|
|
|
THE HISTORICAL METHOD
No revival nor exegesis is born in a vacuum. It would make a fascinating but difficult study to investigate the influence that certain historical events have had on the exposition of the Scriptures. Climactic historical occasions have boosted interest in Biblical prophecies. However, no historical circumstance can produce exegesis without creative minds, able to adapt the message of the Bible to a particular setting. But there is a context to Millerism which is far more important to his exegesis than the economic or sociological situation in which the revival brooded. This is the historical method of prophetic interpretation. Miller's concepts may well have been independent, but they were certainly not born without information on the conclusion and presuppositions that go with historicism.
3.1 Protestant apocalypticism
It is an interesting fact of church history that within Protestantism outbursts of millenarianism have occurred more frequently in the Reformed tradition than in the Lutheran one.1
Furthermore, within the Reformed field of influence millenarian revivals mainly sprung up in the Anglo-Saxon world, England and America. And, for some reason, early nineteenth century was one of the periods characterized by widespread millennialism.
These observations must, however, be taken with caution. It by no means follows that the Reformed doctrine and hermeneutic as such causes millenarianism, or that the national mentality and sociological circumstances in England and North America were uniquely suited for producing a harvest of apocalyptic revivalism. The true reasons for the appearance of millenarian expectations must, of course, be much more complex. After all there were several millennialist revivals in the Middle Ages without the aid of either the Reformed or Anglo-Saxon heritage.2
The exegetical method that most English or American exegetes used in their prophetic calculations between from late seventeenth to early nineteenth century is called the historical method. In this chapter this historicist tradition of prophetic interpretation is surveyed with references to Miller's exegesis.
3.2 From Reformation to American Biblicism
Millerite exegesis cannot be properly understood without some insight into the view of the Scriptures it employed. It is a little known fact of considerable significance that even in the best of American theological seminaries Francois Turrettini's dogmatics was used as a textbook in the first half of the nineteenth century.3 Turrettini's Biblicism dominated theological thought. People were brought up to believe that they were faithful followers of Luther and Calvin while they followed the methods of protestant orthodoxy. The Millerites were no exception. They had but little to say about the Reformation, but they did claim a share in the best of Protestant tradition.4
Superficially, Millerites, like any other group of American Protestants of the time, can indeed be linked with the Reformation. They certainly approved the Reformation slogans: faith in the sufficiency of the Scriptures; the Bible as its own interpreter, sacra Scriptura sui ipsius interpres, the perspicuity of the Bible, claritas sacrae Scriptuae.5 In fact such a connection is made. Miller's method is presented as one which is based solely on the principles of the Protestant Reformation.6
An excursus to Reformation hermeneutic serves two purposes. Firstly, it shows that the above-mentioned view in fact short circuits the background of Miller's hermeneutic with its partly unfounded claim on Miller's following the methods of the Reformation. Secondly, it gives a dimension which will make it easier to evaluate Miller's exegesis.
3.2.1 Reformation hermeneutic
The change of method after the Reformation can be seen clearly if Luther's and Calvin's main interpretative point is given. Luther's method was not one of rationalism, it was one of faith.7 In his view the crux interpretum and and authority of the Bible was Jesus Christ. "Sacred Scripture is God incarnate."8 He understood the Bible as the book of Christ and about Christ.9 Every true interpretation of the Scripture would lead to Him. "When I have a text that is like a nut with a hard shell, I immediately dash it against the Rock [Christ] and find the sweetest kernel."10 Without Christ he felt there was nothing left in the Bible - a viewpoint that allowed for modest criticism of certain parts of the Bible as well as some untraditional views on authorship.11 Thus Luther shuns scholastic Biblicism. It is true that he was also deeply interested in last day events in the Scriptures, but his focal point was the Biblical message of Jesus Christ.
For Calvin the Scriptures were less human than for Luther. He believed the Bible had flowed from the very mouth of God.12 He made little distinction between various parts of the Bible and approached it with a "letter-worship" attitude that led him into gross inconsistencies with some parts of the Old Testament.13 Yet, in spite of his underlying Biblicism, he was attentive to the natural historical meaning of texts, emphatic on Christocentricity, and was thus kept from the many problems and arguments which make later Reformed Biblicism look naive.14 His hermeneutical key is expressed in comments on John, "We ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of truth."15 In this fundamental issue Calvin's view is the same as Luther's. This approach does also give a different meaning for any apocalyptic exegesis or calculations that the reformers did.16
3.2.2 The rise of Biblicism
Luther's hermeneutic should have put an end to the old perfectionistic eschatology based on omens and signs. However, his Christocentricity was soon forgotten. Protestant scholasticism preserved all rules the Reformation had brought out on the Bible, but it forgot the foundation on which the rules were based.17 Orthodoxy turned the Bible into a repository of information on all manner of things, including science and history, which then had to be proven correct by the current standards.18 Reformation humanism was replaced by scholastic Biblicism, which regarded the Scriptures as unilaterally inspired. Often the natural meaning of the text was overlooked in pursuit of an organized pattern of dogma.
Unilateralism required that apocalyptic prophecies should be studied with the same interest as the Gospels. Galileo and Copernicus brought about the dawn of a scientific world view with mathematics as its foundations. Faith in a mystic inspiration of the Word made the prophecies particularly intriguing for anyone willing to apply the science of mathematics to the Scriptures. It was believed that diligent observation had unraveled the laws of nature and that similar industrious harmonization of the Bible texts would unfold God's secrets.19
One simple way of expressing the change from the Christocentric hermeneutic of Luther and Calvin to the Biblicism of Protestant scholasticism is the following: For the Reformers the Bible was God's word, but for the theologians of orthodoxy the Bible was God's words.20 Millerite unilateralism, lack of Christocentric content in expositions, play with Biblical numbers, harmonization, emphasis on individual words, all stem from protestant orthodoxy.
