现代真理

The Truth Will Set You Free.

【传道者|中英文朗读】但以理书12:13和早期复临信徒的解析Daniel 12:13 and early Adventist interpretations

但以理书12:13和早期复临信徒的解析

阿尔图路·斯特勒,博士，基督复临安息日会全球总会副会长，现居美国马里兰州银泉市

“等到一千三百三十五日的，那人便为有福。你且去等候结局，因为你必安歇。到了末期，你必起来，享受你的福分。”（但12：12-13）YZN1

早期复临派解读但以理书12:13的历史不仅很有意思，对于释经学和明白复临信徒的使命也有着重大的影响。人们在大失望之前所持的解释和之后有些许区别。我们将研究这些解释并从中得出一些结论。

大失望之前

威廉·米勒尔，浸信会的传道人和米勒尔运动的领袖，他认为在但12:12, 13提到了但以理身体上的复活，并且普世信众的复活将在1335日的结束之时实现。米勒尔认为预言中所应许的福分将会在1335日结束之时的1843年应验。他认为基督将在1335日的末了复临，2300日也就将此结束。

在一封信中，米勒尔提到：“你还不明白吗？在1335日的末了，但以理将要起来，享受福分。你还不明白吗，先生？他起来享受福分的意思就是复活。”4

1843年出版的《基督复临手册（第二版）》中有一个对于但12:13清晰的解释，文中提到一个关于但以理自己复活的信息：“‘你且去等候结局，（这些奇事的终结，）因为你必安歇（义人从死里复活之前的状态，启6:11；启14:13）。到了末期，你必起来，享受你的福分（直接的说，起来就是死里复活，承受你的产业’”。

因此，显然，米勒尔派认为但12:13中所提到的是指但以理身体的复活。

大失望之后

以前早期复临信徒将但12:12关于1335日结束时赐福的应验与但12:13中但以理身体的复活联系起来，在大失望过后他们明白他们对这一信息的解释是错误的。

有些信徒坚持认为1335日结束时的赐福在1843年的时候没有得到应验，但是这一预言的应验即将发生，甚至为此提出了新的日期。

怀雅各没有将1335日与但以理的复活联系在一起，他写道：“我们不赞同将1335日指向复活。”然而，这并不代表怀雅各将但12:13和第12节所讲的事件分开了。

他还写道：“《圣经》里没有提到基督复临的具体时日，甚至连这一神圣事件的具体年份也没有提到。没有任何一个预言的时间段持续到耶稣复临。2300日结束时圣所会被洁净，在1335日的末了但以理会起来享受他的福分。但是这些事件都发生在耶稣二次来临之前，且都有非常清晰的依据。两个时间性的预言都已在1844年终止。” 7    

怀雅各仍然认为但12:13的预言在1335日结束时被应验。然而，他没有将但12:13解释为但以理自身身体复活的依据。而是但以理被判为无罪的凭据。他说道：“在赎罪大日，各世代的罪孽都被涂抹了，历代的族长和先知，以及沉睡的圣徒，都要被审判，他们的案卷都要被翻开，并且要按着案卷所记载的事被审判。因此，在1335日结束时（但12:13）但以理要起来，享受他的福分。” 8

虽然乌利亚·史密斯认同怀雅各的观点，即但以理“起来”是指他在审判中被判为无罪，但是他将但以理的“起来享受福分”与但以理书 12:12 中的 1,335 日区分开来。谈到但以理书第 12 章关于时间的预言，史斯密说：“但可能有人会问，这些时间怎么可能已经结束了，既然在这些日子结束时但以理必起来享受福分，况且有些人认为这是指他的从死里复活？ 这一问题是建立在两个方面的误解之上的：第一，但以理起来的时间是 1335 日的末了；其次，但以理起来享受福分是指他的复活的说法，这也是站不住脚的。 1335日结束时唯一的应许的就是祝福那些忍耐等候到底的人，也就是那些到那时还活着的人。”9 

史密斯继续指出，在但以理12:12节赐福的应许中，假设对于预言的知识和理解有所提升。“我们将在大大宣扬耶稣即将复临的运动中看到预言明显地应验。45年前，末期就开始了，书卷已经展开，亮光逐渐增多。大约在1843年的时候，解释各预言的亮光达到了顶峰。基督复临的信息被广泛传扬。10

史密斯将但以理的“起来享受福分”解释为，但以理的名字将在查案审判时出现，他会被判为无罪。其他作者曾赞同赐给但以理最后这一应许的解释。11 一个最主要反对但以理死里复活解释的论据是基于对但12:13希伯来文中被译作“福分”（lot）一词的有限研究。

怀爱伦的贡献

怀爱伦没有参与但以理书中最后一节经文有关但以理的身体是否复活的辩论。相反地，她引用这节经文的论述来阐明但以理书中的预言，使得人们对它的理解更为确切和清楚。

“那些对主的话模糊，不知道何为敌基督者的人，必使自己站在敌基督者一边。现在我们没有时候与世俗同流。但以理正在起来享受他的福分和地位。要明白但以理和约翰的预言。它们是互相解释的。他们给世人所带来的真理是人人都应该明白的。这些预言要成为世上的见证。在这些末后的日子里，它们要藉着自己的应验来解明自己的意思。” 14

“时候已到，但以理要起来享受他的福分。时候已到，要把但以理所得到的亮光空前地传到世界去。如果主已为之做了这么多的那些人愿意行在光中，那么他们对于基督和有关祂预言的知识必大大增加，因为他们在接近这尘世历史的结束。” 15

怀爱伦对但12:13的这些珍贵阐释，并没有完全解释但12:12，13，而是仅仅引用但12:13的词句，运用于对但以理书和启示录的理解大幅加增的时期中。

观察与应用

怀爱伦从未公开反对过将但12:13节解释为但以理身体上死而复活的观点，也没有赞同怀雅各、史密斯，以及拉夫堡对于这节经文的解释。她只是引用但12:13的内容用来阐述对但以理书和启示录预言的理解在她那个时代较比先前更加清晰。换而言之，对于所赐给但以理的应许，她提出了该应许另一种实际应验方式。

问题依然存在：经文本身是否对这一应验方式另有暗示？

尽管我们无法找到任何文字依据来证明但12:12所预言时间段的双重应验，但12:13节的措辞似乎也指出了一个除了给但以理本人的复活得救以外的另一种应验。

最后一段的文字中已经有指示。最后一个词译为“日子”，但以理用了两种语言。他以希伯来文开始，以亚兰文结束。18 尽管这两种语言对于“日子”这个词有相同的词根，因为前面有个定冠词，所以这个词的希伯来文开头肯定不会被看错。在希伯来文中，定冠词作单词的前缀，但在亚兰文中定冠词作单词后缀。此外，定冠词在这两种语言中是迥然不同的。

假如但以理只用了希伯来文，这将仅仅指1335日的“日子”。假如但以理用的是亚兰文的单词，就能明确划分但12:13和12:12节中对于“日子”这个词的定义。然而，但以理将两种语言相结合也在最后的词中体现出了这一点，尽管这两段没有一个清晰的界限，但或许也相关联。

怀爱伦虽然不精通古代语言，但一些迹象表明，除了对但以理身体上死里复活的应许的解读，她还做出很多其他显著的贡献。 怀爱伦提到但以理书的信息“复活”（重新焕发生命）了。 我们可以相信，圣灵带领但以理写出了但以理书，也带领怀爱伦来阐释这一信息。

1. 一个简短的释义，参见Eugene Zaitsev，“复临派的使命” 2012.12.17

2. Charles Fitch也支持米勒尔针对但12:13的观点。例如，在他1841年11月的一封信中提

       到第13节经文，他说道：“‘你且去等候结局，因为你必安歇（死亡）。到了末期，你必起来，享受你的福分（复活）。’”给Rev. J. Litch关于耶稣二次来临的信，43

3.  米勒尔指出：“因此，我发现2300日预言的时间段，是以波斯为起头，到第四国的结束为结尾，上帝子民七次被分散，1335日后，但以理起来享受他的福分，与其他预言的时间一起，这一切明显指向复临，我只能认为这是上帝只是给祂的‘仆人和先知’预先定准的日子。”这段话显明1335日的时间与但以理起来都与耶稣复临有关联。威廉·米勒耳，《威廉·米勒尔的辩护》，8月1日，10. ^

4. 威廉.米勒尔，米勒尔对于Stuart的回复“解释预言的线索”1842，48

5.  Apollos Hale 基督复临手册 （波士顿，马萨诸塞州，Joshua V.Himes, 1843）

    6. 怀雅各，编辑的脚注附加在“威廉·米勒尔：他对待反对者的方式——他讲道的例子”，评论与通讯 7， 第18号（1856 年 1 月 31 日）：137

7. 怀雅各，耶稣二次来临（战溪：MI: 蒸汽出版社,1871），62

    8．怀雅各，“最终的审判” 评论与通讯 9，编号13 （1857年1月29日）；100

9. Uriah Smith， 但以理书与启示录（纳什维尔，TN：南方出版社，1897），343

10. 史密斯，343

11. 例如，参见拉夫堡，“最后审判的时间来临”评论与通讯 5，编号4（1854年2月14日）：30

12. “我不知道有哪个时期可以算到到 1844 年的这边； 因此，但以理末时起来享受他的福分是指1844 年。译为“日子”的词并不是指他被救赎的状态，而是机会。但以理应该抓住了机会。为什么？ 因为他已经认罪了，那些已经承认的罪将在审判时被抹去。” 拉夫堡，30。有关支持身体复活的论据，请参阅 Artur A. Stele，“但以理书 12 中的复活及其对但以理书神学的贡献”

13. 值得注意的是，怀爱伦清楚地相信 1335 日的预言已经应验了。在她给黑斯廷弟兄家的教会的信中，她说：“我们告诉他[休伊特弟兄]他过去的一些错误，1,335日已经结束，他犯了很多错误。” (1850年11月27日, 信件 128)。她还发表了几项声明，强调不会有任何基于耶稣再来的时间的信息：“自 1844 年以来，时间就不是试验，以后也不再试验了。”怀爱伦早期著作（华盛顿，评论与通讯，1934年）75 “上帝的子民再也不会有以时间为基础的信息了。”怀爱伦，信息选粹，卷 1 (评论与通讯，1958), 188。有关更好地理解怀爱伦引述的更多信息和参考书目，请参阅 Alberto R. Timm，“但以理12章1290日与1335日，“基督复临安息日会圣经研究协会，2021 年 7 月 8 日访问。

14.怀爱伦，（1900），11 ^

15. 怀爱伦，手稿176，1899

16. 最后的应许将在复活时实现。这一观点在怀爱伦还在世时，L.R Conradi的证道中提到 过。参见L.R Conradi “上帝丰富的供应”全球总会公告，1913年6月4日，267

17. 参见，Artur Stele，“但以理书的最后一个词：一个语法错误还是自主选择，”全球牧师     日志，2021年2月6-9

    18. 一些学者在这里看到的只是一种亚兰文，没有任何解释意义。例如，参见 Paul Joüon 和T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), 271。然而，但以理在他的书中多次用两种语言中的“日”这个词，但 在整本书的最后，只有一次在希伯来语开头添加了一个阿拉伯语结尾暗示了一个隐含意。 此外，必须注意的是，就在之前的一节经文中，但以理使用了希伯来语的“日子”以希伯来语为结尾而不是亚兰文。 如果它只是亚兰文，我们会认为两处都应该是亚兰文。 值得注意的是，希伯来文中的“日” 用定冠词和亚兰文复数结尾只在整个旧约中只见过一次：在但以理书12:13 中。 ^

Daniel 12:13 and early Adventist interpretations

Artur Stele, PhD, serves as a vice president for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland, United States. 

“Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. ‘But you, go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days’ ” (Dan. 12:12, 13, NKJV).

The history of interpretation of Daniel 12:13 in early Adventism is not only fascinating, but it also has crucial implications for biblical hermeneutics as well as Adventist mission. Interpretations held before the Great Disappointment1 differed somewhat from those held after. We will survey these interpretations and then draw some conclusions.

BEFORE THE DISAPPOINTMENT

William Miller, Baptist preacher and leader of the Millerite movement, stated that a physical resurrection of Daniel himself is in view2 in Daniel 12:12, 13 and that the general resurrection should happen at the end of the 1,335 days. Miller expected the fulfillment of the blessing promised to those reaching the 1,335-day prophecy in 1843. He understood that the second coming of Christ was to take place at the end of the 1,335 days, which ended the 2,300 days as well.3

In a letter, Miller stated: “Do you not see that, at the end of 1335 days, Daniel will stand in his lot? And do you not see, sir, that his standing in his lot means the resurrection?”4

The Second Advent Manual, published in 1843, presents a clear interpretation of Daniel 12:13, which is said to refer to the resurrection of Daniel himself: “ ‘But go thou thy way till the end be, (the end of these wonders,) for thou shall rest (the condition of the righteous dead from their decease till the resurrection, Rev. vi. 11; xiv. 13,) and stand in thy lot’ (or, more literally, stand up for, i. e., be raised from the dead, to receive thy part in the inheritance) ‘at the end of the days.’ ”

Consequently, it becomes apparent that the Millerites proclaimed that Daniel 12:13 refers to the physical resurrection of Daniel.

AFTER THE DISAPPOINTMENT

Having connected these two events—the fulfillment of the 1,335-day blessing pronounced in Daniel 12:12 and the resurrection of Daniel himself in Daniel 12:13—early Adventists now had to explain this interpretation, obviously wrong, in the light of the Great Disappointment.

Some continued to insist that the 1,335-day blessing had not been fulfilled in 1843 and that its fulfillment was still imminent, even suggesting new dates.

James White did not connect the 1,335 days with the resurrection of Daniel, writing: “The view that the 1335 days extend to the resurrection we do not endorse.”6 However, it does not mean that James White separated the events of Daniel 12:13 from events presented in verse 12.

He also wrote: “The day and hour of Christ’s second coming are not revealed in the Scriptures. Neither is the year in which this glorious event is to take place pointed out. No one of the prophetic periods reaches to the second coming of Christ. The sanctuary is to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, and Daniel is to stand in his lot at the end of the 1335 days. But that these events occur before the second appearing of Christ, is susceptible of the clearest proof. Both these prophetic periods terminated in 1844.”7    

James White still saw Daniel 12:13 being fulfilled at the end of the 1,335 days. However, he did not interpret Daniel 12:13 as a reference to the resurrection of Daniel but, rather, to the vindication of Daniel in judgment. He said: “In the great day of atonement for the blotting out of the sins of all of every age, the cases of patriarchs and prophets, and sleeping saints of all past ages will come up in judgment, the books will be opened, and they will be judged according to the things written in the books. It is thus, at the end of the 1335 days, [Dan. xii. 13,] that DANIEL STANDS IN HIS LOT.”8

Although sharing with James White the understanding that Daniel’s “standing in his lot” refers to his vindication in judgment, Uriah Smith differentiates Daniel’s “standing in his lot” from the 1,335 days of Daniel 12:12. Speaking of the time prophecies of Daniel 12, Smith states: “But how can it be that they have ended, it may be asked, since at the end of these days Daniel stands in his lot, which is by some supposed to refer to his resurrection from the dead? This question is founded on a misapprehension in two respects: First, that the days at the end of which Daniel stands in his lot are the 1335 days; and, secondly, the standing of Daniel in his lot is his resurrection, which also cannot be sustained. The only thing promised at the end of the 1335 days is a blessing unto those who wait and come to that time; that is, those who are then living.”9

Smith continues, pointing out that, under the blessing of Daniel 12:12, the increase of knowledge and the correct understanding of the prophecies should be assumed. “We see a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy in the great proclamation of the second coming of Christ. Forty-five years before this, the time of the end commenced, the book was unsealed, and light began to increase. About the year 1843, there was a grand culmination of all the light that had been shed on prophetic subjects up to that time. The proclamation went forth in power.”10

Smith interprets Daniel’s “standing in his lot” as when Daniel’s name will come up in the investigative judgment and he will be vindicated. Other writers have followed his lead in interpreting this final promise given to Daniel.11 One of the main arguments against the resurrection promised to Daniel was based on a very narrow study of the Hebrew word translated “lot” in Daniel 12:13.

ELLEN G. WHITE’S CONTRIBUTION

Ellen G. White13 did not get involved in the debate about the physical resurrection of Daniel as presented in the final verse of the book. Instead, using the language of the verse, she applies it to the fact that the prophecies of Daniel have now been more clearly understood.

“Those who become confused in their understanding of the Word, who fail to see the meaning of antichrist, will surely place themselves on the side of antichrist. There is no time for us to assimilate with the world. Daniel is standing in his lot and in his place. The prophecies of Daniel and of John are to be understood; they interpret each other. They give to the world truths which everyone should understand. These prophecies are to be witnesses in the world. By their fulfillment in these last days, they will explain themselves.”14

“The time has come for Daniel to stand in his lot. The time has come for the light given him to go to the world as never before. If those for whom the Lord has done so much will walk in the light, their knowledge of Christ and the prophecies relating to Him will be greatly increased as they near the close of this earth’s history.”15

These rare statements that Ellen G. White made in reference to the wording used in Daniel 12:13 do not imply a full interpretation of the passage of Daniel 12:12, 13. Instead, simply by using the language of Daniel 12:13, she applies it to the time when the understanding of Daniel and Revelation were greatly increased.

OBSERVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS

Ellen White never spoke out against Daniel 12:13 as referring to a physical resurrection of Daniel, nor did she speak in favor of the interpretations provided by James White, Smith, or Loughborough. She simply applied the language of Daniel 12:13 to the fact that, in her day, the prophecies of the books of Daniel and Revelation were more clearly understood than previously. In other words, she provides an additional application to the actual fulfillment of the promise given to Daniel.16

The question remains, does the text itself provide any hint of a possible additional application?

Although we do not find any textual justification for the dual fulfillment of the prophetic period mentioned in Daniel 12:12, nevertheless, the wording of Daniel 12:13 seems to point to a possible additional application besides the promise of resurrection given to Daniel himself.

The indicator is found in the last word of the passage.17 For this last word, translated as “days,” Daniel uses two languages. He starts in Hebrew but ends the word in Aramaic.18 Although these two languages have the same root for the word days, the Hebrew beginning of the word cannot be mistaken because of the definite article. In Hebrew, the definite article comes as a prefix to the word, but in Aramaic, the definite article comes as a suffix to the word. In addition, the definite articles in these two languages are unmistakably different.

If Daniel had used only Hebrew, it would point back to the word days used in referring to 1,335 days. If Daniel had used only an Aramaic word, it would just clearly and totally differentiate the word days in Daniel 12:13 from the word days used in Daniel 12:12. However, the fact that Daniel combines two languages in the final word may suggest that, although there is a clear distinction between the two passages, there still is some possible connection between them.

Ellen G. White, without proficiency in ancient languages, nevertheless saw indicators that allowed her to make a noteworthy contribution in addition to the fulfillment of the promise of a physical resurrection for Daniel himself. Ellen G. White referred to the “resurrection” of the message of the book of Daniel. We can believe that the same Holy Spirit who guided Daniel in writing his book, guided Ellen G. White in understanding it.

  1. 1. For a brief definition, see Eugene Zaitsev, “The Mission of Adventism,” Ministry, December 2012, 17. ^
  2. 2. Charles Fitch also supported Miller’s views on Daniel 12:13. For example, in one of his letters written in November 1841 quoting the thirteenth verse, he inserted: “‘But go thy way Daniel, for thou shalt rest [i.e., die] and stand in thy lot [i.e., be raised] at the end of the days.’” Letter to Rev. J. Litch, on the Second Coming of Christ, 43. ^
  3. 3. Miller pointed out: “When, therefore, I found the 2300 prophetic days which were to mark the length of the vision from the Persian to the end of the fourth kingdom, the seven times continuance of the dispersion of God’s people, and the 1335 prophetic days to the standing of Daniel in his lot, all evidently extending to the advent, with other prophetical periods, I could but regard them as ‘the times before appointed,’ which God had revealed ‘unto his servants the prophets.’” This statement makes it clear that the 1,335 period and Daniel’s standing are connected to the Advent. William Miller, William Miller’s Apology and Defense, August 1, 10. ^
  4. 4. William Miller, Miller’s Reply to Stuart’s “Hints on the Interpretation of Prophecy,” 1842, 48. ^
  5. 5. Apollos Hale, The Second Advent Manual (Boston, MA: Joshua V. Himes, 1843), 61.3. ^
  6. 6. James White, editor’s footnote appended to “William Miller: His Treatment of Opponents—Specimens of His Preaching,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 7, no. 18 (January 31, 1856): 137. ^
  7. 7. James White, The Second Coming of Christ (Battle Creek, MI: Steam Press, 1871), 62. ^
  8. 8. James White, “The Judgment,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 9, no. 13 (January 29, 1857); 100. ^
  9. 9. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Assn., 1897), 343. ^
  10. 10. Smith, 343. ^
  11. 11. For example, see J. N. Loughborough, “The Hour of His Judgment Come,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 5, no. 4 (February 14, 1854): 30. ^
  12. 12. “I know of no period that can be so reckoned as to come this side of 1844; so that the time Daniel was to stand in his lot at the end of the days was 1844. The word which is rendered lot, does not signify his redeemed state, but chance. Daniel should stand his chance. Why? Because his sins had been confessed, and on the day of atonement those sins which have been confessed are opened before-hand to judgment.” Loughborough, 30. For arguments in favor of the physical resurrection, see Artur A. Stele, “Resurrection in Daniel 12 and Its Contribution to the Theology of the Book of Daniel” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 1996), 150–191. ^
  13. 13. It is of interest to note that Ellen G. White clearly believed that the 1335-days prophecy has been fulfilled. In her letter to the church in Brother Hastings’s house, she states: “We told him [Brother Hewit] of some of his errors in the past, that the 1,335 days were ended and numerous errors of his.” (November [27], 1850, Letter 128, 1850). She also made several statements underlining that there will not be any message that will be based on time: “Time had not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.” Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1945), 75. “There will never again be a message for the people of God that will be based on time.” Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1958), 188. For more information and bibliography on a better understanding of these quotes from Ellen G. White, see Alberto R. Timm, “The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12,” Seventh-day Adventist Church Biblical Research Institute, accessed July 8, 2021, https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/the-1290-and-1335-days-of-daniel-12/. ^
  14. 14. Ellen G. White, The Relief of the Schools (1900), 11.
  15. 15. Ellen G. White, Manuscript 176, 1899. ^
  16. 16. The final fulfillment was seen in the resurrection. This thought was noticeably presented in a sermon preached by L. R. Conradi while Ellen G. White was still alive. See L. R. Conradi, “God’s Opening Providences,” General Conference Bulletin, June 4, 1913, 267. ^
  17. 17. See, Artur Stele, “The Last Word of the Book of Daniel: A Grammatical Mistake or a Conscious Choice,” in Ministry: International Journal for Pastors, February 2021, 6–9. ^
  18. 18. Some scholars see here just an Aramaism without any significance for interpretation. For example, see Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1993), 271. However, the very fact that Daniel uses the word days in both languages in his book many times, but only one time in the entire book at the very end adds to the otherwise Hebrew beginning of the word an Aramaic ending suggests an intent. Besides, one must keep in mind that just a verse before, Daniel uses the Hebrew word for days with a Hebrew and not an Aramaic ending. If it would be a simple Aramaism, we would expect it in both places. It is of interest to note that the use of the Hebrew word for days with a definite article and with an Aramaic plural ending is only attested one time in the entire Old Testament: it is here in Daniel 12:13. ^

原文链接：https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2021/12/Daniel-1213-and-early-Adventist-interpretations

←
→