Introduction

The longest raging controversy in Seventh-day Adventism is not women's ordination or admitting gay clergy. Nor is it the controversy, going back to the 1950s, about Last Generation Theology and the human nature of Christ. The church still does not speak with a clear voice regarding who is the King of the North in Daniel 11. This uncertainty and lack of clarity has its beginnings in 1871 [ ##1|Louis F. Were, The Truth Concerning Mrs. E.G. White, Uriah Smith, and the King of the North: A Reply to Misleading Addresses ((Laymen Ministries Publishing International, 2001), p. 35##(], going back to a dispute between Ellen White and Uriah Smith. I would say most Adventists follow Ellen White on this issue, but the church has never issued a clear statement concerning it.

Uriah Smith vs. Ellen G. White

Up till 1871, Seventh-day Adventist Church was united in the belief that the King of the North in Daniel 11 was the papacy, when Uriah Smith, in his Book Daniel and the Revelation, proposed that the King of the North was Turkey. Smith’s book was first published in 1882 [2], while Ellen White’s book The Great Controversy was first published in 1888. Thus the two books were published at about the same time.

The Great Controversy teaches that Armageddon (the final earthly battle between the people of God and the people of Satan) will be spiritual and not geopolitical. That it would not be a military battle between nations held at any particular geographic location, but a spiritual battle fought between the forces of Christ and the forces of Satan for the hearts and minds of humanity. Uriah Smith, by contrast, had departed from this perspective and was now, like other denominations, proposing that Armageddon would be a literal geopolitical battle, involving Turkey and various Western nations [##3|Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (1897 edition), p. 302.##].

This divided opinion has created uncertainty in the church relative to this topic, even to the present time. I haven’t found any clear or official statement by our denomination about this topic anywhere.

However, like many issues that the church is divided on or unclear, it all goes back to us no longer adhering to the supreme authority of Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. This uncertainty can be traced back to the 1880s and has dogged us ever since.

However, the issue is quite easy to resolve. Here are steps we must take to do so:

Inspiration of Ellen White

The first issue is that Ellen White is not just another Bible commentator like Uriah Smith. That isn’t meant to denigrate Uriah Smith, who was certainly one of early Adventism’s leading scholars of Scripture. We owe much to him regarding prophetic understanding and other issues, but he was not infallible. Ellen White, on the other hand, fulfills all the Biblical requirements of a genuine prophet, proof of which would require an article all by itself. On that basis alone, we should favor Ellen White's view over Uriah Smith’s.

Nevertheless, all of Ellen White’s teachings are based on the Bible, even if her visions included material which isn’t all spelled out in the pages of Scripture. Without question, she would want us to begin our study of this issue in the pages of the Bible.

The Big Picture from the Bible

The book of Daniel has two logical divisions. Chapters 1 to 6 are generally narratives from the court of Babylon, while chapters 7 to 12 consist of apocalyptic visions. This has led some to speculate that the two parts are two separate books not thematically connected. At first glance this may seem logical, as the court narratives don’t seem directly related to the apocalyptic visions.

The sticking point with this theory is Daniel 2. Is it a court narrative or an apocalyptic vision?

Well, it’s a bit of both. The circumstances of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and Daniel's being brought before him to interpret it, is indeed a court narrative. However, Daniels' interpretation of the dream and its meaning are very much apocalyptic. A look at the pattern of Daniel's interpretation of the statue dream and the apocalyptic visions of chapters 7 to 12 indicate the statue is the key to all subsequent apocalyptic visions recorded by the prophet in this book.

The Apocalyptic part of Daniel 2

Most Adventists are familiar with the 4 parts of the statue and what they represent:

The head of gold Babylon: 612-539 B.C.

Chest and arms of silver: Medo-Persia: 539-331 B.C.

Belly and thighs of brass: Greece: 331-168 B.C.

Legs of iron: Rome: 168 B.C.-A.D. 476

Feet of iron and clary: Divided nations of Europe: A.D. 476-Second Coming

Daniel 2 Reflected in Later Chapters

But we find the vision repeated and expanded on (albeit using a different visual representation) in Daniel 7

Lion with eagle’s wings: Babylon 612-539 B.C.

Bear: Medo-Persia 539-331 B.C..

Leopard Greece 331-168 B.C.

Nondescript Beast Rome 168 B.C.-A.D. 476

Ten Horns Divided Nations of Europe A.D. 476-Second Coming

In Daniel 7 we find more details about each power represented by the various parts of the statue/beasts. For instance, we learn that the Persian Empire was made of two parts and the Greek Empire would be split into four. We likewise learn more of the characteristics of Rome and its subsequent influence on the nations of Europe. We also have the little horn power uprooting three of the ten horns, and the reign of this power for 1,260 years (verse 25).

In Daniel 8 Babylon is dropped, but the visions of Daniel 2 and 7 are expounded further in another vision

Ram: Medo-Persia 539-331 B.C.

He-Goat: Greece 331-168 B.C.

Little Horn: Pagan/Papal Rome 168 B.C.-A.D. 1798

2,300 days: Timing of the Last Judgment 457 B.C.- A.D. 1844

This time Greece, Rome and the divided nations or Europe are all concatenated into the Goat. However, on the other hand, more detail is given on Rome and its division into pagan and papal Rome, represented by the little horn and its dominance over the divided nations of Europe. We also have other time periods introduced (the 2300 days/years and its commencement with the seventy weeks /490 years). By now we have considerable detail added to the original vision of Daniel 2

Daniel 11 and 12

If chapters 7 and 8 expand progressively on what is revealed in chapter 2, would it not be reasonable to assume that chapters 11 and 12 will do the same thing? So far, the pattern we have seen is for chapter 2 to be the big picture and for the subsequent chapters to "drill down" in greater depth with each succeeding chapter.

Therefore, the key to understanding chapters 11 and 12 must be found in the preceding chapters, and to be consistent, we must interpret Daniel 11 and 12 based on the foundation given in Chapter 2.

Part 2 of this series will focus on how Daniel 11 and 12 relate to the previous chapters.

REFERENCES

1. Louis F. Were, The Truth Concerning Mrs. E. G. White, Uriah Smith, and The King of The North A Reply to Misleading Addresses (Laymen Ministries Publishing International, 2001), p 35

2. https://adventisthistory.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/uriah-smiths-life-a-chronology/

3. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (1897 Edition), p 302

Tony Rigden, a former atheist/deist, came into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 1980 as the result of a miraculous conversion and the reading of the book The Great Controversy by Ellen G White. He has since been a regular Sabbath School teacher, very part-time lay preacher, elder and briefly head elder. Formerly an electronics technician and computer programmer, Tony is currently still part-time programming but mostly retired. Former hobbies included diving and private flying. Currently he is a volunteer guard (train conductor) for one of New Zealand's leading vintage railways.