1

The Sanctuary Doctrine:

a critical-apologetic
approach
Florin G. Lăiu (MThOT, UNISA),
Bible teacher, The Romanian Adventist Theological Institute

A theological study, based on the paper the author prepared for the European Theology
Teachers Convention, April 30, 2011, Cernica-Bucharest

Second draft, for BRC

October 2011
 2

CONTENTS

For BRC:
Highlighted titles are critical, representing sections that must be read:

Abstract .................................................................................................. 3
1. Introductory considerations ............................................................... 3
1.1. Facing “JuST” and “un-JuST” theological criticism......................................................... 4
1.2. Supreme authority in doctrinal matters ..........................................................................11

2. Linguistic and exegetical problems in Daniel 8-9 .................................. 15

2.1. Da 8:9: ‫ּומן ָה ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהם‬
ִ “and out of one of the[m] [four winds]”? .............................15
2.2. Da 8: 11-13: ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ = the… what? ....................................................................19
2.3. Da 8:13: ‫‘ ַףד ָמ ָתי‬aḏ måṯåy – “how long” or “until when”? .........................................24
2.4. Da 8:14: “2300 evenings & mornings”= 1150 or 2300 days? .................................25
2.5. Da 8:14: ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq – “cleansed” or “vindicated”? ..........................................25
2.6. Da 8:17: “The vision (belongs / reaches) to the time of the end” .........................35
2.7. Da 8:27: “no one could understand”, or “I…could not understand” ? .................35
2.8. Da 9:23: ‫ ַמ ְש ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê – semantics and referent ............................................................36
2.9. Da 9:24: ‫בּוע‬
ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ – “period of seven” (heptad) or “week”? ..............................41
2.10. Da 9:24: ‫ נֶ ְח ַתְך‬ne·ḥtaḵ: “deducted” or “decided” ? .......................................................44
2.11. Da 9:24: ketib or qere ? ............................................................................................................47
2.12. Da 9:24: the Most Holy Messiah, or a most holy sanctuary ? ..................................48
2.13. Da 9:25: “From the issuing of the decree to restore…” .............................................51
2.14. Da 9:25: “to Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks;” (?) ....................................53
2.15. Da 9:24-27 “week” (sabbatical septenate), “7 weeks” (jubillee) .................................55
2.16. Da 9:25 “seven weeks” – up to what event ? ..................................................................56
2.17. Da 8:14; 9:25: Tishri 10, 5605 = exactly October 22, 1844 ? ..................................56
2.18. Da 9:25: ‫ ָחשּוצ‬ḥårûṣ = “moat”, “trench” or “decision-making” ? ...........................59
2.19. Da 9:26: The direct object of ‫ וְ ֵאין לֹו‬wǝ·ên lô “He will not have” ...........................60
2.20. Da 9:26: A new “coming ruler”, or the same as in verse 25 ? .................................61
2.21. The special role of the verb ‫ בין‬byn “consider, understand” in Da 8-9 ................65

3. The Crucial Role of Contextual Exegesis in Daniel 8 .............................. 65

4. A legitimate role of Leviticus 16 beyond exegesis ................................. 67
5. The Day of Atonement Illustration (Typology) in Hebrews .................... 70
6. The Structure and Role of the Heavenly Sanctuary ............................... 72
7. The sanctuary identity in Daniel 8 ...................................................... 77
8. Who are the defendants in the Premillennial Judgment ......................... 78
8:1. One possible interpretation................................................................................... 78
8:2. Another possible interpretation ........................................................................... 79

9. The Advent in Conditional and Apocalyptic Prophecy ........................... 79

10. Practical Suggestions .................................................................... 83
 3

Abstract

The following study touches a series of sensitive issues relating to the Judgment and
Sanctuary theology (JuST), a point of convergence for the Seventh-day Adventist hermeneutics and
eschatology. The author militates for a more critical Bible exploration, and a more dynamic percep-
tion of the SDA historical doctrine. It is shown that such a challenging exegetic approach depends
on more basical hermeneutic issues, as for example the theology of inspiration, and the role of the
Spirit of Prophecy in theological debates.
The fundamental importance of consistent linguistic and contextual exegesis is stressed,
as a reasonable approach to Daniel 8-9. Crucial terms and expressions are critically treated, as well
as some secondary terms and expressions, to stress the necessity of better translations of the
prophecies of Daniel. While in a few cases the author suggests different and challenging solutions,
most of his solutions agree with the present SDA scholarship. Many other important subjects that
are usually involved in the debates over the SDA understanding of Daniel 8:14 are touched in this
study. All these critical issues are discussed from apologetic-confessional concerns, intended for
constructive and affirmative purposes. If opinions of this author are sometimes divergent from
yours, Adventist theologian colleagues, it is hoped that the criticism shall not be perceived as the
slightest personal affront, neither as an offense to our community of faith.

1. Introductory considerations
This is not an exhaustive treatise, but a second draft study discussing
some important issues of the topic announced. It adresses to all Adventist
scholars, especially to those devoted to Biblical languages, Daniel and Revelation,
hermeneutics and exegesis, Adventist history and Ellen White studies.
This study is sincerely dedicated to William H Shea, good friend and faith-
full adviser, my first live contact with the SDA theology, an emblem of the Ad-
ventist modern scholarship. Thanks to all my colleagues and friends who happen
to read the first draft of this paper, and especially to those who already ex-
pressed a reaction, or any feedback.1
Throughout this paper I will use the first person singular, whenever I re-
fer to myself – not as an authority, but to reserve the plural – we, us, our(s)– for
the many instances where our SDA identity is meant. The acronym JuST will be
used for the Judgment and Sanctuary Theology, our complex doctrine developed
from our pioneers’ understanding of Daniel 8:14.
I used the universal system of transliterating Biblical Hebrew, except
some peculiarities: /å/ stands for the Masoretic qametz (Sephardic ā, }, ŏ, or

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

Ashkenazic ɔ, ↄ:). The transliterated Hebrew terms have been split in their
smallest construction bricks, to facilitate their analysis by the beginners – stu-
dents or teachers in other areas of theology.
1.1. Facing “JuST” and “un-JuST” theological criticism
We do not need to cite special sources, in order to affirm that JuST is the
most criticized of the SDA doctrines. Seldom is this criticism mild: we usually
face either strong criticism or complete disregard. Not only hostile and ignorant
critics, but also honest, sincere and educated persons, outside or inside the SDA
community, so easily come into conflict with this theology. The true reasons of
the phenomenon may be complex, but as a principle, we should not judgmentally
question the honesty or the abilities of any opponent.
JuST is historically considered to be our core doctrine, embracing the spe-
cific SDA message. Whereas it is more specific to us than any other confessional
doctrines, including the Sabbath and conditional immortality, it is frustrating to
discover that virtually no scholar outside our community does acknowledge its
worth. It is true that some Bible students outside our community accepted our
theology, as they became SDA. But my point is that, while other SDA doctrines
are sometimes accepted or even defended by non-SDA thinkers (for example, the
Sabbath, the conditional immortality, the health reform etc.), JuST is not admit-
ted, but only criticized outside our faith community. As Raymond Cottrell wrote
years ago,2
The invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible,
the less disposed he is to look, with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14
or to become a Seventh-day Adventist. The fact that no competent non-Adventist Bible
scholar, whatever his position on the conservative-liberal spectrum, have ever accepted
the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 should be a matter of sober reflection on our
part.

While a few SDA theologians make efforts to strengthen and increase our
exegetical defense battery, there is a prevailing feeling of helplessness and no
wonder a lot of our public speakers take refuge in silence. In a letter of 1942
addressed to the General Conference, M L Andreasen wrote, 3
If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say
that a large number of our ministers have serious doubts as to the correctness of the
views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we
are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met
and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply de-
cide that the question is not vital – and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegat-
ed, in their minds at least, to the background... The ever present question of the position
which Sister White should hold among us is a prolific cause of difficulty.

Cottrell states4 that while he worked for the 1958 edition of Bible Read-
ings, in counsel with F D Nichol, he “wrote to 27 leading Adventist Bible scholars
for their response to a series of six carefully formulated questions” on Daniel

2 R Cottrell, “Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method”(in Spectrum, vol. 10, no. 4, March 1980, page 17).
3M L Andreasen letter to J L McElhany and W H Branson, December 25, 1942. Andrews University Heritage
Room, Andreasen file 5, quoted in Graeme Bradford, More than a Prophet, Biblical Perspectives, Berrien
Springs, Michigan, 2006, p. 168.
4 R Cottrell, op. cit., 18.
 5

8:14. Despite their long answers, none of them had a satisfying solution to the
criticism directed against our SDA interpretation:
 Thirteen replied that they knew of no other valid basis for making such an application;
seven based it on analogy;
 five, on the authority of E G White;
 two, on what they referred to as a ‘fortunate accident’ in translation.
 Not one of the 27 believed that there was a linguistic or contextual basis for applying
Daniel 8:14 to the heavenly sanctuary, an antitypical day of atonement, or 1844.

Desmond Ford5 notes that “the failure to deal adequately with these prob-
lems is the strangest feature of any historical review of the subject.” He cites F D
Nichol to have told him that “a definitive work on the sanctuary is our greatest
need.” He also provides a list of more than a dozen Adventist figures between
1850-1980, who expressed objections regarding JuST, which A V Wallenkampf
essentially confirmes.6 An official statistic 2002 report of the General Conference
estimated 85.79% of church members accepting the doctrine of the Sanctuary
and 1844, and 35.12% believing there may be more than one interpretation of
the sanctuary belief.7 This is basically at the opinions level, quite optimistic on
JuST image in the Church. But if a poll on the members’ ability to defend the
doctrine would be made, I am afraid that the percentage would be distressingly
low.
Dissenting voices or opinions of some SDA historical or contemporary
persons should be a real challenge and occasions for deepening our private and
collective research.8 In no way should this doctrine be ignored as non-vital. Its
core message is not an obsolete, but an absolute “present truth”. Terefore we
should give it priority in our corporate and private research. It must be on the
list of most wanted BRI, ATS, ASRS projects, and of all Adventist forums. We must
take seriously the counsel of E G White, who wrote to us 122 years ago:
It is important that in defending the doctrines which we consider fundamental articles
of faith we should never allow ourselves to employ arguments that are not wholly sound.
These may avail to silence an opposer, but they do not honor the truth. We should pre-
sent sound arguments that will not only silence our opponents, but will bear the closest
and most searching scrutiny.

5 D Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment, Euangelion Press, Casselberry,
FL, 1980, pp. 25-66.
6 O R L Crosier (the very founder of the Sanctuary Doctrine), D M Canright, A F Ballenger, E Ballenger, L H
Crisler, I Keck, W W Fletcher, L R Conradi, E J Waggoner, W W Prescott, H Snide, R A Grieve, R D Brins-
mead, R A Cottrell, C G Tuland, E Hilgert, D Sibley (cf. D Ford, Daniel 8:14..., pp. 1, 25-66). A V Wallenkampf
(“Challengers to the Doctrine of the Sanctuary”, in F B Holbrook, Editor, Doctrine of the Sanctuary – A
Historical Survey, Biblical Research Institute, Sylver Spring MD, 1989, pp. 197-216) omitted some names of
Ford’s list of Adventist challengers, adding E B Jones, and a list of the most famous external JuST challeng-
ers, W A Martin, D G Barnhouse, N F Douty, A H Hoekema).
7 A World Survey, GC of SDA, presented to Annual Council, October 7, 2002, prepared by the Institute of
Church Ministry, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University, pp 14, 20, 29. The relevant questions are
Q36 (There is a sanctuary in heaven where the pre-Advent judgment began in 1844) and Q37 (There may
be more than one interpretation to the sanctuary doctrine).
http://206.220.88.217/flagship/assets/strategic-issues-report.pdf
8 Probably no other criticist was so challenging and provoking for the SDA scholarship as Desmond Ford, by
his 465+269 paged book Daniel 8:14. It should be seriously studied by any SDA scholar. One may not agree
with all his critiques and objections, but he indicated many important and sensitive questions which we
did not yet answer.
 6

We do not claim that in the doctrines sought out by those who have studied the word
of truth, there may not be some error, for no man that lives is infallible … Our brethren
should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy.
We must not think, ‘Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our
faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.’ The truth is an advancing truth, and we must
walk in the increasing light. A brother asked, ‘Sister White, do you think we must under-
stand the truth for ourselves? Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered
together, and believe them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we shall
be free to go on without the taxing of the powers of the mind in the investigation of all
these subjects? Do you not think that these men who have brought out the truth in the
past were inspired of God?’ I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into
all truth; but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest sense of the word, I answer, No.
It is a fact that we have the truth, and we must hold with tenacity to the positions that
cannot be shaken; but we must not look with suspicion upon any new light which God may
send, and say, Really, we cannot see that we need any more light than the old truth which
we have hitherto received, and in which we are settled....
There will be a development of understanding, for the truth is capable of constant ex-
pansion.... Our exploration of truth is yet incomplete. We have gathered up only a few rays
of light.9 (Emphasis supplied).

The present state of JuST has some major and minor weaknesses that
must be acknowledged, and not longer ignored or eluded. This was Raymond
Cottrell’s repeated call since 1980. Cottrell wrote that his growing awareness of
such problems began in the period 1952-1957, in relation to the editorial work
at SDABC vol. 4.10 The proof-text method that still prevails is not sufficient as a
method of research. Any approach that avoids the co-text and evades the context
is not longer acceptable. Neither is acceptable the confining of our research to
pseudo-apologetic concerns that make our pioneers (O.R. L. Crozier, Uriah Smith
etc) and E G White, our final criterion.
Our historical treatment of JuST, even after some excellent contemporary
upgrades, is not yet satisfying. JuST still needs some important exegetic and
hermeneutic adjustments. Such doctrinal revision would not be an odd case in
our history. As we know, or ought to, our doctrines have a dynamic character,
forever subordinated to the Bible. No wonder that most of our doctrines have
been shaped in time, some of them in decades after their initial formulation.
Various popular beliefs have been abandoned, substituted or drastically modi-
fied. 11 Even some views held sometime by E G White have been abandoned – by
the informed theologians, at least.
Among the E G White’s views that we unoficcially abandoned, is the ap-
parent endorsement given by E G White to Josiah Litch’s interpretation of the

9 Ellen White, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 708-709; “The Review and Herald” of March 25, 1890; RH, March 25,
1890; RH, August 7, 1894; EGW to P.T. Magan, Jan. 27, 1903; cf. George Knight, The Search for Identity – The
Development of Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs, Review and Herald, Hagerstown, MD, 2000, pp. 20, 26.
10 R. Cottrell, “Sanctuary Debate: A Question of Method”(in Spectrum, vol. 10, no. 4, March 1980, pp 16-26)
http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/10-4cottrell.pdf. I do not agree with most of
Cotrell’s exegesis on Daniel, nor I am pleased with his harsh comments about DARCOM, Gerhard Hasel and
Gordon Hyde, etc. I just generally appreciate his responsible warning against some of our methodological
problems.
11 E.g. philosophy of health; righteousness by faith; doctrine of the Trinity, etc., have formed and developed
in time. Searching the SDA Bible Commentary volumes to learn our contemporary understanding of
various topics, especially in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, we discover not a few beliefs and
theological views differing from the corresponding views of our pioneers. Further, if one reads today the
best SDA works, including doctoral dissertations on the same or similar topics, one may discover further
steps away from the theological opinions of our pioneers.
 7

fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9 (see GC 334). She calls it “another re-
markable fulfillment of prophecy”, but presently no one SDA informed theologian
will agree with that.12 If this is really an exegetical and prophetic failure, as it
appears, then it follows that it is also a failure of E G White, or rather a failure of
our theology of inspiration and hermeneutics.
This was probably the most prominent error of interpretation in the field
of Biblical apocalyptic, which Ellen White accepted in The Great Controversy
(page 334). At the request of Prescott, the text for the 1911 edition was revised,
but its new formulation, though acceptable for them, still preserved some plain
errors. Consider the following parallel excerpts of the two editions:

1888 edition 1911 edition

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

12Our best NT exegetes who have written commentaries on the Book of Revelation propose wholly different
interpretations to Revelation 9 (see commentaries of Jon Paulien, Ekkehardt Müller, Ranko Stefanović,
Jacques Doukhan). Even a very conservative as Mervin Maxwell (God Cares, vol. II) modified the claims of
Litch’s prophecy about the exact fulfillment “to day”, shifting it from 1840 to 1844. Maxwell took out “the
hour” from what was believed a chain of time segments of the prophecy (“an hour, a day, a month and a
year”) and assigned that “hour” a different syntactic and semantic function (see also the Jewish CJB
translation). Then he counted 1 day + 1 month + 1 year (in apocalyptic time, 391 years) beginning with the
more prominent year 1453 (date of the fall of Constantinople) and ending with 1844, so significant for the
SDA exegesis of Daniel 8-9. Thus Maxwell preserved the illusion that the famous Millerite interpretation
was quite close to the truth. But he forgot to explain how E G White endorsed rather Litch’s interpretation
that was pointing to a very exact fulfillment, “even to day”.
 8

prophecy, in “the very day” (August 11, 1840), was predicted by Litch “two years
before”, and this was “purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of
Scripture” (!). Obviously, this was E G White’s sincere opinion, shared with her
husband and the other pioneers. It was a respected exegesis by then, close
related to their experience and emotions. Unfortunately, this interpretation
proved to be not true, historically or exegetically.
In the 1911 edition, she claims that the fulfillment of this prophecy in Au-
gust 11 1840 convinced multitudes “of the correctness of the principles of
prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates [Litch, in this
case]”. If this information were true, there still remains a supperior truth that
convinctions of multitudes are not the wisest reason to adopt any theological
view.13
Certainly, E G White had not the best information on these issues during
her lifetime. Neither her helpers, including W W Prescott, were able to give a
better advice. In 1910-1911 or in any case before 1914, W A Spicer and Prescott
did further research for relevant historical sources.14 They found that the chain
of errors was quite long, that even Edward Gibbon, the main source of Litch’s
dates, was wrong about the date of July 27, 1299.15 The dates of 1449 and August
11, 1840 have no prophetical or historical significance.16

13According to Eric Anderson ("The Millerite Use of Prophecy", in Ronald Numbers, editor, The Disappoint-
ed, University of Tennessee Press, 1993, p. 86-87), “The truth of the matter is that the month of August,
1840, came and passed without any evidence of Turkey falling. This placed Litch in a quandary. He waited
until November, and then came out with a statement saying that Turkey's rejection of a European peace
offer on August 15, 1840, assured war with Europe, and doomed the Ottomon Empire. However, by early
1841, it became evident that war was not going to happen. So, Litch came up with a new story, arguing that
the fulfillment of prophecy had occurred exactly on August 11, 1840, as predicted. The ‘fall’ of Turkey
consisted of a ‘voluntary surrender of Turkish supremacy in Constantinople to Christian influence.’ He
claimed the Turkish ruler was now a puppet ‘of the great Christian powers of Europe’. Many Christians
questioned Litch's new story. In 1840 the Ottoman Empire covered a vast territory, including a large part
of North Africa, Arabia, Palestine, Iraq, southern Russia, and most of the European Balkan states. The
Millerite critic Reverend O.E. Daggett argued that Turkey did not ‘fall’ in August of 1840. James Hazen, a
Massachusetts clergyman, said the European intervention had kept Turkey from falling. Hazen said the
argument that in accepting European aid Turkey fell was ‘ridiculous’.” E Anderson rightly criticized the
Litch’s interpretation of Revelation 9, and has shown that the year 1833 and 1841 are not less significant
than 1840, relating to the ”fall” of the Turk, though the real fall of the Ottoman Empire occurred in the
events of 1918-1923.
14W. A Spicer, Letter to L R Conradi, Nov. 30, 1914, GC Archives (quoted in D. Ford, Daniel 8:14 etc., pp. A-
203 – A-205).
15As Spicer (quoted in D Ford, Daniel 8:14 etc., A-204) was writing, “I will also enclose some material on the
dates of the prophetic periods of Rev. 9. Some time ago, Professor Prescott and I went to the Library of
Congress. He looked up the history of Pachymeris, translated into Latin by Possinus. It is from this book
that Gibbon got his date, July 27, 1299. I looked up Von Hammer, who is the heaviest German author,
apparently, on Ottoman history, in those times. It is very clear that Gibbon made a distinct error, which
Von Hammer and others have corrected these years. Gibbon’s mistake is easily seen by looking at the book.
He saw July 27 at the opening of chapter 25, and then over in the chronological tables given by Possinus he
saw the date 1299 for the beginning of the events dealt with in this chapter; but he failed to note that while
the chapter began with July 27, it later went back, as this first paragraph suggests, and dealt with earlier
events. These earlier events were the events of 1299, and it was not until 1301 or 1302, as various authori-
ties compute the Mohammedan era, that the battle of July 27 took place.”
16According to Spicer (quoted in D Ford, Daniel 8:14 etc., A-205), “Professor Benson, [...] came on with Blue
Books that he had received from London, showing conclusively that the ultimatum of the Powers was not
delivered to the Pasha of Egypt on Aug. 11, 1840. [...] It is remarkable how loath people are to look at facts, or
to correct any facts.” [...] Personally, I would rather hold to 1849 if it could be done, but really it is pretty
hard to figure out anything there. Our folks have taught right along that John Palaeologus died, one would
infer, July 27, 1449; but he didn’t, he died in the previous year.” Various sources on Turkey’s political and
diplomatic situation, about 1840 supply a lot of important dates, except the diplomatic episode of August
11 1840 in Egypt. In 1838 (August 16, April 21), in 1839 (June 23-24, July 1, July 27, August 1), in 1840
 9

Besides these three erroneous dates that marked the interpretation of the
two prophetic times17 of Revelation 9, Litch and his followers made an unbelieva-
ble blunder: in counting the total time lapse between July 27, 1299 and August 11,
1840, they forgot about the omission of ten days in the replacement of the Julian with
the Gregorian calendar. But the very first mistake of Litch was due to the erroneous
old translations, including KJV, of Rv 9:15, that suggest a chain of periodes (“an
hour, a day, a month and a year”), because they misread the Greek syntax indicat-
ing an important date (“this very hour and day and month and year”, NIV). And
finally, where in the world did Litch find “Deacozes”,18 and how this name has
slipped in our books?
Studying the SDA historical exegesis and chronology of Revelation 9 was
for me the first case of finding significant human errors in the Spirit of Prophecy,
and it was a very painful and devastating experience. Now after finding a better
theological view of inspiration, beginning with White’s testimony of 1SM, I am
able to understand that E G White’s reference to the historical interpretation of
Revelation 9 was not a deceiving message. It was part of an inspired message,
but not a message in itself. It was just a human mistake, a wrong human argu-
ment in behalf of the divine message she bore. And this is not her only mistake of
this kind. The interpretation of other events believed by her Adventist genera-
tion to be the predicted signs (i. e. the Lisbon Earthquake, the Dark Thursday, the
Fall of Stars), is a questionable exegesis19, though these signs may be understood
as providential.
In some cases (e.g. the “shut door” applied to 1844), E G White changed
her mind and corrected later. In other cases, she did not update her knowledge
(e. g. “the daily” as paganism;20 the identity of Persian kings in Ezra 4;21 the

(February 10, May 7, June 30, July 15, August 11 – Syrians revolted against Ibrahim –, September 11, 15,
17, October 3, October 8, October 28, December 4), in 1841 (January 30, February 13 and 19, June, July
13), in 1849 (August 2). See www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mehemet_Ali,
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/766/sc1.htm.
17The special times related to the scorpion-locusts of the first woe (“five months”), and to the demonic
cavalry of the second woe (“an hour , a day, a month and a year”, cf. KJV) in Rv 9:5, 10, 15, have been
interpreted by Litch as two consecutive periodes, 150 years + 391 years and 15 days.
18I have noticed this name from my childhood in our SDA books, but I have never found it in lay historical
books. I suppose that it is a corrupt form of “Dragasses”, a surname of the last Byzantine emperor. Books
are cultural values, and therefore, when we correct them, I think it is more important to purify them from
such painful mistakes, than to purge them from heresies (e.g. Semiarianism). Footnotes, as in a good Bible
translation are the best solution.
19It is clear that in Matthew 24 Jesus referred to the last trouble described in Da 12:1, as a conditional
prophecy (cf. verse 14), speaking about the last assault against Jerusalem (cf. Da 11:45; Zechariah 14),
which was to occur just before His coming. The events of AD 70 could have been the fulfillment of this
eschatologic prophecy. Jesus included the cosmic signs to appear immediately after the time of trouble (cf.
Rv 6:12-17). These signs, in the Biblical scenario are not intended to warn the world unto repentance, but
to announce that the end has come. If God really would warn the world through a dark day or a meteoric
shower, that specific sign should be truly global and without any scientific explanation. The cosmic
phenomena of the 18th and 19th centuries, identified by Adventists as the expected apocalyptic signs, have
been only local and hardly miraculous. Only their chronological order is suspect of some intentional
warning. But even more disastruous earthquakes and tsunamis, and even similar meteoric showers
occurred in the next two centuries. Those signs, though somehow helpful for that generation, have no
historical impact on our generation. True warning signs of the end should not be sought for in the files of
history. See also fn 292.
20 See the section “Once Again on the Daily” in this article.
21 Cf. PK 572-73, Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 is identified with False Smerdis.
 10

identity of the one hundred forty four thousand of Rv 7). 22 Why should the
Judgement and Sanctuary Theology be the only infallible doctrine that we inher-
ited from our pioneers, with E G White’s blessing?23 Smuts van Rooyen24 says
that a "string of changing interpretations we have given this prophecy from
Second Coming, to Shut Door, to Investigative Judgment, to cleansing the Living
Temple, to Vindication of God’s Character, to simple Pre-advent Judgment..."
Desmond Ford has convincingly shown that even the wording of this doc-
trine in the book The Great Controversy is indebted to the writings of Smith and
Andrews.25
Thus E G White presented JuST according to the common understanding
of the pioneers which she shared, as well as they, in their turn, had been influ-
enced by her visions and testimonies. This is no problem, unless we insist that
her theological expositions would be inspired in detail – in language, rhetorics
and logic, and mode of thought – and consequently have a divine authority. It is
true, we have been taught to expect such unlimited inspiration in the Bible and in
the Spirit of Prophecy. But we decidedly must abandon such unrealistic view of
inspiration, for a more practical and safe approach, simply because inexactities
and technical errors occur in both Ellen White’s writings and in the Bible. Thanks
God, they are not erroneous teachings or heresies!
We must keep doing responsible, Biblical theology, far beyond any clear
“Ellen White said”. We should seriously take her advices and messages, but not
feel to be bound to her understanding in each technical detail. We should not
forget that Ellen White appreciated the dignity of the reason and the specific
thinking of each person.
Names are not our greatest enemies, regarding this doctrine. Rather we
have to worry about becoming prisoners of our own sincere beliefs, as someone
painfully commented:26
There is no such thing as Fordism. There is only an unending, unresolved doctrinal issue
rolling throughout the ages in the church. Ford's was probably the latest (or even the

22In GC 648-49 and RH, March 9, 1905, Ellen White shares our pioneers’ opinion that the explanation of Rv
7:13-17 refers to the 144000 saints of vv 4-8, and not to the great multiutude described in vv 9-12 (See
Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, 1884: 469). Partially this identification is vindicated
today, since our theologians today equate the great multitude with the 144000 (see Beatrice Neill, "Sealed
Saints and the Tribulation," in Symposium on Revelation--Book I, ed. F. B. Holbrook, DARCOM Series, vol. 6,
Silver Spring, MD: BRI, 1992: 245-278) and Ekkehardt Müller, “The 144,000 and the Great Multitude”2011,
at www.biblicalresearch.org). I reached independently the same conclusion, 25 years ago. But the pio-
neers’ idea was that “the 144000” and “the great multitude” were different groups.
23Ellen White was inclined to give so much credence to the Millerite exegesis and experience, and to see a
physical correspondence between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary structure. This is justified by her
1844 experience and by her own visions. A visionary is naturally inclined to believe that his/her visions
are live experiences “in” the real heaven (cf. 2Cor 12:2-3), and not virtual “visions in his [/her] head” (cf.
Da 2:28; 4:2,7,10; 7:1,15). In the first case, visions contain detailed information about the physical reality
of heaven; in the second case, they are virtual object lessons, supernaturally induced in their mind, having
basically spiritual-didactical purposes. But there is more to say and study on this issue.
24Smuts van Rooyen, "If We Had Another Chance...", a review of Milton Hook's biography of Desmond Ford,
quoted in Wikipedia, “Investigative Judgment”, History (2011).
25D Ford, Daniel 8:14..., Appendix 33, pp. A-233-237. Ford put in parallel text excerpts from Uriah Smith
(The Sanctuary and its Cleansing, 1877: 113-216), and their correponding excerpts from Ellen White (The
Great Controversy, 411-421). Other sources he indicated are, U Smith, The Visions of Mrs E. G. White (Battle
Creek, 1868:23-25 ⇉ GC 428-431) and J N Andrews, The Three Angels Mesages of Rev. 14:6-12 (Battle
Creek, 1892:15-16 ⇉ GC 356).
26 George Tichy, commenting (12/19/2010) on Spectrum blog at http://spectrummagazine.org
 11

last) attempt someone made to help adjust the course. But [...] there is no room for any
adjustment or even review of the facts.”

Roy Adams maintains that “the continued failure to let the doctrine of the
sanctuary sufficiently speak for itself – in its entirety and in isolation – can yet
lead to serious and unnecessary theological conflict within Adventism.” And he
adds:
The pursuit of new approaches to the study of the sanctuary should not be at the ex-
pense of efforts to resolve those questions arising from the historical Adventist ap-
proach. For notwithstanding the contribution of the three figures studied in this report
[U. Smith, A. Ballenger, M. Andreasen], as well as the contribution of other Adventist ex-
positors, serious questions remain unresolved. The most critical would seem to relate to
(1) the salvation-historical significance of 1844; (2) the theological relationship between
Dan 8:14 and Lv 16; (3) the day-year principle; and (4) the validity of the concept of an
investigative judgment....27
As already noted, there are outstanding problems which call for serious theological and
biblical study in the light of contemporary questions and issues. But none of these seems
impossible of resolution. ... “Great philosophical or theological issues are seldom resolved
to the satisfaction of succeeding generations.” The question which Adventism must ask
itself, however, is whether it possesses the theological and emotional sangfroid to pursue
the resolution of at least some of the more pressing problems of the sanctuary to the sat-
isfaction of the present generation. [Emphasis supplied].28

1.2. Supreme authority in doctrinal matters

It is my conviction that God has aroused and guided the Advent Move-
ment, despite any human flaws. By supernatural visions, E G White’s prophetic
inspiration confirmed much of the understanding of our pioneers. This belief
must still be strengthened. However, in some respects, this spiritual gift has been
strained to cover more than God intended. It became an absolute authority,
probably under the influence of Evangelical fundamentalism. After the failure of
Daniells’ attempt to introduce in 1919 a better perception of prophetic inspira-
tion, the fundamentalist spirituality became dominant in the SDA thinking.29
The theological understanding of our pioneers (William Miller, O. R. L.
Crozier, James and E G White, Uriah Smith etc.) has been adopted by their suc-
cessors with a few questions if any. Since E G White is not only the emblematic
figure amidst our pioneers, but also the only prophetic voice among SDA, we
developed the inconsistent habit of arbitrating with her statements, in various
theological debates.

27I will not approach all these questions mentioned by Adams. Most of them are satisfactorily answered by
our present theology, though we certainly have to do further diggings. The day-year apocalyptic code is
well defended, even by Desmond Ford (Daniel, Southern Publishing, Nashville, TN, 1978: 300-305), though
there remain some questions related to its consistent application (e.g. Rv 8:1; 9:5,10; 20:2), and especially
to its pragmatic test. Fortunately, the most important apocalyptic times (the 70 “weeks” of Da 9 and the 3
½ “times” of Da 7&12; Rv 11-13), which are close related to the 2300 “days”, are quite nicely evidenced.
And in spite of many evangelicals’ anaphylaxis regarding the Judgment (heavenly court, file investigation
for saints or wicked, the salvation-historical significance of 1844), the doctrine of Judgment is so bright, it
is the climax of the true Gospel, the ultimate theodicial revelation of God’s grace and justice. I will discuss
especially the legitimity of the theological connection between Dan 8:14 and Lev 16.
28Roy Adams, The Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church: Three Approaches, AUS,
Doctoral Dissertation Series, Andrews University Press, 1981: 269, 282-283; See also Roger Dudley,
Valuegenesis, LSU, 1992, pp. 94-95.
29Graeme Bradford, More than a Prophet, Biblical Perspectives, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 2006, 152-164.
See also G. Knight, The Search for Truth, pp. 157-159.
 12

Some of our best theologians appeal to E G White statements30 to defend

what may be called the supreme authority of our pioneers’ experience31 to define
Bible truth. I have read and reread such statements, and tried to understand
them first in harmony with the rest of White’s statements. As with the Bible, it is
not easy to harmonize various statements, outside their proper historical and
literary context, and without regard to her own realistic theology of inspiration.
Her famous testimony of 1SM on the limits of the prophetic inspiration must be
applied also to her writings.
Curiously, EGW mentions sometimes only the Spirit’s authority and the
Church, which we must stick with. Such statements should not be taken as
complete in themselves; they have a historical-contextual role, not to be taken as
the fundamental principle of our SDA faith. If we loose the supreme authority of
the Bible, we loose all. Or, if we continue to practice a final authority of “E G
White said”, then we should make it quite clear in official statements of belief,
and not to pretend that we abide with Sola/Prima Scriptura. The Scripture must
be our first authority, not in a chronological reading order, but in an authorita-
tive order. The Spirit of Prophecy is not a Quran or the Book of Mormon that are
believed to guide us perfectly beyond an imperfect transmission and translation
of the Bible.
We actually do this, despite our good official statements, that we hold the
Bible as our supreme authority, and in spite of E G White’s repeated warnings
against the use of the Spirit of Prophecy to quench theological debates. As long as
we limit our research by E G White’s writings, we cannot make any real theologi-
cal progress.
Regarding E G White’s authority, we implicitly claim too much for the
prophetic inspiration, and thus we feel forced sometimes to avoid a sound
Biblical exegesis, simply because E G White said this or that. In spite of our
official confession about Scripture’s supreme authority, we practically check our
Bible by the Spirit of Prophecy, not vice versa. When we face problems in the
Bible, we use to run to the Spirit of Prophecy for the true and final explanation,
even on technical details, that might be historical, linguistic, exegetical, scientifi-
cal etc.
Certainly, as Adventists we should always be interested to know what E G
White said in some point, but nevertheless, we must also be aware of the human
limits of the prophetic inspiration. E G White was a true prophet, and actually I
use to defend her when she is attacked by malicious critics. But I cannot take for
granted every jot and title of what she has written. There are some Biblical
interpretations in E G White’s writings, that despite their spiritual correctness, as
regards their ultimate scope and their moral, religious and practical purpose,
they are inexact, and sometimes sheer wrong, as regards a professional, technical

30 E.g. “The Firm Foundation of Our Faith”, 1SM 206-208.

31In that article, White refers to the first seven Bible conferences of 1847-1848, when the Whites, J Bates, S
Pierce, E Andrews, H Edson, J B Cook, E L H Chamberlain, H Gurney, S Howland, O Nichols, A Belden, D
Arnold, etc., gathered to study and pray, and to the Spirit’s supernatural manifestations of true light and
healing, when the SDA foundations or “pillars” have been established. She reminds this authority of the
Spirit, Church and good tradition, not to suggest that this were the last word on any issue, but as a reaction
to the doctrine of Ballenger, who did away with the 1844 Judgment message – the most significant Advent-
ist belief. (For the Sabbath Conferences, see Merlin D. Burt, “Evangelistic Sabbath Conferences – 1848,
1849”, AU, SDA Theological Seminary, CHIS674 – Development of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, Spring
Semester 2011 www.andrews.edu).
 13

approach.32 However, E G White’s messages and authority are not affected by

such wrong opinions which she in most cases borrowed from others, contempo-
rary or historical authors. Similar problems occur even with canonical prophets
– a good consolation for any E G White devotee.33
To this point, I would like to add that Christ gave the Church not only the
gift of prophecy, but also other spiritual gifts, through the same Spirit. While the
apostleship is usually counted before the gift of prophecy,34 the other gifts are
counted secondary to prophecy. But these lesser gifts must not be neglected or
replaced by apostleship or prophecy (1Co 12:28; 14:1,5). I would specially refer
to some gifts that have nothing spectacular, no visible evidence of supernatural
manifestation: wise speaking, knowledgeable speech (1Co 12:8-9), manifested in
teaching, translating (1Co 12:29-30) and other skills related to learning (linguis-
tics, philology, science etc.). Jesus spoke of the gift of såphar (grammateus),
which is the scribe, the theologian, as Bible interpreter, teacher of religion,
author, editor, librarian (Mt 13:52; 23:2, 34). The popular opinion associates this
professional gift to Pharisees and Caiaphases, but God blessed His kingdom
affairs with scholars as well.35 Prophets’ authority resides in their supernaturally
visions and messages, not necessarily in their rich knowledge, unusual wisdom
or technical skills (except that God blessed some prophet with such additional
skills). Scholars’ authority resides in their training – involving knowledge, critical
research and technical skills –, and in their dedication, providing that their
abilities work as a love-and-faith service to God.
While some person has many gifts, another is less gifted, or one may have
just one gift, possibly the lesser one, but nicely specialized. True prophets use to
accept counsel from other spiritual gifts. Moses, the greatest prophet, had to
accept Jethro’s “word of wisdom” (Ex 18:14-23; 1Cor 12:8). David accepted
“word of wisdom” from Abigail (1S 25:24-35). When Ellen White prepared the
1911 edition of her book The Great Controversy, she accepted some suggestions

32There is good research on this topic today (see, for example, Graeme Bradford, More than a Prophet,
Biblical Perspectives, Berrien Springs, Michigan, 2006). Probably the most instructive instances of cultural
interpretation of prophecy by Ellen White, now completely abandoned, are the application of the “daily
[sacrifice]” of Daniel 8 etc. to “paganism”, and the application of the time prophecies of Rv 9:5.15 to
Othomans. See http://egwwritings.org RH Nov. 1, 1850; EW 61.2; GC 88 334.4-5. (On „the daily” issue, one
may read the dialog between D Kaiser, E Yoder and F Lăiu etc. on the blog Memory, Meaning & Faith). Very
instructive is also some of her scientific treatments (e.g. the “amalgamation” issue in 3 SG 1864:64,75, the
explanation of eartquakes and volcanic activities in PP 1890:108-109, that have been shown by GRI
scholars to be outdated scientific explanations of the 19th century. I have heard reasonable and docu-
mented explanations from Clyde Webster Jr and Tim Standish on these issues).
33E. g. the sky vault called heaven, presence of dividing waters, in Gn 1; earth founded on seas and rivers, in
Ps 24; primeval ocean beneath the earth, as source of springs and rivers, in Gn 7:11; Ex 20:4; Ez 31:3-4;
moon causing lunacy (moonstroke, cf. Ps 121:5-6 and Mat 4:24; 17:15); three heavens to pass through,
when ascending to paradise, cf. 1Cor 12; applying to God a verse about Zeus, in FA 17:28; quoting from, or
alluding to 1 Enoch, as a common authority, in Jude 1: 6-7, 14-15 and 1Peter 3:19-20; counting 430 years
from Abraham to Sinai, in Gal 3:17; misplacing the golden altar, bowl of manna and Aaron’s rod in Heb 9:4;
rabbit and the hyrax chowing their cud, in Lev 11:3-4 and Deut 14; insects having four legs, in Lev
11:21,23). Prophets are humans too, and their logic and rhetoric is wholly human, although subordinated
to the divinely inspired message that they convey to us. The divine treasure of biblical message is kept in
earthen frail vessels (2Cor 4:7). There is no good in usually forced explanations given by some to such
problems. There are explanations that are more embarassing than the incidental blunder of the inspired
author. While some of them might prove to be textual corruptions, this is not the case for many of them.
34 Cf. 1Co 12:28-29; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11; Rv 18:20.
35 Cf. Ps 45:1; Ezra 7:6,11-12, 21, 25; Ne 8:1, 4, 9, 13; 12, 26, 36.
 14

from Professor W W Prescott.36 Among the corrections made, or, which some
would call mildly, “refinements”, I will mention a few of them, as evidence that E
G White’s inspiration did not prevent her from expressing historical and theolog-
ical inaccuracies, no matter they had been borrowed from other sources.
Page GC 1888 edition GC 1911 edition
50 "the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. “ the pope has been given the very titles of
He styles himself 'Lord God the Pope.'” Deity. He has been styled 'Lord God the
Pope,'”
65 "The Waldenses were the first [...] to obtain a "The Waldenses were among the first [...] to
translation of the Holy Scriptures." obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures.”
266 “The holy city [the true church] shall they “The holy city shall they tread under foot”
tread under foot”
266 “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.
the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538” D. 538”
304 {a quotation from Herschel, a converted Jew {reference deleted and another quotation
(1845), regarding the Dark Day, was credited substituted}
to "Herschel the astronomer."}
325 “There was only one point in the vision of “There was one important point in the vision
chapter eight which had been left unexplained” of chapter eight which had been left unex-
{re Daniel 8-9} plained.”
340 “therefore it cannot refer to the Romish “therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church
Church, for that church has been in a fallen alone, for that church has been in a fallen
condition for many centuries” {re Rev 14:8} condition for many centuries"
579 "The infliction of the deadly wound points to the “The infliction of the deadly wound points to the
abolition of the papacy in 1798." downfall of the papacy in 1798”

My point is that in using the E G White writings as a legitimate theological

guide, it is not safe to claim that they are a perfect, inerrant, unmistaken instruc-
tor in any area, when we are interested in more than correct messages and
principles, when we search for truth in its scientific and technical details. There-
fore, while on the one side we must be careful and honest with any Ellen White
counsel and message, on the other side our research must go beyond her infor-
mation and understanding. This is as more important as we face apologetic
challenges in our mission.
Regarding JuST, we have to meet the objections that are addressed to us,
with true intellectual probity and professional skills. A reexamination of JuST,
studying the possibility for new lines of research is imperative. Our Biblical
Theology teachers should make a priority the thorough study of this doctrine.
We must go back to Sola Scriptura and to the acknowledgment of the Bible’s final
authority in each and every case. We should practice and popularize a more
realistic theology of inspiration, as E G White taught, and put our hermeneutics
in closer agreement with the Biblical reality. We should reverently and critically
consult E G White and heed its advice, but we never should let the legitimate

36Cf. Arthur White, “W W Prescott and the 1911 Edition of The Great Controversy”, 1999, Ellen G White
Estate, pp. 4-37 www.whiteestate.org/issues/issues.asp . Prescott reaction to such findings was not so
comforting for him, who by then was still a verbalist: "Allow me to say in closing, that it has been quite a
shock to me to find in this book so many loose and inaccurate statements; and what I have submitted for
our consideration will indicate how much of an undertaking it will be to revise this book so that it will be
in harmony with historical facts...” Actually Prescott exagerated at some points. But in other points, none of
those involved in that book revision was aware of all problems in E G White’s book. If she were alive today,
she will probably undertake further revisions. Meantime, the book has proved its divine fruits excellently,
according to what White said about the true role of the Scripture: “The Bible was given for practical
purposes”. Manuscript 24/1886; 1SM 19).
 15

authority of the Spirit of Prophecy supersede a reverent, responsible and critical

study of the Bible. While we all theoretically agree with this approach, yet practi-
cally we must prove it.

2. Linguistic and exegetical problems in Daniel 8-9

There is no doubt that any good Biblical exegesis is based on a thorough
linguistic and grammatical research. The first problem of our JuST is “just” a
linguistic challenge. This section addresses both the SDA interpretations and the
tools that we use (the common Bible translations), failing to warn that they are
occasionaly confusing or straight wrong. Though not every problem of transla-
tion in Daniel 8-9 may affect our interpretation based on the connection of the
two prophecies, each detail may prove itself useful, and we should treat it with
the greatest care. Similar observations have been published by our scholars from
BRI etc.
2.1. Da 8:9: ‫ֵמ ֶהם‬ ‫“ ּו ִמן ָה ַא ַחת‬and out of one of the[m] [four winds]”?
To interpret the phrase ‫האִחִת ִמִהִם‬ ִ ‫ ּו‬û·min ha·’aḥaṯ mē·hém “and out of
ִ ִ ‫מן‬
one of them” in Da 8:9, as a reference to one of “the four winds”, 37 and not
implicit to the horns, I think it is not acceptable, for the following reasons:
The logical referent and the subject of the clause are the “four prominent
[horns]”, thus “one of them” corresponds logically to these horns (as was
always understood by scholars, with no exception);
“To the four winds of heaven” of v. 8 is an adverbial phrase, and not a
clause by itself, consequently it plays a secondary role, thus the expres-
sion ‫ מִהִם‬mē·hém “out of them” is not necessarily bound to the “winds”;38
The grammatical chiastic agreement, assumed by famous SDA scholars af-
ter 1980,39 was interpreted as a new exegetical solution to eliminate Anti-
ochus IV from the prophetic focus, and it quickly penetrated various
commentaries even at Sabbath School level. While this masculine form
‫ מִהִם‬mē·hém, instead of the required feminine form ‫ מִהִן‬mē·hén, is not
Standard Biblical Hebrew, and would be considered as a grammatical dis-
agreement, it is merely a formal disagreement, specific to the spoken He-

37Gerhard Hasel (“The ‘Little Horn,’ …. of Daniel 8:9-14”, in Symposium on Daniel, ed. F B Holbrook, BRI:
Washington DC, 1986:387-94). Arthur Bloomfield (The End of Days, Baker Publishing, 1998:165), a
Methodist pastor: “The little horn, we are told, is to come out of one of the four winds of heaven (vs. 8).”
Probably William Miller (Evidences From Sripture and History…., Troy, 1836, p. 45) was the first one who
imagined this solution. Jacques Doukhan (Secrets of Daniel, Review and Herald, Hagerstown, MD, 2000:
125) even suggests that the author meant one of the four beasts of Da 7:23, alluding to them by the
expression “four winds”.
38Probably the first reason to read a more natural origin of the “little horn” in the text (a horn sprouting
from another horn, instead of coming out of wind) is the literary logic of the text. The reference to “winds”
in the preceding clause (‫ ְל ַא ְש ַבע שּוחֹות ַה ָש ָמיִ ם‬lə·’arba‘ rûḥôṯ haš·šåmáyim ”toward the four winds of heaven”,
Da 8:8, cf. 11:4), is not the true referent for ‫’ ַא ַחת ֵמ ֶהם‬aḥaṯ mē·hém “one of them” (8:9), because “toward
the four winds of heaven” is an adverbial phrase depending on the verbal expression ‫ וַ ַת ֲף ֶלנָ ה‬wat·ta·‘lé·na
“[four conspicuous horns] have grown” (8:8). Thus horns is the true and implicite antecedent, because it
syntactically and logically is the closest one, even though, in the wording itself, the term “winds” is closer.
39See William H. Shea, Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation, DARCOM Series, vol. 1 (1982) 41-43;
Gerhard Hasel, “The ‘Little Horn,’ the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the End: A Study of Daniel 8:9-
14”, in F B Holbrook (editor), Symposium on Daniel, DARCOM Series, vol. 2, Biblical Research Institute:
Washington DC (1986), 387-94.
 16

brew that often uses masculine forms for both genders, and occurring in
so many biblical places; 40
The interpretation that makes the little horn appear out of some “wind” or
cardinal point is an ingenious and well-meant solution, but it is neither
traditional in Adventism, nor accepted outside of Adventism, and I don’t
think it will finally survive.
The interpretation that one of the four winds is the origin of the little
horn, sprang out of dissatisfaction with our traditional interpretations of
the origin of the horn. They became obsolete, and the need was felt to find
a better solution, that would avoid a possible application to Antiochus IV.
The classical solution (that “the Romans began to conquer …Perseus, King
of Macedonia, the fundamental kingdom of the Greeks”) had been pro-
moted by Sir Isaac Newton41 and made popular among us by Uriah
Smith.42
A less known solution was conceived by P Felipe del Rey,43 with Rome as
heir of Pergamum (which was a form of continuation of Lysimachus’
kingdom), the city source of the emperor’s cult in the Roman Empire. This
view was adopted by Alfred Vaucher44 and Adelio Pellegrini,45 and is pref-
fered now by William Shea.46 But to my opinion neither this solution is
satisfying.47
There is no reason to see the little horn as representative of the professed
people of God, or of their sins, confessed or unconfessed, as it was pro-
posed sometimes.48 The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 are symbolic for the
same class of hostile forces as the other horns, and as the beastly heads
where they are rooted. No matter that the wicked horn represents first ei-
ther Antiochus or pagan Rome, how can these professed pagans represent
the professed people of God? If the little horn of Daniel 7 is the Roman

40Any Biblical Hebrew grammar notes a lot of examples of gender disagreement (e.g. Ex 1:21; Ez 5:6; 10:17;
20:16). Using masculine instead of feminine is not unusual, for various reasons (even for the noun ‫ ֶר ֶשן‬see
Dt 33:17). Hasel (“The ‘Little Horn’”, 391-92) was aware of this phenomenon, therefore he resolved that
“either is possible”, that is both antecedents, winds or horns.
41 Sir Isaac Newton, Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel…, (chapter IX, 1733: 117
www.isaacnewton.ca). See also Nuñez, op. cit. pp. 50-58. The fame of the genial physician undoubtedly
contributed a lot to his success as theologian and historian.
42Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel… (RHPA, Hagerstown, MD; 1972:158).
43Pedro de Felipe del Rey“Identification de la petite corne de Daniel 8…”, [manuscript], Séminaire Adven-
tiste de Collonges sous Salève, avril 1969.
44 Alfred Vaucher, according to a seminary course in the prophecies of Daniel, Collonges sous Saléve.
45 A. Pellegrini, Quando la profezia diventa storia, Roma. Cf. http://adeliopellegrini.com/QlPDS/cap11.php .
46“It is all right with me, if you want to make Antiochus as a preliminary fulfillment, but [...] Pergamum
makes a good case for one of the four horns as resulting from the break up of Alexander’s empire”.
47Though I adopted this view for a time, I did abandon it, because Pergamum is not the only kingdom that
was left to Rome by will of inheritance (see also Cyrenaica, 96; Bithynia, 74), and because Rome had began
to “inherit” the Hellenistic world by the conquest of Macedonia (in 148 BC), years before the historical will
of king Attallus (133 BC).
48See Various Authors, “Appraisal of Parmenter-Ford correspondence” in Minstry, October, 1980, page 12:
“Be cause this little-horn power is an apostate Christian power, it is also under scrutiny during the cleans-
ing of the sanctuary. It is therefore incorrect to conclude that "it is the little horn, and not the sins of the
saints, which denies the sanctuary." www.ministrymagazine.org/archives/1980/MIN1980-10.pdf. See also
Bob Pickle, "Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.", heading “Little Horn vs. Professed Believer’s Sins”
www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/cleansing-of-the-sanctuary.htm#ways . I cannot understand how an
“apostate Christian power” may be equated to or included in the “saints” category.
 17

(Papal) Antichrist, and it has a correspondent in the wicked horn of Daniel

8, how could a Pagan-Christian power represent the professed people of
God or their sins ? Such interpretation was an ingenious way of compen-
sate the lack of contextual support for the historical view of cleansing the
sanctuary from the confessed sins of God’s people in the eschatological
Day of Atonement.
William Shea, who was probably the original promoter of the interpreta-
tion “one of the four winds” is not dogmatic on the issue.49 Recently Mar-
tin Pröbstle did the most detailed analysis of the phrase ‫מן־הִאִחִת מִהִם‬ִ ‫ּו‬
û·min ha·’aḥaṯ mē·hém showing the weaknesses in “one-of-the-four-
winds’” interpretation, though finally he refrains to draw any definite
conclusion. 50
If there is any wonder how a horn can grow out of another horn, we must
remember the monstrous character of the visionary beasts. There is no need to
find something similar in apocalyptic literature.51 This feature is not as mon-
strous as it appears anyway, since it is specific to some relatives of the goat, such
as hart and reindeer, in the wild life.
Further, the possibility to have a horn coming out of nothing may be com-
pared to a vision of Zechariah (1:19), where four horns appear out of nothing,
with no beast beneath or around. However, in Daniel 8 the other seven horns
(two of the ram and one plus four of the goat), come out of animal heads. Why
this last horn should come simply out of a wind / direction? If the divine inspira-
tion intended a symbol of Rome, as a new and different empire, would it not the
image of another beast have been more appropriate, as in chapter 7? The present
solution, of a horn coming out of one wind/direction, has no apologetic future, to
my opinion.
Comparing the prophecy of Daniel 8 with the comparatively ill-studied
prophecy of Daniel 11, and noting the oldest Jewish and Christian commentaries
and some modern commentaries,52 we are encouraged to admit a twofold
application of this prophecy, first to Antiochus, and next to Antichrist, his sinister
long shadow, revealed in Daniel 7 as a Roman outgrowth.

49According to an email of W. Shea to F. Lăiu, on April 30, 2011. In a post mail dated Dec 26, 2000, after he
had read my modest MThOT dissertation, William Shea answered me: “I never resorted to that double
application of the little horn of Daniel 8, but I have no objection to it, so long as the medieval application is
emphasized (as you did). It is important to evidence the 2300 days extending beyond Antiochus
Epiphanes, as you clearly have shown.” The same he had told me in a private discussion. I agree that the
true explanation of the origin of the wicked horn is not essential to the true purpose of this prophecy that
focuses on the sanctuary and the end time of judgment. My concern is purely professional: exegetical and
apologetical.
50See Pröbstle (op. cit., 109-26). Gerhard Pfandl informed me about Arthur Bloomfield (The End of Days,
Baker Publishing, 1998:165). This was a Methodist pastor and writer who anticipated the present Advent-
ist solution, which I criticize: “The little horn, we are told, is to come out of one of the four winds of heaven
(vs. 8).”
51Do we find any other occurrence of a beast chewing animal ribs, or another horn with eyes and mouth, or
another beast with two unequal horns?
52A good suggestion is that of Desmond Ford (op.cit., 186-88), who argued for a double (or multiple)
application of the little horn symbol in Daniel 8, allowing a first (though) limited application to Antiochus
IV. Though we do not need to resort to the so-called apotelesmatic principle, such application has apolo-
getic advantages, since it is known from antiquity, and it seems to be the only valid option. Most important,
the little horn of Daniel 8 has its widely acknowledged parallel character in the prophecy of Daniel 11:21-
35. The vile king of the North is best applied to Antiochus IV, as it is commonly agreed, outside the SDA
circles.
 18

Actually, there is no unique historical fulfillment corresponding to all the

details indicated by the prophet. If this prophecy was fulfilled by a single histori-
cal entity, then nobody fulfilled it. Nor the Roman Empire, neither the Papacy did
come from a Hellenistic state. On the other side, Antiochus IV had no connection
with the 2300 days and did not survive to the time of the end, to be finally
crushed by God’s hand.
Desmond Ford’s proposal that Antiochus IV is a first, incomplete and typi-
cal fulfillment of this prophecy, that it had to be better fulfilled by the pagan and
Christian Rome, seems to me the best solution, even though I don’t like double
prophecies.53 I would avoid it, if I could find a better solution. Anyway, it seems
to me, hermeneutically and apologetically, more acceptable than any other
historical or current Adventist explanations.
Rome and Papacy better fulfill the most prophetic features of the little
horn, but Antiochus IV fits best the origin of the little horn at least. In Daniel 11,
in the same manner, the king of the north is, in the last phase, the Papal Anti-
christ, but at the moment of his first appearance (11:21), and in a lot of dealings
with the Jewish religion (vv 21-34), it is clearly the Hell-enistic king. Antiochus IV
is the spiritual root of Antichrist, and as a character he is even a “Roman” king,
since he was educated in Rome and played so ominously his role as a persecuting
god-king.
The close connection between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and the prophecy
of Daniel 11-12 is a general accepted view.54 However, in our determination to
avoid the presence of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11, we SDA adopted a pattern that
does not hold water. Our historical insistence to describe the dominant role of
imperial Rome in Daniel 11 is forced and doomed to failure. Some SDA exposi-
tors would say that Rome appears early in this prophecy, in verse 14, to play an
exclusive role in verses 16-30. But while they made ingenious attempts to
explain each verse consistently, our traditional expositions of the “king of the
north” have no future.55
53Prophecies are as more convincing as they are clear and have unique fullfilment. However we should not
force them to show unique fullfilments, if they were not so intended. Some of them have been planned as
conditional prophecies, with a unique fulfillment; and only their partial (and conditional) “failure” allow us
to suggest double application (as it is the case of Mat 24). But some have been understood by their authors
themselves to have double fullfilment (e.g. Emanuel and Jesus, cf Is 7:14, through 8:8,10, to 9:5-6; Davidic
kings and Messiah, Ps 2 etc.).
54 See, for example, Z Stefanović (Daniel: Wisdom to the Wise, Pacific Press, Nampa, Idaho, 2007: 423).
55Most of our commentaries on Daniel, including the standard commentary in 4 SDABC, prefer the Roman
presence in Daniel 11 in agreement with the Uriah Smith’s expositional pattern. Actually, the events and
characteristics that have been ascribed to the Romans are often not more than coincidences and guess-
work interconnected by artificial events. The exppression ‫יקי ַף ְמָך‬ ֵ ‫( ָפ ִש‬Da 11:14), a nominal construct
sequence was interpreted as it would have been ‫( פ ְֹּש ֵקי ַף ְמָך‬see Ecl 10:8), “those who [will] smash your
people”, where ‫ פ ְֹּש ֵקי‬is a participle and ‫ ַף ְמָך‬is in Accusative. But the MT form ‫יקי‬ ֵ ‫ ָפ ִש‬is a noun, meaning most
probably “scoundrels” (OG πεπτωκότα “fallen people”; Th λοιμῶν “pestilences”; Vul praevaricatorum
“traitors” cf. 1S 25:10), and it hardly can precede an objective noun. Especially one should notice that it is
not only the root ‫ ץשצ‬in view, but the whole expression ‫ן־פ ִשיצ‬ ָ ‫ ֵב‬bēn pårîṣ “son - scoundrel” that occurs in Ez
18:10. Furthermore, the supposed allusion to the episode with Caesar and Cleopatra in verse 17 has hardly
any ground. King Auletes put his children, Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra VII, under Rome’s guardianship. As it
was customary, Ptolemy and Cleopatra married and ruled together. Thus Auletes did not gave Cleopatra to
the Roman ruler, to destroy her, or someone, or something. How could the reign of Augustus be described
as only “a few days” (11:20), ended by crushing, when he ruled for more than 40 years and died of natural
death? Likewise if verse 21-22 speak of Tiberius, how in the world could the angel refer to Christ in such a
casual and hasty manner: “The forces of the flood will be overwhelmed by [Tiberius] and will be broken,
and so too the covenant leader.” How could an angel utter such penurious words about Christ’s sacrifice?
This interpretive scenario then treats verses 23-29 as only a general description of the Roman politics,
 19

Others would make appear the Roman forces much earlier in the chapter,
beginning with the last sentence of verse 4, but with little or no attempt to
identify the historical events in the prophecy.56
It is a pity that regarding this aspect, we completely ignored the solutions
found by A Vaucher, D Ford and others in Daniel 11. 57 I would commend Prof
Zdr|vko Stefanović for reviewing some non-Adventist expositions that contain
applications to Antiochus.58 Likewise Antonio Caracciolo of Villa Aurora, very
practically put in parallel the SDA classical view and some Catholic and Evangeli-
cal views focused on Antiochus IV.59
We should review our historical preferences and present motivations re-
lating this issue. The presence of Antiochus IV in Daniel cannot be endlessly
avoided and fighted back. His fierce paganiade against the Jewish religion was
acted as a pattern for all the troubles which God’s people had to experience up to
the end. For apologetic purposes, the identification of Antiochus IV as part of the
interpretation of the wicked horn in Daniel 8, and of the detestable king of the
north in Daniel 11, is welcome, since so many Christian scholars in the past and
in the present agree that in both chapters, Antiochus Epiphanes is the first
application.60
2.2. Da 8: 11-13: ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ = the… what?

As we know, William Miller and the Millerites identified “the daily [sacri-
fice]” of Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11 to the ancient paganism, replaced by the
medioeval Antichrist abomination. He reached such original conclusion by
insisting that the word “sacrifice” is “inserted” by translators, and thus the
expression “the daily” has no connection to the sanctuary service. He felt espe-

breaking the chronologic course, while the literary flow would require consistence. “The fleets of Kittim”
(11:30) that had been announced also by Balaam (Nu 24:24), have been interpreted as barbarian tribes
who pested the Empire. There is some inconsistence in the identification of the types of personages. “He” is
sometimes the Caesar, any Roman ruler, and some other times a certain ruler or caesar. Most important,
many events identified as Roman have no connection with the people of the covenant. How could Jews be
interested in the love affairs of Caesar, or in the military exploits of his descendants? And I insist, why was
Heaven so interested in such details of no practical use, and refrain to speak at large and warn of the most
painful events for Israel, if the main player in Daniel 11 is Imperial Rome ?
56 Jacques Doukhan (Secrets of Daniel, Review and Herald, Hagerstown, MD, 2000: 168) has a rich contribu-
tion to the study of literary structure of these prophecies and to their Jewish significance, bur it is a real
wonder that he avoided any identifcation of most events foreseen in Daniel 11. Doukhan believes that the
last phrase ‫ד־א ֶלה‬
ֵ ‫ ִמ ְל ַב‬mil·lə·ḇaḏ ’ēllê “besides these” in 11:4 must refer not to the four Hellenistic kingdoms
mentioned earlier, but “to others, besides these”, who are the Romans. But the phrase may well be under-
stood in its classical, normal understanding, as merely stressing by repetition the prophecy of cutting
[Alexander’s] descendants: “towards the four winds of the sky, but not to his posterity […], for his
kingdom will be uprooted and distributed to others besides these.” (Emphasiss supplied).
57D Ford (Daniel 8:14 etc. 85) counts H C Lacey, W G Wirth, M C Wilcox, S Horn, R Cottrell, D Neufeld as SDA
teachers who also identified Antiochus IV in Daniel, at least in chapter 11.
58 Z Stefanović, op. cit. pp. 327-33, 424-432.
59 Antonio Caracciolo (Capire Daniele, Villa Aurora, IACB, Edizioni ADV, 1998, pp. 333-364).
60Many of the old and modern expositors identified the arogant horn with both Antioch and Antichrist:
Jerome (c. 407), Martin Luther (1530, both Antiochus and Papal Antichrist), William Lowth (1725),
Magnus F. Roos (1771), John Gill (1819, included Rome, Islam and antichristian France); Archibald Mason
(1820), H. A. C. Hävernick (1832), Thomas Wintle (1836), William Kelly 1897), Nathaniel West (1898),
Joseph A. Seiss (1884), John F. Walvoord (1971), Desmond Ford (1978), J. Dwight Pentecost (1985), etc.
See Samuel Nuñez (op. cit. 39-50, 73, 174), Winfried Vogel (“The Eschatological Theology of Martin
Luther”, AUSS, Andrews University, Summer 1987, Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 188.), www.fbinstitute.com/daniel/ ,
http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-8-vision-ram-and-goat .
 20

cially illuminated by the apparent parallel between the removal of “the daily”,
announced by Daniel, and the removal of the pagan Rome, announced by Paul
(2Th 2:7-8), preceding the setting up of the “desolating iniquity / abomination”
or “the mistery of iniquity”. The 1843 prophetic chart omitted however this
interpretation, since other Millerites, especially Charles Fitch did not agree with
it.61
Between the 16thto 10th centuries, Protestant scholars had promoted a
spiritual understanding of the “daily sacrifice”. Some held that it symbolized the
true Gospel,62 but mosts pointed out to the true Christian worship.63 I did not
find information about Fitch’s interpretation of the “daily”, but he certainly did
not agree with Miller at this point. In February 1846, O. R. L. Crosier identified
“the daily” with the daily service pertaining to the altar of sacrifices and to the
Holy Place, and he wrote that “The daily service described was a sort of continual
intercession.”64 But in March 1847 he clearly applied “the daily” to “the true
doctrine of the cross”:65
The whole force of Br. J. Litch’s exposition of Dan 11:31, on the taking away of the
Daily, supports the idea that it [=“the daily”] was a Christian institution. . . The
suppression in the church of the doctrine that Christ “WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US.” This
was the Daily Sacrifice they took away”. 66

For a short time, Uriah Smith expounded Crozier’s position (RH, March 28,
1854), but he turned back to Miller’s view in 1864.67 Even before Smith, Joseph
Bates was the first to promote Miller’s view in 1846. 68 Thus the view of “the
daily” as “paganism” survived among SDA. Smith’s book became the greatest
apocalyptic exegetical commentary and apologetic tool that influenced our
Church, until the turn of the century. John Andrews (1853) and James White
(1870) would follow him. Meantime, in 1850-1851, a visionary testimony of E G
White had introduced a problematic statement regarding “the daily”. 69 This

61 6BIO 247
62L. E. Froom (Historical Setting and Background of the Term “Daily”, September 1, 1940; published on GCO
May 12, 2005 as ORCD, on www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fro-daily.php), refers Alphonsus Conradus
(Commentary on the Revelation, Basle, 1550, p. 451) and Nikolaus Armsdorf (Five Prominent Signs of the
Coming of the Judgment Day, Jena, 1554 unpaged) to have held that the “daily sacrifice” in Daniel symbol-
ized the Gospel, and its preaching.
63 Cf. L E Froom (Historical Setting...), the following scholars held that the “daily sacrifice” in Daniel
symbolized the true Christian worship expressed in praise, prayers etc.: Thomas Parker, (Visions a
Prophecies of Daniel Expounded, London, 1646, pp. 45,133), John W. Fletcher, (“A Letter Upon the Prophe-
cies,” in Posthumous Pieces, 1755, 3rd ed. London, 1800, p. 372), Hans Wood, (Revelation of St. John,
London, 1787, p. 476), Archibald Mason, (Two Essays on Daniel’s Prophetic Number of 2300 Days, Newburg.
1820, pp. 1-6). Samuel Nuñez (The Vision of Daniel 8, AUSDDS, Andrews University Press, 1989:101, 232)
adds to this category, other scholars of 18th-19th centuries: Théodore Crinsoz, Henry Kett, George Stanley
Faber, James Clarke, James H. Frere, William Girdlestone, John Bayford, John Fry, Thomas Scott, Robert
Reid, F. A. Cox, Matthew Habershon and David Campbell.
64 O R L Crozier, “The Law of Moses”, in The Day-Star Extra, Feb 7, 1846.
65 Day-Dawn 2:2, Mar. 19, 1847.
66 O R L Crozier, The Day-Dawn, vol. 2, # 1; March 19, 1847.
67Uriah Smith, in Review and Herald 24:180, Nov. 1, 1864; Thoughts on the Book of Daniel (1873 ed.,p. 163).
http://adventistlegacy.com/moore/daily/sda-encyclopedia.htm.
68 Joseph Bates, The Opening Heavens, p. 31.
69“Then I saw in relation to the ‘Daily,’ that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not
belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry.
When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the ‘Daily;’ but since 1844,
in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. I have also
 21

statement had to play an important role later in the historical controversy on the
“daily” that would last about 40 years (1898-1939) – incredibly long for such
small point.70
The controversy was introduced by 1898, with L. R. Conradi’s promotion
of the “new view” (that “the daily” equalled the true sanctuary service). Conradi
has got it through personal study, following Protestant commentaries, not being
aware that a similar spiritual identification had been made long ago by Crozier.
Eventually, the “new view” prevailed among us, and today it is our standard
position on this topic. For example, Angel Rodriguez writes of “the ‘daily’
(tå·mîd), i.e. Christ’s mediation in the heavenly sanctuary.”71 Likewise Gerhard
Pfandl understands “the daily” to be “Christ’s intercessory ministry”.72
According to Roy Gane, the “daily” symbol “qualifies a cluster of regular
worship activities performed for God by his people at the Israelite sanctuary”,
including weekly renewal of the “bread of the Presence”, daily maintenance of
the lampstand, continual mediation by the high priest, the daily burnt offering,
daily burning of incense, continual maintenance of fire on the outer altar, and the
high priest’s regular grain offering.73 Martin Pröbstle built a strong case to
support “the daily” as worship.74 Alberto Timm joins the same view,75 while

seen that time had not been a test since 1844, and that time will never again be a test.” (Early Writings, p
74).
70It was felt by some that the authority of the “old view” would be related to the authority and honor of the
Spirit of Prophecy. Actually, the only problem was that we had not yet, at that time, and probably we still
do not have a clear and realistic theology of inspiration that would make sufficient room for some human
innocent blunders of the inspired authors. Denis Kaiser’s thesis and Heidi Heiks’ study deal at large with
these issues. See Denis Kaiser (The History Of The Adventist Interpretation Of The “Daily” In The Book Of
Daniel From 1831 To 2008, MA thesis, Andrews University, July 2009). “Stan Hickerson, pastor of
the Stevensville Adventist Church and presenter at last year's symposium, asserted that Kaiser is too
humble in acknowledging the consequences of his study. Hickerson suggested that this ‘daily’ conflict set
the table for a dinner of conflict between sola scriptura and Ellen White that has never ceased to give
indigestion.” (2010 Ellen White Symposium: “Ellen White And The 'Daily' Conflict", April 05, 2010, on the
website Memory, Meaning & Faith, SDA Theological Seminary, AU). See also Heidi Heiks’ study, The “Daily”
– Source Book, TEACH Services, 2008; a good study, especially fit to adress the modern SDA revivers of the
ghost view “daily” paganism.
71 Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “The Abomination That Causes Desolation”, BRI
www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/Abomination.pdf
72 Gerhard Pfandl, “The Time Prophecies in Dan 12”, p. 3, published on the BRI website.
73 Roy E. Gane, “Christ at His Sanctuary; Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue”, Paper presented at
dialogue with World Evangelical Alliance, Andrews University, August 6, 2007, p. 8, published on the BRI
website.
74 One of Pröbstle’s argument (op. cit. p. 231) is the presence of Aramaic expression ‫ישא‬ ָ ‫ ִב ְת ִד‬bi·ṯəḏîrå’ in
Da 6:17, 21. While this is ingenious, and it is legitimate to seek for solutions in the Aramaic of Daniel, I am
not satisfied by this argument, since ‫ ִב ְת ִד ָישא‬bi·ṯəḏîrå’ “in the circling” = regularly is an adverbial phrase
(preposition + noun), where the noun ‫ ָת ִדיש‬tåḏîr (regularity) is indeed synonymous to the Hebrew ‫ָת ִמיד‬
tåmîḏ. The only corresponding use of Aramaic adverbial expression ‫ ִב ְת ִד ָישא‬bi·ṯəḏîrå’ is the adverbial use
of the Hebrew noun ‫ ָת ִמיד‬tåmîḏ. Compare, for example, the two forms in Hab 1:17, according to MT and
Targum (“unceasingly empties his net [or draws his sword]”). While in Daniel 6 the adverbial phrase is
used for Daniel’s regular prayer, its intrinsic meaning has nothing to do with worship. Various actions may
be described as regular (e.g. eating at the royal table 2S 9:7, 10, 13; 2K 25:29-30; passing regularly by
some place 2K 4:9; my sorrow is continually before me Ps 38:18; my sin is always before me Ps 51:5;
continually tremble Pr 28:14; Is 51:13; to provoke God continually Is 65:3; grief and wounds continually Jr
6:7; 52:33-34; continual ruine Ez 38:8; drink continually God‘s wrath Ob 1:16; the wickedness passed
continually Na 3:19).
75 Alberto R. Timm, “The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12”, June 5, 2002, published on the BRI website.
 22

Heidi Heiks equates “the daily” with Christ’s ministry in the first appartment of
the heavenly sanctuary.76
These spiritual interpretations are obviously superior to the old Adventist
view that “the daily” was a symbol of paganism. However, there are minor
problems with the new view, and it has to be further refined:
The spiritual interpretation of the “daily” is not the same for all expositors
of Danniel. It has a few versions that should be critically discussed
before deciding the best choice. The Gospel of the Cross, the true
Christian worship, or Christ’s intercession, while close related, they are
not one and the same.77
In the Adventist tradition, the specific Hebrew noun ‫ התמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ was
not analyzed as a beheaded technical expression, as in the Jewish use,
but it is taken as a general term representing any or all items that the
Law prescribes to be “continual” (‫ תמיד‬tåmîḏ, with adjectival or adverbi-
al function).
The Adventist analysis referred above still depends on the Millerite claim,
repeated by E G White, that the word “sacrifice” was added by transla-
tors, as a human, uninspired solution.78
Our persistent avoiding of the translation “continual burnt offering” or
“continual sacrifice” springs from the concern (or prejudice) that the no-
tion of sacrifice would lead us to accept the literal, judaizing view, point-
ing to the earthly temple, profaned by Antiochus IV and supposedly to be
rebuilt and profaned again by a future Antichrist.
We have already shown that a double application of the symbol “little
horn” is probably the most acceptable interpretation, hermeneutically, historical-
ly and apologetically. The “daily sacrifice”, in this case, may have both literal and
spiritual meaning. We can all agree with this, since in Matthew 24, installing of
the desolating abomination in the year 70 AC, implying that the tåmîḏ, whatever
it meant, was also removed long before the Papacy make its way.
We all decidedly reject any dispensational and futuristic view of “the dai-
ly sacrifice”. But the classic Millerite objection to the translators’ supply of the
word “sacrifice” is not the true solution. The Millerite apologetes had been
overcritical at this point. They just fought as they could against a contemporary
view that tended to destroy their Christian hope. And E G White’s reference to
the insertion of the word “sacrifice” is simply a Millerite borrowing, not a divine,
visionary instruction. Actually E G White would later decline any role of arbitrat-
ing in the controversy. She would deny having any light on the issue, and she
asked church leaders not to use her writings to settle the debate. 79

76 Heidi Heiks, The “Daily”– Source Book, Brushton, NY, TEACH Services, 2008: 29, 68.
77It is not necessary to comment on the recent identification of the “daily” with the Sabbath (cf. F. S. Fowler
Jr. (“THE DAILY” – HA TAMID, Prophecy Research Initiative © 2008-2010 www.endtimeissues.com ). Such
theories are rightly refuted (Alberto Timm, “The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12”, Adventist Pastor
Online, 2009 www.adventistpastoronline.com/index.php/the-1290-and-1335-days-of-daniel-12; It is
incredible that Samuel Nuñez took this excentric way (see Gerhard Pfandl, “Further on the Time Prophe-
cies of Daniel 12”, Reflections –The BRI Newsletter, July 2011: 12-15).
78 Cf. Signs of the Times, May 24, 1843, p. 95, col. 2; Idem., June 21, 1843, p. 126, col. 2; Idem., p. 136, col. 1;
Ellen G. White, Present Truth, Nov. 1850, p. 87, col. 1;
79 A. G. Daniells, Letter, dated “Los Angeles, Sept. 25, 1931,” in E. G. White Publications file.

www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fro-daily.php Further, she has shown that the divine inspiration of

the prophets has nothing to do with their mode of thought, language, rhetoric and logic. These are specificly
 23

The Hebrew noun ‫ התמיד‬hat·tå∙mîd “the […] of regularity” is not an inten-

tional left open expression “in order to comprehend all the perpetual services at
the sanctuary.”80 But such syntactic interpretation would be difficult to explain.
For similar purposes, the Hebrew of Daniel uses a plural noun. For example,
where Torah required the priests to be clothed with various items of linen ( ‫בד‬
badd), Daniel and Ezekiel refer to the totality of these garments and ornaments
by the plural ‫ִהבדים‬hab·badd·îm.81 If we choose a more limited interpretation –
“the daily”, as Christ’s ministry in the Holy Place, or the true worship of His
people at the Sanctuary – we cannot justify anyway the elliptical construction
‫ התמיד‬hat·tå·mîd “the [?] of regularity”.
Such elliptical constructions are best to be explained within a technical
jargon, naturally developed in any spoken language. And this is not the only case
where Daniel shows such vernacular trend.82 Since Mishnaic Hebrew continues
the spoken Hebrew of Biblical times, we should not be surprised that the noun
‫ התמיד‬hat·tå·mîd “the burnt offering service of regularity” is used in Mishna as the
title of a whole treatise dealing with the regular burnt-oferring, of morning and
evening, with its related ceremonies.83 Occasional sacrifices or specific festive
sacrifices and a lot of ceremonies do not belong to the tåmîḏ. Only very usual
expressions tend to become elliptic, in any language,84 and Biblical Hebrew
indicates that the most frequent use of hat·tå·mîd was in the expres-
sionִ ‫‘ עֹ לת־התמיד‬ōlaṯ-hat·tå·mîḏ “the regular/daily burnt offering”(×20).85 It was

human (1SM 21). Thus, Daniel choice of the noun ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tå·mîd, instead of the full expression ‫ת־ה ָת ִמיד‬
ַ ‫ע ַֹּל‬
‘ōlaṯ-ha ·tåmîḏ, as well as the translators’ and interpreters’ solutions on this issue, including Ellen White’s
t

Millerite opinion (“I saw in relation to the ‘daily’, that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom”)
are all of them human. Cf. Ellen G. White, Present Truth, Nov. 1850, p. 87, col. 1; EW 74.
80 Cf. D Kaiser (op cit. 139), who expresses here the majority view in the SDA theology.
81 Cf. Ex 28:42; Lv 6:3; 16:4, 23, 32; Ez 9:3, 11; 10:2, 6; 7; Da 10:5; 12:6, 7.
82 In 8:9, Daniel uses the noun ‫ ַה ֶצ ִבי‬haṣ·ṣébî, that is translated “the Land of Beauty” or similar forms, as its

complete use elsewhere suggests (‫צ־ה ְצ ִבי‬ ַ ‫ ֶא ֶש‬Da 11:16, 41). The elliptic expression ‫ ֲחמּודֹות‬ḥămūḏôṯ “pre-
ciousness” in 9:23 is also to be understood in a single way, as Da 10:11.19 suggests: ‫יש־ח ֻמדֹות‬ ֲ ‫’ ִא‬îš ḥămūḏôṯ
“man of preciousness” (precious man). Similarly, ‫ חָזּות‬ḥåzûṯ “conspicuousness” in Da 8:8 stands for ‫ֶקרֶן חָזּות‬
qéren ḥåzûṯ “horn of conspicuousness” of Da 8:5. Other examples in Hebrew: ‫ּיֹובל‬ ֵ ‫ ֶר ֶשן ַה‬/ ‫יֹוב ִלים‬
ְ ‫שֹוץשֹות‬
ְ (Jos
6:4,5,6,8,13) “ram’s horn(s)” > ‫ּיֹובל‬ ֵ ‫“ ַה‬the […] horn” (as musical instrument, Ex 19:13). But the same
shortened form sometimes stands for ‫“ ְשנַ ת ַהּי ֵֹּבל‬the year of blowing horn” (Lv 25:13, 28, 40, 50, 52, 54;
27:17-18, 23-24) > ‫“ ַהּיֹו ֵבל‬the horn’s […]” (Lv 25:10-12etc; Jos 6:4-6 etc; Jr 17:8) = the jubilee (especially in
Qumran Hebrew). Similarly ‫ ָכ ַשת‬in 1S 20:16 stands for ‫×( ָכ ַשת ְב ִשית‬97, e.g. Gn 9:11 to Zc 11:10).
83 See W. Bacher & J. Z. Lauterbach, “Tamid”, in JewishEncyclopedia.com. “Treatise in the Mishnah and the
Babylonian Gemara; devoted chiefly to the regulations regarding the morning and evening burnt offerings
(comp. Ex. xxix. 38-42; Num. xxviii. 3-8), but dealing also with other ceremonies in the ritual of the Tem-
ple...” The other ceremonies described in the Tamid treatise are only those in close connection to the
morning and evening burnt offering, to be performed at the altar and in the Holy place: grain offering, wine
libation, censing, tending the lampstand, ash cleaning, sounding the shofar etc.
84 Notice examples in English and other languages (the dates represent the first written attestation, cf.
Douglas Harper & Dan McCormack, Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001, www.etymonline.com): steam
engine (1815) > engine (1929); capital city > capital (1660s); Bermuda shorts (1953) > bermuda; sauce
hollandaise (Fr.) > hollandaise (Eng. 1841); Alzheimer’s desease (1912) > Alzheimer’s (1954); Caesarian
section (1615) > caesarian (1923); Canary bird (1570s) > canary (1650s); camera obscura (1730) > camera
(18th cent.). In Latin: malum persicum “Persian apple” > persicum “peach” (12th cent.); panis bis coctus >
biscoctum (>>biscuit, Fr., Eng. etc.). In Spanish, plata d’argento > plata “money”. The trend to shorten the
speech does not stop to beheading the expressions, but some are further abbreviated in the spoken
language: public house (1768) > pub (1859); moving picture (1896) > movie (1912); capital letters (14th
cent.) > capitals > caps; metropolitan bishop > metropolitan (15th cent.( etc.
85 Ex 29:42; Nu 28:6, 10, 15, 23-24, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Ezra 3:5; Ne 10:34; Ez 46:15.
 24

the most frequent ceremony at the sanctuary, each morning and evening, every
day, even in Sabbaths and feasts, even in the day of atonement. It was never
ceasing. While Ezekiel (46:15), Ezra (3:5) and Nehemiah (10:34) use the literary,
complet expressionִ ‫‘ עֹ לת־התמיד‬ōlaṯ-hat·tå·mîḏ, according to the Tora, Daniel
prefers the colloquial and beheaded86 formִ‫ התמיד‬hat·tå·mîḏ.
There was no other sacrifice to emphasize so high the Gospel of universal
grace, but the tå·mîd holocaust. I have no personal opposition to the other
interpretations of hat·tå·mîd as continual worship or ministry. These solutions fit
the literary and logical context better than any reference to paganism, and they
can be harmonized, as a general reference to the sanctuary cultus.
My reason to prefer the burnt-offering interpretation is basically linguisti-
cal. We have a good evidence that Hebrew used hat·tå·mîd in an elliptical manner
(see Mishnah), but we have no evidence of using hat·tå·mîd as a technical way or
code to denote the general aspects of cult, as ministry or worship. Hat·tå·mîd has
nothing to do directly with our sacrifices; it is Christ’s unique sacrifice.87 My view
does not exclude any reference to ministration or worship, since the permanent
ministration of the priests focused on the daily burn offering, and the whole
worship, even in diaspora, was directed to Jerusalem, at the hours where the
burnt offering lamb was sacrificed (cf. 1K 18.36; Da 9:21; AA 3:1).
2.3. Da 8:13: ‫ָמ ָתי‬ ‫‘ ַףד‬aḏ måṯåy – “how long” or “until when”?
Some translations render the question of Da 8:13 in a confusing way. For
example, the most common Romanian translation (CNS) has something like this:
“after how long time shall the vision be fulfilled?” NET has: “To what period of
time does the vision pertain…?”; NIV: “How long will it take for the vision to be
fulfilled...?”. Such translations are a serious hindrance for apologetic purposes,
since they suggest that the whole vision must be fulfilled in the time of the end.
The phrase, “pertains to the time of the end” of Da 8:17 (NET) or similar transla-
tions that set all the vision at the end of time are confusing, and they probably
reflect futurist views.
The heavenly speaker meant that the threatening visionary scenario
would continue up to the end of 2300 “days”, to the divine judgment, not that the
prophecy will be fulfilled after the 2300 “days”.
Even the usual question “how long” seems to me ambiguous in Da 8:13,
because it may indicate strictly the period of desecration. “Until when?” or “till
when?” is the exact translation of ‫‘ עדִמתי‬aḏ måṯåy. Translations that rendered it

86Cf. Bruce Waltke and M. O’Connor (An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake,
Indiana 1990: 103), “beheading is common in English—we say 'California' for 'the state of California,'
'Mexico' for 'the United States of Mexico.'.... The omission of the noun in the construct (the beheading) is
common in Arabic.”
87Some refer Ps 141:2, to argue in behalf of the worship theme. However, here the prayer of the worshipper
is only compared to the frankincense. The Book of Revelation (5:8; 8:3-4) shows that the only hope of our
prayers is the frankincense of Christ’s merits. “The incense represents the merits and intercession
of Christ, His perfect righteousness, which through faith is imputed to His people and which can alone
make the worship of sinful beings acceptable to God. By blood and by incense God was to be approached—
symbols pointing to the great Mediator through whom alone mercy and salvation can be granted to the
repentant soul. As the priests morning and evening entered the holy place, the daily sacrifice was ready to
be offered upon the altar in the court.” (Ellen White, in 7A SDABC 482).
 25

accordingly, in various languages, are the best in this case.88 Thus we should
stick to the sense of the question in v. 13, which does not reveal the period of
persecution under any antichrist,89 but the time of waiting until God would
intervene to make judgment.90
2.4. Da 8:14: “2300 evenings & mornings”= 1150 or 2300 days?
The translation “2300 evenings and mornings” is also confusing, since it
suggests that the sum total of 2300 is made up from 1150 evenings + 1150
mornings, even 1150 days, as some expositors argue, in their attempt to come as
close as possible to the time of temple desecration under Antiochus IV.
I would prefer a more literal translation of the Hebrew text in this case,
thus preserving the poetic and coded language of the vision,
Till evening morning two thousand three hundred,
Then shall the sanctuary be vindicated.

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

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

2.5. Da 8:14: ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq – “cleansed” or “vindicated”?

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

(“be right”, “make right”, “justify”). It does not really mean “cleansed (or puri-
fied)”, but “vindicated”, “put right” etc.,91 as it is already known, but not gladly
acknowledged among us.92 Martin Pröbstle made an impressive analysis of this
verb. He cites Jože Krašovec’s93 noticing that the Niphal draws attention to the
Hiphil forms (Ex 23:7; 1K 8:32; Is 50:8), “where God in a legal context vindicates
the righteous”. And Pröbstle concludes that “the verb points to a divine judgment

88Cf. YLT (Till when?), LXX ἕτς ςίνξς; TH, MGK ἕτς πόςε; VUL usquequo; TOB (Jusques { quand?), NRV,
LND, IEP (Fino a quando?), CAB (¿Hasta quando?), ARA (Até quando?), ELB, ZUR (Bis wann?), BUL (До
кога ?), etc.
89 Actually the persecution had to last “3 years and a half”, cf. Daniel 7 and 12.
90Gerhard Pfandl (The Time of the End in the Book of Daniel, ATS Dissertation Series, Berrien Sbrings, 1992:
258-259) noticed this problem, and proposed the same translation “until when?”.
91This fact is established in all scholarly Hebrew lexicons: shall be put right, in a right condition; be justified,
its cause vindicated (BDBG); brought to its justice, justified (HALOT); be brought [back] to its rights, be
vindicated (Holladay); be brought to its right state (Clines).
92 In his unpublished manuscript “The Eschatology of Daniel – a Definitive Exegesis of the Text” (p.40)
Raymond Cottrell asks: “Why did the LXX translators render ‘nitsdaq’ as ‘katharisthesetai’, ‘cleansed’ in
Dan 8:14 which is interpretation and cannot be considered translation?” Cottrell correctly concludes “The
translation cleansed in Dan 8:14 can thus be traced directly back to the LXX translation of Daniel into
Greek in the belief that reference was to the ritual cleansing of the Temple after the crisis precipitated by
Antiochus Epiphanes” (p.42, quoted by Herb Kersten, in “The Benefits of ‘nitsdaq’ for Seventh-day Advent-
ism”, www.hkea.org.au/benefits.pdf, hkea@hkea.org.au .
93Jože Krašovec, La justice (ṢDQ) de Dieu...,. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, no 76. Vandehoeck & Ruprecht,
1988: 254.
 26

which will justify the ‫”קֹדׁש‬, and he shows that in the intertestamental period ‫צדק‬
ṣdq functioned also “as an eschatological and apocalyptic term.” 94
The verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq of Da 8:14 is not linguistically or literary con-
nected to Lv 16, as our historical theology insists for 166 years. The Hebrew verb
makes no allusion to, neither it echoes Lv 16. Actually, the relevant verbs used in
Lv 16 to express the idea of cleansing of sin are ‫ טִהִר‬ṭahhēr “cleanse”, and ‫פר‬ ִ‫כ‬
ִ
kappēr “expiate”. Neither is solved this historical exegetic problem by the proof-
text of Heb 9:23, where the verb καθαρίζω “cleanse” is used. The text of Heb 9:23
deals with a metaphoric cleansing of the heavenly things, in contextual connec-
tion of the covenant inauguration (Heb 9:20-22) to Christ’s entrance in the
heavenly sanctuary after His ascenssion, at the year 31 AD (Heb 9:24-26).
Miller himself was aware of the Hebrew term’s translation as “justified”,
though he was not able to use it in a critical manner.95 And unfortunately we are
still prisoners of Miller’s Bible reading.
This traditional translation as “cleansed” or “purified”, began with the Old
Greek and Theodotion versions (Da 8:14, καθαριςθήςεται τὸ ἅγιον) who pre-
ferred to use the same verb as the books of Maccabees, when they refer to the
cleansing and dedication of the Jewish historical sanctuary in the year 165 BC.96
Actually the Books of Maccabees reflect the prophecies of Daniel.97
There is no better explanation for the presence of “cleansing” in Da 8:14.
The custom of older Biblical translators to render here the verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq
as “shall be cleansed”, is a sheer tradition from Old Greek (OG) through Vulgate.
As it is known, OG translators of Daniel, including Theodotion, 98 sometimes

94 Martin Pröbstle, Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14, Andrews University, PhD
Dissertation, 2006: 403, fn 3, 412.
95 In his 1834 tract, William Miller (Evidence from Scripture and History..., Teach Service, New York, 2005, p.

31), quoting Daniel 8:13-14 from KJV (“then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”), he added: “or justified as it
might have been translated.” Then he theologized on this justification of the sanctuary (p. 34), applying
this concept to the saints: “then shall we be cleansed and justified”, “We see by these texts —and many
more might be quoted—that the spiritual sanctuary will not be cleansed until Christ’s second coming; and
then all Israel shall be raised, judged, and justified in his sight.” (Emphases supplied). Eight years later,
Miller (in “Cleansing of the Sanctuary”, Signs of the Times, April 6, 1842, p. 1, quoted by G. Damsteegt in F
Holbrook, Doctrine of the Sanctuary, BRI, 1989, p. 9) wrote that “when these [the EARTH and the CHURCH]
are cleansed, then, and not until then, will the entire sanctuary of God be cleansed, and justified, (as it reads
in the margin).” So William Miller knew about this meaning, as all his contemporaries could observe, from
the marginal note of KJV. But Miller’s observations, though valuable, were not critical, because he took the
margin as a secondary option, or as an additional meaning, while his favorite reading was “cleansed”, since
it was the text, not a margin. We must excuse Miller, since he had no professional Biblical education.
96E.g. καθαρίςαι τὰ ἅγια (1Mac 4:36, 41,43), καθαριςμὸν τοῦ ἱεροῦ (2Mac 1:18: 2:16, 19), τὸν νεὼ
καθαρίςαντεσ (2Mac 10:3), τὸν καθαριςμὸν τοῦ ναοῦ (2Mac 10:5), κεκαθαριςμένον οἶκον (2Mac 14:36),
καθαριςθῆναι τὸν τόπον (2Mac 2:18; 10:7). This cleansing-dedication is now commemorated as Hanuk-
kah.
97Various expressions, images and ideas of 1-2 Maccabees allude to the Book of Daniel, as it follows: 1Mac
1:1; 8:5 (“Kittim” < Da 11:30); 1Mac 1:4 (“magnify himself in his heart” < Da 8:25); 1Mac 1:7-10 (“from
these came forth a wicked offshoot” < Da 8:9; 11:7); 1Mac 1:17-19 (“invaded Egypt, with chariots and
elephants and cavalry and a large fleet” < Da 11:40); 1Mac 1:18-20 (“a lot of dead bodies will fall” < Da
11:26); 1Mac 1:29-30 (“the king has sent the great exactor in Judea” < Da 11:20); 1Mac 1:39-41; 2:12 (“the
sanctuary has been desolated”< Da 8:11.13); 1Mac 1:45-49; 2Mac 10:5 (“banning burned offerings....,
profaning the sanctuary and the saints” < Da 8:13; 11:31); 1Mac 1:54-57 (“has built the abomination of
desolation” < Da 11:31); 1Mac 2:60 (“Daniel ... rescued from the lions’ jaws”); 1Mac 3:36 (distribute land to
foreigners < Da 11:39); 2Mac 9:10 (“[Antiochus] thought to touch the stars of heaven” < Da 8:10).
98I would not trust Theodotion in this case, as some authors seem to do, including Pröbstle (op.cit. 415-16),
who notes: “The fact that Theodotion agrees with OG in reading καθαριςθήςεται over against the typical
rendition with δικαιόω could indicate that καθαριςθήςεται indeed expresses best the conceptual idea of
‫נִ ְק ַדר‬.” Then Pröbstle compares such translation with that of Job 4:17, where OG translates ‫ יִ ְק ָדר‬with
 27

misread, misunderstood or even adapted the translation to their interpreta-

tion.99 I mention here their main errors in Daniel 8, because some of my col-
leagues suppose that their translation of ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as καθαριςθήςεται
“shall be cleansed”, must have been due to their sharp Hebrew knowledge.
LXX, both OG translators and Theodotion made gross blunders even in
Daniel 8. For example, they have read the Hebrew expression ‫אּובל אּולי‬
’ûḇal ’ûlåy “the canal Ulai”(of 8:2) as ἡ πύλη Αιλαμ / Ωλαμ “the
Ailam/Olam Gate”, or possibly their Hebrew Vorlage may have read ִ‫אבול‬
‫’ אולם‬ăḇûl ’ûlåm “city gate porch”, as BHS critical apparatus suggests.100
In 8:4 OG adds “South” to the three points of compass mentioned in He-
brew.
The expressionִ ‫ מצעירה‬min·ṣə‘îråh “out of smallness” (8:9) was read as
ἰςχυρόν “powerful”.
In the same verse, ‫ צִבִי‬ṣéḇī “glory” was read and translated as βορρᾶσ
“North”.
Verses 11-13 have important variations in OG. The expressionִ‫מיד‬ ִ ִ‫רים הִת‬
ִ ִ‫ה‬
hē·rîm ha ·tåmîd “it removed the continual burnt-offering” (8:11) has
t

been misread as τὰ ὄρη τὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνοσ ← hårîm hat·tåmîd “the everlast-

ing mountains”.
The expressionִ ‫ וצבא‬wə·ṣåḇå’ “and a host” (8:12-13) has been rendered
ἐρημωθήςεται “will be desolated”, according to a possible scribal ver-
sion ‫ יצדא‬yiṣ·ṣåḏé’.
The pronoun ‫ פלמֹוני‬palmônî “a certain one” (8:13) was simply translit-
erated φελμουνι phelmûni (!), because it was not understood (part of a
good evidence for an early date of the book of Daniel).
In the same verse (8:13), after θυςία “daily sacrifice”, they added ἡ
ἀρθεῖςα “that has been removed”.
The term ‫ קץ‬qēṣ “end” (8:17; 9:26) has been translated καιρόσ “time”, as it
is attested in Postbiblical Hebrew, for example in the Qumran Sectarian
Texts.101 (This is another proof that the Hebrew of Daniel was quite out-
dated at the time when the book was translated in Greek).
After this clear evidence that LXX cannot have the last word, why should
we trust the translation καθαριςθήςεται “shall be cleansed” in Da 8:14, as it
would be accurate and providential? Ancient translators have been responsible

καθαρὸσ ἔςται “be pure”, and where it stands in poetic parallelism to ‫ טהש‬ṭahhēr “be clean”. (We have
alewasy shown above our understanding of this linguistic problem). Actually Pröbstle (op. cit. 416-17)
acknowledges that the possibility of the Maccabean influence on the LXX translation of ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as
καθαριςθήςεται “cannot be excluded”. He also cites The Syriac that translates ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as “will be
justified”.
99 Important differences between OG Daniel and MT Daniel are notable throughout the book. In Da 11:30,
Theodotion, a more literalist translator in Greek, renders the expression ‫ ִקּיִ ים ִכ ִתים‬ṣiyy·îm kittîm “fleets of
Kittim” as οἱ ἐκπορευόμενοι Κίτιοι “those who came out of Kittim”, misreading the noun ‫ ִקּיִ ים‬ṣiyy·îm “fleets”
as ‫יק ִאים‬
ְ yōṣ‘·îm “who came out”, as OG had done in Nu 24:24. In Da 1:3,11,16 the common noun ‫ַה ֶמ ְל ַקש‬
ham·me·lṣar “the guardian”, of Babylonian origin (< ma·nṣaru, cf. HALOT), was not understood by the LXX
translators, so it was rendered as a proper noun, Αμελςαδ (Th) and Αβιεςδρι (OG), a further corrupted
form.
100 Cf. CAL (Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon), ‫ = אבול‬city gate; ‫ = אולם‬porch.

101Cf. A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Lichte der Texte vom Toten Meer, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk GmbH,
Stuttgart, 1971, p. 146-148, § 18.
 28

for their task, for practical purposes. But when we meet poor Biblical transla-
tions even in modern times, why should we suppose that ancient translators
were more responsible than the modern translators, especially when we deal
with peculiar terms?
Because of the possible difficulty raised by this rare Niphal,102 and/or be-
cause of the oldest and common application of this prophecy to the Temple’s
cleansing under Judas Maccabeus, by both Jews and Christians, it is understand-
able why OG, Vulgate and virtually all classical translations preferred to render
the Hebrew verb by “cleansed”. It is simply a loose, dynamic, interpretive transla-
tion. The cleansing of the sanctuary was understood, for more than two millen-
nia, as the purification and rededication of the Temple, after the desecrations
done by Antiochus Epiphanes. Both Jews and Christians understood it that
way.103
A respected SDA scholar has informed me that, on the contrary, some Jew-
ish Bible versions rendered the verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ ִוִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as “will be cleansed”,
though their translators do not share Adventist views. He referred the JPS Bible
of 1982 that really resorted to the translation “shall be cleansed”, as also the
1985 edition (TNK in BibleWorks) repeated this preference.
It is, however, doubtful that Jewish translations must be necessarily more
precise and scientific than Christian translations. Speaking or translating fluently
a native language is not usually the best warrant, when it comes to scientific
aspects of that language in ancient times. In any case, the inclination to make the
translation more practical gives birth to interpretive linguistic renditions. For
example, unlike JPS 1917, the supposedly better translation TNK 1885, has in Gn
1:1-2 the more liberal expressions, “When God began to create heaven and earth
[…] and a wind from God sweeping over the water”. In Da 12:4, both versions
understood the idea of “run to and fro” / “range far and wide”, which are superfi-
cial translations. And in Da 9:27, TNK translated: “At the corner of the altar will
be an appalling abomination”, which is clearly an interpretive, Maccabean trans-
lation (cf. 1Mac 1:54).
Therefore, most probably, the translation “cleansed”, extant in some mod-
ern Jewish versions reflects the Maccabean interpretation of this prophecy. But
both old and recent Jewish translations tried to faithfully render the Hebrew
verb ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq in English: and the holy ones shall be exonerated;104 then
shall the sanctuary be victorious;105 or in Yidish, dann wird das Heiligthum

102As a Niphal, ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq is a hapax legomenon. The OG reading in Ps 50/51:6, cf. Rom 3:4b (ὅπωσ ἂν
δικαιωθῇσ ἐν τοῖσ λόγοισ ςου καὶ νικήςεισ, cf. Psalms of Solomon 50:6), or in Is 43:26, where ‫ תקדר‬is read
as a passive (δικαιωθῇσ) would suggest cases of Niphal imperfect. However, these cases may reflect very
well Qal forms, since the Qal form of ‫ קדר‬carries itself passive meanings sometimes.
103 Josephus (Ant. 10:276; 12:286, 316), following implicitely Maccabean and Pharisean traditions;
Hippolytus (ANF vol. 5, p. 180), Cyprian (ANF vol. 5, p. 504), Jerome (NPNF, vol. 6 pp. 495-96) etc., follow-
ing explicitely the Books of Maccabees and Josephus, applied the wicked horn of Daniel 8 to Antiochus
Epiphanes, hence the cleansing of the sanctuary was understood as being made by Judas Maccabeus.
Fathers usually saw Antiochus just as a type of Antichrist. A comprehensive study on this topic is that of
William H. Shea (“Early Development of the Antiochus Epiphanes Interpretation,” in Symposium on Daniel,
ed. Frank Holbrook, Washington DC: BRI, 1986, pp. 257-328), who has shown how the Maccabean inter-
pretation is reflected in the Septuagint, in Maccabees, Josephus, Hippolytus, Jerome etc., though not all
ancient Jewish and Christian writings reflect a connection between the prophecies of Daniel and Antiochus
Epiphanes.
104 Avroham Y Rosenberg, Daniel, The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary, www.chabad.org.
105 Jewish Publication Society of America (1917) www.mechon-mamre.org.
 29

gerechtvertigt sein (=justified);106 denzmal wet das heiliktum komen zu sein recht
(=come to his right).107
Since our sanctuary theology is heavily built on a specific interpretation of
Leviticus 16, where a special cleansing of the sanctuary is described, we are
understandably inclined to do our best to preserve the idea of cleansing in Da
8:14. Our theological preference in this case is based on three assumptions:
First, we assume our pioneers’ exegesis that was confirmed by E G White’s
counsel and visions, and was based on a quite fundamentalist approach
to prophetic inspiration seeing the Spirit of Prophecy as the final author-
ity in doctrinal matters and arbiter in theological debates.
Second, we assume that LXX, witnessed by KJV and other classical ver-
sions, have the true semantic key of the Hebrew hapax ‫דק‬ ִ ִ‫ וִִנצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq =
καθαριςθήςεται, which I have shown, it is unsustainable.
Third, to avoid our historical indebtedness to LXX for the meaning of Da
8:14, we resort to a more complex research in the semantic field of the
root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq thus carrying our argument to its limits. Some of our schol-
ars108 did their best to show that the verbal root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq and its derived
forms, nouns and adjectives, cover more than the semantic range of right
and justice, actually including the idea of cleanness and cleansing.
However, at least some of our scholars agree that the Maccabean interpre-
tation is a valid explanation for the LXX translation of verb ‫ ונצדק‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq as
καθαριςθήςεται (“shall be cleansed”). Siegfried Horn (1964) in a footnote in
Justesen affirmed this possibility.109
The translators may also have been influenced by recent events in Jerusalem. They may
conceivably have applied the prophecy of Dan 8 to the religious crisis created by Antio-
chus IV when he polluted the Temple and to its cleansing by the Maccabees a few years
later, and may thus have been influenced to render the Hebrew niṣdaq by the Greek
καθαριςθήςεται. (Emphasis supplied).

Gerhard Hasel110 wrote, “It is customary assumed, that this [LXX

καθαριςθήςεται] reflects the experience of the events of the (defilement and)
rededication of the Jerusalem temple in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. This
is possible, but not absolutely necessary...” Such a possibility, according to Hasel,
depends on the condition that the OG Daniel is proved a post-Antiochus transla-
tion. But there is no question of the lateness of this OG translation of Daniel. It is

106 This is from the second volume of an old bilingual (Hebrew-Yiddish) Tanakh, in my private library.
While its first pages are missing, it shows like a copy of a Meir Letteris edition, printed in Austria or Poland
in the 19th century.
107 The Targum Yidish Von Yehoyesh ‫זײן שעכט‬ ַ ‫ דענקמאָל װעט דאָס הײלירטום רומען קו‬http://yiddish.haifa.ac.il
(2003).
108 J. P. Justesen, “On the Meaning of ṢĀḎĀQ”, AUSS 2 (1964), 53-61; Walter E. Read, “Further Observations
on ṣādāq”, AUSS 4 (1966) 29-36; Niels-Erik Andreasen, “Translation of Niṣdaq/Katharisthēsetai in Daniel
8:14”, in Symposium on Daniel, ed. Frank Holbrook, Washington DC: BRI (1986) 475-96; Angel Manuel
Rodriguez, “Significance of the Cultic Language in Daniel 8:9-14,” in Symposium on Daniel, pp. 543-49;
Elias Brasil de Souza, The Heavenly Sanctuary / Temple Motif in the Hebrew Bible...,” Adventist Theological
Society, Dissertation Series (2005), 460-63; Martin Pröbstle (Truth and Terror, pp. 415-18).
109 [S.H.H.], in Justesen, op. cit. p. 60, fn 28.

Gerhard Hasel, “The ‘Litle Horn’, the Heavenly Sanctuary, and the Time of the End: A Study of Daniel 8:9-
110

14”, in Symposium on Daniel, pp. 449-58.

 30

commonly agreed that it is post-Antiochus. Kitchen, for example, dated the

translation of Daniel after 100 BC.111 And there are good reasons.112
Hasel noted that Theodotion, Vulgate, Peshitta, and Coptic versions con-
tain the same idea of “cleansing” in Da 8:14, but he failed to observe that all these
ancient versions are directly or indirectly indebted to LXX. Theodotion most
probably worked on an OG variant, though he revised it against the MT.113 The
Vulgate is basically Jerome’s translation from MT, but it is here and there indebt-
ed to LXX. Jerome’s Maccabean interpretation on Daniel 8 is known, so that no
wonder he renders exactly the LXX in Da 8:14, et mundabitur sanctuarium. OT
Peshitta, though translated basically from MT, it is known as indebted to LXX.
Especially its Book of Daniel is indebted to Theodotion, as it is also the Coptic
version of Daniel.114
Niels-Erik Andreasen discussed extensively the possible influence of the
Maccabean interpretation on the OG translator. He drew convincing parallels
between Daniel and 1Maccabees, then he maintained that, “by themselves, these
observations do not prove that the translators of the LXX chose the word ‘cleanse’
in 8:14 to refer to the activities of Judas Maccabaeus, but the possibility does
exist.”115 And after explaining our historical motivations and theological prefer-
ence for the KJV translation (“be cleansed”), Andreasen adds:116
How then shall we evaluate the Greek translation of ṣdq in 8:14? Did the Translators
have Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt in mind when they did their work on Dan-
iel? Or were they simply selecting an appropriate extended meaning (katharizō) when
translating ṣdq? The question is not easily answered. For one thing, the LXX translates
ṣdq with katharizō or the related adjective katharos only twice – Daniel 8:14 and Job
4:17. Inasmuch as there is no discernible relationship between these two texts, no gen-
eral principle of translation can be drawn from it. However, it is evident that the LXX did
use katharos to translate ṣdq in Job 4:17, even where there is no possible influence from
1Maccabees to justify it.
Consequently some interpreters have felt that also in Daniel 8:14 the Greek transla-
tion used katharizō because they considered that the appropriate extended meaning of
ṣdq for this verse dealing with the sanctuary (cf. Lv 16).117 On the other hand we must
recognize that elsewhere (11:31) the older Greek version of Daniel (as opposed to the
later Theodotion version of the LXX) appears to imply a Maccabean orientation, some-
thing which may at least be possible in the case of Daniel 8:14 as well,118 though here the
Theodotion text does not take exception to it. 119

111 Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Aramaic of Daniel,” London: Tyndale. 1965:43.

112For example, I will argue with the LXX translation Ῥωμαῖοι “Romans” (Da 11:30), which rendered in an
interpretive manner the expression ‫ ִקיִ ים ִכ ִתים‬ṣīy·îm kittîm “fleets of Kittim” of the Masoretic Text. This fact
implies that in this prophecy, the translator identified the moment when Romans came to defend Egypt
against Antiochus IV in the year 168 BC. Romans are first known as such in the Jewish history, in the OG
Book of Daniel and the first two Books of Maccabees.
113 See C. H. Toy and E. G. Hirsch, “Theodotion” in www.JewishEncyclopedia.com.
Cf. R. A. Taylor, The Peshiṭta of Daniel, Brill, Leyden, 1994, p. 313; A. A. Bevan, A Short Commentary on the
114

Book of Daniel, University Press, Cambridge, 1892, pp. 1-3.

115 N. E. Andreasen (“Translation...”, p. 488).
116 Idem. pp. 489-90.
117In his footnote (29), Andreasen refers to Justesen (p. 60), then adds significantly: “Note the editorial
comment which attributes the LXX rendering of Daniel 8:14 to the Maccabean crisis (pp. 60-61).”
118 In footnote (30), Andreasen refers to William Shea, with no precise reference.
119In a private email letter, Eric Livingston defended the same logic about Theodotion’s translation in this
case. My observation is that this is not the only case where Theodotion follows LXX rather than the
Masoretic Text. Even in Daniel 8, Theodotion followed OG in translating ‫ ִמ ְצ ִף ָישה‬min·ṣə‘îrå (“from little-
ness”, 8:9) as ἰςχυρόσ “strong”. Especially in 8:11 he followed OG, quite far from the MT: ἕωσ ... ὁ
 31

In short, a Maccabean orientation in the Greek translation of 8:14 is possible, though

not necessary. Perhaps the best we can say is that although we cannot exclude the Macca-
bean orientation from the LXX translation of 8:14, this version nevertheless affirms the
extended meaning of katharizō for ṣdq in Job 4:17 and in Daniel 8:14. (Emphasis sup-
plied).

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

4:17, for the following reasons:
This extended meaning is statistically insignificant.
The Hebrew text of Job 4:17 has the verb ‫ טהר‬ṭhr “be clean” in the parallel
verse, so that a semantic attraction is more probable, because of some
extended meanings of the root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq “be just” (> be morally / forensi-
cally pure or clean) that have been proposed by the SDA scholars.
The translator was not literalist, as he rendered ‫’ אֱנֹוׁש‬ĕnôš “man” as
βροτὸσ “mortal”, and ‫ יטהר‬yiṭhar “he will be clean” as ἄμεμπτοσ “fault-
less, guiltless, blameless”.
The translator misread the expressionִ‫’ אםִמעֹ שהּו‬im mē·‘ōśē·hū “or from /
by his Maker” as ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ < ‫’ אםִמםעֲשיו‬im min·ma‘śå·w “or
from his works/deeds”.
Thus we cannot suspect the OG translator of Job 4 of too much precision.
Consequetly, one cannot draw a definite semantic conclusion about a Hebrew
term, based on his approximate translation.
Andreasen120 correctly ascribed toִ‫ צדק‬ṣdq the meanings “make right” (re-
store the ministry of the sanctuary) and “vindicate” (the sanctuary and the
saints), but at the same time, he noted that “the idea of cleansing is involved”,
answering the “necessity of removing the horrible sin from the sanctuary”.
Davidson agrees with that,121 and Pröbstle admits122 that “Andreasen is right
when he regards the context of the occurence of Dan 8:14 as decisive in determin-
ing the particular meaning of ‫נצדק‬.” (Emphasis supplied)
However, it is not necessary to ascribe the meaning of “cleanse” to ‫ונצדק‬
wə·ni·ṣdaq, in order to answer the problem of ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ in Daniel 8. The rootִ‫צדק‬
ṣdq is by itself and more directly opposed to ‫ פשע‬pš‘123 and to its closest syno-
nyms, so that a sanctuary vindication involves the righting of all wrongs it
suffered. While ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ may be removed by cleansing (Jr 33:8; Ez 37:23),
atonement ‫ כפר‬kappēr is equally related to it (Lv 16:16; Ps 65:4), and ‫ מחה‬mḥh
“wipe” is even more usually applied to ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘.124 Other verbs that express the

ἀρχιςτράτηγοσ ῥύςηται τὴν αἰχμαλωςίαν καὶ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ... θυςία ... ἐρράχθη ... καὶ ἐγενήθη καὶ
[κατ]ευοδώθη ...καὶ τὸ ἅγιον ἐρημωθήςεται (“until... the chief captain shall deliver the captives and
because of him... the sacrifice... was fallen... and he became and succeeded... and the sanctuary shall be
desolated”). In v. 12 the similarity between OG and Th at variance with MT is striking. Theodotion trans-
lated ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tå·mîd as ἡ θυςία “the sacrifice” only in chapter 8 (vv 12,13), following OG. In the other
portions of Daniel, Theodotion tried to be as literal as he could (‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tå·mîd => ἐνδελεχιςμόσ 11:31;
12:11). In 8:13 both versions transliterated ‫ ַפ ְלמ ִֹּני‬palmōnî as φελμουνι (!), instead of translating (“a certain
one”). Most important, Theodotion copy-pasted the whole verse of Da 8:14, so there is no question why he
chose the meaning “cleansed” for ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq, just as the OG.
120 N-E Andreasen, op. cit. 494.
121 R Davidson, “The Meaning of Niṣdaq...” 117.
122 M Pröbstle, op. cit. 412.
123 Ez 18:22; 33:12; Hos 14:10; Da 9:24.
124 1K 8:50; Is 43:25; 44:22; Ps 51:3.
 32

dealing with ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ are ‫ הרחק‬ha·rḥēq “remove” (Ps 103:12), and ‫ פקד‬påqaḏ
“punish” (Ps 89:33) etc. The subject of verb ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq is however not ‫פׁשע‬ ִ
péša‘ but ‫ קֹדׁש‬qóḏeš. If the sanctuary includes the daily sacrifice ‫ התמיד‬ha ·tåmîḏ,
t

that has been replaced by ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘, it means that the vindication of the sanctu-
ary involves the reversal of that replacement: removing the ‫ פׁשע‬péša‘ and restor-
ing “the daily”.
Pröbstle shows (op. cit. 414) that “the making right of the ‘holy’ includes
without specific mention.... the ending or cleansing of the transgression” (empha-
sis supplied). If “ending” the transgression is legitimately included in the “vindi-
cation” of the sanctuary, then there is no need of a semantic extension of ‫ צדק‬ṣdq
to express the idea of “cleansing”. Pröbstle suspected also that the verb
καθαριςθήςεται in OG of Da 8:14 may be of Maccabean interpretation, but he did
not go beyond this curious observation. In his huge and most valuable disserta-
tion, Pröbstle suggests this explanation, as legitimate:
The possibility that the translator(s) of the OG and Theodotion chose to render ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬in
Dan 8:14 with καθαριςθήςεται in light of the cleansing of the temple by the Maccabees
(1 Macc 4:36, 41) cannot be excluded...
There is the possibility that such a rendering of ‫ ונִ ְק ַדר‬was historically influenced by the
cleansing of the temple by the Maccabees. 125 (Emphasis supplied)

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

OG dependence on the Maccabean interpretation of verb ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq in Da
8:14 is not just a possibility. My conviction is that it is the strongest probability.
Any objection to this strong probability does not ultimately resist. It is not just an
interesting idea; it is the most reasonable explanation. While this is not truly
demonstrated, since we have not 100% of the necessary evidence, it is the most
sustainable theory. In fact, the alternative that we offered for decades, as a
linguistic solution based on an extended meaning of ‫ צדק‬ṣdq as “be clean, pure”,
proves finally to be of little use to our exegesis to Da 8:14.126 And this is why:
To indicate a positive link to Lv 16, the speaking Saint of Da 8:14
would have used rather a specific verb suggesting the Day of Atone-
ment, such as ‫ כפר‬kappēr (atone),ִ ‫ חטא‬ḥaṭṭē’ (cleanse of sin), or ‫טהר‬
ṭahhēr (purify). But He used none of these in this place, though he used
‫ כפר‬kappēr in 9:24, in parallel with the “everlasting justice/victory”
(‫ צדקִעֹ למים‬ṣédeq ‘ôlåm∙îm).
Even if we accept that the root ‫ צדק‬ṣdq was chosen for reasons beyond
its basic meaning of “be right, just”, 127 and it really covers important
semantic areas of ‫ זכה‬zkh (be pure), ‫ טהר‬ṭhr (be clean), ‫ נקה‬nqh (be

125 M Pröbstle, op. cit., pp 416 fn2, 418.

126 Prof Davidson has kindly brought to my attention the doctoral dissertation of Eric Livingston, on this
topic. Since Livingston’s dissertation is not yet published, I began a friendly email dialog with him in July
2009. The issue remained open, as he said: “Your openness and depth are appreciated, though ultimately
we both realise that there are many factors to hermeneutics that means most persons can reason together
freely yet still hold disparate views.”
127Polysemy is a matter of lexical semantics. In normal communication, nobody means or take into account
any possible meaning of a term, as it stands in the lexicon. Only its pragmatic meaning, constraint by the
co-text functions in any logical discourse. It is most doubtful that ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq had been meant simulta-
neously as “vindicated” and “cleansed”. The meaning of any word in a literary context or in speech tends to
be monosemantic, in order to avoid ambiguity.
 33

innocent), ‫ תמם‬tmm (be finished, faultless), ‫ ברר‬brr (purge out),128 as

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

128Cf. Justesen (op. cit. p. 61). Later studies mentioned above in this paper, basically repeat and extend the
research of Justesen.
 34

of Da 8:14 is best corresponding to the phrase ‫ישי‬ִ ‫ד‬ ִ ִ‫ ו‬wǝ·ḏīn·å yǝhēḇ

ִ ִ‫דינִא ִיִהִב ִלִק‬
lǝ·qaddīš·ê “and the judgment was given in favor of the saints …” of Da 7:22.129
Recognizing the Hebrew meaning of the verb in Da 8:14, where the preex-
istent Christ Himself makes the great promise of good news of Judgment, it is an
advantage for the SDA theology, to emphasize the theodicean concept of judg-
ment-righteousness-justice-vindication-victory, through a perfectly valid exegeti-
cal link to the preceding vision (Da 7:10fg; cf. 12:12:1d). 130 The following table
illustrates this parallel:

Daniel ‫‘ ַףד ָמ ַתי‬aḏ måṯåy ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר רֹּ ֶדש‬... ‫‘ ַףד‬aḏ… wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš
8:13-14 “until when… ?” “until… then shall the Sanctuary be vindicated”
“it made war with the ‫ישי‬
ֵ ‫ וְ ִדינָ א ְי ֵהב ְל ַר ִד‬...‫ַףד ִדי‬
Daniel saints and overcame ‘aḏ dî… wǝ·ḏīn·å yǝhēḇ lǝ·qaddīš·ê
7: 22 them” […until “until … and the judgment was given to (in favor
when?] of) the saints”

There is also a significant parallel of Da 8:14 to Rv 6: 9-11.131 The altar of

the “daily” was used in a sinful way, by shedding to its base the “blood of the
souls”132 of martyrs – possibly viewed as sanctuary ministers. They have been
slain because of the “truth”, as sure as the priestly “host”, and “the truth”, have
been “thrown to the ground and throdden underfoot” in Daniel 8. The cry “until
when?” is therefore a longing for “judgment and vindication” (Rv 6:10), and the
heaven’s answer is “white robes” (justification, exoneration) and asurance of a
full vindication after a while.
Daniel ‫‘ ַףד ָמ ַתי‬aḏ måṯåy ‫ וְ נִ ְק ַדר רֹּ ֶדש‬... ‫‘ ַףד‬aḏ… wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš
8:13-14 “until when?” “until… then shall the Sanctuary be vindicated”
ἕωσ πότε heōs pote οὐ κρίνεισ καὶ ἐκδικεῖσ
Revelation
“until when” ou krīn·eis kai ek·dik·ēis
6:10
“Thou not judge and vindicate yet?”133
No cleansing ceremony is performed in the sanctuary of Revelation, and
there is no use of verb καθαριζω (cleanse) in the entire book. Instead, there are
so many references or allusions to the divine judgment, justice and vindica-
tion.134
Most of my colleagues would agree that a solid biblical doctrine cannot
stand on too many subtleties, suppositions, low probability and smart assump-

129Various scholars noticed this strong connection, e.g. D. Ford (Daniel, 1978:147-148, 163, 287); André
Feuillet, “Le Fills de l’homme de Daniel et la tradition biblique”, Revue Biblique, LX, 1953:197-198.
130Marvine Moore (The Case for the Investigative Judgement –its Biblical Foundation, Pacific Press, Nampa,
Idaho, 2010, p. 161-162) also decided for himself: “I believe that the best word is vindicated.” Then he
connected this prophetic statement with the judgment motif in Daniel 7.
131I noticed this parallel independently, and briefly referred it in my Master’s dissertation (F G Lăiu, “An
Exegetical Study of Daniel 7-9”, MTh diss., UNISA, Pretoria, 1999: p 117). But I was glad to discover that
other SDA students noticed it.
132 Cf. Gn 4:11; Dt 12:23; Pr 28:17; Jr 2:35.
133 For the use of both verbs (κρίνω “judge” and ἐκδικέω “revenge”, see also Jr 11:20; 28:36; Heb 10:30
(quoting Dt 32:35a-36a > Ps 135:14 >> Ro 12:19). See also 1Mac 6:22 (NRS), “How long will you fail to do
justice and to avenge our kindred?” (ἕωσ πότε οὐ ποιήςῃ κρίςιν καὶ ἐκδικήςεισ τοὺσ ἀδελφοὺσ ἡμῶν), who
is reflected in Revelation 5.
134 E.g. Rv 11:18; 14:7; 15:4; 16:5, 7; 17:1; 18:8,10, 20; 19:2, 8, 11; 20:4, 12, 13; 1:14; 2:17; 3:4-5
 35

tions. It cannot stand on a preferred Bible translation. It is true, faith does not ask
for demonstration, but requires sufficient evidence (cf. Ed 1903:169). We some-
times may feel that our faith depends on some preferred argument. It is possible,
however, that our preferred argument is flawed, and must be abandoned. I
believe that when God takes out from us a proof text, which we used for more
than one century, He will give us better evidence instead. Probably the most
important objection to what I am writing in this section is our emotional in-
volvement with Ellen White said this or that. But there are legitimate ways to
harmonize such critical concerns with our pioneers’ beliefs.135
Many seventh-day adventurists and even some of the most honest Evan-
gelical believers begin to shudder, to the mention of the hour of God’s Judgment,
just as Felix did (Acts 24:25), claiming that such doctrine takes away their
assurance of salvation. It reminds them the Law! But for a sincere Christian, this
is the last reason to tremble. Rather we should tremble for twisting the Law or
the Gospel, or to entertaining false hopes, sticking to a counterfait candy Jesus for
our comfort, and forgetting the real import of the blood-stained Cross.
There is no threat to our assurance of salvation except “an evil, unbeliev-
ing heart” (Ev 3:12). Our assurance is not endangered in this age, after the Cross,
more than can be shaken the assurence of Enoch, Moses and Elijah, our elder
celestial contemporaries. In Christ, we are like them, in the heavenly realm
akready.136 Only we must remember that the Paradise itself is not a safe place for
proud Lucifers or for faithless and disobedient Adams and Eves. It is safe only for
“repenting thieves”, who thankfully keep staying on their well-deserved cross.
2.6. Da 8:17: “The vision (belongs / reaches) to the time of the end”
Regarding the time expressions of Da 8:17, it must be observed that the
preposition ִ‫ ל‬lə· in Daniel is used also as an equivalent to ‫ עִד‬caḏ “until” (cf. 9:24).
This means that in Da 8:17 the most fitting translation is “…the vision [i.e. the
foreseen facts] will last to the time of the end”.
Gerhard Pfandl also stressed this important semantic problem and solved
it excellently (“the vision extends to the time of the end”, “reaches to the time of
the end”).137 Similarly the phrase ‫ לִמֹועִדִקִץ‬lə·ma·wcēd qēṣ of verse 19, applies to
the time to which the vision extends. The term ‫ מֹועִד‬ma·wcēd “fixed time”, here
used, must refer to the only fixed time in this prophecy (2300 “days”), and this
should be made clear in a good translation.
2.7. Da 8:27: “no one could understand”, or “I…could not understand” ?

Many translations render the phrase ‫ִואין ִמבין‬wǝ∙’ên mē∙ḇîn by an

impersonal clause,138 as if Daniel would have been affected by other people’s

135A good suggestion is supplied by D Ford (“Daniel 8:14, The Judgment and the Kingdom of God. A Rebuttal
of Criticism of the Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine”, [no date] pp 25, 29; see Hamill Collection 161, Box36
Fld4): “A clue to some difficulties in the writings of Spirit of Prophecy is found in the fact that EG White,
writing at the time when our people were new in the sanctuary truth, often wrote in the language of the
type”.
Eph 1:3, 20; 2:6; Heb 6:19; 10:19-20; John 10:28.
136

G. Pfandl (op. cit. 264-65, 303, fn 442) calls our attention to the preposition lə in a temporal sense, as in
137

Dt 16:4; 1S 13:8, similar to NEB: “the vision points to the time of the end”.
138 E.g. LXX, TH, YLT, NKJ, DRB, ELB, ASV, WEB.
 36

failure to understand the prophecy of the 2300. The use of the negation ‫’ אין‬ên is
not common with personal subjects. The author must have saidִ‫( ול ֹאִאבין‬see Da
12:8) or ‫( וִאינמי מִבין‬cf. Ex 5:10).
It is obvious, from the logic of the sentence, that Daniel was affected by his
own failure to understand, not by an impersonal problem. Many English
translations reflect this understanding.
TOB renders a different idea: “no one could understand [why I was so up-
set]”. Would he have dared to appear upset in public, or in front of the
king?
A third possibility reflected in NJV, REB, NIV is that “no one could explain
it (the vision)”. But it is highly improbable that Daniel was expecting that
someone else will explain the unexplained part of the prophecy.
Péter-Contesse and Ellington assert, “The first of these three possibilities
is the most commonly accepted and the most likely to be the correct understand-
ing of the text. It is unlikely that the text would focus on the inability of others to
understand the vision or why it was to be kept secret, since at this point no one
else knew about it”.139
This is true, in principle, but one may imagine a forth possibility, which is
a logical combination of variants 1. and 3., “and there was none to make [me]
understand” It matches both the regular Hebrew grammar, or at least Daniel’s,
and the logic of the clause, like BDB prefers for this instance.140 This is possible
because the participle ‫ מִבין‬mē∙ḇîn may have a simple, direct sense – understand-
ing; or a causal one – making understand.
The Vulgate renders as it follows: et non erat qui interpretaretur (“and
there was non to interpret [for me]” (cf. Gn 41:8 VUL). For practical purposes, we
may translate “I… could not understand” or “I… did not understand”, because
Daniel is concerned on his own failure to understand, and even if he refers to
somebody (impersonal) who would give understanding,141 it is an indirect way
to refer the same problem.
2.8. Da 9:23: ‫ ַמ ְש ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê – semantics and referent

Daniel uses the term ‫ר ִאה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê with the meaning of 1. appearance (1:4,
13, 15; 8:15; 10:6, 18); 2. prophetic vision (≈ ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn, 8:16), and 3. auditory
revelation (≈ ‫ דבר‬8:26, 27; 9:23;10:1). In Da 9:23, the noun ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê is used
with the developed meaning of auditory prophecy or spoken revelation, or
prophetic message – definitely not a “vision”. Daniel 8:26 clearly calls the spoken
revelation of Da 8:14 ‫ר ִאה‬
ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê, and uses about it the verb ‫ נִאֱמר‬ne’emar “it was
spoken”. Thus it cannot be something that he had seen. In 9:23 and 10:1, the
same term ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê is used in parallel and as synonymous to ‫ דבר‬dåḇår

139 Péter-Contesse and René & John Ellington, A Handbook on The Book of Daniel, UBS, New York, 1993:228.
140BDB compares this case with that of Da 9:22, where the causal form also lacks the pronominal direct
object (cf. Da 10:14, 11:33).
141The impersonal understanding reflects the prophet’s desperation, because, after the angel’s sudden close
of explanation and after Daniel’s waking from the vision, it was normal for him to ask, “Who in the world is
going to explain to me this life-and-death prophecy, when God Himself and His angels left me cope in the
dark with such unexpected bad news about my people’s future? Who will make me understand the
mysterious revelation of the ‘2300 evening-mornings,’ and what is the real time until all captivity and
ceaseless conflicts are gone?
 37

“word” (speech, message, etc). Consequently, in this case ‫ראִה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê is not a
ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘å “vision”, but rather anִ‫מרה‬
‫ראִה‬ h ִ ִ‫’ א‬imrå “word”.
h

Various scholars noted the extended semantic use of ‫ מראה‬as auditory

revelation.142 Péter-Contesse and Ellington (op. cit. 251) noticed the problem of
the common translations of ‫ר ִאה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬in Da 9:23. Acknowledging that the clauses
‫ ּובין בדבר‬û∙ḇîn b∙ad∙dåḇår and ‫ והבן בםראה‬ha·ḇēn b·am·ma·r‘ê are parallel and
synonyms, they argue, regarding this "vision": "It may legitimately be translated
‘revelation’ (AB Anchor Bible)".143 My research agrees with their conclusion
regarding the meaning of ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23,144 but I would add, and possibly I am
not alone to have discovered that in Da 8:26; 10:1 ma·r‘ê is used with the same
meaning of “spoken revelation”.
I add to this evidence an interesting occurrence in 1S 3:15 of the noun
‫ מראה‬ma·r‘åh, feminine pair and synonym to ma·r‘ê. Most translations show that
“Samuel was afraid to tell Eli the vision” (or alike), but all that he had to tell is
called ‫ דבר‬dåḇår “word” in verse 17. Though with the third divine call in the
night, Yahweh “came and stood by” (1S 3:10), just to make known that it was not
Eli who was calling the boy, no vision was counted by Samuel. The Holladay
lexicon mentions 1S 3:15 against the entry ‫ ;מראה‬the secondary meaning "revela-
tion of word", and so does NIDOTTE, acknowledging the meaning of “auditory
message”, besides its classical meaning of prophetic vision.145 The Masoretic
reading ‫ ;מראה‬ma·r‘åh in 1S 3:10 is not certain at all. It might have been read ‫ראִה‬ִ ִ‫מ‬
ma·r‘ê very well, since there is nothing in the text to indicate its feminine form,
except for the Masoretic vocalization.146 Actually, a Qumran text, refering to

142E.g. James Montgomery (“A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel”, in The Interna-
tional Critical Commentary, Ed. S. R. Driver etc., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927:371) shows that “the word
‘vision’ here, ‫מ ְש ֶאה‬,
ַ like the more usual ‫חָזֹון‬, refers to auditory as well as to ocular vision.” Joyce Baldwin
(Daniel, Intervarsity Press, 1978:168) noted that “in this context [Da 9:23] the Hebrew mar’eh, like ḥåzôn
in verse 21, refers to what is heard rather than what is seen : it has acquired the general meaning ‘revela-
tion’ (Ob 1:1; Na 1:1).” [Baldwin’s examples in behalf of a secondary meaning of ‫“ חָזֹון‬revelation” are
convincing, but her reference to Da 9:21 is certainly wrong, because the author here uses the verb ‫ ָראִיתִי‬.]
See also Stephen Miller (“Daniel”, in The New American Bible Commentary, vol. 18, Broadman and Holman
Pub., 1994:252);
143However, regarding 8:26 Péter-Contesse and Ellington (op.cit. 226) do not make any observation. Then,
regarding 10:2 they just quote AB: "he understood the revelation" (op.cit. 262), but they hold that the two
terms, ‫ ָד ָבש‬and ‫ ַמ ְַש ֶאה‬do not refer to the same thing: the first would be an oracle, and the second would be
the vision whereby that oracle is explained (op.cit. 261). My understanding is that in Da 10:1, ‫ ָד ָבש‬and ‫ַמ ְַש ֶאה‬
are used as synonyms, since they refer to the same reality. Both terms are used in essentially the same
manner in Da 9:23.
144Florin Lăiu (“Diachronic Studies in the Hebrew of Daniel”, published in TheoRhema, vol. 2, nr 1/2007,
Institutul Teologic Adventist, Cernica, 59-62).
145 ;
NIDOTTE (‫ ַמ ְש ָאה‬4. a) "This nom. is distinguished from the nom. ‫ ַמ ְַש ֶאה‬only by the second vowel. It is used
almost exclusively for vision(s) as a vehicle of divine revelation to prophets. [...] The words alternate in
this sense in Ezekiel and Daniel. The call of Samuel was depicted as a vision (1 Sam 3:15). This experience
can be classified as an auditory message dream (Gnuse, 379-90)" – Emphasis supplied. In fact, in 1S 3:17 it
‫ ַמ ְש ָאה‬is equated with ‫ ָד ָבש‬, as well as its synonym ‫ ָחזֹון‬ḥåzôn is in parallel with ‫ ְד ַבש־יְ הֹּוָ ה‬verse 1.
VanGemeren W A (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Grand Rapids:
Zondervan & Carlisle: Paternoster.
Robert Karl Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams
and Theological Significance (Lanham: University of America, 1984).
146Unlike in Da 10:1,8 where we have the adjective ‫דֹולה‬ ;
ָ ‫ ְג‬gǝḏôlåh in agreement with ‫ ַמ ְש ָאה‬ma·r‘åh. In Da 8:16;
9:23; 10:1 the reading ‫ ַמ ְַש ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê is just a traditional vocalization. The grammatical agreement does not
require ma·r‘ê more than ma·r‘åh. However, since both nouns are gender pairs and synonyms (as for
 38

1Samuel 3, clearly reads the noun ‫ מראה‬as masculine, and as synonyme to ‫שא‬ ִ ִ‫מ‬
maśśå’ “[prophetic] pronouncement”. 147

A similar semantic enrichment acquired the synonym ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn “prophet-

ic vision”, which in some contexts means “word of revelation”, especially in titles
(Is 1:1; Ob 1; Na 1:1; Hab 2:2, 2Ch 32:32), but also in the bulk of the text, con-
nected to verbs that cannot refer to a vision, but to prophecy (prophetic oracle),
e.g. Ez 7:26; 1Ch 17:15; Sir 36:20. And even Daniel uses ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn with this
secondary meaning of prophecy (Da 9:24, 8:26; 11:14), according to HALOT. The
case of Da 8:26 is especially interesting, since ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn is in parallel and synon-
ymous to the previous word ‫ר ִאה‬ ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê. Consequently, the ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn that must
be kept close in Da 8:26 cannot refer to the previous extatic vision, but to “the
auditory revelation about ‘evening and morning’” (‫ ִמראִה ִהערב ִוה ֹבקר‬ma·r‘ê
ha∙‘‘éreḇ wǝ∙hab∙bóqer), that is the prophetic message of Da 8:14.
This semantic extension of ma·r‘ê from extatic vision to spoken oracle
comes from a metonymic use that is so natural in all languages, and may have
been encouraged even by a similar extended use of the root verb ‫ ראה‬r’h „to
see”.148 The synonym ‫ חזֹון‬ḥåzôn underwent the same semantic extension, in a
more visible degree. This development was prompted by the fact that the
prophetic oracles are usually received through extatic visions. According to
HALOT, the same phenomenon can be noted with the variant form ‫ חזיֹון‬ḥizzåyôn
“vision” in 2S 7:17 (“prophetic oracle”), and with another related form ‫ חזּות‬ḥåzûṯ
“vision” (conspicuous appearance), that means “prophetic oracle” in Is 21:2;
29:11.
Unfortunately, the Hebrew lexicons do not yet mention this meaning of
prophetic oracle (or auditory message), for the noun ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê, in spite of the
evidence I have mentioned above.
Regarding the referent of ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23, it is different from which
we usually want to have it. The phrase ‫ראִה‬ ִ‫ם‬ִ ִ‫ הִבִן ב‬ha·ḇēn b·am·ma·r‘ê “understand
the prophecy” does not refer back to the prophecy of the 2300 year-days of
8:14.26, but to the prophecy that is about to be revealed in 9:24-27.149 In 9:23,

example, ‫ ִד ְב ָשה ‖ ָד ָבש ; ִא ְמ ָשה ‖ ֵא ֶמש ; ְק ָד ָרה ‖ ֶק ֶדר‬etc), it is possible to have been used interchangebly. Seldom
such pair nouns show any semantic difference. Their particular use is probably a matter of style only.
147The Vision of Samuel (4Q160 f1:1-6):
] 4 ·· ‫ ] ··[ שמואל שכב לץני עלי וירום ויץתח את ד]לתות‬3 [·· ‫דב]שי‬
֗ ‫] ··[ שמע שמוא]ל א[ת‬° [·· ] 2 [·· ‫נשב]עתי ל[ ֗בית] עלי‬
·· ‫ ] ··[ אם תכחד ממני ֗ד]בש‬6 [·· ]°‫ ] ·· הו[דיעני את משאה האלוהים אל‬5 [·· ]‫להגיד את המשא לעלי ויען עלי ֹו‬
֗ [·· [
“I have sweared to the house of Eli… 2. Samuel has listened to My word…. 3. Samuel slept before Eli, and he
stood up and opened the doors… 4. to tell Eli the [prophetic] pronouncement. And Eli answered… 5. .. Make
known the revelation of God to [me]… 6. … if you conceal from me anything .. " (My translation). The
expression ‫ משאה האלוהים‬betrays the masculine gender of ‫משאה‬. Had it been its feminine pair, the noun
‫ משאה‬in construct would have been ‫ משאת‬mar’aṯ. Theoretically it is possible that the noun ‫ ַמ ְש ָאה‬ma·r‘åh
;
had produced a semantic derivation similar to ‫ ַמ ְַש ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê and ‫ ָחזֹון‬ḥåzôn, but we have no other
occurrence of this possibility, except 1S 3:15, where as I have shown, the Massoretic tradition vocalized it
as feminine, while other Hebrew traditions reflected in the Qumran text vocalized it as masculine.
148 According to HALOT, there are secondary meanings (points 2, 6, 13.) of the verb ‫“ ָש ָאה‬to see”: often it is

parallel with ‫“ יָ ַדע‬to understand” (Job 11:11; Ex 16:6; Lv 5:1; 1S 12:17; 14:38; 23:23; 24:12; 25:17; 2S
24:13; 1K 20:7, 22; 2K 5:7; Jr 2:19, 23), “to notice” (1S 26:12). See also Ex 6:3 (‫“ וָ ֵא ָשא‬I have revealed
Myself” ‖ ‫נֹוד ְף ִתי‬
ַ “I made Me known”).
149One of my elder colleagues kindly called my attention to Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm (Daniel, Brooklyn, NY:
Mesorah Publications, 1979:258). After citing Da 9:23, “understand the vision,” Goldwurm explains, “this
refers to Daniel’s vision in chapter 8 in which the part which disturbed him so (v. 14) is characterized in
 39

‫מראה‬ ma·r‘ê is made synonymous to ‫ דבר‬dåḇår, in two parallel hemistychs, and

this ‫ דבר‬dåḇår is nothing else that the ‫ דבר‬dåḇår mentioned above, at the
beginning of v. 23, that is the new message that God gave Gabriel to reveal.
In Da 10:1 a similar expression occurs, where the parallel terms ‫מראה‬
ma·r‘ê and ‫ דבר‬dåḇår refer clearly to a prophetic spoken revelation which is
about to be delivered, exactly as in 9:23, though the wording is somehow
different.
The term ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘ê / ‫ מראה‬ma·r‘åh (prophetic revelation or message) is
given here as a synonym for ‫ דבר‬dåḇår (word, message) which is, obviously, the
message spoken about in the previous clause. The clause ִ ‫ והבןִבםראה‬wǝ·ha·ḇēn
b·am·ma·r‘ê stands best in apposition or in a synonymic parallelism with the
previous clause ‫ ּוביןִבדבר‬û∙ḇîn b∙ad∙dåḇår. Note the similar clause in Dan 10:1:
Da 9: 23 ‫בםראה‬ ‫והבן‬ ‫בדבר‬ ‫ּובין‬
Da 10:1 ‫בםראה‬ ‫ּובינהִלֹו‬ ‫ּובין את־הדבִר‬

The main difference is in mood and person, but it is the same style and
manner of expression:
Da 9: 23 Consider the message and understand the revelation!
Da 10:1 He considered the message and he got understanding in the revelation.
Thus ‫ראִה‬
ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23 cannot be legitimately used as evidence in fa-
vor of the exegetical relationship between the prophecy of Daniel 8 and that of
chapter 9, because in this case it clearly refers to the revelation to be delivered in
verses 24-27.150 Actually, if ‫ראִה‬ִ ִ‫ מ‬ma·r‘ê in 9:23 had been intended to refer back
to the prophecy revealed in chp. 8, how would that prophecy have remained
“sealed” until the time of the end? We must be satisfied, for the time, with the
other indications in the text that support together a certain connection between
the prophetic time of Daniel 8 and the prophetic time of Daniel 9; and even to
discover new indications.
Our scholars usually refer to these multiple links. Some are not convincing
if taken alone, but together they certainly constitute more than coincidence:
In both prophecies, Daniel is anxious about the fate of God’s people,
sanctuary and city.
After 55 years of exile, by the vision of chapter 8, Daniel had serious reasons to
fear that Israel’s troubles will not end soon. On the contrary, they had to continue and in-
crease beyond what the former prophets had revealed (Da 9:2). Older revelations had
shown him that Cyrus (with Elam, Media, Scythia etc.) will put an end to Babylon, and
will take action for Israel’s complete restoration in his country (Is 21:2; 44:1; Jr 51:27-
29). Cyrus had to rebuild the temple, and Jerusalem, and all Jewish cities. Such events
will ussher in a golden era of spiritual flourishing and material prosperity (Is 51-66). The
lost tribes of Israel would come back, and massive conversions of Gentiles would occur
(Is 11:10-13). The Davidic throne would be restored (Jr 30:9; Ez 37:19-28), nations of

vs. 16-26 as a mareh.’” The Rabbi’s interpretation is coincident in this respect with our historical argu-
ment, and I would heartily want to prove it right. However, the semantic use of ‫ =( ַמ ְש ֶאה‬spoken revelation)
in Da 9:23 is naturally more related to its logical context, than to the vision of chapter 8. And Rabbi Context
is always the best.
150Frank Basten, a very critical, but honest author, also argues for the proleptic function of both the term
‫ ַמ ְש ֶאה‬ma·r‘ê in Da 9:23 and its definite article (Frank A Basten, “An Examination of the Seventh-day
Adventist Interpretation of … the 2300 Days of Daniel 8 and the 70 Weeks of Daniel 9.” ASSUMPTION 13:
The command of Gabriel in Dn 9:23 for Daniel to “understand the vision” specifically meant the vision of
Dn 8:13-14. Nov, 1990 www.2300days.com , January 05, 2008).
 40

the world would adopt the religion of Israel. Nature itself, both wild and human life
would improve their character, quality and life span (Is 65: 17-25). The King Messiah
would come and rule all the earth in justice and blessings (Is 11).
Daniel’s own revelations did not repeat the old prophets’ scenario. The visions of
Daniel 7 already had roused some suspicions in his mind (7:28). To protect him, the an-
gel had spoken in covert language, of a short succession of “kings”. He was told about a
cruel kingdom, ruled by ten kings under the oversight of a strange king who will make
war with God’s people “three times and a half”. But God’s judgment and eternal kingdom
of Messiah had to be installed soon afterwards. Daniel was not told the identity of the
four “kings”, though he could make some guess, comparing to his first dream in chapter
2. But the revelations of chapter 8 had been very disturbing for Daniel. This time, a spe-
cial angel (Gabriel) instructed him that Israel’s sorrows will not actually end with the fall
of Babylon. A Median-Persian kingdom will follow, then a Greek kingdom, which no
prophet had made known before. Then other Greek powers will follow, and finally a hor-
ror king had to appear, increasing his attacks against Israel, land, and Yahweh’s sanctu-
ary, by exceedingly wicked actions, beyond what Nebuchadnezzar had done. No wonder
it was a desolating perspective for Daniel. The enigmatic time that would lapse up to
God’s judgment was obviously coded, but the Heaven did not told him when the period
begins. The large number itself, 2300, appeared as a threat.
Daniel’s reaction in the last verse (8:27) must be understood as a physical con-
sequence of a great shock and anguish. Certainly, 12 years later he would not forget that
prolonging threatening vision. Therefore, as the determined time of exile had very soon
to expire (9:1), and no sign of liberation was visible, despite the advent of the awaited
Medo-Persian rule, Daniel made new Bible research on the issue, and discovered that
Jeremiah had indeed foreseen only 70 years of trouble. But the same Jeremiah was in-
structed by God that optimistic prophecies may be canceled or delayed in some condi-
tions (Jr 18). Thus Daniel had a single chance: pray God, in spite of any obstacle (Da 6:
9:3+), in behalf of his people, city and temple, and insisting that God would not delay His
promises (9:19).
His prayer was interrupted by the visit of Gabriel who came as a heavenly an-
swer. The new revelation brought by the angel was a multiple answer, such as God loves
to do, surpassing our specific requests. The revelation of 9:24-27 explicitly answered the
immediate prayer of Daniel, but also the prayer of Israel through the centuries past, to
know the time of Messiah. And the new prophecy hid a clue to the secret time of God’s
judgment, the 2300 days. However, it would not be an explicite answer, because the real
time had to remain secret nearly to the end (8:26; 12:4.9).
Both prophecies focus intensely on the sanctuary.
a). In Da 8:14, the holy (sanctuary) and its host are vindicated.
b). In Da 9:24-27, the most holy (sanctuary) and its priesthood are anointed. The Anoint-
ed One is put to death, He cancels any sacrifice and oblation, and then the sanctuary is
left to desolation to the end.
In both prophecies, the same “man” Gabriel is interpreter (Da 8:16; 9:21).
Repeated use of the verb ‫ בין‬byn “pay attention”, “understand,” as a logical
and psychological strategy to connect the two prophecies (see 2.21).
In 9:21, Daniel refers to the previous vision (“in the/that vision”), recogniz-
ing the heavenly interpreter.
Both prophecies refer to time periods culminating with the greatest salvific
events:
a). the hour of God’s judgment (2300 days in Da 8:14,26), and
b). the time and meaning of Christ’s sacrifice (70 weeks in Da 9:24).
 41

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

the singular implicitly indicates that the period of 70 weeks is the first por-
tion of the 2300 days (see 2.10).
2.9. Da 9:24: ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ – “period of seven” (heptad) or “week”?
‫בּוע‬
The noun ִ‫ִׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ is the common term used in all phases of Hebrew for
the notion of “week”. The Holladay lexicon has only the meaning week for ִ‫ׁשבּוע‬
šåḇûa‘, illustrated by some cases, including a reference to Dn 9:27. Actually,
Gerhard Hasel and Frank Hardy have argued very convincing for a conservative
understanding of the morphology and semantics of ִ‫ִׁשבּוע‬- ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇûa‘- šåḇû‘∙îm
in Daniel 9.151
Compared to other time units, ִ‫ ׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ is rather infrequent in the He-
brew Bible, just 19 occurrences from Gn 29:27 to 2Ch 8:13, most of them in
Pentateuch, and eight occurrences in Daniel (9:24-27; 10:2,3).152 The noun
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ is of the same root as the numeral “seven” in Hebrew, but it does not
‫בּוע‬
derives from the numeral. In fact, most Hebrew numerals are nouns and the
numeral-noun ‫ ׁשבע‬- ‫ ׁשבעה‬šéḇa‘- šiḇ‘åh “[unit of] seven”, which in dialectal and
construct form is ‫ ׁשבעת‬šiḇ‘aṯ, derived from the Proto-Semitic form šab‘atu
(seven).153
An important problem, seemingly tending to destroy any evidence for the
use of the year-day154 hermeneutic key in the Biblical apocalyptic is that some
modern translations of the Bible often prefer an interpretive rendition of the
term ‫בּוע‬
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ in Da 9:24, as a period of seven, a heptade, or even as week of

151 See G Hasel, “The Hebrew masculine Plural for ‘Weeks’ in the Expression ‘Seventy Weeks’ in Daniel 9:24”,
in AUSS, Summer 1993, No. 2, 105-118; F W Hardy, “The Hebrew Singular for ‘Week’ in the Expression
‘One Week’ in Daniel 9:27”, in AUSS, Autmn 1994, Vol. 32, No. 3, 197-202.
152 The most frequent expression used in the Hebrew Bible for the weekly cycle is ‫ש ְב ַףת ַהּיָ ִמים‬
ִ šiḇ‘aṯ
hay∙yåm∙îm “seven days” (91 occurrences, from Gn 7:10 to 2Ch 35:17. Besides, the lexeme ‫ ַש ָבת‬šabbåṯ
“day of rest [weekly or calendric]”, occurs twice in Lv 25:8 with the meaning of “week”, which was still
used in the Rabbinic Hebrew (cf. Jastrow, 1520) and in the old Jewish-Christian Greek (ράββαςα, Mt 28:1;
Mk 16:2.9; Lk 18:12; 24:1; Jn 20:1, 19; AA 20:7; 1Cor 16:2).
153In other Semitic languages, for example in Eblaitic, the term for “weeks” seems to be identic to number
seven. In the Eblaite tables (cf. Pelio Fronzaroli, "Il culto dei re defunti in ARET 3 178," in Miscellanea
Eblaitica 1, Quaderni di Semitistica 15; ed. Pelio Fronzaroli, Firenze, 1988: 15), the archaic name of the
seven-day cycle is šaba‛tum, related to the Proto-Semitic word for the numeral seven (šab‛atum). The
archeologic source ARET 11 3 (14), quoted by Fronzarolli, provides the expression "3 sa-ba-a-ti-su-ma",
that Alfonso Archi ("Prepositions at Ebla", in Eblaitica, 4, ed. C. H. Gordon and G. A. Rendsburg, Ei-
senbrauns, Indiana, 2002: 5) translates as "their 3 rites of seven days" [in the house of the dead]. ARET 9 5
[8]-[10] has a reference to "food for…14 days", and ARET 3 178 refers also to a sa-ba-tum maḥ = "Greater
šaba‛tum", which Robert Stieglitz ("Divine Pairs in the Ebla Pantheon," Eblaitica, 4: 212) interprets as a
seven-day ritual, performed in a temple and at its mausoleum.
154A year-day correspondence occurs in the Biblical hermeneutical tradition since the earliest time. First,
there are explicite Biblical references to this analogy, applied in a context of judgment:
1). 1 day of probation failure stands for 1 year of disciplinary punishment (40 years for 40 days, in Nu 14:34),
2). 1 prophetic day standsfor 1 historical year, in the dramatic prophecy of Judgment in Ez 4:4-6: 390 days
stand for 390 years of Israel’s sin, and 40 days stand for 40 years (of Judah’s sin).
This analogy is implicitly present in the parallel between sacred periods of days and sacred periods of years:
the 6+1 days || the 6+1 years; the 7 weeks (49 days) + the 50 th day || the 7 septennates (49 years) + the
50th year; the 40 days ||the 40 years. It is also implicitly present in the Biblical poetry, where days and
years are usually paralleled to express time (Dt 32:7, Jb 10:5, 15:20, 32:7, 36:11, Ps 77:5, 90:9-10) and in
the book of Revelation, where the apocalyptic vision puts in parallel 3 years and a half, and three days and
a half (Rev 11:2-3.9-11).
 42

years.155In Daniel this noun has only the plural form ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇû‘∙îm, instead of
the usual form ‫ ׁשבֻ עֹות‬šåḇû‘∙ôṯ), and some have rushed to the conclusion that a
different ending must reflect a different meaning. However, this plural in Daniel
certainly indicates weeks, as it results from Da 10:2.3.156 According to Elwolde,157
there is no concluding evidence to interpret the differently formed plurals as
corresponding to semantic distinctions in Bibilical Hebrew or in Rabbinic He-
brew.
But this problem begins with the lexicons, as most of them mention
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ to mean period of seven – though they supply the references to Daniel
‫בּוע‬
9 as the only evidence in Biblical Hebrew.158 These modern conclusions have
been strengthened by some Qumran texts that use the same plural ‫ׁשבֻ עים‬
šåḇû‘∙îm as “weeks of years” (1QS 10:7, 8). While the Qumran evidence deserves
a more in-depth and full research, my observation is that whenever ‫ׁשבֻ עים‬
šåḇû‘∙îm refers to “weeks of years” in the Qumran texts,159 it uses the concept of
sabbatical years and jubilees (Lv 25:8), to speak the apocalyptic language of
Daniel 9.160 No wonder that most of such cases occur in the Book of Jubilees and
in similar quasi-apocalyptic texts. There is no case of applying such meaning to
mention a non-religious period of seven years.161 And there is no such thing as

155 E.g. ESV note: “or sevens”; NET note: “Heb ‘sevens.’ Elsewhere the term is used of a literal week (a period
of seven days) …. Most understand the reference here as periods of seventy ‘sevens’ of years….” NLT “sets
of seven”, fn: “literally sevens”; NIV, TNIV “sevens”; RSV “weeks of years”; GWN “sets of seven time peri-
ods”; ZUR “Jahrwochen”; TOB “septénaires”; SBP “vezes sete anos”; NAU, NAS fn: “a period of seven (days
years) heptad, week”; NKJ fn: “sevens (and so throughout the chapter)”.
156 The phrase ‫ש ֻב ִףים יָ ִמים‬
ָ does not indicate weeks "of days", as opposed to the presumed general meaning
of ‫“( ָש ֻב ִףים‬periods of seven”, or "weeks of years") of 9:24-26. The appositional term ‫ יָ ִמים‬placed after any
period of time, only indicates full measure (in this case, whole weeks, reaching fully to 21 days, cf. 10:13,
which is attested by most, including the best translations. See also HALOT I ‫– יֹום‬7. c; Da 10:2 (for three
weeks), and other examples in Gn 41:1; Jr 28:3.11; Gn 29:14; Dt 21:13; 2K 15:13.
157John Elwolde “Developments in Hebrew Vocabulary Between Bible and Mishnah”, in The Hebrew of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, edited by T. Muraoka & L. J. F. Elwolde, Leiden: Brill, 1997: 46.
158 According to HALOT, the noun ‫בּוע‬ ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ means, "a group of seven, a seven part unit (ἑπςάς),"
including "a week of years", "Jahrsiebent". BDB shows the same semantic value, "period of seven (days,
years), heptad, week". TWOT has a "seven-period."
159 Qumran Hebrew uses expressions like ‫ שבעת (ה)ימים‬seven days (×40), e.g. 2Q19 f1:5; ‫ שבעה שבועות‬seven

weeks (in the Temple Scroll only:11QT 19:12; 21:12; 11Q20 4:1; 5;15), ‫ שבע שנים‬seven years (4Q266 f12:8;
4Q270 f4:15; 4Q271 f5i:20.21; 11QT 63:15), and the term ‫ שבת‬šabbåt, with the old secondary meaning of
week, usually in quotations of the Torah (11Q20 5:15; 4Q365 f24:2; 11QT 18:11; 19:12; 4Q286 f1ii:9;
4Q324b f4:2; f5:1; 1Q22 f1iii:1).
160 The probability that the Qumran language of weeks and jubilees reflects the literary use of ‫בּוע‬
ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘
“week [as a literary code for 7 years]”, as an influence of the Book of Daniel is very high, because the
relevant passage of Daniel is explicitely quoted in the Melchizedec scroll (11Q13 2:18):
"the messenger" is The Anointed of the Spirit ]‫והמבשש הו[אה] משיח השו[ח‬
as Daniel has spoken about Him, ‫כאשש אמש דנ[יאל עליו‬
"up to Messiah-Ruler will be seven weeks" ‫עד משיח נגיד שבועים שבעה‬

161In the Qumran sectarian manuscripts there are 45 occurrences of ‫בּוע‬ ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ with the meaning of week,
including a few Jewish-Aramaic texts reflecting the Hebrew use. (4Q196 f2:10; 4Q219 2:37; 4Q265 f7:11;
4Q266 f6ii:8; 4Q275 f2:1; 4Q284 f1:3; 4Q319 f12:2; f13:1.5; 4Q320 f4iii:5; f4iv:1.10; f4v:4.13; f4vi:9;
4Q321 5:1.5; 6:1.4.8; 7:3; 4Q324b f5:1.2; 4Q324d f2:4; f7i:2; 4Q368 f2:14; 4Q394 f1_2i:14.15; 4Q401 f9:2;
f13:2; 4Q403 f1i:27; f1ii:30; 4Q404 f2:9; 4Q405 f3ii:19; 4Q502 f23:5; 4Q503 f42_44:5; 4Q512 f33+35:1;
4Q519 f21:3; 4Q540 f1:2; 11QT 11:11; 11QT 19:9.12; 21:12; 11Q20 3:25.26; 4:1; 5:14). I have counted 7
occurrences of ‫בּוע‬
ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘, with a figurative application, ‫ שבועות שנים‬or ‫“ שבועי שנים‬week(s) of years”
(2Q19 f1:4; 2Q20 f1:1; 4Q216 6:8; 4Q256 19:6; 4Q258 9:6; 4Q390 f2i:4; 11Q12 f8:2), and 38 occurrences
of ‫בּוע‬
ַ ‫ ָש‬šåḇûa‘ as a possible technical term for the Israelite septennial cycle – an extension of the figurative
 43

"week" of weeks or of months in the Qumran texts. The analogy between week
and septennate, both as social-religious periods, is based on their legal similari-
ties, regarding the time of service and the time of rest/freedom (Gn 2:1-3; Dt
5:14-15; 15:12-14), and it resulted in a special use of ִ‫ִׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ as week of years,
occurring in Qumran Hebrew, but with no probability in Biblical Hebrew –
except that one admits a Maccabbean date for Daniel – which I definitely reject.
The use of ִ‫ׁשִבּוע‬- ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇûa‘- šåḇû‘∙îm in Daniel 9 has comfortably a bet-
ter explanation, rather than posit an occult meaning of heptad. It is a figurative,
analogic, and encoded use of the basic sense of week, as expected in an apocalyp-
tic work. This is in Daniel 9 a literary phenomenon, not a linguistic one.
In the angelic revelation of Da 9:24-27, the use of ִ‫ ׁשבּוע‬šåḇûa‘ implies this
traditional analogy. The real meaning is to be understood by the reader, from the
time consuming events that were announced. This linguistic phenomenon
belongs rather to pragmatics than to semantics, so it is not correct to link it
directly to the basic sense of the lexeme. It is a pragmatic extension, an apocalyp-
tic "codified" use, and therefore the lexicon of Holladay is right when it mentions
the meaning of week only, even for Daniel 9. If our reasoning is correct, then
ִ ‫ִׁש‬šåḇûa‘ "week" is not a late semantic development, but a pragmatic, codified
‫בּוע‬
use, which afterwards has developed as a technical use in the mystical numerol-
ogy of QSM. According to Jastrow (1510), it survived in RH and even acquired an
additional meaning: Sabbatical year.
Regarding the unusual plural form ‫ׁשבֻ עים‬ ִ šåḇû‘∙îm (instead of ‫ׁשבֻ עֹות‬
šåḇû‘∙ôṯ), an important observation of G Hasel (“Seventy Weeks”, 112-117)
deserves our attention. Citing various scholars, he notes that some inanimate
Hebrew nouns show both “genders”, and at least both gender-endings at the
plural: the -îm ended plural indicating “a plural of quantity or a plural of groups”;
and the -ôṯ ended plural, indicating “an entity or grouping which is made of
individual parts”. And he applies this description to the word ‫ ׁשבֻ עים‬šåḇû‘∙îm in
Da 9:24:
It seems that the use of the masculine plural for “weeks” in Dan 9:24 is a kind of gender-
matching with the masculine cardinal numeral “seventy,” not for the sake of word-play,
but for the sake of indicating that the ending –îm emphasizes the global and unitary as-
pect of the time element “seventy weeks.” Thus the masculine plural ending in the noun
šāḇû‘îm places stress on the totality and entirety of the “seventy weeks” as a unitary
whole, whereas the feminine ending - ôṯ, if it had been used, would have stressed the in-
dividual parts — i.e., the individual weeks — of the “seventy weeks”. (op. cit. 112)

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

meaning, a special use in the apocalyptic language (CD 16:4; 1QS 10:7.8; 1Q17 f1:2.3; 1Q20 6:18; 4Q181
f2:3; 4Q212 f1iii:23.24; f1iv:2.15.19.25; 4Q212 f1iv:25; 4Q216 4:5; 4Q219 1:11; 2:35; 4Q223_224 f2i:48;
f2iii:15; 4Q226 f1:5; 4Q247 f1:2; 4Q256 19:6; 4Q258 9:6 ×2; f6i:20; 4Q271 f4ii:5; 4Q275 f2:1; 4Q286 f1ii:9;
4Q540 f1:2; 11Q12 f1:4.7.9.11; f2:2.4x2; f3:1; f4:3; 11Q13 2:7; 3:17).
 44

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

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

Gabriel refers to a 70 weeks allotment to be “cut off” (‫חתְִך‬ִ ִ‫ נ‬ne·ḥtaḵ) or subtracted
to be asigned to Israel. The problem is that most translations prefer the meaning
“determined”. D Ford (Daniel, p. 225), who under Evangelical authorities,
published his commentary, and acknowledged that ‫חתְִך‬ ִ ִ‫ נ‬ne·ḥtaḵ means “cut off”,
“severed off”; nonetheless after two or three years, adressing this time to
Adventists, turns against his former and better conclusion.162
The passive ‫ נחתְך‬is a Biblical hapax, a passive form of the verb ‫חתך‬. Its
basic meaning is fully attested in different sources, as well as in related words of
Semito-Hamitic origin. LXX translated it as ἐκρίθηςαν “they are separated”, from
κπίντ (“to separate”, “sever,” > “decide,” “judge,” “punish,” etc.). Theodotion
came even closer in his literalist translation: ρσνεςμήοηραν “they are cut short”,
followed by Jerome, with the same meaning: adbreviatae sunt.
The root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk is found also in Akkadian, as hatakum “decide”.163 In Ar-
abic, hataka “cut up”, “dismember” preserved the same basic idea.164 In Egyptian
are found two similar variants of this root 1. hsq “to cut off”, “sever”, “separate”,
“set apart”, and 2. hsk “to cut”, “sever”, “dismember”).165 It is interesting to
observe the pervasive character of this primitive root in other related African
languages.166
Köhler-Baumgartner Lexikon mentions against ‫ חתך‬ḥtk two meanings: cut
off and decide. And this phenomenon of deriving an abstract meaning out of a
concrete image is well attested with other roots and terms. And note the survival
of this basic meaning through the medieval Jewish Hebrew and Aramaic, up to

D Ford (Daniel 8:14 etc., p A-65) agrees with Cottrell whom he quotes, “as a matter of fact, it [chathak]
162

does not mean ‘cut-off’. It means ‘determined’.”

See Bruno Meissner and Wolfram von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Band I, A-L, Otto Harrasso-
163

witz, Wiesbaden, Germany, 1965, p. 335.

164Cf. Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner, Hebraisches und Aramaisches Lexikon zum Alten Testamen-
ten, Leiden, (Lieferung I, ‫)טבח – א‬, E. J. Brill, 1967:349.
165Cf. E. A. Wallis Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, vol. 1, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New
York, 1983: 512. The presence of /s/, instead of /θ/ is a phonologic phenomenon in ancient or modern
languages, and it might be a particularity of Egyptian, since we have the parallel to the Eg. sbn vs. Heb. tbn
“straw”, according to the same source.
166Combining informations from HALOT, Jastrow, and especially from V Orel and O Stolbova (Hamito-
Semitic Etymological Dictionary–Materials for a Reconstruction, E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. New York,
Köln. 1995, pp. 1293, 1391-1392), the Hamito-Semitic root ḥtk seems to have split early in at least three
branches:
1. *ḥatshuk, “to cut” (attested in Egyptian, ḥsk.t “knife”; West-Chad, tshuk “knife”; Angas and Mupun,
tshuk).
2. *ḥasiḵ, to cut, to pierce (wherefrom the Semitic radical ḥašiḵ, to pierce, cf. Arab ḥsqi, East-Chad and Rift,
sik, “to cut”; Birgit, sikki, Iraqw, siq).
3. *ḥatik “to cut”, “divide”, “separate”, well attested in Semitic (cf. Akk. ḥatakum; Ar. ḥataka “to tear”;
MHeb. and JArm. ḥtk “to sever”, “dismember”, “cut off”, “determine”) and Chadian languages (tik, tik-t,
tikk, tikkya, “to divide”, “half”, et. al.).
 45

this time. 167 The two meanings of ‫ חתך‬ḥtk “cut off” > “determine” are close
related and there are equivalent semantic developments in other languages.168
There is no evidence that the root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk was known in the pre-exilic
times in Hebrew, but considering its large occurrence within the Hamito-Semitic
family, it may have been used in colloquial Hebrew, as it is the case with much of
Late Hebrew. This may explain why Standard Biblical Hebrew uses only the
synonym ‫ גזר‬gzr, a root which is common with the Aramaic, 169 and still used in
Late Hebrew. It is a perfect synonym of ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, having the same basic meanings:
“cut off”, “separate”, “remove”, “utter”, “decide” etc. 170 Furthermore, the root ‫חרץ‬
ḥrṣִ has a similar story. While the basic meaning of ḥrṣ “to cut” is rare,171 its
derived figurative meaning “to utter” (decide) is so common.172 In Qumran
Hebrew ‫ חרץ‬ḥrṣִ is used mainly to designate “judicial decisions” and “fixing
times”.173
Daniel uses other three different verbs, synonymous to ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, and any
of them could have been employed in 9:24, instead of the hapax ‫ חתך‬ḥtk. We
may imagine the following three alternatives, that Daniel could have normally
used, but he avoided:
Da 9:24 ‫חתך‬ cut, subtract >> decree ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נחתְך‬
Da 2:34, 45; 4:14, 21 ‫גזר‬ cut, separate > decree ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נגזר‬
Da 9:26, 27; 11:36 ‫ חרץ‬cut > utter, decide ‫חר ץ‬
ֱִ ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נ‬
Da 1:10,11;5:25,26 ‫ מנה‬count > appoint, apportion ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים נמנה‬

Now, if ‫ נגזר‬nigzar, ‫חרץ‬

ֱִ ‫ נ‬neḥeraṣ or ‫ נמנה‬nimnåh could have been employed
more probably to express the idea of “decreed” or “appointed”, why Daniel
preferred the non-Biblical, non-literary, colloquial root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk ? My suggestion
is that Daniel (actually Gabriel!) avoided the usual Hebrew terms that have the
meaning “decide” as their first or secondary meaning, and chose ‫ חתך‬ḥtk for its

167 Michael Sokoloff (A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990, p. 218)
gives the root ‫ חתך‬only the meaning to cut or sever. See also Dalman and Jastrow for Rabbinic Hebrew.
Modern Hebrew dictionaries also preserve the meaning of cut off.
168 The semantic mutation of the verb ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, from the concrete meaning “cut off”, to a more abstract or

metaphorical meaning “decide” is a common linguistic phenomenon. The figurative meaning of the root
ḥtk appeared also in Akkadian (ḥataku = decide). And the same mutation occurred in other languages with
equivalent verbs; e.g. Lat. decido (cut, decide), Fr. trancher (sever-decide); En. cut, cut a decision. This
development is a diachronic process, but often such verbs preserve both the primary and the secondary
meaning throughout their history.
169 ‫“ התגזש‬to be hewn” (disjoined), Da 2:34, 45; ‫ ְגזֵ ָשה‬decree (Da 4:14, 21), ‫ ָגזְ ִשין‬astrologers, detrmining the

destiny (Da 2:27; 5:11; Da 4:4; 5:7). In Targum, the root ‫ גזש‬occurs hundreds of times, translating the
Hebrew roots ‫" כשת‬cut" (a covenant), ‫“ מול‬circumcise”, ‫“ גזש‬sever”, ‫“ דבש‬speak” (utter), ‫( חרר‬decree).
170The basic meaning of the Hebrew root ‫ גזש‬is to cut (1K 3:25, 26; 2K 6:4; Ps 136:13; Is 9:19) whence the
nouns ‫“ ֶגזֶ ש‬portion divided” (Gn 15:17; Ps 136:13), ‫“ ִגזְ ָשה‬cutting” (separation, Ez 41:12, 13, 14, 15; 42:1, 10,
13), "cut" (body form, Lm 4:7); ‫“ ְגזֵ ָשה‬isolated land” (separated, Lv 16:22); ‫“ ַמ ְגזֵ ָשה‬cutting tool” (2S 12:31).
But there is also a derived, idiomatic meaning of this verb: “to utter” (Jb 22:28). In Nifal (‫ )נִ ְגזַ ש‬this root has
derived meanings: “be separated” (removed, excluded, Is 53:8), “destroyed” (cut off: Ps 88:6; Ez 37:11; Lm
3:54; 2Ch. 26:21), “decreed [against]”, “doomed” (Est 2:1).
171 Lv 22:22; 2S 12:31; 1Ch 20:3.
172To utter, mutter (Ex. 11:7; Jo. 10:21), to decide, pronounce (1K. 20:40), to fix (Jb 14:5), decided, decreed
(Is 10:22, 23; 28:22; Da 9:25, 26, 27; 11:36; Jl 4:14), act decidedly, diligently (2S 5:24), decided, sharp,
diligent man (Pr.10:4; 12:24; 13:4; 21:5).
173 1QS 4:20, 25; 4Q369 f1i:6; 1QHa 11:36; 4Q257 6:5; 4Q525 f23:2; 1QS 8:10; 4Q258 6:4.
 46

unique and strong meaning of “cut off” (subtract). The Rabbinic use of the root
‫ חתך‬ḥtk with the dominant meaning of “cut out” may indicate semantic stability
back at the time of its first literary use in Hebrew. In Qumran Hebrew, the Nifal
of ‫ חתך‬ḥtk, though at the imperfect, is also connected to a time period. See the
following comparison: 174
4Q252 1:2 “and their days [close to 1000 yrs] ‫ויחתכו ימיהם מאה ועששים שנה‬
will be cut short [to] 120” (cf. Gn 6:3)
Da 9:24 “A period of 70 ‘weeks’ is subtracted ‫ל־ף ְמָך‬
ַ ‫ָש ֻב ִףים ִש ְב ִףים נֶ ְח ַתְך ַף‬
for your people”
While this is the single occurrence of the root ‫ חתך‬ḥtk in Qumran Hebrew,
it is significant that this very occurrence is in connection with time, and has the
basic meaning of “cut short” — shortening the life span of the antediluvian
people.
The verb ‫ נחתְך‬ne·ḥtaḵ is in the singular (not “they are substracted”),
showing disagreement in number with the plural subject, “seventy weeks”.
When the verb precedes the subject, disagreements in number occur sometimes,
but when the verb follows the subject, as in this case, disagreements are ex-
tremely rare. Consequently, the verb ‫ נחתְך‬in singular must express a logical
concord, ad sensum, implying that the subject in plural is taken as a unit, not as
multiple portions,175 thus suggesting, not by grammatical, but by logical agree-
ment, that the object of the cutting off, is the whole period of seventy weeks. This
reasoning leads to a pointed question: Which is, contextually, the longer periode
of time, wherefrom the whole period of seventy weeks is subtracted?176

174Cf. Genesis Pesher-a: “In the 480th year of Noah’s life, their time came to Noah, and God said: ‘My Spirit
will not dwell forever in the humankind, but their days will be cut short (‫ )ויחתכו‬to 120 years, until the time
of the Flood waters.” (4Q252 1:1-3). Though this cutting is somehow different from that of Daniel 9:24, it is
significant that the Hebrew verb was used in relation to two time periods.
175R H Charles (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1913:240) explained: “The singular verb after the plural subject is to be explained on the ground that the
seventy weeks are regarded as a unit of time.” Among the authors agreeing on this point are, C F Keil,
Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm B Eerdmans, 1950:339; Moses Stuart, Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy. Andover, MA: Allen,
Morrill and Wardwell, 1842:268; James A Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Daniel. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1927:376. Joüon and Mu-
raoka (Grammar III, §150 b, g, p) noticed similar disagreement in number, when the subject is multiple,
though the two nouns forms a single idea (Dt 8.13; Ho 4.11; 9.2; 10.8; Pr 27.9). See also Gesenius Grammar
(§145 u), and similar phenomenons in ancient Greek (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,
Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mi, 1996: 400).
176The answer to this question results from a broader context, rather than from the immediate one. And it is
not accidentally that a series of scholars have found that the time wherefrom this "short" period is cut, is
the longer period mentioned in the previous chapter ("until evening, morning, 2300", Da 8:14.26). The
first scholars who noticed the connection between Da 9:24 and Da 8:14.26, were the British John Tilling-
hast (1654), and the German Johann Petri (1768). They have been followed by a host of exegetes, especial-
ly in the first half of the 19th century. Cf. Froom (II 714-15, 717; III 263-82; IV 209). Petri, Johann. P.
Aufschluss der Zahlen Daniels und der Offenbarung Johannis. [n.p.:n.n.], Ulrich Weiss, Frankfurt, 1768, pp. 8-
10; Nuñez, Samuel. The Vision of Daniel 8, [doctoral dissertation], Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
Michigan, 1987, p. 93. – an apocalyptic long time of further troubles of which Daniel, the hero of the
narrative, was very much affected emotionally, even to sickness, so that the chapter closed with the
expression of his frustration of not understanding (8:26-27). Then, opening the following chapter (9), even
if the author dated it years later, it is thematically still close related to the previous one. In contrast with
the long period given in chp. 8, Daniel (9:1-2) understands from the book of Jeremiah a closer date of
restoration, and fearing that God will postpone His restoration, because of Israel’s unconcern, he turns to
God in prayer and fasting, pleading for the desolated temple, people and city, and asking God not to delay
Israel’s restoration (9:19).
 47

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

and Da 9:24-27) is the presence of the same angelus interpres, Gabriel (9:21) and
his double answer to Daniel’s concern about the time of fulfilment of the highest
hope of Israel. Gabriel now comes to give Daniel understanding (9:22), by a new
chronological message (9:23-24). This means that it is cut out of the longer and
mysterious period, which is implicitely present in chapter 9 – in Daniel’s fears
and concerns, and in Gabriel’s pointed and full answer. The angel’s ex abrupto
reference to time and subtracting, reported to Daniel’s previous sickness and
frustration to the time prophecy of Da 8:14,26; the angel’s so natural resuming to
Daniel’s painful topic, after the interruption made in Da 8:25, and using the
clause, "a period of seventy weeks is subtract for your people....", suggest a strong
relation between the seventy weeks and the 2300 days.
The reason of avoiding the explicite language may be understood as from
the repeated warning of the angel, on the period of "2300 days" and on the time
mysteries in general (Da 8:26; 12:4. 9). One may compare this code language
with the parables of Jesus, that for some were covered, while for the elect were
clear (Da 12:10; Mk 4:11-13). We should not minimalize this discreet attitude
from the part of heaven.
Consequently, there are many reasons that militate for the reality that
verb ‫ נִחִתְִך‬ne·ḥtaḵ in Da 9:24 was intended with the meaning “subtract”, “deduct”,
and therefore it is an implicit reference to the long and mysterious period
extending “to the time of the end”, which is revealed in the previous prophecy:
the 2300 days.
2.11. Da 9:24: ketib or qere ?
Regarding the readingsִ‫ לִכל ֹא‬li·ḵlō’ ”to confine” and ‫לה‬ ִ ‫ לכ‬lǝ·ḵallēʰ “to ter-
minate”, in Da 9:24, which one is the best choice? Should we read qere ‫חטאת‬
‫ ּולהתם‬û·lǝ·hå·ṯēm ḥaṭṭå’ṯ, or rather ketib ‫ ּולחתֹם חטאֹות‬wǝ·la·ḥtōm ḥaṭṭå’ôṯ ?
As regards ‫לכלא‬, the critical apparatus in BHS recommends the ketib in
this case: melius qal (the Qal reading is better). Thus, instead of “to put an end to
rebellion”, we should translate “to confine (or close up) rebellion”. While this is
an unusual metaphor, it has a suitable meaning, when we relate it to the parallel
expression that follows, and to other biblical passages, as it will be further
shown.
Further, if we choose the ketib variant for the expression ‫ ּולהתם חטאת‬/
ֹ ‫ּולח‬, in the next hemistych, it will be rendered “to (until) the sealing of
‫תם חטִאֹות‬
sins”, instead of “to bring sin to completion”.177 In this case, the two parallel
verses would fit each other:
To confine (close up) rebellion,
and to seal the sins.

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

177This reading is seldom reflected in most translations, yet see YLT (to shut up the transgression, and to
seal up sins), NJB (placing the seal on sin), NIV (note: Or restrain), GNV (to seal vp the sinnes), LXE ( to seal
up transgressions), IEP (per sigillare il peccato), CAB (para sellar el pecado) etc.
 48

Is not this laid up in store with Me,

sealed up in my treasuries?178

A related expression occurs in Job 14:17:

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

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

woman is confined in an ephah-basket. Thus a translation based on ketib in Da
9:24 suggests that Gabriel did not predict here the real ceasing of sin, which is
not stopped before the end of the millenial judgment (Rv 20:14-15). Gabriel
rather predicted a kind of inprisonment and sealing of sin, similar to that of Rv
20:1-3, but not necessarily the same event (cf. Rv 12:9-11; Rom 8:3; Col 2:15).
This is a more comprehensive and forcefully expressive metaphor of
God’s dealing with Israel’s sin, compared to the usual reading. The sin or rebel-
lion is here personified, and it is confined in view of the Judgment day, or like a
legal deed, bound and sealed, for the same purpose, if we take both phrases as
synonymous. But we may take them as complementary, and thus we could
imagine Israel’s transgression like in Zechariah’s vision – first confined, then
sealed up.179 This image of confining and sealing is specific to Daniel (Da 6:17;
8:26; 12:4,9). The theological meaning of this image has not yet received the
whole attention it deserves. If understood in the litterary context, it must have
instructive Messianic application.
2.12. Da 9:24: the Most Holy Messiah, or a most holy sanctuary ?
At the end of the period of 70 weeks leading to the Messianic events, the
angel uses the expression ‫ח קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬ ֹ ‫ ולמ‬wə·li·mšôăḥ qóḏeš qåḏåšîm (Da 9:20),
ִ ‫ׁש‬
“to anoint the most holy”.
to confine the crime,
to seal the sins,
to atone for guilt,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal visions and prophets,
to anoint the most holy.* (Da 9:24)
This expression is of great importance in understanding the concept of a
heavenly, new covenant sanctuary in the book of Daniel. The verb ‫ משח‬mšḥ “to
anoint [=consecrate by pouring sacred oil thereon]”, associated with the object
‫ קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm “most holy thing /place/person” belong to the
language of the sanctuary. While Bible translators are divided on the actual
object to be anointed,180 we may notice that the verbs ִ ‫ מׁשח‬måšaḥ “anoint” and
‫ קדׁש‬qiddēš “sanctify” are used together in the ritual of the sanctuary
dedication.181

Interestingly, Moses closes the Song with the hope of Yahweh’s atonement for people and land, a theme
178

present in Daniel 9:24.

Regarding documents (Jr 32:10-14, Is 8:16, Da 8:26, 9:24h, 12:4.9) and persons (Da 6:16-17, Mt 27:66,
179

Rv 20:3).
E.g. VUL (et unguatur sanctus sanctorum); TOB (pour oindre un Saint des Saints); NET (to anoint a most
180

holy place), NKJ (and to anoint the Most Holy).

181“Moses… anointed the tabernacle and all that is in it, and sanctified them... he anointed it, and sanctified it,
including all its utensils, the altar, and all its utensils, he anointed them, and sanctified them; ... and shall
 49

The anarthrous expression ‫ קֹדׁשִקדשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm associated with the

verbִ ‫ מׁשח‬måšaḥ “anoint” is used about the altar of sacrifices (Ex 29:37; 30:29;
40:10), and various ceremonial elements and acts of the sanctuary were called
‫קֹדׁש ִקדשים‬.182 References to the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary are usually
definite ‫ קֹדׁש הקֳּ דׁשים‬qóḏeš haq∙qåḏåš îm,183 but there are important exceptions. In
the visions of Ezekiel, the vast area on the top of the mountain, dedicated to the
ideal temple, the new temple itself and the rooms destined to the priests are
called ‫ קֹדׁשִקדשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm (Ez 43:12; 45:1-3; 48:9-12).
The anointing of priests was included in the ceremony of the sanctuary
anointing.184The high priest certainly owned the most sacred office. Only the
anointed high priest could make atonement at Yom Kippur (Lv 16:32). He was in
charge with the holy oil (Nu 4:16). He owned so sacred position that he could not
suspend it, not even to attend his parents’ funeral (Lv 21:12). The priests were
holy (‫ קדֹוׁשים‬qǝḏôš∙îm andִ‫ קֹדׁש‬qóḏeš Lv 21:6-8; Nu 16:6-7).
The expression of 1Ch 23:13, ‫ להקדיׁשֹו קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬lǝ∙haqdîšô qóḏeš qåḏåšîm
though according to the Vulgate, many understood it as related to the most holy
place of the sanctuary, or the most holy things, it is still arguable to refer Aaron
himself, as many translators understood,185 that Aaron and his descendants have
been “consecrated to be most holy”.
The Qumran Sectarian Manuscripts use the expression qóḏeš qåḏåšîm
(most holy) in many different ways compared to the Biblical usage. They speak
about most holy spirit(s),186 the most holy apartment or sanctuary,187 the most
holy sanctuary above188 and the most holy priestly community.189 An important
contextual detail that always triggered the translation “to annoint the Most Holy
one” is the occurrence of the title ‫יח‬ ִ ‫ מׁש‬mašîaḥ “the Anointed One”, given to kings
and priests, here appearing for the first time as a name, without definite article
(Da 9:25-26).

anoint it, to consecrate it. You shall also anoint the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and consecrate
the altar, so that the altar shall be most holy.” (Ex 40:9.11, Lv 8: 10, cf. 11QT 35:8-9 Emphasis supplied).
182E.g. the frankincense (Ex 30:36), the annual atonement made on the incense altar (Ex 30:10); all kinds of
sin offerings, sacred bread and grain offerings destined to priests (Lv 2:3,10; 6:9-10,18-22; 7:1-6;
10:12,17; 14:13; 21:22; 24:9; Nu 18:9-10; Ez 42:13; 44:13; Ezra 2:63; Ne 7:65; 2Ch 31:14) various things
consecrated to God (Lv 27:28).
183 Cf. Ex 26:33-34; Nu 4:4, 19; 1K 6:16; 7:50; 8:6; Ez 41:4; 1Ch 6:34; 2Ch 3:8, 10; 2Ch 4:22; 5:7.
184 Ex 28:41, 29:21.29-31, 30:30, 40:13, Lv 8:12.30, Nu 35:25.
185 See the Jewish modern translations CJB, JPS, TNK (“to be consecrated as most holy”), Schlachter 2000
(“daß er als hochheilig geheiligt würde”), various English translations BBE, NAB, NAS, NAU, DBY; French
NEG (“pour être sanctifié comme très saint”), Italian NRV (“per essere consacrato come santissimo”),
Romanian CNS (“să fie sfinţit ca prea sf}nt”). The Hebrew syntax is difficult and the meaning is ambiguous.
Further research is necessary to identify the meaning intended by the Biblical author.
186 E.g. ‫( שוח רודש רודשים‬4Q403 f1ii:1; 4Q404 f5:1; 4Q405 f14_15i:2; f23ii:8; 11Q17 4:9); ‫שוחי רודש רודשים‬

(4Q286 f2:5; 4Q287 f2:7; 4Q403 f1i:44; 4Q405 f6:5; f19:2); ‫( שוחי רושב רודש רודשים‬4Q405 f14_15i:4); ‫רודש‬
‫( שוחות רודשים‬4Q403 f1ii:7f; 4Q405 f20ii_22:10).
187E.g. ‫( מעון רודש רודשים‬1QS 8:8; 4Q258 6:2); ‫ ?( מעוז רודש רודשים לאהשון‬4Q260 2:17); ‫מרדש רודש רודשים‬
‫( בדבישי מלך‬4Q405 f14_15i:7); ‫( גבולי רודש רודשים‬4Q403 f1ii:27). See also 1QS 10:4; 4Q256 9:1; 19:2;
4Q260 2:4 ‫ יום גדול לרודש רודשים‬.
E.g. 4Q403 f1i:41 ‫“ באלה יהללו כול יסודי רודש רודשים עמודי משא לזבול שום שומים וכול ץנות מבניתו‬by these, all
188

most holy foundations, sustaining pillars of palace of Most High, and all His building’s towers will praise
Him”; 4Q503 f15_16:2, 4-5 ‫“ רודש רודשים במשומים‬most holy place in heaven”.
1894Q259 2:14 ‫ ;וסוד רדש רדשים לאהשון‬4Q400 f1i:12 ‫ ;רודש רודשים כוהני‬4Q400 f1ii:6 ‫ ;רדושי רודש רודשים‬4Q401
f6:4-5 ‫ רודש רודשים‬... ‫ ;ׂששי רודש‬1QS 9:6 ‫ ;רודש רודשים‬1QSb 4:28 ‫)?( נזש לרודש רודשים‬.
 50

The most probable referent of the expression ‫ולמ ֹׁשח ִקֹדׁש ִקדׁשים‬
wǝ·li·mšōaḥ qóḏeš qåḏåš ∙îm “and to annoint a most holy” of Da 9:24 is either a
new altar and sanctuary, or a new priestly order, or rather a new sanctuary and
priesthood system as a whole. The old tabernacle had been anointed to be “holy”,
and its altar even “most holy” (see fn 181).
This anointing ceremony is described in the Bible as a unique event in the
history of Hebrew rituals. It was not repeated with every new structure of the
ceremonial system.190 This fact suggests that the anointing foreseen in Da 9:24
must be the inauguration of a completely new sanctuary, in a different way,
corresponding to a new covenant religion.
Since the starting point of the seventy weeks (490 years) is the year 457
BC, as we have shown, and consequently the last “week” of the period elapsed
between 27 and 34 AD, these figures fall roughly within the Messianic events of
the New Testament, and the most holy things to be anointed in this period could
not be a new temple on earth. In those times (years 27-34 AD), Jews were per-
fectly satisfied with the Herodian temple, which had to fall under the Roman
desolator in the year 70 AD, while the New Testament strongly emphasize the
reality of a heavenly temple, heavenly Jerusalem, heavenly Mount Zion, as
blessings of the new covenant, versus any other earthly sacred places (Jn 4:21-
26).191
As long as the old temple and its liturgy in Jerusalem were legitimate, a
heavenly new covenant sanctuary was not open yet (Heb 9:8). The Jerusalem
temple, as physical structure, was destroyed by the Roman legions in 70 AD, but
its legitimate ceremonial use ended 40 years before, with the unique Sacrifice of
the true Messiah.192 When Jesus, in the middle of the last prophetic “week” (Da
9:27), that is “after the sixty two weeks” (Da 9:26) became the true sacrifice of
the new covenant, by this He put an end to all sacrifices and offerings. That was a
legitimate end of the earthly sanctuary, because the sacrifice was its only raison
d’être. A new most holy altar was thus anointed, and no wonder that the New
Testament emphasizes the sacredness of this altar, related to the Christian
worship and communion, and to God’s Judgment.193
Thus, in contrast with the earthly sanctuary, whose function was
abolished by Christ’s sacrifice and priesthood in the year 31 AD, and which had

190The custom of consecrating places or objects as sanctuaries by anointing is quite old (Gn 31:13). There is
ample evidence that Moses anointed the tabernacle with its sacred objects: the ark (Ex 30:26), the basin
(Ex 40:11), all accessories (Lv 8:10; Nu 7:1), and especially the altar is repeatedly spoken as anointed (Nu
7:10, 84, 88). Interestingly, the first and the second temple have not been anointed, they only have been
inaugurated by sacrifices or other ceremonies (‫ חנך‬ḥnk Ps 30:1; 1K 8:63; 2Ch 7:5; 15:8; Ezra 6:16-17;
1Mac 4:56; 2Mac 2:19; Jn 10:22), and thus consecrated or reconsecrated (‫ רדש‬qdš, 2Ch 7:16; 29:5); or
after some profanation, they have been cleansed (‫ טהש‬ṭhr, 2Ch 29:15; 2Mac 10:5). The ideal temple of
Ezekiel did not have to include anointing ceremonies. The consecration ceremonies had to be made by
sacrifices (Ez 43:25-26). The priesthood of Aaron and his sons has also been inaugurated by anointment,
as part of the anointing ceremony of the tabernacle (Ex 30:30; 40:13-15; Lv 8:10-12; Nu 35:25). It seems
that their anointing was unique too, since their descendants were to inherit the anointing by putting on the
sacred garments that had been anointed (Ex 29:29; 40:15). The only exception mentioned is the anointing
of priest Zadok as high priest, as a special case of reelection together with Solomon (1Ch 29:22).
191Cf. AA 17:24; Heb 4:16; 6:19-20; 8:1-2,5; 9:1, 8, 11-12, 23-24; 10:19-20; Rv 3:12; 7:15; 11:19; 14:15, 17;
15:5-8; 16:1; 21:1-3; Gal 4:25-26; Eph 2:11-12, 19; Phil 3:19-20; Heb 11:10, 16; 12:22; 13:13-14; Rev 11:1-
2; 14:1; 21-22.
192 Cf. Mt 27:50-51; Mk 15:37-38; Lk 23:44-46; Mt 26:65; Mc 14:63.
193 Cf. Heb 10:10, 14; 13:10; 1Cor 11:29; Rv 6:9; 11:1.
 51

to be desolated in 70 AD (Da 9:26b, 27b), the prophetic expectation “to anoint a

most holy [sanctuary and priesthood]” was fulfilled by the inauguration of a new
way, a new priesthood, a new altar, a new sanctuary of a new covenant. This
most holy reality has its center in heaven, where God’s eternal sanctum endures,
but it has also universal and spiritual overtones that need further research.194
In the same manner, one may understand why the heavenly being, named
Michael (Da 10:13, 21; 12:1), is seen in vision as clothed in priestly linen
(Da 10:5; 12:6,7; cf. Rv 1:13-18), as a most holy pontiff, as if were prophetically
prepared to minister in the new and celestial “most holy” sanctuary.195 It is also
significant that the angel of prophecy (Gabriel) brought to Daniel this Messianic
revelation “at the time of the evening sacrifice”, which is the time where God
answered by fire to Elijah’s prayer (1K 18:36), and the time of the Jesus’ great
sacrifice (Lk 23:44-45).
While this prophecy in Da 9:24-27 calls the temple in Jerusalem ‫קדׁש‬ִֹ qódeš
“holiness” or “holy place” (verse 26), it foresees the anointing of a “most holy
place” ‫ קֹדׁש קדׁשים‬qóḏeš qåḏåšîm (Da 9:20). The “holy one” is mentioned in a
context of destruction – or dispossession when Messiah the Ruler had to be “cut
off” (Da 9:26), while the “most holy one” is mentioned in a context of inaugura-
tion and making atonement for sins (verse 25). Chronologically both events are
somehow related to the last of the “seventy weeks” (after the 7+62 = 69 weeks).
Concluding, the expression ‫ למׁשֹח ִקֹדׁש קדׁשים‬limšōaḥ qóḏeš qåḏåšîm “to
annoint a most holy sanctuary and priesthood” of Da 9:24 refers to a different
sanctuary and priesthood of the new covenant, that had to be anointed or
inaugurated by the Messianic events of the years 27-31 AD, when atonement for
any guilt was made, and the eternal righteousness have been brought. “The
rebellion” was thus confined and sealed for the Judgment day, and God’s Word
sent by prophets has been confirmed.
2.13. Da 9:25: “From the issuing of the decree to restore…”
Our historical use of the Artaxerxes’ decree (in his seventh regnal year, cf.
Ezra 7), as the starting point of the seventy weeks, is the only reliable and re-
spectable solution.196 However, there are some secondary aspects to discuss, as
regards the apocalyptic chronology of Daniel 8 and 9.

194See the typology of Christ, where the temple is His body (Jn 2:19-22 cf. Mk 14:58; 15:29; Mt 27:40, 63 cf.
Is 8:14; Rv 21:22), or the typology of Paul and John, where the Church – the Christ’s body –is God’s sanctu-
ary, as a community (2Cor 6:16; 2Th 2:4?), and as personal believers (1Cor 3:16-17; 6:19-20). How these
typological or illustrative usages may be connected to the heavenly reality is a theological challenge to be
answered.
195This theme of a new and celestial sanctuary and priesthood is developed in the Christian theology,
especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7-10), and in the Book of Revelation (1:13-18; 5:6-9; 7:15; 8:2-6;
9:13; 11:1-4, 19; 13:6; 14:15, 17-18; 15:5-8; 16:1,7; 20:9; 21:3, 15-16 etc.).
196Other suggestions have been the decrees of Cyrus (538 BC, cf. Ezra 1) and Darius (519 BC, Ezra 6), but
they dealt only with the temple, with no respect to any large civil reconstruction. The prophetical periods
counted therefrom had no historical fulfillment in their closing prophetic “week” (55-48 BC and respec-
tively 36-29 BC). Similarly, the word of God to Jeremiah (605 BC, Jr 25:1,11) cannot be the starting point of
the 70 weeks, since it leads to the “week” 122-115 BC, with no historical relevance for the prophecy. Many
exegetes today prefer the date of 444 BC (cf. Ne 2:1,7), because the special permission granted then by
Artaxerxes dealt explicitly with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, as the Daniel’s prophecy requires. However,
this permission did not inaugurate the Jerusalem reconstruction, but allowed the Jews to repair some
recent violent destructions (cf. Nehemiah 1), while the work of rebuilding had been started years before
and then violently stopped (Ezra 4:11-23).
 52

The Ezra’s journey extended from Nisan 1 to Ab 1 (approx. April to Au-

gust) in the year 457 BC.197 He had received the imperial letter before Nisan 1,
457 BC (Ezra 7:8 etc.). But which is the starting point of the count? Should we
start from the official proclamation of the imperial decree of civil restoration in
Judea (in the fall of 457 BC),198or from the very date of issuing of the decree (in
the spring of the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Ezra 7:9), as the termִ ‫ מֹצא‬mōṣå’
“issue” seems to imply? Or should we emend the Masoretic nounִ ‫ מֹצא‬mōṣå’
“issue”, in order to read instead an infinitive construct ‫ מצ ֹא‬mǝṣō’, “reach”, “find”
(as the Aramaic correspondent verb ‫ מטא‬mǝṭå’ “arrive at”, “come”, suggests)? Or
does the verb ‫ יצא‬yåṣå’ support the meaning “to come to”, “arrive at”? 199 Is it
really necessary such precision? If it is, then we must have a satisfactory answer
to this question.
Another problem to be solved is the historical evidence from the book of
Ezra and Nehemiah about the real time of the city’s reconstruction. As we know,
the Artaxerxes’ permission in his 20th regnal year, granted to Nehemiah (see Ne
2:6), did not inaugurate the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but allowed the Jews to
repair the city wall, after some recent violent destructions (cf. Ne 1:2-4), that
must have been the attack reported in Ezra 4:23. Thus it becomes clear that the
work of rebuilding had been started years before and then violently stopped
(Ezra 4:11-23).
This observation about the building of the city in Ezra 4, introduced by
William Shea and others, is very important to our present identification of the
intended decree in Daniel 9:25,200 although U Smith ignored the historical time of
rebuilding Jerusalem in Ezra 4,201 and E G White probably following other theo-
logical authorities, borrowed a wrong identity of Xerxes and Artaxerxes in Ezra

197 William Shea (“The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” in 70 weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, F. B.
Hollbrook editor, BRI, Washington DC, 1986:100-101), pointed out that “… the seventh regnal year of
Artaxerxes I extended from Nisan (month I) in the spring of 458 B. C. to Adar (month XII) in the spring of
457 B.C.” So, why should we start counting the 490 years from the fall of 457 BC, if the seventh year of
Artaxerxes ended with Nisan 1 457 BC? Shea answered this question, convincingly arguing that Jews used
a fall-to-fall calendar. Accordingly, the seventh year of Artaxerxes I in Jewish style extended from the fall of
458 BC to the fall of 457 BC.
198 The caravan of Ezra arrived in the fifth month (Ezra 7:9), but the first opportunity to make known the
imperial decree came naturally with the pilgrimage feast in the seventh month, when Jews came to
Jerusalem.
199 Actually, the spelling ‫ מ ָֹּקא‬instead of ‫ֹוקא‬ָ ‫ מ‬is very rare (Ps 107:33, 35; Job 38:27) and therefore suspect. In
fact, OG translators read it as ‫ ְמקֹּא‬mǝṣō’, “find” (εὑρήςεισ Da 9:25), while Theodotion has ἀπὸ ἐξόδου
λόγου, followed by Jerome, ab exitu sermonis (“from the issue of the word”). The noun ‫ ָד ָבש‬dåḇår “word”,
“message”, “command” sometimes associates with the verb ‫“ ָמ ָקא‬to find” or “reach” in Jr 15:16 (crrpt ?), Ec
12:10 (“find the words”), Ne 5:8 (“find something”). However, the expression ‫ יָ ָקא ָד ָבש‬yåṣå’ dåḇår is very
usual (‫“ יָ ָקא ַה ָד ָבש‬the thing proceeded”, “the fact originated” Gn 24:50; ‫הֹוקיא ָד ָבש‬
ִ ‫“ ְל‬to pronounce a word [of
promise, vote]” Ec 5:1; ‫“ יֵ ֵקא ְד ַבש־‬spread the word” Est 1:17; “give an imperial order” Est 1:19) with the
accepted meaning of “issue a message / order”. And most important, it is so used in the context, see
Da 9:23 (‫“ יָ ָקא ָד ָבש‬an order / message was given”). The probability that in verse 25 there is a similar
expression is so high, and therefore we should explain why we read “going out” and then count as it were
“going in”.
200 William Shea (“The Prophecy of Daniel 9…”, pp 86-88) convincingly argued for this understanding.

201See Uriah Smith (Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Michigan,
1863), Chapter IX: A Prophetic Yard to Span Centuries”.
 53

4, and wrote passingly about a rebuilding of the city under the false Smerdis (522
BC).202
However, our better explanation has a textual problem. The Aramaic ad-
verbial ‫ באדין‬bēḏáyin “then” (at that moment) introducing the closing verse of
Ezra 4:24 creates a logical contradiction: “Then [when the enemies violently
stopped the building of the city] ceased the work of the house of God which is at
Jerusalem; and it remain at a standstill until the second year of the reign of
Darius king of Persia” (Emphasis supplied). The very conclusion of a chronicle
that had described the building of the city finally refers to the temple only!
Since it is obvious that Ezra began and ended chapter 4 with the building
of the temple, but in most of the chapter deals only with the rebuilding of the
city, and the names Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes require a normal historical identi-
ty (Xerxes I and Artaxerxes I), the literary strategy of Ezra becomes evident. He
added a long excursus about some later but similar events related to the rebuild-
ing of the city under Artaxerxes, just for thematic purposes, and in the last verse
he resumed his topic about the temple building that will be further described in
chapter 5. This is the logic required by the narrative. But to remove any objec-
tion, a slight textual corruption must be acknowledged and corrected, regarding
the adverbial expression ‫ באדין‬bēḏáyin “then” in Ezra 4:24.
The Greek translation of Ezra 4:24 uses the adverb ςόςε “then”. But the
apocryphal 1Esdras (or 3 Esdras), describing the same events as Ezra 4, in
chapter 2:26 (or verse 30/31 in some other editions), has instead the
conjunction καὶ, probably reflecting the Hebrew-Aramaic particle ִ‫ ו‬wǝ, which
may introduce another topic (cf. Ezra 6:14-16). Another possible explanation is
that the adverbial ‫ באדין‬bēḏáyin was not mistakenly inserted instead of an
original ִ‫ ו‬wǝ, but it may have been a visual confusion, since letters ‫ ב‬beth and ‫כ‬
kaph have been sometimes confounded by the copyists. Thus, if we read ‫כאדין‬ ִִ
kēḏáyin or ‫ כִדין‬kəḏēyn, the adverbial expression would mean “like then” or
“likewise”, and it would be justfied in verse Ezra 4:24 to indicate the resuming of
the temple’s topic.
The decree of the seventh year of Artaxerxes (457 BC), while does not ex-
plicitly refer to civil reconstruction, it allows and even implies it. Ezra had to
“seek for the welfare of Judah and Jerusalem” (Ezra 7:14);
“do whatever seems best [….] with the rest of the silver and gold…” (Ez-
ra 7:18),
“appoint magistrates and judges to administer justice” (Ezra 7:25).
Concluding, the Persian decree of 457 BC was the most liberal Persian de-
cree, and the first one that was followed by civil reconstruction, as the prophecy
of Daniel requires.
2.14. Da 9:25: “to Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks;” (?)
This is a good example to illustrate how we should not consider the Maso-
retic Text the best choice in every case. This problem of punctuation has a major

202Ellen White (Prophets and Kings, Review and Herald, Pacific Press, 1915,: 572-573) refers to the City’s
rebuilding in the time of the false Smerdis, since she identified the successive kings Ahasuerus and At-
arxerxes in Ezra 4:5-6, with Cambyses (son of Cyrus) and the false Smerdis. Certainly Ellen White bor-
rowed such historical identification from some old authorities (E.g. Gleig and Thomas Stackhouse, History
of the Holy Bible, vol. II, London, 1817: 538-529, on books.google; SDA Bible Commentary vol 3, Additional
Note to Ezra 4).
 54

exegetical role in the chronology of this prophecy. Unfortunately, some transla-

tions follow closely the MT,203 so the reckoning ends far short to the time of the
true Messiah. The athnakh was put in the wrong place.204 While there are similar
cases of wrong athnakh in MT, some of them even dividing compound numer-
als,205 this case in Da 9:25 must have been traditional and intentional, since it
occurs even in the Qumran texts, long before the Judeo-Christian polemics.206
The non-Masoretic readings obviously fit better the context in this case,
for example Theodotion’s: “there will be seven weeks and sixty two weeks”,
which various translators, ancient and modern, followed.207 Such translations
(see also Aquilas and Origen in Da 9:26, “and after the seven-and-sixty-two
weeks”) witness probably another old Jewish reading, before the Masoretic
punctuation.208
The Masoretic punctuation gives us an understanding of the medieval
Jewish interpretation of the text, but it has not the same value as the inherited
consonantal text. We should understand for ourselves the best punctuation and
even vocalization from the sentence’s syntax and logic. In this case, we should
observe, for example, that the death of Messiah is placed by the Gabriel’s prophe-
cy, “after the sixty two weeks” (Da 9:26), therefore we should translate in verse
25, “to Messiah, the Ruler, there will be seven plus sixty two weeks”.209

E.g. LUT, RSV, NRS, LSG, ELB, TEV, CJB, JPS, TNK, CNS etc. insert a period or a semicolon after the “seven
203

weeks.”
204Jacques Doukhan (Secrets of Daniel, 146-147) found nice explanation why athnakh has not syntactical
function sometimes, but a role of mystical or emotional emphasis on the content. While his well exempli-
fied explanations sound convincing, there are cases where the athnakh is not justified, or at least it is not
wise that Masoretes used the same accent for different, even opposite purposes.
205See also in Gn 3:3. Brempong Owusu-Antwi (The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27, ATS Dissertation Series 2,
Berrien Springs, MI: Adventist Theological Society, 1995: 186-196) has a convincing treatment of this
challenging athnakh. He adds examples of wrong athnakh in Gn 1:1.21, 22:10, 1K 8:42, Da 9:2. In some
places, the athnakh was placed as in Da 9:25, in the middle of an enumeration: 70 talents [athnach] and
2400 shekels (Ex 38:29), …the sons of Benjamin: …..Rosh [athnach] and Muppim… .(Gn 46:21), and they
were a total number of 603,000 [athnach] and 550 (Nu 1:46). In the light of such evidence it is amazing
that, eminent scholars, like J J Collins (Daniel, Hermeneia series, Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 1993:355),
assert with so certainty: “There can be no doubt that the MT punctuation is correct”. Some critics are ready
to delete or emend a whole phrase, if they want, but here they are found kneeling to the sacred athnach (!),
just because it is was prefered by the Rabbis, and it avoids the classical Christian conclusion.
206The Melchizedec MS of Qumran (11Q13 2:18-20) reads explicitly, “to Messiah the Prince, seven weeks”:
‫טֹוב משמי]ע ישועה[ הואה‬
֗ [‫ ומבשש‬. ‫והמבשש הו]אה[ ֗משיח השֹו]ח[ ֗כאשש אמש ד ֹּנ]יאל עליו עד משיח נגיד שבועים שבעה‬
‫לנח]ם[ ה]אבלים‬
֗ ‫הכתוב עליו אשש‬
֗
“That herald is the Spirit Annointed One, as Daniel said: ‘to Messiah the Prince, seven weeks’, then a good
herald, proclaiming salvation, that one who was written about him, ‘to comfort the mourning ones’.”
207 E.g. VUL, KJV, NKJ, YLT, NEG, NAB, WEB, ASV, NAS, DRB, NIV, NJB, NET, Schlachter, Menge, GBV Romani-
an.
208 Origen’s Hexapla (F Field, editor. Origenis Hexapla, II, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, Hildesheim

1964:926) quotes the reading of OG and A (Aquilas) and Σ (Symmachus) in Dan 9:26a, καὶ μεςὰ ςὰς ἑπςὰ
καὶ ἑβδξμάδας (or ςὰς ἑβδξμάδας ςὰς ἑπςὰ) καὶ ἑυήκξνςα δύξ. Even in OG, the corrupted text reminds
us the reading of A and Σ (καὶ μετὰ ἑπτὰ {καὶ ἑβδομήκοντα} καὶ ἑξήκοντα δύο).
209The whole period of the seventy weeks is obviously divided in 7+62+1 weeks. The first seven weeks are
not assigned a special event, because such a period had a legal end in the 50 th year, the jubilee (Lv 25:8-
55), in close thematic relationship to our text. Moreover, it seems to be in parallel with the previous
assertion, to make the first seven weeks apply to the political and physical restoration of Jerusalem:
A to restore and rebuild Jerusalem B to Messiah, the Ruler
A1 there will be seven weeks B1 and sixty-two weeks
 55

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

In confirmation of the year 457 BC as the starting point of the seventy
weeks, it is useful to note that the civil and forensic restoration, begun at that
time by Artaxerxes and Ezra, involved the restoration of the sabbatical cycle,
bringing freedom and rest.210 This historical fact allows us to connect the sabbat-
ical years cycle with the chronomessianism in Daniel 9.
Various scolars noted that “the Sabbatical post-exilic cycle is congruent
mathematically with the classical chronology of the 70 weeks, thus suggesting
that the ‘seventy weeks’ began with a restart of the sabbatical cycle, involving
civil restoration.”211 The following years are historically claimed to have been
sabbatical:

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

The dates with asterisk are those involved in the prophecy of Daniel. It is
instructive that these Sabbatical years are compatible with the historicist chro-
nomessianic counting of the 70 weeks from 457 BC. If we wish to verify, we must
first count the time lapse between any of the chronological dates of the 70 weeks
(457 BC, 408 BC, AD 27, AD 34), and the date of the sabbatical year we know as

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

211Owusu-Antwi (op. cit. 299). Earlier researches on the topic did: Benedict Zuckermann (Treatise on the
Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee, trans. A Löwy; New York: Hermon, 1974:31; originally published in
German, Breslau, 1857) insisted that for the postexilic Sabbatical years "it is necessary to assume the
commencement of a new starting-point, since the laws of Sabbatical years and Jubilees fell into disuse
during the Babylonian captivity..." cf. En.Wikipedia, Historical Sabbatical Years. See also, Ben Zion
Wacholder, "The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Peri-
od," Hebrew Union College Annual (HUCA) 44 (1973) 53-196; "Chronomessianism: The Timing of Messi-
anic Movements and the Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles," HUCA 46 (1975) 201-218; "The Calendar of
Sabbath Years during the Second Temple Era: A Response," HUCA 54 (1983) 123-133. Heinrich Guggen-
heimer, Seder Olam - The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005)
264.
 56

attested by history, and then we must divide the result by seven. If the final
result is an integer number, it means we have an integral number of weeks of
years between the two selected dates.212 We illustrated such verification on the
second column, counting the time lapsed for each historical sabbatical year, from
457 BC, the starting point of the 70 weeks. In all cases I have found integer
numbers of septenates.
This mathematical harmony between the history of the Jews and the
chronomesianic prophecy of Daniel 9 is a fascinating confirmation of the Advent-
ist interpretation of Daniel 9, and I must thank Dr William Shea for disclosing
this “secret” to me.
2.16. Da 9:25 “seven weeks” – up to what event ?
Our earlier expositors of prophecy, authors or preachers, used to affirm
that the year 408 BC, marking the end of the first seven of the 70 weeks of Daniel
9:24, was the historical date of completing the building of Jerusalem.213
William Shea214 has shown that the year 408 BC is not Biblically or histor-
ically attested as the date of completing the reconstruction of Jerusalem. The
period of 70 year-weeks of Daniel 9 is divided into 7+62+1 weeks for didactical
purposes.
The first 7 weeks are counted separately as they make up together a
whole jubilee. Thus the celestial messenger wanted to indicate that the restora-
tion envisaged in the prophecy involved a full social application of the Torah in
the civil life of the Jews. The jubilee system had to be restored, and this fact
typologically proclaimed and emphasized the importance of the 70 weeks as a
superjubilee up to Messiah the Ruler. Thus it is not necessary to find an historical
event for the year 408-407 BC (49-50 years after 457 BC). A jubilee, and especial-
ly the first postexilic jubilee, was itself an event; and it’s a pity that jubilees were
so seldom observed, as no historical example has been found in the postexilic
period.215
This first postexilic jubilee of the Restoration included religious revival
and reforms, spiritual and civil (socio-economic) mentioned in the later Biblical
books. According to the best conservative position (3SDABC), the last “Old
Testament” writings appeared a few time before 400 BC, in the time of Darius II
(424-404 BC), as it is attested in Ne 12:22.
2.17. Da 8:14; 9:25: Tishri 10, 5605 = exactly October 22, 1844 ?
The Millerite interpretation and experience bequeathed to Adventists the
exact end of the 2300 “days” in Da 8:14, that is October 22, 1844. It is under-
standable that such a precision, even to the day, was necessary for a movement

212There is still room for scholars to debate one year difference, concerning the exact dates of these
sabbatical years; therefore I specified two successive dates as possible. There is also the need to harmo-
nize the Jewish and Julian-Gregorian calendars.
213 See also Owusu-Antwi (op. cit. 304).
214 William Shea (The Prophecy of Daniel 9…, pp. 91, 105).
215 For the pre-exilic times only, as a matter of probability, the following dates have been proposed:
623/622 BC (2K 23:1-2; Seder Olam 24); 574/573 BC (Ez 40:1), cf. En.Wkipedia, Jubilee_(biblical). Preexil-
ic sabbatical years have been also counted for the following dates: 868/867 (2Ch 17:7-9); 700/699 (2K
19:29; Is 37:30); 588/587 (Tosefta, Taanit 3:9; Jerusalem Talmud, Ta'anit 4:5; Babylonian Talmud,
Arakin 11b, Arakin 12a, Ta'anit 29a), cf. En.Wikipedia, Historical Sabbatical Years.
 57

that was waiting for the Second Coming of Jesus. As the glorious year ap-
proached, more precise detection of the date was necessary – for practical
purposes and not only.
In July 1844, after the first disappointed caused by Miller’s first Midnight
Cry that indicated the year between the spring 1843 and the spring 1844, as the
end of the 2300 years, the Millerite Samuel Snow216 extended the period of
expectation to the next great Adventist time, October 22, 1844. There is nothing
wrong in searching for better and more precise evidence and results. For all
practical purposes, Snow’s arguments worked, and even W Miller and J Himes
finally rallied to the new tide. The only question to be raised is about the sound-
ness of Snow’s exegetical arguments.
The Millerites’ appetite for exact eschatological chronology may be seen
in their exegesis of Revelation 9, wherefrom they inferred not only the exact time
of the fall of the Ottoman Empire (August 11, 1840), but at the same day, the
“close of probation”, or “the shut door”.217 Consistently developping the typology
and chronology of Miller, S Snow promoted his own version of the date of Advent
(October 22) on the following well-known premises:
If the 2300 years started in the fall of 457 BC, therefore they cannot end
before the fall of 1844.
If the Jewish spring festivals met their exact fulfillment at Jesus’ first com-
ing, the fall festivals must also meet their exact fulfillment at the corre-
spondent Jewish day in the fall of 1844.
If the Parable of the Ten Virgins has time references (“tarrying”, “falling
asleep”, “midnight”), they must apply to the Adventist experience, since
they predicted, if interpreted on the basis of the year-day principle, the
exact date of the Bridegroom’s coming.
If only the Karaite Jews preserved the original manner of calendar reckon-
ing, their
Now, this Samuel Snow was one of the greatest theological intellects of
the Advent Movement. He had been a journalist and a fervent atheist until 1839,
when he converted through a pamphlet of Miller. He anticipated some beautiful
specific Adventist eschatologic interpretations that still stand. However, his
arguments for the eschaton at October 22, 1844 are at least disputable.
I have shown above (2.13) that the exact beginning of the 490 years is not
yet certainly established. The spring festivals have been fulfilled in the Messianic
events of AD 30/31, but the “exact” coincidence is disputable, since there is a
difference between the calendric expressions of John versus Synoptics. If Snow
was right about the exact time of Tishri 10 (Day of Atonement) for the year 1844,
why did he not explain first the feast of Tishri 1 (Trumpets, New Year)? And if
days indiscriminately must be understood as years, what eschatologic meaning
had the ten days between Tishri 1 and Tishri 10, and then the five days to Tishri
15 (Sukkoth)?
And finally, why was so important the Karaite reckoning, as the Jewish
calendar would be so necessary to God’s plan, that He cannot move one day back
or forth? The ancient Jewish calendar was not fix; priests had authority to adjust

See the series of articles in Lest We Forget, Adventist Pioneer Library, Volume 3, Number 2, Second
216

Quarter, 1993; online issue www.aplib.org/LWFV3N2.pdf .

217Cf. P G Damsteegt, “Historical Background”, in F B Holbrook, The Doctrine of the Sanctuary, BRI, Silver
Springs, MD, 1989:15.
 58

days and months, to approximate and maintain a proper connection between

their religious lunar calendar and the solar year. God Himself allowed the Passo-
ver feast to be observed by some people one month later, at the same date. There
were even historical exceptions.
It is significant that, at the present time, the Karaite Jewish authorities
seem to deny that Yom Kippur fell on October 22 in 1844. They claim that in
1844 this feast fell on September 23, not at variance with the common rabbinic
calendar.218
Even though the Jewish theocracy had extended in parallel with the Chris-
tian dispensation, the Jewish Community for practical reasons could not have a
global and uniform calendar in 1800s, according to the Mosaic Law. Suppose all
of them could have quick info about the barley crop in Palestine, their calendar
and feasts lacked any religious import, for the following reasons:
because there was no Biblical provision for them in absence of the temple
(Dt 16:2, 5-6; Lv 16:20), and there is no information that the Jews ob-
served their feasts in the exile;
because in the post-Jewish dispensation calendric feasts are no longer
binding (Rom 14:16; Col 2:16-17; Gal 4:10), so why their precise obser-
vation should be binding for a God guided countdown?
because the Rabbinic established calendar was at least as equal legitimate
as the Karaite obsolete system, in spite of the Karaite superior respect
for the Bible alone;
because God had left to the priests the last word in proclaiming a new
moon;
because Jesus, by His example observed the Passover on Thursday, Nisan
14 (according to Synoptics, Mt 26:17; Mk 14:14; Lk 27:7-15), at the Last
Supper, and He was sacrificed the next day, which for the priests (John
18:28) was the true Nisan 14.
Actually God could choose any time at the end of the 2300 apocalyptic
days, to begin the premillenial judgment. He could choose the fall of 1843, the
spring of 1844, as Millerites had expected. He could choose the Jewish Orthodox
calendar, the Karaite calendar, the calendar of the Pharisees or of the Sadducees,
the Samaritan or the Essene calendar. So why He could not choose October 22,
for that purpose? He certainly could, but if He did so, it was only for the Miller-
ites’ sake, not as a reward for their precision theology.
William Shea recounted the end of the 2300 years on calendric and astro-
nomic bases, and thus reached to October 20, with a difference of only two
days.219 He is probably right as regards the date when Yom Kippur fell in the year
1844, but the main problem is that Da 8:14 contains nothing to encourage this
search for precision, no reference to the Day of Atonement, and no suggestion
that the end of the 2300 years must be calculated to the very day of month.

218A simple search on Google retrieves many webpages arguing that the Karaite calendar system is not
necessary better than the rabbinic one (www.abcog.org/saadia.htm), or that Tishri 10, in 1844 fell in
September, according to the Karaite use. This objection may be refuted; see, for example, the comments of
Bob Pickle (“The Millerite Movement” in A Response to the Video…, Pickle Publishing, 2005 www.pickle-
publishing.com). While I am not prepared to find the best calendrical date for the Jewish Day of Atonement
in 1844, I am nevertheless convinced that it is not necessary.
219 W H Shea Selected Studies… , 137.
 59

While we should maintain our admiration for the Millerite Movement, for
their spiritual experience and even for their theology, I believe that our apologet-
ic demarche should leave aside all those fantastic and pious Millerite niceties
that cannot support a close examination. They are part of our original theological
amateurism. We had a love story with this kind of fundamentalistic romanticism;
we cannot and should not call them heresy, but we probably need to simply
dismiss them as serious theology.
2.18. Da 9:25: ‫ ָחשּוצ‬ḥårûṣ = “moat”, “trench” or “decision-making” ?

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

spite of the frequent use of the word ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Biblical Hebrew, with various
grammatical and semantic values, 220 most of them do not fit the context in Da
9:25. The Old Versions reflect this difficulty. OG rendered ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Da 9:25
as μῆκοσ “length” < ‫‘ ארך‬óreḳ. Theodotion translated by τεῖχοσ “wall” < ‫ חיץ‬ḥáyiṣ
(Ez 13:10), followed by Jerome. Others have read it ‫“ חּוץ‬street” (cf. Jr 5:1; 9:20),
while lexicons prefer to keep the reading ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ, ascribing to it the meaning
of “moat”, “trench” or similar works, as as “rampart” (JB, NJB), or “conduit” (NEB,
REB). However, the lexicons’ preference is not based on proper Hebrew evi-
dence. It is only inferred from the similarity of the Akk. ḫariṣu > JAram. ‫ חריץ‬,
‫ > חֲריצא‬QH, RH ‫חריץ‬.221 And there are important objections against this solution,
for many reasons:
Phonetically, ‫ חריץ‬ḥårîṣ is different from ḥårûṣ, except one suspects a tex-
tual corruption (‫ י‬and ‫ ו‬are often confused).
The noun ḥårîṣ looks like an Akkadian-Aramaic loanword in Late Hebrew,
while the noun ḥårûṣ has a Biblical Hebrew form and it may be explained
as a Biblical Hebrew noun, not necessarily an evolved form or byform of
ḥårîṣ.
Since the Old Versions show so divergent translations of ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ, it is
probably an old and infrequent Hebrew term, which they could not un-
derstand; not a late loanword that was already common when the Old
Versions appeared.
Archeology should tell us whether the postexilic Jerusalem was clearly
represented by moats or ramparts.
While moats, trenches, ramparts or conduits are commonly related to old
cities, they are neither the most representative element of a city, nor
they are so close associated with the city square (plaza) as the context
requires in Da 9:25.
Owusu-Antwi, has found an ingenious and original solution, based only on
the plain Hebrew text and its context.222 He noted that the associated

220 As a noun, ‫ ָחשּוצ‬ḥårûṣ, (of the root ‫ חשצ‬ḥrṣ “to cut” – cf. the related roots ‫חשט‬, ‫חשת‬, ‫חשש‬, ‫)כשת‬, may refer to
gold (in poetry, e.g. Pr 3:14), a threshing sledge (e.g. Am 1:3), sort of mutilation (Lv 22:22), decision or
verdict (Jl 4:14). As an adjective or passive verb, or adjectival noun ‫ ָחשּוצ‬ḥårûṣ means sharp, “clear-cut”,
decided (e.g. Is 10:22), diligent (e.g. Pr 10:4) etc.
221 Cf. 3QTr 5:8 (Clines 132) and Jastrow 502.

Brempong Owusu-Antwi The Chronology of Daniel 9:24-27, ATS Publications, Berrien Springs, MI, 1995:
222

149-150.
 60

noun ‫ רחֹוב‬rǝḥôḇ “city square” or “plaza”223 is the Hebrew equivalent of

the forum (agora), the marketplace and public square of the city, place of
assembly and center of judicial and business affairs.224 Then he observed
that the only meaning of ‫ חרּוץ‬ḥårûṣ in Biblical Hebrew that fits the
association with ‫ רחֹוב‬rǝḥôḇ is the meaning attested in Joel 3/4:14,
where the court (martial) of Yahweh is in ‫‘ עמקִהחרּוץ‬ēmeq he·ḥårûṣ “the
valley of judgment/decision”,225 called above “the valley of Jehoshaphat”
(Yahweh has judged) in verse 12, thus emphasizing the idea of court.
This meaning is more natural in Biblical Hebrew, since the root ִ‫ חרץ‬ḥrṣ
is frequently used with the meaning to decide, to determine (Is 10:22.23,
28:22, 1 K 20:40, Job 14:15). The presence of this root in Daniel (9:26;
11:36), with the same meaning, confirms this translation.
Concluding, the syndetic construction ‫ רחֹוב וחרּוץ‬rǝḥôḇ wǝ·ḥårûṣ forms a
hendiadys with the meaning “city square for court decisions”, a powerful symbol
of a full civil restoration, based on the application of the Torah (cf. Ne 8:1-4).226
This emphasis is important in translation and exegesis, because it stresses the
connection between the prophecy of Da 9: 25 and Ezra 7:25, and provides the
concept of Sanhedrin, even in Jerusalem, where the true Messiah were to be
condemned.
2.19. Da 9:26: The direct object of ‫ וְ ֵאין לֹו‬wǝ·ên lô “He will not have”
The MT defective reading ‫ ואין ִלֹו‬wǝ·ên lô “and He will not have...” is a
problem of translation that should be solved. The difficulty is probably due to the
Masoretic athnakh placed under the word ‫ לֹו‬lô “to Him”, “for Him”, “He has (or
will have)”, compelling the translator to place a semicolon or a period. Since I
argued against the tyranny of the Masoretic punctuation at the section 2.16, here
I will supply a new proof that sometimes we may expect better traslations, if the
contextual syntax is studied, with not so much respect for the traditional
punctuation.
The traditional translations in this case could be defended on the
assumption that the object is implied (e.g. ‫ עֹוזר‬or something similar),227 or that a
textual corruption occured (‫ אין‬stands for ‫“ דין‬judgment (condemnation)”, as
Theodotion supposed (καὶ κρίμα οὐκ ἔςτιν ἐν αὐτῷ). But OG and Vulgate attest
the Massoretic text, and as we will see, it makes sense perfectly.
First, in nearly all instances this syntactic construction has explicit or
implicit direct object. In rare cases where it has no direct object, it means “he has

223See Dt 13:17/16, 2Ch 29:4, 32:6, Ne 8:1. He quotes J A Montgomery (A Critical and Exegetical Commen-
tary on the Book of Daniel. ed. S. R. Driver etc., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927:380) saying: “By…’broadway,
plaza,’ are meant the broad spaces, generally just inside the city gates, the center of the city life, and by
synecdoche standing for the city.”
224 See Is 59:14, Dt 16:18, 17:8, 2S 15:2, Jr 26:10, Am 5:15, Zc 8:16.
Cf. OG τῇ κοιλάδι τῆσ δίκησ “valley of the trial/judgment”; VUL valle concisionis “valley of massacre”;
225
TAR ‫ישש ִץ ֻלוג ִדינָ א‬
ַ ‫“ ֵמ‬valley of judgment division”.
226The verbal phrase ‫ ָתשּוב וְ נִ ְבנְ ָתה‬preceding the reference to “square” and “court” refers to restoration,
reverting in ownership (Ez 46:17, 1 K 12:26, 1Sam 7:14, Ez 35:9, Lv 27:24, Dt 28:31, cf. BDB 998, 7b) and
physical rebuilding of the city, or to a figurative building work (Pr 14:1, “cause to flourish” opp. 27:18), re-
establish, make prosper (Jr 12:16, Mal 3:15, Job 22:23), make permanent (Ps 89:3, Pr 24:3).
227 Cf. Ps 22:12, 72:12, Da 11:45, Lm 1:7, Ps 142:5, Is 63:5.
 61

nothing”. Or in Da 9:26 there is no logical connection between the death of the

Messiah and the idea that He will have nothing. Nothingness is the part of all who
die; the statement has no place in a prophecy.
In this case I prefer the solution of C G Ozanne,228 who argues that the
unnatural clause ‫ ואין ִלֹו‬wǝ·ên lô (Da 9:26), must have its proper object in the
following wordsִ ‫ והעיר ִוהקֹדׁש‬wǝ·hå‘·‘îr wǝ·haq·qóḏeš “and*229 the city and the
sanctuary”. Ozanne maintains:
The Annointed, it seems, is viewed as the natural possessor of the city and the sanctu-
ary, and it is stated that he would die in possession of neither. Whether this is more ap-
plicable to the Messiah or to Onias III the reader may judge.” 230

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

claim. The reading of Ozanne should be adopted, because it is simple and logic,
and because it satisfies the Hebrew syntax and the prophetic, theological, and
historical criteria. I am perfectly satisfied with this reading: “Messiah will be cut
off, having neither the city nor the sanctuary.”
2.20. Da 9:26: A new “coming ruler”, or the same as in verse 25 ?
In Da 9:25, Messiah appears as ‫ מִׁשיחִנגיד‬måšîaḥ nåḡîḏ. The lack of definite
article must not be interpreted as a reference to “an anointed one, a prince”, but
“Messiah, the Prince” or “Prince Messiah”, as titles and apellatives that some-
times replace names or become equivalent to names (proper nouns) often occur
in Biblical Hebrew.231 Especially in poetry such adjectives and nouns occur
without definite article, and this passage is generally acknowledged as poetry.
The nameִ ‫ מִׁשיח‬måšîaḥ appears a second time in verse 26, without article.
If it were “an anointed one”, when the word is first introduced in verse 25, then
certainly it must have definite article in verse 26 (‫יח‬ ִ ‫ הִםִׁש‬ham·måšîaḥ “the anoint-
ed one”). Since it is without article in both instances, it follows that this is the
first occurrence of the term with the late Jewish use in the Hebrew Bible, as
equivalent of a proper name: Messiah.
In Da 9:26, the two titlesִ ‫ מִׁשיח‬and ‫ נגיד‬are used in poetic parallel verses,
and William Shea232 has shown convincingly that the expression ‫‘ עםִנגידִהבא‬am

228 C G Ozanne, “Three textual problems in Daniel,” in Journal of Theological Studies, Ed. Chadwick, Sparks;
Oxford, Clarendon Press. 16, 1965: 446-447.
229 Regarding the waw in ‫ וְ ָה ִףיש‬wǝ·hå‘·‘îr, it is possible to be a dittography, that is an erroneous repetition of

the waw which is the suffix pronominal of the antecedent word ‫ לֹו‬lô. Thus an alternative translation is,
“and He will not have the city and the sanctuary”.
230Ozanne seems to be ironical here, since Onias III was only a high priest with no aspiration to rule over
Jerusalem.
Many translators did very well their job regarding Messiah: e.g. KJV, SCL, SVV, ASV, NIV, CSB, DBY, DRA,
231

ERV, GNV, GWN, NAS, NAU, NIRV, RWB, TNIV, TNK, WEB, YLT, NEG, NJB etc. Many others did a superficial
work in this case, or perhaps their interpretation led them to such primitive solution, despite the obvious
messianic context (see TOB, NET, NAB, BBE, CJB, NRS, RSV, ELB etc.).
William Shea, “The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27,” in 70 weeks, Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, F B Hollbrook
232

editor, Biblical Research Institute, Washington DC, 1986: 93.

 62

nåḡîḏ hab·bå’ should be translated as “the people of the Coming Prince”, that is
Messiah, who is announced as coming (verse 25) and put to death (verse 26):
25 ‫נָ ִגיד‬ ‫ָמ ִש ַיח‬ A+B
26a * ‫ָמ ִש ַיח‬ A
26b ‫נָ ִגיד‬ * B

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

previous section, coupled with this solution of Shea, the poetic structureִ of the
successive lines must be understood and translated as following.
But after the sixty two weeks, ‫ּושנַ יִ ם‬ ְ ‫ִש ִ ִּׁ֣שים‬ ‫וְ ַא ֲח ֵ ֵ֤שי ַה ָש ֻב ִף ֙ים‬ 4=2+2 A
Messiah will be put to death, and the
city and the sanctuary will not be for ‫יִ ָכ ֵ ֵ֥שת ָמ ִ ִׁ֖ש ַיח וְ ֵ ִּׁ֣אין לֹו וְ ָה ֙ ִףיש וְ ַה ֹּ֜קֹּ ֶדש‬ 5=2+3 B
Him.
The people of the Coming Prince
will become corrupt, and his end will ‫ַי ְַ֠ש ִחית ַףִּׁ֣ם נָ ִגֵ֤יד ַה ָב ֙א וְ ִר ִּׁ֣צֹו ַב ֶש ֶטפ‬ 5=3+2 B’
be in a flood of armies,
And to the end of war, desolation is ‫וְ ַף ֙ד ֵ ִּׁ֣רצ ִמ ְל ָח ָמה נֶ ֱח ֶ ִׁ֖ש ֶקת ש ֵֹּמ ֽמֹות‬ 4=2+2 A’
allotted.
Thus the poetic lines have arranged to a chiastic structure AB::BA, accord-
ing to the number of accents and colons. Even some morphologic and syntactic
elements emphasize this structure. See, for example, the syntactical use of Waw,
introducing the clause in lines A and A’ (A ‫ וא ֲח ֵ֤רי‬A’ ‫ד‬ ִ ‫ )וע‬while in the lines B and B’
it introduces the second clause (B ‫ ואֵ֣ין‬B’ ‫)וקצֵ֣ ֹו‬, and lines B and B’ are introduced
by two verbs at the imperfect: B ‫ יכ ֵ֥רת‬yikkårēṯ B’ ‫ יׁשחית‬yašḥîṯ.
The verb ‫ יׁשחית‬yašḥîṯ (or ‫שחִת‬ ִ ִ‫ י‬yiššåḥēṯ,233 cf. the Syriac, and thus perfectly
parallel to the verb ‫ יכ ֵ֥רת‬yikkårēṯ of the precedent line) has basically two possible
meanings: to destroy, or be destroyed, in a physical234 or moral sense (cor-
rupt).235 It is difficult to decide what is the intended meaning here, because in
Daniel it is used in the sense of “destroy” (8:24,25), but in 2 Ch 27:2 it is still used
in the sense of “become corrupt”, having the subject “people”. Both meanings
make sense in the context,236 but that of “become corrupt” or “pervert itself”
seems preferable.237

233 The Niphal form ‫ ִי ָש ֵחת‬yiššåḥēṯ is used rather in a passive-reflexive meaning: to become corrupt, to ruin
or spoil itself (earth/land, creatures, objects, and works). See Gn 6:11-12; Ex 8:20; Jr 13:7; 18:4; Ez 20:44.
In the Niphal form, this verb does not longer occur in the postexilic Biblical books, in the Qumran texts, or
in the Rabbinic Hebrew.
234 See Gn 19:14 ‫ת־ה ִףיש‬ ָ ‫;מש ִחית יְ הֹּוָ ה ֶא‬
ְ Dt 9:26 ‫ל־ת ְש ֵחת ַף ְמָך‬ ַ ‫ ; ַא‬2S 24:16 ‫ ; ַה ַמ ְש ִחית ָב ָףם‬Pr 11:9 ‫; י ְַש ִחת ֵש ֵףהּו‬
2K 8:19; 2Ch 21:7 ‫ת־בית‬ ֵ ‫ ; ְל ַה ְש ִחית ֶא‬Is 14:20 ‫ ; ַא ְש ְקָך ִש ַח ָת ַף ְמָך ָה ָשגְ ָת‬Jr 4:7 ‫;מ ְש ִחית גֹויִ ם‬
ַ 36:29 ‫ת־ה ָא ֶשצ‬
ָ ‫;וְ ִה ְש ִחית ֶא‬
Da 8:24 ‫ם־רד ִֹּשים‬ ִ ‫ ; וְ ִה ְש ִחית ֲף‬8:25 ‫ ַי ְש ִחית ַש ִבים‬.
ְ ‫קּומים וְ ַף‬
235 See Ex 32:7; Dt 9:12 ‫ ; ִש ֵחת ַף ְמָך‬2Ch 27:2 ‫וְ עֹוד ָה ָףם ַמ ְש ִח ִיתים‬. It is possible that in Da 8:26, the choice of this
double meaning verb may be an intentional play to show that the people’s corruption equals its destruc-
tion. Another strategic word is ‫“ ֶש ֶטפ‬flood”; “invasion”, which by usual Hebrew metathesis may be intend-
ed to reflect ‫“ ֶש ֶץט‬act of judgment”.
236 a). “The people of the Coming Prince will be destroyed and his end will be in a flood of armies.”; b). “The
people of the Coming Prince will pervert itself (will be spoiled) and his end will be in a flood of armies.”
237 The Niphal reading yiššåḥēṯ would be the only possibility to understand that the people had to be

destroyed, though it is used rather to mean moral corruption. The Hiphil reading yašḥîṯ (as indicated by
the Masoretes) indicates either corruption, if the subject is “people”, or destruction, if the subject is “the
 63

The subject of the sentence, “the people of the Coming Ruler,” or the peo-
ple of Messiah is the people who was waiting for Messia, or “the people whose
legitimate Ruler is Messiah.”238
The solution that I have chosen for this verse cannot be dogmatic, but it
has the advantage of satisfying more than one syntactic and logical requirements.
Some observations seem to be useful for the theological message of the prophe-
cy. The last two stanzas (verses 26-27) have parallel thematic predictions, and
even linguistic parallels (e.g. 26d || 27d).
26a Time (62 weeks) A
26b Messiah cut off (as covenant sacrifice) ‫כשת‬ B
26c Corruption and destruction C
26d Desolation is determined to the end of war. D

27a Time (1 week) A’

27b Messiah’s sacrifice annule the old Covenant system B’
27c Abomination and desolation C’
27d The End of the desolator, determined. D’

The full weight of the final line is obviously parallel to other climactic, fi-
nal points in the prophecies of Daniel (Dan 2:44, 7:26, 8:25d, 11:45b). All these
point out to the Judgment, in the time of the end, as the 2300 days indicate by the
“vindication” of the Sanctuary.
There are many other difficulties in Daniel 9 of which scholars complain,
more or less justified. The general efforts to apply the prophecy to some events
culminating with the persecution of Antiochus IV is one of the reasons that it so
obscure. A primary task would be the restoration of its original poetic text and
structure, if possible.
In verse 27, the clause ‫קּוקים ְמש ֵֹּמם‬
ִ ‫ וְ ַףל ְכנַ פ ִש‬wǝ‘al kǝnaph šiqqûṣîm
mǝšōmēm “and on the wing of abomination [will be] a desolator (or, appalling)”
may be corrupted. The metaphor “wing of abominations” is quite improbable.
LXX (both OG and Theodotion) have καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώςεων
“and above (around, at) the temple [will be] an abomination of desolations.”
There are also good reasons to read instead of the unusual expression ‫‘ ַףל ְכנַ פ‬al
kǝnaph, the usual and unique expression of Daniel, ‫‘ ַףל ַכּנֹו‬al kannô “in his place /

Coming Prince” and the object is “people”. But in this last case, the logic of the sentence is damaged. The
two meanings are connected, overlapped or even confused in some instances (Pr 6:32, Jr 51:25 and 2K
23:13). Choosing the meaning shall become corrupt, shall act perversely has the advantage of explaining
both the putting to death of the Messiah and the unfortunate destiny of the people.
238Gerhard Hasel (“Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks.” In The Seventy Weeks,
Leviticus, Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Hollbrook, 25), William Shea (ibid. 92-94), and Owusu-Antwi
(op. cit. 167-170) understoodd that this people of Messiah, by their rebellious attitude towards God and
towards Rome, became responsible for the disaster which came on the city and the temple (see 2Sam 20:5,
24:16, for instances where people is the subject of this predicate). Owusu-Antwi even relates the partici-
ple ‫ ַה ָבא‬with the messianic verse of Ps 118:26. Anyway, it should be understood as in Mal 3:19 (‫)הּיֹום ַה ָבא‬
ַ
or as the eschatological idiom ‫עֹולם ַה ָבא‬
ָ ‫ ָה‬of the Late Hebrew.
 64

stead” (cf. 11:20, 21, 38), and the suspect association ‫קּוקים ְמש ֵֹּמם‬
ִ ‫ ִש‬šiqqûṣîm
mǝšōmēm to be corrected also (after Da 11:31; 12:11 and LXX) as ‫ִשקּוצ ַה ְמש ֵֹּמם‬
šiqqûṣ ham·mǝšōmēm or ‫קּוקי·ם ְמש ֵֹּמם‬
ֵ ‫ ִש‬šiqqûṣê·m mǝšōmēm “the abomination(s) of
the desolator” (or, appalling abominations).
Below is the structure of Da 7:24-27, including my emendations and
translation. The text is not transliterated according to the Massoretic reading. It
is rather an attempt to restore the original pre-Masoretic pronunciation, using
basically the model of W Richter.239 I imagined this linguistic strategy, to help
myself understand and feel as close as possible the old Hebrew poetic taste. This
was necessary for me, because there are certainly important differences between
the original pronunciation in Biblical times and the late, Masoretic school –
different fonology, different number of syllables, different accents, wordplays etc.

šabūcīm šabcīm 2 A span of seventy weeks

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

239 See Wolfgang Richter, Biblia Hebraica transcripta; 14, Daniel, Esra, Nehemia. Münchener Univer-
istätschriften, Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament; Bd. 33.2. EOS Verlag St Otilien, 1992:120-
123. See also David Steinberg, Biblical Hebrew Poetry and Word Play, Reconstructing the Original Oral,
Aural and Visual Experience,
www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm
 65

decided, will be poored over the

desolator.

While the prophecy of Daniel 9 is important in itself and deserves every

effort to improve our knowledge of it, there are chances to discover additional
connections to Daniel 8.
2.21. The special role of the verb ‫ בין‬byn “consider, understand” in Da 8-9

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

ecy. If we tabulate those expressions, a beautiful chiasm appears, stressing the
relationship between the two time prophecies, mentioned in Da 8:14 and Da
9:24 (rows A and A1). The rows B and B1 deal with the angelic urge to Daniel “to
understand”, and the rows C and C1 deal with Daniel’s reactions, in contrast, a
negative one (“I did not understand”) and a positive one (“I…understood”, “he
made me understand”).
Logical item Speaker Quotation Verse Hebrew
Michael to ִ‫ערבִבֹ קרִאלפים‬
A Gabriel
evening-morning 2300 = many days 8:14,
‫ּוׁשֹלׁשִמאֹות‬
period ִ‫הערבִוהבֹקר …ימים‬
(seal up !) 26
involved ‫רבים‬
‫סתֹם‬
Michael to I was seeking for understanding; ‫הבן להלז‬
B Gabriel to explain ... to this one ! 8:15,
‫את־הםראה‬
urge: 16, 17
Daniel understand, son of man! ‫הבןִבן־אדם‬

C ִ‫ואֲניִדניאלִ…ִואין‬
negative Daniel I Daniel …did not understand 8:27
‫מבין‬
statement:
ִ‫אֲניִדניאלִבינֹ תי‬
I Daniel have understood from
positive ִ‫בןפריםִמספר‬
Scriptures (Jeremiah), the number of
statement years ‫השנים‬
Daniel 9:2, 22
… ‫ויבן וידבר עםי‬
C1 He made me understand: ... I’m here
‫עתה יצאתי‬
to give you understanding
‫להשכילָך בינה‬
urge ִ‫ּוביןִבדברִוהבן‬
Gabriel to Consider ! Understand! 9: 23,
‫בםראה‬
B1 Daniel Know and understand ! 25
‫ותדע ותשכל‬
period
involved Gabriel to a portion of 70 weeks (7+62+1) is 9:24- ִ‫ׁשבֻ עיםִׁשבעים‬
Daniel subtracted 27 ‫נחתְך‬
A1

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

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

3. The Crucial Role of Contextual Exegesis in Daniel 8

But even though the translation “cleansed” would be preferred in this
verse, the textual context das not hint to a Sanctuary cleansing from the sins of
the repentants, but rather to a cleansing from the desecration made by the
wicked horn. There is no need of demonstration, the fact is apparent in the text.
The most related Biblical instance of a sanctuary cleansing is in 2Ch 29:15-18;
 66

34:3-8, where the godly kings Hezekiah and Josiah purified (‫ טִהִר‬ṭahhēr) or
sanctified (‫ קדש‬qaddēš) the temple of Yahweh (‫ הבית‬hab·báyiṯ), the city and the
land, from filth and impurity (‫ִִנדה‬niddåh 2Ch 29:5, ‫ טֻ מאה‬ṭum’åh v. 16) that is
from various idols and idolatrous items (2Ch 34:3-4). 240
There have been made noble efforts to identify a Yom Kippur imagery in
Daniel 8:14. The liturgical imagery of the vision of Daniel 8 is impressive, but no
cultic element of the vision is necessarily related to Yom Kippur. Up to ten
elements have been proposed.
There are four prominent and convincing images related to the Israelite
cult:
‫דׁשֹו‬ må·ḵôn mi·qdåš·ô or ‫דש‬
ִ ִ‫מִכֹון מִק‬ ִ‫ק‬ִֹ ִ qóḏeš, “the [heavenly] abode of His
sanctuary”, “the Sanctuary”; 241

‫ צִבִא הִשִמִיִם‬ṣəḇå’ haš·šåmáy·im or ‫בא‬

ִ‫צ‬ִ ִ‫ ה‬haṣ·ṣåḇå’, “the heavenly [and priest-
ly] host [of the sanctuary]”;242
‫ שר־הצבא‬śar-haṣ·ṣåḇå’ “the Prince of the host”, or ‫רים‬ ִ ‫־ש‬ ִ śar- śårîm
ִ ‫שר‬
“Prince of Princes”; 243

‫ הִתִמִיד‬hat·tå·mîḏ “the daily service of the regular burnt offering”;244

There are other six elements, that have been claimed as cultic images, but
they are unconvincing:
e. ‫‘ ִאיִל‬áyil “a ram” (it is not exclusive for Yom Kippur);
f. ‫ צִפִיר־הִעִזִים‬ṣəphîr-ha‘·‘izz·îm (or ‫שעִיר‬ ִ ִ‫ ה‬haṣ·ṣaphîr haś·śå‘îr) “the he-
ִ ִ‫צפִיר ה‬
goat” (not exclusive for Yom Kippur). The he-goat and the ram were sacri-
ficial animals, but not in this context, where they have different functions:
both represent hostile powers,245 both have abnormal look, at least their
unnatural horns, and their dangerous habits.246
g. ‫רבִע‬ ִ ‫ חִזּו‬ḥåzūṯ ’arbå‘, “four prominent [horns]”. It was claimed that the
ִ ‫תִא‬
four horns of the goat are a linguistic hint to the four “horns” of the altar,
but their nature and function is completely different. And the very linguis-
tic hint is very weak, since Daniel does not even use here the term ‫קרן‬
qéren “horn”.
h. ‫ פִׁשִע‬péša‘ “crime”, “rebellion”, “sin”. The mention of a specific sin / re-
bellion in Daniel 8 has no ceremonial treatment, since it is not subject to

240Interesting are also the references in Ez 43:26 and 1Ch 23:28 regarding some inaugural cleansing of the
altar etc., but these are not contextually related to Da 8:14.
241See under the heading “The Identity of the Sanctuary...”
242While a direct reference to priesthood/sanctuary service is lacking in Daniel 8, the root ‫ קבא‬ṣb’ is
significant, since it is used in the Masoretic Text, not only in the context of military, social and celestial
order, but also in the context of the sanctuary service (Ex 38:8, Num 4:3.23.30.35.39.43, 8:24, 1Sam 2:22
ebr.). Cf. Dominique Barthélémy (Critique textuelle de L’Ancien Testament, Fribourg, Suisse, 1992, pag.
464): “Étant donnée la correspondance existant entre le temple terrestre et le temple céleste, il semble
bien que le mot ‫ ָק ָבא‬désigne aux vss 10 {13, sous la métaphore de l’armée des étoiles, les ministres du
culte (lévites et fidèles).” See also M. A. Beek, Das Danielbuch, 84.
243 See Elias Brasil de Souza (op. cit. p 464) and Doukhan (Daniel: Vision of the End, 37-38), cf. Ezra 8:24; 1Ch
15:22; 24:5.
244 See the heading 2.2. Da 8: 11-13: ‫ ַה ָת ִמיד‬hat·tåmîḏ = the… what?

Rams and male-goats are used as symbols of God’s enemies preserved for the Judgment day (Is 34:6; Jr
245

51:40; Ez 39:18), or as leaders to be judged (Ez 34:17).

246Cattle being known with the habit of goring, were hardly fit for holy sacrifice; they must be stoned,
according to the Law (Ex 21:29-36).
 67

atonement and pardon. It is called elsewhere ‫ ׁשקּוץ‬šiqqūṣ “disgusting

idol”and its only role is to desecrate the sanctuary.
ִ ‫ ] הרים[ הּו‬hū·ram [hē·rîm] “was lifted up”, [“it lifted up”]. The “lifting
‫רים‬
up” of the daily sacrifice was not really a ceremonial uplift, but an outra-
geous removal, called also ‫ הִסִיר‬hē·sîr “took away” in Da 11:31.
‫דש‬
ִ‫ק‬ִֹ ‫דק‬ִ ִ‫ וִנִצ‬wǝ·ni·ṣdaq qóḏeš “the sanctuary shall be justified/vindicated”;
We have already shown why the sanctuary vindication is not a linguistic
hint to Yom Kippur.
These last six elements are difficult to be counted for any sanctuary ritual.
And since we are especially interested in all these four elements’ relationship
with the Day of Atonement, no one of them is related exclusively to the annual
cleansing ritual. The Yom Kippur ceremony required a ram, a calf, and two he-
goats (Lv 16), not just a ram and a he-goat. Moreover, rams and male-goats were
sacrificed also at various occasions .247 Thus, while some elements of the vision
have clear ceremonial functions, none of them is a specific hint to Yom Kippur.248

4. A legitimate role of Leviticus 16 beyond exegesis

The “cleansing” of the heavenly sanctuary is only a metaphor of salvation,
whether one applies it to the Messianic events related to the First Advent, or the
events related to the Second Advent. The “cleansing of the sanctuary” is not a
ceremonial heavenly service. All that language of Yom Kippur is nothing but a
metaphor of the Judgment. The 1844 experience of our pioneers, in their histori-
cal-theological context, caused them to speak about the heavenly things in terms
of the sanctuary, and they have used this ceremonial language long before the
configuration of a doctrine of Judgment.
However, the evidence that the vision of Daniel 8 has no compelling refer-
ence to the Day of Atonement, deals only with exegetical reasons. There is ample
hermeneutic and homiletic possibility to relate the eschatological vindication of
the sanctuary to any other Biblical passage pointing to the eschaton – including
Lv 16, if one proves its eschatologic virtues. While a legitimate exegesis does not
allow such long leaps between various places of the Biblical canon, except we
prove that it was the author’s intention, or an obvious case of intertextuality;
while we should cease to hold unsupported arguments that a sound exegesis of
Daniel 8 indicates a Day of Atonement context, pointing directly to Lv 16, we may
still maintain this special link, but on a different hermeneutical basis.
Since hermeneutics is more comprehensive (and permissive) than exege-
sis, we may connect Biblical passages, not only on the basis of a conscious refer-
ence or allusion made by the human author, but also on the principle of theologi-
cal unity of Scripture, due to its divine Author. On a large hermeneutical basis, we
may relate Da 8:14 to Lv 16 as one convenient illustration of making right the

247Nu 7:17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47, 53, 59, 65, 71, 77, 83, 87-88; Dt 32:14; Is 1:11; 34:6; Jer 51:40; Ez 27:21;
34:17; 39:18; 43:25; 45:23; Ps 66:15.
248Norman Young (“The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement?”, Andrews University Seminary Studies,
Spring 2002, vol. 40, No. 1, p. 66) writes: “... It has all the appearances of desperation to use (as some do)
the symbolic references to a ram (Dan 8:3, 4, 6, 7, 20, ‫ )איל‬and to a goat (vv. 5, 8, 21, ‫ )קץיש‬as evidence of
Day of Atonement language. The sin-offering animals in Lev 16, let us recall, are ‫( ץש‬young bull) and ‫ׂשץיש‬
[sic!] (goat). The ram for a burnt offering does not cleanse the tabernacle. [... fn. 22, ref. to Richard M.
Davidson, "The Good News of Yom Kippur," JATS 2/2 (1991): 4-27; and cf. William H. Shea, The Abundant
Life Bible Amplifier :Daniel 7-12, 2 vols (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 111-118].
 68

Sanctuary. But not as the sole illustration, nor as the first illustration of sanctuary
vindication, neither as a complete illustration.249
This hermeneutical connection is based on the same principle on which
we may (or must) refer to any other Biblical prophecy, type, or parable (etc.)
which are theologically related to the exegeted text. Similar hermeneutical
connections that would not be exegetically acceptable, but theologically legiti-
mate and useful, occur in the New Testament. In spite of the popular proof-text
opinion, it is not a sound contextual exegesis to quote Is 7:14 as a direct prophe-
cy of the Messiah’s birth (Mt 1:23). The same may be said about Jr 31:15, as a
prophecy fulfilled in the slaughter of Bethlehem children, or Hos 11:1 pointing to
Jesus’ exod from Egypt (Mt 2:15,18), though exegetically they had a different
intention and fulfillment. Similarly, Paul’s reading in Is 54:1 the Gentile Church
(Ga 4:27), or in Jr 31:31 the Christian covenant (Heb 8:8) is not sound exegesis,
but they are justified or legitimized on broad hermeneutic principles, as theolog-
ical applications.
In the NT there are examples of exegesis grounded in a wrong or free
Greek translation, very similar to our historical approach to Daniel 8:14. In Heb
10:5-10, the inspired author quotes Ps 40:6/7 (39:7 LXX) after a Greek unknown
translation: ςῶμα δὲ κατηρτίςω μοι, “a body Thou prepared for me”, instead of
the Hebrew ‫‘ אזנים כריתִ לי‬ozn·áyim kåriy·ṯå l·î “You have opened my ears”. Thus
the Hebrew text points to obedience, while the Greek quotation suggest incarna-
tion, which the inspired author indicated as a prophecy of Christ’s sacrifice. Such
interpretation is hardly possible from a strictly exegetic viewpoint. But the
Christian author has more practical purposes in view. Possibly he uses Jewish
hermeneutic methods, to convince believers who were sensitive to such meth-
odology.
Sometimes, Paul seems to reject the plain meaning, or at least transcends
it unexpectedly, towards a figurative or allegorical application: oxen become
apostles (1Cor 9:9); mountains, wives and sons are religious systems (Gal 4:21-
31); God’s Commandment/Law becomes the “righteousness by faith” (Rom 10:5-
6, perfectly opposite to what Moses said in Dt 30:11), and the metaphors of the
Commandment’s accessibility and internalization (“it is not in heaven… nor
beyond the sea” Dt 30: 12-14) have got an unbelievable meaning or application:
“to bring Christ down [from heaven]”, and “to bring Christ up from the dead”).
The idea of some scholars that the examples above are unquestionable,
true exegeses, since they come from inspired authors, is not acceptable. We
certainly need a further clarification on the prophetical inspiration. Exegesis is
about logic, not of inspired or uninspired, but only right or wrong. Arguments,
hermeneutic methodologies and actually all logical approach are human contri-

249The Biblical passages most related to Da 8:14 are Da 7:9-14, 22, 26-27; Rv 6:10:11; 14:6-13. I would also
suggest that the symbolic cutting out of the mountain in Da 2:34, 45 indicates a work of judgment (root ‫גזש‬
gzr “cut”, “break away”, “decide”, “determine”), preceding the moment when the stone hits the idol’s feet,
after its short rollingturn on the mountainside. Further, any eschatological Biblical passage related to the
idea of judgment may be legitimately connected to Da 8:14, such as various passages in Hebrews (9:27-28;
10:25-27, 30; 12:23), and other NT passages (Jam 5:9; 1Pt 4:5-6, 17; 1 In 4:17; Acts 17:31; 24:25; Rom
2:16; 14:10; 1Cor 4:4-5; 6:2-3; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tes 1:5; 1Tim 5:24-25; 2Tim 4:1, 8). The parables of Christ are
full of illustrations about the eschatological judgment (Mt 13:47-48; 18:23-35; 22:11-14; 24:44-51; 25:1-
46; Lc 18:1-8), and many prophetic scenarios (even conditional prophecies) may illustrate phases of the
judgment (Mal 3:1-5; Zc 3:1-7; Hab 2-3 etc.). Some of them have long been used in this way by the first
Adventist generation, to shed light on Daniel 8:14.
 69

butions of inspired authors. They may be right or wrong, convincing or less

convincing, but they are always surpassed by the author’s divine inspiration, as it
is manifested in the message to be conveyed. Though many are familiar with E G
White’s statement on inspiration, we as a denomination have been very reluctant
to find practical applications to the following message:
The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach
man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Every-
thing that is human is imperfect. […] The Bible was given for practical purposes…
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression.
It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an
expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on
trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. [...] It is not the
words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not
on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence
of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the
individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with
the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.” (1SM 19-
22; Manuscript 24, 1886). [Emphasis supplied]

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

on the prophetic inspiration, with so far reaching consequences, has been kept
out of reach of God’s children, for more than 70 years. It was only in 1958, that E
G White’s testimony on inspiration was finally published.250 We would have been
far ahead in our hermeneutics, exegesis and theology, if we had integrated this
revolutionary philosophy of inspiration. Think of the implications. Not even the
logic of the inspired authors is inspired ! But to place this afirmation in theologi-
cal balance, human logic of the inspired authors, though imperfect might prove
itself, it nevertheless serves as a vehicle of a divine and infallible message, and it
finds its way home perfectly to the honest and informed believer, for all practical
purposes.251
Consequently, in our attempt to explain Da 8:14, we should resort first to
a more critical exegesis, based on the natural semantics of ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq and
its contextual meaning; and only afterwards we should resort to a broad range of
legitimate hermeneutical connections. This is a better methodology, than forcing
the natural semantics of ‫ ונצדק‬wə·ni·ṣdaq to testify for our theology.252 For
exegetical and apologetic reasons, the effort deserves.

250 Cottrell noticed in 1993 that, “After the removal of Daniells from the General Conference presidency the
church also moved away from his position on inspiration. The material that Ellen White had written on
inspiration found in Selected Messages, Vol. 1, 15-21 was not available. For years the White Estate would
not release it. Not even when it was requested to be made available for printing in The Seventh-day
Adventist Bible Commentary series.” (From an interview of March 1993, taken by G Bradford, op. cit. 169
fn 319).
251Sometimes, E G White refers to “words” given her or Biblical authors, and some would elude her clear
testimony of 1 SM about the limits of inspiration, which is full of theological truth, emphasizing her
statements on the inspired “words” (e.g. “But I speak not my own words when I say...” E G White, 1888
Materials, 747). Now, if E G White would contradict herself, her authority lowers down to zero. But we
should rather be careful not to take casual, religious common language found in the Bible or the Spirit of
Prophecy, in a technical, theological way. In most cases, “word(s)” is/are meant to be understood as
utterance(s), communication(s), message(s), oracle(s), not as units of speach, or as heavenly shibboleths
(e.g. Ex 9:20; Jn 6:63; Col 3:17; Ex 34:28; Dt 9:10 “the ten words”).
252Relating to the theological meaning of Daniel 8:14, I was surprised to discover Norman Young’s position
(“The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement?”, AUSS, Spring 2002, vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 61-68), who
writes: “Davidson's study leaves me with a query. How is he able to see the Day of Atonement in Dan 8:ll-
14 where there is no mention of a high priest, blood, calves and goats, entering, sin offering, cleanse,
 70

My conviction is that we should expound the doctrine of Da 8:14 using

predominantly judgment imagery. The sanctuary ritual imagery should be used
only as a secondary means to illustrate various aspects of the divine judgment.
We should use as of primary importance Christ’s parables of judgment and any
other forensic suitable text from Genesis to Revelation. The typology of the
sanctuary is, indeed, richer but also more complex than the topic of eschatologi-
cal judgment. Therefore, when we expound the prophecies of Judgment, it is
preferable not to obscure them through a complex ceremonial typology needing
so much argument and explanations for itself – a typology of which highly
dramatic and visionary language is too often understood as a physical reflection
of heaven.

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

The sanctuary typology discussed by the author of Hebrews in some key
passages253 has been a real challenge for the Adventist theology. It is indeed
frustrating for an Adventist to find that the Epistle to the Hebrews, the only
Biblical Commentary on the sanctuary ritual, is silent about our concerns related
to the “sanctuary cleansing” in Da 8:14. Scholarly opinions range from denying
any allusion to a first century application of the Day of Atonement imagery 254 in
Hebrews, to a nearly exclusive affirmation of it.255 There is bright scholarship to
appreciate in many Adventist studies, such as William Johnsson’s,256 Richard
Davidson’s and Roy Gane’s articles on the topic. 257 But to my perception, the
most pertinent analysis on this issue has been made by Norman Young258 and

annual (to the contrary, Dan 8:11, 12, 13 refer to the ‘daily’ service, ‫)ה ָת ִמיד‬,
ַ inner veil, or the burning of
carcasses outside the camp? Yet despite their absence in Daniel, he is able to find the Day of Atonement in
8:14. However, despite their presence in Hebrews, he is unable to see the Day of Atonement in 6:19-20 or
9:11-12. The root ‫ קדר‬is a very common one in the OT (some 509 times), but it is never used of a sacrifice
in the cultic material. It takes considerable linguistic dexterity to make ‫ נקדר‬mean ‘cleanse’ in a Day of
Atonement context. [fn. 21, ref. to R. Davidson, “The meaning of Niṣdaq in Daniel 8:14,” JATS7/1 (1996):
107-119].
253 Hebrews 6:19; 9:7-8, 12, 25-26; 10:1-4, 19-22.
254See for example, . A. R. Treyer (The Day of Atonement and the Heavenly Judgment, Creation Enterprises
International, Sioam Springs, Arkansas, 1992, pp. 369-448);
See about D. Ford (in F. B. Holbrook, Doctrine of the Sanctuary, p. 218), who takes a decided stand for the
255

Day of Atonement typology in Hebrews 9.

256W. Johnsson (“Day of Atonement Allusions”, in F. B. Holbrook, editor, Issues in the Book of Hebrews, BRI,
Silver Springs, MD, 1989, pp. 107-120).
257Unlike most of our traditional exegetes, Roy Gane (“Re-opening Katapetasma [‘Veil’] in Hebrews 6:19”, in
AUSS, Spring 2000, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 5-8) definitely shows that Heb 6:19-20 refers to the inner veil of the
sanctuary. R. Davidson (“Inauguration or Day of Atonement?”, in AUSS, Spring 2002, vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 69-
88) agrees with Gane that the veil in Heb 6:19-20 refers to the inner veil of the sanctuary, but he is inclined
to see the inauguration motif, rather the Day of Atonement motif behind the text, and behind the imagery
of Hebrews 9 and 10:19-20. He also refers to a “heavenly equivalent to the Most Holy Place”, suggesting
the presence of two holy places in the heavenly sanctuary.
258Norman Young (“The Day of Dedication or the Day of Atonement?”, AUSS, Spring 2000, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp.
68), wrote a forcefull plea in behalf of the Day of Atonement language in Hebrews: “[The author of He-
brews] uses in an unparalleled way the verb ‘offer’ (προςφέρω) to describe the high priest's blood
manipulation on the Day of Atonement (9:7) because this facilitates the application of this act to the
offering (προςφορά) of Christ on the cross (10:10, 14). In a unique manner he describes the tabernacle as
consisting of a first and second tent (9:2-3), because this allows him to relate the apartments to the first
and new covenants (8:13; 9:18). [fn. 26: ‘This is one of the alternatives allowed in the Seventh-day Advent-
ist Bible Commentary, 7:451.’] He speaks of ‘shedding blood’ (9:22), because it matches the death of Jesus
better than sprinkling. He focuses on a minor part of the Day of Atonement – the burning of the sacrificial
carcasses outside the camp – because this for the author coincides with Jesus' death outside the city's wall
(13:11-12). Hebrews uses the OT language of the Day of Atonement and other sacrifices as a means of
 71

Felix Cortez,259 who separately acknowledged the presence of the Day of Atone-
ment in Hebrews, as an acceptable illustration pointing to some function of the
Cross-Resurrection-Ascension event. Jack Sequiera also exposed the inappropri-
ate image of a heavenly bipartite sanctuary.260 And E G White herself applied the
Day of Atonement / Inauguration imagery of Hebrews 10:19-20 to the Cross of
Jesus and His access to the heavenly sanctuary:
The great sacrifice had been made. The way into the holiest is laid open. A new and living
way is prepared for all. The mercy seat upon which the glory of God rested in the holiest
of all is open to all who accept Christ as the propitiation for sin. (DA 757)

Traditionally we have supposed that the autumn Hebrew feasts foreshad-

owed the time connected to the Second Advent, just as the spring feasts fore-
shadowed the time connected to the First Advent. But my observation is that
Pesach has also eschatological applications in the Book of Revelation, as well as
Yom Kippur has some undisputed applications to the Cross alone. Such facts
encouraged me to suppose a double application of both feasts. The implications
are obvious for our JuST: Yom Kippur is not exclusively a type of the consumed
eschatology, as we usually believe, but it is legitimately applicable to the unique
and complete atonement perfected at the Cross, by which Jesus opened for us a
free access in the very presence of God.

conveying a profound theology about the achievement of the death of Jesus. The writer, to my mind, is not
interested in the details of the heavenly sanctuary, but emphasizes the heavenly realm to encourage
harassed Christians to look beyond their present trauma to the glorified and triumphant Christ. [...] My
appeal is for him [Davidson] to look for the Day of Atonement in Hebrews with the same openness to the
text that he exhibits with his exegesis of Dan 8:14 [fn. 22, ref. to Richard M. Davidson, "The Good News of
Yom Kippur," JATS 2/2 (1991): 4-27; and cf. William H. Shea, The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier :Daniel 7-
12, 2 vols (Boise, ID: Pacific Press, 1996), 111-118]. I remain convinced that the Day of Atonement is the
OT background for Heb 6:19-20 and 9:11-12.” Though Davidson’s article deserves further attention, my
conviction is that Young is right on this issue.
259“The period of Heb 9:6–10 introduces, then, the Day of Atonement not as a typology for Jesus’s sacrifice but
as an illustration (παραβολή) of the transition between ages.[...] The Day of Atonement in the period of 9:6–
10 illustrates, then, a transition from many sacrifices to one sacrifice. [...]. This ‘parable’ introduces the
main elements of the subsequent discussion: from multiple priests to one high priest, from multiple
sacrifices to one sacrifice, from unrestricted access to the requirement of blood, and from the cleansing of
the flesh to the cleansing of the conscience. Therefore, the transition from the ministry in the outer room
to that of the inner room, as it happened on the Day of Atonement, functions as a ‘parable’ of the transition
from the ineffectiveness of the old age to the achievements of the new. Jesus’s accomplishments are
understood as a change in the law; that is, the inauguration of a new covenant. This explains the prominent
role of imagery of the Day of Atonement in the central section of Hebrews and at the same time avoids the
inconsistencies between the blood ritual of the Day of Atonement and Jesus’s sacrifice as described by the
author of Hebrews.” (Felix H. Cortez, “From the Holy to the Most Holy Place: The Period of Hebrews 9:6-10
and the Day of Atonement as a Metaphor of Transition”, JBL 125, no. 3/2006: 537, 544, 547. My emphasis).
260“The issue whether Christ went into the Holy Place or the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary did
not exist in the apostolic days in the minds of the people of that period.” [...] “Sometimes people bring up
these words and say, ‘This word means Holy Place and the other word means Most Holy Place.’ Well, the
issue was not existing between holy and most holy place. [...] But these words all refer to the heavenly
sanctuary. We must remember that things in and of themselves are not holy. What makes a place or a thing
most holy is the presence of God. You remember when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. The
bush wasn’t holy. The ground wasn’t holy. The presence of God made the place holy. Since God dwells in
the heavenly sanctuary please remember that the heavenly sanctuary is Most Holy. What is the issue in
Hebrews nine? The issue is between the earthly sanctuary which the Jews were still looking upon and the
heavenly sanctuary where Christ went. The argument of Hebrews nine is this: the heavenly sanctuary with
Christ’s priestly ministry there has superseded the earthly sanctuary. In other words the earthly sanctuary
is no longer valid. The heavenly sanctuary is now what we must turn our eyes to.” Jack Sequeira (“The
Heavenly Sanctuary”, Hebrews 9:1-28 http://thesonofman.org/bible-study/14-hebrews/66-the-heavenly-
sanctuary-part-1)
 72

The Epistle to the Hebrews applies Yom Kippur in exactly this way,
though its author repeatedly and solemnly refers also to the Judgment Day.
While E G White herself applied Yom Kippur categorically to the Investigative
Judgment, following Crozier etc., she sometimes uses this image also to illustrate
Jesus’ entrance before His Father in the heavenly Most Holy, after His resurrec-
tion. Adopting this double interpretation of the type (which does not seem to me
forced or unnatural), one can read Hebrews more naturally, especially chp. 9,
where is so difficult to evade Yom Kippur.

6. The Structure and Role of the Heavenly Sanctuary

The heavenly sanctuary has no necessary physical similarity to the earthly
tabernacle or temple, and there is nothing to make us believe that objects and
aspects related to the earthly sanctuary (furniture, utensils, ornaments, distinct
rooms, etc.) reflect the heavenly physical reality, in spite of the true and faithfully
described visions of John the Revelator and E G White. The heavenly temple is
rather the Lord’s Palace, our Father’s House, the City of God, the Paradise, and
the New Jerusalem, no matter how it actually looks like.261
“The pattern” ‫ תבנית‬ta·ḇny·iṯ shown to Moses on the mountain (cf. Heb
8:5), was not a reproduction of the heavenly sanctuary on a reduced scale,
because there is no compelling argument or reason to accept this view, but
rather it was a dummy pattern of what Moses had to build down here. The use of
the neuter plural τὰ ἅγια also is not an acceptable evidence of a bipartite sanctu-
ary in Hebrews, since the plural is used also for each of the two appartments of
the earthly sanctuary (Heb 9:2-3; OG in Ez 47:12; 48:10.12).262 The correspond-
ence between the heavenly and the earthly is spiritual-didactical, not physical.
The Hebrew word ‫ תבנית‬ta·ḇny·iṯ in Ex 25:9, 40 (OG typos) does not imply
more than a model of the sanctuary to be built, not an approximate copy [minia-
ture model] of the heavenly original. Surely, it is more than a spiritual corre-
spondence, between heaven and earth, but as to their physical resemblance, it is
probably very little if any. We cannot choose how many of the earthly sanctuary
items must actually fit the heavenly sanctuary. Probably the right choice is all or
nothing.
Our pioneers, including E G White, may have used sometimes only the ty-
pologic language of the sanctuary, or they even have thought about the corre-
spondence between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries in a rather naïve,
literal way, as a physical correspondence. This is understandable on the ground
that the visions of John the Revelator and of E G White seem to endorse a literal,
261See also ‫י־אנָ ה ֱב ַניְ ַתּה ְל ֵבית ַמ ְלכּו‬
ֲ ‫( ָב ֶבל ַש ְב ָתא ִד‬Da 4:27) – Babylon, as a Royal House, built by Nebucadnezzar,
as Jerusalem is God’s Palace, which He has built; ‫ּובית ַמ ְמ ָל ָכה‬ ֵ ... ‫ש־מ ֶלְך‬ ֵ ‫( ֵב‬Am 7:13) – Betel, a
ֶ ‫ ִמ ְר ַד‬... ‫ית־אל‬
royal sanctuary, a Royal House. Usualy, a “royal house” is a kingly palace (Est 1:9; 2:16; 2Ch 1:18), where a
king’s throne is seated (Est 5:1).
262To relate the plural ἅγια to the two appartments is not natural, because the Temple was taken as a whole,
like any other house. There was no linguistic or psychologic need to refer the temple by a plural „holy
[appartments]”. Rather the use of plural neuter is often related to singular entities (cf. ςα ββατα = one
sabbath/week; χιλια = one hundred; παντα = all / as a unity: todo; αιωνεσ [Heb 1:2; 11:3]= world; αἵματα
[many ref. in OG] = blood; ὀψώνια = payment, „wages”; γαμοι = wedding; παςχα = Pesach). See Robert
Funk, Blass & Debrunner (1961), A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature,
The University of Chicago Press, pp. 77-78. At §§ 141 (8), Funk clearly shows that the plural τὰ ἅγια has
the same meaning with τὸ ἅγιον. In fact, both reflect the Hebrew ‫ רֹּ ֶדש‬which in Greek is rendered both
ways. In the other examples above, the singular is often used, besides the plural form, with the same
meaning.
 73

physical correspondence, if taken in a literal manner. But I do not need to insist

that a ceremonial sanctuary in heaven is a problem today for any clear mind. The
most popular image of the heavenly sanctuary among our believers is a vast and
wonderful two-apartment structure, furnished with altar, table, candlestick and
ark, endowed with censers, priestly garments, curtains and bells, which have
been erected especially for a divine liturgy. It is imagined as being quite similar
to the earthly system, except the animal sacrifice, and it is believed to be some-
thing else but God’s heavenly dwelling. Ultraconservative SDA groups love to
stress this distinctive Mosaic aspect (“two apartments”) and they even become
very concerned and upset when such imagery fades out to make room for the
clear message.263
I do not oppose the reality and the materiality of the heavenly sanctuary.
When I say spiritual correspondence (not physical), I refer only to what is
essential and didactical – real but not literal. If there is no material sanctuary in
heaven, it would mean that there is no sanctuary at all, no city, no real heaven!
My point is that the spatial sanctuary above may have too little resemblance with
the earthly one, because it refers to other sort of service, which is spiritual.
I am not a Platonic thinker; Platonism was always repugnant to me. My
critical position does not intend to substitute the questionable concept of a
splendid ceremonial sanctuary in heaven, by a Platonic aethereal abstraction,
neither to follow Philo’s concept of the cosmos-sanctuary, though interesting
such proposals may be.264I hold dear the image of a God manifested in physical
expression before His saints in Heaven (Mt 18:10; Rv 22:4; GC 644-45). I just
want to say that visions are not intended to convey us the true appearance of the
heavenly things. They are object lessons, not intended to describe the physical
reality in heaven, present or future.
In fact, most of us agree with this, at least in part. My point is that we
should be more consistent in this regards. There are still important SDA writings
maintaining the physical existence of two appartments in the heavenly sanctu-
ary.265 This is actually our historical view, represented by Ellen White (“...Christ’s
ministration was to consist of two great divisions, each ... having a distinctive
place in the heavenly sanctuary...” PP 357. Emphasis supplied). However, under
the influence of Taylor Bunch, Edward Heppenstall and others, most of us speak

263E.g. Ben and Lois Roden, leaders of the General Association of Branch Davidian SDA taught that the
sanctuary is a different structure, it is not the eternal place of God’s throne (see Lois I. Roden, “An Answer
For Desmond Ford! The Seven Seals and the Sanctuary”, LIVING WATERS, © May 29, 1981 www.the-
branch.org). Russel and Collin Standish (The Gathering Storm and The Storm Burst, Hartland Publications,
314) became also concerned about any eclipse of the “two apartments”. Vance Ferell of “Pilgrims Rest”,
criticized the “new theology” of our book Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, (Review and Herald, 1988),
under the heading “The Two Appartments”: “As we read through this chapter, entitled Christ’s Ministry in
the Heavenly Sanctuary, we find that there is absolutely no mention about a two-apartment Sanctuary in
heaven. There is no hint that that Sanctuary is even a structure of any kind. In fact, we are not only not told
that it has two rooms; we are not told that it has any rooms in it at all. It is just ‘the heavenly sanctuary.’"
www.sdadefend.com/Books-new-order/sdadvent1A.htm#Sanctuary
Richard Davidson, in private mail, refers to C.S. Lewis’ great allegory, The Great Divorce, as a good book to
264

get rid of such spiritualist ideas.

See, for example, A M Rodriguez, ”The Sanctuary” (in Handbook of Sevent-day Adventist Theology, vol. 12,
265

Review and Herald, 2000: 389): “This emphasis on the earthly sanctuary as a copy of the heavenly, coupled
with a discussion of the two appartments of the earthly (9:1-7), suggests that the author of Hebrews
understood that the heavenly sanctuary was a bipartite structure.”
 74

now of “two phases” rather than “two appartments”,266 which is certainly better.
There remains a legitimate possibility to speak about the heavenly things by
using the language of the earthly type. But if we use only this unique typical
language, without any specification that it is a mere didactic language, then the
image of a ceremonial temple in heaven will be strengthened in prejudice of a
more lucid awareness of the truth.
Probably nobody argues today for a strict one-to-one literal correspond-
ence between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries. However, if we maintain
a physical correspondence, emphasizing the two heavenly “appartments” or
some curtains, we must be consistent to acknowledge that the same arguments
are as much valid as the other sanctuary items: golden cherubim, ark, golden
altar, frankincense, candlestick, table, loaves, Aaron’s rod, pot of manna, stone
tables etc., which Ellen White (CET 1847:91) certainly has seen in vision.
The real number of rooms was important in the earthly sanctuary, but in
the heavenly one, rooms are not more important or more useful than censers,
showbread and tinkling bells. Marvin Moore267 understood very well this aspect,
when he wrote that “the throne room Jesus entered at His ascension includes
both the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place”, and that “there is no veil in the
heavenly sanctuary”.
We should first solve a basic hermeneutic problem, related to the function
of prophetic visions. A comparative study of the visions (Biblical and E G White’s)
convinced me that they had didactic purposes, to give us spiritual knowledge, in
a familiar language, and not to supply scientific information about heavenly
realities.268
God’s celestial dwelling is called by various names in the Bible, and even
when it is shown and described in prophetic visions, there is no consistent
picture of it. Two basic images are used indiscriminately to depict the heavenly
sanctuary: the City (Jerusalem, God’s imperial capital) and the Sanctuary (God’s
palace), according to the earthly model. Jesus calls the Jerusalem temple “My
Father’s house” (Lk 2:49; Jn 2:16), the same name He gave the heavenly home of
the redeemed (Jn 14:2). Describing the celestial city, the seer declared (Rv 21:22)
that he “did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the
Lamb are its temple.” These words show that in the heavenly city there is no
ceremonial structure, no cathedral, as it was the case with the earthly Jerusalem,
because God, Father and Son are visibly present among His people, with no
separating wall or curtain. They will worship God in His direct light-flooding
presence. And the city itself is God’s sanctuary, because it is called “God’s taber-

Cf. G M Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism, Andres University, Berrien Springs MI, 1992: 261), and E
266

Heppenstall, Our High Priest, Review and Herald, 1972 www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/priest/index.htm.

267M Moore (op. cit. 277). Gerhard Pfandl, in his review of Moore’s book (see Reflections–The BRI Newsletter,
Biblical Research Institute, Number 34, April 2011: 13-14), notes that “Moore sometimes goes beyond
traditional Adventist explanations.” And after quoting Moore’s explanation of a monopartite sanctuary,
with no veil between, Pfandl comments that “In this way Moore deflects the criticism that Jesus entered
the presence of God in A.D. 31 as the New Testament indicates, and not in 1844. […]Moore does an admi-
rable job of showing that this is the teaching of Scripture.” Amen.
268Pfandl (ibid.) acknowledges that “Ellen White’s description of a two-apartment heavenly sanctuary in
Early Writings (p. 32) is understandable, he says, because she described what she saw in vision and God
showed her an earhly sanctuary that she could recognize.” If one of our best theologians and leaders in the
Biblical research mission did not resort to a more traditional view of the sanctuary, but he even seems to
commend this progressive position of Moore, suggest that we must be optimistic as regards the future of
SDA theology.
 75

nacle with His people,” (a covenant language in Rv 21:3). God’s tent is His dwell-
ing with the heavenly beings (Rv 13:6).
New Jerusalem is described as having the form of a cube, just like the Most
Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary (Rv 21:16c; 1Rg 6:20; Ez 41:4). It has twelve
foundations of precious stone, practically identical to the twelve jewels of the
high priest’s breastplate.269 Thus the Holy City and God’s Sanctuary in heaven are
one and the same. It is not an imitation of the form, the rooms, the furniture and
the ceremonies of the “shadow” at a higher and brighter scale. It is something
else, and it might be quite different, more beautiful and meaningful than any
prophetic vision could ever reveal.270
The identification of the “sanctuary” with the NT heavenly city was made
early by Miller in 1834, at least in its spiritual meaning:
For there is not a word in the prophets or apostles, after Zerubbabel built the second
temple, that a third one would ever be built; except the one which cometh down from
heaven, which is a spiritual one, and which is the mother of us all, (Jew and Gentile) and
which is free [Gal 4:26], and when that New Jerusalem is perfected, then shall we be
cleansed and justified.271 (Emphasis supplied)

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

269Compare Rv 21:19-20 and Ex 28:17-20. Eight of the precious stones of Ex 28 in Greek are identical to
those in Rv 21 (ςάρδιον, τοπάζιον, ςμάραγδοσ, ςάπφειροσ ἴαςπισ, ἀμέθυςτοσ, χρυςόλιθοσ, βηρύλλιον /
βήρυλλοσ). Of the remaining, one stone has a synonym in Rv 21 (ἀχάτησ = χαλκηδών), and three only seem
to have no equivalent in the two lists (ἄνθραξ, λιγύριον, ὀνύχιον // ςαρδόνυξ, χρυςόπραςοσ, ὑάκινθοσ). If
we consider the loose translations, because of the linguistic difficulties in identifying these gems (in
Hebrew and Greek alike), we should not emphasize such differences, since they are not important in this
case. The gems of the two lists are identified first by the number 12, and second by their association to the
idea of sanctuary. Their function may be somewhat different in the two lists, but the basic significance
must be the same. The LXX of Ez 28:13 has also twelve gems related to God’s heavenly paradise and holy
mountain.
270See also 1Cor 13:9, 12 (BBE “For our knowledge is only in part, and the prophet's word gives only a part
of what is true”… “For now we see things in a glass, darkly”). My conviction is that prophetic visions do not
usually describe the heavenly or the future reality as recorded by video camera. Visions are given by God
as a merely didactic tool, for spiritual and practical purposes, not for communicating scientific information
about the heavenly things. Visions are not shamanic experiences, but spiritual subjective experiences,
though supernaturally induced. They are drammatic revelations made to “pass through” the prophet’s
“head” (Dan 4:10, 13; 7:15). Prophets are never physically transported in a transcendent time-space, even
though this is usually the visionary’s subjective feeling.
271W. Miller (Evidence..., p. 34), emphasis supplied. Probably, he alluded to Rv 19:7-8; 21:2-3,9-10. He
further refers to Phillippians 3:20,21.
 76

new covenant ministers. To these places, and these only, the New Testament applies the
name "Sanctuary", and it does appear that this should forever set the question at rest. 272
(Emphasis supplied).

Decades before I read Miller’s or Crozier’s suggestion, I had found it in the

Bible, when I was trying to memorize the book of Revelation. I was overwhelmed
by this magnific idea found in Revelation 21, that the New Jerusalem is God’s
Tabernacle or His Most Holy Place, and that its justification-vindication probably
equates the preparation of the Bride (Rv 19:7-8; cf. Is 49:18). But because of my
total mystical dependence on Ellen White in that time, I rejected these probabili-
ties. Late in the ninties, after further hermeneutical maturation, I resumed to the
city-palace-sanctuary concept.273 Recently, A M Rodriguez touched also this idea,
noticing the Biblical statement. It deserves our attention and further theological
development.274
This complete identification of the heavenly city with the heavenly sanc-
tuary teaches us, among other things, a major truth: in God’s heavenly realm as
well as in the future kingdom, there is no distinction between political and
religious. The secular and the sacred are no more apart. Nothing profane (unho-
ly) will be there (Rv 21:27). The redeemed of God are both priests and kings;
they fulfill both religious and political roles, like their Lord, according to the
order of Malkîṣédek (Rv 20:6; Ps 110:4; Heb 7).
In the Israelite ancient state, there was clear distinction between Zion and
Moriah, between the palace of the Davidic king (‫יח‬ ִ ‫ מׁש‬måšîaḫ) of Israel and the
Palace of Yahweh (the Sovereign king of the whole universe). There was also
distinction between the temple citadel and Jerusalem City.
Such distinction between the religious and the politic realms is extremely
important in our world. But in the plan of God for an everlasting kingdom in
Jesus Christ, the distinction disappears. The wordplay of the old prophecy
addressing to David (1Cr 17:4.10-14) shows that, while David wanted to build a
house for Yahweh (a sanctuary), God promised Himself to build a house to him:
an everlasting kingdom (dynasty). King Messiah is both temple and kingdom (Jn
2:19; Zc 6:13), according to this project. And so must be His celestial sanctuary, a
holy palace of Yahweh – both temple and capital city.
Our theology of the heavenly sanctuary identity must be further devel-
oped along Biblical lines, and especially its relevance as leading to the concept of
Judgment for the saints must receive more attention.

272 O R L Crozier, “The Law of Moses”, in The Day-Star Extra, Feb 7, 1846.
www.sdadefend.com/Our%20Firm%20Foundation/Crosier-sanctuary.pdf
273I have already expressed this view in the Romanian Adventist Review (Florin Lăiu, „Bătălia pentru
Sanctuar”, Curierul Adventist, Viaţă şi Sănătate, Bucureşti, Oct. 2002; „Măsuţa cu nisip”, Octombrie 2009, 7-
9), then in a still unprinted book (Rubine din ceasuri tårzii, Graphé, Cernica, 2009, p. 215-217), on my
webpages and in a study sent to AIIAS (“The Heavenly Sanctuary in the Book of Daniel”, 2011).
274“At the end of the book we are informed that in the New Jerusalem there is no temple (21:22); the whole
city serves as God's tabernacle, the place where He dwells with His people (verse 3; cf. 7:15)” – Angel M.
Rodriguez, "The Sanctuary" (in Raoul Dederen, editor, Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology,
Commentary Reference Series, vol. 12, Review and Herald PP, Hagerstown, MD, 2000, p. 389). This
interesting statement probably was not intended to mean that the heavenly sanctuary is identifiable with
the city, since Rodriguez wrote on the same page that “the heavenly sanctuary is a bipartite structure”.
Possibly Rodriguez was suggesting that in the end, after the complete eradication of sin from the universe,
there will be no need of a sanctuary bipartite structure (inside or outside of the city), but the city itself will
be God’s sanctuary.
 77

7. The sanctuary identity in Daniel 8

The identity of the sanctuary in Daniel 8 has been shown usually on exclu-
sive hermeneutical and indirect inference: if 2300 days mean years, the period
extends over the Christian era, and thus it may refer only to the heavenly sanctu-
ary. While this logic is correct, it might be not the straightest reasoning, since it
derives not from the text itself, or from its context. Exegetical evidence should be
added. My proposal is that we should adopt a linguistic and literary Biblical
identification of the Sanctuary in Daniel 8, as primary evidence.
Daniel uses for the sanctuary the term ‫ מִכֹון‬må·ḵôn “dwelling place” (Da
8:11c), which is a poetic term that in most cases designates the heavenly sanctu-
ary, especially when it is explicitly related to heaven.275 The appositional con-
struct ‫דשֹו‬ִ ִ‫ מִכֹון ִמִק‬mə·ḵôn mi·qdåš·ô “the dwelling place [which is] His sanctu-
ary”, 276 is composed of two synonyms designating God’s heavenly dwelling.
Strikingly, the two words of Da 8:11 (‫ מִכֹון‬må·ḵôn and ‫ מקדׁש‬mi·qdåš) are only
once connected elsewhere, namely in Ex 15:17, in the Song of Moses. This old
text is the place where each of these terms occurs for the first time in the Bible.
The two words are not connected in a construct state as in Daniel, but they
function as equivalent terms, in parallel verses:
må·ḵôn lə·šiḇt·əḵå på‘al·tå yahweh a dwelling home that Thou, Yahweh, have made
mi·qdaš ’ăḏōn·åy kônən·ū yåḏ·êḵå a sanctum, Lord, Thy hands have built it staid
The synonymy of ‫ מכֹון‬må·ḵôn and ‫ מקדׁש‬mi·qdåš is obvious, and besides,
the theological identity of God’s sanctuary-home is clearly revealed. It is not a
house that people would build for God; it is the true Father’s house, which God
built for His people.277 Thus the sanctuary of Daniel 8 is the same structure that
was mentioned in the Song of Moses and the Prayer of Solomon. Notably, six out
of seven occurrences of similar phrases in the Bible, describe God’s heavenly
sanctuary: ‫ מקֹום מקדׁשֹו‬mə·qôm mi·qdåš·ô “the place which is His sanctuary”, ִ‫מעֹון‬

Ex 15:17; 1K 8:39, 43, 49; Is 18:4; Ps 33:14; 2Ch 6:30, 33,39.

275

276Similar apositional construct phrases are not rare: ‫“ ֵבית ִמ ְר ָד ָשם‬the house which is their sanctuary”
2Ch 36:17, cf. 28:10; ‫ית־ה ֶמ ֶלְך‬
ַ ‫“ ַא ְשמֹון ֵב‬the castle [which is] the royal house” 1Ki 16:18; ‫“ ְמעֹון ֵב ֶיתָך‬the abode
which is your house” Ps 26:8; ‫“ ְמרֹום ִמ ְר ָד ֵשנּו‬the place which is our sanctuary” Jr 17:12 ‫“ בתּולַת בַת־ ָבבֶל‬virgin
[unconquered] daughter, Babylon!” Is 47:1; ‫ַש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫“ רקִי ַע ה‬the firmament [which is] heaven” Gn 1:14;
‫ת־שּוח ַחּיִ ים‬
ַ ‫“ ִנ ְש ַמ‬breath [which is] spirit of life” Gn 7:22. The best choice to translate ‫ ָמכֹון‬må·ḵôn is “dwell-
ing”, “see”. The meaning “foundation”, which others prefer, is lexicographically legitimate and theologically
appealing, but there is no other Biblical reference to a temple foundation – literal or metaphorical.
277These lines belong to the song by which Israel celebrated the marvelous crossing of the Red Sea, looking
forward, from the horrible slave camp, to her supermundane destiny; from the gulf of the Reed Sea, to
God’s Holy See. The poetic image of God’s holy mountain and supernatural sanctuary, where the redeemed
make their ultimate station, and which is mentioned by this first Hebrew song, has apocalyptic overtones.
In the book of Revelation, God’s people finally dwells in a heavenly sanctuary-city, after surviving the
seven plagues, that are reminiscent of the Egyptian Exodus (Rv 15-16; 21). It is in this context that the
Song of Moses and the Lamb is mentioned, and God’s heavenly tabernacle is shown immediately (Rv 15:3-
5). I discovered independently the link between Da 8:11 and Ex 15:17 before 1999 (cf. F G Lăiu, “An
Exegetical Study of Daniel 7-9”, MTh diss., UNISA, Pretoria, 1999: 112). Friedbert Ninow (“Indicators of
Typology within the Old Testament...”, PhD diss., Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Mich. 1999:158-
159), and De Souza (op. cit. 148) have also noticed this intertextual link, even Ex 15:17 pointing to the
celestial sanctuary, but only as a possible, secondary application. I believe that the positive reference in Ex
15:17 to a structure the God have built, precludes any application to earthly sanctuaries and points out
exclusively to the heavenly home (sanctuary).
 78

‫קדׁשֹו‬mə·‘ôn qoḏš·ô “the abode – His sanctuary” (or “His dwelling of holiness”,
“His holy dwelling”).278

8. Who are the defendants in the Premillennial Judgment

8:1. One possible interpretation
In spite of our traditional opinion that this premillennial phase of the
judgment deals exclusively with the believers, Daniel 7 reveals two heavenly
verdicts at the end of the Judgment, which implies that two human classes are
judged in this phase:
“the beast” / “little horn” is “thrown into the fire” (Da 7:11; cf. Rev 19:20-
21) – a preliminary punishment, imposed on the world’s last generation
(Rev 15-16) who rejected the true Gospel (Rev 14:6-12) and chose Anti-
christ;
“the saints of the Most High” receive judgment and eternal kingdom, to-
gether with their Representative “Son of Man” (Da 7:18, 22, 26-27).
The two classes of the premillenial judgment’ (Rev 14:6-13) are described
in the Revelation 14, under the image of a dual last harvest:
“the crops”, symbolizing the reward of the saints, “the 144.000” having
God’s name on their forheads (Rv 14:1-5,14-16);
“the vintage” and “the winepress”, symbolizing the reward of the beast
worshippers who have the Babylon’s stigma on their hands and forheads
(Rv 13; 14:17-20).
“Books have been open” (7:10; 12:1) shows that there is a record system
and records’ examination. The designation “investigative judgment” is still good
to be used; it even fits not only the pre-Advent phase, but also the post-Advent,
millennial phase (see Rv 20:4.12). Both phases of the judgment are first investi-
gative (involving duration) and decisional, and finally executory.279
Thus premillennial judgment results in a double vindication: against the
enemies of God and His people, and in behalf of God and His people.
We usually followed exclusively our pioneers’ and E G White’s emphasis
on the investigative judgment of God’s people. However, the Revelation’s seven
last plagues and related prophecies show that the premillennial judgment has
also wicked subjects, no matter whether their names have been written in the
book of life. The main distinction between the two main phases of the Judgment
(premillennial and millennial), is that the premillennial one is hopeful and
redemptive-confirmatory,280 while de millennial one is and punitive. One is for
the winners; the other is for the loosers: one for the redeemed, one for the lost.
However, this is an oversimplification. Whereas SDA historical position is reduc-
tionist as regards the premillennial Judgment dealing only with God’s professed
people, the first subjects of the Judgment in Daniel 7 and 8 appear to be God’s
enemies. One of the verdicts of the heavenly court in Daniel 7 is the punishment
of the horn/beast in the premillennial fire (Da 7:11; Rev 19:20). The only way in

278 Dt 26:15; Ps 68:6; Jr 17:12; 25:30; Zc 2:17; 2Ch 30:27; earthly: Is 60:13.
279In Romanian language I prefer the designation judecata premilenială “premillennial Judgment”, because
there is some confused use of the terms “Advent” and “Adventist” in Romanian, so that “pre-Advent” is not
explicit to Romanian speakers.
280Or affirmative, as Jiří Moskala (“Toward a Biblical Theology of God’s Judgment”, JATS, 15/1, Spring
2004:153) proposed.
 79

which Gabriel interprets in Daniel 8 how the sanctuary will be vindicated, is in v.

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

9. The Advent in Conditional and Apocalyptic Prophecy

God’s prophetic revelation about future reveals also a tension between
foreknowledge (viewed as predestination) and free will; between prophetic
predictions of a determined future and a conditional prophetic scenario that may
fail to happen.281 The tension between God’s foreknowledge and human moral
freedom is paradoxical as are many other realities, Biblical or scientific. Biblical
revelations feed our faith by a lot of opposite truths.

281Lester Grabbe (“Fundamentalism and Scholarship: The Case for Daniel,” in Scripture: Meaning and Method.
Essays presented to Anthony Tyrell Hanson. Edited by Barry P. Thompson, Hull University Press. 1987: 137)
maintains that, “The concept of accurate detailed predictions actually brings up a theological problem
which I have yet to see discussed in fundamentalist writings: the question of free choice. The idea of
complete determinism is repugnant to most of us. Perhaps one can argue for an overall divine control of
history and/or the universe while allowing individual freedom, but a detailed prophecy such as Daniel 11
would render free choice impossible. Only if the Ptolemies and Seleucids were mere puppets in the hand of
God could such a prophecy be made. The religious views of some might see no problem with this, but most
fundamentalists would face a conflict with their own theological presuppositions if they were to think
through the implications of their statements about prophecy.”
 80

To imagine in the same time complete foreknowledge in God’s mind and

complete free choice in His acts and in those of the human subjects, is not an easy
task. Such paradoxical aspects occur always at the natural limits of our human
mind, which cannot grasp, in the same time, God’s omnipotence and love, wis-
dom and mystery, foreknowledge and freedom. If someone chooses to reject
actual detailed prophecy, because he cannot harmonize this phenomenon with
his idea of personal freedom, he might as well reject God’s existence too, because
usually it seems to be covered by the very things that discover it.
The concepts of God’s complete control and foreknowledge, on the one
hand, and of humans’ complete freedom of choice, on the other hand, are attested
throughout the Bible. Biblical writers imply or assert them, but never have they
tried to explain.
Human beings and even angels do not know the future, except which was
revealed to them,282 even though they are allowed to decide important events in
this world.283 Only God truly knows and reveals the future.284He even determines
its most favourable course, having an overall control of the future as of the
present.
But even when God “hardens“ such and such heart, or “incites” someone
to do anything wrong, this is not a personal volitional manipulation, but a per-
missive will, a supreme control that, however, respects personal freedom.285
Otherwise, the whole theology of moral accountability, sacrificial atonement,
divine judgement and even prophecy that fill the sacred pages would be worse
than nonsensical.286
The human freedom and accountability are in the highest sense revealed
in the classical prophecy, which is usually a conditional prophecy.287 God foretold
282 Mk 13:32, 1Pt 1:12.
283 Da 4:17; 10:12-14.20; 11:1.
284 Da 2:28, Is 44:6-7, Ps 139:16.
285Cf. Ex 4:21, 7:2-4.13-14.22, 8.19, 9:7.12, 10:1.20.27, 11:10, 14:4.8.17, Dt 2:30, Mt 13:14-15, Jn 12:39-40,
2S 24:1, 1Ch 21:1, 27:24, 1K 22:19-23, Lam 13:37-38; Ex 8:15.32, 9:34-35, 1S 6:6, Ps 95:8, Is 46 12, Ez 2:4-
5, Da 5:20, Mk 6 51-52, 8:17-18. See also Dt 30:19.
286Someone may object to such hard language in the Bible, which may easily lead someone to understand
God as a puppets-driver. But this is not a “heavenly“, “inspired” language. It is the best cultural means that
Hebrew authors could find in their cultural-linguistic endowment, to express the sovereignty and the
overall control of God, in order to avoid ditheism. Moreover, they balanced such absolutist expressions
with others expressing human freedom and accountability. Their hard language may contain yet deeper
thoughts. Nowhere the Bible teaches absolute human freedom. Even the moral freedom is in a special
sense limited and determined. (Neither science is more convincing at this point). Outside of moral con-
sciousness and knowledge, there is no moral freedom, and consequently no accountability. With the
coming of Law, the sin comes (Rm 5:13.20, 3:20, 7:7-11), thus in a special way God makes people sinners
by simply revealing His will to them. Bu this equation has two unknown quantities: the same reasoning is
true about the right choice and righteousness, as about sinning. Our moral freedom is real and makes us
wholly accountable, but morally we have not more than two choices. To reject the right, that is the will of
God (even unwritten, received by tradition or by reason, Rom 2:14-16) means to choose wrong and accept
(consciously or not) to be under the controlling power of one’s own fallen nature (which is responsive to
the malefic spiritual agencies). Human freedom means that individuals have to choose between a willing,
love “slavery” to God, and a natural slavery to self and sin. The first one means freedom, because one is
always able and free to chose “liberation” from God, whereas the second one is only illusion of absolute
liberty, since even the moral ability to choose anything but sin is affected. We are only theoretically equal
and free, and this is not our worse problem. God evaluates us through His infinite grace and by our
responsiveness as His Word and His Spirit search our conscience.
See Jr. ch 18. It is a pity that most conservative people, including theologians, pay not real attention to the
287

hermeneutic implications of the great Jeremianic passage. When God reveals that this is His way and
purpose in revealing the future, one cannot disregard it and still be called believer. In the SDA theology,
Ramond Cotrell has especially promoted this theology, through his theological contributions to SDABC vol.
 81

that Ninneveh will be destroyed in 40 days, but it did not happen then.288 When
God revealed by prophecy a detail, such as the name of the reformer king Josiah,
the prophecy was fulfilled (1K 13:2). But God’s revelation about the peaceful end
of the same Josiah was deflected by the king’s own choice, outside God’s will,
though Josiah may have trusted God’s favourable prediction or promise.289
There are many conditional prophecies, which have not been fulfilled un-
til their proper time passed. Especially some favourable, optimistic prophecies
concerning Israel and other ancient people did not occur – though pessimistic,
unfavorable prophecies usually occurred, sooner or later.290 While we have no
explicit statement with each prophecy to know if it is conditional or not, we may
interpret each case in the light of divine covenant stipulations.
Biblical apocalyptic prophecy however is apparently different. Its inten-
tional covered or coded language, with its discreet and reserved explanations –
angelic or prophetic –; its universal scope and final reach, suggest divine control
and foreknowledge. Only the knowledge of an unconditional future has been
necessary to be partly hidden from mortals. While conditional prophecy chal-
lenges the human faith and faithfulness, inciting to action, and using the plainest
language. Apocalyptic prophecy challenges especially our trust and patience, and
so much study, wisdom and insight. We need both kind of knowledge and faith –
both trust and faithfulness.
Apocalyptic books may contain some conditional prophecy, as well as
classical Prophets contain some unconditional prophecies. The revelation ad-
dressed to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4 is certainly conditional, because he could
avoid its fulfilment.291 Contextual historical narratives (e.g. Da 1-6; 10:1-4; Rv
1:10; 22:8) in apocalyptic books certainly must not be treated as symbolic. But
what will we say about the prophecy of Daniel 11, or of Daniel 9? Could they have
been conditional? It is true that they are expressed in common language as
classical prophets did, with only a few code expressions. But this fact does not
contradict what is said about the specific apocalyptic language. Apocalyptic
visions are usually accompanied by angelic or prophetic explanations, and such
verbal explanations, though usually chary and limited, are always rhetorical or
even poetical, very similar to the classical prophecy. Prophecies of Daniel 9 and
11 practically function as further angelic interpretations of Daniel 8, though they
were given later, at different dates and supplied more than the vision of Daniel 8
explicitly required.
One of the paradoxical Biblical revelations needing to be sufficiently ex-
plained is the New Testament’s repeated assertion that Christ’s Advent must
have occurred in the first century, as Jesus and His apostles believed it,292 and on

IV. But he was not the first one to defend the truth about conditional prophecy. John Andrews made it
quite clear in 1872, or possibly even in 1853 (cf. John N Andrews, The Sanctuary and Twenty-Three
Hundred Days, Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, Battle Creek, MI., 1872;
TEACH Services 1997:5-6).
288 Jon 3:2.4, 3:10, 4:1-4.11.
289 2K 22:20, 23:29.
290 See Is 19:19-25, Jer 31:38-40, Ez 37:22-25, chapters 40-48.
291 Da 4:27.
292Sound hermeneutics and exegesis demands that the Olivet Apocalypse of Jesus (Matthew 24 etc.) be
understood as a conditional prophecy intended to be completely fulfilled in the first century (cf. verse 34),
provided the Gospel would exhaust its global task (verse 14). It was only partly fulfilled, and therefore in
historical retrospective many (including E G White: DA chapter 69; GC chapter 1) treat it as a double
 82

the other hand, the revelation of the long apocalyptic periods involved in the
historicist interpretations (e.g. the 1260 “days” ending in 1798 and the 2300
“days” ending in 1844). The implied question is, how can these long periods be
the intended meaning of the prophecy, against the New Testament scenario of
Christ’s Advent in the first century?
This problem illustrates the the natural logical tension between fore-
knowledge and free will, between God’s wish and God’s foresight. One is a
witness of God’s eternal sovereignty over time and events, the other is a revela-
tion of God’s best plan to be believed and followed. The contradiction is deter-
mined by the human free will, the only factor of uncertainty that makes such
prophecy conditional. But we should note that God did not reveal from the
beginning some important elements of the apocalyptic prophecy. Some of its
symbols remained sealed for centuries. Its time periods have been expressed in
such manner as they can be viewed compatible with the scenario of the “soon”
coming of Jesus.
Now one may imagine that apocalyptic prophecy could have been fulfilled
in short time, as a conditional prophecy. But if this is true, why it was necessary
to be expressed in such coded manner, that even today some prophecies of
Daniel and Revelation are not satisfactorily understood, though we believe them
to be fulfilled? Why express apocalyptic periods in unusual, obviously covered
manner, if they were conditional and possible to be fulfilled in a literal way?
But this tension is not only between two sorts of prophecy. The most ob-
vious tension is between conditional prophecies and the historical reality. Isaiah
(19: 20-25) predicted that the Egyptian and Assyrian empires would join Israel
in the worship of the true God, and so the tree nations will constitute a united
federal people of God. Jeremiah (31:31-40) predicted that the Jerusalem that had
fallen will be rebuilt after the Babylonian exile, in virtue of a new covenant, and
that it will never be destroyed afterwards. Jesus and the New Testament authors
predicted the Second Advent to be fulfilled in their generation.293 They believed
that they were living in the last days.294
So the question is not, why should we not interpret apocalyptic prophecy
like conditional prophecy, but rather how could God reveal so many prophecies,
if He knew that they will not happen? Take for example, the last nine chapters of
Ezekiel. There were so many details with no practical application, since that
better plan of God was not fulfilled in time, and never will be. Such revelations
suggest that God really wanted that these better prophetic scenarios be fulfilled.

prophecy, which is acceptable for some practical purposes, though it was not intended to be so under-
stood. Mt 24:34 was understood by our pioneers (including E G White, DA 632) to refer the generation that
has witnessed the last cosmic signs of verse 29 (e.g. the great meteoric shower of 1833). There is no need
to argue against this exegesis, since time has proved it wrong. The conditional prophetic scenario of
Matthew 24 is easy to be discerned due to the successive use of some temporal adverbs, especially τότε
“then” (Mt 24:14b, 16, 21, 23, 30; v. 19), or other adverbial expressions (ἐν ἐκείναισ ταῖσ ἡμέραισ “in those
days”, with reference to the war against Jerusalem; v. 29 Εὐθέωσ δὲ μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν "Immediately after
the distress of those days"). See also fn 19. A good article on the topic is of Don Neufeld, “This Genera-
tion Shall Not Pass,” Adventist Review, April 5, 1979.
293Mt 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk 21:32; 2Cor 5:2-4; 1Thes 4:17; 5:3-4, 23; 2Tes 2:7-8; Tit 2:13;Heb
10:36-37; 11:40; Jam 5:8-9; 1Pt 4:5-7, 17-18; Rev 1:1,3; 3:10-11; 12:12; 22:6-7, 10, 12. 20. The explicite or
implicite logic of these texts is distorted by some exegetes, but just look at the historical and literary
context. However, there is enough evidence that Jesus (Mt 24:14; AA 1:7-8), Peter (2Pt 3:3-16) and John
(Rv 14: 15, 18) have shown the conditional nature of this solemn promise and expectation.
294 Cf. AA 2:16-17; Rom13:11-12; 16:20; 1Cor 10:11; 1Jn 2:18.
 83

But how can we speak about 2300 years, if Jesus promised to come back
soon after AD 70? The equal legitimate question is, why Jesus promised to come
soon in that generation, if the real history had yet to extend over two millennia?
We have shown that God’s better plans have been expressed in terms of condi-
tional prophecy. And one asks, how Da 8:14 would have been fulfilled, if the
prophecy of Jesus and the apostles’ expectations about the Second Advent
happened in the first century? There would have been no problem for God. He is
not surprised by anything. He would certainly have known long before this
possibility become real, so that He had given to Daniel in time the proper infor-
mation about the future.
Probably most Adventists acknowledge only deterministic prophecy. At
least as regards the time of the Second Advent, the prevailing opinion is deter-
ministic. A few Adventists suggest that even apocalyptic prophecy is conditional,
and therefore we should abandon our historicist methodology, especially the
year-day measuring stick. Both parts must acknowledge and embrace the whole
paradoxical revelation, if we want to grow together in unity.

10. Practical Suggestions

Adventist prophetic (eschatologic, apocalyptic etc.) studies need continual
revision and progress, in the light of new hermeneutic and exegetic approaches.
This is the task of all our theologians and of all our community of faith. Our
responsible authorities (BRI, BRCs) should encourage constructive theological
endeavors in this field. First, to make a more thoroughful evaluation of the
former critical approaches and suggestions; and second, to encourage the dy-
namic theological model of our pioneers.
Probably the first necessary step is to promote a sound and realistic the-
ology of inspiration, not only among theologians, but also among our community
at large. The Bible study and the Spirit of Prophecy need to be revived and
encouraged in our churches everywhere, in a respectful and critical manner. To
make more open and more efficient such popular study, much depends on
ministers’ concern or abilities to do it, and on the popularity of good written
studies on the topic. Our pastors or teachers must be able to understand in a
practical way how divine inspiration works, and thus we have to resume, in the
most open manner, the task we silently abandoned in 1919. Without a decided
and united effort, nothing good is to be realized.
SDA theologians with all our present capacities should make of this fun-
damental topic a priority in our research. We cannot allow our central doctrine
and message to remain in a provisional stage. We should not fear that being fair
with the Biblical text or the Spirit of Prophecy might lead to a loss of faith. There
are some risks in the dynamics of a fair and determined research, but there are
more risks in a conservative inertia.
It is wise to ask myself, if a doctrine so difficult for scholars should belong,
with all its details, to our official doctrinal expostion, which so often functions as
a creed and test of fellowship.295 This is not a militant position against this
precious doctrine. But why should we go through so much difficult stuff in
Leviticus 16 and Hebrews 9 and Ellen White, insisting on nonessential details

295W. W. Fletcher, in his “Reasons for My Faith”, 11, quoted in D. Ford (Daniel 8:14, p. 47), noted that “While
these things should not be made a test of fellowship, we have rightly attached great importance to them”.
 84

and forcing the text, and why should we not express the doctrine of Daniel 8:14
in its essential truth: God’s Judgment as culmination of the eternal Gospel?
A tentative statement on this doctrine, still in much need to be improved,
as I perceive it, is following:

There is a universal, final and heavenly judgment that will manifest God’s
character of love, which is expressed through grace and justice.
o It is universal, because it involves each responsible individual.
o It is final, because it is definitive, irrevocable, and distinct from some historical
judgments of God.
o It is heavenly, because its sessions occur in heaven, while people is judged in absen-
tia, with the best defendant’s Lawyer.
God’s judgment has two main sessions:
o a millennial session for the lost ones;
o a premillenial session for the saved ones.
Each session has two important consecutive phases:
o a trial, based on complete evidence (records) followed by final decisions (justified
or condemned) regarding each name;
o an executive judgment (the reward), happy or unhappy.
The millennial judgment occurs during Christ’s kingdom of 1000 years,
after the Second Advent, involving all those “not recorded in the book of
life.”
o It has Christ as supreme Judge and all the redeemed as His jury of assessors.
o The role of the trial is not to give God new chance to make better decisions, neither
to give the lost a new chance to be saved, but to demonstrate that God is right in
denying everlasting life to those who are morally (spiritually) irrecoverable.
o The result of this millennial trial will be negative. All who did not reconcile with
God in this life (time of probation) will be lost.
o The final punishment is differentiated, individualized; many will be resurrected to
receive their deserved doom (suffering eternal separation from God and annihila-
tion), while others will be left in their eternal sleep, with no additional punishment
(Rom 2:12; 1SG 193).
The premillennial judgment occurs before the Second Advent, still in his-
torical time, and it basically involves those who are “recorded in the book
of life”, candidates to immortality.296
o It has God as Judge, Christ as attorney and angels as jury and wittnessess.
o The role of this trial is not to inform God to make good decisions; neither to give
those involved a new chance, nor to endanger the status of the saved, but to
demonstrate that God is right in justifying repentant sinners, and in giving ever-
lasting life to those who partook of His Spirit.
o The result of the premillenial judgment will be happy for all who meet God’s crite-
ria. All those who believed and lived according to the best light of truth that they
understood in good conscience, will be welcome to heaven, with Jesus being their
substitute and surety. All those who rejected God’s light and will not receive the
character and the Spirit of Christ, will be rejected, and their case will be treated in
the millennial judgment.
o The glorious reward of the saved cannot be imagined. It includes everlasting life,
the unspeakable joys of heaven and of renewed earth, the society of a redeemed
family, angels and saints, and mostly, the possibility to enjoy the immediate pres-

296It is true that, according to Daniel 7:11, at the end of this judgment, the beast with its horn was killed and
thrown into the flaming fire. However, this seems to be more like one of the historical judgments, similar
to the judgment of Babylon, and of Persian Empire and of the Hellenistic World (Da 7:12). It seems not be
an individual judgment, but one involving the beast and its horn as a religio-political system. The same
scenario is described in Rev 19:20. Individual unrepented people who made up this system will be judged
by name during the millenium.
 85

ence of God and Jesus, to worship and praise Him. The favorable reward will also
be differentiated. While the good reward is from God’s grace, not from humnan
merits, God will “pay” however for each “well done”, evaluating the spirit and the
motivation.
The premillenial judgment involves two classes of candidates, dead and
living.
o The dead are judged first, because their fate cannot change.
o The living ones who are judged are all the candidates from the last generation who
have to be tested before meeting Christ at the Second Advent.
o To face the eschatologic test, the Judgment and the Second Coming, God prepares
the living candidates, through the Gospel, gives them the Holy Spirit and victory
over sin, seals them forever and keeps them believing and living through the apoc-
alyptic horrors of the time of trouble.
The premillenial judgment, which is the only trial with favorable results,
have already began, according to the prophecy.
o Daniel 7 describes the judgment to begin after the year 1798 but earlier than the
moment where Jesus receives His kingdom, which is shortly before His Advent.
o Daniel 8 in connection with Daniel 9 indicates a more precise time, at the end of
the 2300 prophetic days, in 1843/1844.
o This news of the Judgment in the light of the Cross of Christ, who is our only hope,
is the culmination of the eternal Gospel.
o The hour of God’s judgment is an opportunity and a challenge for the living ones
only, inviting to repentance and true worship, submitting to God’s saving grace to
prepare ourselves for the test below and the judgment above, to be sealed and
made ready to meet Christ.

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