In recent decades the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8 has been under steady attack. I’ll be candid: I’m not eager to defend the "traditional" Adventist interpretation, at least not in the way that it typically has been defended, but I am even less eager to capitulate to critics who often ignore great chunks of biblical material in their eagerness to jettison the Adventist position. The objections generally fall under three major headings:

1. Historicism. Since the historicist approach to apocalyptic is virtually ignored in today’s religious world, Adventists are judged to be out of date, if not just plain wrong, in continuing to adhere to it.

2. Context. In Daniel 8, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is a much better candidate for the little horn than is papal Rome. Antiochus polluted the Jerusalem sanctuary for three years (168/67 to 165/64 B.C.E.), among other things, offering pig to Zeus on an altar erected in the temple court.

3. Assurance. The Adventist doctrine of the "investigative judgment," which owes its existence to the1844 experience, robs believers of security in the Lord, and therefore, declare its detractors, should be abandoned.

There are counterobservations with reference to these objections. As I see it, they contain important kernels of truth, but usually are developed in ways that could jeopardize key features of the Christian faith. Here are some comments relative to each.

1. Historicism. In its thorough-going mode, historicism is indeed dated. No one today would simply pick up a Bible and interpret the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25 as a road map of the 1844 experience, the seven churches of Revelation 2 and 3 as seven successive eras of history, or the bittersweet little book of Revelation 10 as reflecting the Great Disappointment and its aftermath. Our Adventist forebears saw the historicist pattern in places where their heirs and descendants do not.

But let us not be too quick to snicker. Indeed, we would do well to ponder Norman Porteous’s comment on the link between "the contemporary climate of thought" and methods of interpreting Scripture. In a preface justifying the exceptional reprinting of a 1928 book in 1955, he said: "Books of biblical exposition tend to date very rapidly, and eventually to become almost unreadable; so close is the connection between such writing and the contemporary climate of thought."1 In short, the "wisdom" that tempts us to laugh at yesterday, could make us the laughingstocks of tomorrow. A modicum of humility is in order.

Furthermore, in a more moderate form, historicism is still the obvious interpretation for the book of Daniel. The successive kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7 move toward climax and the establishment of divine rule; the sanctuary in Daniel 8 and 9 moves toward restoration; and history flows toward the resurrection in Daniel 10–12. These are all examples of "historicism" at work. The book of Revelation may be another matter, but historicism is alive and well in Daniel.

I will also argue that we don’t need to be ashamed of our historicist heritage. Scholars of the nineteenth century openly state that "historicism" was standard fare among premillennial Protestants at the time Adventism was born. Here are two quotes worth noting:

In the immediate post-Napoleonic era, events took place that appeared to confirm the pre-millennial view for a number of British Christians. As historicist premillennialists—and all premillennialists were such between 1815 and 1830—they saw a number of signs that indicated the nearness of the Second Coming.2

All Protestants expected some grand event about 1843, and no critic from the orthodox side took any serious issue on basic principles with Miller’s calculations.3

2. Context. The language of Daniel 8 is sufficiently mysterious that any precise application to historical figures is fraught with hazards. However, two points are clear, one of which is contextual: 8:17 and 8:19 state that the vision is for the time of the end. If the Jerusalem sanctuary is gone, what sanctuary is left? The heavenly. There is an alternative view, of course: With our futurist friends, the dispensationalists, we could project the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple on the site where a Moslem mosque now stands. I’ll take the Adventist perspective any day.

The other clear point is the historical fact, confirmed by 1 and 2 Maccabees, that Jews in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes applied the language of Daniel to the abominations practiced by that evil king. Yet Jesus spoke of the abomination "spoken of by the prophet Daniel" (Matt. 24:15) as still being future in his day. In short, taking the full sweep of Scripture into account, we are looking at multiple applications: Babylon the desolator in 586, Antiochus in 168/67, Rome in 70 C.E. And in our day? Anything that diminishes the effects of Christ’s heavenly ministry is yet another desolating sacrilege.

3. Assurance. This may be the crux of the matter, for we live in an age that craves assurance. If our Adventist forebears overemphasized human responsibility (and I think they did), the spirit of our age overemphasizes assurance. But my New Testament reminds me that it is possible to live with assurance and still be lost: "Not everyone who says to me, ’Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven," said Jesus (Matt. 7:21). The painful truth is that some of us are too easily frightened, others too readily assured. That’s why Paul gave the believers in Corinth a choice: "Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?" Quite frankly, I don’t think Adventists do a good job preaching Romans and Galatians. We can do better. However, dumping the doctrine of judgment is not the right cure for our disease.

In sum, our Adventist heritage enables us to be consistent with the entire book of Daniel, for each major line of prophecy points to restoration: In Daniel 2, the mighty rock fills the whole earth; in Daniel 7, the saints receive the kingdom; in Daniel 8–9, the sanctuary is restored; and in Daniel 10–12, Michael stands up for his people. Let’s not lose our nerve now.…

Notes and References

1. Adam Cleghorn Welch, Jeremiah: His Time and His Work (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1951), vi.
2. Ian Rennie, "Nineteenth-Century Roots," in Carl Edwin Amerding and W. Ward Gasque, eds., A Guide to Biblical Prophecy, rev. ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), 46 (emphasis supplied).
istrict: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850 (1950; reprint, New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 321, cited in Rolf Poehler, Continuity and Change in Adventist Teaching (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2000), 23.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE