem knew not the time of her visita-
tion, and consequently her house was left to her "des-
olate" (Matt. 23:28), and the rejected Lord wept over
her fate. Though the destruction was delayed forty
years, there was no repentance to avert the nation's
doom. There was no assurance, as before (Jer. 5:10,
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 227
18), that the destruction was to be only temporary.
The servants who had repeatedly abused the proph-
ets had finally crucified the Son of the Owner of the
vineyard, and consequently were dispossessed. The Son
Himself had pronounced sentence upon them: "The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:
43). Many were to come from the east and west to sit
down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the place of
the rejected children of the kingdom (Matt. 8:11, 12).
These were to come from among the Gentiles and
would prove themselves "Abraham's children*' more
truly than the Jews because they "would do the works
of Abraham" (John 9:39).
When the great body of the professed seed of
Abraham the official body rejected their King, the
Mediator of the new covenant, they inevitably cut them-
selves off from the Messianic kingdom and the cove-
nant relationship. The only Jews who retained these
relationships were the remnant (Rom. 11:5), those
who accepted their Messiah and became the nucleus
of the Christian church; these were the true children of
Israel. To them were added the Gentile converts, the
"wild olive" branches who were grafted into the parent
stock in place of the natural branches that had broken
themselves off (Rom. 11:16-24).
Thus the rejection of the nation of Israel did not
invalidate the prophecies or cut off the line of God's
chosen people. "Not as though the word of God hath
taken none effect" but "the children of the flesh" were
replaced by "the children of the promise" (Rom. 9:6,
8) the spiritual seed of Abraham.
228 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
11. NEW TESTAMENT APPLICATIONS OF THE KING-
DOM PROMISES. The children of Abraham "which are
of faith" all who are Christ's, both Jew and Gentile
have thenceforth been heirs of the ancient promises
(Gal. 3:7, 8, 16, 29). Both classes of Abraham's seed,
Jew and Gentile, are to receive the Abrahamic prom-
ises. Paul does not say that the earthly-kingdom prom-
ises to Israel belong to the Jew and heavenly-kingdom
promises to the Christian, but rather he speaks of the
inheritance of the world by all the seed:
"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world,
was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through
the righteousness of faith. . . . Therefore it is of faith ... to
the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only
which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of
Abraham; who Is the father of us all (Rom. 4:13, 16).
Further, the Christian belongs to the kingdom of
Christ (Col. 1:13; James 2:5; Rev. 1:6). Jesus Christ
was promised as the Davidic King in connection with
the new, or everlasting, covenant (Eze. 37:21-28; Luke
1:32, 33; compare Zech. 9:9-11; Matt. 21:4-9). By His sac-
rifice He became the mediator of that covenant (Heb,
8:6-13; 12:24; 13:20; compare Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24;
Luke 22:20). Obviously, then, Christians are heirs of the
new-covenant prophecies and the new-covenant king-
dom.
That the church is now the covenant people, the
chosen people, is clearly indicated by the application
that two New Testament writers make of the original
promise to the children of Israel at Sinai. Peter, ad-
dressing the ''Christians," as they began to be called,
says:
"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood,
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 229
an holy nation, a peculiar people" (1 Peter 2:9). In
writing to Gentile Christians (see verse 10), he is
quoting, almost verbatim, Exodus 19:5, 6 (Peter uses
the identical Greek words for "royal priesthood*' that
occur in the LXX for the Hebrew "kingdom of
priests"). John writes to Christians of Asia Minor about
Jesus, who "hath made us kings and priests [preferred
Greek reading: "a kingdom, priests"] unto God and his
Father" (Rev. 1:6). Again, he describes the redeemed
in heaven as singing to the Lamb, "Thou art worthy"
for tliou "hast made us unto our God kings and priests
[preferred Greek reading: "a kingdom and priests"]"
(Rev. 5:9, 10). Both writers therefore apply to the
Christian church and not specifically to Jewish Chris-
tians the covenant promise made to Israel, a condi-
tional promise that the nation of Israel, by the rejec-
tion of the Messiah, had forfeited.
Why do these inspired writers apply the Israel king-
dom prophecies to the non-Israelite Christians? Is it
not because the true Israel is no longer the Jewish na-
tion, but is rather the Christian church? The fact that
Paul refers to "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18)
implies that there is an Israel not after the flesh. He
makes clear in several passages what he means when he
refers to the true Israel. First, he mentions that not all
Jews belong to Israel "They are not all Israel, which
are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6). Elsewhere he defines a true
Jew: "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; 1 '
rather, he "which is one inwardly; and circumcision is
that of the heart" (Rom. 2:28, 29).
The mark of the true Israelite then, is a circumcised
heart. That this does not refer only to Jews with cir-
230 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
cumcised hearts is clear from verse 26: "If the unclr-
cumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not
his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?"
Therefore a Gentile Christian can be counted as a true,
though not a literal, Israelite. Legalism? How can it be
when God sent His Son "that the righteousness of the
law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom. 8:4)? What he means
by the true circumcision he explains to the Philippians:
"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the
spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confi-
dence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). This sentence may seem
grammatically ambiguous, but in the context it is crystal
clear that Paul is defining true circumcision.
The foregoing statements show clearly that Paul
taught that the true Israel not Israel after the flesh but
Israel after the Spirit is composed of both Jews and
Gentiles, the children not merely of the flesh but of
the promise, circumcised not in the flesh but in the
heart (Rom. 9:8).
Again, Paul addresses Christians who were formerly
Gentiles, and who are still called "uncircumcision"
by the Jews who are such according to the flesh (Eph.
2:11). These Christians were once "aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the cove-
nants of promise" (verse 12). Now, however, in Christ,
through whom they have access to God by the Spirit,
they are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-
citizens with the saints, and of the household of God"
(verse 19). In other words, the Gentiles, in becoming
Christians, cease to be aliens and become fellow citizens,
and heirs of the covenants of promise. Hence Chris-
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 231
tians, gathered from among both Jews and Gentiles,
belong to the true commonwealth of Israel. That is
how "all Israel shall be saved" (Rom. 11:26).
12. FULFILLMENT OF THE KINGDOM PROPHECIES.
The question naturally arises, If the Christian church
is heir of the promises and the covenants, where are we
to look for the fulfillment of all the prophecies that
were not realized by literal Israel? In the early church,
the present, or the future?
Wherever the kingdom prophecies are definitely ap-
plied by New Testament writers to events in the
church, it is obvious that we are safe in following their
inspired interpretative applications. Peter sees Joel's
prediction of visions, dreams, and wonders among the
remnant of Israel fulfilled, at least partially, in the
miracles of the early church under the outpouring of
the Spirit (Acts 2:16-21; compare Joel 2:28-32).
James, in delivering the decision of the church coun-
cil of Jerusalem, quotes a prophecy of Amos concerning
the restoration of Israel and applies it to the first Gen-
tile converts to the church:
Simeon [Simon Peter] hath declared how God at the first
did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
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 (Acts 15:14-17; Cf. Amos 9:11, 12).
In other words, James is saying: Amos' prediction of
what was to happen "after this" * (i.e., after Amos' day)
*CuriousIy, the words "after this" and "return and" are not In the Hebrew of
Amos 9:11, which begins: "In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David."
232 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
has now begun to meet its fulfillment In the conversion
of the Gentiles in the apostle Peter's day. That is, the
prophecy of the restoration of the house of David, and
of the Gentiles' seeking after the Lord, is now being
fulfilled by the expansion of the church to include the
Gentiles. The passage quoted from Amos Is a prophecy
of the restoration of Israel's Davidlc kingdom and the
incorporation of the "Gentiles" into that kingdom
(Amos 9:11, 12); but James obviously applies it figura-
tively to the building up of the church of Christ the
Son of David.
Peter finds In Isaiah's "corner stone" (Isa. 28:16) a
prediction of Jesus as the chief cornerstone (1 Peter
2:6) of the "spiritual house" in which the Christians
are built as "lively stones [E.R.V., "living stones"]" and
as a "holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices"
(verse 5).
Paul, In one short passage (2 Cor. 6:16-18), quotes
from several prophecies connected with the new cove-
nant and the restoration promised to ancient Israel
phrases borrowed from Jeremiah 31:33 (compare
Jer. 32:38; Eze. 11:19, 20; 37:27); Isaiah 52:11; and
Jeremiah 31:9.
The fulfillments to the church of the present age are
of course figurative. Many of the prophecies unrealized
in Old Testament times are to be fulfilled, some of
Either James's phrase "return and build" is quoted from a different text of Amos
or it is a paraphrase, exactly parallel to the common Hebrew idiom in which the
verb "return" (shub, "to turn back") is often used to express either a reversal of
attitude or a mere, repetition. That is, to "return and do" something, can mean
merely to do it again. The K.J.V. sometimes translates the phrase literally, as: "I
returned, and considered all the oppressions" (Eccl. 4:1; compare 4:7; y:ll); "I
will return, and have compassion" (Jer. 12:15) ; "Who knoweth if he will return and
repent?" (Joel 2:14). Very often "return and" is simply translated "again," as:
"He built again [margin: Heb. "he returned and built"] the high places which
Hezekiah his father had broken down" (2 Chron. 33:3).
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 233
them literally, In connection with, or after, the second
coming of Christ. But the fact that inspired writers have
made figurative applications shows that we cannot re-
quire a literalness in detail.
The Christian church, then, is a "holy nation,"
composed not of a single race or nationality, but of
every individual who is voluntarily under the new-cove-
nant relationship with his Lord. Therefore its blessings
cannot be those of national prosperity, territorial hold-
ings, or victories over invaders. Ezekiel's promise of the
deliverance of postexilic Israel from the hosts of Gog
was not fulfilled literally, but in the Apocalypse is ap-
plied to the final destruction of the enemies of God and
of His people after the millennium.
The glorious Temple pictured by Ezekiel is not ful-
filled literally in the church, and cannot be, for the sac-
rificial types and shadows ceased in the antitypical sacri-
fice of Christ on Calvary's cross. Instead we have the
priestly ministry of the Son of God in the sanctuary
"not made with hands," in heaven itself.
Furthermore, the promise to Abraham that his seed
should be heirs of the world, as well as the prophecies of
the abundance and peace of Eden restored, will both
find their actual fulfillment when the saints inherit the
earth made new.
The Christian church, drawn from all nations,
rather than from the Jewish nation, is now the vehicle
for bringing God's blessing to the world. Its head is
Christ, the Son of David, who now rules in the hearts of
His people, and will, one day, rule in person in His
eternal kingdom. It is "the kingdom of God . . . within
you" (Luke 17:21), which "cometh not with observa-
234 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
tion [margin, "outward show"]" (verse 20), but grows
like a mustard seed (Matt. 13:31, 32). Such is the spirit-
ual kingdom to which we must now belong if we are to
enjoy the blessings of the future kingdom of glory.
Thus the kingdom prophecies will finally be fulfilled,
not in the presence of sin and repentance, birth and
death, war and plague, but in the new earth. And the
final fulfillment in the eternal kingdom of Christ will
surpass everything promised to the Israel of old.
13. JEW AND GENTILE IN THE KINGDOM. In holding
that the kingdom belongs to the Christian church, we
do not thereby deny the kingdom to the Jew. The heirs
of the Abrahamic promise of the kingdom embrace all
the spiritual seed all who are Christ's, all who are
saved by the blood of the everlasting covenant both
Jew and Gentile. Thus any Jew may, as a believer in
the Messiah, participate in the millennial reign of the
saints as well as in the eternal kingdom of Christ. No
Jew, as a Jeiv, may lay claim to an earthly, national mil-
lennial kingdom on the basis of the Old Testament
kingdom prophecies.
14. THE QUESTION OF THE JEWISH STATE. Let it
be emphatically stated here that Seventh-day Adventist
rejection of the widely held belief in a divinely prom-
ised future Jewish world-kingdom does not justify the
charge of "anti-Jewish bias," or of blindness to the
political fact of the new Jewish state of Israel. Our
prophetic interpretation does not involve either. We be-
lieve from Scripture, as has already been set forth, that
the ancient Jews forfeited their kingdom and their
special status as God's chosen people (see Matt. 21:43;
compare Jer. 18:6-10). Yet we also believe, from Scrip-
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 235
ture, that the Jew has equal status with every other
human being, and equal eligibility to the benefits of the
gospel of salvation (Rom. 10:12, 13). We consequently
invite all, Jew and Gentile, to prepare with us to meet
the coming King. That relatively few Jews have thus far
accepted the offer of salvation through Christ Is a matter
of deep regret. It Is our earnest hope, and to this end
we pray, that many more will do so In these last days.
We would rejoice if every living Jew were to accept
Christ and thus have a part along with those from all
nations, In the promised kingdom.
The existence of the modern state of Israel Is no more
valid evidence that the Jews, as a nation, are yet to ful-
fill the kingdom prophecies In Palestine, than was the
British rule over that land a proof of the Anglo-Israel
interpretation, which claims that the Anglo-Saxon and
related peoples are the "true Israel," and thus heirs of
the divinely promised kingdom. And our denial of
both claims makes us neither anti-Jewish nor anti-
British. We are not anti- any race or people on earth.
But we believe that the state of Israel cannot claim
ownership of the land of Palestine on the ground of
Biblical promises. The question of mere territorial
claims must be determined by international law. There
is no justifiable reason for mingling our prophetic in-
terpretation with such an international political prob-
lem. We are to present the Christian message, and
extend Christian sympathy and Christian justice, to all
impartially. We are not to let our theology tip the scales
of justice toward Jew or Christian, Moslem or pagan.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that it is the mission
of the Christian church to send the "everlasting gospel
236 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
... to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and
people/* and to set before them the high privilege of
membership in the kingdom of God,
15. PROPHECIES AFFECTING THE CHURCH AGE.
Since we hold, on New Testament grounds* that the
church is the heir of the new covenant and the king-
dom (as, let it be noted, has been the belief of the
church throughout the centuries, unchallenged until
modern times), we find a continuity of the covenant,
the promises, and the prophecies in the church age,
(After all, "New Testament" simply means "new cov-
enant.") Jesus addressed Himself "to the Jew first/'
and had they accepted Him, He would undoubtedly
have made the whole Jewish nation, not merely a hand-
ful of disciples, the nucleus of His kingdom. But this
fact does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the
Sermon on the Mount, the prophecy of Matthew 24,
and indeed the major portion of the teachings of Jesus,
were addressed to the Jewish nation rather than to the
Christian church of which He. is the chief cornerstone.
We take the New Testament as a harmonious whole,
with Gospels, Epistles, and Apocalypse, addressed to
the Christian church, in which both Jew and Gentile
are one.
The new covenant, first offered by the prophets of
old in connection with the kingdom promises, was me-
diated by Christ (Heb. 9:15), ratified by His blood
(Heb. 13:20), typified in the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:
16), and reiterated in the Epistles. Thus it became a
reality in the church, and the new-covenant kingdom
exists now in its first phase, which is commonly called
the "kingdom of grace," until at the second advent it
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 237
will become the visible ''kingdom of glory," which
will continue on after the millennium as the eternal
kingdom established on the new earth.
Since we see a continuity in covenant, promise, and
prophecy, we do not regard the Christian Era as an
interim dispensation between past and future Jewish
dispensations, or as a gap in prophecy. We therefore
look for prophetic fulfillments in the present age; and
because we find them there, we are rightly classified as
historicists in prophetic interpretation.
16. THE CONSUMMATION OF PROPHECY. We find
further strong implications for the continuous view of
prophecy in the teachings of Jesus. He told His fol-
lowers of events before they came to pass in order that,
when they did come to pass, His people might believe
(John 13:19). When asked about the destruction of the
Temple, and the end of the world, or age (Matt 24:3),
Jesus spoke to His disciples of the beginning of sor-
rows the false christs, the wars, and calamities and
He equated Daniel's "abomination of desolation" with
the surrounding of Jerusalem by armies, as a sign that
they should flee for safety (Matt. 24:15, 16; compare
Luke 21:20, 21). Heeding this warning (Matt. 24:
16-18), the early Christians escaped, and saved their
lives by flight preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in
A.D. 70. He told His disciples to watch for the signs of
the nearness of His coming. All this indicates that Jesus
expected them to be constantly on the lookout for the
fulfillment of prophecy throughout the Christian Era.
This is in direct conflict with the concept that there
were to be no fulfillments until after the removal of
the church from the earth.
238 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Furthermore, we see the outline prophecies of the
successive kingdoms, of Daniel 2 and 7, in process of
continuous fulfillment in history, from the time of the
Neo-Baby Ionian Empire onward. And similarly, with
the seventy weeks of years (Daniel 9) reaching their
culmination in the time of Christ the Messiah. Not only
that, but we find the apostles applying Old Testament
prophecies to the Christian church of their own day.
Since, then, we do not find in the kingdom prophecies,
the outline prophecies, and the teachings of Christ
and the apostles any justification for divorcing proph-
ecy from the church age, we look for and find historical
fulfillments throughout the centuries. In other words,
we are historicist premillennialists.
III. Implications of the Kingdom Prophecies
It will be seen, in this section, that the interpreta-
tion of the kingdom prophecies provides the key not
only to the differences between varying views on the
millennium, but also to other factors apparently unre-
lated.
I. CHURCH VIEW OF THE KINGDOM. Note first the
implications of the premise that has been generally held
in the Christian church throughout the centuries,
namely, that when the Jews rejected Christ they were
rejected as a nation, and that thenceforth the true
chosen people of covenant and promise the saints, the
"holy nation" is the church, composed of all true
Christian believers, whether Jew or Gentile. (See Acts
15:13-18; I.Peter 2:9.)
Those who hold this premise as true must, if con-
sistent, hold the following ten corollaries as also true:
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 239
(1) The "saints" who are persecuted by antichrist
are not the Jewish nation but Christians, both Jew and
Gentile. Thus antichrist must come during the Chris-
tian Era, or "church age," and not after.
(2) The Christian church is present on earth during
the tribulation inflicted by antichrist; thus there can
be no pretribulation "rapture" of the saints.
(3) There is no future period allotted to the Jewish
nation as God's chosen people; thus the fulfillment of
the seventieth week cannot be a yet-future Jewish
period marked by the ending of the restored Temple
sacrifices; it must consequently have been fulfilled in
the past, most fittingly at the death of Christ. See
Question 26.
(4) The future kingdom on earth cannot belong to
the Jews as a people, but to the Christian saints, both
Jew and Gentile, the true chosen people; thus the
present return of the Jews to Palestine is not a fore-
runner of the prophesied kingdom.
(5) The fulfillment of the Old Testament kingdom
prophecies is not to be expected in exact literal detail
in the Christian church or spiritual Israel, as it would
have been experienced by the Jews of ancient times
if they had not forfeited their special status.
(6) The church age cannot be considered merely a
"gap" between two Jewish ages a period in which
"the prophetic clock stopped ticking"*; thus prophetic
fulfillments are to be expected continuously throughout
Christian history.
(7) The fulfillments symbolized by the "little horn,"
*H. A. Ironsides, The Great Parenthesis, 1943. p. 23.
240 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
of Daniel's fourth beast, are to be sought within the
Christian age, not after a long gap in prophecy; thus
there is no reason for a long gap between the Roman
fourth empire and the rise of the little horn.
(8) The fulfillment of the "falling away/' and the
"man of sin" sitting in the "temple of God" (2 Thess.
2:3, 4), cannot rightly be connected with the Jewish
Temple; therefore, it must refer to the Christian
church. Thus it refers to an apostasy in the Christian
church and an antichrist which arises in the church.
(9) The "kingdom" teachings of Jesus, as well as of
the rest of the New Testament, belong to the church,
not to the Jews (Matthew 5-7; 24; etc.).
(10) The church is heir to the new covenant, under
which God's law is to be written in the heart by the
Holy Spirit. This law is not the Jewish national and
ceremonial law, which expired at the cross, but rather
the moral law, which, as the Westminster Confession
says, is "summarily comprehended in the Ten Com-
mandments."
2. THE KEY TO THE ADVENTIST VIEW. This pres-
entation sets forth the basic difference between the
Seventh-day Adventist historicist-premillennialist view
and those of the amillennialists, postmillennialists, and
futurist premillennialists. It will be seen that the key
lies in the very concept of prophetic interpretation, and
specifically in the approach to the so-called kingdom
prophecies.
We disagree with the postmillennialist and amillen-
nialist concept that prophecy as applied to the king-
dom prophecies and the millennium is wholly figura-
tive. Such an interpretation robs the predictions of
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 241
specific meaning. We likewise disagree with the futur-
ist view, which seems to imply irrevocable decree in
prophecy, to exclude or at least minimize any condi-
tional prophecy, and to demand literal fulfillment for
literal Israel in the future if not in the past. Such a
concept is the root of futurism, pretribulationism, and
dispensationalism. Seventh-day Adventists have little in
common with postmillennialists, but they stand be-
tween the amillennialists and the futurists, agreeing
partly with both.
Adventists, though sometimes charged with failing
to "rightly divide" between the Jew and the church,
avoid the two extremes of over-figurative and over-
literal interpretation by a view that we believe is based
on "rightly dividing" between the different types of
prophecy. Holding to the "sure word of prophecy,"
we deny the "decree" definition and the literalist con-
cept of prediction in general. We find in Scripture that
some prophetic messages such as the kingdom proph-
ecies given originally in a local, more immediate set-
ting might be only partially or not at all fulfilled in
their primary context, and yet be fulfilled in a remote
time under different circumstances and in a different
manner. In particular, the kingdom prophecies regard-
ing Israel belong in a category separate from other pre-
dictions of decree or foreknowledge because they were
conditional on man's actions. These were "either/or"
alternatives of promised blessing and threatened pen-
alty to Israel. As the Jews forfeited the blessing, they
received the alternate penalty, and are today scattered
among the nations.
Adventists do not, as the amillennialists have been
242 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
accused of doing, make the rewards to Israel figur-
ative and the punishments literal. Like the futurists we
hold that the promises made to Israel were as literal as
were the warnings. The promises would all have been
literally fulfilled if the Jews had not, through disobedi-
ence, forfeited them. They will, however, be ultimately
fulfilled in principle to true Israel, for ancient Israel's
failure as a nation could not frustrate the purposes of
God. In place of the Jewish "branches," that were cut
off, the Gentile converts were "grafted in," along with
the natural branches that had accepted the Messiah
(Rom. 11:24). Thus the spiritual children of Abraham,
both Jew and Gentile, become "heirs according to the
promise" (Gal. 3:29). We do not feel justified in mak-
ing unlimited figurative applications; we must limit
such applications to those given us by inspiration. Where
we find the Old Testament prophecies unfolded in the
New, we surely have a right to make the application,
and there we find the ultimate fulfillment of the king-
dom prophecies.
Seventh-day Adventists admittedly write and preach
less on the kingdom prophecies than on the outline
prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, and for very
good reason. The latter present many specific and de-
tailed predictions that we believe can be seen fulfilled
in history, or are in process of fulfillment in our own
day. The past fulfillments strengthen faith in the
divine inspiration of the Word. And the fulfillments
unfolding before our eyes are needed to fortify us
against the deceptions and trials of the last days.
The teaching that the Jews as a nation are no longer
God's chosen people, and that the Christian church is
PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION 243
now heir to the promises is, we feel, sound scriptural
doctrine, good historic Protestant theology and interpre-
tation, as well as standard Adventist teaching.
To us it seems less helpful to the average man to pre-
sent the kingdom prophecies than to present Christ
and Him crucified, and to warn the sinner against the
fatal delusions of these last days.
The preaching of prophecy is for the one purpose
of uplifting Christ who is the center of all prophecy,
and under the influence of the Spirit of God to prepare
men for His glorious coming as King of kings and
Sovereign Lord.
Christ Pre-eminent in Daniel 8 and 9
QUESTION 23
Why do Seventh-day Adventtsts place so
much stress upon the prophecies, especially of
Daniel S and 9? Should we not rather center
our emphasis and affection on Jesus Christ and
on salvation through faith in Him? Are not the
disappointed hopes of 1844 a rather shaky foun-
dation upon which to base your expectation of
the imminent coming of our Lord?
The prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, which Seventh-
day Adventists believe to be inseparably tied together,
are precious to us for the simple reason that we under-
stand their primary purpose to be the setting forth of
Jesus Christ as our atoning sacrifice, made on Calvary
nineteen centuries ago, and our mediating priest in
heaven through the subsequent centuries, preparatory
to His coming again as the eternal King of kings in
supernal glory.
We believe that chapters 8 and 9 are inseparably
related to each other, in that they lead up to, and in-
volve, respectively, the wondrous preparatory events
and glorious provisions of the first and second advents
of Jesus Christ our Lord. And to us these two advents
form the two interrelated centers, or foci, of God's
244
CHRIST IN DANIEL 8 AND 9 245
redemptive provisions for man.* They thus constitute
the focal points of time and eternity. To us there is no
greater unfolding of the gospel provisions in all the
prophetic Word than is revealed here.
At the first advent the incarnate Son of God lived a
matchless, sinless life among men, as God's great serv-
ant and revealer, and as our example. Then, as the
Lamb of God, He died a vicarious, atoning, reconciling
death for a lost world (2 Cor. 5:19). And this tre-
mendous redemptive act took place in the "midst"
of Daniel's prophesied seventieth "week" of years.
This transcendent event certified before the entire
universe the integrity of the multiple promises of
redemption in Christ. And it was attested by His
triumphant resurrection from the dead and His ascen-
sion into heaven, where, as our great High Priest, He
ministers in the presence of God the benefits of the
atonement made on Calvary. And we believe that, ac-
cording to promise and prophecy, He entered upon
the second, final, and judgment phase of that heavenly
ministry when the great span of the 2300 year-days
ended in 1844, as foretold in Daniel 8:14.
At the conclusion of His work as mediator, we under-
stand that human probation will end forever, with
every case settled for eternity and with the justice and
righteousness of God vindicated before all the created
intelligences of the universe. This, we understand, will
be followed by Christ's second personal appearing, in
*At the first advent Christ offered Himself without spot unto God (Heb. 9:14),
to purge our sins and reconcile us to God by His own atoning death. This laid the
foundation for all the redemptive provisions to follow. And at the second advent
He comes for the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:23), and for the eternal re-
moval of every vestige of the consequences of sin. Around these two centers cluster
His complete work of redemption.
246 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
power and glory, to raise the righteous dead to im-
mortality, and at the same time to translate the right-
eous living (1 Cor. 15:51-54). Both groups of the
redeemed those resurrected and those translated
will then be caught up together to meet the Lord in
the air, evermore to be with Him (1 Thess. 4:17).
That, to us, is the glorious tie-in and wondrous rev-
elation of these two chapters. They portray, and in-
volve, the Lord's miraculous incarnation, sinless life,
divinely attested anointing, atoning death, triumphant
resurrection, literal ascension, mediatorial ministry
and then His glorious return to gather His saints to be
with Him forevermore. This we conceive to be the very
heart and fullness of the gospel. That is why we love to
dwell upon these prophetic chapters, which set forth
the two wondrous advents of our Lord, and their inter-
related aspects of redemption.
The intervening centuries of the Christian Era since
the cross, now nearing their fateful close, are here
uniquely unfolded in prophetic outline that we may
understand the sequence of events, which are anchored
to an immovable beginning date. Thus we are enabled
to know the times, or latter days, in which we live in
the outworking of God's great plan of redemption for
all men in all ages.
Prophecy is basically the revelation of the redemp-
tive activity of God in and through Jesus Christ. These
chapters are therefore most precious to us, as they
form the prophetic keystone in the imposing arch of
complete and glorious salvation through Jesus Christ.
This, to us, is not honoring and loving Christ less, but
is simply another revelation, not too commonly stressed
CHRIST IN DANIEL 8 AND 9 247
today, of our incomparable Lord and Saviour. That is
why we, as Seventh-day Adventists, have such a deep
interest and profound belief in the majestic outline of
the prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9.
As to the second question concerning the "disap-
pointment" of 1844 we feel that these two chapters
not only portray the events leading up to the two ad-
vents, but that each was accompanied by a grave ini-
tial misunderstanding and disappointment. The first
was experienced by the disciple band in connection
with Jesus' death on the cross as the Lamb of God.
The other was experienced by those who expected the
return of their Lord in glory in 1844, and who then,
like the disciples, discovered their error of interpre-
tation as to the event predicted. When the disciples
saw Jesus die on the cross, they were bitterly disap-
pointed. Their hopes were crushed, for they were per-
suaded that Jesus was the promised Messiah, as attested
by His anointing by the Holy Spirit. They had heard
Him declare that the prophetic "time" for His ap-
pearance was "fulfilled" (Mark 1:15). Doubtless He
was referring to the close of the sixty-nine weeks of
years and the beginning of the seventieth week of
Daniel's prophecy. They had witnessed His death at the
specified time, but did not understand the significance
of His atoning sacrifice until after the resurrection.
Somehow, they had been unable to grasp the idea
that He would be "cut off" by violent death in the
"midst" of that final week of years of the great Mes-
sianic prophecy. They had thought He would, at that
time, restore the earthly kingdom to Israel, and that
they would share prominently in His glorious reign.
248 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
When, Instead, He went to trial and rejection, and to
death on Golgotha, their hopes died with Him. And
when they tenderly laid His bruised body in the tomb,
their hopes, they believed, were buried beyond recall.
But everything was changed when He rose trium-
phantly from His sacrificial death. He Himself then
unfolded to them all the prophecies concerning His
life and death and resurrection. After His ascension,
they sensed that their great disappointment in His
death at the appointed time as well as His resurrec-
tion, and ascension to minister as heavenly priest for
man was all of God's appointment. And this sequence
of redemptive events was Indeed the foundation upon
which the Christian church Itself was built. The time
was correct, but the anticipated event the setting up
of the kingdom of glory was wrong. Christ was not at
that time to take the throne, but was Instead to suffer
death as our atoning sacrifice, and then as our mediat-
ing priest, to minister that sacrifice In heaven for man.
Not until the appointed end of the age was He to
return as conquering king. All then became clear,
simple, and reasonable. It was simply the outworking
of the immutable purpose of God, fully foretold by
the prophets of old.
Similarly, we believe that the Advent band of 1844,
with eyes fixed on another "time" feature the end of
the related 2300 year-days mistakenly looked for
Christ to appear at that time as King of kings and
Lord of lords, to take the throne and reign forever-
more. But such an expectation was similarly without
warrant, either In promise or In prophecy. Christ, our
mediating heavenly priest, was simply to enter at the
CHRIST IN DANIEL 8 AND 9 249
appointed time upon the final, or judgment, phase of
His twofold priestly ministry, indicated by the cleans-
ing, vindicating, or justifying judgment feature that
marks the close of the 2300 years before His coming
as King of kings in power and great glory. And this
coming we understand, will not take place until after
the close of human probation and the end of Christ's
priestly ministry.
The disappointment of the Advent believers of
1844 was, we believe, in a sense analogous to the disap-
pointment of the disciples in their expectation that
Christ would set up His kingdom at His first advent.
They were both correct on their respective time empha-
sis, as based on the fulfillment of prophetic time
periods, but were both totally wrong as to the event to
take place. Nevertheless, God's great plan of complete
redemption through Jesus Christ moved on toward its
majestic close, meticulously fulfilling each of the multi-
ple predictions, which have been carried out without
deviation, in accordance with God's eternal purpose in
Christ.
We do not consent, therefore, that the Adventist
Church simply sprang out of a mistaken concept on
the part of multiplied thousands, scattered all through
the leading churches of the Old World and the New,
regarding the imminence of the second advent, any
more than we admit that the apostolic church grew
out of the mistaken concept of events that marked the
first advent of Christ.
In both cases the transient human misconception
was but a passing incident, which quickly gave way
to those enduring foundation truths that constituted the
250 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
occasion of, and afford the full justification for, the
developments that followed. In each instance it re-
sulted in a clearer understanding of our Lord and His
redemptive work for man.
An emphasis on time was justifiable in each case, for
the prophetic Word had indicated that something of
great importance was about to take place. In each
instance the truth was beclouded by human miscon-
ception. But the initial disappointment was speedily
followed by clarifying light. In each episode, despite
mistaken initial expectations, a tremendous fulfillment
had actually taken place In the wondrous outworking
of Christ's redemptive activity for man.
Thus it was that early error over the order of
events was soon superseded by abiding knowledge and
truth. The brief initial mistake of each group was
quickly supplanted by a clear understanding of God's
purpose. Confusion over the sequence of events in God's
unfolding plan of redemption was soon clarified by a
clear grasp of the divine outline of God's perfect plan
of redemption. The faith of Adventism is therefore
anchored in the perfection of God's revealed plan and
purpose, not In the imperfection of man's knowledge
and understanding.
Our hope and expectation is built on divine cer-
tainties, not on human frailties. It Is founded on the
established facts of divine revelation, not on a transient
human misapplication. It is based upon the undeviat-
ing, sovereign purpose of God, not on the faulty,
limited concepts of man. Such is the solid foundation of
our advent hope and expectation. That Is where we
place the emphasis on God's omnipotent, unchanging
CHRIST IN DANIEL 8 AND 9 251
faithfulness, not on man's faltering limitations. We do
not censure the apostles for their mistake, for we see
the hand of God behind it all, leading them out of the
dark. Nor do we censure our own forefathers, for again
we see the hand of God leading through their early
disappointment. What at first was a terrible embarrass-
ment, quickly became a movement marked by the
blessing of Heaven.
This, then, is our faith: Christ has been moving for-
ward from phase to phase in His all-encompassing work
for the redemption of sin-alienated, lost mankind. Not
one feature, or provision, has failed, or will fail. Our
hope and our triumph are wholly in Him.
Problems Pertaining to Daniel 8
QUESTION 24
What scriptural and historical basis do
Seventh-day Adventists have for teaching (1) that
the 2300 days ("evenings-mornings") of Daniel
8:14 symbolize years; (2) that the little horn
coming out of one of the four horns of the he-
goat (verse 9) stands for Rome; and (3) that the
sanctuary of verses 11-14, which was to be trod-
den underfoot and then be "cleansed," or " justi-
fied," is the heavenly sanctuary? Are you not
practically alone in holding such a concept?
As these questions all pertain to the vision of
Daniel 8, it will be desirable to survey the chapter as
a whole, in order to have the background for our posi-
tion on these related points.
1. A SURVEY OF CHAPTER 8. Daniel here gives a
consecutive account of the prophetic symbolism dra-
matically portrayed before him in vision. But along
with this fact it should be borne in mind that this
chapter parallels the vision of the four-part metallic
image of chapter 2, symbolizing four world empires,
and the four beast-kingdoms of Daniel 7, which also
portray Babylonia, Medo-Persia,* Grecia, and Rome.
*This compound name -is employed in conformity with the angelic interpreta-
tion ("Media and Persia," verse 20), and to emphasize the fact that neither here
252
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 253
The major difference is that the vision of chapter 8
begins with Medo-Persia.
Daniel first sees a ram with two horns. This is ex-
plicitly identified by the interpreting angel as Medo-
Persia, with Persia predominant (compare verses 3,
4, and 20). It pushed, or butted, westward, north-
ward, and southward, increasing in power and working
out its own will.
Next, a shaggy "he goat" came with astonishing
speed from the west. This represented Greco-Mace-
donia (compare verses 5 and 21), the goat being the
national emblem of Greece, just as the ram was the
identifying emblem of Medo-Persia. The Grecian
goat's "notable" horn signified this kingdom under
Alexander the Great (verses 5, 21), whose dominion
extended from Greco-Macedonia to northwestern India,
and from Egypt to beyond the Caspian Sea the largest
empire the world had yet known. There can be no valid
question as to the identification, Inasmuch as it is given
by inspiration.
Then in 323 B.C., at the height of his power,
Alexander died. At first the leading generals tried to
organize the vast territory under regencies in the
name of Alexander's half-witted half brother and
Alexander's posthumous son. But after two decades of
intermittent warfare between rivals, the two strongest
bidders for centralized power were decisively defeated
nor elsewhere does Daniel conceive of an independently existing Median Empire
a prerequisite to the "Grecian View" of the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7,
which will be discussed under Question 28. The term "Medo-Persia" is currently
employed by such conservative scholars as Robert D. Culver (1944), Edward J.
Young (1949), Herbert C. Leupold ^1949), and the Catholic Commentary (1955J,
as well as a large number of earlier men, such as Charles Boutflower (1922),
Charles H. Wright (1906), and a host of great scholars, such as Keil (1869) ana
Zockler (1870), and reaching back to Reformation times.
254 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
by a coalition of four who divided the empire into four
kingdoms. These divisions (three of which survived
as the monarchies of Macedonia, Egypt, and Syria, until
the Romans took over) remarkably fulfilled the pro-
phetic specifications of four horns toward the four points
of the compass Ptolemy holding Egypt, Palestine, and
part of Syria, toward the south; Cassander ruling Mac-
edonia and Greece in the west; Lysimachus supreme
in Thrace and portions of Asia Minor, to the north;
and Seleucus ruling from Babylonia and Assyria east-
ward. See Cambridge Ancient History (1928-38), vol.
6, pp. 462, 482, 483, 492, 498, 499, 502.
Then appeared a horn, out of one of them, distinct
from the goat's previous four horns, one that from
littleness became " exceeding great." It was seen sweep-
ing southward (encompassing Egypt), eastward (ab-
sorbing Syria), and embracing Palestine, the "pleasant
land" (verse 9). It took on amazing proportions. And
this, we believe in harmony with numerous recog-
nized contemporary, and most past, authorities sym-
bolized Rome. Rome's pagan and later papal phases
are evidently embraced under the one symbol.
This is further evidenced by the fact that chapter 8
parallels the visions of chapters 2 and 7 Daniel 2 set-
ting forth the civil side, and Daniel 7 introducing the
religious aspect. And in each of these repeating por-
trayals the first three world powers Babylonia, Medo-
Persia, and Grecia were literally and historically
followed by the Roman Empire in its pagan and papal
phases.* The West now became the seat of the empire,
*We are in agreement with Charles Boutflower (In and Around the Book of
Daniel [1923], p. 293), who says: "Daniel's Fourth Kingdom is the Roman power:
IN DANIEL 8 255
with Italy occupying the central place. We consequently
hold that this horn refers to the greatness and power of
Rome.
2. EARTHLY ANB HEAVENLY SANCTUARIES INVOLVED.
Because of the striking parallels between the proph-
ecies of Daniel 2, 7, and 8, and because of inescapable
historical similarity and continuity between the Roman
Empire and the Roman Church, Adventists believe that
the "little horn" of Daniel 8:9 represents both pagan
and papal Rome.
Accordingly, the activities attributed to this "little
horn" in Daniel 8:10-13, 23-25; 11:31; and 12:11 are to
be understood as embracing both pagan and papal Rome
in their scope.
Inasmuch as the 2300 "days," interpreted as years
(see section 6), reach far beyond the time of the earthly
sanctuary, we believe they refer to the "greater and more
perfect" heavenly sanctuary, of which the earthly was the
"figure," described in Hebrews 8 and 9. We also believe
that the Hebrew word tamid, the "daily" in the book
of Daniel (chs. 8:11-13 and 11:31), denotes the daily, or
continual, services of the "sanctuary," inasmuch as the
word tamid appears in connection with the sanctuary.
We therefore believe that the "sanctuary" of Daniel 8:
11-14 must involve both the earthly and the heavenly
sanctuaries. And similarly, the "daily" must represent
: in its earlier stage as a consular and imperial power, and then in its later
e, when as the 'little horn' it depicted the Papacy."
\dolph Harnack (What Is Christianity? [1903], p. 270), presses the point that,
first
stage,
Aclo... ,.. - , . , _ - ,
after the Roman Empire's disappearance, the Roman Church, under the Roman
bishop, "pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is
the actual continuation," simply remodeling its form but governing the nations with
the pope as overlord, and as the successor of Caesar's Pontifex Maximus.
Gibbon also phrases it well when he suggests that pagan Rome disappeared, only
to reappear as papal Rome. Hundreds of able scholars have held the same position.
256 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
the dally regular, or "continual," services of both sanc-
tuaries where involved. In like manner, the "trans-
gression of desolation" surely represents the activities
of both pagan and papal Rome that render such daily
services inoperative or ineffective. Therefore the ques-
tion "How long?" (of verse 13) and the answer "Unto
two thousand and three hundred days" (in verse 14)
obviously include both. And by parity of reasoning,
the "host" must include both Jews and Christians, dur-
ing the respective parts of the 2300 prophetic days
when each sanctuary is operative.
3. TWOFOLD TAKING AWAY OF DAILY. It is ob-
vious that the activities of pagan Rome were concerned
primarily with the earthly sanctuary, or Jewish Tem-
ple, while those of papal Rome must concern the
heavenly sanctuary. Christ Himself applies "the abomi-
nation that maketh desolate/' of Daniel 11:31, to the
desolation of the earthly Temple by the Roman armies
in A.D. 70 (Matt. 24:1-3, 15-20; Luke 21:20). But
Daniel 11:31 is obviously parallel to Daniel 8:11, 13,
as both refer to the sanctuary and its desolation, and to
the "daily," or continual, and its being taken away.
Christ thus applies Daniel 8:13, 14, in part, to the
Temple in Jerusalem.
We therefore believe, first, that the taking away of
the "daily" by pagan Rome represents the desolation
of the Temple in A.D. 70, with the permanent cessation
of its services (see Dan. 8:11, 13; 11:31; compare
Matt. 24:1-3, 15-30; Luke 21:20); and second, that the
taking away of the "daily" by papal Rome represents
the introduction of such papal innovations as a mediat-
ing priesthood, the sacrifice of the mass, the confes-
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 257
sional, and the worship of Mary,* by which it has
successfully taken away knowledge of, and reliance
upon, the continual ministry of Christ in the heavenly
sanctuary, and rendered that ministry inoperative in the
lives of millions of professed Christians. (See Heb. 7:
25; 8:1-5; 9:24; etc.)
4. ROME FULFILLS FURTHER SPECIFICATIONS. This
application of the "exceeding great" horn to Rome is
further confirmed by the fact that Rome fulfilled pre-
cisely the other specifications of Daniel 8. For example,
Rome "stamped" upon the people of God (Dan. 8:10),
relentlessly persecuting them throughout the centuries
in pagan times through tyrants, such as Nero, Domi-
tian, and Diocletian, and just as tragically under the
succeeding papal phase. Moreover, pagan Rome stood
up against the Prince of princes (verse 25), who we
believe to be Christ (compare Acts 3:15; Rev. 1:5),
for it was a Roman governor who condemned Jesus,
and Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross,
pierced His side, and placed a Roman seal on His tomb.
Again, Rome in its later papal form trampled and
desecrated the provisions of God's sanctuary in heaven,
by taking away knowledge of, and dependence upon,
Christ's "daily," or continual, ministry as High Priest
in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 7:25; 1 John 2:1).
It has nullified reliance on the true atoning sacrifice of
Christ on Calvary, once-for-all and all-sufficient, by
substituting and repeating the daily sacrifice of the
mass on thousands of earthly altars. It has thus obscured
*On page 44 of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen's The Eternal Galilean (1954), appear
the words: "Dedicated to Mary Mother of God, Queen of the Seven Swords,
Advocate of Sinners at the Triune Throne, Daughter of the Father, Mother of the
Son, Spouse of the Holy Ghost." (Emphasis supplied.)
258 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
and mutilated the true worship of God, substituting
the compulsory authority and enforced unity of a
visible church for the voluntary and true unity of all
believers in Christ His mystical body or church. And
it has imposed the authority of the visible pope in
place of Christ, who guides and directs His church by
His own designated vicegerent or representative, the
Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 17; 16:7, 13).
Further, as already indicated, the Papacy has inter-
posed the barrier of a human priesthood between the
worshiper and Christ, in place of direct access by all to
Christ our great High Priest. And it has instituted and
established a system of salvation by human works in
place of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone, sub-
stituting an earthly confessional in place of confession
of our sins directly to Christ in His sanctuary in heaven.
In this way the truth concerning the wondrous pro-
visions of redemption, centering in the cross, and made
effective by our Lord's ministry in the heavenly sanc-
tuary, were "cast down," as the Papacy loaded truth
with tradition and obscured it by perversion, substitut-
ing a system that deprived humanity of the direct
benefits of Christ's atoning sacrifice and priestly minis-
try. In this it "practiced and prospered" practicing
its departures and deceptions, and prospering in its
venal schemes and aggrandizement of power.
5. "EVENING-MORNING" A FULL DAY. In the pri-
mary, literal sense, "evening-morning" obviously des-
ignated a "24-hour day, for according to Bible reckon-
ing, each 24-hour day begins at sunset and ends at the
following sunset (Genesis 1). Thus the dark part of the
day, designated "evening," always precedes the light
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 259
part of the day, called "morning." And the very fact
that in Daniel 8:14 the word for "evening" precedes
"morning" inherently implies the same sequence of
night and day, and therefore a full 24-hour day, not a
half day, as some reckon (and thus make the 2300
days equal 1150 days).
If, then, 2300 evenings-mornings meant 2300 days,
the period would, if reckoned as symbolic time in this
symbolic prophecy, stand for 2300 literal years.
6. YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE. On the con-
sistency and propriety of applying the year-day prin-
ciple to the 2300 days of verse 14, we would say: In all
symbolic outline prophecies it would appear entirely
proper to consider the accompanying time periods as
also symbolic. And a symbol invariably stands for some-
thing other than itself. In the chapter under scrutiny,
the prophetic symbols of nations portrayed in Daniel
8 by a "ram" and a "goat" do not stand for a literal
ram and goat, but for the Medo-Persian Empire and
the Grecian kingdom respectively, as declared to Dan-
iel by the angel in his interpretation. To apply these
two obvious symbols to literal animals would be a
palpable denial and repudiation of their symbolic
character, and of the interpretation given by the angel.
Similarly, we believe that in the symbolic time
period given in connection therewith, the 2300 "days"
cannot mean 2300 literal days. They must represent
some other time unit in fulfillment. To apply them to
that same number of days or half days, as some seek
to do would likewise be to violate and negate their
fundamentally symbolic character. Nor are we left in
uncertainty as to the intent of this time feature. The
260 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
principle to be followed in interpreting symbolic time
is: "I [the Lord] have given thee a day for a year"
(compare Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6). We therefore
believe, in harmony with many eminent scholars
through the years, * that the 2300 prophetic "days" in-
dicate 2300 literal years in fulfillment, and that any-
thing else, and anything less, would be contrary to the
basic principle of time symbolism.
As far back as 1205, an anonymous Joachimite work
interpreted the number 2300 as 23 centuries from
Daniel's time. Later Villanova recognized the 2300 days
as years by the year-day principle. Then in 1440,
Roman Catholic theologian Nicholas Krebs of Cusa
(Conjectures of Cardinal Nicholas von Cusa Concerning
the Last Days), recognized the 2300 prophetic "days"
as years, which he even then dated from Persia. This
is one of his remarkable declarations:
In the same way it was opened up to Daniel in what way the
last curse would be after the sanctuary shall be cleansed and the
vision fulfilled; and this after 2300 days from the hour of the going
forth of the word . . . according to the predicted number by
resolving a day into a year, according to the unfolding made to
Ezekiel [4:5, 6]. Translated from Coniectura in Opera, p. 934.
It should be added that the chronological or time
placement of the 2300 year-days is not given in chapter
8. We are simply told that it was yet "for many days"
*E. B. Elliott, for example (Hor Apocaly plica, 3d ed., vol. 3, pp. 226, 227),
refers to "two most remarkable symbolic actions of that prophet [Ezekiel], which have
been so frequently referred to in the year-day controversy by former commentators.
He was on one occasion commanded by God to lie 390 days on his left side before
the people; thereby to typify, in the symbolic character of their representative, the
390 years of the iniquity and concomitant debasement on the nation of Israel; on
another, to lie 40 days on his right side, thereby to typify the 40 last years of
Judah's iniquity. And the meaning of these mystical days was declared by God
Himself. 'I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the num-
ber of the days 390 days. I have appointed thee each day for a year.' A precedent
more clear and complete than this could scarce be desired; as a probable key and
guide to the meaning of the days in the symbolic visions that we have under con-
sideration."
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 261
(verse 26), and that the events at Its close would occur
far beyond Daniel's time actually, in the "time of the
end" (verse 17). (The dating of the period will be
discussed in Questions 25 and 27.
7. "DAILY" CONTINUAL SERVICE OF SANCTUARY.
Daniel 8:11-14 is concerned with the sanctuary its
daily services, desolation, and restoration. The collec-
tive word customarily used for the various parts of the
daily services the offerings, incense, lights, et cetera
is tamidy meaning "continual" or "regular" (see Ex.
29:42; 30:7, 8; Lev. 24:2). And tamid is the term
rendered "daily" in Daniel 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31; and
12:11. In each instance the word "sacrifice" is supplied
by the translators. At first thought, this might not ap-
pear to be justified. But when it is remembered that
the evening and morning sacrifices marked the evening
and morning hours of prayer, incense, and sacrifice, it
becomes apparent that the word "sacrifice," while sup-
plied by the translators, was not altogether inappro-
priate. Scholars maintain that in rabbinical literature*
both evening and morning sacrifices are similarly des-
ignated by the term tamid,, standing alone as in the
Hebrew text of Daniel.
In view of these facts, the word "evening" may ap-
propriately be understood to mean "evening [sacri-
*The Hebrew word tamid, for "continual," in the books of Numbers and
Exodus, is applied to the shewbread, incense, and burnt offering, as well as spe-
cifically to the evening and morning sacrifices. However, in later rabbinical usage
tamid was used almost exclusively for the evening and morning sacrifices. This is
seen in such works as the TalmudPesahim 58a, 61a, 63a, 63b, 66b, 73b, 96a; and
Sanhedrin 35b and footnote ("By the offering of the Tamid or daily burnt offer-
ing"); Sanhedrin 36a, 44b, 49b, 88b, and footnote; gebahiin 91a ("sprinkles the
blood of the tamid" ) .
Rabbi J. H. Hertz, in The Pentateuch and Haftorahs says:
"The daily continual (Heb. tamid) offering was in later times called 'The
Tamid.' Offered throughout the year, it was 'the centre and core of public wor-
ship.' "On Num. 28:2-8 (Soncino ed., London, 1938), p. 694.
262 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
fice]," and "morning" to mean "morning [sacrifice],"
which together constituted one complete cycle of the
daily, "regular," or "continual" sanctuary ritual. They
are obviously used to indicate that this is the vision
concerning the sanctuary. Thus when the angel spoke
of 2300 "evenings-mornings/' Daniel would naturally
understand 2300 tamid units, each made up of an
"evening [sacrifice]" and a "morning [sacrifice]." He
would not think of half of them as "evening" and half as
"morning," making but 1150 complete units, or days.
Accordingly, the translation "two thousand and three
hundred days" very properly reflects the sense of the
Hebrew construction, and of the context.*
In addition to the foregoing reasons, which are
primary, we recognize as supporting evidence the fact
that the Septuagint the oldest translation of Daniel
and the Theodotion translation, four centuries later,
both place the word "days" immediately following the
*We are here in agreement with Dr. Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testa-
ment, Westminster Theological Seminary (The Prophecy of Daniel, 1949, p. 174),
who supports the full-days position:
"It means 2300 daps. This interpretation appears in the Greek versions, Jerome,
most Protestant expositors and AV [K.J.V.], and appears to be correct. . . .
"There is no exegetical support for the position that the phrase evening-morn-
ing means that the evenings and mornings are to be counted separately, thus 1150
evenings and 1150 days."
Commenting on the paralleling expression "forty days and forty nights," of
Genesis 7:4, 12; Exodus 24: IB; and 1 Kings 19:8, Young contends that it does not
mean twenty days and twenty nights. And the three days and three nights of Jonah
1 :17 are not taken as one and one-half days.
Keil states: "We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., understand
them of 2300 whole days." C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Bible Commentary on the
Old Testament, The Book of Daniel the Prophet, p. 304.
Dr. Herbert G. Leupold, Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Capital University
Seminary (Exposition of Daniel,, 1949, p. 354), also holds the 24-hour day inter-
pretation :
"We have here one of the major cruxes of the whole book: What do the
'two thousand three hundred evenings-mornings' mean? The compound expression
is so unusual that it perplexes the reader. Besides, in v. 26 the equivalent expression
inserts an 'and' between 'evening' and 'morning' and prefixes the article to each
of these words. Consequently v. 26 reads, ha'erebh wehabboqer; v. 14 'erebh boqer,
Yet both refer to the same period of time. Though we can cite no Hebrew paral-
lel, the Greek suggests something analogous, namely, the word nurhthSmeron, which
means 'a night and a day' (II Cor. 11:25) in the sense of a period of twenty-four
hours. This is the simplest and most feasible interpretation."
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 263
2300 "evenings-mornings" to indicate the intent. "Days"
is likewise used in the Vulgate and the Syriac. So also
in Luther's German version. It is likewise the consistent
rendering of Jewish expositors in the Christian Era, as
well as of hundreds of early and later Christian ex-
egetes. The Authorized, or K.J.V., similarly gives
"days" in the text, putting "evenings-mornings" in the
margin, but retaining the "vision of the evening and
the morning" in verse 26. Albert Barnes represents
many of the popular commentators when he remarks,
"There can be no doubt, however, that a day is in-
tended by this [an evening-morning]." Notes on
Daniel, on Dan. 8:14.
8. VINDICATION AT THE HEAVENLY ASSIZE. In the
light of the foregoing, we believe that the "sanctuary"
presented in Daniel 8:11-14 could not refer alone to
the Temple at Jerusalem. The sanctuary to be cleansed
at the end of the 2300 days is, we understand, the sanc-
tuary in heaven, "which the Lord pitched, and not man"
(Heb. 8:2), and of which our triumphant, risen, and
ascended Lord Jesus Christ is the great High Priest
(Heb. 8:1). It is that "temple of God" which the
prophet saw in heaven (Rev. 11:19; 15:5). This, we
believe, is the temple that not only is to be "cleansed"
(Dan. 8:14), but is also to be "justified" (margin),
"put right," "vindicated," as will be noted shortly.
The typical services of the earthly sanctuary served
as the "example and shadow of heavenly things" (Heb,
8:5). Now in the wilderness tabernacle and in the
Temple later there were daily and yearly services. And
we understand that the work of Christ, upon His as-
cension and inauguration as our heavenly high priest,
264 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
was foreshadowed by the daily service in the earthly
type. This was the first phase of His heavenly ministry,
mediating and applying the atoning sacrifice He had
completed on the cross.
This daily service of the earthly sanctuary, involv-
ing the morning and the evening sacrifice the tamid
(Hebrew), or "continual" fitly foreshadowed the con-
tinual efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ our Lord, ac-
complished on Calvary's cross. The risen Christ, our
ministering high priest, "ever liveth to make interces-
sion" (Heb. 7:25) for us. Hence we understand His
heavenly ministry to be the mediation of His complete
and ever-efficacious atonement, which He made and
completed on the cross for man, applying that atone-
ment to the individual sinner as he accepts Christ as his
personal Saviour.
But the annual Day of Atonement service (de-
scribed in Leviticus 16) typified the second and final
phase of Christ's high priestly ministry, a work in-
volving judgment. And we believe that we are now
living in that time of judgment. It should be added
that, in harmony with the Arminian concept of per-
sonal responsibility to God, our understanding of the
Scriptures leads us to believe that the life record of every
individual will be examined, and sentence of judg-
ment pronounced on every case under review. (This is
more fully discussed in Question 36.)
Not only does this final judgment involve the ver-
dict of all cases before the bar of God, but it results in
the justification of God's character before all intelli-
gences of the universe. It demonstrates for all eternity
the groundlessness and falsity of Satan's charges against
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 265
the character and government and law of God, and the
justice and equity of God in deciding that those who
have accepted the provisions of redemption shall con-
stitute the citizens of His eternal kingdom and that all
impenitent sinners shall be barred. The purpose of the
judgment, of course, is not to enlighten God, but to
satisfy forever the minds of all created intelligences,
angels and mankind.
The universal verdict will be: "Just and true are
thy ways, thou King of saints'* (Rev. 15:3); "Thou
art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt
be, because thou hast judged thus" (Rev. 16:5); and
"Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are
thy judgments" (Rev. 16:7). Thus by the verdicts of
the judgment of the heavenly sanctuary will the charac-
ter of God be forever vindicated, as the climax of the
"hour of his judgment" (Rev. 14:7).
9. INTENT OF TERM "CLEANSED." The significance
of the various terms used by translators to indicate the
full intent of the "cleansing" (Hebrew, tsadaq) of the
heavenly sanctuary (Dan. 8:14) should not be lost.
Eleven different renderings appear in standard transla-
tions. These are: (a) "Cleansed" (Septuagint, Rheims-
Douay, Moulton, Boothroyd, Spurrell, Martin, Vul-
gate, Harkavy, Ray, Knox, Noyes, French Osterwald,
Segond, and Lausanne the K.J.V. and A.R.V.); (6)
"be justified" (Leeser; Sawyer; A.R.V., margin; K.J.V.,
margin); (c) "be victorious" (Margolis); (d) "be
righted" (Smith-Goodspeed); (e) "[be] declared right"
(Young); (/) "be restored to its rightful state" (R.S.V.);
(g) "be made righteous" (Van Ess); (h) "be restored"
(Moffatt); (f) "be sanctified" (Fenton); (/) "be vindi-
266 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
cated" (Rotheram); and (k) "be consecrated" (Luther).
See Problems in Bible Translation (Review and Her-
ald), pp. 174, 175.
Standard lexicographers agree In rendering tsadaq
as "to be just," "to be righteous." Gesenius' Lexicon
(Brown, Driver, and Briggs edition) adds, "be put
right," or "be put In rightful condition." And the
R.S.V. renders the clause, "Then the sanctuary shall
be restored to its rightful state." The translation "to
cleanse" is evidently borrowed from the Septuagint
(katharisthesetai), followed by the Vulgate (munda-
bitur). We recognize that the justifying, vindicating,
and making righteous of the Levitical sanctuary was
accomplished by the services on the Day of Atonement,
when the sanctuary was cleansed from all defilement
(Lev. 16:16).
This cleansing, however, was definitely included,
for in Leviticus 16:16 an "atonement" was made, in
this sense, for the children of Israel because of their
"uncleanness." On that day the "iniquities of the chil-
dren of Israel" were removed (verse 21). The antitype
of that service, we believe, will be found in connection
with Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, and
this is apparent from Hebrews 9:23:*
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the
heavens should be purified [katharizo] with these; but the heav-
enly things themselves [shall be purified] with better sacrifices
than these [that of the Lamb of God].
*Brooke Foss Westcott (Efiistle to the Hebrews, 1892, p. 270) makes this sig-
nificant comment on Hebrews 9: 23:
"The fact that such a mode of purifying by blood was enjoined for the material
instruments of worship carried with it the inevitable consequence that some analo-
gous and therefore some nobler purification should be provided for the divine
archetypes." "The whole structure of the sentence requires that 'cleansed' should
be supplied in the second clause from the first."
PROBLEMS IN DANIEL 8 267
Such is our understanding of the larger and wider
concept of God's great plan of saving men, as revealed
in Daniel 8, for since our Lord's death, resurrection,
and ascension, the heavenly sanctuary is now the cen-
ter of Christ's wondrous priestly work of intercession.
The sanctuary on earth with its types and shadows has
passed. But in heaven Christ carries out His work of
mediation that culminates in the work of judgment. We
therefore conclude that His mediation embraces both
the ministering of Calvary's atoning sacrifice to every
soul who accepts the provisions of His grace, and the
ultimate elimination of sin from the universe of God.
Thus this ministry will, we believe, eventuate in the
purgation or destruction of everything connected with
evil Satan, its author, and his cohorts (Matt. 25:41;
Heb. 2:14), death (I Cor. 15:26), and the works of the
devil (1 John 3:8; compare Rev. 20:10, 14).
Relation of Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9
to 2300 Days of Daniel 8
QUESTION 25
Seventh-day Adventists seek to tie Daniel
9 to Daniel 8. On what basis do you hold (1) that
the 2$0@ days (evenings-mornings) of Daniel be-
gin at the same time as the seventy weeks of years
of Daniel 9; and (2) that the seventieth week is
already entirely fulfilled? (3) Since you so hold,
what then is your interpretation of Daniel 9:27?
Inasmuch as these questions center chiefly in Dan-
iel 9, let us survey the chapter briefly in order to get
the over-all picture, and thus have the necessary back-
ground for the answers. This prophecy of the seventy
weeks of years is one of the most fascinating and vital
to be found in the entire prophetic Word. It deals
with God's plan for the redemption of man, and fore-
tells the time of the first advent of Christ, as the Mes-
siah, also the time of His death, when He made a com-
plete, vicarious atoning sacrifice for the sins of the
world.
The seventy-weeks prophecy has to do with the
Jews, the Holy Land, the Holy City, and the sanc-
tuary the nerve center, truth center, Temple center,
and then the rejection center of the Lamb of God by
His ancient people. Note the setting: Darius the Mede
268
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 269
was on the throne. Daniel was praying and interceding
with God concerning the tragic condition of His back-
slidden and disobedient people, and the desolation of
Jerusalem and the sanctuary (verses 3-19).
1. DANIEL 9 THE KEY THAT UNLOCKS CHAPTER 8.
The prophetic symbols of Daniel 8:2-14 namely, the
"ram" as Medo-Persia, the "goat" as Grecia, and the
"exceeding great" horn as the terrifying power that
would succeed, which was Rome had all been ex-
plained by Gabriel, the celestial messenger, in verses
15 to 26. That is, all except the symbolic time element
involved in the 2300 days, with the events marking
their close and the time of their beginning.
Because of Daniel's sudden illness as the vision of
chapter 8 was being explained to him, Gabriel had
been unable to explain this remaining time feature
the 2300 days of verses 13, 14, and 26. The dread
prospect of the terrible persecution to come upon the
people of God evidently caused the aged prophet sud-
denly to faint and become ill (verse 27). So the explana-
tion broke off precipitately at that point.
This unexplained portion, it will be observed, per-
tained to the "sanctuary and the host," which were to
be "trodden under foot" for 2300 "days" (evenings-
mornings), with special events to occur at their close
(verses 13, 14, 26). It involved a persecuting power
that was to stand up against the Prince of princes
and that was to practice and prosper against the people
of God, but that would finally be broken without hands.
This revelation profoundly impressed the prophet
and, as noted, might well have been the cause of his
illness. Chapter 8 closes with certain questions still un-
270 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
answered. Later, as Daniel meditated on the vision
and its relationship to the condition of his people, he
pleaded earnestly with God for the termination of
Israel's captivity and their return to Palestine. His
prayer brought a speedy answer, for Gabriel was sent
to bring him comfort and to unfold the plan of God
more fully.
Gabriel had previously explained to Daniel all but
the time portion of the symbolic vision of chapter 8.
Now he reappears to complete the explanation in
literal terms (Dan. 9:21, 22) and to clarify this re-
maining part. The angel uses the arresting words,
"Consider the vision." This expression provides the
key to the explanation, for the term "vision" appears
ten times in chapter 8. But it is to be noted that in
Daniel 8 and 9 two Hebrew words, chazon and mar' eh,
differing somewhat in meaning, are used in the original
Hebrew text. In the English translations only one
word, "vision," has been used to express these slightly
variant thoughts, and as a result, the exact intent of
the original has not always been perceived.
2. TERMS MAY CONNOTE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.
The Hebrew words for "vision" may be significant. It
is possible that when the word chazon is used, the ref-
erence is to the vision as a whole. On the other hand,
where the word mar'eh is employed, the reference
could be to the particular things seen and heard in
the chazon* One feature seen in the over-all chazon
was the "two thousand and three hundred days" of
*The slight difference in the Hebrew words was indicated in a translation of
the Bible in 1764 by Anthony Purver. Chazon he rendered "vision," but mar'eh
he translated as "appearance."
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 271
Daniel 8:14. This special scene is referred to as
''the vision [mar'eh] of the evening and the morning"
(verse 26).
When the angel Gabriel, "whom I [Daniel] had
seen in the vision [chazon] at the beginning" (Dan.
9:21), returned to complete his explanation of the vi-
sion, he directed Daniel's attention specifically to the
vision (mar'eh) when he said, "consider the vision
[mar'eh]" (verse 23).
It will be remembered that according to Daniel
8:26, 27, it was the mar'eh "of the evening and the
morning" that Daniel did not understand. It was not
the vision as a whole, for all but the scene of the eve-
ning and the morning had been explained.
There can be no mistake as to this identification of
"the vision." S. R. Driver, the noted critic (The Book
of Daniel, 1936, pp. 133), recognized this, and wrote
concerning "the vision at the beginning" (Dan. 9:21)
that it refers to "viii. 16." The chapter 8 usage and the
chapter 9 tie-in appears inescapable, and the identical
theme of the two chapters becomes self-evident. What
follows in chapter 9 is therefore not a new and inde-
pendent vision, but is the continuing literal explana-
tion of the symbolic "vision" of chapter 8.*
We would stress this point, that in chapter 9 Ga-
briel was not introducing a new line of prophecy. He
was simply continuing and completing his interrupted
explanation, picking up the thread just where he had
*Numerous Bible students recognize Daniel 9 to be a continuation of Daniel
8, and when commenting on "whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning"
(Dan. 9:21), refer back to Daniel 8:17, 27. Among these may be listed Chr. Words-
worth, T. Robinson, Matthew Henry, William Hales., Thomas Scott, F. C. Cook,
The Cambridge Bible, the Critical and Exegetical Bible, etc.
272 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
laid it down in his previous appearance to the prophet,
recorded in chapter 8. His last words, on the former
occasion, had been to the effect that "the vision"
(mar'eh] of the 2300 evenings-mornings was "true,"
and that the period involved was to extend over
"many days/' far into the future.
In the light of these facts, which seem to us to be
conclusive, Seventh-day Adventists along with many
scores of scholars of former days definitely believe
that Daniel 9 furnishes the key that unlocks the time
feature of Daniel 8 the 2300 year-days. To us the two
chapters appear to be inseparable, and must be so under-
stood if there is to be any explanation of the time
feature of Daniel 8:14, 26.
Daniel 9 was obviously given to provide advance
knowledge of the timing of Jesus' anointing as the
Messiah "Christ" denoting "anointed" in the Greek,
and thus matching the Hebrew Mashiach preparatory
to His public ministry. And Keil, with many others,
identifies mashiach nagid as Christ.* The allusion
here is not to His incarnation or birth, but to His
anointing at the time of His baptism, for it was then
that He was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:37,
38) and was manifest as the Christ, 01 Messiah. Thus
Andrew said to his brother Peter, "we have found the
Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ
["anointed," margin]" (John 1:41).
*Numerous theologians through the centuries have recognized "Messiah the
Prince," of Daniel 9:25, to be Jesus Christ our Lord. For example: In the Church
Fathers^ Clement of Alexandria (Stromata i. 21); Tertullian (Answer to the Jews
8); Ongen (De Principiis ) ; Julius Africanus, etc.; in the commentaries: Calvin,
Matthew Henry, Clarke, Scott, and T. Robinson; Westminster Commentary, and
Gray's Christian Workers' Commentary; and among expositors or translations: New-
ton, Wieseler, Delitzsch, Von Orelli, Fenton, Young, Knox, K.J.V., and Douay,
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 273
3. "DETERMINED" MEANS "ALLOTTED," "DE-
CREED," "CUT OFF." Gabriel turns Immediately to
the time feature of the vision, and declares, "Seventy
weeks are determined upon thy people [the Jews] and
upon thy holy city [Jerusalem]" (verse 24). The He-
brew word chathak, translated "determined," appears
nowhere else in the Bible; consequently it is not pos-
sible to bring other Biblical usages of this word to
bear on the present passage in clarifying its meaning.
The 1832 edition of Gesenius gives the meaning of
chathak as "determine," "to destine," and in Chaldee
"to cut," "decide." But the 1846 edition renders it "to
cut" "to divide," also "to decree," "to determine." The
Student's Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary of 1914
gives "to cut, to decide, to determine, to decree," and
Rotherham in his Emphasized Bible stresses the mean-
ing "divide." He then proceeds to show that the
seventy-week period was divided into seven weeks,
sixty-two weeks, and one week. Still further usage is
seen in Brown, Driver, and Briggs, A Hebrew and
English Lexicon of the Old Testament., page 367; com-
pare Koehler and Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris
Testamenti Libros, volume 1, page 343, giving schneiden
("to cut"), entscheiden ("to decide").
These three meanings "to cut," "to decide," and
"to determine" appear in the ancient translations of
the Old Testament into Greek. The LXX, translated
at Alexandria, probably in the second century B.C.,
gives chathak in Daniel 9:24 as ekrithesan, i.e., "ad-
judged," "determined." On the other hand, the Greek
translation made by Theodotion in the second century
A.D. (usually published In modern editions of the
274 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
LXX) renders chathak by sunetmethesan, to "cut off,"
"cut short." (See also Liddell and Scott, Greek-
English Lexicon, vol. 2, p. 1726.) The Vulgate uses
the verb abbreviare, "to cut short." Hitzig renders It
"appointed*'; others, "destined," or "apportioned."
The R.V. and the A.R.V. give "decreed/' and the
Preacher's Homiletical Commentary, as well as Strong
in his Exhaustive Concordance, stresses the Chaldee
meaning, "to cut off," or "to cut in pieces."
The various meanings of this Hebrew word have
real significance. The seventy-week period was def-
initely "allotted," or "apportioned," to the Jewish
people, during which time certain specific things were
to be accomplished. And in God's plan this period was
"decreed," or "determined," for this purpose. But the
word chathak also has the meaning "cut off," as indi-
cated in so many of the lexical authorities. The expres-
sion "cut off" is significant, for that which is cut off is
"seventy weeks." This, of course, is time; so it is time
that is "cut off." Just as a piece of material is cut off
from a roll of material, might it not properly be said
that the seventy-week period is cut off from a longer
period of time?
This concept, in this particular case, is recognized
by certain Biblical authorities. Barnes, when comment-
ing on verse 24, states: "The meaning would seem to
be, that this portion of time the seventy weeks was
cut off [italics his] from the whole of duration, or cut
out of it, as it were, and set by itself for a definite
purpose." Still further, the Pulpit Commentary on this
verse agrees with this thought, for it remarks: "It
means 'to cut off/ It may thus refer to these weeks
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 275
being 'cut off' from time generally; hence 'deter-
mined.' "
With this recognition of the significance of the use of
"cut off," we might well inquire, Is the seventy-week
period "cut off" from time in a general or in a specific
sense? We need to remember that in the symbolic
vision of Daniel 8, reference was made to the 2300-day
period. This was left unexplained. If Daniel 9 is the
explanation of this unexplained portion of the vision,
the explanation would inevitably have to deal with
time. But the only prophetic time mentioned in the
vision of Daniel 9 is the seventy weeks. Could we not
logically conclude, then, that when Gabriel deals with
the seventy weeks, or 490 years, he is explaining the
first part of the 2300-days prophecy? This period (490
years) was allotted to the Jews with their sanctuary on
earth; the remainder of the period (2300 years) would
then reach into the Christian church period, with the
sanctuary in heaven.
This concept that the 490 years are cut off from the
2300-year period seems to be the only consistent
conclusion. That the seventy-week period is cut off from
time is indicated by the two quotations just given. And
the time from which it is "cut off" seems to be the
period mentioned in the vision of Daniel 8, namely, the
2300-year period. William Hales (A New Analysis of
Chronology, 1833, vol. 2, p. 517) came to this con-
clusion over a century ago:
This chronological prophecy . . . was evidently designed to
explain the foregoing [chapter 8] vision, especially in its chrono-
logical part of the 2300 days.
With this concept, scores of scholars in various com-
276 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
munions in many lands, from the time of Johann Petri,
o Germany, in 1768 onward, were in full but inde-
pendent agreement.
4. SEVENTY "WEEKS OF YEARS" INDIGATEB BY CON-
TEXT AND USAGE. The word translated "weeks," in
Daniel 9:24, is shabu'im (singular, shabua'}. Shabua'
simply denotes a unit of seven, and may designate a
period of either seven days or seven years. The intent
must be determined by context and usage. In post-
Biblical literature, also, the meaning "seven years" can
be clearly demonstrated.* Hebdomas, the LXX trans-
lation of shabua', is used for a period of seven days and
also for a period of seven years. The intent in the LXX
must also be determined by context and usage. It is to
be observed that this latter usage can be demonstrated
in classical literature as early as the sixth century B.C.
(see Liddell and Scott, A , Greek-English Lexicon,
under hebdomas).
We are accordingly led to conclude, in harmony
with a host of scholars, that in Daniel 9:24-27 the
*As to "weeks of years" note the following from Jewish writings:
1. On "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (Dan. 9:27),
Midrash Kabbah reads, " 'Week' represents a period of seven years." Lamenta-
tions, Soncino ed., p. 65, note 3.
2. On "seventy weeks are determined" (verse 24) a the Talmud reads, "This
prophecy was uttered at the beginning of the seventy years captivity in Babylon.
From the restoration to the second destruction is said to have been 420 years,
making in all 490, i.e., seventy weeks of years." Nazir 32b, Soncino ed., p. 118,
note 6.
3. On "he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week" (verse 27), the
Talmud says, " 'One week' in Dan. ix means a week of years." Yoma 54a, Son-
cino ed., p. 254, note 6.
4. On "seventy weeks" i.e., seven times 70 years J. J. Slotki states, "The
cryptic phraseology may have been suggested by the seven-year cycle of Lev. xxv.
The expression 'week 01 years' occurs in the Mishnah (Sanh. v. 1)." Daniel, Ezra,
and Nehemiah, p. 77.
5. Isaac Leeser writes, "Ancient Jewish writers thought that the second temple
stood 420 years, which, with the 70 years of the Babylonian captivity, make 490."
The Twenty- four Books of the Holy Scriptures (1853), on Dan. 9:24, 25, p. 1243,
note 47. Leeser also refers to Rashi and other commentators as recognizing "year-
weeks" (note 48). On the "threescore and two weeks" (verse 25) Slotki says,
"Jerusalem will be a fully restored city during a period of 434 years." Op. cit.,
p. 78.
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 277
prophet used shabua* to designate a period of seven
literal years. The following are, to us, compelling
reasons:
a. Shabua' occurs six times in Daniel 9:24-27. In
each case the noun is without qualification. Elsewhere
in the book of Daniel shabua' occurs only in chapter
10:2, 3. In these latter references the meaning is clearly
"a period of seven days," for the verses are describing
Daniel's fast obviously of three literal weeks. But it
is to be particularly observed that shabua' , as here
used, is qualified by the word yamin, "of days," which
is indicated in the K.J.V. margin as ''weeks of days/'
Now the very fact that Daniel, the inspired writer,
felt that qualification was necessary when merely a
week of seven days was indicated, surely suggests that
when he used the word without qualification, as in
Daniel 9:24-27, he meant a period of seven years. And
the LXX follows the same pattern, in this respect, as
does the Hebrew. It has hebdomas standing alone in
Daniel 9:24-27, but qualified by "of days" in Daniel
10:2, 3. The distinction and the intent are obvious.
b. It has been noted (see Question 24) that a
characteristic feature of symbolic prophecy is to give
the component time periods, not literally, but in sym-
bolic form. And it has been further demonstrated that
Daniel 9:24-27 is a continuation of the literal explana-
tion of the symbolic vision that was begun in Daniel
8:19-26. Now, inasmuch as Daniel 9:24-27 is a portion
of the literal explanation of the symbolic vision, we
would logically expect the time elements likewise to
be given in literal terms. Such is the case if shabua' is
here given the obvious meaning of "seven years." It is
278 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
generally agreed among Jewish, Catholic, and Protes^
tant scholars alike that if shabua' in Daniel 9:24 has
the meaning "seven years," then seventy shabu'im
clearly indicates a period of 490 years.
5. SUBDIVISIONS OF A SINGLE OVER-ALL UNIT.
There is first a general statement of the length of the
period, and then the particulars of the manner of ac-
complishment. The seventy weeks, collectively, was
divided for emphasis into three unequal segments 7
weeks, 62 weeks, and 1 week, giving a total of 70.
An important development or event was connected
with each part. These, we believe, were but subdivi-
sions of a single chronological unit, the three parts
following one another without a break. (Our reasons
will be developed in Question 26.)
Note the situation: Jerusalem was in captivity and
the sanctuary, or Temple, in ruins. Then came the
"commandment," or issuance of a series of decrees, to
restore and rebuild Jerusalem. According to Ezra 6:14
this commandment involved three progressive and in-
terrelated decrees, given in sequence by Cyrus, Darius,
and Artaxerxes.* That of Cyrus (who gave the order
simply to "restore the Temple) was issued in 537 B.C.;
that of Darius Hystaspes (who confirmed the order
and continued the work of Temple restoration) was
probably given in 519 B.C.; and finally, the climactic
decree went forth in 457 B.C., in the seventh year of
Artaxerxes Longimanus, who sent Ezra to Judea with
*It took the three decrees of Cyrus, of Darius, and of Artaxerxes to implement
the "commandment" of God (Ezra 6:14). But when 457 B.C. came, the "command-
ment" of God was complete. We consequently believe that 457 B.C., the seventh
year of Artaxerxes, is the beginning date of the prophetic period referred to in
Daniel 9:24,
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 279
new privileges and prerogatives. (See the accompany-
ing diagram on page 280.)
The Ternple was finished in 515 B.C., in the sixth
year of Darius (Ezra 6:15). But it was not until 457
B.C. that the authorization was given for the complete
restoration of the city. This looked forward to the
Jewish state's receiving full autonomy, with provision
for enforcing its own laws subject, of course, to the
overlordship of the Persian Empire (Ezra 7:11-26). It
therefore took all three decrees, and particularly that
of Artaxerxes, to complete and to constitute the "com-
mandment" or purpose of God.*
The initial seven weeks (or 49 years) saw the streets
and the walls of Jerusalem rebuilt. The additional 62
weeks (or 434 years) reached to the time when Messiah
should appear. This 62-week period was, in contrast, a
rather quiet or silent stretch of years, including the
time between Malachi, last of the prophets, and John
the Baptist, herald and baptizer of the Messiah. It was,
significantly, a period when there were no special
prophetic communications from God to the people.
But the initial seven weeks of years, together with
the 62 weeks, were to be considered as an uninterrupted
chronological unit of 69 weeks (Dan. 9:25), and were
to be without a break or gap. That is a total of 69
"weeks" of years (making 483 years) leading up to the
final week of seven years, in the midst of which Messiah
would be "cut off."
The 483 years (69 "weeks"), it will be seen, reach
*As to 457 B.C. being the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and therefore the determina-
tive date, see Siegfried H. Horn and Lynn H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra 7
(1953). (The detailed support for this date will appear under Question 27.)
|;
o
se
UJ
3
i
JJIl?
S-l S.g
COO*>
o
00
CM
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 281
to the anointing of Jesus as the Messiah by the Holy
Spirit at His baptism (Luke 3:21, 22). We believe that
He began His public ministry in A.D. 27, following His
anointing (Mark 1:14; Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38; Heb.
9:12). But the seventy weeks of years were not to
close until the atoning death of Christ had occurred
(see Section 9), resulting in six specific developments
indicated by the six consecutive clauses of verse 24. These
were: (1) the Jews were to finish their transgression
through the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah, (2) the
Messiah was to make an end of sin offerings, (3) He
was to make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) He was
to bring in everlasting righteousness, (5) the vision
was to be sealed or authenticated, and (6) the most
holy was to be anointed.
But it was "after" the 69 weeks of years yet within
the last or seventieth week of years that Messiah
would be "cut off," which is the focal point of this
prophecy. And we believe that when our Lord as-
cended into heaven, and the Holy Spirit descended as
the signal of Christ's inauguration as heavenly Priest,
there remained not one of these specifications of Dan-
iel 9:24 that had not been fully accomplished.
As recognized by many Christian scholars, Jesus
began His public ministry at the very beginning of the
final or seventieth week of years, declaring "The time
is fulfilled" (Mark 1:15). And in this final "week" of
years, thus begun, He confirmed by His life and teach-
ings, and ratified by His death, the everlasting covenant
of grace God had made with the human family. Be-
cause of His death, resurrection, and ascension in the
"midst" of the seventieth week, He did not remain
282 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
on earth during the second half of the seventieth week.
But His message and mission continued to be preached
for a little time (possibly three and a half years) to the
Jews in Jerusalem by the first evangelists. Thus Israel's
day of grace continued for a short space, and the seventy
weeks ran their allotted course.
6. MESSIAH "Cur OFF" BY VIOLENT DEATH. The
precision of the closing events of the seventy weeks is
most impressive. The confirming of the covenant char-
acterizes the seventieth week, with the cutting off of
the Messiah "in the midst of the week." And even the
place, or city, where the atonement was to be made is
here revealed. Messiah the Prince, or the Anointed
Prince* (Dan. 9:25; compare Acts 10:38) would come,
not as a glorious conqueror and emancipator, but would
be "cut off" (karath) f by a violent, vicarious death
(compare Isa. 53:8). This is the word commonly used
for the death penalty. This was "not for himself"
(Dan. 9:26) it was a substitutionary death. However,
the margin reads, "and shall have nothing." $ It would
be by judicial decree, or mob violence. And this would
be in the "midst" (chasf) of the week (verse 27).
*We agree with Keil (G. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Bible Commentary on the
Old Testament, The Book of Daniel the Prophet^ pp. 354, 355, 360), that there is
only one who is at the same time both priest and king, after the order of Melchizedek
(Heb. 5: 6-10; 6: 19, 20).
fThe Hebrew word karath appears fully 180 times in the Old Testament. In most
instances it is rendered "cut ojf>" such as "evildoers shall be cut off" (Ps. 37:9),
the "seed of the wicked shall be cut off" (Ps. 37:28; see also verses 9, 34, 38); also
"destroy" (Ex. 8:9; 1 Kings 15:13) and "perish" (Gen. 41:36).
$On the clause "and shatt^ have nothing" (Dan. 9:26, margin), many Hebrew
scholars agree that the meaning is: He shall then possess nothing no people, no
place, no recognition, no kingdom. He shall be deprived of everything. (Thus, Cal-
lett, Havernick, Bullinger);
be
, , ,
margin); (3) "there shall be none to help Him" (Vatablus) ; (4) "there shall not
be to him," no city, sanctuary, kingdom, or people (Pusey) ; (5) **it is not to
Him" His place as Messiah, which was not accorded Him (Keil). How well this
accords with the declaration that He "came unto his own, and his own received
him not" (John 1:11).
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 283
The Messiah was cut off by man for man. Such was the
means whereby this prophecy was to be fulfilled.
And "midst," we believe, is punctiliar, designating
a point at which something is to happen that some-
thing being the death of Jesus Christ the Messiah,
which we understand occurred in the spring of A.D. 31,
just 3i/ 2 years after His anointing and the beginning of
His public ministry. Even if A.D. 30 be taken as the
crucifixion date, it is still in the middle of this last
week of years. Jerome's Vulgate reads dimidio
hebdomadis ("in the midst of the week"). That is like-
wise the rendering of the K.J.V., Ray, Boothroyd,
Sawyer, Spurrell, Young, Rotherham, Knox, Rheims-
Douay, and A.R.V., as well as Luther's German and
the French of Martin and Osterwald.* Even the R.S.V.,
which here translates the Hebrew word chasi, as
"for half of," in other places translates the same word
as "in the midst of" (Joshua 10:13; Ps. 102:24; Jer.
17:11).
More than that, at the moment of Christ's death as
the Lamb of God, all the typical sacrifices met their
antitypical fulfillment. Their death knell was rung.
The supernatural rending of the Temple veil (Matt.
27:50, 51) was Heaven's declaration that the typical
Jewish animal sacrifices and oblations had ceased to
have efficacy, and had forever ended in the plan of God.
The way of access into the presence of God was opened
through Christ (Heb. 10:19, 20). Man could now ap-
proach God directly, without the intervention of a
*Those who hold that Christ was crucified in the "midst" of the seventieth
week include Keil, Pusey, Kliefoth, Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, Auberlen,
Strong, Havernick, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Delitzsch, Wright, Boutflower, Young,
and many others.
284 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
human priest, because Christ, and Christ alone, consti-
tuted the new and living "way" (John 14:6). The ful-
fillment completely met the specifications of the proph-
ecy that said, "He shall cause the sacrifice and the
oblation to cease" (Dan 9:27).
The terminus of the seventieth week was not
singled out as important. It would come after all six
specifications were fulfilled. Numerous scholars have
held that the rejection of the Jews, as God's covenant
people, did not take place until the Jews stoned
Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 7:57-60).
General persecution broke out upon the church (Acts
8:1) as the seventy weeks of years came to an end. The
prophecy declared that the covenant was to be con-
firmed during the "one week" (Dan. 9:27). During
the latter half of this prophesied seventieth week, the
apostles preached the sacrificial death, resurrection,
and ascension of Jesus Christ at Jerusalem, until the
climactic sermon of Stephen, under the Spirit of God,
ended in his martyrdom, when the message of the
Messiah was finally rejected by the Jews (Acts 7).
7. SCOPE OF SIXFOLD ACCOMPLISHMENT. Mention
has been made concerning the prophesied six events that
were to occur in the "midst" of that fateful seventieth
week of years. These results all impinge upon the
supreme event of our Lord's death (Dan. 9:25), and
have to do with His first, and not His second, advent.
The sacrificial death of the Messiah is foundational,
and is the climactic event of this prophecy. And these
six accomplishments grow out of that accomplished
fact. Note them:
(1) To finish the transgression (verse 24). The
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 285
thought In this phrase is that of bringing transgression
to the full. The filling up of the cup of iniquity by the
Jews was referred to by our Lord, who said, "Fill ye up
then the measure of your fathers" (Matt 23:32; com-
pare Gen, 15:16). Their crowning sin was, of course,
the rejection and the crucifixion of the Messiah. Thus
the nation passed the line of no return. "Behold, your
house is left unto you desolate," declared Jesus (Matt.
23:38). This fulfilled the Master's prophecy, "The
kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to
a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt. 21:
43).
(2) To make an end of sins, or sin offerings
(chatta'th; compare Lev. 4:3, 21, 24, 32). When the
great offering was made on Calvary, and the Lamb of
God, the true Sacrifice, was slain to take away the sin of
the world (John 1:29), that brought to an end the
ceremonial sin offerings. Daniel 9:27 says, "He shall
cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease/' The Temple
veil was rent when Jesus died. At Calvary the ceremo-
nial sin offerings ceased to have any efficacy, and soon
they ceased entirely.
(3) To make reconciliation for iniquity. By the
death of the Son of God, full sacrificial atonement was
made for the redemption of a lost world. "God was
in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Cor.
5:19). Peace was made through the blood of the cross
(Col. 1:20). We were reconciled to God by the death
of His Son (Rom. 5:10), and with the apostles we "re-
joice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through
whom we have now received our reconciliation" (verse
11, R.S.V.).
288 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
complete unity and harmony of all component sub-
divisions.
8. SEVENTIETH "WEEK" CONFIRMS COVENANT. Two
different renderings of Daniel 9:27 are current. One
states that "he shall confirm the covenant" (K.J.V.);
the other, taking "week" as the subject, reads, "One
week shall establish the covenant" (LXX, Theodotion's
Greek version). There appears to be about equal
linguistic support for each rendering one Hebraist
referring to it as a fifty-fifty division of determinative
evidence. The historic Protestant position applies the
"he" to Christ.
The other translation, "One week shall establish
the covenant," is based on Theodotion's rendering.
And such a rendering has definite scholarly support.
Zockler (Lange's Commentary, on Dan. 9:27) lists
Havernick, Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Dereser, Von Len-
gerke, Hitzig, Rosenmiiller, and Hofmann as regarding
"one week" as the subject. Keil (op cit., p. 365) states
that "many" hold this view, and lists some of the same
names. Young names two who hold this view (The
Prophecy of Daniel, p. 208). And Biederwolf (The
Millennium Bible, p. 223), while not accepting the view
himself, admits, "Many authorities take the word
'week* to be the subject of the sentence 'one week shall
confirm the covenant to many/ "
This last week, we believe, was to be marked by the
supreme event of the ages the redemptive death of
Jesus Christ. That which was accomplished during that
final "week," or hebdomad, confirmed the new cove-
nant, and caused the cessation of the entire system of
sacrifices appointed for Old Testament times, by the
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 289
offering of Christ as the once-for-all and all-sufficient
sacrifice for sins.
Christ is the one who confirms the new covenant by
His death. So, irrespective of the subject "he' 7 or
"week" Christ is the central figure In that seventieth
week. And whether the emphasis is on Christ Himself,
who confirms the covenant, or whether it is on the
week in which tremendous events occur, centering in
Christ and the transaction of Calvary which confirms
the covenant, Christ remains the central figure of verse
27. This position gives to the last week of the seventy
the importance it should have, and which the prophecy
as a whole demands, inasmuch as all the predictions of
verse 24 depend on the concomitant events of that
last fateful week.
Another fundamental point in the text 'is that the
duration of this covenant would not be merely "/or"
one week, but that the covenant would be, and was,
confirmed forever at a historic point in this last heb-
domad. And this covenant God's everlasting covenant
was confirmed by the blood of the divine Son of
God (Heb. 13:20), when He gave Himself for the sins
of the world "in the midst of the week."
9. TERMINUS OF SEVENTIETH HEBDOMAD. Exposi-
tors have long sought for some incontrovertible event
to mark the close of the seventy weeks of years of verse
27. Not a few have suggested the stoning of Stephen
(Acts 7). But this is variously dated as occurring in
A.D. 32, 33, or 34. Others have considered the conver-
sion of Saul (Acts 9), or the declaration, "Lo, we turn
to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). The timing of these
episodes, however, is not at all certain. In this con-
10
290 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
nection the question arises, Is it really necessary to
pinpoint some event as marking the close of the 70
weeks? No specific event is predicted in the prophecy,
and it would therefore seem that no historic event is
actually called for to indicate its close.
Consider the form and emphasis of this unique
prophecy. In the 70 "weeks of years" totaling 490
years, as generally conceded the stress is not placed
on the individual component years, as such, but upon
70 units of seven years. These units are commonly
called hebdomads (from the Greek hebdomas, a group
of 7), or heptads (with the same meaning). There
are, as noted, 70 of these hebdomads in the prophecy,
clustered into three groups 7, 62, and 1 together
constituting the 70. The prophecy deals with events to
occur in each of these major clusters, or divisions: The
7 hebdomads (totaling 49 years) and the 62 (equaling
434 years) together make 69 hebdomads (483 years),
before coming to the seventieth hebdomad, or last
unit of 7 years. Young has interestingly emphasized
that the prophecy is "besevened" into these 7-year
units, with certain things to take place in each major
segment.
When so regarded, it will be seen that all 70
hebdomads are fully accounted for when the events of
the "midst" of the seventieth or last hebdomad took
place historically. The fraction of the seventieth heb-
domad remaining after the death, resurrection, and
ascension of our Lord was then no longer a matter of
material consequence. The terms of the prophecy
called for a cluster of seven events (six in verse 24 and
one in verse 27), all to take place in the "midst" of
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 291
the last, or seventieth, hebdomad. And these all oc-
curred at the scheduled time. But, we repeat, no
predicted event is called for to mark the close of the
last unit. The first 69 hebdomads reach to the manifes-
tation of the Messiah, and the seventieth the one re-
maining hebdomad is accounted for as a unit by the
events clustering about Calvary, occurring in its "midst."
If some event were to take place at midday on a speci-
fied day, and it occurred at noon on that precise day,
would not the expectation be perfectly fulfilled, irre-
spective of what happened during, or at the close of,
the remaining half of the day?
Thus it was, we believe, with the seventieth heb-
domad, or unit of 7, in the series of 70. The exact dating,
or starting point, of the first hebdomad of the entire
series of 70 has been -established as 457 B.C. That is
vital. And the beginning year of the last hebdomad
(A.D. 27) is likewise known. Having these known fac-
tors, there can be no mistake in calculating the time of
the events to occur in the "midst" of the seventieth
hebdomad, which is the focal point of the entire proph-
ecy.
So, although various expositors (such as Hales,
Tanner, Taylor, et cetera) suggest the martyrdom of
Stephen as the closing event of the seventieth week
and such might be quite reasonable no historical
mark is actually necessary, and possibly none can be
pointed out with certainty. We therefore recognize the
seventieth hebdomad as having its fundamental em-
phasis on the transcendent event of Christ's death,
along with the six great corollaries, all clustered in the
"midst" of the last hebdomad.
292 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
10. FURTHER WOES TO FALL UPON THE JEWS. Next
Is foretold the appalling adversities to follow, after the
close of the 70 weeks. These came as a consequence of
the Jewish rejection of the Messiah, and involved the
destruction of the Temple, the razing of the city of
Jerusalem, the scattering of the Jewish people, and a
succession of calamities sweeping over Jerusalem like a
flood of desolation (Dan. 9:26). The exact time was
not predicted, but the events would take place after
the 70 weeks of years had closed, by A.D. 34. And it
should be particularly noted that this tragic visitation
was not one of the specified acts that were to mark the
seventieth week finishing the transgression, making
an end of sins, making reconciliation, bringing in ever-
lasting righteousness, sealing the vision, and anointing
the most holy. It was the fearful aftermath and inevi-
table consequence of Israel's rejection of their Messiah.
The dread "abomination of desolation," spoken of
by Daniel the prophet, was referred to by Christ Him-
self in His own great prophecy: "When ye therefore
shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by
Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
readeth, let him understand)" (Matt. 24:15-20; com-
pare Mark 13:14). This is more fully explained by the
words, "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with
armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh"
(Luke 21:20). Hundreds of thousands were slain,
tens of thousands sold into slavery, and war followed
upon war.
11. FEARFUL PUNISHMENT COMES TO JERUSALEM.
Christ Himself, in foretelling the utter destruction
and desolation to come upon Jerusalem because of her
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 293
mounting iniquities, declared, "Verily I say unto you,
All these things shall come upon tills generation"
(Matt. 23:36). These prophesied judgments upon Jeru-
salem and the Temple fell beyond the close of the 70
weeks, but within the generation specified. They were
the inevitable consequence of the supreme sin of Israel
in their rejection of the Messiah. Thus their cup of
iniquity was filled (verse 32). As our Lord looked into
the immediate future, He wept over the city, saying:
If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the
things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from
thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and
keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the
ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave
in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the
time of thy visitation (Luke 19:42-44).
Beginning in A.D. 66, wars broke out between the
Jews and the Romans, reaching their climax in A.D. 70.
The Temple was no longer the dwelling place of God,
and its earthly sacrifices had lost their significance.
The Zealots were denounced by Josephus as the direct
cause of the destruction (Wars iv. 3. 3). These sicarii
("assassins") desecrated everything that was holy, and
their activities were characterized by atrocities, profana-
tion, and violence. The consummation ended in utter
destruction.
A few days before the A.D. 70 Passover, the Roman
destroyers, under Titus, came to Jerusalem. They at-
tacked the city and soon breached the wall. The city
was overwhelmed. As the Temple precincts were en-
tered, the daily sacrifices were stopped. The Temple was
fired and destroyed, and the Jews ruthlessly slaugh-
-s-
<3--
<<M
D
o
o
CM
THE 70 WEEKS AND THE 2300 DAYS 295
tered their blood, according to Josephus, flowing in
streams down the steps. The desolater had come. The
city and Temple were in ruins; the desolation accom-
plished.
12. TIE-IN OF 70 WEEKS AND 2300 DAYS. Because
of the fact that the crucifixion of Christ in the midst of
the week definitely proves the correct beginning of the
70 weeks, and because the 70 weeks were cut off from
the 2300 days, we therefore hold that the two periods
began synchronously at the full restoration of Jeru-
salem and the sanctuary-temple, and of the Jewish laws
and government, in 457 B.C. Numerous other expositors
have taken 457 B.C. as the determinative date. The late
Dr. James Strong, of Drew Theological Seminary, Eng-
lish translator and reviser of Zockler (Lange's Com-
mentary, on Dan 9:24-27), says: "The only 'command 5
answering to that of verse 25 is that of Artaxerxes
Longimanus, issued in the seventh year of his reign,
and recorded in the seventh chapter of Ezra, as Pri-
deaux has abundantly shown, and as many critics
agree."*
To this scores upon scores of scholars in various
lands and of many faiths, from the time of Johann
Petri, of Germany, in 1768 onward, were in full but
independent agreement. (See historical evidence pre-
sented in Question 27.)
*Funck, Nigrinus, Bullinger, Cocceius, Sir Isaac Newton, Cappel, Horch. Ben-
gel, Petri were among the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformation and post-
Reformation leaders who took the seventh year of Artaxerxes date {457 B.C.).
Early nineteenth-century Old World writers include Prideaux, Faber, T. Scott,
A. Clarke, Cuninghame, Mason, Brown, Fry, White, Cooper, Homan, Keyworth,
Addis, Hoare, Digby, Keith, Habershon, Bickersteth, Gaussen. And New World
carly-nineteenth-century expositors include Boudinot, R, Scott, Livermore, Wheeler,
Shannon, Tyng, Hinton.
Among more recent scholars may be listed Jamieson, Faucett and Brown, Rule,
Pusey, Auberlen, Blackstone, Leathes, Tanner, and Boutflower.
The Seventieth Week of
Daniel 9 and the Gap Theory
QUESTION 26
Why do Adventists hold that the seventi-
eth week of years of Daniel 9 follows immedi-
ately upon the close of the sixty-ninth week of
years? Did not Hippolytus and Apollinaris, back
in the third and fourth centuries, introduce a
break, or gap? On what basis do you differ with
those present-day fundamentalists who hold that
the seventieth week is separated by a vast gap
of over nineteen centuries and will not" be ful-
filled until the end of the age, and that it per-
tains to the acts of antichrist rather than to those
of Christ? Are you not practically alone in your
view?
Answering the last question first, we are by no
means alone. While Seventh-day Adventists differ on
this point with many (but by no means all) fundamen-
talists of today, we are in accord with the outstanding
scholars of the centuries early church, medieval Cath-
olic and Jewish, Protestant Reformation, and post-Ref-
ormation. And until the upsurge of dispensationalism
in the past few decades, most conservative modern
296
THE GAP THEORY 297
scholars* held, as we still hold, to the seventy weeks of
years as an uninterrupted, continuous unit.
But to return to the first three questions. A satis-
factory answer to these queries would require us to go
into many aspects of Bible prophecy, and into the
whole philosophy with which we approach the predic-
tive portions of the Scriptures. It would require us to
show what we believe to be the weaknesses and fallacies
of the gap theory, as well as its concomitant basic
philosophy the futurist interpretation of prophecy, of
which it is a part. There is not space within the assigned
limits of this question to deal with all these ramifica-
tions.
We should explain that we have accepted the his-
torical school interpretation of prophecy, believing it to
be the philosophy of prophecy set forth in the Scriptures.
Therefore we cannot accept the theories of a separated
week, a long gap during which prophecy does not apply,
and a future antichrist at the end of the age. These
theories are based on principles of interpretation that
*Those who accept this interpretation that connects the seventieth week with
the Messiah include:
Early Church Fathers. Tertullian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Polychronius, and Augustine.
Medieval Christian writers. The Venerable Bede, Thomas Aquinas, and Arnold
of Villanova.
Pre-Reformation leaders. Wycliffe and Brute, together with such Reformers
as Luther, Melanchthon, Funck, Selnecker, Nigrinus, and Heinrich Bullinger.
Post-Reformation scholars. Joseph Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, William Whiston,
Johann Bengel, Humphrey Prideaux, John Blair, and James Ferguson.
Nineteenth-century Old World exegetes. Jean de la Flechere, William Hales,
George Faber, Thomas Scott, Adam Clarke, Thomas Home, Archibald Mason, John
Brown > John Fry, Thomas White, Edward Cooper, Thomas Kcyworth. Alfred Addis,
William Pym, Daniel Wilson, Alexander Keith, Matthew Habershon, Edward Bicker-
steth, and Louis Gaussen, as well as the later Havernick, Hengstenberg, and Pusey.
Nineteenth-century American expositors. ElSas Boudinot, William Davis, Mod-
non, cr a, , s.
And in more recent times we might add G. H. H. Wright, R. D. Wilson, Bout-
flower, and others too numerous to mention. Adventists therefore have a host of
illustrious predecessors for their position.
298 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
we reject as unscriptural. In the Interests of brevity
we shall confine our answer to the first two points men-
tioned in the questions.
I. THE SEVENTIETH WEEK OF YEARS FOLLOWS THE
SIXTY-NINTH WEEK. We believe, In common with the
great group of godly scholars mentioned in the foot-
note, that the 70-weeks prophecy climaxes with the
manifestation of Jesus Christ as the true Messiah, and
then seals the inerrancy of the outline with a portrayal
of the atoning death of Christ. All this was outlined by
inspiration five hundred years prior to those tremen-
dous transactions that changed the entire course of hu-
man history. And this is most conclusive in proving
Jesus Christ to be the true and only Messiah, and in
setting forth the wondrous provisions of complete re-
demption in and through Him.
The 70 "sevens" of years "determined," or meas-
ured out and set apart in the councils of heaven, for this
prophecy, had a specified starting point. (See Ques-
tion 25, p. 278). These 70 hebdomads were divided
into three groups of 7, 62, and 1 totaling 490 years.
"Know therefore and understand" (Dan. 9:25), was
the admonition of the prophecy, that 69 hebdomads,
or units of 7 years, were to pass between the "com-
mandment" and the manifestation of Messiah the
Prince that is, 7 plus 62 weeks of years, or 483 years.
The 69 weeks therefore simply constitute the time that
must elapse from a designated point. While the passing
years of the 69 hebdomads are important, it is the
seventieth hebdomad that is all-important. The 69
weeks of years constitute the precise length of time to
the manifestation of Jesus as Messiah, as seen in Ques-
THE GAP THEORY 299
tion 25. It is therefore logical that the seventieth week
refers to the 7 years following the 69th, that is, to the
period in which the Messiah's ministry took place. The
wording of the text in no way indicates a break or gap.
Most of the older expositors, who make the baptism
of Jesus the terminus of the 69 weeks of years, recog-
nize the "one week" of years as following immediately,
without a break the crucifixion taking place 3i/ years
later, in the "midst" of the seventieth week of years.
Such scholars recognized the remaining 3i/ 2 years of
the last week as pertaining to the founding of Chris-
tianity through the preaching of the disciples. Since
neither wording nor logic indicates a gap, the burden
of proof rests dn those who would break the continuity
of the period.
God's designated measuring line for this 70-weeks
prophecy is of "determined" or allotted length, to be
measured from a clearly established historical land-
mark. And the obvious purpose of the prophecy is to
foretell the time of the occurrence of certain matters of
supreme moment things to occur in the last, or seven-
tieth, hebdomad of the series. Hence, to postpone that
final week of years and project it far into the future is
in reality to obscure the time element, one of the main
points of the entire prophecy, and thus do violence to
its obvious intent.
To insert into a 490-year period a "gap" of two
thousand years, four times longer than the entire 70
weeks itself, constitutes unwarranted manipulation. It
changes the prophetic measuring line into an elastic
band. Those who follow such a procedure have aban-
doned a measuring line of "determined" length for one
300 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
of wholly indeterminate length, and have made it a
vast nondescript period totally foreign to this specific
prophecy.
Those holding the gap theory, who make the sepa-
rated last week the period of final crisis at the end of
the age, must perforce add a hiatus of two thousand
years. This is a form of exegesis without a precedent*
in all prophetic exposition.
Since 7 plus 62 weeks lead to the Messiah, we
should logically conclude that Christ's public ministry,
as Messiah, lay beyond the sixty-ninth week yet
within the seventieth week, as numbered consecutively.
This has been the predominant view of Christian
scholarship through the centuries.
With relatively few exceptions, expositors have
taken the two separately mentioned periods of the 7
weeks and the 62 (together making 69 weeks of years,
or 483 years) without inserting any gap between them.
But the gap advocates say that the seventieth week of
years, numbered from the starting point, was not the
seventieth week of prophecy in sequence. That is
clearly the crux of the issue.
It is not Seventh-day Adventists who, in these latter
times, have departed from the historic view of the
centuries on the seventy weeks of years. We continue to
*The argument is sometimes advanced that, according to Luke 4:16-21, when
Christ, at the outset of His ministry, was reading in the synagogue from the proph-
ecy of Isaiah concerning His own designated work, He stopped reading in the
midst of the passage, and did not include the "day of vengeance" to come in the
future at the end of the age. That is true; but the case is totally different. Isaiah
was not setting forth a measure of time, which is the issue in the prophecy of the
70 weeks. Jesus simply declared that that part of the prophecy He had just read was
even then being fulfilled. He was dealing only with the present, which was being
accomplished before their eyes. That was all. The rest was indeed future, for Isaiah
had recorded a sweeping outline of events that covers the entire age, extending to
the great consummation.
THE GAP THEORY 301
hold the centuries-old, orthodox position of Protestant-
ism, but we do not base our belief on historical prec-
edent. We recognize that the gap theory, which applies
this prophecy to a future antichrist, is an unwitting
outgrowth of the counter-Reformation of the sixteenth
century. It is our profound conviction that the system
based on the separated week, is an unwarranted innova-
tion.
We believe that it is incumbent upon us to adhere
undeviatingly to sound, unimpeachable principles of
prophetic interpretation. To us there appears to be no
valid reason, or defensible ground, for separating the
seventieth week from the 69. The 7 weeks and the 62
weeks run on continuously without a break. And we
find no justifiable basis, exegetical or otherwise, for
separating the seventieth week from the sixty-ninth
and arbitrarily placing it down at the end of the age.
There is assuredly no precedent for it in paralleling
prophetic interpretation. Neither is there anything in
the Hebrew text of Daniel to warrant It, or in the
Greek LXX.
It seems abundantly clear to us that the specifications
of the prophecy find exact and complete fulfillment in
the life, ministry, and death of Christ, and in the sub-
sequent desolation of the Jewish nation as a result of
their rejection of the promised Messiah.
When we reckon from the decree of Artaxerxes
I, given to Ezra (457 B.C.), to the end of 69 weeks of
years (A.D. 27), with the ministry of Christ beginning
with His "anointing" at His baptism, and His death
taking place in the midst of the seventieth week (which
ends the 490 years, in A.D. 34), there is perfect harmony
302 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
between the prophetic specifications and the historical
fulfillments.
The sixfold specifications of the prophecy that were
to be accomplished within the 70 weeks were completely
fulfilled in the work of Christ and His sacrificial
death on the cross. These all actually took place in the
week of years immediately following A.D. 27. They have
been discussed at length in the answer to Question 25,
and will not be repeated here.
The desolation of the Jewish nation, though delayed
by divine mercy for some years after the close of the
490-year period allotted to the Jews, exactly fulfilled
the specifications of the prophecy when the Roman
armies destroyed the Temple and the city of Jerusalem
and dispersed the Jews in A.D. 70.
The entire 70-weeks prophecy finds fulfillment in
the ministry, rejection, and death of the Messiah, in
the ending of the period allotted to the Jews, in the
confirmation of the covenant by the blood of Christ,
and in the inauguration of the heavenly ministry for
all believers, both Jew and Gentile, under the new
covenant. In view of the perfect fulfillment of all the
prophetic specifications in the period of the 70 con-
secutive weeks of years, we find no reason whatever for
cutting off the last week and relating it to the end of
the age.
2. BASIC FALLACY OF APPEAL TO EARLY CHURCH
PROGENITORS. The appeal by modern adherents of the
gap theory to such writers as Hippolytus of Portus
Romanus (third century) or Apollinaris of Laodicea
(fourth century) necessitates an inquiry into the basis
of this contention.
THE GAP THEORY 303
In the first place, these two expositors (whose
views were not those of the majority in the early church)
had in their 70-weeks interpretation obviously diver-
gent elements that are admittedly not followed by
those who look to them as progenitors of the present
futurist views. Take Hippolytus, for example: In pro-
jecting a gap into the 70 hebdomads, he construed the
first 69 units, or weeks of years, as reaching from the
first year of Cyrus (or of Darius the Mede) to the
incarnation of Christ a chronological impossibility
without elongating the period. Of course those who
cite Hippolytus for the gap interpretation do not fol-
low the details of his theory, such as his erroneous
elongation of the 69 weeks, any more than they accept
his expectation of the Second Advent about A.D. 500.
But they appeal to Hippolytus and others in support of
an early-church origin of their futurist theory of the
70 weeks. However, to base futurism, as the word is
understood today, on the views of the early church is to
make an unsound use of historical precedent; to employ
such "historical foundations" is to build it on shifting,
sinking sands. The early Christian view of eschatology
was not truly futurism. The historicists have the better
claim to kinship with the primitive church.
The belief of the early Christians that most of the
prophecies were yet unfulfilled in their day does not
make them futurists in the ordinarily understood mean-
ing of the word. Futurism is the view, not that most of
the prophecies were in the future at the beginning of
the Christian Era, but that they will still be in the
future at the end of the Christian Era. Historicists be-
lieve that there was necessarily a time when the bulk
304 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
of the prophecies were yet unfulfilled, and that eventu-
ally there will be a time when they will all be fulfilled.
The difference is that the historicist looks for the ful-
fillment as progressively unfolding in history until the
end, while the futurist makes the Christian age a
"parenthesis," or a gap, in prophetic fulfillment and
postpones further fulfillment to a comparatively brief
time in the end, beginning with the coming of Christ
for His saints. There are many variations among futur-
ists, but we may summarize their characteristic views.
a. That the greater part of the prophecies (includ-
ing Daniel's fourth kingdom and seventieth week, and
all of Revelation except the letters to the seven
churches) await fulfillment in the time after Christ's
coming to resurrect and translate the saints.
b. That the entire "church age" is a gap during
which the prophetic clock has stopped ticking.
c. That all time prophecies are in literal time (the
year-day principle is denied).
d. That "Israel" throughout the Bible always re-
fers to literal Jews.
e. That the Old Testament prophecies and prom-
ises of the glorious rule of God's people must be ful-
filled unconditionally and literally to the restored Jews,
who are expected to reign over the unconverted and
untransformed nations during the millennium.
