Grace and peace to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The past eight weeks my travelling companion Igor and myself have been visiting believers in various parts of the United States and sharing the good news of the gospel of Christ with all who will listen. We were sent from Australia with a blessing that the joy we have found would be shared with all we connect.
Our trip started in Talking Rock Georgia where we attended the Passover.
It was wonderful to be able to fellowship and share a number of messages at Talking Rock. We made some new friends and enjoyed several blessings before brother Igor and I began to tour the western part of the United States.
We have currently been visiting believers in some of the eastern states like Virginia, North Carolina and next week we will be in Florida. I thank the Lord each day for strength to share the gospel of grace committed to us at this time. I pray you are blessed by the reports and I want to say a special thank you to the many believers who are praying for us and supporting us finanically to make this trip possible. Most of all I want to thank my wife who encourages me to keep moving forward and supporting me in this time away. Her price is above rubies.
After my realisation of my wrong understanding of the teaching about God, I have been impressed to check more thoroughly the foundations of my faith. This has let me to enquire - what exactly was the foundation given to our pioneers and what exactly did they teach not only on the subjects of the Sanctuary, the Sabbath, the State of the Dead and the Second Coming but also on prophecy. Did our pioneers indeed lay a solid platform in establishing the date Oct 22 1844? What were the key points involved in arriving at this date?
One small booklet I have read recently has been Robert Wieland's Have we followed cunningly devised fables. It has helped fill in some details from some thoughts I had in regard to Daniel 8 and 11 concerning the Daily that I wrote about in Return of Elijah Chapter 25d.
It is my desire to raise positive enquiry on this question especially since my time in seminary in Australia where the date 1844 was presented as being very difficul to sustain and that Antiochus Epiphanes was truly the primary fulfillment by some. One area I would like to raise for further study is the method of intepretation required to sustain aspects of the Daily being the ministry of Christ in heaven. Does it truly follow Miller's rules?
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
Dan 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
When we take the understanding that the daily is the ministration of Christ then we understand that the little horn did not literally take away the daily or cast down the heavenly Sanctuary. Christ never stopped interceding for us and the Sanctuary in heaven was never touched by human hands. The only possible way to draw the conclusion of the heavenly view is to suggest that it was a spiritual taking away from the minds of men. But Daniel clearly shows us the language he uses when the Little Horn seeks to do something spiritually but is not actually taking place. We see this in the law.
Dan 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
The Scripture does not say that the little horn changed times and laws but only that he thought to do this. This is the language that would be needed in Daniel 8:11 and 11:31 for the heavenly view of the daily to be correct without violating the text. It should read
Dan 8:11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him [he thought to take] the daily sacrifice ... away, and [thought to cast down] the place of his sanctuary...
The text in Daniel says the daily was literally taken away and the Sanctuary was literally cast down. The only possible way for this to literally take place is to take the understanding that our pioneers had on this subject.
Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Daniel 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the  judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Early Writings page 74 and 75.
Inspiration points out the word sacrifice was supplied and it should not be included. If the heavenly ministry of Jesus is meant here then the supplied word does not conflict with the passage for we believe that Christ up till 1844 was applying the benefits of His sacrifice in the Holy Place. The natural connection of the ministry of Christ to the sacrifices actually creates a natural bridge to Antiochus Epiphanes in taking away the sacrifices before the coming of Christ the first time. This makes Antiochus the primary fulfilment because he literally stopped the sacrifices and the post cross fulfilment a secondary one and this is exactly what I was taught in seminary. The enticement of Antichocus becomes more apparent when we see that the Adventist heavenly view of the Daily has no relevance from 457BC till after the cross thus breaking the continuance of the question "How Long" in Daniel 8:13. Into this 500 plus year gap stand Antiochus Epiphanes. The Protestant world could see this glaring error as could Desmond Ford and many other Adventist Bible Students who see far less relevance to the date 1844. Is it wise to follow the teaching first introduced to Adventism by L.R Conradi - the formost despiser of the 1888 message? The greatest tragedy was that Jones and Waggoner became infactuated with this understanding in the late 1890's after Ellen White had stopped indicating that the 1888 message could still be responded to.
The midnight cry of 1844 was built firmly on the understanding that the Daily of Daniel was paganism. The light of the midnight cry will light the path all the way to the city and that cry was made with Miller's understanding of the Daily - a view not held by any protestant group before or after that time.
At this I raised my eyes, and saw a straight and narrow path, cast up high above the world. On this path the Advent people were traveling to the city, which was at the farther end of the path. They had a bright light set up behind them at the beginning of the path, which an angel told me was the midnight cry. This light shone all along the path and gave light for their feet so that they might not stumble. Early Writings page 14
For further study:
The Daily - Robert Wieland
New Video Series.
“Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them.” EW 127 (1882)