Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? — Robert J. Wieland

Linguistic and Contextual Study of "the Daily"

Literal Hebrew of the five "daily" passages in Daniel presents grave difficulties to the "new view":

1. In Daniel 8:11, the verb is rum, which does not have a primary meaning of "take away" but "to exalt," "to go on high," "to lift up." (every use in the Old Testament has this meaning implicit in its context).
   1. The key thought in this verse: lifting up, rising up, or exaltation of the little horn. In the process of its spectacular mushroom-like growth, with its rise to power it lifts up, takes up, or absorbs ha tamid.
   2. The law of first mention requires particular attention to this verb used with ha tamid. This is the "vision" (chazon); all subsequent mention of ha tamid is the "audition" (mareh).
   3. Other uses of rum are found in Daniel 4:37; 5:19, 23; 11:36.
   4. The verb rum is inconsistent with Antiochus' removal of sacrifices from the Jerusalem temple; he did not lift up, take up, or exalt them.
   5. Rum is equally inconsistent with the papacy removing, counterfeiting, or taking away Christ's ministry; it did not lift up, take up, or exalt Christ's ministry in any way—rather, the opposite..
   6. Perhaps the clearest modern translation of rum in this context is to "incorporate" or "absorb." Ellen White speaks of the papacy "incorporating" paganism 13 and paganism "giving place" to it. 14
   7. The word rum used in Leviticus describes priests reaching in and lifting up the fat from the animal carcasses. This does not identify Daniel's ha tamid as the Levitical "daily sacrifices" of the tabernacle or temple.
   8. The word "sanctuary" in vs. 11 is miqdash, not the same as qodesh in vs. 14. Miqdash can refer to Satan's dedicated place. 15
   9. "Sanctuary" in vs. 14 is qodesh, and is not the same; miqdash means "any dedicated place" usually requiring contextual or adjectival designation even when used in reference to the Lord's sanctuary. In 2 Chronicles 36:17 it is used to make a derogatory reference to "their sanctuary," that is, of the unfaithful Jews, as Ezekiel likewise refers to Satan's "sanctuary" (miqdash, 28:18). In contrast, qodesh exclusively refers to the Lord's true sanctuary, usually without adjectival designation. Daniel's use of these two nouns in four verses is significant.
   10. The word for "place" is unusual; means "base" or "headquarters." Linguistic evidence could support the pioneers' view that miqdash here is the dedicated place (or temple) of paganism, the city of Rome.
   11. The ordinary word for take away or deprive is adah, and is not used in 8:11 (cf 5:20; 7:26).
2. Daniel 8:12: while ha tamid is "taken up," truth is "cast down;" and "the host" set against ha tamid is designated as an earthly force—inappropriate to describe removal of Christ's heavenly ministry.
   1. The force employed against ha tamid be pasha, is literally, "the continual in transgression." Thus, the Hebrew identifies ha tamid as an evil thing and cannot refer to Christ. (No earthly force could take away His High Priestly ministry.)
   2. Pro Antiochus Epiphanes translators have manipulated the Hebrew be [in] to mean "by reason of transgression" instead of "in transgression."
3. Daniel 8:13: literally, "How long the vision, ha tamid, the desolating iniquity, the giving both sanctuary (qodesh) and host to trampling?"
   1. Places ha tamid in apposition with the "desolating iniquity." This supports J.N. Andrews' idea of "two desolating powers" mentioned here.
   2. Why does Daniel now use qodesh instead of miqdash as he did in vs. 11? It indicates he means the Pioneer view.
4. Daniel 11:31: literally, "Military might shall stand on his part, and they shall disgrace (dishonor) the miqdash of military refuge (bastion, haven against military aggression) and shall remove (sur, not rum) ha tamid and shall place the abomination that makes desolate."
   1. Could plausibly be applied to Antiochus' military attack on the Jerusalem temple, but is meaningless when applied to Christ's High Priestly ministry which cannot be touched by military force. The verb sur is never used symbolically of taking something from the minds of the people.
   2. The verb sur defines Daniel's use of miqdash in 8:11 as the military bastion of ha tamid. Thus, it cannot fit the heavenly sanctuary.
   3. The verb sur is appropriate for the removal of paganism as a political or military force opposing the papacy. Its incorporation spiritually into the papacy is denoted by the verb rum in 8:11. This profound insight is very important in the development of Christian history.
   4. "Sanctuary of Strength" (miqdash with maoz) is a "military fortress," a phrase inappropriate for the heavenly sanctuary; maoz as used by Daniel always means a military fortress of political fortification (11:1, 7, 10, 19, 31, 38, 39).
5. Daniel 12:11: a definite time set for removal of ha tamid militarily or politically in order to "set up" the papacy; recognizing the 1290 days is essential to a true identification of ha tamid.
   1. The "new view" proponents are unable to explain this. This admission is prominent. 16
   2. All proponents of the Antiochus view flounder here in a hopeless quagmire of confusion. See any non-Adventist commentary.
   3. 150 years of Adventist exposition still see 508 A.D. as a reasonable application; the revised Daniel and Revelation, by Smith, supports this date with further evidence unknown in his day.
   4. 508 A.D. does not refer to rum activity of the papacy in 8:11 as lifting up or incorporating paganism into the papacy, but to its political, military removal of paganism as a hindrance to the temporal supremacy of the papacy. This is the pioneers' identification of the "taking away" of 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7.
   5. The logical extension of the "new view" (Antiochus) is to interpret the 2300, 1290, and 1335 days as literal; or even to ignore the 1290 and 1335 days aspect of ha tamid, thus leaving Daniel to fizzle out in a meaningless wilderness of speculation and futility. For example, in God Cares, by Mervin Maxwell, the Daniel 12 mention of "the daily" is totally omitted, depriving the reader of any understanding of the 1290 and 1335 "days." This is vivid contemporary evidence of the confusion engendered by the "new view."

When Daniel speaks unmistakably of the continual or daily temple services, he does not use ha tamid, but zebah and minhah ("the sacrifice and oblation [to cease]," in Daniel 9:27). There is no linguistic or contextual hint that he intends these terms to be synonymous with ha tamid. Further, if ha tamid does refer to temple services which "ceased" in the midst of the 70th week, how could it be "taken away" by the little horn centuries later? If he wished to speak of daily or continual temple services in 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31 and 12:11, why would he not be consistent and use zebah and minhah?

Notes:

13. Ellen White, The Great Controversy, p. 50. [return to text]
14. Ibid. p. 54. [return to text]
15. Isaiah 16:12; Ezekiel 28:18; used derogatorily in Ezekiel 21:2. [return to text]
16. Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Vol. 4, p. 881. [return to text]