Analysis of The Apotelesmatic Principle

// ,2 go
An analysis of the principle of Dr. Ford's application of

the apotelesmatic principle to the prophecies of Daniel.
MAR 0 0 M
Downloaded Pr
CompuServe
An Analysis of the
Apotelesmatic Principle
William H. Shea
Biblical Research Institute
Introduction
In his study of the prophecies of Daniel, Dr. Desmond

Ford, a former teacher at Avondale college in Australia,
concluded that the doctrine of the preadvent judgment
beginning in 1844, as taught by Seventh-day Adventists,
did not have a sound basis in the biblical text. As a
solution to this supposed problem, he has invoked what he
calls "the apotelesmatic principle."
Dr. Ford states his solution thus: "It seems to this
writer that the apotelesmatic principle is the very key
we need to authenticate our denominational Appropriation
of Dan. 8:14 to our own time and work."' He further
elaborates: "The answer to this problem is also the
answer to our other key problems in the area of the
sanctuary. It can be given in a single phrase--the
apotelesmatic principle. This principle affirms that a
prophecy fulfilled, or fulfilled in part, or unfulfilled
at the appointed time, max have a later or recurring, or
consummated fulfillment..4
Inasmuch as Dr. Ford stands virtually alone in
applying the apotelesmatic principle to the prophecies of
Daniel, it will not be possible to discuss it apart from
the materials he has authored in recent years. The
following discussion is therefore offered as an analysis
of the principle and its proposed applications.
The background of the term "apotelesmatic" may be of
interest to the reader. It was originally used in
classical Greek in connection with astrological
predictions based on the reading of horoscopes, etc. By
the time of the Church Fathers, however, it had merely
come to be a synonym for prophecy. Our author appears to
have adopted the term from some of the writings of the
1Desmond Ford, "Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement,

and the Investigative Judgment," position paper prepared
for review at Glacier View, Colorado, August 1980, 345
(her after noted as GV MS).
'Ibid., 485.
mwww
Ream* cENTIN
Ames irtat.
"Daft Vilivititsji).
Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research
late George McCready Price, a well-known Adventist
educator (1870-1963).
The idea that prophecies may have more than one
fulfillment is not new, either in non-Adventist or
Adventist circles of prophetic interpreters. It may be
seen from the biblical data itself that some of the OT
prophecies had a primary application in the times of
ancient Israel, but later found secondary fulfillments in
Christ, in the Christian church, or in the new earth. A
common illustration of this is the prophecy of Isaiah
7:14 which had a lOcal application in ancient Israel in
the eighth century B.C. (see context of the chapter), but
met a further fulfillment in Jesus' coming as the Messiah
(Matt 1:22-23).
In terms of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel (to
cite an example in this kind of biblical literature)
Adventist interpreters have seen a dual application of
the little horn of Daniel 8 to both pagan and papal Rome.
However, this is virtually the only dual application of
the apocalyptic symbols of Daniel that such interpreters
have adopted. The reason for this identification is that
in context the "little horn" of Daniel 8 is in the same
position in the flow of the vision and carries out the
same activities as the fourth beast and its little horn
in the vision of Daniel 7.
Thus the idea that a given prophecy may have an
additional fulfillment is not new. What is new is our
author's wholesale application of this idea. In the
proposed system of interpretation the little horn of
Daniel 8 becomes not only pagan and papal Rome but also
Antiochus Epiphanes and a final Antichrist just before
Christ comes, and probably also a revived Antichrist at
the end of the millennium. Furthermore, the apotelesmatic
reapplications of the little horn in Dan 8 are relatively
restricted in comparison to the broad scale upon which
Daniel 8:14 is applied. We note the following:
The verse [Dan 8:14], like Dan. 2:44;

7:9-13; 12:1; and 9:24-27 is apotelesmatic in
application, fitting not only the victory over
the typical Antichrist, Antiochus, in 165 B.C.,
but the great redemption of the cross, and its
final application in the last judgment. (Just as
Isaiah 40-66 picture not only the victory over
Babylon, but over sin.) It applies also to every
revival of true religion where the elements of
the kingdom of God, mirrored in the sanctuary by
the stone tablets and the mercy seat, are
proclaimed afresh, as at 1844.3
3Ibid., 356, italics in the original.

To vindicate the sanctuary [Dan 8:14] means
[.7. Dan 9:24] to finish the transgression, make
an end of sin, bring in atonement for sin and
simultaneously everlasting righteousness for all
who believe--and in addition, confirm all
prophecy by accomplishment including the
establishment of the new temple--first the
Christian church, secondly the new earth with
its New Jerusalem as
, the throne of God and the
everlasting temple.'
Thus 1844 was intended as 'restoration' [Dan

8:14]--a revival of the truths that had been
trampled underfoot or that were about to be. The
history of the church had consisted of a series
of 'deaths' and 'resurrections'--through the
eras dominated by Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece,
Rome pagan, and Rome papal. After each erq of
darkness came a new morning of restoration.
I have added the texts to the quotations to indicate

what verses were being explicated. I count more than a
dozen applications of Daniel 8:14 in these three
citations. Thus the passage has come to mean everything
from a revival of true religion among the Israelites
predating this prophecy to the setting up of the New
Jerusalem in the new earth. It is so general and has been
reapplied so many times in so many ways that it can mean
just about anything good in the history of Israel, the
history of the church, and whatever happens for all
eternity after the second coming of Christ. The one thing
Daniel 8:14 cannot designate (to which the apotelesmatic
principle is never applied) is a heavenly judgment
beginning in 1844!
This approach to the interpretation of Daniel 8:14 is
rather interesting in view of the fact that the author
uses ten pages of his most recent work (GV MS, 346-56)
criticizing pioneer and current Adventist interpretations
of this verse because they do not (in his view) answer
the specific problem posed by the context of Daniel
8:11-13!
The question may reasonably be asked, Whose
interpretation of Daniel 8:14 addresses the context
better--the relatively localized interpretation of the
pioneers or our author's broad generalizations which
apply it to almost every major event throughout the
scheme of salvation history? This might be referred to as
the shotgun approach to the contextual problem of Daniel
8:14. While most of this shot undoubtedly goes wide of
the mark, there may still be something, somewhere, in the
4Ibid. 420.
5Ibi ' 422.
d.,

multitude of apotelesmatic fulfillments that may hit the
target.
Nevertheless, since the apotelesmatic principle is
proposed, as a result of serious study, to be the key to
resolve the exegetical and theological problems our
author sees in Daniel, it deserves a closer examination.
Philosophy
As used by our author, the apotelesmatic principle

has a philosophical undergirding which has been expressed
in a particular maxim appearing first, as far as I can
tell, in his doctoral thesis submitted to Manchester
University in 1972. It is stated as follows: "Here again,
as is so often the case, the heresies prove 'true in what
they affirm, but false in what they deny.'" The
quotation marks are our author's, but he does not credit
the source from which he has taken the thought.
The same thought recurs in his commentary on Daniel.
There it occurs in a discussion of the different schools
of prophetic interpretation:
Having now viewed the respective systems as

wholes, what counsel can be given one who comes
to the task of exegesis with the sole intent of
discovering truth regardless of whether it
supports or wrecks systems?
It must be said that each of the systems is
right in what it affirms and wrong in what it
denies_ . If the apotelesmatic principle
were more widely understood, some differences
between systems would be automatically
resolved.]
The idea is in the same context regarding schools of
prophetic interpretation in a paper prepared for the
Seventh-day Adventist religion teachers' meeting at the
Society of Biblical Literature in New Orleans in November
1978:
Once the principle is grasped we will
understand why many scholars can be listed under
each separate school of interpreters--preterism,
historicism, futurism, idealism. All are right
in what they affirm and wrong in what they
deny.°
6Desmond Ford,
The Abomination of Desolation in
Biblical Eschatology, 74.
'Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, TN, 1978), 68-69,
italics in original.
Desmond Ford, "A Hermeneutic for Daniel," 28; cf.
Ford, GV MS, 505.

It should be pointed out that our author has set a
herculean task for himself in attempting to bring these
three main schools of prophetic interpretation together
under the same umbrella of the apotelesmatic principle.
While there may be some points on which they can agree,
this union of opposites has never been attempted by any
modern interpreter of apocalyptic prophecy, as far as I
am aware. The basic reason for this is that in the past
these prophetic schools have been seen to be in contrast,
even in contradiction, to each other. The very fact that
they have already been identified as separate schools of
interpretation strongly suggests this.
The historicist school of thought has been
antagonistic to the preterist school on many points. The
futurist school, as currently supported by a large number
of evangelicals, also stands in clear opposition to
preterism. There is some agreement between historicism
and futurism up to a point, but not after futurism takes
the great leap forward into the future.
It is hard to envision the sixteenth century Spanish
Jesuit Alcazar, the father of the Catholic preterist
view, sitting down to a harmonious agreement on the
interpretation of prophecy with Hal Lindsay! To attempt
to bring these schools of thought together in a
harmonious apotelesmatic whole would appear to be a
formidable task, if not impossible. Therefore, any
interpretational tensions cannot be smoothed over by
simply invoking an abstract principle to reconcile them.
Evidence for this will be discussed below in the section
on the practice of this principle.
Having traced the use of this maxim, it seems
reasonable to expect that some inductive derivation or
philosophical justification for the premise it advocates
should have been advanced. But to my knowledge none has
been proposed. The mere assertion of this maxim is not
proof of its correctness, and the burden of proof is upon
him who proposes.
What this statement really says is that there is no
such thing as two mutually exclusive assertions when
those assertions are cast as positive propositions.
Therefore, what this leads to is the nonfalsifiability of
positive propositions and the nonverifiability of
negative propositions. If this is the case, then it is
going to be difficult to come to any concrete conclusions
in the interpretation of prophecy.
After the statement of this principle in his Daniel
commentary, some instances of its application are
given.' For example, preterists are right in emphasizing
that the prophecies of Daniel had meaning for the people
of the time of the author (but for preterists this is the
9
Daniel, 69.

second century B.C., not the sixth century B.C.), but
they are wrong when they deny applications in the future
beyond that time.
Futurists are right in affirming that these
prophecies focus on still future events as a prominent
center of interest; but they are wrong in denying them
meaning through crises prior to that final culmination.
Historicists are right in affirming that they are
fulfilled through the course of history, "But they are
wrong if they minimize the stress on the future10climactic
struggle that the prophetic word emphasizes.
I do not personally know of any historicist inter-
preters who minimize stress upon future events foretold
in these prophecies. They may disagree with futurist
interpreters on how those future details will be
fulfilled, but they do not minimize that stress in the
least. On the contrary, much of the attention in the
historicist commentaries on Daniel and the Revelation
with which I am acquainted is devoted with considerable
emphasis upon future events. Having seen how history has
fulfilled prophecy up to this present time, the focus in
this kind of work is commonly upon how the prophecies
soon to transpire will be fulfilled historically.
What historicist interpreters do deny in this future
emphasis is, for example, that the Antichrist of
apocalyptic prophecies will be one literal human
individual who will set himself up as ruler in the
literal Israel of the Middle East during the last seven
years of earth's history--Daniel's seventieth week. But
the same point is denied in our author's commentary on
Danie,L
Specifically, in this connection, it must be
pointed out that [Dan] 9:24-27 gives not the
slightest hint that there is to be a gap between
the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. .
Again we should note that the covenant spo-
ken of as being confirmed is the everlasting
covenant confirmed by Christ on Calvary [Dan
9:27]. Nowhere in the New Testament is there the
slightest suggestion that antichrist is tp make
a covenant with anybody in the last days,a
To cite another example (one that we mention briefly

below), the preterist school of interpreters holds that
the fourth beast of Daniel 7 is Greece, while the
historicists and futurists hold that it is Rome. No one
has proposed that it is both Greece and Rome. This is not
an incidental detail in this prophecy. It is a major
point in the prophecy itself and a major dividing point
N Ibid.
11
Ibid., 201, italics in the text.

in interpretations held by commentators of these
different schools of thought.
I do not see any way this point can presently be
resolved by the application of the apotelesmatic
principle. The fourth beast should be either Greece or
Rome. Any intelligent reader attempting to understand
this prophecy must choose between these two alternatives.
If the apotelesmatic principle means that the rejected
alternative should have been accepted anyway because it
has been affirmed by another school of interpreters, then
the apotelesmatic principle is wrong in this case by both
the rules of natural logic and by the testimony of all
past commentators on Daniel.
At the very least, this principle must be unappli-
cable in this instance. And if it is unapplicable to this
major question of interpretation, how many more such
questions are there to which it cannot be applied? And
how does one know in which instances it should be applied
and in which instances it should not be applied?
The problem we have run into here is one of
generalization versus specific application. It is all
well and good to say that prophecies should have a past,
present, and future application. (Incidentally, that fits
the historicist school of interpretation best.) In this
form of generalization that idea might sound acceptable
to a number of prophetic interpreters from different
schools of thought. The problem comes, however, when one
sets out to see just how these past, present, and future
applications are derived from the prophetic symbols and
statements themselves. Can any given beast or horn or
action thereof have all these kinds of applications?
Prophetic schools of interpretation are ultimately
made up of the sum total of their cumulative
interpretations of the symbols and statements in these
prophecies. When the bulk of these are located in one
arena of application, that identifies the given
commentator as belonging to such and such a school of
prophetic interpretation. When they are located in
another arena of application and action, that puts the
interpreter in another school of thought. Their wholes
are the sum of their individual parts, they do not differ
from them.
The validity of the positions held by an individual
interpreter or a school of interpreters must finally be
judged by the accuracy of his or their historical
applications of the different statements in these
prophecies. Interpreting prophecy involves the task of
deducing historical applications from the contents of the
prophecies which have been given by God through His
servants the prophets. It is not an inductive task that
is unrelated to the contents of the prophecies given.
A logical way to set forth propositional truth is to
state the central truth first in a positive form, like
the apotelesmatic principle, if it be such. Then delimit

this positive proposition by stating what it does not
mean, and what it does not include. This is one place
where our proponent for the apotelesmatic principle has
faltered. The principle has been delimited or defined in
this manner in his writings. As it stands, the principle
has been stated in broad and positive terms without the
defunction of any particular exception in which it might
be limited or inapplicable.
Since those stated limitations are lacking, one can
only judge the principle on the basis of how it has been
presented. If this involves evaluating this principle
unfairly, then the fault for such would seem to lie at
the door of the one who proposed it in these terms. In
noting the contrasting exceptions to this principle in
the discussion which follows, the reader should keep in
mind that the principle is being evaluated in the terms
in which it has been stated. We are unable to take into
account whatever future modifications of this principle
may be proposed. We can only deal with it on the basis of
the way it has been stated in what has been written on it
up to this time.
Practice
Selective Use of the Apotelesmatic Principle
Having defined the principle and its underlying

premise, we should now consider the way it has been, or
may be, used in theory and in practice. First a
theoretical example: Suppose a fundamentalist radio
broadcaster from the Bible belt preaches one Sunday that
the little horn of Daniel 8 should be applied to the
Ayatollah. Khomeini. Suppose also that another broadcaster
in a nearby locale preaches the next Sunday that the
little horn was the Shah of Iran. We would appear to have
two diametrically opposed interpretations of the little
horn. But since both views should be right in what they
affirm, we are forced to accept both as being valid.
Moving on from this hypothetical illustration
indicating the problems involved with the apotelesmatic
principle, let us look at some of the instances where our
author should have applied the principle, but didn't. We
take his works in chronological order:
A. Abomination of Desolation (1972). The first 100
pages of this study are devoted to an examination of the
four main interpretative views of Mark 13 (cf. especially
p. 62):
1. That it applies to the fall of Jerusalem.
2. That it applies to the end of the age.
3. That it applies to both on the basis that either
Christ or the evangelist blended the themes.
4. That it applies to both as promised by Christ to
the generation contemporary with Him.
Our author states that only the fourth view is completely

correct. However, based on the fact that each of these
views has been affirmed by various interpreters at one
time or another, they should all be accepted as correct
via the apotelesmatic principle.
B. Identifications for the abomination of
desolation. In the same work our author's examination of
the six different identifications for the abomination of
desolation in Mark 13 may be noted." The possibilities
considered include:
1. Titus' statue erected in Jerusalem.
2. Statues erected by Pilate and Hadrian.
3. The atrocities of the Zealots.
4. Caligula's attempted profanation.
5. The Antichrist.
6. The invading Roman armies.
In accepting the last of these theories as correct,
our author notes: "This viewpoint gives weight to both
profanation and devastation, and certainly the Roman
invasion brought both. This understanding, and this
understanding alone rings true to the demands of the
literary, philological, and historical evidence of Mark
13."13
To the contrary, all six should have been accepted as
correct via the apotelesmatic principle, since
interpreters are correct in what they affirm and wrong in
what they deny.
C. The "hinderer." When our author comes to
interpret the "hinderer" in 2 Thessalonians 2, he
considers five views that have been advanced by
scholars.14
1. The contemporary-historical view which applies
this to the predecessors of Caligula or Nero.
2. The traditional view which sees this as the
relationship between the Roman Empire and the Emperor.
3. The mythological view which finds some sort of
spiritual being restraining the monster of chaos.
4. The gospel view suggesting that the hinderer is
the necessity for worldwide proclamation of the gospel.
5. That it is the exercise of a charismatic
pseudoprophetic gift.
Our author rejects all of these interpretations and
instead identifies the "hinderer" in the following terms:
"Meanwhile, the Holy Spirit, working through all benign
institutions of the race such as civil law, would
restrain man's natural wickedness...15
Since various interpreters have affirmed these
interpretations, those interpretations should all be
12
Ford Abomination of Desolation, 158-69.
13
Ibid.'169.
14
Ibid.212-20.
'220.
15Ibi d.,

accepted as correct via the apotelesmatic principle, but
our author denies them. Thus using his own principle, his
rejection of them as incorrect should in turn be rejected
as incorrect.
D. Revelation. For the book of Revelation our author
notes, "Strangely enough, critic can be pitched against
critic on almost every issue affecting its worth."
In the discussion following this statement our author
comes out on one side and is opposed to other possible
viewpoints concerning Revelation. Need he have done that?
Should he not have invoked the apotelesmatic principle
and accepted all the interpretations he has discussed,
since interpreters are right in what they affirm and
wrong in what they deny? His opening statement on
Revelation (cited above) appears to admit the
impossibility of the task he has set out for himself in
attempting to reconcile the three major schools of
interpretation via the apotelesmatic principle.
E. Apotelesmatic principle and the expression "this
generation" in Mark 13:30. An important part of our
author's presentation is that in the sermon of Mark 13
Jesus is making the promise that both the fall of
Jerusalem and His second advent will occur in the
lifetime of His hearers. This is the meaning he gives to
the words "this generation" which was not to pass away
before all "these signs" had been fulfilled. So our
author views "this generation" as being the one to which
the persons listening to Jesus belonged.
Other views, however, have been offered on the
meaning of this reference by both ancient and modern
interpreters. These interpretations should also have been
taken into account because consistency would dictate that
the passage be looked at apotelesmatically. Seven major
views on this verse have been expressed, and there are a
number of variations on these themes. These include the
views that "this generation" referred to is:
1. That of the apostles who heard Jesus (our
author).
2. That which saw the celestial signs in the
nineteenth century (traditional Seventh-day Adventist).
3. Mankind in general, as this word is used
especially in Luke (H. Conzelmann).
4. The Jewish race or nation (Jerome among the
fathers; H. Schniewind in modern times).
5. A kind of people, especially the wicked
(W. Michaelis).
6. The disciples as Christians in general (as held
by Chrysostom, Victor of Antioch, and Theophylact among
the fathers).
7. That it has a dual application, meaning more than
16
Ibid. 253.

one generation.
What should our author have done when confronted by
this variety of interpretations? According to the
apotelesmatic principle, he should have accepted all of
them as correct. It is his failure to apply the
apotelesmatic principle here that explains his whole
eschatological system, since that system derives
originally from a one-sided interpretation of Mark 13.
His view that Mark 13 was to have been fulfilled in
the first century has been superimposed upon all lines of
prophecy in the OT and NT as well. Thus all the
prophecies of Daniel have to be brought into line with
his view of Mark 13, which has not itself received the
benefit of the application of the apotelesmatic
principle.
Thus the apotelesmatic principle is a principle that
our author applies to Daniel, but not to Mark. If his own
principle had been applied to Mark with rigor equal to
that with which it has been applied to Daniel, then no
conflict would have arisen in the interpreter's prophetic
scheme.
Selective use of apotelesmatic

principle in Daniel
While our author applies the apotelesmatic principle
to Daniel but not to Mark, it is also to be observed that
it is applied to only selected portions of Daniel. In his
commentary on the book of Daniel our author does not
apply the principle to Daniel 2 or 7; but he applies it
to Daniel 8-9 and 11. An example of the problems created
by this procedure may be observed in the following pro-
phetic interpretations. In the first, the principle is
not applied; in the second, it is.
A. Daniel 7--no application of the apotelesmatic
principle. Our author follows the traditional and
historicist Adventist interpretation of the four beasts
and the little horn of Daniel 7: (1) Babylon,
(2) Medo-Persia, (3) Grecia, (4) Pagan Rome, and
(5) Papal Rome. The preterist interpretation of these
symbols (not mentioned in the commentary on this chapter)
is that they represent (1) Babylon, (2) Media,
(3) Persia, (4) Grecia, and (5) Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
This school of interpretation (the dominant scholarly
view on the subject at the present time) holds that
Daniel was written in the second century B.C.
Now let us apply our author's apotelesmatic principle
to the historicist and the preterist interpretations of
Daniel 7, for it is precisely in the context of these
different schools of interpretation that he has said this
principle should be invoked. Both "schools" are agreed
that the first symbol represents Babylon. According to
one the second symbol represents Media while the other
holds that it represents the dual kingdom of Medo-Persia.

Since this difference is not great, it does not create
problems yet.
The third symbol, however, ends up as Persia in one
system and Grecia in the other. How this symbol can stand
for both of these antagonistic powers is difficult to
see. No one has been able to reconcile these differing
viewpoints before our author introduced the apotelesmatic
principle. It is surprising, therefore, that he does not
apply it here when it would have resolved this dilemma.
The fourth beast also presents a problem in that one
school of interpretation views it as Grecia while the
other takes it as Rome. This is as great a difficulty as
that encountered with the third symbol.
At this point we may make a comparison with Daniel 8.
In Daniel 8 one system views the little horn coming out
of the Grecian he-goat as Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
However, the other system views it as the papal horn.
Since our author accepts both of these interpretations
for the little horn in chapter 8 on the basis of the
apotelesmatic principle, he could have applied it just as
well to the interpretation of the little horn in Daniel
7; but he doesn't. He could have made an Antiochus-papacy
synchronization, as he does in Daniel 8; but he would not
have been able to harmonize the differing interpretations
of the preceding three beasts. Thus it is evident that
the application of this principle is arbitrary. Our
author has yet to apply it to chapter 7 where tensions
between these two schools of interpretation remain.
B. Daniel 9--application of the apotelesmatic
principle. In the preface to his interpretation of the
prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 our author notes, "By far the
most prominent school today, because of its dating of the
book in Maccabean times, sees in these verses a
description of events that transpired in connection with
AntiochLs Epiphanes and his attack on the Jewish
faith.
In his evaluation of this point of view, however, our
author rejects it: "The evidence is overwhelming that the
New Testament teaches that 9:24-27 ws not accomplished
in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
When it comes to the events at the end of the 70
weeks, our author applies the prophecy apotelesmatically
both to the time of Jesus' first advent and to the time
of His second advent. However, in reapplying this
prophecy to the latter time, he refuses to split off the
seventieth week as dispensational-futurist interpreters
do:
[Daniel] 9:24-27 gives not the slightest
17
Ford, Daniel, 199.
18
I bi d., 207.

hint that there is to be a gap between the
sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. The seventy
weeks are as surely a unit as the seventy years
of Jeremiah. Had Jeremiah's prophecy contained a
gap, Daniel would never have been able to
understand the prediction. He would have been
deceived Ny it. The same is true in the present
instance.
Thus while our author applies the Messianic prophecy

of Daniel 9:24-27 to Jesus' time in the first century and
to what shall be accomplished at the end of the age, he
rejects the preterist interpret ation applying these
events to Antiochus Epiphanes; and he rejects the
dispensational-futurist interpretation splitting off the
seventieth week and transfers it down to the end of time.
Since these are positive affirmations by these
interpreters, they should have been accommodated under
the umbrella of the apotelesmatic principle. Again,
according to the maxim he has espoused, he is wrong in
denying what another school has affirmed.
Therefore, even in Daniel where this principle is to
be applied, our author is arbitrary when it comes to the
prophetic passages to which he will apply the principle.
He has rejected its application in Daniel 7 where there
are major conflicts between two schools of interpretation
that have not yet been resolved. But he applies it to the
parallel prophecy of Daniel 8.
When it comes to Daniel 9, he applies it only
partially. That is, he accepts all of one school of
thought on it (historicist), none or little of another
school of thought (preterist), and part of another school
of thought (futurist). Given the extremely arbitrary
application of this principle in selected passages of
Daniel, it does not appear to be much of a principle at
all.
Selective use of elements to which

principle is applied
We have seen that the apotelesmatic principle--as

used by our author--is selectively used, being applied
only to certain books (for example, to Daniel's
prophecies rather than to Mark's) and only to certain
° Ibid., 201.
20Some allowance may possibly be made by our author
for an application of Dan 9:24-27 to Antiochus Epiphanes
on p. 200 of his Daniel commentary; the thrust of that
application is left with citations from commentators of
that viewpoint, but no explicit statement to that point
is present in the text.

prophecies within Daniel (for example, to Daniel 8, but
not to Daniel 7).
It should also be pointed out that, even in those
passages of Daniel in which the apotelesmatic principle
has been applied in the past by our author, the past
application has been altered. This is evident from a
comparison of his commentary on Daniel (1978) with his
later treatment of the prophecies of Daniel in the
manuscript prepared for the Glacier View conference (GV
MS, 1980).
The limits of this chapter prohibit any comprehensive
examination of the use of the apotelesmatic principle in
this latter work. In place of such treatment two aspects
have been selected from it for a closer examination: (1)
its application and then non-application to the time
prophecies of Daniel, and (2) those instances where the
principle is supposed to be found in the comments of
Ellen White. The concluding section of this chapter will
deal with the alleged "evidence" from the writings of
Ellen G. White.
To illustrate the altered approach to the time
prophecies in Daniel, I have listed in parallel columns
below the dates connected with them as given by our
author in his commentary and the rejections of those same
dates in the Glacier View manuscript (1980).
Since these dates have been accepted by various
historicist interpreters of prophecy--both Adventist and
non-Adventist--they should be accepted according to the
apotelesmatic principle, inasmuch as commentators are
right in what they affirm. They were accepted by our
author in 1978, but are now rejected in the Glacier View
manuscript of 1980:
Text Daniel (1978) Glacier View MS (1980)

Dan 7:25
3i times
begins A.D. 538 Accepted, p. 154 Rejected, pp. 292, 323, 337
ends A.D. 1798 Accepted, p. 154 Rejected, pp. 292, 323, 337
Dan 8:14
2300 days
begins 457 B.C. Accepted, p. 189 Rejected, p. 288
ends A.D. 1844 Accepted, p. 189 Rejected, pp. 287, 288
Dan 9:24-21
70 weeks
begins 457 B.C. Accepted, p. 230 Rejected, pp. 288, 317, 320
7 wks 408 B.C. Accepted, p. 231 Rejected, pp. 289, 317
62 wks A.D. 27 Accepted, p. 232 Rejected, pp. 289, 317
wk A.D.31 Accepted, p. 234 Rejected, pp. 289, 317
wk A.D. 34 Accepted, p. 235 Rejected, pp. 289, 317
Dan 12:11-12
1290 days
ends A.D. 1798 Accepted, p. 283 Rejected, p. 292
1335 days
ends A.D. 1844 Accepted, p. 283 Rejected, p. 292
As can be seen from the preceding list, there is now

in our author's scheme of interpretation an
across-the-board rejection of chronological-historical
application of any time element in biblical apocalyptic
prophecy. The list given above is for Daniel; but the
same holds true for prophecies with time elements in
Revelation.
That he rejects the application to A.D. 538-1798 for
the five references to the 1260 days (including the 42
months and the 32 times) in Revelation 11-13 has been
made clear from his treatment of the 32 times of Daniel
7:25 noted above. He also rejects any dateable
historicist application of the year-day principle to the
10 days of persecution in Revelation 2:10,21 the time
period of the sixth trumpet ,22 and the 3i days of
Revelation 11:9.23
In contrast to his previous work, therefore, our
author now flies in the face of his apotelesmatic
principle by denying the possibility that any dateable
historicist application of any time element in
apocalyptic prophecies can be correct, regardless of
whether the application is primary or apotelesmatic.
There is one exception to this general rule in his
present work. He does apply dates to the 2300 days of
Daniel 8:14. This time element he says applies to the
period during which Antiochus IV Epiphanes persecuted the
21
Ford, GV MS, 326.
nIbid. 292, 325.
23 ' 292.
Ibi d.,

Jews from 171-165 B.C. These dates provide him with a
period of approximately 6i years or 2300 days. According
to our author, time prophecies are never meant to be
exact.24
There are serious historical and exegetical problems
with this proposal, and he has contradicted himself on
this point bath in the present manuscript and when it is
compared with his commentary on Daniel_
Historically, Antiochus" principal persecution of the
Jews began in 168 B.C., when he returned from his
prolonged campaign in Egypt (170-168 B.C.). But the
passage of time from 168 to 165 B.C. does not yield the
full 2300 days which our author desires; hence, he must
push the date for the commencement of that persecution
back to 171 B.C.
This poses an even greater problem--an exegetical
one, because Daniel 8:14 specifically mentions only the
restoration or cleansing of the temple at the end of that
time period. This indicates that the time period should
refer mare directly to the time the temple was polluted,
not to a time of persecution. Our author has noted this
point in a series of objections he has raised against the
traditional Adventist interpretation of the judgment:
"Though in the context, the 2300 has been understood by
many as applying to the length of time the little horn is
trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending its
offerings.
The problem with following this suggested
interpretation, however, is that the book of Maccabees
indicates that Antiochus" pollution of the temple lasted
precisely three years (1 Macc 1:54, 59; 4:52-54). Since
that time period does not fit the 2300 days, it must be
lengthened by making the 2300 days refer to persecution
instead. Aside from moving farther away from what the
text specifically states, our author has contradicted on
page 383 of the GV MS what he wrote on this subject on
page 288.
Thus neither the length of Antiochus" persecution nor
his pollution of the temple fits the time prophecy of
Daniel 8:14, nor does it answer the question of Daniel
8:13. The question there is not how long the daily will
be taken away and the abomination of desolation be set
up, as it is in Daniel 12:11 where the 1290 days are
mentioned. Rather, the question is, "how long is the
vision concerning [these things]?"
According to its context, the antecedent of the word
"vision" is everything described in Daniel 8:2-12. This
vision not only includes the actions that the little horn
perpetrated against God but also the Persian ram and the
Greek goat which are all part of the same vision. When
N
Ibid. 291.
25
Ibid., 288.

the angel asked how long the vision was, therefore, the
time period in the answer to his question should most
naturally extend back to the Persian period with which
the vision began. In his 1978 commentary our author
correctly noted the nature of this question in his
comments on this passage:
Furthermore, it should be noted carefully

that the question is not merely, "How long shall
the sanctuary be trodden underfoot?" but, "For
how long is the vision that culminates in the
terrible work of the little horn?" The vision
actually begins with Medo-Persia, and thus we
would expect that the 2300-day period should
26
likewise begin in the days of that empire.
But it is evident that there is no way these 2300

days can be interpreted as literal days (as our author
now wishes to construe them in his latest manuscript) and
extend them from sometime in the Persian period down to
Antiochus" time in the middle of the Greek Seleucid
period.
Thus our author has once again retreated from his
position in his commentary, and in this instance attempts
to apply 2300 literal days first to the polluting of the
Jewish temple in the second century B.C., and then to the
trampling of the saints, both incorrect applications
according to context and history.
Another side of this problem is the curious fact that
our author has rejected a series of historical dates
connected with a particular time prophecy, although they
are compatible with his own system of prophetic
interpretation. I refer to the Messianic prophecy of
Daniel 9:24-27. This prophecy is accepted as referring to
Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah in the first century
A.D. At this point there is nothing in his teaching that
differs from traditional Adventist interpretation. Yet he
has felt compelled in his new manuscript to reject and
dispose of the dates that have been applied to its
different time periods: 457 and 408 B.C.; A.D. 27, 31,
and 34.27
Even though these dates can be reconciled with our
author's interpretation of the prophecy, the conclusions
to which their implications might have led could have
been considered as holding potential dangers and
contradictions for his system. In the past these dates
have been used to demonstrate the soundness of the
year-day principle. This was done by showing how well
these historical dates fit the time periods described.
26
Ford, Daniel, 188.
27 Ford, GV MS, 288-89.

If the year-day principle matches this prophecy to
history that well, then it is logical to apply it to the
other time prophecies of Daniel. Our author avoids this
conclusion by separating it from them. This is
accomplished by changing the nature of its time element,
translating it as "sevens" rather than as "weeks,"2°
This is common procedure among Evangelical commentators
today.
However, when Daniel's term is compared with its
occurrences elsewhere in the OT, it will be seen that the
translation of "weeks" is lexically sound and that the
intrusion of the idea of "sevens" is unacceptable.
Furthermore, the year-day principle is implicit in the
term for "weeks." And if it is present in this major time
prophecy in Daniel, it is reasonable to apply it to his
other time prophecies as well. See the discussion on the
"weeks" of Daniel in my book Selected Studies on
Prophetic Interpreta tion. 27
Another possible reason why our author has denied
specific dates for the events of the 70 weeks may be that
their acceptance would give credence to the starting date
of 457 B.C. for the 2300 day-years as well as for the 70
weeks, the validity of which he denies." It is rather
curious, therefore, that our author strongly emphasizes
the thematic relationship between Daniel 8 and 9
(according to him, both were to have ended with the
establishment of the kingdom of God in the first century
A.D.), while he denies any relationship between their
time periods. Adventists have especially emphasized this
latter relationship.
Another probable reason why our author denies the
accuracy of the dates associated with the 70-week
prophecy is his conviction that the apotelesmatic
principle should be applied to Daniel 9:24. He not only
holds this passage to have been fulfilled in the first
century A.D., but also sees a recurring fulfillment in
the consummated kingdom of God at Jesus' second coming.
Apotelesmatically, therefore, Daniel 9:24-27 is a
prophecy of both Jesus' first and second comings. But if
the dates for the primary application of this prophecy
(to Jesus' first coming) are found to be quite accurate,
then a serious question is posed as to why such a
secondary application of this prophecy is necessary.
Too precise a date for the end of the 70 weeks, in
A.D. 34 for example, is also confining for his system,
since the establishment of the kingdom of God which he
sees here was not supposed to occur until after the fall
of Jerusalem, about A.D. 70, according to his
interpretation of Mark 13.
28
Ibid., 295, 323.
29( ashington, DC, Daniel and Revelation Committee).
30Ford, GV MS, 288.

In sum, we may say that while the acceptance of the
historical dates for the fulfillment of the 70-weeks
prophecy do not directly contraditt his prophetic scheme,
their long-range implications probably do cause him to
deny them in order to protect his prophetic system.
Our author's answer to this criticism regarding his
discard of the dates for the fulfillment of these
prophecies is that they are not significant for any
subsequent apotelesmatic fulfillment.
He has stated how he repeats an application of a
prophecy without its dates: "Certain of the prophecies of
Daniel, like many other prophecies of the Old Testament,
apply in principle to later eras than the one first
addressed. The main idea, rather than precise details
(such as 2300 vening-mornings), is what has a recurring
fulfillment."31e
The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 is a classical case in
point here. This is a prophecy which is solidly built
upon a whole chronological framework. There is not just
one individual time element appearing in it. The overall
time period is first stated--70 weeks. Three major
chronological divisions are next specified--7 weeks; 62
weeks; 1 week. Finally, a subdivision is given for the
last of these--half of the week. Thus the chronological
elements of this prophecy are inextricably bound up with
its fulfillment all the way along the line.
So it is interesting to see just what our author
selects from this prophecy as being of apotelesmatic
value. Basically he draws three phrases from verse 24.
Nothing in the rest of this prophecy (vss. 25-27) is
applied apotelesmatically to any significant degree. This
is true not only of the chronological subdivisions but of
the historical events prophesied there. He attempted to
make the other three phrases of verse 24 fit the end time
also, but those applications do not resemble the intent
of the original language.
Thus not only is our author selective regarding the
particular book to which he will apply the apotelesmatic
principle, nor of particular prophecies within the
accepted books, but also of the individual elements
within a given prophecy to which he applies the
principle.
Thus the whole structure of this very chronologically
oriented prophecy and most of the historical events to
which it refers have been discarded to get at the
apotelesmatic point which he wished to draw from it;
namely, it must refer to Christ's second advent as well
as His first. Since such a conclusion has been reached by
ignoring the bulk of the contents of this prophecy, the
application of the apotelesmatic principle does not
appear to be compatible with sound and reasonable methods
M Ibid., 485.

of interpreting prophecy.
Related to the problematic use of the apotelesmatic
principle is the question of what is the significance of
the "primary" application of a prophecy. Going back to
our author's definition of the principle, we read:
This principle affirms that a prophecy

fulfilled, or fulfilled in part, or unfulfilled
at the appointed time, may have a later or
recurring, or consummated fulfillment. The
ultimate fulfillment is the most comprehensive
in scope, though details of the original
forecast may be limited to the first
fulfillment,'
A question here is how the words "comprehensive" and

"details" are related to each other in this statement,
and how a prophecy's "ultimate" fulfillment relates to
its "primary" fulfillment. I would think, by definition
of the English word, that the most "comprehensive"
fulfillment of a prophecy would be that in which the
greatest number of its prophetic details are fulfilled.
Our author apparently does not subscribe to that view.
In applying this discussion to the prophecy of the
little horn (Dan 8), it may be noted that he holds that
the primary and most detailed application of this
prophecy found its fulfillment in Antiochus IV Epiphanes,
as well as its most localized application:
We wish to stress that which elsewhere in

this paper has been affirmed--that the prophecy,
while originally fulfilled in Antiochus, and
only in him as regards its details [italics
mine], also applies in broad outline to later
manifestatio ns of Antichrist including pagan and
papal Rome.n
Rome does not apply as the primary

fulfillment of the little horn, but in both its
phases and at more extensive levels it meets the
chief thrust of the prophecy, though not its
details--both in chapters eight and eleven
[italics mine].34
The problem here, of course, is one of subjectivity.

Now does one know when the "broad outline," the "main
idea," the "chief thrust" and "more extensive levels"
have been fulfilled? A critical scholar would simply say
that you have one fulfillment, that is all the prophecy
32
Ibid., 485.
3
3Ibid. 391.
N Ibid.,
' 392.

requires, and you have grounds for none other. Indeed,
the burden of proof still rests upon the one who proposes
such apotelesmatic applications.
Since the details of this prophecy, according to our
author, applied to Antiochus Epiphanes, it would have
been helpful if he had spelled out in just what way the
"broad outline," etc., applies later to Rome. Is it that
Rome was bigger and more important than Antiochus and the
Selucid dynasty of Syria? If so, then bigger powers
should fulfill prophecy more often than smaller powers.
That is a hard position to sustain, in view of the
contents of the foreign oracles in the OT.
Is the "broad outline" involved here simply the fact
that a particular power was evil and persecuted God's
people? If so, then a door is opened for a myriad of
fulfillments of this prophecy so that it can come to
mean, apotelesmatically, any person or institution that
is evil.
At present, the standard by which the fulfillment of
the broad outline of this prophecy can be met appears to
rest with our author's own subjective judgment. What if
another interpreter differs with him and offers a new
apotelesmatic reapplication? Is that judgment just as
good as his? It is not clear how other interpreters can
employ this principle without a set of more objective
controls with which to judge apotelesmatic fulfillments.
Alleged use of apotelesmatic

principle by Ellen White
In an effort to gain support for his apotelesmatic

applications to some of the prophecies of Daniel, our
author argues that Ellen White herself has made use of
the apotelesMatic principle in many prophetic contexts.
We are mainly concerned with Daniel, but some of the
other examples he has cited far such purposes may be
noted in passing:
A. "'God's work is the same in all time, although
there are different degrees of development' (Patriarchs
and Prophets, p. 373). History and prophecy thus
illustrate each other."a5
However in this passage Ellen White is not talking
about prophecy at all. She is discussing progressive
revelation and not an apotelesmatic application of
prophecy, as a more inclusive quotation indicates:
God's work is the same in all time, although

there are different degrees of development, and
different manifestations of his power, to meet
the wants of men in the different ages.
Beginning with the first gospel promise, and
M Ibid., 493.
AMENTIST
HERITAGE CENTER
James White Library
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY

coming down through the patriarchal and Jewish
ages, and even to the present time, there has
been a gradual unfolding of the purposes of God
in the plan of redemption.36
B. "In the book Prophets and Kings, pp. 677, 678,

Ellen White tells us clearly that the work of the exiles
in rebuilding the sanctuary was typical of the work of
the saints who repair the breach in the wall of God's law
in the last days.'
It is true that Ellen White refers to their work of
building the temple and city as "[presenting] a picture"
and as a "symbol" of the work the church is to do in the
last days. However, to call the parallel she draws a
type-antitype relationship, and then say the parallel
supports an apotelesmatic application of prophecy, seems
remote from the intent of the author.
C. Leviticus 16. Our author says that Ellen White
applied the Day of Atonement to both the cross and the
final judgment (GV MS, 517, 550-55). Aside from the Day
of Atonement allusions in Hebrews from which she borrows
the biblical language, our author has especially
emphasized that she has made such an application in The
Acts of the Apostles, page 33, supplemented by similar
language in The Desire of Ages, page 24. The basic
citation reads as follows:
As in the typical service the high priest

laid aside his pontifical robes and officiated
in the white linen dress of an ordinary priest;
so Christ laid aside His royal robes and garbed
Himself with humanity and offered sacrifice,
Himself the priest, Himself the victim. As the
high priest, after performing his services in
the holy of holies, came forth to the waiting
congregation in his pontifical robes; so Christ
will come the second time, clothed in garments
of whitest white, "so as no fuller on earth can
white them.'. . He will come in His own glory,
and in the glory of His Father, and all the
angelic host will escort Him on His way.
The second half of this quotation is a standard

application that is well known in Adventist theology. The
question then is, Does Ellen White indicate that the Day
of Atonement was antitypically fulfilled at the
Incarnation in the first half of this quotation? (Note
that our author inaccurately limits the above to the
36
Ellen
G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 373.
37
Ford,
GV MS, p. 502.
38
Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles, 33

cross, GV MS, 550.)
In the first place, it should be noted that she
explicitly diverged from using such a reference. She
simply makes a general statement: "in the typical
service." If she had desired to make a specific
application in terms of the overall meaning of the Day of
Atonement, she could just as well have used that more
explicit kind of language.
Second, note that Ellen White is drawing a lesson--
typical or not--from the outer garments of the priest and
Christ's laying aside His divine prerogatives when He
became incarnate so that He might die as our sacrifice.
Thus the context of the quotation is the Incarnation as
well as the cross.
Contrasting motions are involved here. On the Day of
Atonement the high priest took off his outer garments so
that he could minister in the presence of God. Christ
took off his "outer garments" when He left the presence
of the Father to become incarnate. Note that there is
also a contrast in the nature of the garments involved.
The robes that the priest removed were "his pontifical
robes," whereas Christ is described as laying aside His
"royal robes." Royal robes belong to kings, not priests.
In Ellen White's thought it is evident that she means
that Christ laid aside "royal," not simply "priestly,"
robes at this time:
This was a voluntary sacrifice. Jesus might

have remained at the Father's side. He might
have retained the glory of heaven, and the
homage of the angels. But He chose to give back
the scepter into the Father's hands, and to step
down from the throne of the universe, that He
might bring light to the benighted, and life to
the perishing.
In coming down through these steps of condescension,

Jesus temporarily laid aside His kingship, His coregency
with the Father. This is what Ellen White speaks about
here, and this aspect of the imagery does not correspond
to any aspect of the typical service of the Day of
Atonement.
This concept is quite compatible with the concept of
the kingship of God in the OT (cf. such passages as the
Enthronement Psalms 95-100, 1 Sam 8:7, etc.). It is not
compatible, however, with our author's idea that Jesus
only became king at the time of His ascension in A.D. 31.
(The Trinity cannot be separated in the OT passages.)
While Ellen White has borrowed an allusion from the
Day of Atonement service to illustrate Christ's
39
Ellen G. White, The. Desire of 4ges, 22-23.

incarnation so as to make His sacrifice, to say that she
meant thereby the fulfillment of the great antitypical
Day of Atonement, strains the reasonable use of the
type-antitype relationship.
Some clarification should be made here between the
application of the apotelesmatic principle to prophecy
and its application to types. Are the two to be
considered identical? Is the principle equally applicable
to both? How does one know?
D. "Joel 2:28: Applied first to Pentecost, and
secondly to the latter rain. GC ix. 40
The symbolism for the Holy Spirit's falling is drawn
from the two rainy seasons of Palestine, in the fall and
the spring, which are distinct from one another.
It should be pointed out first that in The Great
Controversy Ellen White does not suggest that there are
two fulfillments for the early rain and two for the
latter rain, but rather she views one fulfillment for
each.
As the "former rain" was given, in the

outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the opening of
the gospel, to cause the upspringing of the
precious seed, so the 'latter rain' will be
given at its close for the ripening of the
harvest.4I
In this statement she is not using the apotelesmatic

principle which would require two or more former rains
and two or more latter rains. It is true, however, that
she states that "The prophecies which were fulfilled in
the outpouring of the former rain at the opening of the
gospel are ac in to be fulfilled in the latter rain at
its close."'" While these are not apocalyptic
prophecies, Ellen White is noting a dual fulfillment of
this prophecy pertaining to the operation of the Spirit
in the church. Dual fulfillments of prophecy are noted
elsewhere in the NT's use of the OT, but a mere dual
fulfillment--already found in the Bible and now in the
writings of Ellen White--does not provide a license for
the application of the apotelesmatic principle with its
wholesale supply of fulfillments.
E. "Mal. 4:5, 6: Applied first to John the Baptist,
and secondly to the Advent movement. See The Desire of
Ages, p. 101.
While Ellen White may make such an application to
this prophecy elsewhere, she does not make it on the page
40Ford, GV MS, 538.

41
Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 611.
42
Ibid., 611-12; cf. also p. ix.
43
Ford, GV MS, 538.

our author designated. She states:
As a prophet, John was to turn the hearts

of the fathers to the children, and the
disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make
ready a people prepared for the Lord.' In
preparing the way for Christ's first advent, he
was a representative [italics mine] of those who
are to prepare a people for our Lord's second
coming.
To say that John was a "representative" of those who
are to prepare a people before our Lord's second coming
is quite different from saying Ellen White has
apotelesmatically applied Malachi:4:5-6 in this statement
to the Adventist movement. She is simply drawing a
parallel between John's work and that of the end-time
people of God.
F. "Repeatedly, it is pointed out by Ellen G. White
in this chapter [The Great Controversy, chap. 1] that
Matt. 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 had their first
fulfillment in A.D. 70, but yet have to have their
consummate application."5
It is of particular interest that our author should
cite this prophecy as an example of her application of
the apotelesmatic principle, since he specifically
rejects that application in his doctoral thesis. In that
noted four main interpretations of our Lord's
work he :46
prophecy:
1. That it applies to the fall of Jerusalem
2. That it applies to the end of the age
3. That it applies to both on the basis that either
Christ or the evangelist blended the themes
4. That it applies to both as promised by Christ to
the generation contemporary with Him
Our author's conclusion from his study of these was
that, "Only the fourth position can survive close
examination."47 However, Ellen White's position on this
text falls in his third category_
In addition to the contrast between our author and
Ellen White on the interpretation of this prophecy, it is
less than accurate to say that she has reapplied it
apotelesmatically. What she says is that such a dual
application was already in the mind of Jesus and intended
by Him at the time He gave this prophecy.
The future was mercifully veiled [italics
44White, The Desire of Ages, 101.

45 Ford, GV MS, 531c; cf. pp. 490, 537.
46 Ford, Abomination of Desolation, 62.
0Ibid.,• vii.

mine] from the disciples. Had they at that time
fully comprehended the two awful facts--the Re-
deemer's sufferings and death, and the
destruction of their city and temple--they would
have been overwhelmed with horror. Christ
presented before them an outline of the
prominent events to take place before the close
of time. His words were not then fully
understood; but their meaning was to be unfolded
as His people should need the instruction
therein given. The prophecy which He uttered was
twofold in its meaning; while foreshadowing the
destruction of Jerusalem, it prefigured also the
terrors of the last great day.48
This being the case, it would be more fair to say

that the second application of this prophecy in
chronological order of events was just as "primarily"
intended by Jesus as its application to the events first
in order. Ellen White simply recognizes the Saviour's
intended dual application. Therefore, her statements
pertaining to these predictions are not to be construed
as a later reinterpretation, reapplication, or a new
apotelesmatic fulfillment in the strict sense of the
word.
G. "It should not be considered that Ellen G.
White's application of the key figure of Daniel 8 to the
future is some strange exception to her usual application
of prophecy. The Great Controversy, pp. 624ff. does the
same with 2 Thess, 2 (which is based upon Dan. 8:10-14)
and applies that scripture to the final counterfeit by
Satan when he appears to Christendom as Christ.
To the contrary, Ellen White does not apply the
prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2 to the final appearance of
Satan in the passage cited by our author. Satan's
appearance and his reception by the people is described
there in vivid detail, but no reference is made to
2 Thessalonians 2. It is neither quoted nor applied, nor
is its phraseology borrowed to describe the scene. Six
different biblical texts are cited in the description of
this scene, but 2 Thessalonians 2 is not one of them.
Ellen White comes closer to using this passage in
such a way on page 553 of The Great Controversy, but in
this instance she speak of spiritualism as a deception of
the last days. There is also a significant difference in
the way she cites the passage:
Paul testifies that before the second advent

of Christ there will be similar manifestations
"
0White, The Great Controversy, 25.
Ford, GV MS, 484; cf. pp. 533-34.

of satanic power. The coming of the Lord is to
be preceded by "the working of Satan with all
power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness."5°
Note that Ellen White cut off the first part of verse
9 which refers to the "coming of the lawless one, that
is, "the man of sin" who was to take his seat in the
temple of God. She then used the rest of the verse to
speak about Satan's own work with signs and wonders, and
thus the phrases no longer connect with the historical
"man of sin" in this passage. In other words, she
borrowed the biblical language to speak about Satan's own
work in the last days without making any apotelesmatic
application of the main prophetic and historical figure
in this passage. In short, Ellen White simply does not
use 2 Thessalonians 2 in an apotelesmatic manner, as our
writer asserts.
H. "Rev. 7:1-4: The sealing: First applied to the
acceptance of the Sabbath from 1845 on. EW 44. Secondly,
applied to an eschatological sealing just prior to
probation's close. GC 613.
Ellen White's remarks in Early Writings, page 44 were
given in the context of a vision she received on March
24, 1849, at Topsham, Maine. The essence of that vision
was to direct the attention of the people of God away
from Jesus' first apartment work in heaven to His second
apartment work. Then she refers to the devices of Satan
to distract the attention of the people of God from this.
It is in this connection that she says:
Satan is now using every device in this

sealing time to keep the minds of God's people
from the present truth and to cause them to
waver. I saw a covering that God was drawing
over His people to protect them in the time of
trouble; and every soul that was decided on the
truth and was pure in heart was to be covered
with the covering of the Almighty. .
Satan was trying his every art to hold them

where they were, until • the sealing was past,
until the covering was drawn over God's people,
and they left without a shelter from the burning
wrath of God, in the seven last plagues.52
It is evident from both citations given here that

Ellen White is making reference to the sealing time in
Nhite, The Great. Controversy, 553.

51
Ford, GV MS, 537.
52
Ellen G. White, Early Writings, 43-44.

connection with, and in the context of, the time of
trouble and the seven last plagues. Since the Early
Writings statements, as well as The Great Controversy
statement, are similar in that they have the same
end-time viewpoint, it is incorrect to assert that the
later statement, in The Great Controversy is an
apotelesmatic reapplication of the earlier statements
made in Early Writings.
I. "Rev. 7:1-4: . . the shaking: First applied to
the years immediately following 1844. EW 50. Later
applied to the future. 5T 80-82."53
Reapplication is not the perspective of Ellen White,
however, in these statements. In Early Writings she
refers to the shaking as a continuum, not a single event:
The mighty shaking has commenced and will go

on, and all will be shaken out who are not
willing to take a bold and unyielding stand for
the truth and to sacrifice for God and His
cause.54
The shaking is one continuous event and not a

multiplicity of distinct events. "It will go on." The
passage cited in the Testimonies, volume 5, simply
focuses on the final aspect of the shaking phenomenon. It
is not an apotelesmatic replay of an original and earlier
prophetic fulfillment.
J. "The French Revolution is set forth as a (not
the) 'striking fulfillment' of the prophecy of Rev. 11
[GC 269]. But in Testimonies 4:594-595 we have a more
significant application. 55
Our author cites the passage from Testimonies: "Until
Christ shall appear in the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory, men will become perverse in spirit and
turn from the truth to fables. The church will yet see
troublous times. She will prophesy in sackcloth. But
although she must meet heresies and persecutions,
although she must battle with the infidel and the
apostate, yet by the help of God she is bruising the head
of Satan. The Lord will have a people as true as steel,
and with faith as firm as the granite rock."56
In this instance our author confuses the borrowing of
biblical language ("She will prophesy in sackcloth") with
reapplication of a prophecy. Ellen White's use of
phraseology drawn from Revelation 11 provides no evidence
in context that she meant thereby to reapply the prophecy
of Revelation 11 to this much later time. Note also that
53
Ford, GV MS, 537.
54 White,
Early Writings, 50.
55
Ford, GV MS, 535.
56
Ellen G. White, Testimonies, 594.

she has borrowed the thought and phraseology of Genesis
3:15 and Romans 16:20 in a similar manner in the same
passage.
K. "Rev 14:6, 7: The first anael's message. First
applied to Miller movement. EW 232-237. Later applied to
SDA message till end of time. GC 450, 453, 425...57
In this instance our author wishes to change the
continuum in Ellen White's thought and in the growing
understanding of the church into separate and independent
poles of prophetic fulfillment.
The judgment hour message of the first angel was
given to warn mankind of the commencement of God's
judgment. That warning first began with the Millerite
movement, and it has continued on (with clarification, to
be sure) in its proclamation by the Adventist Church.
There has been no gap in either the proclamation or the
work of that judgment. When it is completed, Christ will
come to receive the harvest of the earth (Rev 14:14-20).
There is no hint that Ellen White regarded the work of
Seventh-day Adventists as an apotelesmatic fulfillment of
the first angel.
L. "Rev 14:8: The second angel's message. First
applied to midnight cry of 1844 and the Protestant
churches fall. Secondly, applied to loud cry, and the
fall of all churches throughout the world. GC
389-390. 58
Here again our author wants to change the continuum
in Ellen White's thought and in the interpretation of the
church into separate and independent poles of prophetic
fulfillment.
The fulfillment of the second angel's message among
the churches began with their rejection of the judgment
hour message of the first angel, and its fulfillment will
continue until its climax before the coming of Christ.
There has been no hiatus in its fulfillment since it was
first applied, as the only passage from Ellen White he
has cited on this point clearly shows: "As they have
continued to reject the specia truths for this time they
have fallen lower and lower."39
M. "How can Ellen G. White apply the prophecy of
Dan. 8:13 to A.D. 70, the Middle Ages, and the
fulfillment of the last crisis sketched in Revelation
13?""
We come now to the passages in which our author
thinks he has found an apotelesmatic application of
Daniel's prophecies in Ellen White's writings. Since the
prophecies of Daniel are particularly at issue in this
57
Ford, GV MS, 538.
HIbid. 538.
59 Whi te,
The Great Controversy. 389.
Ford, GV MS, 484.

study, these alleged reapplications deserve special
attention.
For this particular assertion, our author does not
supply any quotation from Ellen White nor cite any
reference where she makes such an application. In a
footnote he unveils how he arrives at his conclusion:
In Matt. 24:15 Christ quoted from Dan. 8:13

and its expansion in the later chapters of
Daniel. In The Desire of Ages, in chapter 69 we
are told that Christ's words were not only
fulfilled in A.D. 70, but also apply for those
who live in the last scenes of this earth's
history." Thus her application of Matt. 24:15 in
5T 451 for the Rev. 13 Sabbath crisis..61
It should be noted, therefore, that the equation

between the "abomination of desolation" in Matthew 24:15
and Daniel 8:13 is our author's, not Ellen White's! (As
a matter of fact, Daniel 8:13 does not refer to the
"Abomination of Desolation." A more accurate rendering of
the Hebrew in that verse indicates that it refers to the
"transgression of desolation.") For our author's
rejection of Ellen White's comments on the dual nature of
the prophecy of Matthew 24, see the discussion under F
above.
As for his misuse of Testimonies, volume 5, page 451,
to apply Matthew 24:15 in the same manner, note what the
citation actually says:
As the approach of the Roman armies was a

sign to the disciples of the impending
destruction of Jerusalem, so may this apostasy
[the Sunday law] be a sign to us that the limit
of God's forbearance is reached (italics
mine).62
It is clear that Ellen White is here making a simple

comparison and in no wise implies an apotelesmatic
reapplication of Matthew 24:15.
N. "This being the case, it is not strange to find
that Ellen G. White could also use Dan. 8:14
eschatologically as pointing not only to 1844, but also
to the final purification of the universe from sin and
sinners.' "63
Neither reference cited to this effect (Patriarchs
61
Ibid., 526.
62Ellen G. White, Testimonies, 5:451.
0Ford, GV MS, 536; cf. pp. 538-539 wherethe similar .
statement is made and reference is given. to The Great
Controversy, 666-78.

r
and Prophets, 358; The Great Controversy, 666-678) says
what our author asserts they say. The first is found at
the end of the chapter entitled, "The Tabernacle and Its
Services." At this point Ellen White is speaking about
the Day of Atonement from Leveticus 16, not from Daniel
8:14. Her application of the type reads as follows:
Since Satan is the originator of sin, the

direct instigator of all the sins that caused
the death of the Son of God, justice demands
that Satan shall suffer the final punishment.
Christ's work for the redemption of men and the
purification of the universe from sin, will be
closed by the removal of sin from the heavenly
sanctuary and the placing of these sins upon
Satan, who will bear the final penalty. So in
the typical service, the yearly round of
ministration closed with the purification of the
sanctuary, and the confessing of the sins on the
head of the scapegoat.
Thus in the ministration of the tabernacle,
and of the temple that afterward took its place,
the people were taught each day the great truths
relative to Christ's death and ministration, and
once each year their minds were carried forward
to the closing events of the great controversy
between Christ and Satan, the final purification
of the universe from sin and inners."
Since this is an antitypical application especially

to Azazel as part of the Day of Atonement as described in
Leveticus 16, there is no grounds from this passage to
argue that Ellen White is here applying the prophecy of
Daniel 8:14 in an apotelesmatic manner. While the two
biblical passages have a relationship, it is evident that
Ellen White is not explaining a reapplication of either.
As a matter of fact, Daniel 8:14 only supplies the
date for the beginning of the judgment, not its end. Nor
does it describe the events that are to occur at its end
other than the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and
that the little horn would be broken by no human hand.
The description of the consequences of the judgment has
already been given in Daniel 7.
The other passage from Ellen White's writing is even
more remote from a direct fulfillment of Daniel 8:14. Our
author has not cited one page on which a statement can be
found; he has cited 13 pages (The Great Controversy,
666-78) which constitute most of the last chapter of The
Great Controversy.. Forty texts are quoted on these pages,
but Daniel 8:14 is not among them, nor is it paraphrased.
"White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 358.

The application of the cleansing of the sanctuary in
Daniel 8:14 to the cleansing of the earth when it is made
new is our author's apotelesmatic application, not Ellen
White's.
0. In a lengthy section entitled "Daniel 9:24 as
Apotelesmatic," our author states, "We should note that
Ellen White uses the language of this verse [Dan 9:24]
and applies it to the future consummation of all things
.65
(see Selected Messages, bk. 1, 374).
The passage reads, "Through union with Christ,
through acceptance of His righteousness by faith, we may
be qualified to work the works of God, to be colaborers
with Christ. If you are willing to drift along with the
current of evil, and do not cooperate with the heavenly
agencies in restraining transgression in your family, and
in the church, in order that everlasting righteousness
may be brought in, you do not have faith. Faith works by
love and purifies the soul. Through faith the Holy Spirit
works in the heart to create holiness therein" (italics
mine)."
Ellen White is explaining how righteousness by faith
works by love in the life and in the Christian family. It
is in this context that she borrows biblical phraseology
from Daniel 9:24 about "restraining transgression" and
"bringing in everlasting righteousness." This is simply
a homiletical use of biblical phraseology; there is no
basis in this passage for saying that she indicates
thereby that Daniel 9:24 should be applied
apotelesmatically to the "consummation of all things."
If one wishes to see a parallel to this kind of
usage, one should read the Manual of Discipline from the
Qumran community in Hebrew. Although the author(s) of
this document wrote in a later stage of Hebrew than that
in which the OT was composed, biblical phraseology occurs
commonly throughout the document simply because their
minds were so steeped in it. In the same way, Ellen
White's mind was so steeped in the language of Scripture
that she commonly borrowed such phrases for use in this
fashion.
P. In arguing for an Ellen White apotelesmatic use
of Daniel 11, our author states, "Later prophets .
have not hesitated to apply Daniel's words to more than
one occasion. The most recent illustration is E. G. White
in Letter 103, 1904. 67
He then continues with a citation from pages 5-6 of
the letter: "We have no time to lose. Troublous times are
before us. The world is stirred with the spirit of war.
Soon the scenes of trouble spoken of in the prophecies
65Ford, GV MS, 503.

66 Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book 1, 374.
0Ford, GV MS, 492.

will take place. The prophecy in the eleventh (chapter)
of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment.
Much of the history that has taken place in fulfillment
of this prophecy will be repeated.
Saying that historical conditions or events will
recur is quite different from saying that certain verses
of this prophecy will be fulfilled again. Our author
would like the last sentence of this quotation to mean:
"earlier verses of this prophecy which have been
fulfilled will be fulfilled again." But that is not what
the statement says.
Ellen White is speaking about troublous times and
persecution. Scenes of trouble and persecution similar to
what the church went through in fulfillment of verses
33-35 will occur again in fulfillment of Daniel 12:1-2.
Saying that troublous times and persecution will occur
again is different from saying that Daniel 11:33-35 will
be fulfilled again apotelesmatically at the end of time--
especially so when there are other verses later in the
prophecy which refer to those coming trials (Dan 12:1-2).
Q. Another passage our author believes Ellen White
used apotelesmatically is Daniel 12:2. He says:
While Dan. 12:2 has often been used as

pointing only to a partial resurrection, it is
far more likely that it is a summary statement
concerning the two resurrections of Revelation
20. . . If this is the case, Dan. 12:2 brings
to view the reward of the living righteous while
Dan. 11:45 speaks about the end of the
antichrist and his host, that is, it presents
the fate of the living wicked. Thus the work of
the judgment° and its outcome is clearly
explained in this final prophecy of Daniel, and
it is this that constitutes the cleansing of the
sanctuary. [Note attitional apotelesmatic
reapplication of Dan 8:14.] Note carefully the
following statement from Patriarchs and Prophets
regarding the significance of the Day of
Atonement.70
The passage cited from the writings of Ellen White is

the same one quoted in section N from Patriarchs and
Prophets, 358. In this statement she is commenting
on Lev
16 and not Daniel 8:14, as he previously argued, nor on
Daniel 12:2, as he argues here. There is no evidence in
the Ellen White statement for any apotelesmatic
68
69 Ellen G. White, Letter 103, 1904, 5-6.
Our author does indeed concede a judgment, even an
"investigation of God's book" prior to the Second Coming,
but n
not a judgment beginning in 1844. See GV MS, 503-4.
Ford, GV MS, 504.

P.
reapplication of either of these two passages from

Daniel.
Summary: We have now surveyed 17 instances where our
author alleges that Ellen White employed the
apotelesmatic principle in a reapplication of various
prophecies. He believes these examples make it legitimate
for him to do the same when he comes to interpret the
prophecies of Daniel. However, according to our
evaluation of these citations, none of them really bears
out the point he is attempting to demonstrate. The
variety of erorrs in his attempt to deduce apotelesmatic
applications is considerable:
In two instances the applications intended are too
general in nature to be significant (A, B. In another
instance he has confused the antitypical application
involved (C). In one case he has failed to note the
differences between two distinct events, although a
further fulfillment of the prophecy may be conceded (0).
In other instances a direct misunderstanding of what she
said is involved (E, M).
In the most specific instance in which Ellen White
referred to a dual application, our author has rejected
the position (F). In a number of cases she has not made
applications anything like he asserts that she made (G.
N, 0). In two of these instances the application is
his own--not hers (G, PI); in the other two cases he has
transferred the application she made to one text (Lev 16)
to two passages (Dan 8:14; 12:2) where she did not make
such an application (N, 0).
There is an instance where her remarks are taken out
of context (N). In three cases he has tried to make a
continuous application in her thinking into two different
points of prophetic application (1, K, L). He has
confused the borrowing of biblical phraseology with the
reapplication of prophecies (J, 0), and he has confused
the repetition of events (troublous times and
persecution) with the reapplication of verses from a
biblical prophecy (P).
No support whatever seems to be forthcoming for Ellen
White's apotelesmatic reapplication of biblical
prophecies in 15 of these 17 instances. In one instance
she does indicate that prophecies concerning the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit at the opening of the
gospel will find further fulfillment in the end-time
operations of the Spirit. In the case where she states
that Christ had a dual application in mind to begin with
(Matt 24/Mark 13/Luke 21) our author has specifically
rejected her dual application. There may be examples of
bona fide reapplications of biblical prophecies in the
writings of Ellen White which have not been cited nor
discussed; but I leave to others to sort them out. Here
we have examined a rather large range of materials our
author has offered in support of the principle.
It cannot be over-emphasized, however, that our

author has failed to find any clear-cut example of an
apotelesmatic reapplication of the prophecies of Daniel
in Ellen White's writings. None have turned up from her
works, and only one is generally accepted by Adventist
commentators on this prophetic book: the dual application
of the little horn in Dan 8 to the two phases of Rome.
In contrast to this very limited use of a secondary
application in Daniel (a use which the context of the
first three lines of prophecy logically requires) our
author views them on a wholesale basis. In particular, he
has attempted to find support from Ellen White for his
reapplications in Daniel 8:13-14; 9:24; 11; 12:2 (see fl
and Q above). But, upon closer inspection, it must be
concluded that none of these demonstrate the point our
author has claimed for them. Therefore, for the
interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel which are
specifically at issue here, our author's efforts to draw
support from Ellen White for his apotelesmatic
reapplications of them must be judged a failure.
Summary and Purpose
The cornerstone upon which the apotelesmatic

principle rests should be noted again. This is the maxim
that interpreters are "right in what they affirm and
wrong in what they deny." No justification for this
premise has been adduced from philosophical linguistics
or from biblical texts. Our author rejected its use in
his own doctoral thesis which follows the standard
procedure of ruling out a series of alternatives with
negative evaluations to establish his conclusion on each
successive point.
The difficulties inherent in the application of this
principle and its premise are demonstrated by the
arbitrary way it has been applied to prophecy.
In the first place, our author applies it to only
certain prophetic books of the Bible. He rejects its
application, for example, to the synoptic apocalypse of
Mark 13/Matthew 24/Luke 21. On the other hand, he holds
that it should be applied to the prophecies of Daniel. As
a matter of fact, this is the only place he has applied
it to any extent in the OT.
This is not a hermeneutical tool which has been
offered to provide us with deeper insights into the
classical prophecies of Amos, Hosea, or Jeremiah, or even
into the apocalyptic prophecies of Isaiah 24-27, Micah
4-6, or Zechariah. As practiced by our author (at least
in the OT), the use of the apotelesmatic principle has
been limited virtually to Daniel.
The second problem in the practice of this principle
has to do with the limitations placed on its use even in
Daniel. As is evident from our author's commentary on
Daniel, it has not been applied to chapters 2 or 7; but
it has been applied to chapters 8, 9, 11. Since Adventist

r
interpreters hold that chapters 2, 7, 8, 11 are parallel

outline prophecies (our author would add chapter 9),
there is nothing inherent in the nature of these
prophecies indicating why this principle should be
applied to some and not others. Thus there has been an
arbitrary selection in the prophetic books, and further
arbitrary selection in the portions of the accepted book
to which this principle has been applied.
The third problem with this principle has to do with
how it has been applied to passages selected as
appropriate for its use. Daniel 9:24-27 provides the
classical case in point. Our author appears to reject the
preterist view of this prophecy; he accepts the
historicist view of it, and he accepts part of the
futurist view (rejecting the dispensationalist "gap"
interpretation). There does not appear to be rhyme or
reason for this zig-zag course in interpretation.
Furthermore, this procedure contradicts the explicit
purpose for which he set out to use this principle: to
harmonize these three schools of interpretation by
accepting all their views.
The fourth problem with this principle has to do with
the inconsistency in which its philosophical basis has
been applied. Since the three main schools of prophetic
interpretation are correct in what they affirm and wrong
in what they deny, the affirmed preterist, historicist,
and futurist views of Daniel 8-9 should all have been
accepted in our author's prophetic scheme. This is not
the case.
The fifth problem with this principle has to do with
the arbitrary way elements from the prophecies that are
acceptable for its application have been accepted. Daniel
9:24-27 is again the classical case in point. Since this
prophecy runs through four consecutive verses, one would
expect it to be made of whole cloth; that principles of
interpretation applicable to one of its verses would be
applicable to the others. But this is not the case in our
author's system of interpretation.
Basically, he has followed the futurist
interpretation of verse 24, applying its six statements
especially to what is to happen at the end of the age.
But by contrast he has followed the historicist
interpretation of verses 25-27, which run from the
Persian period down to the time of Jesus as the Messiah
under the Romans in the first century A.D. He does allow
for some historicist applications of verse 24 too, but
its futurist applications are maximized, while the
futurist applications of verses 25-27 are minimal.
The sixth problem with this principle has to do with
the arbitrary way the elements from the prophecy are
interpreted, even according to the prophetic point of
view from which they are examined. Daniel 8:14 provides
the illustration. The primary application of this verse
for our author--in terms of chronological precedence--is

the preterist view which applies it to the cleansing of
the temple in Jerusalem from Antiochus' pollutions in
165 8.C. His futurist application of it is to the
establishment of the church in the new earth. His
historicist view sees it as a preaching of the true
gospel at any time this has happened throughout history.
His historicist interpretation thus provides many
fulfillments of Daniel 8:14; for every true reformation,
such as the sixteenth-century Reformation, the
Millerites, Seventh-day Adventists, etc., can qualify as
a legitimate fulfillment.
There is one historicist application, however, which
our author does not accept. We refer to the one made by
the early Adventists after the disappointment of 1844--
that it refers to the commencement of an investigative
judgment in heaven that began in 1844 as a prophetically
determined date. He has applied Daniel 8:14 so broadly
that it can mean almost anything good in the whole of
salvation history; but the one thing it cannot be applied
to— evenapotelesmatically—is the investigative judgment
that began in heaven in 1844.
This interpretation of Daniel 8:14, which our author
rejects, was developed by the pioneers of the Adventist
Church from a partitular viewpoint of prophetic
interpretation--the historicist school of interpretation.
Thus he has again demonstrated his arbitrary use of the
apotelesmatic principle by indicating which
interpretations from within the historicist tradition he
will accept, and which he specifically rejects.
We are faced then with a principle that is only for
certain prophetic books. It is for only certain chapters
within those books. It is for only certain verses within
those chapters. It is for only certain elements within
those verses. It only allows for the application of
selected prophetic views to those elements. It only
allows for the acceptance of selected interpretations
within those views on prophecy for those elements.
Thus this "principle" rests upon an inconsistent and
unsound premise, and it has been applied in an arbitrary
fashion on six different levels or stages in the
interpretation of prophecy. In view of these difficulties
with this "principle," it is difficult to see why it is
called a "principle" at all.
However, it is not difficult to see why this
so-called principle has been employed in our author's
system of interpretation. It can be determined by
observing precisely where he has found it most necessary
to apply. It is evident that the apotelesmatic principle
has been tailored especially to provide a revision in the
traditional Adventist view in the interpretation of
Daniel 8 and 9.
The primary application of the little horn in Daniel
8 in our author's system is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and
to a literal 2300-day period of persecution. This, of

course, is the standard modern literary critical
interpretation of the chapter. Therefore, his source far
this view is obvious.
By retaining some semblance of a historicist
interpretation of Daniel 8 by means of apotelesmatic
applications, his interpretation can still appear to hold
some interest for an Adventist readership.
These, then, are some of the origins of our author's
exegesis of the prophecies of Daniel. His primary
emphasis in chapter 8 falls upon the preterist view; his
primary emphasis in chapter 9 falls upon the futurist
view. However, enough of the historicist view of each of
these two passages has been retained to make it appear
somewhat acceptable in Adventist circles. These emphases,
it can be seen, already offer some tensions--even
contradictions in interpretations.
As was pointed out in the introduction to this study,
our author has set out to reconcile the views of
different prophetic schools of thought on apocalyptic
prophecy--schools which previously have never been
reconciled. Therefore, it is not surprising that he
should run into contradictions such as those mentioned
above. His own uneven exegesis, and the arbitrary way he
has attempted to reconcile these three schools of
prophetic interpretation, demonstrates that the conflict
between them remains even in his own scheme of prophetic
interpretation. How little success he has achieved in
such a pursuit has been made evident by the above review.
The ultimate irony in this new methodology proposed
by our author is that he offers the apotelesmatic
principle to the church as the solution to the problems
which are of his own making. In a sense, it is actually
his refusal to employ his own principle that has created
these problems. This is the particular case in two
important instances. The first of these goes back to his
work on Mark 13. In his doctoral thesis he has not
allowed the apotelesmatic principle to be applied to this
prophecy; that is, he has refused a dual application to
be made so that it might apply to both the generation of
the apostles in the first century and to our modern
generation. For him, every fulfillment was intended to
have occurred in the first century, and in the first
century only. No interpretation--apotelesmatic or
otherwise— can allow our Lord's prophecy to apply to the
Middle Ages (a period of "great tribulation"), or to this
modern day and age, according to him.
This approach to our Lord's prophecy in the Gospels
(Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21) created the first major
problem in prophetic interpretation which has led to
erroneous conclusions in Daniel. This is the case;
because, according to him, none of the prophecies of
Daniel had as their primary intent--either in the mind of
God or for the seer who saw and wrote them down--an
outreach beyond the first century A.D. when (according to

our author) Jesus said He was coming back. All the time
prophecies must he shortened to meet this goal: the first
century A_D., Daniel must be made to fit his
interpretation of , Mark. In his view none of the
prophecies'could ever have been intended by God to have
stretched to a:time of the end" in A.D. 1798 or 1844.
This conclusion has led to a second major problem not
solved by the apotelesmatic principle. This problem is
our author's consistent refusal to apply it to Daniel
8:14 in such a way as to accept the pioneers'
interpretation. For him, it can refer to preaching the
gospel at the time of the Reformation. It can refer to
preaching the gospel in 1844 and afterward. It can refer
to establishing the church in the new earth. But the one
thing it cannot be applied to under the umbrella of the
apotelesmatic principle is its application to an
investigative judgment that began in heaven in 1844.
Thus in a sense, it is our author's failure to apply
his own apotelesmatic principle to Mark 13 and Daniel
8:14 that has created the very controversy which he says
he has proposed the apotelesmatic principle to solve.
From this the final question is, Who is right, the
pioneers or our author? More accurate exegesis of the
biblical text indicates that the pioneers were basically
right in their final conclusion about Daniel 8:14; but
time and space do not permit an examination of that side
of this controversy. For the time being, we must let this
matter rest with an application of our author's own
principle to the question, Who is right? The pioneers
affirmed that an investigative judgment began in heaven
in 1844 on the basis of their interpretation of Daniel
8:14. Our author denies this. Interpreters are "right in
what they affirm and wrong in what they deny."71
The author assumes full responsibility for the accuracy

of quotations cited in this paper.
Copyright by the Biblical Research.
71
Ford, GV MS, 505.

e

Analysis of The Apotelesmatic Principle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Analysis of The Apotelesmatic Principle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of The Apotelesmatic Principle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

// ,2 go

An analysis of the principle of Dr. Ford's application of

In his study of the prophecies of Daniel, Dr. Desmond

1Desmond Ford, "Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement,

The verse [Dan 8:14], like Dan. 2:44;

3Ibid., 356, italics in the original.

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Thus 1844 was intended as 'restoration' [Dan

I have added the texts to the quotations to indicate

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

As used by our author, the apotelesmatic principle

Having now viewed the respective systems as

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

To cite another example (one that we mention briefly

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Selective Use of the Apotelesmatic Principle

Having defined the principle and its underlying

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Selective use of apotelesmatic

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

[Daniel] 9:24-27 gives not the slightest

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Thus while our author applies the Messianic prophecy

Selective use of elements to which

We have seen that the apotelesmatic principle--as

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Text Daniel (1978) Glacier View MS (1980)

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

As can be seen from the preceding list, there is now

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Furthermore, it should be noted carefully

But it is evident that there is no way these 2300

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

This principle affirms that a prophecy

A question here is how the words "comprehensive" and

We wish to stress that which elsewhere in

Rome does not apply as the primary

The problem here, of course, is one of subjectivity.

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

Alleged use of apotelesmatic

In an effort to gain support for his apotelesmatic

God's work is the same in all time, although

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

B. "In the book Prophets and Kings, pp. 677, 678,

As in the typical service the high priest

The second half of this quotation is a standard

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

This was a voluntary sacrifice. Jesus might

In coming down through these steps of condescension,

Digitized by the Center for Adventist Research

As the "former rain" was given, in the