by Dennis Kean

While many agree on some points, few agree on all. The adverse aspect of this condition is that Adventist members become disoriented as they try to defend their version. After much difficulty, many realize that the arguments are incomplete. This insight causes some to be disappointed. They buckle to the opposition, as they try to make sense of 1844, while others embrace strange and strained explanations, which wreak havoc with other important Adventist doctrinal points.

Today, the explanation of this prophecy has so many variations that it is safe to say that there is little unity in its understanding. Ironically, the Adventist view is extremely well founded in Scripture, but it is not well supported by the explanations of the pioneers. The purpose of this study is to help clarify some important details, which shed new light and confirm the Adventist position on this prophecy.

After the events of 1844, Miller remained steadfast in his conviction that 1844 was an important date in the timeline of prophecy. Nevertheless, he admitted that he did not have a good explanation for it. Now, some 150 years later, Miller's conviction seems to have become a frequent summarization of Adventist understanding of the 2300 days prophecy.

Times, however, have changed. Over the years, God, time and history have given us more light on this subject. We are able to see and learn many things that the pioneers could not. We have the advantage of hindsight and many more minds to engage this issue.

This should be good news to us all. The interpretation of the 2300 days could shine as a bright light, but many members are apprehensive to study beyond the boundaries of what the pioneers of our faith understood. Many fear to look at history with an open mind and learn from it. It seems to be the farthest thought on some Adventist minds to ask God for additional light on the subject. With this disposition, it may appear that Adventist theology is complete and flawless. That is not the case. The reality is that we fail to adapt to present truth, as we should. Too many of us are satisfied and feel safer in defending the old tenets, traditions and former impressions of those who went before us.

Some think that an error on the part of our pioneers would signify the end of our faith. We are afraid that if someone is wrong in one point his or her contribution cannot have any value. If this was true, then, how could we understand the following comment from Sister White?

Our views in this regard need to be tempered.

The interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy has been under fire for a long while, if not from the start. Several decades ago, Desmond Ford articulated an objection to the interpretation of this prophecy with a well-formed argument. Dr. Ford rejected the idea that the 2300 days were fulfilled in 1844. As an exceptional scholar of Adventist theology Dr. Ford constructed his argument around the word "cleansed", which as he rightly points out, is in the accomplished sense. He advanced that the prophecy was not speaking of an ongoing cleansing, but rather of a cleansing which would be fulfilled at the end of the 2300 days. After more than a century, the argument took focus.

The General Conference was not pleased. Many SDA scholars tried in vain to rebut Ford's arguments. To date few if any have given an adequate rebuttal. Ford's objection was well thought out, but his workaround solution was not adequate either. He tried to make sense of the prophecy by relocating the end of the 2300 days into the future. That was not an improvement on the view. His weak explanation cast a shadow of doubt on the astute analysis he constructed against the Adventist interpretation. Rather than clarification, both sides became confused.

Nevertheless, something good came out of this controversy. Although Dr. Ford's objection/explanation does not provide a better understanding, it runs along an important line of thought. The Adventist movement needs to supply a reasonable answer to those who would cast doubt on the 1844 experience, but unless we consider Dr. Ford's objection seriously, we may never find a better stimuli to resolve the faulty ideas we have gathered along the way. Ford's strike at the Adventist foundation brought to light that we were too dependent on the opinions of the early pioneers. Rather than seek to advance the great light extended to us, we began to look backward and place the bulk of our confidence in the studies of the Adventist pioneers, ignoring the very counsels and example shown by them.

The question Ford raised was valid, though his solution or explanation was not. Those who understood the implications of Ford's objection had some thinking to do. It was time to turn to the Scriptures and rethink this point. Others hung on to the idea that all was revealed in the past and there was no point in rethinking the matter. Tragically, some left the church.

In the effort to answer Ford's question, it is important for us to be open-minded. Average and emotional thinking will not suffice. Reactionary thinking is even worse. A difficult question is on the table. Our answers in the past were many, but many are strained. What's worse, few of these answers agree with one another. As things are at present, if all remains constant, this conflict will remain with us until the Savior comes. If we want to advance, something has to change. As is often the case, our thinking must be radical, to deal with this question.

To start with, we need to realize that the truth, about what happened in 1844, was not revealed to the pioneers, in all details. There are good reasons for that. One of the reasons is to show to the future generations, which trust in this truth, that although blind, our pioneers walked in the right direction. Seeing this, it would become evident that someone was leading these people. Looking back, we can see that there was a plan for them. We can look at this as God's prepackaged testimony to encourage future generations that they are walking on the right track.

What we need to do is realize that, though God led these people, He reserved some truth and corrections for the generations to come. Truth does not sit still. It broadens. It advances with each generation, or at least it should. After all, this is a fundamental point in the Seventh day Adventist view. The Adventist church came into existence with a radical review of Scriptural tenets of those who preceded them.

Finally, as we do our thinking, let’s remember that though our thinking may be radical, radical thinking has its limitations. Some of our preferred or fancy beliefs may need to go, but that does not speak about the pillars of Adventism. We all realize that when the pillars are moved out of their place, the house falls down. That is exactly what happens when the 2300 days prophecy is moved out of its place. That is the point Mr. Ford missed and we do not want to repeat that mistake.

Our church is positioned on a solid foundation. It is my hope that this paper will be instrumental in confirming confidence in the experience of the early pioneers and not necessarily in every fancy belief that they may have held.

We begin our study with the word "...cleansed", the very place where Desmond Ford departed from the Adventist view. Is Ford right in his assessment that the cleansing of the Sanctuary should have been accomplished at the end of the 2300 days? Daniel 8:13 plainly says that the cleansing would be accomplished at the end of those days. No one has satisfactorily disqualified Ford's allegation that the word "cleansed" is in the accomplished sense. It implies completion. The implication of this objection of a single word is that the 2300 days should have been the completion of the cleansing of the sanctuary and not the beginning. This argument throws a monkey wrench into our popular interpretation of this prophecy. We teach that the cleansing of the Sanctuary began, rather than ended, in 1844. Ford's objection seems to uproot the very foundation, on which the pioneers built their views.

Could this be true? Have we been building on a faulty foundation? If it is true, we may have to scrap the whole idea and start from scratch. The truth is that a lot rides on this very cornerstone of our identity. If the 1844 experience was just a delusion, then everything that rides on it is in jeopardy. If we were wrong about that, then we may be wrong about the Sabbath, the Sanctuary doctrine etc. Should this one little point be proven otherwise, we would become little more than borderline Christians, with strange and peculiar beliefs.

This is the implication of Ford's argument, though it may not have been his intent. It is also our custom made "Adventist fear" and our antagonists have learned to exploit it with great efficacy. As we research this topic, we will learn to deal with this and see that the foundation of the 2300 days prophecy is a lot more resilient than previously believed.

To understand how Daniel employed the word "cleansed", in Chapter eight, we need to park that point on the shelf and explore a few other equally important details. One of the pertinent details is a personality of which Daniel and many other prophets spoke. In nearly every prophetic chapter, Daniel mentions it.

The personality in question is the "Abomination of Desolation." You may ask, "Why do we need to study about the Abomination of Desolation? All Adventists know what it is." This may seem to be the case to some readers, but after this study, those readers and you will have the opportunity to rethink this point. The standard Adventist view on the Abomination of Desolation is not much more than a generalization or impression of what it may be. In reality, there is much confusion over it. As we delve into this study, it will become apparent why a clear understanding of the identity of the Abomination of Desolation is critical.

Sometimes there are problems in translations of Scriptures. This may well be the reason for much of the confusion we have had to date. However, with a careful study we can see that enough has been said, in Scripture, to make sense of what the "Abomination of Desolation" is, in spite of difficulties with translations.

The first problem with the reference "Abomination of Desolation" begins with the nouns. The words "Abomination" and "Desolation" are not proper English. They are two competing nouns. As we read the sentence the mind bounces back and forth. Intuition tells us that this is a combination of an adjective and a noun, but do we have good enough reason to believe this and which is which? One thing is certain, both cannot be nouns and that gives us a good platform to build on.

Daniel was talking about a specific allegoric personality, not a state of affairs. Daniel and the Savior both refer to the "Abomination of Desolation" as if it were an entity of some kind. Context and common sense seem to suggest that the noun "Desolation" is the reference to the entity and the word "Abomination" is an adjective. If so, the word "Desolation" should probably be rendered as "Desolate" to imply a personality or an entity, rather than a condition. Checking the meaning of the word "Desolate" might help. In Strong's concordance, it is defined as:

Strange description, but the use of the word is often a far better indicator of the meaning in Scripture than what the dictionary may indicate. Fortunately, the word "Desolate" was used in more than one instance in Scripture. One notable use of this word "shamem" is:

When read in context, the colloquial use of the term "Desolate" becomes quite clear. Here, it refers to a woman. If we relied on the dictionary alone, we would never have figured this out. No mention of a woman is made in Strong's concordance. Nevertheless, this was a part of the colloquial usage in the Hebrew language. It infers a woman without a husband or a woman abandoned by her husband. It could also refer to a woman who never had a husband or children or unable to have children.

Daniel used this word combination several times. Yet, the translators had a difficult time recognizing which of the two is the subject and which the adjective. Consequently, they rendered both words as nouns and left it up to the readers to make up their own mind on what this may have meant. However, they were not always consistent. Sometimes they rendered the same words as adjectives and at other times rendered them both ways in one verse. Here is a good example.

Now we are ready to make sense of this strange entity called the "Abomination of Desolation". It is likely that Daniel was trying to say "Abominable Desolate" rather than "Abomination of Desolation". In this context, we understand that he is referring to a woman and we have a much clearer idea of where the discussion is going. This is credible in view of the last sentence fragment where the very term "desolate" is used alone, to refer to this entity. This usage is not unique to Daniel. Isaiah employs the word "desolate" in this sense too.

As you will see later, understanding this makes a large difference in our study. This usage works well in all its Scriptural references. A reference to a woman in allegory is no surprise to us. There are several instances in Scripture. Revelation talks about a woman clothed in purple and scarlet. Isaiah discusses a whore and her children in his 57^th chapter and other prophets do the same in allegoric imagery.

The "Abominable Desolate" plays an important role in Daniel's prophecies and now that we see the implications, we want to understand what Daniel and other prophets are trying to say about her. To do that, let's read Daniel 9:27.

With this correct translation, we get a different image. New connections, which were not evident before come to mind. This allegoric description has a close resemblance to Zechariah 5. In Zechariah, we find additional details about a terribly wicked or abominable woman on wings.

Here we see another description of a wicked woman. She is brought on wings into the land of Shinar, where she is put on her own base. The Land of Shinar, is the very country where Babylon resides. The valuable detail we pick up here is that Zechariah uses an adjective for this woman as well. He uses the word "Wickedness."

Please understand that a variety of adjectives may have been used to describe this wicked woman. As we will see later, even Daniel uses alternate adjectives to describe the Abominable Desolate. Now that we understand this symbolic token, our study opens with a broader horizon. Many prophets talk about a wicked woman, though they each use their own terms.

Isaiah picks up the theme about a wicked woman. He expounds on what was to transpire in the Dark Ages to come, through the imagery of a whorish woman.

Nahum is given the same theme in his prophecy. He sees a wellfavoured harlot.

It is evident that there are other references to the "Abominable Desolate", but they are not readily discernible because the adjective "abominable" was substituted with a different one. A whorish woman is a recurring theme in prophecy. However, it may be interesting to note that even Daniel uses different adjectives to describe the "Desolate".

Now we understand that the noun "Desolate" was the right choice. In this verse, Daniel uses the adjective "sinful" or as the translators would put it "transgression" instead of "Abominable." This is common in prophecy and useful in writing. When describing someone who may have a variety of attributes we may use several adjectives across different paragraphs to enrich the description.

Aware of how critical this whorish woman is, the Savior talks about the "Abomination of Desolation", or the "Abominable Desolate". By discussing it as future events, He suggests that Daniel's prophecy was not yet fulfilled. Let's read it:

This is the missing link in the chain of our arguments, which our pioneers overlooked. This insight solidifies the foundation of the 2300 days prophecy as no other argument would.

Our antagonists and even some Adventists profess that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled Daniel chapter 8:13. With this understanding, about the "Abominable Desolate", it is poignantly clear that Epiphanies cannot have fulfilled it. The Savior Himself gives us details about the Abominable Desolate and places it into a future time. If Daniel's 2300 days prophecy were literal or fulfilled already, in the time of Epiphanes, there would be no point for the Savior to refer to the notorious "Abomination of Desolation". It would have been fulfilled long before the Savior came and He would know not to use it. Epiphanies was long dead, by the time the Savior spoke about this!

Those who oppose the Adventist interpretation of the 2300 years prophecy have problems explaining this. We, however, are now free to conclude that it is a long-term prophecy. This discovery helps us to put to rest the various theories about literal 2300 days and/or 1150 days and nights. James White argued rightly that chapter nine is a continuation of chapter eight of Daniel, but the critics keep picking at that argument and refuse to relent, claiming that the evidence is thin. Well, patience, as we can see, is a reward of the student of truth. After all the agony, we are back to square one. The pioneers were walking in the right direction, after all.

The study is just beginning. Our next goal is to find out who this "Abominable Desolate" really is. We need to learn more about her from Scripture. In the end, this will help us to correctly understand, the 2300 days prophecy. We also need to see how all the details fit in history so that our theory stands up and we can test it in its broader context.

We now know that the "Abominable Desolate" plays a critical part in our theory! What we know so far, about this abominable woman, is that she would stand where she ought not to stand!

The meaning of this comment is quite a mystery, until we read the following:

Reading this we conclude that this notorious entity is somehow in conflict with the central ministration of God's Sanctuary. The "Daily" ministration was offered every morning and evening in the earthly temple. However, the identity of the "Daily" is not a simple subject. Being good students of the prophecies, our pioneers did not miss the issue of the "Daily." The "Daily" is not a novelty nor is it a surprise to find it at the heart of this difficulty. At one time it flared up into a major contention between the pioneers and began to preoccupy and distract from the task at hand. Sister White saw the difficulty, but no light was given her on the subject. Some of the early members understood it correctly, but it was not to be a truth for their time.

Although it is evident that the "Daily" plays a leading role in Daniel's chapter eight, due to the eruption of controversy the Daily issue was buried for a time.

It is important to note that Sister White did not say that this issue should never be resolved. In that light, the subject is not one, which should remain dormant or off limits forever. New light tends to resolve old differences and we should take advantage of such opportunities when they present themselves. The issue of the Daily has come back. It was inevitable, but, the times have changed and, today, we have more light on the subject.

There are those who misinterpret Sister White's counsel and assert that it is not important to resolve this matter, but the Scriptures speak otherwise also we cannot resolve with any degree of confidence who the Abominable Desolate may be if we do not understand more about the Daily.

After our pioneer's controversy, the majority of Adventists, embraced Uriah Smith's definition of the Daily, but that view did not always dominate. One of the opposing views, known as "The new view" gained many adherents, later. One of the members of the opposite camp was G. Burnside. Along with others, he gave a most interesting analysis of the "Daily":

Uriah's explanation, of the "Daily/Abomination of desolation" was half-right. He was right about the Papal Rule, but he missed the point about the "Daily" and it brought him into much confusion in further studies. As he came across Daniel 11:31, he knew that it was in direct opposition to his assessment of Daniel 8:13-14. Some of his colleagues viewed the Daily as the Savior's ministration in the Sanctuary but he did not want to see things that way. Uriah did his best to break the connection of the Daily from the Sanctuary. Daniel 11:31, however, was a sailor's knot in his theory.

This verse confirms Daniel 8:11. It tells us that the abominable woman is in conflict with the "Daily", in some way. The theme is consistent throughout Daniel's prophecies. The Savior's comments, (about the abomination of desolation being where she ought not to be), make perfect sense only if we are talking about God's Sanctuary, here. The above verse, like the Savior's comments, places her in the Sanctuary, itself. Several other prophets support this idea in their own way. Referring to the whore's invasion of mount Zion, God tells her:

Uriah Smith made a mistake in an earlier chapter and to stand by that he has to deny this clear and direct prophetic comment. Sensing the difficulty of his position, Uriah takes a detour to avoid the compelling implications of verse 31.

The ambivalence betrays Uriah's uncertainty about the subject. Uriah gives the reader two solutions to pick from. The reader is left to choose which to apply. From this, we can conclude that at least half of what is told is wrong and that is not the way to approach a critical point of an argument. This was a weak point in his argument and to plug it up, he gives the argument two coats of paint.

Contrary to Uriah's theory, the word "Sanctuary" in Daniel 11:31 does refer to God's Sanctuary. It is the very same Hebrew word used in Daniel 8:11 and myriad other verses. This was not an alternate usage of the word "Sanctuary", meant to define some empire's stronghold. If it were, the question would be, what is implied by a corrupt nation polluting its own stronghold?

When Moses was instructed to build a Sanctuary, he was told that the Levites and Levites only were allowed on holy ground. No common man was to trespass in the holy and most holy place. The penalty was death. All Levites were a type of the Savior and their duties represented His ministrations on holy ground. Moreover, and most importantly, this very act by the unholy woman helps us to learn about another important point which is critical in the understanding of the Adventist position on the 2300 days prophecy. This act, of imposing the whorish woman on holy ground, constitutes the pollution of the Sanctuary, as Daniel refers to it in several places.

Some Adventist scholars will disagree with this. In our standard belief, the "Judgement time" beginning in 1844 has been characterized as the beginning of the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Contradicting that position is tantamount to high treason. Yet, 150 years down the road the Adventist church is in this unpleasant position primarily, if not solely due to that belief! The truth is that we have no consistent answer for the critic or those who would know the truth. This view has proven to be a highly inconsistent aspect of the Adventist theology. None of the scholars, who believe that the cleansing is going on today, have a consistent explanation of our position, because if they did, Desmond Ford's objection could be dismissed with that explanation. The truth is that Dr. Ford's argument is never addressed directly. Our only way to deal with his objection is to distract from the argument with ancillaries and show that his conclusions do not agree with Sister White's views. The time has come for us to face this problem square in the eye. We need to rethink our position on the cleansing of the Sanctuary and put aside the fears, if but for a moment.

The great fear is that if we abandon the idea that the cleansing is going on, the Adventist doctrine will fall apart. This may give the impression that our faith is not thoroughly consistent and that, in turn, will lead to be our demise. The truth is that if we do not abandon it, we will realize our fears and make 1844 into a farce! Via this view, the door is open to ravage that which we seek to save most dearly. What we need to understand, before deciding one way or the other, is how abandoning this view affects the rest of our beliefs. At this junction, we are not on the side of reason. Scriptures do not support us, though we may stubbornly deny it.

To date, the "ongoing cleansing" has been mistaken for a foundational view, but I hope to show that it is not. There is no question that it is deeply seated in our doctrine, but if its removal does not upset the sensitive complex of the Adventist doctrine, we must make the effort to rethink it and question its value. Let's remember Sister White's counsel again:

What were the times like, when this small group of believers decided that the cleansing of the Sanctuary began in 1844? Why did they embrace it? Reading Sister White's Early Writings it is not hard to conclude that this view is an apologetic for the great disappointment. As the early believers waited in the years 1843 and 1844, their hopes were not realized. They first believed that the cleansing would come and be accomplished in 1844. The understanding was that God would swiftly deal with the world. Shortly afterward, however, they realized that their understanding of the Scriptures was wrong. While they abandoned some ideas they could not deny the 1844 date and experience as a complete error in judgement. It was not. God appointed that time for His people. Not seeing things from a distance, they had no clear-cut idea of the significance of the Sanctuary and what transpired in that year. The uppermost question, in their mind, was "Where is this Sanctuary? Is it on earth or in heaven?"

Hiram Edson, a member of the early students, walking through a field of rye had an epiphany. Having formerly believed that the earth was the Sanctuary, this new realization was an intellectual breakthrough. He saw that the Sanctuary in heaven was a far better explanation of things. He hurried to his friends to tell them of this. Edson's idea became a catalyst for much thinking. The location of the Sanctuary was a critical point, if the 2300-day prophecy was to have any meaning.

Most Adventists are familiar with the history of those events. The important thing to remember is that the "ongoing cleansing" was embraced as an explanation or a cap for something that the pioneers were not able to understand in their time. They believed that they were within a few years of the Savior's coming. They were sure that their time was the very end of the world. Out of that belief, five, ten, or thirty years in contrast to 5700 years were a drop in the bucket. If a cleansing was to be accomplished in that time, in their mind, it could have been said, "…then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."

Hiram Edson's idea about the actual location of the Sanctuary was progressive. The theory about the cleansing was not the leading problem, which had to be addressed. Their primary concern was to figure out why the Savior did not come at the appointed time. The location of the Sanctuary was of primal importance there. In the commotion the cleansing of the Sanctuary took a back seat and eventually was submerged into the idea of judgement. Revelation 14:7 was properly understood, but the "ongoing cleansing of the Sanctuary" was pinned to it. After all if the Savior did not come he had to be kept busy with something.

This view needed to be tuned up a little. As time went on, Sister White became uneasy about many of their beliefs. She recognized that there were some inconsistencies in how they viewed things. Fifty years down the road it became clear to her that not all that was formerly embraced was divine truth. She could not keep silent.

This was a progressive view. Having gone through one great disappointment, she learned that hope and reality are not always the same. She set a precedent here that we would do well to follow.

150 years later we are right back to the very dilemma that the pioneers and Mr. Miller faced after the disappointment. They all wondered where the Sanctuary was. The question may seem simple to us today, but it was not then. Their early belief was that it was the earth itself. After 1844, it became painfully clear that it was not the earth, as they imagined it. The evidence was that the earth was not burned up as they imagined it would be. With Edson's contribution they looked up and decided that the Sanctuary was in heaven. That was progress, but there were problems with that view too. Daniel 8:11, makes it a difficult point to sustain.

Now, the full weight of the difficulty the pioneers faced is understood. If the Sanctuary can be thrown down and the heavenly host trampled under foot, then, this little host has some extraordinary powers. Maybe this is possible because the Sanctuary is not in heaven? An earth bound Sanctuary would seem all right if there were no Calvary, but this was a prophecy concerning the Dark Ages and the earthly sanctuary was no more.

(For those interested in pursuing the ongoing cleansing issue further, you are invited to join the BibleProphets forum on Yahoo. )

Was the Sanctuary in heaven or on the earth? To figure this out we need to digress one more time and look at the events of Calvary. When the Savior died, the Sanctuary services were transferred to heaven, as Paul asserts in his address to the Hebrews. If the Sanctuary had not been transferred to heaven, when the Savior died, this prophetic reference may make some sense, concerning the earthly sanctuary, but there would still be this problem of the host of heaven. How could this little horn reach all the way into heaven itself and bring the host down? This is astounding or enigmatic.

Adventists believe that the Savior is ministering in the Sanctuary in heaven and now that we understand that the Abominable Desolate is an earthly entity, it compounds the confusion. If we are not progressive in our thinking this is an intellectual impasse! So, where could it be said that the Abomination of Desolation ought not to stand, if the real Sanctuary is in heaven and it is an earth-bound entity?

This was a difficult problem for the pioneers. The solution to that difficulty was not to come to them, though they hovered around it much of the time. Some pioneers even considered it, but it was not to be. God reserved that for others who would follow. The solution lay hidden in the mystery of the "Daily".

To understand this connection between the heavenly Sanctuary and the earth we need to consider that God uses parables in prophecies. These were allegories. God paints parabolic images, which only His chosen can recognize and by which the rest of the people are thoroughly confounded. The impression that God is willing to show anyone and everyone, every secret of His plans, is wrong. It would not be a secret, if it were so. The truth is often hidden in allegory so that only those interested in the truth would discover it. In allegory, great distances like heaven and earth are reduced to small ones. The best example of that is the Savior's story on hell, where people from great distance talk to each other as if they were near.

We all know that God's sanctuary has been made accessible to us all. It is so near that all we need to do is bend the knee and ear and we are by the door of the Sanctuary. Our loving heavenly Father has created a way for every man to reach out to Him at any time He is needed. Let's read a pertinent passage from Paul about this.

Through prayer and the Savior we are present before the Father of mercy. In an allegoric way, through Him, we can travel though the corridor of Orion and present our daily petitions before the Father. In reality, we are nowhere near there, yet, we cannot say that the heavenly sanctuary is outside of our reach. Can we? In view of that, let's read over Daniel's prophecy.

Revelation 12 uses similar imagery and we have no problem understanding that. There we read about a red dragon that draws one third of the stars from heaven with its tail. If this were a literal reference, it would have to be a long tail for it to reaches into the stars!

How can this be? The difficulty of locating the sanctuary has been the source of the problem. The physical world is where we go to seek for it, but prophecy is a spiritual matter. Prophecy and the heavenly sanctuary deal with spiritual issues and though there may well be a physical sanctuary in heaven, in prophetic allegory the sanctuary, where the issue of our sins is dealt with, is near to us. It is a spiritual place available to us. In our relationship with God, we can go before Him and in that sense we are near the sanctuary and can look into it. In this realm, the distances are reduced and explanations can take the different forms we encounter in prophetic format.

To understand this in practical terms let me illustrate with an example. Let’s say that someone comes to your inexperienced child and tells him, "Dear child, I can have your sins forgiven if you confess them to me. You see, I am on good terms with God and He will take my recommendation. I will intercede for you and whatever you confess to me will be forgiven you. You will be absolved of your sins." Now let me ask you this question. If this young child believes this individual, where is the Sanctuary located for him? To get absolution from sins, as compared to reaching out to God in the heavenly sanctuary, where would the child be reaching out?

The Roman Church did this very deed. The Sacrament of Reconciliation was a human construction designed to supplant the Christian practice of reaching out to God for the forgiveness of sins. Man elevated himself to the rank of the Prince of the host to become the mediator of mercy. This act is the evil, which the pagans placed in the spiritual Sanctuary of God. The Roman church positioned itself in God's Sanctuary and the Savior's words were fulfilled to the letter.

Though the Sacrament of Reconciliation was improvised in the fifth century, the Roman church did not have the power to enforce it until the year 538 AD when she received the power of influence over many nations. As she embraced this power of influence, her first act was to destroy three nations: the Heruli, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. Nations that refused to embrace the papal supremacy and doctrine tasted the first fruits of her fury.

At that time, the heavenly sanctuary was cast down to the ground, (in an allegoric sense, of course.) Many fell for this subterfuge. Daniel's prophecy was an accurate description, but if we fail to recognize what the "Daily" is, we cannot understand the sense of the allegory and we cannot even understand the year 538 AD properly!

The "daily", an issue, which brought much grief to our pioneers, was not a truth for their time. Sister White advised them of that. We needed the Fords and Canrights to formalize their objections in order to make us think and discover this truth, which is so needed today. The daily is not the Sabbath. How could it be? The priests, the representatives of the Savior, performed the daily sacrifices. The Daily is one of the ministries of our heavenly Mediator. The Savior is dealing with our sins every day! The Savior deals with those who come to the Father for forgiveness. The Scriptures are replete with references to the daily in one form or another.

Daniel talks about a time when the daily would be taken away and an abominable desolate (woman) placed in its stead. The Savior picks up this theme and advises His followers:

Without doubt, the Savior is addressing the same entity that Daniel was talking about, yet, many Adventists believe that the Savior's advice to leave one's place of abode was meant for those who lived in Jerusalem before 70 AD. That is a strange conclusion for an Adventist to make, but it is reality. The popular defense, offered for this view, is that some Christians fled from Jerusalem after Titus besieged it the first time. Mysteriously he left for a time and later returned to besiege the city again. If the Savior's prophetic advice was useful to those few who escaped from Jerusalem, between Titus' embargoes, we are all happy about it, but that does not make this pivotal prophecy into one, which addressed their situation. Those who claim that the fall of Jerusalem fulfilled the words of the Savior in Mat 24:15 and Mark 13:14 do not realize the implications. By displacing this vital prophecy, they undermine the foundation of the 2300 days prophecy.

