SDA position on the Daily

[Twilight II]

Daniel understood what the daily was.

So it had to be something he was familiar with.

Which points quite plainly to the sacrificial system.

[ClubV12]

Let us not get to hung up on the details and consider the broader message that John touched on, "purification" in light of the understanding of the book of Daniel being for OUR time. I think that is SO huge, I could see starting a new thread exploring that subject.

WITH a note of caution to those who love to bicker, grumble and complain about the 2,300 day prophecy and endless rounds of complaints about Adventists in general. It's not asking to much for those who believe to be able to have a reasonable discussion without the constant interuptions from skeptics.

[Twilight II]

Num 4:16 And to the office 6486 of Eleazar 499 the son 1121 of Aaron 175 the priest 3548 [pertaineth] the oil 8081 for the light 3974, and the sweet 5561 incense 7004, and the daily8548 meat offering 4503, and the anointing 4888 oil 8081, [and] the oversight 6486 of all the tabernacle 4908, and of all that therein [is], in the sanctuary 6944, and in the vessels 3627 thereof.

It would seem the word was used in the context of the daily offerings, also the daily partaking of the shewbread.

So Continual and Daily mean the same thing.

It is the continual practice of the ordinances commanded by God to the Hebrews.

Mark

[Twilight II]

Num 4:7 And upon the table 7979 of shewbread 6440 they shall spread 6566 a cloth 899 of blue 8504, and put 5414 thereon the dishes 7086, and the spoons 3709, and the bowls 4518, and covers 7184 to cover withal 5262: and the continual8548 bread 3899 shall be thereon:

Here is the "continual bread" reference.

Compare it with:

Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.

And it all becomes clear.

The "daily" or "continual" is a reference to Christ Himself.

As the "daily bread", as the "continual offering", Christ is represented here.

So the "daily" is indeed referring to the sacrificial system that in fact represents Christ.

Daily = sacrificial system = Christ.

[Twilight II]

So in summary:

Whether you use the translation "continual" or "daily", the original intention of that word was to identify Christ and His merits as the lamb of God, the Bread of Life.

[skyblue888]

Point being made that at first Daniel did not understand the vision but at the end of the day, he did, and he was overwhelmed by it.

sky

[Twilight II]

Point being made that at first Daniel did not understand the vision but at the end of the day, he did, and he was overwhelmed by it.

sky

I agree with you on this Sky.

But the idea was expressed earlier that maybe Daniel did not understand what the "daily" or "continual" was.

I was trying to bring clarity to that point.

[skyblue888]

Yes, I am sure he understood the "daily" as far as the earthly sanctuary was concerned but he certainly did not understand it in the light of the sanctuary in heaven but he did at last and when he was made to see that it would take 2,300 years before the cleansing of the sanctuary could take place, he was taken aback big time.

Right?

sky

[Twilight II]

Yes, I am sure he understood the "daily" as far as the earthly sanctuary was concerned but he certainly did not understand it in the light of the sanctuary in heaven but he did at last and when he was made to see that it would take 2,300 years before the cleansing of the sanctuary could take place, he was taken aback big time.

Right?

sky

I think something along those lines would be good reasoning.

But to come back to the original point, I really do not understand what all the fuss about the "daily" is?

It just seems so plain to me?

[John317]

Where does it state that Daniel "did not understand" what the "daily" was in the text, or where is that inferred?

My fear is that we are taking the confusion that some have engaged in and insisting Daniel was also confused on that point.

But can we prove that from the text itself?

It's apparent from Daniel 8: 27 and 9: 1-7 that the prophet thought "the daily" referred to the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem. If Daniel understood that the daily was Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, he wouldn't have fainted and been sick for days. He was sick for days because he thought it meant he and his people would not be returning to Jerusalem like the prophet Jeremiah had promised. Even today most Christians believe "the daily" describes the animal sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem which Antiochus IV interrupted.

