|
1844 -- Is It Prophetic?
Recently, I listened to a presentation by Raymond F. Cottrell at a meeting
of the Adventist Forum. He told publicly what he had been discussing privately
for almost 30 years, and it was an amazing story. In the 1950's, as an editor
of "The SDA Bible Commentary", Elder Cottrell tried to defend the
SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14. He resented Dr. Donald Barnhouse's comment
that the investigative judgment idea had not a Bible text to support it. But
after laboring with Daniel 8:14, using the original languages and the historical-grammatical
method of interpretation, Cottrell found that he could not substantiate the
Adventist position. At the suggestion of F.D. Nichol he sent a questionnaire
to 27 leading Adventist scholars and found that they too had no adequate biblical
defense for it. Some expressed the thought that Daniel 8:14 had nothing to do
with its context and that the inaccurate word *cleansed*, which had lead the
pioneers to connect Daniel 8:14 with the cleansing of the sanctuary in Leviticus
16, was simply a fortunate accident.
A committee appointed by the General Conference met for five years and could
not resolve the issues. A minority admitted that the Adventist position could
not be proved from the Bible. The majority wanted to solve the problem by ignoring
context and language altogether.
At the meeting of the forum Elder Cottrell declared that despite exhaustive
efforts he could not prove the SDA view from the Bible. (In the 1950's Don F.
Neufeld of the 'Adventist Review' had reached the same conclusion.) Cottrell
does not want to abandon the traditional teaching. In fact, he desperately wishes
to retain it. But he believes it solely on the say-so of Ellen White.
The gospel is a bright and certain light. The OT was only a shadow of it.
The OT revelation was given "in many fragments and by various methods"
(Heb 1:1, Weymouth). Because the OT is a shadow of things to come, many of its
statements are enigmatic. They are difficult to understand.
The story of Christ, on the other hand, is so clear that it really does not
matter which version of the Bible we use. This history will shine through any
version in any language on earth. Scripture testifies that all who repent and
believe that Jesus is the Son of God risen from the dead are judged and forgiven
and have eternal life. (John 5:24; Acts 13:38,39; Romans 3:24-26; 10:9).
This great testing truth is not based on a few scattered texts, much less
on a doubtful interpretation of a difficult Scripture. But people are prone
to set other tests. In the place of this bright light of the gospel many want
to make less certain things into tests of faith. Some of these tests rest on
the interpretation of a single doubtful text.
In this category I must place the traditional Adventist interpretation of
Daniel 8:14. I do not mind if the Adventist wants to think his calculations
give him an exact prophetic reckoning, including his use of a Karaite calendar.
What concerns me is that this interpretation of a single text, with no other
scriptural witnesses and no New Testament confirmation, should be made an article
of faith alongside faith in the sinless life and resurrection of Jesus. Some
Adventists think that believing this interpretation of Daniel 8:14 is as important
as believing in Christ. October 22, 1844, is considered an event in salvation
history that a person must believe as fully as one believes that Christ is risen
from the dead. The mentality that makes a particular interpretation of Daniel
8:14 an article of faith to be placed alongside the certainties of the New Testament
is rank sectarianism. It is esoteric and cultic.
Many Adventists will not really accept other Christians as sound in the faith
if they do not believe that Jesus passed from one heavenly compartment to another
in 1844. Yet not one Adventist in a thousand would know how to prove it from
the Bible, and scholars like Raymond Cottrell and Don Neufeld have stated that
it cannot.
Think of the obstacles the traditional Adventist must surmount to reach his
desired goal of 1844:
- He must prove that 2,300 evening and morning sacrifices equal 2,300
full days when there is no evidence from Daniel 8:14 - or any text of Scripture
- to show it.
- He must prove that in prophecy a day equals a year, and that an evening
and a morning sacrifice equals one day which he can then turn into one year.
- The context implies that the period began when the daily sacrifice was
suspended. He must show that it began in 457 BC; a date having nothing to
do with the daily sacrifice.
- He must prove that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" means
cleansing it from the confessed sins of the saints when the context refers
to cleansing it from pollution by the enemy of the saints.
- He must prove that confessed sins defile the sanctuary; an idea stated
nowhere in Scripture.
- He must assume the 490 years are cut off from the 2,300 year although
nothing is said of this in Daniel 8 or 9.
- He must assume that the 2,300 years and the 490 years begin together.
- He must maintain that the reconsecration of the sanctuary (Dan 8:14)
and the anointing of the sanctuary (Dan 9:24) are not the same thing, though
they seem to.
- He must prove that the "word" (Dan 9:25) was a kingly decree,
and that the king was Artaxerxes.
- He must prove that the cleansing of the sanctuary merely "commenced"
(when Dan 8:14 says nothing about "commencing") in 1844.
- He must show that the Karaite calendar is more reliable than the Rabbinical,
and that in 1844 they celebrated the Day of Atonement in October.
- He must prove that the "cleansing" of the sanctuary in Daniel
8:14 is of the kind typified in Leviticus 16.
- He must show that the Day of Atonement began in 1844, and he must explain
why Christ's *act* of Atonement is separated from the *Day* of Atonement
by 18 centuries.
- He must then show that there are two apartments in the heavenly sanctuary
and that Christ moved from the holy place to the Most Holy place in 1844.
He must also show that when the New Testament says Christ entered God's
presence (Heb 9:12), this means the *first* apartment.
- He must then prove that the judgment which began in 1844 was an "investigative
judgment" of God's professed people, not a judgment (as the text implies)
of the wicked.
Having juggled texts and leapt across gaps he has finally reached his goal.
But he might well fear that someone will ask him to support the matter with
one clear Bible text.
How can we continue to insist that this elaborate and tortured exercise should
be a test of faith? It is one thing to think our interpretation of a passage
of Scripture is correct. It is another thing to treat those who doubt our argumentation
as apostates. Surely this is rank sectarianism.
It is not difficult to believe an interpretation if you want to believe it.
Miller "showed" that many verses would climax in the 1840's. For instance,
Miller showed that the seven times of Daniel 4 (2,520 years) would end in 1843.
He even showed that the number 666 would end in 1843.
This was the heyday of historicism. The pioneers saw the Bible prophecies
were focused not only on the 19th century but on themselves. If the Book of
Revelation were a series of predictions on such events as the invasion of the
Turks, the French Revolution, the rise of the United States, and "1844,"
what sense could it have made to Christians of the first century who were commanded
to read and understand the book?
[All of the above is taken from Robert Brinsmead's "Judged By the Gospel",
1980]
|