2 Free Chapters From "The White Elephant"

Chapter XI
Where in Scripture is it?

The Pillar of SDA Faith
These were more noble than those in

Thessalonica, in that they received the
Word with all readiness of mind, and
searched the scriptures daily,
whether those things were so.
Acts 17:11
I
t is vital that an entire section of this book be dedicated to
testing a selection of Ellen Whites teachings, to see if they
are truly supported, unambiguouslywithout reading into
what is not clearly statedby a line upon line, precept upon
precept of Scripture. I will focus on a number of teachings and
ideas that have, for me personally, become very problematic
and that, after years of research into Ellen Whites writings,
explanations by her defenders and the lines of SDA historical
record, cannot be supported by the clear biblical Word. In many
instances her teachings stand in striking contrast to what the Bible
emphatically states. One of the main points for consideration,
already spoken about to some extent in previous chapters, is
her teaching regarding the sanctuary. I will begin my series of
comparisons by going straight to this issue and concepts directly
connected to or impacted by it.
9
Brian Neumann
THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE

The origins of the SDA Sanctuary Doctrine have been discussed,
to some extent, in earlier chapters. But, for the purpose of
sequential, historical continuity and clarity, I will outline its
origins and precepts more definitively at this time.
The SDA teaching on the sanctuary did not discover its
fledgling inspiration, that later gave birth to the comprehensive
teaching that was fleshed out by Ellen White and the pioneers,
until after 1844 (The Great Disappointment). The initial
inspiration for what was to become this peculiar doctrine,
believed only by SDAs, an exception among all other Christian
Churches, was not introduced by Ellen White either. The light
was first given to one, Hiram Edson, in a vision he received while
passing through a field, shortly after October 22nd, 1844. However,
even Hiram Edsons revelation was not where it all first began.
The crucial scriptural evidence, in support of this doctrine, the
2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14, was almost entirely, at least
in the American context, developed and preached by William
Miller prior to 1844. The only real exception, according to Ellen
White, was that Miller had misinterpreted the actual event that
was supposedly to have taken place at the time appointed.
WILLIAM MILLER
William Miller was born in Pittsfield (originally Ponthoosoc),
New England, February 15th, 1782, the eldest of sixteen children.
Captain William Miller, his father, was in the army during the
Revolution. He married Paulina Phelps, the daughter of a Baptist
minister, in 1781 when he returned home after an illness.
It is recorded in the Memoirs of William Miller that the character
of his father, Captain William Miller, was irreproachable. He
never made a public profession of religion; but his house was
often the place to which the neighbours gathered to hear the
preaching of the gospel. He was taken away suddenly, with one
10
Th e Wh i t e E l e p h a n t 2
of his daughters, by the pestilence which broke out in the army at

Burlington, VermontHe died December 30th, 1812, three days
after his daughter. 1
William (junior) possessed a strong intellect and was gifted
in many ways. the natural genius and attainments of young
William Miller had distinguished him among his associates.
To the young folks, he became a sort of scribbler-general. If
anyone wanted verses made, a letter to send, some ornamental
and symbolic design to be interpreted by the tender passion, or
anything which required extra taste and fancy in the use of the
pen, it was pretty sure to be planned, if not executed by him. 2
Even though his talents clearly leaned in the direction of the
intellectual and creative, his early instruction was in farming.
William continued in this trade for a number of years after
moving with his wife Lucy from Low Hampton to Poultney,
Vermont. As time went by he began pursuing a calling in public
life. He became a constable and in 1809 was appointed to the
office of sheriff.
He loved reading, particularly books on history, and spent much
time in the local library doing research. His wife encouraged him
in this pursuit, going out of her way to facilitate it. Subsequent
to this, he followed in his fathers footsteps, pursuing a career
in the military, and like his father, eventually rose to the rank
of Captain.
It was here [in Poultney], as recorded in Memoirs of William
Miller, that Mr. Miller became a member of the Masonic fraternity,
in which his perseverance, if nothing else, was manifested; for he
advanced to the highest degree which the lodges then in the country,
or in that region, could confer. 3 Indeed, William progressed to
the point where he finally became Master of his lodge (Morning
Star Lodge, No. 27). 4
Miller was actively involved in freemasonry until 1831. This
was about fourteen years after he had been converted from
deistic beliefs to Christianity and been involved in local church
ministry. However, it is recorded that he resigned his Masonic
11
Brian Neumann
membership in 1831, stating that he did so to avoid fellowship

with any practice that may be incompatible with the Word of
God among Masons. 5 Two years later, he makes an even more
categorical statement regarding the practice of Freemasonry. In
1833, he wrote a letter to his friends to treat Freemasonry as
they would any other evil. 6
It is important to include the record of Millers Masonic
connection as there have been some critics who have condemned
him on the grounds of his membership and may well question me
on this aspect of Millers history if I chose to ignore it. Although
he very emphatically renounced his connection to this fraternity,
the question might also be asked why this happened so many
years after he converted to Christ and was engaged in active local
church ministry.
Whole organizations have been dedicated to the cause of
revealing the origins and evil of Freemasonry, to exposing and
reproving those (especially in the higher degrees), political and
other leaders alike, who are or have been members. Ellen White,
herself, was very vocal in her condemnation of this institution and
made it clear that it was wholly incompatible with Christianity.
She gave particular warning to a Brother Faulkhead in Australia
about being a Mason and his desire to attain to higher degrees and
cautioned that it would place him in bondage to the world. She
seemed especially concerned with the fact that he was addressed as
Worshipful Master, a title which is given to a Mason of the third
degree. He, like William Miller had become a Master Mason. 7
In fact, it is claimed that those who graduate to the higher
degrees in Masonry have to renounce Christ and are clearly aware
that they are Lucifarian worshipers. According to the testimony
of some, when the name of God is used during the initiation
ceremony it is really cryptically referring to Satan/Lucifer. If
this is indeed true then, surely, William Miller must have gone
through this level of higher initiation.
The problem that seems to arise, if this was well the case, is
that Miller, almost certainly, would have graduated to the level of
12
Master Mason AFTER his conversion experience which is said

to have happened in 1816his membership to the order would
have been too recent at this time for him to have already passed
to such a high level (his membership would have been about 6-7
years at that point). This not being the case, if he had ALREADY
passed this high level of initiation by then, he would, if this were
at all conceivable, been a follower of Christ and Lucifer at the
same timea very contradictory situation indeed. In fact, the
master of the lodge would be responsible for initiating other
members through their degrees and would, quite obviously, have
an in-depth knowledge of Masonic symbolism.
The evidence, regarding the official date of Williams
conversion is recorded in his Memoirs where it states that on the
September 11th, 1816, he attended a celebration of the Battle
of Plattsburg and there heard a sermon preached on Zechariah
2:4, entitled Run! Speak to this Young Man. As a result of this
experience he came to the realization of what a lovely person
Jesus must be. He lost all taste for reading other things and
began to only study the Bible. He erected the family alter and
publically professed his faith. 8
The words describing Millers conversion and the path he
subsequently followed are glowing indeed and seem to fly in
the face of any notion that he might have been willing to climb
to higher Masonic rank while at the same time practicing his
Christian faith. Memoirs continues:
connecting himself with the little church that he had
despised; opened his house for meetings of prayer; and became
an ornament and pillar in the church, and an aid to both
pastor and people. The die was cast, and he had taken his
stand for life as a soldier of the cross, as all who knew him
felt assured; and henceforth the badge of discipleship, in the
church or world, in his family or closet, indicated whose he
was and whom he served. 9
13
Brian Neumann
An even more comprehensive description of Millers life, once

he became established in his faith is given on page eighty of the
same book:
From the time that Mr. Miller became established in his religious
faith, till he commenced his public labors,a period of twelve
or fourteen years,there were few prominent incidents in his
life to distinguish him from other men. He was a good citizen,
a kind neighbor, an affectionate husband and parent, and a
devoted Christian; good to the poor, and benevolent, as objects of
charity were presented; in the Sunday-school was teacher and
superintendent; in the church he performed important service
as a reader and exhorter, and, in the support of religious
worship, no other member, perhaps, did as much as he. He
was very exemplary in his life and conversation, endeavored at
all times to perform the duties, whether public or private, which
devolved on him, and whatever he did was done cheerfully, as
for the glory of God. His leisure hours were devoted to reading
and meditation; he kept himself well informed respecting the
current events of the time; occasionally communicated his
thoughts through the press but his principal enjoyment was
derived from the study of the Bible. 10
The man who had once taunted his friends for believing in the
Bible now turned to reading that vey book. His stated aim was to
harmonize any apparent inconsistencies. He said that if he could
not accomplish this he would return to being a deist. 11
Between 1818-1823 he plunged himself into a deep study of
Bible prophecy. On the basis of what he discovered during those
studies he became convicted that Christ would soon return and
that he should share his faith with others. With reference to his
manner of Bible study, Miller wrote:
Various difficulties and objections would arise in my mind, from
time to time; certain texts would occur to me, which seemed to
weigh against my conclusions; and I would not present a view
to others, while any difficulty appeared to militate against it.
14
I therefore continued the study of the Bible, to see if I could

sustain any of these objections. My object was not merely to
remove them, but I wished to see if they were valid. 12
How is it possible, with testimonies regarding Millers

conversion in 1816, stating that, henceforth the badge of
discipleship, in the church or world, in his family or closet,
indicated whose he was and whom he served,13 he could practice
as a Master Mason and still be so absorbed and dedicated to the
study of Scriptureostensibly for fourteen or more years?
Certain Masonic researchers are quite emphatic that it is
VERY possible for a Mason to play a double game between his
secret Masonic life and the religious faith he practices in public
life. Regarding the whole issue of initiations in Freemasonry and
the real meaning behind the esoteric, Masonic use of God, for
the benefit of the uninitiated, well known SDA researcher,
author and international speaker (evangelist), Professor Walter
Veith (affiliated with Amazing Discoveriesan organization I
belonged to at one time), says:
When a Mason reads the Bible as he says it should be
read when he reads Jehovah, who does he read? When he
sees the word Lord in our Bible, who does he say it is? Satan,
Satan when he sees the name Jesus, who does he say it
is? Satan. So he can preach the most beautiful sermon out
there and you are thinking that he is preaching about the
Jesus of the Bible but esoterically he is preaching to Lucifer
and to you, the goyim [cattle or uninitiated], you dont
understand 14
Could this type of practice ever, at any time, have been the
practice of William Miller? Assuming it might be possible and
that the above facts about Masonry and the God of Scripture,
presented by Professor Veith are true, then why has no SDA, who is
working to expose error, such as Veith and Amazing Discoveries,
not painted William Miller with exactly the same brush?
15
Brian Neumann
Would William Miller, Grand Master, have been ignorant of

the fact that, as stated by Scottish Rite Freemason, Albert Pike and
quoted by Professor Walter Veith:
Masonry, like all religions, all the Mysteriesconceals its
secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the elect, and
uses false explanations and misrepresentations of its symbols
to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the
Truth, which it calls light, from them and to draw them away
from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to
receive it, or would pervert it. So masonry jealously conceals
its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters
astray. 15
When William Miller was initiated into the Third Degree and
became a Master Mason/Worshipful Master, he would have gone
through the ceremonial death, burial and resurrection of Hiram
Abiff, referred to as the widows son. Although no Biblical record
exists regarding him and he is not mentioned in the writings of
Josephus, it is claimed that he was an arbiter between king Solomon
and the king of Tyre, who helped in the building of Solomons
temple, in Jerusalem.
The Master who is initiating the practitioner into the Third
Degree, during the course of the procedure, will communicate
the following to the Junior Deacon, regarding initiate, who is
outside the door: Since he comes endued with all these necessary
qualifications, let him enter this worshipful lodge, in the name of
the Lord, and take heed on what he enters. The Junior Deacon
then communicates to the initiate: Let him enter this worshipful
lodge, in the name of the Lord, and take heed on what he enters.
Although, the name of the Lord is used and there is a definite
connection to biblical themes, especially all the symbolism
attached to Solomons Temple, it is not the God of Scripture they
worship, according to experts such as Walter Veith. In fact, based
on the testimony of their own masters such as Albert Pike, this
most certainly seems to be the case.
16
As the ceremony continues, it reaches the point where the

Master says to the initiate: You first discover, as before, three
great lights in Masonry, by the assistance of three lesser, with
this difference: both points of the compass are elevated above the
square, which denotes to you that you are about to receive all the
light that can be conferred on you in a Masters lodge.
A little later the Master steps back from the initiate and declares,
Brother, you now discover me, as Master of this lodge, approaching
you from the east, under the sign and due-guard of a Master
Mason. A sign is then given by raising the hands and arms to the
elbows, perpendicularly; on each side of the head (the elbows form
a square). The words accompanying this sign, in case of distress, are,
O Lord, my God! Is there no help for the widows son?
As the last words leave his lips, the Master lets his hands fall, in
a manner calculated to indicate solemnity. King Solomon is said
to have made this exclamation on the receipt of the information
of the death of Hiram Abiff. Masons are all charged never to say
these words except when in darkness, so that the sign cannot
be seen. Some lodges differ on the exact context of when and
where Solomon gave this sign. Some say he did it when informed
of Hirams death. Others contend that he made the sign and
exclaimed, O Lord, my God! Is there no help for the widows
son? when he went to raise Hiram from the dead. In regard to
Hiram Abiff, the historical record and his identity in Masonry,
Veith quotes Masonic author, A. T. C. Pierson:
The Masonic legend stands by itself, unsupported by history
or other than its own traditions; yet we readily recognize in
Hiram Abiff the Osiris of the Egyptians, the Mithras of
the Persians, the Bacchus of the Greeks, the Dionysius of the
fraternity of Artificers, and the Atys of the Phrygians, whose
passion, death and resurrection were celebrated by these people
respectively (sic).16
There is much more to this initiation ceremony but what is

shared here is enough to make the point. Veith goes to great
17
Brian Neumann
lengths in order to expose the alleged Masonic connections of

Evangelist Billy Graham (33rd degree). To be consistent though,
if it was possible for Billy Graham and other Evangelists, such
as is claimed, Benny Hinn, to be Freemasons while apparently
dedicated to preaching the gospel, then why could it not have
been possible for William Millerfor whatever length of time
he might have done so? Is one to assume that he is the ONLY
exception to the general rule?
NOTE: It is true that many U.S. Presidents have been
Freemasons of the Scottish Rite, 33rd degree. These facts
have provided ammunition for conspiracy theorists who
contend that it is impossible for anyone who is of such high
degree to not be directly involved in Lucifarian worship
and the larger global Masonic conspiracy. However, this
is not an entirely transparent or accurate reflection of how
the degree system in Scottish Rite Freemasonry operates.
The 3rd degree (Master Mason) is the most important degree in

Freemasonry (this degree was held by William Miller). Other
degrees are considered simply as extensions of being a Master
Mason. Thus, higher numbers such as 33rd degree, should not be
considered as higher rank. The Scottish Rite regularly confers
degrees 4-32 on candidates (these are earned). The 33rd degree
is bestowed, not earned. It is an honourary degree, one that is
awarded (often in recognition of special service), not because one
has been initiated into some secret realm of deeper Lucifarian
knowledge. A Mason that has a degree between the 3rd or 32nd
can be awarded the 33rd degree.
The reader should thus consider that because a U.S. President
has a 33rd degree it should not be automatically inferred that he is
a Lucifarian worshiper of some higher initiation. It would simply
have been a bestowment for special service to his country.
William Miller was a Master Mason. He was a Mason of the
most significant accomplishment. The 3rd degree would, according
18
to conspiracy theory, have made him no more or less a Luicifarian

than any other Mason of even 33rd degree status.17
One thing is absolutely certain. There can be no getting around
these facts: William Miller was a Master Mason. According to
his Memoirs he advanced to the highest degree which the lodges
then in the country, or in that region, could confer.
The record of the lodge he belonged to lists him as being
one of its early Masters. Thus without doubt, even though he
had converted to Christ from deism, he continued as an active
Freemason and for at least some of this time, Master of his
LodgeMason of the 3rd Degree. All this covered a period
of approximately fourteen years or more until, according to
testimony already quoted, he resigned in 1831. A whole series of
interesting, albeit disturbing possibilities arise that cannot simply
be brushed aside or ignored when putting this all together.
A full-proof, adequate explanation, that is not simply another
alternative way of interpreting things, should be forthcoming, if
indeed it is even possible to do so. Even though I will present a
scenario, based on the manner of evaluation applied by theorists
such as Walter Veith, I will not attempt to offer some educated
personal opinion that would accuse Miller of duplicity and then
declare it as fact. I present the obvious, individual facts (pieces
of the puzzle) and ask questions, questions that are not easy to
answer, that the reader can reflect on, do his or her own research
and then draw logical conclusions. As far as the scenario I will
present is concerned; it is purely for the purpose of showing
the conspiracy theorist, who paints all and sundry, Jesuits,
Masons, Rosicrucians and other secret societies, with the brush
of conspiracy and secret agendas, that it is only consistent and
fair to use that same brush of hypothesis on William Miller.
Conspiratorial Hypothesis
William Miller, from the time he joined the Masonic fraternity,
was hand-picked, singled out, because of his specific talents,
19
Brian Neumann
to help carry out the secret agenda in the real world. He was
trained and carefully prepared. It was preordained that when
he finally embarked on his official mission, stepping out into
public ministry, he would at that point, because of the nature
of his mission and to avoid criticism and allay the fears of those
he sought to influence, resign from Freemasonry, at least on the
visible/official level. In effect, he would now become a secret
operative for the cause.
According to the evidence extracted from historical record
and the documents of Masonry and other connected secret
organizations, and so taught by organizations such as Amazing
Discoveries, via their speakers, such as Professor Walter Veith,
the Knights-Templar were the forerunner of the Catholic Jesuit
Order (Society of Jesus). They, in turn, spawned other secret
organizations which, in different ways, were furthering the
ultimate agenda of the Papacy. Unofficially, this was no problem
for the Catholic institution, because, even though they outwardly
condemn Freemasonry, they clandestinely support and indeed
control it via the Jesuit order.
Of major concern to the Catholic Church was the Protestant
Reformation and the ultimate rise of the United States of
America, established on Judeo-Christian/Protestant principles.
A homeland for people who sought religious liberty and who,
especially in those early years, because of the religio-political
system in Europe (controlled by the Papacy), were inherently
suspicious of the Roman Church.
Added to this, at about the same time America became
an independent Republic, framed its Constitution (1789) and
published its Bill of Rights, Napoleans General, Berthier, Marched
into Rome, took the Pope Pious captive and declared the Vatican
State, annulled (1798).
More than anything else, in order to once again regain her
religious and political power, Rome had to find a way of stopping
the surge and ever growing influence of what was then commonly
20
known as Protestant America. In a land where Rome had little or

no real authority, religious or political, the best and most effective
way to breach the wall, so to speak, would be to Trojan-Horse her
via Romes web of secret societies. She hated the idea of religious
freedom as introduced into this fledgling nation, established
on Judeo-Christian, Protestant principles. Her intolerance is
expressed in this Catholic publication of the 19th Century:
The Church [Rome] is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she
endures when and where she must, but she hates it and directs
all her energies to destroy it. If Catholics ever gain a sufficient
numerical majority in this country [U.S.A.], religious freedom
is at an end. So our enemies say. So we believe. 18
Rome is an expert at utilizing the tactic of divide and

conquer. A nation that saw itself as being united under God,
with a predominantly Protestant Bible-based community, could
ONLY be infiltrated if one could effectively scatter the flock.
Accomplishing this became number one on Romes tactical
agenda. Somehow, by dividing the fundamental Bible-based-
glue that bound them together as one nation, Protestantism
(which really stands for protestation against Rome), had to be
fragmented and neutralized. It is Romes belief, or at least was
certainly so at the time that: Protestantism has not, and never
can have, any right where Catholicity has triumphed. 19 Rome
needed to realize that authority in North America.
One of the very best ways to divide Protestantism and over
time melt the glue that bound the nation, would be to fracture
them at the level of their greatest spiritual hope, while at the same
time negatively impacting the collective national consciousness
to where a conflict between spiritual destiny and the future of
their fledgling nation and national pride, were at subconscious
odds with one anotherbuild them up and break them down.
How could Rome bring such a plan to fruition? By going
underground. Underground, in the sense that the secret fraternities
21
Brian Neumann
would be infiltrated and the right individuals/individual with

appropriate talents would be found to implement and execute
the plan. Then, when the chaos and disappointment, hit the
proverbial fan, to let the chips fall where they may and observe
how things could be directed from that point on.
William Miller was the perfect man for the job. He was a
talented oratory. His poetry had been published and he had
gained a reputation for his deistic beliefs. However, he also had
a good understanding of the Protestant/Christian mind, having
grown up in a strongly Baptist family and with friendship ties to
dedicated Christian men. He possessed a strong patriotic spirit
and political sentiments that were, according to his Memoirs,
decidedly democratic. 20 His service and rank in the military,
his integrity, desire for deep spiritual realization and also his wit
(often trifling with humble messengers of the gospel),21 were all
traits that made him the perfect man for the job. The fact that
he was a patriot would be of no concern to his controllers in
the fraternity. In fact, his patriotism and integrity, along with
his other talents, when educated and channeled by his deistic/
Masonic education, would mold him into exactly the right agent
for the task.
By 1816, Miller had been primed to commence his mission.
Thus, on September 11th, 1816, while attending the celebration
of the Battle of Plattsburg, on hearing the sermon, Run! Speak
to this Young Man, came to the realization of what a lovely
person Jesus was, lost all taste for reading other things and began
to only study the Bible. He erected the family alter and publically
professed his faith, 22 yet still remaining, for at least 14 more years,
fully committed to his Masonic lodge to the point of becoming,
or as it may be, remaining a Master Mason and attaining, as
stated in his Memoirs, to the highest degree which the lodges
then in the country, or in that region, could confer.
From this point on Miller immersed himself into, particularly,
the study of Bible Prophecy. His focus, which was ultimately to
22
become the core scriptural support for his message, when his
public ministry commenced in 1831, was Daniel 8:14Unto
two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be
cleansed. He believed that the sanctuary was earth and that it
was to be cleansed by fire at the second coming of Christ.
The symbolism and parallel to Masonic fascination with
Solomons Temple should not be missed. From the perspective of
Solomons Temple and in light of the legend concerning Hiram
Abiff, Masonic lore records that when he was killed by three
ruffians, he was first buried in the Northwest corner of the
temple, in the rubbish heap, where there was no light. Later
his body was taken to a hill and buried in a shallow gravehis
alleged resurrection took place at this site. Parallels are thought to
exist between the resurrection of Hiram and Christs resurrection
of Lazarus (4 days in the grave, after decomposing and starting
to smell, then resurrected by Christ). There is also the parallel of
Christ being in the grave for three days and three nights and then
rising on the first day of the weekChrist being the first-fruits
of the resurrection. All these are symbols of the resurrection and
renewal of the Saints at the second coming of Christ, when the
Earth is cleansed with fire.
After his years of study into the prophecies of Scripture, during
all this time remaining a Freemason, Miller formulates his prophetic
hypothesis and makes the decision to present his message publically
to the people of America. It is at this critical juncture, 1831, when
he was set to become a well-known public figure that Miller decides
to cut ties with the Masonic fraternity and commence preaching
his message of Christs return at the close of the 2300 days.
Was the reason perhaps that from that time on he could not
afford to have those who would become his enemies capitalize on
his membership to this secret organization and thus bring him
into disrepute? Why did he resign only at this point? How did
he justify remaining in the fellowship of an organization he knew
was occult, continue as Worshipful Master of his lodge, while
23
Brian Neumann
searching for light on interpreting some of the scriptures most

difficult prophecies? Did he just wake up one morning in 1831,
after all these years, and suddenly realize that: Hey, I just didnt
figure this out before, Masonry is not really such a good thing and
should be treated as any other evil I think I should resign, right now?
Believing that he only came to this realization, after fourteen
years as a disciple of Christ, during which time he was committed
to a deep study of the scriptures, involved in regular ministry
with his congregation and in the local district is a difficult pill
to swallow.
Miller had to have known, for many years prior, that the
practice of Freemasonry was inconsistent with Christian belief.
Just in time, on the eve of commencing his public ministry, he
severs his Masonic tiesready to tell the world that Jesus was
about to returnthe term convenient comes to mind.
The basis for and content of Millers end-time message was,
in outline:
Daniel 8:14 which declared Unto two thousand and three
hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed was,
according to Millers exegesis, a cryptic prophecy that foretold
the exact, or at least close to exact, time of Christs second
coming. He calculated, based on his study of history and the
Bible (Daniel Chapter 9:24-27 being an important part of the
mystery that elucidated Chapter 8), the historicist method of
prophetic interpretation and the application of the prophetic day/
year principle, that this period began in the fall of 457 B.C., when
Artexerses gave the decree to rebuild/restore Jerusalem. 2300 years,
from 457 B.C., would end in the fall of 1844 (October 22).
1844, according to Millers timeline, was the final date that
was set, however, prior to this he had set a time somewhere in
1843 (More detail, regarding this will be given later on). Included
in this prophetic period was a 7 weeks x 7yrs (49 years), a 62 weeks
x 7yrs (434 years) and a 1 week (7yrs), divided into two 3 year
periods. These periods, when added together, made up the 490
24
years period which ended in the fall of 34 A.D., when Stephen was
stoned (the middle point of the 7 years was Christs crucifixion
in 31 A.D.). An additional period of 1810 years (a time-frame
not specifically alluded to in Scripture, was added to the 457
year period, bringing Miller to the fall of 1844 A.D. It might
be mentioned that a prophetic period (specified in Daniel and
Revelation), fits in the 1810 year period, commencing in 538 A.D.
and ending in 1898 A.D., when Napoleans General, Berthier, took
the Pope captive.
More will be said regarding the details of the fulfillment/
non-fulfillment of these prophecies and the effect they had on
the people who were exposed to Millers teachingat that time
and later onin particular its effect on Ellen White and the
SDA Churchs perspective regarding it. Right now, I just want to
continue giving a basic outline for the purpose of my hypothesis.
In 1831, as soon as Miller resigned from his Masonic Lodge
and after receiving what he claimed to be a strong impression
from God, he publically commenced preaching and publishing
articles (the first article was published on May 15th, 1832) about
his findings and that Christs return was imminent (1843 was
the first date he came to, based on his calculationMemoirs of
William Miller, Sylvester Bliss, Joshua V. Himes, 1853, p.98-100).
A significant article, published by the Brandon, Vermont,
Telegraph Office in 1833, encapsulated the thrust of Millers
message in the title: Evidences from Scripture and History of the
Second Coming of Christ, about the year 1843; and of His Personal
Reign of One Thousand Years. By William Miller.
A few years after commencing his preaching, Miller wrote a
letter to a Brother Hendryx in which he compared the apathy of
the churches to the response of the people when John the Baptist
preached about the 1st coming of Christ. He went on, using
the parable of the Bridegroom and the 10 virginsbehold the
bridegroom comethto emphasize his point and declared, yet you
cry, a little more sleep, a little more slumber He included this
25
Brian Neumann
declaration: The evidence is so clear, the testimony so strong,

that we live on the eve of the present dispensation, towards the
dawn of the glorious day, that I wonder why ministers and people
do not wake up and trim their lamps. 23
From 1831, for twelve years, Miller preached an emphatic,
uncompromising message that Christ would return and that the
world WOULD come to an end, in final destruction, in 1843.
In spite of the apparent indifference, thousands did respond to
his message. Indeed, as time passed, other preachers joined in
spreading the message across the land. One of these was another
speaker who rose to prominence, Joshua V. Himes, one of the men
who later became author of his Memoirs.
Miller was hard pressed to give an EXACT date, something
he claimed he was reticent to do. However, under pressure to
do so and on the basis of his calculations, he came up with the
following dates: I believe the time can be known by all who
desire to understand and to be ready for His coming. And I am
fully convinced that sometime between March 21st, 1843 and
March 21st, 1844, according to the Jewish mode of computation
of time, Christ will come 24
In the year 1843 he wrote a letter to Believers, that stated:
Dear Brethren, This year, according to our faith, is the last year
that Satan will reign in our earth. Jesus Christ will come and
bruise his head. The kingdom of the earth will be dashed to
pieces, which is the same thing. And he, whose right it is to reign,
will take the kingdom and possess it forever and ever. 25
Many Bible scholars of the period wrote articles repudiating
Millers conclusions. Debate was rampant and some were accusing
Miller of contradicting established Protestant views of prophecy.
One side challenged him on his sources for historical dates. The
other side, even though they did not agree with Miller, did not
either agree with his critics on the opposing side. A definite
controversy, building to a shaking and rupture in the Churches of
North America in particular, was on the horizon. 26
26
However, the year 1843 came and went and Christ did not
return. The disappointment was great for those who believed. The
skeptics of course had a field-daythat which they doubted, for
whatever reason or motivation they had, was proven correct.
In response new dates were set (there was still the summer
of 1844 that Millers original calculations extended to), but the
pressure was on to be even more specific. Fanaticism of various
kinds began erupting everywhere. Seers and prophets, receiving
dreams and visions, fanatical, ecstatic worship experiences,
accompanied by all kinds of strange doctrine found its way into
the Millerite Advent Movement. The Summer of 1843 passed
and another disappointment engulfed the Millerite followers
Christ did not come. Another date began to gain popularity, based
on a reassessment of the prophecies and historical evidence. It
commenced in the fall of 457 B.C. and extended for the 2300 year
period to the fall of 1844 A.D., ultimately pinpointed, to October
22nd, of that year.
The cry went out again. Christ is returning, the bridegroom
cometh! The world will end, be ready! With an exact date on the
cards and a new seemingly fool-proof reassessment of Daniels
2300 day/year prophecy, people responded in their thousands.
Many either removed their membership from existing churches
or were disfellowshipped for causing dissention and spreading
false doctrine. As the time grew nearer, believers sold their
property, resigned their jobs and, when the day finally arrived,
some even dressed themselves in white ascension robes. Miller
condemned many of these fanatical approaches but nonetheless
stuck to his belief that Christ was about to return.
October 22nd, 1844 arrived. Nothing happenedChrist did
not come. Not even the slightest manifestation, somewhere on
planet earth, to indicate that at least SOME major event, to mark
the end of scriptures longest time prophecy, had taken place
nothing! The day came and went like any other day before it,
insignificant in any observable historical, prophetic sense.
27
Brian Neumann
Ironically, unlike just about every major event on the prophetic

calendar that would have a profound effect on humanity, Millers
event did not reveal itself in any visible, tangible way on earth.
Incredibly, this event, vital though it was claimed to be, right
near the close of human history, gave NO indication that it had
actually occurred.
Protestant America would NEVER be the same again (during
the time of Millers message and after). Movements, religious sub-
cultures, new church denominations, some of whom completely
rejected the old Protestant churches, calling them Babylon, began
rising up everywhere. Prophets and spiritual leaders, such as
Joseph Smith, Ellen White and many others, became the gurus of
the movements they represented. Some of these new movements,
once they had been around for a while, splintered into other
movements, and the glue that at least to some degree had bound
the collective, spiritual identity of this Judeo-Christian, Protestant
nation, rapidly melted into the mystified, perplexed, bewildered
communal, religious pond that was to become the new religious
awakening of 19th Century America.
During the loud-cry of Millers message, which began in 1831,
fanaticism began to replace the old religious orderespecially
in the North where Millers message was received most readily.
Miller Mania, as some called it gripped the religious community.
Men and woman began receiving visions and making predictions
(besides people such as Foss and Foye). Many of those, not caught
up in the movement, considered the Millerites to be insane
because of some of the strange behaviour accompanying their
meetings. Indeed, many newspapers, such as the Signal of Liberty,
which published an article on the Millerites on Friday, October
25th, 1844, described some alarming events that took place at
certain meetings. One person described the scene on entering a
gathering: I entered and found about thirty people present, and a
man of about 30 years, seated in the middle of the room, a perfect
lunatic. He was making violent contortions with his body, and
swelling himself up, as he pretended, to inhale the divine spirit of
28
the Lord (see the newspaper article in the picture section at the
end of this chapter).
As if these manifestations of lunatic behavior were not
enough, there were, post the disappointment of October 22nd, a
number of insanity cases and suicides reported. The Daily Argus,
of Portland Maine reported on October 24th, 1844 (pg. 2) that in
Boston: a warrant was granted on application by the Municipal
Court, to covey Mrs. Abigail Shepherd, a young married
woman, to the Worcester Insane Hospital. It appeared that she
had been listening to the Miller doctrines, and had become
perfectly demented.
On the 25th (p. 3) the same paper reported a respectable
citizen had cut his throat. He became insane by means of the
Miller delusion The article reported that a young man by the
name of Kelp committed suicide. Like the others, he had been
infatuated with the Millerite delusion. He had become insane
and was confined to his house till he escaped and threw himself
into the Niagara River.
According to the same article, another man, by the name of
Moses Clark fell into the miserable delusion of Millerism
he was highly respected in his town. However, after the
disappointment, he committed suicide by drowning himself.
On November 5th, 1844 (pg. 5), the same paper stated that
two Millerite preachers Brother Himes and Storrs (Himes was a
co-author millers Memiors) had given up the Millerite delusion.
Apparently, on Tuesday evening in the Millerite Church on the
corner of Christie and Delaney Streets, Mr. Storrs publically
recanted his egregious folly and madness in the matter of the
second advent. He said he had been led astray by excitement and
deceived by mesmerism and now most penitently acknowledged
his manifold sins and wickedness
Throughout the later years of the 18th Century, the early
19th Century, the time of the Millerite movement, the Great
Disappointment of 1844 and beyond, a spiritual awakening was
29
Brian Neumann
taking place in America, in two phases. What is known as the

First Great Awakening which was manifest in the Old World/
Europe as well, took place in 18th Century America, particularly
post the American Revolution.
In America, the Church of England lost popularity, due to
a natural suspicion of Britain after the war and because of the
desire to escape a church institution that was controlled by the
state. Likewise, because of its Religio-political nature, Catholicism,
continued to be held in suspicion by a religious awakening
whose core beliefs were still deeply rooted in Protestantisma
faith system whose birth was based on anti-Catholic sentiment,
a system that had found freedom of religious expression in the
New World. During this time, from around the start of the 19th
Century, the Second Great Awakening began. Christianity started
taking root in new areas, and especially during the 1830s to
40s and beyond, a New Protestantism began to developan
extension of the Second Great Awakening.
A number of these new Protestant movements were initiated
by charismatic personalities claiming the prophetic gift whose
teachings, although divergent from old-school Protestantism,
still retained some of its fundamental elements.
Two of the most notable movements were Mormonism
(springing up prior to 1844), with Joseph Smith as prophet and
spiritual guide and the Advent Movement, an outgrowth of the
Millerite movement (Adventists), thus named because their belief
in Christs imminent return. Under the prophetic leadership of
Ellen Gould White/Harmon (along with James White, Hiram Edson,
Joseph Bates) and other individuals left over from the Millerite
Movement, this group grew into what was ultimately to become
the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. Later on, what was to
become the Church of God (Seventh Day) and Jehovahs Witness,
broke away and formed their own brand of Neo-Protestant faith.
Clearly, whether it was an intentional plan or simply the natural
course of things Protestantism, in a very significant way, became
30
splintered and factionalized in North America. The American

Civil War came along at a very critical time and also contributed
to these fledgling groups having to make choices, sometimes
badly thought out and ill-advised, about what they would decide
regarding military service for their country and what kind of
involvement they would have in political affairs. This period was
a time of controversy and extreme reactions. Indeed, extreme
situations, politically and spiritually, were the order of the day.
As if the partitioning of Protestantism was not enough,
Spiritualism began to gain popularity, promoted by such prominent
figures as Russian psychic, Madame Helena Petrovna Blavadsky
and the strange rapping, experienced by the Fox Sisters. On top
of this, just to add extra fuel to the dilemma facing Bible-based
Protestantism, Darwin published his book, Origin of Species,
in 1844inspiring serious debate on the Genesis account of a
literal six-day creation weekextremes abounded.
It would be hard not to imagine that Rome who, based on
her own testimony was seeking to gain prominence in America,
would not, through her web of secret societies, take advantage
of this state of affairs. It was a perfect environment to put the
Hegelian Dialectic into practicethesis, anti-thesis, synthesis. In
simple terms, this meant taking extreme conditions, that were
either created or the natural result of circumstances, and then
fusing (unifying) them to create the situation best suited to
furthering your ultimate agendathe synthesis.
To be sure, according to evidence, said to be from Abraham
Lincolns own pen, the American Civil War, would never have
been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We
owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the
blood of our noblest sons. 27
Regarding the agenda of Rome, Lincoln went on to say: so
long as they tell me through all their councils, theologians and
cannon laws, that their conscience orders them to burn my wife,
strangle my children, and cut my throat when they find their
31
Brian Neumann
opportunity, that he could not trust them. His hope was that,
sooner or later, the light of common sense will make it clear to
everyone that no liberty of conscience can be granted to men who
are sworn to obey a Pope, who pretends to have the right to put
to death those who differ from him in religion.28
Whether it was deliberate or not, whether he was an insider-
mason, used by Jesuit controllers, the end-result of Millers
end-time prediction helped to create a breeding ground for
radical responses. In light of the foregoing speculation, it is not
insignificant that Miller actually taught that the U.S.A. was the
666 beast of Revelation 13:18, as recorded by Le Roy Edwin Froom
in Vol. 4, p. 1061 of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (1950).
Again, I would like to remind the reader that what I postulated
in my hypothesis concerning Miller is not entirely based on
fiction. Although I cannot judge Millers motives or know for
certain that he was involved in a larger conspiracy to destroy
Protestant America, I can say, with absolute certainty, that the
facts I have shared are based on the record of history.
The Prophet Explains:

Ellen White, in the book Early Writings (p.236-239), based on
special insights she claims God gave her, describes what happened
during the period of Millers end-time message being delivered and
the multiple disappointments that culminated with the final one of
October 22, 1844. She even describes the very motives and intents
of the hearts of the people, believers and unbelievers who reacted
to the events, or as the case may be, non-events that transpired or
did not transpire. Besides applying the parable of the ten virgins,
particularly the cry, behold the Bridegroom cometh, she uses other
scriptures, such as the first and second angels messages of Revelation
14, as supporting evidence, that when properly evaluated, are not
applicable at all. She also applied the declaration, Babylon is fallen,
to the churches/world that had refused to join or who mocked the
faithful believers. We will evaluate Ellen Whites description shortly,
32
however, one aspect of her account is accurate and validates what

I have already saidfracture, suspicion, controversy, uncertainty,
unbelief and disappointment were all fruits of these events.
Elements needed for division were certainly manifest in abundance.
Some simple, glaringly obvious facts, that cannot be escaped,
no matter how one slices the pie, remain. Even if Miller was
correct in his evaluation of the 2300 years, the start and end date,
which most Bible scholars, other than SDAs do not agree with (a
number of SDA scholars do not even agree), he was emphatically
wrong in the most critical aspect of his messagethe actual
event that was to occur.
It was this aspect of Millers message that for the average
person was most significant. Indeed, it was the declaration, behold
the Bridegroom cometh, announcing the return of Christ, along
with the fact that an actual time had been calculated, that really
hit home and caused people to sit up and take notice. One major
reason was that people were amazed that the time-frame for this
event COULD even be known. When this message was first
declared, prior to the first disappointment, not to mention the two
that would follow, it was not even a consideration that perhaps
something else invisible, unseen and unknown by humanity,
might happen instead. The most momentous thing, not that the
interpretation of the time prophecy itself was insignificant, was the
MESSAGE: THE END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND!
Regardless of what their motive might have been, people
reacted to thisit was a compelling message. Those who were
more critical and who knew what Christ Himself had said
regarding this event, countered with: No man knoweth the day nor
the hour (Matthew 24:36). Ellen White ascribes the motive of
mockery and scoffing to these detractors.29 However, based on the
evidence of Scripture they were most certainly correct. Those who
mocked and scoffed Noah, for example, who preached the end of
the world, were wrong on two counts: they were wrong because
of the hardness of their hearts towards God and they were wrong
for not believing the prediction. A prophecy was made and they
33
Brian Neumann
chose not to believe the prophet, even after the evidence of the
animals filing into the ark. The result, they were all lost.
Miller preached the end of the world and gave a time-frame,
based on what he interpreted the scriptures to mean and it did NOT
happen. In fact, clear scriptural evidence did exist that said no one
could know the time. Could people, regardless of their personal
motivation (which only Ellen White seemed capable of judging
accurately), be blamed for not believing Miller? He was wrong, not
only once, not merely twice, but three times! Talk about a real-life
Cry Wolf scenario
It might not be a commendable thing to mock and scoff,
this is true. Yet, the history of events that surrounded these
disappointments, even based on Ellen Whites account, testifies
to the fact that, little wonder, with each disappointment the
skepticism and antagonism grew.
This cannot be compared to the antediluvian situation, which
Christ, in Matthew 24, compared to his second comingNoah
preached and it DID happen! Miller preached and it did NOT
happen! What other kind of reaction could any logical human
being expect!? It is true, when the end of the world DOES come,
there will be mockers and scoffers then too. Scripture predicts
this. Peter (1 Peter 3:3-7) uses the analogy of the flood to make
this pointrightfully so. However, when the end DOES come,
like a thief in the night (1 Thessalonians 5:2), it WILL come!
Understandably, it might be said that Paul says, ye brethren, are
not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief. Of
course, Paul would not contradict Christ, so plainly when one
considers the context of Pauls statement in 1 Thessalonians 5:4,
then it becomes quite obvious what point he is trying to make.
He says to believers, in verse 2, that they know that that day
will come as a thief in the night. In verse 3 he makes it clear
that the unbelievers will be surprised by that day because they
think that things will be peaceful and safe. However, Paul was
not implying that the believers would know the time/day or
34
hour of Christs return. The day would still come as a thief or

surprise but they, the believers, will be prepared because they are
not deceived by the message that the world declares and are thus
ready, whether they know the time of Christs return or not.
At this point, it might be worthwhile quoting and evaluating
some of Ellen Whites insights. She claimed that God Himself
covered a mistake in the reckoning periods. It was His plan,
according to her, to prove the people. 30 She said:
God designed that His people should meet with a disappointment.
The time passed, and those who had looked with joyful expectation
for their Saviour were sad and disheartened, while those who had
not loved the appearing of Jesus, but embraced the message through
fear, were pleased that He did not come at the time of expectation.
Their profession had not affected the heart and purified the life.
The passing of the time was well calculated to reveal such hearts. 32
So, it would appear that God intentionally created a situation

where disinformation would be promulgated, information that
literally contradicted Scripture. Then, when people did not
believe it or reacted negatively to it, when things did not occur as
HIS messenger predicted they were, in effect, judged unworthy.
In fact, ultimately, they were adjudged to be fallen Babylon,
placing themselves in a position where they would not be able to
see the light of the second angels message when it came. The
righteous, however, clung to the hope and left the churches.32
Something very interesting is the fact that the watchword message
was, behold the Bridegroom cometh! It needs to be borne in mind that
the very reason for using this message was because Miller and others
that proclaimed it knew, according to the scriptural evidence, that
this parable of Christ was an analogy for the second coming. Indeed,
the additional message they added, also part of the parable, was: go
ye out to meet Him! This is how Ellen White describes it:
I heard the voices of angels crying, Behold, the Bridegroom
cometh; go ye out to meet Him.
35
Brian Neumann
This was the midnight cry, which was to give power to

the second angels message. Angels were sent from heaven to
arouse the discouraged saints and prepare them for the great
work before them. The most talented men were not the first
to receive this message [Miller, however, was among those
who were educated and talented]. Angels were sent to the
humble, devoted ones, and constrained them to raise the cry,
Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him!
Those entrusted with the cry made haste, and in the power
of the Holy Spirit sounded the message, and aroused their
discouraged brethren. This work did not stand in the wisdom
and learning of men, but in the power of God, and His saints
who heard the cry could not resist it. The most spiritual
received this message first, and those who had formerly led
in the work were the last to receive and help swell the cry,
Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him! 33
The parable of the ten virgins is found in the book of Matthew

(Matthew 25:1-13). The context clearly reveals that this parable
was a parallel for the second coming of Christa specific lesson
vis--vis this event. Christ describes scoffers as saying, My
lord delayeth his coming, in reference to the second coming
in Chapter 24:48, a few verses before the parable of the virgins.
This attitude was the same attitude Peter used with reference to
end-time scoffers. As already stated, Miller used this parable and
its message correctly because he believed, albeit wrongfully, that
Christ WAS going to comefor sure!
Incredibly, Ellen White ignores the scriptural context, and
applies the message to Christ passing from the Holy to the Most
Holy in the heavenly sanctuary, to commence the start of the
investigative judgment. I will discuss the question of Christs
movement in the sanctuary shortly.
Equally incredible is the fact that Ellen white actually claims
that angels were part of the disinformation strategy. They were
crying: Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him. Of
course, no other human ears other than Ellen Whites, were privy
36
to the angels crying out, and, if in fact they were making this
declaration, they did not apply it as Christ did in the original
context of the parable but were rather announcing that Jesus was
moving from one room to the next in the heavenly sanctuary.
However, it would seem that even though no human ears
heard the angels, these heavenly beings were sent to arouse the
saints (inspire them and strengthen them) for the great work
before them, oblivious of what was really going to happen. Still,
they were going to be aroused to the task of echoing the same
declaration: Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet Him!
And so, under the power/arousal, given of God, these people
went out to call multitudes to meet the bridegroom, in the full
belief, based on the clear biblical context of that call, that the
message they were giving was a call to prepare for the actual
second coming of Christ and the end of the world. The picture that
unfolds is this: God and the heavenly host are declaring a message, the
meaning of which THEY are fully aware. The people, Gods servants,
are being inspired and strengthened, by God and the heavenly hosts/
angels, to give the identical message, with no idea, in spite of THEIR
correct application of this biblical refrain that THEY do not even know
what their declaration really refers to. One expression describing
the scene immediately springs to mind: BIZARRE!
Mrs. White claims that those with wisdom and learning
did not get the message and that it was those who had formerly
led in the work that ended up being the last to receive and help
spread the message. The humble, devoted and most spiritual,
were the ones who received and first proclaimed it.
Could it be perhaps, that the people who once led out in the
work (obviously the work of the gospel) were applying the Scripture
contextually and were rightly, fully aware that it was wrong to call
people to meet Christ at His second coming while declaring a very
specific time-frame in which this would happen? If so, were they
wrong or deceived in coming to this conclusion? Were the humble
devoted ones perhaps so caught up in the emotion of the message
that they simply could not see the forest for the treesthe clear
37
Brian Neumann
scriptural evidence that contradicted what they SO badly wanted

to believe was true? Which class was really deceived?
The Bible declares that the way to test if a message is from
God or not is by the law and the testimony (Isaiah 8:20), all
of the scriptures. It also says: When a prophet speaketh in the
name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that
[is] the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, [but] the prophet
hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him
(Deuteronomy 18:22).
Miller might not have been a prophet, however he DID
prophesy and predict. His message, notwithstanding the fact that
he might at least partially have correctly interpreted Scripture, was
tested by other Bible scholars (students of the Word), according
to the scriptural standard and found to be inconsistent with what
it revealed. Even though they might not have been able to come
up with another better way of interpreting the 2300 day/year
prophecy (at least the time aspect of it), they could not apply it
to the second coming of Christ. The simple reason being that
Scripture DID clearly indicate that no human being COULD
know the time. Bear in mind, by the time 1844 came along, a
definite day, month and year had been set. Of course, as usual,
at least so it would seem, Ellen White knew what motivated the
hearts of the people who did not accept Millers message:
the great mass manifested the spirit of Satan in their
opposition to the message. They mocked and scoffed, repeating
everywhere, No man knoweth the day nor the hour. Evil
angels urged them on to harden their hearts and to reject every
ray of light from heaven, that they might be fastened in the
snare of Satan. Many who professed to be looking for Christ
had no part in the work of the message. The glory of God which
they had witnessed, the humility and deep devotion of the
waiting ones, and the overwhelming weight of evidence,
caused them to profess to receive the truth; but they had not
been converted; they were not ready for the coming of their
Lord. 34
38
A few things become painfully clear when reading this.

Indeed, when one chooses not to judge the hearts and motives of
the people, the FACTS become obvious.
FACT 1: The Bible DOES say: No man knoweth the day
nor the hour. This is a simple fact. Even if a devil made
this statement, it still remains a biblical fact. Like when
the demons declared Christ to be who he wasthey were
demons, true, but what they said was FACT.
FACT 2: Regardless of what might have motivated some

people who were simply professing to follow the truth,
the FACT remains: firstly, it was NOT the truth. The
message to go and meet Christ because He was coming
and the world was going to end on October 22nd, 1844,
was a lienot even supported by Scripture. They were
NOT ready to meet their Lord because the simple FACT
is, CHRIST WAS NOT COMING, period.
Some might be tempted to deal in semantics and argue that it

was later revealed by Ellen White that Christ DID come (in an
invisible coming), into the most holy and that they were NOT
ready to meet Him when He arrived there. Anybody with a
modicum of logic should be able to see how senseless this line of
reasoning is. SDAs, who try to point out the unbiblical, senseless
teaching of the secret rapture, should consider how equally senseless
and scripturally baseless Christs invisible 1844 coming is. The
simple FACT is that Ellen Whites sanctuary message (holy to
most holy) is NOT the message they were given and asked to
believe at the time before October 22nd, 1844. The URGENT
message given at the time was that the bridegroom was coming
on the clouds of heaven and that the world was going to end
there was NO second option on what to believe! Indeed, not even
the so-called devoted and waiting ones (the wise virgins) were
any the wiser to what they were actually waiting for. They,
like the foolish ones were also waiting for the second coming
39
Brian Neumann
of Christ and the end of the world. Indeed, the foolish ones
seemed to have had it more right than the wisenothing was
going to happen!
Only AFTER October 22nd, 1844, AFTER the Bridegroom,
as claimed by Hiram Edson and endorsed by Ellen White,
allegedly entered the most holy, AFTER HE HAD purportedly
come, did anyone know what supposedly had happened! The cry:
Go ye out to meet him! was redundantthey were meeting Him
for totally the wrong reason! How could anyone, wise or foolish,
go out to meet the Bridegroom when, by the time they even had
an inkling of what had happened, He had ALREADY arrived?
The distinction, in the parable that Christ told, was that
both the foolish and wise virgins knew EXACTLY what event
they were expecting. The only difference was that five of them
missed out on it. On the other hand, in the case of the great
disappointment, it would appear that NO ONE had ANY idea at
all what was really going to happen and thus missed it, regardless
of whether they were wise OR foolish! Bizarre indeed!
The question begs to be asked: is it in the character of a merciful,
fair, honest God to purposefully allow people to be deceived into
believing a lie (God and His angels being actively involved in
covering up the truth)? Then, when on the basis of SCRIPTURAL
evidence, people reject the message, to accuse them of allowing
evil angels to harden their hearts, not to the truth but to a
lie?! By any standard, in view of all the facts surrounding this
whole debacle, if it was as Ellen White said, then should this
not be branded as entrapmenta snare of the highest degree,
commissioned by Highest Decreean edict of deceit that was
framed by God Himself ? Absolute drivel could not reach a more
sublime level of absurdity than is propagated via Ellen Whites
account of what was really going on in the build-up to October
22nd, 1844. Yet, her description of what Christ really was doing
in heaven and the implications of that event for those here on
earth, believers and unbelievers alike, in light of clear, down-to-
40
earth scriptural proof, elevates the ridiculous to the altitude of

absolutely preposterousundeniably, a GREAT disappointment
of enormous consequence.
Hiram Edson
To get a proper understanding of how the Great Disappointment
morphed into the Sanctuary doctrine of the SDA Church, one
needs to learn about the experience of one, Hiram Edson.
Hiram was one of the brethren who had been part of the
Millerite, Advent message. He believed that he had been given
power to heal the sick and had brought many to Christ through his
preaching prior to October 22nd, 1844. On the morning following
the disappointment (October 23rd), after a night of weeping and
feelings of great loss, Edson and his friends walked through the
cornfield on his farm to meet with and encourage other believers.
They chose this route because they wanted to avoid the mocking
jeers of the neighbours who had not accepted the Advent message.
While walking through the field, Hiram apparently received a
vision from God. This is how he described the experience:
We started, and while passing through a large field I was
stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed opened to
my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our
High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly
sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh
month, at the end of the 2300 days, He for the first time
entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary;
and that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy Place
before coming to the earth. 35
He shared this vision with the other believers. Upon hearing

this they were encouraged because it gave them a desperately
needed explanation for why Christ had not returned to earth.
Edson, on the inspiration of this vision, started studying the Bible
with O.R.L. Crosier and Franklin B. Hahn, two other believers,
41
Brian Neumann
and started formulating their ideas regarding all that had taken
place. They studied the parable of the ten virgins, which had been
the rallying cry for Millers messageespecially the part that
dealt with the Bridegrooms delay. They also studied the Jewish
Day of Atonement celebration/feast-day and came up with their
chronology of events. They explained the sanctuary in heaven and
how that Christ had moved from the holy to the most holy to
commence His work of cleansing the sanctuary. This, according
to them, was what Daniel was referring to in Daniel 8:14, when
he said that unto 2300 days the sanctuary would be cleansed.
Crosier published the account of Edsons vision and this came
into the possession of James White and Joseph Bates. After reading
the paper, Bates visited Edson in New York and converted him to
the seventh-day Sabbath.
According to Ellen Whites grandson, Arthur L. White, Ellen,
still Ellen Harmon at the time, received a vision somewhere
between the winter and spring of 1845 regarding the sanctuary.
Somewhere during this time she also met James White (who had
read a copy of Edsons vision), in Orrington. He joined her and
her woman travelling companion as they continued their ministry.
It was also during this time that the events in Atkinson, with
Israel Dammon and the ensuing court-case transpired (discussed
in an earlier chapter). Arthur claims that she knew nothing about
Hirams vision at the time she received her revelation on the
sanctuary. This cannot be substantiated either way except for
the fact that she received this vision at the time she met James
White, during the time she very specifically spoke of salvation
being passed for sinners (the shut door concepts) during the
Israel Dammon meetings in Atkinson (February 1845).
It seems almost certain though, based on the dates, that either
she read the article of Hirams vision (in which he speaks of a
shut door) or that she received her own sanctuary vision, prior
to February (very early in her travels through Main). During the
Dammon experience in Atkinson, which was early February, she
42
is quoted by witnesses in the Dammon trial as having referred to

the shut door a number of times. The exact time-frames are not
easy to determine. What can be certain however, discussed in an
earlier chapter in fair detail, is what Ellen Whites teaching on
the sanctuary was all about. Based upon the record of her visions,
her view of what happened at the close of the 2300 years/days and
how it relates to the sanctuary in heaven, can be easily outlined.
In the book The Great Controversy, she starts off the chapter,
In the Holy of Holies, by saying that: The subject of the sanctuary
was the key which unlocked the mystery of the disappointment of
1844. 36 She wrote on p. 426 of the later edition of this book that:
The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place,
for the cleansing of the sanctuary, brought to view in Dan.
8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of days,
as presented in Dan. 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to
his temple, foretold by Malachi, are descriptions of the
same event; and this is also represented by the coming of
the bridegroom to the marriage, described by Christ in the
parable of the ten virgins, of Matthew 25.37
It has already been shown earlier in this chapter that the

parable of the virgins, according to Christs own account, is an
analogy for the second coming. The coming of the Lord to His
temple, as foretold in Malachi 3:1-3, 5 and the continuation of
that which was foretold culminate in verse 18 in God discerning
between the righteous and the wicked and the final annihilation of
the wicked in chapter 4:1. What Malachi says does not necessarily
compliment Ellen Whites description.
She often assigns scriptures to events or ideas that are not
related. Such as the judgment scene of Daniel 7:9-14 as a
description of Christ moving into the most holy in 1844, for the
start of the investigative judgment. However, when one reads the
interpretation of this scene from verse 15-18 and also verse 26, 27,
it gives no indication that this is a description of heavenly events
in 1844. In fact, the language regarding the destruction of the
43
Brian Neumann
beast and the possession of the kingdom by the saints seem to

parallel the stone kingdom that destroys the feet of iron and clay
in Daniel 2, the destruction of the Babylonian whore in Revelation
18 and Christs final judgment and conquest in Revelation 19.
Whichever way one looks at it, the scriptures that Ellen White
claims were fulfilled in 1844, seem to more accurately fit the time
of Christs second coming. There is simply no unquestionable
way of concretely proving that these things have anything to do
with 1844. Of course, these comments by Ellen White are not
the summation of her revelations regarding the real events of
1844. She offers a more comprehensive application of the parable
of the virgins as further evidence:
In the summer and autumn of 1844, the proclamation,
Behold, the Bridegroom cometh, was given. The two
classes represented by the wise and foolish virgins were then
developed,one class who looked with joy to the Lords
appearing, and who had been diligently preparing to meet
him; another class that, influenced by fear, and acting from
impulse, had been satisfied with a theory of the truth, but
were destitute of the grace of God. In the parable, when the
bridegroom came, they that were ready went in with him
to the marriage. 39
As already commented on, this parable is a metaphor for

the second coming of Christ (this is exactly the application
Miller used). Thus, to get around the statement of Matthew
25:10 where Christ says, they that were ready went in with him
to the marriage, Ellen White resorts to some fancy exegetical
footwork. This is because nobody, not even in their imaginations,
really WENT anywhere at all. Indeed, NOTHING happened
to offer ANY tangible/visible evidence that a GREAT prophetic
event, the longest prophetic time-frame, had occurred. This is
Ellen Whites explanation:
44
At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the earth,

as the people expected, but to the Ancient of days in Heaven
[she is here referring to Daniel 7:13], to the marriage, the
reception of his kingdom. They that were ready went in with
him to the marriage, and the door was shut. They were not
to be present in person at the marriage; for it takes place
in Heaven, while they are upon the earth. The followers of
Christ are to wait for their Lord, when he will return from
the wedding. [LUKE 12:36.] But they are to understand
his work, and to follow him by faith as he goes in before God.
It is in this sense that they are said to go in to the marriage.
In the parable it was those that had oil in their vessels
with their lamps that went in to the marriage. Those who,
with a knowledge of the truth from the Scriptures, had also
the Spirit and grace of God, and who, in the night of their
bitter trial, had patiently waited, searching the Bible for
clearer light,these saw the truth concerning the sanctuary
in Heaven and the Saviours change of ministration, and by
faith they followed him in his work in the sanctuary above. 39
An incredibly troubling, multi-faceted dilemma evolves out

of what Ellen White states as simple matter of factfact that
cannot be scripturally substantiated. What other explanation
could be offered, without contradicting the essential message
given by William Miller?
The scriptures that inspired thousands of people to believe in
Christs second coming that moved their hearts to surrender all
for the gospel of Christ, an experience that Ellen White was a
part of herself, could not simply be wiped away as absolute drivel.
How could the core message that went along with the prophetic
2300 years be salvaged and turned around? Could a feasible
alternative, yet parallel elucidation be found? Was it possible to
turn a demonstrably embarrassing non-event into something so
historically and prophetically momentous that it would ultimately
become an immovable pillar of faith for an entire denomination?
The answer is yes, by doing exactly what Ellen White did.
Something that started as a small spark of inspiration, in a vision
45
Brian Neumann
received by Hiram Edson, the day after the disappointment,

flamed into a burning fire of revelation received by Ellen White,
and as time went by and the pieces of the doctrinal puzzle came
together (the sanctuary doctrine), roared into a raging fire of
incontrovertible truth. This truth, of all the fiery pillars
of SDA Faith could not be quenched or put out at the risk of
compromising all the rest.
The painful reality is that over a hundred and seventy years
after 1844, God has still not vindicated His people that were
mocked and scorned for a prophetic event that never happened.
The only people who believed that they were vindicated were
those who accepted Hiram Edsons, and in a more specific sense,
Ellen Whites visionary revelations of what supposedly took place.
The message, as it was originally extrapolated and taught,
incorporating the shut door teaching and salvation for sinners
having passed after 1844, has been adapted and chiseled out over
time (this was discussed in previous chapters in regard to deletions
and adaptations). Yet, it has never been renounced because, the
implication is, that all the SDA pillars would tumble one by one
should this ever happenor at least this is the belief (see: Pastoral
Ministry, p. 29, 1995; Spirit of Prophecy Vol. 4, p.258; The Upward
Look, p. 152; Letter 126, 1897, p. 4; Counsels to Writers and Editors,
p. 53; Letter 395, 1906, p. 4; Letter 208, 1906 / Evangelism, p. 224;
Manuscript 760 4.4).
It is simply amazing that people could have swallowed Ellen
Whites account of what really happened on October 22nd, 1844.
Perhaps, because the desire for some sort of vindication was so
powerful, people just readily accepted the first vaguely feasible
alternative. Who knows? One thing is so clear and has become
even clearer with the passing of time and that is that no truly
biblical precedent can be found to support it.
There may very well be readers who are thinking that all I
want to do is find a way to discredit Ellen White so that I can
call her a false prophetmaybe they assume I am doing this in a
spirit of vindictiveness. This could not be further from the truth.
46
My desire, as stated in the introduction to this book, is to present

truth, based on the evidence and proof of Scripture.
If it can be shown that Ellen White is beyond being tested
by the Bible then I would re-evaluate my position. However,
if portions of Scripture could be uncontextualized, twisted and
adapted so as to fit whatever conclusion Ellen White wanted
to extricate from it and expect it to be accepted, because she
happens to be a prophet, then how can ANYONE EVER test
the prophets according to the law and the testimony? To be sure,
a proper evaluation of Ellen Whites conclusions, in the light
of Scripture, lead to an irreversible conclusion that each person
needs to come to themselves.
One of the most remarkable yet disquieting characteristics of
the 2300 year prophecy is the fact that, for all intents and purposes,
it was a total non-event. It will no doubt be said that millions of
people believe that something happened in heaven on October 22nd,
1844members of the SDA faith in the 21st Century. Post 1844
there were just a handful. Interestingly though, if a worldwide survey
were done among SDAs, it would be seen that the understanding of
1844 and what actually took place and what they believe regarding
the sanctuary message, will be startlingly inconsistent.
The fact of the matter, and all honest SDA Bible scholars and
critics of 1844 know this to be so, is that only two people (Hiram
Edson & Ellen White), on the face of the whole planet, were
witnesses to what actually occurred in the form of one of the
MOST SIGNIFICANT EVENTS ON GODS PROPHETIC
TIME-TABLE that for the rest of humanity, or at least those who
were expecting something, ended up being one of the MOST
SIGNIFICANT NON-EVENTS of all time.
Even on the Mount of Transfiguration where a REAL event
happened on earth, there were three witnesses present that could
bear testimonynot to a visionbut a real tangible event.
Surely, God wanted to make sure that the minimum two to three
witnesses, for establishing or verifying something were present. In
the case of Christs transition in the sanctuary, in 1844, however,
47
Brian Neumann
there were two individual witnesses (not collectivethey were

not together) that saw an event years apart from one another,
after the factnot a tangible event that could easily be verified
but a vision that any critic could say was simply a fabrication or a
figment of their overtaxed, over-active imaginations.
If one looks at an SDA prophetic time-chart, often used in
their evangelistic presentations (a copy can be seen in the picture
section at the end of Chapter 12), you will notice that it starts with
the date 457 b.c. (the beginning of the 2300 years) and extends to
the fall of 1844, the end of the 2300 years. In between these two
dates you can find other prophetic time-periods. They are divided
into 7 weeks x 7 (49 years), 62 weeks x 7 (434 years), and 1 week
x 7 (7 years), totaling 70 weeks x 7 (490 years). The seven year
period is divided into two three and a half year periods (Christs
crucifixion occurred in the middle of the prophetic week). These
periods are found in Daniel 9. There is also the 1260 days/years,
often included in SDA charts, mentioned in Daniel 7:25 as a
time, times and the dividing of times. This is the period of rule for
the little horn power of Daniel 7. It is also recorded in Revelation
12:14, and in some places as 42 weeks or simply 1260 years/days.
Every single one of these periods can be marked by very
specific/verifiable historical and/or biblically recorded events that
occurredreal proof exists (refer to the chart). However, the only
verifiable historical evidence (there is no clear biblical statement
on this) that ANYTHING occurred on October 22nd, 1844 is
the fact that thousands of people DID experience a GREAT
DISAPPOINTMENT. Why? Because of a VERY obvious
NON-EVENT that DID happen.
There is literally NO evidence that anything at all occurred
on October 22nd, 1844, nothing to mark the day, no proof to
vindicate Gods people or to clearly show a skeptical world that
another one of scriptures major predictions DID come to pass.
The culminating date for the longest time prophecy in the Bible
is uneventful and mute. The world simply has to take the word of
two individuals who say they saw it take place in vision.
48
For almost 14 years William Miller, based on his interpretation,

preached the second coming of Christ at the close of the 2300
yearsa real verifiable event would have occurred if he was right.
Indeed, if it had it would have been the one event most easy
to mark and prove, throughout humanitys entire historythe
culmination of history itself. From that potential status, it ended
up flickering and dying into the most unprovable, embarrassing
non-event of all time.
Ellen White, in a statement recorded earlier, said that those
who were the faithful/ready Advent believers, went in with him
[Christ] to the marriage, and the door was shut. They were not to
be present in person at the marriage; for it takes place in Heaven,
while they are upon the earth these saw the truth concerning the
sanctuary in Heaven and the Saviours change of ministration, and
by faith they followed him in his work in the sanctuary above. 41
NO, this was not so, those who were ready did NOT go in
with Him to the marriage, not even in faith. The reason is simple.
When He supposedly went in, which was on October 22nd, 1844
(the 10th day of the 7th month, according to Hiram Edisons
understanding of the Jewish calendara definite date), the faithful
Advent believers were looking up to heaven in expectation of the
second coming and the end of the worldthis was what they had
faith in. To be sure, when that did not happen, at the stroke of
midnight, their faith suffered an almost unimaginable blow.
Jesus had apparently passed into the most holythe
bridegroom was at the marriage and had shut a door that NO
ONE could openand NO ONE, not even in FAITH, entered
in when HE went in. They had NO idea at all what had happened.
How could they enter any way shape or form?
Only the next day, once the door was shut (unless Christ left it
open a crack until their faith and knowledge could catch up with
events) did anyone (Hiram Edson) have any idea what supposedly
occurred. The rest of the world has been catching up ever since.
When, for example, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day
of Pentecost, a heavenly event had also occurred. In fact, because
49
Brian Neumann
of the comments by those who were questioning what was taking

place, Peter gives a Bible-based response to convict his hearers
recorded in Acts 2.
When the disciples went into the streets on Pentecost, after
receiving the Comforter and people heard them speaking in
tongues, some of the hearers scoffed and said they were drunk (full
of new wine). Others were amazed and were in doubt, saying to one
another, What meaneth this? (Acts 2:12, 13). Peter then responds
to both classes of people, he presents evidence that confirms that
both a heavenly (unseen by human eyes and unheard by human
ears) and earthly event (witnessed by human eyes and heard by
human ears) had taken place.
The earthly evidence was that they had received the Holy Spirit.
People witnessed it and it is recoded in Scripture for posterity and
promise. Peter quotes the prophet Joel (verse 28-32), who predicted
this event and then Quotes David (Psalms 16:8-11; 110:1), to
provide prophetic evidence that a significant heavenly component
of these events had also taken place. A heavenly event took place
but God made sure that it was marked in a very obvious way on
earthto prove to those present and for generations to come that
a momentous event on Gods calendar had TRULY taken place.
Ironically, I will let Ellen White herself tell you why and how God let
things unfold as they did at Pentecostin this case, she is correct in
stating things as she did. In the book Acts of the Apostles, she writes:
As soon as this ceremony was completed [Christs enthroned
into His mediatoral worksitting on the right hand of
God, Acts 2:25, 34-36], the Holy Spirit descended upon the
disciples in rich currents. 41
Or, as it is stated in Signs of the Times:

Jesus was now enthroned amidst the songs of millions. As soon
as this ceremony was completed the Holy Spirit descended.42
50
In the following quote she makes an extremely important

point, regarding the significance of what happened in heaven and
why a corresponding event occurred on earth:
After Christs ascension, enthronement in His mediatoral
kingdom was signalized by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 43
Another example of a verifiable, fulfilled prediction by God

can be found in Genesis. God predicted a flood (the end of the
world) and Noah preached it. In fact, encapsulated in the name
of Methuselah was the time that it would occur. His name meant:
When he dies it [the flood] will come. And on schedule, easily
confirmed by Scripture, it came.
The lesson one takes away from this, consistent with the rest
of the important events on Gods prophetic calendar, is that
God does not fool His people, not to mention anyone else, by
trickery and disinformation into expecting something will take
place, knowing that they will suffer greatly when it does not and
that possibly millions, because of deception and trickery, will lose
their faith altogether and be lost for all eternity. Is God trying
to save as many souls as He can or is He doing all He can to
lose as many as possible? The implications of accepting the whole
scenario, from Miller to the Sanctuary doctrine as Ellen White
presented it, is diabolical in the most extreme sense and does not
make God look like He is gracious, longsuffering, fair or honest.
Significant events on Gods calendar can be confirmed, either
through the testimony of history (which is more often the case
retrospectively), or in the same way, via Scripture. Something
happens to make it abundantly clear that God has acted.
Although the following example was addressed in an earlier
chapter, it is almost certain that someone is going to come up
with the Jonah case-in-point. So let me reiterate it here again,
briefly.
Jonah was sent to tell the people of Nineveh that the city
would be destroyed in forty days because of its great wickedness
51
Brian Neumann
( Jonah 3:4). On hearing the message, the people repented in

ashes and sackcloth, hoping that God would change His mind.
God did ( Jonah 3:8-10). Did God trick them into believing that
He was going to do something that was never going to happen
or was this prophecy an opportunity for God to manifest the
gracious, longsuffering nature of His character? Quite obviously,
it was the latter. Jonah certainly knew the reason. Regarding
His disappointment at Gods act of mercy towards that city, the
scriptures record:
But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.
And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord,
[was] not this my saying, when I was yet in my country?
Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou
[art] a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of
great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil ( Jonah 4:1, 2.
Emphasis supplied).
This is why Jonah ran away from Godhe already knew that
it was not in the Character of God to destroy people if they had
truly repented. Jonah was fearful that they would repent, that
God would forgive them and that he, Jonah, would then look like
a fool for prophesying their destruction. He knew that prophets
were deemed true or false by the accuracy of their predictions. But,
he also knew that Gods destruction of people was on condition
that they remained rebellious.
There is no comparison between Jonahs prediction and
Millers message. Millers message culminated in a non-event,
not because of some conditional option, based on Gods mercy
or justice, but because Miller was plainly and simply dead wrong.
And then, to add injury to insult, Ellen White comes along and
tries to make it look like God purposefully allowed people to be
tricked and lost (according to her many were).
In the case of Jonah a conditional prophecy reveals Gods
merciful, gracious, longsuffering nature. Ellen Whites explanation
of Millers non-event, reveals a God who, at the midnight hour
52
(October 22nd, 1844) seemed to be looking for a way to condemn

as many people as He could.
The truth is, people do not need a test, based on a faulty
interpretation of Bible prophecy, to prove whether they will
follow God or not. The Bible already reveals that before Christ
REALLY comes, there will be people who will be ready and
those who will not (the ten virgins is one prime analogy of this).
People, according to Peter, will say the Lord is delaying His
coming, before Christ REALLY comes. God did not need to
cover a gross error and allow the people to believe a lie so that
he could flush out the bad ones and show them up for what they
really were.
Over a hundred and seventy years down the line, in 2016, the
tested people of 1844 are all dead and gone. Two World Wars
have passed and planet earth is a completely different place to
what it was back then. Many since that time have shown where
they stand in their relationship to God, without the need of a
failed prophecy to reveal their true colours. The trials people will
still have to endure to test them, in light of the worlds current
state of affairs and what the Bible predicts will exist right before
Jesus REALLY returns, are sure to separate the wheat from the
tares (a natural sifting) far more effectively than some prophetic
non-event.
In light of all this, a huge question still remains. If nothing
happened on October 22nd, 1844, then what about the 2300 day/
year prophecy? Miller was clearly wrong concerning the event that
was to take place. Was he also wrong concerning his placement of
the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 on the prophetic time-line?
Those who have consistently used the day/year principle
for calculating prophetic time seem to be accurate in their
conclusions, based on the evidence of so many events on the
prophetic time-table that can be pin-pointed by real historical
occurrencesevents that have come to pass. So, what about the
2300 days? Is there a possible, feasible, biblical and historical
explanation for why Miller, unintentionally or intentionally, got
53
Brian Neumann
it wrongevent and time-frame? And, would such a reevaluation

of this time prophecy and how it culminated have to ignore the
day/year principle of interpreting prophetic time? The answer is,
there is another alternative and it does not ignore the application
of the day/year principle or the historicist method of prophetic
interpretation by trying to blend, as Desmond Ford did, the
preterist, futurist and historicist methods to explain his version of
the sanctuary doctrine and 1844. And, very importantly, it does not
have to resort to exegetical acrobatics to be corroborated biblically.
SOURCES
1. Memoirs of William Miller, Sylvester Bliss, Joshua V. Himes,
1853, p.4.
2. Ibid. p.16.
3. Ibid. p. 21-22 (emphasis supplied).
4. Gods Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World, by
David L. Rowe, Eerdmans: 2008, p.27, p.94).
5. William Miller letter, dated September 10, 1831. Quoted in
Gods Strange Work: William Miller and the End of the World, by
David L. Rowe, Eerdmans: 2008, p.27, p.94.
6. Ibid. p.94 (emphasis supplied).
7. Manuscript Release Volume 20 [Nos. 1420-1500], MR No.
1458N. D. Faulkheads Conversion and Business Ability. See,
4BIOEllen G. White Volume 4, The Australian Years 1891-
1900, By Arthur L. White, 1983, Chapter 5.
1853, p.66, 67.
9. Ibid. p. 67 (emphasis supplied ).
10. Ibid. p. 80 (emphasis supplied ).
11. Ibid. p. 68.
54
12. Ibid. p. 82.

13. Ibid. p. 67.
14. 7753The Secret Behind Secret Societies /Total OnslaughtWalter
Veith, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX0GtdVQ26E
(emphasis supplied).
15. Morals and Dogma, by Albert Pike, p.104-105. Emphasis
supplied. Quoted by Walter Veith in Total Onslaught
series, lecture, HiddenAgendas, https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=7NbSqcd2Dtw (emphasis supplied).
16. A.T.C. Pierson, The Traditions, Origin and Early History of
Freemasonry, P.240. Emphasis supplied. Quoted by Walter Veith
in Total Onslaught series, lecture, Hidden Agendas,https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NbSqcd2Dtw.
17. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/freemasons-and-
the-scottish-rite-system.html.
18. The Shepherd of the Valley, official journal of the Bishop of St.
Louis, Nov.23, 1851.
19. Catholic Review, July 1870.
1853, p.16-24.
21. Ibid. p. 29.
22. Ibid. p.66, 67.
23. Ibid. p.116.
24. Ibid. p.172.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid. p.172-205.
27. 50 Years in the Church of Rome, by Charles, Chiniquyquoted
by J.T. Chick in, Smokescreens, Chick Publications, Chino,
California, U.S.A., p.85.
55
Brian Neumann
28. Ibid. p.86.

29. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 238.
30. Ibid. p.235.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid. p.237.
33. Ibid. p. 238. (emphasis supplied).
34. Ibid.
35. The Midnight Cry. By F.D. Nichol, p.458 (emphasis supplied).
36. The Great Controversy, p.423.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid. p. 246 (emphasis supplied).
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Acts of the Apostles, p.38, 39 (emphasis supplied).
42. Signs of the Times, May 17, 1899.
43. Christ Object Lessons, p. 120 (emphasis supplied).
56
Chapter XII
2300 DaysAlternative
The beginning, not the end
At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth,

and I am come to show [thee]; for thou [art] greatly beloved:
therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
Daniel 9:23
T
he purpose for this aspect of my investigation is not to
go into every detail regarding the sanctuary doctrine, as
extrapolated and believed by SDAs. In fact, they have a
number of variations on the sanctuary doctrine, as was shown in
the Adventist Spectrum article by Dennis Hokama. The ideas that
were taught and believed prior to 1910 (going back to Miller and
some of his findings before 1844) as opposed to what developed
after and is now taught, are significant indeed. Very importantly,
what Ellen White said or did not say regarding the developments
in this teaching, reveal a lot more about her prophetic role than
many might be comfortable bringing into the light of day. The
core aspects of these differences and how it was and is still
juggled by the brethren is the essence of what this portion of
our examination encompasses. In the process, it will answer the
question as to what REALLY did happen or did not on October
61
Brian Neumann
22nd, 1844 and what the correct understanding of the sanctuary

and Christs Priestly ministry is all about.
An extremely significant and informative article was published
in Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation, by Dennis Hokama (p.20-29). I will
use significant amounts of this publication as Hokama presents it
in a way that I feel would be hard to improve on, except for adding
some commentary where necessary. One of the key motivations
for Miller coming to the conclusion he did regarding Daniel 8:14
(2300 days till the cleansing of the sanctuary) had to do with how
he ended up interpreting what the daily of Daniel 8:11-13 and
11:31, actually meant. Hokama begins his article by saying:
When William Miller came to the novel conclusion that the
daily of Daniel 8:11,12 and 11:31 was paganism rather
than sacrifices connected with Jewish temple services, he
opened up new possibilities for the treatment of the 2300 days
in Daniel 8:14. A seemingly viable justification and defense
of 1843 or 1844 as the terminus of the 2300 days was now
possible.
Since it was Millers paganism interpretation of the
daily that permitted the 457 B.C. to 1843/1844 application
of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, the Seventh-day Adventist
sanctuary doctrine, in a sense, has a pagan foundation.
This, in and of itself, would amount to nothing more than a
mischievous play on words. But it is the fact that Adventism
has long since abandoned Millers paganism interpretation
while continuing to claim eschatological significance for 1844
that gives the title of this paper legitimacy.
It is the thesis of this paper that Millers identification of the
daily as paganism was crucial to his defense of 1843/1844
as the terminus of the 2300 days. If this thesis is correct, then
Adventism unwittingly annulled the significance of 1844
when it abandoned the pagan interpretation of the daily
around 1910. This paper is not concerned with determining
the true meaning of the daily, but it is concerned with the
62
history of Adventist treatments of it, and the implications that

its history has for Adventist theology today. 1
To know the history of what the word daily meant to

translators of the King James Version and most Bible commentators
before Miller is essential. Hokamas research reveals:
The Hebrew word tamid, translated in Daniel 8:14 as daily,
is used 103 times in the Old Testament. Six times it is translated
as daily (Numbers 4:16, 28:24; Daniel 8:11,12,13; 11:31,
and 12:11); but elsewhere it is translated as alway, always,
continual, continually, perpetual, ever, evermore, and
never.
The meaning of the word daily, as used in Daniel 8:11,
is somewhat enigmatic since it (tamid) is there used without a
verb or noun to modify; whereas it is normally used as an adverb
or adjective. The daily controversy arose over the question of
what verb or noun the daily was intended to modify. The
daily was taken away by the little horn; but daily what?
In spite of the apparent ambiguity presented by ha tamid,
the King James Version translators, all subsequent translations,
and virtually all commentators previous to William Miller
had concluded that ha tamid, or the daily, referred to the
daily or continual sacrifices associated with the Jewish temple
services. They differed only in their view of whether the Jewish
sacrifices there mentioned should be taken literally or whether
they should be spiritualized and applied symbolically. The
kjv translators (and most translators after them) felt confident
enough about this interpretation that they inserted the word
sacrifice in italics after the daily.2
Even SDA Bible scholars recognize that there were essentially

two schools of thought on the interpretation of the daily of
the texts in questionthe literal and symbolic schools of
interpretation. On p. 320 of the SDA Encyclopedia they are listed
as follows:
63
Brian Neumann
Literal interpretations of the daily:

1. The daily taken away was the interruption of Jewish sac-
rifices by Antiochus Epiphanes around 168 b.c.
2. The daily taken away was the interruption of Jewish
sacrifices by the Roman armies around 70 a.d.
3. The daily that will be taken away will be the interruption
of Jewish sacrifices in the temple by some future antichrist.
Symbolic interpretations of the daily:

1. The daily taken away was a symbol of true worship or
sound doctrine in the Church, taken away by either the
Papacy or the Moslem conquest.
2. The daily taken away was the Catholic mass that
was abolished and denied by the Protestants (Roman
Catholic interpretation).
3. The daily taken away will be the interruption and
abolition of the Catholic mass by some future antichrist
(another Roman Catholic interpretation).
Hokama makes three main points in his evaluation of these

schools of thought:
An analysis of these various views reveals a surprising
number of common denominators that are often ignored or
deemphasized in SDA treatments of the subject:
(1) All of the preceding schools of interpretation accept the idea

that the daily refers to the Jewish temple sacrifices. They differ
regarding whether or not to give it a spiritualized meaning
2) All commentators were unanimous in seeking to find a

fulfillment on EARTH. Perhaps they all felt the weight of
Gabriels interpretation (Daniel 8:19-25), which appears to
disallow an extraterrestrial application. The king of Grecia
64
(verse 21) presumably was an earthling ruling an earthly

kingdom, and so were his successors (verses 22-25).
(3) Both schools (literal and symbolic) allowed for

interpretations that would find a fulfillment in the Christian
era. (See number 3 of the literal interpretation.) SDA
commentators usually deprecate literal interpretations as
having no modern application.
In spite of the fact that Bible scholars from across the centuries,
unanimously interpreted the daily in reference to the Jewish
temple sacrifices (even the King James translatorsthe Bible
used by Miller), Miller was not satisfied and so set about,
using a Crudens Concordance and his King James Bible to
look for other occurrences where the word daily and the phrase
taken away was usedin Daniel and later elsewhere in the
scriptures. Miller explains how he came to his conclusion and
what his reaction to his discovery was:
I read on and could find no other case in which it 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. 2:7,8. 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 1 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 by Apollos Hale, Second Advent
Manual, p. 66; in the SDA Encyclopedia, p. 320. Italics
supplied). 3
Thus, quite literally, on the basis of the fact that Paul happened
to use an expression that came close enough to Daniels taken
65
Brian Neumann
away, Miller felt he had discovered a glorious truth, a truth

that finally became the bridge to discovering the meaning of the
2300 day prophecy. Even though Pauls expression, until he be
taken out of the way did not match Daniels taken away, it did
not seem to matter to Miller. He felt that it was close enough and
so, contrary to just about everyone before him (Bible scholars of
note and learning) he changed the daily from being a part of the
Jewish sacrificial system to paganism. Hokama rightfully suggests
that: It is perhaps indicative of the spirit of the times that even
the vague and ambiguous way that both Daniel and Paul referred,
supposedly, to paganism was considered to be further evidence
that they must be talking about the same thing. Hokama then
goes on to give an example of the spirit of the times by quoting a
portion of an 1842 article, penned by Millers protgs, Himes and
Litch, who seem quite convinced that Miller actually got it right:
It is also remarkable that Paul is just about as ambiguous in
speaking of paganism, as Daniel is supposed to be. Paul calls it
he who now letteth: or hindereth. Daniel calls it the daily.
All the arguments from analogy will be seen, we think, to
be in favor of Mr. Millers supposition that this daily, or
continual, denotes paganism. 4
It is my opinion that Hokama does not express it strongly

enough when he says, the significance of Millers redefinition of
the daily, when reinterpreting verse 14 (the 2300 days) should
not be missed.5 Indeed, I would suggest that the horrendous
implications should not be missed because that which came in the
wake of Millers misapplication, the effects of which still continue
to this day, have been far-reaching and destructive. This is not
a suggestion that Hokama was downplaying the significance of
what Miller had done. He simply chose to express it as he did.
His evaluation continues:
Paganism totally deflected the meaning of the saints question
in verse 13 from the daily being taken away. There was no
66
longer any relationship between what was taken away and

what would be restored after 2300 days. The daily was totally
divorced from the concept of sacrifice. When his interpretation
was challenged on exegetical grounds. Miller replied that the
word sacrifice was added by man and was not in the original
Hebrew manuscripts. (SDA Encyclopedia, 1966, p. 321)
Previous to this, all interpretationswhether literal or
symbolichad assumed that the daily referred to the Jewish
sacrifice or something analogous to it in the Christian Church.
Thus it was thought to be something good that was defiled
and desecrated by something false and evil. Now, Miller, as a
result of his novel analysis, could prove that the daily was
something evil that oppressed something that was good, only to
be replaced by a power that was even more evil. The daily was
now the oppressor rather than the object of oppressiona 180
degree reversal from all interpretations, literal or symbolic,
that had been offered up to that time.
According to the Millerite interpretation, the daily was
no longer a landmark in Daniel from which one should begin
the 2300- day countdown; it was merely one in a long line of
persecutors of Gods people. The 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 now
flapped in the breeze, devoid of any stay. William Miller now
had the justification he needed for his expedition into chapter
9 in search of a suitable mate for Daniel 8:14, and the rest,
as they say, is history. While the Millerite leaders differed on
many points, they remained united in their contention that the
daily was paganism and had nothing whatsoever to do with
Jewish sacrifices. 6
Hokama follows with a quote from the SDA Encyclopedia:

Yet in spite of differences of opinion on Millers detailed
interpretation, the Millerites stood united against the
opponents who contended for the literal rather than the symbolic
interpretation. Time and again Millerite writers insisted that
the word sacrifice was not in the original Hebrew but was
supplied by the translators; that therefore the daily did not
mean the literal Jewish sacrifices taken away by Antiochus, and
67
Brian Neumann
that the 2300 days were not literal days but years, to be dated
from 457 B.C. Not until the period of confusion and division
following the 1844 disappointment did a group arise (the Age
to Come party) supporting the old literalist view, looking to
literal sacrifices in the future at Jerusalem; and this view was
repudiated by the majority of those who remained with Miller
and Himes, and also by the small group that became the SDAs. 7
For those who are critically evaluating what they are reading
it may well be noticed that the SDA commentators are ignoring
some important facts. Hokamas evaluation expresses it well
when he says:
Several things should be noticed in the passage just quoted,
because it is typical of all SDA works on the subject of the
daily While its basic facts are correct, false and misleading
impressions are created. Here, as elsewhere, the Encyclopedia
strives to create the impression that Miller merely joined the
symbolic school of interpretation, and thus joined Christian
commentators in their battle against the literalists. It fails
to acknowledge that even the symbolic schools used the Jewish
sacrifices as a springboard for their symbolic interpretations.
Thus the daily symbolized something godly and sacred.
The Millerites also had a symbolic interpretation, but they
insisted that the daily symbolized something satanic and evil.
Thus, in reality they had even less in common with the symbolic
school than did the so-called literalists. The Millerites were thus
a camp unto themselves, and it is misleading to portray them
as fighting on behalf of a symbolic interpretation. It is patently
unfair to the symbolic school to have the Millerites thrust into
their camp. The Millerites were not so much anti-literalist as
they were anti-context, or anti-Jewish sanctuary.
Also noticeable is their apparent lack of insight regarding
the identification of the daily as paganism and its relationship
to their defense of 457 B.C. as the starting point of the 2300
evenings-mornings, although they are almost forced to
acknowledge it. The SDA Encyclopedia (p. 321) makes it
68
clear that paganism was needed as a refutation of those who

wished to make the taking away by Antiochus the beginning
point of the 2300 days. In spite of his anachronistic approach
to the daily question, Miller still had one common bond
with the commentators preceding him; he continued to find an
earthly fulfillment both for the daily and for the sanctuary
to be cleansed after 2300 days, in accordance with Gabriels
commentary. 8
From the moment Ellen White and the early SDA pioneers
chose to turn the non-appearance of Christ (an earthly event)
in 1844 into Him moving from the Holy to the Most Holy in
the heavenly sanctuary (a heavenly event) they set themselves up
for major controversy in the years that would followcontinuing
till the present. There would always be contradictions that SDA
Bible scholars would have to deal with. The ducking and diving
and exegetical acrobatics that followed are, for those who have
cared to do the research, a matter of record. I have decided to let
the greater portion of Hokamas article tell the tale. The article is
extensive, but in my opinion, warrants recitation:
The Pioneer SDA (Old View) Interpretation

The Millerite movement was crucified on October 22, 1844,
by none other than Jesus Himself (by His nonappearance).
Most of the Millerites subsequently sought atonement with the
Christian world that they had denounced as Babylon during
the months just preceding the Great Disappointment. A few
Millerites, however, having invoked the blessing of the Holy
Spirit upon their interpretations, now felt obligated to defend
the Spirits honor by salvaging something from the wreckage
of the Millerite 1844 interpretation. The great question that
obsessed them was how to defend any kind of a cleansing of
the sanctuary on October 22, 1844, when nothing whatsoever
had been observed to happen on earthunless it was the
merciless heckling of the non-believers.
69
Brian Neumann
According to Adventist tradition (recently corrected by

J.B. Goodner in Adventist Currents vol.1, no.5, pp. 4,5,6,&
56) a possible solution came to Hiram Edson in a flash of
inspiration while he was taking a walk on the morning
following the Great Disappointment. O.R.L. Crosier, a protege
of Edsons, articulated this solution in the Day-Dawn, and
then expanded upon it in an article entitled The Sanctuary
in the Day Star Extra of February 7,1846.
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. The true tabernacle which forms a part of the new
covenant Sanctuary, was made and pitched by the Lord, in
contradistinction to that of the first covenant which was made
and pitched by man, in obedience to the commandment of God;
Exodus 25:8. (The Day-Star Extra, Feb. 7, 1846)
Ellen White endorsed Crosiers translation of the sanctuary
into the heavens in a letter to Eli Curtis dated April 21, 1847.
This, she said, was not merely her opinion, but something that
the Lord shew [sic] me in vision.
An additional benefit of this solution was that it gave its
adherents an effective comeback to their merciless hecklers, who
were lost souls because Jesus had ceased to work for sinners after
October 22, 1844, when the door was shut to the heavenly
sanctuary. With regard to the daily question, the forerunners
of Adventism continued to endorse Millers paganism view.
This is not to say that they were all satisfied with it or that
none of them held views that were logically incompatible with
it; rather they all gave lip service to it and always stopped short
of openly opposing it, until the twentieth century.
When the Sabbatarian Adventists moved on, after 1844,
to develop their new doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary, they
left behind William Millers identification of the sanctuary of
Daniel 8:14, of the two beasts of Rev. 13, and of the number
666 as pertaining to the daily, but they retained, in the
main. Millers idea that the daily and the transgression of
70
desolation were two successive phases of the Roman power,

pagan and papal. (SDA Encyclopedia, p. 321) It is true that
Crosierwithout actually saying it in so many words
logically repudiated the notion of a pagan sanctuary in the
article that Ellen White endorsed in Gods name. It was not the
first or the last time that the pioneers would show themselves
quite oblivious to theological tensions. In his article entitled
The Sanctuary, Crosier wrote:
Let it be remembered that the definition of Sanctuary is
a holy or sacred place. Is the earth, is Palestine such a place?
Their entire contents answer. No! Was Daniel so taught? Look
at his vision.
And the place of his sanctuary was cast down; Dan. 8:11.
This casting down was in the days and by the 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 4,000 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. (Day
Star Extra, February 7, 1846).
By redefining Millers pagan sanctuary as Christs
heavenly sanctuary, in an article endorsed by the Lord, Crosier
almost aborted the foundation of the fledgling Adventist
movement. But the movement was spared by James White,
who republished the article in The Advent Review Special
of 1850 (p. 38) with the offending paragraphshowever
inspireddeleted.
For about fifty years Adventist leaders in good standing
felt obligated to endorse simultaneously Millers paganism
interpretation and Crosiers heavenly sanctuary articlea
difficult but evidently not impossible feat.
Joseph Bates identified the daily as paganism in 1846
(The Opening Heavens, p. 31), so did J.N. Andrews in 1853
(Review and Herald, 3:145, Feb. 3, 1853; cf. p. 129, Jan. 6,
71
Brian Neumann
1853), and later Uriah Smith (ibid., 24:180, Nov. 1,1864)

and James White (The Time, in his Sermons on the Coming
and Kingdom of Christ, 1870 ed., pp. 116,117; cf. pp. 108,
118,122-125). In an early article (Review and Herald, 1:28,
29, January, 1851) White had followed Crosier in arguing
at length that the sanctuary trodden down was the one in
heaven, but he did not define the daily in this article. When
he later did define it he emphatically described the daily, and
the transgression of desolation as two desolating powers;
the first paganism, then. Papacy. (Sermons, p. 116), (SDA
Encyclopedia, p. 322).
But the event that made paganism a shibboleth among
Adventists was Ellen Whites endorsement of it in Present
Truth, 1:87, November 1850. A vision that she received on
September 23, 1850, is now found on pages 74 and 75 of
Early Writings:
Then I saw in relation to the daily, Dan. 8:12, that the
word sacrifice was supplied by mans wisdom, and does not
belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it
to those who gave the judgement-hour cry. When union existed,
before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the
daily, but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been
embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has
not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.
Another document that wielded tremendous influence
among Adventists was Uriah Smiths highly regarded The
Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, of which the
Daniel half was first published in 1873. It was regarded then,
and is now regarded, as virtually on a par with the Spirit
of Prophecy by those who take Ellen Whites endorsement
seriously. According to A.C. Bordeau, a respected SDA minister
and close associate of the Whites:
Many years ago, when the late Uriah Smith was writing
Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, while Elder James
White and Ellen G. White were at my house in Enosburg,
Vermont, they received by mail a roll of printed proof sheets
on Thoughts on Revelation that Brother Smith had sent to
72
them. Brother White read portions of the same to the company,

and expressed much pleasure and satisfaction because they
were so concisely and clearly written. Then Sister White stated
what she had been shown as follows: The Lord is inspiring
Brother Smith-leading his mind by His Spirit, and an angel
is guiding his hand in writing these Thoughts on Daniel and
the Revelation. I was present when these words were spoken.
(signed) A.C. Bordeau

The quote was from J.S. Washburns letter to Elder
Meade MacGuire, February 18,1923, entitled The Fruit
of the New Daily If Bordeaus account is to be taken at face
value, one might even argue that the level of inspiration in
Daniel and Revelation is even higher than that in Ellen
Whites books; since an angel was guiding Smiths hand, not
merely his mind, as was true in Ellen Whites writings. In any
case. Smith strongly favored the paganism interpretation of the
daily, as can be seen on pages 164 and 165 of his book:
What Is the Daily! We have proof in verse 13 that
sacrifice is the wrong word to be supplied in connection with
the word daily. If the taking away of the daily sacrifice of the
Jewish service is here meant, as some suppose (which sacrifice
was at a certain point of time taken away), there would be
no propriety in the question, How long shall be the vision
concerning it? This question evidently implies that those agents
or events to which the vision relates occupy a series of years.
Continuance of time is the central idea. The whole time of
the vision is filled by what is here called the daily and the
transgression of desolation. Hence the daily cannot be the
daily sacrifice of the Jews, for when the time came for it to be
taken away, that action occupied but an instant of time, when
the veil of the temple was rent in twain at the crucifixion of
Christ. It must denote something which extends over a period
of years.
In the great majority of instances it is rendered
continual or continually. The idea of sacrifice is not attached
to the word at allBut it appears to be more in accordance
73
Brian Neumann
with both the construction and the context to suppose that the
word daily refers to a desolating power, like the transgression
of desolation, with which it is connected
Two Desolating Powers.By the continuance of
desolation, or the perpetual desolation., we understand that
paganism, through all its history, is meant. When we consider
the long ages through which paganism had been the chief
agency of Satans opposition to the work of God on earth, the
propriety of the term continuance or perpetual, as applied to
it becomes apparent.
The essence of Smiths proof here is that, historically,
the taking away of the Jewish sacrifice took but an instant;
whereas he believes the saints question in verse 13 evidently
implies a taking away over a long period of years. There
are many curious assumptions in this proof that will not be
exposed here.
In spite of the problems associated with the paganism
interpretation, the fact that the pioneers were united on this
point is amply illustrated by the side that they took when the
daily battle broke out at the turn of the century. To a man, the
old hands fought under the paganism banner.
The pioneers (pagan) view of the daily remained
essentially the same as Millers. In assigning the sanctuary to
be cleansed to the heavens, however, it departed from all other
interpretations before it. Gabriels authority as a commentator
had been taken away.
The SDA New View of the Daily

The first denominational leader to openly publish a view
contrary to the Millerite pagan daily was L.R. Conradi
in his 1905 volume. Die Weissagung Daniel. His New
View was actually older than the Millerite Old View. Like
the reformers, he concluded that Daniel 8:14 pointed to the
restoration of the long lost gospel, and that the taking away
of the daily referred to the obscuration of that truth by the
papacy. (Others subsequently would attempt to give it an
Adventist flavor by describing it as the mediation of Christ
74
in the heavenly sanctuary) From Conradi the view spread to

A.T. Jones, A.G. Daniells, W.C. White, and WW. Prescott.
Conradi, General Conference vice president for the
European Division, confronted the problem when it became
his task to translate the churchs prophetic works into German.
Much to his chagrin he found that German translations of the
Bible did not accommodate Millers interpretation at all:
When Elder Conradi was writing on the book of Daniel,
in German, and came to this passage of Scripture concerning
the daily, he found the German rendering so worded that
it was impossible for him to follow the commonly accepted
exposition without very evidently wresting the plain meaning
of the words in the German version. The statement as found
in the German Bible, was so plainly in contradiction to the
exposition given in Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation,
that he was nonplussed; but he feared to give an exposition that
seemed, on the face of it, not to be in harmony with the plain
reading of the Scripture. He compared the German rendering
with the original Hebrew and with the Septuagint Greek, and
also with the French, Danish and other versions. These were
similar to the German; and it became clear to him that the text
under consideration should not be interpreted in accordance
with the view taught in Thoughts on Daniel. (A Review of
Experiences Leading to a Consideration of the Question of
The Daily of Daniel 8:9-14, by A.G. Daniels)
At the turn of the century, Conradi wrote to Ellen White
in Australia informing her that unless she had counsel to the
contrary, he would feel compelled to publish his conclusions
(Arthur L. White, The Later Elmshaven Years, page 247).
Not receiving a reply within the specified time, he published
Die Weissagung Danielthe first denominational book to
challenge the daily equals-paganism equation. His book was
circulated widely in Europe by 1905; and by 1910 he had also
succeeded in preventing Daniel and Revelation from being
published in England. (Conradi to Daniells, March 8, 1910,
cited in Bert Haloviaks In the Shadow of the Daily, p. 38)
Conradis break with tradition was evidently a relief to many
75
Brian Neumann
leaders who for years had harbored private doubts about the
pagan daily.
In our council-meeting where the matter was brought
up for study, we learned many things that led us to question
whether there might not be a stronger position for us to take
than that allowed by an advocacy of the view taught in the
days of William Miller. We learned that William Miller
himself was apparently the first to arrive at the conclusion
that the taking away of the daily should be interpreted as
signifying the taking away of Paganism in 508, and that he
arrived at this conclusion by a series of blunders in scriptural
interpretation and in his understanding of history.
We learned also that many of our ministers, when
presenting the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation
before unbelievers, have touched very lightly on the portion
of Scripture relating to the daily, and have for many years
made no serious attempt to give a critical explanation of the
meaning of the text. Brother W.A. Spicer has spoken thus of his
avoidance of these texts while he was a public worker:
When I used to give Bible readings in the earlier days in
London, and took the people through the eighth of Daniel, I
always skipped over those texts where we made the sanctuary
one minute in heaven and the next on earth, and the host one
time the saints and the next the pagans, and I slipped over
the statement that the taking away of the daily meant the
taking away of paganism by suggesting that the rendering
in the original was a bit obscure so that the translation was
difficult. That is what we used to be taught in the Bible School
in Battle Creek in the old days. And all that, you observe, was
making no particular use of that particular portion of scripture.
It was simply passing over it to get down to the cleansing of
the sanctuary. (A Review of the Experiences Leading to a
Consideration of the Question of The Daily of Daniel 8:9-
14, by A.G. Daniells, emphasis supplied)
The public questioning of the pagan daily by the churchs
highest and most respected leaders touched off a fierce controversy
that shook the denomination to its roots. The defenders of the
76
new view included the General Conference president (A.G.

Daniells), the future General Conference president (W.A.
Spicer), the editor of the Review (W.W. Prescott), and Ellen
Whites son and confidante, William C. White.
The opposition, however, was not the least bit impressed.
Appealing to a higher authority in the form of Early Writings
(pp. 74, 75,), they unleashed a vigorous counterattack that
scandalized the shocked new view advocates. Willie White,
in a letter (October 27,1910) to J.S. Washburn, a staunch old
view defender, cited a number of inflammatory actions taken by
the old view defenders. Such actions, White believed, showed
the old view defenders to be the aggressors in the escalating
conflict over the daily. The first public stone was cast by Elder
Stephen Haskell, who published a facsimile of what he thought
was the prophetic chart endorsed by Early Writings, with the
quote from Mrs. White in regard to the daily inscribed at
the bottom (W.C. White to J.S. Washburn, October 27, 1910,
p. 26). Even before that, at the 1905 General Conference,
the old guard had attempted to ban Conradis book in North
America (WCW to JSW, p. 28). Elder O.A. Johnson had
prevented Conradis book from being published in the Danish-
Norwegian; and then at the General Conference of 1909 he
had distributed a tract that was extremely critical of the new
view advocates (WCW to JSW, pp. 25,26). L.A. Smith (son
of Uriah) circulated a tract of his own in the summer of 1909
in which he accused the new view advocates of disloyalty
to the Spirit of Prophecy, right after a meeting in which it
was agreed that the antagonists would refrain from personal
criticism of each other (WCW to JSW, p. 27). Other ministers
who felt compelled to join the battle against the new view
included J.N. Loughborough, G.l. Butler, and EC. Gilbert.
Although Willie White tried to hold the new view fort,
the opposition scored some impressive political victories. Stephen
Haskell bombarded Ellen White with letters complaining of
Prescotts dangerous new view of the daily ( June 20,1907;
November 18, 1907; January 30, 1908; February 21, 1909).
He even hosted her at his home for about a week during this
77
Brian Neumann
period. Haskell evidently made good use of that time because

Prescott was subsequently pressured into leaving the Review
in mid-1909 by Ellen White, who urged him to engage in
city evangelism instead. A.G. Daniells, as General Conference
president, met a similar fate, and was virtually forced to
relinquish his position to several associates in 1910 and engage
in city evangelism. The tide would turn, but two of the three
most influential men in the denomination found themselves for
a time in an exile of sorts.
Was city evangelism suddenly so pressing that both the
editor of the Review and the General Conference president
had to leave their offices to become evangelists? Or was city
evangelism merely a pretext for removing these men from a
position of influence? Did they incur Ellen Whites wrath solely
or at least primarily because of their promotion of the new
view of the daily? Was Ellen White upset because she saw the
daily controversy as a threat to the long overdue drive for city
evangelism, as Arthur White claims (The Later Elmshaven
Years, p. 246)? Was Ellen White actually neutral on the
issue, as material published over her name during that period
suggests, or was she secretly resentful that Daniells, Prescott,
and her son Willie were seeing to it that her authority as a
Bible interpreter was beinglike the dailytaken away?
Ellen Whites Position in the Daily Controversy

When the daily war heated up, Ellen White was in her
eighties, with an apparently diminished capacity to understand
complicated matters. This may be inferred from a 1918 letter
by Haskell to W.C. White in response to the latters claim
regarding his mothers enfeebled mental state during her later
years:
If I believed even what you have told me about having
to tell your mother the same thing over three or four times in
order that she might get a clear idea of things, so that she could
give a correct testimony on some points, it would weaken my
faith mightily; not in your mother, but in what comes from her
pen. (November 27,1918, WEDC).
78
If this is true (and there is considerable circumstantial

evidence to support this position), it puts an entirely different
light on her carefully worded, cautiously neutral, definitively
ambiguous daily statement of July 31, 1910. This was the
document that began to turn the tide in favor of Willie and his
exiled allies, Prescott and Daniells.
I [Ellen White] have words to speak to my brethren east
and west, north and south. I request that my writings shall not
be used as the leading argument to settle questions over which
there is now so much controversy. I entreat of Elder Haskell,
Loughborough, Smith, 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 cannot 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;
for I have no instruction on the point under discussion, and 1
see no need for the controversy. Regarding this matter under
present conditions, silence is eloquence (MS 11, 1910, also,
ISM, p. 164)
Bert Haloviak, assistant director of the General
Conference Office of Archives and Statistics, thinks he sees
the hand of Willie in the fact that this document was entitled
Our Attitude Toward Doctrinal Controversy. Ellen White
ordinarily placed no titles on her testimonies (In the Shadow
of the Daily: Background and Aftermath of the 1919 Bible
and History Teachers Conference, p. 56). Haloviak only
allows that Willie might have added the title.
But in light of the Haskell letter previously quoted, we
might also ask ourselves how many times it was necessary
for Willie to explain to his mother that she must forbid her
fanatical followers from using her writings to settle the
79
Brian Neumann
issue before she was able to send out a correct testimony.

