WHY AN INVESTIGATIVE JUDGEMENT, AND WHEN?

gillespie9669

INTRODUCTION

By the term, Investigative Judgment" I mean the time appointed (Acts 17:31) in which God will judge the world by Christ Jesus, and there will be an examination of the record of ALL lives (past and present) before eternal destinies are sealed. Of COURSE THIS EXAMINATION IS NOT TO INFORM THE OMNISCIENT GOD, BUT SIMPLY DONE SO THAT HE CAN BE DEEMED FAIR IN THE EYES OF THE UNIVERSE (e.g. onlooking angels in Heaven).
The word "judgment" means both an examination of cases, as well as the execution of justice, and the two should not be confused. Evidently God has a time appointed for both however. My purpose in this thread is to talk about the investigation phase of Judgment.

When does the "Investigative Judgement" take place?
The Bible is clear- IT MUST BE BEFORE JESUS COMES!! Why? Because the Bible itself says so, and implies it in several ways:

Quote:

*Rev. 22:12- Jesus said, "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be"!!

Now it is absolutely logical that if when Jesus comes, his reward for EVERY MAN will be WITH HIM ( "IS with" Him), then the conclusion is inescapable that the decisions regarding the nature of the rewards must be taken BEFORE He comes the second time.
If as Malachi 3:16 says,

Quote:

"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name"

then it stands to reason that God has records of the lives of people on earth, so that the rewards will be based upon the IINVESTIGATION of the records. See also Rev. 20:12, where it is clear that both the good and bad have a record of their lives.

Now this raises another pertinent question, If Jesus has His rewards with Him at His second coming, does that mean that ALL (both good and bad) must receive their reward at that precise moment? Not necessarily, and in fact, the Bible speaks directly to the issue in stating that the wicked will receive their eternal reward AFTER the Second Coming, that is, AFTER the "thousand years" (millenium), when they will be resurrected to be gathered before the great white throne of God, and to have their sentences passed on them based on the Books. See Rev. 20:4-15. This must be another phase of God's Judgement, since all investigation must have taken place BEFORE Jesus returned the second time with the rewards for all. So why is there the reviewing of the Books again in Rev. 20:11-15? Simply because God must APPEAR to be just in the eyes of all looking on, even the lost soul himself wants to know why he is lost, so the Books are opened to show why the lost were never transported to Heaven at Jesus' Second Coming.

To be left behind would have been the clear signal that you are not among the saved, because 1 Thess. 4:16, 17 makes it very clear only the save leave the earth at this time. Interestingly, the wicked would, in a sense, start to receive their rewards at Jesus' coming, by not being raised in the first resurrection, or (for those still alive) by being changed in a moment, and transported to glory. However, only the living wicked would have been conscious of their eternal loss at that moment, but they would still have to wait another thousand years to face the great "white throne" judgement, to hear the records of their lives, and be separated from God eternally. Simple reason being that the "brightness" of Jesus', second coming immediately slays the living wicked (see proof in 2 Thess. 2: 8) The wicked dead at Jesus second coming would have been unconscious of that fact until they are raised after the "thousand years" to then receive their rewards. This would be the "executive" (passing sentences) phase of God's judgment on the lost!

Now let me hasten to say that since it is clear that the "investigative" phase of God's judgement must take place before Jesus' Coming, then it is easy to see the relevance of Rev. 14:6, 7 announcing a specific time when this "investigative judgement" IS COME, OR IS HERE. SDAs believe that Bible prophecy gives the exact year when this "investigative judgement" started (that is, in 1844), a judgement phase so critical that a warning meesage is symbolically rushed by an "angel", a messenger, or movement on earth, if you like, to declare it is here, just BEFORE Jesus comes. That's why the year 1844 is so important in Adventist prophetic understanding.

Now let us revise what was said so far. The term "investigative judgement" (an expression coined for convenient labelling) must take place BEFORE Jesus comes the second time. The "executive" (passing sentence) phase of the judgement on the lost will climax after the "thousand years" are finished. I then introduced the year 1844, as being the year that SDAs believe the "investigative" phase of God's judgement began in Heaven, but I DID NOT SHOW WHY THIS YEAR WAS SEEN AS BIBLICAL. Now, the purpose of this thread is to show, in basic terms why this revealed year (as SDAs believe) is Biblical.

Now, let us be general first, then specific.Can we have an idea of the general periop when God's "investigative judgement" will begin, or, better yet, began in Heaven? Yes we can! Notice the words of Revelation 11:18, 19:

Nicolas · Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 11:34 pm Post subject:

Hi Derrick,

Thank you for your insight. I have read the whole thread with much blessing and encouragement. Indeed we are living in the pre-advent Investigative Judgment. The term "investigative judgment' was first coined by James White and H. Douglass informed us that the second descriptive term namely "pre-advent judgment" was first used by Edward Heppenstall.

I remember reading much materials some years ago from Roy Allan Anderson, Sutton and John Grosboll concerning the immediate context of 1844 in close association with the wrath of the nations.

I will be to you as soon as I gleaned the materials.

God Bless You.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:40 am Post subject:

As promised, here is an outline of the significance of Yom Kippur and the significance of 1844 as the year of Judgment beginning in Heaven. I will deal with the specific points later in greater detail. Sorry if this post is a little long.

A WORK OF JUDGMENT (AN OVERVIEW)

gillespie9669

Here are over a dozen challenges to the truly Biblical Adventist, who must, like the "Berean", prove all things, and be ready to give a reason for his faith and beliefs. These were gleaned from a web page on-line, and should serve as a good test paper for me to demonstrate the validity of the "1844" date, and the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:24 am Post subject: This is good stuff

An older thread in this forum contains more poignant questions on these issues. But since the author of this new thread is running so fast as he presents the traditional views on which the "investigative judgment" theology is based, perhaps it would be a good idea for me to ask a few simple questions about the material presented so far. It is not my purpose, of course, to deny the existence of a pre-Advent judgment, as that is orthodox Bible doctrine. I would like some clarification regarding the more obscure aspects of this interesting theory we are being presented with.

1. Quotations from Jewish authorities are undoubtedly interesting. Naturally, Christians no longer derive their Bible understanding from the opinions, no matter how reputed, of Jewish rabbis, but rather from the Bible itself. For example, to this day the very same rabbis quoted by Mr Gillespie will probably deny the messianic import for certain key OT passages. I'm convinced that Mr Gillespie would never think of quoting such "authorities" to settle messianic matters, so perhaps two questions would be pertinent in this context. The first question is, "Is there Bible evidence that yom kippur is, indeed, a 'day of judgment?' Should this question be answered negatively, the second question would be "Why quote Jewish 'authorities' to prove a point that cannot be proven by the Bible alone?"

2. We know, from the rituals of yom kippur, that the Israelite tabernacle was indeed "purified" once a year, on the tenth day of Tishri. However, we know, from 2 Chronicles 29, that occasionally the sanctuary underwent other purification procedures with no relationship whatsoever with yom kippur, and on dates quite apart from the tenth of Tishri. Particularly, such procedures were related to restoring the sacred services when they had been neglected. In the context of Daniel 8:14 it would appear that the prophet is specifically speaking of neglect and desecration of the temple. If so, and since no reference seems to be made anywhere in Daniel to yom kippur, a question comes to mind. "Would it be wrong to suppose that the prophet is not speaking of the ritual of yom kippur at all, but rather of the restoration of the temple services after a period of neglect or sacrilege?" If so, why exactly would that be wrong?

3. The inference is made that, just as the earthly sanctuary had the yearly necessity of being purified by the yom kippur ritual, the heavenly sanctuary, mentioned in Hebrews, also needs a similar work of "purification". The base for this idea, obviously, is that the heavenly sanctuary is polluted by the confessed sins of God's children and the application of Christ's blood on them and/or the sanctuary itself. Is there a clear biblical passage that teaches that the confessed sins of God's children or the application of atoning blood defiled the earthly sanctuary? Where is that passage? Further, is there any reference whatsoever in the Bible that indicates that some time in the future after the close of the NT canon, it would be necessary to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary? Don't say it's Hebrews 9:23, since the context of 9:23 is speaking of past events, not future events. Besides, the verb katharizo, employed in the passage need not mean anything related to cleaning unclean things; it can simply mean "inaugurate" or "purify" (see the Septuagint for Exo.29:36,37; Lev.8:15; Eze.43:26). If there is such a passage, where is it?

4. In Daniel 9:25 and its context, reference seems to be made at least to two people. One of them was an anointed individual. The other is an enemy power. The surmise is made that the anointed individual is the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Why is it that the Hebrew lacks a definite article here? Further, who is it that confirms a covenant with many for half a week, the anointed individual or the enemy prince? Hebrew grammar would seem to suggest the latter. Please, indicate why we should think that it is the anointed individual and that the anointed individual is Jesus Christ. Further, does anything happen in the middle of the week at all, or rather for half a week? And who is it that causes the sacrifice to be interrupted the anointed individual or the enemy prince?

5. Beginning the calculation backward from the cross appears a little odd, but let it be so. Several questions come to mind. The first one is what is the sort of biblical proof that the crucifixion took place in AD 31 and not, say, in AD 30? What is the sort of biblical proof that Jesus's ministry lasted for three and a half years exactly? I know about the feasts in the fourth gospel, but then again, the synoptics seem to portray a different picture. I'm not saying that the fourth gospel is wrong. I'm simply saying that there might be different alternatives to explain the data we have. How do we know that the theory that Jesus's ministry lasted for three and a half years exactly is the right one? Further, how do we know that Stephen was martyred in AD 34 and not at any other date? Where exactly does the Bible give such a date?

6. Going back from the crucifixion we get, supposedly, to 457 BC, during the reign of Artaxerxes I. However, counting backward from the crucifixion, there should be a date "before" that, namely, 408 BC. What exactly is supposed to have taken place at that time and what is the biblical (or, if you will, archaeological) proof that that unknown event did indeed take place in 408 BC?

7. When, by the device of counting backward from the crucifixion we reach 457 BC we find ourselves in the reign of Artaxerxes I, almost certainly the king mentioned in Ezra 6:14. We know that Artaxerxes I had something to do with the rebuilding of part of Jerusalem, for it was him who authorized Nehemiah, around 444 BC, to rebuild the city wall. However, the calculations we've been following don't take us to 444 BC, but rather to 457 BC, don't they? If so, what command to restore Jerusalem was issued in 457 BC? Where is the evidence of such a royal decree? By the way, what was the architectural situation of Jerusalem immediately before 457? Did it lay in ruins, or had it already been rebuilt? If it had been rebuilt already, as indicated by the prophets Hagai and Zechariah, what exactly did Artaxerxes order in 457 related to the rebuilding of Jerusalem?

8. On the "year-day" principle, traditionally ascribed to a text in Ezekiel and another one in the Pentateuch, we see the following. In the latter, 40 past days of scouting in the Promised Land stand, because of disobedience, for 40 future years of pilgrimage. In the case of Ezekiel, however, we have a past number of years of disobedience as being represented by an ongoing or future number of days. But the "year-day" principle is nothing like this. The "year-day" principle states that, in prophecy, a future day is to be interpreted as a future year. Where exactly do we find this wonderful principle in God's word?

9. How is it exactly that although the word "day" does not appear in the text of Daniel 8:14 or its context, "the expression 'evenings [and] mornings' ... clearly warrant[s]" the translation "days", taking into account that the person who says so does not want us to interpret days at all (like, say, in Genesis, where "days" made up by evenings and mornings are rightly interpreted as lasting 24 hours, not one year)? Where is the Bible evidence that, in prophecy, one evening plus one morning equals one "prophetic" day that must in turn be interpreted as one year?

10. Lastly, how exactly can we conclude that the desecration mentioned in Dan.8:14 and its context lasted for many centuries?

That should be all for now.

Please, someone answer these very pertinent questions. Thank you.

gillespie9669

Please see my responses to Eduardo in another thread by clicking this link http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=537&start;=45, which should indicate why he will NOT be responded to by me here, or anywhere else in this forum, now and forever for that matter. I will continue my trend of arguments without his questions being added to the list. Not again. Sorry
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:00 am Post subject: Denial

No, Mr. Gillespie, you have entirely failed to answer any of my questions in the thread that you mention. And now you have the nerve of refusing to answer these very pertinent questions! Really, what kind of a teacher are you? When posed a definitely stated question, a teacher may either:

1. give the answer if he has the necessary knowledge. Of course, if he has the knowledge he will avoid at all costs answering to something that was not asked. He will give a specific answer to the specific question that was asked. Or he will

2. say he doesn't know how to answer at that juncture. If so, he may go to a book, look up the answer and then give that answer in the next class period. Or he will

3. pretend that the student is stupid and does not deserve an answer.

The first two cases apply to an honest teacher. The latter would be typical of an incompetent and dishonest teacher, for even stupid students can ask pertinent questions from time to time.

I take it for granted you are an incompetent and dishonest teacher of what looks very much like fraud and falsehood, so I don't expect any honest answers from you. Take into account, however, that your prospective clientele will possibly reach exactly the same conclusion I have reached and will know the "quality" of the "knowledge" being imparted.

Shame on you!

gillespie9669 · Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 5:42 am Post subject:

Thanks Eduardo. Now get a grip, get over yourself, and realise that you need to go elsewhere where your obsessive need for controversy will be adequately met. Are you so hung up on proving others not just wrong, but also inadequate? You now sound pathetic, as you now even sink to the level of "name calling" (playing upon your new found knowledge about my profession as a lecturer/teacher), and that coming after proceeding to publicly gloat over your self-perceived intellectual "victory" over the dumb and ignorant on this site. I do think you need to get down on your knees and have a better view of the cross, and about love, and brotherly kindness, and about HUMILITY which comes with true knowledge. I WILL REMAIN SILENT JUST LIKE JESUS WHEN BROUGHT AS A LAMB TO THE SLAUGHTER!! Do your next best.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:59 am Post subject:

Please, Mr Gillespie, don't flatter yourself imagining your position is similar to Christ's on occasion of his trial. Admittedly, one could remain mute when speech would serve no purpose in face of manifest injustice. However, we all know that, more often than not, his opposers were forced to silence before Jesus's wise words. Now I would never think of comparing myself with Christ. I always try to be the closest thing resembling a disciple, all too aware of my inadequacy. I also try to do my homework as far as studying the Bible goes. However, since I am an erring human, I may well be mistaken. Then, again, so may those who think themselves in the possession of "present truth." So I simply ask questions, relevant questions, for mutual clarification.

I am convinced that you will never answer my questions. But that has nothing to do whatsoever with my attitude, for my attitude to you has always been much more courteous than yours to me, sir. From the very beginning, even recognized in a private post to me, you were the one who mastered in name-calling, comparing me to the devil repeatedly. Why? Because of my evil actions? That can never be. Perhaps I am not a saint, but since you don't know me, you don't really know. I haven't called you names, sir. I don't know you either, so I have no reason whatever to imagine you are the devil. I don't think you are the devil or anything resembling the devil. I do think you are one deluded soul wishing to teach others what you don't know. The reasons for my belief, and expression thereof, are manifest. Your unwillingness to answer derives not so much from your disgust of my person, as from your possibly unconscious inability to give satisfaction to any of my questions. Most readers in this forum must be aware of that by now.

As for gloating over a presumed victory, nothing could be further from the truth. My purpose in starting the other thread was to contribute to spread truth and counteract error. Although perhaps you can't entirely avoid it, I don't suppose you feel enthusiastic about the spread of erroneous views by the Mormons or the "Jehovah's Witnesses." Perhaps you even try to counteract the promotion of their false theories. That would be very understandable. If you did that, however, you might encounter one of the members of those sects who might tell you that they absolutely refused to give satisfaction to any of your considerations, as you were the devil, etc. You see what I'm getting at, don't you? Such an attitude on their part wouldn't convince you (or anybody, for that matter) that they were remaining silent because they were as meek as Jesus. No, sir, you would think, and rightly so, that such an escape is the last recourse for individuals for highly sectarian mind sets.

Although sectarianism can usually be perceived pretty soon, one should always try initially to reach out for those trapped in its web of deceit. Sometimes miracles do happen. Naturally, as you know well from experience in both ends, it is impossible to maintain the effort against impossible odds indefinitely, so one has to interrupt it.

You and I know that I haven't maintained a sectarian attitude toward you: Not only did I present in a detailed manner my more general thoughts on this matter, but I also answered honestly all the questions that I was asked until I posed my own questions to others, which happen to be more poignant than the ones I was asked. Their poignancy probably comes from my own experience as a lecturer in Theology in one of our Colleges. In spite of that experience, I've been the only one in the whole thread that has admitted the possibility of being mistaken.

