Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Roma oketo piny neno - Dul abicel

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

Lweny me lok me nabi i kare mukato pa Adventist: Ngec pa lweny ma tye ikini Uriah Smith ki James White ikom Daniel 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word

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

Wa tye ka waco lok ikom yore abicel me tongo lok pa porofetik ma otime i mukato pa Adiventisim ki 1798 paka kombedi.

> “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 gin ma otime con ki i por, Lok pa Lubanga nyutu lweny ma ocakke tutwal i tung ki atir ki bal. Lweny en pud tye ka time. Gin ma otime con, bi time dok. Ciyem me con bi dwogo dok, ki tami me wic manyen bitye ka cako nono. Ento jo pa Lubanga, ma i geno-gi ki i timo odoko por, gi otimo but i kwanyo lok pa malaika acel, aryo, ki adek, gin ngeyo kabedo ma gubedo kwede. Gin tye ki yore ma ber loyo bul ma orumi maber. Gimyero cungi matek calo got, gwoko matek cako me geno-gi nyo i agiki. Selected Messages, buk 2, 109.

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

Coc ma con ogamo cwer cwiny me acel ki me agiki ikom twero pa Roma. Kanyeni, wabi gamo cwer cwiny ma otime i tung Uriah Smith ki James White. Uriah Smith oketo 'tito lok pa iye keken' i rek namba apar adek ki abicel.

> “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.

> Mede 36. Rwot bi timo macalo dwaro pa iye; kede bi juko iye malo, kede bi yiko iye madit loyo jogi weng, kede bi waco lok ma pire tek i woko Lubanga pa jogi, kede bi bedo yot nyo kwoŋ otyeko; pien gin ma kicimo dong gubed timo.

> “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.

> Rwot ma kigamo kany pe romo nyutu twero acel kwede en ma ne kiyaro macokki; en aye, twero pa Paapa; pien ter ma kiyaro pi en pe bitwero bedo atir ka kiketo i bot twero eno. 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 ogamo ni twero ma i pire ma tye anyim obedo “Roma pa Papa,” ento owaco ni kit me pire 36 pe gin kit me yaro ma nyutu Roma pa Papa. Waco man pe ada-ada. Ki myero par ni i kudru me 1863, “kare abiro” me Kitap Levitiko, dyer 26, kityeko weyo woko; eka cal me “kare abiro” me i pwom aryo pa Habakkuk kityeko wero woko. Pwom me 1843 ki me 1850 weng ciko “kare abiro” i tung pa pwom, ki pigi weng kiceto musalaba i tung pa rek me “kare abiro.” Ka “lero manyen” me “kare abiro” obino i 1856, ci lacen ki wero woko, man nyutu ni pwom aryo pa Habakkuk kityeko wero gi woko, ki bene twero pa Roho me Yaro, ma nining nyutu ni pwom aryo weng kityeko rwatgi ki Lubanga.

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.

Kit ma Sister White owaco ni, coyo pa Setani ma agiki obedo me kwanyo woko tisitimoni pa Roho pa Lubanga; ci kany, coyo ma acel onongo obedo me kwanyo woko tisitimoni pa Roho pa Lubanga; ki bende onongo nyutu kwanyo kacel pa adiera ma rweme me cal aryo, labongo kore maber keken, kare abiro.

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.

I yubu woko me 1863, en keken Uriah Smith ma oyubo cal me 1863 ma pe atir, ma okweyo rek me cawa abiro. I 1863 Uriah Smith dong ocego wange bot ngec me cawa abiro, ki pe onongo twero neno ni tye “kwoŋ madwong” aryo ma Daniel omiyo nyinggi. “Kwoŋ madwong” aryo eni gicwalo calo cawa abiro me kobo i kom lobo pa rwot me Israel ma i bor, ki i kom lobo pa rwot me Judah ma i tung mapiny. Ma acel, i kom dogi apar me bor, ochalo i 723 BC ki ojuko i 1798; ki ma aryo ochalo i 677 BC ki ojuko 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 obino bot Daniel i Kit me 8 me nyutu lamal ‘marah’, ki ikom tic pa en omiyo dwok lok ma aryo pi 1844. Higa 2300 me Kit me Daniel 8 otyeko i 1844, ento bene agiki pa cobo aryo ma otime i kom lobo pa rwot me i Bor ki me i Cam otyeko.

