In this second part, we will begin by sharing some interesting and contradictory statements made by one of our most prominent theologians, related to the beginning and end of the 1,260 days. In “The Great Controversy,” pages 434-435, the following quote related to the aforementioned period of time is recorded: “This period, as indicated in previous chapters, began with papal supremacy in the year 538 and ended in 1798”. When reviewing history, we encounter the inconvenience that in the years mentioned in the aforementioned book, we do not find any fulfillment of the events indicated by the prophecy of Daniel 7.
Mervyn Maxwell, who served as Director of the Department of Church History at Andrews University for 25 years, conducted historical research related to the beginning and end of the 1,260 days, which he published in a thirteen-page article titled: “The beginning and end of the 1,260 days” Are 538 and 1798 appropriate dates? Maxwell arrived at the following conclusions: 1 – “There were no strong popes in the 6th century -the century in which papal supremacy supposedly began; until Gregory the Great in the years 590-604.” 2 – “The popes were not ecclesiastically supreme after 538.” 3 – “Philip Schaff says that the years 561 and 590 are ‘among the darkest and most barren years in the annals of the papacy. “History of the Christian Church”, volume III, page 328.” 4 – “The popes were not politically supreme. Emperor Justinian, throughout his reign, reserved the right to choose and remove bishops -who assumed papal positions- and to convene councils.” It is important to note that Justinian ordered the capture and transport of Pope Vigilius -who held the pontificate in 538- to Constantinople, where he was held captive for many years. 5 – “Were the three tribes really ‘uprooted’ in 538? The Ostrogoths, usually described in early Adventist literature related to the year 538, ruled Italy -including Rome- in the years 540-551.”
Regarding the end of the prophecy in the year 1798, Maxwell wrote the following: A -” There are problems related to 1798 as the end date of the prophecy. The French had frequently rejected the papacy before that date. In 1296 and 1301, Philip IV challenged papal bulls and the ‘Unam Sanctam’ of Boniface VIII. Later, he said to the same Pope: ‘Know, insolent priest, that we are not subject to anyone in temporal matters, and your arrogance must be humbled before us.” At the Council of Paris in 1393, the French government withdrew its obedience to Benedict XIII. Previously, popes had been captured, exiled, or restricted from entering Rome … such as the imprisonment of Benedict III in 885, the replacement of Gregory VII – who had “humiliated” Emperor Henry IV two years earlier – and was replaced by the same emperor, so he had to leave Rome and die in exile, and another 45 popes who were humiliated by the rulers of the time before 1798.
It is unquestionable that the research conducted by Maxwell in history compels us to seek a more well-founded interpretation. Another drawback presented by our interpretation of the times, time, and half a time in Daniel 7 is that we do not find a biblical basis in that chapter to affirm that said prophecy ended in 1798. This interpretation arises from the association we have proposed between Daniel 7 and Revelation 13, particularly with the beast that rises from the sea that receives a deadly wound, which our scholars link to the capture and exile of Pius VI during the French Revolution. The problem with this interpretation is that it forces the chronological order of the prophetic narrative, since authority was given to this beast to act for 42 months after it received the deadly wound and was healed, which caused the whole earth to marvel and follow it; after which, it opened its mouth in blasphemies against God, and it was ALLOWED to make war against the saints and conquer them.
In view of the clarity of the prophetic revelation in Revelation 13, we must ask ourselves: Why does our church interpret that the 42 months of the prophecy END when the beast rising from the sea receives the deadly wound in one of its heads when the prophetic revelation states that the 1,260 days BEGIN after the deadly wound? Could it be that our pioneers never understood that prophetic portion, or never studied it? It is important to highlight that our current interpretation of Daniel 7 was not formulated by our sincere pioneers but was adopted from the prevailing belief in the religious world at that time, which saw the capture of Pope Pius VI as the prophetic fulfillment of Daniel 7. It is evident that such interpretation lacked an objective analysis of what is revealed in the initial verses of Revelation 13 and what is revealed in history. Over time, and with the fervor caused by the French Revolution in the world of that time, different religious denominations realized the biblical and historical inconsistency of that interpretation and discarded it; to the extent that currently, our church is the only denomination that continues to uphold it.
The reason we have not seen the inconsistencies of that interpretation is that unfortunately, in the early years of our church, we not only adopted it without any analysis but also incorporated it into our inspired books. It is time to rectify, and the sooner we do it, the better. Blessings.”
Comments