Guilt by Association: Why Sabbatarian Adventists Rejected O. R. L. Crosier’s Interpretation of the Tāmîd in Dan 8Journal of Asia Adventist Studies (2013)
The article takes a close look at both Crosier’s ambiguous and explicit statements regarding the tāmîḏ of Dan 8:11-13. Further, it examines statements from Sabbatarian Adventists that are the clearest in regard to the tāmîḏ and then moves to the statements that are more ambiguous. Finally, the writings of “Age to Come” Adventists will play a major role in this investigation. That last section will point out the close association between Crosier and “Age to Come” Adventists and how Sabbatarian Adventist reacted to “Age to Come” Adventism and Crosier’s interpretations of the tāmîḏ. The article aims at understanding the statements in their original context and putting them into the wider context of the time from 1845 to 1855 in order to evaluate the suggestions made by former researchers on the topic. It shows that Sabbatarian Adventists disregarded the tāmîḏ aspect of Crosier’s sanctuary view of Dan 8:11-14 because it seemed to be associated too closely with “Age to Come” Adventism, a ground for refusal that was no longer present by the turn of the century.
- Seventh-day Adventist theology,
- Adventist history,
- historical theology,
- Millerite movement,
- prophetic interpretation,
- Daniel 8,
- Development of Seventh-day Adventist theology,
- church history,
- American religious history
Citation InformationKaiser, Denis. “Guilt by Association: Why Sabbatarian Adventists Rejected O. R. L. Crosier’s Interpretation of the Tāmîd in Dan 8.” Journal of Asia Adventist Studies 16, no. 1 (2013): 33–49.