The Book of Daniel - Number Fifty-Two

In the last article we pointed out that Gabriel provided the conclusion of the “last indignation” in order to confirm the date of 1844, based upon two witnesses. Miller understood the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six, that was carried out against the kingdom of Judah, but never reached a point where he saw the purpose and relationship of the judgment of the “seven times,” upon both the northern and southern kingdoms of Israel. Whether he ever recognized the distinction of “the last indignation” in verse nineteen is doubtful, though he no doubt understood in a general sense that the “indignation” was the “seven times.” The light of a first and last indignation was unsealed by Palmoni in 1856, but it was rejected in 1863. Yet Miller’s message of the “seven times” was correct, though limited.

Miller would not have recognized that the little horn of pagan Rome lifted up and exalted paganism, in verse eleven of Daniel eight, for to Miller “take away” was simply to remove in each of its three occurrences in Daniel. Yet his message was still correct, though limited.

The Millerites did recognize the “sanctuary” in verse eleven was the pagan temple in the city of Rome (the Pantheon), but the Hebrew language was not what their message was based upon. Miller’s message was focused upon prophetic time. The history where their message was unsealed prevented them from seeing the United States as the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy, but more than that, it prevented them from seeing the papacy as the fifth kingdom of Bible prophecy.

Forced by the history in which they lived they applied the prophecies in agreement with their anticipated soon-coming return of Christ, and they were disappointed, yet their message was correct. When Gabriel provides the interpretation of the two visions in verses fifteen through twenty-seven, Miller’s understanding prevented him from grasping the broader revelation of the kingdoms that was represented in the gender oscillation of the little horn in verses nine through twelve. The Millerites only see Rome as a fourth and final earthly kingdom in Gabriel’s interpretation.

Though Daniel received the vision of the Ulai River (which is now in the process of fulfillment), in the history of Babylon, the first kingdom is left out of the vision. It had been included as the head of gold, and the lion in chapters two and seven, but the prophetic attribute of Babylon being removed and restored was emphasized in chapter eight. Nebuchadnezzar had typified the deadly wound of the papacy when he was driven from men for “seven times,” thus typifying the symbolic seventy years that the whore of Tyre is forgotten. In Daniel chapter eight, Babylon is forgotten from the kingdoms of Bible prophecy and the vision begins with the Medes and Persians (the ram), which was followed by Greece (the goat).

The kingdom of Alexander the Great disintegrated into four kingdoms of lesser power than Alexander, as had also been represented in chapter seven with the leopard which had four wings and four heads. Four represents worldwide as represented by north, east, south and west. In verse eight of chapter eight, four notable ones came up towards the four winds of heaven. In chapter seven Greece’s four wings align with the four winds of chapter eight, and Greece’s four heads align with the four notable ones. The four heads and four notable ones represent the four kingdoms Alexander’s original kingdom disintegrated into, and the four wings and four winds represent the four areas of division. The distinction of the point is important to see, for it represents an argument which the Millerites had against the traditional understanding of the Protestants about the fourth kingdom of Rome.

On the tables of Habakkuk, represented by the 1843 and 1850 pioneer charts, there is only one representation which is not illustrating a prophetic application, and it has to do with the distinction between the four heads and notable ones, and the four wings and winds. In an effort to obscure the truth of Rome as the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy, Satan introduced an argument concerning the true or false meaning of the four heads and notable ones, and the four wings and winds. Satan did so for the book of Daniel clearly identifies that there is one distinct symbol in the book of Daniel that established the vision. Part of the evidence which establishes that symbol is in the four heads and notable ones, and the four wings and winds. The Protestants upheld a satanic view of this argument, and the argument was so significant to Millerite history that they referenced the argument upon the chart. The power which establishes the “chazon” vision in the book of Daniel is identified as the “robbers of thy people,” and the Protestants identified that power as one of a long line of Syrian kings named Antiochus Epiphanes, and Miller identified them as Rome.

Antiochus was one of the kings, in a line of kings that descended out of one of the four kingdoms which Alexander’s kingdom had disintegrated into. The little horn of verse nine of Daniel eight, had followed the kingdom of Alexander, and verse nine says that out of one of them, came forth the little horn.

The argument of whether Rome establishes the vision, or a weak and fairly insignificant Syrian king establishes the vision, includes the argument of whether the little horn power came out of one of the four horns, or out of one of the four winds. It is not much of an argument, for history and prophecy is clear that Rome was not a descendant of the Greek empire, but that Rome was a new power. If Rome was the fourth kingdom, then the “one of them” of verse nine, must be one of the four winds or wings. If it was Antiochus Epiphanes, it came out of the horn of Syria.

The Millerites identified that the power represented as “the robbers of thy people” would stand up against Christ.

The “Prince of princes” is Christ, and Antiochus Epiphanes lived well before Christ was born, so the Millerites pointed this fact out on the 1843 chart. On the chart they included the date 164, which in reality has no biblical reference, and was simply a notation which identifies the significance of the argument over the fourth kingdom between Miller and the Protestant theologians. Next to the year “164” on the chart they wrote, “Death of Antiochus Epiphanes who of course stood not up against the Prince of princes as he had been dead 164 years before the prince of princes was born.”

Today Adventism teaches that “the robbers of thy people” is Antiochus Epiphanes, as does apostate Protestantism, in spite of the fact that inspiration recorded that “the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord and should not be altered.” The Millerites knew that the king of fierce countenance was Rome, so they were not shaken by the satanic teaching that undermines the ability to establish the “chazon” vision. The Bible is clear that if there is no vision, the people perish.

The vision that Solomon identifies in the verse is the “chazon” vision, which in verse thirteen of Daniel eight, is the vision that identifies paganism and papalism trampling down the sanctuary and host. For the Millerites those two desolating powers represented the fourth kingdom of Bible prophecy, and without recognizing the fourth kingdom of Rome (the robbers of thy people), they would not have been able to establish the vision. The “robbers of thy people” in verse fourteen of Daniel eleven, were to stand up against the king of the south, exalt themselves, establish the vision and fall. Rome fulfilled each of those characteristics.

In chapter seven, the fourth kingdom is specifically identified as being “diverse” from the kingdoms before it.

The fourth kingdom of Daniel seven was twice identified as being “diverse” from the kingdoms that preceded it. If the “little horn” of verse nine was simply an extension of the Syrian horn (Antiochus Epiphanes), it would not have been different. The beasts that preceded Rome in chapter seven were the lion, the bear and the leopard, all animals that actually exist in nature, but when it came to the fourth beast with iron teeth and nails of brass, Daniel knew of no beast of nature that represented the dreadful beast that devoured. It was different (diverse). The “little horn” of verse nine, came forth out of one of the areas represented by the four winds and wings, and not out of one of the horns or notable ones.

Daniel chapter eight, states that “in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.” In the “latter time of their kingdom (Greece, which had disintegrated into four kingdoms), during the time “when the transgressors are come to the full,” a new king would stand up.

At the end (“latter time”) of the kingdom of Greece, when their cup of probationary time had been filled (“when the transgressors are come to the full”), a “king of fierce countenance” would stand up. That king would understand “dark sentences,” for he would speak a completely different language than the Hebrew of the Jews or the Greek of the previous kingdom, for he would speak Latin. That kingdom had been identified by Moses as the nation that would bring the siege of the years 66 to 70 AD, where among other things the famine was so terrible that the Jews ate their own children to survive.

In Daniel chapter two the fourth kingdom was represented by “iron,” and Moses identified “a nation,” which would put a “yoke of iron,” upon the Jews. The “nation” would “destroy” the Jews, and it would be as swift as an eagle, of which the eagle is the symbol of Rome. It would be a “nation” “whose tongue thou shalt not understand,” for its language would be “dark sentences” to the Jews. It would be a “nation of fierce countenance” as described in Daniel chapter eight as a “king of fierce countenance.” And in the “siege” of Jerusalem the Jews ate their “sons and daughters.”

Miller recognized pagan Rome as the power predicted by Moses, and as the fourth “iron” kingdom of Daniel two, and the “nation” who spoke Latin, not Hebrew or Greek. Miller made no distinction between the fourth and fifth kingdom of Bible prophecy, for to him they both were simply Rome. So after pagan Rome stood up in verse twenty-three, he would not see the distinction represented in verse twenty-four. In the vision the little horn had oscillated from masculine to feminine to masculine to feminine in verses nine through twelve, and verse twenty-three identifies the prophetic characteristics of pagan Rome, Gabriel’s interpretation in verse twenty-four changes to feminine Rome. The power in verse twenty-four was to possess “mighty power,” “but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.”

Papal Rome was to be given the military power of pagan Rome, and it would destroy God’s people for one thousand two hundred and sixty years, from the year 538 to 1798. It would destroy “wonderfully” for it is the beast the whole world “wonders after,” and it was the power that would “practice and prosper” until the first indignation that had been “determined” to be finished in 1798 was fulfilled.

Then in verse twenty-five Gabriel follows the oscillation established in the verses he was interpreting for Daniel, and again addresses pagan Rome, who through a different type of “policy,” brought together its empire, as attested to by all the historians. The “craft” of pagan Rome was to induce nations to join their growing empire, and it used the promise of peace and prosperity to build the empire, unlike the previous empires that were forged simply by military might. Pagan Rome was also to “stand up against the Prince of princes,” as it did when it placed Christ upon the cross of Calvary.

Then Gabriel addresses the two visions he was interpreting for Daniel, by identifying that the “mareh” vision of the appearance (the twenty-three hundred days) was true, and that the “chazon” vision of the trampling down of the sanctuary and host by pagan Rome and papal Rome was to be “shut up (sealed), “for many days” (until the time of the end in 1798).

Then Daniel was sick for some time, and then returned to work, but he still did not understand the “mareh” vision, which is the vision which Gabriel was commanded to make him understand. For that reason Gabriel would return in chapter nine, to finish his work of making Daniel understand the “mareh” vision.

In Daniel chapter nine, Daniel had been studying the prophetic Word and came to understand through the writings of Moses and Jeremiah. Jeremiah had identified the captivity he was in would last seventy years.

According to Moses the captivity in the enemy’s land would correspond to a time that the land would enjoy its sabbaths.

Daniel had understood from God’s prophetic Word, upon two witnesses that His people had been scattered into the enemy’s land, during which time the land would enjoy its sabbaths. He understood what the author of Chronicles understood concerning Jeremiah’s seventy years.

Daniel understood that Jeremiah’s seventy years of scattering in the enemy’s land, while the land enjoyed her sabbaths, was based upon the curse of “seven times” in Leviticus twenty-six, and in obedience to that understanding, he fulfilled the commanded remedy given there for those who finally awaken to their scattered condition.

Daniel’s prayer in chapter nine, is addressing every element of the counsel for those who find themselves scattered in the enemy’s land. That prayer is to be aligned with his prayer in chapter two, for together they represent the prayer of those in Revelation chapter eleven, that were dead in the streets of that great city of Sodom and Egypt, who find that they also had been scattered. As Daniel concludes his prayer, Gabriel returns to finish the work of explaining the “mareh” vision, just as the Holy Spirit intends to accomplish for the two witnesses of Revelation chapter eleven.

We will continue this study in the next article.