12. Blindness

The Bible tells us that hair is not just a practical covering but also a symbol of being under authority.

1 Cor 11:15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

If we look carefully at the symbolism attached to hair we notice something interesting. We see that men in Bible times had long hair hanging from their faces and women had long hair upon their heads. Through the symbolism of hair we see that blessing flows from the male to the female.

Psa 133:2  It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

We see in the above verse the symbol of oil running down the beard as a symbol of the spirit. Notice also that it ran down to his skirt. A woman’s long hair is a symbol of being in submission to the channel of blessing and receiving the Spirit of God upon them. A woman’s long and flowing hair is symbolic of her being strengthened by the Spirit through her submission to her husband.

In most cases if men had long hair, it was a shame to them because in most cases they represented the “Of Whom” component of the blessing system.

1 Cor 11:14  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Yet in certain cases some men had long hair as in the Nazarite vow where a man did not cut his hair. In such cases these men were under special direction of the Holy Spirit and had a special work to do.

It is significant that Jesus had long hair but also a beard. We see in Christ both aspects of the divine blessing, both upon His Head from His Father and coming forth from His mouth as reflected in the beard.

The baptism of Jesus, with the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him is a symbol of His long hair which he them imparted to the church through his words.

John 6:63  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

It is with these thoughts in mind that we turn to the story of Samson. This man was also a Nazarite and was told not to cut his hair.

Jdg 13:5  For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.

The long hair of Samson symbolised the Spirit of God that was given him to possess supernatural strength.

In finding the way into the Most Holy Place in heaven, Adventism received an endowment of the Spirit that would enable them to keep all the commandments of God. They were to receive supernatural strength to preach the third angel’s message and then face the time of Jacob’s trouble without a mediator.

The problem for Samson was that he loved women that were from the Philistines.

Jdg 14:1-2  And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.  (2)  And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.

Adventism began to mingle with other protestants after 1888 and men arose within our ranks that desired to be more closely connected to them. As Leroy Froom wrote to the then president concerning meeting with Martin and Barnhouse:

I do not know where all this will lead but we do know we have won friends in a powerful circle – friends who believe we have been unjustly treated. Leroy Froom to R.R Figuhr Apr 26, 1995

Just as Leroy Froom did not know where all these meetings with Barnhouse and Martin would lead, so Samson had no idea where his liaisons with Delilah would lead.

The secret of Samson’s Strength was in his hair and the secret of Adventism’s strength was in her knowledge of Daniel 8:14 that opened a door into the Most Holy Place and allowed us to receive the true power of the Holy Spirit.

As Samson foolishly yielded his secret to Delilah who was hired by the Philistines, so Adventism yielded her strength by altering many things that showed us the way into the Most Holy Place. Most notably was the switching of the God we worshipped. Notice carefully the confession found in Questions on Doctrine page 21.

In Common with Conservative Christians and the Historic Protestant Creeds, We Believe.

1. That God is the Sovereign Creator, upholder and ruler of the universe, and that He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

2. That the Godhead, the Trinity, comprises God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

By expressing a belief in God that was in common with conservative Protestant creeds, Adventism altered her whole understanding of the meditorial work of Christ. This was not understood at first as these changes were foundational, not on the surface but well down and hidden from view. The one thing that was noticed was the shift in emphasis on the atonement in the Most Holy Place. M. L Andreasen cried allowed through his “letters to the churches.” His warning was valid though he also was on the same shifting sand as his brethren in regard to the Trinity. Both Froom and Andreasen played a role in causing many Adventists to retreat from the Most Holy Place. The Final generation theology of Andreasen devoid of an 1888 understanding of the mediatorial work of Christ led to a conservative movement in Adventism that preached high standards yet without the knowledge of a mediator that had inherited all things from His Father. (See my presentation – The Heart of the 1888 Message”) The spirit of this movement was often aggressive and strident and almost boxer like. The lack of this knowledge skewed the understanding of righteousness by faith and caused despair for many Adventists. After the push by the conservatives, a counter balance movement spearheaded by several Adventist Scholars armed with Froom’s completed atonement at the cross emphasis – opened the door back to the Holy Place and scratched the itching ears of poor Adventist saints weary of Andreasen’s final generation. These scholars spoke with the mouth of the fiery serpents they had been stung with.  

The book Questions On Doctrine is the Symbolic Scissors in the hands of Delilah that took Adventism’s strength and set the path for Adventism’s eyes to be gouged out  with the 1980 fundamental confession. It was at the time of this confession that the Philistines cried for joy that they had now mastered Adventism.

All of Samson’s training, standards and good living was swallowed up through his desire for union with strange women. So to, Adventism’s training and high calling were swept aside by its desire for strange women or the protestant churches.

The confession of faith that claimed we stood in common with conservative protestant creeds was a firm declaration that “we will not have this man reign over us” (Luke 19:14) The dear Son of God was shown the door with the printing and circulation of Questions on Doctrine. With the rejection of Christ, our educational institutions were swept with fiery serpents infected with higher criticism, modern methods of writing history and the scientific methods consistent with evolutional theory.

The biggest serpent of all to bite Adventism was the spiritualisation process of our teachings. In the rejection of a literal Son of a literal Father, our church turned first to the metaphorical Father and Son which in turn opened to the drunken church a whole system of intellectual philosophy. Down went the literal Sanctuary; the literal Son of Man who took our nature; the literal male pastor; for many, the literal six day week; the literal victory over sin, these and many other doctrines were swept aside in drunken blindness. So true are the words of Leroy Froom that he knew not where all this would lead!

One of the evidences of this blindness that came upon us is the confession of the then General Conference President concerning the introduction of the new fundamental beliefs:

“So it is important that we look at this statement carefully and that when we have finished looking, we know that we have not done violence, that we have not allowed anything to become eroded or weakened, but rather that we have strengthened and helped, and perhaps become more lucid and clear.”

“We are not suggesting changing any belief or doctrine that this church has held. We have no interest in tearing up any of the foundations of historical Adventism. This document is not designed to do that, nor to open the way so that it can be done. It should be clear that we are not adding anything nor are we deleting anything in terms of historical Adventist theology. We are trying to express our beliefs in a way that will be understood today.”  N.C Wilson RH Apr 23, 1980

I am certain that our president at this time fully meant what he said. He did not believe that the church was changing anything. Yet having rejected the protection of the true Son of God in the release of the Questions on Doctrine confession that was in common with Conservative Protestant creeds, we can only feel sorry for any man that is blind drunk. I am in no way condemning our president. I was just as drunk and blind as he was. I would not dare cast a stone at him, yet these are the facts of history and proper remedy only comes from proper diagnosis.

As a testament to this blindness that told us we were not changing anything we heard the now famous assessment 13 years later in the words:

“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the trinity.” - George Knight, Ministry, October 1993, p. 10.

If we were not changing anything and we were not tearing up the historical foundations of Adventism then how could our pioneers no longer be able to join the church? Many people have suggested that this was just a lie to hide a deeper agenda. Can you accuse a blind drunk man of lying? It would be hard get such a confession to stand in court.

So now Adventism is grinding out corn for the Philistines and feeding their kingdom rather than the kingdom of heaven. Some of us have come to our senses after years of living with no strength, no eyes and no hair!

Who is the little child that will lead Adventism to the secret of Babylon’s power? A child of the philistines that will lead Adventism to the pillars of Babylon to smash them. These are things to ponder as we lament the blindness of Adventism. Who was the Eli of Adventism that went blind to the work that was happening in the 1940’s and 1950’s and let their sons Hophni (Boxer) and Phinehas (mouth of the serpent) take the ark out of the Most Holy Place? These are all things we can ponder and pray about.

Apart from seeking to lay before you lines of thought that give context to our present situation, I am also appealing to you to be kind to leaders in the Adventist Church, many of whom are drunk with wine, bitten by fiery serpents, full of poison as well as suffering blindness and baldness.

Let also remember that many groups that have arisen in Adventism professing a belief in the begotten Son have descended from the same history and have become blinded to the divine pattern and in their pain from the serpents have thrown off their allegiance to God’s remnant church. Let us try to be patient with each other as we all try to detox from the serpent’s venom we all inherited.

It is only the mercies of our God that some of us have allowed to become semi-coherent. Some of us have been granted to see men as trees walking. Let us cry to the Son of David to have mercy on all of us and to give us back our vision, for indeed there is no open vision in the land. 1 Sam 3:1

Let us remember the story of Jesus in Matthew 20. There were two blind men

Mat 20:30  And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.

One of the blind men is the church who have rejected the Son of God and forsaken our divine “Of Whom” husband. The other blind man are those who have rejected His beloved Church; the “By Whom” channel to whom Christ is betrothed. We both need to ask the Saviour:

Mat 20:32-34  And Jesus stood still, and called them, and said, What will ye that I shall do unto you?  (33)  They say unto him, Lord, that our eyes may be opened.  (34)  So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.

May Jesus have compassion on all of us for our blindness, a blindness that came because we rejected the protection and provisions of our kinsman redeemer. We refused to have his skirt over us.

Let our prayer be: “Lord, that our eyes may be opened”