Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Rim uspostavlja viđenje – broj šest

The Prophetic Controversies in Adventist History: Understanding the Conflict Between Uriah Smith and James White on Daniel 11:36

Proročka prijeporna pitanja u adventističkoj povijesti: razumijevanje sukoba između Uriaha Smitha i Jamesa Whitea o Danielu 11,36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.

Obrađujemo šest linija proročanske kontroverze koje su se pojavile unutar povijesti adventizma od 1798. godine pa sve do danas.

> “In history and prophecy the Word of God portrays the long continued conflict between truth and error. That conflict is yet in progress. Those things which have been, will be repeated. Old controversies will be revived, and new theories will be continually arising. But God’s people, who in their belief and fulfillment of prophecy have acted a part in the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages, know where they stand. They have an experience that is more precious than fine gold. They are to stand firm as a rock, holding the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end.” Selected Messages, book 2, 109.

> „U povijesti i proroštvu Božja Riječ prikazuje dugotrajni sukob između istine i zablude. Taj je sukob još uvijek u tijeku. Ono što je bilo, ponovit će se. Stare će se rasprave obnoviti, a nove će teorije neprestano nastajati. Ali Božji narod, koji je u svojem vjerovanju i ispunjenju proročanstva odigrao ulogu u objavljivanju poruka prvoga, drugoga i trećega anđela, zna gdje stoji. Oni imaju iskustvo dragocjenije od čistoga zlata. Trebaju stajati čvrsto kao stijena, držeći početak svojega pouzdanja postojanim do kraja.” Selected Messages, knjiga 2, 109.

The previous article addressed the first and last controversy about the Roman power, and we will now take up the controversy that occurred between Uriah Smith and James White. Uriah Smith inserted his own “private interpretation” into verse thirty-six.

Prethodni članak bavio se prvom i posljednjom raspravom o rimskoj sili, a sada ćemo se pozabaviti raspravom koja se vodila između Uriaha Smitha i Jamesa Whitea. Uriah Smith unio je svoje vlastito „privatno tumačenje” u trideset i šesti redak.

> “VERSE 36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done.

> „RED 36. I kralj će činiti po svojoj volji; i uzvisit će se te uzveličati iznad svakoga boga, i govorit će čudesne stvari protiv Boga nad bogovima, i napredovat će dok se srdžba ne dovrši; jer što je određeno, to će se izvršiti.“

> “The king here introduced cannot denote the same power which was last noticed; namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 292.

> „Kralj koji se ovdje uvodi ne može označavati istu silu koja je posljednja bila spomenuta, naime papinsku silu; jer se pojedinosti ne bi mogle održati ako bi se primijenile na tu silu.“ Uriah Smith, Daniel i Otkrivenje, 292.

Smith acknowledged that the power in the previous verse was “papal Rome,” but claims the characteristics of verse thirty-six are not prophetic characteristics that identify papal Rome. That claim is false. It should be remembered that in the rebellion of 1863, the seven times of Leviticus chapter twenty-six was set aside, and therefore the representation of the seven times of both tables of Habakkuk was rejected. Both the 1843 and the 1850 charts illustrate the seven times in the very center of the charts, and both illustrations place the cross in the center of the line of the seven times. When the new light of the seven times arrived in 1856 and was thereafter rejected, it marked a rejection of Habakkuk’s two tables, and also the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so clearly identifies that both charts were directed by God.

Smith je priznao da je sila u prethodnom retku bila „papinski Rim”, ali tvrdi da obilježja trideset i šestoga retka nisu proročka obilježja koja identificiraju papinski Rim. Ta je tvrdnja lažna. Treba imati na umu da su u pobuni 1863. sedam vremena iz dvadeset i šestoga poglavlja Levitskoga zakonika bila odbačena, te je stoga bio odbačen i prikaz sedam vremena na obje Habakukove ploče. I karta iz 1843. i karta iz 1850. prikazuju sedam vremena u samome središtu karata, a oba prikaza stavljaju križ u središte crte sedam vremena. Kada je nova svjetlost o sedam vremena došla 1856. i potom bila odbačena, to je označilo odbacivanje Habakukovih dviju ploča, a također i autoriteta Duha proroštva, koji tako jasno utvrđuje da su obje karte bile vođene od Boga.

According to Sister White the last deception of Satan is to make of none effect the testimony of God’s Spirit, and here the first deception was to make of none effect the testimony of God’s Spirit, and it also represented a simultaneous rejection of the foundational truths upon the two charts, and more specifically the seven times.

Prema sestri White, posljednja Sotonina obmana jest učiniti svjedočanstvo Božjega Duha ništavnim, a ovdje je prva obmana bila učiniti svjedočanstvo Božjega Duha ništavnim, te je ona također predstavljala istodobno odbacivanje temeljnih istina na dvjema kartama, a osobito sedam vremena.

At the rebellion of 1863, it was none other than Uriah Smith that produced the 1863 counterfeit chart, which removed the line of the seven times. By 1863 Uriah Smith had closed his eyes to the light of the seven times, and was unable to see that there are two “indignations” which Daniel identifies. The two indignations represent the seven times against the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah. The first against the ten northern tribes began in 723 BC and ended in 1798, and the second began in 677 BC and ended in 1844.

Pri pobuni 1863. godine upravo je Uriah Smith izradio krivotvorenu kartu iz 1863., koja je uklonila liniju sedam vremena. Do 1863. Uriah Smith zatvorio je oči pred svjetlom o sedam vremena te nije bio u stanju vidjeti da postoje dvije „srdžbe” koje Daniel prepoznaje. Te dvije srdžbe predstavljaju sedam vremena protiv sjevernoga kraljevstva Izraela i južnoga kraljevstva Jude. Prva, protiv deset sjevernih plemena, započela je 723. pr. Kr. i završila 1798., a druga je započela 677. pr. Kr. i završila 1844.

Gabriel came to Daniel in chapter eight to explain the marah vision, and in connection with his work, he provided a second witness to 1844. The twenty-three hundred years of Daniel chapter eight ended in 1844, but so too did the last of the two indignations against the northern and southern kingdoms.

Gabriel je došao Danielu u osmom poglavlju kako bi objasnio viđenje marah, i u vezi sa svojim djelovanjem pružio je drugo svjedočanstvo za 1844. Dvije tisuće i tristo godina iz osmog poglavlja Danielove knjige završile su 1844., ali tada je također završila i posljednja od dviju ogorčenosti protiv sjevernoga i južnoga kraljevstva.

> And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. Daniel 8:19.

> I reče: Evo, objavit ću ti što će biti na svršetku gnjeva, jer će u određeno vrijeme doći kraj. Daniel 8,19.

The last end presupposes a first end. The last of the two indignations, which is simply another expression of the seven times, ended in 1844, and the first indignation ended in 1798. The verse Smith claimed possessed no specifications of the papal power identified the year when the papacy would receive its deadly wound.

Posljednji svršetak pretpostavlja prvi svršetak. Posljednja od dviju srdžbi, koja je jednostavno drugi izraz za sedam vremena, završila je 1844., a prva srdžba završila je 1798. godine. Redak za koji je Smith tvrdio da ne sadrži nikakve odrednice o papinskoj vlasti naznačio je godinu u kojoj će papinstvo zadobiti svoju smrtonosnu ranu.

> And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous 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.

> I kralj će činiti po svojoj volji; i uzvisit će se i uzveličat će se iznad svakoga boga, i govorit će čudesne stvari protiv Boga nad bogovima, i napredovat će dok se gnjev ne izvrši; jer će se izvršiti ono što je određeno. Daniel 11:36.

“The king” in verse thirty-six would “prosper till the indignation be accomplished.” Notice what Smith writes about Daniel chapter eight, verses twenty-three and twenty-four in the same book where he claims the papal power does not possess the correct attributes to fulfill verse thirty-six.

„Kralj“ u trideset i šestom retku „napredovat će dok se gnjev ne izvrši“. Zapazite što Smith piše o Danielu, osmom poglavlju, dvadeset trećem i dvadeset četvrtom retku, u istoj knjizi u kojoj tvrdi da papinska vlast ne posjeduje odgovarajuća obilježja kako bi ispunila trideset i šesti redak.

> “VERSE 23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 25. And 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.

> „RED 23. A u posljednje vrijeme njihova kraljevstva, kad prijestupnici navrše mjeru, podići će se kralj opaka lica, vičan zagonetkama. 24. I sila će mu biti velika, ali ne njegovom vlastitom silom; i čudesno će pustošiti, i napredovat će, i djelovati, i uništit će moćne i sveti narod. 25. I svojom će lukavošću učiniti da prijevara uspijeva u njegovoj ruci; i uzvisivat će samoga sebe u svome srcu, i mirom će pogubiti mnoge; podići će se i protiv Kneza knezova, ali će biti slomljen ne rukom.

> “This power succeeds to the four divisions of the goat kingdom in the latter time of their kingdom, that is, toward the termination of their career. It is, of course, the same as the little horn of verse 9 and onward. Apply it to Rome, as set forth in remarks on verse 9, and all is harmonious and clear.

> „Ta sila nasljeđuje četiri podjele jarčeva kraljevstva u posljednje vrijeme njihova kraljevstva, to jest pred sam završetak njihova trajanja. Ona je, dakako, ista kao i mali rog iz retka 9 i nadalje. Primijenite li to na Rim, kako je izloženo u napomenama uz redak 9, sve je skladno i jasno.

> “‘A king of fierce countenance.’ Moses, in predicting punishment to come upon the Jews from this same power, calls it ‘a nation of fierce countenance.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. No people made a more formidable appearance in warlike array than the Romans. ‘Understanding dark sentences.’ Moses, in the scripture just referred to, says, ‘Whose tongue thou shalt not understand.’ This could not be said of the Babylonians, Persians, or Greeks, in reference to the Jews; for the Chaldean and Greek languages were used to a greater or less extent in Palestine. This was not the case, however, with the Latin.

> „Kralj okrutna lica.“ Mojsije, predskazujući kaznu koja će po toj istoj sili doći na Židove, naziva je „narod okrutna lica“. Pnz 28,49.50. Nijedan narod nije u ratnom poretku pružao strašniji prizor od Rimljana. „Koji razumije zagonetne izreke.“ Mojsije, u upravo navedenom odlomku, kaže: „Čijega jezika nećeš razumjeti.“ To se nije moglo reći za Babilonce, Perzijance ili Grke u odnosu na Židove; jer su se kaldejskim i grčkim jezikom u Palestini služili u većoj ili manjoj mjeri. To, međutim, nije bio slučaj s latinskim.

> “When the transgressors are come to the full.’ All along, the connection between God’s people and their oppressors is kept in view. It was on account of the transgressions of his people that they were sold into captivity. And their continuance in sin brought more severe punishment. At no time were the Jews more corrupt morally, as a nation, than at the time they came under the jurisdiction of the Romans.

> „Kad prijestupnici navrše mjeru.” Tijekom cijeloga izlaganja neprestano se ima u vidu povezanost između Božjega naroda i njegovih tlačitelja. Zbog prijestupa njegova naroda oni su bili prodani u sužanjstvo. A njihovo ustrajanje u grijehu donijelo je težu kaznu. Ni u jedno vrijeme Židovi kao narod nisu bili moralno iskvareniji nego u vrijeme kad su došli pod vlast Rimljana.

> “‘Mighty, but not by his own power.’ The success of the Romans was owing largely to the aid of their allies, and divisions among their enemies, of which they were ever ready to take advantage. Papal Rome also was mighty by means of the secular powers over which she exercised spiritual control.

> „Moćan, ali ne svojom vlastitom snagom.“ Uspjeh Rimljana uvelike je bio posljedica pomoći njihovih saveznika i podjela među njihovim neprijateljima, što su oni uvijek bili spremni iskoristiti. I papinski Rim bio je moćan posredstvom svjetovnih sila nad kojima je vršio duhovni nadzor.

> “‘He shall destroy wonderfully.’ The Lord told the Jews by the prophet Ezekiel that he would deliver them to men who were ‘skilful to destroy;’ and the slaughter of eleven hundred thousand Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, was a terrible confirmation of the prophet’s words. And Rome in its second, or papal, phase was responsible for the death of fifty millions of martyrs.

> „Silno će razarati.“ Gospodin je rekao Židovima po proroku Ezekielu da će ih predati ljudima koji su „vješti za uništavanje“; a pokolj milijun i sto tisuća Židova pri razorenju Jeruzalema od strane rimske vojske bio je strašna potvrda prorokovih riječi. A Rim je u svojoj drugoj, odnosno papinskoj, fazi bio odgovoran za smrt pedeset milijuna mučenika.

> “‘And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.’ Rome has been distinguished above all other powers for a policy of craft, by means of which it brought the nations under its control. This is true of both pagan and papal Rome. And thus by peace it destroyed many.

> „I po njegovoj će politici prijevara napredovati u njegovoj ruci.“ Rim se, više od svih drugih sila, isticao politikom lukavštine, pomoću koje je narode doveo pod svoju vlast. To vrijedi i za poganski i za papinski Rim. I tako je mirom uništio mnoge.

> “And Rome, finally, in the person of one of its governors, stood up against the Prince of princes, by giving sentence of death against Jesus Christ. ‘But he shall be broken without hand,’ an expression which identifies the destruction of this power with the smiting of the image of chapter 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.

> „I na koncu se Rim, u osobi jednoga od svojih upravitelja, podigao protiv Kneza knezova, izričući smrtnu osudu protiv Isusa Krista. ‘Ali će biti slomljen bez ruke’, izraz koji poistovjećuje uništenje ove sile s udarcem po kipu iz 2. poglavlja.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.

Smith, twice in the passage, identifies that the prophetic characteristics of pagan and papal Rome are interchangeable, for they are simply the manifestation of Rome in its two phases, such as the mixture of iron and clay in Daniel chapter two, which Sister White identifies as symbols of churchcraft and statecraft. When Daniel identifies in the verses Smith is addressing–that Rome “shall prosper, and practice,” and that Rome “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”–Smith claims that in verse thirty-six that the “king” who “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” identifies a prophetic characteristic of both pagan and papal Rome. Then he claims that none of the characteristics of Rome in verse thirty-six refer to the papal power.

Smith u ovome odlomku dvaput utvrđuje da su proročke značajke poganskoga i papinskoga Rima zamjenjive, jer su one jednostavno očitovanje Rima u njegove dvije faze, poput mješavine željeza i gline u drugom poglavlju Danielove knjige, koju Sestra White prepoznaje kao simbole crkvenjaštva i državništva. Kada Daniel u stihovima kojima se Smith bavi navodi da će Rim „napredovati i djelovati“ te da će Rim „učiniti da lukavstvo uspijeva u njegovoj ruci“, Smith tvrdi da u trideset i šestom retku „kralj“ koji će „napredovati dok se gnjev ne navrši“ označava proročku značajku i poganskoga i papinskoga Rima. Zatim tvrdi da se nijedna od značajki Rima u trideset i šestom retku ne odnosi na papinsku vlast.

We have referred to Smith in supporting the identification of Rome being the robbers who establish the vision, and one of the four prophetic characteristics in verse fourteen is that Rome exalts themselves.

Pozvali smo se na Smitha kao potporu poistovjećivanju Rima s razbojnicima koji uspostavljaju viđenje, a jedno od četiriju proročkih obilježja u četrnaestom retku jest da se Rim uzvisuje.

> 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. Daniel 11:14.

> I u ona vremena mnogi će ustati protiv kralja juga; i nasilnici iz tvoga naroda uzvisit će se da potvrde viđenje, ali će pasti. Daniel 11,14.

Smith claims that the specifications of the king in verse thirty-six do not align with the papal power, though he earlier defended that it was Rome in verse fourteen that exalts itself. Yet the king in verse thirty-six “shall exalt himself.” That very same king in verse thirty-six would “speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” In Daniel the papal power “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and in the book of Revelation the papal power blasphemes against the Most High.

Smith tvrdi da odrednice o kralju u trideset i šestom retku nisu u skladu s papinskom vlašću, premda je ranije branio da je u četrnaestom retku riječ o Rimu koji se uzvisuje. Ipak će se kralj u trideset i šestom retku „uzvisiti”. Taj isti kralj u trideset i šestom retku „govorit će čudesne stvari protiv Boga nad bogovima”. U Danielu će papinska vlast „govoriti velike riječi protiv Svevišnjega”, a u knjizi Otkrivenja papinska vlast huli protiv Svevišnjega.

> And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. Revelation 13:5, 6.

> I bila su mu dana usta koja govore velike riječi i hule; i dana mu je vlast da djeluje četrdeset i dva mjeseca. I otvori svoja usta za hulu na Boga, da huli njegovo ime i njegov šator, i one koji prebivaju na nebu. Otkrivenje 13:5, 6.

Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.

Svaka proročka odrednica papinske vlasti prepoznaje se u trideset i šestom retku.

> And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous 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.

> I kralj će činiti po svojoj volji; i uzvisit će se, i uzveličat će se iznad svakoga boga, i govorit će čudesne stvari protiv Boga nad bogovima, i napredovat će dok se gnjev ne izvrši; jer će se izvršiti ono što je određeno. Daniel 11,36.

Human commentators are many times unreliable, but many Adventist commentators give witness to the obvious truth that it was verse thirty-six which the apostle Paul was paraphrasing from 2 Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.

Ljudski su komentatori mnogo puta nepouzdani, ali mnogi adventistički komentatori svjedoče o očitoj istini da je upravo trideset i šesti redak bio onaj koji je apostol Pavao parafrazirao iz 2. Solunjanima kada je govorio o čovjeku grijeha.

> Let 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, the son of perdition; Who 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, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3.

> Neka vas nitko ni na koji način ne zavede: jer taj dan neće doći ako prije ne dođe otpad i ne otkrije se čovjek grijeha, sin propasti; koji se protivi i uzvisuje iznad svega što se naziva Bogom ili što se štuje; tako da kao Bog sjedi u hramu Božjem, pokazujući sebe da je Bog. 2 Solunjanima 2:2, 3.

Verse thirty-six states that “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,” and Paul says “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Clearly Smith had no prophetic authority to claim that the king of verse thirty-six was different from the king under discussion in the verses leading to verse thirty-six. Grammatically he had no justification for making his flawed application, and his claim that he did so because verse thirty-six possesses no characteristics of the papal power was a wresting of the Scripture in an attempt to establish a private interpretation.

Trideset i šesti redak kaže da će se „on uzvisiti i uzveličati iznad svakoga boga“, a Pavao kaže: „da se otkrije taj čovjek grijeha, sin propasti; koji se protivi i uzvisuje iznad svega što se zove Bog ili se štuje.“ Jasno je da Smith nije imao nikakav proročki autoritet tvrditi da je kralj iz trideset i šestoga retka bio drukčiji od kralja o kojemu je riječ u recima koji vode do trideset i šestoga retka. Gramatički nije imao nikakva opravdanja za takvu pogrješnu primjenu, a njegova tvrdnja da je tako postupio zato što trideset i šesti redak ne sadrži nikakva obilježja papinske vlasti bila je izvrtanje Pisma u pokušaju da uspostavi osobno tumačenje.

> We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19–21.

> Imamo i čvršću proročku riječ, i dobro činite što pazite na nju kao na svjetlo koje svijetli na tamnome mjestu, dok dan ne osvane i zvijezda Danica ne uzide u vašim srcima. Znajući ponajprije ovo: nijedno proroštvo Pisma nije stvar vlastita tumačenja. Jer proroštvo nekoć nije došlo voljom čovječjom, nego su sveti Božji ljudi govorili nošeni Duhom Svetim. 2 Petrova 1:19–21.

Through the years of Laodicean Adventism there have been many Adventist theologians, pastors and authors who have addressed whether they think Smith’s application is correct or incorrect. An Australian pastor, Louis Were, who is long deceased, spent the majority of his ministry in opposing Smith’s false prophetic model. The reason for his opposition was not simply that Smith ultimately identified the king that comes to his end in verse forty-five as Turkey, but Smith’s platform also produced an incorrect application of Armageddon. In the 1980’s or thereabout an Adventist author penned a book titled, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? The author’s name is Donald Mansell, and the book is still available.

Tijekom godina laodicejskog adventizma bilo je mnogo adventističkih teologa, pastora i autora koji su se bavili pitanjem smatraju li da je Smithova primjena ispravna ili pogrešna. Jedan australski pastor, Louis Were, koji je odavno preminuo, proveo je veći dio svoje službe suprotstavljajući se Smithovu lažnom proročkom modelu. Razlog njegova protivljenja nije bio samo u tome što je Smith na koncu kralja koji dolazi svojemu kraju u četrdeset i petom retku poistovjetio s Turskom, nego je Smithova postavka također proizvela pogrešnu primjenu Armagedona. Tijekom 1980-ih, ili otprilike tada, jedan adventistički autor napisao je knjigu pod naslovom Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Autor se zove Donald Mansell, a knjiga je još uvijek dostupna.

Mansell tracks the history leading up to World War One and World War Two showing that when both those wars were seen to be approaching the Adventist evangelists began to employ Smith’s false application of Turkey marching to literal Jerusalem as a sign of Armageddon and the end of the world. He demonstrates by church membership roles that as each of the wars approached many souls were brought into the membership of the Adventist church, based upon the evangelist’s prophetic emphasis drawn from Smith’s flawed view of Armageddon.

Mansell prati povijest koja je vodila do Prvoga svjetskog rata i Drugoga svjetskog rata, pokazujući da su, kada se vidjelo da se oba ta rata približavaju, adventistički evanđelisti počeli primjenjivati Smithovu pogrešnu primjenu o tome da Turska maršira prema doslovnom Jeruzalemu kao znaku Armagedona i kraja svijeta. On na temelju crkvenih popisa članstva pokazuje da je, kako se svaki od tih ratova približavao, mnogo duša bilo uvedeno u članstvo Adventističke crkve, na temelju proročkog naglaska evanđelista proizašlog iz Smithova manjkavog shvaćanja Armagedona.

When either war ended, and the flawed predictions were not fulfilled, the church lost more members than they had gained from the prophetic model that was constructed by Smith.

Kad god je koji od tih ratova završio, a pogrešna se proročanstva nisu ispunila, crkva je izgubila više članova nego što ih je stekla na temelju proročkog modela koji je izgradio Smith.

Through Smith’s rejection of the foundational message of the Millerites, and his willingness to promote his private interpretation of verse thirty-six to forty-five of Daniel, Smith’s logic produced a prophetic model based upon current events.

Smithovim odbacivanjem temeljne poruke milerita te njegovom spremnošću da promiče svoje privatno tumačenje stihova trideset i šest do četrdeset i pet knjige proroka Daniela, Smithova je logika proizvela proročki model utemeljen na aktualnim događajima.

In the argument between Smith and James White over the king who comes to his end in the last verse of Daniel eleven, James White presented a logic that succinctly represented Smith’s sandy prophetic foundation. White taught that “prophecy produces history, but history does not produce prophecy.”

U raspravi između Smitha i Jamesa Whitea o kralju koji dolazi svojemu kraju u posljednjem retku jedanaestog poglavlja Daniela, James White iznio je logiku koja je sažeto predstavljala Smithov pješčani proročki temelj. White je naučavao da „proročanstvo proizvodi povijest, ali povijest ne proizvodi proročanstvo.”

The evangelists of Adventism that worked before both wars employed the developing history to present Smith’s flawed prophetic model of Armageddon, and their work, which seemed so blessed leading up to the wars, produced a net loss when the prophetic model was demonstrated to be based upon a private interpretation.

Adventistički evanđelisti koji su djelovali prije oba rata koristili su razvoj povijesti kako bi predstavili Smithov manjkav proročki model Armagedona, a njihov rad, koji se uoči ratova činio tako blagoslovljenim, proizveo je konačan gubitak kada se pokazalo da se taj proročki model temeljio na privatnom tumačenju.

> Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:15–20.

> Čuvajte se lažnih proroka, koji vam dolaze u ovčjem ruhu, a iznutra su grabežljivi vuci. Prepoznat ćete ih po njihovim plodovima. Bere li se grožđe s trnja ili smokve s čička? Tako svako dobro stablo donosi dobre plodove, a pokvareno stablo donosi zle plodove. Dobro stablo ne može donositi zle plodove, niti pokvareno stablo može donositi dobre plodove. Svako stablo koje ne donosi dobar plod siječe se i baca u oganj. Dakle, po njihovim ćete ih plodovima prepoznati. Matej 7:15–20.

Smith’s willingness to promote a private prophetic model of the king in verse thirty-six bore the fruit of also creating an incorrect application of the sixth plague and Armageddon.

