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
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
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
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
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
vii) “Remove the diadem, take off [or absorb?] the crown” (Eze
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 1st to 3rd centuries,
exploded in the 4th, and matured in the 5th, a
century before abomination. set up of 508 AD
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.
Context is decisive. Note the
parallels: “The truth was cast [shalak]
parallels “the place of His sanctuary was cast [shalak]
(Thus the truth
about “the place of His sanctuary was cast [shalak]
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
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
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]
b. Ha tamid, substantive on Cyrus
cylinder, clearly refers to Paganism; Jews coined it as
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
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
4. Context, language, & history all
preclude Miqdash as Satan's sanctuary
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”
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.
ii) Only the
paganism theory–not Hebrew language requires two
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
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
the sanctuary [qodesh] and the host [true
believers] to be trodden underfoot"?
"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
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
sanctuary of strength, and shall
away the daily
[continual ministry], and they
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.
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.
of the end" & "appointed time” identify
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
(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].”
(11:31) refers to
"removal" of Pagan military force that opposed setting up of the
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
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”
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."
Paganism arguments collide with: a) each other; b) history
and; c) Ellen
White! Instead of establishing 508 as removal of pagan tamid,
the 1290 years (12:11) began as Pagan Rome
set up the Papal "abomination that makes desolate"!
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)
most overwhelming evidence: the next use of miqdas is
(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
(9:23-27) which relates to “the time of the end”
(8:17, 19, 26).
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!
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
8:26 & 12:4; Rev. 10; cf #7 Note), when the
Sabbath too was restored.