December 28–January 4

This weekly feature is dedicated to Adventists who are looking for biblical insights into the topics discussed in the Sabbath School lesson quarterly. We post articles which address each lesson as presented in the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, including biblical commentary on them. We hope you find this material helpful and that you will come to know Jesus and His revelation of Himself in His word in profound biblical ways.

 

Introduction and Lesson 1: “From Reading to Understanding”

How fitting, as we get nearer and nearer to the end, to study a book of the Bible that is prophetic as well as historical. The last time the Sabbath School Lesson covered Daniel was 16 years ago and although this lesson was written new, not just copied (as the study over the book of Romans was for the fourth quarter of 2017) it will almost certainly cover the same territory and be used to “prove” Adventist eschatology.

In fact, in the first day’s study of the first week, we find this sentence that affirms that stance:

“Our church was born from within the pages of the book of Daniel, our study for this quarter.”

The Adventist Church was “born from” the pages of Daniel, but it took a convoluted path to get there, to say the least.

After the Great Disappointment(s) of 1843 and 1844 which were based on William Miller’s contorted ‘proofs’ (which he later renounced as wrong), and the stubborn, perhaps prideful inability to admit an error, certain portions of Daniel were used to support the face-saving explanation that was used to excuse the errors. And not only was Daniel used, the early Adventists also blamed God for their mistake, thereby calling Him a liar. That is clear from this statement from Ellen White:

“God designed to prove His people. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods” (Christ In His Sanctuary p. 120). 

This identical statement was repeated in at least 6 other books with no apparent understanding or concern that these words call God a liar. If everything He supposedly revealed to Ellen White was His direct message, why would He let her report something wrong and then cover it up for her? Although the date-setting was from William Miller, she heartily endorsed it as the truth.

On a side note, how sad to claim that your church was “born out of Daniel” when the Church, the Bride of Christ, was born out of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, and out of the gift of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The difference certainly sets apart the Adventist Church as different, but not in a good way as they intended!

In the introduction, we find clear indications that this study will be just a rehash of Adventist eschatology, relying heavily on Daniel 8:14. The book of Daniel is called “a powerful, faith-affirming document”, but I don’t find my faith affirmed by any doctrine that is taken so far out of context of the actual words of the book that it is essentially a re-writing of the Bible.

This sentence near the end of the introduction to the quarter’s lesson shows the subtle error in Adventist theology regarding the Holy Spirit:

“From King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to Daniel’s deliverance from the lions’ den, the book shows us God’s immanence, or His nearness to us”

It is subtle, but it underscores the Adventist lack of understanding that the Holy Spirit is sealed within us, not just “near” us. A small point, perhaps, but one of many incorrect blocks in the wall of Adventist theology.

At the end of the week, one of the questions to discuss follows this same line of thought:

“At the same time, how does it make you feel to know that the Lord is so close that He knows your very thoughts?”

In this context, God is not understood to be within us but rather, He is just “close” to us. Again, perhaps, this is a small, subtle difference but it reveals a lack of understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit as our seal, our guarantee, of salvation (Ephesians 4:30 among others). It also reveals their lack of understanding that the church is different from Israel.

This understanding that the Holy Spirit is just “near” goes along with the Adventist belief that salvation can be lost by walking away from it or even by not confessing each individual sin. But Jesus said that no one can snatch us from His hand (John 10:28, 29) and the will of the Father is that all who come to Him will not be lost (John 6:39, 40).

 

Christ: The Center of Daniel 

Here we see a concerted effort to equate events in the book of Daniel with the life of Jesus. There are some unnatural connections made between what happened in the story of the four Hebrew youths to events in Jesus’ life. I have never seen this done before, and it seems a bit contrived. I don’t think those events were intended in any way to foreshadow the Messiah and His life.

The apparent purpose of this comparison is made clear when you get to this sentence:

“And chapters 10–12 present Christ as Michael, the Commander in Chief…”

Right at the beginning they are introducing another un-Biblical, heretical Adventist belief—that of Jesus as an angel—called “Michael, the Commander in Chief”. Strong’s Concordance is quite clear that the word “archangel” indicates an angel that is head of all the other angels. But Jesus is not, and never was, an angel. He is God and always has been. (I find myself wondering just how many more unique Adventist doctrines and beliefs will be squeezed into this lesson!)

 

Apocalyptic Prophecies in Daniel

In this section, there is an odd attempt to differentiate prophecy based on how God reveals things to prophets, rather than by the subject of the revelation, by separating prophecies into “apocalyptic” and “classical”. There seems to be no effort to use traditional, basic definitions of those words.

For instance, Merriam-Webster defines apocalyptic as:
1: of, relating to, or resembling an apocalypse apocalyptic events
2: forecasting the ultimate destiny of the world : PROPHETIC apocalyptic warnings
3: foreboding imminent disaster or final doom : TERRIBLE apocalyptic signs of the coming end-times
4: wildly unrestrained : GRANDIOSE 
5: ultimately decisive : CLIMACTIC an apocalyptic battle

The meaning is in the message and purpose of the specific prophecy, not the the manner of revelation from God. From the lesson:

“In apocalyptic prophecy God uses mainly dreams and visions to convey His message to the prophet. In classical prophecy, the prophet receives “the Word of the Lord” (which can include visions), an expression that occurs with slight variations about one thousand six hundred times in the classical prophets.”

By their own definition, both can include “visions”, so it is unclear just where they draw the line between the two; unless it is stated that way to explain the “visions” of Ellen White.

“On the basis of such passages as” (followed by some texts to read) “ some Christians today expect the final events of world history to unfold in the Middle East. What is wrong with this interpretation? How can knowing the difference between apocalyptic and classical prophecies help us clarify this matter?”

Let’s look at just two of those texts listed in support of that amazing and bizarre statement: 

The burden of the word of the Lord is against the land of Hadrach, with Damascus as its resting place for the eyes of men, especially of all the tribes of Israel, are toward the Lord” (Zechariah 9:1).

In the next 9 verses there are more than a dozen names of specific “Middle East” places. And the other, also from Zechariah:

In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south (Zech. 14:4).

By naming specific places, it is quite clear that those events will take place in the “Middle East”. Just where do they think it will happen, if not in the very places listed? You can come to the lesson’s astounding conclusion only by making all of those names symbolic, when in reality, they are specific, known places. Just where will Jesus put His feet when He returns, and what will be split “from east to west”? I have never heard that one explained outside of the literal meaning of the names listed.

This is another blatant example of Replacement Theology which re-writes the Bible to rip Israel from its place in God’s plan and replace it with the Church. And, apparently, they replace Israel with the United States in end-time events. But again, what will “split” if it isn’t the literal Mount of Olives?

The lesson has to say this in order not to contradict Ellen White because in the 1800’s, when Ellen White produced much of her writings, the people in New England assumed that all of the end time events revolved around themselves and there is no way to get back to reality without disavowing her; and that is one thing they cannot do and still survive as a distinct denomination. In their own words, they have admitted that without her, they have no reason to exist as a unique, ‘remnant’ church. What an odd claim for a supposed Christian church to base their whole reason and justification for existence on a 19th century person, not the person of Jesus.

 

Contemporary Relevance of Daniel

This section is refreshingly good and makes some good statements about God and His hand in world events and in our individual lives. These three sections are well stated and explained:

• God stands sovereign over our lives
• God steers the course of history
• God provides a role model for His end-time people

Friday’s lesson is the typical reading from Ellen White, not the Bible. The first quote from The Great Controversy includes this sentence:

“The word of God is plain to all who study it with a prayerful heart.”

While very, very true, even a prayerful heart will not find plain truth if it is set on previously determined theology and is “prayerfully” looking for confirmation of that belief regardless of what the Bible says. 

Yes, God can break through the errors in our minds, but only if we let Him teach us. He is the only reliable source of truth and our theology and beliefs must be based on His word. Our theology must be adjusted to fit the Bible, rather than adjusting the Bible to fit our theology. Otherwise, we will not find God’s truth.

So, there we have it—the first of 13 “lessons” on the book of Daniel. Is it too much to hope that this quarter’s lessons will be more Biblical than in the past? 

Most Biblical scholars agree that a correct understanding of the book of Daniel is necessary to come to a correct understanding of the book of Revelation, but by inserting Adventist theology into the mix, I am afraid that a correct understanding is out of reach. †