Habakkuk's Two Tables #77
CONCLUSION
Presented by Jeff Pippenger
Invocation by Brother Jeff Pippenger: Heavenly Father, we thank you for bringing us together this morning to continue our study of Habakkuk's Tables, and now considering the truths that are represented on the Charts from the Bible alone. As we take up our study this morning, we ask that you would grant us the presence of your Holy Spirit, that you would forgive us for any sins from any transgressions that would be preventing us from hearing your Voice or preventing me from conveying the message that you have for us this morning. We want our understanding open so we fulfill the command in Habakkuk, and pray that you would pour out your Latter Rain upon us now. And as we take up the subject, we ask that you would bless the work that we are doing on LiveStream and DVD recordings and let these things be of such a nature that it would better prepare us to stand and reflect your character and share the message of the hour at this time in Earth's history. And we thank you for these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: In this series of Habakkuk's Tables, we are on No. 76 today, and—actually No. 77,12 because there are a couple along the way that we did not number, that were just reviews. So, it is a long series, and it has taken many months to get this far along. And last week we took up the task of bringing the Conclusion together. And on Monday's presentation of last week, which was the second in the Conclusion, I talked about William Miller rejecting the Midnight Cry. And, evidently, repeatedly, when I was saying this, I was identifying that Miller rejected the Midnight Cry in the Spring of 1844, but it was actually in the Spring of 1845. It was just a mental glitch that I had going on.
So, I received an email from a friend, and she says,
"In the latest presentations, in the second presentation, you keep saying that Miller rejected the message in the Spring of 1844. It is the Spring of 1845. The Seventh Month Movement had not even happened in the Spring of 1844. I know you meant it right, but it is there several times wrong."
So, we put that in the record. If you go back four presentations and you will hear me repeatedly saying that. So, I have corrected that one.
I have another quote that a brother wants me to share, but I may or may not get to that at some point in time.
The Daily
I do not know how many of you have ever had a disagreement or an argument or a discussion over a verse in the Bible, or a passage in the Bible. I have had several. But more than that, more than just sitting down with a brother or a sister after church service at a fellowship dinner and arguing the difference of a verse, there are times when truths of a verse are argued publicly; and, I have had my share of those, too.
We put into print in 1995 our understanding of the last six verses of Daniel 11; and, from that point on, certain components of that message began to be argued publicly; and, as an example, one of them, :the glorious land." "The glorious land" in Daniel 11, verse 41, represents the United States of America; and, as soon as that message came out, the enemy raised up people to oppose publicly that "the glorious land" was the United States in verse 41; and, it was a point that just could not be left alone, because verse 41 of Daniel 11 is identifying the close of probation for Seventh-day Adventists. So the fact that people were being raised up to undermine the reality of what "the glorious land" is, it was something that had to be responded to. So, that argument went on and on and on. To this very day you will still find a large group of people in Adventism that will teach that "the glorious land" is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, it is just ridiculous. There is no Biblical support for it, whatsoever; whereas, identifying "the glorious land" as the United States of America, there is abundant Biblical support for it.
The word glorious means in sense of prominence.
The word land means land.
Four verses later, Michael stands up and human probation closes. So, what is the most prominent land in the world just before human probation closes? It is the United States of America.
The Bible is clear that "the glorious holy mountain" in the Scriptures represents God's Church at the end of the world. That is verse 45.
If Daniel wanted us to think that "the glorious land" in verse 41 was the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he would have said, "the glorious holy mountain." But, because he says "the glorious holy mountain" in verse 45 and "the glorious land" in verse 41, you know it I something different. To claim that "the glorious land" is the Church when Daniel uses a completely different illustration of it just four verses later is just poor reasoning, at best.
Sister White of the United States, she says, "The United States is the glory of all the nations."
"Glory of all the nations," "the glorious land": how hard is that one?
There are three promises in the covenant. One is that we can have the mind of Christ; the other is that we can have a glorified body; and, the third is that the Lord would give His people a land. And of those three promises, if you would just tally up which one is mentioned the most in the Bible, the third covenant promise that the Lord would give His people a land to dwell in is mentioned 50:1 more than the mind of Christ or the glorified body at the Second Coming.
And Sister White says all the covenant promises are fulfilled upon the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So, where is the land that was given to the Seventh-day Adventist Church in fulfillment of the covenant?
Where was the Seventh-day Adventist Church raised up?
The Bible teaches that those that would flee the persecution of the Papacy, that would flee from Europe, they would go to the West, and the Lord would establish His people in the West, which is the United States of America.
And there are many more reasons. And I am just telling them to you; I am not proving them to you. There are many more reasons to show that "the glorious land" is the United States of America; but, that is kind of a secondary issue.
The real issue is that when you understand that "the glorious land" is the United States in Daniel 11, verse 41, you understand the next that happens after the collapse of the Soviet Union in that sequence of verses is that probation closes for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So, that verse becomes very serious.
And, there are even people that—and this is the secondary argument, there are people that want to deny that probation closes for the Adventist Church at The Sunday Law in the United States; and, Sister White repeatedly says that there is a closed door message. She says there is a closed door message in the time of Noah; a closed door message in the time of Abraham concerning Sodom and Gomorrah; a closed door message for the Jews in the time of Christ, destruction of Jerusalem. William Miller brought a closed door message, the end of the world. So, for us to suggest the last six verses of Daniel 11 are a closed door message is consistent with every message in the Scriptures that is prefiguring the Final Warning Message at the end of the world.
So, this controversy that has gone on publicly, it has some severe and serious ramifications.
Let me show you something here. I am going to show you one more thing about this controversy. I will not go deep into it. We will come back to this issue, Lord willing, in a couple of weeks or so.
But, if you identify "the glorious land" as the Seventh-day Adventist Church or if you identify it as the United States of America, it is an argument. It is a public argument that has gone on for years, since 1995.
