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.
Lesson 6: “The Hour of His Judgment”
COLLEEN TINKER
Problems with this lesson:
- The lesson ignores the fact that Adventist scholars have long known that the framework for explaining their “investigative judgment” is not in the Bible.
- The Adventist explanation of Daniel 8:14 in the larger context of the whole chapter is deliberately deceptive.
- The author ignores the linguistic fact that the 2300 days are literally “evenings–mornings” and, in historical context, describe the number of evening and morning sacrifices that were not offered under Antiochus Epiphanes.
The investigative judgment has been called a great face-saving device to explain why Jesus didn’t come in 1844. Unlike most Millerites, those who coalesced into the Seventh-day Adventist church refused to admit the date had been wrong (and refused to repent of date-setting). Instead, they claimed they got the event wrong. The investigative judgment is the strange teaching that emerged out of the embarrassment of their having put all their energy into defending Miller’s date of October 22, 1844.
We don’t have to go far back in modern Adventist history to find an excellent expose of Adventism’s defense of the investigative judgment and its “sanctuary doctrine” related to 1844. In spite of Ellen White’s endorsement of this doctrine and of the entire framework of Adventist theology built around this unbiblical invention, Adventist pastors have never been able to offer clear biblical evidence to support this teaching.
In 1980 at Glacier View, Colorado, the late Desmond Ford offered his in-depth, documented defense showing that the Bible clearly teaches the OPPOSITE of the investigative judgment. In fact, Hebrews 9 clearly shows that the teaching of this doctrine is opposed by Scripture.
We have shared links already to Chris Badenhorst’s explanation of the doctrine of the investigative judgment. We have also shared the link to Dale Ratzlaff’s explanation showing that the Greek general Antiochus Epiphanes perfectly fits the description of the little horn on the goat of Greece in Daniel 8.
This week we will share more material that reveals that this doctrine is heretical.
Mark Finley, the author of this quarter’s Sabbath School lessons, states this in the copy for Monday’s lesson:
Some argue that the 2,300 days are literal days. They also believe that this little horn of Daniel 8 applies to the Seleucid military leader Antiochus Epiphanes (216 b.c.–164 b.c.), who attacked Jerusalem and defiled the Jewish temple, even though 2,300 days does not fit even his time frame. This interpretation, however, is contrary to the angel’s clear instruction that the vision applies to the “time of the end.” Antiochus Epiphanes certainly did not live at the time of the end.
In Daniel 8, Gabriel begins his explanation of the 2,300-day prophecy. He names the ram as representing Media-Persia and the male goat as representing Greece (Dan. 8:20, 21). Though not named, as are the two powers before it, the next entity, the little horn, is obviously Rome (Dan. 8:9, 23, 24). He then depicts a kind of religiopolitical phase of Rome, which would “cast down the truth to the ground” (Dan. 8:10–12, 25) and interfere with Christ’s heavenly ministry (Dan. 8:10–12). The cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14, the climax of the chapter, is God’s answer to the challenge of earthly and religious powers that have attempted to usurp the authority of God. It is part of God’s divine solution to the sin problem.
First, Dale Ratzlaff shows in his article linked above, that the defilement of the temple and the 2300 days perfectly fits the time-frame of Antiochus Epiphanes and the desecration of the temple that he carried out.
Second, to say that the little horn is “obviously Rome” is to make a statement completely without support. In the context of Daniel 8, the little horn comes out of the shaggy goat whom the angel identified as Greece. There is NO HINT in the angel’s explanation that any other kingdom is in view.
Horns do not exist apart from the animals from which they emerge. This particular little horn emerges as one of the four small horns that replaced the initial large horn that came out of Greece. The large horn represents Alexander the Great. The four smaller horns that replaced Alexander were four of his generals who divided the empire into four sections. Two of those four were especially concerned with Israel because they essentially were separated by the Holy Land.
The Ptolomey kingdom took rulership of Egypt, and the Seleucid kingdom reigned from the region of Syria. Antiochus Epiphanes eventually became the Seleucid ruler—although he was not the rightful heir—and he is the one who devastated Israel, trampled the temple, set up an altar to Zeus in its premises, and offered a pig on the altar. He most definitely WAS from the empire of Greece, and his devastations were foretold to Daniel in the vision of Daniel 8. Furthermore, we see the historical evidence that Antiochus’s desolations were part of Daniel’s epic vision of Daniel 11.
We see, when we look at Daniel 11, that there is yet to come a future political power who will devastate Israel again—and his devastations are prophesied to be very similar in nature to those Antiochus Epiphanes did. In this sense, Antiochus Epiphanes is a foreshadowing of the future antichrist who will one day wreak devastation in the Holy Land until he is destroyed by the sword that comes from the mouth of the Lord Jesus as described in Revelation 19.
The fact that Antiochus Epiphanes foreshadows the antichrist who is represented in Daniel 7 by a horn coming out of Rome does NOT make the little horn of Daniel 8 the same person as the little horn of Daniel 7!
This fallacy establishes a complete straw-man argument to support the deeply flawed doctrine of the investigative judgment!
This week I encourage you to listen to the Former Adventist Podcasts that deal with this prophecy. Here are the links:
- Adventist Crown Jewel Is A Fake
- The Angel Reveals the Meaning
- Cancelled! Adventism’s Interpretation of the 70 Weeks
- Over 100 Prophecies Precisely Fulfilled (Stuff We Didn’t Know)
- The Gap Is Real! Antichrist Is Coming!
If your experience is anything like mine, the Adventist time prophecies and day-for-a-year confusion causes you to shut down—or at the very least, to roll your eyes in frustration.
In context, however, these prophecies are surprising and exciting. They are not vague but have clear meaning and historical validation. Don’t let Adventism’s shaming declarations intimidate you. The Bible is clear, and the Holy Spirit who gave Daniel these visions is alive and well, instructing those who honor the Lord in the details of His word. He reveals what He wrote.
We don’t have to live in fear and irritation. We can know that God revealed His will, and He didn’t stutter. Adventism gets this section of Scripture wrong—and its purpose is to deceive members into a fearful loyalty to the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath.
Jesus, though, fulfilled the law, and these prophecies are for our comfort and understanding.
Don’t let the fear of EGWs warnings cause you to retreat and look away. The Bible will not fail you. God does not trick us. Ask Him to reveal Himself to you; He will. †
- Should We Leave the “Isms”? - May 9, 2024
- May 11–17 - May 9, 2024
- We Got Mail - May 9, 2024