Smithova spremnost da promiče privatni proročki model kralja iz trideset i šestog retka urodila je time da je također stvorila pogrešnu primjenu šeste pošasti i Armagedona.

> And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. Revelation 16:12–16.

> I šesti anđeo izli čašu svoju na veliku rijeku Eufrat; i presuši voda njezina, da se pripravi put kraljevima s istoka. I vidjeh tri nečista duha, slična žabama, gdje izlaze iz usta zmajevih, i iz usta Zvijeri, i iz usta lažnoga proroka. Jer to su duhovi đavolski, koji čine čudesa, i odlaze kraljevima zemaljskim i svega svijeta, da ih skupe za boj onoga velikoga dana Boga Svemogućega. Evo, dolazim kao tat. Blago onomu koji bdije i čuva haljine svoje, da ne ide gol te da se ne vidi sramota njegova. I sabra ih na mjesto koje se hebrejski zove Armagedon. Otkrivenje 16:12–16.

As we have previously pointed out, the sixth plague comes after the close of human probation, so the warning contained to keep your garments, must refer to a testing issue that occurs before Michael stands up and human probation closes and the first plague begins. The sixth plague identifies the activities of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, who are the threefold union that comes together at the soon-coming Sunday law. That threefold union is Modern Rome, and the symbol that identifies and establishes the threefold union of Modern Rome, are the “robbers of thy people,” who “exalt themselves to establish the vision” and “fall.”

Kao što smo prethodno istaknuli, šesta pošast dolazi nakon završetka vremena milosti za čovječanstvo; stoga upozorenje koje sadrži poziv da sačuvate svoje haljine mora upućivati na pitanje kušnje koje se pojavljuje prije nego što Mihael ustane, vrijeme milosti za čovječanstvo se završi i prva pošast započne. Šesta pošast prepoznaje djelovanje zmaja, Zvijeri i lažnog proroka, koji su trostruki savez što se ujedinjuje pri uskoro dolazećem nedjeljnom zakonu. Taj trostruki savez jest Suvremeni Rim, a simbol koji prepoznaje i uspostavlja trostruki savez Suvremenoga Rima jesu „odmetnici tvoga naroda“, koji se „uzvisuju da utvrde viđenje“ i „padaju“.

The warning of the sixth plague, when understood, allows a soul to keep his garments, but if it is rejected it leaves a soul naked, which is one of the five attributes of a Laodicean. The symbol that establishes that warning is the robbers of thy people, who exalt themselves and ultimately fall. Solomon said if God’s people do not have that vision, they perish.

Upozorenje šeste pošasti, kada se razumije, omogućuje duši da sačuva svoje haljine; ali ako se odbaci, ostavlja dušu golom, što je jedno od pet obilježja Laodicejca. Simbol kojim se uspostavlja to upozorenje jesu razbojnici tvoga naroda, koji se uzvisuju i na koncu padaju. Salomon je rekao da, ako Božji narod nema to viđenje, propada.

> Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.

> Gdje nema viđenja, narod propada; a tko drži zakon, blago njemu. Izreke 29,18.

The Hebrew word “perish” means “to make naked”, and John recorded, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Smith was wrong on the King of the North, and that false prophetic foundation allowed him to develop a prophetic application that, if accepted, produces nakedness, which is a symbol of the Laodiceans, who are spewed out of the mouth of the Lord.

Hebrejska riječ „propasti” znači „ogoljeti”, a Ivan je zapisao: „Blago onomu koji bdije i čuva svoje haljine, da ne hodi gol i da se ne vidi njegova sramota.” Smith je pogriješio u vezi sa Kraljem Sjevera, a taj mu je lažni proročki temelj omogućio da razvije proročku primjenu koja, ako se prihvati, proizvodi golotinju, što je simbol laodicejaca, koji su izbljuvani iz usta Gospodnjih.

Smith had no problem arguing his new false identification of the King of the North against the prophetess’ husband James White. Adventist historians, and Sister White, address their famous disagreement. Ellen White rebuked both her husband and Smith for allowing their difference of opinion on who was represented by the king of the north in Daniel eleven, to be put into the public domain. In the very first Adventist publication after the Great Disappointment of 1844, James White wrote:

Smith nije imao nikakvih poteškoća zastupati svoju novu lažnu identifikaciju Kralja Sjevera nasuprot Jamesu Whiteu, suprugu proročice. Adventistički povjesničari, kao i Sestra White, osvrću se na njihovo znamenito neslaganje. Ellen White ukorila je i svoga muža i Smitha zato što su dopustili da njihovo razilaženje u mišljenju o tome koga predstavlja kralj sjevera u jedanaestom poglavlju Danielove knjige bude izneseno u javnost. U prvoj adventističkoj publikaciji nakon Velikoga razočaranja 1844. godine, James White je napisao:

> “That Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and came to the Ancient of days, to receive his kingdom, at the 7th month, 1844, I fully believe. See Luke 13:25; Matthew 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. But the standing up of Michael, Daniel 12:1, appears to be another event, for another purpose. His rising up in 1844, was to shut the door, and come to his Father, to receive his kingdom, and power to reign; but Michael’s standing up, is to manifest his kingly power, which he already has, in the destruction of the wicked, and in the deliverance of his people. Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chapter 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as the true church is still trodden down, and cast out by all christendom, it follows that the last oppressive power has not ‘come to his end;’ and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation 13:11-18. His number is 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.

