1844 RE-EXAMINED

This is a borrowed title, which in turn was adapted from the now well-known manuscript on the 1888 crisis - 1888 Re-Examined. When the circular advertising the Brinsmead syllabus was received, I ordered a copy so as to become knowledgeable of the position being taken by those who wished to discard the historic interpretation of the basic prophecy upon which the Advent Movement rests. As always, I read the Introduction first so as to sense the direction the author intends to take. This is as far as I read and cast the syllabus aside realizing that I had wasted my money, for if the integrity of the syllabus as a whole was of the same calibre as the introduction, it would likewise be based on erroneous assumptions. To discredit 1844, Brinsmead allegedly quotes an "evangelist." He writes:

Many evangelists are no longer comfortable preaching the investigative judgment. One confessed, ''When my evidence is weak, I shout. But when I come to the investigative judgment doctrine, I nearly scream!" Those who have to present the traditional explanations to people "outside" the faith are most sensitive to the problem. There is a widespread feeling that our case for 1844 and our explanation of it are no longer convincing or perhaps no longer viable. (p. 10)

Having spent the larger share of my twenty-five year ministry for the Church in public evangelism [I was extended the invitation to head the evangelistic program in the New Gallery Theatre in London prior to George Vandeman's acceptance of the same call], I know that either this statement is fabricated, or else the evangelist being quoted wishes to appear on the cutting edge of the "new theology." At no time, and I repeat, at no time - and I presented the prophecy involving 1844 in every series of meetings, whether long or short - did I find it necessary to "shout" let alone "scream" when I came to this subject. I looked forward to this section of the evangelistic subjects and set forth our historic belief with conviction. As I recall, only once in my whole evangelistic ministry was I ever challenged on this phase of the church's teachings, and it concerned Hebrews 8 & 9 rather than the prophecy of Daniel 8:14.

In this same Introduction to his syllabus, Brinsmead alludes to the convictions of Raymond F. Cottrell, and the late Don F. Neufeld as supportive of his thesis, but in a modified form. While Brinsmead would jettison the whole concept as not having any viability, Cottrell assumes that it can rest on the assumption that the Adventist position in regard to 1844 is an "inspired re-interpretation" thus

Page 2

using the Spirit of Prophecy as its authority. This leaves much to be desired as our faith must rest on the Bible and the Bible alone.

In the latest issue of Spectrum (Vol. 10, #4), Cottrell sets forth the history and background in regard to this "Sanctuary Debate" as it is titled, and his own involvement in it. He writes:

I first became aware of the problem while teaching the class in Daniel and Revelation over a period of years prior to taking up editorial work in 1952. [He was a religion teacher at Pacific Union College.] However, there seemed to be no pressing reason at that time for an in-depth study of Daniel, especially in view of the fact that during those earlier years I was involved in a series of major Bible study projects focusing on the book of Revelation and on sound principles of biblical interpretation.

The first major incentive to devote serious attention to the problem in Daniel 8:14 arose during the course of editing the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, between 1952 and 1957. It came into sharp focus for the first time as we were preparing Volume 4 of the Commentary (which includes comment on the Book of Daniel) for publication. (p. 17)

Within a few months after the completion and publication of Volume 4 of the Commentary, the now infamous Adventist Evangelical Conferences took place. When the decision was reached to publish the answers to the questions asked by Martin in the book - Questions on Doctrine - the members of the editorial committee consulted at length with the Commentary editors on matters of exegesis. Since Walter Martin had asked for an official statement of Adventist beliefs to which he could refer in his own book on Adventists, the editorial committee wanted the book -Questions on Doctrine - "to come as close to being such an official statement as an unofficial publication could be." (Ibid) A whole section - VI - is devoted in the book to "Questions on Prophecy, Daniel 8 & 9, and the 2300 Days." (QOD, pp. 205-337) Interestingly, this section is no doubt the most valuable in the whole book, and is free from deviation in this area of basic Adventist prophetic teaching. It presents excellent answers in regard to "the Gap Theory," and show that Antiochus Epiphanes cannot be the fulfillment of the "little horn of Daniel 8. Sadly its denial of basic theological truths - such as the incarnation of Christ in the likeness of sinful flesh, and the completion of the atonement in the sanctuary in heaven as set forth in historic Adventism has now led to an erosion of the prophetic positions expounded in the book.

In 1958, the plates for Bible Readings became worn out, so before preparing new ones for this standard Adventist publication, it was decided to bring the book "up to date." The work on its revision was assigned to the editors of the Bible Commentary - F. D. Nichol, D. F. Neufeld, and R. F. Cottrell. Cottrell's assignment involved the Daniel and Revelation section of Bible Readings. In the March 31, 1958 issue of Christianity Today, Dr. Harold Lindsell had assailed the Adventist position on the sanctuary doctrine stating that if the 2300 day prophecy ending in 1844, and the concept of the cleansing of the sanctuary could be destroyed, "there would be no adequate basis for the existence of the SDA." Cottrell states that "with the statements of Lindsell, Barnhouse, Martin and others ringing in my ears, I cast about for a more effective and convincing way of presenting our beliefs related to Daniel 8:14." (Spectrum, op-cit.)

Page 3

In the pursuit of this objective, Cottrell wrote to 27 leading Bible scholars of the Church asking for their response in regard to "six carefully formulated questions designed to bring the best contemporary Adventist scholarship to bear on the question" of Daniel 8:14 and the concept of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. In response "not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844." (ibid., p. 18) Cottrell took his findings to Nichol, who in turn called the results of this questionnaire to the attention of the then president of the General Conference, R. R. Figuhr. Figuhr appointed a select committee which became known as "the Daniel Committee." Cottrell was made a member of this committee. He states concerning the concepts of this committee that its members -

were in agreement with respect to key Adventist teachings on the heavenly sanctuary and its cleansing, the investigative judgment and the 1844 experience. There were, however, decided differences of opinion as to a valid hermeneutic, or interpretation, on which to base these conclusions, and eventually two patterns of interpretation merged. The majority considered it possible to establish the Adventist exposition of Daniel 8:14 directly from the Bible, chiefly by analogy with Genesis 1:5; Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9. To the minority, these were not valid analogies, from the viewpoint of biblical exegesis, and Ellen White's confirmation of the explanations given and her reinterpretation were necessary as well. (ibid.)

An impasse developed between the majority and minority as to how their conclusions were to be reported. "As a result of this impasse, the committee finally agreed to issue no formal report, and authorized individual members to present papers on the subject for publication under their own names." (ibid, p. 19)

From this point Cottrell began a thorough investigation of Daniel 8:14 for his own personal information "and in the hope of being able to provide something that would be useful to the church in view of the exegetical impasse." This study has resulted in a 900-page manuscript entitled The Eschatology of Daniel, as yet unpublished. Only one with a working knowledge of the Hebrew language could profit from it in its present form according to Cottrell's own evaluation of his manuscript. (ibid., Footnote #9, p. 26) However, the basic problem is not all that difficult.

In the KJV, the translators used the phrase - "shall be cleansed" for the Hebrew word - nisdaq - in Daniel 8:14. In so doing, they followed the LXX (Septuagint) which used the word -katharisthesetai - and the Vulgate by Jerome, which used the Latin word - mundabitur. These latter two words in their respective languages, Greek and Latin, both translate - "shall be cleansed." This was the basis for the second question which Cottrell sent to the 27 denominational Bible scholars. It read - "Why did the translators of the LXX render nisdaq as katharisthesetai?" (ibid., p. 26, Footnote #4) Evidently the ones questioned never found an adequate answer as to the "Why?" The dilemma continued because the Hebrew word - nisdaq means - "shall be justified." How does one thus associate "being justified" with "cleansing" as typified by the services of the Day of Atonement? And so it was concluded that the whole Adventist exegesis falls apart, and there ceases to be

Page 4

any relevancy for its continuance, except that we conclude that Ellen G. White, as an inspired prophetess, gives us a re-interpretation of this text applicable for the final generation. And this is Cottrell's conclusion. He stated:

Christ, Paul, and John provided a reinterpretation of Daniel for New Testament times, and Ellen White provides a continuing reinterpretation appropriate for our time. (ibid, p. 20)

Let us return to Cottrell's question "Why did the translators of the LXX render nisdaq as katharisthesetai?" (Simply, why did the translators of the Septuagint render the Hebrew "shall be justified" by the Greek, "shall be cleansed"?) The fact that they did so translate should give us pause. These men translating some 200 years before the birth of Christ were only about 350 years removed from the third year of Belshazzar when Daniel wrote the vision of the eighth chapter (Dan 8:1). They had access to documents much closer to the original autograph than we have now. Unless we completely question the competence of these translators, we must conclude that they had valid reason for so translating Daniel 8:14. Further, Jerome chose to follow the LXX rather than the Hebrew text of his day in regard to this word. There had to be some reason for his choice.

In 1948, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America published a learned essay by its Sabato Morais Professor of Bible, Dr. H. Louis Ginsberg, in which he holds "that the Hebrew portions of Daniel (i.e., chapts 1-2:4a; 8-12) are, with the exception of the obvious interpolation 9:4-20, translated from Aramaic originals is a hypothesis of long standing, but was only demonstrated by Zimmermann 1938 and 1939. As Baumgartner observes, not all of Zimmermann's arguments are cogent and I shall have occasion to criticize some of them in the course of this Section, but some are so telling that they suffice to establish his thesis." (Studies in Daniel, p. 41) Ginsberg discusses Daniel 8:14 and shows that the Aramaic would read - "shall be cleansed." (ibid., pp. 41-42; Footnote #8, pp. 79-80) Thus if the LXX translators were working from the Aramaic text, they were true to its meaning in the use of the Greek word - katharisthesetai - "shall be cleansed." However, it must be pointed out that the editors of the Commentary - which included Cottrell - rejected the conclusions and evidence produced by Zimmermann, or not being aware of it, closed the door to the answer to Cottrell's own question as to why the translators of the LXX used the phrase - "shall be cleansed" - rather than - "shall be justified." * It must be noted that while Ginsberg appears to use the traditional Jewish interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel, he cannot be faulted in knowing his languages. So again we stand on firm Biblical ground when we believe that Daniel 8:14 reads properly in the KJV - "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

* See SDA Bible Commentary, Vol 4, p. 749

Think It Over

When a Governor of an American State proclaimed a Day for one of its illustrious sons - a Nobel Award-winning scientist - he stated:      "His real importance lies in his audacity and courage, his refusal to bow to authority when his own observations tell him authority is wrong." Would to God that every layman in the Seventh-day Adventist Church might so see, and so act. Such a one will receive his Nobel Prize when standing on the Sea of Glass before the Throne.

Page 5

VLADIMIR SHELKOV - POSTHUMOUS REPORT

Georgi Vins, leader of the underground Baptist church in Russia, who was among the exchanged prisoners between the US and the USSR, in a news release concerning the death of Elder Vladimir Shelkov told of conditions at Camp Tabaga where Shelkov died. He stated:

Camp Tabaga is located in an area similar to the regions of the Far North. In the winter temperatures drop to -64 C. The 84-year old Shelkov was from Tashkent, a southern city, and was sent specially to a camp in the north with the objective of physical annihilation.

I am well acquainted with the conditions in this camp, having spent the last four years of my imprisonment there. The camp is specially controlled by organs of the KGB and the camp administration is experienced in battle with religious activists in conditions of imprisonment. The director of Camp Tabaga is Major Trofimof. The director of operations (KGB) is Captain Pinchuk. The camp address is:   Yakutskaya ASSR, g. Yakutsk, pos. Tabaga, p/ya YA/D - 40/7. In providing the address I want to direct the attention of Christians throughout the world to this camp of death; which is becoming a traditional place of Christian bondage in the USSR. (Quoted in The Christian Beacon, April 3, 1980)

The trial of Elder Shelkov, March 12, 1979, which led to his final imprisonment and death also included three other Seventh-day Adventists - Arnold A. Spalin, Sergie Maslov, Sofia Furlet, and Ilya Lepshin. These were charged under the RSFSR Criminal Code as having infringed on "the rights of citizens under the appearance of performing religious ceremonies." (Article 227) The sentences of these four ranged from five years for the men, and three years for the one woman in "a general regime corrective labor colony."

Further Soviet police activity against the True and Free Church of Seventh-day Adventists in Russia has been noted by Amnesty International. They reported:

In August-September 1978 a series of searches and arrests took place in Stravropol Territory. It is reported that the searches were intended to discover the printing press of the unofficial Adventist publishing house ''True Witness." The homes of nine Adventists were searched, among them the home of Mr. Spalin's mother in the village of Lysogorskaya. In September Rikhard Spalin was arrested along with three other members of the sect: Valentia Zaporozhets, Ekaterina Ryskal, and Nikolai Irinin. (AI Release on Rikhard Spalin)

Mr. Spalin was tried from the 11th to the 25th of June, 1979 in Stravropol together with two other Adventists, Anatoly Ryskal and Yakov Dolotyor. Mr. Spalin was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, and the fate of the three arrested with him is at present unknown. It is most difficult to overlook the fact that all of this activity against the True and Free Seventh-day Adventists parallels the time of the visits to Russia by Elder Alf Lohne in 1977, and then by Elders R. H. Pierson and Lohne again in 1978.

While Elder Shelkov was alive, all that the official Adventist Press in Washington

Page 6

would say was that he was not a member of the Church which they recognized in Russia. Now that he is dead, and has been eulogized by a former fellow prisoner, Alexander Ginsberg, before a convocation on the campus of La Sierra College (See La Sierra Today, Vol. 9, #4), the curia on the Sligo through its Religious Liberty Department have begun a "smear" campaign against him. In Liberty Confidential Newsletter, Vol. 2, #5, in announcing the death of Elder Vladimir Shelkov, it stated:

In view of the publicity linking Shelkov with the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the Soviet Union, it would seem well to ask, Was Shelkov simply a loyal Adventist who didn't see eye to eye with Adventist leaders backing accommodation (some would wish to use the word, compromise) with the state? [Isn't compromise the better word?] Some Adventists in the United States have answered Yes. Whatever Shelkov's early convictions, it seems clear that he did, indeed, head a group divorced from the Adventist world family. According to some Soviet Adventists, he applied the term "Babylon" to the church. His views would seem to link him with the German reform movement. (p. 2, col. 1)

Observe how the paragraph uses the word, "seems" and the clause - "according to some Soviet Adventists" - words and clauses which serve as the basis for gossip and slander. If a thing is truth, it can be documented. Who are the Soviet Adventist sources? Let them put their names to the statements of accusation and give the page and reference to support their allegations. Of course the ultimate is achieved when the official version can accuse someone of calling the Church "Babylon." By so doing they think they can turn any loyal church member who does little thinking for himself against any person crying out against apostasy in high places. All such - those who use this ploy, and those who listen and are deceived by it - are unmindful that the servant of the Lord quoted the divine "Instructor" as asking - "How has the faithful city [The Seventh-day Adventist Church] become a harlot?" (8T:250) Now whether the harlot is named, Gomer (Hosea 1:3), or Jezebel (Rev. 2:20), or Babylon (Rev. 17:5), or a once "faithful city" - a harlot is still a harlot. And how an institution becomes a "harlot" no matter by what name it goes - is defined in Great Controversy pp. 382-385.

The article continues its "smear" campaign of what they call the "Shelkov faction" by stating:

If the Shelkov faction were in the United States, it would likely be regarded as more like the Shepherd's Rod (or the succeeding Branch) than like a dissident faction within the church. And here it should be noted that within the Soviet Union are many Adventists who refuse to belong to registered congregations. Though not in agreement with official church policy in the Soviet Union, these people are, nevertheless, looked on as Seventh-day Adventists, part of the Adventist world family. Thus the church does not cast out people of sincere conscience who hold contrary views on registration. (Liberty Confidential Newsletter, op. cit.)

First, the editors of Liberty seek to link Shelkov with the German Reform Movement then they seek to compare "the faction" with the Shepherd Rods, or the Branch. We here in the United States know that the German Reform Movement, and the Shepherd's

Page 7

Rod are not the same. But a "tar brush" has little discernment of itself.

This paragraph quoted above is also suggesting various fragmentations in what is called the recognized Adventist Church in Russia. This Elder R. H. Pierson admitted in his report of the trip he and Elder Alf Lohne took to the USSR in 1978. (See Review, Oct. 26, 1978, pp. 6-8). There must also be a deeper cleavage, or a greater fragmentation than has been given as yet to the World Church. A recent translation of four articles published in Russia in 1978 in The Journal of Science and Religion tell of a group headed by a P. Matsanov who has established "parallel communities of Seventh-day Adventists." It is this Matsanov group which the Russian article claims is now linked to the "Reform Movement, an extremely reactionary branch of Adventism which started during the First World War in Germany." The other group is termed "moderate" and has the backing of the General Conference. The article by S. Orlov indicated that the hierarchy tried without success to reunite these two groups. (Spectrum, Vol. 10, #3,-p. 26)

Whatever the faction within the visible Adventist Church in Russia, or the underground True and Free Seventh-day Adventist Church, the issue is basically how should one in good conscience relate to atheistic communism. The article by Orlov quotes with approval from a paper - "The Christian in Society and State" - written by "one of the prominent modern Adventist leaders" who wrote:

We Adventists who live in the U.S.S.R. have every reason to treat our socialist state with warmth and gratitude. We cannot equate socialism and the Gospel, but the principles upon which the Soviet state is built are considerably nearer to the Gospel's spirit of care for man than are the principles of capitalist society. We consider it a great privilege to be citizens of this country. (ibid., p. 26)

It must be remembered that it was over this very issue that the major break came in 1924, which produced the continuance of the true and free Seventh-day Adventist Church which the General Conference has persistently refused to recognize. The Russian Adventist Church at its Fifth All-Union Congress issued the following statement:

We are convinced that God, in His providence, has disposed the heart of the unforgettable V. I. Lenin and his close associates and given them wisdom in the capable organization of the only progressive and up-to-date government in the world. We delegates of the Fifth All-Union Congress of Seventh-day Adventists express to the government of the USSR. our gratitude and sincere support for all the freedoms it has won. (La Sierra Today, Winter, 1979, p. 2)

This action produced the group led by Elder G. Ostvald, who refused to accept what they called enforced state atheism. It became known at the True and Free Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Church history in Russia has again pointed up the fact that the choice we must make in the matter of conscience is not organizational, or in line with the policy of the hierarchy, but a choice that places us on the side of truth as revealed in the Word of God. Such a course will lead to vilification by those who think of themselves as doing God's service; but "if they call the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household." (Matt 10:25) But how tragic that the Religious Liberty Department should prostitute its confidential newsletter to this sordid work!

Footnote - Christianity Today (April 4, 1980, p. 13) suggested that the readers call the Soviet Embassy in Washington DC and protest the persecution of various ones known to be imprisoned for their faith in Russia. The magazine gave a number to call. We tried to reach the Ambassador or his chief assistant to protest the imprisonment of the True and Free Seventh-day Adventists who were named by Amnesty International. See p. 5. We were blocked by the Russian switchboard operator, who became very agitated and referred us to the number of the Soviet Information office in the Capital. She also suggested that we write out our protests and send them to Moscow. Besides calling, Christianity Today advised a letter to the Soviet Ambassador Anatoliy F. Dobrynin, 1125 l6th St. NW, Washington DC 20036. For those overseas who might wish to join in the protest, write to the Soviet Ambassador in your country. Be sure, if you do, to refer to specific names of those being imprisoned.

Page 8

F U N G I

Editor's Note -- There are some in their zeal to do service for God who are seeking to make the "right arm" the whole body. Such to keep up their "momentum" must devise something different and startling - sensational - to hold their devotees. This article seeks to place in proper perspective one such assertion.

The fungi comprise one of the lowest groups of plants. They never contain chlorophyll, the green coloring matter of higher plants, and therefore, cannot make their own food. Some fungi obtain food from living matter and are called parasitic. Others get their food from decaying matter and are called saprophytic. Fungi are everywhere present; 100,000 species powder the earth and dust the atmosphere.

Fungi are a subdivision of the Thallophyta. One further class of this subdivision of fungi is Eumycetes or the true fungi. The Eumycetes or true fungi are further divided into four orders:

Phycomycetes:     Common bread molds, water molds; nonseptate hyphae

Ascomycetes:     Bread yeast; Saccharomyces is the genus, which is crucial in baking, brewing and wine-making. This is the largest order.

Basidiomycetes:   Mushrooms belong to this order. The club fungi

Fungi Imperfecti:  The pathogenic or disease causing fungi are concentrated in this order; however, pathogens are found in each of the above orders. These have imperfect, septate hyphae.

Fungi are important in the processes of nature, agriculture, manufacturing, and medicine. Penicillium notatum, from which penicillin comes, belongs to the order Phycomycetes.

Yeasts are economically important because they ferment sugars, converting the sugars to alcohol and carbon dioxide; the former used in making alcoholic beverages, and the latter, carbon dioxide, in making bread to rise. To prepare commercial yeast for bread-making the yeast is grown in a suitable medium, separated from this by centrifugation, mixed with starch or vegetable oil , then made into cakes or dried in granules. Yeast is a source of vitamin B and ergosterol from which vitamin D is obtained. Wild yeast, from which salt-rising and sour dough breads are made, are grown on a specific medium and this gives the bread its characteristic flavor.

Freezing will not kill yeast; however, yeast (all fungi) are quite susceptible to heat, being easily killed at the temperatures at which bread is baked. Bread thoroughly baked will contain no live yeast, and keeping bread until the second day in no wise further destroys yeast. Newly baked bread is difficult to digest and thus the counsel given in the Spirit of Prophecy.

Page 9

There is controversy over the use of mushrooms. From the above, one can easily see that to be consistent one must not use yeast to raise bread if one is not to eat the non-poisonous, edible mushrooms. One must do away with the use of Brewer's yeast, food yeasts of all kinds. There are those who advocate the use only of flat unleavened breads. However, yeast breads were freely used throughout Bible times and were prohibited only during certain feasts and with certain offerings to be presented.

The first Biblical reference to leaven or yeast was in connection with the Feast of Unleavened Bread associated with the Passover (Lev. 23:5-8). Before this feast a ritual search was made for leaven and is a most specific and strong confirmation in favor of unfermented wine at the Last Supper for fermentation results from the use of leaven or yeast. Leavened or yeast bread was commanded to be used in connection with the peace offering (Lev. 7:13) and again was indicated to be used at the Feast of Pentecost (Lev. 23:17). Jesus likened His teaching to leaven (Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20-21). He also illustrated the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees and the evil influence of Herod by leaven (Matt. 16:6, 12; Mark 8:15). Paul counseled the Corinthians to cleanse out the old leaven for the presence of one defiant transgressor in the church pervades the whole body and corrupts the whole group (I Cor. 5:6-8) Thus leaven in this instance and in Gal. 5:9 is old leaven or sin.

Health is important for it is the condition necessary for understanding TRUTH. Those who, however, make the "right arm" of the message more than the body (God's great truths) and have zeal for the right arm without knowledge are avoiding the issues at stake. If we major in minors - such as not eating mushrooms - we will at last be found minoring in the majors.

-Doreothea M. Grotheer, MS, MT(ASCP)

Bibliography:

Bailey, W. R :   Scott, E. G. , Diagnostic Microbiology, 4th Edition; C. V. Mosby, St. Louis, 1973.

Dorland, W. A. N., Medical Dictionary; W. B. Saunders Co. Philadelphia, 1940.

Everett, T. H., Editor, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Gardening; Greystone Press, N. Y., 1972.

Miller, O. K, Jr, Mushrooms of North America; E. P. Dutton, N. Y., 1978.

Smith, A. L., Principles of Microbiology, 7th Edition; C. V. Mosby, St. Louis, 1973.

White, E. G., Counsels on Diet and Foods; R & H Pub. Assoc., Washington D. C., 1938.

"Two classes have been presented before me: first, those who are not living up to the light which God has given them; secondly, those who are too rigid in carrying out their one-sided ideas of reform, and enforcing them on others. When they take a position, they stand to it stubbornly, and carry nearly everything over the mark."

Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 196