Webmaster's Introduction (16 October 2002; last updated November 2004):

The following paper is by Dr. Raymond Cottrell, retired editor, major contributor to the SDA Bible Commentary, and thought leader for decades in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Pastor Larry Christoffel, associate pastor of the Campus Hill Church of Seventh-day Adventists (Loma Linda, CA) delivered Dr. Cottrell's paper at the San Diego Forum on 09 February 2002, who for health reasons could not personally deliver it. Following the presentation, both Pastor Christoffel and Dr. Cottrell fielded questions. In their presentation and Q&A session, they showed in brief how a Biblical reconsideration of the sanctuary doctrine is essential to properly exalting Christ and the pure Gospel to the center of our message and mission as a church. Only as we are willing to stand corrected and to advance in understanding openly, with Christian honesty and fearlessness, will we be able to walk worthy of the pioneering spirit of our Advent forefathers.

While we at JIF would largely agree with Dr. Cottrell on the exegetical weaknesses of an earlier view (and would add several others), we feel that he does not as yet advance far enough toward a correct exegesis of Dan. 8:14. On the main issues we are proposing other solutions (for examples, please see the very brief Daniel 8:14, Covenant judgment, and the Gospel: A friendly response to Clifford Goldstein’s “Debunking ‘the context problem’”, a longer exegetical outline of Daniel 8:1-14, Daniel 8:14 and Isaiah, and the July-August 2002 "Jubilee festival: Christians and the ancient sanctuary" Adventist Today 10(4): 12-13):

1.  Contrary to Dr. Cottrell, we hold that the vision of Dan. 8:1-14 and its explanations especially in Dan. 9:24-27 are intimately connected with the (Jubilee) Day of Atonement of Leviticus 16 (25). What's more we note more than 20 parallels in concept, imagery, and Covenant language between the Covenant Jubilee Day of Atonement paradigm (Lev. 16, ch. 25-26) and the Covenant vision-interpretation of Daniel 8-9. Our Advent forefathers rightly saw a connection between Dan. 8:14 and Lev. 16 but not its full contextual and Christological significance.

2.  We hold that the only contextual explanation of the "vindication [nitz^edaq] of the sanctuary" in Daniel 8:14 is the litany of Messianic accomplishments to be completed within the 70 sabbatical 'weeks' in their Jubilee Day of Atonement setting (Daniel 9:24-27): (1) "Finish the transgression," (2) "Seal an end to sins," (3) "Atone for iniquity," (4) "Bring in everlasting righteousness [tzedeq]," (5) "Seal an end to vision and prophecy," (6) "Anoint a Most Holy," (7) Bring "a (Sabbath) end to sacrifice and offering," and finally at the end, (8) What’s "decreed pours out on the desolator."

3.  We hold that the true contextual meaning of Daniel 8 and 9 is eschatological and Messianic (i.e., Christocentric from an NT eschatological standpoint). The contextual meaning is to be found in the Levitic Covenant-conditional paradigm in which the Biblical prophets actually wrote, not in the inadequate post-Biblical preterist, historicist, futurist, or idealist constructs. In the light of the NT, Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:24 find their true fulfillment with the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary in the midst of the 70th week and their consummation with long-delayed 2nd Advent of Christ (cf. Heb. 3-4) when He returns again in glory (Rev. 11-14; 19-20; Heb. 9:27-28).

We plan to add more on these topics soon. (For more, please see material detailing more on a Covenant perspective from the most recent JIF symposium, October 2002). We rejoice that Daniel 8:14 is again stirring thought among thoughtful Christians both Seventh-day Adventists and others. Daniel 8:14 is pure Gospel. It's time to Biblically reclaim it. We believe that Daniel 8:14 and 9:23-27 may even be thought of as the foundational texts of the NT, from Jesus' proclamation in the Galilee (Mark 1:15) to Revelation 22.

Finally we believe that the arrival of the antitypical Jubilee Day of Atonement with the Christ event and the NT proclamation has ethical consequences which will revolutionize Christianity if accepted, as they must be one day: Namely, just as our sin indebtedness is forgiven before the Mercy Seat vertically through a Son, so also there should be a forgiveness of debt-bondage and liberation on the horizontal level toward a brothers and sisters in humanity all over the world (Lev. 16, 26-26; Isa. 58; Dan. 9; Jesus kingdom prayer in Matt. 6 and Luke 11, etc.). A forthcoming paper is planned for this.

The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined. The same is true with respect to church discipline on doctrinal grounds, defections from the church, and the diversion of time, attention, and resources from Adventism's perceived mission to the world.

It has been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may believe that Christ was a created being (and not God in the full sense of the word), or that a person can earn salvation by faithfully observing the Ten Commandments, or that Genesis 1 is not a literal account of creation a mere six thousand years ago – without being disciplined and forfeiting his ministerial credentials. But it has also been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated that an ordained minister may not conscientiously question the authenticity of the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, even in his thoughts, without his ministerial credentials being revoked. As noted below, in several instances as much as half a century of faithful service to the church has not been sufficient to mitigate this result.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the origin, history, and methodology of the sanctuary doctrine, to examine it on the basis of the sola Scriptura principle and recognized principles of exegesis, and to explore procedures by means of which to avoid repeating the traumatic experiences of the church with it in the past – to learn from experience.

Insofar as possible this paper avoids technical hermeneutical terminology, including the transliteration of Hebrew words used by Bible scholars. The transliteration used is designed to enable persons not familiar with biblical Hebrew to approximate the Hebrew vocalization. Except as otherwise noted, Bible quotations cited are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). The paper proceeds as follows:
 

ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE
(Page numbers on the printed document available from the San Diego Forum).

1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Page 2
2. Ellen G. White and the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Six Church Leaders Who Questioned the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Continuing Casualties of the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Non-Adventist Reaction to the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
6. My Personal Encounter With the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
 

A SOLA SCRIPTURA EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINE

7. "Rightly Explaining the Word of Truth," 2 Timothy 2:15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. "Rightly Explaining" Daniel 8:14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
9. Flaws in the Traditional Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. The Sanctuary Doctrine and Sola Scriptura  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

DOCTRINAL OBSCURANTISM AND ITS REMEDY

11. Obscurantism and the Sanctuary Doctrine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. The Daniel and Revelation Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
13. A Permanent Remedy for Obscurantism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
14. The Authenticity of Adventism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

1. Formation of the Sanctuary Doctrine

Pioneer Seventh-day Adventists inherited their identification of the year
1844 as the terminus of the 2300 "days" foretold in the KJV of Daniel 8:14
from William Miller. Formerly an avowed skeptic, he was converted in 1816
and eventually became a Baptist lay preacher. He devoted his first two years
as a born-again Christian to a diligent study of the Bible, which eventually
came to a focus on Daniel 8:14 and the conclusion that it foretold the
second coming of Christ "about the year 1843."

According to the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia Miller "repeatedly
declared that his prophetic views were not new," but insisted that he came
to his conclusions exclusively through his own study of the Bible and
reference to a concordance. In volume 4 of his Prophetic Faith of Our
Fathers Le Roy Edwin Froom notes that Miller was by no means the
"originator" of the idea that the 2300 "days" were prophetic years ending
about 1843, and that it is "a simple historical fact that the origin of the
view of the 2,300 years as ending at that time, and its wide circulation,
was wholly prior to and independent of William Miller."¹

By what process did Miller, this formidable array of Bible students, and
pioneer Adventists arrive at 1843/44 as the terminus of the 2300 "days" of
Daniel 8:14? Relying on the 1611 King James translation of the Bible (the
only one then available), they (1) identified its "sanctuary" as the church
on earth, (2) accepted the KJV interpretation of erev boquer (literally,
"evening morning") as "days," (3) adopted the "day-for-a-year" principle in
Bible prophecy and thus construed the 2300 "days" as prophetic years, (4)
took the seventy "weeks" of Daniel 9:24-27 as the first segment of these
2300 years, (5) identified the cessation of sacrifice and offering for the
last half of the seventieth of the seventy "weeks" (verse 27) as referring
to Jesus' crucifixion,² (6) figuring back from the crucifixion, they
identified the decree of the Persian king Artaxerxes Longimanus in his
seventh year (Ezra 7) as that alluded to in Daniel 9:25, thus locating the
commencement of the 2300 years in 457 B.C., (7) with 457 B.C. as their
starting point, terminated them "about the year 1843," (8) adopted the KJV
interpretation of nitsdaq (literally, "set right" or "restored") as
"cleansed," and (9) concluded that the cleansing of the sanctuary of Daniel
8:14 meant the cleansing of the church on earth (and thus the earth itself)
by fire at the second coming of Christ.

When the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 proved conclusively that
Miller's identification of the "sanctuary" in Daniel 8:14 as the church on
earth and the nature of its cleansing as by fire at the second coming of
Christ,³ were in error, pioneer Adventists re-identified the "sanctuary" of
verse 14 as that of the Book of Hebrews in heaven,⁴ and its cleansing as the
heavenly counterpart of the cleansing of the ancient sanctuary on the Day of
Atonement.⁵

Retaining, however, the presumed validity of October 22, 1844 as the
fulfillment of Daniel 8:14 and the concept that it implied the soon return
of their Lord, the disappointed Adventist pioneers assumed that human
probation had indeed closed on that fateful day, and that only those who at
that time awaited His return were eligible for eternal life. They referred
to this concept as "the shut door" in the parable of the Ten Virgins.⁶ They
soon mated the "shut door" theory to the idea that the sanctuary of Daniel
8:14 was the sanctuary in heaven, of the book of Hebrews, that the "shut
door" was the "door" between its holy and most holy apartments, that on
October 22 Christ had closed His ministry in the holy place and entered upon
His high priestly ministry in its most holy place, and referred to His
ministry there as an "investigative judgment."

For several years the "little flock" of pioneer Seventh-day Adventists
"scattered abroad" believed that the investigative judgment phase of
Christ's ministry would be very brief (not more than five years or so at the
most),⁷ following which He would immediately return to earth. The eventual
accession of new, non-1844, members to the "little flock" proved to be
convincing evidence that the door of mercy remained open, and by the early
1850's they abandoned the "shut door" aspect of the sanctuary-in-heaven
interpretation of Daniel 8:14.

This completed the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the
sanctuary, and the investigative judgment, which was thereafter commonly
referred to as "the sanctuary doctrine" set forth in every statement of
beliefs, most recently as article 23 of the 27 Fundamental Beliefs adopted
at the 1980 session of the General Conference in New Orleans.
 

2. Ellen G. White and the Sanctuary Doctrine

The ultimate argument in defense of the traditional interpretation of Daniel
8:14 every time questions have been raised concerning it, has been Ellen
White's explicit affirmation of it. As a presumably infallible interpreter
of Scripture her support always settled the matter. For instance, in 1888,
forty-four years after the great disappointment of October 22, 1844 she
wrote: "The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation
and the central pillar of the advent faith, was the declaration, 'Unto two
thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'"⁸
She devoted an entire chapter in The Great Controversy to a defense and
explanation of the sanctuary doctrine.⁹ Eighteen years later, in 1906, she
wrote again: "The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly
sanctuary is the foundation of our faith."¹⁰

In order to understand these two statements in their historical context it
is important to remember that she and many others then living had personally
experienced the great disappointment of October 22, 1844. Her statements
about it were absolutely historically accurate. The experience was still
vivid in her own mind and in the minds of many others.

In both of these statements Ellen White is simply stating historical fact;
she is not exegeting Scripture. In 1895 she wrote: "In regard to
infallibility, I never claimed it; God alone is infallible."¹¹ "The Bible is
the only rule of faith and doctrine. ... The Bible alone ... [is] the
foundation of our faith. ... The Bible alone is to be our guide. The Holy
Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of
[God's] will. ... We are to receive God's word as supreme authority."¹²
Numerous similar statements could be cited.¹³ It is important to remember
that she never considered herself an exegete of the Bible. Upon numerous
occasions when asked for what her questioners proposed to accept as an
authoritative, infallible interpretation of a disputed Bible passage she
refused, and told them to go to the Bible themselves for an answer.

It is also vital to remember that in Ellen White's 47,000¹⁴ or so citations
of Scripture she makes use of the Bible in two distinct ways: (1) to quote
the Bible when narrating the Bible story in its own context, and (2) to
apply Bible principles in her counsel to the church today---out of its
biblical context.

A clear illustration of this two-fold use of the Bible is her series of
comments on Galatians 3:24: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to
Christ." (1) In 1856 she identified that law as the ceremonial law system of
ancient times, and specifically not the Ten Commandments.¹⁵ (2) In 1883 she
again identified that "law" as "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."¹⁶ (3)
In 1896 she wrote: "In this Scripture, the Holy Spirit through the apostle
is speaking especially of the moral law."¹⁷ (4) In 1900 she wrote: "I am
asked concerning the law in Galatians. ... I answer: both the ceremonial and
moral code of Ten Commandments."¹⁸ (5) In 1911 she again identified the law
in Galatians as exclusively "the obsolete ceremonies of Judaism."¹⁹

In these three reversals (ceremonial law exclusively, Ten Commandments
exclusively, both the ceremonial law and the Ten Commandments, ceremonial
law exclusively) was she contradicting herself or did she repeatedly change
her mind? Neither! A careful reading of each statement in its own context
makes evident that (1) when she identifies the law in Galatians as the
ceremonial law system of ancient times she is commenting on Galatians in its
own historical context, and (2) when she applies the principle involved to
our time she does so out of its biblical context. The principle involved in
Paul's day and in ours is identical: the Galatians could not be saved by a
rigorous observance of the ceremonial laws; nor can we be saved by a
rigorous observance of the Ten Commandments! The two contradictory
definitions of the law in Galatians are both valid and accurate! A careful
examination of Ellen White's thousands of quotations from, or allusion to,
the Bible makes evident that her historical statements regarding Daniel 8:14
are historically accurate with respect to the 1844 experience and not a
denial of what the passage meant in Daniel's time.

We may think of the heavenly sanctuary explanation of the great
disappointment as a prosthetic device, a spiritual crutch that enabled the
"little flock" of Adventist pioneers "scattered abroad"' to survive the
great disappointment of October 22, 1844 and not lose faith in the imminent
return of Jesus, as so many others did. That explanation was the best they
could do, given the prooftext method on which, of necessity, they relied.
With the historical method at our disposal today, we no longer need that
crutch and would do well to lay it up on the shelf of history. It is
counterproductive in our witness to the everlasting gospel today, to
biblically literate Adventists and non-Adventists alike.
 

3. Six Church Leaders Who Questioned the Sanctuary Doctrine

For about forty years the sanctuary doctrine raised no known eyebrows or
protests. But on an average of every fifteen or twenty years or so since
1887 an experienced, respected, and trusted church administrator or Bible
teacher has called the attention of fellow church leaders to flaws in the
traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, forfeited his ministerial
credentials, and either been disfellowshiped or voluntarily left the church.
With one or two possible exceptions none of them had either spoken or taught
their doubts regarding the biblical authenticity of the sanctuary doctrine,
but were fired for thinking such thoughts and sharing them with fellow
church leaders! Furthermore, none of them were novices, but experienced
administrators or Bible teachers. Three of them had served the church
faithfully for more than half a century each.

The first church leader of record to question the sanctuary doctrine was
Dudley M. Canright, in 1887. Granted that he might have been more tactful
and patient, but for more than twenty years he had served the church as a
minister, able evangelist, administrator, and sometime member of the General
Conference Committee, and had earned the right to a fair hearing of his
views. But "the brethren" either did not listen or did not understand,
apparently both. He voluntarily left the church and became as bitter and
effective an opponent of Adventism as he had formerly advocated it.

Canright forthwith published a book, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, to
warn people about the errors of Adventism. It has been translated into
scores of languages and is still used effectively to warn people against
Adventism. An honest, knowledgeable Adventist reading the book today would
have to admit that much of his tirade against the sanctuary doctrine
was---and still is---justified.²⁰

Like Canright, Albion F. Ballenger had served the church faithfully for many
years, and in 1905 was an administrator in charge of the Irish Mission. He
was an able speaker and writer, and a diligent student of Scripture. Like
Canright, Ballenger had never mentioned his views on the sanctuary in
public, but a committee of twenty-five the General Conference appointed to
hear him reported that he entertained views regarding the ministry of Christ
in the heavenly sanctuary contrary to that of the church. He acknowledged
the possibility that he might be wrong, and pleaded for someone to point out
from the Bible where he was wrong, but no one did, either then or later.

The church withdrew his ministerial credentials and disfellowshiped him
because of what he believed, not for anything he had said or done.
Twenty-five years later W. W. Prescott (a member of the GC ad hoc committees
appointed to meet with the dissidents) commented in a letter to W. A.
Spicer, then president of the General Conference: "I have waited all these
years for someone to make an adequate answer to Ballenger, Fletcher and
others on their positions re. the sanctuary but I have not seen or heard
it." Ballenger subsequently explained his views in the book Cast Out for the
Cross of Christ. "No one," he lamented, "who has not experienced it can
realize the soul anguish that overwhelms one who, in the study of the Word
finds truth which does not harmonize with that which he has believed and
taught during a whole lifetime to be vital to the salvation of the soul."²¹

After some twenty years as an ordained minister, foreign missionary, and
eventually Bible teacher at Avondale College in Australia, in 1930 William
W. Fletcher voluntarily resigned from the ministry and severed his
connection with the church, under administrative pressure, solely because of
his views regarding errors in the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14.
Two years later he published Reasons for My Faith, setting forth his views
on the sanctuary and Christ's ministry as our great High Priest. An
objective reading of both the Bible and Reasons will conclude that
Fletcher's understanding of the former was superior to that of his
critics.²²

Louis R. Conradi served the church faithfully for fifty-two years, much of
the time as vice-president of the General Conference for the Central
European Division. He was an avid Bible scholar and student of history as
well as an able administrator, and wrote extensively. He was highly
respected by his fellow administrators. For more than thirty years questions
grew in his mind regarding the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14,
which he first shared with a few church leaders in 1928 and which eventually
led to a formal hearing before an ad hoc committee of thirty-three members
appointed by the General Conference, forfeiture of his ministerial
credentials, and his voluntary separation from the church in 1931.

Thereupon he united with the Seventh Day Baptists, who issued him
ministerial credentials, gave him permission to preach Seventh-day Adventist
teachings, and made him their official representative in Europe. To his
death he expressed confidence in the fundamental integrity of Adventism
despite errors in the sanctuary doctrine.²³

William W. Prescott was a versatile person who, over a service lifetime for
the church of more than half a century (1885-1937), distinguished himself as
a writer, editor, publisher, educator, administrator, and Bible Scholar.
Like Conradi, his study of the Bible led to a recognition of serious flaws
in the sanctuary doctrine to which, however, he never gave public
expression. He retained full confidence in the basic credibility of the
Advent message. His one "mistake" was in 1934 when he shared his views with
some of "the brethren" from headquarters, who turned against him. Unlike
Conradi, however, he remained with the church, never forfeited his
ministerial credentials, but returned to Washington, D.C. where he
fellowshipped with his critics and participated actively in various General
Conference activities.

After many years of service to the church Harold E. Snide was teaching Bible
at Southern Junior College (now Southern Adventist University). A
third-generation Adventist and a diligent student of Bible prophecy, he
encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel,
especially in connection with Christ's ministry as set forth in the book of
Hebrews. He went to the leaders in Washington with the problems that
troubled him, but found no help. The conflict between the traditional
interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and Scripture proved to be a traumatic
experience that eventually, about 1945, led him to withdraw from the church.
Mrs. Snide remained a loyal Adventist, however, and went to live with her
parents in Takoma Park where I became acquainted with her.

The experience of R. A. Greive was unique in that, as president of the
Queensland Conference in Australia, he never questioned the sanctuary
doctrine. His concern was to encourage the experience of justification and
righteousness by faith as presented in the books of Romans and Hebrews, and
its counterpart the sinless perfection of Jesus Christ. Church leaders in
the division office, however, accused him of thereby being in conflict with
the concept of an investigative judgment as the cleansing of the sanctuary
referred to in Daniel 8:14 and explained in Hebrews 9.

If, as Paul wrote in Romans 8:1, there is "now no condemnation for those who
are in Christ Jesus," how can a record of those sins be preserved and
reviewed during the course of an investigative judgment? Greive asked. He
also pointed out that, according to Hebrews 7:27 and 9:6-12, Christ
completed His equivalent of the first apartment ministry on the cross and
entered upon His equivalent of the second apartment ministry when He
ascended to heaven, not eighteen centuries later. At his trial Greive agreed
to go as far as his "enlightened conscience" would allow in order to have
harmony with his brethren, but for them that was not far enough. In 1956 his
credentials were withdrawn and he withdrew from the church.²⁴

Think of the time, attention, and cost of disciplining these six
administrators and Bible scholars, listed above, has diverted from the
mission of the church to the world! Think also of the distress and heartache
these six have experienced and often expressed. Think, as well, of the
damage some of them have done to the church!
 

4. Continuing Casualties of the Sanctuary Doctrine

Like an airplane unexpectedly entering a region of clear air turbulence, in
1945 Dr. Desmond Ford began to encounter exegetical problems in the
traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the
investigative judgment. He set out to put all of the disparate pieces
together in a coherent pattern that would resolve the problems, that would
be faithful to reliable principles of exegesis, and that left him a
dedicated Seventh-day Adventist with complete confidence in the integrity of
the church as an authentic witness to the everlasting gospel.

Over the next ten or fifteen years Ford discovered that some of his
contemporaries and others before him had wrestled with the same problems. In
his definitive 991-page Glacier View document, Daniel 8:14, the Day of
Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment, he names twelve Adventist Leaders
with whom he had discussed the problems, in person or by correspondence. He
devoted his master's and one of his doctoral dissertations to the subject.
His published commentaries on the Books of Daniel and the Revelation total
more than two thousand pages. He has probably devoted more scholarly study
to the subject and written more extensively on it than any other person in
history.

During his long tenure as head of the theology department at Avondale
College in Australia he trained half or so of the ministers in Australia. In
the classroom and by his personal example he inspired thousands of young
people for Christ. He was always in demand as a speaker, and thousands
testify to a clearer understanding and appreciation of the gospel as a
result of his witness to it. His theme ever was---and still is---salvation
by faith in Jesus Christ.

Ford never discussed the controversial aspects of the sanctuary doctrine in
public---until October 27, 1979, as an exchange professor at Pacific Union
College, when several members of the faculty invited him to discuss his
views on the sanctuary question in an open meeting one Sabbath afternoon.
Thirty-four years of silence on the subject surely reflect commendable
pastoral and scholarly restraint. The PUC presentation "was positive on the
providential role of Adventists and Ellen White." However, three retired
ministers present detected what they perceived to be heresy and reported
their version of his remarks to the chairman of the college board.

In view of the fact that Ford was still an employee of Avondale College in
Australia and due to return to Avondale at the close of the 1979-1980 school
year, the chairman logically referred the matter to the General Conference.
In August 1980 115 leading administrators and Bible scholars from around the
world (at an administrator's estimated cost of a quarter of a million
dollars) were summoned to Glacier View²⁵ in Colorado, to serve as the
Sanctuary Review Committee. They were specifically instructed not to
evaluate Ford's beliefs with respect to Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the
investigative judgment by the Bible itself, but as set forth in the
statement of Twenty-seven Fundamental Beliefs, which the church had already
determined to be normative. Several weeks later the Australasian Division
withdrew his ministerial credentials.

Procedures at Glacier View consisted of a reaffirmation of the traditional
Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14. But Ford was given no opportunity
to present the reasons for his "apotelesmatic" interpretation of it, which
provided for the traditional Adventist interpretation being one of several
fulfillments of the prophecy, but not the fulfillment. Again---as
always---the church neglected to examine the reasons for dissent from the
traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and merely reaffirmed it in
stentorian tones. As a matter of fact, the consensus report voted at the
close of the week-long conference tacitly agreed with Ford on six major
points of exegesis. Later, some forty Bible scholars signed a document known
as the Atlanta Affirmation, remonstrating with Neal Wilson for the way the
church had treated Ford at, and after, Glacier View.

In his involuntary "retirement" Ford has continued to proclaim the gospel,
in a ministry he called "Good News Unlimited." Unlike Canright, Ballenger,
and others before him who had embarked on vendettas against the church, Ford
has remained a dedicated Seventh-day Adventist at heart and retained his
church membership.²⁶

Ford, now retired in his native Queensland, Australia, is the lone survivor
of numerous traumatic encounters with the traditional interpretation of
Daniel 8:14. We could wish that such encounters with the sanctuary doctrine
were a thing of the past. But a new generation of victims is repeating their
traumatic experiences all over again. If the past is any index to the future
they will be repeated indefinitely unless and until the church faces up to
the facts objectively and deals realistically and responsibly with them
in harmony with the sola Scriptura principle.

It is said that more than 150 ordained ministers, mostly in Australia,
forfeited their ministerial credentials in the aftermath of the Ford affair.
Hundreds of lay persons, mostly in the United States, left the church and
formed effervescent "fellowships" as a result.

Dale Ratzlaff was pastor of the Watsonville church in the Central California
Conference and a Bible teacher at nearby Monterey Bay Academy when, in 1981,
he was abruptly fired by the Conference for expressing a conviction shared
by a majority of the forty or so Bible scholars at Glacier View, that
administration had misjudged and mistreated Desmond Ford the year before.
The elders of the Watsonville church invited Dr. Fred Veltman of Pacific
Union College and me to meet with the church the following Sabbath, in which
we endeavored to pour oil on the troubled waters.

Ratzlaff left the Adventist church and wandered about (both geographically
and ideologically) for a few years following which he embarked on what he
calls Life Assurance Ministries, first in Sedona and now in Glendale,
Arizona, with the objective of warning Adventists and others against the
church. First came a 350-page polemic against the Sabbath, and in 2001 the
384-page Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists, which he describes as
"an appeal to SDA leadership." His target in Cultic Doctrine is the
traditional Adventist Interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary doctrine,
and the investigative judgment. In 1999 he began publishing Proclamation, a
bi-monthly journal dedicated to warning Adventists and others against
Adventism. Here in the West, Dale's crusade is having at least a measure of
success. He is also publisher of Dr. Jerry Gladson's 383-page A Theologian's
Journey From Seventh-day Adventism to Mainstream Christianity (copyright
2001).²⁷

Dr. Jerry Gladson had the very considerable misfortune to serve on the
faculty of Southern Adventist College (now University). Had he been teaching
at any of the other eight Adventist colleges or universities in North
America he would probably still be an Adventist minister and teacher.
Southern operates as an agency of Southern Bible belt obscurantism.
Furthermore it was (and still is) to an appreciable extent, dependent on the
largesse of committed ultra-fundamentalists, who insist that the college
operate on ultra-fundamentalist principles. Again the target was the
traditional sanctuary doctrine and the charge what Gladson thought about it,
not anything he had taught in his classes.

Then dean of the Adventist Theological Seminary Dr. Gerhard F. Hasel, a
former student and teacher at Southern and the ruthless personification of
Adventist obscurantism, played an active role in the lynching of Dr.
Gladson, a role in which Hasel had already distinguished himself at the
Seminary. The head of the religion department at Southern, responsible for
the ultimate coup de grace, was as closed-minded and ruthless as Torquemada,
a role in which he had already distinguished himself as director of the
Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference. What chance did Dr.
Gladson have for a fair evaluation and adjudication of the charges against
him? Finally, the chairman of the college board distinguished himself as
either a committed obscurantist or a willing instrument of the far Adventist
right.

Jerry Gladson was not fired nor were his ministerial credentials withdrawn.
He remained an ordained minister until they expired and were not renewed.
Instead, a witch-hunting climate was created in which departure proved to be
the lesser of two evils. There was no formal hearing. No one tried to
understand his reasons for thinking as he did, or cared. The Pharisees were
in control, and that was that. An anomalous situation indeed!²⁷

Janet Brown became a Seventh-day Adventist in 1985. As a lay person she was
an avid Bible student, and as such "began to notice more and more problems
and inconsistencies between SDA teachings and the Bible." For a time she
ignored these "cracks in the armor of Adventism," but as "the evidence
really began to pile up" she felt that she could no longer "remain honest"
with herself and continue as a Seventh-day Adventist. To her, the
investigative judgment resembles Roman Catholic purgatory inasmuch as it
keeps people in suspense as to their standing before God and "makes no sense
biblically." In 1995 she left the Adventist church and operates a website
devoted to opposing it.²⁸

Don W. Silver of Ashland Kentucky is another lay person who left Adventism
recently, primarily because of the sanctuary doctrine, which he vehemently
opposes. Evidently well-educated, he speaks with fervor and pin-point logic.
His wife, like him well-educated, teaches at nearby Marshall University and
remains a faithful Adventist and a leader in the local Adventist church.
Their two grown daughters have followed their father into agnosticism.²⁹

Other contemporary illustrations of opposition to the sanctuary doctrine and
resulting apostasy might, of course, be cited. I know personally of other
employees of the church who have been fired for the same reason, of lay
people who have left the church, and of families that have been broken up as
a result. The sanctuary problem is still with us, late and soon, and is
touching the lives of sincere Seventh-day Adventists.
 

5. Non-Adventist Reaction to the Sanctuary Doctrine

It was the sanctuary doctrine based on Daniel 8:14 that made us Seventh-day
Adventists and that remains, today, the keystone of our distinctive belief
system and our mission to the world. Of it, Ellen White wrote: "The
Scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central
pillar of our faith was the declaration, 'Unto two thousand and three
hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed'"³⁰ and "The correct
understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the
foundation of our faith." "Not one pin is to be removed from that which the
Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the
doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which
there will be a departing from the faith."³¹

When, in the mid-1950's, Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse explored
Adventist teachings in depth with persons appointed by the General
Conference, they concluded that, with two exceptions, we are in harmony with
the gospel: (1) our sanctuary doctrine, and (2) the role we popularly
ascribe to Ellen White as an infallible interpreter of Scripture, in
contradiction of her own explicit statements to the contrary. The former,
they concluded, violates the Reformation principle sola Scriptura.³² Of it,
Barnhouse wrote:
    The [sanctuary] doctrine is, to me, the most colossal,
     psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history. ... We
    personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in
    Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position, and we further believe that
    any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable. ... [It is]
    unimportant and almost naïve.³³

Such is the usual reaction of non-Adventist Bible scholars and other
biblically literate non-Adventists to our sanctuary doctrine.³⁴
 

6. My Personal Encounter With the Sanctuary Doctrine

I first encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel
8:14, professionally, in the spring of 1955 during the process of editing
comment on the Book of Daniel for volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. As
a work intended to meet the most exacting scholarly standards, we intended
our comment to reflect the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers.
As an Adventist commentary it must also reflect, as accurately as possible,
what Adventists believe and teach. But in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it
hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements.³⁵

In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing
plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it
where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of
Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful
to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but
again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the
Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every
college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department
in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine.
Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual
basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.³⁶

When the results of this questionnaire were called to the attention of the
General Conference president, he and the Officers appointed the super-secret
Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, of which I was a member.
Meeting intermittently for five years (1961-1966), we considered 48 papers
relative to Daniel 8 and 9, and in the spring of 1966 adjourned sine die,
unable to reach a consensus.³⁷

The Commentary experience with Daniel already mentioned led me into an
unhurried, in-depth, spare-time, comprehensive study of Daniel 7 to 12
that continued without interruption for seventeen years (1955-1972), in
quest of a conclusive solution to the sanctuary problem. My objective was to
be fully prepared with definitive, objective, biblical information the next
time the question should arise during the course of my ministry for the
church.

Among other things I memorized, in Hebrew, all relevant portions of Daniel 8
to 12 for instant recall and comparison (60 verses), conducted exhaustive
word studies³⁸ of more than 150 relevant Hebrew words Daniel uses,
throughout the Old Testament, studied the Hebrew grammar and syntax in
detail, made a minute analysis of contextual data,³⁹ compared ancient Greek
and Latin translations of Daniel,40 investigated relevant apocryphal and New
Testament passages,⁴¹ traced Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel
from ancient to modern times,⁴² and made an exhaustive study of the
formation, development, and subsequent Adventist experience with the
traditional sanctuary doctrine.⁴³ Eventually I incorporated the results of
this investigation into an 1100 page manuscript which I later reduced to 725
pages but decided not release for publication until an appropriate time.

The above considerations conclusively demonstrate that our traditional
interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment
as set forth in Article 23 of Fundamental Beliefs does not accurately
reflect the teaching of Scripture with respect to the ministry of Christ on
our behalf since His return to heaven.⁴⁴ Accordingly, it is appropriate (1)
to note wherein Article 23 is thus defective,⁴⁵ (2) to revise the article so
as to reflect Bible teaching on this aspect of His ministry accurately, and
(3) to suggest a process designed to protect the church from this and
similar traumatic experiences in the future.⁴⁶

Some of the concepts associated with the investigative judgment are, indeed,
biblical, but the Bible itself nowhere associates them with an investigative
judgment, for which there is no sola Scriptura basis whatever.⁴⁷

Upon ascending to heaven Jesus assured His disciples "I am with you always,
to the end of the age" (Matthew 18:20). The Book of Hebrews is our primary
source of information about His ministry in heaven on their (and our) behalf
since that time, I suggest that the following composite summary of His
ministry as presented in Hebrews provides an appropriate basis for a revised
article 23 of Fundamental Beliefs, should such a statement eventually be
desired. The author of Hebrews presents Christ's ministry in heaven, on our
behalf, by analogy with the role of the high priest in the ancient sanctuary
ritual:

On the cross Jesus offered Himself as a single sacrifice for all time that
atoned for the sins of those who draw near to God through Him.⁴⁸ That one
sacrifice qualified Him to serve as our great High Priest in heaven,
perpetually.⁴⁹ Having made that sacrifice, Christ entered the Most Holy
Place--"heaven itself"--to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.⁵⁰ He
invites us to come boldly to Him, by faith, to find mercy and grace to help
us in our time of need.⁵¹ He will soon appear, a second time, "to bring
salvation to those who are waiting for him."⁵²
 

7. "Rightly Explaining the Word of Truth"⁵³

The almost infinitely diverse and often contradictory ideas attributed to
the Bible, and thus its relevance for our time, suggest the importance of
identifying principles on the basis of which we can have confidence in the
validity of our conclusions with respect to the perspectives of life and
reality its divine Author and the inspired writers intended their words to
convey.

We read and study the Bible with the objective of learning who we are, how
and why we came to be here, how we should relate to life and make the most
of its opportunities, where we are going, and how best to get there. This
constitutes what we may call our "world view," our concept of what life on
planet Earth is all about.

Our quest for this information is something like a literal journey from
where we may be now to where we would like to be, but have never been over
the road before. In planning such a journey we must first know where we are,
where we want to be at journey's end, and the best way to get there. Our
planning must take into consideration the facts of geography and travel as
they really are, not as we might like or imagine them to be. In other words
we must be objective with respect to reality, to the facts of geography and
travel as they really are. To be subjective in our planning---to think of
them as we might imagine or like them to be---could eventually prove to be
disastrous. It is the same with reading and studying the Bible: Objectivity
is essential. Being subjective in our study and thinking inevitably imposes
our personal, unenlightened, opinions upon the Bible and leaves us blind and
deaf to what God is trying to say to us through it. As a result, we assume
that our personal opinions constitute the voice of God!

In the Bible even a child or a semi-literate person can find the way of
salvation and follow it all the way to the pearly gates, and find welcome
there. But for in-depth study of some portions of it those not at home with
ancient Hebrew and Greek should make use of relevant reference material
prepared by reliable persons who are conversant with those languages.
Certain factors are essential for everyone conducting in-depth study of the
Bible. The following is a brief resume of factors essential to such a study.

Objectivity is the mental quality that aspires to evaluate ideas and draws
conclusions in terms of their intrinsic reality, rather than in terms of a
person's untested, subjective presuppositions. Objectivity is essential for
ascertaining the intended import of the Bible.

Untested, subjective presuppositions regarding the nature and teachings of
the Bible almost inevitably lead to wrong conclusions. Everyone, consciously
or unconsciously, comes to the Bible with a set of presuppositions about it
which control evaluation of the data considered and thus the conclusions
drawn from it. Accordingly, the importance of presuppositions is crucial in
determining the validity of one's conclusions. Presuppositions should ever
remain open to revision as clearer, objective evidence may require. The
objective is to eliminate every subjective factor from the reasoning process
in order to bring it into harmony with objective reality.

Is it possible to test the presupposition that the Bible is, as it claims to
be, the unique revelation of God's infinite will and purpose for the human
race? Yes. The objective evidence for this consists of (1) the Bible's
accurate evaluation of the natural human ethical-moral-spiritual state, (2)
its perfect remedy for the imperfections of that natural state, (3) the
demonstration that that remedy has transformed the psyche of countless
millions of human beings for two thousand years, and (4) that if Bible
principles were universally accepted and practiced they would automatically
eliminate all war, all crime, and all selfish manipulation of other human
beings---and thus transform this world into a little heaven on earth! Given
the opportunity, the human experience confirms these conclusions beyond the
possibility of either doubt or error. This authenticates Bible principles as
being of more than human origin, and so validates the above presupposition
as being objective and trustworthy.

The Old Testament was written between twenty-four and thirty-seven centuries
ago, mostly in ancient Hebrew and in a world more than a little different
and strange to us. The New Testament was written in Greek some nineteen
centuries ago. The Old Testament records the history of the Hebrews as the
covenant people and chosen instrument of the divine purpose for them and for
the human race in ancient times, instruction designed to qualify them to be
living representatives of, and witnesses for, the true God, and their
individual and corporate response to this instruction.⁵⁴ The Hebrew language
had a limited vocabulary that reflected their primitive culture and world
view, a form of writing that consisted of consonants only, and grammar and
syntax different from ours today.

The Bible was thus historically conditioned,⁵⁵ that is, adapted and
specifically addressed to, the needs, comprehension, and covenant role of
its recipients at the time it was written, and to their circumstances and
perception of the divine purpose, yet Its fundamental principles and
instruction are of universal value and applicability. It was written in
their language and in thought forms with which they were familiar, and
reflects the salvation history perspective of their time. That record,
however, "was written for our instruction" also. Accordingly, we need to
historically condition our minds to their time, circumstances, and
perspective of salvation history in order to fully understand and appreciate
its message for our time. In-depth study and appreciation of the Bible
require that the historical circumstances in which a passage was written
must be taken into consideration.

The salvation history perspective of the Old Testament envisioned ancient
Israel as God's covenant people and chosen instrument of the divine purpose
to restore humanity to harmony with the divine purpose for this world.⁵⁶ God
revealed all of this to them in order that they might cooperate
intelligently with His infinite purpose for the human race. That revelation,
imparted over the centuries of antiquity, provided ancient Israel with
instruction that would qualify them individually and collectively as a
nation to fully represent the supreme value and desirability of cooperating
with His eternal purpose. It envisioned the climax of earth's history and
the complete restoration of divine sovereignty over all the earth at the
close of Old Testament times. The New Testament assumes the validity of this
Old Testament perspective of salvation history as reaching a climax in the
life, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, and promise of Jesus to return
soon---at the close of New Testament times.⁵⁷

This Bible perspective of salvation history was implicit in Scripture and in
the minds of people of that time. It must also be in our minds as we read
Scripture. Accordingly, the salvation history perspective of the time a
passage was written must be taken into consideration in order to ascertain
its intended, true meaning.

The original text of Scripture, in the languages in which it was written, is
the ultimate, supreme authority for what it says.⁵⁸ Good modern translations
such as the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV⁵⁹), the New International
Version (NIV), and the Good News Bible (Today's English Version, TEV) are as
accurate and reliable translations as any available today. The King James
Version (KJV), with its superb, stately literary style has had a profound
influence on the English language and endeared itself to readers for nearly
four centuries, but sometimes it does not accurately reflect the original
text.⁶⁰

This was because the KJV was based on late manuscripts that had accumulated
numerous scribal errors and editorial changes over several centuries since
the original autographs. Since an ancient manuscript known as the Sinaiticus
was discovered in 1844, thousands of ancient manuscripts centuries closer to
the originals have been found that provide us, today, with much more
accurate information as to how the original autographs actually read.⁶¹
Also, the biblical languages are better understood than they were in 1611,
when the KJV became available, and the history and culture of antiquity are
better understood. Word studies---the way in which Hebrew and Greek words
occur in the Bible and their meaning as defined by context, in each
instance---are thus essential to determine their meaning.

The literary context of a passage is essential to an accurate determination
of its meaning. This includes its immediate context, in particular, but also
its extended context in the entire document of which it forms a part.
Ancient Hebrew, in which most of the Old Testament was written,⁶² had
already become a dead language to the extent that when Ezra read from "the
book of the law of Moses" (the Torah, or Pentateuch) in public about 450
B.C., it needed interpretation in order for Jews, even of his time, to
understand it.⁶³

Several characteristics of ancient Hebrew were responsible for this: (1) For
one thing, it had a very limited vocabulary, one in which many words were
used to express a wide variety of meanings. (For instance, the KJV
translates ten common Hebrew words by an average of eighty-four English
expressions each, and one of them by 164 English words and
expressions!⁶⁴). (2) Ancient Hebrew writing consisted of consonants only,
and the reader had to supply whatever vowels he thought were intended, and
in some instances might supply a set of vowels different from those the
writer intended.⁶⁵ The vowels that now appear in Hebrew Bibles were added to
its consonants by the Masoretes, Jewish scholars, many centuries after
ancient Hebrew had become a dead language, according to what they thought to
be the intended meaning. For this reason it is futile to correlate two
passages of scripture on the basis of the same English word located in a
concordance---as William Miller did in developing the sanctuary doctrine!

The analogy of Scripture---the use of one Bible passage to clarify
another---must be used with caution.⁶⁶ The context of both passages must
first be taken into account in order to determine whether or not they may be
used together.

In summary, in-depth study of the Bible requires consideration of one's
presuppositions, the historical circumstances to which a passage was
addressed and to which it was intended to apply, its salvation history
perspective, its sense as determined by the original language, its literary
context, and cautious use of other Bible passages of Scripture to amplify
it.

Seventh-day Adventists today affirm the sola Scriptura principle of the
Reformation in principle, but sometimes unwittingly compromise it in
practice, notably in affirming the traditional interpretation of Daniel
8:14.

Seventh-day Adventism emerged as a discrete entity within the Christian
community on October 23, 1844⁶⁷ as the result of a particular understanding
of Daniel 8:14 and the great disappointment that attended their
disillusionment the preceding day. That understanding, which was
subsequently modified in some details and became the traditional Adventist
interpretation, has, since then, been considered the keystone of Adventism's
self-identity, understanding of the Bible, theology, and sense of mission.⁶⁸

In Jeremiah 18:7-10 the prophet summarizes the nature and purpose of
predictive prophecy as follows:
    At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a
    kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that
    nation concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil I will change my
    mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. And at another
    moment I may declare concerning a nation or kingdom that I will build and
    plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I
    will change my mind about the good that I intended to do to it.

Accordingly, predictive prophecy is always conditional on the response of
the people to whom it is addressed. Its function is not to demonstrate
divine foreknowledge nor does it necessarily predetermine the course of
events, for if it did it would thereby deprive people of the power of
choice. Its intended purpose is to enable them to make wise choices in the
present by indicating the ultimate result of either a right or a wrong
choice. For this reason Bible prophecy, even apocalyptic prophecy, is always
conditional, and its time element is always flexible, in order to provide
for the free exercise of human choice.⁶⁹ It is a preview of what can be, not
what necessarily will be.

Accordingly, the seventy weeks-of-years of Daniel 9:24-27 provided the
Hebrew exiles in Babylon with a preview of what the future held for them,
subject to their cooperation.⁷⁰
 

Three Methods of Bible Study

The traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 was formulated on
the basis of what is commonly known as the prooftext method of biblical
study and interpretation, which construes Bible passages in terms of what a
modern reader thinks to be their import. This method (1) is highly
subjective, (2) understands the Bible from the modern reader's cultural,
historical, and salvation history perspectives, (3) accepts the Bible in
translation as authoritative, (4) makes the reader's personal and
group-think presuppositions normative for evaluating data and for (5)
drawing conclusions. This method does not require special training or
experience, and is followed by a majority of untutored Bible readers. Since
the beginning most Adventists have followed this method, but no reputable
Bible scholar follows it today.

When Daniel 8:14 is studied by the historical method, serious flaws in the
traditional interpretation become apparent because the historical method (1)
aspires to be as objective as possible, (2) endeavors to understand the
Bible as the various writers intended what they wrote to be understood and
as their original reading audience would have understood it from their
cultural, historical, and salvation history perspective, (3) considers
words, literary forms, and statements according to their meaning in the
original language as normative, (4) endeavors to evaluate data objectively,
and (5) bases its conclusions on the weight of evidence. This method
requires either special training in biblical languages and the history and
milieu of antiquity, or reliance on source material prepared by persons with
such training. Since about 1940 most Adventist Bible scholars have followed
this method.

Since about 1970 a hybrid of these two methods known as the
historical-grammatical method⁷¹ has attained limited popularity among
Seventh-day Adventist Bible scholars and lay people, and major support among
church administrators. Why? It consists of historical method procedures
under the control of prooftext presuppositions and principles, which enable
it to provide apparent scholarly support for traditional conclusions. It is
highly subjective, aspires to dominate and eventually control all official
Adventist study of the Bible, and has more or less controlled General
Conference doctrinal policy for the past thirty years

Let us emulate the sincerity and diligence of our spiritual forefathers in
their study of God's Word. We have no valid reason to criticize them because
of the flaws we find in their understanding of the Bible.⁷² Let us remember
that they did the best they knew how as they studied the Bible by the
prooftext method, the generally accepted method of that time.⁷³ They did not
have access to the more accurate ancient Bible manuscripts that we do today,
nor to our knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek or the history of ancient
times. In taking note of flaws in the traditional interpretation of Daniel
8:14 we can be grateful for their dedication, build on their labors, and be
faithful in our time as they were in theirs, to the best it is our privilege
to know.⁷⁴

8. "Rightly Explaining" Daniel 8:14

The first imperative for comprehending the prophecies of Daniel in the sense
Inspiration intended is an objective frame of mind divested of every
personal, subjective, modern presupposition with respect to their import.

The second imperative is to identify the circumstances set forth in Daniel 1
to 6 and 9:1-23, which provide the historical background within which
Inspiration set its five prophetic passages and from which it intended
Daniel and his intended readers to understand them. Accordingly, in order to
understand those passages as Inspiration intended them to be understood we
must do so with that historical perspective in our minds, and from the same
perspective of salvation history as Daniel and his intended readers did. Any
interpretation that ignores or controverts that historical perspective and /
or the salvation history perspective of their time is automatically suspect
and imposes an alien, uninspired interpretation on those prophecies.

The first six chapters of the Book of Daniel recount the exile of Daniel and
his compatriots to Babylon "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim of
Judah," which is dated to 606/5 B.C., and their experiences during the
seventy years of exile foretold by Jeremiah in chapter 29:1-14. According to
Daniel 9:1, in "the first year of Darius" (which is dated to 537/6 B.C. by
Jewish inclusive reckoning), Daniel had been in exile for exactly seventy
years. But as yet there was no visible evidence that release from exile was
imminent. Accordingly, Daniel prayed the importunate prayer for release from
exile and for restoration recorded in chapter 9:4-19.

While Daniel was still praying the angel Gabriel reappeared⁷⁵ and said, "I
have now come out to give you wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of
your supplications a word went out [obviously in heaven], and I have come to
declare it, for you are greatly beloved. So consider the word and understand
the vision." Gabriel thereupon repeats that "word" verbatim (verse 24), as
he had promised, and proceeds to explain it in verses 25 to 27.

It is of crucial importance to note that Gabriel explicitly identifies the
"word" that "went out to restore and build Jerusalem" at the commencement of
the seventy weeks of years as "the word" that "went out"---in heaven---while
Daniel was praying.⁷⁶ That "word"⁷⁷ was obviously one that only God Himself
(and not an earthly monarch) could possibly have issued! On the authority of
no less a person than the angel Gabriel, the "seventy weeks" of years thus
began in 537 B.C., not eighty years later in 457 B.C.!

Gabriel's explanation of that "word" in verses 25-27 very briefly sketched
the future of God's covenant people during the seventy weeks of years, and
its climax in the ruthless oppression of "the prince who is to come" during
the seventieth of the seventy "weeks," which he had already foretold in
chapter 8:9-13 and explained in verses 19 to 25.⁷⁸

As already noted, Daniel 9:23-25 begins the seventy weeks of years at the
time the "word" was issued in heaven, in 537 B.C. In the same way,
contextual identification of the "he" of verse 27 identifies events of
history that mark their close in the seventieth of the seventy "weeks." It
is universally accepted that the immediate antecedent of a personal pronoun
identifies the person to whom it refers unless the context unambiguously
specifies otherwise. Accordingly, verse 26 identifies the immediate
antecedent of the pronoun "he" in verse 27, who "make[s] a strong covenant
with many" for the seventieth of the seventy "weeks" and "make[s] sacrifice
and offering cease" during the last half of the "week," as the evil "prince
who is to come"---not the "anointed prince" of verses 25-26!

Chapter 11:23 confirms the fact that his alias, the last king of the north,
does, indeed make such a covenant with people in "alliance" with him. Also,
his fate set forth in verse 27, "the decreed end is poured out on the
desolator," is equivalent to the horn-king of chapter 8:25 being "broken,
and not by human hands," and to the last king of the north in chapter 11 who
"come[s] to his end, with no one to help him."⁷⁹

Chapter 9:24-27 thus provides an exact but much more complete explanation of
chapter 8:13-14's question and answer about events between Daniel's time and
"the appointed time of the end" "many days from now" when "the vision of the
evenings and the mornings" was to meet its fulfillment.⁸⁰ Isn't that exactly
what Gabriel said the audition of 9:24-27 was supposed to do?⁸¹

Such is Daniel's perspective of salvation history. In order to understand
chapters 8 and 9 as heaven intended them to be understood, we must imagine
ourselves in Daniel's historical circumstances and view them from his
perspective of salvation history in order to form an accurate understanding
of what was revealed to him.

Daniel's Perspective of Salvation History

Daniel's perspective of salvation history was a composite of the visions of
chapters 2 and 7, each with its explanation, and chapter 8 with
its three-fold explanation in chapters 8, 9, and 11-12. It consisted of a
series of universal kingdoms⁸² followed by a period of disintegration and
fragmentation,⁸³ which Gabriel told Daniel would be a "troubled time"
(9:25)⁸⁴.

At the "appointed time of the end ... many days from now"---after sixty-nine
of the "seventy weeks of years"⁸⁵---there would be an unprecedented "time of
anguish" for God's people in which they would be "trampled," their power
shattered,⁸⁶ their land and city devastated,⁸⁷ their loyalty and
faithfulness to God tested,⁸⁸ their covenant with Him and its prescribed
system of worship abolished,⁸⁹ and an idolatrous system of worship
enforced.⁹⁰ As a result of this attempt to obliterate the knowledge and
worship of the true God, many Jews would apostatize and enter into a
"covenant" with their oppressor.⁹¹

The duration of this time of anguish for God's people is given variously as
(1) "a time, two times, and half a time" = three and a half years,⁹² as (2)
the last half of the seventieth of the seventy "weeks" = also three and a
half years,⁹³ and as (3) the time during which 2300 evening and morning
sacrifices would normally have been offered = 1150 literal days = three
years, two months, and 10 days⁹⁴ within the three and a half years of
"anguish."⁹⁵

At the close of this time of anguish the Ancient of days would sit in
judgment and "the decreed end" would be "poured out upon the desolator," who
would thus "come to his end with no one to help him" and be "broken" but
"not by human hands."⁹⁶ Simultaneously, the sanctuary would "be restored to
its rightful state," the Ancient of Days would vindicate His faithful people
and award them an "everlasting kingdom," Michael would arise to deliver
them, the righteous dead would be raised to life eternal, the "wise,"
including Daniel, would enter upon their eternal reward and shine like the
brightness of the firmament for ever and ever.⁹⁷

The prophecies of Daniel locate this time of anguish (1) during the "time,
two times, and half a time" of Daniel 7:25, (2) at or near "the end" of the
"rule" of the four horn Greek era of chapter 8:8, 21-23, (3) during the last
half of the seventieth of the seventy weeks of chapter 9:24-27, and (4)
during the reign of the last king of the north of chapter 11:20-45.

Obviously Daniel's perspective of salvation history was vastly different
from ours---by more than two thousand years! But by the sure word of his
angel mentor that was the perspective from which he and the angel Gabriel
then viewed the future. It is the identical format set forth in the Old
Testament.³⁵ To ignore or deny it is a major violation of the sola Scriptura
principle, and to say that neither Daniel nor Gabriel knew what they were
talking about! It is an important part of in-depth study of the Bible to
read it from its own historical and salvation history perspectives, in order
to understand and appreciate its message for us in our time!

Daniel's perspective of salvation history thus explicitly invalidates the
historicist concept of predictive prophecy. Furthermore, his perspective was
identical with that of the Old Testament as a whole.⁹⁸

Four KJV Translation Errors That Led Pioneer Adventists Astray

Four major translation errors in the KJV of Daniel 8:14 and 9:25-26, of
which William Miller and pioneer Adventists were obviously unaware, led
them, unwittingly, astray.⁹⁹

The KJV of Daniel 8:14 reads: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days;
then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Here and in chapter 9 the KJV
inaccurately reflects the Hebrew text of Daniel at four specific points. In
the original Hebrew text and in the NRSV it reads: "For two thousand and
three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored
to its rightful state."

The Hebrew word for "days," yamim, is not in the Hebrew text of 8:14, which
reads simply erev boquer, "evening morning." "Days" is interpretation, not
translation. When Daniel meant "days" he consistently wrote "days,"
yamim.¹⁰⁰ Wherever the words erev and boquer occur in a sanctuary context
(as in 8:14), without exception they always refer to the evening and morning
sacrificial worship services or to some other aspect of the sanctuary and
its ritual services. These sacrifices were offered tamid, "regularly," late
every afternoon before sunset and early every morning after sunrise. See,
for example, Exodus 29:38-42 and Numbers 28:3-6. Erev sometimes precedes
boquer in view of the fact that Hebrew custom began each day at sunset, with
erev referring specifically to the waning light of day associated with
sunset and boquer the rising light of day associated with sunrise, not to
the dark and light portions of a 24-hour day.

The traditional interpretation considers erev boquer, "evening morning," a
composite term meaning a 24-hour day. But according to verse 26 haerev we
haboquer, "the evening and the morning," are discrete entities, as the
repeated definite article requires. The question of verse 13, and thus the
answer of verse 14 both focus on the sanctuary and the time during which its
continual (tamid) burnt offering was banned. Accordingly, erev boquer in
verse 14 is to be understood in a cultic sanctuary context specifically with
reference to the tamid (continual) burnt offering.

Note also that the question of verse 13, to which verse 14 is the inspired
answer, asks for how long the tamid, the "regular burnt offering" already
mentioned in verse 11, would be "trampled." In place of tamid in verse 13,
however, verse 14 substitutes the expression erev boquer, thereby calling
attention to the fact that the two are synonymous terms for the same thing,
the evening and morning sacrificial worship services. Indeed, both terms
occur together in the passages noted above with respect to the two daily
worship services. (In 8:11 and 14 the NRSV---correctly---adds
"burnt offering" to the term "regular," tamid, in recognition of the fact
that tamid refers to the daily, or regular, burnt offerings.)

The word tamid, "continual(ly)," "regular(ly)," occurs 104 times in the Old
Testament, 51 times in connection with the sanctuary ritual, 53 times
otherwise. More than half of the 51 sanctuary-related occurrences are in
connection with the daily burnt offering (32 of the 51 times); and 19 times
of the bread of the presence, the lamp, the cereal offering, and other
aspects of the sanctuary and its ritual.

The Hebrew word nitsdaq never means "cleansed," as the KJV translates it.
Nitsdaq is the passive form of the verb tsadaq, "to be right," and means "to
be set right," or as the NRSV renders it, "to be restored to its rightful
state." Had Daniel meant "cleansed" he would have used the word taher, which
does mean "cleansed" and always refers to ritual cleansing in contrast to
tsadaq, which always connotes moral rightness.¹⁰¹

Daniel 8:14 is concerned with the meaning of the sacrificial worship
service, not with whether it was performed correctly. It affirmed Israel's
continued loyalty to God and commitment to its covenant relationship with
Him, at the beginning and again at the close of each day. The KJV based its
rendering of nitsdaq as "cleansed" on the Latin Vulgate, which reads
mundabitur, and the Greek Septuagint, which reads katharisthesetai, both of
which denote ritual cleansing, probably reflecting the ritual cleansing of
the temple after its desecration by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 B.C., as
recorded in 1 Maccabees 4:36-54.¹⁰²

The KJV's "the Messiah the Prince" in Daniel 9:25 and "Messiah" in verse 26,
respectively, constitute interpretation of the Hebrew text, not translation
of it. The Hebrew text reads "an anointed, a prince" or "an anointed prince"
in 9:25 and "an anointed" in verse 26. In so doing, the KJV commits a double
error by: (1) rendering the Hebrew indefinite as definite, and (2)
arbitrarily identifying the anointed prince as Jesus Christ. This double
error automatically led pioneer Adventists to another, even grosser, error
in verse 27, considered below.

To be sure, the English word "messiah" accurately transliterates the Greek
messias, which in turn transliterates the Hebrew mashshiach, and the English
word "Christ" accurately translates the Greek messias. But the KJV
translators had no legitimate reason for rendering the Hebrew indefinite as
definite and identifying the anointed prince of Daniel 9:25 and 26 as Jesus
Christ.

The KJV rendering "seven weeks, and three score and two weeks" in 9:25,
implying a total of sixty-nine "weeks" between "the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" and the coming of its
"Messiah the Prince," grossly misrepresents the Hebrew syntax of verse 25.

Hebrew syntax requires that the seven-week period be the time between the
"going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem" and the
"anointed prince" referred to, and that the "threescore and two weeks" refer
to the duration of the "troublous times" during which the "street" and the
"wall" remain built prior to the evil "prince that shall come" of the
following verse. The NRSV renders the Hebrew syntax of verse 25 correctly:
"... there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it [Jerusalem}
shall be built again ..." Verse 26 confirms the fact that the seven weeks
and the sixty-two weeks are two discrete periods of time, not one composite
time period. Hebrew usage throughout the Old Testament confirms this
conclusion.

Those who formulated the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14
were led astray by these four KJV errors. Had they been working directly
from the Hebrew text of Daniel, or an accurate English translation, they
would never have contrived the traditional Adventist interpretation.

Their second error was adoption of the day-for-a-year interpretation of
Bible prophecy. That pseudo principle, inherent in the historicist
interpretation of Bible prophecy, was invented in the ninth century by the
Jewish scholar Nahawendi, as a device by which to make Daniel's prophecies
relevant to his day. Catholic scholars subsequently adopted and used it
until certain other Catholic scholars, and later Protestants, based
their identification of the papacy as the antichrist of Bible prophecy on
it. Thereupon Roman Catholics abandoned the day-for-a-year principle,
whereas Protestants retained it as proof that Rome was "Babylon." Suffice it
to note, here, that there is no Bible basis whatever for this so-called
principle.¹⁰³

The Immediate Context of Daniel 8:14

The vision of chapter 8:1-12, the question of verse 13, and the explanation
of verses 15 to 27 constitute the immediate context of verse 14. As a matter
of fact chapter 8 itself identifies all four essential elements of verse 14:
(1) its sanctuary, (2) why it needed cleansing or being "restored to its
rightful state," (3) how long it had needed cleansing or restoration, and
(4) when that cleansing or restoration would occur.

According to verses 9-12, their cryptic little horn invades the "beautiful
land" and overthrows the sanctuary located there---obviously the sanctuary,
or temple, in Jerusalem. Verse 14 itself specifies that the period of time
during which the sanctuary would remain overthrown and its regular burnt
offering suspended as the time during which 2300 "regular burnt offerings"
would normally have been offered. With two such offerings each day, that
would be1150 literal twenty-four-hour days, or three years, two months, and
ten days. When would this occur? Verses 21 to 25 specify that all of this,