Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Roma Inathibitisha Maono - Nambari Sita

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

Mizozo ya Kinabii katika Historia ya Waadventista: Kuelewa Mgogoro kati ya Uriah Smith na James White kuhusu Danieli 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.

Tunajadili vipengele sita vya mabishano ya kinabii yaliyotokea katika historia ya Uadventista kuanzia mwaka 1798 hadi leo.

> “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.

> Katika historia na unabii, Neno la Mungu linaonyesha mzozo uliodumu kwa muda mrefu kati ya kweli na upotovu. Mzozo huo bado unaendelea. Mambo yale yaliyokuwapo yatajirejea. Mabishano ya kale yatafufuliwa, na nadharia mpya zitaendelea kujitokeza. Lakini watu wa Mungu, ambao katika imani yao na katika utimizaji wa unabii wamechukua sehemu katika kutangaza ujumbe wa malaika wa kwanza, wa pili, na wa tatu, wanajua mahali waliposimama. Wana uzoefu ulio wa thamani zaidi kuliko dhahabu safi. Wanapaswa kusimama imara kama mwamba, wakishikilia kwa uthabiti tumaini waliloanza nalo hadi mwisho. Selected Messages, kitabu cha 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.

Makala iliyotangulia ilishughulikia mzozo wa kwanza na wa mwisho kuhusu mamlaka ya Kirumi, na sasa tutashughulikia mzozo uliotokea kati ya Uriah Smith na James White. Uriah Smith aliingiza "tafsiri yake binafsi" katika aya ya thelathini na sita.

> “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.

> AYA YA 36. Naye mfalme atafanya kama apendavyo; naye atajitukuza, na kujikuza juu ya kila mungu, naye atasema maneno ya ajabu kinyume na Mungu wa miungu, naye atafanikiwa hata ghadhabu itimie; kwa kuwa yaliyoamuliwa yatatendeka.

> “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.

> Mfalme anayetajwa hapa hawezi kuashiria nguvu ileile iliyotajwa mara ya mwisho; yaani, nguvu ya kipapa; kwa kuwa maelezo maalum hayatafaa yakitumika kwa nguvu hiyo.

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 alikiri kwamba mamlaka katika aya iliyotangulia ilikuwa “Roma ya Kipapa,” lakini anadai kwamba sifa za aya ya thelathini na sita si sifa za kinabii zinazotambulisha Roma ya Kipapa. Dai hilo si kweli. Inapaswa kukumbukwa kwamba katika uasi wa mwaka 1863, mara saba za Mambo ya Walawi sura ya ishirini na sita ziliwekwa pembeni, na hivyo uwakilishi wa mara saba katika vibao vyote viwili vya Habakuki ukakataliwa. Chati za 1843 na 1850 zote mbili zinaonyesha mara saba katikati kabisa ya chati hizo, na zote mbili zinaweka msalaba katikati ya mstari wa mara saba. Nuru mpya ya mara saba ilipowasili mwaka 1856 na baadaye ikakataliwa, hilo liliashiria kukataliwa kwa vibao viwili vya Habakuki, na pia mamlaka ya Roho ya Unabii, ambayo kwa uwazi sana inaonyesha kwamba chati zote mbili ziliongozwa na Mungu.

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.

Kulingana na Dada White, udanganyifu wa mwisho wa Shetani ni kuubatilisha ushuhuda wa Roho ya Mungu, na hapa udanganyifu wa kwanza ulikuwa kuubatilisha ushuhuda wa Roho ya Mungu, na pia uliwakilisha kukataliwa kwa wakati mmoja kwa kweli za msingi zilizowasilishwa kwenye chati mbili, na hasa mara saba.

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.

Wakati wa uasi wa mwaka 1863, si mwingine bali Uriah Smith ndiye aliyeitayarisha chati bandia ya 1863, ambayo iliondoa mstari wa nyakati saba. Kufikia mwaka 1863 Uriah Smith alikuwa amefumba macho kwa nuru ya nyakati saba, na hakuweza kuona kwamba kuna “ghadhabu” mbili ambazo Danieli anazitambua. Ghadhabu hizo mbili zinawakilisha nyakati saba dhidi ya ufalme wa kaskazini wa Israeli, na ufalme wa kusini wa Yuda. Ya kwanza dhidi ya makabila kumi ya kaskazini ilianza mwaka 723 KK na ikaisha mwaka 1798, na ya pili ilianza mwaka 677 KK na ikaisha mwaka 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.

Gabrieli alimjia Danieli katika sura ya nane ili kufafanua maono ya marah, na kuhusiana na kazi yake, alitoa ushuhuda wa pili kuhusu mwaka 1844. Miaka elfu mbili mia tatu ya sura ya nane ya Danieli ilimalizika mwaka 1844, na vivyo hivyo, iliisha pia ile ya mwisho kati ya ghadhabu mbili dhidi ya falme za kaskazini na za kusini.

> 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.

> Akasema, Tazama, nitakujulisha yatakayokuwa katika wakati wa mwisho wa ghadhabu; kwa maana mwisho utakuwa wakati ulioamriwa. Danieli 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.

Mwisho wa mwisho huchukulia kuwepo kwa mwisho wa kwanza. Hasira ya mwisho kati ya hizo mbili, ambayo ni usemi mwingine tu wa “mara saba,” iliisha mwaka 1844, na hasira ya kwanza iliisha mwaka 1798. Mstari ambao Smith alidai hauna maelezo mahususi kuhusu mamlaka ya kipapa ulibainisha mwaka ambao upapa ungepokea jeraha lake la mauti.

> 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.

> Na mfalme atatenda apendavyo; naye atajitukuza, na kujikuza juu ya kila mungu, naye atasema maneno ya ajabu juu ya Mungu wa miungu; naye atafanikiwa hata ghadhabu itimie; maana yaliyokusudiwa yatatendeka. Danieli 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.

"Mfalme" katika aya ya thelathini na sita "angefanikiwa hadi ghadhabu itakapotimia." Angalia kile ambacho Smith anaandika kuhusu Danieli sura ya nane, aya za ishirini na tatu na ishirini na nne, katika kitabu hicho hicho ambamo anadai kwamba mamlaka ya Upapa haina sifa sahihi za kutimiza aya ya thelathini na sita.

> “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.

> AYA 23. Na mwishoni mwa wakati wa ufalme wao, waasi watakapofikia ukomo, atainuka mfalme mwenye sura kali, aelewaye mafumbo magumu. 24. Na nguvu zake zitakuwa kuu, lakini si kwa nguvu zake mwenyewe; naye ataharibu kwa njia ya ajabu, atafanikiwa na kutenda, naye atawaangamiza wenye nguvu na watu watakatifu. 25. Na kwa ujanja wake pia atafanya hila zifanikiwe mkononi mwake; naye atajikuza moyoni mwake, na kwa amani atawaangamiza wengi; tena atainuka dhidi ya Mkuu wa wakuu; lakini atavunjika bila mkono.

> “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.

> Nguvu hii huchukua nafasi ya sehemu nne za ufalme wa mbuzi katika wakati wa mwisho wa ufalme wao, yaani kuelekea mwisho wa enzi yao. Bila shaka, ni ile ile pembe ndogo ya aya ya 9 na kuendelea. Ihusishe na Roma, kama ilivyoelezwa katika maelezo kuhusu aya ya 9, na yote yanakuwa sambamba na wazi.

> “‘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.

> "'Mfalme wa uso mkali.' Musa, alipotabiri adhabu itakayowajia Wayahudi kutoka kwa nguvu hii hiyo, aliita 'taifa lenye uso mkali.' Kum. 28:49, 50. Hakuna watu waliokuwa na mwonekano wa kutisha zaidi vitani kuliko Warumi. 'Aelewa mafumbo magumu.' Musa, katika andiko hilo hilo lililotajwa, anasema, 'ambao lugha yao hutaielewa.' Hili lisingeweza kusemwa juu ya Wababeli, Waajemi, au Wagiriki, kwa kuhusiana na Wayahudi; kwa kuwa lugha za Kikaldayo na Kigiriki zilitumika kwa kiwango kikubwa au kidogo katika Palestina. Hata hivyo, haikuwa hivyo kwa Kilatini."

