Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Danish title unavailable.

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

De profetiske stridsspørgsmål i adventisthistorien: Forståelse af konflikten mellem Uriah Smith og James White om Daniel 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF Unavailable
Word Unavailable
Song MP3

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

Vi behandler seks linjer af profetisk strid, som har fundet sted inden for adventismens historie fra 1798 og frem til i dag.

> “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.

> “I historien og profetien fremstiller Guds ord den langvarige konflikt mellem sandhed og vildfarelse. Denne konflikt er endnu i gang. Det, som har været, vil blive gentaget. Gamle stridsspørgsmål vil blive genoplivet, og nye teorier vil uafbrudt opstå. Men Guds folk, som i deres tro på og opfyldelse af profetien har haft en del i forkyndelsen af den første, anden og tredje engels budskaber, ved, hvor de står. De har en erfaring, som er mere kostbar end fint guld. De skal stå faste som en klippe og holde begyndelsen på deres frimodighed urokkelig indtil enden.” Selected Messages, bog 2, s. 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.

Den foregående artikel behandlede den første og den sidste strid vedrørende den romerske magt, og vi vil nu tage fat på den strid, som fandt sted mellem Uriah Smith og James White. Uriah Smith indsatte sin egen „private fortolkning“ i vers seksogtredive.

> “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.

> VERS 36. Og kongen skal handle efter sin egen vilje; og han skal ophøje sig selv og gøre sig større end enhver gud, og han skal tale forunderlige ord imod gudernes Gud, og det skal lykkes for ham, indtil vreden er fuldbyrdet; for det, som er fastsat, skal ske.

> “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.

> „Den konge, som her indføres, kan ikke betegne den samme magt, som sidst blev omtalt, nemlig den pavelige magt; for beskrivelsen vil ikke holde stik, hvis den anvendes på denne magt.“ Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 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 erkendte, at magten i det foregående vers var „det pavelige Rom“, men hævder, at karaktertrækkene i vers seksogtredive ikke er profetiske karaktertræk, som identificerer det pavelige Rom. Den påstand er falsk. Det bør erindres, at under frafaldet i 1863 blev de syv tider i Tredje Mosebog kapitel seksogtyve sat til side, og derfor blev fremstillingen af de syv tider på begge Habakkuks tavler forkastet. Både 1843-kortet og 1850-kortet fremstiller de syv tider i selve midten af kortene, og begge fremstillinger placerer korset i midten af linjen for de syv tider. Da det nye lys om de syv tider kom i 1856 og derefter blev forkastet, markerede det en forkastelse af Habakkuks to tavler og også af Profetiens Ånds autoritet, som så tydeligt identificerer, at begge kort var ledet af Gud.

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.

Ifølge Søster White er Satans sidste bedrag at gøre Guds Ånds vidnesbyrd virkningsløst, og her var det første bedrag at gøre Guds Ånds vidnesbyrd virkningsløst, og det repræsenterede også en samtidig forkastelse af de grundlæggende sandheder på de to tavler, og mere specifikt de syv tider.

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.

Ved oprøret i 1863 var det ingen ringere end Uriah Smith, der frembragte det forfalskede diagram fra 1863, som fjernede linjen om de syv tider. I 1863 havde Uriah Smith lukket sine øjne for lyset om de syv tider og var ude af stand til at se, at der er to „vredeudgydelser“, som Daniel identificerer. De to vredeudgydelser repræsenterer de syv tider over Israels nordlige rige og Judas sydlige rige. Den første over de ti nordlige stammer begyndte i 723 f.Kr. og endte i 1798, og den anden begyndte i 677 f.Kr. og endte i 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 kom til Daniel i kapitel otte for at forklare marah-synet, og i forbindelse med dette arbejde gav han et andet vidnesbyrd om 1844. De to tusind tre hundrede år i Daniels bog kapitel otte endte i 1844, men det samme gjorde den sidste af de to harmesgerninger mod de nordlige og sydlige riger.

> 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.

> Og han sagde: Se, jeg vil kundgøre dig, hvad der skal ske ved vredens sidste ende; thi ved den fastsatte tid skal enden komme. 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.

Den sidste ende forudsætter en første ende. Den sidste af de to forbitrelser, som blot er et andet udtryk for de syv tider, endte i 1844, og den første forbitrelse endte i 1798. Det vers, som Smith hævdede ikke indeholdt nogen angivelser om pavemagten, angav det år, da pavedømmet skulle modtage sit dødelige sår.

> 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.

> Og kongen skal gøre efter sit eget forgodtbefindende; og han skal ophøje sig selv og gøre sig større end hver gud, og han skal tale forunderlige ting imod gudernes Gud, og det skal lykkes ham, indtil vreden er fuldbyrdet; for det, som er fastsat, skal ske. 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.

„Kongen“ i vers seksogtredive ville „have fremgang, indtil vredesdommen er fuldbyrdet“. Bemærk, hvad Smith skriver om Daniel kapitel otte, vers treogtyve og fireogtyve, i den samme bog, hvor han hævder, at pavemagten ikke besidder de rette kendetegn til at opfylde vers seksogtredive.

> “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.

> „VERS 23. Og i den sidste tid af deres rige, når overtræderne har nået deres fulde mål, skal en konge med et hårdt åsyn, som forstår dunkle udsagn, stå frem. 24. Og hans magt skal være stor, men ikke ved hans egen magt; og han skal anrette underfuld ødelæggelse og have fremgang og handle, og han skal ødelægge de mægtige og det hellige folk. 25. Og ved sin kløgt skal han også lade svig have fremgang i sin hånd; og han skal ophøje sig i sit hjerte, og under fred skal han ødelægge mange; han skal også rejse sig mod fyrsters Fyrste; men han skal knuses uden menneskehånd.

> “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.

> “Denne magt efterfølger de fire afdelinger af gedebukkens rige i den sidste tid af deres rige, det vil sige hen imod afslutningen af deres bane. Den er naturligvis den samme som det lille horn i vers 9 og følgende. Anvend dette på Rom, således som fremstillet i bemærkningerne til vers 9, og alt er harmonisk og klart.

> “‘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.

> “‘En konge med et barskt ansigt.’ Moses kalder, idet han forudsiger den straf, der skulle komme over jøderne fra denne samme magt, den ‘et folk med et barskt ansigt’. 5 Mos. 28,49.50. Intet folk frembød et mere frygtindgydende syn i krigerisk opstilling end romerne. ‘Som forstår dunkle ord.’ Moses siger i det skriftsted, der netop er henvist til: ‘Hvis tungemål du ikke skal forstå.’ Dette kunne ikke siges om babylonierne, perserne eller grækerne i forhold til jøderne; for det kaldæiske og det græske sprog blev i større eller mindre udstrækning brugt i Palæstina. Sådan forholdt det sig imidlertid ikke med latinen.”

> “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.

> „Når overtræderne har nået deres fulde mål.“ Hele vejen igennem fastholdes sammenhængen mellem Guds folk og deres undertrykkere. Det var på grund af hans folks overtrædelser, at de blev solgt i fangenskab. Og deres vedbliven i synd medførte en strengere straf. Aldrig var jøderne som nation mere moralsk fordærvede end på den tid, da de kom under romernes herredømme.

> “‘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.

> „Mægtig, men ikke ved sin egen kraft.“ Romernes fremgang skyldtes i høj grad deres allieredes bistand og splittelser blandt deres fjender, som de altid var rede til at drage fordel af. Det pavelige Rom var ligeledes mægtigt ved hjælp af de verdslige magter, over hvilke det udøvede åndeligt herredømme.

> “‘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.

> »Han skal ødelægge på forunderlig vis.« Herren sagde til jøderne ved profeten Ezekiel, at han ville overgive dem til mænd, som var »dygtige til at ødelægge«; og nedslagtningen af elleve hundrede tusind jøder ved Jerusalems ødelæggelse ved den romerske hær var en frygtelig bekræftelse på profetens ord. Og Rom var i sin anden, eller pavelige, fase ansvarlig for halvtreds millioner martyrers død.

> “‘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.

> »‘Og ved sin kløgt skal han også lade svig have fremgang i sin hånd.’ Rom har frem for alle andre magter været kendetegnet ved en svigefuld politik, hvorved det bragte nationerne under sin kontrol. Dette gælder både det hedenske og det pavelige Rom. Og således ødelagde det mange ved fred.«

> “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.

> „Og Rom rejste sig omsider, i en af sine statholderes person, imod fyrsters Fyrste ved at afsige dødsdom over Jesus Kristus. »Men han skal knuses uden menneskehånd,« et udtryk, som identificerer denne magts ødelæggelse med billedstøttens knusning i kapitel 2.“ 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 påviser to gange i afsnittet, at de profetiske kendetegn ved det hedenske og det pavelige Rom er ombyttelige, for de er ganske enkelt manifestationen af Rom i dets to faser, ligesom blandingen af jern og ler i Daniels bog kapitel to, som Søster White identificerer som symboler på kirkestyre og statsstyre. Når Daniel i de vers, Smith behandler, fastslår, at Rom “shall prosper, and practice,” og at Rom “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,” hævder Smith, at i vers seksogtredive identificerer den “konge”, som “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” et profetisk kendetegn ved både det hedenske og det pavelige Rom. Dernæst hævder han, at ingen af Roms kendetegn i vers seksogtredive henviser til den pavelige magt.

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.

Vi har henvist til Smith til støtte for identifikationen af Rom som de røvere, der stadfæster synet, og et af de fire profetiske kendetegn i vers fjorten er, at Rom ophøjer sig selv.

> 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.

> Og i de tider skal mange rejse sig mod Sydens konge; også røverne blandt dit folk skal ophøje sig for at stadfæste synet; men de skal falde. 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 hævder, at beskrivelsen af kongen i vers seksogtredive ikke stemmer overens med den pavelige magt, skønt han tidligere forsvarede, at det var Rom i vers fjorten, som ophøjer sig selv. Men kongen i vers seksogtredive “skal ophøje sig selv.” Den selvsamme konge i vers seksogtredive skulle “tale forunderlige ord imod gudernes Gud.” I Daniel “skal” den pavelige magt “tale store ord imod den Højeste,” og i Johannes’ Åbenbaring spotter den pavelige magt den Højeste.

> 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.

> Og der blev givet ham en mund, som talte store ord og bespottelser; og der blev givet ham magt til at fortsætte i toogfyrre måneder. Og han oplod sin mund til bespottelse imod Gud, til at bespotte hans navn og hans tabernakel og dem, som bor i himmelen. Åbenbaringen 13:5, 6.

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

Enhver profetisk karakteristik af pavemagten identificeres i vers seksogtredive.

> 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.

> Og kongen skal gøre efter sit eget forgodtbefindende; og han skal ophøje sig og gøre sig stor over enhver gud og tale besynderlige ting imod gudernes Gud, og det skal lykkes ham, indtil vreden er fuldbyrdet; for det, som er fastsat, skal ske. 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.

Menneskelige kommentatorer er mange gange upålidelige, men mange adventistiske kommentatorer bevidner den åbenlyse sandhed, at det var vers seksogtredive, som apostlen Paulus parafraserede fra 2 Thessalonikerbrev, da han omtalte syndens menneske.

> 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.

> Lad ingen bedrage jer på nogen måde; for den dag kommer ikke, før frafaldet først kommer, og syndens menneske åbenbares, fortabelsens søn, han, som står imod og ophøjer sig over alt, hvad der kaldes Gud, eller som dyrkes, så at han som Gud sætter sig i Guds tempel og udgiver sig selv for at være Gud. 2 Thessalonians 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.

Vers seksogtredive siger, at „han skal ophøje sig selv og gøre sig selv større end enhver gud“, og Paulus siger: „at syndens menneske åbenbares, fortabelsens søn, han, som står imod og ophøjer sig selv over alt, hvad der kaldes Gud, eller som dyrkes.“ Det er tydeligt, at Smith ikke havde nogen profetisk myndighed til at hævde, at kongen i vers seksogtredive var forskellig fra den konge, der er under drøftelse i versene op til vers seksogtredive. Grammatikalsk havde han ingen begrundelse for at foretage sin fejlagtige anvendelse, og hans påstand om, at han gjorde det, fordi vers seksogtredive ikke besidder nogen kendetegn på den pavelige magt, var en fordrejning af Skriften i et forsøg på at etablere en privat fortolkning.

> 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.

> Og vi har det profetiske ord så meget desto fastere, og I gør vel i at agte på det som på et lys, der skinner på et mørkt sted, indtil dagen gry, og morgenstjernen oprinder i jeres hjerter. Først og fremmest skal I vide dette, at ingen Skriftens profeti er genstand for egen tydning. For ingen profeti er nogen sinde fremkommet ved et menneskes vilje, men hellige gudsmænd talte, drevet af Helligånden. 2 Peter 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.

Gennem årene med laodikeisk adventisme har der været mange adventistiske teologer, præster og forfattere, som har taget stilling til, om de mener, at Smiths anvendelse er korrekt eller ukorrekt. En australsk præst, Louis Were, som for længst er død, brugte størstedelen af sin tjeneste på at modsætte sig Smiths falske profetiske model. Årsagen til hans modstand var ikke blot, at Smith i sidste ende identificerede den konge, som går sin ende i møde i vers femogfyrre, som Tyrkiet, men Smiths opstilling frembragte også en urigtig anvendelse af Harmagedon. I 1980’erne eller deromkring skrev en adventistisk forfatter en bog med titlen Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Forfatterens navn er Donald Mansell, og bogen er stadig tilgængelig.

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 følger historien frem mod Første Verdenskrig og Anden Verdenskrig og viser, at når det blev anset for, at begge disse krige nærmede sig, begyndte adventistiske evangelister at benytte Smiths falske anvendelse af Tyrkiets fremmarch til det bogstavelige Jerusalem som et tegn på Harmagedon og verdens ende. Han påviser ved kirkens medlemsfortegnelser, at efterhånden som hver af krigene nærmede sig, blev mange sjæle ført ind i Adventistkirkens medlemskab på grundlag af evangelistens profetiske betoning, der udsprang af Smiths fejlagtige syn på Harmagedon.

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.

Da en af krigene endte, og de mangelfulde forudsigelser ikke blev opfyldt, mistede kirken flere medlemmer, end den havde vundet gennem den profetiske model, som Smith havde konstrueret.

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.

Ved Smiths forkastelse af milleritternes grundlæggende budskab og hans villighed til at fremme sin private fortolkning af Daniel 11, vers seksogtredive til femogfyrre, frembragte Smiths logik en profetisk model baseret på samtidige begivenheder.

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.”

I striden mellem Smith og James White om den konge, som går sin ende i møde i det sidste vers af Daniel elleve, fremlagde James White en logik, der kortfattet repræsenterede Smiths sandede profetiske grundlag. White lærte, at „profeti frembringer historie, men historie frembringer ikke profeti.“

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.

Adventismens evangelister, som virkede før begge krige, benyttede den fremadskridende historie til at fremstille Smiths fejlagtige profetiske model for Harmagedon, og deres arbejde, som syntes så velsignet i tiden op til krigene, resulterede i et nettotab, da det blev påvist, at den profetiske model byggede på en privat fortolkning.

> 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.

> Vogt jer for falske profeter, som kommer til jer i fåreklæder, men indvortes er de glubske ulve. I skal kende dem på deres frugter. Plukker man druer af tjørn eller figner af tidsler? Således bærer hvert godt træ god frugt; men et fordærvet træ bærer dårlig frugt. Et godt træ kan ikke bære dårlig frugt, og et fordærvet træ kan heller ikke bære god frugt. Hvert træ, som ikke bærer god frugt, hugges om og kastes i ilden. Derfor skal I kende dem på deres frugter. Matthæus 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.

Smiths villighed til at fremme en privat profetisk model af kongen i vers seksogtredive bar også frugt i skabelsen af en urigtig anvendelse af den sjette plage og Harmagedon.

> 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.

> Og den sjette engel udgød sin skål over den store flod Eufrat; og dens vand tørrede ud, for at vejen kunne beredes for kongerne fra Østen. Og jeg så tre urene ånder, der lignede frøer, komme ud af dragens mund og ud af dyrets mund og ud af den falske profets mund. For de er dæmoners ånder, som gør tegn, og som drager ud til kongerne på jorden og i hele verden for at samle dem til krigen på Guds, den Almægtiges, store dag. Se, jeg kommer som en tyv. Salig er den, som våger og bevarer sine klæder, for at han ikke skal gå nøgen, og de se hans skam. Og han samlede dem på det sted, som på hebraisk kaldes Harmagedon. Johannes’ Åbenbaring 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.”

