adventist historicism reexamined and critiqued final draft

Adventist Historicism Reexamined 1

Adventist Historicism Reexamined and Critiqued Eduard C. Hanganu

B.A., M.A., Linguistics

Lecturer in English, UE

Draft 98

Revised – April 5, 2015

© 2015


TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 5

Square Claims and Mistaken Denials ............................................................................... 5

Prophetic Schools Noted and Critiqued ............................................................................ 5

The Four Prophetic Schools Described................................................................. 5

The Preterist School ................................................................................ 5

The Futurist School................................................................................. 6

The Idealist School .................................................................................. 6

The Historicist School ............................................................................. 6

The Four Prophetic Schools Critiqued .................................................................. 7

The Preterist School ................................................................................ 7

The Futurist School ................................................................................ 7

The Idealist School .................................................................................. 7

The Historicist School ............................................................................. 7

Blended Perspectives and Interpretation ........................................................................... 7

Present Adventists – The Last Historicists ....................................................................... 9

The SDA Church Sold To Historicism ............................................................................ 9

Gerhard Pfandl ................................................................................................... 9

Richard M. Davidson .......................................................................................... 9

Ángel M. Rodríguez ............................................................................................ 9

The Dogmatic and Exclusive Position ............................................................................ 10

Historicism – The Failed Hermeneutics ......................................................................... 10

This Document’s Intended Purpose ................................................................................ 10

II. Historicism in the SDA Perspective ....................................................................................... 12

Various Definitions for Historicism................................................................................ 12

The SDA Encyclopedia ..................................................................................... 12

The SDA Bible Student’s Source Book ........................................................... 13

William Shea...................................................................................................... 13

Frank B. Holbrook ............................................................................................ 13

Angel Manuel Rodríguez .................................................................................. 14

Desmond Ford ................................................................................................... 14

Le Roy Edwin Froom........................................................................................ 14

Richard M. Davidson ........................................................................................ 15

The Glacier View Theologians ......................................................................... 15

Reimar Vetne ..................................................................................................... 15


Jon Paulien ........................................................................................................ 16

John Noe ............................................................................................................ 16

The Historicism Definitions Tabulated ........................................................................... 17

The Historicism Definitions Itemized ............................................................................. 18

The Historicism Definitions Restated ............................................................................. 19

III. Traditional Base for SDA Historicism .................................................................................. 22

Adventists and Historicist Tradition ............................................................................... 22

Le Roy Edwin Froom........................................................................................ 22

Richard Davidson.............................................................................................. 22

Gerhard Pfandl ................................................................................................. 22

Frank B. Holbrook ............................................................................................ 22

Religious Tradition and Its Dangers ............................................................................... 22

Historicism – Its Theological Roots ............................................................................... 23

IV. Historical and Non-Historical Events ................................................................................... 27

Human Events and Historical Records ........................................................................... 27

SDA Historicism and Historical Events ......................................................................... 28

The SDA Historicist Claims Too Tall ............................................................................ 28

Evidence for Historical Fulfillment ................................................................................ 29

Unassailable Facts as True Evidence .............................................................................. 29

V. The Incomplete and Selective Records .................................................................................. 31

Divine and Human Historicist Decoders ........................................................................ 31

The SDA Historicist Claims Repeated ........................................................................... 31

Historical Time Coverage Incomplete ............................................................................ 32

World Empires Never Mentioned ....................................................................... 35

Significant Religious Events Also Absent ...................................................................... 36

Ten Momentous Events in the Church................................................................ 36

The Unbroken Sequence Claim False ............................................................................. 39

VI. Historicist Charts and Historic Spans ................................................................................... 40

Miller’s Deceptive Time Computations.......................................................................... 40

The Fitch and Hale Prophetic Diagram .......................................................................... 40

The Rhodes and Nichols Revised Chart ......................................................................... 44

Time Gaps In The Historical Narratives ......................................................................... 47

VII. Failed SDA Historicist Predictions ..................................................................................... 48

Bold Predictions And Dreadful Failures ......................................................................... 48

The Sun, Moon, and the Stars ......................................................................... 48

Sure Signs But Mistaken Interpretation .................................................. 49


LaRondelle Disputes White’s Claims ..................................................... 51

Historicist End Time Predictions False................................................... 54

Papal Oppression for 1260 Years .................................................................... 54

Smith’s Historicist Persecution Claim .................................................... 54

Ellen White Confirms Smith’s Claim ..................................................... 55

Adventist Theologians Oppose White .................................................... 55

Bacchiocchi Contends For Earlier Date .................................................. 57

The Longest Prophetic Period ......................................................................... 59

Miller’s Bold Extrapolation Miscarries .................................................. 59

Miller Acknowledges His Grave Errors ................................................. 60

The Millerites Lose Purpose and Drive .................................................. 60

Certain Millerites Still Preserve Hope .................................................... 61

Hiram Edson’s Aaronic Tabernacle ........................................................ 61

Ellen White In Consent With Edson ....................................................... 63

An Untenable Theological Position ........................................................ 64

Historical Records Fail the 1844 Date .................................................... 65

The Ottoman Empire Prediction ..................................................................... 66

Litch Fails With Miller’s Arithmetic ...................................................... 66

Ellen White Treats Failure As Success ................................................... 67

Litch Recognizes His Miscalculation ..................................................... 67

VIII. Diversions That Robbed the Gospel .................................................................................. 69

[True Historicism and Salvation] ................................................................................ 69

[Daniel’s Christological Emphasis] ............................................................................. 69

[Historicist Traditions Misused] .................................................................................. 70

[Honest Historicist Interpretation] .............................................................................. 70

[Historicist Claims Need Evidence] ............................................................................. 71

[Consensus Failure in Historicism] ............................................................................. 71

[Gospel Proclamation Neglected] ................................................................................ 71

[Historicism Blocks True Reform] .............................................................................. 72

IX. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 73

Definition and Application Issues ................................................................................... 73

No Divine Origin For Historicism .................................................................................. 73

Selective Historical Attestation....................................................................................... 73

Repeated SDA Prediction Failures ................................................................................. 73

Historicist Mania and the Gospel .................................................................................... 74

References ................................................................................................................................... 75


Adventist Historicism Reexamined and Critiqued

I. Introduction

Square Claims and Mistaken Denials

In his monumental book, Daniel, Ford examined in detail and evaluated the four main

hermeneutical constructs that have defined the prophetic interpretation during the past two

millennia—preterism, idealism, futurism, and historicism,1

and reached the notorious conclusion

that “each of the systems [schools] is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies.”2 The

Seventh-day Adventist [further, SDA] Glacier View theologians and scholars declared his

statement illogical and ridiculed the scholar because, in their view, “with this guiding axiom

coupled with the apotelesmatic principle, the author says that all prophetical interpretations by all

four prophetical schools preterists, historicists, futurists, and idealists are correct (ibid.)” and also

because “with its use no positively stated assertion could ever contradict another positively stated

assertion.”3

Their indictment, though, was based on incomplete theological information, rushed, and

biased. Had the esteemed scholars taken time to read what the “heretic” had presented

afterwards, the contradiction would have been found in their logic, and Ford’s declaration would

have become clear, that is, that all hermeneutical constructs or schools were imperfect and

deficient and had failed to provide adequate and appropriate guidelines for sound prophetic

interpretation. To support his informed and critical conclusion, the derided theologian had quoted

prominent Christian theologians and scholars who had urged the exegetes “to retain what is right

in each system and to avoid what is wrong,”4

and that proposition had been an intelligent and

competent recommendation.

Prophetic Schools Noted and Critiqued

Ford’s data on the four prophetic interpretation schools is worth our attention because the

scholar is quite familiar with them as a first class academic and scholar in the SDA Church, and

as the Religion Department Head at the Avondale College in Australia, and condenses well the

strengths and weaknesses that characterize these hermeneutical constructs. Below are his

summaries on the four prophetic schools:

The Four Prophetic Schools Described

Ford begins his evaluation of the four prophetic schools with their description, and

related to the readers the most pertinent information about the schools and their perspectives on

Daniel and Revelation:

The Preterist School

This system views the apocalyptic prophecies as having a contemporary or near-contemporary fulfillment.

Those who view Daniel as being written in the second century BC are obviously preterist in interpreting the

book. Thus the vast majority of modern commentaries fall into this category.


Not all preterists are antisupernaturalists. Some accept the late dating for Daniel, yet believe it to be an

inspired volume. They hold that the Old Testament God, while employing an apocalyptic style speaking of

the past as though it were future, also reveals divine insights regarding days to come. Most commentators

on the Book of Revelation who are preterist believe that book to have been chiefly fulfilled in the first

century of our era.

The empires of Dan 2 and 7 are usually understood by Preterists as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece.

The little horns of chapters 7 and 8 are believed to be indentical, namely Antiochus Epiphanes. Even the

prophecy of the seventy weeks is made to terminate in the days of the Syrian antichrist. The preterist

interpreter, to understand Daniel, always looks to the past—the days prior to and including the times of

Antiochus IV.5

The Futurist School

As the name implies, this system of interpretation is practically the reverse of the former. It projects either

all or important sections of prophecy to the future, on the basis that such books as Daniel and Revelation

concern the final crises and therefore contain a vast lacuna in their portrayal of the centuries. Most futurists

say, for example, that the symbols employed by historicists as applying to the Papacy will have their true

fulfillment in a future antichrist. These interpreters believe that all the great lines of prophecy in Daniel,

including the seventy weeks, break off at the cross and resume by portraying the end of the age. Thus there

would be in Daniel and Revelation no great prophetic waymarks for the guidance of the church during the

Christian dispensation whereby believers might know where they stood in the stream of history and

whether they were approaching the great denouement.6

Protestantism generally has come to adopt the futurist system. It is interesting to trace the change. In the

mid-nineteenth century, historicist interpreters who proclaimed the approaching end of the 2300 “years” of

Dan 8:14 encountered some who believed that a thousand years of peace must precede the coming of the

Lord. The latter group “spiritualized’ Rev 20 so as to make the first resurrection of verses 4 and 5 a great

revival on earth. In response to this, some believers in the near advent of Christ began to stress “literal”

interpretation of prophecy in contrast to the historical system which had emphasized the symbolic nature of

prophecy.2 7

The Idealist School

This school of interpreters cuts the Gordian knot of the problem of finding historical events to fulfill the

prophecies. It is rather contended that it is not the purpose of prophecy to inform the church regarding

future events. Instead, prophecy is to be understood as purely a symbolic form of instruction regarding

eternal truths about good and evil. Most idealists are preterists. Milligan’s well-known commentary on

Revelation is a typical example of this type of approach. 8

The Historicist School

This system of interpretation, also known as the Protestant system because it was cherished during the

centuries surrounding the Reformation, stresses the fact that prophecy has continuity as its chief

characteristic and that therefore the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are to be interpreted as signifying

events commencing at the time of the prophecy but surveying all later centuries until the end of time. Thus

in Dan 2 the prophecy of the image begins with Babylon and continues with Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome,

Rome’s division as represented in modern Europe, and finally the return of Christ.

Wrote Alford: “Historical Interpreters…hold that the prophecy [Revelation] embraces the whole history of

the church and its foes from the time of its writing to the end of the world.” He adds, “It seems to me

indisputable that the book does speak of things past, present, and future: that some of its prophecies are

already fulfilled, some are now fulfilling, and others await their fulfillment.9


The Four Prophetic Schools Critiqued

The next step Ford takes is to critique each hermeneutical school and reveal its fragile

points in order to show how all these schools fail to provide a scientific and well-balanced

approach to the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. The scholar starts with the perspective

that truth must be sought, held, and defended above all hermeneutical schools or theological

constructs, and is not afraid to state:

Having now viewed the respective systems as wholes, what counsel can be given to one who comes to the

task of exegesis with the sole intent of discovering truth regardless of whether it supports or wrecks

systems?

It must be said that each of the systems is right in what it affirms and wrong in what it denies.10

The theologian then continues his discussion and demonstrates how each prophetic

school or theological construct fails in its hermeneutical task to interpret Daniel, Revelation, and

the whole Bible:

The Preterist School

Preterism is right when it says that prophecy has something to say to the people living at the time of the

prophecy, but it is wrong when it asserts that that “something” is the whole intent of the visions of the

seer.11

The Futurist School

Futurism is right when it affirms that the final crisis, the impending conflict awaiting the world, is a central

focus of prophecy, but it is wrong when it denies that the prophetic pictures have meaning for prior crises.12

The Idealist School

Idealism is right in affirming that prophets symbolically illustrate the principles governing the great

controversy between good and evil. It is wrong in denying that specific events are foretold. The very nature

of apocalyptic was concerned with those events in history which foreshadowed the coming of the kingdom

of God.13

The Historicist School

Historicists are right in looking for the prophetic scroll to be gradually unrolled, having meaning for its first

and last readers and those in-between. But they are wrong if they minimize the stress of the future climactic

struggle that the prophetic word emphasizes.14

Blended Perspectives and Interpretation

The solution to the conundrum, and the most reasonable approach that could eliminate

and avoid serious interpretation errors and provide a solid empirical basis for biblical and

prophetic exegesis, states Ford, is a mixture between the four schools that would retain and use

the best features that characterize each school:


The following scholars urge us to retain what is right in each system and to avoid what is wrong.

Undoubtedly this counsel springs from a deep study of the weaknesses and strengths of the respective

prophetic approaches, and we would all do well to heed it. It should be noticed that these statements imply

the correctness of the apotelesmatic principle:

The final conclusion on the chronological methods of interpretation is that all contain some elements of

truth, and that all are in a measure overstrained.

Having regard for the fact that equal scholarship and spirituality may be found among the advocates of all

these interpretations, it is difficult to believe that one of them must be right and three of them wrong. The

Book is too big to be crushed into the mould of any one interpretation, and no one school of interpreters has

a monopoly of insight and understanding.

The studies of men like Tyconius, Grotius, De Wette, Ewald, Bleek, Farrar, Vitrings, Newton, Bengel,

Elliott, B. Wordsworth, Alford, Guinness, Bullinger, Milligan, Boyd Carpenter, Lee, and many others,

cannot be set aside in the interests of the view of any of them, but rather, we must look for the common

elements of truth in their various system of interpretation.

In his Advancement of Learning, quoted by Angus, Bacon has said that Divine prophecies “have springing

and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fullness of them may refer to

some one age”; and Bishop Boyd Carpenter, to like purpose: “The Preterist may be right in finding early

fulfillments, and the Futurist in expecting undeveloped ones, and the Historical interpreter is

unquestionably right in looking for them along the whole line of history, for the words of God mean more

than one man or one school of thought can compass. The visions of the Book do find counterparts in the

occurrences of human history. They have had these, and they will yet have these fulfillments, and these

fulfillments belong neither wholly to the past, nor wholly to the future. The prophecies of God are written

in a language which can be read by more than one generation.”

In other words, no one of these interpretations is by itself adequate. It is by a synthesis of them that we

approach to the truth. History is the fulfillment of prophecy throughout the length of it, and there is good

ground for believing that at the end of this age there will be a crisis-period in which all the characteristics

of the present dispensation will be gathered up, accentuated, and consummated.17

With the Idealists, I am willing enough to see, in the apocalyptic visions and symbols, vivid illustrations of

spiritual principles, struggles, and issues, even though these are not the first interpretation of the book.

With the Preterists I readily see in the precursors and crash which ended the apostolic era a fulfillment, a

kind of advance fulfillment, even though not the final fulfillment; just as our Lord’s predictions in Matthew

xxiv. 4-31 all had a fulfillment then except the actual return of our Lord Himself. With the Historicists I

can see recurrent correspondences and fulfillments all through the present age, inasmuch as “history repeats

itself,” and God has overruled events to adumbrate and lead onward to the ultimate fulfillment.18

None of the views has proved completely satisfying, and it is probable that a true view would combine

elements from more than one of them. The outstanding merit of preterist views is that they give the book

meaning for the men of the day in which it was written, and, whatever else we may say of the book, this

insight must be retained. Historicist views similarly see the book as giving light on the Church throughout

its history, and this cannot be surrendered. Futurist views take with the greatest seriousness the language of

the book about the end-time. The book does emphasize the ultimate triumph of God and the events

associated with it. Nor can the idealist view be abandoned, for the book does bring before us a stirring

challenge to live for God in days when the opposition is fierce. Moreover, the Christian must always

welcome the assurance that God’s triumph is sure.19

An understanding of the truths suggested in these statements will save us not only from errors of

interpretation but also from errors in charity when we discern an item in an exegete’s commentary that

seems to reflect an element of some system we have been accustomed to rejecting in toto.15


Present Adventists – The Last Historicists

The current Adventists have their theological and hermeneutical roots in the notorious

Millerite movement and its historicist approach to the Bible and the interpretation of Daniel and

Revelation—and that even without a name change. This fact is denied in the SDA theological

circles but affirmed in the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia [further, SDAE], where the

scholars confirm the truth that “the ‘Millerites’ actually called themselves Adventists, but were

popularly known by the name of their leading exponent, William Miller.”16

From the Millerite

historicists, the “new” Adventists have imported their botched interpretation principles, and have

continued to interpret Daniel and Revelation in the same flawed and outdated manner.

The SDA Church Sold To Historicism

That what has been stated above about the present Adventists and their Millerite

hermeneutics is an undeniable fact confirmed in the current SDA theological and folkloric

literature, although the direct connection with Miller and his notorious movement is not affirmed

in an open and direct manner, but skipped. What is brought to the forefront is the church

interpretation tradition that favored at some time in the past the historicist approach to Daniel

and Revelation. Among the SDA theologians who make sure that this fact is well established are

Pfandl, Davidson, and Rodriguez:

Gerhard Pfandl

Throughout most of church history these apocalyptic time prophecies [in Daniel and Revelation] were

interpreted according to the historicist method of interpretation. Only in the last two hundred years have

other systems, such as Preterism and futurism, replaced historicism.17

Richard M. Davidson

This historicist Adventist interpretation simply builds upon the foundation of the early church and the

Reformation. The historicist view of prophecy was the view of the early church and of all the Reformers,

although today most other major denominations except Seventh-day Adventists have abandoned this

position in favor of counter-Reformation systems.13

Yet only the historicist view of prophecy does justice to the whole of Daniel. The preterists must say that

prophecy failed, and the futurists must posit a gap where none exists. But the historicists can be consistent

with the whole sweep of the prophetic time prophecies, moving from the prophet’s day to the eschaton.14

18

Ángel M. Rodríguez

In the interpretation of the trumpets, Adventist theologians have almost consistently employed the

historicist method of prophetic interpretation because it is grounded in Scripture itself. This method was

provided to the apocalyptic visionaries by the angel interpreter. It has proven to be a valid approach to

apocalyptic prophecy as illustrated in its use by Jesus, the apostles, and interpreters throughout Christian

history.19


The Dogmatic and Exclusive Position

For the SDA Church and its dogmatic theologians and scholars, the historicist

hermeneutic is indispensable as a prophetic interpretation method, although “few outside the

denomination share the approach, and it seems hard even to get others to understand the

Adventist position.”20

What seems to make it hard for non-Adventist theologians is the exclusive

position the SDA theologians hold on historicism as an interpretation school. States Vetne:

Historicism as “School-of-Interpretation.” The traditional way Adventists use the term historicism (in

relation to interpretation of biblical prophecy) is as a comprehensive system or school of interpretation.

Historicism is here seen as exclusive [emphasis added] (an interpreter using historicism for some parts of

Daniel or Revelation cannot use another approach, like preterism or futurism, for other parts) and personal

(it presupposes a one-to-one relationship between interpreter and method, so that an interpreter uses only

one approach and thus can be identified as a historicist, preterist, or futurist).21

Historicism – The Failed Hermeneutics

Sound empirical evidence demonstrates that the SDA historicism has its own multiple

inadequacies and deficiencies, despite the bombastic and triumphalist claims the Glacier View

scholars have made about this hermeneutical approach.22

In multiple research documents

published on Academia.edu, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

I have exposed certain fundamental flaws that

have affected the SDA prophetic interpretation for almost two centuries, and I have warned that

unless a radical change occurs in the SDA Church’s anachronistic and unscientific hermeneutical

approach to prophetic interpretation, the SDA theologians will become more and more isolated

from the world theologians, while the SDA sectarian doctrines will appear less and less credible

to the Christian world.

The research documents I have published in Academia.edu have provided rigorous and

irrefutable evidence, that (1) the claimed SDA “year-day principle” has no factual linguistic basis

and no biblical support, that (2) Daniel 9 is not an appendix to Daniel 8 and that Gabriel had

completed his explanation for the prophetic vision in Daniel 8 and no further explanation was

needed, (3) that the antecedent for the pronoun “them” in Daniel 8:9 is a “stout” horn described

in Daniel 8:8 and not a “wind,” (4) that in Daniel 9 Gabriel had come to give the aged prophet

information about events related to the deported Israelite’s return to Palestine, (5) that chathak in

Daniel 9 means “to determine,” and not to “cut off” because the “2300 prophecy” in Daniel 8

refers to the time period within which Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Israelite temple

and attempted to eradicate the Israelite religion, and (6), that the recorded historical event that

occurred in 1844 was the Great Disappointment that resulted from William Miller’s numeral

games about the Second Coming, and not a supposed and implausible celestial event that has

been assumed based on fantastic and absurd theological SDA speculations for which no human

historical evidence has been produced or could ever be produced.

This Document’s Intended Purpose

This document is intended to reexamine the SDA historicist prophetic interpretation

school, evaluate it, and show its deficiencies and failures. The main issues that will be examined

are: (1) the fragmented and inconsistent definition for “historicism” as a prophetic interpretation


approach with guidelines on which the SDA theologians depend in order to “decode” the

prophetic books, Daniel and Revelation, and which has caused all consequent interpretation

errors, (2) the preposterous and untested claim that God Himself had originated the “method”

and had used the SDA hermeneutic to compose and interpret the Bible, (3) the selective

historical data on which the SDA historicism is claimed to be established as a reliable

hermeneutical tool, (4) the multiple and attempted failures to provide authentication for the

speculative hermeneutical approach through solid historical evidence that would indicate

indisputable prediction fulfillment and validate the spurious SDA historicist claims, and (5) the

tragic and irreversible “collateral damage” that the misguided and exclusive denominational

focus on Daniel and Revelation with their presumed time “landmarks” and the exaggerated and

overinflated emphasis on the “final events” and the Second Coming has caused to the “remnant

message”—the fact that the Great Commission has been replaced with sectarian triumphalist tall

tales while the SDA church has failed to preach the genuine Gospel—the Bible’s Eternal Good

News—to the truth-starved world.


II. Historicism in the SDA Perspective

LaRondelle, the informed and perceptive Andrews theologian, warns his readers that

historicism, as a “concept of prophetic interpretation,” must be “defined carefully before we can

discuss its validity and boundaries.”1 He mentions Froom, the respected Adventist historian, and

his traditional but incomplete definition for historicism:

LeRoy E. Froom provides us one definition of historicism: "the progressive and continuous fulfillment of

prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from Daniel's day and the time of John, on down to the Second Advent

and the end of the age."12

Right after he quotes Froom, though, LaRondelle returns and critiques the scholar for his

failure to define “prophetic fulfillments” and their parameters, and notes that the most important

and relevant factor that should characterize and distinguish historicism as a unique theological

school with its indispensable “prophetic fulfillment” feature is the appropriate alignment

between the prophetic intent and the expected prophetic fulfillment. States the accomplished

Andrews theologian:

Froom's definition implies a certain theological exegesis, which he fails to identify as the guideline for his

understanding of what constitutes a fulfillment of prophecy. A truthful fulfillment should correspond to the

intended meaning of the prophet, and thus requires an exegesis of Scripture in its literary and historical

context. Even the Cross is not self-explanatory and needs divine interpretation (see 1 Cor. 1:22-25; 15:3;

Rom. 3:25, 26).3

LaRondelle is also confident that a rigorous and dependable biblical interpretation from

the historicist perspective must be based on the Bible, that is, on genuine and indisputable

scriptural evidence that should authenticate the historicist hermeneutical school:

This leads us to ask for the biblical origin of historicism; that is, for the prophetic revelation that periodizes

history in successive epochs which lead up to the establishment of the kingdom of God. That origin, it is

universally agreed, is the apocalyptic book of Daniel, whose visions repeatedly proceed from his own time

to the end of world history, with a consistent focus on salvation history.4

Various Definitions for Historicism

The SDA theologians and scholars have defined “historicism” in various manners and

from various perspectives, or have adopted the term’s definitions from some non-Adventist

historicist theologians. Included below are the most common “historicism” definitions one

encounters in the SDA Church literature:

The SDA Encyclopedia

HISTORICISM. This term is used to describe a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the

fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the

prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. These prophecies were given in visionary

circles that recapitulate the content of the previous vision, adding new information or providing a slightly

different perspective of the same historical period. Thus, for instance, Dan. 2, 7, 8–9, and 10–12 are parallel

prophecies covering basically the same historical period. In Revelation the same type of recapitulation is

employed in the interpretation of the messages to the seven churches, the seven seals, the seven trumpets,

and Rev. 12–14.5


The SDA Bible Student’s Source Book

[p. 137] The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a

symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to

the end of time. The argument for the view is founded on the fact that two termini are mentioned: the day in

which John the seer lived, and the ultimate day of God’s victory and the establishment of the Holy City. No

point between them can be identified with certainty as making a break in the sequence; therefore the

process must be continuous. [p. 138] By this interpretation the various series of the churches, the seals, the

trumpets, and the bowls are made to particular events in the history of the world that are related to the

history of the church…6

[p. 32] The Reformers took over this type of historical interpretation of prophetic truth and found in the

Antichrist a prophecy of the Papacy. Luther at first felt that Revelation was defective in everything which

could be called apostolic or prophetic and was offended by the visions and symbols of the book; but he

came to feel that the prophecy was an outline of the whole course of church history and that the Papacy was

predicted both in chapters 11 and 12 and in the second beast of chapter 13. The number 666 period of papal

domination.7

[p. 43] The interpretation that looks upon the book of Revelation as a forecast, in symbols, of the history of

the Christian church, is sometimes called, not without reason, the standard Protestant interpretation. Alford

says that it was the view “held by the precursors and upholders of the Reformation, by Wicliffe and his

followers in England, by Luther in Germany, Bullinger in Switzerland, Bishop Bale in Ireland, by Fox the

martyrologist by Brighthman, Pareus, and early Protestant expositors generally.” …8

William Shea

From the viewpoint of the "continuous" historical school of prophetic interpretation, the prophecies of

Daniel and Revelation provide a divinely inspired, descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the most

theologically significant events of this era. The Christian Era is seen to stand in continuity with the

historical description and prophetic evaluation of events in the OT era. The same God has been active in a

similar way in both of these dispensations.

