"They Stagger, but not with Strong Drink."
By Editor
UNDER this figure, Isa. xxix, 9, the Lord through the prophet speaks of those who turn their backs upon the truth, and shut their eyes and ears to the declarations of his word. The recreancy and frivolous excuses of their position, he sets forth in the following language: "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed; and the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee; and he saith, I am not learned." Verses 11, 12. If this language applies to those who never have come to a knowledge of the truth at all, who can fathom the severity with which it scathes those who, having once received this knowledge, acquainted themselves with the theory, and professed the spirit of the truth, at last turn their backs upon some of its fundamental principles? Judge, then, of our surprise, when we read not long since in the World's Crisis, from the pen of one who stands high with many as a leader and instructor of the people, an argument to prove that the prophetic periods of Daniel are literal days, not years—an argument which we can regard no less than a deliberate attempt to raze to its very foundation, one of the main pillars of the Advent faith. The writer closes his article with the following language: "Waiving for the present the further discussion of this subject, I frankly confess that I am not competent to give much instruction on the point; and only hope that those who do profess to expound the prophetic periods may be, as they certainly ought to be, a great deal better informed than I am concerning them. These times are in the Bible; but some of men's expositions of them are not in the Bible, and are never likely to be. 'The wise shall understand;' but a great many who have thought themselves 'wise,' have proved that they were wise above what was written, if not 'wise in their own conceits.'—W. L. M." It may do, even on a subject so plain as this, to talk flippantly to the venerable names who have from past ages believed in the year-day theory, about being wise in their own conceits, unless the person should thereby happen to prove himself to be in that unenviable state; for the fancy is very apt to seize one, in the condition spoken of by the prophet, that everybody else is staggering, and he is the only sober one in all the crowd. Even Prof. Bush, who never believed the Advent doctrine, wrote to Wm. Miller as follows: "I do not conceive your errors on the subject of chronology to be at all of a serious nature, or in fact to be very wide of the truth. In taking a day as the prophetic time for a year, I believe you are sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Faber, Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to substantially your conclusions on this head."—Time of the End, p. 46. A few weeks after the publication of the article above referred to, we were glad to see a writer in the same paper come to the rescue of the great truth, which was well nigh betrayed in the house of its friends. Looking upon this as a good exposition of the true theory, we lay it before the reader: "With all the light there is at the present time upon the prophecies of Daniel and John, to me it is a little surprising that any student of prophecy should still insist that the prophetic periods of Daniel are literal days, and a good deal surprising that any looking for the return of Christ to earth, should favor the literal-day theory. With me it is no small matter connected with my faith in the soon coming of Jesus, whether the days of Daniel are literal or symbolical days. I believe unhesitatingly that the 'time, and times, and the dividing of time,' the 2300 days, 'time, times and a half,' 1290 and 1335 days of Daniel vii, viii, and xii, are symbols, each day standing for a year; and I think I can give a reason for my hope upon this point. I believe these days are year-days. "1. Because they are connected with symbolic prophecy. In Ezekiel iv, symbolical time is used in connection with a prophecy illustrated by symbols. But you may say that God expressly said, 'I have appointed thee a day for year,' and has not said so in Daniel. In reply I would say, that in John's Revelation also he has given us symbolical time in some ten places, and has not once in either of these told us that each day stands for a year. Perhaps the reason why it is not given in Daniel as well as in Ezekiel, may be found in Dan. xii, 4. Yet it may be said that the days of Dan. xii are not connected with symbolical prophecy, and consequently that argument would prove the 1290 and 1335 days to be literal days, even if the others are year-days. If you will carefully compare the visions of chaps. x, xi, and xii, with the preceding visions, you will see at once that Daniel's last vision is but an explanation of the other vision, which he could not understand; also, what the 1290 days are; consequently if one is symbolical time, the other must be. "2d. Because the 'time, and times, and the dividing of time,' (chap. vii,) 'time, times, and a half,' (chap. viii,) apply to the same events that 'a time, and times, and half a time' of Rev. xii, 14, the 1290 days of Rev. xi, 3; Rev. xii, 6, and the 'forty and two months, of Rev. xii, 2, and Rev. xii, 5, apply to. And no critical expositor will for one moment attempt to make the long persecution of the martyr church by the seven-headed and ten-horned beast, to be but 1290 literal days, when it was that number of years. "3d. Because the time connected with the last vision is declared to be 'long,' which was not long if37three years and a half were its length; certainly not long in comparison with the vision of chap. ix, which vision was not even called long, though it was seventy weeks of years; and of the last vision it is said, 'And the thing was true, but the time appointed was long.' Dan. x, 1. "4th. Because not one of these four periods given in Dan., vii, viii, and xii, can in any way be made to fit the events to which they are applied by Maitland, Stuart, or any other literal-day expositors. This class of expositors endeavor to make the 2300 days cover the whole time from Antiochus Epiphanes, when invading Judah and taking Jerusalem, b. c., 170, that is, year of the Greeks 143, (see 1 Maccabees i, 20,) to the year of the Greeks 148, when the Jews overcame the invaders, gained possession of their city again, and restored their daily worship in the temple. Jerusalem was at this time in possession of Antiochus but five full years, while in 2300 days there are six years, three months, and twenty days. That is as near as they come in their calculation of the 2300 days. And if they extend the time to the death of Antiochus, then they cannot make six full years. And if they commence these days from b. c. 174, (as some do) when Antiochus caused Onias, the high priest of Jerusalem, to be deposed, then they have nine years before Antiochus' idol worship is overthrown in Jerusalem, which would be nearly three years too much for their argument. "With regard to the 1260, or 1290 days, a period of about three years and a half, they apply this time to the whole length of time that Antiochus caused swine's flesh to be offered upon the altar, of the Jewish sanctuary, which is called by the book of Maccabees, 'the abomination of desolation.' But unhappily for this exposition of the days, neither 1260 nor 1290 days will measure this pollution of the sanctuary. Just three years and ten days at most is all that can be made out for that abomination. See Josephus' Antiquities, book 12, chap. 5, secs. 3, 4; also 1 Maccabees 1, for the commencement of these days. 'Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and built idol altars throughout the cities of Judea on every side.' 1 Maccabees i, 54. 'Now the five and twentieth day of the month they did sacrifice upon the altar of God.' 1 Maccabees i, 59. 'The same writer, speaking of the overthrow of this abomination, says, 'Now on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month, which is called the month of Casleu, in the hundred forty and eighth year, they rose up betimes in the morning and offered sacrifices according to the law upon the new altar of burnt-offerings which they had made. Look at what time and what day the heathen had profaned it; even in that it was dedicated with songs, and citherns, and harps, and cymbals. Then all the people fell upon their faces, worshiping and praising the God of Heaven, who had given them good success.' 1 Maccabees iv, 52-55. "How then can the figures of Daniel be made to agree with this idol pollution of the Jewish sanctuary? The 1335 days, being forty-five days more than 1290, are extended by the literal-day theorists to the death of Antiochus. In this, too, they are equally wide from the truth, for the sanctuary was cleansed on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month, which would be ninety-five days before the end of that year; and the death of Antiochus did not take place until some time in the next year. For proof of this: 'So king Antiochus died there in the hundred forty and ninth year.' 1 Maccabees vi, 16. Consequently, none of the four periods can in any way be made to apply to Antiochus Epiphanes' abominating the Jewish sanctuary. "5th. Because our Lord, in Matt. xxiv, 15, makes 'the abomination of desolation' to be yet in the future from his time, and so it could not have been fulfilled two hundred years before he uttered his great prophecy of Matt. xxiv, as literal-day theorists necessarily make it to have been, if their exposition is correct. Then, to use the language of a great man in the Christian church, I would say, 'If the old established principle of the year-day theory is wrong, not only has the Christian world been led astray for ages, by a mere ignis fatuus of false hermeneutics; but the church is at once cut loose from every chronological mooring, and set adrift in the open sea, without the vestige of a beacon lighthouse or star by which to determine bearings or distances from the desired millennial haven to which she has hoped she was tending.'" The following paragraphs we take from the Voice of the Prophets. They well express the views and feelings of those who still desire to adhere to the ancient landmarks: "The year-day theory of interpreting the prophetic periods is vital to the position of all classes of Adventists, whether they are looking definitely or proximately for their fulfillment in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the great principle assailed by all opponents, infidel, semi-infidel, futurist, and preterist. It is the first on which brethren become involved in doubt under the trials which they encounter from without and within. "We stake all that is involved in our hope, on the scriptural integrity of that great principle. It is to us what the 'scale' on which the chart for the use of the mariner is constructed—usually that of an 'inch to a mile,'—and by which he navigates with safety through all his dangers, on all his voyages, all over the world. Without that 'scale,' his chart to him would be a useless thing. And in the hour of the greatest danger it would be worse than useless—it would be a mockery and an aggravation. "The true meaning of the prophetic times has a close and vital connection with the general exposition of the sacred visions. It has been the general impression of the best Protestant interpreters, for near three centuries, that a prophetic day signifies a natural year, and that all the other periods are to be expounded by the same rule."