I think today's devotional reading is relevant here, especially the bolded parts:

Standing Before Courts and Councils - Maranatha - September 1st

"I will speak of thy testimonies also before kings, and will not be ashamed." Psalms 119:46.

"In the great closing work we shall meet with perplexities that we know not how to deal with, but let us not forget that the three great powers of heaven are working, that a divine hand is on the wheel, and that God will bring His purposes to pass.

The time will come when we shall be brought before councils and before thousands for His name's sake, and each one will have to give the reason of his faith.

Every position of truth taken by our people will bear the criticism of the greatest minds; the highest of the world's great men will be brought in contact with truth, and therefore every position we take should be critically examined and tested by the Scriptures. Now we seem to be unnoticed, but this will not always be. Movements are at work to bring us to the front, and if our theories of truth can be picked to pieces by historians or the world's greatest men, it will be done.

The Lord Jesus will give the disciples a tongue and wisdom that their adversaries can neither gainsay nor resist. Those who could not by reasoning overcome satanic delusions, will bear an affirmative testimony that will baffle supposedly learned men. Words will come from the lips of the unlearned with such convincing power and wisdom that conversions will be made to the truth. Thousands will be converted under their testimony.

Why should the illiterate man have this power, which the learned man has not? The illiterate one, through faith in Christ, has come into the atmosphere of pure, clear truth, while the learned man has turned away from the truth. The poor man is Christ's witness. He cannot appeal to histories or to so-called high science, but he gathers from the Word of God powerful evidence. The truth that he speaks under the inspiration of the Spirit, is so pure and remarkable and carries with it a power so indisputable, that his testimony cannot be gainsaid."

Amen Daryl!!!

Thanks for your reply. Yes the Ford issue was a big crises in the church back around 1977. We kind of missed the debate in college as we attended just before it became really open. Interestingly we have a book by Ford on Daniel written before his departure from Adventist prophetic interpretation in which he gives some pretty good explanations for our interpretation.
It was after university days that we met his ?new theology? not from Ford himself, but from his followers, some of whom were members of our own family, who thought Ford was the greatest preacher/ teacher in Adventist which we all should follow. The disharmony and departure, not only from prophetic understanding but also from several basic Adventist Biblical beliefs was heart rending. For us it led to deep study of scripture as well as reading the early writings of Adventist pioneers, whom we found had already met and answered quite a few of the issues now being brought forth. And yes we read the studies present day Advents also wrote in answer to Fords ideas.
Isaiah
As to the prophesies in Isaiah? Isaiah is a ?classical? book not an apocalyptic book which means he wrote to primarily to meet the needs of his time with applications to the coming of the Messiah, what it could mean for Israel and also many future applications should messiah be rejected. In Isaiah all the future endtime applications need some reinterpretation as they mix the two applications.
However Daniel and Revelation is not a mixing but linear moving several times through the history from the prophets time to a specific time in the future.

Amen dedication!!! Now, we will have to agree to disagree on apocalyptic prophecy being more set in stone than classical prophecy. I see both, and see the evidence pointing to both apocalyptic and classical prophecy offering a message that could have been fulfilled around or at least start to be fulfilled around the time the prophecy was given; and that our method for Bible study should be first see how they could have been fulfilled back then, and from this make the application of the principles as we meet current situation. But overall we are a lot closer as we see the Bible's application to our day.

The point is to present what we understand the best way we know how, and others can look at it and choose what makes the most sense to them, their understanding of the Bible and conscience, and respect each other's choice. This is how I understand Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison understood freedom, especially liberty of conscience, Mrs. White's eschatological issue which Sunday laws grow out of, and John Kennedy's talk about the difference between being a "Catholic candidate for President, and a candidate for office who happens to worship in the Catholic church showed that he understood this principle. . And I see this as a response to spiritualism/existentialism's "Live as you please for heaven is your home. what is right for you is your truth, your existential experience is your final authority..." and the beasts religion by force. Today this view of Williams, Jefferson/Madison, Mrs. White, and John Kennedy is lost to the beliefs of spiritualism or the beastly power. We have too many "Fundamentalist Christian politicians" we have too many "Catholic justices on the supreme court." instead of politicians who worship in those churches, or supreme court justices who worship in those churches. Everyone wants to "make America great again" but no one wants to do it on what Williams, Jefferson/Madison (especially as expanded via the age of Jackson) view that Mrs. White taught and Kennedy showed an awareness of. Everyone wants to either make us catholic Europe (yes, small "c". Your religion was based on where you were born.) or French Revolution Europe. One political party wants to push the religion of Evangelical Christianity, too many in the other wants to push the religion of secular humanism.

"New Theology" is such a strange term. I first heard it in connection to Ford, but I'm now trying to use other terms for the Ford situation. (and yes, I see it even worst among his followers than from himself.) I've found four ways the term "New Theology" has been used, and one of these 4 I hope covers my approach.

The first two started around the turn to the 20th century. Now chronologically I don't know which one came first, and I wonder about if there was a connection between these first two. One of the two ways "New Theology" was used would have been for the from of Biblical studies that used ONLY preterism, Used higher criticism in a way to do away with the Bible, and seeing the Bible as purely a human book.

A second way was to define Mrs. White's theology from about 1888 on. As well as how people such as A.G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott and Willie applied this. Things like the trinity moving from a topic that "you can believe it if you wish, but most of us are against it" to becoming the very core of her great controversy philosophy. And I know that she had a more liberal view of how inspiration worked than Fundamentalism taught. This became her last great battle in the church, she was old, died, and sadly lost. I don't know how much her fight against Fundamentalism for a more moderate view of inspiration from the two extremes that churches fell into, made our Fundamentalist members see her view of inspiration as part of the above view of "New Theology". I am hoping that my approach fits within this view.

The third way was how I had learned it, the views of Ford and the more extreme applications of his "followers". Egads, this certainly does not apply to me.

The fourth way that I've come across is now "New Theology" is used by anyone and it is applied to any view that they don't like no matter what that view could be.

Back to Dr. Ford, one of the sad things is the context that he learned New Testament theology. It is now called "The Old View of Paul" where Paul's words were read, but the ideas of the church-synagogue split of 135 AD, the views of Augustine, and the views of the reformers, especially Luther were defining Paul's words.

In recent decades there has been what is called "The New View of Paul" and while some of the "New View" theologians have applications I'm not that comfortable with, others I am very comfortable with. The "New View" tried to read Paul's words from the time that he lived instead of the events of 135 AD, Augustin's life and Luther's life. It is a lot more Jewish friendly and a lot more law friendly.

When I was at AUC a student showed me a line he read in a commentary on something Paul wrote, it said "I wish I was there to see the look on Paul's face the first time he ate a ham and cheese sandwich." That line I now see is very classic "Old view of Paul" the "New View" sees Paul as a kosher eating Sabbath Keeper, but not under all the traditions (the times given for some of his travels would include say being on a boat over the Sabbath, but still worshiping God and resting in general every Sabbath, and expecting at least Christians of Jewish heritage to eat kosher, and arguing over how much this applies to gentiles.)

I don't know how long ago the "New View" started, and I don't know how much of the "New View" Ford had met. Often we like to pretty much stop were our professors stopped, and only cautiously add something new. Fortunately these cautions get picked up with less caution and more study by the next generation to build upon and move on. I know where Ford was coming from. I could have lived with it if he would have said something like "From my background, I am not aware of the day-year principle in the ancient world, and I don't see how the investigative judgment fits in; but then again I am not an Old Testament theologian. Listen to them if they found any evidence that I don't understand." To allow these ideas to have the benefit of the doubt, instead of talking dogmatically against these ideas. That was Ford's biggest mistake. We have had other scholars who repeated Ford's smaller mistakes, but they were not dogmatic about it, gave them the benefit of the doubt and allowed other scholars to cover their gaps in knowledge and allowed for open discussion and they stayed faithful members through their life.

As mentioned in another thread, the term "new theology" as generally used by Adventists in the negative sense, is anyone who comes up with a theology (old or new) that weakens or erodes any of the seven pillars of Adventism. (1. Salvation by faith in Christ, 2. the Sabbath, 3. truth about death and the resurrection, 4. the sanctuary where Christ is high Priest and the judgment, 5. nature of Christ's second coming, the millennium, and post millennium events, 6. God as a personal Being - personality of God, 7. The Spirit of Prophecy.)

And yes, we disagree on how to interpret Daniel and Revelation.
Both books start with events in the prophets time and then move through history to the end.
As we see the powers emerging at their specified point in history, and develop through history. We are told the main and longest lived power will "disappear" for a time, only to reemerge in a slightly different form with considerable power in the end, thus we can see the progressive steps. Yes, by seeing how these powers acted in the past we have a pretty good idea how they will act when "healed". But it's not "dual" application, as the prophecies give account of their rise, descent, and healing in their time in earth's story.

It isn't a new thing that some Adventists are trying to bring in more futuristic and preteristic views of these two books. Literature is filled with "rethinking the prophecies" material and trying to apply the prophecies to multiple events. Noting that Israel failed to accept the Messiah, there are those who then relegate the book of Daniel's prophecies as failed, and will only have a variety and disjointed fulfilments in the future.

What does that interpretation do to the sure word of prophecy?
Basically there is no "sure word" at all.
There is no longer the evidence that history was foreseen and revealed before it happened.
One of the big anchors on truth, is seeing that history unfolded just as God forsaw it would.
God knows --
The steps of history unfolded just like prophecied, thus we can be sure the remaining steps of yet unfullied prophecy will unfold and we know what side wins the battle.

Daniel 11

Covers history from Daniel's time....

11:1-2 Deals with the kingdom of Media/Persia, which "stirs" up Greece.
11:3 Deals with the rise of Greece under Alexander
11:4 The Grecian Empire forged by Alexander breaks apart into four divisions
11:5-15 Two of the four divisions of Grecia wrestling with each other, God's chosen nation caught in the middle.
11:16 Rome begins to rise up
11:17-19 Rome's rise from a more republican form to an empire. Julius Caesar is assassinated by his own in verse 19.
11:20 Rise of the first Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar the tax collector that facilitated Christ's birth in Bethlehem.
11:21-22 More contemptable emperors, arise, under which Christ, the Prince of the Covenant is killed, and a few years later the Jewish system is destroyed like a flood, swept away.

That brings us to the end of the Jewish era (basically the 70 weeks)

The rest of Daniel 11 deals with the "Christian era" to the time of the end.

Adventists have differed on the interpretation of the second half of Daniel 11. But first there are points on which most agree.
1. Continue to use the historicity approach. Those who would like to use the lack of full agreement among Adventist interpretations as an excuse to bring in preterits or futurist methods are usually not accepted.
2. Daniel 2,7,8,9 are viewed as patterns, each telling the same sweep of history but focusing on different emphases in that sweep of history. Daniel 11 is expected to follow the same story. So we look for connecting links between it and the other chapters to help interpreter the chapter

So looking at the patterns?

It sort of helps to look at chapter 9 first. Then chapter 8, and then chapter 7.

Chapter 9. Deals with time from the reestablishment of the Jews after their captivity and telling them a period of time is allotted to them to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. He.will ratify the covenant with His death thus bringing in righteous and salvation to all who will accept Him as the Prince of the covenant, but another prince is chosen. ?We have no king but Caesar?. That choice resulted in the desolation of the temple and the nation
Daniel 9 covers the 70 weeks allotted the Jewish nation as well as predicting the destruction by Rome of their nation
457 BC ? 34 AD also including the destruction of 70 AD and sadly predicting more trouble for them

Chapter 8 includes the time period of the 70 weeks (490 years) but then goes much further
It starts with Medes and Persians (who set the Jews free so their 70 weeks began) the prophecy moves through the Grecian empire and then introduces another even greater power as well as the ?tamid? or daily. Once the great horn is in power there are no more sacrifices (though translators added the word to the daily) but Daniel did not write the word sacrifice in chapter 8 Daniel told us the Messiah put an end to sacrifices when He was put to death (Daniel 9:27).
Daniel 8 is dealing with Christ?s heavenly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary as well as exposing a powerful entity on earth which is trying to replace that ministry with their own abominations. In fact, the horn reinstated bloodless sacrifice (mass) to obscure Christ?s priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. His sacrifice was completed once and for all, thus Daniel did not write the word sacrifice in connection with the daily. The Daily stands alone as the subject and Christ is our High priest

Chapter 7 covers all time since Daniel. It includes time from Daniel?s period through the time of the 490 (70 weeks). On through the 1260 years when Christ?s ministry was obscured and His true followers persecuted. In this chapter we see an awesome description of the pre advent judgment in heaven when God?s people are vindicated and false system is condemned and then the chapter moves on clear to the restoration of all things


And yes. Daniel chapters 11-12 covers earths same journey from Daniels time to the end
Verses 1-21 deals the time period covered in Daniel 9 but like Daniel 8 and 7 these last chapters go on through the Christian Era and the time of the end and final triumph righteousnes

Daniel 11:22 And with the arms (Roman armies) of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the Prince of the covenant.
11:23 And after the league made with him, he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.

An historic league which is made sometime after the Prince of the covenant is swept away (crucified), now changes the course of history.
What two forces unite that develops the power which figured so prominently in the later day prophesies of Daniel?
Well, in Daniel eight we see a horn rising (a power greater than the symbols previous. Interestingly the horn starts as an ?it? and then transforms into ?He?. Following the sequence in chapters 2 and 7 we recognize this horn as Rome, but it appears Daniel eight wants us to see this horn in both Rome in its imperial stage and transforming into its Papal stage.

Daniel 11 shows more of this transition for a league is entered into. The emperor of Rome makes a league with Christianity. After Constantine makes this league Roman emperors are seen presiding over church councils and the bishop of Rome is growing strong as the highest level of spiritual leadership. He rose in power, not so much by military might but on the shirt tails of imperial Rome and more by devising plans.

So Daniel 11.:23-24 is Christianity merging with Rome and the growing power and influence of the bishop of Rome

The king of the north.

There is symbolic meaning to being "the king of the north" that goes even beyond geographic direction.

God is the true king of the North!
"Psalm 48:1, 2.
Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised
In the city of our God, in the mountain of His holiness.
Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth,
Is Mount Zion, on the sides of the north,
The city of the great King."



Satan desires to be worshipped as god and set up his throne in the sides of the North.

Isaiah 14
"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend unto heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High.


Human powers described as "king of the north" would seem to need to fulfil these conditions:
(1) interact directly with God?s people -- sit on the mount of the congregation
(2) demand or call for worship in some form -- Rev. 13:4 when people worship the beast they worship the dragon.
(3) at various points compete with the rival king (king of south)

Pontifex Maximus-- seems to fit that title for the king of the north, all through Daniel 11


Babylon - The Babylonian high priest, was called Pontifex Maximus. The council of the chief priests of the Babylonian system was called the "College of Pontiffs" with the "Pontifex Maximus presiding over the council.
Media Persia The Babylonian cult continued under Media Persia for a time but later flee to Pergamos..
Greece In Pergamos, these Babylonian priests set up the cult there. Revelation 2:13 says that satan's seat or throne is in Pergamos which seems to indict it was there because Babylonian priests moved their Babylonian religion to Pergamos.

Rome
The first Roman ruler to take the name Pontifex Maximus was Julius Caesar in 63 BC.
The early church fathers say that the Pontifex Maximus was the "King of Heathendom", the high priest of the pagan mystery religion of Rome. They were writing when the Roman Empire itself was pagan.
Yet when Constantine became the first "Christian" Emperor, one of his titles was Pontifex Maimus. So then, under imperial law (though not Church law), this actually made the emperor the "Head of the Church".
Later Emperor Gratian (360 AD) refused the title and give it to Damascus, Bishop of Rome. By 431 AD the Pope's held the title Pontifex Maximus and popes have held that title ever since.

One of the most amazing aspects about the ascendancy of the papacy is that the church of Rome presents the pope as the "Pontifex Maximus" a title that carries through from Babylon to the pope!

So to review:
how Daniel 11 covers history from Daniel's time to the end.

PERSIAN DOMINANCE
11:1-2 Deals with the kingdom of Media/Persia, which "stirs" up Greece.
Reference to Media/Persia ends with Xerxes who ruled (486-465 B.C.) and conducted a massive invasion into Greece in 480 BC (stirring them up greatly) but the Persians are roundly defeated and driven back, thus the prophecy moves on to this new power, though Persia has more kings after Xerxes.

KEY TO PROPHETIC interpretation is that prophecy moves to the next dominant power when a kingdom loses its dominance, NOT when they disappear as a kingdom.

GREEK DOMINANCE
11:4 The Grecian Empire forged by Alexander rises, then breaks apart into four divisions
11:5-14 Two of the four divisions of Grecia wrestling with each other, God's chosen nation caught in the middle.
Antiochus III, (the great) was the last "great" king of the Grecian kings of the North. For a time it seemed he was having considerable success even against the republic of Rome. But in the decisive battle of Magnesia ad Sipylum in 190 BCE, the Roman general, Eumenes, fielded an army of 30,000 against Antiochus III?s 70,000. But in spite of his superior numbers, Antiochus III was soundly beaten. The massive Seleucid army, one of the largest armies assembled until then, was in shambles. The empire of Grecia never recovered though it continued for a while longer. Even Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus III was taken as a hostage to Rome and paid tribute to Rome even when he later took the Seleucid throne. The Seleucid's lost their domination of the middle eastern world at this battle, and though their kingdom struggles on under several more kings, now the focus moves to Rome.

ROMAN DOMINANCE BEFORE CHRISTIANITY
11:16 Rome begins to rise up
11:17-19 Rome's transition from a more republican form to an empire. Julius Caesar is assassinated by his own in verse 19.
11:20 Rise of the first Emperor of Rome, Augustus Caesar, the tax collector that facilitated Christ's birth in Bethlehem.
11:21-22 More contemptable emperors, arise, under which Christ, the Prince of the Covenant is killed, and a few years later the Jewish system is destroyed like a flood, swept away.

Christ's first coming is the central point in the world's history, His death and resurrection closes the Old Testament history, closes the 70 week prophecy and moves us into the Christian era.

ROMAN DOMINANCE UNITED WITH CHRISTIANITY
11:23-24 The emperor of Rome, Constantine, makes a league with Christianity beginning in 313 AD.. After Constantine makes this league, Roman emperors are seen presiding over church councils and the bishop of Rome is growing in strength above other bishops, as the highest level of spiritual leadership. Alongside the emperor, the bishop of Rome rose in power, not so much by military might but on the shirt tails of imperial Rome and more by devising plans. So, Daniel 11.:23-24 is Christianity merging with Rome and marks the beginning of the process for the bishop of Rome to develop into the papacy.

11:25-30 Plucking up the three horns to make room for papal supremacy.
" And he (the king of the north) shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south " Before the papacy gains the seat in Rome a power in the south must be subdued. The Vandelic War in Carthage, in 533?534. The Vandels had taken over much of northern Africa from Rome. Vandal activity in the Mediterranean was so substantial that the sea's name in Old English was Wendels? (i. e. Sea of the Vandals). They were in control of some of the richest lands of their\\ former empire. The ?bread basket? of the Roman Empire had been their provinces in North Africa, covering vast swatches of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya. There were several pretty intense battles both of aggression and defense. Broken treaties. The Vandels fended off several Roman attempts to recapture the African province, and they even sacked the city of Rome in 455. Their kingdom collapsed in the Vandalic War of 533?34, in which Emperor Justinian I's forces reconquered the African provinces, Justinian was trying rebuild the empire as it was in former years, but he couldn't build it up, instead he pretty much simply cleared the opposing powers and left the west in the hands of the pope,

PAPAL DOMINANCE
From these verses onward, we enter into the PAPAL era.

Several of these verses 31 and onward match up with events mentioned in Daniel 8 and 7..
Thus we know where the prophecy is at that point of the unfolding. Verse 30 is a transition verse. The next verses cover the 1290 and 1260 years of papal supremacy.

To be continued: