The ABCs of Dr

7/28/2019 The ABCs of Dr

1/41

The ABCs of Dr. Desmond Ford's TheologyW. H. Johns

Introduction

by George W. ReidIn 1980 a theological controversy centering on the teachings of Dr. Desmond Ford

came to the forefront with a major gathering of theologians and administrators at GlacierView Ranch in Colorado. At stake was the future work of Dr. Ford, who for a generationhad served as a popular professor of Religion in several Seventh-day Adventist colleges.While on the faculty of Pacific Union College, Angwin, California, he made a presentationin which he challenged publically the biblical basis of one of the major Seventh-dayAdventist understandings of prophecy, dealing with the Day of Atonement in Daniel 8. Thepublic challenge followed on theological unrest that for some years had followed his workin the classroom, where similar views were expressed.

On the heels of several days of discussions, the predominant conclusion of the group atGlacier View Ranch was that Adventists cannot accept the teaching as Dr. Ford waspresenting it. With his continued insistence that he must follow his understanding,afterward he was discontinued as a functioning Seventh-day Adventist minister. Certainpersons supporting Dr. Ford circulated reports that in actuality the theologians who heardhis presentation were in sympathy with him, but intimidated into silence by ecclesiologicalpressure. There was little evidence to support such a contention.

Following the events described above, W H Johns, at the time a student in Theologyat the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, enteredinto a detailed study of Dr. Ford's positions and prepared the report presented below. Itincludes a review of the principal elements of Dr. Ford's particular views, along with aresponse from the perspective of Seventh-day Adventists. One of the values of thisdocument is that in a few pages it identifies the essential elements of the controversy withDr. Ford and proposes reasonable responses. At the time this document's entry into ourwebsite (October 2000) Professor Johns is serving on the faculty of Newbold College,Binfield, Bracknell, Berks., in Great Britain.

The ABCs of Dr. Desmond Ford's Theology

by W. H. Johns

Introduction

"What does Dr. Desmond Ford really teach?" some are asking as they are confrontedwith his mammoth manuscript of 991 pages which was presented at Glacier View,Colorado during August 10-15, 198. The following analysis is a post-Glacier Viewsummary and analysis of his theology as it reached its most highly developed form in themanuscript titled,Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment. It


2/41

attempts to present as fairly and as accurately as possible the development of his thought astraced throughout his writings, but especially emphasizing his doctoral dissertation onMarch 13 (1972), his commentary on Daniel (1978), and finally his Glacier Viewmanuscript (1980). Difficult as it is to read another man's thoughts, one must be contentmerely to sort out and synthesize the highlights from what has been written down on paper.

There is no claim here that "The ABC's of Dr. Desmond Ford's Theology" is free from bias.Naturally it is subjective, but it is my goal that amidst its subjectivity it may aid others inanalyzing more accurately the theological progression and synthesis of one man's thought-that of Dr. Desmond Ford.

Outline

The following is an outline of the theological steps which Dr. Ford has taken, as well asthe main reasons for his taking those steps, although not necessarily in the order in whichhe has taken them. The reasons given are his; the comments are mine. The footnotedreferences to Ford's three major works appear at the close.

A. The Doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment"[1] Has No ScripturalSupport.[2]

Reasons:1. We are judged individually as we accept or reject

Christ.2. Only the wicked are judged, not the righteous.

3. Judgment for the righteous is equated with justification

by faith. Christ bears our judgment for us.Comment: This is Dr. Ford's starting premise, his major thrust, and the

ultimate goal which he hopes to establish. All comments inhis manuscript are geared toward establishing this one

point.B. Daniel 8:14 Must Be Viewed on the Basis of Its Inspired

Interpretation Found in Mark 13.[3]

Reasons: 1. Christ's reference to the "desolating sacrilege" in Mark13:14 (cf. Matt 24:15) points to the fulfillment of the"transgression that makes desolate" in Daniel 8:13 andthe cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14.

2. This fulfillment took place, according to Dr. Ford, in

A.D. 70 when the Roman general Titus invaded anddestroyed the Temple.

3. The time aspect of Daniel 8:14 would be confined tothe first century.

Comment: Note how points C and D logically follow point B. C. Mark 13 Limits All Prophetic Interpretation to the First Century

A.D.[4] Reasons: 1. Christ says, "This generation will not pass away before

all these things take place," which refers to thegeneration of the apostles.


3/41

2. The whole New Testament pictures Christ's advent asbeing imminent and urgently close.

3. The New Testament does not present a 2000-year gapbetween the advents.

4. Christ fully intended to return in the first century, thus

no OT or NT prophecy could extend beyond the 1stcentury. D. The Prophecies of Daniel Must End by the First Century A.D.[5] Reason: It would be inconsistent to have the prophecies of Daniel

extend to the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries if theprophecies of the New Testament (including those ofRevelation) do notextend beyond the first century.

Comment: It should be noted that Dr. Ford's interpretation of Markand of Daniel 8:14 is essentially that of the preterist[6]school of interpretation in his line of thought here.

E. The Apotelesmatic Principle Bridges the Gap Between the FirstCentury and the Twentieth Century and Provides for MultipleFulfillments.[7]

Comments: At this stage Dr. Ford is in a quandary because his doctoraldissertation implicitly favors a preterist view of prophecywhile his church teaches a historicist view. He attempts towed these totally unlike views by means of theapotelesmatic principle. (This simply states that allprophecies may have two or more fulfillments.)To make his interpretation of Daniel palatable to thechurch at large, Dr. Ford offers the apotelesmatic principleas a means of harmonizing the first-century and 20thcentury fulfillments for prophecy. In other words, Daniel'sprophecies have all met their fulfillment by the end of thefirst century as well as having a recurring fulfillment in the18th, 19th and 20th centuries.

F. The Year-Day Principle is Not a Biblically-Derived Principle, But

Merely a Tool of Prophetic Research Developed Providentially by

Human Thought Long After New Testament Times.[8] Reasons: 1. The usual "proof texts" for the year-day principle,

Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6, do not state this in theform of a principle, nor do they state that "each day fora year" should apply to biblical prophecies in general.

2. There is no explicitstatement on the year-day principleelsewhere in Scripture, setting forth the manner inwhich biblical time prophecies should be interpreted.

Comment: The year-day principle is not very conducive to theapotelesmatic principle; in fact, the two are incompatible.There simply is not enough time between Daniel's day and1844 for two or more fulfillments of the 1260 days, of the


4/41

1335 days, and of the 2300 days, if these refer to 1260years, 1335 years, and 2300 years. However, it would beconceivable to have any number of literal 3 1/2 yearperiods matching the description of Daniel 7:25, if theyear-day principle were abolished. (Note: It would seem

that if the year-day principle is to be abolished because ofthe lack of explicit Scriptural support, then theapotelesmatic principle must be abolished because of thelack of both explicit and implicit support in Scripture.)

G. The Abolishment of the Year-Day Principle Necessitates a Change inthe Usual Interpretation of the 70 Weeks' Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-

27.[9] Reasons: 1. If these are viewed in the usual way as literal weeks,

then this time prophecy cannot be pointing to Christwithout the aid of the year-day principle.

2. It is obvious that this prophecy does indeed point to

Christ, since it mentions Him as the Messiah (literally,"the anointed one") and mentions His atoning sacrificethat puts an end to all sin.

3. Therefore, a novel interpretation must be derived forDaniel 9:24, which suggests that the word "seven" andnot the word "week" is meant. Also, the word "years"should be added to the original meaning, so that it isnow translated as "seventy sevens of years," or in otherwords 490 years. With this novel translation, the year-day principle is not needed in Daniel 9:24-27, and theKJV translation of "seventy weeks" is considered

outmoded. Comment: Dr. Ford recognizes that the word "years" is nowhere to be

found in the original Hebrew of Daniel 9:24. H. The 2300 Days of Daniel 8:14 Find Their First Important Fulfillment

in the Time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrian King Who

Desecrated the Temple in the 2nd Century B.C.[10] Reasons: 1. Without the year-day principle the 2300 days must be

interpreted literally.2. The 2300 days are said to cover the period from 171 to

165 B.C. when Antiochus was invading Palestine.3. The 2300 days of literal time do notfit the period

when the Romans invaded Jerusalem in 66 to 70 A.D.climaxing in the destruction of the temple.

I. The 1260 Days of Daniel 7:25 Find Their First Important FulfillmentAlso in the Time of Antiochus Epiphanes Starting With the

Destruction of the Temple in 168 B.C. and Ending with Its

Restoration in 165 B.C.[11] Reasons: According to the preterist school of interpretation, the


5/41

"little horn" of Daniel 7 and 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes, aview substantiated by the books of I and II Maccabees.

Comment: Because Dr. Ford does not view the year-day principle ashaving any biblical support, he cannot apply 1260 literaldays to the papacy or Roman Catholicism. The papacy's

period of dominance is obviously much longer than aliteral 3 1/2 years. J. The Judgment Described in Daniel 7:9-14 is Not the Investigative

Judgment as SDA's Have Traditionally Interpreted It as Being, but

the Judgment of the "Little Horn," Antiochus Epiphanes.[12] Reasons: 1. There is a very close link between Daniel 8:14 and

Daniel 7.2. If Daniel 8:14 denotes a work of "vindicating" or

"judging," then it refers back to the judgment of the"little horn" in chapter 7 and the vindicating of God'speople, the Jews, in the 2nd century B.C.

3. It is unbiblical and theologically unsound to view thejudgment of Daniel 7 as applying to the sins of thesaints in any sense.

Comment: The main support for point A is found under this verypoint-Ford's exclusion of Daniel 7 as applicable to ajudgment of the saints.

K. Major Fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 is That of the Antitypical Day ofAtonement Beginning at the Cross According to Daniel 9:24-27.[13]

Reasons: 1. Daniel 9:24-27 is seen as an exact parallel of Daniel8:14 and provides the inspired interpretation of Daniel8:14.

2. Daniel 9:24 is packed with Day of Atonementlanguage, using five Hebrew words are also found inLeviticus 16.

3. Daniel 8:14 likewise must refer to the antitypical Dayof Atonement and thus finds fulfillment in 1st centuryA.D.

4. The time aspect of 2300-day prophecy has nofulfillment in the life of Christ on earth; therefore, onlythe cleansing of the sanctuary finds fulfillment then.

L. The Book of Hebrews Teaches That the Antitypical Day of

Atonement Was Fulfilled at the Cross.[14]Reasons: 1. Hebrews portrays Christ as being in the Most HolyPlace of the heavenly sanctuary in the 1st century A.D.

2. Hebrews does not explicitly mention the heavenlysanctuary as having two apartments; therefore, therecannot be two phases to Christ's work as our highpriest in heaven.

3. The book of Hebrews abounds with Day of Atonement


6/41

language and imagery, and thus describes thefulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement.

M. The Book of Revelation Supports a 1st Century Fulfillment for the

Day of Atonement.[15] Reasons: 1. The opening verse of Revelation states that this book is

a revelation (literally, "unveiling") of "what must soontake place." The word "soon" denotes the 1st centuryA.D.

2. Revelation has several prophecies which utilize Day ofAtonement imagery; therefore, the antitypical Day ofAtonement was fulfilled in the 1st century.

Comment: The book of Revelation would then have to be interpretedfrom the standpoint of the preterist school of interpretation.

N. The Main Support for the Apotelesmatic Principle is Found in the

Writings of Ellen G. White.[16]Comment: 1. Dr. Ford does not offer a Scriptural basis setting forth

the reasons why the apotelesmatic principle is a validbiblically-derived principle.

2. Nor does he seek to show how Daniel and Revelationexplicitly teach the apotelesmatic principle as a tool ofinterpretation.

3. Therefore, the only independent support he seeks forthe apotelesmatic principle is from the writings ofEllen G. White.

4. He suggests that Ellen White has two or moreinterpretations for Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2,Matthew 25: 1-13, Joel 2:28, Malachi 4:5, 6, Daniel8:14, Leviticus 16, Revelation 7:1-4, and otherpassages in Revelation.

O. The Authority of Ellen G. White is Pastoral, Not Doctrinal.[17] Reasons: 1. If it can be said that the writings of Ellen White are not

to be used in settling doctrinal disputes anddiscussions, then it follows that what she says about adoctrinal matter, namely, the investigative judgment,has little or no relevance for us today.

2. Dr. Ford views her prophetic role on the basis of 1Corinthians 14:3: "He who prophesies speaks to men

for their upbuilding and encouragement andconsolation" (RSV). No mention of the establishing ofdoctrine is made here.

Comment: If Dr. Ford finds his main support for the apotelesmaticprinciple from the inspired writings of Ellen G. White, thenhe must protect himself from the following charge: "Is notDr. Ford being inconsistent when he accepts everythingEllen White has to say when it comes to supporting his


7/41

apotelesmatic principle, but when he rejects everything shehas to say concerning the investigative judgmentcommencing in 1844?" He defends himself by suggestingthat her authority is limited to the sphere of counsel,edification, consolation and upbuilding and that her

writings are not to be used as a basis of authority in thearea of doctrines. P. The Conclusion is That an Investigative Judgment Beginning in the

Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary in 1844 is a Non-Event,

and That Nowhere Does Scripture Teach an Investigative Judgment

of the Saints.[18] Comment: By eliminating the year-day principle, by installing the

apotelesmatic principle, and by limiting Ellen White'sauthority to non-doctrinal matters only, Dr. Ford has cometo the conclusion that no celestial event occurred in 1844and that the traditional SDA teaching on the "investigative

judgment" is non-historical as well as nonbiblical.

Analysis

The whole thrust of the Glacier View manuscript on Daniel 8:14 is to dispel what Dr.Ford feels is the myth of the investigative judgment. For him the investigative judgment hasno basis in history, in theology, in the Bible, or in the re-interpreted writings of EllenWhite. For him the investigative judgment is an enemy to the Seventh-day Adventist,because it robs him of the peace introduced into the heart through the message ofjustification by faith. If we are justified, then we need not face the judgment, according toDr. Ford's thinking. The quickest way to dispense of the idea of a preadvent judgment

commencing in 1844 is to usher in the preterist approach to prophetic interpretation. In myanalysis Dr. Ford is a preterist wearing the hat of a historicist and the cloak of a futurist.The hat and cloak are mere "trimmings" and can be laid aside or taken up at will or in amoment's whim.

Dr. Ford's doctoral dissertation, The Abomination of Desolation in BiblicalEschatology, which he wrote while at Manchester University in 1971-2, reveals the trulypreterist position of his theology and especially his eschatology. First we must distinguishbetween the three schools of interpretation: the preterist (liberal Protestant and RomanCatholic); the historicist (SDA's and evangelical Christianity), and the futurist (conservativeProtestant and Roman Catholic). The SDABible Students' Source Book(vol 9 of theCommentary Reference Series), p. 769, has a definition of these three schools which can

apply to all prophetic interpretation, not Revelation alone:

The Preterist says that almost everything in the book of Revelation was fulfilled longago, the Historicist, that it has been fulfilling all the time, and some of the things foretoldare happening in our own day, the Futurist that nothing of that which is prophesied from thebeginning of chapter four on has yet taken place, nor can take place until just before theend.


8/41

(Editors' Note: The preterist would place the fulfillment of practically all, if not all, ofDaniel's prophecies in the past, assigning the book most probably to the time of AntiochusIV in the 2nd century B.C.)

The preterist view is highlighted in Dr. Ford's doctoral thesis, which is a discussion of

Mark 13 as it relates to the book of Daniel, when it comes to his choice of the four possibleinterpretations of Mark 13.

"A review of the commentaries upon this topic shows that exegetes fall mainly into fourdifferent schools. The respective positions on Mark 13 are as follows:

1. Application to the fall of Jerusalem only.2. Application to the end of the Age only.3. Application to both events (though understood in the Gospel as distant in fulfillment

from each other) on the basis that either Christ or the Evangelist blended the themes.4. Application to both events, regarding such as promised by Christ to the generation

contemporary with Him. This view makes the fall of Jerusalem a part of the predicted end

of the Age" (Ford, 1972, p. 62). Dr. Ford comes out with clear-cut fashion on the side ofthe fourth view and in opposition to the first three in the following words:

Having considered the real weaknesses of the exegetical positions of the first threeschools of interpretation, and the supposed weaknesses of the fourth we are now shut up tothe last as the only approach which can successfully withstand detailed investigation. Weconsider that Strauss and Renan on the one hand, and Beasley-Murray et al. on the other,carry the day in asserting that the Olivet discourse links the fate of Jerusalem with the endof the world, and promises both to the generation listening to Christ" (Ford, 1972, p. 72).

The author then goes on to point out that Mark 13 is a commentary upon Daniel 9:24-

27, which predicts that 70 weeks (or 490 prophetic years) would be fulfilled with thecoming of the Messiah and the ushering in of everlasting righteousness. He believes thatthe first and second advents are both combined in a single event in Daniel 9, and that just asDaniel pictures no great time gap between those two events, so Christ in Mark 13 presentsno gap between his first coming and the end of the age. According to Ford, Christ plannedhis return to coincide with the fall of Jerusalem in the first century. This is pure 100%preterism!

Seventh-day Adventism laid its original foundations and has raised its superstructureupon historicism, which is antithetical to preterism. Without historicism there is nosignificance to the dates 538, 1755, 1798, 1833, or 1844. Daniel 8:14 cannot apply to aspecial event beginning in 1844, and Daniel 7 cannot be a description of the heavenly

judgment scene beginning in 1844 without the aid of historicism. For us traditionallyhistoricism is synonymous with adventism.

After completing his doctoral dissertation in 1972, Dr. Ford's next task was to transposethe preterist framework from Mark 13 back into the book of Daniel, and his goal then wasto publish a commentary on the book of Daniel. The problem is that preterism is anathemato adventism. How can one make a preterist approach palatable to an Adventist audience?The answer is the apotelesmatic principle! Simply stated the apotelesmatic principle meansthat biblical prophecies can have multiple fulfillments. To give an example, when the


9/41

preterists interpret the "little horn" as applying to Antiochus Epiphanes in the secondcentury B.C., when the historicists apply it to the papal rule of 1260 years, when thefuturists apply it to an Antichrist that will enter Jerusalem sometime in the future, theapotelesmaticist will say that all three views are correct! "All are right in what they affirmand wrong in what they deny," states Ford (Glacier View manuscript, p. 505). Notice the

larger context of this statement:Once the principle is grasped we will readily understand why many excellent scholars

can be listed under each separate school of interpreters-preterism, historicism, futurism,idealism. All are right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny. . . . So much forthe apotelesmatic principle as applied to prophecy." (Ibid.)

He is saying here that the historicist is wrong in denying the validity of the preteristview, and the preterist is wrong in denying the validity of the futurist.

The Ford doctoral dissertation does not mention or utilize the apotelesmatic principle. Itmay appear at first glance that he is advocating this principle in the following comment

from his dissertation: "Here again, as is so often the case, the heresies prove 'true in whatthey affirm, but false in what they deny.'" (p. 74). In this case he is discussing the fouroptions for interpreting Mark 13, which we have referred to previously, and he is sayingthat the first three are partly right and partly wrong in their interpretations, but only thefourth is entirely correct. This is notthe apotelesmatic principle, although it provides thegerminal seed out of which the apotelesmatic grows in Dr. Ford's later writings.

Notice how the apotelesmatic principle is developed in his commentary,Daniel, afterhe has summarized the preterist, futurist, idealist and historicist schools. "It must be saidthat each of the systems is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies. . . If theapotelesmatic principle were more widely understood, some differences between systemswould be automatically resolved." (pp. 68, 69, italics are Dr. Ford's). The apotelesmaticprinciple is now being advocated as a cure-all to harmonize all the differences between thefour major systems. Dr. Ford goes on to quote from the well-known conservative scholar,Merrill C Tenney, who writes: "The final conclusion on the chronological methods ofinterpretation is that all contain some elements of truth, and that all are in a measureoverstrained." (Daniel, p. 69). As defined here, the apotelesmatic principle concludes thereare varying degrees of truth in all the major systems of interpretation.

Which system then has the most truth and contains the most correct interpretation ofbiblical prophecy? Dr. Ford would probably answer that the historicist is the most accurate,according to the sentiments expressed in his commentaryDaniel, which is designed for anaudience which is historicist. However, when it comes to his recent Glacier Viewmanuscript, the sentiments expressed are those of the preterist school of interpretation.

The preterist flavor of the manuscript becomes evident when one closely compares oneinterpretation against another, one fulfillment versus another. That interpretation which isgiven the greatest support is the one which is an index to the true sentiments in the mind ofthe interpreter. Numerous passages show that Dr. Ford's views of prophecy can be dividedinto just two types of fulfillments: 1) those in which the details are fulfilled, and 2) those inwhich only the essence is fulfilled. When comparing the two types of fulfillment, we cansuggest that the first one is the more accurate and the more complete one than the second,as long as all the details match the historical events. Thus the first view can be used as awindow to determine the true stance of any prophetic interpreter. Is he a preterist? a


10/41

historicist? a futurist? or an idealist? The answer to that question can be found by notingwhich school of interpretation is followed in assigning the most detailed fulfillment ofprophecy, or in other words, by discovering into which camp the fulfillments of category 1will fall.

For Dr. Ford the detailed fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies fall within the preterist

camp. We must point out that there are two types of preterists-the short-range and medium-range. The short-range preterists state that all biblical prophecies must find their fulfillmentin events immediately surrounding the time of writing of the prophetic book, and themedium-range preterists state that while most prophecies find their fulfillment in immediateevents, some prophecies may extend from the prophet's age into the medium-range future.No prophecies are of a long-range nature with any of the preterists, neither can anyprophecy extend beyond the close of the 1st century. Dr. Ford makes allowance for themedium-range view in his definition of preterism: "This system views the apocalypticprophecies as having a contemporary or near-contemporary fulfillment." (Daniel, p. 65). Inthe Glacier View manuscript Dr. Ford applies the 70 weeks' prophecy of Daniel 9 from theperiod of Daniel's time down to the first century. This would be a medium-range preteristview. The short-range preterist would see Daniel 9's fulfillment in the events of AntiochusEpiphanes and the Maccabean revolt.

One of the most crucial issues of the book of Daniel is the identity of the "little horn,"because our interpretation of Daniel's other prophecies will be influenced by the manner inwhich we identify it. Dr. Ford's interpretation of the "little horn" is essentially preterist.Notice this salient quote:

We wish to stress that which elsewhere in this paper has been affirmed-that theprophecy, while originally fulfilled in Antiochus, and only in him as regards its details,

also applies in broad outline to later manifestations of Antichrist including pagan and

papal Rome. (Glacier View ms, p. 391, italics Dr. Ford's).

None of the details of the little horn prophecy are applied either to pagan Rome, whichinvaded the temple of Jerusalem and destroyed it in A.D. 70, or to papal Rome, which"takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (II Thess 2:4), or tothe future coming of Antichrist. The futurist applies the details of Daniel 7:25 to a future 31/2-year reign of Antichrist from a restored temple in Jerusalem. Dr. Ford rejects both thefigurative 1260-day period of dominance for papal Rome and a literal 1260-day reign ofAntichrist as being applicable, thus he rejects the details of the historicist and futurist view,while holding on to only the details of the preterist view. He leans somewhat toward theidealist view, although he is not in their camp, because the idealist does not look for anyspecific fulfillment of prophecy in historical events, but simply seeks out only the centraltheme or idea of the prophecy.

In the same way that he interprets chapter 7 of Daniel he interprets chapters 8 and 11.

Rome does not apply as theprimary fulfillment of the little horn, but in both its phasesand at more extensive levels it meets the chief thrust of the prophecy, though not its details-both in chapters eight and eleven. In other words, the apotelesmatic principle here applies. .. . (Pp. 392, 393, italics Dr. Ford's)


11/41

In regards to chapter 11 Dr. Ford has asserted: "Only Antiochus fully fits thespecifications of verses 19-35" (p. 383). And again, "The details of these verses (11:21ff.)fit only one person in all time-Antiochus Epiphanes" (p. 394). Then notice how the preteristemphasis of Daniel 8:14 is borne out in the following quotes:

1. "The close relationship between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the history of God's peoplebetween 171-165 B.C. demonstrates that, in this instance also, prophecy has its firstsignificance for the people to whom it was originally given" (p. 394).

2. "Today, it is a primary datum of hermeneutics that every part of the Bible had meaningfor the people who first received it" (p. 392).

3. "Are we now detracting from what was earlier quoted from non-Adventist modernexegetes concerning Daniel 8? By no means. We are saying that Antiochus did fulfill thelittle horn prophecy, but he did not fill it full"(p. 392, italics Dr. Ford's).

4. "Certain of the prophecies of Daniel, like many other prophecies of the Old Testament,apply in principle to later eras than the one first addressed. The main idea, rather than

precise details (such as 2300 evening-mornings) is what has a recurring fulfillment. Daniel8 gives God's ideal plan for Israel after the restoration" (p. 485, italics Dr. Ford's).

Thus, in the mind of Dr. Ford the first fulfillment is the only one in which all the detailsof the prophecy are applicable. This is dyed-in-the-wool preterism!

The apotelesmatic principle is a cover-up for the true preterist nature of its applications;the evidence cited above confirms the conclusion that Dr. Ford is basically a preterist whowears the hat of a historicist, and the cloak of a futurist. Only if one looks beneath thetrimmings of a hat and cloak does it become apparent that his true nature is preterism. Notehow nicely he summarizes this for us.

This principle (the apotelesmatic) affirms that a prophecy fulfilled, or fulfilled in part, orunfulfilled at the appointed time, may have a later or recurring, or consummatedfulfillment. The ultimate fulfillment is the most comprehensive in scope, though details ofthe original forecast may be limited to the first fulfillment" (p. 485).

Details are limited to the first fulfillment, and the first fulfillment is said to haveoccurred by the end of the first century (see p. 295). The last fulfillment then is theconsummated one. In the words of Dr. Ford, "We are saying that Antiochus did fulfill thelittle horn prophecy, but he did not fill it full. . . . A.D. 70 witnessed the first fulfillment ofthe prophecy of Matthew 24, but not its consummation." "As apocalyptic the prophecies ofthis book(book of Daniel) are not the snapshot variety of the other prophets, but offer acontinuum with its climax in the last crisis and the kingdom of God"(Glacier Viewmanuscript, pp. 392, 391, italics Dr. Ford's).

What is being said here is that the climax or consummation occurs at the SecondAdvent and the setting up of the kingdom. If this is true of Daniel's prophecies and those ofMatthew 24, then it should be equally true for Daniel 8:14; the climax, therefore, mustoccur at the setting up of the kingdom in the last days, and not in the time of AntiochusEpiphanes. If it is true that "the ultimate fulfillment is the most comprehensive in scope,then certainly the judgment described in Daniel 7 and 8:14 could notfind its consummation


12/41

within the narrow scope of the Maccabean revolt of the second century B.C. Nor could itfind its fulfillment in the time of Christ when judgment was pronounced upon the Jewishnation for their sin of rejecting Christ as Saviour. It must find its ultimate fulfillment in anevent of cosmic scope-the judgment preceding the Second Advent of Christ. Ford deniesthis, and in denying this he sides with the preterist who wishes to keep the consummation

or ultimate fulfillment as close as possible to the time when the prophecy was originallygiven.The following observations on the apotelesmatic principle add extra weight to the

suggestion that Dr. Ford is basically a preterist at heart:a. The apotelesmatic principle has no Scriptural support. Dr. Ford does not offer

any rationale as to how this "principle" can be derived from Scripture; he just defines it,and then uses it.

b. The apotelesmatic principle offers no guidelines as to determining primary

fulfillment from secondary. Dr. Ford states that Joel 2:28-32 can be appliedapotelesmatically. It is true that Seventh-day Adventists have made two applications ofJoel-first, to the former rain, and second, to the latter rain, but we sometimes forget that thefirst is merely a partial fulfillment, and that the details of the prophecy do not all apply toPentecost. For example the prophecy links the turning of the sun to darkness and the moonto blood with the outpouring of God's Spirit. No one has suggested that these naturalphenomena occurred seven weeks after the resurrection. If Joel 2 were indeed interpretedapotelesmatically, then one would have to say that it was first fulfilled by events in the timeof Joel in a partial sense, and then was to have a "recurring or consummated fulfillment"just after the ascension and another just prior to the second advent. With Dr. Ford thereshould be three fulfillments then for Joel.

c. The apotelesmatic principle does not give any clue as to when a prophecy may

have just one fulfillment, a dual fulfillment, or multiple fulfillments. This is determinedarbitrarily and subjectively. It offers no internal or external controls. If one scholar offersseven interpretations for a particular prophecy, and another seventy times seven, who is tosay which one has gone too far and which one has stopped short of good exegesis?

d. The apotelesmatic principle provides no guidelines for determining when the

details are applicable and when they are not. Dr. Ford is consistent in applying thedetails of Daniel's prophecies to their first fulfillment, but who is to say that a laterfulfillment cannot have the details incorporated? Who is to say that the chronologicaldetails of the "little horn" cannot apply to the period from 538 to 1798, and those of Daniel8:14 cannot find their fulfillment in the date 1844? If the apotelesmatic principle were trueto its basic definition, then it could allow for application of details to 18th and 19th centuryevents.

e. The apotelesmatic principle fails to harmonize the preterist, futurist and

historicist schools, because they are mutually exclusive. No commentator to date hasachieved the herculean task of harmonizing all the basic views of the three main schools ofprophetic interpretation, and Dr. Ford merely selects a few isolated aspects of eacharbitrarily and shows how they can be and will be fulfilled in certain historical events. Anyscholar can find "truth" in all three viewpoints, otherwise if one or two of them were totally"false," then there would be no scholars seriously advocating them.

f. The apotelesmatic principle is unworkable with most Old Testament prophecies.

If the principle is applied to one Messianic passage, namely Daniel 9:24-27, then for thesake of consistency it must be applied to all. How can one have a "recurring fulfillment" of


13/41

Micah 5:2? Is there going to be another incarnation, and is Bethlehem again to havesignificance? Are the events predicted in Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 to be repeated? Is theregoing to be another Messianic figure who will vicariously suffer for the sins of his people?As far as I am aware of and as far as I know what scholars are saying, there is just onefulfillment for these Messianic passages. Why should not Daniel 9 also have just one

fulfillment?g. The apotelesmatic principle overlooks the fact that the book of Daniel was asealed book. According to Daniel 12:4, 9 the words of the book of Daniel were to be sealed"until the time of the end." The time of the end did not begin before the first century or thefirst advent of Christ (Acts 2:17; Heb 1:2; 9:26; 1 John 2:18; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Cor 10:11).The preterist view teaches that prophecies have immediate fulfillment at the time they werefirst given or in the near future. Ford states that the schools of thought are right in what theyaffirm, so he likewise agrees that prophecy has immediate or nearly immediate fulfillment.The difficulty is that the prophecies of Daniel could not have been fulfilled or understoodby Jews living in either the 6th century B.C. or 2nd century B.C. because the "time of theend" had not yet arrived!

h. The apotelesmatic principle fails to differentiate between fulfillment and

application. Fulfillment, according to its original meaning in the Greek, has the idea ofbringing to fruition, to completion, or to a climax an event that has been foretold inadvance. After its completion, there can be no later fulfillment. Application is the taking ofa Bible prophecy and making it relevant to certain situations, which do not exhaust its fullmeaning. With application there can be later events which meet the prophecy'sspecifications. An example of this distinction is Matthew 2:15-the passage dealing with theChrist child's sojourn in Egypt: "This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by theprophet, 'Out of Egypt have I called my son.'" Here is a direct quote from Hosea 11:1, butthe problem is that Hosea is referring to the Exodus of Israel from Egypt and is not aprophecy of the future. Just as Matthew here is making application, not definingfulfillment,he does also in Matthew 24:15, where he speaks of the "desolating sacrilege" entering theTemple, a reference to Daniel 8;13. The fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to the Roman armieswas not a fulfillment of Daniel 8:13, 14, no more than is Matthew 2:15 a fulfillment ofHosea 11:1. We are dealing with application here, and there can be hundreds ofapplications of a given Scriptural passage to various settings. There cannot be hundreds offulfillments, however. Application, then, is more of a homiletical tool. For example, Ford'sinterpretation of Daniel 8:14:

It applies also to every revival of true religion where the elements of the kingdom of

God . . . are proclaimed afresh, as at 1844. (P. 356, italics Dr. Ford's)

This is application, not fulfillment, otherwise we would have to say that the preachingof Paul, Wycliffe, Jerome, Luther and Wesley are a fulfillment of Daniel 8:14! Theapotelesmatic principle is a misnomer; it should be called the "multiple-applicationprinciple," rather than the "multiple-fulfillment principle."

i. The apotelesmatic principle may work in principle, but it does not work in

practice. It is summarized in the following words: "All are right in what they affirm andwrong in what they deny" (Glacier View manuscript, p. 505). The fact is that some systemsof interpretation are more right than others, and the interpreter cannot possibly give equalweight and emphasis to each school; there will always be favorites. So in actuality there is


14/41

no such thing as a true apotelesmaticist. Every interpreter will either be basically ahistoricist, a futurist, a preterist, or an idealist, who accepts some of the views of the otherschools, and who wears some of the trimmings of the other view points.

Because of these inconsistencies and internal difficulties in the apotelesmatic principle,it is suggested here that the apotelesmatic principle is merely a smoke-screen to introduce

whatever novel views an interpreter wishes to introduce. Desmond Ford wishes tointroduce the preterist views on Antiochus Epiphanes as found in the book of Daniel, but atthe same time he creates more problems than he solves. For example, he links Daniel 8 and9 very closely (as Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally done), and goes one stepfurther by suggesting that Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27 are discussing identical events (whichAdventists generally have not done). In doing this, he makes Daniel 8:14 apply to eventsduring the Maccabean revolt around 165 B.C. as well as to events surrounding the cross. Ifthe two passages are identical in their subject matter and over-all content, then to beconsistent one would likewise have to apply Daniel 9:24-27 to events during theMaccabean revolt. This is what the short-range preterists do, but what Dr. Ford refuses todo. He does not give the apotelesmatic principle a chance when it comes to Daniel 9:24-27,which is a purely arbitrary decision on his part.

There is one even greater inconsistency on his part when it comes to the correlation ofDaniel 8:14 and 9:24-27. He correctly links both passages with the Day of Atonement ofLeviticus 16 (Glacier View manuscript, p. 397), and points out that the five key terms of9:24-transgression, sin, iniquity, atonement, and the Most Holy Place-all occur in Leviticus16. The question here arises, When was the antitypical Day of Atonement fulfilled? Bylinking 8:14 tightly with 9:24-27 and with the Day of Atonement, does Dr. Ford wish tohave the fulfillment of the antitypical Day of Atonement occur nearly two centuries beforethe cross? It is impossible that the Jewish feasts and ceremonies could have met theiranti-typicalfulfillment before the moment when the veil of the temple was torn from top tobottom (Matt 27:51). So now Dr. Ford will have to withdraw his view that Daniel 8:14 metits first fulfillment in 165 B.C., or else disavow any connection of 8:14 and 9:24-27 withthe Day of Atonement. This is just one example of the types of problems encountered bythe application of the apotelesmatic principle. It sounds great in theory, but it falls apart inapplication.

The question then may be asked, Are you saying that both Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27were fulfilled at the cross? In response to this question I would like to suggest that thesacrificial aspects of the Day of Atonement as well as all the other feasts were fulfilled atthe moment when Christ died. No Seventh-day Adventist would teach that the sacrificialaspects of the antitypical Day of Atonement were not fully fulfilled until 1844! Thequestion as to when Christ began his antitypical work in the Most Holy Place is dealt within Appendix A.

Another question can be legitimately raised, Is the preterist position biblical orunbiblical? Dr. Ford suggests that all the major schools are true in what they affirm, andfalse in what they deny, but nowhere does he attempt to justify the validity of the preteristposition. It seems to have been assumed. The fact is that preterism cannot be supportedfrom the internal evidence of Scripture. Revelation was given as a key to unlock the sealedbook of Daniel. A careful comparison of the major themes in the books of Daniel andRevelation turns up the surprising fact that preterist interpretation of Daniel is notsupported by Revelation. Many of the events described in visions in the book of Daniel aresaid to be yet in the future from the standpoint of Revelation. The opening words indicate


15/41

with certitude that the book of Revelation is a description of events that "must soon takeplace," that is, events beginning in the year 96 A.D. and stretching on to the second adventand the establishment of God's eternal kingdom. Revelation does not focus on the past, buton the immediate and long-range future beginning in 96 A.D. The only part of Revelationthat deals with events prior to 96 A.D. is chapter 12, which describes the casting out of

Satan from heaven and the birth of Christ to serve as a backdrop for the 1260-years ofwarfare between the dragon and the woman. This being the case then everything from thebook of Revelation must find its fulfillment subsequent to A.D. 96.

Appendix B indicates the parallels between the two books, and immediately it becomesclear that the portions of the books of Daniel which re-appear in Revelation were yet for thefuture at the time that John wrote the book, thus they could not have been interpretedaccording to the preterist view, but only according to historicism or futurism. For example,the great image of Daniel and its four respective metals do not appear as symbolisms inRevelation, while the stone that dashes the image to powder has its contrast in the millstonethat is cast into the sea (Dan 2:34, 35 cf., Rev 18:21). It is significant that the first threebeasts of the Daniel 7 vision-the lion, the bear and the leopard-do not appear anywhere asdistinct animals in Revelation, while the fourth beast-the dragon-does appear in varioussymbolic forms. This is simply due to the fact that the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persiaand Greece were already in the past at the time Revelation was written. Likewise, neitherthe ram, nor the he-goat of Daniel 8 re-appear in Revelation, because the empires of Medo-Persia and Greece had met their demise long before the end of the first century. It is highlysignificant that the description in detail of the little horn's activities and length of rule arefound in both apocalyptic books (Dan 7:8, 19-25; 8:9-14; 11:29-35; Rev 12:13-16; 13:1-10;chaps 17 and 18). If Revelation is a book of events that were shortly to come to pass, thenthe fulfillment of the little horn prophecy could not have been prior to A.D. 96! Theinspired interpretation of Daniel's prophecies by the apostle John provides the death-knellof preterism.

One final question that should be dealt with is the following, Does Scripture teach thatall men are judged individually at the time they accept or reject Christ, or is there pictured aspecial time in which the cases of the righteous are all examined as a group? To phrase itanother way, Is there any investigative, preadvent judgment which deals with the records ofthe righteous? Again, the key to answer this is to compare the two most complete picturesof judgment scenes found in Scripture-Dan 7:9-12, 26, and Rev 20:11-15. The parallelsbetween the two accounts are striking: a) both accounts mention a throne or thrones usedfor judgment; b) both accounts mention a supreme Being who sits on the throne; c) bothdescribe those being judged as individuals or powers on earth; d) both mention recordbooks being used; e) both mention fire as the agency for providing punishment for thosewho fail to pass the divine standard. However, there is one basic difference between thetwo accounts: the judgment pictured in Daniel is only partial, because the lives of the beastsare prolonged for "a season and a time" (7:12), while the judgment in Revelation is final,because at the end even death itself is cast into "the lake of fire" (20:14). Here are twodifferent but parallel judgments.

The setting given for the judgment in Revelation provides the key in determiningwhether it is the righteous or the wicked or both that are being judged. Revelation 20:4describes the judgment as being committed to the saints who have a thousand years tocomplete it![19] Who is being judged then? It could not be the saints, because they are theones doing the judging. It must be the wicked, those who did not have a part in the first


16/41

resurrection.The point is that there are two resurrections according to Revelation, each taking place

at either end of the millennium. If there are two resurrections, why are there not twojudgments? Revelation 20 describes only the judgment of the wicked, which takes placebefore the resurrection of the wicked (the second resurrection). If the judgment of the

wicked precedes the second resurrection, then by analogy there must be a judgment of therighteous to precede the first resurrection, the resurrection of the righteous. Where can sucha judgment be found? The answer is simple: Daniel 7:9-12. According to the inspiredinterpretative key that unlocks the book of Daniel, the judgment of Daniel 7 must be that ofthe righteous which precedes the resurrection of the righteous, and thus would be aapreadvent judgment (see 1 Thess 4:16, 17). However, the immediate context of Daniel 7suggests that it is the "little horn" that is being judged. There is no contradiction herebecause the "little horn" includes those who profess to honor and serve Christ, some ofwhom are righteous in heart and most of whom are apostate Christians.

Here again Revelation becomes the key to solving an apparent contradiction. The onlyones in the Revelation 20 judgment who are being rewarded are those being cast into thelake of fire-the wicked, because the righteous have already received their rewards. Incontrast, those in Daniel who are being rewarded at the close of the judgment are bothrighteous and wicked, and these two groups are described in 7:26, 27. The judgment on thewicked, that is the "little horn," is only a partial judgment, for its "dominion shall be takenaway" just as the dominion of the other beasts will be taken away (verse 12). Neither thebeasts nor the little horn are to be burned with fire until at the close of the millennium.

The entire focus on the Daniel 7 judgment is the ultimate rewarding of the saints, notthe ultimate destruction of the little horn. The climax is reached in verse 27 when the saintsare rewarded with an "everlasting kingdom," which provides an exact parallel to the climaxof the dream in Daniel 2. Since the ultimate focus of Daniel 7 is upon the saints, not uponthe wicked, we can safely conclude that the focus of the judgment in verses 9-12 is likewiseupon the saints. This conclusion is confirmed by Scripture which gives ample supportiveevidence that the saints as well as the wicked must appear in judgment before God (seeAppendix C). The judgment of Daniel 7 could not be a judgment against AntiochusEpiphanes, because this vainglorious king who styled himself THEOS EPIPHANES (themanifestation of God), never was a professed follower of God or a believer in Scripturaltruths. So again to use the prophetic key of Revelation, if the focus of the judgment inRevelation 20 is the rewarding of the wicked, then that judgment must deal solely with thewicked who had not received their rewards yet. And if the focus of the judgment in Daniel7 is upon the righteous, then that judgment must likewise deal with the cases of therighteous who are to be rewarded immediately after the judgment at the second coming(Rev 22:12).

To conclude this analysis, I wish to point out that the purpose here has not been tocritique pointsA throughPof Dr. Ford's positions. Many of these have already been dealtwith in the October 1980 issue ofMinistry and in some of the Glacier View documents.First of all, we have attempted to summarize in logical fashion the development of Dr.Ford's thinking on the subject of the investigative judgment as it relates to the sanctuary andDaniel 8:14. Second, we have pointed out that Dr. Ford is a preterist basically, who wearsthe hat of a historicist and the cloak of a futurist. No apotelemasticist can give equal weightto all schools of interpretation, and every interpreter has his favorites. Dr. Ford's favorite ispreterism. Third, we have pointed out that preterism is anathema to adventism. A strict


17/41

preterist holds no hope for a future literal and visible return of Christ to this earth. Indefense of Dr. Ford, let it be said that he is not a strict preterist. However, a person whotravels down the road of preterism will ultimately discover that that road leads to a denial ofthe second advent. (God forbid that this should ever be the case with Dr. Ford.) Fourth, wehave suggested that Dr. Ford has used preterism as the most readily available and easily

used tool in denying the historic teaching of Seventh-day Adventism-that of theinvestigative judgment.[20]

Appendix A

The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Book of Revelation

The two books of the Bible dealing primarily with last-day events are Daniel andRevelation. Revelation we believe is the key to unlock the meaning of the sealed or lockedbook of Daniel (Dan 12:4, 9; Rev 1:1, 2; 5:1-5). Therefore, whatever light is shed upon thesubject of the heavenly sanctuary in Revelation is also light shed upon the book of Danieland specifically upon Daniel 8:14.

The key question which we must ask of the book of Revelation is this: Is Christportrayed in the visions of John as ministering in the Holy Place or in the Most Holy Placeat the time of the writing of the book (A D 96)? In other words, does John picture Christ asentering his antitypical Day of Atonement ministry at the cross or at a later time? Toanswer this extremely crucial question, we must analyze each allusion to the heavenlysanctuary in the 22 chapters of Revelation. (see chart below).

Reference Vision Courtyard

Holy

Place

Most

Holy

Place Conclusion

Rev 1:20, 13,

20

Christ among 7

Lampstands

X Christ in holy place in

A.D. 952:1, 5 Christ among 7

Lampstands X A reiteration of

previous vision

4:2ff. God's Throne X God's throne is in theMost Holy Place (Ps99:1; Rev 7:15)

6:9 Souls under thealtar

X Reference to the altar of incense

8:3 Incense mingledwith prayers

X Occurred on the Feastof Trumpets

8:5 Throwing downsthe censer

X End of last trumpet(11:19) and at close ofprobation (16:17, 18)

9:13 Four horns of golden altar

X Occurs during 6thtrumpet

11:1 Measurement of X X Not the earthly temple


18/41

the Temple which had beendestroyed 25 yearsearlier

11:4 Two Lampstands X Context is the 1260days

11:19 Ark of God'scovenant

X Not exposed to viewuntil blowing of 7thtrumpet

14:15, 17 Angel comingfrom the Temple

X End of probation

14:18 Angel comingfrom the Altar

Reference back to 8:5

15:5, 6; 16:1 Temple of thecovenant opened

X Close of probation

16:7 Altar crying Cf. 6:920:11 Great white

throne X Throne of judgment

(cf. Dan 7:9)

22:1 The throne of God

X Throne of God'sgovernment

The whole theme of the book of Revelation is Christ (1:1), and the visions described init are primarily those of Christ and his salvatory activity on behalf of man. Whenever wefind specific fulfillment of any vision within the historical framework of events here onearth, then we also will find a corresponding activity of Christ in heaven. The two are

closely inter-related. This leads us to the following conclusions:1. Before the messages were to go out to the seven churches beginning in A D 96,Christ is pictured as ministering in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary (1:12, 13, 20).The fact is that chapter 1 is the prelude to chapter 2 because the descriptions of Christ inchapters 2 and 3 (note especially 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14) are all echoed from thedescription of Christ in chapter 1.

2. The first 5 seals and the first 6 trumpets all occur while Christ is ministering in theHoly Place (notthe Most Holy Place) of the heavenly sanctuary. The souls under the altarof incense (6:9) had not been vindicated yet during the time of the 5th seal. Vindicationtakes place during the antitypical Day of Atonement. The first six trumpets are blown whileChrist is ministering on behalf of his people in the holy place (8:3, 4). The use of incense

here cannot refer to the use of incense on the Day of Atonement, as Lev 16:12 mightsuggest, because the vision of Rev 8:2-5 provides the backdrop for the blowing of the seventrumpets. The blowing of trumpets is reminiscent of the Jewish feast of trumpets, whichoccurred 10 days before the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:24, 27), and thus must bedistinguished from the Day of Atonement.

3. The only reference to an article of furniture found in the Most Holy Place of theearthly tabernacle is Rev 11:19, which portrays the ark of the 10 commandments in theheavenly sanctuary. This is highly significant. Here is the only passage in Revelation where


19/41

we might obtain a clear-cut reference to Christ's high priestly ministry in the Most HolyPlace in the prophetic book. The timing is the critical key to interpretation-the time of the7th trumpet. The preterist view is bankrupt in being able to offer a specific, tangiblefulfillment for the 7th trumpet in the time of John, in contrast with the historicist view,which applies this trumpet to "the time of the end." If we apply the 6th trumpet to the rise

of the Ottomon or Moslem Turks, and if we convert "the day, the month, and the year" intoprophetic time based on the year-day principle, then we can conclude that the 6th trumpetbegins blowing in 1453 A.D. at the fall of Constantinople, the capital of the eastern Romanempire, just as the 4th trumpet sounded at the fall of Rome, the capital of the westernempire. Converted into prophetic time, the 391 days (=391 years) takes us down to the year1844. The seventh trumpet begins blowing in 1844-the very time that the Most Holy Placein the sanctuary is opened to expose to view the ark (11:19) and the very time for thebeginning of the judgment (11:18). Thus, according to Revelation the antitypical Day ofAtonement begins in 1844!

4. The "great white throne" of Rev 20:11 is the throne of judgment, and this throne islocated in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary, according to the Psalms (11:4;99:1; 103:19), Isaiah (6:1), Ezekiel (1:26), Daniel (7:9), Hebrews (numerous references),and Revelation (7:15). Judgment is connected with the establishment of this throne, whichis connected with the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. Nowhere does Johnpicture the heavenly judgment as occurring in his day.

5. It is interesting that nowhere is the altar of burnt offering or the laver mentioned oreven alluded to in the book of Revelation. The reason is simply that this prophetic book is aportrayal of future events (1:1), and one would not expect it to deal with the cross in detail.The furniture and ceremonies of the courtyard are absent from this prophetic book, and theman with the measuring rod is instructed to omit the measurements of the courtyard (11:2).The focus is on the temple itself.

In summary, we can assert that Christ does not enter the work of the anti-typical Day ofAtonement until the 7th trumpet blows (Rev 11:15-19), and that Christ is pictured as thehigh priest in the holy place during the first 6 trumpets, according to Rev 8:3, 4, and at thebeginning of the messages to the 7 churches, according to Rev 1:12, 13, 20.

Appendix B

Comparison of Daniel and Revelation

The following table compares the prophetic portions of the book of Daniel with thebook of Revelation. The whole purpose is to discover what elements and symbolisms ofDaniel re-appear in Revelation, and then to relate these comparisons to the ultimatequestion, Is preterism sustained as a biblical principle of interpretation? The evaluationhinges around the opening passage in Revelation: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, whichGod gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place"(1:1, italics supplied).Revelation is a book of the future, not of the past, according to its prologue. If that be thecase, then the elements in the book of Daniel which are also dealt with in Revelation areprophecies of the future from the standpoint of 96 A D. They cannot be sustained by apreterist system of interpretation.

Mentioned in


20/41

Revelation

Text Content Yes No If Yes, Where?

Dan 2:31-45 Great image X

Dan 7:1-6 Lion, bear, leopard* X

Dan 7:7, 23 Dragonlike beast X Rev 12:3-5Dan 7:8, 24, 25 Little horn X Rev 12:14; 13:1-10; chs. 17,

18

Dan 7:9-14, 26 Judgment, booksopened

X Rev 20:11-15

Dan 8:1-8 Ram and he-goat X

Dan 8:9-14 Abomination ofdesolation, judgment,restoration

X Rev 11:1-2, 15-19; 14:7;17:4, 5

Dan 9:24-27 Anointing of theMessiah, end of theTemple

X

Dan 11:1-45 Difficult to evaluate and compare, especially in view of the factthat Daniel 11 is not a dream or a vision, but an interpretationgiven by an angel, thus is described in more literal and lessfigurative language.

Dan 12:2 Time of trouble X Rev 16:1-21

Dan 12:4, 7 Sealing up the book X Rev 5:1-5

Dan 12:10 Clothed in white X Rev 3:5; 19:8; 22:14 (RSV)

*Note: These do appear as parts of the composite beast in Revelation 13:2, butnowhere in Revelation do they appear as separate beasts. That is because theempire of Babylon (605-538 B.C.), Medo-Persia (539-331 B.C.), and Greece (331-168 B.C.) had all come and gone long before Revelation was written.

**Note: The Jerusalem temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, thus there was no needfor John to mention that catastrophic event. However, its destruction was predictedin Daniel 9:26.

The question can be rightly asked, Could not there be allowance made for multiplefulfillments; thus some of the prophecies fulfilled in Daniel's time or shortly thereafter

could also be prophecies of the future in John's time? The answer is that there cannot betwo equal and complete fulfillments for one given prophecy. If there is more than onefulfillment, there must be a primary and a secondary fulfillment. One takes precedence overthe other. Scripture never provides us with an example of three or more fulfillments ofprophecy. The primary fulfillment could not have been both prior to the first century andafter the first century at the same time. If preterism is true, then there would have to be twoprimary fulfillments-the first in Daniel's time (or shortly thereafter) and the other in John's


21/41

time (or shortly thereafter). But Scripture never makes allowance for two primaryfulfillments of prophecy.

Appendix C

Whose Records Are Investigated?

The question being asked relative to the investigative judgment pictured in Daniel 7:9-14 is this, Who are being judged?-the saints or the little horn or both? A further question isthis, If the saints are not judged in the Daniel 7 preadvent judgment, are they judged at all?The answer to these crucial questions can be discovered by classifying all the NewTestament judgment texts according to subject matter. The following classification is notintended to be exhaustive.

Saints Apostate Ones Not the Saints

Rom 2:2, 3, 12 Matt 19:28 Matt 5:21, 22

Rom 3:4 Luke 22:30 Matt 10:151 Cor 4:4; 11:32 1 Cor 6:3 Matt 11:22, 24

Heb 10:30 Luke 10:14

James 2:12 Everyone John 12:31, 47, 48

1 John 4:17 Matt 12:36 John 16:11

Acts 17:31 Acts 7:7

Ambiguous Rom 2:12, 16 1 Cor 5:13; 6:2

John 5:22, 27, 30 Rom 3:6, 7 Gal 5:10

John 8:6, 15 Rom 14:10 1 Tim 5:24

John 9:39 2 Cor 5:10 Heb 10:27; 13:4

2 Tim 9:27 James 2:13

1 Peter 1:17; 4:5 2 Peter 2: 3, 4, 9

Jude 15 2 Peter 3:7

Jude 6

Rev 17:1; 20:4

Rev 10:10

___________

[1]. The investigative judgment refers to a preadvent judgment in which the cases of allthose who have ever accepted Christ are examined from the record books, and the sins ofthose accounted righteous are blotted out. This judgment began in 1844 and will end withthe close of probation.[2]. Pp. 5, 34, 124, 132, 376, 469, 470, 474.[3]. Pp. 481-82. See also Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (1972).


22/41

[4]. Pp. 9, 136, 295, 297, 304, 305, 307ff.[5]. Pp. 306, 311, 388.[6]. Preterism teaches that all Biblical prophecy must find its fulfillment within either thelifetime of the prophet or within near proximity; thus, prophecy has its primary meaningonly for the contemporaries of the prophet.

[7]. Pp. 345, 390-395, 422, 484-506, 517. See Desmond Ford,Daniel(1978), p. 49.[8]. Pp. 35, 132-133, 144, 295, 326ff.[9]. P. 323.[10]. Pp. 376-96.[11]. Ibid.[12]. Pp. 29, 469, 651.[13]. Pp. 284,357,399, 412-13, A-73 to A-77,Abomination of Desolation in BiblicalEschatology,p. 122.[14]. Pp. 181-95, 228-29.[15]. Pp. 307-9, 311.[16]. Pp. 390-91, 517, 537-39.[17]. Pp. 619-20, 623, 631.[18]. Pp. 278, 469-76.[19]. Sometimes it is argued that God does not need 136+ years in which to complete theinvestigative judgment because he can judge all mankind in a microsecond. But the samelogic would have to be applied to the millenniumGod does not need 1000 years in whichto judge the wicked. But the fact is that created beings have a part in the judgmentangelsand saintsand these created beings cannot perform such momentous tasks inmicroseconds.[20]. Note: The pages given are from Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement,and the Investigative Judgment(Washington, DC, 1980), unless otherwise indicated.

El ABC de la Teologa Dr. Desmond FordW. H. JohnsIntroduccinpor George W. Reid

En 1980 una controversia teolgica centrada en las enseanzas del Dr. Desmond Fordlleg a la vanguardia con una importante reunin de telogos y administradores en GlacierView Ranch en Colorado. Est en juego el futuro trabajo del Dr. Ford, que durante unageneracin haba servido como un profesor popular de la religin en varios colegiosadventistas del sptimo da. Mientras que en la facultad de Pacific Union College, Angwin,California, hizo una presentacin en la que exhort pblicamente la base bblica de uno delos principales acuerdos Adventista del Sptimo Da de la profeca, que trata del Da de laExpiacin en Daniel 8. El desafo pblico sigui a los disturbios teolgicas que desde hacealgunos aos haba seguido su trabajo en el aula, donde los puntos de vista similares seexpresaron.

En los talones de varios das de discusiones, la conclusin predominante del grupo enGlacier View Ranch fue que los adventistas no puede aceptar la enseanza como el Dr.Ford fue la presentacin. Con su continua insistencia en que debe seguir su comprensin,despus que se suspendi como ministro funcionamiento Adventista del Sptimo da.Ciertas personas de apoyo del Dr. Ford publicaron noticias de que en la actualidad lostelogos que escuch su presentacin simpatizaban con l, pero intimidado al silencio por


23/41

la presin eclesial. Hubo poca evidencia para apoyar tal afirmacin.A raz de los hechos antes descritos, WH Johns, a la vez un estudiante de teologa

en el Seminario Adventista Teolgico en Berrien Springs, Michigan, entr en un estudiodetallado de las posiciones del Dr. Ford y prepar el informe se presenta a continuacin.Incluye una revisin de los principales elementos de puntos de vista en particular del Dr.

Ford, junto con una respuesta desde la perspectiva de adventistas del sptimo da. Uno delos valores de este documento es que en unas pocas pginas, identifica los elementosesenciales de la controversia con el Dr. Ford y propone respuestas razonables. En elmomento de la entrada de este documento en nuestro sitio web (octubre de 2000) Elprofesor Johns est sirviendo en la facultad de Newbold College, Binfield, Bracknell,Berks., En Gran Bretaa.

El ABC de la Teologa Dr. Desmond Fordpor W. H. Johns

Introduccin"Qu el Dr. Desmond Ford ensea realmente?" algunos se preguntan como se ven

confrontados con el manuscrito de 991 pginas de mamut que se present en Glacier View,Colorado en agosto 10-15, 198. El anlisis que sigue es un resumen Ver post-glaciar y elanlisis de su teologa, ya que alcanz su forma ms desarrollada en el manuscrito titulado,Daniel 8:14, el da de la expiacin, y el Juicio Investigador. Se trata de presentar como justay con la mayor precisin posible el desarrollo de su pensamiento como rastrear a lo largo desus escritos, pero haciendo especial hincapi en su tesis doctoral el 13 de marzo (1972), sucomentario sobre Daniel (1978), y finalmente el manuscrito de Glacier View ( , 1980). Pordifcil que es leer los pensamientos de otro hombre, uno debe estar contenta con clasificar ysintetizar los aspectos ms destacados de lo que se ha escrito sobre el papel. No existeningn derecho aqu que "El ABC de la Teologa Dr. Desmond Ford" est libre deprejuicios. Por supuesto, es subjetiva, pero mi objetivo es que en medio de su subjetividadque puede ayudar a otros en el anlisis con mayor precisin la progresin de la teologa y lasntesis de un hombre de pensamiento del Dr. Desmond Ford.Esquema

El siguiente es un resumen de los pasos teolgicos que el Dr. Ford ha tomado, as comolas principales razones de su tomar esas medidas, aunque no necesariamente en el orden enel que los ha llevado. Las razones dadas son suyas, los comentarios son mos. Lasreferencias a pie de pgina a tres obras ms importantes de Ford aparecen al final.A. La doctrina de la "Juicio Investigador" [1] no tiene ningn apoyo bblico [2].Razones: 1. Se nos juzga de forma individual al aceptar o rechazar a Cristo.2. Slo los malos son juzgados, no a los justos.3. Juicio de los justos se equipara con la justificacin por la fe. Cristo, tiene a nuestro

juicio por nosotros.Comentario: Esta es la premisa de partida del Dr. Ford, su mayor impulso, y el objetivofinal que se espera establecer. Todos los comentarios en su manuscrito estn orientadoshacia el establecimiento de este punto.B. Daniel 8:14 debe ser visto en la base de su interpretacin inspirada en Marcos 13 [3].Razones: 1. La referencia de Cristo a la "abominacin de la desolacin" en Marcos 13:14(cf. Mateo 24:15) apunta a la realizacin de la "prevaricacin asoladora" de Daniel 8:13 yla purificacin del santuario en Daniel 8:14.


24/41

2. Esta realizacin se llev a cabo, de acuerdo con el Dr. Ford, en el ao 70 dC cuando elgeneral romano Tito invadi y destruy el Templo.3. El aspecto del tiempo de Daniel 8:14 se limitar al primer siglo.Comentario: Tenga en cuenta la cantidad de puntos C y D lgicamente el punto B.C. Marcos 13 Lmites Todos interpretacin proftica para el primer siglo DC [4]

Razones: 1. Cristo dice: "Esta generacin no pasar antes de que todas estas cosassucedan", lo que se refiere a la generacin de los apstoles.2. Llegada de la totalidad del Nuevo Testamento imgenes de Cristo como inminente ycerca de urgencia.3. El Nuevo Testamento no presenta una brecha de 2000 aos entre los advenimientos.4. Cristo tiene la firme intencin de volver en el primer siglo, por lo tanto no OT o profeca

NT podra extenderse ms all del siglo primero.D. Las Profecas de Daniel debe terminar el primer siglo [5]Razn: No sera congruente que las profecas de Daniel se extienden a los siglos 18, 19 y20, si las profecas del Nuevo Testamento (incluidos los de la Revelacin) no se extiendenms all del primer siglo.Comentario: Cabe sealar que la interpretacin del Dr. Ford de Marcos y de Daniel 8:14 esesencialmente el de la preterista [6] de la escuela de interpretacin en su lnea depensamiento aqu.E. Los puentes Principio apotelesmtico la distancia entre el primer siglo y el siglo XX ydispone Cumplimientos mltiples [7].Comentarios: En esta etapa, el Dr. Ford se encuentra en un dilema porque su tesis doctoralimplcitamente a favor de un punto de vista preterista de la profeca, mientras que su iglesiaensea una visin historicista. Se trata de casarse con estos puntos de vista totalmentediferente a travs del principio apotelesmtico. (Esto simplemente establece que todas lasprofecas pueden tener dos o ms realizaciones.)Para hacer su interpretacin de Daniel aceptable para la iglesia en general, el Dr. Fordofrece el principio apotelesmtico como un medio de armonizar los cumplimientos delprimer siglo del siglo y 20 de la profeca. En otras palabras, las profecas de Daniel se hanreunido su realizacin a finales del siglo I, as como tener un cumplimiento recurrente enlos siglos 18, 19 y 20.F. El principio da por ao no es un principio por la Biblia derivados, sino simplementeuna herramienta de investigacin proftica Desarrollado providencialmente por elpensamiento humano a largo Despus de Tiempos del Nuevo Testamento [8].Razones: 1. Lo de siempre "textos de prueba" para el principio de da por ao, Nmeros14:34 y Ezequiel 4:6, no se establece esto en la forma de un principio, ni que "cada dadurante un ao" debe aplicarse a la Biblia profecas en general.2. No hay ninguna declaracin explcita sobre el principio de da por ao en otras partes dela Escritura, que establece la forma en que las profecas bblicas tiempo debe serinterpretado.Comentario: El principio de da por ao no es muy propicio para el principioapotelesmtico, de hecho, los dos son incompatibles. Simplemente no hay suficiente tiempoentre el tiempo de Daniel y 1844 para dos o ms cumplimientos de los 1260 das, de los1335 das, y de los 2300 das, si estos se refieren a 1260 aos, los aos 1335 y 2300 aos.Sin embargo, sera concebible que cualquier nmero de literales 3 1 / 2 periodos anualescoinciden con la descripcin de Daniel 7:25, si el principio de da por ao fueron abolidos.(Nota:. Parecera que si el principio de da por ao de que se suprima debido a la falta de


25/41

apoyo bblico explcito, entonces el principio apotelesmtico debe ser abolida porque de lafalta de ayudas explcitas e implcitas en la Escritura)G. La abolicin del principio da por ao requiere un cambio en la interpretacin usual dela Profeca las 70 semanas "de Daniel 9:24-27 [9].Razones: 1. Si estos se ven en la forma habitual como semana literal, entonces esta

profeca de tiempo no se puede sealar a Cristo sin la ayuda del principio de da por ao.2. Es obvio que esta profeca en efecto, remiten a Cristo, ya que lo menciona como elMesas (literalmente, "el ungido") y menciona su sacrificio expiatorio que pone fin a todopecado.3. Por lo tanto, una nueva interpretacin debe ser derivado de Daniel 9:24, lo que sugiereque la palabra "siete" y no la "semana", palabra que significa. Adems, la palabra "ao" sedeben agregar al significado original, por lo que ahora se traduce como "setenta semanas deaos", o en otras palabras, 490 aos. Con esta traduccin novela, el principio de da por aono es necesario en Daniel 9:24-27, RV, y la traduccin de "setenta semanas" se considerapasado de moda.Comentario: El Dr. Ford reconoce que la palabra "ao" en ninguna parte se encuentra en eloriginal hebreo de Daniel 9:24.H. los 2300 das de Daniel 8:14 encuentran su cumplimiento inicial importante en eltiempo de Antoco Epfanes, rey de Siria que profan el templo en el segundo siglo antes deCristo [10]Razones: 1. Sin el principio de da por ao los 2300 das debe ser interpretada literalmente.

2. Los 2300 das se dice que cubren el perodo desde 171 hasta 165 aC cuando Antocoestaba invadiendo Palestina.3. Los 2300 das de tiempo literal no se ajustan a la poca en que los romanos invadieronJerusaln en el ao 66 dC culminando a 70 en la destruccin del templo.I. Los 1260 das de Daniel 7:25 encuentran su cumplimiento Importante En primer lugartambin en la poca de Antoco Epfanes que comienzan con la destruccin del Templo enel ao 168 aC y terminando con su restauracin en el 165 aC [11]Razones: Segn la escuela de interpretacin preterista, el "cuerno pequeo" de Daniel 7 y 8es Antoco Epfanes, una visin fundamentada en los libros de los Macabeos I y II.Comentario: Debido a que el Dr. Ford no considera el principio de da por ao comoningn apoyo bblico, no se puede aplicar 1.260 das literales al papado o el catolicismoromano. Perodo del papado de la dominacin es, obviamente, mucho ms que un literal 3 1/ 2 aos.J. El juicio descrito en Daniel 7:9-14 No es el Juicio Investigador como SDAtradicionalmente lo han interpretado como, pero la sentencia de la "cuerno pequeo",Antoco Epfanes [12].Razones: 1. Hay un vnculo muy estrecho entre Daniel 8:14 y Daniel 7.2. Si Daniel 8:14 denota un trabajo de "reivindicar" o "juzgar", entonces se remite a lasentencia dictada por el "cuerno pequeo" en el captulo 7 y la reivindicacin del pueblo deDios, los Judios, en el siglo 2 aC3. No es bblico y teolgico errneas para ver el juicio de Daniel 7 que se aplica a los

pecados de los santos en ningn sentido.Comentario: El principal apoyo para el punto A se encuentra en este mismo punto de laexclusin-Ford de Daniel 7 en su caso a un juicio de los santos.Cumplimiento K. Mayor de Daniel 8:14 es la del Da de la Expiacin antitpico A partir de


26/41

la Cruz Segn Daniel 9:24-27 [13].Razones: 1. Daniel 9:24-27 es visto como un paralelo exacto de Daniel 8:14 y proporcionala inspirada interpretacin de Daniel 8:14.2. Daniel 9:24 est lleno de da de la expiacin del lenguaje, utilizando cinco palabrashebreas tambin se encuentran en Levtico 16.

3. Daniel 8:14 tambin debe referirse al Da de la Expiacin antitpico y por lo tantoencuentra su realizacin en el ao del siglo primero4. El aspecto del tiempo de 2300 das de la profeca no tiene cumplimiento en la vida deCristo en la tierra, por lo tanto, slo la purificacin del santuario se cumpla entonces.L. El libro de Hebreos nos ensea que el da antitpico de la Expiacin se cumpli en lacruz [14].Razones: 1. Hebreos retrata a Cristo como en el Lugar Santsimo del santuario celestial enel siglo primero2. Hebreos no menciona explcitamente el santuario celestial tiene dos pisos, por lo tanto,no puede haber dos fases de la obra de Cristo como nuestro Sumo Sacerdote en el cielo.3. El libro de Hebreos est llena de Da de la Expiacin, el lenguaje y las imgenes, ydescribe as el cumplimiento del da antitpico de la Expiacin.M. El libro del Apocalipsis Soporta el cumplimiento del siglo primero para el Da de laExpiacin [15].Razones: 1. El primer versculo del Apocalipsis que este libro es una revelacin(literalmente, "revelacin") de "lo que deben suceder pronto." La palabra "pronto" se refierea la primera del siglo dC2. Apocalipsis tiene varias profecas que utilizan el Da de las imgenes de la Expiacin,

por lo tanto, el Da de la Expiacin antitpico se cumpli en el siglo primero.Comentario: El libro de Apocalipsis tendra que ser interpretada desde el punto de vista dela escuela de interpretacin preterista.N. El principal apoyo para el Principio apotelesmtico se encuentra en los escritos de ElenaG. de White [16].Comentario: 1. Dr. Ford no ofrece una base bblica que establece las razones por qu el

principio apotelesmtico es vlido bblicamente derivados principio.2. Ni busca mostrar cmo Daniel y el Apocalipsis ensea explcitamente el principioapotelesmtico como una herramienta de interpretacin.3. Por lo tanto, el nico apoyo independiente que busca el principio apotelesmtico es a

partir de los escritos de Elena G. de White.4. l sugiere que Elena de White tiene dos o ms interpretaciones de Mateo 24, 2Tesalonicenses 2, Mateo 25: 1-13, Joel 2:28, Malaquas 4:5, 6, Daniel 8:14, Levtico 16,Apocalipsis 7:1 - 4, y otros pasajes en Apocalipsis.O. La autoridad de Elena G. de White es pastoral no, doctrinal [17].Razones: 1. Si se puede decir que los escritos de Elena de White no deben ser utilizados enla solucin de las controversias doctrinales y discusiones, entonces se deduce que lo queella dice acerca de un asunto doctrinal, a saber, el juicio investigador, tiene poca o ningunarelevancia para nosotros hoy.2. Dr. Ford ve su papel proftico en la base de 1 Corintios 14:3: "El que profetiza habla alos hombres para edificacin, exhortacin y consolacin" (RSV). No se menciona elestablecimiento de la doctrina se hace aqu.Comentario: Si el Dr. Ford encuentra su principal apoyo para el principio apotelesmticode los escritos inspirados de Elena G. de White, entonces debe protegerse de la carga lo


27/41

siguiente: "No es el Dr. Ford una falta de coherencia cuando se acepta todo lo que Elenade White tiene que decir cuando se trata de apoyar su principio apotelesmtico, perocuando se rechaza todo lo que tiene que decir sobre el juicio investigador a partir de 1844?" l se defiende lo que sugiere que su autoridad se limita a la esfera de los abogados, laedificacin, consolacin y edificacin y que sus escritos no deben ser utilizados como base

de la autoridad en el rea de las doctrinas.P. La conclusin es que un comienzo del juicio investigador en el Lugar Santsimo delsantuario celestial en 1844 es un evento que no, y que en ninguna parte la Escritura Enseaa un juicio investigador de los Santos [18].Comentario: Al eliminar el principio de da por ao, mediante la instalacin del principioapotelesmtico, y limitando la autoridad de Elena de White a los no-doctrinal slo importa,el Dr. Ford ha llegado a la conclusin de que ningn evento celeste se produjo en 1844 yque la enseanza tradicional SDA en el "juicio investigador" no es histrico, as como nobblica.Anlisis

Toda la fuerza del manuscrito de Glacier View en Daniel 8:14 es para disipar lo que elDr. Ford cree que es el mito del juicio investigador. Para l, el juicio investigador no tieneninguna base en la historia, en la teologa, en la Biblia, o en los escritos re-interpretada deElena de White. Para l, el juicio investigador es un enemigo de la Iglesia Adventista delSptimo Da, porque le roba la paz introducidos en el corazn a travs del mensaje de lajustificacin por la fe. Si se justifica, entonces no tenemos que enfrentar el juicio, segn elpensamiento del Dr. Ford. La forma ms rpida para prescindir de la idea de un juiciopreadvent comenzando en 1844 es para anunciar el enfoque preterista de la interpretacinproftica. En mi anlisis del Dr. Ford es un preterista con sombrero de historicista y elmanto de un futurista. El sombrero y la capa son meros "adornos" y puede ser dejado delado o que decida a su antojo o capricho de un momento a otro.

Tesis doctoral del Dr. Ford, la abominacin de la desolacin en la escatologa bblica,que escribi mientras estaba en la Universidad de Manchester, en 1971-2, revela laverdadera posicin preterista de su teologa y especialmente de su escatologa. En primerlugar hay que distinguir entre las tres escuelas de interpretacin: el preterista (liberalprotestante y catlica), el historicista (SDA y el cristianismo evanglico), y el futurista(conservadores protestantes y catlicos romanos). Los estudiantes de la SDA Bible 'Fuentelibro (volumen 9 de la serie de referencia Comentario), p. 769, tiene una definicin de estastres escuelas que pueden aplicarse a toda interpretacin proftica, no slo la revelacin:

El preterista dice que casi todo en el libro de Apocalipsis se cumpli hace muchotiempo, el historicista, que ha estado cumpliendo en todo momento, y algunas de las cosaspredichas estn ocurriendo en nuestros das, el futurista que nada de lo que est profetizadodesde el comienzo del captulo cuatro de ha tenido lugar, ni puede tener lugar hasta justoantes del final.

(Nota del editor: El preterista pondra a la realizacin de la prctica totalidad, si notodas, las profecas de Daniel en el pasado, la asignacin de los libros ms probablemente ala poca de Antoco IV en el siglo segundo antes de Cristo)

El punto de vista preterista se destaca en la tesis doctoral del Dr. Ford, que es unadiscusin de Marcos 13 lo que se refiere al libro de Daniel, cuando se trata de la eleccin delos cuatro posibles interpretaciones de Marcos 13.

"Una revisin de los comentarios sobre este tema muestra que los exegetas recaenprincipalmente en cuatro escuelas diferentes los cargos correspondientes en Marcos 13 son


28/41

los siguientes.:1. Aplicacin a la cada de Jerusaln solamente.2. Aplicacin a la final de la Edad solamente.3. Aplicacin tanto a los hechos (a pesar de entenderse en el Evangelio tan distantes en

el cumplimiento de los dems) sobre la base de que ni a Cristo ni el evangelista mezclan los

temas.4. Aplicacin de ambos eventos, como los relativos a la promesa de Cristo de lageneracin contempornea con l. Esta visin hace que la cada de Jerusaln, una parte delfinal previsto de la Edad "(Ford, 1972, p. 62).

Dr. Ford sale con clara de la moda en el lado del cuarto punto de vista y enoposicin a los tres primeros en las siguientes palabras:

Habiendo examinado las debilidades reales de las posiciones exegticas de las tresprimeras escuelas de interpretacin, y las debilidades de la cuarta supone que ahora estamosencerrados en el pasado como el nico enfoque que puede soportar con xito unainvestigacin detallada. Consideramos que Strauss y Renan, por un lado, y Beasley Murray,et al. por el otro, llevar al da en la afirmacin de que los vnculos Sermn del Monte eldestino de Jerusaln con el fin del mundo, y promete tanto a la generacin de escuchar aCristo "(Ford, 1972, p. 72).

El autor pasa luego a sealar que Marcos 13 es un comentario de Daniel 9:24-27, quepredice que 70 semanas (o 490 aos profticos) se cumplira con la venida del Mesas y elcomienzo de la justicia eterna. l cree que la primera y la segunda son combinados en unsolo evento en Daniel 9, y que al igual que Daniel imgenes sin intervalo de tiempo entreestos dos grandes eventos, as tambin Cristo en Marcos 13 no presenta diferencias entre suprimera venida y el fin de la edad. Segn Ford, Cristo planeado su regreso para quecoincidiera con la cada de Jerusaln en el siglo primero. Esto es preterismo pura al 100%!

Adventistas del Sptimo Da puso sus cimientos originales y ha elevado susuperestructura al historicismo, que es la anttesis de preterismo. Sin historicismo no essignificativo para las fechas de 538, 1755, 1798, 1833 o 1844. Daniel 8:14 no puedeaplicarse a un evento especial a partir de 1844, y Daniel 7 no puede ser una descripcin dela escena celestial comienzo el juicio en 1844 sin la ayuda del historicismo. Para nosotrostradicionalmente historicismo es sinnimo con el adventismo.

Despus de completar su tesis doctoral en 1972, la siguiente tarea del Dr. Ford fuetransponer el marco preterista de Marcos 13 de nuevo en el libro de Daniel, y su meta,entonces, fue publicar un comentario sobre el libro de Daniel. El problema es que elpreterismo es un anatema para el adventismo. Cmo se puede hacer un enfoque preteristaaceptable para un pblico adventista? La respuesta es el principio apotelesmtico! En pocaspalabras el principio apotelesmtico significa que las profecas bblicas pueden tenermltiples realizaciones. Para dar un ejemplo, cuando los preteristas interpretar el "cuernopequeo" que se aplican a Antoco Epfanes en el siglo II aC, cuando los historicistas quese aplican a la norma papal de 1260 aos, cuando los futuristas se aplica a un Anticristo queentrar en Jerusaln en el futuro, el apotelesmaticist a decir que los tres puntos de vista escorrecta! "Todos estn en lo cierto en lo que afirman y lo malo en lo que niegan", dice Ford(Glacier View manuscrito, p. 505). Observe el contexto ms amplio de esta declaracin:

Una vez que el principio se comprendi que fcilmente se entiende por qu muchosestudiosos excelentes pueden ser incluidos en cada escuela por separado de los intrpretes-preterismo, el historicismo, el futurismo, el idealismo. Todos estn en lo cierto en lo queafirman y lo malo en lo que niegan. . . . Tanto por el principio apotelesmtico tal como se


29/41

aplica a la profeca. "(Ibid.)Que est diciendo aqu que el historicista se equivoca al negar la validez de la visin

preterista, y el preterista se equivoca al negar la validez de los futuristas.La tesis doctoral Ford no menciona ni utilizan el principio apotelesmtico. Puede

parecer a primera vista que es la defensa de este principio en el siguiente comentario de su

disertacin: "Una vez ms, como suele ser el caso, las herejas probar" cierto en lo queafirman, pero falso en lo que niegan. " (p. 74). En este caso se est discutiendo las cuatroopciones para la interpretacin de Marcos 13, que nos hemos referido anteriormente, y quel est diciendo que los tres primeros son, en parte bien y el mal, en parte en susinterpretaciones, pero slo el cuarto es del todo correcto. Este no es el principioapotelesmtico, a pesar de que proporciona la semilla germinal de los cuales elapotelesmtico crece en los ltimos escritos del Dr. Ford.

Observe cmo el principio apotelesmtico se desarrolla en su comentario, Daniel,despus de que l ha resumido las escuelas preterista, futurista, idealista e historicista. "Hayque decir que cada uno de lo

The ABCs of Dr

Documents

Transcript of The ABCs of Dr