From Enemies to Friends Gallagher sermons

Jonathan Gallagher has posted a series of sermons he gave at Quesnel, British Columbia, on August 8, 2009. There are a couple of noteworthy things about these sermons. First, it shows how nice it is to have a copy of a sermon which was the subject of last month's post entitled Why not publish sermons, and second, it covers much of the ground on the problem of substitutionary atonement theory and the better view of the moral influence view of the atonement, also a recent blog post here. Gallagher does not use the term moral influence, but it is substantially what he is talking about. You can read the sermons, and I recommend you do, in the following 3 parts:
From Enemies to Friends 1
From Enemies to Friends 2
From Enemies to Friends 3

The largest difference I have with Gallagher and Graham Maxwell is developed by their use of Ellen White. We can sum it up by a couple of quotes from Gallagher's sermon 2.

Universe-wide reconciliation

Here we see the bigger picture. For up to now we have been primarily concerned about ourselves, and our salvation—God changing us from enemies to friends. But there is much more than just our salvation at stake. The conflict between God and Satan has a cosmic aspect to it—for the war began in heaven (Rev. 12:7). Even those angels that remained loyal to God surely had many questions, and in God’s wisdom he chooses to work not from claims but through demonstration. So the Cross answers far more than just issues about our situation—it impacts the whole universe-wide controversy over God and his actions raised by Satan the Accuser. So God chooses to make his nature clear, and explain himself and his character through the gift of himself. In this way he reconciles the whole universe:

Through the Son, then, God decided to bring the whole universe back to himself. God made peace through his Son’s blood on the cross and so brought back to himself all things, both on earth and in heaven. Colossians 1:20 TEV.

In fact, this might read better “both those on earth and those in heaven.” At which point some may object that those in heaven do not need the atonement—understood as paying some penalty or making amends. But that is not the original meaning—for the word was first used to describe true at-one-ment, and you cannot be truly at one until the controversy is settled and the questions answered. (The NIV uses the term “reconcile”—and in fact the word is actually “completely reconcile,” showing the total extent of the reconciliation needed).

This is why they often call their view the "Larger View" or the "Great Controversy view". It is based upon the assumption that loyal angels have questions about God. He phrases it as surely they had questions, but of course we have no indication that they had or have questions; they may well have answers. The Bible, of course, is not written from the perspective of angels of which we know hardly anything. It is written about man and God; angels are the messengers of God. So when the verse talks about reconciling the things of earth with the things of heaven, that is what it means: the things of man's domain with the things of God's domain. That is the common interpretation, assuming that it is meant to answer angels' questions about God, is to use eisegesis, placing that idea into the text rather than reading what the text is really trying to say. Clearly the holy angels...the messengers of God are not in need of reconciliation with God. From what the Bible says, they live with God, they serve God, and they are not in rebellion against God; those who did rebel got kicked out. You don't need to be reconciled if you are never separated.

I do have a theory as to why they feel the need to include these extra-biblical ideas into their atonement theory. My theory is that they feel they have to include Ellen White into the mix to make it appear that they are good little Adventists. Good Adventists quote Ellen White, so they seek areas that they can quote her because they know that they are also going against what Ellen White says in favor of the Penal Atonement and substitutionary atonement. So they reference the angels' questions, or as Graham Maxwell does, he references the bloodthirsty characteristics of the angels in his article addressed here: Response to Graham Maxwell's Great Controversy View. The quote from Maxwell's interview article is:

Soon you come to the Flood, where God drowned all but eight. That would seem to be a pretty clear demonstration, and to loyal angels that was the thing to do. Amens (though surely, solemn ones) rang through heaven when he drowned that bunch. "That's the way to do it!" Except afterwards they found it hadn't won a soul. Instead, necessary as it was, it turned the human race against God more than ever, and they built a tower to escape him. "Not by might, nor by power" the angels learned as one thing from the Flood. Though they were at the moment rather satisfied, it appears, and waited for God to do it again.


At least I assume he arrives at this from Ellen White; I will not take the time to find her quote on the subject. But it demonstrates the difference between the moral influence view and the extra-biblical view that is attached to the moral influence view to create the "larger view". It may be that many or most Adventists are not capable of advancing past their dependence upon Ellen White. Graham Maxwell and Gallagher are attempting to wean Adventists away from the more harmful elements of their traditional religious views. So I don't want to be too strenuous in my complaints. Because really, what does it matter what they think that angels are saying in heaven through history or if they think that the atonement is directed at angels also? It does not really change anything in regard to the atonement for human beings. Maybe it will have the benefit of helping people to see that you can't take everything Ellen White says as true also. My personal preference is to simply leave her out of the whole atonement theory argument. Because, frankly, it makes no sense that God wanted us to wait 1800 years for someone to really explain the atonement to us.

Fundamental belief as system of interpretation

 The Adventist church has a peculiar definition of fundamental. First, let's think about what Fundamental means: Merriam-Webster defines it as follows: 

1a: serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic

a fundamental truth/belief/concept

b : serving as an original or generating source

2a: of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts

Adventism however does not use the word in either of the first two definitions. In Adventism when they say fundamental beliefs they use the third definition, which Merriam-Webster defines as:

3: of central importance : principal

This is important to realize as it is far different from most other denominations. Most denominations' church creeds are concise summaries of faith used for centuries to articulate essential Christian beliefs. The most common are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, which serve as universal foundations across many denominations. Adventism on the other hand, has an extended list of beliefs. 1-10 are similar to the Creeds; then, to a large extent, the rest of the 28 Fundamental beliefs are systems of interpretation. This is where the Adventist church moves from Fundamental, meaning the basic essential structure, and into generating systems of interpretation and calling the entire interconnected system a primary or fundamental belief.

We see this most clearly when we compare the 1931 Fundamental Beliefs to the current Fundamental Beliefs.

13. That no prophetic period is given in the Bible to reach to the second advent, but that the longest one, the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14,terminated in 1844, and brought us to an event called the cleansing of the sanctuary.

14. That the true sanctuary, of which the tabernacle on earth was a type, is the temple of God in Heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8 and onward, and of which the Lord Jesus, as our great high priest, is minister; and that the priestly work of our Lord is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests of the former dispensation; that this heavenly sanctuary is the one to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14; its cleansing being, as in the type, a work of, judgment, beginning with the entrance of Christ as the high priest upon the judgment phase of His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary foreshadowed in the earthly service of cleansing the sanctuary on the day of atonement. This work of judgment in the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844. Its completion will close human probation.

15. That God, in the time of the judgment and in accordance with His uniform dealing with the human family in warning them of coming events vitally affecting their destiny (Amos 3:6, 7), sends forth a proclamation of the approach of the second advent of Christ;* that this work is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; and that their threefold message brings to view a work of reform to prepare a people to meet Him at His coming.

16. That the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, synchronizing with the period of the proclamation of the message of Revelation 14, is a time of investigative judgment, first with reference to the dead, and secondly, with reference to the living. This investigative judgment determines who of the myriads sleeping in the dust of the earth are worthy of a part in the first resurrection, and who of its living multitudes are worthy of translation. 1 Peter 4:17, 18; Dan. 7:9, 10; Rev. 14:6, 7; Luke 20:35.

These four 1931 Fundamental Beliefs (though each is clearly a system of interpretations, I will just use Fundamental Beliefs for our comparisons.) Were merged by the church from 4 statements into 2 statements in 1980.

There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension.

In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. In that typical service the sanctuary was cleansed with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the heavenly things are purified with the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Jesus.

The investigative judgment reveals to heavenly intelligences who among the dead are asleep in Christ and therefore, in Him, are deemed worthy to have part in the first resurrection. It also makes manifest who among the living are abiding in Christ, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and in Him, therefore, are ready for translation into His everlasting kingdom. This judgment vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of human probation before the Second Advent.

For clarity in explaining the systems of beliefs/interpretations, I asked Copilot to compare the components of the 1931 statement and the current statement. When we look at the components, it is easy to see why this so-called Fundamental Belief is so poorly understood, as it covers a tremendous amount of ideas, assumptions, and methods of interpretation. Even so, while I can use the term components, most of the components are built upon a lot of information and assumptions. For instance, why is cleansing of the sanctuary a term used when the verse in Daniel is actually “restored,” and what makes someone apply the Leviticus sanctuary atonement ceremony to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, or even why was the heavenly sanctuary even connected to the restored sanctuary in Danial and how was the supposed heavenly sanctuary desecrated to need restored. But for the ease of understanding, here are the components:

Belief 13 (1931)

Components:

1. No prophetic period reaches the Second Advent

2. 2300 days is the longest prophetic period

3. 2300 days ended in 1844

4. Event = cleansing of the sanctuary

5. Day year method (implied)

6. Historicist interpretation (implied)

Modern Statement:

• 2300 days ended in 1844 → explicit

• Cleansing of sanctuary → explicit

• Prophetic period does not reach Second Advent → implicit (not stated)

• Day year method → implicit

• Historicist method → implicit

Verdict: All doctrinal components remain, but interpretive methods are no longer spelled out.

Belief 14 (1931)

Components:

1. True sanctuary is in heaven

2. Earthly tabernacle was a type

3. Christ ministers there as High Priest

4. His ministry is antitype of Jewish priests

5. Heavenly sanctuary is cleansed at end of 2300 days

6. Cleansing = work of judgment

7. Christ entered judgment phase in 1844

8. Day of Atonement typology

9. Judgment began in 1844

10. Completion closes probation

Modern Statement:

• Heavenly sanctuary → explicit

• Earthly type / heavenly antitype → explicit

• Christ as High Priest → explicit

• Two phase ministry → explicit

• 1844 transition → explicit

• Investigative judgment → explicit

• Day of Atonement typology → explicit

• Completion closes probation → explicit

Verdict: Every component is present, and some are expanded (e.g., “ultimate disposition of sin,” “heavenly intelligences”).

Belief 15 (1931)

Components:

1. God sends a warning proclamation before the Advent

2. This follows His pattern of warning humanity

3. Symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14

4. Message brings reform

5. Reform prepares a people for Christ’s coming

Modern Statement:

These components are still SDA doctrine, but they are not in the sanctuary belief anymore.

They appear in:

• Fundamental Belief #13 – The Remnant and Its Mission (Three Angels’ Messages, reform, preparation, proclamation)

Verdict: All components remain in the SDA system, but they were moved out of the sanctuary doctrine.

Belief 16 (1931)

Components:

1. Cleansing of sanctuary coincides with Rev 14 proclamation

2. Time = investigative judgment

3. Judgment of dead

4. Judgment of living

5. Determines who is worthy of first resurrection

6. Determines who is worthy of translation

Modern Statement:

• Investigative judgment → explicit

• Judgment of dead → explicit

• Judgment of living → explicit

• First resurrection worthiness → explicit

• Translation worthiness → explicit

• Connection to Rev 14 → implicit (now placed in Belief #13)

1931 Component Category		Notes
Heavenly sanctuary		Fully preserved
Earthly type / heavenly antitype		Fully preserved
Christ’s high priestly ministry		Expanded
Two phase ministry		Explicit
1844 transition		Explicit
Investigative judgment		Expanded
Judgment of dead		Explicit
Judgment of living		Explicit
Day of Atonement typology		Explicit
Closing of probation		Explicit
Three Angels’ Messages		Moved to Belief #13
Reform / preparation		Moved
Warning proclamation		Moved
Day year principle		Implied, not stated
Historicist method		Implied, not stated
Prophetic periods not reaching Second Advent		Implied

All of these components are needed for the interpretation found in the Fundamental Belief 24. The interpretation does not survive intact if any one of its core components is removed. Some components are load-bearing, others are supportive—but the system is tightly interlocked.

The following are the “load-bearing " components the system cannot survive without:

1. Historicist method

2. Day year principle

3. 2300 days ending in 1844

4. Heavenly sanctuary typology

5. Investigative judgment

The “supportive but not load-bearing components that can be reinterpreted without destroying the system:

• judgment of dead → living sequence

• close of probation

• vindication of God’s justice

• heavenly intelligences observing

• three angels’ messages (now placed elsewhere)

These can be adjusted, nuanced, or reframed without breaking the core, but they are not needed for the core either; they seem to be used to make the load-bearing core seem more reasonable

The core is made of interpretive mechanisms:

• historicism

• day year principle

• 2300 years

• 457 BC → 1844

• heavenly sanctuary typology

• two-phase priesthood

• investigative judgment beginning in 1844

These are technical claims. They require:

• specific hermeneutics

• specific historical assumptions

• specific typological mappings

• specific chronological calculations

They are not emotionally compelling. They are not pastorally comforting. They are not intuitive. They are not simple.

They are complex, fragile, and highly dependent on each other.

2. The Supportive Components Are Pastoral, Ethical, and Devotional

These include:

• judgment of the dead

• judgment of the living

• vindication of God

• heavenly intelligences observing

• readiness for translation

• moral reform

• close of probation

• three angels’ messages

• loyalty to God

• justice of God

• preparation for Christ’s return

These are emotionally compelling. They feel spiritually meaningful. They feel morally serious. They feel devotional. They feel eschatologically urgent.

They make the doctrine feel:

• purposeful

• ethical

• relational

• cosmic

• pastoral

• relevant

They give the core existential weight.

3. The Supportive Components Make the Core Feel Reasonable

Without supportive components

The core looks like:

• a long prophetic math equation

• a typological chain

• a hermeneutical method

• a date (1844)

• a heavenly event no one can see

• a judgment no one can verify

It feels abstract, technical, and disconnected from lived faith.

With supportive components

Suddenly the core feels:

• pastoral (“God is judging to save, not condemn”)

• moral (“God vindicates justice”)

• relational (“Christ ministers for us”)

• eschatological (“probation will close”)

• urgent (“prepare for translation”)

• communal (“three angels’ messages”)

The supportive components wrap the core in meaning.

They make the core feel:

• necessary

• purposeful

• spiritually compelling

• emotionally resonant

• morally serious

• cosmically significant

They do not support the core structurally, but they support the core psychologically, rhetorically, and devotionally.

4. This Is Why the System Persists

Even if someone struggles with:

• the date

• the hermeneutics

• the typology

• the prophetic math

the supportive components give them reasons to stay connected to the doctrine.

The supportive components:

• make the doctrine feel like it explains the universe

• make the doctrine feel like it explains God’s justice

• make the doctrine feel like it explains salvation

• make the doctrine feel like it explains the end times

• make the doctrine feel like it explains human destiny

They give the core existential gravity. This is predominantly the method that most of those interviewed on Seeking what they Sought Sanctuary series spent most of their time on. In the summary video at 34:43 Sean says: “like just seeing the sanctuary become a heart matter more than just a theological thing to defend so that the Adventist church comes across as coherent, because it emphasized and it magnifies the goodness of God and because it magnifies the purpose of Jesus and the nature of sin and also forgiveness ...”

A person could get to the heart matter, the idea of God's goodness and forgiveness and righteousness, using many other Bible texts that don't require the manipulation and interconnected components that are the load-bearing components of the so-called Sanctuary Doctrine.

Every supportive component appears in Scripture independently of the Adventist sanctuary system:

• God judges the dead → Rev 20, Heb 9

• God judges the living → 1 Pet 4:17

• Close of probation → Matt 25, Rev 22:11

• Vindication of God’s justice → Rom 3:26

• Heavenly beings observing → 1 Cor 4:9, Job 1–2

• Moral reform and obedience → entire NT

• Preparation for Christ’s return → Matt 24–25

• Three Angels’ Messages → Rev 14 (interpreted differently by others)

• Translation of the living → 1 Thess 4:17

• First resurrection → Rev 20:4–6

• “God is love” — 1 John 4:8

• “His righteousness endures forever” — Ps. 111:3

• “The Lord is righteous in all His ways” — Ps. 145:17

• “The just shall live by faith” — Hab. 2:4

• “God so loved the world…” — John 3:16

None of these require:

• 1844

• the day year principle

• historicism

• the 2300 day calculation

• a two phase heavenly ministry

• the investigative judgment

• the cleansing of a heavenly sanctuary

They stand on their own in Scripture.

They are not dependent on the Adventist sanctuary doctrine.

God ripped from God and other nonsense

 As I referenced earlier in the Seeking What They Sought podcast of the Sanctuary Doctrine interview with Richard Davidson Part 2 there is a particularly strange part where Dr. Davidson says God made a covenant with God. I have snipped the section of the podcast below, which starts at around 38 minutes and runs for about 4 minutes. You can see that here

Transcripted edited for clarity starting at 37:50:

But the fact that Abraham is never mentioned here.

Yeah. He's put to sleep. And then there are two parties that walk between the a torch and a bowl of flame. Yes. And those two are mentioned, those same two words are mentioned later in Exodus 19, the Godhead who's on Mount Sinai. And so they act, and Ellen White is clear. The father and the son were both on the mountain there. And the we have throughout Genesis we have Yahweh, and then we have the angel of the Lord who comes, and when he comes as a messenger, he says I am Yahweh. So you have two Yahweh's throughout Genesis. And so and so the two Yahweh are walking the two light sources the two divine light sources are walking together through the pieces. And so the real covenant which we fail to look at too often it's not between God and us which we break so often. It's between God and God. Saying if we break I'm going to be faithful. May we be torn with God from God. If we break it. Wow. And so God is offering to have the self-destruction of the Godhead. . And that's exactly what happens because in Isaiah 53, it takes them it takes the same word here as the pieces and says that refers to Jesus. And then Psalm 22.

Wait, sorry. You're referencing the metaphor of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53. Yeah.

Isaiah 53, the suffering servant. And it talks about in his death and it says he will be cut off and uses the language of the pieces of Genesis 15. that he is the one that is he is the one that is u experiencing this covenant being broken. Wow. What happens then? Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where that is. Is this verse 8? Let's see. Oh, that he was cut off out of the land of the living. That part. Um just a minute here.

Let's go. while you're looking for that, I think just to describe to people that if they haven't already caught it, the crazy part about this is when God makes that covenant with Abram, I'm going to make you a great nation. It's wild because he's saying this is not dependent on like, I am going to be faithful. This is not dependent on you. which is a wild thing to so then when you carry this into the other sacrificial systems even though humans have a part to play there is a covenant that God makes with them later which is keep my law keep my covenant keep the things that I'm asking you to it always ends up getting applied back to God is God is the one who is faithful consistently that's right which is really and the word is yes in verse eight it's the word gezer which is the same word in [clears throat] Genesis 15 verse 17 to describe the pieces Wow. And so then you go to the cross and you get the capstone on this when Jesus on the cross, the sins of the world have just separated him from God. And he cries out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" It happens. God has cut from God. He's ripped from God. And they feel that he feels the eternal separation that the that those who aren't saved are going to keep are going to experience for eternity. So, so for me when I talk about covenants, I always go to this text first because it shows that the covenant is ultimately between the father and the son, not between him and him and his people. And so that will never fail.

I encourage you to look at the original podcast or my snipped portion because there are interjections that make the transcript somewhat difficult to follow. But as Davidson ends the covenant is ultimately between the Father and the Son. What covenant you ask? Well the real and most important covenant that we fail to see is between God and God! You likely then again ask, what is that covenant that is so important and is not stated at all?

Let us refresh our memories about Genesis chapter 15. It is summed up here.

“The covenant with Abram in Genesis 15 employs גֶּזֶר to establish an immutable promise grounded in divine initiative. God alone walks between the severed pieces, demonstrating unilateral commitment. The severing underscores the certainty that God will fulfill land, seed, and blessing promises (Genesis 15:18–21). Later prophetic literature echoes this ritual language when indicting covenant breakers (Jeremiah 34:18–20), showing that the meaning attached to גֶּזֶר became a juridical touchstone for covenant faithfulness. “ https://biblehub.com/hebrew/1506.htm

,

My previous blog showed that in EllenWhites version of Genesis 15 Abram was part of the covenant ceremony, though it was not mentioned in the actual Gen. 15 story from the Bible. Davidson probably realizes he is disagreeing with the Adventist prophet, so earlier at the beginning of minute 37 he says:

“...He cuts them in two, places them beside each other and then there's no mention of his walking in between. Interestingly, I mean, he may have done that, but that's not the point of the story.”

The only reason to say that Abram might have walked between the cut animal parts is that Ellen White says Abram did walk between and made a covenant with God. Of course, since the whole point of the story was for God to confirm to Abram his promise, Davidson is correct that the point of the story is not about Abram doing something that he did not do in the Bible story.

Now, the idea that God, who according to the Bible is ONE, made a covenant with another God is certainly problematic.

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is One."

Listening to Davidson is quite torturous as he tries to equate the use of the same Hebrew words as his connecting points. Yes, smoke and fire are seen moving through the severed animals of the covenant, and smoke and fire are present upon Mt. Sinai because they are very often used as symbols for the presence of God

There are roughly 7,000 to 8,400 unique words (or roots) in ancient Biblical Hebrew, so it is very common to see them used in all types of stories, situations, and contexts. It is not an impressive connection; it is a necessity of a limited language. The total English vocabulary is more than 1 million words, and a common daily English usage is 170,000 words

Davidson presents his key Hebrew word connections between Gen 15 and Isa 53

H1506 גֶּזֶר gezer (gheh'-zer) n-m.

1. something cut off.

2. a portion.

[from H1504]

KJV: part, piece.

Root(s): H1504

So the two halves of an animal cut apart do not mean that in Isa 53 it has the same meaning.

H1504 גָּזַר gazar (gaw-zar') v.

1. to cut down or off.

2. (figuratively) to destroy, divide, exclude, or decide.

[a primitive root]

KJV: cut down (off), decree, divide, snatch.

Isa 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;

and as for his generation, who considered

that he was cut off out of the land of the living,

stricken for the transgression of my people?

Here, Davidson thinks that being cut off from the land of the living is to be cut off from God, but Jesus is God, so how does God rip Himself apart? Well, that is because Davidson takes Psalm 22 out of its context of a Psalm that speaks of tribulation to triumph and assumes that the first line of the psalm My God My God why have you forsaken me, to not be how the psalm was identified to people before there ever were chapter and verses, but that it must mean God and the Godhead were broken apart. Why would God be separated from God? The only reason Davidson gives is that Jesus would know what it was like to be eternally separated from God for all eternity. Which was only a couple of days, and Jesus raised Himself from the grave as He said He would do. So Jesus still had the power of God to raise Himself from the dead, but He was ripped apart from God, who Jesus is, in fact God. Do people like Davidson even contemplate that the dead know nothing, they don't feel anything, no shame, no remorse, no worms eating their flesh? Being dead is the same as being eternally separated from God. The reason Christians don't fear death is that they know the author of Life (see Acts 3:15, Jesus as the author of life) can raise them from the dead, so death is not their end. But Jesus knew He would rise again, He told others He would rise again, and He even promised another being crucified with Him that they would be together in Paradise.

There was no reason for the Crucifixion to separate the Godhead. Jesus was guilty of no sin. He did not die the second death because He had not even died the first death, and the very definition of second death is no resurrection from that death (Revelation 20:14-15). Jesus did not suffer the wrath of God because Jesus is God and God had no wrath for Jesus. There is not even one New Testament verse that tells us Jesus paid a penalty. Jesus life, death, and resurrection were God's plan for reconciliation with mankind. That is what atonement is all about: the mercy of God that forgives and reconciles man back to God.

So Dr. Davidson has given us a view of God that is not sustainable. It denies who God is and, with his strange interpretation, claims that the Godhead was ripped apart even after God confirms a covenant between the Godhead that he never tells us what that covenant is, only that if they break it the Godhead will be ripped apart, and then Dr. Davidson tells us that the Godhead in fact was ripped apart. So, God did not even keep his covenant with Himself; it is too confusing and completely unnecessary unless one is trying to form a theology based upon some extra-biblical authority.

That Dr. Davidson is an SDA professor and the 2 people interviewing him are SDA pastors should serve as a warning to every Adventist member. Your  University schools are corrupt, and your theology is incredibly faulty.

When your theology professors are not very good

 Before I go on to recount how Richard Davidson thinks that the Gen. 15 account of God walking between the sacrificed animals is somehow actually a covenant between the Godhead, e.g. God the Father and Jesus Christ pre-incarnation. I thought it would be good to point out his technique of interpretation of the Bible.

  In The Sanctuary Doctrine | Richard Davidson (Part 3) podcast with an interview of Richard Davidson an Andrews University professor. We have these interesting quotes.

Quote: 40:09 Here's Lucifer and he's not allowed to enter into the councils of divinity. And so this jealousy arises. He considers that God is not fair. And so then comes the other Hebrew word in Ezekiel 28 where it says that he was filled with recula which means um (interviewers: is that the violence) no he it it means to let me look let's go to Ezekiel 28. I don't want to speak out of turn here. I get the wrong term. I'll look it up here. Okay. So yes, oh yeah, recula. It is right. If the other word was avala, that means injustice. And then he's filled with reculah, which is slander. And he begins to slander God. Going around from one angel to another saying God can't really be trusted. And so the whole great controversy starts over who can you trust? Can you trust God or not?

Now to clarify he is using Ezk. 28 which says nothing of Lucifer, which is the mistranslation from Is. 14

Ezk. 28:15 You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, till unrighteousness was found in you. 16 In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned; So he is giving the Hebrew for Violence ESV

Mickelson's Enhanced Strong's Dictionaries of the Greek and Hebrew Testaments
H7404 רְכֻלָּה rkullah (rek-ool-law') n-f. trade (as peddled). [feminine passive participle of H7402] KJV: merchandise, traffic.

Root(s): H7402 The word used according to lexicon is: H2555 חָמָס chamac (chaw-mawce') n-m. 1. violence. 2. (by implication) wrong. 3. (by meton.) unjust gain. [from H2554]

KJV: cruel(-ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.

Root(s): H2554

So here he completely takes the verse out of the context of Ezek 28:12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: “You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. And asserts it to Satan aka Lucifer, and the"trade" becomes slander going to angel to angel with the slander.

Then he later ends with:

I can put this whole thing that I just told you without mentioning Ellen White once. It's not all in Ezekiel 28. You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. And it's all there in the text. And so one of my favorite things to do is to show from the biblical text. Here is the narrative. And then I say, have you ever heard that somewhere else?

If you're an Adventist, that's what Ellen White says. But I didn't get anything from Ellen White. I'm getting it all from here. And so I don't deny that Ellen White is a prophet. And I don't deny that she had visions and filled in gaps that we may not find explicit in scripture. But I haven't been let down yet that the major contours of what we say about the great controversy and other topics are there in scripture. We've been the lazy ones not to dig them out. And Ellen White herself said, "If you had only studied the scripture like you should have, you wouldn't have needed me." Right? 44:53

He can only make it fit by inserting extra biblical authority into the Bible, in this case a heavy dose of Tradition and John Milton popularization, and this is an Andrews University Theology professor! I get the impression that some do not think the Lucifer Myth is a big deal, but it is; it is the foundation of Ellen Whites Great Controversy theme. And here is an Andrews University professor who seems to think that inserting Satan into Is 14 and Ezk 28 is consistent, yet there is absolutely no hermeneutic method that allows for this. Maybe if somewhere else in Scripture it said those things, you could say they were a foreshadowing in those chapters in Isaiah and Ezekiel. But since the Bible does not give us that, it is just a ploy to support an extra-biblical presumed prophet. Which is one of the reasons that a vast amount of Biblical scholarship rejects what I call the Lucifer Myth.

