The Thirteen Hundred and Thirty-Five Days by John Norton Loughborough

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 4, 1907

The Thirteen Hundred and Thirty-Five Days

By John Norton Loughborough

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH

“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up [“to set up the abomination,” margin], 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. But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” Dan. 12: 11-13.

In the above language there is presented to us a reckoning of time from one event to another. The first event is called the “taking away of the daily sacrifice;” the last is “the end of the days.” This end of the days (prophetic days) must be the end of the twenty-three hundred days, for that period comes down the farthest of any of the periods mentioned to Daniel—reaching to Oct. 22, 1844. So when we came to that point of time, it could be said truthfully, “the end of the days.” It was then that we came to the antitype of the cleansing of the sanctuary in the Jewish service, when the lot was cast upon the two goats. Lev. 16: 8-10. So here it is said Daniel would stand in his lot—be in the real investigative judgment of the Lord’s people. The word Gohrahl—lot, which the Hebrew lexicon says occurs seventy-six times in the Old Testament, is the same word in Dan. 12: 13 as in Lev. 16: 8, 9, 10. This is additional proof that “the end of the days” here mentioned is the end of the two thousand and three hundred days when the sanctuary was to be cleansed.

Now as we see what event marks the close of the time reckoning of Daniel, chapter twelve, it is proper to inquire, What event marked the beginning of the reckoning? It seems from the language used that it is a definite date from which time could be reckoned, for it says, “From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away,” showing clearly that it is some event that is so definite that one can reckon time from it. Thus we are brought directly to the question, What is meant by the term “daily sacrifice”? and what is meant by the “taking away” of the daily sacrifice?

In “Early Writings,” page 64, we read: “I saw in relation to the ‘daily’ (Dan. 8: 12), that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment-hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the ‘daily’; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed.”

On the same page we read: “I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the figures were as he wanted them; that his hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none could see it, until his hand was removed.” This mistake related to the supposition that the 2300 days ended in the spring of 1844, instead of the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month—Oct. 22, 1844—as was afterward clearly demonstrated.

In view of the above statements in “Early Writings” many letters have been written to me, inquiring, “What was the position taken on the ‘daily’ by those who gave the message prior to and during 1844?” My reply is this: They claimed that the word “sacrifice” was a supplied word, and that the word “daily” meant continual, and referred to that which had continually—all along—warred against the work of God, and that it was paganism.

They said, “This is something that ‘hindered’ the ‘setting up’—granting

of civil power to the papacy.” They connected this text in Daniel with Paul’s statement in 2 Thess. 2: 7, 8: “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth [hindereth] will let [hinder] until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed.” Continuing, they reasoned thus: Paganism was the religion of the Roman empire, established by law of the empire. The papacy could not get that power while it was held by paganism. In 508 the pagan religion was abolished as the religion of the empire. Now he that had hindered was “taken out of the way,” and “that wicked”—the papacy—could be “set up.”

On the chart, which “Early Writings” declares was correct, and especially states that it was correct in the interpretation of “the daily,” we have a column of time reckoning which reads (I quote from one of those charts which lies before me): “508—Taking away of the daily sacrifice. Dan. 12: 11, 12.” Again: “538—The Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths by this time were plucked up: this is the prophetic period, for the rise of the little horn. See Dan. 7: 8. Three horns plucked up, and the little horn rises, which is the commencement of the papal power. The commencement of the time, times, and a half, or 1260 years, terminating in 1798.”

A little farther down the column we read: “The 1290 years (Dan. 12: 11), commencing 508, at the taking away of the daily sacrifice, terminate 1798, from which period 45 years completes the 1335 years, when Daniel is to stand in his lot, at the end of the days. The 1335 from the taking away of the daily (508) and the 45 from the close of 1290 terminate together 1843.” Bear in mind that the 1843 occurring frequently on the chart was 1843 Jewish reckoning, which they supposed would be April of 1844 of our reckoning of time. That which was discovered when the “hand of God was removed” was that the periods, especially the 2300 days, terminated Oct. 22, 1844, which was the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month of that year, instead of April, the close of the Jewish 1843.

The “confusion” that came in after the termination of the 2300 days was first among those who persisted in setting times for the Lord to come. They claimed that the “daily sacrifice” meant the Jewish daily offerings. That certainly made “confusion” in what were the clear views before. As we have seen, the taking away of the daily is a definite point of time from which the 1290 and 1335 days, etc., could be computed. The Jewish sacrifices met their antitypical object when Christ expired on the cross, the true offering for the sins of mankind—when “the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.” Matt. 27: 51. Those who came in with this “confusion” found no event to which either the 1290 or 1335 years would reach, beginning them at the crucifixion of Christ, neither did they attempt it. Next they said the taking away of the daily was at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the complete overthrow of the Jewish sacrifices, A. D. 70. Adding the other periods to A. D. 70 did not bring conclusions any more clear than their previous “confusion” of the dates.

Still later the position was taken that the “daily” which was taken away referred to the “continual” offering of Christ in our behalf. We might inquire, If the offering of Christ is to be a “continual offering” for the gospel age, when was it ever taken away, “seeing he ever liveth to make intercession” for us? Heb. 7: 25. Those reasoning from that premise said, “The papacy could not come to its ascendency, and enforce the doctrine of the intercession of the Virgin Mary and all the saints, until in the minds of the people they had led them away from the real virtue of Christ’s offering in their behalf.”

It is, of course, a matter of fact that with those engaged in establishing the theory of human mediation there was a loss of faith, more or less, in the offering of Christ. That loss of faith must have been a gradual work, and not a definite date from which to reckon the 1290 and 1335 days, etc. God had in that very time of apostasy his faithful Antipas—believers in Christ—(Rev. 2: 13) who held fast their faith though they might be martyred therefor. So the continual offering of Christ did not cease because some persons were letting go the same. These “held fast” his “name,” and did not “deny” his “faith.”

Again: let us remember that this departure from the faith—this “mystery of iniquity”—was already working in the days of Paul, and that its development was by a gradual process, while the taking away of the “daily” introduced in the prophecy is at a definite “time,” and is a definite act, from which date the 1290 and 1335 years, etc., can be reckoned.

We repeat that the “mystery of iniquity” that aimed at getting the civil power to enforce its peculiar tenets, could not do so while paganism was the legally appointed religion of the empire, but when, in 508 A. D., that ceased to be the established religion, the designs of the “mystery” worker could be carried out. From 508 to 538 A. D. the papacy succeeded in being “set up,” and now “the abomination of desolation” might go on in its work, no longer “let”—hindered—by paganism.

In the year 1892 while I was conducting a service in Detroit, Mich., a person was in attendance who, although then a merchant in the city, had been educated as a Jewish rabbi. He was well posted in Hebrew. At the close of the service I asked him what he understood by the “daily” in Daniel 12. He at once replied: “O, that means continual.” “What,” said I, “something that was to continue?” “O, no!” said he, “something that had continued all the way along to oppose the work of God on earth.” I inquired, “What was that?” His ready response was, “It was paganism.”

I submit these thoughts on the “daily,” as they may help other minds, as well as those who have already received answers to letters written in reference to the matter.

Mountain View, Cal.