Daniel 8:11-13: The Daily Sacrifice
Posted on 10 May 2012 01:58 PM
What is the daily sacrifice from Daniel 8, and what does it mean for us today?
Here's what Daniel 8:11-13 says:
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
This is a big subject. A lot can be said about it, and whole books have been written arguing different points of belief. But let's keep it simple and to the point. I will tell you what our pioneers believed it to be, with Ellen White’s endorsement and what many commonly believe and teach and preach today and where it comes from.
There was a time when we were nearly all united on this point. Our early Pioneers nearly all agreed that “the daily” referred to paganism. This is true of William Miller, Joseph Bates, Uriah Smith, O.A. Johnson, Steven Haskell, James White, Hiram Edison, J.N. Loughborough, J.N. Andrews, and Ellen G. white, to mention a few. They understood “the daily” to refer to paganism. They perceived that paganism was a hindrance to the setting up of the Papacy (the transgression of desolation). They also agreed that the word “sacrifice" does not belong there and that it was put there by the translators. It is a supplied word and is in italics in the KJV Bible.
Here are thoughts from the pioneers on this issue:
…The conversion of Clovis [A.D. 496] is said to have been the occasion of bestowing upon the French monarch the titles 'Most Christian Majesty' and 'Eldest Son of the Church.' Between that time and A.D. 508, [the other horns of Europe] were brought into subjection.
From…A.D. 508, the Papacy was triumphant so far as paganism was concerned…When the prominent powers of Europe gave up their attachment to paganism, it was only to perpetuate its abominations in another form; for Christianity as exhibited in the Roman Catholic Church was, and is, only paganism baptized (Daniel and the Revelation, 270-272).
Several books by Lewis Were refute Smith's application from the Scriptures and from the historical controversy. During World War I and II, Adventists evangelists would apply Smith's application and draw people into Adventism based upon the approaching crises. Once the war ended, those who joined Adventism found that the logic that was employed to draw them into Adventism was false as the Armaggedon claim never works out, those people and more beyond would flee Adventism.
James White's main accusation against Smith was that he was using current events to establish prophetic truth, as opposed to using prophetic analysis to identify current events. We now have documented history that the fruits of Smith's application has been nothing but detrimental to Adventism.
I trust this point is clear. The early pioneer view of “the daily" was that it was paganism. Nineteenth-century Adventists were virtually unanimous in this view.But since the early 1900's, Conradi's "new view" has captured nearly all Seventh-day Adventists:
a. "The Daily" is the ministry of the antitypical High Priest that was "taken away" by the Papacy. This view is identical to the Antiochus Epiphanes view in principle: so that it sees an antitypical fulfillment in the Papacy, whereas Antiochus constitutes the typical fulfillment.
b. Thus, it is impossible to exclude Antiochus consistently; he has to be considered the "primary" fulfillment the Holy Spirit intended. Reason and logic make it easy to see him as the exclusive application. This is John F. Walvoord's strong contention.
c. The Conradi view becomes captive to the Seventh-day Adventist type/antitype principle.
d. Seen in this light, present antiSanctuary agitation becomes the natural outgrowth of the "new view" adopted 75 years ago. It justifies, in principle, antiAdventism from Miller's 1844 era. If the Papacy truly "took away" Christ's high priestly ministry, Antiochus must be the first or primary application of the prophecy. This was Desmond Ford's position clearly, even boldly, stated in his master's thesis at Andrews University before the beginning of his meteoric Seventh-day Adventist career.
W.H. Olson argues forcefully that the new view logically requires repudiation of Ellen White for it dissolves the 1844 position: "The whole 1844 structure falls hopelessly apart." There is no support for the "new view" in Ellen White's writings; her only statement supports the pioneer view. She repeatedly deplores the agitation of the "new view." Her advice is to study the Bible as honest Christians.
Ellen White recognized that one view is true, the other is false. She called it "the true meaning of 'the daily.” Therefore, this argument is not meaningless or trivial.
The "new view" is what created needless, unfortunate controversy that never existed prior to Conradi's view. Tension is inevitable because the two views are diametrically opposite:
• Pioneers see "the daily" as the work of Satan, the evil of paganism exalted and absorbed into something worse—papalism.
A superficial reading of Daniel 8:11-13 appears to lean to the "new view," largely due to prejudice created by pro-Antiochus translators. However, careful regard for Hebrew ha tamid in 11:31 and 12:11, 12 raises insurmountable problems with that view.