THE "DAILY" OF DANIEL 8 REVISITED

(A. Leroy Moore; Mar 1981 / 19 September 2006)

Seventh-day Adventism was shaken to its roots soon after its 1901 re-organization by the defection of three highly respected leaders, J. H. Kellogg, A. T. Jones, and A. F. Ballenger. Only the united support of Ellen White and aging pioneers permitted administrators to avert serious division. But before the dust could settle, President A. G. Daniells, and Review & Herald editor, W. W. Prescott themselves shattered that unity. Against pioneer pleas, they repudiated the long-held Miller view that  "the daily" (ha tamid; Dan 8:11-13) refers to Paganism and promoted  L. R. Conradi’s recently published "new view," that "the daily" is Christ's heavenly sanctuary ministry, as usurped by the Papacy (508-538 AD; See Appendix D).

This "new view" was not new. O. R. L. Crosier enunciated it in 1843 and included it in his February, 1845, heavenly-sanctuary proclamation, which Ellen White endorsed. But the old-timers were sure she affirmed Miller's Paganism view in her 1850 testimony, “The Lord gave the correct view of it [the daily] to those who gave the judgment hour cry" (Ellen White, Early Writings, pp. 74, 75).

Though knowing that this issue was a test of faith to aging, second-generation pioneers, Prescott and Daniells chose not to honor their allies by humbly sharing their evidence in private, giving time and ample opportunity for them to defend their view. (Truth bears testing.) Instead, by using their offices to promote the "new view," they aroused such a hostile, accusative spirit as to set us back a century on this issue.

Seeing in this "new view" a call to arms, the older workers strongly opposed what they considered a direct attack on the spirit of prophecy. Led by S. N. Haskell, they accused Daniells and Prescott of repudiating the spirit of prophecy and introducing the "omega of apostasy" about which Ellen White had recently warned.

Ellen White rebuked the leaders for pushing the “new view” but did not affirm the “old view.” Indeed, contrary to the "omega" charge, she said that (a) it was a minor issue; (b) she did not know and (c) was not shown the correct view. She also (d) asked that her “daily” statement not be used as evidence and later (e) called for discussion of it to cease.

Open debate ceased, but with deep distrust in leadership, the conflict went underground. In 1922 “old view” advocates succeeded in removing Daniells from presidency. But by the 1940's the “new view” was generally accepted. G. B. Starr and J. S. Washburn continued to make the Paganism view a test of faith, but with slight influence. However, when Desmond Ford repudiated our sanctuary message in 1979, claiming that Daniel 8:11-14 refers to Antiochus IV (165-163 BC), some saw this as proof of the old-timers' claim that the “new view” leads logically to Antiochus and denial of the sanctuary doctrine. And they revived the “old view” of the daily.”

Since the bitter heresy charges of last century are avoided, the time seems ripe to examine the early 20th-Century conflict. Why is this issue important? Because its roots intertwine with the roots of our half-century conflict. That debate precipitated opposing camps. One camp gave rise to Questions on Doctrine, a semi-official book, which caused the other camp to re-hurl “the o    mega-of-apostasy” charge. Thus our conflict emerged from and is fueled by unresolved issues that precipitated “the daily” conflict that must be dealt with.

 The Passage in Conflict

Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four [horns] toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. (Dan 8:8-9).

All agreed that Alexander was the great horn on the he-goat identified as the first king of Grecia, and that the four horns were his divided kingdom (Dan 8:21-22). Initially all also agreed that the "little horn" came “out of one of” the four horns. But a gender study of the key words led many scholars to conclude that the "little horn" came “out of one of” the “four winds." Either horns or winds fits the papal view; but in the Paganism view the little horn is Pagan Rome, which came out of Grecia, the western horn.[1]

Contrary to claims that the papal view undermines our sanctuary doctrine and precipitated Ford’s preterist claim that the little horn was Antiochus IV, both views uphold prophetic principles and the sanctuary doctrine. By their very structure, both preclude the Antiochus view. In the “old view” the little horn was Pagan Rome which arose out of Grecia a century after Antiochus died. But in the papal view, the little horn is the same little horn as in Daniel 7, which did not rise out of Grecia, but out of Rome — seven centuries too late to be Antiochus! (See Appendix A)

Pagan “daily ” defenders must pass lightly over Daniel 8:10. For it sets a pattern that identifies the “daily” of verse 11 as one of several heavenly things attacked by the little horn:

And it [little horn] waxed great, even to host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the daily was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down (Dan 8:10-11).

“Even,” as supplied in verse 10, masks the intensification in verse 11, “even to the prince...” ADaniel portrayed the horn as “great to the host of heaven” who “cast down some of the host and stars to the ground” but then magnified “himself even to the prince of the host.” If the prince was only an earthly king, this would put earth above heaven — a mediocre earthly prince as greater than heaven itself!  Would it not be strange indeed for Daniel to declare some of heaven's "host" cast down only in the very next sentence to announce Rome as "the prince of the host"? (See Appendix C).

Crucifixion Seals the Vision:  Sanctuary Truth Unseals It

Pagan view defenders correctly translate “from” for “by” and agree that “daily” should be “continual.” Yet dozens of times “continual” refers to the sanctuary and its ministry. Nor does “from” suggest paganism; for the Papacy usurped the Prince’s ministry from Him.” 

Yea, [papal Rome] magnified himself even to [Christ,] the prince of the host, and [from] Him [His continual ministry] was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down (Dan 8:11).

This fits Gabriel’s explanation of the 70 weeks “cut off” from 2300 days. The 70^th began with anointing of “Messiah, the Prince” (AD 27). His AD 31 death (Dan 9:24-27) in the “midst of the week” initiated Christ’s “continual” sanctuary ministry. This ministry the Papacy claimed authority to do on earth. Of course, the counterfeiter had no authority and could not remove Christ's ministry for the true believer. But he did so "cast down" the "place" of His sanctuary that for centuries countless millions of Christians looked to priests on earth to do for them what only Christ in heaven could do. 

His baptism and death set a “seal” of certainty not only on His heavenly ministry, but also on the 2300-day/year vision (Dan 8:14; 9:24-27). However, the understanding of this vision was "shut up" and "sealed" until "the time of the end." (Dan 12:4) And not until Edson’s view of Christ’s heavenly ministry on the morning of October 23, 1844, was it fully unsealed by restoring the truth regarding the “place” that was “cast down” (Dan 8:11; 12:4). Moreover, restoring the “place of His sanctuary” introduced transition from the Holy Place ministry to judgment in the Most Holy Place and the triumph of the “Son of man” (Dan 8:14; 7:13-14).

Partial unsealing of the vision began in the 1798 proclamation of Daniel 8:14 at the end of the 1260 years of papal supremacy. In 1843 Crosier announced the meaning of the “daily,” connecting it with the AD 538 casting down. But “the place of His sanctuary” was not disclosed till “The Son of man,” entered the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement (Dan 7:13). Confirmed by vision to Ellen White in December, 1844, it was published by Crosier in February, 1845 and in 1846. 

Miqdash Not a Pagan Bastion But Synonym of Qodesh

Since “sanctuary” in verse 11 is translated from miqdash, not qodesh, as in verse 14 that refers to Christ’s sanctuary, Pagan “daily” proponents believe that it, by contrast, refers to Pagan Rome’s military bastion. But this totally cuts off the miqdash problem from the qodesh question and its 2300 day answer! It also flies in the face of Daniel’s prayer in the next chapter: “cause Thy face to shine upon Thy miqdash which is desolate, for the Lord’s sake” (9:17). Thus, in this text,  miqdash is not a Pagan bastion, but a synonym of Christ’s heavenly qodesh of 8:14. (See Appendix B.)

After declaring that the papal horn not only defied heaven and “cast down some of the host ... to the ground, but “even” attacked “the Prince of the host,” and cast down the “place of His sanctuary,” Daniel attributes the horn’s success to its own “host” (army of blasphemous priests):

And an host in transgression was given [the Papacy] against the [continual ministry of Christ] and [the little horn] cast the truth to the ground; and he practiced and prospered (Dan 8:12).

“Host in transgression” may also include the nominally "Christian" but actually Pagan army that established papal control. Either way, the little horn cast down or removed four things: (Dan 8:11-12):
    (a) some of heaven’s host (army of believers);
    (b) some of its stars (leaders);
    (c) the heavenly place of His sanctuary, and
    (d) the truth.
Each relates to Christ, His heavenly ministry, and His people. To interpret the "daily" as Pagan disrupts the textual unity. Thus it is apparent that “The prince of the host” and the “daily” taken from Him are Christ and his ministry, effectively displaced by a Papacy that cast down the truth regarding His ministry. The counterfeit, earthly priesthood (“host ... given him”) was in “continual” transgression against the gospel, as indicated by the blasphemous Eucharist.

My Introduction to “the Daily” Issue

In college I saw gospel beauty in the sanctuary. Concerned that it was used primarily to prove the 1844 judgment — which it does — I began my ministry with a focus on the great controversy theme and its conflict between the true Sacrifice and High Priest of the “papal” usurper.The place of the sanctuary and significance of the Prince Whose ministry was unsealed and restored on October 23, 1844, gave historical and spiritual insight into Daniel 8:11-14 and our judgment doctrine. In this context, principles I had derived from Desire of Ages opened before me — principles which I would later see in the 1888 message of justification by faith, of which I then as yet knew nothing.

Over a quarter of a century later, at the 1980 General Conference, Robert Wieland urged the Paganism view upon     me. In contrast to Christ’s sanctuary (qodesh; Dan 8:14), he identified miqdash as Pagan Rome’s headquarters “cast down” by the Papacy (8:11-13). To me, this appeared to rob the passage of both continuity and insight; yet if “cast down” is a KJV mistranslation of rum, as he assured, and if rum means to “lift up” or “exalt” — as in exalting the papal little horn, it could not refer to papal casting down of Christ’s sanctuary ministry. In context, he informed me, the clearest modern translation of rum would be to “incorporate” or “absorb.”

I had long planned to write on atonement issues via the great controversy theme, portraying the sanctuary as command center of the universe from which Satan sought to unseat Christ. Failing in heaven, he reached the zenith of earthly success in the papal usurper who, in claiming Christ’s authority and power, removed from men’s minds the truth of the merits of the cross, as dispensed alone by His own sanctuary ministry in heaven.

Yet, now for months I was ready to change my position, however painful and confusing that might be, if examination of the text in context proved Wieland’s view Scriptural. If true, I trusted I would find meaning where all was then opaque. But in April, 1981, when finally able to do the research, I found that the evidence only deepened my conviction that "daily" does refer to Christ's sanctuary ministry.

Time for Courteous Discussion 

Prescott and Daniells aroused such a hostile, accusative spirit in the aging pioneers as to set us back a century on this issue. They knew pioneer convictions on the “daily” were strong. Yet they chose not to honor their allies by humbly sharing their evidence in private, giving time and ample opportunity for them to defend their view. (Truth bears testing.) Instead, they used their offices to promote the Crosier-Conradi view. Seeing in this as call to arms, the aging pioneers attacked what they considered a repudiation of the spirit of prophecy. Indeed, they insisted that it was the “Omega of apostasy” about which Ellen White had recently warned.

Now again Paganism defenders see the issue as serious. But, though warning that the papal view threatens both our judgment theology and the spirit of prophecy, Wieland, a key player, has set the stage for courteous discussion by a quiet but forthright defense without rancor. His conviction needs to be heard and his evidence carefully examined.

Before examining his view, I want to commend Wieland’s caution in not making this a primary issue, which Ellen White declared it is not. I also want to affirm the commitment to the spirit of prophecy that motivates him and other Paganism-view advocates, including John Wood, who defended it in an Andrews doctoral dissertation.[2] As a background for examining Wieland’s evidence and in support of his commitment, I first consider Ellen White’s statement in relation to the textual and historical context and then place his view and mine side by side in R.J. Wieland's "Paganism" View Compared to the "Papal" View.

Ellen White’s “Daily” Statement

Context is the first and most important key to meaning. Related statements, concepts, and historical circumstances and issues are also crucial, as is the meaning of expressions at the time they were used. All these are considered as we examine “the daily” statement in paragraph three of “The Gathering Time”:

Then I saw in relation to the “daily” (Dan 8:12) that the word “sacrifice” was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the proper view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the daily; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test (Ellen White, Early Writings, pp. 74-75).

Focusing exclusively on “daily” and “sacrifice,” the old-timers insisted that Ellen White affirmed Miller’s Paganism view, accusing those who examined the context of deliberate subversion. We will first examine Miller’s view and then four key elements of her article, treating these in two couplets:
    (1) confusion after the great disappointment and “the gathering time”; and
    (2) Conflict over 1844 and time never again a test.

Miller’s Paganism View of “the Daily”

As Miller proclaimed cleansing of the earth (sanctuary) by fire in 1843/1844, he met Preterist claims that the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 were not prophetic but literal and only a history of the 163 BC Maccabean rededication and restoration of the “daily sacrifice” “taken away” when Antiochus IV desecrated the Jewish altar, causing its service to cease in 165 BC.

Miller pointed out that “sacrifice” did not belong to the text but was added by translators. Searching with his Bible concordance for clues to the meaning of “continual,” he found what seemed a providential key. Concerning the “mystery of iniquity,” Paul declared, “only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way” (2 Thes 2:7; NKJV).

This seemed a perfect parallel to Daniel’s, “by him the daily ... was taken away. Since Pagan Rome’s rule lasted nearly half again as long as all three preceding kingdoms combined and gave place to the Papacy, it seemed self-evident that this was the “continual” that was “taken away” to allow the papal “mystery of iniquity” to proceed with his blasphemous work.

Logical as this seemed, similarity in wording appears to be coincidental. “Taken away” and “taken out of the way” do not necessarily have the same meaning. “Taken away” translates one short word, rum, “take off” or “take away.” By contrast, “taken out of the way” translates four words, heos ek mesos ginomai.  A difference in meaning from “taken away” is evident in Jay P. Green, Sr’s Interlinear:

For mystery already works of lawlessness, only he restraining now, until out of the midst it comes. And then will be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord will consume by the spirit of the mouth of Him, and bring to nothing by the brightness of the coming of Him” (2 Thes. 2:7-8; word for word translation).

For the mystery of lawlessness already works — only he holding back now until it comes out of the midst. And then the Lawless One will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume by the spirit of His mouth; and (He) will bring to nothing by the brightness of His coming (2 Thes. 2:7-8; English word order translation).

Paul condenses the complex, little horn prophecies of Daniel 7 and 8, declaring it “the mystery of iniquity.” It “already works” in embryo form, he announces, but is “now” restrained by divine agencies “until out of the midst it [is permitted to] come” with state authority and power to control the Christian world. But “then,” at the end of a wicked, 1260 year course and the subsequent judgment, Christ will “bring [his works] to nothing by the brightness of His coming.”

The early church fathers saw Imperial Rome as the restrainer. Since God works through human agencies, the two views can be harmonized, with Rome as His agency of restraint. Meanwhile, papal Rome was Satan’s ultimate agent, the lawless one, restrained until “the time appointed” (508-538 AD) when “out of the midst it” is permitted to come to “set up” the “abomination [that produces] desolation” (Dan 8:11-13; 12:7-13). Likewise, at the appointed time it would be exposed and face divine judgment (Acts 17:30-31), before being destroyed at Christ’s coming.

For the same reason that God held His hand over the mistake regarding the sanctuary to be cleansed, as Ellen White mentions in her article, He permitted Miller to identify the “daily” as Paganism. Neither was correct, but neither could then be rightly interpreted; for both involved the truth of  “the place of his sanctuary” that was cast down. And it was not yet time to restore it.

Significantly, by emphasizing 1844 and and pointing out that word sacrifice was added, Ellen White affirmed what was right about both issues as she shifted the focus to the true, heavenly sanctuary that had been usurped. Meanwhile, without this light, Miller deleted “sacrifice,” thus showing that the passage did not point to a restored Jewish altar of sacrifice. This limited light permitted him to sustain 1844 truth against its opponents, even as it allowed the divinely predicted disappointment (Rev 10) to test God’s people in preparation for the final, third angel’s message.

1844 "Scattering Time" and “The Gathering Time”

“The Gathering Time” article (Aug, 1851), that joins parts of the September 23, 1850, “daily” vision and a June 21, 1851, vision, proclaims a major change in the circumstances of believers who faced ridicule and rejection in “the scattering time” after the 1844 disappointment. So crucial was the validity of 1844 and the heavenly sanctuary message that it called forth two visions and an article in less than a year. Indeed, 1844 is mentioned three times in two sentences!

Despite differences in beliefs, until 1844 Advent believers were united by intense focus on Daniel 8:14 and sanctuary cleansing. But with their crushing disappointment, nearly all gave up their faith in the “midnight cry,” “Behold the Bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet Him.” Those who did not immediately surrender faith that Christ would still soon come to cleanse the earth with fire splintered into various time-setting groups. This was the “the scattering time.”

Meanwhile, Crosier identified the "daily as Christ's ministry in his February, 1845 article (expanded in 1846) which summarizes the results of Bible study following Hiram Edson’s October 23, 1844, view of Christ entering the Most Holy Place in heaven. Midway between the disappointment and his article, Ellen Harmon received her confirming, “Midnight Cry” vision. By these God led the “little flock” to cling to their faith and to proclaim the message of a judgment in the heavenly sanctuary during “the scattering time” while opposed by almost all former colleagues who lost confidence in the time and set new dates for Christ’s return to earth year after year. By the “the gathering time,” when people were more receptive to present truth, the enemy was seeking to focus all minds upon old Jerusalem.

Conflict over 1844 and "Time Never Again a Test"

The two primary issues in the “daily” statement are: (a) authenticity of 1844 judgment and (b) time never again to be a test. Note the intense, 3-fold mention of 1844:

When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the daily; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion followed.  Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. (Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 75)                  

In 1849 and 1850 James and Ellen contested two time-setters who published a paper in Oswego, NY, where they lived. But even as they combated these men, two of their own leaders got caught up in the time setting frenzy. In 1849 Hiram Edson predicted probation’s close that year and Christ’s return in 1850. And in 1850 Joseph Bates published his belief that Christ’s Most Holy Place ministry would last seven years. This put His coming late in 1851.

Prior to 1844 and the scattering, Millerites had strongly opposed Irishman, J.N. Darby’s literalist claim identifying the sanctuary cleansing with a new Jewish temple and re-established “daily sacrifices.” But as the time-setting fever peaked with the approach of 1851, the last date that could be extended for Daniel 8:14 fulfillment, the time speculators made urgent “age-to-come” calls for people and funds to be sent to Jerusalem. Thus, instead of the preterist, Antiochus view, the added word, “sacrifice,” was now applied to future re-establishment of the Jewish sacrificial system — a view now held by most Evangelicals.

To counter this focus on literal Israel, Ellen White pointed out that the word, “sacrifice,” was supplied. The purpose and meaning of her “Gathering Time” article (Early Writings, pp. 74-76) is further affirmed by an editorial relating to it. Focusing exclusively on the same issues, James White drew phrases from her article, such as, “gathering time,” “distracting views,” “does not hang on time,” and “stronger than time can be,” as he targeted “the age to come” as “a Judaistic doctrine of the millennium in Old Jerusalem.”

Their concern was that just as providence was opening the way for the third angel’s message to go with power in “the gathering time” and all manpower and funds were needed to proclaim it, Satan was seeking to detract attention from that message and absorb vitally needed funds.

The article against time setting thus focuses sharply on false efforts to fulfill the 2300-day prophecy by restoring the Jewish temple and altar of sacrifice and evangelizing the re-gathered Jews in preparation for Christ's coming to set up an earthly kingdom in old Jerusalem. There is no hint in the text or context of any concern for, or reference to, a Pagan “daily.” Indeed the exclusive focus is upon the present emergency, not upon its AD 538 absorption thirteen     centuries before.

All Four Paragraphs

Paragraph one emphasizes the growing opportunity to proclaim the 1844 message. Ellen White explains that God held his hand over erroneous figures in the 1843 chart.[3] That was the message He wanted to have given at the time to induce an initial crisis to test the people prior to the great test portrayed in Revelation 10, to direct attention to heaven’s sanctuary.

Paragraph two focuses on post-1844 confusion with its time setting and declares that there would never be another message based on time.

Paragraph three contains the two crucial sentences that affirm Miller’s claim that “sacrifice” was incorrectly added. In it she warns against “false excitement arising from preaching time,” declaring: our message “stronger than time can be” and that it “must not be hung on time.”

Paragraph four gives a three-fold warning against going “to Old Jerusalem [to do a work] there before the Lord comes.” This is “calculated to take the mind and interest from the present work of the Lord.” They “will have their minds there, and their means will be withheld from the cause of present truth.” The emphatic conclusion of the final paragraph has elicited the charge that Ellen White was a false prophet:

I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for the day of the Lord. (Ellen White, Early Writings, pp. 75, 76)

Correct View of “Daily”

What did Ellen White mean when she wrote, “I also saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up”? Is this a failed prophecy? By no means. Indeed, this prediction is central to her insistence that the word, "sacrifice” was added, and that there was unity on this issue prior to 1844.

Then I saw in relation to the “daily” (Dan 8:12) that the word “sacrifice” was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the proper view of it [ie, “sacrifice”] to those who gave the judgment hour cry. (Ellen White, Early Writings, p. 74, 75)

The unity was in meeting opponents who repudiated 1844 by insisting that Daniel 8:11-14 referred to the historical restoration of sacrifices on the Jewish altar, interrupted by Antiochus IV two centuries before the time of Christ. But the Millerites also had to contest another view based on the added word, "sacrifice." It was this dispensationalist view, introduced in the British Isles by J.N. Darby, called "Age to Come," that Ellen White confronted. Instead of focusing on Antiochus and restored sacrifices on the ancient Jewish altar, Daniel 3:14 was interpreted as predicting future restoration of Judaism, with temple and altar of "sacrifice."

To meet this two-fold issue of time (1844 versus future) and place (heaven versus Old Jerusalem) of the sanctuary cleansing, Ellen White insisted on the authenticity of 1844 and declared that she "saw that Old Jerusalem never would be built up" with a restoration of the old Jewish covenant in a rebuilt temple.

Thus, the perplexing statement regarding "Old Jerusalem," which concludes Ellen White's argument that the word "sacrifice" was added and that there was harmony on this before 1844, provides a key to the meaning of the two Early Writing sentences that have been debated for a century. The "unity" was that "daily" had nothing to do with restored Jewish sacrifices in a future "age to come."

How urgent was this at the time of writing? Most urgent! For even our most influential pioneers were in danger of being sucked into "the age to come," which re-configured the entire meaning of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 (Jewish instead of heavenly) and of the time for its fulfillment (1851 instead of 1844).

But the broader issue was time setting itself. “The age to come” involved the ultimate time set for fulfillment of Dan 8:14 (1851). Defense of 1844 was Ellen White’s central issue. How urgent was the crisis she addressed? Most urgent! Time setting infected the most influential pioneers, aside from Whites: Edson predicted and Bates implied an 1850 and 1851 coming of Christ. The issue had to be met squarely. Not only was the judgment-hour message at risk, but "the age to come" threatened to swallow needed means for the the proclamation of the message.

Thus neither circumstances nor context suggests Paganism as the “daily.” Nor does either refer to past transition from Paganism to the Papacy. The warning was against time setting, and the purpose was to affirm the 1844 judgment message. Indeed, at stake was the very purity of the gospel, which brooks no multiple "dispensations," with salvation offered by law in one (Jewish) and grace in another (Christian).

Significantly, by his very title, Edson’s pamphlet, “Final Return of the Jews in 1850” identified the many Old Testament "gathering" prophecies (i.e. Isa 11:12; Jer 29:14; Eze 20:34, 41; Mic 2:12, etc) with Old Jerusalem. By contrast, Ellen White, by title and argument, identifies the "gathering" prophecies with the judgment-hour message, which is to "gather" God's people in a spiritual unity now in preparation for the great "gathering" in the New Jerusalem.

Ellen White’s Own Testimony is Conclusive

That Ellen White did not refer to Paganism in declaring “sacrifice” added to “daily” but defended 1844 and heavenly sanctuary cleansing is evident from her own testimony. In a 1910 interview with Ellen White, Daniells identified two "daily" phases: (a) the AD 538 taking away of the "daily" and (b) the 1844 restoration of the place of Christ's sanctuary, which Edson viewed on October 23 as he saw Christ enter the Most Holy Place. He states:

I called her attention to the fact that there were two phases of the “daily.” One was the time — the 2300 year period [1844], and the other was the casting down of the sanctuary [its daily taken away,AD 538]. It was all called the “daily.” “Now,” I asked her, “what was referred to here? Was it the time? Was it the ‘daily’? Or was it both?” And then I took the chart and showed her the picture of the sanctuary and the period of 2300 days, and she said right away with positiveness, “It was the time that was shown me.”

She said, “Back there, they were trying to set a new time after the passing of the time in 1844. They were re-figuring that period, trying to get the 2300 days to end a little later, so they would have assurance.” And she said, “The Lord showed me that that period was right, that they had the correct time for the “daily,” and that there would never be another time test and ... that they had the right view of the daily as to that period of time” (2300 day/years ending in 1844). (Statement of A. G. Daniells, Sept. 25, 1931, in White Archives.) [Bracketed explanations added by Moore.]

Ellen White clearly made no reference to a Pagan “daily,” but affirmed 1844. To Daniells’ questions about a Pagan “daily,” she only said she had no light on that. When asked which of the two issues she addressed, she immediately replied: “It was the time that was shown me... they had the correct time for the ‘daily’ [457 BC to 1844 AD] and there would never be another time test.” The Paganism issue had nothing to do with either 1844 or a time test!

In 1908 Ellen White replied to Elder Haskell who sought her support:

Elder Haskell, I am unable to define clearly the points that are questioned. Let us not agitate a subject that will ... open the way for those to work who wish to leave the impression on minds that we are not led by God. It will also be a source of temptation to those who are not thoroughly converted, ... (L 250, Aug 28, 1908).

It is evident that at the time of her writing the oft-cited passage in Early Writings, no Paganism issue demanded attention, and Ellen White had no idea which specific interpretation of the "daily" was correct. She merely confirmed 1844 fulfillment of the 2300-day prophecy and repudiated time setting and the “Age-to-Come” theory that old Jerusalem must be rebuilt and the Jewish sacrifices restored so Christ could come to set up an earthly kingdom!

Priesthood of Believers Principles Violated

But while Ellen White had no light on a pagan “daily,” she did have light, and forcefully delivered it in reproving Daniells, not for his doctrine, but for his role in debate:

[Y]ou [Daniels] had no moral right to blaze out as you did upon the subject of the “Daily” and suppose your influence would decide the question. There was Elder Haskell, who has carried the heavy responsibilities ... and several men I might mention who have the heavy responsibilities.

Where was your respect for the men of age? What authority could you exercise without taking all the responsible men to weigh the matter? (Manuscript 67, 1910; MR 1425, p. 2, 3).       

Authority, the crucial principle violated, resides in the whole body and its various elected leaders, not in small group of men — not even a few top administrators. Ellen White severely reproved Daniells for exercising kingly authority. In violating priesthood-of-believer principles by failing to honor older men of experience, he stimulated their distrust and life-long opposition.

Arthur White states how his father saw this issue in volume 6 of his biography:

W. C. White repeatedly declared his position that statements in the Spirit of Prophecy must be taken in their proper context. On the question of the Early Writings statement in which the daily is mentioned, he considered it relevant that his mother had written much concerning the importance of the Advent Movement and of the 2300-year prophecy, while the nature of the daily itself was "wholly ignored" in all her writings except in one thirty-five-word sentence, found in the middle of the argument that "time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test." To him the context of the statement found in Early Writings seemed to involve the entire article in which the statement was originally written, the entire scope of the Ellen White writings on the subject, and the historical background of the original writing (DF 201b, WCW to J. E. White, June 1, 1910). {6BIO 261.2}

Daniells was also reproved for his neglect of city evangelism and giving enemies ground for attack. Kellogg, Jones, and Ballenger, who in different ways had threatened truth, were continuing their attacks. This was no time for the internal conflict Daniells and Prescott unnecessarily initiated and that the old-timers aggressively pursued. Both sides needed to do what Ellen White called for — to humbly and without prejudice consider the issues together.

Two years earlier (July 1, 1908), Ellen White had warned Prescott:

It will be a great mistake if you agitate at this time the question regarding the “daily,” which has been occupying much of your time of late. I have been shown that the result of your making this question a prominent issue would be that the minds of a large number will be directed to an unnecessary controversy, and that questioning and confusion will be developed in our ranks (emphasis added).

Ellen White did not say the issue should never be discussed. She only said it should not be agitated “at this time,” assuring, “I have no special light on the point presented for discussion.” Thus she repeatedly said she had no light on the “daily” as it relates to Paganism.

We might ask, Who showed unbelief in the spirit of prophecy? Those who were charged with denying it? Or those making their interpretation of her two sentences a test of faith when she insisted: (a) she was not shown the issue; (b) she did not know the answer; (c) it was a minor issue; (d) she was shown it should not be debated and that (e) her statement should not be used to decide the issue. How true her prediction of “unnecessary controversy ... and confusion.”

Time to Test My Testimony

It may now be providential that this issue has re-surfaced. For it calls attention to Christ and His “continual," substitutionary ministry in the Most Holy Place. Only a focus on Him Who in the judgment is our Righteousness can protect against legalistic tendencies. This provides insight into Minneapolis principles that have never been given adequate attention. That its discussion is not now in an ugly, emotional climate with charges of heresy, and that both sides agree on basic principles of the judgment message, indicates that the timing is right.

I have presented my testimony forthrightly, forcefully, and as an open-shut issue, as did Wieland. Since we draw very different conclusions, it is important that each examine the evidence very carefully with a commitment to follow the evidence. More important than the conclusion drawn is the need to wrestle together as we attempt to apply priesthood-of-believer principles.

I thus invite you to test my claims as we now examine Wieland’s paper, “Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables?” But first we will examine a briefer paper by F. G. Gilbert, "A Scriptural Exposition of H-T-Mid, The Daily, Daniel 8:11-13.” Though not a pioneer, he was an intense participant in the “daily” debates at the turn of the 20th century. His argument was persuasive to Wieland, who gave me a copy in 1980 along with his own paper. As far as brevity allows I outline both arguments with their own words; all key expressions are theirs. (Read Gilbert and Wieland files now by clicking on the links at left or in this paragraph. (Left column = Gilbert’s Pagan Rome interpretations.)

Summary & Conclusions

As in the 1851 “daily” debate, Ellen White’s burden at the turn of the century was to keep present truth of 1844 and the judgment central. Not only did the controversy direct attention away from this, but violation of priesthood-of-believer principles hindered spiritual growth and again threatened to divide the church that had just survived the apostasy of well-known leaders. Moreover, the conflict prevented evangelizing the cities, which had been previously delayed by conflicts in the ‘80s & ‘90s, then by the three-fold apostasy. That delay had been the subject of many testimonies over two decades.

Though she opposed the conflict, Ellen White at no time opposed the papal concept of the “daily.” Neither Scripture nor history affirms that the "daily ... taken away" (rum; Dan 8:11) is Paganism absorbed by the Papacy. Nor does "take away the daily" (11:31) refer to papal triumph over Pagan headquarters. Miqdash, throughout Scripture a synonym of qodesh, refers to Christ’s sanctuary (Appendix B). And Rum and sur, as synonyms, refer to casting down the “place of His sanctuary” by casting down the truth regarding it.  So completely did the papal counterfeit cast down the truth of the “place of His sanctuary” that neither Millerites nor their enemies suspected that the sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven.

Intense conflict over what Ellen White declared  a minor issue warns against violating priesthood-of-believer principles and making a primary issue of secondary truth. It also warns against critical attitudes that made two sentences a test of faith in the spirit of prophecy — even when Ellen White insisted that she was not shown whether “daily” was Paganism or Christ’s ministry. Moreover, it reveals our urgent need to heed her admonitions to seek unity in truth, humbly, honestly, and without prejudice, joining in prayerfully examining Bible evidence.

Conradi did not originate the so-called “new-view.” Crosier published it in 1843 and again in his 1845/1846 proclamation of Christ’s 1844 entry into His Most-Holy-Place Day-of-Atonement ministry (Dan 8:14). Accepted by at least some pioneers, it was later surrendered due to confusion over Ellen White’s statement. It was wise to leave it without debate at the time, because unity in the pillars of present truth were more important than secondary truth they had yet to study together. Since it is God’s plan that all issues be established by corporate Bible study, no vision either supported or denied it.

The specific interpretation of "daily" was also not present truth when the sanctuary message was threatened indirectly by Kellogg and directly by Ballenger’s repudiation of 1844 and the judgment. In time it would intensify the judgment message.  Meanwhile, city evangelism, which had been prevented by the Minneapolis and holy flesh conflicts in the ‘80s and ‘90s, then by the three-fold apostasy, was again put on hold. Ellen White eventually called papal view promoters to leave their offices to evangelize the cities.

Present truth always demands our sharpest focus. To divert from it, Satan stirs conflict over non-testing truth. That a concept is true is no sign it should be proclaimed. The enemy seeks to divert from present truth and divide by a secondary truth focus. Had the 1888 message been internalized, its principles would have prevented the “daily” conflict and prepared for Scriptural unity.

---