My last article addressed a number of challenges to the classic Adventist sanctuary doctrine as voiced in a recent online interview [1]. The events of Glacier View 1980 and the subsequent removal of Desmond Ford from the Seventh-day Adventist ministry on account of his denial of key features of classic Adventist sanctuary theology [##2|”Events since Glacier View,” Ministry, October 1980, pp. 14-15.##], continue to arouse interest and discussion in various segments of the contemporary church. The present article will address four (4) other notable challenges to classic Adventist understandings of these issues, as raised by Ford and others.
1. The year-day principle lacks clear Biblical support.
First, it is clear that Daniel 7, 8, and 9 are all highly symbolic chapters. Strange beasts, ribs, multiple heads and notable horns—rising from turbulent winds and waves—represent kings and kingdoms (Dan. 7:17,23-24; 8:20-23). It therefore makes perfect sense for the time periods in these chapters (Dan. 7:25; 8:14; 9:24-27)—which, like parallel passages in Revelation (12:6,14; 13:5), span the sweep of centuries—to be symbolic also.
The seventy-week prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 offers amazing clarity regarding the use of days as symbols for years. The word translated “weeks” in this passage is repeatedly used in the Old Testament to refer to a seven-day period (Gen. 29:27-28; Ex. 34:22; Num. 28:26; Deut. 16:9,10,16; II Chron. 8:13; Jer. 5:24; Eze. 45:21; Dan. 10:2). Thus, while the precise word “days” may not be found in Daniel 9:24-27, the word “weeks’ makes it clear days are being referred to, and that these days are used to represent years. The Revised Standard Version even translates verse 24 as “seventy weeks of years.”
What is more, only by understanding these weeks as seven-year periods can this prophecy possibly extend to the time of the “Messiah the Prince” (verse 25). And only if the time period starts with the decree issued in 457 B.C. can it reach to the Messiah’s time. This simple fact settles two issues conclusively: (1) the doubts raised as to whether the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 is the one Daniel 9:25 is referring to; and (2) the question of whether the weeks in this passage refer to weeks of years. Only if the period starts at 457, and only if the weeks represent seven-year periods, can the prophecy reach to the time of Jesus the Messiah (John 1:41; 4:25-26; Acts 10:37-38).
Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 provide supporting evidence for this principle. Each of these time periods where days symbolized years, like those in Daniel and Revelation, describe periods of time in which God’s people went into eclipse through exile, apostasy, persecution, or some combination of the three, then emerged triumphant at the end. The use of these passages from Numbers and Ezekiel to establish the year-day principle is therefore in full harmony with the theme of the prophecies thus interpreted in Daniel and Revelation.
2. The word “cleansed” is not a correct translation in Daniel 8:14.
The word translated “cleansed” in Daniel 8:14 is the Hebrew word nisdaq, a form of the word sadaq which means “to justify.” In a number of poetic Old Testament passages, where rhyme is one of common meaning rather than sound, the word sadaq is used synonymously with taher, the word for “cleanse” used for describing the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary in Leviticus 16 (see Job 4:17; 17:9; Psalm 19:9; Eccl. 9:2). This point is further clarified by the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, in which the word for cleanse in Daniel 8:14 and Leviticus 16 is the same one used in Hebrews 9:23, which speaks of the heavenly sanctuary being cleansed with “better sacrifices” [##3|Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8,” The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1981), p. 227.##].
One reason, often unnoticed, why Desmond Ford and those of like mind refuse to consider “cleansed” an appropriate translation of Daniel 8:14, is their insistence that the word “justify” in Scripture means only to declare righteous, not to make righteous [##4|Desmond Ford, “The Scope and Limits of the Pauline Expression ‘Righteousness by Faith,’” Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith (Goodlettsville, TN: Jack D. Walker, Publisher, 1976), pp. 5-6.##]—or in other words, to cleanse. Such a narrow definition of justification is problematic for several reasons, not the least of which is the Bible truth that when God declares something to be so, as at the creation, it in fact becomes so (Gen. 1:3; Psalm 33:9; Matt. 8:3). Thus we see the apostle Paul in the New Testament identifying the work of justification with “the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5-7).
3. Antiochus Epiphanes was the primary, if not exclusive, fulfillment of the little-horn prophecy of Daniel 7 and 8.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, seventh king of the Seleucid dynasty of Hellenistic Syria, cannot possibly fulfill the stated criteria in Daniel for the persecuting little horn power. The parallel between the sequence of kingdoms in Daniel 7 and that in Daniel 8 is itself sufficient to rule this out. Antiochus was part of the Greek kingdom, represented in Daniel 7 by the leopard with four wings and heads, after which another kingdom (Rome) was to rise, followed by the ten tribes that conquered Rome, after which at last the little horn comes on the scene, uproots three of the ten tribes, and then establishes its power (Dan. 7:6-8,23-24).
Though Daniel 8 abbreviates to some extent the sequence of kingdoms found in chapter 7, the greater detail found in chapter 7 makes it impossible for the little horn to enter history prior to the establishment and subsequent demise of the fourth kingdom in this list. In Antiochus’ time, Rome hadn’t yet succeeded in fully subduing the Greek kingdoms, and was certainly nowhere near conquest by the barbarian tribes represented by the ten toes of Daniel 2 and the ten horns of Daniel 7.
Moreover, the little horn is described in Daniel 8 as a power which “waxed exceeding great, toward the south, toward the east, and toward the pleasant land” (verse 9). Antiochus waxed “exceeding great” in none of these directions, experiencing defeat wherever he turned [##5|See Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982), pp. 102,279.##]. Rome, by contrast, did exactly as the above verse describes.
What is more, Jesus identified the “abomination of desolation” described by Daniel as still future in His day (Matt. 24:15), nearly two centuries after Antiochus Epiphanes was dead and gone. The identification of this power as Rome (first pagan, then papal) is thus congruent both with the overall sweep of prophetic history as outlined in Daniel and Revelation, as well as with this key prediction of our Lord.
Most of all, Daniel describes the overthrow of the little horn as occurring simultaneous with the establishment of God’s eternal kingdom:
But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his (the little horn’s) dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.
And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey Him (Dan. 7:26-27).
The dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes (which wasn’t much) ended more than 2,100 years ago, and without the saints possessing an everlasting kingdom or the whole world acknowledging God’s rulership. Likewise, the angel Gabriel declared to Daniel in chapter 8, “Understand, O son of man, for at the time of the end shall be the vision” (verse 17). The events of this vision, in other words, were to extend to the last days of human history. Under no circumstances could the power in question, whose overthrow does not take place till the end-time (Dan. 7:26-27), possibly refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes!
4. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary at His ascension.
The passage in question is Hebrews 9:12
Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
The phrase translated “holy place” in this verse is ta hagia, which is the plural form of the word used in this context to refer to both the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. Literally, this phrase reads, “holy places,” which is why the New English Bible translates it “sanctuary”—the most accurate translation of what the Greek actually says.
Earlier in this chapter, the Most Holy Place is referred to by the Greek expression Hagia Hagion—the only reference by name to the Most Holy Place found anywhere in the New Testament. If Paul intended to refer believers to the Most Holy Place in verse 12, this phrase was certainly available in place of the ambiguous word he in fact used.
In this passage Paul is drawing a parallel, not between the ascension of Christ and the ancient Day of Atonement—as claimed by critics of the sanctuary doctrine [##6|Ford, “Eighty Wrongs Don’t Make a Right,” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 52; Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 43.##]—but between the dedication of the wilderness tabernacle by Moses and Aaron and that of the heavenly sanctuary by Jesus. In verses 18-21 he writes:
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.
Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
By contrast, we read in verse 12 that Jesus dedicated the heavenly sanctuary, “neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood.” In no way does this imply that our Lord’s heavenly ministry, begun at His ascension, is being contrasted here with the work of the Old Testament high priest on the Day of Atonement. Rather, the contrast is between two inaugurals—that of the Old Testament sanctuary on earth with the blood of calves and goats (verses 18-21) and that of the New Testament sanctuary in heaven with the blood of Jesus (verse 12).
REFERENCES
1. Kevin D. Paulson, The ‘Untold Story of Glacier View’: A Response,” ADvindicate, March 31, 2023 http://advindicate.com/articles/2021/9/2/justification-and-perfection-aembc-l9bng-h3pls-8wb32-te4k3-6epdj-ms96e-kzs7l-w2tdn-tz53d-yklz7-e5wdp
2. “Events since Glacier View,” Ministry, October 1980, pp. 14-15.
3. Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Little Horn, the Saints, and the Sanctuary in Daniel 8,” The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1981), p. 227.
4. See Desmond Ford, “The Scope and Limits of the Pauline Expression ‘Righteousness by Faith,’” Documents from the Palmdale Conference on Righteousness by Faith (Goodlettsville, TN: Jack D. Walker, Publisher, 1976), pp. 5-6.
5. See Michael Grant, From Alexander to Cleopatra: The Hellenistic World (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982), pp. 102,279.
6. Ford, “Eighty Wrongs Don’t Make a Right!” Good News for Adventists (Auburn, CA: Good News Unlimited, 1985), p. 52; Robert D. Brinsmead, Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism (Fallbrook, CA: Verdict Publications, 1980), p. 43.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan