3. Daniel 8 and the Daily by Pr. Stephen Bohr - Knowledge Shall be Increased Summit

[Music] [Music] all right let's uh bow our heads and we'll ask the lord to guide us in our study father in heaven we thank you for the wonderful experience we've had here so far the food has been good the fellowship has been wonderful the information has been valuable and our communion with you has been unrivaled it's been just a blessing we ask father that you will continue to bless us as we study this this subject on the daily that you will help us see what you wanted to teach us through the message of daniel chapter 8. we thank you father for being able to approach your awesome throne and we know that you have heard this prayer because we ask it in the name of jesus amen okay we're going to basically go through this material i'm going to skip some sections because it's 44 pages and there's no way that we can get through 44 pages in the time allotment that we have and so i will skip some sections as we go along they will not be indispensable for understanding what we're going to discuss we're going to follow the material like we did last night i believe that this is a good power point because you can take this power point home and and i hope that you will that you won't put it just in a file somewhere or just put it aside i hope that you'll study the whole material there's a lot of good things in here there are three basic interpretations of the daily according to the first view which was predominant in the time leading up to 1844. the taking away of the daily was the removal of the daily sacrifice in the jerusalem temple by antiochus epiphanes from the year 167 to 164. this preterist view has seldom been held by seventh-day adventists except by a handful of scholars such as desmond ford and then towards the end of his life raymond cottrell the second view of the daily is that it refers to the continuance of paganism the continued existence of paganism the pagan roman empire according to this view was taken out of the way which in turn allowed the papacy to begin its period of dominion but the emp and and i want you to notice something very important here in other words in the year 508 paganism was taken out of the way and as a result the papacy was able to rise to power now i believe that the passage in 2nd thessalonians 2 where it speaks about taking away a restrainer i believe that the passage in 2 thessalonians 2 comes close to miller's view because this was the view that was held by william miller the pagan roman empire was taken out of the way which in turn allowed the papacy to begin its period of dominion that's historically true but the emphasis of ii thessalonians 2 where it speaks about removing the restrainer which i believe to be the roman empire should not be imposed on the prophecy of daniel 8. each passage has its own particular emphasis another just because daniel 8 and second thessalonians 2 uses the expression taken away doesn't mean that the emphasis is the same now william miller linked daniel 8 11 with 2 thessalonians 2 7 and 8 because both passages use the expression taken away the problem is and this is a very important point the problem is that in ii thessalonians it is not the man of sin which is symbolic of the papacy who takes away the daily in fact the word daily does not appear in ii thessalonians 2 it is the restrainer not the daily which is taken out of the way so as to allow the man of sin to rise to power and take away the daily are you understanding the distinction there now in daniel 8 it is the man of sin that takes away the daily as we shall see it is the barbarian invasions and the removal of the imperial sea to constantinople that remove the restrainer thus daniel 8 and 2 thessalonians 2 must be studied together but they have different emphases the third and final view of the daily is that papal rome attacked the saints of the most high and took away from jesus his heavenly priestly ministration in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and set up a counterfeit system on earth so these are the three main views the first few antiochus epiphanes totally wrong second view the taking away refers to the end of paganism the taking away of paganism that was william miller's view and number three the idea that the taking away is the taking away of christ's high priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and placing it on earth by the roman catholic papacy now let's take a look at ii thessalonians 2 first of all before we go to daniel chapter 8. between the years 300 and 476 hordes of barbarian tribes from the north invaded and carved up the roman empire in the year 330 emperor constantine the great removed the sea of the roman empire to constantinople thus weakening the political power of rome in the west romulus augustulus was the last emperor of the roman empire and he was deposed in the year 476. this is when we believe that the dragon power or the fourth beast of daniel chapter 7 came to an end and then you have the divisions after that without an emperor the empire was thrown into turmoil the barbarian invasions into the roman empire turned it upside down and left it without a civil ruler who could preserve law and order in the midst of this chaotic situation the bishop of rome who was known as the pope was enticed to take the reigns of civil power and bring about order in the empire as a result the bishop of rome was not only the spiritual leader of the church but also became the temporal ruler of the state thus the roman empire was taken out of the way to give way to the papacy are you understanding the emphasis of ii thessalonians 2 now let's pursue this let's look at the evidence cardinal edward manning who was once once an anglican he was converted to the roman catholic church along with cardinal john henry newman probably heard his name uh describe the manner in which the roman pontiff originally gained his civil power in the roman empire manning explained that what occurred when the empire when the roman empire was invaded and torn apart by the barbarian invasions and by the way manning is not aware i believe that he's commenting on daniel 7 and ii thessalonians 2 and yet this is what he's describing notice what he says this is a cardinal of the roman catholic church he says now the abandonment of rome that is the removal of the sea of the empire was the liberation of the pontiffs so the taking away of the empire is the liberation of the pontiffs whatsoever claims to obedience the emperors may have had and whatsoever compliance the pontiff may have yielded the whole previous relation anomalous and annulled again and again by the vices and outrageous outrages of the emperors was finally dissolved by higher power the providence of god permitted a succession of eruptions gothic lombard and hungarian to desolate italy and to efface from it every remnant of the empire the pontiffs found themselves alone the sole fountains of order peace law and safety and from the hour of this providential liberation interesting terminology in other words the the pontiff of rome was liberated from restraint to the empire so so it says and from the hour of this providential liberation when by divine intervention the chains fell off from the hands of the successor of peter in other words the restraint is removed as once before from his own no sovereign has ever reigned in rome except the viker of jesus christ interesting terminology manning further explained the papacy waited until such a time as god should break its bonds asunder and should liberate it from subjection to civil powers and enthrone it in the possession of a temporal sovereignty of its own are you understanding these quotations thus when the civil power of rome was removed by the barbarians and the emperor constantine moved the sea of the empire to constantinople the bishop of rome filled the vacuum and became the arbiter in civil affairs as well as in religious remarkably manning refers to this taking over of the civil power by the bishop of rome with expressions such as breaking bonds asunder and chains falling off in other words he was restrained before this terminology that is reminiscent of 2 thessalonians 2 the dragon had given the beast his power his throne and great authority now i want to read this statement by albert barnes the great i believe he was a presbyterian commentator and he i believe he understood understood clearly this issue of the restrainer of 2 thessalonians chapter 2. he's commenting on verse 7. notice what he had to say the supposition which will best suit this language is that there was then some civil restraint preventing the development of existing corruptions but that there would be a removal or withdrawal of that restraint and that then the tendency of the existing corruptions would be seen it is evident as old housing remarks that this resisting or restraining power must be something out of the church and distinguish from the anti-christian tendency itself it is necessary therefore to understand this of the restraints of civil power was there then any fact in history which will accord with this interpretation the belief among the primitive christians was that what hindered the rise of the man of sin was the roman empire and therefore they prayed for its peace and welfare as knowing that when the roman empire should be dissolved and broken in pieces the empire of the man of sin would be raised on its ruins so albert barnes is i believe right on target in terms of what actually happened uh in this period of history now let's notice paul's perspective in cryptic language the apostle paul had already referred to the moment when the civil power of the roman empire would be taken out of the way and given over to papal rome in 2 thessalonians chapter 2 verses 6 and 7 the apostle referred to the removal of the mysterious restrainer of second thessalonians 2 6 and 7 which would allow the man of sin to rise to power and this is how the apostle paul describes it to the thessalonians he says and now you know what is restraining and uh and i put here in brackets the civil power of the roman empire that he may be revealed in his own time that is once the restrainer is removed for the mystery of lawlessness is already at work only he that is the emperor now who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way so what was the restraint the restraint simply was the civil power of the roman empire held back the manifestation of the man of sin because you could not have the civil ruler of rome as and the pope being ruled at the same time one had to be removed so that the other one could occupy the throne now the early church fathers were practically unanimous in the opinion that the restrainer was a reference to the roman empire in general and to the emperors in particular in verse 5 and this is reflected by the apostle paul by the way in verse 5 the apostle refers to what was restraining that is the empire uh incidentally in the greek it's the neuter article in other words it's it's that's the what but in verse 7 he refers to who was restraining that's in masculine in other words you're dealing with what was restraining the empire who was restraining the emperor by his use of language paul indicates that the church at thessalonica knew who the restrainer was and what was restraining because he says you know what it is that's restraining and yet paul wrote in veiled cryptic language why didn't paul just come out and write openly that the roman empire was the restrainer that would be taken out of the way the answer is rather obvious if paul had said openly that the roman empire would be taken out of the way the roman government would have had grounds to accuse him of sedition against the roman government so paul had to be cautious in the language that he used dispensationalists that's futurists who believe in the rapture of the church before the tribulation generally agree that the restrainer is the holy spirit who will be removed before the tribulation but if this were true then why would there be any need for paul to be so cautious it is clear that paul could not define the restrainer openly it was not necessary to do so because the thessalonians knew the power that he was writing about you will notice the comment by cardinal manning that we read a few moments ago that the fall of the roman empire led to the liberation of the roman pontiff in other words before this he was restrained you will also notice that the fall of the roman empire is described as chains falling off the hands of the successor of peter the inevitable conclusion we reach from manning's words is that the fall of the empire removed or took away the restraint placed upon the bishop of rome in other words it kept him from manifesting himself openly now i have several statements here by the church fathers i'm not going to read them you have them in the material because of the time constraints that we have but i'm going to mention their names at the bottom of page three you have tertullian tertullian lived from 160 to 240 a.d he clearly identifies the restrainer as the roman empire you have another quotation by tertullian on page four at the top of the page you have a statement by like lactantius he's writing in the early fourth century he's identifying once again the restrainer of the restraint as the roman empire and the emperors in particular then you have a quotation from cyril of jerusalem he lived from 318 to 386 a.d once again identifying the restrainer that was going to be taken out of the way as the civil power of rome and then you have a quotation by ambrose who died in 398 a.d once again he identifies the restrainer as the empire that kept the papacy from manifesting itself openly then you have the testimony of chrysostom he lived actually he died in the year 407 and finally you have the testimony of jerome uh who uh has uh who was one of the uh or the main individual who is behind the latin vulgate and so and so all of these church fathers believed that the restrainer that had to be taken out of the way was the civil power of the roman empire and then the bishop of rome could occupy the throne that had been left vacant incidentally church historians agree with this let's notice some statements by church historians beginning at the top of page five i'm only going to read some of these they make it very very clear as to what is it that was removed that allowed the bishop of rome now to take over what had been left vacant uh this is a quotation by james p conroy a roman catholic writer and he says this long ages ago when rome through the neglect of the western emperors was left to the mercy of the barbarous hordes the romans turned to one figure for aid and protection and asked him to rule over them and thus in this simple manner the best title of all to kingly write commenced the temporal sovereignty of the popes and meekly stepping to the throne of caesar wherewith caesar he's taken out of the way right it says and meekly stepping to the throne of caesar the viker of christ took up the scepter to which the emperors and kings of europe were to bow in reverence through so many ages uh here's another statement this is uh carl conrad eckhart also roman catholic he says under the roman empire the popes had no temporal powers but when the roman empire had disintegrated and its place had been taken by a number of rude barbarous kingdoms the roman catholic church not only became independent of the states in religious affairs but dominated secular affairs as well are you catching the picture of what the apostle paul was talking about notice what church rw southern had to say during the whole medieval period there was in rome a single spiritual and temporal authority exercising powers which in the end exceeded those that had ever lane within the grasp of the roman emperor here's another church historian john and fiji it says in the middle ages the church was not a state it was the state or rather the civil authority for a separate society was not recognized was merely the police department of the church i like the way that he states that now uh notice also we have several other statements here um this is by pope boniface the eighth he's speaking about the two swords the temporal sword of the spiritual sword he says we are informed in the text of the gospels that in this roman catholic church and in its power are two swords namely the spiritual and the temporal both therefore are in the power of the church that is to say the spiritual and the material sword but the former that is the spiritual is to be administered for the church but the lateral the latter that is the temporal by the church the former in the hands of the priest the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers but at the will and sufferance of the priest interesting statement notice how ellen white uh agrees with this concept in great controversy page 49. by the way when ellen white refers to to rome rome's paganism she's when she uses the word paganism she's referring to the roman empire okay we need to understand that because some people say oh paganism that's talking about religion when she uses paganism as a term to speak of the roman empire now notice what she says here in great controversy page 49 the spirit of compromise and conformity of the early christian church was restrained notice the interesting term was what was restrained for a time by the fierce persecutions which the church endured under what paganism who were the ones that actually persecuted the christians was the emperors right the emperors of course by the instigation of the pagan religions of rome but it was still the state that was doing the persecuting and then she continued saying but as persecution ceased and christianity entered the courts and palaces of kings others now they're taking over what now they're taking over the civil power she laid aside the humble simplicity of christ and his apostles for the pomp and pride of pagan priests and rulers and in place of the requirements of god she substituted human theories and traditions now let's go to page six page six incidentally in 1798 what happened to the roman catholic papacy