Human Reasoning or Bible Truth

 

"His Judgment" in Revelation 14:7

It has become popular to think of the judgment as a judgment of God—one in which God is on trial. That view has often been read into the expression "his judgment" in Revelation 14:7.

The Greek word used for “judgment” in Revelation 14:7 is krísis, the primary definition of which is:

1. judging, judgment—a. of the activity of God or the Messiah as judge, esp. on the Last Day” (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Arndt and Gingrich, p. 453).

The SDA Bible Commentary on Revelation 14:7 has this to say about the word “judgment” as used in that verse: “Gr. krisis, 'the act of judging,’ contrasted with  krima, ‘the sentence of judgment’.”

We find the same word in John 5:27 where Jesus claims "authority to execute judgment.” It means to “act as judge” (Arndt and Gingrich, p. 453).

The lexicon actually cites Revelation 14:7 as a typical example of this word, and translates the phrase in question as: “the hour when he is to judge Rv 14:7” (Ibid.).

So it is clear that God is the one doing the judging in this verse.

“Krisis may indicate either the act of investigating a case or the act of carrying out the sentence” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 849).

Revelation 14:7 is clearly talking about the investigative judgment (as opposed to the later judgment of the wicked) because it says that it “is come” (present tense in the context of the proclamation of the first angel’s message).

To find out what the investigative judgment is all about, we can read the chapter “Facing Life’s Record” in The Great Controversy. The whole chapter describes this judgment. It can be summarized  in the second paragraph of the chapter:

"Thus was presented to the prophet's vision the great and solemn day when the characters and the lives of men should pass in review before the Judge of all the earth, and to every man should be rendered 'according to his works.' The Ancient of Days is God the Father. Says the psalmist: 'Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.' Psalm 90:2. It is He, the source of all being, and the fountain of all law, that is to preside in the judgment. And holy angels as ministers and witnesses, in number 'ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands,' attend this great tribunal” (GC 479).

It is very clear—from the language used in the text, and also from The Great Controversy—that Revelation 14:7 is not about God being judged, but rather that mankind is being judged by God.

Answering Objections to the Literal View of Daniel 11:40-45

When I first read Uriah Smith's explanation of the last part of Daniel 11, I thought it was weird. Why would the Bible be talking about Turkey? I liked Smith's comments about most of Daniel and Revelation. But here, I felt, he got off on the wrong track somewhere. I just couldn't see what Turkey had to do with anything.

And that is how most people I've talked with see it as well.

Since then I have been able to study the subject thoroughly from all sides. And guess what? After carefully evaluating each of the other major approaches to Daniel 11, the view that makes the most sense to me now is Uriah Smith's explanation.

I think most people are like I was. The main reason they discount the pioneer view is because they haven't openly and objectively considered all the evidence.

In previous posts I have shared a lot about Daniel 11 and explained how the literal view of the chapter fits the historical record perfectly. In this post I am directing you to the paper I have prepared for this year's Daniel 11 conference in Berrien Springs, Michigan. In it I answer seven common objections to the pioneer view. You'll find the paper posted at http://www.Daniel11prophecy.com under the 2021 Conference Papers.

Who Was Zerubbabel's Grandfather?

 “And again the word of the Lord came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying, Speak to Zerubbabel, governor of Judah, saying, I will shake the heavens and the earth; And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms, and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow the chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, every one by the sword of his brother. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith the Lord of hosts.” Haggai 2:20-23.

Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel (Salathiel) are the only two individuals found in both Matthew's and Luke's genealogy of Jesus between David and Joseph the husband of Mary. Apart from those two, every other name listed within that span is different in the two gospel accounts. See Human Ancestry of Jesus for more on that.

Zerubbabel is an important character. He was the governor of Judah for over twenty years, supervising the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. The prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah were given to encourage him and Joshua the high priest in that important work. Haggai's messages to him personally have Messianic overtones, for their ultimate fulfillment would be realized in Zerubbabel's descendant, Jesus.

The question we are addressing here has to do with the differences in the biblical accounts of Zerubbabel's ancestry. 1 Chronicles 3:17-19; Matthew 1:12; and Luke 3:27 each give a different story.

The identity of Zerubbabel's father seems to be clear. Ezra, Haggai, Matthew, and Luke all agree that Shealtiel (Salathiel) was Zerubbabel's father. Only the Hebrew text of 1 Chronicles lists Pedaiah as his father. The Greek Septuagint of 1 Chronicles lists Shealtiel as his father.

Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), who reigned as king in Judah for only three months and ten days, was taken to Babylon in 597 BC with the prophet Ezekiel and 10,000 other captives. He had a number of children, but none of them would ever reign as king (Jeremiah 22:30).

Our question is, was Shealtiel the son of Jehoiachin or the son of Neri? A number of possible explanations have been proposed. Shealtiel might have been the actual son of Neri (Luke 3:27), but the son of Jehoiachin (Matthew 1:12) by adoption. Or, if Jehoiachin's natural sons had all died, Jehoiachin might have chosen Shealtiel, the son of Neri, as his legal heir and successor. One other possibility is that Shealtiel was Jehoiachin's grandson--that Jehoiachin's daughter married Neri, and that Shealtiel was their son. With any one of these explanations, both Matthew's and Luke's accounts would be correct according to Jewish custom. Matthew, showing Jesus as a legal heir to Judah's throne, and Luke, possibly showing Jesus' actual blood line, are both correct.

Human Ancestry of Jesus

The Bible uses two different approaches to the family line of Jesus. The list given in Matthew Chapter 1 is almost entirely different from the list in Luke Chapter 3. Here is a suggested explanation for that difference:

Matthew's list is obviously incomplete. For example, Matthew 1:11 says, "Josias (Josiah) begat Jechonias (Jehoiachin)." In reality Jehoiachin was Josiah's grandson. Matthew's purpose was not to list every single link in the genealogy, but rather simply to present enough of the line to demonstrate that Jesus was in fact descended from David and from Abraham (verse 1). In Matthew 1:17 he says, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." This doesn't have to mean that that is all the generations that there were, but simply that that is all the generations he was listing to establish Christ's legitimacy as King of Israel.

Whereas Matthew shows Jesus to have descended through the line of Judah's kings via Solomon, Luke's list presents Jesus as having descended through Nathan, another son of David and Bathsheba. I favor the explanation that suggests Luke is presenting the literal blood line of Jesus through Mary, and that Matthew is showing Jesus' legally recognized patriarchal line through Joseph. Both lines go through David. It appears that Mary's husband Joseph was the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16), and that Heli (Luke 3:23) could have been Mary's father. If Mary was Heli's only child, Joseph would have become Heli's legal heir by marrying her. According to this explanation, Luke's account shows how Jesus was an actual blood descendant of David through Mary, and Matthew's account shows that Jesus was the legal heir of Judah's royal line though his adoption by Joseph.

Luke 3:23 in the Greek doesn't actually say that Joseph was the son of Heli. The words "the son" in the KJV are italicized, indicating they were supplied by the translators. The Greek literally says, "And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, son of Joseph, of Heli." It was supposed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, but really he was "of Heli."

This is consistent with the fact that Matthew tells the story of Jesus' birth from Joseph's perspective, while Luke tells Mary's story. And in Matthew's account, when the angel appears to Joseph in a dream he addresses him as "Joseph, thou son of David" (Matthew 1:20). The genealogy in the first seventeen verses was given to show how that is so.

Luke tells us that Mary was a relative of Elizabeth (Luke 1:36) who was descended from Aaron (verse 5). It is possible that Mary's father was of the tribe of Judah and that her mother was of the tribe of Levi. In that way, Jesus could be the blood descendant of David through His maternal grandfather, and Mary could still be related to Elisabeth on her mother's side.

God's Covenant With Israel

In Jeremiah 31, God makes promises to Israel in unconditional language. This is the new covenant passage that is quoted twice in the book of Hebrews. This covenant is made "with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah." Jeremiah 31:31.

God's unconditional commitment to Israel is brought out in verses 35-37. Speaking of the sun, the moon, and the stars, God says, "If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever." Then He says, "If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord."

Some of God's promises to Israel were conditional upon their response to Him. But this passage makes it clear that His selection of them as His people is permanent, in spite of "all that they have done." Their behavior cannot change His choice of them as His covenant people.

Popular "replacement theology" teaches that the Christian church replaces the Jewish nation as God's covenant people. But the Bible does not teach that. The Bible makes it clear that in order for Gentiles to experience the blessings of the new covenant they must be grafted into Israel. Not the modern nation of Israel, but the kingdom of David, for Jesus will sit on David's throne.

For a more complete study of this subject see "'Thy People' and the Remnant of Israel" posted on May 21, 2019.

Nations Are Angry

Bible prophecy foretold conflicts among the nations leading up to the second coming of Christ. Here is a chart placing some of those conflicts in relation to other prophetic events in Daniel and Revelation.

"Thy People" and the Remnant of Israel

Gabriel’s reference to “thy people” throughout the book of Daniel consistently applies to the posterity of Jacob. The expression in Daniel 12:1 does not refer to some other group. Christianity does not replace Israel in God’s plan; it renews and strengthens it.

To understand this better, read the article, "The Restoration of Israel".

Daniel 11 Resources

In preparation for the Daniel 11 Prophecy Conference I want to make it easy for you to find all my material on Daniel 11. Just click here to be directed to my August 24, 2015 post where I maintain an up-to-date index of everything on this site related to Daniel 11.

Welcome to Thoughtlines.org

That's right. You no longer need to type klebrun.blogspot.com. From now on all you have to do is type thougthlines.org into your browser. I don't know why I didn't realize I could assign a custom domain name to this blog. Anyway, I hope you appreciate it.

There is a lot of information on this site. You can either click through all the archives listed by date on the right to see all the posts. Or you can search for a topic in the search bar at the top. Some of the searchable topics I've posted on include:

(These are not links. You'll need to enter these into the search bar. This post will show up in the search results also, because these labels are listed here.)
Angels
Ark of the Covenant
Babylon
Bible Readings
Bible Study
Book of Daniel
Book of Revelation
Chronology
Covenant
Creeds
Crucifixion
Daniel 11
Doctrines
Ellen White
Family
Festivals
Gender
Genealogy
Gift of Prophecy
Health
Hermeneutics
Israel
Jesus
Law of God
Matthew 24
New Light
Ordination
Organization
Resurrection
Revelation 9
Revelation 17
Rome
Sabbath
Salvation
Satan
Seven Seals
Seven Trumpets
Seventh-day Adventist Church
Ten Commandments
The Church
The Closing Work
The Daily
The Great Controversy Issue
The Judgment
The Sealing
Tribulation
Worship
1260 Days
70 Years
2520

Some of the linked files in my blog posts are on a server that no longer allows public access. I apologize for that. I plan to get around to fixing that eventually. But in the meantime, if you click on a link and it doesn't take you there, let me know in the comments and I'll fix it for you.

Happy Reading!

Daniel 11:16

"But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed."

Most non-Adventist commentaries consider Daniel 11:16 to be a continuation of the narrative in verse 15, referring to Antiochus III the Great, who militarily wrested Palestine from Egyptian control. Adventists, on the other hand, have traditionally viewed verse 16 as the grand entrance of Rome into the prophecy by its defeat of the Seleucid kingdom. The expression "he that cometh" is applied to Rome, and the "him" against whom he comes is the Seleucid king.

Counter to the mainstream Adventist interpretation, Dr. Roy Gane of Andrews University has pointed out several reasons for delaying Rome's introduction until verse 20. His work is cited in my last post, where I provided fourteen reasons in favor of Dr. Gane's application of verses 17-22.

In today's post, however, I will argue in favor of considering verse 16 to be a parenthetical preview describing Rome.

It largely boils down to the correct identity of the first instance of the word "him" in the verse. As usual, the masculine singular personal pronoun is here indicated by a pronominal suffix attached to the Hebrew word for "against." This must necessarily refer back to a masculine singular antecedent. Several of the nouns in verse 15 are either feminine or plural, or both, eliminating them as grammatical candidates. Only through some sort of literary personification of the "south" in verse 15 is it possible to produce an antecedent that would allow one to apply the "him" to Egypt, which is necessary in order for "he that cometh" to be Antiochus.

But an easier antecedent for the "him" is the word "king" in verse 15, which doesn't require us to jump through any literary hoops, for one would naturally assign to a king the masculine singular personal pronoun "him." This natural reading of the text favors the king of the North as the one being attacked in verse 16, rather than being the attacker.

Those who feel that verse 16 describes Antiochus' conquests, on the other hand, would point out two considerations: (1) the lack of any clear textual break in the narrative after verse 15 that would allow us to transition to a new power, and (2) the literary parallels between verses 15 and 16, which would lead one to connect the two verses together in the narrative. Those parallels are significant:

It is clear, therefore, that verse 16 must be tied in some way to verse 15. Considering all the factors involved, I would like to suggest that the relationship of verse 16 to verse 15 is a relationship of comparison rather than of continuation. All that Antiochus the Great accomplished in verse 15 would be exceeded immensely by the power that comes against him. Verse 15 boasts that when Antiochus comes, "the arms of the south shall not withstand." But verse 16 presents the comparison, declaring that "none [nobody at all] shall stand before" the power that comes against Antiochus.

Perhaps the best explanation for the lack of a major break or transition in the text after verse 15 is that Antiochus' story, in fact, does not end here; it only experiences a momentary interruption for a brief parenthetical comment for perspective. Yes, Antiochus did capture Judea. But he that cometh against him would do according to his own will, and none would stand before him. This new invader would also stand in the glorious land, which by his hand would indeed be consumed. This brief preview introduces Rome, a new power, into the prophecy, which would ultimately annihilate Jerusalem.

While the merits of assigning verses 17-19 to Antiochus, chronicling the specific details of his downfall, are well substantiated, several factors support recognizing verse 16 as a snapshot preview of Rome's imminent takeover:

1. The phrase, "shall do according to his own will," indicates that this power is not bound by any existing circumstances. The expression may appropriately be applied to the development of a new power on the prophetic stage, as William Shea has pointed out. Daniel: A Reader's Guide (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2005), 246. Applied to the great empire builders Cyrus (Daniel 8:4) and Alexander the Great (Daniel 11:3), the phrase just doesn't seem to fit a struggling Seleucid who is about to surrender the prophetic spotlight over to another empire that is truly worthy of the expression.

2. It is certainly not true that "none shall stand before" Antiochus III. For when he came into confrontation with Rome, Antiochus could not stand.

3. As a result of conquering Palestine, Antiochus III did stand in the glorious land. But that is about as far as we can apply the verse to him. The word "consumed," meaning complete destruction or annihilation, is too strong of a word to describe Antiochus' relation to the glorious land. He was actually fairly gracious to the Jews.

4. If nearly one fourth of the entire chapter, ten verses (verses 10-19) out of forty-five, involve the career of Antiochus III, that would assign to a single individual a stature without equal in Daniel 11 or elsewhere. Even Alexander the Great, the only prominent individual in Chapter 8, gets only two verses in Chapter 11. Ascribing the superlative declarations of verse 16 to Antiochus III places far too much relative emphasis on this insufficiently worthy individual.

For these reasons, Rome fits the description of verse 16 much better.

But how it happened that this newly emerging empire in the West could end up stealing the prophetic spotlight from the successors of Alexander is a story that must be told. It was the activities of Antiochus III that lured the armies of Rome for the first time into Asia. Daniel 11:17-19 tells us all about it.

After noting Antiochus' determination to expand his kingdom, verse 17 discusses the treaty he made with Ptolemy V of Egypt, pledging to him his daughter, Cleopatra I. After this, moving to reclaim the Thracian territory that his ancestor Seleucus I Nicator had conquered from Lysimachus, Antiochus turned "his face unto the isles" (verse 18), and crossed over into Europe. This alarmed the Romans, who in 191 BC declared war against him. Defeated at Thermopylae, Antiochus retreated to Ephesus. The Romans pursued, and the decisive battle was fought at Magnesia in 190 BC. The Seleucid army was vanquished. The result was that Antiochus had to surrender all of Asia west of the Taurus mountains, all of his war elephants, all but twelve warships, and agree to pay 15,000 talents, which involved an annual tribute, to Rome. Thus came to an inglorious end the great Seleucid Empire. In 187 BC Antiochus was murdered in his own homeland (verse 19) for robbing a temple to make his payment to Rome. He was the last Greek king of the North to appear in the prophecy.

It is important to note that the rulers of Rome, which occupy the next ten verses (20-29), are never referred to as kings of the North. That's because their capital was in the West. From Rome they would control both the North and the South, but their identity was not to be found in either. They were of Rome, the stronghold from which they forecasted their devices (verse 24) lying beyond the dominions of Alexander's Diadochi. Rome was not the king of the North, but "he that cometh against him" (verse 16). Not until the Time of the End would the chapter's focus return to the East.

For an interesting account of the history of verses 17-19, see A. T. Jones, The Great Empires of Prophecy, Chapter 19, paragraphs 30-44.

Testing Daniel 11:16-22

A little over a year ago I was introduced to Dr. Roy Gane's contribution to the study of Daniel 11:16-22. Since then, I have carefully compared his views with the traditional Adventist application of those verses. In this post I will share my analysis of it. For Dr. Gane's actual presentations, see:

• "The Un-Manifestation of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 11:1-22," Roy E. Gane, presented at the Adventist Theological Society symposium on eschatology in 2007.
• "Methodology for Interpretation of Daniel 11:2 - 12:3," Roy E. Gane, Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 27/1-2: (2016): 294-343.
• Andrews Study Bible notes on Daniel 11:16-19.

The guiding principle that has most influenced my analysis of these verses is William Miller's 4th rule of prophetic interpretation:

"To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in an error." Joshua V. Himes, Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology Selected From Manuscripts of William Miller With a Memoir of His Life (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1841), 20.

The part about "forming your theory without a contradiction," is what has most influenced my testing of Daniel 11:16-22. I have concluded that verse 16 must describe the introduction of Rome to the prophecy, as we have traditionally held. But for verses 17-22, I find Dr. Gane's application to be better. In my next post, I will make the case for the introduction of Rome in verse 16 as we have traditionally done. But the compelling reasons for applying verses 17-19 to Antiochus III, as Dr. Gane does, rather than to Julius Caesar, as we have traditionally done, are summarized here.

1. Not readily apparent in the KJV, verse 16 in the Hebrew is grammatically connected with verse 15. In the phrase “he that cometh against him” (verse 16), the “him” best refers to someone mentioned in the previous verse. Verse 15 describes Antiochus III about the year 200 BC, who would a decade later be defeated by Rome. Because of the connection between these two verses, it makes more sense for verse 16 to refer to Rome’s victory over Antiochus III at Magnesia, than it does to apply it to Rome's physical invasion of Syria 126 years later by Pompey. The real loss of Seleucid power occurred in 190 BC, not in 64 BC.
2. In verse 17, Julius Caesar did not “set his face” to enter by force the whole kingdom as Uriah Smith suggests. When Caesar went to Egypt, his intended purpose was to negotiate with Pompey and end the civil war between them. It was not for the purpose of taking over Egypt.
3. Smith explains how certain Jews were an aid to Caesar at this time, which is a good explanation of “upright ones with him” in verse 17. However, Antiochus III also had the Jews on his side in the alternative application of this verse.
4. “He shall give him” in verse 17 is problematic in Uriah Smith’s interpretation. From what I can tell, nobody gave Cleopatra to anybody.
5. “But she shall not stand on his side.” To be consistent, the context here should be Julius Caesar. But Cleopatra didn’t ever betray Caesar. So Smith explains it as Cleopatra later siding against Octavian, which is a little out of place in context.
6. Verse 18 starts out by saying, “After this.” In other words, after the last thing mentioned, which was Cleopatra not standing on Octavian’s side. But the interpretation given for the first part of this verse in Smith’s book is Caesar defeating Pharnaces of Pontus. This was not “after” Cleopatra sided against Octavian. So there is a problem there.
7. Smith offers no historical application of the last half of verse 18. But the alternative explanation offers a very good historical application.
8. Verse 19 says, “Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land.” So all of verse 18 needs to have happened before he turns his face toward the fort of his own land. This rules out any application of the last part of verse 18 to anything that happened in Rome in connection with Caesar’s assassination. This leaves the last part of verse 18 without any historical fulfillment.
9. In verse 19 Caesar did stumble and fall in the fort of his own land, so this part matches him. But it also matches Antiochus III in the alternate view.
10. Augustus was “a raiser of taxes” (verse 20). The only problem here is that that seems to be a KJV wording that, while acceptable, is not the best translation of the Hebrew. The marginal reading shows the Hebrew meaning, which, while including the raising of taxes, is broader than that.
11. “In the glory of the kingdom” does fit the times of Augustus. But a literal translation of this verse says, “Then one will emerge in his stead who will cause a tribute-exacter of royal splendor to pass through.” So the glory or splendor does not necessarily refer to the times. It probably refers to the exacter himself.
12. Augustus did not die “within few days.” This is a major problem with this interpretation. He actually reigned as emperor 40 years, 7 months, and three days. No other emperor in Rome ever ruled that long.
13. “He shall be destroyed.” Augustus died of natural causes. He was not destroyed.
14. In verse 21, the phrase, “to whom they shall not give the honor of the kingdom” does not fit Tiberius at all. When Augustus died, there was no question but that Tiberius was the next emperor. There was actually no opposition at all to his assuming the position.

In contrast to this, there are no contradictions to be found in the application of verses 17-22 as Dr. Gane has proposed. It just fits.

Side-by-Side Comparison of the Two Views

Who is the King of the South?

I have been invited to speak at the Daniel 11 Prophecy Conference to be held October 19-20, 2018 at the Village SDA Church in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Event information is at http://www.daniel11prophecy.com.

The stated purpose of this conference is "to provide a forum for the public hearing of the leading King of the South (KOS) interpretations of Daniel 11:40ff; to stimulate further study among church members on eschatological prophecy; and to raise awareness among church members of where we are in the broad flow of salvation history."

While the focus of this conference is on the King of the South, that is just a convenient way of categorizing the views to be presented. Each speaker will present his position in the context of the broader interpretation of Daniel 11 as a whole.

I will be speaking on Sabbath afternoon. The paper I will be presenting is entitled, "Identifying the King of the South Through a Natural Reading of Daniel 11." The full paper is posted under "Conference Papers" on the event website and is available now to read. Click here to view and download.

Easy Street?

Ancestry of Joash

David's royal line was preserved when Jehosheba hid the child Joash so that Athaliah the queen could not kill him.

The marriage of Jehoshaphat's son to Ahab's daughter linked together the royal families of Israel and Judah. As a result, all the kings of Judah thereafter would be descended, not only from David, but from Ahab and Jezebel as well. And Matthew chapter 1 presents Jesus as an heir to that line of kings in Judah.

The Bible does not say that Jehosheba was the daughter of Athaliah, but only that she was the daughter of Jehoram of Judah.

Understanding the Judgment

Ark of the Covenant

Statements by Ellen White on where the Ark of the Covenant is now and its eventual discovery:

“Before the temple was destroyed, God made known to a few of His faithful servants the fate of the temple…. These righteous men, just before the destruction of the temple, removed the sacred ark containing the tables of stone, and with mourning and sadness secreted it in a cave where it was to be hidden from the people of Israel because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hidden. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted.” The Story of Redemption, p. 195

“Among the righteous still in Jerusalem, to whom had been made plain the divine purpose, were some who determined to place beyond the reach of ruthless hands the sacred ark containing the tables of stone on which had been traced the precepts of the Decalogue. This they did. With mourning and sadness they secreted the ark in a cave, where it was to be hidden from the people of Israel and Judah because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hidden. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted.” Prophets and Kings, p. 453

“ ‘And He gave unto Moses, when He had made an end of communicating with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written by the finger of God.’ Nothing written on those tables could be blotted out. The precious record of the law was placed in the ark of the testament and is still there, safely hidden from the human family. But in God’s appointed time He will bring forth these tables of stone to be a testimony to all the world against the disregard of His commandments and against the idolatrous worship of a counterfeit Sabbath.” MS 122, 1901; SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 1109

“There are abundant evidences of the immutability of God’s law. It was written with the finger of God, never to be obliterated, never to be destroyed. The tables of stone are hidden by God, to be produced in the great judgment-day, just as He wrote them.” Review and Herald, March 26, 1908; SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 1109

“When the judgment shall sit, and the books shall be opened, and every man shall be judged according to the things written in the books, then the tables of stone, hidden by God until that day, will be presented before the world as the standard of righteousness. Then men and women will see that the prerequisite of their salvation is obedience to the perfect law of God. None will find excuse for sin. By the righteous principles of that law, men will receive their sentence of life or of death.” Review and Herald, Jan. 28, 1909; SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 1, p. 1109

“These tables of stone will be brought forth from their hiding place, and on them will be seen the Ten Commandments engraved by the finger of God. These tables of stone now lying in the Ark of the testimony will be a convincing testimony to the truth and binding claims of God’s law.” Letter 47, 1902.

Ministry vs. Office

Into the Looking Glass

Seventy Years of Captivity

Why did God, through Jeremiah, decree 70 years of Babylonian captivity for His people, as Daniel learned in Daniel 9:2?

According to Leviticus 26:34, 35 and 2 Chronicles 36:21, the length of the captivity was to allow the land to enjoy all the sabbath-rest years it had not been allowed during Israel’s years of apostasy.

How many years of apostasy would it take to miss 70 sabbath-rest years? Every seventh year was to be a rest year for the land (Leviticus 25:4). In addition, on every 50th year (Leviticus 25:10, 11), called the jubilee, the land was to rest as well. That 50th year was actually the first year of the next 49-year cycle.

With 8 sabbath-rest years (7 sabbatical years plus 1 jubilee year) to be observed for every jubilee cycle of 49 years, it would mathematically take at least 8.75 jubilee cycles, or 428.75 years, to accumulate 70 sabbath-rest years. The period of apostasy would have to be fewer than 434.875 years (which is 8.875 jubilee cycles), because that would produce 71 sabbath-rest years. So for them to have missed exactly 70 Sabbath-rest years, their period of apostasy had to last somewhere in the range from 429 to 434 years.

Do we have a record of how many years of apostasy God’s people experienced? We do. In Ezekiel 4:4-6, the prophet was told to lie on his left side and bear the iniquity of the house of Israel 390 days. Then he was to lie on his right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah 40 days. “For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity” (v. 5). “I have appointed thee each day for a year” (v. 6). Thus the total period of the iniquity of Israel and Judah combined was 430 years. That would have resulted in exactly 70 sabbath-rest years that they ignored. Those untaken years of rest were now to be given to the land. God’s people would be exiled to Babylon for seventy years (Jeremiah 25:11, 12; 29:10).

This can be calculated in more than one way. For example, the ratio of Sabbath-rest years to regular years (8 to 49) is 1 to 6.125. Apply that ratio to the 430 years and round it to the nearest whole year:  430 ÷ 6.125 = 70.2 = 70 years.

Another way is to see the 8 sabbath-rest years per 49-year jubilee cycle as 16.3265306% of the time. The formula would then look like this:  430 x 0.163265306 = 70.2 = 70 years.