MAY 1 2 1980 Andrews University Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104 (616) 471-7771 Theological Seminary May 8, 1980, Dr. Richard Hammill, Vice President General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists 6840 Eastern Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20012 Dear Dr. Hammill: ‘Thank you for sending me chapter III of Des Ford's manuscript. I have been away for several days and so my reply is late this time. My reaction can be stated briefly: 1. The chapter seems in general to be stronger than the previous ones. The tone is less polemical and we find less tendency to appeal to secondary writings for support. I commend Des for these changes and hope that the whole work at the end may reflect these changes of literary presentation. I would urge that, where passages are disputed and capable of more than one interpretation, he present the material from more of a "neutral" stance, avoiding polemics. I would further urge that Des in his presentation try to bring out more sharply continuities between his ideas and what might be considered "traditional" SDA understandings. I am not suggesting that Des try to conceal his positions from the reader; rather, that the reader be led, as it were, from the known to the unknown. Sometimes Des seems to adopt shock tactics--a good way to arouse interest and possibly an effective means of gaining the attention of scholars, but poor psychologically for the average reader. These observations apply principally to chapters I and II; the third chapter is noticeably improved. 2. The chapter is also stronger in its argumentative force. Its chief value, in my judgment, is in its clear and persuasive account of the principal theological problems which we as SDAs must face in our distinctive eschatology: a. The weakness of traditional arguments for the year-day principle.| ih 2 The contextual problems associated with Dan. 8:14. c. The difficulties in moving from the restoration of the sanctuary (Dan. 8:14) to the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. The difficulty of reconciling the view of the Investigative Judgment as examination of the saints with the biblical concept of Judgment and of God as Judge. e. The problem of reconciling the NT view of the imminence of the Parousia with predictive prophecy--especially as that points much beyond the first century AD. In this chapter, Des forces us to confront these problems. Taken individually, they are difficult; seen collectively, they are formidable. 3. The constructive parts of the chapter are less convincing than the analytical ones--it is easier to criticize than to construct! Des acknowledges that his efforts are tentative and we should critique them as such, Even so, several questions call for some sort of response: a. Does Des' hermeneutic in effect demolish the predictive element of the Scripturés? Do we not rather have patterns of good and evil, filled in with new characters and movements from age to age? What happens to the lordship of God over, time? Does not God somehow retreat from the arena and becone limited by human incompetence and failure? Can the Parousia be delayed in- definitely?--if already 1900 years late, why not another 2,000 years? Where now is God, Sovereign Ruler of the universe? Will the biblical concept of God permit such a view? Did anything “heavenly” happen in 1844? Is there an “objectivity” about the date (i.e. something beyond what people on earth may understand or do)? What of the NT passages which speak of the saints giving account before the judgment-bar of God (justified or condemned by our words, etc.)? How do they accord with the concept of Judgment as vindication? Des has covered a great deal of material in chapter III. He is thoroughly at home in it, no doubt because he has reflected on it over many years. The problems he has highlighted, it seems to me, are of a magnitude that we as a Committee cannot hope to solve in the limited time at our disposal. Rather, we should discuss how adequate is Des! attempted resolution of these problems. Sincerely yours, But, William G. Johnsson, Associate Dean