the state turned against the church right in other words the state took away the sword the civil sword from the church now is that going to is that going to change soon is the sword of civil power going to be returned to the papacy yeah notice this statement from ella white where she speaks about the restrainer that is going to be removed in the future because the res once again the papacy is under restraint by the civil powers of the world just like it was while rome was governing in civil matters now notice what's going to happen this is a very significant statement great controversy 564. she says let the restraints did you notice that term let the restraints now impose so who imposes the restraint let the restraints now imposed by secular governments be removed see the relationship with 2nd thessalonians 2 and rome be reinstated in her former power and there would speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution so what is it that restrains today the secular powers what was restraining the man of sin from manifesting himself in the early church the secular power exactly now notably malachi martin this is a very interesting statement have you heard of malachi martin he wrote the book the keys of this blood a jesuit wrote many books in facts he was an exorcist many people don't know that his particular spiritual gift was supposedly the gift of exorcisms and he had something very interesting to say i want you to notice he said this in 1986 and this is tell he doesn't even realize what you know what what he's saying when you really read prophecy in the light of his statement he says for 1500 years and more papal rome had kept as strong a hand as possible in each local community around the wide world so what had rome done during a period of 1500 years she had kept as strong a hand as possible in each local community around the wide world and then he says this by and large and admitting some exceptions that had been the roman view what had the roman bu then the roman view was keeping as strong a hand as possible in each local community one around the white wide world so he says that was the roman view but now notice until 200 years of inactivity had been imposed upon the papacy by the major secular powers of the world if you go 200 years back from this do you know where you end up the french revolution so why has the papacy been inactive during the last 200 years according to malachi martin it's been inactive because the major secular powers of the world have not allowed the church to climb on them so inactivity would be the same as being what as being restrained and what is that that is restraining according to malachi martin it's the secular governments of the world and when those secular governments remove themselves and they give their power to the papacy the papacy once again will ascend to the throne like it did in the early roman empire now is this clear is the emphasis of second thessalonians too clear yes who removes the restrainer in ii thessalonians 2. the barbarians and uh constantine moving the sea of the empire to constantinople it leaves the west vacant in other words now does the man of sin take away the daily in 2nd thessalonians 2 no it doesn't take away the daily and 2nd thessalonians 2. the daily is taken away by another power so the man of sin can manifest himself is that clear but now let's notice daniel chapter 8 and by the way i have this passage daniel 8 beginning with verse 8 all the way through verse 12 and i've added explanatory notes in brackets so that first of all we get the general picture and then we're going to take a look at the details so notice uh daniel chapter 8 verses 8 through 12. therefore the male goat what does the male goat represent greece grew very great but when he became strong the large horn what was the large horn on the head of the goat it was it was alexander the great was broken and in place of it four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven and i have a little different view than the traditional view regarding this i believe that the four kingdoms are the ptolemies the antigonits the seleucids and pergamum i believe that rome grew from pergamum you have to read my notes on daniel 8 for all the historical documentation so but anyway the key point is that the large horn is broken uh in other words alexander the great passes away from the scene and there's four kingdoms that arise now verse 9 and out of one of them that is out of one of the four kingdoms at the four winds came a little horn at this point the little horn represents political rome which grew exceedingly horizontally by the way this is on earth this is happening on earth it's not dealing with heaven yet so it says which grew exceedingly great toward the south that would be egypt toward the east macedonia or greece and toward the glorious land which would be what israel those are the three directions of the compass that rome advanced in to become the great roman empire then verse 10. now suddenly this power is not satisfied with growing horizontally now it's going to grow vertically towards heaven and so it says in verse 10 and it grew up to the host of heaven in other words now it's growing vertically and it casts down some of the host the hosts are god's faithful people and some of the stars the stars are the leaders of god's people to the ground and trample them we're going to let the bible interpret itself i just want you to get the picture now verse 11. he that is the little horn even exalted himself as high as high as the prince of the host who would that be jesus the high priest of the heavenly sanctuary and by him actually this is the new king james actually the hebrew says from him that is from the priest the priest didn't do the priest didn't do this this was taken from the priest and so from him the daily sacrifices the word sacrifice by the way is what is added it does not belong to the text it's not there so it says and by him the daily was taken away and the place and this word by the way most of the uh the vast majority of the places where it's found is used to describe god's dwelling place in heaven we're going to notice this in a few moments the place of his sanctuary was cast down and then it says because of transgression in the context against the host against the prince and against the sanctuary an army who comes to the aid now to enforce this view of the daily ah the state does so it says an army or a host was uh was given over to the horn to oppose the daily not the daily sacrifices to oppose the daily and he cast truth down to the ground in context primarily it's truth about the sanctuary he did all of this and what and prospered so are you following the basic argument of the passage now adventists have always believed that there are four prophetic outlines in daniel in the first prophetic outline jesus is presented as king he'll establish the kingdom which shall never be destroyed in the second he's portrayed as judge daniel chapter 7. in daniel chapter 8 he's presented as the high priest and in daniel chapter 10 through 12 jesus is presented as a gay great deliverer of god's people in the end time crisis michael shall stand up to defend his people now in daniel 8 then what is the role of jesus in daniel chapter 8 he's presented as what as the high priest so what would the daily what would be the meaning of the daily in daniel chapter 8 would it have anything to do with the sanctuary of course it would have to be centered in a sanctuary and we're going to notice that the word daily is a sanctuary word it's used extensively in the old testament to describe the ministry of the priest in the holy place and in the court i might say as well now the next section i'm not going to even deal with but i want you to have the concept in mind that's at the top of page seven and that is that in daniel 7 and daniel 8 the little horn represents rome but in daniel 8 it represents both pagan and papal room in daniel 7 it's only papal rome in daniel chapter 8 the little horn represents pagan rome which extends what horizontally and then it morphs into papal rome that extends what then extends vertically now you say how do we know that uh that the little horn represents both romes aren't they two different separate kingdoms well the fact is folks that papal rome is simply a papal rome uh is simply an extension of pagan rome in other words pagan rome morphed into the papacy let's notice the evidence in the next section the little horn of daniel 8 represents both pagan and papal rome let me ask you in the feet of the image the legs of the image of daniel 7 represent what kingdom they represent the roman empire now does the roman empire continue in the feet how do you know that because there's iron in the feet as in the legs but now what is added to the iron clay and i don't have the time to get into this but uh you know i have some presentations that prove this and that is that the clay represents the church in other words now you have the iron of rome continues the civil power of rome continues but it is amalgamated with the church in other words there's a union of church and state let me ask you did papal rome receive its religion from pagan rome absolutely there's no doubt about it let's go in fact to page eight and read a couple of quotations page eight i want you to see now that papal rome is a continuation of pagan room only now papal rome is calling the shots uh notice let's go to the middle of page eight will durant have you ever heard of will durant great philosopher historian he says when christianity conquered rome the ecclesiastical structure of the pagan church the title investments of the pontifex maximus the worship of a great mother and a multitude of comforting divinities the sense of super sensible presences everywhere the joy or solemnity of old festivals and the pageantry of immemorial ceremony passed like maternal blood into the new religion and captive rome captured her conqueror while christianity converted the world the world converted christianity very interesting statement notice what cardinal newman had to say very convert from the anglican church back in the 1830s he said this we are told in various ways by eusebius that constantine in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own it is not necessary to go into a subject with the diligence of protestant writers which with the diligence of protestant writers has made familiar to most of us the use of temples and these dedicated to particular saints and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees incense lamps and candles votive offerings on recovery from illness holy water asylums holy days and seasons use of calendars processions blessings on the fields sassanidal investments the tansure the ring in marriage turning east images at a latter date perhaps the ecclesiastical chant the kirya liaison are all of pagan origin and sanctified by their adoption into the church so where did the papacy get its religion from it got its religion from rome in other words paganism morphed into papal religion so is there a connection between pagel and pagan and paper rome absolutely first because the clay in the feet is accompanied by iron rome continues in a different manner secondly because historians tell us that a pagan rome morphed into papal rome now at the top of page nine is the architecture in vatican city roman any of you ever been to vatican city architecture is roman when you look at it let me ask you is the papal church roman what is it called the roman catholic church what is the official language of the roman catholic church now what nation was that language from from rome what numbering system does the papacy use roman numerals where does it have its headquarters vatican city which is where it is in rome in the middle of page 9 you'll notice this statement it vatican city is within the city of rome called the city of what seven hills that the entire area of vatican state proper is now confined and you have statements here from many historians that tell you basically the same maybe i'll just read on page 10 i'm skipping several on page 10 the bottom of the page you'll notice what thomas hobbes had to say the papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof interesting way of expressing it uh whc friend the rise of christianity page 773 said christian rome was the legitimate successor of what was the legitimate successor of pagan rome so i want you to notice that in daniel chapter 8 the little horn represents both rows it represents pagan rome extending horizontally and then it represents papal rome extending vertically now let's go to page 12 the middle of the page and i hope that you'll read all the other statements the evidence is overwhelming as you look at what historians have to say let's go to the middle of page 12 where it says remarks on daniel chapter 8 and verse 9. the little horn first conquered horizontally or geographically in three directions of the compass we notice that the south the east and the glorious land these are the three directions of the compass where the roman empire grew into world power so this can be proved historically that rome first extended geographically horizontally but now i want you to notice chapter 8 and verse 10 the little horn which had been conquering horizontally on earth now began an onslaught vertically against heaven in verse 10 there's a shift in other words the sense of the first part of verse 10 is that the horn grew geographically yes even vertically into heaven the horn grows great even to the host of heaven and hurls down some of the host of the stars to the ground and tramples upon them now the parallel to this is found in daniel 7 21-25 where the little horn persecuted whom persecuted the saints of the most high incidentally whenever the expression grow great which is gadal in in hebrew is used in the old testament of human beings without exception it refers to one who takes power illegally presumptuously and arrogantly notably in 2nd thessalonians 2 the power that magnifies itself above all that is called god is the man of sin who leads the mystery of iniquity now the question is what is represented by the host that is cast down and trampled i'm not going to go through this in detail but there's three possibilities number one stars and the host could represent what angels secondly it could represent the literal sun moon and stars in the third place the stars and hosts could represent the leaders of god's people and god's people so the question is what is represented by the host here is it the angels does it represent the literal sun moon and stars or does it represent the leaders of god's people and god's people on earth we don't have to guess because if you look at the next page this is page 13 daniel 8 is divided into the vision and then the explanation of the vision now i want to go through the order of events in the vision and then we'll go over the order of events in the explanation to the vision and you'll see that the hosts represent god's people let's notice here the order a ram with two horns represents middle persia the male goat had a notable horn represents what greece and its first king a male goat breaks the rams to horns that's grease the notable horn is broken that's the demise of alexander the great the broken horn is exceeded by four horns the four divisions of greece the little horn comes up from one of the four and attacks the host and then it attacks the sanctuary and the prince of the host now let's notice the explanation the second half of the chapter explains this this order of events you tell me what the host represents in the explanation see in the explanation you have a two-horned ram represents the medes and persians the male gulp represents greece the text tells us this the notable horn represents its first king the four horns represent the divisions of greece after the death of its first king when greece is reaching its end of its rule a nasty king will arise that would be the what the little horn right the king now notice this the king will destroy the mighty and the holy people that is in the same place in the explanation as where you have what the host in the vision so trampling on the host is the same thing as what as destroying the mighty and the holy people and then it goes on to say that the king will stand against the prince of princes and then the thing is added which says the king will be destroyed without human hand so when you look at the vision and the explanation of the vision in the vision you have the trampling on the host but in the explanation it says that the little horn will destroy the mighty and the holy people the mighty would be the leaders and the holy people would be those who follow the leaders god's faithful people now let's go on uh to the paragraph that says it is clear it is clear then that the host represents god's people in the new testament the apostle paul even uses military terminology to describe the honor the armor and the warfare of god's people against satan's kingdom right we're supposed to put on the whole armor of god jesus is the general and his people are the armies it is important to recognize that in the explanation of the vision this is an important sidelight but very important as well it is important to recognize that in the explanation of the vision the little horn is called a king of fierce countenance now there's a little horn is called a king of fierce countenance this will be picked up in daniel 11 where the same power is referred to as the king of the north in other words it's linking the word king links the little horn of daniel 8 with the king of the north in daniel chapter 11. um i'm going to skip the next paragraph some people say well if it says the king of fierce countenance this must be an individual must be a person see a certain individual king well the fact is that the word king is used in a generic sense the word priest is using a generic sense the word man is used in a generic sense there's several examples here that you can notice now let's go on to verse 11. top of page 14. we're on a roll here the clock is the greatest enemy i feel christian bernal's pain now notice the comment are we understanding so far oh that was weak yeah is it clear okay very good this table this table has it clear okay now notice as if it as if it wasn't enough to war against the host which is verse 10 the little horn now attacks the prince of the host and takes away the daily which belonged to the priest to the prince and trampled upon the place of the prince's sanctuary let's first identify the prince the word prince is used several times in the book of daniel who is the prince of the host the only listen that's the very important the only other place in the entire bible where this specific name prince of the host is used is in joshua 5 verses 13 to 15 where this where joshua meets outside jericho this majestic being and this being says take off the shoes from your feet for the ground that you're standing on is holy and we're told that joshua fell down on his face and worshipped that individual so who is the prince of the host jesus christ there can be no doubt that the son of man michael the angel of the lord the angel of his presence all refer to the same being it is of more than passing interest to realize that the high priest in the old testament was occasionally called prince the prince of the host is none other than jesus christ our high priest who rules over the kingdom of grace the apostle paul in hebrews 8 1-2 explains that jesus became our high priest when he said when he ascended to heaven paul said we have a high priest notice that the prince is the prince of the host if the host is composed of the saints of the most high then the prince of the host must be the commander of those saints and who is the commander of god's people on earth jesus is the head of the church the church receives its marching orders from him notice that those who belong to god's people are called saints let's dedicate some time now because we had to get all of this background you can't just study the daily out of context let's dedicate some time now to determine the meaning of the daily what does this strange word mean there is presently an intense debate in some adventist circles about the meaning of this term some along with william miller connect daniel 8 with 2nd thessalonians 2 and teach that the daily is paganism in other words paganism was taken out of the way others believe that it refers to the removal by the papacy of the continual ministry of christ in the heavenly sanctuary some follow the king james and the new king james translation which gives the impression that the daily was taken away by the prince of the host but scholars have indicated that the phrase should not be read should not be read by him that is by the prince was the daily taken away but it should be read from him the daily was taken away and that's the correct translation of this preposition in every case in the old testament in other words not by him not by the preposition by but the preposition from him and so this is the way it should read the little horn even magnified itself to be equal with the commander of the host and it removed the regular sacrifice from him and the place of his that is the prince's sanctuary was thrown down now let's deal with the problem of the the daily the problem is that that word daily is an adjective and it stands alone and it has no noun to qualify it the question which begs to be answered and therefore therefore is this the little horn took away the daily what the translators add sacrifice sacrifice isn't there it's not part of the text now let's go to the top of page 15. the meaning of the word tamid is simply something which goes on continuously without interruption but what is it that goes on continuously without interruption it is important to keep in mind that this word is accompanied by the definite article in other words it is not a daily it is the daily it is a specific daily in other words it is the daily which the little horn takes away the king james version along with most modern versions adds the word sacrifice thinking that tamid which is the word daily in hebrew refers to the morning and evening sacrifice in the court of the sanctuary but this is a wrong assumption because it uh in the background you have antiochus epiphanes that's the reason why they translate the sacrifice because uh you know antiochus took away the sacrifice but this is a wrong assumption there is a hebrew expression for sacrifice and that is holat tamid what then does this word mean let's take a closer look the old testament makes it abundantly clear that when this word is used in the context of the sanctuary it always without exception refers to the daily ministration of the priest in the court and in the holy place in other words the little horn was going to attempt to take away from the prince of the host his administration in the court and in the holy place of the sanctuary here are some texts where the daily is used with reference to the sanctuary it is used to refer to the burnt offering on the altar it is used to refer to the fire on the altar of sacrifice it is used to describe the weekly meal and drink offering it is used to describe the table of the showbread it is used to describe the altar of incense it is used to describe the the seven branch candlestick in the holy place and it is used of the high priest bearing of the guilt of israel continually as he goes in to intercede in other words this word tamit is used in the context of the sanctuary always for the ministration of the priest in the court and in the holy place of the sanctuary it is important to realize this is an important point that the word tamid is never used in the old testament to describe anything that transpires in the most holy place of the sanctuary never you say why is this important it's important because some in our midst are teaching that the taking away of the daily refers to the future national sunday law now i believe that the daily and the setting up the of the abomination of desolation are two different things taking away the daily is taking away christ's ministration in the heavenly sanctuary and placing it on earth but the placing of the abomination of desolation that does have to do with the sunday law and and uh you know if i had time i would show you that the daily really was removed in in 508 and then the sunday law came in the year 538 first sunday lot the council of orleans which by the way if you want to get a fascinating book this book by heidi heikz the daily source book will give you all of the evidence of this but we don't have time to get into all of the details now let's go to the towards the bottom of page 15. what is meant by the expression take away the hebrew word roon can mean to exalt or lift up but now listen carefully but when this verb is used in connection with the sanctuary it always means to take away now in order to comprehend how the little horn took away the daily we need to answer two fundamental questions in which sanctuary is the prince ministering at this point in the vision and secondly what does each of the pieces of furniture in the court and the holy place represent in other words what was the meaning of the altar of sacrifice the candlestick the table of showbread and the altar of sacrifice and the altar of incense what is meant by those because those are the the aspects of the sanctuary that are used in connection with tamid continual if we are able to determine the answer to these questions then we will know also what the little horn attempted to take away from the prince and when so let's answer the first question what sanctuary are we talking about here there can be no doubt that in the vision the prince is ministering where in the heavenly sanctuary we have already identified the prince as jesus and where does jesus minister today we are told in matthew 21 12 and 13 that at the end of the triumphal entry jesus entered the temple of god and called it my father's house however just a few days later jesus announced to the jewish leaders your house is left unto you desolate the jerusalem temple was no longer the father's house or the temple of god because it had been forsaken by the presence of jesus now let's skip the next paragraph and go to where it says it is not helpful it is not helpful when some in our midst teach that the sanctuary of daniel 8 10 11 is the sanctuary of paganism and then the sanctuary to be cleansed in verse 14 is the sanctuary of jesus you know it just it makes no sense whatsoever if this were true then the sanctuary to be cleansed would be the sanctuary of paganism because just a few verses later it says the sanctuary shall be cleansed the question suggests itself if the little horn did not trample upon the earthly jerusalem temple then which one the answer is twofold this is important upon his ascension jesus began his ministry as high priest in the literal heavenly sanctuary physically he is the high priest who ministers in the literal heavenly temple on the heavenly mount zion in the literal heavenly jerusalem he is the minister of a better covenant because he presents before his father his own better blood he is the living shekinah in the heavenly temple but there is more to the story he is also the minister of the spiritual temple on earth and that spiritual temple is the church the spiritual temple has spiritual foundations a spiritual cornerstone spiritual stones which are each one of us and a spiritual shekinah which is the holy spirit which entered the church on the day of pentecost in other words jesus ministers in two places at the same time physically in heaven and spiritually on earth through the ministry of the holy spirit his heavenly hopes are the angels and his earthly hosts are his faithful followers so then what is meant by the little horn taking away the daily from the prince and killing his hosts it cannot mean that the little horn literally and personally traveled to heaven and deposed the prince and destroyed the angels the idea this idea would be preposterous what then does it mean the answer is found in daniel 8 11 where we are told that the little horn cast down the place of the prince's sanctuary we have already shown that the place of the princess sanctuary is a literal heavenly temple and his church on earth the antichrist could not usurp the place of jesus in the heavenly temple so he does so in the earthly temple the church paul says he sits in the temple of god showing himself that he is god and and whenever paul uses the word temple naos it refers to the church in other words what the what the little horn does it takes away the priestly functions of christ in the heavenly sanctuary and it places them where it places them on earth now let's go to the bot yes particularly the holy place verse 6 uh page 16 the bottom of the page the word place which is makon here is unusual there are some very common hebrew words for place where it says the place of his sanctuary is cast down but this is not one of the common words for place the word makon is used only seven times 17 times in the hebrew bible and in 16 of those references the word denotes the heavenly sanctuary as god's dwelling place perhaps it would be a good idea to look up a few of those references in first kings 8 39 and verse 41 43 and 49 and parallel passages the word is translated god's habitation we are informed that god hears our prayers forgives our sins saves us and meets out justice from his heavenly macon from his heavenly place it's where god where jesus ministers for his church and for his people top of faith 17 interestingly the prayers of god's people are uttered toward or in the earthly temple but they are heard by god in heaven you see the connection between the earth and the heavenly solomon prayed to the lord upon the dedication of the temple this is found in first kings 8 30 hear the plea of your servant and of your people israel when they pray toward this place all here in heaven your dwelling place heed and forgive so when you pray to this earthly place here where in heaven thus there is an intimate connection between the earthly and heavenly temples in a sense god dwells in both literally in heaven and spiritually by the holy spirit on earth for our purposes here it is important to remember that when nebuchadnezzar came and destroyed the jerusalem temple he was not able to touch the heavenly temple speaking about the temple that was built by solomon in the same way the little horn is able to make take over the functions of the prince and kill his hosts on earth but it is not he is not able to usurp the heavenly prince and his functions in heaven or nor destroy his angels the act of casting down the place of the prince's sanctuary does not mean that the little horn is demolishing the mortar and stones of the heavenly sanctuary what does it mean what it does mean is that the little horn usurps on earth the daily ministration of the heavenly prince what belongs to the prince in heaven the little horn usurps and sets up on earth the place of the sanctuary is removed from heaven and set up on earth let me ask you is the holy place where jesus a minute by the way he continues his work of the holy place in the most holy he just takes on an additional function he doesn't cease being an intercessor in the most holy he continues the holy place function of intercession through his blood you understand that right in other words in other words at each step jesus simply adds something you know he wouldn't be able to serve as priest unless he had blood and he wouldn't be able to judge unless he had interceded so in other words he continues his holy place ministry in the most holy place after 1844 he just begins another function which is the function of the judgment is that clear now the central issue then middle of page 17 in this whole matter is who will control the sanctuary service in the court and in the holy place the prince are the little horn and why is control of the sanctuary such a vital issue to answer this question we must now to return to our second question above what was the meaning of the ministration of the priests at the altar of sacrifice the candlestick the table of showbread and the altar of incense now i'm going to go through this quickly the altar of sacrifice represented the once for all sacrifice of jesus christ for sin how has the roman catholic church falsified that function of christ his once for all sacrifice by the mass the idea that jesus is sacrificed again and again and again at each mass incidentally do you know that's the reason why moses was excluded from the promised land you see when he struck the rock a symbol of christ the first time that was enough the rocktop was to be stricken once when moses struck the rock twice he was ruining the symbol that when jesus died he would die once for all never more to die again but the papacy establishes the idea of the mass where jesus is sacrificed again in an unbloody fashion at every mass what did the table of show bed represent bread represents what the word of god what did the papacy substitute in place of the word of god the traditions of men what does the candlestick represent the candlestick represents the fact that the church is to be what is to be the light of the world through the power of what of the holy spirit what did the papacy do during its period of dominion why do you suppose it's called the dark ages hello it's because the lamp is not giving light because there's a scarcity of what of the holy spirit because the pope claims to be christ on earth he's a usurper of the holy spirit because jesus did leave a successor on earth but it wasn't the pope it was the holy spirit so when the pope says that he's the successor of christ on earth he's usurping the place of the holy spirit and of course the seven lamps with the oil represented the holy spirit being in the church and the church able to give light let me ask you what does we're on page 20 by the way what does the altar of incense represent the altar of incense represents the prayers of god people that ascend before the throne let me ask you how did the roman catholic papacy falsify that by having you confess your sins to whom to a priest and by praying to whom by praying to mary and by praying to the saints in other words all of the ministration of christ in the sanctuary became earth focused rather than heavily focused is this a salvation issue the understanding of the daily it's a salvation issue folks when you say it's paganism okay it's paganism what does that have to do with the 2300 days and the ministry of christ and the role of the papacy in hiding the functions of jesus in the sanctuary now let's go to page 21. i'm skipping a lot of pages i hope you'll read them page 21 middle of the page remarks on verse 12. we previously are are we doing well so far now remarks on verse 12 we previously found that the prince has his host now he discovered that the little horn is also given a host did you notice that the little horn also is given a host and what is he giving the host for against the daily how did the papacy enforce this new view of salvation on pain of death by using what by using the power of the state so the battle is between the prince and his host and the little horn and his host now if if the host of jesus is his people on earth who would the host of the little horn be well it must be those who follow his agenda right a comparison of verse 12 with daniel 11 31 clearly reveals that the little horns host is composed of his armies because there it says arms shall stand on his behalf this is the secular power we are told that the little horns hosts help fight against the daily by reason of transgression the word transgression pesa in the old testament is the strongest word in the old testament for sin what the little horn is doing it's not simply sin it really this word means rebellion or revolt the little horn and his host are not simply sinning they are revolting or openly rebelling against the prince the daily and the place of the sanctuary so this is the biblical case of the daily now let's talk a little bit about the pioneers this is the bottom of page 21. we're going to really have to motor so i hope that you're hanging on to your seats and uh that you're limber with your hands and on going through the pages now some have stated bottom of page 21 that because william miller believed that the daily was paganism and the sanctuary was a sanctuary of paganism we should believe the same today because he was our pioneer but we must recognize that what william miller taught was by no means perfect for example at the top of page 22 miller taught that the first beast of revelation 13 was pagan rome what does it actually represent papal rule and the second beast was an image beast of the roman beast the second beast was papal rome what does it really represent the united states he correctly taught that the 1260 years of papal dominion began in 538 and ended in 1798 but now notice what he did with the number 666 he took the number 666 which has nothing to do with years by the way but is the number of the beast's name and applied it to the period of pagan rome's dominion from 158 to 508 bc ellen white had great respect for william miller her family embraced the truth by attending a tent meeting where miller was preaching but does this mean that she endorsed every detail of miller's prophetic interpretation the evidence indicates clearly otherwise l and white does say that angels from heaven were present and uh enlightening the mind of william miller but she says the same thing about martin luther so everything martin luther ever wrote is kosher he wrote that the dead aren't dead and that sunday is the sabbath and yet angels guided his mind according to him guided his mind in what he needed to restore at that particular time but it doesn't mean he restored everything ellen white gave individuals the benefit of adult according to the knowledge that they had at any given moment doesn't mean that everything that they taught was gospel truth in fact ellen white says that there's some of the things that were written in our earlier books that needed to be adjusted you can read that at towards the bottom of page 22. now let's go to the problem passage early writings pages 74-76 heidi hikes has a whole chapter in this book on that particular issue because that's the main that's the main argument that is used by the paganism advocates is that elle white says that that the pioneers had the view that william miller had that paganism was what was taken out of the way let's examine it carefully bottom of page 22 ellen white was given a very important vision on september 23 1850 in which is recorded in early writings pages 74 to 76 i will add my own explanatory remarks in brackets in order to clarify this is the statement then i saw in relation to the daily 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 our cry so who had the correct view those who proclaim the judgment our cry so if you know what they taught you'll know what the correct view is right well it's more complicated than that let's continue here she says when union existed before 1844 nearly all were united on the correct and i put the timing there on the correct view of the daily but in the confusion and i have in brackets there and we're going to prove it in a moment because they were ever setting new dates so she says but in the confusion since 1844 other views and i haven't an explanation as to the time and removal of the word sacrifice have been embraced and darkness and confusion have followed and now she's speaking in other words what she's saying is that those who proclaim the judgment hour had the timing of the daily correct and they had clear that the word sacrifice did not belong there but she's not saying that their definition of the daily miller's definition of the daily was correct now notice what she continues saying immediately after saying this that you know union existed before those who gave the judgment our cry had the right view all were united and so on she then says time has not been a test since 1844 and will never again be a test so what is the issue here it's the timing of the daily notice the next the next paragraph makes this clear the lord has shown me that the message of the third angel must go and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the lord but it must must not be hung on what time there is no new dates i saw that some were getting a false excitement arising from preaching what time that is setting new times from the beginning and ending of the 2300 days but the third angel's message is stronger than what then time can be i saw that this message can stand on its own foundation and needs not time to strengthen it and that uh and then it will go in mighty power and do its work and will be cut short in righteousness there was one point in which those who proclaim the judgment our message were all united and that is was the timing of the 2300 day prophecy and the daily which fits within that period now then in the next paragraph which i'm not going to even read it's ellen white speaks about people who were wanting to go back to the old jerusalem because you know they believe that the temple was going to be rebuilt and the sacrifices would be going to be established you know kind of the antiochus epiphanes thing but in the future so i said let's all go to jerusalem that's where the daily is going to be restored and she said don't do it now let's go to the paganism paganism argument bottom of page 23 the following apparently persuasive argument is used by those who believe that the taking away of the daily refers to the removal of paganism notice what their argument is william miller who was one of those who gave the judgment our message believed that the removal of the daily was the removal of paganism in 508. next point ellen white wrote that those who gave the judgment hour message including miller were united and agreed on this meaning therefore anyone who teaches any contrary view is in opposition to the pioneers in illinois are you understanding the reasoning and it sounds logical but when you examine it carefully logic doesn't always work because there's there's also a counterfeit logic isn't there if you get the premises wrong if you get the major premise or the minor premise wrong your conclusion is going to be wrong too it'll be logical but but the conclusion will be wrong now let's notice problems with this argument first although it is true that those who gave the judgment our message were united on the timing of the daily from 508-1843 it is simply not true that they all agreed on the meaning of the daily the common view at that time as well as today among protestants evangelicals was that the daily was the daily sacrifice that was removed in jerusalem the jerusalem temple by antiochus epiphanes from 171 to 164. that was the accepted view of that day and age did the those who proclaim the judgment hour message agree with that perspective absolutely not now notice what w w prescott had to say about this on page 24 the orthodox interpretation of the little horn of the 8th chapter of daniel was that it was a symbol of antiochus epiphanes that the 2300 days were literal days commencing with the time when antiochus polluted the temple at jerusalem and that the daily sacrifice referred to the daily offerings made according to the ceremonial law in harmony with this view the translator supplied the word sacrifice in the expression the daily sacrifice now notice the contrast with the adventist view those who proclaim the judgment hour message the adventist on the other hand maintained that the little horn was a symbol of rome pagan and people that the 2300 days were prophetic days fulfilled in literal years and that this period commenced in 457 bc and ended in 1844 after the passing of the time in 1844 there was an effort now here comes the key there was an effort made to readjust this period of 2300 years to some point in the future and up to 1850 at least six different adjustments had been made bringing much confusion into the advent ranks then came this council through the spirit of prophecy that the word sacrifice should not be supplied why because she's struggling against what against the antiochus view that the word sacrifice should not be supplied and that therefore the interpretation which found in the work of antiochus the fulfillment of this prophecy was incorrect that the new that the view entertained previous to 1844 which made the year 1844 the true termination of the prophetic period of the 2300 years was correct and that a true time message would never again be proclaimed are you understanding the point she's saying don't readjust the dates for the daily don't say that you know the 200 days didn't end in 1844 and start establishing new dates she says those who proclaim the judgment hour message were correct in the daily when it comes to time specifically now listen carefully all those who proclaimed were at the middle of page 24 all those who proclaimed the judgment our message were opposed to the antichrist epiphanies you and we're in agreement regarding the commencement and ending dates for the 2300 day prophecy this is the reason why ellen white stated that the word sacrifice was added by human wisdom and did not belong to the text as press taught well notes between 1844 and 1850 at least six other calculations and dates were given by expositors on the beginning and ending of the 2300 days this basically destroyed the adventist view concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days this is the reason why ellen white clearly stated that time would no longer be an issue after 1844 the time issue had been what had been settled in fact james white in 1850 said since the 2300 days ended in 1844 quite a number of times have been set by different individuals for their termination in doing this they have removed the landmarks and have thrown darkness and doubt over the whole advent movement he also says that 2300 days this prophetic period has been and still is the main pillar of the advent faith it is therefore of the utmost important that we have a correct view of the commencement and termination of this period in order to understand our present position so what is it that ellen white says that they were all united on the timing of the taking away of the daily notice what jay and loughborough had to say one of the pioneers the confusion that came in after the termination of the 2300 days was first among those who persisted in setting what times for the lord to come they claim that the daily sacrifice meant the jewish daily offerings that certain certainly made confusion in what were the clear views before and then you can read also the statement by james white at the top of page 25. now let's go to to the middle of page 25 let's do this quickly and this is a very important point we'll have to end with this those who believe that the taking away of the daily refers to the papacy's usurpation of christ's intercessory ministry in heaven have been accused of teaching a new view that is in contradiction to the old view held by the pioneers while the old view affirms that the removal of the daily refers to the removal of paganism the so-called new view teaches that the daily is christ's mediation in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary and that the papacy took it away by establishing a counterfeit intercessory ministry in the church with a counterfeit priesthood and a counterfeit sanctuary as stated before it has been claimed by the paganism advocates that this was not the original view of the pioneers that it was changed later by people such as a.t jones w w prescott and arthur daniels now listen this is important yet the view of a.t jones and w.w prescott is not only biblical but it was also held by many of those who preached the judgment hour message and now here's the proof in 1843 this is what one of those who proclaimed the judgment hour message said this was probably orl crozier he said the very heart of the gospel was removed when the little horn took away the daily or continual ministration of jesus christ and cast down the place of his sanctuary and made it a den of thieves and by the way ellen white at the bottom of page 25 approvingly encouraged adventists to get the article written by crozier on the sanctuary she said that god directed crozier in writing that article notice page 26 in the present truth this is 1849 this is very early it says christ did close his daily or continual ministration or mediation in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary so what is the daily or the continuum the ministration of christ in the first apartment next paragraph david arnold one of the pioneers by the way this is where in his barn is where some of the sabbath conferences were held that settled seventh-day adventist belief sometimes they study it all night it says uh david arnold had this to say therefore we are brought by the force of circumstances and the fulfillment of events to the irresistible conclusion that on the tenth day of the seventh month in the autumn of 1844 christ did close his what daily or continual ministration or mediation in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary notice once again daily or continue refers to the ministration of christ in the sanctuary in the next statement ellen white you'll notice underlined here she uses the word daily in the holy place and she uses also the word continual later on in the statement uriah smith who wasn't that far removed from the original pioneers uh explained it this way and i'm going to read this statement because it's very clear in his book the sanctuary in the 2300 days this is page 26. he says again we read in daniel 8 and verse 13 about the treading of the sanctuary under foot and it may be asked how a sanctuary asks how a sanctuary under foot can i must i must have skipped something here how can it be tread underfoot and it may be asked how a sanctuary in heaven can be trodden underfoot he says these expressions are figurative as will be seen by hebrews 10 29 which speaks of treading underfoot the son of god the sanctuary can be trodden underfoot in the same sense that the son of god its minister can thus the pope has tried to underfoot the sanctuary by calling it his own sanctuary or temple the temple of god and by turning away the worship of men from the temple of god in heaven to his own sanctuary at rome and he has tried underfoot the son of god the minister of that sanctuary by exalting himself above all that is called god and assuming to be the head of the church in place of jesus christ now you can read the rest of page 27 and 28 where i explain a little more the the view that those who preach the judgment our message had they were all united with regards to when the 2300 days began and ended and during that period is when the continual or the daily was going to be taken away in fact ellen white has statements that she gave later on in 1910 in fact where she says god has not given me any light on the meaning of the daily so you have a real problem here because if ellen white is saying that those who proclaim the judgment hour message had the correct view of the daily and she must have known then what the daily was and then later on she says god hasn't given me any light on the meaning of the daily you would have ellen white contradicting herself but ellen white does not contradict herself what she's saying is that those who proclaim the judgment our message were correct with regards to the timing of the daily being taken away they were correct with regards to the 2300 day prophecy no need to set other times for the beginning and ending of the 2 300 days now the question is and by the way at the end of this material you have the whole article by prescott powerful article by w.w prescott i mean i think it's irrefutable and if you even want more than that you know you get this book the daily by heidi hypes it's a real eye-opener this i mean there's there's no doubt whatsoever that the daily represents christ's ministration in the heavenly sanctuary in the holy place now some people say well understanding this isn't a matter of salvation do you think that it's really necessary for us to show roman catholics where the source of salvation is and point them to the heavenly sanctuary where jesus ministers instead of depending on a human system on earth for the salvation for folks it is important to know what the daily is what the taking away of the daily is so that we can witness to people who have who have placed their hope in that which is no hope at all now we've covered a lot of material i hope that i didn't leave you more confused did you understand what we studied read the whole material and you'll it'll make perfect sense now this evening we won't run so fast this evening we're going to uh we're going to speak about the 2520 non-prophecy it's amazing how we get sidetracked in all these side issues folks and why meanwhile the world perishes for the real solid end time message of the adventist church let's bow our heads for prayer father in heaven we thank you for the message that you have given to our church so many times lord we get distracted into side issues and we forget that to the central message that we need to be proclaiming is what jesus is doing now in the heavenly sanctuary since 1844 that he's opening the books he's looking at the records of those who have professed the name of jesus and that we need to do a parallel work on earth cleansing the temple of the soul while jesus cleanses the heavenly sanctuary i ask lord that you will bless us you will take these things that we've studied place them in our minds give us the ability to share them with those who have placed their hope in that which is no hope at all we thank you father for having been with us and we thank you for answering our prayer for we ask it in jesus name amen [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] you

Channel: secretsunsealed

Views: 6,205

Rating: 4.8701301 out of 5

Keywords: SUMTV, SUMTVLatino, Secrets Unsealed, Secretos Revelados, Pastor Bohr, Pastor Stephen Bohr, Pastor Esteban Bohr, End times, Knowledge Shall Be Increased, Revelation 17, Daniel 8, Music, Satan's Music, Bible, Enemy, The 2520, Sugar Affects

Id: gLSLs9l0v-M

Length: 89min 54sec (5394 seconds)

Published: Fri Mar 05 2021