Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Róòmù Mú Ìran Náa Dúró — Nọ́mbà Mẹ́fà

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

Àwọn Àríyànjiyàn Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ nínú Ìtàn Adventist: Ìmòye nípa Ìjà tí ó wà láàárín Uriah Smith àti James White lórí Danieli 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

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

A ń tọ́ka sí ìlà mẹ́fà ti àríyànjiyàn àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí ó ti ṣẹlẹ̀ nínú ìtàn Adventism láti ọdún 1798 títí di òní.

> “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.

> “Nínú ìtàn àti nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run ń ṣàfihàn ìjà gígùn tí ó ti pẹ́ láàárín òtítọ́ àti ìṣìnà. Ìjà náà ṣì ń tẹ̀síwájú. Àwọn nǹkan wọ̀nyí tí ó ti ṣẹlẹ̀ yóò tún ṣẹlẹ̀. Àwọn àríyànjiyàn àtijọ́ ni a ó tún jí dìde, àwọn ẹ̀kọ́ tuntun yóò sì máa ń hù jáde ní ìgbà gbogbo. Ṣùgbọ́n àwọn ènìyàn Ọlọ́run, tí nínú ìgbàgbọ́ wọn àti nínú ìmúṣẹ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti kó ipa kan nínú ìkéde àwọn ìhìn iṣẹ́ áńgẹ́lì àkọ́kọ́, kejì, àti kẹta, mọ ibi tí wọ́n dúró sí. Wọ́n ní ìrírí kan tí ó ṣeyebíye ju wúrà dáradára lọ. Wọ́n gbọ́dọ̀ dúró ṣinṣin bí àpáta, kí wọ́n di ìbẹ̀rẹ̀ ìgbọ́kànlé wọn mú ṣinṣin títí dé òpin.” Selected Messages, book 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.

Àpilẹ̀kọ tó ṣáájú náà sọ̀rọ̀ nípa àríyànjiyàn àkọ́kọ́ àti ti ìkẹyìn nípa agbára Romu, báyìí sì ni a ó gbé àríyànjiyàn tí ó ṣẹlẹ̀ láàárín Uriah Smith àti James White yẹ̀ wò. Uriah Smith fi “ìtumọ̀ tirẹ̀ ní ìkọ̀kọ̀” sí inú ẹsẹ̀ kọkàndínlọ́gbọ̀n.

> “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.

> “ẸSẸ 36. Ọba náà yóò sì ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìfẹ́ ara rẹ̀; yóò sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga, yóò sì fi ara rẹ̀ ṣe ńlá ju gbogbo òrìṣà lọ; yóò sì máa sọ àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ ìyanu sí Ọlọ́run àwọn ọlọ́run, yóò sì ṣàṣeyọrí títí ìbínú náà yóò fi parí; nítorí ohun tí a ti pinnu yóò ṣẹ.”

> “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.

> “Ọba tí a ṣàfihàn níhìn-ín yìí kò lè túmọ̀ sí agbára kan náà tí a ṣẹ̀ṣẹ̀ mẹ́nu kàn sí kẹ́yìn; ìyẹn ni, agbára póòpù; nítorí àwọn àlàyé pàtó náà kò ní bá a mu bí a bá fi kàn án mọ́ agbára náà.” 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 jẹ́wọ́ pé agbára tí ó wà nínú ẹsẹ̀ tí ó ṣáájú ni “Romu papal,” ṣùgbọ́n ó sọ pé àwọn àbùdá ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlọ́gbọ̀n kò jẹ́ àwọn àbùdá àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí ń fi Romu papal hàn. Ìpè náà jẹ́ èké. Ó yẹ kí a rántí pé nínú ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ ọdún 1863, àkókò méje ti Lefitiku orí kẹrìndínlọ́gbọ̀n ni a fi sí apá kan, nítorí náà a sì kọ ìṣàfihàn àkókò méje ti tábìlì méjèèjì ti Habakuku sílẹ̀. Àwòrán ìtòlẹ́sẹẹsẹ̀ 1843 àti ti 1850 méjèèjì fi àkókò méje hàn ní àárín gbùngbùn àwòrán náà gan-an, àti pé àfihàn méjèèjì náà gbé àgbélébùú kalẹ̀ ní àárín ìlà àkókò méje náà. Nígbà tí ìmọ̀lẹ̀ tuntun nípa àkókò méje dé ní 1856, tí a sì kọ ọ́ lẹ́yìn náà, ó ṣàmì sí ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ tábìlì méjì Habakuku, pẹ̀lú aṣẹ Ẹ̀mí Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ náà pẹ̀lú, èyí tí ó fi hàn gbangba pé Ọlọ́run ló darí àwòrán ìtòlẹ́sẹẹsẹ̀ méjèèjì náà.

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.

Gẹ́gẹ́ bí Arabinrin White ti sọ, ìtanjẹ ìkẹyìn ti Satani ni láti sọ ẹ̀rí Ẹ̀mí Ọlọ́run di asán; níhìn-ín, ìtanjẹ àkọ́kọ́ náà ni láti sọ ẹ̀rí Ẹ̀mí Ọlọ́run di asán pẹ̀lú, ó sì tún ṣàfihàn ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ ní àkókò kan náà fún àwọn òtítọ́ ìpìlẹ̀ tí ó wà lórí àwọn tábìlì méjèèjì, àti ní pàtàkì jùlọ àwọn ìgbà méje.

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.

Ní ìgbìmọ̀tẹ̀ 1863, kì í ṣe ẹlòmíràn bí kò ṣe Uriah Smith ni ó ṣe àtẹ náà ìtànjẹ ti 1863, èyí tí ó yọ ìlà àwọn àkókò méje kúrò. Ní ọdún 1863, Uriah Smith ti pa ojú rẹ̀ mọ́ sí ìmọ́lẹ̀ àwọn àkókò méje, kò sì lè rí i pé “ìbínú” méjì wà tí Dáníẹ́lì tọ́ka sí. Àwọn ìbínú méjèèjì náà dúró fún àwọn àkókò méje sí ìjọba àríwá Ísírẹ́lì, àti ìjọba gúúsù Júdà. Ẹ̀kọ́kọ́ sí àwọn ẹ̀yà mẹ́wàá ti àríwá bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní 723 BC, ó sì parí ní 1798, èkejì sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní 677 BC, ó sì parí ní 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.

Gábíríẹ́lì wá sọ́dọ̀ Dáníẹ́lì ní orí kẹjọ láti ṣàlàyé ìran marah, àti ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú iṣẹ́ rẹ̀, ó pèsè ẹlẹ́rìí kejì fún 1844. Ẹgbẹ̀rún méjì àti ọ̀ọ́dúnrún ọdún ti Dáníẹ́lì orí kẹjọ parí ní ọdún 1844, ṣùgbọ́n bẹ́ẹ̀ pẹ̀lú ni ìkẹyìn nínú àwọn ìbínú méjèèjì sí àwọn ìjọba àríwá àti gúúsù parí.

> 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.

> Ó sì wí pé, Wò ó, èmi yóò jẹ́ kí o mọ ohun tí yóò wà ní ìkẹyìn ìbínú náà: nítorí ní àkókò tí a yàn, òpin yóò dé. 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.

Òpin ìkẹyìn ń fi òpin àkọ́kọ́ hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun tí ó ti wà ṣáájú. Ìkẹyìn nínú àwọn ìbínú méjèèjì, tí ó jẹ́ ọ̀nà míràn lásán láti sọ “àwọn àkókò méje,” parí ní ọdún 1844, àti ìbínú àkọ́kọ́ parí ní ọdún 1798. Ẹsẹ̀ tí Smith sọ pé kò ní àwọn ìtọ́kasí kankan nípa agbára póòpù ni ó tọ́ka sí ọdún tí ìjọba póòpù yóò gba ọgbẹ́ ikú rẹ̀.

> 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.

> “Ọba náà yóò sì máa ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìfẹ́ ara rẹ̀; yóò sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga, yóò sì fi ara rẹ̀ tóbi ju gbogbo ọlọ́run lọ, yóò sì sọ àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ ìyanu sí Ọlọ́run àwọn ọlọ́run; yóò sì ṣe àṣeyọrí títí ìbínú náà yóò fi parí; nítorí ohun tí a ti pínnupinnu yóò ṣẹ. Daniẹli 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.

“ọba” nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàdínlógójì yóò “ṣe àṣeyọrí títí ìbínú náà yóò fi pé.” Ṣàkíyèsí ohun tí Smith kọ nípa Dáníẹ́lì orí kẹjọ, ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́tàlélógún àti mẹ́rìnlélógún nínú ìwé kan náà níbi tí ó ti sọ pé agbára póòpù kò ní àwọn ànímọ́ tí ó tọ́ láti mú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàdínlógójì ṣẹ.

> “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.

> “ẸSẸ 23. Ní àsìkò ìkẹyìn ìjọba wọn, nígbà tí àwọn arufin bá ti kún dé òpin, ọba kan tí ojú rẹ̀ le, tí ó sì mọ òwe òkùnkùn, yóò dìde. 24. Agbara rẹ̀ yóò pọ̀ gidigidi, ṣùgbọ́n kì í ṣe nípa agbára tirẹ̀: yóò sì pa run lọ́nà àgbàyanu, yóò sì ṣe àṣeyọrí, yóò sì ṣiṣẹ́, yóò sì pa àwọn alágbára àti àwọn ènìyàn mímọ́ run. 25. Nípa ọgbọ́n ẹ̀tan rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú, yóò mú kí ẹ̀tan bọ́ láṣẹ ní ọwọ́ rẹ̀: yóò sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga nínú ọkàn rẹ̀, nípa àlàáfíà yóò sì pa ọ̀pọ̀ ènìyàn run: yóò tún dìde sí Ọmọ-aládé àwọn ọmọ-aládé; ṣùgbọ́n a ó fọ́ ọ láìsí ọwọ́.

> “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.

> “Agbára yìí dìde lẹ́yìn àwọn ìpín mẹ́rin ìjọba ewúrẹ́ náà ní àkókò ìkẹyìn ìjọba wọn, ìyẹn ni pé, níbi títí dé òpin ìrìnàjò wọn. Ní ti tòótọ́, òun kan náà ni pẹ̀lú ìwo kékeré tí a mẹ́nuba nínú ẹsẹ̀ 9 àti àwọn ẹsẹ̀ tó tẹ̀ lé e. Ẹ fi í kàn án sí Romu, gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ṣe àlàyé rẹ̀ nínú àwọn àlàyé lórí ẹsẹ̀ 9, nígbà náà ni ohun gbogbo yóò bá ara wọn mu, yóò sì ṣe kedere.”

> “‘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.

> “‘Ọba kan tí ojú rẹ̀ le gan-an.’ Mósè, nígbà tí ó ń sọ ìjìyà tí yóò dé bá àwọn Júù láti ọwọ́ agbára kan náà yìí tẹ́lẹ̀, pè é ní ‘orílẹ̀-èdè tí ojú rẹ̀ le gan-an.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. Kò sí ènìyàn kankan tí ó hàn ní ìrísí ẹ̀rù púpọ̀ sí i ní ìṣètò ogun ju àwọn ará Róòmù lọ. ‘Tí ń lóye àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ òkùnkùn.’ Mósè, nínú Ìwé Mímọ́ tí a ṣẹ̀ṣẹ̀ tọ́ka sí, wí pé, ‘Èdè ẹni tí ìwọ kì yóò yé.’ A kò lè sọ èyí nípa àwọn ará Bábílónì, Pérsìà, tàbí Gíríìkì, ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú àwọn Júù; nítorí àwọn èdè Kálídíà àti Gíríìkì ni a ń lò dé ìwọ̀n kan tàbí òmíràn ní Palẹsítínì. Ṣùgbọ́n, kò rí bẹ́ẹ̀ ní ti èdè Látìn.”

> “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.

> “Nígbà tí àwọn aláìṣòdodo bá dé òkè ìwà-buburu wọn.” Ní gbogbo ọ̀nà náà, a ń pa ìbáṣepọ̀ tó wà láàárín àwọn ènìyàn Ọlọ́run àti àwọn tí ń ni wọ́n lára mọ́ níwájú. Nítorí ìrékọjá àwọn ènìyàn rẹ̀ ni a fi tà wọ́n sínú ìgbèkùn. Ìtẹ̀síwájú wọn nínú ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ sì mú ìyà tí ó le jù bẹ́ẹ̀ lọ wá. Kò sí àkókò kankan tí àwọn Júù ti bàjẹ́ nípa ìwà rere tó bẹ́ẹ̀, gẹ́gẹ́ bí orílẹ̀-èdè kan, ju àsìkò tí wọ́n wá lábẹ́ àṣẹ àwọn ará Róòmù lọ.

> “‘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.

> “‘Alágbára, ṣùgbọ́n kì í ṣe nípa agbára tirẹ̀.’ Àṣeyọrí àwọn ará Róòmù jẹ́ ní pàtàkì nítorí ìrànlọ́wọ́ àwọn alájọṣepọ̀ wọn, àti ìpínyà láàárín àwọn ọ̀tá wọn, èyí tí wọ́n máa ń wà ní ìmúrasílẹ̀ nígbà gbogbo láti fi ṣe ànfààní. Róòmù Pápà pẹ̀lú jẹ́ alágbára nípasẹ̀ àwọn agbára aláìmọ̀ṣèlú tí ó wà lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso ẹ̀mí rẹ̀.

> “‘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.

> “‘Yóò pa run lọ́nà àgbàyanu.’ Olúwa sọ fún àwọn Jú nípasẹ̀ wòlíì Ìsẹ́kíẹ́lì pé òun yóò fi wọ́n lé àwọn ènìyàn tí wọ́n jẹ́ ‘amòye nínú ìparun;’ àti pípa ẹgbẹ̀rún mọ́kànlá ọ̀ọ́dúnrún Jú nígbà ìparun Jerúsálẹ́mù ní ọwọ́ ọmọ-ogun Romu, jẹ́ ìmúdájú ẹ̀rù ti ọ̀rọ̀ wòlíì náà. Àti pé Romu nínú ìpele kejì rẹ̀, tàbí ìpele pápà, ni ó ní ojúṣe fún ikú mílíọ̀nù àádọ́ta àwọn márítà.”

> “‘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.

> “ ‘Àti pé nípasẹ̀ ìmọ̀ràn rẹ̀, òun yóò mú kí ẹ̀tàn ṣàṣeyọrí ní ọwọ́ rẹ̀.’ A ti yà Róòmù sọ́tọ̀ ju gbogbo àwọn agbára mìíràn lọ nítorí ìmọ̀ràn ẹ̀tàn, nípasẹ̀ èyí tí ó fi mú àwọn orílẹ̀-èdè wà lábẹ́ àkóso rẹ̀. Èyí jẹ́ òtítọ́ ní ti Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà àti Róòmù Pápá pẹ̀lú. Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni, nípasẹ̀ àlàáfíà, ó pa ọ̀pọ̀lọpọ̀ run. ”

> “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.

> “Àti pé Róòmù, ní ìkẹyìn, nínú ẹni ọ̀kan lára àwọn gómìnà rẹ̀, dìde sí Ọ̀ba àwọn ọ̀ba, nípa fífi ìdájọ́ ikú lé Jésù Kristi lórí. ‘Ṣùgbọ́n a ó fọ́ ọ láìfi ọwọ́ ṣe é,’ ọ̀rọ̀ kan tí ó fi ìparun agbára yìí hàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ohun kan náà pẹ̀lú lílu ère inú orí 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.

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

Ní ìgbà méjì nínú ẹsẹ náà, Smith fi hàn pé àwọn àbùdá àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti Róòmù keferi àti ti Róòmù pàápàá jẹ́ ohun tí a lè fi rọ́pò ara wọn, nítorí pé wọ́n kàn jẹ́ ìfihàn Róòmù nínú ìpele méjì rẹ̀, gẹ́gẹ́ bí àdàpọ̀ irin àti amọ̀ nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kejì, èyí tí Sister White ṣe ìdánimọ̀ rẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì ìṣèlú-ìjọ àti ìṣèlú-ìpínlẹ̀. Nígbà tí Dáníẹ́lì sọ nínú àwọn ẹsẹ tí Smith ń tọ́ka sí—pé Róòmù “yóò sì ṣàṣeyọrí, yóò sì ṣe,” àti pé Róòmù “yóò mú ọgbọ́n-àrékérekè ṣàṣeyọrí ní ọwọ́ rẹ̀”—Smith sọ pé nínú ẹsẹ kẹtàlélọ́gbọ̀n, “ọba” náà tí “yóò ṣàṣeyọrí títí ìbínú náà yóò fi parí” ń ṣe ìdánimọ̀ àbùdá àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ kan tí ó jẹ́ ti Róòmù keferi àti ti Róòmù pàápàá pẹ̀lú. Nígbà náà lẹ́yìn èyí, ó tún sọ pé kò sí èyíkéyìí nínú àwọn àbùdá Róòmù nínú ẹsẹ kẹtàlélọ́gbọ̀n tí ó ń tọ́ka sí agbára pàápàá.

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.

A ti tọ́ka sí Smith láti fi ṣètìlẹ́yìn fún ìdánimọ̀ pé Róòmù ni àwọn ọlọ́ṣà tí ń fi ìran náà múlẹ̀, àti pé ọ̀kan nínú àwọn àbùdá àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ mẹ́rin nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlá ni pé Róòmù gbé ara wọn ga.

> 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.

> Ní àkókò wọ̀nyí ni ọ̀pọ̀ ènìyàn yóò dìde sí ọba gúúsù: pẹ̀lú àwọn ọlọ́ṣà láàrín àwọn ènìyàn rẹ ni yóò gbé ara wọn ga láti fi mú ìran náà dúró; ṣùgbọ́n wọn yóò ṣubú. Dáníẹ́lì 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 sọ pé àwọn àlàyé nípa ọba náà nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlélọ́gbọ̀n kò bá agbára póòpù mu, bí ó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé tẹ́lẹ̀ ó ti gbèjà pé Romu ni nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlá tí ń gbé ara rẹ̀ ga. Síbẹ̀, ọba náà nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlélọ́gbọ̀n “yóò sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga.” Ọba kan náà gan-an nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlélọ́gbọ̀n yóò “máa sọ ohun àgbàyanu lòdì sí Ọlọ́run àwọn ọlọ́run.” Nínú Dáníẹ́lì, agbára póòpù “yóò máa sọ ọ̀rọ̀ ńlá lòdì sí Ọ̀gá-ọba Jùlọ,” àti nínú ìwé Ìfihàn, agbára póòpù ń sọ̀rọ̀-òdì sí Ọ̀gá-ọba Jùlọ.

> 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.

> A sì fi ẹnu kan fún un, tí ń sọ ohun ńláńlá àti ọ̀rọ̀-òdì sí Ọlọ́run; a sì fi agbára fún un láti máa ṣe bẹ́ẹ̀ fún oṣù méjìlélógójì. Ó sì ya ẹnu rẹ̀ sílẹ̀ nínú ọ̀rọ̀-òdì sí Ọlọ́run, láti sọ̀rọ̀-òdì sí orúkọ rẹ̀, àti sí àgọ́ rẹ̀, àti sí àwọn tí ń gbé ní ọ̀run. Ìfihàn 13:5, 6.

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

Gbogbo àlàyé pàtó àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ nípa agbára àpapọ̀ ni a ti dá mọ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlélọ́gbọ̀n.

> 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.

> Ọba náà yóò sì ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìfẹ́ ara rẹ̀; yóò sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga, yóò sì sọ ara rẹ̀ di ńlá ju gbogbo ọlọ́run lọ, yóò sì máa sọ ohun àgbàyanu sí Ọlọ́run àwọn ọlọ́run, yóò sì ṣe àṣeyọrí títí ìbínú náà yóò fi pé; nítorí ohun tí a ti pinnu yóò ṣẹ. 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.

Ọ̀pọ̀ ìgbà ni àwọn aṣàlàyé ènìyàn máa ń jẹ́ aláìgbẹ́kẹ̀lé, ṣùgbọ́n ọ̀pọ̀ àwọn aṣàlàyé Adventist jẹ́rìí sí òtítọ́ tí ó hàn gbangba pé ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlógójì ni àpọ́sítélì Pọ́ọ̀lù ń tún sọ ní ọ̀nà míràn nínú Thessalonika Kejì, nígbà tí ó ń sọ̀rọ̀ nípa ènìyàn ẹ̀ṣẹ̀.

> 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.

> Kí ẹnikẹ́ni má ṣe tàn yín jẹ́ ní ọ̀nàkọnàkọ̀nà; nítorí ọjọ́ náà kì yóò dé, bí kò ṣe pé ìyàsọ́tọ̀ yóò kọ́kọ́ dé, kí a sì ṣí ènìyàn ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ náà payá, ọmọ ìparun; ẹni tí ń tako, tí ó sì ń gbé ara rẹ̀ ga ju gbogbo ohun tí a ń pè ní Ọlọ́run lọ, tàbí tí a ń bọ̀; títí tí yóò fi jókòó nínú tẹ́ńpìlì Ọlọ́run bí Ọlọ́run, tí ó ń fi ara rẹ̀ hàn pé òun ni Ọlọ́run. 2 Tẹsalóníkà 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.

Ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélọ́gbọ̀n sọ pé, “óun yóò gbé ara rẹ̀ ga, yóò sì fi ara rẹ̀ ṣe ẹni ńlá ju gbogbo ọlọ́run lọ,” Pọ́ọ̀lù sì wí pé, “kí a lè fi ènìyàn ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ náà hàn, ọmọ ìparun; ẹni tí ń tako, tí ó sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga ju gbogbo ohun tí a ń pè ní Ọlọ́run lọ, tàbí tí a ń bọ̀wọ̀ fún.” Ó ṣe kedere pé Smith kò ní àṣẹ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ láti sọ pé ọba inú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélọ́gbọ̀n yàtọ̀ sí ọba tí a ń jíròrò rẹ̀ nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ tí ń ṣáájú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélọ́gbọ̀n. Ní ìbámu pẹ̀lú ìlànà gírámà, kò ní ìdáláre kankan fún lílo tí kò pé yẹn, ìdí rẹ̀ sì pé ó ṣe bẹ́ẹ̀ nítorí pé ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìnlélọ́gbọ̀n kò ní àbùdá kankan ti agbára póòpù jẹ́ yíyí Ìwé Mímọ́ padà ní ìgbìyànjú láti fi ìtumọ̀ àdáni mulẹ̀.

> 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.

> A tún ní ọ̀rọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí a fi múlẹ̀ jùlọ; èyí tí ẹ ṣe dáadáa bí ẹ bá fiyè sí i, bí sí ìmọ́lẹ̀ tí ń tàn ní ibi òkùnkùn, títí ọjọ́ yóò fi mọ́, tí ìràwọ̀ òwúrọ̀ yóò sì yọ nínú ọkàn yín: kí ẹ mọ èyí ní àkọ́kọ́, pé kò sí àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ kankan nínú Ìwé Mímọ́ tí í ṣe ti ìtumọ̀ ẹni tìkára rẹ̀. Nítorí àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ kò tí ì wá ní ayé àtijọ́ nípa ìfẹ́ ènìyàn: ṣùgbọ́n àwọn ènìyàn mímọ́ ti Ọlọ́run sọ̀rọ̀ bí Ẹ̀mí Mímọ́ ti rù wọ́n. 2 Peteru 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.

