| The
pioneer reformer of the “Great Advent Awakening,” William Miller,
interpreted the time prophecies of Dn. 8:14 and Dn. 12:11 by connecting
the “daily” (or the continuance) of Daniel with the restrainer in Paul’s
second epistle to the Thessalonians.2
Miller’s interpretation of the “daily” in Dn. 12:11-12 was based on
the hermeneutical principle of analogy of scripture 3,
comparing Daniel with 2 Thess. 2:7. He identified the man of lawlessness
as papal Rome, while the restraining power in the development of the
papacy was interpreted as paganism. Through analogous reasoning Miller
concluded that the “daily” also signified paganism which gave way to
papal Rome. The daily was interpreted as the “daily abomination” or
the first abomination and was represented as paganism in general, or Rome
more specifically. The “abomination that makes desolate” was
identified as papal Rome. Thus in Dn. 12:11, the Roman empire would be
taken away and papal Rome would be set up.4
Following the great
disappointment, the pioneers of Seventh-day Adventism including Joseph
Bates, James White, J. N. Andrews, Uriah Smith, J. N. Loughborough and S.
N. Haskell among others embraced Miller’s identification of the “daily”
as pagan Rome whose sanctuary (the city of Rome) was inherited by the
papacy. This connected view of the “daily” in Dn. 8:11-13; 11:31;
12:11 with 2 Thess. 2:7 was theologically part of Adventist heritage up
until 1900.
Then L. R. Conradi in Germany
reinterpreted the “daily” as referring to the true sanctuary service
and Christ’s High Priestly ministry in heaven. Conradi believed the
papacy took away Christ’s priestly ministry by substituting the mass and
a system of human priesthood in which the pope had assumed the position of
Jesus. This so-called “new view” of the daily was not new at all, but
was taught and held in principle by many of the leading Protestant
reformers.5 In reality
what many considered new light was the view embraced by William Miller and
the pioneers which leads to the fundamental and foundational pillar of
Seventh-day Adventism, the sanctuary doctrine. However, by 1919 many
prominent church leaders, including A.G. Daniells and W.W. Prescott,
accepted Conradi’s view of the “daily”.
Conradi and some others who
endorsed his view of the “daily” later apostatized by gradually
adopting divergent views concerning the heavenly sanctuary, rejecting the
inspiration of E. G. White having opposed the message of Christ’s
righteousness by faith at the 1888 General Conference. This opposition
extended to Ellen White’s unequivocal endorsement of the message.
Conradi later adopted the evangelical concept that Luther had heralded the
three angels’ messages.6
Implications of Conradi’s New
View. Desmond Ford was Adventism’s most notable scholar to have followed
Conradi’s view of the “daily” resulting in his ultimate rejection of
the sanctuary doctrine as the central pillar of the SDA church. Ford’s
scholarly arguments swept away numerous Adventist ministers and bright
lights. Largely in an effort to stem the tide of this rejection and to
justify Conradi’s new view of the daily as Christ’s High Priestly
ministry, a theological counter-attack was initiated. Some of Adventism’s
foremost theologians and scholars under the auspices of the Biblical
Research Institute published monumental works supporting the historical
view of the sanctuary.7
These efforts have resulted in significant and beneficial achievements;
however, the exhaustive exegesis of Dn. 8:9-14 has left unresolved certain
linguistic and contextual difficulties regarding the new view of the “daily”
in Daniel.
3.0
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM |