1990 Jan -- XXIII -- 1(90) -- A"The Daily" Debate -- Hauser versus Wieland -- In the Fall issue of The Layworker. (pp. 5-13), & exchange between Elder R. J. Wieland and Dr. Robert Hauser regarding the subject of the "daily" as found in the book of Daniel was pub1ished. Following a rebuttal by Hauser, comments by Elder David Lin were printed which were weighted heavily toward Hauser's position. From a careful analysis of the "exchange" one must conclude that Wieland's interpretation is as far out as is Hauser's application. While Wieland venerates the tradition of the elders, Hauser denies the historic principle of prophetic interpretation upon which God's revelations have rested throughout salvation history.

To bring into focus the subject of the "daily," we shall note:   1) What the Writings of Ellen G. White have stated on this subject;    2) The linguistic questions, such as, the meaning of tamid, the Hebrew word translated, "daily," and the words, rum and sur; and   3) The context itself in which tamid is first used in Daniel. After considering these points, we shall note certain references in the Writings to which Dr. Hauser
appeals for his questionable concepts of prophetic interpretation.

The E. G. White Comments on the "Daily" -- The first reference to the "daily" question found in the Writings of Ellen G. White is Early Writings, pp. 74-75. It reads:      Then I saw in relation to the "daily," Dan. 8:12, that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment-hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily," but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have
followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.

Two clear cut statements are made: 1) The supplied word, -"sacrifice" - "does not belong to the text. 2) Prior to 1844, nearly all were

p 2 -- united on the correct view of the 'daily'." However, on Point #1, a word is required as was done by the translators of the KJV for tamid (the Hebrew word translated, daily) is used in the Old Testament as either an adjective or an adverb. In the bock of Daniel, it is used as a substantive, or predicate adjective, and thus logically in translation a noun should be supplied. Ellen G. White did not indicate what noun should be supplied in place of "sacrifice" to give the proper sense. On Point #2, as to the "correct" view prior to 1844, an interesting footnote is to be found in a commentary on Daniel by George McCready Price publishedlin 1955. 'it reads:      It may be news to some of my readers that at least some of the leaders in the Millerite movement had the correct view of the meaning of the term "daily." In the Midnight Cry, October 4, 1843, this term was understood as meaning Christ's daily or continual mediation in heaven on behalf of sinners, which was "takem away" by the work of the little horn. The revised chart. of 1842 by Charles Fitch and Apollos Hale, omits the identification of paganism as the "daily," thus by implication endorsing the correct view. This revised chart was the one which was endorsed (with some qualifications) by Ellen G. White. Crosier's celebrated article in the Day Star, 1846, also commended by her, took the position that the sanctuary trodden down by the little horn is in heaven, not on the earth, the inevitable inference from this being that the "daily" must also refer to events in heaven. James White reprinted this Crosier article several times and expressly endorsed this interpretation of Daniel 8 as applying to the papacy. It was thus that "nearly all were united on the correct view of the 'daily,' '" as spoken of in Early Writings, pages 74, 75. Finally, Ellen White herself, in The Great Controversy, 1911 edition, p. 65, specifically applies Daniel 8:12 to the work of the papacy. For further facts and evidence along this line see the paper of L. E. Froom, "Historical Setting and Background of the Term 'Daily,'" September 1, 1948.

I do not know of a single Adventist college in America which now teaches the view that the term "daily" means paganism. (The Greatest of the Prophets, p. 174)

Due to the fact that I do not have available the key reference used in this footnote - the Midnight_Cry of Ocotber 4, 1843 - I cannot evaluate this "news" but merely cite this summation by Price so that all data on the ." 'Daily' Debate" can be noted.

Another reference in the Writings to the "daily" question is Manuscript,11, 1910. In this manuscript, Ellen White wrote:      I have words to speak to my brethren east and west, north and south. I request that my writings shal! not be used as the leading argument to settle questions over which there is now so much controversy. I entreat of Elders H, I, J, and otners of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of " the daily."

It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I can not consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of "the daily" is not to be made a test question.

I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question; for I have not instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under present conditions, silence is eloquence. (Selected Messages, bk. 1 , p. 164 )

Two pbints stand out in this reference: 1) The Writings are not to be used to determine the correct view of the "daily" by those on either side of the "debate." ("I cannot consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter.") [This is good counsel for all theological questions under discussion at any time.]    2) "Silence is eloquence" on this subject only "under present conditions" that is, as they prevailed in 1910.

It must be remembered "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine." (II Tim. 3:16) No one less than Gabriel is involved in the matter of the "daily." He was instructed - "Make this man to understand the vision." (Dan. 8:16) It is Gabriel who with Michael who has authority to explain "that which is noted in the scripture of truth." (Dan. 10:21) As a part *of "the scripture of truth," the "daily" cannot be considered as unimportant at the present time, controversy or no controversy. The basic point Ellen G. White urged was that her writings not be used to settle the question.

However, to this controversy is added more confusion by reference to Manuscript Release #1425. Wieland refers to it in his reply to Hauser (Layworker, op-cit., p. 9), as strong evidence that Ellen G. White held to his view of the "daily." Not having a copy of this Release, both Dr. George Rue and Mrs. Lee Coleman graciously responded to my request for a copy. Far from contributing in a substantial way to this "debate," it

p 3 -- rather furnishes more fuel for the fire over A. G. Daniells' administrative idiosyncracies and can only heighten the controversy over Ellen G. White herself. However, her state of mind as revealed in Manuscriript Release #1425, does lend credence to Daniells' recollection as related at the 1919 Bible Conference.

The question of the "daily" was introduced at the 1919 Bible Conference when the discussion turned to the use of historical data by Ellen G. White in writing about the fulfillment of proohecy. Daniells indicated that he had visited with Ellen White over the matter of the "daily." He took with him the "old chart". C. P. Bollman interrupted and asked - "The same chart that Elder Haskell sells?" To this Daniells, replied -      Yes, it was the same chart. I took that and laid it on her lap, and I took Early Writings and read it to her, and then I told her of the controversy. I spent a long time with her. It was one of her days when she was feeling cheery and rested, and so I explained it to her quite fully. I said, "Now here you say that you were shown that the view of the 'daily' that the bethren held was correct. Now," I said, "there are two parts here in this 'daily' that you quote. One is this period of time, the 2300 years, and the other is what the 'daily' itself was."

I went over that with her, and every time, as quick as I would come to that time, she would say, "Why, I know what was shown me, that the period of 2300 days was fixed, and that there would be no definite time after that. The brethren were right when they reached that 1844 date."

Then I would leave that, and I would go on about this "Daily." "Why," she said, "Brother Daniells, I do not know what that 'daily' is, whether it is paganism or Christ's ministry. That was not the thing that was shown me. " And she would go into that twilight zone right away. Then when I would come back to the 2300 years, she would straighten right up and say, "That is the thing we never can move away from. I tell you, you can never move away from that 2300 year period. It was
shown to me that that was fixed." (Spectrum, Vol 10, #1, p. 35)

[Note: Hauser quotes this same source but indicates it to be Light Bearers to the Remnant, a publication prepared by the GC Department of Education, and published by the Pacific Press, (See Layworker, op-cit. , p.11) Wieland should never have introduced Release #1425 for it only evidences how desperately he is grasping at straws to sustain his position in regard to the "daily."]

The Linguistics -- As we noted previously, the word translated, "daily" is the Hebrew word, tamid, which is used either as an adjective or an adverb, meaning, continual, or continually. In the book of Daniel, the word, tamid, is used as a substantive, or as we would say in the English language, a predicate adjective. Let me illustrate. Should I write - "He is good" - "good" is an adjective, and the sense of the sentence is clearly - "He is a good (man)," the noun being supplied. The question is what should be supplied in Daniel to give the full sense and meaning for tamid? So far I fail to find where Wieland addresses this point. In his reply to Hauser (Ibid., p. 10), Wieland cites "the law of first mention" as a principle governing interpretation. This is a good interpretive tool. Let us use it. The first use in the Bible of the. word, tamid, as an adjective is found in Ex. 29:42 where it refers to the morning and evening sacrifice as a "continual (tamid) burnt offering." In Ex. 30:8, the incense used on the Altar of Incense is described as "a perpetual (tamid) incense," which was to be offered day by day. The law of first mention would indicate that the word to be supplied in Daniel 8:11-13 could be, "ministry" - "the daily ministry."

This is what Elder A. T. Jones used in his explanation of these verses in Daniel. He wrote:      In Numbers 28 and 29 alone, the word [tamid] is use seventeen times, referring to the continual service in the sanctuary.

And it is the continual service of Christ, the true High Priest, "who continueth ever," and "who is consecrated forevermore" in "an unchangeable priesthood" - it is this continual service of our great High Priest which the man of sin, the Papacy, has taken away. It is the sanctuary and the true tabernacle in which this true High Priest exercises His continual ministry that has been cast down by "the transgression of desolation." It is this ministry and this sanctuary that the "man of sin" has taken away from the church and shut away from the world, and has cast down to the ground and stamped upon; and in the place of which it has set up itself "the abomination that maketh desolate." What former Rome did physically to the visible or earthly sanctuary, which was "the figure of the true" (Dan. 9:26, 27; Matt. 24:15), that the latter Rome has done spiritually to the invisible or heavenly sanctuary that is itself the true. (Dan. 11:31; 12:11; 8:11,13) (The Consecrated Way, pp. 99-100; Emphasis his)

p 4 -- But here we have a conundrum. Wieland does not believe what Jones has written on the "daily." He considers Jones' interpretation as apostate. Thus he is seconding the "motion" made, by Dr. George Knight in his book on A. T. Jones - From 1888 to Apostasy. Yet Wieland takes issue with Knight over his thesis. It is the conviction of this editor that Jones wrote a very inciteful and accurate interpretation of the "daily."

In the exchange between Wielnd and Hauser, two other Hebrew words used with tamid in Daniel are debated - rum in Daniel 8:11, and sur in 11:31 and 12:11. The main contention concerns, rum. The context of Daniel 8:11 is definitely a sanctuary setting. The series of verses close with the promise - "then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Dan. 8:11-14) This Hebrew word, rum can be found in the instruction regarding the sanctuary ritual as outlined in Leviticus, but one finds sur also used in the same instruction. Observe the following text:    And the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver, with the kidneys, it shall he take away (Hiph'il form of sur), as it is taken off (Hophal form of rum) from the bullock of the sacrifice of the peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering. (Lev. 4:9-10)

The same combinaton of rum and sur can be found in Lev. 4:31, 35. In Leviticus 3:4, 10, 15, the word, sur, is used to translate, "it shall be taken away." Thus both words as used in Daniel in regard to the taking away of the "daily" are found in the sanctuary instruction, and used practically as synonyms. In their sanctuary use, there is no evidence that rum ever means "exalt," nor "corporated into" as Wieland contends in his endeavor to make the "daily" a Biblical symbolism for paganism.

[Note: Hauser in his presentation also notes the above same relationship between rum and sur. Wieland's reply is the admonition that "Dr. Hauser must not try to rewrite the book of Daniel." The close relationship between Daniel 8:11-14, and the sanctuary ritual as found in Leviticus speaks for itself as well as the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:15.]

The Context of Tamid in Daniel -- The dream of Daniel 7 and the vision of Daniel 8 are parallel prophecies. Since the issue is over the question of what is the symbolism used to represent pagan Rome, we
need only to center our consideration on the fourth beast in the vision of Daniel 7. Concerning this fourth beast, Daniel wrote:      Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet. (Dan. 7:19)

Out of this fourth beast arose the "little horn" which symbolizes the papacy of history. At no time is the "little horn" ever separated from this beast. It ever receives its nourishment for life from tha beast.

In considering Daniel 8, we turn our attention to the "he-goat" whom Gabriel declared to be "the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king." (ver. 21) [This is the one and only interpretation Heaven ever gave for this symbol.] When the "great horn" was broken, in its place "came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven." (8:8) Then appears a "l'ittle horn" again which waxed "exceeding great." (8:9) This horn is Rome, both pagan and papal, even as the fourth beast and little horn of Daniel 7 represents the two phases.

It is in connection with this "little horn" that the "daily" (tamid) is introduced. (8:10-14) Here begins an interesting comparison. Nowhere in Daniel 8 do we find the "daily" doing what the fourth beast of Daniel 7 was pictured as doing - devouring, breaking in pieces, and stamping the remainder with his feet. (See 7:19 quoted above.) Rather the "daily" is being acted upon, not acting. Further, it is being acted upon by the symbol which represents both pagan and papal Rome. The very language is used - "the little horn" of Daniel 8, not the "daily" - "cast down of the host and of the stars to the ground and stamped upon them." (8:10) On this point, A. T. Jones was very clear. Note again:      What former Rome did physically to the visible or earthly sanctuary, which was "the figure of the true," that the latter Rome has done spiritually to the invible or heavenly sanctuary 'that is itself the true. (See above.)

Tragically, Wieland is teaching only a part of the truth which Jones espoused. Would to God he had the courage to teach all of it.

p 5 -- Hauser's Misuse of the Writings -- Dr. Robert Hauser is very forthright in stating his objection to the sole use of the prophic hermeneutic which was the basis of the Advent Movement - the historical approach by which history is but the response to the voice of prophecy. He calls it a "horse and buggy" approach. Here are his words in the "Introduction" to his book - Give Glory to Him:      The historical approach has served us well in the past, but like the horse and buggy, no longer fits our needs. This is not to discard the historical approach as untrue. It is, like the horse and buggy, no longer as relevant! (p. 2)

Sadly, too many are either unwilling to wait the "unrolling of the scroll" or to accept the fulfillment of prophecy as the scroll unrolls now as it has throughout all past history. These would rather purchase a "sports car" and race down the freeway to hell.

Hauser in a footnote in his "Introduction" to the book noted above, quotes Dr. Kenneth Strand of Andrews University listing the various approaches for the interpretation of th e book of Revelation - "preterist, futurist and continuous-historical." He notes variants within the "continuous-historical" approach besides subdivisions within the variants, and then concludes - "Therefore the approach used herein [in his book] does not fit any of the previous models but is a combination." ( Ibid., p. 3) Strict honesty would have served the reader much better had Hauser simply stated that his approach to the interpretation of the book of Revelation, and now Daniel, was a combination of the Jesuitical futuristic approach coupled with Dr. Desmond Ford's apotelesmatic theory. In other words, it is a betrayal of the basis of prophetic interpretation which undergirded the Advent Movement.

To make matters worse, Dr. Hauser has invoked the Writings to sustain the discarding of what he calls "the horse and buggy" approach. Let us note some of these references and see what they really are saying. Much emphasis is placed on the concept that "history ... will be repeated." (See TM, p. 116; Letter 103, 1904) This does not say that prophecy will be repeated. Anyone knows that the "deadly wound" did not convert the papacy! In her healing, the same policy will be manifest toward those who oppose her teaching as
was manifest during the heyday of her power - the 1260 years. Those who seek to make the sentence which says history will be repeated to read - prophecy will be repeated - know full well that it will not be another 1260 years; therefore, they seek.to interpret the 1260 prophetic days as literal time. , If it is literal, it is no longer prophetic; neither can the symbols be considered prophetic, but must become also literal beasts! No wonder confusion reigns when the prophetic basis of the Advent Movement is abandoned for human speculation.

Another reference from the Writings is quoted - "The prophecies of the eleventh of Daniel have almost reached their final fulfillment." (R&H, Nov. 24, 1904) First, "final" does not mean, "dual." There has been a progressive fulfillment of that chapter. Three kings did stand up in Persia with the fourth "far richer than they all." (verse 2) Alexander the Great did "rule with great dominion." (verse 3) One could continue through the chapter and note the prophecies which have been fulfilled. We are living in the time when the last verse of that chapter will be fulfilled - it will reach its "final, fulfillment." There are other references in the Writings to a "final fulfillment" of certain prophecies - all will be fulfilled; that which has and that which will be. The word, fulfillment, itself indicates a continuum, a progression in time to an ultimate end.

While Dr. Hauser wants to challenge Wieland's use of the Writings in his attempt to define the "daily;" he assumes thatIihe has perfect right to use the same Writings to attempt to justify his anti-Adventist interpretationt of prophecy. (I use the word, anti , in the strictest Greek sense "in place of.") We dare not misinterpret the "daily" contrary to Scripture evidence as Wieland is doing, neither dare we misapply a correct understanding of the "daily" by adopting a false interpretive schema as Hauser is doing.

It must be admitted that there are some questions in the book of Daniel concerning the "daily", which are difficult to understand and explain. We do recognize that Daniel is the prophecy and that Revelation is just what the name signifies - a revelation. However, we have not perceived all of the ramifications of this thesis. The content of the book of Revelation was revealed after the Cross, when "the kingdom of our God" was firmly re-established (Rev.12:10) It was so firmly re-established that prophecy ceased to be "conditional." It could be declared that God gave to Jesus a "revelation" of "things which must shortly come to pass." (Rev. 1:1) Thus those who seek to emphasize Dan. 12:11-12 are left with the problem of why these two "times" are omitted from the book of Revelation of things which must come to pass. The 1260 prophetic day are repeated several times in Revelation as well as the prophecy of the experience o God's people - when the 2300 days reached its final year. But nowhere are the 1290 or 1335 days even alluded to.

The place called in the Hebrew tongue - Har-Magedon, (Rev. 16:16 ARV) - amplifies Daniel 11:45, but the time given in Revelation is but "one hour." (Rev. 17:12; 18:10) Much more study needs to be given but not study based upon the Jesuit's interpretive schema, nor the theory of Dr. Desmond Ford.

p 6 -- LET'S TALK IT OVER -- The Editor of the Adventist Review summarized the 1989 Annual Council of the Church in a recent issue (Nov. 9, 1989). His final section was captioned - "A Decade of Healing." He indicated that Elder Neal C. Wilson "broke with tradition" and instead of giving a full summary of the achievements of the Church during the preceding year, "spent most of his time in developing a spiritual theme as he called for 'a decade of healing and reconciliation.'" (p. 9)

In getting to "specifics," Wilson is quoted as saying - "In dealing with people too many times we are willing to hide behind a legal judgment to escape a moral responsibility." We wonder how much of this specific type of "healing" did Wilson attempt to do personally prior to his "Preaching" of the objective. Has Wilson forgotten the Merikay Silver case and the deceptive role he played during it? (See Betrayal , pp. 205-210) Has Wilson forgotten his threatening of "Elder Mills" at the trial, and the charges that were trumped up against him? Is Wilson's memory so short that the Dederick Proctor injustice is no longer recalled? There are other events that could be recited. Should not the example for a "decade of healing" begin with the top officer of the Church?

The Editor does not place in quotes as attributable to Wilson, but implied, that "healing and reconciliation do not mean compromise of principle." The Bible does set forth certain principles regarding restoration. If the "broken relationship" resulted from irresponsibility in "that which was given unto him to keep" (Lev. 6:4-5), certain things had to precede restoration. But in announcing the restoration of Elder Desmond Cummings, Sr., who was deeply involved in the Davenport Scandal, Wilson does not indicate that Cummings has complied with any Biblical requirements which precede restoration even in a "token" manner. The basis for his restoration was that through this whole experience involving questionable fiduciary decisions, Cummings has "remained loyal" to the organization.

The use of "loyal" or loyalty" has an interesting background. Lillian Smith in her work, The Journey, comments:      As totalitarianism [hierarchical authority in the case of the Church] increases - in a school, or a country, or a church - the use of the word loyalty increases. A strange and frightening word. The mob's word. The gangs word. A word people shout in unison - while honor and responsibility and integrity are words an in dividual can speak, and act out.

How does one measure the quality of a man's relationship with a large entity such as a church or school o government? It is an interesting fact, and one many of us have observed all our lives, that people demand loyalty of us only when they are doing something to us (or somebody else) of which we don't approve and cannot wholeheartedly participate in, and which weakens our love and admiration. Let's admit it: loyalty is a verbal switch-blade used by little and big bosses [hierarchs] to force us quickly to accept a questionable situation which our intelligence and conscience should reject. (pp. 223, 224)

Now let us talk over the meaning of this call for healing and reconciliation in the light of the examples cited by Wilson. Are we to accept each one whom Wilson designate as reinstated when there still remains some serious questions, and in this one case as noted, an administrative fiduciary "wash out" without even a "token" repayment.

What about the changes that must be faced in the area of doctrine which has produced "brokenness"? Or does "loyalty" for the sake of "unity" mean we must consider the changes in basic truth merely semantics, and thus find ourselves in the end as really loyal to apostasy for the sake of personal acceptance? This next decade (if time lasts that long) - with Wilson's call for "healing and restoration" - will be eternally critical for every Seventh-day Adventist because the "rottenness" beneath is being covered by "garments of so-called righteousness" under the guise of mercy and healing. (See 8T:250)

It had been my intent to talk about another item in the second part of this new editorial feature - "Let's Talk It Over." But the mail which came yesterday changed the whole picture. In Wilson's report to the Annual Council, he had named anothe individual along with Elder Desmond Cummings, Sr., - Elder Morris Venden. I ha intended that the paragraph following th quotation on "loyalty" be enough said in regard to Venden - "there still remains some serious questions." But as I just wrote - all of this was changed by yesterday's mail.

p 7 -- A colleague from Madison College days sent me a whole packet of material from Pilgrim's Rest. Among this material was "WM 261" and with it an insert on blue paper - "Special Announcement." This brief announcement claimed that "WM 261" was intended for "only limited circulation" and not the whole mailing list to which it was sent. With Ferrell's track record for accuracy and honesty, this is questionable. But it does appear - so he writes - that he has received "a sizeable amount of appreciation for papers sent out" on the Venden affair.

It has been my understanding - so those who have defended him to me declare - that Ferrell 's objective is "to keep the saints informed." Do we have to use "septic tank" journalism to accomplish this objective? How can those who "appreciate" this, regaling themselves in this filth, really believe that they are "saints" and suppport this "cesspool" mentality? Are not the saints to bring "into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ"? (II Cor. 10:5) Is it obedience to Christ to "appreciate" the immoral and the filth of human lives? What about publishing that filth - even if only a "limited" circulation was intended?

Ferrell in his "WM 261" quotes Dr. Charles Wittschiebe as saying that all Venden would have to do was "just have a doctor give him an examination and end the whole matter." Now a doctor has done so, but Ferrell will not get out of the "septic tank." He is still dredging through the foul sediment to continue to regale his "appreciative" fans.

From this report - "WM 261" - I was amazed that William Parks, a college roomate of Venden's chose to second the allegation. I, too, have lived in a college dormitory for four years, and had several roommates. I could not this day under oath tell which ones had hair on their chest and which ones didn't, let alone what Parks is willing to testify about. We did try to maintain a degree of modesty even in a men's dormitory!

There is another aspect to this whole sordid affair that is being overlooked. The American Bill of Rights has more than just the first ammendment which guarantees freedom of the press and religion. Article V reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury ..." Ferrell has been conducting a "Grand Jury" investigation, impersonating himself as the legal counsel. Venden ought to take Ferrell into Federal Court and charge him with malicious slander with intent to destory him professionally. Then the saints(?) who have "appreciated" the "septic tank" journalism indulged in by Ferrell could contribute to a legal defense fund. --- (1990 Jan ) --- End --- TOP

1990 Feb -- XXIII -- 2(90) --Engelkemier Writes On the "Independent Ministries" -- As 1989 closed, the readers of the Adventis Review were served with a series of four article by Joe Engelkemier on the subject of "Independen Ministries." Actually, there are two groups of such ministries in the community of Adventism those under the "umbrella of the Adventist-Laymen's Services and Industries (ASI)" and thus under the control of the hierarchy of the Church The other segment represents groups of independents which during the 1980's "have proliferate - mainly in North America, but also overseas." This latter group are not under the control of the Church. (See Adventist Review, Dec. 7, 14, 21, 28, 1989)

The second article in the series revealed th bottom line as to why this series was being published - the question of where the tithe is to go, because of where some of the tithe is going. In the final issue of the Adventist Review for 1989, Myron Widmer, an associate editor reviewed some highlights in the Church for the year. On item specifically stated that "nearly every conference in North America experienced a reduction of staff ... This year particularly, conferences have faced increased expenses and the lack of sufficient tithes and offerings to keep up wit those expenses." (Dec. 28, 1989, p. 5)

In his second article, Engelkemier very bluntly addressed this problem by beginning his discussion with two questions: "Should an independent ministry solicit or accept tithe? Should a church member send tithe to an independent ministry?" (Dec. 14, 1989, p. 11) His answer, of course, to both questions was an emphatic - No! He also sought to address the example of Ellen G White who actually directed her tithe at time through other than conference channels. It was also interesting to note that he did not use the Estate "line" that since Ellen White was a prophetess, she had insights not available to th ordinary layperson, and was thus able to allocat tithe as she did. Engelkemier appealed rather to comments by W. C. White to be found in the biography written by Arthur White - EWG - and to Volume 9 of the Testimonies, which W. C. White

p 2 -- put together. [In this volume are statements on how tithe is to be used which contradict previous statements in earlier Testimonies, when Ellen White was clearly in control].

Just one section of a single article could not be exhaustive as to what Ellen White said and did in reference to the tithe, but at least it could have been balanced. Engelkeimer omitted any reference to the letter written from Cooranbong, Australia, to James Edson White under the date, August 15, 1898 which stated - "The Lord has not specified any regular channel through which means should pass." (Spalding & Magan's Collection, p. 498) It will be objected that the term,"means" doesn't mean tithe, but is rather limited to only offerings. We shall observe Ellen White's use of this term in the following experience.

Ellen , White sat on only one college board in her life, and this was the board of an indedendent ministry - Madison College. Speaking of the work there, she wrote - "Brethren Sutherland and Magan are as verily set to do the work of the Lord at Madison as other workers are appointed to do their part in the cause of present truth ... The Lord's money is to sustain them in their labors. They have a right to share the means given to the cause." (Special Testimonies, Series B, #11) She wrote further - "It is impossible to make the Madison school what it should be, unless it is given a liberal share of the means that shall be appropriated for the work in the South." (Ibid.) I am sure that the "means" appropriated to the work in the South was not only offerings, but was primarily tithe. Madison College was to receive a "liberal share" of these funds. But the school didn't so, receive. Why? "In their work, Brethren Magan and Sutherland have been hindered unnecessarily. Means have been withheld from them because in the organization and management of the Madison school, it was not placed under the control of the conference." (Ibid.)

The failure to deal honestly with the question of the tithe places this whole series of articles under a cloud. One of two things happened because Engelkemier is an educated person with much natural talent. He has taught Academy Bible classes, and helped prepare textbooks in that area. He also indicated in his first article the number of contacts he has had with independent ministries. (Dec. 7, 1989, p. 11) He either did not do his "home work" carefully in writing about Ellen White and the tithe question, or else knowing the facts, he deliberately chose to suppress them in harmony with the objectives of the hierarchy.

Madison College and its units were over the years "a thorn in the f1esh " of the hierarchy. Madison College is no more, and while the conference is largely responsible for its demise, the units and those in the self-supporting programs cannot be cleared of their failure to understand the counsel given. If they had paid their tithe - small today. And if a liberal share of the Lord's means used in the Southern field had been appropriated to Madison College, and thus its units could have shared, the picture too, could be different than it is today. Conference control of both management and means was not the Lord's devising, yet this is what the whole series of articles in the Adventist Review is all about.

These articles by Engelkemier are based on the presupposition that the Church does not have to face the judgment and has not been called into account by God for its doings. As early as 1882, Ellen G. White warned the Church that it "will be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary." But at that time it rested "as unconcerned as if the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night rested upon our sanctuary." (5T :83-84) The same attitude prevails today. Then in 1903, when the Church by its actions at the General Conference session of that year began the process "of her own
backsliding," Ellen White wrote emphatically:        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, 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." By the light bestowed, the opportunities given, will she be judged. (8T-:247)

It needs to be kept in mind that W. C. White switched "horses in the middle of the stream" between 1901 and 1903, and was himself in the backsliding process of 1903. Further, it was his hand who manipulated Volume 9 so as to restore authority to the General Conference and channel the tithe. (Continued on p. 7)

p 3 -- Key Words In Message To Laodicea -- A few weeks back, a young worker here on the campus received a "thought paper" from Elder R. J. Wieland which carried the subtitle - "A Study of Mello in the Book of Revelation." The paper actually could be divided into three sections:  1) A discussion of mello;   2) a discussion of tis, another key Greek word in the message to Laodicea; and  3) Wieland's presunpositions or obsessions in regard to the future of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a corporate body. This article will discuss only the first two items of the paper noting the presuppositions only as necessary to the discussion.

Mello (mellw ) as a Greek word is used twelve times in the book of Revelation. Its use in the message to. Laodicea is in the critical 16th verse - "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will (mello) spue the'e out of my mouth." The general meaning of the word, mello, is "to be about to do anything." Wieland seeks to give the 16th verse a free translation to fit his presupposition making it read (He calls it "a dynamic equivalence?") - "Thus because you are lukewarm, you make me sick at my stomach and I feel like throwing up." There is a vast difference between "feeling" like vomiting, and "about to vomit" as any one who has been so sick, can testify.

Each use, of mello in the book of Revelation is followed by an infinitive. This governs the force and meaning of the word. Both Thayer and Arndt & Gingrich in their Lexicons define mello in Rev. 3:16 as meaning, "to intend, have in mind, think to, be on the point of, be about to." Besides 3:16, these lexicographers cite four other references in Revelation as using mello with the same meaning. Let us note each text and see what John is saying by using this word in 3:16:

Revelation 2:10 - "Fear none of those things which thou shalt (mello) suffer: behold the devil shall (mello) cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried."

Did this take place, or did the devil just "feel" like doing it?

Revelation 3:2 - "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready (mello), to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.

The church of Sardis is recognized as symbolizing the Protestant Churches. Did the main tenets of Protestantism die, or did the Protestant Churches turn around? If they did turn around, why then was the Second Angel's Message given?

Revelation 10:4 - "And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about (mello) to write."

Did John write what he heard? No! Why? Because a "voice from heaven" said, "Write them not." Would he have written what he had heard if the voice had not spoken? Yes! But there is no voice in the whole of the Laodicean message telling the True Witness not to vomit them out. The conclusion is simple for one not blinded by his own presuppositions - The True Witness will vomit out Laodicea.

Revelation 12:4 - "The dragon stood before the woman which was ready (mello) to be delivered for to devour her child as soon as it was born."

To ask the question - "Was she delivered?" is very elementary, and the answer is self-evident.

Mello as used in all of these verses carries the force of intent to do as indicated by the infinitive unless that intent is altered by Divine intervention. Wieland's position cannot be sustained by an appeal to the Greek. To distort the Word of God to sustain a presupposition is to practice deception of the darkest hue. To present a faulty use of the Greek as a facade of presumed scholarship is reprehensible.

The Meaning of Tis -- Another key word in Revelation 3:14-21 is tis ( tiV ) in verse 20: "Behold I stand at the door and knock: if any man (tis) hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to
him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Concerning this verse, Wieland comments -

p 4 -- "When Christ speaks to Laodicea of knocking at the door, He says, 'If a certain one hears My voice ...' That 'certain one' is the same one to whom He has addressed this special message - 'the angel of the church of the Laodiceans.'" (p. 6)

The question to be decided is very simple when cleared of the verbage based on presuppostions. Does tis mean in Rev. 3:20 - "if a certain one" - or does it mean as given in the KJV - "if any man"?

First let us check some grammar. Tis is an indefinite pronoun, and in the subjunctive clause of Rev. 3:20, it is used as the subject. When so used, it equals - "anyone," "anybody" or "anything." "Sometimes it is difficult to give more force to tis than the English indefinite article ... Indeed it is nearly always true that our 'certain' is too emphatic." (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In the Light of Historical Research, pp. 742-743)

A careful analysis.of how John uses the word - tis - as the subject of clauses in the subjunctive mood will clarify its use in Revelation 3:20. In two other places in Revelation he uses the same expression - "If any man" (ean tiV). Note:

Revelation 22:18 - "For I testify to every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man (ean tis) shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

Revelation 22:19 - "And if any man (ean tis) shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, ...

Now read these verses as Wieland would want you to read Rev. 3:20 - "If a certain one shall add," and "If a certain one shall take away." The meaning is distorted if so read. Likewise Rev. 3:20. The KJV is still an accurate translation of these verses - and consistent!

John also used this word in his Gospel and the first Epistle. Note these uses:

John 14:23 - "Jesus answered and said unto him, If any man (ean tis) love me, he will keep my words."

John 15:6 - "If a man (.ean tis) abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; ..."

I John 4:20 - "If a man (ean tis) say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is liar."

(To these verses, more could be added, such as John 3:3, 5)

Again read these verses as Wi6land would have you read Rev. 3:20 - "A certain one."

When John wrote in Rev. 3:20 - "If any hear my voice," he was writing as in all the places where he used the same expression. He was speaking to any individual in Laodicea who would hear the voice of Jesus, not to the corporate leadership. He refers to the corporate leadership "the angel" as "thou," "thee" or "thy" (su), never, tis. It is tragic to what lengths a man will go to distort the plain word of God to fit his preconceived ideas. However, a greater tragedy are the souls who are deceived through this means - and sadly, there are many. How long will sincere Adventists continue to merely listen to this supposed scholarship of Wieland's "thought paper" instead of searching for themselves the basic facts of truth? All who listen so avidly to Wieland should obtain a copy of the original 1888 Re-Examined, and note carefully what he and Short said in the beginning. All the data is now consolidated in one manuscript - A Warning and Its Reception. Order Form

p 5 -- DOCUMENTATION -- In the December issue of WWN (XXII-12) we called attention to the Red Mass celebrated in our nation's capital for the legal profession on October 1, 1989. [Below] we reproduce a picture appearing in the Catholic New York, October 5, and the article from the Washington Times on this page. This documentation speaks for itself in regard to the Roman Catholic Bishop's objectives in regard to the union of Church and State in America.

Catholic New York, October 5, 1987 -- Caption under picture:    RED MASS DIGNITARIES-Chief Justice of the United States William H. Rehnquist (center) is flanked by Cardinal James Hickey of Washington (left) and Archbishop Anthony J. Bevilacqua of Philadelphia following Washington's annual Red Mass for the judiciary Oct. 1. The Supreme Court began a new judicial year Oct. 2.

 

THE WASHNGTON TIMES October 6, 1989 / Page B5 Text of this article below.

Unity of state, church sought -- THE WASHNGTON TIMES -- National leaders attending the annual Red Mass at St. Matthew's Roman Catholic Cathedral on Sunday were asked to improve the cooperation between church and state to bolster the nation's moral fiber.

"'The time has come to restore the vital relationship between religion and law, church and society," the Most Rev. Anthony J. Bevilaqua, archbishop of Philadelphia, said in the homily.

He said church and state have been in conflict for the last 30 years, leading to the expulsion of religion from public life.

"This opposition, this impregnable wall ... cannot endure much longer" Archbishop Bevilaqua said. If it continues, he added, it will produce a "barrier between religion and society and lead to moral decay."

The Red Mass, established in 1928 and conducted nationwide, is dedicated to prayers for the administration of legal justice and good government each year.

Attending the Mass and sitting in the front rows were Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr., Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Louis W. Sullivan and Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan Jr. also attended as did former Chief Justice Warren Burger. There were several congressmen, judges and attorneys among the nearly 1,000 worshippers.

Archbishop Bevilacqua, a former attorney, said the Mass was a time of reconciliation with government, leaders and the judiciary by giving thanks for their services.

The question of a new cooperation is compelling this year because it marks the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution and the founding of the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church, he said.

The archbishop said his example of the Catholic Church stood as a "metaphor for religion in general," an illustration of the church-state balance through American history.

According to recent national polls, a majority of Americans accept such public accommodation to religion as prayer in school, public use of religious symbols and some form of tax credit for families using private religious schools.

But recent court rulings have made these forms of "cooperation" between church and state unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court this year signaled a shift toward allowing the moral and religious views of the population to determine legislation when, in a Missouri abortion-law case, it ruled that states have a right to restrict abortion. - Larry Witham

p 6 -- LET"S TALK IT OVER --In recent years the term, "cheap" grace has been used to stigmatize those who preach a certain theology in regard to righteousness by faith. In recent weeks, I have been contemplating the grace of God by which men are saved. Paul wrote that "by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9) The means by which this gift has been extended to us is Jesus Christ. God poured all Heaven out in one gift. "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son." (Jn. 3:16)

The Gift was more than merely that of a beautifully wrapped "Christmas" package. In fact, there was no outward beauty connected with Him. Isaiah prophesied that "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." (Isa. 53:2) Yet in that Gift, God made provision for our redemption from sin. One equal with God took the slave-form of man and became obedient unto death. The extension of grace to man did not come cheaply.

In simple language, there is no such thing as "cheap grace." It is how we relate to this grace which either cheapens it, or makes it that "marvelous, infinite, matchless grace" coming down from the Father above. Neither the liberal, nor the conservative Adventist has a monopoly on throwing "cheap grace" as an epithet at the other. In the polarization evident in the community of Adventism, both the liberal, and the conservative are .guilty of cheapening the grace of God "so fully and so freely extended." I can take the attitude - without saying a word - and manifest in the life that I believe that the grace of God will save me in my sins. This cheapens God's grace as manifest through Jesus Christ for He came to "save His people from their sins."' (Matt.1:21) To manifest a life-style which uses the grace of God to cover the expression of one's selfish desires is to do "despite unto the Spirit of grace." (Heb. 10:29)

On the other hand, if I perceive of the grace of God to be insufficient to meet my need for redemption - now I wouldn't confess this and I believee that I must add something to that grace to make it effective, I have also cheapened it. But more than that, I have cast reflection upon God saying, though not openly, God, you are not great enough to provide for my salvation, so I am going to make a contribution of my good works to help you out. This is as much an exaltation of self as is the selfish expression to live as one pleases yet proclaiming the grace of God as a covering for his sin. God will condemn the cheapening of His grace no matter which course of life is followed. God's grace did not come cheaply and He will visit in judgment those who cast aspersion on that grace as well as those who presume upon His mercy.

p 7 -- "Independent Ministries" frxm page 2 -- The whole issue raised by Engelkemier can be solved quickly by the determination of two simple questions:  1) Has the Seventh-day Adventist Church been weighed in the balances of the sanctuary? The statement of Ellen G. White is definite - it "is to be weighed." And   2) What was the verdict? These two questions Engelkemier did not address. The hierarchy wish to ignore them, and the independent ministries such as The 1888 Message Study Ccmmittee, Hope International, Hartland Institute, and Pilgrim's Rest duck their heads into the sand in regard to these two questions. The prophetic message of Jesus is still kept outside the door of each of these ministries.

A Lssoln from the Book of Daniel -- Daniel was a closed book - and sadly still closed to many minds. The angel did not say - "0 Daniel, shut up and seal the prophecies written in the book" - but rather "seal the book, even to the time of the end." (Dan. 12:4) In this book is the message of how to act and react when God reveals that He has weighed a corporate entity in the balances of the sanctuary and the finding resulting from that "weighing."

In the third year of Belshazzar, Daniel received a vision in which he was told specifically that the next world power would be the Medes and Persians. (Dan. 8: 1, 3, 20) He was living at the time in the palace in Shushan in the province of Elam. (8:2) As the forces of Cyrus pressed the eastern frontier of the Babylonian Empire, Daniel returned to Babylon. He could have sought "political asylum" with the Medes as he was well known to them. But no, the decision of Heaven had not been revealed. He would not move till God made known that decision.

On the last night of Babylon under Belshazzar, Daniel was called to read the mysterious writing on the walls of the palace. There he read the verdict - "Tekel" - "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting." (Dan. 5:27) The next day he entered into the governmental service of the Medes and Persians. God had spoken; the "ram" appeared; Daniel responded. It was just that simple. This book that records how Daniel reacted to the "weighing in the balances" was sealed to the time of the end. We have reached that time. Here is our guideline -"a light that shineth in a dark place, unti' the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts." (II Peter 1:19)

Stand Amazed and Wonder - A reader of the Thought Paper sent us a sample of a Drexon LaserCard, "an optical memory card." In size it resembles an ordinary credit card. It has a large memory capacity, 2.86 Mbytes, or the equivalent of 1,200 type written pages. The company producing the card indicates, it is "ideal for storing data, text, pictures, graphics, voice and software." One wonders what final use will be found for such a card. --- (1990 Feb) --- End --- TOP