The following working document, prepared from reports of the study groups at the Glacier View meeting by a committee of six members (including specialists in Old Testament, New testament, and systematic theology), was carefully reviewed by a 28-member screening committee, approximately 20 of whom were present, as well as the committee of six. The document was read to the plenary session of the Sanctuary Review Committee before it concluded its work at Friday noon; however, no vote was taken nor were copies distributed. The committee felt that Dr. Desmond Ford should first be presented with a copy to ascertain whether the document rightly represented his views. Dr. Ford responded by stating that, with the exception of points 1 and 4, the document was a fair representation of his views as expressed in his 990-page paper. Papers supporting these ten points will appear in this continuing series. Dr. Ford presented a short modifying statement regarding the 4th point, which was taken into consideration, and appropriate changes were made. Page numbers appearing in parentheses throughout the document refer to Dr. Ford's work. "Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment." [10]

After study of Dr. Desmond Ford's document "Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment", the following preliminary report regarding the validity of some of the author's views is submitted:

First, we express appreciation to Dr. Ford for his many years of diligent service for the church. We recognize his talents as a teacher and preacher. His ministry has stimulated the minds of thousands of students and believers. His wealth of knowledge and personal life style have been the source of blessing for many.

We gratefully acknowledge the author's deep concern that our presentation of the sanctuary doctrine be done in such a manner as to "recommend it to the best minds of non-Adventists, as well as our own people, and be able to survive the most searching scrutiny." (p.5)

We further acknowledge that this manuscript has encouraged a deeper and more careful examination of the Biblical foundation of our historical view of the sanctuary doctrine. However, while we have gladly and with good intention stated some of the positive aspects of the author's ministry, we must in fairness state some of his activities have been neither a source of strength nor in the best interest of our church.

We feel it necessary to state that we cannot agree with certain views set forth in his document, which we regard as major aspects of his theological position on the sanctuary doctrine. These disagreements are as follows:

1. Methodology. We recognize the enormous amount of time and energy the author has invested in his document, which with appendixes constitutes a sizable work of nearly 1000 pages. However, because of the size of the manuscript, with its numerous footnotes and references, which will be impressive if not coercive to many readers, we feel it imperative to make a statement of accuracy.

After a preliminary examination of the author's use of references and sources, we find that in various instances they have either been taken out of context or used indiscriminately and thus not in harmony with the quoted writers' original intent. This is true of both secular and Spirit of Prophecy statements.

2. The Day of Atonement in the Book of Hebrews. In his position paper, Dr. Ford asserts emphatically that the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that the risen Christ, by virtue of His own blood or sacrificial death, entered into the heavenly Most Holy Place at His ascension (p. 187, 195). The cleansing of "the heavenly things" mentioned in Hebrews 9:23, he also believes, applies only to the initial New Testament period (p. 169, 191).

The Day of Atonement sacrifice, as well as the other Levitical sacrifices and the high priests's entrance into the Most Holy Place, finds fulfillment, according to Ford, in Christ's death and ascension into the presence of God (p, 253). Christ, then, as the high priest at God's right hand, has opened up a new access and center of worship for the people of God (p. 244).

Ford declares that he can find in Hebrews no allusion to Daniel (p. 169) or any reference to a two-phased ministry of the risen Christ (p. 163). He does affirm, however, the reality of the heavenly sanctuary (p. 240).

There is basic agreement that Christ at His ascension entered into the very presence of God, as symbolized by the earthly high priest's entrance on the Day of Atonement. There is also general acceptance that neither Daniel nor a two-phased ministry are referred to in the Epistle to the Hebrews. But we do deny that His entrance into the presence of God precludes

(1) a first-apartment phase of ministry or
(2) marks the beginning of the second phase of His ministry.

Ford believes that the heavenly sanctuary intercession of Christ finds a providential crisis in what he understands to be the rediscovery of the gospel through a new appreciation of sanctuary symbolism (p. 260). This rediscovery he relates to the 1844 movement and the visions of Ellen G. White (p. 260). However, Ford denies that Christ's heavenly ministry climaxes in the initiation of a judgment-intercession, beginning in 1844 (p. 595, 261).

Ford does believe that the Day of Atonement imagery finds fulfillment in judgment - even pre-Advent judgment - in the book of Revelation (p. 449, 650). This latter, however, is a declaration at the close of Christ's heavenly intercession just before the Second Advent; it is not a heavenly judicial process beginning in 1844 (p. 595). The proclamation that providentially began in 1844 refers, in Ford's opinion, only to the believer's present decision of faith and future pre-Advent judgment, but not to a present judicial process in heaven (p. 652, 260-261).

This is an unwarranted reduction of Adventist belief.

3. The Phrase "Within the Veil" as Found in Hebrews 6:19, 20. We acknowledge the insights in Dr. Ford's study of the letter to the Hebrews; however, we disagree with the theological implications he draws from the phrase "within the veil".

We do not believe that the phrase was intended to mean that from the time of His ascension Christ has been engaged in a ministry equivalent to that which the Old Testament high priest performed once a year in the second apartment of the tabernacle on the Day of Atonement, to the exclusion of the daily phase of the priestly ministry. "Within the veil", we believe, was intended to convey the conviction that, since Christ's ascension, we have full, free, and direct access to the very presence of God.

The Old Testament believer had limited access to that presence by means of the high priest, who entered with fear and with limited effectiveness the Most Holy Place of the earthly tabernacle once a year. Since our Lord's ascension the believer has had full and free access to the presence of God through Christ. Through His sacrifice on the cross He has opened a new way to the presence of God so that we have continual and confident access to Him.

"Within the veil" refers to this symbolic picture of the presence of God in a first-century application of the Day of Atonement imagery rather than the antitypical fulfillment of the Old Testament type. This way of speaking in no way precludes our understanding of Christ's two-phased mediatorial ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, which the letter to the Hebrews neither teaches nor denies.

4. Year-Day Principle. While Dr. Ford professes a belief in the year-day principle as a useful tool of Biblical interpretation, we regret that he does not see fit to apply the principle to the time prophecies of Daniel. He operates with the presuppositions that all Old Testament prophecies were to be fulfilled by the 1st century A.D., which prevents him from using the year-day principle.

Dr. Ford believes that the year-day tool became a providential discovery "after the Advent hope of the early church had faded away" (p. 294). But coupled with his uncertainty regarding the use of the year-day principle is his uncertainty regarding the dates for the beginning and ending of the time prophecies in Daniel (p. 320, 321, 344).

Because Ford believes that the year-day principle was not God's original intent for Daniel's time prophecies, he believes its present use, in harmony with God's "providential" arrangement, should not be with punctiliar precision.

We believe, however, that the year-day principle is a valid hermeneutical tool and called for by the context containing the time prophecies. When the context relates to historical narrative with literal people, literal time periods are used in Daniel 1, 3, 5, and 6. In the apocalyptic passages, when time periods accompany symbolic figures, it is natural and appropriate to expect those time periods also to be symbolic in nature. Numerous other reasons help the prophetic interpreter to distinguish between literal and symbolic time.

We further believe that all of the apocalyptic prophecies in which time elements are found have stood the pragmatic test. That is, their predicted events did occur at the intervals expected, according to the application of the year-day principle.

In reference to Daniel 8:13, 14, we believe that the context requires the use of the year-day principle, and thus a fulfillment beginning in 457 B.C. and ending in A.D. 1844.

We thus reject Dr. Ford's assertion that Daniel 8:14 "applies also to every revival of true religion where the elements of the kingdom of God, mirrored in the sanctuary by the stone tablets and the mercy seat, are proclaimed afresh, as at 1844" (p. 356).

5. Apostelismatic Principle.
Dr. Ford uses the apostelismatic principle to affirm that "a prophecy fulfilled, or fulfilled in part, or unfulfilled at the appointed time, may have a later or recurring, or consummated fulfillment." (p. 485)

In short, by his usage of this hermeneutical principle, Dr. Ford is able to accept multiple reinterpretations and applications of prophetic symbols and statements. Almost a corollary to this principle is the author's borrowed axiom: "All are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny" (p. 505).

We reject the use of this axiom, whether explicit or implied, because with its use no positive stated assertion could ever contradict another positively stated assertion. With this guiding axiom coupled with the apostelismatic principle, the author says that all prophetical interpretations by all four prophetical schools - preterists, historicists, futurists, and idealists - are correct (ibid.).

When he applies the apostelismatic principle to Daniel 8:13, 14, we discover that the original meaning or purpose of these verses should have been fulfilled sometime after the postexilic restoration. If the Jewish nation had been faithful in proclaiming the gospel, and thus preparing the world for the Messiah, "that Messiah would have been confronted at His coming by the eschatological tyrant Antichrist (`little horn'). Antichrist would have been successful in his initial warfare against God's people and truth for 2300 days, but then Christ would have brought him to his end, with none to help him. Having broken Antichrist `without hand' the kingdom of the Rock of Ages would have become God's holy mountain filling the whole earth for eternity." (p. 485)

In this brief scenario, Dr. Ford has interpreted, by means of the apostelismatic principle, Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, and 11. He could do it only by denying the year-day principle and the historicist method of interpretation.

However, though Israel was not faithful, the "main idea" of Daniel's prophecies would yet be fulfilled "in principle" in later events (ibid.). Thus, the "little horn", for example, would be fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes, in pagan Rome, in papal Rome, and in Satan's manifestation just before and after the millennium. Each of these entities would experience judgment and be destroyed with none to help them, thus "fulfilling" "in principle" the intent of Daniel's prophecies. "These successive judgments were predicted by `then shall the sanctuary be justified.' Every era of revival of the truths symbolized in the sanctuary may claim to be a fulfillment of Daniel 8:14." (p. 486)

Although we recognize the possibility of more than one fulfillment (when the context requires it or when a later inspired writer makes the application), we must reject Ford's usage of the apostelismatic principle, because it lacks external control. Any principle of interpretation that permits any prophecy to mean many things is not a helpful tool.

6. Use of Sadaq in Daniel 8:14.
The niphal use of the root sadaq in Daniel 8:14 is unique in the Old Testament. Though the basic meaning of the root sadaq is "to be right", "to justify", "to restore", the semantic range of this root includes the meaning "to cleanse". This is evident from

(1) the use of sadaq with taher ("to cleanse", "to purify"; e.g., in Job 4:17) in synonymous parallelism and zakah ("to cleanse", to purify", e.g., in Job 15:14).
(2) the translation of sadaq in several versions, and
(3) the `hithpael' use of the root `sadaq' (the hithpael, like the niphal, is passive or reflexive) in Genesis 44:16.

Though Ford, in a number of places in his document, allows for the translation of sadaq in Daniel 8:14 as "to cleanse" (p. 348), he also remarks categorically in his listing of the church's assumptions for its interpretation of the sanctuary:"That `cleansed' is an accurate translation in Daniel 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case)" (p. 290, italics ours).

While we agree with Ford that there does not appear to be an explicit verbal link between sadaq of Daniel 8:14 and Leviticous 16, it seems that he does not give due weight to the meaning "to cleanse" (which we consider justifiable in the context of Daniel 8:9-14) and the possibility of a relationship with Leviticus 16, particularly in the light of the common ideas between the two passages.

7. The Relationship of Daniel 7, 8, and 9.
Dr. Ford claims that Daniel 9:24-27 (the 70-weel prophecy) parallels Daniel 8:14 (the 2300-day prophecy) rather then being a segment of the 2300-day prophecy (p.403). He further suggests that both chapters 9:24-27 and 8:14 parallel Daniel 7:9-14 (court scene in heaven) (p. 368-376). While the apocalyptic time prophecy of Daniel 8 basically parallels that of Daniel 7 (as well as Daniel 2), it also amplifies Daniel 7 considerably. The prophecies of Daniel 2, 7, and 8 began with either Babylon or Persia and take the reader to the end of human history (the eschaton). However, we do not find the argument valid that Daniel 9:24-27 parallels both Daniel 7 and Daniel 8:14, since the time subject matter of these passages differ.

8. Antiochus Epiphanes.
Regarding the little horn of Daniel 8 and its parallelism in Daniel 11, Dr. Ford holds that "only Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the chief specifications of Daniel 8's little horn, and the vile person of Daniel 11. All other fulfillments, such as pagan and papal Rome, are fulfillments in principle rather than in detail." (p. 469)

As far as Rome is concerned, he affirms that "all attempts to make Rome the first and major fulfillment of all the specifications of the little horn ignore both the symbolism and the interpretation." (p. 383, italics his) On the contrary, we believe that while Antiochus Epiphanes bears some resemblance to the description of the little horn, pagan and papal Rome fulfill the specifications of this prophetic symbol.

9. Saints in Judgment.
In the context of the discussion of the judgment of Daniel 7, Dr. Ford's claim that "the Son of Man judges the little horn and delivers the beast to the flames," (p. 365), his stress on the judgment of the little horn, and his contention that in Daniel 7, "unbelievers, not believers, are the `eye' of that storm (i.e., the judgment)" (p. 369) are all dubious.

Nowhere in Daniel 8 does the "Son of Man" judge either the little horn or the beast. While it is true that the little horn power, which receives punishment as its reward, is judged indirectly in Daniel 7, it is also clear that God's people, who receive the eternal kingdom after the judgment has sat, are all judged worthy of the ultimate covenant blessings. Both the apocalyptic sections of Daniel (chap. 7:21, 22 and 12:1-3) and the historical chapters depict God's people on trial [20]. The judgment reveals those who have retained their intimate covenental relationship with God's people is further supported in numerous instances within classical prophecy.

10. The Role of Ellen White in Doctrinal Understanding.
One cannot be a Seventh-day Adventist very long and not recognize that our theology is shaped to a significant degree by the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her philosophy of history as reflected in her "great controversy theme" and her concern for the development of the whole person are but two examples of insights she has provided that have helped to illuminate the Scriptures and to foster serious Bible study within the church.

This means that Seventh-day Adventists recognize in Ellen G. White an authority in doctrine and life that is second only to that of the Scriptures. She was not, nor ever pretended to be, an expert in Biblical languages or in other technical disciplines related to Biblical interpretation. Yet, as her understandings grew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, she provided counsel for the church that has helped it to confirm light found in the Word of God and to avoid doctrinal errors that threatened its very existence. The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds the writings of Ellen G. White in the highest regard as a source of doctrinal understanding.

For these reasons we believe that some of Dr. Ford's statements regarding Ellen G. White's ministry to the church in doctrinal areas will be misunderstood. Some Adventists have inferred that in Dr. Ford's view Ellen White's authority does not extent to doctrinal issues. On this point the Seventh-day Adventist position is that a prophet's authority cannot justifiably be limited in this way.

Conclusion
This doctrine of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, this unique teaching of Seventh-day Adventists, invites earnest study on the part of every believer. Our pioneers found it by diligent searching of the Word and became motivated by it. We too must find it ourselves and make it our own. We must come to realize that "the sanctuary in heaven is the very center of Christ's work in behalf of men", and that His ministry there "is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross." (The Great Controversy, p. 488, 489) As we seek to know and understand Christ in the heavenly sanctuary as fervently as did the first Adventists, we shall experience the revival and reform, the assurance and hope, that come with a clearer view of our great High Priest.

Q: Why was the sacrifice in the sanctuary not the end but the beginning of the sancturary service?

A: After the sacrifice there was the ceremony, placing the blood upon the horns of the altar, not only in the outer court, but in the holy place. Of a certainty the cross is central. Without the sacrifice NOTHING else is possible. But the cross BEGINS the process of atonement. After all that is what this whole thing is about -- atonement. All aspects of the services do not stop at the cross for if they did, where is our advocate before the Father? Why does Hebrews talk in so much detail about what happens AFTER the cross? Why, if the cross is all there is, does Jesus become our High Priest, after the order of Melchizidek? Why do we need a High Priest, AFTER the cross?

The cross begins a process, that does not end until the final destruction of evil AFTER the 1000 years.

But it is Christ's supreme sacrifice along with the fact that He lived in the flesh without spot or blemish that gave Him the right to confer upon all who would accept--that same perfection. To be clothed in His righteousness.

But just HOW is this accomplished? As in the OT sanctuary service, we need a high priest. We cannot plead our own case. Of course the difference now is that Christ is all at once, our sacrifice, our High Priest and our Intercessor. The one who pleads our hopeless case before the throne of God. Why is this still necessary, even after the perfect sacrifice has been accomplished? Because we have an adversary who accuses us before the Father day and night (1.Peter 5:8). Satan claims that we have no right to live with the Father, because we are sinners.[30] And Satan goes through the litany of our sins. And there we are, standing before the throne. But as the Father looks upon us He sees only the perfect virtue of His only Son. We are arrayed in His fine linen, clean and white without spot or wrinkle. If Jesus stopped at the cross we would all be lost trying to present our case before the Father.

And looking upon this scene is the whole of the unfallen worlds. They are looking to see the vindication of God's decision to expel Satan from heaven and doom him to eternal destruction.

There is much that happens beyond the cross, but the cross made it all possible. Except the cross would have been meaningless without Christ's perfect life. For He could have been crucified, but not resurrected. So beyond the cross is the resurrection. And beyond the resurrection is the trial and final judgement.

Therefore those who understand the WHOLE mission of Christ see the cross as the BEGINNING of atonement, NOT the complete atonement It was, however, the COMPLETE sacrifice. Despite what some may think, atonement, according to the Bible requires

1) a sacrifice,
2) a High Priest/intecessor and
3) a Judge.

(see Hebrews)

Christ on the cross BEGINS the process of atonement. Christ before the judgement/mercy seat completes it.

Q: And why then is the blood sprinkled on the veil? And what about the scapegoat?

A: This is all part of the sacrifice.

[10] The `Pacific Union Recorder', September 15, 1980.
[20] E.g., Daniel chapter 1, where the Hebrew worthies are on trial; chapter 3, where Daniel's friends are tested; chapter 6, where Daniel is tried.

[30] This is especially the background to the account of Job where Satan says, `Does Job fear God for nothing?' Job 1:9. He suggests that Job serves God only because of the security in life this provides for him. Take that away and Job would not be such a true servant. - So God, allows Satan to take it all away to show that Job's faith is based on more than well-being.