The 2300 Days and
October 22, 1844 --
Wrong Day, Month, Year and
Event!
This chapter is taken from White-Washed,
Uncovering the Myths of Ellen G. White, "The Great
Disappointment," pages 117-129. For information about ordering this book click
here.
-- To access a Jewish web
site with a calendar program that will calculate the actual date for the 10th
of Tishri (the Day of Atonement) in 1844, click
here!
"Of all the great religious movements since the days of the apostles,
none have been more free from human imperfection
and the wiles of Satan than was that of the autumn of 1844."
— Ellen G. White in Great Controversy, page 401
No other doctrines are more distinctly
Seventh-day Adventist than those of the 2300 days, the Sanctuary, the Day of
Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. These concepts led to the
"Great Disappointment" when Millerites and founders of the
Seventh-day Adventist church expected Christ to return to earth on the Day of
Atonement, October 22, 1844.
Biblically the Day of Atonement is an annual event occurring on the tenth day of the seventh month of the Jewish calendar ("Tishri" — Leviticus 23:27-32). At first Miller had Adventists believing Jesus would return in 1843. Disappointed, they re-examined their mathematics and set a new date for the spring of 1844. Disappointed again, they picked the fall of 1844. In writing about their first disappointment in 1843 Ellen White made a number of unusual observations:
EGW "I saw that God was in the proclamation of the time in 1843. It was his design to arouse the people, and bring them to a testing point where they should decide. ... Thousands were led to embrace the truth preached by Wm. Miller, and servants of God were raised up in the spirit and power of Elijah to proclaim the message. ... Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming; but they objected to the definite time. ... These false shepherds stood in the way of the work of God. The truth spoken in its convincing power to the people aroused them. ... But these (false) shepherds stepped between the truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them from the truth. Many ministers would not accept this saving message themselves, and those who would receive it, they hindered. ... I saw the people of God, joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove (i.e. "test") them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Those who were looking for their Lord did not discover it. ... God designed that his people should meet with a disappointment." — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, pp. 133-137, written in 1858.
Did you notice Ellen White blamed God for the disappointment of 1843? And did you also notice that even though she stated there had been a mistake made in the figures, and that the 1843 prediction was wrong, she called it "the truth" and a "saving message?" Would a Divinely-inspired prophet call false messages and false predictions "the truth?" How could a genuine prophet ever call a false message a "saving message?"
Instead of recognizing these errors and simply admitting the leaders of the Advent movement of the middle 1800s were wrong, Ellen White approved of those errors as the basis for a new prediction that Jesus would come in the fall of 1844:
EGW "The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844. ... Again they had a point of time." — Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 138.
If the "same evidence" that produced the mistake and disappointment of 1843 was used again to set dates in 1844, wouldn't it be logical to expect that the results would also be the same — wouldn't they be disappointed again? Does God play games with His people by covering their errors so they cannot discern them only to later remove His hand? Is that the way the God of the Bible works to reveal truth? No. Titus 1:2 tells us that God "cannot lie!" How could any Christian ever have any confidence in God or the Bible if God lies to His people or deliberately leads us astray from truth just so He can test us? But that is only the beginning of the issues raised by these doctrines. The emphasis on setting a specific time for Christ to return created other problems. Ministers whom Ellen White called "false shepherds" and whom she accused of leading people away from the "truth" were not objecting to the preaching of Christ's second coming — they were objecting to Adventists setting a specific date for Christ's second coming. By objecting to the false prophecies of 1843 and 1844 those ministers were remembering the words of Jesus:
BIBLE "Therefore, keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour." — Matthew 25:13 (NIV).
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." — Matthew 24:36 (NIV).
"He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." — Acts 1:7 (NIV).
Ellen White called those Bible-believing Christian ministers "hypocritical ministers," "bold scoffers" and "false shepherds." Why? Because they held to Scripture instead of accepting her errors. Does a true prophet of God condemn Christians for believing the Bible? No.
Ellen White was wrong when she called the false predictions of Christ's coming in 1843 and 1844 "the truth" for Jesus tells us in 1 John 2:21 that "no lie comes from the truth." But she went deeper into error by calling those false predictions a "saving message." A false message cannot possibly be a "saving message!"
Worse, over the next six decades Ellen White never retracted her error of setting a time for Christ to return in 1843 and 1844, and even went on to "firmly believe" Christ would come in 1845 (see Word to the 'Little Flock,' p. 22). However, she taught that others who set specific dates for Christ's coming "suit the purposes of Satan":
EGW "The preaching of a definite time for the judgment, in the giving of the first message (1843 and 1844), was ordered of God. ... The repeated efforts to find new dates for the beginning and close of the prophetic periods, and the unsound reasoning necessary to sustain these positions, not only lead minds away from the present truth, but throw contempt upon all efforts to explain the prophecies. The more frequently a definite time is set for the second advent, and the more widely it is taught, the better it suits the purposes of Satan." — The Great Controversy, p. 457, written in 1888.
Finally, Ellen White tried to smooth over the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844 by assuring the faithful that they had really been right all along:
EGW "True, there had been a failure as to the expected event ... The mistake had not been in the reckoning of the prophetic periods, but in the event to take place at the end of the 2300 days." — The Great Controversy, pp. 406, written in 1888.
The day after October 22, 1844, in the midst of dark depression, a solution was proposed in order to salvage the Advent movement. By admitting that the expected event was wrong Adventists were able to maintain they had been correct as to the date of October 22, 1844 — they said instead of Jesus returning to earth on the Day of Atonement, He went into the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary to begin the Investigative Judgment. This important doctrinal shift resulted from a "vision" received by Hiram Edson which was sanctioned by three of Ellen White's own subsequent "visions!" Here is how Seventh-day Adventists explain this crucial doctrinal switch to their high school students even though later Hiram Edson categorically denied he ever had a "vision":
SDA "'While passing a large field I (Hiram Edson) was stopped about midway of the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly, and clearly, that instead of our High Priest coming out of the Most Holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to earth ..., that He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of the sanctuary.' So simple — yet it rates among the most dramatic moments in religious history. ... In December ... Ellen received her first vision. ... Here was the answer to their prayer. It was the very thing the Adventists needed. God was telling them as plainly as He could that the October 22 movement ... was true light!" — Moving Out, Department of Education, General Conference of SDAs, pp. 27, 29, revised in 1980.
Thus after the fact, Ellen White claimed God told her in vision the doctrinal switch was "true light," and that the Jewish Day of Atonement in 1844 (the 10th of Tishri) occurred on October 22.
EGW "The tenth day of the seventh month, the great Day of Atonement, the time of the cleansing of the sanctuary, which in the year 1844 fell upon the 22d of October, was regarded as the time of the Lord's coming. This was in harmony with the proofs already presented that the 2300 days would terminate in the autumn ... the close of the 2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment." — The Great Controversy, pp. 400, 457.
Wrong Day, Wrong Month, Wrong Year, Wrong Event
Where did the date of October 22, 1844 come from? Miller taught 457 B.C. marked the beginning of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, but gave no specific month or day.
After being disappointed in 1843 and again in the spring of 1844, Ellen White and her friends settled on the event and date of the Jewish Day of Atonement (the 10th of Tishri) as marking the end of the 2300 days. They believed God had revealed to S. S. Snow that the 10th of Tishri would occur on October 22 in 1844. The fact is, that in 1844, the Jewish Day of Atonement began at sunset on September 23 — not October 22! (See The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, © 1939, volume 2, pages 636 and 637).
NOTE: If you do not have access to a public library that has the The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, you can easily access a Jewish web site with a calendar program that will calculate the Gregorian date for the 10th of Tishri (the Day of Atonement) in 1844 by clicking on the link at the end of this note. When you arrive at the Jewish calendar page go to the data fields for the Civil (Gregorian) dates and enter 23 September 1844. Then click on the "Compute Dates" button and you will see the result: 10 Tishri 5605. According to the Bible, the 10th of Tishri is the day and month for the Day of Atonement. The number 5605 is the Jewish calendar's year for 1844 on our Gregorian calendar. If you wish to double-check this information, click the "Another Calculation" button, and this time enter 10 Tishri 5605 in the Jewish date data fields and click the "Compute Dates" button. This time the result will be: Monday, 23 September, 1844. Click here to go to the Jewish Calendar web site.
All this proof that the Day of Atonement in 1844 occurred on September 23 is not new information to SDAs. They still rely on L. E. Froom's claim that, in 1844, the Karaite Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on October 22, one month later than the Orthodox Jews. Their argument is not based on fact, for no Karaite sources support Froom's claim. Instead researchers have repeatedly shown the Karaite Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement on September 23, 1844 — the very day required by the Bible and the very same day (10th of Tishri) celebrated by Orthodox/Rabbinical Jews! Here is the evidence:
Conradi (unaware the Karaite's Day of Atonement in 1844 was September 23)
"From March 22, until October 22, 1844, S. S. Snow, gradually gaining a mighty influence over all Adventists, ... claimed the Father had revealed to him that the 22nd of October, 1844, was the definite date of Christ's coming to exchange the righteous and to destroy the wicked. ... That the great date of delivery was the jubilee year of the Atonement Day. (The fact) that this jubilee year was still years in the future, and that the Jewish Day of Atonement was on the 23rd day of September, did not matter to him. In order to gain time, he adopted the reckoning of the Karaites." — The Foundation of the SDA Denomination, by L. R. Conradi, p. 68, written in 1939.
