APPENDIX to Chapter 4
the only use of the word ‘nitsdaq’ in
APPENDIX
One theologian makes the following
observations in connection with Ch 4:
The root tsadaq is very frequent in
the OT (some 509 times) but not
once is it used in connection with
the Levitical sacrificial rituals. It is
not a sacrificial word. It is quite
singular as you note, to have
“sanctuary” in Dan 8:14 as the
direct object of this verb. Isn’t the
evidence for the Day of Atonement
in Dan 8:14 on rather shaky
ground given that nitsdaq is a non-
cultic word and “sanctuary” refers
to the sanctuary in general and not
the Most Holy place in particular?
Isn’t it better to base the judgment
theme in the text on the judicial
meaning of nitsdaq and the clear
parallel with Dan 7:9-11?
J. Justesen1 reports that the root
appears 521 times in the Old
Testament, 41 times as a verb. These
occurrences are listed in Table 2 on
page 48. It is correct that the word
‘tsadaq’ is never used in connection
with the Levitical sacrificial rituals
and never takes the sanctuary as its
object. (See page 46). In three OT
occasions where cleansing followed
defilement of the sanctuary
(Ahaz/Hezekiah; Manasseh/Josiah;
Eliashib/Nehemiah. the word ‘taher’
is used. See xxiv of App to Ch 1. It
is significant therefore that the word
‘nitsdaq’ is used in Dan 8:14 for a
purported ‘cleansing’ of a sanctuary,
1
Jerome Justeson. “On The Meaning Of
Tsadaq”. Andrews University Seminary Studies
(1964) Vol 2 pp 52-61.
i
the entire OT. It comes from the
verbal form ‘tsadaq’. Chapter 4
(pages 46-51) and the Appendix to
Chapter 1 (pages xiv to xxv) provide
great detail on this subject. A very
special purpose is intended in Dan
8:14 otherwise the more common but
narrow ‘taher’ (to cleanse, purify)
would have been used. It is indeed a
non-cultic word, that is to say it was
not used in the typical Day of
Atonement service to describe
cleansing of the typical sanctuary. A
much more cosmic meaning is
intended. Table 4 on page 50 and
pages xiv to xxv of the Appendix to
Ch 1 bring into view that special
meaning which Daniel intended.
Justification by faith of the righteous
is intended. Vindication of the
righteous by condemnation of the
wicked is intended. Acquittal in a
judgment setting is intended. The
word ‘taher’ could never convey
such multilayered meaning.
This meaning is inescapable from the
use of tsadaq in Isa 53:11 and its
derivatives in Gen 15:6 and
Habakkuk 2:4. Paul seals the
meaning by quoting the latter two OT
texts in Romans 1:17 and 4:3,
replacing the tsadaq word group with
the dikaios word group. Paul uses
the dikaios word group to amplify
justification by faith. It is therefore
inescapable that the origin of
judgment in Dan 8:14 is the heavenly
sanctuary (God’s throne) and its
recipients are the righteous, not the
horn power. This is confirmed by
Dan 7:22.
 APPENDIX to Chapter 4
In addition to chapter 4, consider the
following tsadaq links to the
sanctuary:
A person who went to the sanctuary
(temple) who had been loyal to the
covenant was considered by God to
be righteous (Psalm 24:3-6. See also
Deut 26:13-15). Those participating
in sanctuary services were required to
be ‘tsaddiq’ (righteous). (Ps 15:1-2)
Righteousness is a gift from God
(Ps 4:1; 17:1). The righteous one
(‘tsaddiq’) was a person whose sins
had been forgiven by the Lord (Ps
32:1, 5, 11). This righteousness was
granted in the sanctuary (temple)
through a priestly declaration.
(Ps 24:5). In the setting of the
sanctuary, a righteous person is a
vindicated person (Ps 7:8-9. See also
35:24-25). In the Psalms, access to
the sanctuary required righteousness
(‘tsadaq’) and in Leviticus it required
cleanness (Lev 13:46; 14:1-20). To
declare a person clean is the same as
declaring the person righteous.
(Isaiah 53:11). ‘Tsadaq’ played a
prominent role in the typical
sanctuary services; they literally
revolved around ‘tsadaq’.
A worshipper entered the sanctuary
through the gates of righteousness (Ps
118:19) and brought a sacrifice of
righteousness (Ps 4:5; 51:19). The
priest clothed with righteousness (Ps
118:19) interceded on the behalf of
the penitent before the Lord of
righteousness (Ps 11:7) and thus
received in the sanctuary
righteousness from God (Ps 24:5).
For all these reasons ‘tsadaq’ and
the sanctuary services are
unmistakably connected and it is the
only word Daniel could have used to
ii
convey the higher meaning of
cleansing and vindication by
combining legal and redemptive
imagery within a sanctuary setting.
It all culminates in the resolution of
the sin problem. ‘Taher’ would
never have been able to convey such
elevated meaning.
The last part of the question suggests
that one should see a judicial
meaning in ‘nitsdaq’ which is
paralleled with the judgment scene in
Dan 7:9-11. This is correct. The
word is rich in judgment meaning,
allowing not only a parallel with Dan
7:9-10 but also Lev 16. The link to
Lev 16 is thus established without
reliance on the KJV-translated word
‘cleansed’. But it would be quite
incorrect to suggest it is the little horn
that is being judged in Dan 7:9-11
and in Dan 8:14. Ch 4 delivers
substantial argument which
demonstrates that the verb ‘tsadaq’
has to do with the notion of restoring
righteousness to those whose right to
regain it has been taken away. If
you are in Christ your sad sin record
wrongly accuses you of a crime
because you are already justified!
This type of judgment cannot
possibly apply to the little horn. (See
Tables 2, 3 and 4 in Ch 4). The
wicked one served as the accuser in
court (Zech 3:1-4; Psalm 35:1).
What we have in Dan 7:9-10 is
vindication of the righteous that
confirms the evil of the wicked. This
aligns with Psalm 7:8-9; 26:1-2
where the verb ‘tsadaq’ is also used.
In order to restore the righteous the
wicked that caused the disruption are
condemned and removed. In Dan
7:10-11 the righteous are vindicated
 APPENDIX to Chapter 4
by judgment and although the little
horn is condemned, its judgment and
its final destruction occur after the
millennium (Rev 20). The
parallelism to the judgment scene in
Dan 7:9-11 certainly reflects the
judicial meaning of ‘nitsdaq’ but its
redemptive meaning must not be
overlooked – something which must
of necessity exclude the little horn as
the object of judgment in both Dan
7:10-11 and Dan 8:14.
If this point is still unclear
I encourage you to scrutinize Ch 4
and the Appendix to Ch 1 again, to
gain a fulsome understanding of the
word ‘tsadaq’. It is inescapable that
the little horn simply cannot be the
object of judgment in Dan 8:14,
unless the horn exercises faith in
Christ leading to justification.
Chapter 7 and the Appendix to
chapter 7 (pages iii-iv) present
compelling evidence that the
heavenly sanctuary depicted in the
book of Hebrews is indeed a
“sanctuary” and not any specific
apartment. This must be as the
heavenly sanctuary is veil-less2.
There has been discussion amongst
SDA scholars about ‘geo-spatial’
properties in the heavenly sanctuary
but the dominant theme in Hebrews is
a heavenly sanctuary as a whole in
which Christ ministers on our behalf.
(See Ch 7 Table 4).
Another comment has been made
with respect to Table 3 on page 49:
2 3
This is confirmed by EG White in ‘Youth’s
Instructor’ June 21, 1900. (Quoted in SDABC
Vol 5:1109). See also COL p.386.
iii
The parallels in Job and Psalms do
not make tsadaq a sacrificial word.
Clearly one can use in parallel
words from diverse semantic
usages. I could say:
“His wrath is a fire
His anger a storm”
But that does not make “fire” and
“storm” synonyms or even from
the same semantic fields.
The parallels are not meant to make
‘tsadaq’ a sacrificial word but rather
to teach us more about ‘tsadaq’ by
the company it keeps. Table 3 on
page 49 only seeks to establish that
there is a close association between
‘tsadaq’ and other Hebrew words that
have as their primary meaning
“clean”, “justified”, “pure” and
“blameless”. This is elucidated by
pages xxvii-xxviii of App to Ch 1.
That the word ‘tsadaq’ boils down to
meaning ‘justification of the
righteous ’ has been demonstrated in
Ch 4 without reliance on
synonymous parallelisms which is
supplementary evidence that just
happens to align with “justification of
the righteous’.
Hebrew parallelisms are not novel in
this manuscript just to make a case.
Jerome Justeson3 identified their
legitimacy in 1964 as did John
Anderson in 20034.
If the theologian’s example of ‘fire’
and storm’ appear as often in
Scripture as the examples listed in
Table 3 (p.49) then one must be
1964 AUSS Vol 2: 52-61.
4
JT Anderson ‘Investigating the Judgment’
R&H pages 50-53.
 APPENDIX to Chapter 4
forgiven for seeing ‘fire’ and ‘storm’
as synonymous terms if there is
substantial evidence elsewhere in
Scripture. This is how Ch 4 treats the
synonymous parallelisms, secondary
evidence, not primary.
Criticism that Adventists erroneously
rely on Dan 8:14 to translate as
“cleansed” fails against these
parallelisms, fails against the material
presented to the previous question
and absolutely fails against all the
material presented in Ch 4. It is an
old argument and with respect, its
proponents would do well to catch
up.
Can worshippers also be the
object of ‘cleansed’ in Dan 8:14?
Dan 8:14 makes the sanctuary (the
‘qodesh’) the object of nitsdaq. On
what grounds can the worshipper also
be included?
1. scholars on each side of the
debate agree the judgment
scene of Dan 7:9-10 parallels
the sanctuary scene of Dan
8:14. Judgment originates
from the heavenly sanctuary,
God’s throne (Dan 8:14) but
its recipients are God’s people
(Dan 7:9-10, 22).
2. OT usage of tsadaq (the verb)
often makes the penitent the
recipient. See pages xix to xxi
of App to Ch 1. Conversely
nowhere except in Dan 8:14 is
the sanctuary made the object
of nitsdaq. The worshipper
must also be included.
iv
3. Paul parallels dikaios
derivatives with tsadaq
derivatives to explain how
God justifies sinners
(worshippers). See page xxv
of App to Ch 1. Paul reserves
justification language strictly
for the penitent worshipper.
4. The purpose of the ‘daily’ in
the type was that the
worshipper as an individual
may be justified. The purpose
of the Day of Atonement in
the type was that worshippers
as a congregation may be
clean, to justify them by faith
as they rested from their
works. (Lev 16:30).
From 1857 onwards the SDA
Pioneers did not include
justification of the worshipper in
the investigative judgment
doctrine as justification by faith
was given belated attention in
1888.
The gospel of righteousness by
faith is endemic in the typical
sanctuary services and extends to
the final consummation of the
Second Advent. That includes us,
here today. Cross examination of
the investigative judgment has
indeed taken us to the foot of the
cross where we may receive the
assurance we are ‘tsadiqq’ before
God – but only because Christ’s
righteous robe fully covers our
shabby righteousness, by faith.
For us the outcome of the
judgment is foregone conclusion –
we are acquitted!