Stephen Terry, Director

 

Still Waters Ministry

 

Qr code

Description automatically generated

 

 

 

 

Motivated by Hope

Commentary for the May 18, 2024, Sabbath School Lesson

 

"Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place." Daniel 9:24

Since this week's lesson deals with the prophetic timelines presented in the Book of Daniel, chapters 8 and 9, and I have already addressed those timelines in detail in my book, "Daniel - Stranger in a Strange Land," rather than rewrite what I have already written, I am sharing chapter nine from my commentary which continues to be available in its entirety as an E-Book on Amazon.


Date Setting as Foundational Dogma

(Based on Daniel 9)

When examining the prophetic timelines of the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, there may be a questionable basis for the time prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 9:24 having the same starting point. Daniel 9:24's seventy weeks are well identified as to its beginning and using the year for a day principle used when God appointed a year for each day the spies had traveled in Canaan for the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness, it appears to work historically for the events regarding the Advent and crucifixion of Christ.

But in order to harmonize with the commencement of the Investigative Judgment in 1844, some have insisted that the Hebrew verb in 9:24, נֶחְתַּ֥ךְ means "cut off" and therefore must be referring to being severed from a larger time line, the closest physically within the text of Daniel being the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. However the word more correctly means "decreed" or "determined" as is correctly rendered in practically all translations, including the King James Version. This is also the translation given in William Holladay's authoritative work, "A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament." Cutting off from something larger would be rendered קטע in Hebrew, terminology not used here in Daniel.

The "cut off" interpretation may have found its way into Adventism from John Gill's "Exposition of the Bible" commentary where such an interpretation is given. He does not say where he obtained the idea. John Gill was an English Baptist theologian who wrote in the mid-eighteenth century and his commentary was commonly used for reference during the Millerite era and the formative years of Seventh-day Adventism. They did not have the plethora of sources we now have for biblical study, and this meant that a single author, once published, could have a far greater influence over popular understanding than we might expect today. This means an error, even an unintentional one, could persist. We see an example of this influence in the commentary accompanying the Scofield Reference Bible of 1909, where the Secret Rapture doctrine was promoted and persists to the present, influencing later works by Hal Lindsey and others. Even though that doctrine is based on an interpretation, those who believe in the Secret Rapture are just as convinced in their belief as are many Seventh-day Adventists regarding the inerrancy of John Gill's interpretation of Daniel 9:24.

Not surprisingly, Ellen White echoes John Gill's statement about the "cut off" interpretation verbatim with her statement about Daniel 9:24 in "The Great Controversy," page 326. Other scholars have pointed out repeatedly that she drew on secular historical sources for some portions of "The Great Controversy," such as d'Aubigne''s "History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century" published in 1800. While popular and important works in their time, some of the information from those sources has later been challenged. Should it be unusual then that she should also draw on a popular non-Adventist theologian's commentary? However, it does bring into question our understanding of inspiration regarding the vision later claimed by Hiram Edson, which may have been influenced by William Miller, who himself may have based his understanding on Gill's statement concerning Daniel 9:24 made perhaps a century earlier. Ellen White's inspiration about the text may be a fruit of the same tree. It is possible that neither party knew directly of John Gill's statement and only received it via William Miller's exposure to it. We do not know since sources were not cited then as they are now. But even still, it challenges our concept of inspiration. While it is impossible to say exactly what Ellen White read or didn't read without an index to her personal library, the language used and the coincidence bring up the question especially in view of the popularity of Gill's "Exposition on the Bible."

The "Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary" on Daniel 9:24 also states that they are going with the interpretation of "cut off" as opposed to "determined." without citing the exact source of such an interpretation except to say that it appears "in post-biblical Hebrew." Sometimes what passes for scholarship in Adventist circles surprises me because the author does not give a single example of such a reading. He does cite sources where the translation differs slightly but not one that corroborates the translation "cut off." Then as if frustrated at his lack of a concrete reference example, he states that the meaning must instead "be derived from context" and then begins a short diatribe of circular reasoning to arrive at his predetermined conclusion that it does indeed mean "cut off." However, if as a denomination, Adventists believe in any degree in inspirational infallibility it could be expected that the denomination's official commentary would necessarily be in harmony with the prophetess's statement, even if she was only quoting John Gill.

The untoward influence of this interpretation of Daniel 9:24 became a focal point for a disappointed group of Millerites. William Miller had predicted the Parousia would take place first in 1843 and then when that did not happen, in 1844 based apparently on the Gill influenced assumption that the time period of Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 8:14 began running on the same date. When the Parousia did not take place, rather than call into question this assumption or even the idea of what the "re-consecration (or cleansing) of the sanctuary" might be referring to, this 19th century band of believers refused to admit that the calculation or the interpretation could be off. Into this stew pot came farmer and lay faith-healer, Hiram Edson, with his own contribution. He proclaimed to the band of believers that were to become the nascent Seventh-day Adventist Church a couple of decades later that the reason nothing happened in 1844 was that it was all invisible due to taking place in heaven instead of on Earth. This idea came to be known as the "Investigative Judgment." Eventually it was determined that this judgment had a process whereby it began with God's judgment of those who had died and would end with the living, and it begins with Christ entering the presence of God in the Most Holy Place in the heavenly temple in 1844. Consequently, there has developed a heavy reliance on the priestly ministry of Christ described in Hebrews. There is some controversy about this interpretation, though, as Stephen, the deacon, when stoned by his persecutors, said he could see Jesus standing "at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:56) If this is correct, then Jesus would have to leave the presence of God to re-enter his presence. While possible, there is no biblical account of such a separation taking place after the Ascension. Admittedly, it is difficult to envision what takes place on a corporeal level with an ineffable God who is Spirit and capable of omnipresence.

This ready acceptance of Edson's vision may seem to some like a facile attempt to rationalize what had happened without abandoning the interpretation that apparently originated with Reverend Gill. However, to those believers, it provided an explanation they could run with and a defense against those who were accusing them of folly in setting a date for the Second Coming, a practice which the Bible says is futile. (Matthew 24:36) Such an interpretation allowed them to deny they were in error and to escape the charge of date setting for the Parousia. After all, it turned out it was not really the Second Coming they were predicting, it was the start of the judgment.

One would think upon examining the "Fundamental Statement of Beliefs" voted in Dallas in 1980 that little of our theology depends on this Doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Without it, the denominational name stays intact, for the fact of the Parousia is well established Christian doctrine, and the Seventh-day Sabbath is also well founded both biblically and in Ante-Nicene Christianity. However, some have viewed the Investigative Judgment as a cross to die upon, even going as far as to defrock ministers who dared to question it. Yet, this is the same church that several decades ago would also fire pastors who baptized individuals who chose to wear wedding rings, a practice that today is rarely if ever questioned, many ministers as well as lay members having taken up wearing them. If this doctrine on wedding rings, which was considered so vital only a short time ago, could be revisited, why not the idea of an Investigative Judgment that began in 1844, a year that by any other account was unremarkable save for the failure of Jesus to appear.

Of course, this begs the question of just what Daniel 8:14 is referring to. We feel we must have that answer because 1) we believe that this is the Time of the End, and 2) The final chapter of Daniel says that the book will be unsealed at the "Time of the End." (Daniel 12:9) Because Adventism claims to be the End Time remnant of Revelation 12:17, that implies that we must therefore have the correct understanding of the unsealed book of Daniel. We cannot then abide any ambiguity about Daniel 8:14. But reality challenges us even there for there is plenty of ambiguity about our understanding of Daniel, chapter 11. It may be presumption then to assert that we are the people who have been specially chosen to open Daniel to the world. We may be just as wrong about the imminence of the Parousia as were the first century believers. But while an individual may come to admit they were wrong and take a more enlightened path as a natural part of spiritual growth, it is much more difficult, if not impossible for a corporation supported by millions of members to do so, especially if that corporation is dependent upon the continued financial support of those members for its existence. Perhaps therefore Christianity tends to progress by the establishment of new denominations instead of through reformation of the existing ones. Even the great Reformation of the sixteenth century was more an exodus from the Roman Church rather than a welcome invitation to actual reformation from within. It begs the question whether each denomination in turn must pass through that gate to progress.

In any event, in the earlier chapter, I have offered a meaning for Daniel 8:14 contemporary to the events happening when the book was likely written. Daniel, as we have it today, was very much a product of the Maccabean Revolt and that context provides us with keys to understanding the meaning and purpose of the text, again, as addressed in the last chapter of our commentary. While there is little doubt that a judgment precedes Christ's return in order to enable Revelation 22:12, there is no indication that setting a date for a beginning for such judgment has any relevance at all to salvation or the Second Advent. What possible difference could it make if such judgment began in 1844 or 1910, or any other later date? Perhaps it is time to toss such theological date setting into the rubbish bin of history. The imminence of the Second Coming does not need that to be apparent for the signs repeatedly mentioned in the Bible are all around us. Let us stop the date setting and prepare. It may be sooner than we think.

 

 

For more information about Daniel's prophetic timeline, you may enjoy my book, "Daniel - Stranger in a Strange Land"

 

 

You may also listen to this commentary as a podcast by clicking on this link.

 

 

 

If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy these interesting books written by the author.

To learn more click on this link.
Books by Stephen Terry

 

 

 

This Commentary is a Service of Still Waters Ministry

www.visitstillwaters.com

 

Follow us on Twitter: @digitalpreacher

 

Follow us on Instagram: @stygyz

 

If you wish to receive these weekly commentaries direct to your e-mail inbox for free, simply send an e-mail to:

commentaries-subscribe@visitstillwaters.com

 

 

Scripture not otherwise identified is taken from the Holy Bible, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Used by permission. NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION and NIV are registered trademarks of Biblica, Inc. Use of either trademark for the offering of goods or services requires the prior written consent of Biblica US, Inc.