|
XXVII - 09(94)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
THE BOOK OF HEBREWS - WHY?
A Synopsis of the Keynote Study given at the 1994 Annual Fellowship
The April (1994) issue of Spectrum printed a telephone conversation with Tony Campolo. The editor's note stated:
"The one religious figure to whom President Clinton referred in his January 1994 State of the Union message was 'my friend Tony Campolo.' Anthony Campolo, professor of sociology at Eastern College in Pennsylvania is an American Baptist minister and one of the most popular lecturers at evangelical colleges and universities. He has spoken on many Adventist campuses." (p. 7)
In 1992, the Chaplain at La Sierra University, Steve Daily, published a book,
Adventism for a New Generation. A year later a second printing was issued. This book is seeking to restructure Adventism, directing it from an other-worldly objective to active participation in this world. The foreword is written by Tony Campolo. It is very revealing. Campolo states his perception of Barnhouse as he unveils the odyssey of his thinking concerning Seventh-day Adventists. He writes:
"The first real suggestion that my impression [of Adventists] might be erroneous came from the famous radio preacher Donald Gray Barnhouse. This leader of the evangelical community, after having made careful study of the Adventists, announced to his listening audience that he was convicted that they were, in his opinion, valid Christians.
"I remember how surprised I was when I heard this announcement. Barnhouse had been the most reliable scholar we fundamentalists had. His brilliance as an interpreter of scripture and his clearness as a Christian apologist, his reputation for orthodoxy was not to be questioned. His credentials with the evangelical community was impeccable. Consequently, his announcement about Seventh-day Adventists forced me, along with many others, to reconsider our opinions of them, at least slightly." (p. xiii)
Page 2
Campolo relates his reaction to an invitation to speak at the Loma Linda University Church. Of this he writes:
"One day out of nowhere, I received an invitation from Marvin Ponder, a member of the ministerial staff of the University Church at Loma Linda University. He invited me to come to the West Coast and spend a few days speaking to the students at Loma Linda and do some preaching at his church. Largely out of curiosity I accepted the invitation, and before I knew it, I was out there in that enclave of Adventists teaching and preaching. To my welcomed surprise, I found them to be some of the most open and receptive Christians I had ever met.11 (p. xiv)
Then he told of other invitations which followed:
"After my visit to Loma Linda I began to make the rounds at other Seventh-day Adventist colleges. I spoke at Columbia Union, Walla Walla, Southern, Pacific Union and even at the theological citadel of Adventism, Andrews University. Everywhere I went I was received as a Christian brother. As I talked with Seventh-day Adventists about the cross and the salvation to be found in Christ, I realized that I was very much on the same wavelength with them. As a matter of fact, they made me feel almost completely theologically at home." (p. xv)
While "almost theologically at home," there was an exception. Of this
exception, Campolo remarks, and observe carefully what he wrote:
"The points of agreement were so frequent and the points of disagreement so sparse that I realized a oneness with my new Adventist friends. All of this was unexpected. But there were, and still are differences. And those differences cannot be ignored.
First, there is the Adventist doctrine of the Heavenly Temple. The rest of us Evangelicals believe in 'the finished work of Christ on the cross.' We get our conviction about this from our reading of the book of Hebrews. So far as we can figure out, nothing else had to be done to complete our salvation - like Jesus offering his blood on the mercy seat in the heavenly temple. I do not know how crucial this doctrine will be in the future of the Adventist church. But to believe that this doctrine would not be a hindrance to relationships with other evangelicals in years to come is to underestimate how difficult we would find reconciling what we already believe." (pp. xv, xvi)
This last paragraph requires comment. Campolo received his Adventist perception of the Heavenly "Temple" ministry of Jesus from men committed to the compromise of Adventism with the Evangelicals as a result of the 1955-56 Conferences which eviscerated the heart of the sanctuary teaching. Note he wrote that the Evangelical "conviction" is based on their "reading of the book of Hebrews." Then he added that he did not "know how crucial this doctrine [read: "compromised doctrine"] will be in the future of the Adventist church."
Here is where the book for which Campolo wrote the foreword - Adventism for a New Generation-
enters the picture. In the book, there is a chapter - "Does God Have AIDS? The
Sanctuary Doctrine and Human Suffering" (pp. 157-168). One section asks the
question - "What is the Sanctuary Doctrine?" (p. 159) Daily then answers, "As it
now stands, the Adventist 'Sanctuary doctrine' reads as follows:" - and he quotes Article 23 from the Dallas Statement of Beliefs. This comment follows - "If you made sense out of that, congratulations." (pp. 159-160; emphasis mine) This is the essence of his two paragraphs on what the doctrine is. Then, because "this doctrine was used by Adventist Church leaders to remove and defrock one of most Christ-centered theologians the church has ever produced [meaning Desmond Ford], an event which also disillusioned many young people," Daily proceeds to "redefine" the sanctuary teaching. To what book does he turn? - the book of Hebrews.
Recently, I received a copy of a letter written by Desmond Ford. In it are two paragraphs of special interest. They read in part:
"I agree with you fully [the one to whom the letter was written] that the antitypical Day of Atonement began when the Son of God put on humanity at the incarnation. This was the antitype of the great high priest who put on the ordinary robe of the common priest for that great day. Ellen White also makes this parallel in several places, including the book, Acts of the Apostles....
"If I may just offer one viewpoint that perhaps differs slightly from your own. (sic) I think Hebrews 9 sets forth Calvary as the actual place of the antitypical atonement and climax. Verse 12 is very important as translated in modern versions: ' Having obtained redemption.' In other words, it seems to me that Hebrews makes it clear that the disposition of blood took place on earth and that Calvary was the antitypical center
Page 3
of the blood atonement, not heaven." (Letter dated, May 5, 1994)
Obviously, the focus is on the book of Hebrews, which fact makes a seminar on this book crucial, one which cannot be passed over as one would scan a book.
There are two issues, one for us, and the one for those to whom the book of Hebrews was addressed. For us the question is simply - Does the book of Hebrews nullify the basic sanctuary message of the Old Testament as revealed in Exodus, Leviticus and Daniel? In other words, does the book of Hebrews constitute a reinterpretation of the import of the sanctuary ritual as given by God to Israel and its relationship to the unrolling of the Scroll of Prophecy?
At the Glacier View hearing for Desmond Ford, which led to his defrocking, A. P. Salom from Australia presented a paper. His instructions read:
"The frame of reference in which this paper was written was an assignment to produce an exegesis of Hebrews, chapters 8 and 9. The instructions received indicated that the paper should be 'an analytical, objective presentation of what the Scriptures say, and especially in relationship to SDA teachings."'(Exegesis of Selected Passages of Hebrews 8 & 9, June, 1980, p. 1)
In carrying out this mandate, Salom stood the typological hermeneutic on its head, completely reversing the clearly pronounced statement in the book of Hebrews itself which declared that the priests "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." (8:5) He wrote:
"Neither the structure of the earthly tabernacle, nor its services should be
used for detailing the heavenly sanctuary. While some general conclusions about the heavenly sanctuary and its services may be reached by studying the shadowy outline of the earthly sanctuary, care should be taken not to press these points too far. The heavenly sanctuary is better described as an archtype than an antitype and thus our reasoning concerning the sanctuary should be in the reverse direction to that which it usually takes. The true nature of the type can only be distinguished by first understanding the archtype, not vice versa."(ibid., pp. 7-8; emphasis his)
The second issue in the study of the book of Hebrews concerns those to whom the book was primarily addressed, Jewish Christians. The evidence indicates that Hebrews was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Priests were still ministering in the temple. (Heb. 8:4) Elsewhere there is revealed a continued devotion by Jewish Christians to the temple ritual. When Paul returned to Jerusalem following his third missionary tour, he was informed by James and the elders that "many thousands of Jews" believed, but they were "all zealous for the law." (Acts. 21:20) Since these Jewish Christians had been informed that Paul was teaching contrary to the law, it was suggested that he "purify" himself with certain men who had a vow on them. This was to show that Paul "walkest orderly, and keepest the law." (21:23-24) The question then was simply, would the destruction of the temple in AD 70 "convert" these Jewish Christians to the true ministry of Jesus in the Heavenly Sanctuary? That was a doubtful possibility. How could unity be maintained when these Jewish Christians would be scattered through the Roman Empire following AD 70? They needed to have their eyes refocused, and the "home" churches which Paul had established needed a basis with which to meet the issue. The book of Hebrews meets this need.
The focus of the controversy in Adventism is on Hebrews 8 and 9. We have
noted above A. P. Salom's solution to the problem. The present editor of the
Adventist Review, William G. Johnsson, wrote his doctoral dissertation at Vanderbilt University on "Defilement and Purgation in Hebrews" focusing on chapters 9 and 10. He discarded the whole of the basic Adventist sanctuary concept in this dissertation.
When one faces an issue, or a problem, one does not begin at the middle to find a solution. Likewise, in studying the sanctuary teaching in the book
of Hebrews, one does not begin with Chapters 8, 9 or 10, but where Paul
introduces the High Priestly ministry of Jesus - chapter 3. He wrote:
"Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." (3:1)
Further, in presenting this great High Priest, Paul places Him on "the throne of grace" as the focus of His activity after "He had by himself purged our sins, and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." (Heb. 4:16; 1:3) This echoes the prophecy of Zechariah that He who would become incarnate - "grow up out of His place" - would "build the temple of the Lord;" would "sit and rule upon His throne" as a priest,
Page 4
and the "counsel of peace shall be between the Two of them." (Zech. 6:12-13, Heb) As High Priest, Jesus ministers His blood which justifies, bringing "peace with God." (Rom. 5:1) Through the veil - His flesh - He opened up "a new and living way" and there as our "forerunner," He "is for us entered." (Heb. 10:20-21; 6:19-20) Thus we are to "come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy." It is at the throne of grace that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father after He made purgation for our sins. (Heb. 1:3) He is "a priest upon His throne." (Zech. 6:13)
The Scripture is clear. When "the judgment was set and the books were opened," "the Ancient of days did sit," and there was movement to that point of activity - "thrones were put in place." (Dan. 7:10, 9 NKJV) We need to see the harmony of Scripture. The new theology
brings disharmony.
Another Picture
The book of Revelation opens with two visions of Jesus. John hears behind him "a great voice" declaring Himself to be the "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." Turning, he sees standing in the midst of the seven candlesticks "one like unto the Son of man." He is told that the candlesticks are the seven churches to which he is directed to write a message conveyed by the One standing in their midst. (Rev. 1:10-16, 20)
Jesus is not attired in the garment as worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement for the text specifically designates that He is girded with "a golden girdle." The emphasis is that He is in the midst of His church. He is bringing the revelation "which God gave to Him to shew unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass." (1:1)
The second vision of Jesus is that of Him as "a Lamb as it had been slain,
having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits sent forth into
all the earth." (5:6) He is at the center of the heavenly activity "in the midst
of the Throne," and in the midst of the twenty four elders. Before this Throne
are "seven lamps of fire burning," which "are the seven Spirits of God." The
picture portrayed in symbolism does not say that the lamps of fire were
beside the Throne but were before the Throne. In the setting of the typical tabernacle, the placement of the golden lampstand was always in relationship to the table of Shewbread. It was to be placed "across from the table." (Ex. 26:35; 40:24, NKJV) Only the Altar of Incense is noted as "before the ark of the testimony." (Ex. 40:5, 26)
Jesus had promised prior to His death that He would "pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter,...even the Spirit of truth." (John 14:16-17) This Spirit of truth would "guide into all truth,...for He shall receive of mine and shew it unto you." (John 16:13-14) The second vision of Christ in Revelation is but a symbolic representation of the fulfillment of Jesus' promise just before He offered Himself as a Lamb without spot or blemish. The connection with "the throne of grace" is heightened by the fact that the twenty-four elders have "golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints," and fall "down before the Lamb."
The truth into which the Holy Spirit guides the believers in Christ is the Word of God. (John 17:17) The book of Hebrews begins by setting forth God as having spoken both though prophets, and in a "Son," the Word made flesh. (Heb. 1:1-2) Thus by two immutable things - His spoken word, and His direct interpositioning of Himself by Jesus into the sin problem, He has given a strong consolation, even a hope as an anchor of the soul. This hope enters "within the veil" for having lived and died in the flesh, Jesus now through the veil of His flesh "is for us entered,...made an high priest forever after the order of Melchisedec."
This concept of the Son of God as a Lamb slain, becoming the authenticator of the everlasting covenant coupled with the Spirit of truth sent forth into all the world from the throne of grace, is given in the book of Hebrews as the basis for executing a more severe punishment on those who reject this provision than was administered under Moses. (Heb. 10:29) The Advocate which is sent forth into all the earth seeks to draw men to the Throne of Grace. His pleadings are based on the blood of the Lamb.
It is this redemption in Christ Jesus - this grace - that Paul is seeking to set before the Jewish Christian, for in Christ is revealed a "forgiveness of sins" which justifies the believer "from all things from which [he] could not be justified under the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39)
A Sanctuary Picture
In giving instruction to Moses for the erection of a sanctuary that God might dwell among Israel, the first pattern detailed to Moses was the Ark of the Covenant. (Ex. 25:10) The second pattern given was for the Table of Shewbread. (Ex.25:23) On this table, there was to be placed and renewed every Sabbath, bread described as
Page 5
"the bread of the Presence." (Ex. 25:30, Heb.)
The arrangement is significant. It reads:
"Thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof... And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table of the Lord." (Lev. 24:5-6) Side by side, each of equal number, stood the bread of life, the spoken Word, and the Word made flesh. From this pure table, the Throne of Grace, the Spirit goes forth to supervise the myriads of angels as they minister unto those who shall be heirs of salvation.
The One who made possible this "hope," the One whose intercession is the means whereby all who come unto God by Him, may be saved to the uttermost, is described as "for us entered," and "sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Elsewhere Paul tells us of this "hope" in these words:
"The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory,...give unto you the
spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him: the eyes of your
understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of His calling, and what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He wrought in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and set Him at His own right hand in heavenly the places." (Eph. 1:17-20)
For what purpose?
"God who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (for by grace are ye saved); and hath raised us up together and made us sit together in heavenly
places in Christ Jesus: that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding
riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2:4-7)
Why study Hebrews:
Between what God did "in" Christ Jesus, and what He will do "through" Christ Jesus, is the intercessory ministry of Jesus, our Great High Priest. Hebrews introduces us to that heavenly ministry.
*****
EVANGELICALS AND CATHOLICS PROCLAIM 'CORPORATE CHURCH'
Editor's Note: The above title appeared as the caption of an article in the North Pacific
Union Gleaner, June 6, 1994. It was written by Elder Richard L. Fenn, Director of the Department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty for the Union. We print below in almost its entirety the article. Our comments will be noted in brackets. There is much excellent data presented. The one sending us this article wrote - "Richard Fenn writes good old Adventist concepts that seem out of place nowadays. Yet look at his position."
During the past few weeks, in a dramatic but quiet joint statement, leading evangelical Protestants and high Catholic leadership have published an unprecedented proclamation of togetherness.
The resulting document is called Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.
I call it an ecumenical response to John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Missio, and it points clearly to closer and closer ties between Protestants and Catholics in America.
Notwithstanding the document's frequent references to religious freedom,
Evangelicals and Catholics Together spells trouble. [Absolutely correct] The threat to religious liberty - the freedom to choose right from wrong - is implicit.
On the basis of the biblical (sic) record and the works of the Spirit of Prophecy, Seventh-day Adventists have long held that the many daughters of the apocalyptic Babylon would one day cease their historic anti-parental protest and return to Mother Church.
Revelation 17: 3, 5, 18 (TJB) says: "I saw a woman riding a scarlet beast....On her forehead was written a name, a cryptic name: 'Babylon the Great, the mother of all prostitutes and all the filthy practices on the earth....The woman you saw is the great city which has authority over all the rulers of the earth."'
"Babylon is said to be the mother of harlots. By her daughters must be
Page 6
symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world....The spirit of world-conforming and indifference to the testing truths for our times exists and has been gaining ground in churches of the Protestant faith in all the countries of Christendom."
We've been keeping an eye on the Baptists, the Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Presbyterians...you know, the "mainline" churches, for some time. We've been watching and waiting to see when they'd run home to Rome. But some have thought that surely our evangelical friends and neighbors were OK. To be sure, they're one day off - or six - on the Sabbath and they're confused on things like the rapture. But all in all, they often seem more like us and we like them. [The warning lights should start to blink] We've seemed to share the same evangelical values. Well, we need to look again and keep on looking. Here's why.
The 40 signatories of Evangelicals and Catholics Together celebrate the union of heretofore implacable antagonists into a "corporate church" which now accepts the "responsibility for the right ordering of civil society."
Note: [Do note carefully] "In the exercise of...public responsibility there has been in recent years a growing convergence and cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics. We thank God for the discovery of one another in contending for a common cause."
"Common cause" is a euphemism for "papal agenda." Let's face it, here in America, evangelicals (including those on the Religious Right) do a better job pushing the pope's agenda than the pope himself.
The principle figures behind the preparation and publication of
Evangelicals and Catholics Together are Richard John Neuhaus, Lutheran clergyman turned Catholic priest and advocate of religion in the public square; and Charles Colson, political tricksmeister of the Watergate era who, since conversion while in Federal confinement, founded Prison Fellowship International.
From presidential wannabe Pat Robertson to New York's Archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor, the signers admit "that there are disagreements between us." But they add, "misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and caricatures of one another...are not disagreements," merely "distortions" that "must be cleared away."
Guess who's doing most of the distortion clearing? Robertson and his Christian Coali-tioners. Says the popular host of TV's 700 Club
"Frankly, I have a lot more in common with this pope than with liberal Protestants. The real battle is not between Protestants and Catholics anymore; its between conservative Christians fighting for the fundamental truths of the faith, and liberals who deny the central truths of Christianity."
One supposes Sunday sacredness on a national scale is one of those "fundamental truths" Robertson holds in common with Rome. [This is supposition on the part of Fenn. Rome's agenda has made another sign, the symbol for full ecumenism. This needs to be followed closely]
Evangelicals and Catholics Together says its signatories "contend for
religious freedom. Religious freedom will not be respected by the state if it is
not respected by Christians or, even worse, if Christians attempt to recruit the
state in repressing religious freedom."...
That Evangelicals and Catholics try to win converts from one another is "perfectly understandable and perhaps inevitable," the document states. But "such efforts at recruitment undermine the Christian mission.... We condemn the practice of recruiting people from another community for purposes of denominational or institutional aggrandizement. At the same time, our commitment to full religious freedom compels us to defend the legal freedom to proselytize even as we call upon Christians to refrain from such activity."
Pray tell, whatever happened to the Messianic marching orders "Go ye!" and
"Occupy till I come!"? What if a monolithic corporate church of Evangelicals and
Catholics together decide it would not defend legal freedom to proselytize? What if this self-proclaimed Christian body reversed its stated position and actually recruited the state to repress public witness to present truth? This is not ecclesiastical paranoia; this is what Seventh-day Adventists recognize as the conditional reality of end-time prophecy. [This is absolutely correct. Now go slowly, read Fenn's question, and observe his answer]
So why not welcome the inevitable? [Good question. Should we not rejoice as we see the end approaching? Perhaps with fear and trembling as to whether we are ready or not!
Page 7
Now read Fenn's answer.]
"Because as long as the four angels at the four corners of Planet Earth are restraining the winds of worldwide religious war (see Revelation 7), we do well to work with them, not against them. [Emphasis supplied. How are we to read, "them"? In a restricted sense, meaning, "the four angels," or in the context of the whole article, referring to the "corporate church" of the religious right composed of both Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants? Does opposing "the pope's agenda," refusing to make "common cause" with this new "monolithic" combine, place one in a position so that he is considered working against "the four angels"? Does the concept of "restraining the winds of worldwide religious war" mean that we will not engage the enemy head-on for fear of consequences? Does it mean that we will mute our witness concerning Rome? Does it mean that we are going to give at least "lip-service" to the objective of accepting the "responsibility for the right ordering of civil society"? Fenn even quotes the Writings to give credibility to his answer.]
Writes Ellen White: "The Lord does not (advocate) a course which will bring on the time of trouble before the time.TM, p. 202) [This is making of none effect the very testimonies designed to guide us amid the perils of these last days. We do not make "common cause" with the devil so as to avoid a time of trouble. After suggesting his formula, Fenn writes the following paragraph near the close of his article:]
The appearance this year of Evangelicals and Catholics Together is a sign of these times. It is a non-Adventist validation of Adventist eschatology. It is the full-filling of prophecy. [A well-drawn conclusion, but why such a tragic recommendation?]
POSTSCRIPT
Fenn in the above article asked - "Guess who's doing most of the distortion-clearing?" - in regard to Catholics so that Evangelicals can find "common cause" with them. He answered - Pat Robertson. But Pat Robertson was antedated by more than two decades by an Adventist voice. Arthur S. Maxwell, returning from Vatican II Council, gave a sermon at the Loma Linda University Church calling for a new approach to Roman Catholicism. He asked, "How can we reject an outstretched hand and be Christians? How can we say that they belong to antichrist when they reveal so many beautiful attitudes?"
(Present Truth, No. 3, p. 13)
More than a decade ago, C. Mervyn Maxwell, son of Arthur, published a two volume commentary of Daniel and Revelation.
In Volume 1 of God Cares, C. Mervyn wrote that "in Daniel 7 God purposely presented a one-sided picture of Rome as a terrible beast in order to emphasize His displeasure at persecution." (p. 127) Then he listed the eight identifying marks of the "Little Horn" that ever remained in the beast, and was nourished of the beast. He wrote:
"Only one entity really fits all eight of these identifying marks - the Christian church which arose to religiopolitical prominence as the Roman Empire declined...
"To call this Christian church the ' Roman Catholic' Church can be misleading
if Protestants assume that the Roman Catholic Church of, say, the sixth century
was one big denomination among others, as it is today. Actually the Roman
Catholic Church was virtually the Christian church in Western Europe for about a thousand years. Because of this early universality, both Protestants and Catholics may regard it as the embodiment of 'our' Christian heritage, for better or for worse."
(ibid., Emphasis his)
Is it any wonder then that Fenn can advise - "We do well to work with them, not against them"?
|