Courtesy of Pedro Simao

In recent years a number of Seventh-day Adventists have begun to apply the time prophecies in Daniel 12:5-13 to the future. Rejecting the traditional Adventist understanding, which places the 3½ times, the 1290 days and 1335 days as prophetic time periods in the past, they claim these periods are to be understood as literal days still to come.

A previous issue of Reflections dealt with a number of these proposals.¹ However, a more scholarly attempt to interpret the time prophecies in Daniel 12 as literal days is made by Samuel Nuñez, a Th.D. graduate of Andrews University. In his 1987 doctoral dissertation, entitled The Vision of Daniel 8, he made a systematic study of the different methods used in the interpretation of the book of Daniel. In 2006 Nuñez also published a book on the prophecies of Daniel in Spanish. Prior to its publication, he sent me an English version of chapter four which deals with the time prophecies in Daniel 12. Though at times fairly technical, the chapter exhibits a detailed knowledge of the text. On page 42 he says, “It is the linguistic and textual evidence that permits us to conclude that the days of Daniel 12:11 and 12 should be understood in a literal way.”² In evaluating his views we will consider the literary structure of Daniel 10–12 as well as some linguistic and hermeneutical issues.

Literary Structure of Daniel 12

One main pillar of Nuñez’s argument that the 1290 and 1335 days in Daniel 12:11-12 are literal time periods in the future is the literary structure of Daniel 10–12. While literary structures are helpful in analyzing biblical passages, the interpreter needs to be aware of the subjective component in establishing a literary structure. In regard to Daniel 10 –12, Nuñez, in harmony with most Daniel scholars, divides the text into three sections:³

What is puzzling in this chapter is the fact that when Nuñez discusses the text he ignores this literary structure and begins his analysis with Daniel 12:1, i.e., he takes the last part of Gabriel’s discourse and combines it with the final section to form a new literary unit (the present chapter 12) which he then analyzes.

We need to remember that chapter and verse divisions are not part of the original text. The division into chapters, for example, was only established in the thirteenth century a.d. Since Nuñez’s focus is the time of the end, why did he not begin his analysis in 11:40 where, in the text, the time of the end begins? The reason is simple, if he had started in 11:40 one main pillar of his argument would not exist.

Nuñez proposes the following chiasm as representing the structure of the passage:⁴

• A Stand up, time (12:1)

• B Everlasting or forever (12:2)

• C Everlasting or forever (12:3)

• D Many, knowledge (12:4)

• E Daniel (12:5)

• F End of the wonders (12:6)

• G Surely, after a time, times, and half a time. And as soon as . . . all these wonders will be finished (12:7)

• F’ End of these wonders (12:8)

• E’ Daniel (12:9)

• D’ Many, wise (12:10)

• C’ Days, time (12:11)

• B’ Days (12:12)

• A’ Stand up, days (12:13)

This chiastic structures looks very impressive, but it is not as compelling as Nuñez wants us to believe. For example, there are several time references in Daniel 12 (vv. 1-3 and 11-13). Yet, he ignores the time references in verses 4 and 9 (time of the end). The name “Daniel” also appears in verse 4 not just in verses 5 (E) and 9 (E’). The Hebrew verb ‘amad “stand” appears not only in verses 1 (A) and 13 (A’), but also in verse 5 “there stood [‘omdim] two others.”

Thus the chiastic structure is not as solid as it seems; and, if one takes into account that the “time of the end” section begins in 11:40 and not in 12:1, the chiastic structure disappears altogether. It is interesting to note that Nuñez uses Daniel 11:40-45 when he explains Daniel 12:11 (pp. 29, 35, 36, 40, etc.), but not when he establishes the literary structure of the “time of the end” section of Daniel.

Linguistic Issues

Some linguistic matters treated by Nuñez raise a variety of issues.

1. The preposition lamed (l) in Daniel 12:7. Nuñez claims that the preposition lamed in Daniel 12:7 should be translated “after” rather than “for.”⁵ He therefore translates the answer to the question in Daniel 12:6 (“Until when shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?”) as “Certainly it will be after a time, times, and half a time” (12:7);⁶ but is this answering the question? The interrogative “Until when . . .?” expects an answer beginning with “until” or “for” not “after.” Notice the similarity of these verses with other passages using the same terminology:

Isaiah 6:11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” (‘ad matay) And He answered: “Until (‘ad) the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant….”

