The Sanctuary Doctrine:

a critical-apologetic approach
A theological study addressed to the Biblical Research Committee, based on the
paper prepared for the European Theology Teachers Convention, April 30, 2011,
Cernica-Bucharest

Florin G. Lăiu, MThOT (UNISA), Bible teacher,

The Romanian Adventist Theological Institute,
Cernica-Bucharest

November 16, 2011

Cernica-Bucharest
 1

CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................. 2

1. Introductory considerations ............................................................... 3

1.1. Facing “JuST” and “un-JuST” theological criticism......................................................... 4

1.2. Supreme authority in doctrinal matters ..........................................................................13

2. Linguistic and exegetical problems in Daniel 8-9 .................................. 17

2.1. Da 8:9: ‫ּומן ָה ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהם‬
ִ “and out of one of the[m] [four winds]”? .............................17

2.2. Da 8: 11-13: ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ = the… what? ....................................................................25

2.3. Da 8:13: ‫‘ ַעד ָמ ָתי‬aḏ måṯåy – “how long” or “until when”? .........................................30

2.4. Da 8:14: “2300 evenings & mornings”= 1150 or 2300 days? .................................31

2.5. Da 8:14: ‫ וְ נִ ְצ ַדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq – “cleansed” or “vindicated”? ..........................................31

2.6. Da 8:17: “The vision (belongs / reaches) to the time of the end” .........................42

2.7. Da 8:27: “no one could understand”, or “I…could not understand” ? .................42

2.8. Da 9:23: ‫ ַמ ְר ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê – semantics and referent ............................................................43

2.9. Da 9:24: ‫בּוע‬

ַ ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ – “period of seven” (heptad) or “week”? ..............................48

2.10. Da 9:24: ‫ נֶ ְח ַתְך‬ne·ḥtaḵ: “deducted” or “decided” ? .......................................................51

2.11. Da 9:24: ketib or qere ? ............................................................................................................55

2.12. Da 9:24: the Most Holy Messiah, or a most holy sanctuary ? ..................................56

2.13. Da 9:25: “From the issuing of the decree to restore…” .............................................60

2.14. Da 9:25: “to Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks;” (?) ....................................62

2.15. Da 9:24-27 “week” (sabbatical septenate), “7 weeks” (jubillee) .................................63

2.16. Da 9:25 “seven weeks” – up to what event ? ..................................................................65

2.17. Da 8:14; 9:25: Tishri 10, 5605 = exactly October 22, 1844 ? ..................................65

2.18. Da 9:25: ‫ ָחרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ = “moat”, “trench” or “decision-making” ? ...........................68

2.19. Da 9:26: The direct object of ‫ וְ ֵאין לֹו‬wǝ·ên lô “He will not have” ...........................69

2.20. Da 9:26: A new “coming ruler”, or the same as in verse 25 ? .................................70

2.21. The special role of the verb ‫ בין‬byn “consider, understand” in Da 8-9 ................74

3. The Crucial Role of Contextual Exegesis in Daniel 8 .............................. 75

4. A legitimate role of Leviticus 16 beyond exegesis ................................. 77

5. The Day of Atonement Illustration (Typology) in Hebrews .................... 81

6. The Structure and Role of the Heavenly Sanctuary ............................... 83

 2

7. The sanctuary identity in Daniel 8 ...................................................... 83

8. Who are the defendants in the Premillennial Judgment ......................... 92

8:1. One possible interpretation................................................................................... 92

8:2. Another possible interpretation ........................................................................... 93

9. The Advent in Conditional and Apocalyptic Prophecy ........................... 93

10. Practical Suggestions .................................................................... 97

 3

Abstract
The following study touches a series of sensitive issues relating to the Judgment and
Sanctuary theology (JuST), a point of convergence for the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics and
eschatology. The author militates for a more critical Bible exploration, and a more dynamic percep-
tion of the SDA historical doctrine. It is shown that such a challenging exegetic approach depends
on more basic hermeneutic issues, e. g. the theology of inspiration, and the role of the Spirit of
Prophecy in theological debates.

The fundamental importance of consistent linguistic and contextual exegesis is stressed

as a reasonable approach to Daniel 8-9. Crucial terms and expressions are critically addressed, as
well as some secondary terms and expressions, in order to stress the necessity of better transla-
tions of the prophecies of Daniel. While in a few cases the author suggests different and challenging
solutions, most of his solutions agree with the present SDA scholarship. Many other important sub-
jects that are usually involved in the debates over the SDA understanding of Daniel 8:14 are
touched in this study. All these critical issues are discussed from apologetic-confessional concerns,
intended for constructive and affirmative purposes. If the opinions of this author are sometimes
divergent from other Adventist theologian colleagues, it is hoped that the criticism shall not be
perceived as the slightest personal affront, neither as an offense to our community of faith.

1. Introductory considerations
This is not an exhaustive treatise, but a third draft study discussing some
important issues of the topic announced. It is addressed to all Adventist scholars,
especially to those devoted to Biblical languages, Daniel and Revelation, herme-
neutics and exegesis, Adventist history and Ellen White studies. This study was
not intended as a complete exposition of the issues it approaches, but only as a
means to unsettle the theological comfort that is prevailing as regards the SDA
doctrine of the Sanctuary. Some of the issues that will be discussed are, let us say
tentative. The sources used are sometimes insufficient, sometimes selective;
however, the author hopes that the elite readers of his study will focus on the
essentials.
This study is sincerely dedicated to William H Shea, good friend and faith-
full adviser, my first live contact with the SDA theology, and an emblem of the
Adventist modern scholarship. I thank all my colleagues and friends who happen
to read the first draft of this paper, and especially to those who already ex-
pressed a reaction or any feedback.1
Throughout this paper I will use the first person singular, whenever I re-
fer to myself – not as an authority, but to reserve the plural – we, us, our(s)– for
the many instances where our SDA identity is meant. The acronym JuST will be

1
Special thanks are due to my colleagues and friends: Richard Davidson, Niels-Erik Andreasen, Roy
Gane, Gerhard Pfandl, Ekkehardt Müller, Angel Rodriguez, Zoltan Sallos-Farkas, Barna Magyarossi,
Laurenţiu Ionescu, Laurenţiu Moţ, etc., who have spent time to discuss with me various details of this
topic, or have sent their reactions by email, expressing encouragement or partial disagreement.
Thanks also to Desmond Ford and my friend Eduard Hanganu, who have challenged my theological
ataraxia. Thanks to all my colleagues in Western Europe or in the East, who expressed their interest,
appreciation and encouragement personally or by email, after listening to my presentation on the
Sabbath of April 30, 2011, at the European Theology Teachers Convention that took place in the
Adventist Theological Institute, Cernica-Bucharest.
 4

used for the Judgment and Sanctuary Theology, signifying our complex doctrine
developed from our pioneers’ understanding of Daniel 8:14.
I used the universal system of transliterating Biblical Hebrew, except
some peculiarities: /å/ stands for the Masoretic qametz (Sephardic ā, â, ŏ, or
Ashkenazic ɔ, ↄ:). The transliterated Hebrew terms have been split in their
smallest construction bricks, in order to facilitate their analysis by the beginners
– students or teachers in other areas of theology.

1.1. Facing “JuST” and “un-JuST” theological criticism

Former GC President Jan Paulsen touched a very important issue, when he

dared to tell us:
“We tend not to like those who ask difficult questions.… Questions lead to a dialogue,
which in turn contributes to the bonding between God’s people. And questions keep us alert.”
… “As an Adventist leader, don’t be afraid of questions. Instead, fear silence, for apathy is far
more hazardous to the body of Christ than is critical thinking.” 2

We do not need to quote any special sources, in order to affirm that JuST
is the most criticized of the SDA doctrines. Seldom is this criticism mild: we
usually face either strong criticism or complete disregard. 3 Both the hostile and
ignorant as well as the honest, sincere and educated critics outside or inside the
SDA community so easily come into conflict with this theology. The real cause of
the phenomenon may be complex, but as a principle, we should not judgmentally
question the honesty or the abilities of any opponent.
JuST is historically considered to be our core doctrine, embracing the spe-
cific SDA message. Whereas it is more specific to us than any other confessional
doctrines, including the Sabbath and conditional immortality, it is frustrating to
discover that virtually no scholar outside our community does acknowledge its
worth. It is true that some Bible students outside our community accepted our
theology as they became SDA. But my point is that, while other SDA doctrines are
sometimes accepted or even defended by non-SDA thinkers (for example, the
Sabbath, the conditional immortality, the health reform etc.), JuST is not admit-
ted, but only criticized outside our faith community. As Raymond Cottrell wrote
years ago,4
The invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible, the
less disposed he is to look, with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 or to be-
come a Seventh-day Adventist. The fact that no competent non-Adventist Bible scholar, what-
ever his position on the conservative-liberal spectrum, have ever accepted the Adventist inter-
pretation of Daniel 8:14 should be a matter of sober reflection on our part.

2
Jan Paulsen, Where Are We Going? Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2011:110.
3
G P Saxon’s observation is correct: “There was a great deal of discussion about the Investigative
Judgment during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. Since the firing of Desmond Ford hardly anyone
mentions that topic. Ford was an Adventist minister and college professor from Australia who
challenged the validity of this doctrine. In 2012 many young Adventists have never heard of this
doctrine, and they never talk about it. Is this doctrine still relevant? Should it be retained as a doc-
trine?” (“The Investigative Judgment Really Ended in 1846”, Spectrum, 12 sept 2012).
4
R Cottrell, “Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method”(in Spectrum, vol. 10, no. 4, March 1980, page
17).
 5

While a few SDA theologians make efforts to strengthen and increase our
exegetical defense battery, there is a prevailing feeling of helplessness and no
wonder a lot of our public speakers take refuge in silence. In a letter of 1942
addressed to the General Conference, M L Andreasen wrote, 5
If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a
large number of our ministers have serious doubts as to the correctness of the views we hold
on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they
are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet
them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital
– and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the back-
ground... The ever present question of the position which Sister White should hold among us
is a prolific cause of difficulty.

Cottrell states6 that while he worked for the 1958 edition of Bible Read-
ings, in counsel with F D Nichol, he “wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars
for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions” on Daniel
8:14. Despite their long answers, none of them had a satisfying solution to the
criticism directed against our SDA interpretation:
 Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application; seven
based it on analogy;
 five, on the authority of E G White;
 two, on what they referred to as a ‘fortunate accident’ in translation.
 Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel
8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.

Desmond Ford7 notes that “the failure to deal adequately with these prob-
lems is the strangest feature of any historical review of the subject.” He cites F D
Nichol to have told him that “a definitive work on the sanctuary is our greatest
need.” He also provides a list of more than a dozen Adventist figures between
1850-1980, who expressed objections regarding JuST, which A V Wallenkampf
essentially confirmes.8 An official statistic 2002 report of the General Conference
estimated 85.79% of church members accepting the doctrine of the Sanctuary
and 1844, and 35.12% believing there may be more than one interpretation of
the sanctuary belief.9 This is basically at the opinions level, quite optimistic on

5
M L Andreasen letter to J L McElhany and W H Branson, December 25, 1942. Andrews University
Heritage Room, Andreasen file 5, quoted in Graeme Bradford, More than a Prophet, Biblical Per-
spectives, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 2006, p. 168.
6
R Cottrell, op. cit., 18.
7
D Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, Euangelion Press,
Casselberry, FL, 1980, pp. 25-66.
8
O R L Crosier (the very founder of the Sanctuary Doctrine), D M Canright, A F Ballenger, E
Ballenger, L H Crisler, I Keck, W W Fletcher, L R Conradi, E J Waggoner, W W Prescott, H Snide,
R A Grieve, R D Brinsmead, R A Cottrell, C G Tuland, E Hilgert, D Sibley (cf. D Ford, Daniel
8:14..., pp. 1, 25-66). A V Wallenkampf (“Challengers to the Doctrine of the Sanctuary”, in F B
Holbrook, Editor, Doctrine of the Sanctuary – A Historical Survey, Biblical Research Institute, Sylver
Spring MD, 1989, pp. 197-216) omitted some names of Ford’s list of Adventist challengers, adding E
B Jones, and a list of the most famous external JuST challengers, W A Martin, D G Barnhouse, N F
Douty, A H Hoekema).
9
A World Survey, GC of SDA, presented to Annual Council, October 7, 2002, prepared by the Institute
of Church Ministry, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, pp 14, 20, 29. The relevant
 6

JuST image in the Church. But if a poll on the members’ ability to defend the
doctrine would be made, I am afraid that the percentage would be distressingly
low.
Dissenting voices or opinions of some SDA historical or contemporary
persons should be a real challenge and occasions for deepening our private and
collective research.10 In no way should this doctrine be ignored as non-vital. Its
core message is not an obsolete, but an absolute “present truth”. Therefore we
should give it priority in our corporate and private research. It must be on the
list of most wanted BRI, ATS, ASRS projects, and of all Adventist forums. We must
take seriously the counsel of E G White, who wrote to us 122 years ago:
It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles of
faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound. These
may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should present sound ar-
guments that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest and most searching
scrutiny.
We do not claim that in the doctrines sought out by those who have studied the word of
truth, there may not be some error, for no man that lives is infallible … Our brethren should
be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy.
We must not think, ‘Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our
faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.’ The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk
in the increasing light. A brother asked, ‘Sister White, do you think we must understand the
truth for ourselves? Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered together, and be-
lieve them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we shall be free to go on
without the taxing of the powers of the mind in the investigation of all these subjects? Do you
not think that these men who have brought out the truth in the past were inspired of God?’ I
dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth; but when it comes to in-
spiration in the fullest sense of the word, I answer, No.
It is a fact that we have the truth, and we must hold with tenacity to the positions that can-
not be shaken; but we must not look with suspicion upon any new light which God may send,
and say, Really, we cannot see that we need any more light than the old truth which we have
hitherto received, and in which we are settled....
There will be a development of understanding, for the truth is capable of constant expan-
sion.... Our exploration of truth is yet incomplete. We have gathered up only a few rays of
light.11 (Emphasis supplied).

The present state of JuST has some major and minor weaknesses that
must be acknowledged, and not longer ignored or eluded. This was Raymond
Cottrell’s repeated call since 1980. Cottrell wrote that his growing awareness of
such problems began in the period 1952-1957, in relation to the editorial work
at SDABC vol. 4.12 The proof-text method that still prevails is not sufficient as a

questions are Q36 (There is a sanctuary in heaven where the pre-Advent judgment began in 1844) and
Q37 (There may be more than one interpretation to the sanctuary doctrine).
http://206.220.88.217/flagship/assets/strategic-issues-report.pdf
10
Probably no other criticist was so challenging and provoking for the SDA scholarship as Desmond
Ford, by his 465+269 paged book Daniel 8:14. It should be seriously studied by any SDA scholar.
One may not agree with all his critiques and objections, but he indicated many important and sensitive
questions which we did not yet answer.
11
Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 708-709; “The Review and Herald” of March 25, 1890;
RH, March 25, 1890; RH, August 7, 1894; EGW to P.T. Magan, Jan. 27, 1903; cf. George Knight,
The Search for Identity – The Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, Review and Herald,
Hagerstown, MD, 2000, pp. 20, 26.
12
R. Cottrell, “Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method”(in Spectrum, vol. 10, no. 4, March 1980, pp
16-26) http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/10-4cottrell.pdf. I do not
 7

method of research. Any approach that avoids the co-text and evades the context
is not longer acceptable. Neither is acceptable the confining of our research to
pseudo-apologetic concerns that make our pioneers (including E G White) our
final criterion.
Our historical treatment of JuST, even after some excellent contemporary
upgrades, is not yet satisfying. JuST still needs some important exegetic and
hermeneutical adjustments. Such doctrinal revision would not be an odd case in
our history. As we know or ought to know, our doctrines have a dynamic charac-
ter, forever subordinated to the Bible. No wonder that most of our doctrines have
been shaped in time, some of them in decades after their initial formulation.
Various popular beliefs have been abandoned, substituted or drastically modi-
fied. 13 Even some views held sometime by E G White have been abandoned, at
least by the informed theologians.
Among the E G White’s views that we unofficially abandoned is the appar-
ent endorsement given by E G White to Josiah Litch’s interpretation of the fifth
and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9 (see GC 334). She calls it “another remarkable
fulfillment of prophecy”, but presently no one SDA informed theologian will
agree with that.14 If this is really an exegetical and prophetic failure, as it ap-
pears, then it follows that it is also a failure of E G White’s interpretation, or
rather a failure of our theology of inspiration and hermeneutics.
This was probably the most prominent error of interpretation in the field
of Biblical apocalyptic, which Ellen White accepted in The Great Controversy
(page 334). At the request of Prescott, the text for the 1911 edition was revised,15
but its new formulation, though acceptable for them, still preserved some plain

agree with most of Cotrell’s exegesis on Daniel, nor am I pleased with his harsh comments about
DARCOM, Gerhard Hasel and Gordon Hyde, etc. I just appreciate his responsible warning against
some of our methodological problems.
13
E.g. philosophy of health; righteousness by faith; doctrine of the Trinity, etc., have formed and
developed in time. Searching the SDA Bible Commentary volumes to learn our contemporary under-
standing of various topics, especially in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, we discover not a
few beliefs and theological views differing from the corresponding views of our pioneers. Further, if
one reads today the best SDA works, including doctoral dissertations on the same or similar topics,
one may discover further steps away from the theological opinions of our pioneers.
14
Our best NT exegetes who have written commentaries on the Book of Revelation proposed wholly
different interpretations to Revelation 9 (see commentaries of Jon Paulien, Ekkehardt Müller, Ranko
Stefanović, Jacques Doukhan, etc). Even Mervin Maxwell (God Cares, vol. II) modified the claims of
Litch’s prophecy about the exact fulfillment “to day”, shifting it from 1840 to 1844. Maxwell took out
“the hour” from what was believed to be a chain of time segments of the prophecy (“an hour, a day, a
month and a year”) and assigned that “hour” a different syntactic and semantic function (see also the
Jewish CJB translation). Then he counted 1 day + 1 month + 1 year (in apocalyptic time, 391 years)
beginning with the more prominent year 1453 (the fall of Constantinople) and ending with 1844, so
significant for the SDA exegesis of Daniel 8. Thus Maxwell preserved the illusion that the famous
Millerite interpretation was quite close to the truth. But he ingored the E G White endorsement of
Litch’s pointing to a very exact fulfillment, “even to day”.
15
Regarding the insertion of a whole chapter in the Great Controversy (Spanish Edition, 1908),
compiled by Crisler and Hall, “with the approval of the author,” under the editorship of Eduardo
Forga, see Angelika Kaiser, "The Early Translation of Ellen G. White Books into Spanish," 2011.
www.memorymeaningfaith.org/blog/2011/04/2011-egw-symposium-egw-books-in-
spanish.html
 8

errors, 16 or to say mildly, inaccuracies. Consider the following parallel excerpts

of the two editions:

1888 edition 1911 edition

In the year 1840, In the year 1840, another remarkable fulfillment of
another remarkable prophecy excited widespread interest.
fulfillment of prophecy Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading
excited widespread interest. ministers preaching the second advent, published an
Two years before, exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman
Josiah Litch, one of the empire.
leading ministers preaching According to his calculations, this power was to be
the second advent, overthrown ‘in A. D. 1840, sometime in the month of August;’
published an exposition of and only a few days previous to its accomplishment he wrote:
Revelation 9, predicting the ‘Allowing the first period, 150 years, to have been exactly
fall of the Ottoman empire, fulfilled before Deacozes ascended the throne by permission
and specifying not only of the Turks, and that the 391 years, fifteen days, commenced
the year but the very day at the close of the first period, it will end on the 11th of
on which this would take August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople
place. According to the may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will be
exposition, which was found to be the case.’ --Josiah Litch, in Signs of the Times, and
purely a matter of Expositor of Prophecy, Aug. 1, 1840.
calculation on the At the very time specified, Turkey, through her
prophetic periods of ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers
Scripture, the Turkish of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of
government would Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the
surrender its independence prediction. (See Appendix.)
on the eleventh day of When it became known, multitudes were convinced
August, 1840. of the correctness of the principles of prophetic
The prediction was interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a
widely published, and wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement.
thousands watched the Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in
course of events with eager preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844
interest. the work rapidly extended.
The first error expressed by E G White in both texts above is her belief
that the Millerite (Litch’s) interpretation was “another remarkable fulfillment of
prophecy”. In the 1888 edition, she claimed that the exact fulfillment of the
prophecy, in “the very day” (August 11, 1840), was predicted by Litch “two years
before”, and this was “purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of
Scripture” (sic!). Obviously, this was E G White’s sincere opinion, shared with her
husband and the other pioneers. It was an exegesis respected by then, close
related to their experience and emotions. Unfortunately, this interpretation
proved to be untrue, historically and exegetically.
In the 1911 edition, she claims that the fulfillment of this prophecy in Au-
gust 11, 1840 convinced multitudes “of the correctness of the principles of
prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates [Litch, in this
case]”. Even if this information were true, we can still be sure that convinctions

16
I do not use the term “error” in a doctrinal sense, but as dictionaries defines it, „an act involving an
unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy; ... an act that through ignorance, deficiency, or
accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done; ... something produced by mistake; ...
the difference between an observed or calculated value and a true value; .... observations of a quantity
due to mistakes or to uncontrollable factors; a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function”
(Merriam-Webster).
 9

of multitudes are not the wisest reason to adopt any theological view. According
to Eric Anderson,17
The truth of the matter is that the month of August, 1840, came and passed without any evi-
dence of Turkey falling. This placed Litch in a quandary. He waited until November, and then
came out with a statement saying that Turkey's rejection of a European peace offer on August
15, 1840, assured war with Europe, and doomed the Ottomon Empire. However, by early
1841, it became evident that war was not going to happen. So, Litch came up with
a new story, arguing that the fulfillment of prophecy had occurred exactly on August 11, 1840,
as predicted. The ‘fall’ of Turkey consisted of a ‘voluntary surrender of Turkish supremacy in
Constantinople to Christian influence.’ He claimed the Turkish ruler was now a puppet ‘of the
great Christian powers of Europe’.
Many Christians questioned Litch's new story. In 1840 the Ottoman Empire covered a vast ter-
ritory, including a large part of North Africa, Arabia, Palestine, Iraq, southern Russia, and
most of the European Balkan states. The Millerite critic Reverend O. E. Daggett argued that
Turkey did not ‘fall’ in August of 1840. James Hazen, a Massachusetts clergyman, said the
European intervention had kept Turkey from falling. Hazen said the argument that in accept-
ing European aid Turkey fell was ‘ridiculous’.

Eric Anderson rightly criticized the Litch interpretation of Revelation 9,

having shown that the years 1833 and 1841 are not less significant than 1840
relating to the ”fall” of the Turk, though the real fall of the Ottoman Empire
occurred in the events of 1918-1923.
Certainly, E G White had not the best information on these issues during
her lifetime. Neither her helpers, including W W Prescott, were able to give her
better advice. In 1910-1911 or in any case before 1914, W A Spicer and Prescott
did further research for relevant historical sources.18 They found that the chain
of errors was quite long, and that even Edward Gibbon, the main source of Litch’s
dates, was wrong about the date of July 27, 1299. 19 The dates 1449 and August
11, 1840 have no prophetical or historical significance.20

17
Eric Anderson, "The Millerite Use of Prophecy" (in Ronald Numbers, editor, The Disappointed,
University of Tennessee Press, 1993, p. 86-87).
18
W. A Spicer, Letter to L R Conradi, Nov. 30, 1914, GC Archives (quoted in D. Ford, Daniel 8:14
etc., pp. A-203 – A-205).
19
As Spicer (quoted in D Ford, Daniel 8:14 etc., A-204) was writing, “I will also enclose some
material on the dates of the prophetic periods of Rev. 9. Some time ago, Professor Prescott and I went
to the Library of Congress. He looked up the history of Pachymeris, translated into Latin by Possinus.
It is from this book that Gibbon got his date, July 27, 1299. I looked up Von Hammer, who is the
heaviest German author, apparently, on Ottoman history, in those times. It is very clear that Gibbon
made a distinct error, which Von Hammer and others have corrected these years. Gibbon’s mistake is
easily seen by looking at the book. He saw July 27 at the opening of chapter 25, and then over in the
chronological tables given by Possinus he saw the date 1299 for the beginning of the events dealt with
in this chapter; but he failed to note that while the chapter began with July 27, it later went back, as
this first paragraph suggests, and dealt with earlier events. These earlier events were the events of
1299, and it was not until 1301 or 1302, as various authorities compute the Mohammedan era, that the
battle of July 27 took place.”
20
According to Spicer (quoted in D Ford, Daniel 8:14 etc., A-205), “Professor Benson, [...] came on
with Blue Books that he had received from London, showing conclusively that the ultimatum of the
Powers was not delivered to the Pasha of Egypt on Aug. 11, 1840. [...] It is remarkable how loath
people are to look at facts, or to correct any facts.” [...] Personally, I would rather hold to 1849 if it
could be done, but really it is pretty hard to figure out anything there. Our folks have taught right
along that John Palaeologus died, one would infer, July 27, 1449; but he didn’t, he died in the previ-
ous year.” Various sources on Turkey’s political and diplomatic situation, about 1840 supply a lot of
important dates, except the diplomatic episode of August 11 1840 in Egypt. In 1838 (August 16, April
21), in 1839 (June 23-24, July 1, July 27, August 1), in 1840 (February 10, May 7, June 30, July 15,
 10

Besides these three erroneous dates marking the interpretation of the two
prophetic times21 of Revelation 9, Litch and his followers had a more surprising
slip. In counting the total time lapse between July 27, 1299 and August 11, 1840, they
ignored the omission of ten days in the replacement of the Julian with the Gregorian
calendar. But the first mistake of Litch was due to the erroneous old translations,
including KJV, of Rv 9:15, that suggest a chain of periodes (“an hour, a day, a
month and a year”), because they misread the Greek syntax indicating an im-
portant date (“this very hour and day and month and year”, NIV). And finally,
where in the world did Litch find the name “Deacozes”,22 and how this name has
slipped in our books?
To the exegetical and historical evidence which I briefly discussed above,
there is another argument that should be relevant for each SDA believer. I would
refer the visions of William Ellis Foy. Even though Foy was not a lifelong divine
messenger like Ellen White, his authentic prophetic charisma was confirmed by
E G White herself, and averyone who believes that Ellen White had the Spirit of
Prophecy, and that there are no degrees of inspiration, is bound to acknowledge
that the visions of Foy are as much Spirit of Prophecy as those of Ellen White.
Reporting his vision of February 4, 1842, here is what Foy was stating in 1845:
… I beheld a mighty angel […]. He appeared to be gazing through bar [the flaming bar of
judgment]… He stood with his right foot placed before him, as though walking; and his object
appeared to be to reach the earth. But three steps remained for him to take. Against his breast;
and across his left hand was as it were a trumpet of pure silver; and a great and terrible voice
came from the midst of the boundless place, saying, “The sixth angel hath not yet done sound-
ing.”23 (Our emphasis)

If the sixth angel had not yet finished blowing his trumpet in 1842, then
our historical view that the sixth angel did sound his trumpet from 27 July 1449
to 11 August 1840 is certainly wrong. In 1841 and 1842 at least, the sixth angel
had not yet finished, according to the Spirit of Prophecy. Later SDA expositors
went beyond the “exact fulfilling” of the prophecy at 11 August 1840. L R Conradi
and M Maxwell suggested 1844, while D Ford, J Paulien, R Stefanovic and J
Doukhan proposed future dates.
Studying the SDA historical exegesis and chronology of Revelation 9 was
for me the first case of finding important human mistakes in Ellen White’s
writings. It was a very painful and devastating experience. Now after finding a

August 11 – Syrians revolted against Ibrahim –, September 11, 15, 17, October 3, October 8, October
28, December 4), in 1841 (January 30, February 13 and 19, June, July 13), in 1849 (August 2). See
www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mehemet_Ali,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/766/sc1.htm.
21
The special times related to the scorpion-locusts of the first woe (“five months”), and to the demonic
cavalry of the second woe (“an hour , a day, a month and a year”, cf. KJV) in Rv 9:5, 10, 15, have
been interpreted by Litch as two consecutive periodes, 150 years + 391 years and 15 days.
22
I have noticed this name from my childhood in our SDA books, but I have never found it in lay
historical books. I suppose that it is a corrupt form of “Dragasses”, a surname of the last Byzantine
emperor. Books are cultural values, and therefore, when we correct them, I think it is more important
to purify them from such painful mistakes, than to purge them from heresies (e.g. Semiarianism).
Footnotes, as in a good Bible translation are the best solution.
23
J and C H Pearson (editor), The Christian Experience of William E. Foy, Together with the Two
Visions He received in the months of Jan. and Feb. 1842. In Boston, Mass. U.S.A. Portland [Maine],
Published by J. and C. H. Pearson, 1845, p. 18. Advent Source Collection, General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists, Washington D. C., No 2576.
 11

better theological view of inspiration, beginning with White’s testimony of 1SM, I

am able to understand that E G White’s reference to the historical interpretation
of Revelation 9 was not a deceiving message. It was part of an inspired message,
but not the message itself. It was a human failure, simply a wrong argument for
the right message she bore. And this is not her only mistake of this kind. The
interpretation of other events believed by her Adventist generation to be the
predicted signs (i. e. the Lisbon Earthquake, the Dark Thursday, the Fall of Stars),
is based on questionable exegesis,24 though these signs may be understood as
providential.
In some cases (e. g. the “shut door” applied to 1844), E G White changed
her mind and corrected later. In other cases, she did not update her knowledge
(e. g. “the daily” as paganism;25 the identity of Persian kings in Ezra 4;26 the
identity of the one hundred forty four thousand of Rv 7).27 Why should JuST be
the only infallible doctrine that we inherited from our pioneers, with E G White’s
blessing?28 Smuts van Rooyen29 says that a “string of changing interpretations
we have given this prophecy from Second Coming, to Shut Door, to Investigative
Judgment, to cleansing the Living Temple, to Vindication of God’s Character, to
simple Pre-advent Judgment...” In addition, Desmond Ford has convincingly

24
It is clear that in Matthew 24 Jesus referred to the last trouble described in Da 12:1, as a conditional
prophecy (cf. verse 14), speaking about the last assault against Jerusalem (cf. Da 11:45; Zechariah
14), which was to occur just before His coming. The events of AD 70 could have been the fulfillment
of this eschatologic prophecy. Jesus included the cosmic signs to appear immediately after the time of
trouble (cf. Rv 6:12-17). These signs, in the Biblical scenario are not intended to warn the world unto
repentance, but to announce that the end has come. If God really would warn the world through a dark
day or a meteoric shower, that specific sign should be truly global and without any scientific explana-
tion. The cosmic phenomena of the 18th and 19th centuries, identified by Adventists as the expected
apocalyptic signs, have been only local and hardly miraculous. Only their chronological order is
suspect of some intentional warning. But even more disastruous earthquakes and tsunamis, and even
similar meteoric showers occurred in the next two centuries. Those signs, though somehow helpful
for that generation, have no historical impact on our generation. True warning signs of the end should
not be sought for in the files of history. See also fn 312.
25
See the section 2.2. in this article.
26
Cf. PK 572-73, Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 is identified with False Smerdis.
27
In GC 648-49 and RH, March 9, 1905, Ellen White shares our pioneers’ opinion that the explanation
of Rv 7:13-17 refers to the 144000 saints of vv 4-8, and not to the great multiutude described in vv 9-
12 (See Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, 1884: 469). Partially this identification
is vindicated today, since our theologians today equate the great multitude with the 144000 (see
Beatrice Neill, "Sealed Saints and the Tribulation," in Symposium on Revelation--Book I, ed. F. B.
Holbrook, DARCOM Series, vol. 6, Silver Spring, MD: BRI, 1992: 245-278) and E Müller, “The
144,000 and the Great Multitude” 2011, at www.biblicalresearch.org). I reached independently the
same conclusion, 25 years ago. But the pioneers’ idea was that “the 144000” and “the great multi-
tude” were different groups.
28
Ellen White was inclined to give so much credence to the Millerite exegesis and experience, and to
see a physical correspondence between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary structure. This is
justified by her 1844 experience and by her own visions. A visionary is naturally inclined to believe
that his/her visions are live experiences “in” the real heaven (cf. 2Cor 12:2-3), and not virtual “visions
in his [/her] head” (cf. Da 2:28; 4:2, 7, 10; 7:1,15). In the first case, visions contain detailed infor-
mation about the physical reality of heaven; in the second case, they are virtual object lessons,
supernaturally induced in their mind, having basically spiritual-didactical purposes. But there is more
to say and study on this issue.
29
Smuts van Rooyen, "If We Had Another Chance...", a review of Milton Hook's biography of
Desmond Ford, quoted in Wikipedia, “Investigative Judgment”, History (2011).
 12

shown that even the wording of this doctrine in the book The Great Controversy
is indebted to the writings of Smith and Andrews.30
*** (exemplify)
Clearly, E G White presented JuST according to the common understand-
ing of the pioneers which she shared, just as they, in their own turn, had been
influenced by her visions and testimonies. This is no problem, unless we insist
that her theological expositions would be inspired in detail – in language, rheto-
rics and logic, and mode of thought – and consequently have a divine authority. It
is true that, unfortunaltely, we have been taught to expect such unlimited inspi-
ration in the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy. However we decidedly must
abandon such unrealistic view of inspiration, for a more practical and safer
approach, simply because inexactities and technical errors occur in both Ellen
White’s writings and in the Bible. Thank God, they are not erroneous teachings or
heresies!
We must keep doing responsible, Biblical theology, far beyond any clear
“Ellen White said.” We should seriously take her advices and messages, but not
feel to be bound to her theological understanding in each technical detail. We
should not forget that Ellen White appreciated the dignity of the reason and the
need for specific thinking of each person.
Critics are not our greatest enemies regarding this doctrine. Rather we
have to worry about becoming prisoners of our own sincere beliefs, as someone
sadly and perhaps exaggeratedly commented:31
There is no such thing as Fordism. There is only an unending, unresolved doctrinal issue roll-
ing throughout the ages in the church. Ford's was probably the latest (or even the last) attempt
someone made to help adjust the course. But [...] there is no room for any adjustment or even
review of the facts.”

Roy Adams maintains that “the continued failure to let the doctrine of the
sanctuary sufficiently speak for itself – in its entirety and in isolation – can yet
lead to serious and unnecessary theological conflict within Adventism.” He adds:
The pursuit of new approaches to the study of the sanctuary should not be at the expense of
efforts to resolve those questions arising from the historical Adventist approach. For notwith-
standing the contribution of the three figures studied in this report [U. Smith, A. Ballenger, M.
Andreasen], as well as the contribution of other Adventist expositors, serious questions remain
unresolved. The most critical would seem to relate to (1) the salvation-historical significance
of 1844; (2) the theological relationship between Dan 8:14 and Lv 16; (3) the day-year princi-
ple; and (4) the validity of the concept of an investigative judgment....32

30
D Ford, Daniel 8:14..., Appendix 33, pp. A-233-237. Ford put in parallel text excerpts from Uriah
Smith (The Sanctuary and its Cleansing, 1877: 113-216), and their correponding excerpts from Ellen
White (The Great Controversy, 411-421). Other sources he indicated are, U Smith, The Visions of
Mrs E. G. White (Battle Creek, 1868:23-25 ⇉ GC 428-431) and J N Andrews, The Three Angels
Mesages of Rev. 14:6-12 (Battle Creek, 1892:15-16 ⇉ GC 356).
31
George Tichy, commenting (12/19/2010) on Spectrum blog at http://spectrummagazine.org
32
I will not approach all these questions mentioned by Adams. Most of them are satisfactorily
answered by our present theology, though we certainly have to do further diggings. The year-day
apocalyptic time code is well defended, even by Desmond Ford (Daniel, Southern Publishing,
Nashville, TN, 1978: 300-305), though there remain some questions related to its consistent applica-
tion (e.g. Rv 8:1; 9:5,10; 20:2), and pragmatic tests. Fortunately, the most important apocalyptic times
(the 70 “weeks” of Da 9 and the 3 ½ “times” of Da 7&12; Rv 11-13), which are close related to the
2300 “days”, are quite nicely evidenced. And in spite of the anaphylaxis that many evangelicals have
 13

As already noted, there are outstanding problems which call for serious theological and
biblical study in the light of contemporary questions and issues. But none of these seems im-
possible of resolution. ... “Great philosophical or theological issues are seldom resolved to the
satisfaction of succeeding generations.” The question which Adventism must ask itself, how-
ever, is whether it possesses the theological and emotional sangfroid to pursue the resolution
of at least some of the more pressing problems of the sanctuary to the satisfaction of the pre-
sent generation. [Emphasis supplied].33

1.2. Supreme authority in doctrinal matters

It is my conviction that God has aroused and guided the Advent Move-
ment, despite any human flaws. By supernatural visions, E G White’s prophetic
inspiration confirmed much of the understanding of our pioneers. This belief
must continue to be strengthened. However, in some respects, this spiritual gift
has been strained to cover more than God intended. It became an absolute
authority probably under the influence of Evangelical fundamentalism. After the
failure of Daniells’ attempt to introduce in 1919 a better perception of prophetic
inspiration, the inerrantist spirituality and the final authority of Ellen White
became dominant in the SDA thinking.34
The theological understanding of our pioneers (William Miller, O. R. L.
Crosier, James and E G White, Uriah Smith etc.) has been adopted by their suc-
cessors with a few questions if any. Since E G White is not only the emblematic
figure amidst our pioneers, but also the only prophetic voice among SDA, we
developed the inconsistent habit of arbitrating from her statements various
theological debates.
Some of our best theologians appeal to E G White statements35 to defend
what may be called the supreme authority of our pioneers’ experience36 in order
to define Bible truth. I have read and reread such statements and tried to under-
stand them first in harmony with the rest of White’s statements. As with the
Bible, it is not easy to harmonize various statements, outside their proper histor-

regarding the Judgment with its heavenly court, the file investigation for saints, the salvation-
historical significance of 1844 etc., the doctrine of Judgment is the brightest star of Adventism. It is
the climax of the true Gospel, the ultimate theodicial revelation of God’s grace and justice. I will
discuss especially the legitimity of the theological connection between Dan 8:14 and Lev 16.
33
Roy Adams, The Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church: Three Approaches,
AUS, Doctoral Dissertation Series, Andrews University Press, 1981: 269, 282-283; See also Roger
Dudley, Valuegenesis, LSU, 1992, pp. 94-95.
34
Graeme Bradford, More than a Prophet, Biblical Perspectives, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 2006,
152-164. See also G. Knight, The Search for Truth, pp. 157-159. The Adventist educator R S Owen
(1883-1927) is a fair representative of that trend which made Ellen White "the final court of appeal"
(Roderick S Owen, "The Source of Final Appeal," The Review, June 3, 1971, p. 6).
35
E.g. “The Firm Foundation of Our Faith”, 1SM 206-208.
36
In that article, White refers to the first seven Bible conferences of 1847-1848, when the Whites, J
Bates, S Pierce, E Andrews, H Edson, J B Cook, E L H Chamberlain, H Gurney, S Howland, O
Nichols, A Belden, D Arnold, etc., gathered to study and pray, and to the Spirit’s supernatural mani-
festations of true light and healing, when the SDA foundations or “pillars” have been established. She
reminds this authority of the Spirit, Church and good tradition, not to suggest that this were the last
word on any issue, but as a reaction to the doctrine of Ballenger, who did away with the 1844 Judg-
ment message – the most significant Adventist belief. (For the Sabbath Conferences, see Merlin D.
Burt, “Evangelistic Sabbath Conferences – 1848, 1849”, AU, SDA Theological Seminary, CHIS674 –
Development of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Spring Semester 2011 www.andrews.edu).
 14

ical and literary context, and without regard to her own realistic theology of
inspiration. Her famous testimony of 1SM on the limits of the prophetic inspira-
tion37 must be applied also to her writings. Fortunately, some SDA theologians
are consistent to this approach,38 but the full practical import of E G White’s
testimony is still far ahead.
Interestingly, EGW mentions sometimes only the Spirit’s authority and
the Church, which we must stick with. Such statements should not be taken as
complete in themselves; they have a historical-contextual role, not to be taken as
the fundamental principle of our SDA faith. On one hand, if we loose the supreme
authority of the Bible, we loose everything. On the other hand, if we continue to
practice a final authority of “E G White said”, then we should make it quite clear
in official statements of belief, and not to pretend that we abide with Sola/Prima
Scriptura.
The Scripture, intelligently read and fairly interpreted, must be our first
authority; not as our first reading in chronological order, but in an authoritative
order. The Spirit of Prophecy is not another Quran or the Book of Mormon that
are believed to guide us perfectly beyond an imperfect transmission and transla-
tion of the Bible. Nevertheless we treat it in this manner, in spite of our good
official statements that hold the Bible as our supreme authority and in spite of E
G White’s repeated warnings against the use of the Spirit of Prophecy to quench
theological debates. As long as we limit our research by E G White’s writings, we
cannot make any real theological progress.
Regarding E G White’s authority, we implicitly claim too much for the
prophetic inspiration, and thus we feel forced sometimes to avoid a sound
Biblical exegesis, simply because E G White said this or that. In spite of our
official confession about Scripture’s supreme authority, we practically check our
Bible by the Spirit of Prophecy, not vice versa. When we face problems in the
Bible, we use to run to the Spirit of Prophecy for the true and final explanation,
even on technical details that might be historical, linguistic, exegetical, scientifi-
cal etc.
Certainly, as Adventists we should always be interested to know what E G
White said in some point, but nevertheless, we must also be aware of the human
limits of the prophetic inspiration. E G White was a true prophet, and actually I
used to defend her when she was attacked by malicious critics. But I cannot take
for granted every jot and title of what she has written. There are some Biblical
interpretations in E G White’s writings, that despite their spiritual correctness
(with regards to their ultimate scope and their moral, religious and practical
purpose), they are inexact, and sometimes sheer wrong, as regards a profession-
al, technical point of view.39 However, E G White’s messages and authority are

37
1SM 19-22; Manuscript 24, 1886 www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/EGWHCaxA.html
38
See, for example, Denis Fortin, “The Achilles’ Heel of Adventism”, 2005, Andrews University,
slideshow, nr 27): “Used fallible and imperfect modes of communication; Influenced by culture and
personal subjectivity; Limited in their knowledge; Their influence upon people and events is limited.”
www.slidefinder.net/university/andrews%20university/p24
39
There is good research on this topic today (see, for example, Graeme Bradford, More than a Prophet,
Biblical Perspectives, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 2006). Probably the most instructive instances of
cultural interpretation of prophecy by Ellen White, now completely abandoned, are the application of
the “daily [sacrifice]” of Daniel 8 etc. to “paganism”, and the application of the time prophecies of Rv
 15

not affected by such wrong opinions which she in most cases borrowed from
others, contemporary or historical authors. Similar problems occur even with
canonical prophets – a good consolation for any E G White devotee.40
To this point, I would like to add that Christ gave the Church not only the
gift of prophecy, but also other spiritual gifts, through the same Spirit. While the
apostleship is usually counted before the gift of prophecy,41 the other gifts are
counted secondary to prophecy. But these lesser gifts must not be neglected or
replaced by apostleship or prophecy (1Co 12:28; 14:1,5). I would especially refer
here to some gifts that have nothing spectacular, no visible evidence of super-
natural manifestation: wise speaking, knowledgeable speech (1Co 12:8-9),
manifested in teaching, translating (1Co 12:29-30) and other skills related to
learning (linguistics, philology, science etc.). Jesus spoke of the gift of såphar
(grammateus), which is the scribe, the theologian, as Bible interpreter, teacher of
religion, author, editor, librarian (Mt 13:52; 23:2, 34).

Popular opinion associates this professional gift to the Pharisees and Cai-
aphases, but God blessed His kingdom affairs with scholars as well.42 Prophets’
authority resides in their supernatural visions and messages, not necessarily in
their rich knowledge, unusual wisdom or technical skills (except when God
blessed some prophets with such additional skills). Scholars’ authority resides in
their training – involving knowledge, critical research and technical skills –, and
in their dedication and faithfulness, providing that their abilities work as a love-
and-faith service to God.

While some person may have many gifts, another may be less gifted, or
yet another may have just one gift, possibly the lesser one, but well specialized.
True prophets use to accept counsel from other spiritual gifts. Moses, the great-
est prophet, had to accept Jethro’s “word of wisdom” (Ex 18:14-23; 1Cor 12:8).
David accepted “word of wisdom” from Abigail (1S 25:24-35). When Ellen White

9:5.15 to Ottomans. See http://egwwritings.org RH Nov. 1, 1850; EW 61.2; GC 88 334.4-5. (On

„the daily” issue, one may read the dialog between D Kaiser, E Yoder and F Lăiu etc. on the blog
Memory, Meaning & Faith). Very instructive are also some of her scientific treatments (e. g. the
“amalgamation” issue in 3 SG 1864:64, 75 and the explanation of eartquakes and volcanic activities
in PP 1890:108-109 that have been shown by GRI scholars to be outdated scientific explanations of
the 19th century. I have heard reasonable and documented explanations from Clyde Webster Jr and
Tim Standish on these issues).
40
E. g. the sky vault called heaven and the presence of divided waters in Gn 1; earth founded on seas
and rivers in Ps 24; primeval ocean beneath the earth, as source of springs and rivers in Gn 7:11; Ex
20:4; Ez 31:3-4; moon causing lunacy (moonstroke, cf. Ps 121:5-6 and Mat 4:24; 17:15); three
heavens to pass through, when ascending to paradise in 1Cor 12; applying to Creator a verse that had
been dedicated to Zeus, in FA 17:28; quoting from, or alluding to 1 Enoch, as a common popular
authority in Jude 1: 6-7, 14-15 and 1Peter 3:19-20; counting 430 years from Abraham to Sinai in Gal
3:17; misplacing the golden altar, bowl of manna and Aaron’s rod in Heb 9:4; rabbit and hyrax
chowing their cud in Lev 11:3-4 and Deut 14; insects having four legs in Lev 11:21,23). Prophets are
humans too, and their logic and rhetoric is wholly human, although subordinated to the divinely
inspired message, which they convey to us. The divine treasure of biblical message is kept in earthen
frail vessels (2Cor 4:7). There is no good in the commonly (forced) explanations given by many
commentators to such problems. Some explanations are more embarassing than the incidental inaccu-
racies of an inspired author.
41
Cf. 1Co 12:28-29; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; Rv 18:20.
42
Cf. Ps 45:1; Ezra 7:6,11-12, 21, 25; Ne 8:1, 4, 9, 13; 12, 26, 36.
 16

prepared the 1911 edition of her book The Great Controversy, she accepted some
suggestions from Professor W W Prescott.43 Among the corrections made, or,
which some would call mildly, “refinements”, I will mention a few of them, as
evidence that E G White’s inspiration did not prevent her from expressing
historical and theological inaccuracies, wheter or not they had been borrowed
from other sources.

Pg GC 1888 edition GC 1911 edition

50 "the pope has arrogated the very titles of “ the pope has been given the very titles of
Deity. He styles himself 'Lord God the Deity. He has been styled 'Lord God the
Pope.'” Pope,'”
65 "The Waldenses were the first [...] to obtain a "The Waldenses were among the first [...] to
translation of the Holy Scriptures." obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures.”
266 “The holy city [the true church] shall they “The holy city shall they tread under foot”
tread under foot”
266 “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in
with the establishment of the papacy in A. A. D. 538”
D. 538”
304 {a quotation from Herschel, a converted Jew {reference deleted and another quotation
(1845), regarding the Dark Day, was credit- substituted}
ed to "Herschel the astronomer."}
325 “There was only one point in the vision of “There was one important point in the
chapter eight which had been left unex- vision of chapter eight which had been left
plained” {re Daniel 8-9} unexplained.”
340 “therefore it cannot refer to the Romish “therefore it cannot refer to the Roman
Church, for that church has been in a fallen Church alone, for that church has been in a
condition for many centuries” {re Rev 14:8} fallen condition for many centuries"
579 "The infliction of the deadly wound points to “The infliction of the deadly wound points to
the abolition of the papacy in 1798." the downfall of the papacy in 1798”
My point is that in using the E G White writings as a legitimate theological
guide, it is not safe to claim that they are a perfect, inerrant, unmistaken instruc-
tor in every area, whether we are interested in more than correct messages and
principles, or when we search for truth in its scientific and technical details.
Therefore, while on one hand we must consider carefully and honestly any Ellen
White counsel and message, on the other hand our research must go beyond her
information and understanding. This is all the more important as we face apolo-
getic challenges in our mission.
Regarding JuST, we have to meet the objections that are addressed to us
with true intellectual probity and professional skills. A reexamination of JuST,
and the study of the possibility for new lines of research is imperative. Our
Biblical Theology teachers should make such thorough study of this doctrine a
priority. We must go back to Sola Scriptura and to the acknowledgment of the
Bible’s final authority in each and every case. We should practice and popularize

43
Cf. Arthur White, “W W Prescott and the 1911 Edition of The Great Controversy”, 1999, Ellen G
White Estate, pp. 4-37 www.whiteestate.org/issues/issues.asp . Prescott reaction to such findings
was not so comforting for him, who by then was still a verbalist: "Allow me to say in closing, that it
has been quite a shock to me to find in this book so many loose and inaccurate statements; and what I
have submitted for our consideration will indicate how much of an undertaking it will be to revise this
book so that it will be in harmony with historical facts...” Actually Prescott exagerated at some points.
But in other points, none of those involved in that book revision was aware of all problems in E G
White’s book. If she were alive today, she will probably undertake further revisions. Meantime, the
book has proved its divine fruits excellently, according to what White said about the true role of the
Scripture: “The Bible was given for practical purposes”. Manuscript 24/1886; 1SM 19).
 17

a more realistic theology of inspiration, as E G White taught, and put our herme-
neutics in closer agreement with the Biblical data. We should reverently and
critically consult E G White and heed its advice, but we never should let the
legitimate authority of the Spirit of Prophecy supersede a reverent, responsible
and critical study of the Bible. While we all theoretically agree with this approach
in theory, yet practically we must prove it.

1. Linguistic and exegetical problems in Daniel 8-9

Biblical exegesis is based on a thorough linguistic and grammatical re-
search, at least in modern times. The demanding accuracy of this professional
task is a real challenge to our exegesis of some scriptures involved in the devel-
opment, exposition and defence of JuST. This section addresses some suggested
problems that our historical or present interpretations must face. Some of them
involve only the tools that we use, the Bible translations, which are occasionaly
confusing or even wrong. Though not every problem of translation in Daniel 8
and 9 may affect our interpretation based on the connection of the two prophe-
cies, each detail may prove itself useful, and one should treat it with the greatest
care.

1.3. Da 8:9: ‫הם‬

ֶַ ‫מ‬
ֵַ ַ‫חת‬
ַַ ‫א‬
ַַ ‫ה‬ ִַ ‫“ ַּו‬and out of one of the[m] [four winds]”?
ַָ ַ‫מן‬

The phrase ‫ ּומִן ִהִ ִאחִת ִמִהִם‬û·min ha·’aḥaṯ mē·hém “and out of one of them”
in Da 8:9 has been usually understood by Jewish and Christian scholars as a
reference to the four horns, which is the subject of the preceding sentence.
William Miller’s interpretation involves the same understanding: the four horns
were the four parts of Alexander’s divided kingdom: Persia (east), Syria (north),
Macedon and Europe (west), Egypt and Africa (south).44 To my knowledge, Uriah
Smith and generally our pioneers inherited the same basic approach, that was
held also by Isaac Newton,45 namely the little horn coming out of one “of the four
horns” of the goat, only changing the focus, from vague geographical identifica-
tion to a more accurate political identification: the little Roman horn comes out
of the Hellenisitic Macedon, by annexation.46

44
W Miller, Evidences From Scripture and History…., TEACH Services, NY, 2005, p. 42. It seems
that Miller’s concern was rather geographical than political parts. Actually Syria and Persia were parts
of the Seleucid kingdom; Lysimachus’ kingdom (Thracia and West Anatolia) has been ignored;
Africa and Europe have hardly been parts of Alexander’s kingdom (except Egypt, Lybia and Cyrenai-
ca and Greece and Macedon). Miller seems to have mentioned Europe (as one of the four parts of
Alexander’s kingdom!) to justify the raise of the Roman little horn. However, Miller was probably the
first one who suggested the alternative solution (“from one of the four winds”), followed by Sylvester
Bliss (W Miller, A Familiar Exposition of the Twenty-Fourth Chpater of Matthew…, ed. J V Himes
[Boston, 1842, p. 17), cf. id., Evidences…; Troy, 1836, p. 45; S Bliss, Inconsistences of Colver’s
literal fulfilment of Daniel’s Prophecies, Boston 1852, p. 31).
45
“The Romans began to conquer …Perseus, King of Macedonia, the fundamental kingdom of the
Greeks” (Sir Isaac Newton, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel…, chapter IX, 1733: 117
www.isaacnewton.ca). See also Nuñez, op. cit. pp. 50-58. The fame of the genial physician un-
doubtedly contributed a lot to his success as theologian and historian.
46
Uriah Smith (The Prophecies of Daniel… , RHPA, Hagerstown, MD; 1972, pp 158, 175-176) “The
little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of
 18

Noting a gender disagreement in the Hebrew text, an alternative solution

of the origin of the little horn has been promoted in 1955 by the authors of the
SDA Bible Coomentary (vol. IV, Daniel, pp. 840-41): the Roman horn has come
out of one of “the four winds of heaven.” This solution, with few variations was
adopted after 1980 by some of our best scholars,47 and it was popularized even
through the Sabbath School (2004, 4Q). 48 Please consider the following critical
points in reaction to this new solution:
The logical referent and subject of the last sentence is the “four
prominent [horns].” Thus, logically “one of them” corresponds to the
four horns, as one may see in the following tables:

1. The goat became extremely great

!
2. but, when it was strong,

3. its great horn was broken;

4. and there arose in its place four conspicuous horns

?
toward the four winds of the skies.

5. Out of one of them ?

emerged one horn from smallness

Blue text emphasizes adverbs and adverbial phrases.

A. The logical referent of the pronoun “them” is “horns,” because this is the major subject of
the paragraph, and the subject of the preceding sentence.
B. “Winds of the skies” is the closest possible referent, but it is a false referent, because it is part
of an adverbial phrase.
The solution of the problem depends on how one understands the se-
quence of clauses and the logical subject:

Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into proph-
ecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with
the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C.161. …But seven years
before this, that is, in B.C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its
empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of
the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or
may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat.”
47
William Shea (Selected Studies in Biblical Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series,
GC of SDA, 1982, 42), Gerhard Hasel (“The ‘Little Horn,’ …. of Daniel 8:9-14”, in Symposium on
Daniel, ed. F B Holbrook, BRI: Washington DC, 1986:387-94).
48
Gerhard Pfandl, Daniel (Adult Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, 2004, November 23): “Most
commentators assume that the little horn came out of one of four horns, but Hebrew grammar implies
something else, that the ‘little-horn’ power came from one of ‘the winds of heaven’ not from the four
horns. However, the last part of verse 8 says, ‘four notable ones came up toward the four winds of
heaven.’ Thus the phrase ‘the four winds of heaven’ is the nearest antecedent to ‘one of them,’ not
‘the four horns.’ The little horn, therefore comes out of one of the four winds (the directions of the
compass) rather than from one of the four horns. Furthermore, the little horn grows toward three
geographic entities, ‘the south' ‘the east' and ‘the Glorious Land.’ This second activity of the little
horn suggests that the first activity, "the coming out' also belongs to the geographic plane, the four
points of the compass.” See also SDABC 4:840-841.
 19

Preposition Numeral Logical subject modifier or digressive phrase

four horns to the four points of compass
out of one of them
one horn out of smallness
The closeness of the modifier (digressive phrase) “to the four points of
compass” proves to be an interesting logical trap.49 The true referent can-
not be one of the winds, since “winds” is part of a digressive phrase.
An expression like “one of the winds of heaven” occurs nowhere in He-
brew and carries no meaning. If the writer had said “out of the western
wind”, or anything similar, he would have communicated to us an infor-
mation. But an expression like “out of one of the[m = winds of heaven]”
does not convey any information. “From one of the directions of the com-
pass” means “from anywhere”. Tell me, Daniel, the precise direction of
compass you saw the horn rising from, as you did with the goat, and im-
plicitly with the ram. To say that it came “out of one of the four winds,” is
like saying “out of no matter where.” This is more perplexing than a sibyl-
line message, because it has no clue. It is perfectly useless.
The gender disagreement in Da 8:9 and consequently the grammatical
chiastic agreement suggested50 by scholars have been best explained by
Martin Pröbstle, 51 following Rendsburg’s studies.52 While this masculine
form ‫ מִהִם‬mē·hém, instead of the required feminine form ‫ מִהִן‬mē·hén is not
Standard Biblical Hebrew, and would be considered as a grammatical dis-

49
See other examples of similar pseudo-referents:
1K 19:1-2 (“Ahab told Jezebel all that Elijah had done, …how he killed all the prophets …. Jezebel
sent a messenger to Elijah with this warning, “May the gods judge me severely if … I do not take
your life as you did theirs!”). Which is the closest and which is the logical referent (both masculine):
the gods, or the prophets?
Ezekiel 39:28 (“They will know that I am YH their God, when I will bring them captives to the
nations. Then I will gather them to their country, I will leave none of them there anymore.”) Could
the pronouns them and their in the second sentence refer to nations, since this is the “closest refer-
ent”? Actually they have the same referent as the pronouns emphasized in the first sentence, that point
back to verse 22 (where the explicit referent is identified as “the house of Israel”). The true logical
referent are the Israelites, the future of Israel is the issue.
50
See William H. Shea, Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation, DARCOM Series, vol. 1 (1982)
41-43; Gerhard Hasel, “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the End: A Study
of Daniel 8:9-14”, in F B Holbrook (editor), Symposium on Daniel, DARCOM Series, vol. 2, Biblical
Research Institute: Washington DC (1986), 387-94.
51
See Martin Pröbstle, Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14, Andrews
University, PhD Dissertation, 2006: 109-126.
52
G. Rendsburg, Diglossia in Ancient Hebrew, American Oriental Series, vol. 72, American Oriental
Society, New Haven, Connecticut (1990:62-63). Actually Rendsburg (op. cit. p 48) quotes the cases
of Da 1:5; 8:9 as examples among others. Similar cases of gender neutralization are at least in the
following places: Gn 26:15, 16, 18; 29:10; 32:16; 41:23, 27; Ex 2:16-17; 25:29; 36:14; Lv 26:3, 33;
32:16; 41:23; Nu 16:18; 27:7, 17; 36:6; Dt 27:2, 4-5; Job 1:14-15; 3:24; 16:22; 21:20; 39:1, 3; 42:15;
Jos 17:3-4; Jg 16:3; 21:21-22; Rt 1:19, 22; 2:9; 4:11; 1S 6:7, 10; 9:20; 31:7; 2S 1:24; 20:3; 21:12;
24:12; 1K 11:3; 22:17; 2K 18:13; Ps 16:4; 34:20; 102:28; Pr 3:1-2; 16:3; 23:23; Ecc 2:6, 10; 10:9;
11:8; 12:1,4; Song 2:7; 3:5, 7; 4:2; 5:8; 6:8, 9; 8:4; Am 4:1-2; Hos 14:1,7; Is 3:16; 17:9; 19:18; 23:1;
32:11; 34:17; 36:1; 38:16; 49:11; 60:8; Jr 5:10; 43:9; 44;2; Ez 1:5, 6, 10, 18, 20, 26; Ez 13:[17-] 20;
20:16; 34:12, 26; Da 1:20; 8:4; 11:15, 22, 31, 41, 44; Zc 2:4; 5:9; 6:1, 7; 11:4, 5, 7, 9, 16; 14:12; Est
1:17, 20; 2:3, 12; Jl 2:22; 1Cr 6:49, 50; 8:8; 10:7; 23:22; 28:15; 2Cr 11:11; 20:37; 35:25; Ezra 10:3;
Ne 1:9; 2:13; 3:34.
 20

agreement, it is merely a formal disagreement, specific to the spoken He-

brew that often uses masculine forms for both genders.53
While the interpretation making the little horn appear out of some “wind”
is ingenious and it has a few supporters in the academic world,54 it is not
gladly admitted by every SDA scholar. Besides the persisting interpreta-
tion of U Smith, various other solutions have been suggested in the Ad-
ventist theological community in the last fourty years.55
W Shea, of the first promoters of the interpretation “one of the four
winds”, is less dogmatic now on this issue;56 and M Pröbstle, while finally

53
Any Biblical Hebrew grammar notes a lot of examples of gender disagreement (e.g. Ex 1:21; Ez 5:6;
10:17; 20:16). Using masculine instead of feminine is not unusual, for various reasons (even for the
noun ‫ ֶק ֶרן‬see Dt 33:17). Hasel (“The ‘Little Horn’”, 391-92) was aware of this phenomenon, therefore
he resolved that “either is possible”, that is both antecedents, winds or horns.
54
A Vaucher (L’Antichrist, p. 20) mentions some Italian Bible translations that implicitly indicate the
origin “out of one of them [winds]” („Da uno di questi [=venti]”): La Bibbia Sistoclementina, La
Sacra Bibbia (A Martini), La Bibbia (Salani), La Sacra Bibbia (ed. SEI); La Bibbia (nuovissima
versione dai testi originali s. Paolo), La Bibbia (Card. Ferraris), La Nuova Diodati, Luzzi (nuova
riveduta). Dr Gerhard Pfandl informed me about Arthur Bloomfield, a Methodist pastor who wrote:
“The little horn, we are told, is to come out of one of the four winds of heaven (vs. 8)” (A Bloomfield,
The End of Days, Baker Publishing, 1998:165).
55
E. g. Pedro de Felipe del Rey (“La identificacion del Cuerno Pequeño de Daniel 8”, Madrid 1970,
presented first as “Identification de la petite corne de Daniel 8 - de son origine à 476, Collonges sous
Salève, Avril 1969 [manuscript]), Alfred Vaucher (cf. a seminary course in the prophecies of Daniel,
Collonges sous Saléve) and Adelio Pellegrini (Quando la profezia diventa storia, Roma.
http://adeliopellegrini.com/QlPDS/cap11.php), based on the old book of A. Hislop (The Two
Babylons), interpreted that the little horn is the long dynasty of the Roman high pontiffs (pagan and
papal), together with the imperial cult inherited from Pergamum and having its roots in Babylon.
Since the kingdom of Pergamum was a form of survival of Lysimachus’ kingdom, and this kingdom
was bequeathed to Rome by the last will of king Attalos III, it is suggested that the Roman horn
“came out” of the Pergamum horn, in a spiritual and legal manner.
I heartily adopted this view for a time, but have discarded it later, when I have found that Hislop is
not a true historian; Pergamum was not the only kingdom bequeathed to Rome (see also Cyrenaica,
96 BC; Bithynia, 74 BC). In fact Rome had already began to “inherit” the Hellenistic world by the
conquest of Macedon (148 BC), years before the historical will of king Attallus III (133 BC).
Jacques Doukhan (Secrets of Daniel, Review and Herald, Hagerstown, MD, 2000: 125) suggests that
the author meant one of the four beasts of Da 7:23, alluding to them by the expression “four winds”.
This interpretation seems to be implied also in L T Cunningham (The Bible Exegesis and Impending
Judgment as Unfolding the Design of God, New Upper Falls, Massachussets, 1892, pp. 269,270). M
Pröbstle mentions Harald Sahlin (“Antiochus IV Epiphanes und Judas Mackabäus…”, ST 23 [1969]:
52-53) with a similar application: the four winds symbolize four beasts. This might prove an appeal-
ing solution for those interested in peculiar literary allusions, but one may ask honestly, if such
allusion was really intended by Daniel. Why an intelligent interpreter like Daniel should be so
ambiguous in communicating what he has seen in vision?
Probably the last scholarly suggestion regarding the interpretation of the origin of the little horn of
Daniel 8 and its identification is the solution proposed by Desmond Ford (Daniel, pp. 186-88), who
argued for a double (or multiple) application of the little horn symbol in Daniel 8, allowing a first
(though) limited application to Antiochus IV. This is the last solution to be accepted by an Adventist
scholar, but it is also the last one to abandon.
56
According to an email of W. Shea to F. Lăiu, on April 30, 2011. In a post mail dated Dec 26, 2000,
after he had read my modest MThOT dissertation, William Shea answered me: “I never resorted to
that double application of the little horn of Daniel 8, but I have no objection to it, so long as the
medieval application is emphasized (as you did). It is important to evidence the 2300 days extending
beyond Antiochus Epiphanes, as you clearly have shown.” The same he had told me in a private
discussion, and later in a recent email: “It is all right with me, if you want to make Antiochus as a
 21

decides in favor of “the four winds,” he criticizes the syntactic arguments

of the former proponents of this view.57
The “one of the four winds” solution probably sprang out of dissatisfac-
tion with our traditional interpretation of the origin of the horn. As these
interpretations became obsolete, it emerged the need to find a better solu-
tion that would avoid a possible application to Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
The present reluctance to discard this new explanation as well is probably
motivated by the same emotional reason.
After our scholars gradually abandoned or tend to ignore today the tradi-
tional solutions for the origin of the little horn, the implication of the phrase “out
of one of the[m = four horns]” compells me to resort to the traditional Christian
solution: Antiochus-Antichrist, in Daniel 8 and 11, but with the identity of Anti-
christ–Papacy taken from Daniel 7. Though we do not need to resort to the so-
called apotelesmatic principle, this solution has apologetic advantages: it is
already acknowledged, and it does not contradict our application to Rome and
Papacy. Most important, the little horn of Daniel 8 has its widely acknowledged
parallel character in the prophecy of Daniel 11:21-35. The vile king of the North
is best applied to Antiochus, as it is commonly agreed, usually outside the SDA
circles.
There is no reason to see the little horn as representative of the professed
people of God, or of their sins, confessed or unconfessed, as some have pro-
posed.58 The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 are symbolic for the same class of
hostile forces as the other horns, and as the beastly heads where they are rooted.
No matter that the wicked horn represents first either Antiochus or pagan Rome,
how can these professed pagans represent the professed people of God? If the
little horn of Daniel 7 is the Roman (Papal) Antichrist, and it has a correspondent
in the wicked horn of Daniel 8, how could a Pagan-Christian power represent the
professed people of God or their sins? Such interpretation was an ingenious way
of compensate the lack of contextual support for the historical view of cleansing
the sanctuary from the confessed sins of God’s people in the eschatological Day
of Atonement.

preliminary fulfillment, but [...] Pergamum makes a good case for one of the four horns as resulting
from the break up of Alexander’s empire.”
57
Pröbstle (op. cit., 109-26) devoted 17 pages of his extensive thesis for a detailed analysis of the
phrase ‫מ ֶַהם‬
ֵַ ‫חת‬
ַַ ‫א‬
ַַ ‫ה‬ ִַ ‫ ַּו‬û·min ha·’aḥaṯ mē·hém. He counted and weighed both sets of arguments, to
ַָ ‫מן־‬
decide whether the referent is “winds” or “horns.” Finally he decided that whereas both understand-
ings are justified and some ambiguities remain, the arguments for the referent “winds” outweigh the
arguments for the referent “horns”. Pröbstle’s comprehensive pros and cons on this topic deserve a
deeper study, but for the time, my conviction is that Daniel was not ambiguous.
58
See Various Authors, “Appraisal of Parmenter-Ford correspondence” in Minstry, October, 1980,
page 12: “Be cause this little-horn power is an apostate Christian power, it is also under scrutiny
during the cleansing of the sanctuary. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that "it is the little horn, and
not the sins of the saints, which denies the sanctuary."
www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1980/MIN1980-10.pdf.
See also Bob Pickle, "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.", heading “Little Horn vs. Professed
Believer’s Sins” www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/cleansing-of-the-sanctuary.htm#ways . I
cannot understand how an “apostate Christian power” may be equated to or included in the “saints”
category.
 22

If there is any wonder how a horn can grow out of another horn, we must
remember the monstrous character of the visionary beasts. There is no need to
find something similar in apocalyptic literature. Do we find any beast chewing
animal ribs, or another horn with eyes and mouths, or another beast with two
unequal horns, save in Daniel7? This feature is not as monstrous as it appears
anyway, since it is specific to some relatives of the goat, such as the hart and the
reindeer, in the wild life. Visions are certainly wilder than life.
On the other hand, the possibility to have a horn appearing with no ani-
mal support may be compared to the vision of Zechariah (1:19), where four
horns appear out of nothing. These four horns have general symbolic functions.
They are not related to any animal, just like the iron horns of the false prophet
Zidkiyahu ben-Kena‘nah (1K 22:11; 2Ch 18:10). By contrast, in Daniel 8 all the
other seven horns (two of the ram and one plus four of the goat) come out of
animal heads. Why this last horn should come simply out of a wind (direction)? A
horn in Hebrew poetry means power. The four horns in Zechariah symbolize the
universal political forces that have dispersed God’s people, and not four specific
political powers, while the horns in Daniel 8 have specific identities as political
dynasties: two of the Medo-Persians and six of the Greeks.
It is said that the verb ‫ יצא‬yāṣā’ could not possibly describe the waxing of
a horn, since such a movement is described in Daniel 8 by the verb ‫‘ עלה‬ālāh (8:3,
8). But it is sometimes a synonym forִ ‫‘ עלה‬ālāh 59, and it is known to have a
broader range of meanings, not limited to describing a military movement from
some direction. Daniel uses also the verb ‫‘ עמד‬āmāḏ for the same purpose (8:22-
23). Furthermore, if ‫ יצא‬yāṣā’ describes:
 flowers sprouting from a rod (Nu 17:23);
 a shoot springing from a stem (Is 11:1);
 a tower that protrudes/projects from a palace (Ne 3:25);
 any product of the field (Gn 1:12; Dt 14:22);
 the source/spring of a river (Gn 2:10);
 racial descendance (Gn 19:14; 17:6).
Why then ‫ יצא‬yāṣā’ cannot be used to describe the growing up of a horn?
It is true that each animal in Daniel 8 comes out of some direction. The
ram is not said to have come out of a specific direction, it is only implied the east,
since it batters toward three western directions. The verb ‫ יצא‬yāṣā’ is not used
for the horizontal campaigns of the ram. Actually, the goat only is spoken of
coming out of a specific “wind” (west), though neither for it is used the verb ‫יצא‬
yāṣā’, but the verb ‫ בא‬bā’ (came [from]). In any case, the direction is either
implied or specified. But when we come to the Luciferian horn, there is no
direction specified or implied.
If Daniel wanted to say that the horn came out of one direction, but not
indicate the direction, it could come from the north, or from the west, judging
from its directions of expansion. But when Gabriel explains the vision he does

59
E. g. going out / ascending form Egypt: Nu 22:5; Hos 12:14; 1K 10:29 etc.
 23

not refer to the specific direction wherefrom this horn-king came, neither has he
given any clue. The information received by vision is sufficient for the time. The
angel will give further instruction in chapter 11.
If the divine inspiration intended a symbol of Rome, as a new and differ-
ent empire, would it not the image of another beast have been more appropriate,
as in chapter 7? The present solution, of a horn coming out of one
wind/direction, has no apologetic future, in my opinion.
Comparing the prophecy of Daniel 8 with the comparatively ill-studied
prophecy of Daniel 11, and noting the oldest Jewish and Christian commentaries
and some modern commentaries, we are encouraged to admit a twofold applica-
tion of this prophecy: first to Antiochus, and next to Antichrist, his sinister long
shadow, revealed in Daniel 7 as a Roman outgrowth.
Actually, there is no unique historical fulfillment corresponding to all the
details indicated by the prophet. If this prophecy must be fulfilled by a single
historical entity, one wonders who such power was. Neither the Roman Empire,
nor the Papacy did come from a Hellenistic state. On the other side, Antiochus
had no connection with the 2300 days and did not survive to the time of the end,
to be finally crushed by God’s hand.
Desmond Ford’s proposal that Antiochus is a first, incomplete and typical
fulfillment of this prophecy, which had to be better fulfilled by the pagan and
Christian Rome, seems to me the best solution, even though I don’t like double
prophecies.60 I would avoid it, if I could find a better solution. Anyway, it seems
to me, hermeneutically and apologetically, more acceptable than any other
historical or current Adventist explanations.
Rome and Papacy better fulfill much better the most prophetic features of
the little horn, but Antiochus fits best the origin of the little horn – at least. In
Daniel 11, in the same manner, the king of the north is, in the last phase, the
Papal Antichrist, but at the moment of his first appearance (11:21), and in a lot of
dealings with the Jewish religion (vv 21-34), it is clearly the Hellenistic king.
Antiochus is the spiritual root of Antichrist, and as a character he is even a
“Roman” king, since he was educated in Rome and played so ominously his role
as a persecuting god-king.
The close connection between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the prophecy
of Daniel 11-12 is a generally accepted view.61 However, in the determination to
avoid the presence of Antiochus in Daniel 11, SDA have adopted a pattern that
does not hold water. Our historical insistence to describe the dominant role of
imperial Rome in Daniel 11 is forced and doomed to failure. Some SDA exposi-
tors would say that Rome appears early in this prophecy, in verse 14, to play an
exclusive role in verses 16-30. But while they made ingenious attempts to

60
Prophecies are as more convincing as they are clear and have a single fullfilment. However we
should not force them to show unique fullfilments, if they were not so intended. Some of them have
been planned as conditional prophecies, with a unique fulfillment; and only their partial (and condi-
tional) “failure” allow us to suggest double application (as it is the case of Mat 24). But some have
been understood by their authors themselves to have double fullfilment (e.g. Emanuel and Jesus, cf Is
7:14, through 8:8, 10, to 9:5-6; Davidic kings and Messiah, Ps 2 etc.).
61
See, for example, Z Stefanović (Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise, Pacific Press, Nampa, Idaho, 2007:
423).
 24

explain each verse consistently, our traditional expositions of the “king of the
north” have no future.62
Others would make appear the Roman forces much earlier in the chapter,
beginning with the last sentence of verse 4, but with little or no attempt to
identify the historical events in the prophecy.63
Unfortunately, our usual interpretations ignore the solutions of SDA
teachers who identified Antiochus in Daniel, at least in chapter 11 (H C Lacey, W
G Wirth, M C Wilcox, S Horn, R Cottrell, D Neufeld, A Vaucher, D Ford, etc.).64
Some important consideration to this subject showed Zdrávko Stefanović in his
commentary on Daniel, reviewing some non-Adventist expositions that contain
applications to Antiochus.65 Likewise Antonio Caracciolo of Villa Aurora, very
practically put in parallel the SDA classical view and some Catholic and Evangeli-
cal views focused on Antiochus.66

62
Most of our commentaries on Daniel, including the standard commentary in 4 SDABC, prefer the
Roman presence in Daniel 11 in agreement with the Uriah Smith’s expositional pattern. Actually, the
events and characteristics that have been ascribed to the Romans are often not more than coincidences
and guesswork interconnected by artificial events. The exppression ‫( ָפ ִר ֵיצי ַע ְמָך‬Da 11:14), a nominal
construct sequence was interpreted as it would have beenַ ‫יַע ְמָך‬ ַ ‫( פ ְֹּר ֵצ‬see Ecl 10:8), “those who [will]
smash your people”, where ‫ פ ְֹּר ֵצי‬is a participle and ‫ ַע ְמָך‬is in Accusative. But the MT form ‫ ָפ ִר ֵיצי‬is a
noun, meaning most probably “scoundrels” (OG πεπτωκότα “fallen people”; Th λοιμῶν “pestilenc-
es”; Vul praevaricatorum “traitors” cf. 1S 25:10), and it hardly can precede an objective noun.
Especially one should notice that it is not only the root ‫ פרץ‬in view, but the whole expression ‫ן־פ ִריץ‬ ָ ‫ֵב‬
bēn pårîṣ “son - scoundrel” that occurs in Ez 18:10. Furthermore, the supposed allusion to the episode
with Caesar and Cleopatra in verse 17 has hardly any ground. King Auletes put his children, Ptolemy
XIII and Cleopatra VII, under Rome’s guardianship. As it was customary, Ptolemy and Cleopatra
married and ruled together. Thus Auletes did not give Cleopatra to the Roman ruler, to destroy her, or
someone, or something. How could the reign of Augustus be described as only “a few days” (11:20),
ended by crushing, when he ruled for more than 40 years and died of natural death? Likewise if verse
21-22 speak of Tiberius, how in the world could the angel refer to Christ in such a casual and hasty
manner: “The forces of the flood will be overwhelmed by [Tiberius] and will be broken, and so too
the covenant leader.” How could an angel utter such penurious words about Christ’s sacrifice? This
interpretive scenario then treats verses 23-29 as only a general description of the Roman politics,
breaking the chronologic course, while the literary flow would require consistence. “The fleets of
Kittim” (11:30) that had been announced also by Balaam (Nu 24:24), have been interpreted as
barbarian tribes who pested the Empire. There is some inconsistence in the identification of the types
of personages. “He” is sometimes the Caesar, any Roman ruler, and some other times a certain ruler
or caesar. Most important, many events identified as Roman have no connection with the people of
the covenant. How could Jews be interested in the love affairs of Caesar, or in the military exploits of
his descendants? And I insist, why was Heaven so interested in such details of no practical use, and
refrain to speak at large and warn of the most painful events for Israel, if the main player in Daniel 11
is Imperial Rome ?
63
Jacques Doukhan (Secrets of Daniel, Review and Herald, Hagerstown, MD, 2000: 168) has a rich
contribution to the study of literary structure of these prophecies and to their Jewish significance, bur
it is a real wonder that he avoided any identifcation of most events foreseen in Daniel 11. Doukhan
l
ֵ ‫ַ ִמ ְל ַב‬mi ·lə·ḇaḏ ’ēllêַ“besides these” in 11:4 must refer not to the four
believes that the last phrase ‫ד־א ֶלה‬
Hellenistic kingdoms mentioned earlier, but “to others, besides these”, who are the Romans. But the
phrase may well be understood in its classical, normal understanding, as merely stressing by repeti-
tion the prophecy of cutting [Alexander’s] descendants: “towards the four winds of the sky, but not to
his posterity […], for his kingdom will be uprooted and distributed to others besides these.”
(Emphasiss supplied).
64
Cf. D Ford (Daniel 8:14 etc. 85).
65
Z Stefanović, op. cit. pp. 327-33, 424-432.
66
Antonio Caracciolo (Capire Daniele, Villa Aurora, IACB, Edizioni ADV, 1998, pp. 333-364).
 25

We should reconsider our historical preferences and present motivations

relating this issue. The presence of Antiochus in Daniel cannot be endlessly
avoided and fighted back. His fierce paganiad against the Jewish religion was
acted as a pattern for all the troubles which God’s people had to experience up to
the end. For apologetic purposes, the identification of Antiochus as part of the
interpretation of the wicked horn in Daniel 8, and of the detestable king of the
north in Daniel 11 is welcome, since so many Christian scholars in the past and in
the present agree that in both chapters, Antiochus is the first application.67

1.4. Da 8: 11-13: ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ = the… what?

As we know, William Miller and the Millerites identified “the daily [sacri-
fice]” of Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11 to the ancient paganism, replaced by the
medioeval Antichrist abomination. He reached such original conclusion by
insisting that the word “sacrifice” is “inserted” by translators, and thus the
expression “the daily” has no connection to the sanctuary service. He felt espe-
cially illuminated by the apparent parallel between the removal of “the daily”,
announced by Daniel, and the removal of the pagan Rome, announced by Paul
(2Th 2:7-8), preceding the setting up of the “desolating iniquity / abomination”
or “the mistery of iniquity”. The 1843 prophetic chart omitted however this
interpretation, since other Millerites, especially Charles Fitch did not agree with
it.68
Between the 16thto 10th centuries, Protestant scholars had promoted a
spiritual understanding of the “daily sacrifice”. Some held that it symbolized the
true Gospel,69 but mosts pointed out to the true Christian worship.70 I did not
find information about Fitch’s interpretation of the “daily”, but he certainly did
not agree with Miller at this point. In February 1846, O. R. L. Crosier identified

67
I have not a complete list of the expositors who identified the arogant horn with both Antiochus and
Antichrist. Among them the following are mentioned: Jerome (c. 407), Martin Luther (1530, both
Antiochus and Papal Antichrist), William Lowth (1725), Magnus F. Roos (1771), John Gill (1819,
included Rome, Islam and antichristian France); Archibald Mason (1820), H. A. C. Hävernick
(1832), Thomas Wintle (1836), William Kelly 1897), Nathaniel West (1898), Joseph A. Seiss (1884),
John F. Walvoord (1971), Desmond Ford (1978), J. Dwight Pentecost (1985), etc. See Samuel Nuñez
(op. cit. 39-50, 73, 174), Winfried Vogel (“The Eschatological Theology of Martin Luther”, AUSS,
Andrews University, Summer 1987, Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 188.), www.fbinstitute.com/daniel/ ,
http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-8-vision-ram-and-goat
68
6BIO 247
69
L. E. Froom (Historical Setting and Background of the Term “Daily”, September 1, 1940; published
on GCO May 12, 2005 as ORCD, on www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fro-daily.php), refers
Alphonsus Conradus (Commentary on the Revelation, Basle, 1550, p. 451) and Nikolaus Armsdorf
(Five Prominent Signs of the Coming of the Judgment Day, Jena, 1554 unpaged) to have held that the
“daily sacrifice” in Daniel symbolized the Gospel, and its preaching.
70
Cf. L E Froom (Historical Setting...), the following scholars held that the “daily sacrifice” in Daniel
symbolized the true Christian worship expressed in praise, prayers etc.: Thomas Parker, (Visions a
Prophecies of Daniel Expounded, London, 1646, pp. 45,133), John W. Fletcher, (“A Letter Upon the
Prophecies,” in Posthumous Pieces, 1755, 3rd ed. London, 1800, p. 372), Hans Wood, (Revelation of
St. John, London, 1787, p. 476), Archibald Mason, (Two Essays on Daniel’s Prophetic Number of
2300 Days, Newburg. 1820, pp. 1-6). Samuel Nuñez (The Vision of Daniel 8, AUSDDS, Andrews
University Press, 1989:101, 232) adds to this category, other scholars of 18 th-19th centuries: Théodore
Crinsoz, Henry Kett, George Stanley Faber, James Clarke, James H. Frere, William Girdlestone, John
Bayford, John Fry, Thomas Scott, Robert Reid, F. A. Cox, Matthew Habershon and David Campbell.
 26

“the daily” with the daily service pertaining to the altar of sacrifices and to the
Holy Place, and he wrote that “The daily service described was a sort of continual
intercession.”71 But in March 1847 he clearly applied “the daily” to “the true
doctrine of the cross”:72
The whole force of Br. J. Litch’s exposition of Dan 11:31, on the taking away of the Daily,
supports the idea that it [=“the daily”] was a Christian institution. . . The suppression in the
church of the doctrine that Christ “WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US.” This was the Daily Sacri-
fice they took away”. 73

For a short time, Uriah Smith expounded Crosier’s position (RH, March 28,
1854), but he turned back to Miller’s view in 1864.74 Even before Smith, Joseph
Bates was the first to promote Miller’s view in 1846. 75 Thus the view of “the
daily” as “paganism” survived among SDA. Smith’s book became the greatest
apocalyptic exegetical commentary and apologetic tool that influenced our
Church, until the turn of the century. John Andrews (1853) and James White
(1870) would follow him. Meantime, in 1850-1851, a visionary testimony of E G
White had introduced a problematic statement regarding “the daily”. 76 This
statement had to play an important role later in the historical controversy on the
“daily” that would last about 40 years (1898-1939) – incredibly long for such
small point.77
The controversy was introduced by 1898, with L. R. Conradi’s promotion
of the “new view” (that “the daily” equalled the true sanctuary service). Conradi
has got it through personal study, following Protestant commentaries, not being
aware that a similar spiritual identification had been made long ago by Crosier.
Eventually, the “new view” prevailed among us, and today it is our standard
position on this topic. For example, Angel Rodriguez writes of “the ‘daily’

71
O R L Crozier, “The Law of Moses”, in The Day-Star Extra, Feb 7, 1846.
72
Day-Dawn 2:2, Mar. 19, 1847.
73
O R L Crozier, The Day-Dawn, vol. 2, # 1; March 19, 1847.
74
Uriah Smith, in Review and Herald 24:180, Nov. 1, 1864; Thoughts on the Book of Daniel (1873
ed.,p. 163). http://adventistlegacy.com/moore/daily/sda-encyclopedia.htm.
75
Joseph Bates, The Opening Heavens, p. 31.
76
“Then I saw in relation to the ‘Daily,’ that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom, and
does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the
judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the
‘Daily;’ but since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confu-
sion have followed. I have also seen that time had not been a test since 1844, and that time will never
again be a test.” (Early Writings, p 74).
77
It was felt by some that the authority of the “old view” would be related to the authority and honor of
the Spirit of Prophecy. Actually, the only problem was that we had not yet, at that time, and probably
we still do not have a clear and realistic theology of inspiration that would make sufficient room for
some innocent mistakes of the inspired authors as human beings. Denis Kaiser’s thesis and Heidi
Heiks’ study deal at large with these issues. See Denis Kaiser (The History Of The Adventist Interpre-
tation Of The “Daily” In The Book Of Daniel From 1831 To 2008, MA thesis, Andrews University,
July 2009). “Stan Hickerson, pastor of the Stevensville Adventist Church and presenter at last year's
symposium, asserted that Kaiser is too humble in acknowledging the consequences of his study.
Hickerson suggested that this ‘daily’ conflict set the table for a dinner of conflict between sola
scriptura and Ellen White that has never ceased to give indigestion.” (2010 Ellen White Symposium:
“Ellen White And The 'Daily' Conflict", April 05, 2010, on the website Memory, Meaning & Faith,
SDA Theological Seminary, AU). See also Heidi Heiks’ study, The “Daily” – Source Book, TEACH
Services, 2008; a good study, especially fit to adress the modern SDA revivers of the ghost view
“daily” paganism.
 27

(tå·mîd), i.e. Christ’s mediation in the heavenly sanctuary.”78 Likewise Gerhard

Pfandl understands “the daily” to be “Christ’s intercessory ministry”.79
According to Roy Gane, the “daily” symbol “qualifies a cluster of regular
worship activities performed for God by his people at the Israelite sanctuary”,
including weekly renewal of the “bread of the Presence”, daily maintenance of
the lampstand, continual mediation by the high priest, the daily burnt offering,
daily burning of incense, continual maintenance of fire on the outer altar, and the
high priest’s regular grain offering.80 In addition to referring tamid to the high-
priestly ministry, Pröbstle also builds a case to support “the daily” as worship.81
Alberto Timm is of the same opinion,82 while Heidi Heiks equates “the daily” with
Christ’s ministry in the first appartment of the heavenly sanctuary.83
These spiritual interpretations are obviously superior to the old Adventist
view that “the daily” was a symbol of paganism. However, there are minor
problems with the new view, and it has to be further refined:
The spiritual interpretation of the “daily” is not the same for all exposi-
tors of Danniel. It has a few versions that should be critically discussed
before deciding the best choice. The Gospel of the Cross, the true Christi-
an worship, or Christ’s intercession, while close related, they are not one
and the same.84
In the Adventist tradition, the specific Hebrew noun ‫ התמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ was
not analyzed as a beheaded technical expression, as in the Jewish use,

78
Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “The Abomination That Causes Desolation”, BRI
www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Abomination.pdf
79
Gerhard Pfandl, “The Time Prophecies in Dan 12”, p. 3, published on the BRI website.
80
Roy E. Gane, “Christ at His Sanctuary; Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue”, Paper presented at
dialogue with World Evangelical Alliance, Andrews University, August 6, 2007, p. 8, published on
the BRI website.
81
One of Pröbstle’s argument (op. cit. p. 231) is the presence of Aramaic expressionַ‫ַ ִב ְת ִד ָירא‬bi·ṯəḏîrå’
in Da 6:17, 21. While this is ingenious, and it is legitimate to seek for solutions in the Aramaic of
Daniel, I am not satisfied with this argument, since ַ‫ַ ִב ְת ִד ָירא‬bi·ṯəḏîrå’ “in the circling” = regularly is an
adverbial phrase (preposition + noun), where the noun ‫ ָת ִדיר‬tåḏîr (regularity) is indeed synonymous
to the Hebrew ‫ ָת ִמיד‬tåmîḏ. The only corresponding use of Aramaic adverbial expressionַ ‫ַ ִב ְת ִד ָירא‬
bi·ṯəḏîrå’ is the adverbial use of the Hebrew noun ‫ ָת ִמיד‬tåmîḏ. Compare, for example, the two forms in
Hab 1:17, according to MT and Targum (“unceasingly empties his net [or draws his sword]”). While
in Daniel 6 the adverbial phrase is used for Daniel’s regular prayer, its intrinsic meaning has nothing
to do with worship. Various actions may be described as regular (e. g. eating at the royal table 2S 9:7,
10, 13; 2K 25:29-30; passing regularly by some place 2K 4:9; my sorrow is continually before me Ps
38:18; my sin is always before me Ps 51:5; continually tremble Pr 28:14; Is 51:13; to provoke God
continually Is 65:3; grief and wounds continually Jr 6:7; 52:33-34; continual ruine Ez 38:8; drink
continually God‘s wrath Ob 1:16; the wickedness passed continually Na 3:19).
82
Alberto R. Timm, “The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12”, June 5, 2002, published on the BRI
website.
83
Heidi Heiks, The “Daily”– Source Book, Brushton, NY, TEACH Services, 2008: 29, 68.
84
It is not necessary to comment on the recent identification of the “daily” with the Sabbath (cf. F. S.
Fowler Jr. (“THE DAILY” – HA TAMID, Prophecy Research Initiative © 2008-2010
www.endtimeissues.com ). Such theories are rightly refuted (Alberto Timm, “The 1,290 and 1,335
Days of Daniel 12”, Adventist Pastor Online, 2009
www.adventistpastoronline.com/index.php/the-1290-and-1335-days-of-daniel-12; It is incred-
ible that Samuel Nuñez took this excentric way (see Gerhard Pfandl, “Further on the Time Prophecies
of Daniel 12”, Reflections –The BRI Newsletter, July 2011: 12-15).
 28

but it is taken as a general term representing any or all items that the
Law prescribes to be “continual” (‫ תמיד‬tåmîḏ, with adjectival or adverbi-
al function).
The Adventist analysis referred above still depends on the Millerite
claim, repeated by E G White, that the word “sacrifice” was added by
translators, as a human, uninspired solution.85
Our persistent avoiding of the translation “continual burnt offering” or
“continual sacrifice” springs from the concern (or prejudice) that the no-
tion of sacrifice would lead us to accept the literal, judaizing view, point-
ing to the earthly temple, profaned by Antiochus and supposedly to be
rebuilt and profaned again by a future Antichrist.
We have already shown that a double application of the symbol “little
horn” is probably the most acceptable interpretation, hermeneutically, historical-
ly and apologetically. The “daily sacrifice”, in this case, may have both literal and
spiritual meaning. We can all agree with this, since in Matthew 24, installing of
the desolating abomination in the year 70 AC, implying that the tåmîḏ, whatever
it meant, was also removed long before the Papacy make its way.
We all decidedly reject any dispensational and futuristic view of “the dai-
ly sacrifice”. But the classic Millerite objection, that translators supplied the word
“sacrifice” is not the true solution. Any translator needs often to supply words
that have no precise corresponding equivalent in the text, because a good trans-
lation is not literal-mechanical, seeking formal correspondence, but it is dynamic,
satisfying the meaning intended by the author.
The Millerite apologetes had been overcritical at this point. They just
fought as they could against a contemporary view that tended to destroy their
Christian hope. And E G White’s reference to the insertion of the word “sacrifice”
is simply a Millerite borrowing, not a divine, visionary instruction. Actually E G
White would later decline any role of arbitrating in the controversy. She would
deny having any light on the issue, and she asked church leaders not to use her
writings to settle the debate. 86
The Hebrew noun ‫ התמיד‬hat·tå∙mîd “the […] of regularity” is not an inten-
tional left open expression “in order to comprehend all the perpetual services at
the sanctuary.”87 But such syntactic interpretation would be difficult to explain.
For similar purposes, the Hebrew of Daniel uses a plural noun. For example,
where Torah required the priests to be clothed with various items of linen ( ‫בד‬
badd), Daniel and Ezekiel refer to the totality of these garments and ornaments

85
Cf. Signs of the Times, May 24, 1843, p. 95, col. 2; Idem., June 21, 1843, p. 126, col. 2; Idem., p.
136, col. 1; Ellen G. White, Present Truth, Nov. 1850, p. 87, col. 1;
86
A. G. Daniells, Letter, dated “Los Angeles, Sept. 25, 1931,” in E. G. White Publications file.
www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fro-daily.php Further, she has shown that the divine inspira-
tion of the prophets has nothing to do with their mode of thought, language, rhetoric and logic. These
are specificly human (1SM 21). Thus, Daniel choice of the noun ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tå·mîd, instead of the full
t
ַ ‫‘ ַע ַֹּל‬ōlaṯ-ha ·tåmîḏ, as well as the translators’ and interpreters’ solutions on this
expressionַ ‫ת־ה ָת ִמיד‬
issue, including Ellen White’s Millerite opinion (“I saw in relation to the ‘daily’, that the word
‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom”) are all of them human. Cf. Ellen G. White, Present Truth,
Nov. 1850, p. 87, col. 1; EW 74.
87
Cf. D Kaiser (op cit. 139), who expresses here the majority view in the SDA theology.
 29

by the plural ‫ִהבדים‬hab·badd·îm.88 If we choose a more limited interpretation –

“the daily”, as Christ’s ministry in the Holy Place, or the true worship of His
people at the Sanctuary – we cannot justify anyway the elliptical construction
‫ התמיד‬hat·tå·mîd “the [?] of regularity”.

Such elliptical constructions are best to be explained within a technical

jargon, naturally developed in any spoken language. And this is not the only case
where Daniel shows such vernacular trend.89 Since Mishnaic Hebrew continues
the spoken Hebrew of Biblical times, we should not be surprised that the noun
‫ התמיד‬hat·tå·mîd “the burnt offering service of regularity” is used in Mishna as the
title of a whole treatise dealing with the regular burnt-oferring, of morning and
evening, with its related ceremonies.90 Occasional sacrifices or specific festive
sacrifices and a lot of ceremonies do not belong to the tåmîḏ. Only very usual
expressions tend to become elliptic, in any language,91 and Biblical Hebrew
indicates that the most frequent use of hat·tå·mîd was in the expression‫עֹ לת־‬
ִ‫‘ התמיד‬ōlaṯ-hat·tå·mîḏ “the regular/daily burnt offering”(×20).92 It was the most
frequent ceremony at the sanctuary, each morning and evening, every day, even
in Sabbaths and feasts, even in the Day of Atonement. It was never ceasing. While
Ezekiel (46:15), Ezra (3:5) and Nehemiah (10:34) use the literary, complet

88
Cf. Ex 28:42; Lv 6:3; 16:4, 23, 32; Ez 9:3, 11; 10:2, 6; 7; Da 10:5; 12:6, 7.
89
In 8:9, Daniel uses the noun ‫ ַַהצֶַ ִבי‬haṣ·ṣébî, that is translated “the Land of Beauty” or similar forms, as
its complete use elsewhere suggests (‫ץ־ה ְצ ִבי‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ֶר‬Da 11:16, 41). The elliptic expression ‫ ֲחמּודֹות‬ḥămūḏôṯ
“preciousness” in 9:23 is also to be understood in a single way, as Da 10:11.19 suggests: ‫יש־ח ֻמדֹות‬ ֲ ‫’ ִא‬îš
ḥămūḏôṯ “man of preciousness” (precious man). Similarly, ‫ חָזּות‬ḥåzûṯ “conspicuousness” in Da 8:8
stands for ‫ ק ֶֶרן חָזּות‬qéren ḥåzûṯ “horn of conspicuousness” of Da 8:5. Other examples in Hebrew: ַ‫ֶק ֶרן‬
ֵ ‫ ַה‬/ ‫רֹותַיֹוב ִלים‬
ַ‫ּיֹובל‬ ְ ‫שֹופ‬
ְ (Jos 6:4,5,6,8,13) “ram’s horn(s)” > ‫ּיֹובל‬
ֵ ‫“ ַה‬the […] horn” (as musical instrument,
Ex 19:13). But the same shortened form sometimes stands forַ‫תַהּי ֵֹּבל‬ ַ ַ‫“ ְשנ‬the year of blowing horn” (Lv
25:13, 28, 40, 50, 52, 54; 27:17-18, 23-24) > ‫“ ַהּיַֹו ֵבל‬the horn’s […]” (Lv 25:10-12etc; Jos 6:4-6 etc; Jr
17:8) = the jubilee (especially in Qumran Hebrew). Similarly ‫ ָכ ַרת‬in 1S 20:16 stands forַ ‫ָכ ַרת ְַב ִרית‬
(×97, e.g. Gn 9:11 to Zc 11:10).
90
See W. Bacher & J. Z. Lauterbach, “Tamid”, in JewishEncyclopedia.com. “Treatise in the Mishnah
and the Babylonian Gemara; devoted chiefly to the regulations regarding the morning and evening
burnt offerings (comp. Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), but dealing also with other ceremonies in
the ritual of the Temple...” The other ceremonies described in the Tamid treatise are only those in
close connection to the morning and evening burnt offering, to be performed at the altar and in the
Holy place: grain offering, wine libation, censing, tending the lampstand, ash cleaning, sounding the
shofar etc.
91
Notice examples in English and other languages (the dates represent the first written attestation, cf.
Douglas Harper & Dan McCormack, Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001, www.etymonline.com):
steam engine (1815) > engine (1929); capital city > capital (1660s); Bermuda shorts (1953) > bermu-
da; sauce hollandaise (Fr.) > hollandaise (Eng. 1841); Alzheimer’s desease (1912) > Alzheimer’s
(1954); Caesarian section (1615) > caesarian (1923); Canary bird (1570s) > canary (1650s); camera
obscura (1730) > camera (18th cent.). In Latin: malum persicum “Persian apple” > persicum “peach”
(12th cent.); panis bis coctus > biscoctum (>>biscuit, Fr., Eng. etc.). In Spanish, plata d’argento >
plata “money”. The trend to shorten the speech does not limits itself to the beheading of the expres-
sions, but some expressions are further abbreviated in the spoken language: public house (1768) >
pub (1859); moving picture (1896) > movie (1912); capital letters (14th cent.) > capitals > caps;
metropolitan bishop > metropolitan (15th cent.( etc.
92
Ex 29:42; Nu 28:6, 10, 15, 23-24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Ezra 3:5; Ne 10:34; Ez
46:15.
 30

expressionִ‫‘ עֹ לת־התמיד‬ōlaṯ-hat·tå·mîḏ, according to the Torah, Daniel prefers the

beheaded, colloquial formִ‫ התמיד‬hat·tå·mîḏ.93
There was no other sacrifice to emphasize so high the Gospel of universal
grace, but the tå·mîd holocaust. I have no personal opposition to the other
interpretations of hat·tå·mîd as continual worship or ministry. These solutions fit
the literary and logical context better than any reference to paganism, and they
can be harmonized, as a general reference to the sanctuary cultus.
My reason to prefer the burnt-offering interpretation is basically linguisti-
cal. We have a good evidence that Hebrew used hat·tå·mîd in an elliptical manner
(see Mishnah), but we have no evidence of using hat·tå·mîd as a technical way or
code to denote the general aspects of cult, as ministry or worship. Hat·tå·mîd has
nothing to do directly with our sacrifices; it is Christ’s unique sacrifice.94 My view
does not exclude any reference to ministration or worship, since the permanent
ministration of the priests focused on the daily burnt offering, and the whole
worship, even in diaspora, was directed to Jerusalem, at the hours where the
burnt offering lamb was sacrificed (cf. 1K 18.36; Da 9:21; AA 3:1). Actually, this
view is not new at all.95

1.5. Da 8:13: ‫דַמ ָתי‬

ָ ‫‘ ַע‬aḏ måṯåy – “how long” or “until when”?

Some translations render the question of Da 8:13 in a confusing way. For

example, the most common Romanian translation (CNS) has something like this:
“after how long time shall the vision be fulfilled?” NET has: “To what period of
time does the vision pertain…?”; NIV: “How long will it take for the vision to be
fulfilled...?”. Such translations are a serious hindrance for any critical or apolo-
getic purposes, since they suggest that the whole vision must be fulfilled in the
time of the end, which is not the plain meaning of Hebrew. The phrase, “pertains

93
Cf. Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Eisenbrauns:
Winona Lake, Indiana 1990: 103), “beheading is common in English—we say 'California' for 'the
state of California,' 'Mexico' for 'the United States of Mexico.'.... The omission of the noun in the
construct (the beheading) is common in Arabic.” The definite elliptic (beheaded) expressionַ ‫ַה ָת ִמיד‬
hat·tå·mîḏ; though exclusively present in Daniel and late Hebrew writings, is also shown by Martin to
be part of a normal linguistic process found already in the oldest Hebrew books as in practically all
languages. (W J Martin, “The Hebrew of Daniel,” in D J Wiseman etc., Notes on Some Problems in
the Book of Daniel, The Tyndale Press: London, 1965, pp. 28-30).
94
Some refer Ps 141:2, to argue in behalf of the worship theme. However, here the prayer of the
worshipper is only compared to the frankincense. The Book of Revelation (5:8; 8:3-4) shows that the
only hope of our prayers is the frankincense of Christ’s merits. “The incense represents the merits and
intercession of Christ, His perfect righteousness, which through faith is imputed to His people and
which can alone make the worship of sinful beings acceptable to God. By blood and by incense God
was to be approached—symbols pointing to the great Mediator through whom alone mercy and
salvation can be granted to the repentant soul. As the priests morning and evening entered the holy
place, the daily sacrifice was ready to be offered upon the altar in the court.” (Ellen White, in 7A
SDABC 482).
95
See F C Cook (The S.D.A. Bible Commentary, 6:344). “‘The daily’—this phrase is best limited to the
usually accepted sense of the morning and the evening offering, though some prefer a more general
sense as an expression of everything connected with the worship of the sanctuary” WV 510.3.
 31

to the time of the end” of Da 8:17 (NET) or similar translations that set all the
vision at the end of time are confusing, and they probably reflect futurist views.
The heavenly speaker meant that the threatening visionary scenario
would continue up to the end of 2300 “days”, to the divine judgment, not that the
prophecy will be fulfilled after the 2300 “days”.
Even the usual question “how long” seems to me ambiguous in Da 8:13,
because it may indicate strictly the period of desecration. “Until when?” or “till
when?” is the exact translation of ‫‘ עדִמתי‬aḏ måṯåy. Translations that rendered it
accordingly, in various languages, are the best in this case.96 Thus we should
stick to the sense of the question in v. 13, which does not reveal the period of
persecution under any antichrist,97 but the time of waiting until God would
intervene to make judgment.98

1.6. Da 8:14: “2300 evenings & mornings”= 1150 or 2300 days?

The translation “2300 evenings and mornings” is also confusing, since it

suggests that the sum total of 2300 is made up from 1150 evenings + 1150
mornings, even 1150 days, as some expositors argue, in their attempt to come as
close as possible to the time of temple desecration under Antiochus.
I would prefer a more literal translation of the Hebrew text in this case,
thus preserving the poetic and coded language of the vision,
Till evening morning two thousand three hundred,
Then shall the sanctuary be vindicated.

Or we may add the word “days”, in the manner of OG, a necessary addition
in the Greek translation,
Till two thousand three hundred days, evening and morning,
Then shall the sanctuary be vindicated.

Or we may have:
Till evening and morning roll away two thousand three hundred times,
Then judgment shall be made for the sanctuary.

1.7. Da 8:14: ‫ וְ נִ ְצ ַדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq – “cleansed” or “vindicated”?

The crucial verb ‫דק‬ִ ִ‫ וִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq in Da 8:14 is a passive from √ ‫ צדק‬ṣdq

(“be right”, “make right”, “justify”). It does not really mean “cleansed (or puri-
fied)”, but “vindicated”, “put right” etc.,99 — as it was already known, but not

96
Cf. YLT (Till when?), LXX ἕως τίνος; TH, MGK ἕως πότε; VUL usquequo; TOB (Jusques à
quand?), NRV, LND, IEP (Fino a quando?), CAB (¿Hasta quando?), ARA (Até quando?), ELB, ZUR
(Bis wann?), BUL (До кога ?), etc.
97
Actually the persecution had to last “3 years and a half”, cf. Daniel 7 and 12.
98
Gerhard Pfandl (The Time of the End in the Book of Daniel, ATS Dissertation Series, Berrien
Sbrings, 1992: 258-259) noticed this problem, and proposed the same translation “until when?”.
99
This fact is established in all scholarly Hebrew lexicons: shall be put right, in a right condition; be
justified, its cause vindicated (BDBG); brought to its justice, justified (HALOT); be brought [back] to
its rights, be vindicated (Holladay); be brought to its right state (Clines).
 32

gladly acknowledged among us.100 Martin Pröbstle made an impressive analysis

of this verb. He cites Jože Krašovec’s101 noticing that the Niphal draws attention
to the Hiphil forms (Ex 23:7; 1K 8:32; Is 50:8), “where God in a legal context
vindicates the righteous”. And Pröbstle concludes that “the verb points to a
divine judgment which will justify the ‫”קֹדׁש‬, and he shows that in the intertesta-
mental period ‫ צדק‬ṣdq functioned also “as an eschatological and apocalyptic
term.” 102
The verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq of Da 8:14 is not directly connected (linguisti-
cally or literary) to Lv 16, as our historical theology insists for 166 years. The
Hebrew verb makes no allusion to, neither it echoes Lv 16. Actually, the relevant
verbs used in Lv 16 to express the idea of cleansing of sin are ‫ טִהִר‬ṭahhēr
“cleanse”, and ‫ כִפִר‬kappēr “expiate”.103 Neither is solved this historical exegetic
problem by the proof-text of Heb 9:23, where the verb καθαρίζω “cleanse” is
used. The text of Heb 9:23 deals with a metaphoric cleansing of the heavenly
things, in contextual connection of the covenant inauguration (Heb 9:20-22) to
Christ’s entrance in the heavenly sanctuary after His ascenssion, at the year 31
AD (Heb 9:24-26).
Miller himself was aware of the Hebrew term’s translation as “justified”,
though he was not able to use it in a critical manner.104 And unfortunately we are
still prisoners of Miller’s Bible reading.

100
In his unpublished manuscript “The Eschatology of Daniel – a Definitive Exegesis of the Text”
(p.40) Raymond Cottrell asks: “Why did the LXX translators render ‘nitsdaq’ as ‘katharisthesetai’,
‘cleansed’ in Dan 8:14 which is interpretation and cannot be considered translation?” Cottrell correct-
ly concludes “The translation cleansed in Dan 8:14 can thus be traced directly back to the LXX
translation of Daniel into Greek in the belief that reference was to the ritual cleansing of the Temple
after the crisis precipitated by Antiochus Epiphanes” (p.42, quoted by Herb Kersten, in “The Benefits
of ‘nitsdaq’ for Seventh-day Adventism”, [email protected] www.hkea.org.au/benefits.pdf.
101
Jože Krašovec, La justice (ṢDQ) de Dieu...,. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, no 76. Vandehoeck &
Ruprecht, 1988: 254.
102
Martin Pröbstle, Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14, Andrews University,
PhD Dissertation, 2006: 403, fn 3, 412. See also the interesting reference to a vindication of God’s
temple in Jer 50:28; 51:11.
103
In the Hebrew Bible, the cleansing of the sanctuary in the Day of Atonement is expressed by the
verb ‫“ ַַכפֵַר‬expiate”: ‫( ַַכ ֵפר ַ ַעל ַַהק ֶֹּדש ִמ ֻט ְמאֹּת ְַב ֵני ַ ִי ְש ָר ֵאל‬Lv 16:16), ‫( ַַכ ֵפר ַַבק ֶֹּדש‬Lv 16:17, 27), ‫ת־הק ֶֹּדש‬ ַ ‫רַא‬
ֶ ‫ַכ ֵפ‬
(Lv 16:20), ‫ל־עם ַַה ָק ָהל ַיְ ַַכ ֵפר‬ ַ ‫ל־כ‬ ָ ‫ַהכ ֲֹּה ִנים ַוְ ַע‬
ַ ‫ת־ה ִמזְ ֵב ַח ַיְ ַכ ֵפר ַוְ ַעל‬
ַ ‫לַמֹועד ַוְ ֶא‬
ֵ ‫ַהק ֶֹּדש ַוְ ֶאת־א ֶֹּה‬
ַ ‫ת־מ ְק ַדש‬ ֶ ‫( וְ ִכ ֶפ‬Lv 16:33),
ִ ‫רַא‬
‫שַק ָד ִשים‬ ָ ‫( ְּול ַכ ֵפר‬Da 9:24). In Qumran texts, the root ‫“ טהר‬cleanse” is used: ‫טהרת ַהמקדש‬
ָ ‫וְ ִל ְמש ַֹּח ַק ֶֹּד‬...ַ ‫ַעֹון‬
(4Q394 f8iv:4; 4Q396 2ii:6; 4Q397 f1_2:3; 11Q19 47:17), ‫( טוהר ַטהוריםַלמקדשַקודשו‬4Q403 f1i:42 ),
‫( יטהרַלמקדשי‬11Q19 47:16), ‫( יטהרוַאתַהבית‬11Q19 49:14).
104
In his 1834 tract, William Miller (Evidence from Scripture and History..., Teach Service, New York,
2005, p. 31), quoting Daniel 8:13-14 from KJV (“then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”), he added: “or
justified as it might have been translated.” Then he theologized on this justification of the sanctuary
(p. 34), applying this concept to the saints: “then shall we be cleansed and justified”, “We see by these
texts —and many more might be quoted—that the spiritual sanctuary will not be cleansed until
Christ’s second coming; and then all Israel shall be raised, judged, and justified in his sight.” (Empha-
ses supplied). Eight years later, Miller (in “Cleansing of the Sanctuary”, Signs of the Times, April 6,
1842, p. 1, quoted by G. Damsteegt in F Holbrook, Doctrine of the Sanctuary, BRI, 1989, p. 9) wrote
that “when these [the EARTH and the CHURCH] are cleansed, then, and not until then, will the entire
sanctuary of God be cleansed, and justified, (as it reads in the margin).” So William Miller knew
about this meaning, as all his contemporaries could observe, from the marginal note of KJV. But
Miller’s observations, though valuable, were not critical, because he took the margin as a secondary
 33

This traditional translation as “cleansed” or “purified”, began with the Old

Greek and Theodotion versions (Da 8:14, καθαρισθήσεται τὸ ἅγιον) who pre-
ferred to use the same verb as the books of Maccabees, when they refer to the
cleansing and dedication of the Jewish historical sanctuary in the year 165 BC.105
Actually the Books of Maccabees reflect the prophecies of Daniel.106
I can see no better explanation for the presence of “cleansing” in Da 8:14.
The custom of older Biblical translators to render here the verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq
as “shall be cleansed”, is a sheer tradition from Old Greek (OG) through Vulgate.
As it is known, OG translators of Daniel, including Theodotion,107 sometimes
misread, misunderstood or even adapted the translation to their interpreta-
tion.108 I mention here their main errors in Daniel 8, because some of my col-
leagues suppose that the Jewish translators of ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as
καθαρισθήσεται “shall be cleansed”, must have been the result of a sharp He-
brew knowledge.
LXX, both OG translators and Theodotion made gross blunders even in
Daniel 8. For example, they have read the Hebrew expression ‫אּובל אּולי‬
’ûḇal ’ûlåy “the canal Ulai”(of 8:2) as ἡ πύλη Αιλαμ / Ωλαμ “the

option, or as an additional meaning, while his favorite reading was “cleansed”, since it was the text,
not a margin. We must excuse Miller, since he had no professional Biblical education.
105
E.g. καθαρίσαι τὰ ἅγια (1Mac 4:36, 41,43), καθαρισμὸν τοῦ ἱεροῦ (2Mac 1:18: 2:16, 19), τὸν νεὼ
καθαρίσαντες (2Mac 10:3), τὸν καθαρισμὸν τοῦ ναοῦ (2Mac 10:5), κεκαθαρισμένον οἶκον
(2Mac 14:36), καθαρισθῆναι τὸν τόπον (2Mac 2:18; 10:7). This cleansing-dedication is now com-
memorated as Hanukkah.
106
Various expressions, images and ideas of 1-2 Maccabees allude to the Book of Daniel, as it follows:
1Mac 1:1; 8:5 (“Kittim” < Da 11:30); 1Mac 1:4 (“magnify himself in his heart” < Da 8:25); 1Mac
1:7-10 (“from these came forth a wicked offshoot” < Da 8:9; 11:7); 1Mac 1:17-19 (“invaded Egypt,
with chariots and elephants and cavalry and a large fleet” < Da 11:40); 1Mac 1:18-20 (“a lot of dead
bodies will fall” < Da 11:26); 1Mac 1:29-30 (“the king has sent the great exactor in Judea” < Da
11:20); 1Mac 1:39-41; 2:12 (“the sanctuary has been desolated”< Da 8:11.13); 1Mac 1:45-49; 2Mac
10:5 (“banning burned offerings...., profaning the sanctuary and the saints” < Da 8:13; 11:31); 1Mac
1:54-57 (“has built the abomination of desolation” < Da 11:31); 1Mac 2:60 (“Daniel ... rescued from
the lions’ jaws”); 1Mac 3:36 (distribute land to foreigners < Da 11:39); 2Mac 9:10 (“[Antiochus]
thought to touch the stars of heaven” < Da 8:10).
107
I would not trust Theodotion in this case, as some authors seem to do, including Pröbstle (op.cit.
415-16), who notes: “The fact that Theodotion agrees with OG in reading καθαρισθήσεται over
against the typical rendition with δικαιόω could indicate that καθαρισθήσεται indeed expresses best
the conceptual idea of ‫נִ ְצ ַדק‬.” Then Pröbstle compares such translation with that of Job 4:17, where
OG translates ‫ יִ ְצ ָדק‬with καθαρὸς ἔσται “be pure”, and where it stands in poetic parallelism to ‫טהר‬
ṭahhēr “be clean”. On the other hand, Pröbstle (op. cit. 416-17) cites The Syriac that translates ‫וְ נִ ְצ ַדק‬
wǝ·ni·ṣdaq “will be justified”, and he acknowledges that the possibility of the Maccabean influence on
the LXX translation of ‫ וְ נִ ְצ ַדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as καθαρισθήσεται “cannot be excluded”.
108
Important differences between OG Daniel and MT Daniel are notable throughout the book. In Da
ִ ִ‫ ִצּי‬ṣiyy·îm kittîm
11:30, Theodotion, a more literalist translator in Greek, renders the expressionַ‫יםַכ ִתים‬
“fleets of Kittim” as οἱ ἐκπορευόμενοι Κίτιοι “those who came out of Kittim”, misreading the noun
‫ צִַּיִַים‬ṣiyy·îm “fleets” as ַ‫יצ ִאים‬
ְ yōṣ‘·îm “who came out”, as OG had done in Nu 24:24. In Da 1:3,11,16
the common nounַ‫ ַ ַה ֶמ ְל ַצר‬ham·me·lṣar “the guardian”, of Babylonian origin (< ma·nṣaru, cf. HALOT),
was not understood by the LXX translators, so it was rendered as a proper noun, Αμελσαδ (Th) and
Αβιεσδρι (OG), a further corrupted form.
 34

Ailam/Olam Gate”, or possibly their Hebrew Vorlage may have read ִ‫אבול‬
‫’ אולם‬ăḇûl ’ûlåm “city gate porch”, as BHS critical apparatus suggests.109
In 8:4 OG adds “South” to the three points of compass mentioned in He-
brew.
The expressionִ ‫ מצעירה‬min·ṣə‘îråh “out of smallness” (8:9) was read as
ἰσχυρόν “powerful”.
In the same verse, ‫ צִבִי‬ṣéḇī “glory” was read and translated as βορρᾶς
“North”.
Verses 11-13 have important variations in OG. The expres-
sionִ ‫רים הִתִמִיד‬
ִ ִ‫ ה‬hē·rîm hat·tåmîd “it removed the daily burnt-offering”
(8:11) has been misread as τὰ ὄρη τὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος ← hårîm hat·tåmîd
“the everlasting mountains”.
The expressionִ‫ וצבא‬wə·ṣåḇå’ “and a host” (8:12-13) has been rendered
ἐρημωθήσεται “will be desolated”, according to a possible scribal ver-
sion ‫ יצדא‬yiṣ·ṣåḏé’.
The pronoun ‫ פלמֹוני‬palmônî “a certain one” (8:13) was simply translit-
erated φελμουνι phelmûni (!), because it was not understood (part of a
good evidence for an early date of the book of Daniel).
In the same verse (8:13), after θυσία “daily sacrifice”, they added ἡ
ἀρθεῖσα “that has been removed”.
The term ‫ קץ‬qēṣ “end” (8:17; 9:26) has been translated καιρός “time”, as
it is attested in Postbiblical Hebrew, for example in the Qumran Sectari-
an Texts.110 (This is another proof that the Hebrew of Daniel was quite
outdated at the time when the book was translated in Greek).
After this clear evidence that LXX cannot have the last word, why should
we trust the translation καθαρισθήσεται “shall be cleansed” in Da 8:14, as it
would be accurate and providential? Ancient translators have been responsible
for their task, for practical purposes. But when we meet poor Biblical transla-
tions even in modern times, why should we suppose that ancient translators
were more responsible than the modern translators, especially when we deal
with peculiar terms?
Because of the possible difficulty raised by this rare Niphal,111 and/or be-
cause of the oldest and common application of this prophecy to the Temple’s
cleansing under Judas Maccabeus, by both Jews and Christians, it is understand-
able why OG, Vulgate and virtually all classical translations preferred to render
the Hebrew verb by “cleansed”. It is simply a loose, dynamic, interpretive transla-

109
Cf. CAL (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon), ‫ = אבול‬city gate; ‫ = אולם‬porch.
110
Cf. A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer, Verlag Katholisches
Bibelwerk GmbH, Stuttgart, 1971, p. 146-148, § 18.
111
As a Niphal, ‫ וְ נִ ְצ ַדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq is a hapax legomenon. The OG reading in Ps 50/51:6, cf. Rom 3:4b
(ὅπως ἂν δικαιωθῇς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου καὶ νικήσεις, cf. Psalms of Solomon 50:6), or in Is 43:26,
where ‫ תצדק‬is read as a passive (δικαιωθῇς) would suggest cases of Niphal imperfect. However, these
cases may reflect very well Qal forms, since the Qal form of ‫ צדק‬carries itself passive meanings
sometimes.
 35

tion. The cleansing of the sanctuary was understood, for more than two millen-
nia, as the purification and rededication of the Temple, after the desecrations
done by Antiochus. Both Jews and Christians understood it that way.112
A respected SDA scholar has informed me that, on the contrary, some Jew-
ish Bible versions rendered the verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ ִוִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as “will be cleansed”,
though their translators do not share Adventist views. He referred the JPS Bible
of 1982 that really resorted to the translation “shall be cleansed”, as also the
1985 edition (TNK in BibleWorks) repeated this preference.
It is, however, doubtful that Jewish translations must be necessarily more
precise and scientific than Christian translations. Speaking or translating fluently
a native language is not usually the best warrant, when it comes to scientific
aspects of that language in ancient times. In any case, the inclination to make the
translation more practical gives birth to interpretive linguistic renditions. For
example, unlike JPS 1917, the supposedly better translation TNK 1885, has in Gn
1:1-2 the more liberal expressions, “When God began to create heaven and earth
[…] and a wind from God sweeping over the water”. In Da 12:4, both versions
understood the idea of “run to and fro” / “range far and wide”, which are superfi-
cial translations. And in Da 9:27, TNK translated: “At the corner of the altar will
be an appalling abomination”, which is clearly an interpretive, Maccabean trans-
lation (cf. 1Mac 1:54).
Therefore, most probably, the translation “cleansed”, extant in some mod-
ern Jewish versions reflects the Maccabean interpretation of this prophecy. But
both old and recent Jewish translations tried to faithfully render the Hebrew
verb ‫דק‬ִ ִ‫ וִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq in English: and the holy ones shall be exonerated;113 then
shall the sanctuary be victorious;114 or in Yidish, dann wird das Heiligthum
gerechtvertigt sein (=justified);115 denzmal wet das heiliktum komen zu sein recht
(=come to his right).116
Since our sanctuary theology is heavily built on a specific interpretation of
Leviticus 16, where a special cleansing of the sanctuary is described, we are
understandably inclined to do our best to preserve the idea of cleansing in Da
8:14. Our theological preference in this case is based on three assumptions:

112
Josephus (Ant. 10:276; 12:286, 316), following implicitely Maccabean and Pharisean traditions;
Hippolytus (ANF vol. 5, p. 180), Cyprian (ANF vol. 5, p. 504), Jerome (NPNF, vol. 6 pp. 495-96)
etc., following explicitely the Books of Maccabees and Josephus, applied the wicked horn of Daniel 8
to Antiochus Epiphanes, hence the cleansing of the sanctuary was understood as being made by Judas
Maccabeus. Fathers usually saw Antiochus just as a type of Antichrist. A comprehensive study on this
topic is that of William H. Shea (“Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes Interpretation,” in
Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank Holbrook, Washington DC: BRI, 1986, pp. 257-328), who has
shown how the Maccabean interpretation is reflected in the Septuagint, in Maccabees, Josephus,
Hippolytus, Jerome etc., though not all ancient Jewish and Christian writings reflect a connection
between the prophecies of Daniel and Antiochus.
113
Avroham Y Rosenberg, Daniel, The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary,
www.chabad.org.
114
Jewish Publication Society of America (1917) www.mechon-mamre.org.
115
This is from the second volume of an old bilingual (Hebrew-Yiddish) Tanakh, in my private library.
While its first pages are missing, it shows like a copy of a Meir Letteris edition, printed in Austria or
Poland in the 19th century.
116
The Targum Yidish Von Yehoyesh ‫ַזײן ַרעכט‬ ַ ‫דענצמאָל ַװעט ַדאָס ַהײליקטום קומען ַצו‬
http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il (2003).
 36

First, we assume our pioneers’ exegesis that was confirmed by E G

White’s counsel and visions, and was based on a quite fundamentalist
approach to prophetic inspiration seeing the Spirit of Prophecy as the fi-
nal authority in doctrinal matters and arbiter in theological debates.
Second, we assume that LXX, witnessed by KJV and other classical ver-
sions, have the true semantic key of the Hebrew hapax ‫דק‬
ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq =
καθαρισθήσεται, which I have shown, it is unsustainable.
Third, to avoid our historical indebtedness to LXX for the meaning of Da
8:14, we resort to a more complex research in the semantic field of the
root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq thus carrying our argument to its limits. Some of our schol-
ars117 did their best to show that the verbal root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq and its derived
forms, nouns and adjectives, cover more than the semantic range of right
and justice, actually including the idea of cleanness and cleansing.
However, at least some of our scholars agree that the Maccabean interpre-
tation is a valid explanation for the LXX translation of verb ‫ ונצדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as
καθαρισθήσεται (“shall be cleansed”). Siegfried Horn (1964) in a footnote in
Justesen affirmed this possibility.118
The translators may also have been influenced by recent events in Jerusalem. They may con-
ceivably have applied the prophecy of Dan 8 to the religious crisis created by Antiochus IV
when he polluted the Temple and to its cleansing by the Maccabees a few years later, and may
thus have been influenced to render the Hebrew niṣdaq by the Greek καθαρισθήσεται. (Em-
phasis supplied).

Gerhard Hasel119 wrote, “It is customary assumed, that this [LXX

καθαρισθήσεται] reflects the experience of the events of the (defilement and)
rededication of the Jerusalem temple in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This
is possible, but not absolutely necessary...” Such a possibility, according to Hasel,
depends on the condition that the OG Daniel is proved a post-Antiochus transla-
tion. But there is no question of the lateness of this OG translation of Daniel. It is
commonly agreed that it is post-Antiochus. Kitchen, for example, dated the
translation of Daniel after 100 BC.120 And there are good reasons.121
Hasel noted that Theodotion, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Coptic versions con-
tain the same idea of “cleansing” in Da 8:14, but he failed to observe that all these

117
Jerome P. Justesen, “On the Meaning of ṢĀḎĀQ”, AUSS 2 (1964), 53-61; Walter E. Read, “Further
Observations on ṣādāq”, AUSS 4 (1966) 29-36; Niels-Erik Andreasen, “Translation of
Niṣdaq/Katharisthēsetai in Daniel 8:14”, in Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank Holbrook, Washington
DC: BRI (1986) 475-96; Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel
8:9-14,” in Symposium on Daniel, pp. 543-49; Elias Brasil de Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary /
Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible...,” Adventist Theological Society, Dissertation Series (2005), 460-
63; Martin Pröbstle (Truth and Terror, pp. 415-18).
118
[S.H.H.], in Justesen, op. cit. p. 60, fn 28.
119
Gerhard Hasel, “The ‘Litle Horn’, the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the End: A Study of
Daniel 8:9-14”, in Symposium on Daniel, pp. 449-58.
120
Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” London: Tyndale. 1965:43.
121
For example, I will argue that the LXX translation Ῥωμαῖοι “Romans” (Da 11:30), rendered in an
interpretive manner the expressionַ ‫ ִציִ ים ִַכ ִתים‬ṣīy·îm kittîm “fleets of Kittim” of the Masoretic Text,
implying that here the translator identified the moment when Romans came to defend Egypt against
Antiochus IV in the year 168 BC. Romans are first known as such in the Jewish history, in the OG
Book of Daniel and the first two Books of Maccabees.
 37

ancient versions are directly or indirectly indebted to LXX. Theodotion most

probably worked on an OG variant, though he revised it against the MT.122 The
Vulgate is basically Jerome’s translation from MT, but it is here and there indebt-
ed to LXX. Jerome’s Maccabean interpretation on Daniel 8 is known, so that no
wonder he renders exactly the LXX in Da 8:14, et mundabitur sanctuarium. OT
Peshitta, though translated basically from MT, it is known as indebted to LXX.
Especially its Book of Daniel is indebted to Theodotion, as it is also the Coptic
version of Daniel.123
Niels-Erik Andreasen discussed extensively the possible influence of the
Maccabean interpretation on the OG translator. He drew convincing parallels
between Daniel and 1Maccabees, then he maintained that, “by themselves, these
observations do not prove that the translators of the LXX chose the word ‘cleanse’
in 8:14 to refer to the activities of Judas Maccabaeus, but the possibility does
exist.”124 And after explaining our historical motivations and theological prefer-
ence for the KJV translation (“be cleansed”), Andreasen adds:125
How then shall we evaluate the Greek translation of ṣdq in 8:14? Did the Translators have
Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt in mind when they did their work on Daniel? Or were
they simply selecting an appropriate extended meaning (katharizō) when translating ṣdq? The
question is not easily answered. For one thing, the LXX translates ṣdq with katharizō or the
related adjective katharos only twice – Daniel 8:14 and Job 4:17. Inasmuch as there is no dis-
cernible relationship between these two texts, no general principle of translation can be drawn
from it. However, it is evident that the LXX did use katharos to translate ṣdq in Job 4:17, even
where there is no possible influence from 1Maccabees to justify it.
Consequently some interpreters have felt that also in Daniel 8:14 the Greek translation used
katharizō because they considered that the appropriate extended meaning of ṣdq for this verse
dealing with the sanctuary (cf. Lv 16).126 On the other hand we must recognize that elsewhere
(11:31) the older Greek version of Daniel (as opposed to the later Theodotion version of the
LXX) appears to imply a Maccabean orientation, something which may at least be possible in
the case of Daniel 8:14 as well,127 though here the Theodotion text does not take exception to
it.128

122
See C. H. Toy and E. G. Hirsch, “Theodotion” in www.JewishEncyclopedia.com.
123
Cf. R. A. Taylor, The Peshiṭta of Daniel, Brill, Leyden, 1994, p. 313; A. A. Bevan, A Short
Commentary on the Book of Daniel, University Press, Cambridge, 1892, pp. 1-3.
124
N. E. Andreasen (“Translation...”, p. 488).
125
Idem. pp. 489-90.
126
In his footnote (29), Andreasen refers to Justesen (p. 60), then adds significantly: “Note the editorial
comment which attributes the LXX rendering of Daniel 8:14 to the Maccabean crisis (pp. 60-61).”
127
In footnote (30), Andreasen refers to William Shea, with no precise reference.
128
In a private email letter, Eric Livingston defended the same logic about Theodotion’s translation in
this case. My observation is that this is not the only case where Theodotion follows LXX rather than
the Masoretic Text. Even in Daniel 8, Theodotion followed OG in translating ‫ ִמ ְצ ִע ָירה‬min·ṣə‘îrå (“from
littleness”, 8:9) as ἰσχυρός “strong”. Especially in 8:11 he followed OG, quite far from the MT: ἕως
... ὁ ἀρχιστράτηγος ῥύσηται τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ... θυσία ... ἐρράχθη ... καὶ ἐγενήθη καὶ
[κατ]ευοδώθη ...καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήσεται (“until... the chief captain shall deliver the captives and
because of him... the sacrifice... was fallen... and he became and succeeded... and the sanctuary shall
be desolated”). In v. 12 the similarity between OG and Th at variance with MT is striking. Theodotion
translated ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tå·mîd as ἡ θυσία “the sacrifice” only in chapter 8 (vv 12,13), following OG. In
the other portions of Daniel, Theodotion tried to be as literal as he could (‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tå·mîd =>
ἐνδελεχισμός 11:31; 12:11). In 8:13 both versions transliterated ‫ ַפ ְלמ ִֹּני‬palmōnî as φελμουνι (!), instead
of translating (“a certain one”). Most important, Theodotion copy-pasted the whole verse of Da 8:14,
so there is no question why he chose the meaning “cleansed” for ‫ וְ נִ ְצ ַַדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq, just as the OG.
 38

In short, a Maccabean orientation in the Greek translation of 8:14 is possible, though not
necessary. Perhaps the best we can say is that although we cannot exclude the Maccabean ori-
entation from the LXX translation of 8:14, this version nevertheless affirms the extended
meaning of katharizō for ṣdq in Job 4:17 and in Daniel 8:14. (Emphasis supplied).

To my opinion, there is a more plausible explanation in the case of Job

4:17, for the following reasons:
This extended meaning is statistically insignificant.
The Hebrew text of Job 4:17 has the verb ‫ טהר‬ṭhr “be clean” in the paral-
lel verse, so that a semantic attraction is more probable, because of some
extended meanings of the root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq “be just” (> be morally / forensi-
cally pure or clean) that have been proposed by the SDA scholars.
The translator was not literalist, as he rendered ‫’ אֱנֹוׁש‬ĕnôš “man” as
βροτὸς “mortal”, and ‫ יטהר‬yiṭhar “he will be clean” as ἄμεμπτος “fault-
less, guiltless, blameless”.
The translator misread the expressionִ‫’ אםִמעֹ שהּו‬im mē·‘ōśē·hū “or from /
by his Maker” as ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ < ‫’ אםִממעֲשיו‬im min·ma‘śå·w “or
from his works/deeds”.
Thus we cannot suspect the OG translator of Job 4 of too much precision.
Consequetly, one cannot draw a definite semantic conclusion about a Hebrew
term, based on his approximate translation.
Andreasen129 correctly ascribed toִ‫ צדק‬ṣdq the meanings “make right” (re-
store the ministry of the sanctuary) and “vindicate” (the sanctuary and the
saints), but at the same time, he noted that “the idea of cleansing is involved”,
answering the “necessity of removing the horrible sin from the sanctuary”.
Davidson agrees with that,130 and Pröbstle admits131 that “Andreasen is right
when he regards the context of the occurence of Dan 8:14 as decisive in determin-
ing the particular meaning of ‫נצדק‬.” (Emphasis supplied)
However, it is not necessary to ascribe the meaning of “cleanse” to ‫ונצדק‬
wə·ni·ṣdaq, in order to answer the problem of ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ in Daniel 8. The rootִ‫צדק‬
ṣdq is by itself and more directly opposed to ‫ פשע‬pš‘132 and to its closest syno-
nyms, so that a sanctuary vindication involves the righting of all wrongs it
suffered. While ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ may be removed by cleansing (Jr 33:8; Ez 37:23),
atonement ‫ כפר‬kappēr is equally related to it (Lv 16:16; Ps 65:4), and ‫ מחה‬mḥh
“wipe” is even more usually applied to ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘.133 Other verbs that express the
dealing with ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ are ‫ הרחק‬ha·rḥēq “remove” (Ps 103:12), and ‫ פקד‬påqaḏ
“punish” (Ps 89:33) etc. The subject of verb ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq is however not ‫פׁשע‬
péša‘ but ‫ קֹדׁש‬qóḏeš. If the sanctuary includes the daily sacrifice ‫ התמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ,
that has been replaced by ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘, it means that the vindication of the sanctu-
ary involves the reversal of that replacement: removing the ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ and restor-
ing “the daily”.

129
N-E Andreasen, op. cit. 494.
130
R Davidson, “The Meaning of Niṣdaq...” 117.
131
M Pröbstle, op. cit. 412.
132
Ez 18:22; 33:12; Hos 14:10; Da 9:24.
133
1K 8:50; Is 43:25; 44:22; Ps 51:3.
 39

Pröbstle shows (op. cit. 414) that “the making right of the ‘holy’ includes
without specific mention.... the ending or cleansing of the transgression” (empha-
sis supplied). If “ending” the transgression is legitimately included in the “vindi-
cation” of the sanctuary, then there is no need of a semantic extension of ‫ צדק‬ṣdq
to express the idea of “cleansing.” Pröbstle suspected also that the verb
καθαρισθήσεται in OG of Da 8:14 may be of Maccabean interpretation, but he did
not go beyond this curious observation. In his huge and most valuable disserta-
tion, Pröbstle suggests this explanation, as legitimate:
The possibility that the translator(s) of the OG and Theodotion chose to render ‫דק‬ ַַ ְַ‫ וְַנִַצ‬in Dan
8:14 with καθαρισθήσεται in light of the cleansing of the temple by the Maccabees (1 Macc
4:36, 41) cannot be excluded...
There is the possibility that such a rendering of ‫דק‬ ַַ ְַ‫ ונִַצ‬was historically influenced by the
134
cleansing of the temple by the Maccabees. (Emphasis supplied)

To my opinion, when I consider all the implications discussed above, the

OG dependence on the Maccabean interpretation of verb ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq in Da
8:14 is not just a possibility. My conviction is that it is the strongest probability.
Any objection to this strong probability does not ultimately resist. It is not just an
interesting idea; it is the most sustainable theory. In fact, the alternative that we
offered for decades, as a linguistic solution based on an extended meaning of ‫צדק‬
ṣdq as “be clean, pure”, proves finally to be of little use to our exegesis to Da
8:14.135 And this is why:
To indicate a positive link to Lv 16, the speaking Saint of Da 8:14
would have used rather a specific verb suggesting the Day of Atone-
ment, such as ‫ כפר‬kappēr (atone),ִ ‫ חטא‬ḥaṭṭē’ (cleanse of sin), or ‫טהר‬
ṭahhēr (purify). But He used none of these in this place, though he used
‫ כפר‬kappēr in 9:24, in parallel with the “everlasting justice/victory”
(‫ צדקִעֹ למים‬ṣédeq ‘ôlåm∙îm).
Even if we accept that the root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq was chosen for reasons beyond
its basic meaning of “be right, just”, 136 and it really covers important
semantic areas of ‫ זכה‬zkh (be pure), ‫ טהר‬ṭhr (be clean), ‫ נקה‬nqh (be
innocent), ‫ תמם‬tmm (be finished, faultless), ‫ ברר‬brr (purge out),137 as
some of our best theologians maintain, such linguistic solution does
not solve anything. Simply, because resorting to the idea of cleansing
is not necessary, as a specific answer to the question in verse 13.
Rending justice to the sanctuary, restoring its right, or vindicating it, is

134
M Pröbstle, op. cit., pp 416 fn2, 418.
135
Prof Davidson has kindly brought to my attention the doctoral dissertation of Eric Livingston, on
this topic. Since Livingston’s dissertation is not yet published, I began a friendly email dialog with
him in July 2009. The issue remained open, as he said: “Your openness and depth are appreciated,
though ultimately we both realise that there are many factors to hermeneutics that means most persons
can reason together freely yet still hold disparate views.”
136
Polysemy is a matter of lexical semantics. In normal communication, nobody means or take into
account any possible meaning of a term, as it stands in the lexicon. Only its contextual constraint
meaning functions in any logical discourse. It is most doubtful that ‫ וְ נִ ְצ ַדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq had been meant
simultaneously as “vindicated” and “cleansed”. The meaning of any word in a literary context or in
speech tends to be monosemantic, in order to avoid ambiguity.
137
Cf. Justesen (op. cit. p. 61). Later studies mentioned above in this paper, basically repeat and extend
the research of Justesen.
 40

a comprehensive and sufficient action to answer the injustice made to

the daily offering and to the sanctuary with its heavenly host. The
trampled host and the “daily” replaced, both belong to the sanctuary,
and are vindicated together with the sanctuary during the divine
judgment. So there is no need of an extended meaning of ‫ונצדק‬
wǝ·ni·ṣdaq, to support a ceremonial-forensic concept of cleansing.
All the roots with the meaning “cleanse” or similar, that have been
found parallel and synonymous to the root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq, indicate only fo-
rensic or spiritual-moral cleanness /clearance. In the long list of paral-
lel Hebrew terms, supplied by our scholars, one may find no instance
of ritual cleansing. But our acute exegetical need in this passage is to
trace a legitimate link between Da 8:14 and Lv 16 that would justify
the Day of Atonement typology of cleansing.
While our original, historical understanding of JuST requires a typical
cleansing in Da 8:14, pointing to a special antitypical (forensic) cleans-
ing, the real solution is not to preserve at any cost the idea of cleansing
in the text, but we should consult the literary context to see if there is
sober evidence that the sanctuary will be cleansed from the sins ac-
cumulated on it by the confessed sins of believers. And there is no evi-
dence of such thought in the context.
If the idea of cleansing the sanctuary from the confessed sins, is not
explicitly or implicitly there in Daniel 8, it follows that even though we
could discover the unquestionable proof that Da 8:14 refers to a sanc-
tuary “cleansing”, or even though the verb ‫ טהר‬ṭahhēr have been used
in Da 8:14, the actual context suggests a different kind of cleansing,
with physical and ceremonial significance, such as it is suggested in
similar cases in the Hebrew Bible (‫ טהר ִבית ִיהוה‬ṭahhēr bêṯ yhwh,
2Ch 29:15; 34:8; Ne 13:9 καθαρίσαι τὸν οἶκον κυρίου, “to cleanse the
House of God”) or, as it was shown, in 1-2 Maccabees.
Consequently, the eschatological justification through judgment, required
by the verb in Da 8:14, sufficiently answers the literary context and we should
not search for an exceptional semantic nuance of cleansing.
The doctrine of the Sanctuary is important for us especially because it viv-
idly illustrates the true Gospel that has its climax in “the hour of His Judgment”
(Rv 14:7). The true solution to the problem above may be seen in the true mean-
ing of ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ נִצ‬ni·ṣdaq “vindicated”, which expresses the optimistic face of the
Judgment, and it is better related to both the proximate and the larger literary
contexts. Since verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ נִצ‬ni·ṣdaq in Da 8:14 speaks only of Judgment, and be-
cause the Levitical cleansing of the Sanctuary is only a typological way of ex-
pressing God’s Judgment, the meaning of the phrase ‫דש‬ ִ‫ק‬ִֹ ‫דק‬ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš
of Da 8:14 is best corresponding to the phrase ‫ישי‬ ִ ‫ד‬
ִ ִ‫דינִא ִיִהִב ִלִק‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬wǝ·ḏīn·å yǝhēḇ
lǝ·qaddīš·ê “and the judgment was given in favor of the saints …” of Da 7:22.138

138
Various scholars noticed this strong connection, e.g. D. Ford (Daniel, 1978:147-148, 163, 287);
André Feuillet, “Le Fills de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique”, Revue Biblique, LX,
1953:197-198.
 41

Recognizing the Hebrew meaning of the verb in Da 8:14, where the preex-
istent Christ Himself makes the great promise of good news of Judgment, it is an
advantage for the SDA theology, to emphasize the theodicean concept of judg-
ment-righteousness-justice-vindication-victory, through a perfectly valid exegeti-
cal link to the preceding vision (Da 7:10fg; cf. 12:12:1d). 139 The following table
illustrates this parallel:
Daniel ָ ‫‘ ַע‬aḏ måṯåy
‫דַמ ַתי‬ ַ ַ‫ וְַנִַצְַ ַַדק‬... ‫‘ ַעד‬aḏ… wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš
‫קֹּ ֶַדש‬
8:13-14 “until when… ?” “until… then shall the Sanctuary be vindicated”
“it made war with the ‫ישי‬
ֵַ ִַ‫קד‬
ַַ ְַ‫הב ל‬
ֵַ ‫ וְַדִַינַָא ְַי‬...‫דַדי‬
ִ ‫ַע‬
Daniel saints and overcame ‘aḏ dî… wǝ·ḏīn·å yǝhēḇ lǝ·qaddīš·ê
7: 22 them” […until “until … and the judgment was given to (in favor
when?] of) the saints”

There is also a significant parallel of Da 8:14 to Rv 6: 9-11.140 The altar of

the “daily” was used in a sinful way, by the desolating horn shedding to its base
the “blood of the souls”141 of martyrs – possibly viewed as sanctuary ministers.
They have been slain because of the “truth”, as sure as the priestly “host”, and
“the truth”, have been “thrown to the ground and throdden underfoot” in Daniel
8. The cry “until when?” is therefore a longing for “judgment and vindication”
(Rv 6:10), and the heaven’s answer is “white robes” (justification, exoneration)
and asurance of a full vindication after a while.
Daniel ָ ‫‘ ַע‬aḏ måṯåy
‫דַמ ַתי‬ ַ ‫ וְַנִַצְַ ַַדק‬... ‫‘ ַעד‬aḏ… wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš
‫קֹּ ֶַדש‬
8:13-14 “until when?” “until… then shall the Sanctuary be vindicated”
ἕως πότε heōs pote οὐ κρίνεις καὶ ἐκδικεῖς
Revelation
“until when” ou krīn·eis kai ek·dik·ēis
6:10
“Thou not judge and vindicate yet?”142
No cleansing ceremony is performed in the sanctuary of Revelation, and
there is no use of verb καθαριζω (cleanse) in the entire book. Instead, there are
so many references or allusions to the divine judgment, justice and vindica-
tion.143
Most of my colleagues would agree that a solid biblical doctrine cannot
stand on too many subtleties, suppositions, low probability and smart assump-
tions. It cannot stand on a preferred Bible translation. It is true, faith does not ask
for demonstration, but requires sufficient evidence (cf. Ed 1903:169). We some-
times may feel that our faith depends on some preferred argument. It is possible,
however, that our preferred argument is flawed, and must be abandoned. I

139
Marvine Moore (The Case for the Investigative Judgement –its Biblical Foundation, Pacific Press,
Nampa, Idaho, 2010, p. 161-162) also decided for himself: “I believe that the best word is vindicat-
ed.” Then he connected this prophetic statement with the judgment motif in Daniel 7.
140
I noticed this parallel independently, and briefly referred it in my Master’s dissertation (F G Lăiu,
“An Exegetical Study of Daniel 7-9”, MTh diss., UNISA, Pretoria, 1999: p 117). But I was glad to
discover that other SDA students noticed it.
141
Cf. Gn 4:11; Dt 12:23; Pr 28:17; Jr 2:35.
142
For the use of both verbs (κρίνω “judge” and ἐκδικέω “revenge”, see also Jr 11:20; 28:36;
Heb 10:30 (quoting Dt 32:35a-36a > Ps 135:14 >> Ro 12:19). See also 1Mac 6:22 (NRS), “How long
will you fail to do justice and to avenge our kindred?” (ἕως πότε οὐ ποιήσῃ κρίσιν καὶ ἐκδικήσεις
τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἡμῶν), who is reflected in Revelation 5.
143
E.g. Rv 11:18; 14:7; 15:4; 16:5, 7; 17:1; 18:8,10, 20; 19:2, 8, 11; 20:4, 12, 13; 1:14; 2:17; 3:4-5
 42

believe that when God takes out from us a proof text, which we used for more
than one century, He will give us better evidence instead. Probably the most
important objection to what I am writing in this section is our emotional in-
volvement with Ellen White said this or that. But there are legitimate ways to
harmonize such critical concerns with our pioneers’ beliefs.144
Today, many seventh-day “adventurists” and even some of the most hon-
est Evangelical believers begin to shudder, to the mention of the hour of God’s
Judgment, just as Felix did (Acts 24:25), claiming that such doctrine takes away
their assurance of salvation. It reminds them the Law! But for a sincere Christian,
this is the last reason to tremble. Rather we should tremble for twisting the Law
or the Gospel, or to entertaining false hopes, sticking to a counterfait candy Jesus
for our comfort, and forgetting the real import of the blood-stained Cross.
There is no threat to our assurance of salvation except “an evil, unbeliev-
ing heart” (Ev 3:12). Our assurance is not endangered in this age, after the Cross,
more than can be shaken the assurence of Enoch, Moses and Elijah, our elder
celestial contemporaries. In Christ, we are like them, in the heavenly realm
already.145 Only we must remember that the Paradise itself is not a safe place for
proud Lucifers or for faithless and disobedient Adams and Eves. It is safe only for
“repenting thieves”, who thankfully keep staying on their well-deserved cross.

1.8. Da 8:17: “The vision belongs / reaches to the time of the end”

Regarding the time expressions of Da 8:17, it must be observed that the

preposition ִ‫ ל‬lə· in Daniel is used also as an equivalent to ‫ עִד‬caḏ “until” (cf. 9:24).
This means that in Da 8:17 the most fitting translation is “…the vision [i.e. the
foreseen facts] will last to the time of the end”.
Gerhard Pfandl also stressed this important semantic problem and solved
it excellently (“the vision extends to the time of the end”, “reaches to the time of
the end”).146 Similarly the phrase ‫ לִמֹועִדִקִץ‬lə·ma·wcēd qēṣ of verse 19, applies to
the time to which the vision extends. The term ‫ מֹועִד‬ma·wcēd “fixed time”, here
used, must refer to the only fixed time in this prophecy (2300 “days”), and this
should be made clear in a good translation.

1.9. Da 8:27: “no one could (or I could not) understand”

Many translations render the phrase ‫ִואיןִמבין‬wǝ∙’ên mē∙ḇîn by an imper-
sonal clause,147 as if Daniel would have been affected by other people’s failure to
understand the prophecy of the 2300. The use of the negation ‫’ אין‬ên is not

144
A good suggestion is supplied by D Ford (“Daniel 8:14, The Judgment and the Kingdom of God. A
Rebuttal of Criticism of the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine”, [no date] pp 25, 29; see Hamill Collection
161, Box36 Fld4): “A clue to some difficulties in the writings of Spirit of Prophecy is found in the
fact that EG White, writing at the time when our people were new in the sanctuary truth, often wrote
in the language of the type”.
145
Eph 1:3, 20; 2:6; Heb 6:19; 10:19-20; John 10:28.
146
G. Pfandl (op. cit. 264-65, 303, fn 442) calls our attention to the preposition lə in a temporal sense,
as in Dt 16:4; 1S 13:8, similar to NEB: “the vision points to the time of the end”.
147
E.g. LXX, TH, YLT, NKJ, DRB, ELB, ASV, WEB.
 43

common with personal subjects. The author must have saidִ ‫( ול ֹא ִאבין‬see Da
12:8) or ‫( וִאינני מִבין‬cf. Ex 5:10).
It is obvious, from the logic of the sentence, that Daniel was affected by
his own failure to understand, not by an impersonal problem. Many Eng-
lish translations reflect this understanding.
TOB renders a different idea: “no one could understand [why I was so
upset]”. Would he have dared to appear upset in public, or in front of the
king?
A third possibility reflected in NJV, REB, NIV is that “no one could explain
it (the vision)”. But it is highly improbable that Daniel was expecting that
someone else will explain the unexplained part of the prophecy.
Péter-Contesse and Ellington assert, “The first of these three possibilities
is the most commonly accepted and the most likely to be the correct understand-
ing of the text. It is unlikely that the text would focus on the inability of others to
understand the vision or why it was to be kept secret, since at this point no one
else knew about it”.148
This is true, in principle, but one may imagine a forth possibility, which is
a logical combination of variants 1. and 3., “and there was none to make [me]
understand” It matches both the regular Hebrew grammar, or at least Daniel’s,
and the logic of the clause, like BDB prefers for this instance.149 This is possible
because the participle ‫ מִבין‬mē∙ḇîn may have a simple, direct sense – understand-
ing; or a causal one – making understand.
The Vulgate renders as it follows: et non erat qui interpretaretur (“and
there was non to interpret [for me]” (cf. Gn 41:8 VUL). For practical purposes, we
may translate “I… could not understand” or “I… did not understand”, because
Daniel is concerned on his own failure to understand, and even if he refers to
somebody (impersonal) who would give understanding,150 it is an indirect way
to refer the same problem.

1.10. Da 9:23: ‫אה‬ ַַ ma·r‘ê – semantics and referent

ֶַ ‫מ ְ ַר‬

Daniel uses the term ‫ר ִאה‬

ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê with the meaning of 1. appearance (1:4,
13, 15; 8:15; 10:6, 18); 2. prophetic vision (≈ ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn, 8:16), and 3. auditory
revelation (≈ ‫ דבר‬8:26, 27; 9:23;10:1). In Da 9:23, the noun ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê is used
with the developed meaning of auditory prophecy, spoken revelation, or pro-
phetic message – definitely not a “vision”. Daniel 8:26 clearly calls the spoken

148
Péter-Contesse and René & John Ellington, A Handbook on The Book of Daniel, UBS, New York,
1993:228.
149
BDB compares this case with that of Da 9:22, where the causal form also lacks the pronominal
direct object (cf. Da 10:14, 11:33).
150
The impersonal understanding reflects the prophet’s desperation, because, after the angel’s sudden
close of explanation and after Daniel’s waking from the vision, it was normal for him to ask, “Who in
the world is going to explain to me this life-and-death prophecy, when God Himself and His angels
left me cope in the dark with such unexpected bad news about my people’s future? Who will make
me understand the mysterious revelation of the ‘2300 evening-mornings,’ and what is the real time
until all captivity and ceaseless conflicts are gone?
 44

revelation of Da 8:14 ‫ר ִאה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê, and uses about it the verb ‫ נאֱמר‬ne’emar “it was
spoken”. Thus it cannot be something that “it was seen”. In 9:23 and 10:1, the
same term ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê is used in parallel and as synonymous to ‫ דבר‬dåḇår
“word” (speech, message, etc). Consequently, in this case ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê is not a
ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘åh “vision”, but rather anִ‫מרה‬
‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫’ א‬imråh “word”.
Various scholars noted the extended semantic use of ‫ מראה‬as auditory
revelation.151 Péter-Contesse and Ellington (op. cit. 251) noticed the problem of
the common translations of ‫ר ִאה‬ִ ִ‫ מ‬in Da 9:23. Acknowledging that the clauses
‫ ּובין בדבר‬û∙ḇîn b∙a ∙dåḇår and ‫ והבן במראה‬ha·ḇēn b·am·ma·r‘ê are parallel and
d

synonyms, they argue, regarding this "vision": "It may legitimately be translated
‘revelation’ (AB Anchor Bible)".152 My research agrees with their conclusion
regarding the meaning of ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23,153 but I would add, and possibly I am
not alone to have discovered that in Da 8:26; 10:1 ma·r‘ê is used as “spoken
revelation”.
I noticed an interesting occurrence in 1S 3:15 of the noun ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘åh,
feminine pair and synonym to ma·r‘ê. Most translations show that “Samuel was
afraid to tell Eli the vision” (or alike), but all that he had to tell is called ‫ דבר‬dåḇår
“word” in verse 17. Though with the third divine call in the night, Yahweh “came
and stood by” (1S 3:10), just to make known that it was not Eli who was calling
the boy, no vision was counted by Samuel. The Holladay lexicon mentions 1S
3:15 against the entry ‫ ;מראה‬the secondary meaning "revelation of word", and so
does NIDOTTE, acknowledging the meaning of “auditory message”, besides its
classical meaning of prophetic vision.154 The Masoretic reading ‫ ;מראה‬ma·r‘åh in

151
E.g. James Montgomery (“A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel”, in The
International Critical Commentary, Ed. S. R. Driver etc., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927:371) shows
that “the word ‘vision’ here, ‫ ַמ ְר ֶאה‬, like the more usual ‫חָזֹון‬, refers to auditory as well as to ocular
vision.” Joyce Baldwin (Daniel, Intervarsity Press, 1978:168) noted that “in this context [Da 9:23] the
Hebrew mar’eh, like ḥåzôn in verse 21, refers to what is heard rather than what is seen : it has
acquired the general meaning ‘revelation’ (Ob 1:1; Na 1:1).” [Baldwin’s examples in behalf of a
secondary meaning of ‫“ חָזֹון‬revelation” are convincing, but her reference to Da 9:21 is certainly
wrong, because the author here uses the verb ‫ ָראִיתִי‬.] See also Stephen Miller (“Daniel”, in The New
American Bible Commentary, vol. 18, Broadman and Holman Pub., 1994:252);
152
However, regarding 8:26 Péter-Contesse and Ellington (op.cit. 226) do not make any observation.
Then, regarding 10:2 they just quote AB: "he understood the revelation" (op.cit. 262), but they hold
that the two terms, ‫ ָד ָבר‬and ‫ ַמ ְַר ֶאה‬do not refer to the same thing: the first would be an oracle, and the
second would be the vision whereby that oracle is explained (op.cit. 261). My understanding is that in
Da 10:1, ‫ ָד ָבר‬and ‫ ַמ ְַר ֶאה‬are used as synonyms, since they refer to the same reality. Both terms are used
in essentially the same manner in Da 9:23.
153
Florin Lăiu (“Diachronic Studies in the Hebrew of Daniel”, published in TheoRhema, vol. 2, nr
1/2007, Institutul Teologic Adventist, Cernica, 59-62).
154
;
NIDOTTE (‫ ַמ ְר ָאה‬4. a) "This nom. is distinguished from the nom. ‫ ַמ ְַר ֶאה‬only by the second vowel. It
is used almost exclusively for vision(s) as a vehicle of divine revelation to prophets. [...] The words
alternate in this sense in Ezekiel and Daniel. The call of Samuel was depicted as a vision (1 Sam
3:15). This experience can be classified as an auditory message dream (Gnuse, 379-90)" – Emphasis
supplied. In fact, in 1S 3:17 it ‫ ַמ ְר ָאה‬is equated with ‫ ַָד ָבר‬, as well as its synonym ‫ ָחזֹון‬ḥåzôn is in
parallel with ‫ ְַד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה‬verse 1.
VanGemeren W A (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis,
Grand Rapids: Zondervan & Carlisle: Paternoster.
Robert Karl Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near
Eastern Dreams and Theological Significance (Lanham: University of America, 1984).
 45

1S 3:10 is not certain at all. It might have been read ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê very well, since
there is nothing in the text to indicate its feminine form, except for the Masoretic
vocalization.155 Actually, a Qumran text, refering to 1Samuel 3, clearly reads the
noun ‫ מראה‬as masculine, and as synonymous to ‫שא‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬maśśå’ “[prophetic] pro-
nouncement”.156
A similar semantic enrichment acquired the synonym ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn “prophet-
ic vision”, which in some contexts means “word of revelation”, especially in titles
(Is 1:1; Ob 1; Na 1:1; Hab 2:2, 2Ch 32:32), but also in the bulk of the text, con-
nected to verbs that cannot refer to a vision, but to prophecy (prophetic oracle),
e.g. Ez 7:26; 1Ch 17:15; Sir 36:20. And even Daniel uses ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn with this
secondary meaning of prophecy (Da 9:24, 8:26; 11:14), according to HALOT. The
case of Da 8:26 is especially interesting, since ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn is in parallel and synon-
ymous to the previous word ‫ר ִאה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê. Consequently, the ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn that must
be kept secret in Da 8:26 cannot refer to the previous extatic vision, but to “the
auditory revelation about ‘evening and morning’” (‫ ִמראה ִהערב ִוה ֹבקר‬ma·r‘ê
ha∙‘‘éreḇ wǝ∙hab∙bóqer), that is the prophetic message of Da 8:14.
This semantic extension of ma·r‘ê from extatic vision to spoken oracle
comes from a metonymic use that is so natural in all languages, and may have
been encouraged even by a similar extended use of the root verb ‫ ראה‬r’h „to
see”.157 The synonym ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn underwent the same semantic extension, in a
more visible degree. This development was prompted by the fact that the
prophetic oracles are usually received through extatic visions. According to
HALOT, the same phenomenon can be noted with the variant form ‫ חזיֹון‬ḥizzåyôn
“vision” in 2S 7:17 (“prophetic oracle”), and with another related form ‫ חזּות‬ḥåzûṯ
“vision” (conspicuous appearance), that means “prophetic oracle” in Is 21:2;
29:11.

155
Unlike in Da 10:1, 8 where we have the adjective ‫ ְגדֹו ָלה‬gǝḏôlåh in agreement with ‫ ַמ ְר ָאה‬ma·r‘åh. In ;
Da 8:16; 9:23; 10:1 the reading ‫ ַמ ְַר ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê is just a traditional vocalization. The grammatical
agreement does not require ma·r‘ê more than ma·r‘åh. However, since both nouns are gender pairs
and synonyms (as for example, ‫ ִד ְב ָרה ‖ ַָד ָבר ; ִא ְמ ָרה ‖ ֵא ֶמר ; ְצ ָד ָקה ‖ צֶַ ֶדק‬etc), it is possible to have been
used interchangebly. Seldom have such pair nouns showed any semantic difference. Their particular
use is probably a matter of style only.
156
The Vision of Samuel (4Q160 f1:1-6):
] ··ַ‫ ] ··[ שמואלַשכבַלפניַעליַויקוםַויפתחַאתַד]לתות‬3 [··ַ‫] ··[ שמעַשמוא]לַא[תַדבַ֗]רי‬° [·· ] 2 [··ַ‫נשב]עתיַל[ ֗בית] עלי‬
··ַ‫ ] ··[ אםַתכחדַממניַדַ֗]בר‬6 [·· ]°‫ ] ·· הו[דיעניַאתַמראהַהאלוהיםַאל‬5 [·· ]‫להגידַאתַהמשאַלעליַויעןַעליַֹו‬ ֗ [·· 4 [
“I have sweared to the house of Eli… 2. Samuel has listened to My word…. 3. Samuel slept before Eli,
and he stood up and opened the doors… 4. to tell Eli the [prophetic] pronouncement. And Eli
answered… 5. .. Make known the revelation of God to [me]… 6. … if you conceal from me anything
.. " (My translation). The expression ‫ מראהַהאלוהים‬betrays the masculine gender of ‫מראה‬. Had it been
its feminine pair, the noun ‫ מראה‬in construct would have been ַ ‫ מראת‬mar’aṯ. Theoretically it is
possible that the noun ‫ ַמ ְר ָאה‬ma·r‘åh had produced a semantic derivation similar to ‫ ַ ַמ ְַר ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê and ;
‫ ָחזֹון‬ḥåzôn, but we have no other occurrence of this possibility, except 1S 3:15, where as I have shown,
the Massoretic tradition vocalized it as feminine, while other Hebrew traditions reflected in the
Qumran text vocalized it as masculine.
157
According to HALOT, there are secondary meanings (points 2, 6, 13.) of the verb ‫“ ָר ָאה‬to see”:
often it is parallel with ‫“ יָ ַדע‬to understand” (Job 11:11; Ex 16:6; Lv 5:1; 1S 12:17; 14:38; 23:23;
24:12; 25:17; 2S 24:13; 1K 20:7, 22; 2K 5:7; Jr 2:19, 23), “to notice” (1S 26:12). See also Ex 6:3
(‫“ וָ ֵא ָרא‬I have revealed Myself” ‖ ַ‫נֹוד ְע ִתי‬
ַ ַ “I made Me known”).
 46

Unfortunately, Hebrew lexicons do not yet mention this meaning of

prophetic oracle (or auditory message), for the noun ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê, in spite of the
evidence I have mentioned above.
Regarding the referent of ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23, it is different from which
we usually want to have it. The phrase ‫ראִה‬
ִ‫מ‬ִ ִ‫ הִבִן ב‬ha·ḇēn b·am·ma·r‘ê “understand
the prophecy” does not refer back to the prophecy of the 2300 year-days of
8:14.26, but to the prophecy that is about to be revealed in 9:24-27.158 In 9:23,
‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê is made synonymous to ‫ דבר‬dåḇår, in two parallel hemistychs, and
this ‫ דבר‬dåḇår is nothing else that the ‫ דבר‬dåḇår mentioned above, at the
beginning of v. 23, that is the new message that God gave Gabriel to reveal.
In Da 10:1 a similar expression occurs, where the parallel terms ‫מראה‬
ma·r‘ê and ‫ דבר‬dåḇår refer clearly to a prophetic spoken revelation which is
about to be delivered, exactly as in 9:23, though the wording is somehow
different.159
The term ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê / ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘åh (prophetic revelation or message) is
given here as a synonym for ‫ דבר‬dåḇår (word, message) which is, obviously, the
message spoken about in the previous clause. The clause ִ ‫ והבןִבמראה‬wǝ·ha·ḇēn
b·am·ma·r‘ê stands best in apposition or in a synonymic parallelism with the
previous clause ‫ ּוביןִבדבר‬û∙ḇîn b∙ad∙dåḇår. Note the similar clause in Dan 10:1:

Da 9: 23 ‫במראה‬ ‫והבן‬ ‫בדבר‬ ‫ּובין‬

Da 10:1 ‫במראה‬ ‫ּובינהִלֹו‬ ‫ּובין את־הדבר‬

The main difference is in mood and person, but it is the same wording:
Da 9: 23 Consider the word and understand the revelation!
Da 10:1 He considered the word and he got understanding in the revelation.
Thus ‫ראִה‬ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23 cannot be legitimately used as evidence in fa-
vor of the exegetical relationship between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and that of
chapter 9, because in this case it clearly refers to the revelation to be delivered in
verses 24-27.160 Actually, if ‫ראִה‬ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê in 9:23 had been intended to refer back
to the prophecy revealed in chp. 8, how would that prophecy have remained
“sealed” until the time of the end? We must be satisfied, for the time, with the
other indications in the text that support together a certain connection between

158
One of my elder colleagues kindly called my attention to Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm (Daniel, Brook-
lyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1979:258). After citing Da 9: 23, “understand the vision,” Goldwurm
explains, “this refers to Daniel’s vision in chapter 8 in which the part which disturbed him so (v. 14)
is characterized in vs. 16-26 as a mareh.’” The Rabbi’s interpretation is coincident in this respect with
our historical argument, and I would heartily want to prove it right. However, the semantic use of
‫ =( ַמ ְר ֶאה‬spoken revelation) in Da 9:23 is naturally more related to its logical context, than to the
vision of chapter 8. And Rabbi Context is always the best.
159
See also 2Ch 15:8 (‫“ ַה ְד ָב ִרים ַָה ֵא ֶלה‬these words” = ‫בּואה‬
ָ ְ‫“ ַהנ‬the prophecy” of Oded), 1S 3:1 (“the
Lord’s word” = ‫) ָחזֹון‬, 2S 7:17 (“these words” = “this ‫ ;)” ִחזָ יֹון‬1Ch 17:15 (“these words” = “this ‫;)” ָחזֹון‬
2Ch 9:29 (“the words of prophet Nathan”, “‫בּואה‬ ָ ְ‫ נ‬of Ahijah” and “‫ ֲחזֹות‬of Iddo”).
160
Frank Basten, a very critical, but honest author, also argues for the proleptic function of both the
term ‫אה‬ ַַ ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23 and its definite article (Frank A Basten, “An Examination of the
ֶַ ‫מ ְ ַר‬
Seventh-day Adventist Interpretation of … the 2300 Days of Daniel 8 and the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9.”
ASSUMPTION 13: The command of Gabriel in Dn 9:23 for Daniel to “understand the vision”
specifically meant the vision of Dn 8:13-14. Nov, 1990 www.2300days.com , January 05, 2008).
 47

the prophetic time of Daniel 8 and the prophetic time of Daniel 9; and even to
discover new indications.
Our scholars usually refer to these multiple links. Some are not convincing
if taken alone, but together they certainly constitute more than coincidence:
In both prophecies, Daniel is anxious about the fate of God’s people,
sanctuary and city.
After 55 years of exile, by the vision of chapter 8, Daniel had serious reasons to
fear that Israel’s troubles will not end soon. On the contrary, they had to continue and in-
crease beyond what the former prophets had revealed (Da 9:2). Older revelations had
shown him that Cyrus (with Elam, Media, Scythia etc.) will put an end to Babylon, and
will take action for Israel’s complete restoration in his country (Is 21:2; 44:1; Jr 51:27-
29). Cyrus had to rebuild the temple, and Jerusalem, and all Jewish cities. Such events
will ussher in a golden era of spiritual flourishing and material prosperity (Is 51-66). The
lost tribes of Israel would come back, and massive conversions of Gentiles would occur
(Is 11:10-13). The Davidic throne would be restored (Jr 30:9; Ez 37:19-28), nations of
the world would adopt the religion of Israel. Nature itself, both wild and human life
would improve their character, quality and life span (Is 65: 17-25). The King Messiah
would come and rule all the earth in justice and blessings (Is 11).

Daniel’s own revelations did not repeat the old prophets’ scenario. The visions of
Daniel 7 already had roused some suspicions in his mind (7:28). To protect him, the an-
gel had spoken in covert language, of a short succession of “kings”. He was told about a
cruel kingdom, ruled by ten kings under the oversight of a strange king who will make
war with God’s people “three times and a half”. But God’s judgment and eternal kingdom
of Messiah had to be installed soon afterwards. Daniel was not told the identity of the
four “kings”, though he could make some guess, comparing to his first dream in chapter
2. But the revelations of chapter 8 had been very disturbing for Daniel. This time, a spe-
cial angel (Gabriel) instructed him that Israel’s sorrows will not actually end with the fall
of Babylon. A Median-Persian kingdom will follow, then a Greek kingdom, which no
prophet had made known before. Then other Greek powers will follow, and finally a hor-
ror king had to appear, increasing his attacks against Israel, land, and Yahweh’s sanctu-
ary, by exceedingly wicked actions, beyond what Nebuchadnezzar had done. No wonder
it was a desolating perspective for Daniel. The enigmatic time that would lapse up to
God’s judgment was obviously coded, but the Heaven did not told him when the period
begins. The large number itself, 2300, appeared as a threat.

Daniel’s reaction in the last verse (8:27) must be understood as a physical con-
sequence of a great shock and anguish. Certainly, 12 years later he would not forget that
prolonging threatening vision. Therefore, as the determined time of exile had very soon
to expire (9:1), and no sign of liberation was visible, despite the advent of the awaited
Medo-Persian rule, Daniel made new Bible research on the issue, and discovered that
Jeremiah had indeed foreseen only 70 years of trouble. But the same Jeremiah was in-
structed by God that optimistic prophecies may be canceled or delayed in some condi-
tions (Jr 18). Thus Daniel had a single chance: pray God, in spite of any obstacle (Da 6:
9:3+), in behalf of his people, city and temple, and insisting that God would not delay His
promises (9:19).
His prayer was interrupted by the visit of Gabriel who came as a heavenly an-
swer. The new revelation brought by the angel was a multiple answer, such as God loves
to do, surpassing our specific requests. The revelation of 9:24-27 explicitly answered the
 48

immediate prayer of Daniel, but also the prayer of Israel through the centuries past, to
know the time of Messiah. And the new prophecy hid a clue to the secret time of God’s
judgment, the 2300 days. However, it would not be an explicite answer, because the real
time had to remain secret nearly to the end (8:26; 12:4.9).

Both prophecies focus intensely on the sanctuary.

a). In Da 8:14, the holy (sanctuary) and its host are vindicated.

b). In Da 9:24-27, the most holy (sanctuary) and its priesthood are anointed. The Anoint-
ed One is put to death, He cancels any sacrifice and oblation, and then the sanctuary is
left to desolation to the end.

In both prophecies, the same “man” Gabriel is interpreter (Da 8:16; 9:21).
Repeated use of the verb ‫ בין‬byn “pay attention”, “understand,” as a logical
and psychological strategy to connect the two prophecies (see 1.23).
In 9:21, Daniel refers to the previous vision (“in the/that vision”), recogniz-
ing the heavenly interpreter.
Both prophecies refer to time periods culminating with the greatest salvific
events:
a). the hour of God’s judgment (2300 days in Da 8:14,26), and

b). the time and meaning of Christ’s sacrifice (70 weeks in Da 9:24).

The verb ‫ נִחִתְִך‬ne·ḥtaḵ “subtracted”, “cut off” in Da 9:24, as it is here used at

the singular implicitly indicates that the period of 70 weeks is the first por-
tion of the 2300 days (see 1.12).

1.11. Da 9:24: ‫בּוע‬

ַַ ‫ַ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ – “period of seven” (heptad) or “week”?

The noun ִ‫ִׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ is the common term used in all phases of Hebrew for
the notion of “week”. The Holladay lexicon has only the meaning week for ִ‫ׁשבּוע‬
šåḇûa‘, illustrated by some cases, including a reference to Dn 9:27. Actually,
Gerhard Hasel and Frank Hardy have argued very convincing for a conservative
understanding of the morphology and semantics of ִ‫ִׁשבּוע‬- ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇûa‘- šåḇû‘∙îm
in Daniel 9.161
Compared to other time units, ִ‫ ׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ is rather infrequent in the He-
brew Bible, just 19 occurrences from Gn 29:27 to 2Ch 8:13, most of them in
Pentateuch, and eight occurrences in Daniel (9:24-27; 10:2,3).162 The noun ִ‫ׁשבּוע‬
šåḇûa‘ is of the same root as the numeral “seven” in Hebrew, but it does not
derives from the numeral. In fact, most Hebrew numerals are nouns and the

161
See G Hasel, “The Hebrew masculine Plural for ‘Weeks’ in the Expression ‘Seventy Weeks’ in
Daniel 9:24”, in AUSS, Summer 1993, No. 2, 105-118; F W Hardy, “The Hebrew Singular for ‘Week’
in the Expression ‘One Week’ in Daniel 9:27”, in AUSS, Autmn 1994, Vol. 32, No. 3, 197-202.
162
The most frequent expression used in the Hebrew Bible for the weekly cycle is ‫ ִש ְב ַעת ַַהּיָ ִמים‬šiḇ‘aṯ
hay·yåm·îm “seven days” (91 occurrences, from Gn 7:10 to 2Ch 35:17. Besides, the lexeme ‫ַש ָבת‬
šabbåṯ “day of rest [weekly or calendric]”, occurs twice in Lv 25:8 with the meaning of “week”,
which was still used in the Rabbinic Hebrew (cf. Jastrow, 1520) and in the old Jewish-Christian
Greek (σάββατα, Mt 28:1; Mk 16:2.9; Lk 18:12; 24:1; Jn 20:1, 19; AA 20:7; 1Cor 16:2).
 49

numeral-noun ‫ ׁשבע‬- ‫ ׁשבעה‬šéḇa‘- šiḇ‘åh “[unit of] seven”, which in dialectal and
construct form is ‫ ׁשבעת‬šiḇ‘aṯ, derived from the Proto-Semitic form šab‘atu
(seven).163
An important problem, seemingly tending to destroy any evidence for the
use of the year-day164 hermeneutic key in the Biblical apocalyptic is that some
modern translations of the Bible often prefer an interpretive rendition of the
term ‫בּוע‬
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ in Da 9:24, as a period of seven, a heptad, or even as week of
years.165In Daniel this noun has only the plural form ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇû‘∙îm, instead of
the usual form ‫ ׁשבֻ עֹות‬šåḇû‘∙ôṯ), and some have rushed to the conclusion that a
different ending must reflect a different meaning. However, this plural in Daniel
certainly indicates weeks, as it results from Da 10:2.3.166 According to Elwolde,167
there is no concluding evidence to interpret the differently formed plurals as
corresponding to semantic distinctions in Bibilical Hebrew or in Rabbinic He-
brew.

163
In other Semitic languages, for example in Eblaitic, the term for “weeks” seems to be identic to
number seven. In the Eblaite tables (cf. Pelio Fronzaroli, "Il culto dei re defunti in ARET 3 178," in
Miscellanea Eblaitica 1, Quaderni di Semitistica 15; ed. Pelio Fronzaroli, Firenze, 1988: 15), the
archaic name of the seven-day cycle is šaba‛tum, related to the Proto-Semitic word for the numeral
seven (šab‛atum). The archeologic source ARET 11 3 (14), quoted by Fronzarolli, provides the
expression "3 sa-ba-a-ti-su-ma", that Alfonso Archi ("Prepositions at Ebla", in Eblaitica, 4, ed. C. H.
Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, Eisenbrauns, Indiana, 2002: 5) translates as "their 3 rites of seven days"
[in the house of the dead]. ARET 9 5 [8]-[10] has a reference to "food for…14 days", and ARET 3
178 refers also to a sa-ba-tum maḥ = "greater šaba‛tum", which Robert Stieglitz ("Divine Pairs in the
Ebla Pantheon," Eblaitica, 4: 212) interprets as a seven-day ritual, performed in a temple and at its
mausoleum.
164
A year-day correspondence occurs in the Biblical hermeneutical tradition since the earliest time.
First, there are explicite Biblical references to this analogy, applied in a context of judgment:
1). 1 day of probation failure stands for 1 year of disciplinary punishment (40 years for 40 days, in Nu
14:34),
2). 1 prophetic day standsfor 1 historical year, in the dramatic prophecy of Judgment in Ez 4:4-6: 390
days stand for 390 years of Israel’s sin, and 40 days stand for 40 years (of Judah’s sin).
This analogy is implicitly present in the parallel between sacred periods of days and sacred periods of
years: the 6+1 days || the 6+1 years; the 7 weeks (49 days) + the 50 th day || the 7 septennates (49
years) + the 50th year; the 40 days ||the 40 years. It is also implicitly present in the Biblical poetry,
where days and years are usually paralleled to express time (Dt 32:7, Jb 10:5, 15:20, 32:7, 36:11, Ps
77:5, 90:9-10) and in the book of Revelation, where the apocalyptic vision puts in parallel 3 years and
a half, and three days and a half (Rev 11:2-3.9-11).
165
E.g. ESV note: “or sevens”; NET note: “Heb ‘sevens.’ Elsewhere the term is used of a literal week
(a period of seven days) …. Most understand the reference here as periods of seventy ‘sevens’ of
years….” NLT “sets of seven”, fn: “literally sevens”; NIV, TNIV “sevens”; RSV “weeks of years”;
GWN “sets of seven time periods”; ZUR “Jahrwochen”; TOB “septénaires”; SBP “vezes sete anos”;
NAU, NAS fn: “a period of seven (days years) heptad, week”; NKJ fn: “sevens (and so throughout the
chapter)”.
166
The phrase ‫ ָש ֻב ִעים יָ ִמים‬does not indicate weeks "of days", as opposed to the presumed general
meaning of ‫“( ָש ֻב ִעים‬periods of seven”, or "weeks of years") of 9:24-26. The appositional term ‫יָ ִמים‬
placed after any period of time, only indicates full measure (in this case, whole weeks, reaching fully
to 21 days, cf. 10:13, which is attested by most, including the best translations. See also HALOT I ‫יֹום‬
–7. c; Da 10:2 (for three weeks), and other examples in Gn 41:1; Jr 28:3.11; Gn 29:14; Dt 21:13; 2K
15:13.
167
John Elwolde “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary Between Bible and Mishnah”, in The Hebrew
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, edited by T. Muraoka & L. J. F. Elwolde, Leiden: Brill, 1997:
46.
 50

But this problem begins with the lexicons, as most of them

tion ‫בּוע‬
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ to mean period of seven – though they supply the references to
Daniel 9 as the only evidence in Biblical Hebrew.168 These modern conclusions
have been strengthened by some Qumran texts that use the same plural ‫ׁשבֻ עים‬
šåḇû‘∙îm as “weeks of years” (1QS 10:7, 8). While the Qumran evidence deserves
a more in-depth and full research, my observation is that whenever ‫ׁשבֻ עים‬
šåḇû‘∙îm refers to “weeks of years” in the Qumran texts,169 it uses the concept of
sabbatical years and jubilees (Lv 25:8), to speak the apocalyptic language of
Daniel 9.170 No wonder that most of such cases occur in the Book of Jubilees and
in similar quasi-apocalyptic texts. There is no case of applying such meaning to
mention a non-religious period of seven years.171 And there is no such thing as
"week" of weeks or of months in the Qumran texts. The analogy between week
and septennate, both as social-religious periods, is based on their legal similari-
ties, regarding the time of service and the time of rest/freedom (Gn 2:1-3; Dt
5:14-15; 15:12-14), and it resulted in a special use of ִ‫ִׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ as week of years,
occurring in Qumran Hebrew, but with no probability in Biblical Hebrew –
except that one admits a Maccabbean date for Daniel – which I definitely reject.
The use of ִ‫ׁשִבּוע‬- ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇûa‘- šåḇû‘∙îm in Daniel 9 has comfortably a bet-
ter explanation, rather than posit an occult meaning of heptad. It is a figurative,

168 a
According to HALOT, the noun ‫בּוע‬ ַ ַ ‫ַ ָש‬šåḇû ‘ means, "a group of seven, a seven part unit (ἑπτάς),"
including "a week of years", "Jahrsiebent". BDB shows the same semantic value, "period of seven
(days, years), heptad, week". TWOT has a "seven-period."
169
Qumran Hebrew uses expressions like ‫ שבעתַ(ה)ימים‬seven days (×40),ַ e.g. 2Q19 f1:5; ‫שבעהַשבועות‬
seven weeks (in the Temple Scroll only:11QT 19:12; 21:12; 11Q20 4:1; 5;15), ‫ שבעַשנים‬seven years
(4Q266 f12:8; 4Q270 f4:15; 4Q271 f5i:20.21; 11QT 63:15), and the term ‫ שבת‬šabbåt, with the old
secondary meaning of week, usually in quotations of the Torah (11Q20 5:15; 4Q365 f24:2; 11QT
18:11; 19:12; 4Q286 f1ii:9; 4Q324b f4:2; f5:1; 1Q22 f1iii:1).
170
The probability that the Qumran language of weeks and jubilees reflects the literary use
a
ַ ַ ‫ַ ָש‬šåḇû ‘ “week [as a literary code for 7 years]”, as an influence of the Book of Daniel is very
of ‫בּוע‬
high, because the relevant passage of Daniel is explicitely quoted in the Melchizedec scroll (11Q13
2:18):
"the messenger" is The Anointed of the Spirit ]‫והמבשרַהו[אה] משיחַהרו[ח‬
as Daniel has spoken about Him, ‫כאשרַאמרַדנ[יאלַעליו‬
"up to Messiah-Ruler will be seven weeks" ‫עדַמשיחַנגידַשבועיםַשבעה‬

171 a
In the Qumran sectarian manuscripts there are 45 occurrences of ‫בּוע‬ ַ ַ ‫ַ ָש‬šåḇû ‘ with the meaning of
week, including a few Jewish-Aramaic texts reflecting the Hebrew use. (4Q196 f2:10; 4Q219 2:37;
4Q265 f7:11; 4Q266 f6ii:8; 4Q275 f2:1; 4Q284 f1:3; 4Q319 f12:2; f13:1.5; 4Q320 f4iii:5; f4iv:1.10;
f4v:4.13; f4vi:9; 4Q321 5:1.5; 6:1.4.8; 7:3; 4Q324b f5:1.2; 4Q324d f2:4; f7i:2; 4Q368 f2:14; 4Q394
f1_2i:14.15; 4Q401 f9:2; f13:2; 4Q403 f1i:27; f1ii:30; 4Q404 f2:9; 4Q405 f3ii:19; 4Q502 f23:5;
4Q503 f42_44:5; 4Q512 f33+35:1; 4Q519 f21:3; 4Q540 f1:2; 11QT 11:11; 11QT 19:9.12; 21:12;
a
11Q20 3:25.26; 4:1; 5:14). I have counted 7 occurrences of ‫בּוע‬ ַַ ‫ַ ָש‬šåḇû ‘, with a figurative application,
ַ‫ שבועותַשנים‬or ‫“ שבועיַשנים‬week(s) of years” (2Q19 f1:4; 2Q20 f1:1; 4Q216 6:8; 4Q256 19:6; 4Q258
a
ַ ַ ‫ַ ָש‬šåḇû ‘ as a possible technical term for the
9:6; 4Q390 f2i:4; 11Q12 f8:2), and 38 occurrences of ‫בּוע‬
Israelite septennial cycle – an extension of the figurative meaning, a special use in the apocalyptic
language (CD 16:4; 1QS 10:7.8; 1Q17 f1:2.3; 1Q20 6:18; 4Q181 f2:3; 4Q212 f1iii:23.24;
f1iv:2.15.19.25; 4Q212 f1iv:25; 4Q216 4:5; 4Q219 1:11; 2:35; 4Q223_224 f2i:48; f2iii:15; 4Q226
f1:5; 4Q247 f1:2; 4Q256 19:6; 4Q258 9:6 ×2; f6i:20; 4Q271 f4ii:5; 4Q275 f2:1; 4Q286 f1ii:9; 4Q540
f1:2; 11Q12 f1:4.7.9.11; f2:2.4x2; f3:1; f4:3; 11Q13 2:7; 3:17).
 51

analogic, and encoded use of the basic sense of week, as expected in an apocalyp-
tic work. This is in Daniel 9 a literary phenomenon, not a linguistic one.
In the angelic revelation of Da 9:24-27, the use of ִ‫ ׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ implies this
traditional analogy. The real meaning is to be understood by the reader, from the
time consuming events that were announced. This linguistic phenomenon
belongs rather to pragmatics than to semantics, so it is not correct to link it
directly to the basic sense of the lexeme. It is a pragmatic extension, an apocalyp-
tic "codified" use, and therefore the lexicon of Holladay is right when it mentions
the meaning of week only, even for Daniel 9. If our reasoning is correct,
then ‫בּוע‬
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ "week" is not a late semantic development, but a pragmatic,
codified use, which afterwards has developed as a technical use in the mystical
numerology of QSM. According to Jastrow (1510), it survived in RH and even
acquired an additional meaning: Sabbatical year.
Regarding the unusual plural form ‫ׁשבֻ עים‬ ִ šåḇû‘∙îm (instead of ‫ׁשבֻ עֹות‬
šåḇû‘∙ôṯ), an important observation of G Hasel (“Seventy Weeks”, 112-117)
deserves our attention. Citing various scholars, he notes that some inanimate
Hebrew nouns show both “genders”, and at least both gender-endings at the
plural: the -îm ended plural indicating “a plural of quantity or a plural of groups”;
and the -ôṯ ended plural, indicating “an entity or grouping which is made of
individual parts”. And he applies this description to the word ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇû‘∙îm in
Da 9:24:
It seems that the use of the masculine plural for “weeks” in Dan 9:24 is a kind of gender-
matching with the masculine cardinal numeral “seventy,” not for the sake of word-play, but
for the sake of indicating that the ending –îm emphasizes the global and unitary aspect of the
time element “seventy weeks.” Thus the masculine plural ending in the noun šāḇû‘îm places
stress on the totality and entirety of the “seventy weeks” as a unitary whole, whereas the femi-
nine ending - ôṯ, if it had been used, would have stressed the individual parts — i.e., the indi-
vidual weeks — of the “seventy weeks”. (op. cit. 112)

Though I did not check yet for me the functions of the two plural endings
in inanimate nouns, such observation is very interesting and welcome, as the
plural noun ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇû‘∙îm is the subject of the verb ‫חתְִך‬
ִ ִ‫ נ‬ne·ḥtaḵ (in the singu-
lar) to be discussed below. This verb takes the singular instead of the plural
number, in order to emphasize the same idea, that the subject šåḇû‘∙îm is to be
understood as a compact cut of a seventy weeks period.

1.12. Da 9:24: ‫תְך‬ ְַ ֶַ‫ נ‬ne·ḥtaḵ: “deducted” or “decided” ?

ַַ ‫ח‬

After arousing the intellectual and emotional tension of Daniel, in 9:24

Gabriel refers to a 70 weeks allotment to be “cut off” (‫חתְִך‬
ִ ִ‫ נ‬ne·ḥtaḵ) or subtracted
to be asigned to Israel. The problem is that most translations prefer the meaning
“determined”. D Ford (Daniel, p. 225), who under Evangelical authorities,
published his commentary, acknowledged that ‫חתְִך‬ ִ ִ‫ נ‬ne·ḥtaḵ means “cut off”,
“severed off”; nonetheless after two or three years, adressing this time to
Adventists, turned against his former (better) conclusion.172

172
D Ford (Daniel 8:14 etc., p A-65) agrees with Cottrell whom he quotes, “as a matter of fact, it
[chathak] does not mean ‘cut-off’. It means ‘determined’.”
 52

The passive ‫ נחתְך‬is a Biblical hapax, a passive form of the verb ‫חתך‬. Its ba-
sic meaning is fully attested in different sources, as well as in related words of
Semito-Hamitic origin. LXX translated it as ἐκρίθησαν “they are separated”, from
κρίνω (“to separate”, “sever,” > “decide,” “judge,” “punish,” etc.). Theodotion
came even closer in his literalist translation: συνετμήθησαν “they are cut short”,
followed by Jerome, with the same meaning: adbreviatae sunt.
The root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk is found also in Akkadian, as hatakum “decide”.173 In Ar-
abic, hataka “cut up”, “dismember” preserved the same basic idea.174 In Egyptian
are found two similar variants of this root 1. hsq “to cut off”, “sever”, “separate”,
“set apart”, and 2. hsk “to cut”, “sever”, “dismember”).175 It is interesting to
observe the pervasive character of this primitive root in other related African
languages.176
Köhler-Baumgartner Lexikon mentions against ‫ חתך‬ḥtk two meanings: cut
off and decide. And this phenomenon of deriving an abstract meaning out of a
concrete image is well attested with other roots and terms. And note the survival
of this basic meaning through the medieval Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic, up to
this time. 177 The two meanings of ‫ חתך‬ḥtk “cut off” > “determine” are close
related and there are equivalent semantic developments in other languages.178
There is no evidence that the root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk was known in the pre-exilic
times in Hebrew, but considering its large occurrence within the Hamito-Semitic
family, it may have been used in colloquial Hebrew, as it is the case with much of
Late Hebrew. This may explain why Standard Biblical Hebrew uses only the

173
See Bruno Meissner and Wolfram von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Band I, A-L, Otto
Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1965, p. 335.
174
Cf. Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebraisches und Aramaisches Lexikon zum Alten
Testamenten, Leiden, (Lieferung I, ‫)טבח – א‬, E. J. Brill, 1967:349.
175
Cf. E. A. Wallis Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, vol. 1, Frederick Ungar Publishing
Co., New York, 1983: 512. The presence of /s/, instead of /θ/ is a phonologic phenomenon in ancient
or modern languages, and it might be a particularity of Egyptian, since we have the parallel to the Eg.
sbn vs. Heb. tbn “straw”, according to the same source.
176
Combining informations from HALOT, Jastrow, and especially from V Orel and O Stolbova
(Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary–Materials for a Reconstruction, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Nether-
lands. New York, Köln. 1995, pp. 1293, 1391-1392), the Hamito-Semitic root ḥtk seems to have split
early in at least three branches:
1. *ḥatshuk, “to cut” (attested in Egyptian, ḥsk.t “knife”; West-Chad, tshuk “knife”; Angas and
Mupun, tshuk).
2. *ḥasiḵ, to cut, to pierce (wherefrom the Semitic radical ḥašiḵ, to pierce, cf. Arab ḥsqi, East-Chad
and Rift, sik, “to cut”; Birgit, sikki, Iraqw, siq).
3. *ḥatik “to cut”, “divide”, “separate”, well attested in Semitic (cf. Akk. ḥatakum; Ar. ḥataka “to
tear”; MHeb. and JArm. ḥtk “to sever”, “dismember”, “cut off”, “determine”) and Chadian lan-
guages (tik, tik-t, tikk, tikkya, “to divide”, “half”, et. al.).
177
Michael Sokoloff (A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, p.
218) gives the root ‫ חתך‬only the meaning to cut or sever. See also Dalman and Jastrow for Rabbinic
Hebrew. Modern Hebrew dictionaries also preserve the meaning of cut off.
178
The semantic mutation of the verb ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, from the concrete meaning “cut off”, to a more abstract
or metaphorical meaning “decide” is a common linguistic phenomenon. The figurative meaning of the
root ḥtk appeared also in Akkadian (ḥataku = decide). And the same mutation occurred in other
languages with equivalent verbs; e.g. Lat. decido (cut, decide), Fr. trancher (sever-decide); En. cut,
cut a decision. This development is a diachronic process, but often such verbs preserve both the
primary and the secondary meaning throughout their history.
 53

synonym ‫ גזר‬gzr, a root which is common with the Aramaic, 179 and still used in
Late Hebrew. It is a perfect synonym of ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, having the same basic meanings:
“cut off”, “separate”, “remove”, “utter”, “decide” etc. 180 Furthermore, the root ‫חרץ‬
ḥrṣִ has a similar story. While the basic meaning of ḥrṣ “to cut” is rare,181 its
derived figurative meaning “to utter” (decide) is so common.182 In DSS Hebrew
‫ חרץ‬ḥrṣִis used mainly to designate “judicial decisions” and “fixing times.” 183

Daniel uses other three different verbs, synonymous to ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, and any
of them could have been employed in 9:24, instead of the hapax ‫ חתך‬ḥtk. We
may imagine the following three alternatives, that Daniel could have normally
used, but he avoided:
Da 9:24 ‫חתך‬ cut, subtract >> decree ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נחתְך‬
Da 2:34, 45; 4:14, 21 ‫גזר‬ cut, separate > decree ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נגזר‬

Da 9:26, 27; 11:36 ‫חרץ‬ cut > utter, decide ‫חר ץ‬

ֱִ ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נ‬

Da 1:10,11; 5:25,26 ‫מנה‬ count > appoint, apportion ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נמנה‬

Now, if ‫ נגזר‬nigzar, ‫חרץ‬

ֱִ ‫ נ‬neḥeraṣ or ‫ נמנה‬nimnåh could have been employed
more probably to express the idea of “decreed” or “appointed”, why Daniel
preferred the non-Biblical, non-literary, colloquial root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk ? My suggestion
is that Daniel (actually Gabriel!) avoided the usual Hebrew terms that have the
meaning “decide” as their first or secondary meaning, and chose ‫ חתך‬ḥtk for its
unique and strong meaning of “cut off” (subtract). The Rabbinic use of the root
‫ חתך‬ḥtk with the dominant meaning of “cut out” may indicate semantic stability
back at the time of its first literary use in Hebrew. In Qumran Hebrew, the Nifal
of ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, though at the imperfect, is also connected to a time period. See the
following comparison: 184
4Q252 1:2 “and their days [close to 1000 yrs] ַ‫ויחתכוַימיהםַמאהַועשריםַשנה‬
will be cut short [to] 120” (cf. Gn 6:3)

179
‫“ התגזר‬to be hewn” (disjoined), Da 2:34, 45; ‫ ְגזֵ ָ ַרה‬decree (Da 4:14, 21), ‫ ָגזְ ִרין‬astrologers, determin-
ing the destiny (Da 2:27; 5:11; Da 4:4; 5:7). In Targum, the root ‫ גזר‬occurs hundreds of times, translat-
ing the Hebrew roots ‫" כרת‬cut" (a covenant), ‫“ מול‬circumcise”, ‫“ גזר‬sever”, ‫“ דבר‬speak” (utter), ‫חקק‬
(decree).
180
The basic meaning of the Hebrew root ‫ גזר‬is to cut (1K 3:25, 26; 2K 6:4; Ps 136:13; Is 9:19)
whence the nouns ‫“ ֶגזֶ ר‬portion divided” (Gn 15:17; Ps 136:13), ‫“ ִגזְ ָרה‬cutting” (separation, Ez 41:12,
13, 14, 15; 42:1, 10, 13), "cut" (body form, Lm 4:7); ‫“ ְגזֵ ָרה‬isolated land” (separated, Lv 16:22); ‫ַמ ְגזֵ ָרה‬
“cutting tool” (2S 12:31). But there is also a derived, idiomatic meaning of this verb: “to utter” (Jb
22:28). In Nifal (‫ )נִ ְגזַ ר‬this root has derived meanings: “be separated” (removed, excluded, Is 53:8),
“destroyed” (cut off: Ps 88:6; Ez 37:11; Lm 3:54; 2Ch. 26:21), “decreed [against]”, “doomed” (Est
2:1).
181
Lv 22:22; 2S 12:31; 1Ch 20:3.
182
To utter, mutter (Ex. 11:7; Jo. 10:21), to decide, pronounce (1K. 20:40), to fix (Jb 14:5), decided,
decreed (Is 10:22, 23; 28:22; Da 9:25, 26, 27; 11:36; Jl 4:14), act decidedly, diligently (2S 5:24),
decided, sharp, diligent man (Pr.10:4; 12:24; 13:4; 21:5).
183
1QS 4:20, 25; 4Q369 f1i:6; 1QHa 11:36; 4Q257 6:5; 4Q525 f23:2; 1QS 8:10; 4Q258 6:4.
184
Cf. Genesis Pesher-a: “In the 480th year of Noah’s life, their time came to Noah, and God said: ‘My
Spirit will not dwell forever in the humankind, but their days will be cut short (‫ )ויחתכו‬to 120 years,
until the time of the Flood waters.” (4Q252 1:1-3). Though this cutting is somehow different from
that of Daniel 9:24, it is significant that the Hebrew verb was used in relation to two time periods.
 54

Da 9:24 “A period of 70 ‘weeks’ is subtracted

for your people” ‫ל־ע ְמָך‬
ַ ‫ָש ֻב ִעים ִש ְב ִעים נֶ ְח ַתְך ַע‬

While this is the single occurrence of the root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk in Qumran Hebrew,
it is significant that this very occurrence is in connection with time, and has the
basic meaning of “cut short” — shortening the life span of the antediluvian
people.
The verb ‫ נחתְך‬ne·ḥtaḵ is in the singular (not “they are substracted”),
showing disagreement in number with the plural subject, “seventy weeks”.
When the verb precedes the subject, disagreements in number occur sometimes,
but when the verb follows the subject, as in this case, disagreements are ex-
tremely rare. Consequently, the verb ‫ נחתְך‬in the singular must express a logical
concord, ad sensum,185 implying that the subject in plural is taken as a unit, not as
multiple portions,186 thus suggesting, not by grammatical, but by logical agree-
ment, that the object of the cutting off, is the whole period of seventy weeks. This
reasoning leads to a pointed question: Which is, contextually, the longer periode
of time, wherefrom the whole period of seventy weeks is subtracted?187

185
“The singular verb after the plural subject is to be explained on the ground that the seventy weeks
are regarded as a unit of time.” (R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old
Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913, p. 240.) Among the authors agreeing on this point
are: C. F. Keil, Moses Stuart, and James A. Montgomery. (C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentry on the
Book of Daniel. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1950, p. 339; Moses Stuart, Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy.Andover, MA: Allen, Morrill and
Wardwell, 1842, p.268;
186
R H Charles (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1913:240) explained: “The singular verb after the plural subject is to be explained on the
ground that the seventy weeks are regarded as a unit of time.” Among the authors agreeing on this
point are, C F Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Biblical Commentary on the Old
Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B Eerdmans, 1950:339; Moses Stuart, Hints on the Interpretation
of Prophecy. Andover, MA: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1842:268; James A Montgomery, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. The International Critical Commentary.
Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1927:376. Joüon and Muraoka (Grammar III, §150 b, g, p) noticed
similar disagreement in number, when the subject is multiple, though the two nouns forms a single
idea (Dt 8.13; Ho 4.11; 9.2; 10.8; Pr 27.9). See also Gesenius Grammar (§145 u), and similar phe-
nomenons in ancient Greek (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, Mi, 1996: 400). J E Goldingay (Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, Dallas, TX: Word
Books, 1989: 229) states that the singular of the verb "implies 'there has been determined/ God
has determined . . .' or perhaps '[a period ofl seventy sevens has been determined'. . . ."
187
The answer to this question results from a broader context, rather than from the immediate one. And
it is not accidentally that a series of scholars have found that the time wherefrom this "short" period is
cut, is the longer period mentioned in the previous chapter ("until evening, morning, 2300", Da
8:14.26). The first scholars who noticed the connection between Da 9:24 and Da 8:14.26, were the
British John Tillinghast (1654), and the German Johann Petri (1768). They have been followed by a
host of exegetes, especially in the first half of the 19th century. Cf. Froom (II 714-15, 717; III 263-82;
IV 209). Petri, Johann. P. Aufschluss der Zahlen Daniels und der Offenbarung Johannis. [n.p.:n.n.],
Ulrich Weiss, Frankfurt, 1768, pp. 8-10; Nuñez, Samuel. The Vision of Daniel 8, [doctoral disserta-
tion], Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 1987, p. 93. – an apocalyptic long time of
further troubles of which Daniel, the hero of the narrative, was very much affected emotionally, even
to sickness, so that the chapter closed with the expression of his frustration of not understanding
(8:26-27). Then, opening the following chapter (9), even if the author dated it years later, it is themat-
ically still close related to the previous one. In contrast with the long period given in chp. 8, Daniel
(9:1-2) understands from the book of Jeremiah a closer date of restoration, and fearing that God will
postpone His restoration, because of Israel’s unconcern, he turns to God in prayer and fasting, plead-
ing for the desolated temple, people and city, and asking God not to delay Israel’s restoration (9:19).
 55

An important link between the two chronologic prophecies (Da 8:14,26

and Da 9:24-27) is the presence of the same angelus interpres, Gabriel (9:21) and
his double answer to Daniel’s concern about the time of fulfilment of the highest
hope of Israel. Gabriel now comes to give Daniel understanding (9:22), by a new
chronological message (9:23-24). This means that it is cut out of the longer and
mysterious period, which is implicitely present in chapter 9 – in Daniel’s fears
and concerns, and in Gabriel’s pointed and full answer. The angel’s ex abrupto
reference to time and subtracting, reported to Daniel’s previous sickness and
frustration to the time prophecy of Da 8:14,26; the angel’s so natural resuming to
Daniel’s painful topic, after the interruption made in Da 8:25, and using the
clause, "a period of seventy weeks is subtract for your people....", suggest a strong
relation between the seventy weeks and the 2300 days.
The reason of avoiding the explicite language may be understood as from
the repeated warning of the angel, on the period of "2300 days" and on the time
mysteries in general (Da 8:26; 12:4. 9). One may compare this code language
with the parables of Jesus, that for some were covered, while for the elect were
clear (Da 12:10; Mk 4:11-13). We should not minimalize this discreet attitude
from the part of heaven.
Consequently, there are many reasons that militate for the reality that
verb ‫ נִחִתְִך‬ne·ḥtaḵ in Da 9:24 was intended with the meaning “subtract”, “deduct”,
and therefore it is an implicit reference to the long and mysterious period
extending “to the time of the end”, which is revealed in the previous prophecy:
the 2300 days.

1.13. Da 9:24: ketib or qere ?

Regarding the readingsִ‫ לִכל ֹא‬li·ḵlō’ ”to confine” and ‫לה‬ ִ ‫ לכ‬lǝ·ḵallēʰ “to ter-
minate”, in Da 9:24, which one is the best choice? Should we read qere ‫חטאת‬
‫ ּולהתם‬û·lǝ·hå·ṯēm ḥaṭṭå’ṯ, or rather ketib ‫ ּולחתֹם חטאֹות‬wǝ·la·ḥtōm ḥaṭṭå’ôṯ ?
As regards ‫לכלא‬, the critical apparatus in BHS recommends the ketib in
this case: melius qal (the Qal reading is better). Thus, instead of “to put an end to
rebellion”, we should translate “to confine (or close up) rebellion”. While this is
an unusual metaphor, it has a suitable meaning, when we relate it to the parallel
expression that follows, and to other biblical passages, as it will be further
shown.
Further, if we choose the ketib variant for the expression ‫ ּולהתם חטאת‬/
ֹ ‫ּולח‬,
‫תם חטאֹות‬ in the next hemistych, it will be rendered “to (until) the sealing of
sins”, instead of “to bring sin to completion”.188 In this case, the two parallel
verses would fit each other:
To confine (close up) rebellion,
and to seal the sins.

These metaphors remind us the Will Song of Moses (Dt 32:34), when it re-
fers to the sin of Israel:

188
This reading is seldom reflected in most translations, yet see YLT (to shut up the transgression, and
to seal up sins), NJB (placing the seal on sin), NIV (note: Or restrain), GNV (to seal vp the sinnes),
LXE ( to seal up transgressions), IEP (per sigillare il peccato), CAB (para sellar el pecado) etc.
 56

Is not this laid up in store with Me,

sealed up in my treasuries?189

A related expression occurs in Job 14:17:

My rebellious sin (‫ )פשע‬is sealed (‫ )חתם‬in a bag,
and You have sewn my wrongdoing (‫)עון‬.

Similarly, in a vision of Zechariah (5:8), the wickedness personified by a

woman is confined in an ephah-basket. Thus a translation based on ketib in Da
9:24 suggests that Gabriel did not predict here the real ceasing of sin, which is
not stopped before the end of the millenial judgment (Rv 20:14-15). Gabriel
rather predicted a kind of inprisonment and sealing of sin, similar to that of Rv
20:1-3, but not necessarily the same event (cf. Rv 12:9-11; Rom 8:3; Col 2:15).
This is a more comprehensive and forcefully expressive metaphor of
God’s dealing with Israel’s sin, compared to the usual reading.190 The sin or
rebellion is here personified, and it is confined in view of the Judgment day, or
like a legal deed, bound and sealed, for the same purpose, if we take both phrases
as synonymous. But we may take them as complementary, and thus we could
imagine Israel’s transgression like in Zechariah’s vision – first confined, then
sealed up.191 This image of confining and sealing is specific to Daniel (Da 6:17;
8:26; 12:4,9). The theological meaning of this image has not yet received the
whole attention it deserves. If understood in the litterary context, it must have
instructive Messianic application.

1.14. Da 9:24: the Most Holy Messiah, or a most holy sanctuary ?

At the end of the period of 70 weeks leading to the Messianic events, the
angel uses the expression ‫ח קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬ ֹ ‫ ולמ‬wə·li·mšôăḥ qóḏeš qåḏåšîm (Da 9:20),
ִ ‫ׁש‬
“to anoint the most holy”.
to confine the crime,
to seal the sins,
to atone for guilt,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal visions and prophets,
to anoint the most holy.* (Da 9:24)
This expression is of great importance in understanding the concept of a
heavenly, new covenant sanctuary in the book of Daniel. The verb ‫ משח‬mšḥ “to
anoint [=consecrate by pouring sacred oil thereon]”, associated with the object
‫ קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm “most holy thing /place/person” belong to the
language of the sanctuary. While Bible translators are divided on the actual

189
Interestingly, Moses closes the Song with the hope of Yahweh’s atonement for people and land, a
theme present in Daniel 9:24.
190
We recently discovered that Desmond Ford emphasized the same idea in The Ministry, May 1979,
p. 11: “Literally, the Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 reads: ‘to shut up transgression, seal up sin, and cover up
iniquity.’ The language seems to evoke a symbolic portrayal of a prisoner incarcerated in a dungeon
that is then sealed and finally covered and buried by an avalanche that blots out all signs of both
dungeon and prisoner.”
191
Regarding documents (Jr 32:10-14, Is 8:16, Da 8:26, 9:24h, 12:4.9) and persons (Da 6:16-17, Mt
27:66, Rv 20:3).
 57

object to be anointed,192 we may notice that the verbs ִ ‫ מׁשח‬måšaḥ “anoint” and
‫ קדׁש‬qiddēš “sanctify” are used together in the ritual of the sanctuary
dedication.193
The anarthrous expression ‫ קֹדׁשִקדשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm associated with the
verbִ ‫ מׁשח‬måšaḥ “anoint” is used about the altar of sacrifices (Ex 29:37; 30:29;
40:10), and various ceremonial elements and acts of the sanctuary were called
‫קֹדׁש ִקדשים‬.194 References to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary are usually
definite ‫ קֹדׁש הקֳּ דׁשים‬qóḏeš haq∙qåḏåš îm,195 but there are important exceptions. In
the visions of Ezekiel, the vast area on the top of the mountain, dedicated to the
ideal temple, the new temple itself and the rooms destined to the priests are
called ‫ קֹדׁשִקדשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm (Ez 43:12; 45:1-3; 48:9-12).
The anointing of priests was included in the ceremony of the sanctuary
anointing.196The high priest certainly owned the most sacred office. Only the
anointed high priest could make atonement at Yom Kippur (Lv 16:32). He was in
charge with the holy oil (Nu 4:16). He owned so sacred position that he could not
suspend it, not even to attend his parents’ funeral (Lv 21:12). The priests were
holy (‫ קדֹוׁשים‬qǝḏôš∙îm andִ‫ קֹדׁש‬qóḏeš Lv 21:6-8; Nu 16:6-7).
The expression of 1Ch 23:13, ‫ להקדיׁשֹו קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬lǝ∙haqdîšô qóḏeš qåḏåšîm
though according to the Vulgate, many understood it as related to the most holy
place of the sanctuary, or the most holy things, it is still arguable to refer Aaron
himself, as many translators understood,197 that Aaron and his descendants have
been “consecrated to be most holy”.
The Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts use the expression qóḏeš qåḏåšîm
(most holy) in many different ways compared to the Biblical usage. They speak
about most holy spirit(s),198 the most holy apartment or sanctuary,199 the most

192
E.g. VUL (et unguatur sanctus sanctorum); TOB (pour oindre un Saint des Saints); NET (to anoint a
most holy place), NKJ (and to anoint the Most Holy).
193
“Moses… anointed the tabernacle and all that is in it, and sanctified them... he anointed it, and
sanctified it, including all its utensils, the altar, and all its utensils, he anointed them, and sanctified
them; ... and shall anoint it, to consecrate it. You shall also anoint the altar of burnt offering and all its
utensils, and consecrate the altar, so that the altar shall be most holy.” (Ex 40:9.11, Lv 8: 10, cf. 11QT
35:8-9 Emphasis supplied).
194
E.g. the frankincense (Ex 30:36), the annual atonement made on the incense altar (Ex 30:10); all
kinds of sin offerings, sacred bread and grain offerings destined to priests (Lv 2:3,10; 6:9-10,18-22;
7:1-6; 10:12,17; 14:13; 21:22; 24:9; Nu 18:9-10; Ez 42:13; 44:13; Ezra 2:63; Ne 7:65; 2Ch 31:14)
various things consecrated to God (Lv 27:28).
195
Cf. Ex 26:33-34; Nu 4:4, 19; 1K 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; Ez 41:4; 1Ch 6:34; 2Ch 3:8, 10; 2Ch 4:22; 5:7.
196
Ex 28:41, 29:21.29-31, 30:30, 40:13, Lv 8:12.30, Nu 35:25.
197
See the Jewish modern translations CJB, JPS, TNK (“to be consecrated as most holy”), Schlachter
2000 (“daß er als hochheilig geheiligt würde”), various English translations BBE, NAB, NAS, NAU,
DBY; French NEG (“pour être sanctifié comme très saint”), Italian NRV (“per essere consacrato
come santissimo”), Romanian CNS (“să fie sfinţit ca prea sfânt”). The Hebrew syntax is difficult and
the meaning is ambiguous. Further research is necessary to identify the meaning intended by the
Biblical author.
198
E.g.ַ ‫( רוח ַקודש ַקודשים‬4Q403 f1ii:1; 4Q404 f5:1; 4Q405 f14_15i:2; f23ii:8; 11Q17 4:9);ַ ‫רוחי ַקודש‬
ַ ‫( קודשים‬4Q286 f2:5; 4Q287 f2:7; 4Q403 f1i:44; 4Q405 f6:5; f19:2); ‫( רוחי ַקורב ַקודש ַקודשים‬4Q405
f14_15i:4); ‫( רוחות קודשַקודשים‬4Q403 f1ii:7f; 4Q405 f20ii_22:10).
 58

holy sanctuary above200 and the most holy priestly community.201 An important
contextual detail that always triggered the translation “to annoint the Most Holy
one” is the occurrence of the title ‫יח‬
ִ ‫ מׁש‬mašîaḥ “the Anointed One”, given to kings
and priests, here appearing for the first time as a name, without definite article
(Da 9:25-26).
The most probable referent of the expression ‫ולמׁשֹח ִ ֹקדׁש ִקדׁשים‬
wǝ·li·mšōaḥ qóḏeš qåḏåš∙îm “and to annoint a most holy” of Da 9:24 is either a
new altar and sanctuary, or a new priestly order, or rather a new sanctuary and
priesthood system as a whole. The old tabernacle had been anointed to be “holy”,
and its altar even “most holy” (see fn 193).202
This anointing ceremony is described in the Bible as a unique event in the
history of Hebrew rituals. It was not repeated with every new structure of the
ceremonial system.203 This fact suggests that the anointing foreseen in Da 9:24
must be the inauguration of a completely new sanctuary, in a different way,
corresponding to a new covenant religion.
Since the starting point of the seventy weeks (490 years) is the year 457
BC, as we have shown, and consequently the last “week” of the period elapsed
between 27 and 34 AD, these figures fall roughly within the Messianic events of
the New Testament, and the most holy things to be anointed in this period could
not be a new temple on earth. In those times (years 27-34 AD), Jews were per-
fectly satisfied with the Herodian temple, which had to fall under the Roman
desolator in the year 70 AD, while the New Testament strongly emphasize the
reality of a heavenly temple, heavenly Jerusalem, heavenly Mount Zion, as

199
E.g. ‫( מעון ַקודש ַקודשים‬1QS 8:8; 4Q258 6:2); ‫ ?( מעוז ַקודש ַקודשים ַלאהרון‬4Q260 2:17); ַ‫מקדש ַקודש‬
‫( קודשיםַבדביריַמלך‬4Q405 f14_15i:7); ‫( גבוליַקודשַקודשים‬4Q403 f1ii:27). See also 1QS 10:4; 4Q256 9:1;
19:2; 4Q260 2:4 ַ‫ יוםַגדולַלקודשַקודשים‬.
200
E.g. 4Q403 f1i:41 ‫“ באלהַיהללוַכולַיסודיַקודשַקודשיםַעמודיַמשאַלזבולַרוםַרומיםַוכולַפנותַמבניתו‬by these, all
most holy foundations, sustaining pillars of palace of Most High, and all His building’s towers will
praise Him”; 4Q503 f15_16:2, 4-5 ‫“ קודשַקודשיםַבמרומים‬most holy place in heaven”.
201
4Q259 2:14 ‫ ;וסוד ַקדש ַקדשים ַלאהרון‬4Q400 f1i:12 ‫ ;קודש ַקודשים ַכוהני‬4Q400 f1ii:6 ‫;קדושי קודש ַקודשים‬
4Q401 f6:4-5 ‫ קודשַקודשים‬... ‫ ;שרי קודש‬1QS 9:6 ‫ ;קודשַקודשים‬1QSb 4:28 ‫)?( נזרַלקודשַקודשים‬.
202
An interesting OT typology, where God Himself or His Christ are the sanctuary, deserves further
study (Is 8:14; Jr 17:13; Ez 11:16). It occurs also in NT (Jn 2:21; Eph 2:20-21; Rv 21:22).
203
The custom of consecrating places or objects as sanctuaries by anointing is quite old (Gn 31:13).
There is ample evidence that Moses anointed the tabernacle with its sacred objects: the ark (Ex
30:26), the basin (Ex 40:11), all accessories (Lv 8:10; Nu 7:1), and especially the altar is repeatedly
spoken as anointed (Nu 7:10, 84, 88). Interestingly, the first and the second temple have not been
anointed, they only have been inaugurated by sacrifices or other ceremonies (‫ חנך‬ḥnk Ps 30:1; 1K
8:63; 2Ch 7:5; 15:8; Ezra 6:16-17; 1Mac 4:56; 2Mac 2:19; Jn 10:22), and thus consecrated or
reconsecrated (‫ קדש‬qdš, 2Ch 7:16; 29:5); or after some profanation, they have been cleansed (‫ טהר‬ṭhr,
2Ch 29:15; 2Mac 10:5). The ideal temple of Ezekiel did not have to include anointing ceremonies.
The consecration ceremonies had to be made by sacrifices (Ez 43:25-26). The priesthood of Aaron
and his sons has also been inaugurated by anointment, as part of the anointing ceremony of the
tabernacle (Ex 30:30; 40:13-15; Lv 8:10-12; Nu 35:25). It seems that their anointing was unique too,
since their descendants were to inherit the anointing by putting on the sacred garments that had been
anointed (Ex 29:29; 40:15). The only exception mentioned is the anointing of priest Zadok as high
priest, as a special case of reelection together with Solomon (1Ch 29:22).
 59

blessings of the new covenant, versus any other earthly sacred places (Jn 4:21-
26).204
As long as the old temple and its liturgy in Jerusalem were legitimate, a
heavenly new covenant sanctuary was not open yet (Heb 9:8). The Jerusalem
temple, as physical structure, was destroyed by the Roman legions in 70 AD, but
its legitimate ceremonial use ended 40 years before, with the unique Sacrifice of
the true Messiah.205 When Jesus, in the middle of the last prophetic “week” (Da
9:27), that is “after the sixty two weeks” (Da 9:26) became the true sacrifice of
the new covenant, by this He put an end to all sacrifices and offerings. That was a
legitimate end of the earthly sanctuary, because the sacrifice was its only raison
d’être. A new most holy altar was thus anointed, and no wonder that the New
Testament emphasizes the sacredness of this altar, related to the Christian
worship and communion, and to God’s Judgment.206
Thus, in contrast with the earthly sanctuary, whose function was
abolished by Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood in the year 31 AD, and which had
to be desolated in 70 AD (Da 9:26b, 27b), the prophetic expectation “to anoint a
most holy [sanctuary and priesthood]” was fulfilled by the inauguration of a new
way, a new priesthood, a new altar, a new sanctuary of a new covenant. This
most holy reality has its center in heaven, where God’s eternal sanctum endures,
but it has also universal and spiritual overtones that need further research.207
In the same manner, one may understand why the heavenly being, named
Michael (Da 10:13, 21; 12:1), is seen in vision as clothed in priestly linen
(Da 10:5; 12:6,7; cf. Rv 1:13-18), as a most holy pontiff, as if were prophetically
prepared to minister in the new and celestial “most holy” sanctuary.208 It is also
significant that the angel of prophecy (Gabriel) brought to Daniel this Messianic
revelation “at the time of the evening sacrifice”, which is the time where God
answered by fire to Elijah’s prayer (1K 18:36), and the time of the Jesus’ great
sacrifice (Lk 23:44-45).
While this prophecy in Da 9:24-27 calls the temple in Jerusalem ‫קדׁש‬
ִֹ qódeš
“holiness” or “holy place” (verse 26), it foresees the anointing of a “most holy
place” ‫ קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm (Da 9:20). The “holy one” is mentioned in a
context of destruction – or dispossession when Messiah the Ruler had to be “cut
off” (Da 9:26), while the “most holy one” is mentioned in a context of inaugura-
tion and making atonement for sins (verse 25). Chronologically both events are
somehow related to the last of the “seventy weeks” (after the 7+62 = 69 weeks).

204
Cf. AA 17:24; Heb 4:16; 6:19-20; 8:1-2,5; 9:1, 8, 11-12, 23-24; 10:19-20; Rv 3:12; 7:15; 11:19;
14:15, 17; 15:5-8; 16:1; 21:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Eph 2:11-12, 19; Phil 3:19-20; Heb 11:10, 16; 12:22;
13:13-14; Rev 11:1-2; 14:1; 21-22.
205
Cf. Mt 27:50-51; Mk 15:37-38; Lk 23:44-46; Mt 26:65; Mc 14:63.
206
Cf. Heb 10:10, 14; 13:10; 1Cor 11:29; Rv 6:9; 11:1.
207
See the typology of Christ, where the temple is His body (Jn 2:19-22 cf. Mk 14:58; 15:29; Mt 27:40,
63 cf. Is 8:14; Rv 21:22), or the typology of Paul and John, where the Church – the Christ’s body –is
God’s sanctuary, as a community (2Cor 6:16; 2Th 2:4?), and as personal believers (1Cor 3:16-17;
6:19-20). How these typological or illustrative usages may be connected to the heavenly reality is a
theological challenge to be answered.
208
This theme of a new and celestial sanctuary and priesthood is developed in the Christian theology,
especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7-10), and in the Book of Revelation (1:13-18; 5:6-9; 7:15;
8:2-6; 9:13; 11:1-4, 19; 13:6; 14:15, 17-18; 15:5-8; 16:1,7; 20:9; 21:3, 15-16 etc.).
 60

Concluding, the expression ‫ למׁשֹח ִקֹדׁש קדׁשים‬limšōaḥ qóḏeš qåḏåšîm “to

annoint a most holy sanctuary and priesthood” of Da 9:24 refers to a different
sanctuary and priesthood of the new covenant, that had to be anointed or
inaugurated by the Messianic events of the years 27-31 AD, when atonement for
any guilt was made, and the eternal righteousness have been brought. “The
rebellion” was thus confined and sealed for the Judgment day, and God’s Word
sent by prophets has been confirmed.

1.15. Da 9:25: “From the issuing of the decree to restore…”

Our historical use of the Artaxerxes’ decree (in his seventh regnal year, cf.
Ezra 7), as the starting point of the seventy weeks, is the only reliable and re-
spectable solution.209 However, there are some secondary aspects to discuss, as
regards the apocalyptic chronology of Daniel 8 and 9.
The Ezra’s journey extended from Nisan 1 to Ab 1 (approx. April to Au-
gust) in the year 457 BC.210 He had received the imperial letter before Nisan 1,
457 BC (Ezra 7:8 etc.). But which is the starting point of the count? Should we
start from the official proclamation of the imperial decree of civil restoration in
Judea (in the fall of 457 BC),211or from the very date of issuing of the decree (in
the spring of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Ezra 7:9), as the termִ ‫ מֹצא‬mōṣå’
“issue” seems to imply? Or should we emend the Masoretic nounִ ‫ מֹצא‬mōṣå’
“issue”, in order to read instead an infinitive construct ‫ מצ ֹא‬mǝṣō’, “reach”, “find”
(as the Aramaic correspondent verb ‫ מטא‬mǝṭå’ “arrive at”, “come”, suggests)? Or
does the verb ‫ יצא‬yåṣå’ support the meaning “to come to”, “arrive at”? 212 Is it

209
Other suggestions have been the decrees of Cyrus (538 BC, cf. Ezra 1) and Darius (519 BC, Ezra 6),
but they dealt only with the temple, with no respect to any large civil reconstruction. The prophetical
periods counted therefrom had no historical fulfillment in their closing prophetic “week” (55-48 BC
and respectively 36-29 BC). Similarly, the word of God to Jeremiah (605 BC, Jr 25:1,11) cannot be
the starting point of the 70 weeks, since it leads to the “week” 122-115 BC, with no historical rele-
vance for the prophecy. Many exegetes today prefer the date of 444 BC (cf. Ne 2:1,7), because the
special permission granted then by Artaxerxes dealt explicitly with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as the
Daniel’s prophecy requires. However, this permission did not inaugurate the Jerusalem reconstruc-
tion, but allowed the Jews to repair some recent violent destructions (cf. Nehemiah 1), while the work
of rebuilding had been started years before and then violently stopped (Ezra 4:11-23).
210
William Shea (“The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” in 70 weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, F. B.
Hollbrook editor, BRI, Washington DC, 1986:100-101), pointed out that “… the seventh regnal year
of Artaxerxes I extended from Nisan (month I) in the spring of 458 B. C. to Adar (month XII) in the
spring of 457 B.C.” So, why should we start counting the 490 years from the fall of 457 BC, if the
seventh year of Artaxerxes ended with Nisan 1 457 BC? Shea answered this question, convincingly
arguing that Jews used a fall-to-fall calendar. Accordingly, the seventh year of Artaxerxes I in Jewish
style extended from the fall of 458 BC to the fall of 457 BC.
211
The caravan of Ezra arrived in the fifth month (Ezra 7:9), but the first opportunity to make known
the imperial decree came naturally with the pilgrimage feast in the seventh month, when Jews came to
Jerusalem.
212
Actually, the spelling ‫ מ ָֹּצא‬instead of ‫מֹוצַָא‬
ַֹּ is very rare just 3 occurrences (Ps 107:33, 35; Job 38:27)
from the total 27, and therefore suspect. In fact, OG translators read it as ‫ ְמצֹּא‬mǝṣō’, “find”
(εὑρήσεις Da 9:25), while Theodotion has ἀπὸ ἐξόδου λόγου, followed by Jerome, ab exitu sermonis
(“from the issue of the word”). The noun ‫ ָד ָבר‬dåḇår “word”, “message”, “command” sometimes
associates with the verb ‫“ ָמצַָא‬to find” or “reach” in Jr 15:16 (crrpt ?), Ec 12:10 (“find the words”), Ne
5:8 (“find something”). However, the expression ַ ‫ יָ ָצא ָד ָבר‬yåṣå’ dåḇår is very usual (‫“ ָיָצא ַה ָד ָבר‬the
thing proceeded”, “the fact originated” Gn 24:50; ‫הֹוציא ָד ָבר‬ ִ ‫“ ְל‬to pronounce a word [of promise, vote]”
 61

really necessary such precision? If it is, then we must have a satisfactory answer
to this question.
Another problem to be solved is the historical evidence from the book of
Ezra and Nehemiah about the real time of the city’s reconstruction. As we know,
the Artaxerxes’ permission in his 20th regnal year, granted to Nehemiah (see Ne
2:6), did not inaugurate the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but allowed the Jews to
repair the city wall, after some recent violent destructions (cf. Ne 1:2-4), that
must have been the attack reported in Ezra 4:23. Thus it becomes clear that the
work of rebuilding had been started years before and then violently stopped
(Ezra 4:11-23).
This observation about the building of the city in Ezra 4, introduced by
William Shea and others, is very important to our present identification of the
intended decree in Daniel 9:25,213 although U Smith ignored the historical time of
rebuilding Jerusalem in Ezra 4,214 and E G White probably following other theo-
logical authorities, borrowed a wrong identity of Xerxes and Artaxerxes in Ezra
4, and wrote passingly about a rebuilding of the city under the false Smerdis (522
BC).215
However, our better explanation has a textual problem. The Aramaic ad-
verbial ‫ באדין‬bēḏáyin “then” (at that moment) introducing the closing verse of
Ezra 4:24 creates a logical contradiction: “Then [when the enemies violently
stopped the building of the city] ceased the work of the house of God which is at
Jerusalem; and it remain at a standstill until the second year of the reign of
Darius king of Persia” (Emphasis supplied). The very conclusion of a chronicle
that had described the building of the city finally refers to the temple only!
Since it is obvious that Ezra began and ended chapter 4 with the building
of the temple, but in most of the chapter deals only with the rebuilding of the
city, and the names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes require a normal historical identi-
ty (Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I), the literary strategy of Ezra becomes evident. He
added a long excursus about some later but similar events related to the rebuild-
ing of the city under Artaxerxes, just for thematic purposes, and in the last verse
he resumed his topic about the temple building that will be further described in
chapter 5. This is the logic required by the narrative. But to remove any objec-

Ec 5:1; ‫“ יֵ ֵצא ְד ַבר־‬spread the word” Est 1:17; “give an imperial order” Est 1:19) with the accepted
meaning of “issue a message / order”. And most important, it is so used in the context, see
Da 9:23 (‫“ יָ ָצא ָד ָבר‬an order / message was given”). The probability that in verse 25 there is a similar
expression is so high, and therefore we should explain why we read “going out” and then count as it
were “going in”.
213
William Shea (“The Prophecy of Daniel 9…”, pp 86-88) convincingly argued for this understand-
ing.
214
See Uriah Smith (Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, Review and Herald, Battle Creek,
Michigan, 1863), Chapter IX: A Prophetic Yard to Span Centuries”.
215
Ellen White (Prophets and Kings, Review and Herald, Pacific Press, 1915,: 572-573) refers to the
City’s rebuilding in the time of the false Smerdis, since she identified the successive kings Ahasuerus
and Atarxerxes in Ezra 4:5-6, with Cambyses (son of Cyrus) and the false Smerdis. Certainly Ellen
White borrowed such historical identification from some old authorities (E.g. Gleig and Thomas
Stackhouse, History of the Holy Bible, vol. II, London, 1817: 538-529, on books.google; SDA Bible
Commentary vol 3, Additional Note to Ezra 4).
 62

tion, a slight textual corruption must be acknowledged and corrected, regarding

the adverbial expression ‫ באדין‬bēḏáyin “then” in Ezra 4:24.
The Greek translation of Ezra 4:24 uses the adverb τότε “then”. But the
apocryphal 1Esdras (or 3 Esdras), describing the same events as Ezra 4, in
chapter 2:26 (or verse 30/31 in some editions), has instead the conjunction καὶ,
probably reflecting the Hebrew-Aramaic particle ִ‫ ו‬wǝ, which may introduce
another topic (cf. Ezra 6:14-16). Another possible explanation is that the adver-
bial ‫ באדין‬bēḏáyin was not mistakenly inserted instead of an original ‫ ִו‬wǝ, but it
may have been a visual confusion, since letters ‫ ב‬beth and ‫ כ‬kaph have been
sometimes confounded by the copyists. Thus, if we read ‫ ִכִאדין‬kēḏáyin or ‫כִדין‬
kəḏēyn, the adverbial expression would mean “like then” or “likewise”, and it
would be justfied in verse Ezra 4:24 to indicate the resuming of the temple’s
topic.
The decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes (457 BC), while does not ex-
plicitly refer to civil reconstruction, it allows and even implies it. Ezra had to
“seek for the welfare of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:14);
“do whatever seems best [….] with the rest of the silver and gold…” (Ez-
ra 7:18),
“appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice” (Ezra 7:25).
Concluding, the Persian decree of 457 BC was the most liberal Persian de-
cree, and the first one that was followed by civil reconstruction, as the prophecy
of Daniel requires.

1.16. Da 9:25: “to Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks”?

This is a good example to illustrate how we should not consider the Maso-
retic Text the best choice in every case. This problem of punctuation has a major
exegetical role in the chronology of this prophecy. Unfortunately, some transla-
tions follow closely the MT,216 so the reckoning ends far short to the time of the
true Messiah. The athnakh was put in the wrong place.217 While there are similar
cases of wrong athnakh in MT, some of them even dividing compound numer-
als,218 this case in Da 9:25 must have been traditional and intentional, since it
occurs even in the Qumran texts, long before the Judeo-Christian polemics.219

216
E.g. LUT, RSV, NRS, LSG, ELB, TEV, CJB, JPS, TNK, CNS etc. insert a period or a semicolon
after the “seven weeks.”
217
Jacques Doukhan (Secrets of Daniel, 146-147) found nice explanation why athnakh has not
syntactical function sometimes, but a role of mystical or emotional emphasis on the content. While his
well exemplified explanations sound convincing, there are cases where the athnakh is not justified, or
at least it is not wise that Masoretes used the same accent for different, even opposite purposes.
218
See also in Gn 3:3. Brempong Owusu-Antwi (The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27, ATS Dissertation Series 2,
Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 1995: 186-196) has a convincing treatment of this challeng-
ing athnakh. He adds examples of wrong athnakh in Gn 1:1.21, 22:10, 1K 8:42, Da 9:2. In some places, the
athnakh was placed as in Da 9:25, in the middle of an enumeration: 70 talents [athnach] and 2400 shekels (Ex
38:29), …the sons of Benjamin: …..Rosh [athnach] and Muppim… .(Gn 46:21), and they were a total number of
603,000 [athnach] and 550 (Nu 1:46). In the light of such evidence it is amazing that, eminent scholars, like J J
Collins (Daniel, Hermeneia series, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993:355), assert with so certainty: “There can
be no doubt that the MT punctuation is correct”. Some critics are ready to delete or emend a whole phrase, if they
 63

The non-Masoretic readings obviously fit better the context in this case,
for example Theodotion’s: “there will be seven weeks and sixty two weeks”,
which various translators, ancient and modern, followed.220 Such translations
(see also Aquilas and Origen in Da 9:26, “and after the seven-and-sixty-two
weeks”) witness probably another old Jewish reading, before the Masoretic
punctuation.221
The Masoretic punctuation gives us an understanding of the medieval
Jewish interpretation of the text, but it has not the same value as the inherited
consonantal text. We should understand for ourselves the best punctuation and
even vocalization from the sentence’s syntax and logic. In this case, we should
observe, for example, that the death of Messiah is placed by the Gabriel’s prophe-
cy, “after the sixty two weeks” (Da 9:26), therefore we should translate in verse
25, “to Messiah, the Ruler, there will be seven plus sixty two weeks”.222

1.17. Da 9:24-27 “week” (sabbatical septenate), “7 weeks” (jubillee)

In confirmation of the year 457 BC as the starting point of the seventy
weeks, it is useful to note that the civil and forensic restoration, begun at that
time by Artaxerxes and Ezra, involved the restoration of the sabbatical cycle,
bringing freedom and rest.223 This historical fact allows us to connect the sabbat-
ical years cycle with the chronomessianism in Daniel 9.
Various scolars noted that “the Sabbatical post-exilic cycle is congruent
mathematically with the classical chronology of the 70 weeks, thus suggesting
that the ‘seventy weeks’ began with a restart of the sabbatical cycle, involving

want, but here they are found kneeling to the sacred athnach (!), just because it is was prefered by the Rabbis,
and it avoids the classical Christian conclusion.
219
The Melchizedec MS of Qumran (11Q13 2:18-20) reads explicitly, “to Messiah the Prince, seven weeks”:
ַ‫טֹוב ַמשמי]ע ַישועה[ הואה‬
֗ [‫ ומבשר‬. ‫משיח ַהרֹו]ח[ ַ ֗כאשר ַאמר ַד ַֹּנ]יאל ַעליו ַעד ַמשיח ַנגיד ַשבועים ַשבעה‬
ַ֗ [‫והמבשר ַהו]אה‬
‫תובַעליוַאשרַלנח]ם[ַה]אבלים‬
ַ֗ ‫הכ‬
֗
“That herald is the Spirit Annointed One, as Daniel said: ‘to Messiah the Prince, seven weeks’, then a good herald,
proclaiming salvation, that one who was written about him, ‘to comfort the mourning ones’.”
220
E.g. VUL, KJV, NKJ, YLT, NEG, NAB, WEB, ASV, NAS, DRB, NIV, NJB, NET, Schlachter,
Menge, GBV Romanian.
221
Origen’s Hexapla (F Field, editor. Origenis Hexapla, II, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung,
Hildesheim 1964:926) quotes the reading of OG and A (Aquilas) and Σ (Symmachus) in Dan 9:26a,
καὶ μετὰ τὰς ἑπτὰ καὶ ἑβδομάδας (or τὰς ἑβδομάδας τὰς ἑπτὰ) καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο. Even in
OG, the corrupted text reminds us the reading of A and Σ (καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ {καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα} καὶ
ἑξήκοντα δύο).
222
The whole period of the seventy weeks is obviously divided in 7+62+1 weeks. The first seven
weeks are not assigned a special event, because such a period had a legal end in the 50 th year, the
jubilee (Lv 25:8-55), in close thematic relationship to our text. Moreover, it seems to be in parallel
with the previous assertion, to make the first seven weeks apply to the political and physical restora-
tion of Jerusalem:
A to restore and rebuild Jerusalem B to Messiah, the Ruler
A1 there will be seven weeks B1 and sixty-two weeks

223
See Ne 10:31, cf. Ex 21:2; Dt 15:9, 12; Lv 25:1-7.
 64

civil restoration.”224 The following years are historically claimed to have been
sabbatical:
Septenates from
Year References
457 BC (- 456)
457 BC* Restart Ezra 7 (Decree of Artaxerxes I, full civil restoration).
408 BC* 7×7 Daniel 9:25; Ezra-Nehemiah. First jubilee of the Restoration.
135 BC 46 ×7 1 Mac 16:14-16; Josephus, Ant., XIII, 8:1; Wars I, 2:4
37 BC 60 ×7 Josephus, Ant., XIV., xvi. 2; XV., i. 2; War, I., ii.4; Philo, in Eusebius,
Praeparatio evangelica, vii; Tacitus, Hist.., v. 4;
En.Wikipedia, Historical Sabbatical Years.
AD 27 * 62×7 Luke 3:1, 21, 23; Matthew 2; John 2:20;
AD 34 * 70×7 AA 7-9; 15:1; 18:12 (Gallio, 51/52 AD); Gal 1:13-24; 2:1.
AD 41 71×7 cf. K F Doig, New Testament Chronology, Chapter 25-26, Lewiston,
NY, Edwin Mellen Press,1990, www.doig.net/NTC25.htm
AD 48 72×7 E Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1971 (Introduction)
AD 55 73×7 cf. K F Doig, New Testament Chronology, Chapter 25-26, Lewiston,
NY, Edwin Mellen Press, 1990, www.doig.net/NTC26.htm
AD 69 75×7 En.Wikipedia, Historical Sabbatical Years
1553 287×7 www.jewishencyclopedia.com, “Sabbatical Year and Jubilee”
1889 335×7 En.Wikipedia, Shmita
1952 344×7 En.Wikipedia, Shmita
2008 352×7 En.Wikipedia, Shmita

The dates with asterisk are those involved in the prophecy of Daniel. It is
instructive that these Sabbatical years are compatible with the historicist chro-
nomessianic counting of the 70 weeks from 457 BC. If we wish to verify, we must
first count the time lapse between any of the chronological dates of the 70 weeks
(457 BC, 408 BC, AD 27, AD 34), and the date of the sabbatical year we know as
attested by history, and then we must divide the result by seven. If the final
result is an integer number, it means we have an integral number of weeks of
years between the two selected dates.225 We illustrated such verification on the
second column, counting the time lapsed for each historical sabbatical year, from
457 BC, the starting point of the 70 weeks. In all cases I have found integer
numbers of septenates.

224
Owusu-Antwi (op. cit. 299). Earlier researches on the topic did: Benedict Zuckermann (Treatise on
the Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee, trans. A Löwy; New York: Hermon, 1974:31; originally
published in German, Breslau, 1857) insisted that for the postexilic Sabbatical years "it is necessary to
assume the commencement of a new starting-point, since the laws of Sabbatical years and Jubilees
fell into disuse during the Babylonian captivity..." cf. En.Wikipedia, Historical Sabbatical Years. See
also, Ben Zion Wacholder, "The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the
Early Rabbinic Period," Hebrew Union College Annual (HUCA) 44 (1973) 53-196; "Chronomessian-
ism: The Timing of Messianic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles," HUCA 46 (1975)
201-218; "The Calendar of Sabbath Years during the Second Temple Era: A Response," HUCA 54
(1983) 123-133. Heinrich Guggenheimer, Seder Olam - The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronolo-
gy (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005) 264. See also Bob Pickle, “Daniel 9’s Seventy Weeks
and the Sabbatical Cycle”, 2007 www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm .
225
There is still room for scholars to debate one year difference, concerning the exact dates of these
sabbatical years; therefore I specified two successive dates as possible. There is also the need to
harmonize the Jewish and Julian-Gregorian calendars.
 65

This mathematical harmony between the history of the Jews and the
chronomesianic prophecy of Daniel 9 is a fascinating confirmation of the Advent-
ist interpretation of Daniel 9, and I must thank Dr William Shea for disclosing
this “secret” to me.

1.18. Da 9:25 “seven weeks” – up to what event ?

Our earlier expositors of prophecy, authors or preachers, used to affirm

that the year 408 BC, marking the end of the first seven of the 70 weeks of Daniel
9:24, was the historical date of completing the building of Jerusalem.226
William Shea227 has shown that the year 408 BC is not Biblically or histor-
ically attested as the date of completing the reconstruction of Jerusalem. The
period of 70 year-weeks of Daniel 9 is divided into 7+62+1 weeks for didactical
purposes.
The first 7 weeks are counted separately as they make up together a
whole jubilee. Thus the celestial messenger wanted to indicate that the restora-
tion envisaged in the prophecy involved a full social application of the Torah in
the civil life of the Jews. The jubilee system had to be restored, and this fact
typologically proclaimed and emphasized the importance of the 70 weeks as a
superjubilee up to Messiah the Ruler. Thus it is not necessary to find an historical
event for the year 408-407 BC (49-50 years after 457 BC). A jubilee, and especial-
ly the first postexilic jubilee, was itself an event; and it’s a pity that jubilees were
so seldom observed, as no historical example has been found in the postexilic
period.228
This first postexilic jubilee of the Restoration included religious revival
and reforms, spiritual and civil (socio-economic) mentioned in the later Biblical
books. According to the best conservative position (3SDABC), the last “Old
Testament” writings appeared a few time before 400 BC, in the time of Darius II
(424-404 BC), as it is attested in Ne 12:22.

1.19. Da 8:14; 9:25 —< Tishri 10, 5605 = exactly October 22, 1844 ?

The Millerite interpretation and experience bequeathed to Adventists the

exact end of the 2300 “days” in Da 8:14, that is October 22, 1844. It is under-
standable that such a precision, even to the day, was necessary for a movement
that was waiting for the Second Coming of Jesus. As the glorious year ap-
proached, more precise detection of the date was necessary – for practical
purposes and not only.

226
See also Owusu-Antwi (op. cit. 304).
227
William Shea (The Prophecy of Daniel 9…, pp. 91, 105).
228
For the pre-exilic times only, as a matter of probability, the following dates have been proposed:
623/622 BC (2K 23:1-2; Seder Olam 24); 574/573 BC (Ez 40:1), cf. En.Wkipedia, Jubilee_(biblical).
Preexilic sabbatical years have been also counted for the following dates: 868/867 (2Ch 17:7-9);
700/699 (2K 19:29; Is 37:30); 588/587 (Tosefta, Taanit 3:9; Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4:5; Babylo-
nian Talmud, Arakin 11b, Arakin 12a, Ta'anit 29a), cf. En.Wikipedia, Historical Sabbatical Years.
 66

In July 1844, after the first disappointed caused by Miller’s first Midnight
Cry that indicated the year between the spring 1843 and the spring 1844, as the
end of the 2300 years, the Millerite Samuel Snow229 extended the period of
expectation to the next great Adventist time, October 22, 1844. There is nothing
wrong in searching for better and more precise evidence and results. For all
practical purposes, Snow’s arguments worked, and even W Miller and J Himes
finally rallied to the new tide. The only question to be raised is about the sound-
ness of Snow’s exegetical arguments.
The Millerites’ appetite for exact eschatological chronology may be seen
in their exegesis of Revelation 9, wherefrom they inferred not only the exact time
of the fall of the Ottoman Empire (August 11, 1840), but at the same day, the
“close of probation”, or “the shut door”.230 Consistently developping the typology
and chronology of Miller, S Snow promoted his own version of the date of Advent
(October 22) on the following well-known premises:
If the 2300 years started in the fall of 457 BC, therefore they cannot end
before the fall of 1844.
If the Jewish spring festivals met their exact fulfillment at Jesus’ first com-
ing, the fall festivals must also meet their exact fulfillment at the corre-
spondent Jewish day in the fall of 1844.
If the Parable of the Ten Virgins has time references (“tarrying”, “falling
asleep”, “midnight”), they must apply to the Adventist experience, since
they predicted, if interpreted on the basis of the year-day principle, the
exact date of the Bridegroom’s coming.
If only the Karaite Jews preserved the original manner of calendar reck-
oning, their
Now, this Samuel Snow was one of the greatest theological intellects of
the Advent Movement. He had been a journalist and a fervent atheist until 1839,
when he converted through a pamphlet of Miller. He anticipated some beautiful
specific Adventist eschatologic interpretations that still stand. However, his
arguments for the eschaton at October 22, 1844 are at least disputable.
I have shown above (1.15) that the exact beginning of the 490 years is not
yet certainly established. The spring festivals have been fulfilled in the Messianic
events of AD 30/31, but the “exact” coincidence is disputable, since there is a
difference between the calendric expressions of John versus Synoptics. If Snow
was right about the exact time of Tishri 10 (Day of Atonement) for the year 1844,
why did he not explain first the feast of Tishri 1 (Trumpets, New Year)? And if
days indiscriminately must be understood as years, what eschatologic meaning
had the ten days between Tishri 1 and Tishri 10, and then the five days to Tishri
15 (Sukkoth)?
And finally, why was so important the Karaite reckoning, as the Jewish
calendar would be so necessary to God’s plan, that He cannot move one day back

229
See the series of articles in Lest We Forget, Adventist Pioneer Library, Volume 3, Number 2,
Second Quarter, 1993; online issue www.aplib.org/LWFV3N2.pdf .
230
Cf. P G Damsteegt, “Historical Background”, in F B Holbrook, The Doctrine of the Sanctuary, BRI,
Silver Springs, MD, 1989:15.
 67

or forth? The ancient Jewish calendar was not fix; priests had authority to adjust
days and months, to approximate and maintain a proper connection between
their religious lunar calendar and the solar year. God Himself allowed the Passo-
ver feast to be observed by some people one month later, at the same date. There
were even historical exceptions.
It is significant that, at the present time, the Karaite Jewish authorities
seem to deny that Yom Kippur fell on October 22 in 1844. They claim that in
1844 this feast fell on September 23, not at variance with the common rabbinic
calendar.231
Even though the Jewish theocracy had extended in parallel with the Chris-
tian dispensation, the Jewish Community for practical reasons could not have a
global and uniform calendar in 1800s, according to the Mosaic Law. Suppose all
of them could have quick info about the barley crop in Palestine, their calendar
and feasts lacked any religious import, for the following reasons:
because there was no Biblical provision for them in absence of the tem-
ple (Dt 16:2, 5-6; Lv 16:20), and there is no information that the Jews
observed their feasts in the exile;
because in the post-Jewish dispensation calendric feasts are no longer
binding (Rom 14:16; Col 2:16-17; Gal 4:10), so why their precise obser-
vation should be binding for a God guided countdown?
because the Rabbinic established calendar was at least as equal legiti-
mate as the Karaite obsolete system, in spite of the Karaite superior re-
spect for the Bible alone;
because God had left to the priests the last word in proclaiming a new
moon;
because Jesus, by His example observed the Passover on Thursday, Ni-
san 14 (according to Synoptics, Mt 26:17; Mk 14:14; Lk 27:7-15), at the
Last Supper, and He was sacrificed the next day, which for the priests
(John 18:28) was the true Nisan 14.
Actually God could choose any time at the end of the 2300 apocalyptic
days, to begin the premillenial judgment. He could choose the fall of 1843, the
spring of 1844, as Millerites had expected. He could choose the Jewish Orthodox
calendar, the Karaite calendar, the calendar of the Pharisees or of the Sadducees,
the Samaritan or the Essene calendar. So why He could not choose October 22,
for that purpose? He certainly could, but if He did so, it was only for the Miller-
ites’ sake, not as a reward for their rigorous theological research.
William Shea recounted the end of the 2300 years on calendric and astro-
nomic bases, and thus reached to October 20, with a difference of only two

231
A simple search on Google retrieves many webpages arguing that the Karaite calendar system is not
necessary better than the rabbinic one (www.abcog.org/saadia.htm), or that Tishri 10, in 1844 fell in
September, according to the Karaite use. This objection may be refuted; see, for example, the com-
ments of Bob Pickle (“The Millerite Movement” in A Response to the Video…, Pickle Publishing,
2005 www.pickle-publishing.com). While I am not prepared to find the best calendrical date for the
Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844, I am nevertheless convinced that it is not necessary.
 68

days.232 He is probably right as regards the date when Yom Kippur fell in the year
1844, but the main problem is that Da 8:14 contains nothing to encourage this
search for precision, no reference to the Day of Atonement, and no suggestion
that the end of the 2300 years must be calculated to the very day of month.
While we should maintain our admiration for the Millerite Movement, for
their spiritual experience and even for their theology, I believe that our apologet-
ic demarche should leave aside all those fantastic and pious Millerite niceties
that cannot support a close examination. They are part of our original theological
amateurism. We had a love story with this kind of fundamentalistic romanticism;
we cannot and should not call them heresy, but we probably need to simply
dismiss them as serious theology.

1.20. Da 9:25: ‫ ָחרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ = “moat”, “trench” or “decision-making” ?

The noun ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Da 9:25 is usually counted as a Biblical hapax. In

spite of the frequent use of the word ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Biblical Hebrew, with various
grammatical and semantic values, 233 most of them do not fit the context in Da
9:25. The Old Versions reflect this difficulty. OG rendered ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Da 9:25
as μῆκος “length” < ‫‘ ארך‬óreḳ. Theodotion translated by τεῖχος “wall” < ‫ חיץ‬ḥáyiṣ
(Ez 13:10), followed by Jerome. Others have read it ‫“ חּוץ‬street” (cf. Jr 5:1; 9:20),
while lexicons prefer to keep the reading ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ, ascribing to it the meaning
of “moat”, “trench” or similar works, as as “rampart” (JB, NJB), or “conduit” (NEB,
REB). However, the lexicons’ preference is not based on proper Hebrew evi-
dence. It is only inferred from the similarity of the Akk. ḫariṣu > JAram. ‫ חריץ‬,
‫ > חֲריצא‬QH, RH ‫חריץ‬.234 And there are important objections against this solution,
for many reasons:
Phonetically, ‫ חריץ‬ḥårîṣ is different from ḥårûṣ, except one suspects a
textual corruption (‫ י‬and ‫ ו‬are often confused).
The noun ḥårîṣ looks like an Akkadian-Aramaic loanword in Late He-
brew, while the noun ḥårûṣ has a Biblical Hebrew form and it may be
explained as a Biblical Hebrew noun, not necessarily an evolved form or
byform of ḥårîṣ.
Since the Old Versions show so divergent translations of ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ, it is
probably an old and infrequent Hebrew term, which they could not un-
derstand; not a late loanword that was already common when the Old
Versions appeared.
Archeology should tell us whether the postexilic Jerusalem was clearly
represented by moats or ramparts.

232
W H Shea Selected Studies… , 137.
233
As a noun, ‫ ָחרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ, (of the root ‫ חרץ‬ḥrṣ “to cut” – cf. the related roots ‫חרט‬, ‫חרת‬, ‫חרש‬, ‫)כרת‬, may
refer to gold (in poetry, e.g. Pr 3:14), a threshing sledge (e.g. Am 1:3), sort of mutilation (Lv 22:22),
decision or verdict (Jl 4:14). As an adjective or passive verb, or adjectival noun ‫ ָחרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ means
sharp, “clear-cut”, decided (e.g. Is 10:22), diligent (e.g. Pr 10:4) etc.
234
Cf. 3QTr 5:8 (Clines 132) and Jastrow 502.
 69

While moats, trenches, ramparts or conduits are commonly related to

old cities, they are neither the most representative element of a city, nor
they are so close associated with the city square (plaza) as the context
requires in Da 9:25.
Owusu-Antwi, has found an ingenious and original solution, based only
on the plain Hebrew text and its context.235 He noted that the associated
noun ‫ רחֹוב‬rǝḥôḇ “city square” or “plaza”236 is the Hebrew equivalent of
the forum (agora), the marketplace and public square of the city, place of
assembly and center of judicial and business affairs.237 Then he observed
that the only meaning of ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Biblical Hebrew that fits the
association with ‫ רחֹוב‬rǝḥôḇ is the meaning attested in Joel 3/4:14,
where the court (martial) of Yahweh is in ‫‘ עמקִהחרּוץ‬ēmeq he·ḥårûṣ “the
valley of judgment/decision”,238 called above “the valley of Jehoshaphat”
(Yahweh has judged) in verse 12, thus emphasizing the idea of court.
This meaning is more natural in Biblical Hebrew, since the rootִ‫ חרץ‬ḥrṣ
is frequently used with the meaning to decide, to determine (Is 10:22.23,
28:22, 1 K 20:40, Job 14:15). The presence of this root in Daniel (9:26;
11:36), with the same meaning, confirms this translation.
Concluding, the syndetic construction ‫ רחֹוב וחרּוץ‬rǝḥôḇ wǝ·ḥårûṣ forms a
hendiadys with the meaning “city square for court decisions”, a powerful symbol
of a full civil restoration, based on the application of the Torah (cf. Ne 8:1-4).239
This emphasis is important in translation and exegesis, because it stresses the
connection between the prophecy of Da 9: 25 and Ezra 7:25, and provides the
concept of Sanhedrin, even in Jerusalem, where the true Messiah were to be
condemned.

1.21. Da 9:26: The direct object of ‫ וְ ֵאיןַלֹו‬wǝ·ên lô “He will not have”

The MT defective reading ‫ ואיןִלֹו‬wǝ·ên lô “and He will not have...” is a pro-

blem of translation that should be solved. The difficulty is probably due to the
Masoretic athnakh placed under the word ‫ לֹו‬lô “to Him”, “for Him”, “He has (or
will have)”, compelling the translator to place a semicolon or a period. Since I
argued against the tyranny of the Masoretic punctuation at the section 1.18, here
I will supply a new proof that sometimes we may expect better traslations, if the

235
Brempong Owusu-Antwi The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27, ATS Publications, Berrien Springs,
MI, 1995: 149-150.
236
See Dt 13:17/16, 2Ch 29:4, 32:6, Ne 8:1. He quotes J A Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book of Daniel. ed. S. R. Driver etc., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927:380)
saying: “By…’broadway, plaza,’ are meant the broad spaces, generally just inside the city gates, the
center of the city life, and by synecdoche standing for the city.”
237
See Is 59:14, Dt 16:18, 17:8, 2S 15:2, Jr 26:10, Am 5:15, Zc 8:16.
238
Cf. OG τῇ κοιλάδι τῆς δίκης “valley of the trial/judgment”; VUL valle concisionis “valley of
massacre”; TAR ַ‫וגַדינָ א‬
ִ ‫רַפ ֻל‬
ִ ‫יש‬ַ ‫“ ֵמ‬valley of judgment division”.
239
The verbal phrase ַ‫ ָתשּובַוְ נִ ְבנְ ָתה‬preceding the reference to “square” and “court” refers to restoration,
reverting in ownership (Ez 46:17, 1 K 12:26, 1Sam 7:14, Ez 35:9, Lv 27:24, Dt 28:31, cf. BDB 998,
7b) and physical rebuilding of the city, or to a figurative building work (Pr 14:1, “cause to flourish”
opp. 27:18), re-establish, make prosper (Jr 12:16, Mal 3:15, Job 22:23), make permanent (Ps 89:3, Pr
24:3).
 70

contextual syntax is studied, with not so much respect for the traditional
punctuation.
The traditional translations in this case could be defended on the
assumption that the object is implied (e.g. ‫ עֹוזר‬or something similar),240 or that a
textual corruption occured (‫ אין‬stands forַ ‫“ דַין‬judgment (condemnation)”, as
Theodotion supposed (καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ). But OG and Vulgate attest
the Massoretic text, and as we will see, it makes sense perfectly.
First, in nearly all instances this syntactic construction has explicit or im-
plicit direct object. In rare cases where it has no direct object, it means “he has
nothing”. Or in Da 9:26 there is no logical connection between the death of the
Messiah and the idea that He will have nothing. Nothingness is the part of all who
die; the statement has no place in a prophecy.
In this case I prefer the solution of C G Ozanne,241 who argues that the
unnatural clause ‫ ואין ִלֹו‬wǝ·ên lô (Da 9:26) must have its proper object in the
following wordsִ ‫ והעיר ִוהקֹדׁש‬wǝ·hå‘·‘îr wǝ·haq·qóḏeš “and*242 the city and the
sanctuary”. Ozanne maintains:
The Annointed, it seems, is viewed as the natural possessor of the city and the sanctuary,
and it is stated that he would die in possession of neither. Whether this is more applicable to
the Messiah or to Onias III the reader may judge.” 243

Thus we should translate “Messiah will be cut off, and neither the city, nor
the sanctuary will be His”, as YLT also suggests: “and the city and the holy place
are not his”. Since Messiah was expected as legitimate Ruler of both City and
Sanctuary, a King-Priest, even a divine figure (cf. Ps 110, Is 9:6), it is understand-
able that by applying to Him the death penalty (cf. Da 9:26 ‫יח‬ ִ ‫ יכרת ִמׁש‬yikkårēṯ
Måšî ḥ “Messiah will be put to death”), He was denied any Messianic right or
a

claim.244 The reading of Ozanne should be adopted, because it is simple and logic,
and because it satisfies the Hebrew syntax and the prophetic, theological, and
historical criteria. I am perfectly satisfied with this reading: “Messiah will be cut
off, having neither the city nor the sanctuary.”

1.22. Da 9:26: A new “coming ruler”, or the same as in verse 25 ?

In Da 9:25, Messiah appears as ‫ מִׁשיחִנגיד‬måšîaḥ nåḡîḏ. The lack of definite

article must not be interpreted as a reference to “an anointed one, a prince”, but

240
Cf. Ps 22:12, 72:12, Da 11:45, Lm 1:7, Ps 142:5, Is 63:5.
241
C G Ozanne, “Three textual problems in Daniel,” in Journal of Theological Studies, Ed. Chadwick,
Sparks; Oxford, Clarendon Press. 16, 1965: 446-447.
242
Regarding the waw inַ ‫ וְ ָה ִעיר‬wǝ·hå‘·‘îr, it is possible to be a dittography, that is an erroneous
repetition of the waw which is the suffix pronominal of the antecedent word ‫ לֹו‬lô. Thus an alternative
translation is, “and He will not have the city and the sanctuary”.
243
Ozanne seems to be ironical here, since Onias III was only a high priest with no aspiration to rule
over Jerusalem.
244
See also the expression ‫ַּוב ְניָ ִמן‬
ִ ‫הּודה‬ ִ ַ‫ ו‬with reference to the tribes that remained faithful to
ָ ְ‫יְהי־לֹו ַי‬
Roboam’sַthrone (2Ch 11:12).
 71

“Messiah, the Prince” or “Prince Messiah”, as titles and apellatives that some-
times replace names or become equivalent to names (proper nouns) often occur
in Biblical Hebrew.245 Especially in poetry such adjectives and nouns occur
without definite article, and this passage is generally acknowledged as poetry.

The nameִ ‫ מִׁשיח‬måšîaḥ appears a second time in verse 26, without article.
If it were “an anointed one”, when the word is first introduced in verse 25, then
certainly it must have definite article in verse 26 (‫יח‬
ִ ‫ הִמִׁש‬ham·måšîaḥ “the anoint-

ed one”). Since it is without article in both instances, it follows that this is the
first occurrence of the term with the late Jewish use in the Hebrew Bible, as
equivalent of a proper name: Messiah.

In Da 9:26, the two titlesִ ‫ מִׁשיח‬and ‫ נגיד‬are used in poetic parallel verses,
and William Shea246 has shown convincingly that the expression ‫‘ עםִנגידִהבא‬am
nåḡîḏ hab·bå’ should be translated as “the people of the Coming Prince”, that is
Messiah, who is announced as coming (verse 25) and put to death (verse 26):
25 ‫נָ ִגיד‬ ַ ַ ‫ ַ ָמ ִש‬A + B
‫יח‬
26a * ַ ַ ‫ ָמ ִש‬A
‫יח‬
26b ‫נָ ִגיד‬ * B

Considering the solution of Ozanne, which I have presented above, in the

previous section, coupled with this solution of Shea, the poetic structureִ of the
successive lines must be understood and translated as following.
But after the sixty two weeks, ‫ּושנַ יִ ם‬
ְ ‫ִש ִ ִּׁ֣שים‬ ַ‫יַה ָש ֻב ִע ֙ים‬
ַ ‫וְ ַא ֲח ֵ ֵ֤ר‬ 4=2+2 A

Messiah will be put to death, and the city

‫יח ַוְ ֵ ִּׁ֣איןַלֹו וְַ ָה ֙ ִעירַוְ ַה ֹּ֜קֹּ ֶדש‬
ַ ַ ‫יִ ָכ ֵ ֵ֥רתַ ָמ ִ ִׁ֖ש‬ 5=2+3 B
and the sanctuary will not be for Him.

The people of the Coming Prince will

become corrupt, and his end will be in a ‫ש ֶטף‬
ֶַ ‫ֹוַב‬
ַ ‫א וְ ִק ִּׁ֣צ‬
ַ֙ ‫ֵ֤ידַה ָב‬
ַ ‫יתַעִּׁ֣םַנָ ִג‬
ַ ‫ַי ְַ֠ש ִח‬ 5=3+2 B’
flood of armies,

245
Many translators did very well their job regarding Messiah: e.g. KJV, SCL, SVV, ASV, NIV, CSB,
DBY, DRA, ERV, GNV, GWN, NAS, NAU, NIRV, RWB, TNIV, TNK, WEB, YLT, NEG, NJB etc.
Many others did a superficial work in this case, or perhaps their interpretation led them to such
primitive solution, despite the obvious messianic context (see TOB, NET, NAB, BBE, CJB, NRS,
RSV, ELB etc.).
246
William Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” in 70 weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, F B
Hollbrook editor, Biblical Research Institute, Washington DC, 1986: 93.
 72

And to the end of war, desolation is allotted. ‫נֶ ֱח ֶ ִׁ֖ר ֶצתַש ֵֹּמ ֽמֹות‬ ‫ץַמ ְל ָח ָמה‬
ִ ‫ַק‬ִּׁ֣ ֵ ‫וְ ַע ֙ד‬ 4=2+2 A’

Thus the poetic lines have arranged to a chiastic structure AB::BA, accord-
ing to the number of accents and colons. Even some morphologic and syntactic
elements emphasize this structure. See, for example, the syntactical use of Waw,
introducing the clause in lines A and A’ (A ‫ וא ֲח ֵ֤רי‬A’ ‫ד‬ִ ‫ )וע‬while in the lines B and B’
it introduces the second clause (B ‫ ואֵ֣ין‬B’ ‫)וקצֵ֣ ֹו‬, and lines B and B’ are introduced
by two verbs at the imperfect: B ‫ יכ ֵ֥רת‬yikkårēṯ B’ ‫ יׁשחית‬yašḥîṯ.
The verb ‫ יׁשחית‬yašḥîṯ (or ‫שחִת‬ ִ ִ‫ י‬yiššåḥēṯ,247 cf. the Syriac, and thus perfectly
parallel to the verb ‫ יכ ֵ֥רת‬yikkårēṯ of the precedent line) has basically two possible
meanings: to destroy, or be destroyed, in a physical248 or moral sense (cor-
rupt).249 It is difficult to decide what is the intended meaning here, because in
Daniel it is used in the sense of “destroy” (8:24,25), but in 2 Ch 27:2 it is still used
in the sense of “become corrupt”, having the subject “people”. Both meanings
make sense in the context,250 but that of “become corrupt” or “pervert itself”
seems preferable.251 The subject of the sentence, “the people of the Coming
Ruler,” or the people of Messiah is the people who was waiting for Messia, or “the
people whose legitimate Ruler is Messiah.”252 The solution that I have chosen for
this verse cannot be dogmatic, but it has the advantage of satisfying more than
one syntactic and logical requirements. Some observations seem to be useful for
the theological message of the prophecy. The last two stanzas (verses 26-27)
have parallel thematic predictions, and even linguistic parallels (e.g. 26d || 27d).
A 26a Time (62 weeks) Time (1 week) 27a A’

247
The Niphal form ‫חת‬ ַָ ִַ‫ י‬yiššåḥēṯ is used rather in a passive-reflexive meaning: to become corrupt, to
ֵַ ‫ש‬
ruin or spoil itself (earth/land, creatures, objects, and works). See Gn 6:11-12; Ex 8:20; Jr 13:7; 18:4;
Ez 20:44. In the Niphal form, this verb does not longer occur in the postexilic Biblical books, in the
Qumran texts, or in the Rabbinic Hebrew.
248
See Gn 19:14 ‫ת־ה ִעיר‬ ָ ‫ַא‬ ְ ; Dt 9:26 ‫ל־ת ְש ֵחת ַע ְמָך‬
ֶ ‫מש ִחית ַיְ הוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ ; ַא‬2S 24:16 ‫ ; ַה ַמ ְש ִחית ָב ָעם‬Pr 11:9ַ ‫; י ְַש ִחת ֵַר ֵעהּו‬
2K 8:19; 2Ch 21:7 ‫ת־בית‬ ֵ ‫ ; ְל ַה ְש ִחית ֶא‬Is 14:20 ‫ת‬ ַָ ‫ ; ַא ְר ְצָך ִש ַח‬Jr 4:7 ‫ ; ַמ ְש ִחית ַגֹויִם‬36:29 ‫ַאת־‬
ַָ ְ‫ת ַע ְמָך ָה ָרג‬ ֶ ‫וְ ִה ְש ִחית‬
ַ‫ ; ָה ָא ֶרץ‬Da 8:24 ‫ם־קד ִֹּשים‬
ְ ‫צּומים וְ ַע‬ִ ‫ ; וְ ִה ְש ִחית ֲע‬8:25ַ‫ ַי ְש ִחית ַר ִבים‬.
249
See Ex 32:7; Dt 9:12 ‫ ; ִש ֵחת ַע ְמָך‬2Ch 27:2ַ‫םַמ ְש ִח ִיתים‬
ַ ‫עֹודַה ָע‬
ָ ְ‫ו‬. It is possible that in Da 8:26, the choice of
this double meaning verb may be an intentional play to show that the people’s corruption equals its
destruction. Another strategic word is ‫ש ֶטף‬ ֶַ “flood”; “invasion”, which by usual Hebrew metathesis
may be intended to reflect ‫“ ֶש ֶפט‬act of judgment”.
250
a). “The people of the Coming Prince will be destroyed and his end will be in a flood of armies.”; b). “The
people of the Coming Prince will pervert itself (will be spoiled) and his end will be in a flood of armies.”
251
The Niphal reading yiššåḥēṯ would be the only possibility to understand that the people had to be destroyed,
though it is used rather to mean moral corruption. The Hiphil reading yašḥîṯ (as indicated by the Masoretes)
indicates either corruption, if the subject is “people”, or destruction, if the subject is “the Coming Prince” and the
object is “people”. But in this last case, the logic of the sentence is damaged. The two meanings are connected,
overlapped or even confused in some instances (Pr 6:32, Jr 51:25 and 2K 23:13). Choosing the meaning shall
become corrupt, shall act perversely has the advantage of explaining both the putting to death of the Messiah and
the unfortunate destiny of the people.
252
Gerhard Hasel (“Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks.” In The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus,
Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Hollbrook, 25), William Shea (ibid. 92-94), and Owusu-Antwi (op. cit. 167-
170) understoodd that this people of Messiah, by their rebellious attitude towards God and towards Rome,
became responsible for the disaster which came on the city and the temple (see 2Sam 20:5, 24:16, for instances
where people is the subject of this predicate). Owusu-Antwi even relates the participleַ‫ ַה ָבא‬with the messianic
verse of Ps 118:26. Anyway, it should be understood as in Mal 3:19 (‫ּיֹוםַה ָבא‬
ַ ‫)ה‬
ַ or as the eschatological idiom
‫עֹולם ַה ָבא‬
ָ ‫ ָה‬of the Late Hebrew.
 73

Messiah’s sacrifice annule the old

B 26b Messiah cut off (as covenant sacrifice) ‫כרת‬ 27b B’
Covenant system
C 26c Corruption and destruction Abomination and desolation 27c C’
D 26d Desolation is determined to the end of war. The End of the desolator is determined. 27d D’

The full weight of the final line is obviously parallel to other climactic, fi-
nal points in the prophecies of Daniel (Dan 2:44, 7:26, 8:25d, 11:45b). All these
point out to the Judgment, in the time of the end, as the 2300 days indicate by the
“vindication” of the Sanctuary.
There are many other difficulties in Daniel 9 of which scholars complain,
more or less justified. The general efforts to apply the prophecy to some events
culminating with the persecution of Antiochus is one of the reasons that it so
obscure. A primary task would be the restoration of its original poetic text and
structure, if possible.
In verse 27, the clause ‫ַמש ֵֹּמם‬ְ ‫קּוצים‬ִ ‫ַש‬ ְ ‫ וְ ַעל‬wǝ‘al kǝnaph šiqqûṣîm
ִ ‫ַכנַ ף‬
mǝšōmēm “and on the wing of abomination [will be] a desolator (or, appalling)”
may be corrupted. The metaphor “wing of abominations” is unusual and seems
too sophisticated in an ancient Hebrew poetry. LXX (both OG and Theodotion)
have καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων “and above (around, at) the
temple [will be] an abomination of desolations.” There are also good reasons to
read instead of the unusual expression ‫ַכנַ ף‬ ְ ‫‘ ַעל‬al kǝnaph, the usual and unique
expression of Daniel, ‫‘ ַעלַכַַנֹו‬al kannô “in his place / stead” (cf. 11:20, 21, 38),253
and the suspect association ‫יםַמש ֵֹּמם‬ ִ ‫ ִש‬šiqqûṣîm mǝšōmēm to be corrected also
ְ ‫קּוצ‬
(after Da 11:31; 12:11 and LXX) as ‫מש ֵֹּמם‬ ַַ ‫ ִשקּו‬šiqqûṣ ham·mǝšōmēm or ַ‫ִשקּוצֵַי·ם‬
ְַ ‫ץַה‬
‫ ְמש ֵֹּמם‬šiqqûṣê·m mǝšōmēm “the abomination(s) of the desolator” (or, appalling
abominations).
Below is the structure of Da 7:24-27, including my emendations and
translation. The text is not transliterated according to the Massoretic reading. It
is rather an attempt to restore the original pre-Masoretic pronunciation, using
basically the model of W Richter.254 I imagined this linguistic strategy, to help
myself understand and feel as close as possible the old Hebrew poetic taste. This
was necessary for me, because there are certainly important differences between
the original pronunciation in Biblical times and the late, Masoretic school –
different fonology, different number of syllables, different accents, wordplays etc.
šabūcīm šabcīm 2 A span of seventy weeks
niḥtak cal cammak 2 is subtracted concerning your
people
wacal cīr qudšikā 2 and your holy city

253
BHS (footnote) and BDBG (489) cite A. Kuenen for this proposed emendation. This reading is
followed by Bevan, Montgomery, Hartman & Di Lella and NRS (“and in their place”). A. A. Bevan
(A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: The University Press, 1892: 160), Mont-
gomery (The Book of Daniel 386), Hartman & Di Lella (240).
254
See Wolfgang Richter, Biblia Hebraica transcripta; 14, Daniel, Esra, Nehemia. Münchener
Univeristätschriften, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament; Bd. 33.2. EOS Verlag St
Otilien, 1992:120-123. See also David Steinberg, Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word Play, Recon-
structing the Original Oral, Aural and Visual Experience,
www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm
 74

lakalā’ happašc 2 to stop the rebellion

walaḥtum ḥatta’ōt 2 to seal all the sins
walakappir cawōn 2 expiate any guilt
walahabī’ ṣadq cōlamīm, 3 to bring in justice of ages
walaḥtum ḥazōn wanabī’ 3 to seal up visions and prophets
walamšuḥ qudš qudašīm 3 and to anoint the most holy.
v. 25
watidic wattaśkil – Know then, and understand,
2+3 From the issue of the word to
min mōṣā’ dabar lahašīb walabnōt yurušalīm
return and rebuild Jerusalem
cadmašīḥ nagīd 2 to Messiah the Ruler,
šabūcīm šabcā wašabūcīm šiššīm wašinaym 2+3 there are 7 weeks plus 62 weeks.
Squares and courts will be built in
tašūb wanibnatā ruḥōb waḥarūṣ wabaṣōq ha ccittīm
the pain of the times.
v. 26
wa’aḥarē hašabūcīm šiššīm wašináym 2+2 But after the 62 weeks
2+3 Messiah will be cut off, and the
yikkarit mašīḥ wa’ēn lō haccīr wahaqqudš city and the sanctuary will not be
for Him.
3+2 The people of the Coming Ruler
yiššaḥit camm nagīd habbā’ waqiṣṣō bahaššaṭp
will become corrupt
2+2 To the end of the war desolation
wacad qiṣṣ milḥamā niḥraṣt šōmimōt
was decided.
v. 27
3+2 He will strengthen a covenant to
wahigbīr birīt laharrabbīm šabūc ’aḥad
many, one week
3+2 In the midst of the week He will
waḥiṣy haššabūc yašbīt zabḥ waminḥā
cancel sacrfices and oferings.
2+2 ? And in His stead the desolating
wacal kannō šiqquṣē-m mašōmim
abomination will stand
3+2 Untill a complete destruction, as it
wacad kalā waniḥraṣā tittak al šōmim was decided, will be poored over
the desolator.
While the prophecy of Daniel 9 is important in itself and deserves every
effort to improve our knowledge of it, there are chances to discover additional
connections to Daniel 8.

1.23. The special role of the verb ‫ בין‬byn in Da 8-9

There is unusual insistence in Daniel 8 and 9 on understanding the proph-

ecy. If we tabulate those expressions, a beautiful chiasm appears, stressing the
relationship between the two time prophecies, mentioned in Da 8:14 and Da
9:24 (rows A and A1). The rows B and B1 deal with the angelic urge to Daniel “to
understand”, and the rows C and C1 deal with Daniel’s reactions, in contrast, a
negative one (“I did not understand”) and a positive one (“I…understood”, “he
made me understand”).
 75

Logical item Speaker Quotation Verse Hebrew

Michael to ִ‫ערבִבֹ קרִאלפים‬
Gabriel ‫ּוׁשֹלׁשִמאֹות‬
A evening-morning 2300 = many days 8:14, … ‫הערבִוהבֹקר‬
period (seal up !) 26 ‫ימיםִרבים‬
involved
‫סתֹם‬

‫הבן להלז את־‬

Michael to I was seeking for understanding;
B 8:15, ‫המראה‬
Gabriel to explain ... to this one !
urge: 16, 17
Daniel understand, son of man! ‫הבןִבן־אדם‬

C ִ‫ואֲניִדניאלִ…ִואין‬
negative Daniel I Daniel …did not understand 8:27 ‫מבין‬
statement:
ִ‫אֲניִדניאלִבינֹ תי‬
I Daniel have understood from ִ‫בספריםִמספר‬
positive Scriptures (Jeremiah), the number of ‫השנים‬
statement Daniel years 9:2, 22 … ‫ויבן וידבר עמי‬
C1 He made me understand: ... I’m
‫עתה יצאתי‬
here to give you understanding
‫להשכילָך בינה‬

ִ‫ּוביןִבדברִוהבן‬
urge Gabriel to Consider ! Understand! 9: 23, ‫במראה‬
B1 Daniel Know and understand ! 25
‫ותדע ותשכל‬

period ִ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים‬

involved Gabriel to a portion of 70 weeks (7+62+1) is 9:24-
Daniel subtracted 27 ‫נחתְך‬
A1

The observations in the table above may be further improved. In addition

we need a deeper study of the historical, theological, literary and psychological
ties between Daniel 8 and Daniel 9.

2. The Crucial Role of Contextual Exegesis in Daniel 8

But even though the translation “cleansed” would be preferred in this
verse, the textual context das not hint to a Sanctuary cleansing from the sins of
the repentants, but rather to a cleansing from the desecration made by the
wicked horn. There is no need of demonstration, the fact is apparent in the text.
The most related Biblical instance of a sanctuary cleansing is in 2Ch 29:15-18;
34:3-8, where the godly kings Hezekiah and Josiah purified (‫ טִהִר‬ṭahhēr) or
sanctified (‫ קדש‬qaddēš) the temple of Yahweh (‫ הבית‬hab·báyiṯ), the city and the
land, from filth and impurity (‫ִִנדה‬niddåh 2Ch 29:5, ‫ טֻ מאה‬ṭum’åh v. 16) that is
from various idols and idolatrous items (2Ch 34:3-4). 255
There have been made noble efforts to identify a Yom Kippur imagery in
Daniel 8:14. The liturgical imagery of the vision of Daniel 8 is impressive, but no

255
Interesting are also the references in Ez 43:26 and 1Ch 23:28 regarding some inaugural cleansing of
the altar etc., but these are not contextually related to Da 8:14.
 76

cultic element of the vision is necessarily related to Yom Kippur. Up to ten

elements have been proposed.
There are four prominent and convincing images related to the Israelite
cult:
‫דׁשֹו‬ må·ḵôn mi·qdåš·ô or ‫דש‬
ִ ִ‫מִכֹון מִק‬ ִ‫ק‬ִֹ ִ qóḏeš, “the [heavenly] abode of His
sanctuary”, “the Sanctuary”; 256

ṣəḇå’ haš·šåmáy·im or ‫בא‬

‫צִבִא הִשִמִיִם‬ ִ ִ‫ ה‬haṣ·ṣåḇå’, “the heavenly [and
ִ‫צ‬
priestly] host [of the sanctuary]”;257
‫שר־הצבא‬ śar-haṣ·ṣåḇå’ “the Prince of the host”, or ‫רים‬
ִ ‫־ש‬ ִ śar- śårîm
ִ ‫שר‬
“Prince of Princes”; 258

‫ הִתִמִיד‬hat·tå·mîḏ “the daily service of the regular burnt offering”;259

There are other six elements, that have been claimed as cultic images, but
they are unconvincing:
e. ‫‘ ִאיִל‬áyil “a ram” (it is not exclusive for Yom Kippur);
f. ‫ צִפִיר־הִעִזִים‬ṣəphîr-ha‘·‘izz·îm (or ‫שעִיר‬ ִ ִ‫ ה‬haṣ·ṣaphîr haś·śå‘îr) “the
ִ ִ‫צפִיר ה‬
he-goat” (not exclusive for Yom Kippur). The he-goat and the ram were
sacrificial animals, but not in this context, where they have different func-
tions: both represent hostile powers,260 both have abnormal look, at least
their unnatural horns, and their dangerous habits.261
g. ‫רבִע‬
ִ‫א‬ ִ ִ‫ חִזּות‬ḥåzūṯ ’arbå‘, “four prominent [horns]”. It was claimed that the
four horns of the goat are a linguistic hint to the four “horns” of the altar,
but their nature and function is completely different. And the very linguis-
tic hint is very weak, since Daniel does not even use here the term ‫קרן‬
qéren “horn”.
h. ‫ פִׁשִע‬péša‘ “crime”, “rebellion”, “sin”. The mention of a specific sin / re-
bellion in Daniel 8 has no ceremonial treatment, since it is not subject to
atonement and pardon. The term ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ may be cultic in various con-
texts such as in Lv 16:16, 21, however, in Daniel 8 ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ is not used as
a general term for sin; rather it is used as a dysphemistic form of some
idolatrous entity: ‫ הפׁשע ׁשֹמם‬is functionally equivalent to ‫ׁשֹומם‬ֵֽ ‫( הִשקֵ֥ ּוץִמ‬Da

256
See under the heading “The Identity of the Sanctuary...”
257
While a direct reference to priesthood/sanctuary service is lacking in Daniel 8, the root ‫ צבא‬ṣb’ is
significant, since it is used in the Masoretic Text, not only in the context of military, social and
celestial order, but also in the context of the sanctuary service (Ex 38:8, Num 4:3.23.30.35.39.43,
8:24, 1Sam 2:22 ebr.). Cf. Dominique Barthélémy (Critique textuelle de L’Ancien Testament, Fri-
bourg, Suisse, 1992, pag. 464): “Étant donnée la correspondance existant entre le temple terrestre et le
temple céleste, il semble bien que le mot ‫ צַָבַָא‬désigne aux vss 10 à13, sous la métaphore de l’armée
des étoiles, les ministres du culte (lévites et fidèles).” See also M. A. Beek, Das Danielbuch, 84.
258
See Elias Brasil de Souza (op. cit. p 464) and Doukhan (Daniel: Vision of the End, 37-38), cf. Ezra
8:24; 1Ch 15:22; 24:5.
259
See the heading 2.2. Da 8: 11-13: ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ = the… what?
260
Rams and male-goats are used as symbols of God’s enemies preserved for the Judgment day (Is
34:6; Jr 51:40; Ez 39:18), or as leaders to be judged (Ez 34:17).
261
Cattle being known with the habit of goring, were hardly fit for holy sacrifice; they must be stoned,
according to the Law (Ex 21:29-36).
 77

11:31) or ‫( ׁשקּוץ ׁשֹמם‬Da 12:11), the disgusting and appalling idol whose
only role is to desecrate the sanctuary.
ִ ‫ ] הרים[ הּו‬hū·ram [hē·rîm] “was lifted up”, [“it lifted up”]. The “lifting
‫רים‬
up” of the daily sacrifice was not really a ceremonial uplift, but an outra-
geous removal, called also ‫ הִסִיר‬hē·sîr “took away” in Da 11:31.
‫דש‬
ִ‫ק‬ִֹ ‫דק‬ wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš “the sanctuary shall be justified/vindicated”.
ִ ִ‫וִנִצ‬
We have already shown why the sanctuary vindication is not a linguistic
hint to Yom Kippur.
These last six elements are difficult to be counted for any sanctuary ritual.
And since we are especially interested in all these four elements’ relationship
with the Day of Atonement, no one of them is related exclusively to the annual
cleansing ritual. The Yom Kippur ceremony required a ram, a calf, and two he-
goats (Lv 16), not just a ram and a he-goat. Moreover, rams and male-goats were
sacrificed also at various occasions .262 Thus, while some elements of the vision
have clear ceremonial functions, none of them is a specific hint to Yom Kippur.263
The language of Daniel 8 is partly cultic, but it is also military and forensic.
In fact, when Gabriel explains the vision, his language has no cultic reference. If
the sanctuary was polluted by idolatrous abominations, the only solution is a
cleansing from that specific idolatrous pollution, as king Josiah and Judas Macca-
beus did. There is no reason to wait for the Day of Atonement in such case. In the
imagery of chapter 7, the sequence of the four wild beasts and the human-animal
language end up with the judgment scene and the everlasting kingdom, not with
the hunting of the beasts. In Daniel 7 the imagery points to Creation, while the
imagery of Daniel 8 points to God as a Shepherd of nations. Cultic imagery is
prominent, but there is no exclusive pointing to the Day of Atonement.

3. A legitimate role of Leviticus 16 beyond exegesis

The “cleansing” of the heavenly sanctuary is only a metaphor of salvation,

whether one applies it to the Messianic events related to the First Advent, or the
events related to the Second Advent. The “cleansing of the sanctuary” is not a
ceremonial heavenly service. All that language of Yom Kippur is nothing but a
metaphor of the Judgment. The 1844 experience of our pioneers, in their histori-
cal-theological context, caused them to speak about the heavenly things in terms
of the sanctuary, and they have used this ceremonial language long before the
configuration of a doctrine of Judgment.

262
Nu 7:17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53, 59, 65, 71, 77, 83, 87-88; Dt 32:14; Is 1:11; 34:6; Jer 51:40; Ez
27:21; 34:17; 39:18; 43:25; 45:23; Ps 66:15.
263
Norman Young (“The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement?”, Andrews University Seminary
Studies, Spring 2002, vol. 40, No. 1, p. 66) writes: “... It has all the appearances of desperation to use
(as some do) the symbolic references to a ram (Dan 8:3, 4, 6, 7, 20, ‫ )איל‬and to a goat (vv. 5, 8, 21,
‫ )צפיר‬as evidence of Day of Atonement language. The sin-offering animals in Lev 16, let us recall, are
‫( פר‬young bull) and ‫[ שפיר‬sic!] (goat). The ram for a burnt offering does not cleanse the tabernacle. [...
fn. 22, ref. to Richard M. Davidson, "The Good News of Yom Kippur," JATS 2/2 (1991): 4-27; and
cf. William H. Shea, The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier :Daniel 7-12, 2 vols (Boise, ID: Pacific
Press, 1996), 111-118].
 78

If for our pioneers the importance of the Sanctuary doctrine consisted in

its capacity of explaining their Great Disappointment of 1844 and of pointing to
the Investigative Judgment, I do not think that we in this generation must assume
exactly their experience and theology. We are on a vantage ground to understand
both the causes of their failure and of their success. We do not need to make a
long detour as they did, in order to interpret correctly Da 8:14. By choosing the
proper translation of the forensic verb ‫ וִנצדק‬wəniṣdaq (justified, vindicate, etc.),
we can go directly to the parallel prophecy in Daniel 7 that climaxes with the
premillenial Judgment to begin after the “three times and a half” (after 1798).
Our classic explanation is based on a flawed translation and exegesis that force
us to go unnecessarily to a complicated typological eschatology of Leviticus 16,
wherefrom we finally arrive to the theology of Judgment after a long bypass. My
understanding can be graphically described as in the following sketch:

Leviticus 16: typological eschatology

CLEANSED !?
Da 7:22,26 ‫דינאִיהבִלקדיׁשי‬ Da 8:14 ‫ונצדקִקדש‬

Premillennial Judgment: Premillennial Judgment:

the most direct connection JUSTIFIED – VINDICATED reached by long detour

However, the evidence that the vision of Daniel 8 has no compelling refer-
ence to the Day of Atonement, deals only with exegetical reasons. There is ample
but hermeneutic possibility to relate the eschatological vindication of the sanctu-
ary to any other Biblical passage that points to the eschaton – including Lv 16, if
one proves its eschatologic virtues. While a legitimate exegesis does not allow
such long leaps between various places of the Biblical canon, except we prove
that it was the author’s intention, or an obvious case of intertextuality; while we
should cease to hold unsupported arguments that a sound exegesis of Daniel 8
indicates a Day of Atonement context, pointing directly to Lv 16, we may still
maintain this special link, but on a different hermeneutical basis.
Since hermeneutics involves much more than exegesis, and may be more
permissive in its practical applications, we may connect Biblical passages, not
only on the basis of a conscious reference or allusion made by the human author,
but also on the principle of theological unity of Scripture, due to its divine Au-
thor. On a large hermeneutical basis, we may relate Da 8:14 to Lv 16 as one
convenient illustration of making right the Sanctuary. But not as the sole illustra-
 79

tion, nor as the first illustration of sanctuary vindication, neither as a complete

illustration.264
This hermeneutical connection is based on the same principle on which
we may (or must) refer to any other Biblical prophecy, type, or parable (etc.)
which are theologically related to the exegeted text. Similar hermeneutical
connections that would not be exegetically acceptable, but theologically legiti-
mate and useful, occur in the New Testament. In spite of the popular proof-text
opinion, it is not a sound contextual exegesis to quote Is 7:14 as a direct prophe-
cy of the Messiah’s birth (Mt 1:23). The same may be said about Jr 31:15, as a
prophecy fulfilled in the slaughter of Bethlehem children, or Hos 11:1 pointing to
Jesus’ exod from Egypt (Mt 2:15,18), though exegetically they had a different
intention and fulfillment. Similarly, Paul’s reading in Is 54:1 the Gentile Church
(Ga 4:27), or in Jr 31:31 the Christian covenant (Heb 8:8) is not sound exegesis,
but they are justified or legitimized on broad hermeneutic principles, as theolog-
ical applications.
In the NT there are examples of exegesis grounded in a free (or possibly
wrong) Greek translation, similar to our historical approach to Daniel 8:14. In
Heb 10:5-10, the inspired author quotes Ps 40:6/7 (39:7 LXX) after a Greek
unknown translation: σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι, “a body Thou prepared for me”,
instead of the Hebrew ‫‘ אזנים כִריתִ לי‬ozn·áyim kåriy·ṯå l·î “You have opened my
ears”. Thus the Hebrew text points to obedience, while the Greek quotation
suggests incarnation, which the inspired author indicated as a prophecy of
Christ’s sacrifice. Such interpretation is hardly possible from a strictly exegetic
viewpoint. But the Christian author has more practical purposes in view. Possi-
bly he uses Jewish hermeneutic methods, to convince believers who were sensi-
tive to such methodology.
Sometimes, Paul seems to reject the plain meaning, or at least transcends
it unexpectedly, towards a figurative or allegorical application: oxen become
apostles (1Cor 9:9); mountains, wives and sons become religious systems (Gal
4:21-31); God’s Commandment/Law becomes the “righteousness by faith” (Rom
10:5-6, perfectly opposite to what Moses said in Dt 30:11), and the metaphors of
the Commandment’s accessibility and internalization (“it is not in heaven… nor
beyond the sea” Dt 30: 12-14) have got an unbelievable meaning or applica-
tion: “to bring Christ down [from heaven]”, and “to bring Christ up from the
dead”).

264
The Biblical passages most related to Da 8:14 are Da 7:9-14, 22, 26-27; Rv 6:10:11; 14:6-13. I
would also suggest that the symbolic cutting out of the mountain in Da 2:34, 45 indicates a work of
judgment (root ‫ גזר‬gzr “cut”, “break away”, “decide”, “determine”), preceding the moment when the
stone hits the idol’s feet, after its short rollingturn on the mountainside. Further, any eschatological
Biblical passage related to the idea of judgment may be legitimately connected to Da 8:14, such as
various passages in Hebrews (9:27-28; 10:25-27, 30; 12:23), and other NT passages (Jam 5:9; 1Pt
4:5-6, 17; 1 In 4:17; Acts 17:31; 24:25; Rom 2:16; 14:10; 1Cor 4:4-5; 6:2-3; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tes 1:5;
1Tim 5:24-25; 2Tim 4:1, 8). The parables of Christ are full of illustrations about the eschatological
judgment (Mt 13:47-48; 18:23-35; 22:11-14; 24:44-51; 25:1-46; Lc 18:1-8), and many prophetic
scenarios (even conditional prophecies) may illustrate phases of the judgment (Mal 3:1-5; Zc 3:1-7;
Hab 2-3 etc.). Some of them have long been used in this way by the first Adventist generation, to shed
light on Daniel 8:14.
 80

The idea of some scholars that the examples above are unquestionable,
true exegeses, since they come from inspired authors, is not acceptable. We
certainly need a further clarification on the prophetical inspiration. Exegesis is
about logic, not of inspired or uninspired, but only right or wrong. Arguments,
hermeneutic methodologies and actually all logical approach are human contri-
butions of inspired authors. They may be right or wrong, convincing or less
convincing, but they are always surpassed by the author’s divine inspiration, as it
is manifested in the message to be conveyed. Though many are familiar with E G
White’s statement on inspiration, we as a denomination have been very reluctant
to find practical applications to the following message:
The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man
where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that
is human is imperfect. […] The Bible was given for practical purposes…
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It
is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression
is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the
Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. [...] It is not the words of the
Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words
or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is
imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine
mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the
utterances of the man are the word of God.” (1SM 19-22; Manuscript 24, 1886). [Emphasis
supplied]

It is incredible and saddening that this illuminating testimony of the Spirit

on the prophetic inspiration, with so far reaching consequences, has been kept
out of reach of God’s children, for more than 70 years. It was only in 1958, that E
G White’s testimony on inspiration was finally published.265 We would have been
far ahead in our hermeneutics, exegesis and theology, if we had integrated this
revolutionary philosophy of inspiration. Think of the implications. Not even the
logic of the inspired authors is inspired! But to place this afirmation in theologi-
cal balance, human logic of the inspired authors, though imperfect might prove
itself, it nevertheless serves as a vehicle of a divine and infallible message, and it
finds its way home perfectly to the honest and informed believer, for all practical
purposes.266
Consequently, in our attempt to explain Da 8:14, we should resort first to
a more critical exegesis, based on the natural semantics of ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq and
its contextual meaning; and only afterwards we should resort to a broad range of

265
Cottrell noticed in 1993 that, “After the removal of Daniells from the General Conference presiden-
cy the church also moved away from his position on inspiration. The material that Ellen White had
written on inspiration found in Selected Messages, Vol. 1, 15-21 was not available. For years the
White Estate would not release it. Not even when it was requested to be made available for printing in
The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary series.” (From an interview of March 1993, taken by
G Bradford, op. cit. 169 fn 319).
266
Sometimes, E G White refers to “words” given her or Biblical authors, and some would elude her
clear testimony of 1 SM about the limits of inspiration, which is full of theological truth, emphasizing
her statements on the inspired “words” (e.g. “But I speak not my own words when I say...” E G
White, 1888 Materials, 747). Now, if E G White would contradict herself, her authority lowers down
to zero. But we should rather be careful not to take casual, religious common language found in the
Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy, in a technical, theological way. In most cases, “word(s)” is/are meant
to be understood as utterance(s), communication(s), message(s), oracle(s), not as units of speach, or
as heavenly shibboleths (e.g. Ex 9:20; Jn 6:63; Col 3:17; Ex 34:28; Dt 9:10 “the ten words”).
 81

legitimate hermeneutical connections. This is a better methodology, than forcing

the natural semantics of ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq to testify for our theology.267 For
exegetical and apologetic reasons, the effort deserves.
My conviction is that we should expound the doctrine of Da 8:14 using
predominantly judgment imagery. The sanctuary ritual imagery should be used
only as a secondary means to illustrate various aspects of the divine judgment.
We should use as of primary importance Christ’s parables of judgment and any
other forensic suitable text from Genesis to Revelation. The typology of the
sanctuary is, indeed, richer but also more complex than the topic of eschatologi-
cal judgment. Therefore, when we expound the prophecies of Judgment, it is
preferable not to obscure them through a complex ceremonial typology needing
so much argument and explanations for itself – a typology of which highly
dramatic and visionary language is too often understood as a physical reflection
of heaven.

4. The Day of Atonement Illustration (Typology) in Hebrews

The sanctuary typology discussed by the author of Hebrews in some key
passages268 has been a real challenge for the Adventist theology. It is indeed
frustrating for an Adventist to find that the Epistle to the Hebrews, the only
Biblical Commentary on the sanctuary ritual, is silent about our concerns related
to the “sanctuary cleansing” in Da 8:14. Scholarly opinions range from denying
any allusion to a first century application of the Day of Atonement imagery 269 in
Hebrews, to a nearly exclusive affirmation of it.270 There is bright scholarship to
appreciate in many Adventist studies, such as William Johnsson’s,271 Richard
Davidson’s and Roy Gane’s articles on the topic. 272 But to my perception, the

267
Relating to the theological meaning of Daniel 8:14, I was surprised to discover Norman Young’s
position (“The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement?”, AUSS, Spring 2002, vol. 40, No. 1, pp.
61-68), who writes: “Davidson's study leaves me with a query. How is he able to see the Day of
Atonement in Dan 8:ll-14 where there is no mention of a high priest, blood, calves and goats, enter-
ing, sin offering, cleanse, annual (to the contrary, Da 8:11, 12, 13 refer to the ‘daily’ service, ‫) ַה ָת ִמיד‬,
inner veil, or the burning of carcasses outside the camp? Yet despite their absence in Daniel, he is
able to find the Day of Atonement in 8:14. However, despite their presence in Hebrews, he is unable
to see the Day of Atonement in 6:19-20 or 9:11-12. The root ‫ צדק‬is a very common one in the OT
(some 509 times), but it is never used of a sacrifice in the cultic material. It takes considerable
linguistic dexterity to make ‫ נצדק‬mean ‘cleanse’ in a Day of Atonement context.ַ [fn. 21, ref. to R.
Davidson, “The meaning of Niṣdaq in Daniel 8:14,” JATS7/1 (1996): 107-119].
268
Hebrews 6:19; 9:7-8, 12, 25-26; 10:1-4, 19-22.
269
See for example, . A. R. Treyer (The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment, Creation
Enterprises International, Sioam Springs, Arkansas, 1992, pp. 369-448);
270
See about D. Ford (in F. B. Holbrook, Doctrine of the Sanctuary, p. 218), who takes a decided
stand for the Day of Atonement typology in Hebrews 9.
271
W. Johnsson (“Day of Atonement Allusions”, in F. B. Holbrook, editor, Issues in the Book of
Hebrews, BRI, Silver Springs, MD, 1989, pp. 107-120).
272
Unlike most of our traditional exegetes, Roy Gane (“Re-opening Katapetasma [‘Veil’] in Hebrews
6:19”, in AUSS, Spring 2000, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 5-8) definitely shows that Heb 6:19-20 refers to the
inner veil of the sanctuary. R. Davidson (“Inauguration or Day of Atonement?”, in AUSS, Spring
2002, vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 69-88) agrees with Gane that the veil in Heb 6:19-20 refers to the inner veil
of the sanctuary, but he is inclined to see the inauguration motif, rather the Day of Atonement motif
behind the text, and behind the imagery of Hebrews 9 and 10:19-20. He also refers to a “heavenly
 82

most pertinent analysis on this issue has been made by Norman Young273 and
Felix Cortez,274 who separately acknowledged the presence of the Day of Atone-
ment in Hebrews, as an acceptable illustration pointing to some function of the
Cross-Resurrection-Ascension event. Jack Sequiera also exposed the inappropri-
ate image of a heavenly bipartite sanctuary.275 And E G White herself applied the

equivalent to the Most Holy Place”, suggesting the presence of two holy places in the heavenly
sanctuary.
273
Norman Young (“The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement?”, AUSS, Spring 2000, Vol. 38,
No. 1, pp. 68), wrote a forcefull plea in behalf of the Day of Atonement language in Hebrews: “[The
author of Hebrews] uses in an unparalleled way the verb ‘offer’ (προσφέρω) to describe the high
priest's blood manipulation on the Day of Atonement (9:7) because this facilitates the application of
this act to the offering (προσφορά) of Christ on the cross (10:10, 14). In a unique manner he de-
scribes the tabernacle as consisting of a first and second tent (9:2-3), because this allows him to relate
the apartments to the first and new covenants (8:13; 9:18). [fn. 26: ‘This is one of the alternatives
allowed in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 7:451.’] He speaks of ‘shedding blood’
(9:22), because it matches the death of Jesus better than sprinkling. He focuses on a minor part of the
Day of Atonement – the burning of the sacrificial carcasses outside the camp – because this for the
author coincides with Jesus' death outside the city's wall (13:11-12). Hebrews uses the OT language
of the Day of Atonement and other sacrifices as a means of conveying a profound theology about the
achievement of the death of Jesus. The writer, to my mind, is not interested in the details of the
heavenly sanctuary, but emphasizes the heavenly realm to encourage harassed Christians to look
beyond their present trauma to the glorified and triumphant Christ. [...] My appeal is for him [Da-
vidson] to look for the Day of Atonement in Hebrews with the same openness to the text that he
exhibits with his exegesis of Dan 8:14 [fn. 22, ref. to Richard M. Davidson, "The Good News of Yom
Kippur," JATS 2/2 (1991): 4-27; and cf. William H. Shea, The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier
:Daniel 7-12, 2 vols (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 111-118]. I remain convinced that the Day of
Atonement is the OT background for Heb 6:19-20 and 9:11-12.” Though Davidson’s article deserves
further attention, my conviction is that Young is right on this issue.
274
“The period of Heb 9:6–10 introduces, then, the Day of Atonement not as a typology for Jesus’s
sacrifice but as an illustration (παραβολή) of the transition between ages.[...] The Day of Atonement
in the period of 9:6–10 illustrates, then, a transition from many sacrifices to one sacrifice. [...]. This
‘parable’ introduces the main elements of the subsequent discussion: from multiple priests to one high
priest, from multiple sacrifices to one sacrifice, from unrestricted access to the requirement of blood,
and from the cleansing of the flesh to the cleansing of the conscience. Therefore, the transition from
the ministry in the outer room to that of the inner room, as it happened on the Day of Atonement,
functions as a ‘parable’ of the transition from the ineffectiveness of the old age to the achievements
of the new. Jesus’s accomplishments are understood as a change in the law; that is, the inauguration
of a new covenant. This explains the prominent role of imagery of the Day of Atonement in the central
section of Hebrews and at the same time avoids the inconsistencies between the blood ritual of the
Day of Atonement and Jesus’s sacrifice as described by the author of Hebrews.” (Felix H. Cortez,
“From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period of Hebrews 9:6-10 and the Day of Atonement as
a Metaphor of Transition”, JBL 125, no. 3/2006: 537, 544, 547. My emphasis).
275
“The issue whether Christ went into the Holy Place or the Most Holy Place in the heavenly
sanctuary did not exist in the apostolic days in the minds of the people of that period.” [...] “Some-
times people bring up these words and say, ‘This word means Holy Place and the other word means
Most Holy Place.’ Well, the issue was not existing between holy and most holy place. [...] But these
words all refer to the heavenly sanctuary. We must remember that things in and of themselves are not
holy. What makes a place or a thing most holy is the presence of God. You remember when God
appeared to Moses in the burning bush. The bush wasn’t holy. The ground wasn’t holy. The presence
of God made the place holy. Since God dwells in the heavenly sanctuary please remember that the
heavenly sanctuary is Most Holy. What is the issue in Hebrews nine? The issue is between the earthly
sanctuary which the Jews were still looking upon and the heavenly sanctuary where Christ went. The
argument of Hebrews nine is this: the heavenly sanctuary with Christ’s priestly ministry there has
superseded the earthly sanctuary. In other words the earthly sanctuary is no longer valid. The heaven-
ly sanctuary is now what we must turn our eyes to.” Jack Sequeira (“The Heavenly Sanctuary”,
Hebrews 9:1-28 http://thesonofman.org/bible-study/14-hebrews/66-the-heavenly-sanctuary-
part-1)
 83

Day of Atonement / Inauguration imagery of Hebrews 10:19-20 to the Cross of

Jesus and His access to the heavenly sanctuary:
The great sacrifice had been made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living
way is prepared for all. The mercy seat upon which the glory of God rested in the holiest of all
is open to all who accept Christ as the propitiation for sin. (DA 757)

Traditionally we have supposed that the autumn Hebrew feasts foreshad-

owed the time connected to the Second Advent, just as the spring feasts fore-
shadowed the time connected to the First Advent. But my observation is that
Pesach has also eschatological applications in the Book of Revelation, as well as
Yom Kippur has some undisputed applications to the Cross alone. Such facts
encouraged me to suppose a double application of both feasts. The implications
are obvious for our JuST: Yom Kippur is not exclusively a type of the consumed
eschatology, as we usually believe, but it is legitimately applicable to the unique
and complete atonement perfected at the Cross, by which Jesus opened for us a
free access in the very presence of God.
The Epistle to the Hebrews applies Yom Kippur in exactly this way,
though its author repeatedly and solemnly refers also to the Judgment Day.
While E G White herself applied Yom Kippur categorically to the Investigative
Judgment, following Crosier etc., she sometimes uses this image also to illustrate
Jesus’ entrance before His Father in the heavenly Most Holy, after His resurrec-
tion. Adopting this double interpretation of the type (which does not seem to me
forced or unnatural), one can read Hebrews more naturally, especially chp. 9,
where is so difficult to evade Yom Kippur.

5. The sanctuary identity in Daniel 8

The identity of the sanctuary in Daniel 8 has been shown usually on exclu-
sive hermeneutical and indirect inference: if 2300 days mean years, the period
extends over the Christian era, and thus it may refer only to the heavenly sanctu-
ary. While this logic is correct, it might be not the straightest reasoning, since it
derives not from the text itself, or from its context. Exegetical evidence should be
added. My proposal is that we should adopt a linguistic and literary Biblical
identification of the Sanctuary in Daniel 8, as primary evidence.
Daniel uses for the sanctuary the term ‫ מִכֹון‬må·ḵôn “dwelling place” (Da
8:11c), which is a poetic term that in most cases designates the heavenly sanctu-
ary, especially when it is explicitly related to heaven.276 The appositional con-
struct ‫דשֹו‬
ִ ִ‫ מִכֹון ִמִק‬mə·ḵôn mi·qdåš·ô “the dwelling place [which is] His sanctu-
ary”,277 is composed of two synonyms designating God’s heavenly dwelling.

276
Ex 15:17; 1K 8:39, 43, 49; Is 18:4; Ps 33:14; 2Ch 6:30, 33,39.
277
Similar apositional construct phrases are not rare: ‫“ַ ֵבית ִמ ְק ָד ָשם‬the house which is their sanctuary”
2Ch 36:17, cf. 28:10; ַ‫ית־ה ֶמ ֶלְך‬ ַ ‫מֹוןַב‬
ֵ ‫“ ַא ְר‬the castle [which is] the royal house” 1Ki 16:18;ַ‫עֹוןַב ֶיתָך‬
ֵ ‫“ ְמ‬the
abode which is your house” Ps 26:8; ַ‫קֹוםַמ ְק ָד ֵשנּו‬ ִ ‫“ ְמ‬the place which is our sanctuary” Jr 17:12 ‫בתּולַת בַת־‬
‫“ ָבבֶל‬virgin [unconquered] daughter, Babylon!” Is 47:1; ‫ש ַמי ִם‬ ָ ‫“ רקִי ַע ַה‬the firmament [which is] heaven”
Gn 1:14; ַ ‫ת־רּוח ַַחּיִ ים‬
ַ ‫“ ַ ִנ ְש ַמ‬breath [which is] spirit of life” Gn 7:22. The best choice to translate ‫מכֹון‬ ַָ
må·ḵôn is “dwelling”, “see”. The meaning “foundation”, which others prefer, is lexicographically
legitimate and theologically appealing, but there is no other Biblical reference to a temple foundation
– literal or metaphorical.
 84

Strikingly, the two words of Da 8:11 (‫ מִכֹון‬må·ḵôn and ‫ מקדׁש‬mi·qdåš) are only
once connected elsewhere, namely in Ex 15:17, in the Song of Moses. This old
text is the place where each of these terms occurs for the first time in the Bible.
The two words are not connected in a construct state as in Daniel, but they
function as equivalent terms, in parallel verses:
må·ḵôn lə·šiḇt·əḵå på‘al·tå yahweh a dwelling home that Thou, Yahweh, have made
mi·qdaš ’ăḏōn·åy kônən·ū yåḏ·êḵå a sanctum, Lord, Thy hands have built it staid
The synonymy of ‫ מ כֹון‬må·ḵôn and ‫ מ ק ד ׁש‬mi·qdåš is obvious, and be-
sides, the theological identity of God’s sanctuary-home is clearly revealed.
It is not a house that people would build for God; it is the true Father’s
house, which God built for His people. 278 Thus the sanctuary of Daniel 8 is
the same structure that was mentioned in the Song of Moses and the
Prayer of Solomon. Notably, six out of seven occurrences of similar
phrases in the Bible, describe God’s heavenly sanctuary: ‫ מקֹום מקדׁשֹו‬mə·qôm
mi·qdåš·ô “the place which is His sanctuary”, ‫ מעֹוןִקדׁשֹו‬mə·‘ôn qoḏš·ô “the abode –
His sanctuary” (or “His dwelling of holiness”, “His holy dwelling”). 279
Another issue related to the identity of the sanctuary in Daniel 8 is the
tempting idea that in Da 8:14 ‫ קֹדׁש‬qódeš must have a broad meaning: “anything
which is holy”, especially God’s “holy people”. It is true that the noun ‫ קֹדׁש‬qódeš,
as it is used in the Hebrew Bible has really a broader semantics than ‫מקדׁש‬
miqdāš. Statistically, its broad meaning is the most frequent. But I think that in
Daniel 8 the two terms are synonymous, as in the cases exposed in the next table:

278
These lines belong to the song by which Israel celebrated the marvelous crossing of the Red Sea,
looking forward, from the horrible slave camp, to her supermundane destiny; from the gulf of the
Reed Sea, to God’s Holy See. The poetic image of God’s holy mountain and supernatural sanctuary,
where the redeemed make their ultimate station, and which is mentioned by this first Hebrew song,
has apocalyptic overtones. In the book of Revelation, God’s people finally dwells in a heavenly
sanctuary-city, after surviving the seven plagues, that are reminiscent of the Egyptian Exodus (Rv 15-
16; 21). It is in this context that the Song of Moses and the Lamb is mentioned, and God’s heavenly
tabernacle is shown immediately (Rv 15:3-5). I discovered independently the link between Da 8:11
and Ex 15:17 before 1999 (cf. F G Lăiu, “An Exegetical Study of Daniel 7-9”, MTh diss., UNISA,
Pretoria, 1999: 112). Friedbert Ninow (“Indicators of Typology within the Old Testament...”, PhD
diss., Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Mich. 1999:158-159), and De Souza (op. cit. 148) have
also noticed this intertextual link, even Ex 15:17 pointing to the celestial sanctuary, but only as a
possible, secondary application. I believe that the positive reference in Ex 15:17 of a structure the
God have built, precludes any application to earthly sanctuaries and points out exclusively to the
heavenly home (sanctuary). See for comparison, a similar, but quite different expression, regarding
the earthly destination of Israel (Ps 78:54).
279
Dt 26:15; Ps 68:6; Jr 17:12; 25:30; Zc 2:17; 2Ch 30:27; earthly: Is 60:13.
 85

Lev 16 Num 3 Ps 74 Ez 44 Ez 45 etc.

adytum sanctuary sanctuary sanctuary sanctuary sanctuary
‫ מׁשמֵ֥רתִה ֵֹֽקדׁש‬v. ‫קדׁש‬
ִֹ ‫כל ֵ֣יִה‬
‫ קֹדׁש‬v. 2-27 ‫ קֹדׁש‬v. 3 ‫ קֹדׁש‬v. 27 ‫ קֹדׁש‬v. 2,
28, 32 2Ch 5:5 etc.
‫מׁשמֵ֣רתִהמקדׁש‬ ‫ מקדׁש‬v. 11,ִִ ‫ מקדׁש‬v. 3,ִ ‫כל ֵ֣יִהמקדׁש‬
‫ מקדׁש‬v. 33 ‫ מקדׁש‬v. 7
v. 38 15-16 etc. ִ 4, 18 Ne 10:40
Daniel 8 Daniel 9
the heavenly sanctuary the earthly sanctuary
‫ מקד ֵֽׁשֹו‬v.11 ‫בא‬
ָ֖ ‫ צ‬v. 10-11 ִָ֖‫ מקדׁשָך‬v. 17
‫בא‬ ֹ ֵ֥ ‫ ו‬v. 13
ָ֖ ‫קדׁשִוצ‬ ‫ וה ֹֹּ֜קדׁש‬v. 26

In verse 13, ‫ קֹדׁש‬qódeš does not include the regular burned-offering, nei-
ther the heavenly host, as they are mentioned distinctly to have been trodden
underfoot together with the heavenly host. In verse 10 the host (the “stars”) was
trodden underfoot, but similarly (in verse 11) the ‫ מקדׁש‬miqdāš dwelling was
disposed of (discarded), which is another way to say “trodden underfoot” (cf. Lk
21:24; Rv 11:2). “Trampling” is a metaphoric way to say “despising” (Is 1:12; Hb
10:29).
My interpretation includes the holy people of the sanctuary and all other
holy things, such as the regular offering, though not on linguistic basis, but as a
figure of speech, sort of metonymy or synecdoche (e.g. refering the White House
to mean the institution of Presidency and Senate etc., not walls and rooms). The
inclusion of the people of the sanctuary is suggested also by the use of verb ‫נצדק‬
niṣdaq, which would normally require a human subject (object).

6. The Structure of the Heavenly Sanctuary

The heavenly sanctuary has no necessary physical similarity to the earthly
tabernacle or temple, and there is nothing to make us believe that objects and
aspects related to the earthly sanctuary (furniture, utensils, ornaments, distinct
rooms, etc.) reflect the heavenly physical reality, in spite of the true and faithfully
described visions of John the Revelator and E G White. The heavenly temple is
rather the Lord’s Palace, our Father’s House, the City of God, the Paradise, and
the New Jerusalem, no matter how it actually looks like.280
“The pattern” ‫ תבנית‬ta·ḇny·iṯ shown to Moses on the mountain (cf. Heb
8:5), was not a reproduction of the heavenly sanctuary on a reduced scale,
because there is no compelling argument or reason to accept this view, but
rather it was a dummy pattern of what Moses had to build down here. The use of
the neuter plural τὰ ἅγια also is not an acceptable evidence of a bipartite sanctu-
ary in Hebrews, since the plural is used also for each of the two appartments of

280
ֲ ‫( ָב ֶבל ַר ְב ָתא ִד‬Da 4:27) – Babylon, as a Royal House, built by Nebucad-
See also ‫י־אנָ ה ֱב ַניְ ַתּה ְל ֵבית ַמ ְלכּו‬
nezzar, as Jerusalem is God’s Palace, which He has built; ‫ ֵּובית ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬... ‫ש־מ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫( ֵב‬Am 7:13)
ֶ ‫ ִמ ְק ַד‬... ‫ית־אל‬
– Betel, a royal sanctuary, a Royal House. Usualy, a “royal house” is a kingly palace (Est 1:9; 2:16;
2Ch 1:18), where a king’s throne is seated (Est 5:1).
 86

the earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:2-3; OG in Ez 47:12; 48:10.12).281 The correspond-

ence between the heavenly and the earthly is spiritual-didactical, not physical.
The Hebrew word ‫ תבנית‬ta·ḇny·iṯ in Ex 25:9, 40 (OG typos) does not imply
more than a model of the sanctuary to be built, not an approximate copy [minia-
ture model] of the heavenly original. Surely, it is more than a spiritual corre-
spondence, between heaven and earth, but as to their physical resemblance, it is
probably very little if any. We cannot choose how many of the earthly sanctuary
items must actually fit the heavenly sanctuary. Probably the right choice is all or
nothing.
Our pioneers, including E G White, may have used sometimes only the ty-
pologic language of the sanctuary, or they even have thought about the corre-
spondence between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries in a rather naïve,
literal way, as a physical correspondence. This is understandable on the ground
that the visions of John the Revelator and of E G White seem to endorse a literal,
physical correspondence, if taken in a literal manner. But I do not need to insist
that a ceremonial sanctuary in heaven is a problem today for any clear mind. The
most popular image of the heavenly sanctuary among our believers is a vast and
wonderful two-apartment structure, furnished with altar, table, candlestick and
ark, endowed with censers, priestly garments, curtains and bells, which have
been erected especially for a divine liturgy. It is imagined as being quite similar
to the earthly system, except the animal sacrifice, and it is believed to be some-
thing else but God’s heavenly dwelling. Ultraconservative SDA groups love to
stress this distinctive Mosaic aspect (“two apartments”) and they even become
very concerned and upset when such imagery fades out to make room for the
clear message.282
I do not oppose the reality and the materiality of the heavenly sanctuary.
When I say spiritual correspondence (not physical), I refer only to what is
essential and didactical – real but not literal. If there is no material sanctuary in

281
To relate the plural ἅγια to the two appartments is not natural, because the Temple was taken as a
whole, like any other house. There was no linguistic or psychologic need to refer the temple by a
plural „holy [appartments]”. Rather the use of plural neuter is often related to singular entities (cf.
σαββατα = one sabbath/week; χιλια = one hundred; παντα = all / as a unity: todo; αιωνες [Heb 1:2;
11:3]= world; αἵματα [many ref. in OG] = blood; ὀψώνια = payment, „wages”; γαμοι = wedding;
πασχα = Pesach). See Robert Funk, Blass & Debrunner (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New
Testament and Other Christian Literature, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 77-78. At §§ 141
(8), Funk clearly shows that the plural τὰ ἅγια has the same meaning with τὸ ἅγιον. In fact, both
reflect the Hebrew ‫ ַקֹּ ֶַדש‬which in Greek is rendered both ways. In the other examples above, the
singular is often used, besides the plural form, with the same meaning.
282
E.g. Ben and Lois Roden, leaders of the General Association of Branch Davidian SDA taught that
the sanctuary is a different structure, it is not the eternal place of God’s throne (see Lois I. Roden,
“An Answer For Desmond Ford! The Seven Seals and the Sanctuary”, LIVING WATERS, © May
29, 1981 www.the-branch.org). Russel and Collin Standish (The Gathering Storm and The Storm
Burst, Hartland Publications, 314) became also concerned about any eclipse of the “two apartments”.
Vance Ferell of “Pilgrims Rest”, criticized the “new theology” of our book Seventh-day Adventists
Believe…, (Review and Herald, 1988), under the heading “The Two Appartments”: “As we read
through this chapter, entitled Christ’s Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary, we find that there is
absolutely no mention about a two-apartment Sanctuary in heaven. There is no hint that that Sanctu-
ary is even a structure of any kind. In fact, we are not only not told that it has two rooms; we are not
told that it has any rooms in it at all. It is just ‘the heavenly sanctuary.’"
www.sdadefend.com/Books-new-order/sdadvent1A.htm#Sanctuary
 87

heaven, it would mean that there is no sanctuary at all, no city, no real heaven!
My point is that the spatial sanctuary above may have too little resemblance with
the earthly one, because it refers to other sort of service, which is spiritual.
I am not a Platonic thinker; Platonism was always repugnant to me. My
critical position does not intend to substitute the questionable concept of a
splendid ceremonial sanctuary in heaven, by a Platonic aethereal abstraction,
neither to follow Philo’s concept of the cosmos-sanctuary, though interesting
such proposals may be.283I hold dear the image of a God manifested in physical
expression before His saints in Heaven (Mt 18:10; Rv 22:4; GC 644-45). I just
want to say that visions are not intended to convey us the true appearance of the
heavenly things. They are object lessons, not intended to describe the physical
reality in heaven, present or future.
In fact, most of us agree with this, at least in part. My point is that we
should be more consistent in this regard. There are important SDA writings still
maintaining the physical existence of two appartments in the heavenly sanctu-
ary.284 This is actually our historical view, represented by Ellen White (“...Christ’s
ministration was to consist of two great divisions, each ... having a distinctive
place in the heavenly sanctuary...” PP 357. Emphasis supplied). However, under
the influence of Taylor Bunch, Edward Heppenstall and others, most of us speak
now of “two phases” rather than “two appartments,”285 which is certainly better.
There remains a legitimate possibility to speak about the heavenly things by
using the language of the earthly type. But if we use only this unique typical
language, without any specification that it is a mere didactic language, our
imagination of a ceremonial temple in heaven will be strengthened in prejudice
of a more lucid awareness of the truth.
Probably nobody argues today for a strict one-to-one literal correspond-
ence between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries. However, if we maintain
a physical correspondence, emphasizing the two heavenly “appartments,” or
“veils”, 286 we must be consistent to acknowledge that the same arguments are as

283
Richard Davidson, in private mail, refers to C.S. Lewis’ great allegory, The Great Divorce, as a
good book to get rid of such spiritualist ideas.
284
See, for example, A M Rodriguez, ”The Sanctuary” (in Handbook of Sevent-day Adventist Theolo-
gy, vol. 12, Review and Herald, 2000: 389): “This emphasis on the earthly sanctuary as a copy of the
heavenly, coupled with a discussion of the two appartments of the earthly (9:1-7), suggests that the
author of Hebrews understood that the heavenly sanctuary was a bipartite structure.”
285
Cf. G M Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism, Andrews University, Berrien Springs MI, 1992:
261), and E Heppenstall, Our High Priest, Review and Herald, 1972
www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/priest/index.htm.
286
Much discussion was done sometimes on the expression “within the veil” in Heb 6:19. Either of the
two curtains is referred by this expression. Heb 9:3 mentions a “second veil” of the earthly sanctuary,
suggesting that “within the veil” must be “after the first veil”. This mention of the first veil appears in
Nu 3:10 (ἔσω τοῦ καταπετάσματος), Lv 24:2 and Philon, Leg 1:296, 171 (εἴσω τοῦ καταπετάσματος),
Nu 18:7 (τὸ ἔνδοθεν τοῦ καταπετάσματος), Sirach 50:5 (ἐν ἐξόδῳ οἴκου καταπετάσματος [= ַ ‫ִמ ֵבית‬
‫ ַל ָפר ֶֹּכת‬Ex 26:33 etc.]). On the other hand, Josephus (Ant 8:75) uses the expression ταῖς ἐνδοτέρω
καταπετάσμασιν, implying two inner veils, and Mishnah (Mo‘adim, Yoma 5:1 [Neusner, 1988:272])
shows that the sanctuary had two inner veils separating the two holy places, so that the high priest
“walked through the sanctuary, until he came to the space between the two veils which separate the
Holy Place from the Most Holy Place, and the space between them was a cubit.” This statement
however is challenged by Rabbi Yose, according to the same source.
 88

much valid as the other sanctuary items: golden cherubim, ark, golden altar,
frankincense, candlestick, table, loaves, Aaron’s rod, pot of manna, stone tables
etc., which Ellen White (CET 1847:91) certainly has seen in vision.
The real number of rooms was important in the earthly sanctuary, but in
the heavenly one, rooms are not more important or more useful than censers,
showbread and tinkling bells. Marvin Moore287 envisaged this aspect, when he
wrote that “the throne room Jesus entered at His ascension includes both the
Holy Place and the Most Holy Place”, and that “there is no veil in the heavenly
sanctuary”. I would ask, however, Why should we speak of the heavenly reality
as a bipartite sanctuary, if it has no separating veil?
We should first solve a basic hermeneutic problem, related to the function
of prophetic visions. A comparative study of the visions (Biblical and E G White’s)
convinced me that they had essentailly didactic purposes, to give us spiritual
knowledge, in a familiar language, and not to supply scientific information about
heavenly realities.288

7. The Role of the Heavenly Sanctuary

God’s celestial dwelling is called by various names in the Bible, and even
when it is shown and described in prophetic visions, there is no consistent
picture of it. Two basic images are used indiscriminately to depict the heavenly
sanctuary: the City (Jerusalem, God’s imperial capital) and the Sanctuary (God’s
palace), according to the earthly model. Jesus calls the Jerusalem temple “My
Father’s house” (Lk 2:49; Jn 2:16), the same name He gave the heavenly home of
the redeemed (Jn 14:2). Describing the celestial city, the seer declared (Rv 21:22)
that he “did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the
Lamb are its temple.” These words show that in the heavenly city there is no
ceremonial structure, no cathedral, as it was the case with the earthly Jerusalem,
because God, Father and Son are visibly present among His people, with no
separating wall or curtain. They will worship God in His direct light-flooding
presence. And the city itself is God’s sanctuary, because it is called “God’s taber-
nacle with His people,” (a covenant language in Rv 21:3). God’s tent is His dwell-
ing with the heavenly beings (Rv 13:6).
New Jerusalem is described as having the form of a cube, just like the Most
Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary (Rv 21:16c; 1Rg 6:20; Ez 41:4). It has twelve
foundations of precious stone, practically identical to the twelve jewels of the

287
M Moore (op. cit. 277). Gerhard Pfandl, in his review of Moore’s book (see Reflections–The BRI
Newsletter, Biblical Research Institute, Number 34, April 2011: 13-14), notes that “Moore sometimes
goes beyond traditional Adventist explanations.” And after quoting Moore’s explanation of a
monopartite sanctuary, with no veil between, Pfandl comments that “In this way Moore deflects the
criticism that Jesus entered the presence of God in A.D. 31 as the New Testament indicates, and not in
1844. […] Moore does an admirable job of showing that this is the teaching of Scripture.” Amen.
288
Pfandl (ibid.) acknowledges that “Ellen White’s description of a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary
in Early Writings (p. 32) is understandable, he says, because she described what she saw in vision and
God showed her an earthly sanctuary that she could recognize.” The fact that one of our best theolo-
gians, leader in the Biblical research mission, did not resort to a more traditional view of the sanctu-
ary, but he even seems to commend the progressive position of Moore, suggests that we must be
optimistic as regards the future of SDA theology.
 89

high priest’s breastplate.289 Thus the Holy City and God’s Sanctuary in heaven are
one and the same. It is not an imitation of the form, the rooms, the furniture and
the ceremonies of the “shadow” at a higher and brighter scale. It is something
else, and it might be quite different, more beautiful and meaningful than any
prophetic vision could ever reveal.290
The identification of the “sanctuary” with the NT heavenly city was made
early by Miller in 1834, at least in its spiritual meaning:
For there is not a word in the prophets or apostles, after Zerubbabel built the second temple,
that a third one would ever be built; except the one which cometh down from heaven, which is
a spiritual one, and which is the mother of us all, (Jew and Gentile) and which is free [Gal
4:26], and when that New Jerusalem is perfected, then shall we be cleansed and justified.291
(Emphasis supplied)

O R L Crosier, in February 1846 also equated the city and the sanctuary in
heaven, in a very insightful way:
When our Saviour was at Jerusalem, and had pronounced its house desolate, the disciples
came to Him to show Him the buildings of the temple. Then He said: "There shall not be left
here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down:" Matthew 24:1,2. That temple was
their Sanctuary; 1Chronicles 22:17-19; 28:9-13; 2Chronicles 29:5,21; 36:14,17. Such an
announcement would tend to fill them with sadness and fear, as foretelling the derangement, if
not the total prostration of their entire religious system. But to comfort and teach them, He
says, "In My Father's house are many mansions;" John 14:1-3.
Standing, as He was, on the dividing line between the typical covenant and the anti-typical,
and having just declared the house of the former no longer valid, and foretold its destruction;
how natural that He should point His disciples to the Sanctuary of the latter, about which their
affections and interests were to cluster as they had about that of the former. The Sanctuary of
the new covenant is connected with New Jerusalem, like the Sanctuary of the first covenant
was with Old Jerusalem. As that was the place where the priests of that covenant ministered,
so this is in heaven, the place where the Priest of the new covenant ministers. To these places,
and these only, the New Testament applies the name "Sanctuary", and it does appear that this
should forever set the question at rest.292 (Emphasis supplied).

289
Compare Rv 21:19-20 and Ex 28:17-20. Eight of the precious stones of Ex 28 in Greek are identical
to those in Rv 21 (σάρδιον, τοπάζιον, σμάραγδος, σάπφειρος ἴασπις, ἀμέθυστος, χρυσόλιθος,
βηρύλλιον / βήρυλλος). Of the remaining, one stone has a synonym in Rv 21 (ἀχάτης = χαλκηδών),
and three only seem to have no equivalent in the two lists (ἄνθραξ, λιγύριον, ὀνύχιον // σαρδόνυξ,
χρυσόπρασος, ὑάκινθος). If we consider the loose translations, because of the linguistic difficulties in
identifying these gems (in Hebrew and Greek alike), we should not emphasize such differences, since
they are not important in this case. The gems of the two lists are identified first by the number 12, and
second by their association to the idea of sanctuary. Their function may be somewhat different in the
two lists, but the basic significance must be the same. The LXX of Ez 28:13 has also twelve gems
related to God’s heavenly paradise and Holy Mountain.
290
See also 1Cor 13:9, 12 (BBE “For our knowledge is only in part and the prophet's word gives only a
part of what is true”… “For now we see things in a glass, darkly”). My conviction is that prophetic
visions do not usually describe the heavenly or the future reality as recorded by video camera. Visions
are given by God as a merely didactic tool, for spiritual and practical purposes, not for communi-
cating scientific information about the heavenly things. Visions are not shamanic experiences, but
spiritual subjective experiences, though supernaturally induced. They are drammatic revelations made
to “pass through” the prophet’s “head” (Dan 4:10, 13; 7:15). Prophets are never physically transport-
ed in a transcendent time-space, even though this is usually the visionary’s subjective feeling.
291
W. Miller (Evidence..., p. 34), emphasis supplied. Probably, he alluded to Rv 19:7-8; 21:2-3,9-10.
He further refers to Phillippians 3:20,21.
292
O R L Crozier, “The Law of Moses”, in The Day-Star Extra, Feb 7, 1846.
www.sdadefend.com/Our%20Firm%20Foundation/Crosier-sanctuary.pdf
 90

Joseph Bates in his tract of May 1846, written after having read Crosier’s
article, discusses quite extensively the identity of the sanctuary, quoting a lot of
Biblical passages, including Hebrews 12:22-24. Bates’ conviction was strong:
Well, says one, are you going to call this City the Sanctuary too? If you will allow the Bible
testimony you will have to believe it is […] But allow me first to recommend to your particu-
lar notice, O. R. L. Crosier’s article in the Day Star Extra, for the 7th of February, 1846, from
the 37th to the 44th page. Read it again. In my humble opinion it is superior to any thing of the
kind extant.
“Sanctuary was the first name the Lord gave the Tabernacle […] also the court with all its
hangings, and all the vessels of the ministry.” Exo. xxv: 8,9, and 38,21; Num. i:53. This, then,
was a dwelling place, and a true pattern of the heavenly, embracing within its “jasper” walls
“the Paradise of God,” with the “pure river of the water of life,” and the “tree of life,” and the
“Golden City in the midst,” all to come down from heaven and be located in [the place of the]
old Jerusalem. Za. 14th chapter. That’s too absurd to believe, says one. Is it any more so, than
to believe the Apostle John’s testimony? Does he not show us that the tree of life is inside of
the gates, in xxii: 14? (cf. Gen. ii:10,14; Ezek. 43). […]
(Quot. John xiv: 1, 3) I think I have now proved by unquestionable authority, that this
heavenly sanctuary is the very place with mansions which he has been preparing, and accord-
ing to his promise is now coming to receive his saints. […]
“Unto two thousand three hundred days then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Dan. 8:14.
This, then, I understand, is the selfsame “heavenly Sanctuary, the New Jerusalem, the Paradise
of God.” […]O Lord give us the truth! […]This then is the capacious and glorious “golden
City;” the “New Jerusalem;” the “heavenly Sanctuary;” the “Bride of the Lamb’s Wife;” the
“Mother of us all;” the “Paradise of God;” the capital of our coming Lord’s EVERLASTING
kingdom, which is now about to descend from the “third heaven” by the way of the open door,
down by the “flaming sword” of Orion. O let us see to it, that we are all ready to enter into this
celestial City.293

This identification of the heavenly sanctuary is worthy of our attention

and deserves further theological development. Unfortunately, none of its first
proponents was consistent to uphold it. Miller focused his attention on the most
unfortunate identification of the sanctuary (the Earth). Crosier in the same
writing inclined to the concept that the heavenly sanctuary is a part of the New
Jerusalem.294 Shortly after the publication of his article on the Sanctuary, he
abandoned (1848) his original theology expressed in that Day-Extra, and
adopted instead the dispensationalist “age-to-come” view of a Jewish
sanctuary.295 Joseph Bates understanding were soon to be eclipsed by a more

293
Joseph Bates, The Opening Heavens, May 8, 1846: pp. 15, 20-21, 28.
http://sdapillars.org/joseph_bates_p.php. Recently, Angel M. Rodriguez ("The Sanctuary", in
Raoul Dederen, ed., Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Commentary Reference Series,
vol. 12, Review and Herald PP, Hagerstown, MD, 2000, p. 389) came close to the same idea: “At the
end of the book we are informed that in the New Jerusalem there is no temple (21:22); the whole city
serves as God's tabernacle, the place where He dwells with His people (verse 3; cf. 7:15).” This
interesting statement probably was not intended to mean that the heavenly sanctuary is identifiable
with the city, since Rodriguez wrote on the same page that “the heavenly sanctuary is a bipartite
structure.” Possibly Rodriguez was suggesting that in the end, after the complete eradication of sin
from the universe, there will be no need of a sanctuary bipartite structure (inside or outside of the
city), but the city itself will be God’s sanctuary.
294
“We have seen, both from the New Testament and the Old, that this Sanctuary is not earthly but
Heavenly, as the Sanctuary of the first covenant formed a parte of old Jerusalem, so the Sanctuary of
the New Covenant formed a part of New Jerusalem.” (O R. L. Crosier, “The Law of Moses,” 1846).
Emphasis supplied.
295
His article where he rejects his former sanctuary theology is published at http://www.ex-
sda.com/crosier.htm . Unfortunately, he abandoned also the Sabbath and fought against Sabbatarian
Adventism.
 91

popular idea among SDA: the heavenly sanctuary as a separate bipartite

structure inside or outside the heavenly city.296
Decades before I got knowledge of Crosier’s and Bates’ view, that the
Sanctuary is the heavenly city itself, I had found it in the Bible, when I was trying
to memorize the book of Revelation. I was overwhelmed by this magnific idea
found in Revelation 21, that the New Jerusalem is God’s Tabernacle or His Most
Holy Place, and that its justification-vindication probably equates the prepara-
tion of the Bride (Rv 19:7-8; cf. Is 49:18). But because of my limitation to and
total dependence on Ellen White revelations in that time, I rejected the identifi-
cation suggested in the Book of Revelation. Only late in the ninties, after further
hermeneutical maturation, I resumed to the concept that the heavenly sanctuary
is God’s palace or city.297
This complete identification of the heavenly city with the heavenly sanc-
tuary teaches us, among other things, a major truth: in God’s heavenly realm as
well as in the future kingdom, there is no distinction between political and
religious. The secular and the sacred are no more apart. Nothing profane (unho-
ly) will be there (Rv 21:27). The redeemed of God are both priests and kings;
they fulfill both religious and political roles, like their Lord, according to the
order of Malkîṣédek (Rv 20:6; Ps 110:4; Heb 7).298
In the Israelite ancient state, there was clear distinction between Zion and
Moriah, between the palace of the Davidic king (‫יח‬ ִ ִ‫ מׁש‬måšîaḫ) of Israel and the
Palace of Yahweh (the Sovereign king of the whole universe). There was also
distinction between the temple citadel and Jerusalem City.
Such distinction between the religious and the politic realms is extremely
important in our world. But in the plan of God for an everlasting kingdom in
Jesus Christ, the distinction disappears. The wordplay of the old prophecy
addressing to David (1Cr 17:4.10-14) shows that, while David wanted to build a
house for Yahweh (a sanctuary), God promised Himself to build a house to him:
an everlasting kingdom (dynasty). King Messiah is both temple and kingdom (Jn
2:19; Zc 6:13), according to this project. And so must be His celestial sanctuary, a
holy palace of Yahweh – both temple and capital city.
Our theology of the heavenly sanctuary identity must be further devel-
oped along Biblical lines, and especially its relevance as leading to the concept of
Judgment for the saints must receive more attention.

296
This understanding may have been encouraged by a literalist perception of E G White’s visions.
297
I have already expressed this view in the Romanian Adventist review (Florin Lăiu, „Bătălia pentru
Sanctuar”, Curierul Adventist, Viaţă şi Sănătate, Bucureşti, Oct. 2002; „Măsuţa cu nisip”, Octombrie
2009 – Aprilie 2010), then in a still unprinted book (Rubine din ceasuri târzii, Graphé, Cernica, 2009,
p. 215-217), on my webpages and in a study sent to AIIAS (“The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Book of
Daniel”, 2011).
298
“… to God's city, the sanctuary-dwelling of the Most High” (Ps 46:5)
 92

8. Who are the defendants in the Premillennial Judgment

9:1. Version A: including the judgment of God’s enemies

In spite of our traditional opinion that this premillennial phase of the
judgment deals exclusively with the believers, Daniel 7 reveals two heavenly
verdicts at the end of the Judgment, which implies that two human classes are
judged in this phase:
“the beast” / “little horn” is “thrown into the fire” (Da 7:11; cf. Rev
19:20-21) – a preliminary punishment, imposed on the world’s last gen-
eration (Rev 15-16) who rejected the true Gospel (Rev 14:6-12) and
chose Antichrist;
“the saints of the Most High” receive judgment and eternal kingdom, to-
gether with their Representative “Son of Man” (Da 7:18, 22, 26-27).
The two classes of the premillenial judgment’ (Rev 14:6-13) are described
in the Revelation 14, under the image of a dual last harvest:
“the crops”, symbolizing the reward of the saints, “the 144.000” having
God’s name on their forheads (Rv 14:1-5,14-16);
“the vintage” and “the winepress”, symbolizing the reward of the beast
worshippers who have the Babylon’s stigma on their hands and forheads
(Rv 13; 14:17-20).
“Books have been open” (7:10; 12:1) shows that there is a record system
and records’ examination. The designation “investigative judgment” is still good
to be used; it even fits not only the pre-Advent phase, but also the post-Advent,
millennial phase (see Rv 20:4.12). Both phases of the judgment are first investi-
gative (involving duration), then decisional, and finally executory.299
Thus premillennial judgment results in a double vindication: against the
enemies of God and His people, and in behalf of God and His people.
We usually followed exclusively our pioneers’ and E G White’s emphasis
on the investigative judgment of God’s people. However, the Revelation’s seven
last plagues and related prophecies show that the premillennial judgment has
also wicked subjects, no matter whether their names have been written in the
book of life. The main distinction between the two main phases of the Judgment
(premillennial and millennial), is that the premillennial one is hopeful and
redemptive-confirmatory,300 while de millennial one is and punitive. One is for
the winners; the other is for the loosers: one for the redeemed, one for the lost.
However, this is an oversimplification. Whereas SDA historical position is reduc-
tionist as regards the premillennial Judgment dealing only with God’s professed
people, the first subjects of the Judgment in Daniel 7 and 8 appear to be God’s
enemies. One of the verdicts of the heavenly court in Daniel 7 is the punishment

299
In Romanian language I prefer the designation judecata premilenială “premillennial Judgment”,
because there is some confused use of the terms “Advent” and “Adventist” in Romanian, so that “pre-
Advent” is not explicit to Romanian speakers.
300
Or affirmative, as Jiří Moskala (“Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment”, JATS, 15/1,
Spring 2004:153) proposed.
 93

of the horn/beast in the premillennial fire (Da 7:11; Rev 19:20). The only way in
which Gabriel interprets in Daniel 8 how the sanctuary will be vindicated, is in v.
25, where he says that the arrogant king will be broken without human hands.
8:2. Version B: The peak of God’s historical judgments.
The judgment of the beast/horn may be interpreted from a different per-
spective. It seems to be more like one of the historical judgments, similar to the
judgment of Babylon, and of Persian Empire and of the Hellenistic World (Da
7:12), not the final judgment of the individuals who made up those religio-
political systems.
Individual unrepented people, who made up the beast system will be
judged by name during the millenium. They will not be twice judged as
individuals. If we look to the executive judgment in Revelation, the beast and the
false prophet are thrown into the “hellfire” at the beginning of the millennium, or
rather at the end of the premillennial judgment, and all unrepented people who
only followed these systems, but were not part of their structure, will be also
destroyed by Christ’s sword (Rev 19:20-21). They are not yet described as
thrown in the hellfire. But after the millennial judgment, when unrepented
people are individually judged, they are finally thrown in the hellfire (Rev 20:9-
10, 15).
If God’s ennemies are thrown into the hellfire at the beginning of the
millennium and at the end of the millennium, it deserves our attention to
distinguish between the two situations. One involves Satan’s political systems
(“beasts”) and the other involves individuals. The historical systems called
“beasts” will not be resurrected; only people who compose them will be
resurrected for individual judgment. As systems they are eternally tormented in
the hellfire, with no hope of restoration.
Such consideration, I think, is related closer to the kind of judgment on the
beast/horn in Daniel 7. The most important verdict of this premillenial judgment
is the vindication of the saints. Since it involves records (Da 7:10; 12:1), it must
be a judicial process, a trial, before a final verdict. It is the only judgment with
salvational hope, therefore our pioneers have been right to stress this aspect,
despite any protest from the evangelical world.

9. The Advent in Conditional and Apocalyptic Prophecy

God’s prophetic revelation about future reveals also a tension between
foreknowledge (viewed as predestination) and free will; between prophetic
predictions of a determined future and a conditional prophetic scenario that may
fail to happen.301 The tension between God’s foreknowledge and human moral

301
Lester Grabbe (“Fundamentalism and Scholarship: The Case for Daniel,” in Scripture: Meaning and
Method. Essays presented to Anthony Tyrell Hanson. Edited by Barry P. Thompson, Hull University
Press. 1987: 137) maintains that, “The concept of accurate detailed predictions actually brings up a
theological problem which I have yet to see discussed in fundamentalist writings: the question of free
choice. The idea of complete determinism is repugnant to most of us. Perhaps one can argue for an
overall divine control of history and/or the universe while allowing individual freedom, but a detailed
prophecy such as Daniel 11 would render free choice impossible. Only if the Ptolemies and Seleucids
were mere puppets in the hand of God could such a prophecy be made. The religious views of some
 94

freedom is paradoxical as are many other realities, Biblical or scientific. Biblical

revelations feed our faith by a lot of opposite truths.
To imagine in the same time complete foreknowledge in God’s mind and
complete free choice in His acts and in those of the human subjects, is not an easy
task. Such paradoxical aspects occur always at the natural limits of our human
mind, which cannot grasp, in the same time, God’s omnipotence and love, wis-
dom and mystery, foreknowledge and freedom. If someone chooses to reject
actual detailed prophecy, because he cannot harmonize this phenomenon with
his idea of personal freedom, he might as well reject God’s existence too, because
usually it seems to be covered by the very things that discover it.
The concepts of God’s complete control and foreknowledge, on the one
hand, and of humans’ complete freedom of choice, on the other hand, are attested
throughout the Bible. Biblical writers imply or assert them, but never have they
tried to explain.
Human beings and even angels do not know the future, except which was
revealed to them,302 even though they are allowed to decide important events in
this world.303 Only God truly knows and reveals the future.304He even determines
its most favourable course, having an overall control of the future as of the
present.
But even when God “hardens“ such and such heart, or “incites” someone
to do anything wrong, this is not a personal volitional manipulation, but a per-
missive will, a supreme control that, however, respects personal freedom.305
Otherwise, the whole theology of moral accountability, sacrificial atonement,
divine judgement and even prophecy that fill the sacred pages would be worse
than nonsensical.306

might see no problem with this, but most fundamentalists would face a conflict with their own
theological presuppositions if they were to think through the implications of their statements about
prophecy.”
302
Mk 13:32, 1Pt 1:12.
303
Da 4:17; 10:12-14.20; 11:1.
304
Da 2:28, Is 44:6-7, Ps 139:16.
305
Cf. Ex 4:21, 7:2-4.13-14.22, 8.19, 9:7.12, 10:1.20.27, 11:10, 14:4.8.17, Dt 2:30, Mt 13:14-15, Jn
12:39-40, 2S 24:1, 1Ch 21:1, 27:24, 1K 22:19-23, Lam 13:37-38; Ex 8:15.32, 9:34-35, 1S 6:6, Ps
95:8, Is 46 12, Ez 2:4-5, Da 5:20, Mk 6 51-52, 8:17-18. See also Dt 30:19.
306
Someone may object to such hard language in the Bible, which may easily lead someone to
understand God as a puppets-driver. But this is not a “heavenly“, “inspired” language. It is the best
cultural means that Hebrew authors could find in their cultural-linguistic endowment, to express the
sovereignty and the overall control of God, in order to avoid ditheism. Moreover, they balanced such
absolutist expressions with others expressing human freedom and accountability. Their hard language
may contain yet deeper thoughts. Nowhere the Bible teaches absolute human freedom. Even the
moral freedom is in a special sense limited and determined. (Neither science is more convincing at
this point). Outside of moral consciousness and knowledge, there is no moral freedom, and conse-
quently no accountability. With the coming of Law, the sin comes (Rm 5:13.20, 3:20, 7:7-11), thus in
a special way God makes people sinners by simply revealing His will to them. Bu this equation has
two unknown quantities: the same reasoning is true about the right choice and righteousness, as about
sinning. Our moral freedom is real and makes us wholly accountable, but morally we have not more
than two choices. To reject the right, that is the will of God (even unwritten, received by tradition or
by reason, Rom 2:14-16) means to choose wrong and accept (consciously or not) to be under the
controlling power of one’s own fallen nature (which is responsive to the malefic spiritual agencies).
Human freedom means that individuals have to choose between a willing, love “slavery” to God, and
 95

The human freedom and accountability are in the highest sense revealed
in the classical prophecy, which is usually a conditional prophecy.307 God foretold
that Ninneveh will be destroyed in 40 days, but it did not happen then.308 When
God revealed by prophecy a detail, such as the name of the reformer king Josiah,
the prophecy was fulfilled (1K 13:2). But God’s revelation about the peaceful end
of the same Josiah was deflected by the king’s own choice, outside God’s will,
though Josiah may have trusted God’s favourable prediction or promise.309
There are many conditional prophecies, which have not been fulfilled un-
til their proper time passed. Especially some favourable, optimistic prophecies
concerning Israel and other ancient people did not occur – though pessimistic,
unfavorable prophecies usually occurred, sooner or later.310 While we have no
explicit statement with each prophecy to know if it is conditional or not, we may
interpret each case in the light of divine covenant stipulations.
Biblical apocalyptic prophecy however is apparently different. Its inten-
tional covered or coded language, with its discreet and reserved explanations –
angelic or prophetic –; its universal scope and final reach, suggest divine control
and foreknowledge. Only the knowledge of an unconditional future has been
necessary to be partly hidden from mortals. While conditional prophecy chal-
lenges the human faith and faithfulness, inciting to action, and using the plainest
language. Apocalyptic prophecy challenges especially our trust and patience, and
so much study, wisdom and insight. We need both kind of knowledge and faith –
both trust and faithfulness.
Apocalyptic books may contain some conditional prophecy, as well as
classical Prophets contain some unconditional prophecies. The revelation ad-
dressed to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is certainly conditional, because he could
avoid its fulfilment.311 Contextual historical narratives (e.g. Da 1-6; 10:1-4; Rv
1:10; 22:8) in apocalyptic books certainly must not be treated as symbolic. But
what will we say about the prophecy of Daniel 11, or of Daniel 9? Could they have
been conditional? It is true that they are expressed in common language as
classical prophets did, with only a few code expressions. But this fact does not
contradict what is said about the specific apocalyptic language. Apocalyptic
visions are usually accompanied by angelic or prophetic explanations, and such

a natural slavery to self and sin. The first one means freedom, because one is always able and free to
chose “liberation” from God, whereas the second one is only illusion of absolute liberty, since even
the moral ability to choose anything but sin is affected. We are only theoretically equal and free, and
this is not our worse problem. God evaluates us through His infinite grace and by our responsiveness
as His Word and His Spirit search our conscience.
307
See Jr. ch 18. It is a pity that most conservative people, including theologians, pay not real attention
to the hermeneutic implications of the great Jeremianic passage. When God reveals that this is His
way and purpose in revealing the future, one cannot disregard it and still be called believer. In the
SDA theology, Ramond Cotrell has especially promoted this theology, through his theological
contributions to SDABC vol. IV. But he was not the first one to defend the truth about conditional
prophecy. John Andrews made it quite clear in 1872, or possibly even in 1853 (cf. John N Andrews,
The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publish-
ing Association, Battle Creek, MI., 1872; TEACH Services 1997:5-6).
308
Jon 3:2.4, 3:10, 4:1-4.11.
309
2K 22:20, 23:29.
310
See Is 19:19-25, Jer 31:38-40, Ez 37:22-25, chapters 40-48.
311
Da 4:27.
 96

verbal explanations, though usually chary and limited, are always rhetorical or
even poetical, very similar to the classical prophecy. Prophecies of Daniel 9 and
11 practically function as further angelic interpretations of Daniel 8, though they
were given later, at different dates and supplied more than the vision of Daniel 8
explicitly required.
One of the paradoxical Biblical revelations needing to be sufficiently ex-
plained is the New Testament’s repeated assertion that Christ’s Advent must
have occurred in the first century, as Jesus and His apostles believed it,312 and on
the other hand, the revelation of the long apocalyptic periods involved in the
historicist interpretations (e.g. the 1260 “days” ending in 1798 and the 2300
“days” ending in 1844). The implied question is, how can these long periods be
the intended meaning of the prophecy, against the New Testament scenario of
Christ’s Advent in the first century?
This problem illustrates the the natural logical tension between fore-
knowledge and free will, between God’s wish and God’s foresight. One is a
witness of God’s eternal sovereignty over time and events, the other is a revela-
tion of God’s best plan to be believed and followed. The contradiction is deter-
mined by the human free will, the only factor of uncertainty that makes such
prophecy conditional. But we should note that God did not reveal from the
beginning some important elements of the apocalyptic prophecy. Some of its
symbols remained sealed for centuries. Its time periods have been expressed in
such manner as they can be viewed compatible with the scenario of the “soon”
coming of Jesus.
Now one may imagine that apocalyptic prophecy could have been fulfilled
in short time, as a conditional prophecy. But if this is true, why it was necessary
to be expressed in such coded manner, that even today some prophecies of
Daniel and Revelation are not satisfactorily understood, though we believe them
to be fulfilled? Why express apocalyptic periods in unusual, obviously covered
manner, if they were conditional and possible to be fulfilled in a literal way?
But this tension is not only between two sorts of prophecy. The most ob-
vious tension is between conditional prophecies and the historical reality. Isaiah
(19: 20-25) predicted that the Egyptian and Assyrian empires would join Israel
in the worship of the true God, and so the tree nations will constitute a united
federal people of God. Jeremiah (31:31-40) predicted that the Jerusalem that had
fallen will be rebuilt after the Babylonian exile, in virtue of a new covenant, and

312
Sound hermeneutics and exegesis demands that the Olivet Apocalypse of Jesus (Matthew 24 etc.) be
understood as a conditional prophecy intended to be completely fulfilled in the first century (cf. verse
34), provided the Gospel would exhaust its global task (verse 14). It was only partly fulfilled, and
therefore in historical retrospective many (including E G White: DA chapter 69; GC chapter 1) treat it
as a double prophecy, which is acceptable for some practical purposes, though it was not intended to
be so understood. Mt 24:34 was understood by our pioneers (including E G White, DA 632) to refer
the generation that has witnessed the last cosmic signs of verse 29 (e.g. the great meteoric shower of
1833). There is no need to argue against this exegesis, since time has proved it wrong. The condition-
al prophetic scenario of Matthew 24 is easy to be discerned due to the successive use of some tem-
poral adverbs, especially τότε “then” (Mt 24:14b, 16, 21, 23, 30; v. 19), or other adverbial expressions
(ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις “in those days”, with reference to the war against Jerusalem; v. 29 Εὐθέως
δὲ μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν "Immediately after the distress of those days"). See also fn 24. A good article on
the topic is of Don Neufeld, “This Generation Shall Not Pass,” Adventist Review, April 5, 1979.
 97

that it will never be destroyed afterwards. Jesus and the New Testament authors
predicted the Second Advent to be fulfilled in their generation.313 They believed
that they were living in the last days.314
So the question is not, why should we not interpret apocalyptic prophecy
like conditional prophecy, but rather how could God reveal so many prophecies,
if He knew that they will not happen? Take for example, the last nine chapters of
Ezekiel. There were so many details with no practical application, since that
better plan of God was not fulfilled in time, and never will be. Such revelations
suggest that God really wanted that these better prophetic scenarios be fulfilled.
But how can we speak about 2300 years, if Jesus promised to come back
soon after AD 70? The equal legitimate question is, why Jesus promised to come
soon in that generation, if the real history had yet to extend over two millennia?
We have shown that God’s better plans have been expressed in terms of condi-
tional prophecy. And one asks, how Da 8:14 would have been fulfilled, if the
prophecy of Jesus and the apostles’ expectations about the Second Advent
happened in the first century? There would have been no problem for God. He is
not surprised by anything. He would certainly have known long before this
possibility become real, so that He had given to Daniel in time the proper infor-
mation about the future.
Probably most Adventists acknowledge only deterministic prophecy. At
least as regards the time of the Second Advent, the prevailing opinion is deter-
ministic. A few Adventists suggest that even apocalyptic prophecy is conditional,
and therefore we should abandon our historicist methodology, especially the
year-day measuring stick. Both parts must acknowledge and embrace the whole
paradoxical revelation, if we want to grow together in unity.

10. Practical Suggestions

Adventist prophetic (eschatologic, apocalyptic etc.) studies need continual
revision and progress, in the light of new hermeneutic and exegetic approaches.
This is the task of all our theologians and of all our community of faith. Our
responsible authorities (BRI, BRCs) should encourage constructive theological
endeavors in this field. First, to make a more thoroughful evaluation of the
former critical approaches and suggestions; and second, to encourage the dy-
namic theological model of our pioneers.
Probably the first necessary step is to promote a sound and realistic the-
ology of inspiration, not only among theologians, but also among our community
at large. The Bible study and the Spirit of Prophecy need to be revived and
encouraged in our churches everywhere, in a respectful and critical manner. To
make more open and more efficient such popular study, much depends on

313
Mt 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32; 2Cor 5:2-4; 1Thes 4:17; 5:3-4, 23; 2Tes 2:7-8; Tit
2:13;Heb 10:36-37; 11:40; Jam 5:8-9; 1Pt 4:5-7, 17-18; Rev 1:1,3; 3:10-11; 12:12; 22:6-7, 10, 12. 20.
The explicite or implicite logic of these texts is distorted by some exegetes, but just look at the
historical and literary context. However, there is enough evidence that Jesus (Mt 24:14; AA 1:7-8),
Peter (2Pt 3:3-16) and John (Rv 14: 15, 18) have shown the conditional nature of this solemn promise
and expectation.
314
Cf. AA 2:16-17; Rom13:11-12; 16:20; 1Cor 10:11; 1Jn 2:18.
 98

ministers’ concern or abilities to do it, and on the popularity of good written

studies on the topic. Our pastors or teachers must be able to understand in a
practical way how divine inspiration works, and thus we have to resume, in the
most open manner, the task we silently abandoned in 1919. Without a decided
and united effort, nothing good is to be realized.
SDA theologians with all our present capacities should make of this fun-
damental topic a priority in our research. We cannot allow our central doctrine
and message to remain in a provisional stage. We should not fear that being fair
with the Biblical text or the Spirit of Prophecy might lead to a loss of faith. There
are some risks in the dynamics of a fair and determined research, but there are
more risks in a conservative inertia.
It is wise to ask myself, if a doctrine so difficult for scholars should belong,
with all its details, to our official doctrinal expostion, which so often functions as
a creed and test of fellowship.315 This is not a militant position against this
precious doctrine. But why should we go through so much difficult stuff in
Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9 and Ellen White, insisting on nonessential details
and forcing the text, and why should we not express the doctrine of Daniel 8:14
in its essential truth: God’s Judgment as culmination of the eternal Gospel?
A tentative statement on this doctrine, still in much need to be improved,
as I perceive it, is following:
There is a universal, final and heavenly judgment that will manifest God’s
character of love, which is expressed through grace and justice.
o It is universal, because it involves each responsible individual.

o It is final, because it is definitive, irrevocable, and distinct from some historical

judgments of God.

o It is heavenly, because its sessions occur in heaven, while people is judged in absen-
tia, with the best defendant’s Lawyer.

God’s judgment has two main sessions:

o a millennial session for the lost ones;

o a premillenial session for the saved ones.

Each session has two important consecutive phases:

o a trial, based on complete evidence (records) followed by final decisions (justified
or condemned) regarding each name;

o an executive judgment (the reward), happy or unhappy.

The millennial judgment occurs during Christ’s kingdom of 1000 years,

after the Second Advent, involving all those “not recorded in the book of
life.”
o It has Christ as supreme Judge and all the redeemed as His jury of assessors.

315
W. W. Fletcher, in his “Reasons for My Faith”, 11, quoted in D. Ford (Daniel 8:14, p. 47), noted
that “While these things should not be made a test of fellowship, we have rightly attached great
importance to them”.
 99

o The role of the trial is not to give God new chance to make better decisions, neither
to give the lost a new chance to be saved, but to demonstrate that God is right in
denying everlasting life to those who are morally (spiritually) irrecoverable.

o The result of this millennial trial will be negative. All who did not reconcile with
God in this life (time of probation) will be lost.
o The final punishment is differentiated, individualized; many will be resurrected to
receive their deserved doom (suffering eternal separation from God and annihila-
tion), while others will be left in their eternal sleep, with no additional punishment
(Rom 2:12; 1SG 193).

The premillennial judgment occurs before the Second Advent, still in his-
torical time, and it basically involves those who are “recorded in the book
of life”, candidates to immortality.316
o It has God as Judge, Christ as attorney and angels as jury and wittnessess.

o The role of this trial is not to inform God to make good decisions; neither to give
those involved a new chance, nor to endanger the status of the saved, but to
demonstrate that God is right in justifying repentant sinners, and in giving ever-
lasting life to those who partook of His Spirit.

o The result of the premillenial judgment will be happy for all who meet God’s crite-
ria. All those who believed and lived according to the best light of truth that they
understood in good conscience, will be welcome to heaven, with Jesus being their
substitute and surety. All those who rejected God’s light and will not receive the
character and the Spirit of Christ, will be rejected, and their case will be treated in
the millennial judgment.

o The glorious reward of the saved cannot be imagined. It includes everlasting life,
the unspeakable joys of heaven and of renewed earth, the society of a redeemed
family, angels and saints, and mostly, the possibility to enjoy the immediate pres-
ence of God and Jesus, to worship and praise Him. The favorable reward will also
be differentiated. While the good reward is from God’s grace, not from humnan
merits, God will “pay” however for each “well done”, evaluating the spirit and the
motivation.

The premillenial judgment involves two classes of candidates, dead and

living.
o The dead are judged first, because their fate cannot change.

o The living ones who are judged are all the candidates from the last generation who
have to be tested before meeting Christ at the Second Advent.
o To face the eschatologic test, the Judgment and the Second Coming, God prepares
the living candidates, through the Gospel, gives them the Holy Spirit and victory

316
It is true that, according to Daniel 7:11, at the end of this judgment, the beast with its horn was
killed and thrown into the flaming fire. However, this seems to be more like one of the historical
judgments, similar to the judgment of Babylon, of Persian Empire and of the Hellenistic World (Da
7:12). It seems not to be an individual judgment, but one involving the beast and its horn as a religio-
political system. The same scenario is described in Rev 19:20. Individual unrepented people who
made up this system will be judged by name during the millenium.
 100

over sin, seals them forever and keeps them believing and living through the apoc-
alyptic horrors of the time of trouble.
The premillenial judgment, which is the only trial with favorable results,
have already began, according to the prophecy.
o Daniel 7 describes the judgment to begin after the year 1798 but earlier than the
moment where Jesus receives His kingdom, which is shortly before His Advent.

o Daniel 8 in connection with Daniel 9 indicates a more precise time, at the end of
the 2300 prophetic days, in 1843/1844.
o This news of the Judgment in the light of the Cross of Christ, who is our only hope,
is the culmination of the eternal Gospel.

o The hour of God’s judgment is an opportunity and a challenge for the living ones
only, inviting to repentance and true worship, submitting to God’s saving grace to
prepare ourselves for the test below and the judgment above, to be sealed and
made ready to meet Christ.

Theological details are not for a statement of beliefs;317 they are for per-
sonal and denominational research, preaching, seminars etc. Why should belief
in the two apartments or in a hazy work of celestial cleaning, became more
important than tithing, which is not a test of fellowship?
Adventist theological advance depends much on the condition of a realist
approach to the concept of divine inspiration of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.
We must acknowledge our historical errors and perfectibility, and accept the
reality that the understanding of E G White and of our pioneers is not necessarily
the best exegesis to any Biblical passage in the year 2011.
These considerations are themselves liable to human errors, but hopefully
and prayerfully, I expect them to do some good for the Adventist JuST, to stir our
theological community toward a reevaluation of this nearly classified topic.

317
“In 1872, for the benefit of non-members and for the first time ever, Adventist leaders published a
statement, or ‘synopsis,’ of Adventist belief. The publication of the statement satisfied both bureau-
cratic and doctrinal needs. (These needs, of course, do matter.) But the first paragraph said that the
statement was not meant to ‘secure uniformity’ among Adventists. It was not, in other words, to be an
instrument of oppressive unity. Why is such wisdom often scorned today, or at least ignored?”
(Charles Scriven, “Going Forward While Going Backward,” www.spectrummagazine.org
∎ editorial, 3).