A response to a former SDA
We received a letter from a reader of our articles requesting a response to an article that appeared on a LAM magazine, a former SDA publication. This is the reply to that article. The original article is available at: Letters to the Editor, Winter, 2013, Vol. 14, Issue 4, pg 30, Why we left Adventism by Fred and Rochelle Hosillos.
The bolded and highlighted in yellow are the quotes from the LAM article. Our response follows.
[1844: This date, called the great disappointment, is the culmination of William Miller’s erroneous exegesis of Daniel 8:14.]
Miller’s exegeses on Daniel 8:14 is sound for multiple reasons despite the event being wrong.
1. 2300 days cannot be literal. A literal or even 1150 days doesn’t fit any event connected with Antiochus Epiphanes. Preterists’ like Samuel Lee (1783-1852), Professor of Hebrew at the University of Cambridge admits to this fact.
Referring to 2300 days, He states, ‘The day here had in view must mark the period of Daniel’s seventieth week — the numbers given above must be understood indefinitely, and as intended to designate a considerable length of time. This consummation could not be effected by Antiochus Epiphanes: he only suspended the service of the Temple for about three years and a half. (An Inquiry into the Nature, Progress, and End of Prophecy, p. 168.)
See these external links: Antiochus and 2300 days ; Wax exceedingly great?; Not Rome?
2. Evidence favour a 2300 years for many sound reasons. We cite two.
a) The ‘vision’ in Daniel was ‘sealed’ for the ‘time of the end’ (Dan. 8:14, 17, 26-27, 12:4, 7). Antiochus was not in the time of the end.
b) Angel in Daniel 9:23 tells us to consider the ‘vision’. This refers to the vision of the 2300 in Daniel 8:13 becasue there is no vision recorded through Daniel 9:1-23. Then Daniel 9:24 tells, 70 weeks (490 prophetic years) of that ‘vision’ of 2300, deals with Israel and the coming Messiah. Hence, 2300 has to be years for 70 weeks or 490 years to be cut off from it.
The notes found in the Baptist Berlenburg Bible (1739), and John Tillinghast, English clergyman (1604–1655), state that the 70 weeks are part of 2300 years. Phillip Newell's commentary states ‘determined’ in Daniel 9:24 means cutting off from a ‘longer portion’.
Authors such as Joshua Wilson (Presbyterian), Alexander Cambell (Desciples of Christ), Adam Clarke, George Downham (theologian) and many others saw 2300 to be years.
[Miller first calculated the second coming of Christ would occur in 1843. When that date failed, the Millerites recalculated and set the date in 1844.]
508 plus 1335 days (Daniel 11) comes to 1843. The error of 1843 was not in the time but the event, just as the error of 1844 was not in the time but the event.
[Ellen G. White believed that it was God who purposely misled “His people” to believe first in 1843: “I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was His design to arouse the people and bring them to a testing point, where they should decide for or against the truth” (Early Writings, p. 232). Instead of humbly admitting a failed prophecy, EGW blamed God for the error. God does not play games with His children nor deceive them!]
We agree that God does not deceive His people and that God does not play games with His people. However, the above statements are misguided. What Ellen White is saying is that God could have revealed to them their mistake and He chose not to. So would you blame God? Would you become an accuser of God? God led the people to do what they did on Palm Sunday. Did He deceive them in so doing?
See a detail response to the charge (external link) - Did God Deceive the AdventMovement in 1843?
Firstly, the verses quoted are true. True believers have ‘eternal life now’ in Christ Jesus. And 'there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit…” (Rom. 8:1-4).
Secondly, the teaching about a judgment before the second coming is not contra-biblical. If it is, then the Bible is contradicting or you haven’t studied what the Bible is saying about a future judgment. The Bible says there will be a JUDGMENT of God’s people (not just the wicked).
‘The Lord shall judge his people’ (Hebrews 10:30).
‘God shall judge the righteous’ (Ecclesiastes 3:17).
‘God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil’ (Eccl. 12:13, 14)
‘We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ’ (2 Corinthians 5:10).
‘Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness’ (Acts 17:31)
'This will take place on the day when God judges people's secrets through Jesus' (Romans 2:16)
Note that God has appointed a day (a future time) to judge the world. Revelation says that the time or ‘hour of his Judgement is come’ just before Christ is ready to harvest the earth with a sickle (Rev 14:19).
Based on God’s word, we must conclude this. There is a judgment of God’s people. However, His people will not come under ‘condemnation’ in this judgement because of their faith in Jesus (Jn. 5:24). They have crossed over from death to life because of their faith in Jesus. No condemnation for those in Christ is the verdict.
The judgement is not for God. He knows who are his. It is for the angels and the watching universe. Hence, the mention of myriads of angels when books were opened in Daniel 7, and judgment was set in place.
The judgement is not for God. He knows who are his. It is for the angels and the watching universe. Hence, the mention of myriads of angels when books were opened in Daniel 7, and judgment was set in place.
Condemnation is one of the verdicts of the judgement. So when John 5:24 says we shall not come into condemnation, it is referring to the outcome of the judgment. That’s why the Bible says the ‘judgment was given in favour of the saints’ (Daniel 7:22).
An honest student of the Bible should not miss the fact that there is a pre-advent judgement!
An honest student of the Bible should not miss the fact that there is a pre-advent judgement!
[If Paul were waiting for the end of an investigative judgment that allegedly started on October 22, 1844, he would not have declared with certainty, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award me on that day—and not only to me, but to all those who longed for his appearing” (2 Tim. 4: 7-8).]
How could Job (and Old Testament saints) declare with certainty that they will be resurrected and ‘see God’ (Job 19:25-26) when the cross was still a future event? For them, salvation was based upon the promise of the coming Messiah; they received the promise (salvation) by faith based upon the future event (cross). The same way we receive the promise (no condemnation) by faith now in the judgment.
Paul’s assurance was in Christ Jesus. So is ours! In his day, Paul knew the judgment was future. He spoke about righteousness and ‘judgment to come’ (Acts 24:25). He also knew (the verse quoted above) that the Lord will be a ‘righteous judge’ (2 Tim 4:8) with ‘rewards’ to award him ‘on that day’, the second coming. The Bible refers to our Lord as ‘High Priest’, ‘Advocate’, ‘Judge’. Surely, these are titles that Christ fulfils post His death as a perfect ‘lamb’ on the cross.
[When Jesus declared at the cross, “It is finished”, the real and final sacrifice for sins had been offered! Then, when Jesus ascended to heaven, He immediately “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven, and…serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man” (Heb. 8:1, 2). The central Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment has no place in the completed work of Jesus!]
Christ’s “once for all” (Hebrews 10:10) sacrificial atonement was finished and completed at the cross. Jesus paid for our sins completely. He bore our guilt. We are saved by placing our faith in Christ alone and not our performance. Because of our faith in Christ, we are reconciled, perfect, counted righteous, and we will remain so, as we place our faith in Jesus, and remain in Jesus. So, it is true that “through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation [atonement]” (Romans 5:11).
But Christ reconciliation work involves his reconciliation ministry as our high priest in the heavenly temple. Christ is supposed to ‘serve in the sanctuary’ (Heb. 8:1, 2) after his finished sacrifice on the cross for us. Why would he do that? If the cross was the only part of his saving ministry, why hasn’t He come to take his people for nearly 2000 years?
The truth is, Hebrews 2:17 makes it clear that Christ became a “high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement [reconciliation] for the sins of the people”. Why would Jesus make atonement for the sins of the people as our high priest if the entire atonement process was completed at the cross? There is a work He does in heaven in applying the benefits of his one time sacrifice and saving his people to the ‘uttermost’ (Heb 7:25). Judgement is part of this work as taught in the New Testament and sanctuary service.
(SDAs and non-SDAs should seriously consider why SDAs believe in a pre-advent judgment and the timing of a such an event. 2000 years have passed since the cross. Our Savior is yet to return. There has to be a reason for this delay. Preterist or futurist cannot explain it. (Interestingly, non-SDA authors say these two schools of interpretations are an invention of the Jesuits.) But the Bible portrays a God who is concerned with His church during the entire period of church history. Only historicism is able to show the providential guidance of God in human history and His loving care for His church during the last 2000 years!! See an outline of why the world should consider a pre-advent judgment based on the Bible at the end of this response.
[C. Sabbath: While God rested (ceased from) His work of creation on the seventh day of the creation week, there is no record of man observing the seventh-day Sabbath as a regular day of rest, let alone worship, until God called the Jewish nation from slavery in Egypt about 2,500 years later.]
Sabbath between the books of Deuteronomy and 2 Kings is also silent. Should we conclude that Sabbath keeping was absent during this period? Genesis does not contain laws like Exodus, but rather a brief sketch of origins. Since no mention is made of any other commandment, the silence regarding the Sabbath is not exceptional.
Since Jesus said, ‘the Sabbath was MADE for the man’ (Mark 2:27), it existed from creation. Jesus ‘MADE’ all things in the beginning (John 1:3).
God sanctified or ‘set apart’ (Genesis 2:2) the seventh day at creation, and tells us that, that seventh day is the Sabbath day:
Exodus 20:11: ‘For in six days the Lord MADE heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
He ‘set apart’ the seventh day for whom? For himself? Hardly. Jesus said, it was ‘for the man’. Therefore, the Sabbath existed from creation even though we don’t have an explicit record in Genesis.
He ‘set apart’ the seventh day for whom? For himself? Hardly. Jesus said, it was ‘for the man’. Therefore, the Sabbath existed from creation even though we don’t have an explicit record in Genesis.
R.C Sproul , Chuck Missler, and countless Christians believe that the Sabbath was established at creation before the fall. They still see its validity although they have this strange idea that the Sabbath now is on the resurrection day or one day in seven – a command for such no where to be found in scriptures!
Samuel Bachiochi adds details to the above question:
The Sabbath is presented in Exodus 16 and 20 as an already existing institution. The instructions for the gathering of the double portion of the manna on the sixth day presuppose a knowledge of the significance of the Sabbath: "On the sixth day, when they prepare what they bring in, it will be twice as much as they gather daily" (Ex 16:5). The omission of any explanation for gathering a double portion on the sixth day would be inexplicable, if the Israelites had no previous knowledge of the Sabbath.
Similarly in Exodus 20, the Sabbath is presupposed as something already familiar. The commandment does not say "Know the Sabbath day" but "Remember the Sabbath day" (Ex 20:8), thus implying that it was already known. Furthermore, the commandment, by presenting the Sabbath as rooted in creation (Ex 20:11), hardly allows a late Exodus introduction of the Sabbath rest.
[The seventh-day Sabbath was given specifically to the Jewish nation as a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel (Ex. 31:12-18), and as a memorial of their deliverance from slavery (Ezek. 9:13-14). Furthermore, the Sabbath commandment, like the rest of the commandments in the Pentateuch, were given to foreshadow the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ, who will ultimately deliver all his children— Jews, Greeks, and Gentiles alike— who receive Him by faith. The Sabbath was the outward sign/seal of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. The New Covenant presents Christ as our real and perfect Sabbath rest (Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 4:1-10).]
Yes, the Sabbath was GIVEN for the Jews and it became a sign between them and God, and a memorial of deliverance from slavery. But it was not MADE for them only!
MADE vs GIVEN – these are two different things!
Shadows came into effect because of the fall and sin. Shadows (like the sacrifices and festivals) were to point to the real person - Jesus. But the Sabbath established at creation before sin cannot point forward to anything. It points back to the creator and his Lordship at creation as reiterated in the fourth commandment.
[Christians worshiped God on the first day of the week, which they then called the Lord’s Day, in honor of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 20:7).]
We should worship God every day of the week including Sunday, Monday etc. The point is that the Sabbath day was blessed and set apart for us on the seventh day. God made the day itself holy so that we would be sure to honor it in that way and acknowledge him as creator. What God has ‘blessed we can’t reverse’ (Numbers 23:20). So, the sanctity of Sabbath day cannot be changed to any other day unless God changed it.
[There is a clear account of how the early Christian leaders in Jerusalem addressed the conflict between the Gentile Christians and the Jewish Christians who insisted that the Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses (including the Sabbath commandment) in order to be genuine Christians. (Acts 15:5-12, 22-31). Notice how Peter responded to the Judaizers’ requirement of keeping the law in Acts 15: 7-11, “Why are you questioning God’s way by burdening the Gentile believers with a yoke [the law of Moses with more than 600 requirements] that neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear?]
Jerusalem council led by the apostles was organized to discuss "this question ... this matter" of "circumcision" and "the law of Moses." Acts 15:1, 2, 5. The Sabbath itself was not debated or even discussed. The Church decided that the Gentiles were "saved ... through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ" (verse 11) and thus they did not need to be circumcised. Yet to avoid offending the Jews, they were given certain restrictions. Verses 19, 20. At this early date in Church history, believing Gentiles were still worshiping with the Jews in their synagogues "every Sabbath day." Verse 21. Thus, verse 21 proves that the "Sabbath day" was not abrogated by the Jerusalem Council. Rather, it was reiterated without dissent as the biblical day of worship for both Jews and Gentiles.
[We believe that we are all saved the same way, by the special favor of the Lord Jesus”. When people insist that Sabbath-keeping is a requirement for salvation, then they are preaching an un-Biblical Gospel (Gal. 3:1-14). In fact, twice the Apostle Paul warned about these false teachers: Rom. 14:5-11, and Col. 2:13-17.]
We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. For SDAs obedience is the fruit of our faith. Obedience to God doesn’t earn or merit anything, it is only value.
Our keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath is a visible expression of the true rest found in Christ alone, a living parable of what it means to be covered by His grace. Our weekly rest from our secular, worldly works stands as a symbol of our rest in the completed work of Jesus for us. "For those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his." Our obedience to this commandment is not merit or earns nothing but a way of saying: "Hey, we’re so sure of our salvation in Jesus, we’re so firm and secure in what Christ has done for us, we can—in a special way—rest from any of our works because we know what Christ has accomplished for humanity through His death and resurrection."
We find true rest in Christ alone and acknowledge the Lord of the Sabbath, and His holy day which He restated in the New Testament. Notice:
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest [sabbthismos=sabbath keeping] to the people of God. 10For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
There are three rests, mentioned in all of Hebrews 3 and 4:-1:
1: A rest found in Jesus Christ, that we receive when we invite him “Today” to enter into our hearts.
2: A rest we long to enter into one day when the Lord Jesus comes to take us home, the heavens above, the New Jerusalem (John 14:2-3, Rev. 21:10)
3. The rest of the Seventh day Sabbath, upon which every week we are reminded again of the fact that, if we continue “daily” in him, we will enter into the true Canaan; Heaven itself.
Since Hebrews 4:9-10 is speaking of a rest, the above are the only three possible rests he could be speaking about.
Now, in Jesus, we find rest from Sin, and from guilt of Sin, because he cleanses us “of all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). If this rest being spoken of here is the rest from Sin found in Jesus, does God also rest from Sin and Guilt of Sin? NO
The second rest we find in Heb 3 and 4 is the rest we will one day in the future experience, the Rest of Heaven/new Earth. Is this the rest Paul now speaking of in verse 10? Remember, it specifically says, “as God did from his.” Therefore, whatever rest this is, is the rest God experienced as well. Does God need to be given the rest of Heaven as we do? No, for he already abides in heaven!
Hence, It must be the rest of the Seventh day Sabbath verse 9-10 explains since it specifically says we are to rest, “as God did”.
1: A rest found in Jesus Christ, that we receive when we invite him “Today” to enter into our hearts.
2: A rest we long to enter into one day when the Lord Jesus comes to take us home, the heavens above, the New Jerusalem (John 14:2-3, Rev. 21:10)
3. The rest of the Seventh day Sabbath, upon which every week we are reminded again of the fact that, if we continue “daily” in him, we will enter into the true Canaan; Heaven itself.
Since Hebrews 4:9-10 is speaking of a rest, the above are the only three possible rests he could be speaking about.
Now, in Jesus, we find rest from Sin, and from guilt of Sin, because he cleanses us “of all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). If this rest being spoken of here is the rest from Sin found in Jesus, does God also rest from Sin and Guilt of Sin? NO
The second rest we find in Heb 3 and 4 is the rest we will one day in the future experience, the Rest of Heaven/new Earth. Is this the rest Paul now speaking of in verse 10? Remember, it specifically says, “as God did from his.” Therefore, whatever rest this is, is the rest God experienced as well. Does God need to be given the rest of Heaven as we do? No, for he already abides in heaven!
Hence, It must be the rest of the Seventh day Sabbath verse 9-10 explains since it specifically says we are to rest, “as God did”.
[Rom. 14:5-11] - "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike" (Romans 14:5)?: Many apply this to keeping either the Sabbath or Sunday, but this is incorrect. To begin with, neither "Sabbath" nor "Sunday" is found in the entire chapter. The chapter begins, "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Romans 14:1 (KJV). The NKJV reads, "disputes over doubtful things." Thus the initial context of Romans 14 is "doubtful things," and is not a discussion of the Ten Commandments. The "Big Ten" are not "doubtful," but exceedingly clear, written with the finger of God on two tables of stone.
[Col. 2:13-17] - The context of Colossians 2:14-17 tells us that it is not the seventh day Sabbath, for first of all verse 14 says that that which was blotted out was the “handwriting of ordinance” which was “against us.” The Sabbath commandment was not written by hand, but by the finger of God (Exodus 31:18). Secondly, the Sabbath commandment itself is not “against us.” Instead it was instituted “for” us (Mark 2:27), that it may be for us a “delight” (Isaiah 58:13). Thirdly, the Sabbath was ‘not a shadow’ pointing forward because it was established before the fall. Countless Christians like Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, John Wesley saw that Colossians did not do away with the Sabbath or the ten commandments. Even former SDA's like Dirk Anderson, Desmond Ford and others see the validity of the Sabbath. See: A detailed response: Colossian 2:16
[Lastly, the writer of Hebrews re-affirms the fact that with the Christ-event comes the New Covenant which nullifies the provisions of the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant (Heb. 8:6-13).]
Agree. We are not under the old covenant but the new one. Jesus promises to write his law in the new, but which law?
Notice 3 key points about the Old covenant according to Hebrew 8:6-13:
Point 1) Old Covenant had some poor promises in it. The New Covenant, we are told, "was established upon better promises." Verse 6.
Can anyone point out any poor promises in the Ten Commandments?
Never! On the contrary:
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3.
This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises. The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the Ten Commandments.
Never! On the contrary:
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3.
This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises. The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the Ten Commandments.
Point 2) The Old Covenant was faulty. "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Hebrews 8:7.
Can anyone point out any or a flaw in the handwriting of God?
"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7.
"Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12.
Does that sound like something weak and imperfect? No law could be perfect and faulty at the same time. It becomes more and more apparent that the Old Covenant could not have been the Ten Commandments.
Point 3) The Old Covenant was to be abolished!
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13.
Did the great moral law of Ten Commandments vanish away? Anyone who has read the New Testament must answer, Absolutely not. Paul affirms the exact opposite about the law. He asked,
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31
"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13.
Did the great moral law of Ten Commandments vanish away? Anyone who has read the New Testament must answer, Absolutely not. Paul affirms the exact opposite about the law. He asked,
"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31
Does the Bible contradict itself? Can something vanish away and be established at the same time?
Just to be certain that Paul was not saying that the Old Covenant was the law, let us insert the words "Old Covenant" instead of the word "law" into Romans 3:31.
"Do we than make void the Old Covenant through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Old Covenant."
That doesn't sound right at all, does it? We know that the Old Covenant had vanished away and could never be spoken of in this way. Very clearly, then, we can see that the covenant which came to an end could not have been the Ten Commandments.
Just to be certain that Paul was not saying that the Old Covenant was the law, let us insert the words "Old Covenant" instead of the word "law" into Romans 3:31.
"Do we than make void the Old Covenant through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Old Covenant."
That doesn't sound right at all, does it? We know that the Old Covenant had vanished away and could never be spoken of in this way. Very clearly, then, we can see that the covenant which came to an end could not have been the Ten Commandments.
Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, John Calvin, R.C Sproul - all supported the validity of the ten commandments for new covenant Christians.
[We believe that the true seal of every believer is the Spirit of God (Eph. 1:13). ]
SDA's teach that all genuinely believing Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as the seal of God upon them. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul explained that "it is God who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment" (2 Cor. 1:21, 22). The presence of the Spirit in the heart is what makes a person a Christian. "Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him" (Rom. 8:9; compare Eph. 3:16-17). Unless the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts we cannot be said to be Christians at all. We receive this first seal of the Holy Spirit when we first believe. If there is a first, is there a final and last? If the Bible says so, we better believe!
Yes, there is a last day SEAL according to Revelation 7:1-3, and the angels who are holding back the winds of strife in our world will let them go only when all true believers have been ‘sealed’. See: Sabbath and the Seal. Before the SDAs existed, Christians identified the Sabbath as mark of faith and obedience to the Creator God in the time of the end. See: The Mark of the Beast.
[We also believe that the true test of discipleship is what Christ himself said, “all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (Jn. 13: 35). FRED AND ROCHELLE HOSILLOS PRINEVILLE, OR]
Absolutely! True disciples also remain in God’s word. They take ‘all Scriptures’ and base their life and doctrine on Jesus’s word. Sadly, the questions raised in LAM articles and by former SDAs and others against SDA teachings on the judgment, seal of God, Sabbath etc are based on the selective usage of scriptures. The so called truths presented by such ones are simply 'half truths' that haven't considered God's words in its entirety!
END.
WHY SEEKERS OF BIBLE TRUTH SHOULD CONSIDER A
PRE-ADVENT JUDGEMENT BASED ON THE BIBLE:
1) There is a
judgment before the second coming according to Daniel 7
Daniel
7 speaks about a JUDGMENT soon after
the reign of Babylon, Medo-persia,
Greece, Rome (little horn), but before God establishes His kingdom (second
coming). John Gill (Baptist), Albert Barnes and others identified the little
horn power to be Papal Rome, which ruled supreme over 538AD-1798AD.
Rome
has been a government under the Popes for some
twelve hundred years. (Source: Complete Works of the Most Rev. John Hughes,
Archbishop of New York, 1866, Volume 2. pg. 778)
In
1689, Drue Cressener (1638-1718)
wrote, “The first appearance of the beast was at Justinian’s recovery of the
Western Empire, from which time to about the year 1800 will be about 1260 years...For if the first
time of the beast was at Justinians recovery of the city of Rome, then must not
it end till a little before the year
1800.” [Drue Cressener, The Judgment of God Upon the Roman Catholic Church,
p309, 312]
Could
there be a judgement that starts after 1798 but before Christ comes with his
‘rewards’?
The
Preacher's Homiletic Commentary, the note on Dan. 7:9, 10 declares: “The
passage exhibits the judgment-seat of God, with myriads of attendant angels,
and the infliction of pronounced doom on a large portion of the human race. . .It appears rather to be
an invisible judgment carried on
within the veil and revealed by its effects and the execution of its sentence.
. . . As, however, the sentence is not yet by any means fully executed, it may
be sitting now"
2) Daniel 8 speaks of
the same judgment but calls it ‘cleansing of the sanctuary’
Daniel
8 speaks about a CLEANSING OF THE
SANCTUARY (represents a JUDGMENT according to the earthly sanctuary service
in Leviticus) following Medo-persia, Greece, Rome (little horn). Some say
the latter is Antiochus Epiphanes, but Luther, the Berlenburg Bible, Adam Clarke
and others stated that the little horn could be papal Rome. Here Daniel 8
and 7 seems to speaking of the same JUDGEMENT that follows the kingdoms of this
world.
3) Judgement was
future in Paul’s day
Paul
and NT writers spoke about a ‘judgment to come’. So in Paul’s day, the judgment
was future. Revelation 14 speaks about a ‘JUDGEMENT HAS COME’, just before
Christ will come to harvest the earth. Could this be the same judgment spoken
in Daniel 7 and 8?
4) God has an
appointed time to judge the world
Acts
17:31 speaks about God has APPOINTED a DAY OR time to JUDGE. Daniel 8:17-19
tells us that there is an “APPOINTED” time at the “end” when the “Sanctuary is
cleansed” (Daniel 8:13). Could the end of 2300 days in Daniel 8:14 identified
as years by Adam Clarke, William Davis, and many others, be the starting time
of appointed time to judge?
The
notes found in the Baptist Berlenburg Bible (1739), John Tillinghast, English
clergyman (1604–1655) state 70 weeks are part of 2300 years. Phillip Newell's
commentary states ‘determined’ in Daniel 9:24 means cutting off from a ‘longer
portion’.
The
Harper Study Bible, Gleason. L. Archer, and countless others say, the 70 weeks
began in 457 BC. If 2300 years began at the same time as identified by the
above, one should end up in 1844. See: Non-SDA
sources arrive at 457BC and 1844
5) The earthly temple
was an example of the heavenly temple
Heb.
8:5 says the earthly temple, which had two apartments, was a copy and shadow
(example) of the heavenly. Could Christ be following the example He gave to
Moses in heaven? Shouldn't He since He says it's an example? Notice the parallels:
a)
God appears on the Mercy
Seat on the Day of Judgment in Lev. 16:2 while the Ancient of
Days takes his Seat for
judgment in Daniel 7:9,10.
b)
High Priest MOVES
into the Most Holy on the day of
judgment in a CLOUD
in Lev. 16:13 while Jesus our High Priest MOVED with a CLOUD into the
presence of the Ancient of days when judgment
was set in place in Daniel 7:13. Here’s a place where Christ moved from one
place to another. The context, which is judgment and books opened after the
reign of the little horn power (538-1798) show that this was not at the
ascension?
c)
A Ram and a Goat is involved on the day the earthly sanctuary was cleansed (Lev. 16:5) while Daniel 8 begins with a
Ram and a Goat (Daniel 8:3-5), when the sanctuary at the end at
an “appointed” time is to be cleansed. Daniel 8 uses clean animals
or sanctuary animals unlike Daniel 7. There must be a
connection between Daniel 8 and sanctuary in Leviticus.
6) Christ moves
through the holy place and most holy in the book of revelation
Revelation
(New Testament) depicts Christ ministering in both holy place and most holy
place ministries (See Rev. 1:12,13; 4:5; 8:3-5; 11:19). At one point in time, a door was
opened in heaven and we see the ark of the covenant in the most Holy
place (Rev. 11:19)
7) Hebrew 9 describes both holy place and most
holy place. Heb. 6 describes Jesus entering the veil, which was the first one.
Heb. 9 talks about the "second veil." There are two!
8) Hebrew 9:23 says heavenly sanctuary needs to
be cleansed just like the earthly was cleansed. Not with the blood of bulls or
goats, but with the blood of Christ. Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones, the New-Century Bible
and others concur:
New-Century Bible, "What is meant by the
cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary must be determined by its meaning as
applied to the earthly. The ritual of the Day of Atonement was designed, not
merely to atone for the sins of the people, but to make atonement for the
sanctuary itself. The sense of this would seem to be that the constant sin of
Israel had communicated a certain uncleanness to the sanctuary. Similarly the sin of mankind might be supposed
have cast its shadow even into heaven".—New-Century Bible,
"Hebrews," p. 191. (Italics supplied.)
9)
If Paul meant to teach that Christ at His ascension entered into the Most Holy
Place in Heb 9:24, he would have employed the phrase 'hagia hagion',
which he uses in Hebrews 9:1-3, which, without ambiguity refers
exclusively to the Most Holy Place. But, he didn’t. The Greek word translated
“holy place” is “hagion” which refers at times to the first apartment of the
sanctuary, the Holy Place, or as in other verses to the sanctuary (both
apartments) as a whole. The scholars of ESV and NLT translated Heb.
9:24 as Holy Places.
10) Outcome of this
judgment: