2015-08-12
368
The Eastern Question Revisited
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.