> “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.

> Wakosaji watakapokuwa wamekamilika.' Muda wote, uhusiano kati ya watu wa Mungu na watesi wao umekuwa ukizingatiwa. Ni kwa sababu ya maasi ya watu wake ndipo waliouzwa utumwani. Na kuendelea kwao katika dhambi kulileta adhabu kali zaidi. Hakuna wakati Wayahudi walipokuwa waovu zaidi kimaadili, kama taifa, kuliko wakati walipokuja chini ya mamlaka ya 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.

> 'Mwenye nguvu, lakini si kwa nguvu zake mwenyewe.' Mafanikio ya Warumi yalitokana kwa kiasi kikubwa na msaada wa washirika wao, na migawanyiko miongoni mwa maadui wao, ambayo daima walikuwa tayari kuitumia kwa manufaa yao. Roma ya Kipapa pia ilikuwa yenye nguvu kwa njia ya mamlaka za kidunia ambazo alizidhibiti kiroho.

> “‘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.

> "'Ataangamiza kwa ajabu.' Bwana aliwaambia Wayahudi kupitia nabii Ezekieli kwamba angewatia mikononi mwa watu waliokuwa 'wenye ujuzi wa kuangamiza;' na mauaji ya Wayahudi milioni moja na laki moja wakati wa uharibifu wa Yerusalemu na jeshi la Warumi yalikuwa uthibitisho wa kutisha wa maneno ya nabii. Na Roma katika awamu yake ya pili, yaani ya kipapa, ilihusika na vifo vya mashahidi milioni hamsini."

> “‘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.

> "'Na kwa sera yake pia atafanya hila zifanikiwe mkononi mwake.' Roma imetambulika kuliko mamlaka nyingine zote kwa sera ya hila, ambayo kwa njia yake iliweka mataifa chini ya udhibiti wake. Hili ni kweli kwa Roma ya kipagani na pia kwa Roma ya kipapa. Na hivyo kwa amani iliangamiza wengi."

> “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.

> "Na Rumi, hatimaye, kupitia mmoja wa watawala wake, alisimama kinyume na Mkuu wa wakuu, kwa kutoa hukumu ya mauti dhidi ya Yesu Kristo. 'Lakini ataangamizwa, si kwa mkono,' usemi unaoulinganisha uharibifu wa mamlaka hii na kupigwa kwa sanamu ya sura ya 2." Uriah Smith, Danieli na Ufunuo, 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, mara mbili katika kifungu, anatambua kwamba tabia za kinabii za Roma ya kipagani na ya kipapa ni za kubadilishana, kwa kuwa ni tu udhihirisho wa Roma katika awamu zake mbili, kama vile mchanganyiko wa chuma na udongo katika Danieli sura ya pili, ambao Dada White anatambua kuwa ni alama za siasa za kanisa na siasa za serikali. Anapobainisha Danieli katika aya ambazo Smith anazizungumzia—kwamba Roma “itafanikiwa, na kutenda,” na kwamba Roma “itasababisha hila zifanikiwe mkononi mwake”—Smith anadai kwamba katika aya ya thelathini na sita, “mfalme” ambaye “atafanikiwa hata ghadhabu itakapotimizwa,” anabainisha tabia ya kinabii ya Roma ya kipagani na ya kipapa kwa pamoja. Kisha anadai kwamba hakuna mojawapo ya sifa za Roma katika aya ya thelathini na sita zinazorejea mamlaka ya kipapa.

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.

Tumemrejelea Smith katika kuunga mkono utambulisho wa Roma kuwa wanyang’anyi wanaoanzisha maono, na mojawapo ya sifa nne za kinabii katika aya ya kumi na nne ni kwamba Roma inajitukuza.

> 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.

> Na katika nyakati zile wengi watainuka dhidi ya mfalme wa kusini; pia wanyang’anyi wa watu wako watajikuza ili kutimiza maono; lakini wataanguka. Danieli 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 anadai kwamba maelezo yanayomhusu mfalme katika aya ya thelathini na sita hayalingani na nguvu ya kipapa, ingawa awali alitetea kwamba ni Roma katika aya ya kumi na nne inayojikweza. Hata hivyo, mfalme katika aya ya thelathini na sita “atajikweza.” Mfalme huyo huyo katika aya ya thelathini na sita “atasema mambo ya ajabu juu ya Mungu wa miungu.” Katika Danieli nguvu ya kipapa “itasema maneno makuu dhidi ya Aliye Juu Sana,” na katika kitabu cha Ufunuo nguvu ya kipapa inamtukana Aliye Juu Sana.

> 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.

> Na akapewa kinywa cha kunena maneno makuu na makufuru; akapewa pia uwezo wa kuendelea kwa miezi arobaini na miwili. Naye akafunua kinywa chake kwa kumkufuru Mungu, kumkufuru jina lake, na maskani yake, na wale wakaao mbinguni. Ufunuo 13:5, 6.

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

Kila kipengele cha kinabii kuhusu mamlaka ya kipapa kinabainishwa katika aya ya thelathini na sita.

> 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.

> Na mfalme atatenda apendavyo; naye atajitukuza, na kujikuza juu ya kila mungu, naye atasema maneno ya ajabu juu ya Mungu wa miungu; naye atafanikiwa hata ghadhabu itimie; maana yaliyokusudiwa yatatendeka. Danieli 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.

Wachambuzi wa kibinadamu mara nyingi hawaaminiki, lakini wachambuzi wengi Waadventista wanashuhudia ukweli ulio wazi kwamba ilikuwa ni aya ya thelathini na sita ambayo mtume Paulo alikuwa akiieleza kwa maneno mengine katika Wathesalonike wa Pili, alipomzungumzia mtu wa dhambi.

> 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.

> Mtu yeyote asiwadanganye kwa njia yoyote; kwa maana siku ile haitakuja, isipokuwa kwanza uje uasi, na yule mtu wa dhambi afunuliwe, mwana wa uharibifu; yeye aupingaye na kujitukuza juu ya kila kitu kiitwacho Mungu, au kinachoabudiwa; hata aketi kama Mungu katika hekalu la Mungu, akijionyesha kwamba yeye ni Mungu. 2 Wathesalonika 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.

Aya ya thelathini na sita inasema kwamba “atajikuza, na kujitukuza juu ya kila mungu,” na Paulo anasema “yule mtu wa dhambi afunuliwe, mwana wa uharibifu; ambaye hupinga na kujikweza juu ya yote yanayoitwa Mungu, au yanayoabudiwa.” Ni wazi kwamba Smith hakuwa na mamlaka ya kinabii ya kudai kwamba mfalme wa aya ya thelathini na sita alikuwa tofauti na mfalme aliyekuwa akijadiliwa katika aya zinazoelekea aya ya thelathini na sita. Kwa upande wa sarufi hakuwa na uhalali wowote wa kutoa ufafanuzi wake ulio na dosari, na dai lake kwamba alifanya hivyo kwa sababu aya ya thelathini na sita haina sifa zozote za mamlaka ya kipapa lilikuwa kupotosha Maandiko katika jaribio la kuanzisha tafsiri binafsi.

> 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.

> Tena tunalo pia neno la unabii lililo thabiti zaidi; nanyi mtafanya vema mkilizingatia, kama taa iangazayo mahali pa giza, hadi alfajiri ipambazuke, na nyota ya asubuhi ichomoze mioyoni mwenu; mkijua kwanza hili, kwamba hakuna unabii wa Maandiko unaotokana na tafsiri ya mtu binafsi. Kwa maana unabii haukuja zamani kwa mapenzi ya mtu, bali watu watakatifu wa Mungu walinena walipokuwa wakiongozwa na Roho Mtakatifu. 2 Petro 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.

Katika miaka ya Uadventista wa Laodikia kumekuwepo wanatheolojia, wachungaji na waandishi wengi Waadventista ambao wamezungumzia iwapo wanaona tafsiri ya Smith ni sahihi au si sahihi. Mchungaji mmoja wa Australia, Louis Were, ambaye alifariki zamani, alitumia sehemu kubwa ya huduma yake kupinga mfumo wa kinabii wa uongo wa Smith. Sababu ya upinzani wake haikuwa tu kwamba hatimaye Smith alimtambua mfalme anayefikia mwisho wake katika aya ya arobaini na tano kuwa ni Uturuki, bali pia msingi wa Smith ulizalisha tafsiri isiyo sahihi ya Armagedoni. Katika miaka ya 1980 au hapo karibu, mwandishi mmoja Mwadventista aliandika kitabu chenye kichwa, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Jina la mwandishi ni Donald Mansell, na kitabu hicho bado kinapatikana.

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 anafuatilia historia iliyopelekea Vita vya Kwanza na vya Pili vya Dunia, akionyesha kwamba wakati vita vyote hivyo viwili vilipoonekana kukaribia, wainjilisti Waadventista walianza kutumia matumizi potofu ya Smith ya dhana ya Uturuki ikisonga kuelekea Yerusalemu halisi kama ishara ya Armagedoni na mwisho wa dunia. Anaonyesha kupitia orodha za uanachama wa kanisa kwamba kadiri vita hivyo vilipokaribia, watu wengi waliletwa katika uanachama wa Kanisa la Waadventista, kwa msingi wa msisitizo wa kinabii wa wainjilisti uliotokana na mtazamo wenye dosari wa Smith kuhusu Armagedoni.

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.

Wakati kila mojawapo ya vita hivyo ilipomalizika, na utabiri ulio na dosari haukutimia, kanisa lilipoteza wanachama wengi zaidi kuliko lilivyokuwa limepata kutokana na mfumo wa kinabii ulioundwa na Smith.

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

Kwa Smith kukataa ujumbe wa msingi wa Wamileraiti, na kwa utayari wake wa kuendeleza tafsiri yake binafsi ya aya za thelathini na sita hadi arobaini na tano za Danieli, mantiki ya Smith ilizalisha mfano wa kinabii uliotegemea matukio ya sasa.

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.”

Katika mjadala kati ya Smith na James White kuhusu mfalme anayefikia mwisho wake katika mstari wa mwisho wa Danieli kumi na moja, James White aliwasilisha hoja ya kimantiki iliyochora kwa ufupi taswira ya msingi wa kinabii wa mchanga wa Smith. White alifundisha kwamba "unabii huzalisha historia, lakini historia haizalishi unabii."

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.

Wainjilisti wa Uadventista waliokuwa wakifanya kazi kabla ya vita vyote viwili walitumia historia iliyokuwa ikijitokeza kuwasilisha mfano wa kinabii wa Smith wa Armagedoni wenye kasoro, na kazi yao, ambayo ilionekana kubarikiwa sana kuelekea kwenye vita hivyo, iliishia kuleta hasara jumla wakati ilipodhihirishwa kwamba mfano huo wa kinabii ulitegemea tafsiri ya kibinafsi.

> 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.

> Jihadharini na manabii wa uongo, wanaokuja kwenu wakiwa wamevaa mavazi ya kondoo, lakini kwa ndani ni mbwa mwitu walawao. Mtawatambua kwa matunda yao. Je, watu hukusanya zabibu katika miiba, au tini katika mbarika? Vivyo hivyo kila mti mwema huzaa matunda mema; bali mti mwovu huzaa matunda mabaya. Mti mwema hauwezi kuzaa matunda mabaya, wala mti mwovu kuzaa matunda mema. Kila mti usiozaa matunda mema hukatwa na kutupwa motoni. Basi kwa matunda yao mtawatambua. Mathayo 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.

