A response to arguments against the Historicist and Seventh-day Adventist position on Daniel 7
“Are
Seventh-day Adventist Prophecy Seminars telling you the truth?”, is an
introductory statement appearing on an anti-Adventist website called Amazing
Fiction, a website run by Dirk Anderson, a former Adventist. He embraces the “Preterist”
view of prophesy, which according to non adventist authors are an invention of the Jesuits. His mission apparently is to undermine the Bible based, Historicist views,
of the Seventh-day Adventists. In this paper, we respond to their article on the Little Horn of Daniel 7, where an attempt has been made by it to undermine
the history, historical positions and truths, as taught in Daniel 7.
Argument: Daniel 7:24
And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise...
(KJV) . Daniel 7:24 makes it abundantly clear that the ten horns are not other
nations. The Bible says the ten kings will rise from within the Roman
Empire, but none of the ten tribes arose from within or ruled over the Roman
Empire.
Response: The
preposition “out of” is the Hebrew “min.” Like many English prepositions, it is
used for a wide variety of ideas. One of the most common is “of” or “from.” The
ten kingdoms rose out of the Roman empire, however, so the word is fine. No,
they weren’t Romans. They weren’t “out of” the population. Rather, they rose
out of the land area. It is in this same sense that the USA rose out of the
wilderness of America. The people were Europeans, but the land the country rose
out of was sparsely inhabited. The ten tribes moved to the Roman empire,
displaced it on its own soil, and ruled over that same soil. That is all the
verse says and that is what happened.
Moreover,
the most the Germanic tribes which took over imperial Rome had already found
residence inside the borders of the Empire by the end of the fourth century
A.D. In fact, much of the imperial army by that time was German. And by the
time the Western empire fell in 476 A.D, the Germanic tribes had been setting
up and putting down Emperors at will. Very much they were ruling the Empire by
that time. Any careful history of the later Roman Empire will bear this out.
Argument: The Bible says the ten horns are
"kings". The Aramaic word used is melek which literally means "king" and is only translated "king" in
the Old Testatment, never "nation" or "kingdom". The ten
tribes were nations, not kings. In the very same passage, the word malkuw is used, meaning
"kingdom". And the ten horns out of this kingdom (malkuw) are ten kings (melek) that shall arise... If this
passage was referring to ten kingdoms that defeated the Roman Empire, then we
would have expected Daniel to use the word malkuw (kingdom) instead of melek (king).
Response: In Daniel 2 the Bible
student learns that “king” and “kingdom” are used synonymously. (Dan 2:17 says that "the four beasts are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth." But verse 23 goes on to say, "The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth." One is the man,
the other is his dominion. Daniel 7 gives more detail. Ten tribes became
sovereign states under the “Holy Roman Empire.” In Daniel 7 the word “kingdom”
is used most often for empires, kingdoms that ruled other kingdoms. That is why
Nebuchadnezzar is called a “king of kings.” Notice that there are “kings” under
the “king.” This describes well spiritual Babylon too where the Pope ruled over
sovereign states in Europe.
Argument: Adventists
agree that the horn growing on the head of the Goat represents Alexandar the
Great. When that one large horn is later replaced by four smaller horns,
Adventists likewise teach the Macedonian empire was ruled by Alexander's four
generals. It is entirely inconsistent for Adventists to interpret the horns of
Daniel 7 as nations that conquered that beast while at the same time teaching
that the horns of Daniel 8 are kings of
that nation!
Response: This
is very silly. Alexander, the man, did not fight against Persia. His army, the
power of his nation, fought against Persia. But Alex was the man behind the
army. So, in harmony with Daniel 2, the first horn was Alex. And the four horns
were the four kingdoms that rose under his four generals. The four horns are
not the four generals as distinct from their four segments of the empire. They
are the four segments of the empire ruled by the four.
Part
of this, however is true. Prophecy does not present the Roman empire and the
Roman Catholic Empire as two different entities in Daniel 7. They are one
beast. The ten horns did not overthrow this beast. Rather, they (seven of them)
became the military arm that served the little horn and composed the Holy Roman
Empire.
Argument: Another symbol
ignored by the Historicist is the two iron legs of the image of Dan 2. The
Roman Empire clearly split into two parts: Western, head-quartered in Rome, and
Eastern, ruled from Constantinople. The ten tribes only attacked and conquered
the western part of the empire. The eastern part continued on for more than
1,000 years. This destroys the SDA image of the ten toes being synomomous with
ten tribes, because that would mean five toes on each foot, and the Eastern
Empire was not defeated by any of the ten tribes.
Response: Daniel
2 neither mentions “two” legs nor “ten” toes. When the angel explains the
image, it is explained that Rome will be followed by a divided kingdom that
will be a mixture of strength and weakness. There is nothing said in the
chapter about five toes on one foot and five on another. Nor are there two
large toes and two heals. Such observations are just taking the metaphor
further than it was intended to go.
But
this objection greatly overestimates the significance of eastern Rome as
distinct from the Holy Roman Empire. Both eastern and western Rome were
submitted to the papacy in 538. Now remember that Daniel 7 is describing, not
the nations of the world, but the dominant empire of each age. Daniel 7
specifies that Christ comes in the days “of these kings”…while they are still
ruling. By
the year 1700, eastern Rome had ceased to exist. What about western Rome? The
seven surviving kingdoms had dominion over both Americas, over much of Africa,
over India, over the Philippines and Indonesia, over Australia, and over most
of the islands of the sea. Much world (75% of the world’s population now
resides in the areas once held by these countries) had been conquered by the
small nations of England, France, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, and
Switzerland. Amazing.
Argument: Adventists
teach that the Vandals, Ostrogoths, and Heuli were destroyed by the Pope of
Rome. Such a revision of history is nothing less than pure fiction.
Response: Wrong,
such a thing is there in history. See: http Historical sources affirm the little horn of Daniel 7
In fact, the papacy had everything to do with
the uprooting of the Ostrogoths and Heruli…they were occupying Rome and she
connived to displace them. That is why Justinian came west. This argument is
silly. Regarding the Vandals, it was their unorthodoxy that best explains their
extirpation. They were Arian. But the prophecy doesn’t say that the Little Horn
uprooted them nor that it caused their uprooting; only that it happened before
its face. This seems to indicate its interest, but not essentially its
involvement.
Argument: Another
problem is that at least 20 tribes invaded the Roman Empire. The SDA teaching
contradicts history which says twenty tribes invaded the western Roman Empire,
not ten.
Response: Some
of the tribes that invaded Rome did split off into various fragments, but the
ten we have listed as Adventists were in fact the principal forces that
conquered the Empire. For example, Luxemburg
is not a major world player. Many insignificant tribes did attack the Roman
Empire. But the Bible takes notice of the significant nations that displaced
Rome and served the Pope. This again is that sort of "sand in the
eyes" criticism that fails to consider how accurately this prophecy
predicted the rise and fall of the nations to which it refers.
Argument: Two other
tribes were uprooted during the time period by the Byzantines: the Huns (455
AD) and the Alemanni (495 AD) in addition to the three. Why do we not take this
into account?
Response: Neither
the Huns nor the Alemani were uprooted.
The Huns simply disappeared after Attila's death. The Huns did not
settle in the area of the Holy Roman Empire. They settled north, in the Baltic
area. Their military significance was short-lived. This is why Atila is
compared to a falling star in Revelation. Neither were the Huns especially a
threat to Orthodox Catholicism. The Alemanni are the Germans. They are alive
and well. The same can’t be said for the Ostrogoths, Vandals, or Heruli.
Argument: Daniel makes
it abundantly clear the ten kings will "arise from this kingdom".
This could not possibly refer to outside entities that come in and conquer
Rome. The only reasonable Biblical interpretation is that the ten horns
represent ten kings or rulers over Rome. History records that there were, in
fact, ten Roman Caesars who ruled Rome prior to the destruction of Jerusalem:
- Julius
Caeser 49-44BC
- Augustus
31BC-14AD
- Tiberius
(Luke 3:1) 14-37AD
- Gaius
(aka. Caligula) 37-41AD
- Claudius
(Acts 17) 41-54AD
- Nero
54-68AD
- Galba
68-69AD
- Otho
69AD
- Vitellius
69AD
- Vespasian
69-79AD
Response: This
would be funny if it weren't so serious. Three emperors uprooted in order to
let Nero rule?? That is CRAZY!! Only Claudius was put out of the way in order
for Nero to rule, as she was poisoned by the Empress Aggrippina, who was the fourth
wife of the Emperor Claudius. She had absolutely nothing to do with the deaths
of Tiberius or Caligula. She wasn't even in a position of power at that time.
How could these other two emperors have been put out of the way for Nero's
sake, when neither he nor his mother had any schemes or plans at that time? Nor
were they in any position to execute such schemes even if they had them.
Argument:
The kingdom "shall be
given to the people of the saints of the Most High (7:27) - It is a mistake to
think this passage is a reference to God's eternal kingdom. It is a reference
to God's spiritual kingdom, which was established in approximately 30 AD when
John the Baptist announced, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt.
3:2).
Response: Those with this strange
interpretation obviously haven't read the full text of Daniel 7. It cannot
possibly refer to the spiritual kingdom of Christ only, as it goes on to say in
verse 27 that when the kingdom is delivered to the saints of the Most High,
"all dominions shall serve and obey Him." This obviously refers to the
establishment of Christ's eternal kingdom, as all nations have not yet come to
serve and obey Him. This is what happens, according to Revelation, when Jesus'
eternal kingdom is established (Rev. 11:15).