1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño

I've just discovered this forum, and I think Daniel 8:14 is, unfortunately, one of the most urgent things that the SDA leadership needs to address. A normal Christian organization, like that of the early Christians, wouldn't have to address conflicts regarding the interpretation of controversial passages not directly connected with Christian experience, but since the SDA has its very foundation rooted in a supposedly 'superior' understanding of Daniel 8:14 that is completely alien to all exegetical scholarship, the longer it takes to clearly address all the issues and accept full responsibility for its shortcomings in understanding, the worse it will be for the general progress of the denomination and the biblical literacy of its members.

What Dr. Ford and Dr. Cottrell discovered about Dan 8:14 and the sanctuary has been discovered by many others, most of whom were forced out of the church or chose to leave. It has happened since the days of Canright and I needn't be a prophet to predict that it will keep happening, since it's unavoidable. I discovered it on my own, without reading either Ford, Canright or any others. Once you read a little Hebrew, or at least take the time to compare different translations of Dan 9:25-27 and Dan 8:14 in its context, the conclusion that both point to the days of Antiochus IV is inescapable. Whether one wants to somehow make these passages applicable to later events, like the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, or some other indefinite event in the future, is a matter of personal choice, should such a thing make a person happier, but, quite certainly, that is not required on exegetical grounds.

Everything that church loyalists, like Dr. William Shea, have written against the historical-exegetical understanding of Daniel 8 and 9 is picking at straws. Not only are they trying to uphold the subjective and whimsical historicist interpretation, repeatedly shown to be false, but really doing very bad exegesis of almost everything.

For example, the insistence that the little horn of Daniel 8 was to appear 'at the end of their reign' is futile if one looks at the Hebrew. If you care to read the last chapter of Job, you'll see that the latter state of Job (some 140 years) was better than the first. That doesn't mean that he had several children in the last few years of his life, and, mind you, that doesn't mean they were conceived and born after his death! If the latter part of Job's life (roughly, the last half of his life), could be good, then it is patently false that the usage of the expression 'at the end of their reign' for the little horn demands that he appear after 30 BC. That is preposterous. Period. Besides, there's a lot of double talk in the not-so-scholarly Adventist circles about the beginning of the desecration of the sanctuary. When on earth is it supposed to have begun? In 457 BC, when the 2300 "evening-mornings" are deemed to have begun? In 30 BC, when the last Hellenistic kingdom disappeared? In AD 70, when the temple was destroyed by the Romans? Sometime in the Middle Ages when the papacy invented the "sacrifice" of Mass?

Another similar folly that is attempted trying to uphold a Roman origin for the little horn is perverting the obvious meaning of 'from one of them'. Shea would have us think that the little horn appeared out of the four winds of heaven and not out of the forehead of the he-goat, but not only is that contra natura, it is utterly ridiculous. He voluntarily ignores four things: 1) there are textual variants where "them" is feminine; 2) the very context of the passage shows, and good Hebrew grammars like Gesenius' confirm, that the Hebrew language is not always coherent as far as gender concordance is concerned; 3) all ancient translations are coherent with the understanding that the little horn came from the he-goat and inconsistent with the ludicrous explanation that it came from a point in the compass that was alien to Alexander's domains; 4) the obvious parallels between the little horn of Dan 8 with all the enemy powers portrayed elsewhere in the book, particularly in chapter 11 (the last king of the north). Any attempt of exegeting away Dan 8:14 without reference to Dan 11 is condemned to failure and utter rejection by the scholarly community.

And, what can be said about the assertion that Antiochus wasn't big enough to be the little horn? Well, perhaps he wasn't illustrious enough to deserve a place in prophecy, but, quite certainly, he was villainous enough to do so! Nowhere does the text imply that the little horn was to be bigger than Alexander. If we want to pick at straws, as Shea does, not even Rome's empire is bigger than Alexander's. Admittedly, Alexander's empire did not include Western Europe, but let us keep in mind that Europe is a small continent. Alexander's empire encompassed a large portion of Asia up to India! The point is that Dan 8 says in what sense and in which direction the little horn was to extend its influence: it was to grow toward the east, south and west (which is understandable, as he was the king of the north). Rome did not grow in the order specified by Dan 8. It began by controlling Italy. Then it extended its influence toward the West (Spain) and the East (Epirus, Macedonia, and later Syria), the North (Gaul, Britain) and then against the Southeast (Egypt). Not only does historicism require to twist the facts of history: it also demands that we relocate whole nations across the map to make its claims believable!

More could be said, and it might still be said if this thread shows some interest in my exposition. Let me finish, however, by summarizing my view on the choices the SDA leadership has regarding Dan 8:14. I'll list them in order of preference:

1) Recognize openly that our pioneers made a serious mistake in their interpretation of Dan 8:14 and apologize for all the wrongdoing caused by this absurd face-saving mistake. Particularly, they should apologize for calling Babylon those who were biblically-based enough to reject William Miller's folly. Naturally, all unbiblical teachings derived from the wrong interpretation of Dan 8:14, such as the "Investigative Judgement", should be dropped at once.

2) Accept the gallant offer made by scholars like the late Dr. Raymond Cottrell that would allow the church to save face by quietly disposing of abnormal doctrines (like the 2300 "days" and the sanctuary) by permitting members, teachers and ministers to accept the obvious without being disfellowshipped. Those who preferred to stick to traditional monstrosities might be allowed to do so.

3) Ignore the previous pieces of advice and maintain whatever it wants on the issue. No matter how much research they do, or how convoluted their arguments become, the outcome will be irrelevant. It won't be accepted by the scholarly community either outside or inside the church (I don't include among the latter those paid employees that have the know-how to write technical papers on theological, or historical issues; of these, only but a few, like Dr. Cottrell, have the honesty of standing for truth, no matter what the cost, even if they do so after their retirement!). In other words, if the church chooses to close its eyes to reality, not only will it be making its purportedly scholarly efforts on such issues fruitless and irrelevant, it will be faced by an increasing rejection of such tenets in the media. More and more people will be warned against the 19th-century hermeneutical approach of the church. In the long run, such stance will prove untenable, unless the church desires to have as its members only the uneducated and misinformed.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 8:36 am Post subject: The abomination of desolation

Hi Eduardo,

Welcome to the forum. My faith in grammatical-historical exegesis is sure and steadfast, and I do believe the New Testament witness—the abomination of desolation was the destruction of Jerusalem.

I suppose that we have a lot to discuss.

THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION

Why is it that Jesus applied the abomination of desolation to His future and you contradict Him and insist that this event was fulfilled before Jesus was born?

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 9:49 am Post subject:

Far it be from me to contradict our Lord and Saviour! And yet, even the godliest of people get confused by passages like Matt.23:35. More often than not, the conclusion is reached that something has to be done with the passage, that someone made a mistake, whether it be a copyist or Matthew himself, since we would probably find it indefensible to accept that Jesus might have made a mistake in the identification of the ‘Zechariah’ that was actually martyred. I don’t intend to enter a detailed discussion of this passage, as I’m aware of other, less credible, possibilities. The fact is that not always do theologians take all of Christ’s words at face value, not even SDAs.

If I were to dwell on the interpretative implications of Matt.24:15-18, I would first point out that no explicit reference to Daniel can be found in Mk.13:14, and even less so in Lk.21:20. If Jesus really quoted Daniel, His words are not necessarily to be regarded as a hermeneutical judgment on the passage, but merely an application. That this is probably the way it should be understood can be inferred from the usage of the expression ‘let the reader understand’ or ‘if anyone has ears to hear, let him hear’. Parallel cases of this usage, which involves the injection of less than obvious meanings into the words actually used, can be found in the messages to the seven churches of Revelation (Rev.2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22), in the description of the beast the came out of the sea in the same book (13:9), in the explanations of certain parables like the Sower (Matt.13:9; Mk.4:9; Lk.8:8), the Weeds (Matt.13:43), the Lamp on the Stand (Mk.4:23), and the Salt that loses its taste (Lk.14:35). There is also a parallel in the dubious passage of Mk.7:16, which would also fall in the same category. Lastly, there is a similar usage in Matt.11:15, where Mal.4:5 is applied to the figure of John the Baptist. It is obvious that the application to John the Baptist is not the primary exegesis of the passage, and even the SDA Bible Commentary dares to venture, with no biblical backing of any kind, an interpretation that is not only a considerable distance from a healthy exegesis of the passage, but from Jesus’ very words. It states that the work of the “Elijah” who was to be a precursor “before the second advent of Christ [...] will be done by those who preach the three angels’ messages to the world” (vol. 4, p. 1134). How’s that for exegesis? Any chances of passing in any of our seminaries? I guess not (I’ve been to a couple myself).

If Jesus had actually quoted Daniel, I cannot derive from such a usage the primary meaning of Daniel. I take it for granted that Daniel had a meaning for several centuries before Jesus lived on this earth. Undoubtedly, there might be some areas open to discussion before the time of Antiochus, but after that, even though Flavius Josephus still thought that some details of the book had something to do with the Roman domination, he plainly states that the Little Horn was Antiochus. I am convinced Jesus understood Daniel (after all, He had inspired it to begin with) with the same basic view expressed by Josephus. If not, I would be at a loss as to why he participated in the Feast of Dedication (Jn.10:22-42) or Hanukkah, which had been instituted by Judas Maccabeus to celebrate the purification of the sanctuary and the restoration of its services after the desecration effected by Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1 Macc.4:36-59; 2 Macc.10:1-8 in any Catholic bible or in the LXX). As far as I know Mrs. White did not bother to leave for the posterity any valuable insights as to what the Feast of Dedication was. Perhaps she never knew, which is both a shame and a pity. Had she known, we might have been saved from the embarrassment of having to explain the unexplainable!

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 11:22 am Post subject:

Eduardo,

As I study your last response carefully, please permit me to ask you a few essential questions.

What is your view of Daniel’s prophecies as a whole? How do you interpret the obvious dichotomy between Daniel’s Aramaic and Hebrew prophecies?

For example, Daniel 2 and 7 present 4 kingdoms and in Daniel 8 only two kingdoms are mentioned. Raymond Cottrell once told me in his home that the fourth beast in Daniel 7 is the little horn of Daniel 8 and that both symbols represent Antiochus Epiphanes. He defended his view saying that that is exactly how the book of Daniel was understood in the second century BC. Is that your view also?

Do you really believe that God scheduled a final time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations, that Michael was to stand up and that a resurrection was to occur in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes? (Daniel 12:1-3).

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:01 pm Post subject:

Even though several aspects of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 are certainly different (for example, in Daniel 7 all beasts are unclean, whereas those of Daniel 8 are sacrificial animals), I feel that Daniel's theme, throughout the book, is the same: human kingdoms may seem to be in control for some time, they may even do harm to those who worship God, but God is in control and God's kingdom will ultimately triumph over the designs of evil. In this, I don't view Daniel as basically different from other OT prophets.

I never met Ray Cottrell, but I've read some of his writings and I think I would basically agree with his assessment of the Little Horn of Daniel 8 being the fourth beast (and its evil little horn) of Daniel 7. In his presentation for the Jesus Forum, Cottrell wrote that the salvation perspective of Daniel is that of the OT as a whole, and I fully agree. I think it is unwise to transpose or read John's apocalyptic perspective into Daniel. John the Revelator was fully justified to elaborate the Danielic visions in his attacks against the two persecuting powers that the first-century church faced, namely, the Roman Empire and apostate Judaism. However, from that elaboration I cannot derive any meaning as to what Daniel means. Rome, except for Quittim in Daniel 11, is quite alien to Daniel.

Did Daniel expect the resurrection three or four centuries after his days? I have no idea. If we were to combine what Matthew says of Bethlehemite children in Matt.2:18 and what Jeremiah says in the original of Jer.31:15, and, particularly, in verse 16, should we conclude that Jeremiah expected the children that Herod killed to be raised soon afterward? I very much doubt that he was speaking of children at all, no matter what Matthew says.

I believe, as Cottrell did, that prophecy, including apocalyptic prophecy, is a God-given message of what the future consequencies of our present behaviour may be. Because of human freedom and God's redemptive power, the written forecast may vary sometimes. If Jonah actually delivered God's original message to Nineveh, this Assyrian city was to be obliterated in less than two months. Well, luckily for its inhabitants, it was preserved several more centuries. I can't see anything incompatible with the Bible in understanding that God might have given messages to His prophets consistent with a speedy conclusion of history about three or four centuries after Daniel. Naturally, it didn't happen, but God could have become incarnate in the days of Judas Maccabeus. For reasons only known to Him, he chose to do it instead in the last days of Herod, who was about as evil as Antiochus Epiphanes. Likewise, I believe that Jesus' eschathological discourse is consistent with a belief of a Second Coming in AD 70. For some reason I ignore, it didn't happen then, and I will forever thank God for that. It will be worth an eternity of praise to God on my part, since otherwise I wouldn't have been born.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 3:01 pm Post subject:

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:13 pm Post subject:

Sorry not to have answered before, but I’ve been away from the computer for the Sabbath.

Being evasive wasn’t my intention, Eugene. I tried to answer according to the best of my ability and my understanding of the Bible, which I try to keep as much as possible within the boundaries of objectivity (although that is certainly a most difficult task). I don’t accept the validity of the so-called “historical-grammatical exegesis,” as this is, as far as I can perceive, text-proof interpretation disguised in the language of historical-critical exegesis, which I understand is the only one deserving the name. Because of this, excuse me if I don’t elaborate on “the specific intent of a passage according to grammatical-historical exegesis”.

There’s something in your reasoning I don’t quite follow. Let me quote you. You say:

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:48 pm Post subject:

Eduardo,

I believe that a definitive answer is required for the following statements and questions.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 2:05 am Post subject: Preterism

You are quite right, Eugene, in making the connection between my thought and preterism. I don't believe, of course, that the Second Coming occurred in AD 70, but I do think it was originally scheduled to have occurred at that time. And, as mentioned before, the First Coming could have been scheduled for the time of Antiochus. As to the timetable for the general resurrection, I don't perceive a specific timeline in Daniel 12, so I can't be more definite.

About your parody of preterism and the reddening of the sea as the result of soldiers' bleeding during a sea battle, let me say that that sort of exegesis does not seem much worse than historicism's claims that the Lisbon earthquake, the Dark Day or the Leonid Shower of 1833 were the object of prediction by John the Revelator!

About the end time, I don't have a detailed roadmap as to what the future has in store for me or the church. The closest I have that looks like a roadmap is Jesus' words in his eschatological discourse, although most of it is related to AD 70. I do believe that the end will come when the gospel is preached throughout the world. By the way, I think the gospel has very little to do with knowing when Artaxerxes lived, what Nebuchadnezzar's statue looked like, or what happened during the French Revolution. It has everything to do with Justification by Faith. About wars, famines, pestilences, false prophets, and the like, I don't believe these are signs of the end at all. If anything, their mere existence is rather an indication that the end is still to come, but not yet.

I can't find a prophetic roadmap in the book of Revelation, as I believe that the bulk of that book is related to first-century issues and it actually predicts the destruction of Jerusalem. By the way, just in case you're wondering, I've read Chilton's The Days of Vengeance, and I think it's one of the best commentaries on Revelation ever written. You can imagine that I don't have a high opinion of Uriah Smith's travesty of a commentary, and The Great Controversy doesn't rank high among my favourites! Quite certainly, I don't believe one word of Joseph Bates' interpretation of the Mark of the Beast, the purported role of the US in prophecy, or the schizophrenic view that SDAs are going to be persecuted because of their ideas. As far as I can perceive, the only SDAs that are persecuted for their ideas are the ones who oppose the sanctuary doctrine, but, alas, the persecutors are the people that hold up the banner of freedom of thought for themselves!

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 12:27 pm Post subject: Preterism is a pious fraud

Dear Eduardo,

Thank you for elaborating so carefully, with so many precise details. I’m beginning to sense the full impact of the hopelessness and despair of your view, based as it is, in primarily preterist ideas. When God prophesies major events—like the end of the world—He gets it wrong and hasn’t even troubled Himself to update His Church with any new forecasts or revisions, to replace all the failed/conditional prophecy now 2,000 years old.

The logical conclusion to your beliefs on the book of Daniel seems to be, even if you refuse to admit it, that the book is virtually Christless and that the kingdom of God was to arrive without a hint of a major atonement for sin, long before Jesus even appeared.

And equally disappointing, you can’t prove that your prophetic framework is unquestionably superior to every other scheme. When it comes to exegeting Scripture and prophetic interpretation, there are many instances where the scholarship of preterists seems on par with the outlandish exegesis of historicists. Any attempt at retrofitting actual history into 7 awesome trumpet judgments, either from one century or a span of centuries, is completely ridiculous from my point of view.

There is one thing I don’t get. I still perceive a reluctance by you to say, “definitely, the end of the world was scheduled for the time of Antiochus Epiphanes on the basis of Daniel 8:17, 19 and the fact that the last worldly kingdom—the fourth beast of Daniel 7—horns and all, represents Antiochus Epiphanes.”

Is there something preventing you from being this confident about Daniel? Could you clarify your position on this, please?

I see no merit in the statement “the First Coming could have been scheduled for the time of Antiochus” with your insistence that Jesus is not the prince of princes (8:25), the prince of the covenant (11:22) or the anointed one (9:25,26) of Daniel’s prophecy. Why would something as important in history as the appearance of the Messiah be left out?

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 3:10 pm Post subject:

Thank you for your sympathy, Eugene, but I don't feel my view is hopeless or despaired at all. My hope is not based on a prophetic roadmap that may have once sounded appealing to 19th century, naive Bible students. They imagined that Turkish affairs provided a surprising confirmation of Scripture and were undoubtedly thrilled by newspaper reports that they read and reinterpreted after the prediction they fancied had supposedly taken place. They felt these marvelous predictions showed they had it right and the masses would perceive the sound foundation of their methodology. Believe me, we know they were absolutely mistaken, and the masses did not perceive their wisdom.

The Christian message is not primarily about prophecy, as William Miller believed. It is about God's grace and the security of the salvation already wrought by Jesus Christ. All who accept this sincerely are saved. So, my friend, my view is far from hopeless. I am very hopeful in the security of my salvation. I haven't still seen that famous chapter in the book of Acts where Peter appears teaching the prophecy of Daniel 2 to a Roman centurion. When I read it, I may change my mind about roadmaps.

Is Daniel Christless? In a way, it is, the same as most of the Old Testament. My reasons for believing Jesus is the Messiah are not based on specific details of the Old Testament, because, despite NT efforts (especially by Matthew) to quote certain OT passages as being fulfilled by Jesus Christ, messianism is to be found primarily in intertestamental literature. I believe Jesus was the Messiah because of His own testimony and the testimony of those who met Him personally. For me he was the Messiah in spite of the Old Testament, which only in a most limited way gave a testimony of Him. He was the Messiah because He alone is the true Israel. The Son of Man of Daniel 7, I think, is a Kingdom that is not of this world, because the kingdoms of this world are only beastly, whether clean or unclean. In that sense, even though, exegetically, I apply the Son of Man to God's Kingdom, it is also Jesus Christ, and that's precesely the reason why He applied that title to Himself. But, as you see, this Christ-centred understanding of Daniel has nothing to do with roadmaps, arithmetic, or knowledge that can only be acquired in books of history and encyclopedias. It is based only on reading Scripture in its context. NT midrash cannot replace OT exegesis. And, quite certainly, J.N. Andrews and J. Bates' prophetic dreamings cannot possibly substitute for Sola Scriptura. How can my hope be based on knowing what Pachymeris wrote about the history of the Eastern Roman Empire? How can it be based on the precise knowledge of the Achaemenid kings? How can a study of the French Revolution bring me closer to Christ?

As you may have noticed, I am quite conversant with the SDA prophetic schema, and I like talking about these issues. Having an MA in Ancient History may have something to do with that. However, like it as I do, I emphatically deny that this knowledge is either necessary or convenient for salvation. It isn't any more convenient than listening to Mozart's 22nd piano concerto, which I also like.

The quotation you place in dark blue boldface is not mine. Exegetically, I might agree with some portions of it, but I don't like being that dogmatic. Saying that just because the last worldly power presented in Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes the Second Coming must have been scheduled for the 2nd century BC would be like saying that Isaiah's idyllic portrayal of what we assume to be eternity in chapter 66 was to occur shortly after the time of the political events presented in his book, supposedly not long after the Babylonian captivity. This view would certainly seem extreme. The same holds true, I feel, for Daniel.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about geography. It isn't about the history of the Middle Ages. It isn't about the Napoleonic wars. It isn't even about Abraham, Moses, or Habakkuk, although knowing who these people were certainly helps. It isn't about the 27 fundamental beliefs. It is about what Paul told the jailer at Philippi: believing in Jesus Christ. That alone makes it possible for us and our house to be saved from the burden of sin through God's grace in the gift of Jesus.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2003 8:18 pm Post subject: Do you see the similarities?

Eduardo, if all your words were true, I believe that there would be something fair and lamentable in the statement, “The days are prolonged, and every vision fails” (Ezekiel 12:22 NKJV). It’s easy to believe that Hymenaeus and Philetus professed a saving faith in Jesus and testified, just as you did, that their view of eschatology is separate from believing the gospel. If their trust and confidence in Jesus was equally secure and rational as their preterist interpretation (2 Timothy 2:17-18 cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 1 Timothy 1:19,20), then what possible reason might there be to expect their salvation?

It strikes me as irrational arrogance to believe in the entire edifice of preterism since its colossal structure and towering conclusions are mere inferences of totally empty content and its only strength rests in a few key statements.

Preterism
Scripture: the oceans become blood.
Interpretation: A first century battle over water where solders get killed or stabbed and bleed a little.

Historicism
Scripture: The stars will fall from the sky.
Interpretation: A powerfully dramatic display of “shooting stars” on Nov. 13, 1833.
Read this eyewitness account.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño

Moving this thread here must have taken a lot of nerve, Eugene, or did it come natural? It reminds me of the good old times of inquisition, when so-called heretics were said to be in alliance with the devil. Those who condemned them, more often than not, had a lesser first-hand knowledge of Scripture than the heretics themselves, and the experience of the gospel in their lives was not higher either.

About the link to the 1833 meteor shower that you provide, do you want me to take it seriously as a wonderful fulfilment of prophecy, or is it an illustration of fanciful historicist thinking? You may easily see that my view is the latter. When John of Patmos wrote about the stars falling from the sky, did he receive a vision that a few thousand people in a scarcely inhabited region of the New World would see a periodic astronomical event which other people in heavily populated areas in Europe and Asia would not see? Really! Is that what prophecy is all about? Anecdotal events! How very fascinating!

Since my reading of the Bible has led me to the theological position I hold now, which is in sharp contrast to the official position held by my church, one of whose evangelists compares me with Hymenaeus and Philetus, I wonder how sincere appeals and invitations are for church members to study the Bible diligently. I might be mistaken, of course, like everyone else, but if I am, I would like to be shown where my error is. Please, don't say that I must be mistaken because if I am not then certain long-held cherished positions would be false. Saying that would be tantamount to saying that what one has to study diligently is not the Bible, but some other documents, extra-canonical books, creeds, or iron-cast "fundamental" beliefs where one's religious positions are better categorized, so that no room is left for dissent. That is exactly what the Catholic church did: deprive "lay" members of the opportunity of making a fuss, and create a special caste of priests who are the ones who can do all the thinking after they've been properly trained by those who are the depositaries of true knowledge.

Although there might be other valuable interventions in this forum of The Dragon, Beast and False Prophet Convention Center, let everybody understand that I prefer not to express my views against such a background, so I won't be posting again.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2003 3:01 pm Post subject: I’m sticking to the affirmative