In case you are unfamiliar with my stance on the seven heads, I believe the seven heads are the seven governments of the world powers from the time God called a people to Himself. Those powers in their native order are as follows:
(1)Egypt, (2) Assyria, (3) Babylon, (4) Medo-Persia, (5) Greece, (6) Imperial Rome, (7) Papal Rome [America is the 8th that is part of the seventh].
The below article is to serve as a rebuttal to one of the commenters who wrote a response to my article on the Seven Heads. This commenter said that the "Pioneers were aware of the "new" view of the Babylon, medio Persia, etc, and their arguments against totally destroy it." To buffer his point, he provided me with Uriah Smith's paper on the Seven Heads. This article can also be found in full here on the White Estate website. The way I'd like to rebut Uriah Smith's article is by attaching a screenshot of a section of his article and then responding below that screenshot with my own comments. Let's begin.
Point 1
Please be advised that the list of powers disputed by Uriah Smith differs from mine. However, because Uriah Smith is arguing against the concept that the seven heads represent seven world powers that preceded Rome, my list of powers would obviously be included as part of Smith's rebuttal.
Point 2
Look closely at what Uriah Smith writes. He says prophecy will not introduce new symbols to represent old governments. In reading this comment, I can only suggest that Uriah Smith either wrote this statement before he wrote his Daniel and the Revelation book, or he simply forgot what he previously wrote. Notice how Uriah Smith interprets the three ribs that were in the mouth of the bear in Daniel 7:
"The three ribs perhaps signify the three provinces of Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, which were especially ground down and oppressed by this power. Their saying unto it, “Arise, devour much flesh,” would naturally refer to the stimulus given to the Medes and the Persians by the overthrow of these provinces, to plan and undertake more extensive conquests" DAR p. 127
Does this not qualify for Uriah Smith's criteria for bad interpretation principles? Please do not try to refine his words by suggesting that the ribs are different because they were not part of the bear but in its mouth. The ribs in its mouth make it prophetically part of the animal. This is no different than the whore who sat upon the Beast or the Crowns on the ten horns, or the Sea or Land that the Beasts arose from. We don't need to overcomplicate this. Uriah Smith's criteria is simply that no new symbol will introduce an old power. We know this is not correct.
Point 3
On page 6, Uriah Smith quotes Daniel 7:12, which says, "As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." Smith suggests that this season and time represents just the period until the next kingdom begins. Now, this is certainly plausible, but looking at the context of the verse, we can see that the fourth Beast is the subject. Notice what the preceding verse says:
"I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame." (vs. 11)
If Daniel had made this statement immediately after introducing the three preceding powers, I would be more inclined to believe Smith's interpretation of this verse, but the fact that this is brought up when referring to the demise of the fourth beast suggests these powers continue living through the Roman Empire.
Point 4
Uriah Smith correctly asserts that out of Rome alone, the ten horns developed. He is correct in his assertion. However, there are some added details that he may have not considered.
It is clear the ten horns arose out of Rome. However, the question is…What is Rome? Does Rome only consist of the territory in Europe and North Africa? This is where many have mistaken.
Rome geographically represents Europe and N. Africa today, but PROPHETICALLY Rome represents the world. We know this because Daniel 7:23 says Rome "shall devour the whole earth." Notice, that no other nation in Daniel 7 was given this attribute. Thus in this manner, Rome represents a culmination of all the world and the powers that preceded it.
Point 5
To clarify, the Dragon represents all three powers in Revelation 12 depending on the location where it's being referenced. In the earlier part of the chapter, the Dragon represents Pagan Rome during the time of Christ. However, later in that chapter when it persecutes God's people, it represents the Papal Roman Empire. At the end of the chapter when it represents the persecuting power of the people that were saved by the earth, the Dragon represents the persecution that is enacted by the United States. Uriah Smith understood this and thus in his above statement he appears to only reference Revelation 13. My response up to this point is not meant as a dispute of his above statement, but rather a clarification for those who may read this in thinking that the Dragon ALWAYS represents Pagan Rome.
Where Uriah Smith says that "neither Babylon, Medo-Persia, nor Grecia had anything whatever to do with this transfer to the Papacy" is understood. However, just because a symbol is present doesn't determine how that symbol's actions are determined. In other words, just because the Beast was made up of the three preceding powers doesn't mean the text is saying these three powers had anything to do with the transfer of powers. No more than the three ribs in the bear's mouth had anything to do with one side raising higher than the other side (Daniel 7:5).
If we understand the connection between the visions in Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, we should understand that Daniel was not able to describe what the Beast looked like because it looked like all three of the preceding animals combined. In essence, the fourth Beast in Daniel 7 and the first Beast in Revelation 13 are the same. Revelation 13 repeats and expands on this Beast to show the culmination of it.
Point 6
Here, Uriah Smith correctly confirms that Rome is a culmination of the three previous powers due to its features [Leopard-like, Feet of Bear, mouth of Lion] in Rev 13. However, he concludes that because the Beast already shows it to be a combination of the three previous powers, it is unnecessary to have those kingdoms referenced again as other symbols on this same Beast. In other words, because the sea Beast has the features of the preceding powers, it doesn't make sense to now duplicate those powers by referring to them again with the seven heads.
While I understand how he makes this conclusion, an overview of the prophetic symbols of this same chapter determines that this is incorrect. If the Beast that came from the Sea represents the Papacy, then what does the Head that received the deadly wound in vs. 3 represent? Both represent the Papacy, but different components of that power. The Beast represents all the people of that power, but the heads represent the governments that ruled the people. Similarly, the different characteristics of the Beast represent the culmination of the previous powers prophetically living through the Sea Beast, and the Heads represent their governments also continuing to prophetically rule through the Roman power.
Conclusion
While the popular view of the Seven Heads, as believed by Uriah Smith, has its foundation in Protestantism since the Middle Ages, we must remember that when there is further truth being revealed, tradition should not hold us back from accepting a new view (Seventh-day Adventism's history is proof of that).
Unfortunately, Uriah Smith is not around to respond to this paper, but I welcome any readers of this article to comment or criticize any of the points made above. Please be aware that this paper is not a conclusive or thorough look at every point Smith made, but the few that I thought were relevant to those who are simply observing.
Although this article is in response to a particular comment, if the original commenter chooses not to respond, it is not an indicator that I am right or Uriah Smith is wrong, it simply means, we agree to disagree...and sometimes that's the best answer.
