What Adventists have Taught on Armageddon

The third period began about 1903 and ended about 1952. The main difference be­tween this period and the one that pre­ceded it was that Armageddon was held to be a gigantic military engagement among the nations of the world gathered in Pales­tine. Christ's part in this view of Arma­geddon was largely minimized. The years from about 1886 to about 1912 were transi­tion years.

The fourth period began about 1952 and continues to the present. During this pe­riod there has been a partial return to many of the basic positions of the first pe­riod. The Papacy is generally held to be the king of the north, and Armageddon is understood to be primarily the climactic struggle between the forces of Christ and those of Satan at the end of time. The years between about 1924 and 1952 were transi­tion years.

Influencing Factors

Seventh-day Adventists trace their ori­gin back to the Millerite movement of the 1830's and early 1840's. As every Adventist knows, the special point of emphasis of the Millerite movement in its later phases was the literal, visible coming of the Lord on October 22, 1844. This belief was based on the prophecy of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14.

Millerism was composed largely of American Protestants; hence, it is not sur­prising that on matters of lesser impor­tance the Millerites simply adopted the prevailing Protestant view of the matter. Armageddon was a subject of lesser impor­tance. Only as it was believed to have some bearing on the Second Advent was it con­sidered at all.

The prevailing Protestant view of the seven last plagues of Revelation 16 was that five of them had already fallen, the sixth was in the process of fulfillment, and only the seventh was still in the future. As for the symbols of Revelation 16:12-16, the great majority of Protestant expositors held that the Euphrates represented Tur­key or Mohammedanism. There was little unanimity of opinion on the interpreta­tion of the other symbols of this passage.

In harmony with the prevailing Protes­tant view of Revelation 16, William Mil­ler, leader of the movement that bore his name, taught prior to 1840 that five of the plagues had fallen, the sixth was in the process of being poured out, and the sev­enth would be poured out about 1840.

Miller had little to say about the kings of the East. As for the remaining symbols of Revelation 16:12-16, Miller taught that when the Euphrates (the Turkish power) was dried up (ceased to exist) three wicked political principles (the three unclean spirits) would go forth from the kings of the earth (the dragon), the Papacy (the beast), and Mohammedanism (the false prophet) to gather all nations and all peo­ple (the kings of the earth and of the whole world) to Armageddon. Armaged­don would involve both political and reli­gious strife and would be fought mainly in the United States. Miller appears to have believed that while it was going on, Christ would come, vanquish His enemies, and separate the wicked from the just.

Miller did not relate the prophecy of Revelation 16:12-16 to the prophecy of Daniel 11:45 about the end of the king of the north, because he understood the king of the north to be the Papacy; whereas, the Euphrates of Revelation 16 was the Turkish power.

Miller changed his view of Armageddon at least twice: once in 1840 and again in 1844. However, most of Miller's followers seem to have held his original view. The reason for this appears to have been that it received more publicity than his later views.

However, not all of the Millerites fol­lowed Miller on his interpretation of Reve­lation 16. Chief among those who differed with him was Josiah Litch. Litch held that all of the seven last plagues would be poured out after the Second Advent. He believed that at the Second Coming the saints would be taken to the sea of glass where Christ would organize His kingdom. While this was going on, the seven last plagues would be falling on the wicked. 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—proceding 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.

When October 22, 1844, passed and Christ did not return as the Millerites ex­pected, the movement broke up into sev­eral fragments. One of the smaller frag­ments later developed into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The question of Armageddon was not one of prime concern to the emerging Sev­enth-day Adventist leaders; however, the timing of the plagues was. Early in 1846, probably as a result of the visions of Ellen Harmon, James White adopted the view that all of the seven last plagues were in the future but before the Second Advent. This view differed markedly from the views held by Miller and Litch. Seventh-day Adventists have held to this view through the years regardless of what their particular views on Armageddon and the king of the north have been.

In March, 1848, an event occurred that was destined to influence our teaching on Armageddon. This was the rise of modern Spiritualism in Hydesville, New York. About a year after Spiritualism made its modern debut, Ellen White was shown in vision that the mysterious rappings in New York were of Satanic origin and that they would become more and more common Not long after this, George W. Holt, a for­mer Millerite minister from Connecticut who had become a Seventh-day Adventist, identified the spirits of Spiritualism as be­ing the spirits of devils of Revelation 16: 13-16.

But then the question arose: If the spir­its of Spiritualism are now fulfilling the events of the sixth plague, how can the plagues be said to be all in the future? Uriah Smith, then a young man associated with the publication of the Review and Herald, gave the answer that was to be­come our standard answer to this question. He declared that the present work of Spir­itualism is a preparatory work, that before the spirits of devils can have such absolute power over the wicked as to induce them to fight against God, they must first win their way among the nations.

The Early Period

In the earliest years of our movement most Seventh-day Adventists apparently held that the Euphrates of Revelation 16: 12 referred to the literal river by that name. They apparently believed that that river would be literally dried up at the time of the sixth plague. This, of course, was Litch's view. In 1857 Uriah Smith set forth the view that the Euphrates repre­sents the country through which it flows, at that time the Turkish Empire. This view seems soon to have been accepted by most, if not all, Seventh-day Adventists. He also introduced at this time the view that the nations would assemble in Palestine under the sixth plague over possession of the Holy Land, but he does not seem to have been followed in this particular view by all Seventh-day Adventists at this time.

As for the other teachings related to Ar­mageddon and the king of the north, there seems to have been a general unanimity of opinion during the early period. Thus, vir­tually all Seventh-day Adventists were agreed that the dragon represented pagan­ism; the beast, Catholicism; the false prophet, apostate Protestantism. The bat­tle of that great day of God Almighty, or Armageddon, was held to be the culminat­ing clash between the forces of good and evil, or Christ and Satan, at the Second Coming. With regard to the identity of the king of the north, there was general agree­ment that it represented the Papacy.

The First Transition

In 1867 Uriah Smith's book, Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Rev­elation, was published. This book popu­larized among Seventh-day Adventists the view of Armageddon Smith had first set forth in 1857. Early in 1869 Smith began a series of articles in the Review and Herald that eventually became the book Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel. Late in 1870 and early in 1871, while Smith was evidently studying and preparing his articles on the eleventh chapter of Daniel, he began to show a cer­tain ambivalence respecting his identifica­tion of the last power of that chapter, the king of the north. His writings reveal un­certainty as to whether this power is the Papacy, as he had formerly held, or Tur­key. From this time on Smith began, as he says, to "look for significant events in that quarter," and to make predictions to the effect that Turkey's end was imminent. Along with this he taught that when Tur­key came to its end Michael would stand up; that is, probation would close, and soon after this Christ would come.

These predictions disturbed James White. It appears that having gone through the disappointment in 1844, he was cautious on the matter of making de­tailed predictions of coming events based on unfulfilled prophecy, and urged others to be cautious also. When Smith continued to make predictions concerning Turkey's imminent end, a clash between the two leaders became inevitable.

Clash Over the King of the North

In 1877 war broke out between Turkey and Russia. Late that summer Smith preached on the Eastern question at a camp meeting which James and Ellen White attended. Perhaps as a result of this sermon James White wrote an editorial in the November 15, 1877, issue of the Signs of the Times (reprinted in the Review and Herald of November 27, 1877), in which he again urged caution on the part of those who were showing such positiveness regarding the Eastern question. But Smith continued to make predictions concerning the nearness of Turkey's end, and in June, 1878, went so far as to express the opinion that "we have reached the preliminary movements of the great battle of Armaged­don" (Review and Herald, June 6, 1878, p. 180). The inevitable clash between the two leaders came during the camp meeting that preceded the 1878 General Confer­ence held in Battle Creek, Michigan.

According to witnesses present at the camp meeting, Uriah Smith spoke at one of the early meetings on the Eastern ques­tion and again expressed the opinion that the Russo-Turkish war then in progress might develop into Armageddon. When Smith finished his discourse, James White spoke for seventy minutes, during which time he publicly rebutted Smith's view.

The essence of White's argument was as follows: If Daniel 2, 7, and 8 end with the destruction of pagan-papal Rome, and the first part of Daniel 11 recapitulates chap­ters 2, 7, and 8, then the last power of Dan­iel 11 must be pagan-papal Rome, not Turkey.

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. 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.

(To be continued)