1

THE S.D.A. SANCTUARY MESSAGE DEFENDED By Derrick Gillespie (*Edited and Revised in April, 2016)

All those who continue to attack, disparage and reject the SDA Church’s “Sanctuary Message”, they often either disregard and or miss certain crucial considerations. TO LAY CHARGES AGAINST A CERTAIN

ASSERTION OR VIEWPOINT, OR TO OPPOSE IT, LAYS THE 'BURDEN OF PROOF' AT THE FEET OF THE OPPOSITION, AND NOTHING HAS YET BEEN SUBMITTED BY ANY OF THE CRITICS (FROM INSIDE AND WITHOUT ADVENTISM) TO CONVINCE ME

THEY HAVE A SOLID OR FOOLPROOF CASE ON THIS MATTER. Why do I say so? Several considerations make their viewpoints less than convincing or absolutely factual for me!! Here are a few.

SUMMARY POINTS OF DEFENSE: 1. Modern critics often make the claim that a number of top SDA scholars have over time either criticized and or abandoned the SDA Church’s “Sanctuary Message”, and so, they argue, that must mean it is without foundation!! In recent times the SDA Church established a committee of SDA's top scholars, called the "Daniel and the Revelation Committee" (DARCOM), and after meeting from 1981-1992 it PRODUCED A SEVEN VOLUME SERIES OF OVER 2400 PAGES, HAVING ADVENTISM'S TOP SCHOLARS (AMONG OTHER THINGS) DEFENDING THE DOCTRINE. Critics may belittle/reject the DARCOM publications, but must not ignore them as the Church having several of its top scholars recently reaffirming (among other things) Adventism's teachings on Daniel 8:14 and the “Investigative Judgment” message. Let me quote a report on the DARCOM affirming what I just said: "They [the DARCOM seven volume series] contain a collection of biblical studies prepared by a large number of [SD] Adventist theologians who firmly believe that our teachings on the sanctuary are biblically based." - Angel Manuel Rodríguez, Nov. 1997. ―Response To the Investigative Judgment: A Bible Based Doctrine? Hence, for critics to quote the SDA scholars who may have a 'difficulty' with SD Adventism's view on Daniel 8:14, and the “Sanctuary Message”, this ignores the reality of the above about the DARCOM report. Critics also seem to think that a polemic which uses dissent from scholarly 'insiders' (like Desmond Ford, and the late Raymond F. Cottrell, among others) that this is a foolproof method of undermining a teaching. It may seem formidable, but certainly not unbeatable, since if even the very Bible has 'insiders' to Christianity itself (i.e. liberal theologians and modern new age 'Christian' scholars) undermining the Bible, and the Bible is increasingly being presented BY LIBERAL CHRISTIANS as having many so-called “contradictions”, “errors”, “discrepancies”, “myths”, and “unfulfilled prophecies”, and even so-called “unscientific claims”, then what's really new or insurmountable about 'insiders' to Adventism dissenting to aspects of SD Adventism's teachings? If God gave the Jews the "oracles" of truth for very many centuries, yet many of them (Christianity’s theological ‘predecessors’) still rejected the Christian/ultimate Messiah when he finally came, and today Judaism itself is even an opposing force to the teachings of Christianity, and if even its top Jewish scholars and its Talmudic writings give no support to the main/orthodox teachings of Christianity, then why should I be so bothered by a few or even several “inside” scholars in Adventism having a difficulty with certain aspects of our teaching, i.e. *IF

THESE TEACHINGS CAN STILL BE DEMONSTRATED AS BIBLICALLY VALID? I declare they certainly can be demonstrated as such, and the opposing voices have given me nothing in the absolute to absolutely

2

disprove what SDAs believe to be biblical. Let me now demonstrate from the Bible itself how ineffective are the challenges being raised by critics from both within and without! 2. The Bible itself has proven the opposing voices (obligated to bring the 'burden of proof') to not be convincing enough in the following areas: a] The book of Hebrews gives no absolute proof that Jesus has been serving within the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, or that he carried out the full/complete work symbolized by that apartment) ever since his ascension (or before 1844), and the term "within the veil" in the book of Hebrews, BEING AMBIGUOUS IN NATURE, offers no absolute refutation of the “Sanctuary Message” as taught by SDAs. The term “within the veil” I will expound on later to show why it is indeed ambiguous. This issue I will demonstrate and expound on hereafter (citing how even the opposing ‘inside scholars’ like even Desmond Ford unwittingly proves how ambiguous the term "the veil" really is). But suffice it to say here that it is true that Jesus ascended to the very presence of His Father, but his work as both the Lamb, our Advocate (Priest) and High Priest cannot be proven (despite all the protestations of the critics) as being without natural phases and or happening within its own timetable. The SDA teaching about Jesus being in God’s very presence even while his work is undergoing phases can be easily accounted for. In heaven there is no sinful being or person, and so there is no need to separate heaven’s inhabitants (including angels) from God’s direct presence, as necessary on earth among the ancient Jews in the earthly temple services. Angels (sinless beings) freely have full access to the throne room of God, and they stand in his very presence daily (see Matt. 18:10, Luke 1:19 and Rev. 5:11); unlike sinful humans on earth who were/are separated from him because of our sinful nature. And even though Jesus remains a human, a glorified human (see 1 Tim. 2:5), yet because of his inherent divine nature (Heb. 1:8) as well as his spotlessness or sinless condition as our Advocate he, like all the other inhabitants of heaven, has direct access to the very throne room of God as well as to God’s very enthroned presence. Actually Jesus shares the very throne of God (Rev. 3:21). However it is quite interesting that in Revelation 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and Rev. 4:5 the presence of the heavenly alter and the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) is seen directly BEFORE (literally 'in front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH THIS "LAMP" AND

THE ALTER WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY (A PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY)!! And this is compelling evidence for me and other ‘doctrinally settled’ SDAs that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of the pre-Advent Judgment scene (of Rev. 11:18, 19 or Daniel 7: 9, 10) seem to place God's MOVEABLE throne in the first apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary; I say “moveable throne” because that is certainly why in visionary symbol it has “wheels”, and why God in Daniel 7: 9, 10 is represented in vision as seemingly coming in from elsewhere to “sit” in Judgment and thereafter examine the records of human lives (i.e. both the wicked and the righteous; see Eccl. 3:17). All of this biblical reality as outlined above certainly allows for MOVEMENT of both God the Father and His throne through the two sanctuary-apartment phases of Jesus’ heavenly ministry as believed by SDAs!! There is certainly implied a clear “movement” of focus in terms of what is being accomplished in heaven when the scene in Daniel 7:9, 10 and Rev. 11:18, 19 arrives!! For nearly two thousand years now Jesus has been doing a work of Advocacy as our Mediator in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1-6) as himself the Sacrificial Lamb, himself the daily Priest (Mediator) and himself the High Priest as well. Why? Since Hebrews 8:1-6 shows that the normal daily priests and their daily services “serve unto the example and shadow of

heavenly things”, then Jesus as Advocate (Priest)*MUST carry out heavenly work typified by the normal daily priests as well (see Heb. 8:4, 5), and not just the High Priest’s distinctive one-day work at the climax of the year of all temple activities. That is why I reject the views of those (like the dissident ‘insider’ Desmond Ford) who say Jesus ascended to only accomplish the distinctive work of the High

3

Priest as carried out only on the Day of Atonement. If that was the case then the normal earthly priests and their daily round of services, and even the normal daily work of the high priest himself as seen in Heb. 7:27 (even going into the first apartment with blood for sins; and Lev. 4:7, 17, 18), these would have no counterpart in heaven itself (in contradistinction to Heb. 8:4, 5); only the distinctive one-day or Yom Kippur work of the High Priest would find fulfillment (according to Desmond Ford misguided claims). But we see Jesus carrying out BOTH roles, but obviously in two phases as typified repeatedly on earth by the repeated yearly cycles of temple services in the outer and inner apartment (see Heb. 10:1-12). Jesus in Heaven fulfills the repeated yearly rounds of activities carried out by both the daily priests and the High Priest as well. He does this by one sacrifice of himself as the Lamb on earth, by one entry as the human priest into the heavenly sanctuary, by one ongoing period of advocacy as Mediator, as typified by the daily priests (and the high priest as well), and he climaxes that one heaven-centered cycle (singular) of activities, or the one period covering the process of redemption/atonement, with one special occasion (typified by the day of Atonement) with himself also being the High Priest. Most critics fail to appreciate that the PROCESS of atonement, as typified by “shadows” on earth, was one carried out throughout the year (including the work of the normal priests with the daily “atonement” sacrifices); not just in its climaxing phase on the special day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) when the High Priest did a distinctive climaxing work of “atonement”. As on earth with the earthly sanctuary, so it MUST unfold in heaven as a process over time, and in phases, or else the “shadows” on earth would find no counterpart in heaven as the book of Hebrews explains!! These truths I find gripping and cannot ignore, despite all the rantings of the critics. I also find it very gripping that only when the pre-Advent Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev. 11:18, 19 (i.e. "the TIME” of determining rewards and punishments BEFORE Jesus returns with all “rewards”; see Rev. 22:12) that John made reference to the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER APARTMENT (a container for holding the main moral standards which even the saints will be judged by; see James 2:10-12; 1 Kings 8:9)… thus strongly indicating that the inner apartment of the heavenly was figuratively “opened for business”, in a manner of speaking, ONLY when the INVESTIGATIVE Judgment arrived (which did not cover the whole Christian era, but a specifically “appointed time”- Acts 17:31). The above cited references, such as Rev. 11:18, 19 and Acts 17:31, et al, I will further explain hereafter to show their potency.

b] Critics cannot disprove the SDA viewpoint that Jesus ascended to heaven to relate to the entire

heavenly sanctuary and its services as typified on earth in the earthly sanctuary; not just to relate to

the inner apartment and its one item of furniture, the Ark of the Covenant. Jesus actually ascended

and does/did a work related to all aspects, but in unfolding phases. Proof? Hebrews 8:2, 5 and Hebrews

9:18-24 make plain (in the KJV and many other translations) that Christ was to relate to ALL the

"PATTERNS" AND "THINGS" (PLURAL) IN "HEAVEN ITSELF", and not just one room of the Most Holy

place, and its one item, the Ark of the covenant (BOTH SINGULAR SUBJECTS)’. Jesus is pictured as

entered into “heaven itself” and into a place patterning the "holy places" (Hebrews 9:24) on earth, or

he entered “once” into the sanctuary as a whole (Hebrews 8:2), and this sanctuary is also called “the

holy place” (Hebrew 9:12) or “ta hagia” in Greek. IT WAS THE ENTIRE EARTHLY SANCTUARY THAT HAD ALL THE

ITEMS "WHICH *ARE FIGURES [OR PATTERNS] OF THE TRUE", and this indicates that where Jesus started to serve

as its counterpart "IN HEAVEN ITSELF" it has ALL THE PROTOTYPE "PATTERNS" [PLURAL] of the earthly

sanctuary; not just the one room of the Most Holy place being a pattern (singular), as the true

prototype.

4

By the very reference to "FIGURES/PATTERNS" of the true, and to Jesus entering "HEAVEN itself" these

expressions indicate that the place Jesus started to serve upon his ascension was filled with "FIGURES"

OR "PATTERNS" [PLURAL]. No wonder Hebrews 9:23, when written in the first century, makes plain that

it “should be” [future tense] all "THINGS" (PLURAL) in the heavenly sanctuary that “should be” (not

“have been” but *SHOULD be”) SYMBOLICALLY "purified" with Jesus’ blood; NOT JUST THE ONE ROOM OF

THE MOST HOLY PLACE, AND NOT JUST THE ONE ITEM OF FURNISHING IN IT (SINGULAR). The very language of

Hebrews 9:23,24 makes plain Jesus was to serve in the entire heavenly sanctuary with all it "PATTERNS"

(PLURAL); he was not just to serve in relation to one room, or one item of furnishing, but IN RELATION

TO PLURAL SUBJECTS AND "THINGS" OR "PATTERNS". In addition to this, the very reference to

“purification” of heavenly “things” and “patterns” refutes the claim that nothing “defiling” can be in

heaven. It’s clearly symbolic language at play, and so SDAs are on firm foundation to refer to symbolic

“cleansing” of the heavenly sanctuary in our “Sanctuary Message”. But the main point here is that

Hebrews 9 makes sweeping descriptions of the overall temple and priestly services and ceremonies, and

points to the heavenly ministry of Christ as their counterpart; Hebrews 9 is not just about the special

event on the special Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

DR FORD STANDS REFUTED

Many critics and dissident ‘insiders’ alike, e.g. Dr. Desmond Ford, they forget that the work of the

normal daily priests (not just the High Priest) must find fulfillment in Jesus’ heavenly/sanctuary

ministry, and they also forget that the High priest on earth served right throughout the year in the

earthly temple AS A WHOLE (e.g. Lev. 4:7, 17, 18); not just on the one day he entered the Most Holy

place annually. If these earthly realities or “shadows” must find fulfillment in Jesus’ life/work in

heaven, then it stands to reason that Jesus is to serve BOTH as a normal priest would in the heavenly

sanctuary (no wonder his priesthood has been for nearly 2000 years so far), as well as serve as the

High Priest would daily, as well as in the shorter period covered by the final segment of ministry in the

Most Holy Place. Hebrews overall, especially Hebrews 9, proves that his heavenly ministry (involving

BOTH his roles AS THE SACRIFICED LAMB AND OUR HEAVENLY PRIEST) ignores no aspect of the earthly

temple as a whole, with all its "PATTERNS" OR "FIGURES" (PLURAL). I don’t know of any critic that could

take that understanding away from me!!

The dissident SDA ‘insider,’ Dr. Desmond Ford, tried in several of his ‘scholarly’ papers, to make it seem

that because Hebrews 9 refers to Jesus as High Priest entering the “holiest of all” or serving “within the

veil”, and because reference is made to “bulls” or “bullocks and “calves”, and “goats”, and to Jesus as

high priest “entering once into the holy place”, then this must mean only the special “shadows” of the

Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) activities would characterize his ministry in the heavenly sanctuary from

the very moment he ascended. This, he argues, would involve only the “most holy place” phase of the

work of Jesus as priest, and hence would effectively nullify the SDA “Sanctuary Message” of a two-

phased or two-apartment ministry of Jesus and its related date of 1844. But I find this to be

unconvincing eisogesis (reading into the text) on his part, and I cannot but reject his well-intended but

misguided claims (no matter how ‘scholarly’ they may sound coming from a highly respected

5

‘intellectual’; “scholarship” and “intellect” does not automatically mean one must be correct). Apart

from what I showed earlier, here are additional points to refute his claims regarding the above

described:

[i] The expression “holiest of all” in Hebrew 9:8 (a reference to the entire sanctuary in heaven) is NOT

exactly the same Greek expression used in Hebrews 9:3; despite also translated as “the holiest of all” in

the KJV. The writer of Hebrews simply made the point in Hebrews 9:8 that while the earthly sanctuary

was still standing, or fully functional, the way into the heavenly sanctuary or “ta hagia” (translated as the

“holiest of all” in the KJV) was not yet manifest, i.e. Jesus was not yet operating as priest in the heavenly

sanctuary during the old testament age. He first had to become human to become the priest in the

heavenly sanctuary, and also had to have a perfect blood sacrifice to offer, in this case it would be

himself, before his ministry above in the “ta hagia” or “true tabernacle” (also called the “holiest of all”)

could begin. In contrast, we find that when the writer of Hebrews wanted to clinch a more specific

meaning, i.e. with specific reference to the “most holy place” as the second apartment in the

sanctuary as a whole (which is also called the “holiest of all” in the KJV), he used the compound Greek

expression “hagia hagion”, or “hagia hagia”, to specifically mean the “holy of holies” or inner

apartment of the sanctuary!! Thus we cannot just read the English expression “holiest of all” (translated

from the Greek “ta hagia”) and assume it automatically means the “most holy place” specifically, simply

because the expression “ta hagia” is AMBIGUOUS, and Dr. Desmond Ford himself unwittingly admits

this, when he said (while quoting from a newer and misleading translation):

"[Hebrews 9:12] He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves, but he entered the most

holy place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

.... the word [ta hagia] that is here translated "most holy place" is literally "holies." .....The word itself

can mean the sanctuary as a whole, or it can mean the first apartment, or it can mean the second

apartment. You can prove nothing from the Greek, because it has these possibilities..."

-Desmond Ford, The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?

Here Desmond Ford, a staunch critic of Adventism's doctrine of the Sanctuary, admits freely, and rightly

so, that the plural term "holies", sometimes translated "holy place", other times "holy places" (coming

from "ta hagion" or "ta hagia" in Greek) is *AMBIGUOUS, and at times it means the sanctuary as a

whole, sometimes the outer apartment, and other times the inner apartment, so it is CONTEXT that

must be appealed to in order to ascertain meaning. This ambiguity of the Greek word is similar to the

AMBIGUOUS word "law" in the Bible (from the Hebrew "torah", or the Greek "nomos"), and hence

context is crucial. Now, interestingly, I found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places

where it is claimed that Jesus "entered" [PAST TENSE] into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the

Father is based on speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The

expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion" or "ta

hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (e.g. Heb. 9:8, and

Heb. 10:19). Coupled with that is the fact that in the KJV Jesus is said to have "entered" into "the holy

6

place" (singular) in Hebrews 9:12 and into "holy places" (plural) in Hebrews 9:24, with both expressions

coming from “ta hagia”. This further MAKES IT VAGUE AS TO WHICH COMPARTMENT HE "ENTERED"

UPON HIS ENTRY INTO THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY....thus making the issue not as clear-cut as some

think!! But by now it should be plain that “hagia hagia” or “hagia hagion” is used by the writer of

Hebrews to specifically mean the inner apartment, and he used it only when he wanted to clinch that

specific meaning, and so we cannot impose on the holy writ what the writer himself never chose to

write. Thus SDAs are correct when we say Jesus started to serve in the sanctuary (“ta hagia”) as a whole

at first, but the inner apartment phase of his ministry came only later (i.e. in 1844). We are also on

sound footing when we insist that Heb. 9:12 should be translated as he entering the “holies” or “the

“holy places”, or “the sanctuary” on a whole; not specifically the Most Holy Place/apartment phase of

ministry. And he [Jesus] being said to enter “once” into the heavenly temple, as priest and high priest

all in one, is simply comparative language in terms of this heavenly action being compared to the

overall services of the earthly temple being repeated year after year. Jesus did not need to do the

repeated yearly round of services year after year, but does everything once…both in terms of his

sacrifice on the Cross outside the temple while on earth, his entry into the heavenly temple overall,

his “purification” (Heb. 9:23) of the “things” [plural] in heaven (not just the later symbolic

“purification” of the one item of furniture in the most holy place; the ark with its mercy seat), his

ongoing intercession as the daily priests would have done but in (repeatedly yearly cycles), and also in

terms of the distinctive and climaxing Day of Atonement service the high priest did (but repeats year

after year).

[ii] Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil", needed a qualifying term by the very

writer of Hebrews i.e. "*after [or within] the *SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3), so as to clinch a more

specific meaning with reference to the “hagia hagion” (“the most holy place”), and since there were two

veils to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the

"veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written. Even the writer of Hebrews SYMBOLICALLY uses the

term "the veil" to mean Jesus' flesh (Heb. 10:20). It is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that

one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the

expression in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to being "within" or behind any of the two "veils", since

Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his incarnation, as He must have been made human to even

minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and

crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He

earned the right via his state of being in the flesh (another type of “veil” as well; Heb. 10:20) to be

minister "within the veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the expression

itself, i.e. "within the veil" in Heb. 6:19 that this meant SPECIFICALLY “The most Holy Place", and not just

within the sanctuary itself!! In fact as we consider the earthly sanctuary we realize that the common

people could only see the courtyard. They could not enter or see into the sanctuary itself; only the

priests (i.e. the daily as well as the high priest). Thus when either the priest or high priest disappeared

from their view he was entering through the first veil into the sanctuary as a whole, and only by faith

they accepted what took place inside. Thus the expression “within the veil” can legitimately mean

7

BOTH being in the temple as a whole, as well as being in the most holy place behind “the second veil”

(Hebrews 9:3). The verses of the entire chapter of Hebrews 9, discuss all the services of the priests and

high priests in their daily rounds, as well as that once a year event involving the High Priest going into

the second apartment. The people could not see the priests in ANY of the work done in the “holy

places” behind the veils of the sanctuary itself, whether it was in the holy place OR the most holy. In

the same way, when Christ ascended to heaven we could no longer physically see Him. We must

follow Him in faith as He ministers for us in the “Holy Places” with all its original “patterns” (plural) in

the true sanctuary of heaven; not just in the Most Holy Place/apartment.

[iii] Finally, while it is true Hebrews 9 makes reference to purification, bulls, goats, calves, heifer, sprinkling of ashes and blood, and refers to the high priest entering the most holy place once yearly, etc., and while it is true its mainly an imagery of the specific Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and references the work in the most holy place, yet these descriptions are NOT ONLY about that. Bulls, calves and goats were used other days of the year, for instance (with blood entering the first apartment by way of the high priest on other crucial occasions like in Lev. 4:7, 17, 18), and the sprinkling of ashes of the heifer, and dedication or symbolic “purification” of all the vessels and furnishings of temple with blood (all acting as “patterns” of the heavenly “things” Jesus would relate to; Heb. 9:23) these all relate to other days in the yearly round of activities as well. This again debunks the claim of Dr. Desmond Ford that it was only the inner apartment work Jesus entered upon. And so the SDA position in its “Sanctuary Message” remains sound, despite the attempts of dissidents like Dr. Ford (notoriously the greatest detractor and misleading teacher in Adventism in modern times) to use ambiguous biblical references to try and overturn it. c] Critics cannot prove that a pre-Advent Judgment by Christ (2 Cor. 5:9, 10; John 5:22) is not needed, and they also cannot that prove that it is not prophetically timetabled, neither can they prove that it’s not possible to know when it will start. Here’s why they cannot!! When Jesus ascended he ascended as a person invested with very many overlapping roles that either were already fulfilled in Him or will be fulfilled in Him (e.g. He is Priest, High Priest, Sacrificial Lamb, Final Judge, Rewarder, King of kings, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Elder brother, Second Adam, et al) and it was and is proper to identify him by every role/title, even if he has not fully officiated in that role at the time of he being referred to in writing or speech as such. It is also quite logical that the unfolding of the salvation plan in Jesus, serving in his various capacities, this does have a certain time table, and will unfold in its proper sequence according to God’s plan. That is why, despite Jesus was expected to return immediately after his ascension by New Testament Bible writers and apostolic Christians alike, yet almost two thousand years of waiting has demonstrated quite convincingly that the redemption time table is spread out over more time than had been previously thought. No doubt this is what Jesus alluded to just before he ascended. Note carefully! “Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” - KJV “Times or seasons” ‘[plural] naturally unfold in sequence and naturally have a timetable! No doubt that is why it was further recorded about Jesus’ work above: “Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Acts 17:31 Because he [God] hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in

8

righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained [i.e. Jesus]; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” - KJV

“Ecclesiastes 3:17 God shall judge [*BOTH] the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time for every

purpose and for every work.” –KJV

The Biblical expressions indicating that [1] God has “appointed a day in which he will judge the world”

and [2] “there is a time for every purpose and for every work” as it concerns “judging” both the wicked

and the righteous, these present irrefutable proofs that a divine timetable is being followed for Jesus to

“judge the world” (see John 5:23); whether in terms of what 2 Corinthians 5:9,10 and Ecclesiastes

12:13,14 bring to view as an INESCAPABLE investigation of one’s life record, or whether in terms of the

later executing of justice and giving rewards at Jesus’ appearing. BOTH are timetabled by God! And for

those who think that believers saved by grace through faith are exempt from an examination of their life

record thereafter by Jesus (see 2 Cor. 5:10), and who think that their assurance of salvation is so-called

“made uncertain” by the notions of a required standard of obedience and an investigative judgment on

their lives, they are easily refuted by the following Scriptures (it’s crucial that they be all read before

moving on):

THE INESCAPABLE “INVESTIGATIVE” JUDGMENT ALL OVER THE BIBLE

- See Philippians 2:12 with 1 Corinthians 9:25-27 and with John 15:1-8

-see Ecclesiastes 3:17 with Matthew 22:1-14 and with 1 Peter 4:17-19

-see James 2:10-12 with Revelation 11:1, 18, 19 and with Malachi 3:16-18

-see Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14 with Matthew 12: 36, 37 and with Revelation 20:11-15

Notice especially in Mal. 3:16-18 (just like in the parables of the talents and of the sheep and the goats;

Matthew 25) God carefully examining the book of record of those who fear him, and in an event

involving him “making up his jewels” he is seen actively examining his saints. Notice too in James 2:12

how (in accordance with Ecclesiastes 12:13,14) it makes the point that saints too should be mindful of

being “judged” by “the law” that was referenced in verses 10 and 11 of James 2 (obviously the Ten

Commandments). And notice how Rev. 11:1, 18, 19 brings to view the Ark of the Covenant (see why in 1

Kings 8:9 and Malachi 4:1, 4) just when the saints are also being examined or “measured” against a

standard while rewards are determined. And there are certainly other Scriptures like the ones above

showing clearly that both the saints and the lost will be examined/investigated, and rewards and

punishments determined, and obviously before Jesus returns with rewards for all (Rev.22:12). Saints are

certainly saved by grace (Eph. 2:8, 9), but will be judged by “works” of willing obedience (see Rev.

22:12-14); the very good “works” that grace “teaches” us to do THROUGH GOD’S INDWELLING (see

Titus 2:11-14 and James 2:20-24). God assesses the lives of the saints for the required “fruit” of

obedience to be shown, even as we remain or “abide” in Jesus in order to willingly show fruit of

obedience or “good works” (Eph. 2:10 and Titus 2:11). Failure to show “fruit” of obedience will stand

in judgment against the Christian (John 15:2), and hence why he can lose his initial standing with God,

as John 15:1-8 and 1 Cor. 9:25-27 clearly shows!! This is what the examination of lives by God in the

9

pre-advent judgment, even of the saint is all about (2 Cor. 5:9, 10; Eccl. 12: 13, 14; Mal. 3:16-18), and

many want to sidestep or belittle this crucial aspect of the Bible!!

Now, as it concerns “judgment” on all in Acts 17:31 (written by A.D. 63) notice carefully the future

tense of the words “he will judge the world” as it relates to the already “appointed” “day” for this

event. Thus when Acts was written by Luke by 63 A.D. (decades after Jesus had already ascended) that

event of “judgment” (whatever it would be like) had not yet occurred, nor was it already going on

since Jesus’ ascension!! I am convinced that there is nothing unbiblical about SDAs teaching that while

the timing of second coming may have been withheld (not just from the disciples at the time Jesus

spoke, but now we know it is still being withheld until he comes), but that does not necessarily mean

that we cannot know about the timing of the investigative aspect of God “judging” or examining BOTH

the righteous and the wicked (see again 2 Cor. 5:9,10; Eccl. 3:17; Mal. 3:16-18), i.e. as done through

Jesus in the Sanctuary above before he comes with rewards for all (see Rev. 22:12). SDAs believe that

certain Bible prophecies (as recorded in Daniel) would have been “unsealed” late in the very “time of

the end”, and in those very prophecies is revealed the “appointed time” for the investigative judgment

phase of Jesus’ work. This we believe has to be so in order that a special Judgment “hour” message can

be given when the appropriate time required it (symbolized as being preached by “three angels”, as

recorded in Revelation 14:6-12). This is what SDAs are distinctively and uniquely known for as it

concerns proclaiming its unique “Sanctuary Message” and or “Judgment Hour Message”, and hence

fulfilling a unique ‘prophetic role’ in Christendom, despite all the opposition!! We believe that this

“Sanctuary Message” MUST be preached, that it will be fiercely opposed by Satan more than any

other message of the “end times” (because of its serious import), and we believe it can be biblically

defended, and this is what this presentation by me is all about.

d] The fact that Jesus in Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 IDENTIFIED the power bringing "*THE

abomination [transgression] of desolation" to be Rome, totally obliterates the popular viewpoint that

Antiochus Epiphanes (a Syrian king) fulfilled "THE" (specific article) "abomination of desolation" that

was prophesied by Daniel. Antiochus never brought "desolation", neither to the temple (since he left it

standing), nor to Jerusalem (it remained in place), nor to Israel (since the Jews rose up in successful

rebellion against the invasion of Antiochus, by way of the Maccabees)!! And so he cannot be the REAL

agent of "desolation" (since he brought only temporary *“disruption” to Israel’s temple services), but

rather the REAL power in view was the empire of Rome which came nearly 200 years later! Once Rome

appears in the picture as bringing the fulfillment of "THE" (specific article) related "transgression

[abomination] of desolation" prophecies of Daniel 8 and 9, then it makes it plain that the time frame

of the “vision” of Daniel 8 and 9 was to run into a long time period represented in symbol as "2300

days" (but with the “day-for-a-year” prophetic principle in operation in order for that to happen). In

fact, the very fact that Revelation 13, and 17 pictures IN SYMBOL a Roman power with the "body of a

leopard", i.e. it being largely characteristic of the features of the Grecian power that it came after

(remember Greece was the leopard power in symbol; Daniel 7), this totally nullifies all those opposing

viewpoints which believe that a Roman "little horn" power could not have arisen out of a Grecian

empire depicted in Daniel 8. All notable history books depict Rome as a "Greco-Roman" empire,

10

simply because it was so "Greek" at its core in so many ways.... and this is very telling of what Daniel

saw in vision long before Rome came on the scene, especially with Jesus himself identifying Rome in

Matthew 24:15 as the real power fulfilling the "abomination of desolation" prophecies of Daniel.

e] None of the critics has ever disproven the SDA understanding that the question being answered by

Daniel 8:14 was literally asking "HOW LONG THE VISION?" or "UNTIL WHEN IS THE VISION?" They

have never disproven that (according to the SDA viewpoint) ONLY *ONE GENERAL VISION WAS IN

VIEW (not two), and that the time period, as *SYMBOLICALLY presented in vision (i.e. presented as

2300 “evening morning”, but translated by Jews themselves in the Septuagint and Theodotion as

prophetic “days”), that it applies to the TIME SCOPE of the entire vision Daniel got in Daniel 8; not just

the aspects itemized as samples of that vision in Daniel 8:13. If any element of that vision runs into or

find fulfillment in the period when Rome was the “desolator” of Israel (as Jesus showed plainly in

Matthew 24:15), then we know that the vision of Daniel, as involving a certain “desolating” power, did

not end with Greece, neither was the Grecian king Antiochus Epiphanes the real power that would bring

in “the abomination [transgression] of desolation”, as mistakenly thought to be so by the critics

(including dissident ‘insiders’ like Desmond Ford and Raymond F. Cottrell). Jesus’ Matthew 24:15

utterance is a major obstacle to the opposing view of the critics; an obstacle which they must overturn

before they can effectively refute the SDA position on who was the “desolating” power of Daniel 8. ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED!! AND I AM SPEAKING WITH ABSOLUTE

HONESTY WHEN I SAY SO. Until they can, then the SDA viewpoint remains valid.

f] No one has shown, except by eisogesis (reading into the text) that the question in Daniel 8:13 does

not (or cannot) allow for the Roman power being the "abomination [transgression] of desolation" (see

again Matthew 24:15), and being the power prophesied to symbolically "trample" on the truth, and to

even obscure and "cast down" the "place" (i.e. role and function) of the heavenly sanctuary, and, that

if it did "defile" any sanctuary it was to have been the *earthly or Jewish one in the literal sense (in

AD. 70); the same Rome that was later responsible for "defiling" the Church as the spiritual sanctuary

that it took up residence in (2 Thess. 2:4) in the spiritual sense (by way of the Roman Catholic power,

the Papacy). In addition, no one has yet ABSOLUTELY disproved the SDA teaching (except by

assumption they have) that the prophecy was not all-embracing of Rome's relationship to all these

sanctuaries. None!!

g] No one has been able to overturn (try as they might) the clear link between the visions of Daniel 2,

Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 and 9, or disprove they being roughly parallel in their scope, since they all point

to prophesied events that run from their starting points from within either the time of the empires of

Babylon or Medo-Persia, and they all extend to the time of "the end" long after they started (see

Daniel 8:17, 19, 26), i.e. in the days when God's people and his cause are finally vindicated, and when

11

God sets up his eternal kingdom. And it is here where the “Sanctuary Message” of SDAs also finds its

greatest polemic strength.

In as much as the visions of Daniel 2 and 7 BOTH end with God's kingdom set up (established) which

vindicates his people and destroys opposing forces with a God-centered event, so too the final opposing

force or "little horn" power of Daniel 8 is "broken without hand" (Daniel 8:25), i.e. by A DIVINE EVENT

OR BY DIVINE INTERVENTION! The same way the scope of the visions in Daniel 2 and 7 ended with divine

events (the kingdom of God established ultimately in the end times), the same is true for Daniel 8..."The

sanctuary" is "cleansed" or “justified” or "vindicated", or "set right" (Daniel 8:14) DURING the time of

“the end” (see Dan. 8:17, 19, 26) as the ultimate divine event that ends the scope of the vision. Now, by

no stretch of the imagination can it be countenanced that the Grecian king Antiochus Epiphanes (i.e. a

single person; not a whole kingdom as normally symbolized by the word "king" or "kings") operated until

or within the period referred to as the time of "the end" (but Rome, pagan and papal, certainly did, does

and will). Nor was Antiochus' death/demise evidenced to be the result of being "broken without hand"

or by divine intervention (but Rome, in its Papal stage, certainly will be; 2 Thess. 2:4, 8). If it is that the

final opposing force in Daniel 8 is to be dispatched by divine intervention, and then God's kingdom

finally established for good, then we must ask, is the Daniel 8:14 event, described as the "cleansing of

the sanctuary" (or it being "set right" or "vindicated", according to some translations) is that in any way

an event that can signal divine investigative judgment and God's people finally vindicated and set up

thereafter? It certainly can (as I will explain below).

Daniel the prophet probably never realized that there would be another sanctuary in operation long

after the earthly one that would be first rebuilt after Babylon had destroyed it, and then totally

destroyed by Rome in A.D. 70; with Rome being the real "desolating" power or "THE" (specific article)

"abomination of desolation"; Matthew 24:15. And so Daniel probably had his eye only on the earthly

sanctuary (no wonder he never fully understood all of the details of the single vision between Daniel 8

and 9). Now, if the scope of the *vision (SINGULAR) of Daniel 8 and 9 (just like the ones in Daniel 2 and

7) extend to the time of "the end", then it is plain that the LITERAL sanctuary that would be "cleansed"

or "set right" DURING the time of “the end” would have be the one still existing/operating up to the

time of "the end"...i.e. THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY (and MAYBE TOO the spiritual sanctuary or temple,

the Church, in the second instance). Seeing that Hebrews 9:22, 23 makes plain that even the heavenly

sanctuary, of "necessity," needs to be SYMBOLICALLY "cleansed" or "purified", then it must mean the

heavenly sanctuary had matching GOD-GIVEN ceremonies of "cleansing" in the earthly sanctuary that

patterned it (if even in less glorious terms). The GOD-GIVEN ceremonies that could be so identified are

the dedication and purification ceremony of all the vessels of the temple by Moses (i.e. the “things” in

both sanctuary apartments), and, more importantly, the annual "day of atonement" ceremony, or Yom

Kippur, as recorded in Leviticus 16. But how could this most important Leviticus 16 Day of Atonement

ceremony find its counterpart in the heavenly sanctuary, and be also an event of judgment that would

signal the ultimate demise of the "little horn" power that was to be "broken without hand"? The Jews

themselves have long seen Yom Kippur (the day of atonement in Leviticus 16) as closely tied to a day of

investigative judgment (see Yom Kippur online at the following link:

12

http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/15117-yom-kippur

The Jewish Encyclopedia I cited at the link above puts it this way:

"In rabbinic Judaism the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] completes the penitential period of ten

days...[with] the annual day of judgment, when all creatures pass in review before the searching eye

of Omniscience..."

This Jewish understanding is in reality quite ironic, seeing that just as Daniel 7 shows a vindication of

God's people AFTER a judgment scene (obviously occurring in the heavenly temple above where God

dwells), and AFTER an event which results in the "little horn" power's ultimate demise (Daniel 7:9, 10,

26, 27), LIKEWISE Daniel 8 also brings into focus a "cleansing" of the only remaining LITERAL sanctuary at

the very time of "the end" (i.e. the sanctuary above), and that too results in the "little horn" power

being "broken without hand". With this evident parallelism SDAs firmly believe that the heavenly

ceremony of "cleansing" is also one of investigative judgment that looks into the records of people's

lives, and determines their final destinies and “rewards”, just as the Jews believed about the earthly

“shadow” or counterpart (the Day of Atonement) was a time of divine investigation of the lives of the

people of God.

How can the above described connection, as made by SDAs (and Jews), be Biblically supported? Here’s

how. God has appointed ONLY ONE "day", or event, or period (not more than one), for *JUDICIALLY

judging/assessing *BOTH the wicked and the righteous *BEFORE establishing his glorious kingdom and

punishing the wicked at Jesus' second coming (see Acts 17:31, 2 Cor. 5:10 with Ecclesiastes 3:17). When

Jesus returns he would have rewards for all (Rev. 22:12)...including the judicial punishment of the anti-

Christ power in 2 Thess. 2:8, and hence THIS JUDGMENT OF ASSESSMENT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE TIME OF

"THE END" BUT BEFORE JESUS RETURNS (see Revelation 11:1, 18, 19 roughly locating that investigative event

in the period when “the nations are angry”, i.e. in the period involving World Wars for the first time, or

after the 1844 date). From the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, SDAs have learned that when the prophetic

period covered by the entire vision of Daniel 8 (see Daniel 8:13) is complete (expressed in symbolic

language as "2300 days", but symbolically meaning years) then an event of sanctuary "cleansing" would

take place, and would also be a period of divine Judgment in heaven (the same one identified in Daniel

7:9-11); one that is "Investigative" in nature, and that would result in not just the demise of the

opposing little horn power, but also a judging and vindication of God's people by way of their Advocate

and High Priest (Jesus Christ) at his throne. This is what "1844" is all about (the year that ends the period

covered by the singular vision of Daniel 8 and 9), and it has a more solid footing in the Bible than the

critics do realize. HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD JOHN THE REVELATOR SEE THE TRUTH IN VISION (IN REVELATION 11:1,

18,19) THAT THE JUDGMENT/ASSESSMENT OF ALL IS ALSO TIED TO THE “OPENING” OF THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ARK

OF THE COVENANT BEING SHOWN? ONLY ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT OR YOM KIPPUR WAS THE INNER APARTMENT OF

THE TEMPLE VIEWED BY THE HIGH PRIEST, AND YET HERE IS JOHN SHOWING THE HEAVENLY COUNTERPART, AND ITS INNER

SANCTUM BEING SYMBOLICALLY "OPENED", AND THAT BEING TIED TO A DAY OF JUDGMENT ON ALL. I think that is

13

rather telling, and gives credence to the Jewish Rabbinical view that Yom Kippur is also tied to

judgment/assessment of people’s lives.

Is it any wonder John the Revelator also ties the “opening” of the Most Holy Place with the "TIME"

APPOINTED (SEE AGAIN ACTS 17:31) for judging ALL people of earth in Revelation 11: 18,19, INCLUDING

GOD'S OWN PEOPLE? To those too blind to see it will not be obvious, but the SD Adventists have long

seen the connection and will continue to preach it no matter the fierce opposition from within and

without the Church. Some assume that because the book of Hebrews does not specifically address the

prophetic issue of the sanctuary "cleansing", then it denies the "INVESTIGATIVE JUDGMENT" doctrine as

understood by SDAs, but that is a paltry polemic against the SDA teaching since Hebrews was *NOT a

book meant to explain prophetic issues in detail, but it simply gave a sweeping view of how Jesus

ministers in THE true heavenly sanctuary (AS BOTH THE SACRIFICIAL "LAMB" AND PRIEST, INCLUDING BEING THE

DAILY ANTI-TYPICAL PRIEST AS WELL AS HIGH PRIEST), and that, no doubt, ALL the earthly symbols/figures in the

earthly sanctuary would eventually find fulfillment in the ongoing ministry of Jesus in the heavenly one

(ALL IN THEIR OWN TIME, OF COURSE).

[*See the Appendix below, showing my detailed

explanations about “1844” and the SDA “Sanctuary

Message”]

APPENDIX: MY DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE “1844” AND SANCTUARY ISSUES IN A

DISCUSSION FORUM ONLINE IN 2004

From: Gilli2484 (Original Message) Sent: 8/10/2004 5:37 AM

IN THIS THREAD I WILL SEEK TO LAY OUT AS CLEARLY AS IS HUMANLY POSSIBLE THE S.D.A. PERSPECTIVE ON THIS ISSUE TITLED ABOVE. I HOWEVER WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ANYONE DIRECTLY IN THIS THREAD, NO MATTER WHO MAY POST HERE AS A "NAYSAYER". THIS THREAD IS INTENDED TO INFORM, NOT DEBATE, AND IF SOMEONE IS GENUINELY INTERESTED IN FIRST UNDERSTANDING THE SDA PERSPECTIVE ON THIS MATTER, THEY ARE INVITED TO FIRST LOOK AT JUST MY POSTING IN THIS THREAD, BEFORE GOING BACK TO LOOK AT WHAT ALL THE "NAY SAYERS"(WHO WILL UNDOUBTEDLY POST HERE) HAVE TO SAY. WHY? THAT'S THE WAY TO GO, UNLESS THE READER INTENDSTO GET CONFUSED BEFORE EXAMINING THE FULL EVIDENCE PRESENTED FROM THE SDA PERSPECTIVE FIRST.

INTRODUCTION

By the term, "Investigative Judgment" I mean the time appointed (Acts 17:31) in which God will judge the world by Christ Jesus, and there will be an examination of the record of ALL lives (past and present) before eternal destinies are sealed. Of COURSE THIS EXAMINATION IS NOT TO INFORM THE OMNISCIENT GOD, BUT SIMPLY DONE SO THAT HE CAN BE DEEMED FAIR IN THE EYES

14

OF THE UNIVERSE (e.g. on looking angels in Heaven).

The word "judgment" means both an examination of cases, as well as the execution of justice, and the two meanings should not be confused. Evidently God has a time appointed for both however. My purpose in this thread is to talk about the investigation phase of Judgment. When does the "Investigative Judgement" (IJ) take place?

The Bible is clear- IT MUST BE BEFORE JESUS COMES (and not "come" in a "secret rapture", or in an "invisible presence", mind you)!! Why? Because the Bible itself says so, and implies it in several ways:

Quote:

*Rev. 22:12- Jesus said, "Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be"!!

Now it is absolutely logical that if when Jesus comes, his reward for EVERY MAN will be WITH HIM (or “IS with" Him), then the conclusion is inescapable that the decisions regarding the nature of the rewards must be taken BEFORE He comes the second time. If as Malachi 3:16 says,

Quote:

"Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name"

then it stands to reason that God has records of the lives of people on earth, so that the rewards will be based upon the INVESTIGATION of the records. See also Rev. 20:12, where it is clear that both the good and bad have a record of their lives. Now this raises another pertinent question, If Jesus has His rewards with Him at His second coming, does that mean that ALL (both good and bad) must receive their reward at that precise moment? Not necessarily, and in fact, the Bible speaks directly to the issue in stating that the wicked will receive their eternal reward AFTER the Second Coming, that is, AFTER the "thousand years" (millennium), when they will be resurrected to be gathered before the great white throne of God, and to have their sentences passed on them based on the Books. See Rev. 20:4-15. This must be another phase of God's Judgement, since all investigation must have taken place BEFORE Jesus returned the second time with the rewards for all. So why is there the reviewing of the Books again in Rev. 20:11-15? Simply because God must APPEAR to be just in the eyes of all looking on, even the lost soul himself wants to know why he is lost, so the Books are opened to show why the lost were never transported to Heaven at Jesus' Second Coming. To be left behind would have been the clear signal that you are not among the saved, because 1 Thess. 4:16, 17 makes it very clear only the saved leave the earth at this time. Interestingly, the wicked would, in a sense, start to receive their rewards at Jesus' coming, by not being raised in the first resurrection, or (for those still alive) by not being changed in a moment, and transported to glory. However, only the living wicked would have been conscious of their eternal loss at that moment, but

15

they would still have to wait another thousand years to face the great "white throne" judgement, to hear the records of their lives, and be separated from God eternally. Simple reason being that the "brightness" of Jesus', second coming immediately slays the living wicked (see proof in 2 Thess. 2: 8) The wicked dead at Jesus second coming would have been unconscious of that fact until they are raised after the "thousand years" to then receive their rewards. This would be the "executive" (passing sentences) phase of God's judgment on the lost! Now let me hasten to say that since it is clear that the "investigative" phase of God's judgement must take place before Jesus' Coming, then it is easy to see the relevance of Rev. 14:6, 7 announcing a specific time when this "investigative judgement" IS COME, OR IS HERE. SDAs believe that Bible prophecy gives the exact year when this "investigative judgement" started (that is, in 1844), a judgement phase so critical that a warning message is symbolically rushed by an "angel", a messenger, or movement on earth, if you like, to declare it is here, just BEFORE Jesus comes. That's why the year 1844 is so important in Adventist prophetic understanding. Now let us revise what was said so far. The term "investigative judgement" (an expression coined for convenient labelling) must take place BEFORE Jesus comes the second time. The "executive" (passing sentence) phase of the judgement on the lost will climax after the "thousand years" are finished. I then introduced the year 1844, as being the year that SDAs believe the "investigative" phase of God's judgement began in Heaven, but I DID NOT SHOW WHY THIS YEAR WAS SEEN AS BIBLICAL. Now, the purpose of this thread is to show, in basic terms why this revealed year (as SDAs believe) is Biblical. AND I CAN ONLY SHOW THIS UNINTERRRUPTED, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL IGNORE ALL "NAYSAYERS" UNTIL I AM THROUGH!!! Now, let us be general first, then specific. Can we have an idea of the general period when God's "investigative judgement" will begin, or, better yet, began in Heaven? Yes we can! Notice the words of Revelation 11:18, 19:

Quote:

"18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. 19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail."

The first clue of when the investigative judgement of God began, is seen in the expressions WHEN [1] "the nations were angry, and WHEN [2] God "shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth". Question! Isn't obvious that God is saying that the investigative Judgement comes just before Jesus comes, and thus it was it was not going on during the whole period of the Christian era (since Jesus returned to heaven)? It is made obvious by the Bible saying, THE TIME HAS COME TO GIVE REWARDS TO THE SERVANTS OF GOD (SAINTS), and of course we know this must be before Jesus comes. It is also made obvious by connecting this TIME with when the "nations are angry" (i.e. are in turmoil more than ever in history), and with when men are in the process of "destroying the earth". Now, any historian, and social scientist will be able to tell you that never before the first and second

16

World Wars was it more evidenced that "the nations" are "angry" on a large scale, and never before the modern era of atomic bombs, and industrial waste (pollution), and population explosion on the globe (pressuring the earth’s resources, making species extinct) is it more evidenced that men can, and are "destroying the earth". Therefore we can conclude that it must be within the last 200 years (when these 'signs' were evidenced more than any other time for the FIRST TIME in all history) that the "investigative judgement will be going on just before Jesus comes. No other period in history could fit this description better than the post-1800 period when the industrial revolution and resultant creation of pollution, the explosion of world population, the frightening invention of atomic bombs, and the occurrence of two World Wars signalled that man can, and is destroying the earth, and nations can fight world wars, and will still fight world wars. Notice too another clue in Malachi 4:1,4-6. This is closely connected to Rev. 11:18, 19, because both verses warn of God calling men back to His Ten Commandment Law (THE ONLY ONE KEPT IN "THE ARK OF HIS TESTAMENT"- 1 KINGS 8:9). How does God warn? Most times through people. Question! Which set of people are most known (IN ALL OF CHURCH HISTORY) to warn about God's standard of Judgment being His Ten Commandments more than SDAs? None! When was this group formed? Within the same post-1800 period just described above. And notice that God describes the warning being given as Him "sending Elijah" THE PROPHET (in symbol of course) just BEFORE "the great and dreadful day of the Lord." What will this "Elijah" message warn of? Read it for yourself in Mal. 4:4 and compare it with Rev. 11:18,19 AND 1 Kings 8:9. With that now established we can now get specific about the year 1844, the year revealed for the INVESTIGATIVE judgement to begin, because it is seen clearly as falling within the general time frame of when God would signal he will be investigating and deciding over the records. The key to unlocking the year 1844 is found first in Jewish types and symbols, and in the text Daniel 8:14. Have I lost you at this point? I am sure non-Adventist users of this web site would be lost. But just hold on. It will get more interesting. See you in the next post, but in the meantime just look up the meaning of the "Yom Kippur" (Day of Atonement) celebration among the Jews of old. See what happened during this time in the sanctuary of the Jews, and ask the question, how will this symbolic feast or ceremony find fulfilment in the work of Christ as High Priest above? That should prepare your minds for the explosive truth to come in the next post about the year 1844. Bye for now. God bless.

The following is largely credited to: V. Ferrel's- “A Biblical Defense Defending our Historic Beliefs about the Sanctuary in Daniel and Hebrews” (2003)

From: Gilli2484

Sent: 8/10/2004 5:44 AM

A WORK OF JUDGMENT

(AN OVERVIEW- Details later) As promised, here following is an outline of the significance of Yom Kippur and the significance of 1844 as the year of Judgment beginning in Heaven. I will deal with the specific points later in greater detail. Sorry if this post is a little long.

17

Quote:

Leviticus 23:27-30. Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a Day of Atonement: it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and you shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And you shall do no work in that same day: for it is a Day of Atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that does any work in the same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.

The Jewish people always recognized the Day of Atonement [Yom Kippur] as a judgment day. Even to the present time it is so regarded. See the web site www.jewfaq.org. The following is a copy of a statement published in a Jewish paper in the city of San Francisco in 1892 (during pioneering Adventism). The Jewish Day of Atonement was coming on, and the rabbi issued this announcement:

Quote:

The monitory sounds of the shophar [trumpet] are to be heard every morning in the orthodox synagogues, advising preparation for the day of memorial and of the final judgment of Yom Kippur [Yom-day, Kippur atonement]. - Jewish Exponent_ September, 1892.

In 1902 Isador Meyer, a Jewish rabbi, spoke of the Jew on the Day of Atonement as follows:

Quote:

He is also summoned by the voice of the same trumpet, or shophar, to scrutinize retrospectively his actions of the past year, while he stands trembling before the all-seeing eye of Eternal justice sitting on the throne of judgment.

I DO THINK THAT THE JEWS MUST BE RESPECTED FOR KNOWING THE FACTS ABOUT THEIR OWN CEREMONIES (HOW DONE AND THEIR IMMEDIATE MEANING), EVEN IF THEY LACK THE INSIGHT OF HOW IT POINTS TO CHRIST WHOM THEY REJECTED. Thus from this we see that the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was a work of judgment (to all in Judaism; EVEN TODAY- See any Jewish website on Yom Kippur). And the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary was a type of the cleansing of the heavenly. Therefore it follows unquestionably that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is a work of judgment also. This pre-Advent judgment is not just about the "little horn" power which blasphemed God's temple, but is also about ALL men (Christians and non-Christians) since Christ would return with rewards for ALL men (Rev. 22:12). INTERESTING THAT EVEN THE PROPHECY OF THE LITTLE HORN ENDS WITH ALLUSION TO JUDGMENT ON IT PRECISELY AT THE SAME JUNCTURE THAT THE SANCTUARY IS SAID WILL BE "CLEANSED" (AN IMAGERY OF YOM KIPPUR WHICH WAS JUDGMENT

18

RELATED. THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY TO BE "CLEANSED" Let us now return to Daniel's prophecy,

Quote:

Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14.

The beginning and ending of the 2300 days ["evenings and mornings"- prophetic years] is made very clear in the prophecy. In Daniel 9:24-27 [where the explanation of time in Daniel 8 is continued] this period is divided and subdivided in such a way as to leave us in no uncertainty whatever. Note the words of the prophecy.

Quote:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week He shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the over spreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Now we can be absolutely certain that we have the right dates for the beginning and ending of this period if we begin counting from the cross. From that as the starting point in our reckoning, we can count backward to find the beginning and forward to find the close. The first 69 and a 1/2 weeks of this period were to reach down to the cross. At the end of 69 and a 1/2 weeks or 486 and a 1/2 years (reckoning a prophetic day as a literal year), the sacrifice and oblation was to cease (verse 27), which signified that at that time the earthly sanctuary service would come to an end (i.e. in God’s eyes they no longer had any significance). The event which terminated the earthly service was the crucifixion of Jesus, therefore we know that when Christ was crucified, 69 and a 1/2 weeks, or 486 and a 1/2 literal years, of the 2300 - year period had passed. We have only to figure back 486 and a 1/2 years to 457 B.C, to find the correct starting point; and forward 1813 and a 1/2 years to 1844, to find the end of the period. It is clear, therefore, that the earthly sanctuary came to an end before the close of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, and that this prophecy could not refer to its cleansing. Since there were still 1813 and a 1/2 years of the 2300 year

19

period to be fulfilled after the cross, we must of necessity conclude that this prophecy of Daniel refers to the only LITERAL sanctuary that was in existence at that time, that is, the heavenly. Let us take it in another way. The period of seventy weeks, or 490 days, brought to view in the scripture already quoted, is only a division of the full period of 2300 days. The seventy weeks also had several divisions, each terminating with some definite event, such as the completion of the work of rebuilding Jerusalem, the baptism of the. Savior, the cutting off (or crucifixion) of the Messiah, and the completion of the time of the Jews. Taking the Bible method of reckoning prophetic time, i.e., each prophetic day for a literal year (Ezekiel 4:6), these seventy weeks, or 490 days, would equal 490 literal years, and they would date from 457 BC., at which time the final and complete decree to restore Jerusalem went forth. A THREEFOLD DECREE We find this threefold decree given first by Cyrus, the king of Persia (Ezra 1:24), repeated by Darius (Ezra 6:6-12), and again repeated by Artaxerxes (Ezra 7: 12-26). In E= 6:14 we read these words:

Quote:

The elders of the Jews builds, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem was, then, according to the Scripture itself, a threefold decree, given lastly by Artaxerxes in 457 BC. From this date, therefore, we begin to count that long period of 2300 years reaching to 1844. Seven weeks, or forty-nine years, of this time were to cover the period of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Forty-nine years this side of 457 BC., would bring us to 408 BC., the year in which the reconstruction work was completed.

Sixty-nine weeks, 483 years, were to reach to Messiah the Prince. This would bring us to AD. 27, and that is the year when Jesus was baptized of John in the Jordan, upon which occasion He was anointed, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34), and was proclaimed the son of God, by a voice from heaven. (See Luke 3:21, 22; Acts 10:38.) THE SEVENTIETH WEEK In the midst (middle) of the last, or seventieth, week, Messiah was to be cut off. A week would be seven prophetic days, or literal years, and half a week would be three and a half years. Christ was anointed for His earthly ministry in AD. 27. Three and a half years later, or in AD. 31, He was cut off by crucifixion. The whole of the last, or seventieth, week was to be devoted especially to the Jews.

