Dennis Kean on 1888, The 2300 Day Prophecy, The Cleansing of the Sanctuary and The Abomination of Desolation
To the discerning student of the Word, it will be readily seen merely from Dennis' summary and conclusions that his work is flawed so severely and seriously in theory and fact, that rather than clarifying this foundational doctrine as regards some "new light" as to how the Sanctuary BEGAN to be cleansed in 1844, versus
the ACCOMPLISHED sense of having met its fulfillment in 1844, Dennis' work further muddies the waters by gross contradictions involved with the very Sanctuary Service and its proper order of events, concerning the Day of Atonement and its accompanying cleansing of the Sanctuary.
Dennis contributes a ray of light to the issue by pointing out that the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation or act of man standing in the role of God in forgiving sins, is a pollution of the Sanctuary Service. He proceeds to darken this light by his piling of gross and serious error upon error as regards the proper order of the Sanctuary Service, as regards the Day of Atonement and its attending cleansing of the Sanctuary. Now I will critique Dennis' work as follows. My comments (in blue and/or red print) will be interspersed under each of his serious errors:
Edited by Karen Gould
The 2300 days prophecy has become an issue for today's Adventist. Born with the movement it has grown to become a near trademark of the Adventist church. For the critic and the defender, the interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy is a sore point of contention debated on many forums. The controversy is more than inter-denominational in nature. It is also intra-denominational. While many agree on some points, the explanations vary greatly. The adverse aspect of this condition is that Adventist members become disoriented as they try to defend their version. After much difficulty, many realize that the arguments are incomplete. This insight causes some to be disappointed. They buckle to the opposition, as they try to make sense of 1844, while others embrace strange and strained explanations, which wreak havoc with other important doctrinal points.
Today, the explanation of this prophecy has so many variations that it is safe to say that there is little unity in its understanding. Ironically, the Adventist view is incredibly well founded in Scripture, but it is not well supported by the explanations of the pioneers. The purpose of this paper is to help clarify some important details, which shed new light and confirm the Adventist position on this prophecy.
After the events of 1844, Miller remained steadfast in the conviction that 1844 was an important date in the timeline of prophecy. Nevertheless, he admitted that he did not have a good explanation for it. Now, some 150 years later, Miller's conviction seems to have become a defining summarization of Adventist understanding of the 2300 days prophecy.
Times, however, have changed. Over the years, God, time and history have given us more light on this subject. We are able to see and learn many things that the pioneers could not. We have the advantage of hindsight and many more minds to engage this issue.
This should be good news to us all. The interpretation of the 2300 days could shine as a bright light, but many members are apprehensive to study beyond the boundaries of what the pioneers of our faith understood. Many fear to look at history with an open mind and learn from it. It seems to be the farthest thought on some Adventist minds to ask God for additional light on the subject. With this disposition, it may appear that Adventist theology is complete and flawless. That is not the case, though. The reality is that we fail to adapt to present truth, as we should. Too many of us are satisfied and feel much safer in defending the old tenets, traditions and former impressions of those who went before us.
The more satisfied anyone is with himself, and his present knowledge, the less earnestly and humbly will he seek to be guided into all truth. The less of the Holy Spirit of God he has, the more self-satisfied and complacent he will feel. He will not search earnestly and with the deepest interest to know more of truth. But unless he keeps pace with the Leader, who is guiding into all truth, he will be left behind, belated, blinded, confused, because he is not walking in the light. . . . The word of God is to be the man of our counsel. . . . All heaven is looking upon the remnant people of God, to see if they will make truth alone their shield and buckler. Unless the truth is presented as it is in Jesus, and is planted in the heart by the power of the Spirit of God, even ministers will be found drifting away from Christ, away from piety, away from religious principle. They will become blind leaders of the blind.--Ms 14, 1886, pp. 1, 5, 6, 8-11. ("Christian Integrity in the Ministry," 1886.)
Some think that an error on the part of our pioneers would signify the end of our faith. We are afraid that if someone is wrong in one point his or her contribution cannot have any value. If this was true, then how could we understand the following comment from Sister White?
Attitude to New Light:We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed. -Counsels to Writers and Editors p. 37
Our views in this regard need to be tempered.
Open the Heart to Light-One of the great troubles with us has been that we have looked upon men as infallible. But no matter how high a position a man may hold, it is no reason that he should be looked upon as incapable of making mistakes. The Lord may have given him a work to do, but unless Christ abides with him continually, unless he abides in Christ without a moment's separation, he will make mistakes and fall into error. But if men do make mistakes and fall into error, it is no reason that we should withdraw our confidence from them; for God alone is infallible. We must have the truth abiding in our hearts; we must draw nigh to God continually; Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 03-25-1890
The interpretation of the 2300 days prophecy has been under fire for a long while, if not from the start. Articulation of these objections did not have a strong impact until one of our own echoed it. Several decades ago, Desmond Ford articulated an objection to the interpretation of this prophecy with a well-formed argument.
Dr. Ford rejected the idea that the 2300 days were fulfilled in 1844. As an exceptional scholar of theology Dr. Ford constructed his argument around the word "cleansed", which as he rightly points out, is in the accomplished sense. He advanced that the prophecy was not speaking of an ongoing cleansing, but rather of a cleansing which would be fulfilled at the end of the 2300 days. After nearly a century, the argument took focus.
Beaulieu responds:Ellen White and the Pioneers established that the Sanctuary began to be cleansed in 1844, and that the antitypical Day of Atonement began at that time. To say that the Sanctuary was cleansed in 1844, as a completed act, would demand that the Day of Atonement was also completed, since the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary accompany one another as occurring on the same day per the order of the typical Sanctuary Service. On the Day of Atonement, after the Sanctuary was cleansed, the High Priest came out of the Temple. If the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary was complete in 1844, then Christ, according to the type, should have come out of His temple on that very day! But what did Ellen White teach? That Christ went further into the Temple, by going into the Most Holy Place. If Ellen White was wrong in this, and Desmond Ford and Dennis Kean are correct, that the Sanctuary was cleansed in 1844, as a completed work, then Christ should have come out of the Temple, and where is the evidence that He did so?
Dennis says a little later in this paper: "...In ceremony, the Atonement day and the cleansing of the Sanctuary comes after the feast of trumpets. The trumpets, however, begin the process of pouring out the plagues on the wicked."
Dennis continues (Excerpt from His Conclusions, p. 26 of this document)
The great plan of redemption is not half comprehended. If we could only understand the plan of salvation, we would be the happiest people upon the face of the earth. The truth that God has given us would so fill our minds that we could not talk of earthly things. EGW Sermons and Talks Volume One p. 44
This paragraph comes as a shocker to some people. One would think that at least the Plan of Salvation was clear as a bell to the pioneers, but evidently that is not so. Moreover, if that epitome of all issues is not perfectly understood, then what about other issues like the "Atonement day". Could we possibly be wrong about that as well? Finally, while we are asking questions, let's ask ourselves the following as well, "Is the Atonement day a foundational doctrine?"
Those who say "Yes" need to think it over more carefully. In ceremony, the Atonement day comes after the feast of trumpets. The trumpets, however, begin the process of pouring out the plagues on the wicked. [End Excerpt]
Beaulieu responds:Do you realize what Dennis is implying in the above excerpt? According to Dennis' own personal theory, both he and Ford violate the proper order of the Sanctuary Service in applying any "completed cleansing of the sanctuary" as occurring prior to the seven last plagues because the trumpets of Revelation are the plagues. But where in the typical Sanctuary Service do we find anything that remotely resembles the seven last plagues, or even the seven seals for that matter?! So why does Kean at the same time, out of the other side of his mouth, teach that the 1844 cleansing of the Sanctuary and its accompanying Day of Atonement was complete at that time? Any attempt to separate the Day of Atonement from a completed cleansing of the Sanctuary Service is untenable to be kind, but actually far worse than that. It is absolute heresy because it is totally contrary to the Sanctuary Service. This is only one example of Kean's aberrant theology, as we will see.
Kean continues (The following excerpt appears later in his Summary and Conclusions):
The Seven Last Plagues and the Wicked - The Great Time of Trouble, Part 1
[Excerpt] The Vials of God's Wrath Will Be Poured Out. Solemn events before us are yet to transpire. Trumpet after trumpet is to be sounded; vial after vial poured out one after another upon the inhabitants of the earth.--3SM 426 (1890).
