It is fulfilled in the New Covenant -- the New Testament.

Not now to literal Israel of the flesh in a literal geographic area who were to prepare the world for the first coming of Christ, but to the spiritual Israel of Christ, throughout the world, to sound the message of His second coming!

The whole law and the Sabbath.

This is a vital part of the message we are to share with the world. Jesus says "If you LOVE Me, keep My Commandments", He doesn't say "if it benefits you, keep my commandments".

If you think proclaiming the whole law and the Sabbath is a "failed idea" then I feel very sorry for you.


Will we honor our Lord and Savior by keeping His Sabbath Holy, even when all physical benefits are removed from us?

Do we have enough faith, and trust in HIM and His promises that we will stand true to Him even if the whole world mocks and persecutes us? Even when people we trusted turn away and pronounce God's curses upon us because we aren't following their substitute Sabbath.

Maybe you think that's a "failed idea" because you think you will be safe in Palestine somewhere --

However, I would urge you to reconsider that position.
There is NO safety in Palestine. In fact that's the worst place you could go in the last days.

There is only hope and safety in Christ.

He is coming soon -- not to Palestine, but in the clouds of glory. And all who love Him and gained the victory through His cleansing blood, and reflect His righteous love in their characters will rise to meet Him in the clouds and live with Him forever.

Both of you are making the assumption that all SDAs do not accept a temporal kingdom in Palestine. That connection is not true as brought to view many times on this forum. For instance, consider one a couple of posts below yours.

BOTH of us??? What do you mean BOTH of us?
I have made NO statement PRO or CON regarding a "temporal kingdom in Palestine." NOTHING at all. EVER.

******Staff Edit******

JAK, didn't you make the assumption, that I should have assumed you were an Adventist and thus should not have wondered if you believed a very standard teaching of the evangelicals.

Prior to you posting on this thread, I was responding to a poster who says he is an Adventist (though he's SRod) who is trying to persuade us that a kingdom in Palestine is the "crowning hope" for Adventists. (At least for the few that survive)

I wasn't trying to be rude in my reply to you.
I honestly thought you were not a member of the church -- due to your profile comment,-- and thus the possibility seemed high that you may be leaning toward an interpretation that is very prevalent in the evangelical world.

And Kland --
No, I don't assume that all Adventists reject the temporal kingdom theory. Every wind of doctrine blows in the church these days. Every prophetic interpretation seems to be promoted by someone, somewhere. Besides even in EGW's days there were people pushing the temporal kingdom idea.

That's why she wrote:
" Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. EW 75

Looking into the situation then prevalent - there were people thinking they needed to go to Jerusalem and prepare a nucleus to welcome Christ when he comes to His 'capital city'....

But she said it was a "great error".

Your right, I did make an assumption.
I assumed posters on this board would be competent Bible scholars...
One should never assume.

As posted earlier on previous page:
With or without the word "therefore"
what the people say in Isaiah 2:2-5 still does not meet with the approval of God. Verse 6 still clearly tells us God "forsakes, cast off or away, rejects, abandons, quits, cast down, lets fall", these people.

I was using the concordance looking up the first two words in Isaiah 2:6

Yes, it is verse 6, not verse 5, that was a typo-- (and don't assume typo's never happen)

The first word in verse six is

"natash" #05203 which means "forsakes, cast off or away, rejects, abandons, quits, cast down, lets fall",

the second word

"'am" means people


The one word in the KJV, "therefore", does not change the reality that God is not happy with the people in verse 6, which follows what the people say in the verses just previous in Isaiah 2:3-6

The people say "let us go....."

and God responds in a negative manner, and yes, it's because the people think going to Jerusalem will solve their problems, but they still have their idols, pride and desire for material wealth.

In the last days, going to Jerusalem is not the answer to the sin problem.




I do NOT see a thought break between verse 4 and 5,
Verse 5 simple restates the people saying "let us" agreeing with verse 3 thus making verses 3-5 the complete sayings of the people.

2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD....
2:5 let us walk in the light of the LORD.
2:6 [God has] has abandoned the people, the house of Jacob,
Because they are filled with influences from the east,
And they are soothsayers like the Philistines,
And they strike bargains with the children of foreigners

Ded- No, I don't assume that all Adventists reject the temporal kingdom theory. Every wind of doctrine blows in the church these days. Every prophetic interpretation seems to be promoted by someone, somewhere. Besides even in EGW's days there were people pushing the temporal kingdom idea.That's why she wrote:

" Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error of believing that it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. EW 75

First, Dedication continues to put EGW's words before what the Bible clearly says. Second, based on the first reason, she disregards the very EGW words she proclaims to believe--

The truths most plainly revealed in the Bible have been involved in doubt and darkness by learned men, who, with a pretense of great wisdom, teach that the Scriptures have a mystical, a secret, spiritual meaning not apparent in the language employed. These men are false teachers. It was to such a class that Jesus declared: “Ye know not the Scriptures, neither the power of God.” Mark 12:24.

The language of the Bible should be explained according to its obvious meaning, unless a symbol or figure is employed. Christ has given the promise: “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” John 7:17.

If men would but take the Bible as it reads, if there were no false teachers to mislead and confuse their minds, a work would be accomplished that would make angels glad and that would bring into the fold of Christ thousands upon thousands who are now wandering in error.


So to understand Scripture we must make EGW words FIT THE BIBLE not the other way around. Dedication time and again goes backwards to fit her private interpretations.

We have already showed many many Scriptures pointing to what the Bible describes as a "pre-millennial" kingdom to begin in the promised land. The reason is as follows--

"Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.

For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

I will also save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the corn, and will increase it, and lay no famine upon you.

And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen.

Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall lothe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord GOD, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded.

And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by.

And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are become fenced, and are inhabited.

Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken it, and I will do it. (Ezekiel 36:22-36)

What? I --THE--LORD-- HAVE--SPOKEN--IT--AND--I--WILL-- DO--IT

Just to clarify something here:



Yes, the Bible is first --
HOWEVER --
Notice, the blatant contradictions in GLL's reasoning which is clearly shown by his remarks from the study of Zech. 4. He does NOT put scripture first.
Compare his statements above with his study on Zechariah 4 below:



According to GLL, Houteff is the 1939 prophet.
Thus GLL's basic premise is ONLY HOUTEFF's interpretation are valid -- all others, according to GLL (even EGW's interpretations) must be placed in subjection to Houteff's interpretations.

That means -- when we deal with GLL, it's NOT Bible first, any meaning derived from Bible study that clearly shows Houteff's interpretations are wrong, he will discard as "Private interpretation".

He says EGW is one of the two pipes who ALONE can interpret scripture --
Yet, even though I've quoted several passages where she tells us how to interpret these OT prophecies --
he does not regard them as having any value.

If you read her writings in context, EGW does NOT agree with Houteff in prophetic interpretations.

SRod will use her writings to give authenticity to their beliefs, but they use HER WORDS, NOT HER MESSAGE.



Indeed -- scripture must come first.
But what method of interpretation are we following?

Principles of interpretation OT prophecies are:

1. All the prophetic books in the Old Testament (with the exception of the prophecies of Daniel which were sealed for the end time) were written first of all for the literal people living at the time the prophecies were given. These prophecies concerned their future, their relationship with the Lord, the warnings of destruction coming upon them due to their sins, the promises of blessings to them if they lived in covenant relationship with God, and the promises of the coming Messiah to their nation.

2. Also -- these O.T prophetic books were written--

a. For an example to us, for what was promised (and warned against) to literal Israel has further relevance for us.

b. The OT will often combine prophecies of the first and second and even third coming of Christ

c. The OT prophecies often jump from a local application, and telescope to a much larger application in the last days.

d. It’s not until we come to the NT that a clearer distinction is made between the application to local Israel at that time, the first coming and what could have been, and the meaning and fulfilment of these prophecies to God’s people after the cross.

3. SYMBOLISM

We need more consistency in applying the symbols.
Prophecies concerning “Jerusalem” and “Israel”, the people of ancient times were to realize they applied as literally concerning their city and their nation ,

But the OT prophecies pertaining to our time usually no longer refer to that earthly city nor do they specifically refer to the literal descendants of Jacob.
Rather, these terms belong to God’s people (His church) no matter what race or location.

SRod is NOT consistent in this--

In the prophecies promising blessings and greatness on or in Jerusalem, they insist on a “literal reading” of the literal ancient city.


BUT they readily apply "Jerusalem" and "Israel" to God’s church all over the world in other passages (usually the ones that speak of curses upon Israel and Jerusalem)

In those passages they treat the words "Jerusalem" and "Israel" as symbolic of the church, not literal, even though the prophecies concerning curses or coming destruction on Jerusalem are just as literal sounding of the ancient city as the prophecies promising blessings.