The Answerer, Book No. 6

Does the number “666” of Revelation 13 belong to the first or to the second beast of the chapter – to the leopard-like or to the lamb-like beast? And does not the numerical sum of the letters in the title “Vicarious Fillii Dei” total 666?

Question 168:

Why do you not study the New Testament? Why so much the Old?

Answer:

It may appear to you that we are studying the Old more than the New Testament Scriptures, but this may appear so because Christendom, for the most part, has confined its study to the New Testament almost to the exclusion of the Old. The Shepherd’s Rod, therefore, is put to the task of opening up the Old Testament prophecies, which are now due and waiting to be fulfilled. Now that we are in the time for which the prophecies were penned, we must diligently study them in order to know what to expect, and what to do as they unfold into history.

The Old Testament people (ancient Israel) became the church for that time by fulfilling prophecy, by causing prophecy to become history. The New Testament people (Apostolic Israel) became the Church for the same reason. Likewise, it was the unfolding of prophecy that brought the church of the Reformation (Protestant Israel). And prophecy revealed is what made Adventism (present-day Israel) the church today. It is important to remember, too, that the churches of the past, are past rather than present because they refused to be led onward by the prophecies, — they all rejected further unfoldment of the scroll. If the church is to continue as the ever-advancing church, it must, feed on the Old as well as on the New Testament, else she will pass out as quickly as all the rest that have gone before her, and will have no message for the time of the Judgment of the living, and will not be the church tomorrow.

Concretely speaking, the Denomination became the church in 1844 only because it embraced unsealed prophecy (the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14), and also because of proclaiming the prophetic message – the judgment hour (Rev. 14:7) in its first phase – the judgment of the dead. But should she repeat the mistakes of her predecessors in rejecting timely truth; should she reject the additional message for this time (Early Writings, p. 277), which is now knocking hard at her door, she will not have a message for herself or for the world. As the preaching of the judgment of the living is infinitely more momentous to the living than is preaching to them of the judgment of the dead, God must necessarily get those who will proclaim it.

Several of our tracts deal exclusively with New Testament prophecy, while a number of others deal with both Testaments. Thus it is seen that the message mines its precious gold from both the Old and the New Testaments. The only way, however, for anyone to know for himself, and to profit by, the message of the day is to study all that we have published.

I am sending you literature which declares as positively as the sky is blue that in America Sabbath should be kept on Saturday, but here in Australia it should be Sunday. If it is not so, can you disprove it?

Answer:

As to Pastor Nelds’ contention that Sunday is the true Sabbath in Australia, about the best we can say is that he so confounds knowledge with words as to create an illusion of truth. But an illusion, a mere mirage, is all it is, and is as fallacious as the theory that one’s traveling west would lose him a day in time, whereas his traveling east would gain him a day, a theory which necessarily ends itself in the illogical conclusion that if one could travel either westward or eastward at the same rate of speed as that at which the earth revolves around the sun, practically 1000 miles per hour, he would lose all the days of the week, for at that rate of speed he would keep on with the sun, and would never see the end of the day if he started out in the day time, and would never see the end of the night if he started out at night time, unless he stopped.

Nelds’ way of travel may lose him one day by going in one direction and gain him one day by going in another direction, but God’s week and Sabbath never lose or gain regardless which way one goes. They never vary. Too, Nelds’ proposed Eden date line instead of the one in the Pacific Ocean, is as illogical as it can be when one considers that Eden was God’s center of civilization and His workshop of creation. Then only would he know that as soon as the sun was created, it flashed with noonday brightness from Eden, not from the Pacific Ocean. He would know then that Eden saw the first noonday sunlight, and the Pacific Ocean, east of Australia, saw the first sunset, the first beginning of a 24-hour solar day.

In addition, the further fact that an Eden date line stretches through some densely inhabited areas, whereas the other does not (as the map shows), proves that the latter is God’s natural day-line barrier. All these considerations translate themselves into absolute proof that Sabbath necessarily begins in the same day, but 8 hours earlier, in Australia as it does in Jerusalem. The simple, never-changing Truth is that God requires us to keep the seventh day of the week wherever the sun brings it to us.

Question 170:

I am sending you literature which seems to prove that Sunday should be kept as the Christian’s Sabbath. How can you disprove it?

Answer:

You may read the Bible through and through both Old and New Testaments, and we assure you that you will find no command, hint, or practice that would indicate, predict or imply that Sunday, the first day of the week, was, is, or is ever to be God’s Sabbath. Search and see.

Question 171:

In your publications, Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, Nos. 7 and 42, you place the resurrection of Dan. 12:1, 2 before the close of probation. Do you not thus squarely contradict the teaching of The Great Controversy, p. 637 and Early Writings, p. 285, and hence the Denomination’s position on the subject. How can you deny it?

Answer:

We do not deny that the Rod’s position on the resurrection does not square with that of the Denomination’s. But we do emphatically deny, however, that the Rod contradicts the Great Controversy or Early Writings. The question immediately asserts itself, therefore, as to how it can be settled for sure as the whether the Rod, in contradicting the Denomination’s position, is contradicting The Great Controversy and Early Writings, or whether the Denomination is misinterpreting the Great Controversy, Early Writings, and the Bible.

Question 172:³The manuscript which we have of this question and answer is in some ways problematic. The question begins rather awkwardly, the wording is strange in some places, and in a number of places it seems as though we are reading Houteff’s notes as to how to answer him, though perhaps he was never able to come back to it and address it more fully. Also, the question does not start out with the word “Question:” as they normally do, nor is there a place anywhere throughout the text which says “Answer:” as there normally is. Due to this situation, and since the whole thing is nonsensical when read as one continuous thought, we have here marked this in such a way as to help with reconstructing the most plausible way to read the passage.
The parts of the text which appear to be the questioners words, we have chosen to bold. The parts which appear to be Houteff’s words, we have left in regular text. Also, the parts which were written in pencil/pen (it seems by Houteff) we have in italics. We have also included additional footnotes which may be helpful.

Question 173:

We are Seventh-day Adventists, have been for 35 years, and want to stay what we are. Why are you trying to get us into something else?

Answer:

Reflecting the attitude of us many Seventh-day Adventists, the concern in question very markedly reveals the utter misapprehension which obtains far and wide with regard to the work and the purpose of The Shepherd’s Rod and its adherents who are practically all from the Seventh-day Adventist church, and still are Seventh-day Adventists. We would therefore make unequivocally clear that aside from our endeavoring to get everyone out of the Laodicean trap of doom and into the kingdom of glory, we are not trying to get anyone, ourselves included, out of any church, into another, and certainly least of all out of the Seventh-day Adventist church, into one of our own, the which we do not have. The plain truth of the matter is that we are no more pulling away from the Seventh-day Adventist church than John the Baptist and Christ were pulling away from the Jewish church, Luther away from the Catholic church, and Sister White from the Methodist church. But just as the scribes, pharisees, priests, and ministers, lied and worked against John, Jesus, Luther, and Sister White in their respective times, just so the scribes, priests and pharisees of today are lying and working against us, doing all in their power to drive us from the churches so as to make it look as though we are pulling out for ourselves, and thereby give the appearance of truth to their false charges against us. The very fact that we labor specifically in the interest of the Seventh-day Adventist church, and for her only, and that we constantly teach and advise all Present Truth believers and readers to attend regularly their own or other Seventh-day Adventist churches whenever they can, certainly speaks for itself that we have never left the Adventist church (save involuntarily by force), that we still as ever, and indeed ever more so, believe it to be the last of the seven churches of the Revelation – the last into which the wheat and the tares are commingled, that then follows the next church of pure gold as the illustration of Zechariah, chapter 4, forcefully shows.

Question 174:

What does the statement mean that “a day is a thousand years with the Lord”? (2 Peter 3:8.) Does it not show that whenever the Lord says a “day” He means a millennium?

Answer:

Let us hear what the apostle says: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Pet. 3:8.

The statement that one day is as a thousand years with the Lord, and a thousand years as one day, means exactly what it says – one day is a day, and 1000 years are one thousand, but that He being Eternal a thousand years are to Him as short as a day, and a day as long as a thousand years.

Note what prompted the Apostle to make the statement and you will have no need of trying to figure out whether a day is a thousand years, or whether a thousand years are but one day. The apostle you will observe is talking about those who think that the Lord has delayed His coming, assuming that a great deal of time has gone by and as yet He has not come. The Apostle, therefore, is endeavoring to establish Christ’s followers more firmly in the faith that they be not shaken by the scoffers around them. He is, in effect saying that though it seems to us humans a long time since we have been expecting the Lord’s second coming, yet when we consider that the Lord lives forever, that “one day is as a thousand years with Him, and a thousand years as one day”, we should know that as far as the Lord is concerned the time that has elapsed means almost nothing, and that we should not be carried away by unbelief in His promises, but that we should consider that they are ever sure.

Question 176:

The Great Controversy, p. 616, and Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 202-203, say that the saints will go through the time of trouble, but The Shepherd’s Rod literature seems contradictorily to tell us that they will be in the kingdom during that time. Does not this bring on a serious clash? If you are able to show harmony, I should like to see it.

Answer:

To demonstrate that there is utter harmony – and no discrepancy – between The Shepherd’s Rod and The Great Controversy and Patriarchs and Prophets, it is but necessary to notice the fact that the time of trouble is during the time of the Loud Cry of the Three Angels’ Messages, during the time the kingdom is set up, not during the time after the close of probation. Here is the proof:

Question 178:

Your tract No. 5, The Final Warning, p. 35 explains that the seven seals and the seven trumpets parallel each other, a trumpet following a seal, like the needle the shuttle. But how can that be, when, as the chart shows, there are only three seals as against four trumpets before the Cross?

Answer:

As viewed in the light of the passage in question, the sealing and the trumpet charts may, at first thought, appear to develop a discrepancy in chronologically paralleling the periods of the seals and the periods of the trumpets. That this apparent discrepancy is solely apparent and not real, is quickly seen from the fact that though the sealing chart places the symbolism of the fourth seal after the cross, yet it could just as well place the symbolism of the fourth seal before the cross, because Rome, the power which the fourth seal symbolizes, persecuted God’s people even before the birth of Christ. With the Roman persecution thus extending over a period of time both before and after the Cross, the chart could not very well indicate the pre-cross as well as the post-cross application of the symbolism itself. Hence it must be seen, not as it appears to be on the chart, but as it actually is. Moreover, one must not take the needle-and-the-shuttle illustration too literally and too exactly in every respect, for the star that fell at the sounding of the third trumpet is symbolical of the Bible, God in the Word, and the star which fell at the sounding of the fifth trumpet is symbolical of Christ, God in the flesh, Who was, is and is to be – Truth that never ceases to be present Truth. The needle-and-the-shuttle illustration is not constructed to point out this all-significant irregularity, itself the hallmark of Divine design rather than the result of human shortsightedness.

Question 179:

In 1901 Sister White wrote: “…That these men should stand in a sacred place to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be, – – that is past.” — General Conference Bulletin, 34th session, Vol 4, Extra No. 1, April 3, 1901.

In 1909, though, she declared that “God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority… Let us give to the highest organized authority in the church that which we are prone to give to one man or to a small group of men.”

If these two statements do not, as they seem, to contradict each other, then does not the latter take precedence over the former?

Answer:

The words “that is passed,” in the former statement, eliminates the thought of the latter statement having precedence over the former. And since Inspiration indicated both statements, we may straightway dismiss the possibility of their being contradictory. The 1901 statement unconditionally and unqualifiedly asserts that God was no longer to speak through the General Conference. And the 1909 statement does not say or even intimate that God will ever again speak through the General Conference. Thus much they are in perfect agreement.

Then, too, the General Conference faculty at Takoma Park, Washington, D.C., is one group of people, engaged in one capacity of business, and General Conference assembly is another people, engaged in entirely different capacity of business. Moreover, God speaking or not speaking through the General Conference men is one thing, and respect to a principle ordained by them in the long ago is another thing. Furthermore, the latter statement does not say God will speak through the world wide conference assembly, but that in the capacity they are in they should be respected. So, though God was not speaking through either one group or another, yet so long as they were laboring in a capacity of His church, law and order should prevail, and authority be respected among them until God raises one through who He can resume to speak; then whatever He says through him, should be given heed to above all else.

Question 180:

Question 181:

Do we understand correctly that Sister White declared Elder Uriah Smith’s book – Daniel and the Revelation – inspired?

Answer:

In the first place, had the book been inspired, then Elder Smith should have been the first to know and say so, for who would know better of his experience than he himself? Sister White, moreover, never so much as even implied that the book was inspired. Had she, she most assuredly would have said so in writing, and would herself have believed and preached what he wrote. Such a matter is of far too great consequence to be left to hearsay. We need to be admonished by the following counsel concerning such “unauthenticated reports.”

“And now to all who have a desire for truth I would say, Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works. Are there any points of interest concerning which she has not written, do not eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said.” Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 696.

The question as to Elder Smith’s Inspiration can be quickly settled simply by comparing his description of the symbolical horse of the sixth trumpet (Rev. 9:17-19), with the Revelator’s description of it. Just take a good look at the one, then at the other, and you’ll know without further study that if John’s picture is inspired, then the other is not, for at a glance you will see two entirely different creatures. When Inspiration interprets the Scriptures, it does not substitute a new-modeled symbol for the one It originally revealed. To say that John the Revelator could not correctly see what horses looked like, and where the fire, smoke, and brimstone came from, is to say that the Scriptures are inaccurate and cannot be depended upon. But they satisfy the Lord, for He Himself declares: “I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Rev. 22:16, 19.

If John did not see straight in one instance, then what assurance have we that he saw straight in another instance? And if the Revelation is an errant record, then how dare Inspiration so positively prohibit anyone’s adding to or subtracting from the book?

The Biblical description of the symbolical horses, and the book’s illustration of them, appear here side by side. Look at them, study them, and you will answer your own question as to the inspiration of the book, Daniel and the Revelation.

.

QUESTION: 182

The Shepherd’s Rod professes to be in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy, but Timely Greetings, Vol. 1, No. 20, p. 7, dealing with Zech. 14:4, places the event before the millennium, while Early Writings, p. 53 places it after the millennium. How could you find a more absolute contradiction?

Answer:

Although an inflexible surface comparison of the two is calculated to sustain the appearance of “absolute contradiction” between them, a fair analytical comparison of each will quickly dissipate the false appearance. The trouble is, not that the Rod contradicts Early Writings, but that its enemies try to create the appearance that it does, so as to keep the church members from studying and accepting its message. They blind the laity to the fact that it is not the Timely Greetings or Early Writings by which Truth must be tested, but the Bible, the source of all Truth.

It is plain to see from even a cursory reading of the relevant passages of the two publications in question, that the event in Early Writings is post-millennial, whereas the event in Timely Greetings is pre-millennial. The two statements can never be reconciled by trying to make both events one, either pre-millennial or post-millennial. Confusion on this point comes from supposing that Early Writings is commenting on Zechariah 14:4, although it is neither quoting nor giving Zechariah as reference. However, it is true that the event recorded in Zechariah 14:4, and that recorded in Early Writings, p. 53 are similar, but they are not identical. Let us not forget that “where there is no type, there is no truth.” (2 SR p 10). The Timely Greetings is speaking of the type – of the prophecy’s first fulfillment, whereas Early Writings is speaking of the antitype—of the prophecy’s second fulfillment.

This is what Early Writings says:
“It is at the close of the one thousand years that Jesus stands upon the Mount of Olives, and the mount parts asunder and becomes a mighty plain.” – Early Writings, p. 53.

And this is what Zechariah says:
“And his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee unto the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal.” – Zech. 14:4,5.

To any Bible student it is plain to see that the entire chapter of Zechariah 14 (for every verse of it pertains to the same time and setting) has its fulfillment pre-millennially. The first part of the chapter envisions a united nations’ military operation against Jerusalem, and the capture of the city (verse 2). Verse 8, along with chapter 13:1, makes clear that the action occurs in the day when “living waters shall go out from Jerusalem” when probation still lingers. Verse 2 reveals that as the city falls, the houses are rifled and “the women ravished,” and that half of the city “go forth into captivity,” while a “residue of the people” are “not cut off.” Then, on the authority of verse 3, as “these Nations” turn away, laden with the spoils of their conquest, the Lord falls upon them “as when he fought in the day of battle” (Isa. 37:36). Verse 4 then adds: “And His feet shall stand in that day [in the day the city falls, and the day the Lord goes to fight against those nations] upon Mount of Olives,” whereupon, declares verse 5, “ye [the saints, the people whom He is addressing in the prophecy] shall flee to the valley of the mountains [there where the Lord’s feet stand.]” That is, they shall flee to Him, not from Him, neither shall they come down with Him. It is too plain for words that none of these events can be post-millennial.

Then, too, there “shall be the plague” to “smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem.” Verse 12. “And it shall come to pass in that day [still in the same day the Lord’s feet stand upon Mount of Olives], that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold everyone on the hand of his neighbor. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.” Zech. 14:13, 18.

The dissimilarity between what befalls Jerusalem in Zechariah’s prophecy, and what befalls the “Holy City” when it comes “down from God out of Heaven” (Rev. 21:2), is too vast to be ignored and discredited. In epitome, the difference is that at the end of the 1000 years, Satan and his army come up to take the Holy City, but are blasted into the lake of fire and perdition (Rev. 20). Whereas in Zechariah’s prophecy, the united nations’ army overthrows Jerusalem – the very thing that brings the Lord’s feet to the Mount of Olives. This is what the Bible says, if you mind what It says.

Question 183:

Do you believe in going into all the world with the message or just to the S.D.A. people?

Answer:

Inasmuch as we are “not sent to a people of a strange speech and of an hard language, but to the house of Israel” (Ezek. 3:5), our message is for the Laodicean church rather than for the world. For a detailed explanation, read our Tract No. 1.

Question 184:

Do you believe there are two 2nd comings of Christ, one for the 144,000 and then for others as mentioned?

Answer:

Concerning your question in regard to Christ’s coming, “it is generally understood that when Christ visibly appears, the nations will die by the brightness of His coming, and thus the wicked will have no chance for either the Lord to speak to them or they to speak to Him. Furthermore, according to the parable, He sits on the throne of His glory instead of sitting on the clouds as in 1 Thess. 4:17. Therefore, the throne of His glory is His kingdom where He, invisible to the nations, sits on the throne and gathers all nations before Him as recorded by the prophet Isaiah also, saying: ‘And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.’ (Isa. 2:2)” – The Symbolic Code, Vol. 4, Nos. 10-12.

We see, therefore, that there are two comings – one invisible (Christ’s coming to execute His judgment upon His church –Ezek. 9; Matt. 25:32, 33, and one visible (Christ’s coming when the saints are caught up in the cloud with Him – 1 Thess. 4:17). Vol. 2 T p. 190.

Question 185:
Do all the S.R.S.D.A.’s come to Waco to live?

Answer:

No, not all the S.R.S.D.A.’s come to live on Mt. Carmel, only those who are needed for the work to be done are here.

Question 186:
Why are the 144,000 the first fruits? Who are the second fruits?

Answer:

From Revelation 7:3-8 we learn that they are sealed under the sixth seal, in our time for the seals are consecutive, one following the other; that they are of the 12 tribes of the children of Israel—of the church—not of the world. And from Revelation 14:1,4, we learn that they stand on Mount Zion with the Lamb, Christ, and that they are the first fruits only, definitely implying that there is to be a second fruits, for where there is no second there can be no first. The word “fruits” indicates “harvest,” that they are the “wheat” separated from among the tares. And from TM p. 445, along with Ezekiel nine, point out that Ezekiel’s marking and John’s sealing are one and the same thing, that the slaughter of Ezekiel nine is the destruction of the tares in the time of harvest, “in the end of the world” (Matt. 13:39.) And from the parables of the net (Matt. 39:47, 13:47) of the wedding garment (Matt. 22), and of the talents (Matt. 25:14-30), also of the goats and sheep (Matt. 25:32-33) along with the Apostle Peter’s statement that judgment must begin at the house of God (1 Pet. 4:17), all these make it plain that the harvest and the Judgment of the Living are one and the same thing, but with one exception, and it is this: The term judgment denotes a decision as to who is to be “cut off” and destroyed, and the term harvest denotes ingathering, besides cutting off and destroying the tares and the chaff. Then from Micah four and Isaiah two, we see that the church purified, the church that survives the Judgment, is the pre-millennial Kingdom into which the second fruits, the great multitude of all nations (Rev. 7:9) are gathered, the very act that gives the title (Harvest) to the work. So, then, the commencement of the Judgment of the Living (the separation of the wicked from the righteous in the house of God,”) that ___¹⁰Blank space in original.___ the first fruits, and the harvest that gathers the second fruits out of Babylon (the separation of the righteous from among the wicked), are one and the same. In Revelation 18 we are told that these nations from which the great multitude, the second fruits, are called out (verse 4), are in Babylon during the Angel’s loud cry. And in The Great Controversy, p. 665, is illustrated that the great multitude are not all the saved from all ages, dead and living, as some think, but that they are a group of themselves as are the 144,000. The 144,000 therefore, are the first to be sealed, the first to pass through the judgment of the living and first to stand in the church without a sinner among them. Consequently the second fruits are those who are separated from the sinners in Babylon, the group that is gathered from all nations. The 144,000 are the servants of God because having escaped from the slaying of the Lord depicted in Ezekiel 9, and in Isaiah 66:16, they are sent out to the nations and peoples who to that time know not God’s fame and glory, and they thus bring in the second fruits from all nations as set forth in verses 19 and 20. Thus they are the servants of God during the period of the judgment of the living. The Spirit of God declares, moreover, that “…only those who have withstood temptation in the strength of the Mighty One will be permitted to act a part in proclaiming it [the Third Angel’s Message] when it shall have swelled into the loud cry.” – The Review and Herald, Nov. 19, 1908.

Question 187:

In the face of the fact that the Scriptures say: “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew My people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins” (Isa. 58:1), does it not mean we are to do everything we can to point out everyone’s sins and to compel him to repent?

Answer:

Yes, the Scripture itself says to show them their sins, but it does not say to compel them into anything. Moreover, the pronouns My people and the house of Jacob includes us all. We should therefore cry even louder to ourselves than to others. Furthermore, it does not mean for us Davidians to engage in the habit of discussing anyone’s shortcomings. It means that we study and teach the lessons Truth sets forth. Our listeners will then for themselves see what is required, – what to depart from, and what to hold on to. This will avoid all chances of offense, and all who study Truth with intention to profit can then see for themselves their sins as we have seen ours, and thus be urged by the Spirit within to amend their ways, rather than by our demand. Bare criticism without the remedy, the remedy which only the message offers, is harmful rather than helpful. To prove to a person that he is really sick and dying, but to offer him no remedy for his illness, will not make him well but rather the more ill. The message from God is the only thing that has the rebuke, the remedy and the power. Our bare criticism can only make them the more hostile, create enemies, scatter and destroy.

Question 188:

The Answerer, Book No. 5, p. 90, says: “And nowhere in the Scriptures is there to be found even the remotest suggestion that the 144,000 are Gentiles.” Yet Galatians 3:28, 29, says: “There is neither Jew nor Greek…and if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Is it not the adoption by Christ rather than the blood of Abraham that makes us all Jews in Christ?

Answer:

It is true that in Christ we are all counted as from the seed of Abraham, but to be from one this, that, and the other tribe of the children of Israel is quite another thing. In Christ I could be a Christian regardless of my pedigree, but to be one from any one particular tribe of the children of Israel, necessarily is to have that particular pedigree.

It is true, too, that all who join themselves to spiritual Israel by adoption become Israelites just as a naturalized European becomes an American, but the ancestral lineage, nevertheless, still exists. Moreover, though one can be an Israelite by adoption, he can never be an Ephraimite, Rubenite, or some other if he is not just that. The 144,000 are 12,000 out of each of the twelve tribes, says the Bible. Simple! Is it not?

Those who are gathered to Christ from the Gentile nations, and thus counted as of the seed of Abraham, are the great innumerable multitude (Rev. 7:9), but those that are specifically from the twelve tribes of Israel, are 144,000. To overlook the distinction which the Scriptures make, is nothing less than an attempt to dishonor Inspiration with inconsistency and inaccuracy and to crown yourself with infallibility.¹¹The next two paragraphs were from miscellaneous pages in our collection, not grouped together with this question. That said, the subject matter is the same as the one here and may have originally been part of the answer. If not, it was written in answer to almost exactly (if not exactly) the same question and we therefore include it for your benefit.

Therefore, to say that the 144,000 are not blood descendants of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel, is as much erroneous, and as unscriptural, as to contrary say that the great innumerable multitude are not blood descendants “of the nations”! Moreover, if neither is from where the Scriptures say they are from, pray tell us why is Inspiration at pains to tell us where they are from? If the Scriptures are so imperfect as to say the 144,000 are from the tribes of Israel, but be from the Gentiles, and that the great multitude are from all nations, but be not, then what good are they if they do not tell the exact truth? In fact, this scripture’s paramount reason is to give the lineage of both peoples. If it was said that the 144,000 are Israelites, then it could be taken to mean that they were sealed from the church itself. But since they are not only Israelites, but Rubenites, Josephites, Levites, etc., then the fact becomes clear that they are not only from the church itself, but also the descendants of the twelve tribes.

Having completely lost their Semitic identity as a result of the dispersions among the Gentile nations, and of the subsequent assimilation of them, especially so with the ten tribe kingdom, and with the Jews who made up the early Christian church, and who called themselves Christians, they consequently are to be unconscious of their Israelite geneology. God, however, knows the lineage of every soul. Hence when He declares in Revelation 7 that the 144,000 are from the twelve tribes, from the sons of Jacob, that is precisely what He means, and that is precisely what they must be. No amount of rationalizing and spiritualizing will alter that fact, but one’s name in the book of life. None of us know whether or not we are descendants of these tribes, but we should strive to be with them even if we cannot be of them. We need not worry over the matter of our pedigree, for whatever we prove to be, Jew or Gentile, we shall be perfectly satisfied with our rewards.

Question 189:
Must not The Shepherd’s Rod dovetail with Sister White’s writings?

Answer:

It is not only necessary for the Rod to dovetail with Sister White’s writings, but that they both should also dovetail with the Bible. Your doubt arises from the erroneous idea which permeates the whole denomination; that is, the idea that Sister White’s writings are the end of all truth, whereas no prophet as yet has individually ever been given to write the whole truth for all time. Every prophet’s writings is an addition to the preceding prophet or prophets; and the writing of all the prophets is what makes the whole. Even Christ Himself did not tell everything there was to be told. After His ascension He gave the Revelation, you know. Even then he reserved some for a future revelation; that is, He restricted John from writing about the “seven thunders” (Rev. 10:4), and if we are to know something about them they must yet be revealed and written. Sister White herself says that the next message after hers is to be an “addition,” not a repetition or a reminder of something forgotten. Here we quote what she wrote on the subject:

“Then I saw another mighty angel commissioned to descend to the earth, to unite his voice with the third angel, and give power and force to his message…This message seemed to be an addition to the third message, joining it as the midnight cry joined the second angel’s message in 1844.” Early Writings, p. 277.

The messages which the Rod has brought do not only dovetail with Sister White’s writing, and with the Bible, but they now dovetail her writings with the Bible more than ever, because the prophecies which were sealed during her time are not unsealed, and therefore where her writings were obscured, the Rod’s light shining on them makes them understandable. The writings of the prophets, moreover, are no longer closed and unread. The Bible and Sister White’s writings have become new books and more interesting than ever to all who have read the Rod literature.

Question 190:

Question 191:

Testimonies, Vol. 5, page 81, in speaking of the mark of the beast, states that when “the mark of the beast will be urged upon us” the gold will be separated from the dross in the church; whereas Early Writings, page 27, in speaking of the shaking, states that the straight Testimony to the Laodiceans causes separation. I would like to know how you harmonize these seemingly contradictory statements.

Answer:

These two statements can offer no difficulty when due consideration is given to the fact that there are to be two different shakings—one in the church, before the Loud Cry, resulting in the sealing of the firstfruits, the 144,000 (Ezek. 9:1-9; Rev. 7:1-7; Testimonies to Ministers, page 445), and the other in the world, during the Loud Cry, resulting in the gathering of second fruits, the great multitude, from among all nations (Matt. 25:31-33; Rev. 7:9; Isa. 66:20). Volume 5 has reference to the latter period, and Early Writings to the former.

Question 192:

We are warned that you do not wholly agree with Sister White’s writings, and the Scriptures command us to beware of false prophets. Besides, you criticize our leaders. That is enough for me. I do not read your literature, but still, I’d like to hear what you have to say for yourself.

Answer:

We have never yet seen one valid instance wherein our literature does “not wholly agree with Sister White’s writings,” and we earnestly invite and urge and will everlastingly appreciate anyone’s showing us one such discrepancy.

It is certainly a mistake not to be cautious, not to look out for “the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes” (Rev. 2:15) and for the “fornication” of “Jezebel” (Rev. 2:20). But just because the work of one that came to you in the name of the Lord is unpopular and the majority are against it is an even greater mistake for one ignorantly, before investigating for oneself, to push it aside as a work of Nicolatitanes, and as a fornication of Jezebel.

Question 193:
What is the work of Isa. 58:1?

Answer:
The work of Isaiah 58:1 is being done by means of the publications.

Question 194:

Should we teach that the slaughter will begin in March on a Wednesday? This was taught before last March, and now some dear souls have become disgusted with the message and quit coming to services.

Answer:

Since we do not find anywhere in the publications that the slaughter will begin in March, on a Wednesday, we can only reiterate that you should unquestioningly give credence to nothing you hear, and believe and teach only that which is “written.”

Question 195:¹²It is apparent to all students of the Shepherd’s Rod message that Victor Houteff never claimed to have received any light on the person or nature of the Holy Spirit. It will also be apparent to any and all who are aware of the teachings of Adventism in the 1950’s that what Houteff says in this particular question and answer is by no means unique, but is rather a repetition of the common belief in Adventism at the time. Due to the advancement of light in the message of the Holy Spirit Feminine (The Branch She), and especially the advanced light concerning materialism and the corporeality of the Spirit as we have learned in the present phase of the message, many investigating the Rod and Branch messages may stumble at the following statement. We will here quote a statement from Victor Houteff which we aid the honest seeker to better understand the principles of Inspiration involved. This quotation is from the letter size edition of Timely Greetings, Vol. 1, No. 8, p. 2:
“Question: How can ‘the great stone’ of Daniel 2, that smote the image on the feet, be a symbol of the coming of Christ, as Vol. 2 of ‘The Shepherd’s Rod,’ pages 161 and 162 say, when the Bible says in Daniel 2:35 to 44, and you also say somewhere else that it represents the Kingdom’s destroying the other nations and growing greater? Please explain.
Answer: ‘The Shepherd’s Rod’ plainly states that not all the words of its contents were dictated by an angel, but that what the angels did dictate is in quotation marks. It further explains that though the Biblical ideas it contains are interpreted by Inspiration, they are explained by finite words, and those words may not make the ideas stand out as clearly as they should.
The conlcusion that the stone is symbolical of Christ’s second coming, however, did not originate with ‘The Shepherd’s Rod.’ Not having special light in the day it was published, and supposing that the denomination was teaching the truth on the subject, the ‘Rod’ had no choice but to thus identify the ‘stone.’ And inasmuch as the ‘Rod’ did not originate the idea that the stone represents the second coming of Christ, one cannot hold the ‘Rod’ responsible for it.
After the light on the subject came to us, we abandoned the popular theory, and zealously proclaimed the Truth. Our position that the stone represents the Kingdom, is clear and in harmony with the Bible.?
Moreover, Houteff says:
“Still further, there are circumstances in connection with certain aspects of every message which necessitate clarification. Such clarification, however, can be no greater than the light which shines at the time. And the light may come solely from within the message itself, or, again, it may derive from a limited understanding common to the time “then present”–an understanding which the messenger himself shares.
Such a case was John the Baptist’s. Inspired to declare only the coming of the King, John was squarely confronted with the question concerning the setting up of the kingdom. He answered in keeping with the common understanding which he as well as the people had of the kingdom–that when the King arrived He would doubtless set up His kingdom and thus free His people from the Roman yoke. But when Christ finally appeared, He explained that the time for the kingdom to be set up, and for the Roman yoke to be removed from His people’s shoulders, was not yet come. And the truly “wise” gave no concern to these discrepant teachings, but gladly accepted the truth in its progressive form, and went on to higher and higher spiritual attainments, whereas those who stumbled on this disparity either rejected John as a false prophet and accepted Jesus as the Christ, or accepted John as a true prophet and rejected Jesus as a false Christ, and consequently slipped farther and farther backwards and downwards until they were no longer followers of either Christ or John.
The ways of Inspiration are constant, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Questions concerning revealed truth must therefore be answered in the same way today as they were in John’s time. And thus now as then, the critical, the skeptical, and the doubting will find many hooks upon which to hang their doubts. But likewise now as then, the doubters will be taken in their own craftiness.” – The Answerer, Book No. 1, pp. 49-50
In light of the principles herein set forth, we believe that the honest of heart will neither accuse Victor Houteff explaining things in keeping with the common understanding of his day (a time before special light came on the person and nature of the Holy Spirit), nor will they reject the advanced light by using such a statement as this as a hook to hang doubt upon; rather, they will “joyously watched the scroll unfold, and jubilantly marched on with the Truth.” – The Answerer, Book No. 2, p. 79

Was not Lucifer the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, the Godhead, before he fell? If so, and if Gabriel took his place, then must not he in turn now hold that office, and therefore now be the Holy Spirit? Or is Christ Himself the Holy Spirit?

Answer:

The Holy Spirit is a Power that can minister everywhere, and to everyone at the same time; an angel cannot (Dan. 10:13, 14), but can be in only one place at one time. The Holy Spirit can lead the conscience and enlighten the mind by absolute silence; the angels cannot. The Spirit convicts the sinner of sin, and empowers the penitent to choose righteousness; He leads into Truth and corrects error (Jno. 16:13); He brings all things to memory (Jno. 14:26, and is everywhere momentarily and at the same time, something like the wireless power in the air that carries radio broadcasts everywhere at the same time, to everyone who wants to listen to it. As an example, it can be said, Christ is the broadcaster, the Spirit is the Power, the radio-receiver is the heart of the listener. God’s throne is the broadcasting radio station. It was the Holy Spirit Who, years after the ascension of Christ, brought Christ’s sermons to the memory of the apostles thus enabling the gospel writers to record them more than three decades after they heard them. This office, and an unlimited number of other offices are the omnipotent and omnipresent offices of the third person of the Godhead, all of which He performs as silently (if He so chooses) as Springtime causes the plant to awaken and clothe itself with foliage, to bloom and to grow. Entirely different and definitely restricted, though, is the scope of angels’ powers and offices, as is seen instantly from the fact that they communicate orally (see Dan. 10:16-21; 11:1,2), and can be seen in one form or another, or remain unseen. (See 2 Kings 6:17; Num. 22:30-32.) Though the angels, you know, ministered to Him, Jesus declared that the Spirit could not come to earth if He Himself did not first ascend to Heaven (John 16:7-11). Most conclusively, therefore, Lucifer, could never have been, nor can Gabriel, or Christ’s person now be the Holy Spirit.

Question 196:

Question 197:

The church teaches that the seven heads on the leopard-like beast represent seven ancient consecutive Roman administrative periods. Is this interpretation correct? And if not then what do the heads stand for?

Answer:

Note that the heads did not appear on the beast one following the other, and did not drop off one after another, so as to indicate any consecutive or retrogressive links in the chain of history. All seven heads were on the beast from its beginning, and all seven stood intact until the beast was no more. Again note that the one that got “wounded unto death,” was healed and did live as did all the others, all of which denotes that whatever the heads be symbolical of, those things stand together until the beast itself comes to his end.

When the thing symbolized is progressive or retrogressive, Bible symbolism never fails to so indicate. For example, the fourth beast of Daniel seven was to portray progressive as well as retrogressive historical events in their making, and Inspiration failed not to so indicate: At first the beast appeared with ten crownless horns, then another horn came up among them which after it was fully developed it plucked out three of the ten horns. This symbolism first shows history in the making,- first ten horns. Then eleven, the eleventh being diverse from the other. He plucked out three of the horns, so that at last there were but eight. Besides this symbolism, there is the he-goat and the ram of Daniel chapter eight which also demonstrates prophetic progression in history, and history did not fail to make notice of it as prophecy passed into history. The symbolism in the leopard-like beast (Rev. 13:1-10), though, does not show any such progression save that one of its heads was wounded, and healed.

Question 198:

I had one of the brothers from the Adventist Church suggest to me the other day that the Shepherd’s Rod movement was in error, inasmuch as Sister White says there will never be another movement and they have made a distinct separation and another movement by accepting tithe, which should go to the S.D.A. Conference. I am wondering what your reaction would be to this. I do know that I, myself, have read in the Testimonies that she said she saw in vision where some had slipped off the platform but saw that some of them came back. I do not know to what she referred but it was a vision that she had. This Adventist brother also quoted that to me in the conversation.

Answer:

Regarding the vision which Sister White saw those who slipped from the platform, they are those whom she saw in the dream and whom she recorded in Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 578. From this vision is seen that those who have stepped from “the platform” are a great many, and are not working from outside, but from within, they are not such as have been disfellowshipped, but rather such as run the affairs of the church. Yes, Satan has successfully flooded the church with tares, and now it is, as it were, infiltrated with a fifth column – the spirit of Catholicism holds sway.

Question 199:

Would you kindly forward explanation of Isa. 32:8; 14:20? It is introduced in Tract No. 8, Mount Zion at the Eleventh Hour, page 90, and we cannot seem to understand it.

Answer:

As to Isaiah 32:8; 14:20, it shows that a liberal person spends his time devising ways and means to help and to bless others, and his liberalism upholds him – causes him to “stand.” On the other hand, a churlish person seeks only to gratify and please himself, and he shall be rewarded accordingly: Then will the people awake to the extent that “the vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.”

Question 200:

As I am attending the young people’s meetings at the church and I am asked to take a part in their different organized bands as it seems that no knowledge of the message, or any prejudice has been caused to arise in the hearts of the church members and as I am a stranger here, would it be advisable for me to take a part in the things they asked that I am come in a closer connection, gaining their confidence, and at the same time, looking for every opportunity to tell them about the Truth?

Question 201:

What is meant by Gen. 6:6 and Jonah 3:9, Ezek. 24:14 in View of Mal. 3:6 and Heb. 13:8?

Answer:

Patriarchs and Prophets page 630.

Question 202:

Will you please explain the difference in the following scriptures and make them harmonize: Matt. 6:25, 26; 1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Thess.. 3:8-12. Is Paul right or Matthew? And Luke 14:26, compare Gal. 5:22, bitter and sweet water cannot come out of the same fountain and Luke 6:27, 29.

Answer:

As to your questions, they are answered as follows:

The First three references which you listed, treat of three difference phases of human life and responsibilities. Matthew 6:25, 26 instructs that a man should not worry as to how he is to make a living, but should be as trusting in God as are the birds and the flowers. They make the best of whatever is provided them. 1 Timothy 5:8 teaches that a man should be industrious and a good provider – not wasteful. He should be studious and carry responsibilities. 2 Thessalonians 3:8-12 reproves a lazy man, who wastes his time and expects others to make a living for him.

Regarding Luke 14:26, Galatians 5:22, and Luke 6:27, 28, the very fact that the Bible teaches us to love one another and to do to others as we would have them do to us, shows that the Lord does not advocate that we should hate one another. Rather, He shows that we should prefer to serve Him even if some member of the family should object or attempt to interfere.

Question 203:

As regards to my paying 2nd tithe at this time I do not feel prompted to do so. I explained to you some time ago that I had tithed the full amount that I received for property I sold last year and had made a number of gifts where I felt charity was needed and that I might later on feel impressed to give a second tithe to Mt. Carmel.

Question 204:

We are studying over the tracts and sometimes are a little confused on some certain points. For instance in The Answerer, Book No. 5, p. 39, What About Communion Service. I cannot quite convince myself of dropping this ordinance completely from the Davidian ranks as the Rod commands. While I realize our condition as being lukewarm and also the solemn privilege of taking this Passover supper, yet in Desire of Ages, p. 656, 657, there are statements such as “God has not left it with men to say who shall present themselves on these occasions.” And again, “who can distinguish the tares from the wheat.” And, “There may be a Judas in the company, and if so,” and then it goes on to tell that both good and evil angels attend all such occasions, and then it states that none should exclude themselves from the communion service because some who are unworthy may be present. Every disciple is called upon to participate publicly and thus bear witness that he accepts Christ as a personal Savior. It also states at such meetings we are energized by his presence. And mentions that unworthy hands may even administer the ordinance, yet Christ is there to minister to His children. All who come with their faith fixed upon him will be greatly blessed, and “all who neglect these seasons of divine privilege will suffer loss.” “Of them it may appropriately be said, ye are not all clean.” And then states, how it keeps before us the infinite sacrifice made for us. The statement on page 659, “But the communion service was not to be a season of sorrowing. This was not its purpose as the Lord’s disciples gather about his table, they are not to remember and lament their shortcomings. They are not to dwell upon their past religious experience whether that experience has been elevating or depressing… They are not to stand in the shadow of the Cross but in its saving light.” And finally, “The Communion Service points to Christ’s Second Coming. It was designed to keep this hope vivid in the minds of the disciples. Whenever they met together to commemorate his death…” and so on, seems to all sum up into the fact that even though we are not a pure church as yet and there possibly are some who might take unworthily, yet it all seems to point to no definite time of departing from this ordinance in our midst. We realize that it is a solemn and serious thing to take this upon our shoulders and partake of this if this individual is not in accord with Christ, but it seems that this is our solemn responsibility to do so and continue to improve at each such occasion. We can do all things through Christ who strengthens us and this ordinance it seems to me would give us just the strength we need and keep fresh in our minds him of whom it was intended to commemorate and also help us to look forward to his soon coming.

Question 205:

In going through “A Reply to the Shepherd’s Rod,” I am a little puzzled and ask to hear your explanation of Testimonies to Ministers, p. 61, “God has a church upon the earth, who are His chosen people, who keep His commandments. He is leading, not stray offshoots, not one here and one there, but a people.”

Answer:

No, we do not believe either that the Lord is leading stray offshoots, one here and one there (many people proclaiming His messages), but a united group of people just as He has on down through the ages.

Question 206:

The Shepherd Rod places verses 3-5 of Rev. 8 with the seals, but I believe they should be with the trumpets.

Answer:

The context of Revelation 8 clearly shows that the second verse is parenthetical. Furthermore, the scene presented in verses 3-5 takes place in the sanctuary where the book of the seals etc. is, whereas the work of the seven angels with the seven trumpets is on earth.

Question No. 207:

If the seals and the trumpets run in a simple progression, each seal preceding its corresponding trumpet, thus bringing a sealing message and then a destruction, how do you account for there being only three seals but five trumpets before the cross, as shown on the illustration in The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, p. 204?

Answer:

The seeming discrepancy in the difference between the number of seals and the number of trumpets before the crucifixion is actually no discrepancy at all. Rather it is a deliberate and purposeful irregularity due to the fact that whereas the truths revealed through the first, second, fourth, sixth, and seventh trumpets are of temporal duration, the truths revealed through the third and fifth trumpets are of eternal duration: The star which fell at the sounding of the third trumpet is symbolical of the Bible, God in the Word; and the star which fell at the sounding of the fifth trumpet is symbolical of Christ, God in the flesh. In both instances the Fountain of Truth is represented, from which all Truth flows, even the truths of the rest of the trumpets, and the seals as well.

Thus this irregularity, a mark of Divine design rather than the result of human shortsightedness, shows that the Bible and the Lord, the written and the living Word, are the very source of every message, — the storehouse of the whole Truth, — and that therefore rather than being a part of another message, every other message is a part of It.

Question 208:

Germany has fallen, and if Japan likewise falls, then who is “he that dashesth in pieces”? And how then will “Assyria” fall?

Answer:

Tract No. 14 makes clear that the “worthies” of him “that dasheth in pieces,” were to “stumble in their walk,” and that they, too, “nevertheless will fall.” And although it plainly says that Assyria will fall, it does not say that “he that dasheth in pieces” will win.

Since Germany has fallen, the prophecy has been fulfilled as far as Nahum 2:5. The fall of Ninevah, therefore, must be effected by someone else after “his worthies” stumble in their walk,” as The Answerer, Book No. 5, pp. 21, 32, shows.

Assyria in the promised land, however, shall fall “not of mighty man; and the sword, not of a mean man,” “for through the voice of the Lord shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod.” Isa. 31:8; 30:31. This will happen as soon as the saints are ready to possess the land, “for in that day every man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which your own hands have made unto you for a sin.” Isa. 31:7. This is all we can see now; time and added truth will show the rest.

SECOND OR THIRD ANGEL’S MESSAGE

Question 209:

Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, p. 231, refers to the second angel’s message as the Third Angel’s Message, when it is plain that the quotation from Testimonies to Ministers, p. 59, is speaking of the second angel’s message.

Answer:

The Third Angel’s Message as used in The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, p. 231, refers to the three angel’s message as one. This term is often used in this way the the Spirit of Prophecy.

Question 210:

I am having a little difficulty in harmonizing T. G. Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 13 with S. R. Vol. 1, p. 23. The S. R. gives the resurrection as under the 7th plague then far beyond probation, while T. G. has it while probation still lingers.

Answer:

As to the difference you mention concerning the time of the special resurrection of Daniel 12, as mentioned in Volume 1 of the Shepherd’s Rod and then as set forth in Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 13, the answer is thus: At the time Vol. 1 was written, we did not know any more on the subject than what the Denomination had taught us. Necessarily, therefore, the book could merely echo the voice of the Denomination. We must hold to the denominational teachings, unless Inspiration reveals them to be wrong. The theory on the subject did not originate with the Shepherd’s Rod, whereas the theory found in Timely Greetings did. Truth, you know, progresses from the known to the unknown. Timely Greetings presents the subject in the light of present Truth.

Question 211:

On application for Certificate of Fellowship, writer stated that he did not remember having made any baptism vows.

Answer:

In giving consideration to your application for the Certificate of Fellowship, we notice that you say you do not remember having made any baptismal vows and that you were later disfellowshipped because of using tobacco. In view of this, we are wondering if you believe that rebaptism is required in your case: Was your baptism a door into the “faith” or merely a door into the “church”? or a door into something else?

One’s vows in baptism are that he believes the truth, repents of all his sins, and that then, without reservation, parts from them. This is what baptism stands for – remission of sin (Acts 2:38). If you have ever understandingly turned away from these, denied the truth, and gone back to your former ways, then you have broken your baptismal vows.

GOD’S ABILITY TO PRESERVE THE TRUTH

Question 212:

Just because there is a great amount of truth contained in The Shepherd’s Rod literature, which constrains me to believe that the message fundamentally is from God, and that He is leading you, do you believe it follows that I am bound to swallow as divinely revealed truth all you dish out in your publications?

Answer:

If we are ever humble and sensible to keep in mind the fact that “We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn” – just because we call ourselves Seventh-day Adventists, is no sign that we know it all, or that we have ever accepted as truth only what God’s Spirit through His prophets has revealed. It is no secret that Adventists have been prying the closed door of things divinely sealed, and have mistakenly thought of having brought out truth. I am sure though that God’s closed door cannot be pried out by any of us. His timely truth, therefore, cannot be stolen, and cannot be dished out by any. Since only God can open the door, and since only He can, there is no fear of Him opening the door too late, or too early, or of choosing someone, and then letting him contaminate His revealed truth with Satan’s error. As God has never failed, it is certain that He never will. The next greatest lesson for us to learn is that, as Inspiration says, “Seventh-day Adventists are in danger of closing their eyes to truth as it is in Jesus, because it contradictions something which they have taken for granted as truth, but which the Holy Spirit teaches is not truth: . . . we cannot hold that a position once taken, an idea once advocated, is not, under any circumstances to be relinquished.” Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 30, 70, 105. If we let the Spirit of Truth lead us into all truth, then only we shall “hear” and know nothing but the whole truth.

Coming now specifically to the proposition in the question, – that on the one hand God is revealing a message of truth through the instrument of the Rod, but that on the other hand He is not authorizing all the contents of its publications, “let us reason together” about it. How could God be God, and permit Himself to send to a perishing people a saving message, and at the same time allow the Enemy to corrupt it with interminglings of error? That would make God either a defeatist or an evil conspirator against Himself as well as against us – a concept that is sheer blasphemy. According to the Scriptures it is utterly impossible that God should give us a message, then let Satan mix up its saving truth with his destroying error. What kind of a God would He be? It is ever to be kept fixed in mind that God does nothing in partnership with Satan. As He has been able to speak the truth and nothing but the truth through His prophets in the past, then it is certain that He is just as much able to do so now. Let us not deceive ourselves by supposing that either He has lost His power or that man has become too wise for Him.

The Scriptures teach that a Truth-bearing instrument cannot bear both truth and error. No, no more than a well can possibly give forth two kinds of water, or a tree bear two kinds of truth. What the Rod receives through Inspiration Itself, in contradistinction to the conventional Seventh-day Adventist denominational theories to which it holds in the absence of any revealed truth on the subject, must necessarily be either all truth or all either, either all to be accepted, or all to be rejected: God is either leading us straight or not leading us at all. And He is the same all-powerful, consistent God today, yesterday, (during the years of the Bible prophets), and forever.

THE INFALLIBLE CONSISTENCY OF INSPIRATION

Question 213:

Since The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 1, p. 48, places the resurrection of Daniel 12:2 after the close of probation, while the Timely Greetings, Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 14, places it before the close of probation, how can I know what is inspired and what is not inspired? Certainly they cannot both be inspired.

Answer:

It is a trusim that Inspiration is always infallibly consistent with Itself. Therefore, should there obtain in inspired writings a seeming discrepancy of any kind, it should never be hastily concluded as something erroneous, but should be put to Inspiration’s representative for clarification. A case in point is to be found in Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s records of the number of captives returned from Babylon to Jerusalem, as seen from the two comparison as follows:

The Children Of

Ezra 2

 

    Nehemiah 7

…
Parosh
Shephatiah
Arah
Pahath-moab (Jeshua & Joab)
Elam
Zattu
Zaccai
Bani (Binnui)
Bebai
Azgad
Adonikam
Bigvai
Adin
Ater
Bezai
Jorah (Hariph)
Hashum
Gibbar (Gibeon)
Bethlehem
Netophah
Anathoth
Azmaveth
Kirjath-arim, Cephirah, Beeroth
Ramah & Geba
Michmas
Bethel & Ai
Nebo
Magbish
The other Elam
Harim
Lod, Hadid, & Ono
Jericho
Senaah
Jedaiah, house of Jeshua
Immer
Pashur
Harim
Levites: of Jeshua, Kadmeil & Hodaviah
Singers: of Asaph
Porters
Nethinims
Delaiah, Tobiah & Nekoda
Servants
Singers
Totals

Number:
2,172
372
775
2,812
1,254
945
760
642
623
1,222
666
2,056
454
98
323
112
223
95
123
56
128
42
743
621
122
223
52
156
1,254
320
725
345
3,630
973
1,052
1,247
1,017
74
128
139
392
652
7,337
200
29,818

Verse:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
58
60
65
65

Number:
2172
372
652
2,818
1,254
845
760
648
628
2,322
677
2,067
655
98
324
112
328
95
188
77
128
42
743
621
122
1213
52
77
1,254
320
721
345
3,930
973
1,052
1,247
1,017
74
148
138
392
642
7,337
245
31,089

Verse:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
22
25
26
77
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
77
34
35
37
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
60
62
67
67

Though the two records are discrepant, are we to conclude that one of them tells the truth while the other tells a lie? Or shall we conclude that we are unable to comprehend what makes the numbers differ? The wisest thing to say is that since Inspiration indited both accounts, and since Inspiration is always consistent with Itself, both accounts are therefore necessarily correct, and if we read and understand them correctly we shall find them correct. The appearance of discrepancy is the product of an incorrect view; a correct view turns that discrepancy into harmony.

To be kept in mind is the fact that Nehemiah himself did not count the people; Ezra did it; that both accounts are Ezra’s and not at all Nehemiah’s; that Ezra’s record is the original, and Nehemiah’s but a restatement of it, for he declares: “And I found a register of the genealogy of them which came up at the first, and found written therein. These are the children of the province, that went up out of the captivity, of those that had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away, and came again to Jerusalem and to Judah, every one unto his city; Who came with Zerubbabel.” Neh. 7:5-7.

In bearing this plain record that he found the number in a register, he thus bears evidence that he himself did not number the people. To put this contention beyond question, established in fact, one need only to read Ezra’s own record:

“Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city.” Ezra 2:1

Here it is seen that Nehemiah’s record restates Ezra’s record word for word, thereby giving reasonable evidence that Nehemiah is quoting Ezra, and that the register from which Nehemiah quoted and which contained the number of captives returned from Babylon, was not of his own reckoning, but of Ezra’s. Hence the discrepancy between the two accounts raises the question as to why Nehemiah’s does not correlate with Ezra’s.

The only logical answer is that Ezra 2:1 is the original record, giving the number to leave Babylon on the pioneer expedition to restore and rebuild Jerusalem; whereas the register contains a later record, giving the number of the number of the same expedition, but revised upward, showing the number who either passed away or fell away before the job was finished, and the number who either were born or who came in and took hold during the years following the arrival of the first contingent of repatriates from exile in Babylon. Very obviously the one records the number of the personnel of the pioneer expedition from the start and the other records the number of the personnel at the finish.

How very simple! How true that the eye which searches for truth finds Truth, and that the eye which searches for doubts, finds them and hangs oneself on them. And this is why the Master asked, “How readest thou?”

The same principle must be regarded in reading the writings of the four gospel writers, for in their recording the sermons of Jesus, they did not use the same words, and did not write out his discourses in exactly the same order. One, using one set of words, expresses one facet of the Truth, and another using another set of words, expresses another facet or often the same facet of the Truth.

The only inspired revelations which the prophets did not restate in their own words are those which the Heavenly Beings audibly spoke to them, and which they recorded word for word. The same is true with Sister White’s writings, with these, and with all other inspired writings.

Finally, the author is responsible only for what he himself originates, not for what he incorporates from the writings of other authors.

Coming now to the direct consideration of the question, the statements in The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 1, p. 48 and The Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 2, p. 146, concerning the time of the special resurrection, did not, of course, originate with the Rod, but with the Denomination. The Rod merely echoed the belief in its early publications, and only because in its early publications, and only because it was the universally accepted position of the Denomination, and because at that time Inspiration had not yet shed It’s light on the subject, revealing the Denominational interpretation incorrect. As since then, however, the further unfolding of the scroll reveals the Denomination’s traditional position to be untenable, the tradition must give way to the truth rather than the truth to tradition. And herein is the harmony of The Shepherd’s Rod and The Timely Greetings on the special resurrection.

This case again proves that truth is never found by men, but is revealed by Inspiration. Thus in abandoning the Denominational position for revealed truth, the Rod is no wise reversing itself, for formerly the only position it could occupy on the subject was the Denomination’s. Now the Revelation has shown that to be wrong, we are urging the Denomination to follow our example, and correct itself too.

THE 144,000

Question 214:

I am inclosing a tract that deals with the 144,000. Would you give me your opinion on the quotations from Early Writings relating to it? According to this it would appear that it was only the 144,000 who remain alive at this time. I have read page 45 of The Shepherd’s Rod and I think you are right but would appreciate it if you could elucidate it somewhat, and also give me your opinion of some of the other statements in the tract particularly Elder Irwin’s request to Sister White and her statements in reply that the dead will be included in the 144,000.

Answer:

Regarding the subject of the 144,000, as contained in the little tract which you sent to us, we perceive that those references taken from Sister White’s writings are misconstrued. The word, “with,” does not mean “of”; that is, one “with” them cannot mean one “of them.” The difference being that she can be with them, but not one of that number. Furthermore, Sister White refers to the 144,000 as living, not resurrected saints.

The statement, “only the 144,000 enter” in the temple, and Sister White’s being inside of it, cannot be taken as actual as the tract puts it, for one must take into account that she was in vision. Neither she nor the 144,000 were bodily there; that is, she had to visionarily get into the temple in order to describe what was inside it.

Pay no attention to anything that Sister White is supposed to have said. If she had said it, and if it was Heaven’s Truth of any importance, she would have written it.

CONFLICTING REVELATION 18 STATEMENTS?

Question (No Number):¹³Since the last numbered question we have for The Answerer, Book 6 is “Question 214,” and since the first one we have for The Answerer, Book 7 is “Question 216,” it is evident that we are missing a question and answer. This question and the next one, though both incomplete, are candidates for the missing “Question 215.” Thus, we include them both here for your consideration.

“This message (Rev. 18:1) is the last that will ever be given to the world; and it will accomplish its work.” – The Great Controversy, p. 390

“Then I saw another mighty angel commissioned to descend to the earth, to unite his voice with the third angel, and give power and force to his message. This message seemed to be an addition to the third message joining it as the midnight cry joined the second angel’s message in 1844.” – Early Writings, p. 277

Certainly here seems to be irreconcilable conflict between the two statements, though it is hardly possible even for an author of secular work to contradict himself.

Answer:

It is to be readily admitted that the statements in question, taken just as they stand, are illusion of conflict. The fact in the case can be quickly seen from the pen of the same author:

The two quotations in question do not show conflict between themselves, but rather that the Third Angel’s message is in two parts: the preaching of it concerning the judgment of the dead which is before the event of Revelation 18:1, the Loud Cry, takes place, and the preaching of it concerning the judgment of the living during the time of the “Loud Cry.” This is seen from the fact that the second part of the judgment message is an addition, and that it gives power and force to the first part of the same message, – that neither the one part nor the other part are complete messages in themselves.

URIAH SMITH’S DANIEL AND REVELATION – INSPIRATION?

Question (No Number):¹⁴Since the last numbered question we have for The Answerer, Book 6 is “Question 214,” and since the first one we have for The Answerer, Book 7 is “Question 216,” it is evident that we are missing a question and answer. This question and the previous one, though both incomplete, are candidates for the missing “Question 215.” Thus, we include them both here for your consideration.

How should we settle the question of the book Daniel and the Revelation?

Answer:

Thank you for the interesting compilation of statements regarding the book Daniel and the Revelation.

Now, let us assume that it is urged that this book be widely circulated because it contains truth. Of course no one denies the fact that it does contain truth, and therefore for the Truth’s sake it should be circulated. But the fact that the Denomination itself admits that they themselves made a number of corrections, and the fact that Sister White admits that there are some corrections, which should be made by God-inspired men, as well as the fact that she plainly says that the men who have written such books are not inspired of God to such an extent that they are infallible, – all these facts, if nothing else, should clear the foolish quarel over the book, “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation.”

It is clear to see that Elder Smith’s book is a compilation of thoughts and ideas which others more than himself have originated. Those comments which he has taken from inspired writers are truth, of course, but the thoughts which he has taken from uninspired writers are not truths beyond question. In fact, by naming his book Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, Elder Smith himself admits that his book is a compilation of “thoughts” and that he does not hold the book to be inspired and unquestionable. Moreover, if he had been inspired by the Spirit of Truth as were the prophets, do you not believe that he himself would have known it more than anyone else?

Yes, the book was good for its time – for the time before the scroll further unrolls. But when the scroll unrolls, then the things which are thereby revealed and about which men have passed their own opinions and formed theories and ideas, must not be shunned and covered up. On the contrary, the revealed truths must supersede the wisdom of men, and the Truths be made to shine in their true brightness, for they are our salvation, our very life. And those who would rather hold to a theory of their own or another’s than to God’s saving Truth, to meat in due season, will have to reap the reward of the sin against the Holy Ghost.

Let me use an example to illustrate the truth of what I have said: Prior to the year 1844 it was thought that the cleansing of the sanctuary was the cleansing of the earth, the second coming of Christ. Inspiration had revealed the truth of the 2300 days but not the truth on the sanctuary. And man being confronted with the subject of the sanctuary (for that is what was to be cleansed in the end of the 2300 days), the best human wisdom could do was to make the erroneous conclusion it did. This only goes to show that Truth is not found or studied out, but that it is Divinely revealed.

Finally, if man could not figure out that “sanctuary” cannot be “earth” then how can man be expected to figure out such subjects as the Seven Seals and the Seven Trumpets? No, these subjects cannot be understood except through Divine revelation.

It is my prayer, Brother _____, that after re-considering these points, you will view the subject under consideration from Inspiration’s standpoint, and that you will allow the Spirit which leads into all Truth guide your study of the Written Word.

I shall be glad to hear from you at anytime, and you may be assured of my consideration of any question you may have regarding the message contained in The Shepherd’s Rod publications.