THE TRUTH:
Concerning
Mrs. E. G. White, Uriah Smith, and
The King of The North.
Louis Were
PREFACE
In
the late nineteenth century, Uriah Smith told a friend that, because of current
political developments that indicated that the nation of Turkey might again
become a prominent power in the Near East, there was a possibility that Turkey might be the "king of the
north" mentioned in Daniel 11. He said that, in his book, he was going to
identify the king of the north as the nation of Turkey; but that, if events
changed, he would revert back to the regular Adventist view of the subject. In a
few years those events did reverse, but, to the day of his death in 1903, Smith
never removed his "new view" from his book, Daniel and Revelation. There
is only one reference to Turkey in Great Controversy (GC 334-335), and it
obviously has nothing to do with the battle of Armageddon. In addition, the
Spirit of Prophecy places that battle in the future, not in the past.
It is more likely that the "Battle of Armageddon" is the climax
of the massive conflict, so soon to begin, with Satan and his followers on one
side and Christ and His faithful commandment-keeping people on the other. This
conflict bursts into the open when the national Sunday law is enacted and, in
a sense, it will still be actively carried on a thousand years later as Satan
prepares for the final attack against the Holy City. The battle of Armageddon
Is actually the last phase of the entire Great Controversy between Christ
and Satan. Vance Ferrell
A
Reply to Misleading Addresses. The
purpose of this booklet is not a criticism of a person but a vindication of
truth.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
SIX - Testimonies Concerning Uriah Smith
MRS.
E. G. WHITE AND THE KING OF THE NORTH
Did
she rebuke Pastor James White for teaching that the Papacy is the King of the
North?
Answer:
Most certainly not. She
certainly would not rebuke her husband or anyone else for teaching what
she indicated she also believed. She
was associated with Pastor James White in the early publication "A
Word to the 'Little Flock"', in which was taught the belief that the
king of the north (Dan. 11: 45) is the persecutor of the true church, the
beast power of Rev. 13 (see pages 8, 9).
What Mrs. E. G. White wrote in "The Great Controversy"
also, as we will show, enables us to observe the application she made of
the prophecy of Daniel eleven. In
this prophecy we are given the characteristics and work of the king of the
north. In verse 36 we read: "And the king shall do according to
his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every
god . Paul's application of this prophecy to the Papacy-see 2 Thess. 2: 3,
4-is well-known. The (General
Conference) study group appointed by the Committee on Biblical Study and
Research presented their "Report on
the Eleventh Chapter of Daniel, With Particular Reference to Verses
36-39", in "
The Ministry", March, 1954. Definitely
the report states: "Therefore, from the foregoing, we conclude that
verses 36-39 of Daniel I I accurately set forth in prophetic language the
work and history of papal Rome."
In
"The Great Controversy", p-. 50, the Lord's messenger
undoubtedly refers to Daniel 11: 36, saying: "This compromise between
paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of the 'man of sin'
foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God.
That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's
power-a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule
the earth according to his
will." Daniel declared that "the
king shall do according to his
will" that is, the king of the north, for "the king" as
shown by the context is "the king of the north".
The Study group referred to above, in its report concerning the
subsequent verses in Daniel eleven, says: "Without doubt the Papacy,
if it is the power of Daniel 11: 36-39, must also play a part in the
historical fulfilment of these verses, for the pronoun 'him' in verse 40
must refer to the power brought to view in verses 36-39."
Thus
"the king" of 36 is undoubtedly "the king of the
north" mentioned in Dan. 11: 40-45.
By applying v. 36 to the Papacy, Mrs. E. G. White disagreed with
Uriah Smith's application of Dan. 11: 36 to the French Revolution.
MRS.
E. G. WHITE AND URIAH SMITH
Here
we should state that Uriah Smith in some of his other beliefs differed
from Mrs. E. G. White's teachings. This
becomes For instance apparent to anyone who compares their writings.
We
refer to Uriah Smith's teaching concerning the Person and work of our Lord
Jesus. We quote a statement
made by Pastor W. E. Howell, Chairman of the "Daniel and the
Revelation Revision Committee", reported in "The
Ministry", May, 1945:"It is a matter of record that Uriah
Smith once believed that Christ was a created being, see Thoughts on the Revelation (1865), p. 91. But later he revised his belief and teaching to the effect
that Christ was begotten sometime back in eternity before the creation of
the world. Since his day,
later books of the Spirit of Prophecy, such as Desire of Ages, came out in
the nineties and later on, making clear, with the support of the
Scriptures, that Christ is co-eternal with the Father-"
In
his book, "Looking Unto
Jesus", pp. 10-17, Foreword written in July, 1898, Uriah Smith
again made statements indicating that the fullness of the truth taught in
the Spirit of Prophecy concerning the eternity of Christ, had not been
understood by him. He said:-God alone is without beginning. At
the earliest epoch when a beginning could be-a period so remote that to
finite minds it... is essentially eternity-appeared the
Word ...His beginning…The son of God appeared
. . . With the Son, the
evolution of deity, as deity, ceased In point
of existence He was thus before them all.
And then began creation, of which He was the 'beginner'." (Emphasis mine.)
Thus
it may be seen that Uriah Smith had not understood the Spirit of Prophecy
teaching concerning the eternity of Christ.
For a fuller consideration of the vital theme of our Lord's
unlimited Divinity and His inherent, underived, eternal life and infinite
power, wisdom and right as the second Person of the Godhead, the reader is
referred to "The Woman and the
resurrected Beast. The
Mysteries of Revelation 17 solved" (see advertisement on the back
page of this pamphlet).
Briefly
stated, the Spirit of Prophecy teaching on this most important revelation
is as follows:-
"In
Christ is life, original, unborrowed,
underived. 'He that hath the
Son hath life'. The divinity
of Christ is the believer's assurance of eternal life" (DA. 530).
"Christ
is the pre-existent, self-existent Son of God" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900).
"With
solemn dignity Jesus answered, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before
Abraham was, I AM'. Silence
fell upon the vast assembly. The
name of God, given to Moses to express the idea of the eternal presence,
had been claimed as His own by this Galilean rabbi.
He had announced Himself to be the
self-existent One, he Who had been promised to Israel, 'Whose goings
forth have been from of old, from the
days of eternity"' (DA. 469, 470).
When
Jesus declared, "Before Abraham was I AM", He claimed more than
pre-existence-He claimed self-subsistence. He claimed that His existence was neither derived nor
attained. It was His by
right. This is the meaning of
the title "I AM"-"the self-existent One" (DA. 470). Thus Jesus unhesitatingly claimed to be the eternal, living
God Whose existence was derived from no one.
"From the days of eternity
the Lord was one with the Father" (DA. 19).
"He was equal with God" (2T. 200). "The Lord Jesus Christ, the divine Son of God, existed
from eternity, a distinct person, yet one with the Father" (Rev.
and Her. April 5, 1906). "In
speaking of His pre-existence, Christ carries the mind back through the
dateless ages. He assures, us
that there never was a time when
He was not in close fellowship with the Father" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1900).
In
contrast to the quotations from the Spirit of Prophecy given above,
observe Uriah Smith's notes on Rev. 1: 4 ("Daniel and the Revelation," edition 1891):
"'From
Him which is, and which was, and which is to come, or is to be-an
expression which signifies complete eternity, past and future, and can
be applicable to God the Father only. This language, we believe, is
never applied to Christ." (Emphasis mine.)
In
the light of what is taught in the Spirit of Prophecy, the revisers of "Daniel
and Revelation" have naturally deleted from the revised book this
declaration concerning the non-eternity of Christ. In his comments upon Rev. 1: 8, Uriah Smith's conception of
the non-eternity of Christ caused him to apply these words exclusively to the Father. Rev.
1: 8 reads: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending,
saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the
Almighty." Uriah Smith's comment is:
"Who
is it who here speaks must be determined, therefore, by the terms used.
Here we again have the expression, 'Which is, and which was, and
which is to come, which has already been noticed as referring exclusively
to God. But it may be
asked, Does not the word Lord denote that it was Christ?"
In
his endeavour to read this verse according to his conception of the
non-eternity of Christ, he suggests that God might be substituted for the
word Lord. However, the revised
edition of "Daniel and Revelation" rightly deletes the old comments
and applies v. 8, as it should be applied, to Christ. Thus we read: "In declaring who He is, He uses t o of
the same characterizations,
'Alpha
and Omega', 'the beginning and the ending', as are found in Revelation 22:
13, where according to verses 12 and 16 of that chapter, it is plainly Christ who is speaking.
We conclude, then, that it is
Christ who is speaking in verse 8." (Emphasis mine.)
THE
SPIRIT OF PROPHECY AND URIAH SMITH'S EXPOSITIONS
The
attitude of the Spirit of Prophecy toward
Uriah Smith's expositions should be made clear. The most authoritative way to do this would seem to be that
of quoting from a paper prepared by Arthur L. White, Secretary of the E.
G. White Publications. He
says: "Periodically, inquiry is made as to Mrs. E. G. White's
attitude toward 'Thoughts on Daniel
and the Revelation', some asking if somewhere she has stated or at
least implied that it is an inspired book ...
"Nowhere
in Mrs. White's writings, published or unpublished, do we find reference
to an angel standing by the side of Uriah Smith while he wrote.
And certainly we find no indication that Mrs. White ever considered
Thoughts on Daniel and the
Revelation to be an inspired book, thus inerrant in all its
expositions ...
"Even
though she spoke commendably of the volume, there are statements penned by
Mrs. White which have a negative bearing on the inspiration of Thoughts
on Daniel and the Revelation. Speaking,
in the nineties, of Elder Smith's books, one of the leaders in our
colporteur work asked Mrs. White, 'You believe they are inspired, do you
not?' Indicative of her recognition
of the folly of the question, she replied, 'You may answer that
question, I shall not'-E. G. White Letter 15, 1895. At
another time she was asked a similar question
”Sister
White, do you think we must understand the truth for ourselves?
Why can we not take the truths that others have gathered together
and believe them because they have investigated the subjects, and then we
shall be free to go on without taxing of the powers of the mind in the
investigation of all these subjects?
Do you not think that these men who have brought out the truth in
the past were inspired of God?'
"(Answer)
'I dare not say they were not led of God, for Christ leads into all truth;
but when it comes to inspiration in the fullest sense, I answer, No. I
believe that God has given them a work to do, but if they are not fully
consecrated to God at all times, they
will weave self and their peculiar traits
of character into what they are doing, and will put their mold upon the work'."-E. G. White, Review and Herald,
March 25, 1890. (Emphasis mine.)
(Unfortunately
Uriah Smith, through introducing among us the teaching that Turkey is the
king of the north, did place "his mold upon the work", and some
today are so restricted by this “mold" that they find it difficult
to move with the rest of God's people who have returned to the early
denominational teaching that the Papacy is the king of the north.)
Arthur
L. White, Secretary of the E. G. White Publications, continues:
"Two
decades later, in writing regarding an interpretation of prophecy, given
in Thoughts on Daniel and the
Revelation, over which there had arisen some controversy, Mrs. White
spoke against 'magnifying the importance of the difference in the views
held', and further said: 'In some of our important books that have been in
print for years, and which have brought many to a knowledge of the truth,
there may be found matters of minor importance that call for careful study
and correction.'-E. G. White, Ms. 11, 1910.
"At
another time she wrote: "There is no excuse for anyone in taking the
position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our
expositions of Scripture are without error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for
many years by our people, is not proof that our ideas are infallible.
Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be
fair. No true doctrine will
lose anything by close investigation.-Review and Herald, December 20, 1892
...
"It
was but natural that as time advanced, some points became more clear and
some errors which had been embodied in his earlier work were seen.
This led the author [Uriah Smith] from time to time to make a
number of corrections and adjustments in his former statements.
Of one such revision, W. C. White wrote in 1910: 'In 1886, 1887,
and 1888 there was considerable controversy over some of the expositions
in Thoughts on Daniel and the
Revelation. There was
quite a group of men, including myself, who became convinced that there
were some errors in this most excellent book that ought to be corrected
But finally a number of corrections were made, if I remember correctly,
about thirty.'-W. C. White, Letter
to A. F. Harrison, June 26, 1910.
For reasons similar to the foregoing, Thoughts
on Daniel and the Revelation has recently undergone a most careful
revision."
Uriah
Smith's teaching on the Atonement (see "Looking
Unto Jesus", p. 237) differed from Mrs. E. G. White's statements
found in 6T. 354; E.W. 260.
CONTINUE
|