Article

# The Book of Daniel - Number Three

Daniels Bog - Nummer Tre

Double Visions

Dobbelte syner

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

November 25, 2023

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

We are currently addressing the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six in the book of Daniel. It is hidden to those who have chosen to close their eyes, but it is there for those who wish to see. We will begin in Daniel chapter eight, and verse thirteen.

Vi behandler for øjeblikket de „syv tider“ i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve i Daniels Bog. Det er skjult for dem, som har valgt at lukke deres øjne, men det er der for dem, som ønsker at se. Vi vil begynde i Daniels Bog, kapitel otte, vers tretten.

> Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? Daniel 8:13.

> Så hørte jeg en hellig tale, og en anden hellig sagde til den hellige, som talte: Hvor længe varer synet om det daglige offer og om ødelæggelsens overtrædelse, så både helligdommen og hæren hengives til at nedtrædes? Daniel 8:13.

The verse begins with the word “then,” and is making a distinction between the vision of prophetic history Daniel has just seen in the previous ten verses. Verse one and two of the chapter, identify the year when Daniel received the vision and also that he received it by the Ulai river. From verse three to verse twelve, he “sees” the vision of prophetic history. “Then” he “hears” a heavenly dialogue consisting of a question and an answer. In verse fifteen, he begins to seek what the vision of prophetic history that he had just “seen” represented. It is essential to recognize the distinction between the vision that Daniel “saw” in verses three through twelve, and the heavenly dialogue, which he “heard”—for they are two different visions.

Verset begynder med ordet „da“ og gør en sondring mellem det syn af den profetiske historie, som Daniel netop har set i de foregående ti vers. Kapitellets vers et og to angiver det år, da Daniel modtog synet, og også at han modtog det ved floden Ulai. Fra vers tre til vers tolv „ser“ han synet af den profetiske historie. „Da“ „hører“ han en himmelsk dialog bestående af et spørgsmål og et svar. I vers femten begynder han at søge at forstå, hvad det syn af den profetiske historie, som han netop havde „set“, repræsenterede. Det er afgørende at erkende sondringen mellem det syn, Daniel „så“ i vers tre til tolv, og den himmelske dialog, som han „hørte“—for de er to forskellige syner.

> But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. Matthew 13:16.

> Men salige er jeres øjne, for de ser, og jeres ører, for de hører. Matthæus 13,16.

The question in verse thirteen is, “How long shall be the vision,” and the word translated as “vision” is a different Hebrew word than the word translated as “vision” in verse sixteen.

Spørgsmålet i vers tretten er: »Hvor længe skal synet vare?«, og det ord, der er oversat med »syn«, er et andet hebraisk ord end det ord, der er oversat med »syn« i vers seksten.

> And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Daniel 8:16.

> Og jeg hørte en menneskestemme mellem Ulais bredder, som råbte og sagde: Gabriel, lad denne mand forstå synet. Daniel 8:16.

By translating two different Hebrew words into the English word “vision,” the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six, became “hidden in plain sight”. Biblical students who are satisfied to simply skim the surface consider these two different Hebrew words as the same word, but they do so at their own peril.

Ved at oversætte to forskellige hebraiske ord med det engelske ord »vision« blev de »syv tider« i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve »skjult i fuldt dagslys«. Bibelstuderende, som nøjes med blot at skimme overfladen, betragter disse to forskellige hebraiske ord som det samme ord, men de gør det på egen fare.

> “To skim over the surface will do little good. Thoughtful investigation and earnest, taxing study are required to comprehend it. There are truths in the word which are like veins of precious ore concealed beneath the surface. By digging for them, as the man digs for gold and silver, the hidden treasures are discovered. Be sure that the evidence of truth is in the Scripture itself. One scripture is the key to unlock other scriptures. The rich and hidden meaning is unfolded by the Holy Spirit of God, making plain the word to our understanding: ‘The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.’” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 390.

> ”At skøjte hen over overfladen vil være til ringe nytte. Eftertænksom granskning og alvorligt, krævende studium er nødvendigt for at fatte det. Der findes sandheder i Ordet, som er lig årer af kostbar malm, skjult under overfladen. Ved at grave efter dem, som mennesket graver efter guld og sølv, opdages de skjulte skatte. Vær forvisset om, at sandhedens bevis findes i selve Skriften. Det ene skriftsted er nøglen til at oplukke andre skriftsteder. Den rige og skjulte betydning åbenbares af Guds Helligånd, idet han gør Ordet klart for vor forståelse: ’Dine ords åbning giver lys, den giver de enfoldige forstand.’” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 390.

We are informed that “every fact has its bearing” in the Word of God, and if we choose to ignore the fact there are two different Hebrew words translated as “vision” in chapter eight, we are responsible for inflicting Laodicean blindness upon ourselves. The old adage is, “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

Vi bliver gjort opmærksomme på, at »enhver kendsgerning har sin betydning« i Guds Ord, og hvis vi vælger at se bort fra den kendsgerning, at der i kapitel otte findes to forskellige hebraiske ord, som oversættes med »syn«, er vi selv ansvarlige for at påføre os laodikeisk blindhed. Det gamle ordsprog lyder: »Ingen er så blinde som de, der ikke vil se.«

> “The Bible contains all the principles that men need to understand in order to be fitted either for this life or for the life to come. And these principles may be understood by all. No one with a spirit to appreciate its teaching can read a single passage from the Bible without gaining from it some helpful thought. But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, ‘here a little, and there a little.’ Isaiah 28:10.

> „Bibelen indeholder alle de principper, som mennesker behøver at forstå for at blive skikkede enten til dette liv eller til det kommende liv. Og disse principper kan forstås af alle. Ingen, som har en ånd til at værdsætte dens lære, kan læse et eneste afsnit i Bibelen uden derfra at vinde en eller anden hjælpsom tanke. Men Bibelens mest værdifulde undervisning opnås ikke ved lejlighedsvis eller usammenhængende studium. Dens store sandhedssystem er ikke fremstillet således, at det kan erkendes af den forhastede eller skødesløse læser. Mange af dens skatte ligger dybt under overfladen og kan kun erhverves ved flittig granskning og vedvarende anstrengelse. De sandheder, som tilsammen udgør den store helhed, må opspores og samles, ‘lidt her, lidt der.’ Esajas 28:10.

> “When thus searched out and brought together, they will be found to be perfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others, every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of some other truth. The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel. Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.” Education, 123.

> ”Når de således granskes nøje og bringes sammen, vil det vise sig, at de passer fuldkomment til hinanden. Hvert evangelium er et supplement til de andre, hver profeti en forklaring på en anden, hver sandhed en udfoldelse af en anden sandhed. Den jødiske husholdningsordnings forbilleder gøres klare ved evangeliet. Ethvert princip i Guds ord har sin plads, enhver kendsgerning sin betydning. Og den fuldstændige struktur bærer i både plan og udførelse vidnesbyrd om sin Ophavsmand. En sådan struktur kunne intet andet sind end den Uendeliges hverken fatte eller forme.” Education, 123.

The word “vision” occurs ten times in Daniel chapter eight, but those ten times consist of two different Hebrew words, and the meanings of those words are not the same. If they meant the same thing, Daniel would have only used one of those words in each of the ten occurrences. Daniel wrote two words, for each of those two words possess their own meanings, and one represents a vision Daniel “saw”, and the other a vision he “heard”. In verse thirteen, the word translated as “vision” is châzôn, and it means “a sight”, or “a vision”, “a dream” or “an oracle”. I call it the “vision of prophetic history” based upon its definition and on how Daniel employs it.

Ordet »syn« forekommer ti gange i Daniels bog, kapitel otte, men disse ti forekomster består af to forskellige hebraiske ord, og betydningerne af disse ord er ikke de samme. Hvis de betød det samme, ville Daniel kun have anvendt ét af disse ord i hver af de ti forekomster. Daniel skrev to ord, for hvert af disse to ord har sin egen betydning, og det ene repræsenterer et syn, Daniel »så«, og det andet et syn, han »hørte«. I vers tretten er det ord, der oversættes med »syn«, châzôn, og det betyder »et syn«, eller »en vision«, »en drøm« eller »et gudsord«. Jeg kalder det »den profetiske histories syn« på grundlag af dets definition og af den måde, Daniel anvender det på.

In verse one, of Daniel chapter eight, Daniel says “a vision appeared unto me,” and in verse two he twice states that he “saw in a vision.” Then in verse thirteen, the question is raised of “how long shall be the vision.” All of those usages are the Hebrew word “châzôn.” Then in verse fifteen, we come to perhaps the most important time Daniel used that very same word, for he says, “when I”…“had seen the vision and sought for the meaning.” After Daniel had seen the châzôn vision, he wanted to understand what it meant. This is a fact that has great bearing on the hiding of the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six in the chapter.

I vers 1 i Daniels bog, kapitel otte, siger Daniel: »et syn viste sig for mig«, og i vers 2 fastslår han to gange, at han »så i et syn«. Dernæst rejses i vers 13 spørgsmålet: »Hvor længe skal synet vare?« Alle disse anvendelser er det hebraiske ord »châzôn«. Så kommer vi i vers 15 til måske det vigtigste sted, hvor Daniel brugte netop det samme ord, for han siger: »da jeg« … »havde set synet og søgte dets betydning«. Efter at Daniel havde set châzôn-synet, ønskede han at forstå, hvad det betød. Dette er en kendsgerning, som har stor betydning for skjulingen af »de syv tider« i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve i kapitlet.

He also uses the word châzôn in verses seventeen and twenty-six. The word “vision” appears ten times in Daniel chapter eight, and the word châzôn represents seven of those occurrences. Daniel uses the other Hebrew word that is translated as “vision” four times. The other Hebrew word is mar’eh, and means “appearance”.

Han bruger også ordet châzôn i vers sytten og seksogtyve. Ordet „syn“ forekommer ti gange i Daniels bog, kapitel otte, og ordet châzôn repræsenterer syv af disse forekomster. Daniel bruger det andet hebraiske ord, som oversættes med „syn“, fire gange. Det andet hebraiske ord er mar’eh og betyder „fremtræden“.

Châzôn is found seven times in Daniel chapter eight, and mar’eh is found four times, and together they represent the ten times the English word “vision” occurs in Daniel chapter eight. Seven plus four is eleven, for one of the times Daniel employed the word mar’eh, it was translated just as it is defined, for in verse fifteen, when Daniel “sought for the meaning” of the châzôn vision of prophetic history, there “stood before” him “as the appearance of a man.” The word “appearance” is mar’eh. Therefore, mar’eh is used by Daniel four times in Daniel eight, and it is translated once in agreement with its primary definition of “appearance,” and the other three times it is translated as “vision.”

Châzôn forekommer syv gange i Daniels bog, kapitel otte, og mar’eh forekommer fire gange, og tilsammen svarer de til de ti gange, det engelske ord “vision” forekommer i Daniel kapitel otte. Syv plus fire er elleve, for én af de gange, Daniel anvendte ordet mar’eh, blev det oversat netop sådan, som det er defineret; for i vers femten, da Daniel “søgte efter betydningen” af châzôn-synet om den profetiske historie, “stod” der “foran” ham “som et menneskes skikkelse.” Ordet “skikkelse” er mar’eh. Derfor bruger Daniel mar’eh fire gange i Daniel otte, og det oversættes én gang i overensstemmelse med dets primære definition, “skikkelse”, og de andre tre gange oversættes det som “syn.”

I am not suggesting any criticism of the men who translated the King James Bible. It needs to be noted though, that in verse thirteen, is found the only added word in the King James Bible (sacrifice), that inspiration states definitively, “does not belong to the text.” Inspiration further states that the added word had been “added by human wisdom.” In the very same chapter, two different Hebrew words are both translated as the same English word. The reason it is essential to recognize the distinction between these two words is profoundly important.

Jeg fremsætter ikke nogen kritik af de mænd, som oversatte King James Bibelen. Det må dog bemærkes, at man i vers tretten finder det eneste tilføjede ord i King James Bibelen (offer), om hvilket inspirationen med bestemthed siger, at det „ikke hører til teksten“. Inspirationen siger endvidere, at det tilføjede ord var blevet „tilføjet ved menneskelig visdom“. I det selvsamme kapitel bliver to forskellige hebraiske ord begge oversat med det samme engelske ord. Grunden til, at det er afgørende at erkende sondringen mellem disse to ord, er af dybtgående betydning.

> And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Daniel 8:15, 16.

> Og det skete, da jeg, ja jeg Daniel, havde set synet og søgte at forstå det, se, da stod der foran mig én, som så ud som en mand. Og jeg hørte en mands røst mellem Ulajs bredder; den råbte og sagde: Gabriel, lad denne mand forstå synet. Daniel 8:15, 16.

As Daniel “sought for the meaning” of the “châzôn vision” which he had just “seen,” Christ informs Gabriel to “make” Daniel to understand the “mar’eh vision” which he had just “heard”. Daniel wanted to understand the vision of prophetic history, but Christ, who had been identified in verse thirteen as Palmoni (that certain saint which spake), instructed Gabriel to make Daniel understand the “mar’eh vision”, not the “châzôn vision”. In verses fifteen and sixteen, the stated purpose for Gabriel is that he is to make Daniel understand the “mar’eh vision”, which is the word translated as “vision” which means “appearance,” not the vision of prophetic history which Daniel wanted to understand. Without recognizing Gabriel’s job assignment, the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six is hidden in plain sight.

Idet Daniel »søgte at forstå meningen« med det »châzôn-syn«, som han netop havde »set«, underretter Kristus Gabriel om at få Daniel til at forstå det »mar’eh-syn«, som han netop havde »hørt«. Daniel ønskede at forstå synet om den profetiske historie, men Kristus, som i vers tretten var blevet identificeret som Palmoni (den visse hellige, som talte), pålagde Gabriel at få Daniel til at forstå »mar’eh-synet«, ikke »châzôn-synet«. I vers femten og seksten er det udtrykkeligt anførte formål med Gabriel, at han skal få Daniel til at forstå »mar’eh-synet«, hvilket er det ord, der oversættes som »syn«, og som betyder »fremtræden«, ikke synet om den profetiske historie, som Daniel ønskede at forstå. Uden at erkende Gabriels opgave er »de syv tider« i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve skjult i fuldt dagslys.

In verse twenty-six both Hebrew words that are translated as “vision” are located in the same verse, and the verse becomes one of the primary keys to opening the truth of Daniel’s testimony of the “seven times.”

I vers seksogtyve forekommer begge de hebraiske ord, som oversættes med „syn“, i samme vers, og verset bliver en af de primære nøgler til at åbne sandheden i Daniels vidnesbyrd om de „syv tider“.

> And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. Daniel 8:26.

> Og synet om aften og morgen, som blev meddelt, er sandt; luk derfor synet inde, for det gælder mange dage. Daniel 8:26.

In verse twenty-six, the “vision of the evening and mornings” is the mar’eh vision, meaning “appearance”, but the vision that was to be “shut up,” is the châzôn vision of prophetic history. The expression “evening and mornings” is what isolates and identifies the distinction between the two visions. It does so with another illustration of the human factor in producing the Bible. The human factor consisted of both the prophets that recorded the words of the Bible, but also of those that translated the Bible. The Bible, as with Christ, represents a combination of divinity and humanity. That humanity descended down through history, from Adam after he sinned to those who recorded and translated the Bible. Christ and the Bible are both the Word of God, and the Word of God’s is pure, for the divinity of the combination always overruled any limitations that existed in the flesh.

I vers seksogtyve er „synet om aftenen og morgenerne“ mar’eh-synet, som betyder „fremtræden“, men det syn, som skulle „forsegles“, er châzôn-synet om profetisk historie. Udtrykket „aftenen og morgenerne“ er det, som afgrænser og identificerer forskellen mellem de to syner. Det gør det ved endnu en illustration af den menneskelige faktor i Bibelens tilblivelse. Den menneskelige faktor bestod både i de profeter, som nedskrev Bibelens ord, men også i dem, som oversatte Bibelen. Bibelen repræsenterer, ligesom Kristus, en forening af guddommelighed og menneskelighed. Denne menneskelighed nedstammede gennem historien, fra Adam efter hans synd til dem, som nedskrev og oversatte Bibelen. Kristus og Bibelen er begge Guds Ord, og Guds Ord er rent, for kombinationens guddommelighed tilsidesatte altid enhver begrænsning, som fandtes i kødet.

> Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:1–3.

> Paulus, Jesu Kristi tjener, kaldet til at være apostel, udskilt til Guds evangelium, (som han forud havde lovet ved sine profeter i de hellige skrifter,) om hans Søn Jesus Kristus, vor Herre, som efter kødet er kommet af Davids sæd. Romerne 1:1–3.

The expression “evening and morning” is found repeatedly in God’s Word, and it is always translated as “evening and morning,” as it is in verse twenty-six, and as it is so often translated in the creation story in Genesis that repeatedly states, “and the evening and the morning were….” In fact, and every fact has its bearing (and this fact is essential to understand), the only place in the Bible that the expression “evening and morning” is not translated as “evening and morning” (as it is in verse twenty-six), is in verse fourteen of Daniel eight. There, and only there in God’s Word the phrase “evening and morning” is translated as simply “days.”

Udtrykket »aften og morgen« findes gentagne gange i Guds Ord, og det oversættes altid som »aften og morgen«, sådan som det er i vers seksogtyve, og sådan som det så ofte oversættes i skabelsesberetningen i Første Mosebog, hvor der gentagne gange står: »og det blev aften, og det blev morgen …«. Faktisk — og enhver kendsgerning har sin betydning (og denne kendsgerning er væsentlig at forstå) — er det eneste sted i Bibelen, hvor udtrykket »aften og morgen« ikke oversættes som »aften og morgen« (sådan som det er i vers seksogtyve), i vers fjorten i Daniel otte. Der, og kun der i Guds Ord, oversættes udtrykket »aften og morgen« blot som »dage«.

> And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14.

> Og han sagde til mig: Indtil to tusind og tre hundrede dage; da skal helligdommen renses. Daniel 8,14.

Twelve verses later, in the same chapter of Daniel, the Hebrew phrase “evening and morning” is translated as it always is; but in the verse that is the central pillar and foundation of Adventism, the phrase is simply translated as “days.” What influence led the translators of the King James Bible to make such a glaring contradiction? They had translated the phrase in verse twenty-six in agreement with every other occurrence of the phrase in the rest of the Bible. But twelve verses before verse twenty-six, in verse fourteen, their humanity placed a special distinction upon the answer to the question of verse thirteen. And the question of verse thirteen, included the one word (sacrifice), that was not to be added to the Bible. God wanted verse fourteen, to stand out in a very profound and distinctive way. In doing so, he also identified what Gabriel was instructed to make Daniel understand.

Tolv vers senere, i det samme kapitel i Daniel, oversættes den hebraiske vending „aften og morgen“, som den altid bliver; men i det vers, som er adventismens centrale søjle og grundvold, oversættes vendingen ganske enkelt som „dage“. Hvilken indflydelse fik oversætterne af King James-Bibelen til at frembringe en så iøjnefaldende modsigelse? De havde oversat vendingen i vers seksogtyve i overensstemmelse med enhver anden forekomst af vendingen i resten af Bibelen. Men tolv vers før vers seksogtyve, i vers fjorten, lagde deres menneskelighed en særlig sondring på svaret til spørgsmålet i vers tretten. Og spørgsmålet i vers tretten indeholdt det ene ord (offer), som ikke måtte føjes til Bibelen. Gud ønskede, at vers fjorten skulle træde frem på en meget dybtgående og særpræget måde. Derved angav han også, hvad Gabriel var blevet pålagt at få Daniel til at forstå.

In verse sixteen, Jesus commanded Gabriel to make Daniel understand the mar’eh vision, in spite of the fact that Daniel was seeking to understand the châzôn vision of prophetic history. Verse twenty-six says the “vision of the evenings and mornings which was told” was “true.” The châzôn vision had been a prophetic “sight”, but the mar’eh vision was “told,” for it had been spoken. It had been spoken in verse fourteen when Palmoni said “unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Verse twenty-six, employs the expression “evening and mornings,” as it identifies it as the vision that had been “spoken” to identify the distinction between the two visions in Daniel chapter eight. The vision of prophetic history that Daniel had “seen”, and that Daniel wished to understand, was different from the vision that was “spoken” which Daniel had “heard”. More importantly, the vision that Daniel “heard” was the vision that Gabriel was to give Daniel understanding of.

I vers seksten befalede Jesus Gabriel at lade Daniel forstå mar’eh-synet, til trods for at Daniel søgte at forstå châzôn-synet om den profetiske historie. Vers seksogtyve siger, at „synet om aftenerne og morgenerne, som blev meddelt“, var „sandfærdigt“. Châzôn-synet havde været et profetisk „syn“, men mar’eh-synet blev „meddelt“, for det var blevet udtalt. Det var blevet udtalt i vers fjorten, da Palmoni sagde: „indtil to tusinde og tre hundrede aftener og morgener; da skal helligdommen renses.“ Vers seksogtyve benytter udtrykket „aftener og morgener“, idet det identificerer dette som det syn, der var blevet „meddelt“, for at tydeliggøre sondringen mellem de to syner i Daniels ottende kapitel. Synet om den profetiske historie, som Daniel havde „set“, og som Daniel ønskede at forstå, var forskelligt fra det syn, der blev „meddelt“, og som Daniel havde „hørt“. Endnu vigtigere er det, at det syn, som Daniel „hørte“, var det syn, som Gabriel skulle give Daniel forståelse af.

The humanity that participated in creating the Holy Bible recorded the word “vision” ten times in Daniel chapter eight, and in so doing it hid the distinction of a vision that was “seen” and another vision that was “heard”. In doing so, it obscured the emphasis that identifies that Christ’s intent was for Daniel to understand the vision he had “heard”, above understanding the vision he had “seen”. We can now consider what Gabriel does in order to fulfill his job assignment.

Den menneskelighed, som medvirkede til at skabe den hellige bibel, nedskrev ordet „syn“ ti gange i Daniels ottende kapitel, og derved skjulte den sondringen mellem et syn, der blev „set“, og et andet syn, der blev „hørt“. Ved at gøre dette tilslørede den den betoning, som identificerer, at Kristi hensigt var, at Daniel skulle forstå det syn, han havde „hørt“, frem for at forstå det syn, han havde „set“. Vi kan nu betragte, hvad Gabriel gør for at opfylde sin arbejdsopgave.

> So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. 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 8:17–19.

> Så kom han hen til det sted, hvor jeg stod; og da han kom, blev jeg grebet af frygt og faldt ned på mit ansigt. Men han sagde til mig: Forstå, du menneskesøn; thi synet gælder endens tid. Mens han talte med mig, lå jeg i dyb søvn med ansigtet mod jorden; men han rørte ved mig og rejste mig op, så jeg stod. 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 8:17–19.

Gabriel now begins his work of making Daniel to understand the vision of the twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings, which is true. He first informs him that the vision of prophetic history, the châzôn vision, would be at the “time of the end.” Then, while Daniel was in a prophetic sleep, Gabriel touched Daniel and set him upright. He informs him “I will make thee know.”

Gabriel begynder nu sit arbejde med at få Daniel til at forstå synet om de to tusind tre hundrede aftener og morgener, hvilket er sandt. Først underretter han ham om, at synet om den profetiske historie, châzôn-synet, ville være ved “endetiden”. Derpå, mens Daniel var i en profetisk søvn, rørte Gabriel ved Daniel og rejste ham op. Han siger til ham: “Jeg vil lade dig forstå.”

That is what Palmoni (Christ), had told Gabriel to do, when he said, “Gabriel, make this man to understand the mar’eh vision” of the evening and mornings. Gabriel says that he will make Daniel “know what shall be in the last end of the indignation.” There it is! There is the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six! It is hidden by the very prophetic technique which Gabriel had led the prophets repeatedly to testify to and employ in their writings! That technique is “line upon line, here a little and there a little”.

Det var det, Palmoni (Kristus) havde befalet Gabriel at gøre, da han sagde: „Gabriel, lad denne mand forstå mar’eh-synet“ om aftener og morgener. Gabriel siger, at han vil lade Daniel „vide, hvad der skal ske ved vredens sidste ende“. Der er det! Der er „de syv tider“ i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve! Det er skjult ved selve den profetiske teknik, som Gabriel gentagne gange havde ledt profeterne til at bevidne og anvende i deres skrifter! Denne teknik er „linje på linje, her lidt og der lidt“.

In the book “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation”, by Uriah Smith (which all Adventists, and even their neighbors, should be familiar with), Smith comments on verses seventeen to nineteen of Daniel chapter eight:

I bogen “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation” af Uriah Smith (som alle adventister, og endog deres naboer, burde være fortrolige med) kommenterer Smith versene sytten til nitten i Daniels bog, kapitel otte:

> “With a general statement that at the time appointed the end shall be, and that he will make him to know what shall be in the last end of the indignation, he enters upon an interpretation of the vision. The indignation must be understood to cover a period of time. What time? God told his people Israel that he would pour upon them his indignation for their wickedness; and thus he gave directions concerning the ‘profane wicked prince of Israel:’ ‘Remove the diadem, and take off the crown. . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.’ Ezekiel 21:25–27, 31.

> "Med den almene erklæring, at enden skal komme på den fastsatte tid, og at han vil lade ham vide, hvad der skal ske ved vredens sidste ende, går han over til en tydning af synet. Vreden må forstås som omfattende et tidsrum. Hvilket tidsrum? Gud sagde til sit folk Israel, at han ville udøse sin vrede over dem for deres ugudelighed; og således gav han anvisning vedrørende 'Israels vanhellige, ugudelige fyrste:' 'Tag huen bort og løft kronen af.... Jeg vil omstyrte, omstyrte, omstyrte den; og den skal ikke være mere, før han kommer, som den med rette tilhører; og jeg vil give den til ham.' Ezekiel 21:25–27, 31."

> “Here is the period of God’s indignation against his covenant people; the period during which the sanctuary and host are to be trodden under foot. The diadem was removed, and the crown taken off, when Israel was subjected to the kingdom of Babylon. It was overturned again by the Medes and Persians, again by the Grecians, again by the Romans, corresponding to the three times the word is repeated by the prophet. The Jews then, having rejected Christ, were soon scattered abroad over the face of the earth; and spiritual Israel has taken the place of the literal seed; but they are in subjection to earthly powers, and will be till the throne of David is again set up,—till He who is its rightful heir, the Messiah, the Prince of peace, shall come, and then it will be given him. Then the indignation will have ceased. What shall take place in the last end of this period, the angel is now to make known to Daniel.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 201, 202.

> ”Her er perioden for Guds harme mod hans pagtsfolk; den periode, i hvilken helligdommen og hæren skal nedtrædes. Diademet blev taget bort, og kronen taget af, da Israel blev underlagt Babylons rige. Det blev atter omstyrtet af mederne og perserne, atter af grækerne, atter af romerne, svarende til de tre gange, ordet gentages af profeten. Jøderne, som da havde forkastet Kristus, blev snart spredt ud over hele jordens overflade; og det åndelige Israel har indtaget den bogstavelige sæds plads; men de er underlagt jordiske magter og vil være det, indtil Davids trone igen bliver oprejst,—indtil han, som er dens retmæssige arving, Messias, Fredsfyrsten, kommer, og da skal den gives ham. Da vil harmen være ophørt. Hvad der skal finde sted ved denne periodes sidste ende, skal engelen nu kundgøre Daniel.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 201, 202.

The “indignation” that Smith is identifying, began when Manasseh was carried to Babylon by the Assyrians in 677 BC. Unfortunately, Smith takes Zedekiah’s overthrow in 586 BC and assigns that as the starting point of the period of the “indignation” of verse nineteen. Smith simply does not address what it means that the verse states “the last end of the indignation.” He treats it as simply “indignation,” though if there is a “last end” of the indignation, grammar and logic demand that there is also at minimum a “first end” of the indignation. Smith knew the seventy years of captivity began with the first attack of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim in 606 BC, but determined the starting for the period of the indignation was the third of Nebuchadnezzar’s attacks, which was carried out against Zedekiah, the last Judean king.

Den „vrede“, som Smith identificerer, begyndte, da Manasse blev ført til Babylon af assyrerne i 677 f.Kr. Desværre tager Smith Zedekias styrtelse i 586 f.Kr. og fastsætter denne som begyndelsespunktet for perioden med den „vrede“, der omtales i vers nitten. Smith forholder sig ganske enkelt ikke til, hvad det betyder, at verset siger „vredeperiodens sidste ende“. Han behandler det blot som „vrede“, skønt grammatik og logik, hvis der er en „sidste ende“ på vreden, kræver, at der også som minimum er en „første ende“ på vreden. Smith vidste, at de halvfjerds års fangenskab begyndte med Nebukadnezars første angreb mod Jojakim i 606 f.Kr., men fastslog, at begyndelsen på vredeperioden var det tredje af Nebukadnezars angreb, som blev rettet mod Zedekias, den sidste judæiske konge.

> “Though we have a more minute account of his [Daniel’s] early life than is recorded of that of any other prophet, yet his birth and lineage are left in complete obscurity, except that he was of the royal line, probably of the house of David, which had at this time become very numerous. He first appears as one of the noble captives of Judah, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, at the commencement of the seventy years’ captivity, BC 606. Jeremiah and Habakkuk were yet uttering their prophecies. Ezekiel commenced soon after, and a little later, Obadiah; but both these finished their work years before the close of the long and brilliant career of Daniel. Three prophets only succeeded him, Haggai and Zechariah, who exercised the prophetic office for a brief period contemporaneously, BC 520–518, and Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, who flourished a little season about BC 397.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 19.

> “Skønt vi har en mere udførlig beretning om hans [Daniels] tidlige liv end den, der er nedskrevet om nogen anden profets, henligger dog hans fødsel og slægt i fuldstændigt mørke, bortset fra at han var af kongelig æt, sandsynligvis af Davids hus, som på dette tidspunkt var blevet meget talrigt. Han fremtræder først som en af Judas fornemme fanger i Nebukadnezars, Babylons konges, første regeringsår, ved begyndelsen af de halvfjerds års fangenskab, 606 f.Kr. Jeremias og Habakkuk frembar endnu deres profetier. Ezekiel begyndte kort efter, og lidt senere Obadias; men begge disse afsluttede deres gerning år før afslutningen på Daniels lange og strålende løbebane. Kun tre profeter efterfulgte ham, Haggaj og Zakarias, som udøvede det profetiske embede i en kort periode samtidigt, 520–518 f.Kr., og Malakias, den sidste af Det Gamle Testamentes profeter, som blomstrede en kort tid omkring 397 f.Kr.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 19.

Smith correctly identified the “indignation” of verse nineteen as a period of time. He correctly identified the period as the treading down of the sanctuary and host in agreement with Daniel chapter eight verse thirteen, and he correctly identified the ending point as October 22, 1844.

Smith identificerede med rette „vredeudbruddet“ i vers nitten som en tidsperiode. Han identificerede med rette perioden som nedtrædelsen af helligdommen og hæren i overensstemmelse med Daniel kapitel otte, vers tretten, og han identificerede med rette endepunktet som den 22. oktober 1844.

Smith was partially correct, but missed the truth by doing what was the characteristic of his prophetic applications. He allowed history to guide his interpretation of the prophetic word, instead of allowing the prophetic word to guide his understanding of history. If we allow the Bible to define prophetic history, we then have the correct information to approach history.

Smith havde delvis ret, men forpassede sandheden ved at gøre det, som var karakteristisk for hans profetiske anvendelser. Han lod historien styre sin fortolkning af det profetiske ord i stedet for at lade det profetiske ord styre sin forståelse af historien. Hvis vi lader Bibelen definere den profetiske historie, har vi da den rette information til at nærme os historien.

The Bible teaches that by whom a man is overcome, he is that man’s servant.

Bibelen lærer, at den, som et menneske bliver overvundet af, er han det menneskes tjener.

> While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 2 Peter 2:19.

> Mens de lover dem frihed, er de selv fordærvelsens trælle; thi den, som et menneske er overvundet af, er det også gjort til træl under. 2 Peter 2:19.

Manasseh was taken captive to Babylon in 677 BC. It is there that Judah was overcome and brought into bondage. This is the starting point that is represented on both the 1843 and the 1850 charts, which Sister White endorses as correct. Smith starts the treading down of Daniel chapter eight, and verse thirteen with Zedekiah, the last of Judah’s kings. Zedekiah was the end of a progressive judgment and not the beginning. Sister White identifies that Manasseh’s captivity in Babylon was an “earnest” of what was to come. An “earnest” is a down payment, and marks the beginning of a purchase that has other payments to follow.

Manasse blev ført i fangenskab til Babylon i 677 f.Kr. Det var dér, Juda blev overvundet og ført i trældom. Dette er udgangspunktet, som er fremstillet på både 1843- og 1850-diagrammerne, hvilke Søster White stadfæster som korrekte. Smith lader nedtrædelsen i Daniel kapitel otte, vers tretten, begynde med Zedekias, den sidste af Judas konger. Zedekias var afslutningen på en fremadskridende dom og ikke begyndelsen. Søster White fastslår, at Manasses fangenskab i Babylon var et „pant“ på det, som skulle komme. Et „pant“ er en førstebetaling og markerer begyndelsen på et køb, som efterfølges af andre betalinger.

> “Faithfully the prophets continued their warnings and their exhortations; fearlessly they spoke to Manasseh and to his people; but the messages were scorned; backsliding Judah would not heed. As an earnest of what would befall the people should they continue impenitent, the Lord permitted their king to be captured by a band of Assyrian soldiers, who ‘bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon,’ their temporary capital. This affliction brought the king to his senses; ‘he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto Him: and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord He was God.’ 2 Chronicles 33:11–13. But this repentance, remarkable though it was, came too late to save the kingdom from the corrupting influence of years of idolatrous practices. Many had stumbled and fallen, never again to rise.” Prophets and Kings, 382.

> „Trofaste fortsatte profeterne med deres advarsler og deres formaninger; frygtløst talte de til Manasse og til hans folk; men budskaberne blev hånet; det frafaldne Juda ville ikke høre. Som et varsel om, hvad der ville overgå folket, dersom de fortsatte ubodfærdige, tillod Herren, at deres konge blev taget til fange af en flok assyriske soldater, som ‘lagde ham i lænker og førte ham til Babylon’, deres midlertidige hovedstad. Denne trængsel bragte kongen til besindelse; ‘han påkaldte Herren sin Gud og ydmygede sig dybt for sine fædres Gud og bad til Ham; og Han lod sig bønhøre af ham og hørte hans bøn og førte ham tilbage til Jerusalem til hans kongedømme. Da erkendte Manasse, at Herren, Han er Gud.’ 2 Krønikebog 33:11–13. Men denne omvendelse, bemærkelsesværdig som den var, kom for sent til at frelse riget fra den fordærvende indflydelse af år med afgudsdyrkelse. Mange var snublet og faldet, for aldrig mere at rejse sig.“ Profeter og Konger, 382.

Manasseh marked the “down payment” that began the “curse” of the “seven times,” which was the last “indignation,” for the “first indignation,” had already begun when the northern kingdom was taken into captivity in 723 BC. Then at Jehoiakim’s overthrow, when Daniel was carried into captivity, the seventy years of captivity that Jeremiah identified began in 606 BC. Two kings after Jehoiakim, Jerusalem was destroyed and the last Judean king, Zedekiah, watched as his sons were slain before him, then he had his eyes gouged out and was carried captive into Babylon.

Manasse markerede den „udbetaling“, der indledte „forbandelsen“ i de „syv tider“, hvilket var den sidste „vrede“, for den „første vrede“ var allerede begyndt, da det nordlige rige blev ført i fangenskab i 723 f.Kr. Dernæst, ved Jojakims omstyrtelse, da Daniel blev ført i fangenskab, begyndte de halvfjerds års fangenskab, som Jeremias identificerede, i 606 f.Kr. To konger efter Jojakim blev Jerusalem ødelagt, og den sidste judæiske konge, Sidkija, så sine sønner blive dræbt for sine øjne, hvorefter hans øjne blev stukket ud, og han blev ført som fange til Babylon.

Smith assigned the entire progressive judgment to Zedekiah and employed the judgment of Zedekiah as the proof text for his supposition. The judgment of Zedekiah, who was the “wicked and profane prince,” did identify that the crown of Judah was to be removed until Christ came to set up a kingdom. Smith said, “they are in subjection to earthly powers, and will be till the throne of David is again set up,—till He who is its rightful heir, the Messiah, the Prince of peace, shall come, and then it will be given him.” On October 22, 1844, in fulfillment of Daniel chapter seven, and verses thirteen and fourteen, Christ, represented as the Son of man, came before the Father to receive a kingdom.

