Daniel 8:9-14 The LIttle Horn; Pro and Con: Rome or Antiochus IV

16. DANIEL 8:9-14: THE LITTLE HORN:

PROS AND CONS: ROME OR ANTIOCHUS IV

By Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

July 24, 2018

 

HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT ANTIOCHUS IV

 

Antiochus IV (D) Epiphanes (Manifest)

Original name before ascension: Mithradates

Father: Antiochus III the Great,      1 Macc 1:1-4

Mother: Laodice III

Wife: Laodice IV married 3 brothers who were Seleucid kings

323 B. C. Alexander the Great died

279 B.C. Gauls ruled Macedonia briefly

264-241 B.C. Rome won the First Punic War against Carthage

198 B. C. Laodice IV married crown prince Antiochus who died in 193 B. C.

197 B. C. Rome first defeated Macedonia and Greece

190 B. C. Rome defeated Syrian Seleucid Antiochus III the Great

188 B. C. Antiochus IV was a hostage of Rome to control his father

187 B. C. father Antiochus III died; replaced by older brother Seleucus IV

         1 Macc 1:5-7

175-164 B. C. Antiochus IV ruled Syria and Judea; 1 Macc 1:8 to 6:16

173 B. C. Antiochus IV paid off the Roman war penalty incurred by his father

172 B. C. High Priest Jason built a Greek gymnasium beside the Temple in Jerusalem; this might have begun the 2300 day prophecy

172 B. C. Antiochus IV replaced Jason

169 B. C. While Antiochus was in Egypt, Jason conquered Jerusalem except the armed citadel.

169 B. C. Antiochus IV conquered all of Egypt except Alexandria and

captured Ptolemy VI. He allowed Ptolemy VI to remain as his puppet to avoid angering Rome. 1 Mac 1:16-19

169 B.C. Egypt regained freedom; Ptolemy brothers ruled jointly (incl VIII).

169-168 B.C. Antiochus IV conquered Cyprus

168 B. C., Jun 22^nd; Rome defeated Antiochus’ ally Macedonia again

168 B.C. Egypt depended on an alliance with Rome to protect it

168 B.C. re-conquest of Egypt was stopped when Roman ambassador Gaius Pompillius Laenas drew a circle around him and threatened war with Rome; Antiochus withdrew.

167 B. C. Antiochus again replaced high priest Jason, killed 40,000 Jews and enslaved another 40,000 (2 Macc 5:11-14).

Antiochus outlawed Jewish religion and ordered the worship of Zeus (2 Mac 6:1-12). The city of Jerusalem was destroyed; the military citadel of Acra was built by Antiochus. 1 Macc 1:20+

167 B. C. Mithradates I of Parthia rebelled ad split the Seleucid Empire.

Antiochus failed to regain Parthia.

163 B. C. Antiochus IV died of disease.

…………………………………

COMPARING THE TEXTS:

 

The following is an honest attempt to see arguments from both viewpoints and to analyze each. Good scholarship requires it.

 

Dan 8:8 Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.

(1) All agree that the “he goat” was Alexander the Great who died in 321 B. C.

(2) “For it” is “in place of it (NKJ), “in its place: (NAS; NIV), “instead of it” (RSV) refers to Greeks, not Romans. Rome had existed for centuries before Alexander and did not come up into power after Alexander’s death.

(3) After Alexander’s death, his Greek empire became four Greek empires: Egypt (Ptolemies), Syria (Seleucids) Macedonia and Greece.

(4) In Daniel 7 and 8 different nations were represented by different animals. A different nation is not seen in Daniel 8:8. The large Greek horn was replaced by other Greek horns --- portrayed as one kingdom. The prophecy retains the one kingdom of Greece in four divisions. See 8:23; 11:1-4.

(5) While explaining this, Daniel 11:5 says that “the king of the south [Egypt]” will be strong. History records this to be true at first concerning Egypt.

(6) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:9a And out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed exceeding great …”

(1) Antiochus Epiphanes IV came out of the eastern Seleucid Syrian “horn” of Alexander’s Greek empire.

(2) Rome came up out of one of the four “winds,” or directions of heaven. See also 11:4. It defeated Carthage in the three Punic Wars between 264 – 146 B. C.

(3) Although Antiochus IV was an “exceedingly great” evil towards Judah for a short time, eventually pagan Rome was a far greater evil than Antiochus IV for a much longer period of time.

(4) While Antiochus IV outlawed Jewish worship early, pagan Rome did so much later after A. D. 135.

(5)  Even today Jews celebrate the restoration of the temple with Hanukkah dating back to 164 B. C.

(6) For non-Jews the evidence for this argument is a draw.

Daniel 8:9c “…toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.”

(1) Since pagan Rome was “exceeding great” in every direction, it is odd that the other directions are not mentioned.

(2) “Toward the south,” Antiochus IV briefly conquered and sacked most of Egypt but was soon repulsed. His second invasion was stopped by threat of war with Rome. “Toward the east,” Antiochus IV lost the Parthian half of his realm and died before restoring it. “Toward the promised land,” his persecution of the Jews resulted in his expulsion and their independence.

(3) The evidence for this point is favors Rome.

Daniel 8:10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground and stamped upon them.

(1) Both pagan Rome and Antiochus IV literally fulfill this description.

(2) Since Jews interpret this as a description of Antiochus IV in both First and Second Maccabees, this evidence barely favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:11a Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away …

(1) Both pagan Rome and Antiochus replaced Israel’s leaders.

(2) “Prince of the host” is an unlikely title for Jesus in the first century among Jews.

(3) “Prince of the host” is a better description of the High Priest during Antiochus’ IV time.

(4) Both pagan Rome and Antiochus caused the daily sacrificial offerings in the temple to end ---thus ending all activity.

(5) The argument favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:11b … and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.

(1) If “cast down” is correct, only pagan Rome literally fulfilled that.

(2) If “brought low” is correct, both accomplished that.

(3) This argument is a draw.

Daniel 8:12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground and it practiced and prospered.

(1) Whether “the transgression” was that “of” the Jews or that “of” the little horn, both Rome and Antiochus both accomplished this.

(2) Antiochus IV attempted to destroy the Jewish religion.

(3) Pagan Rome did not at first attempt to destroy the Jewish religion.

(4) Some see papal Rome here and it did attempt to replace both Judaism and orthodox Christianity.

(5) Only Rome continued to prosper.

(6) Antiochus’ did not prosper afterwards.

(7) One the strength of “it prospered,” the evidence favors Rome.

Daniel 8:13 … How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

(1) The question is: “How long will it be before the transgression by the little horn ends?” “When will it stop?”

(2) The literal length of desolation in Daniel 8:14 strongly favors Antiochus IV between 171-164 B. C. or 168-164 B.C.

(3) There is no literal 2300 or 1150 day period of persecution by pagan or papal Rome which ended in A. D. 1844.

(4) The evidence strongly favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:14 Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

         (1) “Unto” is most often translated “for” --- meaning “until.”

(2) The SDA answer of “A. D. 1844” does not answer the question of 8:13. It does not tell us when anything would end; it only tells when something would begin.

(3) The literal interpretation of the text says the defilement of the sanctuary in 8:9-13 will cease in 2300 or 1150 days.

(4) “2300 days” in Hebrew is not the extremely common word for “day” which is “yom.”

(5) “2300 evenings and mornings” refer to the “evening (ereb) and morning (boquer)” sacrificial cycles. This corresponds to either 2300 or 1150 literal days. See below on Num 14:34.

(6) The temple in Jerusalem was cleansed and rededicated in 164 BC which is about 2300 days from 171 B. C. or 1150 days from 168 BC 

(7) It is unknown how the Temple was originally defiled by Antiochus. We do know that the altar to Zeus was dedicated with a pig exactly three years before it was re-dedicated. Many other defiling events occurred before that date. The original defilement was 2300 days prior to its cleansing on the 25^th day of the 12^th Jewish month.

(8) The Jewish calendar during the time of Antiochus IV either added a 30-day month every third year or added 10-11 days at the end of each year in order to stay aligned with the solar year. This fact easily explains how 2300 days fits within the time frame of 6+ years (2300 days) or even 3+ years (1150 days).

(9) Since Rome’s destruction of the temple in A. D. 70 has not been cleansed by a restoration cleansing or rededication, the evidence favors Antiochus IV.

………………………………………………….

Daniel 8:19a And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation …

(1) This probably refers to “the last end of (the current) indignation.”

(2) According to Daniel 2 a renewed weaker Rome will be involved in the last days.

(3) According to Matthew 24:15 Jesus made Antiochus IV a type of the Antichrist of the last days.

(4) The evidence is a draw.

……………………………………………………..

Daniel 8:23a And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full …

(1) This is the strongest anti-Antiochus IV argument; he was in the middle of the Antiochus line of rulers which extended another 100 years

(2) The text does not say “in the latter time of the Seleucid kingdom.”.

(3) “The latter time of their kingdom” refers to ONE Greek kingdom which replaced Alexander the Great. Note that “kingdom” is singular.

(4) By the time of Antiochus IV (171-164 B. C.), most of Alexander’s divisions had become mere puppets of Rome and Egypt depended upon Rome to protect it with a military alliance. Therefore “the latter time of their kingdom” may refer to their identity as independent Greek kingdoms.

(5) The prophecy does not refer to how many kings will follow Antiochus IV as puppets of Rome.

(6) “The latter time” of Daniel could have begun in 205 B. C. when Rome defeated Macedonia.

(7) “Their” (plural) independent “kingdom, rule, reign” as Alexander’s unified heritage ended at “the latter times.”

(8) “The latter time” could also have begun in 190 B. C. when Rome defeated Antiochus IV’s father, Antiochus III the Great.

(10) Antiochus IV was part of “the latter times” of the Greek Empire. For a short time in 188 B. C. Antiochus IV had been a prisoner in Rome before being exchanged for his older brother and first heir to the Seleucid throne.

(11) On the other hand, Rome did become much greater during “the latter time” of Alexander’s Greek kingdom.

(12) The evidence is a draw.

Daniel 8:23b … a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

(1) The text describes a person and not a nation. “Fierce countenance an understanding dark sentences” applies more to a man than to a nation.

(2) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

(1) For 2300 days Antiochus IV fulfilled this prophecy.

(2) Rome needed no help to destroy Jerusalem. “Not by his on power” does not fit Rome.

(3) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

(1) Antiochus IV fulfilled this for 2300 days against the Jews. He replaced the high priest and died of disease without being assassinated or overthrown (“without hand”).

(2) Rome crucified Jesus Christ, the Prince of Princes. Rome lasted far longer than 2300 days. Rome was broken both by corruption from within and by barbarian invasions in the West. Eastern Rome fell to a Muslim Turkish army in 1453 A. D.

(3) The evidence favors Antiochus IV.

2300 DAYS OR YEARS:

(1) With the exception of Seventh-day Adventists and Adam Clarke’s Commentary, “days” are interpreted literally and not as prophetic years.

(2) The Hebrew for “days” in Daniel 8:14 is “ereb-boquer” instead of the extremely common “yom.”

(3) If “days” in Daniel 8:14 referred to the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16, “day” in Leviticus 16 would also be “ereb-boquer.”

(4) Numbers 14:34 does not establish a hermeneutic that one day equals one prophetic year (“day for a year”); rather, it is a predetermined punishment sentence. The same is true of Ezekiel 4:6 which reverses Numbers 14:34 to become “a year for a day” for past sins. The Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 is able to stand upon its on Hebrew vocabulary.

(5) In 1825 William Miller interpreted the 2300 days as prophetic years and ended them in 1844 with the end of the world by fire.

(6) Also in 1825, Adam Clarke interpreted Daniel 8:9-12 as pagan Rome, interpreted the 2300 days as prophetic years, began them with the beginning of the goat vision in 334 B. C. and ended the vision in 1966.

(7) In 1844 Seventh-day Adventists interpreted the 2300 days as prophetic years, interpreted Daniel 8:9-10 as pagan Rome, interpreted 8:11-12 as papal Rome, began the vision in 457 B. C. and ended the 2300 years in 1844 with the beginning of God’s judgment of the righteous in heaven.

(8) Modern commentaries overwhelmingly interpret the 2300 days literally, begin the 2300 days in 171 B. C. or begin the 1150 days in 168-167 B. C. and end them with the re-dedication of the Jerusalem temple in 165-164 B. C. Jews celebrate this as Hanukkah.

(9) Since Jesus made Antiochus IV a type of the last-day Antichrist in Matthew 24:15, many modern conservative commentaries expect a future re-built temple in Jerusalem per Revelation 11:1-2 which will also be destroyed as the earth is destroyed in Revelation 19. A Messianic Millennial temple will be rebuilt for Christ’s literal reign for 1000 years on earth.

(10) The evidence concerning the 2300 days is overwhelmingly in favor of its initial fulfillment by Antiochus IV.

…………………………

Daniel 11:1-20 describe the wars between Seleucid Syria and Egypt before Antiochus IV.

Daniel 11:21-35 describe the wars between Antiochus IV, Egypt and Judea. There is no doubt among modern commentaries that Antiochus IV is in view.

………………………

The following text from First Maccabees demonstrate how closely Firt Maccabees follows Daniel. Any student seriously interested in determining the identity of the little horn of Daniel 8:9-14 must read First Maccabees.

1 Maccabees 1:1-4 Alexander the Great’s achievements.

1 Macc 1:5-7 Alexander divided his empire among his generals before he died in 323 B. C.

1 Macc 1:8-9 Alexander’s officers reigned many years.

1 Macc 1:10 175 B. C. Antiochus IV rules Seleucid Syria

1 Macc 1:11-13 Greek-speaking Jews in Judea voluntarily switched religions to observe Greek culture.

1 Macc 1:14-15 A Greek gymnasium was erected beside the Temple and circumcision was reversed.

1 Macc 1:16-19 Antiochus plundered Egypt [except for Alexandria] and very briefly made Ptolemy VI his vassal.

[Egypt soon regained independence. A second Syrian army turned back after being warned of war with Rome by Ambassador Pompilius Laenas.]

1 Macc 1:20-28   In 169 B. C. Antiochus plundered the Temple in Jerusalem. [desolating the temple]

1 Macc 1:29-32 In 167 B. C. Antiochus IV plundered the city, burned the city and tore down the walls. He enslaved women and children and took the livestock.

1 Macc 1:33-36 In 167 B. C. Antiochus also fortified the city: he rebuilt stronger walls and built a fortress. Victims were killed in and around the sanctuary.

1 Macc 1:37-40 In 167 B. C. the Jewish people abandoned the desolate temple and ceased observing Sabbaths and Jewish worship.

1 Macc 1:41-53 Antiochus IV commanded Greek religion in his Syrian empire.

1 Maccabees 1:54 In 167 B. C. 15^th of Chislev (Dec) Antiochus IV erected an altar of Zeus inside the Temple --- the appaling abomination.

1 Macc 1:55-58 Many other altars were erected. Copies of the Law were burned and those possessing it were killed.

1 Macc 1:59 167 B. C. 25^th day of Chislev offered a pig on the altar.

1 Macc 1:60-61 Killed those who allowed circumcision; hung babies from necks of mothers.

1 Mac 1:62-64 Many kept their faith.

1 Macc 2:1-69 Mattathias’ successful revolt. Died in 166 B. C., 16^th year.

1 Macc 3:1 to 6:7  Judas Maccabeus, son of Mattathias, took over.

1 Macc 4:52 164 B. C. 148^th year, 25^th Chislev temple cleansed.

1 Macc 6:8-16 Sick from his losses, Antiochus IV appointed Philip to replace him. Died 163 B. C. 149^th year.

Josephus (First century Jewish Historian): “And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some] time.” Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII, Chapter 4, verse 6.

 

AUDIO: DAN 8:8-14 JESUS IS THE ANTICHRIST LITTLE HORN

http://hosts.blogtalkradio.com/rapturereadyradio/2018/03/02/what-seventh-day-adventists-believe-about-the-anti-christ-with-russ-kelly

Seventh-day Adventists teach that Christ is the Anti-Christ little horn of Daniel 8:9-14.

Seventh-day Adventists Teach That Jesus

is the Anti-Christ Little Horn Who Defiled the Sanctuary in Heaven

By Russell Earl Kelly, Ph.D.

May 3, 2018

In their effort to explain their Seventh-day Adventist Investigative Judgment interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the most bizarre consequence inadvertently equates the actions of Jesus Christ as worse than those of the Anti-Christ little horn in 8:9-12.

Seventh-day Adventists repeated William Miller’s faulty principles of interpretation by disconnecting Daniel 8:9-12 from 8:14. Re-connecting the context reveals their greatest error.

HERE’S HOW THEY DO IT

STEP ONE: Seventh-Day Adventists teach that pagan Rome (the WHO), the little horn of Daniel 8:9-10 defiled the literal sanctuary on earth by destroying it in A. D. 70 (the HOW) with its army (the WHAT).

According to the SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:9-10, the “prince of the host” who was “cast down” was Jesus Christ” and God’s literal earthly “sanctuary was cast down” by pagan Rome. Pagan Rome’s destruction of the Temple is called “desolations” in Daniel 9:26.

STEP TWO: Seventh-Day Adventists very extensively teach that papal Rome (the WHO), the little horn of Daniel 8:11-12 “cast down” and defiled the heavenly sanctuary (the WHAT) using its theology and the confessional to replace Christ’s ministry in heaven (the HOW). This is the most time-consuming portion of SDA evangelists when preaching on the necessary cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8. According to the SDA interpretation of Daniel 7:25; 8:11-13; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 and Revelation 13:1-9, the little horn of pagan Rome merged into the little horn of papal Rome. Papal Rome’s defilement of the sanctuary is called the “transgression of desolation” in Daniel 8:13 and the “overspreading of abominations” in Daniel 9:27. The sanctuary has very definitely been defiled and very definitely requires cleansing.

VALIDATING SDA DOCUMENTS

“The little horn of chapter eight ‘takes away the daily sacrifice and casts down the ‘place of his sanctuary’ (v11) [papal Rome], but after a period called ‘two thousand and three hundred days’ (v14), the sanctuary is ‘cleansed” (KJV) or ‘restored to its rightful state” [by Jesus] (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, 1960, “little horn,” page 656).

“The two systems [pagan and papal Rome] are mutually exclusive, since the setting up of the abomination of desolation is accompanied by the trampling down of the sanctuary (8:13) and by the taking away of the ‘daily’ (11:31; 12:11). This substitute system of worship is abominable, or detestable, because it stands in implacable opposition to that of the true God. It desolates the sanctuary by replacing its services with its own. This turn of events naturally appalls worshipers of the true God. In the symbolic prophecy of Daniel 8, it is the power represented by the “little horn” that terminates the worship of the true God in His sanctuary and institutes a false system of worship in its place (8:9-12). At the end of “two thousand and three hundred days” the sanctuary was to be cleansed (v 14) by the restoration of the worship of the true God” (The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary, 1960, “abomination,” p7).

Notice that the “two systems” are pagan and papal Rome. Jesus’ defilement of the literal sanctuary using atoned sins is not mentioned. Notice also that the “restoration of true worship” appears to be a reference to all SDA doctrines rather than removing atoned sins from the sanctuary.

THE PIVOTAL TEXT

Dan 8:13 How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

First, if Daniel 8:13 belongs to 8:9-12, then 8:14 must remain a discussion of the sanctuary which was defiled by the little horn of 8:9-12 and 8:14 concerns a cleansing of a sanctuary defiled by the little horn. Second, if 8:13 only belongs to 8:14, then 8:14 is a complete disconnect from 8:9-12 and the sanctuary and cleansing of 8:14 have nothing in common with the little horn of 8:9-12. This is the SDA application. Third, if 8:13 connects 8:9-12 with 8:14 (as logic dictates) then 8:9-14 is a complete unit and all of it concerns the cleansing of a sanctuary defiled by the little horn. Fourth, if the defiling of the sanctuary in 8:9-12 has no relevance to the cleansing from defilement in 8:14, the discussion of 8:9-12 has no purpose.

A FALSE DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION

STEP THREE: Seventh-day Adventists make exceedingly great proclamation that Jesus Christ is the wonderful hero who first entered the heavenly Most Holy Place in 1844 to begin cleaning the heavenly sanctuary.  

The SDA transformation from 8:9-12 to 8:14 is incredible, bizarre and totally illogical. First, instead of the sanctuary being defiled by pagan and papal Rome who persecuted believers in 8:9-12, SDAs make an “about face” 180 degree turn and blame the defilement on the atoned sins of believers in 8:14! See GC17-422 later.

“WHO brought the atoned sins of believers into the heavenly sanctuary to defile it?”

 This one simple question destroys SDA logic, the Investigative Judgment and the reason for the existence of Seventh-day Adventism. Since the (SDA) defilement of 8:14 is literal and has already taken over 170 years to complete, Jesus Himself MUST be a far worse defiler of the sanctuary than pagan and papal Rome combined! Like it or not, admit it or not, Seventh-day Adventists inadvertently teach that Jesus Christ is the WHO, the worst of three defilers of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:9-14. SDAs teach that Jesus (the WHO) carried (transferred) atoned sins into the heavenly sanctuary (the WHAT) and defiled it by sprinkling His blood before the Most Holy Place (the HOW). That is SDA theology at its very worst. The “transgression of desolation” against the “sanctuary” in 8:13 must be the context of the question asked in Daniel 8:13 which is answered in 8:14.

Therefore, the greatest “truth” of Seventh-day Adventism is actually its greatest error. This error was caused by completely separating Daniel 8:14 from its context. While most SDAs know WHAT and HOW (SDAs teach) the heavenly sanctuary was defiled, they have ignored the extremely obvious WHO of Jesus Christ. Jesus is made hero cleansing the sanctuary, but not villain for defiling it with His same time sacrificial blood.

THE EVIDENCE FROM ELLEN G. WHITE

The SDA Bible Commentary, The SDA Bible Dictionary and SDA evangelists go into great detail describing the terrible deeds of the pagan and papal Roman little horns who defiled the sanctuary in Daniel 8:9-12. Next, they even more vigorously hide the fact that the defiler of Daniel 8:14 must be worse because he literally and physically defiled heaven itself, the very sanctuary of God. .

The most respected and deliberately mass-distributed SDA publication is Ellen G. White’s, The Great Controversy. Yet, in 719 pages their prophetess does not quote or reference Daniel 8:9-13. Although she refers to the papal little horn of Daniel 7:25 four times, not a word is said about the little horn of Daniel 8:9-13 defiling the heavenly sanctuary and thus requiring it to be cleansed from the little horn’s defilement.

I urge all Seventh-day Adventists to carefully read every word of chapter 23 in The Great Controversy, What is the sanctuary?, pages 409-422.

GC418: … The blood, representing the forfeited life of the sinner, whose guilt the victim bore, was carried by the priest into the holy place, and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. … Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary.

(1) Sacrificial blood does NOT represent the “forfeited life of the sinner”; it represents the substitute life of the sacrifice (Jesus Christ). (2) Sacrificial blood washes away sins; it does NOT symbolize the transference of SIN “from the penitent to the sanctuary.” Rather it records the fact that full atonement has been made by the perfect sinless sacrifice (Jesus Christ). (4) The phrases “carried by the priest,” “by this ceremony the sin was through the blood transferred in figure to the sanctuary” and “transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary” should prove SDAs teach that Jesus defiled the heavenly sanctuary even worse than pagan or papal Rome. And the SDA Jesus qualifies to be called the Anti-Christ little horn who defiled the sanctuary in heaven which He has been cleaning since 1844. According to SDAs, Christ blood simultaneously defiles and cleans.

GC419: Such was the work that went on day by day throughout the year. The sins of Israel were thus transferred to the sanctuary, and a special work became necessary for their removal. God commanded that an atonement be made for each of the sacred apartments. …

(1) If atoned redeemed forgiven sins of believers defile the sanctuary daily, then the heavenly sanctuary has been defiled since Adam was forgiven in Genesis 4:21 and is still being defiled every time a believer is forgiven even today. (2) The Day of Atonement ended a year-end final cleansing of confessed residual sins (Lev 23:24-32). Confessed sins were washed away when the blood of the sacrifice was shed (Lev 4:20). (3) SDA theology denies that the Holy Place and the remainder of the sanctuary were also defiled and required cleansing on the one-day Day of Atonement because Jesus had been in the Holy Place before 1844 and because it is still defiled by current forgiven sins (their theory) (Lev 16:20). (4) The sentence “The sins of Israel were thus transferred to the sanctuary” proves that SDAs make Jesus a greater defiler of the heavenly sanctuary than pagan or papal Rome and a worse Anti-Christ little horn.

GC420: A substitute was accepted in the sinners behalf, but the sin was not canceled by the blood of the victim. A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary. … On the Day of Atonement, the high priest, having taken an offering from the congregation, went into the most holy place with the blood of this offering, and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat, directly over the law to make satisfaction for its claims.

(1) Here Ellen G. White correctly calls the sacrifice a Substitute; previously she erroneously said it represented the forfeited life of the sinner. (2) It is wrong to teach that the Christ’s blood does not entirely cancel sin; the one price had been paid at Calvary and a life had been given. (3) Like the daily offerings, the Day of Atonement “offering from the congregation” contained the confessed residual sins of the nation (Lev 23:29). Therefore, if the daily offerings defiled the sanctuary, so would the yearly. (4) The sentence “A means was thus provided by which it was transferred to the sanctuary” refers to the “means,” Jesus Christ, via His sinless (yet sin-carrying) blood. E. G. W. and SDAs dare not say that Jesus is the “means,” the “who” by whom the heavenly sanctuary was defiled. Such admission would destroy Seventh-day Adventism.

GC421: As anciently the sins of the people were placed by faith upon the sin offering and through its blood transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary, so in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred, in fact, to the heavenly sanctuary.

(1) Again, sin did not go beyond the door of the tabernacle where the sacrificial victim died. Only unatoned sins defile. Sacrificial blood “records” that the payment for sin had been made (Ex 12:13; Jer 17:1; Lev 4:20). (2) The phrase “in the new covenant the sins of the repentant are by faith placed upon Christ and transferred in fact to the heavenly sanctuary” clearly teaches that Jesus is even today (long after 1844), still defiling the heavenly sanctuary while He is unable as Omniscient God to complete its cleansing quickly. (5) Much more than mere records of sins, E. G. W. makes it absolutely clear the sins ‘in fact’ are still defiling the heavenly sanctuary. (6) The combined abominations of desolation by the little horn of pagan and papal Rome do not compare to the defilement of Jesus Himself. .

GC421: For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary [the holy place]. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. … there is a work of atonement for the removal of SIN from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. …

(1) SDAs do not discuss when the first compartment was cleansed to allow Christ to minister there. If part of the sanctuary was defiled, all of it was defiled. In Leviticus 16 the Most Holy Place was cleansed before the Holy Place; SDAs reverse the sequence. (2) The blood of Christ does not (at the same time) both “secure pardon” and defile the sanctuary. (3) Records of sin do not defile. (4) If the work of atonement was “the removal of sin from the sanctuary,” Daniel 8:9-13 makes no sense if the sanctuary was not being cleaned from its defilement by the un-atoned sins of pagan and papal Rome. (5) Whether for dedication, re-dedication or Day of Atonement cleansing, each only lasted one day as Daniel 8:14 teaches – not “begin to be cleansed” as SDAs teach. Even their “day-for-a-year principle would only extend to one year --- 1844-1845. (6) The phrase “there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary” credits Jesus with beginning to cleanse the sanctuary but He is never credited with defiling it.

GC421-422: And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded.

It is utter folly to think that God would allow the Most Holy Place in the universe to be defiled. The entire Investigative Judgment doctrine is the result of fatalistic clinging to William Miller’s false prophecy that Daniel 8:14 pointed to some great event in 1844.

Only unatoned sin defiles. “Defile” is the same as “casting down” in the context of Daniel 8:9-12. In Exodus 31:14 one who did not keep the Sabbath “defiled” it and was put to death. In Leviticus 21 priests who touched dead relatives were defiled and unfit to serve. In Numbers 19:13, 20-21 those who refused to purify themselves defiled the tabernacle, or sanctuary. In Nehemiah 13:29 those who marred unbelievers defiled the priesthood. In Revelation 21:27 nothing that defiles will enter heaven. Run away from any church which teaches that Jesus has defiled heaven with the atoned sins of believers.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

russkellyphd@yahoo.com

Author of: Exposing Seventh-day Adventism