24 May 2001 Editorial:
More on Joshua and the Angel
(or)
IJ Lite

Clifford Goldstein's recent article on Joshua and the Angel provides opportunity for a closer look at a common claim of the new theology: the restriction of the investigation to that of Christ's character alone--a teaching effectually negating the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the judgment.

Larry Kirkpatrick

A time is coming when our probation shall be closed, when Christian people will no longer have access to opportunity for forgiveness by Jesus. The heavenly sanctuary shall be shut and Jesus shall then be in the process of returning for His people. With the coming of this time, our characters shall be forever "fixed" as they are. We will be either standing on God's side or Satan's.

Scripture speaks to us of this time. It is as sure as is Jesus' pronouncement: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; and My reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be."¹

In reference to this time, under prophetic inspiration Ellen White wrote,

Says the prophet: "Who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? for He is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." Malachi 3:2, 3. Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God's people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14.

When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing. "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years." Malachi 3:4. Then the church which our Lord at His coming is to receive to Himself will be a "glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." Ephesians 5:27. Then she will look "forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners." Song of Solomon 6:10.²

The above lines are, however, unnacceptable to those holding the common salvation theology of today. Nowhere is there permitted a linkage between purified people and a weighing, an investigative judgment(IJ). Sin removal is replaced by righteousness removal and God must look the other way, blushing as His people sin still. The terrible question of whether He can be both just and Justifier of those who believe in Jesus³ is, by such an understanding answerable only in the negative.

For years now the "lite" version of the investigative judgment and the salvation plan have been pressed to our lips. "Here, drink this," we are urged by Clifford Goldstein and his colleagues at the Review.⁴ Loaded terms such as "absolutely perfect" tend to creep repeatedly into print. Good news, it is suggested, cannot harmonize with an investigative judgment as taught by Adventists over the past century and a half. As a matter of course we will read the charge that such teachings arise from misuse of the Ellen White writings.

Consider the opening lines of Goldstein's article:

My wife once described how, as a child, she was taught the 'good news' of the judgment. 'Well,' she said, 'they told us that the judgment is going on in heaven right now, which meant that at any moment your name could come up, even if you didn't know when. But if you're not absolutely perfect when it does, (you're at the movies or something like that), then your name is blotted out of the book of life, and you are lost. The only trouble is you don't know you're lost, and although you're still trying to be perfect, it's too late.⁵

Goldstein's next words are sardonic: "How did the 'good news' get so good? He goes on to attack the true teaching of the investigative judgment based on the picture painted by his wife.

If you read her perception of the judgment carefully, you'll pick up the sense of arbitrariness and unfairness she has toward it. "At any moment" she suggests, one could arbitrarily be lost because you were "at the movies, or something like that" when their case came up. Unfairness is inherent in the suggestion of an arbitrary judgment, but also felt perhaps because one is "still trying to be perfect" not knowing that already they are lost.

It is striking that Goldstein attacks the real judgment on the basis of this distorted perception regarding it. Is it really unfair, after all, for God to incorporate into His salvation plan a co-operative aspect for man? We think not.

Further, we wonder which element of the description of the judgment he takes exception to. Is it:

1. The idea that the investigative judgment is going on in heaven right now?
2. The investigation of one's case in its turn in that tribunal?
3. The possibility of being lost because one was at the movies at the wrong time?
4. The implied unfairness of being lost should one be found to be not "absolutely perfect."
5. Or simply the investigative judgment in general.

His article closes on the note of seeking personal assurance of salvation. While he is at pains to emphasize the merits or righteousness of Christ as the only basis of our assurance, still he suggests that a broader problem exists, stating that "Every person who joins the Adventist Church ought to be required to read the chapter 'Joshua and the Angel' from Ellen White's Testimonies for the Church, volume 5 (pp. 467-476) . . ." Why? Because "This section gives a clear, balanced presentation of the pre-advent judgment, and, if read in entirety, would help eliminate the kind of 'good news' that my wife and who knows how many others have been 'blessed with' all their lives."⁶ It is apparent that he perceives a broad-scale problem in the SDA understanding of the IJ.

The trouble is, most of what he appears to object to is, in fact, a straight and unproblematic view of the investigative judgment. Is the judgment now under way? Yes. Could one's name come up at any moment? Perhaps not at any moment, but surely it is going to come up at some point. Is this a problem? As far as being at the movies at the wrong time goes, perhaps this is one reason why we've been counseled and warned to avoid the movie theater? Does that make sense? If one is planning to be in the kingdom, one is "purifying himself even as He [Christ] is pure"⁷ What's wrong? Is the concept of character development unappealing; is the work to be done too hard? Is the inward presence of the Holy Spirit and His antipathy for sin too scary or asking too much?

The issue of "absolute perfection" needs to be addressed for a moment. Since when has such been an accurate representation of what God is seeking in His people? God will perfectly reproduce the character of Jesus in His people before He comes.⁸ Is that a bad thing? Is it unfair? Is this to say that the absolute perfection that not even angels, but God alone has, is required of us finite beings? The truth is that all this concern about a teaching of "absolute perfection" is no more than a red-herring, a straw-man argument popular since the days of Desmond Ford. God is taking His people here and now to a situation where they are saved from sin and have stopped sinning.⁹

That there is a problem here is made obvious by the strange dichotomy between "absolute perfection" versus being lost while at the movies. Is absorbing content from the kingdom of Satan while "at the movies" so trivial a thing? What is he trying to say? This line reeks of charging God with unfairness--a practice we know started with Satan. While trivializing sin it charges God with unfairness and distorts the investigative judgment. Goldstein purports to want to correct distortions, yet appears to have a problem with the sound IJ concepts. He implies to the reader that the fact of "Jesus once and for all" standing in our place in the judgment negates any meaningful evaluation of our own characters. An interesting theory this. But what says the pen of inspiration?

How thankful I was when Goldstein suggested that readers consider the entire section he proposes makes the good news so much better. I read the pages suggested.¹⁰ Interested in some of the lines Mr. Goldstein tends not to mention?

First of all notice this: the opening paragraph of the section outlines Mrs. White's purpose in writing it. What did she say? That if the veil separating the visible from the invisible world could be lifted, "minds would be solemnized in view of the vast extent and importance of the plan of redemption and the greatness of the work before them as colaborers with Christ."¹¹ Surrounding sentences make plain that the issue is salvation. Notice here that Mrs. White emphasizes "co-labor" in the salvation process.

The high priest cannot defend himself or his people from Satan's accusations. He does not claim that Israel are free from fault. In his filthy garments, symbolizing the sins of the people, which he bears as their representative, he stands before the Angel, confessing their guilt, yet pointing to their repentance and humiliation, relying upon the mercy of a sin-pardoning Redeemer and in faith claiming the promises of God."¹²

While confessing guilt for past sins, Joshua stands before the Angel "pointing to their repentance and humiliation, relying upon the mercy of a sin-pardoning Redeemer and in faith claiming the promises of God." These are changed people. There is repentance--God's gift here active. There are promises being relied upon, being claimed; such is impossible without the exercise of faith.

What's more, consider the fact that as the vision goes, Israel has brought its sins into the sanctuary in co-operation with heaven's plan. They have cooperated in the removal of sin from the camp. They are doing their part as outlined by God and God is doing His part. The situation is cooperative. The salvation is wholly of God, yet man has his part, non-meritorious though it be.

Catch this passage a bit further on:

'Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth My servant the Branch.' Here is revealed the hope of Israel. It was by faith in the coming Saviour that Joshua and his people received pardon. Through faith in Christ they were restored to God's favor. By virtue of His merits, if they walked in His ways and kept His statutes, they would be 'men wondered at,' honored as the chosen of heaven among the nations of the earth. Christ was their hope, their defense, their justification and redemption, as He is the hope of His church today.¹³

What was happening? Through the exercise of faith God's people received pardon, and were restored to His favor. Weigh this line very carefully: "By virtue of His merits, if they walked in His ways and kept His statutes . . ." The result was that they would be 'men wondered at,' that Christ would be 'their justification and redemption.' But do not overlook that what we find together here are both the virtue of Christ's merits and the plain conditions "if they walked in His ways and kept His statues." Be careful. Their walking in His ways and keeping of His statutes granted them no merit; it was simply conditional of Christ's merit being applied to them. How much clearer now may we read the line stating "His [Joshua's] own sins and those of his people were pardoned. Israel were clothed with 'change of raiment' --the righteousness of Christ imputed to them."¹⁴

Again, "Through the plan of salvation, Jesus is breaking Satan's hold upon the human family and rescuing souls from his power."¹⁵ What is Satan doing? "He is constantly seeking occasion against those who are trying to obey God. Even their best and most acceptable services he seeks to make appear corrupt."¹⁶

These followers of Jesus have some "most acceptable services." Satan's energies go to making these "appear" corrupt. Furthermore there are those who are obeying--purifying themselves: "Those who are indeed purifying their souls by obeying the truth will have a most humble opinion of themselves."¹⁷ Even so, "Christ alone can make an effectual plea in our behalf. He is able to silence the accuser with arguments founded not upon our merits, but on His own."¹⁸ His merits provide all the salvation, yet our cooperation makes possible His plea of His merits in our behalf.

Those who may remain skeptical about the soundness of the investigative judgment as historically understood by Seventh-day Adventists need read but one more passage:

We are to exert every energy of the soul in the work of overcoming, and to look to Jesus for strength to do what we cannot do of ourselves. No sin can be tolerated in those who shall walk with Christ in white. The filthy garments are to be removed, and Christ's robe of righteousness is to be placed upon us. By repentance and faith we are enabled to render obedience to all the commandments of God, and are found without blame before Him. Those who shall meet the approval of God are now afflicting their souls, confessing their sins, and earnestly pleading for pardon through Jesus their Advocate. Their attention is fixed upon Him, their hopes, their faith, are centered on Him, and when the command is given, 'Take away the filthy garments, and clothe him with change of raiment, and set a fair miter upon his head,' they are prepared to give Him all the glory of their salvation.¹⁹

How beautiful and Christ-centered is the picture supplied by inspiration. How harmonious and clear are found the Holy Spirit indited lines of Mrs. White's article. There is indeed a close of probation to prepare for, and there is a final sealing among God's people just as noted in the closing pages of Mrs. White's piece. In the article published in the Review this wasn't mentioned.

The sins for which Joshua stands smeared in guilt are past sins, not present. Of those finally found standing with the Lamb, according to both John and Mrs. White we discover that, "in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God."²⁰

To deny this truth is to deny the teaching of holy Scripture. Sadly, the writer in the Review misrepresents we think the judgment. This tired tirade against it has been circulated for many years. While at Walla Walla College some years ago we were presented with the same philosophy; namely, that a "more mature" Ellen White later wrote "balancing statements" about the investigative judgment appearing in Prophets and Kings. But it is of interest that what later became the section in Prophets and Kings is quite closely related to the section in Testimonies vol. 5 first published in 1885--within the same time frame the as the first editions of the Great Controversy.²¹. The section on Joshua and the Angel in Prophets and Kings was completed in the years shortly before Mrs. White's death, but a careful reading of those pages²² reveals no substantive change in content and indeed, virtually no change in wording.

What does this mean? Simply that what we were told in the theology program there--that Mrs. White matured in her understanding and wrote balancing statements to her earlier (and implicitly understood to be 'less mature' understandings)--was a stretching of reality. The implicitly imbalanced statements from Ellen White on the IJ doubtless include the one we gave at the opening of this article: "Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil." But there is no disharmony here nor imbalance to be corrected. She said much the same thing when in her section in Testimonies, vol. 5 she wrote that the greatness of the work before us is involved in our being "colaborers with Christ."

There is nothing wrong at all with reading the section recommended by Goldstein. What is unfortunate is the implication that apart from it somehow the IJ is misrepresented or only partially presented, thus leading to "the constructing of an entire theology"²³ that is imbalanced and "contradictory" to inspiration. Actually, we found that read helpful in broadening the vision shared by Goldstein and its heavy trend implying that the relation of Christ's righteousness to the believer is purely forensic.

While Goldstein quotes and speaks of "arguments founded not upon our merits," and points to Christ's "righteousness alone," he leans very heavily on the portions out of Mrs. White's article that compose Satan's charges of sin by God's people and highlight their apparent failure to obey. His slant? "Jesus once and for all stands in our place . . . in the pre-Advent judgment."²⁴

In contrast to the implications of Goldstein's one-sided references, the investigative judgment is indeed an investigative judgment. Here, very briefly, are a few such evidences: "All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of heaven; as they have become partakers of the righteousness of Christ, and their characters are found to be in harmony with the law of God, their sins will be blotted out, and they themselves will be accounted worthy of eternal life."²⁵ Clearly, in the IJ, "names are accepted, names rejected."²⁶ On what basis? On the careful measure of "the characters and lives of men".²⁷ Clearly, so very clearly, our lives--the lives of believers--are weighed in the investigative judgment, not only Christ's.

By the way, has anyone noticed a shift in terminology? The investigative judgment is referred to these days only quite rarely by that term. The preferred terminology today is to call it the "pre-advent" judgment. It is altogether true that the investigative judgment occurs in a time-frame we can rightly called "pre-advent." But could it be that the shift in terminology corresponds more with a contemporary drive to change our perception of the judgment? After all, "investigative" seems a freakish term to use if one has reference merely to the character of Christ! "Pre-advent" emphasizes the time of the judgment, but "investigative" emphasizes what is happening in the judgment.

