Today, Historicism stands as the sole eschatological framework with a robustly established credibility, particularly in the face of objections from Futurism, Preterism and, increasingly, Idealism.* Unsurprisingly, many academics, pastors and evangelists are profoundly invested in it. Consequently the proposition that the 1260-day period of Daniel 12:7 is not the same as that of Daniel 7:25, can be very hard for some to even so much as fleetingly consider. It feels far too daunting, particularly when Ellen White seems to categorically endorse the application of Historicism’s “Year-for-a-Day” principle or code (YFD to all the time prophecies of Daniel 12 with these words:
“ ‘Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.’ And, says the prophet, “I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death.” And again: “He that leads into captivity shall go into captivity: he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.”
The forty and two months [Revelation 13:5]
are the same as the ‘time and times and the dividing of time’, three years and a half, or 1260 days, of Daniel 7—the time during which the papal power was to oppress God's people. 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 leads into captivity shall go into captivity’ ” (Great Controversy 439.2).
Well, that all seems clear enough.
But, Ellen White also wrote trenchant words that appear to flatly contradict the above:
“In the Scriptures are presented truths that relate especially to our own time [penned 39 years beyond 1844].
To the period just prior to the appearing of the Son of man, the prophecies of the scripture point, and here their warnings and threatenings pre-eminently apply. The prophetic periods of Daniel, extending to the very eve of the consummation, throw a flood of light upon events then to transpire” (The Review and Herald, E G White, September 25, 1883).
The first statement (GC) has the “days” of Revelation 13:5 as years, ending in 1798. The second statement (R&H), written 25 years later, makes it clear that the time periods of Daniel 12 extend beyond 1844 to the end of this world’s history and thus cannot be “years”. Which is correct? Can the two statements be reconciled? Should we simply walk away from it all as so many people have, because it feels too hard, even destabilising?
Jesus emphasised the need for us to “Take heed” of what he said to Daniel (Matthew 24:15, 42-44). So we cannot with impunity ignore it. Neither can we cling tenaciously to a view that is manifestly inadequate, albeit insisted upon by some “ancient men on the temple steps”.
We appear to have a conundrum.
And a solution:
[A] White confirms the “1260 days” of Daniel 7:25 (specifically), and the “1260 days” of Revelation 13:5 (specifically) both refer to the same period of papal persecution between the years 538 and 1798, and
[B] The “days” are symbols for literal years as understood by Historicism’s YDP.
However, she does NOT say the “1260 days” of
Daniel 12:7 refer to the same period of time as
[A]. That has merely been uncritically supposed. In fact she does not discuss the 1260 days of Daniel 12:7 at all—only Daniel 7:25. There are actually seven references to 1260 days in Scripture, but none other of these is included in her ‘GC-439.2 statement’. She confines herself
specifically to
Revelation 13 and
Daniel 7 in the above Great Controversy quotation.
Thus the seemingly contradictory statements (‘GC-439.2’ and the ‘R&H’ quote) are actually perfectly congruent within Ellen White’s ambit of discussion and, importantly, do not confute the understanding that the “1260” of Daniel 12:7 are not “years” but literal “days” extending beyond 1844 “to the very eve of the consummation”. Correctly understood, then, the ‘GC-439.2’ statement, far from being the hoped-for
coup de grâce wielded by some assertive detractors, fully accords with, and actually adds weight to, the thesis of the book, “1335 Days”.
The Irish Anglican bishop, William Connor Magee, famously quipped, “The man who never made a mistake never made anything”. White, herself, was obliged to relinquish fundamental positions as clearer light became available. For example, she once supported the ‘shut door’ theory, believing that after 1844 salvation was no longer available to those who had not accepted the Millerite message. However, in 1848, she had a vision showing that the ‘shut door’ referred to the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, not to probationary time on Earth, indicating the door to salvation remained ‘open’. James and Ellen White both kept Sunday believing it to be God’s true Sabbath until Rachel Oakes Preston, a Seventh-day Baptist, influenced Captain Joseph Bates’ thinking and he in turn convinced the early Adventists that the seventh day of the week has always been “the Sabbath of the Lord your God”.
Along with hers, our understanding of truth must always be progressive. This is particularly pertinent to issues that have been specifically “sealed” until the end of time.
And then is exactly when we must understand them: ”Truth is ever unfolding” (Testimonies, volume 5, page 703, [1892])
. “Light…truth is progressive” (Manuscript Releases, volume 13, page 15, [1895]). She made both these observations long after 1844. Commenting on the mighty work of Martin Luther, she had this to say, “The Reformation did not, as many suppose, end with Luther. It is to be continued to the close of this world's history. Luther had a great work to do in reflecting to others the light which God had permitted to shine upon him; yet he did not receive all the light which was to be given to the world.
From that time to this, new light has been continually shining upon the Scriptures, and new truths have been constantly unfolding” (4SP 123.1). Truth, vital to specific times, has lain unseen in the very same, familiar pages, until the time is ripe.
Truth is, we will never understand Daniel chapter 12 with minds closed to “unfolding truth”.
The “wise”, however, will understand.
The master key to the otherwise-unsolvable enigma of the 1335 days lies in recognising that all the events described from Daniel 11:40 to 12:13, without exception,
happen at the end of time. It simply isn’t possible to understand these time periods as being fulfilled prior to 1844 without violating Daniel’s record and Jesus’ own words. Most objectors studiously avoid addressing this fundamental fact and seek, what are really trivial and highly-nuanced issues, to distract attention away from the proverbial “elephant in the room”.
In seeking to evade the pachyderm some have tried to redefine the “end of time” to mean, “long ago”, feeling free to place it well over two centuries (227 years) in the past — a triumph of wishful thinking also employed by Preterists to skirt inconvenient facts. The
History of the 1335 Days is enlightening in this respect. It shows how two followers of William Miller, Charles Fitch and Apollos Hale, had believed “the time of the end” was the 45 days/years between 1798 and 1843. Because the Millerites had at first concluded Jesus was to appear in 1843 they surmised the period in which they were living and anticipating the fulfilment of their fond hopes, must surely be the Time of the End. They produced an exceedingly complex prophetic chart in support of their convictions. Notwithstanding the Great Disappointment, many dyed-in-the-wool supporters of the Accepted Position today still rely on the Fitch-Hale chart’s long-discredited assumptions. The flock follows contentedly along, “thinking other men’s thoughts after them”. A later chart (1850), with both James and Ellen White’s involvement, removed any reference to the time prophecies of Daniel chapter 12 because they conceded their application was future (since God’s hand at that time was evidently still “covering a mistake in some of the figures” and would be removed at the appropriate time in the future). “But the path of the righteous is like the bright morning light, growing brighter and brighter until the full light of day” (Proverbs 4:18).
It is helpful to assess the weight of objective evidence with authentic candour wherever there appears to be some ambiguity in inspired writings. We should stand back and disinterestedly re-examine the Big Picture to see how the
detail fits into it—not the other way around.
And be truly charitable to those who disagree with you. “Time will tell.” Unequivocally.
In the interests of complete candour, see a comprehensive defence of the “Accepted Position”
here.
—————————————————
* The system of eschatology known as Idealism is attributed to the early Christian theologian Origen of Alexandria, later developed by Augustine of Hippo. Enjoying something of a renaissance lately, Idealism interprets the prophecies in the book of Revelation, in particular, as symbolic representations of “timeless spiritual truths” rather than specific historical events, past, present, or future, focussing rather on “evil’s” ongoing struggle with “good” (if an abstract concept is able to struggle), the triumph of divine principles, and moral lessons applicable across all eras. While Historicism links prophecies to historical events unfolding over time, Futurism postulates selected future events, and Preterism sees them as events already fulfilled in the past, Idealism offers a soft, allegorical and less confronting approach to eschatology. Hence its growing popularity with those for whom the “plain, unvarnished truth is unacceptable”.
HOME