Although Adventist theologians have had a century and half to refine their thinking on the sanctuary and the investigative judgment, there is still much disagreement. How does "the sanctuary doctrine" really reflect the Seventh-day Adventist Church's stance on Bible-based faith statements?

The topic was discussed at a meeting of the San Diego, California, chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums in the Tierrasanta Seventh-day Adventist church on February 6, 2002.

Raymond F. Cottrell, D.Div., retired editor of the Adventist Review and collaborator of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary series, had written an exhaustive review of the subject for presentation at this meeting. Because Cottrell was recovering from an illness, his paper was presented by Larry Christoffel, associate pastor of the Loma Linda Campus Hill Church.

Cottrell titled his paper "The Sanctuary Doctrine--Asset or Liability?" His conclusion, crafted after long and deep study of the history and theology of the doctrine as developed in the Adventist church, was that it is more of liability to the church now than an asset.

Discussion on the topic has centered mostly on chapters 8 and 9 in the Book of Daniel (see sidebar for the relevant passages from the text).

Cottrell typifies three methods of studying and interpreting the Bible: Proof-text, historical, and historicist. The proof-text method is the easiest, for the reader looks at verses from a modern, contemporary perspective and uses the English translation of the Bible, usually the King James Version, as authoritative. Using the historical method, on the other hand, the reader looks at a passage in its original context and tries to discover what the Bible writer meant to say to his audience, including the words used in the original language. The reader tries to base his or her conclusions on the weight of evidence. Most Adventist scholars since 1940 have used this method. The historicist method, sometimes called the "historical-grammatical" method, is an attempt to blend the two, a "hybrid," as Cottrell calls it. Readers using this method usually are prompted by proof-text suppositions but seek to find some scholarly support for traditional conclusions.

Cottrell illustrated the historical method in dealing with passages in Daniel 8 and 9 that have been used traditionally by Adventists to describe a far-reaching prediction beginning in 457 BC with a decree issued by Artaxerxes, a Persian king, and ending 2,300 years later, in 1844. A significant element in the computing of this date is the concept of a "day for a year." But Cottrell declared that the traditional method was based on faulty interpretation of the texts in Daniel. For the decree in question, he says, "the word went forth" in heaven, from God himself, not from an earthly king (Dan. 9:23, 25), and at the beginning of his prayer, in the year 537 B.C. The 2,300 "evenings and mornings," Cottrell points out, should be considered in the light of the sanctuary being discussed: sacrificial offerings made twice each day; therefore the time elapsed should be reckoned at half the 2,300, or 1,150. When Gabriel tells Daniel, "Consider well the word, understand the vision, seventy weeks are marked out for your people and your holy city," Cottrell accepts the idea of "weeks of years," each a seven-year period.

Gabriel's explanation of that "word" in verses 25-27 very briefly sketched the future of God's covenant people during the seventy weeks of years, or 490 years, and announced its climax in the ruthless oppression by "the prince who is to come" during the seventieth of the seventy "weeks," which he had already foretold in chapter 8:9-13 and explained in verses 19 to 25.

In what he called "Daniel's perspective of salvation history," Cottrell pointed to the triumphant conclusion of the prophecy in Christ's life and death on Calvary and subsequent ascension to heaven. This view stands in contrast to the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel, originally worked out by early pioneers of the faith. If those who had formulated that interpretation had had accesss to the original Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel, or an accurate English translation, he says, they would never have developed the outline the church now officially promotes.

While Cottrell's views may be acceptable to many Adventist scholars and unacceptable to others, the reasoning behind them deserves the attention of all who would like to see Adventist teachings to be based squarely on the Sola Scriptura principle. Some years ago Cottrell canvassed Adventist college and university theologians who were versed in biblical languages regarding their views on the sanctuary question. Most of them, he found, did not hold to the traditional stance. Church administrators, on the other hand, are reluctant to admit we were ever wrong. Cottrell says it is time that we should recognize the traditional interpretation as a part of our history but not our present understanding.

The full text of Raymond Cottrell's presentation can be ordered from the San Diego chapter of the Association of Adventist Forums, P.O. Box 3148, La Mesa, CA 91944-3148. Email at ak-jk@cox.net.

James Stirling is an assistant edtior of AT.