This is the Sixth post in a series on the Investigative Judgment, each of these builds consecutively on the prior so if you have not already read my most recent post please click HERE.

Below is a summary of the 23 Biblical assumptions required to believe in the Investigative Judgment.  I did not compile this list myself, it was arranged by another former Adventist I know by the name of Geoff Bull, and the original work was of course done by Desmond Ford.  If you are SDA or used to be then you have heard that name before.  He was the Adventist theologian that sunk the Investigative Judgment with his extensive exegesis in the original languages.  Furthermore, he identified 23 assumptions one must swallow to even consider the Investigative Judgment.  None of these assumptions have any strong textual support and if a single one is false the whole doctrine fails.

Assumption 1
That the KJV translation of Daniel 8:14 as 2300 days is correct.
Twenty-five times Daniel uses the Hebrew word ‘yowm’ for days…
…however, Daniel does not use ‘yowm’ in 8:14…
…instead the ambiguous “evening-morning” (‘ereb boqer’) is used…
…which most exegetes apply to the evening and morning burnt offerings…
…if the exegetes are correct, it means only 1150 days are in view.

Assumption 2
That these 2300 “days” equal 2300 years…
…even though it is impossible to prove that the year-day principle is a biblical datum…
…and even if we could, ‘days’ are not mentioned in either 8:14 or 9:24…
…so there is no basis to apply the principle in these instances.

Assumption 3
That these 2300 years begin centuries before the “little horn” began his attack on the sanctuary.
In the context, the 2300 days has been understood by almost all commentators as applying to ‘the length of time’ the little horn is trampling the sanctuary underfoot and suspending its daily offerings.

Assumption 4
That the 2300 years begin at the same time as the seventy weeks.
The Hebrew ‘chathak’ can mean either “cut” or “decree,”…
…but there is no way of proving that the 490 is ‘cut off’ from the 2300.

Assumption 5
That it is possible to be certain of the exact year that the seventy weeks begin…
…and is the decree to begin when God declares it or when an earthly king proclaims it?

Assumption 6
That the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra 7 has to do with the restoring and building of Jerusalem.
There is nothing in Ezra 7 that says this.
The context says that this decree, like those of Cyrus and Darius, had to do with the temple.
The magistrates were to enforce the temple laws.
Ezra 6:14 places this decree among the temple decrees.

Isaiah 45:1-2.13 “Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus…I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts.”

If Cyrus is the king who the Lord appointed to rebuild Jerusalem.
It was about 538 BC when he decreed the captive Hebrews could return under Zerubbabel’s leadership.

Assumption 7
That the decree of Ezra 7 “went forth” in (or by) 457 BC when Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem and set to work.
Ezra says the decree had been announced at least six months earlier.
There is nothing in Daniel to say that this decree should be dated from the time of its implementation rather than its enunciation.

Assumption 8
That 408 BC was the time when the restoration of the city was completed…
…even Adventist scholars admit this is impossible to prove.

Assumption 9
That AD 27 was the date of Christ’s baptism…
…also impossible to establish an exact date.

Assumption 10
That AD 31 was the date of the crucifixion…
…almost all scholars hold to other years, not this one…
…evidence from Grace Amadon’s research, often used by SDAs, is based on doubtful assumptions that is even admitted by the SDA Bible Commentary.

Assumption 11
That AD 34 was the date of the gospel going to the gentiles…
…though there is no way of proving that AD 34 was the time of the stoning of Stephen…
…Acts 13:46 suggests the turning to the gentiles at a later date.

Assumption 12
That the 2300 days end with the beginning of the anti-typical Day of Atonement…
…even though the Day of Atonement revolved around the sacrifice for sin, an event which took place about eighteen centuries earlier.
The book of Hebrews clearly applies the Day of Atonement in antitype to Christ’s priestly offering of Himself on Calvary.

Assumption 13
That until this date was reached, Christ was doing work prefigured by the first apartment outside the veil…
…even though Hebrews tells us that the work of that apartment symbolized the ineffectual offerings of the Levitical era when men had restricted access to God, and experienced outward ceremonial cleansing rather than perfection of the conscience.

Assumption 14
That the work symbolized by the second apartment of the sanctuary was not to begin till over 1800 years after the cross…
…even though Hebrews 9:8, 12, 24, 25; 10:19, 20; 6:19, 20 says that Christ entered “within the veil” at His ascension…
…the sprinkling of the blood on the mercy seat took place immediately after the shedding.

Assumption 15
That the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 means the sanctuary in heaven…
…even though the context is about the sanctuary on earth.

Assumption 16
That “cleansed” is an accurate translation in Daniel 8:14…
…’tsadaq’ is usually translated “to be just, to be righteous, to be put or made right”.

Assumption 17
That the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement was cleansed from defilement occasioned by the confession of sin and ministration of blood…
…even though Numbers 19:13 indicates that the sanctuary was defiled when a person sinned, regardless of whether confession was made…
…and that in most cases, blood never went into the sanctuary.

Assumption 18
That the cleansing of the sanctuary in 8:14 has to do with the sins of the professed believers in Christ…
…even though the context has to do with a defilement accomplished by Antichrist…
…not the host of God’s people.

Assumption 19
That this ‘cleansing’ of 8:14 is also found in Daniel 7 in its judgment scene and that the latter also has to do with the investigation of the sins of the saints…
…even though in Daniel 7 and 8 it is a wicked power that is the focus of the judgment.

Assumption 20
That Revelation 14:7 has to do with the same Investigative Judgment of the sins of the saints…
…even though John never uses the word ‘krisis’ other than in a negative sense for unbelievers…
…and although the very next verse tells us that it is Babylon that is the focus of the judgment.

Assumption 21
That verses like Acts 3:19 point to the Investigative Judgment…
…even though no such verse studied in context yield this conclusion.

Assumption 22
That the period terminates in October 22, 1844, as the beginning of the anti-typical Day of Atonement…
…even though October 22, 1844 was not the day observed by contemporary Jews…
…or even by the majority of Karaites…
…neither is there evidence that the baptism of Christ, or the stoning of Stephen took place on the Day of Atonement, which would have been necessary if the 49 years, the 434, 490, and 2300 years are each precise in terminus.

Assumption 23
That Ellen G. White was correct when she wrote: “I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. …Ministers were convinced of the correctness of the positions taken on the prophetic periods” (SG, p. 232).
Ellen was writing here about the 1843 terminus, not October 22, 1844.
Ellen also used the plural ‘periods’ ending then, not just one period…
…William Miller had over a dozen, including the 6000 years, the seven times, the 1335 days, etc…
…and they were all wrong!

I understand that a healthy degree of speculation is in order when one studies eschatology.  But 23 assumptions with no clear textual support is more than I am willing to swallow.  But that is not my biggest problem, consider that when one does swallow those assumptions they lead to a false gospel that contradicts clear scripture.  Why would I be willing to do that?

The pioneers of SDA were willing to do such things because they were ashamed of setting dates for the second coming.  Instead of repenting they claimed spiritual fulfillment and hid behind more false doctrine.  Because of this sin countless have suffered in false teachings since.