David,

I very much appreciated your perspective. I think you placed this teaching in a very good context.

I do have a question, though. You wrote, "Some object to promoting that belief because it cannot be arrived at exegetically, because one must use information other than what is present in the Bible to arrive at the year 1844. However I submit that no belief is formulated exegetically but rather theologically with exegetical support. And the point of this column is not to survey the corpus of exegetical support for 1844, but rather to point towards the theological significance of 1844. "

What, exactly, do you mean by this? How does one have to use "information other than what is present in the Bible to arrive at the year 1844"? And I understand the difference between exegesis and theology, but what, exactly, do you mean by "theology" in this context? You seem to imply that "theology" is inferior to "exegesis," as if doing "theology" means that you are "reading into" the text or doing "eisegesis." 

Shawn:

Thanks for your appreciation and good questions. I'll try to address them in order.

What I'm trying to say is that if we think that our beliefs can be formed by simply looking at what the scriptures ment to those who originally read them (i.e. exegesis), we're setting up an impossible standard for belief. For one, it is impossible for us to go back an find out exactly what the scriptures meant. But even if we were able to do that, what it meant to them would not make a difference unless we would be able to say what it means to us today.

To arrive at the the date 1844 you have to use historical information in order to determine the date of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem--information that is not in the Bible. I use this as an extreme example of how it is impossible to arrive at 1844 purely based on exegesis. A more moderate argument is that if Daniel thought the 2300 days ended in 1844, why didn't spell out the calculations. The application of historical information to prophetic interpretation has to be justified theologcially.

By theology, I mean the process by which we reflect on our beliefs about God. I believe this involves the use of theological sources to help us understand the meaning of Scripture today. Only by a theological process (presuppositions about revelation/inspiration, understanding what the text meant, comparing it to the record of history, developing a theory of history and apocalyptic prophecy, etc.) can we justify connecting historical information to the text and arriving at the date 1844.

So, no, I don't think theology is inferior to exegesis, but rather relies on it. As I stated, beliefs are formulated "theologically with exegetical support." Both are good and necessary.

David Hamstra

From David Hamstra:

"I'm referring the significance of the date here. (Exactly what happened in 1844 is a subject for another column.)....And the point of this column is not to survey the corpus of exegetical support for 1844, but rather to point towards the theological significance of 1844. 

"To me 1844 means that salvation is a process".

"that he would not return until after that date. 1844 reminds me that, while the Cross is central and essential, there's more to the salvation than just the Cross."

" 1844 insists that history is the medium in which God accomplishes our salvation on earth and in Heaven. "

  David, I'm not sure I understand this. The 'significance of the date' is rooted on one's personal theological interpretation of the the date. You can't put one on the shelf and explain the other in isolation. You cannot put aside the exegetical issues of what occurred at 1844 but put forth personal views that are rooted in a specific exegesis and interpretation. It seems you have already put forth the personal belief that Daniel 8:14 does in fact support the traditional SDA interpretation of the investigative judgment when you say '1844 means salvation is a process', '1844 reminds me that there's more to salvation than the cross". These views find their foundation in the traditional interpretation so you are in fact determining what did happen in 1844.

  I understand that this is what 1844 means to YOU, but it sounds like you are trying to separate the two. Perhaps it might have been better to simply discuss what it means to you in light of your personal conviction on how Daniel 8:14 is to be properly understood.

Darrell

David,

I understand what you are saying. However, I think you are giving the exercise of exegesis too much credit. Not that I disagree with the importance of doing solid exegesis, but the exegete hardly - if ever - exegetes a text without using extrabiblical material and sources. He/she always tries to consider historical context, geographical context, the audience to whom it was written, etc., and these are often only deduced through extrabiblical materials.

So to single 1844 out as needing extrabiblical material, and thus insinuating that it is a belief that is not deduced from purely exegetical grounds, is a bit misleading.

Furthermore, you wrote, "What I'm trying to say is that if we think that our beliefs can be formed by simply looking at what the scriptures ment to those who originally read them (i.e. exegesis), we're setting up an impossible standard for belief." But I take disagree with this sentiment for two reasons:

1. Contrary to popular belief, exegesis does not mean we are trying to figure out what a scripture meant to those who originally read it. Yes, we can try to grapple with how we think the original audience interpreted them, but we have no way of knowing for sure. I would refer you to a post I shared a few months ago called "Intent." http://newenglandpastor.blogspot.com/2009/05/intent.html

But, in summary of that post, as Dr. Dick Davidson shared with me: the job of the exegete is to figure out what the text says not what we think the audience thought of it or even what we think the author was saying. We have no way of knowing for sure what the author/audience thought of the text because they are not sitting next to us. Plus, how do we even know if the "original audience" understood what the author was intending?

We also set ourselves up, rather unwittingly, perhaps, to rely upon some type of "apostolic succession" and/or gnostic and/or magisterial authority. I once had someone suggest to me that we should allow the the early "fathers" to interpret Paul for us because they were his original audience and they, obviously, understood what he was saying better than we could - who live 2000 years later. So, instead of thinking we know what Paul said, let's just go to the "fathers" to interpret them for us. My natural response was: "And who will interpret the church fathers for us?" What you get is an infinite regress, all the way up to the Pope - which the person was perfectly happy with.

Anyway, I could say more on this, but time does not allow me.

2. As it relates to Daniel 8:14 specifically: the interesting part of an exegetical study of this passage is that we are the "original audience" anyway. I probably don't need to remind you that this vision referred to the "time of the end" (8:17) and that Daniel was supposed to "shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end" (12:4). So someone who interprets this vision - and book - in relation to current/last day events is standing on good, solid, exegetical ground.

As one who does prophecy-based evangelistic series, 1844 is a means to an end.  The end is to show people that Jesus is coming soon and that they need to accept the work that Jesus has done, is doing, and will still do for them so they can be ready when Jesus comes.  Even if the date was wrong, and I don't believe it is, the 2300 day prophecy lends itself to an understanding of the times we're living in.  I like to think of it this way.  After Jesus rose from the dead He entered the sanctuary in heaven and the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples who were meeting in a little room awaiting Pentecost.  In 1844 Jesus entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary and once again the Holy Spirit was poured out in a manifest way on a small group of believers in a little room.  I think of it as sort of a 2nd Pentecost where the promise of the gifts of the Spirit being present in God's church until Jesus comes was made more manifest.  As a result of those gifts the Advent message has gone around the world.  If we lose 1844, we lose our significance as a chosen people with a special message.

Pastor Stewart Pepper                                                                                                                    www.lewisburgchurch.org

Darrell:

You wrote that I "cannot put aside the exegetical issues of what occurred at 1844 but put forth personal views that are rooted in a specific exegesis and interpretation."

But I respectfully submit that I can. Fighting exegetical battles over Dan 8:14 has gotten our church nowhere. Because both sides in those battle refuse to explore their theological motivations with each other. We're vulnerable when we admit that our interpretive conclusions are motivated by our theology, but that's exactly what happens in the real word. What I'm sharing with you in this article is the theology that motivates my interpretation on Dan 8:14.

Desmond Ford was absolutely motivated by soteriology (doctrine of salvation) when he interpeted Dan 8:14 the way he did. And he pointed out genuine flaws in our atonement/judgment theology. But church leaders were unwilling to accept that critique because he poked Adventism in its historicist theological funnybone. And the subsiquent surface level fight over exegetical issues (e.g. the DARCOM series) served to remove from the discourse any theological reflection on why these issues actually matter.

So now 1844 is something most Adventists know they're supposed to believe but aren't sure why. Every year of so they relearn how to arrive at the date from the lesson quarterly, a traveling evangelist, or a book that proposes to make the logical sequence more simple. But no one is talking about what it means beyond the barest understanding that Jesus is coming soon, as if that were sufficient 165 years later.

You also take issue with my separating the date from the event. I also respectfully maintain that this is also possible, as Norman Young's Spectrum article from (Summer?) of 2004 demonstrates. In it Norman Young shows why, in an free-will soteriology a pre-Advent judgment is required, but did not address when or how such a judgment would occurr. Now I believe that 1844 is about more than judgment (as I said, it's a subject for another article), but I'm basically trying to mirror Young be discussing why the date is important without addressing what exactly happened on it.

I am still curious, as an Adventist (assuming you are), from your perspective what does 1844 mean to you? 

David Hamstra

"I am still curious, as an Adventist (assuming you are), from your perspective what does 1844 mean to you?"  David Hamstra

I am an SDA and have been for 24 years. From an exegetical perspective I don't believe 1844 means anything.  I do not believe that our current interpretation is correct. I do agree with a pre-Advent judgment, but I do not believe that this can be exegetically (or logically) derived from Daniel 8:14.

However, I do believe 1844 is significant in what it did for a small group of believers. It re-energized the message of Christ's soon return and started a movement that has changed the world. In other words, I think 1844 has more historical significance than biblical significance. In this regard, I feel the same as Raymond Cottrell though I disagree with his exegesis of Daniel 8:14. Rather I adhere to Lee F Greer, Larry Christoffel and the jesus institute forum's take on it, that Daniel 8:11-14 finds its fulfillment in Daniel 9:24-27 of the Christ event.

Fascinating paper. I don't know where you can find it anymore but Greer's exegesis is the best I've seen from anyone from any denomination. Amazing coming from a Biology professor. Unfortunately now with the whole LSU fiasco not too many SDAs who desperately need to read it would take it seriously. " It deviates from EGW AND written by a theistic evolutionist too? Toss it in the 'heresy' bin!"

Shawn:

I'm curious in what way you think I'm giving exegesis too much credit. What I'm saying is that exegesis can't take us all the way to any faith, that there has to be a theological process, too.

Now of course, exegesis relies on historical and archaeological research to help establish the context of the text in question. The difference in the Adventist interpretation on Dan 8:14 is the text requires its meaning to be supplied by stitching together the king lists history has given us. This is not a matter of nuancing our understanding of the text with historical by, for example, showing that Balshazar was a co-regent with his father. In Dan 8:14 we're claiming that the text has a meaning that is utterly dependent on the transmission of a separate stream of information, which is not referenced in the text itself. To me, such an interpretation requires a theological justification (the way prophecy functions, how God works in history, etc.), though I would argue that the text also points toward Adventist interpretation as the correct one. In other words, a theological conclusion that is exegetically justified.

Now as exegesis relates to the meaning ascribed to the text original audience or author, I believe that is the critical control on the process. And of course the ultimate goal of exegesis is to understand what the text means. But if we make the process of exegesis about simply establishing what the text itself means, I fear we will end up simply imposing our meaning on the text and justifying it by extensive research (which already what a lot of exegesis is anyway). Now I'm as skeptical of hypothetical audiences and authors as the next guy; I think our best source of information about them is the text iteslf. But I also think dispensing with them will remove the key control that helps us draw the meaning out of the text. In other words, in order to establish what the text means, we first have to look at what it meant. (As you say, we can never be absolutely certain of what the text meant, but nor can be be absolutely certain of what it means.)

Now what I see happeing Dan 8:14 is that Daniel and the exiles were the original audience, and those living in the time of the end are the intended audience. Even if the text meant very little to its original audience, that meaning is the control that helps us establish what the text means to us today. In other words, it keeps us from a ciricular trap that says were living in the time of the end becuase of Dan 8:14 and because where living in the time of the end we know the real meaning of Dan 8:14. No, what the justification of the sanctuary would have meant to Daniel puts a control on what it can be intepreted as meaning today. And if we work within those parameters, we have much more credibility.

Regarding the magesterium scenario you propose, I think it's historically demonstrable that the early fathers digressed rapidly from the Christianity of the apostles as recorded in Scripture on matters such as the Sabbath, the role of prophets, and women in leadership. Therefore I don't think we can equate the two audiences.

Thanks again for a good discussion.

David Hamstra

David,

One thing that 1844 means to me is that the U.S. court system is horrifically inefficient by comparison. Imagine the number of court cases God is ruling on, the immense amount of facts and all, the incredible number of verdicts, all in just the time period from 1844 to the second coming.

Meanwhile here in this country, far, far fewer cases clog up the system, and just one case may take years to go to trial. We have a constitutional right to a speedy trial, but not many make use of that right. Then the lawyers pull all of their tricks and slow things up, and judges may take a year or more just to issue an opinion.

And if you think God has been incredibly efficient judicially since 1844, just wait till you see how many cases He'll cover in the millennium.

How does Canada compare?

The problem you mention, David, of having to go outside of the Bible and use historical data is not one that only affects Dan. 8:14 and 1844. In order to identify which day is the seventh day of the week, we have to do that too. You can't use just the Bible alone and come up with Saturday being the Sabbath, unless the language you are reading it in uses the same word for both Saturday and Sabbath, and you assume that the weekly cycle has never changed.

But regarding the Sabbath we have multiple lines of historical evidence, not just one. Similarly, for 1844 we also have the historical sabbatical cycles that match our interpretation of the 70 weeks, not just the Elephantine papyri.

Ella M

Pastors Hamstra and Pepper,

I don't claim to be a theologian but enjoy Bible study. I have always had this question about 1844 when it is said that Christ enters the Most Holy Place:  What makes a location the most holy place?  How could any place be most holy unless God is present there? Yet if Jesus is also God, He hasn't been in this location, therefore how could it be the most holy place?

Are you saying perhaps that God the Father is there?  Perhaps all of heaven is the sanctuary.  Do we think that the sanctuary on earth was more than a study of salvation but has a literal duplicate in heaven?

On 1844 a lot of important things happened about that time, and I have read that even secular scholars see the period as one that changed religious and secular history.  Oh, but I am talking about the date in earth time.  I cannot believe that heaven has calendars and dates.  It would be in a different time-space dimension.

I have always thought we try to take the Bible too literally and miss the really important points of what it is saying.

Can you answer my questions?

Pastor Pepper:

While I agree in theory that 1844 means Jesus is coming soon, it has gradually lost its ability to impress that reality on our minds as time has gone one. I suggest that we point to prophetic fulfillment happening now, not 165 years ago, to establish the nearness of the second advent. While there is a danger of conspiracy theorizing and sensationalism when connecting current events to prophecy, I do believe it can be done in a realistic and effective way.

Darrell:

Interesting perspective on Dan 8:14. I'm curious how one would connect the 2300 days to the cross.

Mr. (Bob?) Pickle:

As you point out, exegesis does not equal belief. There's a theological process involved, even in something we Adventists believe is as basic as the Sabbath.

Ella:

I definitley don not have all the answers when it comes to sanctuary typology (or any topic of theology for that matter). I'm always learning new things, so I would appreciate it if you would tell me your thinking on the matter.

As I said in my essay, the issue of what exactly happened in 1844 is a topic for another day. That said, I have written a blog post about some of the questions you are asking concerning the 'geography' of heaven. You might find it helpful.

The issues you are talking about are areas where our church is still growing in its theology. For example, my professors at the SDA Seminary are now teaching that Jesus entered the Most Holy Place (or 2nd appartment, if you like that terminology better) of the Heavenly Sanctuary in an antitypical inauguration ceremony (Ex 40:1-9) at his ascention. To my knowledge, this is a new way of understanding Jesus heavenly ministry that builds on the traditional Adventist framework.

In other words, the Adventist sanctuary doctrine is still a relatively young one, its details are being fleshed out, and there is room for people like you to study and find new things to share with your church. I think that's pretty exciting.

Blessings to all, and thank you for your responses.

David Hamstra

I think 1844 is an important historical date, especially for SDA's, but it is not worth fighting with or disfellowshipping people over.  The only possible Bible reference is the 2300 days.  It probably refers us to 1844, but ???

The sanctuary doctrine is important, but does not rise or fall because of the 1844 date.

Ella M

"I definitley don not have all the answers when it comes to sanctuary typology (or any topic of theology for that matter). I'm always learning new things, so I would appreciate it if you would tell me your thinking on the matter."

I will check out your blog.  Having been taught the church's perspective on the sanctuary, I do have questions that I suspect can't be answered this side of heaven.  I think our spiritual ancestors came up with these ideas after their honest study, but am not sure they were all correct--there is much to be learning and I think other Christians have some ideas to look at as well. After all didn't we get the Sabbath idea from another religion?  I do not see this sanctuary teaching as a central dogma of belief as others do.  It may be right--I don't know.  But is it important?  I remember studying it as a student of Dr. Heppenstall at LLU, and he seemed to feel it important yet I always wondered if he didn't have questions as well.

Right now I sort of see it as an interesting study yet believe we put too much emphasis on it.  I find EGW to be an inspired devotional writer, yet not infallible in many areas. She went along with the men around her on dogma at times and yet moved on in her understanding on a lot of issues. 

The closest I have come to a good presentation of the sanctuary comes from a tape by Jack Sequeira. I find him a brilliant scholar of the Bible other than his big emphasis on the nature of Christ as so important. Again it is something I deem unimportant to me and think there are pros and cons. One should feel free without apologizing to have an opinion on these things without forcing it on others.  My husband refers to this site as debating "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."

In the end how we treat each other is most important.  1 Cor. 13 tells it all.

Ella M

David Hamstra:

I read your sanctuary blog and find it quite good in explaining the existence of the sanctuary. I, too, believe it is a metaphor.  In fact I believe the Bible uses metaphors throughout.  Too many try to take everything literally, and you just can't.  That it is an infallible guide to salvation is the only way it can be said to be infallible, and that is all that matters.

Ella:

You hit the nail on the head when you say of the sanctuary doctrine: "It may be right--I don't know.  But is it important?" I think we've spent an inordinate time talking about whether it's right and have missed why it's important. So in this column I'm trying to show why at least one part, the date 1844, is important to me.

Two quick comments: From my study of Ellen White I find it hard to believe she just went along with prevailing view of 1844. EGW, ORL Crosier, and another woman whose name escapes me were the first people to teach a 1844, heavenly fulfillment of the 2300 days, and they were in a very, very small minority in that oppinion. Also EGW know how to stand up to the boys when she needed to (e.g. 1888), so it seems unlikely to me that she would just be swept along by them on such a central teaching.

Also, according to Jesus, the most important thing is to love God, and how we treat each other is like loving God but comes in second. Point being that how we think of God, including the sanctuary doctrine, matters and has an impact on how we treat each other. Problem is a lot of people have had a very unloving view of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. I may have to take that subject up in my next column.

David Hamstra

I have already written in AToday magazine that 1844 and its accompanying sanctuary doctrine may be understood as an Adventist philosophy of history. Essentially, this means that the Adventist movement recognizes that it has an obligation to move history in the direction of God's purpose, as difficult as that may be both conceptually and practically. What happened in 1844 happened on earth. It was the great disappointment and attending events. It is difficult to imagine that heaven has a history in the sense that what happens on earth has a history. The incarnation and the sanctuary message are symbols that function metaphysically, even mythically. These doctrines are created by the theological imagination to provide a means of comprehending what we experience in our spiritual lives as they intertwine with experience in the visible world.

The idea that God reveals himself in history is the result of abandoning the idea that God reveals himself in a set of doctrines, or a sacred text. This change took place during the age of reason. But there is a difficulty with pointing to certain historical events and attributing them to the action of God. Pat Robertson claimed the disaster in Port au Prince was God's punishment for Haiti making a pact with the Devil years ago. So, how does God reveal himself in history. In the nineteenth century, philosophy was recruited to provide the answer. Hegel's dialectical method (thesis, anthesis, synthesis) was a popular and powerful way to describe how history moved to every higher syntheses until absolute spirit was revealed in historical entities and institutions. The dialectic became the paradigm for nearly all of the Heilsgeschichte theologians of the nineteenth century. God works though the dialectic of history to bring religion and religious thought to an ever higher synthesis culminating in Christianity. Marx adopted the synthesis but abandoned the idealism, substituting materialism (dialectdical materialism) as its metaphysics. He concluded that the dialectic would end in the classless society and equal distribution of material goods.The problem for both theology and history is that many competing scenarios are possible, so the problem remains complex; none of the schemes can be considered normative.

So, yes, I think theology is best understood as a process, and this iinvolves history.  But when we talk about God acting in history, we are seeing that action in the rescue efforts in Haiti. Those are human bodies acting like a God who cares in response to a disaster. All other explations are trite. The metaphysical rationale for the earthquake is unthinkable, beneath the dignity of rational thought. I think we will have to look more to the subject of the theological imagination to understand God, and the kind of God, we worship. In the meantime, don't build a city on a geological fault. 

"The idea that God reveals himself in history is the result of abandoning the idea that God reveals himself in a set of doctrines, or a sacred text."

The two are not contradictory. It is because God reveals himself in history, by speaking to men, and intervening in their lives, and inspiring them to speak his word, that we have doctrines and a sacred text.

To say that God reveals himself in history is very different than saying we can see the divine in nature and human history, as you seem to be suggesting. That approach, it seems to me, actually turns God into an abstraction, who is in fact removed from us, who does not really speak and act in a decisive way. This is indeed process theology, or panentheism, as Hartshorne called it. It is radicaly different from the Bible's understanding of God's mighty acts.