Utayari wa Smith wa kukuza mfano wa kinabii wa kibinafsi wa mfalme katika aya ya thelathini na sita ulisababisha pia kuundwa kwa matumizi yasiyo sahihi ya Pigo la Sita na Armagedoni.

> 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.

> Na yule malaika wa sita akamimina bakuli lake juu ya mto ule mkubwa, Frati; maji yake yakakauka, ili njia ya wafalme wa mashariki iandaliwe. Nikaona roho watatu wachafu kama vyura wakitoka katika kinywa cha yule joka, na katika kinywa cha yule mnyama, na katika kinywa cha yule nabii wa uongo. Maana hao ni roho za mapepo, watendao ishara, hutoka kwenda kwa wafalme wa dunia yote, kuwakusanya kwa vita ya siku ile kuu ya Mungu Mwenyezi. Tazama, naja kama mwivi. Heri akeshaye, na azitunzaye nguo zake, ili asiende uchi, wasiione aibu yake. Naye akawakusanya pamoja hata mahali paitwao kwa Kiebrania, Armagedoni. Ufunuo 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.”

Kama tulivyobainisha hapo awali, pigo la sita huja baada ya kufungwa kwa mlango wa rehema kwa wanadamu, kwa hiyo onyo la “kuzitunza nguo zako” lazima lirejee suala la jaribio linalotokea kabla ya Mikaeli kusimama, na mlango wa rehema wa wanadamu kufungwa, na pigo la kwanza kuanza. Pigo la sita hutambulisha shughuli za joka, mnyama na nabii wa uongo, ambao ndio muungano wa mara tatu unaokuja pamoja katika sheria ya Jumapili itakayokuja hivi karibuni. Muungano huo wa mara tatu ndio Roma ya kisasa, na ishara inayotambulisha na kuanzisha muungano wa mara tatu wa Roma ya kisasa ni “wanyang’anyi wa watu wako,” ambao “wanajitukuza ili kuithibitisha njozi” na “huanguka.”

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.

Onyo la pigo la sita, linapoeleweka, humwezesha mtu kuhifadhi mavazi yake; lakini likikataliwa humwacha mtu uchi, jambo ambalo ni mojawapo ya sifa tano za mtu wa Laodikia. Ishara inayothibitisha onyo hilo ni wanyang’anyi wa watu wako, wanaojitukuza na hatimaye huanguka. Solomoni alisema kwamba watu wa Mungu wasipokuwa na maono, huangamia.

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

> Pasipo maono, watu huangamia; bali ashikaye sheria, heri yake. Mithali 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.

Neno la Kiebrania "perish" linamaanisha "kumvua nguo," naye Yohana akaandika, "Heri yeye akeshaye na azitunzaye nguo zake, ili asitembee uchi, watu wasije wakaona aibu yake." Smith alikosea kuhusu Mfalme wa Kaskazini, na msingi huo wa kinabii ulio wa uongo ulimruhusu kuendeleza matumizi ya kinabii ambayo, yakikubaliwa, huleta uchi, ambao ni ishara ya Walaodikia, wanaotemwa kutoka kinywani mwa Bwana.

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 hakuwa na shida kubishana akitetea utambulisho wake mpya wa uongo wa Mfalme wa Kaskazini dhidi ya mume wa nabii, James White. Wanahistoria Waadventista, pamoja na Dada White, wanazungumzia kutokubaliana kwao maarufu. Ellen White aliwakemea mume wake na Smith kwa kuruhusu tofauti yao ya maoni kuhusu ni nani aliyewakilishwa na mfalme wa kaskazini katika Danieli kumi na moja kuwekwa hadharani. Katika chapisho la kwanza kabisa la Waadventista baada ya Kukatishwa Tamaa Kuu ya mwaka 1844, James White aliandika:

> “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.

> "Kwamba Yesu akainuka, akaufunga mlango, na akaja kwa Yule wa Zamani wa Siku, ili kupokea ufalme wake, katika mwezi wa saba, 1844, ninaamini kabisa. Tazama Luka 13:25; Mathayo 25:10; Danieli 7:13,14. Lakini kusimama kwa Mikaeli, Danieli 12:1, kunaonekana kuwa tukio jingine, kwa kusudi jingine. Kuinuka kwake mwaka 1844 kulikuwa ili kufunga mlango, na kuja kwa Baba yake, ili kupokea ufalme wake, na mamlaka ya kutawala; lakini kusimama kwa Mikaeli ni kudhihirisha mamlaka yake ya kifalme, ambayo tayari anayo, katika kuwaangamiza waovu, na katika kuwakomboa watu wake. Mikaeli atasimama wakati mamlaka ya mwisho katika sura ya 11 inafika mwisho wake, wala hakuna wa kumsaidia. Mamlaka hii ndiyo ya mwisho inayolikanyaga kanisa la kweli la Mungu; na kwa kuwa kanisa la kweli bado linakanyagwa na kutupwa nje na ulimwengu wote wa Ukristo, inafuata kwamba mamlaka ya mwisho ya kukandamiza haijafika 'mwisho wake;' na Mikaeli hajasimama. Mamlaka hii ya mwisho inayowakanyaga watakatifu imeonyeshwa katika Ufunuo 13:11-18. Nambari yake ni 666." James White, Neno kwa Kundi Dogo, 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.

Smith alipotambulisha kile alichokiita “nuru mpya” kuhusu mada ya “nguvu ya mwisho katika sura ya kumi na moja ya Danieli,” James White aliona tafsiri ya Smith si kama nuru mpya, bali kama shambulio dhidi ya misingi. Mjadala kuhusu Roma kama mfalme wa kaskazini katika Danieli sura ya kumi na moja uliotokea kati ya Uriah Smith na James White una sifa mahususi ambazo, kama wanafunzi wa unabii, tunapaswa kuziunganisha na mijadala mingine ya historia ya Waadventista kuhusu ishara ya 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.

Moja ya sifa hizo ni kuanzishwa kwa tafsiri ya kibinafsi. Sifa nyingine ni kwamba utumiaji wa tafsiri ya kibinafsi unahitaji kupindisha sarufi rahisi, kwani Smith hakupuuza tu kwamba kila sifa ya kinabii katika aya ya thelathini na sita inamhusu Roma, bali pia alipuuza kwamba muundo wa kisarufi unadai kwamba mfalme wa aya ya thelathini na sita lazima awe mfalme yuleyule kama anavyowakilishwa katika kifungu kilichotangulia.

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.”

Jambo jingine ni kwamba tafsiri ya kibinafsi ilikuwa ni kukataa kweli za msingi. Jambo jingine ni kwamba inawakilisha kukataa mamlaka ya Roho ya Unabii. Sifa nyingine ni kwamba wazo la kwanza lenye dosari kuhusu Roma litaongoza kwenye mfumo wa kinabii unaomkataza mtu kuhifadhi mavazi yake anapokaribia kufungwa kwa mlango wa rehema kwa wanadamu. Jambo jingine lilikuwa utayari wa kutangaza hadharani tafsiri yake ya kibinafsi. Jambo jingine ni kwamba tafsiri ya kibinafsi hutambulishwa daima kama mwanga mpya. Sifa hizi zote zinajidhihirisha katika mjadala wa sasa kuhusu "wanyang'anyi wa watu wako."

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.

Wakati mzozo wa mwisho wa Roma, uliowakilishwa kwa mfano na mzozo wa kwanza wa Roma uliotambua ‘wanyang’anyi wa watu wako,’ utakapounganishwa na mstari wa kinabii unaohusiana na mzozo wa Uriah Smith na James White, tutaona kwamba kundi moja litakuwa likijenga mfumo wake wa kinabii juu ya tafsiri binafsi inayokataa ukweli wa msingi.

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.

Kukataa kweli za msingi kunamaanisha moja kwa moja kukataa mamlaka ya Roho ya Unabii, inayozitetea kwa uthabiti sana kweli hizo za msingi. Kundi hilo pia litakuwa tayari kuwasilisha mtazamo wao hadharani, bila kujali wasiwasi wowote ambao unaweza kuibuliwa kuhusu athari ambayo mafundisho hayo yanaweza kuwa nayo juu ya watu wa Mungu ulimwenguni kote.

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.

Mara tu baada ya mwaka 1844, katika kizazi cha kwanza cha Uadventista, mzozo mwingine kuhusu Roma uliibuliwa. Mzozo huo uliendelea kuchochewa, hadi mtazamo potovu ulikubaliwa katika kizazi cha tatu cha Uadventista. Tutauzingatia mzozo wa "ya kila siku" kuwa wa nne kati ya mistari sita tunayoangalia sasa katika mfano wa mstari juu ya mstari.

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.”

Lakini kabla hatujashughulikia mstari wa nne wa mabishano ya Roma, inapaswa kukumbukwa kwamba katika makala iliyotangulia, tulipokuwa tukizungumzia aya ya kumi ya Danieli sura ya kumi na moja, tulisema "Aya ya kumi pia inaunganisha moja kwa moja "nyakati saba" za Walawi sura ya ishirini na sita na historia iliyofichwa, lakini huo mstari wa ukweli uko nje ya kile tunachowasilisha hapa."

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 alikuwa kiongozi katika kukataa nyakati saba mnamo 1863. Alikuwa amekataa ongezeko la maarifa juu ya mada hiyo lililowasilishwa katika makala, zilizoandikwa na Hiram Edson na kuchapishwa katika jarida la Review mwaka 1856. Athari za Smith kuhusishwa na harakati iliyowasilisha nyakati saba, lakini baadaye akakataa ongezeko la maarifa juu ya mada hiyo hiyo, pia ziko nje ya mada ya jinsi Smith alivyotambulisha kile alichodai kuwa mwanga mpya kuhusu mfalme wa kaskazini, lakini tunapohitimisha mapitio yetu ya mfululizo wa mabishano ya Waadventista kuhusu Roma, tutarejea kwenye umuhimu wa aya ya kumi ya sura ya kumi na moja ya Danieli, na pia kile kinachoakilishwa na kukataliwa kwa Smith kwa ujumbe wa Laodikia uliowasili mnamo 1856 pamoja na ongezeko la maarifa kuhusu nyakati saba.

> “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.

> Imani yetu kuhusu ujumbe wa malaika wa kwanza, wa pili na wa tatu ilikuwa sahihi. Alama kuu za njia tulizopita hazihamishiki. Ingawa majeshi ya kuzimu yanaweza kujaribu kuziang’oa kutoka kwenye misingi yao, na kushangilia wakidhani kwamba wamefanikiwa, bado hawafanikiwi. Nguzo hizi za ukweli zimesimama imara kama vilima vya milele, hazitikiswi na juhudi zote za wanadamu pamoja na zile za Shetani na majeshi yake. Tunaweza kujifunza mengi, na tunapaswa daima kuchunguza Maandiko ili kuona kama mambo haya ni hivyo. Uinjilisti, 223.

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

> "Alama kuu za njia za ukweli, zinazotuonyesha mwelekeo wetu katika historia ya kinabii, zinapaswa kulindwa kwa uangalifu, ili zisije zikabomolewa na kubadilishwa kwa nadharia zitakazoleta mkanganyiko badala ya nuru ya kweli." Selected Messages, kitabu cha 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

> "Wakati huu juhudi nyingi zitafanywa kutikisa imani yetu kuhusu suala la patakatifu; lakini hatupaswi kuyumba. Hakuna hata kitu kidogo kinachopaswa kuhamishwa kutoka katika misingi ya imani yetu. Kweli bado ni kweli. Wale watakaopoteza uhakika wataelekea katika nadharia potofu, na hatimaye watajikuta wasioamini kuhusu ushahidi wa zamani tuliokuwa nao kuhusu kile kilicho kweli. Alama za zamani za njia lazima zihifadhiwe, ili tusipoteze mwelekeo wetu." Manuscript Releases, juzuu ya 1, 55

Back to Articles