Review of Daniel 11 in Pastor Tim Roosenberg s Islam & Christianity in Prophecy, Lesson 4 Presented by Tim Hayden www.sealedremnant.com Review of Lessons 1-3, Chronological Issues In this section, I want to refresh what we have already identified as problematic in Pastor Roosenberg s chronology of Daniel 11. First, the time of Daniel 11:24 has typically been believed to be 360 years, but Pastor Roosenberg says that the time in that passage was the 1260 day/year rule of the papacy. 1 He needs to have the 1260 years, which began in AD 538, introduced before the Crusades began in AD 1095 (Daniel 11:25), so he uses the time in Daniel 11:24 as a reference to the 1260 years. Of the seven places the 1260 years are mentioned in the Bible, three of them are designated a time, times, and a half time (Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Revelation 12:14). The other four use months and years to describe the same period (Revelation 11:2, 3; 12:6; 13:5). Seven designates completeness, but Pastor Roosenberg adds an eighth reference that breaks the scripture s numerical significance. Using a single time to describe the 1260 years also destroys the day for a year principle and undermines the historical method of interpretation. Pastor Roosenberg s concept is obviously wrong, and I will not spend any more time on it. As noted in a previous lesson, Daniel 11:35 is chronologically problematic for Pastor Roosenberg. It says, And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed. Pastor Roosenberg changed the cleansing spoken of in Daniel 11:35 and Daniel 12:9-10 from the cleansing that God s people received during the 1260 years of papal persecution to the cleansing that God s people receive in the judgment. We will touch on this verse in connection with Pastor Roosenberg s second timeline, the date of the time of the end, and his appointed time concept. We have also seen that Pastor Roosenberg places the beginning of the time of the end in 1844, not 1798 as is commonly understood. He claims that the judgment in heaven and the time of the end started in 1844. 2 This is extremely important to his interpretation. He uses this concept in Daniel 11:40 (NKJV) to begin his last conflict: At the time of the end [1844] the king of the South shall attack him. What he means here is that the last conflict will begin sometime after 1844. I will spend more time on this later in this lesson. (Note: To help simplify the lesson material, wherever the phrase daily sacrifice is used in biblical references, I have removed the word sacrifice because that word was added by the translators and tends to make the passages confusing. I also use two acronyms in tables and timelines throughout: TOTE is the Time of the End, and AOD means the Abomination of Desolation.) Copyright 2014-2015, Timothy John Hayden. All rights reserved. This entire document may be copied and freely distributed without modification.
Pastor Roosenberg s Chronological Problem Pastor Roosenberg s says that the prophecy in Daniel 11 moves in a straightforward way through human history. 3 This is logical and is believed to be true by most scholars, but Pastor Roosenberg doesn t follow his concept too closely (see the image on the previous page). However, where he doesn t hold to it, he has developed reasoning to get around it. Anyone who has looked at Pastor Roosenberg s prophetic flow can see that his interpretation does not move in a straightforward way through human history. His flow takes major leaps forward and backward in time. Pastor Roosenberg justifies his jumping around in the prophecy through the use of a set of timelines as seen in the image at the right. His timelines are somewhat complex, but are needed to correct his chronological flow. I will examine them closer in the following sections. (Note: Because of the complexity the 2300- day timeline is left out of the diagram, only the 1844 date is placed there, and the 1290 and 1335 years are placed on the same lines to simplify the diagram. The 1260-year period is also left out but is part of Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation.) All of the things in Pastor Roosenberg s timelines were done to support his idea of three conflicts between Islam and Christianity. That part of his teaching was developed first. He then developed his timelines around it. The timelines were created by Pastor Roosenberg to fit with his concept of conflicts between Islam and Christianity in Daniel 11. He had to justify his backward jump in the prophecy. However, careful examination will show that there is no substance to his interpretation. Pastor Roosenberg s Two Timelines Pastor Roosenberg claims that there are two sets of timelines linked to Daniel 11 and 12, and he says that there are two abominations of desolations (Starting points), in Daniel. 4 He uses Jesus s words about the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 as his key passage for his two timelines. He applies Jesus s words to the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and in Daniel 11:31. When Jesus and His disciples were near the temple one day, the disciples were noticing its beautiful construction. Jesus then shocked them when He said it would be destroyed: There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down (Matthew 24:2). Jesus s disciples then asked Him two questions: Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:3). It is commonly believed that Jesus s answer included explanation for both of their questions. Consider part of His reply to His disciples: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains. (Matthew 24:15-16) 2
In answering the disciple s questions, Jesus was using phrases from Daniel: the abomination of desolation and to stand. The word stand is not used in Daniel 9:27, nor is it directly used in Daniel 11:31, but it is used many time in Daniel s last prophecy: Daniel 11:2, 3-4, 6-7, 14, 16, 20-21, 25, 12:1. In each instance it refers to a person or organization that received power over a kingdom. In Daniel 9:27 it was pagan Rome that stood up to destroy Jerusalem, and in Daniel 11:31 it was the papacy that stood when it received civil power in Rome. Thus, it has been well understood that Jesus was most likely referring to Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 when using the phrase abomination of desolation. Obviously then, Pastor Roosenberg bases his interpretation on a common belief among Seventh-day Adventists, but he adds the concept that those two passages are two starting points for his two timelines. The appropriate phrases of those two passages read, for the overspreading of abominations [margin: with the abominable armies] he shall make it desolate (Daniel 9:27), and they shall place [or set up] the abomination that maketh desolate (Daniel 11:31). Using the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and 11:31, Pastor Roosenberg next uses the two time periods from Daniel 12:11-12 to create his two timelines. He includes the 1290 and 1335 years in each timeline. He says that the abomination of desolation is the only starting point 5 for those two time periods, and then he says that they must begin from both A.D. 70 [Daniel 9:27] and 508 [Daniel 11:31]. 6 Thus, Pastor Roosenberg s timelines revolve around the abomination of desolation. Because Daniel 12:11-12 mentions the abomination in verse 11, he assumes he can apply the time prophecies there to both Daniel 9:27 and 11:31. However, a review of that passage does not indicate that he can do that: And from the time that the daily shall be taken away, to set up the abomination that maketh desolate, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. (Daniel 12:11-12, margin) Although there is no indication in this passage that the two time periods (the 1290 and 1335 years) can be applied in two places, Pastor Roosenberg applies them to his two timelines anyway. Note that the daily in the passage must be taken away so that the abomination can be set up. This is clearest in the marginal rendering of the passage, which I have given. The removal of the daily and the setting up of the abomination are not necessarily the same event. Pastor Roosenberg mentions in his book that the daily sacrifice is referring to the sacrifice of Jesus that had been subverted by the Catholic Church s teaching of forgiveness. 7 But in relation to his timelines, he doesn t discuss the daily, which is actually the beginning point of the 1290- and 1335-year periods. Compare the three passages together: Daniel 12:11 (margin): And from the time that the daily shall be taken away, to set up the abomination that maketh desolate, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Daniel 9:27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations [margin: with the abominable armies] he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate. 3
Daniel 11:31: And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily, and they shall place [or set up] the abomination that maketh desolate. We can see here that Daniel 12:11 refers specifically to the taking away of the daily as the starting point of the 1290 and the 1335 years. Daniel 9:27 does not speak of the taking away of the daily, so Pastor Roosenberg uses the abomination that maketh desolate in the second phrase of Daniel 12:11 as the starting point of his 1290- and 1335-year timelines. Notice the close wording of Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11; these verses are obviously linked. Many scholars have recognized this. The following table gives evidence that the verbal linkage between Daniel 11 and 12 is close: 11:31 abomination that maketh desolate shall take away the daily 11:32 those who do wickedly 11:33 11:35 those who understand shall instruct to try them, and to purge, and to make them white those who understand 12:11 abomination that maketh desolate shall be taken away the daily 12:10 the wicked shall do wickedly... the wicked shall understand shall be purified, and made white, and tried but the wise 11:35 until the time of the end 12:9 until the time of the end 11:36 is finished 12:7 when he shall have accomplished... shall be finished 11:36 11:40 marvelous things the time of the end 12:6 wonders the end of There are verbal links between Daniel 11 and 12 that Pastor Roosenberg ignores. They are given in reverse order and are in a chiastic structure. Doctor Hardy noted that there is an almost perfect chiastic progression incorporating 13 terms and linking 11 verses 8 in the prophecies of Daniel 11:31-40 and 12:6-11. Notice that Daniel 9:27 does not fit into this structure, which indicates that it is an unnatural addition to the prophetic text. Pastor Roosenberg then seizes another passage of scripture for his timelines. He applies separately the trampling of the sanctuary and the host mentioned in Daniel 8:13 to the beginning of his two timelines and calls them the two abominations: In Daniel 8, it s both for the sanctuary and the host. In other words, we can play this prophecy twice 9 ; and the abomination is for both the sanctuary (the literal building in A.D. 70) and the host. 10 He takes five words from Daniel 8:13 out of their context and applies them to the abominations mentioned in Daniel 9:27 and 11:31 and uses them as the beginning of his two timelines. 4
Pastor Roosenberg places the beginning of his first timeline in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the earthly sanctuary in Daniel 9:27; this is his first abomination. His second timeline begins in AD 508 with Clovis s war against the Arian Visigoths as an attack on the host in Daniel 11:31; this is his second abomination. Interestingly, his first timeline begins with the typical (earthly) Jewish sanctuary in Jerusalem being destroyed, and his second timeline begins with the antitypical host of Arian Christians being attacked. This is clearly illogical; the trampled host should be the worshippers of the sanctuary that is being trampled, but they are not connected in his view. Consider the pioneers view of the sanctuary and the host in Daniel 8:13: The church is the host or worshipers; the sanctuary is the place of that worship, or the place toward which it is directed. 11 The church is the host or worshipers: the sanctuary is the place of that worship or toward which it is directed. 12 The pioneers were in harmony on the identification of the sanctuary and the host in Daniel 8:13. They are related to each other. In their view, God s church (the new covenant host) worships toward the sanctuary in heaven (the new covenant temple). This is critical to Seventh-day Adventist theology. Consider the following initial problems with Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation: 1. There is no evidence that we can apply the time periods and the abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11 to two sets of timelines. The passage refers to one event. 2. Because there is no daily mentioned in Daniel 9:27, Pastor Roosenberg ignores it in Daniel 12:11 and focuses only on the abomination of desolation that is mentioned in that verse. 3. Pastor Roosenberg has the abomination of desolation as events (this will become clearer as we continue), but Jesus was speaking about the Roman abomination asserting its power: When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,... flee into the mountains (Matthew 24:15-16). 4. There is no evidence that we can apply the sanctuary and the host of Daniel 8:13 to the beginning of two timelines at different times. They are trampled together. 5. It is completely illogical to make the sanctuary of Daniel 8:13 the Jewish temple while we make the host in the same phrase of that verse to be Arian Christians. The host who are being trampled must worship in the sanctuary that is being trampled. Pastor Roosenberg s First Timeline Now let s look a little closer at Pastor Roosenberg s first timeline. As already mentioned, Pastor Roosenberg begins his first timeline in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple there. From that point he starts the 1290 and 1335 years of Daniel 12:11-12, which he says end with Wycliffe in AD 1360 and Huss in AD 1405 respectively. His timelines were a later addition to his view. They were added after he wrote his book Islam and Christianity in Prophecy, and he had to change his view of the Jewish sanctuary to accommodate it. In his book, Pastor Roosenberg said that the earthly sanctuary was not God s temple in AD 70. Noting that Jesus called the earthly temple My house in Matthew 21:13, he then recalled Jesus s later 5
statement when speaking to the Jews that the Temple is Your house [Matthew 23:38]. 13 He then said later in his book that the earthly sanctuary will never be God s temple and that it would remain desolate until the return of Christ. 14 The words of Jesus in Matthew 23 were spoken before His crucifixion in AD 31. If the earthly temple was then the Jew s house and was to remain desolate until Jesus returns, then it clearly could not be considered God s temple in AD 70. I believe Pastor Roosenberg was correct here, but he changed this view to accommodate his first timeline. The destruction of Jerusalem and the earthly sanctuary are very important to Pastor Roosenberg s first timeline. Without the proper beginning point everything falls apart. He said, So Jesus understood the abomination of desolation to be the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and His [God s] sanctuary was destroyed at that time. 15 And again,... the sanctuary (the literal building in A.D. 70). 16 Pastor Roosenberg s first abomination can clearly be seen to be the destruction of Jerusalem and the earthly sanctuary in AD 70, an event, not the pagan Roman power that destroyed the city and the sanctuary. It is certainly not wrong for a person to change his view; but in this case, I believe Pastor Roosenberg s first view was correct. Notice the two points that Pastor Roosenberg made in his statements above: the sanctuary in Daniel 8:13 is the earthly one, and it was God s sanctuary in AD 70. First, let s consider Daniel 8:13-14 and notice that they are set up as a question and an answer: Question: How long shall be the vision... to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? (Daniel 8:13). Answer: Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (Daniel 8:14). Because of this question and answer structure, the sanctuary in verse 14 has to be the sanctuary that is trampled in verse 13. If the sanctuary that is trampled is the earthly one, then the sanctuary to be cleansed must be the earthly one. This is an unmistakable conclusion that strikes directly at the foundation of Seventh-day Adventism. In making the sanctuary that is trampled in Daniel 8:13 the earthly one, Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation undermines Seventh-day Adventism. He denies this, of course, because he says that the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is the heavenly one, but it s an unmistakable conclusion that he needs to explain. Listen to James White on the sanctuary in Daniel 8:13: The New Testament shows us that apostates tread under foot the Minister of the heavenly sanctuary, our Lord Jesus Christ. Heb. 10:29; 8:1, 2. If they can tread under foot the Minister of that sanctuary, they can tread under foot the sanctuary itself. It is not impossible that the pagan and papal desolation should be represented as treading under foot the heavenly sanctuary [Daniel 8:13], when the same vision represents the little horn as stamping upon the stars, Dan. 8:10, and when it is expressly predicted that the papal power should war against the tabernacle of God in Heaven. Rev. 13:5-7. 17 James White was clear that the sanctuary being trampled in Daniel 8:13 was the heavenly one. He realized that the sanctuary in verses 13 and 14 have to be the same. He used scripture to back up his argument. James White and Pastor Roosenberg cannot both be right. 6
Secondly, in speaking to the Jews just before His passion, Jesus said to them, Behold, your house is left unto you desolate (Matthew 23:38). Because the Jews rejected Him, He yielded the earthly sanctuary to them and called it your house. When He died on the cross, the scripture tells us, The veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom (Mark 15:38). Jesus and the Father abandoned the earthly sanctuary and left it to later destruction by the Roman armies. Jesus then became a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Hebrews 8:2). Jesus changed sanctuaries and no longer referred to the earthly sanctuary as His after AD 31. Consider Ellen White s warning and description of the destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus declared to the listening disciples the judgments that were to fall upon apostate Israel, and especially the retributive vengeance that would come upon them for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah.... When the idolatrous standards of the Romans [the pagan abomination] should be set up in the holy ground [stand in the holy place], which extended some furlongs outside the city walls, then the followers of Christ were to find safety in flight [they were to flee into the mountains]. 