1

25 Objections Answered

Investigative Judgment
Sanctuary Doctrine

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au

Preface

The short answers listed here originally appeared on Facebook when a casual reader asked that
some of the issues be briefly addressed. The number of objections considered grew as renewed
interest emerged in these matters. Facebook is not the ideal forum to answer in a deep scholarly
way, but it does value brevity and succinctness. We trust that is what you will find here brevity
and succinctness.

Not being an exhaustive work, the reader will however be given fast, factual answers without the
long-windedness usually associated with sanctuary issues.

The reader is encouraged to drill down further in their own scholarly way to validate the points
made here.

May the truth of Scripture be glorified.

Herb Kersten
19 November 2014

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au

3
GENERAL (OBJECTION #1) - "I don't understand the 2300 day prophecy and the sanctuary issues.
It is all too complex. The gospel should be easy".
ANSWER
If we adopted this approach to all of Scripture we would probably only accept 1/20th of it and toss
out the book of Revelation.
There is a clear request from the angel Gabriel to "understand" this prophecy. (See Daniel 8:16,17,
27; 9:22, 23).
Jesus singled out the book of Daniel that we "understand" it (see Matthew 24:15).
Daniel forecasts there will be an increase in understanding of his prophecies in the end time (Daniel
12:4) but only the spiritually wise shall understand (12:9,10). We get spiritual wisdom by changing
our attitude to Bible study and asking the Holy Spirit for wisdom.
It can't be denied that this doctrine is more complex than most but if you know how to play a board
game or set up your GPS in your car, you will know how to make sense of this doctrine.
Perhaps others who tried to explain it messed it up and turned you off this teaching. Whatever the
reason, change your attitude and be determined to learn. Some of the conspiracy theories floating
about that have captured the fascination of some SDAs are much more complicated than the
sanctuary doctrine.

GENERAL (OBJECTION #2) - "Who cares what happened in 1844. It's just so long ago. What can it
do for me today?"
ANSWER
If the prophecy really does end in 1844 complemented by an increase in sanctuary knowledge, then
the Seventh-day Adventist church arrived right on time. If the prophecy did not end in 1844, the SDA
church hasn't a leg to stand on in claiming a divine mandate - it is just another Christian group
pushing its particular doctrinal wheelbarrow.
When you exhaust all the options to do with the time aspect of the prophecy and then see that 1844
is the most credible one a big light comes on in your mind, together with increased confidence in the
SDA movement, its mission and message.
The sanctuary doctrine is the most ridiculed, challenged and doubted doctrine of all time. That may
mean it is a garbage doctrine. Or it may mean it has been Satan's special focus to keep it under
wraps.

GENERAL OBJECTION #3 - "We can't prove or disprove that anything happened in 1884 if it took
place in heaven - how can we know for sure?"
ANSWER
You can't know for sure. You can only exhaust the Biblical data provided and go where it leads. (The
1000 year millennium can't be proven but we accept it).

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au

4
Your confidence in the credibility of the 2300 evening/morning prophecy dramatically increases
when you recognise that the shorter time period whose terminus can be proven by a visible event
(70 weeks prophecy) is cut off from the larger period whose terminus can't be proven by a visible
event. The 70 weeks prophecy forecast the dates for the baptism and death of Jesus. The shorter
time period the closing events of which can be proven are part of the larger time period the closing
event of which can't be proven. Being part of the mix, it generates confidence in the whole.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #4) - "God was vindicated at the cross - He doesn't need any further
vindication in an investigative judgment".
ANSWER
The cross surely vindicated God's character of love and mercy. There is no doubt about that.
But if Jesus doesn't return to gather all genuine believers and annihilate sin and Satan, God's
vindication at the cross is incomplete and somewhat meaningless. It is unfinished business. The
vindication of God at the cross is one of those 'already-but-not-yet' themes which often feature in
Scripture.
God is not vindicated if people are admitted into heaven who profess His name but have a farcical
faith. God knows who are His and can sort them out real fast, but the onlooking universe doesnt
have that insight. The onlooking universe may say "Bob seems such a nice guy. He says he believes in
Jesus. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let him in". After Bob is let into heaven his mask
drops away, his real character emerges and sin arises a second time. That's no good. God is not
vindicated if even one such person slips through.
So that there are no ongoing future issues, the lives of all who profess Jesus' name should first be
reviewed so the onlooking universe can see whose lifestyle matches their lip service and whose does
not. Bring out the books of record. Doing it in this transparent way vindicates God's character
because only those with the Holy Spirit can truly live Jesus' life so no future doubts about them can
arise. God is vindicated without the accusation of exercising favouritism. He is justified in justifying
only those whose lives reveal the fruit of the Spirit. That's the meaning of Daniel 8:14: "then shall
holiness be justified" - "then shall qodesh be nisdaq".

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #5) - "God knows our hearts - He doesn't need to trawl through
books of record to assess if we are safe to save".
ANSWER
You're right. He doesn't. He knows all. Sees all. Reads our motives. Reads the deepest parts of our
thoughts and hearts. Pity the onlooking universe doesnt have that same capacity. It would avoid
trawling through books of record.
God's character will be questioned (again) if people merely professing His name are admitted into
heaven but have a farcical faith. God knows who are His and can sort them out real fast, but the
onlooking universe can't do that.
The onlooking universe may say "Bob seems such a nice guy. He says he believes in Jesus. Let's give
him the benefit of the doubt and let him in". After Bob is let in, his mask drops away, his real
character emerges and sin arises a second time. That's no good. God's character will be questioned if
even one such person slips through.
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

So that there are no ongoing future issues, the lives of all who profess Jesus' name are first reviewed
so the onlooking universe can see whose lifestyle matches lip service and whose does not. So - bring
out the books of record. Doing it in this transparent way vindicates God's character because only
those with the Holy Spirit can truly live Jesus' life so no future doubts about them can arise. God is
vindicated without the accusation of exercising favouritism. He is justified in justifying only those
whose lives reveal the fruit of the Spirit. That's the meaning of Daniel 8:14: "then shall holiness be
justified" - "then shall qodesh be nisdaq".

GENERAL (OBJECTION #6) - "No other Christian group sees an investigative judgment in Daniel
8:14. We are the only ones".
ANSWER
You're right. Being the only ones to see a spiritual truth should not be the decisive factor against it.
Scripture is full of cases where the minority got it right and the masses didn't. But there's a bigger
point to make than this.
If the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 really does end in 1844 and is to be complemented by an increase in
sanctuary knowledge, then the divine imperative on the Seventh-day Adventist is to proclaim it
because it arrived on time.
So it is entirely understandable that most other churches won't see a judgment scene in the verse.
What they do see in the verse can be very easily discounted. In later posts this will be shared.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #7) - "The verdict of the future judgment is ours now when we accept
Jesus - we are acquitted - there is no need for a long drawn out judgment process".
ANSWER
You're right in the first part of your objection but you need to give further consideration to the last
part. You are right that all genuine believers in Jesus have the verdict of the future judgment now as
long as they continue to trust in Jesus' merits. That verdict is not guilty, acquitted, innocent, in the
right, justified, declared righteous. That is the gospel.
The need for a long drawn out process is this: God knows all. Sees all. Reads our motives. Reads the
deepest parts of our thoughts and hearts. Pity the onlooking universe doesnt have that capacity. It
would avoid trawling through books of record.
God's character will be questioned (again) if people are admitted into heaven who profess His name
but have a farcical faith. God knows who are His and can sort them out real fast, but the onlooking
universe can't do that. The onlooking universe may say "Bob seems such a nice guy. He says he
believes in Jesus. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and let him in". After Bob is let into heaven
his mask drops away, his real character emerges and sin arises a second time. That's no good. God's
character will be questioned if even one such person slips through.
So that there are no ongoing future issues, the lives of all who profess Jesus' name should first be
reviewed so the onlooking universe can see whose lifestyle matches their lip service and whose does
not. Bring out the books of record. Doing it in this transparent way vindicates God's character
because only those with the Holy Spirit can truly live Jesus' life so no future doubts about them can
arise. God is vindicated without the accusation of exercising favouritism.
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

6
He is justified in justifying only those whose lives reveal the fruit of the Spirit. That's the meaning of
Daniel 8:14: "then shall holiness be justified" - "then shall qodesh be nisdaq".

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #8) - "The sanctuary doctrine has nothing to do with my salvation.
1844 has nothing to do with my salvation".
ANSWER
It is difficult to see how the sanctuary doctrine has nothing to do with your salvation when the
sanctuary is God's end-to-end template of the plan of salvation.
Most Christians stop at the courtyard (the cross) and few go as far as the Holy Place.
But the Seventh-day Adventists also go into the Most Holy Place and look carefully at the Day of
Atonement type which is a shadow of a much greater substance - the investigative judgment. There
you have the gospel message taken to its ultimate end. The sanctuary doctrine is a gigantic gospel
orchestra that plays the gospel theme like no other as it is end-to-end salvation from start to finish.
This is a gigantic gospel contribution from the Seventh-day Adventist church to all Christians.
The date 1844 marks the beginning of the antitypical Day of Atonement and is underway as you read
these lines. If this is all true, you are very much caught up in this gospel-dominant judgment as only
those who profess Christ's name are reviewed. You stand in Christ and have zero fear of the
judgment as His life lived out within you by His Holy Spirit shines through. 1844 and its aftermath has
everything to do with your salvation!

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #9) - "The SDA idea of an investigative judgment runs contrary to the
gospel".
ANSWER
The traditional SDA way of presenting the investigative judgment in times past surely did mash up
the gospel. The essence of the teaching then was that even one unconfessed sin on the books of
record would forfeit eternal life. Such an approach made salvation dependent on a good memory.
Now that we have a deeper understanding of Daniel 8:14 we are blown away by the gospel force in
the IJ. This came about by recognising that the Hebrew word 'nisdaq' in Daniel 8:14 is the same as
'tsadaq' which the New Testament always translates as 'justified'. Tsadaq is a judgment word that
reeks of the judiciary. It is used as a verb 41 times in the OT and never ever means 'cleansed'. It is a
judgment word, befitting the IJ.
It was known by a few that the OT meaning of 'tsadaq' meant to be acquitted, pronounced innocent,
declared in the right, to have false accusations set aside, to have rights restored, justified and so on but only in recent years has it become apparent that the NT takes OT verses with 'tsadaq' in them
and translates those verses as 'justified' which in the Pauline sense means 'to be pronounced
righteous'.
Bingo! As an inspired commentary on the OT, the NT solved the mystery of Daniel 8:14. All believers
who trust in Christ's finished works, who allow the Holy Spirit to live Christ's life through them are
'justified' and pronounced righteous forever in the IJ. That's the gospel!

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au

7
EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #10) - "How can you expect SDAs to go along with the new approach
that the better translation of Daniel 8:14 is "justified" when all SDA literature including EGW uses
"cleansed"?
ANSWER
When EGW wrote about the cleansing of the sanctuary she used the language of the type. Leviticus
uses 'cleansed' (taher) which is the language of the type. Daniel uses 'justified' (nisdaq) which is the
language of the antitype. As we are discussing the antitypical Day of Atonement the language of the
antitype should be adopted.
A careful review of PK 582-592 and GC 483-484 reveals a shift in language from 'cleansed' to
'justified' as EGW moves from type to antitype. She saw back then what most SDAs refuse to see
today.
The insertion of the word 'cleansed' in Daniel 8:14 is an error brought across from the Septuagint.
Not once in the Septuagint does it ever render the 41 uses of 'tsadaq' as 'cleansed' (always as
'justified' or similar) - except in Daniel 8:14.
The Septuagint translators break their own rules because they regarded the cleansing of the
sanctuary by Judas Maccabeus after Antiochus' defilement as a great Jewish victory over a violent
oppressor - they thought that particular event fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 8:14. They saw
Antiochus as the little horn of Daniel 8. So they broke their own precedents and interpreted the
Hebrew word 'nisdaq' to read 'cleansed' instead of faithfully translating it 'justified'. The Christian
world has adopted this blooper ever since and see only Antiochus in D8:14. We would be smart to
dump cleansed in favour of justified as it is not only incorrect but it unwittingly supports the
Antiochus view.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #11) - "There is no legitimate link from Daniel 8:14 to Leviticus 16".
ANSWER
This is a very valid objection. How does a simple lay person reading Daniel 8 see any link to the Day
of Atonement in Leviticus 16?
You have a vision of two earthly empires Medo-Persia and Grecia, which has nothing to do with the
Day of Atonement. You also have a little horn symbol that assaults the heavenly sanctuary, which
also has nothing to do with the Day of Atonement.
You then have a question: when does the vision end, when does the daily end and when does the
rebellion end? - and the answer comes back until 2300 evening mornings then shall the sanctuary
be nisdaq - 8/9 words are about time and only one word about the event. How do you get Day of
Atonement out of that? The word nisdaq in Hebrew is never translated cleansed out of 40 verbal
occurrences, so you cant legitimately use cleansed to leap frog back to Leviticus 16. Even the term
evening morning is not a sanctuary term (which is morning evening) but a reference to Genesis
1:5-8 etc, meaning day.
These are fair and reasonable questions that will push us to the truth and quickly.
Yes, there are some broad sanctuary allusions in Daniel 8 and 9 - but ask yourself: Are they really
powerful connectors that undeniably take you straight back to the typical Day of Atonement in
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

8
Leviticus 16? These allusions are: (i) Daniel 8 uses sanctuary animals (ram and goat) and (ii) Daniel
8:11,13,14 and 9:17, 26 use the word 'sanctuary' and (iii) Daniel 8:13 uses the word daily.
Is Desmond Ford right? Yes. And no. Here is why: Daniel 8:14 uses a judgment word (nisdaq) only
ever used in the OT for judgment of the righteous see Objection #21. (Its parallel verse is Daniel
7:22 which is also a judgment of the righteous). We can then say the only OT event that converges
judgment of the righteous and sanctuary is Day of Atonement. But is that strong enough?
The correct approach is to let Daniel 8 stand on its own as an island of information and to let
the book of Daniel interpret itself using chapters 7 and 9. That is a very safe approach.
When we do that we get this:
1. A judgment of the righteous (nisdaq) that occurs before the Second Advent (1844) while the
little horn is still active on earth (7:8-11 etc).
2. A judgment that vindicates the justice of God (nisdaq) who justifies (nisdaq) forever genuine
believers. (By justified I mean gifted righteousness of Christ not just vindication).
3. A judgment that started in 1844.
A careful study of nisdaq (via tsadaq its verbal root) confirms the first (1) and (2) see Objection
#21. The 1844 date has been confirmed objections #1, 2, 4 and 5.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #12) - "Jesus entered into Most Holy Place ministry after His
ascension and not in 1844 if you read the Book of Hebrews in the NIV".
ANSWER
You're right. The NIV does say that in Hebrews 9:12. However the Table attached shows there is
much disparity among English translations as to how Hebrews 8, 9, 10 and 13 are rendered. e.g. for
Hebrews 9:12 the NIV is the only translation that renders it 'Most Holy Place' - all the others say
'Holy Place' or 'sanctuary'.

Here is the answer: The only place in Hebrews where without question it means 'Most Holy Place' is
9:3 and the Greek is "hagia hagion" - not used anywhere else in Hebrews.
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

9
Conclusion: any translation that reads 'Holy Place' or 'Most Holy Place' in Hebrews means either
'sanctuary' or 'Holy Place' but never 'Most Holy Place' - unless 'hagia hagion' is used. And that only
occurs once in 9:3.
Hebrews does not categorically prove that Jesus entered into Most Holy Place ministry after His
ascension. The SDA position is not threatened by what the writer of Hebrews is purported to be
saying across various translations. Had we known this back in the early 1980's many more would still
be with us today.
A further thought: the earthly sanctuary needed a veil between HP and MHP so the high priest
would not be slain by the glory of the Shekinah. Jesus needs no such protection, making a veil in the
heavenly sanctuary superfluous. As there is no veil in the heavenly, there are no separated
compartments and it can be said as a generalisation that Jesus entered into the "presence of God" at
His ascension. In the earthly type this would only have meant MHP but only because of the veil
separating HP and MHP. No veil, no separate compartments. It really is that simple.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #13) There is no legitimate link between Daniel 8 and 9.

ANSWER
Although there is a 13 year gap between D8 and D9, there are legitimate connectors that join them:
1.
The part of the vision of D8 that Daniel didn't understand had to do with time.
2.
The same angel Gabriel of D8 appears to Daniel in D9.
3.
In D9:21 Daniel says the angel is the same Gabriel he saw in an earlier vision "at the
beginning". This can only mean D8.
4. The only subject matter that Gabriel explains to Daniel in D9 has to do with time.
5. The Hebrew word for an end-to-end vision is chazon (Daniel 8:1,2,13,15,26; 9:21,24).
6. The Hebrew word for part of an end-to-end vision is mareh. (Daniel 8:16, 26,27; 9:23)
7. The part that Daniel didn't understand in D8 had to do with time it is called mareh in 8:26,27.
8. It is the mareh that Gabriel now explains in D9:23 and it has to do with time.
9. In 9:23 Gabriel says to Daniel consider the vision which makes no sense because no vision is
given in chapter 9. It must refer back to the vision of D8.
10. In D9:24 Gabriel says a portion of time is "cut off". (The Hebrew word is chatak and it really
does mean cut off). Most English translations render it as determined which is not very helpful.
The smaller time period of the 490 years is cut off from something else. As there is no larger time
period in D9 it must refer back to the 2300 of D8. (If the 490 are indeed years then the 2300 must
also be years, but that is looked at in # 14).

TIME-RELATED (OBJECTION #14) Daniel 8:14 talks about evening mornings, not days so the day
for a year principle does not apply. How do you get 2300 years out of 2300 evening mornings?
ANSWER
Daniel uses various symbols to denote time. He uses times (D4:32) time, times, dividing of time
(D7:25), evening mornings (D8:14), weeks or sevens (D9:24) and days (D12:11, 12). Such variety
mean the descriptors are obviously symbolic and cannot be literal. (Revelation does the same).
The year-day principle isnt needed to interpret the 2300 in D8:14.
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

10
As the links between D8 and D9 have already been proven in an earlier post, the 70 year prophecy of
D9 is cut off from a larger period not mentioned in D9. If the shorter period is years and are cut off
from the larger period of 2300 evening mornings, then 2300 must also be years.
How may we know the 70 weeks (or 70 sevens) of D9 are indeed years? D9:2 offers a clue. Daniel is
pondering the 70 years that Jeremiah prophesied the Hebrew people would be held captive. This is
obviously literal time. Then Gabriel returns to Daniel in D9:24 and virtually says: You are nearing the
end of the 70 years captivity, however there will be 7 lots of those for the Hebrew people to get
their house in order and set things right. I paraphrase.
The question of D8:13 has 3 parts to it and one of those parts is 'Until when the vision?' of the
previous verses that embrace Medo Persia, Greece and the work of the little horn. Centuries of time
are in view in that vision and to reply to such a question with 2300 literal days is a nonsense.
Let's not forget Daniel's prophecies are apocalyptic literature. The non-Hebrew mind must resist the
temptation to overlay preconceived opinions onto his prophecies. We let the Biblical data take us
where it will.

TIME-RELATED (OBJECTION #15) - The command to rebuild Jerusalem came from Cyrus (Isaiah
44:28; 45:13) and not Artaxerxes. This means the starting date for Daniel 9:25 is 537 BC and not
457 BC. It demolishes the idea that the 2300 year prophecy ended in 1844.
ANSWER
Daniel 9:25 has very precise specifications. It requires much more than just an order to rebuild a city.
It uses specific words (shub, rechob and charut) that insist on the restoration of Jerusalem as a...
decision-making and judiciary power based on Gods law. Simply put: Daniel 9:25 requires a decree
that restores the Jewish legal system, not just city buildings or even the temple.
English translations fail to bring this out. The Hebrew text of the decree in Dan 9:25 insists that civil
and religious government is be restored to an autonomous Jewish state.
The Cyrus decree was issued almost 100 years after Isaiah's prediction. It was something quite
different to Isaiah 44:28; 45:13. His decree only permitted rebuilding of the temple, not the city. (2
Chron 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-3).
Dan 9:25 requires restoration of the Jewish legal system. Ezra 1 to 3 mentions the word temple or
the house 15 times. The word city is never mentioned. (Ezra 5:13-17; 6:3). Zerubbabel says: You
have no part with us in building a temple to our God. We alone will build it for the Lord, the God of
Israel, as King Cyrus the king of Persia commanded us. (Ezra 4:3)
How do we explain the two Isaiah passages which foretell that Cyrus would actually issue a decree to
rebuild the city? A reasonable explanation is that Isaiah portrays Cyrus as representative of
successive Persian kings, that he initiated a process which ultimately led to the going forth of a
decree to rebuild the city which was eventually delivered with the decree of Artaxerxes in 457 BC.
(Ezra 7:12-26). His decree authorized the full restoration of Jerusalem and not just its physical rebuilding. It is this precise type of restoration (shub) that Dan 9:25 requires.

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au

11
EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #16) - Daniel 8 does not parallel Daniel 7. Daniel 8 stands alone as
an entirely separate prophecy. This means you cant parallel the judgment scene of D7:22 with
D8:14.
ANSWER
There is no explicit instruction in D8 that the vision parallels D7. However there is also no such
instruction in D7 that it parallels D2, which is widely accepted as correct. The absence of an explicit
instruction is not evidence that a parallel may not exist.
Danielic thinking is evident in D7 as a parallel prophecy to D2. Although covering the same historic
span, his primary emphasis in D7 is the work of the little horn power. There is no reason why he
would change this literary style when he moves into D8 where he again covers the same historic
span as 2 and 7 (Babylon is omitted because it is soon to disappear) and also places primary
emphasis on the work of the little horn power.
The high point of D7 is verse 22 where a judgment scene is underway in heaven while the little horn
power is still active on earth. Its final verdict in verse 22 is judgment in favour of the faithful. This
identical overview is also evident in D8 where the final verdict of nisdaq is delivered while the little
horn power is still active on earth. This is easy to see when we drill into nisdaq and learn it is a
judgment word whose verbal use in the OT is applied only to the judgment of the righteous. (It is less
clear if we rely on the mis-translation cleansed)
EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #17) - The little horn in Daniel 8:9 grew out of a Grecian beast, not a
Roman beast - so it must be Antiochus Epiphanus.
ANSWER
D8:9 could read the LH came out of one of the 4 horns (v.8) or it came out of one of the 4 winds
(v.8). The Hebrew grammar favours 1 of the 4 winds (points of the compass). This has been ridiculed
as absurd how can a horn come out of one of the 4 points of the compass? It is no less absurd than
the LH of D7:20 having e...yes and speaking. We must allow for the unusual in apocalyptic literature.
If we accept the view the LH of D8 emerges out of Grecian stock, it can be said that the Roman
empire emerged out of Grecian stock in the sense that it began in Macedonia.
The LH of D8 is too big a symbol for Antiochus Epiphanus (AE) who was a mere vassal of Rome and
was defeated by the very people he tried to exterminate. The remedy for his vile work was physical
cleansing of a physical temple. The remedy for the vile work of the true LH in D8 is the justification of
holiness.
Here are 15 reasons why AE cannot be the LH of D8:
1. The horn symbol most often means kingdom, not king. D8:23 identifies the LH as a king but the 4
preceding horns were kingdoms (8:22) to be succeeded by another kingdom. The 2 horns on the
Persian ram represented the kings of Media and Persia (8:20) but the dynastic houses which ruled
those nations were not 2 kings. The 4 beasts are referred to as four kings (7:17) but they
represented kingdoms, not individual monarchs (7:23). In D2 Nebuchadnezzar is the head of gold but
the head represents the Neo-Babylonian Empire as a whole which continued for decades after his
death; he was told he would be succeeded by another kingdom (2:38-39).
2. The predicted LH power is much greater than AE. The Persian ram magnified himself (8:4) and
the entire Persian Empire which lasted several centuries was great. The Grecian goat which
conquered Persia magnified himself exceedingly (8:8) and was powerful for many centuries. But
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

12
the LH seeks and attains a greatness greater than that of its predecessors Medo-Persia and Greece.
It magnified itself in several directions, tries to grow great to the host of heaven, ultimately
magnifying itself up to the Prince of the host (8:9-11). To be great (gadal) occurs only once with
Persia and Greece but 3 times with the LH. AE ruled only 1 portion of the Grecian Empire, with little
success and for only 12 years.
3. Why would the heavenly court gather in majestic session with vast numbers of angels (D7:9-10) to
pay attention to AE when no such heavenly judgment scene is recorded anywhere in Scripture for
similar villains such as Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Haman and Titus.
4. AE accomplished little during his reign. However the LH of D8 grew exceedingly great toward the
south, east and glorious land (8:9). AE tried to extend his southern border into Egypt in 169 BC. The
following year he marched on Alexandria to attempt a siege but was turned back by a Roman
diplomatic mission. He had to abandon the conquest.
5. AE experienced repeated failure. During the last 2 years of his reign he attempted to regain some
of the territory lost by his predecessor. After some diplomatic and military successes in Armenia and
Media he was stopped by the Parthians and died in the winter of 163 BC. His military successes were
less than those of his predecessor Antiochus III. He did not grow exceedingly great toward the
south or east. He did not conquer Palestine (the west) as this was territory Antiochus III had
subjected in 198 BC. He could not grow exceedingly in taking over Judaea for it was already part of
his kingdom, inherited from Antiochus III. AE is mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the Seleucid ruler
who desecrated the Temple and persecuted the Jews, but he did not grow exceedingly great
toward the glorious land. His actions against the Jews inspired their total revolt rather than their
total destruction. Rather than a conqueror of Palestine, the defeats he suffered toward the end of
his reign in Palestine started a course of events which separated it from his rule. The Jews
subsequently gained autonomy. While campaigning in the East, his Palestinian forces experienced
defeats at Emmaus (1 Macc 3:57) and Beth-zur (1 Macc 4:29) in Judaea. Toward the end of 164 BC
the Jews liberated the polluted Temple from Seleucid hands and re-dedicated it (1 Macc 5:52). AE
died in the East in 163 B.C. (1 Macc 6:15). His net gains amounted to very little. He did not grow
exceedingly great toward the south, east and the glorious land (8:9).
6. The LH took away the tamid (8:11) or the continual. The LH took away the daily (tamid), Christs
role as intercessor and mediator in the heavenly sanctuary. This is the object of the LHs attack - not
a physical attack on a physical sanctuary in literal Israel in 167 BC. AE can't be the LH of D7 or D8 as it
is the gospel which is under attack - not a physical sanctuary on earth. In removing the daily or the
continual (tamid) the little horn usurps the work of the Prince in the heavenly sanctuary making
His mediation ineffective for those who support its religious and political aspirations. Focusing on AE
is preterist myopia, defying Gabriels counsel that Daniel is sealed until the time of the end as
defined in D12:1-3.
7. The place of his sanctuary was not cast down by AE (8:11). He did not destroy the Temple
building. The word place (makon) occurs 17 times and in every instance except one, it refers to the
place where God dwells or the site upon which His throne rests.
8. He only ruled less than 12 years: 175 to 164/163 B.C. The LHs work continues right up to the time
of the Second Advent (D7:11-13).
9. AE was only a mid-Seleucid king. The origin of his kingdom does not fit the prophecy as he did not
arise at the latter end. The LH arose after the four kingdoms had come to power and it was to
come up at the latter end of their rule (8:23). The Seleucid Dynasty consisted of more than 20
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

13
kings (311 to 65 B.C.). AE was the 8th in line, ruling from 175 to 164/163 B.C. 8/20 is not even midterm let alone "latter end". More than 12 Seleucid rulers followed him. Less than 12 preceded him.
He did not arise at the latter end of their rule.
10. His activities did not fulfill the time aspect of D8:14. Liberals assert he disrupted the Temple
services and persecuted the Jews for 2300 literal days. But history disagrees: a pagan idol was set up
on the altar of burnt offering on the 15th day of the 9th month of the 145th year of the Seleucid Era
and pagan sacrifices began 10 days later (1 Maccabees 1:54, 59). After a period of warfare on the
25th day of the 9th month in the 148th year of the Seleucid Era, an altar newly built by the Jews was
consecrated and offerings began. Celebrations continued for 8 days (1 Maccabees 4:52, 54). The
period is exactly 3 years and 10 days during which AE stopped the Temple services, not 2300 literal
days (6 years, 4 months, and two-thirds of a month). Nor was it 1150literal days (2300 evening
mornings or 2300 half days). Even the shorter figure is two months too long. Various attempts have
been made to solve this discrepancy. AEs troops pillaged the Temple on their way back from Egypt
two years earlier, but that still falls a year and a half short of 2300 days. It has been suggested that
the 2300 days included sporadic on-and-off Jewish persecutions by Jews but that does not fit the
prophetic specifications.
11. His reign did not extend to the time of the end as defined in D12:1-3. (D8:17, 19). These time
periods had to extend to the Messiah and beyond, but AE died in 164/163 BC more than a century
before the Messiah was born.
12. The LHs end is brought about by God: But he shall be broken without human hand (8:25).
Similar phrasing is used for the end of the king of the north in D11:45. In D2 the image was brought
to an end by a stone cut out without human assistance (2:45). Dan 2, 7, 8, and 11 all conclude with
direct intervention by God in human history. AE died in Parthia during an ill-fated military campaign,
an inglorious end after a 12-year reign of repeated failure.
13. Daniel 9:24-27 requires that AE totally destroy the city of Jerusalem (9:26). It was to come to an
end (9:26). Its "desolations by a desolator (9:26-27) were decreed. AE did no such thing.
14. AE was not Messiah the Prince. D9:26 says the Prince that shall come would destroy the entire
city. Messiah Prince, the Messiah and the Prince (D9:26) refer to Jesus Christ. The Jews rejection of
the gospel resulted in Jerusalems utter destruction, not because of AE's ethnic-cleansing
aspirations.
15. AE did not live in the 1st century AD. D9:26 says the rise of the Prince and the destruction of the
city must occur in the 1st century AD.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #18) - There is no investigative judgment of the righteous in Daniel

7:10 or in 8:14. In context it is the little horn who is being judged, not Gods people. See D7:26 and
8:9-12.
ANSWER
In the great controversy there are two sides: if one is justified the other is condemned and if one is
condemned the other is justified. Daniel 7:22 says judgment is given in favour of the saints and in
7:26 the little horn is destroyed. So who is being judged?
The answer lies in the meaning of nisdaq in D8:14 whose parallel verse is 7:22.
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

14
Nisdaq comes from tsadaq, a judgment word used 41 times in the OT as a verb. It is never used to
judge the wicked. It is always used to judge the righteous only. Here is the evidence:
I will not justify (tsadaq) the wicked (Exodus 23:6-7).
Justifying (tsadaq) the wicked are an abomination to the Lord(Proverbs 17:15).
The judges shall justify (tsadaq) the righteous and condemn the wicked (Deut 25:1)
Justifying (tsadaq) the righteous (1 Kings 8:32; 2 Chron 6:23).
In giving judgment in favour (tsadaq) of the saints (7:22) the automatic result is that the little horn
power is condemned (7:26). In justifying one group the other group is condemned.

TIME-RELATED (OBJECTION #19) - SDAs believe the 2300 years of Daniel 8:14 started in 457 BC
but that's centuries before the little horns attack on the sanctuary even started, which SDA says is
the papal system. Why back-track centuries of time before the papal system came into existence if
the 2300 applies to the length of time it is trampling the sanctuary?
ANSWER
There are 3 questions within D8:13 that produced the answer of 8:14. The question of 8:13 literally
reads:
Until when the vision (chazon), the daily (tamid) and the rebellion (pesha) that causes desolation to
give both the sanctuary and the host a trampling?
The question is therefore concerned with 3 bits (see pic):
1. when the entire vision (chazon) of D8 would be fulfilled. i.e. the vision of the ram, goat, little horn
- obviously centuries of time here.
2. when the work of the Messianic Prince (tamid) in the Holy Place will conclude.
3. when the rebellion (pesha) of the little horn in attacking the sanctuary will end.

The question is: How long before the whole vision is fulfilled and the daily in the sanctuary and the
rebellion against the sanctuary comes to an end?
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

15
Because one of the 3 questions is how long the vision (which started with the Persian ram symbol)
it makes perfect sense that its starting date is the year a decree was issued by the Persian King
Artaxerxes in 457 BC as required by 9:25.
When we grasp that 8:13 is not just asking about the little horns work but that it embraces the
entire vision of chapter 8 (Persia, Greece, little horns work) and the work of daily ministration in the
heavenly sanctuary, it becomes immediately obvious many centuries of time are in view here and
not just 2300 literal days (or 1150 literal days) and that the papal little horn is an infinitely larger
threat to the gospel of sanctuary truth than what was ever posed by Antiochus Epiphanes.
The vision of D8 takes in the vast period from 457 BC to 1844. When its terminus of 1844 was
reached, the event foretold in 8:14 commenced.
EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #20) - On the typical Day of Atonement blood from the altar of
sacrifice was taken fresh and uncoagulated directly into the Most Holy place. This proves that
Jesus entered directly into the MHP after His sacrificial death on the cross.
ANSWER
Another event also happened on that day which typifies what has yet to happen: the placing of sins
on Azazel the scapegoat and led into the wilderness to die, a symbol of the final disposition of sin
and the annihilation of Satan. This confirms that the events of that day span vast periods of time
although compacted into one day in the type.
It is no more safe to assume because the high priest took blood directly from the altar into the MHP
on the DA that Jesus entered into MHP ministration after His ascension than it is to assume the final
destruction of Satan occurred when Jesus ascended into heaven after His death.
On the typical DA three major events occurred that cover the period from Christs death to the final
destruction of Satan: a daily service (HP ministration), a yearly service (MHP ministration) and the
destruction of the scapegoat (end of the millennium).

TIME-RELATED (OBJECTION #21) - It's impossible to be certain of the exact year that the 70 weeks
prophecy begins. SDAs rely on 457 BC as the 7th year of Artaxerxes, but this date cannot be
proven.
ANSWER
The angel Gabriel says to Daniel: Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the
commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem... (Daniel 9:25). If the objection is correct then
Gabriel misled Daniel; if Gabriel is correct the objector misleads us. The... angels instruction to
Daniel rings with clarity, certainty and definiteness not the vagueness the objection tries to
generate.
There is not one whit of doubt that the decree to restore the Jewish legal system after the 70 years
captivity was given in the 7th year of Artaxerxes in 457 BC. This has been painstakingly set out in
much detail in the book Certainties Of The Advent Movement by W.A Spicer (R&H 1929 pp 134154).
Spicer was a General Conference President. His book provides evidence from Claudius Ptolemys list
of kings, also known as Ptolemys Canon. This ancient work has been confirmed as accurate by Dr
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

16
William Hales, William Whiston and Dr H Grattan Guinness all non-SDAs. That 457 BC is indeed the
7th year of Artaxerxes is also confirmed by the Greek Olympiads and by Sir Isaac Newton.
Gabriel says Know and understand the date. The objector says You cant know the date.

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #22) - The context of Daniel 8:14 is about the earthly sanctuary, not
the heavenly sanctuary.
ANSWER
If the prophecy means 2300 years (as shown in a previous post) then the heavenly sanctuary is
obviously in view in 8:14 because the earthly sanctuary was destroyed in AD 70. We could end it
there if the objector accepts that 2300 years are in scope.
However there are other reasons why the heavenly sanctuary is in view in 8:14:
1. The judgment scene of D7:9-10 parallels the judgment word nisdaq of D8:14. The movement in
D7 is from earthly to heavenly and this is also evident in D8:9-11.
2. There is a change in terms from earthly sanctuary miqdash (8:11) to heavenly sanctuary qodesh
(8:13, 14). If earthly sanctuary was intended throughout, the term 'miqdash' would be used
throughout.
When 2300 years is coupled with these two points, it can also be said that references in D8 to the
daily (tamid) is in connection with both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary. Both pagan and
papal Rome made the tamid inoperative and ineffective: pagan Rome attacked the daily in the
earthly sanctuary by destroying Jerusalem and its sanctuary services in AD 70 (Matt 24:1-3) and
papal Rome attacked the daily in the heavenly sanctuary by RC innovations such as a mediating
priesthood, sacrifice of the mass, the confessional and the worship of Mary as Mediatrix.
Clearly the work of the little horn power in D8 is at first earthly (8:9) and then moves toward a
heavenly assault (8:10).

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #23) Christians are justified immediately when they truly repent
and trust in Christs merits to save them. So why should they go through the drawn out process of
an Investigative Judgment which SDAs say delivers the same 'justified' verdict anyway?"
ANSWER
You are right. We are declared righteous when we truly believe. It is the heart of the gospel and
means much more than forgiveness it means the righteousness of Jesus is credited to us. He takes
our sin upon Him and in exchange we receive His gifted righteousness. This is a very comforting
truth. But unless Jesus returns to claim His people it is a comforting thought already, but not yet
glorious reality.
The Bible contains many already-but-not-yet statements:
If we believe in Jesus we have everlasting life already (John 3:36) but not yet. If we hear His word
and believe God we have eternal life and dont come into judgment already (John 5:24) but not yet.
Believers sit in heavenly places already (Ephesians 2:6) but not yet. Believers are presented
blameless and holy without reproach already (Colossians 1:22) but not yet. Jesus death destroyed
the one who had power over death already (Hebrews 2:14) but not yet. The kingdom of God has
HKEA Evangelistic Alliance
www.hkea.org.au

17
come upon us already (Luke 11:20) but not yet. The ruler of this world will be cast out already (John
12:31) but not yet. Whoever obeys Jesus word will not see death already (John 8:51) but not yet.
Believers are justified already (Romans 3:24) but not yet.
The Bible distinguishes been inaugurated everlasting life and consummated everlasting life, between
inaugurated sitting in heavenly places and consummated sitting in heavenly places, between an
inaugurated declaration of righteousness on the believer and the consummated declaration of
righteousness on the believer.
This same principle operated in Old Testament times: faith in the Lamb to come gave salvation
already but not yet - until Christs first Advent was consummated. In New Testament times faith in
the Lamb who had come gave salvation already but not yet - until Christs Second Advent is
consummated.
We must extend Gods unshakable promises which we believe as present reality now, to their
ultimate glorious fulfillment as consummated reality then.
The eschatological verdict of justified in the Investigative judgment (Daniel 8:14) justifies the One
who declares it by declaring it only on those whose Holy Spirit filled lives validate their outward
profession.
EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #24) - "The SDA teaching of an Investigative Judgment of God's
people is skewed towards works-based salvation because of the emphasis in this judgment on
books of record where supposedly every thought, word and deed is painstakingly analysed over
the believer's lifetime with the view to condemn the believer".
ANSWER
It is true there are books of record (Daniel 7:10) but they don't condemn the believer whose faith in
Jesus is genuine. Books of record ...condemn the hypocrite, the pretender, the masquerader, the
actor, the showman - but never one whose life reveals the fruit of the Spirit.
The essence of the judgment is found in the OT meaning of 'nisdaq' in Daniel 8:14 which means
'justified'. The NT understanding of it is also 'justified', in the Pauline sense without works-reliance,
but with works as its fruit. If anyone says the IJ is works-based they have not updated themselves on
the meaning of 'nisdaq' and how the NT translates the root it comes from which is 'tsadaq'.
In the sanctuary type the priest inspected the lamb for blemishes - not the sinner who brought it in
faith. So it is in the life of all believers in all ages - Jesus is their Substitute and it is He whose perfect
life is imputed to the genuine believer. The priest inspected the lamb not the sinner, a marvelous
gospel message in the type that reveals the substance of the antitype: we are judged perfect in
Christ. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ and like King David, we can face the
judgment with confidence because of what Jesus has done.

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au

18

EVENT-RELATED (OBJECTION #25) - Hebrews 9 teaches that the Holy Place phase of the sanctuary
service symbolises the now obsolete offerings of the Levitical era, when access to God was
restricted and outward ceremonial cleansing was the experience rather than perfection of the
conscience. (Hebrews 9:9-10). It was Most Holy Place ministry that truly typified the work of Christ
(Heb 9:8, 24, 25).
ANSWER
An earlier post (#12) showed the wide disparity among English translations for Hebrews 8 and 9 so
we cannot rely solely on English translations to determine the truth about this point.
An earlier post (#14) also showed that 2300 years are intended in Daniel 8:14 so the heavenly
sanctuary must be in view in that verse because the earthly one was destroyed in AD 70. Other
reasons why the heavenly sanctuary is in view in 8:14 are:
1. The judgment scene of D7:9-10 parallels the judgment word nisdaq of D8:14. The movement in
D7 is from earthly to heavenly and this is also evident in D8:9-11.
2. There is a change in terms from earthly sanctuary miqdash (8:11) to heavenly sanctuary qodesh
(8:13, 14).
These points speak directly to the objection, as references in Daniel 8 to an assault on the daily
(tamid) are in connection with both the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary.
We know pagan Rome made the tamid inoperative in the earthly sanctuary by destroying
Jerusalem and its sanctuary services in AD 70 (Matt 24:1-3). We know papal Rome made the tamid
ineffective in the heavenly sanctuary with innovations such as a mediating priesthood, sacrifice of
the mass, the confessional and worship of Mary as mediatrix. These assaults on the daily
ministration by papal Rome are meaningless if the daily symbolised the Levitical type that ended at
the cross.

FURTHER READING
For more detailed information that covers most of the issues here, please visit:
http://hkea.org.au/daniels-gospel

HKEA Evangelistic Alliance

www.hkea.org.au