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.
[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).
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
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.
- Our Current Problem
- Enemies from without, revisionists within, deny Biblical basis for
existence of Seventh-day Adventist church:
Lindsell: If 1844 is not Biblical, there is "no adequate
basis for existence of Seventh-day Adventists."
Barnhouse: "You were founded on a lie...Seventh-day
Adventism will have to go back into the same position as
Olson: "Whole 1844 structure falls apart."
Cottrell: "No Biblical support for 1844."
Jarnes: "The fundamental pillar of the Seventh-day
Adventist church is...built on October 22, 1844 event and
when that goes, traditional Adventism goes."
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.
of "THE DAILY" (Ha Tamid)
the Maccabees, the Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant view is:
continual priestly ministry in the Lord's sanctuary.
view is crucial to identifying Antiochus Epiphanes as the
early Adventists so understood it, they would have been forced
to recognize Antiochus as the primary fulfillment; no 1844
movement could have developed.
wholly fresh approach to "the daily" established and
locked 1844 as the terminus of the 2,300 days/years.
and 1844 participants were virtually unanimous in seeing "the
daily" as paganism supplanted by the papacy; it was an
White endorsed it (EW 75); clear statement.
view was pivotal in holding early Adventists from renouncing
faith in the 1844 movement after the Disappointment.
century Adventists were virtually unanimous in this view.
the early 1900's, the new view has captured nearly all SDA's.
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.
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).
view becomes captive to the SDA type/anti-type principle.
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.
Historical Tension Between the Two Views
arrived at his view historically and contextually:
saw 2 Thessalonians 2:3-7 as commentary on Daniel 8:11-13.
thesis that his view of the "daily" tied to his 666
idea is not valid; there is no logical dependance.
Andrews saw "the daily" as a desolating power; and
all early pioneers, including James White, were unanimous.
White supported the pioneer view: see his Sermons on Coming
and Kingdom of our Lord , pp. 108-125).
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).
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.
was one of the foremost despisers of the 1888 message in
acknowledged his longstanding opposition to Ellen White.
later apostasy was an outgrowth of his new view; he could not
escape its logic.
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.
taught the new view to Prescott, Prescott to Daniells; both
sought to win W.C. White.
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
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.
1945 revision of Smith's book forces a restudy of "the
revisors are unanimous in accepting the new view, yet they
could not force Smith to teach what he did not believe.
the old view reappears, with added support.
White and the "daily."
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.
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.
1910 counsels (1SM 164-168) do not settle the issue one way or
controversy; regrets agitation of the new view.
is eloquence" - there is no endorsement of the new
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.
in these counsels discourages careful study of the issues
in a time of crisis as at the present.
general tenor of her life ministry was to support the
leading of the Lord in the teachings of the pioneers of
the 1844 era.
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).
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
is inevitable when two views are diametrically opposite.
see "daily" as the work of Satan, evil of paganism
is absorbed into something worse, papalism.
new view sees "daily" as the work of Christ and His
High Priestly ministry that was removed effectively by Satan.
and Contextual Study of the "DAILY":
Hebrew of the five "daily" passages in Daniel presents
difficulties to the new view:
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.
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
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.
uses of rum are found in Daniel 4:37; 5:19, 23; 11:36.
verb rum is inconsistent with Antiochus' removal of
sacrifices from the Jerusalem temple; he did not lift up,
take up, or absorb them.
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.
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).
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).
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
word for "place" is unusual, means base or
headquarters. Linguistic evidence could support the
pioneers' view that miqdash here is the dedicated place of
ordinary word for take away or deprive is adah, and is not
used in 8:11 (cf 5:20; 7:26).
8:12: while ha tamid is "taken up," truth is
"cast down;" and "the host" set against ha
tamid is military force.
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
Antiochus Epiphanes translators have manipulated the
Hebrew be (in) to mean "by reason of."
8:13: literally, "How long the vision, ha tamid, the
desolating iniquity, the giving both sanctuary (qodesh) and
host to trampling?"
ha tamid in apposition with the "desolating
iniquity." This supports J.N. Andrews' idea of
"two desolating powers" mentioned here.
does Daniel now use qodesh instead of miqdash as in vs.
11? This supports the Pioneer view.
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."
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.
Daniel's use of miqdash in 8:11 as bastion of paganism.
Thus, cannot fit the heavenly sanctuary.
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.
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,
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
view proponents are unable to explain. See SDA Bible
Commentary, vol. 4, pg. 881.
of Antiochus view flounder here in a hopeless quagmire of
confusion. See any commentary.
years of Adventist exposition still see 508 A.D. as a
reasonable application; revised Daniel and Revelation
supports date as meaningful.
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.
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.
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?
Historical Approach to the "DAILY":
presents a phenomenal dissolution of paganism that was supplanted
by a meteoric rise to power of the papacy:
Augustine's City of God commentary on this.
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.
Bruce: "Paganism a perpetual eclipse of Divine
Grace" (The Galilean Gospel, p. 96).
more Christianity supplanted the heathen worship the more did
it absorb the elements of paganism." (The History of the
World, p. 617).
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?
White firmly identifies his "man of sin" as the
papacy. Her reason? Scriptural exegesis.
Paul is commenting on Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31.
taught His disciples the significance of Daniel's prophecies
(Matt. 14:15; Lk. 24:27, 44, 45; Acts 1:3).
John (Rev. 13:1, 2) allude to this development?
Adventists so understood this passage in Revelation.
dragon: pagan Rome; the beast, papal Rome.
"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.
clearly recognized Rome as successor of the Babylonian pagan
worship headquarters; a worshiper from the East was at home in Rome's
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).
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:
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."
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.
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).
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.
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:
would establish Lindsell's and Barnhouse's contention that
1844 is meaningless; that there is no excuse for the
existence of Seventh-day Adventists.
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.
way, the new view logically resolves itself into a denial
of Seventh-day Adventism and is basic to the Cottrell-Ford
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)?
the Jews in Babylonian Exile Understand HA TAMID as an Idiom for
overwhelming problem of the Exile was the apparent superiority of
paganism over YHWH (Jehovah).
was now in complete subjection to the "heathen
world-power" (Keil, p. 8). Moses' warning fulfilled
was seemingly triumphant over YHWH's covenant with Abraham.
Babylonian Bel "swallowed" Judah like a piece of
candy (see Jer. 51:34, 44).
tamid ministry was in existence during the Exile.
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).
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.
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?
vision of Daniel 8 was given as an answer to this question:
surprise and agony: he sees paganism absorbed into a
desolating power worse than itself because it is professedly
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.
in Daniel is tamid used with the article, "ha tamid,"
Cyrus Cylinder uses a similar expression (line 7) referring to
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.
never used tamid as a substantive.
prophet Daniel was not naive; his concern was not for cultic
ritual in the Jerusalem temple. He was a man of very mature
an overwhelming concern of the inspired prophets: personal
heart relation to the Lord.
David sinned, the Lord did not "desire" ritual or
daily "sacrifice." (see Ps. 51:6, 16, 17).
disparaged preoccupation with the temple cultus and daily
sacrifice. (Jer. 7:1-14, etc.).
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).
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
legalism and fanaticism in the time of the Maccabees
contributed to misunderstanding Daniel's prophecy.
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.
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".
this thesis is correct, it would vindicate the Adventist pioneers
as especially led of the Holy Spirit.
foundation of the Seventh-day Adventist church (sanctuary
doctrine) rests on a solid linguistic, contextual, and
pioneers were the first group ever to properly reconstruct the
true import of the Daniel 8 prophecy as the Holy Spirit
Jewish interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little
horn is a product of apostasy and unbelief.
preterist interpretation is a product of papal unbelief.
new view is logically an apotelesmatic appendage of the Antiochus
king is type, papacy is antitype, of the little horn.
serious linguistic, contextual problems.
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.
serious distrust of 1844 and the sanctuary truth.
and 1888 are complimentary dates. If one stands, the other does;
if one falls, inevitably, the other does also.
anti-1844 propaganda within Adventism is accompanied always by
a parallel antipathy for the 1888 message.
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.
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.
1888 message imparted spiritual appeal to the sanctuary
doctrine, freeing it from narrow egocentricity.
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.
view of "the daily" (if this thesis is correct):
no way restricts the spiritual significance of the sanctuary.
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.
supported exegetically, linguistically, and contextually, by
response of history to prophecy.
lost truth whose hour has come again, necessitated by present
anti-1844, anti-sanctuary propaganda.
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
is true that no Jewish, Catholic, or Protestant commentaries
support this view: should this keep us from accepting it?
of the popular view involve all these commentaries in a
quagmire of confusion.
attempt to reconstruct or rewrite the text in order to make it
fir their preconceived, popular theory.
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.
linguistic, contextual, historical exposition of these
prophecies will command respect from thoughtful people. We
have no need to fear in presenting truth.
Christian commentaries support us on the Sabbath truth; shall
we abandon that truth for fear of opposition?
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?
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
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.
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.
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:
was the first to introduce this view to us (p. 79).
acknowledged Ellen White opposed it (p. 67).
recognized the new view as the essential link in his rejection
of the sanctuary doctrine (p. 129).
Star opposed Fletcher by upholding the old view of the
"daily" (p. 129).
links the new view with downgrading the investigative
judgement; considers it the essential step (pp. 395, 396).
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."
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"?
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.
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).
- "In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. … Paganism
had given place to the papacy." (p. 54).
(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.