The “Daily” in “Early Writings”

Inasmuch as an appeal has been made to the teaching of the spirit of prophecy as the basis for the claim that the “daily” of Daniel 8 is paganism, and that it was taken away in 508 a. d., it seems necessary to consider what is said in the spirit of prophecy concerning the “daily,” in order that, if possible, the prejudice which has been created by the misinterpretation of a certain quotation may be removed. But instead of quoting one or two sentences out of their connection, and interpreting them in harmony with a preconceived opinion, we will quote more at length the passage in question, as found in “Early Writings” (edition of 1893), page 64 of the first part:-THD 2.1

I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them; that his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed.THD 2.2

Then I saw in relation to the “daily” (Daniel 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 correct 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 have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.THD 2.3

The Lord has showed me that the message of the third angel must go, and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the Lord, but it must not be hung on time. I saw that some were getting a false excitement, arising from preaching time; but the third angel’s message is stronger than time can be. I saw that this message can stand on its own foundation, and needs not time to strengthen it; and that it will go in mighty power, and do its work, and will be cut short in righteousness.THD 2.4

The reading of this extract will make it clear to any unprejudiced mind that the topic under consideration is the question of time. The application of the counsel here given will be understood more clearly by a consideration of the experiences of the Advent believers up to the time when this testimony was given in 1850. The orthodox interpretation of the little horn of the eighth chapter of Daniel was that it was a symbol of Antiochus Epiphanes; that the 2300 days were literal days, commencing with the time when Antiochus polluted the temple at Jerusalem; and that “the daily sacrifice” referred to the daily offerings made according to the ceremonial law. In harmony with this view the translators supplied the word “sacrifice” in the expression “the daily sacrifice.” The Adventists, on the other hand, maintained that the little horn was a symbol of Rome, pagan and papal; that the 2300 days were prophetic days, fulfilled in literal years; and that this period commenced in b. c. 457 and ended in 1844. After the passing of the time in 1844, there was an effort made to readjust this period of 2300 years to some point in the future; and up to 1850 at least six different adjustments had been made, bringing much confusion into the Advent ranks. Then came this counsel through the spirit of prophecy, that the word “sacrifice” should not be supplied, and that, therefore, the interpretation which found in the work of Antiochus the fulfilment of this prophecy was incorrect; that the view entertained previous to 1844, which made the year 1844 the true termination of the prophetic period of 2300 years, was correct; and that a true time message would never again be proclaimed. “Time has never been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.”THD 2.5

This same general statement was made later, and is found on page 107, second part of the same edition of “Early Writings,” being the seventh paragraph of the article entitled “The Advent Movement Illustrated:”-THD 3.1

Jesus did not come to earth as the waiting, joyful company expected, to cleanse the sanctuary by purifying the earth by fire. I saw that they were correct in their reckoning of the prophetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844, and Jesus entered the most holy place to cleanse the sanctuary at the ending of the days. Their mistake consisted in not understanding what the sanctuary was and the nature of its cleansing.THD 3.2

That this is the right view of this instruction given through the spirit of prophecy, will appear more plainly when we remember that since 1844 there has been until recently no difference of opinion as to what the “daily” was, and that the confusion which arose after 1844 was not on account of a change of interpretation in this respect, but because of the many attempts to readjust the prophetic period of 2300 years and to set new times still in the future for the expiration of this period, and for the appearance of Christ in the clouds of heaven; therefore, it is said; “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 have followed.” The “other views” were with reference to the time, concerning which many different interpretations were brought forward, causing “darkness and confusion,” but during all that period there was no controversy as to what the “daily” represented.THD 4.1

In interpreting this prophecy the early Adventists placed the emphasis upon the question, “How long shall be the vision concerning the ‘daily’?” etc., and upon the reply, “Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings.” This period of time and the date which marked its expiration were the subjects which claimed their chief attention, and concerning these matters they had the correct view.THD 4.2