A History of the ‘Accepted Position’ of the 1335 Days
This History is by Franklin S Fowler Jr. (Scripture’s Most Important “Time” Prophecies: A Commentary on Daniel 12).
The 19th century was nearing its end. Many new truths had been given to the Adventist Church after the 1844 disappointment. The sanctuary message, health reform, the Sabbath, the concept of the Trinity, and Christ our Righteousness were examples of “new light” that matured the foundations of its beliefs. In that wonderful era, E. G. White noted on two occasions:
1. Truth is ever unfolding (1892) – Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 703.
2. Light/truth is progressive (1895) – Manuscript Releases, vol. 13, p. 15.
There were some elements, however, of Biblical understanding that opened only slowly – end-time prophecy was distinctly one. Many issues that the Millerite believers were “certain of” needed review after the disappointment. Some, God opened up quickly, like the judgment work in the heavenly sanctuary (Daniel 7:9-10). But uncertainty remained with a myriad of other predictive messages.
One notable battery of timed prophecy that influenced the great disappointment was the timed messages in Daniel 12. Clearly, something was wrong. God had said that they would be sealed until the “time of the end.” Had not that time come?
The pioneers made many errors in their Biblical perceptions. Daniel 12’s timelines were notable. Here’s why:
In that chapter, “time of the end” is used twice (vss 4 and 9). Intriguingly, the phrase “at that time” (vs 1) links back to the “time of the end” in 11:40. The pre-1844 Bible expositors originally preached that Christ would come in 1843 (2300 days from 457 B.C. = 1843 A.D.). Thus, they concluded that the three “end-time” periods in Daniel 12 (1260, 1290, and 1335 days) must all be associated with that “end” in 1843.
As excitement crescendoed over Christ’s expected return, Charles Fitch (1805–1844) and Apollos Hale (1807–1898) worked together on a prophetic chart addressing many end-time periods. It was complex, and many time issues were presented. Two related distinctly to Daniel 12.
To those pioneers, the end of those time periods and the 2300 days of 8:14 was 1843. The longest period of 1335 days (assuming a year for a day) in Daniel would have to begin in 508 A.D. (1335 years before). Clovis, then king of the Franks, professed conversion to Roman Catholicism and conquered the Province of Aquitaine. Those pioneers concluded that that was the uprooting of the first of three horns (Daniel 7:8-20). 508 B.C. was then called the time of “taking away the daily sacrifice” in that chart.
Then Fitch and Hale added 1290 days (years) to 508 and came up with the year 1798. From 1798 to 1843 was 45 days (years). They assumed that that was the “time of the end.” That period was when “Daniel is to stand in his lot at the end of the days.” (Quote from the 1843 chart.)
A careful expositor, John Fry (1774-1849), warned that the 1843 year was wrong. It should be 1844 (The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. III, p. 494). In spite of this, William Miller adopted the 1843 chart, as did many others.
The pioneers were led, after the 1843 disappointment, to reset the date to 1844. The 1843 chart, however, remained. The subtraction of 1335 days going back in history (against all hermeneutic principles) still was promoted, though no one tried to redefine 509 A.D. The addition of 1290 years to 508 was still promoted to preserve 1798, though it now was really 1799 (just as Fry had urged). Everything was in disarray! The “fudging” of those years was noted – but not explained. Yet, many theologians and Bible students today still accept the 1843 chart in its entirety.
This means that many Bible expositors view Daniel 12 as occurring before 1843. This position rejects many things that E. G. White later said about Daniel 12. That became another problem.
“The prophetic periods [plural] of Daniel, extending to the very eve of the great consummation [Second Coming of Jesus], throw a flood of light upon events then to transpire” (The Review and Herald, September 25, 1883).
The words “then to transpire” are forward-looking – beyond 1883. Then came another message:
“Daniel shall [future] stand in his lot at the end of the days. John sees the little book unsealed. Then Daniel's prophecies have their proper place in the first, second, and third angels’ messages to be [future] given to the world” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 19, p. 320 (1887)).
Ellen White is using language found only in Daniel 12. She links these words of Christ Himself (the man above the waters clothed in linen –12:7-13) to the three angels’ messages to come beyond 1887. Lest there be any misunderstanding as to when these things apply, God instructed her to emphasize the Daniel 12 end-time theme in 1906.
“A message will soon be given [future] by God’s appointment that will swell into the Loud Cry. Then Daniel will stand [future tense] in his lot to give his testimony” (Letter 54 (1906); Manuscript Releases, vol 2, p. 20).
There’s more to this story. Those mistakes were simply too significant to ignore. The Lord was not only guiding in an Advent Movement but purposed to remedy errors in prophetic interpretation. A new chart, known as the “1850 Chart” was being worked on by James White. By the fall of that year Ellen White wrote a letter to a “Brother and Sister Loveland” regarding it:
“God showed me the necessity of getting out a chart. I saw it was needed and that the truth made plain upon tables would affect much and would cause souls to come to the knowledge of the truth” (Letter 26, Nov. 1, 1850, p. 1).
“A chronological chart of the visions of Daniel and John, calculated to illustrate clearly the present truth, is now being lithographed under the care of Brother Otis Nichols, of Dorchester, Massachusetts. Those who teach the present truth will be greatly aided by it. Further notice of the chart will be given hereafter” (Arthur L. White quoting Ellen G. White – the Early Years, vol. 1, p. 185).
The same day as her letter was written a similar notice was placed in The Review and Herald (known then as The Present Truth), but with additional information regarding the 1843 chart:
“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” (The Review and Herald, November 1, 1850 (emphasis added)). It was being removed in that new chart.
Why did God permit a mistake to be received by thousands of believers who would then be disappointed? If that had not occurred, there would never have been an Advent Movement! Why? Because the events of Daniel 11 and 12 relate to the “time of the end” and simply had not been fulfilled.
Lest there be any misunderstanding regarding this, she reiterated her 1850 thoughts in 1852:
“I saw that the old chart was directed by the Lord, and that not a figure of it should be altered except by inspiration. I saw that the figures of the chart were as God would have them, and that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none should see it till His hand was removed” (Spalding and Magan Collection, p. 1, March 18, 1852 (emphasis added)).
As noted above, it wouldn’t be until 1883 that God would inspire her to begin writing as to the deeper issues of Daniel’s prophetic periods. That counsel struck deep at the roots of anyone trying to place those prophetic periods before 1843. She said that they extended to the very eve of the Second Coming (The Review and Herald, September 25, 1883).
In three of her books this issue of incorrectly “calculating” those periods was formally addressed:
“His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods” (Early Writings, p. 235, 275; The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4, 228; The Great Controversy, p. 373).
What was in that 1850 chart – that stunning revision to correct those figures?
The year 1843 was dropped and replaced by 1844 to end the 2300 years. Then the 1335-day and the 1290-day periods were eliminated from the chart. They simply did not understand what they meant. Over the intervening years, she tied those prophecies of Daniel to the Loud Cry (Manuscript Releases, vol. 19, p. 320). And she noted that knowledge regarding this book would increase greatly at the close of earth’s history (Manuscript Releases, p. 176, 1899).
Then in a solemn warning she said that Daniel 12 needed to be studied and understood before the “time of the end” because it contained special warning for God’s people (Manuscript Releases, vol. 15, p. 228, 1903).
Since so many link their understanding to Clovis, the Catholic French king (481-511 A.D.), which was when the “daily sacrifices were taken away” (1843 chart), she pointedly said in 1882 that the word “sacrifice” was added and not in the original manuscript of the Bible (Early Writings, p. 74).
The Clovis application was now out and the word “sacrifice” was gone – but then many of the brethren began debating the “daily.” She finally said in 1910: “I have had no instruction on the point [meaning of the ‘daily’] under discussion” (Selected Messages, book 1, p. 164).
What do we have, then, in summary? The 1843 chart began on a false premise (the year). The hermeneutic of subtraction was poor and most unacceptable. If using 1844 (instead of 1843) with the 1335 “days” being subtracted along with the 1290 “days” being added (as the pioneers reasoned), it would give us 509 A.D. and 1799 A.D. – all foreign to history and Adventism. E. G. White placed Daniel 12 into the future at the end of time. That must be the focus. The 1850 chart began the process of gradually opening the truth of end-time prophecy.