Глава пета

When Miller began studying his Bible he was excited with its predictions about the future. He was amazed at how literally and specifically the prophecies that had been fulfilled were accomplished. He admired those prophecies which he believed to point to specific events in the history of Israel or to the first coming of Christ. These were often presented as the unarguable, Biblical proof of the value of prophecy.¹ Miller was assured that the ones relating to the second Advent would be likewise fulfilled. He was intrigued at the thought that God had placed prophecies into the Bible for humans to understand. In particular time-prophecies appealed to him. "I could but regard the chronological portions of the Bible as being as much a portion of the word of God, and as much entitled to our serious consideration, as any other portion of the Scriptures." Indeed, he sensed an obligation to understand these passages. "I had no right to pass over the prophetic periods."²

The results of his chronological labor were published in sermons, books, pamphlets and periodicals. Synopsis of Miller's

I believe the time can be known by all who desire to understand and to be ready for his coming. And I am fully convinced that some time between March 21st, 1843, and March 21st, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation of time, Christ will come, and bring all his saints with him; and that then he will reward every man as his works shall be.³

The power of Millerism lies in these time calculations. What steam was for an engine, definite times were for the Millerites. Miller is by no means original in his enthusiasm to create a time table for the eschaton. However, his creative imagination located chronological prophecies in all parts of the Bible. He brought them together into a unique combination.

God in his wisdom has so interwoven the several prophecies, that the events foretold are not all told by one prophet. And although they lived and prophesied in different ages of the world, yet they tell us the same things; so you take away one, and a link will be wanting. There is a general connection through the whole; like a well regulated community they all move in unison, speaking the same things, observing the same rules, so that a Bible reader may almost with propriety suppose, let him read in what prophecy he may, that he is reading the same prophet, the same author -- therefore the biblical student must select and bring together every part of the subject he wishes to investigate, from every part of the Bible.⁴

Thus Miller located eschatological time-prophecies in such diverse books of the Bible as Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea as well as Luke, Hebrews, and the Revelation. Miller's interpretation of these texts is the theme of this chapter.

If Millerite prophetic chronology were to be appraised by today's exegetical criteria one could easily find reason to criticize his use of the Bible and his conclusions. This would mean imposing modern standards upon people who worked under ambitions and logic quite different from today's. The purpose of the following pages is not to claim that Miller's conclusions were sound or unsound. It is simply to describe the evidence that the' Millerites gave for their prophetic time table. Any evaluation of Miller's exegesis must be done by the historicist criteria. Such evaluation is not, however, important here. The main purpose of this chapter is to give, for the first time, full picture of the exegesis that shook the life of thousands and that was at least partially responsible for the end of historicism as a popular method of interpreting prophecies.

Apocalyptic timekeeping was the heart of Millerite exegesis. For centuries the historicist method had employed a system which interpreted prophetic times with a simple formula: a prophetic “day” means a literal “year”.⁵ This made it possible to interpret apocalyptic prophecies so that they terminated in the modern era. Miller accepted year/day principle and in his own words found himself in "accordance with the opinions of all the standard Protestant commentators."⁶ So popular was the year day idea, that the Millerites had occasion to expound on the subject but rarely.⁷

One of Miller's expositions on the year-day principle shows how the use of a concordance is a prerequisite for the whole idea. He explains how even a child may take the word "day" to find "what his heavenly father means by days in a figurative sense for he is satisfied it cannot be literal" as several kingdoms cannot rise and fall in a time span of 2300 [or 1260] days of Daniel's prophecies.

The first text he lights upon is in Num. xiv.34, "each day for a year." May this not be it? says the child. He takes hold of it by faith, carries it home, lays it up in his cell of sweets, richer than a lord, and again goes forth in search of more. He now lights upon Eze. iv.6: I have appointed thee each day for a year." -- He does not stop to criticize -- and query, and reason himself out of common sense and reason too; but Abraham-like, he believes, and lays up his treasure at home. I see, says the child, this use of days was so ordained by my Father in two cases, and two witnesses is enough.⁸

This rather emotionally loaded argument for the year-day method continues by an application, which was considered an ultimate proof of its suitability. Miller applies the year-day device to the "seventy weeks" of Dan 9:25. Like earlier historicists, he believed that a 490 year period leading up to the time of Christ was an unarguable conclusion for any discussion on the year for a day theory.⁹

This equation was founded upon an idea of a "prophetic calendar" which followed neither lunar nor solar calendars.¹⁰

The length of a "month" was counted from Mede's equation of Daniel 7:25; 12:7; Rev 11:2; 12:6,14; 13:5. This synchronization made 3 1/2 years equal to 1260 days and 42 months.¹¹ The Millerites utilized this hermeneutic to its limits. They applied the formula even to fractions of a day and they believed one prophetic hour to mean fifteen literal days or half an hour to mean a literal week.¹²

The high regard in which the year/day theory was generally held is reflected in the fact that Miller's opponents rarely objected to it. Dr. Bush in his Reasons for rejecting Mr. Miller's views of the Advent comments:

In taking a day as the prophetical term for a year, I believe you are sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names Mede, Sir I. Newton, Bishop Newton, Kirby, Scott, Keith and a host of others.¹³

Miller did, however, differ from most historicists in employing more than one formula for the interpretation of time.

Figures sometimes have two or more different significations, as day is used in a figurative sense to represent three different periods of time.

If you put on the right construction it will harmonize with the Bible and make good sense, otherwise it will not.¹⁴

In another context he clarifies his argument on the meaning of the word "day" by stating that there were three types of days: natural, lasting 24 hours or one cycle of the earth round its axis; prophetic, meaning a year or one cycle of the earth round the sun; thousand year days, which due to their length deserved the title "Lord's day." In addition to using the popular year/day, Miller also employed the thousand years for a day calculation in some of his interpretations of the date of the parousia. The basis for turning a day into a thousand years was naturally derived from 2 Pet 3:8,10. King James' translation, "be not ignorant of this one thing," appeared to emphasize the legitimacy of this chronology.¹⁵

Biographical as well as scholarly literature on Millerism gives an erroneous view on Miller's exegetical interests. Anyone reading literature on Millerism is likely to conclude that Daniel 8:14 was Miller's only and main reason for expecting the parousia in the year 1843 and that he was interested primarily in the books of Daniel and Revelation. This is unfortunate, since it fails to do justice to Miller. This chapter describes Miller’s fifteen years of proving the time of the eschaton, and at the same time it will show that Miller was absorbed in proving the time with all of the Bible. Miller wanted to present a coherent Biblical broadside on the time of the parousia.

There is no reason to assume that the omissions in the various descriptions on Miller's interpretation were deliberate. Many of those who have written on Miller have had a Seventh-day Adventist background. The result has been "strongly partisan history"¹⁶ which unintentionally omitted ideas that were no longer relevant for Sabbatarian Adventism. Again, Miller's original exegesis has been shadow by that of the revival’s last turn, the Seventh-month movement. The sheer bulk of one sided material on Millerism has hampered judgment and the inaccuracies have been perpetuated in scholarly as well as popular works.¹⁷

Millerite sources confirm that even though Daniel 8:14 may have been an important and popular part of Miller's argumentation on the end of time, it certainly was not the only one. For instance Miller's lectures were published in 1833, 1836, 1838, 1840 and 1842. Each time only some of Miller's arguments were published, only some of his fifteen proofs were chosen. An undated letter explains the reason for this:

I have prepared at the time my lectures were published, lectures of seven different modes on prophecy which in my humble opinion [sic] proved the time; but the publishers thought three of them would be enough, they therefore selected out three or four of the most prominent ones and published them left [sic] the rest, which I believe have since been published or are now in prep.¹⁸

He believed that all possible time-prophecies must be brought together for a true understanding of the Biblical revelation. He decried using only a few "proofs." Another illustration of this is related to a review of Miller's lectures in the Maine Wesleyan Journal. Having been allowed space for but five of his fifteen, arguments Miller concludes, "These are only part of the scriptural data by which this theory is established.”¹⁹ Similarly in his "Address to the Second Advent Conference" in 1841 he mentions most of his arguments, 6Ooo years, 2520 years, 2450 years, 2300 years, 2000 years and 391 years 15 days. Then he makes a point which cannot be appreciated if one focuses exclusively on Daniel.

You will next inquire, How shall we know when these times will all end? I answer, when you or any other man can show by scripture rule that they all harmonize and come out in one and the same year, they cannot be far from the truth.²⁰

The division of Miller's exegesis into 15 categories stems from a document published in January 1843, the year he expected Christ to return. This synopsis of his views lists fifteen modes of arriving at 1843 under the heading: "Time proved in Fifteen Different Ways."²¹ This document is not the most comprehensive account of any single part of Miller's exegesis, but it is the best available summary of his chronological exegesis."²²

Miller's comments and his books confirm that he himself appreciated all of his fifteen proofs. It must, however, be noted that these fifteen ways were were not Miller's ways only, but many or all of them were shared by other leading Millerites.²³ This is also indicated by the many chronological charts and articles that they published.²⁴ None of the charts was prepared by Miller himself, yet most of them included several ways of adding up prophetic years to the terminus of 1843. However, it must be recognized that all of the fifteen proofs were not equally popular with other Millerites. Some of them are promoted in books only and are virtually unmentioned in Millerite periodicals, while others are frequently discussed in both books and periodicals.

The validity of various exegetical points was at times questioned in Millerite periodicals. This is true also for Miller's argument on Daniel 8:14. In an effort to arrive at a correct definition of Millerite teaching the present writer analyzed the subject matter of every article in Millerite periodicals between January 1840 and December 1843.²⁵ This analysis included 685-articls with a minimum length of a third of a page. More than half of these periodical items, 355, were exegetical in nature, mostly on the Millennium, the resurrection, the judgment, and the principles of interpretation as well as the prophecies on the return on the Jews. There were 127 articles on time-prophecies out of which 123 were on one or more of Miller's 15 proofs.

The distribution of these articles on time-prophecies gives an interesting insight into the development of Millerism. In the final count Daniel 8:14 is discussed in 34 separate items, much more frequently than all the other proofs. However, the result would have been very different had the analysis covered but a few months shorter period. In the period 1840-1842 the theory of 6000 years was the most frequently discussed way of timing the second Advent.²⁶ In the year 1843 speculation on the exact time of the end increased and Daniel 8:14 was discussed over and over in several articles. This paved the way for the seventh-month movement. Overall the periodicals show that the Millerites had sufficient interest in a number of Miller's fifteen proofs to make it a gross misrepresentation of Millerism to leave anyone of Miller's fifteen proofs undiscussed. Each one of the arguments must be taken into consideration for a full summary of Millerite teaching.

Miller prepared fifteen proofs which on closer analysis include seven diverse ways of calculating 1843 as the final year of world's history. The actual sequence in which Miller developed his 15 proofs is unclear because many of them are referred to or found in the earliest written sources.²⁷ A clue as to the evolution of Miller's thinking might be available in the Venn ant Telegraph from the early part of 1832, when Miller presented his view in writing for the first time. These have not been available for this study, but there are other observations one can make on Miller’s fifteen proofs.

Only two of the seven stem from the book of Daniel and none from the Apocalypse.²⁸ The deduction that Daniel 8:14 was not the exegetical hub of Millerism is sealed by the observation that in the Synopsis of Miller's news Miller's comments on Daniel are the shortest of all among the fifteen proofs, and in no way singled out. After the "proofs" he states, "These several ways of prophetic chronology prove the end in 1843.”²⁹

Five of the seven time spans were recurrently printed in a short statement on Millerite beliefs on the editorial page of the Advent Herald.³⁰ All fifteen proofs were published in the leading Millerite periodical, Signs of the TImes,³¹ and N. Southard, the editor of Midnight Cry chose the synopsis of the fifteen points to represent Millerite beliefs in a history of various North American denominations.³² It has been a mistake to limit Miller’s exegesis of time-prophecies to Daniel and Revelation only. Anyone in doubt should reed those Millerite sources that endeavored to give a compendium on Millerite kerygma. All of these unhesitatingly interpret several Biblical texts to prove the time of the second advent.³³

Miller's fifteen points are the subject matter of the rest of this chapter. These time-prophecies are so diverse that it is difficult to see how they relate to each other without visualization. Appendix III includes a chart on Miller's basic time-prophecies on one page. Copies of some Millerite charts are also included.³⁴

The "first of the main pillars" of Millerism was the "prophecy of Moses" as Miller called the text he found in Lev.26

And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits.

And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate. And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your bread again by weight: and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. And it ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. (Lev 26:18-28, KJV)

This "prophecy" is expounded by Miller himself as well as his associates in several books and in a number of periodical articles.³⁵ The text depicts the exile as a sevenfold punishment for Israel's sins. Due to the King James translation Miller interpreted this as a time-prophecy: "I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins."(v.28) The word "time" in Millerite vocabulary implied a year,³⁶ which led him to a prophetic and chronological interpretation of the text. The year/day method converted the "seven times" into 7 x 360 years, and Miller had no obstacles for the claim that the "seven times" of Lev 26:1828 symbolized 2520 years within which "the church has been punished by the kings and rulers of this world."³⁷

Miller is not concerned with the obvious exilic context of the text. He believed that Old and New Testament believers formed one church, one spiritual Israel and that both Old and New Testament times could be covered with one prophecy. The terminal points of this 2520 year period were located within the Bible. His general concept of history, enlightened by the book of Daniel, led him to state that this "prophecy" must begin with Babylon and cover the period of all the great oppressors of "the church": Babylon, "Medo-Persia", "Grecia", and Rome, pagan as well as Papal.³⁸

Miller makes the surprising claim that he found the seven times of Lev 26 before he came to Dan 8:14. In a sermon, recorded by Litch, Miller says: "I was satisfied that the seven times terminated in 1843. Then I came to the 2300 days; they brought me to the same conclusion."³⁹ However, Miller's terminus a quo is so obscure that one can reasonably assume that, in a manner not unfamiliar to other historicists,⁴⁰ Miller first fixed the terminus ad quem, 1843 AD, subtracted the 2520 years to arrive at the desired starting point 677B.C., and then with the help of marginal notes in his King James Bible, found the only event dated 677 B.C.^41. The incident with this date was Manasseh's short arrest by the Assyrians. The text includes the peculiar feature of his being taken to Babylon rather than Assyria. (2Chr 33:11). Was this not, Miller asked, the time when "the people of God are to be in bondage to the kingdoms of this world; or in Babylon, literal and mystical."⁴²

For anyone reading the King James Bible and approving the year-day method, Miller's basic conclusions on Leviticus 26 were plain. It appears, however, that there was a constant struggle to prove the terminus a quo, 677 B.C. To verify the importance of this episode proof of Manasseh's significance for Israel's future fate had to be demonstrated. Hale refers to the actual wording of Leviticus, "I will break the pride of your power," (Lev 26:19) and continues: "If the kingly form of civil government is here referred to, it was never "broken" until the captivity of Manasseh."⁴³ Miller found other texts like Jer 15:4, which states that God punishes Israel because of Manasseh's sins,⁴⁴ and that the transgressions of Manasseh were in fact the very ones referred to in the book of Leviticus.⁴⁵

There was a further verification of 677 B.C. Miller asserted that then "the ten tribes were carried away by Esarhaddon, king of Babylon".⁴⁶ This puzzling claim is explained in another context where he does refer to Assur and he writes that the ten tribes of Israel began to be carried away in 722 B.C. but the completion of her slavery did not come until 677 B.C.⁴⁷ At a closer look this peculiar idea turns out to be a detail in the Millerite layout of Old Testament chronology, and again its base lies in the marginal notes of KJV Bibles. The evidence for this date is in Second Advent Manual where Hale points out that Isa 7:8 was dated to the year 742 B.C.⁴⁸ The text prophesies that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken." A simple subtraction produces 677 B.C. giving Biblical conformation for Miller's dating. It was easy for Hale to suggests that Esarhaddon took both Manasseh and the remnant of Israel together into captivity.⁴⁹

Having presented this evidence concerning the date, Miller explained that "since the days of Manasseh not a moment has she [the church] enjoyed of respite, but has been scattered among the kingdoms of the world."⁵⁰ For Miller Manasseh's time marks the beginning of oppression for God's people. This was the period when Jerusalem was trodden underfoot by Gentiles.⁵¹ On the other hand, in AD. 1843 the "kingdom will be given to the saints of the Most High; mystical Babylon will be destroyed"⁵² and the time of "the punishment of the people of God will end."⁵³

It would be easy but unfair to criticize the hermeneutical construction that Miller built upon Lev 26. The following remarks are not intended as criticisms but rather as observations. The "first of the main pillars" of Millerite chronology is an excellent illustration of much of nineteenth century North American exegesis. It almost totally ignores the original context and combines texts together in a rather flaccid fashion, and It shows a blind faith in the English translation. On the other hand Miller's interpretation is simple and straightforward. It includes nothing mystical or difficult to comprehend. For anyone who accepted the King James version as the genuine Bible text this interpretation may have appeared valid.

Yet even Biblicist or historicist interpreters were not so blind to the original meaning and to the context of a text that they would have taken Miller's claims without criticism. Prof. G. Bush advised Miller on the correct meaning of Lev 26, and pointed out that there is no word "time" in the Hebrew, but rather "an intimation of degree" meaning sevenfold,⁵⁴ Miller insisted on the superiority of the King James translation as fifty times better to any, however learned, "opinion" on the original text.⁵⁵ It is an interesting fact that Miller is not known to have changed any of his fifteen proofs at any time whether in face of serious objections or even the disappointment of 1844.⁵⁶

Because of the problems that there were in the actual meaning of the "seven times" some Millerites hesitated in accepting Miller's interpretation. After years of investigation Litch wrote, "I am constrained at length to acknowledge it as such."⁵⁷ But there was also enthusiastic endorsement.⁵⁸ Finally one must note that this hermeneutic, like every other B.C. to AD. calculation that Miller made, includes an error of one year. This is due to his taking for granted the existence of a year zero. Correct arithmetic's would have yielded 1844 instead of 1843. This mistake was shared by many of Miller's contemporaries.⁵⁹

In the Pentateuch Miller found another text which he believed to demonstrate that a "seven times" or 2520 year period ended in AD. 1843. This was the year of release.

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the LORD's release. (Dt 15:1,2 KJV)

At the end of seven years let ye go every man his brother a Hebrew, which has been sold unto thee, and when he has served thee six years, thou shalt let him go free from thee; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined their ear. (Jer 34:14 KJV)

The sources for the Millerite interpretation of these texts are not as numerous as the ones for the prophecy of Moses.⁶⁰ The text stems from an old sacral ordinance of letting the land lie fallow and it is here applied to a release from debts and from slavery.⁶¹ Miller's interpretation transformed the text into an allegory of world history. Like a Hebrew slave who was to be released "at the end of every seven years," the people of God were to expect the parousia to release them from the slavery of the spiritual Babylon at the end of seven symbolic prophetic years.⁶² The time calculated for this prophecy is the same as that of proof number one. This interpretation emphasized 1843 as the year "when the children of God will be released from all bondage and slavery."⁶³

This hermeneutic gave Miller a powerful homiletical base to preach on liberty for all captives at the second advent. Isa 61:1,2 was one of his key texts.

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn.⁶⁴

The text does mention "the acceptable year" and the "day of vengeance" which in itself implied an eschatological fulfillment for the Millerites. The prophetic interpretation of the year of release gave Miller the answer for questions arising from the text: who are the captives and when are they liberated. The captive is the true church oppressed by the powers mentioned in Daniel, and the time of the liberation is in AD. 1843, at the end of seven symbolic years of slavery and at the dawn of the great antitypical sabbatical year.⁶⁵

This interpretation illustrates Miller's adherence to a kind of magical inspiration where God implants prophecies of the eschaton into everything there is in the Bible. Miller craves to build everything into a harmonized typological system where Old Testament events and the whole history of Israel grow into symbols of a grand plan of world history.

Miller developed a third exegetical design related to the "seven times" or the 2520 year period.

And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years: So that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down any out of the forests; for they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD. -And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land. (Eze 39:9,10,12 KJV)

The prophecy in Ezekiel 39:9,10. mentions a seven year period within which Israel, after the hordes of Gog and Magog are destroyed, gathers spoil and burns the weapons of her enemies. Millerite publications make only occasional references to this prophecy.⁶⁶ Miller's interpretation turns the actual imagery of the prophecy upside down. He interpreted this seven year period to mean time during which the enemies of God's people oppressed them - seven prophetic years from 677 B.C. to AD. 1843.⁶⁷

The text includes an additional feature in verse 12, a period of seven months for the burial of the dead and for the cleansing of the land. As far as prophetic time is concerned Miller counted each month as thirty days which in literal time denoted thirty years.⁶⁸ Therefore seven months stood for 210 years, which in turn was seen as a portion of the longer 2520 year period. Miller's idea of this seven-month/210-year time span is curious. He wrote that during this period the "People of God" were "putting away the rotten carcass of papal power." The starting point of his calculations was 1588, marked by the Edict of Nantes and the turning of Henry IV, king of Navarre, against the papal power. Thus 1798, when papacy was believed to have received its deadly would, became the end of this 210 years period.⁶⁹ Miller's comments on 1588 are somewhat confused as the four decades of Huguenot wars began in 1562, Henry of Navarre became the king of France in 1589, and the Edict of Nantes was not given until 1598.

III. Chart illustrating the time span of Miller's proof no. 3

Burning of or opposition 2520 yrs. End

to enemy weapons 210 yrs. 1843

677 B.C. 1588 A.D. 1798 A.D.

Edict of Nantes End of papacy

Miller's text: Eze 39:9,10,12

One may observe that outside of Millerism Ezekiel's prophecy on Gog and Magog was a popular one. It was a popular proof text for Zionistic arguments on the return and" future victories of the Jews. Such a concept Miller flatly rejected.⁷⁰ Miller's view on a spiritual Israel lies at the foundation of this as well as the previous seven year interpretations.

Several of Miller's historicist forefathers endorsed a seven year prophecy. Miller's three prophetic ways of counting 2520 years are almost certainly not unique to him although exact parallels have not been located. A hermeneutic which resembles Miller's is in Burwell's book, published in 1835, at a time when Miller probably had his prophetic ideas fairly well formulated?⁷¹ The most notable supporter of a seven year prophecy was Faber who did base his calculation [657 B.C. to AD. 1864] on Daniel 4.⁷² The idea of involving Daniel 4 in the seven year calculation was not foreign to the Millerites. In fact Miller, Litch and Hale do make Nebuchadnezzar's seven years of insanity a proof of the legitimacy of the seven year calculation.⁷³

Whether original or not Miller's view certainly had a strong influence on some Advent believers after the disappointment.⁷⁴

It is more than likely that a key prophecy in Jehovah's Witnesses' eschatology has its background in Miller's idea. The Watchtower society has recalculated the terminal points of the prophecy, and the emphasis is now on Daniel 4 rather than Leviticus 26, the latter of which is mentioned as a prophecy only in their older books.⁷⁵

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen 2:2,3 KJV)

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. -- There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. (Heb 4:3,4,9 KJV)

And six years thou shalt sow thy land and gather in the fruits thereof: But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive yard. (Ex 23:10,11 KJV)

It [the Sabbath] is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Ex 31:17 KJV)

Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD; thou shalt neither sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard. (Lev 25:3,4 KJV)

Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. (Eze 20:12 KJV)

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2Pet 3:8 KJV)

Like many before him he believed that "the Sabbath" or rather the weekly cycle is a miniature model and a prophecy of the world's history, "Christ will also labor six days [1000 years each] in creating the new heavens and earth, and rest on the seventh."⁷⁶ Miller explained that Old Testament Israel was given the literal Sabbath as a "sign," because God had given it expressly for such a purpose. However, the Christian church, observing no literal sabbath,⁷⁷ must regard the Sabbath a prophetic sign, a symbol of the coming millennium. At the end of the 6000 years "the Anti-typical Sabbath of a 1000 years will commence,"⁷⁸ the time of peace and rest for the whole universe,⁷⁹

The popularity of this topic is obvious from the many chronological charts Millerite periodicals and books included⁸⁰ as well as from the number of articles and books that deal with this interpretation.⁸¹ The main problem was not one of demonstrating that the weekly cycle is a symbol of world history because a sizeable portion of Miller's contemporaries already held this concept. The major obstacle for the Millerites was to overcome the widely approved chronology of archbishop James Ussher. Ussher's Annales Veteri et Novi Testamenti (1650-4) had dominated the exegesis of Old Testament chronological information for nearly two hundred years. Miller was obliged to work diligently and repeatedly with his calculations to push the creation from Ussher's 4004 B.C. back to 4157 B.C. which, with his one year's arithmetical error, gave 1843 as end of the 6000 years.⁸²

The book of Judges provided the evidence Miller needed. His basic claim, which had to be modified several times in the uncounted debates over this issue, was that Ussher made a mistake in assuming overlaps in the rule of the judges. Ussher's dating for this period of Old Testament history was based on chronological statements in 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26 which left only 295 years for the time between Joshua and Samuel. Miller preferred to explain Ussher's argument away and with little help from Josephus he argued that the judges were successive with a span of 448 years. This gave the needed 153 years to pull the creation back into 4157 B.C. and allowed for the parousia 6000 years later in 1843.⁸³

Some Millerite timetables with 6000 years leading up to 1843 were presented as "very clear evidence." The tables often included Anno Mundi dates e.g. 5997 for the "present year."⁸⁴ At other times words of caution were included. "Very well. No one pretends to tell, positively, how long the world has stood, but still it is believed there are serious reasons for supposing that its age is not far from 6000 years." Anything else, they postulated, would cast a shadow on God.⁸⁵

The efforts that the Millerites put forward to interpret the Bible so that 6000 years would run from the creation to 1843 led them further into historical investigation than any other subject. The complexity of problems forced them into repeated recalculations.⁸⁶ They needed authority to back up their idea of pushing Archbishop Ussher aside.⁸⁷ Sylvester Bliss was the Millerite specialist on chronological problems. He wrote:

Chronology of the Hebrew text; for every period where that has failed us, we have taken the chronology as given by Dr. Jarvis, and such is the result. Our object has not been to prove this earth is just 6000 years old, but to show from best of evidence that it cannot vary much from it.⁸⁸

Unfortunately Jarvis' chronological studies have not been available for this research. The discussion on the problems of Biblical chronology gave Miller awareness of different chronological systems that the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint followed. Even Chinese, Indian and Roman chronologies are mentioned by him as illustrations.⁸⁹ The Millerites appealed to the authority of the church fathers, Irenaeus, Barnabas, Cyprian, Lactantiys as well as well known scholars like Mede, Clarke or Gibbon or even Bunyan to exhibit the validity of the 6000 year theory.⁹⁰

Faith in the 6000 year hermeneutic was prevalent in ante bellum America.⁹¹ From Millerite periodicals one can only infer that the Millerites accepted this concept unanimously. Bliss comments in his Chronology of the Bible:

The coming of Christ would be at the end of the six thousand -years from the creation has been the belief of those who look for the pre-millennial advent, ever since the days of the primitive сhurсh.⁹²

An average layman had little possibility of examining critically the detailed charts with hundreds of Bible texts. Any information in the Bible took precedence over any data available from historical sources. For instance the events of Christ's ministry were dated with the help of the book of Daniel.⁹³ Yet even by the historicist standards the Millerites should have known better than to place the birth of Christ in year zero.⁹⁴ Litch does in fact make an apology of this detail, but he brushes the hole question aside by pointing out that a correction would make no difference to the final outcome.⁹⁵ However, this together with other minor deviations from well known historical dates like those of the exile, show that Miller’s aim was one of proving the time of the end rather than that of finding reliable dates. He used historical data when it matched his plan and disregarded it, even where information was available, if the data did not appear relevant for his goals.

It was on the 6000 years and the age of the earth rather than Dan. 8:14 then the largest remaining Millerite groups invested their energies on after autumn of 1844.⁹⁶ It is also more than likely that the slightly modified version of the 6000 year theory Jehovah’s Witnesses stems from William Miller.⁹⁷

One of MiIIer's most imaginative interpretations stems from the book of Leviticus.

And thou shalt number seven Sabbaths of the year unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven Sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years. And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty troughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be а jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family. А Jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you: ye shall not sow; neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, not gather the grapes in it of thy vine undressed. For it is the jubilee; it shall be holy unto you: yе shall eat the increase thereof out of the field. (Lev 25:8, 10-12 КJV)⁹⁸

Miller's argument runs as follows: "As seven days constitute а Sabbath, so seven kinds of Sabbath form а complete round of Sabbaths, and carry us up to the perfect Sabbath in heaven.”⁹⁹ The seven Sabbaths Miller found were 1) the seventh-day Sabbath, 2) the fiftieth-day Sabbath (Lev 23:15,16), 3) the seventh week Sabbath (Deut 16:9,10), 4) the seventh month Sabbath (Lev 23:24,25), 5) the seventh year Sabbath (Lev 25:3-5), 6) “the year fiftieth, Jubilee" (Lev 25:8-13), and 7) the fiftieth Jubilee, which he designated the antitype of all Sabbaths.¹⁰⁰ "The Jews kept but, six Sabbaths; if they had kept the seventh they would have been made perfect without us; but they broke the seventh 'Therefore there remains а keeping of the Sabbath to the people of God.” (Heb 4:9)¹⁰¹

The symbolism of the Jubilees was interpreted in а forthright manner. The Jubilee was thought to mean consummation and restoration, deliverance “from bondage and corruption" and the time to be “introduced into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”¹⁰² The method of counting the time was uncomplicated. It included no device for manipulating the time from days to years. “How long,” writes Miller, “is а Jubilee of Jubilees? Ans. 49 times 50 years = 2450 years.¹⁰³

Miller arrives at the terminal points of this "prophecy" with а fascinating argument. He believed there cannot have been any post exilic Jubilees because the Jubilee belonged to free men and the Jews returned from the exile as slaves and bondsmen and remained so under the kingdoms of Persia, Grecia, and Rome.¹⁰⁴ He decided to initiate the tally for the fiftieth Jubilee from Josiah's reign when the last Jubilee, as he believed, had have been celebrated in а free Israel.

For some reason Miller suggested that the Jews ceased keeping the Sabbath as well as Jubilees at the close of Josiah's reign "the last king of Jerusalem that obeyed the commandments of the Lord, or kept his statutes"¹⁰⁵ His dating made him choose what he believed to be the last year of Josiah's reign, 607 В.С. He argued that after this date the Jews would not and could not celebrate the Jubilee or the year of release. This brought Miller's calculation down to 1843 and conveniently reinforced the message of the Millerite revival.^I06

Miller's argument is somewhat baffling. One may appreciate the Jubilee signifying freedom from slavery and return of ownership on the land. These features made the Jubilee а frequently acclaimed symbol of the Second Advent in Miller's time. Yet the idea of а prophetic Jubilee appears somewhat out of place. Miller's arguments are normally replete with Biblical texts. For obvious reasons he is not able to find а single text pointing to the f1ftieth Jubilee. The whole idea is based more on а desire to find mathematical order within the Scriptures than on the usual multitude of proof texts.

Even within historicist ideals Miller should have seen that in his list of the seven Sabbaths the second and the third Sabbath were one and the same festival, the feast of weeks or the Pentecost.^I07 This must be so within Miller's own Biblicist method which is characterized by harmonization.^l08 There is another point that Miller does not discuss. Contemporary scholars found no agreement upon whether 49 or 50 years should be counted.^I09 Mathematical harmony appears to have been more important for him than а critical look at his own theories and agreement even with the conservative Biblical scholarship of his time.

Millerite teaching on the typological and prophetic significance of the Jubilees is not fairly appraised, however, until one acknowledges that the theme of а shortly beginning millennial Jubilee was extremely popular. Interpretations varied, and while there was probably no other theory like Miller's, those Christians who expected Christ's return accepted that the Jubilee was а familiar symbol of the approaching glory.¹¹⁰ In terminology the medieval father of apocalypticism, Jоасhim of Fiore comes close to Miller with his theory of the seventh Sabbath rest in the seventh age.¹¹¹

Towards the end of the revival the Millerites looked for more and more effective means of finding the exact time of the parousia. The speculative and inexact nature of the beginning of

this "prophecy" may have led to the secondary role that this interpretation played in the Millerite movement. Its effect on Jehovah's Witness' eschatology would require further study. Their Bible dictionary gives only а cursory allusion to any symbolic meaning that there may lie in the Jubilee, but it does make а count of seventeen Jubi1ees, the last one of which happens to be dated 607 В.С.¹¹²

Mi11er's proofs number six and ten must be discussed together to avoid unnecessary repetition. They provide а fresh scheme to achieve the target year of 1843.¹¹³

Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and be wi11 hеа1 us; be hath smitten, and he wi11 bind us up. After two days wi11 he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. (Hos. 6:1, 2 КJV)

And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. (Lk. 13:32 КJV)

The two texts have nothing in common except that both mention two days followed by а third of а specia1 character. "In the third day he wi11 raise us up, and we shall live in his sight." Here Mi11er asserts to have found а prophecy in which every word is full of meaning, "а pearl of great price, lying deep in the waters of prophecy."¹¹⁴ After God's people have been torn for two prophetic days by world1y powers there is the time of resurrection and life with the Lord in perfection with the devi1"chained, and cast out of the earth into the pit, and shut up."¹¹⁵

These two days of Hosea and Luke cover the same period of time. Mi11er contended that these days cannot mean natura1 twenty four hour days "for the church has been torn and smitten for more than 48 hours."¹¹⁶ Miller argues that only when the principle of 2 Pet 3:8 is applied, the meaning of Hosea's prophecy becomes intelligible. As the days are turned into millenniums the prophecy reveals the specific time when all labor will be finished and the millennium of bliss will begin as Rev 20:4,6 and John 14:3 describe it.¹¹⁷

The most engaging part in the exposition of this "diamond" of prophecy comes in the method of determining the terminus а quo. Miller makes а comparison with Hosea's prophecy and the words of Jesus. "I cast out devils and I do cures to-day and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected."(Luke 13:32,33). The words are addressed to Herod, "that fox." Miller reminded his readers that Herod was а Roman appointee, therefore the context, in his view, demanded the beginning of this two thousand year period with the Romans taking control over Palestine.

VI. А Chart illustrating Miller's interpretation of the two prophetic days from the time of Roman's to the end

The actual date for the Roman rule was settled with 1 Maccabees 8 and 9. These chapters describe а league which the Jews, led by Judas Массаbеus, made with the Romans. Miller's date for this was 158 В.с.¹¹⁸ Two millenniums added to 158 В.C. made in Miller's calculation A.D. 1842. This is, of course, one year short of 1843, but this one year was claimed to be the proof of the accuracy of this particular prophecy. This is so because Hosea said, ''After two days he will revive us.--" The first year "after" 1842 is 1843. Similarly Jesus said that perfection would come "on" the third day, correct for 1843 and thousand years after it.¹¹⁹ With this explanation Miller proposed the prophecy as another unquestionable proof for the parousia in 1843.

One may note that Miller does not mention the possibility that according to his own literalistic method 1844, 1845, or any year within а millennium wou1d be "after" 1842 or "on" the third millennium since 158 В.С. No examples of similar exposition have been found in contemporary literature.

The prophecy for which Millerism is best remembered is found in the book of Daniel.

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Dan 8:13,14 KJV)

The interpretation of this text was regarded as an important challenge because its exegesis varied more among historicists than that of any other time-prophecy in the book of Daniel.
Some serious conservative historicists applied Daniel 8 only to Antiochos. Others sought to stretch the time into the Christian era, but with widely variant starting points and even diverse
lengths of time, 2200, 2300, or 2400 days. The Millerites wrote no books on this prophecy aloe, but it is discussed extensively in Millers Evidence, Hale's Second Advent Manual, Litch's Prophetic Expositions, Fleming's Synopsis, and Hawley's Second Advent Doctrine.^l20

The prophecy of Daniel 8 required several definitions to make the Millerite interpretation possible. First of all the length of time needed discussion. The Millerites were well aware of
Jerome's reading of 2200 evenings and mornings as well as the Septuagint's 2400. Here the Hebrew text was considered preferable because it must be considered more original, because
no variants were known among the Hebrew manuscripts, and because the "Vatican edition" [Codex Vaticanus?] of the LXX also had the reading 2300.¹²¹ Secondly, the chapter itself gives
no terminus a quo suitable for historicist application.^l22 Therefore Miller and his associates tried to prove a connection between chapters 8 and 9 in Daniel.

It was pointed out that in Daniel 9:23 Gabriel came to make Daniel understand "the vision", which, Miller claimed, must mean the one that precedes.¹²³

Does not the angel say to Daniel, 9:23, "Therefore understand the matter and consider the vision?" Yes. Does not the angel then go on and give his instruction concerning the 70 weeks? Yes. Do you believe the Bible is true? We do. Then if the Bible is true, Daniel's 70 weeks are а part of the vision, and 490 years were accomplished when the Messiah was cut off and not for himself. Then 1810 years afterwards the vision is completed.¹²⁴

The second confirmatory statement was seen in а another reference to а "vision" (Dan 9:24). The seventy weeks were to "seal up the vision." This vision was believed to be that of Daniel 8.¹²⁵ The sealing aspect was strongly advocated by Miller's associate, Apollos Hale, а Methodist minister.

--there can be nothing sealed without something to seal, to which it is made an appendage. As the 70 weeks are the appendage - the seal - to something else called the vision, that vision must, in nature of the case, be something different from the 70 weeks, even if the 70 weeks could with any propriety be called а vision.^l26

Miller agrees with Hale but stresses а slightly different view. He wrote, that the sealing meant confirmation on the fulfillment of Daniel 8 because sealing means fulfillment, and а prophecy cannot be fulfilled without а starting point.¹²⁷

There was а third detail related to the wording of Daniel 9:24 which was used to strengthen the argument on the unity of Daniel 8 and 9. Litch investigated the Hebrew background of the word "determined" and he contends that it should have been translated "cut off" or "separated" which, in the framework of prophetic time, cou1d mean only that the seventy weeks or 490 years of Daniel 9 were "cut off' from the longer period of 2300 evenings and mornings or 2300 years.¹²⁸

The case for the oneness of Daniel 8 and 9 was established step by step. Daniel's prayer [сh. 9] provided а further possibility of pointing out how the two texts belonged together. Daniel was worried over the fate of the people and he wanted to know the solution to chapter 8 when he prayed. Chapter 9 must therefore be an explanation of chapter 8.¹²⁹ For the Millerites the problem was solved. Everybody knew how Daniel 9 must be interpreted. А Christological interpretation was presupposed even by the marginal notes of the Bibles. This made the preceding argument crucial for Millerism. Without Daniel 9:25 as а legitimate solution for the beginning of the 2300 evenings and mornings they would not have had such а terminus а quo that would bring the conclusion of the prophecy in the region of 1843. The time was to be counted "from, the going of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem." Miller's interpretation of Daniel 8 cannot be looked upon in isolation from Daniel 9.

William Miller was not alone in the linking of the 70 weeks and the 2ЗОО days. Already in 1654 Tillinghast advocated in England that the 70 weeks were а lesser period within the greater one of 2300 dауs.^1З0 А century later in 1768 Johan Petri clearly proposed that the 70 weeks be placed to the first part of the 2300 days.¹³¹ By the turn of the nineteenth century this view become increasingly popular even though there were many serious historicists who preferred Antiochos and literal time as the fulfillment of Daniel 8.¹³²

All throughout the historicist tradition the interpretation of Dan 9 had remained fairly stable. The prophecy of 70 weeks was exegeted as а Messianic prophecy. The time was counted as prophetic years. "The rule is this. There is nothing said about days at this time by the angel. The Hebrew is seventy heptads, or seventy sevens." This means 490 уеars.^IЗЗ Christ was the "anointed prince" to be "cut off." (Dan 9:24-27) Subsequently Cyrus' decree (2 Сrn 36; Ezra 1) was as unsatisfactory as it led nоwhеrе.^lЗ4 Therefore several historicists started this prophetic period some time between 453 and 457 B.C.^lЗ5Miller chose the seventh year of king Artaxerxes Longimanus. The letter of Artaxerxes in Ezra 7:11-26 was explained to be the final Royal command concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Most contemporary commentaries followed Ussher and dated the fifth month of the seventh year of Artaxerxes to 457 B.C.^lЗ6

Because Daniel 9 was regarded а Messianic prophecy,¹³⁷ this timing, and the whole design that Miller put on Daniel 8 and 9 was believed to have been confirmed by events relating to the life of Christ. In the Millerite version the 490 years of Daniel 9:24 were added to 457 В.С. This led to "Messiah the Prince," or the crucifixion in АD. 33. Both 457 В.С. and А.D. 33 were conveniently verif1ed by marginal notes in many КJV - Bibles. This made Miller's interpretation of Daniel 9 appear imрессаblе.^lЗ8 Millerism was а Bible reader's religion.

4 (Dan 9:24) was interpreted to mean "cut off' pointing to а shorter time "cut off' from the longer 2300 days.

In his detailed comments on the chronological combination of Daniel 8 and 9 Litch asserts that А.D. 33 can be proven to be the date of the crucifixion. Christ was crucified before а paschal full moon and on а Friday. Passover falls on the first full moon after the equinox. The Sabbath after the crucifixion Friday must have been the first fun moon of the Passover. Litch continues:

I find by calculation, the only Passover full moon that fen on а Friday, for several years before or after the disputed year was; 3rd of April 4746 Julian, 490 after Nehemiah, 33 А.D.^1З9This made it possible for Litch to conclude that the "chronology of the 490 years -- rests on the most solid basis."¹⁴⁰ To complete the exegesis of the 2300 years Miller and his associates were left with the simple task of а further-1810 to A.D. 33 to arrive at 1843.¹⁴¹

Having arrived at the desired year of 1843 Miller proceeded to exegete the non-chronological parts of the prophecy. This exegesis would have been meaningless had not Miller believed that Daniel's cleansing, of the sanctuary was in fact the parousia.To establish this Miller labored to obtain а clear-cut meaning for the word "sanctuary". This part of Miller's exegesis is а primary example of the concordance method. With the help of his Cruden's he found seven possible meanings for the word sanctuary. These were:

6. The earth (Isa 16:13; 1 К 8:27; Rev 5:10; 20:6; Mt 6:10; Ps 32:15; Rev 11:15; Ps 96:6-13)

After listing his possibilities Miller sets out to deduce the correct one by а process of elimination. "The question now arises which of these sanctuaries does Daniel mean?" The next part of the evidence provides а typical example of Miller's logic and style:

I answer not the first Jesus Christ for he is not impure - not the second heaven for that is not unclean, people, -- not- the third Judah for literal Judah is cut off as а people,-- not the fourth, the temple, for that is destroyed and what is not cannot be numЬеrеd.^14З

Naturally the holy of holies could not count either as it was not in existence any more, and Miller was left with only two appropriate meanings: the earth and the saints, both of which, he claimed, needed and would receive the cleansing promised by Daniel at the end of the 2300 years.^l44

It is interesting that there was more debate in Millerite publications over the details of Dan 8:14 then any other issue. Many of these arguments were with non-Millerites who objected to the 2300 evenings and mornings meaning days, or who proposed that the little horn of Daniel 8 was Antiochos Epiphanes.¹⁴⁵ It may have been that the Millerite editors allowed for' this debate because of their confidence in the correctness of the opinions they held on Daniel 8.

From the earliest period of Miller's prophetic interest his view on Dan 8:14 emerges as one of his main arguments for the nearness of the paroиsia. Together with the 6000 year theory it was popular with the majority of the Millerites. This particular exegesis grew in importance as the end of the Millerite expectation approached in 1843 and 1844. This may have been due to the fact that this prophecy had been interpreted to tell the time of the end by numerous historicist exegetes before Miller.

If one tries to look at Miller's exegesis through the eyes of а contemporary, one may assume that this hermeneutic together with Miller's views on other prophecies in Daniel and the Apocalypse appeared as regular exegesis, while his teachings on Leviticus, Jubilees or even the 6000 years may at times have reached the borderlines of propriety.

The increasing popularity of this doctrine among the Millerites may have been caused by the nature of the prophecy. It allowed for speculation on the exact day of the Second Advent while most of the other "proofs" (were only good for determining the year. As the time approached this prophecy was interpreted with increasing resolution to find the exact date. This was against Miller's personally expressed wishes.^I46

As one looks at the way Miller's inheritance was shared, it appears that after the disappointment, cased- by а typological elaboration of this prophecy, most Millerite groups took а rather detached view on Daniel 8, while Sabbatarian Adventism appeared to stake its life on the typology updated interpretation of this prophesy.¹⁴⁷

Miller’s exegesis also included the prophetic period of 1260 days, 42 months, or 3 1/2 years which was one of the cornerstones of historicism.

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. (Dan 7:25 КJV)

And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. (Dan 12:7 КJV)

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. (Rev 11:2, 3 КJV)

And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. (Rev 12:6 КJV)

And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. (Rev 12:14 КJV)

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. (Rev 13:5 КJV)

These prophecies are to be found in the books of Daniel and Revelation. They cover the work of the little horn and one of the beasts of Revelation as well as the period of the scattering and persecution of God's people. The Millerites frequently discussed both the events and the termini of these prophecies in there books and periodicals.¹⁴⁸

These prophecies were not exegeted to lead to Miller's year of the end, 1843. Instead they were believed to indicate the beginning of the "time of the end." One can compare Miller's interpretation of this prophecy to a backbone in a skeleton. It provided the supportive structure to which several other time prophecies were fixed.

The prophetic significance of the French revolution was underwritten by many commentaries of the early nineteenth century. For some Americans the news from France may have appeared to mark progress and reform, but the sudden changes of power, the bloodshed, the attacks against Christianity and the Bible made many religious people regard the revolution as a somber-sign of the times. These interpretations were highlighted by the fate of the papacy in the aftermath of the revolution when Napoleon sought to make the pontiff his puppet. After all, papacy had been the antichrist of prophetic hermeneutic since the Reformation.¹⁴⁹

Miller chose the year 1798 for the termination of the papal domination.¹⁵⁰ At that time Napoleon's troops entered Rome and he put an end to the pope's political rulership. This was the deadly wound (Rev 13:3) and the end of the little horn's persecution of the saints

(Dan 7:25).¹⁵¹ The Millerites reminded themselves of the details: "Feb 10, 1798 General Berthier, at the head of the republican army of France, entered tie city and took it." The pope was imprisoned and taken to France together with the cardinals and the whole papal system lost its power because it was reorganized by Bonaparte.¹⁵²

Miller was not alone in suggesting that the end of this period was in the year 1798. At this time Miller had been a lad of 16. The first one to suggest A.D. 1798 as the terminus of Daniel seven and its parallel prophecies was Samuel M'Corkle who gave the events a prophetic meaning in the very year they took place. ¹⁵³

Attacks against the papacy were common in all areas of nineteenth-century American life. In the sphere of prophecies historicists applied concepts like "antichrist," "little horn," "abomination of desolation," the "beast" of the book of Revelation and others to the papal power. This outlook was well established by the reformers, and it had been kept up by the Puritan tradition.^l54 Miller approaches these prophecies from a slightly different angle. He is not overly concerned with the possible papal atrocities used to prove the antichristian character of this power.^l55 Miller was interested in chronology and in the historical accuracy of the prophecy.

The easiest aspect of these prophecies was the length of time in question. From its beginning historicism had presented all 3 1/2 year, 42 month and 1260 day prophecies to mean the same period of 1260 years. Anyone proposing a different solution would have been regarded unorthodox. Neither was there any problem with the papal application.^l56

What required careful explanation was the terminal point of the prophecy. Counting the 1260 years back from 1798 required 538 as the starting point. The historical event connected with this year was the expulsion of the Ostrogoths from Rome. This interpretation matched a fairly widely approved view of the ten horns, three of which were plucked away from before the little horn. (Dan 7:8) Because the Ostrogoths were the last one of the three the time appeared logical. All details of these events were seen to match those of Daniel 7. The interpretation was consistent with the method used and information available. The conclusion was that in AD. 538 the Roman bishop was left dominating the scene with "all" acknowledging his supremacy.¹⁵⁷

However, the terminus a quo was obscure enough to call for some serious criticism. It is not easy to convince people of a date which is not generally attested in secular history. The Millerites compensated for this lack of historical references to AD. 538 with a careful presentation of minor details of the events of AD. 538. At times they also resorted to polemic attacks against opponents.¹⁵⁸

The minutiae presented in verification of the significance of AD. 538 make Millerite exegesis appear like a collection of quotations from a history book. Attention was drawn to Belisarius who chose deacon Virgilius for the papal throne in A.D. 537 because Virgilius had paid him 200 lbs. of gold. In A.D. 538 this fraudulent arrangement was legalized. The pontiff had received all the accessories of power by this time. The only problem was an attack by the Arian Ostrogoths in March 538. He was only able to use his powers as the Ostrogoths were driven out later in the same year.¹⁵⁹ The logic was simple. While Goths held the city the Pope was helpless, but when Belisarius expelled them the Pope was left to defend himself and "Rome was under his power."¹⁶⁰ There was no need to carry the research further. .

While Froom's Profetic faith has been criticized for it’s slanted view on the history of prophetic exegesis' and Millerism, the four volumes do provide an excellent survey of the background of the Millerite type of hermeneutic for both the 2300 days as well as for the 1260 days. While it may hold true that Miller is no "fiery comet with a 1000-year tail" and that every millennarian was not necessarily "a forerunner of the New York farmer-preacher,"¹⁶¹ Froom does conclusively show that Miller's exegesis of Daniel 7 and 8 follows widely accepted historicist standards. It follows naturally that any later historicist interpretations of these chapters are close to Miller's views.

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. (Dan 12:11, 12 KJV)

For Millerites these concluding verses of Daniel represented an important scheme of prophetic interpretation. These prophecies were carefully incorporated into an intricate system which was founded on the 1260 years and which included the number of the beast as an appendix. The times Daniel 12:11, 12 were important links in the arrangement. The most detailed expositions of this prophecy are found in Hale's Second Advent Manual in Bliss' answer to Colver and Miller's Reply to Stuart.¹⁶²

First Miller took the prophecy of 1290 days/years. Counting backwards from 1798 he fixed "the time that the daily sacrifice “shall be taken away” (Dan 12:11) at A.D. 508. For Miller the taking away of the daily sacrifice was identical with the end of pagan Rome.¹⁶³ "I have come to this conclusion: that this power, called 'daily sacrifice,' is Rome pagan abomination; the same Christ has reference to in Matt. xxiv.15."¹⁶⁴ At first sight Miller's conclusion may appear impossible to prove but he certainly made a serious effort of establishing his point.

The motivation for this exegesis lies in Miller’s unshaken conviction that the little horn of Daniel must mean the Papacy. Did the papacy take away daily sacrifices? Certainly no Jewish ones, so the "daily" must, he continues, mean something else, something which was put away by the papacy. Was it not paganism with its daily sacrifices that lost its strength with the rise of Roman Catholicism, Miller asked. This conclusion allowed Miller to name two abominations, one in the form of the papal antichrist and the other, represented by "daily sacrifice," being Satan's continual opposition to God's work in the form of paganism. This was believed to clarify the enemy's two disguises: pagan and papal Rome. The first alluded to by Christ himself in reference to the "abomination of desolation" (Mt 24:15; Lk 21:21) and the second by Paul in his prophecy on the "man of sin." (2 Thess 2:3-10)¹⁶⁵

The destruction of Jerusalem then turned out to be the work of the "daily" or "Rome pagan." This interpretation made the year 508 AD. appear reasonable. After all, Western Rome had fallen but a few years earlier. Hale made a further observation on the events of the year AD. 508. "Anastasias sent pope the title and insignia of patrician and consul and conferred the appellation of August," details which Hale extracted from Gibbon's popular history of the Roman empire.¹⁶⁶

From AD. 508 it was easy to proceed to 1843 by adding 1335 years. The cobweb of prophetic lines had reached the decisive year of the end. More than anything else the prophecy of Dan 12:12, "Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days," was the ultimate demonstration of the coherence of Biblical prophecies reaching 1843.¹⁶⁷

IX. Chart illustrating Miller's interpretation of time prophecies that he believed to indicate the times relative to the papacy.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. (Rev 13:18 KJV)

Several of Miller's fifteen proofs relate to the book of Revelation. None of these leads to Miller’s Year of the end, '"1843. They provided supportive structure for what Miller found in the Old Testament. These interpretations gave timing for the papacy and antichrist dates for Islam, the eastern antichrist, and with Miller's exposition of the number of the beast the times for ancient Rome. Even though these points fall outside the main interest of this research they will be included in a summarized form in this and the following sections.

Miller carried on his exegesis of the "time of the end" and the year 1798 by turning the number of the beast, 666 (Rev 15:18) into a time-prophecy.^l68 He believed that this duration stretched from 158 B.C., when Jews made a "league" with the Romans, until 508 A.D. when he believed the pagan Rome or the daily to have met its end.^l69 Thus the number of the beast confirmed and bound together Miller's idea of the two millennial days of Hosea 6 and the apocalyptic times of Daniel 7 and 12.

This idea of prophetic synchronization is typical for Miller and the Millerites. His view on the 666 was not however, unanimously accepted by all of his fellow believers. Litch tells how he after initial acceptance later gave up 666 as a measure of time. "I am now satisfied it was an error." Instead he interpreted this time period as in the more regular historicist fashion pointing to Rome.¹⁷⁰

And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth, -- And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. (Rev 9:3,5)

And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. (Rev 9:15)

One of the most colorful interludes within the short history of MillerisIl1 is the summer and autumn of 1840 when Miller expected the first serious omens of the end. He based these ideas on Revelation 9:5, 15. Usually the whole episode is credited to Dr. Josiah Litch, but certainly also Miller is involved as well as the editorial staff of the Signs.¹⁷¹

This interpretation has been called a prophecy which led thousands to believe in Christ,¹⁷² as well as one that gave the Millerites the first bitter taste of frustrated expectation.¹⁷³ A perusal of Millerite material shows that neither interpretation matches fully with the facts. The lack of dramatic events at the expected time prevented Miller's and Litch's ideas from growing into a spectacular advertisement for Millerite exegesis,¹⁷⁴ neither can the slightly hesitant enthusiasm, with which the "fulfillment" was pronounced, be designated a disappointment. The Millerites did not realize that the events railed to measure up with their assumptions.

Miller initiated an interpretation of the two verses of Revelation 9 as a time-prophecy which would lead either to 1839 or 1840. In the locusts he pictured a symbol of the Islamic power, the "Mohammedans," in particular the remnants of an ailing great power, Ottoman Turkey. This transformed the exegesis of Revelation 9 into a discussion on a political issue of front page caliber - the Eastern question. The Sultan of Turkey and his rebellious vassal, Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt were engaged in a power struggle with regular involvement of the great powers of Europe. At the end of this period Miller not only expected the fall of Turkey, but also the breaking loose of an Armageddon and possibly the close of probation. "It is done. The kingdoms of the earth and governments of the world will be carried away."¹⁷⁵

However, his associates, in particular Litch, did further research into the history of Islam and at first he defined the time to the month of August and later exactly to the day.¹⁷⁶ The prophecy includes two pieces of chronological information. One of these is five months, which in a regular year for day reckoning stood for 150 years. The other is "an hour, a day, a month, and a year," which was believed to lead on for a further 391 years and 15 days to the fall of the Turkish empire. The beginning of the first of the time periods was discovered in Gibbon's history, which told that on July 27, 1299 Osman brought the Ottoman Empire into European consciousness by attacking Greece. The first 150 years of the prophecy were concluded on July 27, 1449 and the second period was to finish on August 11, 1840.¹⁷⁷

The time required a strictly literalistic application of the year day theory. An hour was one 24th part of a day symbolizing one 24th part of a year or 15 days. The rest was simple arithmetic, a day was taken for a year, a month for 30 years and a year for 360 years adding up to a total of 391 years plus 15 days. Beginning in the spring of 1840 there were frequent reminders of the approaching terminus. In April the Signs began printing a regular column called THE NATIONS. This column incorporated news on political development in the Near East. The August 1 issue included two articles by Litch. These reviled the very day when the “locust” nation of Turkey could be expected to fall, August 11.¹⁷⁸

When August 11 passed there was an abrupt pause in Millerite periodicals on the subject. The Millerites waited for news from Turkey with keen interest and expectancy of an Armageddon.¹⁷⁹ For a time there appears to have been a moment of disquiet.^l80 No world war broke out. Nothing spectacular happened. The editors promised that Miller would later comment on charges that he had falsely expected the close of probation.¹⁸¹ For a few weeks there was no "THE NATIONS" column in the Signs of the Times. Then steamers from the Old Continent brought detailed information of events in August and "THE NATIONS" reappeared in the Signs.¹⁸² Litch together with the other editors was able to publish news of prophetic fulfillment around August 11.

At first the reports were given with caution, and only after several months do they ring with a note of triumph. In October Litch entitles his article "The Battle Begun" and but he is not yet able to date the fulfillment to the day. Yet the fighting appeared to seal the prophecy.¹⁸³ In January it is asserted that on the very day, August 11, Turkey had brought itself to the brink of a war by imprisoning the special envoy of the allied Western nations in Alexandria.¹⁸⁴ Mehemet Ali had proven unable to accept the conditions placed on him, instead he had answered:

"Wallah, hillah, tillah" (an oath by God) I will not yield a span of the land I possess, and if war is made against me, I will turn the empire upside down and be buried in its ruins. Mehemet Ali.¹⁸⁵

The words "Wallah, hillah, tillah" must have appeared exciting to the Millerites as they were repeated numerous times in various articles over the issue.¹⁸⁶ This was the decisive stroke. Litch

concluded that he was now "entirely satisfied that on the 11th day of August -- Ottoman supremacy departed.¹⁸⁷ In spite of the fact that later judgment has failed to single out the

Millerite dates as outstanding for the history of Turkey or of Islam, the Millerites experienced this "fulfillment" as a boost for their morale and it certainly proved an effective means of creating interest in prophetic time keeping.^l88 For more than a year the Signs frequently included news on the Eastern question in "THE NATIONS" column.

Judgment on the impact of this interpretation must be guarded. It would be a mistake to regard this interpretation as one which converted thousands to Millerism. This idea would not explain Litch's dismay over people's reluctance to accept the events of August 11 as a "convincing" "sign from heaven."¹⁸⁹ Likewise it is an error to call it a bitter disappointment. No one was to know that in spite of Turkey's troubles and occasional military skirmishes she was to continue as an independent state and that August 11, 1840 would not later be one of the important days in Turkish history. Subsequently after initial uncertainty the interpretation was promoted with reasonable enthusiasm. The fact that there was no strong challenge to Miller's and Litch's theory indicates that the hesitation and disappointment was not all that serious. In spite of the fact that Lich later renounced his Turkish interpretation it did add credibility to the whole of Millerite exegesis. Miller was able to pronounce his view of the year-day method: "That God has used days as figures of years, none will or can deny."^I90 The system of dates and periods was considered sealed and confirmed.

However, one must agree with Anderson that Litch never allowed events to test his theory. It appears that if Mehemet All overthrew the Sultan, "or if the Sultan maintained his throne with outside help, the prophecy was still 'fulfilled.' If a general war broke out, or if it did not, the prophecy was still 'fulfilled.' Whether probation closed on August 11, 1840, or appeared to continue -- the fall of Turkey was still a sign that the door of mercy would close. -- The hypothesis was not falsifiable."¹⁹¹

Without apocalyptic chronology there would not have been a Millerite revival. Chronological exegesis was the driving force of the movement. The "burned over district" found something new and exiting in the complex and intriguing calculations on the date of the parousia. One can give some reflections.

Firstly, as has been stated earlier, the chronology leading to 1843 was based primarily on the Old Testament. The only New Testament calculation leading to 1843 was that of Luke 13:32; and even that was paralleled with the text in Hosea 6. It is possible that the Old Testament, due to its great diversity of historical and prophetic material, suits the Millerite type or prophetic speculation better than the New Testament.

Secondly, the "proofs" rest on technical points like Biblical and historical chronology, which probably gave an aura of learning to the system. Laymen were unable to check the validity of the points themselves and emotional factors and the rhetoric of the argument may have led many to decide in favor of Miller.

Thirdly, all of Miller's calculations contain mathematical error. Miller overlooked the non-existence of a year zero witch indicates that no Millerite before 1844 did his homework thoroughly.¹⁹²

Fourthly, some of the proofs are not time-prophecies¹⁹³ at all, or their actual intent is turned upside down.^l94 The power of religious convictions has rarely followed the paths of logic.

Fifthly, Millerites appear to have believed that a multiplication of weak points makes one strong point. Thus the argument was multiplied into 15 points some of which were justly ridiculed by opponents and brushed aside by thoughtful supporters.^l95

Finally, one should observe the strong points of Miller's arguments. They were presented persuasively. There were no hidden meanings or occult references. The meaning of every symbol, or every important word was argued with biblical texts, often much to the shame of Miller's opponents.¹⁹⁶ The method employed widely accepted principles of historicism. Millerite study of the Scriptures combined skills in calculation and detective work - an enterprise that could be taken up without previous expertise or resources of a library, and yet it provided the hearer with the joy of new discovery. Motivation sprung from the urgent relevancy of the message. The hermeneutic simplified human history into straightforward phases leading up to the present. It may be added further that the nearness of the Second Advent gave no time for pondering intellectually knotty problems.¹⁹⁷ The spirit of Miller's work was one of discovery. The following words describe Miller's experience when he first harmonized Bible prophecies, and it was shared by many of his followers:

The Bible was now a new book. It was indeed a feast of reason: all that was dark, mystical, or obscure to me in its teachings, had been dissipated: from my mind, before the clear light that now dawned from its sacred pages; and O how barite and glorious the truth appeared. All

the contradictions and inconsistencies I had before found in the Word were gone; and although there were many portions of which I was not satisfied I had a full understanding, yet so much light had emanated from it to the illumination of my before darkened mind, that I felt a delight in studying the Scriptures, which I had not before supposed could be derived from its teachings.¹⁹⁸

Miller's exegesis has been generally misunderstood and misinterpreted in literature. For William Miller it was extremely important not to base his chronological argument on one text only. The ultimate "proof' for him was that there were fifteen "proofs". He always preferred to present as many of his chronological expositions as possible.

^2. Miller 1845. Cf. VOP 1842/j, 45; Miller 1842/b, 4-5; Nichol 1944, 33. Cf. Rasmussen MS 1983, 34.

^6. Miller 1849, 11. Miller appears to refer in particular to Mede and sir Isaac Newton and Thomas Newton in this context.

^9. Miller 1842/_, 23. Cf. Shea 1982, 74-79 for modern argumentation which follows Miller's and old historicist understanding of the year-day-method.

^10. Some Millerites and some non-Millerites did at times propose variants to the simple 1 day = 1 year hermeneutic. Flemming, Apoc. Key, 20-22; quoted in Faber 1808, 14, gives an example. The system created a prophetic calendar in which 1 month is 30 days and a prophetic year equals to 360 days instead of the 365 days of a regular calendar year. This made

prophetic calculation rather impressive: 1260 x 360 : 365 = 453600 : 365 = 1242 + 270 : 365 = 1242 yrs, 270 days.

^17. The birth of Seventh day Adventism was dependant on the Seventh-month moment. SDA writers have concentrated on the exegesis of this period. With the exception of Bates 1847 this mistake can be traced to the earliest SDA accounts on Millerism. Bates 1847 highlighted several of Miller's prophetic interpretation:" However, the desire to give an explanation to the great disappointment at the end of the seventh-month movement made more prominent writers like J.N.Andrews and J. White narrow the interest down to Daniel 8:14. A concentration of these ideas can be found in e.g. Loughborough 1905, 1909; White 1911, 355-390.

Froom's and Nichol's investigation established the notion. E.g. PFF IV has 400 pages on Millerism, yet only a very critical reader of pp. 721-737 would realize that Millerites believed in many things that are not elaborated on at all. Likewise Nichol 1944 leaves some interpretations that Miller cherished to the appendix, pp. 522-524, with a short comment on "secondary" proofs. Damsteegt [diss.] 1977 makes the same oversight which is also carried on to non SDA scholarly works on Miller. Cf. Rowe [diss.1 1974. The inadvertent overlooking of things that were essential for Miller but are irrelevant for Seventh-Day Adventism is repeated in the latest books and articles: E.g. Maxwell "Preacher of the Advent" AR, Feb 11, 1982; Maxwell "The Legacy of William Miller" AR, Feb 18, 1982; Reid "From

^23. E.g. Litch, Fitch, Bliss, Hervey, Hawley, and Bates published articles and books which included some of Miller's points.

^24. E.g. ST May 1, 1841; June 1, 1841; April 26, 1843; May 24, 1843. MC Nov 18, 1842; March 17, 1843; June 8, 1843; July 20, 1843; Aug 31, 1843. French "Diagram of Daniel's Visions" ST Mar 1, 1841.

^26. Within Millerism certain ideas were popular at certain times. In 1840 the Eastern question was discussed with great frequency. Then from the autumn of 1840 on there appear a number of articles on the 6000 years. This subject was exhausted by the end of 1842 when an increasing number of articles on 2300 evenings and mornings were printed.

^30. These five are: "I. 6000 years of the Hebrew text-- II. The seven times -- ID. The Great Jubilee -- IV. 2300 days of Daniel viii -- V. 1335 days of Daniel xii -- We must therefore, if we read the Bible aright, near the termination of all the prophetic periods." E.g. Anon. "Prophetic time" AH Feb 14, 1844.

^33. The most important SMV's text for Rupp ed. representative summary of 1842/j, 32-53. of these was SMV. Southard edited 1844, to stand as a scholarly and Millerite Adventism. See also VOP

^35. The most detailed discussions of the seven times theory are in Miller 1842/b, 250-263; SAM, 33-49 and VOP 1842/j, 3239; 43-46. See also Miller 1842/e, 16; Litch 1842/b, 2:124-130; Bliss 1843/b, 66; Bliss 1843/f, 6f. Miller "Reasons for Believing - " TGC July 4, 1842; Plummer "The prophecy of Moses" ST May 17, 1843.

^39. Litch "Rise and Progress of Adventism" ASR May 1844. In Miller 1845, 1, the order is as follows: 1) Seven times; 2) 2300 days, 3) 1335 days.

^41. KJV Bibles had Ussher's chronology printed in the margins and 2Chr 33 is dated 677 B.C. Several 19th Century commentaries and at chronologies also follow this chronology. See e.g. Clarke n.d. II, 691.

^45. SMV, 18f. Hale makes the following comparison: Lev 26:14,18,27 match 2K 21:9-13, and Lev 26:1,2 equal 2K 21:2-8 and 2Chr 33:2-11. SAM, 38. Cambell created a variant of Miller's ideas. His ideas never reached popularity among the Millerites, but they serve to illustrate the love they had for counting times. First Cambell gave exact times for the four sins and punishments, 677 B.c., 607 B.C., 590 B.C., and 584 B.C., all related to Millerite dates on the exile. He then added 2520 years to each one getting dates, 1843 for the first signs of the end, 1913, for the battle of Armageddon, 1930 for the conversion of the Jews and finally 1934 for the millennial jubilee. Cambell "Mr Cambell on the return of the Jews" ST June 15, 1840.

^47. Miller 1842/e, 20. While there is no direct Biblical evidence for such a deportation Ezra 4:2, 10 are cited as a proof of deportations from the Northern Kingdom after 722 B.C. SAM, 41. Cf. Herrmann 1975, 215f.

^55. "What' suppose I come to you and get your understanding of the original text, will you ensure me that I receive a better understanding from you alone, than I could have from flfty men, equally as good as yourself, if not better, who did give us the sense in English, when they gave us the present translation? If you say Yes, I shall then believe you have as much vanity, as you say the Adventists have assurance. And if you say No, then when you read the original text only, with your judgment to understand and teach the English sense, and I read it in the English text, I have fifty times the weight of judgment to yourself." Bush 1844, 9f.

^56. Miller was obliged to admit that something in his chronology was wrong. But he added "With respect to other features of my views can see no reason to change my belief." Miller 1845, 34, 15. Instead he believed that his opponents disproved themselves by their conflicting arguments and so confirmed his exegesis. See e.g. Miller's letter to T.E. Jones, Nov 29, 1844; Bliss 1853, 280; Cf. Rasmussen 1983, 84f.

^57. Litch continues with the idea that the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14"is still the bulwark of the cause. Litch "Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel" MC Nov 30, 1842,

^58. E.g. SAM, 33, calls the seven times "the fIrst of the prophetic periods, which are considered as main pillars in the calculations of Mr. Miller." Cf. Anon, "The Seven Times of Lev xxvi: Why are they repeated four times." ST Jan 24, 1844. Bliss 1853, 71.

^59. Froom recognizes the problem and points out that even the marginal notes on Dan 9 in KJV Bibles make the same mistake. There were also several renowned scholars, including Mr. Hales on, whom Miller heavily depended in matters of chronology, who made the same error. PFF W, 791.

^65. There is some inconsistency in the argumentation. This is due to the fact that some texts on the year of release show six years of labor and release on the seventh (Ex 21:2; 23:10 as well as Jer 34:14b) while others indicate release after seven years (Dt 15:1,2; Jer 34:14a). The former was applied by Miller to mean six thousand years of sin with the seventh as freedom in heaven during the Millennium, and the latter to the period of 2520 years.

^71. Burwell 1835, 166-170 has a section on sacred numbers. He bases his seven year prophecy on Leviticus and begins the time from the fall of Samaria.

^73. SAM 33; Miller 1949, 13-16; Litch "Review of Cambell of the Captivity of the Jews" ST Oct 15, 1840. See also Cambell "Mr Cambell on the return of the Jews" ST June 15, 1840.

^74. See e.g. John Stevenson "God's Measuring Rods" Advent Harbinger and Bible Advocate June 9, 1849. This article synchronizes the seven times with the 6000 years.

^75. Cf. "Seven" ABU 1234. Cf. Cambell "Mr. Cambell on the Mode of Computing the Time" ST July 15, 1840. Cambell plays with the figure seven, the number of perfection. He describes seven priests, seven trumpets, seven days, seven times, and proposes a 6000 year theory which approaches that of the JWs.

^77. Miller argued that a literal Sabbath should not be kept because all Jewish ordinances were cancelled and because the Sabbath had become a symbol of the Millennium. VOP 1842/j, 160-162.

^80. E.g. ST May 1, 1841; June 1, 1841; April 26, 1843; May 24, 1843. MC Nov 18, 1842; March 17, 1843; June 8, 1843; July 20, 1843; Aug 31, 1843. French "Diagram of Daniel's Visions" ST Mar 1, 1841. See also SAM for a chart that with a combination of literal and prophetic times. Appendix VI.

^81. The main Millerite sources on the 6000 year chronology are SAM, 13-32; Cox 1842, 56-68. VOP 1842/j, 32-39; 157-171; Supplement to Miller 1842/b, 1-4. Especially Bliss was frequently laboring with Old Testament chronogenealogies. See Bliss 1843/a, 4; 25-28, Bliss 1843/f, 10, and Bliss 1851. Jones "The Kingdom at Hand" ST June 15, 1840; Litch "Reply" ST June 15, 1840, makes an interesting combination of prophecy and chronology; Cambell "Mr Cambell on the mode of Computing the Time" ST June 15, 1840. Fleming "Review of Rev Dr. Week's Lectures against the Chronology of Wm. Miller" ST Apr 12, 1843. One of the most detailed and extensive articles is Anon. Dr. Jarvis No.4, The Chronology of the Bible" ST Aug 16, 1843. E.B.K. "Theory of Types No.1" ST Mat 15, 1841 develops 6000 years into a speculative system involving a certain number of generations and creation days which were believed to be 7 years long. B. "Six thousand years" ST Nov 22, 1843.

^82. Ussher's chronology was printed in many editions of the Bible and various commentaries. The general nature of chronological speculation is reflected in bishop John Lightfoot's timing 0 the creation. Faithful to Ussher he placed creation on Oct 22, 4004 B.C. at 9.00 AM., which led Brewter to comment, "Closer than this, as a cautious scholar, the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University did not venture to commit himself." Kaiser, Classical Evangelical Essays, quoted in Geraty "The Genesis Genealogies as an Index of Time" Spectrum vol 6/1.

^86. The problems of these calculations are reflected in Miller's on one of his charts of world history, "If this Chronology is not correct, I shall despair of ever getting from the Bible and history, a true account of the age of the world." Miller "A Bible Chronology from Adam to Christ," in Himes ed. VOP 1842/j, 36-39; MC Nov 22, 1842.

^87. Por the sensitivity of this subject see e.g. H[imes] "Opposition on the M.E. Church-Zion's Herald vs. 'Millerism'" ST Jan 24, 1844.

^91. E.g. Chamberlain 1805, 93, expresses the nearness of the 6000 years of history.

^96. A fascinating example of post disappointment harmonization is in John Stevenson "God's Measuring Rods" Advent Harbinger and Bible Advocate June 9, 1849. This article advises to take first 7 х 360 = 2520. Then the result is deducted from the perfect number: 6000 - 2520 = 3480. This is

Anno mundi date for Judah getting into trouble. Then 70 ears more lead to the beginning of the exile, Annо Mundi 3550. From this one can count forward another 70 years to the end of the exile or 390 years of sin backward [according to Ez. 4:1, 8] to 3160 Solomon's death and Jeroboam's rebellion against God. With the help of 1К 6:1,37 one could count further back to the time when the Temple was build and to the time of the exile etc.

^97. “Chronology” АBU 322-347 looks like а modernized version of Мillеritе discussion on the 6000 years. There are references of various calendar systems of the ancient Near East. The creation is dated 4026 В.С. the birth of Christ Oct 1, 2 B.C. and the reader is left to expect the eschaton in 1975 [the article is written in 1969].

^98. There is nо wide selection of sources for the Millerite jubilee interpretation: Miller 1842/е, 28; Spalding 1841, 30; Anon. "The Ordinance of the Year Jubilee" ST May 1, 1841. On the speculative side there is а series of articles in the Signs by Е.В.K. "Theory of Types Nos. 1-5" ST Mar 15 - Sep 1, 1841, which combines the Jubilees into world chronology. See also Сambеll "Mr. Саmbеll on the Mode of Computing the Time" ST July 15, 1840, which included as count of world history, seven millenniums in 140 Jubilees.

^108. 0nly historical critical approach might in а case like this suggest either two originally different feasts, or two different sources for Miller's proof texts, Lev 23:15,16 and Dt 16:9. Cf. e.g. Driver 1895 [ICC], 195f.

^110. E.g. Cunningham 1840, xii, makes а time calculation of 3430 years based on the jubilees.

^11З. The best Mi11erite sources are e.g. VOP 1842/j, 32-39; Mi11er 1842/с, 45-75; Mi11er "Evidence -- Chapter IV" ST Ju1y 15, 1841.

^120. Miller 1842/Ь, 39-75; Miller 1842/f; VOP 1842/j, 46-53; Miller 1842/g; SAМ 42-59; Fleming 1842, 39-60; Hawley 1843, 62-93; Litch 1843; Litch 1842/а, 74-87; Litch 1842/с, 22-62; Hervey 1843/а, 40-108; Bliss 1842/а, 101-111; Litch 1842/Ь, 1:112144; Bliss 1842/Ь, 26-46; Bliss 1842/с; Bliss 1843/d; Bliss 1843/f, 5f. There are a1so severa1 articles on the subject e.g. Miller "Cleansing of the Sanctuary, А Letter from Wm. Miller" ST Apr 6, 1842; В. "The 70 Weeks and 2300 Days of Daniel" ST June 22, 1842; Anоn. "The Sanctuary" ST Feb 1, 1842. Inquirer "The Sanctuary" ST Feb 15, 1842, Mar 1, 1842. Anоn. "Is Antiochus Epiphanes the hero of Daniel's Prophecy" ST Dec 28, 1842; Evan "The Prophecy of Daniel" ST Mar 8, 1843; Anоn. "The End of the Prophetic Periods" ST Apr 5, 1843. Anоn. "Duration of Earthly Kingdoms" ST Мау 29, 1843. Hawley "The Doctrine of the Second Advent Sustained by the Voice of the Church" ST June 7, 1843.

^122. This is reflected in the heavy debates there were over the topic even along the Millerites. See e.g. VOP 1842/j, 47.

¹²⁵^. VOP 1842/j, 47. Hale suggested that Daniel's reference to Jeremiah's 70 years shows that he misunderstood Daniel 8 somehow to mean that the 70 years would not terminate at the expected time. Therefore Gabriel came to explain the matter and to give the correct place for Jeremiah's seventy as wel1 as the 490 and 2300 years. Hale 1846, 43.

^128. "The Hebraists all admit that the word determined, in our English version, does signify 'cut off.' Not one has disputed it." Litch МС vol 4 nо. 25. In Litch 1842/Ь, 1:133 three "Hebraists," Fu1son, Вush and Seixas, are mentioned by name. Cf. Bliss 1851, 15.

^IЗ6. Сf. e.g. Clarke n.d. vol II, 732. РFF IV 396f. Litch used "Rollin's chronology" Litch 1842/Ь, 1:135.

^137. This was also used to prove the unsuitability of Antiochos. "It it, however, very evident that Antiochos Epiphanes could not bе the little horn predicted, for the little horn was to stand against the Prince of Princes, and Antiochos died 164 years before the Prince of Princes was born." Bliss 1842/а, 104.

^142. Miller 1842/f, 4-7. Even though Miller again assembled а number of texts to prove his points many of his proofs [especially under point 6] appear irrelevant on closer examination. After the disappointment the interpretation of the Sanctuary symbol was hotly debated between mainline Millerites and Sabbatarian Advent. It was then contested that 145 'times the word "sanctuary" is used and not а single time applied to the earth. Everyone knows, they claimed, that the earth is neither а dwelling place of God nor yet а holy or sacred place, and that the sanctuary must be а definite object. Similar argument was repeated against the church being the sanctuary. A Н Aug 2, 1850, рр. 28-30.

^145. The debates with Stuart, Colver, Morris, True, Brown and Dowling were reprinted in book form. Miller 1842/g; Bliss 1843/d; Bliss 1842/а; Litch n.d./d; Litch 1842/с.

^147. E.g. Linden 1984. This prophecy still appears to be of vital significance for Seventh-day Adventism. E.g. Linden 1982.

^148. Some of the most detailed and thorough discussions of this prophecy are in Miller 1842/b, 86-114; Miller 1842/a, 30-36; Miller 1842/g; Litch 18421a, 57-73; SAM 82-95; Storrs 1843, 153; Bliss 18421a 78-101; Bliss 1843/d; Bliss 1843f, 4f. See also VOP 1842/j, 46-53. Litch 1842/b, 2:121-124; Litch 1842/c, 62-80; Cook 1843, 50-62; Hervey 1843/b, 40-108; Anon. "1260 Years of Papal Triumph" ST Feb 1, 1843; Anon. "End of the 1260 days" ST July 19, 1843.

^149. Sandeen 1970, 5-7, 13. For a Millerite view sees e.g. Miller, "Remarkable Fulfillment of Prophecy, Relating to France and the two Witnesses" VOP 1842/j, 203-211. PFF IV, 60, 67, 71, 78 etc. Cf. White 191.1, 265-288.

^155. Anti-Roman sentiments had been boosted by the continuously increasing proportion of Roman Catholic immigrants. See e.g. Gaustad "Introduction" in ROA xi-xx; PFF IV, 275f describes the rise of anti-Catholic literature and feeling including popular horror stories (like Maria Monk's Awful Disclosures of Six Months in a Convent) and popular journals.

^156. The Millerites applied the 1260 year time regularly on the papacy. Outside of Millerism several expositors included Islam into their interpretation. There are only few Millerite examples of this. Anon. "Chronology of the Mohammedan Power" ST Aug 15, 1840 recalculates 1260 84 years short by some chronological device, then starts the prophecy with 622 for the beginning of Islam and concludes it in 1843.

^157. Miller 1842/a, 31-36; VOP 1842/j, 49-53; Miller 1836, 72-75; Bliss 1842/a, 79.

^158. E.g. Bliss 1842/a 79-80. Bliss' argument is an excellent illustration of Millerite polemic. Morris had objected to Miller's date without suggesting another in its place. "Morris does not know when the time begins, so he cannot know when it does not begin."

^162. SAM 59-81; Miller 1842/g; Bliss 1843/d. See also VOP 1842/j, 46-53; Litch 18421b, 2:121-124; Litch 18421c, 81-90; Cox 1842, 48-55.

^168. See e.g. Miller 1842/b, 76-85; Miller "Evidence - Chapter IV' ST July 15, 1841.

^171. The main source is Litch 1842/b, 2: 132-227; See also Miller 1842/b, 115-126; Litch 1838; Bliss 18421a, 166-176; Bliss 1843/f, 8f; Fleming 1842, 71-73; Fitch 1841, 41-49. For Articles see Litch "Fall of the Ottoman Power in Constantinople" ST Aug 1, 1840; Litch "Events to Succeed the Second Woe" ST Aug 1, 1840; The editorial column "THE NATIONS" between April 15 and Aug 1, ST 1840; Anon. "The Six Trumpet Period". ST May 1, 1840. Litch "Fall of the Ottoman Empire, or Ottoman Supremacy Departed" TGC Aug 4, 1842. Anon. "Blow Ye the Trumpet in Zion Sound an Alarm in My Holy Mountain" ST May 311, 1843.

^174. Litch lamented the lack of interest people showed in the 11th of August. Litch 1842/b, 2:200. Anderson "The Millerite Use of Prophecy" in Numbers & Butler 1987, 86.

^175. Miller was accused of having predicted the close of probation at this time. His only written comments on tills subject are ambiguous, even if he was clear on expecting the "Great Battle" in 1839 or 1840. See e.g. Miller "A Lecture on the Signs of the Present Times" ST Mar 20, 1840, and Miller 1842/b, 115-126, which are reprints of older texts. He may have done so in his sermons as Lltch is asked "Do you believe with Mr. Miller that the day of grace will close in the month of August." [Litch] "Events to Succeed the Second Woe" ST Aug'1, 1840. See also Anon. "The Closing up of the Day of Grace" ST Aug 1, 1840, which comments on the events to be expected in August: "This must certainly close up the gospel dispensation. In conclusion we solemnly warn our fellow Christians of all sects and denominations to trim their lamps." See also Anon. "Sixth Vial" ST May 1, 1840.

^176. Litch 1838 is the earliest source which indicates the month of August. "Turkish government should be overthrown in A.D. 1840 -- some time in the month of August -- The prophecy is the most remarkable and definite of any in the Bible." He did not publish an exact day until August. Litch 18421a, 111-125. Anderson "The Millerite Use of Prophecy" in Numbers & Butler 1978, 78-91.

¹⁷⁷ SMV, 27. Cf. Anderson "The Millerite Use of Prophecy" in Numbers & Butler 1987, 84.

^178. Litch "Events to Succeed the Second Woe" ST Aug 1, 1840. Litch also had another article in the same issue. This is less dogmatic on time:" But whenever it is fu1filled, whether 1840, or at a future period --. "Fall of the Ottoman Power in Constantinople" ST Aug 1, 1840.

^180. E.g. the editors collected some material which reflects embarrassment into Anon. "The Fall of the Ottoman Power in 1840" ST sep 1, 1840.

^181. Editorial ST Sep 15, 1840. There appears no clear later comments on the issue, but Miller "Miller's Letters No.8" ST Sep 1, 1840, explains the dilemma with the claim that all that need be said is that mercy must close before the actual advent.

^182. E.g. "The Nations" ST Oct 1, 1840 describes vividly how "The steamship Britannia with captain Woodruff arrived" with the news that "Things are fast tending to a general conflict."

^183. His article tells about "alarming intelligence" from the Near East. It claims that "Beyrout" is "in ruins" and that on Aug 15, "the Sultan, by his ambassador [sic] -- signed the death warrant of the Ottoman power." Litch "The Battle Begun!" ST Oct 14, 1840.

^186. E.g. [Litch] "Turkey and Egypt" ST Ian 15, 1841 and Feb 1, 1841. Litch 1842/a, 124.

^188. Litch 1842/a, 115-132. Cf. White 1911, 334f; Smith 1944, 502-7; Arasola 1955, 228-34; SDABC VII, 794-796.

^189. Litch 1842/b, 2:200; MC quoted in The Western Midnight Cry, Jan 20, 1844; Anderson, "The Millerite Use of Prophecy" in Numbers & Butler 1987, 86.

^192. Samuel Snow, the starter of the seventh-month theory have drawn attention to the mistake.

^195. There were Millerites who wondered about the legitimacy of Proof I from Lev 26. E.g. Litch "Restoration of the Kingdom to Israel" MC Nov 30, 1842.

^196. Cf. e.g. White's later reflections on Miller's persuasive skills. White 1911, 405f.