« 2010 Ellen White Symposium: Devotional | Main | 2010 Ellen White Symposium: "Ellen White, Authority, And The Authority Of The Bible In Adventism" »

April 05, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear Sister,

It think it is not as easy as we think. You quote statements where Ellen White rebuked Brethren Daniells and Prescott. Yet, there are also statements where she rebuked Brethren Haskell, Loughborough, and (Leon) Smith. The question is why does she rebuke both sides? Let me explain that a little bit by quoting from my thesis, pp. 120, 121:

"Since she asked brethren Haskell, Loughborough, and Smith not to use her writings to support their ideas, some argued that she therefore clearly indicated her opposition to their interpretation of the tāmîd. (Heiks, The "Daily" Source Book, 32) Yet, such a reasoning would put statements in her mouth that would contradict each other since she denied knowing anything about the “daily” matter when, of course, she would have known something. Further, it is important to point out that she not only carried decided messages to the supporters of the old view but as well to the supporters of the new view. For example, although she told Haskell that Satan would use his mistake of re-circulating the 1843 chart to create confusion and division among the leading workers of the church, (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 9:106; cf. Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, 6:250, 251. See also Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White, 423, for a plain rebuke to Leon Smith who had condemned his brethren and their beliefs in a tract) she warned Prescott and Daniells that they were in danger of “weaving into their experience sentiments of a spiritualistic appearance … that would deceive, if possible, the very elect.” (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 12:223-226, 20:21, 22) She had to tell Prescott that he was “not beyond the danger of making mistakes.” He would sway from clearly defined points of truth, and give too much attention to items that do not need to be handled at all, and that were “not essential for the salvation of the soul.” (Ibid., 10:334, 359; cf. Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, 6:248)"

On pp. 113, 114 I wrote:

"Ellen White stated several times that she was not given any instruction or “special light on the point under discussion.” (Ellen G. White, “Pamphlet 20–A Call to the Watchmen,” 1910, 5, 6; idem, Notebook Leaflets from the Elmshaven Library (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1945), 2:159; idem, Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 1:164; idem, Manuscript Releases, 12:224; cf. Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1973), 61; cf. Douglass, 419) Since she had no special insight into the matter, she refused the use of her writings in support of either view.

I entreat of . . . our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of “the daily.” . . . I cannot consent that any of my writings be taken as settling this matter. . . . I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question. (Ellen G. White, “Pamphlet 20,” 5, 6; idem, Notebook Leaflets, 2:159; idem, Selected Messages, 1:164; cf. Schwarz, 399; Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White, 422)

She saw “no need for the controversy” and the whole discussion, since it appeared to be a subject of “minor importance,” or not of “vital importance.” (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 12:224, 9:106; idem, Notebook Leaflets, 2:159; idem, Selected Messages, 1:164; cf. Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings, 61; Schwarz, 399; idem, Ellen G. White, 6:250; Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White, 422) Its discussion would only make “a mountain out of a molehill.” (Quoted in Arthur L. White, Manuscript Releases, 9:106, 10:334; cf. Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, 6:248, 250) The difference between the views was not as important as some portrayed it, and its magnification would constitute a big mistake. (Ellen G. White, Notebook Leaflets, 2:159; idem, Selected Messages, 1:164) The differences of opinion should not be made prominent. (Quoted in Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White, 423; Schwarz, 399) If the matter would be introduced into the churches, the disagreement caused on this point would make the whole matter even worse. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 12:225)"

The results of aggitating the matter would be disastrous (pp. 114-115, and instead the brethren should focus on the really important work (p. 116).

Page 117: "Reading the above warnings and counsels one could conclude that the matter of the “daily” or tāmîd should not be studied at all since it is not really important. However, that would be a selective use of the sources. She made other statements where she stated explicitly her desire that the contending parties should have come together, study the issue on the basis of the Bible, and come to an agreement. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 20:223; cf. Arthur L. White, “Concerning Elder A. G. Daniells,” 1, 2; idem, Ellen G. White, 6:250; Heiks, The "Daily" Source Book, 3) Thus there was a place for the study of that matter. Yet, what she repeatedly regretted was the fact that the people involved in the conflict had gone so far as to surmise evil against each other. They were unwilling to give up their preconceived opinions and study the matter together with members of the other group. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 9:106; cf. Arthur L. White, “Concerning Elder A. G. Daniells,” 2; idem, Ellen G. White, 6:251) The atmosphere of the conflict already portrayed in the previous chapter supports her statements. Apparently the real problem was not so much the topic of the “daily” itself but the way the leading brethren had handled the matter and treated each other. (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases, 20:223; idem, “Pamphlet 20,” 12; idem, Notebook Leaflets, 2:161; idem, Selected Messages, 1:168; cf. Heiks, The "Daily" Source Book, 3) Therefore the point lying at the heart of the issue was a spiritual problem, namely, irreconcilability, unwillingness to study and talk, and a deportment that was unbecoming for Christians. (Arthur L. White, “Concerning Elder A. G. Daniells,” 2) That explains why, when stating that it is unwise to agitate this matter, she frequently used such phrases as “now,” “at this time,” and “at this point of our history.” (Ellen G. White, “Pamphlet 20,” 11; idem, Notebook Leaflets, 2:161; idem, Selected Messages, 1:167; idem, Manuscript Releases, 12:225; idem, Manuscript Releases, 9:106; idem, Ellen G. White, 6:250)"

We have problems and issues in our own time, and we would do well to learn from the lessons of our history, to acquire the right spiritual attitude and to study the Bible with open hearts to learn from God and His Word. Since both groups back then were not really willing and ready for that, she had to rebuke both sides and tell them to be silent.

By the way, the reference that I have for Daniell's interview with Ellen White is: Daniells, “Interview with Mrs. E.G. White Regarding the Daily,” quoted in Heiks, The "Daily" Source Book, 33, 34. The content of the interview was apparently written down on September 25, 1931 (DF 201b, EGWE-GC); parts of that interview are also in Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White, 423.

I did not have the text of the interview with F. C. Gilbert. But if you can give me a reference, like the DF number or so, I would appreciate it.

Thus far all her statements fit very well into the picture. People who try to use her statements to prove one or the other view, have to somehow ignore another set of her statements.

Blessings, Denis

Dear Denis,

Thank you for your recent posts. I also have your M.A. thesis and Probstle's Ph. D. dissertation. They are both exceptionally helpful, and I believe they evidence God moving His people forward on this long-standing difficult and controversial subject. I have some comments and questions for you and I will leave to your discretion the extent to which you reply. I know your time is limited and I hate to impose on it.

I am particularly interested in what you and Probstle have written regarding the view that Daniel's "daily" is the "true worship" of God. I discovered some years ago that this was the common view of both Catholics and Protestants before the time of William Miller. The SDA Bible Commentary provides a brief overview of this ("Five Centuries of Exposition of the 'Daily,'" 4BC 60-63). This part of history is outside the purview of your thesis, but you did refer to several Adventist writers who also took this position (Price, Keough, Down; your p. 71). Down makes this his primary position (in two very brief statements [pp. 72, 105]). But it seems that the primary view of Price is the "new view" (pp. 171-175; it looks like his "true worship" view is confined to the last sentence of this section). Keough takes the "true worship" view tenuously, but he also states that "The latest Adventist writer on the subject believes that the daily refers to 'true worship' (cf. C. M. Maxwell, God Cares, pp. 156-166)" (Keough, 87). But for the life of me, I do not see this view expressed by Maxwell in God Cares. Maxwell is unambiguous in taking the "new view." ". . . the tamid of Daniel 8:13, 14 is a symbol . . . . of the continual ministry of Jesus Christ in the heavenly sanctuary" (Maxwell, 1:166).

While there is little in Adventist history touching on the "true worship" view, Probstle had much more to say regarding this view in his analysis of Dan 8:9-14 (in particular his pp. 206-232). He identifies nine characteristics of hatamid in Dan 8. Of particular interest to me are characteristics #6-9 (215-230).

#6 "There is obviously a relationship between the commander of the host and the tamid. How can this relationship be further defined? Two possibilities present themselves. First, the tamid is for the commander of the host, or it belongs to him. The commander receives the tamid as it is presented to him, or it is already in his possession. The horn removing the tamid from him would then signify that the horn hinders the commander of the host from receiving the tamid. . . . In this particular interpretation the tamid would represent the regular cultic activities or the regular worship directed toward the commander of the host . . . . A second possible relationship between the tamid and the [commander of the host] is one in which the commander of the host is performing the tamid and the tamid is part of his responsibility [the Adventist 'new view'] . . . . In summary, both options concur with the text and it seems wise to suggest that both are valid at the same time." (215-217)

#7 "In Dan 11:31 and 12:11, the tamid is replaced by an abomination of desolation . . . . After the tamid is taken away, a devastating [abomination], a false worship, is 'given.' Assuming there is a congruency between the replaced item and the substitute, the replacement of [hatamid] by [the abomination] is another indication that [hatamid] refers to true worship. True worship and service of YHWH is removed and replaced by false, abominable worship." (217-219)

#8 "Lust pointed out that in the Aramaic section (Dan 6:17, 21) one finds a related adverb to [tamid] in the description of Daniel's cultic behavior: [tediyra] which as a noun used adverbially means 'constantly' and as a noun 'continuance, continuity, perpetuity.' In the Targums, [tediyra] is the Aramaic equivalent to the Hebrew [tamid]. Whenever [tamid] is translated in Aramaic it is rendered by [tediyra], and whenever [tediyra] renders a Hebrew word, the Hebrew is [tamid]. This is a perfect one-to-one relation. Therefore, a bilingual reader of the book of Daniel would immediately recognize the lexical relation between [tediyra] in Dan 6:17, 21 and [hatamid] in Dan 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11." (219-221)

#9 "Ninth and last, a thematic relationship is noted between [tediyra] in Dan 6 and [hatamid] in Dan 8 that sheds further light on the meaning of [hatamid]. To begin with, the verbal root used to describe Daniel's continual activity in Dan 6 is [pelach] 'serve.' In BA, this verb is always used in the sense of serving God or a god (10 times), and four times it occurs in parallel with [cegid] 'worship.' . . . Thus, Daniel's service or worship of God in prayer has cultic connotations, which certainly fit the use of [tediyra] (BH [tamid]) in this context. . . . . Since sacrifices or cultic acts are the most important outward expressions of worship, one could argue that it is possible to refer to the totality of worship by mentioning that term that would comprise all the regular cultic activities: [hatamid]. . . . The focal issue in chap. 6 is prayer and worship, or with one word: the tamid. Daniel's commitment to continuous service to God and his uninterrupted worship practice stand diametrically opposed to the human, and inherently anti-divine, order. In this regard, the struggle involving the tamid in Dan 8 resembles the situation in chap. 6, albeit on a larger, universal scale. In both chapters it becomes evident that 'spiritual warfare on earth is an attack on the ritual observance of the people.'" (224-230)

Here is Probstle's conclusion for this section:

"The cultic background of the term [hatamid] shows that it represents (1) the regular cultic activities performed by the (high) priest, and/or (2) the continual cultic worship of YHWH. To be specific, [hatamid] in Dan 8:11-13 designates (1) the cultic activities of the [commander of the host] as high priest, and/or (2) the continual cultic worship directed toward the [commander of the host] as divine being.
"I suggest an intentional double meaning. Although the cultic background of [hatamid] favors the view that (high) priestly activity is meant, which is being part of the Israelite worship, two considerations from the book of Daniel itself provide enough reason to understand [hatamid] also as an expression for the true worship and service of YHWH, maybe even 'the epitome of the cult.' First, the replacement of [hatamid] by false worship or false cult practices [abomination] in Dan 11:31 and 12:11 implies that [hatamid] designates the true worship of YHWH. Second, the obvious lexical and thematic link to Dan 6 ([tediyra] 'constant' in 6:17, 21) suggests that [hatamid] stands for the continual cultic worship and service of YHWH, which was expressed by Daniel short of sacrifices through his continual service in prayer." (231)

Denis, I'm coming more and more under the conviction that Probstle's discovery described in #8 above will prove to be the key that unlocks the mystery of Daniel's "daily." I'm also going to be very "up front" here with my own conclusion following many years of study. Taking Probstle a step further and without going into details, I suggest an intentional single meaning of Daniel's hatamid, and this is the "true worship" of God by God's true people. I know this suggestion is going far out on a limb, since giving up a cherished view like the "new view" (or the "old view" for that matter) is like pulling teeth without anesthesia. Nevertheless, I would like to know your response to this, and I would like to know your sense of the extent the "true worship" view has been accepted in Adventist academia. I look forward to your response.

Dear Engel,

I agree with you that Keough goes too far in suggesting that Maxwell believed in a “true worship” view. At least the reference that he provides does not provide evidence for this suggestion.

Martin’s discovery concerning the use of the Aramaic equivalent is amazing in that he provides evidence from the Book of Daniel itself on how to interpret the tamid in the Hebrew part. Before starting with the work on my thesis, I hadn’t really heard of the aspect of “true worship.” I haven’t really read his diss in total since this 900-pages-opus volume is nothing that I read just in passing by. When I took classes with him, his diss wasn’t out or defended yet, and I don’t remember if he mentioned it in class or not.

But I would agree that there is a correspondence between the service of the priest and the worship of the people. Why shouldn’t there be a correspondence as well between the mediatorial ministry of Christ, our heavenly high priest, and the worship of his believers here on earth? The horn or the power behind it cannot go into the heavenly sanctuary, push Christ away, and install his own counterfeit service. What he can nevertheless do is to install a different sanctuary and mediatorial service on earth, and try to move the believer’s eyes away from the heavenly service down to his earthly service. Thereby he replaces the heavenly service and draws the worship of the people to his counterfeit service on earth. Thus the heavenly service is affected because nobody on earth knows of its existence, and the worship of the people is diverted from Christ to a human priest.

Thus I would probably opt more to an interpretation of the tamid that combines the sanctuary aspect (in heaven) with the worship aspect (on earth).

Adventist scholars mostly follow, at least in their published works, the view of Christ’s ministration in heaven. Martin combines several elements as you already noted correctly; I know of at least one other scholar who favors the inclusion of the worship aspect (with ref. to Rev 11:1-3). I would have included his explanation in the thesis but I forgot about the syllabus that this professor had sent me which contained a note on that point.

Blessings, Denis

Denis, I would certainly like to see someone investigate specifically the history and biblical evidence for the "true worship" view, as well as the connection, if any, between this view and the heavenly ministry of Christ view.

I am inclined to see a distinction between these two views that disallows both views being the proper meaning of Daniel's tamid. As I see it, at the time of Dan 6 there wasn't a High Priest functioning as a type of Christ. In fact, there wasn't even a temple in Jerusalem to represent the heavenly sanctuary service. Thus, if the Hebrew word hatamid in Dan 8 is to be understood in connection with the Aramaic word tediyra in Dan 6, this connection would embrace but the single element of service and worship of God, as this was the only element that applied in the context of Dan 6. Moreover, did Daniel and his contemporaries understand in their day that the expression hatamid meant the heavenly ministry of Christ? Of course, we could add this context to hatamid if we want, given the special revelation of the heavenly sanctuary given the remnant since 1844, but where is the linguistic connection to this context?

Also, to recognize a double meaning to hatamid forces one to read "from Him the tamid was taken away" (Dan 8:11) in two very different and distinct ways. For me, one needs solid exegetical reasons for making such a double application. I believe Probstle has provided solid evidence for the "true worship" view, but I've always found the exegetical defense of the "heavenly ministry" view, despite its now widespread acceptance in Adventism, to be weak. Actually, I think the real reason it is the prevailing view is not because it has strong exegetical evidence to support it but because the exegetical evidence supporting the paganism view is even weaker.

Also, given the fact that Ellen White wouldn't touch this subject with a ten-foot pole [even after the new view began to be promoted] tells me that we should not be overly confident in the new view. If this view is indeed the correct view, why didn't God employ His messenger to affirm it, just as He had with other essential beliefs of Adventism? And the fact that for many centuries the historic Protestants were united in the "true worship" view indicates that perhaps they understood something which has been lost to us. Finally, the fact that the little horn cannot go to heaven to push Christ away and install his own counterfeit service is another reason I question the new view. Does diverting the worship of people from Christ to a human priest really constitute the "taking away" of Christ's heavenly ministry? Taking the biblical testimony by itself, this testimony is that Christ "always lives to make intercession" for us (Heb 7:25).

Dear Engel,

Thank you very your keen insights. I had to think about it a little bit more. But I think that there are still good arguments for a broader understanding of hatamid.

First, in the OT the term itself is primarily used in a sanctuary context. To totally exclude this OT background in Daniel would call for valid reasons. The difference in use led the Millerites and early Sabbatarian Adventists to exclude the OT background and look for possible NT parallels. Although we have found now further details in the Aramaic part of Daniel for the interpretation of hatamid, there are no reasons, I think, to entirely exclude the OT background.

Second, Daniel is presented as someone in the book who serves God in worship, who intercedes for his people, who is his mouth/messenger. The way he is presented has cultic connotations, as if he would be a priest.

Third, the whole book has strong cultic connotations. There is cultic terminology (cultic places, cultic time, cultic personell, cultic items, cultic activities, etc.). Through the book run various motifs, like judgment and sanctuary. Both topics are, of course, interrelated because the judgment comes from the sanctuary.

Fourth, Dan 8 has strong cultic terminology: ram and goat (day of atonement sacrificial animals), sanctuary, cleansing/restoration/vindication (nizdaq), and tamid (if we alow the cultic background). Thus the text has strong cultic connotations, as well as judgment connotations (restoration, vindication, etc.).

Fifth, the text itself states that the horn (first little, then great) takes away and overthrows the hatamid and the sanctuary. It threw some of the host and stars to the ground and installed its own host, all by transgression. Thus the ultimate question is: "For how long is the vision concerning (a) the hatamid, (b) the transgression that makes desolate, and (c) the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?" So there are three problems cast up by the activities of the horn. They are all solved by the action described in v. 14: "For 2,300 evening-mornings. Then the sanctuary shall be nizdaqued again." Although the nifal form of the term nizdaq is unique in the OT, it is used in its qal form. Richard M. Davidson did show some years ago that the word zadaq (qal) is frequently paralleled with three other terms which have the meaning of cleanse, restore, and vindicate, which suggests that zadaq encompasses those meanings. In Dan 8:14 we find it in its passive or nifal form (nizdaq). It would answer all three problems: (i) The hatamid service / worship will be restored. (ii) The transgression which defiled the sanctuary (the transgressions of nominal members of the people of God [church members] contaminated the sanctuary) is removed from the sanctuary or the sanctuary is cleansed from it (and it falls back on their originators). (iii) God was defamed by the trampling down of his sanctuary and his host. These were also defamed. God, his sanctuary, and the host have to be restored in the sense of vindication. The day of atonement does all that. It restore, it cleanses, it vindicates.

Afterthought:
Maybe to explain one detail a little bit more. If alleged believers and members of God's people set up there own worship or sacrificial service, God's true sanctuary was contaminated by their transgressions. The day of atonement as judgment day shows which sins can be forgiven (because they were transferred/confessed on the right sacrifice) and which sins have to be transferred back to their originators (because their worship was disconnected from the true sanctuary, another way of salvation). In that sense God shows that he is forgiving (to those who follow his way of salvation) and just (denying forgiveness to those who chose another way of salvation) at the same time. His action is vindicated. The question is answered how he can be forgiving and just at the same time. Thus the establishment of a counterfeit sanctuary service by professed members of God's people (e.g. Christians) causes the contamination of the true sanctuary with their transgressions, if they know about a true sanctuary or not.

Thus what Christians do here on earth affects the heavenly sanctuary. It must be clarified which sins are forgiven and which cannot. If we "remove" the sanctuary from heaven (although in reality it cannot be done) down to the earth, and erase the knowledge about a heavenly sanctuary, a counterfeit service is set up. But if we are professed Christians and members of God's people, our sins/transgressions are still transferred to the heavenly sanctuary. Thus the heavenly hatamid of Christ is directly affected.

Coming back to Daniel, his worship and intercessory service (Dan 6 and 9) stands in a cultic context. Regarding the OT sanctuary, there were several continual (tamid) services. Daniel assumes a priest-like role by interceding for his people, the sanctuary etc. Today, we in a way assume a priest-like role by doing certain activities that belonged to the continual service. We are priests and the people. But Christ is our highpriest and he is also interceding and performing various continual service/s. To talk about those (what we do and what he does) would become very practical; maybe we should talk more about those ;). Therefore I think that the removal of the tamid affects us but also him, or our worship and his intercession.

Does that make sense? I suggest a definition of the tamid that attempts to go in harmony with the term itself (tamid), the text (Dan 8), the closer context (Daniel), as well as the wider context (OT and then NT). Hopefully I am successful in this but there is certainly far more to discover.

Yet, I'm open if some of the above arguments prove to be erroneous and too farfetched.

Many blessings,
Denis

PS: Do you speak Pennsylvania Dutch or Plautdietsch?

Dear Denis, I am honored by your replies.
I will try to answer with similar scholarly sentiments. My problem with this „tamid” is not about semantics and exegesis, though I don’t claim to fully understand all details involved. (For example, I would like to understand more fully the apocaliptic-chronological implications of hattamid in Daniel 8 and 11 and 12, because the moment of removing hattamid, seems to be also the moment of installing the transgretion/abomination of desolation 1290-1335 days before the time of the end. I can’t find a better date but the traditional 508, but how it works as a relevant historical event ?). But I say, this is not the main problem. The whole problem of hattamid is related to Ellen White’s position, which is complex and confusing or even down-knocking, if you read what Tania posted above. I certainly must read carefully your study, hoping that you have written something on the subject. The attitude of EGW toward critical-exegetical Bible study and toward controversial issues seems to me contradictory and inconsistent. And I hope that this is only my sinful perception, or probably some imperfect, human rhetoric and logic. However, I am satisfied by her principle that the Bible must be put above the Spirit of Prophecy, and the good Reason (common sense, wich is not so common!) must be wed with the Word (remember Luther’s reply).

I agree with you that „(a) when a message is communicated that had been revealed through a vision/dream it bears divine authority. (b) When the Holy Spirit leads the prophet to collect information or to convey a message on religious matters it has divine authority.” However, the prophet’s perception may not be perfect, and his/her report may be confusing in some detail. I meet this problem in the Bible too, not only in Ellen White’s writings. As you have written, „that does not mean that the message itself would be faulty.” But we should distinguish the prophet’s message from the non-essentials that adorn it.
That “I saw” of her 1850 statement, must be a general reference to some previous vision, but I think that she confused the actual extent of the visionary message with pioneers’ understanding of hattamid. And she thought that the vision also involved the true nature of hattamid, and that the italicized word „sacrifice” was so important (because that was Miller’s and the pioneers’ argument: sacrifice is added by human wisdom).
Regarding the Hebrew text, I’m affraid I was not well understood. Some hebrew word may be translated by a correponding unique word, but some of them have not word for word correspondence in other languages, and there is not a matter of supplying, but of just translating the full meaning of the original term. For example, עולה ‘olah is not properly translated “sacrifice”, since not all sacrifices were named ‘olah, but only the burnt offerings. Now, if I translate it “burnt offering”, should I notify by italics, that I “added” the word “burnt”, then to emphasize that it was “supplied” by the human wisdom, as it would be a sin of carelessness or of boldness? Can you normally translate the term צֶבִי tzebhi in Da 8:9 by one English word ? And if you must add in translation “country” or “land”, is this really a human addition to God’s word? If one thinks that translation is a literalist, word for word business, this is only a mystical fundamentalist understanding, with some appeal to uneducated minds, especially uneducated in the way languages and translations function. I firmly believe that the aditional sacrifice may be wrong only in the sense that burnt offering is a more exact. Thus human wisdom must have supplied two words instead of one. However, readers understand want kind of sacrifice is all about, since they clearly referred to “the daily”, or “the continual” sacrifice, and that was a holocaust, the continual burnt offering of the of the lamb which was completely-consumated and daily renewed, with its due morning and evening ritual.
It is not a scientific approach to exclude the Old Testament background of the term, as well as its Mishnaic use. To interpret an OT Hebrew term by a NT new revelation is not wise, and such method, besides being anti-scientific (in this case anti-linguistic), it would open they way for all kind of mystical and subjective interpretations. One thing is to try to interpret a theological aspect of OT by the NT, and another thing is to jumb over an OT natural, linguistic problem, and try to solve it by a NT reading. Miller’s principle: Scriptures explains Scriptures is true, but it must not be understood as if any Scripture could explain any Scripture. Textual, immediate cotextual and contextual approach are the safest indications.
Regarding the time when התמיד hattamîd began to be used for התמיד עלת ‘olat hattamîd, we have no information. But it is wrong to believe that this is simply a diachronic problem, and that at some date, the old complete expression was abandoned in behalf of the new one. I have shown in some post above, that this is also a synchronic linguistic problem, not only a diachronic phenomenon. If it would be only a diachronic (historical-linguistic) problem, it would be an argument for the late composition of the book. But great Hebrew scholars affirm that Mishnaic (Rabbinic) Hebrew is the heir of the colloquial (vernacular, demotic, popular or spoken) Hebrew that was used in the times the Bible was written. This is a great discovery. If not, we must agree that the Ecclesiastes is very late, because its language is quite different from the others, and it is similar to Mishnaic Hebrew. Daniel Fredericks, in his doctoral thesis (Qohelet’s Language) convincingly argued that it is mixed with a large measure of spoken Hebrew. Daniel has also clear colloquial expressions and grammar, though not the same as Ecclesiastes. These books cannot be late, because they share important characteristics of Early Hebrew od Aramaic, that were not longer in use in the Greco-Roman Hebrew.
Such elliptical (“beheaded”) expressions as “the continual [burnt-offering]”, “the glorious [land]”, “[man of] preciousness” (9:23; 10:11.19); or a blended (“portmanteau”) expression as פלמני palmony (“a certain one”, instead of the classical פלני אלמני pelony-almony); or the use of pronoun הלז hallaz (“this one”, 8:16, instead of the classic הזה hazzeh); or some gender disagreements, are a good evidence that the Hebrew of Daniel is influenced by the spoken Hebrew, quite a lot. Since the Hebrew of Daniel contains important old features, in syntax, vocabulary, semantics and even in spelling, I thing there is a good case for an early Hebrew of Daniel (beginning of the Persian era), and for the synchronic use of the colloquial features which I’ve shown.
Colloquial Hebrew became, after many centuries, the language of Mishnah, the literary Hebrew of the Pharisees and Rabbis. Thus we can explain the connection between some Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew features, and also the parallel use of Hebrew dialectal forms. Besides, even in the literary or colloquial languages separately, new expressions or words do not usually replace the old ones in a historical moment. There may be a long period of parallel use of both forms, until the most practical form comes victorious (for a time). Especially if the two variants have some social-cultural connotations (one is a prestigious kind of speech, and other is perceived as vulgar, or corrupted), they may be used separately in parallel, one form in the literary language, the other form in the colloquial. Not to forget that Daniel was so inolved in the new, practical communication to his people, that he wrote in Aramaic and in a Hebrew affected by spoken Jewish, Aramaic and Persian. While Ezekiel (46:15), Ezra (3:5) and Nehemiah (10:34) use the literary (complet) form עלת התמיד, Daniel prefers the colloquial (elliptical) form התמיד, that after centuries, in Mishnah, it becomes a new literary Hebrew (while the old Hebrew was not spoken anymore). These are natural changes in any language, and they explain this phenomenon better than any theological reason. If Daniel wanted התמיד to imply paganism, or even to imply priestly ministry etc., the choice of this elliptic form would be unnatural and difficult to explain. Therefore is natural to use the term as his late Hebrew does, since the same meaning makes excellent sense in Daniel, no matter if one refers the earthly or the heavenly sanctuary or both. (Jesus in Matthew 24 applies the installing of the abomination to 70 CE, implying that hattamid was also removed by Romans long before the first Roman Pope appeared).
The use of Aramaic בתדירא bi-thedira’ (”in the circling” = continually) in Daniel 6 cannot have any relationship to the Hebrew התמיד hattamîd (“the continual [burnt-offering]”). Even if both expressions contain equivalent terms, tamîd (Heb. continuance) and tadîr (Aram. duration, circling), the Hebrew form is used as a technical elliptic nominal expression, while the Aramaic form has only an adverbial use in Daniel. In both Aramaic cases, the adverbial expression בתדירא bi-thedira’ is used in religious context, describing the continual ministry of Daniel (re unceasing prayer). But this use cannot suggest anything, because it is simply an adverbial function that could be used in various situations, and its nominal use in late Aramaic did not develop a technical elliptic form.
Regarding the forms in Chronicles, we should notice that the Chronicler used many early sources (1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, and some lost sources) for his chronicles, and as such, his literary language is affected by the Early (Standard) Biblical Hebrew. This is not a superficial observation, but anyway, I prefer solutions that are proper to the involved sciences. Theology cannot dictate how words should behave. They behave as they use to do it, and linguistics is the only science that studies languages systematically. An important disadvantage or even a handicap of classical theology (bot Hebrew and Christian) is that Biblical languages have been approached in theological or even mystical terms, not as a linguistic study. James Barr has written on the theme and his writings deserve consideration (except some of his liberal opinions). There are many examples that even today in the conservative camp (which I especially love), many Bible teachers and ministers still preach about the „theological” difference between “agape” and “philia”, about a supposedly theological meaning of the plural Elohim and so on. These are examples of pseudoscience and superficiality. Actually agapao and agape is used even for incestuous or materialistic love (2Sam 13:1.4.15; 2Tim 4:10); neither Greeks had such high spiritual noun, nor even Hebrews (that used indiscriminately various words of love). This was only an illustration, probably you know it, but I’m sure that other people who read these posts need the warning.
I like exegesis, as you yourself do. However, from my experience, I know that a sound exegesis of difficult texts cannot be done without a solid linguistic research and textual-critical comparison. Our traditional exegesis is strong in its theological contextual observations, and this is very important. But when it comes to linguistics, we are sometimes lost in heavenly grammar, while the textual criticism (comparing manuscripts and dealing with versions, variants and emendations) is often left for the devil.
Thank you for appreciating my posts, and I appreciate also your balanced contribution.
Best regards.

Dear Tania,
Thank you for replying me. I have not much to say, for the time, about your post. I notice you want to stick with Ellen White as you see her, and I do not intend to move you away.
I was spiritually reared by the writings of Ellen White and I still value them. The only difference is that now I have surpassed the milky stage of innerancy, and I respect this Mother and her counsels even when I understand that some details of her discourse are simply wrong.
If you want to understand how ispiration functions, please read first what she has written, under the same inspiration (1SM 20-22):
„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. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. 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, inlogic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God’s penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
„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.”—Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886)
„The Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, in order that the degenerate senses, the dull, earthly perception, of earthly beings may comprehend His words. Thus is shown God’s condescension. He meets fallen human beings where they are. The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated, as many people suppose, the strong expressions break down before the magnificence of the thought, though the penman selected the most expressive language through which to convey the truths of higher education. Sinful beings can only bear to look upon a shadow of the brightness of heaven’s glory.—Letter 121, 1901.

http://egwhite.eu/egw_textonly//textonly/writings/publication.php?lang=en&bookCode=1SM&collection=2&section=all&pagenumber=21&QUERY=logic+rhetoric&resultId=2

Dear Denis and Florin,

More thoughts on our discussion: Florin, you make a good case that hatamid is an elliptical expression for "continual sacrifice." But if this is true, it seems that a perfect opportunity to use this expression was missed in Dan 9:27: "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offerings." Since this verse is referring specifically to the literal typical sacrifices, why not say, "He shall bring an end to hatamid"? Because Dan 9 serves as an explanation of Dan 8, it only seems consistent that, if the same thing is meant, the elliptical expression would be used in both prophecies.

To me, the term hatamid in Daniel is a Hebrew colloquial expression referring to the Jewish "continual" worship of God in its totality. This is seen in the fact that the Mishnah tractate describing the daily sanctuary service is entitled Tamid. Though the daily service was centered around the blood sacrifice, it encompassed more than just the lamb offering. Thus, it seems that rendering hatamid as "continual service" or "continual worship" is better than "continual sacrifice." Nevertheless, the word "sacrifice" is still appropriate if we understand "sacrifice" in its broader context of symbolically representing all aspects of worship. Without this broader context, however, the word "sacrifice" is, to me, too narrow in scope and can mislead readers (like the literalists whom Ellen White was led to correct with her EW 74-75 statement) to focus too much on the blood sacrifices.

I'm glad you brought up the fact that the Aramaic word tediyra ("continually") functions only as an adverb in Dan 6. I would really like to know how Probstle would respond to this point. Of course, as you know, if we were to stay strictly with the biblical texts, outside of Daniel the word tamid also functions only as an adjective or adverb.

Denis, you have set forth a strong case supporting the broader "heavenly ministry of Christ" view of hatamid. You have also raised the point that we ourselves have been given a kind of priest-like role to play. This interconnection between what Jesus is doing as our High Priest and what we do as "priests" (particularly as it affects our "true worship" of God) presents difficulties when it comes to discerning the precise meaning of hatamid in Daniel. In the sanctuary context of Dan 8, does this "hatamid" refer only to Christ's priestly ministry? Or only to our priestly ministry in our worship of God? Or to both? You and Probstle argue for both. I would like to set forth more arguments for the "true worship" view.

As I noted in a previous post, Probstle (217-219) has pointed out that Dan 11:31 and 12:11 describe the tamid being replaced by the abomination of desolation. It is perfectly reasonable to understand that the "setting up" of an abominable worship fills the vacuum left by the "taking away" of the tamid. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that the "setting up" of false worship has the effect of "taking away" true worship (since true worship and false worship cannot coexist in the same place). The correlation between "true worship" and "false worship" is one-to-one, whereas the correlation between the setting up of false worship on earth and the taking away of the heavenly ministry of Christ is not nearly so direct.

After reading Samuel Nunez' Ph. D. dissertation "The Vision of Daniel 8: Interpretations From 1700 to 1900" (AU, 1987) I am even more impressed with the uniformity of belief among historic Protestants regarding the "daily." Some believed it was Jewish worship (sometimes specifically the daily sacrifices) while others believed it was Christian worship. I also have a stronger inclination to believe that the historic Protestants were correct that the "daily" is the true worship of God and that the word "sacrifice," in its broad application, provides a correct context for hatamid.

Here are some OT texts connecting Jewish worship with the tamid sacrifices: "Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice" (Ps 141:2; KJV); "I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord" (Ps 116:17); "Praise the Lord of hosts: for the Lord is good; for his mercy endureth for ever: and of them that shall bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord" (Jer 33:11); "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. . . . Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar" (Ps 51:17, 19).

Here are some NT texts identifying the Christian "sacrifices" we are to bring to God: "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service" (Rom 12:1); (the next text speaks of the sacrifices we as "priests" bring to God) "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet 2:5); (and the next one instructs us to bring our worship sacrifices to God on a tamid basis) "By him [Christ] therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name" (Heb 13:15).

Ellen White spoke of the symbolic context of the tamid sacrifices: "Let the father, as priest of the household, lay upon the altar of God the morning and evening sacrifice, while the wife and children unite in prayer and praise. In such a household Jesus will love to tarry" (PP 144). I also like the way William Cuninghame explained Daniel's "daily" 200 years ago: "Of this temple [the Christian church], the daily sacrifice is taken away when this form of sound words no longer remains, and when the worship of God, through Christ alone, is corrupted and obscured, by superstitious veneration for the Virgin Mary and the saints, or by any species of creature worship. It then ceases to be the daily sacrifice ordained of God (The Christian Observer, April, 1808, p. 211)" (4BC 62).

Clearly, the historic Protestants understood that during the Middle Ages the papacy substituted her "transgression/abomination" of false worship for the "daily sacrifice" of true worship. Blessings.

Denis,
Sorry, I forgot to answer your question. No, I do not speak Pennsylvania Dutch or Plautdietsch, despite the fact that I lived two years in Germany while serving in the US Air Force (Bitburg Air Base near Trier). This was before my conversion and I'm afraid the only German I learned was "zwei bier bitte." I would have made Martin Luther proud. :)

Dear Engel,
Thanks for continuing our good dialog.
Regarding the cultic expression in Dan 9:27, ומנחה זבח zébaħ wu-minħā (lit. “sacrifice and offering”), it contains two nouns in the singular, but with a collective meaning (like many other nouns in the context), and it probably refers to all kinds of sacrifices and offerings (gifts), daily, occasionally, weekly, monthly, yearly, festal, calendric etc. (I cannot enter in details, because I’m not at home now, and I have no access to my favorite Bible Works program. I am in US for a few days, after my son’s wedding).
On the other hand, tāmîd is described in Mishnah as only the daily, regular service centered on the continual burnt-offering. I guess you understand also the theological distinction between the continual holocaust on the altar (and its related daily cultus, each morning and evening), and the occasional sacrifices brought by worshipers: sacrifices for sin, thanksgiving sacrifices, paschal lambs, gifts, and so many other sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus etc. Think of this distinction. There was no other sacrifice to emphasize so well the Gospel of universal grace, but the daily renewed tāmîd.
However, if ומנחה זבחzébaħ wu-minħā and התמיד hattāmîd had the same meaning, this would be no problem. Biblical authors often use synonymous terms or expressions, or even the same term with two and even three meanings in a quite close context. For example, מראה mar’ê is used in Daniel 8 with three different meanings: 1. countenance, face, look; 2. vision, apparition; 3. spoken revelation. And all three are legitimate and usual, though the third is relatively rare.
In fact, Daniel uses also in chap 9 the expression מנחת ערב minħat ˁáreb (the evening offering), which was exactly the evening hattamid cultus. EGW was right when she wrote that Biblical authors are not so technical in using the language terms. (You may reread the passage of 1 SM which I frequently quoted).
I have no personal opposition to the idea of hattamid=continual worship / ministry. In fact both these solutions are better than hattamid=paganism, since they fit the literary and logical context better than paganism. My reason to choose rather the usual term sacrifice, or more exactly burnt-offering is linguistic. We have a good evidence that Hebrew used tamid in an elliptical manner (see Mishnah), whereas we have no evidence of using tamid as a strange way to refer a heavenly ministry or worship. Elliptic expressions, and actually any unknown word must be solved on linguistic basis first, not on theological speculations.
You say that the term hattamid in Daniel is a Hebrew colloquial expression referring to the Jewish "continual" worship of God in its totality. However, the only colloquial use of this expression is reflected in Mishnah. You know, only very usual expressions tend to become elliptic, in any language, and the Biblical Hebrew indicates that the most frequent use of hattamîd is when preceded by ˁôlat (the burnt offering of…). In fact, this was 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. To it belong some related ceremonies, such as the additional wheat, oil and wine offerings, and the immediate renewing of frankincense and lights in the sanctuary, while the shofar was sounding aloud. I have nothing against calling this service differently, but we should be careful not to confound it to the frequent occasional individual or festal ceremonies. They were not continual. Therefore I am not happy with expressions like "continual service" or "continual worship", because they embrace too much, even all ceremonies that were not continual. I agree that sacrifice or burnt offering is maybe to narrow, but this is not an opportunity to safeguard the statement of EW, which Ellen White herself did not confirm later. In fact, the only interpretation extant in those times, that emphasized an illegitimate supply to the daily, was the Millerite old view of paganism. And this is not the only case where EGW followed some erroneous views of other pioneers. Therefore we should not let this EW statement have the last word on the topic, nor her later statement that actually annuls part of the first.
I noted that usually our theologians contrasted the daily (ministration) with the annual Day of Atonement. There is a contrast, to be sure, but we should not ignore that, while in the Day of Atonement, no personal sacrifice could be brought, there still were the continual burnt offering continued/renewed as each morning and evening. Thus hattamid must have a high symbolic Messianic significance. It has nothing to do with our sacrifices, it is Christs unique sacrifice. I think that my view does not exclude the use of terms ministration or worship, when we interpret theologically this tamid, but it is better to keep the focus and central role of the morning and evening service, that was based on the continual holocaust/burnt offering.
I agree that the "setting up" of false worship has the effect of "taking away" true worship (since true worship and false worship cannot coexist in the same place).
I have read also the good thesis of Nunez. I noted the historical protestant interpretations of tamid. Those who focused on the Jewish earthly service (preterist or futurist) have naturally read hattamid as continual sacrifice, as the Jewish use indicates. But historicist expositors who identified the horn with papal Rome, tried to spiritualize the meaning of hattamid. Theirs was a theological preference, they made no superior linguistic research on hattamid. Tradition (=history of interpretation) has its merits, but we should not let it have the last word.
You refer to Ps 141:2. It is only a comparison, and the Book of Revelation shows that our prayers have no merit but the incense of Christs merits. Prayer is associated with the tamid, because that was the common time of prayer for all Jews. And I like those statements of EGW saying that the frankincense added to the prayers of worshipers symbolizes the blood of Christ, the only merit that we may plea.
Thank you for patience and real interest.

Dear Florin,

Thank you for your very interesting and informative response. I think your linguistic approach to the "daily" problem is a good and valid one. But if we confine ourselves to this approach, what would you say is the Christian equivalent to the Jewish morning/evening sacrifices? That is, given the Hebrew application of the elliptical hatamid, must we not find a Christian application that fits the chronology of Daniel's prophecies? Is there a way to do this from a linguistic (vs. theological) approach only?

I would like to comment more, but this post must be very short as I am leaving for California in a few hours and I will not return (to Kansas) until the first of next week. (Congratulations on your son's wedding. I hope your stay in the states is a good one.)

Thank yoy Engel for your kind reply!
To make it short, I apply hattamid to what I think that continuous holocaust symbolized, that is the cross of Jesus, His merits and the proclamation of this Gospel of all powerfull grace. The little horn power installed the religion of man, worship of man, promoting human merits, and drawing a distant image of God, then inventing the mystical sacrament of the mass, thus replacing the Gospel, the merits of Jesus by its abomination.
I don't think I have a full and clear understanding of this complex symbol. If hattamid includes not only the lamb's sacrifice, but other related ceremonies, which I described above as mentioned in Mishnah (Tamid), it means that I should enlarge my view. However, I don't think that I will discover any human merit in hattamid. The continual incense burning, according to EGW, symbolizes also the blood or the merits of Christ, while the daily trimming of the candlestick probably represents the Holy Spirit. I don't know what to say about the additional daily offerings (wine, wheat, oil).
Possibly you wonder how various symols point to the same spiritual reality. But in fact, Jesus and His sacrifice are so great and multifaced, that no single symbol can reflect them. The bloody sacrifice burning completely represented His sacrifice from the perspective of life and death. But shedding blood and burning flesh are not attractive for the eye or for the smell. Therefore, the ritual was completed by other steps: frankincense, to show that Christ's sacrifice is agreeable to God, and the seven lights, to show that in God's House this is the only legitimate light.
I would add hear the blowing of trumpets or horns (shofar), and other instruments each morning and evening, when the burnt offering was brought, meaning probably the loud proclamation of the Gospel, and the only continual joy that we may experience.

Thanks for the explanation, Florin (I'm in a hotel lobby in CA that provides an internet connection, so I didn't have to wait till next week to see your reply).

My initial reaction to your view of the "daily" is that it is just as valid as is the "new view." In fact, there are close similarities between your view and the "heavenly ministry" view. So for me, my questions regarding the "new view" apply to your view as well.

First point: with both views there is no way to actually "take away" the hatamid, as the prophecies plainly state. In chap. 7, the the prophecy says the little horn would "think" or "intend" to change God's law. It does not say it would change it, in substance, but only "think" to. It couldn't do it in reality. But this is not the way the prophecies read regarding the "taking away" of the "daily." Here we are told, in my view, that the papal power would accomplish the taking away in fact. No pretense here. But it is impossible for the papacy to actually "take away" the "daily" as understood by you or the Adventist "new view."

Second, (and here is the Adventist nemesis of the historic view of Dan 12), what historical event happened in 508 that took away hatamid? Whether we understand the tamid as the heavenly ministry or the merits of the cross, what specifically happened in 508 that fulfilled this?

Dear Engel,
Your question is legitimate and deserving further investigation. I did some investigation for me, but it is not sufficient.

Regarding your reaction that my view of the "daily" is that it is just as valid as is the "new view," this is no problem for me. I always noticed that the new view, in any of its variants is much better than the old one (methodologically and exegetically at least). There are not only close similarities, but possible overlapping of these variants of the new (Protestant) view.

First point: there is a way to actually "take away" the tamid, as the prophecies plainly state. In chap. 7, the understanding of prophecy depends also on the translation of the Aramaic verb SEBAR, that encompasses meanings as THINK, HOPE etc. Translators prefer the meaning INTEND, which is read contextually, but there are translations (as our usual Romanian) that say the little horn would "dare" or "venture" to change God's law, which also makes sense in context. I have no personal study on this term, and I cannot make any further investigation now, since I did not yet come home, and have not my professional tools with me. However, if an actual change in God's law was intended by the author, it doesn't mean that the enemy can actually do it with God's heavenly original (which is surely an apocalyptic image, not a physical reality, but nevertheless it is full of spiritual meaning. The Antichrist cannot change God's mind, or the knowledge of His law in an absolute, universal way. But he can, for practical purposes, to change God's law in theology, religion, politics and popular practice, for the large part of the world. In Hebrews 10 it is written about some people who have trodden underfoot the Son of God, and in Daniel 8 we read that Antichrist has trodden underfoot the heavenly sanctuary and its starry host. Thus it is no problem for me to imagine a similar way, whereby the tamid (Christ's sacrificial merits, or His righteousness, as it is proclaimed in the Gospel) was taken away. It was taken away in a real, but not physical way. It was taken away figuratively from Christ, since Antichrist wished to appropriate it for himself, in order to make himself Christ, to administer it for his own interest (money and honor).

Second, I don't think that this view of the tamid must depend upon the historical interpretation of Dan 12. However, in spite of various other suggestions, I believe that the historical interpretation, chronologically at least, is acceptable. There are important changes that took place in the Church around the year 500 and immediately after. Between 416 and 491, the first ten European states appeared in the West. The first Roman bishop to claim imperial authority for Papacy was Gelasius I(492-496). The Vatican episcopal see was built around 500, though it will become a papal see very late in the middle ages. The first history of the Papacy was written (for political "spiritual" purposes) around 500. The divine service in the Church, that had an oriental (old Greek orthodox) style and theology was changed about 500, for what had to be known as the classic Roman mass. Symmachus I (498-514) is the first Roman bishop who proclaimed that the papal status is above any human law (502 in fact, other people prepared for him this political theology, but Gregory VII, in his famous Dictates of the 11th century, acknowledges that the papal supremacy was proclaimed by "the blessed Pope Symmachus"). Pope Symmachus had been elected by a faction of the Church in Rome, while other Roman Christians elected Laurentius. The two factions fought until about 506, when the laurentian party gave up. Meantime, Symmachus was in correspondence with some bishops of Gaul (now France), who were working to convert the pagan Franks to Catholicism, and make of them an instrument against the heretic Visigoths that in 507-508 have been defeated and driven away from Gaul. Thus in 508, the first Catholic state was founded. Paris was selected as capitol, and new laws have been promulgated (the Salian Law), that were specifically medieval, sanctifying the alliance between the Church and politics. Since the Frankish king Clovis was recognized even by the Eastern emperor, and since in the West he had the fame of a Western emperor, such events had a deep influence in the life of the Church.
During the same papal reign, after some pastoral letter sent by Symmachus to the Balcans region, a great rebellion rised and reaching Constantinople, removed emperor Anastasius (who was not in agreement with the pope) and raised a new dynasty (with Justin and Justinian), which in 419 had to submit the Eastern clergy to the Pope's authority and theology.
Thus, before the year 538, when the first Papal State was founded in Rome, parts of italian coasts and Sicily (after the defeating of three Teutonic powers, the Kingdom of Odoacer in Italy, 488...493; the North-African and Mediterranean Vandal Kingdom, 533...534; the Ostrogoth Kingdom in Italy, 538...554) the years around 500 and after have witnessed the most important political advance of the Papacy in the Church and in the world, in the West and East. In those years also the Church's theology and worship underwent important and changes, so that Daniel's prophecy about the removal of tamid and installing the horrible abomination is likely to describe the papal victories in 508 and about. Certainly further investigation is necessary, especially in the history of the transubstantiation doctrine, in the doctrine of merits and so on. Catholic studies tend to trace back each doctrine to the first 2-3 centuries, but certainly besides some probable deviations beginning in the 2nd centuries and especially in the 4th century, the climax of all these spiritual developments was in the 6th century. The subsequent progress was in the enlargement of political power. I have not a final word to this topic, but until a better explanation is available, I am satisfied with the above.
Happy Sabbath !

Wow, Florin, you certainly are well versed in ancient church history! Regarding the first point, there is probably not much else to say as to how we interpret the practical application of "think [intend] to take away" the law in Dan 7 verses the "take away," "shall take away," and "taken away" of hatamid in Dan 8, 11, 12. I believe the distinction between the two is relevant, but it is probably not significant enough to persuade anyone to change his mind as to how hatamid is taken away.

Regarding the second point, I agree that the historical events of the first part of the sixth century were very significant, since this was the period in which papal/state relations matured to the point of legal marriage. The question is: what exactly happened in 508 that took away hatamid? Most everyone who tries to explain this speaks in very general terms by describing a lot of events over a good number of years, and then they simply say that all of it culminated in the year 508. To be in harmony with the text, I think we need to look for a very specific event occurring at a very specific point in time that took away hatamid. The military victory of Clovis over the Visigoths occurred in 507, not 508. And what was so unique about Clovis becoming Catholic and uniting church and state that was not true of Constantine and virtually all but one Roman emperor ever since the fourth century? Why would the Franks becoming Catholic take away hatamid when the Roman Empire itself becoming Catholic did not take it away?

Are you familiar with Heidi Heiks and his research into the original sources of ancient church history?

Engel,
You are right about the Battle of Vouille in 507. However, 508 seems to be a valid date,since the process of removal of Visigoth menace continued in 508 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/508 . Also the imperial recognition of Clovis is dated in 508, as well as the establishment of the Catholic Frankish kingdom. In the same year Paris was chosen as capital, and the new laws began to be published.
It is possible to be discovered a more significant event in 508 in the religious realm.
Constantine's victory was not a definite victory of Christianty. Paganism was still strong and even a majority. Arianism grew stronger and stronger, then under Julian the Apostate Christianity was again a persecuted religion, and paganism, judiasm and heresy were prefered in the Empire. In 380, at the death of emperor Theodosius, orthodox Christianity was the unique legal religion of the Empire. However, that orthodoxy was not yet the specific papal Catholicism.
Anyway. I cannot see for the time a better solution as regards the periods of Daniel 12. The year 507-508 is probably the best solution.
Yes, I just have bought the book of Heiks form US and have read much of it by plane and in Rome's airport. I think it is a good book and it deserve to be studied, But you know I have a slightly different opinion about the tamid. And Heiks surely has to dig deeper. So it is about me.

Florin, perhaps we have come to the point in our discussion where we must be content to trust that God will reveal more to His people regarding these things. You are right, we must continue to dig deeper. Surely God will fully unseal the final parts of Daniel's prophecies in a way that is clear to His people, and in a way that the prophecies will serve their intended purpose.

It has been a pleasure to discuss these things with someone who also has great interest in them. You have taught me much, and it's too bad we don't live closer together. I would love to study with you in person. Perhaps I will have the opportunity to meet you some day. (Do you have any more sons getting married in the States?)

God Bless!
Engel

Engel,
I am also enriched by our dialog. Surely I would like to keep on share one anothers points on important theological topics. And with God s help, I hope to come back to this distinguished forum. For me now, there is an urgent need to finish my doctoral thesis. I have also to prepare some theological papers and one of them is very important for me, since I want to present it in an European SDA Teachers convention in April 1911. I want to share my theological concerns and conclusions regarding the whole doctrine that is based on Daniel 8:14. I have some hermeneutical and methodological (exegetical) points to share. When I will finish my paper, I will share with you, if you are interested. In fact, I want to share it with all our theologians who would be interested.
As regards my future visits in US, I cannot tell now the time of the next visit. It depends on time and money. Anyway, I m very tied to US, especially Atlanta, since I have there not only my newly wed son, but also two sisters with their families, and many friends. My father (retired minister, 87) lives also in US six months in each year.
Anyway, praise God for these internet falicities, until we meet better occasions (the best one is not far).

Florin, I would be very interested in your paper on Daniel 8:14. When you have it completed, please let me know at my personal email address eryoder1@lrmutual.com (that's eryoder[the number one]@[the letter L]rmutual.com). Blessings to you and your many studies.

In reference to Millers theology and others;

It is immediately clear that Miller's deductions are derived from his own conclusions and that he has tried to match a Hebrew word with the New Testament Greek scriptures. In reference to the word "daily", Miller says, "I read on and could find no other case in which it was found, but in Daniel." Miller says that he used a concordance but he must not have been aware that the Hebrew word tamiyd most of the time is transliterated as ‘continually’ or ‘continual’ in the Old Testament. Even searching for the word ‘daily’ there are two occasions where the same Hebrew word translated as ‘daily’ are used, in Numbers 4:16, ‘the daily meat offering’, and in Numbers 29:6, ‘the daily burnt offering’. I could stop there and say that the exact same word that Daniel uses is associated with the daily sacrificial offering. But the same word Daniel uses is in fact written 105 times in the Old Testament in several forms.

The first use of the Hebrew word tamiyd (pronounced taw-meed) transliterated as ‘continually’ is used in Exodus 28:29 “And Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the LORD continually.” So the first use of the word ‘continually’ is associated with the holy place in the sanctuary and the breastplate of judgment which would be worn before the Lord continually. Tamiyd as ‘continually’ is used quite often in the Old Testament and on most occasions it is firstly associated with the sacrificial system which occurred on a daily basis. 1Chronicles 23:31 “And to offer all burnt sacrifices unto the LORD in the sabbaths, in the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, according to the order commanded unto them, continually before the LORD:” Secondly it used in the service of the Ark of the Covenant and of the Lord. 1Chronicles 16:37 “So he left there before the ark of the covenant of the LORD Asaph and his brethren, to minister before the ark continually, as every day’s work required:” 1Chronicles 16:11 “Seek the LORD and his strength, seek his face continually.” Isaiah 58:11 “And the LORD shall guide thee continually ….” Thirdly it is used in reference to the Lord and prayer on a daily basis. Psalm 34:1 “I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.” And fourthly it used in reference to doing something continually before royalty. 2Samuel 29:13 “So Mephibosheth dwelt in Jerusalem: for he did eat continually at the king’s table; and was lame on both his feet.”

Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel and this is how he uses the word tamiyd, Ezekiel 46:14-15 “And thou shalt prepare a meat offering for it every morning, the sixth part of an ephah, and the third part of an hin of oil, to temper with the fine flour; a meat offering continually by a perpetual ordinance unto the LORD. Thus shall they prepare the lamb, and the meat offering, and the oil, every morning for a continual burnt offering.” It appears then that when the Lord is involved in some way either by the sacrificial system, or by being worshiped the Israelites used the word tamiyd when the continual thing is not associated with the Lord or a king they use another Hebrew word. This means that when the Lord is involved or the sanctuary sacrificial system the word Tamiyd is often used. When the word is not associated with the daily worship of the Lord or the sacrificial system a different Hebrew word is used.

The second most popular use of the word tamiyd is the word ‘continual’ which is used 27 times in the Old Testament of which a staggering 23 the word tamiyd is associated with burnt offerings. The first use of this word is in Exodus 29:42 and reads as, the continual burnt offering’. In Numbers 4:7 Moses tells the Israelites how to perform their daily rituals in the tabernacle and mentions, ‘the continual bread’ which was the bread of offering. In Numbers chapter 28 the same word is used seven times, ‘the continual burnt offering’. In Numbers chapter 29 the same word is used nine times, ‘the continual burnt offering.’ In 2Chronicles 2:4 it is again associated with ‘the continual shewbread’. In Ezra 3:5, ‘the continual burnt offering’. Nehemiah 10:33 uses both, ‘the continual meat offering’ and ‘the continual burnt offering’. Ezekiel 46:15 uses, ‘the continual burnt offering’. This means that tamiyd the word Daniel uses must be associated with the daily sacrificial system or something done in front of or for the Lord and by no means can be it associated with paganism in any way shape or form.

Of the two most popular usages of the word tamiyd on 66 out of a possible 87 times the word is associated with the sacrificial system or something done on a continual basis in front of the Lord. Because of these verses in the Old Testament the Hebrew word tamiyd (pronounced taw-meed) in the book of Daniel must be associated with the daily sacrificial system which the Israelites practiced on a continual basis outside the temple in Jerusalem. When read in the context of what Daniel was praying for, there is no other logical outcome.

Daniel 9:16-17 "O Lord, according to all Your righteousness, I pray, let Your anger and Your fury be turned away from Your city Jerusalem, Your holy mountain; because of our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and Your people are a reproach to all those around us. Now therefore, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant, and his supplications, and for the Lord's sake cause Your face to shine on Your sanctuary, which is desolate."

The NKJV adds the word sacrifice in Daniel 8, making it read, ‘the daily sacrifice’, when a better transliteration could have been, ‘the continual sacrifices’ or ‘the continual offerings’. To conclude that the word tamiyd is associated with paganism or represents Christ's heavenly ministry is pure fabrication and it is not based on the Old Testament Hebrew meaning and its not something Daniel could understand. Remembering that in Daniel 9 Gabriel comes to give Daniel the skill to understand it and if you read it carefully he does exactly that.

Daniel 9:25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.”

This tells Daniel that Jerusalem would be restored and subsequently the sanctuary would be rebuilt.

Daniel 9:26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.""

"The people of the prince who is to come," after the Messiah was cut off was of course the Romans and prince Titus who with his army destroyed the city and the sanctuary in 70 AD.

The main problem as I see it is that the Adventists were trying to include the papacy into Daniel 7,8,9,10,11 and 12. When you read Daniel 7 and 8 it becomes obvious that the papacy is not included at all until you get to the man with two eyes and a mouth that Daniel sees in the little horn.

This all goes back to the date 1798 when the pope was taken by Napoleon's army which was seen as being the mortal wound. The Adventists have then tried to link all prophecies with the papacy and this date by a method of subtraction.

The Millerites didn't see the start date for the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary which is freely given in Daniel 8.

Daniel 8:11-12 "He even exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifices were taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. Because of transgression an army was given over to the horn to appose the daily sacrifices, and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered."

We know of only two events where the PLACE of the earthly sanctuary was LITERALLY cast down. One in 586BC when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the place of God's sanctuary, Jerusalem, and the other of course is 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the PLACE of God's sanctuary, Jerusalem. To say that papal Rome cast down the PLACE of the heavenly sanctuary is to say that the papacy has cast heaven to the ground. Which we know did not happen or ever could.

The question and the answer

Daniel 8:13 ".... How long will the vision be concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?"

The question is; How long will the vision be concerning the daily sacrifices of the Jews and the transgression which would cause the desolation, the giving of both the temple to be physically trampled underfoot and God to be metaphorically trampled underfoot, to reject Him?

Daniel 8:14 "And he said to me, "For two thousand three hundred days, then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.""

The answer to the question is directly given to Daniel; 2300 days then Jerusalem or more specifically Mount Moriah would be cleansed.

"trodden down," and "trampled underfoot," mean; to bring someone down by force, to stop or put an end to something, (Isaiah 63:2-6, 63:16-19). The temple area has been literally trodden underfoot since its destruction in 70 AD. The Romans have trampled the host underfoot by rejecting His Son and His disciples testimony, (Hebrews 10:29). The Roman Catholic Church was formed to adopt the new Christian religion. They manipulated the true word of God to suit their own pagan beliefs, practices and principles. The majority of Christians and countries today are still worshipping the sun or other false gods.

Two thousand three hundred days convert to six years, four months and twenty days. The prophecy cannot mean literal days because of three points. The sacrifices were stopped by the Roman garrison in 66 AD, only three and a half years later the sanctuary was destroyed. Secondly, the Romans were still trampling the sanctuary area underfoot in 76-77 AD and they continue to reject the true word of God to this day. Thirdly, Daniel was actually told by the Lord that the vision referred to the time of the end, (Daniel 8:17).

In Bible prophecy a day usually equals a year on earth, (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5-6). Therefore the 2300 days can be converted to 2300 years.

The daily sacrifices were taken away and the place of God's sanctuary was destroyed in 70 AD.

70 + 2300 = 2370

Jerusalem shall be cleansed with fire c.2370 AD.

Brent Dawes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About

Memory, Meaning & Faith is a blog covering Christian history in light of contemporary issues.

Search

Lijit Search