3.3 Definition of historicism
Miller's method is called historicism. Historicism (also called continuous historical interpretation and sometimes the historical messianic interpretation) was a product of Biblicism. For the purposes of this research historicism is defined as the method of prophetic interpretation which dominated British and American exegesis from late seventeenth century to the middle of nineteenth century. However, fairness to historicism demands the observation that many individual aspects of this mode of interpretation had been popular for centuries, and some for a millennium before there was any protestant orthodoxy. The birth of historicism was not so much a process of new invention as one of pulling together separate ideas into a coherent Biblicist system.
The main characteristics of historicism are: 1) The endorsement of the year/day theory and a preoccupation with prophetic time periods; 2) continuous historical application of various apocalyptic symbols and calibrating of all prophecy with history; 3) the identification of the Papacy as the little horn/antichrist, though not infrequently Islam was rated on the side as "an eastern antichrist." 4) At the foundation of the method, its distinguishing feature, was the creation of a coherent system of interdependent synchronizations between prophecies. The method included a desire to place every prophecy into an elaborate millennial timetable. The rationale for this lies in the Biblicist concept of inspiration. Protestant scholasticism believed that all parts of the Bible had equal value and that the Bible contained a mystical network of prophecies to be unfolded and harmonized by rational processes. It was the Biblicist view of the Bible which empowered historicism.21 This was alien to Luther's or Calvin's view of Daniel or the Apocalypse.22
3.4 An excursus, early background of historicism
In a sense the intentionally obscure language of the book of Daniel23 suited well historicist interpretations. In his sketch of world powers the author of Daniel leaves the final power and its formidable little horn unidentified while the earlier symbols are interpreted within the book itself. Soon after the Maccabean period Daniel's symbols are already applied to the Romans.24
New Testament authors and the church fathers interpreted the book of Daniel and projected the abomination of desolation as an event of the future (Mt 24:15). In fact, the Synoptic apocalypse is by allusion and quotation based on the book of Daniet.25
3.4.1 The church fathers
Among the church fathers Hippolytus in particular expressed keen interest in the apocalyptic. He was one of the first known to have calculated a time for the parousia - AD. 50026 with the help of an early version of the 6000 year theory.27 More than a millennium later many historicists would have happily endorsed his words:
Speak with me, 0 blessed Daniel. Give me full assurance, I beseech thee. Thou dost prophesy concerning the lioness in Babylon; for thou wast a captive there. Thou hast unfolded the future regarding the bear; for thou wast still in the world, and didst see the things to come pass. Then thou speakest to me of the leopard; and whence canst thou know this, for thou art already gone to thy rest? -- The leopard has arisen; the he goat is come; he has smitten the ram; he hath broken his horns in pieces; he hath stamped upon him with his feet. -- Rejoice blessed Daniel. Thou hast not been in error: all these things have come to pass.
After this again thou hast told me of the beast dreadful and terrible. It had iron teeth. -Already the iron rules; already it subdues and breaks all in pieces.-- already we see these things ourselves.28
In a milder form Hippolytus' interest in the apocalyptic was shared by many of his better known predecessors. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and a little later Julius Africanus expressed similar sentiments.29 With the exception of the anti-Christian Porphury, the hermeneutic of Daniel in the first Christian centuries can be regarded as the precursor of later historicism. Beginning with the church fathers on, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome were commonly seen as the four kingdoms. This made it easy for Europeans to regard Europe with its many nations as the ten horns of Daniel seven.30
However, it would be a mistake to identify the patristic exegesis with historicism as Froom does.31 Three essential elements of historicism were missing from the early Christian exposition of the apocalyptic. There was no synchronization or harmonization of prophecies. There was no papal little horn. Neither was there that strong emphasis on chronology, which is typical of the continuous historical exegesis. These features were not developed until a millennium later.32
3.4.2 The year-day theory and papal antichrist
Towards the dawn of the second millennium of the Christian era some Jewish scholars began calculating prophetic time by counting years for days. This device made it possible to date the esawton close to the year 1000 when applied to the periods of 1260 days, 1290 days, or 1335 days as found in Daniel. Joachim or Fiore (1130-1202) is the first Christian who is known to have employed the year-day method. He applied it on the 1260 days of the book of Revelation, and his imaginative play with cryptic numbers aroused widespread interest in apocalyptic figures.33 Without a change in the exegesis of prophetic times it would have been difficult to reapply eschatological imagery and keep it relevant.
Joachim of Fiore can be credited with also another exegetical invention that was later taken over and developed by historicists. He believed that the antichrist would usurp the Roman see. Some late medieval scholars, of whom Eberhard II, archbishop of Salzburg (1200-1246) and John Wyclif (1324-1384) are examples, identified the little horn with the bishop of Rome.34 At the time of the Reformation this became a firmly held doctrine among the majority of Protestants. Neither Luther nor Calvin had any doubts on this point.35
3.5 Joseph Mede
The basic characteristics of historicism had emerged over a long period of time. What was needed was someone to draw all the features together. The man who pioneered historicism was Joseph Mede (1586-1638). Even though Mede, a master of Christ's College in Cambridge, is only one among many apocalyptic expositors of his time, he is credited with what has been named "a Copernican revolution in the interpretation of prophecy."36 The respect he commanded is indicated by titles like "the father of prophetic interpretation," and "inspired for the interpretation of the prophecies," given him by later expositors. His major work Clavis Apocalyptica or The Key of the Revelation was still in print in the nineteenth century, and nearly every serious commentary on Daniel or the Apocalypse referred to his name.37
Mede's main contribution was a system of synchronism between various prophetic symbols. Primarily he worked within the Apocalypse but he did coordinate the key prophecies of Daniel with those of Revelation. Thus he radically affected the future exegesis of Daniel. Mede's most far reaching conclusion was that for equating seven time prophecies which contained time spans of 3 1/2 years, 1260 days, or 42 months (Dan.7>25; 12:7; Rev.11:2,3; 12:6,14; 13:5). These, he explained must apply to the antichristian power of papacy. He also labored to link other prophetic time periods with the time of the antichrist to provide "a sure guide in this holy Labyrinth."38 This plan he called "that SACRED CALENDAR and GREAT ALMANAC OF PROPHECY" or "A Prophetical Chronology of Times."39
Mede's version of the year-day method was simple. He made one day in apocalyptic prophecies correspond to a literal solar year. With this device the 1260 days of the Roman Antichrist would last 1260 years. There were, however, some prophetic periods like Dan 8:14, 2300 evenings and mornings, which Mede interpreted literary to the time of Antiochos Epiphanes.40
Mede did also leave the boundaries of Daniel and Revelation and, writing to Archbishop Ussher, he expressed the increasingly popular concept that the second advent and millennium were to come at 6000 years anno mundi. Employing the Samaritan Pentateuch he was able to match the end of 6000 years with his terminus for the 1260 days/years of papal antichrist/little horn - to "Anno Aerae Christianae 1736."41 Finally, but not least importantly, Mede placed the coming of Christ right after the ruin of Antichllit at the end of 1260 years, to be followed by the millennium.42 In this he initiated a tradition of premillennialism within the historicist method. Froom classifies this as epochal because it meant repudiation of the Augustinian theory of amillennialism.43 Indeed Mede stands out as one who turned the tide in the history of exegesis for about two centuries until the Millerite disappointment in 1844.44
3.6 Sir Isaac Newton
Next in the line of well known historicists, stands Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who was not only a well known scientist but also a keen interpreter of prophecies. He applied Mede's rationalistic method and wished to explain both physical phenomena as well as prophecy with the new mathematics.45 The Bible he considered "the dictates of the Holy Ghost" Therefore the "prophetic dictates" were "histories of things to come -- without ambiguity."46 Methodologically Newton added little to Mede. His main contribution was that of confirming the notion that the historicist, exegesis was scientific, "without ambiguity." The goal of this discipline was, in his opinion, to undo the obscure prophetic language. This language, Newton believed, was purposely difficult to keep the information with true Christians and to prevent it from "the proud, the self conceited, the presumptuous, the sciolist, the sceptic." It is quite "certain that the church understanding thereof.47
Daniel, Newton claimed, was the key to all other prophecy, and "to reject his [Daniel's] Prophecies is to reject the Christian religion."48 In his exegesis he, unlike Mede or many of his contemporaries, did not give any date or year from which a terminus could be calculated. Instead "he specified the time vaguely, at "about the time of the invasion of the Barbarous nations and their erecting several Kingdoms in the Roman Empire," and "it being certain that 1200 of the 1260 years are run out already."49 The manuscript of this statement has been tentatively dated around 1680 which places Newton close to Mede (AD.476-1736). Whatever the case, the great scientist did not want to bind himself to a single year.
While Newton was not overly specific on the most significant of apocalyptic time prophecies, his writings set forth a magnificent profusion of eschatological detail including a mathematical foundation for calculating prophetic time. Newton made the parallel between three and a half years (e.g. Dan 7.25) with 42 months (e.g. Rev 13.5) and with 1260 days (e.g. Rev 12.6), which gives 360 days for each prophetic year and 30 days to a prophetic month. Thus, unlike Mede, he disassociated prophetic time from solar or lunar calendars. This model for prophetic time was widely used a century later.50
It is of particular interest to note that Newton began counting the 70 years of Daniel 9:25 from Artaxerxes' decree (Ezra7), which he believed was issued in 457 B.C.51 One cornerstone of Millerism was thus being laid. Daniel 8.14 meant 2300 years according to Newton, though without a definite starting point. He strongly opposed any application to Antiochos Epiphanes.52 Manuel summarizes Newton's main contribution aptly:
There was nothing left over, no random words still unexplained, no images that were superfluous. The system was enclosed, complete, and flawless. Newton saw his 'methodizing of prophecy' as an ideal scientific structure, exhibiting the greatest possible simplicity and harmony.53
3.7 Thomas Newton
"Thomas Newton, John Gill, and George Stanley Faber would rank high in any list of eighteenth and nineteenth century exegetes. Of course many other prominent men who pursued similar solutions to the apocalyptic riddle could be mentioned.54 However, for our purposes these three are important because of their likely influence of William Miller.55
Bishop Thomas Newton (1704-1782), was dean of St. Paul's in London and" bishop of Bristol. In nineteenth-century American literature no other eighteenth-century exegete of prophecies is mentioned more often than he is.56 Bishop Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies (1754) became immensely popular. The book was translated into German and Danish and it ran through many English editions. His thesis on prophecy appears to have had a different purpose from the works of Mede and Sir Isaac Newton though he operates with the same fundamental premises as his exegetical predecessors. He begins with Genesis and carefully maps traditional Messianic or eschatological prophecies. His fundamental idea, like Miller's, is that the whole Bible presents a harmonious chain of prophecy on the two advents of Christ. Daniel and the Revelation are used as keys for unlocking other parts of the Bible. It would not be surprising if the "Newton" Miller had in his library was Thomas Newton's book and that it inspired William Miller to try harmonizing all time prophecies of the Bible.57
Thomas Newton refined and systemized Mede's and Sir Isaac Newton's method. However, his ultimate purpose was apologetic. He advocated prophecy as the main argument against the increasing infidelity of the age. The prophecies, he believed, were an exact "summary of the history of the world" when exegeted scientifically. 58
Part of his prophetic chronology was to expect the dawn of the millennium at around 6000 Anno Mundi even though biblical chronology as such does not dominate his thesis. The importance of the 6000 years for him is apparent from repeated references to it in the context of apocalyptic time prophecy. For instance he expressed the idea that the terminus of the 1260 days/years as well as that of the 2300 evenings and morningsyears coincides with the terminus of the sixth millennium from the creation.
Emphasis on the 6000 years greatly changed priorities in prophetic Bible study. It turned any genealogy or any statement on chronology into a time prophecy of equal importance to the prophecies of Daniel and John the Revelator. Newton mayor may not have been the inspiration that sparked Miller off to prepare his grand eschatological scheme with "15 proofs" on the validity of 1843. Whatever the case, both men believed that the any part of the Bible is primarily prophetic. Both of them did also create a harmony of prophecies in order to interlink all of the various lines of prophecies they found.59
There is one essential difference that must be noted when Miller and Newton are compared. While Newton wrote in a manner that was likely to stimulate chronological speculation he never ventured to commit himself to any single date. He believed that the tenninus ad quem can never be seen clearly before the time has come.60 For the 1260 day/year period he suggested at least three starting points. The earliest is with Justinian's degree (533 AD), the second Phocas' degree in 606 (this had the additional benefit of being also the beginning of Mohammed's rise to power), and the third the early century when the pope was established as a "temporal prince."61 The parallel termini, which Newton did not spell out but which the reader could easily deduce for himself, were 1793, 1866 and the late twentieth century. Newton's dates for the 2300 days/years (Dan 8.14)62. and his theory of the 6000 years of the world history63 match with the last of the options above. Newton provided the blueprint and left the calculations to his readers.
3.8 John Gill
John Gill (1697-1771) was another scholar with whom Miller would have been familiar.64 He commanded great respect within the Baptist denomination and was called "in some respects the most learned man that had yet appeared in our denomination. Nor, indeed, have any equaled him, to the present day, in acquaintance with Hebrew and the Rabbinic literature."65 Gill's multi-volume commentaries of the Old and the New Testament contain thorough expositions of the prophecies.
Gill provided little new for the historicist method. He was a believer in the year/day method. His terminus a quo for the 1260 years of Dan 7:25 was AD. 606 which made him conclude the prophecy in 1866. Like Thomas Newton he expected the end of the 2300 evenings and mornings at terminus of the 6000th year from the creation. Furthermore Gill allows for the possibility that the number of the beast, 666, might signify years. He did also go beyond the strict year/day principle and he proposed that the two days of Hosea 6:2 signify 2000 years after which the restoration of the Jews will take place. In a modified form Miller included all of these viewpoints into his proofs.66
3.9 George Stanley Faber
The most productive exegete of the prophecies among Miller's contemporaries is George Stanley Faber (1773-1854). According to Froom he was "the most voluminous religious writer of his generation."67 There is no certainty as to which of Faber's many commentaries Miller referred to, when he acknowledged having a "Faber" in his library.68 It is likely that it was Dissertation on the Prophecies, originally published in 1804 and distributed in America in 1808.
Faber's exegesis closely follows that of Mede, the two Newton's and Gill. He keeps within Daniel and Revelation with the popular terminus of 1866.69 However, contrary to the Newton's, he believed the little horn of Dan 8 to be Mohammedianism.70
Even though Faber comes to a definite year he leaves the actual events of that year in the shadow. He expected the end of both Papal and Islamic power, "the western and the eastern antichrist", but he is ambiguous on whether Christ will then reign literally or spiritually.71
3.10 Historicism in popular commentaries
The work of the leading historicists might have been sufficient in preparing the ground for the nineteenth-century apocalyptic revivals. There is, however, another group of writings that established the dominance of this historicist exegesis. Large numbers of protestant commentary sets were distributed in the first half of the century. Most of these were of British origin.72
Froom lists thirteen different Protestant commentaries available in Miller's time. The grip that historicism had over serious North American exegesis can be seen in that only one of the thirteen commentaries makes Antiochos the only fulfillment of the little horn in Daniel 7, two give an option between Antiochos and Rome, and the remaining propose the Papacy as the only solution.73
While the concordance was regarded as more valuable than a commentary there are some commentaries which were significant for the continuous historical method. One of these was the six volume commentary by Thomas Scott (1747-1821), originally published 1788-92, and produced in America in 1804-9. At least eight reprints were made of the American edition. In his comments Scott follows the two Newtons and Faber. Like them his 1260 years began in 606 AD. and ended in 1866.74
Another very influential commentary was Adam Clarke's (17621832) eight volume Commentary and Critical Notes. American editions of this commentary were produced almost simultaneously with the British ones (1810-25). Clarke is particularly effective in the area of chronology. His commentary includes exhaustive chronological tables and with exact dating for every incident. He also prints his prophetic times boldly including a count on the number of years one must wait to see fulfillment. The 1260 years he began with Pepin's giving power to pope Stephen II in 755, thus ending in 2015 AD., though he also notes the 1798 date as a turning point marking the beginning of the downfall of the papacy. Miller chose the latter date for his terminus of the same prophecy. In regard to the 2300 years his commentary gives the dates from 334 B.C. to 1966 A.D.75
The only important American commentary at the time was that of William Jenks (1788-1866) Comprehensive Commentary on the Holy Bible (1834-8) which followed British historicism except in advocating postmillennialism.76
3.11 Contemporary British premillennialism
In America Millerism emerged as the largest premillennialist group of nineteenth century. Several historians have noted the fact that in Britain there was a contemporary premillennial awakening. This revival was led by Cuninghame, Bickersteth, Birks, and Irving.77 The exegesis of these men spread to America, and the timing of the two revivals and the apparent similarity of their doctrine tempts one to conclude that there was some kind of interdependence between the two revivals.78 Such dependence is, however, vigorously denied by Froom.79 As the evidence is summed up, one cannot determine with certainty that the British revivalists and Miller worked out their views unaware of each other.