And the people who believe that it is the Seventh-day Adventist Church: the self-supporting ministries—Hope International, Hartland, Steps to Life, Amazing Facts—the self-supporting ministries that are in good graces with the Conference, or even the General Conference (the Biblical Research men, the Biblical Research Department), they will tell you that "the glorious land" is the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Why would anyone that seeks to be a leader, a spiritual guide of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, accept the doctrine that in Daniel 11, verse 41, long before probation closes, long before Michael stands up—now, really, I am saying before probation closes—if they are saying that "the glorious land" is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, then when it is conquered, it is not marking the close of probation. The close of probation when you take this position is when Michael stands up at the end of the world. So, if you are a leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church either in self-supporting work or in the General Conference and you have taken this position (and they have!), then that means long before verse 41, long before verse 45 when probation closes, in verse 41 the Catholic Church takes control of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. What kind of message is that, from a leader of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
Where is it in the Scriptures? Where is your second proof that the Papacy ever takes control of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? It is just not there.
So, if you take this position that "the glorious land" is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, well, the Seventh-day Adventist church "is the apple of God's eye." Okay. That is "the glorious holy mountain." That is His people. That is Zion. Right?
So, the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a Godly power [in taking the position that it is "the glorious land"].
But, if you allow the Bible to define what "the glorious land" is, then you realize that "the glorious land" is the United States of America in the very time period when the United States is forcing the world to worship the Papacy.
Okay. The United States begins as a lamblike nation, but it ends up speaking as the dragon. And when "the glorious land" is conquered in Daniel 11, verse 41, the United States, it is speaking as the dragon. So, it is not a Godly power, is it?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: No.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: It is a satanic power.
So, when you look at this argument, you realize that on one side you are saying "the glorious land" is a Godly power; and, the other side, no, "the glorious land" is a satanic power.
Mainly I am trying to talk about public controversies in Biblical truth; but, before I move away from my illustration of public controversies, I want to show you one other thing, because we are dealing with the Daily.
U.S.A. GLORIOUS LAND SDA Church
Satanic Power Godly power
Paganism DAILY Christ's Sanctuary Ministry
The people that are on the wrong side of the view (the same people, the same people: The Hartland Institute, the Biblical Research Institute, Steps to Life, Amazing Facts, these same ministries; and, the General Conference) will tell you that the Daily is Christ's Sanctuary ministry; and, of course, Sister White plainly says that this view came from angels that were expelled from Heaven. She says this view brings darkness and confusion.
But, Sister White says the Pioneers had the correct view, and the Pioneers say that the Daily is Paganism.
So, notice: In the argument of the Daily, it is the same argument as "the glorious land." It is the same argument. Back at the beginning of the 20th Century, the same arguments that come at the end of the 20th Century on two different issues are: (1) Is the Daily a satanic power, or is the Daily a Godly power? (2) Is "the glorious land" a satanic power, or is "the glorious land" a Godly power?
And do not miss this, Brothers and Sisters, that when the Pioneers identified that the Daily was Paganism, they were identifying that Paganism was the power that placed the Papacy on the throne of the Earth.
So, when we are identifying that "the glorious land" is a satanic power (it is the United States) we are also identifying that "the glorious land" is the power that places the Papacy on the throne of the Earth. So, do not miss this controversy; because, these kinds of parallels are not manufactured by humans. This is a prophetic parallel that has to do with the Alpha and Omega Apostasy; because, this false view of the Daily, it came in at the time of the Alpha; and, this false view of "the glorious land," it is what is being argued in the time of the Omega. And, it is the same argument, with different symbols.
So, we will deal with that more as we proceed.
But, I know that people have passages where Sister White says, "In order to present truth, we are to present the truth and not worry about presenting the error." It is not good to present the error, because then you are letting people think about the error and they might stumble over the error. And, she says that repeatedly.
But, she also says repeatedly that when you are going to teach the truth, contrast it with the error. She says that, too; so, you have to take a little bit more of a balanced approach to what she is saying.
You know, if someone is out there teaching error, and the error that they are teaching is going to be beneficial to show the significance of the truth, then go ahead and identify that false teaching; but, what she is saying is, you do not need to go into the details about why that false teacher is a no good nick. But, sometimes to present the truth, it is worthwhile to contrast it with error.
Okay. So, in our last presentation we took time to show that one of the themes of Bible prophecy is the combination of church and state.
And, we took time to show that in Daniel 2 and Revelation 17 there is a progression that is illustrated in the kingdoms of Bible prophecy.
And, we took those two principles into Daniel 7 and 8, and noted that Daniel 7 and 8 were operating upon the principle of repeat and enlarge; and, that Daniel 7 was an illustration of the kingdoms of Bible prophecy in their political manifestation, and that Daniel 8 was the same kingdoms of Bible prophecy in their religious manifestation; and, that the religion (the false religion) that is represented in Daniel 8, has a progression there that is marked by the word gâdal, self-exaltation; because, each of these kingdoms of Bible prophecy, they gâdal themselves more than the previous kingdom.
So, we put that in place to lead into our consideration of Daniel 8, verses 9 through 12.
So, I am just reminding you of that.
The Lord willing, we are going to be in the Book of Daniel for a long time. Sometimes we will cover a lot of ground; sometimes we will not. And by "a lot of ground," we may cover a lot of ground, but I mean we are not going to move far away from one verse sometimes. So, that is where we are going to do here today.
Turn with me, if you would—it is in your notes—but to Daniel 11:14; because, we are studying Daniel 8. So, I want to go to Daniel 11, verse 14.
Daniel 11, verse 14, says,
"14And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall." Daniel 11:14 (KJV).
There were controversies in the time of the Millerites. If you go back and read the Millerite publications, the newsletters, the journals that they were publishing, or you go back and you read William Miller's papers that he wrote, you will find that there were certain controversies that the Millerites were having with the Protestants of that time that are part of the record; but, there really is not that many, but they are to be noted; i.e., they were arguing about the millennium.
There were certain arguments, and one of them is this verse. This is a verse (verse 14) that William Miller has in the record. He is elaborating on this verse in response in addressing the false Protestant view.
And the first time I came across this, I was not looking for it and it did not mean much to me. I was reading William Miller, and the part I was reading is in your notes. We will get to it in a moment. And I thought, "That was interesting." I mean, I was familiar with Daniel 11, verse 14; and, I was led to read this by William Miller and I had it in my memory bank. And within a couple of weeks I was in a meeting, a week-long meeting (almost a week-long meeting), where a guy from the General Conference would present his view of the last six verses of Daniel 11 for 45 minutes, and then he would answer questions for an half hour; and, then I would present my views, which were different from his, on the last six verses of Daniel 11, and then I would answer questions for half an hour. And it was a hand-picked audience. There was only one person that forced themselves in, but everyone else was by invitation only; and, it was half General Conference employees and half self-supporting ministries.
So, he would present for 45 minutes on the last six verses of Daniel 11, and then he would answer questions; and, then I did the same; and, it went back and forth through the week.
And he got to Daniel 11:14, and he explained that the "robbers of thy people," this General Conference guy, represents the descendents of Greece, some of the Syrian kings and Antiochus Epiphanes.
And I said, "Whoa!" I had just understood that this was a controversy in the time of the Millerites, but the Millerites got it right. The "robbers of thy people" are Rome. The Millerites were arguing against the Protestants that this "robbers of thy people" in verse 14 represented Rome, and the Protestants were saying it represented Antiochus Epiphanes; and, here is this General Conference man saying that the "robbers of thy people" represent Antiochus Epiphanes.
And I am thinking, "Thank you, Lord, for giving me forewarning that this is still an issue here at the end of the world." Okay? What we had originally come to understand in the Millerite history somehow got turned upside down when we got to the end of the world.
So, I had the ammunition. When I would go up and do my presentation, without trying to be confrontational, I would answer, I would address all of the little glitches that I saw on his presentation, and I had the material in my mind to answer it.
And if you read this—and we do not have to read this. I do not intend to read all these passages; I intend to refer to them—the key point in this verse (and you have it in your notes) is the word also; and William Miller emphasizes the word also.
If you are familiar with Daniel 11, verses 12 and 13, it is talking about the King of the North (the Syrian powers) and their aggression towards Egypt (the King of the South); and, it has been the discussion for a few verses. So, when you get to verse 14, it says, "And in those times there shall many stand up against [Egypt] the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people . . ." The subject has been the King of the North for the previous two verses, and so verse 14 is saying there is going to be other people besides the King of the North that are going to stand up against Egypt, and also the robbers of thy people. So, William Miller's logic (and his logic is correct, and it is grammatically correct) is that whoever these robbers of the people are, they have to be different from the King of the North: ". . . also the robbers of thy people . . ."
And you can read William Miller's logic below.
Vision (CHÂZÔN)—Proverbs 29:18
So, whoever "the robbers of thy people" are can also be defined by the characteristics that are given in the verse: They are the robbers of God's people. They are the power in Bible prophecy that exalts themselves. But more importantly, they are the power that establishes the vision; and this vision here is the châzôn vision.
So, what does Proverbs 29:18 say?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: "Where there is no vision . . ."
BROTHER PIPPENGER: "18Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. (Proverbs 29:18, KJV)"
And where is there no vision? There is no vision if you do not know who "the robbers of thy people" are; because, "the robbers of thy people" are the ones that establish the vision. That is why Sister White has statements like she says, "The scenes connected with the working of the man of sin are the last features plainly revealed in this earth's history." {2SM 102.1}
Who is the "man of sin"? That is Rome (the King of the North).
Sister White is saying the last scenes in prophetic history have to do with the Papacy (the King of the North, Rome); and, Daniel is saying here, what establishes the vision is Rome. So, they are in agreement with one another.
But, Proverbs says, "Where there is no vision, the people perish," so what Satan does is he says, "I have to corrupt the understanding that 'the robbers of thy people' is Rome; because, if I can do that, then there is no vision and the people perish." Okay?
So, this was a controversy in the Millerite History.
Now, Brothers and Sisters, you may wonder what this has to do with Daniel 8, and you may wonder why we are spending time about arguments; but, I want to point to these two Charts here [the 1843 and the 1850 Charts], these two Charts here. Virtually everything on them has a reference in Bible prophecy.
But, you notice I say virtually.
Okay. Notice here [on the 1843 Chart], "164." There is no reference in the Bible to this. Okay? This is not a Biblical reference. This is a reference to the controversy that went on in the Millerite History. It says, "164, Death of Antiochus Epiphanes . . ." In Daniel 11, verse 14, the Protestants were arguing that "the robbers of thy people" were Antiochus Epiphanes. This was the issue with the Millerites. So, the Millerites spent a lot of time showing why Antiochus Epiphanes could not be this subject; because, if he is, he destroys the vision.
So, what I am saying, the controversy in the Millerite History was so significant that it is actually put upon this [1843] Chart. And what have we been told about this Chart? That it was directed by the hand of the Lord. So, these controversies are something that the Lord has noted. All right?
It says,
"164, Death of Antiochus Epiphanes, who of course stood not up against the Prince of Princes,"—
Where does anyone stand up against the Prince of princes?
Go to Daniel 8, verse 11, "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, . . ."
So, the Protestants were saying that Daniel 8:11 is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes standing up against the Prince of the host, the Prince of princes. So, the Millerites are saying—and this is almost sarcastic, but it is not. I am not trying to be negative, but think about it.
"164, Death of Antiochus Epiphanes,"— who of course stood not up against the Prince of Princes,"—
This is 164 what?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: BC.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: BC—164BC, right?
So, how long before Jesus, the Prince of princes, comes into history?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: 164 years.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Okay. So, that is their point.
"164[BC], Death of Antiochus Epiphanes,"— who of course stood not up against the Prince of Princes, as he had been 164 years dead before the prince of princes was born." 1843 Chart, Published by J. V. Himes.
