The Year-Day Theory, or Does a Day in Prophecy Mean a Year?
By Wm. Penniman
THIS is a subject of great importance to Adventists, and is therefore one which demands our serious attention. If this “theory,” as it is called, is wrong, it must follow that some of the leading doctrines of our faith are false. Prof. Cowles, in his “Comments on Ezekiel and Daniel,” gives a dissertation on the “Theory that a Day in Prophecy Means a Year.” From the manner in which he has handled the “theory,” he must have concluded that it is less than the “baseless fabric of a vision,” and in his mighty efforts to demolish it, must have thought that he had left less than “a wreck behind,” as in conclusion he says: “These points may, I trust, suffice to show why this theory never ought to be, and never can be, true.” Pages 459–469 contain the dissertation. The proposition is that all reasonable presumption is against it. To substantiate the proposition, he says “the word lion means a lion, and the word bear, a bear. When a lion is seen in vision, we fall back upon the known qualities of the lion, and his known relations to other animals, to find the signification of the symbol.” Hence he concludes that the word year means a year, and the word day, a day, etc. Does this reasoning prove anything? In his efforts to substantiate this proposition, he admits that we have symbolic lions and bears. He is compelled to admit this; but does it follow because the word lion means a lion, and the word bear, a bear, and the word serpent, a serpent, that we must always have an exact representation of what is symbolic? Was not the brazen serpent symbolic of Christ upon the cross, and was not the goat that was slain for the people symbolic of Christ’s death? Yet was Christ like a goat or a serpent? If, then, we may have symbolic serpents and goats, and objects including those without life, why may we not have symbols in time which may not have their literal counterpart, and why may not a day symbolize a year? He further says: “When God chooses not to reveal the time, he manifestly forbears to give it; this is all-sufficient for that purpose.” Very true; this is right to the point. We think God does not wish to reveal the time to all unless they will conform to his will, and become wise. A man may be wise in human learning, may be profound in the sciences, or think that he is, and yet may say as the fool hath said in his heart, “There is no God.” Is such a man wise? and are such men and their followers the class of whom Daniel speaks when he says “the wise shall understand”? We think not. The truly wise are those who earnestly and prayerfully search the word of God, and conform their lives to its teachings. Then the wise are the class who understand, not all. Again we read: “At the time of the end shall be the vision.” This evidently means that at the time or near the end the vision will be understood, and that then more light will be given upon the great prophetic truths of God’s word. This is true of this age. There never has been a period when the subject of prophecy has attracted so much attention as it has within the past thirty years. Again Mr. Cowles says: “Let us have patience to examine in sufficient detail the alleged evidence that a day in prophecy means a year.” He quotes Num. 14:33, 34: “Your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years.” It is very plain that in this text the word days is symbolic of years, as the definition of the word symbol will prove. The word symbol, from the Greek sumbalon, is composed of sun, with, and ballo, to throw. The Greek sunballo, signifies to compare, hence the literal meaning of the word signifies to throw with, or to compare with. The number of days in which they searched the land are compared with the number of the years in which they should bear their iniquities. If this is not a comparison, then language has no meaning. If it is a comparison, the days must be symbolic. Hence to deny that days are used for symbols of years in this passage, is to deny the plain laws of language, as the symbol is here given, and its counterpart. It is not necessary that the counterpart of the symbol should be exactly like the symbol. Yet the learned Professor, to make a burlesque of the whole, comments as follows upon the passage: “Does this mean ye shall wander 360 times forty years, 14,400 years?” He has no right to say this inference may be drawn, when the text so well explains itself. Again, he takes up Eze. 4:4–6: “Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it; according to the number of the days thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. I have appointed thee each day for a year.” In his explanation of this passage, he admits that the act of lying on the side was symbolic. Wonderful admission! It is strange that he should admit this, and yet could not see that the day was symbolic, especially when the language is so plain. “I have appointed thee each day for a year.” He enumerates several other texts in which a prophecy embracing time is mentioned; reduces the time, if in years, to days, then the days to years again, making enormous sums, so as to make the “theory” as ridiculous as possible. The learned Doctor says “the Lord through Noah predicted the flood (Gen. 6:3) after 120 years,” and wants to know if it turned out to be 43,200 years, or only 120. This, and all similar prophecies where the years are specifically mentioned, are not proper examples of prophetic time as Adventists and as all candid commentators and Bible students understand it. Where the time is plainly given in years, we do not reduce them to days, and then the days to years. But when we have positive proof that “times,” “days,” “weeks,” and “months,” do mean years (as will be shown by the fulfillment of prophecies before the subject is completed), we take them as years; but never when years are given in so many words do we reduce them to days. Therefore those who think this inference follows, grossly misrepresent our views. Let this class bear in mind that scoffing is not wit, nor ridicule, argument. Lastly, he undertakes to demolish this “air-castle theory” of a day for a year by his own translation of Dan. 9:24–27. The following is the rendering:— “Seventy sevens (of years) are determined in reference to thy people, and thy holy city to shut up sin, to seal transgression, to cover iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the holy of holies. Know, and understand, that from the going forth of a decree for restoring and building Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince are seven sevens (of years) and sixty-two sevens (of years), the streets shall be restored and built again; it is decided and shall be though distress of times. And after sixty-two sevens (of years) Messiah shall be cut off, and there shall be nothing more to him. Then the people of a prince that shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; its end shall be with that sweeping flood; even unto the end of the war desolations are determined. One seven (of years) shall make the covenant effective to many. The middle of the seven shall make sacrifice and offerings cease; then down upon the summit of the abomination comes the desolator, even till a complete destruction determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” The careful reader on comparing the two renderings, the one just quoted with King James’, will see but little difference in the sense, unless it is in the “shutting up of sin” (would that it had always remained “shut up”), and the idea that after Messiah is cut off “there shall be nothing more to him.” We have quoted the entire rendering of these texts to show how careful he is throughout the entire translation to avoid the use of the word week. The little word week is very significant, as it includes seven days; and as they are also prophetic days, and mean years, it must be strong proof that a day in prophetic time means a year. He admits that the period is 490 years. Now what can be done to get rid of the word week? Nothing can be done but to give a new translation, to go “point blank” against King James, and many others. If the word week is not in the original, why did the translators insert it, and why did they not put it in italics? Prof. Cowles does not say that the text will not admit of the common rendering, but that he proposes to give one, etc. But, after all, it is hard to tell how much better the Doctor’s rendering makes the case, as the “sevens of years” can have no possible reference to anything else but weeks of years; and, again, what can be meant by the middle of the seven, but the termination of the three and one-half years of prophetic time, or the middle of the week of seven years in which “Messiah was cut off”? The Bible student will please compare Cowles’ with King James’, and see which is the plainest and best. Leave out of the new rendering the parenthetical clause “of years,” and how will the common reader understand it? If Gabriel did not design to explain the vision in prophetic time, why did he not explain it specifically in years? But has the learned commentator shown from what the seventy weeks are cut off? He says in his paraphrase of this translation that they are “cut off from course of future time,” consequently it must follow that they are cut off from all future time. Here he finds himself in another dilemma. Not able to explain the “cut-off” theory, he is compelled to resort to paraphrase, and to “paraphrase is to translate with latitude.” Truly he has given it a wide latitude when he says the seventy weeks are cut off from all time. What is the sense unfolded in this explanation? It will not do to admit that the seventy weeks are cut off from the 2300 days, for that would favor the “day for a year theory;” this would prove that the seventy weeks, or 490 prophetic days or years, were cut off from the 2300 prophetic days or years. As a part of chapter nine is a continuation of the explanation of the same vision spoken of in chapter eight, it is very evident that Gabriel had reference to the 2300 days when he said (chap. 9:24) seventy weeks are cut off from thy people. “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.” As Gabriel is giving a further explanation in chapter nine of the same vision of chapter eight, how easy and natural the exposition that the seventy weeks were cut off from the 2300 days. Prof. Cowles says, in Dissertation 2, p. 470, that there is not the least hint in chapter nine which implies an allusion to chapter eight. It seems as though a school-boy might easily see the connection of these chapters. It is no wonder the Professor does not admit the connection, as if he did it would be fatal to his position that the “seventy weeks are cut off from all time.” As a matter of course, this learned objector denies the starting-point of the 2300 days, and inquires: “What has the decree of Artaxerxes to do with the beginning of that vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, and the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” These things, it is true, have nothing to do with the decree of Artaxerxes, more than to show the starting-point of the 2300 days, which makes the decree, or the date of it, a very important item in the matter, as only by knowing the starting-point can it be known when the days will end, and the sanctuary be cleansed. The Professor’s answer to his question is that the decree of Artaxerxes has absolutely nothing to do with the matter; he declares it only a fancy, a mere dream of Mr. Miller, that he might as well have proved his starting-point at the creation, or at the flood. But does this objector fix the starting-point of the 2300 days? No; he cannot unless he fixes it according to the explanation of the angel. He has not attempted to fix the date but passes over it in silence. His silence on this subject is enough to convince the careful reader of his comments that he is tame on this point. Since he accuses Adventists of knowing nothing about the starting-point, why did he not fix the date? It was very necessary that Daniel should know the starting-point of the 2300 days in order to fully understand the vision, and to know when the time should end. Why should the angel again appear to him to explain more, if he fully understood the vision given fifteen years before? The angel who appeared to him at this time said, “I am now come to give thee skill and understanding. This language, especially the word “now,” implies that he had come to give him further information on the same subject, and to make plain what had not been previously explained. Time was, or seems to have been, the most difficult point in the prophet’s mind to understand, therefore Gabriel dwells particularly upon this point. The time was not explained in the previous interview, but an interpretation of the symbols was given, including the ram, the he-goat, and the little horn. At this time the angel begins just where he left off (and it is natural and reasonable that he should, just as though only one hour had elapsed since his last appearance), and goes on with a further explanation as follows (inferring that Daniel had not forgotten the 2300 days and their closing event):— “Seventy weeks are determined [cut off] upon thy people and upon thy holy city to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and three score and two weeks, the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times. And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week, and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” Is there no “hint or allusion” to chapter 8, in this chapter? and can any careful student of prophecy read this and not see the allusion? Is not the same little-horn power spoken of in the 26th verse of this chapter, which is so plainly described in the eighth? But the point to prove is the allusion to time. The entire explanation is quoted in this chapter to show that time is not left out of the explanation. Angels do not use unnecessary language in communicating knowledge, hence Gabriel did not say in so many words seventy weeks are cut off from the twenty-three hundred days, as that part of the vision was already in the prophet’s mind, and there was no other period from which they could be cut off.