Angel Rodriguez suggests that the term is better understood as "continuous intercession." (See page 528 of Symposium on Daniel, Edited by Frank B. Holbrook, BRI Committee Series, vol. 2)

[ClubV12]

"But the idea was expressed earlier that maybe Daniel did not understand what the "daily" or "continual" was."

I never saw any post that suggested Daniel did not understand what the daily was, I assume he did in fact. But that should not imply that he understood the entirety of the vision.

The point is, "WE" don't know what it represents with 100% clairity, and that is all the "fuss". Miller was quite sure he understood the meaning, as was A.G. Daniels, as is Twilight. Me? Well the jury is still out, I'm giving it some thought as to what it means. More important, I'm wondering how critical it is to know in precise terms!

[John317]

Yes, I am sure he understood the "daily" as far as the earthly sanctuary was concerned but he certainly did not understand it in the light of the sanctuary in heaven ...

But if he didn't understand "the daily" had reference to the heavenly sanctuary, he didn't really understand it. I don't see any evidence that Daniel ever did fully understand the significance of the daily or of the 2300 day prophecy. That part was sealed and he was told it would not be unsealed until the time of the end. In Daniel 12: 8, the prophet asks "what shall be the end of these things?" and he is told that the answer contained in the book is sealed "till the time of the end." So Daniel never did know the answer to his question.

[skyblue888]

It was possible for Daniel to be shown the entirety of the vision and to understand it for the angel came to explain it to him. He explained to Daniel the first part, the 490 years, the time allotted to the Jewish people. It was not difficult, from there, to see that 1810 years would take him to 1844.

At the time of the first coming of Christ the 70 week prophecy was studied and many people knew that the time was about to be fulfilled for the Messiah to appear. This is made clear in the Desire of Ages. But the priests and rulers discouraged any study of this time prophecy.

This prophecy was lost sight of during the papal supremacy. It wasn't until after 1798 that the meaning of chapters 8 and 9 of Daniel began to be understood again.

sky

[ClubV12]

Of course all this assumes the daily did represent either the earthly or the heavenly sanctuary service in some way at some point in time. Perhaps, it has a different, while related, meaning today, in our time.

I suspect we STILL don't understand it in it's fullness today, like Isaiah56 suggests Daniel did not fully understood it in his time. Were still seeing it through a glass, darkly.

[skyblue888]

Why would Daniel see through a glass darkly when the angel Gabriel came to explain everything to him?

Daniel 10 and 11 reveal that he understood the vision but was overwhelmed by it. He was made to understand the 1260 years of papal supremacy and the rise of the advent movement.

It's all there.

sky

[ClubV12]

Not Daniel so much as US, who may be seeing the daily, through a glass darkly.

If it was clear as a bell, there wouldn't be a "fuss".

[skyblue888]

Please re-read Daniel 10 and 11 again and you will see that Daniel understood the whole vision.

"By the Spirit, He said, He would manifest Himself to them. 'The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things.' No more shall you say, I cannot comprehend. No longer will you see through a glass darkly." D.A.670.

This promise is especially for us.

sky

[ClubV12]

I think the DA qoute is somewhat out of context, because we are also told that not all the mysteries of the bible will be fully revealed. We could study it a lifetime and questions will still remain.

Applying the DA quote to the issue of what is the daily would solve the matter and this thread, the controversy in 1919, Smith vs A.G. Daniel wouldn't exist.

What the Holy Spirit reveals to each of us at any given time is what we need for that time. What constitutes the "daily" has yet to be revealed, in my opinion. Not with standing some folks are SURE they know already.

What Daniel thought it meant is irrevlant to us, in this day.

[Gail]

Enjoying the discussion

[Lysimachus]

All good points, Lysimachus, except that Uriah Smith didn't believe that Rev. 16: 12 refers to the literal Euphrates. In his book on D &R, page 691, Smith says that it is referring to the nation occupying the territory through which the river flows. He was wrong on that point, too, but at least he didn't believe it was the literal river. He apparently understood that it refers to the people, but he limited the people to those who lived in the area of the literal Euphrates River.

Thanks for clarifying that John317. But I was close!

[Twilight II]

I think the DA qoute is somewhat out of context, because we are also told that not all the mysteries of the bible will be fully revealed. We could study it a lifetime and questions will still remain.

Applying the DA quote to the issue of what is the daily would solve the matter and this thread, the controversy in 1919, Smith vs A.G. Daniel wouldn't exist.

What the Holy Spirit reveals to each of us at any given time is what we need for that time. What constitutes the "daily" has yet to be revealed, in my opinion. Not with standing some folks are SURE they know already.

What Daniel thought it meant is irrevlant to us, in this day.

I think that the reasoning for the "daily" or "continous" being the sacrificial services pointing to Christ have been pretty strong...

But I sense that even though this is the most straight forward and logical position presented (if not the only one so far), you have something else in mind?

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

I will gently state that Desmond Ford is the worst thing that has ever happened to the SDA Church.

There's one positive thing that has resulted from Desmond Ford's false teachings, and that is, they have made a lot of SDAs study the subject of the Investigative Judgment like they never have before. The result of false teachings is that they shake people out of the church but they also shake people in and cause them to do deeper study which they otherwise probably wouldn't do.

That is exactly what one SDA writer on the IJ, Bradley Williams, told Dr. Ford in person.

I think God allows false teachings to come for the very purpose that they challenge us to study what we believe and why. In fact, most doctrines of the Christian church were developed because the introduction of false doctrines caused Christians to think through what the Bible teaches. In a sense this is what's happening now in our church.

I do see your point John317. Well put. Iron sharpens iron. I guess when I said it was the worst thing, I meant in perspective of how many people went astray. But it surely was a positive thing as far as causing many of us to search deeper and sharpen our understanding of the Investigative Judgment. One thing is for sure, the IJ sure stirs up a lot of controversy with people. It's like people just don't want to have to accept that we are living in a pre-Advent judgment. That we are being judged BY OUR DEEDS. By their fruits ye shall know them. Yes, Christ's Sacrificial atonement was a COMPLETE atonement. But the benefits of that one-time are NOT complete. If it were complete, probation would be closed, and we would have no Mediator to intercede on our behalf.

[Lysimachus]

Daniel understood what the daily was.

So it had to be something he was familiar with.

Which points quite plainly to the sacrificial system.

But the daily is more specifically tied to the daily intercession that is made on behalf of sinners. Remember, the lamps were burning "continually". Offerings were offered "continually". This went on from evening to morning. Remember, Ellen White herself clearly said that the word "sacrifice" was "added by man's wisdom". She did not endorse this added word.

Remember that the critics were using this word "sacrifice" as proof that it was referring to the earthly Jewish animal sacrifices.

[Lysimachus]

So in summary:

Whether you use the translation "continual" or "daily", the original intention of that word was to identify Christ and His merits as the lamb of God, the Bread of Life.

Amen, I agree.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Where does it state that Daniel "did not understand" what the "daily" was in the text, or where is that inferred?

My fear is that we are taking the confusion that some have engaged in and insisting Daniel was also confused on that point.

But can we prove that from the text itself?

It's apparent from Daniel 8: 27 and 9: 1-7 that the prophet thought "the daily" referred to the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem. If Daniel understood that the daily was Christ's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, he wouldn't have fainted and been sick for days. He was sick for day because he thought it meant he and his people would not be returning to Jerusalem like the prophet Jeremiah had promised. Even today most Christians believe "the daily" describes the animal sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem which Antiochus IV interrupted.

What would you say is the fastest, simplest, and most proficient way to help an evangelical see that the "daily" and the "sanctuary" in Daniel 8:9-14 is referring to the "heavenly sanctuary" and not the earthly? There are so many ways to look at it and evaluate it, that it can be difficult at times knowing how to prove in a simple way that the sanctuary being described is the heavenly.