So, this is a controversy that has no Biblical reference. It is a point on this Table [1843 Chart] about the controversy of that history. All right? There are controversies that are a part of this history, and this history is repeated in our history to the very letter.
Anyway, we have more to say about this. Let us go back to our notes.
Exalt—2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Daniel 11:36
You see under the word EXALT, 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verses 3 and 4; because, we want to know who the one that establishes the vision. Whoever he is, is the one that exalts himself in the Scriptures.
And, of course, Antiochus Epiphanes in his lifetime may have exalted himself; but, the Scriptures do not take any time to reference that.
Verse 3,
"3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed,"—
Who is the man of sin?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: The Papacy.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: That is the Papacy.
—"the son of perdition. 4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (KJV).
Now, if you bust out the Protestant and even Adventist Commentaries, most of them—many of them—I will not say most of them; but, perhaps it is most—but, many of them will tell you that where Paul is referencing this passage about the man of sin exalting himself is found in Daniel 11:36.
And here is a controversy for you, Brothers and Sisters, that you should wrap your mind around. It is Rome that establishes the vision, and Rome is the one that exalts himself in Bible prophecy.
I am not trying to prove this to you right now. I am giving you the references that do prove it; but, I hope you already understand this.
And, in 2 Thessalonians you have the classic illustration of the Papacy (the man of sin) exalting himself; and, the Bible commentators tell us that Paul is taking Daniel 11:36 and paraphrasing it in verse 4 of 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2.
In verse 36 of Daniel 11, when you read it you can see the paraphrasing, the connection to Paul. It says,
"36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done." Daniel 11:36 (KJV).
Now, the power in Bible prophecy which is "the robbers of thy people," which exalts himself, is the Papacy; but, in the Millerite History there was a controversy, because the Protestants were saying "the robbers of thy people" were the Syrian kings (Antiochus Epiphanes). And, of course, this destroys your ability to understand the vision.
But, when we get into Advent History, what do we find in Advent History over verse 36? We find Uriah Smith saying, "No, this isn't the Papacy. This is Turkey." All right? And Uriah Smith does it by changing one word.
How many words do you have the liberty to change in God's Word?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: None.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: None.
Uriah Smith's reasoning in verse 36 is, "If we can say 'a king,'" but, the verse does not say that. The verse says, "the king"; and, when it says, "the king," it means the king that is being discussed in the previous verses. And even Uriah Smith agrees that the king that is being discussed in the previous verses is the Papacy; but, Uriah Smith wants to change it to a new power. So, he says, "If we could say 'a king,' instead of 'the king,' we could see a new power introduced in the verse; so, he changes it to Turkey.
And what does Sister White say? She says, "All those that become confused on the meaning of antichrist will ultimately end up on the side of antichrist."
So, we need to be clear about who the man of sin is.
But, what I am saying to you is that "the robbers of thy people" in verse 14 is the power in Bible prophecy that exalts themselves, and that is 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; and, this is derived from Daniel 11:36.
And Daniel 11:36 is also a point of controversy in Advent History; and, this controversy goes back to the Millerite History, and it was such a controversy that it finds itself on these Tables [the 1843 and 1850 Charts] noted, even though there is no Biblical reference for Antiochus Epiphanes.
Fall—Revelation 14:8; Daniel 7:26; 8:25; 11:45
Also, the power that establishes the vision is the power that falls.
"8And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the win of the wrath of her fornication." Revelation 14:8 (KJV).
And in Revelation 14:8, who falls?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Babylon.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Babylon.
And who is Babylon at the end of the world? The man of sin: the one that exalts himself.
You can look at Daniel 7:26, and 8:25, and 11:45 and you see that Rome (the King of the North) is illustrated as falling.
"26But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." Daniel 7:26 (KJV).
"25And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand." Daniel 8:25 (KJV).
"45And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in [and] the glorious holy mountain, yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." Daniel 11:45 (KJV).
Rome Establishes the Vision
So, what I am saying, in Daniel 11:14, all the proof-texts establish that it is Rome that establishes the vision, not Antiochus Epiphanes.
And then you have underneath in your notes the word ROBBERS.
ROBBERS: Strong's Concordance, H1121—a son H6530—From H6555; violent, that is, a tyrant: - destroyer, ravenous, robber. H6555—A primitive root; to break out (in many applications, direct and indirect, literally and figuratively): - X abroad, (make a) breach, break (away, down, -er, forth, in, up), burst out come (spread) abroad, compel, disperse, grow, increase, open, press, scatter, urge.
It is the destroyer; it is the breaker of God's people, and you can see references. The breakers of God's people in the Scriptures—and breakers is one of the definitions for robbers—that is Rome. Okay?
We are familiar with the fact that the fourth kingdom was going to break and stomp. Right?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Affirmation.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: It was going to break; it was going to rob. It was the destroyer.
And then underneath [in the notes] you will see William Miller's argument [provided below but not read into the record] about Daniel 11, verse 14.
"'And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south; also, the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.' The king of the south, in this verse, without any doubt, means king of Egypt; but what the robbers of thy people means remains yet a doubt perhaps to some. That it cannot mean Antiochus, or any king of Syria, it is plain; for the angel had been talking about that nation for a number of verses previous, and now says, 'also the robbers of thy people,' etc., evidently implying some other nation. I will admit that Antiochus did perhaps rob the Jews; but how could this 'establish the vision,' as Antiochus is not spoken of anywhere in the vision as performing any act of that kind; for he belonged to what is called the Grecian kingdom in the vision. Again, 'to establish the vision,' must mean to make sure, complete, or fulfill the same. And if it cannot be shown that the Grecian kingdom was to rob the people of God, I think it must mean some other nation which would do these acts, to which every word will apply. And to this we need not be at a loss; for at this very time of which the angel is speaking, Rome, the least kingdom in Daniel's vision, did exalt itself, and this kingdom did have the very marks in the vision, and in the events following. This kingdom was to have great iron teeth; it was to break in pieces, and stamp the residue with the feet of it. The vision also says, 'He shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and holy people, and that he should magnify himself,' etc., the same as exalt himself, Daniel 7:7, 23; 8:10–12, 24, 25 verses. And it cannot be denied but that the Jews have been robbed of their city and sanctuary by the Romans, and the Christian church has been persecuted and robbed by this dreadful beast, the Roman kingdom." William Miller, William Miller's Works, volume 2, 88.
Now, one of the things about verse 14 that I want you to see, outside of what we have been discussing, is in verses 12 and 13 the King of the North is the subject; so, when you get to verse 14, it says, "And in those times there shall many stand up against [Egypt] the king of the south: . . ." It has been discussing about the King of the North, and the King of the North in this time period is Greece. It is the final kings of Greece that have come down through history. They have been preparing to take control of Egypt (the King of the South).
And it says in verse 14, "And in those times," at the very end of the Greek time period to be the third kingdom of Bible prophecy, "And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south:"—many powers are going to begin to covet conquering Egypt—"also
the robbers of thy people . . ."
So, one of the things that I am going to emphasize here that has not been part of this subject about the Millerite controversy is that when you understand this correctly, this is grammatically telling you that Rome is a different power. It is not a descendent of Greece,—
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Amen.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: —". . . also the robbers of thy people . . ."
Miller's logic, he was not trying to make the point I am making, but he supports what I am making here. This verse teaches us that Rome is a different power than Greece. They are not the same power. Keep that in mind. We will get back to that.
Follows is a quote that many of us are familiar with, in this room and on LiveStream. It says, from Manuscript Releases, volume 21, page 444,
"The grand instruction contained in Daniel and Revelation has been eagerly perused by many in Australia. This book has been the means of bringing many precious souls to a knowledge of the truth. Everything that can be done should be done to circulate Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. I know of no other book that can take the place of this one. It is God's helping hand."—
Uriah Smith's book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, is to be God's helping hand.
She continues on and says,
—"Those who have been long in the truth are asleep. They need to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The third angel's message is to be proclaimed with a loud voice. Tremendous issues are before us. We have no time to lose. God forbid that we should allow minor matters to eclipse the light which should be given to the world." Manuscript Releases, volume 21. 444.
Now, if you are reading through the hymnal and you see that one of the authors of many of the songs in the hymnal is Frank Belden that is Ellen White's nephew, who ultimately left Adventism.
But, when I heard what I am going to tell you about here, I was just amazed. He [Frank Belden] had the ability, he would work with an evangelist (an Adventist evangelist), and the Adventist evangelist would begin his sermon.
"Tonight," he would tell the people, "we are going to cover Daniel 2," and he would start into his sermon; and, Frank Belden would take his wife, and he and his wife would go into some other room with a piano, and they would sit down and write a song about Daniel 2. And at the end of that evangelistic presentation, Frank Belden and his wife would come out and play and sing the song about Daniel 2.
So, when you are reading through the hymnals and you see these songs by Frank Belden, that is the guy that did it, and that is the kind of gift he had; but, he walked away from Adventism.
And his aunt was Ellen White.
So, although it does not say it in this next passage, if you will look closely in Ellen White's writings, you will find that it was Frank Belden that asked this question, and he was not asking it—you know, there are different ways people ask questions, and sometimes people ask you a question and maybe it is a dumb question, but you can tell they are honest, they want to know, they do not understand it. But, sometimes you can tell when someone is asking a question that they are just trying to set you up to try to make you look bad, and they do not really care about the answer. They are fighting against the truth. You know, you can tell.
And Belden's question here was not a positive question. He was trying to undermine what Sister White had just said about Uriah Smith's book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. She said it is God's helping hand.
So, as we read through this next passage, you are going to see a question: "Do you believe that what these Pioneers wrote was inspired?"
Well, when you get to the real question, when it is laid out, not so cloaked as it is in this passage, he was saying to her, "Do you think Uriah Smith is inspired?" you know, with a sarcastic voice.
So, let us read this from The 1888 Materials, page 547:
"'I am the vine, ye are the branches,' said Jesus. We do not half understand the preciousness of this lesson; we must learn more and more the significance of these words. We need our eyes anointed that we may see the light of truth. We must not think, 'Well, we have all the truth, we understand the main pillars of our faith, and we may rest on this knowledge.' The truth is an advancing truth, and we must walk in the increasing light. A brother asked,"—
And this is Ellen White writing, and she is saying, "A brother asked"; but, the brother that asked was her nephew.
—"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?'"—
He is setting her up. And when you get to the actual dialogue, he is being specific to Uriah Smith.
Here is what she says:
—"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.
"Do not trust to the wisdom of any man, or to the investigations of any man. Go to the Scriptures for yourselves, search the inspired word with humble hearts, and lay aside your preconceived opinions; for you will obtain no benefit unless you come as children to the word of God. You should say, 'If God has anything for me, I want it. If God has given evidence from his word to this or that brother that a certain thing is truth, he will give it to me. I can find that evidence if I search the Scriptures with constant prayer, and I can know that I do know what truth is.' You need not preach the truth as the product of another man's mind; you must make it your own. When the woman of Samaria was convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, she hastened to tell her neighbors and townsmen. She said, 'Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? Then they went out of the city, and came unto him. . . . And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did. . . . And many more believed because of his own word; and said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying; for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ.'
"Brethren, we must sink the shaft deep in the mine of truth. You may question matters with yourselves and with one another, if you only do it in the right spirit; but too often self is large, and as soon as investigation begins, an unchristian spirit is manifested. This is just what Satan delights in, but we should come with a humble heart to know for ourselves what truth is. The time is coming"—
This is one of the reasons I went—there are two nice thoughts in the conclusion of this passage. It is not really germane to Uriah Smith. This is one of them.
—"The time is coming when we shall be separated and scattered, and each one of us will have to stand without the privilege of communion with those of like precious faith; and how can you stand unless God is by your side, and you know that he is leading and guiding you? Whenever we come to investigate Bible truth, the Master of assemblies is with us. The Lord does not leave the ship one moment to be steered by ignorant pilots. We may receive our orders from the Captain of our salvation.
"We must be able to present the precious truth at the right time. We do not claim that in the doctrines sought out by those who have studied the word of truth, there may not be some error, for no man that lives is infallible; but if God has sent light, we want it; and God has sent light, and let every man be careful how he treats it. As the truth is proclaimed, men will say, 'Be careful now, do not be too zealous, too positive; you want the truth.' Of course we want the truth, and we want it as it is in Jesus.
"When Nathanael came to Jesus, Jesus exclaimed, 'Behold an Israelite indeed, in who is no guile!' Nathanael said, 'Whence knowest thou me?' Jesus answered, 'When thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee.' And Jesus will see us also in the secret places of prayer, if we seek him for light that we may know what is truth. Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy.
"If a brother is teaching error, those who are in responsible positions ought to know it; and if he is teaching truth, they ought to take their stand at his side."—
That is the other point I wanted to make sure you see. Too often people have heard this prophetic message and they know it is truth; but, in order to, you know, maybe move up in their realm of influence or maintain friends or avoid controversy, in spite of the fact that they know it is the truth, they decide not to stand with it.
—"We should all know what is being taught among us, for if it is truth, we need to know it. The Sabbath-school teacher needs to know it, and every Sabbath-school scholar ought to understand it. We are all under obligation to God to know what he sends to us. He has given directions by which we may test every doctrine,—'To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.' But if it is according to this test, do not be so full of prejudice that you cannot acknowledge a point when it is proved to you,"—
There is a brother, and he has put his papers out on a website now and many of the people that are opposing this message, they send people to his papers. Okay? And he has got credibility because, No. 1, he is a medical doctor which makes him credible in some people's eyes, plus he is the son-in-law of Gerhardt Damsteegt who wrote the book, The Foundations of Seventh-day Adventists' Message and Mission, which is a book that we recommend about Millerite History. So, he has got this kind of second-hand credibility, too.
And I quit dialoging with the guy. It was a nice dialogue; it was an email dialogue. I still have the emails, so we would not want anyone to say that what I am saying has not been documented. And he came out with a paper and, in the spirit of Christ, he sent it to me.
He says, "You know, I am going to go public with this paper and I thought I needed to share it with you first."
I said, "Thank you," and I went through [it] and said, "Well, what you are saying here is wrong. Here is why, from the Spirit of Prophecy and Bible.
"And what you are saying here is wrong, and here is why from the Bible."
Okay. So, we did this three times; and, every time there were things in there that he was saying that you could not—that were not correct. They just flat were not correct!
So, what he did is he held onto his paper and he removes those things. He removes those things like they are not part of his argument and just maintains the paper. Okay? He never acknowledges that he was building his premise upon this pillar here and that pillar got removed. He just kept his argument and did not say anything about that pillar. And because he did that, because of our dialogue, I determined, "Well, if the guy cannot even acknowledge when he emails back to me, 'Yeah, I see your point. You are right about that,' if he is not even willing to acknowledge that, I never get anything done in a day that I am supposed to do anyway, so why spend any more time with that kind of attitude."
So, what she is saying here,
—"But if it is according to this test,"—to the Law and to the Testimony—"do not be so full of prejudice that you cannot acknowledge a point when it is proved to you, simply because it does not agree with your ideas. Do not catch at every objection, however small, and make it as large as possible, and preserve it for future use. No one has said that we shall find perfection in any man's investigations, but this I do know, that our churches are dying for the want of teaching on the subject of righteousness by faith in Christ, and for kindred truths.
"No matter by whom light is sent, we should open our hearts to receive it in the meekness of Christ. But many do not do this. When a controverted point is presented, they pour in question after question without acknowledging, without admitting a point when it is well sustained."—
Have you ever had that?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: A question from the floor. You answer it and you blow the foolish premise out of the water; and, instead of the person saying, "Oh, I get it," they move to the next question and their next question would only be valid if their first question had been valid. And they just keep rattling them off, and then after a while, that is the reason not to point to that hand any longer.
—"O may we act as men who want light! May God give us his Spirit day by day, and let the light of his countenance shine upon us, that we may be learners in the school of Christ." The 1888 Materials, 547.
So, what I am saying here is this was a nice passage. I put some points in that are not germane to what we are really looking at.
What we are really look at is that Uriah Smith's book, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, have been identified by Sister White as God's helping hand; but, in the same vein, she has let us know that he was not inspired and there are some things that Uriah Smith teaches in that book that are wrong; and, that is an enlightened approach to that book. Okay? But, we are going to refer to that book.
Daniel 7:7
So, I want you to go to Daniel 7:7 now.
And now I will try to tell you the point I am trying to make here through all this first hour.
In verse 7 of Daniel 7, it says,
"7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it:"—
What beast is this?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Rome.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: This is Rome.
And what does the next phrase say?
—"and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns." Daniel 7:7 (KJV).
Okay. Now, here is my point, and I hope I have not gone so far around the mountain that you cannot get my logic.
In Daniel 11, verse 14, where we started, William Miller uses the word also to prove that the "robbers of thy people," Rome, is a different power than Greece. And here in Daniel 7, Rome is diverse from the beasts that were before it. So, upon the testimony of two in the Book of Daniel, we know that Rome, the fourth kingdom, is not a descendent of Greece; it is a different kingdom. Okay?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: Amen.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Are you with me? Maybe that does not mean anything for you, but it should.
Now, I will show you an error at one level. And, I do not think it is an error, and I know I have been saying some of these things here in the recent past and it really causes people trouble!
I have a close friend that the thought I am going to say right here, I do not know if he has gotten through it yet; but, look at here: On this Chart here, this 1850 Chart, this is Daniel 8 [referring to the fourth column from the left reflecting the five beasts] and the Pioneers show the little horn of Daniel 8 coming out of one of the horns of Greece.
Now, go to Daniel 8, verse 8. Daniel 8, verse 8, says,
"8Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven." Daniel 8:8 (KJV).
Here are the four notable ones [indicating the second beast from the top in the fourth column from the left on the 1850 Chart]. Right? And there is going to be a little horn that comes out of one of them [tracing his finger on the horn that extends down in history on the Chart to just before where the 7th Angel is portrayed in the fifth column, from the left].
Now, notice this next verse.
"9And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Daniel 8:9 (KJV).
So, my argument is, is that Marcos here, Marcos is a world class graphic artist, if that is the right category.
Is that a correct way to describe your profession?
BROTHER MARCOS: Graphic Illustrator.
BROTHER PIPPENGER: Graphic Illustrator. Okay.
So, if you gave Marcos the job assignment, "Illustrate for us verses 8 and 9 at the surface level," he would do this very thing. He would show this horn coming right out of that horn.
But, we know from Daniel 11:14 and Daniel 7:7 that this kingdom of this little horn, that it does not have a direct connection to Greece. It is diverse, ". . . also the robbers of thy people . . . ."
But, for a Graphic Illustrator to portray this, there is no problem there. There is no problem there as I read it. If I had to illustrate it graphically, that is how you would have to do it. Okay?
But, notice even, and this is an error to suggest—I am tell you out front that I will explain why in a moment—it is an error to suggest that the little horn comes from one of the horns of Greece. It is an error. All right?
Uriah Smith makes this error in Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, (God's helping hand), on page 175. He says,
"The little horn comes forth from one of the horns of the goat."—
He says it. He is wrong.
—"How, it may be asked, can this be true of Rome? It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly governments are not introduced into prophecy till they become in some way connected with the people of God. Rome became connected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the famous Jewish League, B.C.161. 1 Maccabees 8; Josephus's Antiquities, book 12, chapter 10, section 6; Prideaux, Volume II, 166. But seven years before this, that is, in B.C.168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made that country a part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced into prophecy just as, from the conquered Macedonian horn of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other directions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the horns of the goat." Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, 175.
So, let me read something to you from Samuel Pipim's book, Receiving the Word." PIPIM, PIPIM; It is different than Pippenger.
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Laughter).
BROTHER PIPPENGER: On a regular basis we get people not within the past month and a half, a brother from Canada called here and got hold of my wife and said, "I have heard that Jeff Pippenger ran off with a young woman."
My wife said, "PIPIM, PIPIM! Okay?"
And I do not know that Pipim ran off with a young woman, but he is the one that had the moral problem, not Pippenger. Okay?
But, this is his book, this is his book. And in this book he is going to define three ways to study the Bible that are in Adventism today.
William Miller's Rules, Pipim is going to say, "We all reject those Rules." But, he is going to tell us what these other two rules are. This is on page 27; beginning, it says,
The crisis facing contemporary Adventism is not necessarily due to a clash of two cultures--"the church of the West" and "the rest of the church." Rather, it is a crisis over biblical hermeneutics, the appropriate principles for interpreting the Bible. Recently this crisis has spawned much new hermeneutical terminology in our church: casebook vs. codebook, principle vs. literal approach, contextual vs. key text approach, dynamic vs. rigid approach, principle/spirit vs. literal/letter,—
Now, here is the one I want you to hear, because he is saying that the hermeneutics in the church break down into two camps, and he just described those two camps in various ways that they are discussed; but, here is the breakdown of those two camps that I want to put into the record:
—"the historical critical method vs. historical grammatical method, and perhaps other terms as well. But notice what he says in the next paragraph."
—"In addressing the issue of biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), Seventh-day Adventists are faced with only two options, the historical Adventist approach to the scriptures which recognizes the Bible is fully inspired, trustworthy, and authoritative; and, two, the contemporary liberal approaches to the Bible which deny the full inspiration liability and authority of the scriptures.
"Although these two approaches are miles apart, they are both agreed in their rejection of a third approach, namely the proof-text method of interpretation. It may be helpful to explain why." Samuel Pipim, Receiving the Word, 27.
And the proof-text [method] is William Miller's Rules, line upon line.
So, what I want you to see is that when Adventism in the 1920s and '30s was rejecting the Pioneer understanding of the Daily, that they also were reaching out for accreditation in their colleges, first the Medical Colleges and thereafter by just what had to happen, the Theological Departments. They accepted the Biblical hermeneutics of apostate Protestantism, and these hermeneutics of apostate Protestantism break down into two methods: historical-critical method, and historical-grammatical method. Those are at odds with one another.
And the one approach is exemplified by a man by the name of Desmond Ford. Okay?
How many in this room have heard of Desmond Ford?
FROM THE AUDIENCE: (Show of hands.)
BROTHER PIPPENGER: And you know that Desmond Ford rejects the Spirit of Prophecy; he rejects the Sanctuary; and, for a time after he left the church (and maybe he still does) he began to worship on Sunday. Maybe he worships on both now. I do not pay attention to Desmond Ford; but, there was a time when he was even worshipping on Sunday. That is where he went with his Biblical approach to hermeneutics, and it caused a crisis in Adventism; but, I do not know a great deal about it, but that crisis was reaching its head right when we were coming into Adventism.
But, I want you to go back to Daniel 8, verses 8 and 9. Whether you understand it or not, the reason that Desmond Ford throws out the Sanctuary and the Spirit of Prophecy in Adventism is because he claims that the little horn of verse 9 is a direct descendent to one of the horns of Greece; and, therefore, he claims the little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes and, therefore, what we teach about the Pope of Rome being the man of sin is swept away because the Bible is not talking about the Pope of Rome; it is talking about Antiochus Epiphanes.
This is the same argument that the Millerites had to deal with. It was such an argument that it is actually enshrined on these sacred Charts [the 1843 and 1850 Charts]. And Desmond Ford is the modern man that re-pushes this back into Adventism.
So, because of this, this is the spawning of the Biblical Research Institute. I will not go into the history, but it was because they had accepted these two false approaches to Biblical hermeneutics that some of them realized, "Whoa! If we stand in this camp with Desmond Ford, we sweep away all of Adventism"; and, therefore, those that did not want to be in that camp and were in the other camp that Pipim is speaking about here, they started forming committees that ultimately evolved into the Biblical Research Institute.
The Four Winds—Daniel 8:8
Hasel and Shea
William Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Study Committee, volume 1, 41–43.
G. F. Hasel, Daniel and Revelation Study Committee, volume 2, 387–394.
So, if you go to your notes, you will see two of these men, two theologians that are opposed to Desmond Ford, the champion to the one type of hermeneutics, and they are the champions to the other type of hermeneutics; and, both these hermeneutics reject William Miller's approach to the Scriptures.
And you will see where it says, "The Four Winds of Daniel 8," you will see "Hasel and Shea." These are well known theologians that opposed Desmond Ford.
But, when Desmond Ford brought his argument that this horn right here, the little horn of Daniel 8, verse 9, was a direct descendent from Greece, they knew they were in trouble. So, they started scrambling.
So, what I am doing is I am going to give you references by Shea and Hasel. And Shea and Hasel, they do not have any agreement with what we teach, because we use the proof-text method of William Miller. They are as opposed to us as Desmond Ford would be, but Hasel and Shea want to pretend that their Biblical approach to hermeneutics upholds Adventism, when it destroys it just as well as Desmond Ford does. The Biblical Research Institute is opposed to Desmond Ford, but the Biblical Research Institute rejects our understanding of Islam. It rejects the 2520. It rejects the Daily. It rejects these Charts [the 1843 and 1850 Charts], too.
Are you following me?
But, it is seeing that Desmond Ford's interpretation was going to sweep all of Adventism away; so, they went to work.
So, if you will go to William Shea's, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, from the Daniel and Revelation Study Committee, volume 1, pages 41-43; or, if you go to Gerard F. Hasel's from the Daniel and Revelation Study Committee, volume 2, pages 387-394, you will find that both of those men show from the Hebrew of Daniel 8, verses 8 and 9, that this little horn does not come out of the four horns of verse 8; it comes out of the Four Winds.
The reason that they did that homework is because Desmond Ford was destroying Adventism by showing the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes. Desmond Ford was using the same argument that was used in Millerite History to attack the symbol [Rome] that establishes the vision.
Summary
So, what am I saying? I am saying that we are still in Daniel 8. Right now we are trying to show from the Scriptures that the Daily in the Book of Daniel is Paganism.
In the previous presentation, we showed that the kingdoms of Bible prophecy in Daniel 7 represent the political manifestations of the kingdoms of Bible prophecy, and they are represented by these beasts.
But, Daniel 8 is tied together with Daniel 7 by Daniel in verse 1 of both chapters; they are tied together. And one of the themes in Bible prophecy is the combination of church and state, and in Daniel, chapter 8, it is the same kingdoms of Bible prophecy, but it is their religious manifestation; and, we know this because Daniel uses Sanctuary animals and Sanctuary terms in Daniel 8 to let us know that this chapter is about the religious manifestations. But, every Sanctuary term that Daniel uses in Daniel 8 is a corrupted symbol from the Sanctuary, whether it is the ram or the goat that have these unbalanced horns because the offerings had to be perfect, or whether it is the little horn and in the Bible it is an abomination for the man to dress like a woman and a woman to dress like a man. And this little horn in verses 9, 10, 11, and 12, in one it is a man and in the next it is a woman, and in the next it is a man, and in the next it is a woman. That is an abomination. All the Sanctuary terms in Daniel 8 are corrupted, counterfeit terms, teaching us that this is the religious manifestation of the kingdoms of Bible prophecy and that it is a counterfeit religion that is expressed in the progressive nature of these kingdoms; because, each of these kingdoms gâdal themselves more than the previous kingdom: it is an escalation of self-exaltation, which is the very root of Satan's religion.
But now, as we begin to analyze verses 9 through 12, the first thing that I wanted to awaken us to, if we will be awakened, is that this passage of Scripture is of such supreme importance to understand that it is here where men that are in the camp of Desmond Ford begin their warfare that sweeps Adventism away and, in so doing, all they are doing is repeating the warfare that took place in the Millerite History as represented on this [1843] Chart. But, in so doing, they demonstrate a difference between two camps of hermeneutics in Adventism, and both camps reject William Miller's Rules of Prophetic Interpretation.
So, I want you to understand that as we proceed through Daniel 8 and onward in our study of the Daily that sometimes the controversies over these verses are noted by the Lord; and, therefore, as students of prophecy, as Bereans rightly dividing the Word, we have a responsibility to understand the implications of these controversies and take note of them and understand that there is being an emphasis placed on this passage, from the history of the Millerites and from our own history that requires that we see the seriousness, the importance, the relevance of this passage where we find the Daily. Okay?
All we did today was kind of put some emphasis, I hope, on the following studies as we march through Daniel, chapter 8, and the Daily.
Shall we pray?
Benediction: Heavenly Father, we want to place ourselves into the history that is unfolding here and understand that this history has been prefigured in past histories, and that some of these controversies that are fighting against the prophetic message today has been prefigured in ages past. We want to understand what that means for us as your people and for us individually. We want to rightly divide the Word of Truth; we want the vision established in our hearts; so, we want to understand clearly and conclusively that "the robbers of thy people" is the man of sin, the antichrist of Bible prophecy. We want to approach our study from that vision, not the counterfeit vision that Satan has selected to undermine the ability for people to have the vision, to prevent them from being lost here at the end. We ask that you continue to bless the production that is going on here, and the LiveStreaming; and, we thank you for all these things in Jesus's name. Amen.