E. J. WAGGONER

As we consider the next figure, it is with a measure of shock.

E. J. Waggoner, “the Lord’s messenger” in 1888, had become heretical by the early 1890s. In 1916 Waggoner died, and his last writing is known as his Confession of Faith. There he states his long-silent position on the sanctuary a position which reflects his growing departure from objective justification.

We quote him at length because of his influence upon Adventism, and because he ably sets forth views which were rapidly growing amongst us. The statement is most interesting, although it contains as many things open to criticism as the views he was examining. There were references by Waggoner to 1844 in later years, but they were not presented with much conviction. We wish to stress that here and in other places where we quote critics of our sanctuary doctrine, such quotation does not necessarily affirm the present writer’s agreement with the contentions made.

Neither at the cross, nor before or since, has there been any new feature introduced any change in the way for sinners to approach the Throne of Grace. Christ has from the foundation of the world been the Lamb slain; His life has always been the one perfect sacrifice for sin; and His royal priesthood has been unchangeable. He is from first to last the “one mediator between God and men.” He has borne the sins of the world from the beginning of sin; and He has “taken away” the sin from as many of the world as have been willing to have it blotted out of their lives.

Also, twenty-five years ago, these truths, coupled with the self-evident truth that sin is not an entity but a condition that can exist only in a person, made it clear to me that it is impossible that there could be any such thing as the transferring of sins to the sanctuary in heaven, thus defiling that place; and that there could, consequently be no such thing, either in 1844 AD, or at any other time, as the “cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary.”

“Then what took place in 1844?”

34

That question puzzled me for many years; for I had been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea of a 2300-year period ending in 1844, that it never occurred to me to doubt it. Indeed, I never did doubt it for a moment; but one day the light dawned upon me, and I saw that that period had no foundation whatever, and then of course I simply dropped it.

How did I learn this? you ask. Well, I suppose I should never have seen it if I had not been for so many years fully convinced that the thing which I, from my boyhood, had been taught took place in 1844 did not occur, then nor at any other time.

But what about the 2300 days? Are we to throw away the prophetic rule of “a day for a year”? By no means; that rule holds, but it has no application in this case, for the simple reason that the eighth chapter of Daniel makes no mention whatever of 2300 days. Not the “King James” version, nor any other version, but the Hebrew text, must settle the question, and that says “two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings” (literally “evening-mornings”), as correctly rendered in the revised version.

“But,” it is asked, “doesn’t an evening and a morning make a day?” Yes; but what reason have we for gratuitously assuming that the term is here used as a periphrasis for “day”? In that case we should have a figure of a figure! We are placed under the necessity of interpreting a figure of speech, and then taking that interpretation as a prophetic figure. When a prophetic symbol is used, the symbol itself ought to be absolutely clear, needing no explanation. But here we are told to believe that we have for the figurative day a term that is never elsewhere used in the Bible for the word “day.” Why should we assume an exception here? There is a Hebrew word that is everywhere rendered “day,” and it is the only word for “day” in the Hebrew Scriptures. Has it never occurred to you to wonder why an exception should be made here? It certainly rests with those who claim an exception here to show the most clear and convincing proof of the alleged fact, and to give a plain and conclusive reason therefor.

If the translators of the 1611 version had translated the Hebrew words ereb boqer (evenings mornings), instead of substituting “day” for the proper rendering, I doubt if even the maintaining of a theory would have led anyone to light upon so farfetched an interpretation. I ask again, what reason can be given for the introduction by inspiration of a new, absolutely unknown, and clumsy expression, instead of the simple and well-known word for “day,” if the reader were intended to understand “day”? I say “clumsy expression,” meaning only, of course, as a circumlocution for “day.” In reality there is nothing clumsy about it when taken in its obvious sense. It seems so obvious as to need no argument, that the term “evening-mornings,” when used in connection with the sanctuary, must refer only to evening and morning sacrifices.

Incidentally there comes in here, of course, a consideration of the application of the “little horn.” Consistency demands that the horn of a goat should be of the nature of a goat a process, a continuation of the animal in question. But this would preclude the application of a Grecian horn to Rome, since Greece and Rome were two distinct, independent powers. Why is there any more ground for saying that Rome came out of Greece, than there is for saying that Greece came out of Medo-Persia, or that Medo-Persia came out of Babylon? It is true that a victory

35

over a Macedonian king gave Rome great prestige, but not so great as the victory over Darius gave Alexander, or the conquest of Babylon gave Cyrus. Rome, like its predecessors in universal dominion, originated in territory to the westward of the kingdom immediately preceding it, and had an origin as distinct from Greece as Greece had from Medo-Persia, or Medo-Persia from Babylon. The facts do not fit the interpretation which Seventh-day Adventists have given the prophecy. Strangely enough, the chart that has always been used by the denomination, and the supposed picture of the goat, which still appears in all the books and articles devoted to this prophecy, plainly show the inconsistency of the interpretation. Look it up, if you do not have the picture in mind, and you will see that the “little horn,” marked “Rome,” is represented as coming from behind the goat, and that the goat horn marked “Syria” is represented as uniting with that previously-existing little horn, instead of the latter coming out of the Syrian horn. The awkward picture contradicts the words of the prophecy; but if it had been made true to nature and to the text, the little horn could not have been labeled “Rome.”

I had thought to devote a little space to a positive consideration of the application of the little horn, but I will not cumber the argument with it. I did not really need to refer to the horn at all, it being sufficient for my purpose, in dealing with the atonement, to show that the eighth chapter of Daniel does not contain any long prophetic period, at the end of which sins are to be blotted out. My only burden in this writing is that sin is not an entity, a commodity, that can be taken away from a person and deposited intact somewhere else, awaiting its final destruction. Since no earthly sinners have ever been in the sanctuary in heaven, their sins can never have defiled that place, necessitating its cleansing. But the sanctuary at Jerusalem in Judea, which alone was the subject of Daniel’s anxiety, had been most horribly defiled by Antiochus, and did need cleansing.

“But what about the Investigative Judgment?” Yes, indeed, what about it? In truth, there is no responsibility resting on me to say anything about it, because in the entire Bible, from Genesis. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21, inclusive, there is never once any mention of such a thing. (16)