After the 1844 Great Disappointment¹ toward the close of the 19th century, the nascent Seventh-day Adventist Church readily accepted “new and present truths”, including the Sanctuary message, Health reform, the Sabbath, the Trinity, and Christ our Righteousness. Ellen White repeatedly drew attention to the fact that truth is “ever unfolding and progressive” and the pioneer Adventists were quick to embrace it.

In contrast however, their understanding of end-time prophecy was slow to develop. Many Millerite beliefs needed radical revision after the Disappointment. Notable among the prophecies that had heavily impacted the great Disappointment were the three, time-based messages of Daniel 12. Something about their fundamental assumptions was clearly wrong. But try as they might they simply couldn’t figure it out.

Hadn’t God said those prophecies would be “sealed up” until the “time of the end”? Obviously, they reasoned, the period in which they were living must be that time! After all 1843 was their agreed date for the end of all things and Jesus’ appearing in glory. Much speculation ensued and the pioneers made numerous mistaken assumptions in their quest to understand Daniel 12’s timelines (the 1260, 1290 and 1335 “days”). In that chapter, “time of the end” is used twice (verses 4 and 9). The phrase “at that time” (verse 1) links to the “time of the end” in 11:40. They painstakingly calculated that Christ would return in 1843 (2300 days/years from 457 BC = 1843 AD). So, understandably, they concluded that those three, “end-time” spans must all bear directly on what they firmly believed was to be “the end” in 1843 and so must surely play even a starring role in their thrilling, fast-developing drama.

As excitement mounted over Christ’s expected return, Charles Fitch (1805–1844) and Apollos Hale (1807–1898) devised a complex prophetic chart showing the Millerites’ interpretation of end-time events. Daniel 12’s time spans were specifically included.

(1)  The pioneers reasoned the end of those time periods and the 2300 days of 8:14 must be 1843 and thus, logically, the “Time of the End”.

(2)  And so the longest period of 1335 days (assuming a year-for-a-day) in Daniel, they judged, would have to begin in 508 AD (by the rules of arithmetic: 1843 - 1335 = 508). Scouring that date for something significant they selected the conversion from Paganism to Nicene Christianity by Clovis I, then king of the Franks. Fitch and Hale deemed that to be Roman Catholicism.² They concluded that Clovis’ conquering the Province of Aquitaine must be the “uprooting” of the first of the three horns (Daniel 7:8-20). 508 BC was then identified as the time of “taking away the daily sacrifice” on their chart.
‍
(3)  Then Fitch and Hale added 1290 years to 508 and came up with the year 1798. From 1798 to 1843 was 45 years. They assumed that must be the “time of the end”— the period when “Daniel is to stand in his lot at the end of the days” (quoted from the 1843 chart). John Fry (1774-1849) pointed out their error and explained 1844 as the correct year (The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, volume III, page 494). However, William Miller and many others adopted the 1843 chart by Fitch and Hale, regardless.

Following the 1843 Great Disappointment, the date was corrected to 1844, but the 1843 chart remained the Accepted Position on Daniel 12’s time prophecies.
‍
Despite breaking fundamental hermeneutic principles (assuming the argument in order to prove it), the subtraction of 1335 years from 1844 was still endorsed, but redefining 508 to be 509 AD was ignored. Adding 1290 years to 508 was promoted to preserve the accepted date of 1798, though in reality, as Fry had observed, it was 1799. The ‘fudging’ of those years was never frankly admitted. Inexplicably many theologians and Bible students still accept and teach the discredited 1843 chart’s interpretation of Daniel 12 as “present truth” a quarter of the way through the 21st century.

Viewing the events of Daniel 12 as occurring before 1843, which contradicts many things Ellen White later said about it, creates unnecessary difficulties. “The prophetic periods of Daniel, extending to the eve of the great consummation, illuminate events then to transpire” (The Review and Herald, September 25, 1883). The words “then to transpire” are future-oriented, beyond 1883. Later, Ellen White said, “Daniel shall 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 given to the world” (Manuscript Releases, volume 19, page 320 (1887)). Ellen White linked these words of Christ Himself to the three angels’ messages that would come after 1887 using language found only in Daniel 12. To clarify when these things apply, God instructed her to emphasise 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, volume 2, page 20).

There’s more to this story. The pioneers’ significant mistakes couldn’t be ignored. The Lord was guiding the Advent Movement to correct their prophetic errors. James White began working on a new chart called the ‘1850 Chart’. By the fall of that year, Ellen White wrote a letter to a ‘Brother and Sister Loveland’ about 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, November 1, 1850, page 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, volume 1, page 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).

But why ever would God allow such a major mistake to be received by thousands of believers, knowing it would cause great consternation then, and confusion up until our day? If this hadn’t happened, the Advent Movement wouldn’t have existed — because the events of Daniel 11 and 12 relate to the actual, future ‘time of the end’ (by the very definition of the words) rather than what Charles Fitch and Apollo Hale had imagined it to be in their day, almost two centuries ago. Believing they weren’t living in any imminence of Jesus’ return they would likely have just gone about their normal business “as in the days of Noah”. God’s ways are not our ways. Maybe He wanted something more than nonchalance from those He was preparing for a significant role in the greater scheme of things.

In case there should be any misunderstanding, Ellen White reiterated her 1850 thoughts two years later: “I saw that the old [1843] 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, page 1, March 18, 1852). Not until 1883 did God inspire her to begin writing on the emerging issues of Daniel’s prophetic periods. That counsel seems intended to discourage anyone trying to place those prophetic periods before 1843 because she pointedly stated that they extended to the very eve of the Second Coming (The Review and Herald, September 25, 1883). In three of her books the issue of the early Adventists incorrectly “calculating” those periods was formally addressed: “His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods” (Early Writings, pages 235, 275; The Spirit of Prophecy, volume 4, page 228; The Great Controversy, page 373).

The fully-revised 1850 chart introduced several significant changes. Firstly, it replaced the year 1843 with 1844 as the conclusion of the 2300-year prophecy, accounting for the transition from BC to AD. Additionally, the chart omitted reference to the 1260-day, 1290-day and 1335-day periods from Daniel 12³, as their meanings remained unclear at that time. Ellen White later associated these prophecies with the future Loud Cry (Manuscript Releases, volume 19, page 320), emphasizing that knowledge of these matters would greatly increase as Earth's history drew to a close (Manuscript Releases, page 176, 1899). She also issued a solemn warning that Daniel 12 should be studied and understood before the 'time of the end,' as it contained special warnings for God's people (Manuscript Releases, volume 15, page 228, 1903). She also clarified that the word 'sacrifice' was not present in the original manuscript of the Bible (Early Writings, page 74), thus dismissing the previous association with Clovis, the Frank king and the removal of 'daily sacrifices' as it had been in the 1843 chart. In 1910, she refrained completely from engaging in debates about the meaning of 'daily' in Daniel 12:11, stating that she had received no instruction on the matter (Selected Messages, book 1, page 164).

In summary, Ellen White firmly placed Daniel 12 in the future, at the end of time, where it rightfully belongs. The revised 1850 chart marked the beginning of a gradual unveiling of the truth regarding end-time prophecy.  
 
Over the intervening years, she tied those prophecies of Daniel 12 to the future assuring her readers that knowledge regarding this book would increase greatly at the close of Earth’s history. New light is shining on us in this critical time and we would do well to heed the admonition we have been given:

“We shall not be accepted and honoured of God in doing the same work that our fathers did. We do not occupy the position which they occupied in the unfolding of truth. In order to be accepted and honoured as they were, we must improve the light which shines upon us, as they improved that which shone upon them; we must do as they would have done, had they lived in our day. Luther and the Wesleys were reformers in their time [as was William Miller]. It is our duty to continue the work of reform. If we neglect to heed the light, it will become darkness; and the degree of darkness will be proportionate to the light rejected. The prophet of God declares that in the last days knowledge shall be increased. There are new truths to be revealed to the humble seeker. The teachings of God's word are to be freed from the errors and superstition with which they have been encumbered. Doctrines that are not sanctioned by the Scriptures have been widely taught, and many have honestly accepted them; but when the truth is revealed, it becomes the duty of every one to accept it” (4SG, 186.2).

‍
‍
_______________________________
‍
¹   The “1844 Great Disappointment” refers to the profound disillusionment experienced by followers of William Miller, a Baptist preacher in the United States. Miller predicted that Jesus Christ would return to Earth on October 22, 1844, based on his interpretation of biblical prophecy, particularly in the Book of Daniel. The movement was a very significant global phenomenon. When the anticipated advent did not occur, it led to widespread disappointment among the Millerites and significantly impacted the georeligious landscape, leading to the formation of some new and markedly diverse religious movements including:
• Bahá’í Faith (1844) - Founded by the Báb in Persia, marking the beginning of their “Bahá’í era”.
• Seventh-day Adventist Church (officially organised in 1863) - Emerged from the Millerite movement in the US.
• The Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Science) (1879) - Founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the US.
• Salvation Army (1865) - Established by William and Catherine Booth in London, focusing on temperance, social welfare and evangelistic work.
• Jehovah’s Witnesses (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1870s) - Founded by Charles Taze Russell in the US, with distinct doctrines on biblical interpretation.
• Pentecostal Movement (early 1900s) - Emerged from revival meetings, notably the Azusa Street Revival in 1906, emphasising spiritual gifts.

These movements reflect a period of religious revival, social change, and new interpretations of faith. Among them only the Seventh-day Adventists retained their confidence in the integrity of Daniel’s prophecies, seeking only a better understanding of their intended meaning.
‍
²   King Clovis I converted from Paganism to “Christianity” on the 25th December 496 AD — not 508 or 509 AD. “Nicene Christianity” refers to the form of Christianity that adheres to the Nicene Creed, established at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This creed is foundational to the core beliefs of many Christian denominations, including Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestant churches, Roman Catholicism being but one among them. Nicene Christianity itself is much broader than merely Roman Catholicism.

³   The reference to “1260 days” in Daniel 7 was retained but not conflated with the same number found in Daniel 12. See Pros/Cons.

The work of Franklin S Fowler Jr MD, “Scripture’s Most Important ‘Time’ Prophecies: A Commentary on Daniel 12 (Jan 2025)”, is acknowledged as a valuable resource in the formulation of this History.


‍
HOME


‍



‍