1

1844, Yes !
Reply to André Reis’ article “1844 and the Future of Adventism ”, Spectrum
Website, 23 Oct. 2018.
I am glad to see that Spectrum hosts articles of various theological orientations, including
the much disputed Adventist theology that has been built on Daniel 8:14. In the past I have read
other articles by André Reis in the SDA independent media, and I attempted to publish my
reactions. Unfortunately, I was late, but now I am hopefully in time.
I will write my replies point by point, correspondingly, under each of the main arguments of
Reis:

1. Daniel 8 deals not only with events specifically related to the Jews
a. The Book of Daniel begins and ends in Hebrew, but when the author (Daniel) is about to
quote the Chaldean sages (Dan 2:4b), he specifies that they answered in (imperial) Aramaic. The
interesting fact is that the author continues in Aramaic even after he ends that quotation, going on
with Aramaic until the end of chapter 7. The same phenomenon occurs in the Book of Ezra, where
the author also prefers Hebrew; but in most cases, where he must quote an official letter, he resorts
to official Aramaic. However, like Daniel, Ezra does not switch immediately to Hebrew, when he
ends quoting the Aramaic letters: he goes on with Aramaic some time (4:8 – 6:18 and 7:12 – 26).
Obviously, both Daniel and Ezra, wise men educated in Babylon, were bilingual Jews, writing for all
the Jews, who were also bilingual. Some theologians believe that the Hebrew text of Daniel
distinctly addresses the Jews, or deals with their future only, while the Aramaic text would have a
universal address. However, the readers may check such claims, and decide for themselves. My
conclusion is that the noted phenomenon is simply linguistic and literary, not so specifically related
to the content.
b. True, the animals in Daniel 7 are unclean, while those of Daniel 8 are clean and related to
the sanctuary; but this is no evidence that the prophecy of Daniel 8 is limited to the future of the
Jews. Unclean animals are also used to represent Israel (Gen 49:9, 14, 17, 27), and even God (Hos
13:7-8), while the clean animals of Daniel 8 represent clearly Gentile (Persian and Greek) nations.
With regard to their use for the sanctuary, even though such monstrous beasts, with too many
horns, were fitted for some sacrifices (Lev 22:18-25), the or context clearly indicates that they are
not sacrificed, but simply killed by God’s agencies (Dan 8:7-8, 25).
c. The vision culminates with the desecration of the temple. However, the temple was never
„Jewish” in essence. He was meant to be only an earthly projection of God’s heavenly palace (1K
8:27, 30, 32, 34, 36 etc.), and the center of a universal search for God (Is 2:2-3; 56:6-7; 66:20; Mi
4:2; Zec 8:22-23; 14:16-19). Any attack to the earthly temple was virtually an attack against the
true, heavenly residence (or temple) of God. Moreover, the two Hebrew terms for the temple in
Daniel 8:11 (miqdash, makon) are used together as synonyms in Ex 15:17 only, where Moses refers
explicitly to a sanctuary built by God for His people, not vice versa.
2. The “little horn” is not only Greek
It is true, Daniel 8 focuses on the actions of the Greek powers for most of the chapter. This
vision emphasizes the role of the Hellenic-and-Hellenistic superpower. It takes 36 words to
describe the actions of the Persian ram (verses 3-4), 72 words to describe the actions of the Greek
goat (verses 5-8), and 40 words to describe the actions of the Luciferic horn (verses 9-11).
However, if there is good evidence that the Luciferic horn is a historical type or a recurrent pattern,
and its Greek start does not preclude subsequent identifications. There are sound reasons why we
should reconsider its precise identity:
 2

a. The interpreting angel shows that the vision of the Luciferic horn extends “to the time of
the end” (8:17), or to the “fixed time (mawᶜed) of the end” (8:19), “many days from
now” (8:26). The horn is finally broken “without human hand” (8:25), in the
manifestation of God’s judgment at the Second Advent (cf. 2:34, 45).
b. All visions and prophecies of Daniel extend to the ESCHATON, except those exclussively
adressed to his contemporaries (in chapters 4 & 5). Even the prophecy about Messiah
does not end with the Messianic events: it extends to the end of “the (Roman)
devastator” (9:27).
c. In Daniel 11, the prophetic character corresponding to the hellish horn of chapter 9 –
the despicable (and the last) king of the North, vv. 21-39) – acts until the very end (vv.
40-45). This is not simply his own end, since it is the time of Michael’s victory and the
resurrection (12:1-2, 13), that is the end of the world, so eagerly expected and discussed
in the last chapter of the book. It is a notorious fact, that verses 36-45 in Daniel 11 do
not aply at all to Antiochus Epiphanes.
d. There is no “period of roughly 1,150 daily cycles” in Daniel. The time prophecies that
are expressed in short units of time, must be exact, not “roughly”, if they are to be taken
literally. We don’t have to choose between 1150 and 2300 cycles. The Holy One says:
„…until evening morning 2300…” (8:13-14). While the expression is intentionally
covered and coded, it nevertheless indicates 2300 cycles of evening-morning (= day).
Not by accident the Septuagint, attempting a literal translation has: „…until evening
morning days 2300…”. This was always the Jewish understanding of the phrase. The
alternative understanding of some theologians (2300 evening and morning sacrifices
(equating 1150 days) is a late Christian speculation, a desperate attempt to make this
period apply to the three years of persecution (December 168 to December 165 BC)
mentioned in 1 Maccabees.
e. André Reis then translates the Hebrew we-nitsdaq qodesh of Dan 8:14, “the sanctuary
would be restored / and reconsecrated”. Such translation is an attempt to make the
prophecy fit the Maccabean Hanukka (reconsecration of the temple), as many did in the
past, including the Septuagint, the Vulgate etc., rendering this verb as cleansed, a
popular Jewish reference to the cleansing of the sanctuary under Judas the Maccabee (cf.
1Mac 4:36, 41,43; 2Mac 1:18: 2:16, 18-19; 10:3, 5, 7; 14:36).
Actually, the verb nitsdaq (a passive form of the root tsadaq = be right, do right, make
right) is unique, and the most simple and suitable solution is to understand it according
to its root meaning: be done justice, be justified, (have its cause) vindicated, like many
modern translations already do.1 This straight translation connects Dan 8:14 to the
parallel prophecy in Dan 7:10, 22, “the court sat in judgment, and the books were
opened”, “and judgment was given for the saints….”).
f. One should not confuse the 2300 “days” with the time of sanctuary desecration. From
the time where “the Captain of the host” is deprived of His regular offering, and His
sanctuary is profaned by the “desolating abomination”, only 1290-1335 “days” are
counted (Dan. 12:11-12), not 2300.2 The 2300 days answer the question “until when”

1 Martin Pröbstle (Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14, Andrews University,

PhD Dissertation, 2006: 403, fn 3, 412) made an impressive analysis of this verb. He refers also to Jože
Krašovec (La justice ṢDQ de Dieu...,. Orbis biblicus et orientalis, no 76. Vandehoeck & Ruprecht, 1988: 254),
who has shown that the Hebrew passive form Niphal is often related to the Hiphil forms, like in Ex 23:7; 1K
8:32; Is 50:8, “where God in a legal context vindicates the righteous”. A vindication of God’s temple is
expected in the prophetic writings a (e. g. Jer 50:28; 51:11).
2 These 1290-1335 days roughly cover the 3 ½ times of Daniel 12:7 (a reference to Daniel 7:25), had

to occur in the Christian era (Rev. 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

