It was none other than Jesus Christ Himself who directed attention to the study of the book of Daniel. He said:

When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,(whoso readeth, let him understand:) then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains. (Matt. 24:15-16)

Not only does Jesus direct us to its study, but He also emphasizes - "Whoso readeth, let him understand." The importance that Heaven attaches to the words of Jesus while on earth is but vaguely perceived. Moses, calling attention to the request of Israel following the proclamation of the Law from Mount Sinai, not only indicated that God acquiesced to their request but in that acquiescence made a promise coupling it with a severe warning. God stated:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words into His mouth; and He shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deut. 18:18-19)

Jesus, on the Mount of Olives, had been asked a specific question, and to that question, He gave a specific answer, an answer to be found only in the book of Daniel. The question was compound, but because of their limited perception at that point in their experience, the disciples thought of it as a single question covering all the bases. Let us observe the setting which led to the question. Jesus had just denounced the religious leadership of Israel in scathing accusations, concluding pointedly - "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" He then cited for them their "track record" and the judgment to follow:

Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify: and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation....Behold your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: (Matt. 23:34 - 24:1)

The stunned disciples followed Jesus out, but in their exit called His attention to "the buildings of the temple." Jesus only added to their perplexity by responding - "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, "There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be cast down." (24:2) This response shocked them into silence. To them the temple was the center of their religion. They had not as yet understood the distinction between "temple" and "truth." If the temple were to be destroyed, that had to be the end of the world. So they asked Jesus after reaching the Mount of Olives, "When shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and the end of the world?" (24:3) Observe the compound nature of the question: 1) "When shall these things be? - the destruction of the temple, and 2) "The sign (singular) of Thy coming, and the end of the world." The book of Daniel gives the answer to both!

The sign that marked the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was the "abomination of desolation" standing in what the Jews considered "the holy area." While both Mark and Matthew use the language of the

Page 2

book of Daniel, Luke interprets its meaning as understood by the Christian church - "And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed by armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." (Luke 21:20) The Apostolic Church had to understand the book of Daniel, at least this part, and the gospel of Luke reflects that understanding.

We need to understand also, for this same book gives us the key by which we may know that the hour for the close of all human probation has arrived. The final verse of Daniel 11 reads:

And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

There can be no question as to what is meant by "the glorious holy mountain." Daniel, in his recorded prayer of Chapter 9, prayed, "Let ... Thy fury be turned away from Thy City Jerusalem, Thy holy mountain." (v. 16) Immediately following 11:45 is Daniel 12:1 - "and at that time shall Michael stand up." Thus events in the history of Jerusalem did speak and will speak to the true follower of Jesus as he heeds the counsel given - "Whoso readeth, let him understand."

There are two "times" in Daniel 11:45: 1) "He shall plant" and 2) "He shall come to his end." The book of Revelation would indicate that the first of these two "times" is the signal that the close of probation has arrived. The "he" again would be "the abomination of desolation" standing in what the Jews would consider "the holy place." Those who have been unable to discern the warning signal in the close of probation for corporate bodies (Luke 21:24) will be ill prepared to discern the final sign in the rapidity of the closing events of human history.

Now, we turn our attention to the human penman of the book - Daniel. Daniel was known to his contemporaries as one who in life was on a footing with Noah and Job. Ezekiel wrote twice - "Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord." (Eze. 14:14, 20) Further, to set forth the wisdom of the "prince of Tyrus," Ezekiel again used Daniel for a comparison. He wrote - "Behold thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee." (28:3) The wisdom and flawless character of Daniel was known and recognized by his fellow prophet in Babylon.

We need to note why. In the very first chapter of the book as Daniel and his three close friends faced their first major decision, the record states - "Daniel purposed in his heart ... " (1:8) Although the issue was diet, and the diet involved a request for a vegetarian menu, this cannot be made to sustain the concept that Daniel practiced vegetarianism throughout his life. When well advanced in years, he stated that a fast before the Lord involved the exclusion of pleasant bread and flesh food. (Daniel 10:2-3) While in the first experience the vegetarian diet was vindicated, and this fact dare not be dismissed lightly, a more basic factor was involved. Paul sets forth a principle involving diet which the true follower of Christ should apply in all his relationships and decisions. Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils. (1 Cor. 10:20-21)

With Daniel there were no gray areas. Black was black; and white was white. There was no compromise in the things of God, whether it was in that which was offered to pagan deities or bowing before a Persian monarch in worship. Daniel's life was marked by the strictest integrity from beginning to end.

Daniel's relationship to prophecy is also worthy of note, especially so as we seek to understand the prophecies, whether it be those given to Daniel, or those spoken by Jesus, or those given to Him to show unto His servants the things which must shortly come to pass. Daniel studied the works of his older fellow contemporary prophet in Judah, Jeremiah. From these writings, he understood that Jerusalem would lie desolate for seventy years. That time was about expired; Medo-Persia had succeeded Babylon, and Cyrus, named by Isaiah, was on the scene of history. But still the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy tarried. What did Daniel do? He prayed. (9:1-3). God answered. (9:20- 22) And in that answer, he was given enlightenment about the abomination of desolation so that when Christ directed the attention of the disciples to this prophetic symbolism, they were able to correctly interpret it to the Christian community. Compare carefully Daniel 9:26-27 and Luke 21:20.

How do we relate Jesus' admonition, "Whoso readeth, let him understand," to the fact that Daniel was told "to seal the book, even to the time of the end"? (12:4, 9) In the New Testament, the whole era from the cross to the

Page 3

second coming is perceived as the "time of the end," the "last days." Observe how Paul, John and Peter all look upon this period of time:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son....(Heb. 1:1-2)

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things ,...but with the precious blood of Christ,...who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. (1 Peter 1:18-20)

In the giving of the book of Revelation, the events portrayed in symbolism were "to shortly come to pass" (1:1), and it is specifically declared - "the time is at hand." (1:3)

There is a picture in Revelation 5 which helps us to understand better this concept of "times" and "seasons, which the Father hath put in His own power" (Acts 1:7). The Father is seated on the throne of power and authority, and in his right hand is a sealed book. (5:1) Only the Lamb "hath prevailed to open the book." (5:5) Because the dragon "prevailed not" (12:8) in his struggle against Michael, the kingdom of God was re-established, and from the throne could be mandated what must come to pass. (12:10; 1:1) Further, in the unfolding of the Revelation, the book of Daniel is presented by the Angel as an "open book" in connection with a specific historic experience. (10:2)

How much then of this "open book," relates to us? Only the prophecies? Or do the experiences within the book of Daniel have significance also? In the seminar section of this week together, we will address the prophecies, and in the evening studies we will seek to understand the messages which the recorded instances convey in regard to the critical issues we face at this time. The whole book is unsealed, and Jesus said - "Whoso readeth, let him understand." (See Explanatory Note at end of article)

There is a picture of Daniel and his three companions which we need to note as we begin a study of the book of Daniel. Observe carefully some of the data found in the first chapter:

Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon [came] unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand...And the king spake unto Ashpenaz master of the eunuchs that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes...whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans....Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. (1:1-6)

Over 100 years prior to this, a prophecy had been given. It read:

Behold the days come, that all that is in thine house. . .shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (II Kings 20:17-18)

Hezekiah had just entertained the embassy from Babylon who had come to inquire of his restoration to health and the phenomenon connected with it. Instead of telling the embassy of the glory of the God of Israel, Hezekiah showed them his material glory - all that was in his house. Isaiah was sent to ask a question - "What have they seen in thine house?" (II Kings 20:15) Because of this failure on the king's part the prophetic judgment was pronounced by Isaiah.

We can only imagine the mental agitations that went through the minds of Daniel and his companions, when beyond the pain, they perceived that they were fulfilling prophecy. Isaiah's question - "What have they seen in thine house?" - could only cause them to consider another question - "What would the Babylonians see in their lives?" They were determined to redeem Hezekiah's failure - they "purposed in their hearts." (See Dan. 1:8)

God has had a purpose for the Advent Movement. It reads-

Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. (Rev. 14:12)

To this hour, this has not been realized. The failure of the past generations of the Advent Movement is a matter of painful history. To us comes the challenge as to Daniel and his companions, to redeem the failure of the past. We have a rendezvous with destiny. A part of that rendezvous involves heeding prophecy. The Scriptures, which cannot be broken, read:

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 - which is Christ in you the hope of glory. (II Peter 1:19; Col. 1:27)

Page 4

This does not mean that the study of prophecy is the means by which the image of Christ is formed within. However, prophecy does reveal God's viewpoint of, and attitude toward, events and forces of human history. When, therefore, I understand correctly and heed the implications of fulfilled prophecy, I am coming into harmony with the revealed will of God which is a reflection of the image of Him who came not to do His own will but the will of Him who sent Him. A failure to heed the message of fulfilled prophecy can have eternal consequences.

A recent news item appearing in The Sabbath Sentinel (August, 1991) read as follows:

"Dr.Desmond Ford, the controversial Adventist scholar, recently spoke to hundreds of SDA's. Through the Association of Adventist Forums (AAF), a moderate-to-liberal group, he reached audiences on both coasts this year. On January 12, Dr. Ford addressed "The New Age Versus the Gospel" before the nearly full Point Loma (Calif.) Adventist Church. February 9, he gave his view of "Some Strengths and Weaknesses in Contemporary Adventism" to the New York chapter of AAF. After Ford was interviewed on local Adventist radio, Friday, Feb 22, he discussed the Gulf War and prophecy at the Capital Memorial SDA Church in Washington, DC. The following day he taught the Adult Sabbath School at the Sligo SDA Church in Takoma Park, Maryland, and later spoke to 500 on the "Pilgrimage of a Committed Adventist." The popular author and lecture disagrees with some Adventist doctrines, such as the Investigative Judgement, Dr. Ford emphasizes salvation by faith, alone. " (p. 17)

This raises some questions. Has Folkenberg, the present keeper of the Adventist "door" as a "hireling" opened it to the "wolf"? Where does he stand in relationship to the AAF - the not so moderate, liberal wing of the Church? Every concerned Adventist should write to him, and find out. If you hear, let us know.

A QUESTION

"Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them. " " Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ's church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church." (Letter 108, 1886)

"At the time when the danger and depression of the (SDA) church are greatest, the little company who are standing in the light will be sighing and crying for the abominations that are done in the land. But more especially will their prayers arise in behalf of the church because its members are doing after the manner of the world. ...These sighing, crying ones have been holding forth the words of life; they had reproved, counseled, and entreated. Some who had been dishonoring God, repented and humbled their hearts before Him. But the glory of the Lord had departed from Israel; although many still continued the forms of religion, His power and presence were lacking. (5T:210)

Where are YOU? With the " many " or the "few "?

Page 5

This past week (August 14), two new books were received in the mail with a form letter addressed to the managers of the Adventist Book Centers telling them how much money they would make by stocking these books published by the Glad Tidings Publishers. These books are apparently the latest to come from the pens of Elders Robert J.Wieland and Donald K. Short.

Wieland's book is captioned, "Lightened With His Glory" and consists of "Questions and Answers" About The 1888 Message." Short's book entitled, "Made Like Unto His Brethren" is a forthright defense of the doctrine of the Incarnation as was previously held by the Church.

One hesitates to call attention to serious errors in these books since Wieland perceives, and so states, that for me to do so, is merely manifesting a vendetta against him because he would not join me. This is far from the truth. He is free to join whom he will, but it would be far more pleasant if concerned brethren could work together in harmony, speaking the truth together as it is in Jesus. We did talk at length in the city park at Carlsbad, California, prior to his launching of the program he now is in. I set before him my conviction that God had called both he and Short as "messengers" in 1950, even as He had called Jones and Waggoner in 1888. I pled with him to recognize that call in the light of current revelation of God's will in the light of fulfilled and fulfilling prophecy. I heard later through a mutual friend that I "tried to twist his arm."