This larger view of God's more comprehensive interaction with human history carries with it the corollary

that the statements about time found in these prophecies cover a more extensive sweep of history than can

be accounted for on a purely literal basis.9

Through the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation have been proposed. The

historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at

the time of the prophets who wrote them. Preterism sees Daniel as focusing on the reign of Antiochus IV

Epiphanes, and it sees the book of Revelation as focusing especially on the reign of the emperor Nero. Thus

the preterist school focuses upon the past. In contrast to this, the futurist school places the major emphasis

of these two books in the future, yet to be fulfilled. A specially prominent branch of futurism is

dispensationalism, which narrows this future fulfillment to the last seven years of earth’s history.3 10

Frank B. Holbrook

Seventh-day Adventists arrive at their interpretations of Bible prophecy by employing the principles of the

“historicist school” of prophetic interpretation. This historicist view (also known as the “continuous

historical” view) sees the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation unfolding at various points in historical

time, often encompassing the sweep of history from the times of Daniel and John (the human authors of

these books) to the establishment of God's eternal kingdom.11


Daniel clearly identified the golden head as symbolizing the empire of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar

(verses 37, 38). It was to be followed by three successive world kingdoms corresponding to the three

different metals. History records that these were Medo-Persia, Grecia, and the "iron monarchy" of Rome. In

the latter part of the fifth century A.D. the empire of Rome in the West was fully broken up. Its parts came

to form the nations of Western Europe symbolized by the strengths and weaknesses of the feet and toes

composed of iron and clay. The "stone," which will ultimately destroy these and all other human, political

entities, is the eternal kingdom that "the God of heaven will set up" at the end of human history (see verses

44, 45, R.S.V.).*

Thus the historicist system of interpretation sees in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation the

hand of Divine Providence moving across the ages, overruling events to bring about the fulfillment of

God's purposes.12

Angel Manuel Rodríguez

1. In the interpretation of the trumpets, Adventist theologians have almost consistently employed the

historicist method of prophetic interpretation because it is grounded in Scripture itself. This method was

provided to the apocalyptic visionaries by the angel interpreter. It has proven to be a valid approach to

apocalyptic prophecy as illustrated in its use by Jesus, the apostles, and interpreters throughout Christian

history. While in this article I will not provide all the necessary evidence to support the most important

elements of the historicist method of interpretation,1 I will suggest that the following are indispensable for a

proper interpretation of the trumpets:

a. Apocalyptic prophecy covers the whole span of history from the time of the prophet to the very end of

history (Dan. 7). In order to be loyal to this methodology, it is necessary to apply it to the apocalyptic

visionary cycle of the seven trumpets. When we examine this prophecy from our historical moment, we

must realize that some elements of the prophecy have already been fulfilled while others are in the process

of fulfillment or will soon be fulfilled.

b. Hence, the fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy takes place within the flow of history as a whole.

Consequently, it cannot and should not be interpreted along the lines of preterism or futurism or applied to

conceptual abstractions disconnected from specific historical events (idealism).13

Desmond Ford

This system of interpretation, also known as the Protestant system because it was cherished during the

centuries surrounding the Reformation, stresses the fact that prophecy has continuity as its chief

characteristic and that therefore the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are to be interpreted as signifying

events commencing at the time of the prophecy but surveying all later centuries until the end of time.

Thus in Dan 2 the prophecy of the image begins with Babylon and continue with Medo-Persia, Greece,

Rome, Rome’s divisions as represented in modern Europe, and finally the return of Christ.

Wrote Alford: “Historical interpreters…hold that the prophecy [Revelation] embraces the whole history of

the church and its foes from the time of its writing to the end of the world.” He adds, “It seems to me

indisputable that the book does speak of things past, present, and future: that some of its prophecies are

already fulfilled, some are now fulfilling, and others await their fulfillment.”12

14

Le Roy Edwin Froom

From the Reformation stems a long line of prophetic expositions which molded Protestant thinking for

centuries after their day. These were based on what came to be known as the Historical School of prophetic

interpretation—the progressive and continuous fulfillment of prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from

Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age.15


Richard M. Davidson

This historicist Adventist interpretation simply builds upon the foundation of the early church and the

Reformation. The historicist view of prophecy was the view of the early church and of all the Reformers,

although today most other major denominations except Seventh-day Adventists have abandoned this

position in favor of counter-Reformation systems.13

Yet only the historicist view of prophecy does justice to the whole of Daniel. The preterists must say that

prophecy failed, and the futurists must posit a gap where none exists. But the historicists can be consistent

with the whole sweep of the prophetic time prophecies, moving from the prophet’s day to the eschaton.14

16

The Glacier View Theologians

It is a well-known fact that the historicist school of prophetic interpretation (which looks at prophecy as

being fulfilled through history from the time of the prophet until the Second Advent, and which is followed

by Adventists) has been antagonistic to the preterist school of interpretation (which sees prophecy fulfilled

in the past) and the futurist school (which sees fulfillment still in the future). The futurist school, as

currently espoused in evangelical circles, stands in clear opposition to preterism. Some agreements exist

between historicists and futurists, but not after futurism takes its great leap forward into the future.17

Reimar Vetne

Here is my proposed definition of historicism: Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy

intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between

his day and the eschaton.

No part of this definition is novel, but some comments may be valuable.

“Historicism reads.” Notice that the subject of the definition is ‘historicism’ (the approach) and not

‘historicist’ (the interpreter using the approach), the advantage of which we discussed above.

The next part of the definition, ‘historical apocalyptic’ deals with the jurisdiction: historicism is a method

limited to certain types of apocalyptic literature. Most genres found in the Bible are excluded, as are

apocalyptic writings where other, heavenly realms are revealed,13

rather than future historical events in this

world. It is the task of the interpreter to argue the case for historical apocalyptic in each individual section.

One may hold one section or chapter of Daniel or Revelation to be historical apocalyptic without

automatically assuming that all the rest of the material in Daniel and Revelation is likewise intended to

describe future history.

“Intended by its ancient author.” Given the growing scholarly interest in reader-oriented approaches, it is

worth noting that a historicist interpretation is an exegetical task that aims at saying something about the

intent of the author behind the prophecy. Divine inspiration and revelation behind the text and future events

truly predicted—as Adventists believe of the biblical apocalypses—need not mean the ancient human

authors understood every detail of what they were inspired to write. But if one uses the historicist approach,

one must assume that the authors somehow understood they were referring to future history.

Because many interpreters in the past combined historicism with unchecked creativity and read many

imaginary prediction-fulfillments into the apocalyptic text, readers have got the false impression that

historicism conveys merely what is in the eye of the modern beholder. Interpreters using the historicist

method aim for more than expressing what is in their own minds; they hope to comment on something that

is really in the text, as intended by whatever human and divine agents produced the text.


“Reveal information about real, in-history events.” Historicism not only looks for the meaning implied in

the text and intended by the author (as opposed to meaning created in the mind of the reader), but claims to

find authorial attempts at describing real, historical events and developments.

The Apocalypse Group of the SBL Genres Project has defined an apocalypse as “revelatory literature with

a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient,

disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation,

and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.”14

Although we might not believe in all the

realities depicted in all the various apocalyptic writings from antiquity, few scholars today dispute that the

ancient authors often intended to describe real events. When the ancient author intended to describe travels

into heavenly realms or write timeless, a-historical fiction, historicism is not a suitable method to use to

understand it.

“In the time span between his day and the eschaton.” The elements in our definition up to this point would

fit equally well for the preterist and other approaches to apocalyptic literature within the historical-critical

and historical grammatical frameworks. What sets historicism apart is this last phrase. Did the ancient

author intend to describe events to take place in the time span from the writing up until the eschaton? If we

believe so about a passage, historicism is the approach we take.

If the author of Daniel intended to describe events after his time—i.e., after the 6th century (early dating of

the book) or after the 2nd century (late dating), yet before the eschaton, then we have a case calling for a

historicist approach; likewise if John the Revelator set out to predict events in a span of time after his days

and up to the Parousia.

It is worth observing that one does not have to believe in divine foreknowledge and revelation in order to

read a prophecy with a historicist approach. As I have defined it, historicism is not just for the believer.

There are several ancient apocalypses around, and none of us believe in the truthfulness of all these

attempted predictions. Historicism as a scholarly method only asks for a likely reconstruction of the

original authorial intent of the writing. Whenever we think we see an author of an apocalypse attempting to

foretell events placed in the future yet before the end of the world, we take the historicist approach—

whether we consider those predictions to be true or not.18

Jon Paulien

The Seventh-day Adventist Church derives its unique witness to Jesus Christ from a historicist reading of

the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Historicism understands these prophecies to portray a

relentless march of God-ordained history leading from the prophet’s time up to a critical climax at the end

of earth’s history.1 The interpretation of biblical apocalyptic was at the center of Adventist theological

development in the formative years of the Adventist Church and its theology.2 19

John Noe

a. Historicist interpretation. This interpretation was “favored by the reformers.” It “sees in the Revelation a

prophecy of the history of the church.” But as Ladd indicates, “this method can be millenarian . . .

nonmillenarian . . . or postmillenarian.”57

According to Mounce, this “historical” theory was created around

the 12th century by medieval theologians who were followers of Joachim and were growing concerned

about abuses in the Church.58

Thus, historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events, institutions,

movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age. These

began in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s

return. Preterist Milton S. Terry, however, complained that while historicism “presumed that the Book of

Revelation contains detailed predictions of the Roman papacy, the wars of modern Europe, and the fortunes

of Napoleon,”59

he found “nowhere in the prophecies of this book a prediction of Turkish armies, or papal

bulls, or the German Reformation of the sixteenth century,” as has been claimed by some historicists.60 20


The Historicism Definitions Tabulated

Definitions for Historicism in a Table

The “historicism” definitions listed above in detail under various theologians and

scholars have been organized also in a table for an overall perspective and ease of comparison:

Historicist Source Historicism Definition

The SDA Encyclopedia HISTORICISM. This term is used to describe a school of prophetic interpretation

that conceives the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as

covering the historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment of

the kingdom of God on earth.21

The SDA Bible Student’s

Source Book

[p. 137] The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view,

contends that Revelation is a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the

history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time.22


Source Book

Luther at first felt that Revelation was defective in everything which could be

called apostolic or prophetic and was offended by the visions and symbols of the

book; but he came to feel that the prophecy was an outline of the whole course of

church history and that the Papacy was predicted both in chapters 11 and 12 and in

the second beast of chapter 13. The number 666 period of papal domination.23


Source Book

[p. 43] The interpretation that looks upon the book of Revelation as a forecast, in

symbols, of the history of the Christian church, is sometimes called, not without

reason, the standard Protestant interpretation.24

William Shea

From the viewpoint of the "continuous" historical school of prophetic

interpretation, the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation provide a divinely inspired,

descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the most theologically significant

events of this [Christian] era. The Christian Era is seen to stand in continuity with

the historical description and prophetic evaluation of events in the OT era. The

same God has been active in a similar way in both of these dispensations.25

William Shea

Through the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation

have been proposed. The historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled

through the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who

wrote them.26

Frank B. Holbrook Seventh-day Adventists arrive at their interpretations of Bible prophecy by

employing the principles of the “historicist school” of prophetic interpretation. This

historicist view (also known as the “continuous historical” view) sees the

prophecies of Daniel and Revelation unfolding at various points in historical time,

often encompassing the sweep of history from the times of Daniel and John (the

human authors of these books) to the establishment of God's eternal kingdom.27

Frank B. Holbrook Thus the historicist system of interpretation sees in the apocalyptic prophecies of

Daniel and Revelation the hand of Divine Providence moving across the ages,

overruling events to bring about the fulfillment of God's purposes.28

Angel Manuel Rodríguez a. Apocalyptic prophecy covers the whole span of history from the time of the

prophet to the very end of history (Dan. 7)…b. Hence, the fulfillment of

apocalyptic prophecy takes place within the flow of history as a whole.29

Desmond Ford This system of interpretation, also known as the Protestant system because it was

cherished during the centuries surrounding the Reformation, stresses the fact that

prophecy has continuity as its chief characteristic and that therefore the prophecies

of Daniel and Revelation are to be interpreted as signifying events commencing at

the time of the prophecy but surveying all later centuries until the end of time. 30

Le Roy Edwin Froom From the Reformation stems a long line of prophetic expositions which molded

Protestant thinking for centuries after their day. These were based on what came to


be known as the Historical School of prophetic interpretation—the progressive and

continuous fulfillment of prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and

the time of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age.31

Richard M. Davidson The preterists must say that prophecy failed, and the futurists must posit a gap

where none exists. But the historicists can be consistent with the whole sweep of

the prophetic time prophecies, moving from the prophet’s day to the eschaton.14

32

The Glacier View

Theologians It is a well-known fact that the historicist school of prophetic interpretation (which

looks at prophecy as being fulfilled through history from the time of the prophet

until the Second Advent, and which is followed by Adventists) has been ntagonistic

to the preterist school of interpretation (which sees prophecy fulfilled in the past)

and the futurist school (which sees fulfillment still in the future).33

Reimar Vetne Here is my proposed definition of historicism: Historicism reads historical

apocalyptic as prophecy intended by its ancient author to reveal information about

real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton.34

Jon Paulien The Seventh-day Adventist Church derives its unique witness to Jesus Christ from

a historicist reading of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.

Historicism understands these prophecies to portray a relentless march of God-

ordained history leading from the prophet’s time up to a critical climax at the end of

earth’s history.135

John Noe Thus, historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical

events, institutions, movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological

sequence throughout the entire church age. These began in the first century, have

continued through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.36

The Historicism Definitions Itemized

The itemized organization for the “historicism” definition listed in detail above and then

organized in a table would provide an even clearer perspective of the claims the SDA historicists

make about the historicist school:

1. [Historicism is] a school of prophetic interpretation that conceives the fulfillment of the

prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the

prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.37

2. The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that

Revelation is a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the

close of the first century to the end of time.38

3. Luther…came to feel that the prophecy was an outline of the whole course of church history

and that the Papacy was predicted both in chapters 11 and 12 and in the second beast of chapter

13. 39

4. [Historicism is] [t]he interpretation that looks upon the book of Revelation as a forecast, in

symbols, of the history of the Christian church.40

5. From the viewpoint of the “continuous” historical school of prophetic interpretation, the

prophecies of Daniel and Revelation provide a divinely inspired, descriptive overview and

evaluation of some of the most theologically significant events of this era.41


6. The historicist method sees these prophecies [in Daniel and Revelation] as being fulfilled

through the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.42

7. This historicist view (also known as the “continuous historical” view) sees the prophecies of

Daniel and Revelation unfolding at various points in historical time, often encompassing the

sweep of history from the times of Daniel and John (the human authors of these books) to the

establishment of God's eternal kingdom.43

8. Thus the historicist system of interpretation sees in the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and

Revelation the hand of Divine Providence moving across the ages, overruling events to bring

about the fulfillment of God's purposes.44

9. Apocalyptic prophecy covers the whole span of history from the time of the prophet to the

very end of history (Dan. 7)…b. Hence, the fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy takes place

within the flow of history as a whole.45

10. This system of interpretation…stresses the fact that prophecy has continuity as its chief

characteristic and that therefore the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are to be interpreted as

signifying events commencing at the time of the prophecy but surveying all later centuries until

the end of time. 46

11.…the Historical School of prophetic interpretation—the progressive and continuous

fulfillment of prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down

to the Second Advent and the end of age.47

12. …the historicists can be consistent with the whole sweep of the prophetic time prophecies,

moving from the prophet’s day to the eschaton.14

48

13. The historicist school of prophetic interpretation…looks at prophecy as being fulfilled

through history from the time of the prophet until the Second Advent.49

14. Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy intended by its ancient author to reveal

information about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton.50

15. Historicism understands these prophecies [the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and

Revelation] to portray a relentless march of God-ordained history leading from the prophet’s

time up to a critical climax at the end of earth’s history.151

16. Historicists see Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events,

institutions, movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the

entire church age. These began in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and

will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.52

The Historicism Definitions Restated

All the above historicist definitions can be summarized in a few paragraphs that capture

the essential historicist features as the SDA theologians and other scholars define and formulate

them. These features are that historicism “conceives the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel


and Revelation as covering the historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment

of the kingdom of God on earth,”53

“contends that Revelation is a symbolic presentation of the

entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time,”54

sees the Bible prophecy as “an outline of the whole course of church history,” 55

“looks upon the

book of Revelation as a forecast, in symbols, of the history of the Christian church,56

and

“understands the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation [to] provide a divinely inspired,

descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the most theologically significant events of this

[Christian] era”57

“and being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at the time

of the prophets who wrote them.”58

Historicism also “sees the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation unfolding at various

points in historical time, often encompassing the sweep of history from the times of Daniel and

John (the human authors of these books) to the establishment of God's eternal kingdom,”59

and

identifies in these prophecies “the hand of Divine Providence moving across the ages, overruling

events to bring about the fulfillment of God's purposes.”60

The SDA historicist theologians believe that “apocalyptic prophecy covers the whole

span of history from the time of the prophet to the very end of history (Dan. 7),” and that “the

fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecy takes place within the flow of history as a whole.”61

From

the prophetic time perspective, the SDA historicism emphasizes that “prophecy has continuity as

its chief characteristic and that therefore the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are to be

interpreted as signifying events commencing at the time of the prophecy but surveying all later

centuries until the end of time,”62

and also demonstrating “the progressive and continuous

fulfillment of prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down

to the Second Advent and the end of age.” 63

For the above reasons, “the historicists can be consistent with the whole sweep of the

prophetic time prophecies, moving from the prophet’s day to the eschaton,14 64

because “the

historicist school of prophetic interpretation…looks at prophecy as being fulfilled through

history from the time of the prophet until the Second Advent,”65

that is, that “historicism reads

historical apocalyptic as prophecy intended by its ancient author to reveal information about

real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton,”66

and “understands

these prophecies [the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation] to portray a relentless

march of God-ordained history leading from the prophet’s time up to a critical climax at the end

of earth’s history.”167

For all the theological reasons mentioned before, the SDA and other “historicists see

Revelation as depicting specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and

periods that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age. These began

in the first century, have continued through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the

Lord’s return.” 68

The common denominator in the above SDA definitions for “historicism” is “historical

fulfillment,” that is, historical event solutions to the prophetic forecasts or predictions. As we

will see later in the document, the problem with the SDA historicism is that the definition

application is discontinued and negated when non-historical “events” that should validate the


predictions are produced as sound evidence for the claimed prophetic fulfillments. While the

definition requires genuine and verifiable historical events that would authenticate the prophetic

forecasts or predictions, the SDA theologians and scholars suggest instead speculated, and even

fictional events to support their “prophetic fulfillment” claims.


III. Traditional Base for SDA Historicism

The SDA theologians have attempted to defend their reliance on the historicist prophetic

interpretation school in their exegetical approach to Daniel and Revelation with arguments from

the Christian church interpretation tradition. Among the past and current SDA theologians who

have resorted to such arguments are Froom, Davidson, Pfandl, and Holbrook:

Adventists and Historicist Tradition

Le Roy Edwin Froom

From the Reformation stems a long line of prophetic expositions which molded Protestant thinking for

centuries after their day. These were based on what came to be known as the Historical School of prophetic

interpretation—the progressive and continuous fulfillment of prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from

Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age.1

Richard Davidson

This historicist Adventist interpretation [of Daniel] simply builds upon the foundation of the early church

and the Reformation. The historicist view of prophecy was the view of the early church and of all the

reformers, although today most other major denominations except Seventh-day Adventists have abandoned

this position in favor of counter-Reformation systems.13 2

Gerhard Pfandl

Throughout most of church history these apocalyptic time prophecies [in Daniel and Revelation] were

interpreted according to the historicist method of interpretation. Only in the last two hundred years have

other systems, such as preterism and futurism, replaced historicism.3

Frank B. Holbrook

The Millerites, the immediate spiritual forebears of Seventh-day Adventists, were historicists; that is, they

interpreted Daniel and Revelation in harmony with the principles of the “historical school” of prophetic

interpretation. But the method was by no means original with the Millerites of mid-nineteenth-century

America; they simply reflected and elaborated upon the labors of many earlier Bible students of the

Reformationand post-Reformation eras.4

Religious Tradition and Its Dangers

The fact that some ancient, medieval, and modern World Church theologians and

scholars have used the now outdated and discarded historicist hermeneutics for prophetic

interpretation in the past, though, is no sound or reliable evidence that the old historicist method

is correct or biblical. Arguments from religious tradition are not worth too much, and are quite

often the last resort in apologetics. Ellen G White, the claimed prophet and messenger of the

SDA church, often warned against doctrinal support from church tradition, against “the

disposition to accept the theories and traditions of men instead of the word of God,” and against

those naïve and gullible Christian theologians and scholars who are “clinging to the customs and

traditions of their fathers” in order to promote their own false gospels:


But truth is no more desired by the majority today than it was by the papists who opposed Luther. There is

the same disposition to accept the theories and traditions of men instead of the word of God as in

former ages [emphasis added]. Those who present the truth for this time should not expect to be received

with greater favor than were earlier reformers. The great controversy between truth and error, between

Christ and Satan, is to increase in intensity to the close of this world's history.5

There are many at the present day thus clinging to the customs and traditions of their fathers [emphasis

added]. When the Lord sends them additional light, they refuse to accept it, because, not having been

granted to their fathers, it was not received by them. We are not placed where our fathers were;

consequently our duties and responsibilities are not the same as theirs. We shall not be approved of God in

looking to the example of our fathers to determine our duty instead of searching the word of truth for

ourselves. Our responsibility is greater than was that of our ancestors. We are accountable for the light

which they received, and which was handed down as an inheritance for us, and we are accountable also for

the additional light which is now shining upon us from the word of God.6

Historicism – Its Theological Roots

For didactic purposes, though, it is good to understand how the historicist interpretation

method has developed and has been used in the past millennia in order to exegete the main

prophetic books, Daniel and Revelation. Vetne has summarized well and in detail the theological

tradition for historicism in his research paper on the theological school. He states:

History of Historicism

In the traditional way of defining historicism, as an all-or-nothing school of interpretation, appeals to the

history of prophetic interpretation often tried to show how details from current Adventist expositions were

shared by interpreters in the past. The “whole school” had to be justified from history, so to speak.15

If we reduce historicism to one label among many and use it only about events between (not including) the

author’s day and the Parousia, all we have to show by appealing to the history of interpretation is that many

have believed in the possibility of true predictive prophecy and found it in parts of Daniel and Revelation.

When the popularity of that has been demonstrated, the interpreter can turn from the history of prophetic

interpretation to exegetical studies to show which parts of Daniel and Revelation he thinks specifically

predict history.

The list of prominent interpreters using the historicist approach for at least some part of Daniel or

Revelation is quite impressive. Throughout most of history since the writing of Daniel, historicism has been

widely used.

Jewish Apocalyptic Writings. Many Jewish apocalypses were written in the period 200 BC to 100 AD.

Whether we see them as influenced by and commenting upon the biblical book of Daniel or see them

merely as being written at the same time and in the same environment as Daniel, the nature of these

apocalypses throw great light on Daniel. Interestingly, several of these apocalyptic writings clearly attempt

predictions of the future—the time between their writing and the end of the world (historicist prophecies).

In chapters 91 and 93 of the fifth book of 1 Enoch we find a prophecy of ten consecutive periods, each

lasting one “week.”16

The weeks are obviously symbolical, since events that take longer time than a literal

week are mentioned, like the building of a house and a kingdom in week five (verse 7). John Collins

comments: “The substance of this apocalypse is made up not of heavenly cosmology but of an overview of

history. The history is highly schematized and organized into periods of ‘weeks.’”17

This division into a set

number of periods is a common feature of the ‘historical’ type of apocalypse.”18

Where does the ancient author see himself in this series of ten periods? Collins thinks that the author saw

six of the periods in the past. “In the case of the Apocalypse of Weeks, the time of the real author is


evidently to be situated in the seventh week.”

19 If Collins is correct in this, these last periods call for the

historicist approach. In the seventh period the text mentions coming oppression, the Gentiles to be

conquered, towers or castles to be overthrown, and many sinners to be destroyed (91:8-11). In the eighth

period, the “week of righteousness,” the righteous will prosper over against the oppressors and sinners

(91:12-13). In the ninth period, sin will disappear from the earth and moral perfection or uprightness take

over (91:14). Finally, in the tenth period, the day of God’s final judgment takes place, executed by the

angels, the first heaven departs and a new heaven appears, and eternity replaces temporality (91:15-17).

In the Apocalypse of Abraham chapters 29-30, the writer receives a vision of twelve periods or “hours” of

history that are to take place before the eschaton (29:1-3, 9).20

The events of each period are listed in

chapter 30, and the end of the world takes place in chapter 31. “The historical axis is divided into twelve

hours, a form of periodization that is also found in 2 Baruch’s vision.”21

Where in the series of twelve the

author of Abraham saw himself is hard to determine. If he intended the twelve periods to be in his future,

we need to interpret this apocalypse with the historicist approach.

In 2 Baruch chapter 27 we also find twelve periods of history with different events taking place,22

but it is

not clear whether these are meant to cover the time span from the author to the eschaton, or are all part of

the immediate events surrounding the end of the world itself.

In the fifth vision in chapters 11-12 of 4 Ezra, a symbolic vision of an eagle is given where different parts

of the bird’s body represent different time periods and reigning kings.23

The vision itself is in chapter 11,

and the interpretation is given in chapter 12. This writing is clearly meant as an interpretation and

elaboration of the biblical book of Daniel. In 12:11-15 the eagle is said to be a more detailed prophecy of

the fourth kingdom in Daniel. First “twelve kings will reign, one after another” (12:14), then another eight

kings (v. 20), of which the last two will reign until the end (v. 21), when three more kings will appear

(v.23). Then a lion will appear—God’s Messiah—and make an end of the eagle with its many kings.

This eagle, explained by Ezra to be the fourth kingdom in Daniel, is interpreted by most scholars, including

Collins, as Rome.24

So the author of 4 Ezra clearly interprets Daniel with the historicist method, reading

Daniel as a predictive prophecy about times beyond the days of Daniel. Where in his series of Roman kings

does the author of 4 Ezra see his own time? Does he believe the end is imminent, or that many more kings

are to come first? If the latter, then even the prophecy of 4 Ezra itself demands a historicist interpretation.

Other Early Jewish Interpretations. The translators behind the Alexandrian Septuagint (the early

version, not the later Theodotian translation) read Daniel with the historicist approach, believing Daniel to

contain predictions about future history. For instance, in Daniel 11:30 the “ships of Kittim” are interpreted

and translated with Pωαîoι—“the Romans.”25

The Jewish historian Josephus seems to interpret the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 as the Roman empire and

the stone kingdom as a future power that would overthrow the Romans.26

Jesus and the Synoptics. In Matthew 24:15 Jesus is said to refer to a prediction by “Daniel the prophet,”

interpreting it as a future event. Mark 13:14 contains the same saying, but here only the prediction (clearly

taken from Daniel) is given; the reference to Daniel is omitted. In the parallel account in Luke 21:21, Jesus

also interprets the prophecy in Daniel as a future event and gives an even more detailed interpretation of it.

Whether one takes these sayings as authentic (as most Adventist scholars do) or as a product of the early

Christian tradition, they are in any case evidence of early historicist readings of Daniel. Some in the early

Christian church believed that Daniel had predicted events that were to take place after Daniel’s time and

before the end of the world.

Early Church Fathers. The early Christian interpretations from the first three hundred years seem to agree

on seeing prophecies in Daniel as reaching past Daniel’s time and into the Roman era.


The first chapter of the Epistle of Barnabas appeals to the reader to consider the seriousness of the “present

circumstances” because “the last stumbling block is at hand” and cites the fourth beast and the ten horns of

Daniel 7.27

Irenaeus likewise interpreted the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 and 7 as the present-day Roman empire and

believed that Rome in Ireneaeus’ future was going to be divided up into smaller kingdoms, as suggested by

the iron mixed with clay (Dan 2) and the ten horns of the fourth beast (Dan 7, Rev 13).28

Tertullian asked his readers to pray for the stability and unity of the Roman empire in order to delay the

prophesied breakup of Rome and thus the coming of the antichrist.29

Clement of Alexandria provided one of the first documented interpretations we have of Daniel 9 predicting

the time of Jesus Christ’s arrival.30

Eusebius followed the other early Christian writers in identifying the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 as

Assyria/Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The seventy weeks of Daniel 9 Eusebius saw as a 490 year

prediction of the timing of Messiah, stretching from the Persian period to the time of Jesus.31

Cyril, the fourth century bishop of Jerusalem, wrote that the fourth kingdom being Rome was a well-

established tradition in the church. “The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall

surpass all kingdoms. And that this kingdom is that of the Romans, has been the tradition of the Church’s

interpreters.”32

Jerome took the prediction-fulfillments a step further, claiming that the time of the break-up of Rome, as he

saw predicted in Daniel 2 and 7, had begun to take place in his time.33

He refuted the Pagan Porphyry’s

proposal that Daniel was written in the second century as an after-the-events-took-place narrative about

Antiochus Epiphanes.34

More names could be mentioned. The unified voice of the early Christian church, from the Synoptic Jesus

to the leading church historians and scholars of the formative years, was that the biblical apocalypses had in

certain sections predicted events to take place in history from the time of their writing down to the end of

the world. Historicism reigned.

Middle Ages. Historicist expositions were less common in the middle ages, due possibly to an increasing

use of allegorical, ahistorical interpretations of Scripture in general and Augustine’s downplay of a literal

second Parousia (which the early church had seen in the stone-kingdom replacing the Roman empire in the

prophecies of Daniel).

Though no longer in the majority, the list of interpreters using the historicist approach to Daniel and

Revelation is also long for the medieval period. One of the best known is Thomas Aquinas, who held the

four kingdoms predicted in Daniel 2 and 7 to be Babylonia, Persia, Greece, and Rome, the ten horns as ten

future kings to come in the time of antichrist, and the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as 490 (lunar) years predicting

the coming of Jesus.35

According to Froom, other lesser known medieval interpreters using the historicist approach were Bruno of

Segni, Anselm of Havelberg, Rupert of Deutz, Andreas of Caesarea, Sargis d’Aberga, Berengaud, Pseudo-

Methodius, Bede, Robert Grosseteste (identifying the papacy as the antichrist), Peter Comestor, Albertus

Magnus, Joachim of Floris (seven seals and seven trumpets cover the Christian era), Villanova (urging

fellow preachers to preach more on the prophecies, including Daniel 9, which he believed foretold the time

of Jesus’ first advent), Olivi (who believed the Christian church had become corrupt, as prophesied in the

symbol of Babylon in Revelation, and that the seven seals and seven trumpets are seven periods of church

history), Emperor Frederick II (who held the pope to be the predicted antichrist), Eberhard (who claimed

the papal system was predicted in the little horn of Daniel), Dante, Francesco Petrarch, John Milicz, and the

Waldensian Christians (who believed the corruption of the Christian church was predicted in the symbols

of the harlot and Babylon of Revelation).36


Renaissance and Reformation. With the Protestant Reformation we return again to a period of dominance

for the historicist approach. I mention here only two major early writers.

The English “Morning Star of the Reformation,” John Wyclif (1324-1384), believed strongly that the

corruption of the papacy was the event predicted in the prophecies of the antichrist, the little horn of Daniel

7, and the harlot woman of Revelation 17. The four kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7 were Babylon, Medo-

Persia, Greece, and Rome.37

When Martin Luther (1483Ð1546) saw what he considered as the hopelessness of reforming the Church of

Rome, he became increasingly convinced that it was apostate and that this apostasy was predicted in Daniel

and Revelation. When Luther burned the pope’s bull of excommunication, he burned it as the bull of the

prophesied antichrist and Babylon.

Luther’s view on Daniel was the traditional one. The fourth kingdom was the Roman empire, while the

break-up of iron into clay in the feet (Daniel 2) predicted the break-up of the Roman empire into smaller

nations. Luther wrote that it was common knowledge that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 should be interpreted

with a day for a year and that it predicted the death of Christ.38

This historicist approach to prophecy remained the common and accepted approach among Protestants for

the next three hundred years, to such a degree that scholars sometimes define historicism simply as the

approach to prophecy of Protestants up until the mid-19th century.39

Today the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the only major denomination officially using the historicist

approach—the most common approach during two millennia of biblical apocalyptic interpretation. If

Adventists wish to see the use of historicism increased among other interpreters, it might be necessary to

change the way the approach is communicated. Many scholars do not believe in the possibility of true,

predictive prophecy, and the gap between Adventists and these interpreters cannot be closed. The

community of believers who are open to this possibility is large, however—in our days as it has always

been. To these people Adventists should demonstrate carefully from the biblical text, case by case, where

and why one sees history in advance.7

The historical record, as Vetne indicates, demonstrates that while in the past historicism

was the preferred and most trusted hermeneutical method for the Christian theologians and

scholars, there has been a continual decline during the past centuries in the use of this exegetical

method in order to interpret Daniel and Revelation. The scholar appears to think that the reason

for the decline has been a bad communication problem, and suggests that a change in the

approach through which the SDA historicism is shared with non-Adventist theologians might

help increase the number of theologians who would accept the historicist school and its specific

guidelines for prophetic interpretation.

The true reason for this permanent and, it seems, irreversible, decline, though, might

reside somewhere else—in the continual absence of factual evidence that would authenticate the

SDA historicist interpretation for Daniel and Revelation, and the dependence on numerous

assumed, fictional, and even “modified” historical events in order to support the disingenuous

arguments that have attempted to provide dependable evidence for “prophetic fulfillment.”8


IV. Historical and Non-Historical Events

Human Events and Historical Records

This research document’s purpose is to establish, based on the “historicism” definitions

discussed in Section II, clear and unambiguous parameters for the terms so often used in the

SDA “historitalk”—the peculiar language that the SDA historicist theologians and scholars use

in their negotiations on historicism, historical or chronological prophecies, and “prophetic

fulfillments,” so that later in the document we will be able to evaluate their claims and conclude

whether or not the “historical events” suggested and claimed to demonstrate prophetic fulfillment

in Daniel and Revelation are indeed factual and unquestionable, or manipulated, distorted, and

even invented pseudo-historical facts.

The first step we need to take is to find clear and unambiguous definitions for the English

language lexical terms “history,” and “historical,’ and can depend on The Oxford English

Dictionary [further, OED] for those definitions. According to OED, “history” is

A written narrative constituting a continuous methodical record, in order of time, of important or public

events [emphasis added], esp. those connected with a particular country, people, individual [emphasis

added], etc.1

or,

That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise

ascertained [emphasis added]; the formal record of the past [emphasis added], esp. of human affairs or

actions [emphasis added]; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations.2

Anderson concurs with these succinct but also explicit enough OED definitions, and

states in his Manual of General History that,

History is a narration of the events which have happened among mankind [emphasis added], including an

account of the rise and fall of nations, as well as of other great changes which have affected the political

and social conditions of the human race [emphasis added].3

The scholar also mentions “chronology”—the event-related time or chronological records

as a branch and integral part of “history,” and states:

10. Chronology is a department of history which treats of the exact time or date of each event, with

reference to some fixed time called an era or epoch. The epoch usually employed in our times among

Christian nations for reckoning dates, is the birth of Christ, called the Christian Era.* All dates preceding

this are marked B.C., that is, Before Christ; and all subsequent to it are marked A.D., that is, Anno Domini,

which means in the year of our Lord; that is, after the birth of Christ.4

Williams adds that in order to maintain a faithful record of dates and events for the

further generations, historians depend on the “written records” that have been created about the

human situations, circumstances, and events that have occurred:

It is obvious that the materials for the writing of history consist for the most part of written records. It is

true that all manner of monuments, including the ruins of buried cities, remains of ancient walls and

highways, and all other traces of a former civilization, must be allotted their share as records to guide the

investigator in his attempt to reconstruct past conditions. But for anything like a definite presentation of the


events of bygone days, it is absolutely essential, as Sir George Cornewall Lewis points out in great detail,

to have access to contemporary written records, either at first hand, or through the medium of copyists, in

case the original records themselves have been destroyed. Lewis reached the conclusion, as the result of his

exhaustive examination of the credibility of early Roman history, that a tradition of a past event is hardly

transmitted orally from generation to generation with anything like accuracy of detail for more than a

century.5

The second English lexical term, “historical,” is defined in the OED as “of or pertaining

to history; of the nature or character of history, constituting history; following or in accordance

with history,” “of, pertaining to, of the nature of history as opposed to fiction or legend,” and

“relating to or concerned with history or historical events.”6

The above two OED lexical terms, “history,” and “historical,” indicate that a “historical

event” is an “important or public event,” that is “connected with a particular country, people,

individual,” most often a “past event” that has been “recorded in writings or otherwise

ascertained,” that is a direct part of the “formal record of the past,” and that deals with “human

affairs or actions.” Such records concern “mankind” or “the human race,” and often include “the

exact time or date of each event, with reference to some fixed time called an era or epoch.” The

events must be included in “written records” for their accurate preservation, because oral records

become inaccurate with time and from generation to generation.

SDA Historicism and Historical Events

The various definitions for “historicism” examined in the second section of this research

document indicate that the SDA theologians and scholars have in view true and verifiable human

events in their historicist interpretations for the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. The

prophecies in the above books are claimed to cover “the historical period from the time of the

prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth,”7 provide “an outline of the whole

course of church history,”8 include a “descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the most

theologically significant events of this [Christian] era,”9 cover “the whole span of history from

the time of the prophet to the very end of history,”10

and to do this “in unbroken sequence, from

Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age.”11

The

historical apocalyptic in Daniel and Revelation was “intended by its ancient author to reveal

information about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton,”12

and to depict “specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and periods

that transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age. These began in the

first century, have continued through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s

return.”13

The SDA Historicist Claims Too Tall

That the SDA historicist claims are too tall, that is, too good to be true, is obvious when

one takes a closer look at what their substance is:

1. To cover “the historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment of the

kingdom of God on earth,”

2. To include a “descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the most theologically

significant events of this [Christian] era,”


3. To present such prophetic narrative “in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time of

John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age,”

4. To “reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the

eschaton,”and

5. To depict “specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and periods that

transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age. These began in the first

century, have continued through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.”

These five points would require from the SDA theologians and scholars to provide

authentic historical evidence that the entire “historical period from the time of the prophet to the

establishment of the kingdom of God on earth” is contained in the prophecies in an “unbroken

sequence,” and that “some of the most theologically significant events of this [Christian] era,”

including for instance, the Reformation, are included in specific and actual events in the Danielic

and Apocaliptic prophecies as interpreted from the historicist perspective, to show how these

predictions “reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between his [the

prophet’s] day and the eschaton,” that is, to present and describe “specific and identifiable

historical events, institutions, movements, and periods that transpire in a chronological sequence

throughout the entire church age” that “began in the first century, have continued through the

centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.”

Evidence for Historical Fulfillment

The indisputable historical evidence that would defend and support the SDA exegetical

interpretation for the eschatological prophecies in Daniel and Revelation must be, from Shea’s

perspective, the “pragmatic test of historical fulfillment [emphasis added].”14

This pragmatic

interpretation test requires that the “interpretive results [should] be confirmed from

extrabiblical sources where possible [emphasis added]”15

and that the “events, institutions,

movements, and periods [emphasis added]” suggested and claimed as evidence for “historical

fulfillment” should be “specific and identifiable historical events [emphasis added],”16

and

therefore “real,” and “in-history,”17

human events,

and not some assumed, non-human and also

non-terrestrial, fictional and counterfeited pseudo-events.

Unassailable Facts as True Evidence

Froom raises the apologetic stakes even higher when he expects “sound, unassailable

fact” and not “pleasing fables and transitory feelings,” or “pious hopes and plausible

assumptions” as evidence that the SDA theological thought and interpretation is based on sound

science, is rigorous, and is biblical. Examination from time to time would weed out those

assumptions, presupposition, exegetical methods, and creeds and doctrines that cannot stand the

scientific and biblical correctness tests. To be complacent about such essential matters and hope

that our logical fallacies, inference errors, and lack of empirical evidence will escape unnoticed

and undetected is to act as fools and to provide our opponents with opportunities to denounce

and deride our clumsiness and ineptitude. We should never allow such situations to develop and

compromise our theological standards and our reputation among those who disagree with the

position we have taken and maintained on doctrinal issues. States Froom:


We may well observe –

1. That intelligent faith is based on sound, unassailable fact. It is not built on pleasing fables and transitory

feelings. It is not founded on pious hopes and plausible assumptions. It is not reared upon unreliable

traditions and imaginative folklore. Instead, it is built upon solid, trustworthy, factual evidence.

2. That it is impossible for God to lie, and inconceivable that He should deceive. He never contradicts the

laws of truth and evidence that He has established upon which we are to base our faith and verify our

findings, and by which we are to evaluate and check all evidence. The truth of God ever accords with the

highest demands of reverent reason, historical fact, and scientific procedure.

3. That truth has nothing to fear either from reverent investigation or from the attacks of hostile perversion.

If it be truth, it is bound ultimately to triumph over its detractors. Indeed, the more it is buffeted, the

brighter it shines and the more majestic it stands forth in its towering majesty.

Such observations are pertinent because, along with our increasing growth and the inevitable prominence

that comes as a result, especially as we enter the crisis time of earth’s last hour, we shall become the center

of the world’s critical and ofttimes hostile scrutiny. Every position we hold will then become the object of

bitter attack. It therefore behooves us to know, as never before, the certainty and surety of the foundations

upon which our faith is built. It is imperative for us to be assured and established beyond reasonable

question upon every major fact of our prophetic faith. We are specifically admonished by the Spirit of

prophecy – and such counsel is buttressed by our own commons sense – that these fundamentals are to be

verified beyond a reasonable doubt. We are further told that if we are not so prepared and buttressed, the

“wisdom of the world’s great ones will be too much for us.”23

18


V. The Incomplete and Selective Records

Divine and Human Historicist Decoders

The SDA theologians and scholars have claimed that the Bible is a historicist book

because the angel who interpreted to Daniel the visions in the prophetic book used the historicist

school’s hermeneutical method for his interpretation, and because Jesus and Paul also interpreted

Daniel’s prophecies and even the whole Bible through the historicist hermeneutics. States the

Seventy-day Adventist Bible Encyclopedia [further, SDABE]:

The validity of historicism as a method for the interpretation of Daniel and Revelation is provided by the

fact that the angel interpreter in Daniel used this method in explaining the meaning of the visions to the

prophet. In a dream he is informed that the dream of the king in Dan. 2 represents four kingdoms that will

arise in human history before the kingdom of God is established (verses 36–45). The four beasts of Dan. 7

represent those same kingdoms, after which God will give the kingdom to the saints (verses 18, 19). The

first kingdom was identified as Babylon (verses 36–38). In Dan. 8 two animals are used as symbols to

represent the Medo-Persian and Greek empires (verses 19–21). The fourth kingdom is not identified in

Daniel, but Jesus takes it to be Rome (Matt. 24:15). According to Daniel, this kingdom was to be divided,

and a little horn would exercise political and religious control over the people. In the time of the end the

horn is to be destroyed and God’s kingdom established forever.

Jesus used this method when He interpreted Dan. 9:26, 27 as referring to the future destruction of

Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Luke 21:20–22). Paul also speaks about a series of successive prophetic events to be

fulfilled within history before the second coming of Christ (2 Thess. 2:1–12). Historicism as a method of

interpretation is found in the Bible itself, and it provides the key for the interpretation of the apocalyptic

books of Daniel and Revelation.1

LaRondelle agrees with the position the SDA theologians and scholars have taken in the

SDABE. For instance, he mentions Jesus and Paul as Bible interpreters from the SDA historicist

perspective:

Jesus mentions Daniel by name (Matt. 24:15) and affirms his salvation-historical perspective when He

applies Daniel's prophecy of the violent death of the Messiah and of Jerusalem's consequent destruction

(Dan. 9:26, 27) to the imminent fall of Jerusalem in His own generation (Matt. 23:36; 24:15; Luke 21:20-

22). Jesus continuously stresses the Christocentric focus of the church age in His farewell speech of

Matthew 24, when He predicts the coming of false christs and the persecution of His elect (see verses 4,

9,14, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31).

Paul also refers to Daniel's prophecy of an oppressor and deceiver of the covenant people, when he applies

Daniel 8 and 11 to a fulfillment during the church age in "the temple of God" (see 2 Thess. 2:4-8). By the

expression, "the temple of God," Paul did not mean the material shrine in Jerusalem but rather the

institutional church (see 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-21).2

On the basis of these New Testament applications of Daniel's prophecies to the church age, the Seventh-day

Adventist Encyclopedia concludes: "Historicism as a method of interpretation is found in the Bible itself,

and it provides the key for the interpretation of the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation."3 2

The SDA Historicist Claims Repeated

Summarized and repeated here, the claims the SDA theologians and scholars have made

about the two books, Daniel and Revelation, are that the prophecies in the books:


1. Cover “the historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment of the kingdom

of God on earth.”

2. Include a “descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the most theologically significant

events of this [Christian] era”

3. Present such prophetic narrative “in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time of

John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age.”

4. “Reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the

eschaton,” and

5. Depict “specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and periods that

transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age. These began in the first

century, have continued through the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.”

The SDA historicists, though, have overreached with their defense and support for the

historicist method and their interpretation claims. This document section will show that the

historical evidence that would substantiate such disproportionate interpretative arguments cannot

be produced from authentic human historical records and therefore the SDA historicist claims

fail because there is no empirical evidence to support them.

Historical Time Coverage Incomplete

The first SDA historicist claim included above is that the prophecies in Daniel and

Revelation cover “the historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment of the

kingdom of God on earth.” The Adventist literature, though, appears to indicate that the claimed

fulfillments for Daniel’s prophecies end no later than the assumed Imperial Rome’s division into

the European states and the Papal Rome’s division into its Eastern and Western branches, while

those in Revelation seem to end with the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Pröbstle establishes this

matter, for instance, with a historical chart that ends “the historical period from the time of the

prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth” at the Papal Rome,3 and no further

than that:

Daniel 7 Daniel 8 Interpretation

lion - Babylon

bear ram Medo-Persia

leopard he-goat Greece

fourth beast - Rome (pagan)

little horn Little horn Rome (papal)

heavenly judgment restoration of the holy eschatological Yom Kippur

Transfer of the kingdom to

Son of man and saints

- Second Coming and

beyond

The Additional Note on [Daniel] Chapter 7 in SDABC could also help the interested

readers to establish the end time for the Papal Rome, and, therefore the end of the “historical

period” claimed to be “covered” in Daniel. That date is 1798, much far behind us:

It is evident from this brief sketch that the rise of papal power was a gradual process covering many

centuries. The same is true of its decline. The former process may be thought of as continuing from about


A.D. 100 to 756; the latter, from about A.D. 1303 to 1870. The papacy was at the height of its power from

the time of Gregory VII (1073–85) to that of Boniface VIII (1294–1303). It is thus clear that no dates can

be given to mark a sharp transition from insignificance to supremacy, or from supremacy back to

comparative weakness. As is true with all historical processes, the rise and fall of the papacy were both

gradual developments.

However, by 538 the papacy was completely formed and functioning in all significant aspects, and by

1798, 1260 years later, it had lost practically all the power it had accumulated over a period of centuries.

Inspiration allotted 1260 years to the papacy for a demonstration of its principles, its policies, and its

objectives. Accordingly these two dates should be considered as marking the beginning and the end of the

prophetic period of papal power.4

The SDA historicist interpretation that has argued for the prophetic event fulfillments

claimed to have occurred after 1798 is at least vague, if not too speculative, and placed

somewhere in a nebulous future which makes it too implausible to be considered:

Was healed. There was a gradual revival in papal life in the years following the revolution in France. The

papacy suffered a new setback when in 1870 the Papal States were taken from it. A significant event

occurred in 1929 when the Lateran Treaty restored temporal power to the pope, who was given the rule of

Vatican City, a section of the city of Rome about 108.7 acres in extent. However, the prophet envisioned a

much greater restoration. He saw the wound completely healed, as the Greek implies. Following the

healing he saw “all that dwell upon the earth,” except a faithful few, worshiping the beast (v. 8; cf. GC

579). This is still future. Though the papacy receives homage from certain groups, vast populations show it

no deference. But that is to change. The beast of v. 11 “causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to

worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed” (v. 12).5

From the strict historical perspective, therefore, Daniel does not seem to cover “the

historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on

earth,” but stops its “prophetic news coverage” in 1798, and ignores all the human and recorded

historical events after that date.

Efforts to demonstrate more “prophetic fulfillment” in order to substantiate the claim that

Revelation also predicts events between the prophet’s time and the Second Coming seem to have

ended with failed attempts to show similar historic fulfillment for events related to the fifth and

sixth trumpets in Revelation 9. States SDABC:

One of the first Biblical expositors on record to identify the Turks as the power portrayed under the sixth

trumpet was the Swiss reformer, Heinrich Bullinger (d. A.D. 1575), although Martin Luther had already set

forth this trumpet as symbolic of Moslems. However, on the dating of this trumpet, as of the fifth,

commentators have shown wide divergence, although the decided majority of expositors have assigned

dates for the fifth trumpet during the period in which the Saracens were in the ascendancy, and for the sixth

trumpet during the heyday of either the Seljuk or the Ottoman Turks.

In 1832 William Miller made a new approach to the dating of these trumpets by connecting them

chronologically (in the fifth of a series of articles in the Vermont Telegraph). On the basis of the year-day

principle (see on Dan. 7:25), Miller calculated the five months of the fifth trumpet (Rev. 9:5) to be 150

literal years, and the hour, day, month, and year of the sixth to be 391 years and 15 days. Many expositors

before Miller had adopted these same calculations, but they had not connected the two periods

chronologically. Miller set forth the view that the time period of the sixth trumpet followed immediately

upon that of the fifth, so as to make the entire period one of 541 years and 15 days. This period he dated

from A.D. 1298, when he considered the first attack by the Ottoman Turks on the Byzantine Empire

occurred, to 1839. Thus, according to his view, both trumpets represented the Ottoman Turks, the fifth,

their rise and the sixth, their period of domination.


In 1838 Josiah Litch, one of Miller’s associates in the second advent movement in America, revised

Miller’s dates to A.D. 1299 to 1449 for the fifth trumpet, and 1449 to 1840 for the sixth. Litch accepted the

date July 27, 1299, for the battle of Bapheum, near Nicomedia, which he took as the first attack by the

Ottoman Turks on the Byzantine Empire. He saw the date 1449 as significant of the collapse of Byzantine

power, for toward the end of 1448 a new Byzantine emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, had requested

permission of the Turkish sultan Murad II before daring to ascend his throne, and he did not, in fact,

receive the crown until January 6, 1449, after such permission had been granted. Litch believed that this

150-year period constituted the time during which the Ottoman Turks “tormented” (see v. 5) the Byzantine

Empire.

As already stated, Litch set 1299 as the beginning of the fifth trumpet, to be more exact, July 27, 1299, his

date for the battle of Bapheum. He gave to this fifth trumpet a period of 150 years. This brought him to July

27, 1449, for the beginning of the sixth trumpet. Adding on 391 years brought him to July 27, 1840. The 15

days carried him over into the month of August of that year. He predicted that in that month the power of

the Turkish Empire would be overthrown. However, at the outset he did not fix on a precise day in August.

