ADVENTISM, ITS ROOTS AND FRUITS
-A. Ralph Johnson
INTRODUCTION:
When a salesman comes to the door we have laws to
help safeguard our interests. Of those, the right to know what we are getting
into is especially important. If we are
considering an important business deal, we may consult a lawyer and perhaps
even have him present.
However, when religious advocates knock there is
little legal protection and people often fail to take steps to protect
themselves. The damage done may be
emotional, destruction of one’s home, loss of income, loss of life and even
loss of your soul. In this area more
than any other it must be, “Let the buyer beware.”
Insist on full, open disclosure right from the
beginning. Check them out with
others. Hear all sides before making
commitments. Any deception or attempt to cover up should be reason for
immediate rejection. Unfortunately,
many people invite them in, listen to their spiel, take their literature,
permit them to return time after time and do very little to check out their
claims with competent sources.
Beware of those who paint everyone else as being
deceived or as deceivers. Creating
suspicion against others is often a way of isolating and controlling the
individual. Paul described it as a, “desire to shut you out, that you may seek
them” (Gal. 4:16).
Another warning sign is pushing some book to study
in order to find the “truth” about the Bible.
Books can be helpful to compare ideas but they are often used to switch
from relying on God’s word to relying upon someone’s explanations. If you cannot understand the Bible without
their book then how could you use the Bible to evaluate whether they are
correct?
Beware of relying on some man as authority,
especially when they are held up as being guided by God to provide the truth
which could not be understood by the Bible alone. If God can not say what he means, what makes them think they can
say it better?
Books often take Scripture out of context and put
clever twists on what is said. They
often only cite the scriptures to make it appear that the Bible is being
studied. In fact, they gradually wean the person to rely upon their
explanations. The book may have a lot of good but remember, rat poison is
over 90% good corn meal!
Most of all, beware of those who profess to have
some prophetic powers (Matt. 7:15-24). Be especially cautious about claims of
special insight as to the time of Christ’s coming (Matt. 24:36). Certainly reject them if the dates and
things they foretell do not come to pass (Deut. 18:20-22). Likewise, if they claim to have some special
guidance and keep changing their teachings and especially, if they teach things
that conflict with Biblical teaching (Deut. 13:1-3). When claiming extra-Biblical revelation their interpretation
becomes the real authority.
Remember, the Devil fashions himself as an angel of
light. His ministers appear to be
ministers of righteousness (2Cor. 11:13-15). Do not be fooled by a “loving,”
“honest,” appearance. Jesus warned that false-prophets appear to be good. They may have “sheep’s clothing” but, beware
of their teeth! Don’t be deceived into
thinking that beautiful flowers in May mean good “fruit” in September.
Matt. 7:15-23. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing... Not every one that saith unto me, Lord,
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my
Father who is in heaven. Many will say
to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name
cast out demons, and by thy name
do many mighty works? And then
will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.
Matt. 24:23-27. Jesus warned of those who
profess to have special knowledge as to his coming.
The way to be firm on the rock and not moved by such
people is by hearing and obeying the words of the father (Matt. 7:24).
There’s an old saying about a nail left out
of the shoe of a horse. Because of the
nail the shoe was lost. Because of the
shoe, a horse was lost. Because of the
horse, a soldier was lost. Because of
the soldier a battle was lost. Because of the battle a war was lost. Because of the war a nation was lost. History is full of cases where small errors
have resulted in disastrous consequences.
The Bible makes the same
point concerning the danger of the tongue.
“So the tongue is a little member,
and boasts great things. Behold, how
much wood is kindled by how small a fire!” (James 3:5) Never has this been more true than of the
Second Advent movement of 1844.
ENTER WILLIAM MILLER
Prophecy is a heady thing
and often the first people to jump to conclusions are those who know the
least about the Bible as a whole, and sound methods of interpretation. William Miller, a farmer, born in
Pittsfield, Mass., Feb. 15, 1781, converted from deism to the Baptist Church,
for two years studied the Bible and in 1833 in Low Hampton, NY, began to
lecture on prophecy.
Based on conclusions he drew
concerning Daniel 8:14 and in spite of the fact that the scriptures say, “In an hour when you think NOT the son
of man comes” (Luke 12:40; Matt. 24:36), he began his count-down from the
decree of Artaxerxes and arrived at 1843 as the time for Jesus to return to
earth. He printed a pamphlet entitled, EVIDENCES FROM SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY OF THE
SECOND COMING OF CHRIST ABOUT THE YEAR 1843, AND OF HIS PERSONAL REIGN OF ONE
THOUSAND YEARS.
It was a time of revival
fervor across the land. Miller was
convincing and thousands joined in accepting the date. However, Miller made
several seriously unfounded assumptions.
ASSUMPTION #1
Miller assumed that the, “2,300 days”
(Dan. 8:14) represented years.
In some prophecies a day may stand for a
year. However, it is invalid to presume
that is the case in all. They may be
literal days as in Dan. 4:16, 25, 33-34.
Daniel 8:14 does not use the
usual word, “yowm”[1] commonly
translated “day.” The Authorized (King
James) Version, which Miller used, translates this as, “days” but in the Hebrew
the passage has two words, “ereb”[2]
and “boger.”[3] The Revised Standard Version translates
these as, “evenings and mornings.” This refers to the 2,300 evenings and
mornings during which the sanctuary was trodden under foot by Antiochus
Epiphanes. (See #3 below)
The 2, 300 evenings and
mornings appear to be literal days (as in Genesis 1:5), although probably
standing for a round number, not intended to be exact. The period is close to the six years from
around Aug. 5, 171 BC when Antiochus plundered the temple to Dec. 25, 165 BC
when the sacrifices were restored.[4] Others consider it as ending in 164 BC with
the death of Antiochus. Some think it
is the number of evening and morning sacrifices missed (1,150 days) which
approximate the three years when there were no sacrifices.
ASSUMPTION #2
A second assumption is that the
countdown began with the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem. Nothing like that is even faintly suggested
in the chapter. This vision is in the
third year of Belshazzar (553 BC), king of Babylon (8:1). To find a beginning date, they arbitrarily
jump from chapter 8 to chapter nine, a vision about 15 years later under Darius
(538 BC[5]),
king of Persia (9:1), that speaks of 70 weeks being decreed from the time of
the command to rebuild Jerusalem unto the Messiah. However, that is not the period when the evening and morning
offerings were shut down. The sanctuary
was not trodden under foot all through that period. Except for the 2300 days under Antiochus, the sacrifices
continued for hundreds of years until destruction of the temple in 70 AD.
They claim that Gabriel’s
commission to, “make this man to
understand the vision,” necessitates the beginning date be specified. That is totally insufficient reason to jump
to another vision years later. The
explanation given in 8:17-26 was ample and accurate. It was simply the number of evenings and mornings the burnt
offering was suspended. Historically,
that would be from Dec. 167 BC, when Antiochus defiled and shut down the temple
worship, to Dec. 164 BC, when it was resumed.
If further clarification is needed, it can be found in Daniel 11:1-37
where in plain language, with reference to Persia and Greece, it
chronologically indicates Antiochus as the king that would take away the daily
sacrifice (8:11; 11:31).
ASSUMPTION #3
The least excusable
assumption is that the “little horn”
of Dan. 8 is the Roman Pope. This comes from confusing two
“little horns” mentioned in Daniel. The
first is on the fourth beast with ten horns
(Dan. 7:8, 24), of which three are plucked up by the “little horn.” This vision is in the
first year of Belshazzar. Babylon is specified as the first “beast.” That would make Persia the
second and Greece the third. The little
horn is on the fourth beast,
which clearly is Rome (cf. Rev. 17).
The Pope could be the fulfillment of that.
However, the “little horn” of Daniel 8 is very
different. This vision is three years
later and it comes out of Greece, not Rome.
The ram is clearly identified as Persia and the goat as Greece.
The “notable horn” is the first king of Greece (v.
21). That can only refer to Alexander
the Great (cf. 11:3). When the “notable horn” of the Grecian “goat” is broken, four more stand
up. Note that here there are four
horns, not ten. This is the
division of the Macedonian Empire into four parts following Alexander’s death
(8:22 cf. 11:4). When the struggle for
power among his generals ended, Cassander ruled Macedonia; Lysimachus ruled
Thrace; Ptolemy ruled Egypt and a fourth general, Antigonus ruled Syria. Antigonus was defeated by the others and
replaced by Seleucus, a general of Ptolemy.
Unlike the ten-horned fourth
beast of chapter seven, this “little horn”
did not pluck up three, but grew “out of
one of them.” He was specified to
be a “king” (not a pope) who would come
in the latter time of their kingdom.
This fits Antiochus Epiphanies.[6] He forbade Sabbath keeping, put an image of
himself in the temple for worship, sacrificed a pig on the altar, and caused
the evening and morning sacrifices to cease (11:21, 31, 36-37). The Maccabean priests led a rebellion, which
after three years restored the sacrifices. (See: I Maccabees chapter 1 to 4:52)
The “time of the end” (Dan. 8:17; 11:40; 12:4, 9) was the time when the
nation of Israel was coming to an end (See Matt. 23:35, 36; Luke 21:22 cf. Ac.
2:16).