/. That the antichrist is a future person, a God-
opposing tyrant, who will oppress the Jews and bring
upon the world (the returned Jews, the Gentile na-
tions, and apostate Christendom) a 3i/-year tribula-
tion during the latter half of a delayed seventieth
hebdomad, after the second advent.
THE GAP THEORY 305
g. That before this tribulation the "rapture/' or res-
urrection and translation o the saints, will remove the
church from the earth (secretly, as most believe).
h. That the Jews will be, even during the millen-
nium, completely separate from the Christian church.
2. That not only the bulk of prophecy but other
considerable portions of the Bible, including the larg-
est part of the Gospels, belong to other ages and not
to the church. (This is part of an elaborate system of
"dispensations" prominent in futurist writings.)
Without examining the correctness or incorrectness
of these points, let us examine the early church views on
these subjects. The early church was premillennialist,
but premillennialism is not necessarily equivalent to
futurism, as so many both futurists and their op-
ponents assume today.
a. The early Christians did indeed place a con-
siderable proportion of the prophecies in the future
(for the obvious reason that the infant church, standing
at the threshold of the book of Revelation, lived in the
very beginning of fulfillment). And they placed most
of the future fulfillments in the last days, because they
expected the last days very soon. But they did not put
the fourth kingdom, the beasts of Revelation, the anti-
christ, and the great tribulation after the return of
Christ and the first resurrection.
b. They did not see the "church age" as a parenthe-
sis in prophecy or as an interruption of a Jewish age
that was to be resumed and completed without the
church in the future. They found themselves in the
midst of prophetic fulfillments under the fourth
kingdom, which they expected to be followed by the
306 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
breakup of the Roman Empire and the rise of anti-
christ, all of which would lead to the second advent
and the kingdom. They saw continuity in prophecy and
history from the Old Testament times down to the
end.
c. It is true that they took such prophetic periods
as the 1260 days, et cetera, as literal time. This was
natural, since they did not expect the world to last
1260 years.
d. They considered literal Israel as no longer en-
titled to the kingdom that she had rejected along
with her Messiah, and believed that the true Israel
was henceforth spiritual Israel, the church.
e. They pictured an earthly rule over the unregen-
erate nations during the millennium this, embellished
with details of plenty and prosperity, they had inherited
from the Jewish apocalypticists but they differed from
both the Jewish apocalypticists and the modern futur-
ists in that the kingdom was to be that of the Christian
saints, not of the Jews.
/. They agreed with the Jewish apocalyptic (and
also the futurist) view of antichrist as an individual
tyrant in power for 3l/ years. Some of them applied the
time of antichrist to the second half of a delayed
seventieth week, but this was not the majority view;
many expositors ended the 70 weeks at or near the close
of Christ's life on earth. It should be remembered that
those who had a "gap" in the 70 weeks had quite a
different concept from the present futurists, for they
expected only a short interval until the end; they never
dreamed of such an anomaly as a 490-year period with a
2,000-year break in it.
THE GAP THEORY 307
g. They placed the great tribulation (under the
antichrist-beast-little-horn) before the first resurrection,
and consequently they expected the church to be
on earth during that period. They saw it as the next
development in history following the expected breakup
of the then-present Roman Empire, and thus preceding
the coming of Christ.
h. They believed that Christ was to rule the earth
during the millennium through the church the re-
deemed saints from among both Jews and Gentiles
not through the Jews as a separate chosen people out-
side the church.
i. They did not separate the Scriptures into dispen-
sational compartments that assigned the epistles to the
church, the bulk of the Gospels to the Jewish age, et
cetera. They claimed the Gospels as foundational and
saw their own tribulations in the book of Revelation.
To what extent, then, were those early-church views
inherited by the futurists? Out of nine points there is
complete agreement only on c, and incomplete on /.
We may include partial agreement on two more: on
a in so far as the early church placed more prophecies
near the end of time, since they expected the end
shortly, and on e in so far as they expected a literal,
earthly millennial kingdom. But a and e must be listed
also as points of major difference, since there is a
great cleavage between mere future fulfillments and a
cessation of fulfillment until after the coming of Jesus
and the resurrection; also between a reign of the re-
generate saints and that of the Jewish nation. In addi-
tion we find clear disagreement on b, d, g, h, and i.
These findings are decidedly against calling the early
308 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
church futurist or regarding the futurist views as de-
rived from early premillenniahsm.
How, then, shall we classify the view of the early
Christians? It was the so-called ''continuous-historical/'
or historlcist. Having already applied some of Daniel's
prophecies historically, the believers naturally contin-
ued to apply further prophetic events in the same way.
Living under the fourth empire, they awaited Rome's
division; already they saw the working of the approach-
ing falling away that was to lead to antichrist. Thus
they saw prophecy developing step by step in history
though not in long-term historical development,
since they did not expect a long history of the world.
But aside from the length of the process, their method
was exactly that of the historicist interpretation the
interpretation that finds in prophecy an outline of
history, in the New Testament the continuation and
fulfillment of the Old Testament, and in the Christian
church the heir of the promises and prophecies of both
Testaments.
We believe that the, early church had the right
method; their errors lay in the chiliastic misconception
of the kingdom and their tyrant-antichrist notions, both
inherited from Jewish apocalypticism, and in their
short-range view of the time element. These were errors
of the age, and their correction, as time went on, re-
quired no basic shift in approach. The early church
laid down the principles of historicist premillennialism.
Scholarly Precedents for 1 844
Ending of 2300 Year-Days
QUESTION 27
What scholarly support can Seventh-day
Adventists cite for holding, not only that the
2300 days of Daniel 8:14 are symbolic and there-
fore stand for 2300 actual years in fulfillment,
but especially that they end in 1844? Does not
your position differ from both fundamentalists
and modernists, as well as from Jews and Roman
Catholics? Was not your variant concept an in-
novation first devised by a layman, William
Miller? What reputable scholars, if any, have
ever supported such a conclusion?
We believe our view to be the logical conclusion
and climax of nearly a thousand years of progressive ap-
plication of the year-day principle to the symbolic time
periods of Bible prophecy. Its progenitors and cham-
pions have embraced literally hundreds of illustrious
Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant scholars. The intent of
the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 has intrigued men for
more than a thousand years.
There are seven progressive steps, or principal ad-
vances, that form the historical antecedents of our pres-
ent position. These compass two millenniums and in-
clude some of the greatest scholars of the centuries, as
309
310 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
well as involving all major faiths. (The digest that fol-
lows is based upon complete documentary evidence ap-
pearing in the four-volume set The Prophetic Faith of
Our Fathers, by L. E. Froom.)
1. EARLY CHURCH STRESSED SEVENTY WEEKS OF
YEARS. Early churchmen expounded the 70 weeks of
Daniel 9 as weeks of years, or 490 years. These included
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Julius Africanus,
Eusebius Pamphili, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Theodoret, Polychronius, Isidore of Peiusium, Theodo-
sius, Miletenus, Andronicus, and Prosper of Aquitaine.
And this position has long been the general view among
both Catholics and Protestants.
2. YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE APPLIED BY MEDIEVAL
JEWS TO ALL SYMBOLIC TIME PERIODS. Medieval
Jewish scholars were the first to apply the year-day
principle to the day periods of Daniel the 1290, 1335,
and 2300 as year-days, leading to the "far-off days/'
at the "time of the end." Beginning with ninth-century
Nahawendi, and then tenth-century Saadia, Jeroham,
and Hakohen, we come to eleventh-century Rashi, who
regarded the 2300 as full years. Then we find four
twelfth-century and two thirteenth-century scholars,
including Nahmanides, teaching the same. And three
fourteenth-century rabbis, Abravanel in the fifteenth
century, and others in the sixteenth century, parallel-
ing the Protestant Reformation, provide a total of
twenty-one Jewish expositors, spread over Palestine,
Persia, Syria, Babylon, France, Spain, Algeria, Portugal,
Italy, Turkey, Poland, and Germany.
3. MEDIEVAL CATHOLIC SCHOLARS PARALLEL JEWISH
YEAR-DAY RECKONING. Beginning in 1190, with the
SCHOLARLY PRECEDENTS FOR 1844 311
renowned Joachim of Floris, of Calabria, Italy, the
year-day principle was first applied to the 1260 days as
the years of the symbolic woman, or church in the
wilderness. And in the thirteenth century Joachimite
scholars in Italy, Spain, France, and Germany similarly
applied the year-day principle to the 1260, 1290, 1335,
and 2300 days. For example, about 1292 Arnold of
Villanova said that the 2300 days stand for 2300 years,
counting the period from the time of Daniel to the
Second Advent. Here is his express statement: "When
he says, 'two thousand three hundred days' it must be
said that by days he understands years. ... In that vision
by days are understood years."
Better known to most church historians is the illus-
trious Nicholas Krebs of Cusa, Roman Catholic cardi-
nal, scholar, philosopher, and theologian, who in 1452
declared that the 2300 year-days began in the time of
Persia. His Conjecture Concerning the Last Days
(1452) declares that the 2300 year-days extend from
Persia to the consuming of sin at the Second Advent,
possibly between 1700 and 1750.
4. CORRECT TERMINI OF SEVENTY WEEKS ESTAB-
LISHED. In the German Reformation Johann Funck
(1564) first correctly placed the seventy weeks (490
years) as reckoned from the seventh year of Artaxerxes,
from 457 B.C. to A.D. 34. In this he was soon followed
by other Protestant scholars in various lands, such
as Cappel in France, and Bullinger in Switzerland.
Scores of interpreters have since held the Artaxerxes-
decree date (457 B.C.) as the beginning of the seventy
weeks of years. The list soon included Colonial
American scholars as well. (A large group held the
312 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
same view in the early nineteenth century in Britain,
on the Continent, and in North America. And since
then, such expositors as Doderlein, Franc, Geier, Pusey,
Auberlen, Blackstone, Taylor, and Boutflower have
concurred, as well as Roman Catholics such as Lerap-
kin.)
5. TlLLINGHAST INCLUDES SEVENTY WEEKS WlTHIN
2300. In the century after the Protestant Reforma-
tion, many Protestant expounders from English theolo-
gian George Downham (died 1634) to British barrister
Edward King in 1798, declared the number 2300 in-
volved the same number of years. John Tillinghast
(died 1655) ended them at the second advent and the
1000-year reign of the saints. Tillinghast was the first
to assert the 70 weeks of years to be a lesser epoch
within the larger period of the 2300 years. He did not
begin them together. But he declared the 70 weeks to
belong within the 2300 years.
6. 2300 YEARS EMBRACES ALL LESSER PERIODS.
Heinrich Horch of Germany declared that the 2300
years is the master, over-all period, and includes all
lesser time periods. Thomas Beverley, of Britain, be-
lieved it led to the second advent, the end of the world,
the resurrection, the breaking of antichrist, and the
millennium. Brilliant scholars in Britain and Germany
such as Lowth, Whiston, Bishop Newton, Fletcher,
Horch, and Giblehr looked for the church's deliver-
ance, the destruction of antichrist, the establishment
of Christ's kingdom to follow upon the close of this
period.
Some Colonial and early national American writers
such as Congregational theologian Cotton Mather,
SCHOLARLY PRECEDENTS FOR 1844 313
Governor William Burnet, Episcopalian rector Rich-
ard Clarke, Postmaster General Samuel Osgood, and
Harvard librarian James Winthrop believed that the
period would end with the fall of spiritual Babylon,
the "rest that remains," the kingdom of God, the
world's "midnight," the smiting of the nations, the
millennium, or the end of the world.
7. PETRI 2300 YEARS BEGIN JOINTLY WITH SEV-
ENTY WEEKS. Johann P. Petri (died 1792), Reformed
pastor of Seckbach, Germany, in 1768 introduced the
final step in the progressive and logical series of seven
principles leading to the inevitable conclusion and
climax that the 490 years (70 weeks of years) are the
first part of the 2300 years. He began them synchro-
nously, 453 years before the birth of Christ terminat-
ing the 490 years in A.I>. 37, and the 2300 years in 1847.
Hans Wood, of Ireland, likewise made the 70 weeks
the first part of the 2300 years. Soon men on both sides
of the Atlantic, in Africa, even in India and other
countries, began to set forth their convictions in similar
vein.
Scores in Early Nineteenth Century Fix on 1843, '44, or '47
In the first third of the nineteenth century a tre-
mendous revival of study took place concerning the
prophecies pertaining to the approaching end of the
age. A number of European scholars in Britain, on the
Continent, and even in India from John A. Brown
in 1810, to Birks in 1843 published their convictions
that the 2300 years would end about 1843, '44, or '47.
These three dates represent essentially the same reckon-
ing, with the death of Christ in the midst, or at the end,
314 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
of the seventieth week of years, with the 2300 counted
from the same starting point as the 70 weeks. The
differences are mere matters of computation or of plac-
ing Christ's birth in 1 or 4 B.C.
In North America a paralleling group of scholars
holding high posts in various denominations all prior
to William Miller from William C. Davis (1810) on,
likewise looked to 1843, '44, or '47 as destined to intro-
duce some great event or period the advent, the judg-
ment scene, or the millennial reign of the saints, or
the effusion of the Spirit preceding Christ's coming.
These included Dr. Joshua L. Wilson, moderator of
the Presbyterian General Assembly; Protestant Episco-
pal Bishop John P. K. Henshaw; Alexander Campbell,
founder of the Disciples Church; several college presi-
dents and professors, judges, congressmen, physicians,
pastors of outstanding churches, and editors of several
religious journals.
It is both interesting and significant that more than
sixty men in the early nineteenth century, scattered
over four continents, and located in twelve different
countries including even a Roman Catholic supreme
court justice, Jose de Rozas of Mexico City looked to
1843, '44, or '47 as the terminus of this epochal period.
And nearly all of them published their expectations
before William Miller's first book appeared in Troy,
New York, in 1836.
Such is the impressive historical background, and
scholarly non-Seventh-day Adventist precedent, re-
vealed in the record. We consequently feel that our
position that the 2300 year-days of Daniel 8:14 ex-
tend from 457 B.C. to A.D. 1844 has ample precedent.
SCHOLARLY PRECEDENTS FOR 1844 315
So, In common with many before us, we, as Adventists,
hold that the closing date was to announce important
events clustering around the great judgment day and
the closing events of the age. (The basis of our fixing
upon the 2300 years as extending from 457 B.C. to A.D.
1844 appears under Questions 24 and 25.)
Ours Not a Discovery, but a Continuation
Our reason for accepting as rational, logical, and
exegetically sound the interpretation that places the
terminus of the 2300 years in 1844 is not based on the
imposing array of scholarly expositors cited, but the
fact remains that we have this supporting host of ex-
positors, without a parallel in the annals of prophetic
exposition.
That is why we feel that if we are to be 'censured,
then, in simple fairness and justice, similar charges of
unreasonableness should be placed against that illus-
trious company of accomplished Biblical scholars who
have held essentially the same view, and who held
honored posts in the leading Protestant communions.
They are recognized, outstanding Christian scholars.
And we, as Adventists, continue to take our place in
that great line of serious-minded prophetic expositors
of the centuries, clasping hands with the brilliant, godly
company of exegetes before us. They are our spiritual
ancestors in this exposition, and we their logical suc-
cessors and continuators. If we find ourselves differ-
ing with most fundamentalists and all modernists, that
is because they have abandoned the historicist position
the one group for futurism, and the other for pret-
erism. Our view represents the position once held by
316 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
their spiritual ancestors. We do not base our doctrine
on the authority of our predecessors; we find our own
basis in a study of Scripture and a comparison of fulfill-
ment in history. But we are here answering the ques-
tion about our precedents in exposition, and we feel
honored to stand in this distinguished line.
To conclude: From facts here adduced, it becomes
evident that our position on the reckoning of the 2300
year-days is not an innovation. It is in harmony with
positions long since held, but which others have let
slip. It cannot rightly be called an invention, a dis-
covery; it is, in reality, a continuation and restoration
of prophetic truths and principles progressively adopted
over the centuries. We are therefore not introducers
of new positions, but are sincere champions of old
historic positions developed by the Christian church
of the ages.
Antiochus E-piphanes and the
Prophetic Specifications of Daniel
QUESTION 28
Why do Adventists reject the position, so
widely held, that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfills
the prophecy of the "little horn" of Daniel 7 or
8) or both y with his suppression of the Jewish
sacrifices between 167 and 164 B.C., as the fulfill-
ment of the predicted exploits and time period
of the "little horn"?
The issue here raised is more complex, and far
more fundamental, than might at first appear. Some
apply to Antiochus Epiphanes the "little horn" symbol
of Daniel 7, which became "more stout" than any other
of the ten horns (verse 20), while others apply to him
the "little horn" of Daniel 8, which became "exceeding
great" (Dan. 8:9, 10). Still others seek to apply to
Antiochus the little horns in both chapters. But these
horns, as will be shown, are two separate symbols.
They are not identical, and parallel each other only in
part.
Numerous Bible scholars (such as Faussett, Auber-
len, Ziindel, Eberhardt, Havernick, Hengstenberg,
Scofield, Gaebelein, and Ironside) warn against con-
fusing the "little horn" of Daniel 7 with the "little
horn" of Daniel 8. Nevertheless, many continue to con-
317
318 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
fuse them, and thus become involved in irreconcilable
difficulties.
Those who place Antiochus in Daniel 8 do not
necessarily also hold the so-called "Porphyry theory" of
Daniel 7, which makes Antiochus the little horn of a
"Greek" fourth kingdom. There are also those who, on
the basis of a partial or preliminary fulfillment of some
aspects of the prophecy, have regarded Antiochus as a
type, or forerunner, of the great persecuting Antichrist
who was to realize the actual fulfillment centuries later.
There has been, besides, an almost universal opinion
that Antiochus has a legitimate place among the series
of kings Ptolemies and Seleucids referred to in chap-
ter II, a literal prophecy that covers the period in
which he attempted to suppress the true worship of God.
To find him in that chapter, along with relatively un-
important rulers, is not at all the same as giving him
the disproportionate importance that attaches to the
Antiochus interpretation of the little horn of Daniel 7.
These variations in interpretation must be kept distinct
so as to avoid confusion.
1. GREEK AND ROMAN VIEWS OF THE FOURTH KING-
DOM. It should be noted that any identification of
Antiochus as the little horn of chapter 7 is dependent
on the identification of the fourth of Daniel's four world
powers with the Macedonian (Grecian) period, rather
than the Roman. The Greek and Roman views must be
explained. The majority interpretation through the
centuries has been that the fourth world power of
Daniel 2 and 7 is Rome, and that the prophetic out-
lines portrayed in these chapters (as well as in chapters
8 and 9) reach to the end of time.
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 319
This was early taught by Josephus and other Jewish
writers, and later by such early church expositors as
pseudo-Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus,
Eusebius, Aphrahat, Cyril, Chrysostom, Isidore, Sul-
picius Severus, Jerome, and Theodoret. It was the
virtually universal ,view of pre-Reformation, Reforma-
tion, and post-Reformation times. Beginning in the
thirteenth century and from Reformation times on-
ward, it had as a major corollary that the little horn
of Daniel 7, springing out of the ten divisions of Rome,
was the Papacy. Rome, in its pagan and/or papal
phases, has likewise been said to be the "little" and
later "exceeding great" horn of Daniel 8, though this
is not necessarily a concomitant of the Roman view of
the fourth kingdom. (Antiochus and, later, Moham-
medanism have been seen in chapter 8 by holders of the
Roman view.)
The Greek view was originally held only by Por-
phyry and a few others, but is championed today by a
large number of exegetes, principally of the modernist
school. This scheme assigns the fourth kingdom of
Daniel 2 and 7 to the Greek, or Hellenistic, period
that is, either to Alexander and his successors or to the
successors alone down to the time of the Roman Em-
pire, with Antiochus Epiphanes, the persecuting Seleu-
cid king,* as the "little horn" that came up among
the ten horns of the fourth beast of chapter 7. And
many, even including some who make Rome the fourth
empire, hold that Antiochus constitutes the "exceeding
*The Seleucid Empire was the easternmost of the four divisions of Alexander's
empire. From the fact that its capital was Antipch in Syria, and that in later times
it lost its eastern territory and shrank into Syria proper, it was also referred to as
the Syrian Empire, or merely Syria.
320 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
great*' horn springing out of one of the four horns of
the Grecian goat of chapter 8, or is at least the type or
forerunner of that horn.
This Grecian view, according to S. R. Driver, re-
stricts the latter days "within the range of the writer"
(of the prophecy of Daniel), and puts forth Antiochus
Epiphanes as the "limiting horizon of the book." That
is, everything in the book of Daniel (including chapters
2, 7, 8, 9, 11) is understood to have occurred prior to
the Christian Era. On the contrary, under the Roman
view, with Rome, pagan and papal, as the fourth world
power, the deeds of the "little horn," whatever it may
be, come entirely after the beginning of the Christian
dispensation. One view clearly excludes the other.
2, NON-CHRISTIAN ORIGIN OF THE GRECIAN
THEORY. The origin of the Greek fourth kingdom is
generally credited, not to a Christian exegete, but to a
pagan, Porphyry, who died about A.D. 304. It was de-
vised, not to expound, but to discredit and deny the
prophetic element of the book of Daniel not to con-
firm the Bible, but to deny its veracity. In short, as
many scholars (such as Jerome of Antioch and Bishop
Thomas Newton) have pointed out, it was a pagan's
counterattack upon the inroads of Christian teachings
in the pagan world an avowedly defensive and fabri-
cated claim that the book of Daniel was not written by
the prophet Daniel in the sixth century B.C., but by a
pseudo-Daniel in the second century B.C., in the time
of the Maccabees.* So he maintained that the book of
*Dr. Edward J. Young, of Westminster Theological Seminary (The Prophecy of
Daniel, p. 5) observes: "One who claims that the book of Daniel is a product of the
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 321
Daniel was not a prophecy at all, as it claimed to be, but
only a history written after the events. Thus he chal-
lenged its right to Christian, acceptance and propaga-
tion. It was the accuracy o the historical fulfillment
that made him say it must have been written after the
events.
3. THE Two FORMS OF THE GREEK VIEW. There
are two forms of the Greek view of Daniel's fourth
kingdom, agreeing only on the first kingdom as Babylon
and on the horns of the fourth as Hellenistic kings, with
the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes. The two series
run:
1. Babylon 1. Babylon
2. Persia (Medes and 2. Media
Persians)
3. Alexander's empire 3. Persia
(during his lifetime)
4. Alexander's successors 4. Alexander and his
successors
The first form, generally traced to Porphyry, was
revived about 1600 and has had adherents down into
the present century. The second, taught by Ephraim
the Syrian and a few others, was not resurrected until
the eighteenth century, but today it is quite widely
held. (See H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the
Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it pur-
ports to be. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees,
I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery,
for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during
the exile."
Porphyry challenged and disparaged the veracity and competency of the witness
of Jesus Christ Himself, who cited Daniel as the author of the prophetic book
bearing his name, and recognized the treatise to be an inspired prophecy (Matt.
24:15).
11
322 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel, or the
differing views and their numerous variations.)
The first form of this view ignores the unity of the
Hellenistic period. From' Alexander to the dominance
of Rome the Hellenistic world was a single Greco-
Macedonian-Oriental civilization molded by Greek
language, thought, and political institutions, ruled by
Macedonians, and thought of as a single empire long
after Alexander's death, in spite of its political divi-
sions. One historian says:
We may pause to note that the name of king [as applied to
Seleucus] had no territorial reference. These kings [Alexander's
successors] are never officially styled kings of Egypt or kings of
Asia. If they are called so by historians, it is merely for the pur-
pose of convenient distinction. It connoted rather a personal re-
lation to the Macedonian people. Ideally there was one Macedo-
nian Empire as in the Middle Ages there was one Roman Empire.
But the dignity of Macedonian King was borne conjointly or
concurrently by several chieftains, just as the dignity of Roman
Emperor was borne concurrently by the Western and the Byzan-
tine prince. In practice , of course, each of the rivals had to ac-
quiesce in the others being kings within a certain territorial
sphere. But their connexion with that sphere was never as close
and essential as that of the king of England or the king of France
with his territory. Ptolemy and Seleucid were to the end Mace-
donian kings who happened to reign in Egypt and in Asia.
EDWYN ROBERT BEVAN, The House of Seleucus (1902), vol. 1, pp.
57, 58. (Italics in the original.)
Daniel indicates this unity by representing "Grecia"
as one animal a goat with horns, representing its first
king and his four successors. Just so, Alexander's suc-
cessors did not constitute a distinct kingdom that re-
placed its predecessors by conquest, as did the others;
it was merely a continuation and development out of
Alexander's rule. But in Daniel 2 and 7 the fourth
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 323
kingdom is not a later phase of the third; it is as
distinct as the other three. Not only is the fourth beast
separate, but it is even "diverse" from its predecessors.
A Hellenistic fourth kingdom does not fit the specifica-
tions. If the four-headed leopard is Alexander's em-
pire, who are the four heads if not his four successors,
paralleling the goat's four horns in chapter 8? This
first form of the Greek view does violence both to his-
tory and to Daniel's symbols.
The second series offers no better solution. True,
there was a Median empire preceding the Persian, but
it had been conquered by Cyrus some years before his
conquest of Babylon. Hence it is historically impossible
for it to be the second of the four kingdoms, following
Babylon. Neither does the book of Daniel separate
Median from Persian rule. The Babylonian kingdom is
replaced by that of "the Medes and Persians" (Dan.
5:28); Darius the Mede enforces the laws of "the Medes
and Persians" (Dan. 6: 12); the combined rule of "Media
and Persia" symbolized by the single ram (Dan. 8:20)
is destroyed and replaced by the Grecian goat.
The older proponents of this second form of inter-
pretation could place the rule of Cyrus in Babylon after
the Median kingdom of Darius the Mede because they
did not know, as we do now, that the conqueror Cyrus
was recognized in Babylonian records as ruling imme-
diately after the fall of the city. Modern proponents
hold that Daniel's prophecy was written by a late
pseudo-Daniel who ignorantly regarded Darius the
Mede's reign as a separate kingdom preceding the
Persian. We, who accept Daniel as a contemporary
with Cyrus, can neither distort history nor assume that
324 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
Daniel was Ignorant. But Darius the Mede is no more
unhistorical than was Belshazzar before his status, long
doubted, was corroborated from archeological finds in
1923. There is nothing to rule out the reign of Darius
concurrent for a year or two (only his "first year" is
mentioned) with the regnal years of Cyrus. This would
be possible regardless of whether Darius Is to be re-
garded as a subordinate king over Babylonia or as a
"shadow king" over the empire, holding a courtesy
title by sufferance of Cyrus, the actual head of the
empire. Not only is an intermediate Median empire
both unhistorical and unnecessary, but it does not fit
the prophetic specifications. What about three ribs In
a Median bear's mouth? Or the four heads of a Persian
leopard?
Even more difficult is the Greek fourth kingdom
and the fifth. The interpretation of Antiochus as the
little horn, plausible up to a point, breaks down in the
end. Its inadequacy as to his deeds, his time period,
and his relation to the ten horns and the three, is
another topic. Where are the judgment and the fiery de-
struction resulting from his blasphemy? How was the
Grecian kingdom succeeded by the kingdom of God
sweeping away the kingdoms of the world? Indeed,
present advocates of the Greek view point to these
things as proof of the supposed Daniel's late date and
his miscalculation of the future. On the other hand, the
Roman view can be harmonized with both the pro-
phetic specifications and the history of the Roman
Empire and its continuation in the religio-political
empire of the Papacy (see p. 335 and note).
4. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 7 NOT MET. Sev-
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 325
enth-day Adventists reject the application of the little
horn of Daniel 7 to Antiochus for a number of reasons:
a. Antiochus belonged to the third empire in actual
historical sequence from Daniel's time (see p. 333).
6. The fourth beast had ten horns (verses 7, 19,
20), but the Greco-Macedonian beast, to which Antio-
chus belonged, had -four divisions, which are pictured
in chapter 8 as four horns. True, the two symbols need
not necessarily agree, but the discrepancy is between
the actual number of divisions that succeeded the
original empire.
c. Antiochus did not rise after ten kings (verse 24).
He was only eighth in the Seleucid (Syrian) line. Be-
sides, the prophecy calls for contemporaneous, not suc-
cessive, horns.
d. He was not ''diverse" from his predecessors
(verse 24).
e. It is impossible to find three out of ten kings who
were "plucked up" or subdued before him (verses 8,
24); those who claim to do so, name mere aspirants
who were never actual kings.*
/. He was not stouter than the rest (verse 20); he
*Note the inadequacy of the ten horns. In order to make Antiochus Epiphanes
the eleventh horn in Daniel 7, champions of the Grecian view attempt to show
ten successive individual kings of Syria, three of whom were to be plucked up from
actual kingship. But ten bona fide Syrian kings cannot be found. Advocates of the
varying lists often admit uncertainty and speak of historical obscurity, round
numbers, and symbolical interpretations (Delitzsch, Hitzig, Hertzfeld, Zockler).
Keil well remarks (The Book of the Prophet Daniel, p. 255) that the suggested
interpretation is "shattered" by the simple fact that these horns must be found
simultaneously on the head of the beast, not one after another. And Biederwolf
(The Millennium Bible, "Daniel," pp. 207, 208) bluntly declares: "Those who make
Antiochus Epiphanes the 'little horn' and the eleventh king, cannot find the first
ten."
Zockler (Lange's Commentary, on Daniel, p. 165) frankly admits of the three
horns: "Every attempt to designate the three missing monarchs, who should fill the
brief interregnum and state of restless anarchy which preceded the accession of
Antiochus Epiphanes, results in failure." Noting the three customarily listed Deme-
trius, Helioaorus, and Ptolemy IV he adds: "In point of fact, however, none of
these rivals of Epiphanes could be regarded as the king of Syria, for Heliodorus was
a mere usurper, who was dethroned after a brief reign, and there is no record to
326 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
was not the greatest of his line; his father, not he, was
called Antiochus the Great.
g. It is true that he blasphemed God, changed laws
of worship, and persecuted God's chosen people, but
his persecution did not, as claimed, last three and one-
half times (verse 25; see p. 330, Sec. 6).
h. He did not prevail until the judgment before the
Ancient of Days, which was to be followed by the giv-
ing of the everlasting kingdom to the saints (verses 9-
14, 26, 27).
i. His great words were not the cause of the destruc-
tion of the Greco-Macedonian beast, or empire (verse
ii).
/. The kingdom following the Macedonian 'was the
Roman, not the everlasting kingdom of the saints
(verse 27).
k. Some assign this kingdom of the saints to the
first advent of Christ in the next (i.e., the Roman)
period. But the kingdom and dominion "under the
whole heaven" was not set up then, and the kingdom
of grace in the hearts of men does not fit the picture.
/. In a prophecy that sweeps in panorama from the
Babylon of Daniel's day to the judgment and the king-
dom of the saints, the brief and unsuccessful attempt of
Antiochus to dominate the Jews would be magnified
out of all proportion by the application of this little
horn symbol. We look in vain for the tremendous
events of the judgment and the setting up of the ever-
show that either Demetrius or Ptolemy Philometer pretended to the throne with
any degree of earnestness."
Furthermore, the kings, or kingdom, of Syria (embracing only one of four parts
of the original Greek empire) could not qualify as horns of a beast representing
the full Grecian power, as the alleged fourth empire.
ANTIOCHUS EP1PHANES 327
lasting kingdom of God following the kingdom of An-
tiochus.
The conclusion is obvious that Antiochus does not
fill the little-horn specifications, even the earlier ones,
to say nothing of the closing depiction. This makes all
the more evident the bankruptcy of the prevalent
modernist interpretation based on the supposed igno-
rance of a second-century pseudo-Daniel writing pseudo-
prophecy in or after the time of Antiochus. And since
there is no possible candidate of the Macedonian period
other than Antiochus, we must therefore conclude that
the little horn of Daniel 7 cannot be Grecian, and the
only alternative is a Roman horn (see p. 337).
5. SPECIFICATIONS OF DANIEL 8 NOT MET. The
view that makes Antiochus the little horn of Daniel 8,
which becomes "exceeding great," must also be ex-
amined. There is a tempting plausibility in the fact
that Antiochus did actually come "out of one of" the
four horn-kingdoms on the head of the Greco-Mace-
donian goat. Nevertheless, even aside from the fact
that there is a difference of opinion as to whether "out
of one of them" means out of one of the horn-kingdoms
or out of one of "the four winds" (verses 8, 9) i.e.,
one of the four directions of the compass there are
obstacles to considering Antiochus an adequate fulfill-
ment of the prophetic specifications.
a. In the first place, Antiochus was not a "horn."
The four horns of the goat were "four kingdoms" (verse
22), the largest of which was the Seleucid (or Syrian)
kingdom. Antiochus was not a separate horn, or king-
dom, but one of the kings of the Seleucid horn, and
hence a part of one of the horns.
328 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
b. Antiochus did not wax "exceeding great" (verse
9) in comparison with the Greco-Macedonian empire
of Alexander (verse 8). Antiochus was not even the
most powerful king of the Seleucid division of Alex-
ander's empire.
c. Antiochus hardly grew exceeding great through
conquest (verse 9). His push to "the south" into
Egypt was stopped by the mere word of a Roman
officer; his expedition to "the east" resulted in his
death; and his dominion of "the pleasant land" of
Palestine did not last, for his persecution of the Jews
drove them to resistance that later resulted in their
independence.
d. The horn's fury against "the host of heaven"
(verse 10), who are evidently equated with "the mighty
and the holy people" (verse 24), is plausibly a refer-
ence to Antiochus' persecution of the Jews. However, if
the specifications point rather to another power that
also persecuted the people of God, this verse cannot be
decisive.
e. Against what "prince of the host" (verse 11) or
"Prince of princes" (verse 25) did Antiochus stand?
A mere Jewish priest is hardly such a figure; "Prince of
princes" could be only an unusual designation for
God or Christ, whose worship he attacked.
/. Antiochus did take away the "daily sacrifice" to
the true God, though he did not abolish the Temple
sacrifices; he substituted others in honor of heathen
gods. However, he only desecrated "the place of his
sanctuary"; it was not "cast down" until the Romans
destroyed it in A.D. 70.
g. His attempts to "cast down the truth" (verse 12)
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES 329
were unsuccessful. The net result of his persecution
was to strengthen the truth by uniting the Jews against
the Hellenization of Judaism.
A. Though Antiochus was not a weak king, his
ambitious policy can scarcely be said to have "practised,
and prospered" (verses 12; compare verse 24), nor did
his "craft . . . prosper in his hand" (verse 25) in attain-
ing his ends.
i. The attempts to reckon the 2300 days (verse 14)
as the literal period of Antiochus' desecration of the
Temple fail in making the chronology fit any of the
sources (see p. 330, Sec. 6).
y. Antiochus did not reign "in the latter time of"
the Hellenistic kingdoms of Alexander's empire (verse
23), but nearly in the middle of the period.
k. Antiochus was "fierce" toward the Jews, but was
not noted for "understanding dark sentences" (verse
23).
/. His "power" was not outstandingly "mighty,"
nor can it be said that it was "not by his own power"
(verse 24). At least such phrases give no particular
confirmation to the identification of Antiochus.
ra. Antiochus was not "broken without hand"
(verse 25); there is no suggestion of anything miracu-
lous or mysterious about either his failure with the
Jews or his death.
n. To find, as some do, the Papacy as the little
horn in chapter 7, and Antiochus as the little horn in
chapter 8, is to throw the two prophecies out of balance
to interfere with the obvious parallel between the
two series of world powers presented (see p. 335).
If chapter 7 follows the sequence from Babylon
330 QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE
through Persia, Alexander's empire, and his divided
successors, on through the Roman Empire and the
Papacy down to the judgment, then chapter 8, which
begins with Persia, one step later, should cover the
same sequence Persia, Alexander, the four horn-king-
doms that grew out of his empire, and then another
horn, obviously another kingdom. To preserve the ob-
vious parallel, this horn should logically be the next
world power after the Hellenistic monarchies, namely
Rome; and we should expect the scope of the prophecy
to be similar to that of chapter 7, that is, extending to
the end, when the horn would be broken without
hand. (This does not mean that the two little horns are
in all respects identical; see p. 337).
Although certain details of this prophecy of Daniel
8 might be considered applicable to the activities of
Antiochus, yet the figure of that ruler, with his mod-
erate succ 
