Sometime since I met with a Jew in the southern part of this state, when the following conversation ensued:
Question. You believe, I presume, in the authenticity and inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures?
"Most certainly I do," he replied.
Question. And you as decidedly reject the inspiration of the New Testament, and the view that Jesus of Nazareth is the True Messiah?
"I do," was the reply.
"Very well," said I, "then I have one more question to ask: Daniel said that within 70 weeks 'from the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem' the Messiah should come, and should be cut off. Have not the 70 weeks expired?"
"I let such questions alone," said he, with a look of dissatisfaction, "and think it enough for me to attend to the practical part."
Such was the brief conversation. It awakened, however, strong inquiries in my mind. Why, thought I, should he "let such questions as that alone!" I could see no other reason than this, that should he answer, he must admit that the despised Nazarene was no other than the predicted Messiah.
Nor could I refrain from reverting to the termination of the 2,300 days, and the present position of many Adventists. The commencement and termination of the 70 weeks being marked in a distinct manner, the remaining 1810 days which fill out the 2,300 days, can be quite as plainly reckoned. "The going forth of the decree" B. C. 457; the termination of the 69 weeks A. D. 27, when Jesus said "the time is fulfilled;" [Mark i;] the cutting off of the Messiah in "the midst of the week" in the Spring of A. D. 31; and the turning to the Gentiles at the end of the 70 weeks, A. D. 34, are dates very clearly determined. The Advent Review, [March 24, 1850] has demonstrated beyond all controversy that the date of the going forth of the decree to restore and to build Jerusalem was B. C. 457; and that the date of the crucifixion was A. D. 31.—These dates show beyond dispute the termination of the 2,300 days in the Autumn of 1844. And even those who claim that there may be some variation in these dates, find that the events of the crucifixion are too plainly established to admit of a mistake of 8 or 10 years. Yet they reject the scriptural view of the New Covenant Sanctuary, [Heb. viii, 1—5,] and of its cleansing, [Heb. ix, 22; Lev. xvi, 16—19, 33,] and stoutly contend that it is the earth, the land of Palestine, or the church.
But as it is not possible to extend the 2,300 days to the present time, are such Adventists any better able to define their position than was that poor Jew. If they still hold to their unscriptural views of the Sanctuary, and its cleansing, are they not obliged to say, We let such questions, as the termination of the 2,300 days, and the subject of the Sanctuary alone, and attend to the practical part? J. N. A.