Changes to Daniel & Revelation
Recently I was able to acquire a copy of the ‘Daniel and Revelation’ by Uriah Smith dated 1918. Since then I have been comparing this with the modern one. I have only read a small portion, so there may be a lot more.
There have been changes to sentence construction, and although this might make it more modern, it was not entirely unnecessary, as the wording of Brother Smith is completely understandable. Here is an example of changes to sentence construction.
Here is an example. The original states, “Having taken the book, the Lamb proceeds at once to open the seals and the attention of the apostle is called to the scenes that transpire under each seal. The number seven has already been noticed as denoting in the Scriptures completeness and perfection.” p431.
The later one states, “The Lamb takes the book and proceeds at once to open the seals. The attention of the apostle is called to the scenes that transpire under each seal. The number seven has already been noticed as denoting completeness and perfection in the Scriptures.” p425.
In some places further historical evidence has been given and this is good.
One paragraph that was left intact was on page 213 (old) and (199) new is, “Think of celestial beings, the highest in the universe – the Father, the Son, the holy angels – having such regard and esteem for a mortal man here upon earth as to authorize an angel to bear the message to him that he is great beloved!”
Another left is on page 234 (old) and page 219.220 (new) is, “We have seen that the sanctuary of this dispensation is the tabernacle of God in heaven, the house not made with hands, where our Lord ministers in behalf of penitent sinners, the place where between the great God and His Son Jesus Christ the ‘counsel of peace’ prevails in the work of salvation for perishing men.”
On page 353 (old) and page 340.341 (new) is a greatly reduced section. They have left out the explanation of who Michael is, which does not take away from the subject on hand.
On page 357 (old) and page 345 (new) is, “The Source of Blessing. From him which is, and which was, and which is to come’ or is to be – an expression which signified complete eternity, past and future, and can be applicable to God the Father only. This language, we believe, is never applied to Christ. He is spoken of as another person, distinct from the being thus described.”
The new has, “The Source of Blessing. From Him which is, and which was, and which is to come’, or is to be – an expression which in this connection refers to God the Father, since the Holy Spirit and Christ are mentioned separately in the immediate context.”
But the main difference is the omission of everything relating to Christ being the literal Son of God. On page 422 and 423 of the new edition, relating to ‘A Clean Universe (Revelation 4:13.14), a large amount has been omitted, half of which is shown below. This is the part that refers to Christ.
Commencing with a sentence in both books, the old version says, “To the Lamb, equally with the Father who sits upon the throne, praise is ascribed in this song of adoration.
‘Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.’ Revelation 5:13.”
Many read these words and see a Trinity, but Brother Smith tried to avoid this conclusion by his words. “Commentators, with great unanimity, have seized upon this as proof that Christ must be coeval (same age) with the Father; for otherwise, say they, here would be worship paid to the creature which belongs only to the Creator.
But this does not seem to be a necessary conclusion. The Scriptures nowhere speak of Christ as a created being, but on the contrary plainly state that he was begotten of the Father. [See remarks on Rev 3:13, where it is shown that Christ is not a created being]
The remarks on Rev 3:13 on page 400 are as follows, “Some attempt by this language to uphold the error that Christ was a created being, dating his existence anterior to that of any other created being or thing, next to the self-existent and eternal God. But the language does not necessarily imply that he was created; the word, ‘the beginning of the creation’, may simply signify that the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by him…. Christ is the agent through whom God created all things, but that the Son came into existence in a different manner, as he is called ‘the only begotten’ of the Father. It would seem utterly inappropriate to apply this expression to any being created in the ordinary sense of that term.”
Continuing the original section on p430, “But, while as the Son he does not possess a co-eternity of past existence with the Father, the beginning of his existence, as the begotten of the Father, antedates the entire work of creation, in relation to which he stands as joint creator with God. John 1:3; Heb 1:2.
Could not the Father ordain that to such a being worship should be rendered equally with himself, without it’s being idolatry on the part of the worshipper? He has raised him to positions which make it proper that he should be worshipped, and has even commanded that worship should be rendered him, which would not have been necessary had he been equal with the Father in eternity of existence. Christ himself declares that ‘as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.’ John 5:26. The Father has ‘highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name.’ Phil 2:9. And the Father himself says, ‘Let all the angels of God worship him’. Heb 1:6. These testimonies show that Christ is now an object of worship equally with the Father; but they do not prove that with him he holds an eternity of past existence.” p430. 1918 edition. (Brackets in quote)
There may be other references to Christ as God’s Son that are specific, however, I have not compared the whole book. I feel this is enough to see that the work was done with a purpose.