R.J. Wieland's "Paganism" View
Compared to the "Papal" View

Wieland seeks to avoid the negative spirit of a century ago. Yet, the title of one of his papers on the subject, “Have we followed cunningly devised fables?” not only reveals  how seriously he perceives the issue but conveys pejorative implications regarding Conradi, Prescott, & Daniells, heralds of the Papal view, who are presumed to be devisers of fables.

Paganism View

Papal View

1. Rum (“taken away"; KJV):  Young's Analytical Concordance:  "to go on high," "to lift up"; modern use:  "to absorb"; GC p. 50 describes absorption of Paganism into the Papacy.

1. The root of rum is “lift up”; but “absorb” violates both root and context & every Bible use. The Bible meaning = take off, up, away, or from.  Five of 14 texts refer to ritual: ie, “priest shall take from the meat offering ..."  (Also Lev 2:9; cf 4:8, 10, 19; 6:10)

A sixth passage:  “take up the censors out of the fire ... they are hallowed (Num 16:37).

None of these or the other 8 below make sense with "absorb"; try reading “absorb”:

i) “took off [or absorbed?] their chariot wheels, . . .”  (Ex 14:25).

ii) “Moses ... took off [or absorbed?] the veil” (Ex 34:34).

iii) “take ye up [or absorb?] every man ... a stone [from Jordan]” (Josh 4:6

iv) “take up [or absorb?] [the ax head] to you” (2 Kings 6:7)

v) “take up [or absorb?] the stumbling block out of the way” (Isa 57;14).

vi) “take away [or absorb?] your exactions from my people” (Eze 45:9)

vii) “Remove the diadem, take off [or absorb?] the crown”  (Eze 21:26).

a. Rum is thus inconsistent with both Antiochus' removal of Jewish "daily" and Papal supplanting of Christ's sanctuary ministry.

a. Rum: is inconsistent with Antiochus, who died seven centuries before the Papacy was set up by imperial Rome. but it is totally consistent with Papal supplanting of Christ's ministry (538)!

b. In mushroom growth, the Papal “horn” “absorbs” ha tamid (Pagan Rome). Since ha tamid is here introduced in connection with rum, the law of first mention requires subsequent usages to be considered with reference to rum.

b. The “Law of first reference” is here irrelevant (Context & grammar must decide meanings, not “first reference.”). The Papacy did not “absorb” Paganism in 508. Absorption began in 1^st to 3^rd centuries, exploded in the 4^th, and matured in the 5^th, a century  before abomination. set up of 508 AD (Appendix D).

2. Mekon (“place”) has no intrinsic, sacred connotation as does qodes.

a.  Primary meaning of mekon is “head quarters” or “site. “Place” = a secondary meaning.

b.  If maqom (or meqom) is a cognate of meqon it would settle that mekon designates the "headquarters of Paganism" that the Papacy absorbed.

2. Neither context nor linguistics supports mekon as "Pagan headquarters."

   a. Nor does “place” or “site” matter; either would refer to the location of Christ’s sanctuary:

   b. Far form settling that “place” refers to Pagan headquarters, it would only identify heaven’s (military) headquarters, from which Satan was cast out and from which Christ fights the originator of evil and his agents.

pairing rum the “daily” & shalak “the place,” Pagan view proves shalak & rum are synonyms;

ie., the 'daily' was rum away & the place of His sanctuary shalak down” (8:11)
in the same way the truth was shalak down to ground 8:12).

3.  “Be” means “in.”  Pro-Antiochus translators manipulated be (ha tamid be pasha) to mean “by reason of.”

3. This argument has no significance to the issue. Either “in” and “by reason of” fits the Papal view.

a. In context, the Hebrew (“in transgression”) thus requires ha tamid to be something evil.

a. Neither context nor Hebrew requires ha tamid to be evil. Only the Paganism view requires this.

"In transgression” fits either view. In context it refers to the "host" (army) of Papal priests “in transgression”! “An host [of priests] in transgression was given [the Papacy] against [Christ's] continual.

b. Ha tamid, substantive on Cyrus cylinder, clearly  refers to Paganism; Jews coined it as code word

b. As a substantive, Ha tamid refers to Christ's “continual” ministry.

c. Discontinued at Babylonian captivity, “the daily”  never re-continued (ark & shekinah not restored).

The only “daily” in Daniel's time = Paganism that seemed to triumph over JHWH and is frequently used during exile to refer to a desolating power.

c. The Argument that the “daily” was discontinued at the captivity & never restored holds no water. The ark & shekinah were not restored; but “continual” services were.

Moreover, exilic Jews worshiped towards the temple.

This is a non-issue anyway. Daniel predicts nothing re: the old Jerusalem type but, rather, Papal usurpation of heavenly arch-type, cast down hundreds of years later (508-538 AD)!

d. Question: “Until when will Paganism triumph”? (8:13; cf. Ps 74:1,3,10; 79,5; 80:4). The answer amazes Daniel; it would be absorbed for centuries by an even more devastating power!

d. Until when will the place of Christ’s ministry be cast down by the transgression of desolation to give both sanctuary & host to be trodden under foot? (No suggestion of Two evil powers or of Paganism)

4.  In contrast to qodesh, the true sanctuary (8:13-14, Miqdash (8:11) is Satan's sanctuary.

4. Context, language, & history all preclude Miqdash as Satan's sanctuary (Appendices B & D).

a. “Until when the vision:  ha tamid, the desolating iniquity, the giving of both sanctuary [qodesh] and host to trampling?”

 i) Ha tamid (Paganism) is in apposition with        “desolating iniquity” (Papacy)

ii) Thus the Hebrew language requires two desolating powers.

a. “Until when the vision:  ha tamid, the desoating iniquity, ... giving both sanctuary [qodesh] and host to trampling?”

 i) Ha tamid is not in apposition. Both  “tamid” & “desolat. iniquity”=Papacy

ii) Only the paganism theory–not Hebrew language requires two desolating powers!

The Papacy did not cast down the place of Pagan military miqdash. This is alien to history  and alienates the problem from both the qodesh question and its qodesh answer

The problem connects casting down “continual” & the desolating abomination with miqdash; while the question & its answer connect both with qodesh! Thus miqdas = qodesh!!

Problem: Papacy exaltsitself to Prince of host & casts down the truth of His “continual” ministry.

Question: "Until when the vision concerning the “continual” & the transgression of desolation to give both the sanctuary [qodesh] and the host [true believers] to be trodden underfoot"? 

Answer:    "Unto 2,300 days, then shall the qodesh be cleansed [put right]" (8:13 & 14).

Neither question nor answer alludes to Satan's military headquarters! Both relate to the Prince (8:11) Whose sanctuary is cast down; & "host" of believers trampled!

Thus ha tamid is not in apposition to "abomination of desolation"; context permits no divorce of the miqdash problem from the qodesh question and answer!

b. "[Military might] shall stand on the [Papacy’s] part, and they shall [dishonor] the miqdash of military refuge [bastion of Pagan aggression] and he shall remove [sur–not rum] the daily and shall place the abomination that makes desolate."  This defines miqdash of Dan 8:11 as a bastion of Paganism. It could not possibly be applied to the anti-typical sanctuary; for the heavenly sanctuary could not be removed by military force (11:31)

b. "Holy covenant" & "time of end” in verses 30-32,35 prove this assumption false:

 "He shall have indignation against the holy covenant: ... and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.  And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily [continual ministry], and they shall place the abomination that maketh [the sanctuary] desolate.  And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries:  but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.... 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 an appointed time." (Dan 11:30-32).

Covenant language relates "take away the daily” to cast truth to the ground re: Christ's covenant sanctuary & covenant people! (8:11-17; cf  7:25, & 9:27). Instead of pagan "bastion," "arms stand on his part" announces a church/state union that provided civil power to the Papacy to “take away the daily” & enforce its counterfeit.

Arms were not used to conquer Paganism! Rather, Pagan arms were used to establish papal power over non-orthodox Christian tribes and persecute those loyal to the covenant! This alone perfectly harmonizes Wieland’s Great Controversy quotes.

"Time of the end" & "appointed time” identify 1798 termination of 1260 and unsealing of 2300 day/yrs prophecy of judgment on the horn (cf 7:25; 8:13-19, 26; 12:4, 7-13), not to its 508 initiation!  This with the Daniel 9:24-27 explanation certifies 1844 as the end of the 2300 days and confirms that the little horn of 8:11-13 is the same Papal horn as in 7:20-26!

Far from defining miqdash (8:11) as Pagan bastion, the entire context is Papal war against "holy covenant"—basis of "sanctuary" government that gives "people that do know their God" "strength" to "do exploits" & divine judgment in favor of saints.

Meanwhile, "sanctuary [miqdash] of strength" echoes Psalm 96:6: "Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary [miqdash].”  (See Appendix B) 

5.  Sur (11:31) refers to "removal" of Pagan military force that opposed setting up of the Papacy.

5. Paganism did not oppose Papal setting up.  Indeed, imperial Rome set the Papacy up, destroying its opposition. Sur refers to casting down the place of Christ’s sanctuary in setting up the Papacy

6.  Rum (8:11) refers to Pagan "incorporation" spiritually into the Papacy. Dan 12:11 sets definite time (508) to sur ha tamid (Pagan miqdas) to "set up" the "abomination that makes desolate." The 1290 day prophecy is thus necessary to identify Pagan tamid.

6.  The Papacy did not incorporate Paganism in 508. Nor does  sur refer to removal of its military force. The Papacy  was not opposed by pagan Rome but by non-orthodox Christian tribes that Rome plucked up by the roots to establish the counterfeit Papal “continual” Appendix D.

Sur = pagan arms that enforced the counterfeit of the true ministry "taken away" (rum.

Thus, instead of proving miqdas (8:11) a Pagan military force opposed to Papal setting up, 11:31 refers to the heavenly sanctuary.  Wieland’s numerous GC quotes refer to Papal/Pagan religio-political art—not to "arms" removing a "military headquarters."

Focus is upon 1798 termination that signaled the unsealing of Daniel's sanctuary vision and initiated proclamation of its 2300 day/year, "time of the end" message! (12:4-13; 8:13-14, 26)

The most overwhelming evidence:  the next use of miqdas is in 9:17 (not Daniel 11:31):

"O Lord our God, . . cause they face to shine upon Thy miqdas that is desolate, . ."  Gabriel responds by explaining the nature of 2300 visionof 8:11-14 (9:23-27) which relates to “the time of the end” (8:17, 19, 26).

By miqdash Daniel, whose concern is aroused by the desolation foretold in 8:11-12, refers to the desolate Jerusalem temple, unaware that his vision portrayed an anti-typical miqdash in heaven that must be restored & cleansed! (Appendix B compares miqdash and qodesh)

7.  Paganism was "taken up" into the Papacy and "removed" politically and militarily; but

7. Paganism was indeed taken up into the Papacy;  but not removed militarily.

a. Papacy that could only "think to change times and laws" could neither "take away" Christ's perpetual ministry from believers who preserved the true faith through the Dark Ages (GC 66-75, 433, 429). Nor could it "take away" His ministry from apostates that never had a true sense of it.

a. This argument actually confirms how the Papacy cast the place of His Sanctuary     down. He changed the worship day, but could not change God’s law. Yet the vast majority of worshipers believed the Sabbath was changed. So also the sanctuary truth was lost. And both were restored in 1844!

A counterfeit priesthood as real as Sunday laws so cast down the place of His sanctuary that even Miller did not see that the place of the sanctuary to be cleansed Oct 22, 1844 was in heaven. Nor did even one of his many opponents challenge his earthly application! Those always faithful to limited light did not know about the casting down of “the place of His Sanctuary”; for that was sealed until the great disappointment (Dan 8:26 & 12:4; Rev. 10; cf #7 Note), when the Sabbath too was restored.