|
XXIII - 12(90)
"Watchman,
what of the night?"
"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)
IRAQI FALLOUT
Prophetic Speculation Rife
Daniel 11 Receives Major Emphasis
Since the invasion of Kuwait by the forces of Saddam Hussein, the prophetic speculators have been having a heyday. Judging from the number of "junk bond" interpretations being offered, these new versions of prophetic speculation must be proving lucrative. One such speculator who anticipated these current entries into the "bond market" must be rejoicing that his prophetic insights exceeded those of Gabriel. A while back he offered the "junk bond" interpretation that the "he-goat" of Daniel 8 which "came from the west" and "touched not the ground" was the American air force flying into the Middle East. Most of the recent offerings from the speculator's portfolio focus on the final verses of Daniel 11 defining "the king of the north" and "the king of the south." This emphasis is due to the fact of what has happened in Eastern Europe which permitted such a show of "unity" among the nations of the world over the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
It would be impossible to discuss these various "junk bond" interpretations individually, so from the various ones which have come to our desk, we have chosen one to discuss, and this choice for several reasons. It gives the appearance of scholarship, and uses many quotations from authoritative sources to clothe its error, thus making more deceptive
in its "junk bond" interpretation. While the Iraqi crisis is not mentioned, the events which preceded the display of world unity are emphasized based on Daniel 11. These "prophetic insights" were written in a series captioned "Tidings of a Whirlwind," by J. M. Rafferty, side-kick of Ty Gibson, who is one of the "many voices" which the servant of the Lord warned would come to confuse minds at this point in time. (R&H, Dec. 13, 1892) We have-parts I & II of the series which contains sufficient mis-information for the purpose of this article.
The basic premise upon which this whole "junk bond" interpretation of Rafferty rests is the identifications of the "king of the south" and the "king of the north." To give the impression of extensive linguistic learning, he writes under the sub-heading of "The King of the South" - "The word 'south' is
Page 2
derived from a Hebrew word which translates 'Egypt' and is biblically referred to as the country of 'Egypt" (Isaiah 30:1-7)." 1 ' It so, happens
that in this reference from Isaiah both the words for "south" and "Egypt" are used., These are two different words and the word for "south" cannot be translated, "Egypt" as Rafferty stated. The word for "Egypt" is Mitzrahyim, while the word for "south" is negev, or the Negeb, which is the name given to the section of Judah lying south of Beersheba. (See Rand McNally Bible Atlas, Map IX, pp. 240-241) This same word differentiation is found in Daniel 11 where Egypt is named in verse 43, and the "king of the south" in verse 40. Now prophetically, the "king of the south" did represent Egypt only because one of Alexander's generals, Ptolemy, took Egypt as his section in the division of the Empire following the death of Alexander the Great.
When Rafferty comes to the "king of the north," this same display of linguistic knowledge(?) appears again. He writes - "The king of the north is represented as Babylon in Jeremiah 25:9. This is in harmony with the Hebrew for 'north' in Daniel 11:40 which is 'Babylonia."' In the first place, Jeremiah 25:9 does not state that Babylon is the "king of the north." It merely indicates that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, was at that time ruling over "the families of the north." The word for "north" is tzahphon, and is the word both in Jeremiah 25:9 and Daniel 11:40, while the word for "Babylon" is bahvel, or Babel; again two different words. Biblically, the "king of the north" does not come into a factor of prophecy until Babylon has long passed from the scene of history as a power. In his zeal without knowledge, Rafferty"s final conclusion is the "king of the south" is really among "the families of the north" - Soviet Russia to be specific - while the "king of the north" is represented by the Papacy, a "king of the west" in relationship to the prophecy setting. This altering of the basic prophecy of Daniel 8 which prepares the framework for the designations in Daniel 11 of the "king of the north" and the "king of the south" fits well into the headlines of recent months, and thus gives a degree of credibility for what he wrote. At least, it capitalizes on the sensational, even if it is short on truth and long on linguistic error.
On the back page of Part II is found a summary headlined - "Daniel Eleven and the King of the North." In this block occurs an unusual "junk bond" offering of insight into prophetic interpretation. It reads - "It is the Papacy that 'shall enter also into the glorious land [America]' and cause 'many' to be 'overthrown,' ...". This is Rafferty interpretation of Daniel 11:41. The only solution to all of this prophetic speculation is to study carefully the prophecy of Daniel itself where Gabriel is setting forth "that which is noted in the scripture of truth." (10:21)
In Daniel 8, an expressed command is given - "Gabriel make this [Daniel] to understand the vision." From this point on to the close of the book, Gabriel is in close communication with Daniel. Daniel had seen in vision a ram, and an he-goat with a notable horn which was broken off. In its place there arose four horns less prestigious, or in Gabriel's words - "not in his power" - that is, not in the power of the "great horn." (8:22) These symbols, Gabriel explains in unequivocal language. The "ram" is declared to be "the kings of Media and Persia." (8:20) The he-goat represented not "the American air force" but "the king of Grecia" and the great horn "is the first king" or Alexander the Great. (8:21) In his place would stand up four kingdoms which were finally reduced to two, and become in Daniel 11, "the king of the north" and "the king of the south."
The other power in Daniel 8 is the "little horn" which waxed "exceeding great." (8:9) This "little horn" is defined as coming forth "out of one of them" clearly separating the power it symbolizes from being either the "king of the south" or the "king of the north" at any time in history.
To increase our understanding of this factor in the prophecy, we need to consider the phrase, "and out of one of them," from a linguistic viewpoint. in Hebrew, as well as other languages, nouns have gender, either masculine, feminine, or neuter. Pronouns referring to these nouns must also have the same gender as the noun. In Daniel 8:8, the four horns are pictured as extending "toward the four winds of heaven." Then in verse 9, comes the phrase - "and out of one of them" - "horns" or "winds"? In the Hebrew, "horns" is feminine, while "winds" is either feminine or masculine. The pronoun, "them," is masculine which would, refer to "winds" rather than to "horns." However, the SDA Bible Commentary points out that "this phrase presents confusion of gender." (Vol. 4, p. 840) While "them" is masculine, the word for "one" is in its feminine form, thus mixing the genders in the same phrase. So whether out of one of the horns, which can be substantiated by historical documentation, or from one of the four winds which fits the directions emphasized through the vision, the final designation is that this "little horn" is Rome in both its pagan and papal phases as distinct from the four horns, and not a part of them.
Page 3
When the pagan phase of Rome is introduced in the prophecy of Daniel 11, it is not designated as either the "king of the south" nor the "king of the north." Daniel 11:19-21 is recognized as describing emperors of Rome, Julius Caesar through Tiberius, none of which are symbolized as a king of either the south or the north. Thus when the papal phase enters the continuum of the prophecy of Daniel 11, it cannot be considered as either of the two kings. With this factor clearly in mind, the "he" which did "stand in the glorious land" (Palestine and not America" fulfilling Daniel 11:16, Will be the same "he" which shall "enter into the glorious land" as noted in Daniel 11:41, and will be the "he" which "shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain" of Daniel 11:45 - only that the latter "he" will be the second or papal phase of the "little horn" of Daniel 8, or "the king" of Daniel 11:36.
We have given all too little thought or attention to papal thinking in regard to the Middle East and Jerusalem. Even though progress has been made in recent years improving relations between the Roman Catholic church and the Jews, the Vatican has not to this day offered to extend diplomatic recognition to Israel. This reluctance to do so disturbs and baffles Jewish leaders. "Documents issued by the Catholic church acknowledge the religious significance of Israel, but professor and Nobel laureate Elie Weisel stresses that it is of 'absolute importance to the Jewish people' that Israel be acknowledged politically as well." (National & International Religion Report, Oct. 22, 1990, p. 2) While no explanation has been given by the Vatican as to why they have not recognized the State of Israel, some observers suggest that the Roman Catholic church cannot politically afford to offend its Arab membership in the Middle East. It should also be noted in passing that President Bush's White House chief of staff, Sununu, has religious roots stemming from one of the Uniate or Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic church.
