“A FRESH LOOK AT THE FIFTH AND SIXTH TRUMPETS”

Ronald du Preez
NAD, Arizona Conference

Abstract: This presentation takes a fresh look at the Litch-Smith-White perspective on the fifth and sixth
trumpets of Revelation. It is argued that valuable insights may be obtained—and faith may be
strengthened in Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega—from the final book of the Bible that deals with the end
times.
___________________________

Preface

The current Adult Bible Study Guide (April-June 2018), which focuses in eschatology, provides a
fitting foundation for this presentation. It states: “This quarter the focus is on the end time, but not
totally. The real focus is on Jesus, but in the context of the last days and how to be prepared for them.
Yes, we need to look at historical dates, at world events, at history itself [all of which will be done in this
presentation], because the Bible talks about them in relation to the end. But even in this context, the
Bible talks about Jesus – about who He is, what He has done for us, what He does in us, and what He will
do when He does return.” 1
Indeed, the careful student of the book of Revelation will concur that, as Revelation 1:1 puts it,
“This is the revelation of Jesus Christ” (NCV). 2 The repeated focus on Jesus can be seen throughout this
apocalyptic book, “therefore, we should interpret it in a Christ-centered way.” 3 For example, He is “the
faithful witness,” and “ruler over the kings of the earth” (1:5), the returning Savior who “is coming with
clouds” (1:7), the “‘Alpha and the Omega’” (1:8), “‘the Son of God’” (2:18), the “‘True Witness’” (3:14),
“the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David” (5:5), “the Lamb who was slain” (5:12), etc. – yes, there
is a constant and recurring emphasis on Jesus; a factor not to be forgotten during this presentation.

1“Preparation for the End Time,” Adult Bible Study Guide, April-June 2018, 3.
2Similarly,
the Amp, GW, ICB, ISV, Voice, WEB.
3Ekkehardt Mueller, “How Do Seventh-day Adventists Interpret Daniel and Revelation?” in Interpreting Scripture: Bible

Questions and Answers, Gerhard Pfandl, ed. (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research institute, 2010), 89.

1
 Introduction

Shortly after he retired as Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez wrote an article on some of the challenges of
understanding the complex language and imagery of the seven trumpets of Revelation 8 and 9. 4 While
his main focus was to outline what he labeled “our nonnegotiable hermeneutical principles of
apocalyptic interpretation,” 5 he provided a helpful diagrammatic analysis of seven differing
interpretations, 6 all of which he felt seemed “to be compatible” “with the historicist approach.”7
Rodríguez admitted that “this interpretational uncertainty could be confusing to church members and
those interested in finding in this apocalyptic prophecy one clear and final interpretation.” 8 One item
that “tends to complicate the discussion of the prophetic periods,” Rodríguez opined, “is that Ellen White
seems to support the interpretation of the Millerite preacher Josiah Litch”9 – a matter to be addressed
below.
In mid-1838, Josiah Litch, a Methodist minister and supporter of the Millerite message,
published the following, based on his study of apocalyptic prophecy and the history of the Ottoman
Empire: “When will this power be overthrown?” he asked. Using the year-day principle for the time
segments of the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9, Litch predicted the collapse of this once-mighty
empire, “in A.D. 1840, some time in the month of August” 10 – that is, more than two years ahead of its
fulfillment! He pointed out that “the time when the empire rose” up,11 as well as the end-point of this
“prophecy is the most remarkable and definite, (even descending to the days) of any in the Bible.”12
Evidently taking such factors into account, Litch later on forecast that “the Ottoman power in
Constantinople may be expected to be broken” on “the 11th of August, 1840.” 13 Ellen White noted that
“the prediction was widely published, and thousands watched the course of events with eager

4Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” Ministry, January 2012, 6-
10.
5Ibid., 6.
6These were, of (1) Uriah Smith; (2) Edwin Thiele; (3) Roy Naden; (4) Mervyn Maxwell; (5) William Shea; (6) Jon
Paulien, Hans LaRondelle, Ranko Stefanovic; and (7) Alberto Treiyer.
7Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 7.
8Ibid. Then, he added (ibid.): “At the present time such a final conclusion is not available.”
9Ibid., 8.
10Josiah Litch, The Probability of the Second Coming of Christ About A.D. 1843 (Boston: David H. Ela, 1838), 157.
11Ibid., 158; see especially, 152-154.
12Ibid., 157.
13Josiah Litch, “Fall of the Ottoman Power in Constantinople,” Signs of the Times of the Second Coming of Christ, 1 August

1840, 70. Note: Though a crucial quadruple alliance (related to the demise of the Ottoman Empire) had been formed with The
Treaty of London of July 15, 1840, it was not humanly possible for Litch to have known that, since the fastest way of
communicating that information was by ships crossing the Atlantic Ocean; and such knowledge could not have reached him
before he studied, wrote, and got the article published by August 1. Though in his Signs of the Times article, Litch did indicate
some uncertainty regarding the beginning of both time prophecies exactly to the day, he concluded that “if they began and ended
so, the above calculation will be correct;” (ibid).

2
interest.” 14 About five months before October 22, 1844, leading Millerites later recalled how that “the
entire community were excited, and expectation [was] on tiptoe, in reference to the 11th of August and
its anticipated events, the fall of the Ottoman empire, &c.”15 Incidentally, in his book, Daniel and the
Revelation, Uriah Smith essentially echoed the basic position of Litch. 16 He likewise concluded that “the
exact accomplishment of the event predicted, showing, as it did, the right application of the prophecy,
gave a mighty impetus to the great advent movement.” 17
Despite some who urged Ellen White to remove the statements she had made in The Great
Cotroversy, which seemed to support Litch’s position on the fifth and sixth trumpets, she chose to
disregard the major challenges raised about what she had written in that 1888 edition, and decided
instead to include a more complete account of this matter in the revised and updated 1911 edition of
The Great Controversy. 18
In her 1888 Great Controversy, Ellen White stated that this exposition of Litch, “was purely a
matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture.” 19 Yet, over the course of time, especially
since around the mid-1950s, this understanding of the fifth and sixth trumpets, particularly as to the
time aspects, has become the focus of critical challenges. 20 For example, regarding what he identified as
Ellen White’s “glowing endorsement of Litch’s prediction in the Great Controversy,” a former Adventist

14Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1888), 334; hereafter, footnoted as White,

Great Controversy (1888).

15J. V. Himes, S. Bliss, and A. Hale, eds., “The Rise and Progress of Adventism,” The Advent Shield (Boston: Joshua V.

Himes, 1844), 59. They added (ibid.): “Many were the predictions that when that day should have passed by, as it certainly would
do, without the event being realized, that then the spell would be broken, and Adventism would die.”
16See, Uriah Smith, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. (Nashville: Southern Publishing Association,

1944), 500-517.
17Ibid., 517. Though it indicated (when it was originally produced about 60 years ago) that, “generally speaking, the

Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets, particularly as touching the time period involved, is
essentially that of Josiah Litch,” the SDA Bible Commentary noted “that commentators and theologians in general have been
greatly divided over the meaning of the 5th and 6th trumpets;” (Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible
Commentary, rev. ed., 7 vols. [Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1980], 7:796), a situation that seems to have become
commonplace among Adventist academics as well.
18A later print was: Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1950); hereafter, simply

footnoted as White, Great Controversy. In explaining the need for “The 1911 Edition of The Great Controversy,” Herbert Douglass
(in a volume that has a supportive Preface by the Board of Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate) provided the following
information relevant to the need for an updated edition of the earlier version of The Great Controversy:
“With the hope of appealing to the general public, the 1888 edition included twenty-six full-page illustrations and
twenty-six pages devoted to general notes and biographical notes.
“After twenty years of constant reprinting, the plates in both publishing houses were badly worn. Experience in selling
the books to the general public suggested that the book should be reillustrated. Further consideration was given to historical
quotations and to an appendix of references used.
“When Ellen White studied the suggestions, she promptly responded, as she recalled after receiving her copy of the
1911 revised edition: ‘When I learned that Great Controversy must be reset, I determined that we would have everything closely
examined, to see if the truths it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith that the Lord
had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages;’ [see Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, Book 3 (Washington, DC: Review
and Herald, 1980), 123.5];” (Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White [Nampa, ID:
Pacific Press, 1998], 449). See also,
http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt39.html#The%201888%20Edition%20of%20%E2%80%9CThe%20
Great%20Controversy%E2%80%9D (accessed 16 April 2018).
19White, Great Controversy (1888), 334.4.
20For example, Martin Ballard, End-Timers: Three Thousand Years of Waiting for Judgment Day (Santa Barbara, CA:

Praeger, 2011), used a superficial approach and adopted basically a cynical tone (e.g., 141-142).

3
categorically claimed online in 2008: “The truth of the matter is that the month of August, 1840, came
and passed without any evidence of Turkey falling.” Then, he alleged that “the Ottoman Empire officially
came to an end in 1923, with the establishment of a new form of government called the Turkish
Republic.” Finally, this writer concluded his essay as follows: “If Mrs. White was wrong about the
prophecies of Revelation 9, what about the other prophecies in the Great Controversy concerning future
events? Can you really trust the accuracy of the Great Controversy?” 21 A prolific Adventist writer and
editor similarly alleged that, “The Ottoman Empire did not fall on August 11, 1840.” 22 Then, this editor
mentioned that “various attempts have been made to explain Ellen White’s endorsement of this obvious
error.” 23 Finally, promoting a futurist approach, he stated: “Seventh-day Adventists need have no fear of
suggesting an end-time fulfillment for the seven trumpets.” 24 In brief, the question on this matter is
simply: Was this a Litch glitch; a Smith myth; or was White right?
Others, especially Adventists who seek to affirm the gift of prophecy, yet are not too comfortable
with the statements in The Great Controversy regarding these two trumpets, have taken a different
approach. As Rodríguez noted: “It has been suggested that what we seem to have here is a retelling of
the experience of the Millerites, including hers, without necessarily providing a final interpretation of
the prophetic period.” 25 If this assumption can stand up to careful scrutiny, it may help to relieve the
challenge of what Ellen White wrote, especially in view of the strong sentiment that this “traditional
interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets in Revelation 9 is exegetically and historically not
defensible.” 26
Focus of the Current Study

Anyone aware of the intricate nature of the trumpets, would readily recognize that a large
encyclopedic publication may be needed to adequately deal with this issue, especially if one addresses
the matter of hermeneutics, the scripturally-sound principles appropriate to apocalyptic prophecy, the
validity and proper utilization of the year-day principle, the various schools of prophetic interpretation –
i.e., preterism, futurist, idealism, historicism, etc.

21The original statements, as noted above, have been revised somewhat, with stronger claims against Ellen White and

the writing of the Great Controversy; see https://www.nonegw.org/egw52.shtml (accessed 13 April 2018). Sadly, instead of
doing his own careful research, this online writer, D. Anderson, has naïvely accepted unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims as
fact; then, he has presented such as alleged “evidence” of his negative conclusions.
22Marvin Moore, “The Seven Trumpets of Revelation: A Crisis About to Happen? – A Study of Revelation 8 to 11,” TMs

[photocopy], p. 108, Center for Adventist Research, James White Library, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
23Ibid. (emphasis added).
24Ibid. Ellen White cautioned against such futurism: “Some will take the truth applicable to their time, and place it in

the future. Events in the train of prophecy that had their fulfillment away in the past are made future, and thus by these theories
the faith of some is undermined;” (Ellen G. White, Manuscript Releases [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1993], 195.1).
25Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 9. Then, he added (ibid.): “Whether this

is the case or not will continue to be a matter of debate.” Perhaps the discussion (and evidence produced below) will move
Adventists toward a consensus on this.
26Gerhard Pfandl, “Foreword,” in Heidi Heiks, Satan’s Counterfeit Prophecy (USA: TEACH Services, 2013), viii.

4
 In addition, there are questions regarding whether or not it is appropriate to directly link the
end of the time prophecy of the 5th trumpet with the start of that of the 6th trumpet; whether the five
months of the fifth trumpet are a literal 150 days or not; whether a more so-called “symbolic”
interpretation should be used for these trumpets instead of the “traditional” historicist perspective; etc.;
– to say nothing of the need to engage in original research in the available primary documents from the
time, as well as to extensively examine historical accounts (some of which are accessible at present only
in languages other than English).
In explaining the reason for publishing five articles related to the fifth and sixth trumpets in
mid-1944, Ministry magazine astutely stated: “The farther we recede from the throbbing scenes of 1840-
1844, the greater the danger of forgetting the past fulfillment of prophecy. There is a grave danger lest
some be influenced by the superficially plausible assertions of a present-day scholarship that has
abandoned the clear canons of the founding fathers of the Protestant Reformation, which interpretations
were revived by the pioneering leaders of the advent movement.”27
In view of the restriction of time, and recognizing that much ink has already been spilled on
these and related concerns, the focus here will be to assess whether there are valid and verifiable
responses to certain specific, frequently-mentioned, major challenges to the basic interpretation of Litch
on the fifth and sixth trumpets. Hence, this presentation will limit itself to the following four questions,
some of which will be dealt with more thoroughly than others.
(a) Employing the basic contours of the historical-grammatical method, and taking into account the
year-day principle, does the Greek grammar and context of the phrase “the hour and day and month
and year” of Revelation 9:15 identify simply a point in time (as in a date-stamp), or does the weight
of evidence suggest it refers to an extensive span of time?

(b) While there has been some debate regarding Edward Gibbon’s date for the beginning of the
Ottoman Empire (on July 27, 1299), is there sufficient tenable historical data, from the writings of
other reputable historians, that this is indeed a reliable starting point?

(c) Concerning what became known as the “Eastern Question,” what do original newspaper accounts
as well as reliable historical records (as published in various countries), explain relative to the
decline and/or dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, especially regarding the widely disputed pivotal
date of August 11, 1840?

27“Notes and Notices: Information and Sundry Items,” Ministry, June 1944, 2.

5
 (d) Through a comparative analysis of similar language in The Great Controversy relating to the
fulfillment of other analogous prophecies, does the weight of evidence reveal that Ellen White was
merely reporting how people viewed things at that time, or is there sufficient reason to conclude
that she was expressing her conviction that those time prophecies of Revelation 9 were historically
concluded on August 11, 1840?

While by no means exhaustive, it is hoped that by taking “a fresh look” at some challenges raised
about the fifth and sixth trumpets, especially as it relates to what is often seen as the Litch-Smith-White
perspective, valuable insights may be obtained, and faith may be strengthened in Jesus, the Alpha and
the Omega, from this final book of the Bible that deals with the end-times. As Rodríguez urged: “Our
eschatology should be placed within the soteriology of the New Testament, emphasizing hope as its
primary content.” 28
Why Seventh-Day Adventists Employ the Historicist Approach

Almost 30 years ago, the officially commissioned Daniel and Revelation Committee of the
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists published the following statements regarding the
significance of the books of Daniel and the Revelation, as well as the biblically appropriate methodology
to be utilized in the interpretation of these important apocalyptic books:
The distinctive frame that holds together the picture of biblical truth as taught by Seventh-day
Adventists is their understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. In these prophecies the
Adventist people have found their times, their identity, and their task. Jesus Christ is at the center of
the prophetic Word, and its dynamic in the Adventist faith (John 14:29; 2 Peter 1:19).
Seventh-day Adventists arrived at their interpretation of Bible prophecy by employing the
principles of the historicist school of prophetic interpretation, sometimes called the historicist
method or the continuous historical method. The historicist method accepts the assumption that the
prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are intended to unfold and to find fulfillment in historical
time—in the span between the prophets Daniel and John respectively and the final establishment of
God’s eternal kingdom. The year-day principle (a symbolic days equals a literal year) is an integral
part of the method; for it functions to unroll the symbolic time periods, enabling us to locate the
predicted events along the highway of history.
Jesus employed the historicist method when He announced the time of His ministry as a
fulfillment of prophecy (Mark 1:15; cf. Dan 9:25), and later when He referred to the prophesied ruin

28Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Some Problems with ‘Adventist’ Futurism,” Reflections – The BRI Newsletter, April 2010, 2.

6
 of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matt 24:15; cf. Dan 9:26). The Millerites, our immediate forebears,
were historicists, as were also the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers....
The Daniel and Revelation Committee wishes to reaffirm to the world church the validity of the
historicist approach to these two apocalyptic books. The committee sees it as the only sound method
to use. Our pioneers did not follow “cunningly devised fables” when they searched and preached the
truths of these prophecies. They have passed on to us a rich heritage. We call our members to a
renewed study of these grand prophetic books that continue to give certainty and stability to our
personal faith in Christ and His coming and to the worldwide outreach of the Advent people in this
solemn era of God’s judgment activity in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 14:6-14; Dan 7:9, 10, 13, 14).
Not all segments of Daniel and Revelation are as clearly understood as others. There is a
tendency for some earnest persons to focus on the lesser understood portions to such an extent that
they miss the grand sweep of the clearer passages and the important theological truths they present
for our times. The desire to unlock these obscure portions prompts the tendency to alter
methodology and employ unsound principles in order to find satisfactory solutions. Two sections of
Revelation especially fall into this category: the seals (Rev 4:1-8:1) and the trumpets (Rev 8:2-
11:17). 29

Aware of the caution that “the trumpets” are part of the “lesser understood portions” of
Revelation, it seems nevertheless worthwhile to delve into certain aspects of this topic at a conference
specifically convened to address eschatology from a biblical, Adventist perspective. Our current Adult
Bible Study Guide (titled “Preparation for the End Time”), 30 as well as an article on “The Day-Year
Principle” in the April edition of Ministry, seem to affirm the importance of a study of eschatology, which
could and should, I believe, include a closer examination of the fifth and sixth trumpets.

29Frank B. Holbrook, ed., Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and Exegetical Studies, Book 1, Daniel and Revelation

Committee Series, vol. 6 (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1992;
Reprinted from Adventist Review, 3 August 1989; Ministry, January, 1991), 175-176.
30In the introduction to the entire quarter’s lessons, the following is stated: “Today, from our vantage point in the flow

of history, we can see that nearly all of what Jesus warned about has come to pass, and just as He predicted, too. We can see the
fulfillment of two major time prophecies, as well. The first is the ‘time and times and the dividing of time’ of Daniel 7:25 (see also
Rev. 12:6, 14; 13:5; Num 14:34), which began in the sixth century A.D. (A.D. 538) and ended in the late eighteenth century (A.D.
1798). Then, too, the longest time prophecy, the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14, which reached its fulfillment in the year 1844.” The
reader who is aware of early Adventist history as well as Ellen White’s statements in The Great Controversy (334-335), will have
noticed that only “two major time prophecies” are mentioned, to the exclusion of the Revelation 9 time prophecies and their
1840 connection. The “Principal Contributor” for these Bible Study Guides is listed as Norman R. Gulley, a “research professor in
systematic theology at Southern Adventist University.” However, since the final document depends on a larger committee (and
ultimately the editor, Clifford Goldstein), it is difficult to ascertain whose perspective this is, of not including the Trumpets time
prophecies.

7
 The Time Phrase of Revelation 9:15 and the Year-Day Principle

A rather common concern about Litch’s interpretation of the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet,
reads as follows: “Greek scholars, including most Adventist Greek scholars, assure us that the time
statement in Revelation 9:15 refers to a particular point in time.” 31 Moreover, it is asserted that “the
phrase should not be regarded as the sum of chronological units of time…. In other words, the sixth
trumpet says nothing about a span of time lasting 391 years and 15 days.” 32 Then, it is alleged that “all
modern Bible translations express the thought of Revelation 9:15 this way.” 33 Strangely, it seems that
none of those making these claims actually engages in any exegesis of the passage 34 – they merely make
unsupported pronouncements. Even when stated more ambivalently, such as that, “‘this [phrase] can be
understood as ‘a divinely-appointed moment in time,’” 35 no actual analysis is done of the Greek text
itself.
In commenting on the time-phrase of Revelation 9:5, and 10, the Andrews Study Bible suggests
that the five months “may represent the lifespan of locusts, the duration of the flood (Gen. 7:24; 8:3), or
150 prophetic years.” 36 Regarding the time-phrase of Revelation 9:15, “the hour and day and month and
year,” the Andrews Study Bible, provides two views: First, that this “has been interpreted as a span of 391
prophetic years (based on 12 months of 30 days).” 37 Second, “is that the expression refers to a specific
point in time.” 38 Such open-ended comments bring to mind the observation of Rodríguez, that “the
mention of time periods within the trumpets should be carefully studied to determine whether we are
dealing with prophetic time periods or something else.” 39 Since there is essential agreement that the

31Moore, 107. Bohr (12) similarly claims: “Those who know the Greek language can attest to the fact that the scriptures

confirm a point in time.”

32Wilson, 28 (emphasis original).
33Moore, 107. Since Moore produced his revised document in 1993, only “modern Bibles” before then are included in

his claim. If he meant that these modern Bibles did not include the indefinite article “a,” he may be right. However, the lack of
such an article in the original language is not determinative for adding up units, as seen from the manner in which Bible
translators have put in the article “a” (since Greek has none), in the Rev 12:14 time-phrase; these three concepts are then
understood by expositors to be added up.
34A most recent online book by an Adventist, similarly claimed (without any exegesis): “Some expositors say this adds

up to 391 years in prophetic time. Scripture testifies otherwise: the description denotes a specific point in time, not a duration;”
(Karen Yang, The Seven Trumpets: The Glorious Plan Announced [Ann Arbor, MI: karenyang77@gmail.com], 128). Approaching
Scripture in basically a proof-text way, Yang promotes a futurist view of the trumpets, engages in allegorical speculation, discards
standard (historically-verified) accurate fulfillments of prophecies (such as the 400 years of Gen 15:13, and the 70-year
Babylonian captivity [Jer 25:11]), alleges that the “150-year” apocalyptic time prophecy “is a conditional prophecy with no
definite starting point or duration (ibid.,110)” – thus ultimately denying the trustworthiness and divinely-inspired accuracy of
Scripture.
35Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews

University Press, 2002], 311 (emphasis original). He was here quoting Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time
Prophecies of the Bible (Sarasota, FL: First Impressions, 1997), 193. Curiously, Stefanovic, a New Testament academic, engages in
no exegesis of the text; but simply selects a sentence from a systematician.
36Andrews Study Bible: Light. Depth. Truth. (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2010), 1671.
37Ibid., 1672.
38Ibid.
39Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 7.

8
“five months” does equal 150 days, the time-phrase of the fifth trumpet will not be addressed further at
this point.
Revelation 9:15 reads: “So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and
month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind.” Already in a 1945 MA thesis it was recognized
that “the temporal phrase has been the subject of considerable controversy; some expositors conclude
that it refers to a date while others regard it as a [long] period.”40 Essentially, there is no real debate as
to what the original Greek text says. 41 Of six interlinear Bibles, only The Emphatic Diaglott has an
interlinear text that reads: “for the hour and a day and a month and a year,” a basically literal translation,
except for the addition of the indefinite article “a.” 42

Some Thoughts on the Greek Syntax

In 1944 already Roland Loasby, Professor of Biblical Languages, 43 at the SDA Theological
Seminary in the 1940s, had two articles published in Ministry magazine, in which he focused almost
entirely on Greek syntax, particularly on the significance of the definite article for interpretation. First,
he admitted: “Almost without exception modern Bible commentators state that the time period, ‘an
hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, (Rev. 9:15), is punctiliar, and not aggregate, cumulative time.” 44
He aptly described the term “punctiliar,” as something “occurring at a precise point of time,” which in
this context would be understood to mean that “the ‘four angels’ were prepared unto the hour appointed
by God, and that their hour falls on the appointed day and month and year, just as does one’s
birthday.” 45
Loasby then, based largely on his understanding of the meaning of the use of the definite article
in Greek, showed the difference between “combined enumeration” (when a definite article appears
before only the first of a list of several nouns), 46 and “separate enumeration” (the principle in which

40Ronald David Drayson, “An Investigation of the Syntax of Words Denoting Time in the New Testament” (MA thesis,

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Washington, DC), 35.

41Except for The Majority Text Greek New Testament Interlinear (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), which has the words

εἰς τὴν (“for the”) included between καὶ (“and”) and ἡμέραν (“day”), which are based on some manuscripts (i.e., 2351 MK │ – ‫א‬
pc), all other Greek Bibles available agreed with the text as above (including, The New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament
[Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1993]; The Greek New Testament, 3rd ed. [Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1990]; Novum Testamentum
Graece [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979]; The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English [Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1975]; The Interlinear Literal Translation of The Greek New Testament [Chicago: Wilcox & Follett, 1946]; The
Emphatic Diaglott [New York: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, 1942]; H KAINH ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ: The New Testament [London:
Trinitarian Bible Society, 1902]; The Englishman’s Greek New Testament, [London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1877]).
42As students of New Testament Greek are aware, Greek has no indefinite article; hence, it is often inserted by the

English translator, in order to make the sentence flow better.

43According to the British Union Conference’s website, Roland E. Loasby “took an MA at Columbia University, New

York, USA followed by a PhD. He specialised in oriental, and classical languages;” http://www.
adventisthistory.org.uk/listphotos.php?page=122 (accessed 26 April 2018).
44Roland E. Loasby, “The Greek Syntax of Revelation 9:15,” Ministry, June 1944, 15 (emphases original). As examples, he

identified “The Cambridge Greek New Testament; The Expositor’s Greek New Testament; The International Critical Commentary;
The Pulpit Commentary; Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament;” (ibid.).
45Loasby, “The Greek Syntax of Revelation 9:15,” 15.
46Such as, Matt 17:1; Eph 2:20; 3:18; Col 2:22; Rev 5:12.

9
separate definite articles are used to sharply distinguish items in a list).47 Perhaps unwittingly, Loasby
then extended this legitimate rule of “combined enumeration” into claiming that it “makes the time
periods mentioned a combined, cumulated length of time; they are a prophetic time, to be treated as an
accumulation, an aggregate, added together.” 48
More than half a century after Loasby’s essays, Adventist linguist Tarsee Li published an article
titled “Revelation 9:15 and the Limits of Greek Syntax.” 49 While he made clear that his focus was “on
methodology, rather than on interpretation,” 50 his short, but thought-provoking, essay concluded that
“according to Sharp’s rule, 51 the hour, day, month, and year in this passage are viewed as one unit.
However, that does not tell us whether that unit is a point in time or a [long] period of time.” 52
In a later revised and considerably expanded essay on Revelation 9:15, 53 Li addressed the
meaning of the Greek expression εἰς + the accusative case. In brief, he pointed out that the accusative
case can express either a point in time or a span of time. The genitive case, however, while it can express
a point in time (e.g., “at night”), does not identify duration or a span of time (i.e., “through the
night”/”night-long”). This begs the question: If the Revelator had desired the reader or hearer to
definitively understand that this time-phrase was incontestably intended as a point in time, he could
easily have employed the genitive to do so – but, he did not! Instead he used the accusative, which on its
own, allows for either option. 54
Since the preposition εἰς is used here together with the accusative case, some have speculated
that this may resolve the issue. 55 For example, Luke 12:19 has εἰς ἔτη πολλά (“for many years”), and
Revelation 14:11 has εἰς αἰῶνας (“for the ages”) – thus denoting a span of time in each text. However,
there is evidence in the New Testament that εἰς + the accusative can also be used to indicate that an

47See Roland E. Loasby, “Greek Syntax of Rev. 9:15 (Concluded),” Ministry, July 1944, 15-16, 18. Examples include, Heb

11:20 (lit. “Isaac blessed the Jacob and the Esau”); Jas 3:11 (lit. “Does the spring out of the same opening pour forth the fresh and
the brackish); Rev 22:15 (lit. “But without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the
idolaters”).
48Loasby, “Greek Syntax of Rev. 9:15 (Concluded),” 18.
49Tarsee Li, “Revelation 9:15 and the Limits of Greek Syntax,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 8/1-2 (1997):

100-105.
50Ibid., 100.
51Li (“Revelation 9:15 and the Limits of Greek Syntax,” 103) quoted Greenlee’s definition as follows: “Granville Sharp’s

rule: When the article is used before the first member only of a series, the members are to be considered as a connected whole.
When the article is used before each member, each is to be conserved separately;” (J. Harold Greenlee, A Concise Exegetical
Grammar of New Testament Greek, 5th ed. rev. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 23 [sec. I.B.11]).
52Li, “Revelation 9:15 and the Limits of Greek Syntax,” 104.
53Tarsee Li, “The Hour, Day, Month, and Year in Revelation 9:15,” 2012 (private correspondence, in the possession of

this researcher).
54Li, “The Hour, Day, Month, and Year in Revelation 9:15,” 7.
55This may be because of the frequent claim that the accusative identifies a span of time; see, for example, Benjamin

Chapman and Gary Shogen who noted that, while the genitive identifies “kind of time,” the accusative describes “extent of time
(how long?);” (Benjamin Chapman, and Gary Steven Shogen, Greek New Testament Insert, 2nd ed. rev. [Quakertown, PA: Stylus
Publishing, 1994], 15, 19). Online sites similarly claim that the, “Accusative of Measure (Extent of Time or Space) {stands} [for the
extent of, for the duration of];” http://www .bcbsr.com/greek/gcase.html (accessed 26 April 2018); that the “Accusative [can
identify] extent of time;” http://in thesaltshaker.com/drills/acccase.htm#SUMTIME (accessed 26 April 2018). However, see the
argumentation above.

10
event continues “until” a specific point in time (e.g., 2 Tim 1:12 has εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν [“until that
day”]; Matt 10:22 has εἰς τέλος [“until the end”]. 56 In sum, all that could be said for sure is that, since
John did not use the genitive (which would have excluded the notion of duration or a span of time), but
employed the accusative case, the Greek syntax leaves it open for the phrase to be either a point in time
or a span of time. 57

Reflections on the Time Elements

Since the use of the preposition εἰς + the accusative does not solve the issue, the matter of the
sequencing of the time elements needs to be considered. Li expended considerable effort in examining
the manner in which both Scripture as well as extra-biblical literature express specific points in time. He
concluded: “In the Greek, a date formula would not be expressed as ‘the hour and day and month and
year.’ Instead each time element would have its own definite article.”58 Moreover, while the first element
(“hour”) is in the accusative case, the next ones “would probably [need to] occur in the genitive case” –
and would then read, “until the hour of the day of the month of the year.” 59 Since this is not the case, Li
aptly deduced that “the time expression of Revelation 9:15 does not constitute a date formula.” 60
Furthermore, if this were to be seen as a point in time, one would expect the sequence “to focus
ever more precisely on smaller and smaller units of time, e.g., next year, on Thanksgiving Day [at 7:30
pm].” 61 In Jesus’ statement that no one knows “the day nor the hour” of His return (Matt 25:13), the
sequence goes from the larger to the smaller unit, making the point more emphatic. If it were stated in
reverse, that is, that no one knows “the hour nor the day,” this “would appear redundant, since one does
not usually know the exact hour without [first] knowing the day.” 62 More than 150 years ago, E. B. Elliott
already complained that, if it is supposed to identify a point in time, this clause is “made up of
tautologies: tautologies such that every successive word after the first, instead of strengthening, only

56Li (“The Hour, Day, Month, and Year in Revelation 9:15,” 8) noted that “since in Greek the temporal expression

immediately follows the word ‘prepared,’ most would agree that it is more natural to interpret it as denoting that the angels had
been prepared for that time rather than that they were released for that time [whether it be a point in time or a span of time],
though the alternative cannot be completely ruled out.”
57In a diagrammatic outline, Brent Shakespeare, “Revelation 9:15 – ‘an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year,” TMs

[photocopy], in the possession of this researcher, has considered the potential contextual markers (and/or linguistic links)
related to the 106 appearances of the term “hour” throughout the New Testament. He has concluded that whenever the Greek
word ὥρα is used to identify a “point in time,” it is always accompanied by some marker (“the same hour,” “selfsame hour;” “that
hour,” “in that hour;” “that very hour;” “is/was come;” “sixth hour,” “ninth hour, etc.;” or a context that clearly indicates a point in
time, such as Christ’s second coming. In contradistinction, Shakespeare noted that “Rev 9:15 lacks any contextual markers;”
(ibid., 5). Hence, he concluded that the time-phrase “should not be seen as a point in time” (ibid.), but rather as a span of time.
This consideration is a new avenue that can benefit from further analysis, in order to ascertain the validity of Shakespeare’s
findings.
58Ibid., 15 (emphasis added).
59This is essentially the “interpretation of some English versions (despite the fact that the genitive is not present): “for

this hour of this day of this month of this year” (JB; NJB).
60Li, “The Hour, Day, Month, and Year in Revelation 9:15,” 15 (emphasis added).
61Ibid.
62Ibid.

11
weakens the supposed meaning.” 63 In short, the order of the time elements in Revelation 9:15, which
expands the length of the point in time by ever larger units, actually makes the “point” ever less precise.
A recent volume on Revelation concurred noting: “The particular order of the formula [as it
stands] has the opposite effect from intensification, as it widens the time designations from ‘hour’ to
‘year’ rather than narrowing them from ‘year’ to ‘hour.’” 64 This may be the very reason that some
English Bibles have actually illegitimately inverted the entire sequence, to read, as the Revised English
Bible put it, “for this very year, month, day, and hour.” 65 Also, at least one recent commentator, while
advocating the allegedly emphatic rationale for this formula as a point in time, has similarly reversed the
original Greek phrase, claiming that it refers to “‘not merely the year, month, and day but the very hour
of the fulfillment.’” 66
In short, lacking the definite article before each time element (and without the use of the
genitive case) this phrase cannot be a date formula. Moreover, since the sequence of terms goes from the
smaller to the larger, it implies that this is not a point in time; if it were, the elements would be in the
reverse order, making the “point” more emphatic. Hence, contrary to the repeated claims that the Greek
grammar shows that this is a point in time, both the lack of the genitive case, together with the specific
sequencing of time elements, provides credible indications that the interpreter needs to consider an
option other than a “point in time.”

Some Contextual Considerations

While there has been much debate as to the meaning of the time-phrase in verse 15, it seems (as
noted above) that there is a universal understanding that the “five months” of the fifth trumpet (Rev 9:5,
10) refers to a specific span of time, irrespective of whether this is taken as literal or as prophetic time. 67

63E. B. Elliott, Horӕ: Apocalypicӕ; or, A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical, 5th ed. vol. 1 (London:

Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1862), 518.

64Oral Edmond Collins, The Final Prophecy of Jesus: An Introduction, Analysis and Commentary on the Book of Revelation

(Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2007), 208.

65Similarly, the NEB, Living Bible, and Message.
66Collins, 208, footnote #55, quoting Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1990), 113.

67A medical doctor, Kenneth Mathews has alleged that the fifth trumpet includes two separate periods of “five months,”

and thus refers to “two 150-year periods of attack by the Saracens and by the Ottomans;” (Kenneth Mathews, Jr., Revelation
Reveals Jesus: An Explanation of the Greek Text and Application of the Symbolism Therein [Greeneville, TN: Second Coming
Publishing, 2012], 477). However, virtually all commentators seem to hold that verses 5 and 10 are to be seen in light of how one
scholar noted, “that the recapitulation theory is the correct hermeneutical approach to the Apocalypse;” (Andrews E. Steinmann,
“The Tripartite Structure of the Sixth Seal, the Sixth Trumpet, and the Sixth Bowl of John’s Apocalypse (Rev 6:12-7:17; 9:13-
11:14; 16:12-16),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 35/1 [March 1992], 76). See, Max J. Lee, “Revelation,” The Baker
Illustrated Bible Commentary, Gary M. Burge, and Andrew E. Hill, eds. (Grand Rapids: BakerBooks, 2012), 1609; Robert H.
Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson,
2010), 1026; Grant Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002), 372-373; Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2001), 288; G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 502; Leon
Morris, The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester, England: Eerdmans, 1987), 128; Robert H. Mounce,
The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 197; Morris Ashcraft, “Revelation,” The Broadman Bible Commentary,
vol. 12: Hebrews—Revelation General Articles (Nashville: Broadman, 1972), 295-296; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St.

12
The phrase in question, μῆνας πέντε (“for five months”) uses simply the accusative case – the same case
employed for the time element of the sixth trumpet. One and a half centuries ago, Albert Barnes pointed
out that one of the reasons for viewing the time-phrase of the sixth as a span of time, was due to
recognizing that “it is in accordance with the prediction respecting [the fifth trumpet, i.e.,] the first ‘woe’
(ver. 5).” 68
When one reads further in the biblical passage, but remains within the context of the section on
the trumpets, one comes across the time element given in Revelation 11:2, μῆνας τεσσεράκοντα [καὶ]
δύο (“for forty-two months”); as well as that of verse 3, ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα (“for one
thousand two hundred and sixty days”). Again, in both cases the accusative case is used, and well-
recognized as referring to a definite span of time. In addition, at least among Adventist historicist
scholarship, there seems to be a basic consensus that the texts in chapter 11 are rightly understood as
1260 years of prophetic time (which were fulfilled from AD 538 – 1798). Since these acknowledged
prophetic time-phrases in the book of Revelation occur in the section that deals with the seven
trumpets, it seems not unreasonable for the interpreter to be cognizant of the fact that the time-phrase
related to the sixth trumpet may likewise necessitate the use of the year-day principle in order for the
passage to be best understood. Thus, the repeated use of the accusative with time-phrases (both before
and after the sixth trumpet), to identify specific spans of times, serves to nudge the contextually-
attentive interpreter towards rendering “the hour and a day and a month and a year” in a similar
manner.
In view of the danger of superimposing one’s own biases on Revelation 9:15, William Shea
proposed considering “just how prophetic time periods are used in the book of Revelation.” 69 Shea
identified 14 other texts that have prophetic time elements, some of which refer to the same periods.
Three cases (that of Rev 11:11; 20:3, 7) “refer to the end of their respective time periods,” and each is
qualified by a preposition indicting such time. 70 Of the 11 remaining texts (Rev 2:10; 9:5, 10; 11:2, 3, 9;
12:6, 14; 13:5; 20:2, 4) “none of them refer to the beginning of the time period and none of them date the
beginning of the time period.” 71 However, all of them “refer to the duration of the time and the action.” 72

John’s Revelation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963), 290-291; Bruce, “Revelation,” 1693; Bruce, Zondervan Bible Commentary, 1663;
Johnson, 673.
68Albert Barnes, A Popular Family Commentary on the New Testament, Being Notes Practical and Explanatory [London:

Blackie & Son, 1868], 227.

69William H. Shea, “The Trumpets,” 1989, TMs [photocopy], p. 28, Center for Adventist Research, James White Library,

Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

70Ibid.
71Ibid., 29. Other than Rev 2:10 (“tribulation of [i.e., during] ten days,” using the genitive to express kind of time), all the

other 10 texts use the accusative case, with time-phrases each identifying a span of time.
72Ibid. It should be noted, however, that in a subsequent paper (William H. Shea, “The Trumpets Again,” 1990, TMs

[photocopy], Center for Adventist Research, James White Library, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI), Shea changed his
mind (31), noting that “the more recent translations and interpretations of the phrase about time here…. point to a date in time.”
Now seeing it as a “date formula,” he concluded that “that prophecy came to an end historically in 1798;” (36). However, in 1992
Shea’s published chapter noted that “the year-day principle,” when applied to the time-phrase in Rev 9:15 ends up equaling 391
years (i.e., since he did not add in the “hour”), which he then said fit from 1453 (the fall of Constantinople), until 1844 (the edict

13
 A most interesting and appropriate comparison with the time element in the sixth trumpet can
be found in the phrase in Revelation 12:14, καιρὸν, καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ (“a time, and times,
and half a time”). It seems that this is most likely an allusion to Daniel 7:25, which reads in the
Septuagint [LXX]: ἕως καιροὺ καὶ καιρῶν καὶ γε ἥμισυ καιροῦ 73 (lit. “for a time and times and half a
time”). 74 The above phrase includes two appearances of the conjunction “and” in the LXX, as well as in
the Greek text of the New Testament. Moreover, as consistently held by Adventist historicists, the use of
“and” here indicates that these three parts of the phrase were intended by Daniel and John to be
numerically added together, to equal three and a half prophetic “times” (which equals 42 months, or
1260 days) – thus identifying the 1260 years, which culminated in 1798. This parallel also implies that
the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet should likewise be seen as an aggregate of the terms, to identify a
span of time.75

The Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation

Gerhard Pfandl, aptly noted that “the year-day principle, in which one day in prophecy is
counted as one year in history, constitutes the backbone of the historicist interpretation of apocalyptic
prophecy.” 76 Clifford Goldstein has provided a succinct summary of the indispensability of the year-day
principle, especially as inextricably intertwined with historicism:
Without question, historicism – seeing the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as an
unfolding of the ancient past through the present and into the future – provides the prophetic
framework upon which the Seventh-day Adventist Church has established much of its identity and
message…. 77 And central to the historicist hermeneutic is the day-year principle. Without it,…
historicism [will] self-destruct. 78

of toleration by the Sultan); (William H. Shea, “The Mighty Angel and His Message,” in Symposium on Revelation: Introductory and
Exegetical Studies, Book 1, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, vol. 6, Frank B. Holbrook, ed. [Silver Spring, MD: Biblical
Research Institute, 1992], 305).
73There may be some who wonder about the significance (or potential difference) of the term καιρός used here in Rev

12:14, as compared with ἐνιαυτός, as seen in Rev 9:15. Even a brief look at how these two terms (for “year”) were used in the
LXX (“ἐνιαυτός” in Num 14:34; Ezek 4:6 and καιρός in Dan 7:25; 12:7) will show that they were used somewhat interchangeably.
74The Aramaic text of Daniel 7:25, rendered in English reads literally, “until a time and times and the dividing of time.”
75Others also recognize that this phrase calls upon the interpreter to be “putting all the time elements of an hour, a day,

a month and a year together;” (Lee G. Tomlinson, The Wonder Book of the Bible: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation [Joplin,
MO: College Press, 1963], 152). So also, John T. Hinds, A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Co.,
1976), 137; Samuel Schor, The Apocalypse: A Simple Exposition, 3rd ed. (London: Barbican Mission to the Jews, 193?), 35.
76Gerhard Pfandl, “How Do Seventh-day Adventists Interpret Daniel and Revelation?” in Interpreting Scripture: Bible

Questions and Answers, Gerhard Pfandl, ed. (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research institute, 2010), 81.
77Clifford Goldstein, “The Day-Year Principle,” Ministry, April 2018, 10. In reviewing Jerry Gladson’s book Out of

Adventism, Goldstein pointed out that Gladson admits that he considers historicism “obsolete.” Goldstein aptly noted: “Of course,
such an understanding of biblical-apocalyptic literature has far-reaching consequences;” (Reflections – A BRI Newsletter, April
2018, 13).
78Goldstein, “The Day-Year Principle,” 12.

14
 As part of the reason for recognizing the need to utilize the year-day principle, Goldstein noted
that when the visions are symbolic, it makes sense that the time element should be symbolic as well.79
Also, as Pfandl noted, “the peculiar, distinctive way in which the time periods are expressed”80 (e.g.,
“forty-two months” [Rev 11:2]) shows that they clearly are not to be seen in the usual way in which
literal time is given (e.g., “three years” [Lev 25:21]). 81
An apparently little-known, yet vital methodological key for the appropriate application of the
year-day principle in the interpretation of apocalyptic time prophecies, can be seen in the writings of
various nineteenth century Protestant biblical expositors, 82 such as Frederic Thurston, 83 George Bush, 84
T. R. Birks, 85 and E. B. Elliott. 86 Referred to as “miniature symbolization,” this concept can, for example,
be seen in Daniel 8, where two different animals are employed as miniature symbols of larger empires:
The ram with two horns is specifically identified as symbolic of Medo-Persia (vss. 3, 4, 20); and the he-
goat as representative of the Grecian Empire (vss. 5-8, 21). These entities are thus symbols of broader
and long-lasting empires; hence, the related time element, of the 2300 evenings and mornings is to be
interpreted as 2300 prophetic years, using the year-day principle. Since there is no such miniature
symbolization used of the “seven times” (Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32), the “seventy years” (Dan 9:2), or the
“three weeks” (Dan 10:2), these time prophecies do not qualify for the year-day principle of prophetic
interpretation, and must thus be understood as normal, literal time.
Since the apocalyptic book of Revelation appears to operate on the same premise,87 it would be
well to briefly consider whether or not the time phrases of the fifth and sixth trumpets qualify to be
interpreted as prophetic time. Regarding the prophecy in the first several verses of Revelation 9, Timm
pointed out: “The entire narrative of the fifth ‘trumpet’ (vss. 1-12), in which those references appear is

79Ibid., 11.
80Pfandl, “How Do Seventh-day Adventists Interpret Daniel and Revelation?” 82-83.
81For more than a score of evidences for the importance and necessity of employing the year-day principle, where it

needs to be utilized, see William H. Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation, Daniel and Revelation Committee Series,
vol. 1 (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982).
82On this topic, see Alberto R. Timm, “Miniature Symbolization & The Year-Day Principle,” in Prophetic Principles:

Crucial Exegetical, Theological, Historical & Practical Insights, Ron du Preez, ed. (Lansing, MI: Michigan Conference of Seventh-day
Adventists, 2007), 234-270. An earlier edition was Alberto R. Timm, “Miniature Symbolization and the Year-Day Principle of
Prophetic Interpretation,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, 42/1 (Spring 2004): 149-167. Essentially all of the above
information comes from Timm’s thought-provoking research.
83See Frederic Thurston, England Safe and Triumphant; or, Researches into the Apocalyptic Little Book, and Prophecies,

Connected and Synchronical (London: Coventry, 1812), 1:145.

84See George Bush, “Prophetic Designations of Time,” The Hierophant; or Monthly Expositor of Sacred Symbols and

Prophecy 11 (April 1843): 241-253; George Bush, “Prophetic Designations of Time,” The Advent Herald and Signs of the Times
Reporter, 6 March 1844, 33-35.
85See T. R. Banks, First Elements of Sacred Prophecy: Including an Examination of Several Recent Expositions, and of the

Year-Day Theory (London: William Edward Painter, 1843), 308-419.

86E. B. Elliott, Horӕ: Apocalypicӕ; or, A Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical, 3rd ed. vol. 3 (London:

Seeley, Jackson, and Halliday, 1847), 224-227.

87See, for example, the “two olive trees” (Rev 11:4) which represent the Old and New Testaments, the “woman” (Rev

12:6) representing the church, the “beast” with “ten horns and seven heads” (Rev 13:1) symbolizing papal Rome; since these are
all cases of miniature symbolization, the connected time prophecies are all interpreted by using the year-day principle. Just as
seen in Daniel, the year-day principle is not used in Revelation, for example in connection with the 1000-year prophecy (Rev
20:1-10), because it is not written in a miniature-symbolization tone.

15
crowded with symbolic entities, such as ‘star,’ ‘bottomless pit,’ and exotic war ‘locusts.’” 88 When one
accepts that this trumpet is a miniature representation of the rise of the Ottoman Empire in AD 1299,
then the year-day principle is rightly applied, as representing 150 years.
In a consonant manner, the passage in Revelation 9:13-21 includes such symbolic expressions as
“the great river Euphrates,” “horses” with heads like lions, “mouths” from which come “fire and smoke
and sulfur.” If this sixth trumpet is seen in relation to the Christian church during the approximate time
of the Middle Ages, then the year-day principle is also aptly applied. In short, “this miniature-symbolic
parallelism [theory] enriches the year-day principle with a meaning that goes far beyond a mere proof-
text approach.” 89
In accord with many Bible prophecy interpreters over the centuries, 90 Sir Isaac Newton, in his
1733 posthumous book, understood and applied the year-day principle to Revelation 9:15: “The interval
is called an hour and a day, and a month and a year, or 391 prophetic days, which are years.” 91
Apparently taking into account the “hour” as well, Enoch Pond, a theology professor, concluded that “in
prophetic time, this amounts to a little more than three hundred and ninety-one years.” 92 First published
in 1829, another commentator concluded: “The duration of this [second] woe is given in the text, and
which we interpret agreeably to the prophetic Scripture: thus a year of three hundred and sixty days, a
month of thirty days, and a day and an hour, each day for a year (Numbers xiv. 34), is three hundred and
ninety-one years and fifteen days.” 93 As recently as 2001, the same total time has been promoted, by a
Presbyterian professor. 94 Could it be, though, that some Adventists are drifting away from our biblically-
founded apocalyptic understanding, and moving into treacherous waters?

88Timm, “Miniature Symbolization & The Year-Day Principle,” 252.

89Ibid., 258.
90See, for example, the multiple evidences of this in LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 4 vols.

(Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946-1954). For a two-page chart showing 124 expositors from the 12th to the 20th century
who employed the year-day principle in respect to the trumpets, see LeRoy Edwin Froom, “Time Phase of Fifth and Sixth
Trumpets,” Ministry, June 1944, 24-25.
91Isaac Newton, Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (London: J. Darby, and T.

Brown, 1733), 307, though he suggested (ibid.) that the time-line of the sixth trumpet ended in 1453 at the fall of Constantinople.
92Enoch Pond, The Seals Opened; or, The Apocalypse Explained (Portland: Hoyt, Fogg, and Breed, 1871), 107; he also

concluded that (103) the five months “may stand for one hundred and fifty years.” Also accepting the year-day theory, Joseph
Baylee, vicar of Sheepscombe, Gloucestershire, noted that the sixth trumpet “remarkably fulfilled the 391 years of their [i.e., the
Ottoman Empire’s] predicted victorious power;” (Joseph Baylee, The Apocalypse: The Voice of Jesus Christ from the Throne of
Glory, with an Exegetical and Practical Commentary [London: James Nisbet & Co., 1876], 239). Similarly, Alfred Brunson,
concurred that the sixth trumpet (as the Ottoman dynasty), “was to continue an hour and a day, and a month and a year,” which
“according to prophetic numbers, would be 391 years;” (Alfred Brunson, A Key to the Apocalypse: or, Revelation of Jesus Christ to
St. John in the Isle of Patmos [Cincinnati: Jennings and Pye, 1880], 53). Likewise, M. F. Sadler, rector of Honiton and Prebendary of
Wells, observed that “this hour, day, month, and year are calculated on the year-day system” (and it refers to “the Turkish
power”); (M. F. Sadler, The Revelation of St. John the Divine; with Notes Critical and Practical, 2nd ed. rev. [London: George Bell and
Sons, 1894]. 117, footnote #15). A few pages earlier (111, footnote #5), referring to the fifth trumpet, Sadler concluded that “on
the year-day principle” the “five months” are “one hundred and fifty years.”
93Apocalyptic Sketches, Being a Condensed Exposition of the Views of the Most Eminent Writers upon the Prophecies of

Revelation, Daniel, Isaiah, &c., Respecting the Second Coming of Our Lord with All His Saints at the First Resurrection, First Canadian
Edition (Toronto: R. & A. Miller, 1860), 60-61.
94Francis Nigel Lee, John’s Revelation Unveiled (El Paso, TX: Lamp Trimmers, 2001), 92. Barnes (227) noted that, if

taken literally, this would amount to a little more than a year. But then he added: “If it be taken, however, in the common
prophetic style, where a day is put for a year … then the amount of time (360+30+1+an hour) would be three hundred and

16
 A few years Sigve Tonstad engaged in a fervent challenge to what he termed the “New View”
approach to interpreting Revelation, 95 by contrast with the “Old View” of basically Uriah Smith. He
concluded that, in relation to the trumpets, “the chronological specificity and phenomenological
circumscription that are characteristic of the Old View are gone.”96 Furthermore, he cautioned that
“there is a shift from what I will call a symbolic interpretation to a more parabolic and allegorical
interpretation. The latter is particularly evident with respect to the many –isms said to be the referents
under the fifth trumpet (‘deism, relativism, nihilism, nationalism, and communism’), broadened still
more when an attempt at further specification turns into a sweeping generalization.” 97

Brief Summary and Concluding Reflections

It has been alleged that the Greek language proves that the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet
refers to a point in time. However, since the contested phrase is not in the genitive case (which would
have excluded it from being a span of time), but rather in the accusative, the Greek syntax allows it to be
either a point in time or a span of time. Also, the preposition attached to the accusative can be used for
either a point in time or a span of time. As noted above, this phrase does not qualify as a date formula.
Moreover, the very sequencing of the time elements (in the reverse order of what is needed to show
emphasis for a specific moment), indicates that the phrase is not intended to focus on a point in time – if
it were it would be redundant and counterintuitive. In the immediate setting of the seven trumpets, the
“five months” of Revelation 9:5, 10 (as indicating 150 prophetic days), as well as the well-recognized

ninety-one years and the portion of a year indicated by an hour…. That this is the true view seems to be clear, because this
accords with the usual style in this book.”
95Sigve Tonstad, “The Cosmic Conflict in Revelation,” a Paper Presented at Andrews University, 3 February 2011. He

was here sharing concerns mainly about the increasingly popular Revelation commentary by Stefanovic.
96Tonstad, 7. For example, ignoring standard historicist Adventist perspectives, Stefanovic (304) interprets the five

months (of Rev 9:5, and 10) as follows: “This reminds us of the Genesis flood that lasted five months and harmed the earth for
five months (Gen. 7:24; 8:3). During this period, Noah and his family were under special protection, and the waters of the great
Flood could not harm them. This Flood motif is reflected here in the scene of the fifth trumpet. Like Noah and his family, so the
genuine believers are under special protection from the plague of the demonic locusts harming the earth and its inhabitants for
‘five months.’” He ends up alleging, somewhat nebulously (306), that, “thus the fifth trumpet refers to the spiritual condition in
the secular world and the consequences of such conditions from the eighteenth century to our time.” As part of his explanation of
Rev 9:10, Stefanovic writes: “The demonic locusts were allowed to torment the wicked for ‘five months’; they were restrained
from destroying and killing them, however (9:3-6). Here, in the scene of the sixth trumpet, the demonic cavalry completes a
widespread killing. The time is coming when God will remove the restraints, thus making it possible for the demonic forces to
exercise their activity as never before in history, and carry out his judgments on the inhabitants of the earth;” (311, emphases
original; underlining added, to identify the fact that this is really a futurist approach to the text). Others, not coming from the
Adventist historicist background, also focus on the suggestion that five months is the lifespan of locusts: F. F. Bruce, “Revelation,”
in Zondervan Bible Commentary, F. F. Bruce, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 1663; Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed. vol. 13: Hebrew – Revelation, Tremper Longman III, and David E. Garland, eds. (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 673; F. F. Bruce, The New Layman’s Bible Commentary, G. C. D. Howley, F. F. Bruce, H. L Ellison, eds.
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 1693.
97Tonstad, 7; then, he added (ibid.) the following generalization, from Stefanovic’s book: “‘The smoke from the demonic

abyss may be observed, for instance, in the various movements within Christianity that are promoting a religion based largely on
emotions, which has taken the place of the religion of mind and conduct. Yet this demonic smoke can equally be observed in the
widespread New Age movement and the growing activities of Islam;’” (see Stefanovic, 306-307). This negative assessment by
Tonstad (that Stefanovic’s work tends to be allegorical) seems valid despite Stefanovic’s claim (in the second edition) that he
uses typology, not allegory.

17
1260-year fulfillment (based on Rev 11:2, 3), both provide contextual indicators for considering that the
time-phrase of the sixth trumpet needs to be interpreted through the year-day principle. Finally,
consideration of how prophetic periods are identified in Revelation, as well as an analysis of the
aggregation of time elements in Revelation 12:14, indicated that the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet
should likewise be seen as an aggregation of the four time elements, so as to identify a span of time.
Since the visions are symbolic, and the time elements are stated in such a unique manner, the
year-day principle was recommended. Furthermore, the vital concept of miniature symbolization for
prophetic interpretation was noted, with the conclusion that the time phrases of both fifth and sixth
trumpets requires the utilization of the year-day principle. In short, the fifth trumpet identifies a 150-
year time span; and the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet cumulatively points to a span of time of 391
years and 15 days.
In closing this section, it would be well to make mention as to why time has been spent, and
needs to be invested, in this matter of the accuracy of dates, in the context of meticulous exegesis. 98 In an
observant analysis of Rodríguez’s article on the seven trumpets, church historian Nicholas Miller, shared
his concerns regarding how the views of some are “tending towards an idealist position in their handling
of the time periods, that is, the five months and the hour, day, month, and year.” 99 Miller warned:

To empty these periods of chronological significance of some sort tends to unmoor the trumpets
from actual historical periods. As a historian myself, I know the difficulties presented at times by
trying to attach the often sparse symbolism of prophetic outline [to] the messy details of real
history. Yet, I think that this is an important part of keeping prophecy grounded in the actual flow of
history.
I am concerned that once we decide that the time periods in the fifth and sixth trumpets are
symbolic and have no meaningful connection with real history, that this approach will expand to the
1,260 days (which some have already suggested) as well as to other periods. It is a short step from
here to a completely idealized, spiritualized reading of prophecy that, in my view, will empty our
prophetic message of much of its urgency and power.

98Admittedly, there have been some who have alleged that Litch’s August 11, 1840 terminus must be wrong, since “he

[supposedly] overlooked the effect of the calendar change in 1582;” (Jon Paulien, “Ellen White and the Exegesis of Revelation:
The Seals and the Trumpets,” 1990, TMs [photocopy], p. 29, Center for Adventist Research, James White Library, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, MI). However, it must be noted that the change in October (of “dropping out” 10 days) did not add or
subtract any years; and the changes simply corrected the previous calendar errors, bringing the calendar back in line with the
natural cycles; (see Adventist Pioneer Library – Lest We Forget, vol. 3, no. 4, October 1993, Insert C).
99Nick Miller, “Letters: Interpreting the Seven Trumpets,” Ministry, March 2012, 4. The major focus of Miller here was

the view of Paulien, LaRondelle, and Stefanovic [PLS], about which he concluded (ibid.): “I do not believe that this is what our
friends PLS intend, but I think it is where their handling of the time periods in the trumpets is tending, and will be taken even
further that way by others.” That at least these three academics “have been stretching the limits of historicism beyond what this
method traditionally entails,” is noted also by Rolf J. Pöhler, “Letters: Interpreting the Seven Trumpets,” Ministry, March 2012, 4.

18
 The June 1944 issue of Ministry had warned about the “grave danger” of “the superficially
plausible assertions of a present-day scholarship.” 100 Could it be that this “grave danger” has reached a
critical juncture – one that deserves urgent and careful attention? Perhaps it is time to call on serious
Adventist biblical and historical scholarship to reassess and reexamine this matter, for “No true doctrine
will lose anything by close investigation.” 101

Reliability of the Beginning Date for the Ottoman Empire

In his thoughtful article on Josiah Litch, in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, Adventist historian
Jerry Moon noted that “in common with other expositors of the time, Litch held that the fifth and sixth
trumpets of Revelation 9 referred to the spread of Islam, particularly the Ottoman Empire.”102 Litch
similarly viewed the “five months” (Rev 9:5) of the fifth trumpet as representing 150 years. Likewise
employing the year-day principle for “the hour and a day and a month and a year” of the sixth trumpet
(Rev 9:15), he concluded that this would cover a span of time of 391 years and 15 days, which he
understood as being directly connected to the 150-year prophecy of the fifth trumpet, making a total of
541 years and 15 days. As Rodríguez recently noted: “If the reference is to prophetic time periods, we
should attempt to find the historical fulfillment applying the year-day principle to them.” 103 This is what
Litch tried to do.
Turning to Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the best available historical
source for the starting point of the first period, Litch was impressed when he found that Gibbon’s
commented on the “singular accuracy” (as based on two Latin sources) 104 of the specific date of July 27,
1299, for the start of the Ottoman Empire. 105 Thus, based on this date, Litch proposed, more than two
years ahead of the time of its fulfillment, that this extensive empire would lose its power “in A.D. 1840,
some time in the month of August” 106 – a terminus which he later sharpened to the definitive date of
August 11, 1840. 107
Since a precise beginning date for the Ottoman Empire is so indispensable for the interpretation
provided by Litch, it has naturally become the focus of attention by scholars. The dispute and confusion
over this is partly because the original records are difficult to access, as well as challenging to

100“Notes and Notices,” 2.

101Ellen G. White, “Christ Our Hope,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 20 December 1892, par. 1. Republished in Ellen
G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors (Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1946), 35.2.
102Jerry Moon, “Litch, Josiah,” in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, Denis Fortin, and Jerry Moon, eds. (Hagerstown, MD:

Review and Herald, 2013), 453.

103Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 7.
104Moon, 453.
105Litch, The Probability of the Second Coming of Christ About A.D. 1843, 153-155.
106Ibid., 157.
107Litch, “Fall of the Ottoman Power in Constantinople,” 70.

19
decipher. 108 Moreover, when one goes online, the task can become even more daunting. For example,
there is an online site called “Quora,” whose “mission is to share and grow the world’s knowledge.”109
While Quora maintains that “it has only one version of each question,” 110 when it comes to the issue of
the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, here is what they claim. First, in an October 14, 2014 post, they
alleged that the “Ottoman Empire was founded in 1302 not 1299.” 111 However, in a May 8, 2016 post it
was stated that this empire “was officially founded in 1299.” 112
While the specific day and month (i.e., the 27th of July) have not been disputed, various
challenges have repeatedly been raised regarding the accuracy of the year 1299, as found in Gibbon’s
book. For instance, Joseph von Hammer (who is perhaps the foremost critic of 1299 being the starting
date) claimed that “‘Gibbon hypothesizes [i.e., conjectures] the year 1299 without confirmation.’” 113
Then, von Hammer alleged that it was the year 1302, and not 1299. 114 But, how did he come up with that
year? Curiously, while von Hammer accused Gibbon of hypothesizing, it appears that he himself engaged
in conjecture. In brief, von Hammer simply assumed that the 1302 battle that Osman fought at Koyun-
Hisari was the same as the battle of Bapheus in 1299. Halil İnalcık, a foremost Turkish historian of the
Ottoman Empire, pointed out that “Bapheus is mistakenly associated with Koyun-hisari by von Hammer
and by all who wrote after him.” 115
Adventist chronologist Grace Amadon’s research, as published in Ministry magazine in mid-1944
seems to provide solid internal reasons for the validity of 1299 being the correct date. First, she pointed
out that von Hammer had mistakenly concluded that the 1299 first battle Othman had fought against the
Greeks was the final one that he had fought in 1302. 116 She noted that the chronology (as coming
originally from the historian Pachymeres), is reliable since it is fixed “by synchronisms and astronomical
events.” 117 Then, she provided topographical and meteorological evidences that reveal that “the year

108Heiks devoted more than 30 pages to addressing this matter (60-92); however, since his work is so polemical and

strongly biased, it fails to provide a reliable basis for a definitive analysis.

109https://www.quora.com/about (accessed 25 April 2018).
110Ibid.
111https://www.quora.com/When-did-the-Ottoman-Empire-start (accessed 25 April 2018).
112https://www.quora.com/What-was-and-how-did-the-Ottoman-Empire-start (accessed 25 April 2018; emphasis

added).
113See Joseph von Hammer, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches (Pest, 1827), I Band, 577.
114Heiks also held to “‘1302 as the definitive founding date of the Ottoman Empire;’” (Heiks, 91) – thus moving the

starting point three years later, and effectively scuttling Litch’s interpretation.
115Halil İnalcık, “The Rise of Ottoman Historiography,” in Historians of the Middle East, Peter Malcolm Holt, and Bernard

Lewis, eds. (London: Oxford, 1962), 153 (emphasis added). The above is an updated spelling of the original statement, by İnalcık,
which reads: “Baphaeon is mistakenly associated with Koyun-ḥiṣrı+̊ by Hammer and by all who wrote after him.” Perhaps,
Wikipedia’s comment is applicable on this point: “İnalcık corrected a number of wrong convictions about Ottoman and Turkish
history;” (“Halil İnalcık,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Halil_% C4%B0nalc%C4%B1k [accessed 18 April 2018]). Admittedly, it
seems that İnalcık himself held that the “Ottoman Empire was founded in 1302 not 1299;” https://www.quora.com/When-did-
the-Ottoman-Empire-start?utm_ medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa (accessed 24
April 2018). Heiks (91) made a similar claim about İnalcık.
116See Grace Edith Amadon, “A Landmark of History – July 27, 1299,” Ministry, July 1944, 12. See also, Grace Edith

Amadon, “A Landmark of History – July 27, 1299,” Ministry, June 1944, 18-20.
117Amadon, “A Landmark of History – July 27, 1299,” Ministry, July 1944, 12.

20
1299 exactly harmonizes” with such. 118 Finally, Amadon concluded her extensive investigation, stating
“that July 27, 1299, was the date of the first Ottoman assault on Byzantine territory,” 119 and hence the
beginning of the Ottoman Empire. 120
While various academics have written about the origins and history of the Ottoman Empire,
time and space will permit the mention of only a few resources. Several years ago, Wayne Vucinich
(Professor of History at Stanford University, California) referred to “the Ottoman state and dynasty,
which were founded by Osman (1299-1326).” 121 This starting date has been affirmed over time by
several other academics. 122 Moreover, there is ample evidence in several 21st century publications that
the 1299 date is strongly affirmed. For instance, in a 2009 publication, Mustafa Kibaroğlu (Chair of the
Department of Political Science and International Relations at Mef University in Istanbul, Turkey) and
Ayşegül Kibaroğlu (a fellow professor in the same department) stated: “The Ottoman Empire, which was
founded in 1299, can be said to be an offspring of the Seljuks.” 123 Publications by prestigious academic
institutions (such as Edinburgh University, 124 Oxford University, 125 and Princeton University 126) concur
that the Ottoman Empire began in 1299. 127 As a Professor of History at Istanbul’s Bilgi University, and a

118Ibid., 14.
119Ibid., 15.
120Thomas Milner put it this way: “Othman entered the Greek territory, and began the invasion of Nicomedia, July 27,

1299. From this era his reign is dated, and it may be regarded as the commencing epoch of the Ottoman power;” (Thomas Milner,
The Turkish Empire: The Sultans, the Territory, and the People [London: Religious Tract Society, 1876], 12).
121Wayne S. Vucinich, The Ottoman Empire: Its Record and Legacy (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Norstrand, 1965), 13.
122See, for example, Professor of American History at Cornell University, New York, Moses Coit Tyler, Library of

Universal History (New York: Union Book Co., 1900), 1899; Professor of History at Columbia University, New York, Carlton J. H.
Hayes, and Parker Thomas Moon, Ancient and Medieval History (New York: MacMillan Co., 1929), 664; Jay Pascal Anglin, and
Willaim J. Hamblin, World History to 1648 (New York: HarperPerennial, 1993), 247; Elizabeth Stone, History of The Ottoman
Empire in Europe (New York: John W. Lovell Co., 188?), 38; Alexander W. Hidden, The Ottoman Dynasty, rev. ed. (New York:
Nicholas W. Hidden, 1912).
123Mustafa Kibaroğlu, and Ayşegül Kibaroğlu, Global Security Watch – Turkey: A Reference Handbook (Westport, CT:

Praeger Security International, 2009), 1.

124As part of “A Selective Chronology of Historical and Literary Events,” Prem Poddar (Professor in Cultural Encounters

at Roskilde University, Denmark) and Rajeev S. Patke (Director of Humanities, Yale-National University of Singapore), et al,
pointed out that in the region of the Middle East, it was in “1299” when the “Osman Empire [was] founded by Osman I;” (Prem
Poddar, and Rajeev S. Patke et al, A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures: Continental Europe and Its Empires
[Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008], xxiii).
125Andrew Finkel (an American journalist, based in Turkey since 1989), noted that “the Ottoman Empire [was] founded

in A.D. 1299;” (Andrew Finkel, Turkey: What Everyone Needs to Know [New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 11).
126M. Şükrü Hanioğlu (a Turkish Professor of late Ottoman history in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at

Princeton University, New Jersey), noted that “Osman I, [was the] founding father of the Ottoman dynasty,” who reigned “1299-
1326;” (M. Şükrü Hanioğlu, A Brief History of the Late Ottoman Empire [Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010], 128,
238); The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought, under the letter “O,” has an article on the Ottomans, with a starting
date of 1299; Linda T. Darling (Professor of History, University of Arizona), “Ottomans (1299-1924),” The Princeton Encyclopedia
of Islamic Political Thought, Gerhard Bowering (Professor of Islamic Studies at Yale University), ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2013), 402.
127See also, Christine Isom-Verhaaren (Assistant Professor of History, Brigham Young University, Utah) and Kent F.

Schull (Associate Professor of Ottoman and Modern Middle East History, Binghamton University, New York) noted that, “Osman
(r. 1299–1326) was the founder of a dynasty that bears his name;” (Christine Isom-Verhaaren, and Kent F. Schull, Living in the
Ottoman Realm: Empire and Identity, 13th to 20th Centuries [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2016], 17). In the section
on “Chronology,” Rafis Abazov (Adjunct Professor at Columbia University and Visiting Professor at Al-Farabi Kazakh National
University, Kazakhstan) identified “1299” as when “Osman I declared his independence from the Seljuks and founded the
Ottoman kingdom (Osmanli davleti), becoming the first sultan of the Ottoman dynasty;” (Rafis Abazov, Culture and Customs of
Turkey [Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2009], xix); Arshad Khan (Adjunct Professor at the University of California [Berkeley
and Santa Cruz], Golden Gate University, and National University) observed: “The Turk-dominated Ottoman Empire, founded by

21
leading authority on Ottoman history, Suraiya Faroqhi acknowledged: “The accepted date of Osman’s
accession to rule/independence” marks “the beginning of the Ottoman dynasty from [the year] 1299.” 128
As stated in a 2014 history textbook, “The Ottoman Empire was an empire that lasted [for centuries,
starting] from 27 July 1299.” 129
In short, despite some debate regarding Edward Gibbon’s date for the beginning of the Ottoman
Empire, there appears sufficient tenable historical data (from the works of other reputable historians)
that it is a reliable starting point. As Amadon put it: “The date July 27, 1299, therefore, consistently
marks the beginning of the 150-year ‘torment’ in Revelation 9,” 130 thus confirming the conclusions of
Litch regarding the beginning of the time prophecy of the fifth trumpet.

What Transpired on August 11, 1840 to the Ottoman Empire?

The date and event(s) of August 11, 1840 have come under repeated scrutiny, by many. For
example, a former Adventist claimed: “History does not validate that the Ottoman Empire fell on August
11, 1840.” 131 Is it true that “August 11, 1840 is a totally meaningless date”? 132

Osman, came to power in 1299;” (Arshad Khan, Islam, Muslims, and America: Understanding the Basis of Their Conflict [New York:
Algora, 2003], 22). See also, Mesut Uyar (an Associate Professor of Ottoman Military History at the University of New South
Wales, Canberra, Australia) and Edward Erickson (a Professor of Military History at Marine Corps University in Quantico,
Virginia) specifically stated: “The founder of Ottoman dynasty, Osman Gazi, was selected as the leader of the tribal group after
the death of his father Ertuğrul in this volatile region in 1299;” (Mesut Uyar and Edward Erickson, A Military History of the
Ottomans: From Osman to Atatürk [Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International, 2009], 11); Kenneth M. Setton, ed. A History
of the Crusades, vol. IV: The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 405; A
Brief History of Ancient, Mediӕval, and Modern Peoples, Barnes’ General History (New York: American Book Co., 1883), 406;
Stone, 38. Martin Gani stated: “In 1299 another clan, that of Osman, finally took power and formed the Ottoman empire;” (Martin
Gani, “User-Friendly Turkish,” Verbatim, 31:1 [Spring 2006]; https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-181856943/user-friendly-
turkish [accessed 18 April 2018]); Pauline Longfellow, though labeling it “Turkish tradition,” does recognize that “1299 … was
the beginning of the fabled Ottoman dynasty and empire;” (Pauline Longfellow, “Treasures of the Topkapi,” The World and I, 15:8
[August 2000]; https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-63411361/treasures-of-the-topkapi [accessed 18 April 2018]); Simon
Mayall wrote: “From 1299, Osman, the Ottoman founder, began a policy of territorial expansion at the expense of the
Byzantines;” (Simon V. Mayall, “Historical Influences on Modern Turkey,” McNair Papers, 56 [January 1997];
https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-126445409/2-historical-influences-on-modern-turkey [accessed 18 April 2018]).
128Fikret Adanir, and Suraiya Faroqhi, The Ottomans and the Balkans: A Discussion of Historiography (Boston: Brill,

2002), 66. A simple google search (using the words ottoman empire start date) produced this: “Founded: 1299;”
https://www.google.com/search?q=ottoman+empire+start+date&oq=otto&aqs=chrome. 0.69i59j69i57j0l2j
69i60l2.3442j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed 22 March 2018). Encyclopedia.com notes: “From its founding in 1299
through the assault on Austria in 1683, the Ottoman Empire…;” https://www. encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-
almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/long-decline-ottoman-empire-mandate-system (accessed 22 March 2018). Wikipeida states:
“1299 Ottoman Empire was founded by Osman I;” https://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Turkic_peoples_(500%E2%80%931300) (accessed 22 March 2018).
129The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History, vol. II: Since 1500, 6th ed., Richard W. Bulliet, Pamela Kyle Crossley, Daniel

R. Headrick, Steven W. Hirsch, Lyman L. Johnson, and David Northrup, eds. (Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2014), “Ottoman
Empire.” Admittedly, this book, focusing on when Turkey became a modern nation, indicates that the Ottoman Empire ended on
“29 October 1923,” without taking into account the facts (as shown below) that from 1840 onwards, the Ottoman Empire was de
facto a protectorate of Europe.
130Amadon, “A Landmark of History – July 27, 1299,” Ministry, July 1944, 15.
131L[arry]. W. Wilson, The National Sunday Law – Revisited (Bellbrook, OH: Wake Up America Seminars, 2009), 27. See,

also, Moore, 108.

132Wilson, 28.

22
First, the question must be asked: What specifically was Litch’s claim, which Ellen White “stated clearly
and unequivocally” 133? As already noted above, Litch specifically stated that it was “on the 11th of
August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I
believe, will be found to be the case.” 134
Incidentally, until I was given the task, as part of my responsibilities while serving as a
conference departmental director, I must admit that I was essentially ignorant of this challenge
regarding the time-related prophecies of the fifth and sixth trumpets. But then, since I was called upon
to make a thorough search for any documentation related to this matter, I set out on a journey that took
me through five research facilities in four states in the USA; stretching over a period of about two years
(in between other activities, naturally). My discoveries were intriguing, to say the least – and due to
space restrictions, I will share only some findings here.
A brief overview of major events in Europe, including the Ottoman Empire, need to be
considered first, in order to understand the context of what was then called the “Eastern Question.” “In
May 1805 Muhammad [also spelled “Mehemet”] Ali was appointed governor of Egypt,” 135 which was
part of the Ottoman Empire. Shortly afterwards, the Ottomans went to war with Russia in 1806, then
with Britain in 1807. This latter Anglo-Turkish war (1807-1809) was terminated by the Treaty of The
Dardanelles, on January 5, 1809 (with ratifications on July 27, 1809), 136 by which the British “promised
to protect the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.” 137 Apparently, fully aware of the decline of the Ottoman
Empire, the Egyptian governor Muhammad Ali had “one paramount goal,” that of supreme power; he
wanted to “free himself of Ottoman control.” 138 He stated: “‘I am well aware that the “Ottoman” Empire
is heading by the day toward destruction,… On her ruins I will build a vast kingdom.’” 139 So, Ali began a
land-grab:140 “from Gaza in the south all the way to Asia Minor.” 141 He was also after the “abundant

133These are the words of Paulien, “Ellen White and the Exegesis of Revelation,” 29. Though it must be noted that

Paulien claimed that Ellen White allegedly used “neutral terms,” which led him “to suspect that she was uncertain as to the true
meaning of the passage and reported Litch’s view because of its historical significance;” (ibid.). Whether Paulien’s supposition
has merit can be assessed by the evidence of the internal comparative analysis of Ellen White’s use of similar and/or related
language, as illustrated in the following sub-section.
134Litch, “Fall of the Ottoman Power in Constantinople,” 70 (emphasis added).
135Ephraim Karsh, and Inari Karsh, Empires in the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923

(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 28.

136See “Dardanelles, Treaty of The (1809),” https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-

transcripts-and-maps/dardanelles-treaty-1809 (accessed 22 April 2018).

137See Wikipedia, “The Treaty of the Dardanelles,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Darda nelles (accessed

22 April 2018). This was against the French threat; but, regardless of which power, it is clear that the Ottoman Empire was
declining.
138Karsh, and Karsh, 29.
139Georges Douin, ed., Une Mission militaire française auprès de Mohamed Aly, correspondance des Généraux Belliard et

Boyer (Cairo: Société Royale de Géographie d'éypte, 1923), 50; as quoted in Karsh, and Karsh, 29.
140Note the extent of this empire: “At its height, the Ottoman Empire included the following regions: Turkey, Greece,

Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Macedonia, Romania, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Some of Arabia, A considerable amount of the
North African coastal strip;” https://www.history.com/topics/ottoman-empire (accessed 22 March 2018).
141Karsh, and Karsh, 32.

23
economic gains in the form of wood, silk, tobacco, soap, olives, and cotton; and, above all, to establish
himself as the real power broker in the Middle East and a true successor to the Ottoman Empire.”142
On June 24, 1839, the Ottoman Empire’s army suffered a crushing defeat by Ali’s forces; one
week later, on July 1 the Ottoman leader, Sultan Mahmud II died; less than two weeks after that, on July
14 the Ottoman navy defected to Ali, that rebel governor of Egypt. And now, the new Sultan was
Mahmud II’s 16-year-old son (Abdul Mejid) – “far too young a leader for the trying times.” 143 “‘In three
weeks,’ summarized the French statesman Guizot, ‘Turkey had lost her sultan, her army, and her
navy.” 144
In short, it can be easily seen why the so-called “Christian nations” of Europe were becoming
alarmed: “Muhammad Ali was viewed as a dangerous source of international instability. Were the
Ottoman Empire to collapse because of the ambitions of the Egyptian viceroy [i.e., governor Ali], a great
power-struggle was certain to ensue” 145 – part of the concern being over which country would acquire
the Turkish Straits (including the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus, etc.), which “have been of urgent
maritime strategic importance,” 146 and which “allows maritime connections from the Black Sea all the
way to the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, the Atlantic Ocean via Gibraltar,… making them crucial
international waterways.” 147
Now, in this worsening crisis of Ali’s rebellion against his Ottoman leader, “French diplomacy
backed Muhammad Ali.” 148 Even Wikipedia recognized that, by early 1840 (by which time the Ottoman
army had been beaten, its navy lost, and its leader replaced by the teenaged successor), this once-mighty
empire was “on the verge of total collapse.” 149 As Turkish professor of history at Boğaziçi University in
Istanbul, Selim Deringil, stated in his 2012 book: “Ironically, the empire had been brought to the very
brink of collapse not by Russia or by any Christian power but by a Muslim army commanded by a man
who was himself very much an Ottoman.” 150 Middle Eastern historians, Ephraim and Inari Karsh pointed
out that the sixteen-year-old “Abdul Mejid implored the great powers to strike a deal with Muhammad
Ali on his behalf.” 151 As that Harvard University Press publication aptly noted: “It was left for Britain,

142Ibid.
143Ibid., 36.
144Shepard B. Clough, ed., A History of the Western World: 1715 to the Present, 2nd ed. (Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and
Co., 1969), 919.
145Karsh, and Karsh, 34.
146See “Turkish Straits,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits (accessed 22 April 2018).
147Ibid.
148Alan Palmer, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire (Barnes & Noble Publishing, 1994; Fall River Press Edition –

Kindle Edition: Amazon Digital Service), location 2057. Also, Palmer (location 2062) noted: “No other government agreed with
the French.” So also, Lord Kincross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (New York: William Morrow
and Co., 1977), 470.
149“Egyptian-Ottoman War (1839-1841),” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840 (accessed 22 April

2018; emphasis added).

150Selim Deringil, Conversion and Apostasy in the Late Ottoman Empire (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012),

29 (emphasis added).
151Karsh, and Karsh, 37.

24
then, to act as the sultan's savior.” 152 “London now became a pivot for statesmen seeking to solve the
Eastern Question.” 153 “Fearing the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire,” 154 since it was “on the verge
of total collapse,” 155 “an alliance of European powers comprising Britain, the Austrian Empire, Prussia
and Russia decided to intervene on behalf of the young Sultan Abdülmecid I.” 156 As The Morning Herald
explained, “They ground their interference between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali upon the assumed right
of upholding what, in modern diplomatic slang, is called the general equilibrium of Europe, or what was
formerly called the ‘balance of power.’” 157
It took several months before the “The Treaty of London” was formed on July 15, 1840, which
was “a virtual ultimatum to Muhammad Ali,” 158 from the four Christian nations. “He was required to
submit to the Sultan’s authority and settle for hereditary rule over Egypt, or else face joint intervention
by the Great Powers [i.e., Britain, Russian, Austria, and Prussia].” 159 The very language of this treaty
seemed to identify which power was “taking control” of the Ottoman Empire. 160 The Encyclopedia of
Islam acknowledged that it was the Four Powers who actually “forced Moḥammad ‘Alī to retreat.” 161
There is basic unanimity among authentic sources, that this Treaty [or Convention] of London
was signed (basically in secret) on the 15th of July 1840 – it was 12 days later, on the 27th of July 1840,
when the French public was finally informed that they had been left out completely, since their political
leaders had been supportive of the rebel governor Ali, as they had been hoping for political gain from
such action. 162

152Ibid. “Britain became committed to a policy of shoring up the tottering Ottoman Empire;” (A History of the Western
World, 919).
153Palmer, location 2067.
154“Ibrahim Pasha, Viceroy of Egypt,” Encyclopedia Britannica online, https://www.britannica.com/bio
graphy/Ibrahim-Pasha (accessed 23 April 2018). So also, The Columbia History of the World, John A. Garraty, and Peter Gay, eds.
(New York: Harper & Row, 1972), 617, who noted that Ali’s rebellion was part of “the general disintegration of the empire.”
155“Oriental Crisis of 1840,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840 (accessed 22 April 2018). A History

of the Western World (919) noted: “Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Great Britain joined hands to rescue the Turks.” See also Charles
von Rotteck, Rotteck’s History of the World, From Creation to the Present, 31st ed. (New York: Worthington Co., 18??), 383, where
he noted that Ali’s battles “would have inevitably occasioned the overthrow of the present Turkish dynasty, had not the great
powers of Europe interfered.”
156“Oriental Crisis of 1840,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840 (accessed 22 April 2018). “At this

point the western powers intervene, fearful as ever of the collapse of the Ottoman empire;”
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=283&HistoryID=ab37&gtrack=pthc (accessed 22 March
2018).
157The Morning Herald, 20 November 1840, p. 2.
158Palmer, location 2072.
159Ibid.
160Some, ignoring the fact that these “Christian nations” were now using their power, as they were in “control” of

making indispensable decisions, continue to claim that “Turkey did not ‘fall’ in 1840;” (see Eric Anderson, “The Millerite Use of
Prophecy,” The Disappointed: Millerism and Millenarianism in the Nineteenth Century, Ronald L. Numbers, and Jonathan M. Butler,
eds. [Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1993], 87); Anderson was here referring to the view of Millerite critic O. E.
Daggett.
161“Tanẓīmᾱt,” in The Encyclopedia of Islam, new ed., P. J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, and W. P

Heinrichs, eds. vol. X: T-U (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 201.

162Dealing with France’s unwillingness to support the Sultan against his rebel governor, Mehemet Ali, Karsh, and Karsh

(37) stated: “Having occupied Algeria in 1830, France now sought to exploit the crisis to consolidate its imperial foothold in
North Africa.” Chester Tobin agreed: “France, however, was endeavoring to play a lone hand with Mehemet Ali against the
Ottoman Sultan in order to secure a distinct advantage in Egypt and Syria;” (Chester M. Tobin, Turkey: Key to the East [New York:
G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1944], 51).

25
 So, where and how does August 11 play a role, if any at all? 163 The [London] Morning Herald
stated that their office had received “letters from Alexandria [Egypt] of the 7th” of August. 164 Then, in the
context of that letter of August 7, The Morning Herald noted: “It must be remarked that the act of the
[London] conference has not yet been officially notified to Mehemet Ali. All he has received [i.e., since the
signing of the Treaty of London on July 15] has been the non-official information of what was going
on.” 165 So where was this official document? According to a newspaper report, the Treaty of London,
“signed on the 15th July, was conveyed to Constantinople by Mr. Moore on the 3d of August.” 166 Then,
orders were given “concerning the transmission of the treaty to Alexandria, by Rifaat Bey, in
consequence of which that functionary left Constantinople on the 7th for Alexandria ... for the purpose of
conveying the ultimatum … to Mehmet [Ali] on the Eastern question.” 167 Confirming this basic time-line,
the report pointed out that “the Austrian frigates Medea and Guerrero, one commanded by Admiral
Baron Bandiera, and the other by Archduke Frederick, quitted [i.e., left the Eastern Mediterranean port
of] Smyrna on the 9th [of August] for Alexandria, in order to be present at the ceremonial of delivering the
ultimatum.” 168 Recognizing the vital significance of the actual handing over to Mehemet Ali of the formal
Treaty of London, The Morning Herald categorically pointed out: “The official note must be transmitted
by the Porte [i.e., through ambassador Rifaat Bey] to him, and on his reply to the Porte the future will
depend.” 169 So, the basic question is, When was Mehemet Ali “officially notified” by ambassador Rifaat
Bey of the Treaty of London? On what specific day was “the ceremonial of delivering the ultimatum,” thus
officially putting into effect the decisions of Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia?
Some have tried to claim that the records indicate that the “ultimatum” was not delivered on
August 11, but only five days later, on the 16th. 170 To begin with, it may be helpful to note the manner in
which multiple newspapers (in Britain and Scotland) published the report of what had transpired in
Alexandria: “The arrival of Rifat Bey and Mr. Alison in the Bair-Tahir steamer, from Constantinople, on
the 11th instant [i.e., of August] with the ultimatum of the four powers, produced a great sensation
here.” 171 Later in their report, each of those newspapers referred to a letter “dated August 11th, 1840,” in

163Admittedly, some have made inaccurate claims, such as this: “When on August 11, 1840, The London Morning Herald

announced, ‘The Sultan has been reduced to the rank of a puppet,’ the news quickly flashed to the unbelieving world;” (Henry
Feyerabend, Revelation Verse by Verse [London, Ontario: Destiny/Arts international, 1989], 89). As noted in this research
document, it was only on 1 December 1840 when that announcement was made. And, even if it had been made on August 11,
such news could not have been “quickly flashed to the unbelieving world,” since news traveled very slowly back then, before the
invention of Morse code, and decades before the invention of the radio.
164See The Morning Herald, 25 August 1840, p. 4.
165Ibid. (emphasis added).
166I have a copy of part of the newspaper, from the Library of Congress, in the USA; but, unfortunately, no identifying

name or date can be seen for this document. So, the document needs to be located, and then the reference data added.
167Ibid. (emphases added).
168Ibid. (emphasis added).
169The Morning Herald, 25 August 1840, p. 4.
170See, for example, Heiks, 43-52.
171The [London] Morning Herald, 5 September 1840, p. 3; The [London] Morning Chronicle, 5 September 1840, p. 2; The

[London] Morning Post, 5 September 1840, p. 2; Newcastle Courant, 11 September 1840, p. 2; [Scottish] Caledonian Mercury, 7
September 1840, p. 2.

26
which the Consul-General, Colonel Hodges, mentioned “the arrival this morning of a special Envoy
[Rifaat Bey] from the Sublime Porte [i.e., the headquarters of the Ottoman Empire].” 172 About two weeks
later, The Morning Chronicle explained in more detail what had transpired on August 11. It noted that,
“the Turkish government steamer which had reached Alexandria on the 11th [of August], with the envoy,
Rifaat Bey, on board, had been by his [i.e., Ali’s] orders placed in quarantine.” 173 However, the very next
sentence clearly noted that “on the very day [August 11, as identifed above] on which he had been
admitted to pratique [i.e., to quarantine], the above-named functionary [Rifaat Bey] had had an audience
of the Pacha [Mehemet Ali], and had communicated to him the commands of the Sultan [in the form of
The Treaty of London],” 174 thus technically and officially putting into effect the fact that the European
powers were now in control, and that the Ottoman Empire’s “power was broken.” As Ira Lapidus,
Professor of History at the University of California at Berkeley, accurately concluded regarding this
significant 1840 Treaty: “The Ottoman empire had become a protectorate of Europe and a pawn of the
great powers.” 175
Admittedly, all these developments were happening in Europe and the Middle East, from which
it took several weeks for news to reach the United States, since this was decades before the first-ever
radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean (on December 12, 1901). Thus, the only way in which news
could reach the Millerites, to see if Litch’s prediction had any validity, was by steamship, for “the
distance from Constantinople could not be passed without consuming some considerable period of
time.” 176 But there was a large interest among the general population in the USA regarding the
equilibrium of Europe, as can be seen in newspapers of the time. For example, The Pittsburg Sun
newspaper (of Pennsylvania), noted that “the steamship Caledonia” had brought reports as recent as the
19th of September from Liverpool, in the United Kingdom – “the news of most importance is the

172Ibid., for all five of the above newspapers (emphasis added).

173The Morning Chronicle, 18 September 1840, p. 2. The statement added: “And she [i.e., the steamer] was not released
from it [i.e., quarantine] till the 16th.” This statement has apparently caused the unwary to conclude that it was only on the 16th
that Rifaat Bey got to meet with Mehemet Ali. However, this can be concluded only if one ignores the very next statement, as
noted above. In time, Josiah Litch himself became aware of this newspaper article, quoted directly from it, and then concluded:
“According to the foregoing statement, the ultimatum was officially put into the power of Mehemet Ali, and was disposed of by his
order, viz., sent to quarantine, ON THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, 1840;” (Josiah Litch, “The Three Wo Trumpets. Wo! Wo!! Wo!!!: Fall
of the Ottoman Empire, or Ottoman Empire Supremacy Departed, August 11, 1840,” The Midnight Cry! 6 January 1843 [emphasis
original]). Litch also had become aware (ibid.) of news such as reported in The Examiner of 6 September 1840 (p. 568) – that on
the 11th of August, 1840, “a note signed by the English, Russian, Austrian, and Prussian Ambassadors, was presented at the Porte
… [as to] what were the ulterior [i.e., ultimate] measures to be resorted to by the Powers, in the event of Mehemet Ali’s refusal of
the ultimatum.” Litch concluded that, based on the fact that the Four Powers simply informed the Sultan they would take care of
whatever “‘contingencies which might afterwards occur,’” this showed that “the Sultan’s independence” was gone.
174The Morning Chronicle, 18 September 1840, p. 2.
175Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 593. Despite all the

evidence, such as noted above, it seems that somehow it gets ignored (and even denied), especially by those who promote their
own theories in their (almost always) private publications. For example, in her 2018 online book Yang claimed (129), that
“nothing significant happened in 1840 to end the Ottoman rule.”
176Himes, Bliss, and Hale, 60.

27
probability of the SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION, AND THE CONTINUANCE OF PEACE IN
EUROPE.” 177
Naturally, the question is: Did any specific news of The Treaty of London reach the USA
regarding this, especially as to the timing of the official handing over of the “ultimatum”? Under the sub-
heading of “Turkey and Egypt,” the New York Spectator, of 26 September 1840, specifically reported that
“the arrival of the ‘ultimatum’ at Alexandria, on the 11th of August, created no little stir.” 178 Just three day
later, on the 29th of September 1840, the National Gazette (of Philadelphia) reported on “the arrival at
Alexandria of Riffat [sic] Bey from Constantinople with the ultimatum of the Four Powers on the 11th of
August.” 179
Furthermore, indicating that there was great interest in this “ultimatum,” The Age newspaper in
Augusta, Maine, on the 26th of September, reported on “the rejection of the ultimatum of the Four
Powers [Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia] by Mehemet Ali, the Egyptian Sovereign.” 180 The article,
however, added a hopeful note that somehow “a solution of it would be brought about, consistently with
the peace of Europe.” 181 This positive notion seems to have been due to the knowledge that (as another
US newspaper concluded), regardless of Ali’s refusal, “the four powers will compel him to accept the
offer of the Sultan” 182 – thus, again revealing which political entity now really had control – not the
Ottoman Empire, but the Christian nations.
How was the situation understood, especially in Britain, where The Treaty of London had been
signed? The Morning Herald, noted that “the Sultan has not the power to make his own decrees effectual.
But Russia, England, Austria, and Prussia step in and say they will do it for him.” 183 Eleven days later, on
the 1st of December 1840, The Morning Herald made the following statement about Mehemet Ali: “We
have, in all probability destroyed for ever the power of that hitherto successful ruler.” 184 Then, they
rhetorically asked: “But have we done aught to restore strength to the Ottoman empire?” Finally, they
directly answered their own reflective query: “We fear not. We fear that the Sultan has been reduced to
the rank of a puppet; and that the sources of the Turkish empire’s strength are irretrievably
destroyed.” 185 That particular phrase “irretrievably destroyed,” as already employed in Europe in 1840,
around the very time that Litch had predicted the power of the Ottoman empire’s strength would “be

177“Arrival of the Caledonia,” The Pittsburgh Sun, 8 October 1840, p. 3 (capitals original). This intense interest in what

was happening, can be seen in other newspapers as well: See the National Gazette, Philadelphia, 20 August 1840, p. 1; The
Gainesville Telegraph, 27 August 1840, p. 1; The New Hampshire Gazette, 25?? August 1840.
178New York Spectator, 18 September 1840, p. 3.
179National Gazette, 29 September 1840, p. ?? (emphasis added).
180The Age, 26 September 1840, p. 1 (the square brackets are original in the newspaper).
181Ibid.
182The Mercury, New Bedford [Massachusetts], 21?? August 1840, p. ??.
183The Morning Herald, 20 November 1840, p. 2.
184The Morning Herald, 1 December 1840, p. 4.
185Ibid. (emphasis added).

28
broken,” seriously challenges the claims that “nothing happened” regarding the Ottoman Empire in
1840.
Incidentally, while this news article (of December 1) did not specify August 11 as the date that
the ultimatum became effective, the conclusion that the Ottoman Empire’s strength was now “entirely
destroyed,” was published on the 1st of January 1841 in the Millerite Sign of the Times. 186 The timing of
this publication suggests that they had obviously become aware that the Ottoman power had been
broken, sometime in the year 1840; 187 as three of them later reported: “When the fact did reach us, it
was found that on the very day anticipated, the 11th of August, a transfer was made of the supremacy of
that empire from Mahometan hands.” 188
Moreover, if Ellen White’s statements are to be taken at face value (a matter to be addressed in
the next section), it appears likely that before the end of 1840, many people had become aware of the
precise timing of the ultimatum’s becoming effective (as noted above in various newspapers in at least
three countries, including the USA). She pointed out that, “from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly
extended,” when many became “convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic
interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates,” after it had been made known that “the event
exactly fulfilled the prediction.”189
By way of recapitulation, the following should be noted: There are some who have alleged: “The
truth of the matter is that the month of August, 1840, came and passed without any evidence of Turkey
falling.” 190 However, when one takes account of the context, the setting, and the understanding of those
acquainted with the “Eastern Question” in Europe at that time, there seems to be sufficient plausible
evidence that by late 1839, the Ottoman Empire was “on the verge of total collapse.” 191

186“The Nations: Progress of the Battle,” Signs of the Times of the Second Coming of Christ, 1 January 1841, p. 152. While

the Signs of the Times used the phrase “entirely destroyed,” the newspaper itself had employed stronger language – “irretrievably
destroyed.”
187Kenneth Mathews, and Steve Emse, “The Seven Trumpets of Revelation 8 & 9,” 196, a Symposium at Southern

Adventist University, Collegedale, TN, 28-29 March 2014, 230, appropriately stated: “We should understand that Josiah Litch was
having no more, or no less [sic] problems than his fellow prophecy interpreters in discovering the facts and the significance of a
fulfilled prophetic event. Historians know that it was not until the predicted time occurred, that expositors could look back and
finally understand what the event was. For example, until the pope was taken captive by General Berthier on February 15, 1798,
no one could foresee what the ending date for the 1260 year prophecy might be. When that event happened, [al]most everyone
finally concluded [that] this was the event.” Referring also to the fulfillment of the 1260-year prophecy, LeRoy Froom (“Time
Phase of Fifth and Sixth Trumpets,” 26) noted: “Accuracy and soundness of placement come only with the historical fulfillment of
the period. This could not be expected in centuries past, before the time of fulfillment.” To the challenge regarding the fact that
Litch later repudiated his interpretation, one can also point out that Litch also abandoned his belief that anything happened in
1844 – yet, Adventists continue to believe that in the year 1844 the 2300-day prophecy came to an end.
188Himes, Bliss, and Hale, 60.
189White, Great Controversy, 335.1. Apparently unaware of the multiple news reports on both sides of the Atlantic,

Grace Amadon speculated that “the Millerites could not be informed of this date [of August 17, which is the date Amadon claims
the Treaty was presented to Ali] until the Great Britain House of Commons reports were in print, and the sessional papers for
1840 did not go into general circulation until after the year 1841 [which means, only by 1842].” However, such a claim
undermines and contradicts Ellen White’s statement that “from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended” (White, Great
Controversy, 335.1), when people became aware that the prediction had come true.
190D. Anderson.
191“Oriental Crisis of 1840,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Crisis_of_1840 (accessed 22 April 2018; emphasis

added).

29
 In order to maintain the “balance of power” and thus the peace of Europe, the significant Treaty
of London was signed on July 15, 1840, in which Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia essentially took
control of the collapsing empire. The Muslim scholar, Sayyid Fayyaz Mahmud, in a section dealing with
this 1840 treaty, stated: “Clearly the death-knell had rung for the Ottoman Empire.” 192 In view of the
stated fact that the Treaty of London could only become effective upon submission to Mehemet Ali – as
happened on August 11, 1840 (and of which there is ample newspaper evidence that Rifaat Bey did
indeed deliver the Treaty on that very day), it seems reasonable to recognize that Litch’s conclusion was
apparently accurate. In basic accord, in the volume, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish
historian Alan Palmer stated: “In London, Vienna and St Petersburg it was felt that an incompetent and
decaying ‘Turkey’ had been saved, not by her own exertions, but by the grace of the major European
powers,” 193 after the youthful Sultan had appealed to them.
Indeed, as history professor Lapidus acknowledged: “The Ottoman empire had become a
protectorate of Europe.” 194 These facts, as recognized by reputable historians, furnishes some validation
of Ellen White’s statement that, “Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied
powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations.” 195 Contrary to the
popular, but unsupportable claim that “nothing significant occurred on August 11, 1840,” 196 there seems
to be sufficient verifiable evidence that “the death-knell” of the Ottoman Empire had been sounded with
the Treaty of London, 197 the power of this once-great dynasty was broken when that Treaty became
effective on August 11, 1840, thus turning the Ottoman Empire into a “protectorate of Europe” 198 and
acquiring the epithet of the “Sick Man of Europe,” 199 as the expiring empire continued collapsing, until
its complete defeat and dissolution in 1922. 200

192Sayyid Fayyaz Mahmud, A Short History of Islam (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 1960), 581.
193Palmer, location 2087 (emphases added). In fact, already “from 1839 onwards he [i.e., Tsar Nicholas of Russia] never
wavered in his assumption that the Ottoman Empire was doomed;” (ibid., location 2093).
194Lapidus, 593.
195White, Great Controversy, 335.1.
196Stephen P. Bohr, The 6th Trumpet of Revelation 9:13-21 (Fresno, CA: Secrets Unsealed, 2012), 12.
197The larger significance of the 1840 Treaty of London (as formed on July 15, but put into effect on August 11) needs

further elaboration. This is especially so, if Grace Amadon is correct that, “The principles of the London 1840 Convention were
(basically) repeated in the firman of 1841, when France signed the Treaty, in the Treaty of Paris of 1856, the Treaty of Berlin of
1878, and were recognized by the European Powers in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923” (“The Turkish Empire,” 12), when
modern Turkey came into power.
198Lapidus, 593.
199Mahmud, 585. This was apparently a nickname given to the Ottoman Empire by Tsar Nicholas I. See also, Wilbur W.

White, The Process of Change in the Ottoman Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), 243; Milwaukee Daily Sentinel,
11 April 1854, col. A; “Foreign Affairs,” Texas State Gazette, 29 April 1854, p. 254; The Daily Register, 12 August 1854, col. B;
Punch, 26 April 1856, p. 167; The New York Herald, 18 July 1856, p. 4; Glasgow Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), 16 May 1860; The
Leicester Chronicle and the Leicestershire Mercury (Leicester, England), 29 September 1866, p. 5; The Friend of India (Calcutta,
India), 7 February 1867, p. 163; Cheshire Observer and Chester, Birkenhead, Crewe and North Wales Times (Chester, England), 25
January 1868; The Dundee Courier & Argus (Dundee, Scotland), 29 March 1899, p. 4.
200This type of “death-knell” which takes many years before the end comes, has been seen even in the lives of humans.

For example, it was reported that, “fifty-four-year-old Craig Buford of Fort Worth, Texas, died on December 29, 2008, from
complications of a gunshot wound he sustained 35 years earlier;” (Unbelievably Zany [Orlando, FL: Ripley Publishing, 2013],
309).

30
 In his challenging article on the seven trumpets, Rodríguez rightly included the principle of
“single fulfillment,” as follows: “The apocalyptic nature of the vision aims at a fulfillment specific enough
to be located in one historical event or process. In other words, multiple fulfillments of the trumpets
should be excluded from the discussion.” 201 While it is clear that Rodríguez’s concern was with the
theory of “dual fulfillments,” or a secondary futurist fulfillment, it seems that his point, that “the vision
aims at a fulfillment specific enough to be located in one historical event or process,” could legitimately
be applied to the multiplicity of views currently held on the trumpets. Since the fifth and sixth trumpets
include terminology related to time, and since they are located in a section of the book of Revelation (i.e.,
chaps. 8-11) that involves the well-recognized 1260-day prophecy of Revelation 11:2-3, with its
historical fulfillment of AD 538-1798, should this not spur us on to delving more deeply into these
passages in order to find consensus on the specific time of their fulfillment? Perhaps, the above-noted
historical documents may contribute to that goal.

Contextual Considerations of Ellen White’s 1840 Statements

While some have suggested, as already noted above, that Ellen White was not necessarily
endorsing the interpretation of Josiah Litch, various writers, such as historian Eric Anderson, have
concluded that Ellen White’s writing is clearly “affirming that August 11 represented a ‘remarkable
fulfillment of prophecy.’” 202 In order to identify what she was most likely attempting to communicate, it
seems prudent to consider her complete statement here:

In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two
years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an
exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to his calculations,
this power was to be overthrown “in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August;” and only a few
days previous to its accomplishment he wrote: “Allowing the first period, 150 years [of the fifth
trumpet], to have been exactly fulfilled before Deacozes [i.e., actually spelled Dracozes] ascended the
throne by permission of the Turks, and that the 391 years, fifteen days [of the sixth trumpet],
commenced at the close of the first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the
Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will be found to
be the case.”--Josiah Litch, in Signs of the Times, and Expositor of Prophecy, Aug. 1, 1840.
At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the
allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event

201Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 6.

202Eric Anderson, 89.

31
 exactly fulfilled the prediction. (See Appendix.) When it became known, multitudes were convinced
of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates,
and a wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement. Men of learning and position united
with Miller, both in preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly
extended. 203

A quick survey of the terms used reveals that virtually the same eight concepts stated at the
beginning of the first paragraph are reiterated in the second paragraph, mostly in the final half of that
last paragraph. This echo effect provides plausible initial indications that, for Ellen White, there is no
difference in meaning between the phrases “fulfillment of prophecy” and “fulfilled the prediction.”
There has been some discussion (and even dispute) as to what Ellen White most likely meant by
the two paragraphs related to Revelation 9 and the Ottoman Empire interpretation. For example,
seeming to perhaps minimize its import, one Ellen White scholar who has apparently struggled with this
passage, noted that “this is the only known reference to Revelation 9 in all of Ellen White’s writings.” 204
By the way, the fact that Daniel 8:14 is the “only” reference to the 2300-day apocalyptic prophecy in all
of Scripture, and which identifies 1844, does not undermine its vital significance for Adventists.
Similarly, the sole appearance of Revelation 9 in The Great Controversy, especially since these
paragraphs were intentionally retained by Ellen White for inclusion in the 1911 edition, suggests that
they are not merely inconsequential. The same writer referenced earlier, then contended that the
statement about the Ottoman Empire was made, “not in connection with an exegetical study of the Bible,
but as part of her description of the Millerite movement.” 205 This suggestion though, implies introducing
a delimitation (into Ellen White’s writings) as to whether something is “an exegetical study of the Bible”
or not, which could precipitate a cafeteria-style approach to her works. Another academic has
suggested: “It is probably better to understand her account as a historical report and not a theological
endorsement” of Litch’s exposition. 206
Furthermore, more than 60 years ago already, it was categorically claimed that “Mrs. White did
not claim that this was a fulfilled prophecy, but a prediction…. Her writings avoided using the term
‘prophecy.’” 207 It has been proposed that, instead of directly stating that “the prophecy was fulfilled,” she

203White, Great Controversy, 334.4-335.1. See the second section of the Appendix (“Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the

1888 Great Controversy”), for the full original statement relating to these two trumpets, in that earlier edition, on page 334.4-
334.5.
204Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White (Washington, DC: Ellen G.

White Estate, 1981), 50 (emphasis added).

205Ibid. Rodríguez (“Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 9) basically concurred: “The fact

that she never again mentions 1840 as a year when a biblical prophecy was fulfilled should make us cautious on how we use this
single statement.”
206Paulien, “Ellen White and the Exegesis of Revelation,” 29.
207Robert Lee Mole, “An Inquiry into the Time Elements of the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets of Revelation Nine” (BD thesis,

Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Washington, DC, 1957), 71 (emphasis added). Similarly, Moore, 107-108.

32
used “neutral terms” such as “‘the event exactly fulfilled the prediction,’” 208 which purportedly suggests
she was simply reporting Litch’s view. Thus, an academic has summed up, in a somewhat open-ended
manner, as follows:

If Ellen White, in The Great Controversy, pp. 334-335, means that John the Revelator’s prophecy
was fulfilled on August 11, 1840, she would be giving support to Litch’s interpretation of Revelation
9:15. If she simply means that Josiah Litch’s prediction was fulfilled, then she is not necessarily
supporting Litch’s interpretation of the text.209

In view of the uncertainty or ambiguity expressed above, it appears that the solution to this
“dilemma” may be found by pursuing a careful, comparative analysis of any identical and/or similar
terminology in The Great Controversy regarding the fulfillment of other such prophecies – a task that is
undertaken here.
The attentive reader of The Great Controversy, will notice that, the very first chapter of this
volume deals with the Fall of Jerusalem, including many of the warnings given by various prophets,
including Jesus. And, it is within that context that Ellen White states: “All the predictions given by Christ
concerning the destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled to the letter.”210 Barely two pages later, she
noted: “Again was fulfilled the warning prophecy given fourteen centuries before.” 211 In short, the use
of the terms prophecy and prediction as basically interchangeable in the initial chapter of this book,
should alert the reader of the potential for such an equivalent usage later in the volume, if the context so
requires.

The “Two Witnesses” and the 1260-Day Prophecy

In Chapter 15, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” Ellen White discusses the “two witnesses”
of Revelation 11:2-11, including the 1260-day prophecy. After noting that the 42 months (of vs. 2) and
the 1260 days (of vs. 3) “are the same, alike representing the time in which the church of Christ was to
suffer oppression from Rome,” she adds that, “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.D. 538, and
would therefore terminate in 1798.” 212 Talking about 1798 (in a later chapter), she states: “At that time
the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the
prediction was fulfilled, ‘He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.’” 213

208Paulien, “Ellen White and the Exegesis of Revelation,” 29.

209Olson, 50.
210White, Great Controversy, 29.2.
211Ibid., 32.1.
212Ibid., 266.3.
213Ibid., 439.2.

33
 She points out that, “The two witnesses represent the Scriptures of the Old and the New
Testament.” 214 Later she notes: “According to the words of the prophet, then, a little before the year
1798 some power of satanic origin and character would rise to make war upon the Bible. And in the land
where the testimony of God’s two witnesses should thus be silenced, there would be manifest the
atheism of the Pharaoh and the licentiousness of Sodom.” 215 Right after this paragraph, she states: “This
prophecy has received a most exact and striking fulfillment in the history of France. During the
Revolution, in 1793, ‘the world for the first time heard an assembly of men, born and educated in
civilization, and assuming the right to govern one of the finest of the European nations, uplift their
united voice to deny the most solemn truth which man’s soul receives, and renounce unanimously the
belief and worship of a Deity.’—Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon, vol. 1, ch. 17.” 216 In short, it appears
that regarding these time-related prophecies, Ellen White used the term “prediction” and “prophecy” as
basic synonyms.

The “Great Earthquake,” and Signs Related to the Sun, and Moon
Chapter 17, titled “Heralds of the Morning,” indicates that “Prophecy not only foretells the
manner and object of Christ’s coming, but presents tokens by which men are to know when it is
near.” 217 Ellen White quotes Revelation 6:12: “‘There was a great earthquake; and the sun became black
as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood.’” 218 Then, she states: “These signs were witnessed
before the opening of the nineteenth century. In fulfillment of this prophecy there occurred, in the year
1755, the most terrible earthquake that has ever been recorded.”219
Just four paragraphs later she points out: “Twenty-five years later appeared the next sign
mentioned in the prophecy—the darkening of the sun and moon. What rendered this more striking
was the fact that the time of its fulfillment had been definitely pointed out. In the Saviour’s
conversation with His disciples upon Olivet, after describing the long period of trial for the church,—the
1260 years of papal persecution, concerning which He had promised that the tribulation should be
shortened,—He thus mentioned certain events to precede His coming, and fixed the time when the first
of these should be witnessed: ‘In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light.’ Mark 13:24. The 1260 days, or years, terminated in 1798. A quarter of a

214Ibid., 267.1.
215Ibid., 269.3.
216Ibid., 269.4. A couple of pages later (ibid., 271.1), Ellen White, commenting on Rev 11:8, adds: “‘Where also our Lord

was crucified.’ This specification of the prophecy was also fulfilled by France. In no land had the spirit of enmity against Christ
been more strikingly displayed. In no country had the truth encountered more bitter and cruel opposition. In the persecution
which France had visited upon the confessors of the gospel, she had crucified Christ in the person of His disciples.”
217White, Great Controversy, 304.1.
218Ibid.
219Ibid., 304.2.

34
century earlier, persecution had almost wholly ceased. Following this persecution, according to the
words of Christ, the sun was to be darkened. On the 19th of May, 1780, this prophecy was fulfilled.” 220

The End of the 69th Week of the 70-Week Prophecy

Chapter 18, “An American Reformer,” focuses on William Miller, and his study of Bible prophecy.
In discussing the role of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, Ellen White states: “These three kings, in
originating, reaffirming, and completing the decree, brought it to the perfection required by the
prophecy to mark the beginning of the 2300 years. Taking 457 B.C., the time when the decree was
completed, as the date of the commandment, every specification of the prophecy concerning the
seventy weeks was seen to have been fulfilled.” 221 In the following paragraph, addressing how the
Daniel 9:24-25 prophecy (“to anoint the Most Holy” at the end of the 69 weeks) came about, she
observes: “The decree of Artaxerxes went into effect in the autumn of 457 B.C. From this date, 483 years
extend to the autumn of A.D. 27. At that time this prophecy was fulfilled…. In the autumn of A.D. 27
Christ was baptized by John and received the anointing of the Spirit…. After His baptism He went into
Galilee, ‘preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled.’ Mark 1:14, 15.” 222
Though perhaps not as persuasive for determining Ellen White’s use of language, is her account
of William Miller’s personal study of Scripture. She quotes a long paragraph which describes Miller’s
study of the chronology of the Scriptures. Miller stated: “‘I found that predicted events, which had been
fulfilled in the past, often occurred within a given time…. The events limited by these times were all
once only a matter of prophecy, and were fulfilled in accordance with the predictions.’—Bliss, pages
74, 75.” 223 It may be significant that Miller used “prophecy” and “predictions” interchangeably, a practice
Ellen White seems to have followed.

The Falling of the Stars – a “Striking and Impressive Fulfillment”

In the same chapter, Ellen White comments on the impact of a celestial event shortly after Miller
began to preach: “In 1833, two years after Miller began to present in public the evidences of Christ’s
soon coming, the last of the signs appeared which were promised by the Saviour as tokens of His second
advent. Said Jesus: ‘The stars shall fall from heaven.’ Matthew 24:29. And John in the Revelation
declared, as he beheld in vision the scenes that should herald the day of God: ‘The stars of heaven fell
unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.’
Revelation 6:13. This prophecy received a striking and impressive fulfillment in the great meteoric

220Ibid., 306.1.
221White, Great Controversy, 326.3.
222Ibid., 327.1.
223Ibid., 323.2.

35
shower of November 13, 1833.” 224 After quoting various contemporary sources on the reality and
impact of the falling of the stars, she ends this section, stating: “Thus the attention of the people was
directed to the fulfillment of prophecy, and many were led to give heed to the warning of the second
advent.” 225
The attentive reader of The Great Controversy will have recognized that immediately following
the explication of the falling of the stars – a “prophecy [which] received a striking and impressive
fulfillment” – Ellen White goes straight to the matter of the trumpets, stating: “In the year 1840 another
remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest.” In view of this direct juxtaposition
of prophecies related to Revelation 6 and 9, it seems prudent to make a comparative analysis of how
Ellen White writes about these two matters. The following diagrammatic outline can facilitate this
process:
Last Heavenly Sign Prior to Second Advent Proof of Correct Principles of Interpretation
1. “Revelation 6:13” is directly quoted: 1. Litch published a study “of Revelation 9,
“‘The stars of heaven fell unto the earth’” predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire.”
2. “This prophecy received a striking and 2. “In the year 1840 another [linking to 1833]
impressive fulfillment ... remarkable fulfillment of prophecy….”
3. “... in the great meteoric shower of 3. “‘In A.D. 1840, sometime ... it will end on
November 13, 1833.” the 11th of August, 1840.”
4. This celestial display “‘was viewed with 4. This fulfillment of prophecy “excited
such intense admiration ... or ... dread.’” widespread interest.”
5. Several sources are quoted for support. 5. Litch’s two studies are quoted for support.
6. “Many who witnessed the falling of the 6. “At the very time specified… The event
stars, looked upon it as a herald of the exactly fulfilled the prediction. When it
coming judgment.” became known, multitudes …”
7. “Thus the attention of the people was di- 7. “… were convinced of the correctness of the
rected to the fulfillment of prophecy …” principles of prophetic interpretation….”
8. “… and many were led to give heed to the 8. “And a wonderful impetus was given to the
warning of the second advent.” advent movement.”

Before drawing any conclusions, it may help to briefly consider one final statement relevant to
the matter of Ellen White’s use of the words “prophecy” and “prediction.” Addressing the content of
Revelation 13:11-16, she stated: “Since the middle of the nineteenth century, students of prophecy in
the United States have presented this testimony to the world. In the events now taking place is seen a

224Ibid., 333.1.
225Ibid., 334.3.

36
rapid advance toward the fulfillment of the prediction.” 226 While her first equivalent utilization of these
two terms was seen in the initial chapter (thus introducing the reader as to how she uses these words
interchangeably), her final employment of these words as equivalents is in the last 15 percent of the
book (confirming the manner that she has chosen to use these words, as essentially identical).
Context and Language in The Great Controversy for the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets
As shown above, there are various places in the The Great Controversy where Ellen White
employs several terms that are identical and/or similar to that which appears in the two paragraphs
dealing with the fifth and sixth trumpets. The most obvious terms are the phrase “fulfillment of
prophecy/prediction” 227 (or its equivalent), together with a focus on time, as well as descriptive
language, such as “most exact and striking,” “impressive,” and “remarkable.” In addition to the general
similarity of language, the diagrammatic outline provided above reveals an intriguing similarity between
the manner in which Ellen White wrote about the fulfillment of the “falling” of the stars (of Rev 6:13), in
essentially the same manner in which she recorded the “fall” of the Ottoman Empire (as the fulfillment of
Rev 9). In short, it appears that the weight of evidence indicates that Ellen White was not merely
reporting how others (such as Josiah Litch) may have viewed events at that time; 228 but, there appears
to be sufficient credible contextual linguistic support for the conclusion that she was specifically stating
that the actual time prophecies of Revelation 9 were historically culminated on August 11, 1840, when
“the Ottoman empire had become a protectorate of Europe.”229
One wonders: Since “Mrs. White was one of those who personally passed through the experience
connected with the Advent movement,” 230 since, despite some strong opposition, 231 she chose to include

226Ibid., 579.1.
227As already noted, Miller similarly used the terms “prophecy” and “prediction” as essentially equivalent.
228Without doing any analysis of Ellen White’s work (and without even quoting the relevant paragraphs so that the

reader can see the facts), the claim has been made, “To be clear, E. G. White never endorsed Litch’s prediction in her book ‘The
Great Controversy;’” (Yang, 129). Then, Yang (ibid.) added: “She did, however, acknowledge it gave impetus to the Advent
movement.” This latter statement indicates that Yang somehow ignored the reason for the “impetus” – it was only as a result of
the fact that “multitudes saw the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation used by Miller and his associates;”
(White, Great Controversy, 335.1).
229Lapidus, 593.
230Doris E. Robinson, Letter to Robert Lee Mole, November 13, 1952, p. 2 (letter attached to Mole’s BD thesis).

Immediately (ibid.), though, Robinson basically mutes this point, by adding: “She was among those who saw in the events in the
middle east what seemed to her and to others ‘a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy which excited wide-spread interest.’ (G.C. p.
354). And even though a more accurate chronology may move the dates forward or backward even a few years, it is still a fact
that historically it attracted the attention of the Adventists, and was a mighty factor in giving prestige to the movement.” Of
course, this last sentence contradicts the very points Ellen White makes – that it was, when the prediction came true with
precision, that many were “convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his
associates,” resulting in “multitudes” joining the advent movement.
231This strong opposition came mainly from W. W. Prescott, who claimed (falsely) that Litch has only given the date of

August 11, 1840 after the event, and alleged that August 11, 1840 was not the end of Ottoman independence. He sent his
concerns in a personal letter, which can be read (together with clarifying context) at http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/GC-
Prescott.html (accessed 25 April 2018). It should be noted, however, as succinctly pointed out in the MA thesis of Stefánsson (72,
footnote #46), “that Prescott deemed many of the other major time prophecy expositions of the denomination as inaccurate. See
suggestion nos. 12, 52-55, 66, 75, 85 (1260 years), no. 70, 76, 89, 101 (2300 years), no. 58 (3½ days of Revelation 11). Arthur [L.]
White, ‘Prescott and the 1911 Edition [of The Great Controversy],’ 8, 18-19, 20, 25, 26-27, 29, 31, 32, 36.” See
http://www.whiteestate. org/issues/GC-Prescott.html (accessed 25 April 2018).

37
her clarified “endorsement in a major publication work” 232 (i.e., of Litch’s interpretation of Revelation 9,
in the updated and final edition of The Great Controversy), 233 and since “she designed it [i.e., ‘her most
important book’] as a volume to win readers to an understanding and acceptance of the light of present
truth,” 234 should not we as Adventists be willing to invest time and effort in thoroughly addressing what
appears to be Ellen White’s strong support of a definitive factual fulfillment of a distinct prophetic time-
line in Scripture? 235

Summary and Concluding Remarks

Seventh-day Adventist pioneers were originally in essential agreement that the fifth and sixth
trumpets of Revelation 9 referred to the Ottoman Empire, and considered it a very significant prophecy,
especially as it served as an evident litmus test, indeed “a public test of the year-day principle of
interpreting prophecy,” 236 and one which showed the validity of the 2300-day prophecy, which was
critical for the Millerites. 237 However, as Stefánsson noted in his MA thesis: “The fifth and the sixth
trumpets went from being one of the clearest fulfillments of Bible prophecy to a passage whose meaning
and fulfillment Seventh-day Adventists debated, questioning whether it really was important to know
what they meant at all.” 238
Yet, the early historians of the Adventist Church testified as to how this fulfilled prophecy had
been a powerful stimulus to the Advent Movement, bringing a wave of learned people in to swell the
Midnight Cry. Ellen White herself endorsed Litch’s exposition and application as valid, as demonstrated
above. Had they all been mistaken? Note what the Daniel and Revelation Committee stated, in the
context of discussing the understanding of Adventist pioneers on the prophecies of Daniel and

232Paulien, “Ellen White and the Exegesis of Revelation,” 29.

233Regarding the work of revising this volume, Arthur White noted that, while she had several members of her staff
assisting her, “she held herself as the ultimate judge, and she would from time to time consider specific points and finally review
the text of the manuscript” (Arthur L. White, Ellen White: Woman of Vision [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000], 526).
Only when Ellen White had personally approved the entire volume, was the 1991 edition of The Great Controversy published;
(Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White, vol. 6: The Later Elmshaven Years: 1905-1915 [Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982], 321).
234Arthur White, Ellen White: Woman of Vision, 526; cf. 531.
235As noted above, Rodríguez (“Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 9) had cautioned:

“The fact that she never again mentions 1840 as a year when a biblical prophecy was fulfilled should make us cautious on how
we use this single statement.” However, the fact that she intentionally chose to include this (in an even clearer manner) in the
updated 1911 edition, seems to undermine the alleged significance of the point which Rodríguez appears to be making.
236Robert J. Wieland, The Gospel in Revelation: Unlocking the Last Book of the Bible (Paris, OH: Glad Tidings Publications,

1989), 65.
237Goldstein (“The Day-Year Principle,” 12) noted: “Central to the historicist hermeneutic is the day-year principle.

Without it, not only does historicism self-destruct, the prophetic foundation for the Seventh-day Adventist Church would as well.
If the 2,300 days of Daniel 8:14 were a literal 2,300 days, not 2,300 years, then the prophecy never extended past the fifth
century B.C., highly problematic for a movement that found its raison d’ȇtre in the teaching that Daniel 8:14 reached to A.D.
1844.”
238Stefánsson, 1.

38
Revelation: “Our pioneers did not follow ‘cunningly devised fables’ when they searched and preached
the truths of these prophecies. They have passed on to us a rich heritage.”239
The challenges to this “traditional” historicist interpretation of the trumpets began more than
130 years ago. In 1883, a pastor in his early thirties, named Rodney Owen, brought a new perspective on
Revelation 9 before the General Conference “in order to get their counsel and advice on the subject.”240 A
ten-member committee was elected to examine Owen’s views. 241 After doing so the committee affirmed
they saw no reason to abandon the traditional interpretation and rejected Owen’s ideas as
“unscriptural,” stating that if his interpretation were accepted it “would unsettle some of the most
important and fundamental points of our faith.” 242 The study committee’s conclusions, formally voted by
the 22nd session of the General Conference in 1883, in essence endorsed the position that the fifth and
sixth trumpets referred to the Ottoman Empire, a view later included by Ellen White in The Great
Controversy. 243
Regarding the prophecies of the books of Daniel and the Revelation, Ellen White makes this
challenge, together with a reminder of key promises contained in them:
As we near the close of this world’s history, the prophecies recorded by Daniel demand our
special attention, as they relate to the very time in which we are living. With them should be linked
the teachings of the last book of the New Testament Scriptures. Satan has led many to believe that
the prophetic portions of the writings of Daniel and of John the revelator cannot be understood. But

239Holbrook, 176. Paulien proposed that “it is not unlike God to preserve a threatened movement by providing the

‘fulfillment’ it so desperately looked for;” (Paulien, “Ellen White and the Exegesis of Revelation,” 30, footnote #55). This
statement was made by Paulien, “assuming Litch was in error;” (ibid.); also, it was in the context of Paulien’s claim (ibid., 29) that,
at least up to that point in time, in March 1990, “no one since has been able to salvage Litch’s view in the form reported in GC
334-335.” If Paulien were correct, how would one explain Ellen White’s statement about “the correctness of the principles of
prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates” (White, Great Controversy, 335.1), and that people understood
this, and that it was based on the Bible? Where would one then go for any “sure word of prophecy” (2 Pet 1:19), if God is one who
“twists” truth, for the sake of expediency?
240“General Conference Proceedings: Twenty-Second Annual Session,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, November

20, 1883, 733.

241The ten members were Uriah Smith, I. D. Van Horn, W. H. Littlejohn, J. N. Loughborough, E. W. Farnsworth, T. M.

Steward, Wm. Covert, J. O. Corliss, H. A. St. John, and C. A. Washburn; (“General Conference Proceedings: Twenty-Second Annual
Session,” 733).
242“General Conference Proceedings [Twenty-Second Annual Session], (Concluded),” Advent Review and Sabbath

Herald, November 27, 1883, 741 (emphasis added). The complete report to the General Conference [GC] Session read (ibid.):
“‘Your committee appointed to consider a new exposition of the prophecy of the seven trumpets of Rev. 8 and 9, would
respectfully report that they see no occasion to change from the views we have formerly entertained, especially as the proposed
view is, in their judgment, unscriptural, and would unsettle some of the most important and fundamental points of our faith.’”
Then, it was duly reported by the GC Secretary, A. B. Oyen (with G. I. Butler as president): “On motion, the above was adopted as
the sense of the Conference.”
243Somehow a rumor started circulating, that the General Conference Session had not rejected the “new” interpretation

of the trumpets. Hence, about seven months after the GC Session’s vote, the following was published, affirming the vote, which
had rejected Owen’s proposal, and which had in essence endorsed the accepted interpretation of Litch: “We understand that the
impression is going abroad that the new theory on the subject of the seven trumpets suggested at our last General Conference,
was not disapproved by the committee appointed to examine it, and that the report of the matter which appeared in the Review
was made by one who had not heard the subject presented. In correction of any such impression we would say that the report
received the approval of each member of the committee after personal examination. It was introduced in open meeting and
endorsed by the Conference, and the Secretary gave the report just as it was furnished him. The matter was disposed of exactly
as appears in the report of the Conference proceedings;” (“The Seven Trumpets,” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 8, 1884,
448).

39
 the promise is plain that special blessing will accompany the study of these prophecies. “The wise shall
understand” ([Daniel 12] verse 10), was spoken of the visions of Daniel that were to be unsealed in
the latter days; and of the revelation that Christ gave to His servant John for the guidance of God’s
people all through the centuries, the promise is, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the
words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.” Revelation 1:3.244

After tabulating an impressive list (of more than 120 expositors of prophecy, from the 12th till
the 20th century), who had used the year-day principle for the time-phrases of the fifth and sixth
trumpets, Froom concluded that “superficiality is the bane of scholarship. Truth has nothing to fear from
thorough investigation. It thrives on scrutiny. Its very nature courts the light. It is superficial
investigation that is overawed by the glitter of a few names of modern scholars who have largely
abandoned the canons of sound Biblical interpretation.” 245 And, I wonder, is this perhaps one of the key
reasons for the disarray, and disunity over the trumpets?
If one is reading at the online site of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and tries to learn about the
“Treaty of London” of 1840, this is what shows up: “THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not
currently have an article on this topic.” 246 Perhaps, it is time for us, as Seventh-day Adventist Bible
scholars, who may be aware of the evident prophetic significance of this Treaty of London, to provide a
historically-accurate, balanced, and well-documented article, for this prestigious resource.
Now, to a personal level: What significant lesson is to be learned from a study of the fifth and
sixth trumpets, in relation to why the “pioneer” historicist view seems to have been “forgotten”? It
appears that, “only truth that is able to be continually brought out by research both as old and new,
remains truth to the body of believers. Any truth that rests on affirmation alone will be questioned and
eventually abandoned, for as time passes, new questions invariably arise.” 247
Aware that these findings may not answer every issue, it is hoped that the evidence proffered
will stimulate further interest in an area which could benefit from some more rigorous research. This is
especially so since, if our traditional view proves sufficiently valid, it could provide a major missiological
opportunity – to connect with Muslims. “‘Is it possible that the Muslim peoples are mentioned by the
prophet Jesus?’” an Arab friend once asked an Adventist expositor of apocalyptic prophecy. “‘It is
possible and probable,’” she responded.248 Indeed, some expositors believe that, just as God used

244EllenG. White, Prophets and Kings (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1917), 547.2.
245Froom, “Time Phase of Fifth and Sixth Trumpets,” 46.
246https://www.britannica.com/topic/Treaties-of-London (accessed 22 March 2018, emphasis added).
247Stefánsson, 56.
248Grace Amadon, “The Turkish Empire II,” TMs [photocopy], p. 7, Center for Adventist Research, James White Library,

Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.

40
Nebuchadnezzar to chastise ancient Judah, so God similarly utilized the Muslim powers to hamper and
hinder the spread of apostate Christianity. 249
Gerard Damsteegt noted: “Litch’s prediction was a great stimulus to the missionary zeal of the
Millerite movement. Years later a participant commented that it was to ‘the advent movement what the
power of steam is on the machinery of the railroad locomotive.’” 250 Could this happen again? In addition,
further study may provide answers to the challenges raised regarding the accuracy of Ellen White’s
statements on this matter in the Great Controversy. 251
Jon Paulien wisely cautioned: “If you read the book of Revelation and think it’s primarily about
politics, primarily about battles and wars, you’re not reading it correctly. You’re not seeing the deeper
significance of the symbols.” 252 Then he aptly added: “In the end, it’s the revelation of Jesus Christ. It’s
about the slain Lamb. It’s about the One who shed His blood so we can live.” 253
In the conclusion of his article on the issues related to the interpretation of the seven trumpets,
Rodríguez suggested that “as long as this particular methodology [of historicism] is not undermined, the
[Adventist] church should allow for a diversity of interpretations.” 254 Then, he added: “Acknowledging
this should immediately rule out dogmatic interpretations and heated discussions that could easily
sacrifice Christian humility and love.” 255
While I may have shared my findings with fervor and conviction, I hope that my zeal will not be
seen as a dogmatic approach. 256 I trust that discussion of these matter will enhance our appreciation for

249“The capture of Constantinople [by Sultan Mehmet II in 1453] ended the Byzantine Empire after 1100 years. The

effect of this on Christian Europe was enormous…. Although the Pope demanded a crusade to recapture Istanbul from the
Muslims, the Christian nations failed to produce an army for him, and no attempt to retake the city was made;”
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/ottomanempire_1.shtml [accessed 22 March 2018]). “The fall of
Constantinople dealt a major blow to the spread of Christianity [i.e., mainly Roman Catholicism].” Also, this meant “the end of the
middle ages;”( https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-causes-effects-fall-constantinople-538386# [accessed 22 March
2018]) – or the Dark Ages, a period from around AD 476 (i.e., the fall of the Roman Empire, and the “starting point” for Papal
Rome’s power), till the Renaissance in the mid-15th century (around the Fall of Constantinople, and somewhat spurred by it). In
brief, it seems that the Muslim Ottoman Empire was used by God to impede and disrupt the spread of Roman Catholic apostate
teachings.
250P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977),

29. The statement continued: “So from the 11th day of August, 1840, the advent cause and message, or angel, careened on its way
with greater power than ever before;’” quoting Hiram Edson, The Time of the End, Its beginning, Progressive Events, and Final
Termination (Port Gibson, NY: Henry Olifant, 1849), p. 8.
251Adventists may discover that there are (or have been) others with a similar position to that of Litch, such as, Joseph

Baylee, The Apocalypse: The Voice of Jesus Christ from the Throne of Glory, with an Exegetical and Practical Commentary (London:
James Nisbet & Co., 1876), 238, where he noted that “Othman took the city of Nicomedia, the Asiatic capital of the Greek empire,
on the 27th of July 1299.”
252Jon Paulien, Seven Keys: Unlocking the Secrets of Revelation (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 2009), 155.
253Ibid.
254Rodríguez, “Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of Revelation,” 9.
255Ibid.
256Though, I will admit, my personal desire is that, through “careful research and prayerful reflection” (see Ellen G.

White, Steps to Christ [Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1981], 90.3), Seventh-day Adventists may find proper resolution to this issue, and
be able to concur with Froom’s statement made in 1944 (“Time Phase of Fifth and Sixth Trumpets,” 46): “The advent movement
has every reason, therefore , to feel that it stands on tested ground when it maintains the dual time period of the 541 years
(150+391) for the combined fifth and sixth trumpets, as from A.D. 1299 to 1840.”

41
each other, but mostly, that it will increase our love for Jesus Christ, to whom the entire book of
Revelation ultimately points! 257
Allow me now to return to a question I raised near the beginning of this study: “Was this a Litch
glitch, or a Smith myth?” Based on what I have discovered thus far, I would answer: “No, it does not
appear so. And, it seems that White was right, after all!” If this interpretation of the time-phrases of the
fifth and sixth trumpets is indeed, what Ellen White labeled a “remarkable fulfillment of prophecy,” and
one which was “exactly fulfilled,” then I would like to end with this query: Are we as Adventists “giving
the trumpets a certain sound;” or, are we perhaps neglecting our duty to “Lift up the Trumpets”?

APPENDIX

Comments Relating to Josiah Litch in The Great Controversy (1911)

In the Appendix of the final edition of The Great Controversy there is a section of “General
Notes,” that are classified as “Revisions adopted by the E. G. White Trustees November 19, 1956,

257A serious investigation for the future is the question as to why certain apocalyptic time prophecies were given to the

prophet in a specific manner. For example, why was it that the 1260-year prophecy was stated as “a time, two times, and half a
time” (CEV)? Could it be that this was to identify intermediate events, one after a “time” (i.e., 360 years), one after “two times”
(i.e., 720 years), then, the final one after “half a time” (i.e., 180 years)? Indeed, preliminary research suggests that 360 years after
the start of the time prophecy in AD 538, the AD 898 Council of Ravenna was convened under Pope John IX; part of what this
council did was to enact the observations of the canons of the fathers, and to confirm the “privileges” of the Roman Catholic
Church (thus strengthening the power of the Church, and exacerbating the persecution of the Dark Ages). (See “John IX, Pope;”
Encyclopedia.com). Then, 720 years later, in 1618, the “Thirty Years War” began – a “war [that] was preceded by the election of
the new Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, who tried to impose religious uniformity on his domains, forcing Roman Catholicism
on its peoples;” (“Thirty Years War;” Wikipedia). This notion should not be seen as too “far-fetched,” especially since Adventist
prophetic expositors have long held that the 70-week prophetic outline in Dan 9:24-27 (which went from 457 BC to AD 34),
includes separate time segments of “seven weeks” (till the 408 BC restoration of Jerusalem), “sixty-two weeks” (till the
“anointing” [i.e., baptism] of Jesus Christ in AD 27), “half a week” (at which point sacrifices ceased, due to Christ’s crucifixion in
AD 31), and the “one week” (AD 34, as the end of the “probation” for Israel as God’s special chosen nation). In a somewhat similar
manner, preliminary research indicates that “the hour, and a day, and a month, and a year” time-phrase may have been
intentionally given in these time segments so as to highlight additional events besides only the beginning and endpoints of the
prophecy (as seen in the “single-phrase” time prophecy of the fifth trumpet, i.e., “five months,” which calls for only a starting and
ending date). Just as the major focus of the timeline of the prophecies of Dan 7, 8, and 9 were given in the reverse order of their
fulfillment (i.e., chapter nine’s major time-prophecy focuses on the first coming of Christ, about 4 BC; chapter eight’s major time-
prophecy is 1844; while chapter seven emphasizes the second coming of Christ), it seems that the time-phrase of the sixth
trumpet was likewise given in this type of inverse order. (By the way, with the starting date of 27 July 1299 for the Ottoman
Empire, the 150-years of the fifth trumpet ended in 1449). Then, 360 years later (i.e., the “year” of Rev 9:15) one finds The Treaty
of the Dardanelles (signed on 5 January 1809, with key ratifications on 27 July 1809); next, precisely 30 years later, on 27 July
1839, history records the Collective Note of the Five Powers (by France, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia); next, a year later,
The Treaty of London is somewhat secretly signed, (on July 15, 1840, and made public in France on 27 July 1840), and then
officially put into effect upon delivery on 11 August 1840 (when the “Ottoman power was broken,” as Litch predicted, and the
Ottoman empire became a “protectorate of Europe,” as UC Berkeley historian Lapidus noted in his Cambridge University
publication [593], thus echoing Ellen White’s statement, that by accepting “the protection of the allied powers of Europe,” Turkey
had “placed herself under the control of Christian nations;” [Great Controversy, 335.1]). It should be noted that, each of the
intermediate time-markers furnishes evidence that the Ottoman Empire was in the process of collapsing. In short, it seems that
these additional dates provide internal, intermediate, interlocking anchor-point time-markers which serve to strengthen and
corroborate the starting and culminating dates of the complete prophecy.

42
December 6, 1979, and January 8, 1993.” 258 Addressing primarily Josiah Litch’s position relating to the
fulfillment of the sixth trumpet, one finds three paragraphs, which read in full: 259
Page 335. Fall of the Ottoman Empire.—The impact of Moslem Turkey upon Europe after the fall
of Constantinople in 1453 was as severe as had been the catastrophic conquests of the Moslem
Saracens, during the century and a half after the death of Mohammed, upon the Eastern Roman
Empire. Throughout the Reformation era, Turkey was a continual threat at the Eastern gates of
European Christendom; the writings of the Reformers are full of condemnation of the Ottoman
power. Christian writers since have been concerned with the role of Turkey in future world events,
and commentators on prophecy have seen Turkish power and its decline forecast in Scripture.
For the latter chapter, under the “hour, day, month, year” prophecy, as part of the sixth trumpet,
Josiah Litch worked out an application of the time prophecy, terminating Turkish independence in
August, 1840. Litch’s view can be found in full in his The Probability of the Second Coming of Christ
about A.D. 1843 (published in June, 1838); An Address to the Clergy (published in the spring of 1840;
a second edition, with historical data in support of the accuracy of former calculations of the
prophetic period extending to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was published in 1841); and an article
in Signs of the Times and Expositor of Prophecy, August 1, 1840. See also article in The Signs of the
Times and Expositor of Prophecy, February 1, 1841; and J. N. Loughborough, The Great Second Advent
Movement (1905 ed.), pp. 129-132. The book by Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation,
rev. ed. of 1944, discusses the prophetic timing of this prophecy on pages 506-517.
For the earlier history of the Ottoman Empire and the decline of the Turkish power, see also
William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927 (Cambridge, England: University
Press, 1936); George G. S. L. Eversley, The Turkish Empire from 1288 to 1914 (London : T. Fisher
Unwin, Ltd., 2d ed., 1923); Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des osmannischen Reiches
(Pesth: C. A. Hartleben, 2d ed., 1834-36), 4 vols.; Herbert A. Gibbons, Foundation of the Ottoman
Empire, 1300-1403 (Oxford: University Press, 1916); Arnold J. Toynbee and Kenneth B. Kirkwood,
Turkey (London, 1926).260

258White, Great Controversy, 679.1. In contrast to the black type-font of the book itself, these “Revisions adopted by the

E. G. White Trustees” are in set in a blue type-font, evidently so that the reader may be able to clearly distinguish between what
Ellen White herself wrote, as compared with the view(s) of the “E. G. White Trustees,” over the years.
259In the second paragraph of these “General Notes” relating to Ellen White’s statements on the fifth and sixth trumpets,

the E. G. White Trustees stated: “Josiah Litch worked out an application of the time prophecy, terminating Turkish independence
in August, 1840.” The perceptive reader will notice that no mention whatsoever is made of the specific date of August 11, 1840.
Also, while Ellen White makes the categorical claim that this was “another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy” (White, Great
Controversy, 334.4), and that “the event exactly fulfilled the prediction,” “at the very time specified” (ibid., 335.1), the comments
by the Trustees do not provide any such statements; their comments seem instead to be avoiding this issue.
260White, Great Controversy, 691.1-691.3.

43
The Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the 1888 Great Controversy
In the year 1840, another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two
years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an
exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman empire, and specifying not only the
year but the very day on which this would take place. According to this exposition, which was purely
a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture, the Turkish government would
surrender its independence on the eleventh day of August, 1840. The prediction was widely
published, and thousands watched the course of events with eager interest.
At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the
allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event
exactly fulfilled the prediction. When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the
correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a
wonderful impetus was given to the Advent movement. Men of learning and position united with
Miller, both in preaching and publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly
extended. 261

The Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the Devotional Book Maranatha

While the first paragraph (as in The Great Controversy [1911]) has been reproduced in full in the
Morning Devotional called Maranatha, 262 the second paragraph has been excerpted, so as to read as
follows:
At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the
allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event
exactly fulfilled the prediction.... A wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement.263

The Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the “Condensation” From Here to Forever
In 1982 the volume called From Here to Forever was published. 264 The Publishers indicated that
this is “a condensation of The Great Controversy,” and that “this condensation is not a paraphrase,” but

261White, Great Controversy (1888), 334.4-334.5. It seems likely that, instead of doing his own research, A. T. Jones had

simply relied on the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy; for he claimed that “Aug. 11, 1840,” was “the very day which, in the
light of that prophecy, had, two years before, been named for this very result;” (Alonzo Trevier Jones, The Great Nations of Today
[Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald, 1901], 77).
262Ellen G. White, Maranatha (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1976), 152.4.
263Ibid., 152.5. The careful reader may have noticed that some significant statements have not been included in this

book, such as “the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates,” and that the
result of this recognition was that “the work rapidly extended,” as Ellen White noted.
264Ellen G. White, From Here to Forever (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1982).

44
that “the author’s own words are retained throughout.” Regarding the fifth and sixth trumpets, the
following is then selectively quoted:265
In 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years
before, Josiah Litch published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman
Empire “in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August.” Only a few days previous to its
accomplishment he wrote: “It will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in
Constantinople may be expected to be broken.” [Footnoted: Josiah Litch, Signs of the Times, August 1,
1840.v]
At the very time specified, Turkey accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe and
thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction.
(See Appendix) Multitudes were convinced of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by
Miller and his associates. Men of learning and position united with Miller in preaching and
publishing his views. From 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.
In the “Appendix” of this book, From Here to Forever, the Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate
add the following comments relative to the statement that “the event exactly fulfilled the prediction:” 266
Page 209. Fall of the Ottoman Empire. Throughout the Reformation era Turkey was a continual
threat to European Christendom; the writings of the Reformers are full of condemnation of the
Ottoman power. Christian writers since have been concerned with the role of Turkey in future
events, and commentators on prophecy have seen Turkish power and its decline forecast in
Scripture.
For the “hour, day, month, year” prophecy, as part of the sixth trumpet, Josiah Litch worked out
an application of the time prophecy, ending Turkish independence in August 1840.
A book by Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. of 1944, discusses the
prophetic timing of this prophecy on pp. 506-517. 267

265Ibid., 209.3-209.4.
266Ibid., 419.3-419.5. Again, it should be noticed that, in relation to the time prophecy of the sixth trumpet, it is simply
stated that “Josiah Litch worked out an application of the time prophecy,” without mentioning the specific date of August 11,
1840. Also, no mention is made, as did Ellen White, that this was a “remarkable fulfillment of prophecy,” that “the event exactly
fulfilled the prediction,” and it happened “at the very time specified.”
267In his PhD dissertation, completed at Andrews University, Gluder Quispe engaged in an intriguing investigation of

the various ways in which the book of Revelation has been interpreted by Adventist scholarship. He concluded that, over time
there have been three major emphases: (a) the biblical-historical emphasis (with C. Mervyn Maxwell as the major recent example
of such); (b) the biblical-theological emphasis (with Hans K. LaRondelle as the major figure); and (c) the biblical-exegetical
emphasis (with Jon Paulien as the major proponent); (see the published version: Gluder Quispe, The Apocalypse in Seventh-day
Adventist Interpretation [Lima, Peru: Universidad Peruana Unión, 2013]). Having selected the seven trumpets as one of two “test
cases to compare the historical conclusions of the Adventist authors” (268), Quispe concluded that the biblical-theological
emphasis “can also tend toward ‘spiritualizing’ the message of the Apocalypse, something like the idealist approach…. [And the
biblical-exegetical emphasis] with a first-century focus, can resemble the preterist approach. Both emphases, though perhaps
unintentionally, have led away from historicism. The tendency of many Adventist studies of Revelation in recent years seems to
be away from the historicist method;” (ibid., 270-271). Quispe then proceeded to explain why this tendency to move “away from
the historicist method,” has major implications for Adventism: “Without denying the valuable contributions of the biblical-
theological and biblical-exegetical approaches, it seems that the Adventist identity is most deeply rooted in the historicist
interpretation of the prophecies of both Daniel and Revelation. It is the historicist concreteness of prophecies fulfilled in specific

45
dates, events, and religious and political powers that grounds the Adventist identity as a divinely called people with a mission to
the world. Seventh-day Adventists believe they have been divinely raised up to proclaim the ‘present truth’ to the world, and that
this call was confirmed through the ‘spirit of prophecy’ revealed in Ellen G. White. Conversely, a departure from the historicist
method contributes to the loss of Adventist identity as a people with a mission to the world;” (ibid., 271, emphasis original).

46