Smith vs. White

In 1860-s the chief interpreter of Daniel and Revelation among the Seventh-day Adventists becomes Uriah Smith. At that time Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald had regularly published his series of articles on Daniel and Revelation in relation to the contemporary political and military events. In matters of identity of the king of the North his early writings reveal un­certainty as to whether this power is the Papacy, or Tur­key, but gradually he started putting more and more emphasis on Mohammedanism.

Another influential interpreter of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation was James White, tended to believe, that the king of the North remains same as during the previous period - namely, papacy. Thus, the stage has been set for a conflict.

As Smith approaches Dan 11 literally, already early in the chapter he establishes that the kings of the North and South are Syria and Egypt respectively. He recognizes, however, that along the chapter the identity of the king of the North changes to Rome (v. 25), while the identity of Egypt doesn't change.^[2]

With the progress of the chapter, Smith rightfully shifts the identity of king of the North from the Roman Empire to Papal Rome (around the year 476 A.D.). Somehow, Smith's identity of the king of the South remains blurred during the reign of Papal Rome. Later yet, starting with v. 35, Smith talks of the king of the North as Turkey, and for the king of the South he's resurrecting Egypt.

Uriah Smith's interpretation gained prominence when war broke out between Turkey and Russia in 1877. While Egypt was far from the epicenter of this war, Uriah Smith brought it to the arena as an alleged king of the South.

White, who also was a historicist, said that Smith's “positions taken on the Eastern Question are based upon prophecies which have not yet [had] their fulfillment.”And then, “here we should tread lightly, and take positions carefully, lest we be found removing the landmarks fully established in the advent movement."^[3]

The following year James White responded even strongly with an editorial in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald, where he asserted that the last power of Dan­iel 11 must be pagan-papal Rome, not Turkey:^[4]

"If the feet and the toes of the metallic image are Roman, if the beast with ten horns that was given to the burning flames of the great day be the Roman beast, and the little horn which stood up against the Prince of princes be Rome, and if the same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the last power of the eleventh chapter, which is to 'come to his end and none shall help him,' is Rome. But if this be Turkey, as some teach, then the toes of the image of the second chapter are Turkish, the beast with ten horns of the seventh chapter represents Turkey, and it was Turkey that stood up against the Prince of princes of the eight chapter of Daniel."^[5]

However, his arguments did not convince Uriah Smith. While Smith believed, that papacy played a crucial role in the previous section of Dan 11, he believes that with verse 40, with the beginning of the time of the end, there is a certain shift in the identity of the king of the North. This shift in his view has some good reasons.

First, it upholds more literal and historicism perspective on the passage, as the passage clearly talks of the literal, not spiritual, warfare. The explicit political and military language of Daniel 11 suggested to Uriah Smith and his followers that at the core of the conflict lays something more than just a religious controversy.

Second, and most importantly, Smith reminds his opponents that they should be aware of the exhaustion of the papal power towards the end of 1260 year period.

James White, however, remained unconvinced. He sees Smith's interpretation of the powers involved in the designated conflict as ambiguous. However, contrary to his often confrontational style, James White did not campaign against Uriah Smith's view. Why? D. E. Mansell gives us some details on it:

"The first part of White's rebuttal ap­peared in the Review and Herald of Oc­tober 3, 1878, and was to have been con­tinued, but it stopped right there. Why? William C. White, son of James and Ellen White, relates that a day or two after the meeting at which Smith and White spoke, Ellen White was given a vision showing that her husband erred in publicly disa­greeing with Smith. After coming out of vision, she related to her husband what she had been shown.^[6] James White accepted the rebuke and discontinued his series of articles. In rebuking her husband, Mrs. White did not attempt to resolve the ques­tion of the identity of the king of the north. Indeed, the question is not settled in any way in her writings."^[7]

This silence on behalf of both Ellen and James White^[8] encouraged some Adventist interpreters to join hands with Uriah Smith. With a publication of his book " Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation " also called “ Daniel and the Revelation ”^[9], the matter seemed to be solved. Armageddon would start with a defeat of Turkey in the Russo-Turkish War.

However to many interpreters disappointment, Russian efforts to win over Turkey proved to be fruitless, as England, France, and most of the Europe suddenly took sides with Turkey. While Daniel 11:45 with a reference to the King of the North claims that "none shall help him," the apparent historical reality demanded some different approach. James White's initial concern with the common assertion that Prince Michael will stand up on behalf of His people at the time of the defeat of the Turkey (the perceived King of the North) had now been revived.