Som vi tidligere har påpeget, kommer den sjette plage efter afslutningen af menneskets prøvetid; derfor må advarslen om at bevare sine klæder henvise til et prøvende spørgsmål, som opstår, før Mikael rejser sig, menneskets prøvetid afsluttes, og den første plage begynder. Den sjette plage identificerer dragens, dyrets og den falske profets aktiviteter, som er den trefoldige forening, der samles ved den nært forestående søndagslov. Denne trefoldige forening er det moderne Rom, og det symbol, som identificerer og stadfæster det moderne Roms trefoldige forening, er „røverne af dit folk“, som „ophøjer sig for at stadfæste synet“ og „falder“.

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.

Advarslen i den sjette plage gør, når den forstås, det muligt for en sjæl at bevare sine klæder; men hvis den forkastes, efterlader den en sjæl nøgen, hvilket er et af de fem kendetegn ved en laodikeer. Det symbol, som stadfæster denne advarsel, er røverne af dit folk, som ophøjer sig selv og til sidst falder. Salomon sagde, at hvis Guds folk ikke har det syn, går de til grunde.

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

> Hvor der ikke er noget syn, går folket til grunde; men den, som holder loven, salig er han. Ordsprogene 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.

Det hebraiske ord „gå fortabt“ betyder „at gøre nøgen“, og Johannes nedskrev: „Salig er den, som våger og bevarer sine klæder, for at han ikke skal gå nøgen omkring, og de se hans skam.“ Smith tog fejl angående Nordens konge, og dette falske profetiske grundlag gjorde det muligt for ham at udvikle en profetisk anvendelse, som, hvis den antages, frembringer nøgenhed, hvilket er et symbol på laodikeerne, som udspyes af Herrens mund.

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 havde ingen vanskelighed ved at forsvare sin nye falske identifikation af Nordens Konge over for profetindens ægtefælle, James White. Adventistiske historikere, såvel som Søster White, omtaler deres berømte uenighed. Ellen White irettesatte både sin mand og Smith for at have tilladt, at deres meningsforskel om, hvem der var fremstillet ved Nordens Konge i Daniel elleve, blev bragt ud i offentligheden. I den allerførste adventistiske publikation efter den store skuffelse i 1844 skrev James White:

> “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.

> “At Jesus rejste sig, og lukkede døren, og kom til den Gamle af Dage for at modtage sit rige, i den 7. måned, 1844, tror jeg fuldt og fast. Se Lukas 13:25; Matthæus 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. Men Michaels fremtræden, Daniel 12:1, synes at være en anden begivenhed, til et andet formål. Hans oprejsning i 1844 var for at lukke døren og komme til sin Fader for at modtage sit rige og magt til at herske; men Michaels fremtræden er at åbenbare sin kongelige magt, som han allerede har, i de ugudeliges ødelæggelse og i udfrielsen af sit folk. Michael skal stå frem på den tid, da den sidste magt i kapitel 11 kommer til sin ende, og ingen hjælper ham. Denne magt er den sidste, som nedtræder Guds sande kirke; og eftersom den sande kirke endnu stadig nedtrædes og forkastes af hele kristenheden, følger det, at den sidste undertrykkende magt ikke er ‘kommet til sin ende’; og Michael er ikke stået frem. Denne sidste magt, som nedtræder de hellige, fremstilles i Åbenbaringen 13:11-18. Dens tal er 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.

Da Smith fremsatte sit såkaldte „nye lys“ om emnet „den sidste magt i Daniels ellevte kapitel“, betragtede James White Smiths anvendelse ikke som nyt lys, men som et angreb på grundvoldene. Striden om Rom som kongen i nord i Daniel 11, der fandt sted mellem Uriah Smith og James White, besidder bestemte kendetegn, som vi som profetistuderende skal sammenholde med de øvrige stridigheder i adventisthistorien vedrørende symbolet Rom.

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.

Et af disse kendetegn er indførelsen af en privat fortolkning. Et andet kendetegn er, at anvendelsen af den private fortolkning kræver en fordrejning af den enkle grammatik; for Smith tilsidesatte ikke blot, at enhver profetisk egenskab i vers seksogtredive henvender sig til Rom, men han tilsidesatte også, at den grammatiske struktur kræver, at kongen i vers seksogtredive må være den samme konge som den, der fremstilles i det foregående afsnit.

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.”

