We must admit that the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8 faces problems, even serious problems. To the extent that the study guide wishes to establish the fact that 1844 is easy to understand, as it seems to do, it renders disservice to its subject. The guide underreports the complexity of the subject and overestimates the abilities of the ordinary reader of Daniel 8.

This is not to suggest that it is ill-advised to attempt to understand this part of the book of Daniel, including its chronological elements, the parts that are preoccupied with specific periods of time. No one can deny that time is a matter of grave concern in this book (Dan 8:13–14; 9:24–27; 12:6–13), so much so that interpretation has not done its work if it decides to skip Daniel’s delineation of time.

Admitting that the traditional Adventist interpretation faces problems does not mean that they cannot be satisfactorily resolved within a defined set of presuppositions and readership context. Nevertheless, whatever successes may be achieved on the foregoing points, at least one problem will remain. From my point of view—and from painful personal experience—the most serious challenge to the Adventist interpretation is the risk of cognitive dissonance.

Establishing the significance of the date 1844, specifically October 22, 1844, was a tall order even in 1840, when proximity to the date of fulfillment lent a helping hand to ensure its relevance. It is quite a different matter to make 1844 a date of utmost significance in 2006, at a time when so much else is crowding the calendar, when remoteness from this date in itself threatens its relevance, and when, at least in some parts of the world, even the last of Daniel’s seventy weeks, the events taking place in Jerusalem from A.D. 27 to A.D. 34, are barely able to rise to the level of significance.

Seventh-day Adventists are alone in maintaining the significance of 1844. Our history will not permit us to run away from it. But these facts cannot be the only ones that obligate interpretation in the present and the application and use of whatever conclusions the present reading of Daniel 8 will lead to. We may decide to yield nothing in terms of the soundness of the traditional interpretation, as the lesson quarterly clearly intends to do, and we may be committed to ensure that 1844 remains a date of relevance to Adventist identity in the present. Yet a caveat should remain—a problem exists whether or not we admit it: the risk of moving beyond the cognitive and perceptive horizon of the person with whom we wish to connect.

A Survey of the Traditional Interpretation

The risk of drowning in complexity is not extrinsic to the subject because the leaps in time, space, theme, and theology envisioned by the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8 are daunting. At the very least, they will seem daunting to a person coming to this material for the first time. As to time, the time prophecy of Daniel 8:13–14, unlocked by the second installment in Daniel 9:24–27 and he historical corollary in Ezra 7:1–26, covers a span of twenty-three hundred years, from the year 457 B.C. to A.D. 1844. The challenge of this interpretation increases because of the fact that the beginning and ending dates of this long period belong in a relative no man’s land in terms of events recognized as important in history.

As to space, there is a horizontal and a vertical axis. Along the horizontal axis, one leaps from the Persia of Daniel’s time to imperial Rome and then to ecclesiastical Rome, the Roman phase mostly compressed within the symbol of the little horn (Dan. 8:9). Along the more important vertical axis, the mind must make the transition from what transpires in temples and churches on earth to the sanctuary in heaven (Dan. 8:11–12).

As to theme, in what is arguably the pivot point of the entire book, the question raised draws attention to the actions of the little horn against the sanctuary (Dan. 8:13). Proceeding from the prism of this question, however, the concern is no longer riveted on what the little horn is doing against the sanctuary. The answer of the other heavenly being elicits another leap of the imagination, from what is done to the sanctuary to what is happening in the sanctuary.

"Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed" (Dan. 8:14 KJV). The text answers an unasked question or at least gives an answer that goes considerably beyond what most listeners associate with the question to which this statement is the answer. The question deals with the sins committed against the sanctuary, impairing its proper function, reducing it to a state of disrepair, whereas the answer deals with the meaning of the service performed in the sanctuary, imagining the proper function of the sanctuary and its services happening on schedule. Moreover, the question seems to relate to the earthly sanctuary, whereas the answer envisions events taking place in the sanctuary in heaven.

As to theology, should one travel the road of the King James Version, guided by the notion that the cleansing of the sanctuary alludes to Leviticus 16 and the cleansing of the sanctuary on the day of atonement (Lev .16:7–10, 18–21), dominated by an emphasis that is mostly soteriological? Or should Daniel 8:14 read as in the New Revised Standard Version, which sees the sanctuary "restored to its rightful state," giving the text an emphasis that lies closer to theodicy?

As noted, and as this brief sketch can only hint, the leaps that must be taken are daunting, and the points that must be connected by dotted lines lie far apart. Whether this will be done successfully cannot be a premise held from the outset. It must be left for the conclusion that comes at the end, having worked through the particulars of this complex book painstakingly point-by-point. Whether the project will succeed in giving the traditional Adventist interpretation a new lease on life remains to be seen.

If it does, it is my view that success in this respect hinges largely on the interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27. The case for a messianic, Christological interpretation of this passage seems compelling, and if this is granted, the basic soundness of the traditional interpretation is not easily discounted.

The Risk of Cognitive Dissonance

And yet the risk of cognitive dissonance refuses to go away. I say this because I have experienced it firsthand too many times not to let it affect me. A close relative of mine, a very old man by now, has in his lifetime sat through some fifty evangelistic series in which the book of Daniel has been explained in detail. He is no doubt convinced of the soundness of the Adventist interpretation. If, however, he should be assigned the task of expounding it himself, he might be at a loss to do so today, and may have even in his heyday. It is risky, I believe, to let too much ride on an interpretation that an ordinary Adventist is unable to explain on his or her own.

In my own evangelistic experience, I have seen cognitive breakdown of a far more serious kind. Whereas Daniel 2 and 7 have seemed illuminating to the audience, the complexity of Daniel 8, the cleansing of the sanctuary, and the date 1844 have seemed to bewilder more than enlighten. Quite frankly, and sadly, I have seen audiences otherwise well on the way to being enticed by the message of Daniel lost to "our" message in Daniel 8.

It is possible to attribute this to the incompetence of the presenter, but I have seen it happen even to speakers as competent as anyone in the subject and thoroughly convinced of its relevance. For this reason, I ask whether it is possible to come into possession of the essential message of Daniel 8 some other way; whether the value and vision of God that Daniel 8 wishes to instill in the believer is available by other means. The problem of 1844 is not, according to this reading, 1844. It is 2006.

Visit Spectrum’s Message Board for an ongoing discussion of this quarter’s subject, "The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment"

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE