The 2300 Days and the Sanctuary
By Editor
To IRA FANCHER.—Your communication is received. A press of other duties has prevented us from noticing it sooner. Having the fullest conviction that your view of the 2300 days, that they extend to, and terminate this spring, is erroneous, and subversive of the Advent faith, we cannot publish it. If we believed that the 2300 days extended to the Second Advent, and that the cleansing of the Sanctuary was the burning of the world, or the removing of the curse from it, or any portion of it, then we should probably search for the end of the days in the future, or renounce the Advent faith. But there is no evidence that the earth, or any portion of it, is the Sanctuary. You cannot bring one text of Holy Scripture to prove this view of the Sanctuary, so commonly held by Adventists. Do you call to your aid Ex. xv, 17; Ps. lxxviii, 54, and Isa. lxiii, 18? We assure you that these texts do not prove what they are said to prove. When compared with each other, and with their connections, it will be seen that they alone afford sufficient proof that God's Sanctuary, under the old, or new dispensation, is not the earth or any portion of it. [See Review and Herald No. 4.] We admit that if the earth, or the land of Canaan is the Sanctuary of Dan. viii, 14, then you are right in looking for the termination of the 2300 days in the future. But as there is no Bible proof of it, and as there is abundant evidence that the days have ended, and that the Sanctuary of which Christ is a Minister, or Priest, is now being cleansed, your view is all wrong, and perfectly calculated to ruin those who still adhere to it. It is true that your time will soon expire; but if we judge of the future by the past, we may expect that when this spring passes, some will still endeavor to prolong the 2300 days, and look to some future date for their termination. We believe that the “Advent Herald” is correct in commencing the 70 weeks and 2300 days B. C. 457, and in placing the crucifixion in the “midst” [middle] of the 70th week, in the spring of A. D. 31; consequently the end of the 70 weeks in the autumn of A. D. 34. You see that this view does not fail to terminate the 2300 days in the autumn of A. D. 1844. You do not fail to see the “nakedness” of their position, while they still adhere to the unscriptural view that this earth, or any portion of it, is the Sanctuary; for they have a blank space of six and a half years, with nothing to cover it. But we assure you that your position is, in reality, no better than that of the “Herald.” With you, we believe that the Bible gives us definite time, and that it was to be understood, and preached, and with it the world was to be warned. But we do not believe that God designed that such work should be made with the 2300 days as has been, since 1844, in setting some six or eight different times for their termination, with little or no evidence. God does not have to mend his work, and do it over again and again. The Angel, with the “everlasting gospel,” [Rev. xiv, 6, 7,] who proclaimed “the hour [period or time] of His judgment,” did not misunderstand his message from 1840 to 1844. That trumpet of alarm did not give an uncertain sound. That proclamation had all the marks of the work of God, and we are far from admitting that that Angel started with a wrong date, therefore it has become necessary that his message should be corrected some six or eight times! He that has given us time has also taken care of chronology; and when the right time came, removed the “seal” so that the “vision” might be understood, believed, preached, and the world warned. We did understand the “vision,” the right time was proclaimed, and God set his seal to it. Amen. Do not think us harsh and unchristian when we, honestly and in love, tell you that this work of removing the “land marks,” and following on from one point of time to another to find the end of the 2300 days, like a man following his shadow, dishonors the Advent cause, destroys true faith, offends God, and if persisted in, will lead to certain ruin. We invite you to turn your attention to a more excellent way. Once more read the fourteenth chapter of Revelation, and mark well the messages of the first, second, and third Angels. Notice with care the message of the third, which introduced the “commandments of God,” which are the ten commandments, and nothing more nor less. Compare this with Chap. xii, 17. “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God,” &c. A remnant is a small part, and the last end.—Therefore, the remnant of the seed of the woman must be that “little flock,” the last end of the church, at the coming of Christ, to whom it is the “Father’s good pleasure” to give the “kingdom.” The dragon is wroth, because they keep the “commandments of God.” You can keep and teach nine of God’s immutable laws throughout the length and breadth of the dragon’s dominion, yet his wrath will not be kindled, if you leave out the fourth, the one that embraces the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. No one will oppose you in teaching and observing nine of the commandments of God; for they are universally admitted to be binding, and are professedly observed by the churches. But just teach and “do” the fourth commandment, and the dragon’s ire is at once stirred against you. Then, we say, that the reason why the dragon was to be wroth with the “remnant,” the “little flock” who are waiting for Jesus, is because they were to keep the Sabbath, as well as the other nine commandments of God. Those who oppose the observance of ALL of the commandments, and call the law of God “a yoke of bondage,” a “miserable rickety old law,” &c., and give the idea that those who keep it are fallen from grace, and are in the road to perdition, will meet all this again in the Judgment. Hear what the “Alpha and Omega” says of those who “keep the commandments of God.” “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” This testimony is worth more to us, than that of all those who hate the Sabbath of the Lord. But it is not our object to dwell on the Sabbath question at this time; we refer you to our publications on this subject, and also the cleansing of the Sanctuary. Compare them with the Scriptures, and we trust you will not fail to see the fulfillment of prophecy in our Advent experience, that the 2300 days have ended, that the Sanctuary in Heaven is now being cleansed, that we are in the time of the third angel’s message, and that the Sabbath of the Lord our God should be observed. The following remarks on the 70 weeks, and the 2300 days, from the “Advent Herald,” are full of truth and interest, and should be carefully studied by all our readers. It will be seen that this view establishes one of the main pillars of the present truth. “To CORRESPONDENTS. W.—Should we receive a communication in which it was earnestly claimed that four and five make ten, backed by arguments, conclusive to the writer, but of no weight to our mind, what would be our duty respecting its publication? It might be claimed that a free interchange of thought might evolve light on the subject, and we might be pained to refuse the friend who wished to see his article in print. Yet could we publish it? Should we do so, it would not only expose his want of comprehension, but would reflect on our own understanding, and show our unfitness for the station in which we are placed, which requires that we detect and expose fallacious reasoning, and give no place to statements which are not facts. * As men do not naturally like to be shown to be mistaken, to point out mistakes is no pleasant duty. And as it is always more agreeable to gratify a friend, than to refuse his communication, to reject such is often a painful duty. “Now the above applies to your, and all the communications we have received, or seen elsewhere, attempting to assign a new date for the termination of the seventy weeks. There are certain chronological points which have been settled as fixed; and before the seventy weeks can be made to terminate at a later period, those must be unsettled, by being shown to have been fixed on wrong principles; and a new date must be assigned for their commencement based on better principles. “Now, that the commencement of the reign of ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS was B. C. 464-3 is demonstrated by the agreement of above twenty eclipses, which have been repeatedly calculated, and have invariably been found to fall in the times specified. Before it can be shown that the commencement of his reign is wrongly fixed, it must first be shown that those eclipses have all been wrongly calculated. This no one has, or ever will venture to do. Consequently the commencement of his reign cannot be removed from that point. “The seventy weeks must date from some decree for the restoration of Jerusalem. Only two events are named in the reign of ARTAXERXES for the commencement of those weeks. The one is the decree of the seventh year of his reign, and the other, that of the twentieth. From one of these, those four hundred and ninety years must reckon. As his reign began B. C. 464-3, his seventh year must have been B. C. 458-7; and his twentieth B. C. 445-4. If the seventy weeks date from the former, they cannot terminate later than A. D. 34; and if from the latter, they cannot have terminated earlier than A. D. 46-7. Consequently you cannot terminate them in A. D. 41, as you do, without first showing the inaccuracy of the astronomical calculations. “In addition to the above, sixty-nine of the seventy were to extend to the MESSIAH, the Prince. It does not read that they are to terminate when he is called the Prince, or that he is to begin to be the Prince when they terminate. They were to extend to the MESSIAH—the words, THE PRINCE, being added to show who was signified by the MESSIAH. Sixty-nine weeks of years are four hundred and eighty-three years. Beginning these with the seventh of ARTAXERXES, they extend to A. D. 26-7; dating from the twentieth, they terminate in A. D. 39-40. Was there anything in either of these years which would make the words, ‘unto MESSIAH the PRINCE,’ appropriate? When Jesus was baptized of JOHN in Jordan, a voice was heard from heaven acknowledging the SAVIOUR as the SON of GOD, in whom the Father was well pleased. Consequently HE was ‘the MESSIAH—the Prince,’ whose coming had been predicted. With that baptism the SAVIOUR commenced the work of his public ministry—the MESSIAH the Prince had then come, as it was predicted he should at the end of sixty-nine weeks. When he was acknowledged as the Son of God—the MESSIAH—he went into Galilee preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled.’ The time then fulfilled, must have been some predicted period. There was no predicted period which could then terminate, but the sixty-nine, or seventy weeks. Did either of these then terminate? We have seen that the former, reckoned from the seventh of ARTAXERXES, as it is fixed by astronomical calculations, would end in A. D. 26-7; and A. D. 27 we find is the precise point of time when the SAVIOUR must have been about thirty years of age, when he was baptized of JOHN, and declared the time fulfilled. At the first passover the SAVIOUR attended, which could not have been later than the spring of his second year, the Jews told him that the temple had then been forty-six years in building—reckoning back forty-six years from A. D. 28, they began B. C. 17, which is the precise year when HEROD began the work of rebuilding the temple. From the eclipse which marked the death of HEROD, before which the SAVIOUR had been born, his birth could not have been later than B. C. 4, which would make him about thirty at the very time of his baptism of JOHN. Such a concurrence of chronological, astronomical, and historical testimony, can only be set aside by testimony still more conclusive. Your argument that he was not called a prince till after his crucifixion is of no weight; for the Jews could not have crucified “the Prince of life,” as PETER accused them, if he was not the Prince of life till after his crucifixion. - “But what was to occur in the midst of the week? The ‘sacrifice and oblation’ was then to cease. Those Jewish ordinances could only cease actually or virtually. They did not actually cease till A. D. 70. They ceased virtually only at the crucifixion; they then ceased to foreshadow the sacrifice then offered. Was that in the midst of the week? 3 1-2 years from A. D. 27 bring us to the spring of A. D. 31, where DR. HALES has demonstrated the crucifixion took place. The week during which the covenant was confirmed, was that in the ‘midst’ of which the sacrifice and oblation virtually ceased. Consequently it could not extend beyond A. D. 34—the latest time to which seventy weeks from the seventh of ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS could reach.
“As those chronological points, on which the whole question turns, are unnoticed in your article, to publish it would only tend to throw doubt and uncertainty on that which is well established,—the same as if we should question whether two and two make four.”