Глава четвърта

Miller's fundamental aspiration was to create a harmonious and systematic exposition. He wrote: "God in his wisdom had so interwoven several prophecies, that they tell us the same things. There never was a book written that has a better harmony.'¹ The words "harmony", and "interwoven" are the key words. For Miller the whole Bible was a coherent system of truth. Subsequently all Miller's exegesis must be seen as pieces within the consistent design which he believed to lie behind any subject, whether time prophecy, the rise and fall of historical kingdoms, millennialism, or the fate of the Jews.

Miller's Biblicism has long been recognized. There is nothing surprising in this because it would be no great exaggeration to say that in this respect he was like everybody else.² For Miller the whole Bible belonged together. The task of the exegete was to find a slot into which every prophecy fitted. Referring to his long and solitary Bible study he wrote: "I was thus satisfied that the Bible is a system of revealed truths, so clearly and simply given that the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein."³ He felt that the pieces of the puzzle had fallen in place.

Interpretation was to be guided by proper rules which would provide consistency. William Miller presented a set of hermeneutical canons which received wide circulation among the Millerites. Miller originally published his fourteen rules in 1840.⁴ After a few reprints⁵ (with minor modifications) they were edited by Apollos Hale and republished in a streamlined and more logical set of thirteen rules which were printed in the Second Advent Manual.⁶ Because of its early and wide distribution Miller's original version is preferable in spite of its less fluent sequence.

In recent years these rules have been republished several times.⁷ However, because discussion on the ramification of the rules has not yet been exhausted, the rules are repeated once more with hints on their implications. Miller's rules are a convenient starting point because they express his method of interpreting the Bible in a concise form. With these rules, Miller claimed, no one need to "err far from the truth."⁸ He prefaced the rules with the words: "Every rule should be well studied, in connexion with the scripture references, if the Bible student would be at all benefited by them." The Biblical references, or the "proofs" as they were called, are as follows:

I. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible. Proof. Matt. v.18.

II. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by a diligent application and study. Proofs. 2Tim. iii.15,16,17.

III. Nothing revealed in Scriptures can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering. Proofs. Deut. xxix.29. Matt. x. 26, 27. I Cor. ii.l0. Phil. iii.15. Isa. xiv.lI. Matt. xxi. 22. Joh. xiv. 13, 14. xv.7. James i. 5,6. l John v.13,14,15.

IV. To understand doctrine, bring all the Scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. Proofs. Isa. xxviii.7-29. xxxv.8. Provo xix.27. Luke xxiv.27,4l,45. Rom. xvi.26. James v.19. 2Pet. i.19,20.

V. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rille in itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed or wisdom, is my rule, not the Bible.

VI. God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables; and in this way the same things are often revealed time and time again, by different visions, or in different figures and parables. If you wish to understand them, you must combine them all in one. Proofs. Ps. lxxxix.19. Hos. xii. 10. Hab. ii.2. Acts ii.17. lCor. x.6. Heb. ix.9,24. Ps. lxxviii.2. Matt. xiii. 13,34. Gen. xli.1-32. Dan. ii.vii. and viii. Acts x.9-l6.

VIII. Figures always have a figurative meaning, and are used much in prophecy to represent future things, times and events; such as mountains, meaning govemments; beasts, meaning kingdoms; Waters, meaning people. Lamp, meaning Word of God. Day, meaning year. Proofs. Dan. ii.35,44. vii.8,17. Rev. xvii. 1,15. Ps. em. 105. Ezek. iv.6.

IX. Parables are used as comparisons to illustrate subject, and must be explained in the same way as figures, by the subject and Bible. Mark iv.13. See explanation of the ten virgins, Miller's Lectures, No xvi.

X. Figures sometimes have two or more different significations, as day is used in a figurative sense to represent three different periods of time. 1. Indefinite. 2. Definite, a day for a year. 3. Day for a thousand years. If you put on the right construction it will harmonize with the Bible and make good sense, otherwise it will not. Proofs. Eccles. vii.14. Ezek. iv.6. 2Pet. iii.8.

XI. How to know when a word is used figuratively. If it makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, then it must be understood literally, if not, figuratively. Proofs. Rev. xii.1,2.xvii. 3- 7.

XII. To learn the true meaning of figures, trace your figurative word through your Bible, and where you find it explained, put it on your figure, and if it makes good sense you need look no further, if not, look again.

XIII. To know whether we have the true historical event for the fulfillment of a prophecy. If you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures are understood) is literally fulfilled, then you may know that your history is the true event. But if one word lacks fulfillment, then you must look for another event, or wait its future development. For God takes care that history and prophecy doth agree, so that the true believing children of God may never be ashamed. Proofs. Ps. xxii.5. Isa. xlv.17,18,19. 1Pet. ii.6. Rev.xvii.17. Acts iii.18.

XIV. The most important rule of all is that you must have faith. It must be a faith that requires a sacrifice, and, if tried, would give up the dearest object on earth, the world and all its desires, character, living, occupation, friends, home, comforts, and worldly honors. If any of these should hinder our believing any part of God's word, it would show our faith to be vain. Nor can we ever believe so long as one of these motives lies lurking in our hearts. We must believe that God will never forfeit his word. And we can have confidence that he that takes notice of the sparrow, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of his own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God, and put implicit confidence in his word, from erring far from the truth, though they may not understand Hebrew or Greek.⁹

These rules reflect the independence, the intellectual level, as well as the type of mind Millerism catered for. They encourage a do-it-yourself approach to the Scriptures, intended to provide the active layman with a rationale for believing in the Millerite chronology of the end.

There are a number of observations that should be made on Miller's rules. Their repetitive and argumentative style is typical of nineteenth-century religious writing. What is essential is to note what Miller includes as well as what he omits. Furthermore one must keep in mind that even though some of the rule seem to apply to general Biblical exegesis, their context in the Millerite revival presupposes that their primary intention lies within the sphere of prophetic exegesis. All of the rules, whether they mention prophecy or not, are relevant within the framework of continuous historical interpretation of prophecy.

Several among Miller's hermeneutical precepts encourage Scriptural analogy.¹⁰ The idea of the Bible being its own expositor was the backbone of historicism from its beginning. Mede, the pioneer of the method, had already been convinced of a need for comparing "Scripture with Scripture" in order to find "the proper and genuine use of the like Words and Phrases in several passages of Scripture."¹¹ In practice this exegetical device meant that the most important tool of the interpreter was a concordance through which he could find correlating Biblical texts. These "proof texts" were then collected into a cluster to demonstrate the correct meaning of a word in need of an interpretation.

In practice this meant that for any prophetic word, be it a horn, a lion, a dragon, a day, or the moon, the exegete's first task was to trace the use of the particular word in the entire Bible. Then the meaning that was appropriate within the context was chosen. In the framework of unilateral Biblicism such conclusions are perfectly logical, even though the original intent of the word, sensus litteralis historicus, was frequently over looked.

The metaphors were thought of as code words, "decorative substitutes" to be exchanged with the literal, non-symbolic meaning.¹² There are, however, a few instances in which the actual character of a metaphor is considered. For instance Miller writes about the power and rule of a lion, the celerity of a leopard, the voraciousness of a bear and the submissive nature of an ox.¹³

This principle meant that the concordance was more important than a commentary for a truly Biblical interpretation of a text.

I determined to lay aside all my prepossessions, to thoroughly compare Scripture with Scripture, and to pursue its study in a regular and methodical manner. I commenced with Genesis and read verse by verse.¹⁴

Virtually every piece of exegetical writing by the Millerites reflects this concordance logic. The text or the subject under interpretation is clarified by appropriate parallel texts on the key words of the opening text. When the subject was then surrounded with analogous texts, the reader was induced to conclude like Sir Isaac Newton in his use of the same principal, "--there is no ground in Scripture for any other interpretation.”¹⁵

The use of a concordance in this exegeses had a profound impact on Miller's conclusions. The exegesis of a text was basically an exercise in finding out the meaning of every individual word in the text. Several of Miller's rules reflect this emphasis on single words.¹⁶ It is no wonder, then, that Millerism centered on words like "Babylon," "day," "sanctuary," "the cleansing," "the seventh month," and so on.

One fruitage of this was the publication of a small prophetic dictionary. This eight page glossary, Explanation of prophetic figures had nearly 140 entries. The contents open with "adultery" and close with "wrath, day of' both of which are interpreted in a prophetic sense. In the glossary one finds obvious explanations like: "DAY, is one year - revolution of the earth in its orbit. Num.xiv.34. Eze.iv.5,6. Dan. vii.2,3." "HORN. Kings. Dan. vii.24. viii. 20,21. Rev. xvii.12,16." SEA. A large body of people. Isa.lvii.20. Dan.vii.3. Rev.vii.2,3." But there are also many words with no obvious connection with apocalyptic prophecy. For instance: "BELLY. Practical part. Rom. xvi.18. Job xv.35. Rev. x.9,10. Luke xv.16. John vii.38." "BREASTS. Consolation, word of God. Isa.lxvi.l1."¹⁷ It must have been a challenge to use such meanings consistently as rule XII suggests.

Miller fully identified with what can be termed unilateral Biblicism. He believed that an answer to a problem in, for instance, the book of Daniel can as naturally be found within the book of Genesis as in that of Revelation. The fact that he made no distinction between the various parts of the Bible made his cherished concordance method possible. It is no wonder that this hermeneutic has also been named the proof text method. However, in Miller's case the goal was one of finding "proof words" as well as proof texts.

Such unilateralism is expressed several times in the rules.¹⁸ This was a time when there were generally few doubts concerning the absolute uniformity of the Scriptures among American Protestants.¹⁹ This characteristic was combined with a type of literalism. While many pre-historicist exegetes and even a handful of Miller's contemporaries followed traditions begun by Origen or Augustine who allegorized Scriptural passages with meanings never intended by the authors, the Millerites, with other historicists, did their share of violence to the original intent of the Biblical author by insisting upon a fulfillment, literal to the detail, wherever possible.²⁰ The Maine Wesleyan Journal gives a contemporary opinion that "Mr. Miller is a great strider [sic] for literal interpretations; never admitting the figurative, unless absolutely required to make correct sense of meeting the event which is intended to be pointed out."²¹

This was not, however, literalism in the Mopsuestian sense. It was founded on the commonly accepted concept of a mystical meaning behind Biblical words and it presupposed a particular view of inspiration. Subsequently, not everyone agrees with the assessment on Miller's literalism. Because he freely applies Old Testament symbols to Christian doctrine and history and overlooks a literal application to Jewish history, he has also been rated a spiritual rather than a literal interpreter.²² Such confusing assessments are due to an ambivalence in the meaning of the words "literal" and "spiritual." However, no one can deny the fact that Miller's prophetic interpretations center around concrete historical events and are, in this sense, utterly literalistic.²³

The character of Millerite exegesis is made clear by the fact that the rules play down linguistic study as well as historical or cultural research. This is not done by omission only, but is clearly stated in rule XIV:

-- he that takes notice of the sparrow, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of his own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God -- from erring far from the truth, though they may not understand Hebrew or Greek."²⁴

This statement could be interpreted as negative evidence on the intellectual level of Millerism. However, it can also be taken as a clever way of apologizing for the lack of learned men in Millerite ranks. Or one may also look upon it from the angle that with this rule Miller exhorts laymen to study the Scriptures for themselves, independently of theologians who, after all, were likely to discredit Millerite viewpoints. There is an excellent illustration of this in Miller's debate with Dr. Stuart who published a set of rules with emphasis on the historical context:

The meaning of the Bible, of any passage thereof, is not to be determined by modern notions; but we must go back to the times and modes of thinking of the sacred writers themselves. -Regard must be had to the controversies of the age in which the sacred writers lived and wrote.²⁵

On the first impressions, without variation, I should pronounce it one of the most skeptical works that I have read for twenty years."²⁶

Overall Miller's rules demonstrate distrust for accepted creeds as well as for the scholarship of religious teachers.²⁷

It will come as no surprise to discover, that the Millerites sided with the majority of American protestants in their total and highly emotional rejection of "neology," theological research employing the historical critical method.²⁸ The first reports of German critical Biblical scholarship reached North America in Miller's day.²⁹ The issues were, of course, especially sensitive to the Millerites when the authorship or the fulfillment of "prophecies, in particular the book of Daniel, was in question. Because they believed that their interpretation was the logical absolute of conservative Christianity, they had reason to suggest that some churches promoted modern notions to counteract Millerism.³⁰

It is likely that the name of Antiochos Epiphanes was frequently thrust into the debate because Millerism was so popular.³¹ Miller's rules take no direct notice of these theological controversies, but their disposition is clearly for a conservative, Biblicist view against one where the original historical meaning of a text is sought after.³²

Finally, and possibly most significantly, one can consider what is omitted in Miller's rules. They make no mention of Christ, of salvation or of the gospel. This matches the near total lack of devotional writing in Millerite periodicals.³³ In spite of the fact that some historicists outside of Millerism sought to interpret prophecies with a Christocentric method³⁴ only few Millerites expressed any concern about this. Dr. Henry Dana Ward with the following comment is an exception rather than the rule:

“The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." No matter where the prophecy is found, whether in the Old or New Testament, one spirit animates the page; the testimony it bears is still to Jesus; and that interpretation is to be preferred which testifies of Jesus. -- The Old Testament ought always to be interpreted in holy conformity to the New Testament.³⁵

Dr. Ward, an Episcopalian rector, was a leading figure in the early phases of the Millerite revival but he was later quieted by zealous time setting and literalism towards the end of the movement.³⁶ Subsequently it is not surprising to that for some post Millerite groups it took decades to begin a serious discussion on sooteriology.³⁷

However, one must not conclude that the lack of Christological content in Miller's rules is a sign of a lack in personal piety. It is rather an indication of Miller's strong endorsement of the prevailing Biblicism which made the Bible a collection of truths on all matters. His enthusiasm on the eschaton crowded out some of the devotional content they certainly believed in. The general argumentative style of his writing leads him, in almost every document, to prove points related to prophecy. This left no room for salvific sidesteps.

Proper rules were regarded as keys for unlocking the otherwise mysterious symbols of the apocalyptic. "PROPHECY, like Science," wrote Faber, "has its own peculiar language. For understanding the prophecies, therefore, as Sir Isaac Newton justly observes, we are, in the first place, to acquaint ourselves with the figurative language of the prophets."³⁸ Faber continues by comparing prophecies to hieroglyphics which can only be deciphered with correct information, a Rosetta stone, which the historical method provided and expressed in rules like those of Miller's.³⁹

Hermeneutical rules were written to remove ambiguity from the interpretation of prophetic symbols. The laws of the Bible were regarded a replica of those found in nature. The search for such rules was regarded as a scientific and scholarly enterprise with an exact mathematical foundation.⁴⁰ Miller's rules added respectability to his exegesis. Ellen G. White reported years later that the opponents of Millerism were unable to disprove Miller's conclusions because they were based on such carefully thought out principles.⁴¹ Miller's rules also had long term consequences. They make it easier to understand some exegetical or doctrinal conclusions of various Adventist churches or even Jehovah's Witnesses.

The rules show that the Millerites took the task of interpreting the Bible seriously. In his comments on the Millerites Whitney Cross suggests that they cannot be regarded "victims of economic change, or hypnotized followers of a maniac, thrown into prominence merely by freak coincidence" because the larger part of American Protestantism came close to their beliefs. "Their doctrine," he continues, "was the logical absolute of fundamentalist orthodoxy.⁴²

I.-The word of God teaches that the earth is to be regenerated in the restitution of all things, and restored to the Eden state as it came from the hand of the Maker before the fall, and is to be the eternal abode of the righteous in their resurrection state.

II.-The only Millennium found in the word of God is the 1000 years which are to intervene between the first and the second resurrections as brought to view in the 20th of Revelations. And the various portions of Scripture which are adduced as evidence of such a period in time, are to have their fulfillment only in the New Earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

IlI.-The only restoration of Israel yet future, is the restoration of the Saints to the new Earth, when the Lord my God shall come, and all his saints with him.

IV.-The signs which were to precede the coming of our Savior, have all been given; and the prophecies have all been fulfilled but those which relate to the coming of Christ, the end of this world, and the restitution of all things.

V.-There are none of the prophetic periods, as we understand them, extending beyond the (Jewish) year 1843.

VI.-The above we shall ever maintain as the immutable truths of the word of God, and therefore till our Lord come, we shall ever look for his return as the next event in historical prophecy."⁴³

These lines were written by the editors of the Signs of the Times as an expression of their principal viewpoints. After the Spring of 1843 virtually every issue of the Signs of the Times or The Advent herald carried the "Fundamental principles". Thus it must have been the first summary that many' people read on the teachings of Millerism. This was the Millerite confession of faith. Regardless of religious background, everyone who agreed on these points was accepted in Millerite fellowship, even if there was variance in minor details.

"Fundamental principles" include several factors which are important for understanding Miller's exegetical conclusions. They show how important premillennialism was for the Millerites. They claim that "the restoration of the Saints to the new Earth" is the only fulfillment of prophecies given to Israel. In Miller's case these two ideas are a requisite for his finding several prophecies which lead to 1843. Furthermore they state that the signs of the times⁴⁴ have all been fulfilled and that the next event to be expected is the parousia.

The existence of "Fundamental Principles" did not mean that there was no room for debate over various Millerite doctrines in their periodicals. Frequent arguments included matters like the return of the Jews and the dating of Daniel's prophecies.⁴⁵ Some of this debate is mere promotion of Millente ideas against their opponents⁴⁶ while some of it is genuine allowance of differing opinions.⁴⁷

Miller's Old Testament exegesis would never have produced the results it did without one hermeneutical conclusion. The return, restoration, and/or conversion of the Jews was a most popular eschatological expectation in early nineteenth century North America. It was an essential element of the popular postmillennialism, but also many premillennialists believed that something spectacular would happen with the Jews in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies on the future glory of Israel. This was looked forward to as the final sign of the times.

The literalistic enthusiasm with which the return of the Jews was expected made men look for the ten lost tribes of Israel in various places. Some found them among American Indians. As a proof it was shown that there were 29 similar words in an Indian dialect and the Hebrew. Furthermore both the Indians and the Israelites were well known for their intemperance.⁴⁸ Others detected them among the Nestorians in Khoordistan or other far away places.⁴⁹ A literal return was expected to be literal up to the smallest detail.

Miller did not share these popular notions. Millerite publications make it absolutely clear that Miller and many of his followers believed it essential to present a different view on the promises made for Israel.⁵⁰ He makes the following comment on the topic. The quotation is also an excellent example of Miller's style of writing:

The substance of the prevailing opinion on this subject is, that the Jews, the literal descendants of Jacob, are to be gathered from their dispersed condition among the nations of the earth, and restored to the land of Palestine, where they are to enjoy an independent, national government and privileges, among the nations of the earth, never to be dispersed again, to the end of time.

If this doctrine can be supported, it must prove fatal to the doctrine maintained in these pages. And it must be confessed that there are many passages of Scripture which at first view seem to favor the sentiment; and were there no others to counteract them, or to explain their meaning, we could arrive at no other conclusion than that the Jews must be restored.⁵¹

One can see the importance of this point in Miller's own words. Faith in the return of the Jews would prove fatal to his expectation of immediate parousia.Miller did want to have anything in between the present and the second Advent.

Miller's interpretation of "the original promise made to the patriarchs" shows both sharp logic and a good knowledge of the Bible. He points out that all other Old Testament prophecies "supposed to refer to the restoration of the Jews" are in fact in agreement with the original promise.⁵² He understood that any future fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies must find it solution in the New Testament.

Miller turns to the book of Hebrews to prove that the "Abrahamic promise" is an everlasting promise: "For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. -- But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city." (Heb 11:10,16) And if the promise is to be fulfilled in eternity it must apply to those who are Abraham's seed in faith rather in the flesh. (Rom 2:28-29; 9:6-7) With proof like this it is easy for Miller to conclude that the promises are not intended for the original recipients but rather for those who believe in Christ, whose second advent will be the ultimate fulfillment of the promises.⁵³

In Himes' reprint of Spalding's book there is a skillfully planned case for a Christianization of Old Testament prophecies. Spalding places side by side Old and New Testament prophecies on the new earth. He finds numerous examples of Old Testament quotations in the New with the purpose of proving that both Jew and Gentile have one and the same hope. ⁵⁴ For many Millerites they not only had the same prophecies for the future but also a similar basis of salvation. Old Testament heroes of faith were regarded Christians.⁵⁵ Using Gal 4:22f and Rom 10:12 it was concluded that the Christian believers are the true children of Abraham and that there is no difference between a Jew and a Gentile. "The Jewish nation fell from their earthly privileges, and through that fall salvation came to the gentiles." All were on the same platform.⁵⁶

The arguments were repeated in various forms, and at times with pure rhetoric. In the Signs of the Times an anonymous Millerite wrote that "in all of New Testament there is not one promise to be found on earthy greatness made to any nation under heaven. There are promises of infinite value, but they are made to the household of faith, to those that are in Christ”⁵⁷ The gathering of Israel (Isa. 11:10-12) was expected to take place under the new covenant with both Jews and Gentiles joining the Christian church.⁵⁸

If someone was unconvinced with the New Testament evidence of Abraham's seed and promises, Miller tried another approach. His logic demanded that a literal fulfillment must be literal in every respect. Such a fulfillment, he claimed, was impossible because the ten tribes are lost. One could also find prophecies on the Jews ruling over the Gentiles. (Dt 30:7; Isa 11:14; 55:7,8,15) This, he continued, would scarcely be palatable to many of those who ardently advocate a literal restoration of the Jews.⁵⁹

It is not easy fully to appreciate the importance of the Millerite hermeneutic on prophecies concerning Israel and the return of the Jews. While Miller's fourteen rules are an important but repetitious expression of his Biblicist premises, his view on Israel is equally fundamental for understanding any aspect of his exegesis. In some respects this concept is the real powerhouse behind Miller's many interpretations, because it gave him an almost inexhaustible wealth of material in Old Testament prophecies, history and sanctuary service, all ready for an eschatological application outside Palestine. Without this principle much of Millerite chronology would have collapsed; after all, every one of Miller's key texts came from the Old Testament. This particular hermeneutical device is in fact more important if for Miller's system of exegesis than any other single viewpoint that he promoted.

While not relating directly to his Old Testament exegesis, premillennialism gave Miller the framework within which he interpreted all eschatological prophecies whether from the Old or the New Testament. The pioneers of historicism, Mede, the two Newtons, Gill and Faber were all premi1lennialists. Towards the end of the eighteenth-century premillenialism began to give way to postmillennialism in Europe as well as America.⁶⁰ Postmi1lennialism was frequently connected with an expectation of the Jews' reinstatement into Palestine as an inauguration of a millennial period of peace and prosperity. These chiliastic expectations nurtured seeds of dispensationalism, a system of prophetic exegesis which became extremely popular towards the last part of the nineteenth century when historicism had run out of favor.⁶¹

View endorsed by e.g. Cocceius, Vitringa, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Finney, Whitby.

Parousia

1^st resurrection

Millennium

Judgment

2^nd resurrection

Eternity

View endorsed by e.g. Mede, Isaac Newton, Thomas Newton, Gill, Faber, Irvin, Miller.

After the turn of the nineteenth-century premillennialism appears to have had a spontaneous revival in both America and Britain.⁶² Millerites endorsed the old but again prevalent premillennialism. This was a recurrent topic in their periodicals.⁶³ There were also chapters on the subject under several disguises. Directly on the Millennium, of course, but also under titles related to the resurrection, the judgment, the new earth and so on.⁶⁴ The following chart compares some of the main characteristics of various millennial views:

The key to Miller's thinking lies in his Old Testament concept of the Day of the Lord. He found two types of Old Testament texts on the subject. One category is on the destruction of the wicked "Behold the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger; and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it," (Isa 13:9) and the other is on the glory of the saints, "For behold, the day cometh -- [when] unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise." (Mal 4:1f.) These two varieties of texts are then interpreted in the light of Revelation 20 which separates the fIrst and the second resurrection by a millennium. (Rev 20:4,5) This, Miller asserted, means that the Day of the Lord cannot be an ordinary day. The appearing of the Sun of righteousness "is a plain figure of the coming of Christ," but even if the sinners are destroyed at the parousia their ultimate destruction cannot be but a thousand years later. (Rev 20:7-15) The Day of the Lord is the Millennium.⁶⁵

This is the day of the Lord, one thousand years. Is this day to be understood a literal or figurative thousand years? I answer, literal, for it is an explanation of a figure rather than a figure.⁶⁶ See 2Pet iii.8: "But, beloved, -- one day is with the Lord as a thousand years --"

When will the wicked be raised and judged? I answer, when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, Gog and Magog will come up on the surface of the earth. Gog and Magog signify the whole host of the wicked which have ever lived on the earth, the opposers of Christ⁶⁷

During the millennium the saints were expected to live in the safety of the New Jerusalem which "is on the earth, and of course must have come down from heaven at the commencement of the thousand years."⁶⁸ Miller was emphatic on an earthly millennium, possibly because the stone of Daniel 2, in his view, could only mean the establishment of God's eternal kingdom on this earth at the fall of all earthly powers.⁶⁹ At the beginning of the millennium the enemies of God are destroyed, and the "happy period" portrayed by Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zachariah commences.⁷⁰ Miller's main interest was in connecting the Millennium together with his ideas of prophetic time.

In the final analysis Miller came to his particular premillennial views because he believed that Old Testament promises on Israel's future must find their fulfillment in the Christian church. No other millennial view seemed to provide a slot into which even the most obscure or difficult Old or New Testament texts could be placed.⁷¹ When they ran out of Bible texts the Millerites took the church fathers to witness for premillennialism.⁷² They loved proving things.⁷³ Their attack against postmillennialism was so fierce because they believed that the tenet of the type of "temporal millennium" in which the world would gradually turn into a place of peace, prosperity, and safety was "a soul destroying doctrine."⁷⁴

The books of Daniel and Revelation naturally tend to millennial expectations. Millerism is no exception. The Millerites loved both of these books. It is typical for a Millerite chart to include words like "Read, Daniel II, VII and VIII. 'Whoso readeth, let him UNDERSTAND!'"⁷⁵ And the Millerites certainly believed that they did understand.⁷⁶

I cannot agree with some who tell us that the prophecies cannot be understood. I consider such language the language of infidelity. What is it but saying - "Revelation is no Revelation? Revelation is something made known, and, of course, to be understood. -- I most solemnly believe that God designed every part of the Bible should be understood.⁷⁷

The Millerites had little to say on the narrative sections of Daniel. The following is limited to comments on their views of Daniel's prophecies. The first lesson many Millerites received on Daniel came from posters that were decorated with a picture of Daniel 2 or of the beasts in Daniel 7 and 8. These rather grotesque visual aids were often accompanied by time scales which matched the changes of kingdoms according to the Millerite understanding. The year 1843 was naturally matched with the toes of clay and iron,⁷⁸ as well as the final end of the last beast and its little horn.⁷⁹

Miller explained the prophetic symbols of Daniel in sequence through Babylon, a kingdom called Medo-Persia (after Dan 8:20), Greece, pagan Rome and finally papal Rome, which includes no surprises for anyone familiar with historical interpretation of prophesies.⁸⁰

There were several aspects in the prophecies of Daniel which were assumed to confirm the historicist view of the kingdoms. Every vision leads to the establishment of God's kingdom

[Dan 2]⁸¹ the judgment [Dan 7] or the time of the end [Dan 8], all of which match the eschatological setting the Millerites were interested in. Some of the symbolic metals or beasts had qualities which appeared to portray the kingdom it was attached to. For instance Babylon was a kingdom of "gold" and Rome displayed the irresistible strength of "iron." Likewise the clumsy but powerful "bear" and swift "leopard" matched the war technique that Persia and Macedonia employed.

Confirmation of the historical interpretation was searched for in every minute detail.⁸² Storrs commented on the bear's two sides (Dan 7:5): "Representing two lines of kings, one much longer than the other."⁸³ Similarly the two horns of the ram in Daniel 8:3 were said to be two royal lines in the Medo-Persian kingdom. They were the "meridian glory" of the kingdom.⁸⁴ For every minor feature some kind of historical reality was assumed.

The Bible was used to expand on the meaning of a symbol. George Storrs' Bible Examiner is one of the most comprehensive commentaries that Millerism ever produced on the book of Daniel. Storrs' comments on Babylon reflect the desire to find a Biblical and somewhat mystical meaning for the golden head of the statue in Daniel 2.

Babylon was the first kingdom of universal empire. It was founded by Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah. See Genesis x.8-10. It lasted near seventeen hundred years, though under different names; sometimes called Babylon, sometimes Assyria, and sometimes Chaldea. It extended from Nimrod to Belshazzar, who was its last king.⁸⁵

From the very first issue of the Signs there begins an ongoing discussion on the exact identity of the ten horns.⁸⁶ Historicist exegetes had always had minor variants in their lists of the horns and the Millerites are no exception. These powers were consistently found in Europe.⁸⁷ This is important because it opened a possibility for arriving at an anti-Roman exegesis of the little horn. The little horn rose from "among them." It appeared "after" the other horns and was "different" from them, it "blasphemed" God and pushed aside "three horns". (Dan 7:8) The fulfillment of all this was envisaged in the papacy which, of course, appeared in Europe after the tribes thought to be represented by the horns. It was different as it was a religious power, its teachings were blasphemous for the puritan frame of mind. The Millerites identified the three horns plucked away with the Heruli (476 AD.), the Vandals (534 AD.) and the Ostrogoths (538 AD.). The defeat of these Arian nations was seen to have been caused by papal manipulation and it was regarded a victory for the bishop of Rome.⁸⁸

The list of parallels between papacy and the little horn is impressive. It included blasphemy, persecution of the saints, change of times and laws, duration, the description of the rise of papacy as well as its rule, and finally the end of papacy. Litch's commentary on these qualities includes charges of papal atrocities matching each detail of the description.⁸⁹

Millerite periodicals printed their fiercest exegetical debates with those who objected to Miller's ideas over the identity of the little horn in Daniel 8. Continuous historical interpretation had always been fairly unanimous concerning Daniel 2 and 7. However, Daniel 8 had been interpreted in a variety of ways. Mede solved the problems of this chapter by applying the prophecy to Antiochos Epiphanes. The two Newtons differed from him by stretching the little horn all the way through pagan Rome to papal Rome.⁹⁰ Miller's historicist contemporaries were at variance on this issue. These differences were caused by the fact that the basic principles of continuous historical application bring the little horn into the Grecian period as the symbol of the he-goat is clearly identified within the chapter itself.(Dan 8:21) Yet, on the other hand, parallelism and synchronization of the little horns of chapters 7 and 8 led some historicists to apply the horn to the papacy. This was also Miller's conclusion.

Millerite periodicals give several reasons for the papal identification of the little horn in Daniel 8. It was claimed to be absurd to have a horn symbolize anything but a kingdom while Antiochos was but one of 26 individuals. The vision claims to take the reader to the "time of the end," (Dan 8:17) and Antiochos brought no end to the world. The little horn was said to grow into exceeding greatness, bigger than everything that preceded it, which would be historically untrue for Antiochos. (Dan 8:9) Furthermore the geographical directions for the conquests of the little horn: south, east, and the beautiful land (Dan 8:9) presumably matched more closely with the conquests of Rome than with those of the kingdom of the Seleucids. As a final point of identification the little horn persecuted the saints, 50 million of whom were claimed to have been killed by the Roman Catholic church. When compared with this figure Antiochos destruction of a few thousand Jews appeared insignificant.⁹¹

Colbert, one of Miller's contemporaries, wrote a book on the literal fulfillment of Daniel which the Millerites took as an anti-Millerite document. The literalness of Colbert's approximate 1260, 1290, 1335, or 2300 days was ridiculed by the Millerites as anything but literal. They claimed that three years and ten days (1Mac 1:54; 4:521) is far from the "literal" 1260 or even 1150 days.⁹² The final and conclusive argument against Antiochos was, however, that Daniel 8 presents Persia as "great" (Dan 8:4). Then Greece is described as "very great" (Dan 8:8). Finally the little horn is described as "exceedingly great" (Dan 8:9). Thus if Antiochos were the fulfillment, he would have had to be greater than Persia or Alexander the Great. Rome, they claimed, would match the description perfectly.⁹³

In some of the illustrations the Millerites portrayed the little horn as extremely long in proportion to the goat.⁹⁴ This was so because the horn had to represent about two thousand years of history in the form of pagan as well as papal Rome.

Daniel 8 was vital for Millerism. Its chronology, the 2300 evenings and mornings was decisive for the fate of the whole revival. This aspect of Daniel 8 will be discussed in the following chapter. But the basic outline of the chapter was also vital. They believed that they had interpreted every aspect of this chapter logically according to all available Biblical or historical information. The identification they gave to the various symbols made it possible for them to proclaim the time aspects of the chapter with conviction.

As Miller's chronological exegesis is discussed in the following chapter one may pass over Daniel 9 directly to chapter eleven which includes no time-prophecies. A large part of its contents relate so directly to Antiochos Epiphanes that historicism never created great enthusiasm about it.⁹⁵ From Miller's point of view the main problem of this chapter lies in the fact that any extensive identification of Antiochos in chapter 11 would erode the conclusion that the little horn of Daniel 8 marks Rome.

In his few comments on this chapter Miller evades Antiochos in the early part of the chapter. The important point in his view was the appearance of the Romans on the Jewish scene in 158 B.C., a date which was important for his chronological exegesis. The dividing line for him lies in vv. 20 and 21. The tax collector is applied to Augustus (Lk 2:1) and the anointed prince naturally to Christ himself. The vile person is Tiberius. In the latter half of the chapter the king of the north was with varying degrees of appropriateness applied to Roman Caesars, the papacy and finally to Napoleon and his Egyptian campaigns.⁹⁶ Millerite exposition is a peculiar combination of literal and symbolic interpretation.

In Daniel 12 besides time-prophecies, there were two interesting points. Because Millerites believed that Christ was also the Savior of the Jews, Michael (Dan 12:1) was said to be Jesus.⁹⁷ The second idea rose from Daniel 12:4 - "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." The fulfillment of this was seen not only in their "increasing knowledge" of the book of Daniel but also in the rapidly changing systems of communication [telegraphs, steam engines, etc.] and information.⁹⁸

Millerism catered for the type of mind that was mainly interested in the end. Because of this the books of Daniel and Revelation were so important. The historical interpretation of prophetic symbols appears to have had two functions: it proved the accuracy of prophecy and pointed out signs of the times. Historical events were seen to run towards a divinely planned goal.

Miller's exposition of the book of Revelation has not been included in this study. This does not mean that the book of Revelation was unimportant for the Millerites.⁹⁹ Even though their main eschatological calculations were derived from the Old Testament, they, like all historicists, loved the Apocalypse. For William Miller the book of Revelation was a series of prophecies which repeated the history of the Christian era from different angles. Every new vision of the Apocalypse was seen as an enlargement on the latter part of the same history which they had found in the book of Daniel. The seven churches (Rev 2-3) were seven epochs of the Christian church. The seven seals (Rev 6-8) and the seven trumpets (Rev 8-9) were regarded as repetitions of the principal events in the history of the world, illustrating among other things the rise and fall of both Roman Catholicism and Islam.¹⁰⁰ The final chapters represented last day signs. The seven last plagues were understood to have been fulfilled with the exception of the seventh, which was expected to come true on the day of the second Advent.¹⁰¹ In particular chapter 20 was important as it lay at the foundation of Millerite teaching on premillennialism.

The Millerite view of the Bible may not have been unique for nineteenth-century North America. It views the Bible as a storeroom of information on all manner of things including, of course, the past and the present. In the case of the Millerites sooteriological issues were left behind a quest for a divine philosophy of history. This meant painstaking comparisons of Biblical texts with the help of a concordance. The meanings and symbols of key words was a vital part of the process. With these tools details of prophecy were explained to cover most of human history. With the help of two vital principles premillennialism and an application of Old Testament prophecies for Israel to the Christian church - Miller built a hermeneutical structure that supported his ideas on the time in every respect.

4. Miller "Miller's Letters No.5. --" ST May 15, 1840. This original version was most exhaustive of all with every Bible reference printed out and with editorial comments.

6. SAM, 103-6. Cf. Damsteegt 1977, 299f. Hale's version omits rule III and the second sentence of rule no. X. One should also note that Miller's first effort of creating guidelines is in Evi 1833. Miller was not the only one to write guidelines for exegesis among the Millerites. See e.g. R. "Second Coming" ST April 15, 1840. See Appendix I.

7. E.g. Harrison 1979, 200f. Judd "William Miller, Disappointed Prophet" in Number & Butler 1987, 20f. Damsteegt 1977, 299f used the edited version of the rules.

9. VOP 1842/j, 20-24. Cf. Miller "Miller's Letters No. 5--" ST May 15, 1840; Miller "Rules of --" MC Nov 17, 1842; Bliss 1853, 70-72; cf. Harrison 1979, 200f. Judd "William Miller, Disappointed Prophet" in Number & Butler 1987, 20f. See also SAM, 103-6; Damsteegt 1977, 299f.

11. Worthingon "Preface to Mede's Works" in Mede 1663/4, no page numbers; Rasmussen 1983, 71.

19. Rogers&McKim 1979, 265-322. Sandeen observes that there was virtually no debate over the absolute authority and infallibility of the Scriptures, "Millennialism" in ROA, 112f.

21. "Mr. Miller" Maine Wesleyan Journal, March 20, 1840. Miller agreed with the statement: "I have found one honest editor." VOP 1842/j, 16.

29. Millerites regularly reported on new developments. Anon. "The Tendency to German Neology" ST June 21, 1843 ridicules the conclusions of Semler and Eichorn. See also Whiting 1844.

30. Anon. "The Neology of the Church" AH April 3, 1844; Anon. "The Methodists also on the Road to German Neology" AH April 17, 1844.

34. E.g. Vitringa's canons were published in the Investigator. "The infallible key is the right knowledge of Jesus Christ--". Vitringa "On the Interpretation of Prophecy," IEP IV: 157-169.

37. E.g. SDAs had their sooteriological crisis in 1888. E.G. White supported traditional protestant values together with E.J. Waggoner and AT. Jones. See Froom 1971; Olsen 1966; Linden 1982.

39. The confidence placed on such rules is obvious in Faber's words. "In the use of this language there is by no means that obscurity and uncertainty, which some half infidel objectors would pretend. -- They might just as reasonably throw aside a Chinese inscription, as incapable of being decyphered. Without a key, neither can be understood: but when a key is produced, the book will very readily be opened." Faber 1828, 12. Cf. Faber 1828, 2.

40.The laws of the Bible were regarded a replica of those in nature with an exact mathematical foundation. Manuel 1974, 98.

43. "Fundamental principles" AH Feb 14, 1844. Supplement to the AH 1844 (no. 17) includes a commentary with a slightly edited text of the "principles".

44. The "signs of the times" in Millerite writings means not only the synoptic apocalypse but also the books of Daniel and Revelation.

45. See e.g. Miller "Mr. Miller's reply to Cambell, Smith, and others, on the Little Horn in Daniel's fourth kingdom" ST April 1, 1840; Cambell "Mr. Cambell's reply to Mr. Miller, on the Little horn in Daniel's fourth kingdom" ST April 15, 1840; Litch, .Mr. Litch's reply to rev. Ethan Smith, and others on the Little Horn in Daniel's fourth kingdom" ST May 1, 1840. Some of the articles were collected into pamphlets like Bush 1844.

46. E.g. Bliss 1843/a (first published as a series in ST and MC in the spring of 1843); Miller 1842/g (first published in ST, autumn 1842.

47. E.g. Cambell was allowed to express freely his prophetic expositions concerning prophetic chronology and the return of the Jews even though he held views different from those of Miller. Cambell "Mr. Cambell on the Return of the Jews" ST June 15, 1840. By 1842 attitudes were less relaxed. See e.g. Miller "Miller's reply--" in VOP 1842/j (first published in ST in the autumn of 1842).

50. For books see e.g.: Bliss 1842/a, 20-35; VOP 1842/j, 85100; 225-231; Litch 1842/b, 35-76; Litch 1842/a, 40-56; Litch 1843; Fleming 1844, 9-15; Ward 1843; Cox 1842, 36-43; Sabine 1843, 58-77; Spalding 1841, 156-177. Some examples of representative periodical articles: Miller "Letter from mr. Miller, No.3, On the Return of the Jews" ST April 15, 1840; Ward "The Restoration of Israel" ST Sep 1, 1840; Anon. "The Promises to Abraham" ST June 1, 1841; Anon. "Who are the Israel to whom the Promises Are Made" ST June 1, 1841; W. "Pleroma, or the Fullness of the Jews" ST Sep 1, 1841; W. "Pleroma, or the Fullness of the Gentiles" ST Sep 15, 1841; Cox "Return of the Jews" ST June 1, 1842; Walstenholme "Conversion of the Jews" ST Aug 10, 1842; B. "The Return of the Jews" ST Aug 31, 1842; Ward "Prophecy and the Jews" ST Apr 12, 1843; Coles "The Jews - Roman xi" ST may 17, 1843; Ward, Jars, Russel "Circular - The Address of the Conference on the Second Advent of the Lord, Convened at Boston Mass. Oct 14, 1840" ST Nov 1, 1840 includes the following significant comment: "We do not condemn those who circulate Judaising notion."

55. "When Abraham was converted he was circumcised of heart," Anon. "Who are the Israel to Whom the Promises Are Made" ST June 1, 1841.

56. Anon. "The Promises to Abraham" ST June 1, 1841. Cf. e.g. Cox "Return of the Jews" ST June 1, 1842; Litch 1842/a, 55- 76.

57. Anon. "The Promises to Abraham" ST June 1, 1841. Cf. Miller "Evidence--" ST May 1, 1841.

58. Miller VOP 1841, 229f. Miller believed that Isa 11:11 and Jer 32:37-40 would prove the new covenant fulfillment.

59. VOP 1841, 228. Some of Miller's claims were simply belligerent. For instance "How many will brothers Phelps and Cambell, and others, who are sticklers for the Jew's return, and for a temporal millennium, be the means of lulling to sleep." VOP 1841, 221. Or he refers to Peter's words that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34f). But if God should restore the Jews as his people, then God would be a respecter of persons and "Peter needed another conversion." VOP 1841, 221.

63. Within four years there were 61 articles touching the subject in ST, AH and MC [cf. Appendix IIJ. For representative examples see Anon. "Fundamental Principles' AMDZ May, 1842;

Litch "Review of 'Bible Reader' on Miller's View of the Millennium. No. III" ST July 1, 1841 [This is part of a series that begin June 1, 1841]; Walstenholme "The Puritan - The Millennium" ST May 1, 1842; B. "A Temporal Millennium a Soul Destroying Doctrine" ST June 29, 1842; Law "A Plain Exposition of a Plain Passage - Rev xx.4-6" ST June 29, 1842; Collins "Two Resurrections I & II" ST June 6 & 22, 1842; Anon. "Second Advent of Christ Premillennial" ST Sep 6, 1843.

64. The main sources for the Millerite teaching on the Millennium are Bliss 1842/a, 35-71; Bliss 1843/f, 7; Miller 1842/b, 28-38; Litch 1842/b, 1:38-54, 197-207; Litch 1842/a, 19-39; Fleming 1842, 24-32; Fleming 1844, 6-9, 15-18; Fleming 1840, 1826; Hervey 1843/a, 68f; Spalding 1841, 54-76. There are also some unclear presentations like Fitch 1841, 14-30; Cox 1842, 536.

66. Some Millerites advanced ideas of a prophetic millennium lasting 1000 prophetic or 360.000 literal years. Such ideas were not considered too problematic as millennium was part of eternity. E.g. Allen "On the Designations of Time--" ST Oct 1, 1840.

68. VOP 1842/j, 151. The British premillennialists Cuninghame, Birks and Irving held views only slightly different from the Millerites. Rasmussen MS 1983, 82-84 is mistaken on this point

71. See e.g. Miller "Dissertation on the Judgment" ST Jan 15, 1841; B[liss?] "A Temporal Millennium--" ST June 29, 1842; Pseudonym: A Bible Reader "A Bible Reader on Mr. Miller's View on the Millennium" ST Jan 15, 1841.

72. Bliss 1842/a cites Barnabas, Papian, Polycarp, Turtullian [sic] and Cyprian as believers in Christ's literal nllllennial reign on earth.

73. The Millerites loved numbers. On the lighter side of the Millerite reasoning, premillennialism was supported with an estimate on population density. During the prosperous circumstances the Millennium with no deaths to be expected E. Jacob claimed that the earths population would double every 24 years. Thus the then currant 900.000 inhabitants would mushroom into a staggerin 2.638.827.906.662.400.000.000 leaving an impossible 5.6 million inhabitants for every square yard of the earth. Jacob "The Millennium" MC Oct 5, 1843.

76. Best sources for the Millerite exegesis of Daniel are Bliss 1842/a; Bliss 1843/f, 1-6; VOP 1842/j, 173-181[Little horn]; Litch 1842!b, 1:77-111 [Little horn]; 2:3-113 [Dan 11 ; Litch 1842/a, 88110 [Dan 11-12a]; Storrs 1843, 1-53; Articles: The Author of 'A Clue to the Time' "The Endless Kingdom" ST May 11, 1842 [Dan 2]. See also bibliographical notes on Dan 7 and 8 in the following chapter.

78. The most famous of these charts was designed by Charles Fitch and Apollos Hale in 1843. In this one the statute of Daniel is separate from the timetable. See Appendix IV. Even their opponents copied some of these charts. Litch "Daniel's Visions" New York Tribune Extra March 2, 1843; Trumpet of Alarm Apr 24, 1843.

81. Bliss 1842/a, 8-14 emphasizes that God's kingdom was not established 1800 years ago [like many amillennialists and some postmillennialists claimed] because it is not yet established.

Un the other hand, Bliss continues the "church militant" was existed all the way from Abel.

82. Sometimes parallels were extended to the point of contradiction. E.g. Millerites identified the ten toes of Nebuchadnezzar's image with the ten kingdoms of Daniel 7. The same application was also done with the Rev 13.1 and 17.12,16 leaving ten kingdoms into Europe at the time of the second advent after three had supposedly been plucked away by 538 A.D. See Storrs "Exposition of Nebuchadnezzar's Dream" MC May 4, 1843.

86. Miller "Mr. Miller's Reply to Cambell and Others on the Little Horn in Daniel's Fourth Kingdom" ST Mar 20, 1840. Litch "Mr. Litch's Reply to Ethan Smith and Others on the Little Horn in Daniel's Fourth Kingdom" ST May 1, 1840.

87. Fleming 1842, 40; SAM 84f; Litch 1842/b, 1:77-111; Bliss 1842/a, 86; give the following identifications: Bliss [identical with Miller's, Litch's and Hale's list: Huns, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Sueves, Burgundians, Heruli, Saxon and Angles, Lombards (Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths were plucked out); Fleming: France, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Naples, Tuscany, Austria - plus 3 that were plucked out by being given to the pope - Lombardy, Rome, Ravenna.

88. A detail which was little discussed is the fact that the relationship of the rise of papacy and the defeat of the Ostrogoths in 538 is not well attested in secular history. Cf. Shea MS 1980, 270-288.

93. [Bliss] "The Inconsistencies of Colver's --" MC Mar 10, 1843. Cf. Anon. "Is Antiochos Epiphanes the Hero of Daniel's Prophecy" ST Dec 28, 1842.

99. The best Millerite sources on the book of Revelation are Miller 1842/b, 127-232 [first chapters of Rev]; Miller 1844 [latter part of Rev]; Litch 1842/b, 1:175-196 [seven last plagues]; and e.g. A Lover of Truth "The Beasts" ST Mar 1, 1842.

100. See e.g. Anon. "End of the 1260 Days" ST July 19, 1843; Litch 1842/b, 2:132-227.