The desecration of the
temple by Antiocus, in a number of ways parallels the desecration under
Rome. About 60 BC Rome took full
control of Palestine. In 66 AD
rebellion broke out resulting in the Roman armies destroying Jerusalem in 70
AD. This ended the sacrifices and the
nation. Because of these similarities, the predictions of Daniel 9:26-27 cited
by Jesus in Matt. 24:15 and Luke 21:20-24, are sometimes confused with Daniel
8. While there are similarities, there
are significant differences.
It should be noted that the
Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8 is totally at odds with the overwhelming
mass of scholarship both Jewish and Christian.
It has been almost universally recognized for the last 2,000 years that
Daniel 8 is speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the “sanctuary” was the Jewish
temple.
ASSUMPTION #4
Besides this, and certainly
not least in significance, is the fact that nothing in Daniel 8 indicates the
sanctuary was in heaven or cleansed by the Messiah. Certainly there is no
indication the heavenly sanctuary needed cleansing 1800 years after Jesus had
shed his blood.
It is clear that the “sanctuary” (Hebrew, “qodesh”[7]),
also translated “holy place,” was the
area of the temple behind the veil, where the Ark rested, along with the mercy
seat (Lev. 16:2). Hebrews 9:1-12 shows
that once a year the high priest entered to sprinkle blood upon the mercy seat
of the ark (see Leviticus 16).
The question in verse 8:13
concerns how long the sanctuary and the host were to be trodden under foot. The “little” horn was to do this. In order for the little horn to tread it
down it’s feet would have to stand there.
Since the “little horn” did
not stand in heaven, the sanctuary was obviously on earth.
When
Jesus ascended he entered the true tabernacle--heaven itself, and offered his
blood once and for all (Heb. 6:19-20).
He then sat down at the right hand of the Father. Like Melchizedek, he was a priest upon his
throne (Heb. 6:20--7:3, 11-17; Zech. 6:13, Acts 2:31-36; Col. 1:13). He will remain there until the last enemy,
death, has been abolished (Ps. 110:1; 1Cor. 15:25-26; Rev. 20:11—21:4).
We see this in Hebrews
9:1--10:1 which compares the earthly and heavenly tabernacles. The first had a sanctuary of this
world. It was a “copy” or “shadow” of the
true tabernacle (8:5; 9:23-24). The
second was in heaven (Heb. 9:24), pitched by God, not man (8:2; 9:11,
23-24). At the time Hebrews (6:19-20)
was written, Jesus had left earth (typified by the Holy Place) and entered
within the veil (which represented his
flesh --Heb. 10:19, 20), into heaven “once
for all” (9:11-12). The cleansing was with his blood
(9:23). (See: The Cleansing of the
Sanctuary, p. 129-152 by J. W. Chism)
The whole Adventist scheme
is illogical and unscriptural. Why
would the sanctuary in heaven be cleansed 2,300 years after the pre-captivity
temple was destroyed on earth? Why
would destruction of the earthly temple require that the heavenly one be
cleansed 1800 years after Jesus went to heaven? The earthly temple was rebuilt and dedicated by God’s command
(Ezra 6:14-18). The sacrifices were
resumed and, except for the time of Antiochus, continued until its destruction
in 70 AD. Since the primary point of
Daniel 8 deals with the period of taking away the continual burnt offering, and
the sanctuary and host being trodden under foot (8:11, 13), how can the period
from the destruction of the pre-captivity temple to 1844 have any
relevance?
Thus, there is no basis
whatever for 1844 as the cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven. Rather it was a purely face-saving device
contrived to cover for the 1844 failure.
The situation should alert people to God’s warning against being misled
by false prophets (Matt. 24:23-27).
Indeed, hundreds of Adventist
preachers have left the church or been put out of their jobs because they
recognize this doctrine as in direct conflict with propitionary sacrifice of
Jesus and as totally dependent upon the word of Mrs. White. An excellent book on the subject is that of
Dr. Desmond Ford, for many years a Seventh-Day Adventist Scholar, who was
disfellowshipped for writing against their Sanctuary doctrine.
When the 1843 date passed
without the return of Jesus, Samuel S. Snow, suggested changing it to Oct. 22,
1844 and he, along with George Stores and others, began to preach this new
date. Miller was a sincere man who,
when his prediction failed, confessed that he had been in error. In time, he joined them on the new date but
when this also failed, he gave up the matter entirely and died in 1849. F.H.Berick and Jonathan Cummings went on to
try again in 1853 and 1854 before also conceding failure.
Thus, date setting, and
unfounded claims, have become hallmarks of the movement. Instead of facing their scriptural error
they persist in compounding it.
Unfortunately, Miller’s mistake resulted in a large number of followers
left without a shepherd. Because they
were poorly founded scripturally, and highly dependent on signs, they were
susceptible to serious errors and seemed attract them like a hound dog in a
flea circus. Leaders of lesser
integrity used claims of visions and revelations to gain power.
Mrs. White herself said,
About this time, fanaticism began to appear. Some who had professed to be zealous believers in the message,
rejected the word of God as the one infallible guide, and claiming to be led by
the Spirit, gave themselves up to the control of their own feelings,
impressions, and imaginations.
The Great Controversy, page 395, paragraph 1,[8]
The result has been a series
of cults that have been a scourge from that time to this. The movement fragmented into some six bodies
of Adventists.[9] Others, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and
Herbert Armstrong’s “World Wide Church Of God” were later hatched in the same
nest and hold much in common.
Please understand that I
have no animosity towards Adventists. I
am simply concerned with these unscriptural and dangerous teachings. Most of them are good people. Indeed, my family on my Father’s side were
of that persuasion. My grandmother, to
whom I was her favorite and who I dearly loved, died in an Adventist rest home. One of the earliest religious books I can
remember was her, BIBLE READINGS FOR THE HOME CIRCLE, which I still have. I have closely searched their
teachings. However, under careful
comparison with the Bible they have been weighed and found wanting.
The largest group was the
Seventh-day Adventists, although not formally known by that name until
1861. Prominent leaders that emerged
from among them were Joseph Bates, James White, Ellen G. Harmon, Hiram Edson,
Frederick Wheeler, and S.W.Rhodes.
Ellen was only a girl of 17 at the time of the “great disappointment,”
but with her marriage in 1846 to James White who was very influential, and her
“visions” and writing, she in time gained complete control.
The Second Advent movement
has from the beginning been noted for attempting to set a date for the Second
Coming. Daniel 8:14 was one of the
original scriptures used. At first they
thought the earth was the sanctuary to be cleansed and Jesus was coming to do it
in 1843. Miller drew up a chart showing
the date. When this failed, different
Adventist groups came up with variety of explanations, often similar in
concept.
Ellen White, in her “First Vision” said,
Soon we heard the voice of God like many waters, which gave us the
day and hour of Jesus' coming. The living saints, 144,000 in number, knew
and understood the voice, while the wicked thought it was thunder and an
earthquake. When God spoke the time, He poured upon us the Holy Ghost,
and our faces began to light up and shine with the glory of God, as Moses' did
when he came down from Mount Sinai.
--Testimonies for the Church Volume One, page 59, paragraph 1
Unfortunately, their
expectations were wrong. The morning
after the “Great Disappointment” Hiram Edson professed to have seen a vision of
Christ standing at the altar in heaven, and concluded that Miller was correct
about the time but wrong concerning the place. –The Midnight Cry[10]
p. 457
Ellen White speaks concerning this:
I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the
Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted
them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures,
so that none could see it until his hand was removed.
--Early Writings, p. 74, paragraph 1
Imagine, a chart “directed by the hand of God” which has a
“mistake in some of the figures”! But they were stuck with the difficulty of
explaining how Christ could have fulfilled their claims without having taken
them to the marriage. To resolve this dilemma they came up with the implausible
explanation that when the bridegroom (Jesus) came to his house (the tabernacle
in heaven) his followers only spiritually entered with him.
In the chart Miller cited four different ways of arriving at 1843.
1. 677
BC + 2520 (Gentile times) = 1843
2. 457
BC + 2300 (“days” of Dan. 8:14)= 1843
3. 1798
AD + 45 (years between dates -Dan.
12:11-12) = 1843
4.
508 AD + 1335 (“days” of Dan. 12:12) =1843
Notice that this is Miller’s
chart about the date, 1843, NOT 1844, the date they now accept. Indeed,
she even had a vision prior to 1843 which endorsed this as the date. They try to suppress this but she here
clearly accepts the 1843 date as from God.
It is nonsense to say it was directed
by the Lord and still admit a “mistake
in some of the figures.” They did
in fact alter the chart, contrary to her “vision.”
When the 1843 date failed
they claimed that they had overlooked the fact that there was no year “0” in
their calculations and thus it should have been 1844. However, that throws the chart into conflict with two of the
methods of calculation which did not begin in BC.
Mrs. White tells us that
according to Matt. 25:1-13,
The proclamation, “Behold, the Bridegroom cometh,” in the summer of
1844, led thousands to expect the immediate advent of the Lord. At the appointed time the Bridegroom came,
not to the earth, as the people expected, but to the Ancient of days in Heaven,
to the marriage, the reception of his kingdom.
“They that were ready went in with him to the marriage, and the door
was shut.” They were not to be present in person at the marriage; for it
takes place in Heaven, while they are upon the earth. The followers of Christ are to “wait for
their Lord, when He will return from the wedding.” But they are to understand His work, and to follow Him by
faith as He goes in before God. It
is in this sense that they are said to go in to the marriage.
--The Great Controversy, page 427,
paragraph 1 [11]
(See also, her comments on Dan. 7 on p. 479-480. We give the quote
under our section on the Investigative Judgment)
There are some major
problems with this. How, could Jesus in
1844, be going in before God when, at his ascension he went to the Father
and sat with him on his throne?
(see Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1Pe. 3:22; Eph. 1:20; Col.
3:1) He was to sit there until all
things were put under his feet (Heb. 1:13; 10:12; Ac. 2:34-35; 1Cor.
15:24-28). Since the last enemy to be
put under his feet was death, he was to remain on the throne until the
resurrection.
Another problem has to do
with the fact that when the bridegroom enters, the door is shut and no one is
further admitted (Matt. 25:10).
Adventists at first taught that all who were to enter did so in 1844 and
the door of grace was shut. This was
called, “The shut door.”
Mrs. White
said:
This subject was not understood by Adventists in 1844. After the
passing of the time when the Savior was expected, they still believed the
Savior’s coming to be very near; they held that they had reached an important
crisis, and the work of Christ as man’s intercessor before God had
ceased....All this confirmed them in the belief that probation had ended, or,
as they then expressed it, “the door of mercy was shut.”
--1907 GREAT CONTROVERSY,[12] p.429 paragraph 1
The passing of the time in 1844 was followed by a period of great trial
to those who still held the Advent faith. Their only relief, so far as
ascertaining their true position was concerned, was the light which directed
their minds to the sanctuary above. As has been stated, Adventists were for a
short time united in the belief that the door of mercy was shut. This position
was soon abandoned. Some renounced their faith…
--The Spirit of Prophecy Volume
Four, page 271, paragraph 2[13]
It appears that
until 1851 Mrs. White herself continued in this view.
In 1847 she wrote:
The view about the Bridegroom’s coming I had about the middle of
February, 1845.
While in Exter, Maine, in meeting with
Israel Dammon, James, and many others, many of them did not believe in a shut
door. I suffered much at the
commencement of the meeting. Unbelief
seemed to be on every hand.
There was one sister there that was called
very spiritual. She had traveled and
been a powerful preacher most of the time for twenty years. She had been truly a mother in Israel. But division had risen in the band on the
shut door. She had great sympathy and
could not believe the door was shut (I had known nothing of their difference.) Sister Durben got up to talk. I felt very, very sad.
At length my soul seemed to be in an
agony, and while she was talking I fell from my chair to the floor. It was then I had a view of Jesus rising
from His mediatorial throne and going to the holiest as Bridegroom to receive
His kingdom…
…When I came out of vision, my ears were
saluted with Sister Durben’s singing and shouting with a loud voice.
Most of them
received the vision, and were settled upon the shut door.[14]
Sabbath, March 24th, 1849, we had a sweet, and very interesting meeting
with the Brethren at Topsham, Me. The Holy Ghost was poured out upon us, and I
was taken off in the Spirit to the City of the living God. There I was shown
that the commandments of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, relating to
the shut door, could not be separated… Then, [after Jesus completed his
mediation in 1844] Jesus rose up, and shut
the door in the Holy Place, and opened the door in the Most Holy, and
passed within the second vail, where he now stands by the Ark; and where the
faith of Israel now reaches. [paragraph 2]
I saw that Jesus had shut the door in the Holy Place… [paragraph 3]
I saw that the
enemies of the present truth have been trying to open the door of the Holy
Place, that Jesus has shut… [paragraph 5]
My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners
as used to be. I looked, but could not
see it, for the time for their salvation is past. [paragraph 13]
--letter in The Present Truth, 1, 3, August 1, 1849, pp. 21-23
About June 20-22, 1851, she had another vision of
the Shut Door:
…our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the
ungodly….I saw that the wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now. [15]
Yet in 1884 she wrote:
For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with
the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world. This
position was taken before my first vision was given me. It was the light
given me of God that corrected our error, and enabled us to see the true
position.
--Selected Messages Book 1, page 63, paragraph 1
This certainly raises
serious questions about the reliability of the claim that her teachings were
revelation from God. The “shut door”
teaching resulted in much conflict and then was abandoned with different
explanations.
One explanation was that the
door had been closed only to those who had heard the midnight cry and failed to
accept it. It was still open for those
who had not heard. However, this
explanation is unreasonable. The
“Midnight Cry” was the false prediction that Jesus would return to earth in October
1844. When people disbelieved that
prediction they were in fact believing the truth.
Another attempt to solve the
problem was by opening a second door:
But clearer light came with the investigation of the sanctuary
question. They now saw that they were correct in believing that the end of the
2300 days in 1844 marked an important crisis. But while it was true that that
door of hope and mercy by which men had for eighteen hundred years found access
to God, was closed, another door was opened, [430] and
forgiveness of sins was offered to men through the intercession of Christ in
the most holy. One part of His ministration had closed, only to give place to
another. There was still an "open door" to the heavenly sanctuary,
where Christ was ministering in the sinner's behalf.
--The Great Controversy, page 429, paragraph 2
Another explanation was that
there was to be a period of “Investigative Judgment” to determine who had on
the wedding garment (Matt. 22:11).
--1907 The Great Controversy,[16] p.428
All of this sounds like a
great deal of confusing and strained effort to save face. It would be simpler to admit the fact that
it obviously refers to his final coming rather than 1844. But if this is conceded they must abandon
relying on Mrs. White’s claims of revelation.
Even more puzzling is Mrs.
White’s claim that a time will come when Christ will leave the sanctuary and
the righteous will have to live without his help.
When the third angel’s message closes, mercy no longer pleads for
the guilty inhabitants of the earth...
--1907 The Great Controversy, [17] p. 613
When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the
earth. In that fearful time the
righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.”
--1907 The Great Controversy, [18] p. 614
We have a very interesting
comparison here as to how the major Advent-derived groups try to resolve the
difficulties of failed calculations.
Mrs. White claimed that the “coming” of Jesus was to his tabernacle in
heaven, with people being at the marriage supper only “by faith.” Russell, of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses,”
claimed that Christ “came” invisibly to earth in 1874. Indeed, Russell gave specific credit to the
Adventist movement for his early
dating concepts. His successor,
“Judge” Rutherford later changed this, to 1914 with Jesus supposedly taking his
throne in heaven in 1918. Still later,
his successors changed this to “turning his attention,” or “presence” (Greek:
“parousia”) to the earth, even denying he would ever return physically.
As their name indicates,
Seventh-day Adventists believe it is necessary to keep the Sabbath (Saturday,
the seventh day of the week). Mrs.
White claimed to have seen a vision of the Ten Commandments in which the fourth
was lighted more brightly than the others.
In the ark, was the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and
the tables of stone which folded together like a book. Jesus opened them, and I saw the ten
commandments written on them with the finger of God. On one table was four, and on the other six. The four on the first table shone brighter
than the other six. But the fourth
(the Sabbath commandment,) shone above them all; for the Sabbath was set
apart to be kept in honor of God’s holy name. The holy Sabbath looked
glorious--a halo of glory was all around it.
--Letter to Joseph Bates, Topsham, ME, April 7, 1847
According to Sabbatarians,
the “law” which the Bible says is “done away” (Col. 2:14-16; Rom. 7:4-6) is
only the “ceremonial law,” of which the Sabbath day is not a part. They claim Constantine and the Pope
substituted Sunday for God’s holy day.
Mrs. White said,
The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day.
He has thought to change the very commandment that was given to cause man to
remember his Creator. He has thought to change the greatest commandment
in the decalogue and thus make himself equal with God, or even exalt himself
above God --Early Writings, p. 65.
Of course the Bible nowhere
says that the Sabbath Commandment is the greatest. When Jesus was asked which was the “great commandment,” he cited
none of the ten. Instead he cited Deut.
6:5, “And thou shalt love the LORD thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. This is the first and great
commandment.” (Matt. 22:37-38) In fact, Jesus did not even give the
Sabbath second place. Instead, he cited
Lev. 19:18, saying “And the second is
like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matt. 22:39)
Moreover, history shows that
early Christians were keeping Sunday way back in the first and second
centuries, long before Constantine or the Pope.
Ignatius, (AD 110): “We do not keep the Sabbath...”
Barnabas, (AD 120): “We keep the eighth day...the day also
on which Jesus rose.”
Justin Martyr, (AD 140): “Sunday is the
day which we all hold common assembly, because Jesus Christ, our Savior, on the
same day rose from the dead.”
To this agree many others
such as, The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles (AD 125), Bardesanes of Edessa (AD
180), The Apostolical Constitutions (AD 250).
The Watchtower Society
(“Jehovah’s Witnesses”), having developed from Christian Advent background,
which did not accept Saturday as the Sabbath, differs on this. However, Herbert Armstrong, founder of the
World Wide Church of God, with background in The Church Of God, a different
Advent seventh-day keeping group, embraced even the yearly feasts.
Mrs. White taught that the
United States is the two-horned beast of Revelation (13:11-18) and that the
Protestant churches are to be the image of the beast. The United States will compel everyone to keep the Sabbath as the
“mark of the beast.”
Mrs. White said,
The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of
truth especially controverted. When
the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction
will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not.
While the observance of the false
Sabbath in compliance with the law of the state, contrary to the fourth commandment,
will be an avowal of allegiance to a power that is in opposition to God, the
keeping of the true Sabbath, in obedience to God's law, is an evidence of
loyalty to the Creator. While one
class, by accepting the sign of submission to earthly powers, receive the mark
of the beast, the other choosing the token of allegiance to divine authority,
receive the seal of God
-The Great
Controversy,
1950, p. 605.
I saw that the holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers; and that the Sabbath is the great question to unite the hearts of God's dear, waiting saints --Early Writings, p. 33.
The Advent Review Extra, pages 10-11, Aug. 1850
said,
Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and all who submit
to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his
mark, “the mark of the beast.” …Those who
worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly
idolaters, as were the worshipers of the golden calf.
Note the present tense. Adventists now teach this is future. Their
explanation is highly questionable. The
ten-horned beast is explained in Revelation 17 as a kingdom reigned over by
the harlot woman, “Babylon,” which
was the city, which when John wrote, sat on seven hills (Rev. 17:9) and reigned
over the kings of the earth (Rev. 17:18).
That would be Rome. The beast that carried her would fit the Holy Roman
Empire. By 1800 AD the Reformation
brought an end to Rome’s rule over the kings of the earth and, to keep Napoleon
from taking the imperial throne, the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved. While Napoleon tried to make himself
emperor, his defeat at Waterloo and subsequent confinement and death ended all
claims to the throne.
The beast with two horns
like a lamb (13:11-18), called a “false
prophet” (19:20), that made the
earth worship the first beast and did signs in its sight, best fits the
Papacy. It corresponds to the little horn on the ten-horned beast of Daniel
7. The “mark” fits the name of the
founder of the Latin Empire, Lateinos, who’s name in Greek numbers adds up to
666. This was recognized even by
Irenaeus as early as the second century[19]. The image of the beast that it created fits
the Catholic Church, which was organized after the Roman imperial pattern.
The United States became a
nation in 1776, only a few years before the Holy Roman Empire ended. It has never filled any of the Scriptural
roles of the two- horned beast. Since
the ten-horned beast (the Holy Roman Empire) no longer exists, it can not do
signs in its sight or make people worship the beast. This is just another of Mrs. White’s errors.
In this area, the various
advent-origin groups diverge greatly. The Armstrong “World Wide Church Of God”
people, who also came from the 1844, take an opposite view. They believe the United States is descended
from Israel and is especially blessed of God.
Jehovah’s Witnesses consider all human governments as of the Devil.
Mrs. White said,
“And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is
fallen, that great city because she made all nations drink of the wine of the
wrath of her fornication.” Rev.
14:6-8. How is this done?--By forcing
men to accept a spurious Sabbath....The keeping of the Sabbath is declared to
be a sign of loyalty of God’s people.
God means just what He says: Man has interposed between God and the
people, and the Lord has sent forth the third angel with the message: “If any
man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or
in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God...
--Testimonies, VOL. 8, p. 94
The sign, or seal, of God is the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath,
the Lord’s memorial of creation....The mark of the beast is the opposite of
this--the observance of the first day of the week.
--Testimonies, VOL. 8, p. 117
When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such
points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to
enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant
America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy...
--1907 The Great Controversy [20], p. 445
Scriptures to consider against requiring Saturday
observance:
-Col. 2:14-16. We are not to
be judged by Sabbath days.
-Acts 20:7. The early church met to break bread (the
Lord’s Supper) upon the first day of the week. That was the purpose for
gathering, at which time they heard Paul preach. (cf. Ac. 2:42; 1Cor. 11:17-34)
-1Cor. 16:2. Offerings
were commanded to be collected on the first day of the week to avoid
taking them when Paul came. It makes no
sense to command this for a day on which they were not meeting.
-2Cor. 3:3-14. The
covenant engraved on stones was done away in Christ. Compare “covenant” in Ex. 34:27-35; Deut. 4:13; 5:1-5, 12-15, 22.
-Gal.
3:24, 25; 4:21-30. We are no longer
under the law from Sinai.
The “mark of
the Beast”
Calling Sunday worship the
“mark of the beast” is totally unfounded and in conflict with scripture. The “mark of the beast” is the name of
the beast (Rev. 13:17). We are told
that those who have understanding should count the number of the beast because
it is the “number of a man” (Rev. 13:18).
Those having understanding
will realize that in Greek (the language in which the New Testament was
written), the letters of the alphabet were also used as numbers. The letters in this man’s name, which was
also the name of the beast, could be added up to 666.
Irenaeus said (120-202 AD):
Then also LATEINOS has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it
is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel].
For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: --Against
Heresies, in Anti-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. I, p. 559
Throughout the centuries
this has increasingly fit the stated specifics. Lateinos, was the
reputed founder of the Latin Roman Empire.
The Latin Pope, Latin church, Latin language, and Latin law dominated
the Latin Empire and is the only thing that fits all of the related factors in
the predictions (cf. 2Thes. 2:1-16).
The mark is the number of a man,
not a day of the week.
Their baptismal certificate
calls for them to accept,
...that the Seventh-day Adventist Church constitutes God’s remnant
people...
Mrs. White said,
As the Churches refused to receive the first angel’s message [Miller’s teaching[21]] they rejected the light from heaven and
fell from the favor of God.
----Early Writings, p. 237, paragraph 2
William miller taught
error. God’s angels do not teach
error. William Miller was not an angel
from God, nor did he represent one since his teachings were in error. It is ridiculous to suppose that those who
disbelieved his erroneous teachings fell from God’s favor.
Satan has taken full possession of the Churches as a body. Their profession, their prayers, and their
exhortations are an abomination in the sight of God
--Early Writings, p. 135
Here again we see the
similarity between the teachings of Mrs. White, Pastor Russell and Herbert
Armstrong. Each sees theirs as set up
by God to the exclusion of, or above all others. Adventists believe they are commissioned to call those in other
churches, “out of Babylon.”
They maintain that at death
the spirit or soul ceases to continue any intellectual function. According to them, the rich man and Lazarus
is not true (Luke 16:19-31). Paul could
not have been out of the body and in paradise (2Cor. 12:2-4). The thief on the cross was not in Paradise
the day that he died (Lk. 13:43). Jesus
could not have raised his body from the dead (Jn. 2:19).
Mrs. White said,
Christ did not promise that the thief would be with Him in Paradise
that day. He himself did not go that day to Paradise. He slept in the tomb...
--The Desire of Ages, p.751
Thus, according to their
logic, Jesus, Mighty God and Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6), the Word
that was with God and was God, through whom all things were made which have been made, (Jn.
1:1; 10:30-38; 14:8-9; 20:28; Matt. 1:23; Tit. 3:4), who upholds all things by the word of
his power (Heb. 1:1- 8), did not have eternal life (1Jn. 1:1-3;
5:20). His soul was not immortal. Not only his body but his soul also died and
remained totally non-existent for three days.
In this they share the same
basic concept as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Armstrong people. Along with annihilation of the wicked, this
was introduced into the movement through the efforts of George Stores. This is common to all of the 1844 derived
Adventist sects.
Scriptures to consider:
-I Thes. 5:23. We have a body, soul and spirit. (cf.
Heb. 4:12)
-Ecc. 12:7; James 2:26; Lk.
23:46. The body is what dies and
returns to dust. The Spirit returns to
God.
-The Body has a soul within it. (Job. 14:22; Gen. 35:18; 1Kings 17:21-22)
-Luke 23:43. Thief on the cross was to be with Jesus
that day.
-John 2:19. Jesus raised his own body. (cf.
10:17-18)
-Matt. 10:28. Man cannot kill the soul.
-Ps. 90:10. At death we fly away.
-Luke 16:19-31. The rich man could be tormented
while dead.
-2Cor. 12:2-4. It is possible to be in paradise
while out of the body.
-2Cor. 5:1-4.
It is possible to be out of the body
(“unclothed”).
-Rev. 6:9-11. Souls of the dead could speak.
-1Pe. 3:19. Spirits of men were in prison.
-Heb. 12:23. We come to spirits of just men made
perfect.
-Gen. 37:33-35. Jacob was going to his son--not to the grave
(he thought he had been eaten by a lion).
-1Sam. 28:11-19. While dead, Samuel talked to Saul.
-Mark 9:4. Jesus talked to Moses who was dead.
Adventists do not believe in eternal torment. To them, the wicked will suffer for a while and
then be burned up. Here again they hold
the same basic concepts as the Russellites and the Armstrong people.
Scriptures to consider:
-Matt. 25:41. “Depart into eternal fire prepared for the
devil...”
-Matt. 25:46. “Eternal punishment” and “eternal life” indicate both are without end.
-Matt. 18:34, 35. “Delivered to the tormentors.”
-Mark 9:43-48. Better gouge
out an eye than unquenchable fire where worm
dies not and fire is not quenched.
-Rev. 14:9-11. Tormented
with fire and brimstone. No rest day or night. Cf. Rev. 20:10, 15; 21:8.