Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? — Robert J. Wieland

An Often Neglected Aspect
of Daniel 8:11-13

"The correct understanding of the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith.

This [sanctuary] subject … is the central pillar that sustains the structure of our position at this present time." (Ellen G. White, Evangelism 221; Letter 126, 1897).

HAVE WE FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES?

We have all heard the story of a ship's captain who carefully piloted his precious vessel through dangerous waters by steering it exactly by the compass. But in spite of his best efforts, the vessel hit the rocks and sank. In the inquest, the ships compass was examined.

It was found that someone cleaning the wooden case had carelessly left a fragment of a knife lodged in a crack. This had deflected the compass enough to lead the vessel onto the rocks.

If any fundamental doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist church can be likened to the ships compass, it is the sanctuary truth. This outline suggests that one of our illustrious leaders of a past generation deflected our compass by a false interpretation which has been accepted uncritically and thoughtlessly by generations of our scholars. Undetected by us, it has magnetized Brinsmead-Ford-Cottrell scholars into a repudiation of Bible support for the 1844 cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. They inherited a faulty compass. So this thesis suggests.

Daniel 8 and 9 provided direction for this church as a compass directs a ship. Our pioneers were virtually unanimous in their understanding of it. A key element was Daniel's figure of "the daily" taken away by the little horn. What they saw locked 1844 into Daniel 8:14, making the sanctuary in heaven the only one that could be cleansed, or justified. History shows that the pioneer's view was held practically unanimously by our people until about 1900, and enjoyed Ellen White's endorsement (EW 74, 75). Then came a change. Was it a disastrous one?

This outline suggests that Louis R. Conradi deflected our compass by introducing his new view about 1900. One of the first to accept this view, E.J. Waggoner, forthwith repudiated Ellen White, for he saw clearly that she upheld the pioneer's view. This was the beginning of his apostasy. Next, W.W. Prescott embraced Conradi's view, followed by A.G. Daniells, the General Conference president. These two gave the new view wide publicity, against Ellen White's counsel. In time, Conradi apostatized completely, and Prescott, in the end, virtually abandoned the sanctuary doctrine. Others were Ballinger, Fletcher, Grieve, - a questionable track-record for new light.

Many have not pursued Conradi's view to it's logical end. But some of our astute scholars have, and it has proved a short circuit that makes Antiochus Epiphanes of 168 B.C. to be the necessary "primary" fulfillment of the Daniel 8 prophecy. In their scheme, there is no room for an 1844 application except by a contrived "secondary" or "apotelesmatic" fulfillment. This is seen as a "face-saving" accommodation openly ridiculed by non-Adventist theologians and now by some of our own, built on Ellen White.

We must concede that the Seventh-day Adventist church has not as yet made the world conscious of the stupendous implications of an 1844 change in Christ's High Priestly ministry. And our own zeal in proclaiming the message is now considerably dissipated by these in-house misgivings. How can we expect to convince the world of a doctrine we are not ourselves sure of?

This outline is offered tentatively, soliciting criticism, comment or refutation from readers. Although I see evidence that Ellen White supported the pioneer view consistently, I appeal to a close study of the original Hebrew for its validation. I suggest the possibility that the pioneers were right, and Conradi was wrong. And had it not been for the latter, we would not be mired in our present confusion and controversy about the sanctuary.

INTRODUCTION:

1. Our Current Problem
1. Enemies from without, revisionists within, deny Biblical basis for existence of Seventh-day Adventist church:
   1. Harold Lindsell: If 1844 is not Biblical, there is "no adequate basis for existence of Seventh-day Adventists."
   2. Donald Barnhouse: "You were founded on a lie...Seventh-day Adventism will have to go back into the same position as Mormonism."
   3. W.H. Olson: "Whole 1844 structure falls apart."
   4. Raymond Cottrell: "No Biblical support for 1844."
   5. Norman Jarnes: "The fundamental pillar of the Seventh-day Adventist church is...built on October 22, 1844 event and when that goes, traditional Adventism goes."
   6. Ellen White agrees that SDA church founded on understanding of Daniel 8:11-14. Sanctuary doctrine and 1844 is "the foundation of our faith," "central pillar that sustains the structure of our position," "the message that has made us a separate people,...given character and power to our work." (Letter 126, 1897; Evangelism p. 221-225).
2. Significance of "THE DAILY" (Ha Tamid)
   1. Since the Maccabees, the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant view is: continual priestly ministry in the Lord's sanctuary.
      1. This view is crucial to identifying Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn.
      2. Had early Adventists so understood it, they would have been forced to recognize Antiochus as the primary fulfillment; no 1844 movement could have developed.
      3. Miller's wholly fresh approach to "the daily" established and locked 1844 as the terminus of the 2,300 days/years.
   2. Miller and 1844 participants were virtually unanimous in seeing "the daily" as paganism supplanted by the papacy; it was an unusual view.
      1. Ellen White endorsed it (EW 75); clear statement.
      2. This view was pivotal in holding early Adventists from renouncing faith in the 1844 movement after the Disappointment.
      3. 19th century Adventists were virtually unanimous in this view.
   3. Since the early 1900's, the new view has captured nearly all SDA's.
      1. "Daily" is the ministry of the antitypical High Priest that was taken away by the papacy. This view is identical to the Antiochus Epiphanes view in principle: our new view sees an antitypical fulfillment whereas Antiochus constitutes typical fulfillment.
      2. Thus, it is impossible to exclude Antiochus logically; he became the "primary" fulfillment the Holy Spirit intended. Reason and logic make it easy to see him as the exclusive application. (This is Walvoord's strong contention).
      3. This view becomes captive to the SDA type/anti-type principle.
      4. Seen in this light, present anti-Sanctuary agitation becomes the natural outgrowth of the new view adopted 75 years ago. It justifies, in principle, anti-Adventism from the beginning. If the papacy truly took away Christ's High Priestly ministry, Antiochus must be the first or primary application.
3. The Historical Tension Between the Two Views
   1. Miller arrived at his view historically and contextually:
      1. He saw 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 as commentary on Daniel 8:11-13.
      2. Froom's thesis that his view of the "daily" tied to his 666 idea is not valid; there is no logical dependance.
      3. J.N. Andrews saw "the daily" as a desolating power; and all early pioneers, including James White, were unanimous.
      4. (James White supported the pioneer view: see his Sermons on Coming and Kingdom of our Lord [1870], pp. 108-125).
      5. All survivors of the pioneer days united in opposing Conradi's view - Haskell, Loughboro, Smith, etc. (the vigor of their opposition probably indicated conviction that it would result in the eventual scuttling of 1844 and the sanctuary).
   2. Conradi's new view grew out of his opposition to the 1888 message and identification of Luther as herald of the third angel's message in verity.
      1. Conradi was one of the foremost despisers of the 1888 message in Minneapolis.
      2. He acknowledged his longstanding opposition to Ellen White.
      3. His later apostasy was an outgrowth of his new view; he could not escape its logic.
      4. E.J. Waggoner abandoned his faith in Ellen White upon his acceptance of Conradi's view: "Early Writings most clearly and decidedly declares for the old view. O.A. Johnson shows most clearly that the Testimonies uphold the view taught by Smith." (Letter, Nov. 22, 1909). This was the beginning of Waggoner's downfall.
      5. Waggoner taught the new view to Prescott, Prescott to Daniells; both sought to win W.C. White.
      6. Opposing Early Writings 74, 75, Daniells declares it an "imperfect statement." This was the source of his difficulty in maintaining a pro-Spirit of Prophecy image at the 1919 Bible Conference.
      7. Daniells and Prescott swing almost the entire leadership and college teachers to the new view. Today, the Voice of Prophecy is almost alone in using Smith's Daniel and Revelation.
   3. The 1945 revision of Smith's book forces a restudy of "the daily."
      1. The revisors are unanimous in accepting the new view, yet they could not force Smith to teach what he did not believe.
      2. Result: the old view reappears, with added support.
   4. Ellen White and the "daily."
      1. SDA Encyclopedia (p. 369) article cites Daniells as reporting that she either offered no objection to the new view or supported it. Being an ardent believer in the new view himself, he may have misunderstood her. Widespread opinion that she changed her view is a mistaken assumption.