By 70 AD, the greater majority of Christians were living outside of Jerusalem. The once beloved city of God, called Zion, had become a den of thieves. The citizens of Jerusalem, by far, failed to recognize the very God who led them all these years. He came to them and died to save His people, but they failed to recognize Him and the value of His mission. In this gross ignorance, they continued with the sacrificing, not realizing how abhorrent that practice was in God's eyes, now that His Son, the Anti-Type, suffered and died. I believe that God destroyed Jerusalem in order to put an end to the sacrificial system, which the stubborn Pharisees and fallen priesthood would not give up. As is evident in Paul's writings, the offerings and sacrifices were confusing to the new converts. This issue could not be left alone.

Was the fall of Jerusalem the fulfillment of Matthew 24? It is important to note that history does not speak of Titus' hordes desecrating the Jewish temple at any time, before the final embargo. Yet, the Savior said in Matthew 24 that when they see the Abomination of Desolation stand in the Holy place they should flee. The sequence of the events is wrong, because if these words were to be fulfilled the Romans would have desecrated the temple first and upon seeing this, God's children would take flight into the wilderness. That is not how it happened. The desecration of the temple happened after it was too late to flee and most of the citizens were killed! It is important to know that Titus issued an imperative order to preserve the temple.

In Daniel chapter nine, God warned the people that if they do not repent they would at some point lose track of where to go for the forgiveness of their sins. Those who understood this were preserved. Herod's temple was no longer the place to seek forgiveness. God's plan was that they should find their peace through direct communication with Him. Through prayer, man was to find the forgiveness he needed. To make sure this was well understood the Savior illustrated how this was to be done.

The idea was revolutionary. It circumvented the sacrificial system entirely. As foretold in prophecy, this change was to come.

Daniel 9 addresses this subject with amazing directness, but to understand it properly some Sanctuary colloquialism is required.

Most Adventists understand the better part of this verse, but anointing the most Holy is a mystery. Few understand its relevance. What is the "Most Holy?" Is it the Savior? This verse speaks of the coming of the Savior, indirectly, but He was never referred to, in Scripture, as "…the Most Holy…" Nevertheless, this phrase is definitely a part of the sanctuary's protocol.

The question is why is the angel telling Daniel that his people need to make an end of sins and anoint the most Holy place? Making an end of sins is not hard to understand, but what is this talk about anointing the Most Holy? Was the earthly sanctuary going to be rededicated for a continuance or embellishment of the sacrificial services, when the Savior comes and to celebrate that they will need a rededication? The Savior came and died, and at the very moment of His death the veil of the earthly sanctuary, which hid the Most Holy, was torn from top to bottom. This gesture was analogous to hanging an "OUT OF BUSINESS" sign, on the front door of a store. The Levitical priests were in consternation.

In reply to Daniel's great concern for his people, the angel told Daniel that those, who remain stubborn in sin, will not be able to understand this prophecy and make this transition. They will not recognize what has happened and will not know that the earthly sanctuary is no longer the place where they can obtain forgiveness.

In this context, the holy place, spoken of by the Savior in Matthew 24:15, has nothing to do with the earthly sanctuary. There was no longer any holy ground in it! God shut down the earthly Sanctuary, as planned. The earthly sanctuary was in Jerusalem and if the Savior did not speak of the earthly sanctuary, it is not hard to understand that He, also, was not referring to literal Jerusalem. In this great prophecy of Matthew, chapter 24, the Savior was really talking about the heavenly Sanctuary.

At Calvary, the Savior opened the door to the Gentiles. His sacrifice was accepted and the services, in the Sanctuary of type, were transferred to the heavenly Sanctuary. From then on, there was no longer any prophetic significance in the earthly Sanctuary. Its function as prophetic type ended when the Savior died. To make the people understand this the incredibly thick veil, which covered the inside apartment, was torn from top to bottom. The insides were exposed to view. With this symbolic and ominous gesture, God left this place forever.

In view of this, should we preach that the Savior was referring to the earthly sanctuary in Matthew 24? Think about this, carefully. God put the earthly sanctuary out of business by tearing down the veil. Does it make sense to talk about this place as if it were still the Most Holy place, afterward? God was not present in this place any more, after the veil was torn. The Savior could not be performing His daily ministrations in this place after the cross. Now that this is understood we can see how wrong it is to claim that the Savior was referring to Jerusalem in Mat 24:15 and Mark 13:14. It is like taking the "OUT OF BUSINESS" sign down and hanging a "BACK TO BUSINESS" sign, in its stead.

This theory is misguided and based on error. It makes light of the tearing down of the inner veil. It is not hard to understand, now, that Jerusalem, and what happened to it in 70 AD, was a side issue. Literal Jerusalem was no longer a part of the mainstream of what God was doing for His people on planet earth.

This analysis makes some Adventists uncomfortable. Many were nursed from childhood with this belief. These people cite Luke 21:24 as proof that Matthew indeed was a discussion about the fall of Jerusalem.

This verse is clear and to the point. Jerusalem is clearly mentioned in the very place where Matthew talks about the Abominable Desolate.

To understand Luke's reference to Jerusalem correctly, we need to read Revelation;

Most Adventists know that this prophecy concerns the 1260 years or the Dark Ages. The Holy City is Jerusalem, and like His heavenly Sanctuary, God has given spiritual Jerusalem into the heathen's hands until their time is fulfilled. We find this same reference in Daniel:

The mistake that many people make concerning prophecies, and especially the Savior's prophecies, is that they were parabolic. The Savior spoke in parables. Jerusalem in prophecy was not literal Jerusalem.

Paul noticed this. Speaking to the Gentiles, he said:

Those who talk about the fall of Jerusalem as a prophetic instance also talk about 1947 as some prophetic fulfillment of the end of the "times of the gentiles". The trouble is that God does not have 5 parallel prophetic plans for His children. God's children are God's children and God has one plan, which He reveals through His servants the prophets. God's children cover the globe and they exist within nations. There is no preferred nation on this planet any more. The Israelites played a role in God's plan to save the world. The world met God through Israel. Once they met the Savior on Calvary, many Gentiles embraced Him as their God and He adopted them. Jew or Gentile all became Jews. All became the "Jerusalem above" and God distinguished them by prophetically referring to His new children as "Jews!"

The view that Matthew 24 referred to the fall of Jerusalem though embraced by many Adventists subtly undermines our position of the 2300 days. It misapplies this precious prophecy on an event that is not highly relevant in prophetic time. The real damage, however, is not that this prophecy is mistakenly understood, but that it is an important missing link in the proper understanding of the 2300 days prophecy. It is my belief that the enemy of truth saw this and made sure to confuse this critical prophecy as best as he could.

To understand this prophecy we need to set our eyes higher and see how well it works with the reality of a spiritual Sanctuary. The verses of Matthew 24:15, Luke 21:24 and Mark 13:14 were directed at the Waldenses, the Huguenots and the like. The Sanctuary spoken of was the spiritual Sanctuary, to which all God's children have access. Through prayer, we have access to God. Anyone impeding or obstructing our approach to the throne of mercy can be viewed as an invader of the heavenly sanctuary. Interfering with prayer by asking people to go into booths to confess to a mortal man in hope of receiving a clearance from guilt is analogous to walking into the Sanctuary and altering the central and principal function of the very Sanctuary of God. It is serious business and God is furious about it! Such tampering with truth He labels with the most adverse of adjectives. He calls it an abomination.

Knowing how far man would reach in his rebellion against God, the Savior warned His people. In effect, He told them, "When you see this happen, run for your lives. Strangers will get a hold of the Christian church and alter the way God set up the daily ministration." By bringing in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, pagans altered man's relationship with God. The danger of staying in the proximity of this organization was real. Eventually, most would lose sense of the value of the death of the Son of God. The church instituted a new system, which they claimed was the only way to reconcile man with God. They were adamant about this. Those who would disagree with them over this would deserve the fiercest censure adequate for a ripe heretic.

The church positioned itself as a broker for the absolution of man's sin. The names "Christian church", "Universal church" were coined to lure in the masses and the booths were made ready to sell absolution. Guilt was the way to extract monies from the masses, but the truth suffered in this. The Christian God became just one of the gods of this church. The church opened the doors to all people who believed in whatever god they may believe. All people with their various beliefs were welcome. A name descriptive of this high-minded view of God was needed. The word "Catholic" seemed the most appropriate.

The sad truth about what was to transpire was penned in prophecy;

As you can see, this was not just Daniel's vision alone. Many prophets saw this and spoke about it. Upon seeing this in vision, Ezekiel cries out:

As rightly understood by Uriah Smith, the Romans are allegorically referred to as "robbers" in prophecies of the dark ages. Daniel, too, refers to the Romans as robbers.

Other prophets speak about a time when God's people would need to flee because strangers have invaded the Lord's Sanctuary.

The flight into the wilderness is a recurring theme throughout prophecy, and it is directly associated with the time when the Roman Church began to promote and expand the doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation throughout its domain of influence. According to them, this sacrament began to be widely promoted in the 5^th and 6^th century.

Persecutions of various differing sects of religions began to be exterminated at this very same time. Men and women understood that it was time to flee, from civilization. The most notable prophetic discussion of the flight into the wilderness is found in Revelation chapter 12.

As we review these Scriptures it becomes obvious that Matthew 24 is a member of these prophecies, which spoke of the time of the dark ages and not of the fall of Jerusalem.

So far, Daniel's prophecies speak with amazing accuracy. Not a word seems out of place. Daniel and John, however, are not alone in calling the Roman church a whorish woman and in prophesying about the dark ages. Other prophets give us far greater details. Daniel and Revelation are a good primer, but many other prophets roar about the dark ages. I will not discuss them all, but I will discuss a few.

Isaiah, in his great and detailed prophecy of the post crucifixion era, which spans several chapters, talks about a whore who rules and murders the righteous people. Isaiah brings in a great number of details on this topic. This prophecy starts in chapter 53 with a discussion about the Savior to come and how He would suffer. The following chapter, Isaiah 54, talks about the Gospel going to the Gentiles. These events follow the Savior's death. Chapter 55 one of the beautiful chapters of the Scriptures expands on the message which reaches out to the Gentiles to gather them into one fold. Then, as expected, chapter 56 discusses the pressing issue about God's Sabbath. The Gentile followers are urged not to let go of the Sabbath. This was not a concern for the everyday Jew. God knew that the Gentiles would be in danger of that and He counsels them to take hold of His covenant and embrace the Sabbaths. Yet, God knows that many will forget the Sabbath and His judgments. Because of this, He is not happy with those appointed to guide His flocks. At the end of chapter 56, He refers to these shepherds as sleeping dogs. This prophecy is addressing the 4^th and 5^th century issues. This is the time preceding the Dark Ages.

Why do they need watchmen, though? They need a watchman because a danger is lurking. The goal of Paganism was to subvert Christianity at all cost. However, since they did not watch, the enemy infiltrated their camp and what used to be a Christian church was no more. The great truths were corrupted. Injustice followed. God's people were systematically exterminated. God speaks of it a thousand years ahead of time and tells of an unprecedented time of darkness.

This is the Hebrew word "pesha", the same word "transgression" used by Daniel 8:13. Once more, the allegory is about a woman. This prophecy starts in Isaiah 53 with the cross and travels right through the first five centuries arriving in Isaiah 57 at the same abominable desolate of Daniel. I leave the next several verses for your edification and continue below:

There is much to say about the abominable desolate. It plays a vital role in prophecy. Some prophecies, however, were not expressed through prophets' writings alone, but orchestrated and told in the lives of the prophets and patriarchs. The story of Elijah the Tishbite is one of those. His life was not an aggregate of simple human experiences. In Elijah's experience, we find a notorious personality of the Scriptures. Her name is Jezebel. She stars as a woman in power. Through her husband, she oppresses God's people. God, however, stops the rain for 3 and 1/2 years and Israel goes through a terrible time of famine!

The three and a half years ring a familiar bell, however. Daniel spoke about some three and a half years of terrible time as well. These events, just like the prophecies of Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah and many others, were prophetic of the Dark Ages. In Elijah's time, during the drought, God's prophets had to be hidden in caves from Jezebel. In orchestrating this experience, God anticipated the Catacombs and the flight of the Waldensees and Hugenots. Europe went through what one may call a drought for the word of God in the Dark Ages. Many Christians lived in caves hiding from the inquisitors or oppressors of that age, all instigated by the church. Those found in possession of the writings of the Scriptures were dealt with harshly. Many were killed.

Some people may object to the connections made here with Jezebel, and label them as whims of the imagination, but the story of Jezebel does not end here. God picks up the theme of the three and a half years with Jezebel. He talks about the Sanctuary and false sacrificial ministrations performed and taught to His children. He is very upset about it and takes issues with Jezebel over what she is doing. One last time He warns His children of this upcoming abomination through John the Revelator.

By now, we understand the critical significance of the Abominable Desolate and who she was. This woman was a prophetic symbol of the church. She was placed on holy ground where she ought not to be. God's Sanctuary was this holy place. In this study, we have learned that prayer is not a domain where one man should exercise authority over another. It is a holy ground where no one but God and the petitioner relate. By imposing mortal men and/or imaginary saints, brothers or sisters in faith as mediators, God's holy institution of how man relates to Him was severed. The most important lesson to learn in this eventuality is that through this practice, God's sanctuary was polluted.

The sacrament of reconciliation ravaged Christianity. This tampering with God's plan of salvation is an ABOMINATION before God. It displaces God. The Savior died to become the Sole Mediator so that justice and mercy would be dispensed at God's discretion. The one who demonstrated love toward man in its superlative form, in whose judgement we feel secure, is now discharged of His duties and by what, mere mortals? Men were taught that someone else was in charge of judging the hearts and intents of man. Men of few years of life were positioned to dispense mercy and justice for a fee, at their own whims. The Savior anticipated this perversion and spoke to that issue with astonishing directness in the very same verse where Jezebel is discussed.

The danger of misunderstanding how to relate to God is not just a problem faced by past generations. This confusion still threatens Christianity including the Adventist church. Our rhetoric has changed over the years. The GC does not agree with the ideas, but tolerates them. Teachers with strange doctrine approach our Adventist people and pour on them vile doctrines of Rome.

Today, we are being tested on this point. These ideas have nothing to do with Adventist beliefs. Yet, they are being taught to our people. These teachers have duped many. Did we learn the lesson or not? If you wish to read more about this important subject ask for the book "The Role of Intercessory Prayer in the Adventist church" or click on this link The Role of Intercessory Prayer in the Adventist Church

How does all this fit? How does it relate to 1844 and the 2300 days prophecy? What is the connection? Before I make the connection, I would like to talk about the idea of new truth, for a moment. The inevitability of facing present and new truth is real and will ever be with us. At every point in our experience, we have the opportunity to learn new things. The important idea to keep in mind is that our theory needs to be confluent with our fundamental beliefs. This is hard to achieve for man alone, but not when God is in charge. To advance in truth some of our preconceived ideas need to be put aside. We need to understand that not all that we believe is fundamental. In this setting, I feel safe in saying that new truth is not new if it agrees with every notion that we have held in the past. By default, new truth runs counter to some or one favored belief, else deductive reasoning would suffice and we would not call it "New light". We could refer to it as "Hey, I also figured this out!" As long as it does not erode, the foundational pillars on which a body of truth rests, new insights are welcome.

The great new truth, which God introduced to the world by way of the Adventist movement, was a message of paramount importance for the Christian. It was the very message that ailing Christianity desperately needed. In accepting men to mediate for their sins, Christianity embraced an enduring darkness. In a short time, they forgot about the real and only mediator in heaven. What followed was a spiritual disorientation. Reformation came, and though Martin Luther spoke against the hierarchy and their practices, the general idea of how sins should be handled was not a part of the entire Protestant body. Many still hung on to various revised versions of the Papal Sacrament of Reconciliation.

Calvin and Martin Luther had improved on this topic, yet, both failed to realize man's responsibility in the equation of salvation. For them God saved whomsoever He pleased and man could do nothing to improve his status in the book of life. God's relationship to man was lopsided and nothing man would do could have any value. With that message, men were left to wonder "Why even try?" Other Protestants, via abstract rationalizations, made man into a saviour in a manner similar to the Church of Rome:

The Adventist message was given to dispel these errors. Through prophecy, the pioneers of our faith looked up and realized a truth of eternal import. Through study and disappointment, step by step, God directed them to look up and see their one and only Mediator mediating in heaven for them. "Christ in His Sanctuary" was the overwhelming theme of Adventism. Coupled with the recognition of one's responsibility to seek out God, man's connection with His maker was renewed in a way that it had not been in more than twelve centuries. For nearly 1300 years, God was displaced from His sanctuary in the minds of many if not most of His people. People became so estranged from God that the Reformation alone could not accomplish the task of bringing them back to this point of realization. Of all the wonderful things that Adventist truth embodied, none would equal the realization of "Christ in His Sanctuary". God's Sanctuary was finally cleansed of the pernicious age-old pollution. Through this realization, the connection between God and man was revitalized. Looking up, into God's Sanctuary, man recognized his part and how to seek out God. This bright light from heaven rolled off the lips of the pioneers with clarity.