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 of Dec. 28, 1850, Josiah Litch remarks as follows:S23D 30.1

“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.S23D 30.2

*‘God is his own interpreter, and he will make it plain.’ “**S23D 30.3

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 inclosed in brackets:S23D 30.4

“In your ‘chronology’ the cross is placed A.D. 31. What are the principal 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.]S23D 30.5

“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.S23D 31.1

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 Opponents,” answer:S23D 31.2

“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”.-Signs of the Times, 1843.S23D 31.3

“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.S23D 31.4

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:S23D 31.5

“The second point to be settled, in explaining the text [Daniel 9:24], is to show what vision it is which the 70 weeks are said to seal. And it should be understood 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.S23D 31.6

Then the act of those who deny the connection of the 70 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:S23D 32.1

“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.S23D 32.2

“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.S23D 32.3

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 the 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.S23D 33.1

THERE ARE TWO “DESOLATIONS” IN Daniel 8.-This fact is made so plain by Josiah Litch that we present his words:S23D 33.2

” ‘The daily sacrifice’ is the present reading of the English text. But no such thing as sacrifice is found in the original. This is acknowledged on all hands. It is a gloss or construction put on it by the translators. The true reading is, ‘the daily and the transgression of desolation,’ daily and transgression being connected together by ‘and;’ the daily desolation and the transgression of desolation. They are two desolating powers, which were to desolate the sanctuary and the host.”-Prophetic Expositions, Vol. i, page 127.S23D 33.3

It is plain that the sanctuary and the host were to be trodden under foot by the daily and the transgression of desolation. The careful reading of verse 13 settles this point. And this fact establishes another, viz.: that these two desolations are the two grand forms under which Satan has attempted to overthrow the worship and the cause of Jehovah. Mr. Miller’s remarks on the meaning of these two terms, and the course pursued by himself in ascertaining that meaning, is presented under the following head:S23D 33.4