      2. F.C. Gilbert, Hebrew scholar, reports that she told him on June 8, 1910, that agitation of the new view was a "scheme of the devil." (cf. his "Report of Interview"). In 1908 she told Prescott that God permitted the view of the pioneers, implied it was not "a mistake." Gilbert being an ardent believer in the old view, could have misunderstood also? Possible, of course, but he was very much more positive in his quotes attributed to Ellen G. White than was Daniells. Gilbert's image was not so impaired by reputed doubts regarding Ellen White.
      3. Her 1910 counsels (1SM 164-168) do not settle the issue one way or the other:
         1. Deplores controversy; regrets agitation of the new view.
         2. "Silence is eloquence" - there is no endorsement of the new view.
         3. Don't use her writings to "settle" the issue; advises the brethren to get together, study it out of the Bible and come to agreement on Biblical, linguistic grounds.
         4. Nothing in these counsels discourages careful study of the issues in a time of crisis as at the present.
         5. The general tenor of her life ministry was to support the leading of the Lord in the teachings of the pioneers of the 1844 era.
      4. W.H. Olson argues forcefully that the new view logically requires repudiation of Ellen White, and thus agrees with Waggoner in his apostasy; also that it dissolves the 1844 position: "The whole 1844 structure falls hopelessly apart" (2,300 Day Prophecy, pp. 44, 51, 52).
      5. NO support of the new view in Ellen White's writings; her only statement (EW) supports the old view; repeatedly she says she deplores the agitation of the new view; also deplores the harsh methods of defending the view. Her advise: study the Bible.
   5. Tension is inevitable when two views are diametrically opposite.
      1. Pioneers see "daily" as the work of Satan, evil of paganism is absorbed into something worse, papalism.
      2. The new view sees "daily" as the work of Christ and His High Priestly ministry that was removed effectively by Satan.
4. Linguistic and Contextual Study of the "DAILY":
   1. Literal Hebrew of the five "daily" passages in Daniel presents difficulties to the new view:
      1. In Daniel 8:11, the verb is rum, which does not have a primary meaning of "take away" but "to go on high," "to lift up." Every use in the Old Testament has this meaning.
         1. Key thought in this verse: lifting up, rising up, or exaltation of the little horn. In the process of his mushroom-like growth, he lifts up, takes up, or absorbs ha tamid.
         2. Law of first mention requires particular attention to this verb used with ha tamid. This is vision; all subsequent mention of ha tamid is the audition.
         3. Other uses of rum are found in Daniel 4:37; 5:19, 23; 11:36.
         4. The verb rum is inconsistent with Antiochus' removal of sacrifices from the Jerusalem temple; he did not lift up, take up, or absorb them.
         5. Rum is equally inconsistent with the papacy counterfeiting or taking away Christ's ministry; it did not lift up, take up, or exalt Christ's ministry.
         6. Perhaps the clearest modern translation of rum in this context is to "incorporate" or "absorb." Ellen White speaks of the papacy "incorporating" paganism (GC 50) and paganism "giving place" to it. (p. 54).
         7. "Sanctuary" in vs. 11 is miqdash, not the same as in vs. 14; and can refer to Satan's dedicated place (Isa. 16:12; Ezek. 28:18; used derogatorily in Ezek. 21:2).
         8. "Sanctuary" in vs. 14 is qodesh, and is not the same; miqdash means "a dedicated place" usually requiring contextual or adjectival designation even when used in reference to the Lord's sanctuary. In 2 Chro. 36:17, it is used to make a derogatory reference to "their sanctuary," that is, of the unfaithful Jews, as Ezekiel likewise refers to Satan's "sanctuary" (miqdash, 28:18). In contrast, qodesh exclusively refers to the Lord's true sanctuary, usually without adjectival designation. Daniel's use of these two nouns in four verses is significant.
         9. The word for "place" is unusual, means base or headquarters. Linguistic evidence could support the pioneers' view that miqdash here is the dedicated place of paganism.
         10. The ordinary word for take away or deprive is adah, and is not used in 8:11 (cf 5:20; 7:26).
      2. Daniel 8:12: while ha tamid is "taken up," truth is "cast down;" and "the host" set against ha tamid is military force.
         1. The force employed against ha tamid be pasha, literally, "the continual (or perpetual) in transgression," identifies ha tamid as an evil thing and cannot refer to Christ.
         2. Pro Antiochus Epiphanes translators have manipulated the Hebrew be (in) to mean "by reason of."
      3. Daniel 8:13: literally, "How long the vision, ha tamid, the desolating iniquity, the giving both sanctuary (qodesh) and host to trampling?"
         1. Places ha tamid in apposition with the "desolating iniquity." This supports J.N. Andrews' idea of "two desolating powers" mentioned here.
         2. Why does Daniel now use qodesh instead of miqdash as in vs. 11? This supports the Pioneer view.
      4. Daniel 11:31: literally, "Military might shall stand on his part, and they shall disgrace (dishonor) the miqdash of military refuge (bastion, haven against military aggression) and shall remove (sur not rum) the ha tamid and shall place the abomination that makes desolate."
         1. Could plausibly be applied to Antiochus' military attack on the Jerusalem temple, but is meaningless when applied to Christ's High Priestly ministry which cannot be touched by military force. The verb sur is never used of taking something from the minds of the people.
         2. Defines Daniel's use of miqdash in 8:11 as bastion of paganism. Thus, cannot fit the heavenly sanctuary.
         3. Verb sur could refer to removal of paganism as a political or military force opposing the papacy. Its incorporation spiritually into the papacy is denoted by the verb rum in 8:11. This profound insight is very important in the development of Christian history.
         4. "Sanctuary of Strength" (miqdash with maoz) is a "military fortress," a phrase inappropriate of the heavenly sanctuary; maoz as used by Daniel always means a military fortress of political fortifying (11:1, 7, 10, 19, 31, 38, 39).
      5. Daniel 12:11: definite time set for removal of ha tamid militarily or politically in order to "set up" the papacy; the 1290 days is essential to the true identification of ha tamid.
         1. New view proponents are unable to explain. See SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 4, pg. 881.
         2. Proponents of Antiochus view flounder here in a hopeless quagmire of confusion. See any commentary.
         3. 150 years of Adventist exposition still see 508 A.D. as a reasonable application; revised Daniel and Revelation supports date as meaningful.
         4. 508 A.D. does not refer to rum activity of the papacy in 8:11, but to political, military removing of paganism as a hindrance to the supremacy of the papacy. This is the "taking away" of 2 Thes. 2:6,7.
         5. Logical conclusion of Antiochus view: interpret 2300, 1290, and 1335 days as literal; logical conclusion of our new view is to ignore the 1290 days aspect of ha tamid, thus leaving Daniel to fizzle out in a meaningless wilderness of speculation and futility.
   2. When Daniel speaks unmistakably of a continual or daily temple service, he does not use ha tamid, but zebah and minhah ("the sacrifice and oblation [to cease]") in Daniel 9:27. There is no linguistic or contextual hint that he intends these terms to be synonymous with ha tamid. Further, if ha tamid ceased in the midst of the 70th week, how could it be "taken away" by the little horn centuries later? If he wished to speak of daily or continual temple services in 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31 and 12:11, why not be consistent and use zebah and minhah?
5. An Historical Approach to the "DAILY":
   1. History presents a phenomenal dissolution of paganism that was supplanted by a meteoric rise to power of the papacy:
      1. See Augustine's City of God commentary on this.
      2. Pagan Romans bewailed the Sack of Rome in 410 A.D. and attributed it to the Catholic Christians' triumph over paganism. Miller and Andrews said Rome was the pagan "sanctuary" or "dedicated place" (miqdash) of Daniel 11:31. Linguistically, this is possible; historically, justifiable.
      3. A.B. Bruce: "Paganism a perpetual eclipse of Divine Grace" (The Galilean Gospel, p. 96).
      4. "The more Christianity supplanted the heathen worship the more did it absorb the elements of paganism." (The History of the World, p. 617).
   2. Did Paul refer to this transfer and absorption of paganism into Romanism in 2 Thes. 2:6, 7? If not, where did he get his "taken away" idea?
      1. Ellen White firmly identifies his "man of sin" as the papacy. Her reason? Scriptural exegesis.
      2. Perhaps Paul is commenting on Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31.
      3. Jesus taught His disciples the significance of Daniel's prophecies (Matt. 14:15; Lk. 24:27, 44, 45; Acts 1:3).
   3. Did John (Rev. 13:1, 2) allude to this development?
      1. Early Adventists so understood this passage in Revelation.
      2. The dragon: pagan Rome; the beast, papal Rome.
      3. The "dragon's seat," the city of Rome, former bastion of paganism, spiritual successor in John's day of the old Babylonian paganism which enveloped the Jews in Exile. John could refer to miqdash of Daniel 8:11 and 11:31.
      4. Ancients clearly recognized Rome as successor of the Babylonian pagan worship headquarters; a worshiper from the East was at home in Rome's Pantheon.
   4. Historical comment in GC 50 fits pioneer view of Daniel 1:11: "The work of corruption rapidly progressed. Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ." Paganism had "given place" to the papacy (p. 54).
   5. While paganism was "taken up" (Hebrew, rum) into the papacy, and "removed" politically and militarily (Hebrew, sur), there could never be an actual taking away of the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary:
      1. When Daniel spoke of the papacy changing God's law, he was careful to state that it was only an attempted action: "he shall think to change times and laws."
      2. Overwhelming emphasis of scripture: no earthly or hellish power can take away Christ's high priestly ministry: Heb 4:14-17; 5:6; 6:19, 20; 7:24, 25; 8:1, etc.
      3. The papacy never took away Christ's ministry from the minds of true Christians; they preserved their faith pure throughout the Dark Ages. (cf. GC 61, 74, 75).
      4. The papacy could not take away Christ's ministry from the minds of apostate or misinformed adherents, for they never had a true understanding of His ministry. Christ's letter to "Thyatira" (Rev. 2:18, 29) is not to the papacy but to true followers of Christ; there is no hint that His ministry is taken away.
      5. If the papacy actually took away Christ’s ministry from the minds of the people, it would follow logically that the 16th century Reformation restored it:
         1. This would establish Lindsell's and Barnhouse's contention that 1844 is meaningless; that there is no excuse for the existence of Seventh-day Adventists.
         2. It would logically follow that what was "restored" or justified in 1844 was the same ministry "taken away" by the papacy earlier, that is, the First Apartment ministry; or alternatively, if Christ entered the Second Apartment at His ascension, this was "taken away" by the papacy.
         3. Either way, the new view logically resolves itself into a denial of Seventh-day Adventism and is basic to the Cottrell-Ford position.
      6. If the papacy, directed by Satan, could actually take away the High Priestly Ministry of Christ, how could John see Satan as "cast out" of heaven at the cross (Rev. 12:13)?
6. Did the Jews in Babylonian Exile Understand HA TAMID as an Idiom for Paganism?
   1. The overwhelming problem of the Exile was the apparent superiority of paganism over YHWH (Jehovah).
      1. Israel was now in complete subjection to the "heathen world-power" (Keil, p. 8). Moses' warning fulfilled (Deut. 28:64-47).
      2. Paganism was seemingly triumphant over YHWH's covenant with Abraham. Babylonian Bel "swallowed" Judah like a piece of candy (see Jer. 51:34, 44).
      3. No tamid ministry was in existence during the Exile.
      4. After the Exile, no true tamid ministry was ever reinstated because the Ark of the Covenant was never recovered; the real presence of YHWH in the Jerusalem sanctuary was never truly restored (except in the personal visit of Christ to Herod's temple).
      5. The only possible identification of ha tamid (note, a substantive, never so used in the OT) during the Exile was the continual, all pervading, all enveloping presence of surrounding paganism. It was a blight to Israel in Exile and a constant challenge to their faith in YHWH.
   2. The constant, supreme question in the minds of the Jews in Exile was, "How long" will paganism triumph over YHWH? (see Ps. 74:1, 3, 10, etc.; 79:5; 80:4; Zech. 1:12). It was the main burden of the Exilic Psalms. It was also Isaiah's Exilic concern for tamid paganism: 51:12-14; 52:4-6; 65:1-3. "How long?" such tamid evil?
      1. The vision of Daniel 8 was given as an answer to this question: vs. 13.
      2. Daniel's surprise and agony: he sees paganism absorbed into a desolating power worse than itself because it is professedly Christian.
      3. The literal Hebrew of Dan 8:11-14 presents a message that is relevant to the concerns of the Exilic Jews and satisfactorily answers their questions regarding paganism. The Pagan-papal overreach is the concern. Final victory of truth is certain.
   3. Only in Daniel is tamid used with the article, "ha tamid," "the daily."
      1. The Cyrus Cylinder uses a similar expression (line 7) referring to paganism.
      2. Without the article, tamid was used in Exilic times as a desolating power: Ps. 74:22, 23; Isa. 52:5. See also Obad. 16; Nah. 3:19; Hab. 1:17. It was natural for ha tamid as substantive to be coined during the Exile as an idiom for paganism.
      3. Ezekiel never used tamid as a substantive.
   4. The prophet Daniel was not naive; his concern was not for cultic ritual in the Jerusalem temple. He was a man of very mature spiritual perception.
      1. With an overwhelming concern of the inspired prophets: personal heart relation to the Lord.
      2. When David sinned, the Lord did not "desire" ritual or daily "sacrifice." (see Ps. 51:6, 16, 17).
      3. Jeremiah disparaged preoccupation with the temple cultus and daily sacrifice. (Jer. 7:1-14, etc.).
      4. True Israelites were not concerned for revival of the temple cultus. (Hos. 6:6; Mic. 3:1; 6:6-8; Amos 5:21-27; Mal 1:10). Since the time of Moses, "daily sacrifice" in the sanctuary was not of ethical importance (Jer. 7:19-21).
      5. How could enlightened, faithful Jews in Exile be supremely concerned for reinstatement of ritual cultus? How could God give a major vision to Daniel with the main focus of attention—the interruption of cultic ritual in which He had no "pleasure"?
      6. Cultic legalism and fanaticism in the time of the Maccabees contributed to misunderstanding Daniel's prophecy.
      7. Daniel exerted tremendous influence on the Gentile world; he saw Israel as the evangelizing agency for "all families of the earth" (cf. Gen. 12:3). His concern was the accomplishment of this mission, not cultic ritual, but the Jews did not see it.
      8. He saw the sanctuary as an object lesson of the cosmic plan of salvation, as did other Hebrew prophets. He could well have had at least a rudimentary concept of the antitypical Day of Atonement as cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven; knowledge of antitype was common. (cf. Ex. 25:8, 40; Ps. 20:1, 2, 6; Heb. 9:11). If Abraham rejoiced to see Christ's day, surely Daniel did also. The gospel is "everlasting".
7. CONCLUSION:
   1. If this thesis is correct, it would vindicate the Adventist pioneers as especially led of the Holy Spirit.
      1. The foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist church (sanctuary doctrine) rests on a solid linguistic, contextual, and historical basis.
      2. Adventist pioneers were the first group ever to properly reconstruct the true import of the Daniel 8 prophecy as the Holy Spirit intended.
      3. The Jewish interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn is a product of apostasy and unbelief.
      4. The preterist interpretation is a product of papal unbelief.
   2. Our new view is logically an apotelesmatic appendage of the Antiochus Epiphanes view.
      1. Syrian king is type, papacy is antitype, of the little horn.
      2. Involves serious linguistic, contextual problems.
      3. It's inconsistencies virtually render Daniel a taboo topic. Our people, especially the youth, are widely ignorant of Daniel. Few sermons are preached on Daniel, and into this vacuum rushes the Cottrell-Ford assertion of Adventist prophetic illegitimacy and is widely accepted by scholars whose doubts are easily received by the laity.
      4. Result: serious distrust of 1844 and the sanctuary truth.
   3. 1844 and 1888 are complimentary dates. If one stands, the other does; if one falls, inevitably, the other does also.
      1. Present anti-1844 propaganda within Adventism is accompanied always by a parallel antipathy for the 1888 message.
      2. As with Conradi, failure to discern the uniqueness of the 1888 view of justification by faith prepares for failure to appreciate the prophetic foundation of 1844.
      3. The 1888 Message of righteousness by faith is integrally united with the doctrine of the cleansing of the sanctuary. It is parallel to and consistent with it in essence.
      4. The 1888 message imparted spiritual appeal to the sanctuary doctrine, freeing it from narrow egocentricity.
      5. Failure to appreciate the 1888 message perpetuated the old egocentric concept of the sanctuary doctrine, preparing the way for widespread internal and external criticism of the doctrine of the sanctuary and the investigative judgement. The 1888 view of 1844 truths is Christocentric, not egocentric.
   4. Pioneers' view of "the daily" (if this thesis is correct):
      1. In no way restricts the spiritual significance of the sanctuary.
      2. Establishes 1844 and the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as the only possible understanding of Daniel 8:14. It securely locks them in as exclusively referring to the terminus of the 2,300 day/years in the Christian era. It eliminates the possibility of reversion to the Antiochus Epiphanes or preterist views.
      3. Is supported exegetically, linguistically, and contextually, by the Hebrew.
      4. In response of history to prophecy.
      5. Is lost truth whose hour has come again, necessitated by present anti-1844, anti-sanctuary propaganda.
      6. Is simple to understand. Common people all over the world can readily "see" the principle of apostate Christianity absorbing paganism as historical reality and as an on-going principle observable even today. The pioneers' view was clear and cogent, tying Daniel 8 with 2 Thessalonians 2, making it easier to grasp the 2,300 days as years. There is no mental stumbling block.
   5. It is true that no Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant commentaries support this view: should this keep us from accepting it?
      1. Inconsistencies of the popular view involve all these commentaries in a quagmire of confusion.
      2. Some attempt to reconstruct or rewrite the text in order to make it fir their preconceived, popular theory.
      3. We are unworthy to exist if we are unwilling to confess truth obviously supported by the Bible, regardless of an inability of popular churches (or Jews) to see it.
      4. Straightforward linguistic, contextual, historical exposition of these prophecies will command respect from thoughtful people. We have no need to fear in presenting truth.
      5. No Christian commentaries support us on the Sabbath truth; shall we abandon that truth for fear of opposition?
   6. Although the ha tamid is simple to understand, the discussions of it through the decades have appeared to be confusing and distracting. Shall we refuse to restudy it for fear of controversy?
      1. Universal acceptance of Conradi's view has now led us to a serious crisis over the sanctuary, 1844, and Spirit of Prophecy positions. Our concept of Daniel's prophecies are out of focus.
      2. There is no lack of intelligence in the Seventh-day Adventist church; many minds need the challenge of deeper study as an alternative to the pervasive preoccupation with amusement and mental and spiritual stagnation in respect to Bible study.
      3. The cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary truth is of incomparable importance to the world and to the universe. No effort, time, or expense involved in establishing it can be thought wasted.
   7. Desmond Ford's Glacier View manuscript links Conradi's "daily" as the vital factor in shaping the views of Ballinger, Fletcher, Snide, Grieve, Brinsmead, Hilgert, Sibley, and himself:
      1. Conradi was the first to introduce this view to us (p. 79).
      2. Ballinger acknowledged Ellen White opposed it (p. 67).
      3. Fletcher recognized the new view as the essential link in his rejection of the sanctuary doctrine (p. 129).
      4. G.B. Star opposed Fletcher by upholding the old view of the "daily" (p. 129).
      5. Ford links the new view with downgrading the investigative judgement; considers it the essential step (pp. 395, 396).

SOME NOTES:

Ellen White's 1851 statement: "I saw in relation to the "daily" Dan 8:12, 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 judgement hour cry." (Early Writings, pp. 74, 75). Proponents of Conradi's view say this is an "imperfect statement" inasmuch as the author's intent was to uphold the "time." However, could the Lord have had a deeper purpose in giving her apparently irrelevant details of this vision—to safeguard the interpretation against the Antiochus Epiphanes view and the consequent, eventual abandonment of 1844 and the sanctuary doctrine? If so, the statement is hardly "imperfect."

"The past fifty years [written, 1905] have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith. … Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth … [that] made us what we are—Seventh-day Adventists." (Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 7 pp. 57, 58).

Is this a comment on the "daily"?

1. "Almost imperceptibly the customs of heathenism found their way into the Christian church … restrained for a time by the fierce persecutions which the church endured under paganism. But … her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ.

"This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of the 'man of sin' foretold in prophecy. … That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power." (The Great Controversy, pp. 49, 50).

2. "In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. … Paganism had given place to the papacy." (p. 54).

Does (a) comment on the activity implied in Daniel's use of rum in 8:11, and (b) the taking away or replacement of the political, military power of paganism by the papacy in Daniel's use of sur in 11:31? If so, we have here firm support for the pioneer's view and an unintended demonstration of remarkable consistency in Ellen White's extensive writings over half a century from Early Writings to 1911.