CHAPTER THREE
Sunday, July 5th, 2009DANIEL AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT
167
OUTLINE OF CHAPTER THREE
Daniel and the Day of Atonement
The Current Situation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169
Non-seventh-day Adventist Scholars and Apocalyptic . . . . . . . . . . .170
Traditional Prophetic Dating and the Investigative Judgment. . . . . . .174
Does Divine Sponsorship Guarantee Infallibility? . . . . . . . . . . . .177
Chronological Problems, Including the Year-Day Principle . . . . . . . .178
Is the Year-Day Principle Compatible With a First Century End of the World?178
The Intelligibility of Prophecy: Is It History Written in Advance? . . .188
Chronological Problems Continued . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .191
The Basic Pillars for the Year-Day Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
Daniel 9 and the Year-Day Principle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202
The 1260-Year Period, Etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209
Were Adventists Wrong Concerning Daniel 8:14?. . . . . . . . . . . . . .215
The Contextual Problem for the Traditional Interpretation. . . . . . . .216
The Linguistic Problem for the Traditional Interpretation. . . . . . . .216
The Relationship Between the Contextual and the Linguistic Evidence. . .217
The Judgment Focuses on Unbelievers, Not Believers . . . . . . . . . . .219
Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and the Judgment. . . . . . . . . . .220
The Judgment of Daniel 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229
The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8 . . . . . . .232
Daniel 8:14 and Antiochus Epiphanes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .234
The Little Horn: Its Meaning for Ancient Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . .235
Antiochus Epiphanes and Daniel 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239
The Daniel 8:14 Context and the “Daily” Controversy. . . . . . . . . . .246
Daniel 8:14 the High Point of Daniel’s Symbolism . . . . . . . . . . .247
Daniel, the Day of Atonement, and 9:24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248
The Meaning of “kippur”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .249
Relationships Between Daniel 8 and Daniel 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
Judgment the Theme of Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254
Daniel 8:14 As Interpreted by Scripture Itself . . . . . . . . . . . .257
Daniel 8 in the Apocalypse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259
The Divine Purpose in the 1844 Movement and the SDA Church.. . . . . . .260
Footnotes
Appendices particularly relevant to this chapter:
12 Studies in the Book of Daniel (R. Cottrell)
13 Parallels between Dan. 8 and 9
14 Should a Question Be Answered?
15 Importance of Antiochus Epiphanes
16 The Connection Between Dan. 8:14 and Dan. 12:13
17 Summary on Dan. 8:14 and 1844
18 The Daniel Committee of 1937-1952 and the Chronological Problems of the 2300 Days
19 Extracts From Dr. R. Cottrell’s Presentation at Loma Linda, February, 1980
20 The Conditional Nature of the Time of the Advent
21 The Year-Day Principle
22 Daniel 8 Its Relationship to the Kingdom of God
168
23 Daniel 9:24-27 Recognized as Containing Jubilee and Day of Atonement Allusions
24 The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the U.
Special Note: The writer has not attempted to do again what he has already attempted in his Daniel
commentary (SPA), exegesis of the basic verses. He refers readers to that source for that purpose. Here, in
the limited time and space available, he has chiefly dwelt on the problems which make some aspects of the
traditional exposition untenable. No doubt more than one tentative solution will be forthcoming from others,
but no progress can be made in that direction until the problems are clearly seen.
169
THE CURRENT SITUATION
In 1978, the missionary book of the year was The Power and the Glory, (R&H) by Raymond H.
Woolsey. It is a summary of our prophetic faith and includes eight small pages on Dan. 8 and 9. While the
usual argument about blood from the daily sacrifices going continually into the first apartment is used, the
“judgment” verses are interpreted as pointing not only to a cleansing of the sins of the saints, but also as
divine vindication and a declaring of the “little horn” to be guilty. See pages 40, 45, 41. On Dan. 9 we are
told that “weeks of years” is a better translation, for the “angel was actually saying that seventy seven-year
periods, or 490 years, would be allotted to Daniel’s people, the Jews” (page 42).
Thus this easy-to-read little volume in its brief summary of the vital sanctuary doctrine offers an
amalgam of nineteenth and twentieth century Adventist positions. It is admitted that the original of Dan.
8:14 means “justified” or “vindicated” rather than cleansed; the actual prophetic statement of ch. 9 uses
years rather than days; and the judgment of Dan. 7 at least includes the wicked.
The current equivalent volume, Dick Winn’s God’s Way to a New You (PPPA, 1979), also discusses
Dan. 8:14, and like the above volume, is eminently readable. But it makes no reference to the investigative
judgment. Instead, Dan. 8:14 is interpreted in terms of the Hebrew concept of restoration. The contrast
between the two books is instructive. But neither book deals with the grave problems in exegesis that our
traditional interpretation faces. Despite the wide variety of new literature through our presses every year, for
a whole generation we have produced nothing of depth on the sanctuary doctrine except Heppenstall’s Our
High Priest exceptional also because of its departure from the usual Adventist presentation at several key
points.
With every passing year, evangelists find it harder to convince people that the time of the end began in
the seventeen hundreds, and the judgment in the mid-nineteenth century. Even neophytes in religion are hard
to convince that the omniscient God takes so long ferreting Out the evidence about His creatures, especially
when Scripture so clearly affirms that He reads the thoughts and intents of each soul, and that every heart is
open to Him with whom we have to do.
Meanwhile, on the outside, critics at every opportunity refer to our investigative judgment teaching as a
face-saving device (hardly flattering, though at least conceded to be the greatest of all historical devices of
that ilk) which is stale, flat, and unprofitable. On the inside, our scholars talk to each other more often than
to administrators, and sometimes concur with the opposition.
It would, however, be wrong to conclude that nobody cared, and nobody worried about our perpetuating
a teaching that for many holds grave problems. One prominent man amongst us, as already told, cared so
much as to send out a questionnaire to our leading theologians, linguists, and writers. The questionnaire
went to university and college departments, administrative centers, and editorial chairs. We wish to allude
once more to the results of that questionnaire. It is not necessary to draw from the documents of the Daniel
committee. The information has been given in meetings at both our universities and is available on tape.
Those who replied to the questionnaire and all requested, did reply included E. E. I-Heppenstall,
Earle Hilgert, S. H. Horn, A. G. Maxwell, W. F. Specht, E. R. Thiele, R. Hammill, D. Neufeld, T. H.
Jemison, R. E. Loasby, O. Christensen, S. Kubo, W. G. C. Murdoch, P. E. Heubach, and others well-known
to us. In response to the inquiry “What linguistic basis is there for translating nitsdaq as ‘cleansed’?”
twenty-one out of the twenty-seven had nothing to offer, five had next to nothing, and one surmised
170
that there may have existed an unknown Aramaic original. As to the query regarding linguistic or
contextual reasons for applying Dan. 8:14 to the antitypical day of atonement and the investigative judgment,
all twenty-seven affirmed the nonexistence of any linguistic or contextual reasons for applying Dan. 8:14 to
the antitypical day of atonement and the investigative judgment, all twenty-seven affirmed the non-existence
of any linguistic or contextual basis.
Such conclusions offered by the cream of our scholarship assert in effect that our traditional teaching on
Dan. 8:14 is indefensible. Yet today our traditional teaching is reiterated by laity and ministers in Bible
studies, in print by our publishing houses, in schools by our teachers, from the public platform by our
evangelists. Despite our awareness of problems discussed by our best scholars over five years, today we go
merrily on regardless. But all theological problems neglected, like personal health problems, have a habit of
springing back like a whiplash. A neglected hole in a ship’s timbers can mean the loss of the whole
company.
When the results of this questionnaire were discussed on the Daniel committee, the same current tapes
tell us that our scholars were much divided over the issues, with a majority wishing to ignore the problems,
and as a temporary measure, at least provide something to give reassurance to our own people. Others
admitted the problems frankly, and declared that the Scripture did not countenance the Adventist
interpretation, but we could strongly support our case from the Spirit of Prophecy. And there the matter
rested and almost died. Perhaps it did die certain it is that there is a very active ghost that refuses to-be
confined to coffin quarters even in holy places.
NON SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST SCHOLARS AND APOCALYPTIC
But exegesis is not dead. While we seem to have become more and more shy about attending-to the
themes of Daniel and Revelation, and have relied chiefly on the outdated commentary produced in
after-hours a century ago, non-Adventist scholars have turned to eschatology with a vengeance.
Exegesis has been more active in the twentieth century in the area of Biblical apocalyptic than in all
previous centuries combined. Prestigious, learned journals such as Interpretation and Journal of Theology
and Church have devoted whole issues to the topic, and books have swarmed like bees. While it was in the
year 1844 that the word “eschatology” entered literature as a strange Cinderella, there have been times this
century when that theme has seemed to reign as queen. Some German scholars have affirmed that
“apocalyptic is the mother of New Testament theology,”1 and others concede that though Jesus Himself was
not an apocalyptic, “the views of the apocalyptic tradition are everywhere the presuppositions of what He
said and did.”2
An American scholar has expressed the attitude of many post-WW2 theologians when he wrote: “To
determine our Lord’s attitude towards the subject of apocalyptic is one of the really urgent tasks at the
present time confronting Bible scholars.”3 Others frankly acknowledge that such themes as the Son of Man,
the kingdom of God, the judgment, the resurrection, Antichrist, the Second Advent all so prominent in
the teachings of Jesus, not only belong to apocalyptic, but are derived from the teachings of a book long
derided by many Old Testament scholars Daniel. Says Karl Helm:
At least in its main features Jesus accepts the vision of the future of the world given by
Daniel. For He solemnly adopts the principal part in the final act of the cosmic drama seen in
the book of Daniel … The “Kingdom of Heaven” also, which He had announced in His first
call to repentance, is the eternal Empire that according to Daniel is to follow the terrestrial
empires. For the import of this solemn declaration by
171
Jesus it is immaterial whether the author of Daniel lived about 600 BC under Jehoiakim in the
Babylonian exile, as he says himself, or whether the book was written in the first half of the
second century BC.4
Since the invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, the study of ethics has ceased to be of chief
interest for certain sociological and philosophical scholars alone, and has become recognized as vital for
human survival. But has ethics any supra-human support? That is the inevitable question. And does
Scripture have anything specific to say about the future? That inquiry is almost as inevitable. Thus the new
attention to apocalyptic.
The tables have been turned drastically this century from last. Most reputable scholars of our early
Adventist years saw in millennialism a topic for scorn. The philosophy of progress controlled most
theological discussions on eschatology. In the nineteenth century, post-millennialism far outstripped her poor
sisters premillennialism and amillennialism. But it is so no more. Few exegetes today espouse the once
popular tenets of post-millennialism.
One hotly debated issue this century has been whether the Olivet discourse was indeed uttered by Jesus.
The question is important because it is widely recognized that that discourse is a pesher on the apocalyptic
portions of Daniel. Theologians outside our church who were contemporary with such men as A. G.
Daniells, W. E. Prescott, W. C. White, etc., pictured Jesus as a nineteenth century Western intellectual who
could not possibly have believed in such chimeras as the end of the world. Since the thorough investigation
by G. R. Beasely-Murray of all the significant literature on the topic (see Jesus and the Future), inventions
such as the “little apocalypse” theory, coined to explain the origin of Mark 13, have fallen out of favor. The
recently revised Peake’s Commentary says on page 814 that “the attempt to remove the eschatological
element from the teaching of Jesus is without justification.” Such acknowledgements from scholars of all
countries could be multiplied.
This new attitude to Jesus, and the recognition of His respect for the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel is
accompanied by a similar reversal of attitude in at least some areas of Danielic studies. Let us illustrate.
The major attack upon the Adventist interpretation of Dan. 8 has been the criticism that the little horn
there sketched applies only to Antiochus Epiphanes and that therefore Dan. 8 does not go beyond a second
century BC perspective. In recent years, however, there has been a willingness to acknowledge that all the
visions of Daniel have their climax in the kingdom of God. It is doubtful whether there is any scholar of note
who would not agree that Christ’s references te the “kingdom of heaven” stem from His intimate knowledge
of the prophecies of Daniel and their kingdom climaxes. H. H. Rowley, in his article on Daniel in the
Dictionary of the Bible edited by himself and F. C. Grant, declares: “The visions and their interpretations all
culminate in the final establishment of the Kingdom of God” (page 200). The Frenchman, Lagrange, says the
same in his volume, Le Judaisme avant Jesus-Christ (page 62-69). The German scholar Gerhard von Rad
tells us that in Daniel there is “A much more precise delineation of the Kingdom of God,”5 than anything
known hitherto. John Bright speaks in a similar vein in his The Kingdom of God.6
A ten-year doctoral study entitled, No Stone on Another by Lloyd Gaston, suggests that the little horn of
Dan. 8 is reflective of the description of Lucifer in Isa. 14. Gaston says:
The “abomination” in Daniel seems much worse than that of 1 Maccabees 1:54,… We must
beware of reading Daniel too much in the light of what actually happened according to 1
Maccabees. In particular, the cleansing measures which satisfied the Maccabees would surely
not have satisfied Daniel – .. it is significant that there is in Daniel no men-
172
tion of a hoped-for rebuilding or rededication of the temple. In Daniel 2 a great stone “not
made with hands” shatters the fourth kingdom and becomes a “kingdom that shall never be
destroyed” (2:44). In 7:14, 27 it is again a kingdom which is given to the people of the saints
of the Most High, when the fourth kingdom is destroyed. Accordingly, it may very well be
that we should interpret 9:24, “To anoint a Holy of holies” in accordance with the usage of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, to refer to a community. The strange statement of 8:14 “the Sanctuary
will be justified” will then refer to “the many” who are “justified” by the wise (12:3). 7
In another place Gaston adds, “We have already suggested that the Sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 and 9:24
should be interpreted figuratively in terms of the holy community.”8 The recently translated (1979)
commentary on Daniel by Andre Lacocque takes the same position. We quote him.
“In that case, the expression ‘Holy of Holies’ not only designates the restored Temple, but
also the faithful priesthood around whom is gathered the community of Israel.” J. de Menasce
turns up his nose at any timidity on this point: 1 Chron. 23:13 concerns “the priestly
consecration of Aaron and his sons.”
We believe J. de Menasce is correct. We see confirmation of this in the very structure of the
text and in the identification constantly established by Daniel since chapter 7 between the
Temple and the People. We saw the most recent instance of this in verses 20-21. It is again
the doctrine from chapter 7 which is determinative . -. There can be no dichotomy between
the two aspects of a single reality. When the Temple in Jerusalem is purified anointed by
an ultimate anointing the People-sanctuary will at the same instant be restored to its
perfect priesthood.9
Another writer who sees beyond the limited Antiochus Epiphanes interpretation is Berth Gartner. We
read in The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament a reference to the prophecy of
Dan. 8, the little horn, and the cleansing of the sanctuary in the last days.
… we find in Daniel a combination of “the saints of the Most High” and the idea of the “new
temple” which is to be established in the last days. On the subject of the evil to come it is said
that one of the “horns” of the “he-goat” shall … defile the temple … but the good to come also
stands related to the temple; atonement shall be made for the evils of the people and eternal
righteousness shall be established, “to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a Most
Holy place.”… This vision of the future has sometimes been interpreted in special categories,
the implication being that “the saints” make up a new temple, a spiritual temple. It is the
kingdom of “the saints” which is called an anointed sanctuary upon which rests the presence
of God(7:13, 14)… It is important to note that the concept of the “anointed sanctuary” is
connected with the ideas of the Son of Man and the “Saints of the Most High.”10
This writer certainly sees Dan. 8:14 in connection with a final atonement which ushers in the kingdom of
God. It is also significant that this writer links with Dan. 8:14 Dan. 7 and its passage on the judgment and the
Son of Man.
Adventists have not always capitalized as they should have done on the fact that in the corresponding
sequences of the visions in chapters 7 and 8 of Daniel, while the former chapter culminates Its portrayal by
the scene of the judgment and the coming of the Son of Man, the following chapter at its climax promises
that “the
173
sanctuary shall be cleansed.” Thus we have the following parallel which shows that the sanctuary’s
cleansing is identical with the judgment.
Babylon (lion) Belshazzar of Babylon (8:1)
Medo-Persia (bear) Medo-Persia (ram)
Greece (leopard) Greece (he-goat)
Rome – pagan and papal Rome – pagan and papal
(beast with ten horns and little horn) (little horn)
Judgment scene Cleansing or vindication of the sanctuary
We are familiar with the fact that the word translated “cleansed” might be better translated “vindicated”
or “justified.” Ellen G. White frequently used the latter terms when speaking of the closing work of God in
heaven and earth, and thus gave evidence of her insight into the fullness of meaning present in the Hebrew
original of Dan. 8:14. See, for example, COL 178,179; DA 26,763-764; PP 68; GC 504,671; SDABC 7:986.
In the last half century particularly, many non-Adventist scholars have written a great deal on the topic of
“the Son of Man,” stressing the fact that this prophetic symbol is a figure representing vindication or
justification, and therefore points to the same event as Dan. 8:14. C. F. D. Moule says, for example,
concerning the expression, “The Son of Man: This vindication-theme attaches to it more readily than any
distinctively redemptive associations.11 And Gaston reminds us that “The concept of the Son of Man in
Daniel is very close to that of the Kingdom of God.”12 Another well-known New Testament scholar,
Matthew Black, speaking about the meaning of the Son of Man in the teachings of Jesus says: “The old
biblical Son of man apocalyptic has not therefore, been foisted upon the teachings of Jesus through the
tradition; it represents the substance of His teaching about the coming Judgment.”13 Dan. 8:14 with its
reference to cleansing (justification and vindication) thus parallels the reference to the judgment in Dan. 7
which pictures the Son of Man, and the great majority of modern commentators now admit that this last
figure indeed points to a work of vindication by divine judgment.
For over a century, Adventist evangelists and Bible workers have labored hard to prove to those people
with whom they were studying that Dan. 7:13, 14; 8:14; 9:24 were to be connected in order to understand
God’s last message, and what heaven would teach us regarding the judgment. It is now possible to point to
statements by Bible scholars of England, France, Germany, and America, not, of our faith, who likewise link
these three passages. For example, Feuillet says, “The three oracles of 7:13, 14; 8:14 and 9:24 are mutually
complementary and contribute to explaining the same reality” 14 (translation from the French).
Another line of study concerning Daniel which is of particular interest to Seventh-day Adventists has to
do with the theme of the book as recognized by non-Adventist scholars. Commentator after commentator has
employed the word “vindication” in interpreting this book of prophecy.15 The theme of vindication has been
recognized as permeating both the narratives and the visions of Daniel. Only in one verse of the book is the
actual word “vindication” found, and that is in Dan. 8:14. It is interesting also that the word here appears in a
unique form out of the hundreds of the uses of this root in the Old Testament. Furthermore, this verse which
strikes the keynote of the book by its reference to “vindication” is also the climactic point of the symbolism
of the book.
Commentators have been far from unanimous as to where a natural division in this book occurs. For
example, is chapter 7 to be seen as belonging to the first section of the book or the second? In Dan. 8:14 we
have a distinct literary dividing point, for this verse terminates the use of visionary symbols requiring
interpretation. Hereafter, all
174
is explanation. In the following verses we hear an admonition from heaven for Gabriel to make Daniel to
understand the vision. After a threefold reference to the need for understanding we have an explanation
given of the symbols of chapter 8 except for the climax of that presentation in verse 14. And the rest of the
book is devoted to explaining in greater detail the vision of chapter 8. S. B. Frost, when commenting upon
Dan. 8:14 says, ….. in the third vision the imagery is laid aside. – - the fourth vision, the last and longest of
them all, drops the symbolism entirely He was not prophesying when the rededication as such was going to
take place, but.., the eschaton.”16 Thus Frost declares Dan. 8:14 to be the point at which symbolic imagery
is laid aside, and eschatological in import, having to do with heaven’s last work for man.
When we thus read from scholars not of our faith that Dan. 8:14 points to the atonement whereby the
saints of God are vindicated, and that this same vindication is pictured in Dan. 7:9-13, and that the literary
dividing point of the book and the thematic heart are both found in Dan. 8:14, we should not therefore
assume that such writers view the Scriptures entirely as we do. In most instances these commentators are
what we would call liberal and do not even consider that the book of Daniel was written in the 6th century
BC. These facts, however, make it the more significant that in attempting to honestly interpret the text they
should reach similar conclusions in some respects to ourselves.
We have given just a sample of the evidence from recent non-Adventist scholars that many such have
come to recognize from the Biblical text itself that Dan. 8:14 should not be limited to the days of Antiochus
Epiphanes but rather points to the vindication in the judgment of God’s loyal people. Writers such as
Gaston, Feuillet, Gartner, Lacoque and others would paraphrase “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” as
“then shall the holy community be declared righteous by the judgment of God.” In this connection we should
remember that Ellen G. White viewed the worshippers in the heavenly sanctuary and those of the
church-temple of earth as one. Thus she could not only describe believers as God’s tabernacle or sanctuary
in this world, but also stressed that this earthly temple constituted the courts of the heavenly, and that
together the two made a single reality.17
Having shown that the essence of Adventist teaching on Dan. 8:14 now finds strong support among
non-Adventist scholars, we wish in contrast to point out that our traditional presentation of that essence has
been marred by non-essential dogmatism on doubtful matters.
TRADITIONAL PROPHETIC DATING AND THE INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT
The great saving truths of the Christian faith never depend upon inferential reasoning from a single text.
That God is our Creator, that Christ died for our sins that we might be forgiven, that salvation is through
faith, that faith always bears fruit in obedience, that Christ will return to earth, that now He intercedes for us
on high all such truths rest on substantial immovable foundations of Holy Writ. Should certain texts on
any of these topics be ambiguous, it matters not, for there are plenty of others which are not ambiguous.
Pillars of the faith are firmly established, they do not rest on fluid, uncertain, equivocal interpretations.
When, however, we come to our traditional sanctuary interpretation of 1844 and the investigative
judgment, such Is by no means the case. It is dependent, not upon plain didactic statements from Scripture,
but upon a prolonged series of assumptions and inferences most of which are highly debatable. We set
forth dogmatic conclusions where honesty should compel us to confess that the evidence is either ambiguous
or contrary to our claims.
For example, consider our perilous dependence upon the following assumptions, many of which are
interlocking in such a way that if one falls, so do the others.
1. That Dan. 8:4 speaks of 2300 days. (While Dan. 12 repeatedly uses the Hebrews
175
word for days, it is not to be found in 8:14. Instead we have the ambiguous “evening-morning” which
most apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings. Thus Instead of 2300 days, if these exegetes are
correct, only 1150 days are in view.)
2. That these 2300 “days” equal 2300 years. (Though it is quite impossible to prove that the year-day
principle is a Biblical datum, and even if we could, days are not mentioned in either 8:14 or 9:24, so there is
no basis to apply the principle in these instances.)
3. That these 2300 years begin centuries before the “little horn” began his attack on the sanctuary.
(Though in the context, the 2300 has been understood by many as applying to the length of time the little
horn is trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending its daily offerings.)
4. That the 2300 years begin at the same time as the seventy weeks. (Though there is no scripture to say
so. The Hebrew chathak means “cut” or “decree,” and there is no way of proving that the cutting off of the
490 from 2300 is intended.)
5. That it is possible to be certain of the exact year that the seventy weeks begin. (Though exegetes have
been agreed on this point. Is the decree like that of 9:23, a heavenly one from God, or one from an earthly
king?)
6. That the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7 has to do with the restoring and building of
Jerusalem? (Though there is nothing in Ezra 7 that says this. The context says that this decree, like those of
Cyrus and Darius, had to do with the temple. The magistrates were to enforce the temple laws. See Ezra 6:14
which places this decree among the temple decrees.)
7. That the decree of Ezra 7 “went forth” in 457 BC when Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem and set to work.
(Though Ezra never says this, and the decree had been announced at least six months earlier. There is
nothing in Daniel-to say that this decree should be dated from the time of its implementation rather than its
enunciation.)
8. That we can show 408 to be the time when the restoration of the city was completed. (Admitted even
by Adventist scholars to be an impossible task.)
9. That we can show that AD 27 was the date of Christ’s baptism. (A similarly difficult -feat.)
10. That AD 31 was the date of the crucifixion. (Almost all scholars hold to other years, not this one.
Evidence from Grace Amadon’s researches, often used by Seventh-day Adventists, is based on doubtful
assumptions, as admitted by our own commentary.)
11. That AD 34 was the date of the gospel going to the Gentiles. (Though there is no way of proving that
AD 34 was the time of the stoning of Stephen, and Acts 13:46 presents the turning to the Gentiles at a much
later date.)
12. That the 2300 days end with the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement. (Though the Day of
Atonement revolved around the sacrifice for sin, an event we believe took place about eighteen centuries
earlier. The divesting of his glorious robes by the high priest prefigured the incarnation of Christ which did
not take place in 1844. The book of Hebrews clearly applies the Day of Atonement in antitype to Christ’s
priestly offering of Himself on Calvary, though the Christian era is included as we wait for our High Priest to
come out.)
13. That until this date was reached, Christ was doing that work prefigured by the first apartment outside
the veil. (Though Hebrews tells us that the work of that apartment symbolized the ineffectual offerings of the
Levitical era when men had restricted access to God, and experienced outward ceremonial cleansing rather
than perfection of the conscience.)
14. That the work symbolized by the second apartment of the sanctuary was not to begin till over 1800
years after the cross. (Though Heb. 9:8,12, 24, 25; 10:19, 20; 6:19, 20 says Christ entered “within the veil” at
His ascension.) The sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat took place immediately after its shedding.
176
15. That the sanctuary of Dan. 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven. (Though the context is about the
sanctuary on earth.)
16. That “cleansed” is an accurate translation in Dan. 8:14. (Though this is certainly not the case.)
17. That the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was cleansed from defilement occasioned by the
confession of sin and ministration of blood. (Though Nu. 19:13, etc., indicate that the sanctuary was defiled
when a person sinned, regardless of whether confession was made. In most cases, blood never went into the
sanctuary.)
18. That the cleansing of the sanctuary in 8:14 has to do with the sins of the professed believers in Christ.
(Though the context has to do with a defilement accomplished by Antichrist, not the host of God’s people
who are suffering, not sinning, in the context.)
19. That this cleansing of 8:14 Is also found in Dan. 7 in its judgment scene, and that the latter also has
to do with investigation of the sins of the saints. (Though again in Dan. 7, as in 8, it is a wicked power which
is the focus of the judgment.)
20. That Rev. 14:7 has to do with the same investigative judgment of the sins of the saints. (Though John
never uses the word krisis other than in a negative sense for unbelievers, and though the very next verse
tells us that it is Babylon which endures the judgment, as the later chapters of Revelation also testify.)
21. That verses like Acts 3:19 point to the investigative judgment. (None of such verses studied in
context yield any such conclusion.)
22. That much depends upon Oct. 22, 1844, as the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement.
(Though Oct. 22, 1844 was not the day observed by contemporary Jews, even the majority of Karaites.
