APPENDIX D:  ABOMINATION THAT MAKES DESOLATE SET UP

History clearly confirms the abundant grammatical and contextual evidence that “daily” refers to Christ’s sanctuary ministry. Daniel 11:31 cannot refer to Papal conquest of a pagan qodes (military might). If it did, it would prove a false prophecy; for that did not happen. For the same reason, history shows it can not refer to a 508 AD Papal assimilation of Paganism (11:31-35 & 8:11).

Pagan absorption was virtually complete already a century before, by the mid-Pergamum period of Papal development (Rev 2:12-17; 313-538 AD). Confession and penance began in the preceding century and AD 321/346 Sunday laws fulfilled the little-horn prophecy of Daniel 7:25. [1] Philip Schaff identifies four (of seven) sacraments that developed during that century (300-399; see pp. 469-517).

A century before 508, infant baptism, required by the doctrine of original sin, guilt of which must be removed or the soul is forever damned, was urged by Augustine. Most exalted of all sacraments is the blasphemous Eucharist, an idolatrous counterfeit of the Lord’s supper, fashioned after a heathen rite. The priest is presumed to create and to sacrifice his Creator! Ordination was required by the Eucharist, to provide the priest the mystical powers needed to create and sacrifice Christ.

The immaculate conception adaptation of another heathen rite, also required by the doctrine of original sin, soon developed and was followed by Maryolatry. The "victory of Mary-worship" was effected by the AD 431 council of Ephesus. Condemning the Nestorian view that Mary was only "the Mother of Christ, it declared her 'the Mother of God'” (Schaff pp 409-424). Thus a century before the 1260 year reign began, the Papal system embraced the heathen worship of female deities.

Maryolatry, which developed along with saint worship, was a spin-off from heathen spirit worship based on the pagan doctrine of an eternal soul. Schaff states: "From the fifth century [400's], however, the worship of saints appeared in full bloom, and then Mary, by reason of her singular relation to the Lord, was soon placed at the head, as the most blessed queen of the heavenly host" (p 423). Thus, saint worship and elevation of sinful priests as dispensers of divine grace cast the truths regarding the once-for-all sacrifice and the "place of [Christ's] sanctuary" ministry to the ground long before 508!

The counterfeit “daily” and its “host” was thus ready, only awaiting the “setting up” of the Abomination that makes desolate” by being given and then achieving supreme authority and then being provided Pagan power to impose it on all churches (508-538). For it could not be effected as long as seven of the ten tribes repudiated Papal authority. Pointing to "the close connection of saint-worship with monasticism," also fully developed long before 508, Schaff identifies it as "a new form of the hero worship of the pagans." Thus Christ’s ministry was thoroughly cast to the ground. "The heathen emperor Julian (361-363) sarcastically reproached Christians with reintroducing polytheism into monotheism," declaring, "Even some orthodox church teachers admitted the affinity of the saint-worship with heathenism, ..." (p 435)

Abomination: “set up” by Clovis & Sealed by Justinian

History does not affirm that sur in 11:31 refers to military conquest of a pagan miqdas any more than it supports pagan assimilation between 508 and 538 as the meaning of rum, the "daily" in 8:11. But history does affirms that sur and rum, as synonyms, deal with the same process. The abomination that makes desolate was “set up” in 508, not by Papal conquest of a pagan miqdas, but by a religio-political alliance with Paganism that gave the Papacy the "power, seat, and great authority" (Rev 13:2) that it had lacked. The "power" to apply would await AD 438 displacement of enemies.

Time-Life's Barbarian Europe portrays how the system was set up that would make "all nations . . . drink of the wine of . . . her fornication" (Rev 14:8; Rev 18):

Mutual self-interest led kings and bishops into a wary alliance that would remain a dominant factor of political life throughout the Middle Ages. The kings, according the bishops great respect, sought their advice and often honored their requests. The bishops, broadening their secular activities, served the kings as mentors, judges, diplomats and top administrators–and thereby increased their influence on the church's behalf" (58).

Note clever young Clovis's role in the "setting up" (crowned in 481 AD at age 15):

[T]o stem the rising Arian tide," Catholics sought the aid of Clovis and his pagan Franks. Mutual ambitions were greatly furthered when in 493 he married a Catholic wife. "With this rare queen encouraging her spouse, the courtship of Clovis and the bishops soon reached its logical culmination in baptism" (496 AD). "[A]mid a garish display of Christian pomp and pagan militarism, Clovis was followed to the font by no less than 3,000 warriors (ibid).

"In the name of Faith, Clovis [baptized heathen] invaded the Visigothic kingdom in 507, and the southern bishops helped . . . speed Frankish victories,” with “no indication that his spiritual life or moral character had been improved by his conversion." This mattered little to a self-serving church determined to gain supreme authority. "The bishops of Gaul hailed Clovis as a son, and their slow-growing cooperation with the Franks blossomed overnight into enthusiastic support. What was more, pro-Frankish sentiment rose sharply among Churchmen of the south and began undermining the Arian kingdoms." (Ibid., 59)

 Abomination Set Up (508) so as to Take Away Christ's Continual (538)

Clovis was hailed Most Christian Majesty, Eldest Son of the Church, and Defender of the Faith. Such dependence on arms of the state to enforce Papal authority denied Christ’s authority and prepared the Papacy to usurp His position. In His name, an earthly, anti-Christ system was imposed. Since Rome and most of Europe were controlled by powers opposed to Papal orthodoxy, to enforce this system required subjugation that could only be accomplished by a union of church and state. The desolating abomination (Dan 11:31) "set up" (union of church and state) in AD 508 under Clovis was effected by emperor Justinian, who eliminated the remaining opposition (AD 533-538).

Williston Walker names five remaining Arian tribes after Clovis' 496 baptism after his victory over the Alemans (also Heruli; 493; SDA BC 4:426): Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, and Lombards. He subdued the Burgundians & Visigoths (507-508), who then converted to Catholicism. Justinian later uprooted the Vandals and Ostrogoths; while the Lombards avoided defeat by converting (A History of the Christian Church; 1959; T & T Clark, Edinburgh, p 123).

Thus it was not Papal conquest of a pagan miqdas that “set up” the Papal abomination under Clovis in 508, but semi-pagan conquest of Christian nations in behalf of the Papacy. By 538 Justinian's removal of all significant opposition effected that which prophecy foretold: “The dragon [Pagan Rome] gave him [Papal Rome] his power, seat, and great authority” (Rev 13:2).

1290 Confirms AD 538 Beginning of the 1260 Year Prophecy

“And from the time the [continual] shall be taken away [to set up] the abomination that maketh desolate there shall be [1290] days" (12:11). Instead of Papal military conquest of Pagan Rome or its spiritual absorption, this refers to the 508 granting of universal authority, by which the Papacy set up its abomination (church-state union) and took away Christ's "continual." The setting up was completed by Justinian, who, having decreed Papal authority over all churches, removed remaining opposition (533 to 538). Thus 30 years later the 1290 merged with the 1260 to locate the 538 beginning and 1798 ending of the twice-given 1260-year prophecy (Dan 7:25 & 12:7)—hardly a Papal victory over a pagan miqdas. Indeed, to fully set up the Papacy, seven Christian tribes that rejected Papal authority had to be conquered by the semi-Pagan state.

Thus the 1290 begins with the church-state union by which Christ's "continual" was "taken away" and the "place of His sanctuary cast down” from heaven to earth. Instead of depending on the heavenly King, a politically supported, counterfeit ministry with a false priesthood was established that “cast the truth to the ground.”

Dan 12:4-11 Links Little Horn of 8:11 to that of 7:25

Daniel 12 forms a hub that so links Chapters 7 & 8 as to remove all question that the blasphemous, persecuting "little horn" of 8:11-12 has to be the blasphemous Papal "little horn" of 7:25. Verses 4 to11 bind seven inter-related factors together:
        (1) the sanctuary cleansing/ judgment;
        (2) the 1260 day/years;
        (3) "the time of the end" (7:25; 12:7; 8:17, 19);
        (4) the abomination that makes desolate (7:25; 8:11-13; 12:11);
        (5) ha tamid "daily" (8:11-13; 12:11);
        (6) the sealing (Dan 8:26 & 12:4, 9); and
        (7) the “Son of man” “clothed in linen” Who commanded Gabriel to make the vision known, then commanded Daniel to seal it up (7:13; 8:15-16; 12:4). These seven so interlock that to refer to any one implies involvement of the other six.

For example, the 1260 years (7:25; 12:7) of Papal persecution terminate at "the time of the end” (8:17-26; 1798) with the unsealing of the vision (12:4). And the 1290 (12:11) initiated the 508 church-state setting up of an already-formed abomination, thus permitting the Papal horn, unrestrained at last, to take away the "daily" (Dan 8:11; 2 Thess 2:7) in 538 (Dan 7:25; 12:7). Both prophecies relate to "the time of the end" unsealing of the 2300-day prophecy (8:14, 17, 19, 26; 12:4)! And this “time of the end” unsealing at the close of the 1290/1260 year prophecy (8:26; 12:4,11) is the glue that holds all these passages together. Daniel 12:4-11 thus not only unmistakably joins both little horn passages (7:25 & 8:8-12) but also confirms that the 1844 sanctuary cleansing in Chapter 8 corresponds to the judgment of Chapter 7.

Neither View Threatens Adventism

There are thus many kinds of evidence that ha tamid represents Christ’s sanctuary ministry and not Paganism. He, not a Roman ruler, is “the Prince of the host,” the truth of Whose ministry in heaven was cast down. But, in spite of the great  difference between the Paganism view and Christ’s sanctuary ministry view of as the "daily" "taken away," Ellen White insisted that the issue was secondary. No testing truth was involved; both sides held all essential doctrines in common. [2] Each identified Daniel 7:25 with the 538 - 1798 period of Papal supremacy and both held fast to the sanctuary doctrine and its Most Holy Place ministry. But compared to the great issues relating to 1844 and the sanctuary message itself, the difference was minor.

Had not Pagan view adherents made two sentences in Early Writings (74-75) a test of faith in the spirit of prophecy, thus preventing close examination of Scripture itself, it would likely have become evident that Daniel 12:4-11 links the little horn of 7:25 with the little horn of 8:11 and that these, with 11:31, relate all “daily” references to Papal usurpation of the place of Christ’s covenant sanctuary, which truth was to be restored by the judgment hour message.

What then is the value of understanding the issues? Much in every way. First, it reminds us of the urgency of following priesthood of believer principles. Second, it affirms harmony between the Bible and spirit of prophecy. Third, it confirms the validity of the spirit of prophecy. Fourth, it reminds us of Ellen White’s insistence that Bible issues be resolved by close examination of the Bible itself. Fifth, while it is not a testing doctrine, it does throw important light on the conflict between good and evil, putting the spotlight upon Christ Himself, Prince of the host. Sixth, it thus directs our attention to the Minneapolis principle of Christ our Righteousness, the heart of the third angel’s message and its sealing provisions. Last, but not least, a clear understanding of that conflict and its impact on the last century of Adventism throws light on the present conflict and suggests the principles by which we must deal with it.            

Endnotes

[1] Assimilation actually began as early as Paul’s day (2 Thes 2:3-8).  Maxwell informs us that the tradition of priest’s forgiving sin began innocently enough in the third century:

The tradition that priests have the power to forgive sins developed in the third century after large numbers of church members apostatized . . . during the short but sharp Decian persecution. A group of very strict bishops (the Novations) insisted that the apostates had sinned so mortally that they could never be forgiven.  Other bishops, however, in order to demonstrate that God forgives all contrite sinners, offered forgiveness to any apostate who confessed to them.

Penance was also introduced at the same time–for the purpose of helping the people not to take their mortal sins lightly. Penance at first consisted of standing conspicuously outside the church at meeting time for a number of years, then inside the church for several more years, and so on.  When the rigorous penance proved counterproductive and people reasoned that they might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb, less onerous options were offered, such as payments in cash and military service on a crusade.  (C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares 1:169).

[2]Today’s theories that put the prophecies in the future are more dangerous; they undermine God’s prophetic message that all time prophecies were fulfilled by 1844 and are not be re-applied to our day, and her warning that there will never be another message based on time.