 3

(ʿad mathay) extends this prophecy, not “how many days shall last” the persecution by
the wicked horn. The angel answers that the terminus ad quem of this period is
somewhere in “the time of the end” (8:17, 19), while its terminus a quo is not mentioned.
g. André Reis claims that the “time of the end” in Daniel 8 is not the eschatological end, but
just some obscure, historical end. This reading of Daniel is not acceptable, because it is
unsuported by the use of the term qets (end) in Hebrew. Whenever qets (“end”) forms a
genitival phrase, or has a contextual referent, it is indeed not eschatological.3 But when
qets (“end”) has no other specific referent in the context, and it belongs to the
apocalyptic prophecies that usually extend to the eschaton, such “end” is The End.
Daniel refers to the eschaton using both genitival and implicit or explicit phrases (“the
vision prophecies up to the time of the end” 8:17; “for it is up to the fixed time of the
end” 8:19; “for the end will be at that fixed time” 11:27; “until the time of the end, for it
is still to the fixed time” 11:35; “at the time of the end” 11:40; “his end [of the northern
king]” coincidental with the rising of Michael and the resurrection of the dead 11:45;
12:1-2; the prophecy will be sealed / preserved “to the time of the end” 12:4, 9; “the
end of the bewildering facts” described earlier 12:6; “the end” and “the end of the
days” is described as the time of resurrection 12:13).4
h. True, the expression qets hayyamin (“the end of the days”) occurs only in Dan 12:13, and
it refers to the resurrection. But this unique expression is based on the recurrent use of
both “end” and “days” in the preceding sentences (end, refering the triumph of God’s
people, 12:4, 6, 9; days, counted to the end, Dan 12:11, 12; end of the days 12:13).
4. Does Rome not meet the requirements of Daniel 8?
Many of the arguments of André Reis under this section are good observations. True, only
Medo-Persia and Greece are named in Daniel, since the name of Rome was not yet known by the
time of Daniel. (In fact, the presence of Rome’s name would be suspect in the light of the book’s
traditional authorship). While some of our historical arguments are difficult or impossible to
withstand the realistic observations of our critics, we are all confronted by the major difficulty to
identify the last horn of Daniel 8. There is no easy way to solve this problem:
a. First, there is no historical “horn” starting in the Hellenistic times and surviving to the
time of the end (Dan 8:9, 17, 23, 25). There is no Hellenistic “king of the North”
surviving to the eschaton (Dan 11:45 – 12:1-2). Therefore, preterist commentators
reinterpret the meaning of “the end”, proposing to us the historical character of
Antiochus Epiphanes as the wicked horn. On the other hand, futurist commentators
expect a future Antichrist to come out of the former Hellenistic… territories (!), or they
reinterpret the identity of the animals in the vision, to be “relevant” to our times.
Actually, many expositors combined both views: the prophecy of the wicked horn is first
fulfilled in Antiochus, and finally in Antichrist.5

3 E. g. “the end of all flesh” (Gen 6:13); the end of life (Job 6:11; Ps 39:4/5); the end of a city / country
/ nation Jer 51:13; Pl 4:18; Ezek 7:2, 7; Am 8:2; Hab 2:3).
4 This apocalyptic use of the term “end” (= the end of this world) even without its explicit refferent, is

then part of the New Testament language: Mt 10:22; 34:6, 13, 14; Mk 13:7, 13; Lk 21:9; 1Cor 1:8; 15:24; Rev
2:26.
5 I have no complete list of the expositors who identified the arogant horn with both Antiochus and

Antichrist. Among them the following are mentioned: Jerome (c. 407), Martin Luther (1530, both Antiochus
and Papal Antichrist), William Lowth (1725), Magnus F. Roos (1771), John Gill (1819, included Rome, Islam
and antichristian France); Archibald Mason (1820), H. A. C. Hävernick (1832), Thomas Wintle (1836),
William Kelly (1897), Nathaniel West (1898), Joseph A. Seiss (1884), John F. Walvoord (1971), Desmond
Ford (1978), J. Dwight Pentecost (1985), etc. See Samuel Nuñez (The Vision of Daniel 8, AUSDDS, Andrews
University Press, 1989: 39-50, 73, 174), Winfried Vogel (“The Eschatological Theology of Martin Luther”,
 4