18 Was the destruction of Jerusalem an abomination as Pastor Roosenberg claims? Or was it the judgment of God? In contrast to his view, Ellen White is clear that the destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment from God. Notice carefully, God s people were to flee when they saw the idolatrous Roman abomination standing in the holy area around the city. Ellen White is clearly commenting on Matthew 24:15-16; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20-21. She understood the abomination to be an idolatrous power not an event. There is a clear contrast between her and Pastor Roosenberg. Since Jesus abandoned the earthly sanctuary in AD 31 and went to heaven to begin His ministry there, the destruction of that sanctuary 39 years later cannot be considered an abomination. When Jesus abandoned the earthly sanctuary, He purposely left it to its destruction. It was a righteous act by an offended God. Consider Daniel 9:27 again: And he [Jesus] shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he [Jesus] shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease [by His sacrifice], and with the abominable armies [pagan Rome] he [Jesus] shall make it [Jerusalem and its sanctuary] desolate, even until the consummation [Jesus s second coming], and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate [the Jewish nation]. (Daniel 9:27, margin) Even Daniel 9:27, which Pastor Roosenberg applies to his first timeline, tells us that Jesus caused the sacrifice and the offering to cease. The whole purpose for the earthly sanctuary was done, and Jesus abandoned it to destruction by the Roman abomination. Think: Jesus said, When you see the abomination of desolation... stand in the holy place... flee into the mountains. That happened when His people saw the Roman armies gathering outside the city walls. If the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was the signal for flight, then there would have been no time for God s people to flee. They understood Jesus s words to refer to the idolatrous Roman armies when they surrounded the city. There can be no other conclusion. 7
Having shown that Pastor Roosenberg really has no support for the beginning of his first timeline, we will next look at his ending points. We can see from Pastor Roosenberg s first timeline, as he has represented it, that the 1290 and 1335 years end about the time of the pre-reformation. That is his focus. He says that the 1290 years of his first timeline ended at the time Wycliffe began the Reformation, in AD 1360: Thirteen-sixty is the year that John Wycliffe begins writing tracts attacking the Friars and the Papacy, and that year was the beginning of the Reformation. 19 Pastor Roosenberg needs to come up with some real historical proof that Wycliffe began writing tracts attacking the Friars and the Papacy in AD 1360. I could find nothing to support his claim that Wycliffe then began the Reformation. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary: Wycliffe entered into the labours of Armachanus [a Bishop of the Roman Church who died in 1360], and prosecuted the same object [preaching against the friars] with even greater earnestness. None of the extant writings of Wycliffe against the friars can be attributed to so early a period as the year 1360. 20 History is clear that Wycliffe did preach against the friars in 1360, but it is also just as clear that he did not then write against the friars, neither did he attack the papacy. That Pastor Roosenberg is wrong in his interpretation will become obvious as we continue. Note also that in preaching against the friars, it was not Wycliffe who started it. It was Armachanus. If preaching against the friars was the beginning of the Reformation, then wouldn t it be attributed to Armachanus instead of Wycliffe? Notice that Wycliffe s preaching against the friars was not against the Roman priesthood, nor the Papacy in any way: In the same year [1361] we find the name of John de Wycliffe entered as that of the newlyelected warden of Baliol. These facts seem to warrant the conclusion that his [Wycliffe s] attempts to defend the regular clergy [the Catholic priests], and the university, against the obtrusive zeal of the Mendicants [the friars], were highly estimated, at least by the parties most interested in his efforts. 21 Here we are told that Wycliffe was defending the Catholic priests when preaching against the friars, and that it was greatly appreciated by those in the Roman Church. They elected him as warden of Baliol College at that time. Later in the 1360s, a conflict arose over Wycliffe s wardenship of Canterbury Hall. Some opposed to his wardenship there were able to have him removed from office. Wycliffe then made an appeal to the pope: The appeal [to the pope] in the matter of his [Wycliffe s] wardenship [of Canterbury Hall] was made in the spring of 1367, and that the decision of the pontiff was not given till the year 1370. 22 If Wycliffe had been attacking the Papacy beginning in AD 1360, I don t believe he could have appealed to the pope about his job position. It would have certainly been an awkward situation. But the fact is that Wycliffe was in good standing with the Roman Church at that time. It was not until later in the 1370s that he called for its reformation. Consider the following: 8
Admittedly, before 1370 there was little in Wycliffe s life that set him apart from the average Oxford theological student... 23 As this statement shows, some writers note that there was nothing special about Wycliffe s works before 1370, which clearly brings Pastor Roosenberg s interpretation into question. The evidence shows that Wycliffe s position in history came from his activities in ecclesiastical politics, in which he engaged about the middle of the seventies [mid 1370s], when also his reformatory operations began. 24 Thus, we can see that Wycliffe s real reform work did not begin until the middle of the 1370s. Historians put the beginning of Wycliffe s reform works 15 years after Pastor Roosenberg claims that it began. Consider another historical statement which says exactly when Wycliffe began writing reform tracts: From 1376 onward Wycliffe published tracts which decried the secularization of the Church. 25 We have plenty of unmistakable historical evidence that Pastor Roosenberg is in error on the events of 1360, and he needs to admit these problems. Lastly, I will look at one more statement from Pastor Roosenberg on his interpretation of Ellen White and Wycliffe s works: When John Wycliffe begins his work, Ellen White said, the time had come. What time? 1360! 26 Here Pastor Roosenberg offers a statement from Ellen White as proof of his prophetic interpretation. He quoted from the Great Controversy on page 79 and said that she was referring to AD 1360 as the date when Wycliffe began the Reformation. Consider her statement carefully: Except among the Waldenses, the word of God had for ages been locked up in languages known only to the learned; but the time had come for the Scriptures to be translated and given to the people of different lands in their native tongue. 27 Ellen White was writing about Wycliffe s translation of the scriptures, which did not begin in AD 1360: From August 1380 until the summer of 1381, Wycliffe was in his rooms at Queen s College, busy with his plans for a translation of the Bible and an order of Poor Preachers who would take Bible truth to the people. 28 There is a 20 year discrepancy in Pastor Roosenberg s use of Ellen White. Her statement about Wycliffe s translation of the Bible is clearly not referring to AD 1360 when John Wycliffe supposedly began his work. What we should ask here is if anything of real significance took place in AD 1360 that proves that the Reformation started at that time. I could find none. Finally, in his first timeline, Pastor Roosenberg places Huss at the end of the 1335 years: In the year 1405, the pope sent out a decree to John Huss s bishop that told the bishop to make John Huss destroy all Wycliffe s writings.... He rebels and becomes the first practicing reformer. 29 It is true that Huss refused to destroy Wycliffe s writings in AD 1405, but that is not evidence that the 1335-year prophecy was fulfilled. The prophecy says, Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days (Daniel 12:12). What event is the prophecy referring to? Pastor Roosenberg could apply just about anything to the blessing to come at the end of the 1335 years. Since the events in AD 70 and 1360 do not fit his first timeline, then Huss refusing to burn Wycliffe s 9
writings is an event that has no basis for its fulfillment. Pastor Roosenberg s first timeline was fabricated to support his conflicts between Islam and Christianity, nothing more. Consider the following points on his first timeline: 1. If the sanctuary in Daniel 8:13 is the earthly temple, than the sanctuary in Daniel 8:14 is also the earthly temple. This is an attack on Seventh-day Adventist sanctuary theology. 2. Jesus, Ellen White, and the Pioneers have the abomination of desolation as the Roman power itself, not as military events. 3. Jesus turned the earthly temple over to the Jews in AD 31 to be destroyed by the Roman armies in AD 70. It was a divine judgment against the Jews, not an abomination. 4. If the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple was the abomination of desolation as Pastor Roosenberg says, than there would have been no time for God s people to flee Jerusalem. They would have perished with the Jews. 5. If the attack upon the friars was the beginning of the Reformation, then Armachanus was the one who began the Reformation, not Wycliffe. 6. Wycliffe s preaching against the friars in AD 1360 was done in defense of the Papacy and the Catholic priests. 7. Wycliffe did not begin writing tracks in AD 1360, but began writing tracks against the secularization of the church in AD 1376. 8. Wycliffe could not have appealed to the pope in AD 1367 if he had been attacking the Papacy for the previous seven years. 9. Wycliffe began working on his Bible in AD 1380, which is what Ellen White was referring to in The Great Controversy, p. 79. 10. There is no evidence that any of the events in John Huss s life fit the end of the 1335 year prophecy. Pastor Roosenberg s Second Timeline Pastor Roosenberg uses only four words from Daniel 11 that he directly connects to his first timeline: At the time appointed... (Daniel 11:29). He originally connected those four words to the next phrase, which is his transition to the Ottoman Turks, but he now uses those words as the end of his first 1290- year prophecy. He says that the appointed time is referring to the beginning of the Reformation in the year AD 1360. 30 He then jumps forward in the middle of the sentence to his conflict between the papacy and the Ottoman Turks:... he [the papacy] shall return, and come toward the south [the Turks]. 31 After his conflict with the Ottoman Turks (Daniel 11:29-30), Pastor Roosenberg jumps back to AD 508 (Daniel 11:31) to begin his second timeline. He says the prophecy flashes back because it doesn t want to overlap the two timelines. 32 Pastor Roosenberg jumps backward over 1000 years to the start of his second timeline. He 10
says that Daniel 11:31 is the second abomination of desolation 33 that begins his second timeline. See his flow on the image on the previous page. If there were actually two timelines, it is true that the prophecy would not overlap them. The prophecy actually does something similar to this in Daniel 11:44-45 where those events are shadowed in Daniel 12:1. However, it makes no sense that Pastor Roosenberg s conflict with the Ottoman Turks is placed by itself. If his first conflict with the Crusades is part of his first timeline, shouldn t the second conflict with the Ottoman Turks (AD 1449 to AD 1840) be part of his second timeline, which begins in AD 508 and extends to AD 1843? Clearly then, Pastor Roosenberg s flow of the prophecy does not actually jump back from the first timeline to the second. Without any reason his second conflict is put in the middle of his two timelines. Nevertheless, Pastor Roosenberg says the second abomination happened in AD 508 when Clovis, working in support of the papal king of the north, got the force of arms and began persecuting the host of Arian Christians to eradicate opposition to papal supremacy. 34 Thus Pastor Roosenberg sets out his view that the arms of Clovis start the second timeline when he began to persecute the Arian Christians. This he calls the second abomination of desolation, which is an event, not the rise of papal Rome. We can fill out Pastor Roosenberg s view as follows: In AD 508, the Papacy began to persecute other Christians who didn t agree. 35 Daniel 11:31 to 35 includes Papal religious persecution from the beginning to the end. 36 Twelve hundred ninety years after 508 brings you to 1798 when the Papacy loses its power to persecute. 37 Pastor Roosenberg clearly says that the beginning of the persecution was when the papacy got arms to eradicate the Arians, beginning in AD 508. He says that Daniel 11:31 to 35 talk about the persecution of God s people from the beginning to the end, and he obviously places the end of the 1290 years in 1798. Thus, Pastor Roosenberg claims that the period of papal persecution began in AD 508 and ended in AD 1798, a period of 1290 years. Pastor Roosenberg has the 1290- and 1335-year prophecies ending in 1798 and 1843 respectively, which is what is typically believed to be true. Here we can see, however, that the persecution lasted for 1290 years as Pastor Roosenberg has it in his interpretation, but this period of persecution is not commonly believed to be true. The Bible clearly gives this period as 1260 years: And he [the little horn]... shall wear out the saints of the most High,... and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Daniel 7:25) And power was given unto him [the beast] to continue forty and two months.... And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them. (Revelation 13:5, 7) These Bible passages refer to the persecution of the church. They say that God s people would be given over to be persecuted by the papal power for 1260 years. This is an obvious conflict with Pastor 11
Roosenberg s interpretation of 1290 years of persecution. Ellen White referred to the above passages in Daniel and Revelation when she spoke of the period of papal persecution of the church: In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city.... And now [AD 538] began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5-7.... Persecution opened upon the faithful with greater fury than ever before, and the world became a vast battlefield. For hundreds of years the church of Christ found refuge in seclusion and obscurity. 38 The 1260 years of persecution began when the Papacy received civil power in AD 538, not when Clovis attacked the Arians in AD 508, as Pastor Roosenberg has it. Obeying the command of Jesus in Matthew 24:15-16, God s people fled from the papal abomination of desolation... into the mountains. That the persecution began in AD 538 has been well known, believed, and taught since the early days of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Pastor Roosenberg s change of the abomination of desolation and when it stands, from AD 538 to AD 508, necessarily changes the beginning date of the persecution of the church. Pastor Roosenberg is clearly in conflict with the Bible and Ellen White on this point. Notice again that Pastor Roosenberg says Daniel 11:31-35 includes Papal religious persecution from the beginning to the end. 39 Daniel 11:35 is clear that God s people would be persecuted until the end: And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end. However, this passage is problematic for Pastor Roosenberg because he says in other places that the time of the end began in 1844, not 1798. So he later changed the cleansing spoken of in Daniel 11:35 and Daniel 12:9-10 to the cleansing that happens in the pre-advent judgment following 1844. 40 This obvious manipulation does not fix Pastor Roosenberg s problem. Daniel 11:33 to 35 are speaking of the persecution that God s people endured during the 1260 years of papal rule. Verse 33 says how some of God s people with understanding would fall, verse 34 says that those who fall would be given a little help, and verse 35 says why those of understanding would fall: to purify them. All of these verses are together, and they all happen during the 1260 years. Pastor Roosenberg says the time of the end began in AD 1844, but Daniel 11:35 says the persecution continues to, or until (NKJV), the time of the end, which he said ended in AD 1798. Obviously, Daniel 11:35 cannot be referring to the persecution before 1798 and the cleansing after 1844. Pastor Roosenberg is shuffling words, but the Bible does not support his interpretation. The table below gives the pioneer s view of the various times in Daniel, and contrasts their view with Pastor Roosenberg s second timeline. Although they have the same dates, the events are different. Notice especially the date of the establishment of the abomination of desolation and the beginning of the time of the end. 12
Roosenberg s Second Timeline AD 508: Persecution of Arians, the second AOD event, Daniel 11:31 AD 538: Papal Rome received civil power and began its reign AD 1798: Papal civil power and persecution end AD 1843: Millerite disappoint AD 1844: Judgment and the TOTE began, Daniel 8:14; 11:40 Pioneers Timeline AD 508: Daily taken away, Daniel 11:31b AD 538: The AOD was set up, papal civil reign began, Daniel 11:31c AD 1798: Papacy civil power and persecution end, and the TOTE began, Daniel 11:40a AD 1843: Millerite disappoint AD 1844: Judgment began, Daniel 8:14 Although it may appear that Pastor Roosenberg is in harmony with the pioneers on the chronology of his second timeline, they are very far apart. Notice that in changing the dates of the abomination of desolation and the time of the end Pastor Roosenberg removes Daniel 11 s evidence for the beginning and end of the 1260 years; he removes the prophetic events that peg the beginning and end of that time period. Additionally, by changing the cleansing in verse 35 to the cleansing in the judgment, he also greatly weakens the passage s connection to the 1260 years of papal persecution. Even though Pastor Roosenberg denies that his interpretation undermines the 1260 years, it subtly does. Note the following points on Pastor Rooenberg s second timeline: 1. There are only four words in Daniel 11 that he applies to his first timeline; after that, he jumps in the middle of the sentence to a conflict with the Turks, and then flashes back to his second timeline. The Ottoman Turks should logically be part of his second timeline, but they are not. 2. In Pastor Roosenberg s view, the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31 is not the idolatrous papal Roman power, but the persecution of the host of Arian Christians. He changed the abomination of desolation from referring to a power to focusing on an event. 3. He was then forced to move the setting up of the abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31 from AD 538 to AD 508, and he uses the arms of Clovis as the papal persecuting force. 4. He has the persecution continuing for 1290 years, from AD 508 to AD 1798, instead of 1260 years as the Bible and Ellen White have it. 5. By moving the time of the end in Daniel 11:40 from AD 1798 to 1844, he contradicts himself in Daniel 11:35 and is forced to place the cleansing there after 1844, which is another chronological problem with his interpretation. 6. The events in Daniel 11:33-35 are all related, and by moving the cleansing in verse 35 after 1844, he must also moves the persecution of those three verses after 1844, but he ignores this. 7. By moving the dates of the setting up of the abomination of desolation and the beginning of the time of the end, Pastor Roosenberg has eliminated the only pegs in Daniel 11 for the start and end of the 1260 years. Daniel 11 then arguably has no connection to the 1260 years of papal rule. 13
The Time of the End, the TOTE Let s look now at how Pastor Roosenberg interprets the time of the end of Daniel 11:40. He changes the time of the end in that verse from AD 1798 to 1844, and he uses verses in Daniel 8 to justify his change. He says, The judgment in heaven and the time of the end started in 1844, 41 and The vision of 2300 days and cleansing of the sanctuary refer to the time of the end. 42 He is saying that the end of the 2300 years (Daniel 8:14) and the beginning of the time of the end (Daniel 8:17) are the same point in time, AD 1844. He then says that the time of the end in Daniel 11:40 has to be 1844. 43 Daniel 8:7 in the New King James Bible, which Pastor Roosenberg uses, says that the entire vision of Daniel 8 refers to the time of the end. The King James says that the vision shall be at the time of the end. And the Interlinear Bible says that the vision is for the time of the end. 44 The New King James and the King James Bibles make the passage sound like the entire vision takes place at the time of the end. The Interlinear Bible, however, brings out the concept that the vision is for the time of the end and that it would be understood by those of us who live at that time. There is nothing in any of the translations that equates the time of the end to AD 1844. Daniel 8 does not say, nor imply, that then shall the sanctuary be cleansed and the time of the end are the same point in time. Daniel 12 gives a fuller understanding of the beginning date of the time of the end. Consider the table below and note that each of Daniel s prophecies has two sections: Prophecy Explanation Daniel 2:31-35: Four metals on the great image. Daniel 2:36-45 Daniel 7:1-14: Four great beasts and little horn. Daniel 7:15-27 Daniel 8:2-14: The beasts, little horn, and 2300 days. Daniel 8:15-26; 9:24-27 Daniel 11:2-12:3: The kings of the north and south, etc. Daniel 12:4-13 Each of Daniel s prophecies has a prophetic section followed by an explanation. Daniel s last prophecy is no exception. Each successive prophecy also expands on the previous prophecies of Daniel. Daniel 10-12 expands on Daniel 2, 7, and 8-9. And as we have already seen, Daniel 12:4-13 explains a major part of the prophecy of Daniel 11, specifically the part leading up to and dealing with of the time of the end. Interestingly, Pastor Roosenberg denies that Daniel 12 identifies the beginning point of the time of the end. He claims, Daniel 12 does not have a time prophecy for the time of the end. 45 Daniel 12 says otherwise; twice the phrase is used in that chapter. Consider the conversation between Jesus, His angels, and Daniel in chapter 12: Daniel 12:4: Gabriel said to Daniel, Seal the book, even to the time of the end. Daniel 12:6: Another angel then asked, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? Daniel 12:7: Jesus replied, It shall be for a time, times, and a half [1260 years]; and... all these things shall be finished. Daniel 12:8: Because Daniel still did not understand, he then asked, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 14
Daniel 12:9-10: Jesus replied, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified... Daniel 12:11: Jesus then finished, And from the time that the daily shall be taken away... there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days till the end. The entire focus of their conversation was on when the time of the end would be. Daniel 12 gives information that Daniel 8 does not. Here Jesus tells us that the 1260 years bring us to the end, which is the same as the time of the end. Daniel still did not understand, so he re-asked when the end would be. Jesus then replied from the time that the daily shall be taken away... there shall be 1290 years. Both the 1260 years and the 1290 years end in AD 1798, at the time of the end. Daniel 12 is where we find the evidence for that. The time of the end is mentioned twice in chapter 12, and the entire discussion is about when the time of the end would be. Although Pastor Roosenberg teaches that the year 1844 was the beginning of the time of the end, he says in his book that the time period from 1798 to 1844 set up the time of the end. 46 And he says that 1798 was only the beginning of the introduction to the time of the end: The time of the end from 1798 is kind of like the introduction; there is a growing understanding of Daniel. But the judgment had not yet begun. Once it begins [AD 1844], we are in the time of the end proper. We re in the body of the time of the end. 47 While Pastor Roosenberg teaches that 1798 began the introduction to the time of the end, he still believes that the time of the end began in 1844. He can do no other because his interpretation relies on it. In support of the 1844 date, he also claims that the time of the end is parallel with the judgment: We should then understand the time of the end as parallel with the judgment. 48 He means, of course, that they begin and end together: We have a beginning date of 1844... and we have an ending time... when Jesus stands up. 49 In support of his view, Pastor Roosenberg summarized how Ellen White used the phrase the time of the end 50 : I find her [Ellen White] using it [the time of the end] in three different ways : 1. beginning of an understanding, from 1798 to 1844 [an introduction] 2. specifically as a time of judgment, while the judgment is going on in heaven [parallel periods beginning and ending together] 3. as something that s going to happen yet future. Pastor Roosenberg says that Ellen White used the phrase the time of the end in three different ways, but he never quotes her. So let s take a look at what she actually said. Ellen White did speak of the time of the end as the close of the final, future conflict: It is true that in the time of the end, when God s work in the earth is closing... 51 The time of the end is near. 52 During the time of the end... 53 15
Here Ellen White used the phrase to refer to the final conflict yet in the future, in a general way. She was not setting a beginning date for the time of the end, neither was she referring to Daniel 8:17, nor Daniel 11:40. Ellen White also applied the time of the end to the time in which she was living: But at the time of the end, the time in which we are now living... 54 Cannot we who are living in the time of the end...? 55 We are living in the time of the end. 56 In these statements, Ellen White used the phrase to mean that we are currently in the time of the end. She was not trying to establish a beginning date for the time of the end, but it is clear that she understood that the time of the end had already begun. In another statement, Ellen White links the time of the end to the judgment: The message of Revelation 14, proclaiming that the hour of God s judgment is come, is given in the time of the end. 57 Ellen White is not saying here that the time of the end and the judgment are parallel. Neither does she say that during the entire time of the end the judgment is going on in heaven. She clearly says that the judgment takes place in, or during, the time of the end. The time of the end began before the judgment was proclaimed. She never refers to the beginning of the judgment as the beginning of the time of the end, yet Pastor Roosenberg insists that she is teaching what he believes. He then quotes her: In Great Controversy, page 356, talking about that time period of 1798 to 1844, she calls it judgment near. And then, in 355, just before then, she had said, when judgment had come. She referred to that as the time of the end. 58 The statement from The Great Controversy, page 355, doesn t equate the beginning of the time of the end with the beginning of the judgment. Let s look at the context of the statements that Pastor Roosenberg referred to on pages 355-356 of that book: The [first angel s] message itself sheds light as to the time when this movement is to take place. It is declared to be a part of the everlasting gospel; and it announces the opening of the judgment. The message of salvation has been preached in all ages; but this message is a part of the gospel which could be proclaimed only in the last days, for only then would it be true that the hour of judgment had come. 59 Ellen White s context in the Great Controversy on page 355 is the first angel s message. She even quotes from the passage in Revelation 14:6-7. Notice that she said the first angel s message could only be proclaimed in the last days. When saying judgment had come, she was actually repeating the words of Revelation 14:7. She nowhere equates judgment had come to the time of the end of Daniel 11:40, as Pastor Roosenberg claims. Notice what she says next, in the same paragraph: The prophecies present a succession of events leading down to the opening of the judgment. This is especially true of the book of Daniel. But that part of his prophecy which related to the last days, Daniel was bidden to close up and seal to the time of the end. Not till we reach this time could a message concerning the judgment be proclaimed, based on the fulfillment of 16
these prophecies. But at the time of the end, says the prophet, many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. Daniel 12:4.... since 1798 the book of Daniel has been unsealed, knowledge of the prophecies has increased, and many have proclaimed the solemn message of the judgment near. 60 As Ellen White continued in the same paragraph, she changed context from the first angel s message to the other prophecies of the Bible, she then went to the book of Daniel, and finally to the time of the end in Daniel 12:4. In her final context, Ellen White gave the date of the unsealing of Daniel s prophecies as AD 1798. She was clearly saying that those proclaiming judgment near could not give their message until after the time of the end had begun, because they did not have the knowledge of the coming judgment prior to that time. When the book of Daniel was unsealed, only then would knowledge of the prophecies be understood so the judgment message could be given. Not until after the time of the end began could the judgment be said to be near. Ellen White is clear in her statement that the time of the end began when the book of Daniel was unsealed in 1798. Knowledge of the prophecies about the judgment then increased, and many proclaimed the judgment near, to begin in 1844. There is no hint of an introductory period before the time of the end could begin. Of the three ways that Pastor Roosenberg claims Ellen White used the phrase the time of the end only the last one is true. Everything in Pastor Roosenberg s timelines were done to support his idea of three conflicts between Islam and Christianity. The reason he changed the date of the time of the end was because his third conflict could not be introduced before his second conflict with the Ottoman Turks ended (AD 1840). Daniel 8 gave him the wording he needed to change the date of the time of the end from 1798 to 1844. To select AD 1798 to introduce his last conflict didn t work, so he changed the time of the end to 1844. If the time of the end began in 1798, his whole interpretation would collapse, so he manipulated the words of the Bible and the prophet to fit his view. We can now summarize this section: 1. Daniel 8 does not say, nor imply, that then shall the sanctuary be cleansed and the time of the end happen at the same time, as Pastor Roosenberg claims. 2. Daniel s prophecies expand and enlarge; later prophecies add details that the earlier ones leave out, and each of Daniel s prophecies have both prophetic and explanation sections. 3. Daniel 12 gives two time prophecies that end at the time of the end ; the 1260- and 1290-year prophecies both end in AD 1798. 4. Ellen White clearly supports the 1798 date as the beginning of the time of the end. She never speaks of the time of the end as beginning in AD 1844. 5. Pastor Roosenberg changed the date of the time of the end so that his second conflict with Islam ended (AD 1840) before the time of the end began (AD 1844). The Appointed Time of Daniel 11 Pastor Roosenberg connects the two places where the phrase appointed time (NKJV) are referencing and says that the entire period between those two places is the appointed time of Daniel 11. 61 The 17