1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:01 pm Post subject: veiled theology

Eduardo,

I accept the fact that most of your challenges to traditional SDA historicism are unanswerable. I don't expect to see an outstanding reply from Ross. To justify the Millerite movement (Revelation 10), I believe it's sufficient to prove that Daniel 8:13-14 contains a 2300-years prophecy in a seeming reference to Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 8:26), that the Messiah appeared on the scene after 69 weeks (Daniel 9:24-27), and that the book of Revelation unfolds three scenarios.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2004 3:06 am Post subject: Veiled theology?

Nice to hear from you again, Eugene. I don't know if I had misread you when I first started posting here, but your concession comes as a surprise. As to Millerism and Adventism's role in God's plan, I would also like for it to be a significant one, but that will depend, I think, more on our future than our past. You see, I believe that we may still become a prophetic people, but only if we adhere more closely to the actual teachings of the Bible, and not so much to what our forefathers mistakenly believed about them. As to the meaning of Rev.10, it looks to me that what we really have there is John's own prophetic call. About this, see Fred Mazzaferri's As in a Mirror. You already know what I think about the 70-week prophecy.

Regards

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:11 am Post subject: Re: Veiled theology?

Eugene Shubert

Because the worst of SDA historicism is false and full preterism is even worse, let's focus on the greatest absurdities of preterism:

1. The belief that the Blessed Hope came in 70AD.
2. The belief that the 4th beast of Daniel 7 represents Antiochus Epiphanes.

Perhaps there are preterists among us courageous enough to defend these doctrines.

From page 1:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:09 am Post subject: Antiochus

I’ve been requested, via private mail, to post my position on Antiochus Epiphanes. I was going to answer privately to the person who had requested this, but, on second thought, I’ve decided to post my answer here with the hope that it may benefit a broader audience.

My criticism against historic Adventism, as related to Daniel 8 and 9, is not directly connected with the precise identity of the Little Horn. In other words, no matter who or what he/it was/is, the 1844 scenario is impossible, as it goes against the context. For example, let us assume for a moment, in the best historicist tradition, that the Little Horn is a composite power made up by the Roman Empire and the papacy. If so, since this power was to desecrate the sanctuary, supposedly that in Heaven (although the context seems to speak of the one in the glorious land, i.e., Israel), it cannot have begun doing so before it came into existence, can it? Now the Roman Empire came into existence in 30 BC. The Roman Republic was in existence for several centuries before that, but it first came into contact with Israel in 64 BC. If so, the starting point of the desecration period, 2,300 evenings and mornings, has been predated by some four centuries! And this really is unanswerable. And, you may ask, what happens if we propose that the Little Horn is Antiochus Epiphanes? Well, if we were to apply the same kind of logic, the mess is somewhat smaller, since Antiochus’s desecration would take us back to the first half of the second century BC, but 457 is still out of the question. So, the point is not who or what the Little Horn is or was, but whether the desecration can have begun in 457 BC. Most definitely, it cannot. The reason is very simple: Israel was at the time under Persian control. The reigning king was Artaxerxes I. Jerusalem had been rebuilt following Cyrus’s decree of 536 by the time of Zerubbabel, Joshua, Haggai and Zechariah, toward 516 BC. Although Artaxerxes I never issued a decree ordering the city or the temple to be rebuilt (Ezra 7 speaks of altogether different matters), the king’s attitude toward Judaism doesn’t seem to have been hostile.

So, no matter who or what the Little Horn is or was, the starting point of the 2,300 evenings and mornings in 457 BC is wrong. Period. Its ending point in 1844 is even more preposterous. The context of Dan.8:14 and similar passages in Daniel (particularly in chapters 7 and 11) intimate that, after the desecration, the temple would be put right and some kind of punishment would fall upon the enemy power. Seventh-day Adventism has devised an absurd self-face-saving explanation whereby the end of the 2,300 evenings and mornings brings about not judgment on the Little Horn, but rather judgment on God’s people! Nothing more alien to Daniel! Resource to the Day of Atonement in this context is quite effete: when the temple services were interrupted because of neglect or desecration, the celebration of the Day of Atonement was pointless. If the temple services are interrupted, the obvious solution is to put them in motion once again, and, if a desecration had taken place, cleansing using a wheel-barrow would be mandatory, like in the days of Hezekiah (and this didn’t happen in Tishri either).

Having proved beyond reasonable doubt that 457 BC and AD 1844 have nothing to do whatsoever with the 2,300 evenings and mornings, let’s turn our attention to the issue of the identity of the Little Horn, which is an entirely different matter, and quite irrelevant for the previous discussion.

In past centuries many scholars, like Sir Isaac Newton, maintained a militant stance against Antiochus IV being the Little Horn. In those days, historicism, a “school” of prophetic interpretation promoted by Catholic priest Joachim of Floris, was the basis for the hermeneutics of prophetical passages in the Protestant world. This is quite understandable, since they perceived Roman Catholicism as their mortal enemy.