It would seem that Wieland has forgotten his many attempts to have ministers and church leaders accept his and Short's Original manuscript - 1888 Re-Examined. He was so happy when some saw the light, in other words, "joined" him. I recall being invited by Wieland to join him at an appointment he had with the late Don Neufeld. The thrust of this visit was to ascertain Neufeld's evaluation of the manuscript, and if possible get his approval of it. The obtaining of such an approval became an obsession with him. In the end, he chose to accept the counsel of modern Sanballats and Tobiahs - the Cates and the Mervyn Maxwells - and mitigated and muted the thrust of the original message which God called both Short and him to give. In doing so, Wieland has chosen to ignore certain facts, statements from the Writings, which he knows are there, but which the average reader does not so know. The same pattern is followed in his new book. We shall cite one example from the new book.

In answer to the question, "Does the 1888 Message Study Committee accept donations which 'fragment the support of our regular denominational work '? " - Wieland replied:

"No, we do not wish to fragment the support of our regular denominational work. We clearly state that we do not accept tithe; and we urge all members to support the church regularly." (p.132)

However, in the same answer, Wieland cites the case of "the Madison school" to justify his "irregular" and "independent" ministry. But if the counsel given concerning "the Madison school" is so good, why does he not present all the counsel given? It reads:

The leaders in the work of the Madison school are laborers together with God. More must be done in their behalf by their brethren. The Lord's money is to sustain them in their labors. They have a right to share the means given to the cause. They should be given a proportionate share of the means that comes in for the furtherance of the cause. (Special Testimonies, Series B, #11, emphasis supplied.)

Now the "Lord's means" includes both tithes and offerings. Why the emphasis on not accepting, tithe? There is a reason, and a question that needs to be asked. Wieland knows that if he followed the whole counsel given in regard to "irregular" ministries, such as "the Madison school" was, he could not have access to the church's sanctuaries, and college campuses. So compromise is the order of the day. Now the question that Wieland needs to face - Is the 1888 Message he professes to be giving, of God, or not? If it is, and he has not muted it, then he should share in the "Lord's means," but if not, then he should reject "the Lord's means." But he should not hide behind the example of "the Madison school" to justify his "irregular" ministry, either.

Wieland in his questions and answers relates to the "27 Fundamental Beliefs." (p. 138) His framed question admits that the 27 Statements " are neutral on the nature of Christ and 'righteousness by faith in an end-time setting.' " He even goes so far as to indicate that these two concepts, along with "the nature of sin" have been singled out as so "highly controversial" that "silence on them is actually enjoined." (ibid.) Yet as he closes the discussion of this question, Wieland pens an unbelievable paragraph. It reads:

The brethren of the General Conference and the Review

Page 6

of a century ago rejected the message because they thought it was not included in what they assumed were their fundamental beliefs. Ellen G. White rebuked them, declaring that the 1888 message "is the third angel's message in verity" (R&H, April 1, 1890). If that message is what she said it was, "the beginning" of the loud cry of Revelation 18, it follows logically that it is still today the "27 Fundamental Beliefs" in verity. (pp. 139-140, emphasis his)

Is there no difference between the "27 Fundamental Statements" as voted at Dallas in 1980, and the Statements of Beliefs set forth in1890? Were the 1890 Statements neutral on the Incarnation? NO! Were the 1890 Statements unclear on what sin is? NO! Did the 1890 Statements address God's objective for an end-time people? YES!

If the 1888 Message as now being presented by Wieland is the "27 Statements in verity," and those statements are neutral on the nature Christ assumed in taking humanity, then Wieland and Short had better get their act together, because Short's book is all about the deviation in Adventism concerning the nature Christ took when He became a man.

Short' s book takes special note of the "highly controversial" issues in Adventism today. He cites the document prepared by the Biblical Research Institute, "An Appeal for Church Unity," from which he quotes:

"While apostasy always takes its toll, one of the heavy pressures on the remnant church today is the divisive effects of some segments of the church, who, however, profess dedication to Christ and the finishing of the mission of the church. These members hold certain positions on the human nature of Christ, the nature of sin, and the doctrine of righteousness by faith in an end-time setting." (p. 35, emphasis theirs)

Short then zeros in on a statement in the next paragraph - "It is beyond belief that this appeal can state, 'The world church has never viewed these subjects as essential to salvation nor to the mission of the remnant church."' (p. 36) And what remedy does he suggest? "We cannot change the record of our history. It will stand forever. But we can repent and confess our error." (ibid.) He continued to belabor this point, and rightly so. Note the following quotes from the book:

How can the Adventist conscience lay aside the "chief cornerstone" and hope to build a glorious church, holy and without blemish? How can church members be silent when the Adventist Review, premier press medium of the church, presents one of the most confusing series of articles ever to appear in a denominational publication? (p. 45)

The question for the church to face today is: When will Laodicea understand? Can she perceive how she has been shorn and stands naked? Can we with Samson learn from our own history? By consorting with the Philistines we too have had the "seven locks" of truth shaved off our heads and so lost our mission. Compromise after compromise has been made. Now we are being told we can shake ourselves and find strength apart from the truth that has sustained and made us a people throughout our history. We are told that such things as understanding the nature of Christ and "righteousness by faith in an end-time setting" are not essential to salvation nor for the mission of the church. We are falsely assured that the world church has never viewed these subjects as central, and they should be laid aside, for these are matters that Satan would use to take advantage of God's people. (pp. 94-95)

Short then contends that such declarations can only be the position "of those who have had their eyes plucked out," in other words totally blind. But is not Short also blind? He with Wieland insists that the Church is going to turn around and go through. Has he not read that when the church takes the position which he has so clearly defined, that God has something to say at this point in time? It reads:

In the balances of the sanctuary the Seventh-day Adventist church is to be weighed. She will be judged by the privileges and advantages she has had. If her spiritual experience does not correspond to the advantages that Christ, at infinite cost, has bestowed on her. if the blessings conferred have not qualified her to do the work entrusted to her. on her will be pronounced the sentence, "Found wanting." (8T:247) (To be concluded)

The August 19 issue of Christianity Today used a colorful cartoon on its cover. It depicted Don Wildmon of Tupelo, Mississippi, as a frontier Law Enforcement Officer in a shoot-out with the "Bad Boys" of TV. Usually, I merely scan the issues noting briefly each article. However, I took time to read the report on Wildmon in detail. Here was a man who has singlehandedly taken on the TV industry with some of their sponsors in an attempt to clean up the content of the programs being shown.

When told that his was a losing battle, he didn't argue with the evaluators, but responded, "It's difficult to explain without sounding trite. The Lord didn't call me to be successful. He only called me to be faithful."

If the leadership of the Church over the past half century had maintained such a perception of theirs and the Church's mission, there would have been no necessity today for any "independent ministry." Further, the confusion and disarray among the multiple "voices" sounding on the periphery of Adventism as they seek to take on the "bad boys" of the hierarchy would be different were Wildmon's philosophy to become dominate. Many "voices" would cease because they would recognize that they were not called, but ventured forth on an "ego" trip. Too many want success measured by human standards. Behind a facade of loyalty to "historic Adventism," they measure their success by how many "deep pockets" they can get their hands into. Others measure success based on their acceptance by the "brethren" even though they charge that the same "brethren" are rejecting a heaven-sent message.

The Author of faith knelt in prayer and told the Father, "I have glorified Thee on the earth: I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do." (John 17:4) To all outward appearance, His work had been a failure. And He was the Lord of glory in human form!

We can only ask a speculative question. What would the decades since 1950 been like had Wieland and Short been faithful to the call the Lord gave them in that year? Would we have been in the kingdom by now? Even if travail and personal sacrifice had been their lot, would the earth have been lightened with God's glory and the end come? The fact is that no one else was given the message they were given. The question is, what did God intend them to do with it?

Page 7

We do know what hierarchical policy was in vogue at that time and which still dominates. This editor was serving as pastor of the First Church in Toronto. He was advised by the then Conference treasurer that if any problem arose "to toss it into the air, and leave it with the brethren." Such a policy serves no good for anybody, and neither did it serve God s purpose to which He called those two young missionaries from Africa. Success cannot be measured in continuance in what man has assigned one to do in the work of God, but only faithfulness to the unique burden the Lord chooses one to carry for Him, regardless of the personal cost or sacrifice which might ensue. This is the whole teaching of Scripture, and is evidenced in the lives of all who accepted God's call to service, and made it primary over any loyalty demanded by man.

Did not Paul write - "It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful." (1 Cor. 4:2) How successful was he as judged by his generation? The judgment of history upon him - so vastly different - has been because he was faithful.

WHG