Smith henførte hele den fremadskridende dom til Zedekias og anvendte dommen over Zedekias som bevistekst for sin antagelse. Dommen over Zedekias, som var den „ugudelige og vanhellige fyrste“, angav, at Judas krone skulle fjernes, indtil Kristus kom for at oprette et rige. Smith sagde: „de er underlagt jordiske magter og vil være det, indtil Davids trone igen bliver oprettet, — indtil han, som er dens retmæssige arving, Messias, Fredsfyrsten, kommer, og da vil den blive givet ham.“ Den 22. oktober 1844 kom Kristus, opfyldende Daniel kapitel syv, vers tretten og fjorten, fremstillet som Menneskesønnen, frem for Faderen for at modtage et rige.

> I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:13, 14.

> Jeg skuede i nattesynerne, og se, en, som lignede en menneskesøn, kom med himmelens skyer og kom hen til den Gamle af dage, og man førte ham frem for ham. Og ham blev givet herredømme og ære og rige, så alle folk og folkeslag og tungemål skulle tjene ham; hans herredømme er et evigt herredømme, som ikke skal forgå, og hans rige et, som ikke skal ødelægges. Daniel 7,13.14.

Sister White confirms that Daniel chapter seven, and verses thirteen and fourteen were fulfilled on October 22, 1844.

Søster White bekræfter, at Daniel kapitel syv, vers tretten og fjorten, blev opfyldt den 22. oktober 1844.

> “The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place, for the cleansing of the sanctuary, brought to view in Daniel 8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of Days, as presented in Daniel 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to His temple, foretold by Malachi, are descriptions of the same event; and this is also represented by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, described by Christ in the parable of the ten virgins, of Matthew 25.” The Great Controversy, 426.

> „Kristi komme som vor ypperstepræst til det allerhelligste for renselsen af helligdommen, fremstillet i Daniel 8,14; Menneskesønnens komme til den Gamle af Dage, som det fremstilles i Daniel 7,13; og Herrens komme til sit tempel, forudsagt af Malakias, er beskrivelser af den samme begivenhed; og denne fremstilles også ved brudgommens komme til brylluppet, sådan som Kristus beskriver det i lignelsen om de ti jomfruer i Matthæus 25.“ The Great Controversy, 426.

Smith did not address the key element of the “last end of the indignation.” He avoided the biblical principle that identified that Judah was overcome in the time of Manasseh, and that the captivity which began two kings before Zedekiah, also represented that Judah was already in subjection to Babylon, before Zedekiah met his fate. With these blatant omissions, he still stated, “here is the period of God’s indignation against his covenant people; the period during which the sanctuary and host are to be trodden under foot.” He therefore, directly associates “the period of God’s indignation” with Daniel chapter eight, and verse thirteen’s question of “how long.” The answer in verse fourteen, was until October 22, 1844.

Smith behandlede ikke nøgleelementet i „vredeperiodens sidste ende“. Han undveg det bibelske princip, som fastslog, at Juda blev overvundet på Manasses tid, og at det fangenskab, som begyndte to konger før Zedekias, ligeledes viste, at Juda allerede var underlagt Babylon, før Zedekias mødte sin skæbne. Trods disse åbenlyse udeladelser erklærede han alligevel: „her er perioden for Guds vrede mod sit pagtsfolk; den periode, i hvilken helligdommen og hæren skal nedtrædes.“ Han knytter derfor direkte „perioden for Guds vrede“ til Daniels bog, kapitel otte, og spørgsmålet i vers tretten: „hvor længe“. Svaret i vers fjorten var: indtil den 22. oktober 1844.

The scattering into Babylonian slavery was a progressive history beginning in 677 BC, and continuing until 1844. That period equates to twenty-five hundred and twenty years, which is of course the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six. The end of that period of time on October 22, 1844 provided Daniel with a second witness to the “mar’eh vision” of the twenty-three hundred evening and mornings.

Spredningen ind i det babyloniske slaveri var en fremadskridende historie, som begyndte i 677 f.Kr. og fortsatte indtil 1844. Denne periode svarer til to tusind fem hundrede og tyve år, hvilket naturligvis er de „syv tider“ i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve. Afslutningen på denne tidsperiode den 22. oktober 1844 gav Daniel et andet vidne til „mar’eh-synet“ om de to tusind tre hundrede aftener og morgener.

Gabriel was told to make Daniel understand that vision, and what Gabriel did was provide a second witness to the termination date of October 22, 1844. Not only did he provide a second witness to establish the date of the fulfillments of both time prophecies, but as Smith correctly pointed out, the period of time associated with the second witness to 1844, had been identified in verse thirteen, as the period that the sanctuary and host were to be trodden under foot. The question in verse thirteen is, “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” That period of time was the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six.

Gabriel fik befaling om at lade Daniel forstå det syn, og det, Gabriel gjorde, var at fremføre et andet vidnesbyrd om slutdatoen, den 22. oktober 1844. Han fremførte ikke blot et andet vidnesbyrd for at stadfæste datoen for opfyldelsen af begge tidsprofetier, men, som Smith med rette påpegede, var den tidsperiode, der var forbundet med det andet vidnesbyrd om 1844, blevet identificeret i vers tretten som den periode, i hvilken helligdommen og hæren skulle nedtrædes. Spørgsmålet i vers tretten er: »Hvor længe skal synet vare om det daglige offer og ødelæggelsens overtrædelse, så både helligdommen og hæren overgives til at blive nedtrådt?« Denne tidsperiode var de »syv tider« i Tredje Mosebog seksogtyve.

What Smith did not see, or avoided identifying, was that the “indignation” of verse nineteen, was the “last end” of that indignation. If there is a “last” then there is also a “first”, and Daniel identifies when the “first indignation” ended, in chapter eleven. He is identifying the papacy reigning during the Dark Ages, and he states that the papacy would prosper until the indignation was accomplished, or ended.

Det, Smith ikke så, eller undlod at identificere, var, at „vrede“ i vers nitten var den vredes „sidste ende“. Hvis der er en „sidste“, så er der også en „første“, og Daniel angiver i kapitel elleve, hvornår den „første vrede“ endte. Han identificerer pavedømmet som regerende i den mørke middelalder, og han fastslår, at pavedømmet ville have fremgang, indtil vreden var fuldbyrdet, eller afsluttet.

> And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.

> Og kongen skal gøre efter sin vilje; og han skal ophøje sig selv og gøre sig større end enhver gud, og mod gudernes Gud skal han tale forunderlige ting, og det skal lykkes ham, indtil vreden er fuldbyrdet; thi det, som er fastsat, skal ske. Daniel 11:36.

Verse thirty-six is widely understood to be the verse the apostle Paul paraphrases in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

Vers seksogtredive forstås almindeligvis som det vers, apostlen Paulus parafraserer i sit andet brev til thessalonikerne.

> 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 2:3, 4.

> Lad ingen forføre jer på nogen måde; for den dag kommer ikke, før frafaldet først er kommet, og syndens menneske åbenbares, fortabelsens søn, han, som sætter sig op imod og ophøjer sig over alt, hvad der kaldes Gud eller dyrkes, så han sætter sig i Guds tempel som Gud og udgiver sig selv for at være Gud. 2 Thessalonikerbrev 2:3, 4.

Paul’s “man of sin” who is also “the son of perdition,” who “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,” is also the “king” who “shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god.” Both passages refer to the pope of Rome. Daniel writes that the pope would prosper, which means push forward, until the “indignation be accomplished.” The indignation in verse thirty-six had been “determined.” The word “determined” means “to wound”.

Paulus’ „syndens menneske“, som også er „fortabelsens søn“, som „sætter sig op imod og ophøjer sig over alt, hvad der kaldes Gud, eller dyrkes“, er også den „konge“, som „skal gøre efter sit eget forgodtbefindende; og han skal ophøje sig og ophøje sig selv over hver gud“. Begge skriftsteder henviser til paven i Rom. Daniel skriver, at paven skulle have fremgang, hvilket betyder at trænge fremad, indtil „vreden er fuldbyrdet“. Vreden i vers seksogtredive var blevet „bestemt“. Ordet „bestemt“ betyder „at såre“.

The papacy received its “deadly wound” in 1798, and at that point the “first indignation” was accomplished or terminated. The word “accomplish” means to end or cease. The end of “the indignation” in chapter eight, and verse nineteen identified the end of the period that the sanctuary and host were to be trampled down. It ended in 1844, but the “first” indignation ended in 1798.

Pavedømmet modtog sit „dødelige sår“ i 1798, og på dette tidspunkt blev „den første vrede“ fuldbyrdet eller afsluttet. Ordet „fuldbyrde“ betyder at ende eller ophøre. Afslutningen på „vreden“ i kapitel otte, vers nitten, angav afslutningen på den periode, hvor helligdommen og hæren skulle nedtrampes. Den sluttede i 1844, men den „første“ vrede sluttede i 1798.

The “last indignation” ended in 1844, twenty-five hundred and twenty years after king Manasseh was carried to Babylon by the Assyrians in 677 BC. The “first” indignation ended in 1798, twenty-five hundred and twenty years after the northern kingdom of Israel was carried into slavery by the Assyrians in 723 BC.

Den „sidste vrede“ ophørte i 1844, to tusind fem hundrede og tyve år efter at kong Manasse blev ført til Babylon af assyrerne i 677 f.Kr. Den „første“ vrede ophørte i 1798, to tusind fem hundrede og tyve år efter at Nordriget Israel blev ført i fangenskab af assyrerne i 723 f.Kr.

There is more to say about the hidden “seven times” in the book of Daniel and we will address that in our next article.

Der er mere at sige om de skjulte „syv tider“ i Daniels Bog, og det vil vi behandle i vores næste artikel.

> “‘And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’

> „Og skriv til englen for menigheden i Laodikea: Dette siger Amen, det troværdige og sande Vidne, begyndelsen til Guds skaberværk: Jeg kender dine gerninger, at du hverken er kold eller varm; gid du var kold eller varm. Derfor, fordi du er lunken og hverken kold eller varm, vil Jeg udspy dig af Min mund. For du siger: Jeg er rig og har overflod og mangler intet; og du ved ikke, at du er ussel og ynkværdig og fattig og blind og nøgen.“

> “The Lord here shows us that the message to be borne to His people by ministers whom He has called to warn the people is not a peace-and-safety message. It is not merely theoretical, but practical in every particular. The people of God are represented in the message to the Laodiceans as in a position of carnal security. They are at ease, believing themselves to be in an exalted condition of spiritual attainments. ‘Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’

> „Herren viser os her, at det budskab, som skal bæres til Hans folk af tjenere, som Han har kaldet til at advare folket, ikke er et freds- og sikkerhedsbudskab. Det er ikke blot teoretisk, men praktisk i enhver henseende. Guds folk fremstilles i budskabet til laodikeerne som værende i en stilling af kødelig tryghed. De er i ro, idet de tror sig at være i en ophøjet tilstand af åndelige erfaringer. ‘Fordi du siger: Jeg er rig og har overflod og mangler intet, og du ved ikke, at du er usselig og ynkværdig og fattig og blind og nøgen.’”

> “What greater deception can come upon human minds than a confidence that they are right when they are all wrong! The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception. They know not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. While those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition, the message of the True Witness breaks their security by the startling denunciation of their true condition of spiritual blindness, poverty, and wretchedness. The testimony, so cutting and severe, cannot be a mistake, for it is the True Witness who speaks, and His testimony must be correct.” Testimonies, volume 3, 252.

> „Hvilken større bedrag kan komme over menneskers sind end den tillid, at de har ret, når de i alt tager fejl! Den Sande Vidnes budskab finder Guds folk i et sørgeligt bedrag, dog oprigtige i dette bedrag. De ved ikke, at deres tilstand er ynkværdig i Guds øjne. Mens de, som tiltales, smigrer sig selv med, at de befinder sig i en ophøjet åndelig tilstand, bryder den Sande Vidnes budskab deres tryghed ved den opsigtsvækkende fordømmelse af deres sande tilstand af åndelig blindhed, fattigdom og elendighed. Dette vidnesbyrd, så skarpt og strengt, kan ikke være en fejltagelse, for det er det Sande Vidne, som taler, og Hans vidnesbyrd må være korrekt.“ Testimonies, bind 3, 252.

Back to Articles