Neither is there evidence that the baptism of Christ, or the stoning of Stephen took place on the Day of
Atonement, which would have been necessary if the 49 years, the 434, 490, and 2300 years are each precise
in terminus. In contrast, observe that Ellen G. White could write: “I saw that God was in the proclamation of
the time in 1843. .. Ministers were convinced of the correctness of the positions taken on the prophetic
periods” (SG 232). Observe she is talking about the 1843 terminus, not Oct. 22, 1844. Furthermore she is
speaking of periods ending then, not just one period. Miller had over a dozen, including the 6000 years, the
seven times, the 1335 days, etc.)
In contrast to this traditional precision and convoluted series of assumptions, the chapter in our own SDA
Bible Commentary, “Interpretation of Daniel,” shows that such precision is contrary to the whole history of
prophetic exegesis of the prophetic periods of Daniel. Furthermore, when our own Bible Dictionary refers to
Dan. 8:14 in its articles on Antichrist and the little horn, it makes no reference to an investigative judgment,
but speaks of Dan. 8:14 as pointing to judgment upon the little horn and restoration of true worship.
Consider the following from the Whedon commentary on Dan. 9:
No prophecy of Scripture is more difficult to explain than this. Anyone who thinks it easy
proves thereby that he does not understand it. The more confident the explanation the less
likely is it to be of any value. Like all apocalyptic calculations, these have doubtless been left
enigmatical on purpose if not, the aim of the writer has been sadly defeated, for scarcely
two scholars of the old school or of the new school can agree as to the meaning of these
mathematical combinations. (Daniel, 290)
It should also be pointed out that some other long-cherished dates of supposed prophetic fulfillment have
proved erroneous those used for Rev. 11:9; 9:15; Dan. 12:11,12. Others, such as 538 and 1798, were
questioned by leaders amongst us long ago, such as W. W. Prescott. (See SDABC note at close of
commentary on Dan. 7.)
177
DOES DIVINE SPONSORSHIP GUARANTEE INFALLIBILITY?
Why then should some Adventist scholars have grave reservations regarding our traditional exposition of
Dan. 8:14? We answer: Not because we have applied .the verse eschatologically, not because we see in it a
heavenly court vindicating the saints, not because of our relating the passage to Dan. 7:9-13 and 9:24-27
all this and more, non-Adventist scholars of the highest order have also done. Our embarrassment rather
comes because of extra trappings which are impossible to exegetically defend, including our denial of some
concepts plainly present in the periscope. We turn now to these, but with the assurance that our central
concern is still the subject of the Day of Atonement in Daniel.
May we suggest first that some words spoken by E. G. White at Minneapolis almost a century ago are
most pertinent for our present concerns. She declared:
“That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty
years ago, but it is God’s message for this time.18
Great truths are rarely virgin born. Whether it is the great Reformation movement, the Wesleyan revival,
or the surgings of the Spirit in the days of Whitefield and Jonathan Edwards, etc., truth has never been
unmixed with error. We are poor fallen creatures who cannot live either in complete darkness or complete
light. Jesus said long ago, “I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now.” Even when
Truth incarnate came to our world, He was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and all truth has been so wrapped
ever since. Such swaddling clothes need to be released like the cerements of Lazarus, when the hour comes
for resurrection activity. This hour is dawning for the Adventist church.
Ellen White herself indicates this principle when she speaks of the hand of God being over the error of
William Miller. We need to ask whether even our own movement, like John the Baptist of old, has had but a
partial understanding of its God-given message? Has God had His hand over some errors in our early
positions until we were able to bear further light?
It is certain that all our pioneers understood the shut door of the first apartment in 1844 to mean the
rejection of “the whole wicked world.” Even in 1853 we find James White writing in the Review: “While the
great work of saving men closed with the 2300 days, a few are now coming to Christ …” 19
Ellen G. White shared such convictions also, though nothing in her visions plainly taught such ideas. We
were stumbling along towards the light in those troubled days with one disappointment after another.20
It took another several years after the last of the Sabbath conferences where the landmarks were
presented, before we laid down another landmark namely that the world was ripe for evangelism and not
rejected of God.
About six years after that advance, we were still struggling to explain the significance of 1844, and the
doctrine of the investigative judgment was born, approximately thirteen years after the event supposed to
have marked its opening. We were certainly right in seeing the doctrine of judgment in Dan. 8:14, but were
we just as right in affirming that this judgment was only one for professed Christians, and that it was a new
procedure whereby God had decided to turn to records for guidance on how to treat those who called upon
His name? Were we soundly based when we concluded that in 1844 Christ began a new form of ministry
which had to be pursued to the bitter end for more than fourteen decades before His living saints could see
His face? Did we do the right thing in severing Dan. 8:14 from its context about the damage to the sanctuary
being done by the wicked little horn? Were our linguistic conclusions sound when we followed the KJV
rendering “cleansed,” faulty though it was, and saw in it the basis for identifying the promise of 8:14 as the
antitype of Lev. 16? These are questions which the denomination cannot hope to dodge, for our opponents
will press them more and more. As those who love truth
178
more than life, should we not be sure ourselves of our answers in an area so central? Are we now
sufficiently mature to be able to agree with Ellen G. White that what was adequate for truth for a people
many years ago may not be adequate now? With these inquiries as background we turn to the year-day
principle, and similar matters.
CHRONOLOGICAL PROBLEMS, INCLUDING THE YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE
Big doors swing on little hinges, we have often been reminded. It is true in all doctrinal structures. Some
of Adventism’s distinctive teachings rest upon the genuineness of the year-day principle. Though one would
never guess this from our literature for the principle is ever assumed rather than proved. Take away the
year-day principle and what would happen to 1798, Aug. 11, 1840, and Oct. 22, 1844?
Let it first be made clear that Adventists did not invent the year-day method of exegeting apocalyptic
chronological prophecies. Theirs was an inheritance from centuries back. Jews not long after Christ taught
that in prophetic symbolism a day represented a year, and by the time the Reformation was established so
was this hermeneutical dictum.
But there are problems we should frankly acknowledge. This present writer believes that it was in the
providence of God that the year-day principle was espoused after the Advent hope of the early church had
faded away. Prophecy had been so written that what could have quickly been fulfilled would also match the
march of centuries if God’s people tarried in the discharge of their task. But now our prophetic termini are
far back in the past and nothing has happened since. It is time to look again at the evidence.
Where is the proof for the year-day principle? Num. 14:34 and Eze. 4:6 and Dan. 9:24-2 7 are usually
volunteered, but these certainly do not yield what is demanded of them. (None of these passages state it as a
rule for all symbolic prophecy that a day signifies a year. Num. 14:34 is not symbolic prophecy, and it speaks
of years in the future not days. In Eze. 4:6 the years are in the past, and actual days ahead are
contemplated. Dan. 9:24, as with Dan. 8, does not use the word “day.” The Hebrew term translated “weeks”
is actually “sevens,” and is not related to days at all. See next page.) To that we will turn shortly. But first, of
much greater importance is the whole weight of New Testament testimony that God’s ideal plan was that
Jesus should have returned in the first century AD, not long after His ascension to heaven. This is clearly
taught from Matthew to Revelation and recognized by the vast majority of New Testament scholars. The fact
helps us to understand why Hebrews could apply the Day of Atonement to Christ’s ascension “within the
veil” and promise that soon He would emerge to bless those who outside in the earthly courtyard were
eagerly looking for Him. See Heb. 9:26-28. (See Westcott and other commentators who so apply Heb. 9:27,
28.)
This thought should not be revolutionary. Ellen G. White says it clearly in Prophets and Kings 703-704.
What we are now doing to warn the world in order that the eternal kingdom might be set up was originally
the task of Israel after the return from Babylon, and should have been fulfilled by the end of the seventy
weeks of years. Our own SDA Bible Commentary is also emphatic that the end of all things should have
come in the first century. (See SDABC 7:729.) But the real evidence is within Scripture itself.
IS THE YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE COMPATIBLE
WITH A FIRST CENTURY END OF THE WORLD?
Consider the following passages:
Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matt.
24:34 RSV)
179
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly, I say to you, you will not
have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes. (Matt. 10:23 RSV)
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the
Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matt. 16:28 RSV)
The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did
not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is
that to you?” (John 21:23 RSV)
Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing
may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ . . – (Acts 3:19, 20
RSV)
Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For
salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at
hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. (Rom. 13:11,12
RSV) I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who
have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not
mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as
though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings
with it. For the form of this world is passing away. (1 Cor. 7:29-31 RSV)
Now these things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our
instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come. (1 Cor. 10:11 RSV)
In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last
days … (Heb. 1:1 RSV)
For then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is,
he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
(Heb. 9:26 RSV)
Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many
antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. (1 John 2:18 RSV)
Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches
have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have rusted, and their
rust will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure
for the last days. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at
hand. Do not grumble, brethren, against one another, that you may not be judged; behold, the
Judge is standing at the doors. (James 5:1-3, 8, 9 RSV)
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to her servants what must soon
take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John. – . Blessed is he
who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep
what is written therein; for the time is near. (Rev. 1:1,3 RSV)
Let us give special attention to Matt. 24:34. The blacksmith’s sign: “All sorts of twistings and turnings
done here” is appropriate to the exegesis usually applied to
180
to this text. But the evidence is overwhelming that Christ was saying He planned to return to that very
generation He was addressing.
The decisive tact is that the expression “this generation” occurs fourteen times in the gospels, and
always refers to Christ’s contemporaries. The context itself is clear enough. The siege of Jerusalem spoken
of in verse 15 launches a terrible time of trouble see verse 21. It is quite impossible to legitimately
separate the great tribulation from the attack on Jerusalem. Next, we read verse 29 which assures us that
immediately after the terrible days of Jerusalem’s suffering there would be signs in the heavens climaxed by
Christ’s own appearance in the clouds of heaven.
When we turn to what was probably the original version of the Olivet discourse Mark 13 the case is
at least as strong. The description of verses 24-27 is today overwhelmingly taken as applying to the end of
the age and the Parousia. The verses stand in strong contrast to the merely terrestrial phenomena of verse 7
forward. The convulsion of the heavens appears to be a fitting accompaniment of the manifestation of the
Son of Man to the world which has rejected Him. Vincent Taylor writes, “In the light of Sf (wars,
earthquakes, famines) and 26 (the coming of the Son of Man with clouds), it seems probable that objective
phenomena are meant.”21 The “gathering of Israel” is frequently pictured in the Old Testament as an event
of the end-time. See Isa. 60:4ff, Micah 4:1-7, etc. There does not seem to have been any plainer language
Christ could have used to convey the message of the Son of Man’s literal coming than verse 26. We must
ask those who apply this verse and its context metaphorically just how could Christ have made the point
of His return, if words as clear as these are capable of another meaning? We would also inquire whether the
New Testament teaching on the resurrection and the age to come is not evaporated by such exegesis. While
it is true that the fall of Jerusalem helped the young church to attain independence, it remains to be doubted
whether those Christians persecuted after AD 70 considered themselves to be in the age of glory.
Each and all of the statements preceding and succeeding the picture of the Son of Man coming in the
clouds, bear witness to significance of this central description. The great tribulation, described as occurring
just before the convulsion of the heavens, is linked with “the time of the end” in its Old Testament source.
See Dan. 12:1-4. Verse 32, by its reference to he hemera ekeine pinpoints the event of the great day of
Yahweh so often referred to in the prophets, 22 while the parables of the fig tree and the master of the house,
which bracket the reference to he hemera ekeine echo the need for alertness in view of its proximity.23
The case is similarly overwhelming for the interpretation of verses 14-19 as local and historical. V. G.
Simkhovitch long ago lunged at the heart of the matter when he asked, “If it refers to the end of the world,
what difference does it make whether that end is to come in the winter or in the summer?”24 And C. H.
Dodd in similar vein affirmed that the description in these verses fits precisely a condition of besiegement.25
Unless these verses have reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, Christ has not truly
replied to the inquiry from His disciples which provoked the discourse. Furthermore, the setting of this
passage in Mark’s Gospel is particularly important as scholars recognize. Christ had warned the church
leaders of His day that they were shortly to witness the judgment of God.26 The temple had been declared
abandoned.27 It is then that we have the announcement to the disciples regarding the dissolution of the
sacred building. Because Mark has given Christ’s prophecy with this context, it is an immediate presumption
that the discourse discusses the very issue which raised it, and in the manner of the prophets rather than that
of the apocalyptists. Chapter 11 to 15 each refer to the temple, and such an extended description of its fate as
13:14-19 might have been expected.
What should be said of the view that the discourse includes both the crisis of AD
181
70 and the greater crisis at the end of the world, yet separates them one from the other? (Scholars who have
taken this view include W. Beyschlag, F. Godet, E. F. K. Muller, A. B. Bruce, B. Rigaux, C. Cranfield, and
G. E. Ladd.)
Not all who see both the end of Jerusalem and the end of the age in this same chapter, interpret it along
identical lines. Lagrange and Rigaux, for example, differ considerably. The former considers the
arrangement of Mark 13 to be the work of the Evangelist as he blended two discourses of Christ, one
concerning the ruin of the temple, and the other the Second Advent. Not so Regaux, who holds that the two
perspectives were indissolubly united by Christ in the single presentation. Cranfield’s position is similar to
Rigaux’s. He says: “Neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is
satisfactory, we must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.”28
From a faith standpoint such viewpoints may seem acceptable, but exegetically they are hardly tolerable.
Some commentators, for example, point to the twofold question of Matt. 24:3. But when one takes into
consideration the accounts of the same inquiry found in Mark and Luke, it is evident that the disciples had in
view a single event only, of which the fall of Jerusalem was a significant part. (Matthew probably
distinguished the two events because, at the time he wrote, the first had already transpired.) Note the
parallelism in Mark 13:4.
pote – ti/to semeion
tauta- tauta panta
estai – melle sunteleisthai
In effect, the question of the disciples is, “When will this take place, and what will be the sign of it?”
The most obvious difficulty for commentators of this school, particularly those who view the discourse
as separating the two crises, is finding the precise point of division between the two. Some select verse 24,
but it is obviously tied to the preceding verse. Others prefer verse 20, despite its obvious link with verse 19.
Still others fix upon verse 21, but only by ignoring tote in this same verse, which links the statement to the
preceding and following passages. The majority settle for verse 19 despite the fact that hai hamerai ekainai
connects the verse to the previous description.
It must ever be kept in mind that verse 24 which introduces the Parousia is riveted just as closely to the
tribulation heralded by the coming of the bdelugma against Jerusalem, and without any hint of a separating
chasm of centuries.
Mark 13:30 must be understood as belonging to a similar genre as Jonah’s “Yet forty days and Nineveh
shall be overthrown.’ Here was the fiat of the Almighty to Nineveh. Hardly could a prediction be more
definite as to what and when. The whole book of Jonah revolves around it. Yet the forty days passed, and
according to the narrator, Nineveh still pointed its proud towers to the heavens. Jonah was certainly angry,
but he was not surprised. He seems rather to have anticipated it. “I knew that thou are a gracious God, and
merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and repentant of evil.”
Jonah was familiar with the principles expressed in later days by Jeremiah and Ezekiel:
If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down
and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will
repent of the evil that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or
a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and If it does evil in my sight, not listening to my
voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do to it. (Jer. 18:7-10 RSV)
182
“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just. Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not
just? Is it not your ways that are not just? When a righteous man turns away from his
righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die for it; for the iniquity which he has
committed he shall die. Again, when a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has
committed and does what is lawful and right, he shall save his life.” (Eze. 18:25-27 RSV)
Another Old Testament example is that of Isaiah’s words to Hezek
“so long as the first apartment ministry had significance” is in meaning identical with “outward ordinances in force” (verse 10). Thereby we see that “the time of reformation” is the equivalent to what was represented by “the second,” “the holiest of all,” theta hagia. This same thought is found in 10:1, where we are told that the typical offerings pointed forward to the good things yet to come. Thus the contrast is ever between the time before the cross represented by the limited and continuous ministry of the typical blood of animals by earthly priests, and the time after the cross where Christ opens unrestricted access and confers the “good things” of forgiveness, the law written on the heart, etc. The first apartment stands for the era before the cross, but the second apartment for the era after the cross.