In this article, as the title implies, we are going to come to a proposal in regard to the study of Daniel 11:31-45.  In the several preceding articles, we have set in place a framework that will allow for this proposal.  The proposition is simple, really, and is not of my devising, but only a return to the old paths as expressed in Jeremiah 6:16.  The promise is, if we return to the old paths, then we shall find rest for our souls.  I would think this certainly applies in the case of our prophecy in Daniel 11.

Regarding the use of each point that is set forth in this proposal, it can be shown that each one had its distinct place in their original setting, and did not fail when put to the test.  In other words, they are tried and true, and are what built the prophetic foundation that Adventism stands upon.  The principle that Christ demonstrates the end from the beginning applies to these key points contained in this proposal.

These principles were able to defeat every opponent, and were what produced the movement that “of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles, none have been more free from human imperfection and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844.” (GC401.3)

Mrs. White goes on to say, “They (Millerites) dared not deny that the power of the Holy Spirit had witnessed to the preaching of the second advent, and they could detect no error in their reckoning of the prophetic periods.  The ablest of their opponents had not succeeded in overthrowing their system of prophetic interpretation.  They could not consent, without Bible evidence, to renounce positions which had been reached through earnest, prayerful study of the Scriptures, by minds enlightened by the Spirit of God and hearts burning with its living power; positions which had withstood the most searching criticisms and the most bitter opposition of popular religious teachers and worldly-wise men, and which had stood firm against the combined forces of learning and eloquence, and the taunts and revilings alike of the honorable and the base.” (GC 405.3)

The Proposal

There are five main elements that make up this proposal:

1. Miller’s Rules of Interpretation
2. The King James Version of the Bible
3. The Old View of the Daily as Paganism
4. Study of Daniel in Direct Connection with Revelation
5. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

It is a given that we will be using the Spirit of Prophecy to aid us in our understanding of key points in this study.

Miller’s Rules of Interpretation

In this proposal, the first to consider is the use of Miller’s Rules of Interpretation.

Through the years I have gleaned several quotes showing there are rules to be observed in the way we study our Bibles.  I’m only going to give the pertinent part of the quote, but will give the reference also for those who want to get the full context.

1. “I have been shown that there is a way to study the Scriptures.” 1888 Materials p. 528.4 (1888 528.4)
2. “We should know for ourselves what constitutes Christianity, what is truth, what is the faith we have received, what are the Bible rules—the rules given us from the highest authority.” 2MCP 535.3 (Letter 4, 1889.36-38)
3. “We are living in perilous times. In the fear of God, I tell you that the true exposition of the Scriptures is necessary for the correct moral development of our characters.” (RH, February 14, 1899 par. 15)
4. “They (Millerites) believed that they had adopted sound principles of interpretation in their study of the Scriptures, and that it was their duty to hold fast the truths already gained, and to still pursue the same course of Biblical research. With earnest prayer they reviewed their position, and studied the Scriptures to discover their mistake. As they could see no error in their explanation of the prophetic periods, they were led to examine more closely the subject of the sanctuary.” (4SP 259.2)
5. “Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled “Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,” Father Miller gives the following simple but intelligent and important rules for Bible study and interpretation: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 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 error; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” The above is a portion of these rules; and in our study of the Bible we shall all do well to heed the principles set forth.”  (RH, November 25, 1884 par.23-25)

Drawing from his own experience with the use of these rules, William Miller could say,

“The Bible was now to me a new book. It was indeed a feast of reason; all that was dark, mystical or obscure, to me, in its teachings, had been dissipated from my mind before the clear light that now dawned from its sacred pages; and O, how bright and glorious the truth appeared! All the contradictions and inconsistencies I had before found in the Word were gone; and, although there were many portions of which I was not satisfied I had a full understanding, yet so much light had emanated from it to the illumination of my before darkened mind, that I felt a delight in studying the Scriptures which I had not before supposed could be derived from its teachings” {1853 SB, MWM 76.2}

For those who may be unfamiliar with Miller’s Rules, or for anyone who would like to view them in their entirety, they can be downloaded here from our website, or just go back to our main page and click on Miller’s Rules.

The King James Version of the Bible

There are three points to be made as to why this is a part of the proposal.

1. Miller’s Rules cannot be used on any other version.
2. The translators have already done their work.
3. Most all of the modern versions have come after the fall of Protestantism.

First and foremost, Miller’s rules cannot be applied to any other version than the KJV. This does not expose a weak point with these rules, but instead, reveals the lack of continuity attending the use of the many different versions of the Bible.

In translating the Bible from the original languages to English, the translators have accomplished what we cannot.  In other words, they did for us what we needed by rendering something we could not understand into something we could.  But the fact remains that it is still God’s Word, and as such, no matter how plain it may be in English, we still need to employ the correct method of study in order to truly ‘understand,’ especially as it pertains to prophecy.  All of the versions of the Bible since the original King James version are only an attempt to provide that understanding.  Their focus is on the original languages, which can never give us the deeper spiritual understanding we need.  In other words, they are simply rehashing over and over again that which the translators of the KJV have already accomplished.  Only the Holy Spirit, through His appointed version and method, can give us the true understanding of His word.

Finally, it has been noted that most all of the modern versions of the Bible are a product of the various Protestant denominations and organizations, and have appeared after the door was closed to them in 1844.  This point needs careful consideration. Just as the Jews were left in darkness after their rejection of John and Christ, so were the Protestants left in darkness after their rejection of the first and second angels messages. (See EW 259-261)  This would certainly apply to their publishing houses as well.  Even the supposed Adventist translations rely upon Protestant criterion.

The Old View of the Daily

In the second article of this series we have gone into detail concerning the question of the Daily.  In assessing the old and new views of the Daily, it becomes immediately apparent that there can be no harmony between the two.  When we remove all of the fluff that surrounds both views, we are left with two opposing and antagonistic principles.  The one—the old view, states that the Daily is of Satan; the other—the new view, states that the Daily is of God.  Almost without exception, Adventism has embraced the new view.  It cannot be overstated that the prophetic understanding of Daniel 11:31-45 turns on this one thing.  Whichever view is applied will then determine the direction that is traveled.  This T in the road is found at the very beginning of the final portion of Daniel’s prophecy.  In other words, it is at verse 31 that the prophetic understanding of the rest of the chapter is determined.

The new view is a result of Protestant methods of interpretation, while the old view comes to us from the application of Miller’s Rules.

The Study of Daniel in Direct Connection with Revelation

The book of Daniel cannot be studied alone.  There are several things to consider when applying this principle.  As we have already noted, it was a careful application of Miller’s Rules to both Daniel and Revelation especially, that enabled our pioneers to accurately fix their position in prophetic time. Since then, we know that prophetic time is no longer, and in knowing that, we cannot base any following prophetic interpretations on time.

The prediction of Josiah Litch of the fall of the Ottoman Empire on August 11, 1840 was the last literal time prophecy to be fulfilled here on earth as an observable event, identifying the close of the second woe.  The 1335-year prophecy fulfilled in 1843 was the last time prophecy put in place concerning the Daily, as it served to confirm the 508 as the starting point of the transition from Paganism to Papalism; and October 22, 1844 is the final day of prophetic time.  This date, October 22, 1844, was the close of the two great prophetic time periods combined—the 2300 year prophecy, and the 2520 year prophecy. The first signaled the move by Christ from the Holy place to the Most Holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, and the second showed the transition from the scattering, to the gathering of God’s people.

In reviewing these things, it is important to realize that God does not leave His people in the dark concerning their place in history.  Prophetic waymarks have simply switched from time to events.  In other words, since October 22, 1844, we must ascertain our true position from the stream of events, rather than the stream of time.

In considering this transition from time to events, it is essential to understand precisely where this transition occurs in Daniel 11.

Uriah Smith and others failed to make this transition and therefore attempted to place future events of both Daniel and Revelation into past prophecies that were based on time.  As we have already noted, by changing a word concerning the identity of the king of Daniel 11:36, he in consequence had to then change a word concerning the identity of the seven kings of Revelation 17:10.  This seemingly simple mistake highlights the fact that Daniel and Revelation are one, and to alter or modify the one, will cause you in turn to alter or modify the other.  As we progress in the actual study of Daniel 11, we will be looking much closer at Uriah Smith’s position as it clearly shows that there is a definite line between the present truth for his time, and the present truth for our time.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

As we have noted, the translators of the King James Bible have already done the work of translating the words from the ancient languages to English. Bearing that in mind, we do not need to keep re-translating those languages, but need to simply have a correct understanding of the English words that are employed.  As words have changed in their meaning through the years, this dictionary brings us back to the original intent of the meaning of each word, as expressed in English.

It is interesting to note that the same problem existed for the same reason with the Hebrew language: “Yet even here was evidence of the sin of Israel.  Through the intermarriage of the people with other nations, the Hebrew language had become corrupted, and great care was necessary on the part of the speakers to explain the law in the language of the people, that it might be understood by all. Certain of the priests and Levites united with Ezra in explaining the principles of the law.  “They read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.”  (PK 661.3)

Though it cannot be proven that our pioneers used this dictionary, it was the one that was in play during their time.  Unlike other dictionaries, this particular one often uses Scripture to define the meaning of a word.  Just as God has placed a guard around the translation of His word, so He has placed a guard around the definition of our English words.

Spirit of Prophecy

As the Old Testament was given in the dispensation of Christ’s ministry in the courtyard, and the New Testament was given in the dispensation of Christ’s ministry in the holy place; the Spirit of Prophecy is given to God’s church in the dispensation of Christ’s ministry in the most holy place—our time, the antitypical day of atonement.

Though it is the work of Christ, He chose to express that work through the ministry of Ellen G White, just as He chose to express Himself through the ministry of the various writers of Scripture.

In type she can be found as the window in Noah’s ark that admitted light to all three floors; she can be seen as the lad guiding Samson’s hands to the two pillars in the pagan temple; and she can be found in the form of her books, in millions of homes, as the little captive maid, faithfully pointing men and women to the true Healer.

She can also be seen working her way from the east to the west.  Just as the Sanctuary and the coming of Jesus is described to be from the east to the west, so her first open vision was given to her in Portland, Maine (East) and her last open vision was given forty years later in Portland, Oregon. (West)

Christ always shows the end from the beginning.  That is His personal signature.

Conclusion

In the consideration of this proposal, two things should stand out clearly for us. One, is that the Holy Spirit gave these specific tools to our pioneers for the express purpose of laying a prophetic foundation for the church that could never be moved.  The second, is the realization that the Holy Spirit blessed them in the use of these tools that He Himself gave to them.  In other words, each point in this proposal is not the product of a human mind, instead, they are the direct result of the moving and power of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind.

Using the principle of Christ’s personal signature—His ability to demonstrate the end from the beginning—assures us that if we are faithful to apply these tools to the study of Daniel 11:31-45, He will then bless us with the correct interpretation of this prophecy, just as He blessed our pioneers with the same.  As we once again give the trumpet the certain sound, the acknowledgement will come: “Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing that thou couldest reveal this secret.” Daniel 2:47

God Bless!