Daniel 8:13-14 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long (‘ad matay) will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot?” And he said to me, “For (‘ad) two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”

Daniel 12:6-7 And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, “How long (‘ad matay) shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?” Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time (lemo‘ed), times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

The Sabbath/Sunday issue is an important element in Adventist eschatology, but never before has anyone identified the Sabbath with the tamid.

Nuñez is correct in stating that sometimes the temporal use of l can be translated by “after.”⁷ But is this the case in Daniel 12:7? The prepositional phrase lemo‘ed appears five times in the book of Daniel (8:19; 11:27, 29, 35; 12:7) and thirteen times elsewhere in the Old Testament. In these latter cases, it always has the meaning of “at, within, for,” or “according to the appointed time.” In Daniel 8:19; 11:27 and 29 it has the meaning “at the appointed time” or “it refers to the appointed time,” and in 11:35 lemo‘ed can be translated as “for a time appointed” or “until the time appointed.” Thus, not once does lemo‘ed mean “after.” Of course, this does not mean that it cannot have this meaning in 12:7. However, in Daniel 7:25 we have the Aramaic equivalent to “a time, times, and half a time;” and there the context clearly indicates that the saints would be persecuted by the little horn for a time, times, and half a time, a prophecy which has already met its fulfillment.

Since the shattering of the power of the holy people in 12:7, which lasts for 3½ times, seems to be thematically the same as the persecution of the saints in 7:25 which also lasts for 3½ times, it is difficult to see why the preposition l in Daniel 12:7 should be translated “after” rather than “for.”

2. The referent of “wonders” in Daniel 12:6. Nuñez claims that the “wonders” in Daniel 12:6 refer to God’s salvific work on behalf of His people, i.e., the destruction of the king of the North in 11:45 and the liberation of the people of God in 12:1, rather then to the blasphemous words of the “King of the North” in 11:36 or to the incredible destruction of the little horn in 8:24. The reason he gives is that the latter two texts use the verb pala’ whereas 12:6 has the noun pele’.⁸

First it needs to be noted that the term “wonders” does not appear anywhere in 11:45 or 12:1. Secondly, in Daniel 8:24 and 11:36 the verb is a feminine particle used as a noun. Furthermore, as Hamilton, who is quoted by Nuñez, has pointed out, there is no difference in meaning between the noun and the verb. In the book of Psalms, for example, “both refer to God’s wonders, either in a general sense, or in a specific historical antecedent.”⁹ While the noun pele’ generally refers to God’s acts or words, in Lamentations 1:9 it refers to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, as Hamilton has pointed out.¹⁰ Thus, the statement that the noun pele’ “is always used in the context of the acts or words of God”¹¹ and therefore cannot apply to Daniel 8:24 or 11:36 is special pleading and not supported by the larger context of Scripture. If it is argued that God used the Babylonians to punish Jerusalem, we have to respond that whatever God allows he does (Isa 45:7), including the activities of the little horn.

To my knowledge, every commentator on Daniel, whether liberal or conservative, applies pele’ in Daniel 12:6 to the activities of the little horn in 8:24 and also to the activities of the King of the North in 11:36.

3. Literal or Symbolic Days? Nuñez claims that the 1290 and 1335 days in Daniel 12 are literal days because the word yom “day” in the Old Testament (when accompanied by a numeral) always means literal days, referring to Ezekiel 4:5, 6 to prove his point.¹² While it is true that for Ezekiel the numbers referred to were literal days (lying 390 days on the left side and 40 days on the right side), it is precisely this passage that shows that the 390 and 40 literal days symbolized 390 and 40 years, “I have laid on you a day for each year” (Ezek 4:6). Daniel and Revelation are apocalyptic books and, in contrast to Genesis 1 for example, the days in these apocalyptic prophecies are symbolic and not literal as Revelation 12:6, 14 show.

Hermeneutical Issues

A fundamental principle of biblical hermeneutics is that “scripture interprets scripture, one passage being the key to other passages.”¹³ In Daniel 8, 11 and 12 we find two key phrases repeated:

Nuñez agrees that in Daniel 8:11 and 11:31 the taking away of the daily sacrifices (tamid) and the setting up of the abomination of desolation refer to events during the 3½ times of Daniel 7:25 which are now past.¹⁴ In Daniel 12:11, however, he sees the taking away of the daily and the setting up of the abomination of desolation as events in the future. He does this on the basis of the structure of Daniel 12 which he established at the beginning of the paper. But, as we have seen, the structure he finds in Daniel 12 is not as solid as he would like it to be.

On pages 33, 34 and 37 Nuñez identifies the tamid “the daily” or “the continual” as the “continual service” of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, which has been the Adventist position for a long time. However, the “daily” that is taken away in Daniel 12:11, according to Nuñez, is primarily the Sabbath. He arrives at this conclusion in the following way:

What does it mean that the “continual service will be put aside”? Did we not say that it refers to the redemptive ministry of Jesus in the Heavenly Sanctuary? How then could the eschatological Christian Rome put aside or remove this ministry that operates in the Heavenly Sanctuary? To understand this issue we must settle, in the first place, that the ministry of Jesus in the Heavenly Sanctuary is focused on the atonement of sin and the worship of God. In the second place, we must see that Jesus’ ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is performed in conformity to the principles of the law of God and on the basis of his sacrifice. Based on these facts, we can assert that the “continual service” will be put aside when the “king of the North” casts away the law of God and Jesus’ ministry, by imposing in a universal and obligatory way a religious day of observance which will be contrary to the Ten Commandments of God.¹⁵

Daniel 12:5-13 provides explanations for the whole vision of 11:2– 12:4 not just for the last few verses.

Consequently, he identifies the “abomination of desolation” as Sunday.¹⁶ This is a curious mixture of different concepts. The Sabbath/Sunday issue is an important element in Adventist eschatology, but to my knowledge never before has anyone identified the Sabbath with the tamid.

Nuñez claims that “Ellen G. White applies the expression ‘abomination which causes desolation’ of Matthew 24:15 to the idolatrous standards of the Roman army and the future imposition of a false day of rest.”¹⁷ This is not quite correct. What Ellen White actually says is this:

As the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was the signal for flight to the Judean Christians, so the assumption of power on the part of our nation, in the decree enforcing the papal sabbath, will be a warning to us. It will then be time to leave the large cities, preparatory to leaving the smaller ones for retired homes in secluded places among the mountains.¹⁸

She compares two signs: as the siege of Jerusalem was a sign for the Christians then, so Sunday laws will be a sign for the faithful at the time of the end to leave the cities. Nowhere in the context does she even refer to the expression “abomination of desolation.” In the book The Great Controversy she identifies the “abomination of desolation” as the Roman standards.¹⁹

Basic Structure of Daniel’s Visions

The basic structure of Daniel’s visions indicates that the visions are always followed by explanations.²⁰

Thus Daniel 12:5-13 provides explanations for the whole vision of 11:2–12:4 not just for the last few verses. The fact that the “man dressed in linen” says to Daniel, “Go Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end” does not imply, as Nuñez claims, that Daniel wanted to know more about the events of the time of the end.²¹ The phrase ’acharit ’elleh “the end of these things” in Daniel’s question “My lord, what shall be the end of these things?” (12:8) is not simply asking what will happen at the end of time, but what is the conclusion of all these wonderful things of which he has been told. One of the meanings of ’acharit is the “end” or “conclusion” of a transaction or event, e.g., Prov. 25:8; Isa 41:²² Daniel wanted to know what the end, the outcome, the result of all the wonderful things he had heard would be.

Conclusion

Daniel 12:5-13 parallels 8:11-14 and 11:31. A detailed explanation of this passage in light of these parallel verses has appeared in an earlier issue of Reflections.²³ In short, only in 12:11 is a specific time given for the taking away of “the daily” (referred to also in 8:11 and 11:31). This removal of the daily or continual ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary began with Clovis in 508 through the joining of civil and religious powers (the Franks and the Papacy). In a recent publication Heinz Schaidinger, documenting the historical fulfillment of these prophecies, concluded that “In 508, the partnership of throne and altar, the ‘abomination that makes desolate,’ began. Clovis fought for the church, and the church served Clovis.”²⁴

While no beginning point is mentioned for the 1335 days, the context seems to imply that it began at the same time as the 1290 days, putting its fulfillment in 1843-1844 with the preaching of the first angel’s message. Significantly, this is also the final year of the 2300 day-year prophecy of Daniel 8 which opens to view, by contrast with the activities of the little horn, the true ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

The Adventist interpretation which places the fulfillment of these time prophecies during this crucial period of 1843-1844 remains the best solution to the enigmatic words of Daniel 12:5-13.