It seems that today some among us believe in the pre-adventness of the judgment but less so in the investigativeness of the judgment! Ever heard that old story about the factory and the thieving? Management figured out over time that there was a constant drain at the factory through theft, but they couldn't pin down who was stealing what. They began searching everyone coming out of the plant, but never could find what was being taken. Finally they narrowed it down to where they felt it just had to be one of the workers who every day came from the plant with stuff stacked in a wheel-barrow. Yet every day when they searched him and the stuff in the wheel-barrow all they ever found was sand and garbage. Finally they approached him and said, "Listen, we know its you. We know you are doing this. But please, tell us how you are doing this." "Well, he at last replied, "I've been stealing wheel-barrows."

Could it be that some of our trusted theologians have been stealing wheel-barrows right under our noses? Changing--subtly to be sure--Adventist theology on the investigative judgment? Ellen White predicted in 1905 that "The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith."²⁸ Well may we rest assured that the seeds planted by Ford a few decades ago are still hatching. While Adventists have insisted on the existence of a heavenly sanctuary and of a judgment at that time, and while Ford was in fact, defrocked, quietly but steadily there has been an attempt to rewrite our understanding of the IJ until the investigation elements have been thoroughly negated and its nature changed.

The theological dollops and snippets persistently occurring like hiccups in the Review, small as they are, have their cumulative effect. Their impact manifests itself like B. F. Skinner's behavioral conditioning model; over the expanse of time the effect is to gradually reorient our thinking until we are thinking differently on this pivotal point of understanding.

Clearly, Goldstein says there is a sanctuary. But what provokes our concern is that clearly, to empty the Bible's IJ teaching of its efficacy is effectively the same as "the doctrine that there is no sanctuary." We do not here charge Goldstein's brief article with this in its fullness, but we see the same trends and fallacies that have been broadcast among us now for many years; therefore is manifest our concern.²⁹

But let us address one last point. It is this: God will not be mocked. He is not fooled by our claims. Listen:

Their [the repentant lamb followers] contrition and self-abasement are infinitely more acceptable in the sight of God than is the self-sufficient, haughty spirit of those who see no cause to lament, who scorn the humility of Christ, and who claim perfection while transgressing God's holy law. Meekness and lowliness of heart are the conditions for strength and victory. The crown of glory awaits those who bow at the foot of the cross.³⁰

But aren't some among us today doing in essence this very thing? Claiming what amounts to "perfection while transgressing God's holy law"? They say they are "perfect in Christ" while they disobey Christ. Those are mocked who proclaim the teaching of victory over sin in this life, what Paul called "the power of the gospel unto salvation." Could it be that those conditions--namely, meekness and lowliness of heart, lack appeal to the transgressor who refuses in truth to "bow before the foot of the cross"? How much better God's redemption plan that removes sin from believers and saves still by but the merits of Christ!

1. Revelation 22:11-12.
2. Great Controversy, p. 425.
3. Romans 3:26.
4. Found online at http://www.adventistreview.org/2001-1521/story4.html.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. 1 John 3:3.
8. Ellen G. White, Christ's Object Lessons, p. 69.
9. For a recent discussion of this, see Kevin Paulson's Trailing in the Dust, at http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/pau-trailing.html.
10. Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 467-476.
11. Ibid., p. 465, emphasis mine.
12. Ibid., p. 469.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., p. 470.
15. Ibid., p. 470-471.
16. Ibid., p. 471.
17. Ibid., p. 472.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., p. 476, cf. Revelation 14:5.
21. The first edition of the Great Controversy was published in 1884 as Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, with the expanded version called The Great Controversy published in 1888.
22. See Prophets and Kings, pp. 582-592.
23. Goldstein, Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. White, Great Controversy, p. 483.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid., pp. 479, 482.
28. White, Evangelism, p. 224 (from RH 25 May 1905). Note that the apostasy of Albion Fox Ballenger regarding the sanctuary teaching was at the forefront of Mrs. White's remarks here. But she spoke not of that current challenge to the sanctuary teaching, but that this was one of the points on which there "will be" a departing from the faith in future time.
29. It is understood that if Goldstein's two pages had contained the space of these eight pages, his article may have been more sound, just as it is possible that it would have carried its misperceptions further. We hope the former rather than the latter.
30. Ibid., p. 475.

GreatControversy.org
Y o u    H a v e    a    V o i c e