The document that is supposed to preclude this possibility is a
statement by A.G. Daniells regarding an interview he had
with Mrs. White sometime around the latter half of 1910. In
it Daniells says that he placed the 1843 chart and her Early
Writings statement before her and asked what she had been
shown regarding the daily.
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 (AGD
statement of September 25,1931, WDF 201 b)
There are many curious things about this document, the first
of which is that it was not produced in 1910. Daniells gives
no date for this interview, and Arthur White couldnt produce
one when he used it in The Later Elmshaven Years (p. 256).
Arthur White is usually meticulous about dating documents,
but this time he cannot even provide an approximate date. It
was a little later than June 1, 1910, he writes. But this is
hard to understand because it is a known fact that Daniells
was refused an interview with Ellen White in late May of
that year, and by June 1, he was headed back East, resigned
to the idea that he might have to give up the presidency.
Arthur White claims that W.C. White and C.C. Crisler were
also present at the interview but provides no documentation.
Contemporary references or allusions to this interview prior to
1931 may exist but were not encountered by this writer. Even
if the interview did take place (when?), there are indications
that Ellen Whites apparent neutrality on the issue was due
either to intimidation by Willie White and Daniells or to their
misrepresentation of her true position on the topic.
The most troubling evidence of this is a contemporary
document written by F.C. Gilbert, evidently the lone old
view advocate who was able to interview Ellen White
personally and privately concerning her views on the daily.
Elder Gilbert took notes as she was speaking and wrote up the
interview immediately afterward. Since he evidently did not
get permission from her to disclose these private thoughts, he
80
felt obligated to keep them confidential for many years. Elder

Washburn persuaded Gilbert to release the document to him
in 1946 while Gilbert was on his death bed. (A. White letter,
November 17, 1948, WDF 242) Washburns limited release of
this document put the reputations of WilUe White, Daniells,
Prescott, and the new view in an extremely embarrassing
light. Some excerpts:
They (Prescott and Daniells) had to be getting up
something new, and of course by doing so they would not give
the older brethren in the cause any chance to say anything that
these older brethren knew about the early days of the message
When they did not accept my message of reproof 1 knew
what they would do and I knew what Daniells would do in
getting the people all stirred up. I have not written to Prescott
because his wife is so very sick Daniels was here to see me,
and I would not see him. I told them that I would not see
him on any point, and I would not have anything to say to
him about anything. About this daily that they are trying to
work up, there is nothing in it, and it is not a testing point of
character
If this message of the daily were a testing message the
Lord would have shown me. These do not see the end from
the beginning in this thing. This work they are doing is to
divide the people of God, and to take their minds off the
testing truths for these last times. I utterly refuse to see any
of them who are engaged in this work.
I would not see Daniells about the matter, and I would
not have one word with him. They pled with me that I would
give them an interview, but J would not give him any at all.
They have stirred up the minds of the people against this testing
time, and I am going to let the people know about these things.
God is testing these men, and they are showing how they
are standing the test, and how they stand with regard to the
Testimonies. They have shown by their actions how much
confidence they have in the Testimonies. I was told to warn our
people. They are to give no attention to it all, as there is nothing
in it that amounts to a single thing they must have something
81
Brian Neumann
that no one else has You see there is nothing to it, and the light
that was given me was that 1 was forbidden of the Lord to
listen to it.
I have expressed myself as not having a particle of
confidence in it. I saw how that they had a paper in their
hands, and they wanted to get a hearing on this question at
Loma Linda; but I saw I had nothing to do with it, and there
was nothing to be done about it.
I saw why it was that Daniells was rushing this thing
through from place to place; for he knew that I would work
against it. That is why I know they did not stand the testing. I
knew they would not receive it This whole thing they are doing
is a scheme of the devil. He [Daniells] has been president too
long, and should not be there any longer.
There is irreconcilable tension between the positions taken
by Ellen White in the two purported interviews conducted
with her by daily antagonists. Was this tension real? or was
it an illusion created by the biased filters through which Ellen
Whites words were received? Did either Daniells or Gilbert,
or both, concoct or deliberately distort interviews with her to
obtain the advantage? Or did Ellen White put on a different
face for two real interviews?
The simple, rigid morality of men like Gilbert and
Washburn precludes the possibility of a manufactured or
consciously distorted interview. Even Willie White or
Daniells, who were much more sophisticated and flexible in
their fighting of church political battles, are unlikely to have
gone that far.
While it is reasonable to argue that both Daniells and
Gilbert were extremely biased on the daily question, it must
be understood that Gilbert and his friends took Ellen Whites
words much more at face value than did Daniells and his
associates. And it would seem to follow, therefore, that Gilbert
and Washburn would be more concerned with preserving her
words just as they were spoken than with trying to correct what
Daniells called, her imperfect statements. It is also interesting
to note how some of Mrs. Whites statements (italicized) in
82
the Gilbert interview appear to preclude the interview that

Daniells claims to have had with her regarding the daily.
But in defense of Daniells and Willie White, it is possible,
perhaps even likely, that Ellen White said what she is alleged
to have said in both interviews. The tension between her
statements may well have been an accurate reflection of her
confusion and/or the degree to which she could be persuaded by
the new view advocates.
By the time that Gilberts interview document was
circulated by Washburn (mid 1940s), the new view had long
since triumphed. Nevertheless, Arthur White, by that time
secretary of the Ellen G. White Estate, felt the need to respond.
His concern, however, was to vindicate Daniells, not the new
view of the daily. In his monograph of November 17,1948,
Arthur White attempted to soften the impact of Gilberts June 8,
1910 interview with Ellen White. White said that there was
no copy of the interview among the Ellen G. White writings,
nor was there any reference to such an interview.
This is not surprising, since Ellen White did not write
it, and Willie evidently was not there when the interview
was conducted. It is noteworthy that Arthur does not attempt
to deny that the interview took place. His defense consists
in maintaining that Daniells standing in Ellen Whites
eyes improved markedly after June 8,1910 (as a result of
his subsequent humble obedience), and that Washburn had
exploited a dying man and had acted dishonorably in giving
the interview a limited circulation.
Another indication that Mrs. White favored the old view
can be seen in her quickness to criticize Prescott and Daniells
while being reluctant and slow to censure the old view
advocates. The old view advocates were much more sensitive
to her pleasure than were the new view advocates, who did
not wish to let the prophetess or her writings settle the question.
The old view advocates took their cues from Ellen White, and
one unequivocal word from her would have shut their mouths.
Stephen Haskell obviously did not get any discouragement
83
Brian Neumann
from her during her one week stay at his house. In his letter to
C.C. Crisler of March 30, 1908, he made his conditions clear:
If Sister White says that she does not mean what she said
when she said what she did on the daily, then I will say no
more.
Her July 31, 1910, declaration that ended the controversy
was no bipartisan appeal for a ceasefire from both sides. Ellen
White was finally addressing the old view advocates, her shock
troops who had with her help hounded Prescott and Daniells
into exile. After all, it was not the new view advocates who
had to be restrained from using Early Writings as their leading
argument. It was a signal to Prescott and Daniells that they
could come down from their respective trees now that their
opposition had been forbidden to use her writings in fighting
against their interpretation.
Ellen Whites insistence on calling the daily issue an
unimportant, trivial distraction indicates that she sided
with the old view. New view advocates could hardly
be consistent in calling the issue trivial, since on their
interpretation the daily became Christs righteousness, the
heavenly sanctuary, or the gospel. Could any Christian call
that trivial or unimportant? It was the old view advocates
who were embarrassed that they were forced into defending
paganism. Stephen Haskell, for instance, admitted to Willie
White (Haskell to White, 6 December 1909) that the daily
itself did not amount to a hill of beans; but he felt compelled to
defend it because the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy was
at stake. When Washburn was interviewed on June 4, 1950,
by R.I Weiland and D.K. Short, he was still complaining
that the new view of the daily made it a main spoke of the
wheelthe ministry of Christ; whereas in the old view, it
was a nonessential point.
Ellen White seemed to share the old view advocates
embarrassment over having to debate the subject. In the same
interview, Washburn recalled that F.C. Gilbert had told
him of Ellen Whites comment to him: I could have stopped
this daily controversy, but they got hold of Willie, and that
84
made it more difficult. By contrast, Ellen White showed no

reluctance or embarrassment when she defended the sanctuary
doctrine in 1905 against A.F. Ballenger. True, she thought
it an essential point, but there is good reason to believe that
she would have elevated the importance of the daily if she
had been converted to the new view. She also said that Jones
and Waggoner were agitating a trivial issue until she became a
convert to their view in 1888 (EGW to Jones and Waggoner,
18 February 1887). Then she decided it was a vital issue and
helped them to agitate it.
The Pretext of Context: The Attempt to Reconcile the New

View with Early Writings
When the new view triumphed. Seventh-day Adventist

historians were left with the task of vindicating the new
view advocates without discrediting the Spirit of Prophecy in
general and Early Writings (pp. 74, 75) in particular. Their
general solution has been to classify the old view advocates
as generalizers Of the Spirit of Prophecy and the new view
advocates as contextualizers.
Church spokesmen such as Daniells, Prescott, Willie White,
and now Arthur White, continually stress that the statement
in Early Writings pertaining to the daily was given in the
context of time setting. Since time setting was the burden of
her message from the Lord, they argue, the identification of the
daily is irrelevant and should be ignored or discarded. Few
have attempted to dispute the meaning of the reference to the
daily; they just insist that it should not be taken seriously,
since the Lord was more concerned about time setting. By
keeping the subject of the daily separate from the subject of
time setting, historians have been able to accuse old view
advocates of ignoring context. The implication that Ellen
White wrote inspired irrelevancies has evidently bothered only
old view advocates.
Despite what historians such as Haloviak assert, however,
men like Daniells were less interested in the context of the
Early Writings statement than they were in a pretext for
85
Brian Neumann
reinterpreting it in a manner that might seem plausible to the

objective scholar:
I want to tell you plainly that it is my deep conviction that
those who hold the new view and who interpret the writings of
the Spirit of Prophecy in harmony with that view, as Brother
Prescott has done in his tract, are the truest friends of the gift
of prophecy in our ranks. I believe that those who interpret
that passage in Early Writings as supporting the old view
are doing your mother a great wrong. They are -arraying her
against the plain text of the Scripture, and all reliable history
of the world.
As I look at it, your mother and her writings need to be
protected from such short-sighted expositors. Every time I
review this study I am profoundly thankful that the passage
in Early Writings is so susceptible of interpretation which is
in harmony with both Scripture and history (A.G. Daniells to
W.C. White, February 22,1910)
Daniells openly rejoiced that Early Writings was so
susceptible of interpretation that he could manipulate it to
fit the known facts. This attitude aptly describes those who in
defending Ellen G. White are generally given credit for being
sensitive to context. J.S. Washburns undying enmity toward
the new view is often explained away as his inability to
appreciate context. Yet in 1910 Willie White, another great
contextualizer, tried unsuccessfully to talk Washburn into
accepting a generalized application for a testimony:
Near the bottom of page 3, you express the opinion
that the quotations which have been selected from Mothers
writings in regard to our studying the Bible and receiving
advanced lightwere written in reference to the doctrine of
righteousness by faith and have no bearing whatever on the
subject of the Daily.
It is a great surprise to me. Brother Washburn, that you
find it possible to hold an opinion [such] as that. I can not
agree with you at all,that what Mother has written
on this subject of Bible study and the study of Daniel and
the Revelation.. .can be narrowed down in their application
86
to this one doctrine of righteousness by faith and to this one

controversy regarding freedom to study the scriptures that was
being conducted by our brethren in 1887 to 1890.
With this I will send you another copy of a collection of
extracts made upon these subjects, and will beg of you to read
the MS. again, and see for yourself that it has no such narrow,
restricted application as you have mentioned. (W.C. White to
JS. Washburn, 27 October 1910 DF SOD.4)
Just five years earlier A.F. Ballenger had discovered that
these same testimonies did not apply to a study of the heavenly
sanctuary. Ellen White had told him in no uncertain terms
that he had no right to restudy the issue because he was not
a pioneer; and Willie White, Daniells, and Prescott had
applauded:
We are not to receive the words of those who come with a
message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They
gather a mass of scripture and pile it as proof around their
asserted theories And while the scriptures are Gods word,
if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that
God has sustained these fifty years, [it] is a great mistake.
(letter 329, 1905)
The irony is that for the most part, the old view advocates
were more concerned about context than were the new view
advocates. The old school was willing to take the Spirit of
Prophecy just as it had originally been intended, without any
concern for the possibility that this might be embarrassing
for Ellen White in the long run. The new school was leery of
such a historical grammatical method lest it lead to logically
indefensible positions.
The real difference between the two schools then, was
that the former let the Spirit of Prophecy define reality for
them. They took the testimonies in the way in which they
were originally intended, and simply molded reality around
them. The latter let reality define the meaning of the Spirit of
Prophecy. They took an externally defined reality and molded
their interpretation of a testimony around it. Others such as
A.T. Jones and J.H. Kellogg noticed the tension between
87
Brian Neumann
the testimonies and reality, and rejected the former as the

only intellectually honest solution. Of the three solutions, the
new view advocates were the least committed to a historical,
grammatical interpretation. To them, context meant simply
the least embarrassing interpretation.
Time Setting and the Daily
Despite what the new view devotees claimed, the theme

of time setting and the identification of the daily were
actually the same topic. This is inadvertently proven by Arthur
White in his discussion of the circumstances surrounding Ellen
Whites original vision on the subject in 1850. First, he quotes
from Daniells undated interview with her:
As I recall her answer, she began by telling how some of
the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement endeavored
to find new dates for the termination of the 2300-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. (The Later Elmshaven Years, p. 256).
Arthur White then proceeds on the following page to
produce objective evidence to prove that his grandmothers
concerns were well founded:
Since charts figure in this matter, Ellen Whites attitude in
this interview is given strong support as the reckoning of the
Cummings 1854 prophetic chart is studied. In this the Jewish
altar of daily sacrifice in 446 B.C. is used as the starting point
for a new 2300-year time span set to end in 1854. This chart,
published at Concord, New Hampshire, in 1853, was typical
of charts that commenced the 2300 days with what was said to
be the taking away of the daily sacrifice.
It can be seen clearly here that a non-Millerite
interpretation of the daily inevitably led to new date setting.
This is because an admission that the daily is somehow related
to the Jewish services inevitably leads one to conclude that
Daniel 8:14 speaks of the restoration of those same Jewish
services. If this is so, then 457 B.C. is ruled out as a starting
point; because nothing antithetical to Daniel 8:14 occurred on
88
that date. It is only Millers paganism that frees Daniel 8:11

from the clutches of Daniel 8:14.
In order to deny the validity of the 1850 speculation
concerning new terminal dates for the 2300 years, it was
entirely logical then, for Ellen White to attack their non-
Millerite definition of the daily. This was identical to an
attack on their new starting date for the 2300 day prophecy.
If sacrifice did not belong to the real meaning of Daniel
8:11, then obviously, using the Jewish altar of daily sacrifice
as a starting point for the prophecy was inappropriate. Ellen
Whites statement on the daily went to the very heart of the
time setting issue.
Time setting, in the context of 1850, meant rejecting
1844 as the terminus of the 2300-day prophecy. The new view
trivialized the significance of Ellen Whites statement on the
daily by interpreting the issue of time setting existentially
rather than contextually. Thus, its champions were guilty of the
very charge they long sought to bring against their opponents,
the Adventist pioneers.
The implications of this appear to be quite devastating to
the new view supporters, at least in terms of their professed
respect for the context of Ellen Whites daily statement in
Early Writings. Since virtually all church leaders support the
new view, the implications are quite far reaching. If the new
view advocates were sincere in their claim to support Ellen
Whites time setting concerns in Early Writings, they must
accept her identification of the daily as the very fulcrum of
that message. A failure to do this would demonstrate that their
concern for her time-setting theme is a pretext.
The Daily and the Omega of Apostasy

Despite Ellen Whites appeal to cease debate on the subject
in 1910, the potentially deadly wound was not healed but
continued to fester. What had changed was that now the old
view advocates found themselves in exile, while the new
view advocates returned to power Denied permission to use
89
Brian Neumann
Early Writings, the old view supporters were helpless against

the new view which practiced and prospered.
The new view of the daily began to take on an even more
ominous significance to the old guard in the years following
1910. To them, the 1919 Bible Conference, in which problems
with the
Spirit of Prophecy were openly acknowledged, was a
logical outcome of Daniells, Prescotts, and Willie Whites new
stance on the daily For the old guard, the daily represented
the institutional churchs first open defiance of Ellen White and
the first questioning of the Adventist landmarks. It had to be
the dreaded omega of apostasy that was spoken of by Ellen
White:
the Spirit of Prophecy speaks of the Kellogg controversy
as the Alpha and states that there was to be an Omega. On the
same page she says: But we must firmly refuse to be drawn
away from the platform of eternal truth, which since 1844
has stood the test. This deadly heresy will change the original
truth and it is a startling fact that the new Daily doctrine
moves nearly all our prophetic dates, and opens the way
for other theories that draw men forever away from all the
message of 1844.
We are face to face with the most subtle apostasy of
the ages. The cruel serpent coils with strangling folds about
our greatest training school and sinks his deadly fangs into
the very souls of our children. If this is not the beginning of
the startling Omega, and we are not thrilled, aroused and
startled, we must indeed be dead, in doubt, in darkness and
infidelity. ( J.S. Washburn to Claude Holmes; an open letter
entitled The Startling Omega and Its True Geneology, pp.
15,16,18 April 1920).
For the circulation of this tract, Daniells, who was
still General Conference president in 1921, tried to remove
Washburns ministerial credentials. In 1922 Washburn struck
back by circulating an open letter at the General Conference
session in which he recounted Daniells responsibility for the
new view, the 1919 Bible Conference, as well as his attempts
90
to remove Washburns credentials. Washburn demanded a

hearing before the General Conference Committee. (An Open
Letter to Elder A.G. Daniells, and an Appeal to the General
Conference).
Daniells subsequently was voted out of office (after two
decades at that post); but his replacement, W.A. Spicer, was also
a new view advocate. By 1923 Washburn was considering
the possibility that the new view advocates had committed
the unpardonable sin:
The daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, Daniel
8:12, is literally in the Hebrew, the daily in transgression, see
any Hebrew lexicon. This could be no other than Satan, devil
worship, paganism, etc. This was the position of the pioneers
of this message, the founders of this denomination, and the
Spirit of Prophecy affirms that they had the correct view of
the daily.But according to the new view of the daily,
this daily in transgression, devil worship, has become the
continual mediation of Jesus Christ. In other words Satan
is Christ!! Surely the most astonishing transformation of all
the ages. If I ascribe the work of Satan to Christ or the work of
Christ to Satan is there no danger that I may thus sin against
the Holy Ghost? ( J.S. Washburn to Meade MacGuire, M.V.
Department associate secretary, p. 12, 18 February 1923)
Although the last point may have been somewhat tongue-
in-cheek (being an old view advocate, he believed it to be a
nonessential point), it does serve to illustrate how irreconcilable
and inherently antagonistic were the two parties in the daily
struggle.
The Resurrection of Antiochus Epiphanes in the Eighties
The churchs abandonment of its alliance with paganism

paved the way for the triumphant return of Antiochus
Epiphanes (or his analogue) in the 1980s. When William
Miller denied that the daily made any reference to the Jewish
services, he drove the stake of paganism through the heart of
Antiochus Epiphanes claim to prophetic relevancy. If the
91
Brian Neumann
daily did not refer to Jewish sacrifices or anything analogous

to it, then any desecrater of such was not referred to either.
When the new view advocates convinced the church to
abandon Millers paganism in favor of Christs righteousness,
the gospel, or the sanctuary doctrine, they inadvertently
reverted back to pre- Millerite interpretations. The daily was
cleansed or restored to its original condition as representing
something good rather than something evil. But this daily was
then desecrated and trampled upon. Who was this prophetic
villain? Lo and behold verse 14 now spoke of a restoration of
a sanctuary! Could it be the one that was just desecrated a few
verses ago?! Was it possible that verse 14 had a context rather
than being an existential misnomer, as William Miller seemed
to believe? The pagan stake that had driven verse 14 from its
context had been taken away.
The joy of the church over the restoration of context to its
interpretation of Daniel 8 was relatively short-lived. As church
scholars pondered the meaning of those verses in the light of the
new view, not a few found themselves horrified to discover
that the landmarks of their faith were no longer defensible.
If the gospel, or Christs work in the heavenly sanctuary,
was a valid interpretation of the daily, what was the
original or first application of it? Did not the same principles
that Willie White used to interpret his mothers writings apply
to the Bible? That is, should not the context of the 2300-day
prophecy be studied also? Was it then valid to maintain that
the 2300-day prophecy had no original context, but was spoken
directly to Seventh-day Adventists twenty-three centuries
into the future? If not, how could Antiochus Epiphanes be
ruled out as a candidate for an earlier fulfillment? Antiochus
Epiphanes, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. The
real problem for Seventh-day Adventist theology was that
it was now forced to fight the battle for Daniel 8 on a pre-
Millerite battlefield. By rejecting Millers daily, the church
had accepted the framework within which all pre-Millerite
debates on the daily had been conducted. This framework
included the assumption that the daily refers to the Jewish
92
temple sacrifices. This framework sees Daniel 8:11 and Daniel

8:14 in a thesis-antithesis relationship. In such a framework,
457 B.C. is a total non sequitur because it does not stand in a
thesis-antithesis relationship with 1844. How can a command
to rebuild Jerusalem be the antithesis of the cleansing or
restoration of Gods sanctuary?
This monstrous absurdity in the very pillar of Adventist
theology eventually led to serious hemorrhaging in the 1980s.
Theologians could no longer keep their cognitive dissonance
secret from their employers. Desmond Ford and Ray
Cottrell went public with their discontent but were careful
to blunt the impact of the problem by offering solutions such
as the apotelesmatic principle and context by divine fiat,
respectively. Others were more relentless in their logic. Robert
Brinsmead rejected 1844 as having any prophetic significance
whatsoever.
By the time that 1844 was openly questioned and rejected
by many Adventists in the 1980s, however, it appears that
they were only carrying the new view of 1910 to its logical
end. Robert Wieland, one of the few surviving old view
advocates, sees a clear relationship between the two events:
Many have not pursued Conradis view to its logical end.
But some of our astute scholars have, and it has proved a short
circuit that makes Antiochus Epiphanes of 168 B.C. To be the
necessary primary fulfillment of the Dan. 8 prophecy. In
their scheme, there is no room for an 1844 application except
by a contrived secondary or apotelesmatic fulfillment. This
is seen as a face-saving accommodation openly ridiculed by
non-Adventist theologians and now by some of our own, built
on Ellen White. (Have We Followed Cunningly Devised
Fables?, an undated outline of a proposed thought paper).
The history of the daily in the Seventh-day Adventist
church seems to verify Washburns and Wielands conviction
that the taking away of Adventisms pagan platform seriously
compromised, if it did not destroy, the entire 1844 foundation.
A logical analysis of the implications of Millers paganism
would certainly seem to lead one to endorse the verdict of
93
Brian Neumann
history. It would appear that when the church abandoned

paganism in 1910, it also unwittingly abandoned 1844,
without which Adventism may have no reason to exist. Have
not our Adventists progenitors, by their forced mating of the
new view of the daily with 1844, set up the abomination of
amalgamation in the sanctuary? 9
After reading Hokamas article one can only shake ones

head in total disbelief. It is manifestly unavoidable to conclude
that Adventism and their prophet Ellen White have ended up
shooting themselves in the proverbial foot. Truly, when Miller
came to his novel conclusion that the daily was paganism, he, as
Hokama put it: opened up new possibilities for the treatment of
the 2300 days in Daniel 8:14.10 Little did he know that a group
of Advent survivalists and their prophetess, who were desperately
trying to salvage the remnants of his botched prediction, would
end up creating a labyrinth of contradictions from which their
posterity has not yet escaped.
In an attempt to be true to what they felt were the most
essential aspects of Millers teachings (with inspired confirmation
from their prophetic icon) they inadvertently, by ignoring
what for centuries spiritual men of learning had so studiously
and carefully concluded, set themselves up for the inevitable
confrontation they would have to face when Bible scholars from
their own ranks would start realizing that the position they had
originally held, in spite of Ellen Whites inspired insight, was
scripturally untenable. Of course, when it came to the crunch
and Ellen White was forced into a position where she would
have to take sides on the issue, she conveniently testified that
God had shown her that she was to say nothing either way.
However, she also resorted to one of her other tactics, the same
one she used regarding the disappointment of 1844that God
was testing the brethren. Yet, the evidence of her statements
regarding this issue, even in her absence, come back to haunt her
and will continue to do so as more and more pieces of the puzzle
are found and put together.
94
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that in order to make sense

of Ellen Whites words, regarding not only the sanctuary but a
host of other things, one can never just take what she says as it
stands. It is never as simple as reading a plain straight forward
statement and then drawing the right conclusion.
Sometimes for example, when conducting a study of Scripture,
one would read the original Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic and a
selection of ancient manuscripts, to more accurately interpret
what the text might be saying. Yet, in spite of this, it is amazing
how inherently coherent, consistent, complimentary and simple
the Bible actually isnotwithstanding that it was written by
numerous authors over a period of 1600 years.
By contrast, you have a collection of writings by one author,
Ellen White, written over the period of a few decades in one
language, requiring more exegetical expertise than the entire
canon of Scripture (in a comparative sense), to harmonize
what appear to be simple teachings or statements written in
plain English.
The amount of paper that has been used to publish explanations
and defenses of Ellen Whites writings, by various apologists
since her day, consist of more positioning and posturing than the
amount of pages it takes to contain the whole of Scripture.
One is often left wondering if you can ever read anything by
Ellen White and simply take it as a simple statement of fact
as it readswithout someone coming out of the proverbial
Adventist woodwork to tell you that what you have extrapolated
is not really what she meant or that there are other statements
you need to read to find balance and context. As if, by doing this,
you will suddenly find symmetry and harmony that fits exactly
with what the simple words of Scripture teach.
While Ellen White was still alive the brethren relied on her to
clarify the contradictory statements that would surface from time
to timewhat did she really mean when she said this or wrote
that? When she died, the responsibility for maintaining textual
integrity fell on the shoulders of Willie White, then Arthur
95
Brian Neumann
White, and finally SDA Bible scholars and church historians

the so called experts.
Everybody who was anybody, within the inner-body, with
any real comprehension of the implications for the whole
body, understood that if it were ever proven that Ellen White
was making it up as she went along, so to speak, it would be a
done-deal for the one true remnant body of Christ. If THAT
genie were ever to escape the bottle, the house of cards, the
little straw-men, holding up the domino-pillars of SDA beliefs,
confirmed and substantiated by the prophetic voice of Ellen G.
White, would come crashing to the ground. And the one primary
pillar, holding it all together, providing existential meaning to
the churchs mission and purpose, was/is the pillar of the SDA
sanctuary doctrine (see: Pastoral Ministry, p. 29, 1995; Spirit of
Prophecy Vol. 4, p.258; The Upward Look, p. 152; Letter 126, 1897,
p. 4; Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 53; Letter 395, 1906, p. 4;
Letter 208, 1906 / Evangelism, p. 224; Manuscript 760 4.4).
In order to get around the complex semantics and continual
posturing required to explain every instance where Ellen White
is either contradicting herself or Scripture, defenders and
advocates of her cause have come up with what they view as a
simple approach to understanding her writingsa kind of make
it fit plan that, till now, has in some way shape or form done the
trick. For example, in regard to Christs ministry in the Heavenly
Sanctuary and His work within the veil, as spoken of by Paul in
Hebrews, SDA writer, Erwin R. Gane, offers this solution:
Ellen White does not claim that every time she quotes a Bible
verse, or a part thereof, she intends to provide a strict contextual
application of the passage. But she does claim that the teaching
of her writings is thoroughly consistent with that of Scripture.
What attitude do we adopt, then, if we discover that OUR
interpretation of a Scripture passage contradicts Ellen Whites?
One option is to realize that even though our
interpretation of a passage may be correct, Ellen Whites
96
different interpretation may also be correct. Some passages of

Scripture are subject to more than a single application. A classic
example is Hebrews 6:19, 20: This hope we have as an anchor
of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters
within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us,
having become a high priest forever according to the order of
Melchizedek (N. A. S. B.).
The phrase within the veil is the key element. Does it
refer to the veil that separated the court from the holy place, or
the second veil (Heb 9:3), which hung between the holy place
and Most Holy Place of the sanctuary? The question, as usually
asked, seeks to determine whether Christ began His holy place,
or His Most Holy Place, ministry after His ascension in A.D.
31. Some have felt this passage destroys the understanding
Seventh-day Adventists have had regarding the ministry of
Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary and the concept of a special
work of judgment beginning in 1844 11
In the complete article Gane tries to show how apparently

contradictory statements (where Ellen White might appear
to disagree with Scripture or even herself ) are reconciled by
approaching it in the way suggested in the above quote. Gane goes
on to point out, correctly, that: There is no passage of Scripture
that locates a throne in the holy place. Therefore, Christ surely
went into the Most Holy Apartment of the heavenly sanctuary
at His ascension in a.d. 31 and was still occupying that position
years later when the book of Hebrews was written. 12
In order to draw this conclusion Gane has to employ
considerable interpretive acrobatics that even contradict
interpretations by other SDA scholars, statements by Ellen
White and the Historical record of how the sanctuary teaching
evolved and was understood post 1844. Not to mention how
Bible scholars throughout time, on the basis of an accumulation
of scriptural evidence, have understood Pauls words in the book
of Hebrews. One example (quoted earlier in this chapter) that is
ignored by Gane and flies in the face of his representation, comes
97
Brian Neumann
from the very words of Hiram Edson, the one who first saw, in a
vision given by God, what REALLY happened on October 22nd,
1844:
I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest
coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come
to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end
of the 2300 days, He for the first time entered on that day the
second apartment of that sanctuary [the most holy]; and
that He had a work to perform in the Most Holy Place before
coming to the earth. 13
Now, either Hirams divine revelation, stated in emphatic

terms and in simple English, was not accurate or requires the type
of interpretive approach described by Gane, or was incorrectly
seen or stated by Hiram himself, the prime witness. That being
the case, one cannot be sure that what he saw was what he
distinctly and clearly claimed he saw and that only later was
seen more clearly and distinctly by Ellen White and then, as time
went by, was even MORE clearly and distinctly extrapolated and
explained by interpreters, such as Gane and a host of others.
In the same article Gane interprets another scene (quoted and
discussed in an earlier chapter of this book) that Ellen White saw
while in vision. The significance of Ganes evaluation is not so
much in his observations regarding the symbolism of the vision
but rather the whole premise upon which the vision itself is
based. Certain assumptions regarding the status of the Christian
church and its relationship to Christs ministry in the sanctuary,
in the general sense, have to be made and conditions postulated
that have absolutely no basis in fact or realitywhether it was
revealed in a symbolic sense or notfor Ellen White to even
have come up with the ideas she did.
In the vision, Ellen White apparently sees Christ move, in
1844, from the holy to the most holy apartment of the heavenly
sanctuary. There are two groups, those who remain focused on
Christ as he transitions to the most holy and those who do not
98
follow Him and still remain focused on the holy place. Regarding
this second group, Ellen White has the following to say:
I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before
the throne [in the holy]; they did not know that Jesus had
left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry
on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and
pray, Father, give us Thy Spirit. Satan would then breathe
upon them an unholy influence; in it there was light and
much power, but no sweet love, joy, and peace. Satans object
was to keep them deceived and to draw back and deceive Gods
children. 14
This is how Gane explains the vision:

Satan, of course, is not physically in heaven, even though
in the vision he was depicted as being there, Ellen White
later explained (ibid., pp. 92, 93). In this same place Ellen
White identifies the kind of vision given her with the highly
symbolic, apocalyptic visions given to John the revelator.
Obviously, she did not intend us to conclude (1) that the
Father and the Son occupied the holy place, but not the
Most Holy Place, until 1844, (2) that there is a throne in
the heavenly holy place, (3) that a veil separates the two
heavenly apartments, (4) that Satan is in the heavenly holy
place receiving the homage of his earthly subjects.
On the other hand, we are apparently to conclude (1)
that before 1844 some people accepted and others rejected
the truth that God sent them, and that after the change of
ministry in 1844 those who had rejected the light were left
in darkness; (2) that both Father and Son were involved in
the change of heavenly ministry in 1844 (cf. Daniel 7:9-14);
(3) that Christ is receiving His kingdom in the Most Holy
Place ministry after 1844; (4) that believers who by faith
appeal to Jesus in the Most Holy Place are given the Holy
Spirit with much light, power, sweet love, joy, and peace; (5)
that those who reject the truth of the change of ministry in
1844 and do not believe that Jesus is now ministering for
them in the Most Holy Place are deceived by Satan. 15
99
Brian Neumann
Certain aspects of this vision were discussed in earlier chapters

that addressed the shut door teaching. In this case however I want
to address something that gets to the very core of the problem,
not only in Ganes explanations but by the fictitious proposition
of the vision itself that has no basis in fact, whether earthly or
heavenly. I will first deal with Ganes intellection.
Even though, as Gane suggests, Ellen White may well
identify her symbolic apparitions with those of John the revelator
does not automatically authenticate her as a true prophet. Gane,
reading into the intention of Ellen White, also concludes that it
is obvious the Father and the Son occupied the holy place, but
not the Most Holy Place, until 1844. The symbolic nature of
this aspect of the vision is assumed by Gane. It has to be assumed,
because there is no scriptural evidence to support it and because
Ellen White does not, anywhere, emphatically state this as her
own opinion.
According to Gane, the existence of a throne in the first
apartment of the heavenly sanctuary (the holy place) and a
literal veil that separates these two heavenly apartments are also
symbolic. Of course Gane, in reality, is assuming that Ellen White,
the prime witness, did not believe in a literal throne or veil in the
heavenly sanctuaryhe is interpreting her interpretation.
Even if her visions are to be identified with the visions of
John in the book of Revelation, it needs to be remembered that
in Revelation not every portrayal seen by John was symbolic in
every sense. There were certain of the views he received that were
a depiction of real heavenly things.
The Bible DOES teach that there is a throne in the most holy
place of the heavenly sanctuarythis is not debatable. It does not
teach such regarding the first apartment (the holy). Thus, because
Ellen White places a throne in both apartments, Gane, in order to
be as true as possible to what Scripture reveals, has to ASSUME
that in her vision the throne in the first apartment is symbolic
and the throne in the second (most holy) is not. Gane, in a sense,
100
puts the Bible and Ellen Whites visions side by side, compares
both, and then the parts of Ellen Whites visions that cannot
be clearly substantiated by Scripture are symbolized, while the
other aspects are seen in a more literal sense. Two thrones are
depicted (holy/most holy), one throne is symbolic while the other
is literaltwo identical articles, seen in the same vision, one
symbolic the other literal. Whether Whites vision was genuine
or not, there are still certain glaring contradictions and a lack of
consistency that comes to light in Ganes explanation.
If one is going to approach the symbols of prophetic vision in
such a manner, why not interpret the days in time prophecy as
sometimes meaning literal days and at other times years? Why
not approach beasts, crowns or horns, etc., in the same way?
One of the first points that Gane makes, in respect to what
we SHOULD conclude regarding Ellen Whites vision is that
before 1844 some people accepted and others rejected the truth
that God sent them, and that after the change of ministry in
1844 those who had rejected the light were left in darkness.
It is glaringly obvious and was somewhat addressed earlier in
this chapter that prior to October 22nd, 1844, those who rejected
the truth, were not rejecting Christs transition to the most holy.
This was NOT presented as a belief-option prior to 1844. How
could ANYONE know (providing the teaching itself is even
true) that they were rejecting somethingthey never even heard
of till after the fact. The only so-called light rejected was either
Millers interpretation of the 2300 day time-frame, the teaching
that Christ was to come in 1844, or both. Ellen Whites statement
and thus Ganes interpretation of it, are based on a blatant, factless
accusation that people rejected something they had absolutely
NO knowledge of and were thus, after the supposed event took
place, left in darkness.
The real evidence though, that will clearly expose the problem
in Ellen Whites account of her vision and Ganes interpretation of
it, is the fictitious proposition of the vision itself, that has no basis
101
Brian Neumann
in reality, whether earthly or heavenly. Once this is established

Ganes interpretation, by simple default, becomes redundanta
fictitious account based on a figment of Hiram Edson and Ellen
Whites imaginations that have no substance in the evidence of
Scripture or historical record.
A series of questions that never seem to be asked, that actually
hold the key to either confirming or totally nullifying the whole
sanctuary doctrine as expounded by Ellen White are: what did
Christians prior to 1844 believe regarding Christs work and location
in the heavenly sanctuary? Where did people believe Christ was
ministering after His ascension? Where does most of the Christian
world believe He is ministering at presentthe holy or the most holy?
Ellen White implies that Christians were focused on the
holy place (first apartment) prior to 1844. Then, when Christ
transitioned on October 22nd, they (at least the majority) did not
in faith follow Him to the most holy but kept their focus on the
first apartment. Her description, whether symbolic or literal, was
quite graphic and cannot be misunderstood:
I turned to look at the company who were still bowed before the
throne [in the holy]; they did not know that Jesus had left it.
Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying to carry on the work
of God. I saw them look up to the throne, and pray, Father,
give us Thy Spirit. Satan would then breathe upon them an
unholy influence16
On the same subject, in the book The Great Controversy, Ellen

White writes about the Millerites (the ones who in faith followed
Christ) after October 22nd, 1844. She expounded, in regard to their
understanding of a door that was shut in the heavenly sanctuary
(between the holy and the most holy), as Christ transitioned:
But clearer light came with the investigation of the sanctuary
question. They now saw that they were correct in believing
that the end of the 2300 days in 1844 marked an important
crisis. But while it was true that the door of hope and mercy
102
by which men had for eighteen hundred years [the time from
Christs ascension to 1844] found access to God, was closed,
another door was opened, and forgiveness of sins was offered to
men through the intercession of Christ in the most holy
It is those who by faith follow Jesus in the great work of
the atonement, who receive the benefits of His mediation in
their behalf; while those who reject the light which brings to
view this work of ministration, are not benefitted thereby. 17
She then draws a parallel between the Jews who rejected

Christ at His first advent and the rejecters of the sanctuary
message after 1844:
The Jews who rejected the light given at Christs first advent,
and refused to believe on Him as the Saviour of the world,
could not receive pardon through Him. When Jesus at His
ascension entered by His own blood into the heavenly sanctuary
to shed upon His disciples the blessings of His mediation, the Jews
were left in total darkness, to continue their useless sacrifices
and offeringsThe door by which men had formerly found
access to God, was no longer open. The Jews had refused to seek
Him in the only way whereby He could be found, through
the ministration in the sanctuary in heaven. Therefore they
found no communion with God. To them the door was shut
hence they could not receive the benefits of His mediation.
The condition of the unbelieving Jews illustrates the
condition of the careless and unbelieving among professed
Christians, who are willingly ignorant of the work of our
merciful High Priest. 18
The implications of these statements are as clear as day. Not

only were the rejecters of the post Millerite Advent sanctuary
teaching left in darkness and lost but those who hear it and reject
it, like the Jews of old, cannot receive pardon through Him
[Christ]. They are left in total darkness. In the case of the Jews,
they were left to continue their useless sacrifices and offerings.
In the case of Christians who do not follow Christ into the most
103
Brian Neumann
holy as He continues His work of mediation there, the results are

the same. For them the door is also shut and they continue to
practice their religion, a religion that by all implication is useless
and empty.
Everything about what Ellen White is saying is built on a
straw-man teaching that has absolutely NO basis in reality
AT ALL. It is hard to actually find words that express the
point strongly enough. Not only is what she is teaching based
on a fictitious construction of past and present facts but it is
also judgmental and insultingnot only to Christians who are
sincerely worshipping Christ but to Christ Himself.
At least, when it came to the Jews, they were dealing with
real events that were unfolding around them. The Messiah was
in their midst, He performed miracles. They had evidence of
fulfilled prophecies that were contained in their own scriptures
even the time prophecy of Daniel 9. The manifestations at the
time of Christs trial, His resurrection and the miraculous events
witnessed at Pentecost, all were a testimony to Christ being the
Messiah. A rejection, on the basis of such overwhelming, tangible
evidence, could be seen as hardly justifiable. To place the rejecters
of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine in the same boat as the Jews
in Christs day and expect them, in humble acceptance to take
Ellen Whites word for it, is not simply ludicrous but practically
insane. They had absolutely NO evidence that ANYTHING was
happening. The only thing that added any significance to Millers
event (after the fact) was that it was a non-event.
The fact is, based on a simple reading of Scripture, and in
a primary sense the book of Hebrews, Bible scholars since the
earliest Christian era, understood that Christ had gone into the
second apartment (the most holy) after his ascension to mediate
on mans behalf. Recent publications such as the book: Hebrews
(Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture), released in 2005
and edited by Eric M. Heen and Philip D. W. Krey, cast ample
light on early Christology, in particular regard to what is revealed
104
in the book of Hebrews and Christs work as our High Priest.

I would not necessarily consider all the scholars quoted in this
work to be doctrinally sound on all points, however, what is
significant is what is revealed regarding the early churchs general
understanding of Christs priestly work in the heavenly sanctuary.
Excerpts that are included in the volume range in geography
and time from scholars such as Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome
in the late first to early second century. It quotes people from the
eighth and ninth century such as, Isaac of Nineveh, Photius and
John of Damascus. The Alexandrian tradition is also represented
in Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, Didymus, Origen and Cyril
of Alexandria. The Antiochene tradition is represented in Ephrem
the Syrian, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Severian of Gabala, etc. Italy
and North Africa are represented by Ambrose, Cassiodorus and
Augustine, and Constantinople and more.
From the early Christian era, throughout the years of the
Reformation and Protestant era, Bible scholars, primarily on
the basis of Pauls writings in the book of Hebrews, understood
that when Christ went within the veil (Hebrews 6:19; 10:20),
the holy places (10:24), sat down on the right hand of God
(10:12), or entered into the holiest (10:19), etc., He was, in the
antitypical sense, ministering as the earthly high priest did in the
typical sense on the day of atonement in the second apartment/
most holy of the heavenly sanctuary (9:7). This was taught and
believed by prominent Protestant Bible scholars, within one or
two centuries prior to 1844 and was still taught and believed post
1844. What separated them from the post-Millerite Adventist
sanctuary teaching was the question of WHEN Christ entered the
most holy and a number of other Ellen White/SDA teachings/
revelations that came as a consequence of adapting Millers
message to fit the new sanctuary doctrine. Bible commentators
and well known preachers of the gospel such as Matthew Henry,
John Gill and later on, Charles Spurgeon, taught that Christ was
ministering as our mediator and high priest in the most holy of the
105
Brian Neumann
heavenly sanctuary after his ascension. Matthew Henry (1662-

1714) wrote in his well-known six-volume Exposition of the Old
and New Testaments (17081710) and Complete Commentary in
connection with Christs ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
Regarding Hebrews 10:18-20 he writes:
(Hebrews 10:18-20): For there shall be no more remembrance
of sin against true believers, either to shame them now or to
condemn them hereafter. This was much more than the Levitical
priesthood and sacrifices could effect The apostle now proceeds
to apply this great doctrine, so as to influence their affections,
and direct their practice, setting before them the dignities and
duties of the gospel state.
It is fit that believers should know the honours and
privileges that Christ has procured for them, that, while
they take the comfort, they may give him the glory of all. The
privileges are, 1. Boldness to enter into the holiest They may
enter into the gracious presence of God in his holy oracles,
ordinances, providences, and covenant, and so into communion
with God, where they receive communications from him, till
they are prepared to enter into his glorious presence in heaven. 2.
A high priest over the house of God, even this blessed Jesus, who
presides over the church militant, and every member thereof
on earth, and over the church triumphant in heaven. God is
willing to dwell with men on earth, and to have them dwell
with him in heaven; but fallen man cannot dwell with God
without a high priest, who is the Mediator of reconciliation
here and of fruition hereafter. II. The apostle tells us the way
and means by which Christians enjoy such privileges, and, in
general, declares it to be by the blood of Jesus, by the merit of
that blood which he offered up to God as an atoning sacrifice:
he has purchased for all who believe in him free access to
God in the ordinances of his grace here and in the kingdom
of his glory. This blood, being sprinkled on the conscience,
chases away slavish fear, and gives the believer assurance
both of his safety and his welcome into the divine presence.
Now the apostle, having given this general account of the
106
way by which we have access to God, enters further into the

particulars of it, (verse 20): As, 1. It is the only way; there is
no way left but this. The first way to the tree of life is, and
has been, long shut up. 2. It is a new way, both in opposition
to the covenant of works and to the antiquated dispensation
of the Old Testament; it is via novissimathe last way that
will ever be opened to men. Those who will not enter in this
way exclude themselves for ever. It is a way that will always
be effectual. 3. It is a living way It is by a living Saviour,
who, though he was dead, is alive; and it is a way that gives
life and lively hope to those who enter into it. 4. It is a way
that Christ has consecrated for us through the veil, that is,
his flesh. The veil in the tabernacle and temple signified the
body of Christ; when he died, the veil of the temple was rent
in sunder, and this was at the time of the evening sacrifice,
and gave the people a surprising view into the holy of holies,
which they never had before. Our way to heaven is by a
crucified Saviour; his death is to us the way of life. To those
who believe this he will be precious. 19
Not only does Henry see Christ as being in the most holy, he
also speaks of the privilege Christians can enjoy by focusing on
Christs ministry in that apartment of the heavenly sanctuary.
John Gill, another Bible scholar, an English Baptist pastor
(1697-1771), wrote in his magnum opus, Exposition of the Old and
New Testaments:
(Hebrews 10: 19): Having thereforeboldness
to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus:
the place saints have boldness to enter into is heaven, called
the holiest, in reference to the holy of holies, in the tabernacle;
which was a type of it, for the sacredness and invisibility of it,
and for what was in it, went into it, or was brought thither; as
the Shechinah, or divine Majesty, which resided there; the high
priest who went into it once a year; the blood of sacrifices
which was carried into it; the sweet incense; the ark of the
testimony, in which was the law; and the mercy seat; all
107
Brian Neumann
which were typical of Christ, his person, blood, sacrifice,

righteousness, intercession, and the grace and mercy which
come through himChrist has in person entered into it by
his blood, and opened the way for his people; and believers
in him may enter now, and they do, when they exercise
grace on him, who is there, and when they come and present
their prayers and praises to God by him; and they have now
an actual right to enter into the place itself, and will hereafter
enter in person 20
The very things Ellen White accused Christians of NOT

doing, by faith, Gill says, a century before 1844, Christians were
ALREADY doing, or at the very least were encouraged to do, in
reference to Christ and his work in the second apartment of the
heavenly sanctuary. One might say, in a very real sense, Christians
were focused on Christ and His mediatorial work in the most
holy long before Ellen White was accusing Christians of missing
the boat, post 1844. The whole picture of the sanctuary truth,
painted in The Great Controversy and other of her writings, is a
straw-man-construct with no basis in biblical truth or actual fact.
Indeed, even after 1844 Christians have been encouraged to
focus on Christ in the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary.
Famous preacher, Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), preached a
sermon, The Rent Veil, on March 25th, 1888 at the Metropolitan
Tabernacle in Newington. He said:
No human hands could have torn that sacred covering
[the curtain of the earthly sanctuary]; and it could not
have been divided in the midst by any accidental cause; yet,
strange to say, on the instant when the holy person of Jesus
was rent by death, the great veil which concealed the holiest
of all was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. What
did it mean? It meant much more than I can tell you now.
It is not fanciful to regard it as a solemn act of mourning
on the part of the house of the Lord Did not the miracle
also mean that from that hour the whole system of types,
108
and shadows, and ceremonies had come to an end? The

ordinances of an earthly priesthood were rent with that veil
we will consider how we exercise this grace: we enter by
the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath
consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.
think of WHAT HAS BEEN DONE The veil is rent:
access is free. Come boldly to the throne of grace. Jesus has
made thee nigh, as nigh to God as even He Himself is.
Though we speak of the holiest of all, even the secret place
of the Most High, yet it is of this place of awe, even of
this sanctuary of Jehovah, that the veil is rent; therefore,
let nothing hinder thine entrance. Assuredly no law forbids
thee; but infinite love invites thee to draw nigh to God.
This rending of the veil signified, also, the removal of the
separating sin.21
It would appear that Ellen Whites aspersions regarding the

rest of the Christian world were more than likely a reaction,
based on her own narrow, localized personal experience and
hardly a reflection of what the rest of Christianity, outside of
New England and other places across the rest of the United
States actually believed and taught. No wonder, as she and the
rest of the left-over Millerites, who became the SDA Church,
gained knowledge of the reality of the situation, many of the
stronger and more radical positions taken by Ellen White had
to be reassessed. This resulted in deletions, adaptations, and in
the end, necessitated blatant denials that flew in the face of
testimonies given by many first-hand witnesses to Ellen Whites
original positionall of these people of course were either
branded betrayers or outright liars.
Certainly, it has to be remembered that not all denominations
took great pains at extrapolating the sanctuary belief in detail.
Most Christians generally understood what Paul taught in
Hebrews as it read. One of the reasons for a sanctuary doctrine
not being emphasized in such an essential or dramatic sense was
109
Brian Neumann
because the knowledge of what Christ had COMPLETED at the

cross did not necessitate a specific sanctuary teaching becoming
a prime issue of salvation as so emphatically stated by Ellen
White. One might rightfully say that if Pauls clear statements in
Hebrews were on the whole understood as they read, without the
post 1844 exegetical acrobatics employed by the SDA movement,
Christians would still be largely on the same page in regard to
Christs location and work in the heavenly sanctuary.
Other issues inherent in the SDA sanctuary teaching such
as the investigative judgment, commencing with the house
of God (SDAs), only contributed to the fear factor that was
already instilled by the kinds of Ellen White statements quoted
earlier on. At any time, your case could come into review in the
heavenly investigation and if you were not right with God when
that happened then, in a personal sense, your probation would
be closed. One can only imagine how such a teaching, coupled
with the rest of the unadapted, unchanged, undeleted sanctuary
doctrine could, without even having to make some sort of overt
point about it, plunge members into a works based religionget
it right before your case comes up for review
The simplicity of the sanctuary teaching, in light of what
was accomplished on the cross, would be radically altered and
changed in view of the semantical complexities presented by
Ellen Whites teaching. For SDAs, the book of Hebrews would
no longer be understood in pure simple terms, so eloquently
described by men such as Matthew Henry, John Gill or Charles
Spurgeon. And the dreadful reality of all this is that SDAs, the
masses of lay-members and ministers and church leaders who
have simply not had the means or opportunity to see the FULL
picture, are non-the-wiser. They have no idea that 1844 and the
great disappointment that inspired/required (at least for some) a
new sanctuary teaching, was one of the monumental non-events
of all time.
It is true that many lay people and leaders have heard bits
and pieces, have read disturbing criticisms in books or on the
110
internet, but someone always seems to come up with some

reasonable/viable explanationusually not a case is closed
comeback but simply an alternative way of seeing things. And so,
even though lingering suspicion or troubling questions still hang
somewhere in the subconscious, the enquiry is given up for now and
stored somewhere on a high shelfout of sight and out of mind
On the whole, for the purpose of public consumption, a
more superficial version of the teaching is presented in lectures
and any prying, uncomfortable questions are side-stepped with
exclamations of how wonderful this peculiar fundamental belief
isfilled with so much good news and hope, etc However,
when ALL the ramifications of this teaching are understood and
cause and effect are considered, the picture is not such a positive
one at all.
More right-wing, conservative, fundamentalist SDAs, who
have taken the time to study Ellen White and are strong defenders
of her prophetic ministry (especially some of the self-supporting
ministries), practice a legalistic type of faith and see themselves
as being the remnant within the remnant, so to speak, even
within the SDA Faith. They alone, some of them believe, are the
ones who remain true to the light (Spirit of Prophecy) that God
has given.
The sanctuary doctrine, as expounded by Ellen White, in the
setting of her original teachings on the subject, lie at the very root
of their exclusive religious experiencethe pillar upon which
the rest is builtthe Christian churches are Babylon, we are
Gods chosen and we have the TRUTH as no one else has had
it before
Yet the simplicity of Hebrews, if it remained uncluttered
by the Ellen White/SDA version of the sanctuary doctrine, in
recognition that types and shadows were nailed to the cross
two thousand years ago, should leave Christians with a simple,
realistic faith that takes nothing away from the plan of salvation
and Gods call that His people live righteously in Jesus Christ.
111
Brian Neumann
There was a good reason why people, prior to 1844, who were
dedicated to God and the study of His Word did not read strange
interpretations into Pauls teaching on Christs ministry as our
High Priest, Jesus parable of the ten virgins, etc. The same can be
said for those people, such as Spurgeon and others who continued
in that same vein after 1844, ignoring the complications and
diversions that were brought into the subject once Ellen White
and other survivors of the great disappointment decided to find
what they thought was a plausible/biblical alternative to Millers
failed prediction.
So much fulfillment and deep assurance embraces the mind of
the believer when he reads Hebrews 4:15, 16:
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with
the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like
as [we are, yet] without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace
to help in time of need.
The realization that the THRONE of grace is the throne

of the almighty God in the holiest of holy places in the heavenly
sanctuaryHebrews 6:19:
Which [hope] we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and
stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil.
That which could not find completion in types and shadows

became complete in Christ, a High Priest after the order of
MelchisedecHebrews 7:19-22:
For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a
better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And
inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]: (For
those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath
by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent,
Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By
so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
112
Salvation was not partially accomplished for those who embraced

the Saviour and what He did on the crossit was completeHe
did it ONCE and it was DONEHebrews 7:25, 27:
Wherefore he is [as soon as He became High Priestnot
in 1844] able also to save them to the uttermost that come
unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for
them. For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the
heavens; Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer
up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples: for
this he did once, when he offered up himself.
And, because it was DONE He could, as declared by Peter on

the day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2, sit at the right hand of God
on His thronein the holy of holiesHebrews 8:1:
Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We
have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the
throne of the Majesty in the heavens.
It is not coincidental that Paul describes the earthly sanctuary

and its services, in particular the Day of Atonement. He wanted
all Christians to realize that it was ALL now fulfilled in Christ,
that Christ WAS (in Pauls day) already in the holiest place of the
heavenly sanctuary, applying the merits of His own blood, within
the veil, as the priests of the Old Testament did once a year
Hebrews 9:7,11,12:
But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every
year [on the day of atonement], not without blood, which
he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people But
Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by
a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands,
that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats
and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the
holy place, [context of verse 10:19 and the fact that Paul is
making the comparison to the day of atonement makes
113
Brian Neumann
it clear that it is the most holy place Paul is referring to]

having obtained eternal redemption [for us].
Nothing was still left to be accomplished somewhere in the

distant future. Paul was making the point that the ceremonies
connected with the Day of Atonement were, in the antitypical
sense, fulfilled by Christ in His death and then His appearance
before the throne of God in the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary
as the lamb that was slain (Revelation 5:6). Christ HAD, when
he went into the holiest of the heavenly, OBTAINED eternal
redemption for usassurance was complete. He was in heaven,
in the very presence of God the Fatherit was doneHebrews
9:24:
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands,
[which are] the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now
to appear in the presence of God for us.
Sin was, in the beautiful and simplistic expression of Paul:

put away. To the point, emphatic, complete, In the sacrifice of
Christ on the cross of Calvary it was FULLY accomplished
Hebrews 9:26-28:
For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the
world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared
to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto
them that look for him shall he appear the second time without
sin unto salvation.
In the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement a remembrance of

sin was made every year (Hebrews 10:3,4). But in the sacrifice of
Christ and His application of the merits of that amazing act, in
the holy of holies in Heaven, He made it possible for our sins,
when confessed, to be purged and sunk to the bottom of the
oceanHebrews 10:1,2:
114
For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not
the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year continually make the comers
thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be
offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have
had no more conscience of sins.
But in the sacrifice of Christ the possibility of complete

sanctification now became a reality because Paul said that the
first was TAKEN AWAY. Taken away is emphatic and final.
The completion of Christs antitypical act was not to be fully
realized in 1844 and beyond. It was final. Not only for some who
accepted Ellen Whites truth after 1844, but for allonce and
for allHebrews 10:9-22:
Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away
the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we
are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ
once [for all]. And every priest standeth daily ministering and
offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take
away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice
for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From
henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For
by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified. [Whereof ] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:
for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I
will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will
put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write
them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for
sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which
he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his
flesh; And [having] an high priest over the house of God; Let
us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith,
having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our
bodies washed with pure water.
115
Brian Neumann
Truly, so simply and so amazingly, the genuine sanctuary

truth, through the simple reading of the Word of God is revealed.
Yet, for many, the nagging question remains: What about
the prophetic 2300 days? Can we know what they mean? Can
a viable explanation be given for the disappointment of 1844,
for Millers error and what followedGods messenger Ellen
White and the establishment of a Church that proclaims itself as
the only true remnant body of Christ?
No one can dogmatically claim to have the absolute and final
answer to these questions. However an alternative understanding
of Daniel 8:14, in connection with Daniel 9, rooted in the beautiful
truths of Hebrews, that find satisfaction and closure in what was
accomplished by Christ on the cross, may well contribute to
solving the dilemma.
2300 DAY MODEL

There is little doubt that a comprehensive presentation of an
alternative to the SDA model on the 2300 day prophecy, would
occupy one complete volume, at the very least. It is not my purpose,
or even the function of a book of this nature, to extrapolate and
explain an alternative hypothesis to such a degree. Added to this,
I have come to learn that when it comes to interpreting Bible
prophecy, especially when it comes to the prophetic time-frames,
it is almost impossible to pin-point an exact moment in time
(future) or history (past) that will be agreed upon by every Bible
scholar or historian. The further one goes back in time, the more
daunting the task of nailing down any exact dates. Thus, even
the dates that are featured in the Miller/SDA model are subject
to discrepancy and every honest SDA historian or Bible scholar
will admit to this fact. This evidence alone tells one that it was
foolhardy for Miller to get to the point where he felt he could,
with such extreme exactness, come up with the date October
22nd, 1844. And, just as inexplicable that the SDA Church still
116
acknowledges this exact event/date as if it was indeed accurate

according to a 100% verifiable evaluation of the calendar.
SDAs, as already shown, believe that Christ began His
ministry in 27 A.D., Died in 31 A.D. and that Stephen was stoned
in 34 A.D. These conclusions are based on Millers studies and are
confirmed by Ellen White and early SDA scholars. However, the
best scholars, throughout Christianity, freely admit that there can
be no conclusive pin-pointing of certain key historical dates that
SDAs seem to imagine are practically written in stone. Often
discrepancies of six or more years exist in even some of the most
accurate estimates. For example, one of the most authoritative
individuals on the life of Christ is Paul L. Maier, who wrote The
Date of the Nativity and the Chronology of Jesus Life (in Chronos,
karios Christos Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack
Finegan [ed. J. Vardaman and E. M. Yamauchi; Winona Lake,
IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989], 113-130), brings the date of Jesus birth
to around 5 B.C. This is based on a more accurate date recording
Herods death, which occurred in 4 B.C., allowing at least a year
for Christs birth and the escape to Egypt and final return upon
Herods death (Matthew 2).
The most common estimates for Jesus commencing his
ministry range from between 26-29 A.D. The dates for his trial
and crucifixion range from between 29-33 A.D. These variables
are based on historical data such as Herods death and the dates
for the building of the temple, which took 46 years, etc.
Simply, the point is that it is not possible to be exact, even to
the year, let alone the very day, such as October 22nd, 1844, for the
close of the 2300 day/year prophecy. I would encourage the reader
to do their own extended research into the question of dating so
they can validate for themselves that what I am presenting here
is indeed true.
It is possible however, to look at the key scriptures that
relate to this prophecyin both Old and New Testaments
choose the appropriate interpretive framework and present an
alternative option.
117
Brian Neumann
This is exactly what Kamy and I did when we decided to do

more extensive research into Daniels 2300 year prophecy. After
the conviction set in that the SDA interpretation was wrong,
based on the Millerite, Edson and Ellen White explanation, it
became obvious that the cleansing of the sanctuary had to find
its fulfillment in and around the time of Christs crucifixion.
One day, after spending some time in prayer and consideration,
Kamy asked me to find out if there was something significant
that might have taken place around 2300 years before the cross. I
did some research and came up with an event that was significant
indeed. Based on this we decided to do further study, using the
Bible alone, unrestrained by preconceived ideas. Our intention
was to come up with the most simple, clear understanding of the
subject that would also make historical sense. The results of that
study are what gave birth to what I will present here.
The first consideration, while looking at any other possibilities
when it comes to the 2300 years, is to consider the facts we can
be absolutely, or with the greatest amount of certainty, sure
ofthat which the Bible DOES teach, which we CAN know
DID happen and what we CAN know did NOT happeneven
though we might not be able to pin-point EXACT dates. By
going through this brief elimination process we will be able to
narrow things down considerably. I say brief, because it is in
the broad sense that I will present this model. Each person is
encouraged to conduct their own examination into the subject. In
this modern information age, via the internet and other research
and study options available, it will not be difficult to find all
the data needed to examine and test every possible question or
solution this model might inspire.
Prophetic TimeDay for a Day or Day for a Year?
NOTE: For the purposes of presenting the model below,

I will use historical dates as shown on SDA time-charts,
as those dates do fall within the margin of error that most
118
historians allow for. The reader should not construe that

I am trying to give some exact chronology. I am simply
presenting another hypothesis that is open to further study.
There are a number of reasons why I personally believe

that using the day for a year method for reckoning prophetic
time is the correct approach. In light of the fact that I intend
being brief in presenting my model I will give only a few of the
most significant reasons that relate specifically to the 2300 day
prophecy of Daniel 8:14.
SDA Bible scholars (those who subscribe to a consistent
use of the day/year methodology) are correct in their assertion
that Daniel chapter 9 is the key to understanding the 2300 day
prophecy of chapter 8. This is over and above the other evidences/
examples in Scripture where God specifically states that He has
assigned a day for a year in prophetic context (Numbers 14:34;
Ezekiel 4:6). The time prophecies found in Daniel 9 cannot be
accurately interpreted in literal time. Historical, biblical and
inherent evidence of chapter 9 itself, not to mention fulfillment
of the predicted events, in relation to the Jews, Jerusalem, the
sanctuary and the Messiah, compel a day/year application of its
prophetic time-frames.
One cannot understand the time prophecies of Daniel 9 by
only reading the verses that speak of the 70 weeks, etc. (Daniel
9:24-27). One has to read from the beginning of the chapter.
Daniels mention of his study of Jeremiah the prophet and his
prayer that prompts God to send the Angel Gabriel to come and
explain the vision, are vital components. The content of Daniels
prayer and the vision, referred to in verse 23 are critical links
to chapter 8, the 2300 day prophecy and the time prophecies of
chapter 9, outlined by Gabriel from verse 24 onwards.
When one realizes these facts then it makes absolute sense
to apply the day/year principle to chapter 8:14 and the time
prophecies of chapter 9.
119
Brian Neumann
In Daniel 9:2 Daniel says that he was studying Jeremiah the

prophet in connection with the predicted 70 years of Babylonian
captivity ( Jeremiah 29:10) and the desolations of Jerusalem.
Next, Daniel tells of his prayer and supplications, with fasting, and
sackcloth, and ashes (verse 3). The contents of his prayer are prime
clues to Daniels concernsthe reason for his prayer and fasting.
In brief:
a) Daniel confesses his sins and the wickedness and rebel-

lion of his people. He refers to the promised blessings and
curses that God told Moses to convey to His people (verse
4-11).
b). He prays about the great evil of the 70 years captivity.
A result of the curses brought on Israel because of their
disobedience (verse 12). Interestingly, it is this period of 70
years that Jeremiah refers to when he has the confrontation
with the false prophet Hananiah who claimed that the
captivity would end within 2 years and that the articles
taken from the temple would be returned ( Jeremiah 28).
c) He beseeches the Lord in regard to Jerusalem and the
desolation of the temple (Gods holy mountain), because
of the sins of Israel (verse 15-17). In verse 20 he reiterates
the fact that his concern is for the holy mountain of God
(this is in a special sense reference to the sanctuary that
is desolate).
The issues that were of concern to Daniel were clearly:

Gods people, their sins, the time of their captivity, Jerusalem and
the sanctuary/mountain of the Lord/temple. Indeed, the evidence
clearly suggests that the desolation of the sanctuary is of foremost
concern in Daniels mind. Why? What was prompting Daniel to
study and pray concerning these things? Verse 21-23 provides the
answer and lead us directly back to Daniel 8 and, specifically to
the 2300 days of verse 14:
120
Yea, whiles I [was] speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel,

whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to
fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
And he informed [me], and talked with me, and said, O Daniel,
I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At
the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came
forth, and I am come to show [thee]; for thou [art] greatly
beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the
vision (Daniel 9:21-23)
God knew what Daniels primary concerns were. He knew

that in Daniels heart there was a longing to understand, through
study of Jeremiah, prayer, fasting and supplication, those things
that he did not understand in the vision he received in chapter 8.
In verse 26 and 27 of chapter 8 Daniel records the final words of
the angel Gabriel and his reaction to the vision:
And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told
is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for
many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days;
afterward I rose up and did the kings business; and I was
astonished at the vision, but none understood it.
A cursory reading of Daniel 8 reveals that the first half of the

vision (verse 1-12), dealing with the ram and goat, was explained
to him (verse 19-25). However, in verse 26 Gabriel makes specific
reference to the part of the vision dealing with the evenings and
mornings (2300 days/evenings and mornings, Verse 14). Gabriel,
however, does not offer an in-depth interpretation of that aspect
of the vision, which deals directly with the sanctuary. Even though
he mentions the king with fierce countenance that arises, his
destruction of the holy people/ones and that he will stand up
against the prince of princes, he makes no overt reference to
the daily of verse 11, 12, 13. Rather, he simply says that the
vision of the evenings and mornings is true and that the vision
should be shut up because it will not be for many days. Simple
121
Brian Neumann
deduction suggests that by many days Gabriel is speaking of

when the vision/2300days will be fulfilled/complete.
The Hebrew word, used in verse 26, for vision, is mare. This
word is very specific to the 2300 days and the sanctuary and is
not used in reference to the earlier part of the visionthe part
which was explained. This point becomes even more significant
when one reads chapter 9:23.
When Gabriel talks to Daniel while he is in prayer, he tells him
to understand the matter (that which was troubling Daniel) and
to consider the vision. Gabriel uses the identical word mare,
for vision, a clear indication that he is bringing him back to the
aspects of chapter 9 that deal with the sanctuary, the daily,
destruction/desolation, the 2300 days and Gods people.
These are all the key concerns Daniel was praying about in
chapter 9. In reality though, one does not even have to know the
Hebrew word used for vision because when Gabriel tells Daniel
to understand the vision/mare he is, without doubt, referring to
very specific aspects of chapter 8. Not to mention that Daniel
himself identifies Gabriel as the same angel that appeared to him
in the vision. The bridge or connection between chapter 8 and 9
is unmistakable.
It is not hard to imagine why Gods people, their sins, the time
of their captivity, Jerusalem and the sanctuary/mountain of the
Lord/temple, were the issues Daniel was wrestling with. He was
living in Babylon (the captivity was a present reality), the temple
and Jerusalem were in ruins (desolate). And, in that current
state of affairs, Daniel receives a vision concerning the daily,
the transgression of desolation, the sanctuary and the host to be
trodden underfoot. These points are highlighted in the form of a
question by the one saint speaking (8:13). The angel addresses
Daniel (verse 14) with the answer: unto 2300 days/evenings and
mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
Then, to compound the problem, at the very close of the
vision, the angel tells Daniel that the vision will not be for many
days. Daniels head was spinning! Was it conceivable that there
122
was still THAT amount of time left before things would finally
be made right?!
No wonder Daniel is sick for days afterward and is seeking
answers regarding the vision. No one, however, understood it.
Quite some time passes before Daniel is in prayer, as recorded
in chapter 9, but he is still clearly concerned with finding answers
to those questions, engendered by the vision of Daniel 8, by
studying Jeremiahs prophecies concerning the captivity of Israel.
Daniel is distraught by the possibility that all these issues relating
to the people of God: their sins, the sanctuary and Jerusalem, will
last much longer than expectedhe was confused and needed
answers. So, he does the best thing anyone could do under similar
circumstances, he turns to God in prayer. There is deep confession
for sin, his sins and those of Israel and an almost desperate plea
for Gods forgiveness and restoration. In fact in chapter 9:19
Daniel pleads with God: DEFER NOT, for thine own sake, O my
God In gracious response, God sends Gabriel to answer the
specific questions that lay so heavily on Daniels heart (9:23-27).
The time prophecies that unfold in Gabriels explanation of
the vision, especially the prophecies concerning the Messiah,
are considered by Christian Bible scholars to be some of the
most important in Scripture. In fact they are the only clear
time prophecies that essentially pin-point the time of Christs
first cominghis ministry and death. It is argued that these are
the very time prophecies (in connection with other important
messianic prophecies) studied by the wise men from the East,
who were led by the star to the manger of baby Jesus. It almost
goes without saying that the only way to interpret these time
prophecies is by applying the day for a year principle.
These facts raise a vital question that cannot be ignored in
regard to the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. If, as it has been shown,
Gabriel was explaining specific aspects of the vision of chapter 8
in chapter 9, would it then not make sense for the same prophetic-
time principle to be applied (day/year)?
123
Brian Neumann
When Gabriel delineates the overall time-frame of 70 weeks

for the time prophecy of chapter 9, he immediately addresses the
questions Daniel was struggling with:
Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people [the Jews]
and upon the holy city, to finish the transgression and to
make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the
vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy (Daniel
9:24).
It is vitally important that the reader, when considering

Gabriels summary of 9:24, be reminded that Gabriel is
specifically addressing the aspects of the vision of Daniel 8 that
were perplexing Danielthe 2300 days being a critical part of
this. The keen observer will immediately notice how absolutely
key 9:24 is to understanding, not only what follows in 9:25-27,
but also to unlocking the mystery of the 2300 days in chapter
8. This is clearly the case because the 70 week time-frame is a
portion that is decreed or determined upon Gods people and
the sanctuary (From the Hebrew: chathakdivide, determine,
decreed, settled, marked out, etc.), and is directly related to the
2300 days/years.
NOTE: Gabriel predicts in Daniel 9:25 that the 70
week period begins at the commandment to restore and
build Jerusalem. Prominent Bible scholars and Christian
historians agree that this happened in the early fall of 457
b.c. (or close to that time) when the decree was given by
Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 7:13).
What follows from 9:25-27 is a break-down of the overall

70 weeks into segments of: 7 weeks (49yrs) + 62 (threescore and
two weeks434yrs) + 1 week (7yrs), totaling 70 weeks (490 days/
yrs). The 1 week period is divided because Gabriel says that in
the midst/middle of that week the Messiah, will be cut off /
killed, not for himself for the sins of the world. In this act
124
he will cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease (they cease to have
meaning because the real sacrifice, in the antitypical Christ,
has come). The most holy (verse 24from the Hebrew: Qodesh
Qodashimholy place or Person), will then have been anointed,
as it was in the typical sense (sacrificial system) on the yearly Day
of Atonement (when the sanctuary, after the collective sins of the
people have gathered and been retained for a year, is cleansed or
justified) when the High Priest sprinkled the blood of the goat
on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant in the most holy place
of the sanctuary for the sins of the people.
In the book of Hebrews this is exactly what Paul says was
accomplished in Christ as the antitypical lamb of God on the
cross of Calvary (shown earlier in this chapter).
According to the SDA/Millerite chart, Three and a half years
are then left (after the crucifixion) for the Gospel of Christ to
be specifically preached to the Jewish nation so that they can
have a final opportunity, as stated in 9:24, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, before the period of their allotted 70 weeks comes
to a close. However, after 34 A.D. because of the stoning of Stephen
(the death of the first recorded Christian Martyr), the gospel of
Christ is taken to the nations of the Gentiles and the official
end of the 70 week period is reached.
NOTE: SDAs believe that the first half of the 1 week period
begins at the Baptism of Christ into His earthly Messianic
ministry in 27 a.d. It reaches its halfway point in 31 a.d at
the crucifixion and completed in 34 a.d. at the stoning of
Stephen. This conclusion is based on the understanding
that the 70 weeks, of which the final week that is divided
in two, is an exact portion of the 2300 years that begin
at its commencement in 457 b.c. and end EXACTLY on
October 22nd, 1844. However, the statement of Daniel
8:14 reads: UNTO 2300 days The Word, ad, in the
Hebrew, for until can meanuntil, up to, during or up to
the time. Thus it can be readily accepted that Gabriel was
not necessarily saying that in exactly (at the VERY end)
125
Brian Neumann
2300 days, but may well have meant within or during

the 2300 Of course, Gabriels interpretation in Daniel
9, dealing with Daniels concerns, would indicate that the
final week would be fulfilled at the end portion of that
period. This makes a whole lot of difference as to how one
evaluates, particularly the last week of the 70 weeks given
to the Jewish nation. I will make particular reference to
this when presenting my alternative model.
The most accurate conclusion, which still fits within the margin
of error for the dates, is that the period of 2300 years reaches its
final phase at the time of the cross, events that most critically
affected the Jewish nation, and ultimately the whole of humanity,
and that compliment what Paul so emphatically records in the
book of Hebrews (near the end of the 70 year period).
Another vital factor in understanding the events that transpire
at the close of the 2300 days/years, that coincides with the Hebrew
options for unto (during, etc.), is that the Messiahs crucifixion
does not have to culminate the 2300 time-frame but takes place
3 years before the climax at Stephens stoning, the event that
signals the fulfillment of the portion of Daniels concern with
his nation.
Because Daniels concern is not only for mankind in a general
sense but specifically for the Jews (from his perspective at the
time), the sanctuary and Jerusalem, Gabriel also forecasts the
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple that occurred in 70 A.D.
by the Roman armies led by Titus, which although it occurred
after the specified 70 week period, was the culmination or final
result for not having accepted the Messiah (before or after his
death), thus not making reconciliation for iniquity and bringing
in everlasting righteousness. At the destruction of the temple, in
a literal sense too, the sacrifice and oblation cease. The temple is
not rebuilt, the Jews are scattered and the formal cycle of feasts
and ceremonies, connected to the sanctuary, came to an end.
126
When the connection between Daniel 8 and 9 is extrapolated

in this way then the words of Gabriel in chapter 9:24, concerning
the vision and prophecy, have a new and very definite meaning.
Not only this, but the fulfillment of types and shadows/the
system of feasts and ceremonies in Christ, as spoken of by Paul
in Hebrews, are truly final and completenot to still be fully
accomplished at some later date (1844).
However, if the connection between Daniel 9 and the 2300
days/years is made in this way then the only viable option left
is that the 2300 years end in or around 29-33 A.D., when the 70
week/490 year period for the Nation of Israel was complete. This
creates a gigantic dilemma for SDAs because it would then mean
that the 2300 years end with the 70 weeks allotted to the Jewish
nation and do not start with it.
Traditionally SDAs have preferred the term cut off for
the Hebrew Chathak because it seems to make the point more
strongly that the 70 weeks were to be cut from some period,
i.e. the 2300 days. Even though certain Bible scholars prefer the
term determined, it is not a major issue, at least not in context of
the model I am presenting.
William Miller was methodologically correct in a number of
respects and thus, one might say by default, SDAs are as well.
However, the placing of the 70 weeks at the start of the 2300
days/years and not the end created a multitude of problems, as
has already been pointed out earlier in this chaptersalvational
teachings and teachings related to Christs High-priestly ministry
that contradict what Paul says in Hebrews, etc. The results have
been all kinds of interpretive acrobatics that started with the 1910
crisis between those who held to Millers view that the daily
was paganism and those who interpreted it to be sacrifice.
From then on the back and forth debate continued, climaxing
with the Desmond Ford crisis of the 80s and his contradictory
apotelesmatic approach to solving the problem, resulting in an
uncomfortable opposition of views that persist till the present.
127
Brian Neumann
However, if one simply takes Daniel 9:24 as Gabriel stated it,

in conjunction with Daniel 8:14, then there is NO WAY that the
70 weeks can be placed at the start of the 2300 days/years. Thus,
the 2300 years could in NO WAY end in 1844.
In Daniel 9:24 Gabriel says that the allotted time was given
to seal up the vision and the prophecy. What vision and what
prophecy? Not the time-periods spoken of in Daniel 9, even
though they might fall at the end of the 2300 years. This cannot be.
It needs to be recalled that when Gabriel interrupted Daniels
prayer he told him emphatically that he had come to help him
understand the matter and consider the vision/prophecy of Daniel 8
and the 2300 days. This means that the vision/prophecy that is to
be sealed up is the 2300 years (thats when it ends). It is only in
a synchronous sense that the 70 week prophecy also ends at this
point because it occupies the last 490 years (70 weeks) of the 2300
years vision/prophecy. It is during this end phase, in the middle
of the last week of the 70 weeks, that the most holy is anointed and
the 2300 year part of the vision is complete/done/sealed up.
Of course, this idea does not only upset the SDA model but
also contradicts a number of other interpretive modelspreterist,
futurist or those who want to apply the literal days approach to
the 2300 days. Nevertheless, to be true to what seems to be clearly
stated in Daniel 8 and 9 and to avoid creating other contradictions
in Scripture, in regard to what was accomplished at the cross, etc.,
a placing of the 70 weeks at the end of 2300 years, seems to make
a lot of sense. In this case, the BIG question that comes into play
would be in regard to finding a suitable starting/historical point
for the 2300 years, without being dogmatic in regard to an exact
pin-point.
In chapter 8:14 Gabriel said, unto 2300 days This simply
means that WHEN 2300 days/years are complete, then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed. Thus, in reverse to the SDA model, we need
to go backwards in time from Christs first coming.
128
When viewed in reverse, from 34 A.D., the 2300 years bring

us to the time of the flooda new earth and a new covenant
with mankinda brand new start for eight remaining members
of humanitythe ultimate plan of salvation in Christ, lying that
many years in the future.
Back to the Start2300 Days

Many will, understandably, balk at the idea of going back 2300
years from the time of Christ. This is because such an option has
simply been ignored or overlookedit just does not make sense.
Or does it?
It could be argued that surely, when Daniel was told, unto
2300 days it meant the starting date was either future or
immediate, not that it had already begun, right?
It would be arrogant to say that seeing the start of the 2300
days as future to Daniels day is stupid. There are plenty of reasons
why SDA Bible scholars and other non-SDA scholars were led
to believe that this was the most sensible option. Firstly, it just
seems logical to say that when a time is given to a prophet, it
must mean that it has not yet begun. Secondly, until William
Miller came along, no one really seemed to have made too much
out of the 2300 days except for the fact that it was seen by some
to mean 2300 literal days and was placed in the historical past
during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
It was really William Miller who, rightfully and for reasons
already addressed, realized the obvious connection between
Daniel 8 and 9, at least as far as the 2300 day portion of Daniel
8 was concerned. If it had not been for William Miller and his
failed prediction, it might never, unfortunately, have led to the
2300 days being connected to the heavenly sanctuary and a whole
new doctrine that still cannot be, in any clear sense, substantiated
by Scripture.
The point is, in light of the schools of prophetic interpretation
that exist and the varied nuances of ideas within the different
129
Brian Neumann
schools, no one can really be narrow-minded enough to say they

have it ALL worked out. One does the best one can with the
light God has given in Scripture and the facts one has available,
historical and otherwise. What gave SDAs the assurance that
how they had unpacked Bible prophecy was correct was that
they had an extra-biblical voice, Ellen White, who gave them
Divine assurance regarding their prophetic teachings.
Here is the irony: From the time of Ellen White, SDA Bible
scholars continually disagreed on exactly how certain prophecies
should be understood. This was for good reason because from
time to time Bible scholars would come up against things that
simply did not gel with the clear, simple statements of Scripture.
In the issue surrounding the sanctuary doctrine, as already shown,
a major split developed among SDA Bible scholars. Substantial
cause existed for the disagreement, reasons that were based on
what biblical evidence revealed. It was not without reason that the
daily came to be seen by Conradie and other SDA Bible scholars
as referring to sacrifice and not paganism. The problem was that
some brethren refused to go that route because the prophet, in
their opinion, confirmed what Miller had interpreted and thus
it could NOT be something else. Yet, when push came to shove
and the prophet was placed in a position where a stand had to be
taken, she said that God had shown her that she should not take
sides one way or the other.
Perhaps Ellen White had some sort of inkling but did not fully
realize what the implications would be, for the whole sanctuary
doctrine and the very existence of the SDA Faith, if she did take
a clear stand on the issue. Yet, for any discerning student of Ellen
White, the words that she had already spoken and written really
make it clear why she handled things the way she did.
And so, between the Bible and Ellen White, SDA scholars
have been doing exegetical acrobatics for decades and decades
interpreting Ellen Whites interpretation of Scripture and dealing
with Miller and his inaccuracies. Barely able to maintain an ongoing
130
balancing act that, as more and more evidence surfaces, is becoming

increasingly difficult to keep from toppling over. Indeed, the last
people who should claim any absolutes when it comes to prophetic
interpretation are SDA Bible scholarsespecially when it comes to
their teaching on the 2300 days, 1844 and their sanctuary doctrine.
There is no definitive unity among them and they know this for a fact.
It is for these very reasons stated above that I have chosen
to present a model/interpretation without taking any inflexible
position regarding itif it only stimulates discussion and
further research then something worthwhile would already have
been accomplished.
However, as it is with much of the dating, prior to Christ and for
that matter even after, there is room for discrepancy. Yet, based on
the evidence available, Bible scholars and church historians have
been able to place events within fairly confirmable parameters.
According to Josephus, the ancient Jewish historian and Irish
archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, Bible historians and
most conservative Christian scholars, the Flood of Noahs time
occurred between 2500 B.C. and 2300 B.C. A 200 year margin for
error might seem large, but when you take into account the data
available, biblical and extra-biblical, then 200 years is really not
such a huge gap. In fact, a number of researchers estimates are
closer to 2300 rather than the other way around. Some even
estimate it to within a few years either side of the 2300 year
mark. There is not absolute certainty but, never-the-less, under
the circumstances, a surprisingly accurate estimate. Some works
recommend for those wanting to establish the time of Noahs
flood, include: The Annals of the World, by James Ussher, Adams
Chart of History, Newtons Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms,
and Chronology of the Old Testament by Floyd Nolen Jones.
Dr. John Osgood when writing about The Date of Noahs Flood,
the title of his work, made the following observations:
The question as to exactly when Noahs Flood occurred has
seen a variety of different answers from scholars through the
131
Brian Neumann
years. The only possible way such a date could be obtained is

if the documented evidence which exists provides enough clues
to pinpoint the event. Now, while there are many documents
and folk histories concerning Noahs Flood, the most detailed
description occurs in the Biblical text. Does the Bible contain
sufficient chronological data to enable us to put a time on
Noahs Flood? I believe it does and I believe it does this so
clearly that no doubt should remain either about the timing
or the nature of this judgment by God upon this earth. 22
After taking one through a breakdown of Bible chronology

and other available evidences to where a pin-point date (or as
close to one as possible) can be suggested, Dr. Osgood states:
Genesis 11:10 tells us that Shem was 100 years old, 2 years
after the Flood had finished. When was Noahs Flood? 1,981
years to AD 1 plus 967 years to the founding of Solomons Temple
plus 480 years to the end of the Exodus plus 430 years to the
promise to Abraham plus 75 years to Abrahams birth plus 350
years to Shems 100th birthday plus 2 years to the Flood. The
Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 B.C. 11 years [11
year margin of error]. 23
The reader is encouraged to do his or her own study into the

dating of the flood. But, there is certainly consensus among many
scholars that the date of 2300 b.c., or within that ball-park, is
fairly accurate.
Of course, just because we have good reason to place Noah
and the flood 2300 years before Christ is not, automatically a
good reason to bring it into association with the 2300 days of
Daniel 8:14. Any model is only as strong or weak as the rationale
behind it.
For example, the essential reasoning behind Millers
conclusions appeared to be based on a solid scriptural foundation,
and to a large extent, insofar as his connection between Daniel
8 and 9 and his basic methodology were concerned, he built a
132
strong case. However, the minute he turned the daily into

paganism and allowed that to become one of the pieces of
the puzzle that led to the cleansing of the sanctuary becoming
the second coming, he totally lost the plot. The end result was
the Great Disappointment that morphed into a doctrine that
was not merely the result of misplacing a scriptural time-
frame or event. The progenitors of this teaching not only built
their foundation on what was already a mistake (an inaccurate
interpretation of Scripture that resulted in a non-event with no
earthly means of proving anything took place anywhere), but on
the basis of two peoples testimony, formulated something that
was odiously unscriptural, insulting to Christ, and finally, divisive
and embarrassing in its ramifications.
Thus, as far as is possible, there are some things that need to be
taken care of in suggesting that the 2300 years began at the time
of the flood: a reasonable, scriptural, historical rationale that stays
true to well established Bible-based Christian beliefs that are not
twisted or negated on such vital points as what Christ established
and made final by His sacrifice on the cross.
1. Two clearly established scriptural/historical events that

can easily be verified (not like Millers non-event of 1844)
provide a solid start and end.
2. The start and end events are not without sound bible-
based doctrinal support that compliment the underlying
sanctuary references in Daniel in the typical and ultimate
antitypical fulfillment found in the New Testament,
particularly Pauls writings in the book of Hebrews. On
both these counts, the Miller and SDA model are left
with gaping holes that no one has yet effectively filled.
When Noah, his family and the animals left the ark, life on
planet earth would start all over againit was a new beginning.
Noah offered a sacrifice to God and God then promised to never
133
Brian Neumann
again destroy all life on earth by a flood (Genesis 9:11). He puts

a rainbow in the sky as an everlasting covenant between God and
every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth (Genesis 9:12-
17). This Noahic Covenant was not simply a covenant between
God and Noah, it was between God and all mankind, all life on
earth. Life on earth as it were, was starting all over again.
It should not be forgotten though that earth had very recently
reached a point of unbearable wickedness, that every imagination
of the thoughts of his [mans] heart were only evil continually and
because of this Gods heart became grieved to the point where
He said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the
earth. However, Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis
6:5-8). The reason why, of all the human race, God preserved this
one family (eight people), was because the ultimate price for the
sins of mankind had not yet been paidthe fulfillment of this
promise, the central theme, the pivotal event that would ensure
mans continued existence, still lay in the future. God extended
His grace to Noah, and in doing this, to all of mankind, saying
in a very real sense, I am starting things all over again and will
not destroy the whole world until my plan of mercy towards the
human race is fulfilledthe death of Jesus for the sins of the world
on the cross of Calvary 2300 years from the time of the flood.
As a result of rampant sin the world was destroyed and it
would be for that reason that Christ would die on the cross of
Calvary, ensuring the possibility of eternal life for all who would
come to Himthe vision and the prophecy, spoken of in Daniel
9:24, in reference to the 2300 days of Chapter 8:14, would then
enter its final phase. Because of sin mankind was destroyed at
the flood so that another opportunity could be given. Because
of sin the Son of God was killed at the cross so the ultimate
opportunity for man could be realizedthe plan was complete.
Even though the plan of Gods ultimate and greatest display
of mercy was accomplished, He still, as promised to Daniel,
intended to give His chosen people the Jews their final, collective
134
opportunity, to accept Christ and embrace what He had done for

all mankind through His death and resurrection.
Prior to the cross, historys defining moment, God gave His
chosen people ample evidence that Christ was the Messiah. The
moment was marked in clear, definable terms on Gods cosmic
calendar. Christs death was not an option for the Father and son.
It had to be, it was pre-ordained, because without it not only the
Jews but the whole of humanity would be eternally lost. However,
the time of the 2300 days/years was not yet full. God did not
shut the door on the Jews at the cross. The reason was simple
and was rooted in Gods mercy towards fallen sinful humanity.
He was giving an opportunity, on the basis of a clear, confirmable
fulfillment of prophecy. After this, through the preaching of His
disciples, he provided an opportunity for the Jewish nation to
turn to God and put an end to sin.
Peters sermon on the Day of Pentecost, clearly addressed the
guilt his hearers shared in nailing the Messiah to the cross and
also revealed (in light of their own scriptures), that Christ was
victorious, now sitting on the right hand of God in the most holy,
the throne-room of the heavenly sanctuary. As a result of the
evidence they could confirm and the testimony of the disciples,
three thousand people accepted the Messiah in one day. There
would be many more that would accept Christ, yet as a nation
they did not make use of the door that was left ajar.
In 34 A.D., three and a half years later, at the stoning of
Stephen, their collective opportunity reached its close. Stephen
when delivering his final testimony to the council regarding the
Jewish nation, from the time of Abraham and their birth till
their rejection of Christ, made it known that as their fathers had
resisted the Holy Ghost, so they had done too (Acts 7:52).
The council gnashed on him with their teeth and took Stephen
out to stone him to death. Then, as a final testimony to the
completion of Christs mission to earth and the closure of time
for the Jewish nation, he declared: Behold I see heaven opened, and
135
Brian Neumann
the son of man standing on the right hand of God. The response of
the Jewish leaders was emphatic and final: Then they cried out
with a loud voice and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with
one accord (Acts 7:56, 57). The vision of the 2300 years and the
allotted time of 70 weeks given to the seed of Abraham, the Jews,
from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457 B.C., was sealed up
it was complete.
It needs to be pointed out that what Christ came to accomplish,
on behalf of mankind, where He was cut off /crucified for our
sins, not for Himself, was fully accomplished at the cross. Jesus
emphasized this when He cried out with a loud voice IT IS
FINISHED! However, the acceptance of this accomplished fact,
by the Jewish nation, in accordance with the allotted time given
them by Daniel, extended to the time of Stephens stoning. At this
point their leaders clearly demonstrated that they, in the formal
sense, had rejected Christ. Bear in mind that Daniels concern
was not just for the sanctuary but for the Jewish people as well.
It is within the frame-work of the 2300 days/years and the final
week period (7 years) that all the issues that concerned Daniel
came to a closewere fulfilled.
What becomes problematic is that some, like SDAs for
example, believe that the actions of the Jewish leaders signaled
that God had rejected the Jewish Nation (the natural branches
or heirs)He had now cut them off from their chosen people
status. However, this is not what Daniel 9 was suggesting. True,
at Christs trial, the Jewish leaders boldly proclaimed that Jesus
blood should be on them and their children (Matthew 27:25). But
did this event and others, such as the events at Stephens stoning
and the gospel going to the Gentiles signal Gods rejection of the
Jewish Nationthe natural seed of Abraham? The answer is no.
Although, on an official level, the Jews did not accept Jesus,
many, indeed thousands, did believe in Himthree thousand
at Pentecost alone. Those who were responsible for taking the
message of Christ to the world (the apostles) were Jews. Paul
136
clearly states that gentile converts were grafted in as members

of the natural Jewish Nationthey became spiritual Jews. Lets
consider Romans 11:13-27:
For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I [a Jew] am
the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by
any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are]
my flesh [ Jews], and might save some of them. For if the
casting away [ Jews who chose not to accept the Messiah] of
them [be] the reconciling of the world, what [shall] the
receiving [of them be], but life from the dead [ Jews who
accepted Christ]? For if the firstfruit [be] holy, the lump [is]
also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off [ Jews who
rejected Christnot all Jews but those branches that rejected
Him], and thou [gentiles], being a wild olive tree, wert
grafted in among them, and with them [among the Jews
that remained connected to the treethat had accepted Christ]
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Boast
not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest
not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The
branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well;
because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest
by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared
not the natural branches [the Jews who rejected Christ out of
unbelief ], [take heed] lest he also spare not thee. Behold
therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue
in [his] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And
they also [ Jews who might still choose to believe], if they abide
not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in [they become part of
the tree once more]: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou [gentiles] wert cut out of the olive tree which is
wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree [Gods chosen nation]: how much more shall
these, which be the natural [branches], be grafted into their
own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should
137
Brian Neumann
be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your

own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved [all those NATURAL Jews who believe]: as
it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this [is]
my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins
(Italic inserts and emphasis provided).
The Old Testament prophesied that there would be a price to

pay for sin. There would be a scattering among the nations. The
Jewish Nation would indeed have the blood of the Messiah on
their heads. However, this did NOT mean that God had rejected
them as His chosen people. They remained the NATURAL
branches. So much more so, as expressed by Paul, than the wild
olive branches that were grafted in, who also now, by virtue of
their adoption, became the seed of Abrahammembers of the
spiritual house of Israel. Thus, the opportunity for the Nation of
Israel (Abrahams seed), the natural branches, was not terminated
at the stoning of Stephen. There was, at this time, a consequence
for their collective action, but God still used the branches that
were not broken off to spread the gospel to the gentiles so that
they (the gentiles) could be grafted in. In spite of the scattering
of His nation among the gentiles, He still viewed them as the
natural heirs and would give them continued opportunity to
choose to be grafted back in. The Jews remained the natural heirs,
albeit heirs in exile.
Ellen Whites description of Gods action in 1844 is so
different to the picture of God that is painted by Paul. Instead
of giving extended opportunity on the basis of an undeniable,
verifiable fulfillment of prophecy, as God did with the Jews (at the
stoning of Stephen and on to the present) He, according to what
can be extrapolated from Ellen White, practically tricked people
into losing their opportunity. A cosmic event that the whole
of humanity would witness, had it occurred, never happened
138
no evidence at all that anything took place. Then, God sends a

messenger, Ellen White, who, in essence declares: Sorry guys,
you missed the boat, your guilt is the same as the guilt of the Jews at
the time of Christ (even though the Jews had evidence and the people
of 1844 had none). You heard the message Miller preached, nothing
happened but thats just too bad, its a done deal. If you do not accept
that I am telling you a door in the heavenly sanctuary is shut, then you
will remain deceived by Satan who (albeit symbolically), is sitting on
a throne in the holy apartment which you are still focusing on, even
though you had no idea that you were actually doing that. True, you
cannot confirm one iota of what I am telling you, because as far as you
know nothing happened, but that is just how it is.
I am using hyperbole, true, but in essence, this is the picture
of the merciful God, preached by Ellen Whiteso unlike the
God of mercy and opportunity preached by the disciples at the
end of the prophetic period of Daniel 8:14 (2300 years).
Without doubt, there will be those (especially those who hold
to a staunch, traditional SDA position) who without any further
thought or reflection, will outright reject the above proposition.
This is understandable because, as I well know, it is hard and
extremely painful to give up a position that has been cherished
for so longharder still when you believe it was given through
divine revelation. But, those who would reject another possibility
for Daniels 2300 days would do well to go back to their Bibles
and put the prophet and her doctrine to the test. Indeed, this
chapter has done exactly that.
From the early years Ellen Whites sanctuary teaching has
been challenged on biblical grounds. Many, dedicated students of
Scripture, men and woman of learning and integrity, on the basis
of clear scriptural evidence, came to the conclusion that she was
wrong. Some left the SDA fold because leaders stopped their
ears and would not hear. Others were treated like apostates and
were disfellowshipped.
139
Brian Neumann
Men like Desmond Ford tried to present their case, and

even though their alternative methodology might not have
been entirely correct, their ultimate conclusion, based on what
seemed so scripturally clear, was absolutely rightthe Sanctuary
doctrine as presented by Ellen White and taught by the SDA
faith, one of the central pillars of the church, was not sustainable
on biblical grounds.
Hypothetically speaking, if there had not been the prophetic
voice of Ellen White, if by natural consequence the SDA sanctuary
doctrine had evolved along the same lines, on the foundation
of Millers failed prediction (The Great Disappointment),
what would have become of it by now? There is little doubt, in
light of the many inherent weaknesses that were present in the
original model, it would either have been unrecognizably altered
or completely abandonedmore than likely the latter. In fact,
various versions have evolved, one might say to the point where
some versions might well be unrecognizable to the founding
fathers of the SDA Church.
The one primary reason why certain SDA brethren still cling
to the vestiges of this teaching is purely and simply because of
Ellen White and the fear that in rejecting her, the prophet of
God, they will awaken Gods disapproval, not to mention the
potential loss of scores of tithe paying members. Thus, the only
viable option is to continually interpret and re-explain her until
the new generation of SDAs have no idea what the actual belief
was at the start. Of course, the watering down and adaptation,
as shown in an earlier chapter, already started way back in
Ellen Whites day, post 1844 with the original position, taking
another hard turn in 1910 with the daily question. Following
that continued adjustments took place till the Ford crisis in
the 80s. From that point on SDA scholars have actively been
involved in interpreting Ellen White to the point where her
original positions on 1844 and the sanctuary would at least
become palatable.
140
Again I want to make it very clear, regarding the alternative

model I have presented, that it does not come with any dogmatic
claim or absoluteness. Indeed, questions, particularly regarding
the final week of the prophecy might well have a few other
interpretive options. The one thing that stands out though is the
fact that what was accomplished at the cross brought Daniels
2300 year prophecy to its principal fulfillment.
To be sure, no model is without its flaws. And, contrary to
what the SDA Church leaders might want its members to believe,
by not revealing ALL the facts, the defects in their model exist
because it does not rest on ONLY the authority of Scripture but
on the foundation of Millers paganism and failed prediction and
the authority of an extra-biblical source, Ellen G. White.
As Hokama so aptly stated:
A logical analysis of the implications of Millers paganism
would certainly seem to lead one to endorse the verdict of
history. It would appear that when the church abandoned
paganism in 1910, it also unwittingly abandoned 1844,
without which Adventism may have no reason to exist. 24
SOURCES
1. Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation, by Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
4. Apollos Hales article in The Signs of the Times and Expositor of
Prophecy, edited by Himes, Litch, or Bliss, November 16,1842.
Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation, by Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
141
Brian Neumann
7. SDA Encyclopedia, 1966, p. 321. Adventist Currents, March 1987

edition, entitled, Does 1844 Have a Pagan Foundation, by
Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Within the Veil: Where did Christ go?, by Irwin R. Gane,
Ministry Magazine (emphasis supplied).
12. Ibid.
13. F. D. Nichol. The Midnight Cry. p. 458 (emphasis supplied).
14. Early Writings, p. 56. Quoted in, Within the Veil: Where
did Christ go? by Irwin R. Gane, Ministry Magazine
15. Within the Veil: Where did Christ go? by Irwin R. Gane,
Ministry Magazine (emphasis supplied).
16. Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 56.
17. The Great Controversy, p. 429, 430. (emphasis supplied).
18. Ibid. p. 430. (emphasis supplied).
19. http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-
henry-complete/hebrews/10.html.(emphasis supplied).
20. Ibid.
21. The Rent Veil, A Sermon Delivered on Lords-day Morning,
March 25th, 1888, by C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan
Tabernacle, Newington. (emphasis supplied).
22. Dr. John Osgood,The Date of Noahs Flood, creation.com/
the-date-of-noahs-flood.
23. Ibid (emphasis supplied).
24. Adventist Currents, March 1987 edition, entitled, Does 1844
Have a Pagan Foundation, by Dennis Hokama, p. 20-29.
142

2 Free Chapters From "The White Elephant"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Free Chapters From "The White Elephant"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter XI

Where in Scripture is it?

These were more noble than those in

THE SANCTUARY DOCTRINE

of his daughters, by the pestilence which broke out in the army at

membership in 1831, stating that he did so to avoid fellowship

Master Mason AFTER his conversion experience which is said

An even more comprehensive description of Millers life, once

I therefore continued the study of the Bible, to see if I could

How is it possible, with testimonies regarding Millers

Would William Miller, Grand Master, have been ignorant of

As the ceremony continues, it reaches the point where the

There is much more to this initiation ceremony but what is

lengths in order to expose the alleged Masonic connections of

The 3rd degree (Master Mason) is the most important degree in

to conspiracy theory, have made him no more or less a Luicifarian

known as Protestant America. In a land where Rome had little or

Rome is an expert at utilizing the tactic of divide and

would be infiltrated and the right individuals/individual with

searching for light on interpreting some of the scriptures most

declaration: The evidence is so clear, the testimony so strong,

Ironically, unlike just about every major event on the prophetic

taking place in America, in two phases. What is known as the

splintered and factionalized in North America. The American

The Prophet Explains:

however, one aspect of her account is accurate and validates what

hour of Christs return. The day would still come as a thief or

So, it would appear that God intentionally created a situation

This was the midnight cry, which was to give power to

The parable of the ten virgins is found in the book of Matthew

scriptural evidence that contradicted what they SO badly wanted

A few things become painfully clear when reading this.

FACT 2: Regardless of what might have motivated some

Some might be tempted to deal in semantics and argue that it

earth scriptural proof, elevates the ridiculous to the altitude of

He shared this vision with the other believers. Upon hearing

is quoted by witnesses in the Dammon trial as having referred to

It has already been shown earlier in this chapter that the

beast and the possession of the kingdom by the saints seem to

As already commented on, this parable is a metaphor for

At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the earth,

An incredibly troubling, multi-faceted dilemma evolves out

received by Hiram Edson, the day after the disappointment,

My desire, as stated in the introduction to this book, is to present

there were two individual witnesses (not collectivethey were

For almost 14 years William Miller, based on his interpretation,

of the comments by those who were questioning what was taking

Or, as it is stated in Signs of the Times:

In the following quote she makes an extremely important

Another example of a verifiable, fulfilled prediction by God

( Jonah 3:4). On hearing the message, the people repented in

(October 22nd, 1844) seemed to be looking for a way to condemn

it wrongevent and time-frame? And, would such a reevaluation

12. Ibid. p. 82.

28. Ibid. p.86.

At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth,

22nd, 1844 and what the correct understanding of the sanctuary

history of Adventist treatments of it, and the implications that

To know the history of what the word daily meant to

Even SDA Bible scholars recognize that there were essentially

Literal interpretations of the daily:

Symbolic interpretations of the daily:

Hokama makes three main points in his evaluation of these