In this publication we will continue considering the decree that fulfilled Daniel 9:25 and the date of the end of the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, as well as what Mrs. White wrote about it. The prophecy of Daniel 8 begins with the supposed decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, which we have affirmed is found in the 7th chapter of Ezra, which we will hardly find, or with the third decree to finish the house of God, which we find recorded in Ezra 6:15? There is no possibility that said prophecy begins from two decrees, in which instructions are given for different constructions.
The previous contradiction forces us to investigate and carefully review what is recorded in the Scriptures; in which we find that the third decree of Artaxerxes has to do with the completion of the house of God and its full operation, and not with the order to restore and rebuild Jerusalem. This reveals that Mrs. White transcribed the best prophetic interpretation of Daniel 8 to her books, formulated by theologians of the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Johann Petri, William Cunningham, and Archibald Mason -adopted by William Miller- who did not notice the temporal inconsistency that Artaxerxes from chapter seven ruled more than five decades after the third decree recorded in Ezra 6 was issued.
Other affirmations of Mrs. White that we will consider are those recorded in the mentioned book The Great Controversy, pages 324-327, which mention: A- “Miller continued studying the prophecies with more diligence and zeal than ever… in the eighth chapter of Daniel he could not find a guide for the starting point of the 2,300 days.” B- “…however, God had commanded his messenger: ‘Make this man understand the vision’… The angel returned shortly after to Daniel…” C- “…There was an important point in the vision of the eighth chapter that had not been explained… the period of the 2,300 days… the first words of the angel are: seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city… the word translated here as ‘determined’ literally means ‘cut off’… but, where were they cut off from?; since the 2,300 days are the only period of time mentioned in the eighth chapter, they must constitute the period from which the seventy weeks were cut off…” D- “The decree of Artaxerxes was put into effect in the FALL of the year 457 BC…” On page 329 she also wrote: “Miller and his associates first believed that the 2,300 days ended in the spring of 1844, while the prophecy points to the autumn of that same year.” E- “The reconstruction and restoration of Jerusalem was completed at the end of the first 49 years of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:25).”
The above statements present the following inconveniences: 1- Stating that Miller could not find in the eighth chapter of Daniel a guide for the starting point of the prophecy of Daniel 8 does not mean that we do not find in the biblical record the moment of the appearance of the little horn that would later defile the sanctuary, leading to the start of the 2,300 evenings and mornings prophecy. In Daniel 8:9-11, 22-23 we read that Daniel was not only shown, but also explained, the moment when this horn would arise; which according to verse 23, would occur at the end of the reign of the four dynasties in which the great horn representing Greece was divided, and ultimately Alexander the Great; an emergence that occurred in the mid-2nd century BC, approximately 300 years after the year 457 BC, a date that we have indicated without much foundation as the start of the prophecy. 2- The angel mentioned in Daniel 9 returned to the prophet approximately ten years after receiving the vision of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, showing that there was no urgency in Heaven for Gabriel to return to explain to Daniel the vision that Gabriel himself had already explained to him in verses 19-26 of chapter eight. 3- Stating that the seventy weeks had to be cut from the time period closest to Daniel 9:25, found in the 2,300 evenings and mornings of chapter 8, presents the following inconveniences: a)- We cannot seek prophetic interpretations based on the proximity between certain periods of time, as that lends itself to subjectivity, where the mention of certain moments can lead to multiple interpretations. b)- It makes no sense to interpret that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 were cut from the 2,300 evenings and mornings when that chapter does not mention or directly allude to that period of time. Daniel 9:24 categorically affirms that the seventy weeks are determined for YOUR PEOPLE AND YOUR HOLY CITY, and not cut from the 2,300 evenings and mornings. D- Stating that the decree of Artaxerxes was put into effect in the fall of the year 457 BC, after Ezra arrived in Jerusalem; goes against what we have traditionally interpreted, that in Daniel 9:25 it is indicated that the prophecy of Daniel 8 begins with the ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, an order that should have been issued in the last days of the year 458 BC, so that Ezra could start his journey to Jerusalem in the spring, as recorded in verse 9 of chapter seven of Ezra.
This forces us to accept that the prophecy should also have ended in the spring of 1844; as Miller had initially interpreted, and not in the fall; to justify the baptism of the Lord Jesus in that season of the year, – which we cannot justify from the spring of 457 BC -, as well as the end of the 2,300 evenings and mornings as we continue to maintain. At this point, it is important to highlight that in Daniel 8:14, where it is recorded that the sanctuary would be cleansed, the moment when this vindication would take place, is indicated; which, as revealed in the Scriptures, should have been before or during the month of Nisan in the year 1844, and not on the Day of Atonement as erroneously proposed by the Millerite Samuel Snow. We reiterate, according to our traditional interpretation, the prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings begins with the issuance of the order (Daniel 9:25) in late winter or early spring, and not with the supposed implementation of the order in the fall, as Mrs. White states in one of the quotes we are considering. E- Stating that the restoration and reconstruction of Jerusalem was completed at the end of the first forty-nine years of the prophecy, continues to be an assumption that we cannot justify; and makes it difficult for us to accept what is revealed in Nehemiah 6:15: that the wall of Jerusalem was completely rebuilt in 52 days; this led the repopulators of Jerusalem (Nehemiah 11) to begin rebuilding their houses and consequently the city. To be continued. Blessings.
Comments