|
XXXII
- 1(99) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The
hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you, Basic Understandings Page 2 Basics in Revelation 18:1- 4 Page 5 Basic Understandings of Church Page 6 Editor's
Preface With this issue of WWN, we begin our 32nd year of
continuous publication. Much has transpired during these three decades plus,
both within the Church and within the world. This preface is being written just
a few days after the Americar mid-term election. If
ever an election revealed the breakdown of the moral fiber of America,
especially on the West and East coast this one did. The lifestyle of the days
before the Flood, and the the culture of Sodom are
the same forces which seek to dominate the American scene. We need to remember
that Jesus said that this lifestyle and culture would mark the time jusI before His return. It is no longer a mere cliché to
say thatl we have reached the end times. The devil
indeed has come down knowing that he hath but a short time. The tragic factor
is that the professed people of God with all the enlightenment of prophecy are
still planning for "great days" in the 21st Century! The moral collapse
in America coupled with the growing concern of the Religious Right foreshadows
a "time of trouble" in which enforced righteousness will bring about
the final events so long envisioned in the prophetic Word. As we face the year ahead, we need to take stock of the
basic understandings which marked the beginnings of God's final movement in the
earth. We dare not forget that the Biblical hermeneutic of typology played an
important role in the Millerite Movement, and in the Seventh-day Adventist
perceptions of what actually took place in 1844. The Parable of Jesus in
Matthew 25:1-13 did not end in 1844: it only began. We are in its ending time
now. Since the days of Jesus, the word, "church," which we use to
translate the Greek word,εκκπησια
meaning, "called out," has meant different things to different
people. How do we relate it to today's proliferation within the community of
Adventism? All of these "basic understandings" cry out for an answer.
Is there one? We think so. The discussion of Paul's theology in the Corinthian
letters which was begun in last month's issue of WWN,
will be concluded in the February issue. Some planned articles for 1999 had to
be rescheduled. Page 2 The underpinnings of Adventism rest on the prophecy of
Daniel 8:14, typology associated with the Hebrew sanctuary and its services,
and the parable of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 25. (See The End of Historicism by Kai Arasola, pp. 90, 128) Commenting on
typology, Dr Arasola writes "The typology of the NT is both horizontal,
referring to historical fulfilments, and vertical,
illustrating things considered as heavenly realities. An example of horizontal
typology is in 1 Cor. 10 where Paul regards things from the Exodus and
wilderness itinerary as symbols of various things in Christian experience"
(p. 162) [Regarding vertical typology, he states - "Some of the clearest
examples of vertical typology are found in the book of Hebrews" (p. 163)].
One horizontal type drawn by Paul from the Wilderness
wanderings will preface our discussion of Basic Understandings. He wrote -
"Neither murmur ye, as some of them murmured, and were destroyed of the
destroyer" (1 Cor. 10:10). This is referring to the experience found in Numbers
14 where it is written: "And all the children of Israel murmured against
Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God
that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we
had died in this wilderness" (ver. 2). This murmuring and discontent was the result of the
report of ten of the twelve spies sent into the land of Canaan to search out
the land. While Paul does not draw specifics from this experience or any other
which he cites, he does leave the whole open for typological instruction.
"They are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are
come" (v. 11). There is one aspect to the murmuring experience at Kadesh-barnea which we need to give careful consideration.
God in judgment declared "Ye shall know my breach of promise"
(14:34). The margin reads - "altering of my purpose." God intended to
take the children of Israel into the Land of Promise at Kadesh-barnea,
the point to which they had then come after leaving Sinai. Instead they went
back into the wilderness for forty more years of wanderings till that
generation died. They finally crossed over the Jordon at Jericho. In the fifth volume of the Testimonies for the Church, there are a series of statements which
associates the Church as "modern Israel" and compares its experiences
with those of ancient Israel in the wilderness. (All of these statements were
written in the decade leading up to 1888) They read: I have
been shown that the spirit of the world is fast leavening the church. You are
following the same path as did ancient Israel. (pp. 75-76) The sin
of ancient Israel was in disregarding the expressed will of God and following their own way according to the leadings of unsanctified
hearts. Modem Israel are fast following in their
footsteps and the displeasure of the Lord is surely resting upon them. (p. 94) Satan's
snares are laid for us as verily as they were laid for the children of Israel
just prior to their entrance into the land of Canaan. We are repeating the
history of that people. (p. 160) [While this last reference alludes to the time after
the forty years of wandering, it does add to the conclusion that the
Seventh-day Adventist Church was perceived as "Modern Israel" by the
Messenger of the Lord and thus subject to the type-antitype analogy in 1
Corinthians 10. (See The Exodus and
Advent Movement in Type and Antitype by Taylor G. Bunch. This has just been
republished by Teach Services, Brushton, NY 12916)]. We reached our Kadesh-barnea
at Minneapolis in 1888 God sent to His Church a report from the Land of Promise
of the glorious redemption in Christ Jesus through faith in His righteousness.
What broke out in the camp of modern Israel? - rebellion.
The reaction to the report of "two spies" who brought forth evidences
of the "fruit" of the Heavenly Land of Promise has been noted as a
matter of record in the original edition of 1888
Re-Examined. Quoting from the Writings, they wrote: I (Ellen
White) can never forget the experience which we had in Minneapolis, of the
things which were revealed to me in regard to the spirit that controlled men,
the words spoken, the actions done in obedience to the powers of evil ... They
were moved at the meeting by another spirit and they knew not that God had sent
these young men to bear a special message to them which they treated with
ridicule and contempt, not realizing that the heavenly intelligences were
looking upon them. Wieland
and Short rightly concluded - "Thus did moderr
Israel, fondly expecting to be vindicated before the world by
a display of supernatural power in the long-expectec
'loud cry' actually do dispite to the Spirit
of grace, and despised the riches of His goodness." (A Warning and Its Reception, p. 17) Following the rejection of the God-sent message of Righteousness by Faith at Minneapolis, a series of
crises followed, even as in the case of ancient Israel as they returned to the Wilderness (See Numbers 16 & 20). The
organizational struggles which climaxed in 1901 and 1903 grew out of the
rejection of the message of 1888. (See
Testimonies for Ministers, pp. 362-363) Of this trend, Ellen White would
write to P. T. Magan: We may
have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years,
as did the children of Israel, but for Christ's sake, His people should not add
sin to sin by charging God with the consequence of their own Page 3 wrong course
of action. (M-184-1901) The fact that we are still here proves the accuracy of
this possibility. The possibility has become a reality. We face the necessity
of accurately analyzing what did happen, and its significance for us as we
stand on the eve of the Third Millennium of the Christian Era.
We face the question - Will the final events be now as they would have been had
the end come at the close of the 19th Century? Or, to
ask the question in another way - Will the "altering of the Divine
Purpose" affect the final events in a way similar to the way the course of
the history of the Children of Israel was effected by
the insubordination at Kadesh-barnea? Beyond question, the Seventh Month Movement, out of
which Adventism originated, taught that that Movement was the fulfilment of Jesus' parable-prophecy of Matthew 25. This
is attested to in The Great Controversy
which reads: The
parable of the ten virgins of Matthew 25 also illustrates the experience of the
Adventist people. In Matthew 24 ..., Christ had pointed out some of the most
important events in the history of the world and of the church from His first
to His second advent ... After this He spoke of His coming in His kingdom, and
related the parable describing the two classes of servants who look for His
appearing. Chapter 25 opens with the words, "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins."
Here is brought to view the church living in the last days, the same that is
pointed out in the close of Chapter 24. (p. 393; writer's emphasis) In the
parable of Matthew 25 the time of waiting and slumber is followed by the coming
of the bridegroom. This was in accordance with the arguments just presented,
both from prophecy and from the types. They carried strong conviction of their
truthfulness; and the "midnight cry" was heralded by thousands of
believers. Like a tidal wave the movement swept over the land. (p. 400) Simply stated, those involved in the Seventh Month
Movement, believed that the whole of the parable of the ten virgins applied to
their experience. They could reason in no other way because they believed that
Jesus would return October 22, 1844, the 10th day of the 7th month. Thus all
prophecies of events prior to the return of Jesus would be fulfilled in their
entirety. But if we continue to so believe as they did, we will err because we
will fail to take into consideration the continuance of time, and the
application of that parable as the scroll unrolls. Here is a critical area for
study which left unresolved will continue to promote the disunity and continued
confusion which marks the various segments in Adventism today. The parable is twofold in its message. There are two calls to go forth to meet the
Bridegroom, the first implied, the second explicit. Actually the lesson
intended by the parable does not begin to unfold, until the first call is an
accomplished fact. It is stated in the Greek aorist (past) tense - "Then
... ten virgins ... took their lamps, and went forth
(ἐξῆλθον) to meet the bridegroom"
(Matt. 25:1). Then Jesus describes how they went forth: five being
"wise" took oil with them; five foolishly did not. However, after
coming out as a united group - all ten - they "slumbered and slept"
(ver. 5). The story as it unfolds indicates that at "midnight" a call
from outside the sleeping virgins
arouses them declaring - "Behold, the bridegroom; be going out
(ἐξέρχεσθε) to a
meeting of him" (v. 6; literal). This verb is in the present tense indicating
the focus of the parable on the time of the second call to go out to meet the
bridegroom. Ellen White was conscious of this factor and noted it
in connection with the 1888 experience. She wrote: I was
confirmed in all I had stated in Minneapolis, that a reformation must go
through the churches. Reforms must be made, for spiritual weakness and
blindness were upon the people who had been blessed
with great light and precious opportunities and privileges. As reformers they
had come out [notice the past tense] of the denominational churches, but they
now act a part similar to that which the churches acted. We hoped that there
would not be the necessity for another coming out [present tense]. While we
will endeavor to keep the 'unity of the Spirit' in the bonds of peace, we will
not with pen and voice cease to protest against bigotry. (Ms. Release 1216, pp. 5-6; 1888
Material, Vol. 1, pp. 357). This statement says much. While the Adventist Church
was not Babylon ("the denominational churches"), if she did not
reform, but continued in the path of "Babylon," it would produce
"the necessity for another coming out." Then in writing of the first
Tasmanian Campmeeting in 1896, she interjects the concept that such a coming
out will become a reality. She wrote: My mind
was carried into the future, when the signal will be given, "Behold the
Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him." But some will have delayed to
obtain the oil for replenishing their lamps, and too late they will find that
character, which is represented by the oil, is not transferable. (R&H, Feb. 11, 1896) This revelation is saying in simplest language possible
that there is to be a second coming out. There will be a division among the
"Ten Virgins." It will not be a separation from the "denominational
churches" which marked the initiation of the Ten Virgins into one
corporate body. It will be a separation within the "Virgins." It will
take character to respond to the "signal" and come out a second time.
In 1896, the Spirit speaking through "the messenger of the Lord"
indicated that it was yet future. What was then future is now present. Further in 1901, the same year she was to indicate to
P. T. Magan that because of insubordination our entrance into Page 4 "the land of Canaan"
would be delayed, she conveyed at the close of a letter to Dr. J. H. Kellogg
the necessity to study the prophecy of Jesus found in Luke 21. Her words were: "The
words of Revelation 18 will be fulfilled. [The specific verses are not given,
so the whole of the chapter must be assumed] Is not this description enough to
cause all who read to fear and tremble? But those who do not love the light,
who will not come to the light lest their deeds shall be reproved, will not
follow on to know the Lord. By their attitude they say, I want not thy way,
Lord; I want my own way. But God
has given His object lesson. If the world will not heed, will not the people of
God take heed? In the twenty-first chapter of Luke, Christ foretold what was to
come upon Jerusalem; with it He connected the scenes which were to take place
in the history of this world just prior to coming of the Son of man in the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (MS. Rel., #1102, pp. 10-11: Letter 20, 1901) Already in 1898 the Pacific Press had published a book
by James Edson White, The Coming King, which commented on the prophecy of Jesus
as given in Luke. Edson White wrote: "We
also read that 'Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' Luke 21:24. Jerusalem has never again come
into the possession of the Jews, and will not until 'the times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled.' This will be when the work of the gospel is finished." (p.
98) The counsel was not heeded, and the exegesis given Luke
21:24 by James Edson White was left undeveloped. In 1944, the same Pacific
Press published a paperback by J. C. Stevens titled - Palestine in Prophecy. This was given wide circulation as a book of
the month by the Voice of Prophecy. It closed with the sentence -
"Palestine and Jerusalem do not have a bright future in this present
world, and those, and those are holding the hope of national restoration for
the Jews are following a theological will-o'-wisp.11 (p. 97) Again in 1947, another paperback, The Jews and Palestine, came from the
Pacific Press, this time written by Roy F. Cottrell. He declared - "The God of heaven who overthrew the
city and nation and who because of their apostasy dispersed the inhabitants to
the ends of the earth, forever settles the question of a complete return and
restitution in old Canaan by asserting that it 'cannot be."' (p. 61) Yet one year
later, Israel once more became a State. Was this a fulfilment
of Bible Prophecy? No! But coming events cast their shadows before." (See Desire of Ages, p. 636) God was beginning to set His hand a second time
"to recover the remnant of His people." God convicted again two young
men to re-examine the Message of 1888, and to call the attention of the
leadership of the Church in 1950 to the results the rejection of that message
had brought upon the people of God. The Bible Conference called in 1952 had as
its main objective to show that the Church did proclaim the message of
Righteousness by Faith (Our Firm
Foundation, Vol. II, pp. 616-617), and thus blunt the charge made by
Wieland and Short. However, during this Conference, the Church's attention was
redirected to the prophecy of Luke 21:24, and the
exegesis as given by James Edson White was enlarged. Arthur S. Maxwell, in his presentation of the
"Imminence of Christ's Second Coming," listed three areas of
"Unfulfilled Prophecy" from his viewpoint in time (1952). One of
these then, unfulfilled prophecies was Luke 21:24. He stated - "The recent dramatic restoration of
the natior of Israel focused the attention of mankind
once more on Palestine." (ibid.,
p. 230) Here is a reversal of the interpretation given the previous decade, and
a tacit admission that our prophetic exegesis had been faulty in certain
aspects. Observing that this event was not "in fulfilment
of the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," Maxwell said "however,
there is one prophecy concerning Palestine that we should all be watching with
special care," and he quoted Luke 21:24. As Maxwell reviewed how victorious "the forces of
Israel" were "in every other part of Palestine," he observed
that "they failed to take the most dazzling objective of all. Mysteriously
they were held back from achieving this most cherished goal, this culminating
triumph, as by an unseer hand." Then he asked -
"What could be the reason?" And his own answer was - "Only that
the times of the Gentile. are not yet fulfilled."
He cited an experience of ancien Israel where because
"the iniquity of the Amorites" was "not yet full" (Gen.
15:16); they were not permitted to enter Palestine. He concluded - It may well
be that the same principle applies today, on a wider scale. If so, then
Jerusalem is to remain trodden down by Gentiles till the probationary time of
all Gentiles has run out." (pp. 230-231)* From this date - 1952 - to the fulfilment
of Luke 21:24 in 1967, the agitation over the 1888 Message has paralleled in
time. (See A Warning
and Its Reception for the reaction of the Church to the allegations made in
1888 Re-Examined and the responses of
Wieland and Short.) In 1967, in the same month that Jerusalem came again
under Jewish control, a meeting was held in Washington by the General
Conference brethren at which Elder R. J. Wieland was
given an opportunity to defend his and Short's manuscript. In an eight page
letter, Wieland outlines for D. K Short the reaction and attitude of the
leadership of the Church. The final paragraph reads: To sum
it all up, as I see the meeting in retrospect: the 1951 report [by the General
Conference] said the Ms was unworthy of serious consideration because it was
"critical"; the 1958 report said it was unworthy of such consideration
because it used EGW statements out of context; the 1967 hearing concludes it is
likewise unworthy because its fruitage is evil. When we are not able to say Page 5 anything
effective to clarify misunderstandings, I do not think the last charge is
really fair; but I believe the time has come to "let go and let God,
" and keep still. The Lord Jesus gave everybody, good and bad, an excellent example as sheep before her shearers is
dumb, so He opened not His mouth. Whether I am right or wrong, I believe I must
from hereon be "dumb." (p. 8, "Buff Section" of A Warning & Its Reception) [Wieland did not follow through on his
"belief," but the events of history indicate that God has indeed
taken the reins in His own hands, and that the Enemy
has come down in great wrath setting in operation "every conceivable power
of evil." (R&H, Dec. 13,
1892)] To declare the fruitage of the message of Christ's
righteousness as evil, is no different than declaring that very Righteousness
One, a malefactor [evil doer] (John 18:30). The leadership had made its
decision. Thirteen years later, the Church in session would place its
imprimatur on a Statement of Beliefs which denied the original trust given to
it by God. The "signal" was then given. Israel moved its capital from
Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and by an act of the Knesset
declared that Jerusalem united as one city was to be the capital of all Israel. What are all of these facts - if so recognized - saying
to us? Number one and primary is the factor that the final edition of The Great Controversy in 1911 did not
contain the added light given to the Messenger of the Lord between 1888 and
1911 involving the Parable of the Ten Virgins and Luke 21. How this omission should affect our use of The Great Controversy in understanding
current events is a question that must be resolved. Secondly, an understanding of Revelation 18 as well as
Luke 21 was indicated in the letter to J. H. Kellogg written by Ellen White in
1901. While, as we noted above, no specific verses are indicated in the
counsel, the section of Revelation 18 which concerns the call to come out of
Babylon is primary in current "historic" Adventist thinking. Certain
aspects of this factor of basic understandings, essential for this hour, need
to be addressed. This we shall do in the following article. Basics in Revelation 18:1-4 Key representations in these verses are "another
angel," "Babylon," "all nations ... kings ... and
merchants," "another
voice," and "my people." First some questions that need to be
resolved and/or addressed: Are we to interpret the symbolism of "another
angel" in the same way that we interpret the first three
"angels" of Revelation 14? Are "voice" and "my people"
interrelated? The previous "voice" is "the great voice out of
the temple, from the throne" (16:19). Could this be the "voice"
of Jesus? If so, is this the call of Jesus so that for those who respond He
will make His final intercession (atonement)? At what point in time have all nations, with their
rulers and "the great men of the earth"(18:23), drunk of the cup
offered them by the woman" with whom they have committed fornication? It is obvious in context that the "Babylon"
of Revelation 18:2 is the woman of Revelation 17:5. This means simply that the
understanding of Revelation 18 is closely related and cannot be separated from
an understanding of the events prophetically portrayed in the 17th Chapter.
Further, it needs to be recognized that "Babylon" is not, and never
has been "my people." The reverse corollary is also true; neither are
"my people" Babylonians. However, these verses indicate that "my
people" are in Babylon, else why are they called out of Babylon? The Greek
text emphasizes twice the come out
-
Ἐξέλθατε,
ὁ
λαός
μου,
ἐξ
αὐτῆς
- "Come out, the people of me, out of her." This symbolism and the Greek emphasis connects this verse to two Scriptural comparisons, one of
typology, the other the parable of Matthew 25. First typology: The northern Kingdom of Israel was carried into
captivity by Assyria. Two centuries later, when Babylon had succeeded to the
dominion of Assyria, Judah was carried into captivity. These captivities were the
result of the professed people of Jehovah giving themselves over to the
idolatrous practices of paganism. Babylon was used of God to punish His people.
Scripture refers to Nebuchadnezzar as God's "servant" in this
judgment on Judah (Jer 43:10), but nowhere are the
people of Babylon referred to as "my people." Interestingly, also, is
the fact that when Judah returned from captivity, there is no mention of a
"mixed multitude" coming from Babylon with them, as in the days when
Israel came out of Egypt (Ex. 12:38). It was the same "my people"
returning from captivity who were carried into
captivity, not a multitude of Babylonian "converts." The type and antitype can be carried a step further.
The returned captives were to rebuild the temple of the Lord with "the
prophets of God helping them" (Ezra 5:2). One of the prophets cited is
Haggai. He stated the design of Heaven for this restored "house of
God." He quoted God as declaring - "I will shake all nations, and the
Desire of all nations shall come: and I will fill this
house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts" (2:7). The promise was carried
a step further. The words of the Lord of hosts read - "The glory of this
latter house shall be greater than the former, ... and
in this place will I give peace" (v. 9). [Beyond the simple application of type and antitype,
there is much spiritual food for thought which can be developed Page 6 from this analogy. The "Desire of all nations"
brought a unique glory - the glory of the fullness of "grace and
truth" (John 1:14). His very righteousness was "pure, unadulterated
truth." Further, this justifying righteousness would bring "peace
with God" (Rom 5:1) - the whole purpose of the ministry of the sanctuary,
whether it was the earthly in type, or the heavenly temple in reality.] Now to the parable of the Ten Virgins: The same Greek word is used in Matthew 25
and Revelation 18 -
εξερχομαι-
whether it be the aroist
(past) and present tense as in Matthew 25, or the imperative as in Rev. 18:4.
The emphasis is to come "out" of the state they are in at the time of
the call from "a voice." In the parable, all ten virgins are sound
asleep; in Revelation, "my people" are in captivity in Babylon. The
"awakening" in the parable caused separation among the "virgins."
The separation was basically involved with "light" and the oil which
produced that "light." The "call out" of "my
people" from Babylon in the 18th Chapter of Revelation is a call to break
from the captivity in which they find themselves. As in the type, all that went
into captivity to Babylon did not return to Jerusalem to help rebuild the
temple of God. In fact it was only a small remnant (Haggai 1:14). There is one distinct difference between the type and
antitype in regard to the captivity experienced. Judah was forced into captivity
against its will; modern Israel deliberately placed themselves
in captivity to modern Babylon. The facts of our own church history dare not be
overlooked, even though today, the control of the Church is rapidly passing to
the hands of those who did not live through the decades of change but rather
either accepted a changed message or else grew up in the church that had
already altered its doctrinal commitment. The fifth and sixth decades of the 20th Century marked
the "golden age of Adventist Evangelism." In the very center of this
time period came the call to re-examine our "Kadesh-barnea"
experience of 1888. The review of certain doctrinal positions (not all) at the
1952 Bible Conference and the proclamation that at this Conference, the great
truth of "righteousness by faith" was given "with far greater
power than it was given in the 1888 Conference" left the Church feeling
"good," except for one point! Seventh-day Adventism was still
considered a "cult" in the Evangelical world. Within three years of
the Bible Conference, the Enemy offered the leadership of the Church many of
whom had affirmed their faith in the basic doctrines of the Church at the Bible
Conference - an opportunity to shed the stigma of being considered a
"cult." They "bought" it and went into
"captivity" to Babylon. The SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56
mark basic compromises in key doctrinal positions which had made true Adventism
unique. What occurred at these conferences was stated clearly by the
Evangelicals - Barnhouse and Martin - in Barnhouse's
publication - Eternity. Twenty years
later, T. E. Unruh, who chaired this "captivity"
gave the Adventist viewpoint in Adventist
Heritage. [Facsimile copies of these reports are online (Cf. “The
Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences of 1955-1956” on this website.)] Today, those who proclaim themselves as
"historic" Adventists are merely travelling the same path that led to
the original captivity. The 1952 Bible Conference reiterated faith in doctrinal
fundamentals without following the counsel given in connection with the 1888 Message
of Righteousness by Faith. In 1892, the Messenger of the Lord had clearly
called for a "learning" and an
"unlearning" process so that the "truth" committed to our
trust might be "pure, unadulterated truth." (R&H, July 26, 1892; Testimonies
to Ministers, p. 65) In the same year - 1892 - the same Messenger warned: "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 call today is simply to "come out" of the
captivity in which the leadership has placed the Seventh-day Adventist Church,
and rebuild the broken down "temple of truth." The promise is sure
that to such a temple "the Desire of all nations" will come the
second time without sin unto salvation. To accept this call of "the
voice" in Revelation 18 means the separation of the "virgins,"
the ones to whom the sacred trust of truth was given. The one is a response to
the other. Basic Understandings of Church The Scripture clearly states - "The Lord added to
the church daily such as should be saved" (Acts 2:47). This verse plainly
indicates that there is a relationship between salvation and church fellowship.
Does that mean that I must have my name on a church record? Yes, but what
record? The gospel of John alone records the story of the man
born blind (Chapter 9). Here was a man who unable to see but who when
confronted with the fact of his restored sight evidenced more insight into
truth than the religious leaders. Because of this insight and his willingness
to voice his convictions, he was excommunicated (9:34; margin). Such an
experience became a common occurrence in the decades following Pentecost. Did
those who were thus cast out of the "house of Israel" have any hope?
The experience recorded in this chapter has an interesting conclusion directly
related to the casting out. It reads "Jesus heard that they had cast him
out" (9:35) What did He do? "He ... found him." The issue of "church" was a real issue in
apostolic times. The book of Hebrews as well as Acts addresses the question.
Contrasting the experience of the establishment of Israel as a
"church" at Mt. Sinai, - "the church in the wil- Page 7 derness" (Acts 7:38) - the book of Hebrews sets before
the "excommunicated" followers of Jesus who had accepted Him as the
Messiah, a new mount and new church. It reads: But ye
are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and
church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven. (Heb. 12:22-23) In the book of Acts, we see the same controversy over
"church" as is evidenced today in the community of Adventism. Paul on
his missionary tours "separated" those who accepted the gospel from
the synagogues of the Jews, and he did not take the Gentile converts into the
synagogues as their "church". See Acts 18:7; 19:9. This resulted in
"home" churches. See Rom. 16:5, 14, 15; 1 Cor. 16:12; Col. 4:15;
Philemon 2. In contrast to this practice, the Church in Jerusalem under James
continued to worship in the synagogues. (James 2:2, margin, Gr)
Further, the Jerusalem followers of Jesus as the Messiah still participated in
the temple rites and ceremonies. (Acts 21:23, 26) When Paul reported to the
leadership of the Jerusalem church at the close of his third missionary tour,
James, in turn, told him of the thousands of Jews "which believe; and they
are all zealous of the law." (21:20) This difference of concept of place to worship -
"home" church or synagogue - also involved a difference of perception
of how men are justified. Paul wrote - "Therefore we conclude that a man
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28). James would write - "Ye see then how
that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (2:24). This teaching of James was cited as the
basis for the Tridentine gospel of Rome. See The Creeds of Christendom, Vol. II, p. 99.
On the other hand, the teaching of Paul was the basis of the Reformation
emphasis on justification by faith alone. Today, what constitutes
"church," and what is Righteousness by Faith are again issues
involving the "historic" Adventist segment, as well as others on the
periphery of the main body. Into this picture comes the issue of accountability.
The Jewish leadership sealed their probation in their action against Jesus
Christ in securing His death by Pilate. This can be deducted from Peter's defence before the same council who had tried Jesus (Acts
4:5-12) He offered them no opportunity to repent as he had in preaching to
others in Jerusalem (Acts 2:28; 3:19). The nation as a corporate body sealed
its fate in the stoning of Stephen in AD 34 (Dan. 9:24). The Israel of the
Diaspora as well as the Jews of Jerusalem had to decide whether their
leadership did right in pressuring the Roman authority to kill Jesus, or was He
indeed the Messiah. If they decided that their leadership had denied "the
Holy One," and killed "the Prince of life," they had a choice to
make. They could no longer remain in that corporate body under that leadership
sharing in that guilt (Acts 3:13-15; 17-19). We have in the Writings various uses of the word,
"church." Familiar to most is the statement - "From the
beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth." (Acts of the Apostles, p. 11) However,
there is another concept of the church set forth in the Writings - the
corporate identification. It reads: "in the balances of the sanctuary the
Seventh-day Adventist Church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the
privileges and advantages that she has had." (Vol
8, p. 247) This is corporate language. Everyone who is a part of the corporate
body stands in that judgment and faces the guilt of not only what the
leadership has done but also what it has been permitted to do. You cannot stand
with one foot among "faithful souls" and the other foot in the
corporate body. If you conclude that the leadership did right in the
compromises of 1955-56, and the confirmation of those compromises in 1980, then stand in and with the corporate Seventh-day Adventist
Church and face the weighing in "the balances of the sanctuary." If
not, then "repent" and become a part of the "faithful
souls," the "church of the firstborn," whose names "are
written in heaven." In Conclusion As we face 1999, as we near the close of the 20th
Century, we have no choice but to face certain basic understandings regarding
the meaning of church as a corporate body and our individual responsibility in
being truly a "faithful soul." To make the right choice, we must
understand the basics of our religious heritage involved in typology and
parable. This means simply studying the Bible, and the Bible only, to ascertain
basic truth, even as did those who laid the foundations for what became the
corporate Seventh-day Adventist Church. Traditions which have petrified our
thinking must be set aside until a renewed indepth
study of the Bible reveals what we are to learn and what we are to unlearn from
our past. |