The controversy was introduced by 1898, with L. This statement had to play an important role later in the historical controversy on the “daily” that would last about 40 years (1898-1939) – incredibly long for such small point. Meantime, in 1850-1851, a visionary testimony of E G White had introduced a problematic statement regarding “the daily”.

John Andrews (1853) and James White (1870) would follow him. Smith’s book became the greatest apocalyptic exegetical commentary and apologetic tool that influenced our Church, until the turn of the century.

Thus the view of “the daily” as “paganism” survived among SDA. Even before Smith, Joseph Bates was the first to promote Miller’s view in 1846. įor a short time, Uriah Smith expounded Crosier’s position (RH, March 28, 1854), but he turned back to Miller’s view in 1864. ” This was the Daily Sacrifice they took away”. The suppression in the church of the doctrine that Christ “ WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US. Litch’s exposition of Dan 11:31, on the taking away of the Daily, supports the idea that it was a Christian institution. Crosier identified “the daily” with the daily service pertaining to the altar of sacrifices and to the Holy Place, and he wrote that “The daily service described was a sort of continual intercession.” But in March 1847 he clearly applied “the daily” to “the true doctrine of the cross”: I did not find information about Fitch’s interpretation of the “daily”, but he certainly did not agree with Miller at this point. Some held that it symbolized the true Gospel, but mosts pointed out to the true Christian worship. īetween the 16 thto 10 th centuries, Protestant scholars had promoted a spiritual understanding of the “daily sacrifice”. The 1843 prophetic chart omitted however this interpretation, since other Millerites, especially Charles Fitch did not agree with it. He felt especially illuminated by the apparent parallel between the removal of “the daily”, announced by Daniel, and the removal of the pagan Rome, announced by Paul (2Th 2:7-8), preceding the setting up of the “desolating iniquity / abomination” or “the mistery of iniquity”. He reached such original conclusion by insisting that the word “sacrifice” is “inserted” by translators, and thus the expression “the daily” has no connection to the sanctuary service. ” of Daniel 8:11-13 11:31 12:11 to the ancient paganism, replaced by the medioeval Antichrist abomination.

Evanghelia dupa petru pdf