Those trumpets are the same trumpets of revelation. It is also true that the open and shut door happens around that time. It is common knowledge that Sister White erred in that view, in the past. The GC did all it could to cover this up, but Sister White was progressive about that. She learned that it was error and stopped preaching that the end came in her day. [End excerpt]
The General Conference was not pleased. Many SDA scholars tried in vain to rebut Ford's arguments. To date few if any have given an adequate rebuttal. Ford's objection was well thought out, but his workaround solution was not adequate either. He tried to make sense of the prophecy by relocating the end of the 2300 days into the future. That was not an improvement on the view. His weak explanation cast a shadow of doubt on the astute analysis he constructed against the Adventist interpretation. Rather than clarification, both sides became confused.
Beaulieu responds:My above stated rebuttal to Ford and Kean is as totally Scriptural and according to the Sanctuary Service as any rebuttal could be. It could not get any more "adept and adequate!" Thy Way O Lord is in the Sanctuary. If the Sanctuary was cleansed in 1844, and the Day of Atonement ended then, Christ should have come out of the Temple and appeared to His people, letting them know His sacrifice was accepted. This is what occurred in the Typical Sanctuary Service.
Psa 77:13 Thy way, O God, [is] in the sanctuary: who [is so] great a God as [our] God?
There is acase for re-applying the 2300 days into the future by way of dual application in LITERAL TIME. There is no more prophetic day for a year time after 1844, but there is literal time prophecy and PROOF ABSOLUTE of that fact is Revelation 13:3-5, wherein a forty and two months time prophecy (1260 literal days--42X30) occurring AFTER THE WOUND IS HEALED. Some believe the wound was healed in 1929. Some believe it will not be fully healed until it enforces its decrees such as Sunday sacredness. Be that as it may, there is a definite 1260 days AFTER THE WOUND IS HEALED. This could figure in another literal application of the 2300 days. I believe it does. I believe I have been shown of God that it does.
Nevertheless, something good came out of this controversy. Although Dr. Ford's objection/explanation does not provide a better understanding, it runs along an important line of thought. The Adventist movement needs to supply a reasonable answer to those who would cast doubt on the 1844 experience, but unless we consider Dr. Ford's objection seriously, we may never find a better stimuli to resolve the faulty ideas we have gathered along the way. Ford's strike at the Adventist foundation brought to light that we were too dependent on the opinions of the early pioneers. Rather than seek to advance the great light extended to us, we began to look backward and place the bulk of our confidence in the studies of the Adventist pioneers, ignoring the very counsels and example shown by them.
Beaulieu responds:There is no reasonable answer other than one that accords with the proper order of the Sanctuary Service and its antitypical application. Neither Ford's nor Kean's answer is reasonable for neither accords with the Sanctuary Service order. Christ did not come out of the Temple and appear unto His people--He did not come the second time.
A brother asked, "Sister White, do you think we must understand the truth for ourselves? Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered together, and believe them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we shall be free to go on without the taxing of the powers of the mind in the investigation of all these subjects? Do you not think that these men who have brought out the truth in the past were inspired of God?"
I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth; but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest sense of the word, I answer, No. I believe that God has given them a work to do, but if they are not fully consecrated to God at all times, they will weave self and their peculiar traits of character into what they are doing, and will put their mold upon the work, and fashion men in religious experience after their own pattern. It is dangerous for us to make flesh our arm. We should lean upon the arm of Infinite Power. God has been revealing this to us for years. We must have living faith in our hearts and reach out for larger knowledge and more advanced light. Review and Herald, March 25, 1890.
Beaulieu responds:Both Ford and Kean have "weaved self" into their unreasonable and errant supposed "answer" to the 2300 day issue. Both of their solutions run counter to the Bible and the Sanctuary Service order of events as regards their "completed" versus the Pioneer view of the "continuing" cleansing of the Sanctuary.
The question Ford raised was valid, though his solution or explanation was not. Nevertheless, it helped break the spell that the GC and tradition are the final authority on truth. Those who understood the implications of Ford's objection had some thinking to do. It was time to turn to the Scriptures and rethink this point. Others hung on to the idea that all was revealed in the past and there was no point in rethinking the matter. Tragically, some left the church.
Beaulieu responds:The question Ford raised as to whether or not the cleansing was only to begin or was indeed completed in 1844, WAS NOT VALID, because a completed cleansing would violate the order of the Sanctuary Service because Christ did not come in 1844--He did not come out of the Temple to His people.
In the effort to answer Ford's question, it is important for us to be open-minded. Average and emotional thinking will not suffice. Reactionary thinking is even worse. A difficult question is on the table. Our answers in the past were many, but many are strained. What's worse, few of these answers agree with one another. As things are at present, if all remains constant, this conflict will remain with us until the Savior comes. If we want to advance, something has to change As is often the case, our thinking must be radical, to deal with this question.
Beaulieu responds:What could be more common and indicative of "average and emotional thinking," than to violate the clear order of the events of the Sanctuary Service as regards the Day of Atonement and the attending cleansing of the Sanctuary, by not admitting that if the sanctuary was cleansed in 1844, as a completed act, then Christ should have come out of the Temple to appear to His people!
It is Dennis' personal opinion theology the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary should not come before the trumpets depicting the seven last plagues! So how could either the Day of Atonement or the cleansing of the Sanctuary have any fulfillment in 1844, according to that view? And, as stated, what typology do we have in the Sanctuary Service for such plagues being manifest before the Day of Atonement and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary?
"Feast of Trumpets.--The Feast of Trumpets came on the first day of the seventh month, and was preparatory to the Day of Atonement, which came on the tenth day of the month. It was a solemn call to all Israel to prepare to meet their God. It announced to them that the day of Judgment was coming, and that they must get ready for it. It was a merciful reminder to them of the need of confession and consecration. As we have elsewhere discussed the matter of atonement, it may not be necessary to emphasize either the Feast of Trumpets or the Day of Atonement." M. L. Andreasen, The Sanctuary Service, p. 221.
The call of 1844, was more indicative of the Feast of Trumpets--The first and second angel's messages sounded, announcing that Judgment was about to come, and that the ten sleeping virgins should awaken and get ready for it. Indeed Ellen White said that the Midnight Cry attended and gave power to the second angel's message. This was a rehearsal for the wedding supper feast. But what happened? What ensued in 1844? The 10 virgins went into a stupor and slept. This is termed "the tarrying time." This "getting ready" awakening call, was just like the Feast of Trumpets. The Day of Atonement and its accompanying Cleansing of the Sanctuary was soon to follow. Soon a calling out of people from the fallen churches ensued.
To start with, we need to realize that the truth, about what happened in 1844, was not revealed to the pioneers, in all details. There are good reasons for that. One of the reasons is to show to the future generations, which trust in this truth, that although blind, our pioneers walked in the right direction. Seeing this, it would become evident that someone was leading these people. Looking back, we can see that there was a plan for them. We can look at this as God's prepackaged testimony to encourage future generations that they are walking on the right track.
What we need to do is realize that, though God led these people, He reserved some truth and corrections for the generations to come. Truth does not sit still. It broadens. It advances with each generation, or at least it should. After all, this is a fundamental point in the Seventh day Adventist view. The Adventist church came into existence with a radical review of Scriptural tenets of those who preceded them.
Beaulieu responds: What new light could alter the fact that if the Sanctuary was cleansed in 1844, Christ should have come out of His temple? Will Dennis' new light change this requirement, proving that the Sanctuary was cleansed (as a completed act) in 1844? We shall see!
God intends that, even in this life, truth shall be ever unfolding to His people.... Gospel Workers. 1915. P.297
Finally, as we do our thinking, let's remember that though our thinking may be radical, radical thinking has its limitations. Some of our preferred or fancy beliefs may need to go, but that does not speak about the pillars of Adventism. We all realize that when the pillars are moved out of their place, the house falls down. That is exactly what happens when the 2300 days prophecy is moved out of its place. That is the point Mr. Ford missed and we do not want to repeat that mistake.
Beaulieu responds:That is the same mistake Dennis Kean makes in saying that the cleansing of the Sanctuary and the Day of Atonement should not precede the Trumpet (plagues) of Revelation. Thus, Kean speaks out of both sides of his mouth by implying that the date for the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary is errant by Biblical order as reckoned by the trumpets of Revelation, which he regards as the same as the Feast of Trumpets in the Sanctuary Service, which came BEFORE the Day of Atonement and the cleansing of the Sanctuary. This type of contradictory reasoning is hardly a credible contribution to anything regarding the SDA issues involving the Day of Atonement and the Cleansing of the Sanctuary.
Our church is positioned on a solid foundation. It is my hope that this paper will be instrumental in confirming confidence in the experience of the early pioneers and not necessarily in every fancy belief that they may have held.
Beaulieu responds:How can our church be on a solid foundation, according to Kean, if the church is observing the Day of Atonement and its accompanying Cleansing of the Sanctuary out of order with the Trumpet plagues of Revelation? The truth of the matter is that the trumpets of Revelation have nothing to do with the Feast of Trumpets of the typical Sanctuary Service.
The Abomination of Desolation
And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Dan 8:14 KJV)
We begin our study with the word "...cleansed", the very place where Desmond Ford departed from the Adventist view. Is Ford right in his assessment that the cleansing of the Sanctuary should have been accomplished at the end of the 2300 days? Daniel 8:13 plainly says that the cleansing would be accomplished at the end of those days? No one has satisfactorily disqualified Ford's allegation that the word "cleansed" is in the accomplished sense. It implies completion. The implication of this objection of a single word is that the 2300 days should have been the completion of the cleansing of the sanctuary and not the beginning. This argument throws a monkey wrench into our popular interpretation of this prophecy. We teach that the cleansing of the Sanctuary began, rather than ended, in 1844. Ford's objection seems to uproot the very foundation, on which the pioneers built their views.
Beaulieu responds:It is a satisfactory disqualification of Ford's allegation that the Sanctuary was cleansed in the accomplished sense when one considers the fact that Christ did not come in 1844, after, according to Ford, the Sanctuary was cleansed. In the typical Service, the High Priest came out of the Temple after cleansing the Temple and blessed the people.
Could this be true? Have we been building on a faulty foundation? If it is true, we may have to scrap the whole idea and start from scratch. The truth is that a lot rides on this very cornerstone of our identity. If the 1844 experience was just a delusion, then everything that rides on it is in jeopardy. If we were wrong about that, then we may be wrong about the Sabbath, the Sanctuary doctrine etc. Should this one little point be proven otherwise, we would become little more than borderline Christians, with strange and peculiar beliefs.
This is the implication of Ford's argument, though it may not have been his intent. It is also our custom made "Adventist fear" and our antagonists have learned to exploit it with great efficacy. As we research this topic, we will learn to deal with this and see that the foundation of the 2300 days prophecy is a lot more resilient than previously believed.
The Abominable Desolate
Beaulieu responds:Before exploring Kean's view on the abomination of desolation, it is important to understand what Ellen White taught on this subject.
The Great Controversy, page 25, paragraph 4
Chapter Title: The Destruction of Jerusalem
Jesus declared to the listening disciples the judgments that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially the retributive vengeance that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. Unmistakable signs would precede the awful climax. The dreaded hour would come
suddenly and swiftly. And the Saviour warned His followers: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." Matthew 24:15, 16; Luke 21:20, 21.When the idolatrous standards of the Romans should be set up in the holy ground, which extended some furlongs outside the city walls, then the followers of Christ were to find safety in flight. When the warning sign should be seen, those who would escape must make no delay. Throughout the land of Judea, as well as in Jerusalem itself, the signal for flight must be immediately obeyed. He who chanced to be upon the housetop must not go down into his house, even to save his most valued treasures. Those who were working in the fields or vineyards must not take time to return for the outer garment laid aside while they should be toiling in the heat of the day. They must not hesitate a moment, lest they be involved in the general destruction.
Maranatha, page 180, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: The Sign to Leave Large Cities
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. Matt. 24:15, 16.
The time is not far distant, when, like the early disciples, we shall be forced to seek a refuge in desolate and solitary places.As the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was the signal for flight to the Judean Christians, so the assumption of power on the part of our nation [the United States] in the decree enforcing the papal sabbath will be a warning to us. It will then be time to leave the large cities, preparatory to leaving the smaller ones for retired homes in secluded places among the mountains.
Beaulieu's Commentary: As you read Dennis' treatise, notice that he relegates Matthew 24:15, 16 to the Dark Ages. Though there was an application to A.D. 70 Destruction of Jerusalem, and the Dark Ages when the church fled to the wilderness, notice how Dennis dissociates this verse with A.D. 70, and stresses that it applies to the Dark Ages. This is classic Jesuit-like preterism.
Maranatha, page 180, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: The Sign to Leave Large Cities
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. Matt. 24:15, 16.
The time is not far distant, when, like the early disciples, we shall be forced to seek a refuge in desolate and solitary places. As the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman armies was the signal for flight to the Judean Christians, so the assumption of power on the part of our nation [the United States] in the decree enforcing the papal sabbath will be a warning to us. It will then be time to leave the large cities, preparatory to leaving the smaller ones for retired homes in secluded places among the mountains.
Beaulieu Commentary: Notice that Ellen White equates the abomination of desolation with the Roman armies penetrating Jewish land boundaries, and then she equates that with the enforcing of the papal sabbath as being a warning to us. Watch throughout this study to discover how Dennis Kean's theology attempts to destroy the credibility of this important warning, by saying that this even was of minor import and that the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation is more important. This is what I refer to as one of Dennis Kean's gross and serious errors.
The Spirit of Prophecy Volume Four, page 26, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: Destruction of Jerusalem
Jesus declared to the listening disciples the judgments that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially the retributive vengeance that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. Unmistakable signs would precede the awful climax.The dreaded hour would come suddenly and swiftly. And the Saviour warned his followers: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand), then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains."[2 MATT. 24:15, 16.] When the idolatrous standards of
the Romans should be set up in the holy ground, which extended some furlongs outside the city walls, then the followers of Christ were to find safety in flight.When the warning sign should be seen, judgment was to follow so quickly that those who would escape must make no delay. He who chanced to be upon the housetop must not go down through his house into the street; but he must speed his way from roof to roof until he reach the city wall, and be saved "so as by fire." Those who were working in the fields or vineyards must not take time to return for the outer garment laid aside while they should be toiling in the heat of the day. They must not hesitate a moment, lest they be involved in the general destruction.
As you read Dennis' document, notice his derisive manner of discrediting the fact that Matthew 24 was of far more than minor importance as regards the A.D. 70 debacle! Kean says it was minor if at all! This act on the part of Dennis is spiritual crime and debauchery of the worst sort--a peace and safety invitation to discredit an important warning to us at the end-time. Remember, Ellen White, on page 25 of The Great Controversy, said that the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem was a PREFIGURE and but a foreshadow of the destruction that will come at the end-time. Dennis expresses his disdain that early SDA pioneers attached focus and importance to this PREFIGURE. He says that this truth de-railed the pioneers from seeing his light. Instead of building on this important pioneer light, he seeks to destroy it and substitute it with his light. When one considers that Ellen White termed the A.D. 70 debacle as a PREFIGURE, that attaches great importance to that event.
Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, December 20, 1898, paragraph 8
Article Title: Words of Warning--No. 2
"And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand), then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains [let there be no presumptuous dallying]: let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house: neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." Forty years afterward, at the siege of Jerusalem, the Christians obeyed this warning; and not a Christian perished in the destruction of the city.
Beaulieu Commentary: Notice the end-time context ascribed to Matthew 24 by the first two sentences in the above statement. Then notice how Dennis relegates Matthew 24 to the Dark Ages!
The Signs of the Times, February 20, 1901, paragraph 11
Article Title: Words of Warning
"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand); then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains; let him which is on the housetop not come down to take anything out of his house; neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes."This warning was given to be heeded forty years after, at the destruction of Jerusalem. The Christians obeyed, and not one of them perished in the destruction of the city.
End Part 1 of Beaulieu's Critique of Dennis Kean's 1844, the 2300 Days and the Abomination of Desolation