b. The most natural way of representing any Seleucid persecuting king would have been to
show the “one of the four” horns growing up to heaven, not another horn coming “out of
one of them”. This abnormal issue is open to interpretations.
c. If one identifies this horn with Antiochus Epiphanes, not all details are satisfactorily
fulfilled in him. The same is true for any other historical identification (Rome, Papacy,
Islam etc.). The 2300 days and the survival of the horn to the judgment day are
definitely not related to Antiochus. Rome did not come out of an Hellenistic power and
has no connection to the 2300 days or the eschaton. Papacy did not come out of any
Hellenistic horn, and she is not simply the Roman Empire, but its spiritual heir.
d. It is not true that Adventists need the presence of Rome or Papacy in Daniel 8, in order
to support the historical chart of the 2300 days, or to justify Adventism. Since the period
of 2300 days is the time lapsed to the end/judgment, not the time of Atiochus or Papal
persecutions, the identity of the power(s) acting in-between has no determinant role.
e. I see no better solution of the identity of the wicked horn, but what the prophecy of
Daniel 11 indicates: it is the last king of the North, a prophecy that was fulfilled first in
the historical character of Antiochus Epiphanes (11:21-31), then in other historical /
prophetical character(s), from 11:36 on. Please note the close similarity between the
prophecy of chapter 8 and the prophecy of chapters 10-12:

1. Both visions have been given by river banks (Ulai and Tigris).
2. Both visions introduce at least two holy beings – the Archangel and the interpreting
angel, extempore called Michael and Gabriel.
3. Both prophecies start with the horizontal Greek-Persian conflict.
4. Both prophecies mention the extraordinary exploits of Alexander Macedon, followed
by his rapid downfall.
5. Both prophecies emphasize the fourfold division of Alexander’s empire.
6. Both prophecies warn of an unexpected, demonic king, descending from one of the
four Hellenistic divisions, and acting more and more wickedly up to the end of the
world, when he will be defeated.
7. Both prophecies describe the wicked king attacking the people of God and His
sanctuary, removing the continual holocaust and installing an idolatrous system,
dysphemistically called peshaᶜ shomem (the lawlessness / apostasy of the devastating
one) or shiqquts shomem (the abomination of the devastating one) and exalting
himself to the Lord of the Hosts.
The following chiastic schema of the book of Daniel suggests the degree of similarity
between its prophecies:6

AUSS, Andrews University, Summer 1987, Vol. 25, No. 2, p. 188.) and www.fbinstitute.com/daniel/ ,
http://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-8-vision-ram-and-goat .
6 The chiastic structure of the Aramaic chapters (2-7) was discovered by the Benedictine monk Dom

A. Lenglet ("La structure littéraire de Daniel 2-7," Biblica 53, 1972: 169-90) and it was popularized among
Adventists by William H. Shea (AUSS, Summer 1985, Vol. 23, No. 2, 193-202). The simple chiasm of the
Hebrew prophecies (8-12) is my idea.
 5

André Reis calls our attention to the necessity that the Church continue to investigate the
bases of the Investigative Judgment doctrine. I agree. With its present army of scholars, our
exegesis should shine out undisputed.
In a poll that I have taken by email to 40 Adventist pastors, theologians, administrators and
a few laymen (from US, Europe and Australia), my first question was: “Are you satisfied by our
Adventist usual explanation to the doctrine based on Daniel 8:14?” A number of 23 of 40 answered:
“I love this doctrine, but I have some questions still not satisfactorily answered.” 1 of 40 answered:
“I have no need of this doctrine.” 12 of 40 answered: “I am perfectly satisfied with the Adventist
explanations of this doctrine.” The other poll questions have been answered in the same divergent
manner.
I understand André’s frustration and concern. My experience was similar. But thank God, I
found solutions, and I recovered my trust in the rehabilitation of our grand doctrine of Judgment.
Certainly God has been leading, and He is still leading us to a better understanding of His safe and
far-reaching revelation.
Florin Lăiu graduated in 1994 from the Adventist Theological Institute in
Bucharest, Romania (Europe), obtained a BA in Theology in 1998 from the Babeș-
Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca and a MTh in Old Testament from UNISA,
Pretoria. Since 1992 he has worked at the Theological Institute that is now called
Adventus University, Cernica. Florin Lăiu has taught for 25 years Biblical
languages, Biblical exegesis, Daniel and Revelation Studies, and he wrote articles
on the theology of the sanctuary and on various other Biblical and non-biblical
topics. He is an active member of the Romanian Interconfessional Bible Society.
Married to Lăcrămioara, they have four children and six grandchildren who live
in Austria, UK and US.