New Time-1875 | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 4, 1870

New Time—1875.

THE World's Crisis has come out for a new time, or, what is the same thing, a new point for the termination of the 2300 days. That is, a correspondent contributes what he considers “the unanswerable argument” to show that they terminate in 1875, to which the Editor appends his emphatic—“We endorse the foregoing.”

The writer admits in the commencement of his argument that the 9th of Daniel is an explanation of the 8th; and this one truth which he so marvelously acknowledges, is utterly fatal to every subsequent application which he endeavors to make. The seventy weeks are the first 490 years of the 2300; and the events given to transpire during this shorter period are such as would determine the accuracy of the prophecy, and make the application sure. So far we have a common basis for further arguments. Let us try the positions of the Crisis, by the tests which the prophet furnishes.

1. This writer dates the seventy weeks from “God's remarkable interference for the protection of the Jewish nation,” in the time of queen Esther. The prophecy says they were to date “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem.” Quite a difference, on the start, between the inspired and uninspired. The decree of Ahasuerus to the Jews, giving them liberty to defend themselves against their enemies, was not in any sense a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem. It cannot by any possibility be tortured into any such signification. And so far as meeting the prophecy is concerned, this writer might just as well have taken the decree in behalf of Daniel after his deliverance from the lion's den, as the point from which to date the seventy weeks, as the one he has taken. One is just as much a command to restore and build Jerusalem, as the other.

2. But granting that that is the event from which to reckon, when did it occur? Our writer says in A. D. 426. On what authority? He gives none. The chronology of our common version gives 509 B. C. as the date; Prideaux 452; Dr. Hales 450. And we find no authority for the date given in the Crisis, except Thurman, whose endorsement is sufficient evidence that it is wrong.

3. But granting that 426 B. C. is the right date, how will it meet the other conditions of the prophecy? Seven weeks, or 49 years were to reach to the completion of the building of Jerusalem. Dated from 426 they end B. C. 377. Was there anything there to mark their termination? Nothing; for, according to Prideaux the building and restoration of Jerusalem was completed thirty-one years before, in B. C. 408, just forty-nine years after the decree to Ezra B. C. 457. Again, sixty-nine weeks, or 483 years were to extend to Messiah the prince. Commencing B. C. 426, they terminate in A. D. 58. The expression “to Messiah the prince,” must refer either to the birth or to the commencement of the public ministry of our Lord. But no one places the public ministry of our Lord so late as A. D. 58. Much less can his birth be placed there, which took place thirty years before he entered upon his public labors. Here, as in the preceding instance, the application is out of joint with the fulfillment thirty-one years, and no attempt is made to harmonize the matter.

But further, in the midst of the week, the last, or seventieth week, he, the Messiah, was to be cut off, and cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease. How did Christ cause the Jewish sacrifices and oblations to cease? There can be but one answer to this question. It was by offering himself as the great antitype of all these offerings. Suppose a Jew at the present day should solicit a Christian to engage with him in the offering of sacrifices. The Christian would say, No; those sacrifices have come to an end. How so? says the Jew. Why, replies the Christian, Christ, the great antitype of all these sacrifices, has been offered. This would be the reason invariably assigned for saying that those Jewish sacrifices had ceased. No one would plead, as a reason why the Jewish service is not now in force, that it was made to cease by the Romans, at the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. When, then, was it made to cease? At the time, of course, when Christ was offered, at the crucifixion. Now as the theory under notice ends the sixty-nine weeks in A. D. 58, the midst or middle, of the following week, where the crucifixion took place, would be the spring of 62. Does any writer place the crucifixion there? Not one. The more credible authorities place it thirty-one years before, in A. D. 31.

And finally, this writer says that the 490 years “reach to the time when God should withdraw his protection from the Jewish nation, and leave them to be devoured by their enemies;” which event he places in A. D. 65, although Jerusalem was not destroyed till A. D. 70. Here is a slight discrepancy of five years; unimportant perhaps in a theory where there are so many of greater magnitude; but one nevertheless which we should wait to see explained, before we endorsed the theory in question.

But we submit that the nature of the event is entirely mistaken by our author. The question of the special protection of the Jewish people is not the one which is before the mind of the prophet at all. He does not say that the seventy weeks were to date from a special manifestation of God's protection of the Jewish people and extend to the withdrawal of that protection. Nothing of the kind. But seventy weeks were cut off upon the Jews, or allotted to them as the time during which they were to be considered the especial people of God. The question then is simply this: When did the Jews cease to be the people of God? Did the destruction of Jerusalem mark any change in their relation to God? Not a particle. Were they the people of God up to that time? No one will claim it. The new covenant promised in Jeremiah was made with them. Paul says it was first spoken, or confirmed unto them by the Lord, and afterward by them who heard him. The middle wall of partition which made them a distinct people was broken down by our Lord, and when they formally rejected the gospel by their persecution of the disciples, the apostles turned to the Gentiles. Have they been the people of God, and objects of his special

protection since that? It is foolish to make such a claim. But this all took place many years before Jerusalem was destroyed.

In view of all this, whoever can read the following paragraph without a smile is entitled to the credit of perfect self-possession. We quote from the article:

“Other events as given by the angel, were to occur prior to the end of the seventy weeks, some of which were connected with time, as the birth and cutting off of Messiah, both of which met an exact fulfillment; also to ‘make reconciliation for sin, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to anoint the Most Holy,’ etc.; and all seems harmonious and simple, and easily understood, without any mixing up and confusion of dates and events; and I most fully believe that we now have, what we once thought we had, ‘the unanswerable argument.’”

It is sad to see such strong faith expressed in the reality of that which it would seem that any one in the least instructed on prophetic subjects, must see to be a mere ignis fatuus. For our part, we confess, that in the view under notice, we can see neither the harmony nor the simplicity, nor the ease with which it can be understood, nor the absence of mixing up, nor the freedom from confusion of dates and events, in reference to which the writer speaks so confidently. On the other hand, he could not, apparently, have succeeded better, if he had undertaken to present an array of dates which would not harmonize with the prophecy in one single particular, and connect them with events which do not agree either with scripture declarations, or historic records. We are satisfied that the acceptance of such a view is an act of despair. No one will receive it, who has a better; and he who has has not, is entitled to the commiseration of all those who prize harmony, or have respect for truth.