How Firm Our Foundation

An In-depth Scriptural Reply to Desmond Fort's October 27, 1979 Student Forum Lecture at Pacific Union Collage, Entitled, "There is a Problem Here"-FF-8

  1. The Nature of New Light
  2. Men Who Left the Sanctuary Message
  3. The Investigative Judgment
  4. Men anonymous and Dead vs. the Word of God
  5. Day-Year Prophetic Interpretation
  6. Into the Presence of God, Within the Veil
  7. Scripture Explains Scripture
  8. Scripture Dates 1844
  9. Scripture and Historical Occurrences
  10. God’s Omniscience Does not Destroy Bible Truth
  11. A Bible Prophecy is not Incorrect—simply because it is Conditional
  12. Daniel Eight Fourteen
  13. Hebrews Nine
  14. The Two Veils
  15. Translations of Ta Hagia

A Scriptural Vindication of the Faith Delivered to the Pioneers of Our Church

Quotations from this Lecture are printed in this type face. (Ford's words)

Lecture Reply, "How Firm Our Foundation," written as it was set in type, Thursday, March 6 through Tuesday, March 18, 1980, at Harrisburg, Illinois. Material in this Reply is printed in this type face.

"This meeting actually began about thirty five years ago in Sydney, Australia, as an Anglican—or I think you call them Episcopalians over here—in my home in the suburbs. I was reading Hebrews, chapter nine. At that time I was listening to the Advent Radio Church each Sunday, and I had begun to collect the books of Ellen G. White from second-hand book shops around Sydney. And as I was reading Hebrews Nine that day, I said, ‘That’s strange, this is different than what the Adventists are saying. There is a problem here.’ The problem wasn’t solved by the time I was baptized, and what I am going to try to give you is thirty five years of thinking on the problem."

A personal expression of life-long doubt in regard to our doctrines opens this combined gathering of the Adventist Forum Session, a convocation of students, meeting at Pacific Union College on the 27th of October, 1979.

1 - The Nature of New Light

Four quotations from Counsels to Writers and Editors, are then read: Pages 35:2, 31:1, 38:1, and 39:1, indicating that we should consider new light as it may be presented to us.

"If Christ is the truth, there is nothing to be lost by following the truth wherever it leads, however contrary to tradition . . . Throwing over tradition—that must remain our attitude. Christ is the truth, and we are to follow Him wherever He leads."

In this lecture we will learn that we reject "traditions" and "follow Christ" by accepting the reasonings of Dr. Ford given in this lecture in regard to his beliefs in no Sanctuary in Heaven, no Investigative Judgement, no cleansing of the Sanctuary, no Spirit of Prophecy full Inspiration, no day-year time prophecies, no 1844 events, no First Apartment Mediation, no historic prophetic fulfillments except at Calvary and the Second Advent, no infallible Scripture, no doctrines from the Spirit of Prophecy, no two-apartment Sanctuary in Heaven, no learnings from Bible prophecies, no application of the Blood Atonement or Antitypical fulfillments of the Sanctuary Service after 31 A .D.

It is of interest to note what was quoted and what wasn’t. Two or three passages were quoted without giving references, and then the four passages, indicated above, were quoted. They are all from chapter 4, entitled, "Attitude to New Light." This chapter tells us we should consider new light from God’s Word. But then, going on, we discover that the next chapter, "Investigation of New Light," tells us how to examine new light, and to be careful what we accept. We are told that it will not be given to us through one or two individuals, that it should be presented to brethren of experience, and that we should especially beware of "new light" which unsettles confidence and faith in our fundamental truths—the landmarks. One might think that Dr. Ford overlooked this chapter, but not so, for he twice quoted from it, without giving references, once before and once during his quotations of the four statements from chapter 4. He had indeed given careful examination to this chapter as he prepared this lecture. (The unreferenced passages that he quoted from are found on page 47:0 line 7, and 44:2 line 6-8 of chapter 5.) But even more striking is the material presented in chapter 6 of this book, "Integrity of the Message." Here we are told that we are not to move a block or stir a pin of the Three Angels’ Messages, which as you know, includes our message of the Investigative Judgment. We are told that we are on a solid, immovable platform, and that in the future, deception of every kind is to arise, and that a special point of attack will be our Sanctuary doctrine.

The new light that comes to the people of God will not contradict the light which God has already given His people (1 SM 161), and so we should be careful not to receive everything termed "new light" (CW 49, 1 SM 159). New light is never given to one solitary man (5T 291), nor to one individual contrary to the established faith of the body of believers (5T 291), and it is never given to unsettle faith in the old landmarks (5T 295). It is one of Satan’s masterpieces to encourage people to imagine they have new light (2 SM 86). There are tests that should be applied to new light (GW 301), simple tests (3T 444), and you should know what to do when someone presents what is purported to be "new light" to you (CSW 32, 5T 293-294).

2- Men Who Left the Sanctuary Message

"Now it was in the Twentieth Century that some of the brightest lights in the Adventist Church began to go out, over the issue of the Sanctuary. Men like Albion Ballenger—a man of undoubted integrity and spirituality . . And about 1905, Albion Ballenger was put out of the work because of his views on Hebrews Nine. Not many years later, one of the greatest Bible teachers we’ve ever had in the denomination—W.W. Fletcher . . . [who] then came to Avondale College in Australia. Everyone that knew that man thought of him as a man of God, another man of undoubted integrity."

A.L. White in his reply to this lecture by Desmond Ford ("The A.L. White Reply to D.B. Ford") tells us that Ballenger left the church after having totally denied the Sanctuary truth. I might add that he afterward tried to start a separate church organization which later collapsed. Colin and Russell Standish, veteran workers in the cause, in their study, "Origin and Development of the Australasian Controversy," relate the story of W.W. Fletcher, Bible teacher at Avondale College in Australia in the 1920's, who denied both the Sanctuary message as well as the Spirit of Prophecy itself, and then left the church. They believe, as a result of long acquaintance with him, that Desmond Ford is today teaching views similar to those of W.W. Fletcher. Both of the above tracts are part of this series and available from us.

A more extensive study on Albion Ballenger will be given later in this Reply to Desmond Ford.

3 - The Investigative Judgment

Illustrations of private letters, interviews, conversations, and secret committee meetings are referred to by Dr. Ford.

This lecture begins with personal doubts of the Sanctuary Service that Dr. Ford has had for 35 years. Then two notable apostasies from our church over our Sanctuary doctrine are referred to, both men being characterized to the listening students as men of "undoubted integrity" in their thinking. This is now followed by information, that cannot be verified, but if true would indicate that large segments of our denominational leaders and workers have for years personally disbelieved in our Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment message. We are told that the Australasian Division requested in the 1950's that the General Conference change "errors" in the Bible Commentary on Hebrews 9 and 10. We cannot verify this conversation by looking in the Commentary, for we were told that the errors were "removed." Two of our workers, no longer living, were supposed to have in private conversations questioned our Sanctuary message. A third, also (deceased, is said to have called a secret meeting "which kept no minutes and accomplished nothing." More secret things that we cannot check on. The reason given by Ford for these meetings is expressed in another unverifiable conversation by one of the L-committee members: ‘It is impossible to prove the Investigative Judgment." Not proof by Scripture, but proof by the anonymous and the dead.

"There is no Biblical way to prove the Investigative Judgment."

Dr. Ford drops the thought in the minds of our young people that one of our most important Biblical doctrines is a hoax, not at all Biblical, and totally unable to be substantiated from Scripture.

Daniel 8:14 gives the span of an important time prophecy. It is a real prophecy—Biblical, not imagined. It is interpreted using the day-year principle given in Numbers 14:34 and elsewhere in Scripture,—an additional principle that Ford rejects later in this lecture. On this day-year basis, the prophecy is 2300 years long (not 2300 days with an application to Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-163 B.C.), as Ford suggests elsewhere).

The chapter after Daniel 8:14, Daniel 9 (25-27), was given to explain more clearly the time sequence of this prophecy of 8:14. Daniel with a lack of understanding (8:27) was given understanding (9:22) of the vision (9:23). This refers to the preceding vision, which was given him in Daniel 8, a few months prior to this additional information given him in Daniel 9.

Daniel 9:25 gives the beginning date of the 2300 year prophecy, which through comparative Scripture study yields the only Biblical decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and restore its political authority given in Scripture—the Decree of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7, which is the culmination of two earlier decrees to reconstruct the Temple only (that of Cyrus, 536 B.C., to rebuild the Temple with Imperial funds—Ezra 1:2-3; and that of Darius, 519 B.C., reaffirming Cyrus’ decree and requiring that the Temple be finished with Provincial money—Ezra 6:3). Artaxerxes’ Decree (457 B.C.) reaffirmed the completion of the Temple (7:23,20), and in addition required the full re-establishment of the civil authority of Jerusalem as chief Provincial capital of the west-Jordan Province (7:25-26,18) using Imperial funds. This date of 457 B.C. is the beginning date of the 2300 year prophecy, and is confirmed by secular history.

The first part of the 2300 year prophecy is explained in Daniel 9:25-27. 70 Weeks (490 years) would be allotted to the Jews as final probationary time as God’s special people. 7 Weeks (49 years) from the beginning date brings us to 408 B.C. when the various results of Artaxerxes’ Decree were completed, and the city had been entirely rebuilt (Dan 9:25). 62 Weeks (434 years) from 408 B.C. would bring us to the time of the Messiah (Dan 9:26a). His "cutting-off" would be part of a chain of circumstances that would result in the eventual destruction of the very city (9:26b) that in 457 had been ordered rebuilt. The final week (7 years) of the 70 Week conclusion of the special covenant with the Jewish race, spans from 27-34 A.D. In the middle of that 7 years (31 A.D.)—Christ’s death would end the validity of the earthly sanctuary services in the eyes of God (Dan 9:27).

There still remains 1810 years (from 34 AD, to 1844 A.D.) of the original 2300 year prophetic period.

The beginning and the first part of the 2300 years is explained in Daniel 9:25-27. The event that would be initiated at the end of the 2300 years is given in Daniel 8:14. This is the restoration of the Sanctuary to its original condition of purity, and all that is involved in the doing of this. Dan 7:9-10, 13-14, 22, and 26-27 explains in greater detail what is involved in this cleansing. (We are told that Daniel 7:9,10,13, and 14 foretold the Investigative Judgment—read Great Controversy, pages 424, 426-7, and 479-481).

Inspired Scripture—whether it be Biblical or Spirit of Prophecy—is its own interpreter. Let Inspiration explain Inspiration. And the Bible elsewhere explains in detail this restoration or cleansing of the Sanctuary, why it occurs, what it involves, and what it results in. Consider the following. It is by no means a complete listing or analysis of the Biblical material available.

Leviticus 16 explains the cleansing that would come at the end of the full Sanctuary-event-cycle, that began in the spring and ended in the fall of each Jewish year. This chapter points out that there is a cleansing of the Sanctuary and of the people taking part by faith in the services that their high priest is carrying on in their behalf (Lev 16:28-34). The Day of Atonement Cleansing of the Sanctuary is well-known by the greater majority of those Biblical commentators that Dr. Ford reads with such interest. They consider it to be of major importance in our understanding of Scripture. Leviticus 16 is not something to be tossed out the back window as Desmond Ford suggests we do when we consider Daniel 8:14.

The symbolism of the restoration or setting right or cleansing of the sanctuary as revealed in Daniel 8:14 is applied elsewhere in the Bible, and generally with a "Day of Judgment" significance. Passages such as Joel 2, Malachi 3, Matthew 25, and Revelation 14, among others, can be cited. (And recall Great Controversy 426:1, and its context of 424-428, which directly links Daniel 8:14, Daniel 7:13, Malachi 3:1-3, and Matthew 25 (and Matthew 22—see GC 428:1; and Revelation 3:7-8 which is the Message to the Seventh Church—Laodicea—see GC 430:1; and Revelation 11:19—see SR 379:1-2) as descriptions of this same event of the Investigative Judgment—and—Cleansing of the Sanctuary.) In these various Biblical views of the Investigative Judgment is to be seen aspects of the pleading, mediation, investigation, judgment, and cleansing that occur within it. Biblically, we are to take an active part by faith in seeking this investigative-cleansing experience of our Lord on our behalf. Read Great Controversy 424:4-425:2, 427:1-428:2, 430:1-432:0, 485:2-491:2.

Joel 2—Gathering at the Sanctuary at the day of solemn fast, that the enemy may be removed from among the people. The priests leading out, the people pleading God’s mercy. Carefully read Joel 1:14-15; 2:1-3, 10-32; 3:14-21.

Malachi 3—The coming of the Lord to His Temple to judge and purge (cleanse) His own. This is followed by an Executive Judgment against the wicked (Investigative: Malachi 3:1-4, Executive: 3:5; Investigative: 3:16-18, Executive: 4:1-3, and as a parting word—the preparation we are to make in view of these coming events, 4:4-6)—for as we all know, everyone will face one or the other of these two judgments. Great Controversy 424:3-426:0 will provide you with additional detail.

Matthew 25—Those preparing and those not preparing for this Judgment of Investigation (Matthew 25:1-30), and the separating work of this Judgment (25:31-46). (Great Controversy 426:2-428:0 and onward to 430. Also GC 428:1 on Matthew 22).

Revelation 3:7-8 (GC 430:1) reveals that in the time of the Seventh Church, the door to this special cleansing work offered us by the True Witness is now available to us and we should avail ourselves of it. We are not to be passive observers of what is going on. We are to be active participants, as were those gathered outside the Sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, pleading and working that we and those around us may be ready for the conclusion of this great Final Day in the atoning cycle.

Revelation 14—The result of the Investigative Judgment (Revelation 14:3-5), the Call to this Judgment (14:6-7), the Warning to flee the ungodly and Babylon and return to God while probationary time remains in the Judgment (14:8 and 18:1-5, GC 390:2, 603:2). The Terrible Warning against the Beast and His Image and his Mark and the Wrath of God that will be poured out on those that refuse this final warning (14:9-1 1), and those who will pass this Judgment—"those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"—truly, a righteousness by faith in verity.

Daniel 9:25-27 explains the events at the beginning of the 2300 year prophecy. Daniel 8:14 explains the span or length of the prophecy. Daniel 7:9-10, 13-14, 22, 26-27 explains the events at the end of this prophecy—and this explanation is one of an Investigative type of Judgment. The 1260 years of papal domination clearly ended in 1790 A.D. (Daniel 7:25), is followed by the Investigative Judgment (7:26) that will result in the final destruction of this Little Horn Beast Power, just as the Cleansing of the Sanctuary (which is the immediate effect or last part of this Investigative Judgment) (8:14), will result in a permanent cessation of the Little Horn efforts to trample underfoot the principles and work carried on the Sanctuary service (8:11-13).

There is a final time of judgment for all men (Eccl 3:17) that comes after men die (Heb 9:27). It is conducted by Christ (Jn 5:22, Acts 10:42) in the presence of the Father (Rom 2:16). In this investigative Judgment, Jesus is both the Judge (in 5:22) and the Advocate (1 Jn 2:1, Heb 7:25). It will occur on a day especially appointed for this purpose (Ac 17:31) and will Precede—come before—the Second Advent when Christ will dispense the rewards allocated as a result of its decisions (Matt 16:27, Rev 22:12). It will occur after the 1260 years is ended (Dan 7:25-26), and at the end of the 2300 years when the records within the Heavenly Sanctuary will be set right and restored to their original purity (Dan 8:14) for the cleansing of the Sanctuary in type is the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:19-34) which is the typical Day of Judgment in the overall sequence of Heaven’s plan to save men. It is the time when the Sanctuary is "reconciled" (Lev 16:20) or restored to its originally clean condition (Lev 16:19,30), for in making an atonement for the Sanctuary and for the people of the Sanctuary (Lev 16:33) the priest is actually cleansing the Sanctuary and the people (Lev 16:30) for the very word "atonement" in Leviticus means "cleanse" (Lev 14:20, 31, 53).

This work of Investigative Judgment involves a coming of the Father to Judgment (Dan 7:22) and His seating for it (Dan 7:9), and a coming of the Son to the Father, for this same purpose (Dan 7:13)—for "the Judgment shall sit" (Dan 7:26). During the course of it, men will be judged by their words (Ecc 12:14, Mt 12:36-37), and their secret purposes and motives (1 Cor 4:5), and by their works (Ps 62:12, Jer 17:10). All is laid out before God (Isa 65: 6-7).

As a result of its decisions, Jesus will return to earth (Rev 22:12, Mt 16:27), the Beast will lose his dominion (Dan 8:13; 7:26), and will be burned with devouring flame (Dan 7:11). Christ will receive the Kingdom (Dan 7:14) and His redeemed will inherit it with Him (Dan 7:27) and everything will be placed under His feet (Dan 7:14,27). The very time is thus given us in Scripture when one of the most important events in all history will convene—the Investigative Judgment that will cleanse the records and the people of the Sanctuary of sin (Dan 8:14, Lev 16:18-34).

The Investigative Judgment is here proven from Scripture, and there are thousands in our church who can equally establish it as well or better than I. We as a people regularly do it when we give Bible studies and hold evangelistic efforts, although not generally, of course, in such detail as is given here. If Dr. Ford would go out and give some Bible studies to the lost, and pray for them and ask the Lord to lay a burden for souls on his heart, he would soon find out what we as a denominated people believe in these areas, and the solid Biblical basis on which they are established, instead of spending his energies in trying to take away from our young people the messages that we cherish as a people. He is seeking to make an issue where no issue exists. He is seeking to remove our concern and participation in the Investigative Judgment now passing in the Great Sanctuary above. In the presence of Heaven and before the recording angels, I take my stand and condemn this deadly work as proceeding from Satan. With great urgency, Dr. Ford is trying to destroy the special messages of Great Controversy from our lives, and through us, from the lives of a world dying for want of them. This is Satanic. Whether or not he knows what he is doing may be questioned. But the effect of what he is doing is clear-cut. He is bent on destroying our confidence in our message and in our work. We live in the Hour of the Final Investigative Judgment—the Hour of the Three Angels’ Messages. Which will you and I choose—an Adventist Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy basis for our faith or a Ford and Brinsmead speculatory basis for it? Your and my decision in this matter will be an important one, for it will decisively affect what the future will bring to us, individually.

If you would like to read further into what the Spirit of Prophecy says about the Investigative Judgment, here are some passages to consider: Great Controversy, 352, 355-6, 422, 424, 426-427, 436, 457, 479-491. Early Writings, 280, Story of Redemption, 402-403. Life Sketches 241-244. Patriarchs and Prophets, 357-358. Prophets and Kings, 716. Desire of Ages,

640. 1 Testimonies, 100, 198. 4 Testimonies, 384, 387. 5 Testimonies, 331, 526, 692. 6 Testimonies 130. 1 Bible Commentary, 1118, 7 Bible Commentary, 987. 1 Selected Messages, 125, Christ’s Object Lessons, 122-3, 310, 312. Testimonies to Ministers, 446. 3 Spiritual Gifts, 37-38. Gospel Workers, 315. Ministry of Healing, 104-105. Sons and Daughters of God, 355.


4 - Men anonymous and Dead vs. the Word of God

"Today in the 1910's in every area of our ranks, from General Conference down, there are men who hold the same opinion:. This is true in all our key institutions . . [and includes] a number of Bible teachers."

The truth of the Investigative Judgment is here clearly called into question by Dr. Ford, but it is done through the statements and positions of "other people," whose names we are not given that we may verify, except for those that are dead. The A ustralasian Division Biblical Research Institute met in February of 1976, because many workers of long years experience were firmly convinced that Desmond Ford was teaching error to the students at Avondale where he was chairman of the Department of Religion. He defended his positions by telling of others who held the same views, rather than by giving a clear, direct and thorough Biblical study in defense of his own. A man solid in Scripture can prove his position from Scripture. You will note that throughout this entire October 27 Lecture, here under consideration, Dr. Ford gives comparatively little Scripture in defense of views which differ widely from those of our own. It is a truth upon which we can all agree that if one can firmly defend his position from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, he won’t need statistics, and private conversations, unknown committees, excerpts from personal letters, analogies, metaphors, citations from contemporary theologians, disparagement of Biblical Inspiration and its penmen, preferential usage of certain Bible and Spirit of Prophecy passages and a total ignoring of others, denial of Spirit of Prophecy Inspiration, careful attention to little matters such as a second falling of the stars while ignoring, ridiculing or flatly denying major doctrines that have made us what we are. Careful presentation of Biblical research should be conducted in a different manner.

"From time to time I receive letters, from ministers mainly, who are embarrassed on this topic. Here’s one from a man who left the ministry a little time ago. A good soul-winner, a very earnest Christian."

"In spite of my love for my church, my work, and above all, my wife, I felt myself compelled by conscience to withdraw from the ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The main reason why I finally took this traumatic and rather heart-wrenching step was because I had come to disbelieve my Church’s teaching of a pre-Advent Investigative Judgment."

"The Bible and the Bible only can be believed after first bringing it into line with the so-called ‘Spirit of Prophecy’ in Adventism."

This reminds one of the problem they had up in heaven. There wasn’t one until Lucifer came along and told everyone they had one. "You are all having problems with what you believe. I can help you solve them." This is what some have told me. And here is what another said. Today in every area of our ranks, from the top down, there are angels who hold the same opinion. This is true among all the angels. People all over are full of doubts. I have puzzled over it for some time and I want to share my thoughts with you. I believe I have the solution to the problem you are having."

As you listen to the letters you may note a marked similarity of style and content. Letters purportedly from men who were shaken in faith, who left denominational work, who left their church—all because they were racked with doubts over the simple Biblical fact that Jesus went into the Sanctuary at His ascension to begin His mediation on our behalf, as is clearly taught in Hebrews Nine, and then entered the second apartment in 1844, as is taught elsewhere in Scripture (partially covered in the study just given above), for the Investigative Judgment and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary.

How many people have you met who are filled with doubts about the Heavenly Mediation of Jesus our Lord? None, unless Desmond Ford or one of his former students—now pastors in our churches—met them first. But here in this lecture our young people are told that there are large numbers weighed down with doubt and despair in regard to basic truths of Adventism.

All of these letters contain, without exception, the very teachings that Ford will himself seek to vindicate later in this lecture. The next five Lecture Statements that I will here quote are extracted from letters that he quotes and from his comments on them. He wouldn’t be presenting them to the young people in our colleges if he did not believe these atheistic doubts himself. You may consider my language strong, but this is exactly what they are. One who will turn from the plain truths of Scripture and cavil over them and reject them is expressing atheistic sentiments, and he will one day reap the whirlwind that will come from it. Dr. Ford is taking his stand in the full blaze of light given us in this day in the Spirit of Prophecy. If he did not have access to this light he would not have the guilt in this matter that he bears.

5 - Day-Year Prophetic Interpretation

"For example, a day for a year, a Bible text often quoted, and they think we deny Scripture if we say, ‘Nowhere does the Bible give a day for a year as a prophecy.’ And yet this is true. See Numbers 14:34—the prophecy is for 40 years—not 40 days!"

The Bible does indeed give a year for a day in providing us with a key to an understanding of Biblical time-span prophecies. Read Ezekiel 4:5-6. That is exactly what it says. But let’s start with Numbers 14:34: A number is given—forty days (Numbers 13:25, 14:34) and then we are told that it will be fulfilled in an actual span of forty years (Numbers 14:33-34). We call this a Bible Time Prophecy. This instruction is part of a direct quotation from God, found in verses 27-35. If we cannot accept what is Biblical and that which is told us directly by our Creator Himself, what are we to believe? Another example: Ezekiel 4:5-6. A number is given—forty days. And then we are told it will be fulfilled in a prophesied time span of forty years.

Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 are parallel prophecies. Both refer to the same time span, each supplementing the information of the other in regard to it. In these two verses a number is given—1260, and an obvious time prophecy is intended. As we were instructed in Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5-6, we may take the next step and believe that it is to be fulfilled in an actual number of 1260 years.

In summary then, a time span in days is given in Scripture and an obvious time span Bible prophecy is intended. The later or fulfillment time span is to be the same number, but in years rather than days. This is the day-year principle—a valid principle of interpreting Biblical prophecies that was given us in the Bible (Numbers 14 and Ezek 4). We didn’t dream up this day-year principle outside of the Bible. We found it given us within the Bible.

For Spirit of Prophecy passages dealing with the day-year principle, read Desire of Ages, 233, Great Controversy, 324, and Prophets and Kings, 698.

6 - Into the Presence of God, Within the Veil

"Jesus entered the very presence of God once for all, and to the right hand of God at the ascension. Mrs. White in Early Writings and Great Controversy puts Him outside the veil, in the outer apartment, somehow, not inside."

On the contrary, the Spirit of Prophecy is in accurate agreement with Scripture. Consider: Jesus went directly into the very presence of God at His resurrection on Sunday morning (Desire of Ages, 790:3 based on John 20:17), and again at His ascension, forty days later (Desire of Ages, 818:1 line 1, 819:3 line 4, 829:1 line I, and 834:1-3). Within this Sanctuary in heaven Jesus ministers on our behalf "before the throne of God" (Great Controversy, 414:2 line 3-4). During this time He was "within the veil" in the first apartment (Great Controversy, 412:0 last 2 lines).

"Thither the faith of Christ’s disciples followed Him as He ascended from their sight. Here their hopes centered, ‘which hope we have,’ said Paul, ‘as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever.’ ‘Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.’ Hebrews 6:19,20; 9:12. For eighteen centuries this work continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary." Great Controversy, 421:1-2.

Just as it is written in Hebrews Nine, quoted above in Great Controversy, Jesus at His Ascension entered once into the holy presence of God (Great Controversy. 420:2). He didn’t go into the heavenly Sanctuary twice; only once. Hebrews 9:12:

"He entered once into the holy places (Greek)." Note that in the original of this passage the word is plural— "places,"—not singular— "place"—as rendered in the English. A more complete study on this point will be given later in this paper.

The throne of God was within the First Apartment while Jesus ministered there within the first veil (Early Writings, 54:2-550). Then in 1844 the Father and the Son went into the Most Holy Place within the second veil (Early Writings, 55:1-56:1). The Bible teaches that Jesus went to Heaven at His Ascension to mediate His blood before His Father within the Heavenly Sanctuary, and this He did, as substantiated by a companion source of Inspiration, the Spirit of Prophecy.

Contrary to Dr. Ford’s accusation, the Spirit of Prophecy teaches that Jesus did go directly into the presence of God within the veil- the first veil of the heavenly Sanctuary—at his Ascension, and lie remains in the presence of God, going with Him in 1844 from the First to the Second Apartment in order to complete the Atonement for mankind by initiating the final phase of it, which in the Spirit of Prophecy is divided into two parts (1) an Examination and (2) a Blotting Out, (I) an Investigation and (2) a Cleansing (Great Controversy, 421:3-422:0, 483:1-486:2).

7- Scripture Explains Scripture

"It all started a few years ago when I rediscovered the Gospel . . . In the book of Hebrews . . . I couldn’t find anything about a cleansing of the Sanctuary or an atonement at some time beyond Christ’s ministry on earth. I believe Christ went into the Most Holy Place at His Ascension. He was accepted in God’s presence because He had completed His ministry for our salvation in favor of mankind."

This is a subtle one. We well know that not all Bible truth is given in any one place in Scripture. The fact that the full spectrum of Biblical light on the Heavenly Mediation of Christ in the Sanctuary in Heaven and the Final Atonement on behalf of mankind is not entirely given in the book of Hebrews—is cited as a reason for not believing it! What educated foolishness! Are we to throw out the Book of Daniel because it does not explain the Seven Days of Creation? Are we to reject the historical prophecies of Revelation because they do not include the sweeping historical view of Daniel Two? Actually, it is not educated foolishness. It is diabolical foolishness. Deliberately carried on to destroy faith in our message through the projection to our youth of mystifying doubts. And error has that quality—it tends to be mystifying after you listen to it enough.

It is deeply significant that such trivial objections are used to disqualify the truth of Christ’s work in the First and Second Apartments of the Heavenly Sanctuary. It reveals that Dr. Ford really does not have much in the way of better objections to present. Is this the best that can be produced against our beliefs? The amazing part is that so many of us spend the time listening to him on cassette, attending his meetings, supporting those who teach his beliefs, and give careful attention to the monthly publications of his doctrinal twin—Robert Brinsmead.

It should also be noted that in the above objection, Dr. Ford expresses an underlying belief of his—one that only surfaces from time to time in this lecture. It is an error, advanced enough in concept, that he knows better than to make an issue of it until more time has elapsed: this is the teaching that Desmond Ford not only does not believe that Jesus began a First Apartment ministry at the time of His Ascension to Heaven. Dr Ford really does not believe that Jesus began any work of atonement—First Apartment or Second—at the time of His Ascension. Desmond Ford believes and teaches the modern Protestant view of a "finished atonement" at the cross. It was "legally—forensically—finished" at Calvary. Our sins were blotted out at that time—on paper that is. He only waits in Heaven for His Second Advent, at which time He will, in fact, take away our sins from us and take us to heaven. The Atonement and the Judgment was legally completed at the Cross. The Atonement and the Judgment are actually put into effect in our lives only at His Coming in the clouds of heaven. And just now, He is not waiting in a two-apartment sanctuary, for Ford has elsewhere spoken and written that there is no Two-Apartment Sanctuary in Heaven. He believes that all Heaven is the Sanctuary, and that there is no particular structured building there by that name, in which the Father and Son are to be found, past, present or future, carrying on—or not carrying on—a work of atonement in our behalf.

But, again, dealing directly with the above objection: Not all Bible truth is given in any one place in Scripture. The furniture of the Sanctuary is given in Exodus and Hebrews, but not in Daniel. The Cleansing of the Sanctuary (the work of the Day of Atonement) is given us in Leviticus 16 and Daniel 8:14, but not as clearly in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews tends to emphasize the beginning of Christ’s work in the Heavenly Sanctuary. Paul was writing to first century Christians, giving them "milk," and hoping to begin them on stronger food soon (Hebrews 5:1 1-14). It was for this reason that he gave the parenthetical chapter of Hebrews 6. He intended to go directly from 5:10 into chapter 7, but doubts as to the comprehension level of his hearers forbad him. When we view Leviticus 16, Daniel 7 and 8, as well as related passages, such as Malachi 3, Revelation 14 and Matthew 25, we are find ourselves involved in other aspects of the overall Atonement, and some, very majestic indeed. These passages tend to clarify the final work in the heavenly sanctuary more than the book of Hebrews does.


And this is the reason why Dr. Ford keeps coming back to Hebrews: Because it appears to deal more directly with mediatorial events at the Ascension of Christ, and this is as far as Ford wants to take this subject. He would wish to wipe out a knowledge of the Daily and Yearly Ministry of Christ from our minds.

Let us ask Dr. Ford this: You deny that Jesus went into the First Apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary at His Ascension, and say it is unscriptural. Where in Scripture does it say He went into the Second Apartment at His Ascension? Certainly not in Hebrews. The truth of ta hagia, which you admitted in this lecture, and then later sidestepped, reveals that when Jesus ascended to heaven, He entered the Sanctuary and went into the presence of His Father. The phrase, ta hagia, does not say which apartment He went into at His Ascension.

Scripture opens before us the truth that Jesus went directly into the presence of God at His Ascension. Additional details of exactly what He did within the Sanctuary upon arriving there, and since then, are amplified in the writings of different prophets—Daniel, Moses, Joel, Malachi, Christ, Paul, John and Ellen White. we have partially covered this in the preceding part of this study and additional attention will be given to it later.

8 - Scripture Dates 1844

"As much as I would like to salvage some contemporary fulfillment, I find the Scriptures silent on 1844. Christ entered God’s unveiled presence once, at His Ascension. As much as we commiserate [express sympathy] with the pioneers that October 23, Edson was deceived in the cornfield, we cannot construct a soteriological system on historical non-occurance . . We can’t construct a doctrine on the fact that Edson had some sort of a conviction in the cornfield. There are some unthinking people who would make a joke out of the fact that it was in a cornfield."

Don’t be frightened by that adjective "soteriological." It is just a big word invented by the experts to keep the rest of us from thinking for ourselves. Priestcraft has often derived power from the use of such sizable mouthfuls. And you will notice the tendency that the weaker the Biblical base for a theologian’s ideas, the more he will use unknown words and little known phrases to convince men that he is correct. Soteriological just means a plan of salvation. It comes from soter, the Greek word for savior.

As one stops to consider the matter, the date 1844 is one of the most important dates in all history, for it marked a major event that will shake all history preceding it and decide all history that will follow it. Be careful how you joke about the Judgment, Desmond, before our young people.

We are told in this objection by Ford that Scripture is silent on 1844. It is with interest that we note that Scripture is silent as to the date of nearly every distinctive event in history—Biblical history or otherwise. The date of Creation, the date of the Fall, the date of the Flood, the date of the Exodus, the date of the giving of the Ten Commandments, and on through pre-first-advent history. The date of Christ’s birth or any of the events connected with it, nearly every event of His earthly life, and onward through the New Testament and beyond.

Oh. you might say, some dates are so important that they are indeed given—the date that Christ began His ministry, and the date He died for the sins of the world. Yes, you are right. These are key events in the Atonement of Christ for mankind. And where do you learn of them? In the great time prophecy of Daniel 8 and 9. Each one is an initiation date—the date that something very important in the salvation plan for mankind began. And just so, that important prophecy of Daniel 8:14 linked with 9:25-27 also gives us one more date that is just as certain as the first two—the date the Final Phase of Christ’s Atonement for mankind began. Three key dates are given us in the Bible. The date Christ’s Earthly Ministry began. The date Christ’s Sacrificial Death in the Outer Court of earth occurred —and—His First Apartment Mediation of the Daily began. The date Christ’s Second Apartment Final Atonement began—the beginning of the great Investigative Judgment of God’s professed people, and the beginning of the Cleansing of its records. This third date is as momentous as the first two. For its termination will bring the end of Human Probation. How solemn! You dare not joke it away in the seat of these scoffers.

Scripture is NOT silent in regard to the date 1844! There are only four important dates concerned with our salvation that the Bible is not silent on—and 1844 is one of them. The truth is that in the area of Biblical prediction, Dr. Ford is a Futurist. He was taught it by F.F. Bruce, a modern Protestant Theologian of the Plymouth Brethren Church who strongly advocates it. It was taught to him by Bruce in 1970-1972 at Manchester University in England, and is expressed in Ford’s doctoral thesis. Futurism is the teaching that all Biblical prophecies are fulfilled either (1) at Calvary or (2) immediately prior to the Second Advent—and not at any other time. Jesuits under Ribera invented this error in Spain in the year 1590, as part of their systematic "counterreformation" attack against Protestantism. Its objective is to eliminate all prophecies that point to the papacy, and among modern Protestant churches its strongest defender today is the Plymouth Brethren Church, under whose teachings Desmond Ford obtained his theological doctorate in 1972. Since that time he has begun publishing books on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation for our people to read. Within these studies you will find little to say about the papal domination of the Little Horn Beast power. "A cross, a cross, look back to the cross"—but no messages of looking forward to the final events in the crisis depicted in Great Controversy, no Third Angel’s Warning to mankind in our time. It is of interest to note how the Futurist error was introduced into Protestantism. For over three hundred years the Jesuits have sent trained agents into the various Protestant denominations for the express purpose of compromising their teachings by infiltrating them with Roman Catholic theology. And they have succeeded remarkably well. It is a well-known fact that almost nothing is today published by Protestant churches or publishing houses in their books and periodicals that is opposed to the Catholic Church. And now this teaching of Futurism that would blot out the historical fulfillments of Bible prophecy as given in the book, Great Controversy, is being introduced by clever men into our own ranks.

9 - Scripture and Historical Occurrences

The subtle insinuation is made by Ford in this objection that our pioneers considered Hiram Edson’s idea a grand delusive error.—Here he is producing more of these unverifiable thinkings of deceased people in order to prove his assertions to be correct. In reality, our pioneers believed fully in the inspiration of the Bible and in what it taught. What a record Ford will have to meet in the Judgment! He even puts untruths in the mouths of dead men. These men stood solidly shoulder-to-shoulder in defense of the faith. A faith that Ford is now asking us to lay down.

The statement was made, "We cannot construct a soteriological system on historical non-occurrence." Christ’s entry into the Most Holy Place in 1844 is called a "historical non-occurrence." But so could be classified by the historian nearly every major or minor event in Scripture. All are "non-occurrences"—they are not verified by secular history. The life of Abraham, Joseph in Egypt, the crossing of the Red Sea, Daniel in Babylon. Solomon’s Temple, Jonah’s trip to Ninevah. Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, the ministry of John the Baptist. the life of Paul or the authorship of any of his epistles. As far as non-Biblical historical records go, they all would be considered as historical non-occurrences. But because we are not told about them outside of the Bible—are they therefore to be considered as untrue? More down-grading of the precious inspired Word of God; our only solace, our only pathway to the City of God. This man is not a Biblicist, he is a modernist. Dr. Ford, stop trying to confuse people and lead them away from "It is written," with your big words. You are drawing precious souls away from Jesus that you might draw them after yourself. Unless you repent and turn from this work, you will one day soon answer for it in the very Judgment that you so freely call into question!

"However high any minister may have stood in the favor of God, if he neglects to follow out the light given him of God, if he refuses to be taught as a little child, he will go into darkness and satanic delusions and will lead others in the same path."—Testimonies, volume 5, page 214:1.

"Any man who seeks to present theories which lead us from the light that has come to us on the ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary, should not be accepted as a teacher."—Life and Teachings, page 49.

1O - God’s Omniscience Does not Destroy Bible Truth

"If an Investigative Judgment is necessary to determine who are prepared for the kingdom of God, how was it that Christ was able to assure the disciples beforehand that in the regeneration when the Son of man should sit in the throne of His glory, that they also would sit upon twelve thrones? How was it that Christ was able to say to the dying thief, ‘You will be with Me in paradise?’ The truth is, ‘the Lord knoweth them that are His.’ 2 Tim 2:19. ‘I know My sheep,’ declares the Good Shepherd, ‘and am known of mine.’

The following are the four basic attributes of the Godhead: eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. Belief in a Final Judgment is not a denial of the truth of God’s omniscience (all-knowingness). The Godhead knows all things in time—past, present and future, and all things in space—everywhere throughout the universe at any and every instant of time. Ford would, in this objection, presume to set the Investigative Judgment against the omniscience of God, but this strained argument can be used to destroy many other Biblical truths as well.

Divinity knows from eternity past, every choice mankind would ever make, and the consequent results in the life and salvation of every creature. But it was thought best in the Divine counsels to have an Investigative Judgment as a concluding part of the great controversy, to reveal to the universe the justice underlying every aspect of salvation and damnation. God doesn’t need a Day of Investigative Judgment but His creatures do.

The Sentencing Judgment, as I call it, during the Millenium is equally unneeded by Deity and equally needed by creation. The six thousand year great controversy was totally unneeded by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to clarify in their minds the results of sin and Satan’s rule, but on behalf of the interests of all the worlds it was vitally necessary. God instantly knows the outcome of the Investigative Judgment and the Sentencing Judgment from eternity past, but for our sakes it is given.

To seek to destroy the Investigative Judgment on the ground that God didn’t need it is a surprisingly shallow attack on the part of one so well educated. But, unfortunately, much of it was acquired in Protestant Modernism which prefers to deny many Biblical truths. Again, it is but another evidence of how solid our position is that such weak arguments are all that can be set forth in an effort to overthrow it. And how solid it is! The truth of a coming Judgment that will sit to weigh and decide the lives of men is a basic truth of Scripture. The Bible does not teach that this great Examination was done at some past time in history, nor does it teach that it is never to be done in history at all—as Dr. Ford is here declaring to the young men and women that will one day be the workers and leaders of our church. Thorough studies on the Biblical basis of the truth of the Investigative Judgment are given elsewhere in this paper.

"Now, because this tape [of this lecture] will be used in some nefarious ways, . . let me state my convictions, my personal convictions before I go any further: I believe in a pre-advent judgment with every man’s destiny settled before the coming of Christ. I believe the day of Atonement prefigured by the work in the second apartment. I believe the Seventh-day Adventist movement was raised up in 1844 by God to do a special work and it restored the gift of prophecy in the person of Ellen G. White. These for the record are my true convictions."

As we have already seen in regard to the Investigative Judgment, and shall soon see in regard to the Spirit of Prophecy, Dr. Ford is here agreeing to something that he elsewhere denies. This is no casual observation. Elder A.L. White upon hearing this lecture, or a tape of it, came to the same conclusion.

We have here one of the primary reasons the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been buffaloed so long by Dr. Ford. Listening to him can be a puzzling experience. A call to return to Calvary and the True Gospel, may be followed by a scathing insinuation on one of our historic doctrines. This may then lead into a brief statement that fully harmonizes with our beliefs—Biblical and Spirit of Prophecy, as is given above. Next a stinging sarcasm on a pioneer position or those naive enough to hold to it. Then a ringing appeal to accept the Righteousness of Christ "only found at Calvary."

If you speak with Dr. Ford personally and question him as to his beliefs, as I have done, you will find this to be all too true. Subtle innuendoes regarding our beliefs will be interspersed with comments of acceptance of them. Many today are totally confused as to the true position of Desmond Ford because of these switch-over statements of his.

[He refers to his exhaustive studies in various commentaries at Manchester University] on this very topic [of no Hebrews Nine First Apartment Mediation of Christ in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and no Daniel Eight Investigative Judgment or Cleansing of the Sanctuary beginning in 18441, and I felt that the conclusions reached from this study substantiated very strongly what I’d been teaching my own students for many years regarding the problems of Hebrews Nine and Daniel Eight . . . Now, I want to give you the problems:"

You mean, Dr. Ford, that we have been supporting and paying your salary so that you could for years spend your time filling the minds of our ministerial and other students on two continents—at Avondale College in Australia and at Pacific Union College in America, plus countless speaking engagements at churches, campmeetings, ministerial retreats, and graduate and undergraduate study sessions? Why has not someone put a stop to this years ago? Surely it was told them what you are teaching. And what shall we do now about the situation? Cohn and Russell Standish in their monumental study, "The Origin and History of the Australasian Controversy," tell us that the majority of ministers in the Australasian Division, now believe and teach the same errors that you do. That is the result of twenty years of your influence in Australia. And now we are nearing the completion of ten years of your ministry in North America. And they tell us that there are those in the Department of Theology at Andrews University which teach your unBiblical views, as well as the Ministry Magazine. What shall we say when men are afraid to stand up and be counted? Father, it is time for Thee to work.

11 - A Bible Prophecy is not Incorrect—simply because it is Conditional

"One of the main problems that faces us is certainly that of the year-day principle. Let me read from the Review and Herald—I always feel safe when I do that (laughter) [and then inferential statements are made indicating that the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation is to be called into question—simply because Jesus could have returned shortly after His Ascension.]

We have here the pitting against one another, of two correct but unrelated Biblical facts. And then an erroneous conclusion is stated. But because the logical conclusion was basically irrational, the one hearing it notes the confusion in it and tends to think that the confusion is within himself, when it is really within that which was told to him.

(1) [Scripture:] Time prophecies can be interpreted by the day-year principle. (2) [Human reasoning that might have been possible 2000 years ago, but today is irrelevent (speculation based on the truth of conditional prophecies):] It was theoretically possible for Jesus to have returned to earth soon after His ascension. (3) [Erroneous confused thinking:] Time prophecies based on the day-year principle are therefore not correct, because if Jesus had returned to earth the second time soon after His ascension, the 2300 day prophecy could not have been fulfilled in 2300 years—and therefore it can not today be interpreted as a 2300 YEAR prophecy, even though 2300 years have indeed elapsed since the prophecy went into effect.

This is the reasoning that Ford uses to disprove the 2300 Year Prophecy. By now, you probably feel that your mind is giving out on you. Not at all. The fault is with the reasoning, not with your mind. It is based on a faulty use of the Biblical principle that all prophecies are conditional. If man will, for example, turn from his wicked ways, the prophecy will not have to be fulfilled in the way originally stated. The time might be shortened, the punishment might be lessened, etc. Here are some similar examples that will reveal the underlying error in this reasoning:

Noah predicted a flood of waters would destroy everyone. But "what if" everyone had repented? Then the flood wouldn’t have come. "Which proves" that the message was incorrect to begin with. The very possibility that the outcome could have been different proves that the message itself was wrong. Noah was a false prophet.

(1) God has predicted hellfire for wicked men, but (2) no one theoretically need be lost, "therefore" there is a question whether the truth of hellfire is really valid, because it was theoretically possible for it not ever to have occurred. There must not be a hellfire after all.

Is such speculative "what if it had been" and "if" reasoning to become the basis for deciding what is truth in our Church?

12 - Daniel Eight Fourteen

"The second problem is this one: In Daniel 8:13 and 14, we have a problem of context. In Daniel 8 we read about the nasty little horn treading down the Sanctuary; the nasty little horn doing a work of transgression. And then it says, how long shall the Sanctuary be trodden underfoot by this nasty little horn. And the answer is given, ‘Unto two thousand three hundred days.’ But now, note, Adventists talk about the nasty little horn, doing his work on earth, and then suddenly, instead of Antichrist defiling the Sanctuary, they start talking about the saints defiling the Sanctuary with their sins, and thus needing a cleansing. Are you following me? The context of Daniel 8:14 has to do with a wicked power defiling the Sanctuary, not the sins of the saints. And Adventists in answering it, forget about the sins of the wicked power, and start talking about the sins of the saints, and they switch from earth to heaven, and they go from Daniel 8 back to Leviticus 16. This is rather thin. It ignores the contextual problem.

"The third issue has to do with the word ‘cleansed.’ ‘Unto two thousand three hundred days, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ On the basis of that word, our pioneers linked this prophecy with Leviticus 16, but the word isn’t there . . . Adventists have traditionally jumped from Daniel 8:14 to Leviticus 16 on the basis of the word cleansed. The point is the word cleansed isn’t there, it’s a mistranslation . . but the Hebrew word isn’t cleansed. . . . Now there is nothing new in bringing these objections to your attention. They have been taught for years in our Seminary. Dr. Heppenstall for many years has explained these problems and given his own answers."

The problem is not with context, as we shall see below, the problem is with Dr. Ford’s Protestant commentaries. Instead of reading his Bible, he is spending his time "in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing" (Acts 17:21) from Protestant theologians. He refuses the doctrinal inspiration of the Spirit of Prophecy, as he tells us later in this lecture, while devouring the writings of contemporary Biblical critics. Ford tries to make a tempest in a teacup out of the Little Horn in Daniel 8:9-13, while ignoring the larger context of Daniel 7 and 9. He carefully avoids mention of the extensive parallel prophecy in Daniel 7, which in timing and in events is an explanatory twin to Daniel 8:9-14.

And he makes an issue of the meaning of the word translated "cleansed" in Daniel 8:14, all the while carefully avoiding the truth that the word used in that verse in modern translations is only a synonym for "cleansed," and mean essentially the same thing as "cleansed." He is very careful not to tell us which word is used in Daniel 8:14 in place of the word "cleansed," for he knows that it will undercut his falsehood that it is something very different than that written in our King James Bibles. As a proof that Daniel 8:14 has nothing to do with Leviticus 16, he tries to cite the fact that the word used in Daniel 8:14 is not used in Leviticus 16. The truth is that both passages say basically the same thing. Consider: In Leviticus 16, the Sanctuary is "cleansed" from sin as the final work there, that it may be restored to its original purity (Lev 16:19, 29-34). In Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary is "restored" to its original condition, that as a result the offense of the Little Horn power may forever be destroyed (Daniel 8:9-14). Daniel Seven, in careful detail, fills in the meaning of what is involved in this restoration process told us in Daniel Eight. We are told in Daniel Seven of a work of Investigative Judgment that will result in the taking away of the dominion of the Little Horn (7:26) and giving it to the people of God (7:27) as co-heirs with Christ (7:14). As will be explained later in this paper, the key word in Daniel 8:14 is not "cleansing" (or in modern versions, "restoring" or something equivalent), but the word "Sanctuary." It is the Cleansing or Restoring of the SANCTUARY that is our link to Leviticus 16. And Biblically, this work of restoring the Sanctury involves a cleansing of sin.

The Hebrew word used in Daniel 8:14 is the word sadaq, which means "to make just or right." This word is in verb form in Daniel 8:14, and is used in a form unique in the Old Testament for sadaq—the niphal. Translators and lexicographers have suggested various meanings of sadaq in Daniel 8:14, such as "be put right," or "be put in a rightful condition," "be righted," "be declared right," "be justified" or "vindicated." Because of its obvious reference to the Day of Atonement the Greek Septuagint Version (c. 168 B.C.) translated it as "cleansed," or katharisthesetai, "to make clean" or "cleanse," which is the root word used in the New Testament cleansings by Jesus of the sick.

Leviticus 16 deals with the righting of the Sanctuary from the standpoint of the putting away of sin from it. Daniel 7 unveils the Investigative Judgment that is integral to it. But Daniel 8 is concerned with the overall issue in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. The Investigative Judgment and the Final Atonement—the cleansing and restoration of the Sanctuary—will provide, in the records that are revealed, a clear vindication of the character of God before all the universe. The false charges of Satan against God will be shown to be groundless. God’s decisions regarding who will be saved and who will be lost will justify His work in the Sanctuary, and will evoke from all men the confession, "Thy way, 0 God, is in the Sanctuary" (Ps 77:13), and "Just and true are Thy ways" (Rev 15:3). No longer will "the place of His Sanctuary" be "cast down" (Dan 8:11)—for God and His work in the Sanctuary will be declared right. (Dan 8:1 4) By the cleansing of the Sanctuary, it will be restored to its rightful place. All will say, "Thou art righteous, 0 Lord" (Rev 16:5), and, "True and righeous are Thy judgments" (Rev 16:7). Satan himself will be led to acknowledge God’s justice (GC 670-671). The word translated "just" and "righteous" in the above passages in Revelation is dikaio, which is equivalent to the Hebrew word, saddiq, derived from sadaq, which is translated "shall be cleansed—made right—vindicated—exonerated—restored—put right—make right—set right" in Daniel 8:14. As a result of the work of Investigative Judgment and Blotting Out of Sin within the Heavenly Sanctuary, the Sanctuary itself will be cleansed from the records of sin and restored to its rightful place, and the God of the Sanctuary will be vindicated in the eyes of the universe, and the people of the Sanctuary will be made right and restored to their original home, forever to live with Jesus and the angels.

"And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great . . . Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him [the little horn] the daily was taken away, and the place of His Sanctuary was cast down . . . How long shall be the vision, to give both the Sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days: then shall the Sanctuary be cleansed—restored." Daniel 8:9, 11, 13-14. "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, . . but the Judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall 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." Daniel 7:25-27.

The objection as given by Dr. Ford specifically relates to two areas: (1) Daniel 8:14 should be viewed as a solution to the Little Horn problem and not to the people of God. (2) Daniel 8:14 is a restoration of the Sanctuary and not a cleansing of the Sanctuary.

In anticipation of these two points, both of them were dealt with in the rather complete study on Daniel 8:14 and its Biblical meaning, given earlier in this paper. But, in brief review, consider the following:

(1) Daniel 8:14 constitutes an investigative judgment of the professed people of God, as well as a vindication of those among them who have been faithful in their following of the Lamb. This work of judgment results in a consequent cleansing of the records of God’s faithful ones,—and as indicated in the final verses of Leviticus 16, and in Malachi 3, and elsewhere, a cleansing of the people as well. (Great Controversy 424:4-425:2 speaks specifically of this. Also chapter 28 of this book.) A result of this work of judgment and cleansing is the Taking Away of the Dominion of the Beast, and his eventual destruction in flame, as shown in Daniel 7. So, Daniel 8:14 is a solution for BOTH the problem of the Little Horn, as well as the problem of the record and reality of the sin of God’s people.

(2) Daniel 8:14 involves a special work in the Sanctuary. We have stated that it involves a two-fold activity—that of Examination or Judgment—and—that of Blotting Out or Cleansing. (Compare this two-fold work in G.C., 421:3-424:0; 485:2; 486:1-2.) The careful consideration of the Records of the lives of men is the Examination. This, of course, is a very Scriptural concept, many passages already having been cited. It results, or leads into, a work of Blotting Out, or Cleansing. This is spoken of in several passages of Scripture, as already mentioned. For a Bible study on the matter read the carefully prepared one in Great Controversy, chapter 28. The overall result of this work is a Restoration or Making Right or Setting Right the records of the Heavenly Sanctuary. The Hebrew word translated "cleansing" in Daniel 8:14 can also be translated as "restoring" or "making right" or "setting right." There is no difficulty here—except to one who dislikes the message it brings him of a coming judgment. The words "cleanse" and "restore" or "clean up" or "set right" are near synonyms. They all mean essentially the same thing. If you told your son or daughter to clean up the kitchen, make it right, clean it ("to cleanse" is the same as "to clean"), set it in order, or restore it to what it looked like before it was soiled by muddy boots—your son or daughter would know exactly what you were talking about. For it all means the same thing to everyday folk who think in simple, direct ways. The Bible wouldn’t seem so complicated if theologians didn’t come along and try to make it complicated, to impress folk with their deep learning.

Two of Dr. Ford’s primary objectives throughout this Lecture of Doubt is (1) to separate the Sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 from its Cleansing, and (2) to separate the Sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 from the Investigative Judgment which is an initial part of it.

(1) Daniel 8.14 cannot be separated from the cleansing because the key word in that verse is not "cleansing" or "2300," but "Sanctuary." If the object of this cleansing or restorative process was wagon or stone or beast, then the whole picture would be different. That which is cleansed is not "Little Horn Beast" as Ford would have us think. It is not the trampling-down power that is cleansed, it is the Sanctuary that is cleansed. And this fact immediately takes us back to Leviticus 23 and the yearly cycle of Sanctuary events to locate that part of the Sanctuary work which cleanses it, and then into Leviticus 16 for the specific work and purposes in the type of the Sanctuary cleansing on the Day of Atonement. The antitype of the outer court sacrifices is Calvary. The antitype of the throughout-the-year "daily" application or mediation of blood within the first apartment is the ministration of Christ within the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary for eighteen centuries. The antitype of the end-of-the-year "yearly" application within the Most Holy Place is the type of the final phase of the atonement—the cleansing or restoration of the Sanctuary to its rightful state,—its original condition. And Leviticus 16 clearly shows that this clearning is a sin-cleansing, which Ford would deny to Daniel 8:14. As a good Futurist, Ford wants all the sin-cleansing to be fulfilled legally at the Cross and then in fact only at the Second Advent—and nowhere else.

(2) Daniel 8:14 also cannot be separated from the Investigative Judgment. Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement in type, was very obviously a day of judging, with a resultant "cutting off" of those not found faithful in their personal lives.

But we also have another, a second way, to link Daniel 8:14 with the Investigative Judgment. Consider this insight: Daniel 9 gives the beginning and first part of the 2300 year time span. It carries us down to A.D. 34 and then mentions a resultant event following this: the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Daniel 8 gives the time span length itself, and then provides the key to knowing what will occur at its end. Daniel 7 covers the entire span, but significantly, focuses on—details—that latter part not covered by Daniel 9. As in Daniel 8, we are told of the Little Horn rule (8:9-13 and 7:8, 20-21, 24-25), and then we are given quite a bit of information about this major event that would follow the Little Horn domination (Dan 8:14 and 7:9-10, 13-14, 22, 26-27)—the Cleansing of the Sanctuary in chapter 8 and the Investigative Judgment in chapter 7.

The Little Horn power began working within a hundred years after the Destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. By A.D. 150, Pius I was calling for a Sunday Passover, instead of the lunar one given in Scripture. Shortly thereafter in Rome, Justin Martyr in 155, gave us the first written record of Sunday observance. And Paul tells us that by A.D. 5 1-52, the mystery of iniquity was already at work (2 Thess 2:7).

The Little Horn power is the linking key between Daniel 7 and 8. It is the outstanding concern of chapter 7 and a major concern of chapter 8. Following the period of Little Horn domination in Daniel 7—comes the Investigative Judgment. This is very obvious, for three times we are shown the transition between the two in Daniel 7 (7:8 to 9, 21 to 22, and 25 to 26). Following the period of Little Horn domination in Daniel 8—comes the Cleansing and restoration of the Sanctuary. Very clearly the transition is from Little Horn to Investigative Judgment in Daniel 7, and from Little Horn to Day of Atonement cleansing in Daniel 8.

Dr. Ford, read the Bible prophecy of Daniel 7 and 8 and take it for what it says. The Bible will tell you far more than studies into Protestant Commentaries. In both chapters there is a Divinely given switch-over from the earthly trampling of God’s people and principles by the Little Horn power, to a vindication of God’s people and those principles by a heavenly power—the Investigative Judgment conducted by the Son before the Father within the Heavenly Sanctuary.

The Judgment is begun, as seats are arranged and the Ancient of Days is seated (7:9,26). The Courtroom is filled with attendants and the books are opened (7:10) (Compare the picture given in Early Writings, 54-55—a picture which Dr. Ford calls "imaginary" later in this Lecture.) The Son of Man comes before Him, and is brought near to Him (7:13), and the Sanctuary is cleansed and restored (8:14) by this work of Judgment. As a result of it, the Son of man is given an eternal dominion and glory and a kingdom (7:14), and the dominion of the beast power is taken away (7:26). No longer shall the Sanctuary work be trodden under foot (8:13)—no longer shall the ministry within the Sanctuary be downgraded by men, such as Dr. Ford, who are taught in the schools of Rome and its daughters, voicing the sentiments of Rome, the Little Horn power—that there has been no extended Mediation of Christ in the great Sanctuary above on behalf of His people these many centuries. God’s little children will take the kingdom (7:18,22) as co-heirs and reign with the Son forever (7:27), and the Little Horn Beast shall be slain and given to the burning flame (7:11).

13 - Hebrews Nine

"Now let us come to the real problem . . . [and then develops his conviction that Hebrews Nine does not teach that Christ went into the First Apartment, the Holy Place, at His Ascension to Heaven, but instead went into the Second Apartment, the Most Holy Place, without ever having entered into the First Apartment] [Hebrews 9:7, 12, and 24 is quoted from the King James Version, with changes by Ford ("holy place" is changed to "most holy place" in verse 12, and "holy places" is changed to "holy place" in verse 24), then 9:12, 25, 7-8, 23-24 is read from the New International Translation, which interpretively views Christ as entering directly into the Most Holy Place] "In case some folk try to make an issue out of the Greek; the word that is here translated "most holy place" is literally, "holies." The Septuagint uses it repeatedly in Leviticus 16 for Most Holy Place. The word itself can mean the Sanctuary as a whole, or it can mean the First Apartment, or it can mean the Second Apartment. You can prove nothing from the Greek because it has these possibilities.

"Let me underline it again, for you must get this point: The book of Hebrews distinctly teaches that Christ went directly into the Most Holy Place at His Ascension. There is no way out, round, or through it. I have ransacked every nook and corner, and twisted every syllable. There is no way out or round or through it. The book of Hebrews, chapter nine, teaches that Christ went directly into the Most Holy Place at His Ascension. I will repeat for you verses seven and twelve." [His own paraphrase of Hebrews 9:7,12 is then given] Every commentary in the world has seen it, my friends, except one or two by Seventh-day Adventists."

FF 10

In brief, Desmond Ford is providing us here with a flat denial that Christ went into the Holy Place, or First Apartment, of the Heavenly Sanctuary at the time of His Ascension. Instead, Ford maintains that Jesus went directly into the Most Holy Place, or Second Apartment, of the Sanctuary. In saying this, he clearly denies an antitype fulfillment of the First Apartment ministration of Christ. And on probing his beliefs deeper than is revealed in this lecture, one will discover that Ford really does not believe in much of a Second Apartment fulfillment in the Heavenly Sanctuary either. As he tells us later in this lecture, and frequently elsewhere, it is his thinking that everything is fulfilled legally—on paper—at the Cross, and in fact—in actuality—at the Second Advent. This is in accordance with the Futurist interpretation of Biblical prophecy that he was taught in England at a modernist theological school where he received his doctorate in 1972.

What is actually a simple and direct study by Paul—Hebrews Nine—in the larger scope of the message of the entire book, Dr. Ford here twists with his syllables into a distorted picture that Paul never intended. Let us begin our reply to this by briefly reviewing the message of the book, and then in greater detail, the message of Hebrews Nine:

Hebrews 1—Jesus is our God and worthy of the worship of the Universe. Hebrews 2—Jesus became a man like us, tempted like us, and suffered and died in our behalf. Hebrews 3—Jesus the Son of God is the Leader of Israel and our Leader as long as we hold fast by faith our confidence in Him. Hebrews 4—For it is by faith that we enter the promised rest. Let us therefore come boldly to Him in faith that we may receive the help we need. Hebrews 5-7—Jesus is our High Priest. Let us not back off from this great truth in doubt, but let us accept it for it is an important part of our hope and our salvation. Hebrews 8—Jesus is the Priest of the Heavenly Sanctuary, and His ministry is based on better promises and a better covenant. Hebrews 9—Jesus is now mediating in this Heavenly Sanctuary on our behalf! Jesus has given a better sacrifice, one that was only made once, that provided better blood, and that was taken once into the Heavenly Sanctuary. Hebrews 10—Jesus gave a sacrifice of obedience, that can take away our sin. Let us come to Him in faith that He may forgive and remove them, and then let us patiently follow in His example of obedience. Hebrews 11—Faith in Jesus is the enabling key. Consider these examples of others who by faith held firm to the end. Hebrews 12—Press onward by faith and do not doubt because of the difficulties you encounter, for by them God is preparing you for heaven. Hebrews 13—In closing, here are some practical pointers to help you in daily living.

Before giving a detailed view of Hebrews Nine, we need to understand the basis of Dr. Ford's whole argument that Jesus went directly into the Most Holy Place when He ascended to Heaven. It is Ford's use of a single phrase occurring in the original Greek, a phrase that is to be found in nine passages in the book of Hebrews, and five of these eight are in Hebrews Nine. This is the phrase ta hagia, which means "the holy places." The Sanctuary was composed of two distinct apartments with two distinct services—the daily and the yearly. In conscious awareness of this two-fold work in the Sanctuary, Paul in Hebrews calls the Sanctuary ta hagia, the "holy places." This is the only word used in the Book of Hebrews for "Sanctuary." Paul, in Hebrews, uses ta hagia for the Sanctuary —the Earthly or the Heavenly. He never uses ieron or vaos which are used elsewhere in the New Testament for sanctuary or temple. And elsewhere in the New Testament, outside of Hebrews, the phrase ta hagia is never found, only ieron or vaos. Here are the nine places in Hebrews where ta hagia is used:

(1) Hebrews 8:2—translated "the sanctuary" in the K.J.V. In Hebrews 8:1-2, Paul introduces the fact that Jesus ministers as our high priest in the "true tabernacle"—the Sanctuary in heaven. This "Sanctuary" is the Great Pattern that Moses was told to make a replica of, for the Earthly Sanctuary (8:5). Ta hagia is quite obviously not "most holy place" in Hebrews 8:2. (2) Hebrews 9:1—"a sanctuary" in the K.J.V. In this one instance ta hagia is given in the singular: "hagion." As verses 2-5 will show, Paul is speaking in 9:1 of the Earthly Sanctuary—literally, in the Greek, "the Holy Place of this world." (3) Hebrews 9:2—"The Sanctuary." Comparing verse 2 with verses 3-5, we discover that Paul here uses ta hagia for the "First Apartment. "And in verse 3, we learn something very significant, for Paul here gives us the Greek word that he would use in the book of Hebrews for the "Most Holy Place." it is "hagia hagion"—which literally means "holy of holies" (singular holy place of the plural holy places), and is translated as "the holiest of all" in 9:3 in the K.J.V. This is an invaluable help, for if Paul had wanted to use "Most Holy Place" in 9:8, 12, 24, and 25, as Ford says that he does, Paul would have used the word "hagia hagion" in those verses, but he did not do so. This is important, for Ford's entire argument in Hebrews Nine is based on the supposition that 9:8, 12, 24, and 25 mean "Most Holy Place." You might wonder why in 9:2 Paul called the First Apartment the tabernacle ("sanctuary" in the Greek of 9:2—ta hagia), and in 9:3 he called the Second Apartment the holiest of all ("holy of holies" in the Greek of that verse), but it is not unusual, for Moses followed similar patterns of expression in various places in his writings.

(4) Hebrews 9:8—"The holiest of all." This is the first of the four controverted verses—the four verses that Ford says means "Most Holy Place."—9:8, 12, 24, and 25. In Hebrews, chapters 5 to 7, Paul reveals Jesus as our High Priest. In 8:1-5, we are shown that Jesus is the High Priest of the Heavenly Sanctuary. And now, in Hebrews Nine this line of truth is carried further. In 9:1 we are reminded that there was an earthly sanctuary. In 9:2-5 its two apartments and their contents are described to us. In 9:6-7, we are told of the two-fold ministry in the earthly sanctuary—the Daily service in the First Apartment, and the Yearly service within the Second. Then, in 9:8, Paul is ready for the next step: to show us that this two-fold earthly service symbolized Christ's work in the Heavenly Sanctuary—a work that would begin when the earthly services no longer had meaning in the eyes of God. So then, Heb 9:6-8, taken together emphasize a two-apartment work in the Heavenly Sanctuary. That which was done in the two apartments on earth is to be done in the two apartments in heaven. That is what Paul is here telling us. It is as simple as that. Ford would deny this and say that Jesus skipped the First Apartment work in the Heavenly Sanctuary, thus making a mockery of the antitype fulfillment of the Daily, and thus making 9:1-7 meaningless—for these verses distinctly point to it as the symbol or type of the first part of the Heavenly Mediation of Christ on our behalf. But for a moment, let us take Ford at his word: What if 9:8 does mean "holy of holies'—Then why didn’t Paul use hagia hagion in 9:8 as he did in verse 3? If he meant "holy of holies," he would have used "holy of holies." Instead he used ta hagia which we have seen consistently means "Sanctuary," with the only exception to this being in 9:2 where it means "First Apartment" (to contrast with hagia hagion for "Most Holy Place" in 9:3). So then, from the context of the verses preceding it, 9:8 means "Sanctuary." And from the usage of the Greek, ta hagia, it means "Sanctuary" or possibly "First Apartment." No matter how Ford may twist syllables, 9:8 means "Sanctuary," or possibly "First Apartment." It does not mean "Second Apartment,"—and there is no way out or round or through it.

(5) Hebrews 9:12—"The holy place" in the K.J.V. 9:8-10 dealt with the fact that the Earthly Sanctuary was only a type, symbol or figure, of the one in Heaven. The mediatorial work of priests in the two apartments on earth represented the Mediatorial Work of Christ in the two Apartments of the Heavenly Sanctuary. 9:11-12 tell us that Christ having become the High Priest of this Heavenly Sanctuary, He has entered it not with the blood of animals, but with His own blood,—which is securing (present tense in the Greek, not past) through the combined result of His Sacrifice and Mediation, an eternal redemption for us! As we have already seen, "the holy place" can mean "the Sanctuary," or it can mean "the First Apartment" of that Sanctuary. Either would be correct Biblically in accordance with the fulfillment of the types, and also in agreement with the Spirit of Prophecy. The phrase here is, again, ta hagia. Recall that in 9:2 it refers to the "first apartment" and is there contrasted as different than the hagion hagia—"holy of holies," (Second Apartment) in 9:3. But I here suggest that the context of 9:12 indicates "Sanctuary" and not "First Apartment." Paul has a special point that he makes an issue of in Hebrews Nine, which he uses as but another way of showing that Christ*s priestly mediation is "better" than that of the earthly—the fact that He only has to enter the Heavenly Sanctuary ONCE, whereas the Aaronic priests had to enter the earthly sanctuary repeatedly. This point is brought out in Hebrews 7:27;9:7, 12, 25-28; 10:2, 10. He died once for our sins, and He entered the Sanctuary once, there to Mediate on our behalf. He entered once into the Sanctuary, and there within it He would carry on all the work that He would do within it—in the First Apartment and in the Second. On earth they had many enterings for the work of the Daily in the First Apartment, and, again, another entering into the Earthly Sanctuary for the Yearly Service. But in the Antitype it would not be so. ONE entering into the Sanctuary by the One designated to perform the work within it, and then once inside, He would do all the work that was to be done within it before He would again come out.

(6) Hebrews 9:24— "holy places" in the K.J.V. Going on in Hebrews Nine, Paul tells us that it is the blood of Christ that cleanses us, not the blood of animals (9:14),—and this blood could only be provided through death—Christ*s death (9:15-7). And more, this blood would dedicate both people and the Sanctuary (9:19-21), make possible the remission of sin (9:22) and, ultimately, its purification from the Heavenly Sanctuary (9:23). And now, we come to 9:24, which again brings home

with startling clarity the truth that Christ has entered the Sanctuary—not the earthly, the one made with hands—but the heavenly.—For He has gone into Heaven itself on our behalf to appear in the very presence of our Holy Father. Ford would here say that this should be translated "Most Holy Place." and not "Sanctuary." But he certainly has no Biblical basis within the book of Hebrews for so doing. Ta hagia means the "holy places"—the "Sanctuary of two apartments." This is all we learn in the book of Hebrews, for the regular usage of this word. And ta hagia is not used outside of Hebrews, anywhere in the New Testament. Ford will tell us that ta hagia is translated some other way in the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament made by Egyptian Jews around the year 198 B.C. But he doesn*t mention that great changes occurred in written Greek between the time of Classical Greek .350 B.C. and earlier) and the time of the Koine Greek—the Greek of the New Testament and the First Century A.D. Roman world. Let us use the Greek of Hebrews to explain Hebrews, not the Greek of 200 B.C. down in Egypt. The fact stands that the burden of proof is clearly on Dr. Ford. Hebrews Nine consistently speaks about Jesus entry into His Heavenly Sanctuary Mediation. This is the great concern of the chapter, as well as of the entire book. And what Jesus enters is the ta hagia—the "holy places"—the Sanctuary (Heb 9:1. 8. 12, 24, 25), not the hagia hagion—-the holy of holies**—the Most Holy Place (Heb 9:3). It is not wise to read into Scripture that which is not there. And a direct Ascension Entrance into the Most Holy Place is not there.

(7) Hebrews 9:25—"holy place" in the K.J.V. This verse was mentioned above. The two remaining usages of ta hagia are to be found in Hebrews 10:19 and 13:11.

(8) Hebrews 10:19—"the holiest" in the K.J.V. The people of God in past ages could come to Jesus just as they were, that He might remove their sins and transfer them to the records of the Sanctuary above. Through the mediation of His blood the people of God may have remission of sins,—and no further sacrificial shedding of blood is necessary (10:18). Jesus gave an offering of obedience (10:5-20), to which the earthly blood sacrifices were far inferior (10:1.4). We must submit to His Sacrifice, and in confidence, we must patiently continue in faith all the way to the end, willingly suffering for His sake (10:32-39).

(9) Hebrews 13:11—"the Sanctuary" in the K.J.V. This is the last of the occurrences of ta hagia in the book of Hebrews, and in the New Testament as well. The blood of certain sacrifices was taken into the ta hagia, the Sanctuary, and the animal itself was burned without the camp. The offerings in which the sacrificial animal itself was burned without the camp, occurred in both the Daily and in the Yearly. Here are the offerings that this would include: The consecration offering for the priest (Ex 29:14, Lev 8:17), certain sin offerings (Lev 4:12, 21;9:ll), and one of the burnt offerings (Lev 6:11). Sin and burnt offerings were made on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:3,5,6,9, 11). The blood taken into the Most Holy Place on this day was that of the bullock for the sins of the priest and "the Lord*s goat" for the sins of the people (Lev 16:9, 11, 13-15). In both cases, their bodies were taken "without the camp" and burned (Lev 16:27-28). On the Day of Atonement the blood of these animals was taken into both the First and Second Apartments of the Sanctuary. On the basis of previous usage of ta hagia, it would appear that "Sanctuary" would be the best term here in Hebrews 13:11, rather than "First Apartment." Hagia hagion is not used here, so the Second Apartment, alone, could not be meant here. Hebrews 13:1 1 is metaphorical, and is telling us not to come to an earthly sanctuary, but to go rather "without the camp" to Jesus that we may there suffer with Him. It is not, in this sense, speaking about the Entrance or Mediation of Christ within the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Ta hagia is the key to Hebrews Nine. Dr. Ford, realizing this, in his lecture told us that the word could mean more than one thing, and therefore meant nothing. This is not true, as we have seen. We have seen that ta hagia means "Sanctuary," with one exception (9.2), where it means the "First Apartment." And that one exception, contrasted by Paul with 9:3, as he does clearly shows that ta hagia is not Paul*s word for "Most Holy Place." Let me say it again—the meaning of ta hagia is the key to an understanding of Hebrews Nine—and specifically, WHERE Christ went when He ascended to Heaven.

In closing, let me share with you a personal belief of many years. Dr. Ford shares many opinions in his lecture, and so I will share one: I believe God purposely guided Paul to use ta hagia—"holy places" (two-apartment Sanctuary) so that the messages of these chapters would be personally true for you and me and all of God*s people,—no matter on which side of 1844 we might live. We today "while it is today" (3:7, 13, 15; 4:7) are to come to Jesus just as we are that we might receive the needed blessing (4:14-1 6). For He is within the "holy places" awaiting us, ready to receive and plead for us (7:25). Before 1844 you or I could come to Him in the First Apartment, after that date, in the Second. But either way, we may come to Him within "the holy places" where He awaits our arrival and where He ministers on our behalf. I believe that the entire book of Hebrews was written for those needing help in past ages. And I believe it is equally written for us who need help today in this Hour of Judgment. For us it has an added significance. In a special sense is this true of Hebrews Ten. This chapter was precious to the children of God in past centuries, and today it invites us to a special experience we may have as we come to Jesus within the Most Holy Place. Compare it with Great Controversy, chapters 24 and 28.

"From the context it is obvious. It's speaking about a place the high priest alone went once every year with the blood of bulls and goats. [Heb 9:12 paraphrased] —that's bull calves that was offered on the Day of Atonement."

"With the blood of bulls and goats." Ford tells us in this lecture, that this mention of bull and goat blood in 9:12 proves that Christ immediately entered the Most Holy Place when He ascended to Heaven—because bull and goat blood was used in the Day of Atonement Service in Leviticus 16. (Lev 16:6,9) Here, again, we have the result of a limited degree of Biblical study. Turning to the precious Word of God, we find that a young bullock was sacrificed in Leviticus 16:6, and the reason given is that it was a sin offering for the high priest; himself. This sacrifice of a bullock on behalf of the sins of the priest, along with a ram of consecration (bull and goat blood) was regularly done at the time that each priest was initially consecrated to the priesthood (Lev 8:14,22), and then as he began his work, the very frequent offering of bull and goat blood began (Lev 9:2)—the bullock as a sin offering for himself, and a ram for a burnt offering for the people. Following this, in 9:3, the people were to bring their offerings,—a bull, a goat and a lamb. In 9:4, a bull and a ram for a peace offering, and so on. But the classical offering was the bullock and the goat. This is because this constituted the basic two-fold Sin Offering presented to God. The Sin Offerings are explained to us in Leviticus 4. Here we learn that the sacrifice presented by the priest for his own sin was the bullock (4:3-1 2). This was important, for if he were to go into the Sanctuary without having his sin covered by the blood of this sin offering, he would die (Lev 16:2-3). Bullock blood was shed on the Day of Atonement for the same reason that it was shed the rest of the year—that the priest might enter the Sanctuary to the Golden Altar that stood before the Lord, or on the Day of Atonement, all the way in to the Mercy Seat before the Lord. The preferred Individual Sin Offering throughout the year was a goat. And on the Day of Atonement the two animals offered were for Sin Offerings—a bullock for the priest and a goat for the people. (This was in addition to a ram for a burnt offering.) (Lev 16:3-Il. 14-16).

"Neither by the blood of bulls and of goats, but by His own blood He entered in once into the Sanctuary." (Heb 9:12) We are here, in Hebrews 9:12, speaking of the dedication of Jesus to His work within the Sanctuary. When the priest on earth was dedicated to this work of the Sanctuary (Lev 8:14, 22) and began this work (Lev 9:2), he took in with him the blood of bulls and of goats. And, then, following this, he took in the sacrifices for the people (Lev 9:3-4, etc.). When Jesus entered upon His work in the Heavenly Sanctuary, He took not in with Him the blood of bulls and of goats, but His own most precious blood which alone can take away sin (Heb 9:12-12; 10:4).

14- The Two Veils

"Now in chapter six [of Hebrews], and verse l9, we have a very important expression used, "within the veil," which casts light on this topic [a paraphrase of Hebrews 6:19-20 is quoted]. Hebrews 5:19-20 clearly says that Jesus went within the veil. This expression is only used in the Old Testament for going into the second apartment. The only exception is Numbers 18:7."

Hebrews 6:19-20 tells us that our hope is to enter "into that within the veil, whither the Forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus." Dr. Ford says that this mention in 6:19 of Jesus entering "within the veil" shows that He went into the Most Hotly Place in 31 A.D. In the Earthly Sanctuary, there were two coverings, one at the entering in to the First Apartment (Ex 26:36; 36:37), and the other at the entering in to the Second Apartment (Ex 26:31-33, 35; 36:35). In the King James Version these two veils are given different names. The one at the First Apartment entrance was translated as "hanging." The one at the Second Apartment entrance was translated as "veil. "Then, in the New Testament, the King James translators used "veil" in every case. Obviously, this pattern of King James translation can not be used to identify the "veil" of Hebrews 6:19. We are told about the First Apartment veil ("hanging") eleven times, and about the Second Apartment veil ("veil") twenty four times in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the "veil" is only mentioned six times. The first three are in the Gospels and refer to the rending of the veil at the death of Christ (Matt 27:51, Mk 15:38, Lk 23:45), and the remaining three are found in the book of Hebrews. The first of these is the veil of Hebrews 6:19, which we are trying to better understand, "which entereth that within the veil." The third one is similar: "through the veil, that is to say, His flesh." (Heb 10:20).

And then we find the key in the second: Hebrews 9, verse 3: "And after that the SECOND veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all." As we have learned earlier, Heb 9:3 is clearly identified as to location, from the Greek word hagia hagion found within this verse, which means, literally, "holy of holies." Now we find what Paul meant when he said the term, "veil" in the book of Hebrews. —He clearly recognized—and pointed out in 9:3—that there were two veils, not one. There were two veils in the Old Testament Sanctuary (even though the King James translators called only one of the two a "veil."), and Paul recognizes and states it, so that we too shall clearly know it. There were two veils—the First Veil—at the entering in to the First Apartment, and a "Second Veil"—at the entering in to the hagia hagion in 9:3—the "holy of holies" or Second Apartment. (Compare: First or Outer Veil: Ed. 36, EW 251, GC 412, 420-421, PP 347, 349—and—the Second or Inner Veil: 5 BC 1109, EW 52-53, GC 414, 418-419, MH 437, PP 347-349, 353-355, 4 SG-a 8-9, SR 154-155, 226, 8 T 284.) When the priest passed through the First Veil, he went "within it." into the First Apartment. When he passed through the Second veil. he went ‘‘within it," into the Second Apartment.

So through what veil did Jesus enter, when He went into the Heavenly Sanctuary at His Ascension? He went through the veil as our Forerunner. He went into the First Apartment, as we have seen in our study of Hebrews Nine. He went within the veil. Why did He go within the First Veil? In order to perform the mediatorial work of the Daily for eighteen centuries on our behalf. As we have earlier seen, the Investigative Judgment of Daniel 7, the Setting Right of the Sanctuary of Daniel 8, and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary from sin in Leviticus 16 was not to begin until the completion of that Master Prophecy of Biblical record—the 2300 Years of Daniel 8:14. So, at 31 A.D., as predicted in Daniel 9, Jesus was to die for the people (9:26) and that death would end the sacrifices and oblations in the Earthly Sanctuary. No longer was the earthly ministry to have meaning in the eyes of God—for the Sacrifice of Christ having been completed, He would now begin His Heavenly Ministry in behalf of His people in the antitypical Sanctuary. The ending of the earthly mediation meant the beginning of the Heavenly. And this work, as predicted to the year, in Daniel 9:26-27 would continue till the Yearly began—the cleansing and restoration of the Sanctuary—in 1844 A.D., as predicted to the year, in Daniel 8:14.

The people of God have been given—as a result of careful Biblical study, under the guidance of the Gift of Prophecy—a complete view of the antitypical Sanctuary work, from start to finish. May we never leave it to unite with the limited and meager thinking of Ford and Brinsmead and Paxton and their contemporary Protestant associates—of a "finished atonement" at the Cross. On the basis of all this, we can know that Hebrews 6:19 refers to the Entrance of Jesus within the First Veil at His Ascension to Heaven in 31 A.D. He has gone there as our Forerunner, and by faith we are to follow Him in His Mediation within the Sanctuary on our behalf. But, do remember, the word used in 6:19 was carefully selected—"veil," not "first veil" or "second veil." This was done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that we today may obtain as deep an experience from that verse as did the followers of Christ in centuries past. The Forerunner entered "within the veil"—the First Veil at His Ascension. And today, by faith, we may read that verse and follow our Great High Priest "within the veil"—all the way into the Most Holy Place. Thank God for His wondrous Gift—Jesus Christ our Lord, our Priest, and our God! And in the same way, in Hebrews 10:20, we today, may come to Jesus "through the veil"—that is to say His flesh—into the Most Holy Place, just as for hundreds of years past, others could come to Him "through the veil" of His flesh—into the First Apartment.

15 - Translations of Ta Hagia

"Let*s take the New International Translation, I*ll read to you from there [9:12, 25. 7-8, 23-24 quoted]. Please note it very well indeed, because later on some of you will say, ‘But,—the Spirit of Prophecy says,' and . . even before that [before you know what the Spirit of Prophecy says,—all that the Bible says. That's the place to start!"

The impression is given in this lecture that all modern commentaries and Bible translations support Dr. Ford's theory of "most holy place" readings in Hebrews—"except one or two by Seventh-day Adventists." This is not correct. We can agree that Bible commentators and Bible translators will generally be similar in their thinking. And if it be that the Remnant Church alone recognizes the truth of ta hagia as meaning "Sanctuary" rather than "Most Holy Place" in those nine passages in Hebrews, then we are willing to stand alone. But in reality, as we have found, modern translators stay with the meaning of ta hagia—plural holy places (or holy building of more than one room)—rather than with Dr. Ford's theological imagination. Apparently, his carefully selected "New International Translation" is one of the only ones that will substitute Modern Protestant Theology in place of textual accuracy in translation. Dr. Ford cherishes this translation as one of the only New Testament translations in which he can find consistent support for his "Most Holy Place" theory in Hebrews Nine.

A very scholarly work was recently published in this field. It is known as The New Testament from 26 Translations (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids). The objective of this volume is to bring together the whole spectrum of possible translations on every passage, along with a balance in favor of the thinking of the majority of the translators. And this objective has been admirably fulfilled in this work. Here are the nine ta hagia passages in Hebrews, as given in this book. Nothing is omitted from what is given in this book for each usage of ta hagia in these nine passages.

(1) Hebrews 8:2—"the sanctuary" in K.J.V. "holy places"—ABUV. "the Holy place"—Rhm. "the real sanctuary"—NEB. "that sanctuary"—Wms. "things holy"—Ber. "the sanctuary"—TCNT. Ta hagia means "sanctuary" in 8:2, and nothing else. (2) Hebrews 9:1—"a sanctuary" in K.J.V. "its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world"—ASV. "its sanctuary—a sanctuary belonging to this material world"—Wey. "its holy place was in this world"—Con. "the earthly holy place"—Beck. a mundane sanctuary"—Mof. "its Sanctuary—though only a material one"—TCNT. "even the holy ritual well arranged"—Rhm. "a sanctuary that was fully equipped"—Gspd. Ta hagia means "sanctuary" in Hebrews 9:1, and not "most holy place". (3) Hebrews 9:2— "the sanctuary" in K.J.V. [this is the passage, which in context of 9:1-3, which is clearly "first apartment" for ta hagia] "a tent was prepared, the first"—Rhm. "the tabernacle was established, the first one"—Alf. "a tabernacle was made (in two portions): the first"—Con. "a Tabernacle was constructed, with an outer part"—TCNT. "a sacred tent was constructed—the outer one"—Wey. "A tent was erected: in the outer compartment"—Phi. "a tabernacle was set up. In the first part"—Beck. "for the first tabernacle was thus finished"—Ber. Ta hagia means "first apartment" in Hebrews 9:2. (4) Hebrews 9:8— "the holiest of all" in the K.J.V. [this one of the nine passages has the most translators in favor of "most holy place"—but it is only three out of six] "the Holiest"—Mon. "the Sanctuary"—TCNT. "the true Holy Place"—Wey. "the Holy of Holies"—Nor. "the real sanctuary"—Wms. "the Holiest Presence"—Mof. [Here is the context of 9:8: [A] First, a description of the first and then the second apartment of the earthly sanctuary (9:1-5). [B] The entering into the first and then the second apartment of the earthly (9:6-7). [C] Then, in 9:8, Paul talks about the entering-in to the "holy places" (ta hagia) of the heavenly sanctuary. The comparison in 9:8 is between the earthly and the heavenly "holy places."—and when Jesus entered the heavenly "holy places"]

(5) Hebrews 9:12—"holy place" in the K.J.V. "the holy places"—ABUV. "the Holy Place"—Con. "the Sanctuary"—TCNT. "the real sanctuary"—Wms. "the (Holy of) Holies (of heaven)"—Amp. The majority recognize this important verse of Dr. Ford*s as referring to the "sanctuary, "not to the "most holy place." (6) Hebrews 9:24—"holy places" in the K.J.V. "a Holy place"—Rhm. "holy places"—Alf. No translation of "most holy place" here. (7) Hebrews 9:25—"holy place" in the K.J.V. "the holy places"—ABUV. "the (Holy of) Holies"—Amp. "the sanctuary"—Ber. "the Holy Place"—Wey. The only exception here, the Amplified, suggests "Holy of" as a possibility. (8) Hebrews 10:19—"The holiest" in the K.J.V. "the holy places"—ABUV. "the Holiest"—Mon. "the sanctuary"—Gspd. "the Holy place"—Rhm. Here again, the greater majority of these modern translators agree with the Adventist position on ta hagia—and where Christ went when He ascended to Heaven. (9) Hebrews 13:11 "The sanctuary" in the K.J.V. "the holy places"—ABUV. "the Holiest"—Ber. "the Holy Place"—Wey. A continuous pattern of agreement with our historic position—by the majority of the modern translators cited in this research source book—can here be seen.

It might be noted here that Dr. Ford in quoting Hebrews 6:19, actually misquotes it, as he frequently does elsewhere, reading in "Most Holy Place" when neither the verse itself, nor the Greek, nor its context warrants such a paraphrase. There is no "Inner Sanctuary" in the English or the Greek of 6:19-20. This passage only says that Jesus entered the veil into the sanctuary on our behalf,—to which we can heartily agree. (Read Great Controversy, 421:1-2, in order to see how the Spirit of Prophecy applies Hebrews 6:19-20 and 9:12.)

In addition to Biblical material, we are told about the First and Second Veils of the Heavenly Sanctuary in the following passages: The First Veil: EW 251, GC 420-1. The Second Veil: EW 32, 42, 55, 72, 251-2, 274. GC 415, LS 100, PP 356.