FORD AND WEBER DIALOGUE

Section V: Weber back to Ford

You indeed will have the last word, Des, but first I've got to respond to several points you
raised that we haven't yet sufficiently discussed.

To begin, regarding 457 B.C. as fulfilling Daniel 9's prophecy: confusion is solved when
we consider that the decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem was actually a combined unit of
three decrees linked as one that culminated in the year 457. The first of these by Cyrus the Great
in 538 (or maybe 537) permitted the Jewish exiles to resettle in their homeland and empowered
them to build for God "a house at Jerusalem" (Ezra 1:2-4). The second decree came around 519
from Darius I, confirming Cyrus' original decree (Ezra 6:1-12). So under Cyrus the rebuilding
began, and it was finished under Darius (Ezra 6:15). However, it was Artaxerxes who restored,
or "adorned," (Ezra 7:27, NASB) the completed temple. This third decree (Ezra 7:11-26) put the
crowning touch on the first two, for it commissioned Ezra to appoint judges with full political
and religious authority. Not until this final order was Jerusalem restored as the national capital.
This explains why the three decrees are listed as a single unit in Scripture: "They finished
building according to the command of the God of Israel and the decree [singular] of Cyrus,
Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia" (Ezra 6:14, NASB).

To illustrate this, we can imagine that Cyrus began building a car and Darius finished its
construction, but not until Artaxerxes issued the driver's license could the vehicle be of use. And
so we must date Jerusalem's rebuilding and restoration from the order of the third king. We
must remember that the Daniel 9 prophecy included restoration as well as rebuilding, and the
desolation of Jerusalem involved much more than the destruction of buildings. The privilege of
Jerusalem to administer God's laws had been lost, so the restoration of the city required the
reinstating of civil and religious government. This at last was accomplished in the decree of
Artaxerxes in the year 457, a date now acknowledged by evangelical scholarship.

Now, regarding the investigative judgment. The value for our discussion of the ancient
Jewish legal system is that it portrays judgment not as a threat but a favor to all for whom the
judge can find evidence to defend. This provides insight into God's way of doing business with
sinners in any type of judgment, including the 1844 celestial judgment. As you point out, Des,
the corporate judgment of the world and its guilty inhabitants already took place long ago at the
cross (John 12:31), whereas a new righteousness was established there in Christ and ratified by
His resurrection (Rom. 4:25). So the life and death issue for us is whether we have repented of
our already-condemned humanity from Adam and accepted by faith our new position in Christ.
Then the question in the heavenly judgment becomes: Do we or do we not believe in Jesus?
Those who don't even claim to believe are automatically damned; they aren't even considered in
the celestial judgment since their own righteousness already was condemned at the cross. And
those who are shown to believe are not judged further: "He who believes in Him is not judged"
(John 3:18, NASB).
2 Weber back to Ford - V

So while the judgment of the world happened at the cross, salvation provided in Christ
calls for an "investigative judgment" of personal faith. Works of love give evidence of genuine
faith but cannot provide any merit. Those whose claim to believe is proven false will suffer the
awful fate of all unbelievers.

Des, this brings us to the judgment of Revelation 14 and its connection to Babylon. You
say: "The application of Revelation 14:7 to an Investigative Judgment of God's people ignores
the context about Babylon's subsequent fall." Well, not when we remember that our judgment
rises and falls upon faith in Christ, and Babylon represents organized unbelief. Thus the
declaration of Babylon's fall is very much a matter of judgment, proven by the fact that the
pronouncement is followed by plagues falling from the sanctuary upon unbelievers (Revelation
chapters 15, 16). Notice that these plagues don't begin falling in A.D. 90; only after Babylon is
judged fallen--just before Christ's second coming--do these plagues come out of the sanctuary.

And now, back to Hebrews. You say: "The three distinct functions of atonement that
Martin mentions are never set forth in Hebrews as having separate antitypical fulfillments." Nor
do they have to be. Let us recall that Hebrews never was intended to give a systematic
explanation of the sanctuary and its atonement. Jewish Christians were well aware of that, and
also of the seventh-day Sabbath. All the book needed to do was establish Christ as Lord of the
Sabbath and the sanctuary.

In discussing the plural word for sanctuary in Hebrews, you point out that "Greek plurals
sometimes denote intensity, not multiplicity." Yes, the key word there is "sometimes."

Regarding the term "righteousness by faith," I do not question that when "righteousness"
is linked to "faith" it refers to "justification." My point is that we need not limit our discussion or
definition of salvation to those particular words, since the "in Christ" motif dominates Paul's
writings. And from what I see, our position "in Christ" brings both forgiveness and victorious
power over sin through the same faith. Consider Romans 6, for example.

Finally, Des, let me reaffirm my appreciation for your position that the blood of Christ
alone provides merit with God, and thus our hope must ever remain anchored within the veil.
That gospel truth is the most important message from the sanctuary, and we absolutely agree on
it.

Ford's final statement

(Dr. Ford agreed to let the dialogue rest at this point.)