En anden er, at den private fortolkning var en forkastelse af grundlæggende sandheder. En anden er, at den repræsenterer en forkastelse af Profetiens Ånds autoritet. Et andet kendetegn er, at den første fejlagtige forestilling angående Rom vil føre til en profetisk model, som umuliggør, at et menneske kan bevare sine klæder, idet de nærmer sig afslutningen på menneskets prøvetid. En anden var villigheden til offentligt at fremme hans private fortolkning. En anden er, at den private fortolkning uvægerligt identificeres som nyt lys. Alle disse egenskaber er repræsenteret inden for den nuværende drøftelse af „dit folks røvere“.

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.

Når Roms sidste strid, som blev forbilledliggjort ved Roms første strid, der identificerede »dit folks røvere«, sammenholdes med den profetiske linje i Uriah Smiths og James Whites strid, vil vi se, at én klasse vil opbygge deres profetiske model på en privat fortolkning, som forkaster grundlæggende sandhed.

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.

Forkastelsen af de grundlæggende sandheder udgør automatisk en forkastelse af Profetiens Ånds autoritet, som så klart forsvarer disse grundlæggende sandheder. Denne gruppe vil også være villig til offentligt at fremlægge deres opfattelse, uden hensyn til de betænkeligheder, der måtte blive rejst om den virkning, læren kunne have på Guds folk rundt om i verden.

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.

Umiddelbart efter 1844, i adventismens første generation, blev endnu en strid om Rom introduceret. Denne strid fortsatte med at være genstand for uro, indtil den falske opfattelse blev antaget i adventismens tredje generation. Vi vil betragte striden om „det daglige“ som den fjerde af seks linjer, vi nu overvejer i modellen linje på linje.

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.”

Men før vi tager fat på den fjerde linje i Roms kontroverser, må det erindres, at vi i den foregående artikel, da vi behandlede vers ti i Daniels ellevte kapitel, erklærede: „Vers ti forbinder også direkte de „syv tider“ i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve med den skjulte historie, men denne sandhedslinje ligger uden for det, vi her fremlægger.“

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.

Uriah Smith var den ledende skikkelse i forkastelsen af de syv tider i 1863. Han havde forkastet den kundskabens forøgelse om dette emne, som blev fremlagt i artiklerne om emnet, forfattet af Hiram Edson og offentliggjort i Review i 1856. Implikationerne af, at Smith var forbundet med en bevægelse, der fremlagde de syv tider, men som derefter forkastede en kundskabens forøgelse netop om dette emne, ligger ligeledes uden for emnet om kendetegnene ved Smiths introduktion af det, han hævdede var nyt lys om emnet kongen i nord; men når vi afslutter vores oversigt over linjen af de adventistiske kontroverser om Rom, vil vi vende tilbage både til betydningen af vers ti i Daniels ellevte kapitel og også til det, der er repræsenteret ved Smiths forkastelse af det laodikeiske budskab, som ankom i 1856 sammen med kundskabens forøgelse om de syv tider.

> “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.

> „Vor tro med hensyn til den første, anden og tredje engels budskaber var rigtig. De store vejmærker, vi har passeret, står urokkeligt fast. Skønt helvedes hærskarer måtte søge at rive dem løs fra deres grundvold og triumfere ved tanken om, at det er lykkedes dem, lykkes det dem dog ikke. Disse sandhedens søjler står faste som de evige høje, urørlige ved alle menneskers samlede anstrengelser forenet med Satans og hans hærskarers. Vi kan lære meget og bør stadig gransker Skrifterne for at se, om dette forholder sig således.“ Evangelism, 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.

> „Sandhedens store landemærker, som viser os vores standpunkt i den profetiske historie, skal omhyggeligt bevares, for at de ikke skal blive revet ned og erstattet med teorier, der ville bringe forvirring snarere end sandt lys.“ Selected Messages, bog 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

> »På denne tid vil der blive gjort mange anstrengelser for at rokke ved vor tro på helligdomsspørgsmålet; men vi må ikke vakle. Ikke en tøddel må flyttes fra vor tros grundvolde. Sandhed er stadig sandhed. De, som bliver usikre, vil glide ind i vildfarne teorier og vil til sidst finde sig selv som vantro med hensyn til de tidligere beviser, vi har haft for, hvad der er sandhed. De gamle vejmærker må bevares, for at vi ikke skal miste vor orientering.« Manuscript Releases, bind 1, 55

Back to Articles