ANALYSIS OF THE 2520 YEAR PROPHECY (PART TWO)

ANALYSIS OF THE 2520 YEAR PROPHECY (PART TWO) Those who promote the 2520 year prophecy believe that it has to be correct because William Miller and his associates believed it. We should realize that even though Miller was used of God to bring a special message, it doesn t mean that he was right on every point. God also used Martin Luther to bring a special message that started the Protestant Reformation, but he wasn t right on everything that he believed, like his attitude toward the book of James or the Eucharist. The 1843 chart that Miller and his associates drew up had some vital information which God wanted the people to have. But we are told that God hid their mistake in some of the figures. The only two apparent figures on the 1843 chart that were mistaken are the miscalculation of the 2300 days which they thought ended in 1843 instead of 1844 and the 2520 days. In the 1850 chart, the 2520 prophecy is no longer as prominent, being reduced to a rather obscure position at the bottom of the right hand corner. The 1863 chart doesn t have any reference to it at all. There are some other questions regarding the 2520 prophecy. If the 7 times in Leviticus 26 refers to chronological time, then to be consistent, we would have to add the four times that it states and I will punish you seven times more to make a total of 28 times. That would add up to 10,080 years. The expression seven times more strongly suggests seven times greater intensity rather than chronological time. There is also a question why the starting date for the 7 times of punishing begins with Manasseh? There were other more severe punishments of Israel both before and after Manasseh. For example, the punishment of Israel by the Midianites in Judges 6 was more severe and so was the punishment by the Philistines which lasted for 18 years as recorded in Judges 10:6-9. Then there also was the punishment in the reign of king Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:11-19, and the severe punishments depicted in 2 Kings 24:8-16 and chapter 25 of the same book. All of these were more devastating than what happened with Manasseh. So there is no rationale for starting the beginning of the prophecy with Manasseh. Another question is why Ellen White never even mentions the 2520 prophecy if it is as important as its promoters claim it is? She uses the term 2300 days scores of times as well as the 70 weeks and the 1260 years. But never 2520. James White didn t believe it, and we don t find mention of it in the writings of other pioneers like Uriah Smith and John Haskell. Ellen White makes it plain that the longest time prophecy is the 2300 year prophecy ending in 1844. After this period of time, reaching from 1842 to 1844, there can be no definite tracing of the prophetic time. The longest reckoning reaches to the autumn of 1844 7 Bible Comments p. 971. Another point that the believers in the 2520 year prophecy promote is the application of the daily in Daniel 8:11 to paganism. That position was held by Uriah Smith and John Haskell and many others. But the claim that Ellen White endorsed it because of what she wrote in Early Writings about the 1843 prophetic chart is not a valid argument. We need to go into the history of the debate over the daily to understand what was involved in the controversy. Sometimes an important subject can become so emotionally charged because of opposing opinions, the participants in the discussions are unable to see the forest for the trees. By focusing on one aspect of the question, they fail to comprehend the full ramifications of what they are dealing with. This is what happened over one hundred years ago among our top church leaders, who were good men of strong character and firm convictions. We do not want to fault them in their strong opinions, nor disparage their firmness in standing for what they were convinced was truth. But hind sight is superior to foresight, and as we begin by reviewing what happened in our church in the early nineteen hundreds, and then look at the whole picture, it becomes 1

apparent that they did not advance very far in understanding the great significance of the daily. They failed to discern the dramatic change and disastrous effects that the taking away of the daily had in the lives of people, both spiritually, politically and economically for over a thousand years. Unfortunately there is a tendency to ignore the subject of the daily because of what Ellen White told the brethren when they were engaging in some heated discussions on the subject. She asked both sides to drop the subject because it was distracting them from doing the work that the Lord had called them to do. It seems God purposely did not give Ellen White any light on the true meaning of the daily and therefore she did not offer any opinion on the subject to settle the issue. It might have caused those on the right side to exult over the other side. While she reproved both sides for continuing to bring up the subject, yet she did at one point counsel the brethren to meet together and have a calm, candid examination of the matter. On May 24, 1910, Ellen White wrote a letter to Elder Haskell urging him and the other brethren involved in the controversy to meet with Elder Daniells and try to come to a unified position on the subject. She wrote, I have been waiting for the time when there should be an investigation of the doctrines that Brother Daniells and others have been advocating. When is this to be? If Elder Daniells thinks that some of the interpretations of Scripture that have been held in the past are not correct, our brethren should listen to his reasons, and give candid consideration to his views Manuscript Release, Vol.20, 223. But this meeting of the two sides never happened. Before we go into that part of our church history, let us look at the background of the subject of the daily and the context in which we find it recorded in the book of Daniel. In the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel we read about the steps that the little horn, took to exalt itself against God and tread down His saints. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily (sacrifice) was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily (sacrifice) by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Here we are given a little insight regarding the road that the little horn took to attain to political and spiritual supremacy. It magnified itself, even to the host of heaven, and cast down some of the host of God s people to the ground and stamped upon them. It also cast down the sanctuary and the truth to the ground. And Daniel 7:21 & 25 adds more to the picture when it tells us that the little horn would make war against the saints and wear out the saints of the Most High. But the question is, How was he able to do that? How would he be able to do what we read in 2 Thessalonians 2:4-exalt himself above God and sit in the temple of God, showing himself to be God? It was by taking away the daily that it succeeded in its nefarious plan. It is unfortunate that the subject of the daily became a hot potato in our church in the past, and per- 2

haps it is becoming that once again in recent times. So at this point it is essential that we revisit this controversy in our church before we trace what happened in the early centuries in Europe. While the daily may have been a hot potato for some Seventh-day Adventists, it is a life and death matter for the little horn. Unfortunately, that was forgotten in the debates that went on over this subject. The meaning of the daily mentioned in Daniel 8:9-14 certainly engendered a lot of theological discussions in our church. There were two interpretations of the daily which created some heated debate among the leaders in our church. On one side of the issue were such stalwart men as Stephen Haskell, J.N. Loughborough and F.C. Gilbert, while on the other side were some equally stalwart men such as W.W. Prescott, A.G. Daniells, who was General Conference President, and Willie White. At issue was whether the daily refers to paganism, a view held by William Miller and espoused by Uriah Smith in his book on Daniel & Revelation, or whether it referred to the daily ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. Elder Haskell and those standing with him held to the position taken by Miller and Uriah Smith. On the other hand Elder Daniells, and those standing with him took the view that the daily referred to Christ s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. The controversy began in the early nineteen hundreds soon after Elder Daniells became president of the General Conference. We get this interesting background from Later Elmshaven Years, Vol.6, p.246. Soon after becoming leader of the church in 1901, Elder Daniells was brought into close association with W. W. Prescott, former president of Battle Creek College. As editor of the Review and Herald and vice-president of the General Conference during the period of 1901 to 1909, Prescott worked closely with Daniells. Early in their association, Prescott brought to Daniells' attention what was termed the new view of the daily of Daniel 8. His own study and association with workers in Europe had led Prescott to question the presentation in the widely read Uriah Smith book Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, which came to be known as the old view. At the time, and in succeeding months Daniells counseled that nothing be said, that the matter should not be agitated or discussed, for fear that something wrong might be brought in, and for fear that the question of heresy might be raised, and people get unsettled, and controversy be set on foot. The matter simmered for a time. The subject was discussed a few times at General Conference meetings without reaching a conclusion. But as more examination was given to the matter and many were led to accept the new view, a polarization began to develop. Ellen White counseled the brethren not to agitate the subject. But it seems that the two sides were anxious that the church should adopt their particular view, and it was very difficult not to voice their particular opinions. When Haskell published the 1843 chart which was used by Miller, and which had the old view espoused by him and Uriah Smith, Ellen White soundly reproved him for thus bringing the subject out in the open again. And when Daniells decided to settle the matter by giving a presentation of the new view, Ellen White sharply rebuked him as well. She wrote to him stating, you had no moral right to blaze out as you did upon the subject of the Daily and suppose your influence would decide the question Manuscript Release 20, p.19. Haskell and those sharing his views used the argument that Ellen White endorsed the old position held 3

by Miller and Uriah Smith by what she wrote in Early Writings pp.74-75 regarding the 1843 chart which included a notation of the daily being taken away in 508 A.D. Here is what Ellen White wrote: I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as He wanted them; that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until His hand was removed. Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Dan. 8:12) that the word "sacrifice" was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the "daily"; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test Early Writings pp.74-75. Because those holding to the old view argued that Ellen White endorsed Miller s view that the daily referred to paganism, Elder Daniells along with Willie White and C.C. Crisler went to her personally to get from her first hand what she meant by her statement found in Early Writings. This is the report that Elder Daniells gave of the interview. I first read to Sister White the statement given above in Early Writings. Then I placed before her our prophetic chart used by our ministers in expounding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. I called her attention to the picture of the sanctuary and also to the 2300-year period as they appeared on the chart. I then asked if she could recall what was shown her regarding this subject. As I recall her answer, she began by telling how some of the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement endeavored to find new dates for the termination of the 2300-year period. This endeavor was to fix new dates for the coming of the Lord. This was causing confusion among those who had been in the Advent Movement. In this confusion the Lord revealed to her, she said, that the view that had been held and presented regarding the dates was correct, and that there must never be another time set, nor another time message. I then asked her to tell what had been revealed to her about the rest of the daily --the Prince, the host, the taking away of the daily, and the casting down of the sanctuary. She replied that these features were not placed before her in vision as the time part was. She would not be led out to make an explanation of those points of the prophecy. The interview made a deep impression upon my mind. Without hesitation she talked freely, clearly, and at length about the 2300 -year period, but regarding the other part of the prophecy she was silent. The only conclusion I could draw from her free explanation of the time and her silence as to the taking away of the daily and the casting down of the sanctuary was that the vision given her was regarding the time, and that she received no explanation as to the other parts of the prophecy Elmshaven Years, Vol.6, p.256-257. So it seemed that Ellen White s endorsement of the chart regarding the daily had to do with the date of 508 A.D. but not the interpretation of what the daily actually was. Quoting again from the same book, we read the following: Since charts figure in this matter, Ellen White's attitude in this interview is given strong support as the reckoning of the Cummings 1854 prophetic chart is studied. In this, the Jewish altar of daily sacrifice in 446 B.C. is used as the starting point for a new 2300-year time span set to end in 1854. This chart, published at Concord, New Hampshire, in 1853, was typical of charts that com- 4

menced the 2300 days with what was said to be the taking away of the daily sacrifice Ibid.p.257. We get some further illumination on this matter from p.247 of the same book which says, The question of the meaning of the daily was not a new one in Adventist history. William Miller had taught that it referred to paganism, but even before the Disappointment, that view was questioned. The classic 1843 chart produced by Fitch, and used by all the Advent preachers, omitted reference to the meaning of the daily. In 1847 O. R. L. Crosier had expressed the view that the daily refers to the high-priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. Uriah Smith in 1854 briefly expounded this position (RH, March 28, 1854). But Smith, rising to prominence shortly afterward, in his Thoughts on Daniel (1873 ed.,p. 163), went back to the view of William Miller. Smith's became the accepted position until the turn of the century, and thus was known as the old view. Prescott's position was similar to Crosier's, but nevertheless acquired the less-than-accurate designation as the new view. In all the discussion about the daily, it became obvious that Ellen White was most concerned about the problem of time setting and finding new dates for the beginning of the 2300 days. She never did receive any light as to the meaning of the daily. Perhaps the Lord saw it best not to give the true meaning of the daily because it might lead the brethren on the right position to gloat over those on the other side. So Ellen White s counsel was to drop the subject and cease any further debate. Her son Willie recognized that what his mother was referring to in her statements on the daily had to do with changing the dates for the taking away of the daily and not the actual meaning of the daily. Reading again from Elmshaven Years Vol.6, p.254: Concerning this whole matter, W. C. White, after spending a day or two studying it through carefully, on June 1, 1910, wrote to Edson, taking the position that the context of the statement must be considered. It is evident that the vision of September 23, 1850, as published in Early Writings, new edition, pages 74-76, under the title The Gathering Time, was given to correct the prevalent error of time setting, and to check the fanatical doctrines being taught regarding the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. At this point it might be well to find out what happened in 508 A.D. that fulfilled the prophecy of Daniel 8:9-11 and 12:11 where it mentions a time period of 1290 days from the taking away of the daily. We are best acquainted with the year 538 A.D. as the starting point for the setting up of the political authority of the papacy over all Christiandom. But we need to realize that 30 years before that, under the military campaigns of Clovis, king of the Franks, who for political expediency converted to Catholicism, the ecclesiastical authority of the papacy was fully set up. This is well explained in the 1922 edition of Bible Readings for The Home Circle, p.229. It uses the word continual in place of daily because that is the literal translation from the Hebrew. After a time line chart spanning the 1290 days from 508 to 1798 as mentioned in Daniel 12:11, it gives this comment. Inasmuch as the taking away of the continual mediation of Christ is made the beginning of a prophetic period, there must be some definite act at some definite time which, in form and intent, takes from Christ His priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary. This act was the official decree of an ecclesiastical council held at Rome in 503 A.D., by which it was declared that the Pope was judge as God s vicar, and could himself be judged by no one. The work of Clo- 5

vis, King of the Franks, who earned for himself the title of the eldest son of the church by his campaigns to subdue the kingdoms hostile to the Papacy, contributed much toward putting into practical effect this claim of the Papacy, which finally resulted in establishing the Pope as head of the Roman priesthood, which has usurped the priestly work of Christ, and has established another system of mediation it its place. This work of Clovis came to its climax in the period 503-508, and this period therefore becomes the natural one from which to date the 1290 years of Dan.12:11, which would accordingly end in the period 1793-98, at the same time as the 1260 years of Dan.7:25. It is interesting to note that by the year 1922, the church s official publications had adopted the view on the daily held by Daniells, Prescott and Willie White. We do not read of any further controversy on the question of the daily after the early 1900 s. In more recent times, our official church publications all seem to have taken the position that the daily has reference to the mediatorial work of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. In a special edition of These Times of 1979, p.18, we read this comment on Daniel 8:9-11: While pagan Rome withstood Christ and did indeed destroy the Jewish temple, papal Rome effectively obscured the priestly, mediatorial ministry of Christ in behalf of sinners in the heavenly sanctuary by substituting a priesthood that purports to offer forgiveness through the mediation of men. Also in the fourth quarter s lessons in the 2004 Sabbath School quarterly, we read this comment on Daniel 8:9-12. The daily. The Hebrew word tamid (continual, perpetual or daily) appears 103 times in the Old Testament. It is frequently used in connection with the daily service in the sanctuary. This text shows that Christ s daily ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is coming under attack by the little horn. The same position is taken in the Sabbath School quarterlies of 2001 and 2006. Also some of our Biblical scholars have written books in which the same position is upheld. See God and His Sanctuary by C. Mervyn Maxwell. When we carefully examine the two opposing positions on the daily, we find that the position that has been adopted by our official church publications makes much more sense than the view adopted by Uriah Smith and those who follow his line of reasoning. A good way to determine which view is most in harmony with the context, is to interpolate the two opposing views in the reading of Daniel 8:11-14. If we were to take the view that the daily refers to paganism, then the passage in Daniel could be read as follows by inserting pagan Rome where it says daily. Yea, he (the papacy) magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily (pagan Rome) was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him (the papacy) against the daily (pagan Rome) by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily (pagan Rome) and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (We have left out the word sacrifice because it is a supplied word.) Reading this passage by interpolating pagan Rome in the place of the daily makes the passage 6

sound like a political contest between papal and pagan Rome. The mention of the sanctuary being cast down seems to have no relation to the political maneuverings depicted in these verses. There seems to be a disconnect between the sanctuary and taking away of the daily. By comparison, let us interpolate the words Christ s daily ministry in the heavenly sanctuary in place of the word daily and see if it isn t more in keeping with the over all context of Daniel 8. Yea, he (the papacy) magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily(christ s daily ministry in the heavenly sanctuary) was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily (Christ s daily ministry) by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily (Christ s daily ministry) and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. This last interpolation seems to fit more harmoniously with the context of the passage in Daniel 8. And that is what we find in other passages of Inspiration when we read of how the papacy magnified itself as it rose to supreme power over the Christian world. And it also agrees with the following passage from Great Controversy p. 55. The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that the pope was their earthly mediator, and that none could approach God except through him, and, further, that he stood in the place of God to them, and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed. 7