Quote:

He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week. Daniel 9:27.

This was fulfilled by Christ's personal ministry of three and a half years, and by the ministry of His

20

apostles, who for another three and a half years laboured almost exclusively for the Jews. After that time the Jews were no longer to be considered the specially chosen people of God. Beginning with Christ's ministry in AD. 27, this week, or seven literal years, would reach to AD. 34. It was in that year that Stephen was martyred, Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and the Jewish nation, as such, was rejected. In rejecting Christ and His gospel, they had rejected the only means of salvation, and God could no longer count them His chosen people. Soon after this it was boldly announced that the disciples had turned to the Gentiles.

Quote:

Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou should be for salvation unto the ends of the earth. Acts 13:46, 47.

This first division of the 2300 day prophecy - the seventy weeks-absolutely confirms the fact that we have the correct starting date for the entire period. Figured from the year 457 as a starting point, every detail of the prophecy works out to perfection; and therefore shows beyond all doubt that the initial date is correct. This evidently was one of the reasons this subdivision of the prophecy was made. This seventy week period was to “seal up” (make sure) the vision and prophecy. It serves to prove the starting point. When we therefore take 457 BC., as the date for beginning this period of 2300 prophetic days, or literal years, it clearly brings us down to the year AD. 1844. Or, to state it another way: The first seventy weeks, or 490 years, reached down to AD. 34. The difference between 490 years and 2300 years is 1810, and if we add 1810 years to AD. 34, we have AD. 1844. The 2300 - year prophecy ended, therefore, in 1844. The evidence of this is absolutely conclusive, as the subdivisions of the prophecy leave no room whatever for doubt. But what was to happen at the end of the 2300 years?

Quote:

He said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel8:14.

The time had come for the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. As we have already seen, the only LITERAL sanctuary of God in existence in 1844 was the heavenly sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary, with its services, had passed away, having no further meaning after the cross; and the priesthood had changed from the sons of Aaron to Christ. But of course there is also the spiritual temple existing at that time, the Church. Was this trampled underfoot, invaded by pagan abomination, "cast to the ground", etc.? Certainly! And thus this "temple" needed to be cleansed or made right again (another possible meaning of Daniel 8:14). That is where the formation of the Remnant Church came in. The call came for the true followers of Christ to leave Babylon, "the mother of harlots" (along with her 'daughter' churches of false Christianity) and form once again a pure apostolic type Church. If this was not another type of cleansing at the end of the prophetic 2300 years then only spiritual blindness prevents us from seeing this truth also.

21

I will hereafter respond to CERTAIN "classic" objections that have been common over the years to the forgoing explanation. See you in the next post where I will look at what others honestly say (and what some just mischievously say) in objection. God bless.

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 3 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/10/2004 5:51 AM

Here are over a dozen challenges to the truly Biblical Adventist, who must, like the "Berean", prove all things, and be ready to give a reason for his faith and beliefs. These were gleaned from a web page on-line, and should serve as a good test paper for me to demonstrate the validity of the "1844" date, and the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine:

Quote:

1. He [the Adventist] must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2,300 full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 -- or any text of Scripture -- to show it. 2. He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an evening and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn into one year. 3. The context implies that the period began when the daily sacrifice was suspended. He must show that it began in 457 BC; a date having nothing to do with the daily sacrifice. 4. He must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints when the context refers to cleansing it from pollution by the enemy of the saints. 5. He must prove that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; an idea stated nowhere in Scripture. 6. He must assume the 490 years are cut off from the 2,300 year although nothing is said of this in Daniel 8 or 9. 7. He must assume that the 2,300 years and the 490 years begin together. 8. He must maintain that the re-consecration of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:14) and the anointing of the sanctuary (Daniel 9:24) are not the same thing, though they seem to.

22

9. He must prove that the "word" (Daniel 9:25) was a kingly decree, and that the king was Artaxerxes. 10. He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely "commenced" (when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844. 11. He must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in October. 12. He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is of the kind typified in Leviticus 16. 13. He must show that the Day of Atonement began in 1844, and he must explain why Christ's *act* of Atonement is separated from the *Day* of Atonement by 18 centuries. 14. He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place in 1844. He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ entered God's presence (Hebrews 9:12), this means the *first* apartment. 15. He must then prove that the judgment which began in 1844 was an "investigative judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the text implies) of the wicked.

I will be dealing with each challenge, point by point, in a series of posts after this. AND I SAY AGAIN, I CAN ONLY SHOW THIS UNINTERRRUPTED, AND THAT IS WHY I WILL IGNORE ALL "NAYSAYERS" UNTIL I AM THROUGH!!! So let me start with the first two challenges:

"CLASSIC CHALLENGES/OBJECTIONS" No. 1 and 2

Quote:

He [the Adventist] must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2,300 full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 -- or any text of Scripture -- to show it. He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an evening and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn into one year.

Now I don't know of anywhere better to start, but in the Word itself. DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I SAY

23

UNTIL YOU SEE IT IN THE BIBLE ITSELF (STATED OR CLEARLY CONTEXTUALLY SUGGESTED). So have your Bible nearby to read every reference before moving on. A literal translation, though not perfect (as seen below), of the text under consideration shows clearly a number of things- 1. The word "sacrifice" was never in the original, but is added by SOME translations, because the translators impose this word upon it 2. The original text used, for the first time in the entire Bible, the expression "evenings [and] mornings" along with the number 2300; it was never written as "days", but clearly warrants this translation 3. There is only ONE "vision" between Daniel 8 and 9, and thus there is an intimate connection between the explanation which was started in Daniel 8 and the continued explanation in Daniel 9. Daniel 9 begins with Daniel in prayer, NOT IN VISION, and an angel (Daniel 9:21-23) returned to CONTINUE the explanation started in Daniel 8, which Daniel was still frustrated over (especially its TIME component). Also remember that there was no 'chapterization' and 'versification' (chapters and verses) in the original text of Daniel, so the 'chapters' (as we now know them) were simply a continuous relating of the events in order. 3. Most Bibles (translations), including the LXX (Greek version of the OT) translated the last word of Daniel 8:14 as, "CLEANSED"; even though there is nothing wrong with other meanings of the original word, i.e. "put right", "made right" etc.

Quote:

From the Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Dan 8:13 Then I heard a certain holy one speaking, and another holy one said to that one who spoke, Until when is the vision, the regular [*sacrifice- ADDED WORD] and the desolating transgression, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled? Dan 8:14 And he said to me, For two thousand, three hundred evenings and mornings, then the sanctuary will be put right. Dan 8:15 And it happened when I, Daniel, had seen the vision, then I sought the meaning. And, behold, the form of a man stood before me. Dan 8:16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, and he called and said, Gabriel, make this one understand the vision.

Now from the above it is clearly demonstrable that it was the ENTIRE VISION, which included the trampling of the sanctuary and the "host" (people of God), along with the beasts (ram and goat) and the "horns", which would extend over the period of "2300 evenings [and] mornings". Why? Because the question starts out asking: "UNTIL WHEN IS THE VISION" (!!). Which vision? The vision CONCERNING the things listed as just a SAMPLE of what that vision contained. This obvious, and simple truth too many are willing to ignore in favour of their own ideas that the question was only about just the trampling of the sanctuary by the "little horn". If the question had said, "How long will be the trampling of the sanctuary", then it follows logically that the TIME FRAME would ONLY concern itself with that aspect of the vision. But it did not just ask that. Did it? Certainly not. And I ask, why is it that some strive to ignore this reality? Because it is then easier to allow for the Antiochus Epiphanes explanation of the "little horn" power. But if one is true to every word of the Bible, then one cannot ignore any portion of it. Of course the sanctuary and Gods people are the focus of the vision, BUT

24

GOD CHOSE TO BEGIN THE VISION IN THE PERSIAN PERIOD OF THE "RAM" KINGDOM. That is self-evident. Now, if the period covered by the ENTIRE vision obviously started in the Persian period and ended with the sanctuary being "cleansed and made right, then we have to go back to that period to begin any calculation of time. And this is precisely what Daniel 9:25 tells us to do, even giving the exact year to begin. But more on that later. However what this tells us from the outset is that the period of "2300 evenings [and] mornings" must then be SYMBOLIC "days" or LITERAL YEARS, since this is obvious from the CONTEXT. This is precisely what the non-Adventist commentator, Adam Clarke observed (though he began the period at the wrong time):

Quote:

Dan 8:14 - Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Though literally it be two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings. Yet I think the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. - Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

I do think that I have established a good foundation for showing that the period covered by the "2300 evenings [and] mornings" is a LONG PERIOD of many centuries. In my next post (Part 2) I will conclude on the first two "challenges" under consideration, by showing why the "2300 eveningsmornings" expression is best interpreted 2300 FULL "days", but should still interpretively mean prophetic years (in light of ALL the symbols and symbolism in Daniel 8), and by showing that the period could NOT end with the earthly Jewish sanctuary (which would have been out of existence by then). God bless you for now.

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 4 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/10/2004 5:55 AM

In my last real post on the topic I closed by saying:

Quote:

I do think that I have established a good foundation for showing that the period covered by the "2300 evenings [and] mornings" is a LONG PERIOD of many centuries. In my next post I will conclude on the first two "challenges" under consideration, by showing why the "2300 eveningsmornings" expression is best interpreted 2300 FULL "days", but should still interpretively mean prophetic years (in light of ALL the symbols and symbolism in Daniel 8), and by showing that the period could NOT end with the earthly Jewish sanctuary (which would have been out of existence by then).

Now let me continue by acknowledging that a vast number of interpreters share in the view that the

25

question in Daniel 8:13 was specifically about (in their view) the trampling of the sanctuary and God's people by the little horn power, that is, Antiochus Epiphanes (in their interpretation). So why, you may ask (and rightly so) would I see it as judicious to go against this "crowd" and declare otherwise? For the simple reason that I do believe that no aspect of the prophecy should be ignored. The question did not ask, "How long will the sanctuary be trampled", but it asked "HOW LONG WILL BE THE VISION", and then proceeded to list just SOME of the things contained in the vision. If the vision under consideration consisted of the "ram" kingdom (Medo-Persia), the "he-goat" kingdom (Greece), the desolating little horn power, and, among other things, the prophecy of an abomination of desolation to be visited upon God's people and God's sanctuary, then it is the period covering ALL happenings in that vision that is to be considered in the length of the time prophecy of "2300 evenings and mornings". It is very obvious to me that it is God's sanctuary and people that are deemed as most important in the vision, thus the question in Daniel 8:13 highlighted only those aspects, but not to suggest an exclusion of the other elements of the vision. I have no difficulty with the view that Antiochus seem to have fulfilled certain aspects of the little horn prophecy, BUT ONLY AS A TYPE OF THE TRUE ANTI-CHRIST POWER TO COME FUTURE TO HIS KINGDOM, THAT IS, ROME; AN ANTI-CHRIST POWER WHICH WOULD BRING THE TRUE "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" JESUS REFERRED TO IN MATTHEW 24:15, AND WHICH WOULD STAND UP AGAINST THE TRUE "MESSIAH THE PRINCE", JESUS HIMSELF. It is absolutely clear to me that the only way for the elements of the prophecies about the anti-Christ power and the abomination of desolation to find fulfilment AFTER Jesus' and Paul's time (2 Thess. 2:1-5), BUT APPLYING TO ROME, is to see the "2300 evenings [and] mornings" first as meaning FULL "days", but interpreted as FULL prophetic years!! Why? The events in the vision started during the reign of Medo-Persia, and for portions of it to reach down to Jesus' time DEMANDS a long time period of several centuries. This must be so if in about A.D. 31 Jesus is declaring "the [specific article; distinctive and exclusive] abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel" as STILL FUTURE!! Therefore it is easy for me to see the 2300 day/year interpretation for the events in the ENTIRE VISION as perfectly logical if the vision (concerning, among other things, the sanctuary's trampling) was to last that long from the reign of Medo-Persia to when "the sanctuary will be cleansed". It is also striking that the angel in Daniel 9:25 began his time prophecy explanation also in the same Medo-Persian period (which commanded Israel's restoration after Babylonian exile, sanctuary and all). Just coincidence? Certainly not! Because the internal evidence in Daniel clearly suggests that Daniel 8 and 9 are intimately connected to the SAME time prophecy, and BOTH chapters point to the coming TRUE MESSIAH. It is also easy to see that if the 2300 day/year interpretation relate to events beginning in the Persian period, THEN THE PERIOD OF 2300 YEARS WOULD NATURALLY EXTEND WAY BEYOND THE EXISTENCE OF THE EARTHLY JEWISH SANCTUARY (destroyed in A.D. 70) BY OVER 1500 YEARS AT THE LEAST. That is why 1844 is interpretively allowable, and why the TRUE heavenly sanctuary, and the Church, as God's spiritual temple, would have to be the ONLY possible candidates for fulfilling the expression, "will be cleansed" at the end of the 2300 day/year period. In the next post I will endeavour to show textually why there is Biblical evidence to support the FULL "2300 days" translation in, first, the LXX (Septuagint) and, secondly, in several other translations, and also why the alternate "1150 [literal] days" interpretation is, first, mathematically erroneous, and, secondly, does not even find exact fulfilment in the life of Antiochus Epiphanes if applied to him (if it doesn't fit, reject it). See the weaknesses and shortcomings of the Antiochus interpretation as I explained at http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q28.htm I will also endeavour, in my next post, to demonstrate the validity of the day/ year prophetic principle, IN LIGHT OF ALL THE OTHER

26

SYMBOLS FOUND IN DANIEL (beasts, horns, figurative or representative language, etc). God bless you as you ponder on these humble foregoing thoughts of mine.

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 5 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/10/2004 6:00 AM

WHY THE DAY/YEAR PRINCIPLE IS VALID IN DANIEL 8: 14? In fairness to the opposition, let me first say that it does appear that on the surface the original and literal language of Daniel 8:14 does not completely forbid the application to literal days, thus equaling literally a few years. No laws of exegesis, not much (it would seem) in the language itself, could be regarded as violated, if such an interpretation were given to the language, and so far as this point (literal language translation) is concerned, there would be little room for debate (if that was the only consideration). But the same remark may be made as to the symbolic application of the language - taking it for a much longer period than literally the number of days in the text itself; that is, regarding each day as standing for a year. This could not be shown to be a violation of prophetic usage either, or to be forbidden by the nature of prophetic language, because nothing is more common than symbols. Obviously though, ONLY ONE APPLICATION IS BEST APPLIED TO FIT THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PROPHECY, and it seems more judicious to apply the day/year principle for the following reasons: (a) Recognizing that when the elements of the vision were first presented (i.e. before their later angelic explanation) the time aspect is best translated as literal days (from the Hebrew text), this however does not make null and void the following consideration. It is the fact that, in the prophecies, it is not unusual to designate the time symbolically. Although a few instances can be referred to in which this is not done, prophetic time is commonly represented by some symbol; some mark; some peculiarity of the time or age referred to. (b) The designation of time in Daniel 8:14 occurs in the midst of symbols - where all is symbolic language - the beasts, the horns, the little horn, and the trampling, and casting down of truth, God’s people and the place of God’s sanctuary by such a power, etc.; and it would seem to be much more probable that the symbolic method would be adopted as designating the time referred to than a literal method. (c) It is quite apparent (as pointed out earlier) that the events in the ENTIRE VISION do actually extend far into the future - far beyond what would be denoted by the brief period of just a few years. And certainly it is dishonest to say that if Antiochus was close enough to fulfilling the time prophecies (if the literal days are counted and applied, i.e. 2300 literal days, or literally half of that period) then he fulfilled the prophecy. That is like saying God did not get His predictive math spot-on, or exactly right, and must be ‘helped out’ by the liberal interpreters. THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE STANDARDS OF THIS BIBLE STUDENT!! If the glove doesn’t fit… Let us now explore the weaknesses in the application to just literal days, and why the day/year principle perfectly fits the time part of the prophecy better, and thus demands a better reception.

27

THE “EVENING-MORNING” EXPRESSION

Quote:

8:14 “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

The evening-morning phrase-The actual Hebrew says it this way:

Quote:

“And he said to me, Until evening (‘ereb) morning (boqer) two thousand and three hundred, then shall the sanctuary be nisdaq.”

What does this mean? Liberals thoroughly enjoy pointing to ‘ereb boqer and nisdaq as clear evidence that our historic interpretation of 8:14 cannot be right. Yet there are no problems with either term, absolutely none! The various charges against our Sanctuary beliefs are like the scientific facts in defence of Creationism. When you assemble the actual facts, the contending errors of evolution melt away. The liberal charge- Here is the charge that the critics make: “Daniel 8:14 does not talk about ‘days,’ but about ‘evening-mornings’-so they must refer to the morning and evening sacrifices. Therefore, since there was a morning and evening sacrifice each day, it would take two offerings to equal a full day (or so they argue). Because of this, 8:14 refers to 2300 sacrifices, or 1150 days they content. Thus, they continue to argue, we must divide 2300 in two in order to arrive at the correct number in 8:14. Another evidence is that the phrase, ‘daily sacrifice,’ is in the three preceding verses (8:11-13) of the KJV.” Here is an example of this theory, found in one of the modern Bibles:

Quote:

“I heard the other angel answer, ‘It will continue for 1,150 days, during which evening and morning sacrifices will not be offered.”-Daniel 8:14, Good News Bible, published by the American Bible Society.

Now, apart from the fact that the word “sacrifice” is an imposed (supplied) word (never in the original text), and apart from the already clearly proven fact that the events of the ENTIRE VISION was what the “2300 evening [and] mornings” expression was all about (thus a very long time period involved) note carefully now how this self-destructive reasoning of the opposition breaks down naturally. Neither 1150 nor 2300 days is compatible with Antiochus- This 1150 days interpretation is actually an effort to harmonize the prophecy with the pathetically inadequate time span during which Antiochus persecuted the Jews. Antiochus’ desecrating pagan idol was set up on the Temple altar of burnt offering on the 15th day of the 9th month of the 145th year of the Seleucid Era, and pagan sacrifices began there 10 days later.

28

After a period of warfare, a newly built alter by the Jews was consecrated and offerings begun on the 25th day of the 9th month, in the 148th year of the Seleucid Era. This is what is seen (by the opposition) as the TRUE fulfilment of the abomination of desolation, and the “cleansing” of the re-dedicated sanctuary after this defilement. Apart from the already noted fact that Jesus introduced the TRUE abomination of desolation in Daniel as still future in A.D. 31 (LONG AFTER ANTIOCHUS), thus effectively destroying this argument, note also the following computation difficulties faced by the opposition. We thus have here a period of exactly 3 years and 10 days, during which Antiochus IV stopped the Temple services. It is not 2300 literal days, which would be 6 years, 4 months, and two-thirds of a month. And it is not 1150 days. That shorter figure (1150 days) is still two months too long! There is no historical time period mentioned in the Book of Maccabees or in Josephus regarding Antiochus IV, which corresponds with either 2300 or 1150 literal days. No amount of theological gymnastics can account for this mathematical discrepancy in the prophetic fulfilment. The best the opposition can do is talk about reasonable closeness of their time application to Antiochus. Nonsense. God is more precise than that, and if they would be honest enough to admit that Antiochus was just, in a way, probably a faint shadowy type of the TRUE little horn, or the (anti-typical) Roman Anti-Christ power yet FUTURE TO HIM, then this difficulty would vanish. Oh what a tangled web we weave… The evidence that “evening-morning” stands for whole days- Both the preterist (or semi-preterist) and futurist theories are based on a literal day interpretation of 8:14. But the facts show that 8:14 is best read as a full 2300 days, WHICH THEN REPRESENTS 2300 YEARS; not as 2300 sanctuary offerings or 1150 literal days!! Here are the supporting facts. • “Days” in the Greek and Latin translations- It is first important to mention that both Greek translations of the Old Testament (the Septuagint and the Theodotion) included “days” in their translation of 8:14: “Until evening and morning days two thousand and three hundred . .” They well-knew that “days” were meant, not “sacrifices.” The translators of the Septuagint were learned Jews (in their own language) living in the second century before Christ. They knew Hebrew very well, much better than today’s critics. Even the Latin Vulgate of Jerome translated the “eveningmorning” expression as “days”. Note carefully the words of the Albert Barnes Commentary on the Bible, about the literal translation of the expression, "2300 evenings [and] mornings" (we are not so much concerned here at this point with his later interpretation):

Quote:

Unto two thousand and three hundred days - Margin, evening, morning. So the Hebrew, ברק רקב ‛ereb boqer. So the Latin Vulgate, ad vesperam et mane. And so Theodotion - heos hesperas kai proi - “to the evening and morning.” The language here is evidently what was derived from Gen. 1., or which was common among the Hebrews, to speak of the “evening and the morning” as constituting a day. There can be no doubt, however, that a day is intended by this, for this is the fair and obvious interpretation. The Greeks were accustomed to denote the period of a day in the same manner by the word νυχθημερον nuchthemeron (see 2Cor. 11:25), in order more emphatically to designate one complete day.

29

THUS IT IS CLEAR THE EXPRESSION MEANT "DAYS" IN THE LITERAL HEBREW!! THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION IS OBVIOUSLY ANOTHER MATTER. • “Sacrifices” are not in the original text- It is an unproved assumption that the 2300 evening-morning expression refers to the tamid sacrifices. The word, “sacrifices,” is not in 8:14; nor is it anywhere else in the Hebrew of the book of Daniel! “Sacrifices” is found 79 times in the Old Testament, but not once in Daniel (nor is the word, “sacrificed,” found in Daniel).The five tamid (“daily”) instances in the KJV where translators have added “sacrifices” (“daily sacrifice”) in Daniel are not in the Hebrew. Because tamid (used here as an adjective) requires a noun to go with it, the translators include “sacrifice.” The words, “sacrificed,” “sacrificeth,” and “sacrificing” are not in Daniel either. The book has nothing to say about sacrifices. • The morning and evening sacrifice applies to both offerings as a unit- In Leviticus and elsewhere, there are passages in which the “continual” refers to the morning and evening sacrifice-but it always does so as a single unit. It is a continual burnt offering (singular “offering,” not plural “offerings”). “Continual” is a technical term which, in the Hebrew, applies to both sacrifices as a unit. The legislation of Exodus 29:38-42 is precise. The double sacrifice is spoken of as a singular unit (cf. Num 28:3-6). To explain this in more detail, the “continual burnt offering” consisted of two offerings, one in the morning and the other in the late afternoon. Because these symbolized a “continual” offering, they-the two of them-were spoken of as being a single offering each day. If the 8:14 time span really did refer to the continual burnt offering (as the liberals say it does), the time span would therefore have to be 2300, not 1150. • “Evening-morning” is not the same as “morning-evening”- This is a major point! The “evening-morning” cannot refer to the continual burnt offering, for that offering is always called the “morning-evening” continual burnt offering. In the Hebrew, it is literally “burnt offerings morning and evening” (Exodus 29:39; Leviticus 6:12-13; Num 28:4; 2 Kgs 16:15; 1 Chron 16:40; 23:30; 2 Chron 2:4; 13:11; 31:3; Ezra 3:3). The continual burnt offering is never spoken of (in the reverse order) as the “evening-morning” offering. With one exception, all other sanctuary procedures were spoken of as “morning-evening.” That sole exception was the lighting of the lamp stands, which were lit on a sunset to sunrise (“evening-morning”) basis. Doing so would ensure that the oil would last throughout the dark hours. • “Evening-morning” is singular- The term, “evening-morning” is written in the singular number, even though in the English, it is written “2300 days.” This fact favours the view that the Hebrew expression represents a unit of time, namely, a 24-hour day. In the book of Daniel, the other Hebrew word for “days” (yamim), is plural in 1:12, 14; 12:11; and 12:12. • The truth about “evening-morning” designating days- In the first chapter of Genesis, we find the grand display of the power of God in creating our world in six days. In order to make it very clear that each day was a literal 24- hour day, the phrase chosen to represent each 24-hour day was “evening-morning” (‘ereb boqer)-the very same phrasing used in Daniel 8:14. Indeed, Daniel 8:14 (plus one other passage) is the only place outside of Genesis 1 where ‘ereb boqer is used. This fact only adds to the weighty importance of the Daniel 8:14 time prophecy! In Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, with His own mouth, God spoke ‘ereb boqer at the end of each day of Creation Week. In Daniel 8:14, the same Creator spoke ‘ereb boqer again! Let no man

30

ridicule the fact or seek to make light of it! ‘Ereb boqer as the meaning of a 24-hour day-not two half days-is as solid as is the days of Creation Week! To deny the one is to deny the other! That other passage where ‘ereb boqer is found is 8:26; this is where Gabriel refers to the 2300-day prophecy, using the special phrase applied to it by Christ and says its fulfilment “is for many days.” Always remember that the question, "ad-matay", in 8:13 does not only mean “how long” but also can mean “until when.” The question specifically asks about what happens when the time span of the VISION ends. In 8:26, Gabriel repeats the message of 8:14 that the end is far in the future (despite the events at the start of the vision began to happen after the Babylonian kingdom). This is also the message of 8:17 and 8:19, where the fact is stated that the 2300-day prophecy would reach its conclusion “at the time of the end.” • Why is “evening-morning” used to signify a 24-hour day? That is a good question. In the Bible, the day starts at sunset. That pattern was given us during Creation Week (Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). It is confirmed by the statement in Leviticus 23:32, “From even unto even, shall ye celebrate your Sabbath.” • The setting and phrasing of the “evening-morning” points directly to “years” as the meaning- The conversation in 8:13 refers to the entire vision of 8:3-12, indicating, thereby, that the 2300 “eveningsmornings” cover the period extending from some point within the “ram kingdom” (Medo-Persia), on through the “he-goat kingdom” (Grecia); from there through the activities of the little horn-to the “end” (8:17, 19). Thus it is obvious that the year-day principle is functioning in chapter 8. The 2300 “evenings-mornings” must cover the whole period of the events symbolized, beginning at some point during the ram period. An understanding of that time span as literal days (as presented by the Antiochus expositors) does not fit the context of the question, and cannot stand up to the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:15. It obvious that this foregoing explanation is as solid as a rock, and it is now time to consider the year-day principle: THE YEAR-DAY PRINCIPLE Hotly contested by the critics is our application of the year-day principle to the 2300 year prophecy in Daniel. But our historic defence is powerful. Now that I have established that the phrase, ‘ereb boqer (“evening-morning”), is to read as a literal 24-hour day when presented among the symbols of Daniel 8, we must next establish that each day in Daniel 8:14 is a “prophetic day;” that is, each one stands for a year. Why is hidden language used? For reasons given below (and those earlier posted), it is obvious that Daniel 8:14 is speaking about 2300 years, not 2300 days. • Apocalyptic time prophecies- “Apocalyptic prophecies” tend to be filled with dreams, visions, and symbols instead of historical narratives. In this category, we find the 3½ times, 42 months, or 1260 days for the persecution of God’s people that is mentioned twice in Daniel (7:25; 12:7) and five times in Revelation (11:2, 3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

31

A period of persecution lasting 10 days is referred to in Revelation 2:10. Men were to be hurt for five months under the fifth trumpet (Revelation 9:5), and were to be slain for a longer period of time under its sixth trumpet (Revelation 9:15). God’s witnesses were to lie dead in the streets for 3½ days before their resurrection (Revelation 11:9). The abomination of desolation would continue for 1290 days (12:11). In Daniel 8, for example, we find symbolic figures (ram, goat, horns), symbolic actions (casting down and trampling stars), and symbolic time (evening-morning; days). Why pick out only one aspect and make it literal? The year-for-a-day principle (precedence) in Scripture- We would be quite ABITRARY in our interpretation to assume a day as meaning a year, if we did not have a Biblical precedent for this. But it has been given to us. The year-for-a-day pattern is given to us in several passages; the first two occur in legislative codes: • Leviticus 25:1-7- This is the earliest Biblical text in which the principle is implied. It is found in Levitical legislation and is the ordinance of the sabbatical year. A single Sabbath is to be read as a year; a seven-day week is to be interpreted as seven years. The farmer was to plant and harvest crops for six years and then rest on the seventh, or sabbatical, year. “When ye come into the land which I give you, the land shall keep a sabbath unto the Lord” (Leviticus 25:2). The “sabbath” is not a weekly Sabbath, but the “sabbath” of every seventh year. In Hebrew, we are told: “The land shall sabbatize a sabbath to the Lord.” Leviticus 25, verse 4, calls it “a sabbath of rest unto the land” while verse 5 calls it “a year of rest unto the land.” • Leviticus 25:8- Here we have another legislative year-for-a-day pattern. A literal translation reads: “You shall count seven sabbaths of years, seven years seven times, and to you the days of the seven sabbaths of years shall be forty-nine years.” The explanation given us is that a “sabbath of years” is to be understood as a period of seven years. Here we have a day into a year arrangement. The seventh day has been taken to stand for a seventh year. As the seventh and concluding day of the week, the Sabbath is understood here to stand for the seventh year of a period of seven years. Thus each day of the “weeks” that end with these “sabbaths” in the jubilee cycle stands for one year. Next, we discover two other patterns, or models, for year-for-a-day applications. Both are prophetic time spans. After providing the pattern, God immediately applied it. The first is given in a narrative and provides a clear application of the year-day pattern to a predicted lengthy period of time, based on a few days: • Numbers 14:34- The Israelites were told that, because of their rebellion, for every day the spies were in the promised land, the nation would be forbidden to enter it. Numbers 14:34 “After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years.” The “days” used to measure off “years” were based on events of the immediate past. This was a prophetic judgment and used the year-day principle. In this narrative instance, a past day stood for a future year. However, in an apocalyptic prophecy such as we find in Daniel, a future day stands for a future year. • Ezekiel 4:6- This parable pointedly illustrates the use of the year-day principle. Although it is a parable, it has a prophetic application. Ezekiel 4:5-6 “For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the

32

days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.” The 40 years in the wilderness, marked by a year-day principle, was a major event in Israelite history, known to all the people. But it had occurred centuries earlier. So it is significant that this additional reminder of the year-day principle was given to Ezekiel, not too many years before Daniel began receiving his visions which involved year-day applications (chapters 7-12). The time prophecy, indicated here (390 + 40), appears to apply to the progressively sinful state of the Israelite nation under the divided monarchy. Careful Bible students recognize that Ezekiel 4:4-6 is directly linked to Numbers 14:34. Both the act of “bearing” and the “evil” borne are expressed in the same way. Both are introduced with the same phrase, referring to “the number of the days,” and both express the idea of “each day for a year” with the same twice-said phrase: “day for the year . . . day for the year.” The year-day principle in both is linguistically the same. CONCLUSION. God then gave us symbolic time prophecies in dreams and visions, which, obviously, are about extremely important matters spanning centuries, and He placed the time factors in year-for-a-day patterns. This is clearly operating in Daniel 8:14 and clearly ONLY “the wise would understand” (by the help of the Holy Spirit of prophecy), but those captivated only by the wisdom of men and only the methodology of institutions of learning are clearly not the best discerners of this truth. Only the most deluded and dishonest would dare venture to say that the foregoing is not reasonable, and compelling. In the next post I will look at some more of the "classic objections" to 1844, especially the objection to the expression "cleansed" as it relates to the sanctuary intended in Daniel 8:14. Was this "cleansing", first a proper translation, which sanctuary would it relate to at the end of the evidently LONG time period of many centuries, and how is this judgment related (if some Jewish purification ceremonies did not relate to judgment)? THIS WILL GET MORE EXPLOSIVE, so see you then.

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 6 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/10/2004 6:03 AM

WHAT'S IT ABOUT ALL THIS SANCTUARY "CLEANSING"? At this point, let's now return to the "classic objections" I have not yet responded to directly, and analyse carefully a few more. The challenges assert that: MORE "CLASSIC OBJECTIONS"

Quote:

1.The context implies that the period [2300 eveningsmornings] began when the daily sacrifice was suspended. He [the Adventist] must show that

33

it began in 457 BC; a date having nothing to do with the daily sacrifice. 2.He [the Adventist] must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints when the context refers to cleansing it from pollution by the enemy of the saints. 3.He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely "commenced" (when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844. 4.He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is of the kind typified in Leviticus 16. 5.He must then prove that the judgment which began in 1844 was an "investigative judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the text implies) of the wicked.

I have sought to group the above challenges/objections (excerpted from the list I presented in an earlier post) because they are best answered together, since they are related. Now it is very easy to respond to challenge No. 1 (as listed above) because the very question itself is, for the most part, invalid. My previous post (before this one) has already clearly demonstrated that the period of time in question was about the ENTIRE VISION, and that it does not relate to just suspended "sacrifices" (literally), since the question was about, " until WHEN” is “the VISION" (itself). Also, the Hebrew text did NOT have the word "sacrifices", but something broader in mind (the text used just the word tamid, meaning simply "continual", and not "sacrifices", and then it used nisdaq for "cleansed", instead of the usual word taher for normal ritual cleansing). The difference is significant in Hebrew, and should not be ignored at all, since it’s symbolic significance is rather potent. Also of significance is the fact that the RETURNING angel (the same one in Daniel 8) later related the specific time when the time period of the ENTIRE VISION should begin. See Daniel 9:20-25. It is no point at all (worth worrying about) that because the vision in Daniel 8, and the EXPLANATION of the time aspect of the prophecy were separated by over a dozen years that this means they were unrelated. The fact is that the beginning point of the time aspect of the prophecy was still future to Daniel's lifetime and thus it did not come after the event prophesied (so a few years separating the two explanations is of no consequence; God does things in a timely way). The only thing about the challenge worthy of note is that the Biblical Adventist must indeed be able to show that the beginning point of the 2300 years was in the more 'Israel-friendly' Persian period, in 457 B.C. to be exact. That will be reasonably demonstrated soon hereafter, but notice at this point though that it was precisely at the beginning of the Persian period that the angel returned to explain to Daniel the time aspect of the vision given during that closing stage of the Babylonian era (Daniel 8:13, 14). The Persian period began and Daniel was now even more curious about time in prophecy as it related to his people and the sanctuary. Coincidence? Hardly. But more on that later. Before moving on, as promised in my last post, I will now seek to show why the word "cleansed" in the K.J.V. is deemed as a good translation, in view of the other renderings of the original word, nisdaq. First let me indicate that of over 25 translations I have looked up *16 of them translate the word as "cleansed". That indicates that there is strength in that rendering; not a sectarian rape of Scripture as

34

some would like to think. “Cleansed” in 16 versions: Septuagint; Rheims-Douay; Moulto; Boothroyd; Spurrell; Martin; Vulgate; Harkavy; Ray; Knox; Noyes; King James Version; American Revised Version; and three French versions: Osterwald, Segond, and Lausanne. More importantly, let me hasten to say that the oldest translations of the Old Testament are the second century B.C. Septuagint and the Theodotion. Both render nisdaq with the Greek term, katharisthesetai (“shall be cleansed”). Those careful Hebrew scholars, who lived only a few centuries after the time of Daniel, believed that this was the best single word with which to translate nisdaq. So “cleanse” is a perfectly acceptable word in Daniel 8:14 and Adventism's preference for that rendering is in good company. However nisdaq, in its various verb forms, includes meanings far broader than merely cleanse, and we want to know them. Other renderings of the word, nisdaq, include “Be consecrated” in Luther’s German translation. “Be righted” in the Smith-Goodspeed translation. “Be restored to its rightful state” in the Revised Standard Version. “Be restored” in Moffatt’s version. “Be declared right” in Young’s translation. “Be justified” in texts of Leeser, Sawyer, and in the margins of King James Version and American Revised Versions. “Be victorious” in Margolis’ translation. “Be vindicated” in Rotherham’s version. “Be made righteous” in Van Ess’ translation. “Be sanctified” in Fenton’s version. Now with that in mind, we can proceed with the thought in mind that, as I have previously argued, despite the word "cleansed" is correctly used, there is nothing wrong with applying the other uses, like "restored to its rightful place", "righted", "vindicated", etc., since THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PROPHECY NECESSARILY LIMITING THE MEANING TO ONLY THE "CLEANSING" OF WHICHEVER SANCTUARY IT HAPPENS TO BE AT THE END OF THE 2300 YEARS (AT THE END OF THE EVENTS IN THE VISION OF DANIEL 8). Why? I strongly believe that there is ample evidence that the prophecy might just have had both the Heavenly sanctuary and the earthly spiritual temple (the Church) in mind, that is BOTH would be "cleansed", but just from different things. Both would be made victorious or vindicated, but in different contexts. The trampling of the sanctuary and God's people underfoot, and the casting down of the "place" of God's sanctuary and His truth to the ground, ARE SIMPLY SYMBOLS FOR, ON THE ONE HAND, THE DEFILEMENT OF THE CHURCH (THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE) BY THE PRESENCE AND PAGAN INFLUENCE OF THE ANTICHRIST POWER, THE PAPACY (2 THESS. 2:4), AND ALSO THE OBSCURING OF THE TRUTH ABOUT THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF GOD'S SANCTUARY AND TRUE HIGH PRIEST (ONLY MEDIATOR) IN THE LIVES OF CHRISTIANS AFTER THE ROMAN ANTICHRIST CAME ON THE SCENE. Thus both sanctuaries would simultaneously (in the same time period; i.e. at the end of the 2300 years) be "made right", "made victorious", and "vindicated", as the truth is made clear again to the world. Thus while the Heavenly sanctuary is being "cleansed" in the anti-typical Judgment sense of Leviticus 16 and Yom Kippur (to be shown hereafter), and "vindicated" too, so too the earthly spiritual temple (the Church) is being "cleansed" (in another context) of pagan defilement, and "vindicated" too,

35

as the "Remnant" leaves the confused ranks of spiritual Babylon in Christendom (since the spiritual awakening of the modern era) and restores the truth about God's true apostolic Church, God's law, Sabbath, state of the dead, etc. This all happens while God is "sealing" his chosen elect (making up his jewels) once and for all, thus pronouncing them "vindicated", to the chagrin of Satan, "the accuser of the brethren". Hallelujah!! That discovery, while prayerfully contemplating the Word, has been the impression of the Holy Spirit of prophecy upon my spirit. Call it fanciful thinking, if the reader so desires, but spiritual things are spiritually discerned and I don't need high powered learning about exegesis, and textual analysis, before the Holy Spirit can impress such things upon my spirit. I however think that careful textual analysis should be used to later intellectually CONFIRM what was discerned in the spirit and heart (since there are indeed demonic spirits of false prophecy), but the Bible does give me enough evidence to think this way. I will be continuing this part of the presentation in an upcoming post (since I don't want to make this one too long). However I will close here by saying that it is very clear to me that the anti-typical "cleansing" of the Heavenly sanctuary, in the sense of the typical "shadow" in Lev. 16 and the Judgment related Yom Kippur was the intent of Daniel 8:14. Why, you may ask, do I not see it in the sense of 2 Chronicles 29 for instance (another type of cleansing)? Simply because the internal evidence in Daniel 7, and 8 suggests that the little horn power would be judged by God after his God-allowed tenure. Now if, as seen in Daniel 7:26, the destruction of the little horn power (certainly not Antiochus) is directly preceded by an investigative type Judgment in heaven (also seen in Daniel 7:9-11), and in Daniel 8 the vision ends with a sanctuary "cleansing" and the little horn destroyed without human hand (i.e by God's executive justice), then parallelism in meaning demands that we must recognize the following. THE ONLY SANCTUARY PURIFICATION CEREMONY SIMULTANEOUSLY CONNECTED TO JUDGMENT WAS YOM KIPPUR, AS JEWS HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED, EVEN TO THIS DAY (EVEN IF THEY DON'T SEE HOW IT REALATES TO JESUS AS OUR JUDGE AND ADVOCATE ABOVE). See John 5:22; Act 17:31; 1 John 1:1. So, faced with a choice of which Jewish ceremony would BEST typify BOTH an anti-typical sanctuary "cleansing" and Judgment SIMULTANEOUSLY leaves this Bible student with only ONE such choice indeed- Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement and Judgment). But of course it is not only the little horn power, which would be subject to examination, and thereafter God’s executive justice. God's judgment "at the end" does not work that way. It has to be ALL men (good or bad; see Rev. 11:18,19) whose lives are examined BEFORE Jesus comes with rewards for ALL (Rev. 22:12). Notice how that even the last stage of the Church on earth is symbolically referred to as “Laodicea”, which means “the judging of his people”, that is, God's people (the Church) which exist on earth just before the Anti-Christ power will be destroyed (without human hand) by Jesus’ coming – 2 Thess. 2:8. Is God opening our eyes even more here? I certainly do think so. If the final stage of the Church is called "Laodicea" (i.e. people living in that period) then it is obvious the Judgment covers a period (terminated by the Second Advent). Thus in 1844 this period simply commenced. Enough said here. I rest my case for now. See you in the next post, as I will continue this awesome study.

Reply Recommend Delete Message 7 of 34 in Discussion

36

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/10/2004 6:07 AM

WAS THE START OF 2300 YEARS 444B.C. OR 457 B.C.? - Part 1 Introduction In my last post I made the crucial point:

Quote:

"...the Biblical Adventist must indeed be able to show that the beginning point of the 2300 years was in the more 'Israel-friendly' Persian period, in 457 B.C. to be exact. That will be reasonably demonstrated soon hereafter, but notice at this point though that it was precisely at the beginning of the Persian period that the angel returned to explain to Daniel the time aspect of the vision given during the closing stage of the Babylonian era (Daniel 8:13, 14)."

Now, as I continue this awesome study, I realize that here, more than anywhere else in this 'adventure of discovery', is where the "1844 Message" of Adventism will either stand solid or crumble under the weight of evidence, for or against it respectively. And so I breathed a prayer with every stroke of my keyboard that I may rightly divide the Word of truth, and not be another propagator of error and heresy. As I began to write this portion if the discourse I had the Holy Spirit impressing so strongly upon me the following, that I could not but share it with you as a prelude: 1. Before you can ever get to the final level in this journey of building truth upon truth, in order to reach the date of 1844, it is ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE that the 'milestone' of the Messiahship of Jesus be reached, and proven in the numbers and the calculation of dates BEFORE you get to 1844. The two are part of the same journey. But in this journey one must get first to mathematical/historical proof of Jesus as, first, the "annointed" Messiah, and then the "slain Lamb" or "cut off" Messiah BEFORE you get to Him as the appointed Judge of all (while being our Advocate) at a specific time in the line of the prophecy. AND THEN THE FOLLOWING THOUGHT HIT ME LIKE AN EXPLODING BOMB!! 2. Of all the Christocentric portions of the Old Testament, Daniel 9 (as connected to Daniel 8) would be the most awesome prophecy since it proves, BY THE NUMBERS, the absolute truth of Jesus' Messiahship prophesied long in advance. Thus this would probably be the most attacked truth by Satan himself, as he tries to cloud the issues. His challenge on Jesus was, "If thou be the Son of God...", or put another way, ARE YOU REALLY THE MESSIAH? Jesus proclaimed, "It is written"!! This must be our answer to the critics as well who try to cover up, or deny the truth that Jesus is indeed proven as the Messiah by the most potent of prophecies.

37

Sad it would be for me to find myself ALSO fighting against, or denying this truth, as I fight against, or deny "1844", SINCE BOTH ARE INTIMATELY CONNECTED. Interestingly, while most non-Adventist Christians (other denominations) oppose "1844" MANY are still unable (God be praised) to get past the truth that Daniel 9 does prove Jesus' Messiahship by the numbers. This is indeed heartening, and is not too bad. What a sad state of a affairs it is, however, for a Christian man who decries even the basic and awesome truth of the Messiahship of Jesus proven by Daniel 9. It is of no real consequence that Daniel 9 spoke of "an anointed" or "a messiah", and not with the definite article, "the". Leaders, priests, and kings of Israel were all "anointed" as "messiahs" of sorts, thus Jesus would be just one among many in this sense. But if it is discovered that he is the TRUE "anointed of God", and "Prince of Princes" ("ruler of rulers" literally) truly prophesied of *IN Daniel 8 and 9 (the one TRUE High Priest and Mediator) among his many predecessors in Israel, then this truth in Daniel should be held tightly to, and defended against Satan and ALL his agents with every fibre in our being. THIS IS WHAT I WILL STRIVE TO DO AS I CONTINUE THIS STUDY, GOD HELP ME!! 457 BC., 444 B.C. AND THE TRUE MESSIAH IN DANIEL 9!! Let me begin the Math/historical calculations this way. Jesus has been shown by most historical authorities to have been born during king Herod's lifetime, most likely in 4.B.C. (but probably even as early as 6 B.C.), since the calendar based on his birth was found to be a few years too late in it beginning point. Now it would mean that from his birth to his baptism, and Holy Spirit "anointing" at Jordan, would be in about A.D. 27 (I prefer to use 4 B.C. as his birth date). It was on his thirtieth birthday that he chose to be baptised (as was the customary age to embark upon leadership and public office), and then started to declare, "THE TIME IS FULFILLED"!! Mark 1:15 (See Gal. 4:4). Who is to say that Jesus was not here referring to the time fulfilled for the public appearing of the true "anointed" or "Messiah". Now, unlike Antiochus who failed the fulfil the finer mathematical points of the 2300 literal "days" application (of preterists, semi-preterists), Jesus will be shown to fulfil EXACTLY the mathematical calculations of the 2300 "years" HISTORICIST application of Daniel 8 and 9. As early as the third century B.C., the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 were understood to be 70 "weeks of years," i.e. 70 x 7 = 490 years. The LXX, in translating the Hebrew for "weeks" in Dan 7:25-27, inserted the additional phrase "of years," providing the first published example of what would later be called the "year-day principle". Thus the day/year application of Daniel 9 (at least) has ancient (and authoritative) precedence from the users of the original language. What is sure is that if the period 2300 "years" (coupled with Daniel 9) interpretation is correct (and it is; I will clearly demonstrate that hereafter) then to begin it in 444 B.C. (as some contend- See Daniel 9:25) would bring us to A.D. 39 for the date of his baptism. This would immediately conflict with his birth date of 4 B.C. (or even 6 B.C.). Would He be over forty years of age upon entering his public ministry? Certainly not (according to the Bible itself). Thus He could not then be accurately declaring the "time is fulfilled", if it was a reference to Daniel prophecy of the TRUE Messiah's arrival (and I believe it is, AS DO MANY NON-ADVENTIST COMMENTATORS). However, if the signal beginning point of Daniel 9:25, and divisions of the time prophecy be followed faithfully (using the oldest, and most reliable punctuation of this verse in the LXX and Theodotion; not the later conflicting 'Masoretic' ones adopted by the R.S.V. or N.E.B. versions, for instance) then it will be soon discovered that 457 B.C. is the precise date allowing Jesus to accurately say, "the time is

38

fulfilled" in A.D. 27. In that year (A.D. 27) he would be truly about thirty years of age (4 B.C. + A.D. 27= 30-31 years'; with no zero year), the first "69 weeks" of 483 prophetic years would certainly have the TRUE Messiah appearing in public (embarking on his public ministry), and the math/historical calculations would EXACTLY prove him to be the TRUE Messiah prophesied of centuries before; the same one who would be "cut off" (Hebrew, “karath”; destroyed, consumed, killed, as in Gen. 9:11) just a few years after that in the last (the 70th) "week" of years… i.e. somewhere between A.D. 27 and A.D. 34 (and this time period of his crucifixion is easily proven in history books). But you may ask, and rightly so, how is this connected to Daniel 8:14 and 1844, and how do I get these two prophecies to begin the same year? Well go back to the overview (my second post in this thread) for that answer in a preliminary way, but I will endeavour to give you the VERY COMPELLING details of this connection in my next post.

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/11/2004 5:18 AM

WAS THE START OF THE 2300 YEARS 444 B.C. OR 457 B.C.- Part 2 THE CLEAR CONNECTION BETWEEN DANIEL 8 AND 9 I found it rather interesting that at least one opposer of "1844" in another discussion forum like this one (hewill remain anonymous) had the insight to see that Daniel 9:25 and 26 clearly show at least two personalities, namely, an enemy power called just "the prince" (specific) that "shall come and destroy" , and another figure called "a Messiah, the Prince" (without the definite article). Now I found this, while, on the one hand, being a little amusing coming from him (the reason for my amusement will soon be apparent), it also being a good place to start this post to show how Daniel 8 and 9 are intimately connected, and why both the "70 weeks" of years, and the " 2300 days" of years should both begin in 457 B.C. Daniel 8 ended with Daniel, while an exile in Babylon (during the closing days of Babylon's world dominion), contemplating, but "astonished" over the vision given to him in that chapter. He distinctly declared at the end of that chapter that, "NONE understood it" (Dan. 8:27). Now it is certain that it could not mean ALL portions of the vision was not understood, since the explanation of what the "ram" kingdom or empire (Medo-Persia), the he-goat empire (Greece), "the he-goat's first horn" (fist phase of Greece's empire under Alexander), "the later four horns" (divided Greece), and the little horn (Anti-Christ power) were to be was given. So what aspect bothered him most? Obviously the time given in Daniel 8:14, since he started to enquire about earlier time prophecies given in Jeremiah as it concerned Israel and the sanctuary. Evidently he wondered if there was a connection, and when exactly would the events in this "vision" begin. Could the earthly Jewish sanctuary, still in ruins at this time, be now ready for restoration, since it was prophesied (from Dan. 8) that some sanctuary or the other (related to God's people) would be "cleansed"?. He must have reasoned: If it was the sanctuary in earthly Jerusalem that was to be the focus of this prophecy, then it certainly must first be re-built, and his people as a nation restored before this FUTURE desecration, desolation and "cleansing" of it could ever happen. That was only logical. Thus

39

he took heart in the fact that the 70 years of punishment earlier prophesied by Jeremiah must now be coming to a close, and proceeded to pray to Jehovah over the matter of his people’s sins, and for God to restore Israel. That is how Daniel 9 started, and its connection to Daniel 8 is "set like concrete before my feet". NO POWER ON EARTH CAN CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE, SINCE THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN DANIEL IS SO COMPELLING!!! Notice from Daniel 9:20- 27 that the angel just simply returned to give "understanding" of "THE vision". Now if there is one thing that no one can ever adequately disprove (at least to me) is that the use here of the specific article, "the" in circumstances like these (where no other vision existed between chapters 8 and 9) MUST then be a clear reference to an earlier matter already referred to or known of. Let me illustrate in simple terms. If I say to you, In THE thread on "Did Jesus Come in 1914?" on this message board you will see such, and such, then it is painfully evident that I take it for granted you already know what thread I am talking about, or it already exists, and I can refer to it with the article "the" because it was already written, and, or you already know about it. Now let us translate this in terms even a kindergarten would understand. The angel returned (Daniel 9:21), THE SAME ONE SEEN IN THE VISION EARLIER (a few years before) and just launched into an EXPLANATION- "CONSIDER *THE VISION"!! Which vision? Daniel understood perfectly. The angel simply meant, "Now understand aspects of the vision given earlier". Only delusion fails to see this simple truth, or intellectual stubbornness, and Satanic twisting of Holy Writ declares otherwise. The angel then abruptly started to explain TIME matters to be considered from "THE VISION" in which he earlier appeared to Daniel. Notice carefully now how he was able to just also refer to the "the people of THE prince [or "ruler", "king" literally] that shall come" to destroy Israel, that is, after he had just referred to the "Messiah" (another figure) that was to be "cut of". Why? THAT TOO WAS ALSO IN THE EARLIER VISION!! It was the "little horn" power (the enemy power working though its own "people"), and not the "Messiah", in that instance, that "would come" to destroy the sanctuary (and be on the scene when the TRUE "abomination of desolation" would be visited upon Israel (See again Matthew 24:15).

So even the opposition unwittingly proves the connection of the two chapters (Smile ). See how all this ties in with Rome (pagan and papal) if the explanation of "70 weeks" (483 prophetic years) brings us down to the TRUE MESSIAH (and the Roman period in which Jesus referred to the FUTURE "abomination of desolation spoken of by [the same] Daniel")? God help us all to see it. Notice then in Daniel 9:24 how the angel just abruptly said "70 Weeks" (of years) are chathak for thy people. The word "chathak" (used only once in Holy Writ) is proven by the best research into the ancient text to mean "cut off", "amputated", "divided", as well as "determined" and "decreed". Translators will only apply the best meaning here when they see the connection between Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:24. So this Bible student (Mr Gillespie) makes his own choice of the BEST meaning to apply here, by looking at the range of meanings of the word, chathak, as well as the internal evidence in Daniel as to which meaning best to apply; I am not misguided by translators who impose their own feeling upon the text without me seeing the internal evidence in support. With that now being said, it is easy to see that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to "cut of" or "amputate" 490 years ("70 weeks" of prophetic years) from just 1150 or even 2300 literal days (as defended by the preterists). It only possible to "cut off" 490 years from 2300 years, FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL. It is

40

therefore rock solid logic to see both periods having the same beginning point. Now we can proceed to see when the "70 weeks" of years (Daniel 9) would begin, since the 2300 years period also begin the same time. THE YEAR 457 B.C IS THE TRUE BEGINNING POINT!! As was shown earlier (the previous post), some contend that the "70 weeks" of years in Daniel 9:24,25 should begin in 444 B.C because it was a clear year when Artaxerxes gave the final command to "rebuild" Jerusalem; and not 457 B,C. when another type of command was given. I have clearly shown how this would upset the Messiah prophecy (VERY UNTHINKABLE!!) and thus we must enquire: 1. Was a command given in 457 B.C.? 2. What was this command all about? *Please note that the double-dated "Kraeling 6" papyrus, and another found on the island of Elephantine (in a Jewish garrison town) are proof enough of the accuracy of these two dates, 444 B.C and 457 B.C. (instead of 445 and 458 B.C. respectively, given as alternate dates by some commentators). First, I must hasten to say that the prophetic words in Daniel 9:26 speak of TWO (2) things signalling the beginning point of the time prophecy under consideration. Notice carefully that it is "the commandment [or decree- SINGULAR!!] to [1] restore and [2] build Jerusalem" AS A WHOLE (probably representative of the nation itself); NOT JUST THE TEMPLE BUILDING. Since the words "restore" (shub) and "'build" (banah) are different in the Hebrew, then we realise that we must look for two things to be commanded- [1] FIRST, A SOCIAL RESTORATION OF JEWISH LIFE IN ALL ITS FORMS. [1] AND ACCOMPANYING THAT, AN ARCHITCHTURAL REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM (OBVIOUSLY INCLUDING THE TEMPLE ALSO). This is so often overlooked. This is usually the first blunder of the opposition, when contending against 1844. The opposition usually totally ignore the first KEY word in Daniel 9:26, that is, "restore" ("shub"), which is broader in meaning than the word "rebuild" ("banah"). And that is why both were used. Rebuilding Jerusalem was just a part of the RESTORATION OF JEWISH LIFE after Babylonian exile. That is a rock solid truth that no one can overturn. AND THAT ALONE EFFECTIVELY SHOWS WHY EZRA 7 ALONG WITH EZRA 6:14, AND EZRA 9:9, ARE THE SIGNAL TEXTS TO SUGGEST WHEN DANIEL'S 9:26 TIME PROPHECY WAS TO BEGIN. Why? Because Ezra 6:14 is the only place EXPLAINING the Providential threefold command (seen by the Bible itself as one command from God) to rebuild the temple itself (the focus of the city), and then Ezra 7:25 outlines the command FINALLY given to "restore" ("shub") full Jewish life under its own government; and not just "rebuild" ("banah") Jerusalem. Why omit the most important parts of the Ezra 7 decree, which is that the Jews got the right of autonomy (self-government), with judges and magistrates to enforce their laws; FULL RESTORATION. Why hide this fact? Notice that the Bible said "from the going forth of the command to RESTORE... Jerusalem", that is, when first given as a unit (and when both the criteria of "restoring" Jewish life, and the "rebuilding" the city would have been fully met) . From what year and what decree (the decree "to restore and rebuild Jerusalem") are we to begin to

41

count the number of years until Messiah? There are four possibilities to consider. First, it could not be Cyrus’ edict issued in 539 B.C. though his command referred to the rebuilding of the temple and not literally to the city AS A WHOLE. But remember the temple is the heartthrob of the city itself and signals the restoration of Israel itself, including Jerusalem. God Himself saw the matter this way:

Quote:

Isa 44:28 [God] That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

So we see that even tough Cyrus did not complete the full threefold command, it BEGAN with him to rebuild Jerusalem, by commanding the rebuilding of the temple foundations. Second, it could not be the decree given by Tattenai, governor of Judah, who made a search for Cyrus’ decree and then issued a decree himself about 519/18 B.C. (Ezra 5:3-17). His decree simply confirmed Cyrus’ and again, while continuing the temple rebuilding, was, according to Ezra 6, just an incomplete part of the threefold decree to rebuild even the temple itself. The third decree was the decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra in 457 B.C. (Ezra 6 and 7) to beautify the temple already structurally complete under Darius (i.e. give it a "finish" as it were, in building language) and to re-install judges and leaders, etc. Obviously this decree to re-install self-governance needed also a restored and rebuilt capital to have this command realized, and thus is fraught with profound implications for rebuilding the capital itself. No one can convince me otherwise. The fourth decree was given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah in 444 B.C. to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, and thus, by all appearances would seem to be the best clear reference to the "rebuilding" of the city itself (according to some). But why do I prefer 457 B.C.? It is absolutely clear that despite the Persians could have commanded the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 444 B.C., but the restoration of full autonomy to the Jewish economy (re-installing of leaders, judges, etc in Ezra 7:25,26) was ALSO needed to fulfil Daniel 9:26. This began to be fulfilled earlier in 457 B.C., as it would have been impossible for this command in Ezra 7:25, 26 (for instance) to have excluded or prohibited an architectural restoration of Jerusalem itself. Also, why forget that the temple is the centre and 'heart throb' of the city itself and thus its rebuilding is a signal start to restoring Jerusalem itself? Now it is absolutely clear from Ezra 6: 14, that IT IS THE BIBLE ITSELF which declares that three Persian kings gave ONE "commandment" (or "decree"- singular), NOT seen as decrees (but a unit of sorts), to rebuild Jerusalem's temple (the heartthrob and centre of Jerusalem) while Ezra 7 explains the obvious allowing of the Jews to, more importantly, "restore" FULLY their former national life lost under the Babylonians. That is why Ezra 6 and 7, and 9:9 are the answer to the whole matter. Daniel's prayer in Daniel 9, if you remember, had the both the city, and more so the temple as the MAIN focus of his prayer. Why? Both were important, but the temple was even more important than the surrounding city, and that was why the Persians commanded that first and foremost the temple was to be rebuilt. See why this Israel-friendly nation of Medo-Persia was represented favourably as a sheep, the temple-related symbol of goodness, in Daniel 8 (since God chose Medo-Persia as his restoring agent)?

42

Now it matters not if Artaxerxes (the last king connected to the command) gave two different types of commands, one in 457 B.C. (to beautify/finish the temple and restore self-government) and one in 444 B.C. (to rebuild the city itself). We must start the prophecy at his earlier command (457 B.C.) because (united with the two earlier commands before) it BOTH satisfies the beginning point of the prophecy in Daniel 9, since it says "from the going forth of the command to [not just build, but also] ... restore Jerusalem", and it also does not conflict with the Messiah coming on the scene in A.D 27 at 30 years of age. Why if Artaxerxes had to later renew the command to build the the city itself in 444 B.C. should this be seen as a problem? His earlier command for restoration of social life is part and parcel of the "THE GOING FORTH OF the commandment" to RESTORE Jerusalem/Israel (rebuilding architectural structures to accommodate this social restoration was a natural part of this command). The proclamation/renewal of the commandment (because of certain politics in Persia) to architecturally build the city itself in the year 444 B.C. is well documented, but the use of this year as the starting point of the "70 weeks" of 490 years does not allow for the Messiah prophecy to be spot-on accurate. The answer lies in the use of the year 457 B.C. PROBLEMS WITH 444 B.C. Remember, first, that we count backwards in B.C., and forwards in A.D. (with no year 0). Also remember that we must use the 360 day Biblical year in our calculations; not the 365.25 days of modern times. From 457 B.C. to the baptism ("anointing" and public arrival) of "Messiah the Prince" WOULD INDEED BE 483 years (or "69 weeks" of years), in about A.D. 27. From 444 B.C. to "Messiah's" actual historical arrival in public ministry in A.D. 27 would not be "69 weeks" of years), but 471 years. If you count the full 483 years from 444 B.C to A.D. 39 then Jesus would have been, by the historical records, back in Heaven before that date. Back in Heaven before He arrived as the Holy Ghost anointed "Messiah"? Get the picture? Problems and more problems. If 444 B.C. is used then it would have Jesus being "cut off" AFTER A.D. 40 (483 +3.5 years after). A historically un-provable date, wouldn't it be? But if 457 B.C. is used the rest of the "70 weeks" of years would end in A.D. 34 after the Messiah WAS INDEED "cut off" or killed, but in the middle of the last "week" (of 7 years). THIS INDEED HAPPENED IN ABOUT A.D. 31. That is more historically provable than a date after A.D. 40. After A.D. 34 the "people of the prince" (the enemy anti-Christ Roman power) certainly then subsequently desolated Israel and its temple after this event). THE REST OF THE PERIOD OF 2300 YEARS, FROM WHICH THE 490 YEARS WERE "AMPUTATED" FOR THE NATION OF ISRAEL (THE SAME ISRAEL NOW LEFT "DESOLATE" BY THEIR REJECTED MESSIAH, AND WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED THE TRUE "ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION" UNDER ROME, IN THE WORDS OF JESUS), IS EASILY PROVEN TO END IN 1844 (CALCULATED FROM 457 B.C., WITH NO YEAR 0). What would have happened in 1844, if it is now obvious that no earthly sanctuary then existed? The answer is clear! Only the TRUE Heavenly sanctuary and the Church (another kind of temple) could be focussed on as possible TRUE candidates (despite the Millerites first thought it meant the earth as the "cleansed" sanctuary), and seen as "cleansed" and "vindicated" AFTER 1844. But at this point I will take a break and allow the Holy Spirit to renew my spirit for the next post, in which I will address more objections to this (evidently) God given truth which the Enemy will do, and is doing all to block and eliminate. See you then. God bless.

43

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 13 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/11/2004 5:33 AM

A REVIEW OF THE LIST OF CHALLENGES/OBJECTIONS TO 1844 (Quick Re-cap). Dear reader, I do think that I have done justice so far to the "classic challenges" posed to this doctrine over the years (AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION I will deal with the rather weak ones posted by the "naysayers" here so far in this thread). But before I bring this matter to a close, let me do a quick recap. The challenges responded to so far, are as follows:

Quote:

1. He [the Adventist] must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2,300 full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 -- or any text of Scripture -- to show it.

This was already refuted, and proofs presented to show first a literal translation meaning 2300 days, which then should be applied as 2300 years.

Quote:

2. He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an evening and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn into one year.

Also proven sufficiently (the day/year principle in prophecy), based on several texts. It was also pointed out (with clear evidence) that the word “sacrifice” is irrelevant here.

Quote:

3. The context [of Daniel 8:14] implies that the period began when the daily sacrifice was suspended. He must show that it began in 457 BC; a date having nothing to do with the daily sacrifice.

44

The above has already been proved to be an invalid question/ objection, and the relevance of the year of 457 (B.C.) as the beginning point of ENTIRE “the vision” (and not just a suspension of sacrifices) has been solidly established.

Quote:

4. He must assume the 490 years are cut off from the 2,300 year although nothing is said of this in Daniel 8 or 9.

Already proven to be more than an “assumption” that 490 years were to be LOGICALLY “amputated” from 2300 years, because of the intimate connection between Daniel 8:14 and 9: 20- 21, and the meaning of, chatkak (“cut off).

Quote:

5. He must assume that the 2,300 years and the 490 years begin together.

The response for the foregoing challenge (No.4) is also applicable here too. You can only logically “ amputate” 490 years from 2300 years if they begin the same time, AND ARE THE SAME UNITS OF TIME (YEARS)!!. This too has been adequately proven based on the internal evidence in Daniel 8 and 9

Quote:

6. He must prove that the "word" (Daniel 9:25) was a kingly decree, and that the king was Artaxerxes.

It has been sufficiently established (Ezra 6:14) that the ‘threefold’ decree of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes were BIBLICALLY seen as ONE, and that God chose Persia as his ‘good servant’ (represented in symbol as a sheep) to restore Israel after Babylonian exile. It was also clearly shown why 457 B.C. (and not 444 B.C.) is the best date for BOTH “the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem”, AND ALSO TO FURNISH THE MATHEMATICAL/HISTORICAL PROOF OF THE MESSIAHSHIP OF JESUS IN DANIEL 9.

Quote:

7. He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely "commenced" (when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844. 8. He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is of the kind typified in Leviticus 16. 9. He must then prove that the judgment, which began in 1844, was an "investigative judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the text implies) of the wicked.

45

Challenges No. 7- 9 (above) are best commented on together. It was clearly evidenced that the Judgment simply “commenced” in 1844 by showing how the last stage of the Church on earth, called “Laodicea”, signified “judging”, and covered a period logically terminated by the Second Advent.

In passing let me say however that Judgment could not be a continuous event throughout all of the Christian era (as some here in this "NO SPIN" forum mistake Rev. 14:6, 7 to mean), since God has "appointed a day in which He *will [future tense] judge the world, by Christ Jesus"; as I said in my very first paragraph, in my very first post. It is logical that an *"appointed time" is specific, and was an upcoming event on John's day. It could not cover all time during the Christian era since Jesus came, else the words "appointed time" would make no senses whatsoever. It was clearly demonstrated that the ONLY “cleansing” ceremony of the Jews that could SIMULTANEOUSLY typify anti-typical Judgment was Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), despite other purification ceremonies existed in Israel’s calendar. This had to be so because an investigative type Judgment (as seen) in Daniel 7 directly preceded the Judgment upon the little horn power (thus it most likely paralleled the same events of Judgment upon the same little horn power in Daniel 8). It was also evidenced (in my first, and introductory post) that Judgment in Heaven (pre-Advent) commenced as an event near the end, signalled by a period of unprecedented world wars (“nation were angry”), and when God is about to destroy those who “destroy the earth” in the modern age of pollution, population explosion, atomic bombs, destruction of the natural environment, etc (Rev. 11:18,19); It did not cover the entire Christian era, as the church of "Laodicea" ("judging") did not cover all of the Christian era, but just the last phase. Finally it was clearly shown that God’s investigation into human lives (Eccl. 12:13, 14), and the later execution of justice and rewards given to all (at Jesus’ Coming) is a matter that would logically also include the little horn (anti-Christ power). This event would obviously vindicate God’s people oppressed in all ages, but more so those oppressed in the most serious way by the little horn power (Rome, pagan and papal), which ruled for the longest period in world history (first as pagan, then papal Rome; a continuum), and also had the most abominable influence on global religion and politics.

Quote:

10. He must show that the Day of Atonement began in 1844, and he must explain why Christ's *act* of Atonement is separated from the *Day* of Atonement by 18 centuries.

The year 1844 has been the main burden of proof in this thread of discussion, and has been adequately proven. What must be additionally said here is that (in response to the above) the Jewish symbolic act of atonement (daily lamb sacrifices), and the ritual Day of Atonement are separate BECAUSE GOD HIMSELF CHOSE TO MAKE IT SO. If the daily sacrifices (offered in faith) were to atone for sin (See Lev. 4:20, 31) and the people were deemed as forgiven, then why, you may ask, have another Day of Atonement once a year (Lev. 16:15, 16) to atone for not just the people, BUT ALSO THE SANCTUARY ITSELF? Because GOD SAID IT MUST BE SO. Who am I to question God? The same

46

is true about the events in the plan of salvation since the Cross. Who am I to ask God why separate the cross act of atonement and anti-typical application of the shed blood of Christ in the Heavenly sanctuary (not just during all of his Heavenly priesthood, but also during Judgment or the anti-typical Day of Atonement)? NEED I SAY MORE?

Quote:

11. He must prove that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; an idea stated nowhere in Scripture.

A question like this stems from failure to read carefully the Scriptures, and understand the language of metaphors and symbols. One only has to read Lev.16: 16 and Heb. 9:22, 23 and the fallacy of this objection will be made plain. I could also ask do we literally expect to be washed in the blood of the Lamb (obviously a metaphor)? Certainly this will no more literally happen than the Jewish sanctuary was literally “defiled” by the sins of the people, and thus demanded “atonement” for it. We are dealing with metaphors here!! What is true however is that there is a literal record of our sins in heaven, and will need to be “blotted out” once and for all. THE PRE-ADVENT JUDGMENT WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT IN THE ANTI-TYPICAL STYLE OF YOM KIPPUR!!

Quote:

12. He must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" means cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints when the context refers to cleansing it from pollution by the enemy of the saints. 13. He must maintain that the re-consecration of the sanctuary (Daniel 8:14) and the anointing of the sanctuary (Daniel 9:24) are not the same thing, though they seem to.

I have already shown compelling evidence that it may just be that the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, reaching in time way beyond the existence of the earthly Jewish sanctuary (destroyed in A.D 70), to 1844, might just have had BOTH the Heavenly sanctuary and the spiritual sanctuary (the Church) in mind. Thus the “cleansing” and “vindication” may very well apply to both in different contexts at the end of the 2300 days/years. No one can be so dogmatic as to say that only one sanctuary was in the mind of the prophetic angel of Daniel 8. Heaven will reveal much more than we will ever know here and now. May we all strive to be there, as well as warn the world that Judgment has come (Rev. 14: 6, 7 and Rev. 11:18, 19)? Also, who is to say that (with reference to challenge No. 13 above) Daniel 9:24 did not mean that after death of the Messiah, the Heavenly sanctuary (the most Holy) was metaphorically/figuratively “anointed” by Jesus’ blood at the end of the 70 weeks or 490 years? This event was clearly a part of the 70 weeks prophecy, and is evidently a different event from the sanctuary “cleansing”, which comes at the end of the 2300 years from which the 70 weeks of 490 years were “cut of”.

47

Quote:

14. He must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in October. 15. He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place in 1844. He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ entered God's presence (Hebrews 9:12), this means the *first* apartment.

I will close by saying that I will address the last of the challenges (Nos. 14 and 15), and one or to other considerations, in my next post (which will probably be the last one in response to the list of challenges/objections I presented). What I have said so far should me much food for thought.

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 14 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/11/2004 5:56 AM

Quote:

14. He [the SDA] must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in October. 15. He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place in 1844. He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ entered God's presence (Hebrews 9:12), this means the *first* apartment.

I have purposefully left for last the above "challenges". I will, however, deal with only the second challenge of the two (i.e. No. 15) in this post.

DID JESUS MOVE TO ANOTHER SANCTUARY APARTMENT IN 1844? - My Past Divergent View!! The reality that the Heavenly Sanctuary most evidently has two apartments is proven by the simple fact that Moses was commissioned to build the earthly from the "pattern" of the Heavenly. Now I simply accept the clear parallel between the designs of the Heavenly and the earthly, despite there will

48

obviously be greater glories in the Heavenly Sanctuary, whose builder and maker is God. Now if Jesus entered into the presence of God the Father since His ascension then it is logical that this means: 1. He is directly and physically where the Father's throne is located ever since his ascension 2. Jesus is presently, and has ever been, since his ascension, on the throne with the Father (Rev. 3:21) 3. The Father's Heavenly throne room was represented in the earthly sanctuary by the Most Holy Place (innermost compartment), the ark, and the shekinah glory between the sculptured golden cherubims (See for proof Psalm 80:1). Now, the following is how I honestly thought AT ONE TIME (IN OPPOSITION TO MY SDA CHURCH). I thought that the above logically means that, contrary to Adventism's settled teaching, Jesus was indeed in the Most Holy Place since His ascension, even if the Father's moveable throne (wheel within a wheel, according to Ezekiel) could be placed elsewhere. I thought that I honestly could not see it otherwise, if I go by the Bible data. Of course this is not the strict mainstream Adventist view, since it is taught that Jesus never entered the Most Holy Place before 1844 (which would also mean the Father's throne must have been absent from there too until 1844). At that time (in the past) I then was adamant that I begged to differ with my Church (and democratically so), despite I still support 1844; I have no qualms about the right of individual conscience on doctrinal matters, but also the showing of equal respect for maintaining Church unity. But I thought at the time that this was one area where the Church needs to revise this aspect of the teaching on 1844 and the Heavenly Sanctuary. I did think that Jesus could still have been on the throne in the Most Holy Place, BUT HIS MINISTRY BEFORE 1844 WAS IN THE ANTI-TYPICAL FIRST PHASE, AND THUS HIS FOCUS WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON THE SERVICES REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST APARTMENT, THE HOLY PLACE. Why? Because I thought that this must be so since Jesus is BOTH God (in nature) and man (our human High priest), and must function in both roles. As God his presence is everywhere, including in the Most Holy Place even before 1844. But what is to prevent us seeing Him, IN 1844, TURNING FULL ATTENTION TO HIS MINISTRY IN THE MOST HOLY PLACE AND THE ANTI-TYPICAL DAY OF ATONEMENT PHASE, AND THUS HIS FOCUS SINCE 1844 WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON WHAT CONCERNS THE ACTIVITIES IN THAT APARTMENT- JUDGMENT DAY (PATTERNING YOM KIPPUR)? There was little to prevent me seeing that as being the case (or so I thought). So the "movement" of Jesus from one apartment of the Heavenly Sanctuary to another in 1844 is best seen (I felt then) as a movement of focus. It is best illustrated by God being everywhere ALL AT ONCE (omni-present), but is represented as "going down" to punish the sinners at the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:7). Can God move into a place despite He is already there? Yes! Because the focus of his attention on a matter there allows us to see it that way. Seen this way (I thought), this viewpoint does not overturn the SDA teaching (endorsed in vision by E.G. White), it just simply amplifies it, and it also accepts the full teaching of the Bible on the matter of Jesus' location on the throne of the universe with His Father (in the Most Holy Place). I further reasoned (then) that in Daniel 7:9-10, the putting of "thrones" (plural) in place could have been BOTH the angelic seats, as well as that of the Father's, or just that of the angels (since God's throne would usually be in the throne room - the Most Holy Place). God is obviously probably not always on the throne literally sitting (since most earthly kings are not), thus for Him to be pictured as coming in (as in a ceremony), and taking his royal seat (Jesus later coming in too) does not necessarily mean his throne was elsewhere (although the language does allow for this). So I try not to be dogmatic about this particular matter, since we just can't be sure. But please note that in the next post I will be looking WHY I CHANGED MY HONESTLY HELD DIVERGENT VIEW IN SOME THINGS (as described above), and I am NOW fully 'on board' with

49

the SDA Church's teaching on this matter. The foregoing was my speculations at one point IN JUST ONE AREA OF THIS DOCTRINE, but what is clear however (I still think so today, as that has always been crystal clear to me)) is that the anti-typical ceremony of Yom Kippur, in the Jewish tradition of earthly types and ceremonies, MUST BE ONE OF JUDGMENT, IN WHICH BOOKS ARE EXAMINED AND CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME JUDGE OF ALL, BUT LOCATED IN THE MOST HOLY PLACE. I have no doubt this started to happen since 1844, whether the world is ready or not, or whether the detractors here in "NO SPIN" or elsewhere believe so or not. And remember that it is Jesus who is really the Judge of all (John 5:22) and also our Advocate, as pre-determined by the Father, even if the symbol in Daniel 7 pictures the "Ancient of Days" examining the books and the Son of Man coming in after to receive the kingdom. Never forget that we are dealing with symbols here, and that "the son of man" or Jesus arriving in Daniel 7:13,14 could also symbolically represent the saints receiving the kingdom from the Godhead after the Investigative Judgment is complete). See you in the next post, where I will wrap things up, by looking WHY I CHANGED MY HONESTLY HELD DIVERGENT VIEW (as described above), and also I will look at the comparative advantages/disadvantages of the calendars used (Karaite and Rabbinical) to determine the ending of the time prophecy of 1844.

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 15 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/11/2004 6:14 AM

DID JESUS MOVE TO ANOTHER SANCTUARY APARTMENT IN 1844? -Part 2

*My Divergent Views Corrected!!!

In my last post I said that AT ONE TIME I had reasoned, in part:

"Now if Jesus entered into the presence of God the Father since His ascension then it is logical that this means: 1. He is directly and physically where the Father's throne is located ever since his ascension 2. Jesus is presently, and has ever been since his ascension on the throne with the Father (Rev. 3:21) 3. The Father's Heavenly throne room was represented in the earthly sanctuary by the Most Holy Place (innermost compartment), the ark, and the shekinah glory between the sculptured golden cherubims (See for proof Psalm 80:1). This logically means that, contrary to Adventism's settled teaching, Jesus was indeed in the Most Holy Place since His ascension, even if the Father's moveable throne (wheel within a wheel, according to Ezekiel) could be placed elsewhere. I honestly cannot see it otherwise, if I go by

50

the Bible data. Of course this is not the strict mainstream Adventist view, since it is taught that Jesus never entered the Most Holy Place before 1844 (which would also mean the Father's throne must have been absent from there too until 1844). I beg to differ (and democratically so), despite I still support 1844... I do think that Jesus could still have been on the throne in the Most Holy Place, BUT HIS MINISTRY BEFORE 1844 WAS IN THE ANTI-TYPICAL FIRST PHASE, AND THUS HIS FOCUS WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN ON THE SERVICES REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST APARTMENT, THE HOLY PLACE. "

I will be honest to admit that I have gone back to review the established Adventist viewpoint ON THIS PARTICLUAR ISSUE as it concerns "1844", and found that it is indeed compelling when one takes the time to carefully study the arguments that have been presented since the time of the SDA pioneers. And so I have deemed it necessary to review my points of contention (I described earlier) in order to be a little more objective as I discuss and review the issue from both sides. First let me start by saying that I found out that it certainly not evidenced in the literal words of New Testament Scripture that Jesus ascended directly to the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies), but this theory must be assumed based on the argument that the Bible seem to suggest it. This assumption must be based on reading it into (eisogesis) either Rev. 3:21 or Psalm 80:1. However I have found that that is not conclusive since the Father's throne is indeed MOVEABLE (Ezekiel, chapters 1 and 10), and that God's shekinah glory did appear in the Old Testament sanctuary in other areas apart from the Most Holy place (e.g. by the door), and the cherubims followed. Therefore Psalm 80:1 is, by all intent and purposes it seems, a poetic expression of God "dwelling" between the cherubims, but not a literal statement of Him always being immovably fixed above the ark itself. GOD IS TOO BIG FOR THAT RESTRICTION!! Even in Heaven He is presented as not always sitting on His throne, but can come in from elsewhere, as in Daniel 7: 9,10, to take up His position in a ceremony, AFTER HIS THRONE IS PUT IN PLACE. Also, since the Greek expression complex for the Most Holy Place (the Holy of Holies), "hagia hagion", was used only once in the entire New Testament (in Heb. 9:3), then we can easily track the use of the terms "hagion", used for the entire sanctuary itself or just a holy place like Heaven, and the use of "hagia", used only for the first apartment of the sanctuary. Now, interestingly, I found out (by doing a careful review of the Greek), that all places where it is claimed that Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place into the presence of the Father is based on speculation, because THE EXPRESSION COMPLEX, "HAGIA HAGION" IS MISSING!! The expression used about Christ in the sanctuary in the presence of the Father is always "hagion" or "ta hagia", which means simply either Heaven itself, or just the sanctuary on a whole (e.g. Heb. 9:8, and Heb. 10:19). Also, since the much debated expression, "the [temple] veil" needed a qualifying term "after [within] the SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3) so as to clinch a more specific meaning, since there were two veils to the temple, it is therefore not conclusive that Heb. 6:19 was referring specifically to behind the "veil" of the Most Holy Place when it was written. It is obvious that to be in the Temple demanded that one pass through, and is behind or within the first "veil" to the door of the Temple. Thus the expression

51

in Heb. 6:19 could be referring to any of the two veils, since Jesus was not a High Priest BEFORE his incarnation, as He must have been made human to even minister in the Heavenly sanctuary in the first place (Heb. 5). So his incarnation, obedience, and crucifixion opened the way, or gave Him the right to His ministry in the Heavenly sanctuary, that is, He earned the right to be minister "within the veil" or just simply the sanctuary itself. There is no evidence in the expression itself, "within the veil", in Heb. 6:19 that this meant SPECIFICALLY, The Most Holy Place, and not just within the sanctuary itself!! It is quite interesting that in Rev. 8:3, Rev. 1:4 and 4:5 the presence of the altar as well as the symbolic seven branched lamp (representing the Holy Spirit) are seen directly BEFORE (literally 'in front of') the Throne of God and the Lamb (the same throne as in Rev. 3:21). ON EARTH (A PATTERN OF THE HEAVENLY SANCTUARY) THIS "LAMP" WAS IN THE FIRST APARTMENT OF THE SANCTUARY, and this is compelling evidence that John's visions of Heaven before the arrival of the Judgment scene (of Daniel 7:9, 10, and Rev. 11:18, 19) seem to place God's throne in the first apartment of the Heavenly sanctuary. I also find it very gripping that only when the Judgment "TIME" was introduced in Rev. 11:18, 19 ("the TIME HAS COME") that John made reference to the Ark of the Covenant FOUND IN THE INNER APARTMENT, thus strongly indicating that this apartment was opened ONLY when Judgment arrived (which did not cover the whole Christian era). All the above described, along with the fact that the Godhead's 'Presence' can ALSO be represented by the showbread in the first apartment, makes compelling the established SDA viewpoint that prior to the Investigative Judgment of 1844 God probably moved His throne to the first apartment (probably since the incarnation, who knows?) to accommodate the proper sequencing of the work of Jesus the true High Priest in the Heavenly sanctuary. Thus the signal of it being probably put back in place in the Most Holy Place only at the fulfilled time of the Judgment scene in Daniel 7:9 does seem to have merit. Another possibility is that His throne was never in this second apartment of the Heavenly, until the arrival of the Judgment scene, since the sanctuary was built around the salvation plan. Who knows? Remember that after salvation is complete there is no longer the need for the temple? John said in the New Earth he saw no temple!!! Think long and hard on that point, and consider that God needs no "Most Holy Place" at all times to fix His throne room. The writings of the 'inspired' writer (by SDA understanding), E.G. White, describes the movement as literally from one apartment to another in 1844, and because the Biblical evidence to FULLY disprove this possibility is just not there, and because the SDA argumentation to this effect is indeed compelling, then I will choose to believe that it may just have been so as 'SOP' writings described. Who’s to say too that (as I personally thought a while back) this description of movement from one room/apartment to another is not visionary or symbolic language of “movement of focus” by Jesus, as he enters upon a new phase in his ministry above? But there is safety in surrendering one's divergent viewpoint when such viewpoint is not VERY conclusive, and when it cuts across the grain of inspiration in the 'SOP' writings, and the collective wisdom of the brethren. If when I get to Heaven I discover that my take on this PARTICULAR ISSUE of 1844 was right all along, I don't think I would have lost out on anything for not militantly pushing it, but I would have been blessed for striving to maintain Church unity even though I had personal doubts.

See you in the next post, where I will wrap things up, and then will proceed THEREAFTER to

52

respond DIRECTLY to the "naysayers" here in "NO SPIN".

Reply

Recommend Delete Message 16 of 34 in Discussion

From: Gilli2484 Sent: 8/11/2004 6:25 AM

CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND SUMMARY. Before I close on the last point under consideration (see below), you may have realized that this discourse leaned heavily on dispelling the erroneous view that Antiochus Epiphanes was the TRUE “little horn” of Daniel 8. Why is this such a most relevant matter? It is a most relevant matter because, if Antiochus was this “horn”, then the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 (whether interpreted as approximately 3.5, or over 6 years literally; depending on the preteristic school of interpretation) this TIME prophecy then would have had no REAL further application beyond his time. However, if the “little horn” was Rome, and the 2300 days were indeed to be interpreted as years, then this is the only road on which anyone can travel in arriving at, and understanding the relevance of 1844. I think ‘SOLID AS A ROCK’ is the evidence of Rome being the “little horn” (of Daniel 7 and 8), and the evidence that the entire “vision” of Daniel 8 (Daniel 8:13,14 and expanded on in Daniel 9) was to cover a period starting in the Medo-Persian period and extending beyond Jesus’ time as far as 1844 (including along the way the arrival of the TRUE “abomination of desolation” of the persecuting Roman power in A.D. 70, as Jesus made plain in Matt. 24:15). And this, more than anything else convinces me of the relevance of 1844. Now let me close by addressing the final point of contention I referred to in a list of “challenges” earlier in this thread.

Quote:

He [the SDA believer] must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the Rabbinical, and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in October.

It may come as a surprise to many that I do not have very much to say about this matter. Why? Simply because I have learnt that it is prudent to determine at all times which battles are worth fighting; considering the perceived outcome, and what purpose will be served in the first place. I have felt strongly that I do not need to prove which calendar was better to fix the dating of Yom Kippur in 1844 (even though that knowledge is indeed attainable). That is so because the Investigative Judgment, by all evidence, would cover, and is covering a PERIOD in these closing days of earth’s history (Rev. 11:18, 19 and Rev. 14:6, 7). Daniel 7: 9, 10 CLEARLY suggests that it comes just before the setting up of the eternal kingdom of God and the execution of the “little horn power”, and near the end of the tenure of the “little horn” power of the Roman Papacy (i.e. while that power is still literally in existence). All evidence points to the time in which we live as that PERIOD. Now, the Millerite Movement (pre-dating the formation of the SDA Church in 1863) made the mistake of thinking that the event that would have occurred in October of 1844 was the “cleansing” of the EARTH by fire (instead of the spiritual "cleansing" and re-establishment of the spiritual and earthly temple of the TRUE Church, as well as the "cleansing" of the sin

53

record in the Heavenly sanctuary). Hence their belief that Jesus was to come in 1844 to "cleanse" the earth with fire. It was not the SDA Church which made this 1844 mistake, but the MULTI-DENOMINATIONAL MILERITE MOVEMENT!!! The SDA Church was officially formed in 1863!!! Never forget that. But be that as it may, I still have no real difficulty with this matter of the Millerite mistake, simply because if the Jews (God’s chosen people) could have made so many mistakes about the nature of the true Messiah, and the disciples (Jesus closest followers) themselves were misguided themselves (even while being physically with Jesus) about the nature of Jesus' spiritual kingdom on his first arrival, then it is indeed understandable that sincere people can indeed be wrong in some areas connected to a matter in theology, DESPITE THEY HAVE MUCH TRUTH IN OTHER AREAS!! The Millerite mistake was about the nature of the event to take place in 1844; not the prophetic year itself!! This whole thread clearly indicate that I do believe the Millerites had it right in their general calculation of the "2300 year" prophecy of Daniel 8:14 (as expanded on in Daniel 9), but since Oct. 1844 WAS more seriously relevant TO THE MILLERITES THEN (if it really was to point to the second Advent of Jesus then), then my belief is that whether Yom Kippur it took place in September or October of the year 1844 in the Jewish calendar is not a matter for me to fight over today. Nothing much is served by straining at this proverbial gnat, because it is the YEAR, and the PERIOD we are now in that is most important to prove or disprove, not the exact beginning date of the event. I have no doubt that if I wanted I could sufficiently establish whether the opposition has a case in their cry that Yom Kippur did occur in September, and not October in 1844, and I could also establish whether the SDA Church has it right in stating that it was in October of that year, BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT MATTER TO OTHERS TO DISPUTE OVER. The burden of proof for me in this thread was the YEAR 1844, and the NATURE OF THE JUDGMENT EVENT, and I have been open and honest in my treatment of this matter, where it matters. I may have been seen as "impolite" to have so far ignored those who responded to me in this thread, but I have striven to avoid undue controversy, so that the 'weightier' matters could be laid out without too much controversial ‘gaps’ along the way. Whosoever disliked that approach of mine, I apologize, but I had my reasons, which you are free to assume for yourself (whether in the positive or negative light), and even bring to judgment those reasons. I am not bothered in the least by that. My main objective was to INFORM!! If this thread helps even ONE person to see the ‘weightier’ matters more clearly, then I would have not wasted my time. Those opposed to this thread, and wanted to pick away at it in an endless round of battles, sorry if your aims were not served. BUT I WILL STILL RESPOND TO YOU BRIEFLY HEREAFTER!!

P.S. If you wish to explore the matter of the calendars (Karaite and Rabbinite) the following take on the issue might help:

Quote:

IS OCTOBER 22 [1844] THE CORRECT DATE? Quoted from: V. Ferrel's- A Biblical Defense Defending our Historic Beliefs about the Sanctuary in Daniel and Hebrews (2003)

"Another charge of certain critics is that 1844 may have been the right terminal year, but October 22 is the wrong ending date in that year. Can we defend our position on this? Was October 22 the correct Gregorian calendar equivalent to the day of atonement on 10 Tisri in 1844? (“10 Tisri,” in the ancient Jewish calendar,

54

would be the tenth day of the seventh month. That was the date on which Yom Kippur-the day of atonement-fell.) The Millerite believers unanimously found that the Jewish day of atonement (Yom Kippur) in 1844 would occur on October 22. None of their opponents at the time disagreed with this view-and they had many opponents back then! But today, there are those among us who question the date for one or the other of two reasons: The first objection- In a lengthy study presented at one of our important theological gatherings of selected workers, quotations from modern Jewish rabbis were presented stating that the Karaite and Rabbinite dating systems would not permit Yom Kippur to fall on a Friday, Sunday, Monday, or Wednesday. The impression was given that, therefore, in 1844 an October date would be impossible. The reply to that objection is quite simple: October 22 fell on a Tuesday that year. The second objection- The other objection is this: Because the spring new moon might have occurred on two different dates, it could have resulted in a September 23 or October 22 date. How can we today know which was right? Frankly, they are questioning whether God correctly guided His people back then to select the right date. But do we have further facts on this? The Karaites knew- Fortunately, the Karaite sect of Jews, living in 1844, had continued the ancient Jewish practice of carefully ascertaining the beginning of each year, so they could religiously observe the correct Hebrew calendar. In figuring the day of atonement in 1844, Miller and his associates relied on the Karaite method of determining calendar dates, not the Rabbinite system which was quite liberal. The Karaites were more concerned than any other Jewish group to calculate by the ancient system. Yet some today question whether the Karaites may have been correct that year. Greater accuracy now-Fortunately, we now have a far more accurate method of determining Jewish dates for 1844. We can bypass the Karaite calendar and go to materials that have been derived directly from contemporary texts of the ancient world. What we want to know is when (in terms of the Babylonian system of intercalation,

55

which we know was the same system the Jews anciently used) did the month of Tisri start in 458 and 457 BC. Those are the dates which demarcated the fall-to-fall year during which Artaxerxes I issued his decree and Ezra returned to Jerusalem with his fellow exiles. These dates can be determined simply by looking them up in Parker and Dubberstein’s tables in their book, Babylonian Chronology (first published in 1956). We are helped by the fact that 235 lunar months have the same number of days as 19 solar years. Therefore we do not need to be concerned with the specific years within this intercalary cycle. We can simply divide the 19 years of the cycle into the 2300 days of the prophecy. Every 19 years repeat themselves, so any multiple of 19 years later would give the same date for 1 Tisri. Nineteen goes into 2300 a total of 121 times with one left over. If 19 had divided evenly into 2300, then 1 Tisri would have fallen on the same Babylonian day in 1844 that it did in 458 BC. In order to deal with that leftover year, we must consult the tables. They reveal variations from year to year, depending on when the moon came up in the spring of the year (something astronomers now can determine for every year in the past). Millerites correct- From this we learn that, in the fall of 1844, it fell on October 22. The Millerites only had to make a choice between one new moon or the other in 1844 (an early Tisri or a late Tisri). They chose the late one-the one recommended by the Karaites-and that was the correct one when it is figured from the Babylonian lunar year of 458/457 BC. It is true that the Karaites could have made a mistake. But we now know from the reckoning of the tables that they were correct. So the Millerites did have the right date. This has now been established as definitively as it can be through the study of ancient mathematics and astronomy."