But that is not all he said. Consider the usage of Proverbs 8 here:

 You got to go to also to to uh Proverbs chapter 8 where I can show you from scripture that that the son of God who was divine, who was called wisdom existed from the beginning and he was he was given a new office of a mediator mediating between divinity and human between infinity and finitude. 

That sounds pretty bold, but there are at least 6 views on Proverbs 8, and the idea that Christ is given a new office is not one of them; it is also very difficult to get that from Proverbs 8. It would be far easier to assert the Arian view than the new office view. Here is a summary of the main views:

While Proverbs 8 is most universally read as a poem celebrating and personifying wisdom, there are several distinct and rich interpretations regarding who or what Wisdom actually represents. Because biblical poetry is highly artistic, "Lady Wisdom" is not a technical definition but a multifaceted symbol that has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. [1, 2, 3]

The main interpretations of this chapter include:

1. The Theological Interpretation: God’s Wisdom in Creation

In this view, Wisdom is a literary personification of God’s own attribute of order, intelligence, and skill. The passage describes how God used divine wisdom to design the cosmos—making it the "master workman" (or architect) alongside God at the beginning of time. Under this interpretation, Proverbs 8 teaches that the universe is not random; it was created with a logical, moral, and functional design. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

2. The Christological Interpretation: Jesus Christ

This is a prominent view within Christian theology, particularly in the early church. Because the New Testament (such as in 1 Corinthians 1:24) directly identifies Jesus as the "wisdom of God," early church fathers and theologians interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative and prophetic depiction of God the Son. In this view, Christ existed in eternity past and was the active agent alongside the Father in the creation of the world. [1, 2]

3. The Controversial Arian View: Wisdom as a "Created" Being

This specific interpretation stems from Proverbs 8:22, which reads in some translations (like the Greek Septuagint): “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work.” In the third century, a theologian named Arius used this verse to argue that if Jesus is the wisdom of God, and wisdom was created, then Jesus cannot be eternal and is not fully God. This view was later formally declared a heresy by the Council of Nicaea, which established that the verse refers to the "begetting" or "possessing" of an eternal attribute, not a literal creation event in time. [1, 2, 3]

4. The Pneumatological Interpretation: The Holy Spirit

Some Jewish and Christian scholars have interpreted Lady Wisdom as a figurative expression of the Holy Spirit. Similar to the Holy Spirit, Wisdom is described as being poured out on humanity. She breathes life, truth, and conviction into people, guiding them away from folly and into alignment with God's will. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

5. The Anthropological / Practical Interpretation: The "Art of Living"

Many secular and modern theological commentators treat the personification of Wisdom purely as a highly effective pedagogical tool. In this view, Solomon is writing to "his son" to instill practical, ethical, and social "know-how". Personifying Wisdom as an attractive, noble woman calling out in the city gates contrasts with the seductive "Adulterous Woman" of Proverbs 7. Here, the chapter is a practical call to choose the path of life, justice, and prudence over the destructive path of foolishness. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

6. The Comparative Near Eastern Interpretation: Ma'at

From a historical and academic perspective, some biblical historians note that Proverbs 8 shares striking parallels with ancient Egyptian literature. In Egypt, there was a goddess named Ma'at, who represented the cosmic order, truth, and right judgment. These scholars suggest the authors of Proverbs may have used the well-known ancient literary motif of a divine, feminine figure of order to explain God's wisdom to an audience familiar with surrounding Near Eastern cultures. [1, 2, 3, 4]

---