> „Da je Isus ustao, zatvorio vrata i došao k Pradrevnome da primi svoje kraljevstvo, u 7. mjesecu 1844., u to potpuno vjerujem. Vidi Luka 13,25; Matej 25,10; Daniel 7,13.14. No podizanje Mihaela, Daniel 12,1, čini se da je drugi događaj, za drugu svrhu. Njegovo ustajanje 1844. bilo je da zatvori vrata i dođe svome Ocu, da primi svoje kraljevstvo i vlast da kraljuje; ali Mihaelovo podizanje jest da očituje svoju kraljevsku vlast, koju već ima, u uništenju zlih i u izbavljenju svoga naroda. Mihael treba ustati u vrijeme kad posljednja sila u 11. poglavlju dođe svome kraju, i nitko mu ne pomogne. Ta je sila posljednja koja gazi pravu Božju crkvu; a budući da je prava crkva još uvijek gažena i odbačena od svega kršćanstva, slijedi da posljednja tlačiteljska sila još nije „došla svome kraju“; i Mihael nije ustao. Ta posljednja sila koja gazi svete prikazana je u Otkrivenju 13,11-18. Njezin broj je 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.

When Smith introduced his so-called “new light” on the subject of “the last power in Daniel chapter eleven,” James White saw Smith’s application, not as new light, but as an attack upon the foundations. The controversy of Rome as the king of the north in Daniel eleven that took place between Uriah Smith and James White possesses specific attributes, that as students of prophecy, we are to bring together with the other controversies of Adventist history concerning the symbol of Rome.

Kada je Smith iznio svoju takozvanu „novu svjetlost” o pitanju „posljednje sile u jedanaestom poglavlju Daniela”, James White vidio je Smithovu primjenu ne kao novu svjetlost, nego kao napad na temelje. Spor oko Rima kao kralja sjevera u Danielu 11, koji se vodio između Uriaha Smitha i Jamesa Whitea, posjeduje posebna obilježja koja mi, kao proučavatelji proročanstva, trebamo povezati s drugim sporovima u adventističkoj povijesti glede simbola Rima.

One of those attributes is the introduction of a private interpretation. Another attribute is that the application of the private interpretation requires a wresting of simple grammar, for Smith not only disregarded that every prophetic attribute in verse thirty-six addresses Rome, but he disregarded that the grammatical structure demands that the king of verse thirty-six must be the same king as represented in the previous passage.

Jedno od tih obilježja jest uvođenje privatnog tumačenja. Drugo obilježje jest da primjena privatnog tumačenja zahtijeva izvrćanje jednostavne gramatike, jer Smith ne samo da je zanemario činjenicu da svako proročko obilježje u trideset i šestom retku govori o Rimu, nego je zanemario i to da gramatička struktura zahtijeva da kralj iz trideset i šestog retka mora biti isti kralj kakav je prikazan u prethodnom odlomku.

Another is that the private interpretation was a rejection of foundational truths. Another is that it represents a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy. Another characteristic is that the first flawed idea concerning Rome will lead to a prophetic model that disallows a person from keeping his garments as they approach the close of human probation. Another was the willingness to promote his private interpretation publicly. Another is that the private interpretation is invariably identified as new light. All of these attributes are represented within the current discussion of the “robbers of thy people.”

Drugo jest to da je privatno tumačenje bilo odbacivanje temeljnih istina. Drugo jest da ono predstavlja odbacivanje autoriteta Duha proroštva. Druga je značajka da će prva pogrešna zamisao o Rimu dovesti do proročkog modela koji osobi onemogućuje da sačuva svoje haljine dok se približava završetku vremena kušnje za ljudski rod. Drugo je bilo spremnost da svoje privatno tumačenje javno promiče. Drugo jest da se privatno tumačenje neizostavno predstavlja kao nova svjetlost. Sve su te značajke zastupljene u sadašnjoj raspravi o „razbojnicima tvoga naroda“.

When the last controversy of Rome, which was typified by the first controversy of Rome identifying the “robbers of thy people,” is brought together with the prophetic line of Uriah Smith’s and James White’s controversy we will see that one class will be building their prophetic model upon a private interpretation, which rejects foundational truth.

Kada se posljednja rimska polemika, koja je bila predočena prvom rimskom polemikom koja je poistovjetila „razbojnike tvoga naroda“, poveže s proročkom linijom polemike Uriasa Smitha i Jamesa Whitea, vidjet ćemo da će jedna skupina graditi svoj proročki model na privatnom tumačenju koje odbacuje temeljnu istinu.

The rejection of the foundational truths automatically represents a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so soundly defends those foundational truths. That class will also be willing to present their view publicly, regardless of any concerns that may be raised about the impact the teaching might have upon God’s people around the globe.

Odbacivanje temeljnih istina automatski predstavlja odbacivanje autoriteta Duha Proroštva, koji tako snažno brani te temeljne istine. Ta će skupina također biti spremna javno iznijeti svoje gledište, bez obzira na bilo kakve zabrinutosti koje bi mogle biti izražene u vezi s utjecajem što bi to učenje moglo imati na Božji narod diljem svijeta.

Immediately after 1844, in the first generation of Adventism, another controversy about Rome was introduced. That controversy continued to be agitated, until the false view was accepted in the third generation of Adventism. We will consider the controversy of the “daily” as the fourth of six lines we are now considering in the model of line upon line.

Neposredno nakon 1844., u prvom naraštaju adventizma, uvedena je još jedna kontroverza o Rimu. Ta se kontroverza nastavila poticati sve dok lažno gledište nije bilo prihvaćeno u trećem naraštaju adventizma. Kontroverzu o „svagdašnjoj službi“ razmotrit ćemo kao četvrtu od šest linija koje sada promatramo u modelu redak na redak.

But before we take up the fourth line of the controversies of Rome, it needs to be remembered that in the previous article, when we were addressing verse ten of Daniel chapter eleven, we stated “Verse ten also directly connects the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six to the hidden history, but that line of truth is outside what we are here setting forth.”

No prije nego što se prihvatimo četvrte crte rimskih prijepora, valja imati na umu da smo u prethodnom članku, kada smo razmatrali deseti redak jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela, izjavili: „Deseti redak također izravno povezuje ‘sedam vremena’ iz Levitskog zakonika dvadeset i šest sa skrivenom poviješću, ali ta crta istine izvan je onoga što ovdje izlažemo.”

Uriah Smith was the leader in rejecting the seven times in 1863. He had rejected the increase of knowledge upon that subject that was presented in the articles on the subject, penned by Hiram Edson and published in the Review in 1856. The implications of Smith being associated with a movement that presented the seven times, but who thereafter rejected an increase of knowledge upon that very subject is also outside of the subject of the characteristics of Smith’s introduction of what he claimed was new light on the subject of the king of the north, but when we conclude our overview of the line of the Adventist controversies of Rome, we will return to both the significance of verse ten of chapter eleven of Daniel, and also what is represented by Smith’s rejection of the Laodicean message that arrived in 1856 with the increase of knowledge on the seven times.

Urija Smith bio je predvodnik u odbacivanju sedam vremena 1863. godine. Odbacio je umnoženje znanja o toj temi koje je bilo izneseno u člancima o toj temi, što ih je napisao Hiram Edson i što su bili objavljeni u Reviewu 1856. godine. Implikacije činjenice da je Smith bio povezan s pokretom koji je iznio sedam vremena, ali je potom odbacio umnoženje znanja upravo o toj temi, također su izvan okvira teme obilježja Smithova uvođenja onoga za što je tvrdio da je novo svjetlo o temi kralja sjevera; no kada zaključimo naš pregled linije adventističkih kontroverzi o Rimu, vratit ćemo se i značenju desetoga retka jedanaestoga poglavlja Daniela, a također i onome što je predstavljeno Smithovim odbacivanjem laodicejske poruke koja je stigla 1856. godine s umnoženjem znanja o sedam vremena.

> “Our faith in reference to the messages of the first, second, and third angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host. We can learn much, and should be constantly searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so.” Evangelism, 223.

> „Naša je vjera u pogledu poruka prvoga, drugoga i trećega anđela bila ispravna. Velike prekretnice kroz koje smo prošli nepomične su. Premda ih sile pakla mogu pokušavati otrgnuti od njihova temelja i likovati pri pomisli da su uspjele, ipak ne uspijevaju. Ti stupovi istine stoje čvrsto kao vječna brda, nepokolebani svim naporima ljudi udruženima s naporima Sotone i njegove vojske. Mnogo toga možemo naučiti i trebali bismo neprestano istraživati Pisma kako bismo vidjeli je li tako.“ Evangelizam, 223.

> “The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings in prophetic history, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and replaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuine light.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101, 102.

> „Velike međašne oznake istine, koje nam pokazuju naše mjesto u proročkoj povijesti, treba pomno čuvati, da ne bi bile srušene i zamijenjene teorijama koje bi donijele zbrku, a ne istinsku svjetlost.“ Selected Messages, knjiga 2, 101, 102.

> “At this time many efforts will be made to unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question; but we must not waver. Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories, and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

> „U ovo će se vrijeme poduzimati mnogi napori da se poljulja naša vjera u pitanju Svetišta; ali mi ne smijemo kolebati. Ni jedan se klin ne smije pomaknuti iz temelja naše vjere. Istina je još uvijek istina. Oni koji postanu nesigurni otkliznut će u zabludne teorije i naposljetku će se pokazati nevjernima u pogledu prijašnjih dokaza koje smo imali o tome što je istina. Stari putokazi moraju se sačuvati, da ne izgubimo orijentaciju.“ Manuscript Releases, svezak 1, 55

Back to Articles