> 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.

> En owaco ni, Nen, abi mii in ngeyo ngo ma bino bedo i agiki macego pa kec; pien i cawa ma kiyero agiki bi bedo. 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.

Agiki ma agik tero ni tye agiki ma acaki. Kwoŋ ma agik ikin kwoŋ aryo, ma, pe ki mede, en lok mukene keken me ‘kare abiro,’ ogik i higa 1844; ento kwoŋ ma acel ogik i higa 1798. Loka ma Smith owaco ni peke ki cing me tek pa Pope me Roma, en oketo nying higa ma kit pa Pope me Roma obiyudo goyo ma kelo tho.

> 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.

> Rwot bino timo kaka dwaro pa iye; obino dwoko iye madwong, kede obino dwoko iye madwong loyo lubanga weng, obino waco lok ma pire tek ikom Lubanga pa lubanga, kede obinobed maber nyaka kuk otyeko; pien gin ma kigamo dong bitime. Daniyeli 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.

“Rwot” i rek adek apar ki abicel acel bi “oromo nyaka kwoor opong woko.” Nen ngo ma Smith ocone ikom Daniel Pot Buk abicel adek, i rek aryo apar ki adek ki aryo apar ki angwen, i buk acel keken ma iye owaco ni teko pa Papa pe otye ki kit ma rwate me opongo woko rek adek apar ki abicel acel.

> “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.

> 23. I kare ma agiki me teko pa gi, ka jo obalo cik opongo, rwot ma wanggi rweny matek, ma ngene lok ma ocwil, obino yabe. 24. Twero pa iye obino bedo matek, ento pe ki twero pa iye keken; obino opoto ki kica, ka obino opore, ka obino timo, ka obino opoto jo ma twero ki dano maleng. 25. Ki ter pa iye bende obino omiyo boko opore i lwete; obino omedo iye madwong i cwiny, ka ki kuc obino opoto jo mapol; obino bende yabe i kom Ladit pa ladit; ento obipoto woko labongo lwete.

> “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.

> Teko man bino lacen ikom but angwen pa lobo pa dyek, i kare me agiki pa lobo-gi; en aye, ka gicero i agiki pa wot-gi. Ka atir, en keken ki tung matin ma i wic 9 kede anyim. Ket en bot Roma, macalo ma kiketo piny i lok ma ikom wic 9; dong gin weng rwatte kede pore.

> “‘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.

> 'Rwot ma wang matek.' Mose, ka opoko peko ma obino i bot Yahudi ki twero man keken, ocoyo ne 'piny ma wang matek.' Deut. 28:49, 50. Pe tye jo mo ma nenone goro i ter me lweny maloyo Jo-Roma. 'Yaro lok ma obur.' Mose, i cik ma okwongo kwayo, owaco ni, 'lebgi ma pe ibiyaro.' Man pe romo waco pi Jo-Babilon, Jo-Peresia, onyo Jo-Yunani, i kom Yahudi; pien leb Caldea ki leb Yunani ne kitiyo kwede i Palesitina i rwom madit onyo matin. Ento pe obedo kamano ki leb Latin.

> “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.

> "Ka jo makeca opongo woko." I kare weng, kube i kin jo pa Lubanga ki jo me tukogi kityeko keto i wang. Obedo pien keca pa jo pa en omiyo kicogo gi i otugi. Kede, bedo gi piny i keca omiyo kom ma ladwong loyo odwogo iye. Pe tye kare mo keken ma, calo dul me piny, jo Yahudi obedo marac loyo i yore me kwo loyo kare ma gidonyo i twero pa Warumi.

> “‘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.

> “Ma tek, ento pe ki teko pa kene.” Jo Róma onongo gitero jenge madwong ki kony pa jo ma ocako rwom ki-gi, kacel ki poko ma tye i tung jo-labi-gi, ma i kare weng onongo gitye jogeny me cwako twero kwede. Róma pa Papa bende onongo obedo ma tek ki twero me lobo ma en onongo loyo kwede i twero pa cwiny.

> “‘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.

> 'En obi balo ma pire tek.' Rwot owaco bot jo Yahudi, ki kom Nabi Ezekiel, ni obi cobo gi i cing jo ma 'rwate me balo'; kede tho marac pa jo Yahudi 1,100,000 i balo Jerusalem ma kitim ki lwak me Roma, ne obedo moko atir ma marac madit pi lok pa Nabi Ezekiel. Kede Roma i dyere ne ma aryo, onyo i dyere me Papa, ne obedo ki keca i tho pa lajwar me dini miliyoni 50.

> “‘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.

> ‘Ki cik ne bende, obi weko tic me rweny omedo maber i cing ne.’ Roma obedo maloyo twero mukene weng i cik me rweny; ki yore pa cik ne, otero jo piny weng i twero ne. Man atir pi Roma me jo pe yaro Lubanga kacel ki Roma me Papa. Ka kene, ki kuc obalo jo mapol.

> “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.

> Kadong, i agiki, Roma, i tung pa lami-lobo acel pa en, ocung tum ikom Lawi pa lawi, kun omiyo tam me tho i kom Yesu Kiristo. “Ento obin opoto woko ki lwete pe,” nyig lok ma nyutu ni giko pa teko man rwate ki kigo pa cal ma i chapta aryo. 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, i kare aryo i lok man, nyutu ni kit me poropheti pa Roma me pagan kede pa Roma me papal twero loko loke; pien gin mere nyutu pa Roma i kit aryo me bedo ne, calo kacel me acuma ki adoyo i Diro aryo pa Daniel, ma Sister White nyutu cal me churchcraft ki statecraft. Kare Daniel nyutu i rwom ma Smith tye kamo—ni Roma “biteno bedo maber, kede bitimo,” kede ni Roma “biteno weko craft obed maber i cingne”—Smith waco ni i rwom me 36, “Rwot” ma “biteno bedo maber nyo oko me indignation otyeko,” nyutu kit me poropheti pa Roma me pagan kede pa Roma me papal. Kombedi, owaco ni kit mo keken pa Roma ma i rwom me 36 pe loke bot twero pa papal.

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.

Wa waco Smith me cwalo kony i tero nying ni Loma obedo jo odiang ma keto nyutu, kacel ki mano, gin acel ikin gin angwen ma porofetik i rek apar angwen en ni Loma yeyi gi iye.

> And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.

> I kare magi gin mapol bi cwal malo me lwenyo ki rwot me tung cen; ka bene jonyodo ma iye jo pa in bi cwal kene malo me cwero neno; ento gin bi poto piny. 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 owaco ni lok ma kicoyo pi Rwot ma i rec 36 pe rwate kwede twero pa Papa, kadi con ogwoko wac ni en aye Rome ma i rec 14 ma oyeto wi kene. Ento Rwot ma i rec 36, “obi yeto wi kene.” Rwot acel keken ma i rec 36 “obi waco lok ma pire tek ikom Lubanga pa balubanga.” I Daniel, twero pa Papa “obi waco lok madit ikom Ma Malo Loyo,” kede i buk me Revelation twero pa Papa okwero nying pa Ma Malo Loyo.

> 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.

> Ki miyo iye wang cam me waco lok madit ki lok me kwanyo; ki miyo iye twero me mede pi dwe 42. En oyabo wang cam me kwanyo ikom Lubanga, me kwanyo nyingne, ki ot me bedo pa En, ki jo ma bedo i polo. Revelation 13:5, 6.

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

Pim acel acel me poro pa twero pa Papa kiconyo i lok matin namba 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. Daniel 11:36.

> Rwot bino timo kaka dwaro pa iye; obino dwoko iye madwong, kede obino dwoko iye madwong loyo lubanga weng, obino waco lok ma pire tek ikom Lubanga pa lubanga, kede obinobed maber nyaka kuk otyeko; pien gin ma kigamo dong bitime. Daniyeli 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 in Second Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.

Jo me yaro lok pa dano mapol pe gigeno; ento jo me yaro lok ma Adventist mapol gimiyo lami ni en aye lok me namba 36 ma Apwostolo Paulo onongo oloko i yoo ma pat i 2 Tesalonika, ka onongo owaco ikom dano me richo.

> 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.

> Wek ngat mo pe obwoyo yin ki yoo mo keken; pien cawa eno pe bi bino, ka pe bino acaki poto woko, dok onyang ngat me richo, otino pa goro; ma otukore kede oyeto wiye malo loyo gin weng ma kitye ka waco ni Lubanga, onyo ma kimiyo pak; pi en calo Lubanga obedo i ot pa Lubanga, kinyuto kene ni en Lubanga. 2 Tesalonika 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.

Gere 36 owaco ni, “obi yilo iye malo, kede obi miyo iye ducu i malo loyo jok weng,” kede Paulo bende owaco ni, “ngat me richo obi nyutu, lating’ me goro; ma lwenyo kede oyilo iye malo loyo gin weng ma ki keto nyinggi ni Lubanga, onyo ma ki pako.” Malir atata ni Smith pe tye ki twero me lanabi me waco ni rwot me gere 36 en mapat ki rwot ma ki lamori i gere ma oyubu bot gere 36. Ki yoo me leb, pe onongo tye ki adwogi me yiko lok ma tye ki bal; kede waci pa ni otime kamano pi gere 36 pe tye ki kit me twero pa Papa, obedo yweko Coc Maleng, ki tem me keto yik pa kene.

> 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.

> Wa bene tye ki lok me poropheti ma atir loyo; ki iye, obedo maber ni wunu i keto pire tek, macalo cal ma yaro i kabedo ma ocany, nyo cawa obedo ka ocake, kede lede me cawa obedo ka oro i cwinya wunu: Kun i ngeyo man me acel, ni poropheti mo keken me Kitap pe obedo me poko pire keken. Pien poropheti pe obino con ki dwaro pa dano: ento dano maleng pa Lubanga owaco ka Lamo Maleng oguro gi. 2 Petero 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.

I kare pa Adventism pa Laodicea, gityeko bedo jo-teologi me Adventist mapol, pastiir ki jongo coc, ma gityeko waco pi ka gityero ni aplikesen pa Smith obedo atir onyo pe atir. Pastiir acel me Australia, Louis Were, ma dong otho, onwongo otimo loyo tutwal pa tic ne i gamo madel me poropes ma pe atir pa Smith. Kit ma omiyo ogamo pe obedo keken ni, i agiki, Smith onyutu rwot ma bino i agiki i verse 45 ni en obedo Turkey; ento sistem pa Smith bene okelo aplikesen ma pe atir pi Armageddon. I cawa me 1980 onyo nining, jongo coc me Adventist ocoye buk ma ki yaro ni, 'Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy?' Nying pa jongo coc en Donald Mansell, ki buk pud nonge.

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 oyubu kit me gin mukato ma omiyo odonyo i Lweny me Dunia Acel ki Lweny me Dunia Aryo, kinyutu ni ka ginen ni lweny aryo magi tye ka rwate, jo evanjelist pa Adventist ocako tic kwede keto pa Smith ma pe atir, me waco ni Turuki tye ka woto i Yerusalem ma atir matwal, macalo cal me Armageddon ki agiki me piny. Onyutu, ki rekod me cano nying jo me kanisa, ni ka lweny acel acel rwate obaro, jo mapol ogicano nyinggi i Kanisa pa Adventist, ma kityeko keto dwong iye lagam me jo evanjelist ma gikwanyo ki i neno me Smith me Armageddon ma tye ki bal.

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.

Kare ka lweny mo keken otiek, kacel ki lok pa janabi ma bal pe ocoto, Kanisa obedo ki jo ma o wot woko mapol loyo jo ma gityeko nongo ki yore me por pa janabi ma Smith otyeko cweyo.

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.

Pien Smith oyweyo kwena me acaki me jo Millerite, kacel ki rwate mamege me cwal tamo lok mamege keken i lok me namba 36 dok ki 45 i Kitap me Daniel, tamo lok pa Smith okelo kit me unabii ma kiketo i kom tim ma tye katime kombedi.

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 dongo lok ma i kin Smith ki James White ikom Rwot ma ocito i agiki i lok ma agiki me Daniel apar acel, James White oyiko lojiki ma ki cing onyutu twolo me porofesi pa Smith ma tye calo piny me kuru. White owaco ni, “porofesi omiyo histori, ento histori pe omiyo porofesi.”

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.

Jo me yaro Injili pa Adventism ma gitic mapud pe lweny aryo ocake, giketo i tic lok me kit ma otime ka otime me yaro kit me lanen pa Smith pi Armageddon ma tye ki bal, kacel ki ticgi, ma oneno calo opong ki kica ka giwoto i yi lweny aryo, obino kelo piny ka kinyutu ni kit me lanen en opore i tongo lok pa dano keken.

> 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.

> Bedu ki lanen mape atir, ma bino botu ki lege me dyang, ento i cwinygi gin olum ma goro. Unu bino ngeyo gi ki iyegi. Jo kwano mabur ki kec, onyo iye me opok ki apuk? Keken yath maber tero iye maber; ento yath marac tero iye marac. Yath maber pe romo tero iye marac, keken yath marac pe romo tero iye maber. Yath weng ma pe tero iye maber keth piny, ci golo i mac. Ci ki iyegi, unu bino ngeyo gi. Matayo 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.

Bedo marom pa Smith me cwalo malo kit me por pa rwot ma i rubo apar adek kede abicel acel ma pa en keken, obedo bende loro cem me cako keto pe atir pa Peko ma abicel acel kede Armagidon.

> 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.

> 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.

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.”

Macalo wa owaco con, peleji abicel obino malubo giko me cawa me temo pa dano; ento cik me ciko ma tye iye, me gwoko lawe, myero obedo lok ikom peko me temo ma time mapwod pe Mikael ocung, ci giko me cawa me temo pa dano ogiko, ki peleji acel ocake. Peleji abicel nyutu kit tic pa nino madwong, lebi, ki lati marac, ma gin rwom me adek ma rwome i kare me cik me Sande ma tye ka bino cok-cok. Rwom me adek meno en Ruma manyen; cal ma nyutu kaceti rwom me adek pa Ruma manyen, en “jo kwalo jami pa jo mamegi,” ma “golo wi gi malo me keto lok me neno,” ki “gipore.”

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.

Gonyo me gumu me abicel acel, ka ki ngeyo ne, omiyo tipu twero gwoko gamente ne; entono, ka kigolo woko, omiyo tipu bedo pe ki gamente, ma obedo acel ikom kite abicel me dano me Laodicea. Cal ma moko gonyo meno en jolakayo me jo mii, ma gicwako dwong pire kene, i agiki giboto woko. Solomon owaco ni, ka jo Lubanga pe tye ki neno meno, gubalo woko.

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

> Ka pe tye kwena, lwak obalo: ento ngat ma gwoko cik, obedo ayom. Proverbs 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.

Lok me Hebru ma kiwaco ni “perish” nyutu “goyo ngat obedo rawo”, kede John ocone ni, “Opak ngat ma lili, kede ma gwoko rwome, pi pe obedo wot rawo, kede gineno lubene.” Smith obedo marac i kom Rwot me Bor, kede tig me poropetik ma pe atir eno omiyone twero me yubu keto me poropetik ma, ka kigamo, kelo obedo rawo, ma obedo cal pa Jo-Laodikea, ma kiweyo gi oko ki dho Rwot.

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 pe obedo ki peko me yubo tam manyen ma pe tye atir me nyutu 'King of the North' ikinyi lawo pa janabi nyako, James White. Jo coc me gin matime pa Adventist, ki Dako White keken, giwaco ikom kiro tamgi ma ngene maber. Ellen White okango lawo pa en ki Smith pien giwilo kiro tamgi ikom ngat ma ki nyutu kwede 'King of the North' i Daniel 11 me kete i wang jo ducu. I coc pa Adventist ma acel mukwongo inyim 'Great Disappointment' me 1844, James White ondiki ni:

> “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.

> Ageno tutwal ni Yesu ocungo, ocabo wang ot, kendo obino bot Ladit me Nino, me kwano lobo pa Rwot pa en, i dwe abicel aryo, 1844. Nen Luka 13:25; Matayo 25:10; Daniel 7:13-14. Ento kicungo pa Mikael (Daniel 12:1) nen calo gin mukene, pi kite mukene. Kicungo pa en i 1844 obedo me cabo wang ot, kendo me bino bot Wu pa en, me kwano lobo pa Rwot pa en, ki teko me loyo; ento kicungo pa Mikael obedo me nyutu teko pa rwot pa en, ma dong tye kwede, i ceko jo marac, ki i kweyo woko jo pa en. Mikael obicungo i cawa ma teko ma agiki i chapta 11 obino i agiki, ki pe tye ngat mo me konyo en. Teko man obedo ma agiki ma goyo piny woko kanisa pa Lubanga ma adwogi: ki pien kombedi kanisa ma adwogi dong tye ka gigoyo piny woko, kendo lobo jo Kristo weng kicwalo woko ne, mino ni teko me geco ma agiki pe obino i agiki; ki Mikael pe ocungo. Teko man ma agiki ma goyo piny jo maleng, kityeko nyutu ne i Revelation 13:11-18. Lim pa en obedo 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.

Ka Smith oyubo gin ma olwongo ni “lacer manyen” ikom “twero ma agiki i chapta apar acel me Daniel,” James White oneno keto pa Smith, pe calo lacer manyen, ento calo goro i tigulu me geno. Tuk ikom Roma macalo Rwot me Bor i chapta apar acel me Daniel—ma otime ikinyi Uriah Smith ki James White—tye ki lacim mapire kene; lacim magi, wan jo me kwano lagam, myero wakete kacel ki tuk mapat-ki me riwate pa Adventist ikom alama pa Roma.

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.

Acel ki kite magi obedo kelo i iye poko lok pa dano keken. Kite mukene obedo ni, timo kwede poko lok pa dano keken mito yir woko cik me leb ma yot, pien Smith pe keken orwate ni lok weng pa poroc i lok me namba 36 gi kobo Rome, ento bende orwate ni yore me cik me leb kwayo ni rwot me namba 36 myero obed rwot acel keken ki en ma otyeko nyutu i lok ma con.

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.”

Mukene obedo ni tito pa kene ne obedo kwanyo woko adiera me twolo. Mukene obedo ni tito pa kene tye ka nyutu kwanyo woko twero pa Lamo me Janabi. Kit mukene obedo ni paro ma opoto me mukwongo ikom Roma bikelo i kit me janabi ma pe yee dano me gwoko yubu pa iye, ka gityeko dong i giko me kare me temo pa dano. Mukene ne obedo bedo ki mit me cwal bot lwak tito pa iye kene. Mukene obedo ni tito pa kene, paka, kiwaco ni obedo lere manyen. Gin weng me kit magi tye ki yaro i lok me kombedi ikom “jokwako jo mii.”

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.

Ka rucwiny ma agiki me Rōma, ma kityeko nyutu ki cal i rucwiny ma acaki me Rōma ma nyutu 'jokwo pa jo mamegi,' kicweyo kacel ki rek me porofeti pa rucwiny pa Uriah Smith ki James White, wabineno ni dul acel bino yubo cal gi me porofeti ikom tito pa dano keken, ma kwanyo woko adyero ma i dul.

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.

Yweyo woko gin atir me cing pire kene nyutu yweyo woko twero pa Roho pa Poropheti, ma ogwoko maber ki yore matir gin atir me cing eni. Dul eni bene gibi bedo ki dima me yaro i wang jo lok me neno-gi, pe rwate ki pango cwiny mo keken ma romo cwalo i kom yore ma kwek en romo kelo dwogo i bot jo pa Lubanga i piny weng.

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.

Cawa manok ki 1844, i jenereshen me acel me Adventism, lok me ruc mapat ikom Rome oketone. Lok me ruc man odongo tye ka yego pire tek nyaka tam ma pe atir ogamo i jenereshen me adek me Adventism. Wabiparo lok me ruc me ‘daily’ calo me angwen i bot rek abicel ma kombedi watye ka paro i rup me ‘rek i kom rek’.

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.”

Ento, pud pe wa cako yaro rek me angwen i kec pa Rome, myero wapoyo ni, i kacoc ma con, ka watye ka yaro boti apar i potbuk apar acel me Daniel, wa waco ni, 'Boti apar bene okubo atata "seven times" me Leviticus 26 ki gin ma otime con ma kiloro i mung, ento rek eno me adwogi tye woko ki gin ma wa tye ka keto anyim kany.'

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 obedo ladit ma okwero “Seven Times” i 1863. Con, okwero medo ngec ikom gin eno ma kicono i coc ikom lok eno, ma Hiram Edson ocoyo, ki kicwalo i Review i 1856. Jami me yore me bedo ni Smith okube ki lwak ma ocwalo “Seven Times”, ento lacen okwero medo ngec ikom gin eno keken, bene pe obedo ikom lok pa kit me cako ma Smith owaco ni obedo lela manyen ikom lok pa “king of the north”; ento ka wa tyeko wang me rek me cwer‑cwiny pa Adventist ikom Rome, wabiro dwogo bot pim pa Vesi 10 me Chapta 11 me Daniel, ki boti me ma nyutu ki kwero me Smith i Kwena me Laodicea ma obino i 1856, kacel ki medo ngec ikom “Seven Times.”

> “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.

> Geno wa ikom lok pa malaika ma acel, aryo, ki adek, obedo kakare. Aloka madit me yore ma watyeko okwayo gi, pe ginywanyo. Ka bene ludwong pa piny me mac twero temo cogo gi ki rwomgi, ki conyo i paro ni gityeko, ento pe gityeko. Tigi pa ada magi gicung kidwong calo gogi ma tutwal, pe ginywanyo ki tic weng pa dano ma kigonyo kacel ki pa Satan ki ludwong pa iye. Wa twero pwonyo mapol, ki myero wa bedo kacel kanyutu i Bibul me neno ka gin eni tye kakare.

> “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.

> Alam madit pa adwogi, ma nyutu wa tung wa i rek me porofeti, myero ki gwoko gi maber atika, pien kikigolo gi piny, ki loko gi ki tami ma bino kelo bal pa cwiny, kun pe bino kelo nuru atir. Selected Messages, book 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

> I kare man, tem mapol bi time me golo yie wa woko ikom lapeny me ot maleng; ento pe myero wa wim. Pe myero gicwalo mo keken ki gin ma piny iye yie wa. Adwogi pud obedo adwogi. Jo ma bibedo pe atir bi wot odiyo i lok me tam marac, ci, pa yoo, gibinongo piri keken macalo jo pe giyie ikom nyuto ma wa nongo i kare mukato pi gin ma en adwogi. Keng me yor macon myero ogwokke, pi pe wacwil atir me yor. Manuscript Releases, volume 1, pot buk 55

Back to Articles