The objectives of Papal Rome call for the internationalization of Jerusalem. On June 30, 1980, the Holy See lodged with the Security Council of the United Nations, a letter published the same date In the L'Osservatore Romano which set forth "the position of the Holy See concerning Jerusalem and all the holy places." This became Security Council document S/14032. In this document, a resolution on Palestine approved by the UN, Nov. 29, 1947, is noted along with a "special statute" for the city of Jerusalem drawn up by the Trusteeship Council, April 14, 1950 in harmony with the resolution of the UN. It calls for a "corpus separatum" for "Jerusalem and the surrounding area" administered by the Trusteeship Council of the UN. This is the Vatican position. It is totally at cross purposes with the perspective and the law of the State of Israel.
John Paul II clearly outlined the Papal view and significance of Jerusalem in an Apostolic Letter published in L'Osservatore Romano, April 30, 1984. He wrote:
Before it was the city of Jesus the Redeemer, Jerusalem was the historic site of the biblical revelation of God, the meeting place, as it were, of heaven and earth, in which more than in any other place the word of God was brought to men. ...
Page 4
Indeed, in so far as she [Jerusalem] is the homeland of the hearts of all the spiritual descendants of Abraham who hold her very dear, and the place where, according to faith, the created things of earth encounter the infinite transcendence of God, Jerusalem stands out as a symbol of the coming together, or union, and of universal peace or the human family. ...
I think of and long for the day on which we shall all be so "taught of God" (Jn 6:45) that we shall listen to his message of peace and reconciliation. I think of the day on which Jews, Christians and Muslims will greet each other in the city of Jerusalem with the same greeting of peace with which Christ greeted the disciples after the resurrection: "Peace be with you" (Jn 20:19). ...
This peace proclaimed by Jesus Christ in the name of the Father who is in heaven thus makes Jerusalem the living sign of the great ideal of unity, of brotherhood and of agreement among peoples according to the illuminating words of the Book of Isaiah: "Many peoples shall come and say: 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths"' (Is 2:3).
Consider, whom does the Bible indicate will be the prime earthly force in the final events of human history? Who was the one who drew back the iron curtain which had separated Europe for decades? What is this power's objectives for Jerusalem? Read the above paragraphs from the Pope's Apostolic Letter once again. Note that he is basing his objectives on the prophecy of Isaiah 2:3. Open your Bible and read all of the verses of the context verses 2-6. When are these verses to be fulfilled? - "It shall come to pass in the last days."
Observe, the Pope looks for a time when mankind shall once again be taught of God, and perceives Jerusalem as the place where the word of God was brought to man - "where the created things of earth encounter the infinite transcendence of God." Now read the last part of verse 3 what he envisions will happen again "for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." - Ask yourself, what kind of a law, and what word would go forth should he and the one whom he represents be the "movers"? And they will be!
God plans to have a city of peace as the center of the whole united earth for "the spiritual descendants of Abraham." It is called the New Jerusalem. Now note again what is the pope's objective for, "all the spiritual descendants of Abraham." Herein is the tale of "two cities" as amplified in the book of Revelation, but God calls the "Jerusalem" promoted by the "beast" who carries the woman, "Babylon the great." (See Rev. 17:2-5) Instead of so much prophetic speculation with "junk bond" interpretations, we need to know the prophetic word and watch as the scroll unrolls. And it is now unrolling!
1 -- A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by William Gesenius under the word, negev, meaning "south" cites its use in this one reference as poetically referring to "Egypt." The Modern Reader's Bible which seeks to separate prose from poetry translates verses 6 & 7 as poetry under the title - "An Oracle of the Beasts of the South." The use of the term, "king of the south" in Daniel 11 must be understood, not poetically, but prophetically which was the Ptolemic Kingdom, or Egypt. END
Page 5
Postscripts
THE GREAT CONTROVERSY CONTROVERSY
In WWN (XXIII-11), we printed two letters in an exchange of correspondence between Elder Kenneth Wood and myself due to an article appearing in the Arkansas Catholic which quoted Elder Wood as calling "unauthorized condensations of White's book "absolute trash. "' From the article in the Little Rock diocesan voice, the book which caused the editor, Ms. Deborah Hilliard, concern was the 662 page reprint of The Great Controversy by Charles Wheeling under the title, America in Prophecy. What threw me a curve was the fact that I could not perceive a 662 page book as a condensation of The Great Controversy . In this I was wrong. The reprint by Wheeling omits the historical section following the first chapter, and is thus a condensation.
The tract on the other hand which caused the furor in Indianapolis is really not a condensation, but rather a selected compilation from The Great Controversy plus some of Ferrell's material. This changed picture requires that we return to the drawing board and start over again. Actually, Wood in his letter was ambiguous, simply writing - "You certainly know that I would not speak of The Great Controversy as trash." But did he actually tell Ms. Hilliard that Wheeling's reprint was "absolute trash"? The context of Wood's statement as given in the Arkansas Catholic would so indicate. The fact that Wood did not even seek to correct any part of the article which was sent to him by Ms. Hilliard, leaves the ball squarely in his court.
A telephone call last evening from the publisher of the tract - "United States in Bible Prophecy" - indicated that he intends to pursue, the matter further by writing directly to Elder Wood. At this point, Wood has few options left over this matter. He is between the rock and hard place. If and when we receive further word, we shall share the same with our readers.
In the article in the last issue of WWN, we also quoted from a letter written by Prescott to W. C. White concerning the method "practiced in making some of [Ellen G. White's] books." Note that Prescott did not say "all" - only "some" and he laid the blame squarely on W. C. White. This issue has now reached a point of no return, and the Estate needs to come clean on the whole issue, sharing with the laity of the church all of the facts involved in the production of the Ellen G. White books, especially the Conflict of the Ages, series. A current issue of a paper published by a far right independent ministry in Australia calls in question - with documentation - certain aspects of The Desire of Ages, as does a series of articles in the Ministry. (October & December, 1990) The air of question and doubt needs to be completely cleared so the work which God assigned to Ellen G. White as a "messenger with a message" [her words] might still be the blessing God intended it to be, so that she, though dead, yet speaketh.
There is another reprint of The Great Controversy under the auspices of the ASI which was called to my attention when on a recent quick trip to the Northwest. Since the previous article in WWN, I have received a copy. It is a part of the Happiness series of books. But in this book, The Great Controversy Ended ..., there is no author's name! In the back is an 800 telephone number with the Voice of Prophecy address given under the name - New Life. The brother who sent me the book decided to call the number and ask the name of the author of the book. Here is his account of the response received: "The man who answered the phone said he didn't know who wrote it, but he would look it up for me. He came back to the phone and told me it was Ellen G. White, so now we know! He was very surprised when I told him that the author was not listed in the book." (Letter dated, October 6, 1990) There needs to come into this whole Great Controversy Controversy some order and intelligent direction so as to stop this unrestrained confusion. Just last night (November 5), I received a call from a person on the West Coast who told of his telephone conversation with Elder Wood about the report in the Arkansas Catholic. Wood called the editor a "novice" to cover his reported statement calling "unauthorized condensations of White's book 'absolute trash."' Wouldn't it be much simpler just to say "I didn't say it!" or "Yes I did say it, because I was so disturbed over Charles Wheeling's tactics." If the latter is the case, all who are not Charles Wheeling devotees would understand and could empathize.
The present agitation for distributing The Great Controversy, whether the 1884, 1888, or 1911 editions, arises from counsel given back in the early 1890's that the book needed to be widely circulated. As with most of Ellen G. White's counsel given, we are years behind in carrying it out, and then when it is carried out, we forget all about the "time" and "place" factor
Page 6
which she Indicated needed to be observed. (SM, bk. i, p. 57) A careful consideration of The Great Controversy clearly indicates that it was written with the view that the final events would take place in that century, and had the 1888 Message been accepted and proclaimed, the end would have come quickly. But the Message wasn't accepted and proclaimed, and thus there must be considered the results of the altering of the Divine purpose as in the case of ancient Israel. (Numbers 14:34 margin) Were we not told in 1901 - the beginning of a new century that "we may have to remain here in this world because of insubordination many more years, as did the children of Israel"? And we are here, not just forty but almost another hundred!
Israel was to have gone into the Promised Land at Kadesh-barnea, but they did not. They went in at Jericho under a different leader, and the conquest of the land of Canaan was accomplished by different means than God had originally planned. It is true that some decided to reject and resist God's direction to the wilderness for forty more years. (Numbers 14:40-45) We might ask a question that would be well to ponder now in the light of ancient Israel's experience: Does our zeal exceed our knowledge in the present wholesale distribution of The Great Controversy? Should we be called to give an account before a Court of Justice a few years down the road, and you were asked some questions about the book, could you defend your present zeal? It is one thing to distribute, it is another thing to know what you are distributing. While this brief follow-up article is a "postscript" to our previous presentation, the whole story is not yet in!
We refuse to recognize that we are now removed about 100 years from the time we should have gone into the Kingdom. We will not candidly observe the world in which we now live as compared to the world of the 19th century, and ask ourselves the question - "How will Revelation 13 be fulfilled now in the light of the changed scene, and our past failure?" Revelation 13:18 begins with the words, "Here is wisdom." Neither will we consider what Ellen G. White wrote after she wrote The Great Controversy : "The Bible, and the Bible only, gives a correct view of these things. Here are revealed the great final scenes in the history of our world, events that already are casting their shadows before, the sound of their approach causing the earth to tremble, and men's hearts to fail them for fear." (PK, p. 537)
THE JOHN MARIK CASE
In "Let's Talk It Over" (XXIII-9, p. 6) we quoted from a letter received from a layperson in the Northwest who was concerned about partial reporting of facts in any given case, and cited the John Marik case as a specific example. This person indicated that the defense counsel never entered a stay of sentence because he wanted "the warrant issued and the pastor arrested for the negative publicity it would create against" the church.
Dr. Glenn D. Toppenberg of Lenoir, North Carolina, sent a copy of this section of "Let's Talk It Over" to Max A. Corbett who defended John Marik. (It was unnecessary as Mr. Corbett is on the mailing list by his own request) On September 5, 1990, Corbett replied to Toppenberg's letter giving his side of the story. In the interest of full reporting, I will quote from a copy sent to me by Corbett, the pertinent facts involved from his viewpoint. Corbett wrote:
The person making this comment has undoubtedly, been influenced by the widely circulated report of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which is a fact, that a stay could have been requested in such instance, and thus John Marik's imprisonment avoided. But, the picture presented by the Seventh-day Adventist Church is a misleading one, for they should be fully aware of the fact that the Defendants in the Hawaii Case were not in a financial position to secure a stay. That fact has not in the remotest sense even been touched. Such a stay can only be obtained by posting a supersedeas bond, and if you are unable to post one, the remedy of a stay is illusory. Such a bond is required by Rule 62(d) for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 8(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
[Then Corbett notes the fee rates and continues]
But the fee rates are but part of the matter. The bonds holders must be personally indemnified, and secured by the letters of credit from a recognized bank, and the letters of credit backed by collateral ample to satisfy the bank. ... Considering that the attorney's fees were awarded to Plaintiff for $13,929.21, and fines assessed of $500/day, total assessments at time case was reversed were $272,929.21 . The fee alone for this amount would be $1,682.50. Defendants were not in a position to post such a fee, much less provide for the letter of credit and backing collateral.
This now raises some new questions due to the report circulated at the time about funds solicited on the West Coast (and perhaps elsewhere) for Marik's defense. If this report is correct, then where is the accounting of the funds collected? Surely more than $2,000 was contributed to this defense fund. Why could not these funds be used to post and provide for the supersedeas bond? This question, therefore, remains open, and due to the issue made of the Marik Case, all the facts should be placed on the table.
Page 7
LET'S TALK IT OVER
A serious malady is afflicting many groups and individuals numbered among concerned Seventh-day Adventists. The evidence of the existence of this illness could be called the Athenian Syndrome. The description of this syndrome is found in Acts 17:21, which reads:
For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing."
Paul came to Athens with the gospel which was the power of God unto salvation. He was so convinced that the message he bore was the only true gospel that he unhesitatingly wrote to the Galatians:
Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8)
But when Paul arrived at Athens and began to proclaim this word of God's grace, the Epicureans and the Stoics said, "What will this babbler say?" (Acts 17:18) They then made arrangements for him to speak on Mars Hill. But these men had been so taken up with hearing this concept and that concept, this theory and that theory, that when the word of eternal life came to them, they were unable to perceive the truth as it was in Jesus Christ. Their powers of discernment, which they thought were so keen that they could differentiate between truth and error, choosing the truth and discarding the error, had become so dulled by listening to various "babblers" that they were unable to recognize the truth for that time - Jesus Christ and the power of His resurrection. It was to them a strange thing and they "mocked" at it. (Acts 17:32)
We are to "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." (I Thess. 5:21) But we are also to "trust in the Lord with all [our] heart; and lean not on [our] own understanding." (Proverbs 3:5) The bottom line of this counsel is that we dare not trust a man, even our own selves, but lean wholly on the Lord. This means prayerful, and deep searching of the Word of God, the Bible.
If the Bible had not given to us so clear a warning of what we can expect in these final days of all human probation, then the seriousness of the Athenian Syndrome would not be so acute. The Scripture plainly tells us that we can expect "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" to entice us from the true faith. (I Tim. 4:1) These "seducing spirits" - deceitful workers - transform themselves into "the apostles of Christ." (II Cor. 11:13) Then we create for them our own "Mars Hill" to hear what they have to say believing that we, as Eve of old, possess sufficient wisdom so that we can discern between "the doctrines of devils" and "present truth." Then when "present truth" does come to us, we count it as a strange thing and continue to hear and promote the various "babblers."
God in His great mercy for the remnant living in an hour when every wind of doctrine is blowing at gale force through the corridors of Adventism gave us special counsel through His chosen "messenger." We were warned that at a certain point in time, when "there will be a removing of the landmarks, and an attempt to tear down the pillars of our faith," there will also be "many voices" confusing the minds of God's people professing to have "great light" and "truth." (R&H, Dec. 13, 1892) Dare we entertain these "many voices" providing them with a "Mars Hill" from which to disseminate their deceptive and confusing "babblings"? Would it not be better to search the Word of God, and when obvious error is found in the writings and teachings of these "voices" which contradict the plain basics of truth, know that this is one of those "many voices" predicted to come at this time. Need we then to continue to entertain that voice and promote its deceptive babbling?
Let us be specific. We know what is called the "new theology" as far as the atonement and the incarnation is concerned, but the element which is basic in the "new theology" is also rampant in the field of understanding the prophecies of God's word. When a "voice" teaches contrary to the very explanation that Gabriel gave to Daniel, why should we continue to hear that "babbler"? Or when "voices" come with a scheme of "time setting" based on an Old Testament agricultural program given to Israel for implementation in the land of their possession, and nothing of this concept is to be found in the book of Revelation, God's final testament on prophecy, should we listen to it?
Let us rather on our knees ask God to heal us from the maladies indicated by the Athenian Syndrome, and with sincerity of heart seek that truth He has for us in the message of the final atonement.
*****
"We have a sleepless adversary, and he is constantly at work upon human minds that have not had a personal experience in the teachings of the people of God for the past fifty years. Some will take the truth applicable to their time, and place it in the future. Events in the train of prophecy that had their fulfillment away in the past are made future, and thus by their theories the faith of some is undermined."
SM, bk ii, p. 102
|