There has been much discussion through the years regarding Ellen White’s endorsement of U. Smith’s book ‘Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation.’  Especially is this true now in the time in which we live, as we see things happening with Turkey, Russia, and Islam in general.  This endorsement has been used by many people to either establish, or to confirm their belief on the eastern question, as regards the identity of the king of Daniel 11:36, and the kings of the north and south in Daniel 11:40.

I too have taken her endorsement seriously, as she plainly commends this book as one of great benefit to the reader, linking it to some of her own books such as The Great Controversy, Patriarchs and Prophets, and even calling it ‘God’s helping hand.’

In consideration of this, the question is—how much does this endorsement encompass? Is it a blanket endorsement?  In other words, by inference would it be fair to say Mrs White states that the king of Daniel 11:36 is France, and that the king of the south is Egypt, and the king of the north is Turkey?  And using the same line of reasoning, would she then go on to state that the seven heads of Revelation 17:9 are the seven forms of Roman government?

I have contemplated this for many years as I have studied Daniel 11.  Through these years of study, I have been brought to a dilemma concerning this very issue, as I respectfully, but very strongly, disagree with the conclusions that Uriah Smith has arrived at in his study of Daniel 11.  I have also realized that I am not alone in my disagreement.  The question then becomes, how to reconcile this major disagreement with the endorsement of EG White?  Is this possible?

In this article, one may need to ‘read between the lines’ so to speak, in order to fully grasp what I am trying to say.  There are two separate threads combined into one—Uriah Smith’s interpretation and Ellen White’s endorsement, the first up front, and the second operating in the background.  The main point cannot be to simply refute Uriah Smith, or to somehow sidestep EG White, but to see how these things line up in the context of our study of Daniel 11:31-45.

Changing the Words

In my study of the prophecy of Daniel 11, I have made good use of ‘Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation’ as an aid to understand the history that took place in the setting of the prophecy.  It is my belief that history is being rewritten and that much has been lost, changed, or simply dumbed down through such services as Wikipedia and others.

In using this book, I have discovered two key defining statements made by U. Smith that have served as markers for me that determines where he went off track.  In other words, it would be the same principle as applies to JH Kellogg, or Jones and Waggoner.  Inspiration tells us that the Lord worked powerfully through each of these men, but somewhere in their individual experience they each went off into error.  The fact that they went off however, does not negate the work and message of these men before they slipped into error.

The same is true of Uriah Smith, though his error was not of the same magnitude as was theirs, nor did he lose his hold on Adventism.  He simply was not given the present truth for our time and therefore came to some conclusions in Daniel 11:36-45, and Revelation 17, that are not consistent with the present truth for this generation.

However, this does not negate his work regarding the prophetic understanding of the present truth for his time.  In other words, we cannot just randomly pick and choose which of his statements to accept or reject, but it is necessary to understand where the line is drawn.  It is equally important to understand that he was not infallible in his interpretations.  The same holds true for these articles.  Mrs White has much to say concerning the issue of infallibility and inspiration.

The first of these two key statements are found on page 264-5, in Chapter 11, ‘A Literal Prophecy’, where it deals with verse 36. (1897 version) Note: The reasoning U. Smith used for making the change has been removed from the 1944 revised edition.

Before we quote Uriah Smith, here is the verse in question:

“And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.” Daniel 11:36

Starting in the first paragraph under verse 36 it reads:

“The king here introduced cannot denote the same power which was last noticed; namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.

“Take a declaration in the next verse: ‘Nor regard any god.’  This has never been true of the papacy.  God and Christ, though often placed in a false position, have never been professedly set aside and rejected from that system of religion.  The only difficulty in applying it to a new power lies in the definite article ‘the;’ for, it is urged, the expression ‘the king’ would identify this as one last spoken of.  If it could be ‘properly’ translated ‘a king,’ there would be no difficulty; and it is said that some of the best Biblical critics give it this rendering, Mede, Wintle, Boothroyd, and others translating the passage, ‘A certain king shall do according to his will,’ thus clearly introducing a new power upon the stage of action.” Emphasis added.

Here U. Smith is changing a word in the Scripture that significantly changes the meaning of the passage.  Though it may seem to be a small change, it allows him to now introduce a new power, that of France.  Before, he could not—and now he can.

When we read carefully what he is saying, we see that he clearly understood that the king of v36, as stated, would have to be the Papacy, as no other power had been introduced since v31.  He also clearly understood that in order to introduce a new power in v36, he would have to change a word to allow for that new power.  This point will become even more relevant when considering the nature of the relationship of this king with the kings of the south and north in verse 40.

The second key statement is found on page 659 in Chapter 17, entitled ‘Babylon the Mother.’  It is dealing with verse 8-11 of Revelation 17.  Starting with the paragraph under the sub heading called ‘The Seven Heads,’ we read:

“The seven heads are explained to be, first, seven mountains, and then seven kings, or forms of government; for the expression in verse 10, ‘And there are seven kings,’ should read, and these are seven kings.”  Emphasis added.  Note: This statement has also been altered in the 1944 revised edition.

Again, Uriah Smith is changing a word that allows him to connect something he could not connect before.

Here are the verses in question:

17:9—And here [is] the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. 

17:10—And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

By changing one word, he is able to state that the seven heads, and the seven mountains, and now the seven kings, are all one and the same.  He then goes on to delineate those seven kings as seven forms of the Roman government, linking them back to the seven mountains, and then to the seven heads.  He is able to do this because he changed the word from ‘there’ to ‘these.’  Again, a seemingly small change, but huge in its significance!

It should be noted that this interpretation of Revelation 17:9-10 comes to us clear back from 1582, in the Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheams version—9“And here is the understanding that hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, upon which the woman sitteth, and they are seven kings:  10 Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come: and when he is come, he must remain a short time.”  Considering this, I have compared these verses, and found that almost without exception this same interpretation is transmitted to the many Protestant versions of the Bible.

The subject is the seven heads, and the angel is letting John know that it will require special thought to understand what these seven heads are. Because of this, he then gives John something to consider that will redirect his mind into a certain train of thought regarding these heads. He is not directing John’s mind to the seven kings in the next verse, but letting him know that there is something to consider about the seven heads that his current mindset will not allow him to see.

One of the things to see in U. Smith’s interpretation of both texts—Daniel 11:36, and Revelation 17:10, is the fact that both prophecies are connected, and when he changed a word in the one, he found that he must then change a word in the other. With this in mind, it is of interest that he originally wrote ‘Thoughts on Revelation” first. This was written in 1867, and then six or so years later, in 1873, he wrote ‘Thoughts on Daniel”, and then combined them as one book in 1882.

It should also be noted that the words, ‘is’ and ‘and,’ are supplied words by the translators. The word ‘there’ is not a supplied word. The same is true in Daniel 11:36 with the word ‘the;’ it is not a supplied word. The fact that they are not supplied words should cause us to move with extra caution, especially with regard to Miller’s rules-: #1—“Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible”, and also #4—“To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in an error.”

This brings us again to the validity of the King James Version of the Bible. This version was the one our pioneers used to establish our prophetic foundation, and as such is the one referred to in Rule #14—“We must believe that God will never forfeit His word. And we can have confidence that He that takes notice of the sparrow, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of His own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God, and put implicit confidence in His word, from erring far from the truth, though they may not understand Hebrew or Greek.”

Regarding this last rule, even the use of supplied words by the KJV translators would come under the guardianship of God. The only instance I have found that one does not belong in the text, is in Early Writings p. 74.2, where EG White references the word ‘sacrifice,’ found in Daniel 8:11-13, and by inference in Daniel 12:11. This is in reference to the Daily. She is qualified to make this distinction, whereas we are not.

Can any Good Prophecy come out of Laodicea?

When we examine the reasoning of U. Smith and his decision to change a word in Daniel 11:36, it is of interest to note that he turned to Protestant commentators to confirm his decision. Remember Samson?   Using the Protestant millstone to grind the Protestant wheat?  By this time in our denominational history (1882) there had already been a major departure from the use of Miller’s rules.  Just as Protestantism had experienced its moral fall by 1844, so we had started our descent into the Laodicean condition by 1852. (RH June 10, 1852)

Protestantism was no longer a safe guide, especially as pertaining to prophecy.  Just as the Papacy would not admit of being the second persecuting power, so Protestantism will not admit of being the third persecuting power.  Both are brought to plain view in these prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, and each will turn the prophecy, so that it does not apply to them.  They are blinded to their own identity by their incorrect methods of Biblical interpretation.

The dividing line in U. Smith’s ability to correctly interpret the ‘literal’ prophecy of Daniel 11 is verse 36.  Here is where he lost the perspective of the three great persecuting powers.  These three powers are established by the correct understanding of the Daily as Paganism, and if this perspective is lost, it must then look to the kings of the south and north to provide the context for its interpretation.  Although he had the correct view of the Daily, he lost the greater context when he ascribed the king of verse 36 to France.

The context of Daniel 11 cannot be determined by the king of the south and the king of the north, but must be determined by the three great persecuting powers of God’s people:  Paganism,  Papalism, and Apostate Protestantism–The Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet.

The kings of the south and north operate within the confines of these three powers.  In other words, the king of the south and north are always defined by their relation to the larger entity.  Up to verse 31 the king of the south and north are defined by their relationship to Paganism, and in verse 40 they are defined by their relationship to Papalism, and then to Apostate Protestantism.

This relationship is further defined by the distinction between Paganism and Papalism—The one deals with the civil and secular, the other deals with the moral and religious. This holds true with the kings of the south and north in verse 40, as they draw their bearing from the Papacy–always remembering that the Papacy is a marriage of Paganism with Christianity.

Conclusion

In considering the role of the book, ‘Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation, it is not my intent to undermine, or in any way to cast doubt or suspicion on the interpretative work of Elder Uriah Smith, as I believe his motives were honest.  I am simply stating that I do not believe he was given the present truth for our time.  But does this in any way negate his interpretative work concerning the seals, or the trumpets, or the churches?  Or the history he lays out concerning those time periods?  For me it does not, and I have been blessed with a greater understanding of both Daniel and Revelation because of his work.

Mrs White, in Letter 103, 1904 tells us that “The prophecy in the eleventh of Daniel has nearly reached its complete fulfillment.”

In telling us this, she is letting us know that there was a portion of Daniel 11 yet to be fulfilled and was still future to them at that time.  It is my belief that U. Smith was correct in his interpretations until he reached the point where he changed a word to fit his perspective, based on the events of history as he understood them.  In other words, he was trying to reconcile a present truth for our time to the parameters of the present truth for his time.

Each person must come to his or her own conclusion as to how much of an endorsement is comprehended in Mrs White’s statements.  I realize that there are many more arguments, both pro and con, that could be presented.  It is interesting that EG White is all but silent in regard to the actual interpretation of Daniel 11:31-45.  I believe that there is a reason for that silence, and also for the dilemma concerning her endorsement.

“John heard the mysteries which the seven thunders uttered, but was commanded not to write them.  The special light given to John which was expressed in the seven thunders was a delineation of events which would transpire under the first and second angels’ messages.  It was not best for the people to know these things, for their faith must necessarily be tested.  In the order of God most wonderful and advanced truths would be proclaimed.  The first and second angels’ messages were to be proclaimed, but no further light was to be revealed before these messages had done their specific work…” {MS 59, 1900.23}

“I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was removed.” {EW 74.1}

The 1843 chart was directed by the Lord, yet it contained a mistake in some of the figures, but the figures were as He wanted them.  The mistake was not the Lord’s mistake, but man’s mistake, yet the Lord left it there, for their faith must necessarily be tested.  It was only understood correctly when His hand was removed.  In principle, I believe that would also apply to our dilemma with U. Smith’s book.

Each generation is given present truth for their time, but not for future generations.

Luke 4:17-20 very specifically applies this principle.  In this passage, Christ opens the book, reveals to the people what is present truth for their time, and then closes the book, and hands the closed book back to the minister.  That group of people (The Jews in general), were unaware of the present truth to be given to the Protestant churches in the Millerite time period, and in turn, the Millerites were not given the present truth for our generation.  Each generation is given the present truth for their time, but the book then closes for them.

Next Up

In the following article we are going to take a closer look at the role of France and Atheism, and their relation to the Papacy.  Atheism is a fascinating power when viewed from the larger scheme of the three great persecuting powers.  The same principle that applies to Atheism also applies to Islam, as they both ascend from the bottomless pit.  In Adventism, depending on which interpretation is used, both Atheism and Islam, along with Egypt, have been assigned as the king of the south.  There is a common denominator between these three, in that all three are represented as a satanic power.  Understanding the role of each of these powers will in turn help us to understand whether any one of them have the capacity to be the king of the south.

Until then,

God Bless!