|
XXXIV - 5(01) “Watchman, what of the night?” "The hour has come, the
hour is striking and striking at you,
THE SEARCH FOR IDENTITY -5- Page 2 Is A "Hair-Line" Interpretation of Scripture a Sound Basis for Truth? Page 5 Jerusalem Page 6 Editor's Preface
In
this issue of WWN, we discuss the question of inspiration raised by Dr. George
Knight, as he asks the question: "What is Fundamentalist in
Adventism?" With this question, he covers the period from 1919 to 1950. As
one carefully examines the Scriptures, he finds that the Bible cannot be
classified as either wholly "verbally" inspired, or is it all
"thought" inspiration. In this issue we note the gospels of Luke and
John, the Pauline Epistles, as well as the books of Daniel and the Revelation.
We find that "inspiration" varies from book to book. Even within the
books themselves, there can be evidences of both verbal and thought
inspiration. The
subject of inspiration fractured Protestantism during the decade of the 1920s.
Naturally, those who held to verbal inspiration embraced the concept of the
inerrancy of the Scriptures. The God who dictated the text could not err. This
led to divisions in major Protestant denominations, between conservative
(fundamentalist) and liberal (modernist) wings. Adventists of the period held
no brief for the beliefs of, nor the direction the
liberals were taking. So while there was a difference of beliefs to be found in
Adventism over inspiration, there was no major cleavage. The Adventists could
come through the 1920s and write into their 1931 Statement of Beliefs that the
Scriptures "were given by the inspiration of God" and "contain
an all-sufficient revelation of His will to men, and are the only unerring rule
of faith and practice." The
Adventist problem, which was a major part of the discussion at the 1919 Bible
Conference, concerned the inspiration and authority of the Writings of Ellen G.
White. The questions raised then are still with us.
Page
2 The Search for Identity -- Part 5 The
next period of time in the history of Adventism which Dr. Knight discusses, in A Search for Identity,
is from 1919 to 1950. For this period, he asks the question: "What is
Fundamentalist in Adventism?" From the data presented, the same issue
which caused a rift in Protestantism during the 1920s was also an issue in
Adventism during this period but without a visible breach developing. The issue
was over the inspiration of the Bible for the Protestant world; but for
Adventism, not only the inspiration of the Bible, but also the Writings of
Ellen G. White as well. Reduced
to its lowest common denominator, it is a question as to whether the Bible
writers were verbally inspired or whether they in thought perceived, and
expressed that thought in their own words. With the concept of verbal
inspiration there follows the concept of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, for
how can a text, God dictated, be in error in any word? Knight
quotes an action taken by the 1883 General Conference session which declared
that "the light given by God to His servants is by the enlightenment of
the mind, thus imparting the thoughts and not (except in rare cases) the very
words in which the ideas should be expressed" (p. 135). In Appendix C of Selected Messages, bk iii, p.454, is to be found a copy of a letter
written by W. C. White to L. E. Froom in 1928. In this letter White alleges
that the concept of verbal inspiration was introduced into Adventism by W. W.
Prescott when, as president of Battle Creek College, he "presented in a very
forceful way" the position of the Swiss clergyman, Francois Gaussen. White claimed in this letter that the acceptance
of this view by the students in the college, and others, including Elder
Haskell "has resulted in bringing into our work questions and perplexities
without end, and always increasing." Carried over in application to the Writings of Ellen G. White only
added to the problem in Adventism. How could there be a revision of anything dictated by
the Holy Spirit? Yet in 1911, The Great
Controversy was revised. This provoked a reaction from those holding to a
concept of verbal inspiration. It also elicited a comment by Prescott, who had
changed his views on inspiration, to say at the 1919 Bible conference,
"For instance, before Great
Controversy was revised, I was unorthodox on a certain point, but after it
was revised, I was perfectly orthodox." (Knight, p.
136). During the decades to follow various leaders moved back and forth
between the two views. Knight rightly noted that the 1931 Statement of Beliefs
did not reflect the verbal view, though its primary author was F. M. Wilcox,
for 33 years editor of the official organ of the Church and one holding to
verbal inspiration. It read: That the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were
given by inspiration of God, contain an all-sufficient revelation of His will
to men, and are the only unerring rule of faith and practice. To
draw a line and state categorically that the whole Bible was verbally inspired,
or to state that "the writers of the Bible were God's penmen not His
pen" (thought inspiration) is difficult in application. Various books of
the Bible do not fall into one category or the other. Consider: The
Gospel of Luke Luke
enters the picture of Apostolic history at Troas
during Paul's second missionary tour. See Acts 16:8-10; the pronoun
"we" is used, and continued to be used till Paul arrived in Rome. Acts 28:16. (See also II Tim. 4:11). He is listed among the
Gentile believers who accompanied Paul rather than those who were "of the
circumcision" in Col. 4:10-14. We can conclude that he was a Gentile
convert to the Christian faith, whether directly, or was first a Jewish
proselyte. While
the recognized author of both the Gospel that bears his name, as well as the
book of Acts, there is no evidence that Luke personally knew Jesus during His
earthly ministry. In the preface to his Gospel, he indicates that while he had
"perfect understanding" of the events which took place in the life of
Jesus, he states that he received this knowledge from those who "from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (1:1-3). Basically
then, Luke's Gospel is a gospel based on careful research gathered from
"eyewitnesses." We
might ask as to when this research was made since he was with Paul from the
middle of the Second Missionary journey to the end of Paul's life in Rome. The
most reasonable assumption is that during the two years Paul was retained by
Felix in Ceasarea (Acts 24:27), Luke gathered his
"notes" by making contacts with those who witnessed the things Jesus
did and said. However, there are within the gospel of
Page
3 Luke
records of events and recorded ecstatic utterances of individuals moved by the
Spirit which do not fit under the category of "thought inspiration." The
Gospel of Luke, more than any of the other Gospels, gives events connected with
beginnings of the incarnate life of Jesus. Further, he details the beginnings
of the life of John rather than beginning with the ministry of John, as do the
other Gospels. In this history, he gives verbatim the words of what is known as
the Magnificat of Mary (Luke 1:46-56) as well as the
exact words of Elizabeth, which provoke this response from Mary (1:39-45). He
also records the exact words of Zachariah upon the birth of John as he lifted
up his freed tongue in prophecy (1:67-79). To say that he interviewed Zacharias
and Elizabeth, who were elderly at the time of John's
birth, some fifty years later defies all reasonable assumptions. Further, one
would have the problem of recall on the part of John's parents even if alive at
the time. The only answer is verbal inspiration given to Luke for at least that
part of the Gospel. Further,
there are two very insightful parables found in Luke not found in the other
Synoptic gospels, which teach distinctly the gospel as given to Paul (Luke
17:7-10; 18:10-14a). This raises some conjectural possibilities: Was Paul taught these by Christ (Gal. 1:12)
and he told Luke? Or were these teachings of Jesus discovered through research
on Luke's part? If so, why are they not contained in the other Synoptics? Or were these given by direct inspiration to
Luke? Consider
again: The
Gospel of John We
have in previous issues of "Watchman,
What of the Night?" discussed the uniqueness of the fourth Gospel. It
is called a didactic Gospel rather than a synoptic. It emphasizes what Jesus
said rather than what He did. It contains long passages of verbatim quotes from
Jesus' conversations, discussions with His ecclesiastical adversaries, even His
prayer before going into the Garden of Gethsemane (John 17). Written late in
the first century, possibly the last book of the New
Testament to be written, it defies the assumption of thought recall on the part
of John. He could readily remember the incidents, but with none of the modern
methods of recording available to him, to write the exact words of Jesus
sustains the concept of verbal inspiration. This
is not saying that every word of the Gospel was Spirit dictated, for a careful
reading indicates otherwise. For example, the record of the
night conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus. He could well have
interviewed Nicodemus and obtained information on that conversation. But John
added comments on this experience (3:16-21) which comes well within the concept
of thought inspiration. One can also find in this gospel explanatory
interjections such as John 2:21-22; 4:2, 8; 7:39; 19:31. The doctrinal position
on which form of inspiration is the valid concept cannot be too narrowly drawn. Now
consider: Daniel & the Revelation These
two books give us an interesting insight into the doctrine of inspiration. To
both Daniel and John, via the ministry of the same angelic being (Dan. 8:16;10:21;
22:16), symbolic representations were given and explained. While we allow the
fact that each described these symbols with his own choice of words, the
symbols were themselves so distinctly presented that the range of human
language was limited. Furthermore,
in these prophecies were specific times indicated. For example "the time
and times, and the dividing of time" (Dan, 7:25), the 2300 "evenings
and mornings" (8:14) as spoken to Daniel, and to John the first period noted as "a thousand two hundred and
threescore days" (12:6) as well as "forty and two months"
(13:5). This revelation would have to be more than mere "thought
inspiration" and reveals rather "verbal" inspiration. Peter
makes a very interesting comparison in regard to prophecy. After citing his
experience on the Mount of Transfiguration where he
saw the "majesty" of Jesus, and heard the very voice of God, he
writes, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy" (II:1:19). Even as God directly spoke, and the transformed
majesty of Jesus was visibly seen, so also was the reality and authority of the
prophetic word. Consider
also: The Epistles of Paul In
these Epistles, we have the prime example of thought inspiration. Even though
Paul indicates that he was caught up to the third heaven, or paradise, and
Page
4 heard "unspeakable words" (II Cor. 12:2-4); and
even though he quoted words of Jesus not found in the gospels (Acts 20:35), he
was careful to differentiate between what he wrote in harmony with the divine
viewpoint, and his own judgment. In writing to the Corinthians, he could state,
"I speak this by permission, and not of commandment" (I:7:6); and then "to the rest speak I, not the
Lord" (v.12); also noting in some of his counsel, "I have no
commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment as one that has obtained mercy
of the Lord to be faithful" (v.25). Yet
in proclaiming the gospel, Paul would tell the Galatians that "the gospel
that was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,
neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (I:11-12). As one reads these letters to the churches, he is
conscious of the personality of the one writing as revealed in the book of
Acts; yet at the same time senses the Source of the divine truth being written.
The writings of Paul truly reveal him as the "pen man" of the Divine
thought. In Summary There
is no way that one can categorize the whole of the Bible as either being the
product of verbal inspiration, or that it was wholly by Divine influence
working on human thought. It is as was stated in the first Statement of Beliefs
drawn up in 1872: The Holy Scriptures, of the Old and
New Testaments, were given by the inspiration of God, [and] contain a full
revelation of his will to man, and are the only
infallible rule of faith and practice. A
Fall-Out As
a result of this division of thought in the matter of Inspiration, Knight could
write: A second issue in the area of
inspiration during the 1920s was the continuing temptation to do theology from
Ellen White and to make her equally authoritative with or even superior to the
Bible. [pp. 138-139] In
considering this issue, we need to ask ourselves what language really meant as
the founders of this movement expressed themselves in the first Statement of
Beliefs in 1872 quoted above. Did they really mean that the Bible contained a
"full revelation" or was it so incomplete that something had to be
added? Was the Bible, as they stated, "the only infallible rule of faith and
practice," or is there an additional "infallible rule" for faith
and practice? There
are men today who professing to be leaders in "historic" Adventism
are deceiving concerned laity on this very issue. They are not holding to that
which true historic Adventism held. Why? They just do not know the Scriptures,
and therefore, cannot bring their theology into harmony with truth as revealed
in those Scriptures. They are fearful, lest the light from the sacred Word
would lead them into understandings of truth they do not want to accept. This
has become a tragic day in the community of Adventism. The
source documentation used by Knight, in discussing this issue, is from the long
stored verbatim report of the 1919 Bible Conference. He quoted W. E. Howell,
who chaired at least the section of the Conference which discussed the
Writings, as stating, "the spirit of prophecy says the Bible is its own
interpreter" (p.140). To this A. G. Daniells, who was conducting a
"round-table talk" type of discussion, replied: Yes, but I have heard ministers say
that the Spirit of Prophecy is the interpreter of the Bible. I heard it
preached at the General Conference some years ago, when it was said that the
only way we could understand the Bible was through the writings of the Spirit
of Prophecy. [From a transcription of the 1919 Bible Conference] To
this J. N. Anderson commented: "And he also said 'Infallible
Interpreter.'" (According to an insertion by Knight, the "he"
was A. T. Jones) [COMMENT: Knight in his book
ascribes this last remark to a J. M. Anderson. It is possible that this
initial's error was in the transcription of the Bible Conference itself, and
Knight did not check close enough to detect the error. In the list of delegates
to the Conference, there is no J. M. Anderson, but only a J. N. Anderson who
was teaching at Union College, Biblical Languages and Missions. When I attended
Union College Elder Anderson was my Greek teacher. While the first year was
spent learning the language, the second year Greek class was utilized in
reading key portions of the New Testament. Elder Anderson had a unique way of
teaching. In the reading of the Greek text he would play the "devil's
advocate," unbeknownst to us students, in interpreting the text. I know on
many occasion, we would think he was a rank heretic as he cornered us in our
traditional interpretations. Elder Anderson retired at the close
of my junior year, and being the senior reader in the Department of Religion, I
was assigned to his former office and desk. It had a roll top desk with
numerous "pigeon" holes which he had not cleared out I looked through
the papers, and found some most interesting and informative documents. Some of
them stimulated my thinking for years to come.] Now
over eighty years away from this Bible Conference, we face the same questions
and issues. It appears that we are no closer to a solution today as they were
back in 1919. It seems that we cannot separate
Page
5 the Book which defines the "Gift" of prophecy,
from the gift itself. Neither do we appear able to distinguish between the authority invested in the gift in contradistinction to the
authority of the Sacred Scriptures. We declare in our Statements of Belief that
the Holy Scriptures are "the only infallible rule of faith and
practice" (1872) or "the only unerring rule of faith and
practice" (1931). Yet knowing full well that Ellen White herself stated
"In regard to infallibility, I never claimed it" (SM, bk. 1, p. 37), some still seek to
make what she wrote an infallible interpretation of the Bible. There
is merit in what Knight has set forth as one factor in a search for identity
and it is echoed in his question, Are
we "a people of the Book or a people of the Books?" (p. 138) Until this is resolved, there can toe no genuine forward
motion, and it needs to be addressed quickly for time is running out. #
Is a "Hair-Line"
Interpretation of Scripture a Sound Basis for TRUTH? In
the previous issue of WWN (pp.6, 7), we discussed what we believed to be a
false premise taken by Elder R. J. Wieland regarding Revelation 3:16. In
response to a letter which we wrote regarding his "Dial Daily Bread"
messages, he replied by sending a previously prepared question and answer sheet.
In the question, he asks, "What is the correct rendering of what Jesus
said?" referring to Rev. 3:16. In the answer was a most unique paragraph.
It reads: The bottom line is whether Christ
has finally, irrevocably rejected the "angel of the church of the Laodiceans" when understood as the leadership of the
Seventh-day Adventist Church. On this hair-line interpretation of Revelation
3:16 the issue seems to lie whether you and I should stay in the church and
pray and work for corporate and denominational repentance. The
question really resolves itself into the question as to whether the
interpretation given by Wieland is "hair-line" or linguistically
unsustainable. He cites the translations, NIV, Rotherham
version, NRS, The Twentieth Century New Testament, Young's and George Berry
Literal Translations as translating the KJV of Rev. 3:16 - "I will spew
thee out of my mouth" - as "I am about to vomit you out." The
question is not that Jesus is "about" to do it; but rather does He do
it? There
can be no linguistic challenge to the fact that the basic meaning of
μέλλω is "to be about to do
anything" (Thayer, p.396). However, in Rev. 3:16, the word,
μέλλω is connected with the infinitive,
ἐμέσαι (to vomit) which is in the aroist (Greek past) tense. This has a bearing on the
interpretation of
μέλλω. To say that while
Jesus may be "about to vomit" He doesn't, violates the interpretation
that the infinitive in the aorist tense demands. The respected Grammarian, A. T.
Robertson in his A Grammar of the Greek
New Testament (p.857) wrote - "The aorist infinitive is rare with
μέλλω," and cites its other New
Testament usage. (So that reader who does not know the Greek can be benefited
equally with one who does, we shall note the three usages of
μέλλω
outside of the book of Revelation both in the English and Greek, underscoring
the English translation of the Greek noted) Romans 8:18 - For I reckon that the
sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory
which shall be revealed in us.
πρὸς
τὴν
μέλλουσαν
δόξαν
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι-
literally, "with the about glory to be revealed" [George Berry];
"with the glory about to be revealed" [Young]. Galatians 3:23 - But before faith
came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards
be revealed.
εἰς
τὴν
μέλλουσαν
πίστιν
ἀποκαλυφθῆναι
- literally, "to the being about faith to be revealed" [George
Berry]; "to the faith about to be revealed" [Young]. I Peter 5:1 - The elders which are
among you I exhort, whom am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. 'ὁ
καὶ
τῆς
μελλούσης
ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι
δόξης
κοινωνός-
literally, "also of the about to be revealed glory [am] partaker." [George Berry];
"and of the glory about to be revealed a partaker" [Young]. All
we need to do is to ask ourselves some simple questions. Did the "about to
be faith" of which Paul spoke in Galatians materialize? Will the
"glory" that is "about to be," noted by both Paul and
Peter, really come to pass? Then the answer to the question
regarding Rev. 3:16 - "Will Christ spue out
Laodicea?" - is the same, for the rare linguistic structure used
elsewhere in the New Testament is the same as used by John in quoting Jesus.
The so-called "hair-line" issue comes down to whether the resurrected
Lord knew enough Greek to correctly state Himself, or
whether John didn't hear Jesus correctly and misstated what He said. We might
even approach this "hair-line" issue from another angle. Perhaps
Jesus talked to John on the Isle of Patmos in the Aramaic in which they
communed when they walked together during His incarnate life, and John failed
to translate it correctly into the Greek. Ridiculous!
Page
6 Really,
it is not a "hair-line" decision. It is a linguistic decision based
on a rare use of
μέλλω with the Greek aorist
(past tense) in the New Testament. The linguistics clearly indicate
that when Jesus said, He would vomit out Laodicea, that He will do. The
evidence is that He has done so. # Postscript
to "The Search for Identify" One
of the most tragic evaluations, yet true, which Dr. Knight makes in his book, A Search for Identity, is the portion of
a paragraph quoted in this issue. See "A Fall-Out." (p.4). He
re-emphasized this fact as he concluded this evaluation. He wrote: One of the great tragedies of
Adventism during the 1920s is that the historically and theologically valid
positions Daniells set forth [at the 1919 Bible Conference] was not the one
that most Adventists would follow in subsequent decades. Rather, it was the
position advocated by Holmes, Washburn, and Wilcox that would dominate the
movement as all too often Adventist laity and clergy alike used the writings of
Ellen G. White in such a way that the "lesser light" of her works
became "the greater light" in practice rather than the Bible. That
tendency along with a proclivity toward verbalism and strict inerrancy
dominated Adventist theology in the decades following 1920. In essence,
Adventism which had started out as a people of the Book had become more a
people of the "books." Adventists had forgotten their own history on
the topic. [p 141]. Just
as we finished the section, "A Fall-Out" in writing this issue, we
received in the mails a copy of The
Remnant Herald (March, 2001) which illustrated this very point that Dr.
Knight was making. In an article, "Pr. Sequeira
and the 1888 Study Group," the editor sets forth his opposition to Elder
Jack Sequera's teaching in regard to "forensic
justification." (Let me make it clear that this brief comment is not discussing
that subject. We are noting the format of the editor's response). His article
regarding Pr. Sequera's teaching began with
quotations from "the books", and was followed by the statement,
"The Bible is equally plain:" (p. 974). Then some Bible references
are noted, but before the article is completed, the editor reverts back to the
"books." If
the Bible is "equally" as plain, and declared to be the "greater
light," why not use that greater light first? Further, if truly basking in
the "sunlight," of the Bible, what need is there for us to walk in
the "moonlight"? Ellen G. White herself plainly stated - "You
are not familiar with the Scriptures. If you had made God's word your study,
with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection,
you would not have needed the Testimonies" (Life Sketches, p. 198). James White, her husband made the
relationship very clear. In an early Review
& Herald (April 21, 1851), he wrote: Every Christian is therefore duty
bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray
fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the
whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to
learn his duty through any of the gifts. We say that the very moment he does,
he places the gifts in a wrong place, and take an extremely dangerous position.
(p.70). Ellen
White is as "equally plain." She wrote: God will have a people upon the
earth to maintain the Bible and the Bible only as the standard of all
doctrines and the basis of all reforms. [Spirit of Prophecy, IV, p.413;
emphasis supplied] If
we really believe in our historical foundations, why not stay on the firm
platform of truth and proclaim our faith from that platform. The problem today
in the Community of Adventism among the siren "voices" on the fringe,
is that they do not know the Word of God, as Ellen White said, and therefore,
are seeking to lead concerned Adventists by the "flashlights"
(torches) of their own manipulations of the "books," rather than
leading them into the sunlight of God's Holy Bible. Indeed,
we do need to get our "Identity" straight, but such denial of the
primacy of the Scriptures as evidenced in The
Remnant Herald article is not helping the confused people of God. A time of
test is just before us, but the answer which we will be required to give, will
need to come from the Book, not the "books" as helpful as they could
be as "lesser" lights, when we are groping in the darkness because of
our own Laodicean blindness. # With
different administrations in place in both the United States and Israel, the
question of the move of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has
come into focus once again. When ex-President Clinton first ran in 1992, he
advocated the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem, but never acted on his
promise during his eight years in office. President Bush also made a campaign
promise to do the same. In
a news release that some friends gave me this past
Page
7 week
(March 15) from the WebTV Network, Secretary of State Cohn Powell is quoted as
stating on March 7, that Bush intends to keep a campaign promise to move the
embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This move "would lend support to
Israeli claims to the city as its undivided capital," the report stated. With
the change of Prime Ministers in Israel, and the formation of a
"Unity" government, another solution for the control of the old City
of Jerusalem could resurface. Shimon Peres will serve as Foreign Minister in
the government headed by Ariel Sharon. It should be remembered that this same
Peres, who as Foreign Minister in the government of the late Yitzhak Rabin,
sent a letter to Pope John Paul II by his friend, Mark Halter, which according
to Halter would "hand over the sovereignty of Jerusalem's old city to the
Vatican. Jerusalem (would) stay the capital of Israel, but the Old City (would)
be administered by the Vatican. ... The [old] city would have an Israeli mayor
and a Palestinian mayor both under the control of the Vatican." (Jewish Press, Sept. 2, 1994) While
the change of government in Israel, and the intent of the Bush administration
stabilizes the jurisdiction of the old city of Jerusalem under Israeli control,
it also moves us one step closer to the fulfilment of
Daniel 11:45 - "And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between
the seas in the glorious holy mountain." This in turn moves us face to
face with the hour when "at that time shall Michael stand up" (Daniel
12:1). Faced
as we are with "managed news releases," and propaganda of every
description on the Web site making every assertion suspect, we perhaps need to
give serious reflection to a report appearing in the Free American Newsmagazine, July 2000, which stated concerning the
Jesuits - "Their ultimate goal is the rule of the world, with the Pope of
their making, from Solomon's rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. That's
their ultimate goal" (p.10). Whether, this goal
will be realized or not, the prophecy in Daniel does indicate a papal presence
in Jerusalem at the close of probation. The "glorious holy
mountain" is so defined (9:16). The
ascendancy of the "Religious Right" in American politics signaled a pro-Israel policy, but not in accord with the revelation of Scripture. The religious base
of this "Right" perceive of the modern State of Israel as still the
nation of God's choosing, and its re-establishment in 1948 as a fulfilment of prophecy. They are unmindful of the fact that
Jesus said, the temple had been left desolate of the Spirit of God (Matt.
23:38), and that He has chosen a new Israel to be His people (Gal. 3:29; 6:16). On
the other hand there are those in the Community of Adventism who are so
"spiritually illiterate" that they fail to see that Jesus Himself
designated "old" Jerusalem to be a "sign of the times" whether
to the apostolic Church, or to His final people. Jesus told His apostles on the
Mount of Olivet, that when they would see "Jerusalem compassed with
armies, then know that the desolation thereof is
nigh" (Lk.21:20). This event in Jerusalem's history in 66 AD, heralded its destruction in 70 AD. In the same prophetic
discourse, speaking of the same city, Jesus declared - "Jerusalem shall be
trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled" (v. 24). This return of Jerusalem to the control of Israel
occurred in 1967, and the city was annexed to Israel in 1980 with the Knesset
of Israel declaring the united city, the undivided capital of Israel. As
Dr. J. R. Zurcher wrote in his book, Christ of the Revelation: Jerusalem is both the beginning and
the culmination of Jesus' prophecy. ... So having predicted the destruction of
Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews "into all nations," Jesus
declared, "Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" [Luke 21:24; emphasis his]. ... Jerusalem here constitutes the last
sign of the times by which the Lord shows us that the history of this world is
coming to its climax and that the restoration of all things is at hand. [pp.
71, 72] # Note:
A Fax from a reader in Australia informed us that the poem, "The Laodicean's Lament" was written by a Bob White.
WEBSITE
E-
Originally published by Adventist Laymen's Foundation of Mississippi/Arkansas
Wm. H. Grotheer, Editor
Adventist Laymen's Foundation was chartered in 1971 by Elder Wm. H. Grotheer, then 29 years in the Seventh-day Adventist
ministry, and associates, for the benefit of Seventh-day Adventists who were deeply concerned about the compromises of fundamental
doctrines by the Church leaders in conference with those who had no right to influence them. Elder Grotheer began to publish the monthly "Thought Paper," Watchman, What of the Night? (WWN) in January, 1968, and continued the publication as Editor until the end of 2006. Elder Grotheer died on May 2, 2009.
|