Any religious message, at least from a Western point of view, must have two features: truthfulness and relevance. In the specific case of Christianity, Jesus’ followers believe they are announcing the truth. Furthermore, their goal is to make that truth known and accepted throughout the world.

Therefore, it is crucial for the advancement of the Seventh-day Adventist message that those who listen be able to believe in the veracity of its statements.

The issue of the truthfulness of religious statements is complex in matters like the incarnation, which cannot be demonstrated empirically. But it is a different matter in connection with our traditional interpretation of Daniel. Our message regarding Daniel does not aim merely to instill faith in the inspired authority of the Bible, but also create confidence in historical evidence. Our traditional argument is that "prophecy is history written in advance." This means that history verifies the prophecies of Daniel.

Here rests the precise problem of the traditional Adventist interpretation: the record of human history does not confirm our interpretation. To the contrary, history proves it erroneous, particularly our interpretation of Daniel 2.

At this point, I offer an observation: Many of my Adventist colleagues dislike critical analysis of the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel. They think we are criticizing God or the Church at large. Often they accuse dissenters of "liberalism," "betrayal," and "apostasy," and consider them "sowers of doubt," thus discrediting people instead of addressing the issues. I invite readers to avoid this approach and consider seriously the issues I raise in this article.

The Statue of Daniel 2

The traditional Adventist interpretation of the statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream (Daniel 2) has obvious difficulties. According to that interpretation, the prophecy teaches that no other world empire would arise after the end of the Roman empire and before the second coming of Christ. However, historical evidence indicates otherwise.

No less than three important world empires rose after the fall of Rome, all of them in more or less the same part of the world represented by the statue’s metals. All of them shared important features with Rome: a centralized and unified government, a dominant army, an imperial capital city, some laws mandatory to all conquered lands, and influential cultures, languages, and religion. I refer to the Byzantine, Arab, and Turk Ottoman empires.

The Byzantine Empire

The Byzantine empire was a medieval Christian empire of Greek culture whose capital city was Constantinople, or Byzantium (currently Istanbul). At the beginning, it embraced all the eastern Mediterranean lands, but in time it suffered territorial reductions.

After the defeat of the last emperor of the western Roman empire, Romulus Augustus (476 A.D.), the hegemony of the Byzantine empire maintained the political unity of more or less the same territories—including Italy to the west—as covered by the kingdoms represented by the metals in the statue of Daniel 2.

The religion of the Byzantine empire, that of the Christian Orthodox churches, was an important development in Christianity, no less relevant than the Roman Catholic Church. Orthodox Christianity clings to tradition more faithfully than does the Roman Catholic Church. However, both deviate from biblical teachings in important ways.

The Moslem Arab Empire

Starting in the seventh century A.D., the Moslem Arab empire dominated a large portion of the world, including part of Europe, North Africa, the biblical lands (Palestine and the territories of Babylon, Media, and Persia), Asia, and the Far East (as far as India and the Philippines). All were united under one empire.

After the Moslem Arabs conquered the territories of North Africa—where they were established for about eight centuries—they crossed into Spain through the Strait of Gibraltar. The Moslems carried their culture and religion and left deep influences that remain today. Their empire lasted much longer than that of Alexander the Great, and their influence in world history was no less important than that of the Greeks.

The Arab legacy includes contributions to philosophy, mathematics, and numeric characters used throughout the world. It also influenced music, literature, architecture, arts, agricultural produce, and religion. Today the Arab legacy can still be seen throughout five continents.

The Turk Ottoman Empire

The Turk Ottoman empire lasted from approximately 1300 to 1922 A.D.. It extended across three continents—from Hungary in the north to Aden in the south, and from Alger in the west to the border of Iran in the east. Its center of power was in the country known today as Turkey.

The population of the Ottoman empire was a mixture of cultural, linguistic and religious elements. Most people in the European provinces were Christians who belonged to the Orthodox Church. They preferred Ottoman domination to that of Roman Catholics. Moslems could be found in Macedonia, Bulgaria, and Albania, and Bosnia saw massive conversions to the Islamic faith.

The Ottoman empire gradually lost its European provinces, and the empire itself fell as a result of World War I. On November 1, 1922, it ceased to exist, replaced one year later by the Republic of Turkey.

Conclusion

Historical evidence does not support the assertion of most traditional Adventist writers that no other world empire would exist after Rome until the second coming. This brief survey makes clear that claims to the contrary are wrong. Any unbiased reader of history can follow the sequence of empires in biblical lands and other parts of the world until the twenty-first century without finding any hint that Rome was the last empire.

The problem is neither the failure of biblical prophecy nor the lack of faith among educated people who know about world history, but the absence of historical evidence to support our traditional interpretation. This point would be unimportant—faith does not necessarily require historical support—if our goal had not been to demonstrate precisely the historical veracity of our interpretation.

I have asked many Adventist history professors on three continents why we don’t mention the Byzantine, Arab, and Ottoman empires when we give Bible studies on Daniel. Many prefer not to answer. Others recognize the historical accuracy of my observations, but think that the Church’s theologians should answer.

So here is a challenge for those theologians. In response, the historical evidence cannot be changed or ignored and it must be seriously considered in any theological reinterpretation.

If we want to reach the entire world with the message of Christ’s second coming, we cannot allow factual errors to hinder our credibility. If we retain those errors, we run the risk of being perceived as a sect, a small group that accepts some doctrines by faith (based on the magisterial authority of their religious leaders) despite their incompatibility with the factual evidence.

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE