Home Random Page


CATEGORIES:

BiologyChemistryConstructionCultureEcologyEconomyElectronicsFinanceGeographyHistoryInformaticsLawMathematicsMechanicsMedicineOtherPedagogyPhilosophyPhysicsPolicyPsychologySociologySportTourism






The Eastern Question Revisited (draft).

by Oleg A. Zhigankov, PhD

The unresolved by the Adventist pioneers dispute over the Eastern Question is one of the pending historical-theological issues in the Seventh-day Adventist theology. This article attempts to analyze both sides of the dispute and to extract lessons both from the findings and from the slip-ups of the pioneers. Those findings will be applied toward finding a key to resolution of the age-long argument.

 

Historical Background of the Eastern Question

At the heart of the Eastern Question is the interpretation of the Rev 16:12 and Dan 11:45, particularly a historic identity of the King of the North on which the pioneers could not have agreed. Who of the pioneers was right? Why did the discussion come to a dead end? Finally, should we leave it just where our pioneers have left it, or should we continue seeking for a more balanced theological and historical view on the eschatological part of Dan 11? This article attempts answering these and some other question as it focuses on the Eastern Question from biblical, historical, and theological perspectives.

The early stage of the discussion started within the Millerite movement, but contributed little into a mature discussion among Sabbatarian Adventists. For those unfamiliar with the early Adventist discussions on the Eastern question a brief historical introduction on the development of this teaching seem to be appropriate.

Seventh-day Adventists originated from the Millerite movement of the 1830's and early 1840's. Millerism was an all-American phenomenon, and drew supporters mostly from among American Protestant denominations. As a movement heralding the soon Second Advent it had been naturally interested in seeing biblical prophecies being fulfilled in history.

The great majority of Protestant expositors held that Rev 16:12 reference to the Euphrates River should be interpreted as representing Tur­key or Mohammedanism. William Mil­ler, the founder of the movement called after his name, seemed to be in harmony with this prevailing view. Yet, he never connected the prophecy of Rev 16:12 to that of Daniel 11:45. He understood the Euphrates River as Mohammedanism, and the King of the North to be the Papacy.

Josiah Litch' perspective was also blurred:

"Under the sixth plague the Euphrates would be literally dried up to prepare the way for the kings of the Eastern world (the kings of the East). Following this the dev­il's armies (the kings of the earth and of the whole world) would be gathered in Jerusalem and Palestine by the three un­clean spirits—proceeding from Mohammed­anism (the dragon), popery (the beast), and infidelity (the false prophet)—for the purpose of battling against the King of kings and Lord of lords. At this point Christ would come with all His saints to drive out the wicked from Jerusalem."[1]

Litch considered the kings of the East as the oppressive, evil power, and this vision (later rejected by the Seventh-day Adventist interpreters as erroneous one) deterred him from careful consideration of the other parties involved in the eschatological conflict.



 

Smith vs. White

In 1860-s the chief interpreter of Daniel and Revelation among the Seventh-day Adventists becomes Uriah Smith. At that time Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald had regularly published his series of articles on Daniel and Revelation in relation to the contemporary political and military events. In matters of identity of the king of the North his early writings reveal un­certainty as to whether this power is the Papacy, or Tur­key, but gradually he started putting more and more emphasis on Mohammedanism.

Another influential interpreter of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation was James White, tended to believe, that the king of the North remains same as during the previous period - namely, papacy. Thus, the stage has been set for a conflict.

As Smith approaches Dan 11 literally, already early in the chapter he establishes that the kings of the North and South are Syria and Egypt respectively. He recognizes, however, that along the chapter the identity of the king of the North changes to Rome (v. 25), while the identity of Egypt doesn't change.[2]

With the progress of the chapter, Smith rightfully shifts the identity of king of the North from the Roman Empire to Papal Rome (around the year 476 A.D.). Somehow, Smith's identity of the king of the South remains blurred during the reign of Papal Rome. Later yet, starting with v. 35, Smith talks of the king of the North as Turkey, and for the king of the South he's resurrecting Egypt.

Uriah Smith's interpretation gained prominence when war broke out between Turkey and Russia in 1877. While Egypt was far from the epicenter of this war, Uriah Smith brought it to the arena as an alleged king of the South.

White, who also was a historicist, said that Smith's “positions taken on the Eastern Question are based upon prophecies which have not yet [had] their fulfillment.”And then, “here we should tread lightly, and take positions carefully, lest we be found removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement.[3]

The following year James White responded even strongly with an editorial in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, where he asserted that the last power of Dan­iel 11 must be pagan-papal Rome, not Turkey:[4]

"If the feet and the toes of the metallic image are Roman, if the beast with ten horns that was given to the burning flames of the great day be the Roman beast, and the little horn which stood up against the Prince of princes be Rome, and if the same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the last power of the eleventh chapter, which is to 'come to his end and none shall help him,' is Rome. But if this be Turkey, as some teach, then the toes of the image of the second chapter are Turkish, the beast with ten horns of the seventh chapter represents Turkey, and it was Turkey that stood up against the Prince of princes of the eight chapter of Daniel."[5]

However, his arguments did not convince Uriah Smith. While Smith believed, that papacy played a crucial role in the previous section of Dan 11, he believes that with verse 40, with the beginning of the time of the end, there is a certain shift in the identity of the king of the North. This shift in his view has some good reasons.

First, it upholds more literal and historicism perspective on the passage, as the passage clearly talks of the literal, not spiritual, warfare. The explicit political and military language of Daniel 11 suggested to Uriah Smith and his followers that at the core of the conflict lays something more than just a religious controversy.

Second, and most importantly, Smith reminds his opponents that they should be aware of the exhaustion of the papal power towards the end of 1260 year period.

James White, however, remained unconvinced. He sees Smith's interpretation of the powers involved in the designated conflict as ambiguous. However, contrary to his often confrontational style, James White did not campaign against Uriah Smith's view. Why? D. E. Mansell gives us some details on it:

"The first part of White's rebuttal ap­peared in the Review and Herald of Oc­tober 3, 1878, and was to have been con­tinued, but it stopped right there. Why? William C. White, son of James and Ellen White, relates that a day or two after the meeting at which Smith and White spoke, Ellen White was given a vision showing that her husband erred in publicly disa­greeing with Smith. After coming out of vision, she related to her husband what she had been shown.[6] James White accepted the rebuke and discontinued his series of articles. In rebuking her husband, Mrs. White did not attempt to resolve the ques­tion of the identity of the king of the north. Indeed, the question is not settled in any way in her writings."[7]

This silence on behalf of both Ellen and James White[8] encouraged some Adventist interpreters to join hands with Uriah Smith. With a publication of his book "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation" also called “Daniel and the Revelation[9], the matter seemed to be solved. Armageddon would start with a defeat of Turkey in the Russo-Turkish War.

However to many interpreters disappointment, Russian efforts to win over Turkey proved to be fruitless, as England, France, and most of the Europe suddenly took sides with Turkey. While Daniel 11:45 with a reference to the King of the North claims that "none shall help him," the apparent historical reality demanded some different approach. James White's initial concern with the common assertion that Prince Michael will stand up on behalf of His people at the time of the defeat of the Turkey (the perceived King of the North) had now been revived.

 

Smith's Followers

The disciples of Uriah Smith have speedily come up with an explanation of this unexpected turn of events. Percy Tilson Magan, one of the pioneers in the field of Adventist Christian education, seemed to be in a full agreement with Uriah Smith as he wrote: "The mighty Word of God had said that the passing of Turkey would mark the advent of a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time."[10] In his article in Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald he explains that the fact that Turkey didn't yet come to its end is to be explained by the fact that unparallel event took place in European history as all the European countries united to fight against Russia. P. T. Magan gets very excited as he quotes numerous political sources, mostly of British origin, on the strategic goal of the European countries to debase Russia. He nearly applauds the effort of the Great Britain and France to restrict and to humiliate Russia, as it would signify the God's granted delay of the prophetic fulfillment:

"An unseen hand was against Russia, and all her efforts were futile. The mighty Word of God had said that the passing of Turkey would mark the advent of a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time. Dan. 2:45; 12:1. Providence decreed that that time was not yet to be."[11]

He concludes his article with the following words: "As previously stated, the Scriptures have foretold that Turkey shall come to his end, and none shall help him. And this very word of Sacred Writ clearly indicates that the only thing which will have prevented his coming to his end long before he does, is because some one does help him. There is not, of all prophecy, a more remarkable fulfillment than this."[12]

This explanation seemed to be sufficient for certain time, as Turkey still preserved some of its power after the war with Russia. The First World War fueled the Eastern question once again bringing Turkey out of nearly obscurity that surrounded it in the previous five years. While the War was primarily fought in Europe, between Russia and Germany, some Adventist interpreters, following the tradition of Uriah Smith, continued seeing Turkey at the heart of the conflict.

Arthur G. Daniels, the longest serving president of the General Conference, did not hesitate to come up with the main editorial article in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald entitled: The Eastern Questions: Its Relation to the Great War, and Its Meaning in the Light of Prophecy.[13] The title already reflects an attempt on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to come up with a prophetic estimation of the current political events. In fact, the entire issue of October 1916 Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald is dedicated to the Eastern Question. It's been just over one year since Ellen G. White had passed, but it was neither the first, nor the last time when the Eastern question would come into the focus of the Adventist Church.

A. G. Daniels undertakes a painstaking effort to give a political analysis of the powers involved in the World War I in order to support the claims of Smith and to demonstrate the prominence of Istanbul in the bloody European conflict. However, his efforts have fallen short of its goal, as at that time Turkey's role in the World War I became rather obscure. Few years later its former prominence faded without any serious political or military shaking.

 

Contemporary Adventist Approach

Today some historic Adventist still look up at the country of Egypt, known mostly for its mysterious pyramids and affordable resorts, as a mysterious King of the North capable of waging massive wars against many nations, persecute all over the world the saints of God, and whose downfall would signify the end of the world. Overall, however, the Turkish obscurity resulted in a gradual replacement of the identity of Uriah Smith's understanding of the King of the North with the that of William Miller and James White. The historic-prophetic pendulum seem to returned to its initial position. Let us briefly look at what some of the contemporary Adventist interpreters have to say on the closing part of Daniel 11 before continuing drawing some lessons from the pioneers. In other words, let us first consider what other Adventist theologians learned, and what they teach.

Commenting on 11:40-45, William H. Shea sees the time of the end king of the south as, “modeled upon the Anti-Yahwistic attitudes of ancient Egypt, fits well with the modern movement of rationalistic humanism that leads to atheism or agnosticism.”[14] The powers presented in the passage, according to Shea, are no longer engaged into a literal warfare. He further identifies the king of the north with papacy, and sees it as fighting with the powers of atheistic communism.

One can see that Shea learns a valuable lesson from the pioneers as he looks for more prominent candidate for the king of the South than degraded Egypt. Generally, he follows James White approach, where the key players gain the proportions of the Great Controversy players, such as papacy and atheism. However, he does it at expense of Uriah Smith's geopolitical and more literal interpretation. Atheistic powers, centered in France and later on in the former USSR could not have been geographically considered as the Southern neighbors of Jerusalem. Jerusalem also seem to lose its role of a central geographical point of the prophecy, as believed by Uriah Smith and most of the pioneers.

As Dr. Shea was writing of the atheistic powers, alluding to the Soviet Union, his interpretation seemed to be viable one. Today, however, the atheistic powers in the world faded and nearly disappeared. I applaud William H. Shea consideration for the watchfulness for the signs of the times as he turned to the Soviet Union - a tangible political player, but I dare to suggest that a simple application of the geopolitical principle could have been helpful to him in his otherwise correct estimation of prophetic powers. The typologically superior period does not necessarily excludes literal geopolitical principle. Rather, it considers it and moves in harmony with it. In the same way our High Priest moves in the Holy Sanctuary, progressively forward, always in one geographical direction, from East to West. Even at His Second Coming Jesus is moving from the East. God is consistent with the geographical directions, and we all might learn it from Him.

Roy Allan Anderson seems to be in agreement with Shea regarding the identities of the eschatological kings. Considering verses 36-45 as the end time conflict he sees papacy in conflict with “worldwide atheistic socialism” that originated in France.[15]

Unlike previously mentioned theologians, Jacques B. Doukhan avoids using direct references to papacy. It might be due to his honoring an admonition of Ellen G. White not to consider papacy as the king of the North, or his ageographical and more spiritualized view on the conflict. To him the eschatological passage of Dan 11:40-45 depicts the spiritual battle between Babylon, which is some institution of “a religious nature usurping God’s power,”[16] and Egypt, which is “of secular and political essence.”[17] Doukhan catches sight of valid connection between Revelation 16 and Dan 11: “Revelation 16 attributes to Isaiah 14 constitute another connection with Daniel 11, which also has the latter in its background.”[18] Generally, Doukhan admits that Daniel 11 is not easy to interpret and thus difficult to find its “historical counterpart.”[19] Consequently, he exhorts the reader to wait patiently for the last semblance which concerns the time of the end and its consummation.[20] Follow Doukhan's advice as we move on with our research among other things, we will look for that last semblance.

Zdravko Stefanovic also identifies the king of the North with some apostate religion.[21] Regarding the intermediate period he alludes to the work of Shea who speaks of the Crusades initiated by papacy. Yet, Stefanovic never delineates the position neither on the king of the North, nor on the king of the South. He points out to a danger of the literalistic application of the passage, which is “not limited to the time prior to the first coming of Christ.”[22] In other words, since the described event took place after the death of the Apostles, there is no way of a sure historical understanding of this text. In our article, however, we entertain, more optimistic outlook at the comprehensibility of the prophecy.

As if to emphasize the apparent incompatibility of literal-geographical and spiritual approaches and to broaden the gap between the perspective on the early Adventist historicists, Timothy J. Hayden insists that “to interpret Daniel 11:40-45 spiritually and Daniel 11:23-30 geographically is inconsistent”.[23] The spiritual interpretation considers “the king of the south” in commendation to “spiritual Egypt,” consequently, “the king of the south has nothing to do with geography after Daniel 11:22.”[24]

One might only wonder what makes Hayden so sure of his view. After all, the Muslim world has always remained largely to the south of Jerusalem. According to Hayden, however, “it is also not possible for Daniel 11:23-31a to identify both geopolitical and global spiritual conflicts at the same time.”[25] Subsequently, the spiritual and geopolitical approaches seem to be at variance and at war with each other. He arrives to conclusion that the conflict between the kings could be geopolitical or spiritual, not both. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this radical 'principle', the tendency is very clear: the gap between the two pioneers approaches had only widened with time.

Reflecting on this brief overview of the recent tendencies in Adventist approach to Dan 11:40-45, one might observe that the position of the contemporary interpreters is more general, than that of our pioneers. It is partly due to the disappointment with the Uriah Smith's take on Turkey.

On the other hand, one could also observe that recent interpretation is based on the principles rather distinct from those used by Uriah Smith and even James White. The clear shift took place toward and far beyond James White.

We dare to question the artificial alienation of two of the pioneers' approaches. We are reminded by Ellen G. White, that Uriah Smith's approach (not necessarily all of his conclusion) is a valid one. It should encourage us to look for a more balanced approach to the resolution of the problem. The two of our pioneers have nearly met on a common prophetic ground and shook each other hands. Would it be, in principle, possible? I believe it would. To demonstrate it I would like to extract some valuable lessons from our pioneers discussion.

 

 

Lessons from Pioneers

There are some lessons that could be learned from the experience of our pioneers. As we consider those, we will get a more balanced view, which hopefully will help us to arrive to a more accurate understanding of the eschatological scene of Dan 11 - the one that would be in principle hermeneutically acceptable by both Uriah Smith and James White.

The recent tendency in Adventist scholarship, as we have seen, had been to distance prophetic interpretation from tangible historical events. I believe that while we should not necessarily agree with our pioneers on all their conclusions, we'll certainly benefit as we consider both sides of the prophecy: the hermeneutical and the historical ones. Though the early Adventists would mostly dwell on the historical side, the modern Adventist scholarship dwells on its hermeneutical side. While not undermining and questioning the hermeneutical emphasis (in fact, it was largely due to the lack of this emphasis, that our pioneers failed to find unity), and without making an appeal to the "traditional Adventism', I would like to embark on the search for the balance.

 

Consistent Historicism

First positive lesson that I learn as I contemplate on the early Adventist debates on Dan 11, is that our pioneers, being consistent historicists, considered current political events from the prophetic perspective. Even James White, who seems to be more cautious than others in associating kings with contemporary Egypt and Turkey, wrote numerous articles reflecting on his acute interest in current geopolitics. For him, as well as other Adventist pioneers, the Great Controversy was more than vague and uncertain scholarly perspective on the spiritual war between God and Satan, but rather a tangible struggle with the real earthly nations involved.

While we should certainly learn from the mistakes of our pioneers and to be more meticulous in our Bible study, the pioneers' boldness and uncompromising determination are called to teach the Seventh-day Adventist Church today some valuable lessons.

 

Geopolitical Approach

Adventist pioneers generally agreed on the geographical principle in relation to Jerusalem - at least at the verses previous to v. 40.[26] This principle has two important and unavoidable implications: first, according to this principle, the geography of the kings can be discerned by their geographic relation toward Jerusalem, and second, that the conflict would take place in the literal Middle East.

In recent years Tim Roosenberg accentuated the importance of what he calls “geopolitical” concept of Daniel, which he defines as “international relations, the influenced by geography.”[27] He emphasizes that the geography of the Middle East is important, as it allows us to see that the kings of the north and south are “geopolitical powers” that attacked Israel from the north and south respectively.

Even among those who don't accept this principle there are still attempts to bind the powers presumably involved in a conflict to Egypt. However, the thesis of Egypt being presumably a symbol of atheism may not enjoy as much biblical support as it often claims.

While I don't insist on the exclusiveness of the geopolitical approach, I don't discount it either. I suggest not going as far as Hayden did, who suggested that "kings could be geopolitical or spiritual, not both." We will put his opinion, as well as the opinions of our pioneers, to the further test.

 

Where did our Pioneers Ignored Warning Signs

A number of alarm lights rose on the way of the pioneers as pressed on toward their understanding of the eschatological scene of Dan 11.

 

Two Poles of Historicism

The difference between the two interpreters was above all in their hermeneutical emphasis (not principles), in understanding of the use of language by Daniel. Uriah Smith approached Daniel 11 as written in a rather clear, literal language and “clothed not in figures and symbols, as in vision of Daniel 2, 7, and 8.”[28] Thus, to him Dan 11:40-45 should have been dealing with some current political and military conflict in the Middle East.

Yet, Uriah Smith and his followers failed to clarify: what is a relevance of the current political events under consideration to the Great Controversy that intensifies and reaches its highest point at the last days? While talking of the centrality of the Three Angels Message, the Adventist pioneers following Uriah Smith, seemed to forgot, that at least one of the involved powers should have somehow be related to Babylon.

On the other hand James White saw Daniel 11 as a chapter "where the symbols are thrown off."[29] Been historicist as well, James White insisted on a larger scale of a prophetic fulfillment than what Uriah Smith proposed. He had not forgotten that Babylon and Christ should be in a picture. However, in his attempt to save a Great Controversy focus James White indirectly downplayed the importance of the literal political and military dimensions of the conflict.

Hans K. LaRondelle rightly notices: "As long as the historicist approach adheres to the covenant history that is centred in the messianic people of God, its progressive applications to church history will retain their Christ-centered nature and theological validity."[30] The pioneers have divorced historicist approach from Christ-centered message of Daniel. It resulted in a theological confusion.

 

Absence of the Beast

Another important signal that the Adventist pioneers should have not dismissed was the absence in their eschatological picture of Daniel one of the main figures of the eschatological ending of Revelation - the beast from the dry land. While asserting that Revelation was a key to the book of Daniel, the pioneers generally failed to apply this principle to unlock Daniel's eschatological narrative and to identify the kings.

Josiah Litch at his early attempt to decipher this prophecy came close to associate the kings with the prominent players previously mentioned in Revelation as: "proceeding from Mohammed­anism (the dragon), popery (the beast), and infidelity (the false prophet)."[31] However, he failed to understand, that while the beast is bound to the popery, it has its distinctive identity.

James White at some time also supported a similar view, however he also failed to see the activity of the second and the last beast in the battle of the kings. To him the king of the North was papacy in its pure form - or the first ten horned beast. It is not altogether clear why he excluded the second beast from the apocalyptic scene. Ignoring the second beast might have been a key cause of the failure of the creative dialog between the two interpreters, as they both excluded this essential eschatological player from their view. We will return to this question later as we discuss the reasons for such an omission, as well as the implications of it.

 

Absence of the Kings from the East

Another possible mistake of the pioneers was disregarding the role of the Kings of the East: for some reason it had not been seriously considered by the interpreters whose focus was on the identities of the king of the North, and to a lesser degree the king of the South. While both Daniel and Revelation refers to the East (the rumors from the East and the kings from the East), and while the relation between the two passages have been long established, the pioneers largely overlooked the valuable hint that the Bible was giving them. This matter will also be further considered.

 

Weakness of Egypt

Another alarm light should have come from a suspiciously weak and insignificant appearance of the proposed king of the South. In their attempt to consistently follow the geographical and geopolitical principle majority of the pioneers ignored a simple fact, that in their days Egypt had long since lost its prominence. In fact, Egypt lost its prominence already before the First Coming of Jesus Christ. Bringing up Egypt into eschatological picture could by no means be justified by the fact that in the first part of Dan 11, up until verse 22, Egypt played an important role in the political affairs of the world and was prophetically represented by the King of the South.

 

Inaccurate Fulfillment

Another yet alarm went on as the conflict wasn't developing according to the biblical outline. More countries got involved into this war, and it became apparent that it wasn't anymore Turkey-Egypt affair. In fact, it has never been. While the historical and geographical details of the narrative seemed important to the pioneers, they preferred not to notice that the things were not going as the Bible would present those.

 

Summary

Those and other challenges and warning signs were called to encourage our pioneers to take a closer look at the prophecies, and to listen to both sides more carefully. Instead, both sides choose to cling to their stories. The train of prophetical thoughts of our pioneers in regard to the kings came to the full stop and a dead end when the conflict they considered turned into a defeat and an obscurity of the king of the North.

As it's been noted, the Adventist pioneers mostly used proper hermeneutical tools to approach the problem. Yet, the differences in their emphasis seem to be at the very heart of the unresolved Eastern Question. Those differences are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as some of Adventist scholars concluded. In fact, the differences between Uriah Smith and James White approaches had to encourage both sides to listen to each other arguments more closely, and not to try widening up what seemed to be a gap. However, as both great commentators followed their stated principles, representing one of the sides of historicism, it set up a stage for the conflict.

On behalf of Uriah Smith and his followers the problem was that in their attempt to preserve geographical and literal principles that had to stick to purely political and territorial dispute, irrelevant to the Great Controversy, as the last battle of the kings. On the other hand James White approached the issues from the perspective of the Great Controversy, while lowering the importance of a more literal interpretation of the prophecy pointing to the political and military conflict.

Both sides failed to consistently apply their own prophetic discoveries to prophetic narrative of Dan 11:40-45 as they excluded both the second beast and the kings from the East from their picture of the last battle. Also, none of the commentators succeeded in approaching the prophecy from a larger prophetic and historical perspective, failing to consider the previous biblical context of the prophecy, its progressive dynamics, and a possibility that the fulfillment of the prophecy is yet in the future.

 

Steps toward Resolution

As the pioneers stretched their approaches far enough to ignore each other respective views, they received some warning signs from the Bible, from the history, and from the Spirit of Prophecy. Unfortunately, those warning signs largely remained ignored. In the following section we will try to consider and to avoid the omissions of the pioneers as we continue our search for the possible resolution of the argument.

 

Larger Context

As Hans K. LaRondelle reflects on the new discoveries of the composition of Daniel and Revelation he notices that "an interpretation of Daniel and Revelation can no longer detach a text or chapter from the total composition and try to fit the dissected part with some event of world history. The literary approach provides a new standard for evaluating the exegesis of Daniel and the Revelation by previous historicists."[32]

In order to put the conflict between the king of the South and the king of the North, one should necessarily consider the threefold structure and dynamics of Daniel 11 - perhaps a reflection on the threefold ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sanctuary. We will call them early, intermediate, and last periods. While the borders of those historical periods scholars see differently, most conservative scholars recognize this kind of chapter's division. As for my estimation of those periods see the previous chapter.

First part of the chapter 11, or the early period, is dealing with the national Israel, second one, intermediate, focuses on the activities of the emerged Christian Church,[33] and the third and the last period presents the history "at the time of the end" (v. 40). The dynamic of Daniel's narrative is such that with each successive section its horizon inevitably broadens from the local, national issues, to the international and geopolitical affairs. Thus, the identities of the main players, such as the King of the South and the King of the North should also inevitably broaden and evolve with each section. They never remain the same (James White's oversight), they always progress forward (not backward, as it was a case with Uriah Smith), and the king never switch roles. To understand this would be a significant step toward revisiting of the Eastern Question. Proving this principle, however, would be beyond the point that this paper is making. Thus, we take it as an assumption.

In the early verses of Daniel 11, as demonstrated in the previous chapter of this book, the prophecy is dealing with the national Israelite history, where the King of the South is certainly Egypt, the old foe of Israel. At the same time, close to the end of this period the identity of the King of the North evolves from old Syria to "his successor" (v. 20), the newly emerged power of Rome. After the First Coming of Christ designated in v. 22 the previously political conflict gains also a religious prominence. The military conflict is certainly still there, while the added religious issues give this conflict a new dynamic. The King of the North is now an explicitly religious power, usually associated with papacy, and its war against the King of the South is more than a political conflict - it is a religious war, implying that the King of the South, at least religiously, is more than what it previously used to be. Note the evolutionary, progressive and inclusive dynamic of Daniel's vision of history.

 

Toward the Kings Identities

While both textual and intertextual analysis of Daniel 11 might give some helpful tips on the identities of both Kings, it is really history that should ultimately settle the issues of both Kings identities.

Pfanld in his Syllabus Daniel comments that Daniel 11:25-30 may apply to the “Muslim rulers who controlled the Middle East at the time of the Crusades.”[34] He observes that along with persecuting Muslims papacy also persecuted Christian dissidents, many of whom were devoted and “true believers in God’s holy covenant.”[35]

Indeed, as one looks at the prophecy, one should also look at the prevalent historical realities. Any student of history knows that the only lasting military, political and religious conflict of the Medieval period and far beyond was a conflict between the Muslim (Mohammed­an) Ottoman Empire (King of the South) and the papal North. The numerous recurring Crusades shaped the world and the society of the Middle Ages, and the presence of the two main politico-religious powers throughout the ages, including the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and Modernity is beyond denying.

With the dawning of "the time of the end" (v. 40) one would expect the identities of the two Kings to expend - not to radically change, nor degrade, nor to switch places. However, this is not what we see with our pioneers. Uriah Smith goes two "dispensations" down as he resurrects the Egyptian identity of the king of the South. And he does something even more remarkable: in his view Turkey, the embodiment of the old Ottoman Empire (considered as the king of the South) suddenly takes a place of the king of the North previously enjoyed by papacy.

Such hermeneutical twist is unacceptable and James White rightly noticed that. In his turn James White associated the King of the North with the same old papacy. That was the easiest thing to do, but apparently not the right one, as it (1) decreased the literal and historical understanding of the text; (2) did not consider the dynamic of the kings progression in Dan 11; (3) contradicted the principle regarding the expiration of the direct papal power after 1798; (4) did not receive the support from his prophetess wife.

Uriah Smith and other pioneers, on the contrary, have insisted on a serious change in the behavior of the King of the North - it became more politicized, more aggressive, and even more ambitious. It became clear to them that they were dealing with the political and military power capable of waging some devastating wars. As the time they remembered that the period of papal political and military supremacy had already expired. That obliged them to look for another religious-political power suitable for replacing the previous aggressor. The second beast would appear the most natural answer, but for some reasons it's been ignored.

As the pioneers overlooked the second beast, which truly comes as a continuation of the papacy, they either had to present the Great Controversy in a rather static form (James White's way), or to reduce the role of the Great Controversy (as Uriah Smith did). As Uriah Smith was looking for a suitable and available political power to replace papacy and to fit the geographical principle, he turned to Turkey. For this he might be partly excused as the pioneers in general didn't consider Dan 11 carefully enough in its entirety focusing only on the eschatological event and thus creating an interpretational shortcut that would later backfire at them and at the future generations of Adventist interpreters of Daniel 11.

What we observe among the pioneers is a sad picture of either a static view on the last battle heroes (the papal identity of the king of the North does not change), or degrading (from great Ottoman Empire to Egypt), or total and unlikely replacement (highly religious and powerful Ottoman Empire as the king of the South replaced by some atheistic force), or switching places (the traditional king of the South of the middle portion of Daniel's exposition suddenly jumps at the last section to the role of the king of the North). But how could the Muslim power assume a place and an identity of the power that in the previous time period was clearly designated as papacy? Uriah Smith ignored warnings from James White and did something that the text of Daniel would not permit one to do. We might certainly talk of the expanding of the roles of the kings and of their evolution, but Daniel leaves little if no room for alternation and substitution. All these violations of the simple principles that Adventist pioneers generally upheld are clearly unacceptable and distort their eschatological vision.

Another major mistake that the pioneers allowed in approaching the identities of the main eschatological players was their failure to apply their own discoveries from the book of Revelation. As Daniel and Revelation go side by side, and as they talk of the same last events, although using different language, it would have been absolutely necessary for the pioneers to look for help in solving Daniel's issues into the Book of Revelation and to use their own insights from it.

Specifically, I mean the identity of the second beast from the Rev 13. It is very doubtful that one may refuse this beast its proper role in the eschatological picture without wholly distorting the biblical vision of the time of the end. It is in Rev 13 that the continuity between the Beast from the Sea (papacy, or the King of the North during 1260 years) and its successor, the Beast from the Earth is clearly established. It is useless to guess over the book of Daniel regarding the identity of the eschatological King of the North without turning to the book of Revelation. And while our pioneers did turn to Rev 13, and did establish the identity of both beasts, somehow this knowledge had not been applied to the Eastern question of Dan 11:40-45.

Let us turn to the book of Revelation. Rev 13: 11, 12, 15-17 reads: "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him . . . He causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

Ellen G. White make numerous clear statements regarding the identity of this second beast and its relation to the first beast:

"What nation of the New World was in 1798 rising into power, giving promise of strength and greatness, and attracting the attention of the world? The application of the symbol admits of no question. One nation, and only one, meets the specifications of this prophecy; it points unmistakably to the United States of America. Again and again the thought, almost the exact words, of the sacred writer has been unconsciously employed by the orator and the historian in describing the rise and growth of this nation. The beast was seen "coming up out of the earth;" and, according to the translators, the word here rendered "coming up" literally signifies "to grow or spring up as a plant." And, as we have seen, the nation must arise in territory previously unoccupied."[36]

Why than our pioneers are forgetting about this beast, as they are also forgetting that it is this beast that pursues the interests of the papacy at the last days? The pioneers might be partly excused, as their immediate historicism, focused exclusively on here and now and not leaving much provisions for the future fulfillment, would almost surely prevented them from positing the destructive activity of the king of the North into the future. That was their hermeneutical fallacy that should not, by all means, compromise historicism in general.

Indeed, the beast, coming out of the dry land, which their rightly identified as the United States of America, in their days was more lamb-like and preferred the green pastures of largely agrarian America to the military trenches and ditches of the Middle East. At the time of the Adventist pioneers the United States of America were not involved on the European political scene, and any such involvement seemed impossible. As the pioneers were anxious to see the conflict of the kings with their own eyes, they've failed to see the second beast in otherwise consistent with the book of Revelation account of Daniel.

While the pioneers believed that America will turn into a persecutor, they failed to notice that according to Daniel it is the king of the North, upon its return home, starts the persecution of God's faithful remnant. Could Turkey have ever done it? Could it, upon returning back home, turn to persecuting American and World-wide Remnant?

It is interesting that while maintaining the identity of the second Beast as the United States of America, the focus of our pioneers in relation to the eschatological events was on Europe, while the focus in relation to the persecution of God's people was clearly on the United States of America. The fact that the pioneers have largely overlooked the universal scale of the second beast's activity, as has already been noted, could be explained by the fact that at that time the United States of America was not in a position to interfere with the Eastern question. Nobody at those days could have imagined that in the emerging century Europe would have another devastating war, the Second World War, and that after this war the United States will become a major player at the political arena not only in Europe, but nearly all around the world. Thus, the pioneers greatly underestimated the powers of the second beast that they've discovered. The United States of America was considered by our pioneers as the instrument of the domestic, not an international oppression.

In his recent article Gerhard Pfandl says: "Based on the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, Seventh-day Adventists have understood these two beasts of Revelation 13 as symbols of the papacy and Protestant America respectively. According to Revelation 13, sometime in the future, apostate Protestantism will call upon the world to worship the first beast, i.e., be obedient to the papacy by the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week in place of the seventh-day Sabbath of the Bible. This Sunday legislation will eventuate in a death decree for those who refuse to accept the mark of the beast. But before the death decree can be carried out Christ will come to deliver His people."[37]

Thus, we might see that not all of the conditions for turning America into a beast have been fulfilled at the time of the pioneers, which was the reason that prevented them from identifying the second beast with the eschatological King of the North. Ellen G. White also talks of those conditions as only been met in the future:

"When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result."[38]

At the time of the pioneers those conditions were yet far in a future, and even today not all of them have been completely fulfilled. One should keep in mind that any historical process takes time. It would be rather naive to believe that America would turn into aggressor and persecutor suddenly, overnight. When the Sunday Law will be issued, there would be no more time for reflections on the prophecy, no more time to do good things, no more time to save souls. One should not wait until the time of probation to come up with the clear identities of the eschatological persecutors and to act precociously. While the religious persecutions by the second beast (the King of the North) are happening at the time of the close of probation, its other oppressive policies and a dragon-like speech precede those, as it is obvious from Dan 11:40-43 and Rev 13:11. In fact, John from the beginning has seen this beast speaking like dragon.

It is certain that the King of the North is not working in isolation, but becomes a leader of the apostate Protestantism around the world, including the European continent:

"By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near."[39]

The harmonious and synchronized oppressive activities of the King of the North with those of the European apostate Protestantism is yet to fully emerge in the future with the issuing of the Sunday Law and total intolerance toward the Remnant. However, to some degree, the mechanism of oppression is clearly seen today as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) pursues the goal of the New World Order. As those words might cause some skeptic smiles today, I think our pioneers would seriously consider those if they would be shown the panoramic picture of the last century. Geopolitical principle traditionally used by the historicists would also fit well in this case, as most of the designated political powers are North of Jerusalem.

It becomes clear that the King of the North is the same as the second beast - an amalgamation of political and religious (both Protestant and Catholic) powers. It is the first beast evolving into the second one. Seventh-day Adventist pioneers have rightly noticed that the activity of this beast goes beyond just religious oppression. Its aggressive character manifests itself in geopolitical activity that is clearly pictured in Dan 11:40-45. To reduce it to purely spiritual warfare would be rather irresponsible. While the beast is coming out of the dry land, he's well capable reaching over the seas and dominating over world's political affairs.

This brief essay would not be complete without designating other participants of the last conflict depicted in Dan 11:40-45. What is, than, the identity of the eschatological king of the South? Without elaborating too much on its identity it seems most logical to conclude that the King of the South, just as the King of the North, remains in both political and religious continuity with its predecessor. The vague atheistic force might somehow fit the general contours of the Great Controversy, but its recent dramatic defeat and its largely non-political orientation makes it a very unlikely candidate. Also, the geopolitical compass, if one would dare to apply it, would wander in vain, as there is no geographical counterpart to this amorphous and highly personal entity. Also, it didn't evolve from the highly religious Ottoman Empire, and one would look in vain trying to establish any tangible link between it and atheism.

As for the identity of the eschatological South, it should have evolved out of the old Ottoman Empire. However, unlike its historic counterpart from the intermediate period, the eschatological king of the South should have reached some international proportions. At the same time geopolitical principle should generally remain unbroken. Also, the political motives of the previous period of expansion of the king of the South should give way to more international and religious character.

There is only one power in the world, mostly manifested in the Southern regions, that openly and unequivocally confront the King of the North and the values it represents. It is the contemporary Muslim world that greatly expanded and grew from the well outlined borders of the old Ottoman Empire. It is the only religious-political-military organization that challenges today the so-called Christian North. Thus, the only power that fits the characteristics derived from the chapter's dynamic is the modern Islam in its international and radicalized form. In our days the conflict between the king of the North (North-Western alliance) and the king of the South (international radicalized Islam as the prevailing religion of the South) is becoming more and more outlined. However, we shall not allow to repeat the mistakes of the pioneers and to look for every detail of this emerging conflict. Apparently, the flourishing of this conflict is still ahead of us.

To conclude this section I would say, that it is useless to study prophetic books of the Bible without correlating those with historical events. Studying prophetic text in isolation from history for the sake of text might be a great scholastic exercise, but at the end it leaves one with nearly nothing as the main purpose of the prophecy is to give prophetic highlights on the main historical events.

 

Conclusions to Chapter 7

As we conclude, let us affirm one more time that both Uriah Smith and James White at least in principle were not far from reaching a common prophetic ground. Uriah Smith was not a blind adherent of biblical literalism, just as James White didn't stick to purely spiritual interpretation of the prophetic images. Both men were willing to move forward and to meet each other's arguments and concerns. But, apparently, they failed doing it, just as they failed to consistently implement stated principles.

In spite of their right principles of interpretations, the pioneers failed to agree on the identities of the kings, and have not gained other response from Ellen G. White as only an encouragement to continue with their studies. She never doubted their hermeneutics. She simply encouraged our interpreters to take time and to be patient with their studies. In summary, from the heights of the history we can now see that their failure was due to their (1) unwillingness to seriously consider what seemed to them the opposite view, (2) to the inconsistent implementation of their own hermeneutical principles, (3) to their failure to use the prophetic keys of Revelation to unlock the mysteries of Daniel, and (4) to their impatience. So strongly did they believe that the end is at hand, within their immediate reach, that the battle of the kings, in their view, had to be taking place already at their times.[40]

In a conclusion I would like to assert that the only satisfying and comprehensive approach to studying prophecies should consist of both meticulous study of the Bible, and the awareness of the historical realities of the last days, or watchfullness for the "signs of the times." Both Daniel and Revelation offer more than a generalized view on the reality of the Great Controversy in the last days. To deny a historicist view in favor of a generalized Great Controversy view discarded by the Spirit of Prophecy, would be a denial of the proposed eyesalve offered freely to the Church of Laodicea. While those denying this remedy may still be recipients of the gold tried in the fire, or even the white raiment, their capacity to see things clearly would certainly be affected.

One last thing that I would like to mention in this article is that the least thing I want to do is to offend someone's God's given national and even patriotic feelings. I believe Ellen G. White had been a true patriot and a great lover of her country, the United States of America. This is why she had been painfully honest and bold as she called things by their names. It teaches us a lesson that the true patriotism is not about sweeping things under carpet, and not about hiding head like an ostrich. The true patriotism - or the love to one's country - is manifested in the magnified and urgent loving warning of the people. Jonah, who hated the city of Nineveh, had saved it from the utter destruction and prolonged its time of grace as he regretfully followed the divine instruction the preach the radical message of Nineveh's degree of evilness punishable by utter destruction. At the same time some sweet-talking Israelite prophets, who were always in opposition to the true biblical messengers, have tried to ignore or to beautify their nation's sins, talking of imaginary prosperity and presenting the desire of their hearts as the teaching from God. Those managed bringing once faithful nation of Israel to its destruction.

The world owns United States of America too much to question care and integrity of its people. Adventist brothers and sisters deeply love and respect our American brethren. Those, living in Asia, in Africa, in South America, in China, in Korea, and all around the globe own our American Brothers and Sisters so immensely much, that it is also our desire, if possible, to humbly give something back. We all aware that growing up in a certain environment might be enlightening in some ways, and blinding in others. Sometimes certain things might be better seen from a distance. Sometimes it takes someone outside of the familiar culture to point to some of its peculiar characteristics. That's one of the reasons why God desired a multicultural and multinational community: not to use a certain culture as a uniformed pattern for others, but to listen to each other perspectives, and to learn, and to be blessed.

It hurts preaching disturbing prophetic messages, and Ellen G. White had been fully and experientially aware of it. But the Remnant's mission is not only about preaching the Good News, but also about disillusioning of the people whose vision was blurred by the frog-like false massages coming from the deceitful but mighty and skilful mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

Finally, the most important thing that we learn is a remarkable and deep interest of the early Adventism in the current political events from the perspective of biblical prophecies. Although claiming the infallibility to our pioneers in the issues of prophetic interpretation would be beside the point, their genuine concern and boldness of approach are admirable. I suggest we work in the spirit of our pioneers, learning from both their findings and their mistakes. Re-examining one of the most important for our pioneers issue, the Eastern question, could be a good starting point of doing it.

 


[1] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

[2]Commenting on verse 25, he refers to the war that broke was between Egypt and Rome at the “mouth of the gulf of Ambracia, near the city of Actium,” on September 2, 31 B.C. Uriah Smith, 262.

 

[3]Sings of the Times, Nov. 15, 1877. Quoted in Mansell, 42-43.

[4] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

 

[5] Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, October 3, 1878, No. 15, p. 116.

 

[6] Later on she wrote that “my husband had some ideas on same points differing from the view taken by his brethren. I was shown the however true his view were, God did not call for him to put them in from before his brethren and create differences of ideas.”–Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1946), 76-77; Regarding Ellen White and her husband see Louis F. Were, Mrs. White, Uriah Smith and the King of the North (Berrien Springer, Michigan: First Impressions, 1977), 1-2, 32-34.

 

[7] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

 

[8] 4T 279.1

 

[9] Uriah Smith. "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation." Battle Creek, Mtch.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1882.

[10] P. T. Magan, England's Responsibilities for Turkey: The Treaty of Paris, Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, March 23, 1911.

 

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

 

[13] 1916-10-09, Vol. 93, No 50.

[14]Shea, Daniel, 7-12.

 

[15]Roy Allan Anderson, Unfolding Daniel’s Prophecies. (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1975), p. 130., 147.

 

[16]Jacques B. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 88

 

[17]Ibid

 

[18]Jacques B. Doukhan, Daniel: The Vision of the End, 92.

 

[19]Ibid, 174-179

 

[20]Ibid.

 

[21]Zdravko Stefanovic, Daniel Wisdom to the Wise: Commentary on the book of the Daniel, (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2007), p. 407-432.

 

[22]Ibid, 407-432.

 

[23]Timothy J. Hayden, A Review of Daniel 11 in Islam & Christianity in Prophecy, revised August 5, 2013, 25.

 

[24]Timothy J. Hayden, 25.

 

[25]Ibid.

 

[26] Uriah Smith considered the final conflict in Daniel 11 as the one between Egypt and Turkey, geographically related to Jerusalem as the South and the North. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 289-299, ed. 1944.

 

[27]Tim Roosenberg, “Islam and Christianity in Bible Prophecy.” http://www.sealingtime.com/resources/featured-speakers/tim-roosenberg/islam-and-christianity-daniel-11-seminar-tim-roosenberg.html (10 April 2014).

 

[28]Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review & Hearld, 1944 revised), 1:233

 

[29] Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, October 3, 1878, No. 15, p. 116.

 

[30] Hans K. LaRondelle, The Historicist Method in Adventist Interpretation (Spes Christiana 21, 2010, 79–89) p. 86.

[31] D. E. Mansell, What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon, Ministry, November 1967.

[32] Hans K. LaRondelle, The Historicist Method in Adventist Interpretation (Spes Christiana 21, 2010, 79–89) p. 86.

[33] Many Adventist scholars believe it starts with v. 22.

 

[34]Gerhard Pfandl, Gerhard Pfandl, Syllabus for OTST 585 Daniel (Solusi University, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe, 2008, 116).

[35]Ibid.

 

[36] GC, 440.

[37] Gerhard Pfandl, The BRI Newsletter, Number 34, April 2011, p. 1.

 

[38] GC, 445.

[39] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, p.451.

[40] Referring to the main weaknesses of historicism as a method J. Barton Payne rightly noticed that the historicists “seem always to discover the climax of prophecy in their own day” (Payne, J. Barton: Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to

Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment. New York: Harper and Row, 1973), 593.


Date: 2015-02-28; view: 1551


<== previous page | next page ==>
The Sweetest Game | The Jungle Book
doclecture.net - lectures - 2014-2024 year. Copyright infringement or personal data (0.049 sec.)