Nowadays, however, the bulk of Christian scholars, whether conservative or liberal, Protestant or Catholic, think that the Little Horn was Antiochus IV. What has brought about this change of attitude? That’s easy to answer: Overwhelming evidence and the obvious parallelism within the book of Daniel itself.

The book of Daniel repeatedly presents, through a series of images, a succession of kingdoms. The book itself explicitly identifies some of those kingdoms or kings. For example, chapter 2 identifies the golden head with Nebuchadnezzar himself. On the other hand, chapter 8 identifies the big horn on the forehead of the he-goat with the future first king of ‘Javan’, universally identified with Alexander the Great. Unfortunately, the book is not so explicit about the precise meaning of other passages, which renders specific details of interpretation somewhat subjective. Most of the powers mentioned in the prophetic portions of the book of Daniel are presented broadly, and not much is said about them. In some cases, like that of the golden head of chapter 2, the language seems to convey a somewhat positive evaluation of the kingdom. However, the book gives a much more detailed picture of a power that is presented in a clearly negative fashion. Since I am incapable of perceiving internal contradictions to the thesis that this enemy power is the same throughout the book, I take it for granted that the hypothesis that we have an entirely new enemy power in the different chapters lacks foundation in the text itself and can only be upheld by twisting history.

I also assume that the more explicit passages of Daniel should help understand the more obscure ones. For example, the space devoted in chapter 11 to the enemy power (the last “king of the north”) is considerably bigger than in chapter 2. If this principle is accepted, the conclusion that the enemy power is Antiochus Epiphanes is inescapable. By the way, Uriah Smith introduced a lacuna of more than a century between verses 15 and 16 of chapter 11, what makes his commentary on Daniel a shameful mockery of truth. Not even the SDA Bible Commentary on Daniel 11 dared to do such a thing.

Although some obscurity remains about the precise fulfilment of the last few verses of chapter 11, there is not a shadow of a doubt about the identity of the last king of the north in chapter 11: it is Antiochus Epiphanes. If so, more likely than not, he is also the person behind the figure of the Little Horn, since he is attributed the same character and actions as the last king of the north.

So, what are the powers presented in the prophetic parts of Daniel? Although we ought to take into account the conditional nature of biblical prophecy, allowing for the fulfilment being sometimes different from what one would initially assume (for example, in Daniel 7 all beasts seem to survive until the eschaton, something which, in history as it has developed, has not happened), the kingdoms are the following:

1. Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate followers of the Neo-Babylonian empire.
2. Cyrus (the Lord’s messiah according to Isaiah) and the Persian empire.
3. Alexander the Great, the “first” (and, as far as Israel was concerned, last king of the Macedonian empire).
4. Alexander’s successors in the various parts of his domains, particularly in Syria and Egypt. Israel was a disputed territory between both kingdoms. According to Daniel, one of the kings of the north would launch an unprecedented attack not just on the people of Israel, but on their laws and religion as well. This was Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

This list is in good agreement with both the internal evidence throughout the book of Daniel and in perfect agreement with history.

What objections have or can be presented against this interpretation? In all fairness, it should be recognized that most of them enter the realms of linguistics and history well beyond what is to be expected from an average Bible student, but let’s consider a brief presentation of the most significant objections. The reader can have a look at some of these objection as originally presented by advocates of ‘orthodoxy’ in http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=788 and http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=2544#2544. Due to space restrictions, a conscious effort is made to keep information as summarised as possible. For the same reason, future posts will avoid entering an infinite loop of objections and counter-objections.

1. ‘The above list separates the Hellenistic kingdoms from the empire of Alexander. They shouldn’t be. Besides, the fact that the leopard of Dan. 7 has four heads implies the division of this empire.’ It would be possible to discuss, from a historical viewpoint, whether the Hellenistic kingdoms can be considered as comprising the same geopolitical reality as Alexander’s empire, but the distinction is explicitly made by Daniel himself. In chapter 8 he says that Alexander’s realm would be split up to others who were not his offspring. As to the four heads, let’s consider the following: In Dan. 7 the lion has two wings. Does anybody suggest that those wings signify a twofold division in Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom? No. In Dan. 8 the goat has two horns. Does anybody suggest that those horns mean that the Persian empire would be divided sometime in the future? No. Why? Very simple: When Daniel speaks of divisions he uses the symbols of horns appearing, whereas the horns in the goat are preexistent. They signify the original constituents of the Persian Empire (Media and Persia proper). So, what do the four heads in the leopard mean? Inspiration didn’t care to say, but, if we are to theorize, how about this: the original constituents of Alexander’s domains (Macedonia, Illyria, Thrace and Greece).
2. ‘How come Rome doesn’t even appear in the above list of empires? Surely, the Lord would have included this empire in the prophetic forecast.’ Of course, this is entirely subjective. Are we to conclude that God caused Daniel and all the other prophets to announce the appearance of all dominant powers throughout history across the world? If so, where are the forecasts about China, Russia, Germany or Spain? What does the Bible have to say about the British Empire? And, what about the Parthians and the Sassanides? Of course, there might be people around who fancied applying this or that verse to one of these nations, but such a thing lacks foundation. The same can be said about finding a reference to the Mongols, the Turks, France, or the United States in certain passages in the book of Revelation. As for Rome, the Roman Republic does appear in Daniel. It is the power behind the ‘ships of Kittim’ in chapter 11.
3. ‘In the book of Daniel, a horn or a beast shouldn’t be interpreted as a single [individual], but rather as a new kingdom. Antiochus’s kingdom, however, was an old one, so he cannot have been the Little Horn.’ This is a fascinating line of reasoning. Its problem is that several details in the book of Daniel belie it. For example, Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t the first king of the Neo-Babylonian empire (his father Nabopolassar reigned before him, and the kingdom of Babylon was even older, since it went back to before the times of Abraham), and yet Daniel himself says that Nebuchadnezzar was the golden head of the statue. Likewise, Daniel says that the illustrious big horn on the he-goat’s forehead was ‘the first king’, that is Alexander himself. Alexander wasn’t the first king of his dynasty either. He had a father, Philip of Macedon, who had already conquered Greece. So, nothing else needs to be said to refute this inaccurate claim.
4. ‘Antiochus, being a Seleucid king, was the ruler of one of the four kingdoms who succeeded Alexander, so he cannot be the representative of a fifth kingdom, that of the Little Horn.’ This might be plausible if the four horns were four kingdoms and not four kings, but then that has no demonstration, has it?
5. ‘Antiochus reigned only over one of the four horns, but the Little Horn was a fifth king unrelated to the other four.’ This objection, presented, like the former, by Newton, is brought out of nothing. Daniel doesn’t say that the Little Horn would be unrelated to the former. He emphatically says that the Little Horn came out of one of them (more on this at the end). So, in the book of Daniel, there is a definite linkage between the Little Horn and the Hellenistic kingdoms. Naturally, that linkage does not exist in the case of Rome, whose territorial dominion overlapped Alexander’s realms only partially. Antiochus's territory, on the other hand, fell entirely within Alexander's.
6. ‘Antiochus IV wasn’t really illustrious, as the name Epiphanes would seem to indicate. He was a madman and his real military power was very limited, so he cannot have been the Little Horn.’ This is the most-often heard objection. It is also the easiest to refute. Daniel does not teach that the Little Horn would be illustrious. He does teach that the horn on the forehead of the he-goat would be illustrious, but the Little Horn, the villain in this narrative, is, above anything else, little and evil. So it would seem that Antiochus’s being little fits the description far better than Rome. When Rome first clashed with Israel, it was far from little. Of course, someone could say that the papacy in its infancy was little. Maybe so, but then we would have a little horn turned big and then shrinking into nothingness only to grow again. When I was a kid I saw a movie called something like The incredible story of shrinking-woman. What’s the use of this kind of reasoning? How do you want to have it? A ‘big’ little horn, like Rome, or a ‘little’ little horn like Antiochus? As for Antiouchus Epiphanes’s comparative ‘greatness’, it is not very hard to see that a mean person can do much harm even when endowed with less power and glory than a really great person.
7. ‘The horn was mighty by another’s power, but Antiochus acted on his own.’ It is odd that Newton should say something as shallow as this. Antiochus did not act on his own. He had an army and there were also some Jews who helped him carry out his anti-Jewish policy. On the other hand, if, as Newton claims, the Little Horn was might by another’s power, who were Rome’s helpers to bring about its glory?
8. ‘The horn stood up against the Prince of the host of Heaven, and this is the character not of Antiochus, but of Antichrist.’ This objection owes its plausibility to the preconceived idea that Daniel 8 is messianic. If it were messianic and unconditional, then Antiochus could not have been the Little Horn, because he didn’t live at the time of Christ. On the other hand, if it isn’t messianic, Antiochus could very well fit the criteria, since he did stand up against Heaven itself and fought actively against the Hebrew rulers and priesthood.
9. ‘Antiochus ruled for less than twelve years, so he cannot have been the Little Horn.’ This is quite ridiculous. The Bible doesn’t say for how long the Little Horn would rule. In any case, a lot of awful things can be done in just twelve years. Let’s see, who ruled in Germany from 1933 to 1945? Adolf Hitler. This kind of reasoning would probably be akin to those who deny the holocaust. Poor Adolf, they say. He only ruled for 12 years. He cannot have done the terrible things that his enemies attribute to him! And, by the way, Alexander the Great himself ruled for some 13 years. Thirteen years! Think of that!
10. ‘Antiochus cannot be the little horn because he did not appear, as specified in chapter 8, at the end of the Hellenistic kingdoms, but in their chronological middle.’ It is interesting that this line of reasoning should be brought up by people who want to involve the papacy in the interpretation. Since the last of the Hellenistic kingdoms — Egypt — came to its close in 30 BC, I wonder how it can be said that the papacy appeared then. When did the Little Horn appear? In 457 BC? In 30 BC? Or in the Middle Ages? Obviously, if the Little Horn is the papacy, the latter would be the right answer. The other two are way off their mark. So, the papacy is in an even worse position than Antiochus in this respect. However, the biblical evidence (compare Job 42:12) shows that the word acharith can simply mean the second half of something. This way Antiochus fits the biblical requirements perfectly. A better fit would be impossible.
11. ‘The Bible says that the Little Horn would cast down the sanctuary, but Antiochus didn’t do that. Only the Romans did.’ It is true that the Romans entirely destroyed the temple (and all Jerusalem), but that is not the point. It is also true that Antiochus did not architectonically demolish the sanctuary. William Shea analyses the meaning of the word mekon (place) in this context, but he misses the point. He should have analysed the usage of the verb shalak (cast), which very often has various metaphorical meanings (like weep, reject, control, spread, etc.). If so, can Antiochus’s activities in the temple be described as casting it down, at least morally and sacrificially? Most definitely. No further elaboration is necessary.
12. ‘Antiochus cannot have been the Little Horn because he didn’t interrupt the sanctuary service for either 2,300 days or 1,150 days, but by merely three years.’ Well, 1,150 days falls very close indeed to three years. In any case, it is curious that this objection should be brought up by individuals who are totally incapable of presenting any kind of proof for the termination of that prophetic period in their own interpretation. Or, what kind of proof can be given to assert that the prophecy ended on October 22, 1844? None whatsoever.
13. ‘Antiochus’s reign did not extend to “the time of the end”, so he cannot have been the Little Horn.’ The expression ‘time of the end’ really is interesting. Daniel isn’t the only one to use this sort of expression. Joel and many others use something similar. Now, Peter, guided by the Holy Spirit, interpreted Joel’s prophecy as having been fulfilled in the first century. So, if Joel’s ‘last days’ do not refer to this world’s last days, why should Daniel’s time of the end refer to the time of the end of this world?
14. ‘Antiochus did not end in a special, remarkable way—The little horn was to end in a special way: “But he shall be broken without human hand” (8:25).’ Since Antiochus died of natural causes, it does seem that he was indeed broken without human hand. If he had been murdered by a rival, the prophecy wouldn’t have been fulfilled, but it was.
15. ‘The Antiochus interpretation effectively removes the focus off the true Anti-Christ and places it on a single man, who is of little consequence or significance in the prophetic and apocalyptic unfolding of the Great controversy between Christ and Satan.’ The so-called Great Controversy is a Miltonian concept, not necessarily a biblical one. But be that as it may, the Antiochus interpretation has nothing to do with sanctioning the papacy. As nearly everybody knows, this was the accepted understanding in the days of the apostles. Flavius Josephus upheld it long before there was a pope in Rome. Maintaining that he had a hidden agenda is preposterous. The Romans couldn’t care less whether they were mentioned in some Hebrew prophecy or not. Actually, Josephus does claim, without giving the reference, that Daniel had predicted that the Romans would destroy the Jewish nation. He may have referred to the last few verses of chapter 11 or to chapter 12. Besides, the fourth gospel shows that Jesus participated in the feast of Dedication, or Hanukkah, celebrated in commemoration of the Maccabees’ purification of the temple after Antiochus’ desecration, which shows that the event was not as unimportant as Isaac Newton, Uriah Smith or William Shea would have us to think. The question could be asked, Who, then has a hidden agenda? The contention that preterism and futurism are Catholic inventions to avoid applying the Little Horn and other prophetic figures to the pope is ludicrous. Preterism predates Catholicism. Historicism, on the other hand, is itself a Catholic invention.

All the above impressive collection of objections, plus much more additional nonsense that could no doubt be added, only shows one thing: that although ‘Antiochus seems to satisfy [...] a good portion [...] of the prophecies (in Daniel 8)’ there will always be people ready to advance someone else’s candidacy for his post. An isolated word here or an obscure expression there can always be found that may be used to justify all kinds of groundless ideas. The fact is that:

• Daniel’s descriptions of the enemy power are internally coherent.
• Daniel’s description of the enemy power in chapter 11 can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes, whether he was illustrious or not, whether he ruled for 12 years or not, or whether he ruled in the middle of his dynastic line or not.
• If Antiochus Epiphanes is that ‘king of the north’ in Daniel 11, and there’s no doubt he is, then why exactly should the Little Horn of Daniel 8 and the Little Horn of Daniel 7, who do precisely the same things as the king of the north of chapter 11, be a different person or power?

In order to promote Rome’s candidacy for the Little Horn power history is often distorted. For example, Bible prophecy says that the Little Horn was to extend his partially unsuccessful ambition toward the south, the east and the glorious land. This is very understandable for someone who was 'the king of the north'. However, by applying it to Rome, we get the wrong geography and the wrong chronological order. After its initial gains in Italy itself, Rome had extended its influence toward the west (Hispania), then the east (Epirus, Macedonia and Greece), then Syria and the glorious land (Israel), then to the north (Gaul), and then the south (Egypt). Entirely wrong geography and wrong order! The worst, however, is not the historical distortion involved by such absurd tenacity in error, but the mockery that is done of Bible studies themselves by resorting to fallacious arguments on linguistics and similar things. As an illustration, let me just finish with a few words on the contention that the Little Horn was to appear out of one of the four winds of heaven, a hypothesis defended by William Shea. Those who claim such a thing play with the gender of certain Hebrew words. They affirm that since ‘them’ is masculine and ‘horns’ is feminine, whereas ‘winds’ is sometimes masculine (not in the passage, though), ‘from one of them’ must mean ‘from one of the winds’. It is curious that this explanation gives an unexpected twist to the angelic interpretation and to the universal consensus of all ancient translations. Besides, it ignores the fact that some Hebrew manuscripts have the word ‘them’ in feminine. But, even if that wasn’t the case, the proponents of this ignore the fact, shown elsewhere in the very context we are considering, that Hebrew does not always conform with grammatical gender agreement. See E. Kautzsch, editor, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2nd edition, 17th printing, translated by A. E. Cowley, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, §§ 110 k, 144 a, 145 p, t, u, 135 o.

The SDA leaders, with A. G. Daniells at their head, had ample opportunity to correct this state of affairs after the 1919 Bible Conference, when they learnt that, in the words of Elder Wirth, ‘Antiochus Epiphanes is really the great figure in’ chapter 11. After H. C. Lacey had retold Antiochus’s exploits for his less than knowledgeable audience, he affirmed ‘That is the history. The prophecy reads; “and his heart shall be against the holy covenant.” When he was in Egypt a false report had been circulated of his death. Thereupon Jason, the ex-high priest — whom Antiochus had deposed — returned to Jerusalem, drove his brother Menelaus out of office. Antiochus, thinking the nation had revolted, and hearing that they were rejoicing at the report of his death, besieged Jerusalem with a great army, took the city by storm, and vented his anger upon the Jews. He slew 40,000 of them, and sold 40,000 more, polluted the temple, offered swine's flesh on the altar of God, restored Menelaus to the priesthood, and made Philip, a barbarian, governor of Judea. “He shall do exploits,” and then “return to his own land,” just as was here foretold.’ Then Professor Anderson asked ‘What verse in the chapter do you allude to when you speak of the pollution of the temple, as you read in the history?’ H. C. Lacey’s answer was ‘In the 11th chapter. Verse 30 speaks of the defiling of the temple. But we will come to that a little later. The career of Antiochus Epiphanes is very like what is predicted of the Little Horn. Just to illustrate: The things said about the little horn can apply to Antiochus Epiphanes. He is the eleventh down the line, three were plucked up, he wore out the saints of the Most High, he changed the law of the Most High; things were given into his hand for just a time, times, and a half which was three and one-half years. So, suppose you and I had been living in that day. We would have thought that prophecy was meeting its fulfillment. [...] Later, Antiochus further vented his spite upon the unfortunate Jews, dispatching Apollonius with 20,000 men to Jerusalem, who slew great multitudes, plundered the city, pulled down houses and walls, slew those who attended the temple, defiled the Holy Place so that the whole service was discontinued, the city was forsaken of the Jews and only strangers remained. On his arrival at Antioch he published a decree obliging all upon pain of death to conform to the Greek religion. So the Jewish law was abrogated, and in the temple itself heathen worship was set up.’ To the further question ‘What was the date of that?’, and the answer, 168 BC, Professor Lacey added: ‘“They set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar. They did sacrifice upon the idol altar, which was upon the altar of God.” 1 Maccabees 1:54,59. You see that they placed the abomination of desolation in the Holy Place. The very language of the Bible, “the abomination of desolation,” is placed in the temple; and this is history.’ Indeed! It is difficult to add anything else. It is a shame and a pity that there are those who don’t want the people to hear the truth.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño

Focusing on the absurdities of full-fledged preterism is uncalled for here. As far as I know, nobody has defended such views here. I don't believe the blessed hope came in AD 70. I believe that it could have come, but it didn't. I don't doubt for a moment that it will come in God's own time. Although Paul's epistles were written before AD 70, I think Eugene's opinion that hymenaeanism is the same as consistent preterism may be correct. In all fairness, however, in his criticisms Paul is asserting that the Second Coming hadn't occurred yet; since AD 70 was still in the future, Paul's words by themselves cannot be taken as definitive for any other time frame. Nevertheless, I think that the overall NT testimony shows that the Second Coming cannot possibly have taken place yet, so full-fledged preterism is wrong.

The fourth beast of Daniel 7 and its evil little horn are attributed approximately the same things as the Little Horn of chapter 8. That the fourth beast should be described as having 10 horns, in my view, needn't be taken as indicating that that enemy power had 10 successors. Since the interpretation isn't detailed enough, we could equally argue that the 10 horns are a reference to the Little Horn's forerunners. If we are to interpret such fine details, why not ask ourselves what it means for the Little Horn to have eyes and a mouth? Good eyesight? A beautiful voice? You tell me. Chances are I might listen.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:20 am Post subject:

A RESPONSE TO EDUARDO’S LATEST THESIS ON:
DANIEL 7 AND 8, 1844, AND ANTIOCHUS

1. It is nonsense of the highest order to speak of Antiochus (one person) being the fourth beast of Daniel 7. It would be like saying that Alexander himself was the entire he-goat of Daniel 8, including when Greece had its single “notable” horn (at the height of its power), during the weaker period of the later four notable horns, and also when the “little horn” arose. It would also be like saying Nebuchadnezzar was literally the entire first beast of Daniel 7- Babylon itself. Simply diatribe!! THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE BEASTS WERE DISTINCT KINGDOMS OR EMPIRES (RULED OVER BY A LINE OF INDIVIDUAL KINGS); NOT SINGLE OR INDIVIDUAL MONARCHS OR RULERS. NO ONE, NOT EVEN EDUARDO, WITH ALL OF HIS DOGMATISM, CAN DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE BY REFERRING TO TEXTUAL EVIDENCE!!! Notice the utter diatribe in Eduardo’s following listing of the “beasts of Daniel 7, once he pasts the kingdom of Persia. If the first two beasts were whole empires ruled by a line of kings, what utter nonsense to change the rules for the last two beasts in Daniel 7!! He totally ignores ROME (the longest ruling world power in history, and the natural successor to Greece)!! It clearly betrays his efforts to force his preconceptions upon the Word, instead of allowing it to consistently interpret itself. He said:

gillespie9669

Last time Eduardo wrote:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño

As I indicated in my very long, yet summarised, presentation of the fallacies incurred into by enemies of the Antiochus interpretation, ‘future posts will avoid entering an infinite loop of objections and counter-objections,’ so I will abide by that principle. Not that I am avoiding confrontation or trying to escape from a tight spot. Nothing of the kind. More things could be said by both parts. However, enough has been presented for any intelligent reader to make up his or her own mind.

Notwithstanding, I would like to add just a few collateral thoughts.

1. When we deal with images and parables it is not always possible to find perfect agreement between the passage and reality. No doubt, enough agreement can be found, or, otherwise, understanding the figure of speech would be impossible, but there are bound to be details which defy rational explanation. For example, the equation between the fourth beast of Daniel 7 (which has a little horn) and the Little Horn of Daniel 8 seems to have been written not by me or Raymond Cottrell, but rather by Daniel himself. I might wish he had chosen different words to convey his thoughts, but that would be imposing my presuppositions on an impressive prophetic book which does not need my advice. So, the best I can really do is pay attention to all that Daniel has to say and marvel at how his predictions unfolded in the history of Israel. Again, who is to say that a rule can be established that a beast or a horn is always a kingdom and not a king? Who is to say that the case of Alexander being a horn is only an exception and not the rule? So, who really is being dogmatic?
2. As indicated in my former presentation, since the book of Daniel itself does not always give a detailed interpretation of its symbols, a certain degree of interpretation is unavoidable. Naturally, the number of presuppositions one introduces into the equation should be kept as close to zero as possible. The best way to do this is, precisely, to follow all relevant portions of the book very closely in order to avoid imagining that the prophet predicted some fancied theory we might have. For example, the fact that Rome was ‘the longest ruling world power in history’ (not true; Assyria ruled longer) ‘and the natural successor to Greece’ might be very relevant for a historian, but completely alien to Daniel’s thought. A critic has to do better than that. He will first have to show, from the book of Daniel itself, that the prophet speaks of Rome somewhere else than in his reference to the ‘ships of Kittim’ (translated by the LXX as ‘romans’). The problem is that this cannot be done. Daniel 11 applies to its evil king of the north, Antiochus, what is ascribed elsewhere to the Little Horn. So, the equation that the Little Horn is the evil king of the north is Daniel’s, not mine. If so, I do no sin by ‘ignoring’ Rome. I’m not the one who is ‘ignorant’ or ill-intentioned. I derive my interpretation from the text itself, and, in doing so, I am most certainly allowing the Word to interpret itself, without forcing any preconceptions of mine upon it. It’s a shame that not everybody can say the same about their methodology.
3. The identity of the Little Horn is not irrelevant to the fulfilment of Dan.8:14. I didn’t say that exactly. It is irrelevant to 457 BC and AD 1844 because both figures are false. The desecration did not begin in 457 BC. Period. And, quite certainly, it did not end in 1844. So, no matter who the Little Horn is or was, the whole edifice of the ‘investigative judgment’ and similar nonsense collapses because it rests on worse than sand. It rests on fog. The least link in that chain of fog is the ‘year-day principle,’ which cannot be successfully defended from the Bible (and, yes, I’ve read everything Shea has to say on the subject). This, which is just the least false of the links in the SDA ‘chain of evidence’, is thoroughly erroneous. I won’t elaborate at length on the subject. If you are interested, read Fred Mazzaferri’s As in a Mirror.
4. One of the worst links, if not the worst, in the above-mentioned ‘chain of evidence’ is the contention that Dan.9:25 or whereabouts contains the starting point of Dan.8:14. This is utterly preposterous. The beginning of Dan.8:14’s 2,300 evenings and mornings is in the days of the Little Horn, whoever or whatever he was. Setting the beginning of that period to coincide with the 7th year of Artaxerxes I is nonsensical for the following reasons:
a. The sanctuary, whether in heaven or on earth, was not desecrated in the days of Artaxerxes. This is unanswerable. Your theory that I don’t heed the context of Dan.8:14 does not hold water. The one who doesn’t heed the context is Mrs. White (she doesn't mention the question once in her Great Controversy presentation). I know Dan.8:14 has an answer to a question. The question does not involve all the vision of Dan.8, but only the period of oppression under the Little Horn. You are way out of line claiming that the 2,300 evenings and mornings involve the period of Persian rulership. You have no biblical proof for such a thing. Period. So, the dogmatism is yours, not mine. Your interpretation has either been poorly pondered or is outright dishonest. Even if it were true that the 2,300 evenings and mornings (the word day does not appear there) applied to the era of Persian domination, that era began in 539, not 457, so tell us, why fix on 457?
b. The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 begin with an order to restore Jerusalem. Artaxerxes I did not issue that order. The city had been rebuilt by the time of Darius I, before 516. This is unanswerable.
c. The 70 weeks and the 2,300 evenings and mornings might be connected at their end, but never at their beginning. Since the 70 weeks begin with the restoration of the city, this must be a joyous event for Israel. The 2,300 evenings and mornings, on the other hand, are occasion of grief, not joy. This, too, is unanswerable. It is not difficult to see the 2,300 evenings and mornings as the end of the 70 weeks, since both involve desecration and destruction.
d. The contention that Dan.8:14 speaks about the purification of the sanctuary in heaven lacks biblical support. Hebrews 9:23 says that the heavenly things have been inaugurated with better sacrifices than the ones that set the Israelite rituals in motion. The time, as indicated in the context, is past, not future, and the verb katharizo does not require the heretical concept that the heavenly sanctuary is polluted by the application of Christ’s blood. In any case, Dan.8:14 and its context do not speak of yom kippur. And this, too, is unanswerable. Dan.8:14 and its context do not say that the sanctuary is polluted by the confessed sins of God’s people, but rather by the Little Horn’s attack. And this, sir, is unanswerable. And the purification involved for the desecration, sir, cannot be carried out by the rituals of yom kippur, but by a wheel-barrow (see 2 Chronicles 29:5,15-18). And this, I am quite confident, is absolutely unanswerable, sir.
e. As shown earlier in this thread, appeals to Jesus’s (or Paul’s, or John’s) application of Danielic expressions like the ‘abomination of desolation’ to the Romans will not change the exegesis of Daniel. If you want to add the desolations of AD 70 to the seventy-week prophecy it’s just dandy, but just do the math. Let’s see, 70 is greater than 34, is it not? So, please, by all means, instruct us about this new important and mysterious property of numbers. It’ll be very entertaining! And even this, I think, is unanswerable.

Please, Mr. Gillepie, before adding more to your arguments, as you promise, content yourself with really answering to what I think is unanswerable in the above. Thank you.

All the best.

gillespie9669 · Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:50 am Post subject: A LAYING DOWN OF ARMS!!

A LAYING DOWN OF ARMS!!

I do think that in this adventure with Eduardo I seem to be going no where with him. He is a man who fails to see that God referred to beast kingdoms in prophecy SINCE THE TIME OF DANIEL because they had much to do (after that point) with God's people (both Jewish and Christian), notwithstanding the Phillistines, etc who went before. But I ask, WHY WOULD GOD IGNORE ROME, WHICH AFTER DANIEL'S TIME HAD SO MUCH TO DO WITH BOTH THE JEWS, THE EARLY CHRISTIANS, AND ALL CHRISTIANS THROUGHOUT ALL THE CENTURIES, AND EVEN JESUS THE MESSIAH HIMSELF WHEN HE WAS ON EARTH? Rome certainly has been the longest ruling empire since the vision of the statue in Daniel 2, or the beasts in Daniel 7, and has had the most lasting impact on God's people, and his temple (literal and spiritual) since the time of Jesus. It is my firm belief that when Eduardo gets it right about Rome being the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7, which EXACTLY corresponds to the legs of iron in Daniel 2, it may just open the way for the Holy Spirit to remove some of the scales from his eyes, as it concerns him not seeing the bigger picture in apocalyptic literature. My thesis has been laid out, and his too. Let each man who reads ponder these things and decide for himself. As for me, I know what God has led me to believe, and I might add that I have no propblem seeing the evidence in the Word.
In closing I am most saddened to think that Eduardo holds to the view that the book of Daniel is "Christless", as is most of the Old Testament (he also earlier said very clearly), and that alone, I think, leaves his foundation rather weak, since Jesus declared that the Old Testament Scriptures do testify of Him (all over them). Remember his post-resurrection conversation with the disciples on the road to Emmaus? See especially Luke 24:25 and 26. Please Lord, open the eyes of blind Bartimaeus!! Over to you now Eduardo, and your marvelous dogmatising!! Whatever you will or can say after this, I will leave the Holy Spirit to do His work in his own time.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:11 am Post subject:

Indeed, I do fail to see that God included Rome in Daniel’s prophecies, except for the obscure usage of the expression ‘ships of Kittim’ in chapter 11. The reason I fail to see Rome in chapters 2, 7, 8 and even in chapter 9 is because of the internal evidence in the book of Daniel itself (mostly because of chapter 11). But, did God actually fail to provide some blueprint about what Rome would bring for Israel and the church? Far from it. Besides the mention to the ‘ships of Kittim’, and, possibly, some obscure references in the last few verses of Daniel 11, we have our Lord’s explicit indication about the impending doom of Jerusalem, and we also have the writings of the Seer of Patmos about Rome’s enmity toward the church and the promise of the church’s triumph. Therefore, I would never dare to say that just because Rome isn’t prominent in the book of Daniel then God failed in his duty to warn his people about Rome. I think that by consistently applying all the characteristics of the Danielic beasts to the Romish compound beast in the book of Revelation God wanted his people to know just how dangerous the new threat would be.

Speaking of scales, one’s eyesight may go through different stages throughout one’s life, so I cannot entirely rule out the possibility of an alteration in my vision in the future. I’m sure that’s something that may happen to anyone. In any case, since I once believed that Rome was the iron legs of the statue, and the terrible beast of chapter 7, etc., but then internal evidence forced me out of that self-fooling belief, I presently fail to fathom what sort of biblical evidence would be convincing enough to reject the evidence I see in the book of Daniel itself. However, I know that miracles do happen.

Mr. Gillespie, please, don’t be saddened for my views about Daniel. They are the result of serious meditation and study. I regard the book highly, like the rest of the Bible. However, the book of Daniel is not the Gospel. I do believe that the Old Testament, including the book of Daniel or Isaiah, gave a testimony of Jesus. Actually, I think that the current of messianism goes much deeper in the OT than is usually recognized. What I fail to see is the validity for our time of the midrash-style references so frequently heard from the pulpit and the popular press, which sort of follows Matthew’s presentation of certain OT passages. It was all right for Matthew to do that in his days because midrash was an accepted form of exegesis. Today, it isn’t. As for the passages that Jesus himself may have used, we don’t actually know what they are, do we? We know of one he used before his crucifixion, though. It was the observation that Jonah’s ‘burial’ in the belly of a fish taught something great about God’s love for mankind. No messianism in the OT? Far from it. Plenty of messianism if only we care to look for it.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:46 pm Post subject:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:04 am Post subject:

Dear Eugene,

You shouldn't really try to intimate that I am some kind of Catholic adherent. I am not. I feel no sympathy for the clear perversions of Christianity found in that church. I'm sure you know the vast majority of Protestant scholars, including conservative scholars, hold a view about Daniel very close, if not identical, to mine. You have no reason to maintain that we are all defenders of Catholicism. That is tantamount to bearing false witness. I believe that most of us abhor Catholicism. Admittedly, some of our views may overlap beliefs of the Catholics, but then the same can be said of certain standard Adventist beliefs, like, for example, the existence of 'guardian angels', or the belief that Mary of Bethany was Mary Magdalene and an ex-prostitute. Protestant attacks on Mrs. White, intimating that her Desire of Ages portrayal of Mary is a Catholic reminiscence are just as unfair as your characterization of my position as Catholic. You know it isn't, and if you don't see the difference, it's just too bad for you.

Regards.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2004 10:40 am Post subject:

Dear Eduardo,

You shouldn't really try to intimate that commentators like Keil and Delitzsch aren't scholars. Keil's exegesis of Daniel is powerful, messianic and correctly identifies the four world kingdoms. Atheists believe in your exegesis of Daniel. That's the view that Catholics accept. When I wrote my last post, it was with the understanding that there are two widely differing interpretations of Daniel and two spirits. Full preterists, atheists, Catholics and those who believe in their "Christless" interpretation form one camp. Conservative Christians have a view of Daniel similar to Keil's. That's simply how I define conservative. I believe in this great divide. It is your own judgment of Keil's scholarship that puts you on the losing side.