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.