The following writing comes from an article originally written by J.N. Andrews in the December 23 edition of the 1852 Review and Herald publication. It is was Part 1 of a series titled “The Sanctuary.”
Psalm 77:13 says “Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary.” A proper understanding of the heavenly sanctuary and the ministration of Jesus Christ, our Great High Priest,1 should be a matter of great importance to all Christians.
In Part 1, Andrews focuses on establishing the true prophetic fulfilments of the powers in Daniel 8, and links the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 with the 2300 days prophecy of Daniel 8.
Join us during the coming weeks with this series on “The Sanctuary” as we seek to restore truth to its proper place.
God Bless,
Charles
ORIGINAL WRITING
(Any bolding of text has been added by me and is not part of the original writing)
THE SANCTUARY
BY J. N. ANDREWS
IN presenting this most important subject to the consideration of the people of God, we bespeak the candid and prayerful attention of all who have ears to hear. It is well understood by thousands, that the great disappointment of the Advent believers, arose from the fact that they believed the cleansing of the sanctuary to be the burning of the earth, or some event to transpire at the second Advent of the Lord Jesus; and as they could clearly establish the fact that the 2300 days would terminate in the seventh month 1844, they looked with the full assurance of faith and hope, for the glorious appearing of the Son of God at that time. Painful and grievous was the disappointment; and while the heart of the trusting was bowed with sorrow, numbers were not wanting who openly denied the hand of God in the Advent movement, and made utter shipwreck of their faith.
As the subject of the sanctuary of the Bible involves the most important facts connected with our disappointment, it is worthy of the serious attention of all who wait the consolation of Israel. Let us then examine again with care, the vision of the man greatly beloved, recorded in Daniel 8. We call attention to the symbols presented in this chapter. The first thing presented to the eye of the prophet, was the
[SCRIPTURES]
VIEW OF THE RAM
“Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and behold, there stood before the river, a ram which had two horns; and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great.”Daniel 8:3-4
VIEW OF THE GOAT
“And as I was considering, behold an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great; and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.” Daniel 8:5-8
VIEW OF THE LITTLE HORN
“And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.”Daniel 8:9-12
VIEW OF THE SANCTUARY AND 2300 DAYS
“Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto 2300 days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”Daniel 8:13-14
GABRIEL COMMANDED TO EXPLAIN THIS VISION
“And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then behold there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face; but he said unto me, Understand O son of man; for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground; but he touched me, and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation; for at the time appointed the end shall be.”Daniel 8:15-19
[EXPLANATIONS OF POWERS]
SYMBOL OF THE RAM EXPLAINED
“The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media and Persia.” Daniel 8:20
Then the meaning of the first symbol cannot be misunderstood. By it, the Medo-Persian empire was presented to the eye of the prophet. Its two horns denoting the union of these two powers in one government. This vision, therefore, does not begin with the empire of Babylon, as do the visions of the second and seventh chapters, but it commences with the empire of the Medes and Persians at the height of its power, prevailing westward, northward and southward, so that no power could stand before it. The explanation of the next symbol will show what power overthrew the Persian empire and succeeded to its place.
SYMBOL OF THE GOAT EXPLAINED
“And the rough goat is the king of Grecia; and the great horn that is between his eyes, is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.” Daniel 8:21-22
The explanation of this symbol is also definite and certain. The power that should overthrow the Medes and Persians, and in their stead, bear rule over the earth, is the empire of the Greeks. Greece succeeded Persia in the dominion of the world B.C. 331.
THE GREAT HORN** is here explained to be the first king of Grecia; it was Alexander the great.
THE FOUR HORNS** that arose when this horn was broken, denote the four kingdoms into which the empire of Alexander was divided after his death. - The same was represented by the four heads and four wings of the leopard.2 It is predicted without the use of symbols in Daniel 11:3-4. These four kingdoms were Macedon, Thrace, Syria and Egypt. They originated B.C. 312.
SYMBOL OF THE LITTLE HORN EXPLAINED
“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy, also, he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.”Daniel 8:23-25
To avoid the application of this prophecy to the Roman power, Pagan and Papal, the Papists have shifted it from Rome to Antiochus Epiphanes, a Syrian king who could not resist the mandates of Rome. See notes of the Douay [Romish] Bible on Daniel 7; 8; 11. This application is made by the Papists, to save their church from any share in the fulfillment of the prophecy; and in this, they have been followed by the mass of opposers to the Advent faith. The following facts show that
THE LITTLE HORN WAS NOT ANTIOCHUS
The four kingdoms into which the dominion of Alexander was divided, are symbolized by the four horns of the goat. Now this Antiochus was but one of the twenty-five kings that constituted the Syrian horn. How, then, could he, at the same time, be another remarkable horn?
The ram, according to this vision, became great; the goat waxed very great; but the little horn became exceeding great. How absurd and ludicrous is the following application of this comparison:
Great [→] Very Great [→]Exceeding Great
Persia [→] GRECIA [→] ANTIOCHUS
How easy and natural is the following:
Great [→] Very Great [→] Exceeding Great
Persia [→] GRECIA [→] ROME
The Medo-Persian empire is simply called great.3 The Bible informs us that it extended “from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred seven and twenty provinces.”4 This was succeeded by the Grecian power, which is called VERY GREAT.5 Then comes the power in question which is called EXCEEDING GREAT.6Was Antiochus exceeding great when compared with Alexander, the conqueror of the world? Let an item from the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge answer:
“Finding his resources exhausted, he resolved to go into Persia, to levy tributes and collect large sums which he had AGREED TO PAY TO THE ROMANS.”
Surely we need not question which was exceeding great, the Roman power which exacted the tribute, or Antiochus who was compelled to pay it.
The power in question was “little” at first, but it waxed or grew “exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” What can this describe but the conquering marches of a mighty power? Rome was almost directly northwest from Jerusalem, and its conquests in Asia and Africa were, of course, towards the east and south; but where were Antiochus’ conquest? He came into possession of a kingdom already established, and Sir Isaac Newton says, “He did not enlarge it.”
Out of many reasons that might be added to the above we name but one. This power was to stand up against the Prince of princes.7 The Prince of princes is Jesus Christ.8 But Antiochus died 164 years before our Lord was born. It is settled, therefore, that another power is the subject of this prophecy. The following facts demonstrate that
ROME IS THE POWER IN QUESTION
This power was to come forth from one of the four kingdoms of Alexander’s empire. Let us remember that nations are not brought into prophecy, till somehow connected with the people of God. Rome had been in existence many years before it was noticed in prophecy; and Rome had made Macedon, one of the four horns of the Grecian goat, a part of itself B. C. 168, about ten years before its first connection with the people of God. See 1Mac.viii. So that Rome could as truly be said to be “out of one of them,” as the ten horns of the fourth beast in the seventh chapter, could be said to come out of that beast, when they were ten kingdoms set up by the conquerors of Rome.
It was to wax exceeding great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. [Palestine.9] This was true of Rome in every particular. Witness its conquests in Africa and Asia, and its overthrow of the place and nation of the Jews.10
It was to cast down of the host and of the stars. This is predicted respecting the dragon.11 All admit that the dragon was Rome. Who can fail to see their identity?
Rome was emphatically a king of fierce countenance, and one that did understand dark sentences. Moses used similar language, when as all agree, he predicted the Roman power.12
Rome did destroy wonderfully. Witness its overthrow of all opposing powers.
Rome has destroyed more of “the mighty and the holy people,” than all other persecuting powers combined. From fifty to one hundred millions of the church have been slain by it.
Rome did stand up against the Prince of princes. The Roman power nailed Jesus Christ to the cross.13
This power is to “be broken without hand.” How clear the reference to the stone “cut out without hand” that smote the image.14Its destruction then does not take place until the final overthrow of earthly power. These facts are conclusive proof that Rome is the subject of this prophecy. For an extended notice, see Advent Library, No. 33.
THE FIELD OF VISION,** then, is the empires of Persia, Greece and Rome.
That part of the vision that now engages our attention is the time - the reckoning of the 2300 days.
[EXPLANATIONS OF TIME]
THE 2300 DAYS NOT EXPLAINED IN Daniel 8
Gabriel did explain to Daniel what was meant by the symbols of the beasts and of the horns, but did not in this vision explain to him the 2300 days and the sanctuary. Hence, Daniel tells us at the end of the chapter that he “was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.” But there are several facts that will give us some light on this matter.
It is a fact that 2300 literal days [not quite seven years] would not cover the duration of a single power in this prophecy, much less extend over them all. Therefore, the days must be symbols, even as the beast and horns are shown to be symbols.
It is a fact, that a symbolic or prophetic day is one year.15 Hence, the period is 2300 years.
It must begin with “the vision;” consequently it commences in the height of the Medo-Persian power.
But the angel has not yet explained the “manner of time,” or given its date to the prophet. If Gabriel never did explain this subject to Daniel, he is a fallen angel; for he was commanded in plain terms thus to do.16 But he is not a fallen angel as appears from the fact that some hundred years after this, he was sent by Jehovah to Zacharias and to Mary.17 Gabriel did explain to Daniel at that time more than he could bear,18 and at a later period, as we shall now show, he did make Daniel understand the vision.
GABRIEL EXPLAINS IN Daniel 9 WHAT HE OMITTED IN Daniel 8
As we have seen, the charge had been given to Gabriel to make Daniel understand the vision.19 But in the last verse of the chapter we learn that “none understood” the vision. This must refer particularly to the 2300 days, and to the sanctuary, as the other parts of the vision had been clearly explained.
But in the first verse of chapter 1020 he informs us that a thing was revealed to him; “and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long; and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.” Hence, it is evident that between chapters 8 and 10,21 he must have obtained the desired understanding of the time. In other words the explanation must be found in chapter 9.22
Daniel 9 commences with the earnest, importunate prayer of the prophet, from the reading of which it is evident that he had so far misunderstood the vision of chapter 8,23 that he concluded that the 2300 days of treading under foot the sanctuary would terminate with the 70 years desolation of the city and sanctuary predicted by Jeremiah. Compare verses 1 and 224 with verses 16 and 17.25 The man Gabriel is now sent to undeceive him, and to complete the explanation of the vision.
“While I was speaking in prayer,” says Daniel, “even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, [here he cites us back to chapter 8:15,26] being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.” Daniel 9:21-23.
Note these facts:
In verse 21,27 Daniel cites us to the vision of chapter 8.28
In verse 22,29 Gabriel states that he had come to give Daniel skill and understanding. This being the object of Gabriel’s mission, Daniel, who at the close of chapter 830 did not understand the vision, may, ere Gabriel leaves him, fully understand its import.
As Daniel testifies at the close of chapter 831 that none understood the vision, it is certain that the charge given to Gabriel, “Make this man to understand the vision,” still rested upon him. - Hence it is that he tells Daniel, “I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding,” and in Daniel 9:23 commands him to “understand the matter and to consider the vision.” This is undeniable proof that Gabriel’s mission in chapter 9,32 was for the purpose of explaining what he omitted in chapter 8.33 If any ask further evidence, the fact that Gabriel proceeds to explain the very point in question, most fully meets the request. That he does do this, we will now show.
GABRIEL’S EXPLANATION OF THE TIME
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three-score and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after three-score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Daniel 9:24-27.
“DETERMINED” IN VERSE 24, MEANS CUT OFF.
“‘Seventy weeks are determined,’ literally ‘cut off.’ The Hebraists all admit that the word determined, in our English version, does signify ‘cut off.’ Not one has disputed it.”
Josiah Litch. Midnight Cry, Vol. IV, No. 25.
“Thus Chaldaic and Rabbinical authority, and that of the earliest versions, the Septuagint and Vulgate, give the single signification of ‘cutting off’ to this verb. Should it be inquired why a tropical sense has been attributed to it, such as ‘determining’ or ‘decreeing,’ it may be answered that the reference of the verse (in which it occurs) to Daniel 8:14, was unobserved. It was therefore supposed that there was no propriety in saying ‘seventy weeks are cut off,’ when there was no other period of which they could have formed a portion. But as the period of 2300 days is first given, and verses 21 and 23, compared with Daniel 8:16, show that the ninth chapter furnishes an explanation of the vision in which Gabriel appeared to Daniel, and of the ‘matter’ (the commencement of the 2300 days) - the literal (or rather, to speak properly, the only) signification demanded by the subject matter, is that of ‘cut off.’”
Prof. Whiting. Midnight Cry, Vol. IV, No. 17.
“Seventy weeks have been cut off upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sin-offerings, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.” Daniel 9:24. Whiting’s Translation.
The facts which are set before us in the above, from Litch and Whiting, should not be forgotten.
The word rendered “determined,”34 literally signifies “cut off.”
“The vision” which Gabriel came to explain, contained the period of 2300 days; and in the explanation he tells us that “seventy weeks have been cut off” upon Jerusalem and the Jews. This is a demonstration that the seventy weeks are a part of the 2300 days. Hence the commencement of the seventy weeks is the date of the 2300 days. And the fact that the seventy weeks were fulfilled in 490 years, as all admit, is a demonstration that the 2300 days from which this period of 490 days was cut off, is 2300 years.
THE ANGEL’S DATE OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS
We have seen that the seventy weeks are cut off from the 2300 days. Hence, when the date of the seventy weeks is established, the key to unlock and understand the reckoning of the days is in our hand. The date for the commencement of the weeks is thus given by Gabriel:
“Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and three-score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” Daniel 9:25.
[ADVENT HERALD QUOTES]
We present the following important testimony from the Advent Herald. It is a calm, dispassionate vindication of the original dates, which establishes them beyond dispute. It was written in the years 1850 and 1851; and, consequently, cannot be supposed to be given with a desire to prove that the days ended in 1844, as the Herald is not willing to admit that fact. Therefore it must be regarded as candid and honorable testimony to important facts. That it demolishes every view which has been put forth to re-adjust the 2300 days, no one, who can appreciate the force of the arguments presented, will fail to perceive. For further testimony, the reader is cited to a very valuable work by S. Bliss, entitled, “Analysis of Sacred Chronology.” The Herald speaks as follows:
“The Bible gives the data for a complete system of chronology, extending from the creation to the birth of Cyrus, a clearly ascertained date. From this period downwards we have the undisputed Canon of Ptolemy and the undoubted era of Nabonassar, extending below our vulgar era. At the point where inspired chronology leaves us, this Canon of undoubted accuracy commences. And thus the whole arch is spanned. It is by the Canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period of seventy weeks is fixed. This Canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B.C. 457; and the accuracy of the Canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. - The seventy weeks date from the going forth of a decree respecting the restoration of Jerusalem. - There were no decrees between the seventh and twentieth years of Artaxerxes. Four hundred and ninety years, beginning with the seventh, must commence in B.C. 457, and end in A.D. 34. - Commencing in the twentieth, they must commence in before B.C. 444, and end in A.D. 47. As no event occurred in A. D. 47 to mark their termination, we cannot reckon from the twentieth; we must, therefore, look to the seventh of Artaxerxes. This date we cannot change from B.C. 457 without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy’s Canon. To do this, it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guesswork. As the seventy weeks must terminate in A.D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we inquire, What evidence marked that termination? The time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than any other which has been named. And the crucifixion, in A.D. 31, in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony which cannot be easily invalidated.”
Advent Herald, March 2, 1850.
“The Saviour attended but four passovers, at the last of which he was crucified. This could not bring the crucifixion later than A.D. 31, as is recorded by Aurelius Cassiodorius, a respectable Roman Senator, about A. D. 514: ‘In the consulate of Tiberius Caesar Aug. V. and AElius Sejanus, [U.C. 784, A.D. 31,] our Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the eighth of the Calends of April.’ In this year, and in this day, says Dr. Hales, agree also the Council of Caesarea, A.D. 196, or 198, the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monarchus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus; and in this year, but on different days, concur Eusebius and Epiphaneus, followed by Kebler, Bucher, Patinus, and Petavious.”
Advent Herald. August 24, 1850.
“There are certain chronological points which have been settled as fixed; and before the seventy weeks can be made to terminate at a later period, those must be unsettled, by being shown to have been fixed on wrong principles; and a new date must be assigned for their commencement based on better principles. Now, that the commencement of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus was B.C. 464-3, is demonstrated by the agreement of above twenty eclipses, which have been repeatedly calculated, and have invariably been found to fall in the times specified. Before it can be shown that the commencement of his reign is wrongly fixed, it must first be shown that those eclipses have all been wrongly calculated. This no one has done, or ever will venture to do. Consequently the commencement of his reign cannot be removed from that point.
The seventy weeks must date from some decree for the restoration of Jerusalem. Only two events are named in the reign of Artaxerxes for the commencement of those weeks. The one is the decree of the seventh year of his reign, and the other, that of the twentieth. From one of these, those four hundred and ninety years must reckon. As his reign began B.C. 464-3, his seventh year must have been B.C. 458-7; and his twentieth, B.C. 445-4. If the seventy weeks date from the former, they cannot terminate later than A.D. 34; and if from the latter, they cannot have terminated earlier than A.D. 46-7.
In addition to the above, sixty-nine of the seventy were to extend to the Messiah the Prince. It does not read that they are to terminate when he is called the Prince, or that he is to begin to be the Prince when they terminate. They were to extend to the MESSIAH - the words, the Prince, being added to show who was signified by the Messiah. Sixty-nine weeks of years are four hundred and eighty-three years. Beginning these with the seventh of Artaxerxes, they extend to A.D. 26-7: dating from the twentieth, they terminate in A.D. 39-40. Was there anything in either of those years which would make the words, ‘unto the Messiah the Prince,’ appropriate? When Jesus was baptized of John in Jordan, a voice was heard from heaven, acknowledging the Saviour as the Son of God, in whom the Father was well pleased. Consequently he was ‘the Messiah the Prince,’ whose coming had been predicted. With that baptism, the Saviour commenced the work of his public ministry - the Messiah the Prince had then come, as it was predicted he should at the end of the sixty-nine weeks. When he was acknowledged as the Son of God - the Messiah - he went into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled.’ The time then fulfilled, must have been some predicted period. There was no predicted period which could then terminate but the sixty-nine, or seventy weeks. Did either of these then terminate? We have seen that the former, reckoned from the seventh of Artaxerxes, as it is fixed by astronomical calculations, would end in A.D. 26-7; and A.D. 27 we find is the precise point of time when the Saviour must have been about thirty years of age, when he was baptized of John, and declared the time fulfilled. At the first passover the Saviour attended, which could not have been later than the Spring of his second year, the Jews told him that the temple had then been forty-six years in building: reckoning back forty-six yearsfrom A.D. 28, they beganB.C. 19, which is the precise year when Herod began the work of rebuilding the temple. From the eclipse which marked the death of Herod, before which the Saviour had been born, his birth could not have been later than B.C. 4, which would make him about thirty at the very time of his baptism of John. - Such a concurrence of chronological, astronomical, and historical testimony, can only be set aside by testimony still more conclusive.
Your argument that he was not called a prince till after his crucifixion is of no weight; for the Jews could not have crucified ‘the Prince of life,’ as Peter accused them, if he was not the Prince of life till after his crucifixion. Nor is your argument respecting the midst of the week any more to the point. Your criticism has respect only to the English word midst. If you wish to show that it does not mean middle in the present case, you must first show that the Hebrew word chatzi, which is here translated midst, from the verb chatzah, has no such meaning; and that its verb has not ‘a special signification of dividing into two parts, or to halve;’ and that it has not ‘a general sense of dividing into any number of equal parts,’ as Hebraists tell us it has. Till you show this, you make no progress whatever towards proving that it does not mean ‘middle.’—But what was to occur in the midst of the week? The ‘sacrifice and oblation’ were then to cease.—Those Jewish ordinances could only cease actually or virtually. They did not actually cease till A.D. 70. They ceased virtually only at the crucifixion:they then ceased to foreshadow the sacrifice then offered. Was that in the midst of the week? 3½ years from A.D. 27 bring us to the Spring of A.D. 31, where Dr. Hales has demonstrated the crucifixion took place. The week during which the covenant was confirmed, was that in the ‘midst’ of which the sacrifice and oblation virtually ceased. Consequently it could not extend beyond A.D. 34—the latest time to which seventy weeks from the seventh of Artaxerxes Longimanus could reach.”
Advent Herald, Feb. 15, 1851.
“Eusebius dates the first half of the Passion Week of years as beginning with our Lord’s baptism, and ending with his crucifixion. The same period precisely is recorded by Peter, as including our Lord’s personal ministry: ‘All the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of [or by] John, until the day that he was taken up from us,’ at his ascension, which was only forty-three days after the crucifixion.35 And the remaining half of the Passion Week ended with the martyrdom of Stephen, in the seventh, or last year of the week. For it is remarkable, that the year after, A.D. 35, began a new era in the church, namely, the conversion of Saul, or Paul, the Apostle, by the personal appearance of Christ to him on the road to Damascus, when he received his mission to the Gentiles, after the Jewish Sanhedrin had formerly rejected Christ by persecuting his disciples.36 And the remainder of the Acts principally records the circumstances of his mission to the Gentiles, and the churches he founded among them.”
Dr. Hales, as quoted in the Advent Herald, March 2, 1850.
The foregoing testimony from the Herald establishes the following important points:
The decree referred to in Daniel 9, from which the 70 weeks are dated, is the decree of the seventh of Artaxerxes, and not that of his twentieth year.37 And to this point we deem it duty to append an extract from Prof. Whiting:
“We are informed in Ezra 7:11, ‘Now this is the copy of the letter that king Artaxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of his statutes to Israel.’ The letter then follows, written not in Hebrew, but in Chaldaic (or the Eastern Aramaic) the language then used at Babylon. At the 27th verse, the narrative proceeds in Hebrew. We are thus furnished with the original document, by virtue of which Ezra was authorized to ‘restore and build Jerusalem;’ or, in other words, by which he was clothed with power, not merely to erect walls or houses, but regulate the affairs of his countrymen in general, to ‘set magistrates and judges which may judge all the people beyond the river.’ He was commissioned to enforce the observance of the laws of his God, and to punish those who transgressed, with death, banishment, confiscation or imprisonment. See verses 23-27.38 No grant of powers thus ample, can be found in the case of Nehemiah, or in any other instance after the captivity. That the commission given to Ezra authorized him to proceed in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, is evident from the fact that in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah, who was then in the Persian court, received information that ‘the remnant who were left of the captivity, then in the province, were in great affliction and reproach; the wall of Jerusalem was broken down, and the gates thereof burned with fire.’ See Nehemiah 1:1-3. The fact is, that Ezra and his associates met with continued opposition from the Samaritans, so that during the whole of the seven weeks, or forty-nine years from the time that Ezra went up, to the last act of Nehemiah in obliging the Jews to put away their strange wives, the prediction of the prophet was verified - ‘the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times.’ After Nehemiah reached Jerusalem, he examined the city by night. The result of his examination is thus stated, Nehemiah 2:13, ‘And I went out by night, by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon-well, and to the dung-port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.’ It is evident that ‘the walls and gates’ which had been destroyed, were the works of Ezra. The impropriety of referring the language of Nehemiah to the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar will be seen at once, if we recollect that he reduced it to ruins on the capture of Zedekiah, B.C. 588, one hundred and forty-four years previous to the time when Nehemiah went up to Jerusalem.”
Advent Shield, No. I. Article, Prophetic Chronology, pages 105-6.
That Ezra understood that power was conferred upon himself, and upon the people of Israel, to rebuild the street of Jerusalem and the wall, is certain from his own testimony recorded in chapter 9:9.39
The second point in the evidence which the Herald has adduced, is this: the seventh year of Artaxerxes from which the decree is dated, is fixed beyond dispute in B.C. 457.
The commencement of Christ’s ministry in A.D. 27 is clearly established, being just 69 weeks, or 483 prophetic days from the decree in B.C. 457.
The crucifixion in the midst of the week is proved to have occurred in the Spring of A.D. 31, just three and a half years from the commencement of Christ’s ministry.
And it further demonstrates that the remaining three and a half years of the seventieth week, ended in the Autumn of A.D. 34. Here the seventy weeks, which had been cut off upon the Jews, in which they were “to finish the transgression,” close with the Jewish Sanhedrin act of formally rejecting Christ by persecuting his disciples, and God gives the great Apostle to the Gentiles his commission to them.40
These important dates are clearly and unequivocally established by historical, chronological and astronomical testimony. Sixty-nine of the 70 weeks from the decree in B.C. 457, ended in A.D. 27, when our Lord was baptized, and began to preach, saying, “The time is fulfilled.”41 Three and a half years from this, brings us to the midst of the week in A.D. 31, where it is demonstrated that our Lord was crucified. Three and a half years from A.D. 31, the period of 70 weeks terminates in the Autumn of A.D. 34. Or to be more definite, the first three and a half years of the seventieth week ended in the first Jewish month [April] in the Spring of A.D. 31. The remaining three and a half years would therefore end in the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34.
Here then we stand at the end of the great period which Gabriel, in explaining the 2300 days to Daniel, tells him was cut off upon Jerusalem and the Jews. Its commencement, intermediate dates, and final termination are unequivocally established. It remains then to notice this one grand fact: the first 490 years of the 2300 ended in the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34. This period of 490 years being cut off from the 2300, a period 1810 years remains. This period of 1810 years being added to the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34, brings us to the seventh month, Autumn of 1844. And here, after every effort which has been made to remove the dates, all are compelled to let them stand. For a moment let us recur to the events of 1843 and 1844. Previous to the year 1843, the light on the going forth of the decree in B.C. 457 had been clearly and faithfully set forth. And as the period of 457 years before Christ, subtracted from the 2300, would leave but 1843 years after Christ, the end of the 2300 years was confidently expected in 1843. - But if the 2300 years began with the commencement of B. C. 457, they would not end till the last day of A.D. 1843, as it would require all of 457, and all of 1843, to make 2300 full years.
But at the close of 1843, it was clearly seen that as the crucifixion occurred in the midst of the week, in the Spring of A.D. 31, the remainder of the seventieth week, viz: three and a half years, would end in the Autumn of A.D. 34. And as the seventy weeks, or 490 years, end in the seventh month, Autumn of A.D. 34, it is a settled point that the days began, not in the Spring, with Ezra’s starting from Babylon, but in the Autumn, with the commencement of the work at Jerusalem.42 And this view, that the days begin with the actual commencement of the work, is much strengthened by the fact that the first seven weeks, or 49 years, are manifestly allotted to the work of restoration in “troublous times.” And that period could only begin with the actual commencement of the work.43
When it was seen that only 456 years and a fraction had expired before Christ, it was at once understood that 1843 years and a portion of 1844, sufficient to make up a full year when joined to that fraction, was required in order to make 2300 full years. In other words, the 2300 days in full time would expire in the seventh month 1844. And if we take into the account the fact that the midst of the seventieth week was the fourteenth day of the first month, and consequently the end of the seventy weeks must have been at a corresponding point in the seventh month A.D. 34, we are at once shown that the remainder of the 2300 days would end about that point in the seventh month 1844.
It was with this great fact before us, that the 2300 days of Daniel, which reached to the cleansing of the sanctuary, would terminate at that time, and also with the light of the types, that the high priest in “the example and shadow of heavenly things,” on the tenth day of the seventh month, entered within the second vail to cleanse the sanctuary, that we confidently expected the Advent of our Redeemer in the seventh month 1844. The prophecy said, “Then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” - The type said that at that season in the year the high priest should pass from the holy place of the earthly tabernacle to the most holy, to cleanse the sanctuary.44
With these facts before us we reasoned as follows: (1.) The sanctuary is the earth, or the land of Palestine. (2.) The cleansing of the sanctuary is the burning of the earth, or the purification of Palestine, at the coming of Christ. (3.) And hence, we concluded that our great High Priest would leave the tabernacle of God in heaven and descend in flaming fire, on the tenth day of the seventh month, in the Autumn of 1844.
It is needless to say that we were painfully disappointed. And, though the man does not live who can overthrow the chronological argument, which terminates the 2300 days at that time, or meet the mighty array of evidence by which it is fortified and sustained, yet multitudes, without stopping to inquire whether our conceptions of the sanctuary and of its cleansing were correct or not, have openly denied the agency of Jehovah in the Advent movement, and have pronounced it the work of man.
AN INEXPLICABLE POSITION
The position of those Adventists who have attempted to re-adjust the 2300 days, in order to extend them to some future period in which Palestine should be purified, or the earth be burned, has been, to say the least, extremely embarrassing. In the Herald for Dec. 28, 1850, Josiah Litch remarks as follows:
“Chronologically, the period is at an end, according to the best light to be obtained on the subject; and where the discrepancy is, I am unable to decide. But of this we shall know more in due time.
‘God is his own interpreter
And he will make it plain.’”
But not being able to longer maintain a position in denying the termination of the 2300 years in the past, while at the same time they were setting forth an unanswerable vindication of the original dates for the commencement of the period, the Herald has at last denied the connection between the 70 weeks and the 2300 days. We write this with deep regret. A correspondent asks the following questions, and the Editor of the Herald gives the answers which are enclosed in brackets:
“In your ‘Chronology’ the cross is placed A.D. 31. What are the principle objections which bear against its being placed in A.D. 39?
[Ans. 1. The absence of any evidence placing it there. 2. The contradiction of the wonderful astronomical, chronological, and historical coincidences which show beyond the shadow of controversy, that the seventh of Artaxerxes was in B.C. 457-8, that the birth of Christ was B.C. 4-5, that the thirtieth year of Christ was 483 years from the seventh of Artaxerxes, that the crucifixion was in A.D. 31, and that that was the point of time in the last week, when the sacrifice and oblation should cease.]
If the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 do not commence in the twentieth of Artaxerxes, how can the 2300 days begin at the same time with them, and yet terminate in the future?
[Ans. They cannot.]
Must we not henceforth consider that they have different starting points?
[Ans. - Yes.]”
Advent Herald, May 22, 1852
That this is a serious departure from the “original Advent faith,” let the following, which once formed a part of a standing notice in the Advent papers under the head of “points of difference between us and our opponent”, answer:
“We claim that the ninth of Daniel is an appendix to the eighth, and that the seventy weeks and the 2300 days or years commence together. Our opponents deny this.”
See Signs of the Times, 1843
“The grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, is, that the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24 are the first 490 days of the 2300, of the eighth chapter.”
Advent Shield, page 49. Article, The rise and progress of Adventism.
If it is not a serious defection from the original Advent faith to deny “the grand principle involved in the interpretation of the 2300 days of Daniel 8,” and in its place to take the position of “our opponents” then we greatly err. Hear the opinion of Apollos Hale in 1846:
“The second point to be settled, in explaining the text,45 is to show what vision it is which the seventy weeks are said to seal. And it should be understood that this involves one of the great questions which constitute the main pillars in our system of interpretation, so far as prophetic times are concerned. If the connection between the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and the 2300 days of Daniel 8, does not exist, the whole system is shaken to its foundation; if it does exist, as we suppose, the system must stand.”
Harmony of Prophetic Chronology, page 33.
Then the act of those who deny the connection of the seventy weeks and the 2300 days, is of a fearful character. It is a denial of “one of the main pillars in our system of interpretation so far as prophetic times are concerned. If the connection between the 70 weeks of Daniel 9, and the 2300 days of Daniel 8, does not exist, the whole system is shaken to its foundation.” And now reader will you listen to their reasons for denying the connection between those two periods, which as we have seen is fortified by a mass of direct testimony. They are as follows:
“We have no new light respecting the connection between the 70 weeks and 2300 days. The only argument against their connection is, the passing of the time. Why that has passed is a mystery to us, which we wait to have revealed.”
Advent Herald, Sept. 7, 1850
“Before 1843 we became satisfied of the validity of the arguments sustaining their connection and simultaneous commencement. There has nothing transpired to weaken the force of those arguments, but the passing of the time we expected for their termination. We now have no other fact to advance against their connection; and therefore can only wait for the mystery of the passing of time to be explained. But of the commencement and termination of the 70 weeks, we are satisfied that they cannot be removed from the position which Protestants have always assigned them.”
Advent Herald, Feb. 22, 1851
In its appropriate place, we offered conclusive testimony to prove the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days. And it is submitted to the reader’s judgment whether the reasons offered to disprove that connection are entitled to any weight or not. It will be seen that they grow out of the assumed correctness of the view that the earth, or land of Canaan is the sanctuary, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary is the burning of the earth, or the purification of Palestine at the coming of Christ. Before the reader adopts the conclusion that the 70 weeks, which Gabriel says were “cut off,” are no part of the great period contained in the vision which he was explaining to Daniel, we request him to follow us in the inquiry: What is the sanctuary, and how is it to be cleansed? This we shall presently follow out, and in doing it we may discover the cause of our disappointment.
