The vision of the evening and the morning, a study of the prophecy of Daniel VIII.

Front matter

VISION

OF THE

EVENING ii MORNING

Preface

About three years ago, the two authors of this treatise meeting one day, one asked the other this question : "What are you studying now ? " The reply was, "I am studying the subject of the Sanctuary/' The first speaker responded, "So am I." By further conversation it was found that both were in doubt as to the correctness of their former views upon this subject, and that both were seeking for the correct solution of the prophecy of Daniel VIII.

As one of these persons lived in the country and the other in town, and as the one who lived in town was away from home much of the time, they could not collaborate in their studies, but carried them on independently, though they sometimes met and compared ideas and conclusions. Finally each wrote out what seemed to him to be the truth in the matter. What they wrote composes the two parts of this treatise. It has been thought best to publish them in one, that in the mouth of two witnesses, at least, every word may be established.

The reader will notice that while there is a remarkable agreement in the views of the two authors, there is a striking dissimilarity in the way the subject is discussed. The matter presented by one is as an essay without much reference to the hopes built upon this prophecy by the Adventists ; the other writes with special emphasis as to what Adventists believe, and in an

4 Preface.

apologetic tone, of their mistakes. One devotes much space to the specifications of the prophecy relating to the Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, the other to the pollution and subsequent cleansing of the sanctuary. Each part, therefore, seems to supplement the other, which, it is believed, makes the whole more interesting and will stimulate a thorough study of the same.

The ideas here set forth will also explain in part the reason of my silence for some years. When I became thoroughly convinced that as one of its central doctrines the Seventh-day Adventist church w 7 as holding to and striving to perpetuate a gross error, I could no longer be a party to it, much less be enthusiastic in support of the church. I was forced by the inexorable logic of facts to dissent; and this treatise is submitted as evidence that I have good grounds for so doing. Error leads only to bondage ; the truth alone makes one free. And we should not hesitate to accept truth, even if in so doing we are compelled to acknowledge that we have been in error. I firmly believe that herein is presented the absolute truth upon the subject considered, and the truth needs no apology, though it does sometimes, as in this case, need a defender.

And now "with charity toward all, and malice toward none, with firmness in the right as God gives me to see the right/ 7 I lay these evidences of the truth of my contention in this matter upon the heart and conscience of all to whom this work may come, pray-

Preface. 5

ing ever that the Holy Spirit who is to guide us into all truth, may direct the reader in his study and decisions upon this important subject.

Oct. 1, 1907. . Moses E. Kellogg.

This treatise will be sent postpaid to any person in the United States or Canada upon receipt of 25 cents.

BY JOHN KOLVOORD PART I

Every true prediction eventually becomes a historic reality. This statement is self-evident to all who know that prophecy differs from history only in point of time : the one is written before, while the other is written after, the events have transpired. For this reason predicted history, taken in its strictest sense, is not a counterpart of prophecy in its being similar to it as a whole, or in bearing resemblance in some important respect. The relation between them does not consist in correspondence or similarity, but in actual identity as to outlines and particular details. Such history is as much a duplicate of prophecy as a carbon copy corresponds with its typewritten upper sheet. To all intents and purposes, this duplicate corresponds with the original, contains the same provisions, and is governed by the same restrictions.

The Messiah delineated by the ancient seers answers exactly to the historical Saviour of apostolic times. Of this proof Jesus availed himself to convince his despairing disciples. The record says, "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself/' Reviewing the various incidents of his history, he pointed out how each had been minutely foretold. The disciples accordingly, from that time on, saw the identity between the minutest details of his life in prophecy and in history. Thenceforward they read the fulfilment of events in " that which was spoken by the prophets." And for this reason the gospels abound in such utterances as these : "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken ;" "and the scripture was fulfilled, which saith;" "these things were done that the scripture should be fulfilled ;" "and again another scripture saith," etc.

Agreeable to this principle, all the data, taken collectively, constitute the full outline of a particular prophecy. Perhaps a few of its delineations may very appropriately be applied to other events, just as a few random strokes may serve as the general outline for many a portrait. But when the artist develops his sketch by bringing out the peculiar and characteristic delineations, it is only then that the sketch assumes individuality. And even at that stage a stroke added here, or a very little change made there, transforms the subject into an entirely different personality.

These principles should be borne in mind when attempting to explain prophecy; for a failure to comply with this requirement results inevitably in misapplication. Absolute identification should be sought. And having succeeded in proving the identity of the outlines of a given prophecy with the salient features of a historic personality or event, we shall then have found both the original and its duplicate. The one will fit the other as exactly as a casting fits its mold.

Having briefly outlined the principle on which we planned to conduct the investigation, we commence, without further preliminaries, to test the correctness of an accepted interpretation of the sanctuary and the 2,300 days of Dan. 8:13, 14. This study being, in the first place, a test of the quite widely accepted explanation, will have to be prosecuted along two lines — the one negatively and the other constructively. We do not intend to take away without giving something better instead. To this the unbiased reader, who desires truth above anything else^ can have no objection. Error may be fondled, may be regarded invulnerable to sound criticism, yea, may be defended to the last ditch, yet truth, though crushed to earth, will rise again ; " the eternal years of God are hers."

In the symbolic representation of Daniel 8, a ram and a he-goat served respectively as representatives of the Medo-Persian and the Grecian empires. Now, note well that each animal symbolizes a government, but the horns convey different ideas. Those of the ram suggest that the government is a double power composed of the union of two kingdoms. Yet the two form but one empire represented by the ram. Grecia, another empire, has a notable horn, and that horn also does not represent the empire, but Greece's first king only ; for the shaggy goat itself was explained to represent the " king" (kingdom) of Greece. Verse 21.

Similarly in Daniel 7, the nondescript beast is pictured as having ten horns. The animal is interpreted to be a portrait of the third universal kingdom, after Babylon. In verse 24, " the ten horns out of this kingdom " are said to be " ten kings that shall arise." Hence, when Rome was finally divided, the resulting kingdoms perpetuating Roman civilization, language, and laws, were Roman still. And the little horn, coming up among the ten, though diverse from them all, is Romish notwithstanding. All this follows logically, because the beast wearing the horns represents Rome.

The principal question to be settled first is the meaning of the animal. The horns are secondary symbols, representing either the supreme authority of a single monarch, or the kingdoms resulting from the division of the empire. In the case under consideration, the " kingdom " of Greece had a notable horn, which was plainly explained to represent a single king. After his death, the unity of the monarchy was broken into four divisions, as is represented by the four horns. And each of those four horns represents a kingdom over which a dynasty, or a succession of kings, bore rule. Their political nationality is determined by the animal bearing the horns. Relying upon the soundness of this premise, we predicate that the horns of a ram are ram's horns ; the horns of a goat are goat's horns; and the horns of a Roman beast are Roman horns. In the symbolism of Scripture we do not find the anomaly of a Roman horn growing out of a goat's horn. Yet we are asked to believe that the little horn, which sprang out of one of the horns of the he-goat, was then Roman power!

Illustrating the basic principles enunciated, the following corroborative testimony, we think, will settle the question conclusively. In the preceding chapter, the Grecian empire is not represented by a goat with four horns, but by a winged leopard having four heads. Beginning at this point, the symbols represent an absolute identity: the horns and the heads denote the four divisions of the empire. By parity of reasoning, let us now assume that something grew out of one of those heads, just as the little horn came forth out of one of the horns. Would not the bone, flesh, or horn growing out of the head be regarded as a part of the animal, inasmuch as the leopard's blood caused it to grow? Would any sane person, seeing such an outgrowth, think of calling it the beginning of another animal? Could the thing grow, if severed from the head? Or could the thing live and grow after the leopard died? These questions are easily answered; likewise as regards the little horn. It could grow only so long as the goat's blood furnished the increment. The goat could fight with it, but it could not fight against the goat and overcome him. If it was a formidable horn, it was that on account of the strength of the goat pushing it. To believe the opposite is to believe a palpable absurdity. Yet such an absurdity is advocated by those who teach that the horn (Rome) conquered the beast (Greece) out of w r hich it came forth.

Neither was the Roman empire a continuation of the universal dominion established by Alexander, which it would have been had it sprung from the Macedonian horn. Rome existed, as an independent power, long before the Grecian empire wielded its sway over the Orient. There is just as good reason for claiming that the Grecian dominion came in through Medo-Persia, and the Medo-Persian through Babylon, as there is for Rome coming in through the Macedonian horn. When Rome had subjugated the Macedonian kingdom, the he-goat had one horn broken off, but he still lived and fought with three horns. And if Rome was a part of that lost horn, then the empire lost both the horn and the little one comingout of it. Logically then, Greece rid herself of Rome when she lost Macedonia. Thus their argument contradicts itself.

In each panoramic representation of prophecy, the vanishing governments are succeeded either by different animals of by different metals. We challenge a single instance where a distinctly foreign power is represented as issuing out of any part of a vanquished beast. It is, therefore, anomalous and absurd to attribute to Rome what distinctly belongs to one of the horns of Greece.

The theory assailed also runs counter to the plain specifications enumerated in the prophecy. There is no intimation of one of the four horns being destroyed by the little horn. According to a positive declaration of the one who was commissioned to explain the prophecy, the four horns represented the four kingdoms into which the Greek dominion would be divided. Verse 22. The nation continues to be the goat nation, for from this time on a four-horned goat serves as symbol. While the goat had one horn, the executive authority was vested in one king. This idea is plainly expressed in these words: "And the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king." Verse 21. After its division, the empire was ruled by four contemporaneous kings. And as the kingdoms outlasted the lives of several sovereigns, a succession of kings ruled over each. Accordingly, " in the latter time of their kingdom " — i. e., in the latter part of the rule of those four contemporaneous dynasties — ''a king . . . shall stand up." Verse 23. The little horn was thus plainly explained to represent a king. The horn out of which it sprang typified the whole line of kings, and also, by metonomy, their kingdom. The little one which was seen issuing from the large horn was one of the kings composing the dynasty. Differently expressed, the horn together w 7 ith its outgrowth constituted the kingdom, or line of kings. The little horn denoted one king of that line, .the rest of the dynasty being represented by the large horn. Horn and little horn were a unit, and not two horns. This horn had a process, prong, or branch.

As everything depends upon the soundness of the premise, let us make assurance doubly sure by looking at this matter from still another point of view. The eleventh of Daniel contains a fuller and plainer explanation of the symbols of chapter eight. After

Cyrus, thus said the angel, four more kings would rule over Medo-Persia. The last and richest king would " stir up all against the realm of Grecia," but be beaten by a mighty king. The kingdom of this mighty conqueror was next to be broken, and divided "toward the four winds of heaven." The government, it is also explicitly stated, should not descend to his posterity, seeing it was to be given " to others than those." This interpretation is exactly in harmony with the visions of the four heads and the four horns. Next notice that the subsequent part of the explanation drops two of the four kingdoms and proceeds to tell very minutely what was done by "the king of the north " and " the king of the south." The word king, as here used, covers the whole line of Ptolemies on the one hand, and the Seleucid dynasty on the other. But the Macedonian kingdom is not even mentioned, which omission is a significant fact, if it be true that the little horn made its entrance through Macedonia, as has been assumed, and that the Macedonian horn, therefore, constitutes the pivotal idea of the prophecy. Following this line of investigation a little farther, we find exactly the same things imputed to one of the kings of the north which w T ere charged against the little horn. The king who is called " a vile person," in verse 21, should come in contact with the people of God, pollute the sanctuary, take away the daily sacrifice, and place the abomination of desolation. These specifications agree wholly with those of the little horn. From which facts no other conclusion can legitimately be drawn than that the little horn constituted a part of the Seleucid horn of the goat. As was affirmed before, it also proves the unity of the horn and the little horn, for the "vile" king comes in the regular succession of the Seleucid kings. He was in no other sense, than in his special deeds, distinct from them. He made himself conspicuous by his attitude and his actions, wherefore he is represented as an awry-grown part of the horn. In no better way could the attention be drawn to his outrageous deeds.

Having proved that the little horn could not possibly come in by way of the Macedonian horn, the inconsistency of the theory can now be further laid bare by instituting an inquiry into what it was to do ; when that would be done, how much time was allotted to the performance, besides who and what suffered in consequence. There is as gross a misapprehension, or rather misapplication, of these prophetic specifications as there is of the fundamental meaning of the symbol. The erroneous interpretation of the symbol led to a forced and unnatural explanation of what was done. Let us apply the specifications to Rome, and note the incompatibilities.

The little horn was to tread the sanctuary and the host under foot, during a period of 2,300 days. Assuming the days to represent as many years, the end of the time of oppression can definitely be determined by a simple arithmetical calculation ; for, according to the specification of the prophecy, the little horn does it without assistance. Being therefore restricted by this consideration, the period of 2,300 years can not begin prior to the year 161 b. c v when Rome first came in contact with the people of God. Hence the 2,300 years, though crowded back to their utmost limit (161 b. a), will not expire before the year 2139 a. d. And that spoils the theory.

Furthermore, the little horn was to tread under foot both the host and the sanctuary. Harmonious with this specification, it will be impossible to prove that Rome did, and yet will, oppress either Jews or Christians until the allotted time is full. And as regards the treading under foot of a sanctuary that does not now exist, this problem is beyond comprehension. But an expedient to circumvent this embarrassing difficulty has been sagaciously invented. Elder J. N. Andrews stated the matter thus : " The fact is plain, then, that of the vision of 2,300 days concerning the sanctuary, only 490 pertained to the earthly sanctuary ; and also that the iniquity of the Jewish people would in that period be so far filled up that God would leave them, and the city and the sanctuary would soon after be destroyed, and never be rebuilt, but left in ruins till the consummation. ... It is therefore an established fact that the worldly sanctuary of the first covenant, and the heavenly sanctuary of the new covenant, are both embraced in the vision of the 2,300 days." — The Sanctuary and the Twenty-Three Hundred Days.

In accordance with the aforesaid view, the treading under foot of the earthly sanctuary began in the year 457 b. c. ; but it is not explained how the little horn could begin its work 296 years before it even came in contact with the Jews. Or if we are asked to believe that the Persians commenced the atrocious deed in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, then we inquire how the theory can be harmonized with the following decree of Darius, and endorsed by Artaxerxes, in which it is said, " And the God that caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem." As a matter of fact, neither Persians, Grecians, nor Romans caused Israel very much molestation in their belief or worship. Neither did any of them bear a grudge in particular against the sanctuary. This point will become plainer as we proceed.

Notwithstanding, let the assumption be admitted that the sanctuary was defiled for 490 years; on the ground of what specification in the prophecy, then, are we permitted to conclude, that the treading under foot applies to two sanctuaries, the one earthly and the other heavenly? And since the heavenly one was not trodden literally under foot, how can one be answered who insists that the Jewish sanctuary was likewise trodden figuratively under foot by the gentiles? Moreover, since the figurative treading under foot applies to both the people and the sanctuary, prove it, who can, that the people suffered hardship. Inflict a figurative punishment upon the people — "but that would hurt nobody ! " Exactly. Neither can a figurative treading under foot affect an earthly or a heavenly sanctuary. Either is desecrated only by actual contact, or by having sins transferred to it. But transferring sins is not treading the sanctuary under foot. If it were, then the 2,300 days would date back to the days of wandering in the wilderness. The sanctuary alluded to in the prophecy had to be cleansed from being defiled by something called an abomination, as well as from having been trampled under foot. Thus it is plainly specified.

Taking it again on the believed premise, another important consideration is overlooked. During the 490 years Israel's sanctuary was cleansed annually, with but three exceptions. As ceremonial performances, those sanctifications were as really effective as any others made previous to the period of seventy weeks. By those acts the sanctuary was hallowed from uncleanness (Leviticus 16). Whoever reflects upon this will perceive, that neither real nor fancied defilement from any source can be imputed to a sanctuary which has been cleansed. To claim sanctification for a sanctuary still reeking with defilement from any other than Israel's sins, is as contradictory as it is inane. Up to the last atonement preceding the rending of the vail, the sanctuary stood cleansed from any and all uncleanness.

We quote again : " The fact is plain, then, that of the vision of 2,300 days concerning the sanctuary, only 490 pertained to the earthly sanctuary/' — /. N.

Andrews. The fact is still plainer that the temple, being annually purified, no further uncleanness can be imputed to it. Hence the argument does not apply to 490 of the 2,300 years.

The theory respecting the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary is equally inconsistent with the requirements of the type. For, while the high priest performed the cleansing work, no one was permitted to enter the temple. Lev. 16: 17. During that interim there were no sacrifices for sins. Accordingly, the more satisfactorily it is proved to one's liking that the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844, so much the more positively the end of probation is fixed on that date. If Christ then began his change of ministration from priest to highpriest, confession of sins has ever since been in vain. But the thousands who have received forgiveness during the last sixty years, constitute as many separate proofs that the cleansing work has not yet begun. The time is still future when no one will be able, like in the type, to enter the heavenly sanctuary, for that will be after the seven angels have received the vials full of God's wrath. Rev. 15:5-8. Hence, 1844 fails to connect with the time of cleansing. It is separated by an ever-widening chasm of already more than six decades. Prophecy is not fulfilled so discrepancy. If events do not synchronize exactly with the chronology of the prophecy, there is assuredly no connection between them.

Furthermore, there are alleged to be " two opposing sanctuaries in Daniel 8. To the careful reader this fact will at once appear. They are as follows : First, the sanctuary of the daily desolation. Second, the sanctuary which the daily and the transgression of desolation were to tread under foot. The one is the sanctuary of Satan; the other is the sanctuary of the Lord of hosts." — Andrews. Two opposing sanctuaries plus the Jewish one make three sanctuaries. All of them are embodied in a single word ! That word sanctuary is surely pregnant with meaning, for it is made to cover every degree of worship in heaven above, the earth below, even down to the homage paid to Satan. Whoever discovered those three in one must have been a great discoverer of hidden things.

An elaborate argument is also built upon the literal meaning of the word determined. " Seventy weeks," so says the original, "are cut off upon thy people." Very well, take the expression just as it reads. The period was cut off from something. From what? " From the 2,300 days," it is said. The conclusion is gratuitous. The period can just as consistently be cut off from all subsequent time, as from any limited portion. In Job 14: 5 man's days are said to be " determined." Can this expression have no sensible meaning, unless we fancy them as being cut out of some definitely limited period in the sight of God, who sees the end from the beginning, man lives an allotted length of time ; his days are determined, or carved out, without reference to any other event. In the same sense God allotted 490 years, at whose expiration Israel's peculiar relationship came to an end.

In the next place much reliance is placed upon the allegation that the accepted translation of Dan. 8:13 is incorrect. In "Thoughts on Daniel" it is said, " We have proof in verse 13 that sacrifice is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with the word daily. . . . The idea of sacrifice does not attach to the word at all. . . . Literally, it may be rendered, ' How long the vision [concerning] the continuance and the transgression of desolation ?' "

Had the author of the aforesaid criticism been on less than on the most distant of "speaking terms" with the Hebrew language, he would undoubtedly have amended his emendation of the text. The writer of this knows barely enough of that language to cover the simplest rudiments, nevertheless he can, by the help of a lexicon, trace the connection between "continual" and "sacrifice." Therefore, to disprove the assertion that the idea of sacrifice does not at all attach to the word continual, we shall let a Hebrew lexicon decide. Turning to the word tameed, we copy the following definition in full: "Continuance, olah tameed burnt-offering of continuance, i. e., continual or daily burnt-offering, Num. 28 : 6, so also in apposition olath tameed, Num. 28 : 3 ; but also without olath, e. g., hottameed wehaysiroo and they shall put away the constant offering, Dan. 11:31. (2) as adv. continually, ever." — Davies* Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon.

At the institution of the morning and the evening sacrifice, Moses was instructed to offer "two lambs of the first year day by day continually" Ex. 29: 38-46. For this reason it is not far-fetched to call the daily sacrifice the offering of continuance. The Jews of later times called the daily sacrifice simply the "daily,' 5 just as we are accustomed to such expressions as reading "dailies" when riding on a "daily." Such expressions are linguistic peculiarities. And Bevan, when writing on the linguistic character of Daniel, cites the very point under consideration, as an illustration. He says: "Hottameed, Dan. 8:11, 13; 11:31; 12:11. Other Biblical writers call the daily burnt-offering olah hottameed (Num. 28: lOff, Neh. 10: 34), but in Daniel the simple hottameed is used instead — so also in the Mishna (e. g., Ta'aneeth iv. 6)." The Mishna, comprising the "Oral Law," forms a kind of complement to the written law, which it explains and amplifies. This proves how the Jews understood the expression. In the light of such authorities, "the continuance and the transgression of desolation" is to be regarded as a veritable barbarism. It is meaningless and absurd.

But, "the grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2,300 days of Dan. 8 : 14 is, that the seventy weeks of Dan. 9 : 24 are the first 490 days of the 2,300, of the eighth chapter." The crucial test is, then, to be applied at this point. If the logic can be proved to be fallacious, the system, and with it the theory of the sanctuary, must fall. We shall conduct this. investigation first along the illogical lines of reasoning, and afterwards disprove those premises by historical evidence.

The aforementioned "grand principle" is based upon the hypothesis that the period of 2,300 days was not explained to Daniel, in chapter eight. The failure can consist only in not naming its duration, its initial, or its terminal point. The subject under consideration is the taking away of the daily sacrifice, the casting down of the place of the sanctuary, and the treading under foot of sanctuary and host. In reply to the query, as worded in verse 13, and covering the time w 7 hen said specifications were to become events, the answer was given : " Unto two thousand and three hundred days." This is unequivocal ; there can be no mistaking the length of the period. And what should happen at its close? " Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." The taking away of the daily sacrifice and the setting up of the abomination constitute, then, the beginning of the period. This is simple enough for an ordinary child to grasp. Time is not the item that could have perplexed Daniel.

Chapters 10 and 11 are devoted to a plainer and more detailed explanation of the vision. According to verse 14, the angel said, "Now am I come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days : for yet the vision is for many days." The Jews are here named "thy people." In chapter 9 it is likewise said, " Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people." The vision, then, deals with what would befall Israel in the "latter days." This expression, and also "the time of the end," does not mean the end of time. It is a prophetic phrase denoting the time of fulfilment. It is what the prophet sees at the horizon of his vision. Similarly, Jacob foretold what would happen to his posterity "in the last days" — events fulfilled in Palestine. Balaam said to Balak, "And now, behold, I go unto my people : come therefore, and I will advertise thee what this people shall do to thy people in the latter days." Num. 24 : 14. This, also, has happened long ago.