2008-09-07 06:31Z

Historical Setting and Background of the Term “Daily”

LeRoy Edwin Froom, September 1, 1940 (originally published on GCO May 12, 2005 as Online Resource Center Document).

Document URL: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fro-daily.php

Note: Historical setting and background essential to understanding and application of term “daily” as employed (1) in Millerite movement, (2) in first decade of our own movement, following 1844 Disappointment, and (3) in Mrs. White’s use of term in 1850. Misunderstandings of past decades might have been avoided, and divisive issues that have since separated and estranged, might have been escaped, had access been had to contemporary sources, which have now been recovered and are here made available.

Scope of Survey

Millerite Teachings on the “Daily” Prior to 1844 Disappointment.
The “Daily” in Discussions of Decade Following Disappointment.
Mrs. White’s 1850 Allusion to Daily and Contingent Time Setting.
Chronological Setting of the “Daily” Paragraph in “Early Writings.”
Chronological Sequence of Terms “Old View” and “New View.”
Spirit of Prophecy Counsel Regarding Later Controversy over Daily.
Summary of Evidence, with Conclusions.

I. Millerite Teachings on “Daily” Prior to 1844 Disappointment

1. Miller’s Method of Ascertaining Meaning of “The Daily”

a. Took Cue from 2 Thessalonians—Paganism Hindering Popery

“I read on… and could find no other case in which it [the daily] was found, but in Daniel. I then took those words which stood in connection with it, ‘take away.’ He shall take away the daily, ‘from the time the daily shall be taken away,’ etc. I read on and thought I should find no light on the text; finally I came to 2 Thess. ii:7, 8. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way and then shall that wicked be revealed,’ etc. And when I had come to that text, O how clear and glorious the truth appeared. There it is! That is ‘the daily!’ Well now what does Paul mean by ‘he who now letteth,’ or hindereth: By ‘the man of sin,’ and ‘the wicked,’ popery is meant. Well what is it which hinders popery from being revealed? Why it is paganism; well then ‘the daily’ must mean paganism” (William Miller, quoted in Signs of the Times, Nov. 16, 1842, p. 66, col. 3).

2. This View of “Daily” Inextricably Tied to Interpretation of “666” as Years

Note: Miller’s view clearly disclosed in manuscripts in 1831 (“A Few Evidences of the Time of the 2nd Coming of Christ,” p. 8, Feb. 15, 1831; and “Art. No. 3” for Vermont Telegraph, 1831, both in Advent Source Collection), and in book form in 1836. Position was that 10-horned beast from sea (in Rev. 13) was pagan Rome and 2-horned beast from earth was papal image of paganism. Then, as 2nd or papal beast exercised power 1260 years (42 months of vs. 5) so pagan Rome’s period was 666 years, beginning with League of Jews and Romans, supposedly in B.C. 158 and ending at downfall of paganism in 508 A.D.—obtaining date by subtracting 158 from [p.2] 666. Miller’s key statements follow:

a. Conversion of Pagan Kings Takes Away Paganism

“‘And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.’”

“By this I understand the same northern nations that should and did conquer the Roman empire, and polluted Rome by the slaughter of her citizens and ravages committed by the armies of the northern barbarians, and after dividing the Roman empire into two kingdoms, these two kings being converted to the Christian faith, were the instruments of taking away the pagan rites and sacrifices which Daniel, or the angel denominates the ‘daily sacrifice abomination.’”

“Here ends the description of the first beast, in the fourth kingdom, which John informs us in Revelation 13:18 he saw numbered, ‘and his number is six hundred threescore and six,’ which I understand to mean the years that this beast, or pagan Rome should contaminate the Jewish and Christian religion, break in pieces and devour with his ‘great iron teeth,’ the same. If this be a correct exposition of the text, then this beast began his power over the people of God, 158 years before Christ, and would end 508 years after Christ; so that we are brought down to A.D. 508” (William Miller, Signs of the Times, June 15, 1841, p. 14, col. 2, quoted from “Evidence of Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ about the year 1843, and of His Personal Reign of 1000 Years,” first published in 1833).

b. Pagan Rome, 1st Beast; Papal Rome, Image Beast

“Pagan Rome in the first beast and Papacy in the image beast, and it will be evident to any one who will examine the chapter carefully, that John was not commanded to number the image beast, for the civil power of that beast was before numbered in the 5th verse, but the beast which existed before him, which the Papal ecclesiastical beast is an image of, or Daniel’s daily sacrifice abomination, Daniel xii.11, the one which Paul said, ‘He who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way’” (William Miller, Evidence from Scripture and History of the 2nd Coming of Christ about the Year 1843, p. 56, Troy, 1836; (1838 ed., p. 75.); Midnight Cry, Dec. 7, 1842, unpaged also, p. 68).

c. Pagan Rome Destroyed at End of 666 Years

“This power, Rome Pagan, would be taken away when his six hundred and sixty-six prophetic days should end; and this brings us to show when those days began, and of course when they ended.”

“They must have begun when the Jewish rites and ceremonies were in being, for this was the sole object of Paganism, to counteract the Jewish rituals and draw the Jewish worshipers into idolatry, and to blend the heathen rites with theirs” (Idem., p. 60. [1838 ed., p. 80]).

d. 158 from 666 Equals 508, When Paganism Ceased

“Then if this be correct, that Pagan Rome began his power in the year B. C. 158 and was to continue 666 years, when would Paganism fall in the Roman kingdom and the ‘daily sacrifice abomination,’ be taken out of the way to make room for the abomination of desolation? I answer, take 158 from 666 and you will have 508. Then in the year A.D. 508 Paganism ceased.” (Idem., p. 61, [1838 ed., p. 81]).

[Miller contended period began with league between Romans and Jews when “fourth beast began his rule over the Jews and the world” (Idem., pp. 61, 68)].

e. Paganism Ends in 508 with Alleged Conversion of Kings

“They all [10 kingdoms] being Pagans of course they supported that form of worship, until they were converted to the Christian faith which happened within the space of twenty years, Clovis the king of France having been converted and baptized in the year A.D. 496. By the year A.D. 508 the remainder of the kings were brought over and embraced the Christian religion, which closes the history of the Pagan beast, whose number was 666; which beginning 158 years B.C. would end the beast’s reign A.D. 508, having reigned but a short time, (one hour, says John), with the ten kings.” (Idem., p. 71).

Note: Though Miller continued consistently to hold this view and it was the constantly published view up until 1842, his associates under fuller study, rather generally came to dissent from this interpretation of 666, and its involvements. So Miller says on February, 1844, six months before even the great Disappointment:

f. Associates Generally Dissent, however, from 666 Interpretation

“In the evening, Mr. Miller lectured upon the number of the beast, in Revelation. He was unusually clear, and seemed to carry conviction to many, of the correctness of his application of this prophecy. He remarked that his Advent brethren had not generally agreed with his views of it, and that satisfied him that they studied the scriptures for themselves, and followed him only so far as they believed he followed the word of God. He was, however, fully satisfied that the number of the beast 666 could only denote the years of pagan Roman supremacy from B.C. 158 to A.D. 508.” (Midnight Cry, Feb. 22, 1844, p. 242, col. 3; (also in Advent Herald, Feb. 14, 1844, p. 9, col. 1.))

g. 508 Date Questioned by Fitch in First Letter to Miller

“March 5, 1838,… ‘Will you have the kindness to inform me, by letter, in what history you find the fact stated that the last of the ten kings was baptized A.D. 508.’” (Fitch, Chas., Memoirs of William Miller, by Sylvester Bliss, Boston, 1553, p. 129 [Thus even Miller’s first ministerial convert questioned basis of Miller daily interpretation]).

3. Two Views Held Regarding “Daily” Prior to Autumnal Disappointment

View of “daily” as paganism held by majority of Millerites in earlier period before corrections of numerous erroneous details, such as change of crucifixion date from 33 to 31, the year “1843” over to “1844” and elimination of 666 as years of pagan Roman period, etc. Though not predominant, “continual mediation of Jesus Christ” view held by some. For example:

a. Daily the Continual Mediation of Christ in Gospel Sanctuary

“The very heart of the gospel was removed when the little horn took away the daily—or continual mediation of Jesus Christ, and cast down the place of his gospel sanctuary and made it a den of thieves. He cast down the sacraments and gospel truth to the ground and ‘practiced’ the mystery of iniquity and prospered in his sacrilegious perversions. The little horn and his part of the host had indignation against the covenant; that is, the blood of the covenant, by trampling virtually upon the Son of God, and counting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing. They cast down the true doctrine of the cross of Christ, the crucified One. They cast down the table of the gospel show bread, which was both a ‘munition of rocks’ and a ‘sanctuary of strength’ to the church. The great matter to be taken away was the righteousness of Christ. The unbelieving Jews set the example. Away with this man and his righteousness, and give us Barabbas, the robber, and his righteousness. Away with Jesus Christ and give us the Pope, the usurper of Christ’s throne. The great doctrine of Antichrist is, the Pope is the corrector of heretics. This was established A.D. 538. Then where two or three poor souls were assembled together in Christ’s name, in times of peril, there he would be a little sanctuary for them—there am I in the midst of them. Then the papal armies would persecute them, and cast down the place of Christ’s sanctuary. Dan. 8:11, decides whose sanctuary it was. It is His sanctuary. Only two personages have been introduced to whom the word his can possibly apply. One was the Pope, the other was Jesus Christ, the Prince. None will say it was the Pope—the man of sin. Therefore it was the sanctuary of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now take two passages perfectly parallel. One is, his sanctuary was cast down the other is, the truth was cast down. Who can doubt the identity. The Word—the Truth, was made flesh and dwelt among us, and that flesh was ‘sacrificed for us’—and that ‘sacrifice’ was ‘taken away,’ and that ‘truth’ was ‘cast down to the ground.’” (Midnight Cry, Oct. 4, 1843, p. 52, cols, 2, 3).

4. Early Charts Follow Miller’s 666-Year Interpretation

a. Appears in “Exposition” of Miller’s Lectures in Diagram Form (Signs of the Times, May 1, 1841, p. 21).

b. French Tabulates Pagan Rome’s “Age” as 666 Years (Midnight Cry, Nov. l8, 1842, unpaged).

c. Early “Pictorial Chart” by Himes (1841) Thrice Tabulates 666 for Rome

Assigns 666 for legs of “Rome Imperial,” of Dan. 2; likewise 666 for “Pagan Beast,” of Dan 7; and, finally, 666 for “Pagan Rome, the Continual or Daily,” terminating in 508 with “Paganism taken away,” and picturing papal altar superseding pagan altar.

5. Fitch’s “1843” Chart Omits 666 as Years and Paganism as Daily

This famous chart, devised by Chas. Fitch and Apollos Hale, authorized by important Boston General Conference (June 1, 1842), and lithographed in 1842, eliminated several previously held faulty positions, and bore commendation of Spirit of prophecy (Early Writings, p. 74), aside from mistake in “some” of the “figures”—thus clearly more than one. Should also be noted that this chart was not used in 7th month movement—its dates focusing upon 1843, and not 1844.

Note: To be rightly understood, this famous ‘43 chart must be compared and contrasted with earlier charts. Early Millerite charts—particularly the standard “Pictorial Chart of Daniel’s Visions,” published by Himes in 1841—had cross at end of 70th week, in 33 A.D.; set forth Rev. 13:1-10 as pagan Rome, and Rev. 13:11-17 as papal Rome; interpreted 666 of Rev. 11:18 as years of pagan Roman beast; and expressly identified “daily” as “paganism.” In contrast, later chart “1843” chart (“A Chronological Chart of the Visions of Daniel and John”) omitted 33 cross, 666 years of pagan Roman beast—and nowhere defined daily as paganism. Bore marks of careful revision to eliminate supposition and conjecture, such as had appeared in half dozen places on earlier chart. Doubtful and disputed details left out, among them definition of daily as pagan Rome. On the other hand, erroneous B.C. 158 date for beginning of Roman supremacy retained, also “1843” ending of 2300 and 1335 year periods, division of Rome in 490, etc.—obviously constituting the “mistake” in “some of the figures” referred to.

6. Daily Is Not Jewish Sacrifices; Term Doesn’t Belong to Text

Unity and consistency in denying application of daily to Jewish sacrifice a conspicuous and uniform attitude on part of all Millerites prior to Disappointment as witness these typical declarations:

a. “Jewish Worship Cannot be Intended by the Daily” (Signs of the Times, May 24, 1843, p. 95, col. 2).

b. Daily “Not the Jewish Sacrifice” (Idem., June 21, 1843, p. 126, col. 2).

c. “Cannot… Be the Jewish Sacrifices’ (Idem., p. 136, col. 1).

7. Relation and Dating of 1335 to 2300 Year Periods

Another related factor should perhaps be noted. In 7th month movement, in connection with correction of end-year of 2300—year period—from 1843 over to 1844—similar adjustment was made regarding ending of 1335-year period. This shorter period was early called the “binder, that fastens the whole period,” having and insuring a common ending (Storrs, Midnight Cry, Apr. 13, 1843, p. 15. col. 2). It must, it was maintained, terminate synchronously with 2300 years. Accordingly, span was set forth in revision as from 509 to 1844—on basis that Gibbon cites a period beginning about 508 rather than a specified year (e.g. Flavell, Midnight Cry, Oct. 12, 1844, p. 123, col. 2.) two citations must suffice:

a. 1335 Years End Synchronously with 2300

“The twenty-three hundred years of Daniel must very soon expire—the thirteen hundred five and thirty years will end at the same time, and Daniel will stand in his lot” (Hersey, Midnight Cry, Sept. 12, 1844, p. 74, col. 2).

b. All “1844” Periods Terminate Together

“We refer the reader to Bro. Snow’s argument. One thing that is evident; all those periods must terminate together, none of them are yet terminated, and the longer periods we should expect, would point to the termination of the shorter ones. We are therefore fully justified in expecting the present Autumn the termination of all the prophetic periods” (Edit., Advent Herald, Oct. 16, 1844, p. 86, cols. 2, 3).

Note: Subsequent time setting, after Disappointment, involved and embraced shifting of synchronizing terminus of related 1335-year period with its encompassing dates—509 to 1844—which had been projected by Snow, and held during distinctive 7th month movement from August to October. Period shifted progressively over to 510-1845. (Litch, Advent Herald, Nov. 27, 1844, pp. 122, 123), 511-1845. 519-1854, etc., to close in each instance with the new endings fixed for the 2300 years.

II. The “Daily” in Discussions of Decade Following Disappointment

1. Crosier’s 1844 Teaching on the Daily

Note: Crosier presentation on sanctuary built upon principle of type and antitype, with basic premise that sanctuary of Dan. 8:11-14, to be cleansed in 1844, was heavenly sanctuary, connected with new Jerusalem and involving Christ’s two-fold ministry therein. After stressing that sanctuary is heart of typical system, showed old covenant connected with earthly sanctuary and new covenant with heavenly sanctuary into which our High Priest entered to minister. Essential paragraphs of argument, based on interpretation of daily as Christ’s mediation, follow:

a. Sanctuary Transactions of 2300-Days Are in Heaven, AFTER Cross

“The Sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days is also the Sanctuary of the new covenant, for the vision of the treading down and cleansing, is after the crucifixion. We see that the Sanctuary of the new covenant is not on earth, but in heaven” (Crosier, The Day-Star (Extra) Feb. 7, 1846, p. 38, col. 1).

b. Sanctuary of New Covenant in New Jerusalem Above

“The Sanctuary of the new covenant is connected with New Jerusalem, like the Sanctuary of the first covenant was with Old Jerusalem. As that was the place where the priests of that covenant ministered, so this is in heaven, the place where the priest of the new covenant ministers. To those places, and those only, the New Testament applies the name ‘Sanctuary,’ and it does appear that this should forever set the question at rest.

“But as we have been so long and industriously taught to look to the earth for the Sanctuary, it may be proper to inquire, by what scriptural authority have we been thus taught? I can find none. If others can, let them produce it” (Idem., p. 38, col. 2).

c. Heavenly Sanctuary “Polluted,” “Cast Down,” “Trodden Underfoot”

Introduced by this question, “Is the earth, is Palestine such a place? The entire contents answer, No! Was Daniel so taught? Look at his vision,” Crosier continues:

d. Papal Beast Polluted Heavenly Sanctuary and Cast It Down

“‘And the place of his Sanctuary was cast down;’ Dan. 8:11. This casting down was in the days and by means of the Roman power; therefore, the Sanctuary of this text was not the Earth, nor Palestine, because the former was cast down at the fall, more than 4000 years, and the latter at the captivity, more than 700 years previous to the event of this passage, and neither by Roman agency.

“The Sanctuary cast down is his against whom Rome magnified himself, which was the Prince of the host, Jesus Christ; and Paul teaches that his Sanctuary is in heaven. Again, Dan. 11:30, 31, ‘For the ships of Chittim shall come against him; therefore shall he be Grieved and return, and have indignation [the staff to chastise] against the holy covenant [Christianity], so shall he do; he shall even return and have intelligence with them [priests and bishops]; that forsake the holy covenant. And arms [civil and religious] shall stand on his part, and they [Rome and those that forsake the holy covenant] shall pollute the Sanctuary of strength.’ What was this that Rome and the apostles of Christianity should jointly pollute? This combination was formed against the ‘holy covenant’ and it was the Sanctuary of that covenant they polluted; which they could do as well as to pollute the name of God; Jer. 34:16; Ezek. 20; Mal. 1:7. This was the same as profaning or blaspheming his name. In this sense this ‘politico-religious’ beast polluted the Sanctuary, (Rev. 13:6) and cast it down from its place in heaven, (Ps. 102:19; Jer. 17:12; Heb. 8:1, 2) when they called Rome the holy city (Rev. 21:2) and installed the Pope there with the titles, ‘Lord God the Pope,’ ‘Holy Father,’ ‘Head of the Church,’ etc., and there in the counterfeit ‘temple of God’ he professes to do what Jesus actually does in his Sanctuary; 2 Thess. 2:1-8. The Sanctuary has been trodden underfoot (Dan. 8:13), the same as the Son of God has. Heb. 10:29” (Idem., p. 38, col. 2).

e. Bates in 1846 Recommends Crosier Article as “Superior”

“But allow me first to recommend to your particular notice, 0.R.L. Crosier’s article in the Day-Star Extra, for the 7th of February, 1846, from the 37th to the 44th page [the section that includes in its entirety the citations in I, a, b, c, and d]. Read it again. In my humble opinion it is superior to anything of the kind extant” (Bates, “The Opening Heavens,” May 8, 1846, p. 25).

f. Mrs. White in 1847 Commends Crosier Article to Every Saint

“The Lord showed me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, etc; and that it was His will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint” (Ellen G. White, “A Word to the Little Flock,” May, 1847, p. 12).

Note: Assertion sometimes made that portion of Crosier presentation, here cited, was left out of all subsequent reprints—e.g., 48-page Advent Review Special of 1850, p. 38—because Jas. White, as editor—publisher, was opposed to position. But facts controvert assumption. Crosier article reprinted by White at least 3 times between 1850 and 1852, after Crosier had given up both Sanctuary and Sabbath truths, though each time in increasingly reduced form. Final reprint, in Review and Herald, Sept. 2, 1852, (p. 63), introduced by following note in brackets from Jas. White: [“This is a very interesting and important subject and we hope that it will be fully brought out by some one soon. We give the following from the pen of O.R.L. Crosier, written in 1846.”] In first and fullest reprint of 13 pages, in Advent Review in 1850 (pp. 42-47 of Vol. I, No. 3, Sept., and pp. 57—63 of Vol. I, No. 4, also in Sept.), bulk of Crosier presentation reappears, including full daily argument quoted above. But in abbreviated 48-page special number of Advent Review, only 11 pages are devoted to Crosier article with numerous sections omitted (some omissions indicated by asterisks, and some not), subsequent 1852 reprint in Review and Herald merely an extract employing only 3 columns, or 1 full page.

2. Arnold on Close of Daily or Continual Mediation in 1844

[David Arnold a frequent contributor to Present Truth, and one of publishing committee of five for Advent Review.]

a. Christ Closed Daily or Continual Mediation in 1844

“Therefore, we are brought, by the force of circumstances, and the fulfillment of events, to the irresistible conclusion that, on the tenth day of the seventh month, (Jewish time), in the autumn of 1844, Christ did close his daily, or continual ministration or mediation in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and shut the door, which no man can open; and opened a door, in the second apartment, or Holiest of all, which no man can shut, (see Rev. iii:7, 8), and passed within the second veil, bearing before the Father, on the breast-plate of judgment, all for whom He is now acting as intercessor” (Present Truth, Dec., 1849, p. 45, col. 2).

3. Jas. White (in 1851) on Treading Down Sanctuary

Four months after reprinting Crosier’s “daily” statement in full in regular Advent Review of Sept. 1850, and omitting it from 48-page special Review for wider circulation among non-Sabbatarian Adventists of former Movement, White writes:

a. White Parallels Crosier on Treading Down Sanctuary

“Those that teach that ‘the promised land’ is the Sanctuary must, therefore, admit that the words ‘trodden under foot,’ and ‘trodden down,’ are figurative expressions, and mean that the promised land has been overrun with ‘the wicked agents of its desolation.’ Then they should not object to our using the expressions figuratively, in applying the words ‘trodden down’ [lsa. lxiii:18] to the typical Sanctuary and the words ‘trodden under foot’ [Dan. viii:13] to ‘the true Tabernacle’ or ‘Sanctuary’ in heaven.”

“It may be said that the heavenly Sanctuary is not ‘capable of being trodden under foot.’ But we ask is it not as capable of being trodden under foot as the Son of God,’ who is the ‘MINISTER’ of the same Sanctuary? Says Paul:”

“‘Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be worthy, who hath TRODDEN UNDER FOOT THE SON OF GOD, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace’” (Heb. x:29).

“We say, then, the Sanctuary in heaven has been trodden under foot in the same sense that the Son of God has been trodden under foot. In a similar manner has the ‘host,’ the true church, also, been trodden down. Those who have rejected the Son of God have trodden Him under foot, and of course have trodden under foot His Sanctuary.”

“The Catholic Church have trodden under foot, not only the ‘Holy City,’ but the Sanctuary, and its Minister, or Priest, ‘the Son of God.’ Rome has been called ‘the Holy City,’ and the ‘Eternal City,’ which can only be said of the City of the living God; the New Jerusalem.

“The Pope has professed to have ‘power on earth to forgive sins,’ which power belongs alone to Christ. The people have been taught to look to ‘the man of sin,’ seated in his temple, or as Paul says, ‘so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,’ etc.—instead of looking to Jesus, seated at the right hand of the Father, in the heavenly Sanctuary. In thus turning away from Jesus, who alone could forgive sins, and give eternal life, and in bestowing on the Pope such titles as MOST HOLY LORD, they have ‘trodden under foot the Son of God.’ And in calling Rome the ‘Eternal City,’ and the ‘Holy City,’ they have trodden down the City of the living God, and the heavenly Sanctuary. The ‘host,’ the true church that have looked to Jesus in the true Sanctuary for pardon of sins, and eternal life, has, as well as their Divine Lord and His Sanctuary, been trodden under foot. Yes, the true worshipers have been rejected and persecuted, and some of the brightest ’stars,’ or gospel ministers, in the church have been ‘stamped upon’ by the little horn” (Review and Herald, Jan., 1851, pp. 28, 29).

[Is only fair to here call attention to Mrs. White’s comment on “Casting down truth to ground” (Dan. 8:12): “As foretold by prophecy, the papal power cast down the truth to the ground. The law of God was trampled in the dust, while the traditions and customs of men were exalted. The churches that were under the rule of the papacy were early compelled to honor the Sunday as a holy day. Amid the prevailing error and superstition, many, even of the true people of God, became so bewildered that while they observed the Sabbath, they refrained from labor also on the Sunday. But this did not satisfy the papal leaders. They demanded not only that Sunday be hallowed, but that the Sabbath be profaned; and they denounced in the strongest language those who dared to show it honor. It was only by fleeing from the power of Rome that any could obey God’s Law in peace” (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 65, 1911 ed).

III. White’s 1850 Allusion to “Daily” and Contingent Time Setting

Note: Mrs. White’s oft-quoted allusion to “daily” (Early Writings, p. 74), first appeared in Present Truth of Nov. 1850 (p. 87), being received in vision Sept. 23, 1850. Was then placed in initial “Experience and Views,” (pub. in Aug. 1851), on pp. 61, 62. Three distinct but related items emphasized in successive paragraphs, with comprehensive statement on “daily,” word “sacrifice” supplied, and contingent “time-a-test” statements, appearing in middle paragraph. These 3 consecutive points were: (1) Fitch’s “1843” chart commended, with Hand hiding mistake in some of the figures; (2) daily, word “sacrifice” supplied, and time a test; and (3) agitation by some that saints were yet to go to old Jerusalem. References are unmistakably to current agitations and deflections, chiefly among first-day Adventists, who had rejected advanced sanctuary and Sabbath light, Spirit of prophecy guidance, and integrity of 2300-year dates, and were setting terminal date forward from year to year. These positions were, moreover, affecting some Sabbatarian Adventists; hence the counsel. First in the series came E. G. White paragraph pertained to “1843” chart.

1. 1843 Chart, and Hand Hiding Mistake in Figures

“The Lord showed me that the 1843 chart was directed by His hand, and that no part of it should 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” (Ellen G. White, Present Truth, Nov. 1850, p. 87, col. 1, Reprinted in Experience and Views, 1851, p. 61).

Note: Constant time-setting characterized certain nominal Adventists. But this involved denial of verity of former movement and validity of its time argument. Jas. White therefore wrote: “Since the 2300 days ended in 1844, quite a number of times have been set, by different individuals for their termination. In doing this they have removed the ‘landmarks’ and have thrown darkness and doubt over the whole advent movement.” (White, Note 2, Present Truth, May, 1850, p. 74, col. 2.) This involved new times for each of the 3 key dates—beginning-year, crucifixion-year, and end-year. Immediately following Disappointment, time-setting was based on contention of disputed circle of “few years” among chronologists, particularly different dates projected for cross. But about 1849, a new argument was introduced and a new basis for 2300-year calculation projected by nominal Adventists—injection of word “sacrifice” into text in connection with “daily,” contending this meant Jewish sacrifices, and setting new times on this new basis. Such is basis and essence of Mrs. White’s second point. Observe the phrasing:

2. “Daily” with Word “Sacrifice” Supplied and Time a Test

“Then I saw in relation to the ‘daily’, 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 since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion has followed.

“The Lord showed me that time had not been a test since 1844, and that time will never again be a test.” (Ellen G. White, Present Truth, Nov. 1850, p. 87, col. 1. [In all subsequent printings, this last sentence is run in as concluding sentence of paragraph.])

Note: After Disappointment, Jewish sacrifice idea first injected by First Day Adventists. This began about a year prior to foregoing statement. Thus:

a. “Daily” Must Denote Jewish Sacrifice

“In the phrase ‘daily sacrifice’ Dan. 8:11, 12), the word ‘sacrifice’ is italicized to indicate that it is supplied by the translators… The qualifying term must be understood as included within itself, so that the word sacrifice is correctly supplied, It is then the continual sacrifice; and in all these places of its use in Daniel must denote the Jewish sacrificial observances, which were terminated by Rome, symbolized by the little horn, at the destruction of Jerusalem… In other words, how long will be the fulfilling of the vision in which is presented the termination of the Jewish service and the transgression of Rome, to accomplish the trampling down of the Sanctuary and the holy people?” (Edit., Advent Herald, Mar. 3, 1849, p. 36, cols. 2, 3).

“‘The Place of his sanctuary’… It must, consequently, we think, have reference to the desolation of the temple which was cast down by the Romans, when they took away the continual burnt offerings… The casting down the truth to the ground—of its persecuting Christianity, as well as destroying the Jewish worship” (Idem., col. 3).

b. Jewish Sacrifices Meant Beyond Doubt

“Mr. Miller, perceiving the prophecy referred to the government of Rome, the fourth kingdom, supposed ‘the daily sacrifice’ to be paganism, and A.D. 508, to be the point where it was ‘taken away;’ and believing ‘the abomination of desolation’ to be papacy, he deemed the decree of Justinian to be the point where it was ‘set up.’ But we are led to differ from Mr. Miller in regard to the meaning of the daily, and from the other writers referred to, in regard to its application. That the Jewish sacrifices are alluded to by the term ‘daily,’ there can be no doubt. The term is borrowed from the sacerdotal offerings of the Jewish worship” (F. H. Berwick, The Lord Soon to Come, p. 82, Boston, 1854).

c. “Jewish Altar” Appears on Cummings 1854 Chart (Concord, 1854)

Note: Jewish sacrificial altar pictured on chart at revised beginning of 2300-year period, now made to begin in 446 B.C., and terminating 2300 years later in 1854-5—thus setting time and making that time a test on basis of injecting “Sacrifice” into text. Rough sketch from original appears on page 12. Here follow key excerpts from “accompanying explanation.”

d. Jewish Altar Represents Jewish Sacrifice, Restored in 446 B.C.

“The Jewish altar is to represent the daily sacrifices of God’s people from the time the covenant was entered into, which restored their worship” (J. Cummings, ‘Explanation of the Prophetic Chart,” Concord, 1854, p. 3).

“It will clearly be seen where ‘the daily sacrifice’ (true worship) commenced, consequently where the 2300 days (years) commence of Dan. 8:14… The daily sacrifice commencing with the 2300 days (years), about 446 B.C.” (Idem., p. 7).

“Will future events conic in their time? Yes. THEN THE LORD WILL COME THIS YEAR, 1854” (Idem., p. 246). [Cummings’ articles running through Advent Herald in 1849, when first “Jewish Sacrifices” assumptions appear.]

e. Loughborough on Confusion Resulting from Jewish Sacrifices Concept

“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” (J. N. Loughborough, Review and Herald, April 4, 1907, p. 10, col. 1. [Thus the basis of the “confusion” mentioned by Mrs. White was recognized.]

Mrs. White’s third point in sequence pertained to current return of Jews agitation, likewise seeking entrance among our pioneers. Note then:

3. Agitation in 1849 on “Final Return of Jews to Jerusalem in 1850”

a. Mrs. White Reproves Current Jerusalem Agitation

“Then I was pointed to some who are in the great error, that the saints are yet to go to Old Jerusalem, etc., before the Lord comes. Such a view is calculated to take the mind and interest from the present work of God, under the message of the third angel; for if we are to go to Jerusalem, then our minds will naturally be there, and our means will be withheld from other uses, to get the saints to Jerusalem” (Ellen G. White, Present Truth, Nov., 1850, p. 87, col. 1).

Note: One of the chief contrasts between old world and new world Advent awakenings was freedom in America from Return-of-Jews fallacy courted by overseas Adventists. ‘43 and 7th month movements in America both free from its blight. But after Disappointment, in extremist sector, a Jerusalem enterprise was projected, fostered by Mrs. C. S. Minor and involving man named Messullam, in Jerusalem. Hiram Edson temporarily espoused general Jerusalem idea, writing an 8-page tract in 1850 entitled, “Exposition of Scripture Prophecy, Showing the Final Return of the Jews in 1850” (8 pp. Canandaigua, 1849). This was unquestionably part of background occasioning third of related statements by Mrs. White.

b. Literal Gathering of Jews to Jerusalem Anticipated

“That there is to be a literal gathering, or return, of the Jews to the literal land of Israel, the land of Palestine, before the coming of the Lord, is most clearly taught in the Old and the New Testament. The Jews are to be in the land of their fathers, the land of Israel, and in Jerusalem in the time of the battle of the great day of God Almighty” (Edson, “Exposition of Scripture Prophecy; Showing the Final Return of the Jews in 185O,” p. 3, 1849, Canandaigua, New York).

Obviously, then, on individual and collective basis of these three related paragraphs Mrs. White was meeting current developments in time-setting and saints-to-Jerusalem agitations.

IV. Chronological Setting of the “Daily” Paragraph in “Early Writings”

Note: Period from 1844 to 1850 was one of marked confusion among majority of Advent believers who passed through great Disappointment. Time setting by nominal Adventists beset on one hand, with extremists on the other—the little Sabbatarian group struggling against this dual pressure. Paramount issue was true dating of great 2300-year period. During same year and in very month that Mrs. White’s “daily” and making-time-a-test paragraph appeared in Present Truth (Nov., 1850), first number of Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald appeared. In that first issue, Bates wrote thus concerning question of prophetic 2300-year “time” and time setting:

1. Bates on Confusion Resulting Plague of Time Setting

“For six successive years, viz: from the fall of 1844 to the spring and fall of 1850, the most of these leading members have been aiding and assisting each other in changing the chronology, i.e. the world’s history; to prove that they were on the true position. What have they gained? Answer, nothing but disappointment and confusion. This, too, in direct opposition to their standard work (Advent Shield). It has not proved to be their shield, that is clear. Six times, did we say! Yes, more. Some have moved the time for the termination of the 2300 days, from fall to spring, for six years in succession, and thus they have almost finished a circle, (if seven years would make one) instead of gaining one inch the right way” (Review and Herald, Nov. 1850, p. 7, col. 2).

2. White on 2300-Year ‘Pillar” and Supporting Dates

One month later—in December, 1850—Jas. White wrote in Review and Herald concerning integrity of 2300 days as from B.C. 457 to 1844 A.D., particularly on immovable character of 457 date (which was now constantly shifted forward by time-setting Adventists), and on relationship of this basic date to 1843 chart, asserting:

a. White Declares 2300-Year Period “Main Pillar of Advent Faith.”

“The 2300 Days. This prophetic period has been, and still is, the main pillar of the Advent faith. It is, therefore of the utmost importance that we have a correct view of the commencement and termination of this period, in order to understand our present position” (White, Review and Herald, Dec. 1850, p. 13, col. 1).

b. “Main Pillar” of “Original” Faith Built Upon 457 B.C. Date

“B.C. 457, was the year presented, and clearly proved by Brother Miller, as the true date for the commencement of the 2300 days. It was published to the world by every Second Advent paper in the land, by books, and by public lectures, as the true date. The proof was so very conclusive that those who examined the point with candor embraced it at once. Learned opponents did not, and could not, show that we were incorrect in dating the 2300 days from B.C. 457. With this clearly ascertained date for the commencement of the main pillar of the ‘original’ Advent faith, lecturers went forth united to give the judgment hour cry. This was the date written upon the ‘chronological chart of the visions of Daniel and John,’ [“1843” chart], published by J. V. Himes, 14 Devonshire St.’” (Idem., p. 13, col. 1).

c. 1843 Chart Correctly Has 457, But Mistaken Re 1843 Terminus

“It was the united testimony of Second Advent lecturers and papers, when standing on ‘the original faith,’ that the publication of the chart was a fulfillment Hab. ii:2, 3. If the chart was a subject of prophecy, (and those who deny it leave the original faith), then it follows that B. C. 457 was the year from which to date the 2300 days. It was necessary that 1843 should be the first published time in order that ‘the vision’ should ‘tarry,’ or that there should be a tarrying time, in which the virgin band was to slumber and sleep on the great subject of time, just before they were to be aroused by the Midnight Cry” (Ibid).

3. Ellen White Asserts Third Message Not Hung on Time

Was in midst of such strong statements and earnest contending for integrity of established 2300-year dates, and denial of all subsequent time setting proclivities that Mrs. White enunciated and re-enunciated fundamental principle regarding time setting and complete separation of 3rd angel’s message from any time setting test.

a. 3rd Message Not Hung on Time; Never a Test Again

“The Lord has shown me that the message of the third angel must go, and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the Lord, and that it should not be hung on time; for time never will be a test again. I saw that some were getting a false excitement arising from preaching time; that the third angel’s message was stronger than time can be. I saw that this message can stand on its own foundation, and that it needs not time to strengthen it, and that it will go in mighty power, and do its work, and will be cut short in righteousness” (Ellen White, Vision of June 21, 1851, Record Book I, pp. 102,167; 1st published in Review and Herald Extra, July 21, 1851, p. 4, col. 2; and then permanently in ‘Experience and Views,” p.48, (original ed. of Aug. 1851)).

Even Jos. Bates affected by time-setting emphasis of the period. Although holding tenaciously to integrity of 457 and 1844 terminal dates, temporarily held idea that duration of Christ’s ministry in Most Holy Place would be 7 years—from 1844 to 1851. This he published in 1850, in “Explanation of the Typical and Anti-typical Sanctuary.” Was particularly to meet this contingency that Mrs. White first had published in Review and Herald Extra, of July 21, 1851, foregoing vision given her June 21, 1851, at Camden, N. Y. Such is background, setting, and follow-up of notable vision of Sept. 23, 1850, concerning “daily,” time-setting based thereon, and making time a test.

V. Chronological Sequence of Terms “Old View” and “New View”

Terms “old view” and “new view” of daily, as applied to paganism and to Christ’s mediation, respectively, are, in any chronological or historical sense, singularly inept and misleading, both views were held in Millerite movement, as well as during decade following Disappointment. Moreover, from Protestant Reformation times onward, frequent interpretation was the “true worship.” Here follow sample citations spanning 300 years.

a. Daily Sacrifice of True Gospel Supplanted by Mass to Saint Worship

(Conradus, Alphonsus, “Commentary on the Revelation,” Basle, 1550, p.451.)

b. Daily Sacrifice Is Preaching of True Gospel

(Armsdorf, Nicholas, ‘Five Prominent Signs of the Coming of the Judgment Day,” Jena, 1554 unpaged.)

c. Papacy Casts Down True Worship (Daily Sacrifice)

(Parker, Thos., “Visions a Prophecies of Daniel Expounded,” London, 1646, pp. 45,133.)

d. Daily Sacrifice—Abolished or Disfigured Worship

(Fletcher, John W., “A Letter Upon the Prophecies,” written in 1755, in “Posthumous Pieces,” 3rd ed., London, 1800, p. 372.)

e. Dan. 12:10—Daily Sacrifice Is Divine Worship

(Wood, Hans, “Revelation of St. John,” London, 1787, p. 476.)

f. Daily Sacrifice (Dan. 8)—Worship of God in the Church

(Mason, Arch., “Two Essays on Daniel’s Prophetic Number of 2300 Days,” Newburg. 1820, pp. 1-6.)

VI. Spirit of Prophecy Counsel Regarding Later Controversy Over Daily

1. Rebuke for Re-publication of Labeled ‘43 Chart

In height of controversy over Daily, one proponent of Paganism view had ‘43 chart reproduced in facsimile form on paper, with famous “daily” statement from “Early Writings,” placed prominently beneath, across bottom of sheet, to constitute a Spirit of Prophecy endorsement. This he was forbidden to circulate by Mrs. White, (W. C. White, Letter to C. G. Bellah, July 12, 1926). Under date of Aug. 8, 1908, Mrs. White wrote the individual involved:

a. Mistake to Publish: Not to Circulate

“This subject should not be agitated at this time. Now, my brother, I feel that at this crisis in our experience that chart which you have republished should not be circulated. You have made a mistake in this matter… It was a mistake to publish the chart until you could all get together and come to an agreement concerning the matter. I am unable to define clearly the points that are questioned” (Ellen G. White, Letter 250 (Aug. 23), 1908).

2. Making a Mountain Out of Molehill

To another, involved in the discussion—but on opposite side—Lord’s Messenger wrote in same year:

a. Not to Be Magnified; a Small Matter; Among “Jots and Tittles”

“I have had no special light on the point presented for discussion, and I do not see the need of this discussion. But I am instructed to tell you that this small matter, upon which you are concentrating your thought, will become a great mountain unless you determine to let it alone. I have been instructed that the Lord has not placed upon you the burden you are now carrying regarding this matter, and that it is not profitable for you to spend so much time and attention in its consideration. You are not using wisely the time God is giving you by thus devoting it to such jots and tittles, when you can be speaking words that will confirm the people of God in the faith they hold” (Ellen G. White, Letter 226, (July 1), 1908).

3. Writings Not to Settle; No Light on Subject; Not a Test

Finally, at height of controversy, Mrs. White wrote to leaders in discussion asking that her writing not be taken as settling the matter, or used to sustain their personal views. She expressly forbad making “true meaning” of daily a test, and disclaimed instruction on point under discussion. This is climax of her counsel:

a. Not to Use Testimonies to Sustain Views or Settle Question

“I entreat of Elders _____, _____, _____, and others of our leading brethren, that they make no reference to my writings to sustain their views of ‘the daily.”

“It has been presented to me that this is not a subject of vital importance. I am instructed that our brethren are making a mistake in magnifying the importance of the difference in the views that are held. I can not consent that any of my writings shall be taken as settling this matter. The true meaning of ‘the daily’ is not to be made a test question.”

“I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question [‘the daily’]; for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy” (Ellen G. White, Ms. 11, 1910, in “Preach the Word,” Elmshaven Leaflet, Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 7, col. 1).

b. Not to Be a Test Question

‘I have words to speak to [leading exponents of both views named] all who have been active in urging their views in regard to the meaning of ‘the daily’ of Daniel 8. This is not to be made a test question, and the agitation that has resulted from its being treated as such has been very unfortunate. Confusion has resulted, and the minds of some of our brethren have been diverted from the thoughtful consideration that should have been given to the work that the Lord has directed should be done at this time in our cities” (Ellen G. White, Letter 62, 1910, Elmshaven Leaflet, Vol. 2 , No. 1, p. 6, col. 2).

4. Instruction Was Regarding Time, Not Definition of Daily

During time of acute controversy over daily, A. G. Daniels, C. C. Crisler, and W. C. White interviewed Mrs. White and asked meaning of controverted passage in Early Writings. Of that interview, Elder Daniels left this record, addressed to W. C. White:

a. Vision Given Because of Confusion Through New Time Setting

“She began telling how some of the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement, endeavored to find new dates for the termination of the twenty-three hundred year period. This endeavor was to fix new dates for the coming of the Lord. This was causing confusion among those who had been in the Advent Movement.”
“In this confusion the Lord revealed to her, she said, that the view that had been held and presented regarding the dates was correct and that there must never be another time set, nor another time message” (Daniels, Letter, dated “Los Angeles, Sept. 25, 1931,” in E. G. White Publications file).

b. Meaning of Daily Not Placed Before Her in Vision

“I then asked her to tell what had been revealed to her about the rest of the ‘daily’—the Prince, the host, the taking away of the daily and the casting down of the sanctuary.”

“She replied that these features were not placed before her in vision as the time part was. She would not be led out to make an explanation of those points of the prophecy.”

“The interview made a deep impression upon my mind. Without hesitation she talked freely, clearly and at length about the twenty-three hundred year period, but regarding the other part of the prophecy she was silent” (Idem).

VII. Summary of Evidence With Conclusions

I. Summary: From Foregoing Evidence, Following Facts Are Apparent—

1. Miller’s identification of “daily” with paganism based on conclusion that it was term found only in Daniel (hence not comparing with more than hundred passages in which original Hebrew word is used); and conclusion reached entirely on use of verb “take away” in a single passage—2 Thess. 2:7, 8.

2. Miller’s view of “daily,” as paganism, inextricably tied to erroneous interpretation of beasts of Rev. 13, together with 666 as years, which are wrongly dated for initial year—though associates increasingly dissented.

3. Two views of daily—that of paganism and daily mediation of Christ—held among Millerites prior to Disappointment.

4. Early charts followed Miller position; later “1843” chart commended by Ellen White, singularly omits any definition of daily.

5. All Millerites were, however, agreed that Jewish sacrifices were not intended by term “daily.”

6. Crosier’s sanctuary presentation contended papal counterfeit had substituted false, earthly mediation for true mediation of Christ in heavenly sanctuary, thereby polluting, casting down, and treading it under foot.

7. Jas. White, in 1851, paralleled Crosier teaching on treading down of heavenly sanctuary by Papacy.

8. About 1849, nominal Adventists began to adopt theory of Jewish sacrifices—injecting the word “sacrifice” as new basis of setting time for new endings of 2300 years.

9. Constant S.D.A. defense of 2300—year prophecy dates against pressure from these nominal time-setting Adventists.

10. Mrs. White’s allusion to Daily in 1850, refers to and opposes these current, subversive time-setting proclivities.

11. In 1851, Mrs. White strongly reiterates principle that 3rd message is not hung on time, and time is never again to be a test.

12. Terms “new view” and “old view” misrepresent chronological sequence—the “new” in reality being the older view.

13. Later controversy over daily rebuked by Spirit of prophecy as needless and ill-timed.

14. Daily placed by Mrs. White among “small” matters, “jots and tittles,” not of “vital importance.”

15. Spirit of prophecy statements not to be used to sustain particular views, nor to settle question, as no light given Mrs. White on intent of daily.

16. True meaning of Daily not to be made a test question.

17. Retrospective statement reiterates that point of 1850 vision was time setting, based upon shift from former united position that daily did not refer to Jewish sacrifices.

18. Subject was rarely referred to in writings of pioneers between 1849 and 1859, and is virtually ignored in “Great Controversy” and all antecedent “Spirit of Prophecy” and “Spiritual Gifts” volumes.

II. Conclusions: It is Therefore Evident That—

(a) Statement on “daily” and supplied word “sacrifice,” in “Early writings,” had primary reference to question of prophetic time and time setting (b) That this statement was an endeavor to check influence of misleading time-setting proclivities of nominal Adventists, based for first time upon new premise of Jew “sacrifices;” (c) That statement was not a delineation of correct view or intent of “daily” itself—the term “correct view” obviously referring to correct view of term “sacrifice” in relation to prophetic “time;” (d) That any attempt to use the “Early Writings” statement to define or delimit correct view of “daily” must be counterbalanced by Spirit of prophecy endorsement of Crosier article, and these in turn by Mrs. White’s repeated disavowal of having received light on its meaning; (e) That the Spirit of prophecy cannot therefore rightly be invoked as settling the meaning, as Mrs. White definitely rebuked attempt to link her writings to one side of controversy by means of ‘43 chart; (f) That the “daily” cannot properly be denominated a “pillar” or “landmark” of this message, settled and confirmed by the Spirit of prophecy; (g) that one’s view of the daily cannot justly be used as a test of his orthodoxy, or as a basis of discrimination, without violating both letter and spirit of Spirit of prophecy instruction; and, finally, (h) That agitation over “daily” in a time of tension or controversy is unwise and improper, though under proper circumstances it is not wrong to study the Word dispassionately and reverently for its true meaning and intent.

LeRoy Edwin Froom
Washington, D. C.
September 1, 1940
(Origination: Loma Linda Ellen G. White Estate Document File 201d) GCO

© 2005 by GreatControversy.org. GCO grants permission to individuals, wholeheartedly encouraging them to copy and reproduce documents and files appearing on this site, in an unaltered state, and for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted. All other rights reserved. Other groups or entities wishing to reproduce these materials are encouraged to contact us with reproduction requests.