Jon Paulien – B I B L E – ONLY

Daniel 11:41 Exegesis, the problem in the Adventist church

Tony — Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:00:00 +0000

Daniel 11:41 a. and he comes in land of the glory and many ones they shall stumble and these they shall escape from hand of him Edom and Moab and adjacent land of the sons of Ammon. (Hebrew direct translation)

Daniel 11:41 b. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. (Hebrew/English translation)

The glorious land is related to the land of beauty, land of Judah, God´s kingdom on earth, Palestine, God´s people, righteous people, Lord of host, Branch of the Lord, Christ, cities where the righteous dwell.

“He” comes in the land of glory. “He” refers to the papacy. In verse 16 it states, “he” shall stand in the glorious land which by his hand shall be consumed. The papacy consumed God´s kingdom on earth during the Middle Ages. However, in verse 41 the papacy will only enter the God´s kingdom on earth and not consume it this time. But many protestant Christians shall stumble.

How will this happen?

Mat 24:24 For false Christ´s and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive if possible even the elect.

Luke 18:18 Never the less, when the Son of Man comes, will he really find faith on the earth?

2 Thess 2:3.4. Let no one deceive you by any means, for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Many will fall at that time but there will be a group left who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. Rev 12:17. 14:12.

How shall the papacy enter the Kingdom of God on earth and many shall stumble and fall and be overthrown?

Well we are nearing the end of our study on the Little Horn in Dan 11: and we are looking for a conclusion. The finish of our study is quite similar to the start of our study. How does the Little Horn (the papacy) enter God´s kingdom on earth? Not through fires and persecution like in the Middle Ages but by the method and study of theology. If you can control the method and study of theology of a church, you can control its future outcome, witness and evangelism.

The papacy has already entered the protestant circles of theology including the Seventh Day Adventist church by the way we do exegesis. The Little Horn has Roman Catholic theologians situated in the most prominent universities of the world e.g. Harvard, Oxford, Tubingen etc. What is the prime task of theology in most universities today? To increase man’s wisdom and decrease the knowledge of Bible doctrines. How? By introducing Phd, degrees into the curriculum of theology, where citing famous theological names such as Ladd, Cullmann, Bultmann and F.F. Bruce is the norm and they become the prime authority over God´s word in the Bible. The problem is how do we know that these theologians are absolutely right in their studies.

The proper method of exegesis of God´s word entails, word studies of the whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation, syntax of Bible passages, going back to the original Hebrew or Greek etc. When all the groundwork is done with personal exegesis, then you can compare your findings with the study of other theologians on the subject, and not before. The tendency today is to skip the long tedious study of exegesis and quote some well-known theologian, who has already studied the passage thoroughly. This method is wrong, but it is used in all protestant universities in the world because it saves time. This kind of Bible study white washes Bible doctrines and enables one theologian to have an authoritative meaning on a text, and another theologian another meaning on the same text. These studies result in double meanings of texts or even more as in the case to my introduction and seeing the discrepancy of five theologians in the Adventist church over the explanation of Dan 11:5-45.

The papacy has already entered the glorious land of Protestant theological circles of the world and rejoices over the seeds sown in the method of exegesis. Citing famous theologians becomes the norm instead of doing personal exegetical Bible study, Solar Scriptura. It is this that I am gravely concerned about, and I do not wish to criticize theologians personally; but it is their method of study I am criticizing.

I will give an example of what I mean. Last year there was a very well respected theologian from the Adventist church, the right honorable theologian Ranko Stefanovic who wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation. I bought the book and proceeded to study with great interest. However, when I came to Rev 1:10, I had to read the explanation a few times on the doctrine of the Sabbath. I was the only one who criticized his method of exegesis on www.amazon.com as a book review.

The following is a copy of the review from www.amazon.com: written by the author Tony Butenko.

Critique of the interpretation of Rev 1:10 in the book “Revelation of Jesus Christ” by Ranko Stefanovic[1]

Ranko Stefanovic

Exegesis v Eisegesis

First of all I must say the book has an excellent introduction. The author has written a clear and concise introduction. For example the author of Revelation, place and date of writing, purpose of the book, interpreting the book, traditional methods of interpretation, symbolic nature of revelation, objectives of the commentary, literary arrangement and threefold structure of Revelation.

I was especially interested in the part where Stefanovic wrote about the basics steps of biblical exegesis. He points out in his explanation of biblical exegesis that it includes meanings like to draw out, let the biblical text speak for itself, study the units and passages, relation of words to each other in the sentences, and immediate context of the passage.

Stefanovic goes on to say that, there are two basic steps in biblical exegesis. The first involves determining what the text meant for the time when it was written. Second, the interpreter must explore the linguistic, literary, historical, geographical, religious, philosophical, and cultural context of the time when the biblical text was written. Such an approach to the text assumes serious involvement and willingness to make an effort with all the rigor and tools of scholarship.

I could not agree more with what Stefanovic says about Biblical exegesis. However, what one writes in theory can be the opposite of what one practices. For example in Revelation 1:10 Stefanovic´s explanation of “the Lord´s day,” on pages 94-96.

Stefanovic gives a series of explanations of the expression ”the Lord´s day” from a series of scholars and commentators. He says ”most commentators, a few scholars, some authors, another view, a number of scholars, etc.” He concludes his explanation of the ”Lords day” by saying the eschatological character of the book as a whole is also in favor of the eschatological day of the Lord. It is not reasonable to see a double meaning in John´s enigmatic phrase. Hence, “the Lord´s” day has a double meaning: the Sabbath and the eschatological day of the Lord.

Having given various meanings to the expression ”the Lord´s day”, my question is where is the exegesis of the text? Quoting different authors and their different interpretations is not exegesis. This is what Stefanovic is doing, it is not exegesis but eisegesis. That is he is imposing his own interpretation into the text without doing the real ground work of exegetical studies. In so doing, one white washes the doctrines of our church with the use of theologians and commentaries. This is one of the greatest dangers entering the church of our time. When a theologian says the Sabbath has a double meaning in this text, where does one draw the line of double meanings to explain any text away?

For example if Stefanovic did a word study from the whole of the Bible, Old and New Testament, about the expression ”day of the Lord” he will find out that from 29 texts in the Bible, 28 of them refer to a negative judgment message immediately after each expression. Whereas the expression “Lord´s day” is only mentioned once in the New Testament. (Rev 1:10) This is then followed by the context of Christ´s ministry in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary. In addition it is followed by the message to the seven churches. The eschatological message of Revelation comes later and not immediately after as in the other cases. Therefore, the expression “the Lords day” does not refer to the judgment day of the Lord but to the Sabbath as we always have understood it.

My question is, where is his own personal exegesis (from the whole of the Bible) to the text that produces such a conclusion as a double meaning?

There are three reasons why a theologian avoids the use of exegesis in his study.

He is trying to sell a book and therefore tries to be in agreement with the majority of theologians.
He does not know the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.
He has no time to do exegesis, and therefore reiterates what other commentaries write on the subject, forming his own eisegesis.

Ranko Stefanovic says:

I am not sure if the person here understands what exegesis is. In addition to the exegetical analysis of the phrase “the Lord’s Day” on pages 95-96, I have presented a paper on the “the Lord’s Day” at SBL, and published an article in AUSS in 2011. While everybody has a right on his/her opinion, I must state that this is the only comment ever made that my commentary is not exegetical.

Tony says:

According to Stefanovic´s book Revelation p. 9-10. there is a very good explanation of what the word “exegesis” means. As I have written, I entirely agree with the explanation (maybe). (If Stefanovic means that exegesis is only confined to the time of writing the text or book, then I totally disagree with his meaning for the word exegesis. It involves word studies of the whole of the Bible: Solar scriptura and nothing less. If one confines exegesis only to the time of writing the text with the modern tools we use, then it will be very hard to substantiate many of our doctrines from the Bible). Stefanovic lists five main proposals to the probable meaning of the citation “Lords day.” These are from scholars and theologians. However, this is not exegesis but comments from other scholars. Hence, you have a commentary but not exegesis. Having gone through the five proposals, Stefanovic concludes that the Lords Day has a dual meaning: the Seventh Day Sabbath and the eschatological day of the Lord. How did he arrive at such a conclusion?
In coming to such a conclusion, one has to have exegesis in place. Where is your exegesis regarding “the eschatological day of the Lord” from the Old Testament? Quoting scholars and theologians is not exegesis.

As for papers you have written for AUSS, your book does not contain these papers for analysis.
May I conclude that your book is a commentary on Revelation citing many scholars to support your view, but it is not exegesis as you have outlined in your book p.9-10.
If you show me clearly your own exegesis on “the eschatological day of the Lord” in your book, I will retract my review with an apology.

06.06.2015. Whilst browsing the internet on the for mentioned date, I found the AUSS paper that Stefanovic was referring to. This can be found on:

http://www.auss.info/auss_publication_file.php? ub_id=1669&journal=1&type=pdf

Why he did not send it to me when I gave my comment on www.amazon.com remains a mystery or he is beginning to realize that the paper is not an exegesis. After reading the AUSS paper I realized that it was a paper and not an exegesis of Rev 1:10 “The Lord’s Day.” Stefanovic is not doing exegesis in the paper but reiterating other theologians who have done the work for him. This again is not exegesis but eisegesis where one in this case gathers together all the studies of the main theologians and historians on the subject e.g Rev 1:10 “the Lord’s Day” and arriving at a common consensus, as in this case a double meaning for the Lord’s Day.

Further comments on Stefanovic´s interpretation of Rev 1:10 the Lord´s Day in his book “Revelation of Jesus Christ” page 95.

He equates the Lord´s Day in Rev 1:10 with the Old Testament citation “the Day of the Lord”.

Then on page 96, he concludes the Lord´s Day has a double meaning: the eschatological day of the Lord (time of the end) and the Sabbath day.

Stefanovic goes on to quote in his footnote 17, on p.111: the following theologians to support his conclusion: William Milligan, J. A. Seiss, Philip Carrington, E. W. Bullinger, Walter Scott and Samuele Bacchiocchi. All these theologians’ comments can be seen online on google search engine on the internet.

Firstly, all these theologians have one thing in common. They are all New Testament theologians using the Greek grammar of analysis. They give their comments but do not do an exegesis of the 29 texts in the Old Testament of the citation “the Day of the Lord.” They make a proposition, a statement and back it up with their New Testament hermeneutics of understanding, ignoring the exegesis of the 29 texts “the Day of the Lord” in the Old Testament.

It is interesting to note that Bacchiocchi in his book “From Sabbath to Sunday” also starts with a proposition, a statement with his analysis of Rev 1:10 the Lord´s Day. He states on page 123. “The identification of the `Lord´s Day` of Rev 1:10 with the eschatological day of the Lord understood as the day of Christ´s judgment and Parousia appears to us as the most plausible.”

This is not exegesis by Bacchiocchi but eisegesis. It is a paper using another method for solutions into the text. Bacchiochi starts with a proposition, an assertion. He equates the Lord´s Day in Rev 1:10 with the Old Testament the Day of the Lord by calling these events, the eschatological day of the Lord (Time of the end) and the Parousia (Christ´s Second Coming).

Nowhere in the 29 texts of the Old Testament does the Day of the Lord refer to the Parousia (Christ´s Second Coming). However, three texts from the old Testament Joel 2:28, 2:31 and 2:14 imply signs before the Second Coming and then judgement. Having said this all these 29 texts refer to the day of judgement and punishment only.

In addition, Bacchiocchi is using a foreign method of Biblical Hermeneutics in his study. He is using the “Scientific Method.” What is the Scientific Method? I know enough about science using it in my hobbies to state a definition from the internet. “Every scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, a hypothesis is an idea that has not been proven yet. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step – known as a theory – in the scientific method, and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.”

Bacchiocchi is starting with a hypothesis or assertion in Biblical studies; then collects all the available evidence from theologians that agree with him; and concludes with a plausible valid explanation. Hence deceiving the Adventist community with all its members, pastors and theological students. How! By substituting Biblical exegesis (the Bible only) with New Testament theologians who make assertions from their New Testament hermeneutical understanding. This is not exegesis dear friends!!! This is not exegesis!!! One cannot use the Scientific Method in Biblical hermeneutics.

Samuele Bacchiocchi and Ranko Stefanovic introduce the method of “The Scientific Theory” into the study of hermaneutics in theology.

When Stefanovic refers to Bacchiocchi, he is agreeing with his method of study. Bacchiocchi and Stefanovic are some of the Seventh-day Adventist Church´s finest theologians, which we all look up to, yet they are introducing the “Scientific Method” into Seventh Day Adventist Church hermeneutics. This is a clear example of how these Adventist theologians are being influenced by theologians from the Roman Catholic Church, which leads to deception.

One professor from the Roman Catholic University of Notre Dame gives her comment on www.amazon.com book review for Stefanovics book. This should ring some alarm bells within the Andrews University department of theology were Stefanovic teaches. Is Stefanovic working for the Adventists or the Roman Catholics?

“Stefanovic’s purpose is to let the text govern the interpretation. He helps us see that the text is inspired. It is genuine prophecy. John’s message is for everyone—an encouraging, invigorating message for people today. Stefanovic writes an important book that takes a worldwide interpretation of Revelation and invites us to find hope and joy in the judgment.”

This comment was written by Massynberde Ford, Professor of New Testament Studies, University of Notre Dame.

Now where have I heard that name before? It rings a bell from the past in my theological studies. Oh yes! It is Jon Paulien´s favourite author, which he quotes in his dissertation on “Decoding Revelation´s Trumpets.” Now Jon Paulien was Ranko Stefanovic´s professor, when he did his dissertation. Hence, the positive review from Jon Paulien right beside Massynberde Ford on amazon.com

Wow! Now these facts are starting to fit together. It sounds like one of these conspiracy theories on the internet. But the difference between a conspiracy theory and and an actual plot, are the facts. Are they true or false?

When one gets such a comment from a professor from the Roman Catholic university of Notre Dame, one can only speculate who Stefanovic is working for i.e. the Roman Catholics . If I should be honest with you all, when I read most of Stefanovic´s book on Revelation, my instant feeling was that this book has watered down the teachings of Adventist prophecies to suit the ecumenical movement and the Roman Catholic Church.

How dangerous is this method, which they usually call a “paper from Andrews university”? (A paper which is not worth the paper it is written on).

Someone develops a theory from scripture and then looks around for theologians who agree with him. Then he writes a paper, quoting all these theologians and arriving at a plausible conclusion. The problem with this method introduced into hermeneutics is that it can result in two or three, or many conclusions as in the case with women´s ordination.

What is the remedy? Let´s get back to Solar Scriptura. The Bible and Bible only, is the rule for the study of our doctrines and beliefs. Not the gathering together of many brilliant theologians who give their comments as a substitute for the Bible. However, this is what Stefanovic is doing. If his book is included in the new Seventh Day Adventist Commentary, God help us in the future with a blend of double meanings for Bible texts, bringing a lot of confusion into Biblical exegesis.

Tony further says:

What is exegesis likened to in the study of God`s word? It like a mathematical equation.
3x-1x+5x=21. What is the value of x? It is 3. But how do we get to the figure of 3? We have to show all the details of how we got the answer.
This is the same with exegesis. We have to show Biblical word studies from the whole of the Bible, syntax, grammar and structure compared to the book Revelation and the rest of the Bible. This I find lacking in Stefanovic’s book. His way of doing exegesis is finding other scholars who have done the work for him and using them to substantiate his preconceived ideas. The problem with this method is, how do we know that the other scholar’s interpretation is right? Bible commentaries usually use this method because it saves time. This is a short cut to Biblical exegesis and is the chief cause of false interpretations. Hence my review on Rev 1:10. This is a blend of the truth with the false. If Stefanovic´s book on Revelation is included in the new Seventh-day Adventist commentary, I can only say, God help us! We are heading for the storm of misleading interpretations of the Bible, through theologians outside the church, who are taking the place of solar scriptura.

In addition to my view on how the papacy is influencing all theological universities of the world as regards to the method of doing exegesis and down playing doctrines, I would like to verify what I have been saying with a video on www.youtube.com. The video is a narration by Doug Batchelor, on the meeting taken place in North America between the majority of charismatic leaders with Kenneth Copeland at the head and Pope Francis I who apparently is a Jesuit. Go on youtube.com and write Doug Batchelor Pope video fulfills prophecy.

In this documentary, the Pope is welcoming all the charismatic leaders back into the mother church, that is the Roman Catholic church and is down playing doctrines by saying doctrines do not matter, but the love of Christ matters the most for uniting together.

We have in the Adventist church 28 doctrines of our faith, which bind us together in love for the truth and proclamation of the three angel’s messages. However, there is a movement in our church that is trying to downplay the doctrines over the past few years, so it will make it easier to come into contact with other denominations and agree with their doctrines. Michael Gerber who is a specialist in getting businesses to work and make a profit in the USA, says if you do away with all the rules and policies that your firm stands for, then it is a recipe for chaos and catastrophe in the future. If everyone wants do what they want in your firm, then your firm will have no progress in the future.

It is the same in a marriage. If you do away with all the rules that make a marriage work, you have a recipe for catastrophe and divorce. We need rules to make a marriage work e.g., Who will do the washing? Who will mow the lawn? Who will clean the house? Who will buy the weekly food? If no one lifts a finger to do these things, you can be sure that the marriage is not working and the honeymoon is a long way in the past.

Like a marriage and businesses who need rules to operate, the church also needs doctrines to bind the members together in love for one another. Hence the more doctrines we have in the church, the church becomes more manageable. Furthermore, we are lacking rules in the church over who does evangelism, how it is organized and who takes part. When we do this then we shall have a vibrant church in the future.

The main target of the papacy is to destroy our doctrines through the method of eisegesis and study of theology in the church. When this happens, then we have a recipe for chaos and disruption for the church in the future. Many shall stumble and fall as verse 41 states.

When does the Shaking take place?

Ted Wilson the president of the General Conference for Seventh -day Adventist gave a talk at the Annual Council for Adventist leaders all around the world in October 2023. You can hear his talk on YouTube.com. He believes from his observations in the world church that we are experiencing the Shaking now. Liberal theology is entering the church and many of our Adventist ministers are believing in it and advocate in their talks at ministerial meetings. I have spoken to a few respected ordained ministers in the church and they say it is true what Ted Wilson is saying.

The shaking in the Church

This is where the shaking of the church takes place. What is the shaking? It is a term used in the Old Testament for cleaning the husk from the kernels. The method used is when a farmer throws the husk up in the air and the husk become separated from the wheat kernels. The kernels are milled and thereafter used to make bread. The term is transferred to the Christian usage of separating the true Christians in the Church from the false Christians or those who are not dedicated to the message. The text used very often for this expression is taken from 2 Thess 2:1-3. Now brethren concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first – – -.

Ellen G. Whites quotes referring to the shaking time in the future of the Adventist church. Taken at random. www.whiteestate.org

I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God´s people[2].
I will have upon the ground, (says Satan,) as many agents, men holding false doctrines mingled with just enough truth to deceive souls. I will have also unbelieving ones present who will express doubts in regard to the Lord´s message of warning to His church. Should the people read and believe these admonitions, we could have little hope of overcoming them. But if we can divert their attention from these warnings, they will remain ignorant of our power and cunning, and we shall secure them in our ranks at last[3].
God´s Spirit has illuminated every page of Holy Writ, but there are those whom it makes little impression, because it is imperfectly understood. When the shaking comes, by the introduction of false theories, these surface readers, anchored nowhere, are like shifting sand[4].
The experience of the past will be repeated. In the future, Satan´s superstitions will assume new forms. Errors will be presented in a pleasing and flattering manner. False theories, clothed with garments of light, will be presented to God´s people. Thus Satan will try to deceive, if possible, the very elect. Most seducing influences will be exerted; minds will be hypnotized[5].
As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angels message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light[6].
Notwithstanding the agencies combined against the truth, a large number take their stand upon the Lord´s side (this includes Protestants and Catholics)[7].
Let those who are loyal to the commandments of God and the testimony of Christ now take their position. Come out from among them, and be ye separate[8].
My attention was then turned to the company I had seen who were mightily shaken – – -. The numbers of this company had lessened. Some had been shaken out and left by the way – – -. The careless and the indifferent – – – . Their places were immediately filled by others taking hold of the truth and coming into the ranks[9].
I asked what made this great change. An angel answered, “It is the latter rain, the refreshing from the presence of the Lord, the loud cry of the third angel[10].”
When the law of God is made void, the church will be sifted by fiery trials, and a larger proportion than we now anticipate, will give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils[11].
We are in the shaking time – – -. If we make no effort to win souls to Christ we shall be held responsible for the work we might have done, but did not do because of our spiritual indolence[12].
Many a star that we have admired for its brilliance will then go out in darkness – – -. The contest is between the commandments of God and the commandments of men[13].
Many who have strayed from the fold will come back to follow the great Shepherd[14].
The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while sinners in Zion will be sifted out[15].
He said, “the leaders in the church would all fall through self exaltation, and another class of humble men would come to the front, who would do wonderful things – – –[16].”
So apostacy in the church will prepare the way for the image of the beast. (Sunday Laws). [17].
They do not engage thoroughly and heartily in the work of God, identifying themselves with its interests – – –[18].
And at that time (terrible crisis) the superficial conservative class, whose influence has steadily retarded the progress of the work, will renounce their faith and take their stand with its avowed enemies, towards whom their sympathies have long been tending[19].
Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren[20].
Those who make no decided effort, but simply wait for the Holy Spirit to compel them to action, will perish in darkness. You are not to sit still and do nothing in the work of God[21].

Daniel 11:41. “these they shall escape from hand of him Edom and Moab and adjacent land of the sons of Ammon.”

Edom: Another name for Esau because he sold his birth right to Jacob his younger brother. Therefore, the Edomites were related to the Israelites. Their land was situated south of the Dead Sea.

Moab: Gen 19:30-37 Moab was the son of Lot´s oldest daughter with Lot being the father. The Moabites therefore were related to the Israelites. Lot was Abraham´s nephew Gen 12:5. The Moabites lived south east of the Dead Sea.

Ammon: These people descended from Ben-Ammi son of Lot by his youngest daughter. Gen 19:38. The Ammonites therefore were also related to the Israelites. Ammons land was situated north east of the Dead Sea.

When applying these tribes to the present day one can only speculate who they represent. People, who are related to Christians, but are not called Christians and they believe in God.

[1] Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ, (Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 2009).

[2] Ellen G. White, Early Writings (Washington D.C.: Review & Herald Pub., 1945), 270

[3] Ellen G. White, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Pub., 1962), 475.

[4] Ibid, 112.

[5] Ellen G. White, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 8 (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Pub., 1948), 293.

[6] Ellen G. White, Confrontation (Grantham: The Stanborough Press, 1978), 608.

[7] Ibid, 612.

[8] White, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 8, 41

[9] White, Early Writings, 271.

[10] Ibid, 271.

[11] Ellen G. White, Selected Messages Vol. 2 (Washington D.C.: Review & Herald Pub., 1958, 368.

[12] White, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 6, 332.

[13] White, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 5, 80.81.

[14] White, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 6, 400.401.

[15] White, Selected Messages Vol. 2, 380.

[16] White, Confrontation, 444.

[17] White, Early Writings, 270.

[18] White, Testimonies to the Church Vol. 4, 87.88.

[19] Ellen G. White, Testimony Treasures Vol. 2 (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Pub., 1949), 164.

[20] White, Confrontation, 608.

[21] Ellen G. White, Christian Service (Washington D.C. General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, 1947), 228.

Introduction to the seven trumpets in Revelation

Tony — Sat, 29 Sep 2018 04:48:12 +0000

Introduction to the Seven Trumpets

There are three views of doing prophetical exegesis in the book of Revelation:

Preterist: The book of Revelation is viewed through the eyes of John the disciple and takes place during the first century.
Futurist: The prophecies in the book of Revelation all take place at the end of this world before or during Armageddon.
Historical: The prophecies in the book of Revelation take place during earth´s history from Adam and Eve to the Second Coming of Christ.

I have added a fourth view which is emerging from Seventh Day Adventist theologians and the ecumenical movement.

Ecumenical world view: anything goes, if it fits your exegesis, then use it. This would also include the scientific theory used in Biblical exegesis today. However, do not criticize any church denomination, a method many mega churches use from the pulpit today.

When doing an exegesis using the historical method of the Seven Trumpets in the book Revelation, we find in chapters 10 and 11, the sweet and bitter experience of the Adventist message in 1843. Revelation chapters 10 and 11 reveal the foundation of the Adventist teachings on the heavenly sanctuary from the Bible and Bible only.

However, upon reading Ranco Stefanovic´s commentary: “Revelation of Jesus Christ,” one can see that his analysis of the Seven Trumpets, especially in chapters 10 and 11 is completely devoid of the early Adventist Bible teachings of the sweet and bitter experience of 1844.

Ranco Stefanovic

He does say however, “Seventh-day Adventist Christians have seen in Revelation 10 a special prophetic significance for their life and mission. In John´s bitter and sweet experience they have seen what is known as the great disappointment experienced by the Millerite movement in 1844.”[1]

When Stafanovic writes about Seventh-day Adventist Christians, he writes in the third person, as if he is not an Adventist or even believes in the 1844 Adventist experience. Upon researching Stefanovic´s background on the internet, we find that he has grown up in a Roman Catholic family. When analyzing the Seven Trumpets in the book of Revelation, we find he is very much pro-Roman Catholic in his teachings. That is he avoids, using negative words pointing to the Roman Catholic Church or the papacy, e.g. The mark of the beast in Rev 13.

The historical method is very clear whom the scriptural text is talking about when referring to the sea beast in Rev 13:1-10 e.g. the papacy in the Roman Catholic Church system. However, Stefanovic says in his book, “Whatever the time designation of forty-two months might refer to, in Revelation it is always associated with the wicked who, for a long period, held dominion over God´s faithful people.”[2] He does not name the papacy in the Roman Catholic Church system, who held dominion over God´s faithful people, but calls them, “wicked.” This is just one of many statements he uses to avoid using the name papacy in the Roman Catholic Church system.

When referring to the sea beast in Rev 13:1-10, he calls the sea beast a political power through which Satan works actively throughout the earth´s history.[3] This statement is far from the truth as Seventh-day Adventists understand or teach, because we understand the sea beast as both a religious and a political power who did not live throughout earth´s history. Again, we can see Stefanovic is whitewashing Adventists understanding and teachings of prophecy, in the book of Revelation.

In referring to the 1260 day/year prophecy from 538-1798. Rev 12:6.14. 11:3.2. This prophecy is one of the central teachings of the Adventist church, yet we find that Stefanovic does not accept or even believe in this teaching. In referring to antichrist he quotes from Le Roy Froom on page 346, “Le Roy Froom observed that among the historicist interpreters there is a disagreement as to when to begin and when to end the 1,260 day/year period of Antichrist.”[4]

We also find that Stefanovic is not alone in not believing in the 1,260 day/year prophecy. Samuele Bacchiocchi[5] does not believe in this prophecy. Bacchiocchi lists a few other Adventist theologians who agree with him positively on the subject: Hans LaRondelle, Jon Paulien, Ranko Stefanovic, Zdravko Stefanovic, Roy Gane, and Robert Johnson. Jacques Doukhan was the only one who disagreed with Bacchiocchi´s conclusion about the 1260 day/year prophecy.

Stefanovic wrote on Bacchiocchi´s list: “The information presented in your paper are factually documented and the evidences are weighty. I find the concerns you have expressed to be very similar to mine while I was writing my commentary on Revelation. Also, your perception regarding my position is very correct: I avoided assigning any date to the threefold time designation [of the three and half years/1260 days/42 months] in Revelation. I agree with you that A.D. 538 has been exaggerated; in order to get that date, the year 1798 was established first, and then the 1260 years were deducted from it.”[6]

When one makes a statement like this, one questions the beliefs of Stefanovic. Does he believe in the Adventist teachings and prophecies of Daniel and Revelation? Does he believe in the writings of Ellen G. White, especially the book: The Great Controversy? Does he believe in the atrocities of the papacy in the Roman Catholic Church system during the Dark Middle Ages: that they killed over 50 million Roman Catholic members of the church, because they read the Bible and became Protestants? I have a feeling that this man does not believe in these things and much more. That is why he writes in the third person when referring to Seventh-day Adventists.

On Bacchiocchi´s list of theologians who do not agree with the 1,260 day/year prophecy, is Jon Paulien. Paulien was Stefanovic´s professor, when he did his PhD, dissertation. Therefore, Paulien has had some influence in the way Stafanovic has written his theological teachings on Revelation.

What kind of influence?

Jon Paulien

Paulien expresses his method of communicating theology in his talk on Revelation 13 and the Papacy [7] at the 12^th Annual Seminary Scholarship Symposium at Andrews University Seminary.

Paulien´s views come from his own life´s experience. He starts off with his first evangelistic series in New York. He talks about his experience of presenting the subject: The Mark of the Beast to a group of Roman Catholics in his audience which backfired, and they did not come to his meetings anymore. Hence, the lesson he learned from that experience was to preach the love of Christ and be silent on the teachings causing hostility to the church.

This world view is clearly outlined in Stefanovic´s book: Revelation of Jesus Christ.

What is wrong with this world view, which so many Adventist theologians embrace today?

First of all, the method of evangelism is different to the study of theology when using hermeneutical tools. I have spent over 40 years doing evangelism and have learnt that one can tailor make your evangelistic meetings to suit your audience. If the majority of your audience is Roman Catholic, leave the Mark of the Beast out. If it is a Protestant audience, leave it in. One learns to adapt.

On the other hand, the purpose of theology, especially the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, is to bring the truth out of the text and not to adapt it to suit the reading audience. This is what Paulien and Stefanovic are doing. They are uplifting Christ, which is positive, but they are avoiding the theological texts which bring hostility to the church. They call this exegesis, however this kind of exegesis is based on the world ecumenical view of the Bible, and not the Biblical view. That is they take a common consensus of what the theologians of the world from different denominations have written on a certain text, and express this as theological truth.

The question with this form of theological study is, who knows that these theologians are right in their theological studies. A PhD., degree in theology does not give a guarantee to the Biblical text they are righting on. Furthermore, one can have more than one theologian writing on a given text and they come to two different conclusions. Hence, bringing confusion and ambiguity to the text, e.g. Stefanovic´s book: Revelation of Jesus Christ. As a result, they incorporate quotations saying, “Seventh-day Adventist believe this,” and the message comes through, that they do not believe what the Adventist teach.

This kind of hermeneutical studies does more harm than good and brings confusion to our members in the Adventist church, and trains a new generation of young ministers at our theological institutions to think ecumenically to suit the audience. Hence, neutralizing and dismantling the prophetical teachings of the Adventist church from the books Daniel and Revelation.

Over the years Jon Paulien has come up with some of his ideas in translating the Sunday Law prophecies from the book `”The Great Controversy”. Fx. on www.youtube.com, Sunday Law and the Prophecy, 14 April, 2021. The Coming Sunday Law Dilemma, 31 Oct 2020. Historical Understanding of the Sunday Laws, 31 Oct, 2020. He means that the Sunday Laws can only be used in Ellen G. Whites historical time and not in the future before Christ´s Second Coming.

A good reply to Jon Paulien´s view on the Sunday Laws is from a study by Dustin Butler:

https://www.google.com/search?q=revelation.org+on+sunday+laws&rlz= 1C1GCEU_enDK915DK915&ei=I5AJZPSRCMiF9u8Pgfef4AQ&ved= 0ahUKEwi0r_Dcrs79AhXIgv0HHYH7B0wQ4dUDCA8&uact= 5&oq=revelation.org+on+sunday+laws&gs_lcp= Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIFCAAQogQyBQg AEKIEMgUIABCiBDIFCAAQogQ6CggAEEcQ1 gQQsANKBAhBGABQrjBY0URgoE5oAnABeACAAW-IAaMJkgEEMTYuMZgBAKABAcgBAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:85eae256,vid:eaRBP_1zhEw

When one listens to this study one can ask the question, has Jon Paulien who has a Phd., really done an in depth historical study on the Sunday Laws around Ellen G. White time, or is he listening to his superiors higher up the ladder in the Roman Catholic Church trying to bring confusion in the Adventist church?

The Problem with theologians named by Bacchiocchi and their attitude to the 1,260 day/year prophecy

What these theologians are saying is, we do not believe in the 1,260 year/day prophecy, because it cannot be verified from the Bible or church history. They come to this conclusion, because they have been trained in the PhD., theological program using sources from other theologians of different church denominations e.g. Roman Catholic and Lutheran etc. Many theologians from different church denominations belong to the world ecumenical church view of theology and know nothing about Seventh-day Adventist theology. They use each other’s sources even if they might be wrong, bringing double meanings to the text in question.

These Adventist theologians named by Bacchiocchi have a problem, and that is they do not believe in the writings of Ellen G. White, especially the book The Great Controversy, which gives the opposite explanation to their theological worldview from different denominations. Hence, one finds for example Paulien attacking the book The Great Controversy, by calling it “Roman Catholic bashing,” because it does not belong to his theological worldview from different denominations.

This creates a large problem amongst our theologians in the Adventist church, of which they do not have a solution. If we take this problem to the General Conference, it would be too great for them to handle, because they would be up against the PhD., theological program in the church worldwide.

The solution is, to change the way we do exegesis. We should never start by using sources from theologians from different church denominations, or even our own theologians from the Adventist church. Why? Because they might be wrong also in their exegesis. We should start with our own personal long tedious word studies from the Bible and Bible only, using the Greek and Hebrew when necessary, along with syntax and word analysis and grammatical construction. We should never use the theological dictionaries available because all theologians come to their text with preconceived ideas and beliefs. When we have done our own exegesis, then we can compare our results with other theologians and never before.

The norm today, is to avoid personal exegesis and go straight to the sources of other theologians. This kind of hermeneutics brings double meanings, ambiguity and confusion to the text. In addition, I find doing a correct exegesis gives no problems with the book: The Great Controversy or the writings of Ellen G. White on prophecy. But the ecumenical world view of doing exegesis gives many problems of which Paulien and Stefanovic are encountering.

This ecumenical worldview of exegesis is being taught in our theological institutions around the world today. If this kind of teaching continues as outlined in Stefanovic´s book: “Revelation of Jesus Christ,” then I can see Ellen G. Whites prediction being fulfilled shortly, when over half of our ministers and theologians will leave the Adventist Church during the time of trouble. Why? Because they have failed to learn to do a correct exegesis of the Bible and Bible only. Martin Luther said at Worms, “Her I stand, I can do no other.” This is solar scriptura, the Bible and Bible only in exegesis.

See my website www.ayindk.dk Daniel 11: are we doing exegesis or eisegesis? For a further analysis of exegesis in the church. In addition, see my website www.ayin.dk Dan 11:14 to see the solution to the start of the 1,260 day prophecy in 538.

Rev 8:3-5 And another angel came and stood at the altar (θυσίαστηρίον) golden which is before the throne. And went up smoke of the incense with the prayers of the saints out of the hand of the angel before God. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth. And there were noises, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake.

The question is: does Rev 8:3-5, take place during the Day of Atonement or during the (Tamid), that is the daily administration of the sanctuary?

The censor and the altar of incense were both used on the Day of Atonement and the daily administration of the tabernacle. For example:

Lev 16:12.13. Then he (Aaron) shall take a censer full of burning coal of fire from the altar before the Lord (Altar of incense), with his hands full of sweet incense beaten fine, and bring it inside the veil. And he (Aaron) shall put the incense on the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the Testimony, lest he dies. (Aaron is the High Priest and is the only one to approach the mercy seat in the Most Holy Place. He takes coals from the alter of incense and puts them in his censer. He puts sweet incense in his censer but not on the alter. This is the difference between his work on the Day of Atonement and during the daily administration in the sanctuary).

Ex 30:1.2. You shall make an altar to burn incense on; you make it of acacia wood. A cubit shall be its length and a cubit its width – it shall be square – and two cubits shall be its height. Its horns shall be one piece with it. (One cubit=length of a forearm, about 60 cm or 22”-18”)

Ex 30:7.8. Aaron shall burn on it sweet incense every morning when he tends the lamps, he shall burn incense on it. And when Aaron lights the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense on it – – -. (This text Ex 30:1.2.7.8. does not refer to the Day of Atonement but the daily administration in the Holy Place of the sanctuary).

Lev 10:1 Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded. (The sons of Aaron did not replace their father the High Priest. Aaron´s sons where only priests and officiated only in the Holy apartment of the sanctuary and not in the Most Holy apartment. So their work was only during the daily administration of the sanctuary).

From the texts above the censer was used on the Day of Atonement and during the daily administration in the first apartment in the Holy Place. However, the sweet incense was not used on the altar of incense on the Day of Atonement, but was put in Aaron´s censer, which was taken inside the curtain.

When returning to our text in Rev 8:3-5 And another angel came and stood at the altar (θυσίαστηρίον altar of incense). He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of the saints upon the golden altar, which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel´s hand. And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire from the altar, and threw it to the earth. And there were noises, thunderings, lightnings, and an earthquake.

We are talking about the daily administration in the Holy place of the sanctuary. Because incense was put on the altar of incense and the smoke from the incense represented the prayers of the saints during the daily Tamid administration of the sanctuary. This action occurred only during the daily administration in the Holy Place of the sanctuary.

The act of casting the censer to the ground implies some kind of judgment although there is no text in the Bible to support such an action.

The only place in the Bible were the censer is related to judgment, was the story of Korah and his friends in the book of Numbers 16.

Num 16:1-3. Now Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; and they rose up before Moses with some of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty leaders of the congregation, representatives of the congregation, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron , and said to them, “You take too much upon yourselves, for all the congregation is holy, everyone of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (In other words, Korah was saying that they were just as good leaders and holy as Moses and Aaron. In this statement, Korah was competing with the leadership with Moses and Aaron).

Num 16:16.17. And Moses said to Korah, “Tomorrow, you and all your company be present before the Lord–you and they, as well as Aaron. Let each take his censer and put incense in it, and each of you bring his censer before the Lord, two hundred and fifty censers; both you and Aaron, each with his censer.

Num16:19-21. And Korah gathered all the congregation against them at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Then the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation. And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, “Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.”

Num 16:31.32. the ground split apart under them, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their household and all the men with Korah, with all their goods.

Num 16:35. And fire came out from the Lord and consumed the two hundred and fifty men who were offering incense. (Censers are related to judgment and punishment for sin and open rebellion against God).

Num 16:41. On the next day, all the congregation of the children of Israel complained against Moses and Aaron, saying, “You have killed the people of the Lord.”

Num 16:44-46. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Get away from this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces. So Moses said to Aaron, “Take a censer and put fire in it from the altar, put incense in it, and take it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them.” (Censer in this text is used for making atonement).

The censer in this text, is related to the Korah´s rebellion, and was used for making atonement and judgment. OK! When using this information in relation to Rev 8:3-5, we can see that the following chapters on the seven trumpets, have to do with the judgments of God on the church because of rebellion against him and his word from the Bible.

[1] Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ (Berrien Springs, Michigan: Andrews University Press, 2009), 340.

[2] Ibid., 347.

[3] Ibid., 410. 411.

[4] Ibid., 346.

[5] Samuele Bacchiocchi, www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_90.html

[6] Ibid.

[7] Jon Paulien, www.YouTube.com: Revelation 13 and the Papacy