A short time before the expiration of this period he declared that the Turkish Empire would be broken

August 11, which is exactly 15 days beyond July 27, 1840.

At that time world attention was directed to events taking place in the Turkish Empire. In June, 1839,

Mohammed Ali, pasha of Egypt and nominally a vassal of the sultan, had rebelled against his overlord. He

defeated the Turks and captured their navy. At this juncture Mahmud II, the sultan, died, and the ministers

of his successor, Abdul Mejid, proposed a settlement to Mohammed Ali by which he would receive the

hereditary pashalik of Egypt, and his son Ibrahim, the rulership of Syria. However, Britain, France, Austria,

Prussia, and Russia, who all had interests in the Near East, intervened at this point and insisted that no

agreement between the Turks and Mohammed Ali be made without their consultation. Negotiations were

protracted until the summer of 1840, when, on July 15, Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia signed the

Treaty of London, proposing to back with force the terms suggested the previous year by the Turks. It was

about this time that Litch announced that he anticipated Turkish power to come to an end on August 11. On

that day the Turkish emissary, Rifat Bey, arrived at Alexandria with the terms of the London Convention.

On that day also the ambassadors of the four powers received a communication from the sultan inquiring as

to what measures were to be taken in reference to a circumstance vitally affecting his empire. He was told

that “provision had been made,” but he could not know what it was. Litch interpreted these events as a

recognition by the Turkish government that its independent power was gone.

These events, coming at the specified time of Litch’s prediction, exercised a wide influence upon the

thinking of those in America who were interested in the Millerite movement. Indeed, this prediction by

Litch went far to give credence to other, as yet unfulfilled, time prophecies—particularly that of the 2300

days—which were being preached by the Millerites. Thus this occurrence in 1840 was a significant factor

in building up the expectation of the second advent three years later (see GC 334, 335).

It should be made clear, however, that commentators and theologians in general have been greatly divided

over the meaning of the 5th and 6th trumpets. This has been due principally to problems in three areas: (1)

the meaning of the symbolism itself; (2) the meaning of the Greek; (3) the historical events and dates

involved. But to canvass adequately these problems would carry us beyond the space limits permissible in

this commentary.

Generally speaking, the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets, particularly as

touching the time period involved, is essentially that of Josiah Litch.6

The conclusion that the readers can draw from this discussion is that, again, even the

most strenuous SDA historicist interpretations for the prophecies in Revelation fail to extend the

historical time further than 1840—which is a long time ago. Those prophecies are no more

significant and relevant for the present generation, and that is clear and indisputable evidence

that the SDA historicism fails to deliver on its excessive claims.


Since 1840—the last “historical” time that the SDA theologians and scholars have

proposed as fulfillment for a prediction that has not materialized—a lot has happened, but Daniel

and Revelation are silent about the modern times and contain no information about world powers

and empires that have appeared, developed, and reshaped the world after that date. Paul

discusses those empires in short strokes, but the information he delivers is enough to provide the

readers with evidence that the SDA historicist claim that Daniel and Revelation cover “the

historical period from the time of the prophet to the establishment of the kingdom of God on

earth” is incorrect and overstated. Below is a short table that contains some information about

those empires never mentioned in the prophetic books mentioned above:

World Empires Never Mentioned

The Modern Period World Empires7

World Empire Time Period Prophesied in Daniel Prophesied in Revelation

Portuguese Empire 1450-1975 No No

Spanish Empire 1492-1898 No No

Russian Empire (USSR) 1552-1991 No No

Swedish Empire 1560-1660 No No

Dutch Empire 1660-1962 No No

British Empire 1607-1980 No No

French Empire 1611-1980 No No

Modern Chinese Empire 1644-1911 No No

Austro-Hungarian Empire 1700-1918 No No

US Empire 1776-Present No Historicist assumption

Brazilian Empire 1822-1889 No No

German Empire 1 1871-1918 No No

German Empire 2 1939-1945 No No

Japanese Empire 1871-1945 No No

Italian Empire 1889-1942 No No

The historical records indicate, therefore, that the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation

have not provided a prophetic narrative “in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time

of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age.” All the modern empires are absent

in those prophecies, so that the secular historical sequence is broken “down to the Second

Advent and the end of age.” The natural SDA apologetic response to the data presented above

would be that the secular empires mentioned above, except the United States Empire that seems

to be described in Revelation 13 have had little or no influence on the Christian Religions. That

might be true, but further data suggests that significant religious events that had powerful and

lasting impact on the World Christian Religion are also absent from the eschatological

prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, as shown below.


Significant Religious Events Also Absent

The second claim the SDA historicists make about the prophecies in Daniel and

Revelation is that these prophecies include a “descriptive overview and evaluation of some of the

most theologically significant events of this [Christian] era.” This claim also seems to lack the

evidence that would back it. Some “theologically significant events of this [Christian] era” are

also not included in Daniel and Revelation. These remarkable historical events, though, have

“changed the course” of the Christian Church, and their utter absence from the prophetic record

that the SDA historicists have claimed to be a prophetic narrative “in unbroken sequence, from

Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age” are

obvious and indisputable evidence that the high claim for an unbroken human historical

sequence in Daniel and Revelation cannot be supported with historical facts. States Miller:

Perhaps we couldn’t draw a detailed map for every mile of the church’s journey, but we could sketch the

most significant landmarks, milestones, and turns in the road. The Council of Nicea, Luther’s posting of

The Ninety-Five Theses, John and Charles Wesley’s conversions—these events clearly changed the

course of church history [emphasis added]. In highlighting these key events, we hoped, we could help

people see the big picture, the development and change of the Christian church over time. The project

would be an adventure, but we felt it was worth the risk.8

Ten Momentous Events in the Church

The table below contains ten momentous past, modern, and recent historical events that

occurred in the Christian Church and that have had a tremendous and incalculable impact on the

direction the church took during the centuries:

Important Events in the Christian Church9

Event Date Significance

The Destruction of

Jerusalem

A.D. 70 In Luke 21:20 Jesus predicted that Jerusalem would be surrounded

and destroyed. This prediction was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the

Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed its Temple.

The ramifications of this event were huge. It marked the end of the

Jewish state until recent times and ended the sacrificial system of the

Jews. The destruction also signaled a shift in the power structure of

the church. The mostly Jewish church quickly became Gentile. Plus,

many in the church also viewed this tragedy as God's judgment upon

the Jews and evidence that the church had become the “new Israel.”

The Edict of Milan A.D. 313 Before 313 Christianity was a religion on the run as persecution

made staying alive a top priority for the followers of Christ. This

changed, though, when the two Roman emperors--Constantine of the

West and Lucinius of the East agreed to allow Christianity to

function as a tolerated religion. But not only did the Edict of Milan

allow Christianity to function without hindrance, by the end of the

century Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%2021.20


Empire. Thus the Edict of Milan helped lead to the merger between

the Christian religion and the state--a union that has existed until the

last few decades.

The Council of Nicea A.D. 325 This first of the four great ecumenical councils tackled the explosive

issue of whether Jesus Christ was equal to God the Father. Arius

argued that Jesus was a created being who was of a similar substance

as the Father. His opponent, Athanasius of Alexandria, however,

asserted that Jesus was not a created being. He argued that Jesus was

of the same substance as the Father. After a long debate, all but two

of the nearly 300 bishops at the council agreed with Athanasius that

Jesus was “true God.” Although debate oncerning the person of Jesus

would continue, this was a significant victory for the orthodox view

of the person of Christ.

Athanasius Defines the New

Testament Canon

A.D. 367 Others had mentioned the canonical books of the New Testament in

their writings, but Athanasius, in his “Thirty-ninth Festal Letter,”

was the first person to list all 27 books that now make up our New

Testament. Noticeably left out by Athansisus were the “Epistle of

Barnabas” and “Shepherd of Hermas.” Included were the debated

books of “2 Peter” and “Revelation.” Referring to these 27 books of

the New Testament, Athanasius declared, “In these alone the

teaching of godliness is proclaimed. No one may add to them, and

nothing may be taken from them.” This “closed canon,” as declared

by Athanasius, was recognized by the Christian church from this

point onward.

The Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 This fourth and last of the great ecumenical councils solidified the

orthodox view of the person of Christ. Attended by 150 bishops,

Chalcedon affirmed that Christ had two natures--human and divine,

and that these two natures existed within one person without being

blurred.

East/West Schism

A.D. 1054 Although the parting of the ways between East and West began much

earlier, 1054 is often viewed as the official date for the separation

between Western Christians (Roman Catholics) and Eastern

Christians (Eastern Orthodox). Several religious and political factors

were at play in the division between Western and Eastern Christians,

yet two stand out. First, the Western Church asserted that the pope's

authority extended over the entire church, including the East. The

Eastern Church, however, rejected papal authority. Second, the

Western church argued that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the

Father and the Son. The East said that the Holy Spirit proceeded only

from the Father. These differences could not be overcome and thus


the Eastern and Western churches parted ways.

Guttenberg Produces the

First Printed Bible

A.D. 1456 Johann Gutenberg's invention of the printing press and the first Bible

were nothing short of revolutionary, both politically and religiously.

For the first time, books could now be mass-produced and not kept

only as the property of the state. Without this invention, the

Protestant reformation may never have taken root. But with it, the

Bible was put into the hands of the common people. As a result, the

Protestant belief of the priesthood of all believers could now also be

joined with a Bible in the hands of all believers. Gutenberg's

invention of the printing press was so revolutionary that Biography

of the Millennium on the A&E channel listed him as the most

important person of the millennium.

Luther Posts His "95

Theses"

A.D. 1517 On October 31, 1517 Martin Luther posted his “95 Theses” on the

door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg. At issue for Luther was the

sale of indulgences by the Catholic Church. The ramifications of this

event were huge both politically and religiously as Luther’s posting

began the Protestant Reformation. When asked why he did it, Luther

said he was bound by Scripture and reason. Luther was condemned

as a heretic and sentenced to die. He escaped and the Protestant

Reformation spread.

Council of Trent Begins A.D. 1545 The Protestant Reformation was met by what theologians have called

the Catholic Counter Reformation. In 1545, the Council of Trent,

consisting of 255 leaders, met to address internal clergy corruption

and deal with the Protestant threat. As a result, indulgences were

banned and clergy corruption was curtailed. Most importantly,

though, the Roman Catholic Church solidified its doctrines in the

face of the Protestant challenge. The Protestant doctrines of

“scripture alone” and “justification by faith alone” were condemned

and curses were pronounced on those who believed these doctrines.

The findings of the Council of Trent, which relied heavily on the

teachings of Thomas Aquinas, characterized Roman Catholicism

until the 1960s.

Vatican II Council Begins A.D. 1962 The winds of change were in the air on October 12, 1962 when

twenty-four hundred Roman Catholic bishops met in Rome to

discuss what direction the Catholic Church would take for the

Modern Era. Some of the results of the Council included: (1) a shift

in emphasis from the church as a monarchical structure organized

under the primacy of the pope to the collegial union of bishops; (2) a

positive view of the role of non-Christian religions; (3) an admittance

that both Catholics and Protestants were to blame for the division

during the Reformation and that Protestants are now to be considered


"separated brethren"; and (4) an acceptance of the use of vernacular

language in the liturgy. Although not officially rejecting the decrees

of Trent, Vatican II offered a more gracious approach to non-

Catholics and in doing so set a different tone for the church heading

into a new millennium.

The above are some events that have shaped the Christian Church during the current era

and that have not been included or even alluded to in Daniel and Revelation. There are numerous

other events and situations that have shaped the church during the past two millennia and have

never been featured in the eschatological prophecies that were claimed, from the SDA historicist

perspective, to present in detail “the historical period from the time of the prophet to the

establishment of the kingdom of God on earth,” include a “descriptive overview and evaluation

of some of the most theologically significant events of this [Christian] era,” contain these

extended and detailed prophetic narratives “in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the

time of John, on down to the Second Advent and the end of age,” provide “information about

real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton,” and also define and

describe “specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and periods that

transpire in a chronological sequence throughout the entire church age.”

The Unbroken Sequence Claim False

The evidence is clear, then, that the SDA historicism has failed to demonstrate that the

eschatological prophecies in Daniel and Revelation present “in unbroken sequence” those

“significant events” that have occurred in the Christian Church during our Era, and describe

“specific and identifiable historical events, institutions, movements, and periods” as time has

advanced towards the Second Coming. There are serious historical event gaps, both secular and

religious in the historical sequences contained in Daniel and Revelation which leads to the

logical conclusion that the events, institutions, movements, and periods described in these

prophetic books are not general and sequential but selective and particular. God has not designed

the Bible as time almanac, and the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation are not sequential

and complete human historical records.


VI. Historicist Charts and Historic Spans

Miller’s Deceptive Time Computations

Miller and the Millerites, Ellen White included, were more than confident that the world

would end in 1843. The “biblical evidence” seemed to be “certain” and “indisputable” because

Miller had “proven” his “facts” through multiple time formulas, which, the amateur theologian

believed, were based on actual and unquestionable biblical texts. States Arasola:

Miller did, however, differ from most historicists in employing more than one formula for the interpretation

of time:

“Figures sometimes have two or more different significations, as day is used in a figurative sense to

represent three different periods of time.

1. Indefinite (Eccles. vii.14)

2. Definite, a day for a year (Ezek. iv.6)

3. Day for a thousand years (2Pet. iii.8)

If you put on the right construction it will harmonize with the Bible and make good sense, otherwise it will

not.”14

In another context he clarifies his argument on the meaning of the word “day” by stating that there were

three types of days: natural, lasting 24 hours or one cycle of the earth round its axis; prophetic, meaning a

year or one cycle of the earth round the sun; thousand year days, which due to their length deserved the title

“Lord’s day.” In addition to using the popular year/day method Miller also employed the thousand years for

a day calculation in some of his interpretations of the date of the parousia. The basis for turning a day into

a thousand years was naturally derived from 2 Pet 3:8, 10. King James’ translation, “be not ignorant of this

one thing,” appeared to emphasize the legitimacy of this chronology.151

Miller had 15 different “proofs,” with seven different calculations that backed his time

prediction that the end of the world was at the door. These erroneous computations were more

than enough to assure his ardent but gullible followers that he was, indeed, correct in his

prophetic interpretation. States again Arasola:

Miller prepared fifteen proofs which on closer analysis include seven diverse ways of calculating 1843

as the final year of world’s history [emphasis added]. The actual sequence in which Miller developed his

15 proofs is unclear because many of them are referred to or found in the earliest written sources.27

A clue

as to the evolution of Miller’s thinking might be available in the Vermont Telegraph from the early part of

1832, when Miller presented his view in writing for the first time. These have not been available for this

study, but there are other observations one can make on Miller’s fifteen proofs.2

The Fitch and Hale Prophetic Diagram

Based on Miller’s flawed time calculations, Fitch and Hale produced in 1842 a detailed

prophetic chart3 that would indicate the current “prophetic landmark” and the last anticipated

world empire—the “Mahometans.” The world’s end would come, without doubt, in 1843. There

was no expectation for more historical developments further than 1843 in their prophetic chart

because the “evidence” Miller had presented through his time computations based on various

biblical texts appeared indisputable and incontrovertible, and to doubt all that “light” would

show a weak faith and mistrust the Divine providence. The historical record was set in Fitch and


Hale’s chart, and what was left for the believers to do was to prepare for Christ’s Second

Coming, to preach the First and Second Angelic Messages, and to work hard in order to persuade

the “unbelievers” to come and unite with those who were eager to see their Lord descend from

the heavens for them.

Froom provides an interesting and detailed explanation for the Millerite chart that Fitch

and Hale had produced. He includes information about the chart’s authors, the date when the

writers created it, when it was used, what was the chart’s “uniqueness and significance,” and

mentions Ellen White’s approval for the prophetic document. States the famous SDA historian:

The famous “1843” chart, devised in 1842 by Charles Fitch and Apollos Hale, was a mighty factor in

proclaiming the advent message at that time. Its publication was authorized by the eleventh general

conference of the Millerite movement, which convened at Boston on May 24, 1842. (Signs of the Times,

May 18, 1842, p. 56; June 1, p. 68; June 22, p. 96.) A few months earlier, Fitch visited Springfield,

Massachusetts, with his handpainted cloth chart. His course of lectures stirred the city, as he stressed

Habakkuk 2:2. “Write the vision, and make it plain,” as calling for and being fulfilled in the chart.

Three hundred copies, 3 feet 4 inches by 4 feet 7 inches, were lithographed at Boston, and used in the

earlier 1843 phase of the movement. The name of Joshua V. Himes appeared as the publisher. These 1843

charts were not used, however, in the climaxing “seventh-month movement” or “true midnight cry” phase,

from July to October, 1844. The Jewish year 1843 had expired in April, 1844 (civil time), and the

Adventists were now consciously living in the Jewish sacred year 1844, and looking for the antitypical day

of atonement —the tenth day of the Jewish month Tishri—to come on October 22, when they all expected

the great High Priest to emerge from the heavenly sanctuary to bless His waiting people.

This was not the first and only prophetic chart which was employed in proclaiming the first angel's

message, and which appeared in the Millerite papers. Various charts designed by William Miller, Calvin

French, J. V. Himes, Apollos Hale, and others, had appeared. (For example, see Signs of the Times, May I,

1840, p. 24; May 1, 1841, p. 21; etc.) But this notable 1843 “Chronological Chart of the Visions of Daniel

and John,” devised by Charles Fitch, was a distinct advance over all these previous charts, correcting

certain former inaccuracies, and omitting a number of untenable positions, though retaining certain

mistakes in some of the figures. All of these figures focalized on the Jewish year 1843 as the erroneous

terminal date, instead of 1844, which was later clearly recognized by all in the summer of 1844.

The vital place of the 1843 chart in the developing advent movement was clearly recognized and attested

by Ellen White in 1850, in the Present Truth. This statement was written in the midst of nominal

Adventism's repudiation of divine leading in the first and second angels' messages, owing to their bitter

disappointment and the resultant denial that the 2300-year period had yet terminated. Rejecting the

advancing light on the sanctuary, Sabbath, and the Spirit of prophecy—which alone could, and would,

explain the disappointment—they contended that the spirit that had led them was mesmerism, instead of the

Spirit of God. In the midst of all this repudiation, divine attestation was given to the guiding hand of God,

despite some of the mistakes and misconceptions in both the 1843 and the 1844 phases of the movement.

Thus the 1843 chart came in the providence of God, and had its appointed place.

The following notations give, in condensed, tabular form, the essential scope of the 1843 chart, its

noteworthy advances and revisions over previous Millerite charts, its conspicuous omissions of positions

previously set forth, and certain mistakes retained in “some of the figures” of the 1843 chart, as alluded to

by Ellen G. White. Then follows the list of documented excerpts for students.

Notes on the "1843 Chart" Details

A. SCOPE OF THE "1843 CHART"


I. Image of Daniel 2.

II. Division of feet and toes.

III. Beasts of Daniel 7, and papal little horn.

IV. Ram, he-goat, and horn of Daniel 8. V. Crucifixion in midst of seventieth week.

VI. Pagan dragon of Revelation 12.

VII. Papal beast of Revelation 13.

VIII. Fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9.

IX. The various prophetic periods—the 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 days, the 5 months, and the “7 times of

the Gentiles.”

B. ADVANCED POSITIONS TAKEN ON “1843 CHART”

I. Ten kingdoms—the “feet and toes,” not simply toes. (Notice the Lombards.)

II. Three horns plucked up—the Ostrogoths, Vandals, and Heruli. (Differing from the Miller list.)

III. -1260 years of the little horn—from Justinian's elevation of the Roman Bishop. (Not from the uprooting

of the third opposing horn.)

IV. Notable horn of Daniel 8—Rome, pagan and papal. (Not Antiochus Epiphanes, or Mohammedanism.)

V. First beast of Revelation 13—papal Rome. (Not pagan Rome, as in earlier charts.)

VI. 150 years of fifth trumpet—from 1299 to 1449, when the sixth trumpet begins. (No mention of specific

ending date of sixth trumpet.)

VII. Authorities cited: Josephus, Whelpley, Marchiaval. Bishop Lloyd, Doctor Hales.

C. OMISSIONS OF PREVIOUS POSITIONS OF FORMER CHARTS

NOTE: This chart bears the marks of careful revision, to eliminate certain suppositions and conjectures

such as had appeared on half a dozen earlier charts.

I. 33 A. D. for date of cross not mentioned, as had appeared on all previous charts. (Hales, sponsor of the

31 A. D. cross mentioned, but the 31 crucifixion not yet agreed upon.)

II. Second beast of Revelation 13 omitted. (Previously cited as Papacy, or as France.)

III. 666 as years of pagan or imperial Rome omitted. (Differing from Miller's uniform position and from

previous charts.)

IV. "Daily" nowhere identified as paganism, as on former charts. (Fitch, designer of 1843 chart, in first

letter to Miller in 1838, questioned his position.)

V. Ten kings to reign thirty years not mentioned.

D. MISTAKE RETAINED IN "SOME OF THE FIGURES" (PLURAL). (See “Early Writings,” p. 74.)

NOTE: This 1843 chart not used in the seventh-month movement, which climaxed with October 22, 1844.

I. 158 B. C. as date of league between Jews and Romans retained. (Should be 161 B. C.)

II. 1843, the old terminus of the 2300 years.(This was before the correction to 1844.)

III. 606 as date for rise of Mohammedanism.

IV. Numerous minor discrepancies in other dates, such as for certain of the ten horns, 490 A. D. for the

breakup of Rome, and the "7 times" as from 677 B. C., etc. Documentation on “1843”

Chart and First Message

1. PRESENTED BY FITCH AND AUTHORIZED BY CONFERENCE

“In May, 1842, a general conference was again convened in Boston, Massachusetts. At the opening of this

meeting Brethren Charles Fitch and A. Hale, of Haverhill, presented us the visions of Daniel and John

which they had painted on cloth, with the prophetic numbers and ending of the vision, which they called a


chart. Brother Fitch, in explaining the subject, said in substance, as follows: He had been turning it over in

his mind, and felt that if something of this kind could be done, it would simplify the subject, and make it

much easier for him to present it to the people. Here new light seemed to spring up. These brethren had

fulfilled a prophecy given by Habakkuk 2,468 years before, where it says, ‘And the Lord answered me, and

said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.’ This thing now

became so plain to all that it was unanimously voted to have three hundred of these charts lithographed

forthwith, that those who felt the message may read and run with it.”—“Second Advent Way Marks and

High Heafs,” Joseph Bates, New Bedford, 1847, pp. 10, n. (See also “Life of Joseph Bates,” 1878, p. 272.)

2. PROPHETIC CHART PUBLICIZED

“’Chronological Chart of the Visions of Daniel and John.’ It is now nearly finished, and will be ready for

delivery in a few days. Price, $2.50 a copy to subscribers. Published at No. 14 Devonshire Street, upstairs.

Subscribers may send or call soon."—Signs of the Times, June 22, 1842, p. 96.

3. MIGHTY INFLUENCE OF THE CHART

“You who participated in this first angel's message, and felt its power and glory, and saw its effects on the

people, just go back with me to the camp meetings, conferences, and other meetings where the time, 1843,

was proclaimed from the [“1843”] chart. With what solemnity, zeal, and holy confidence the servants of the

Lord proclaimed the time. And O, how their words fell upon the people, melting the hardest sinner’s heart;

for God was with them, and His Spirit attended the solemn message.”—James White in Present Truth,

April, 1850, p. 65.

4. JAMES WHITE USES CHART ON FIRST PREACHING TOUR

“In October, 1842, an advent camp meeting was held in Exeter, Maine, which I attended. The meeting was

large, tents numerous, preaching clear and powerful, and the singing of second advent melodies possessed a

power such as I had never before witnessed in sacred songs. My second advent experience was greatly

deepened at this meeting, and at its close I felt that I must immediately go out into the great harvest field,

and do what I could in sounding the warning. I therefore prepared three lectures, one to remove such

objections as the time of the advent not to be known, and the temporal millennium, one on the signs of the

times, and one on the prophecy of Daniel.

“I had neither horse, saddle, bridle, nor money, yet felt that I must go. I had used my past winter's earnings

in necessary clothing, in attending second advent meetings, and in the purchase of books and the chart. But

my father offered me the use of a horse for the winter, and Elder Polley gave me a saddle with both pads

torn off, and several pieces of an old bridle. I gladly accepted these, and cheerfully placed the saddle on a

beech log and nailed on the pads, fastened the pieces of the bridle together with malleable nails, folded my

chart, with a few pamphlets on the subject of the advent over my breast, snugly buttoned up in my coat, and

left my father’s house on horseback. I gave from three to six lectures in four different towns around

Palmyra.” —“Life Incidents,” by James White, 1868, pp.71, 73.

5. WHITTIER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE CHARTS

John Greenleaf Whittier, describing one of the giant Adventist camp meetings—at East Kingston, New

Hampshire (June 29-July 5, 1842)—of which Apollos Hale was secretary, thus described the prophetic

chart used, which was doubtless the original canvas chart from which the lithographed copies were made:

“‘Suspended from the front of the rude pulpit were two broad sheets of canvas, upon one of which was the

figure of a man—the head of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the belly of brass, the legs of iron, and feet

of clay—the dream of Nebuchadnezzar! On the other were depicted the wonders of the apocalyptic

vision—the beasts—the dragons—the scarlet woman seen by the seer of Patmos—Oriental types and

figures and mystic symbols translated into staring Yankee realities, and exhibited like the beasts of a


traveling menagerie. One horrible image, with its hideous heads and scaly caudal extremity, reminded me

of the tremendous line of Milton, who, in speaking of the same evil dragon, describes him as—

“‘Swingeing the scaly horrors of his folded tail.”

“‘To an imaginative mind the scene was full of novel interest. The white circle of tents—the dim wood

arches—the upturned, earnest faces—the loud voices of the speakers, burdened with the awful symbolic

language of the Bible.’” —Quoted in "Life of William Miller" SylvesterBliss, Boston. 1853. p. 166.

6. CHART SUGGESTED TO FITCH BY HABAKKUK 2:2.

“As early as 1842, the direction given in this prophecy, to ‘write the vision, and make it plain upon tables,

that he may run that readeth it.’ had suggested to Charles Fitch the preparation of a prophetic chart to

illustrate the visions of Daniel and the Revelation. The publication of this chart was regarded as a

fulfillment of the command given by Habakkuk. No one, however, then noticed that an apparent delay in

the accomplishment of the vision—a tarrying time—is presented in the same prophecy."—Ellen G. White

"The Great Controversy,” 1911, p. 392.

NOTE: The tarrying time was clearly recognized and stressed following the ending of the Jewish sacred

year "1843," in April, 1844 (civil time). Consciously living thereafter in “1844.” the Adventists did not use

this famous chart in this later movement to herald the October, 1844 expectation.

7. GOD'S HAND HID MISTAKE IN FIGURES

“The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by His hand, and that no part of it should 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.”—E. G. White, in Present Truth, Nov., 1850, p. 87,

col. I. L. E. F.4

The Rhodes and Nichols Revised Chart

The “1843” Millerite prophetic time chart, whose authors were Fitch and Hale, was

replaced in 1850 with “The Earliest Sabbatarian Chart.” This time the designer was Rhodes, and

the engraver Nichols. In his monumental Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, volume IV, Froom

provides also a detailed and impressive discussion on this prophetic chart that James White

converted into an “improved, cloth-backed prophetic chart for the use of the Sabbatarian

ministers and for Bible studies in the home,”5 and that was recognized soon as the standard

[prophetic] exposition for the SDAs.

The 1850 “Earliest Sabbatarian Chart”6 is rather similar to the Millerite version because

the basic Millerite prophetic interpretation remains almost the same in the 1850 updated and

improved Adventist chart, with a few minor differences. For instance, in this chart the last world

power is shown to be the Ottoman Empire, but the world’s end remains close. This is not too

hard to understand when we remember that the Adventists saw the Second Coming as imminent

and immediate in their life time. States Froom about the Rhodes-Nichols prophetic chart:

Ardent and energetic Samuel W. Rhodes

2 of Oswego, New York, was one of the publishing committee of

five responsible for the Advent Review issued throughout 1850. More than that, he has the distinction of

designing the first illustrated prophetic chart on the symbols of Daniel and the Revelation, issued by the

Sabbatarian Adventists. He showed it to the Whites in August, 1850. They were highly pleased with it, and

encouraged its publication.3 So this early venture had representative backing.


Then Otis Nichols,

4 engraver of Dorchester, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb, published this first pictorial

chart to be brought out after the Disappointment. Lithographed at Boston, in December, 1850,5 it differs but

little in general outline from the positions of the Millerites taught during the seventh-month movement—

except in the expanded treatment of the sanctuary and the flight of the third angel. About 30 by 44 inches, it

is arranged in four vertical columns. The second column, which is rather narrow, is confined to

chronological data, while the three larger ones deal systematically with the symbols. (Facsimile

reproduction appears on opposite page.)

Here were its features: The metallic image of Daniel 2, at the left, is matched on its right by the four beasts

of Daniel 7 (both symbolizing the prophetic series of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and pagan

Roman empires). The Little Horn of Daniel 7 is “papal Rome,” with its 1260 years terminating in “1798-

9,” “just 1290 years after paganism lost its CIVIL POWER.” Then appear the three flying angels of

Revelation 14:6-12 (respectively dated 1837, 1843, and 1844), followed by the coming of Christ in the

clouds with a sickle in hand. An angel issues from the temple crying, “Thrust in Thy sickle and reap,”

while a second angel comes with a sickle, and a third bears the commission to gather the grapes of wrath

for the wine press of God. There is also inserted a pictorial diagram of the two apartments of the sanctuary

and their appurtenances, as “TYPES of the Ministration of our great High Priest in the heavenly holy

places.”

The second column begins with the “7 times” beginning in 677 B .C., previously stressed by the Millerites.

Then follow the 2300 years, beginning jointly with the 70 weeks in 457 B .C.; the league between the Jews

and the Romans (still mistakenly given as 158 B .C.; the cross, in the “midst” of the seventieth week, dated

A .D . 31, and the related close of the 70 weeks placed in A .D . 34; the “daily” taken away in A .D . 508,

and the Papacy set up in 538, with the papal dominion taken away in 1798; and the 2300 years ending in

1844, with the close of the first phase of Christ’s ministration, that in the holy place. The third column

begins the 2300 years in the time of the Persian ram, followed by the Grecian goat, with the exceeding

great horn that developed as Rome in its pagan and papal phases. Then follow the seven-headed great red

dragon of Revelation 12, pagan Rome, and the ten-horned beast from the sea, papal Rome. But the two-

horned beast from the earth is here called the “image of Papacy.” Its two horns, originally designated as

“papist and protestant,” are revised to “REPUBLICANISM & PROTESTANTISM.”6 The “666,” however,

is still curiously represented as connected with the second beast, with reference to the enforcement of its

mark, which is not here explicitly defined.

In the last column are pictured the three angels heralding the three woe trumpets. The first—involving the

“Mahometans”—dated 1299 to 1449; and the second woe as the Ottoman supremacy for 391 years and 15

days, extends to August 11, 1840. The second woe being past, the third woe would come quickly,

following 1844, which woe would, in turn, bring on the seven last plagues. And then the kingdoms of this

world would become the kingdom of Christ the Lord.

The closing explanation pertains to the year-day principle; a “prophetic year or time is 360 days denoting,

years”—the “7 times” are 2520 years, and the three and one half times constitute 1260 years. The seven

times of the Gentiles (2520 years) are again dated from 677 B .C. to A .D .1843, and the “daily” is recorded

as ending in “508-9” (which also dates the beginning of the 1290 years). And after an interval of 30 years,

the 1260 years are noted as leading to “1798-9,” with the additional 45 years (of the 1335 years) from

“1798-9” to 1844.7

Produced in this formative transition hour, this Rhodes-Nichols chart reflected certain still doubtful dates

and periods which were soon dropped—such as the “seven times,” 158 B .C . for the date of the league

between the Jews and the Romans, and particularly the number “666” as covering the two beasts. But it

was the first attempt, and served all the Sabbatarian Adventist preachers for a time. Corrections came

gradually in a work of this kind.7

Froom then continues his discussion about “The Earliest Sabbatarian Chart” with “Otis

Nichols’ Interpretation of Key Positions” in the chart that he and Rhodes had produced. The


historicist scholar’s comments follow the chart’s “sequence of publication, between 1851 and

1853.” 8 States the remarkable historian:

II. Otis Nichols’ Interpretation of Key Positions

The development of Revelation 13-17 in detail as the special new area of study and emphasis is seen in

these points discussed by Nichols according to the sequence of publication, between 1851 and 1853.

1. REVELATION 13—CRISIS FROM IMAGE YET FUTURE.—In 1851 he explicitly explains the two-

horned beast of Revelation 13:11-18 as the “Protestant Republic of the United States.” This was his

explanation of the two beasts, after the chart had been produced:

“The burden of the ‘loud voice,’ so far as the worship of the ‘image is concerned, is yet future. The 'image’

is an institution which receives its life and power from the two-horned beast, the Protestant Republic of the

United States. It is an image, or a likeness to the beast which received a wound by the sword.

“The beast that received ‘a deadly wound’ is called ‘the first beast.’ Rev. xiii, 12. It is described briefly in

verses 5-10. It was the union of the ecclesiastical and civil bodies, under a supreme ecclesiastical head, the

Pope; or, in other words, it was the Papal church instituted with the supremacy, the highest authority, or

‘dominion.’ ” 8

2 . BABYLON— CATHOLIC MOTHER AND HER DAUGHTERS.—In discussing an 1844 article from

the Voice of Truth on mother Babylon and her Protestant daughters, he speaks of this mother-and-daughter

relationship:

“The ‘great city’ I understand symbolizes the church incorporated, and united to the state. Both the

Catholic and Protestant are included. Its primitive existence commenced with the Catholic church, the

‘mother.’ The Catholic church as a ‘mother,’ or parent, exercised its authority during its appointed time,

1260 years. Then her daughters came on the stage, and as her children have been growing in strength,

influence and power, the mother’s power has been diminishing, as our parents naturally do, through

enfeeblement by age. Take them as a whole, mother and children, they are one family, ‘that great city,

Babylon’ Rev. xviii.” ”

3. POWER VESTED IN PAPACY DURING 1260 YEARS.—Nichols contends for the papal control of the

European nations during the 1260 years.

“During this period of time, [the 1260 years] the woman was seated upon the beast, held the reins, dictated,

guided, and was the mouth of the beast, (chap. xiii, 5,) had the ‘dominion ’ and reigned over the (ten) kings

of the earth. The history of the Catholic church proves this to be literally true. She did actually have

dominion over the crowned kings and emperors.”10

4. REVELATION 17— HATING THE “WHORE” ANTEDATES REVOLUTION.—The “hating” of the

apostate church is thought to be before 1798:

“Rev. xvii, 16, 17, shows conclusively the chronology of the ‘whore’ seated upon the beast, as it is

described in verses 3-6, to be previous to 1798. ‘The ten horns shall hate the whore, make her desolate,

&[c]. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will.’ This has been literally true with regard to the Papal

church supremacy. For the last 50 years the ten kingdoms have hated the temporal dominion of the Pope

who is the head of the Catholic church. The reign of Napoleon made her desolate and naked; ‘for God put

in their hearts,’ to do this, to ‘fulfill his will.’ ”11

5. REVELATION 12—JUSTINIAN CONFERS SEAT, POWER, AUTHORITY. — Justinian’s part in the

spiritual establishment of the Papacy in 538 was this:


“The Emperor Justinian became the head of the civil and ecclesiastical governments, and consequently was

the instrumentality, and mouth of the dragon, that gave the beast his seat, and power, and great authority . .

‘The dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.’ Chap. xii, 2, 5, 7. The Emperor

Justinian (who was the chief executive of the eastern empire of Rome) made the bishop of Rome the head

of all the churches, in A.D. 538; and he gave him his seat, (Rome,) and the supreme authority over the

church ‘in all nations, and tongues,’ to dictate and discipline, according to his will, in matters of religion,

and chastise or put to death such as would not obey the dictates of the church of Rome; and the civil

governments were subservient in executing the mandates of the Pope.”12

6. DANIEL 11— VERSES 40-45 APPLIED TO EUROPE .— The prime place occupied by the Papacy in

European affairs throughout the Middle Ages and up to the closing scenes, but involving France, is put in

this way:

“Since the days of Pagan Rome, the little horn, Papacy, has been the principal noted power referred to in

the prophecy of Daniel's visions. Chapters vii, viii, xi, 32-89. Verses 40-45 refer more particularly to the

doings of France, as that nation had the ascendency from ‘the time of the end’ in A.D. 1798, and effected

the reversion of the Papal power, and subjected the Pope to its dictation. . . . Thus France has been the

principal acting power in all the important events that have affected the little horn. And it remains to be

seen whether France, under the reign of Napoleon III, in confederacy with the Pope and his priesthood, will

be the principal actors, on the one part, in the closing scenes of ‘the little horn that waxed exceeding great,’

when it ‘shall come to its end with none to help.’ Dan. xi, 44, 45.”13

7. DANIEL 11:45—ENGLAND BELIEVED “KING OF NORTH.”—Nichols differed from most of the

early Sabbatarians in suggesting Protestant England as the specific king of the north, with papal France as

king of the south:

“As the empire of France, under Napoleon III, is viewed with alarm and jealousy by England and Russia,

the northern and eastern powers of Europe, it is not improbable that ‘tidings out of the east and out of the

north’ may trouble him; [verse 44,] the French empire confederate with the Pope. England stands at the

head of the Protestants in Europe, ‘the king of the north,’ France now stands as the head of the Papal

power, ‘the king of the south,’ and Russia is the power of the Greek church in the east,—the three divided

parts of the great city, Babylon.”149

Time Gaps in the Historical Narratives

The Millerite and earlier SDA prophetic charts provide further indisputable evidence that

the SDA historicist prophetic interpretation fails to produce factual evidence that the prophecies

in Daniel and Revelation cover “the historical period from the time of the prophet to the

establishment of the kingdom of God on earth,” include a “descriptive overview and evaluation

of some of the most theologically significant events of this [Christian] era,” and present such

prophetic narrative “in unbroken sequence, from Daniel’s day and the time of John, on down to

the Second Advent and the end of age.” The time gaps in the human, that is, terrestrial historical

narrative are obvious and need no further elaboration.


VII. Failed SDA Historicist Predictions

The simple and undeniable truth for the SDA historicist theologians and scholars is that

even those “events, institutions, movements, and periods” claimed to have been selected from

Daniel and Revelation as “specific and identifiable” have not been authenticated with historical

data and fail Shea’s “pragmatic test of historical fulfillment [emphasis added],”1 that demands

that the “interpretive results [should] be confirmed from extrabiblical sources where

possible [emphasis added]”2 and that all the “events, institutions, movements, and periods

[emphasis added]” claimed as evidence for “historical fulfillment” should be “specific and

identifiable historical events [emphasis added],”3 that is, “real,” and “in-history [emphasis

added]”4

human events,

and not manufactured, fictitious, and non-terrestrial, pseudo-events.

Bold Predictions and Dreadful Failures

This section will evaluate and challenge some claimed SDA historicist predictions based

on the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, and their assumed historical fulfillments, and

provide evidence that the SDA theologians and scholars have little or nothing to show in this

matter because those predictions have depended on misread, misinterpreted and distorted

prophetic texts, and because the events that have been claimed to confirm the historical

fulfillments are manufactured, fictional, or even worse—assumed non-terrestrial and unverifiable

non-historical and non-human occurrences, and not some “specific and identifiable historical

events, institutions, movements, and periods that [have] transpire[d] in a chronological sequence

throughout the entire church age,” that “began in the first century,” and “have continued through

the centuries, and will eventually lead up to the Lord’s return.”

The Sun, Moon, and the Stars

Miller’s absolute conviction based on his multiple and convoluted number computations

that the Second Coming would occur in 1843 had a powerful impact on the manner in which the

Millerites read and interpreted the Bible. It seemed that there were texts all over the Scriptures

that pointed to the immediate Return event. Such were, for instance, the biblical prophetic

passages in Luke 21:25 and Mark 13:24-26:

Lk 21:25 KJV And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress

of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Mk 13:24 KJV But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her

light,

25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.


Sure Signs But Mistaken Interpretation

Ellen White (or rather Frances Bolton or Marian Davis) has a full discussion about these

two biblical texts which she declares as the certain signs that would announce and precede

Christ’s Second Coming and the world’s end. She states:

Prophecy not only foretells the manner and object of Christ's coming, but presents tokens by which men are

to know when it is near. Said Jesus: “There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars.”

Luke 21:25. “The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars of heaven shall

fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in

the clouds with great power and glory.” Mark 13:24-26. The revelator thus describes the first of the signs to

precede the second advent: “There was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair,

and the moon became as blood.” Revelation 6:12.

These signs were witnessed before the opening of the nineteenth century. In fulfillment of this prophecy

there occurred, in the year 1755, the most terrible earthquake that has ever been recorded. Though

commonly known as the earthquake of Lisbon, it extended to the greater part of Europe, Africa, and

America. It was felt in Greenland, in the West Indies, in the island of Madeira, in Norway and Sweden,

Great Britain and Ireland. It pervaded an extent of not less than four million square miles. In Africa the

shock was almost as severe as in Europe. A great part of Algiers was destroyed; and a short distance from

Morocco, a village containing eight or ten thousand inhabitants was swallowed up. A vast wave swept over

the coast of Spain and Africa engulfing cities and causing great destruction.

It was in Spain and Portugal that the shock manifested its extreme violence. At Cadiz the inflowing wave

was said to be sixty feet high. Mountains, “some of the largest in Portugal, were impetuously shaken, as it

were, from their very foundations, and some of them opened at their summits, which were split and rent in

a wonderful manner, huge masses of them being thrown down into the adjacent valleys. Flames are related

to have issued from these mountains.”– Sir Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, page 495.

At Lisbon “a sound of thunder was heard underground, and immediately afterwards a violent shock threw

down the greater part of that city. In the course of about six minutes sixty thousand persons perished. The

sea first retired, and laid the bar dry; it then rolled in, rising fifty feet or more above its ordinary level.”

“Among other extraordinary events related to have occurred at Lisbon during the catastrophe, was the

subsidence of a new quay, built entirely of marble, at an immense expense. A great concourse of people

had collected there for safety, as a spot where they might be beyond the reach of falling ruins; but suddenly

the quay sank down with all the people on it, and not one of the dead bodies ever floated to the surface.”

Ibid., page 495.

“The shock” of the earthquake “was instantly followed by the fall of every church and convent, almost all

the large public buildings, and more than one fourth of the houses. In about two hours after the shock, fires

broke out in different quarters, and raged with such violence for the space of nearly three days, that the city

was completely desolated. The earthquake happened on a holyday, when the churches and convents were

full of people, very few of whom escaped.” Encyclopedia Americana, art. “Lisbon,” note (ed. 1831). "The

terror of the people was beyond description. Nobody wept; it was beyond tears. They ran hither and thither,

delirious with horror and astonishment, beating their faces and breasts, crying, ‘Misericordia! The World's

at an end!’ Mothers forgot their children, and ran about loaded with crucifixed images. Unfortunately,

many ran to the churches for protection; but in vain was the sacrament exposed; in vain did the poor

creatures embrace the altars; images, priests, and people were buried in one common ruin.” It has been

estimated that ninety thousand persons lost their lives on that fatal day.

Twenty-five years later appeared the next sign mentioned in the prophecy—the darkening of the sun and

moon. What rendered this more striking was the fact that the time of its fulfillment had been definitely

pointed out. In the Saviour's conversation with His disciples upon Olivet, after describing the long period of

trial for the church,—the 1260 years of papal persecution, concerning which He had promised that the

tribulation should be shortened,—He thus mentioned certain events to precede His coming, and fixed the


time when the first of these should be witnessed: “In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be

darkened, and the moon shall not give her light.” Mark 13:24. The 1260 days, or years, terminated in 1798.

A quarter of a century earlier, persecution had almost wholly ceased. Following this persecution, according

to the words of Christ, the sun was to be darkened. On the 19th of May, 1780, this prophecy was fulfilled.

“Almost, if not altogether alone, as the most mysterious and as yet unexplained phenomenon of its kind, . . .

stands the dark day of May 19, 1780,–a most unaccountable darkening of the whole visible heavens and

atmosphere in New England.”–R. M. Devens, Our First Century, page 89.

An eyewitness living in Massachusetts describes the event as follows: “In the morning the sun rose clear,

but was soon overcast. The clouds became lowery, and from them, black and ominous, as they soon

appeared, lightning flashed, thunder rolled, and a little rain fell. Toward nine o’clock, the clouds became

thinner, and assumed a brassy or coppery appearance, and earth, rocks, trees, buildings, water, and persons

were changed by this strange, unearthly light. A few minutes later, a heavy black cloud spread over the

entire sky except a narrow rim at the horizon, and it was as dark as it usually is at nine o'clock on a summer

evening. . . . “Fear, anxiety, and awe gradually filled the minds of the people. Women stood at the door,

looking out upon the dark landscape; men returned from their labor in the fields; the carpenter left his tools,

the blacksmith his forge, the tradesman his counter. Schools were dismissed, and tremblingly the children

fled homeward. Travelers put up at the nearest farmhouse. ‘What is coming?’ queried every lip and heart. It

seemed as if a hurricane was about to dash across the land, or as if it was the day of the consummation of

all things.

“Candles were used; and hearth fires shone as brightly as on a moonless evening in autumn. . . . Fowls

retired to their roosts and went to sleep, cattle gathered at the pasture bars and lowed, frogs peeped, birds

sang their evening songs, and bats flew about. But the human knew that night had not come. . . .

“Dr. Nathanael Whittaker, pastor of the Tabernacle church in Salem, held religious services in the meeting-

house, and preached a sermon in which he maintained that the darkness was supernatural. Congregations

came together in many other places. The texts for the extemporaneous sermons were invariably those that

seemed to indicate that the darkness was consonant with Scriptural prophecy. . . . The darkness was most

dense shortly after eleven o'clock. “The Essex Antiquarian, April, 1899, vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 53, 54. “In most

parts of the country it was so great in the daytime, that the people could not tell the hour by either watch or

clock, nor dine, nor manage their domestic business, without the light of candles. . . .

“The extent of this darkness was extraordinary. It was observed as far east as Falmouth. To the westward it

reached to the farthest part of Connecticut, and to Albany. To the southward, it was observed along the

seacoasts; and to the north as far as the American settlements extend.”—William Gordon, History of the

Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the U.S.A., vol. 3, p. 57.

The intense darkness of the day was succeeded, an hour or two before evening, by a partially clear sky, and

the sun appeared, though it was still obscured by the black, heavy mist. “After sundown, the clouds came

again overhead, and it grew dark very fast.” “Nor was the darkness of the night less uncommon and

terrifying than that of the day; notwithstanding there was almost a full moon, no object was discernible but

by the help of some artificial light, which, when seen from the neighboring houses and other places at a

distance, appeared through a kind of Egyptian darkness which seemed almost impervious to the rays.”–

Isaiah Thomas, Massachusetts Spy; or, American Oracle of Liberty, vol. 10, No. 472 (May 25, 1780). Said

an eyewitness of the scene: “I could not help conceiving at the time, that if every luminous body in the

universe had been shrouded in impenetrable shades, or struck out of existence, the darkness could not have

been more complete.”–Letter by Dr. Samuel Tenney, of Exeter, New Hampshire, December, 1785 (in

Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 1792, 1st series, vol. 1, p. 97). Though at nine o'clock that

night the moon rose to the full, “it had not the least effect to dispel the deathlike shadows.” After midnight

the darkness disappeared, and the moon, when first visible, had the appearance of blood.

May 19, 1780, stands in history as “The Dark Day.” Since the time of Moses no period of darkness of equal

density, extent, and duration, has ever been recorded. The description of this event, as given by

eyewitnesses, is but an echo of the words of the Lord, recorded by the prophet Joel, twenty-five hundred


years previous to their fulfillment: “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before

the great and terrible day of the Lord come.” Joel 2:31.

Christ had bidden His people watch for the signs of His advent and rejoice as they should behold the tokens

of their coming King. “When these things begin to come to pass,” He said, “then look up, and lift up your

heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” He pointed His followers to the budding trees of spring, and

said: “When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.

So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.”

Luke 21:28, 30, 31.5

LaRondelle Disputes White’s Claims

LaRondelle, though, questions the extent to which the above natural phenomena

impacted the world, shows that those events and casualties were far from exceptional and

miraculous, disputes the excessive relevance attributed to them, and demonstrates that Ellen

White’s conclusions were based on erroneous hermeneutics and were uninformed, and false:

Seventh-day Adventists saw in the historic earth quake of Lisbon, Portugal, on November 1, 1755, a

fulfillment of the sixth seal of Revelation 6:12-17. They further accepted the “inexplicable” darkening of

the sunlight on May 19, 1780, for a few hours in some eastern states along the American seacoast as

fulfilling the prediction: “The sun turned black” (Rev. 6:12). The meteor shower on the morning of

November 13, 1833, seen across North America, was seen as a spectacular sign from heaven to warn

humanity of the imminent coming of Christ. Ellen White considered this event the last of the cosmic signs

predicted in Matthew 24 and Revelation 6, and the forerunner of the coming Judgment Day.1

She declared

that all three upheavals in nature the Lisbon quake, the “dark day,” and the meteor shower were fulfillments

of Christ's predictions in Matthew 24:29 and Revelation 6:12, 13.2 It seemed to her a “surety” that she was

living in the last generation on earth.3

In retrospect, can we, today (in some cases centuries after the events) maintain the same understanding of

these phenomena, especially since they are no longer inexplicable supernatural happenings but are known

to be the results of specific laws and predictable movements in nature?

Signs in the heavens

Adventist expositors persistently ascribed the darkening of the sun and moon in 1780 to a supernatural

cosmic end-time sign. However, later evidence indicated that the darkening may have come as the result of

forest fires. The smoke had eclipsed the sun, covering 25,000 square miles in the eastern part of North

America and Canada. Such a regional event lasting for only a few hours can hardly qualify as the cosmic

happening prophesied in the New Testament. C. Mervyn Maxwell and others acknowledge that the so-

called “dark day” of May 19, 1780, was not precipitated by a direct act of omnipotent intervention but by

natural causes.4

The apocalyptic earthquake

The Lisbon quake in 1755, possibly 8.5 on the Richter scale, was nevertheless a regional quake, even if the

shock covered 1,300,000 square miles; more than one third of Europe. The loss of life is estimated to have

been between 15,000 and 30,000, coming largely from 30 churches filled that morning for All Saints’ Day

mass.

That earthquake had a lasting effect on eighteenth-century philosophy, culture, and science. One modern

author states: “No dramatist could have established the moment of time for this catastrophe with greater

effect.”5

This natural disaster actually “changed the world,”6 in the light of the prevailing philosophy of

Leibnitz. “The very foundations of Western thought and culture were profoundly shaken.... The self-

assured stride of the Age of Reason acquired a permanent limp after the Lisbon earthquake” (B. Walker).7


Yet scientists report that throughout the centuries earthquakes have killed “on average some 15,000 people

every year.” Before 1755, three earthquakes were of even greater intensity: the 1456 earthquake of Naples,

Italy (30,000 dead); the 1556, Shensu earthquake in China (820,000 dead); the 1737 earthquake of Calcutta

(300,000 dead). After 1755, the Tokyo quake took 200,000 lives in 1803; in 1920 the quake of Kansu, left

180,000 dead in China; and the 1923 quake of Kwanto, Japan, killed 140,000. In 1976 earthquakes caused

650,000 deaths in China alone.

On both sides of the Atlantic, however, the Lisbon quake was explained by Protestants as a sign of the

approaching advent of Christ. In the light of the quake, the Anglican Church proclaimed a special day of

fasting for February 6, 1756. In Boston, the Lisbon quake was interpreted as a forerunner of the destruction

of the world, as mentioned by Christ in Matthew 24:7. In 1756 the Congregational minister, Charles

Chauncy, compared the loss of trade caused by the quake to the condition predicted in Revelation 18 and

cited it as a warning to repent or experience similar judgments.8 Boston Puritan pastor Jonathan Mayhew

explained that the Lisbon quake was a harbinger of the woes and plagues culminating in the great last

earthquake to be visited upon Babylon.9

The apocalyptic meteor shower

On the night of November 13,1833, an observer stated that “the stars were falling as thick snowflakes.”

Estimates for the fall range from 10,000 to more than 60,000 meteors per hour. The year 1833 is now

regarded as the birth of meteor astronomy. Observers noticed that the meteors all seemed to stream from

the constellation Leo. Gerald S. Hawkins, astronomer at Boston University, says that: “If the scientists were

bewildered by the Leonid storm, we can easily imagine how the nonscientists felt. We do not know exactly

how many deaths from heart failures and suicide could be directly attributed to the Leonids, but many

people in the southern states were panic-stricken, thinking that the Day of Judgment had surely arrived.”10

Later the American astronomer H. A. Newton of Yale discovered the natural cause of the Leonid meteor

shower. Searching older records, he found that a Leonid shower had been seen practically every 33 years,

starting in A.D. 902, “the year of the stars.” In the same year, an Italian observer in Salerno stated that it

was the fulfillment of Luke 21:25. Outstanding Leonid storms had also been recorded in the years 1202,

1366, 1533, 1766, and 1799. Newton suggested that the Leonids might return in 1866; he was correct: A

beautiful shower of meteors radiated from the constellation of Leo that year at the rate of about 6,000 per

hour. Because of this scientific prediction, there was no widespread excitement. It was shown that the

Leonid storm, in various degrees of intensity, was recurring in a natural cycle along its large elliptic orbit

around the sun. In 1866 Wilhelm Temple in France discovered that a comet later named the “Temple-

Tuttle” comet was responsible for the meteor showers from Leo when its tail of meteor particles entered the

earth's atmosphere. Because the comet passed close to Jupiter in the year 1899, the gravitational pull of this

planet deflected the course of the comet so that it missed the earth, and the celestial display did not occur.

Many Adventist expositors today do not deny the natural cause of the celestial phenomena but stress the

intensity of the Leonid storm of 1833. “However, on November 17, 1966, a record number of meteors

streaked over North America, seen best in the mountain states, with a visual rate of about 1 million per

hour! 12

The 1992 Guinness Book of Records declares: “The greatest shower on record occurred on the

night of 16-17 Nov. 1966, when the Leonid meteors (which recur every 33 years) were visible between

North America and the eastern USSR.”13

We must remember that many who experienced the sudden impact of those historic phenomena were

deeply impressed, seeing them as the hand of God in judgment or in preparation for final judgment. These

signs brought some to repentance and to an apocalyptical sense of their accountability to God. We must

honor them for that and acknowledge that the signs they observed in nature some 200 years ago were not

only helpful to them but were also to become preparatory or precursory to the final worldwide cosmic signs

yet to arrive under the seven last plagues. Further, the signs that they saw as indicative of the nearness of

Christ’s second coming played a role in calling attention to the final signs yet to come. Thus they created

the potential for those final signs to have a more dramatic impact on those living through them, looking for


the coming of Jesus. It is only the eschatological, cosmic signs, however, which will play the role of

actually ushering in the second coming of Christ.

New trend in Adventist evangelism

In light of these facts, some conservative Adventist expositors are now convinced that the traditional

Adventist interpretation of these historical phenomena has lost its convincing power. Samuele Bacchiocchi,

in The Advent Hope for Human Hopelessness (1986), omits the traditional view about 1755, 1780, and

1833. The unanimous voice of conviction in Adventism regarding the prophetic significance of these

phenomena has disappeared. Lost is the sense of self evidence that used to accompany these events as

supernatural signs.

On what basis, then, does traditional Adventism still defend the idea of a role in God's eschatalogical plan

for these specific disasters and natural events?

The appeal today is to the timing and the sequence of such occurrences: “Their appearance in connection

with the closing years of the 1260 years of papal suppression both before and after 1798.”14

C. M. Maxwell

explains: “As a series they came in the right order and at the proper time.”15 “

The series of signs [Matt.

24:29] that were to take place ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days’ has evidently been

fulfilled.”16

This conclusion is based on an exegesis of two passages: Mark 13:24 (rather than Matt. 24:29)

and Revelation 12:6. “‘But in those days, following that distress, “the sun will be darkened and the moon

will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky’” (Mark 13:24). “The woman fled into the desert to a

place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days” (Rev. 12:6).

Though it is assumed to be self-evident that both passages deal with the 1260 year-days (counted from A.D.

538-1798), that fact is not so self-evident. The context of Mark 13:18-25 (and of Matt. 24:20-30) connects

the “days of distress” for Christ's followers from A.D. 70 until the cosmic signs introduce the Second

Advent. Nothing in the Mount Olivet forecast restricts the times of distress to 1260 years. Jesus also

includes the end time distress under the antichrist, because He referred specifically to Daniel 12:1 when He

announced that the coming great distress would be “unequaled from the beginning of the world until now

and never to be equaled again” (Matt. 24:21; see also Mark 13:19). Daniel had declared that at the end of

the unprecedented “time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then,”

Michael would arise and the resurrection of the dead would take place (12:1, 2). Jesus referred to that end-

time distress of Daniel 12 in His prophetic discourse and therefore did not restrict “those days” of Mark

13:24 to the Middle Ages (see also Matt. 24:22). Jesus thus rather indicated that the sun and the moon

would be darkened after the end time distress of Daniel 12:1. This fits the description of the supernatural,

world-wide darkening during the last plagues in Revelation 16 (verses 10, 11). There is therefore no

justification for the assumption that the “days” of distress spoken of in Mark 13:24 are identical with the

“1260 days” of Revelation 12:6.

Further, the Adventist application of the falling stars in Mark 13:24,25 to 1833 is not fully consistent with

its premise that the timing for the celestial signs must come within “those days,” if those “days” are

reckoned to be from 538 till 1798. The meteor shower of 1833 clearly came beyond those “days.”

The exegesis of Jesus’ reference to “those days, following that distress” (Mark 13:24) must take into

account the total picture of the days of distress, as presented in the fifth seal of Revelation 6:9-11 and in

12:17; 13:15-17; 17:12-14. “White robes” are given to all who “have come out of the great tribulation”

(Rev. 7:14; also 6:11). This distress is, of course, not restricted to the Middle Ages or to the 1260 years

(ending in 1798). More than that, Revelation 12:17 points specifically to the end-time distress of the

remnant church, a distress further enlarged in Revelation 13:15-17 and 17:12-14. This distress will be cut

short by Christ’s divine intervention during the seven last plagues with the sudden darkening of the entire

earth (Rev. 16:10) and the cosmic universal earthquake (Rev. 16:18-21). This is impressively described by

Ellen G. White in chapter 40 in The Great Controversy (636, 637). The future cosmic signs during the last

plagues fulfill precisely the proper timing and function of “cutting short” the universal distress of God’s

people in the entire world.


Conclusion

A number of contemporary Adventist expositors admit the exegetical problems with the old interpretation

of the cosmic signs. Today’s point to the increasing global influence of the papacy and of America; to the

intensification of destructive disasters in the world and to the stage-setting for the final crisis and last

distress for God’s people. (See Marvin Moore, The Crisis of the End Time, Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Pub.

Assn., 1992, chap. 4; S. Bacchiocchi, The Advent Hope for Human Hopelessness, Berrien Springs, Midi.:,

1986, chaps. 8-10.). These books no longer articulate the traditional application of the cosmic signs. In his

recent book What the Bible Says About The End-Time, Jon Paulien urges: “We need a sane approach to

current events.” He understands our inclination to date-setting and doom-saying: “Natural disasters are so

gripping that it is almost instinctive for human beings to invest them with cosmic significance.”18

In fact, it

has become traditional to interpret the many signs of disaster in Matthew 24 as signs of the coming end.

Paulien offers this challenging exegesis: “The famines, pestilences, earthquakes, wars, and rumors of wars

are not listed as signs of the end in Matthew 24. Instead they are ‘signs of the age,’ events that would occur

throughout the interim between Jesus’ earthly ministry and the end. Jesus did not want those who observe

such events to calculate their significance for the timing of the end. Instead, He wanted those who observe

wars, earthquakes, and famines to keep watch.”19

The latest Adventist exposition of Matthew 24 by George R. Knight explains that the role of the signs in

Matthew 24 is to reassure us “that the faithful, covenant keeping God has not yet finished the plan of

salvation .... They are signs that the end is coming, but they are not the real signs of the end.... The pattern

of Matthew 24 appears to be that the real signs are not signs of nearness but signs of coming.”20

These results of a serious and responsible exegesis of the prophetic Word do not warrant a hasty rejection

or condemnation; instead they are a call to a new reflection on the clarity of Scripture and its power to

explain itself by means of its immediate and wider contexts. Traditional applications of the prophetic “signs

of the age” are not part of any pillar or landmark of Seventh-day Adventism.21

Truth progresses; so

should we [emphasis added].6

Historicist End Time Predictions False

The SDA traditional prediction, based on historicist hermeneutics, that the biblical

passages from Luke 21:25 and Mark 13:24-26 indicate the “end time” and the Second Coming

are, therefore, demonstrated to be incorrect and fail to show prophetic fulfillment, in opposition

to Ellen White’s and the official SDA position on those biblical passages.

Papal Oppression for 1260 Years

The traditional SDA historicist interpretation reads into Daniel 7:25, the claimed “papal

oppression” assumed to have lasted for “a time, times, and the dividing of time,” or 1260 years

(Daniel 7:25; Revelation 12:6 and Revelation 13:5-7), from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D., and that

brought into Europe the Dark Ages. States Uriah Smith:

Smith’s Historicist Persecution Claim

4. “And they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” The pronoun they

embraces the saints, the times, and the laws just mentioned. How long a time were they to be given into the

hands of this power? A time, as we have seen from the chapter 4:23, is one year; two times, the least that

could be denoted by the plural, two years, and the dividing of time, or half a time (Sept.,) half a year.

Gesenius also gives “...., Chald. a half. Dan.7:25.” We thus have three years and a half for the continuance

of this power. The Hebrew, or rather the Chaldaic, word for time in the text before us, is iddan, which


Gesenius defines thus: “Time. Spec. in prophetic language for a year. Dan.7:25 for a year, also two years

and half a year; i.e., for three years and a half; comp. Jos.B.J.1.1.1.”

We must now consider that we are in the midst of symbolic prophecy; hence in this measurement the time

is not literal, but symbolic also. The inquiry then arises, How long a period is denoted by the three years

and a half of prophetic time? The rule given us in the Bible is, that when a day is used as a symbol, it stands

for a year. Eze.4:6; Num.14:34. Under the Hebrew word for day, (yom), Gesenius has this remark: “3.

Sometimes [Yamim] marks a definite space of time; viz., a year; as also Syr. and Chald. [iddan] denotes

both time and year; and as in English several words signifying time, weight, measure, are likewise used to

denote certain specified times, weights, and measures.” The ordinary Jewish year, which must be used as

the basis of reckoning, contained three hundred and sixty days. Three years and a half contained twelve

hundred and sixty days. As each day stands for a year, we have twelve hundred and sixty years for the

continuation of the supremacy of this horn.

Did the papacy possess dominion that length of time? The answer again is, Yes. The edict of the emperor

Justinian, dated A.D.533, made the bishop of Rome the head of all the churches. But this edict could not go

into effect until the Arian Ostrogoths, the last of the three horns that were plucked up to make room for the

papacy, were driven from Rome; and this was not accomplished, as already shown, till A.D.538. The edict

would have been of no effect had this latter event not been accomplished; hence from this latter year we are

to reckon, as this was the earliest point where the saints were in reality in the hand of this power. From this

point did the papacy hold supremacy for twelve hundred and sixty years? - Exactly. For 538 + 1260 =

1798; and in the year 1798, Berthier, with a French army, entered Rome, proclaimed a republic, took the

pope prisoner, and for a time abolished the papacy. It has never since enjoyed the privileges and immunities

which it possessed before. Thus again this power fulfils to the very letter the specifications of the prophecy,

which proves beyond question that the application is correct.7

Ellen White Confirms Smith’s Claim

Ellen White (or rather Frances Bolton or Marian Davis) is in full agreement with Uriah

Smith about the claimed Papal domination and persecution from 538 A.D. to 1798 A.D., and

states:

In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial

city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had given place

to the papacy. The dragon had given to the beast “his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Revelation

13:2. And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the

Revelation. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5-7. (See Appendix.) Christians were forced to choose either to

yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to wear away their lives in dungeons

or suffer death by the rack, the fagot, or the headsman's ax. Now were fulfilled the words of Jesus: “Ye

shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they

cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake.” Luke 21:16, 17. Persecution

opened upon the faithful with greater fury than ever before, became a vast battlefield. For hundreds of years

the church of Christ found refuge in seclusion and obscurity. Thus says the prophet: "The woman fled into

the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two

hundred and three-score days." Revelation 12:6.8

Adventist Theologians Oppose White

The SDABC, though, disputes Ellen White’s claim that the Papal persecution lasted for

more than a millennium, and provides ample evidence that, in fact, the Pope had oppressive

powers in Europe for less than two centuries:


The pontificate of Pope Gregory I (the Great, d. 604), first of the medieval prelates of the church, marks the

transition from ancient to medieval times. Gregory boldly assumed the role, though not the title, of emperor

in the West. He laid the basis for papal power throughout the Middle Ages, and it is from his administration

in particular that later claims to papal absolutism date. Extensive missionary efforts begun by Gregory the

Great greatly extended the influence and authority of Rome.

When, more than a century later, the Lombards threatened to overrun Italy, the pope appealed to Pepin,

king of the Franks, to come to his assistance. Complying with the request, Pepin thoroughly defeated the

Lombards and, in 756, presented the pope with the territory he had taken from them. This grant, commonly

known as the Donation of Pepin, marks the origin of the Papal States and the formal beginning of the

temporal rule of the pope.

From the seventh to the eleventh centuries papal power was, generally speaking, at ebb tide. The next great

pope, and one of the greatest of them all, was Gregory VII (d. 1085). He proclaimed that the Roman

Church had never erred and could never err, that the pope is supreme judge, that he may be judged by none,

that there is no appeal from his decision, that he alone is entitled to the homage of all princes, and that he

alone may depose kings and emperors.

For two centuries there was a running struggle between pope and emperor for supremacy, with sometimes

one and sometimes the other achieving temporary success. The pontificate of Innocent III (d. 1216) found

the papacy at the height of its power, and during the next century it was at the very zenith of its glory.

Claiming to be the vicar of Christ, Innocent III exercised all the prerogatives claimed by Gregory a century

and more earlier.

A century after Innocent III, the ideal medieval pope, Boniface VIII (d. 1303) attempted unsuccessfully to

rule as his illustrious predecessors had ruled before him. He was the last pope to attempt to exercise

universal authority as asserted by Gregory VII and maintained by Innocent III. The waning power of the

papacy became fully evident during the so-called Babylonian Captivity (1309–77), when the French

forcibly removed the seat of the papacy from Rome to Avignon, in France. Soon after the return to Rome,

what is known as the Great Schism (1378–1417) broke out. During this time there were at least two, and

sometimes three, rival popes, each denouncing and excommunicating his rivals and claiming to be the true

pope. As a result the papacy suffered irreparable loss of prestige in the eyes of the peoples of Europe. Long

before Reformation times many voices within and without the Catholic Church were raised in criticism of

its arrogant claims and its many abuses of both secular and spiritual power. The rebirth of learning

(Renaissance) in Western Europe, the age of discovery, the growth of strong national states, the invention

of printing, and various other factors contributed to the gradual loss of papal power. By the time of Martin

Luther much had already been done to undermine the authority of Rome.

The Reformation commonly thought of as beginning in 1517, with the posting of the Ninety-five Theses,

saw papal power driven from large areas of Northern Europe. Efforts of the papacy to combat the

Reformation took such forms as the Inquisition, the Index, and the organization of the Jesuit order. The

Jesuits became the intellectual and spiritual army of the church for the extermination of Protestantism. For

nearly three centuries the Church of Rome carried on a vigorous but gradually losing struggle against the

forces battling for civil and religious freedom.

Finally, during the course of the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was outlawed in France—the first

nation of Europe to espouse its cause, the nation that had, for more than twelve centuries, championed its

claims and fought its battles, the nation where papal principles had been tested more fully than in any other

land, and had been found wanting. In 1798 the French Government ordered the army operating in Italy

under Berthier to take the pope prisoner. Though the papacy continued, its power was shorn, and it has

never since wielded the same kind or measure of power that it did in former days. In 1870 the Papal States

were completely absorbed into the united kingdom of Italy, the temporal power the papacy had formally

exercised for more than 1,000 years came to an end, and the pope voluntarily became “the prisoner of the

Vatican” until his temporal power was restored in 1929. See on ch. 7:25.


It is evident from this brief sketch that the rise of papal power was a gradual process covering many

centuries. The same is true of its decline. The former process may be thought of as continuing from about

A.D. 100 to 756; the latter, from about A.D. 1303 to 1870. The papacy was at the height of its power from

the time of Gregory VII (1073–85) to that of Boniface VIII (1294–1303). It is thus clear that no dates can

be given to mark a sharp transition from insignificance to supremacy, or from supremacy back to

comparative weakness. As is true with all historical processes, the rise and fall of the papacy were both

gradual developments.

However, by 538 the papacy was completely formed and functioning in all significant aspects, and by

1798, 1260 years later, it had lost practically all the power it had accumulated over a period of centuries.

Inspiration allotted 1260 years to the papacy for a demonstration of its principles, its policies, and its

objectives. Accordingly these two dates should be considered as marking the beginning and the end of the

prophetic period of papal power.9

Bacchiocchi Contends For Earlier Date

Bacchiocchi goes even further, and contends that the 538 A.D. and 1798 A.D. dates that

are claimed to mark the Papal Power’s rise and fall are incorrect. He provides irrefutable

historical evidence that “the development of the supremacy of the papacy is a gradual process

that can hardly be dated from 538, because” the process began already in the second century as

the primacy of Bishop of Rome was widely recognized and accepted,” and that it is also

inaccurate to state that the Papal power was abolished or had a “downfall” in 1798 because

historical evidence does not support such a claim:

A look at some of the changes that were made in the 1911 revision of The Great Controversy, will help us

determine whether the changes were substantive or “peripheral,” as my critics contend. W. C. White

provides us with a few examples. For the sake of brevity we shall consider only those statements relative to

the 1260 days prophecy, since much of the criticism of my last essay revolves around my proposed new

interpretation of this prophecy. We shall see that the changes made are substantive, not “peripheral.”

On page 266 of the Old Edition of The Great Controversy, Ellen White wrote: “The 1260 years of papal

supremacy began with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate on

1798”16

The statement is modified in the New Edition to read: “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began

in A. D. 538, and would terminate in 1798.”17

The key phrase that was removed is “the establishment of the papacy.” It is evident that the editors were

made aware of the fact that “the establishment of the papacy” did not begin in 538. In my dissertation I

have shown that the development of the papal primacy began already in the second century, when the Pope

exercised his ecumenical authority by imposing on Christian churches at large Easter-Sunday, weekly

Sunday, and by condemning various movements like the Montanists.

The same phrase is found in page 439 of the Old Edition which reads: “This period, as stated in the

preceding chapters, began with the establishment of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that

time, when the papacy was abolished and the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power

received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, 'He that leadeth into captivity shall go into

captivity.”18

A significant correction was made to the New Edition which reads: “This period, as stated in preceding

chapters, began with the supremacy of the papacy, A. D. 538, and terminated in 1798. At that time, the

pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction

was fulfilled, ‘He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.’”19


Significant Corrections

The correction that was made in the New Edition is by no means “peripheral.” The editors recognized the

glaring mistake that Ellen White made in the Old Edition, when she wrote that the papacy was established

in 538 and abolished in 1798. Unfortunately she repeats the same mistake on page 579 of the Old Edition:

“The infliction of the deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798.”20

The statement was

corrected in the New Edition to read: “The infliction of the deadly wound points to the downfall of the

papacy in 1798.”21

The historical reality is that the papacy was not established in 538, nor was it abolished in 1798. The

corrected reading of the New Edition is a noticeable improvement, but it is still inaccurate. The reason is

that 538 hardly marks the beginning of the “supremacy of the papacy,” nor does 1798 signal “the downfall

of the papacy.” It is evident that the editorial workers who helped Ellen White to make the necessary

corrections, knew little about the history of the papacy.

The development of the “supremacy of the papacy” began long before 538. In his book on The History of

the Christian Church— which has served for many years as the standard text book for church history

classes—Williston Walker devotes chapter 6 to the “Growth of the Papacy” during the fourth and fifth

centuries. He points out that during this period there were influential popes like Damasus (366-384),

Innocent I (402-417), and Leo I, called “the Great” (440-461), who greatly advanced both the spiritual and

temporal power of the papacy.22

For example, the last Pope mentioned, Leo I, known as “Leo the Great,” greatly increased the political

prestige of the papacy by threatening with hell fire Attila the Hun, when he was approaching Rome in 451

with his terrifying soldiers. Attila obeyed the Pope and withdrew beyond the Danube. Later Pope Leo

secured concessions from the Vandals when they took Rome in 452. He is called “Leo the Great” for

advancing and consolidating the power of the papacy.

The development of the supremacy of the papacy is a gradual process that can hardly be dated from 538.

The process began already in the second century as the primacy of Bishop of Rome was widely recognized

and accepted. Over the centuries various popes contributed to strengthen the supremacy of the papacy, both

as a religious and political power.

But it was not until 756 that the temporal sovereignty of the papacy began, when the Frankish King Pepin

waged two military campaigns against the Lombards who had extended their occupation to central Italy.

Pepin liberated the territories of Central Italy, and donated them to the pope. To justify the legitimate right

of the papacy to rule these territories, the famous document of the Donation of Constantine was fabricated

at this time. The document claims that Constantine donated to the Pope the whole of Italy and other western

countries. For the next thousand years this false document served to boost the temporal power of the

papacy.

In 756 began the history of “The States of the Church,” that is, the temporal supremacy of the papacy that

was to last until 1870. In that year, Victor Emmanuel II, King of Sardinia and later of Italy, with the help of

enthusiastic voluntary troops who were fighting for national unity, succeeded in taking over the papal

territories of central Italy and thus to unify all the land of Italy into one nation.

Inadequate Corrections

What is true for 538 is also true for 1798. In both instances the corrections are inadequate. The change in

the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy from “the abolishment” to “the downfall of the papacy,” is a

noticeable improvement, but it is still inadequate. Why? Simply because 1798 does not signal “the downfall

of the papacy.” The taking of Pope Pius VI, as a prisoner by the French General Berthier, marked a

temporary humiliation of the papacy, but not its downfall. When Pius VI left Rome on February 20, 1798,

he was an old, dying man who still functioned as Pope, though in a limited scale. He found refuge first in


Siena and then near Florence, where a small Curia was organized to administer the church. In fact, before

his death he planned for the election of his successor.

The imprisonment of Pope Paul VI was condemned by Russia and Austria. Both nations decided to join

forces to restore the Pope to his Pontifical throne in Rome. When the French government was confronted

with this new coalition and with popular uprisings, it decided to transfer the Pope to Valence, in France,

where he died 40 days later, on August 29, 1799.

The death of Pius VI can hardly be seen as the “abolishment" or “the downfall of the Papacy.” It was

simply a temporary humiliation of the prestige of the Papacy. In fact, Pius VI was able to give directives for

the election of his successor. Few months after his death, the Cardinals met in Venice on December 8,

1799, and elected Barnaba Chiaramonti, who took the name of Pious VII, in deference to his predecessor.

The new Pope was able to negotiate with Napoleon the Concordat in 1801 and the Organic Articles in

1802. These treatises restored to the Pope some of the territories of the States of the Church and regulated

the extent of the Papal authority in France.

The following years marked, not the downfall, but the resurgence of papal authority, especially under the

Pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). In 1854, Pius IX promulgated the Dogma of the Immaculate

Conception of Mary. In 1864 he issued the famous Syllabus of Errors, known also as "INDEX," which for

many years listed all the political ideologies, religious beliefs, and publications to be rejected by Catholics

(Even our Adventist books have been listed in the INDEX. I learned it the hard way while working as a

literature evangelist in Italy).

The crowning event of Pius IX's pontificate was the convening of the First Vatican Council on December 8,

1869. It had a remarkable large attendance from all over the Roman world and on July 18, 1870, the

Council promulgated the dogma of Papal Infallibility. This dogma has greatly enhanced the authority of the

Pope, and discredits any attempt to attribute to 1798 the downfall of the papacy.

This brief outline of events suffices to show that it is inaccurate to speak of the “abolishment” or

“downfall” of the Papacy in 1798. The historical reality is that the Papacy was still very much alive and

soon regained her prestige and power after a temporary humiliation of few months.10

The cherished SDA historicist claim that the Papal Power oppressed God’s people for

more than a millennium also proves to be incorrect and cannot be supported with adequate

historical facts. The SDABC indicates that the Papal Seat was at its height for less than three

centuries, while Bacchiocchi disputes even the 538 A.D. and 1798 A.D. dates and shows that

reliable historical evidence demonstrates a slower growth and development for the Papal Rome

that began in the first centuries A.D., and contends that the simple fact the French General

Berthier took prisoner Pope Pius VI is not enough evidence to claim that the Papal Kingdom had

a downfall and ended its religious and political roles in Europe.

The Longest Prophetic Period

Miller’s Bold Extrapolation Miscarries

Miller had predicted the world’s end in 1843, but his fanciful and unbiblical computation

had failed. What remained behind was The Great Disappointment. Froom describes the sad event

and the profound despair and deep gloom that took over the crowd that had expected the world’s

end and Christ’s Second Coming:


Let us now go back to the Disappointment. All over the land, on that fateful day of October 22, the

Adventist believers had gathered in their homes, in churches or in halls, or wherever they might find refuge

from the mockers and the mobs. They had closed their businesses, abandoned their crops, and had wound

up their earthly affairs. They had confessed their sins, made right all wrongs, and now pressed together in

the bonds of Christian hope and fervent expectancy. It was the day of great expectancy and ardent longing.

They were waiting for their Redeemer.

But the sun passed its zenith, and declined toward its setting. The cloud of shining glory for which they

strained their eyes, and which they believed would bring their Lord, did not appear. No lightning rent the

sky, no earthquake shook the land, no trumpet smote the ear. The westering sun went down silently but

relentlessly upon their disappearing hopes. Darkness covered the land, and gloom—irrepressible gloom—

settled down upon the waiting, watching host. Grief and despair overwhelmed them all. Men and women

wept unashamedly, for their Lord had not come.11

Miller Acknowledges His Grave Errors

The prediction failure had to be acknowledged, and Miller recognized that he had made

errors in his time calculations, but also stated that his hope in the Second Coming remained alive

and strong. The historical sequence in Daniel had to end with the fourth empire, and that notion

could not be disputed. Froom quotes Miller in his statement about the predictive calculations

mistakes he had made about the Second Coming and about his position on the world’s imminent

end as he believed to be forecast in the prophetic book:

“That I have been mistaken in the time, I freely confess; and I have no desire to defend my course any

further than I have been actuated by pure motives, and it has resulted to God’s glory. My mistakes and

errors God, I trust, will forgive. I cannot, however, reproach myself for having preached definite time; for

as I believe that whatsoever was written aforetime was written for our learning, the prophetic periods are as

much a subject of investigation, as any other portion of the Word. . . .

“But while I frankly acknowledge my disappointment in the exact time, I wish to enquire whether my

teachings have been thereby materially affected. My view of exact time depended entirely upon the

accuracy of chronology': of this I had no absolute demonstration. . . . Other chronologers had assigned later

dates for the events from which I reckoned; and if they are correct, we are only brought into a circle of a

few years, during which we may rationally look for the Lord’s appearing. As the prophetic periods,

counting from the dates from which I have reckoned, have not brought us to the end; and as I cannot tell the

exact time that chronology may vary from my calculations, I can only live in continual expectation of the

event. I am persuaded that I cannot be far out of the way, and I believe that God will still justify my

preaching to the world.

“With respect to other features of my views, I can see no reason to change my belief. We are living under

the last form of the divided fourth kingdom, which brings us to the end. The prophecies which were to be

fulfilled previous to the end, have been so far fulfilled that I find nothing in them to delay the Lord’s

coming. The signs of the times thicken on every hand; and the prophetic periods I think must certainly have

brought us into the neighborhood of the events.” 17 12

The Millerites Lose Purpose and Drive

The time calculation error, though, still remained and could not be ignored and much less

forgotten. Christ had not come in 1843, and the prediction had failed. The Millerite group

seemed to have lost the reason for its existence and should be disbanded:


The world at large took for granted that, after the collapse of the October 22 expectancy, Millerite

Adventism would soon be regarded as a completely discredited chapter in the fabulous forties, a religious

frenzy that had ended in disillusionment and disaster, unworthy of place or record in the legitimate history

of the church. In fact, opponents expected the whole movement to disintegrate and come to nought. Small

wonder that many adherents fell away, in whom the Word of God with its prophecies had taken but shallow

root. And most of the leaders were not in a position to meet the fanaticism and false philosophies that soon

sprang up in certain quarters.13

Certain Millerites Still Preserve Hope

There were still some disappointed Millerites who would not give up on their faith and

hope. Their group was small at first, but then grew and took precedence over the other groups

that had resulted from the disintegration that had occurred in the Millerite movement. Comments

Froom about this group:

3. THIRD GROUP REJECTS BOTH FORMALISM AND FANATICISM.— This brings us to the

third division of the former great Millerite body, which will be the subject of our continuing study in Part

III. It was smaller than the first, or Albany Conference, group, but soon became larger than the second, or

fanatical, wing. In this third segment the most conspicuous preachers were Joseph Bates, who had played a

rather prominent part in the Millerite movement, James White, also a Millerite evangelist, Hiram Edson,

and others. This segment held to the validity of the seventh-month movement, adopted Edson’s new view

of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as explaining the Disappointment, and became the nucleus of the

Sabbatarian Adventists.25

They clashed sharply with Turner and his followers and other extremists.26

So

this group, small at first, was confronted on the one hand by coldness and opposition from those Adventists

who repudiated the seventh-month movement, and on the other hand by those fiery extremists who held

that they had already entered the millennium, and other types of fanaticism. Theirs was a difficult position.

This group, holding to the validity of the 1844 movement of those who were willing to make every

sacrifice to be ready to meet their Lord, and then to hold their faith in the face of bitter disappointment.

They insisted that the working of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of the participants in that movement had

been proof that the Lord was in it; and consequently they felt that those who declared it all a mistake were

repudiating the leading of God, and murmuring against the path in which He had led them.

Accepting the fulfillment of the 2300 days, and the “true Midnight Cry” of the parable, they, like Miller

and others, thought at first that their work for the world was done. It seemed that the world, which had

scorned their message, and was still reviling them, would shortly see the coming of the Saviour, for which

it had refused to prepare.14

Hiram Edson’s Aaronic Tabernacle

From this group, Hiram Edson found the “solution” to Miller’s computational mistake

about 1843-1844, and “understood” that the prophetic message in Daniel 8 had not been about

Christ’s return to the Earth but about some ritual change in Christ’s Aaronic work that took place

in the celestial tabernacle. In 1844, it appears, Christ had moved from the first compartment into

the second compartment in the Aaronic celestial tabernacle. Froom describes in detail the

specific events that lead to the new theological perspective and the theological reasons for the

new Adventist movement:

I. New Concept of Sanctuary Explains Disappointment

At Port Gibson, New York, on the old Erie Canal, midway between Syracuse and Buffalo, Hiram Edson

was leader of the advent believers of the community. His farmhouse, a mile south of town, was frequently


their meeting place when they did not have access to the district schoolhouse, likewise a mile from the

village. Dr. Franklin B. Hahn, physician of Canandaigua, New York—about fifteen miles distant on Lake

Canandaigua—was another prominent member of the Adventist company in that region. And yet another

was Owen R. L. Crosier, an orphan youth whom Edson and Hahn had befriended. Between them he had

been provided with a home, and had now developed into a keen Bible student and a promising writer. The

three of them joined in publishing a small paper called the Day-Dawn, printed at Canandaigua—one of the

group of Adventist journals issued following the Disappointment. And Crosier served as editor.

Like thousands of other Adventist groups large and small scattered over the land, the Port Gibson believers

met on October 22 waiting for Christ to appear in glory. Edson invited the people to come to that last

meeting, and bade good-by to those who declined, never expecting to meet them again. Fervent prayer and

hymns marked that climactic day, together with exhortations and expectation. They reviewed the

evidences, and lived in hope as the hours passed slowly away. Spalding phrases it impressively:

“Would it be in the morning? The frost of the dawn melted under the rising sun. Might it be at noon? The

meridian was reached, and the sun began to decline. Surely the evening! But the shades of night fell

lowering. Still there was hope: ‘For ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at

midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning.’”1

The neighborhood company of believers expected to meet their Lord at any moment. Says Edson:

“We looked for our coming Lord until the clock tolled 12 at midnight. The day had then passed, and our

disappointment became a certainty. Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted.”2

But Edson kept musing in his heart, “My advent experience has been the richest and brightest of all my

Christian experience. . . . Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God, no heaven, no golden city, no

Paradise?”8

After waiting and weeping until dawn, many of the advent believers slipped away to their desolate homes.

To some of those who remained Edson said, “Let us go to the barn and pray.” They went into the almost

empty granary, for the corn had not been husked, but still stood in shocks in the field. They shut the door

behind them and poured out their souls in anguished supplication before God, that He would hear their

cries. They pleaded that He would not desert them in their hour of supreme need, nor forsake them in their

utter extremity. Edson was the leader of this praying circle.

They prayed until the conviction came that their prayers had been heard and accepted, that light would be

given and their disappointment explained. Edson was reassured that truly there is a God, and that His Word

is true and sure. He had blessed them graciously in their advent experience, and He would surely make

known to them the nature of their mistake and reveal His leading and His purpose. The cause of our

perplexity will become as plain as day, he said. Have faith in God!

After breakfast Edson said to one of his companions, “Let us go and see and encourage some of our

br[ethre]n.” (According to Loughborough this second man was Crosier.) They shunned the road, for Edson

did not want to meet people, as he did not yet know what to say to them.* So they struck off across Edson’s

field, where the corn was still in the shock and the pumpkins on the vines. They walked along silently, with

bowed heads and meditative hearts, more or less oblivious of each other. Suddenly Edson stopped, as if by

a hand laid upon his shoulder. He stood, deep in meditation, his face upturned wistfully toward the mottled

gray skies, praying for light. He pondered the Bible evidence on the ministering Priest, Christ Jesus, in

God’s antitypical sanctuary in heaven, and how they had expected Him to emerge, on that antitypical Day

of Atonement, to bless His waiting people. Edson was waiting for an answer to his perplexity. Suddenly

there burst upon his mind the thought that there were two phases to Christ’s ministry in the heaven of

heavens, just as in the earthly sanctuary of old. In his own words, an overwhelming conviction came over

him—

“that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth

on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, he for the first time entered on that day


the second apartment of that sanctuary and that he had a work to perform in the Most Holy before coming

to this earth.” 5

II. Significance of the Bitter-Sweet Book

This came upon Edson as an inescapable conviction, like a beam of glorious light illuminating the whole

question, clarifying their disappointment, and dispelling the darkness and confusion. He saw, he tells us,

how Christ, the Bridegroom of the parable, must have come “to the marriage at that time; in other words, to

the Ancient of days, to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and we must wait for his return from the-

wedding.” 6 The sanctuary to be cleansed, he adds, was clearly the heavenly sanctuary, and not this earth at

all. The thought was like a message from heaven. It was a new idea, a precious truth, a wondrous

discovery. His prayer was answered.

In addition to this clarifying thought, Edson writes, “My mind was directed to the tenth ch[apter] of

Revelation] where I could see the vision had spoken and did not lie.” This chapter presents the symbol of

the sweet and then bitter book. The advent experience had indeed been as honey in their mouths. Now, in

the aftermath, it had suddenly become as bitter as gall. (Rev. 10:9, 10.) The prophecy also seemed to

indicate that they must testify again. But how was that to be? Who would listen? And then the thought

likewise came to him that the ark of the New Testament was to be seen in heaven. (Rev.11:19.) These were

the principal thoughts that coursed through Edson’s mind as he stood there in rapt meditation. Meantime

his companion—evidently Crosier—who had been striding along, likewise deep in study, suddenly noticed

that Edson had stopped. He called back, asking why he had paused. And Edson responded, “The Lord was

answering our morning prayer, giving light with regard to our disappointment.”7

Joining each other again, they walked along slowly, discussing this forgotten phase of the sanctuary service

and recalling what they could of the Biblical record of the ancient types given to Israel. Then they hastened

from home to home, telling their brethren the good news that Christ's priestly ministry in heaven was now

somehow fulfilling another aspect of the ancient Mosaic type—that our heavenly High Priest had just

entered into, instead of coming out of, the most holy, as they had formerly held. That much was clear. This,

then, must be but the beginning, not the ending, of the great antitypical Day of Atonement. That

revolutionary concept threw a shaft of clarifying light upon their disappointment. Christ had indeed

fulfilled what the type had actually called for. It would be awhile before He would complete this cleansing

of the sanctuary, and not until then would He come forth as King. This was “new light” indeed. But it was

only the beginning of what was to be a long period of continuous study and developing understanding and

conviction.15

Ellen White In Consent With Edson

Ellen White (that is, Frances Bolton or Marian Davis) is in total agreement with Hiram

Edson’s new “perception” about what happened in 1844, that is, that the event Miller and his

followers had expected to take place on the earth as a human historical event had in fact occurred

in an Aaronic celestial tabernacle:

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith

was the declaration: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

Daniel 8:14. These had been familiar words to all believers in the Lord's soon coming. By the lips of

thousands was this prophecy repeated as the watchword of their faith. All felt that upon the events therein

foretold depended their brightest expectations and most cherished hopes. These prophetic days had been

shown to terminate in the autumn of 1844. In common with the rest of the Christian world, Adventists then

held that the earth, or some portion of it, was the sanctuary. They understood that the cleansing of the

sanctuary was the purification of the earth by the fires of the last great day, and that this would take place at

the Second Advent. Hence the conclusion that Christ would return to the earth in 1844.


But the appointed time had passed, and the Lord had not appeared. The believers knew that God's word

could not fail; their interpretation of the prophecy must be at fault; but where was the mistake? Many rashly

cut the knot of difficulty by denying that the 2300 days ended in 1844. No reason could be given for this

except that Christ had not come at the time they expected Him. They argued that if the prophetic days had

ended in 1844, Christ would then have returned to cleanse the sanctuary by the purification of the earth by

fire; and that since He had not come, the days could not have ended.

To accept this conclusion was to renounce the former reckoning of the prophetic periods. The 2300 days

had been found to begin when the commandment of Artaxerxes for the restoration and building of

Jerusalem went into effect, in the autumn of 457 B.C. Taking this as the starting point, there was perfect

harmony in the application of all the events foretold in the explanation of that period in Daniel 9:25-27.

Sixty-nine weeks, the first 483 of the 2300 years, were to reach to the Messiah, the Anointed One; and

Christ's baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit, A.D. 27, exactly fulfilled the specification. In the midst

of the seventieth week, Messiah was to be cut off. Three and a half years after His baptism, Christ was

crucified, in the spring of A.D. 31. The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews.

At the expiration of this period the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of His disciples,

and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A.D. 34. The first 490 years of the 2300 having then ended, 1810

years would remain. From A.D. 34, 1810 years extend to 1844. “Then,” said the angel, “shall the sanctuary

be cleansed.” All the preceding specifications of the prophecy had been unquestionably fulfilled at the time

appointed.16

An Untenable Theological Position

This new “concept” appears at first to be, indeed, the answer to the question that

perplexed the Millerites when Christ “failed” to appear for His Second Coming in 1844, but the

texts needed to “validate” this peculiar SDA historicist interpretation cannot be found and will

not be found in the Bible. In order to confirm such a theological position the SDA scholars must

demonstrate that:

1. The claimed SDA historicist “year-day principle” is based on indisputable empirical linguistic

evidence and can be supported with the Bible.

In the research document The Year-Day Principle Reexamined I have provided ample evidence

that this is not the case, that there is no empirical linguistic evidence for a “year=day” rule, and

that no biblical texts support an assumed “equation” between the terms “day” and “year” in the

Bible.17

2. That the angel Gabriel did not complete his interpretation for the vision in Daniel 8 because

the prophet had fainted, and therefore had to return almost a decade later to finish the

explanation for “the time element involved,” in Daniel 8:14.18

In the two documents “Daniel 9 Is Not an Appendix to Daniel 8,”19

and “The Referents for

Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel 9:23,”20

I have demonstrated that Daniel 9 is not an appendix to

Daniel 8, that Gabriel had completed his interpretation for the vision in Daniel 8 before he had

left, and that the prophet Daniel got sick after the angel had completed his explanation and not

during the explanation, and therefore he could not have interrupted Gabriel’s comments. I have

also shown that Daniel 9 does not continue to discuss the topic included in Daniel 8, but

introduces a new topic—the deported Israelites’ return to Palestine after 70 years.


3. That the antecedent for the pronoun “them” in Daniel 8:9 is a “wind,” and not the stout horn

described in Daniel 8:8.

In the research document, “Anaphora Resolution in a Biblical Passage,”21

I have provided reliable

linguistic evidence that the antecedent for the pronoun “them” in Daniel 8:9 is the “stout” horn

described in Daniel 8:8 and not a “wind,” which means that the little horn in Daniel 8 is not

Rome, but Antiochus IV Epiphanes.22

4. That chathak in Daniel 9 means “to cut off,” and not “to determine” and that the 490 years in

Daniel 9:24 must be cut off from the “2300 evenings-mornings” in Daniel 8:14.

In the research paper “The Meaning of chathak in Daniel 9:24” I showed that the Hebrew term

chathak in Daniel 9 means “to determine,” and not “to cut off” because the “2300 prophecy” in

Daniel 8 refers to the time period within which Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Israelite

temple and attempted to eradicate the Israelite religion,23

and not to more than two millennia that

would describe the Imperial and Papal Rome’s historical developments and political and

religious ascendancies and supremacies.

5. That the event that occurred in 1844 was a human historical event, and not an assumed and

implausible celestial event based on bizarre SDA historicist theological speculations for which

no true historical evidence has been produced or could ever be produced.

Historical Records Fail the 1844 Date

That the SDA historicist theologians and scholars cannot provide a factual and recorded

human historical event in order to substantiate their erroneous claims about 1844 is a recognized

fact in the SDA theological circles. States Gane:

Why don’t more people accept the eschatological aspects of sanctuary teaching, including a pre-Advent

judgment taking place now? Here are a few possible reasons:

1. Abandonment of the Reformation view regarding the Church of Rome, in favor of ecumenism and

political correctness. Without including the Church of Rome in fulfillment of the “little horn,” it is

impossible to accurately interpret the time prophecy of Daniel 8:14.

2. Abandonment of historicism by most Christians after the disappointment of 1844, when William Miller

and his associates predicted Christ’s Second Coming on the basis of Daniel 8:14, mistakenly interpreting

the cleansing of the “sanctuary” after 2,300 days = years as the cleansing of the world by fire. Other

exegetical mistakes and excesses by historicists have not helped the cause of historicism. Well-trained

Adventist scholars are now being much more careful and cautious, utilizing all the rich exegetical resources

at their disposal, but the stigma is still strong.44

3. The misconception that the Adventist teaching that Christ began a new phase of heavenly sanctuary

ministry in 1844, namely, participation in a pre-Advent judgment in heaven, is simply a face-saving

strategy of reinterpretation for disappointed Millerites.45

Of course, we know that the same kind of

argument was long ago directed against the reality of Christ’s Resurrection.

4. The fact that nothing happened on earth in 1844 to prove the beginning of a new phase of salvation

in heaven. Acceptance of this, as with other Christian beliefs, is based on faith in the biblical evidence

alone [emphasis added].24


The Ottoman Empire Prediction

Litch Fails With Miller’s Arithmetic

Based on his Millerite historicist hermeneutics for the fifth and the sixth Revelation

trumpets, Litch made in 1838 the attempt to predict that the Ottoman or Turkish Empire would

collapse, or its power “would be broken” on August 11, 1840.25

State the SDABC authors:

One of the first Biblical expositors on record to identify the Turks as the power portrayed under the sixth

trumpet was the Swiss reformer, Heinrich Bullinger (d. A.D. 1575), although Martin Luther had already set

forth this trumpet as symbolic of Moslems. However, on the dating of this trumpet, as of the fifth,

commentators have shown wide divergence, although the decided majority of expositors have assigned

dates for the fifth trumpet during the period in which the Saracens were in the ascendancy, and for the sixth

trumpet during the heyday of either the Seljuk or the Ottoman Turks.

In 1832 William Miller made a new approach to the dating of these trumpets by connecting them

chronologically (in the fifth of a series of articles in the Vermont Telegraph). On the basis of the year-day

principle (see on Dan. 7:25), Miller calculated the five months of the fifth trumpet (Rev. 9:5) to be 150

literal years, and the hour, day, month, and year of the sixth to be 391 years and 15 days. Many expositors

before Miller had adopted these same calculations, but they had not connected the two periods

chronologically. Miller set forth the view that the time period of the sixth trumpet followed immediately

upon that of the fifth, so as to make the entire period one of 541 years and 15 days. This period he dated

from A.D. 1298, when he considered the first attack by the Ottoman Turks on the Byzantine Empire

occurred, to 1839. Thus, according to his view, both trumpets represented the Ottoman Turks, the fifth,

their rise and the sixth, their period of domination.

In 1838 Josiah Litch, one of Miller’s associates in the second advent movement in America, revised

Miller’s dates to A.D. 1299 to 1449 for the fifth trumpet, and 1449 to 1840 for the sixth. Litch accepted the

date July 27, 1299, for the battle of Bapheum, near Nicomedia, which he took as the first attack by the

Ottoman Turks on the Byzantine Empire. He saw the date 1449 as significant of the collapse of Byzantine

power, for toward the end of 1448 a new Byzantine emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, had requested

permission of the Turkish sultan Murad II before daring to ascend his throne, and he did not, in fact,

receive the crown until January 6, 1449, after such permission had been granted. Litch believed that this

150-year period constituted the time during which the Ottoman Turks “tormented” (see v. 5) the Byzantine

Empire.

As already stated, Litch set 1299 as the beginning of the fifth trumpet, to be more exact, July 27, 1299, his

date for the battle of Bapheum. He gave to this fifth trumpet a period of 150 years. This brought him to July

27, 1449, for the beginning of the sixth trumpet. Adding on 391 years brought him to July 27, 1840. The 15

days carried him over into the month of August of that year. He predicted that in that month the power of

the Turkish Empire would be overthrown. However, at the outset he did not fix on a precise day in August.

A short time before the expiration of this period he declared that the Turkish Empire would be broken

August 11, which is exactly 15 days beyond July 27, 1840.

At that time world attention was directed to events taking place in the Turkish Empire. In June, 1839,

Mohammed Ali, pasha of Egypt and nominally a vassal of the sultan, had rebelled against his overlord. He

defeated the Turks and captured their navy. At this juncture Mahmud II, the sultan, died, and the ministers

of his successor, Abdul Mejid, proposed a settlement to Mohammed Ali by which he would receive the

hereditary pashalik of Egypt, and his son Ibrahim, the rulership of Syria. However, Britain, France, Austria,

Prussia, and Russia, who all had interests in the Near East, intervened at this point and insisted that no

agreement between the Turks and Mohammed Ali be made without their consultation. Negotiations were

protracted until the summer of 1840, when, on July 15, Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia signed the

Treaty of London, proposing to back with force the terms suggested the previous year by the Turks. It was

about this time that Litch announced that he anticipated Turkish power to come to an end on August 11. On

that day the Turkish emissary, Rifat Bey, arrived at Alexandria with the terms of the London Convention.


On that day also the ambassadors of the four powers received a communication from the sultan inquiring as

to what measures were to be taken in reference to a circumstance vitally affecting his empire. He was told

that “provision had been made,” but he could not know what it was. Litch interpreted these events as a

recognition by the Turkish government that its independent power was gone.

These events, coming at the specified time of Litch’s prediction, exercised a wide influence upon the

thinking of those in America who were interested in the Millerite movement. Indeed, this prediction by

Litch went far to give credence to other, as yet unfulfilled, time prophecies—particularly that of the 2300

days—which were being preached by the Millerites. Thus this occurrence in 1840 was a significant factor

in building up the expectation of the second advent three years later (see GC 334, 335).

It should be made clear, however, that commentators and theologians in general have been greatly divided

over the meaning of the 5th and 6th trumpets. This has been due principally to problems in three areas: (1)

the meaning of the symbolism itself; (2) the meaning of the Greek; (3) the historical events and dates

involved. But to canvass adequately these problems would carry us beyond the space limits permissible in

this commentary.

Generally speaking, the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets, particularly as

touching the time period involved, is essentially that of Josiah Litch.26

Ellen White Treats Failure As Success

Ellen White (rather Frances Bolton or Marian Davis) named the prediction Litch had

made a prediction success, applauded it as “another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy,” and

promoted it as an impressive confirmation for the historicist hermeneutics. She stated:

In the year 1840, another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest [emphasis

added]. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the Second Advent,

published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and specifying not only

the day but the year when this would take place. According to this exposition, which was purely a matter of

calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture, the Turkish government would surrender its independence

on the eleventh day of August, 1840.

The prediction was widely published and thousands watched the course of events with eager interest. At the

very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of

Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the

prediction [emphasis added]. When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the correctness of the

principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was

given to the Advent Movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in preaching and

publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.27

Litch Recognizes His Miscalculation

Litch, though, had been wrong about his prediction. Nothing had happened to the

Ottoman Empire on August 11, 1840, and Litch acknowledged his prediction failure later in his

life. So, the claim that the events Litch had predicted had been fulfilled was false. States

Anderson:

The truth of the matter is that the month of August, 1840, came and passed without any evidence of Turkey

falling. This placed Litch in a quandary. He waited until November, and then came out with a statement

saying that Turkey's rejection of a European peace offer on August 15, 1840, assured war with Europe, and

doomed the Ottomon Empire. However, by early 1841, it became evident that war was not going to happen.

So, Litch came up with a new story, arguing that the fulfillment of prophecy had occurred exactly on


August 11, 1840, as predicted. The “fall” of Turkey consisted of a “voluntary surrender of Turkish

supremacy in Constantinople to Christian influence.” He claimed the Turkish ruler was now a puppet “of

the great Christian powers of Europe.”

Many Christians questioned Litch's new story. In 1840 the Ottoman Empire covered a vast territory,

including a large part of North Africa, Arabia, Palestine, Iraq, southern Russia, and most of the European

Balkan states. The Millerite critic Reverend O.E. Daggett argued that Turkey did not “fall” in August of

1840. James Hazen, a Massachusetts clergyman, said the European intervention had kept Turkey from

falling. Hazen said the argument that in accepting European aid Turkey fell was "ridiculous."2 28

The error Litch had committed and that had caused the prediction failure was that he had

borrowed Miller’s mistaken interpretation of the prophetic time expression “hour and day and

month and year” in Revelation 9:15. Miller had “calculated the five months of the fifth trumpet

(Rev. 9:5) to be 150 literal years, and the hour, day, month, and year of the sixth to be 391 years

and 15 days.”29

Litch “revised Miller’s dates to A.D. 1299 to 1449 for the fifth trumpet, and 1449

to 1840 for the sixth,” and then “he predicted that in that month the power of the Turkish Empire

would be overthrown.”30

The much claimed “pragmatic test” failed because the time expression

“hour and day and month and year” in Revelation 9:15 expresses a point in time, not a time

period in the New Testament Greek.

The above relevant examples indicate that the SDA historicist theologians and scholars

have failed to produce reliable historical evidence that demonstrates without doubt that

historicism is based in the Bible, that it is established on valid and authentic hermeneutics, and

that it can produce interpretations for Daniel and Revelation that can stand the scientific and

biblical test. The fact is that the SDA historicism fails to deliver because it is a deductive

theological construct that has no solid basis in science and in the Bible.


VIII. Diversions That Robbed the Gospel

LaRondelle argues without equivocation that the SDA historicism should have at its core

the Christian “salvation” as it has been presented in the entire Bible—Daniel and Revelation

included. The truth is, though, that the excessive and undue emphasis that the SDA historicist

theologians, scholars, pastors, and missionaries have placed on Daniel and Revelation all through

the almost two centuries since the church came into existence has caused a resource diversion

and has produced negative effects on the SDA Gospel mission and work. States the scholar:

[True Historicism and Salvation]

Historicism is a concept of prophetic interpretation. It needs to be defined carefully before we can discuss

its validity and boundaries. LeRoy E. Froom provides us one definition of historicism: “the progressive and

continuous fulfillment of prophecy, in unbroken sequence, from Daniel's day and the time of John, on down

to the Second Advent and the end of the age.”1

Froom's definition implies a certain theological exegesis, which he fails to identify as the guideline for his

understanding of what constitutes a fulfillment of prophecy. A truthful fulfillment should correspond to the

intended meaning of the prophet, and thus requires an exegesis of Scripture in its literary and historical

context. Even the Cross is not self-explanatory and needs divine interpretation (see 1 Cor. 1:22-25; 15:3;

Rom. 3:25, 26).

This leads us to ask for the biblical origin of historicism; that is, for the prophetic revelation that periodizes

history in successive epochs which lead up to the establishment of the kingdom of God. That origin, it is

universally agreed, is the apocalyptic book of Daniel, whose visions repeatedly proceed from his own time

to the end of world history, with a consistent focus on salvation history [emphasis added].1

[Daniel’s Christological Emphasis]

With increasing emphasis, Daniel affirms that “the God of heaven,” who rules world history, is the God of

his “fathers” (Dan. 1:1, 2; 2:20-23; 3:28; etc.). Daniel bases his view of history on Israel's redemption

history. Chapters 7-12 especially sharpen the focus on Israel, on her sanctuary worship in the “holy city,”

and on its devastation by Israel's sacrilegious enemy (8:11-13; 9:25-27; 11:44, 45). Michael is sent to

Daniel with the message, “Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the

future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come” (10:14, NIV). Daniel's prophecies focus on Israel as

God’s covenant people and on their future experiences. Daniel himself thus provides the theological

criterion by which a fulfillment of prophecy must be assessed.

Jesus mentions Daniel by name (Matt. 24:15) and affirms his salvation-historical perspective when He

applies Daniel’s prophecy of the violent death of the Messiah and of Jerusalem’s consequent destruction

(Dan. 9:26, 27) to the imminent fall of Jerusalem in His own generation (Matt. 23:36; 24:15; Luke 21:20-

22). Jesus continuously stresses the Christocentric focus of the church age in His farewell speech of

Matthew 24, when He predicts the coming of false christs and the persecution of His elect (see verses 4,

9,14, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31).

Paul also refers to Daniel's prophecy of an oppressor and deceiver of the covenant people, when he applies

Daniel 8 and 11 to a fulfillment during the church age in “the temple of God” (see 2 Thess. 2:4-8). By the

expression, “the temple of God,” Paul did not mean the material shrine in Jerusalem but rather the

institutional church (see 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19-21).2

On the basis of these New Testament applications of Daniel's prophecies to the church age, the Seventh-day

Adventist Encyclopedia concludes: “Historicism as a method of interpretation is found in the Bible itself,

and it provides the key for the interpretation of the apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation.”3


What then is this hermeneutical “key” that Scripture itself provides? It is a “key” that needs to be carefully

defined through a responsible exegesis of Scripture so that all believers can be aware of the biblical norm

for interpreting prophecies and of the truthfulness of our historical applications. Not only Jesus and Paul

but also John’s writings re-orient Daniel's covenant people theologically to the God-sent Messiah and to

His people, and consequently to their persecuting enemies (see 1 John 1, 2; Rev. 12-14). Accordingly,

fulfillments of prophecy during the church age must be determined by their Christ-centeredness. That

Christological center of prophecy is the “key” the Bible itself provides to unlock the truthfulness of a

historical fulfillment. Only fulfillments that pertain to Christ and His new-covenant people will increase our

knowledge of Daniel and Revelation (cf. Dan. 12:4).2

[Historicist Traditions Misused]

How does one assess the truthfulness of the different historicist applications of the past? Those traditions

have to be tested on the grounds of their exegetical truthfulness in accordance with the biblical perspective

of history. Regarding any “fulfillment” of the predicted apostasy, or of the true remnant people, or of the

cosmic signs during the church age, the New Testament insists from start till finish on a Christocentric

fulfillment in relation to the new-covenant people of God.4 This theological qualification of a true

fulfillment of prophecy should be acknowledged as the primary responsibility of historicism.

A second point of concern to be taken seriously is the possible misuse of earlier historicist traditions when

these are appealed to as the final interpreter of prophecies. If we profess the sola Scriptura principle that

the Bible interprets itself, how can we at the same time claim that “history” as such “is the true and final

interpreter”?5

Israel’s prophets, Jesus, and His apostles all relate their promises and warnings to God's covenant people or

to their enemies. In short, Bible prophecy is fundamentally different from secular soothsaying in its focus

on salvation history: past, present, and future. The visions of both Daniel and John reveal this broader

theological perspective that connects all predictive prophecies in one coherent framework of Messianic

redemption as its biblical criterion for fulfillment (see Dan. 2:44, 45; 7:27; 12:1-3; Rev. 5).

John’s Apocalypse sums up the proclamation of the risen Christ: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First

and the Last, the Beginning and the End" (Rev. 22:13). This sovereign title of the risen Lord proclaims that

Christ is the meaning for human history, being the “Alpha" of Genesis till the “Omega” of Revelation.6 3

[Honest Historicist Interpretation]

Our trust in the proper exegetical foundation of “historicist” interpretations of Scripture cannot be taken for

granted. To give account for our prophetic interpretations is a biblical mandate to accept individual

responsibility for their truthfulness (see 1 Peter 3:15). Paul places all Spirit manifestations in the church

under the need for testing on their truthfulness: “Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything.

Hold on to the good" (1 Thess. 5:20, 21, NIV).

Of critical importance for establishing a truthful fulfillment of prophecy in history is the crossing over of

the old-covenant people of God to the new-covenant people of Christ Jesus. This cross point, marked by

the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the “fullness of time” (Mark 1:15; Gal. 4:4), has crucial

hermeneutical significance in determining a true fulfillment. That is to say, the beginning of the Messianic

age transforms the biblical definition of the Israel of God into a Messianic Israel, and consequently also the

definition of her antagonists, as the book of Acts testifies (see the application of “Israel” and her enemies of

Psalm 2 in Acts 4:23-28; 13:32, 40, 46-48).

On the Day of Pentecost, Peter proclaims that Joel’s prophecy of the fullness of the Spirit of God has been

fulfilled in the Christ-believing Jews at Jerusalem (Joel 2:28-32). Here Peter publicly introduces the new

paradigm of a Christocentric fulfillment of the end-time prophecies. Filled with the Spirit of God, he

declares that now the “last days” have begun (Acts 2:17), because the risen Messiah has been enthroned in

heaven as the Lord of Israel (Acts 2:33, 36). Later he adds that these days will last until Jesus shall return in


glory to accomplish the “universal restoration” (Acts 3:21, NRSV; apokatastasis panton was the Jewish

expression for the Messianic "Jubilee Year" for the restoration of all Israel; Acts 1:6 has its verbal form7).

4

[Historicist Claims Need Evidence]

If salvation history is the focus of apocalyptic prophecies, we must test and purify historicism by the

biblical perspective of covenant history. We need to define historical “fulfillment” in accordance with the

cosmic controversy theme in Daniel and Revelation. The New Testament hands us the Christological norm

by which we are to test every historical application of prophecy. Applying this Christ centered norm

engenders credibility to our public proclamations of the divine intentions of prophecy.

If we are disinterested or uninformed by the biblical covenant history, we cannot assess the truthfulness of

past historicist claims. It is our duty as Christian interpreters to reexamine our method of prophetic

interpretation and application, and to define a conscious and consistent Christocentric hermeneutic.

Historicism needs the disciplined reflection of exegetical and systematic theologians for its own theological

and exegetical credibility. Bible truth is not established by a majority view of pious interpreters but by a

truthful, contextual exegesis of Scripture. This calls for a cooperation of all theological disciplines of the

church so that all seekers after truth may experience a progressive understanding of prophecy, based on the

gospel principles of the New Testament.5

[Consensus Failure in Historicism]

One of the perceived weaknesses of historicism is the “inability of its advocates to agree upon the specific

fulfillments of the prophecies.”12

This assessment oversimplifies the problem by overlooking some

common agreements of historicists since the early church in their understanding of imperial and papal

Rome as fulfillment of Daniel's visions (in chapters 2 and 7).13

The critique remains valid, however, in

regard to some sensational, private interpretations that attach prophetic significance to current political

events.

Such popular claims elevate current events as the guiding norm for prophetic interpretation. In spite of

speculative interpretations, the new apocalyptic movements expressed their sincere longing for restoring

the Christian hope and the simple Christian life of the apostolic church. Unfortunately, such imminency

expectations of Christ's advent were based on some problematic calculations of Daniel's prophetic time

periods.6

[Gospel Proclamation Neglected]

The priority of apocalyptic interpretations in the Adventist self-understanding never intended to overrule or

obscure the “everlasting gospel.” Ellen White tried to keep the apocalyptic teachings united with the gospel

preaching, warning against the threat of a Christless historicism: “Ministers should present the sure word of

prophecy as the foundation of the faith of Seventh-day Adventists. The prophecies of Daniel and the

Revelation should be carefully studied, and in connection with them the words, “Behold the Lamb of God,

which taketh away the sin of the world.”18

However, the sad fact remains that the “formative” years of Adventism (1844-1888) did embody a neglect

of the centrality of the gospel of justifying grace when it came to proclaiming this end-time witness.

Doctrinal beliefs about the law of God, a pre-Advent “investigative judgment,” and the appeal to leave

apostate Christianity as the end-time “Babylon” became the dominant truths through which people tended

to identify the “remnant" church, while the gospel tended to suffer neglect.

The Advent movement was absolutely convinced it was a “movement of destiny,” raised up to fulfill the

prophecies of Revelation 12:17 and 14:6-12. Yet it was not united on fundamental Christian beliefs, such as

the Holy Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and even on “righteousness by faith”


as the way of salvation. By its deliberate isolation from historic Christianity, Adventism developed its own

doctrinal belief system independent from the historic Christian creeds. Adventist indifference to the

Protestant Reformation Confessions led periodically to a crisis about what is Christian in Adventism,

especially in regard to the affirmation of the basic Protestant axioms sola fide, sola gratia, and sola

Scriptura.19 7

[Historicism Blocks True Reform]

The biblical connection of the apostolic gospel and apocalyptic interpretations remains the critical issue for

Adventist historicism. Is the gospel allowed to have a transforming influence on our apocalyptic

interpretations? If the gospel priority is overlooked in prophetic interpretation, the pitfall of literalism can

hardly be avoided. Literalism, recognizable by its ethnic and geographic Middle East applications of

prophecy, immediately usurps the primary place of Christ as the decisive norm for prophetic interpretation.

This modern hermeneutical threat calls for renewed vigilance by each generation to safeguard the priority

of the everlasting gospel in apocalyptic interpretations (see Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 20:4).

The task of honest examination of sound exegesis of Scripture has only begun. The core issue remains a

definition of the New Testament principles of Scripture interpretation that apply equally to fulfilled and

unfulfilled prophecies. Such a testing of our traditional assumptions and applications can lead to a more

biblical and credible proclamation that will stir the hearts again. Some leading Adventist theologians have

begun to reaffirm the motivating principle of Protestantism: ecdesia reformata semper reformanda,

meaning “a reform which is never completed once-and for-all, but which is renewed and reapplied from

generation to generation in the light of Scripture.”26 8


IX. Conclusion

This research document has provided extensive and reliable biblical and historical

evidence that the SDA historicism, like the other three main hermeneutical schools that have

failed the scientific and biblical test for adequate and reliable biblical and prophetic

interpretation—preterism, idealism, and futurism—has failed in its attempt to define and

establish itself as a valid and reliable interpretation school for the predictive and eschatological

prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. The fundamental and severe issues that have confronted

and still confront the SDA historicism are as follows:

Definition and Application Issues

Factual evidence indicates that the SDA definition for historicism is fragmented into various and

uneven formulations that as a whole present an inconsistent hermeneutical perspective. This

fragmentation has produced uneven prophetic interpretations and incorrect exegetical

applications to Daniel and Revelation due the intentional or non-intentional confusion between

human historical events and assumed fictional or non-terrestrial events. Some claimed and

assumed “events” also appear to have been concocted and reshaped from real event distortion

and misinterpretation.

No Divine Origin for Historicism

The SDA theologians have claimed that God himself has originated the historicist hermeneutics

and that the Bible has been written from a historicist perspective. Another assumed but

undocumented SDA claim is that Daniel, John, Jesus, Paul, and other Bible writers have written

their books as historicists. All these claims are assumptions derived from an excessive

theological focus on historicism as a method and the attempt to obtain a pre-established

deductive conclusion that cannot be substantiated with biblical and historical evidence and fails

to demonstrate authentic and reliable “fulfillments” for the SDA assumptive and erroneous time

and event predictions.

Selective Historical Attestation

The SDA historicist theologians have used selective, tendentious, and therefore biased historical

data to establish false claims for “prophetic fulfillments,” a fallacious and non-scientific

approach to data authentication. Based on these deceptive “proofs” the SDA theologians have

argued for untenable and irresponsible prophetic interpretation positions on Daniel and

Revelation. Such excesses have weakened and discredited the SDA historicism in the Christian

World and have made the historicist hermeneutics impossible to consider and accept.

Repeated SDA Prediction Failures

The fact that William Miller, the amateur historicist and preacher has committed multiple

interpretation and logical errors while he computed the prophetic time for the assumed Second

Coming in 1844 is well known. What is less known and ignored is the fact that the SDA pioneers

and also the present SDA theologians and scholars are still dependent on Miller’s hermeneutics

and worldview in their Daniel and Revelation interpretations. There were multiple attempts for

time setting during the Millerite effervescent period and also multiple “prophetic fulfillment”

errors, and these errors have been adopted in the SDA theological circles as true and self-evident


“prophetic fulfillments.” This research document has provided the most relevant examples that

demonstrate the repeated Adventist failures to provide verification for the speculative

hermeneutical approach through solid historical evidence that would indicate indisputable

prediction fulfillment and validate the spurious SDA historicist claims.

Historicist Mania and the Gospel

The SDA fixation or rather obsession with the eschatological prophecies in Daniel and

Revelation has caused a backlash effect and collateral damage in the Adventist circles. The true

fact is that almost all Adventist church members have noticed that most “Net Seminars” or local

Evangelistic Meetings appear to have a singular focus, and that is not the Gospel but the strange

beasts in Daniel and Revelation. One other item that is promoted and circulated in an excessive

manner and on a regular basis in the SDA evangelistic meetings is the one related to the

presumed time “landmarks” or the word’s end countdown. The obsessive denominational focus

on Daniel and Revelation associated with the excessive preaching from the two prophetic books

together with the bombastic and triumphalist emphasis on the “final events” and the “imminent”

Second Coming which is considered the “remnant message” or the “present truth” has replaced

the Christian Gospel with fantastic and implausible tall tales and has caused the almost complete

and inexcusable failure to preach the genuine Gospel, the Bible’s Good News of salvation to the

truth-starved world.


References

I. Introduction

1Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1978), 65-72.

2Ibid., 68.

3J. Robert Spangler, (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” Ministry, Special

Sanctuary Issue, October 1980, 21.

4Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, Tennessee: Southern Publishing Association, 1978), 69.

5Ibid., 65.

6Ibid.

7Ibid., 66.

8Ibid., 68.

9Ibid.

10Ibid.

11Ibid., 69.

12Ibid.

13Ibid.

14Ibid.

15Ibid., 69-70.

16Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association,1978), Millerite Movement.

17

Gerhard Pfandl, “The Pre-Advent Judgment: Fact or Fiction? (part one),” Ministry, December

2003, 22.

18

Richard M. Davidson, “The Second Advent and the ‘Fullness of Time,’” Ministry, June-July

2000, 44.

19Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,”

Ministry, January 2012, 6.

20

Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting

Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 1.


21

Ibid., 1-2.

22

J. Robert Spangler, (Editor), “Christ and His High Priestly Ministry,” Ministry, Special


23

Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, June 4). “Daniel 9 Is Not an Appendix to Daniel 8.” Academia.edu.

http://www.academia.edu/.

24Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, June 11). “The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel

9:23.” Academia.edu. http://www.academia.edu/.

25Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, July 21). “The Meaning of Chathak in Daniel 9:24.” Academia.edu.


26

Eduard C. Hanganu (2013, December 18). The Year-Day Principle Reexamined.

Academia.edu. http://www.academia.edu/.

27Eduard C. Hanganu (2013, December 28). “The Year-Day Principle Reexamined SHORT.”


28Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, March 12). Antiochus IV and Daniel’s Little Horn Reexamined.


29Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, November 25). “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Cartea lui Daniel.”


30Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, December 19). “Anaphora Resolution in a Biblical Passage.”


II. Historicism in the SDA Perspective

1Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Heart of Historicism,” Ministry, September 2005, 22.

2Ibid.

3Ibid.

4Ibid.

5Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Historicism.

6Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1957), pp. 137, 138. Quoted in Neufeld, Don F., Seventh-day Adventist Bible

Student’s Source Book, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1962.


7George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

Company, 1956), pp. 32–34. Quoted in Neufeld, Don F., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Student’s

Source Book, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1962.

8Albertus Pieters, Studies in the Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950),

pp. 43, 45, 46. Quoted in Neufeld, Don F., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Student’s Source Book,

(Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association) 1962.

9William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series

volume 1: Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Revised Edition. Editor Frank B.

Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 68-69.

10William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm

(Spring 2003), 22.

11

Frank B. Holbrook, “What Prophecy Means to This Church,” Ministry, July 1983, 21.

12

Ibid.

13

Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,”


14

Desmond Ford, Daniel 8:14, the Day of Atonement, and The Investigative Judgment

(Casselberry, FL: Euangelion Press, 1980), 68.

15

Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume 1 (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1950), 22-23.

16


2000, 44.



18


Daniel and Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 7-8.

19

Jon Paulien, “The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical

Apocalyptic—Part One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 15.

20

John Noe, “An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of

Revelation,” JETS, 49/4 (December 2006), 774.

21

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington, D.C.: Review and

Herald Publishing Association,1978), Historicism.


22

Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans

Publishing Company, 1957), pp. 137, 138. Quoted in Neufeld, Don F., Seventh-day Adventist

Bible Student’s Source Book, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association)

1962.

23

George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing



24

Albertus Pieters, Studies in the Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950),






26

William H. Shea, “Historicism: The Best Way to Interpret Prophecy,” Adventists Affirm

(Spring 2003), 22.

27


28

Ibid.

29



30



31



32


2000, 44.



34



35


Apocalyptic—Part One,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 15.


36



37



38




1962.




40

Albertus Pieters, Studies in the Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950),






42


(Spring 2003), 22.

43


44Ibid.

45



46



47



48


2000, 44.




50



51


Apocalyptic—Part One” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 15.

52



53



54




1962.




56Albertus Pieters, Studies in the Revelation of St. John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1950),






58


(Spring 2003), 22.

59


60

Ibid.

61



62



63




64


2000, 44.



66



67


Apocalyptic—Part One” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 14/2 (Fall 2003), 15.

68



III. Traditional Base for SDA Historicism

1Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume 1 (Washington, DC:


2Richard M. Davidson, “The Second Advent and the ‘Fullness of Time,’” Ministry, June-July

2000, 44.

3Gerhard Pfandl, “The Pre-Advent Judgment: Fact or Fiction? (part one),” Ministry, December

2003, 22:1.

4Frank B. Holbrook, “What Prophecy Means to This Church,” Ministry, July 1983, 22.

5Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1950),

107.

6Ibid., 122.

7Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting


8Hans K. LaRondelle “The Heart of Historicism,” Ministry, September 2005, 22.

IV. Historical and Non-Historical Events

1John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) - history.

2Ibid.


3John J. Anderson, A Manual of General History: Being an Outline History of the World From

the Creation to the Present Time (New York: Clark & Maynard Publishers, 1876), 3.

4Ibid., 5.

5Henry Smith Williams, The Historian’s History of the World (New York: The History

Association, 1907), 5.

6John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Co-editors), The Oxford English Dictionary,

second edition on CD-ROM (v.4.0) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) – historical.









10



11



12



13



14

William H. Shea, “Year-Day Principle – Part 1,” Daniel and Revelation Committee Series


Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.

15

Ibid.

16



17




18

L. E. Froom, “The Advent Message Built Upon The Foundations of Many Generations,” in

Our Firm Foundation, volume II (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association,

1953), 102-103.

V. The Incomplete and Selective Records



2Hans K. LaRondelle “The Heart of Historicism,” Ministry, September 2005, 22.

3Martin Pröbstle, Where God and I Meet (Hagerstown, MD: The Review and Herald Publishing

Association, 2013), 104.

4Francis D.

Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 7.

5Ibid., Revelation 13:3.

6Ibid., Revelation 9.

7James A. Paul (2005, October), “Empires in World History: Modern Period.” Retrieved on

February 18, 2015 from https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/25992.html

8Kevin A. Miller, “100 Most Important Events in Church History” Retrieved on February 29,

2015 from https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/issue/100-most-important-events-

in-church-history/.

9Global Christian Center, “The 10 Most Important Dates in Church History, Retrieved on

February 20, 2015 from http://globalchristiancenter.com/bible-and-theology/academic-

research/24543-the-10-most-important-dates-in-church-history

VI. Historicist Charts and Historic Spans

1Kai Arasola, The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophecies in the Old

Testament (Sigtuna: Datem Publishing, 1990), 88-89.

2Ibid., 94.

3“The Original 1843 Prophecy Chart” Retrieved on February 22, 2015 from

http://the2520.com/original_1843_prophecy_chart.htm.

4Le Roy Edwin Froom, “Historical Data in ‘1843’” Chart,” Ministry, May 1942, 23-26.


5Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume IV (Washington, DC:


6“Earliest Sabbatarian Chart 1850.” Retrieved on February 22, 2015 from

http://pathofthejust.org/the-foundation-of-seventh-day-adventism.

7Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume IV (Washington, DC:


8Ibid., 1075.

9Ibid., 1075-1077.

VII. Failed SDA Historicist Predictions



Holbrook (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1992), 100.

2Ibid., 100.

3John Noe, “An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of


4Reimar Vetne, “A Definition and Short History of Historicism as a Method for Interpreting


5Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,

1950), 304-309.

6Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Application of Cosmic Signs in the Adventist Tradition,” Ministry,

September 1998, 25-27.

7Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation (Washington, DC: Review & Herald Publishing Assn.,

1907), 159-160.

8Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishing Association,

1950), 54-55.

9Francis D.

Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review and

Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 7.

10

Samuele Bacchiocchi (2002, August 1) “A Reply to Criticism: Part I: The Use of E. G. White’s

Writings in Interpreting Scripture” EndTime Issues No. 87. Retrieved on February 23, 2015 from

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/eti_87.html.


11

Le Roy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume IV (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1954), 855.

12Ibid.

13Ibid., 856.

14

Ibid., 840-841.

15

Ibid., 877-884.

16

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Boise, ID: Pacific Press Publishing Association,

1950), 409-410.

17

Eduard C. Hanganu (2013, December 18). The Year-Day Principle Reexamined.


18

Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Washington, DC: Review

and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), Daniel 9:21.

19

Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, June 4). “Daniel 9 Is Not an Appendix to Daniel 8.” Academia.edu.


20Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, June 11). “The Referents for Vision in Daniel 9:21 and Daniel

9:23.” Academia.edu. http://www.academia.edu/.

21Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, December 19). “Anaphora Resolution in a Biblical Passage.”


22Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, March 12). Antiochus IV and Daniel’s Little Horn Reexamined.


23Eduard C. Hanganu (2014, July 21). “The Meaning of Chathak in Daniel 9:24.” Academia.edu.


24Roy E. Gane, “Christ at His Sanctuary – Toward Adventist-Evangelical Dialogue,” Paper

presented at dialogue with World Evangelical Alliance, Andrews University, August 6, 2007, 16.

25

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Additional Note on [Revelation] chapter 9.

26

Ibid.

27

Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Oakland, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Company,

1888), 334-335.


28

Eric Anderson, “The Millerite Use of Prophecy,” in Ronald L. Numbers, editor, and Jonathan

M. Butler, contributor, The Disappointed: Millerism Millerarianism (Knoxville: University of

Tennessee Press, 1993), 86-87.

29

Francis D. Nichol Ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 4 (Washington, DC:

Review and Herald, 1976), CD-ROM version, Additional Note on [Revelation] chapter 9.

30

Ibid.

VIII. Diversions That Robbed the Gospel


2Ibid., 22-23.


4Ibid.

5Ibid.

6Ibid., 25.

7Ibid., 26.

8Ibid., 26-27.

adventist historicism reexamined and critiqued final draft

Documents

adventist historicism

preterist school

futurist school

idealist school

historicist school

prophetic schools

sda church

sda perspective