Lákòókò àwọn ọdún Adventismu ti Laodikea, ọ̀pọ̀lọpọ̀ àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀sìn Adventist, àwọn olùṣọ́-àgùntàn àti àwọn òǹkọ̀wé ti sọ̀rọ̀ lórí bóyá wọ́n rò pé ìlò Smith jẹ́ òótọ́ tàbí àṣìṣe. Olùṣọ́-àgùntàn kan láti Ọsirélíà, Louis Were, ẹni tí ó ti pẹ́ kú, lo ọ̀pọ̀ jùlọ nínú iṣẹ́ ìjọsìn rẹ̀ láti tako àwòṣe àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ èké ti Smith. Ìdí ìtakò rẹ̀ kì í ṣe nítorí pé ní ìparí Smith dá ọba tí ó dé òpin rẹ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkàndínlọ́gọ́rin [45] mọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí Tọ́kì nìkan, ṣùgbọ́n pẹpẹ Smith tún mú ìlò àìtọ́ ti Amágẹdọni jáde. Ní àwọn ọdún 1980 tàbí ní àkókò tó sún mọ́ bẹ́ẹ̀, òǹkọ̀wé Adventist kan kọ ìwé kan tí àkọlé rẹ̀ jẹ́, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Orúkọ òǹkọ̀wé náà ni Donald Mansell, ìwé náà sì ṣì wà níbẹ̀.

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 tọ́pasẹ̀ ìtàn tí ó ṣáájú Ogun Àgbáyé Kínní àti Ogun Àgbáyé Kejì, ó sì fi hàn pé nígbà tí a bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í rí i pé àwọn ogun méjèèjì wọ̀nyẹn ń súnmọ́lé, àwọn ajíhìnrere Adventist bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í lo ìlò-ìtumọ̀ èké Smith pé Tọ́kì ń gòkè lọ sí Jerusalẹmu gidi gẹ́gẹ́ bí àmì Armageddon àti òpin ayé. Ó fi hàn nípa àwọn àkọsílẹ̀ ọmọ-ẹgbẹ́ ìjọ pé bí ọ̀kọ̀ọ̀kan àwọn ogun náà ṣe ń súnmọ́lé, a mú ọ̀pọ̀ ọkàn wá sínú ọmọ-ẹgbẹ́ ìjọ Adventist, lórí ìpìlẹ̀ ìtẹnumọ́ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti ajíhìnrere náà, tí a fà jáde kúrò nínú ojú ìwòye aláìpé Smith nípa Armageddon.

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.

Nígbà tí ọ̀kan nínú àwọn ogun náà bá parí, tí àwọn àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ aláìpé náà kò sì ṣẹ, ìjọ náà pàdánù ọmọ ẹgbẹ́ púpọ̀ ju iye tí wọ́n ti jèrè lọ láti inú àwòṣe àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí Smith ti kọ́.

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.

Nítorí ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ Smith sí ìhìnrere ìpilẹ̀ṣẹ̀ àwọn Millerites, àti ìmúratán rẹ̀ láti gbé ìtumọ̀ àdáni rẹ̀ lárugẹ nípa ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́rìnlélọ́gbọ̀n sí márùndínláàádọ́ta [36–45] nínú Danieli, ọgbọ́n-ìjìnlẹ̀ Smith mú àwòrán àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ kan jáde tí a fi ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ àkókò náà ṣe ìpìlẹ̀.

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.”

Nínú àríyànjiyàn láàárín Smith àti James White lórí ọba tí ó dé òpin rẹ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ ìkẹyìn Danieli mọ́kànlá, James White gbé ìmòye kan kalẹ̀ tí ó ṣojú ní ṣókí ìpìlẹ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ erùpẹ̀ ti Smith. White kọ́ni pé, “àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ni ń mú ìtàn ṣẹlẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n ìtàn kì í mú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ṣẹlẹ̀.”

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.

Àwọn ajíhìnrere ẹ̀sìn Adventist tí wọ́n ṣiṣẹ́ ṣáájú ogun méjèèjì lo ìtàn tí ń ṣípayá lọ́nà ìdàgbàsókè láti gbé àwòṣe àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Armageddon tí ó ní àbùkù ti Smith kalẹ̀, iṣẹ́ wọn sì, tí ó dà bí ẹni pé a ti bù kún un gidigidi ní ìṣáájú àwọn ogun náà, mú àdánù gidi wá ní ìparí, nígbà tí a fi hàn pé àwòṣe àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ náà dá lórí ìtumọ̀ àdáni.

> 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.

> Ẹ ṣọ́ra fún àwọn wòlíì èké, tí ń tọ̀ yín wá ní aṣọ àgùntàn, ṣùgbọ́n ní inú wọn wọ́n jẹ́ ìkookò alájẹkì. Nípa èso wọn ni ẹ ó fi mọ̀ wọ́n. Ṣé àwọn ènìyàn a máa kó èso àjàrà lára ẹ̀gún, tàbí èso ọ̀pọ̀tọ́ lára òṣùṣú? Bẹ́ẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́, gbogbo igi rere a máa so èso rere; ṣùgbọ́n igi búburú a máa so èso búburú. Igi rere kò lè so èso búburú, bẹ́ẹ̀ ni igi búburú kò lè so èso rere. Gbogbo igi tí kò bá so èso rere ni a a gé lulẹ̀, a a sì sọ ọ sínú iná. Nítorí náà, nípa èso wọn ni ẹ ó fi mọ̀ wọ́n. Matteu 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.

Ìfẹ́ Smith láti gbé àwòṣe àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ àdáni kan ti ọba inú ẹsẹ̀ kẹ́tàlélọ́gbọ̀n lárugẹ mú èso jáde pẹ̀lú nípa dídá ìlò tí kò tọ́ sílẹ̀ fún Àjàkálẹ̀-àrùn Kẹfà àti 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.

> Angẹli kẹfà sì ta àwo rẹ̀ sí orí odò ńlá Yúfírétì; omi rẹ̀ sì gbẹ, kí a lè pèsè ọ̀nà fún àwọn ọba ìlà-oòrùn. Mo sì rí ẹ̀mí aláìmọ́ mẹ́ta bí àkèré tí ń jáde láti ẹnu dragoni náà, àti láti ẹnu ẹranko náà, àti láti ẹnu wòlíì èké náà. Nítorí wọ́n jẹ́ ẹ̀mí àwọn èṣù, tí ń ṣe iṣẹ́ àgbàyanu, tí ń jáde lọ sọ́dọ̀ àwọn ọba ayé àti ti gbogbo ayé, láti kó wọn jọ sí ogun ọjọ́ ńlá náà ti Ọlọ́run Olódùmarè. Wò ó, èmi ń bọ̀ bí olè. Alábùkún ni ẹni tí ń ṣọ́ra, tí ó sì ń pa aṣọ rẹ̀ mọ́, kí ó má bàa rìn ní ìhòòhò, kí wọ́n sì rí ìtìjú rẹ̀. Ó sì kó wọn jọ sí ibi kan tí a ń pè ní èdè Hébérù ní Armagedoni. Ìfihàn 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.”

Gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti tọ́ka sí tẹ́lẹ̀, àjàkálẹ̀-ìyọnu kẹfà wá lẹ́yìn ìpipadé àkókò àyè-ìdánwò ènìyàn; nítorí náà, ìkìlọ̀ tí ó wà nínú rẹ̀ láti pa aṣọ yín mọ́, gbọ́dọ̀ tọ́ka sí ọ̀ràn ìdánwò kan tí ó ṣẹlẹ̀ ṣáájú kí Mikaeli dìde, kí àkókò àyè-ìdánwò ènìyàn sì parí, kí àjàkálẹ̀-ìyọnu àkọ́kọ́ sì bẹ̀rẹ̀. Àjàkálẹ̀-ìyọnu kẹfà ń fi àwọn iṣẹ́ dragoni, ẹranko náà, àti wòlíì èké náà hàn, ẹni tí wọ́n jẹ́ ìṣọ̀kan mẹ́ta náà tí ó kóra jọ nígbà òfin Sọ́ńdé tí ń bọ̀ láìpẹ́. Ìṣọ̀kan mẹ́ta náà ni Róòmù Òde-Òní, àti àmì tí ó ń dá ìṣọ̀kan mẹ́ta Róòmù Òde-Òní mọ̀ tí ó sì ń fi í múlẹ̀, ni “àwọn olè ènìyàn rẹ,” tí wọ́n “gbé ara wọn ga láti fi ìran náà múlẹ̀,” tí wọ́n sì “ṣubú.”

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.

Ìkìlọ̀ àjàkálẹ̀-àìsàn kẹfà, nígbà tí a bá lóye rẹ̀, ń jẹ́ kí ọkàn ènìyàn pa aṣọ rẹ̀ mọ́; ṣùgbọ́n bí a bá kọ̀ ọ́ sílẹ̀, ó fi ọkàn ènìyàn sílẹ̀ ní ìhòòhò, èyí tí í ṣe ọ̀kan nínú àbùdá márùn-ún ti ará Laodikea. Àmì tí ó fi ìkìlọ̀ náà múlẹ̀ ni àwọn ọlọ́ṣà àwọn ènìyàn rẹ, àwọn tí ń gbé ara wọn ga, tí wọ́n sì ṣubú níkẹyìn. Solomoni sọ pé bí àwọn ènìyàn Ọlọ́run kò bá ní ìran náà, wọn yóò ṣègbé.

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

> Níbi tí kò sí ìran, àwọn ènìyàn a ṣègbé: ṣùgbọ́n ẹni tí ó pa òfin mọ́, aláyọ̀ ni í ṣe. Òwe 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.

Ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù tí a túmọ̀ sí “ṣègbé” túmọ̀ sí “láni ní ìhòòhò,” Johanu sì kọ sílẹ̀ pé, “Alábùkún fún ẹni tí ń ṣọ́, tí ó sì pa aṣọ rẹ̀ mọ́, kí ó má bàa rìn ní ìhòòhò, kí wọ́n sì rí ìtìjú rẹ̀” (Ìfihàn 16:15). Smith ṣàṣìṣe nípa Ọba Àríwá, ìpìlẹ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ èké yẹn sì jẹ́ kí ó lè gbékalẹ̀ ìlò àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ kan tí, bí a bá gbà á, yóò mú ìhòòhò wá, èyí tí ó jẹ́ ààmì àwọn ará Laodíkíà, àwọn tí a bù jáde kúrò ní ẹnu Olúwa.

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 kò ní ìṣòro kankan láti fi èrí jiyàn fún ìdánimọ̀ èké tuntun rẹ̀ nípa Ọba Àríwá lòdì sí James White, ọkọ wòlíì obìnrin náà. Àwọn akọ̀wé-ìtàn Adventist, àti Sister White, ti sọ̀rọ̀ nípa àríyànjiyàn olókìkí wọn. Ellen White bá ọkọ rẹ̀ àti Smith wí fún fífi ìyàtọ̀ èrò wọn nípa ẹni tí ọba àríwá nínú Danieli mọ́kànlá dúró fún, jáde sí gbangba. Nínú ìtẹ̀jáde Adventist àkọ́kọ́ lẹ́yìn Ìrẹ̀wẹ̀sì Nlá ti ọdún 1844, James White kọ̀wé pé:

> “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.

> “Pé Jésù dìde, ó ti ilẹ̀kùn pa, ó sì tọ̀ Ọ̀gbàgbà Ọjọ́ lọ, láti gba ìjọba rẹ̀, ní oṣù keje, 1844, èmi gbà á gbọ́ pátápátá. Wo Luku 13:25; Matteu 25:10; Danieli 7:13,14. Ṣùgbọ́n dìde Míkáẹ́lì, Danieli 12:1, dà bí ohun ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ mìíràn, fún ète mìíràn. Dídìde rẹ̀ ní 1844, jẹ́ láti ti ilẹ̀kùn pa, kí ó sì tọ̀ Baba rẹ̀ lọ, láti gba ìjọba rẹ̀, àti agbára láti jọba; ṣùgbọ́n dídúró Míkáẹ́lì, ni láti fi agbára ọba rẹ̀ hàn, èyí tí ó ti ní tẹ́lẹ̀, nínú ìparun àwọn ènìyàn búburú, àti nínú ìgbàlà àwọn ènìyàn rẹ̀. Míkáẹ́lì yóò dúró ní àkókò tí agbára ìkẹyìn nínú orí 11 yóò dé òpin rẹ̀, tí kò sì ní sí ẹni tí yóò ràn án lọ́wọ́. Agbára yìí ni ìkẹyìn tí ń tẹ ìjọ òtítọ́ Ọlọ́run mọ́lẹ̀: àti bí a ti ṣì ń tẹ ìjọ òtítọ́ mọ́lẹ̀, tí a sì ń lé e jáde láàárín gbogbo àgbáyé Kristẹni, ó tẹ̀lé e pé agbára inúnibíni ìkẹyìn náà kò tíì ‘dé òpin rẹ̀;’ Míkáẹ́lì kò sì tíì dúró. Agbára ìkẹyìn yìí tí ń tẹ àwọn ẹni mímọ́ mọ́lẹ̀ ni a mú wá sí ìran ní Ifihan 13:11-18. Nọ́ńbà rẹ̀ ni 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.

Nígbà tí Smith mú ohun tí ó pè ní “ìmólè tuntun” rẹ̀ wá lórí kókó-ọrọ̀ “agbára ìkẹyìn nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kànlá,” James White rí ìlò tí Smith ṣe, kì í ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìmólè tuntun, bí kò ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìkọlù sí àwọn ìpìlẹ̀. Àríyànjiyàn nípa Róòmù gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọba àríwá nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kànlá, èyí tí ó ṣẹlẹ̀ láàárín Uriah Smith àti James White, ní àwọn àbùdá pàtó, tí àwa gẹ́gẹ́ bí akẹ́kọ̀ọ́ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ gbọ́dọ̀ kó jọ pẹ̀lú àwọn àríyànjiyàn mìíràn nínú ìtàn Adventist nípa àmì Róòmù.

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.

Ọ̀kan lára àwọn ànímọ́ wọ̀nyẹn ni fífi ìtumọ̀ aládáni wọlé. Ànímọ́ mìíràn sì ni pé lílo ìtumọ̀ aládáni náà ń béèrè yíyí ìtòlẹ́sẹẹsẹ gírámà tó rọrùn padà, nítorí Smith kì í ṣe pé ó kọbi ara sí i pé gbogbo ànímọ́ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlọ́gbọ̀n dojú kọ Róòmù nìkan, ṣùgbọ́n ó tún kọbi ara sí i pé ìṣètò gírámà náà béèrè pé ọba tí a mẹ́nuba nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹrìndínlọ́gbọ̀n gbọ́dọ̀ jẹ́ ọba kan náà gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ṣàfihàn rẹ̀ nínú apá ìṣáájú.

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.”

Òmíràn ni pé ìtumọ̀ àdáni náà jẹ́ ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ àwọn òtítọ́ ìpilẹ̀. Òmíràn ni pé ó dúró fún ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ àṣẹ Ẹ̀mí Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀. Àmì míràn ni pé èrò àṣìṣe àkọ́kọ́ nípa Róòmù yóò darí sí àwòṣe àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ kan tí kò jẹ́ kí ènìyàn pa aṣọ rẹ̀ mọ́ bí wọ́n ṣe ń sún mọ́ ìparí àkókò àánú fún ènìyàn. Òmíràn ni ìfẹ́-inú láti gbé ìtumọ̀ àdáni rẹ̀ lárugẹ ní gbangba. Òmíràn ni pé ìtumọ̀ àdáni náà ni a máa ń dá mọ̀ ní gbogbo ìgbà gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìmọ́lẹ̀ tuntun. Gbogbo àwọn àbùdá wọ̀nyí ni a ṣojú fún nínú ìjíròrò lọ́wọ́lọ́wọ́ nípa “àwọn ọlọ́ṣà àwọn ènìyàn rẹ.”

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.

Nígbà tí a bá so àríyànjiyàn ìkẹyìn ti Róòmù, èyí tí a ti ṣàpèjúwe rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ àríyànjiyàn àkọ́kọ́ ti Róòmù tí ń dá “àwọn ọlọ́ṣà ènìyàn rẹ” mọ̀, pọ̀ mọ́ ìlà àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti àríyànjiyàn Uriah Smith àti James White, a ó rí i pé ẹ̀ka kan yóò máa kọ́ àwòrán àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ wọn lé orí ìtumọ̀ ti ara ẹni, èyí tí ń kọ òtítọ́ ìpìlẹ̀ sílẹ̀.

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.

Ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ àwọn òtítọ́ ìpìlẹ̀ náà ní àìyẹsẹ̀ ń ṣàfihàn ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ àṣẹ Ẹ̀mí Àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ pẹ̀lú, èyí tí ó fi agbára múra gbèjà àwọn òtítọ́ ìpìlẹ̀ wọ̀nyẹn. Ẹgbẹ́ náà pẹ̀lú yóò tún múra tán láti gbé èrò wọn kalẹ̀ ní gbangba, láìka sí àníyàn kankan tí a lè gbé dìde nípa ipa tí ẹ̀kọ́ náà lè ní lórí àwọn ènìyàn Ọlọ́run káàkiri ayé.

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.

Lẹ́sẹ̀kẹsẹ̀ lẹ́yìn ọdún 1844, nínú ìran àkọ́kọ́ ti Ìjọ Adventist, ìjàmbá-ọ̀rò míràn nípa Róòmù ni a gbé kalẹ̀. Ìjàmbá-ọ̀rò náà sì ń bá a lọ láti máa ru sókè, títí di àkókò tí a fi gba èrò èké náà nínú ìran kẹta ti Ìjọ Adventist. A ó ka ìjàmbá-ọ̀rò nípa “ìgbà gbogbo” gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹ̀kẹrin nínú àwọn ìlà mẹ́fà tí a ń wò nísinsìnyí nínú àwòrán ìlà lórí ìlà.

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.”

Ṣùgbọ́n kí a tó gbé ìlà kẹrin nínú àwọn àríyànjiyàn Róòmù kalẹ̀, ó yẹ kí a rántí pé nínú àpilẹ̀kọ tó ṣáájú, nígbà tí a ń ṣàlàyé ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá ti Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá, a sọ pé, “Ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá náà pẹ̀lú ń so ‘àkókò méje’ ti Lefitíkù mẹ́rìndínlọ́gbọ̀n pọ̀ mọ́ ìtàn ìkọ̀kọ̀ náà ní tààrà; ṣùgbọ́n ìlà òtítọ́ yẹn wà níta ohun tí àwa ń gbé kalẹ̀ níbí.”

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 ni ó ṣáájú nínú ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ “àkókò méje” náà ní ọdún 1863. Ó ti kọ ìtẹ̀síwájú ìmọ̀ lórí kókó-ọrọ̀ náà tí a gbé kalẹ̀ nínú àwọn àpilẹ̀kọ lórí ọ̀ràn náà, tí Hiram Edson kọ, tí a sì tẹ̀ jáde nínú Review ní ọdún 1856. Àwọn ìtumọ̀ tí ó wà nínú bí a ṣe so Smith pọ̀ mọ́ ìṣísẹ̀ kan tí ó gbé “àkókò méje” náà kalẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n tí ó tún wá kọ ìtẹ̀síwájú ìmọ̀ lórí ọ̀ràn náà gan-an lẹ́yìn náà, náà pẹ̀lú wà níta kúrò nínú kókó àwọn àbùdá ìfihàn Smith ti ohun tí ó pè ní ìmọ̀lẹ̀ tuntun lórí ọ̀ràn ọba àríwá; ṣùgbọ́n nígbà tí a bá parí àkójọ àgbéyẹ̀wò wa nípa ìlà àwọn àríyànjiyàn Adventist nípa Romu, a ó padà wá sí ìtẹ̀sí ìtumọ̀ ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá orí kọkànlá ìwé Danieli, àti sí ohun tí ìkọ̀sílẹ̀ Smith sí ìránṣẹ́ Laodicea ń ṣojú fún, ìránṣẹ́ náà tí ó dé ní ọdún 1856 pẹ̀lú ìtẹ̀síwájú ìmọ̀ lórí “àkókò méje” náà.

> “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.

> “Igbàgbọ́ wa ní ti àwọn ìhìn iṣẹ́ áńgẹ́lì àkọ́kọ́, kejì, àti kẹta jẹ́ òtítọ́. Àwọn àmì-ìtọ́ka ńlá tí a ti kọjá kọjá jẹ́ aláìlègbé. Bó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé àwọn ẹgbẹ́ ọmọ-ogun ọ̀run àpáàdì lè gbìyànjú láti fà wọ́n kúrò lórí ìpìlẹ̀ wọn, tí wọ́n sì máa yọ̀ nínú èrò pé àwọn ti ṣàṣeyọrí, síbẹ̀ wọn kò ṣàṣeyọrí. Àwọn ọ̀pá wọ̀nyí ti òtítọ́ dúró ṣinṣin gẹ́gẹ́ bí àwọn òkè ayérayé, tí a kò lè mì nípasẹ̀ gbogbo ìsapá àwọn ènìyàn papọ̀ pẹ̀lú ti Sátánì àti ẹgbẹ́ ọmọ-ogun rẹ̀. A lè kọ́ púpọ̀, a sì yẹ kí a máa wá inú Ìwé Mímọ́ nígbà gbogbo láti rí i bóyá àwọn nǹkan wọ̀nyí rí bẹ́ẹ̀.” Evangelism, 223.

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

> “Àwọn àmì-ìtọ́ka ńlá ti òtítọ́, tí ń fi ipò wa hàn nínú ìtàn àsọtẹ́lẹ̀, gbọdọ̀ jẹ́ ohun tí a ó fara balẹ̀ ṣọ́ gidigidi, kí a má bà a jẹ́, kí a sì má fi àwọn ẹ̀kọ́ àròjinlẹ̀ rọ́pò wọn tí yóò mú ìdàrúdàpọ̀ wá dípò ìmọ̀lẹ̀ tòótọ́.” 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

> “Ní àsìkò yìí, a ó ṣe ọ̀pọ̀ ìsapá láti mú kí ìgbàgbọ́ wa nínú ọ̀ràn ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀wẹ̀sì; ṣùgbọ́n a kò gbọ́dọ̀ yíyemeji. Kì í ṣe pé a ó yí kókọ́ kan kúrò nínú àwọn ìpìlẹ̀ ìgbàgbọ́ wa. Òtítọ́ ṣì jẹ́ òtítọ́. Àwọn tí ń di aláìdánilójú yóò ṣí lọ sínú àwọn ẹ̀kọ́ àṣìṣe, nígbẹ̀yìn wọn yóò sì rí ara wọn gẹ́gẹ́ bí aláìgbàgbọ́ ní ti ẹ̀rí ìgbàanì tí a ti ní nípa ohun tí í ṣe òtítọ́. A gbọ́dọ̀ pa àwọn àmì ọ̀nà àtijọ́ mọ́, kí a má bàa sọ ìtọ́nisọ́nà wa nù.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

Back to Articles