Keith Hunt - Daniel's 2300 days/Sanctuary #2 - Page Two   Restitution of All Things

  Home Previous Page Next Page

Daniel's 2300 days/Sanctuary #2

Did it start in 1844?


                             by 

                         E.E. Franke


The "blotting-out time" is a favorite expression of Seventh-day
Adventist preachers when teaching the people the subject of the
atonement, which they say was not completed on the cross, but
began in the year 1844 A.D.

Their idea is that since 1844 we have been living in the
antitypical day of atonement; that the righteous dead are now
being judged and that the sins of those who were forgiven were
only conditionally pardoned and not blotted out, but transferred
to the heavenly sanctuary, to be disposed of in the present
closing days of this dispensation. They positively assert that no
sins were blotted out before 1844, and that no person who ever
lived could have his sins blotted out until the judgment, which
they assert began in 1844, hence they teach that we are now
living in "the blotting-out time."

All of this is based on their false interpretation of the eighth
chapter of Daniel and the sanctuary question. They claim to find
authority, too, for this position in the words of Peter, as
follows:

     Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may
     be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from
     the presence of the Lord (Acts 3:19).

The "times of refreshing," they claim to be the times just before
the coming of Christ, when the "latter rain" is poured out upon
the earth in the mighty working of the Holy Spirit.
It seems never to have occurred to these preachers to study the
text quoted, from the standpoint of the original Greek, or from
the later up-to-date translations, and their whole doctrine on
this point is based on a faulty translation of the King James
(1611) rendering.
The real mistake is in the word "when," in the text of the King
James rendering. The Greek word translated "when" is "hopos," and
there is not a Greek scholar living today who would translate
this word as it appears in the text, as "when."
Dr.Lightfoot's rendering is "that the time of refreshing may
come," instead "when the times of refreshing shall come."
Dr.Bloomfield, in his Greek New Testament with English Notes,
says of the word "hopos:"

     It is better, with the Syriac Translation, and many
     Commentators, from Luther downward, to take it in that sense
     'so that,' 'in order that,' as Luke 2:35, Matthew 6:5, et
     alibi. Thus Tittm. de Syn 2, p. 63 (who adopts this sense),
     shows at large that hopos never, properly speaking, denotes
     time, unless it be times past...
     The sense then is "that so the time of refreshing may come
     from the presence of the Lord."

Let the reader remember that in Luke 2:35 the same word is
rendered "so that" and in Matthew 6:5 it is rendered "that," even
in the King James Version. This makes it all the more strange
that they should wrongly render the word "hopos" as "when," in
the text under consideration.

Every translation and version of the text we have ever seen,
except the old King James Version, gives the proper meaning and
leaves out the word "when" entirely.

The English and American Revised Versions both render the text:

     Repent ye, therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be
     blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing
     from the presence of the Lord.

Moffatt's New Translation renders it:

     Repent then, and turn to have your sin blotted out, so that
     a breathing space may be vouchsafed to you.

The New Testament in Modern Speech gives it:

     Repent, therefore, and reform your lives
     so that the record of your sins may be cancelled, and that
     there may come seasons of revival from the Lord.

The Twentieth Century New Testament reads thus:

     Therefore, repent and turn, that your sins may be wiped
     away; so that happier times may come from the Lord himself.

Now, is it not a fact that the very text that is used by
Seventh-day Adventists to teach their heresy that forgiveness is
only conditional and that sins of the repentant sinner are not
blotted out when he is converted, but are transferred to heaven
to be made a subject for judgment, which, according to their
notion, began in the year 1844, proves just the contrary?

When this text is rightly understood, it teaches that when the
sinner repents, his sins are not only forgiven, but actually
blotted out; the slate is wiped clean. God says, through Paul:

     "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
     sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (Hebrews
     8:12).

It is everlastingly true that forgiveness carries with it the
blotting out of sins, immediately, just as soon as the repentant
sinner accepts Christ as his Savior. No truer lines were ever
written than the words of Robert Harkness:

     When God forgives, He forgets, When God forgives, He
     forgets; No more He remembers our sins, When God forgives,
     He forgets.

How men can teach that our sins are not blotted out immediately
when they are confessed and forgiven, when God says He will
remember our sins and iniquities no more, is beyond reason; but
all this teaching is invented to sustain an unscriptural
doctrine, that the atonement did not begin until 1844.

DANIEL, CHAPTER 8

The eighth chapter of Daniel gives us an account of a vision seen
by the prophet in the third year of the reign of Belshazzar,
which we give in his own words:

     And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that
     I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of
     Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.
     Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there
     stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the
     two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and
     the higher came up last.
     I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and
     southward; so that no beast might stand before him, neither
     was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did
     according to his will, and became great.
     And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the
     west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the
     ground: and the goat had a notable horn (Strong's = a horn
     of "striking appearance"] between his eyes.
     And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen
     standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of
     his power.
     And I saw him come close unto the ram and he was moved with
     choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two
     horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before
     him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon
     him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of
     his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when
     he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up
     four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.
     And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed
     exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and
     toward the pleasant land.
     And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast
     down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground,
     and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the
     prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken
     away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
     And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by
     reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the
     ground; and it practised, and prospered
     Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto
     that certain saint which spake, "How long shall be the
     vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression
     of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be
     trodden under foot?"
     And he said unto me, "Unto two thousand and three hundred
     days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (Daniel 8:2-14).

This is one of the few prophecies of the Bible that is explained
to the prophet himself by a heavenly messenger, and is so clear
to the student of history that it requires no intricate analysis
or interpretation.
One thing is certain, and that is, that in every symbolic
prophecy beasts are taken to represent universal empires, or
nations so powerful as to exert a controlling international
influence, and in this prophecy in particular, the beasts
represent the universal empires, while the horns are taken to
represent kings or monarchs of smaller nations.
The following explanation is given by the angel to Daniel. He
says:

     The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of
     Media and Persia.
     And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn
     that is between his eyes is the first king.
     Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four
     kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his
     power.
     And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
     transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce
     countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand
     up.
     And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and
     he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and
     practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
     And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper
     in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart,
     and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up
     against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken
     without hand (Daniel 8:20-25).

With the above particulars before us, we need not go outside of
the chapter for an explanation. First, the prophet is shown the
two universal kingdoms that were to follow the kingdom of
Babylon: Medo-Persia and Grecia, and the line of events which
follow the rise of Grecia before another universal kingdom
comes upon the stage of action; therefore, Rome, the next
universal empire in the order of time, is not even so much as
mentioned in this chapter, and none of the horns could possibly
represent Rome. If Rome were to be understood in this chapter by
the little horn, then we must depart from the mode of
interpretation given in the seventh chapter, where universal
empires are always represented by beasts (Dan.7:17) and minor
kingdoms or kings are represented by horns (Dan.7:24); and Daniel
himself tells us the vision of the eighth chapter, which we are
considering, and which was given in the third year of the reign
of King Belshazzar, was "after (or like) that given to me at the
first" (first year of Belshazzar), and that is the vision of the
seventh chapter, where beasts represent universal empires and
horns represent merely local kings or kingdoms that are not
universal.

So, then, we are obliged to conclude that in our interpretation
we must follow the line of interpretation given in the seventh
chapter. It follows, too, that as Rome was an universal empire,
if Rome were anywhere intended in the eighth chapter, there
should be another beast, and as there is no other beast brought
to view, there is only one conclusion, and that is, that the
events following the breaking up of Grecia, including the work of
the little horn, occur before the rise of the Roman Empire.
It is useless to quote the words of the angel in proof of the
assumption that the vision reaches down to 1844, as some do,
because he said, "at the time of the end shall be the vision."
The "time of the end" in this case is the time of the end of the
Jewish nation, before it became subject to Rome. No Bible student
who has not an axe to grind nor a theory to establish would ever
think of applying every such  expression to the time just before 
the second coming of Christ.

Referring again to the explanation of the angel, given to Daniel,
we are plainly told that the great horn between the eyes of the
goat represents the first king, who was Alexander the Great, and
who was the first Grecian king to sway the universal sceptre.
The four horns are just as plainly described as four kings or
kingdoms coming out of Grecia, after the death of Alexander, who
left no successor.

GRECIA

The campaigns of Alexander the Great, the first Grecian king to
hold the sceptre of universal empire, were so swift that the
world still looks with amazement at the records of his bold
raids.
In B.C. 334, Alexander, when only a little over twenty-one years
old, invaded Persia and was victorious. One year later he
defeated them again, and conquered all of Asia Minor. In 332
B.C., he conquered Egypt and Tyre and built the city of
Alexandria. In 331 B.C., with only thirty thousand soldiers under
his magic command, he defeated and completely routed Darius
Codomannus and his army of six hundred thousand men.
One year later he held sway over all the Persian Empire. In 328
B.C. he marched his armies into India as far as the Ganges,
conquering Porus, the king of India. Thus he became ruler of the
then known world in the short space of six years. So rapid had
been his triumphs and marches that, when he died in the year 323
B.C., after twelve years of conquests and tyranny, he left
neither capital established nor successor named.
If cruelty, drunkenness, licentiousness, murder, riot and shame
can make one great, then Alexander deserved the name. Chief among
those who sought to succeed this haughty monarch was one
Antigonus, but general riot and bloodshed followed, until finally
just four kingdoms developed out of the domain of Grecia, as the
following quotation tells us:

     The empire was divided into thirty-three governments,
     distributed among as many generals and officers. Hence arose
     a series of bloody, desolating wars, and a period of
     confusion, anarchy and crime ensued, that is almost without
     a parallel in the history of the world. After the battle of
     Ipsus, 301 B.C., in which Antigonus was defeated, the empire
     was divided into four kingdoms. Thrace and Bythinia, under
     Lysimichus; Syria and the East under Seleucus: Egypt under
     Ptolemy Soter, and Macedonia under Casander (Lyman's
     Historical Chart).

These four kingdoms are represented in the prophecy of the
seventh chapter by the four heads of the leopard beast, and in
the eighth chapter of Daniel we read:

     Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four
     kingdoms shall stand out of the nation, but not in his power
     (Daniel 8:22).

Thus, step by step, the truth of prophecy is sealed and verified
- not once does it fail. Continuing the vision, Daniel said:

     And out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed
     exceeding great, toward the south and toward the east, and
     toward the pleasant land (Daniel 8:9).

The great mistake of those who apply the time part of this
prophecy to the 1844 Adventist movement is in the misapplication
of the little horn which came out of one of the other horns. To
say that this little horn represents Rome is to let loose the
flood-gate of error and wild speculation which has led
Seventh-day Adventists to teach that Christ did not make
atonement on the cross and that forgiveness of sins is
conditional and does not mean that they are blotted out nor
remembered against us as the Bible clearly teaches. They believe
that the sins of those who repent are merely transferred to
heaven itself to pollute the Most Holy Place, to come before God
in judgment after 1844; that the sins which polluted the sinner
are carried in figure into heaven itself to pollute the Most Holy
Place of God's throne-an unthinkable and absurd error to say the
least.

To understand what is represented by the little horn will correct
some of the errors of Seventh-day Adventism.

The little horn came out of one of the divisions of Alexander's
kingdom, but Rome came out of Italy.
Neither did the little horn spring up in the midst of the others,
as the little horn of the seventh chapter, but, it sprang up "out
of one them," or seemed to grow out of one of the four. The
meaning is unmistakable. From one of the four kingdoms into which
Alexander's Kingdom (Grecia) was divided, there would spring up
this ambitious and persecuting power, and as this power answers
so fully and accurately to the work of Antiochus Epiphanes, there
can be no question as to the entire order of events brought out
in Daniel's vision.

Observe please, that, the "goat" represents Grecia and the horns
attached to the head are still Grecia divided, and the "little
horn" comes out (or grows out) of one of the four horns attached
to the head; so the "little horn" is attached, not only to one of
the "four horns," but through one of the four to the head itself,
and is still a part of the "goat," or Grecia. If this is not good
logic, then will some kind friend explain where it fails.
The writer of the book of Maccabees understood this and wrote
thus of the division Alexander's kingdom:

     And there came out of them a wicked root, Antiochus,
     surnamed Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the King, who had been
     a hostage at Rome, and he reigned in the hundred and
     thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks (1 Mac.
     1:10).

Referring to Daniel's vision, Josephus makes the very same
application to the "little horn" in these words:

     And that from among them (the four horns of the goat) there
     should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation,
     and should take away their political government, and should
     spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifice to be offered for
     three years time.
     And indeed it so came to pass that our nation suffered these
     things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's
     vision (Antiquities, Book 10, ch.11).

We know that our friends who hold that Rome, and not Antiochus
Epiphanes, is indicated in this chapter, will answer these
quotations with the statement that neither the book of Maccabees
nor Josephus is inspired, which we freely grant.
We accept the book of Maccabees as history, and as such,
historically correct and true as any history ever written; and
the same can be said of Josephus, who is regarded, even among
Christians, as the greatest Jewish historian who ever lived.
These events were fresh in the mind of the writer of Maccabees,
and Josephus wrote only a little over 200 years after the events
occurred.

Indeed, so striking and true to the record was the fulfillment of
this prophecy in the days of Judas Maccabees, that even that
arch-infidel Porphyry, who is sometimes called the "Third Century
Ingersoll," maintained that the record events predicted in the
eighth chapter of Daniel must have been written after they
transpired, for he did not believe in predictive prophecy.
Rollin's Ancient History also bears testimony to this complete
fulfillment of Daniel, the eighth chapter, by Antiochus
Epiphanes, in these words:

     No prophecy was ever fulfilled in so clear, so perfect, and
     so indisputable a manner.

We shall follow the prophecy of Daniel in the eighth chapter and
show how clearly and fully the work of Antiochus Epiphanes
fulfilled the words of the angel. The prophet says:

     And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed
     exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and
     toward the pleasant land (Daniel 8:9).

In the book from which much of the Seventh-day Adventist error is
taken, "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation," the writer tries
to prove that this little horn represents Rome, and this contrary
to every rule of interpretation and every specification of the
prophecy. He tries to show that because Rome conquered Macedonia,
which is represented by one of the horns of Alexander's kingdom,
and by defeating the father of Antiochus Epiphanes, that Rome
came out of Macedonia, one of the horns referred to in the above
Scripture. One might just as well say that Germany came out of
Alsace and Lorraine, because the Germans conquered that territory
in 1870, as to say that Rome came out of Macedonia because it
conquered that country after the reign of Antiochus. Every child
ought to know, and does know, that Rome came out of Italy and no
where else, but this is just one sample of what men will do to
exploit a false theory.

It is true that Rome conquered his father, yet the rise of
Antiochus in strength and power after this proves beyond a doubt
that Antiochus, coming directly out of one of the conquered horns
as a new power, although the successor of the conquered horn, is
the king referred to in the prophecy.

THE CHRONOLOGY

In the study of symbolic prophecy, one makes a great mistake in
not considering the chronological bearing of the event or power
introduced, and nothing is more certain than that the chronology
or time of the rise of the "little horn" is given by the angel to
Daniel, in these words:

     And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn
     that is between his eyes is the first king. Now that being
     broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall
     stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
     And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the
     transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce
     countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand
     up (Daniel 8:21-23).

"In the latter time of their (the four horns') kingdom" must be
before the end of the reign of the Greek kings and also before
Rome as an universal empire came on the stage of action. In
short, the Greek Kingdoms of Alexander's successors could not
have passed when the "little horn" was to arise. This is certain.
The first of the Syrian Greek kings was Seleucus, whose reign
began 306 B.C. This line of kings continued until 65 B.C.
Antiochus Epiphanes reigned from 175 B.C. to 164 B.C.
He therefore began his reign 110 years before the Selucid
(Macedonian or Greek) empire came to its end, and died just 99
years before its end. He reigned, therefore, "in the latter times
of their kingdom." Rome did not become an universal empire until
the Greek or Macedonian, or Syrian division of the same was
conquered, hence, the chronology is squarely against the idea
that Rome is represented by the "little horn;" and as Antiochus
Epiphanes did reign "in the latter times of their (the Greek)
kingdom," he must be the power represented by the "little horn."
That point alone settles question.

To argue that the "little horn" could not be part of Grecia, is a
most ridiculous position to take, as all will admit that the
"goat" represented Grecia, and yet the horn "between his eyes"
represented Alexander, one of its kings. The argument against the
"little horn" being a continuation of the divided Greek Kingdom,
would force one to the conclusion that the  horn coming out of
the head of the goat was not Alexander, but a separate Kingdom; a
false position to be sure, but equally as logical as the other.
As before stated, Antiochus fulfilled the specifications of this
prophecy to the very letter. Antiochus Epiphanes was a successor
in logical sequence from Seleucus Nicator, one of the four
leading generals who divided the kingdom of Alexander between
themselves, and is positively symbolized by the little horn that
came out of one of these divisions.
Now as to the remainder of the prophecy and its fulfillment.
Daniel says:

     ... it waxed exceeding great toward the south, toward the
     east, and toward the pleasant land (Daniel 8:9).

The book of Maccabees gives us the fulfillment of this Scripture
in these words:

     Now, when the kingdom was established, before Antiochus, he
     thought to reign over Egypt, that he might have the dominion
     over two realms. Wherefore he entered into Egypt with a
     great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen,
     and a great navy. And made war on Ptolomy, king of Egypt,
     but Ptolomy was afraid of him, and fled, and many were
     wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the
     land of Egypt, and took the spoils thereof (1 Maccabees
     1:16-19).

Thus did Antiochus wax "great toward the South," and literally
fulfil that part of the prophecy; and as we follow on to learn
the truth, we read again:

     Wherefore being greatly perplexed in mind he deter mined to
     go into Persia, there to take tributes of the countries, and
     to gather much money. So the king (Antiochus) took the half
     of the forces that remained, and departed from Antioch, his
     royal city, the hundredth forty-seventh year, and having
     passed the river Euphrates, he went through the high
     countries (1 Maccabees 3:31,37).

This proves that he again fulfilled the prophecy and "waxed great
toward the East." Now the Prophecy adds that "he waxed great
toward the pleasant land." The pleasant land is Palestine, and we
shall see by what follows how this was also literally fulfilled.
We quote once more:

     And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned
     again in the hundredth forty and third year, and went up
     against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude. And
     entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden
     altar and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels
     thereof. And the table of shewbread, and the pouring
     vessels, and the vials, and the crowns, and the golden
     ornaments that were before the temple, all of which he
     pulled off (1 Maccabees 1:21, 22).

Thus, "he waxed great toward the pleasant land." In view of these
things, can any still doubt that the little horn coming out of
one of the first four horns of Alexander's kingdom was Antiochus
Epiphanes? Only one who has an axe to grind or a theory to
advance could apply this to Rome or any other power. The prophet
continues thus:

     And it waxed great even to the host of heaven (Dan. 8:10).

The thought is that he wished to exalt himself above everything
on earth and thus swept his armies in all directions. Maccabees
refers to him after his defeat in these words:

     And the man that thought a little afore he could reach the
     stars of heaven (2 Maccabees 9:10).

                             ................

TO BE CONTINUED

  Home Previous Page Top of Page Next Page

 
Navigation List:
 

 
Word Search:

PicoSearch
  Help