Rasmussen gives three reasons against Miller's being influenced by the British views. First, Miller and Millerites do refer to the "standard Protestant commentators," chiefly Mede, the Newtons, and Gill, but there is no reference to the nineteenth-century British premillennialists. Second, Litch, one of Miller's leading assistants, wrote in 1844 that the British revivalists did not "gain much attention in this country, until after Mr. Miller had labored for a number of years."80 Third, Rasmussen mistakenly claims that Miller expected a heavenly millennium in contrast to the British premillennialists who believed that Christ would reign on this earth for a thousand years.81 In reality there is little difference in the Millennial teaching of the two groups.
Rasmussen's argument is not impeccable. Miller could have obtained copies of the British millennialist journal, The Christian Observer which was published from 1802 in London, with concurrent American editions. After he had formulated his main ideas, Miller fiercely attacked the millennial concepts of the "English literalists", thus acknowledging his awareness of their existence and doctrine.82 There is, however, no direct proof of early British literalist influence on Miller.
The striking similarity between these British literalists and Miller is in the timing of the prophecies. Of all the historicists mentioned earlier in this study no one published the very dates which were essential for the Millerites. Yet every one of Miller's tennini ad quem can be found in The Christian Observer. In England the Albury conferences of the 1820's concluded that the second Advent would occur in 1843 or 1847. Both of these dates became popular in America. Edward Irving, and Henry Drummond, William Miller's English counterparts were participants in these conferences.83 Furthermore the French Revolution was claimed to mark the end of the Papal power and of the 1260 years. Likewise the prophecy of Dan 8.14 was frequently explained in conjunction with Dan 9.24-27, a hermeneutical device of great value to Miller. Thus the year 457 B.C. could be proposed as the tenninus a quo of the 2300 evenings and mornings or years.84 Cuninghame also presented a prophecy on the jubilees, which is another match with Miller's exegesis.85 Overall there is more than passing resemblance between the hermeneutic of the two revivals.
Outside of actual British premillennialism one may note that the writings of enthusiasts like Lacunza and Joseph Wolff were at least partly available in the English language. Irving himself provided one translation of Lacunza's text.86 Because John Wesley's had endorsed Johan Albrecht Bengel's complicated mathematics for a parousia in 1836 this year was expounded as the year of the end.87 It is likely that also this date was familiar to William Miller.88
3.12 American contribution
In North America indigenous time-setting sprang up. Mi!J.er had a host of contemporaries interested millennialism. Around 1835/6 eight year old Ellen G. Harmon, better known as Ellen G. White, a visionary and co-founder of Seventh-day Adventism, found a slip of paper on the street. The paper contained such a calculation. She was filled with terror at the thought of a soon end to the world.89 While the origin and details of this time prophecy are unknown, several individuals counting the years for the eschaton are known. The years were frequently 1843, 1844, 1847, or 1866/8.90 The disposition of many was expressed in J.P. Wheethee's words: "the last sands are dropping from the glass of time; the great time-bell is about to toll the hour of midnight."91
3.12.1 Some features of American literature
An examination of early nineteenth-century American literature on prophecies leaves one in no doubt about the strength of the historicist exegesis. The names of Mede, the two Newtons or of Faber are mentioned uncounted times. There is not the slightest doubt that literally thousands of Miller's contemporaries shared his method as well as his imaginative approach to the problems of prophecy. On the sensational side of American exegesis one finds odd details concerning exact particulars on prophetic termini, including a dated parousia,92 the eastern question, or the future of Islam,93 prophetic solutions to the international or domestic politics of the day,94 the return of Jews,95 peculiar typological prophecies from Israel's sanctuary service or the Jubilees,96 calculations on the 6000 year theory,97 or like problems.
As far as time prophecies are concerned American expositions have been well tabulated by Froom.98 The tables are, however, misleading. They give the impression that everyone was calculating times for the parousia the way Miller did. There are indeed many calculations99 but if one searches the available literature for elements that match with Miller's exegesis the result is disappointing. Similarities are largely superficial. A high degree of common outlook can only be found between Miller and the British apocalyptics.
3.13 Miller's relationship to other historicists
It appears to have been a matter of honor for William Miller and his supporters to claim that Miller's exegesis was fully original. There are several distinct statements on Miller's complete independence. Those involved in the revival were not prepared to acknowledge their hermeneutical roots. For instance, in 1843 Southard wrote that Miller "never had a commentary in his house, and did not remember reading any work upon the prophecies except Newton and Faber, about thirty years ago."100 Miller himself repeated this claim to originality adding that "all" preconceived opinions were laid aside when he conducted his research. His apologists, Nichol, Damsteegt and Froom, interpret this to mean that Miller was unaware of any parallel interpretation while unknowingly and unintentionally being in line with "some of the finest minds".101
However, from Southhard's comment as well as from the actual Millerite exegesis one can reasonably draw the conclusion that when Miller launched his Bible study around 1816 he was at least aware of Newton's (whether Sir Isaac or Thomas is uncertain) and Faber's interpretation. This conclusion is confirmed by the occurrence of other references to the pioneers of historicism. In another context Miller is quoted mentioning the two Newtons together with Joseph Mede. Furthermore Miller reveals firsthand familiarity with Gill as he is directly quoted.102
Mede, the two Newtons, Faber and Gill are all men whose work was at the very center of the historicist tradition. Miller worked in no vacuum, and he is known to have been an avid rader103 and he may well have studied a number of the well known as well as the less known exegetes of prophecy. It is possible that he wanted to improve on the variant interpretations and to create such a harmonious interpretation that it would be above dispute.104
3.14 Summary
The elements that made up the historicist interpretation grew up over a millennium from the early church to the late middle ages. These included the continuous application of prophetic symbols from the time of Babylon to the present age, the year day hermeneutic of prophetic time, and the identification of the papacy with the little horn. The full package of historicism was drawn together by Joseph Mede aided by the conceptions and methods of Protestant scholasticism. The system was refined and clarified by reputable eighteenth-century scholars whose research was at the time widely acknowledged. Historicism was the most Popular method of prophetic exegesis from late seventeenth to middle nineteenth century.
No North American Protestant interested in Biblical prophecies in the early half of nineteenth century could avoid encountering the traditional historical method. The books of the pioneers of the method were widely available in reprints, the method was promoted by popular commentary sets, and by a host of indigenous writers whose basic outlook stemmed from historicism but who tried to press their own peculiar notions into the field of apocalyptic interpretation. If one looks for close equations between Miller and other exegetes, one has to turn to Gill, the two Newtons as well as the British premillennial revivalists.
Footnotes 1.After Stiefel's failure in Lockham (8 AM. Oct 19, 1533) there have been but few apocalyptic revivals within Lutheranism. There were individuals who had millenarian ideas: Johann Amos Comenius (-1670), Johan Albrecht Bengel (-1752), Johann Philipp PetrI (-1792), L.H. Kelber, Heinrich Richter (-1847) all of whom created millennial time tables. Some of the Swedish "ropare" child preachers of 1840's, and Abraham Achrenius in Finland can also be added to a list of Lutheran apocalyptics. A parallel list of persons with apocalyptic interests within the Reformed tradition would grow into over a hundred names if picked from PFF II-IV. This was recognized also in Miller's day. Brooks, the editor of the Investigator wrote, "Prophecy is not now, in any shape, popular on the continent" IEP New series 1836, 5n.
2. See e.g. Cohn 1957, 1-194
3. Rogers & McKim 1979, xvii-xviii.
4. See e.g. Rasmussen MS 1983, 52-66.
5. For a summary of Reformation view of the Scriptures see e.g. Kraus 1956/1969, 6-18; Farrar 1886, 323-354.
6. The basic argument of PFF series is that of placing Millerism into Reformation tradition as far as prophetic interpretation is concerned. See also Damsteegt 1977, 16-20; Nichol 1944, 89; Olsen "Hermeneutical Principles and Biblical Authority in Reformation and Postreformation Eras" SOBH, 10925. It is typical of fundamentalists to claim that their hermeneutic is based on the Reformation. Barr 1977, 20. Cf. e.g. Lindsell 1976, 56-62; Preus "The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church through Luther" in Geisler (ed.) 1980, 372-380. Gerstner, "The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines" in Geisler (ed.) 1980, 385-395.
7. Dillenberger 1960, 30. Cf. Olsen "Hermeneutical Principles and Biblical Authority in Reformation and Postreformation Eras" SOBH, 53.
8. LS 3.21 cited in Wood 1969, 176; Rogers & McKim 1979,78. Cf. WA 48,31; Kooinman 1961, 237f.
9. WA 4.535 cited in Wood 1969, 140; Rogers & McKim 1979, 79.
10. L W 10.6 cited in Rasmussen MS 1983, 58.
11. E.g. Seeberg 1964, 300f; Kraus 1956/1969 16-28; Barr 1977, 173f; Kraeling 1955, 10f. Luther expressed his doubts over the canonicity of e.g. Esther, Hebrews, James and Revelation for not making the gospel clear, and he felt free to publicize critical views on the authorship of Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Jude and the Revelation. He also preferred Kings as historically more accurate than the Chronicles.
12. Calvin Institutes 1:7,5; Farrar 1886/1961, 349.
13. Farrar 1961, 349f.
14. See e.g. Rogers & McKim 1979, 114-116.
15. Calvin, Commentary on John 5.39; CR XLVII, 125; Cf. CR XLV, 817. Rogers & McKim 1979, 107.
16. E.g. Luther shared in some conjecture on the 6000 years "Supputatlon Annorum Mundi Emendata" cited in PFF II, 279; Cf. Melanchton "In Danielem Prophetam Commentarius" in Opera Corpus Refonnatorum vol 13, cols. 978 quoted in PFF II, 291.
17. The Reformation had not purged out all of the "old leaven", d. Berkhof 1960, 28.
18. Rogers & McKim 1979, xvii; Kraeling 1955, 12.
19. Ball 1981, 73 points out how people studied prophecies with the same intensity as the gospels. This was also Miller's conclusion: "I could not but regard the chronological portions of the Bible as being as much a portion of the word of God as any other part of the Scriptures." Miller 1845, 10. For details of development in America and a description of the turn from Reformation humanism to scholastic rationalism see Rogers & McKim 1979, 147-199.
20. Dillenberger 1960, 97; Rasmussen 1983, 59. Rasmussen shows Miller's involvement in Biblicism. After the disappointment it took about 40 years for the SDAs to begin with any christocentric emphasis. White 1898, 211; White 1915a, 315; Arasola MS 1981, 64-66.
21. Cf. Dillenberger 1960, 97.
22. Cf. Sandeen's definition of historicism. Sandeen 1970 36 39; See also PFF I, 22f.
23. Russel 1964, 16.
24. Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece are mentioned by name within the book of Daniel (e.g. Dan 2.37-39; 8.20; 11.2; 8.20; 10.20; 11.2.) Rome come in already in thy translation of the LXX which makes Dan 7.17 four kings into four kingdoms or even more clearly in Dan 11.30 ships of Kittim, which was translated as the power of the Romans. Also Josephus clearly applied the fourth power to the Romans. E.g. Antiquities X,10,4; X,7; Wars of the Jews, VI,2,1 in Josephus 1886. See also translators notes in Thackeray's and Marcus translation of the LXX (1926-1943).
25. 0ne can draw several parallels between Matthew 24 and the book of Daniel: Mt 24.5 - Dan 7.8,25; Mt 24.6,7 – Dan 11.4-27; Mt 24.15 - Dan 9.27; 11.31; Mt 24.21 - Dan 21.1, etc. Nestle's and the United Bible Societies Greek texts include 24 cross references to the book of Daniel for the Synoptic apocalypse. This can be compared with 19 references for Isaiah, 12 for Joel and 9 for the book of Zachariah. However, what is important is the fact that all of the main themes of the Synoptic apocalypse can be traced to the book of Daniel. See e.g. Hongisto MS 1984, 77-100.
26. Schaff 1882/1910, vol 2, 796f; PFF I, 278.
27. This theory appears to have a very early background. See e.g. "the Epistle of Barnabas" ch. 15 in ANF, 283f, "in six thousand years the Lord shall bring all things to and end." Cf. Irenaeus "Against Heresies," chs 28:3; 30:4; 33:2, in ANF, 557, 550, 562. Hippolytos' date for the parousia [500 AD.] was based on the 6000 year theory and LXX chronology; Hippolytos "Fragments from Commentaries" fragment 2 on Daniel chs. 4-7, in ANF V, 179. The tradition may have a Jewish background. See Slavonic Enoch 32.2; 33.1£; PFF I, 195f, 204.
28. Hippolytos "Treatise on Christ and Antichrist" chs. 32f; ANF V, 210; PFF I, 274.
29. Justin Martyr expected the parousia soon and takes issue with Trypho who interprets Daniel's times lasting 100 years. "Dialogue with Trypho" ch. 31£; ANF I, 209f. Irenaeus writes that "the empire which now rules shall be partitioned. He [John the Revelator] teaches us what the ten horns shall be which were seen by DanieL" "Against Heresies" 5.26; ANF I, 554. Tertullian "On the Resurrection of the Flesh" ch. 24; ANF III, 563. Julius Africanus proposed a month for a prophetic day theory to calculate Daniel's prophecies. "Extant Fragments of the Five Books on the Chorography of Julius Africanus" fragment 18; ANF VI, 137. Cf. PFF I, 219-282.
30. The history of the interpretation of Daniel shows a continuous updating and revitalization of the meaning attached to the symbols. E.g. the little horn was first applied to Antiochos Epiphanes, to the Empire of Rome, a few centuries later to Islam, and at the time of the Reformation to the Papacy. The exception to this desire of updating the application is the historical critical method because it looks at what was relevant in the past rather than in the present.
31. In his monumental apology for historicism Froom regards Theodooret as the last correct mterpreter and Augustine as the originator of a hermeneutical apostasy to be corrected only by post-Reformation orthodoxy. See e.g. PFF I, 450-543. Augustine's own comments on Darnel are interesting in contrast with Froom's comments on his importance. See e.g. Augustine on the crushing power of the kingdom of God, Tracktate 4 on the Gospel of John, sec. 4; N&PNF VII, 26. Cf. PFF I, 488f.
32. Froom fails to see the many variations there have been in the area of prophetic exegesis. For different efforts of interpreting prophecies and fmding relevance see e.g. Carrol 1979, 214-9; Rowley 1947; Koch 1972.
33. Joachim proposed that from Christ to about 1200 AD. there are 42 generations and 1260 prophetic years. Dempf 1929, 274; PFF I, 695. However, prophetic dates were not paramount in Joachim's work. Reeves 1969, 4Of, 51-55, 437. See also Reeves 1976; Williams (ed.) 1980.
34. 0n Eberhard see e.g. PFF I, 796-806. Wyclif leaves no room for doubt on his position: "--in the seventh chapter of Daniel Antichrist is forcefully described by a horn arising in the time of the fourth kingdom. -- For so our clergy foresee the lord pope, as it is said of the eight blaspheming little head." PFF II, 55.
35. E.g. PFF II, 241-394; 373-394.
36. Ball 1981, 193-212; Manuel 1974, 90; Rasmussen MS 1983, 67.
37. E.g. I. Newton "Fragments from a Treatise on Revelation", in Manuel 1974, 121; Cf. Manuel 1974, 90; T. Newton 1754, 22, 442 & passim; Faber 1828, vii, ix, xi-xiii.
38. Mede 1650 part 1:1.
39. Mede The Apostasy of Latter Times, 69. PFF II, 545.
40. Mede Apostasy, 2:806; PFF II, 542-549, 785f; Rasmussen MS 1983, 66,
41. Mede's tenninus a quo was AD. 476 leading up to 1736, about a century from his time. Mede, letter to archbishop Ussher, May 22, 1628, in Works 1663-1664, 2:896. Rasmussen MS 1983, 69.
42. Mede Key to the Revelation, 1:20; 2:122; "A Compendium of Mr. Mede--" (in Key to the Revelation), no page numbers.
43. PFF II, 544.
44. Ball 1981, 216; Ladd 1956, 32; Rasmussen MS 1983, 71.
45. Dillenberger 1960, 118f, 126; Manuel 1974, 48.
46. I.Newton "Fragment from a Treatise on Revelation," in Manuel 1974, 113f.
47. I. Newton "Fragment from a Treatise on Revelation," in Manuel 1974, 107-111, 123, 89.
48. I. Newton 1733, 16f.
49. I. Newton "Yahuda" MS 23.6 in Manuel 1974, 99f.
50. I. Newton's result was 391 years. PFF II, 666. The Millerites added 15 days for the "one hour."
51. I. Newton 1733, 130f. Johan Funk (1558), Heinrich Bullinger (1557), and Jaques Cappell (1624) had proposed 457 B.c. as a starting point for this prophecy. PFF II, 582f, 631£.
52. I. Newton 1733, 123f; PFF II, 662.
53. Manuel 1974, 98.
54. PFF III, 263-639.
55. See Miller "Address to Believers in All Denominations" in Bliss 1853, 251; Miller 1833, 10, 42 includes a quote from Gill. Cf. Rasmussen Ms 52-57.
56. Miller's contemporaries praise T. Newton freely. See e.g. Anderson 1840, 36; Boudinot 1815, 67; Bush 1842, 6; Pym 1839, 109; Smith 1808, iii; Starkweather 1843/b, 5; Watkins 1795, 55; etc.
57. Southard "The Home of Wm Miller" MC Oct 26, 1843.
58. T. Newton 1833, 715; Rasmussen MS 1983, 75.
59. For the apocalyptic 6000 years see T. Newton 1833, 221£, 259f. One of the most peculiar interpretations within Millerism is Miller's effort to turn Lev 26 into a time prophecy. For an interesting use of Lev 26 in T. Newton's writings (though in a somewhat different context from Miller) see e.g. T. Newton 1833, 89, 92, 105.
60. "But as Irenaeus saith in a like case, it is surer and safer to wait for the completion of the prophecy than to conjecture and to divine about It" T. Newton 1933, 222; cf. p. 321.
61. T. Newton 1933, 221£; PFF II, 685.
62. He opposed any application to Antiochos, because then the "sanctuary was not yet cleansed." T. Newton 1833, 259f.
63.Newton approved of Ussher's popular chronologywhich dated creation to the year 4004 B.C.
64. Rasmussen MS 1983, 56.
65. Cramp 1868, 484.
66. Gill 1809/10, NT 3:792, aT 6:327, 334. PFF II, 682-684; Rasmussen 1983, 78f.
67. PFF III, 339.
68. Southard "The Home of Wm Miller" MC Oct 26, 1843.
69. Faber 1808, 160-79. Faber later revised his calculation on the 1260 days/years to run from 604 to 1864. Faber 1828, 3:48795.
70. Faber 1808, 1:211f; Rasmussen MS 1983, 81.
71. E.g. Faber 1828, l:xx-xxi, 468-71, 487-95. Rasmussen MS 1983, 81.
72. Commentary sets were used widely especially by the clergy. For further examples of 19th Century exegetical literature see e.g. PFF IV, 82-410.
73. PFF W, 329f. However, it must be noted that Froom is optimistic in classifying some of these commentators into the historicist camp. For instance, Matthew Henry (1662-1714) in his six volume Ifxposition of the Old and New Testament is so terse and guarded in his comments on apocalyptic prophecy that he cannot be listed as a supporter of historicism.
74. Scott 1851.
75. Clarke n.d., vol IV, 603-613.
76. Cf. PFF W, 125f.
77. PFF IV, 189-90; Ladd 1965, 35f., 42.
78. Sandeen, "Millenarianism" in ROA; Sandeen 1970, 50f.
79. PFF IV, 518.
80. Litch "Rise and Progress of Adventism" ASR, May 1844, pp. 46-93.
81. Rasmussen MS 1983, 89-91.
82. Miller 18421c, 83-86.
83. Sandeen 1970, 18-22.
84 For a convenient summary of the hermeneutic in The Christian Observer see PFF III, 283-97. One of the points frequently debated in the magazine is whether 2200, 2300, or 2400 is the correct figure for Dan 8.14.
85. Cuninghame 184Oa, xiii.
86. Sandeen 1970, 11, 19. (Lacunza's work was translated by Edward Irving.)
87. Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, quoted in PFF II, 692-4.
88. Brinsmead 1979, 19. Cf. PFF II, 709-713.
89. White 1915, 20.
90. PFF W, 370-81 mentions Shimeall, McGrecor, Wheeler, Wheetee, Shannon, and Robinson in support of these dates.
91. Wheetee, "Letter March 17, 1843" ST Apr 5, 1843; PFF W,376.
92. E.g. Pym 1839, 52; Roberts 1828, 71; Rudd 1734, 418; White 1823, 10f; etc.
93. E.g. Morse 1810, 6; Rudd 1734, 15; Smith 1811, 101; White 1823, 10f; True 1834, 6; etc.
94. E.g. Thorp 1841, 82; Thompson 1812, 13f; etc.
95. Wintrop 1843, 112f; Spalding 1796, 5; White 1806, 19-21 & passim; Ramsay 1841, 24f; Rudd 1734, 10, 214; etc.
96. E.g. Dickinson, chart 4.
97. E.g. Dickinson 1843, 8; Chamberlain 1805, 93.
98. PFF IV, 392-405.
99. The amount of speculation on the date of the end is sufficient to challenge Anderson's conclusion that the dated parousia was a scandal. A milder word would do better justice to the situation. Cf. Anderson "The Millerite Use of Prophecy" in Numbers & Butler 1987, 89.
100. Southard "The Home of Wm Miller" MC Oct 26, 1843.
101. Miller 1845, 6. Bliss 1853, 69f. PFF IV, 462-9; Nichol 1944, 150 fn., "-- he came to his conclusions exclusively through a study of the Bible and reference to a concordance." Cf. Damsteegt 1977, 18 fn.
1O2. Miller "Address to Believers in Christ in All Denominations", in Bliss 1853, 251; Miller 1833, 10, 42. Cf. Hawley "The Voice of the Second Advent Sustained by the Voice of the Church" ST, June 7, 1843.
103. Nichol 1944, 20f. 104. Cf. Rasmussen MS 1983, 55f; PFF IV 66.
|
|
|
