Stephen
Terry, Director
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"