As said, all efforts must sooner or later come to an end, so I'll be closing my correspondence with you, to your relief, indefinitely. You have my email. Should you ever be willing to contact me at any time, I'll be glad to do whatever I can to help. I part without any hard feelings wishing you the very best in your personal life and ministry. So, I'll continue watching the other thread just in case someone is willing to answer my questions. For as long as those questions are not answered, I will also endeavour moderately to counteract the presence of fables in our denominational beliefs.

Don't feel obliged to answer anything to this, my last message to you.

May the Lord bless you all.

gillespie9669

As I promised, before being "ambushed", distracted, and "tongue lashed", I will be continuing (God help me) with my discourse on the topic-- "Why an Investigative Judgment, and When?". I will, however, continue ONLY by directly addressing the "classic" objections I originally raised (and any other along the way which comes from sincere readers of this thread; NOT THOSE SEEKING TO HIGHLIGHT MY STUPIDITY OR INADEQUACY, BUT ONLY FROM HUMBLE, AND RESPECTFUL STUDENTS OF THE WORD). Please look out for my continued posting on this thread soon (whether the detractor [s] return to harass or not). God bless.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

gillespie9669

In my last real post on the topic (Part 1) I closed by saying:

gillespie9669

WHY THE DAY/YEAR PRINCIPLE IS VALID IN DANIEL 8: 14?

In fairness to the opposition, let me first say that it does appear that on the surface the original and literal language of Daniel 8:14 does not completely forbid the application to literal days, thus equaling literally a few years. No laws of exegesis, not much (it would seem) in the language itself, could be regarded as violated, if such an interpretation were given to the language, and so far as this point (literal language translation) is concerned, there would be little room for debate (if that was the only consideration). But the same remark may be made as to the symbolic application of the language - taking it for a much longer period than literally the number of days in the text itself; that is, regarding each day as standing for a year. This could not be shown to be a violation of prophetic usage either, or to be forbidden by the nature of prophetic language, because nothing is more common than symbols. Obviously though, ONLY ONE APPLICATION IS BEST APPLIED TO FIT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PROPHECY, and it seems more judicious to apply the day/year principle for the following reasons:

(a) Recognizing that when the elements of the vision were first presented (i.e. before their later angelic explanation) the time aspect is best translated as literal days (from the Hebrew text), this however does not make null and void the following consideration. It is the fact that, in the prophecies, it is not unusual to designate the time symbolically. Although a few instances can be referred to in which this is not done, prophetic time is commonly represented by some symbol; some mark; some peculiarity of the time or age referred to.

(b) The designation of time in Daniel 8:14 occurs in the midst of symbols - where all is symbolic language - the beasts, the horns, the little horn, and the trampling, and casting down of truth, God’s people and the place of God’s sanctuary by such a power, etc.; and it would seem to be much more probable that the symbolic method would be adopted as designating the time referred to than a literal method.

(c) It is quite apparent (as pointed out earlier) that the events in the ENTIRE VISION do actually extend far into the future - far beyond what would be denoted by the brief period of just a few years. And certainly it is dishonest to say that if Antiochus was close enough to fulfilling the time prophecies (if the literal days are counted and applied, i.e. 2300 literal days, or literally half of that period) then he fulfilled the prophecy. That is like saying God did not get His predictive math spot-on, or exactly right, and must be ‘helped out’ by the liberal interpreters. THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE STANDARDS OF THIS BIBLE STUDENT!! If the glove doesn’t fit…

Let us now explore the weaknesses in the application to just literal days, and why the day/year principle perfectly fits the time part of the prophecy better, and thus demands a better reception.

THE “EVENING-MORNING” EXPRESSION

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:29 am Post subject: MORE ON THE OBJECTIONS TO 1844

WHAT'S IT ABOUT ALL THIS SANCTUARY "CLEANSING"?

At this point, let's now return to the "classic objections" I have not yet responded to directly, and analyse carefully a few more. The challenges assert that:

gillespie9669 · Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:26 am Post subject:

WAS THE START OF 2300 YEARS 444B.C. OR 457 B.C.? - Part 1

Introduction

In my last post I made the crucial point: