The failed expectation of Jesus Christ's Second Coming on October 22, 1844, stands as a pivotal event in prophetic interpretation history. Ellen G. Harmon (later White) was among an estimated 100,000 believers in the northeastern United States who experienced this "Great Disappointment." The non-occurrence of the predicted event demonstrated a fundamental error in the underlying interpretation of Bible prophecy, specifically the 2300-day prophecy of Daniel 8:14.
In the aftermath, the doctrine of the "Investigative Judgment" or the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary was formulated to explain the discrepancy. This article presents a biblical and historical critique of that doctrine and related interpretations promoted by Ellen G. White, using the widely respected King James Version (KJV) of the Bible for reference.
The 1844 Error & The Misinterpretation of Daniel 8
The 1844 date was calculated using a complex interpretive method:
1. Starting with 457 BC (the decree to restore Jerusalem, Daniel 9:25).
2. Adding 70 prophetic "weeks" (490 literal years), reaching AD 34.
3. Applying the "day-year principle" to the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14. By subtracting the 490 years, 1,810 years remained.
4. Adding 1,810 years to AD 34 resulted in the year 1844.
A contextual and historical analysis of Daniel 8, however, reveals a different fulfillment centered on the Hellenistic period:
· Daniel 8:21 explicitly identifies the he goat as the kingdom of Greece.
· Daniel 8:8, 22 describe four notable horns arising from the broken great horn, representing the four generals of Alexander the Great who divided his empire.
· Daniel 8:9-12 prophesy a "little horn" emerging from one of these. Secular and biblical history identify this figure as Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Seleucid king, 175-164 BC), who:
· Desecrated the Jerusalem Temple ("it cast down the place of his sanctuary" - Daniel 8:11, KJV).
· Abolished the daily sacrifice ("the daily sacrifice was taken away" - Daniel 8:11, KJV).
· Persecuted the Jewish people.
· Daniel 8:13-14 (KJV) answers the question about the duration of this desecration: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." Understanding "evenings and mornings" as referring to the continual sacrifice (one each evening and morning), this equals 1,150 literal days. This was historically fulfilled between Antiochus's desecration of the Temple (167 BC) and its cleansing and rededication by Judah Maccabee in 164 BC—an event commemorated by the Jewish Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah).
Therefore, the passage directly addresses the cleansing of the earthly sanctuary in Jerusalem, not a celestial event in 1844. The application of the 2,300 days as years and their linkage to 1844 is viewed by many scholars as a non-contextual and anachronistic interpretation.
The Question of the Antichrist & the Number 666
Another central critique involves the identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist and the application of the number 666 to the individual Pope.
A careful study of Revelation 13 in context shows:
1. The beast rising out of the sea (Revelation 13:1) symbolizes a global political empire or power (consistent with the symbolism in Daniel 7, where beasts represent empires). It is to this political beast, not an individual religious leader, that the number 666 is attached (Revelation 13:18).
2. The beast rising out of the earth (Revelation 13:11) is a deceptive religious power that supports the first beast, performing false signs and wonders. This second power aligns with the figure of a false prophet.
3. The timeframe for both beasts' full activity is the end-time period of "forty and two months" (Revelation 13:5), a limited period of great tribulation. Thus, identifying 666 with a specific historical figure spanning centuries is problematic. Some scholars note that the Greek word arithmos can imply a count or number, potentially symbolizing total imperfection (falling short of the perfect number 7) or even a proportion of humanity in allegiance to this end-time power, echoing passages like Zechariah 13:8.
Conclusion: The Peril of Non-Contextual Interpretation
The 1844 sanctuary doctrine and the consequent exclusive identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist are foundational to the interpretive system advanced by Ellen G. White. If the prophetical basis of 1844 is demonstrated to be a historical and exegetical error, the theological structure built upon it faces significant criticism.
This analysis encourages believers to study Scripture diligently, honoring its historical-grammatical context, and to test all teachings against the clear testimony of the Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment