In the Book of Daniel, references to the "daily sacrifice" appear in several key prophetic passages. This article examines the four most commonly taught interpretations of what the "daily sacrifice" represents in Daniel's prophecies, particularly focusing on Daniel 8:

Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Daniel 8:11-12

The Four Main Interpretations

1. The Antiochus Epiphanes View

This interpretation suggests that the "daily sacrifice" refers to Jewish sacrifices during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (a Greek ruler from the Seleucid Empire).

Historical Context: Around 167 BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes:

• Persecuted the Jews
• Killed many of them
• Sacrificed a pig on the altar of the sanctuary
• Stopped the Jews from performing their daily sacrifices

The Antiochus Epiphanes theory is one that is commonly taught by our brethren in the Evangelical and Catholic churches. It is logical for them to believe this view because Antiochus did in fact hinder the Jews in performing their Jewish sacrificial rites.

Problems with this view:

In our previous studies, we learned that Antiochus Epiphanes was not the Little Horn spoken of in Daniel 8. (See our articles on our Little Horn page). Because we know horns always represent sovereign powers and that horns don't come out of horns, we determined that the Little Horn represented the Imperial Roman Empire, then transitioned to the Papal Roman Empire. Thus, by the time we get to the Daily Sacrifice in verse 11, we are no longer in the dispensation of the Greek Empire. Therefore, even though Antiochus Epiphanes did take away a daily sacrifice, he did not take away THE Daily Sacrifice spoken of in Daniel 8.

2. The Jewish Sacrificial System During the time of Christ

This view holds that the "daily sacrifice" represents the Jewish sacrificial system that ended with Christ's crucifixion.

Supporting Evidence:

• When Christ was crucified, the veil in the temple was torn from top to bottom (Matt 27:51)
• This symbolized the end of the Jewish sacrificial system
• Christ's sacrifice was the ultimate sacrifice, making the temple sacrifices unnecessary

Problems with this view:

• Similar to the first view, it requires moving backward chronologically from Papal Rome to Pagan Rome
• Daniel 9:27 says, "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Notice this text refers to the death of Christ when it says "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." If Christ's death took away the Daily Sacrifice, this text would be the perfect place to insert that phrase. However, notice Daniel does NOT refer to the taking away of the Daily Sacrifice here. This is an indication that the crucifixion and the Daily Sacrifice are two different things.
• In Daniel 11, we see another instance where Christ's crucifixion was referenced. Notice what vs. 22 says: "And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant." Broken here refers to Christ's death on the cross. If this death enacted the taking away of the Daily Sacrifice, then Daniel would refer to it here, but if you read the chapter in its entirety, you will realize that it's not until we get to verse 31, that Daniel refers to the taking away of the Daily Sacrifice. This should be enough evidence to reveal to you that Christ's death on the cross and the taking away of the Daily Sacrifice are two different things.

"Sacrifice" is a supplied word

The last two interpretations are primarily held by Adventists. However, before examining these two interpretations, it's important to note that early Adventists realized that the word "sacrifice" in "daily sacrifice" was actually a supplied word. This truth is mainly ignored by our Evangelical and Catholic brethren, but this understanding helps us understand that the word "sacrifice" was added by translators.  As Seventh-day Adventists, our theology takes into account that in the original manuscript, only the word "Daily" appears.

In the original Bible manuscript, the word "Daily" is translated from the Hebrew word "tāmîḏ". This word carries a connotation that usually refers to "always," "perpetual," or something that continues. With this understanding, let's review the two most commonly held views within Adventism:

3. Christ's Heavenly Ministration (The "New View")

This interpretation is the most popular view among "traditionalists" in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This view suggests that the "daily" represents Jesus Christ's high priestly ministration in the heavenly sanctuary.

The Concept:

• Jesus Christ serves as our heavenly high priest
• He intercedes for us in the heavenly sanctuary
• The Roman Catholic priesthood, by claiming to forgive sins, stands between believers and Christ
• This intermediary role effectively "takes away" Christ's direct intercessory ministry

Problems with this view:

The problem with the theory that the "Daily" represents Christ's heavenly ministration is that the "Daily" is inherently tied to a specific time period. We know this because the angel asks the question, "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice...? (vs. 13). However we view this question, we should know that the vision doesn't go past the year 1844. Notice how Ellen White confirms this:

Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test. EW 74.2

Ellen White is looking at all the time prophecies in Daniel and saw that none of them went past the 2300-day prophecy. Thus, no prophecy extends beyond the year 1844. This tells us that the question of — "How long," was fulfilled on or before the year 1844.

However, this is problematic for those who hold to the high priestly ministry of Jesus view as that would mean his intercession in the heavenly ministry was no longer being taken away by the Catholics after 1844. However, we don't need special insight to know that Catholics did not stop confessing to their priests in 1844. As a matter of fact, when it comes to confession and the Papacy, 1844 had no effect on them. Do you see the problem with this view? If the "Daily" prophecy ended by 1844 (as many of us believe), the Catholic practice of priestly confession should have ended too. Thus, because this practice continues today, it suggests to us that this view may be flawed.

4. Paganism (The "Old View")

This interpretation, held by William Miller and many "historicalists" in the Adventist Church, suggests that the "Daily" represents Paganism in the Roman Empire, which was taken away and replaced by Papal Christianity in the sixth century.

Uriah Smith refers to this view in his book Daniel and the Revelation.

"By the little horn the daily sacrifice was taken away. This little horn must be understood to symbolize Rome in its entire history, including its two phases, pagan and papal. These two phases are elsewhere spoken of as the “daily” (sacrifice is a supplied word) and the “transgression of desolation;” the daily (desolation) signifying the pagan form, and the transgression of desolation, the papal." Daniel and the Revelation p. 154

Here, Uriah Smith views the words "Daily", and "Transgression" as two separate words coupled together. However, they both share the same last name—"Desolation".  In this manner the "Daily" is a desolation just like the "Transgression" is a desolation.

Just like Uriah Smith, Historicalists within Adventism strongly believe Paganism is referred to as the Daily Desolation in prophecy and is what was taken away by Catholicism.

Please know, that it's a fact that Catholicism overtook Paganism in the Roman Empire, so it is not beyond the pale for anyone to believe the taking away of the "Daily" is referring to Paganism.

Problems with this view:

• In my research, I was hoping to see a connection between the Daily and Paganism in Scripture. However, from my research, I wasn't able to find any Scriptures where "tamid" (daily) correlates with Paganism. If Daniel correlates the Daily with Paganism, we should be able to see some sort of Scriptural connection in God's Word.
• When referring to Pagan religions, the Bible typically uses terms like heathen, Gentile, astrologer, soothsayer, and magician. We sometimes see references to Pagans through the name of their gods (ie. Baal) or we may see God referring to the nations that adhered to these religious practices (i.e. Philistines)
• Daniel 8:12 states "a host was given against the daily by reason of transgression." It then says, "it cast down the truth to the ground." These two references don't make sense if the daily represents paganism. Using transgression against Paganism, and casting truth to the ground in reference to Paganism gives one the impression that Paganism was the truth that got cast down.

Ellen White's Statements

Some Adventists point to Ellen White's statements about the "Daily" as supporting the Paganism view. Here are two statements that are often used:

"Then I saw in relation to the “daily” that the word “sacrifice” was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the “daily”; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test." Early Writings p. 74

Again she says,

"Then I saw the daily, that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the first angel’s message. When union existed before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the daily, but since, in the confusion other views have been embraced and darkness has followed. I saw that God had not made a test of time since 1844, and that time never again will be a test." Ms 15, 1850

Knowing the early Adventists held the view that the Daily represented Paganism, these quotes by Ellen White appear to confirm that belief. However, if we look a little closer at these statements, I believe we will discover that Ellen White was not saying what many Historicalists think she was saying. Let me explain:

In the two statements above, I want you to notice they both conclude with the idea that time would no longer be a test after 1844. What many may not realize is that after the passing of 1844, many of the leading Adventists began suggesting that the 2300-day prophecy actually extended past 1844. Notice what William Warren Prescott wrote:

"After the passing of the time in 1844, there was an effort made to readjust this period of 2300 years to some point in the future; and up to 1850 at least six different adjustments had been made, bringing much confusion into the Advent ranks.."  The Daily p. 2

Other Adventists wrote about this growing sentiment to look past 1844. Notice what Julia Neuffer wrote:

"While James and Ellen White were living in Oswego, New York, in 1849-1850, they found themselves contending with two time setting preachers who printed a paper there, The Watchman, to proclaim the Advent in 1850...Edson’s 1849 booklet predicted with great assurance the close of probation in that year and the Second Advent in 1850; Bates’ 1850 pamphlet set forth no positive prediction, but made the point clearly enough in his conclusion that Christ’s ministry in the Holy of Holies would last seven years (from 1844)" The Gathering of Israel p. 7

As you can see, the growing sentiment by some of our leading brethren to extend the 2300-day prophecy to a time period after 1844 was the issue at hand. Historicalists within Adventism simply need to ask themselves one simple question: What posed the biggest threat to the Advent Movement? The idea that the Daily represented Christ's ministration or the idea that the 2300-day prophecy did not end in 1844?

It should be obvious to you that Ellen White's primary concern was addressing the attempts by the Adventist brethren to reset prophetic dates beyond 1844. Ellen White understood that the question of "How Long" was inherently connected to the Daily, which was connected to 1844. This is why she ended both of her statements by doubling down that time was no longer a test after 1844.

Did Ellen White know the meaning of the Daily? To put it directly—no. We know this because a few of the Adventist brethren visited Ellen White because they truly wanted to confirm if Ellen White had any light on the meaning of the Daily. Here's the eye-witness account from that meeting:

"At one point a little later in the discussions Elder Daniells, accompanied by W. C. White and C. C. Crisler, eager to get from Ellen White herself just what the meaning was of her Early Writings statement, went to her and laid the matter before her. Daniells took with him Early Writings and the 1843 chart. He sat down close to her and plied her with questions. His report of this interview was confirmed by W. C. White: I first read to Sister White the statement given above in Early Writings. Then I placed before her our 1843 prophetic chart used by our ministers in expounding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. I called her attention to the picture of the sanctuary and also to the 2300 year period as they appeared on the chart. I then asked if she could recall what was shown her regarding this subject. As I recall her answer, she began by telling how some of the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement endeavored to find new dates for the termination of the 2300-year period. This endeavor was to fix new dates for the coming of the Lord. This was causing confusion among those who had been in the Advent Movement. In this confusion the Lord revealed to her, she said, that the view that had been held and presented regarding the dates was correct, and that there must never be another time set, nor another time message. I then asked her to tell what had been revealed to her about the rest of the “daily”—the Prince, the host, the taking away of the “daily,” and the casting down of the sanctuary. She replied that these features were not placed before her in vision as the time part was. She would not be led out to make an explanation of those points of the prophecy.... The only conclusion I could draw from her free explanation of the time and her silence as to the taking away of the “daily” and the casting down of the sanctuary was that the vision given her was regarding the time, and that she received no explanation as to the other parts of the prophecy." Ellen White: Woman of Vision p. 513-514

Not only did Ellen White reveal she had no light on the meaning of the Daily, she also instructed the brethren not to use her writings to support any of their arguments on the Daily. Here's what she said:

"I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question [“the daily”]; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence." Selected Messages vol 1 p. 164

Conclusion

The interpretation of the "daily sacrifice" remains a subject of theological debate among scholars and students of prophecy. However, after examining the four most commonly-held interpretations of the Daily, I've come to the conclusion that, although each interpretation is logical, none of the interpretations fit the prophetic narrative Daniel gives. And that's when I discovered a fifth interpretation! 

Stay tuned, because in our next article, you will understand the true meaning of the Daily Sacrifice.