"Tamid" is a transliteration of the Hebrew word translated five times in the book of Daniel as "daily." Three of these five times are in the same context as Daniel 8:14. The other two times are to be found in Daniel 11:31, and 12:11. Basically, the word, tamid, in Hebrew is used either as an adjective or an adverb, and is translated continual, or continually. However, in the book of Daniel , it is used as a substantive, in other words, an adjective standing for a noun. The translators of the KJV sensing this, realized that to give meaning to the text, a word would have to be supplied for it to modify. They chose the word, "sacrifice." Did the translators err in this? Should they have left the word stand alone, and let it be interpreted as a prophetic symbolism? Or, does it have real significance in the context of the sanctuary and its services? It must be kept in mind that Daniel 8:14 is an answer given to a question involving the "daily." Let us note the verses involved in the context for Daniel 8:14. They read:
And out of one of them came forth a little horn which waxed exceeding great, toward south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by [margin - "from"] him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of the transgression, and it cast the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Daniel 8:9-14)
Elder A. T. Jones in writing on this prophecy, observing that the word, sacrifice, had been supplied, nevertheless knowing that it could not be a symbolic representation of paganism wrote:
In Numbers 28 and 29 alone the word is used seventeen times, referring to the continual service in the sanctuary.
And it is the continual service of Christ,
Page 2
the true High Priest, "who continueth ever," and "who is consecrated forevermore in "an unchangeable priesthood" - it is this continual service of our great High Priest, which the man of sin, the Papacy, has taken away. It is the sanctuary and the true tabernacle in which this true High Priest exercises His continual ministry that has been cast down by "the transgression of desolation. "It is this ministry and this sanctuary that the "man of sin" has taken away from the church and shut away from the world, and has cast down to the ground and stamped upon; and in the place of which it has set up itself "the abomination that maketh desolate." What former Rome did physically to the visible or earthly sanctuary, which was "the figure of the true" (Dan. 9:26, 27; Matt. 24:15), that the latter Rome has done spiritually to the invisible or heavenly sanctuary that is itself the true. (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; 8:11,13.) (The Consecrated Way, pp. 99-100)
What is interesting in this incisive analysis of Daniel 8:9-14 by Jones is that in the 27 times that the word, tamid, is used in Numbers 28 and 29, without exception, it is combined with the "burnt offering." In fact, in one instance where the translators of the KJV wished to contrast the monthly burnt offering from the morning and evening sacrifice, the word, "daily" is used. (Num. 29:6) It cannot be denied that a "burnt offering" was a sacrifice. The connection then in Daniel of "sacrifice" with the daily was not too far a field.
Applying the rule of first usage as an interpretive tool, we find the first use of tamid as an adjective in connection with the morning and evening sacrifice. In Exodus 29:42-43, God said to Moses:
This shall be a continual (tamid) burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the Lord: where I will meet you, to speak there with thee.
And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory.
The setting of the instruction concerning the morning and evening sacrifice is significant. Israel had covenanted with God to do all that He would tell them to do.
This 40-day Covenant was ratified in blood. (Ex. 24:4-8) However, this covenant contained no provision for forgiveness broken. (Ex. 23:20-21), Israel asked for no such provision; they sensed no need, they would keep the words of this covenant. Moses then went up into Mount Sinai where he received instruction for the making and setting up of the sanctuary to operate under a "type" covenant. Apart from the service for the consecration of the priesthood, the only other ceremonial service outlined for Moses during the forty days was the instruction concerning the morning and evening sacrifice. The details for the daily services on behalf of sin, and the yearly service of the Day of Atonement are given in Leviticus after the sanctuary was in place.
The message is clear. Before the need arose, provision was made by God to cover the transgression of Israel until they could be convicted of their need and turn to Him for forgiveness. This provision for mankind was met in Him who was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Rev. 13:8) This "daily," "continual," and "perpetual" need of man provided in Christ Jesus, the "abomination of desolation" sought to take away. In the prophecy of Daniel 8:9-13, it is "the little horn" which takes away "the daily" burnt offering "by reason of transgression." In the explanation given by Gabriel in 8:23-25, this power stands "up against the Prince of princes." What pagan Rome did literally, papal Rome has sought to accomplish in the realm of the spiritual.
To say that the "daily" is paganism is to teach contrary to the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When outlining the future for His disciples, Jesus did not say - "When ye shall see the daily spoken of by Daniel the prophet stand in the holy place." He said rather - "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand)." (Matt. 24:15) It was the abomination of desolation in its pagan form which caused the morning and evening sacrifices to cease in the temple where Jesus stated "Your house is left unto you desolate." (Matt. 23:38) It is the papal form, "whose coming
Page 3
is after the working [energy] of Satan" which has blasphemed God's name, "and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven," (I Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:6) through the Confessional and the Abomination of the Mass.
The bottom line in the context of Daniel 8:9-14 is that the cleansing of the sanctuary and the "daily" must be understood in the light of the typical services of earthly sanctuary built by Moses. The relationship between the time of verse 14, and the "daily" is further strengthened by the language employed in the text to designate "days". The usual Hebrew word would have been yom, but the 2300 days is called the vision of "the evening and the morning" (Daniel 8:26, 14 margin), the very language of the daily burnt offering.
Because of this usage for day, instead of Yom, there are those who seek to make the 2300 evenings and mornings merely half days, or 1150 days, thus destroying the whole prophecy in relationship to the culminating date in 1844. In other words, their reasoning is that since the morning and evening sacrifice represented just one's days service in the morning and in the evening, the 2300 days are half days. There is, however, one difference. In setting up the continual burnt offering, the word sequence was "morning and evening;" while the word sequence of the prophecy is "evening and morning" - the reversal. This form harks back to creation. "There was evening, there was morning, day one." (Gen. 1:5 Heb.) Applying this language of Genesis, we would have - There were 2300 evenings, there were 2300 mornings, 2300 days. Thus the very language of Daniel, while borrowing the words connected with "the daily," structures the sequence of those words to connect it with the usage for full days in Genesis.
Within the very text itself - verse 14 - there is a definite connection between it and the services of Leviticus 16, linguistically. In the Septuagint (LXX), the verb, "shall be cleansed," is katharisthesetai, a future passive (3rd person, singular) Leviticus 16:30, summarizing the services of the day of atonement in the LXX reads:
For on this day he shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse you from all your sins before the Lord, and ye shall be purged.
The verb - "shall be purged" in the Greek is identical to the verb translated -"shall be cleansed" - in Daniel 8:14, differing only in person and number.
The application of type and antitype between the ancient sanctuary service and the heavenly reality involving an inter-relationship between Leviticus 16, and Daniel 8:14, stands on solid ground linguistically. "Unto 2300 evenings and mornings, then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
ANTIOCHUS EPIPHANES
THE HE "THE LITTLE HORN" OF DANIEL 8
The reason for discussing Antiochus Epiphanes in relationship to "the little horn" of Daniel 8 is that most modern prophetic commentators consider this Seleucid king as the fulfillment of prophecy as "the abomination of desolation." ["Transgression of desolation (8:13); "the abomination that maketh desolate" (11:31; 12:11)]
Antiochus Epiphanes was the eighth ruler in the Seleucid dynasty which arose out of the divisions of Alexander the Great's Empire. This dynasty was more or less continuous from 312-65 B.C. Son of Antiochus the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes reigned from 175-164 B.C. He designated himself as Theos Epiphanes - "God Manifest." A devotee of Zeus, probably perceiving himself as an incarnation of this chief Greek deity, he sought the advancement of Greek culture and religion throughout the regions he controlled. This brought him into direct conflict with the Jews. He wrought the most damage upon the city of Jerusalem since the siege and destruction under Nebuchadnezzar. The key act in Antiochus' relationship with the Jews was his desecration of the Temple by offering a pig on the sacred altar, and then forcing the people to eat the sacrificed swine. In I Maccabees 1:54, it is stated - "They builded an abomination of desolation upon the altar." Three years later to the day, a new altar was "dedicated afresh." (4:53-54) These historical facts form the basis for the identification of Antiochus Epiphanes as "the little horn" of Daniel 8. A review of the specifications of the prophecy and the statement of Jesus Himself negate such an interpretation.
Daniel 8 begins with a vision of a ram, designated as "the kings of Media and Persia." (8:3, 20) This is followed by a he-goat declared to be "the king of Grecia" with the single notable horn "as the first king." (8:5, 21) The "great horn" is broken, and in its place comes up "four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven." (8:8) This is interpreted by Gabriel to
Page 4
mean that "four kingdoms shall stand up out of that nation, but not in his power." (8:22) The Seleucid dynasty was one of those kingdoms, of which Antiochus Epiphanes was but one of that line not even the greatest!
The prophecy continues - "And out of one of them came forth a little horn." (8:9) Whether the "one" refers back to the "winds" of heaven, or to the "horns" involves the linguistics of verses 8 & 9. If "winds," indicating direction, a significant case can be made as to where "the little horn" was to arise, for direction of conquest, and thus origin, form a vital part of this prophecy. The "little horn" was to move "toward the south, toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Directions were also given for the movements of the ram and he-goat. (8:4-5) For example, the ram moved westward, northward, and southward. This means that he came from the east. See map below. Applying this same criteria to "the little horn" who moved south, east, and toward the pleasant land, he would have to originate in the north and west.
The conquests of Rome followed the directional sequence of the prophecy. First, Carthage to the south; then Greece to the east, and on to the Palestinian area.
There are other prophetic criteria identifying "the little horn." The ram "became great;" the he-goat "waxed very great;" but the little horn became "exceeding great." (8:4,8,9) The interpretation further indicated that the little horn would appear at "the latter end of their [horn's] kingdom." (8:23) Antiochus Epiphanes meets none of these specifications.
In The Historians' History of the World, Vol. V, p. 1 , is an observation which fits perfectly the prophecy if "one of them" refers back to the "horns." It reads:
As a matter of fact, the West [or Greek part of Italy] was left by the mother country to its own devices. But it presently became evident that the development that took place, was fraught with consequences of the utmost moment to the Hellenistic political system. By abstaining from preemptory interference, while such interference was yet possible, the Macedonian kingdoms permitted a power to arise in Italy so strong that in a very short time it proceeded to aim a fatal blow at their own existence.
Jesus Christ Himself gave the final answer as to whether "the little horn" of Daniel 8 was Antiochus Epiphanes. He told His disciples that "the abomination spoken of by Daniel the prophet" was yet future in their day. See Matt. 24:15.
[The above article on Antiochus Epiphanes will appear as Appendix D in the new Bible Study Guide, now in preparation.]
Page 5
SUMMARY REPORT - 6
Editor's Note : Church and State, ( June, 1985, p. 12 ) reported that on May 7, Judge John P. Fullam dismissed a legal challenge by Americans United regarding the diplomatic ties between the Vatican and the U.S. government. He ruled "that the judiciary has no constitutional authority over foreign policy." This dismissal will be appealed. However, since the factual allegations in the Complaint contain important historical information, we shall continue to reproduce that section of the Complaint. Summary Report - 5 was in WWN:XVIII-6, pp. 6-7.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
(Continued)
"On the 7th day of March, 1984, the Senate confirmed the appointment of William A. Wilson as Ambassador to the Holy See.
"Funds for the United States mission at the Holy See were reprogrammed by Congress, and additional moneys were thus made available for the funding of the diplomatic mission to the Holy See and the expenses of the United States Ambassador to the Holy See. Annual appropriation of funds by Congress will be required to maintain the diplomatic mission to the Holy See.
"Contrary to various public statements that were made at the time of the establishment of relations with the Holy See, the exchange of ambassadors contemplated was not with the State of the City of the Vatican, but rather was with the Holy See. This was confirmed by an address of Archbishop Pio Laghi, Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in the United States, at The Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., on April 6, 1984, wherein Archbishop Pio Laghi stated:
Papal diplomacy has been referred to as sui generie because nowhere is it exactly paralleled. In fact, the Catholic Church is the only religious body that I know of that engages in direct relations with various states. You recall the confusion and controversy that arose in the media at the time it was announced that the United States and the Holy See intended to re-establish diplomatic ties. Some mistakenly tried to justify the American government's action by implying that it was entering into a diplomatic relationship not with the Roman Catholic Church as such, the Holy See, but rather with the sovereign Vatican City-State.
Papal Diplomacy rests essentially upon the spiritual sovereignty of the Holy See and not upon dominion over a few acres in the heart of Rome. (R. A. Graham, S.J., Vatican Diplomacy, p. 15)
"It is, therefore, the Pope's religious authority which confers upon him the classical right of legation, a diplomatic standing in the world. Those who interpret Papal Diplomacy as emanating from the Pope's temporal sovereignty are failing to understand the true nature of the mission of the Holy See. ...
"The Pro-Nuncio's statement above-referred to is consistent with the official pronouncements of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI, in his June 24, 1969, statement "On Papal Diplomats," issued norms regarding the office and the functions of pontified representatives which include the following statements:
Article I
1) By the term of pontifical representatives, those ecclesiastics -- usually endowed with episcopal dignity -- are here designated as those who receive from the Roman Pontiff the charge of representing him in a fixed way in the various nations or regions of the world.2) They exercise the pontifical legation either only in connection with the local churches or jointly with the local churches and the states and respective governments. When their legation is only to the local churches, they are known as apostolic delegates. When to this legation, of a religious and ecclesial nature, there is added the diplomatic legation to states and governments, they receive the title of nuncio, pronuncio and internuncio, according as to whether they have the title of "ambassador" with or without the title of "dean" of the diplomatic corps, or if they have the grade of "extraordinary envoy and minister plenipotentiary."
3) The pontifical representative proper can, owing to the special circumstances of time and place, be designated by other names such as for instance, "apostolic delegate and envoy of the Holy See to a government." In addition there is the case of a pontifical representative being entrusted in a fixed but supplementary way to a "reagent" or to a "charge' d'affaires with credentials."
Article IV
1) The primary and specific purpose of the mission of the pontifical representative is to render ever closer and more operative the ties that bind the Apostolic See and the local churches.
Page 6
2) He furthermore interprets the solicitude of the Roman pontiff for the good of the country in which he exercises his mission. In particular, he must concern himself zealously with the problems of peace, of progress and of collaboration of the peoples in view of the spiritual, moral and material good of the entire human family.
3) Upon the pontifical representative also falls the duty of safeguarding, in cooperation with the bishops, among the civil authorities of the territory in which he exercises his office, the mission of the Church and of the Holy See.
This is also the task of those pontifical representatives who have no diplomatic character; they will have care, however, to entertain friendly relations with these same authorities.
4) In his capacity of envoy of the supreme shepherd of souls, the pontifical representative will promote, in accordance with the instructions he receives from the competent offices of the Holy See and in agreement with the local bishops and particularly with the patriarchs of the Eastern territories, opportune contacts between the Catholic Church and the other Christian communities and will favor cordial relations with non-Christian religions.
5) The manifold mission of the pontifical representative is pursued under the guidance and according to the instructions of the cardinal secretary of state and prefect of the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, to whom he is directly responsible for the execution of the mandate entrusted to him by the supreme pontiff.
Article V
1) The ordinary function of the pontifical representative is to keep the Holy See regularly and objectively informed about the conditions of the ecclesial community to which he has been sent, and the good of the souls.
2) On the one side, he makes known to the Holy See the thinking of the bishops, of the clergy, of the Religious and of the faithful of the territory where he carries out his mandate, and forwards to Rome their proposals and their requests; on, the other side,. he makes himself the interpreter with those concerned of the acts, documents, information and instructions emanating from the Holy See.
3) Therefore, no office or dicastery of the Curia will omit to communicate to him decisions taken, and generally will make use of his good offices to make them reach their destination; in addition, they will ask for his opinion regarding acts and measures adopted in the territory in which he fulfills his mission.
Article X
1) Relations between the Church and the state are normally cultivated by the pontifical representative, to whom the task is entrusted, proper and particular, of acting in the name of the Holy See:
a) In order to promote and favor its relations with the government of the nation to which he is accredited;
b) To treat questions concerning relations between Church and state;
c) To concern himself particularly with the stipulation of "'modus vivendi" of agreements and concordats, as well as of conventions referring to questions within the sphere of public law.
2) In pursuing these negotiations, it is fitting that the pontifical legate should ask, in the way and in the measure circumstances permit, for the opinion and the counsel of the episcopate and that he keep it informed on the development of the negotiations.
"The Pro-Nuncio's statement of April 6, 1984, above-referred to, is also consistent with the provisions of Chapter V of the Code of Canon Law, that being Canons 362-367, which chapter deals with papal legates. ...
"In keeping with the responsibilities of a papal legate, as set forth in the Code of Canon Law, Archbishop Pio Laghi, in his April 6, 1984, address at The Catholic University of America, reasserted a statement which had been previously made by him in February of 1981 which is as follows:
The papal representative cannot be a stranger to the people of the country to which he exercises his mission. At the same time, he must necessarily look beyond the best interests of any particular group. His criterion is the universality of the church.
"Plaintiffs further show that Archbishop Pio Laghi in his April 6, 1984, address as Pro-Nuncio in the United States, in referring the Pope John Paul's diplomatic concerns, stated:
The Holy See believes that it finds itself in a unique position of spiritual and moral authority in the service of peace for all. Its diplomacy is deeply motivated by the spirit of the Gospel of Christ, and because it has no material interests to
Page 7
defend, it is able to inspire the trust of an increasing number of nations.
"It is therefore clear that the United States Government, through the action of the President of the United States, has entered into an understanding and agreement, not with a secular power, but rather with the Roman Catholic Church."
To Be Continued
FROM THE POSTAL BOX
"Behold the Goat upon which the Lord's lot fell" is the message of modern EIijah who prepares the way for the Second Advent; but for the last 30 years we heard the voice of the enemies saying, "Behold the Kangaroo from Australia." The Adventists from the land under have taken the "leadership" in Washington DC Where could we find a weeping prophet to write another lamentation?
Illinois
NEXT MONTH'S ISSUE
During the month of May and into June, the CBN Cable Network, and the PTL Satellite Network released the televised programs by The John Ankerberg Show on "Who Is Telling the Truth About Seventh-day Adventism?" This show featured a confrontation between Dr. Walter Martin of the SDA-Evangelical Conferences of 1955-56, and Dr. Wm. G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review. The Lord willing, we plan to devote the entire next issue of "Watchman, What of the Night?" to a discussion of the issues raised on this telecast, and give an answer as to why Dr. Johnsson failed so miserably in his confrontation with Walter Martin. Anyone who saw this show, and those who did not have the opportunity will not want to miss this up-coming issue.
"In the May or June issue of Ministry, we are coming out with two articles dealing with the nature of Christ. One takes the position of the pre -fall nature, and the other the post-fall nature." (Spangler)