This study may well be the most important treatise you will read this year in the Thought Paper. Be sure to have your Bible open before you, and carefully read each text given.

"The Hebrew sanctuary ritual as performed on the Day of Atonement, and the prophetic pre-Advent scene of the Judgment before the Ancient of days gives significant meaning to the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21:24.

In Daniel 7, we are told that when the judgment convened before the Ancient of days - "the books [were] opened." (7:9-10) These books contain the complete life's record of every daughter and son of Adam. When the final sentencing is given from "the great white throne," the unsaved are to be "judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." (Rev. 20:11-12) Both the decision in the pre-Advent judgment and the sentencing from the great white throne are done in the heavenly places.

_________________________________________________________

WIELAND AND SHORT IN CRISIS

See Page 5

_________________________________________________________

The Hebrew sanctuary services cover but one phase of the judgment. God gave these typical services to reveal the provision He made for man to escape the condemnation of the judgment on sin. This fact is important in understanding the relationship between the prophecy given to Daniel and the typical services set up at Sinai under Moses. During the year, each believer in Jehovah God of Israel and Israel itself was provided a way whereby sins could be transferred either to a common priest, or to the sanctuary via the High Priest. This should be kept clearly in mind. We shall herewith outline this Divine plan in type by way of review:

Page 2

1) If "the priest that, is anointed" (the High Priest) should lead the congregation of Israel into sin, or if the whole congregation were involved in guilt, the blood of the atoning sacrifice was brought into the holy place and finger printed on the Altar of Incense with the remaining blood poured at the base of the Altar in the court. (Lev. 4:3-7, 13-18) The result to the whole congregation was that they were forgiven. (Lev. 4:20). 2) on the other hand, when a ruler or a common person sinned and sought forgiveness, his sacrifice was mediated by the common priest, and the blood was not brought into the sanctuary, but finger printed on the horns of the Altar in the court, and the balance was poured again at the base of the Altar. (Lev. 4:22, 24-25, 27, 29-30). 3) However, in the atonement of forgiveness for the ruler and the common person, the officiating priest - not the High Priest - ate of the sacrificial victim. (Note: Lev. 6:25-26; 10:16-18)

[It must also be kept in mind that the category of "ruler" included the priests as individuals. Compare Numbers 3:32 with Leviticus 4:22. In the Hebrew, the same word is used for both "chief" and "ruler."]

Thus in the ministration of forgiveness to the individual the blood was not carried into the sanctuary, but the individual's hope of pardon on the Day of Atonement was carried by another.

In review and summary it must be clearly understood that the blood recording confession and bestowing forgiveness was to be found in only two places - on the horns of the Altar in the court, and on the horns of the Altar of Incense in the Holy Place. Only on the Day of Atonement was blood of a sin offering brought into the Most Holy Place. The High Priest offered a bullock which was "for himself" although the atonement covered his whole house. However, "for himself" is twice emphasized. (Lev. 16:11) This "sin offering" for the High Priest was in addition to the "sin offering" represented in the Lord's goat which was "for the people." (Lev. 16:9, 15) Interestingly, there is no record in Leviticus 16, where confession was made over either the bullock, or the Lord's goat, yet both are called "sin offerings." (Lev. 16:3, 9) However, hands were laid on the scape goat in transference, but this "live goat" is not referred to as a "sin offering." (Lev. 16:21-22) These facts of the type have been given little attention, or study.

The atonement of cleansing for Israel on the tenth day of the seventh month was three-phased: 1) In the Most Holy Place; 2) In the Holy Place; and 3) In the court at the Altar there. Not until the three phases were completed was the "live goat" brought into the picture. (Lev. 16:20-21)

[Note: As you read Leviticus 16 in the KJV, the "holy place" ("place" is a supplied word) refers to the second apartment of the sanctuary, or Most Holy Place. The "tabernacle of the congregation" is the terminology designating the Holy Place. The "altar" stands for the Altar of the Court, or the Altar of Burnt Offering.]

Let us now take a careful look at the three phases. First, the atonement of cleansing was begun in the Most Holy Place. But during the year no record of forgiven sins was ever recorded there, yet the "uncleanness of the children of Israel" extended to there. In passing, but without comment, it should be noted that the atonement of cleansing began where sin began - in the presence of God enthroned between the cherubim as far as the type is concerned. There is a reconciliation involving "things in heaven." (Col. 1:20)

The second phase was the atonement for the Holy Place. (Lev. 16:16b) But here was to be found only the record of confessed corporate guilt of either the nation of Israel or Israel as "the church in the wilderness." Sadly, through the history of Israel either as a nation or a church, there was very little confession of guilt. Likewise the nations and churches of all time!

The last phase of the cleansing had to do with the confessed and forgiven sins at the Altar in the court. (Lev. 16:18) This concerned all individuals - whether a ruler or a common person. When did the cleansing reach the individual living on any particular Day of Atonement? Answer: Only after all corporate confession had been taken care of in the Holy Place! Thus the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21:24 which signaled the times of the nations - corporate bodies - as fulfilled, tells us when the judgment of the living commenced. We have reached that hour! The Jewish Equation rightly solved supplies the answer. Further, when the "abomination of desolation" (papal phase) "shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain," then we may know the judgment of all living has been determined, and the time has come for Michael to "stand up." (Dan. 11:45; 12:1)

How then should one understand this hour - "the judgment of the living"? Primarily for Seventh-day Adventists, it means that the prophecy given through Ellen G. White in

Page 3

1903 is now fulfilled. She wrote - "In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed." (8T:247) The context clearly indicates this is speaking of the church as a corporate body. By carefully noting the conditions set forth by which the determination was to be made, one can know the decision rendered if he has any knowledge at all of our church history since the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56. In the light of what has taken place, there was only one decision that God could render - "Found Wanting." There is no record of any confession made, but only a continued expression of Loadiceanism -- "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." (Rev. 3:17) The fact is that the hierarchy through committee have rejected the whole idea of a call to corporate repentance. (See article - "Wieland and Short in Crisis," p. 5)

We must ask, do we have any guidelines for this hour of "the judgment of the living"? Yes. The experience of the Jewish Church as a corporate body contains lessons for us today. They rejected the living Truth committed to their trust. They rejected the final warning given to them in the appeal of Stephen. (Acts 7:51-58a) The probation of Israel as a corporate body was up - she had fulfilled her times, the 490 years of Daniel 9:24. But the individual was to have an extended opportunity, - until "the abomination of desolation "(pagan phase) would stand in the once "holy place."

Why was this? The individual member of the Jewish Church had no voice in either the murder of Jesus Christ, nor in the stoning of Stephen - the ultimate outworking of the hierarchy against those who "speak out" for truth against the system. All was the decision of the General Conference of the Jewish Church. Thus the individual member of the Jewish Church would be given an opportunity between 34 A.D. and 66 A.D. to choose between Jesus the crucified, and the leaders who crucified Him. And this was the message starting with the Day of Pentecost.

The "devout" Jews were charged by Peter, speaking - filled with the Holy Spirit - on the Day of Pentecost with the murder of Jesus because of their corporate involvement in the Jewish Church. (Acts 2:5, 36) When Paul went forth on his missionary tours, he began in the synagogues with a message to the "man in the pew" for a decision between Jesus the Messiah, and what the Jewish hierarchy had done to Him. (See Acts 13:27-28, 38-41;18:4-8; 19:8-9)

We today face similar questions. Did the individual member of the Adventist Church have a voice in the compromises of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences? Did the individual member of the Church have a voice when the doctrine of the final atonement was denied in the adoption of the new Statement of Beliefs voted at Dallas, Texas, in 1980? The answer is clearly - NO! But corporately every member of the church was involved before God. God has now rendered His decision on the corporate body. The decision rendered on the individual, "the atonement at the Altar" in the court (on earth), will be determined as to whether he can say "Amen" to God's decision on the church corporately, or whether he will continue to consent to the betrayal of truth by the hierarchy.

Basically, this is the righteousness by faith issue. Abraham is called the father of the faithful. (Rom. 4:16) His seed includes all the faithful of the Jewish Church as well as those who be Christ's. (Gal. 3:29) The faith of Abraham is simply defined: He "believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness." (Gen. 15:6) The word, believe, in the Hebrew, is amin, from which our word, "Amen" is transliterated. We concur in God's decisions, and in Christ pass the judgment.

Fearful is this hour; momentous the issues at stake. But through Jesus we were given the answer in the Jewish Equation.

(Concluded)

WHG

"People generally think that to believe is nothing more than to nod assent. But believing the Lord is much more than this. It is to count that word as the surest thing in the universe, since it is that which upholds the universe, and to rest the whole soul, and all the hopes upon it, even though everything appears contrary to it. It is to walk where there seems to be nothing, provided the word of the Lord is there, knowing that it is a firm foundation. The poet Whittier has thus expressed it:

"Nothing before, nothing behind:

The rock beneath.'"

Page 4

2. "The fact that Christ is a part of the Godhead, possessing all the attributes of Divinity, being the equal of the Father in all respects, as Creator and Lawgiver, is the only force there is in the atonement. It is this alone which makes redemption a possibility. Christ died ' that He might bring us to God' (1 Peter 3:18); but, if He lacked one iota of being equal to God, He could not bring us to Him. Divinity means having the attributes of Deity. If Christ were not Divine, then we should have only a human sacrifice. ... The sinner's surety of full and free pardon lies in the fact that the lawgiver Himself, the One against whom he has rebelled ... is the One who gave Himself for us." Ibid, pp-45-47.

Page 5

The June, 1987, issue of the "1888 Message Newsletter" announced a revision of 1888 ReExamined, to be off the press in time for the Third National 1888 Message Conference at Andrews University in August. A revision of any manuscript, document, or book, already in print is either cosmetic or substantive. A cosmetic revision merely smoothes out the flow of thought, and rewords only for clarification; but leaves unaltered the basic premise and the stating of that premise. An example of this type of revision can be seen by comparing the 1888 edition with the 1911 edition of Great Controversy. On the other hand a substantive revision alters the basic thrust; diminishes the impact of what was written originally; and, if a controversial publication, seeks to increase its acceptance by a compromise or watering down of its original thesis. The full documentation of the difference between the original 1888 Re-Examined and the revised edition cannot be made until the release of the new publication.

The announcement gives some indication of the nature of the revision. It states that both Elders Wieland and Short have spent a year in "painstaking" revision. The new manuscript "has been reread and revised and prayed over with tears by the authors and some of their friends." Then a clue is given. To prepare the way for the reception of this new revision, the promoter's "urge" the reading of Wieland's 1986 publication - As Many As I Love - which is deceptive. There can be only one pre-publication conclusion: - the revision is to be substantive in nature. This brings Wieland and Short to a second crisis as called "messengers" in 1950 whether they are willing to admit it or not.

Was the original 1950 manuscript in error that a revision must be made now as the centennial of 1888 nears? If so, then Wieland and Short have an accounting to make - a repentance of their own for souls who have been deceived by their 1950 manuscript. Brinsmead relied heavily on the message it contained. He wielded it like a two-edged sword even as it should have been wielded by Wieland and Short and it wasn't. In fact, Wieland was given a specific dream on this point, but misinterpreted the dream. Others having read the manuscript, placed their professional lives on the altar because of what was taking place in the Church. All this time Wieland and Short were doing missionary work in Africa under a "vow of perpetual silence" (That is, until their retirement was secure at full remuneration). Now they come out with a revision, a revision which will say, at least, their emphasis was too strong. The forthright and plain speaking of the original manuscript was as "gall" to the hierarchy, and for this cause., they rejected it. Wieland likes to speak from the book of Jeremiah. Has he now forgotten what the Lord told Jeremiah when instructed to speak "in the court of the Lord's house" - "diminish not a word." (Jer. 26:2) Or, does he know that to do so, he would not be allowed to "speak in the court of Andrews University." Will this new revised manuscript verify the word coming out of Takoma Park via Union leadership, that Wieland has altered his original position sufficiently that he is no longer a threat to the hierarchy.

There are also some other serious questions which must be answered by both Wieland and Short. In 1950, had they not accepted "the vow of silence", but rather placed their professional lives on the altar of sacrifice even as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it, would the apostasy which engulfed the Church during their silence been averted? Only God knows, but this they must face in the judgment. But now what is even more critical in any substantive revision is that they are saying - "We were not right in 1950. We approached the hierarchy in a wrong manner, and this is why they rejected the Lord's message sent by us." But if they were right in 1950 - and many still believe they were - what they are doing now becomes a deception to snare God's professed people who do not have all the facts of history since 1950. Further, it is painfully evident that neither Wieland and Short want the laity to have them, and they do not face up to them either.

During the time of what is known historically as the "Brinsmead Awakening", A. L. Hudson presented a collection of documents to the North Pacific Union Conference committee in connection with a motion asking that the Union Conference "provide for an

Page 6

open, proper, and just and sufficient examination" of the allegations made by Wieland and Short in 1950. This collection was published under the title - A Warning and Its Reception. It contained not only the original manuscript - 1888 Re-Examined - but also three responses of the General Conference to the manuscript, plus Wieland and Short's reply to the "Second Appraisal" of that manuscript. The final document was a letter to Elder W. R. Beach, then Secretary of the General Conference, in which Wieland and Short renewed their "vow of perpetual silence" stating:

Whatever may be our mistake, we wish to state herewith our desire to leave this matter, to drop it henceforth and to continue as in the past to refrain from any agitation whatsoever or the pressing of our view upon the General Conference or the church. (A Warning and Its Reception, p. 396, emphasis ours)

This letter bore both signatures. What does this pledge mean? What does "henceforth" mean? Since their retirement at full remuneration they have been "pressing" their view upon the church. Are they now giving it a substantive change so they can say we are keeping our word - what we are saying now is different than what we wrote in 1950!

It is also of interest to note that in the General Conference appraisals of the manuscript, the hierarchy stated:

The solution proposed [by Wieland and Short], of the denomination making confession of the mistakes of men made in the 1880's and the 1890's and of a denominational repentance is not possible nor would an attempt to do so be of value. (Ibid, p. 259)

Are Wieland and Short totally unaware of what is written in the book of Hebrews. There it states:

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance, seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to open shame. (Heb. 6:4-6)

Who can honestly demonstrate that the apostasy of the decades starting with the 1955-1956 SDA-Evangelical Conferences culminating with the Dallas Statement of Beliefs in 1980 was not crucifying the Son of God afresh by the very ones who had been entrusted with the greatest light ever bestowed upon mortals? (See 9T:19) To seek now to "renew them again unto repentance" when they have declared they cannot repent is patently deceptive.

There is another picture to this bold deception being perpetrated upon the professed people of God. In revising the manuscript 1888 Re-Examined, Wieland does not want published the other documents found in A Warning and Its Reception which reveal the refusal of the hierarchy to repent. We asked Hudson for the use of his plates to reprint this section. Wieland demanded of Hudson that he not release them to us. However, the Board of Directors of the Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Arkansas has voted their publication, and by God's grace it will be done. God's people need to know what has transpired in the past decades, and is being done in the present by men whom God once called as His "messengers."

WHG

It was the last evening of the Feast of Tabernacles. In the center of the temple's court rise two large lampstands of great size. After the evening sacrifice, all the lights are kindled shedding their light over Jerusalem. This ceremony, which commemorated the pillar of light that guided Israel in the desert, also pointed to the coming of the Messiah. "At evening when the lamps were lighted, the court was a scene of great rejoicing. Grey-haired men, the priests of the temple and the rulers of the people, united in the festive dances to the sound of instrumental. music and the chants of the Levites." (Desire of Ages, p. 463) Early the next morning Jesus delivers a woman who is in bondage to the sin of adultery and then declares, "I am the light of the world." (John 8:12) What an imperfect symbol were the lighted lamps. The sun "which His own hand had set, in the heavens was a truer representation of the glory of His mission." (Ibid.) As the sun rises and shines on the gold of the temple Jesus declares Himself to be the light of the world. It was with this background that Jesus entered into a dialogue with some of the Jewish leaders as recorded in John 8:31-40.

[Note: Please take time to read these verses going further in this study. Pay close attention to verses 32 and 36 as you read. Notice who and what is to make you free.]

The words of verses 31 and 32 were spoken to hearers who were drawn to Jesus by faith. However, the Pharisees were offended and responded as found in verse 33. They disregarded the nation's bondage to the Roman yoke. (Ibid., p. 465, 466) These leaders were still determined to destroy Christ. (John 5:1-16; 7:1-24) Their thoughts were bent on revenge and murder. Why, did the leadership of that day seek to destroy the Messiah? It was because they were not under the control of God, but rather under the control of their "father the devil." "Every soul that refuses to give himself to God is under the control of another power." (Ibid., p.466)

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness." (Romans 6:16) How is it then that we escape the control of Satan and bondage to him? It is by giving ourselves wholly to God. We must totally yield ourselves to Him "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God." (Romans 6:13) Christ came to break the devil's power over the sinner and set him free from sin. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2)

"In the work of redemption there is no compulsion. No external force is employed. Under the influence of the Spirit of God, man is left free to choose whom he will serve. In the change that takes place when the soul surrenders to Christ, there is the highest sense of freedom." (Ibid., emphasis supplied) Just how opposite is the plan of the prince of darkness. We cannot free ourselves from his grasp, but by yielding our lives to Christ, He will break the yoke of bondage that Satan has put upon us and set us free. "The only condition upon which the freedom of man is possible, is that of becoming one with Christ." (Ibid.) Not only

Page 7

does Jesus tell us: "The truth shall make you free" (John 8:32) - but Jesus is "the truth." (John 14:6)

When can we have freedom? Whenever we can be one with Christ, whenever we have the righteousness of Christ put upon us. When can that be?

But now the righteousness of God.... is by faith of Jesus Christ.... Being justified freely.... To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness. (Romans 3:21-26) When the soul surrenders to Christ .... when we desire to be set free from sin, and in our great need cry out for a power out of and above ourselves, the powers of the soul are imbued with the divine energy of the Holy Spirit, and they obey the dictates of the will in fulfilling the will of God. (Ibid., emphasis supplied.

NOTE - "Now" - "At this time" - "When the soul surrenders to Christ"- "When we desire to be set free from sin" - We may have the righteousness of God now, if we believe now.

Besides the bondage of sin, Satan wishes us to be in bondage to the slavery of man. In John 8:33 the Pharisees claimed to be children of Abraham. Jesus freely admitted that they were Abraham's seed, but because they were trying to kill Him, Jesus told them that spiritually they were not Abraham's children. Concerning this we find a most interesting comment in Desire of Ages:

The Pharisees had declared themselves the children of Abraham. Jesus told them that this claim could be established only by doing the works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham would live, as he did, a life of obedience to God. They would not try to kill One who was speaking the truth that was given Him from God. In plotting against Christ, the rabbis were not doing the works of Abraham. A mere lineal descent from Abraham was of no value. Without a spiritual connection with him, which would be manifested in possessing the same spirit, and doing the same works, they were not his children.

This principle bears with equal weight a question that has long agitated the Christian world, - the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship. A life actuated by the apostles' spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel. (Ibid., emphasis supplied)

If this last paragraph were being written today, could it read?

This principle bears equal weight upon a question that that has recently agitated the S.D.A. church, - the question of remnant succession. Descent from James and Ellen White, Joseph Bates, and other pioneers is proved, not by name and linkage, but by the likeness of character. So the remnant succession rests not upon the transmission of General Conference authority, but upon spiritual relationship. A life actuated by the pioneer's spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of remnant succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the pioneers of the everlasting gospel.

Notice who sets one free from the bondage of sin and man: Jesus Christ - "The word" - "The way, the truth, the life." Who set Europe free from popery in the 15th century? The same who will set those in bondage free today. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the incarnation of truth.

The teaching that is becoming common in the church today that organization is truth rather than a vehicle for the proclamation of truth has its roots in the very spirit of Catholicism and Pharisaism, both of which receive their nourishment from the "mystery of iniquity." What saddens me is that some of the largest propagators of this Catholic doctrine are advocating the 1888 message. We are instructed to put one arm around Christ while keeping the other arm around anti-Christ. Let us ever remember that, "the righteousness of Christ.... is pure unadulterated truth." (Testimonies To Ministers, p. 65) It is truth, the Truth alone that sets us free from bondage. May God's people "be stirred by the Spirit of God to break every shackle, and assert their liberty in Christ Jesus." (R.&H. July 23, 1895)

A.S.