E. S. Ballenger (knew the Karaite's Day of Atonement in 1844 was September 23)
"October 22, 1844 has been a crucial time with SDA's since their pioneers fixed upon it for the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ; and they still stand tenaciously for this date in spite of all facts to the contrary. The Day of Atonement fell on Sept. 23 in 1844 instead of Oct. 22. This can be easily demonstrated by consulting any Jewish almanac of that time, or any orthodox Jewish authority. They celebrated the Day of Atonement in 1844 on Sept. 23.
"(SDAs) declare that while the Orthodox Jews may have celebrated the Day of Atonement on Sept. 23, the Karaite Jews observed it on Oct. 22. We have made careful investigation, and we find that this is a false claim. The leading Karaite rabbi of Cairo, Egypt, Youseff Ibrahim Marzork (sp), in reply to an inquiry as to the day on which they celebrated the atonement in 1844, wrote: 'As to the dates of the Passover and Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) they are the following: according to the Karaite Jews in the year 1843 the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) is on Wednesday 4th October, and just the same date according to the Rabbinical. In the year 1844 it is on Monday 23rd September for both the Karaite and Rabbinical.'" — The Gathering Call, May/June, 1941.
To see a copy of Youseff Ibrahim Marzouk's letter stating the September 23, 1844 date, click here(750k).
Donald E. Mote: September 23, 1844
"Writing to the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, I learned some very surprising things. The Day of Atonement in 1843 occurred on Wednesday, October 4th. In 1844, the Day of Atonement occurred on Monday, September 23rd. I have the letter from the Seminary on file as proof. Anyone can check it out if they want to by paying me a visit, or writing to the Seminary themselves." — The GC News-letter, September, 1980, by Donald E. Mote.
Robert K. Sanders: September 23, 1844
"In 1994 I spoke with Indiana's Purdue University professor Prohofsky of the Hillel Foundation of the B'nai Brith concerning the date of the Day of Atonement in 1844. Professor Prohofsky verified the September 23 date through the InterLuch computer and stated that the Day of Atonement has never occurred so late in the year as October 22." — Conversation with Robert K. Sanders, Lafayette, Indiana, in November, 1994.
The facts are that Ellen White and the Adventists were wrong about the year, month, day, and event which was supposed to occur in 1844! Can any Christian have confidence in a church which continues to teach those myths as Bible doctrines?
(To access a Jewish web site with a calendar program that will calculate the actual date for the 10th of Tishri (the Day of Atonement) in 1844, or any year, click here!)
Cleansing Requires Contamination
But that is not all. The entire theological concept of "cleansing" the heavenly sanctuary requires it to first be contaminated. In support of that concept Ellen White claimed the blood of animal sacrifices was taken daily into the Holy Place and thus, in type, the earthly sanctuary was polluted with sin through that blood:
EGW "The most important part of the daily ministration was the service performed in behalf of individuals. The repentant sinner brought his offering to the door of the tabernacle, and, placing his hand upon the victim's head, confessed his sins, thus in figure transferring them from himself to the innocent sacrifice. By his own hand the animal was then slain, and the blood was carried by the priest into the holy place and sprinkled before the veil, behind which was the ark containing the law that the sinner had transgressed. By this ceremony the sin was, through the blood, transferred in figure to the sanctuary. In some cases the blood was not taken into the holy place ...." — Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 354, written in 1890.
Unfortunately Ellen White had to once again contradict the Bible to support her idea. A careful reading of Leviticus chapter 4 states that the only time blood was taken into the Holy Place, other than on the Day of Atonement, was when the High Priest sinned, or when the entire congregation sinned. Even her own editors verified this after her death by inserting Appendix Note number 6, on p. 761 of Patriarchs and Prophets. It was an admission their prophet erred by contradicting Scripture.
Raymond F. Cottrell and the Church's Squandered Opportunities
The 1950's presented SDAs with two notable opportunities to admit their sanctuary doctrine errors. First was when the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary on the book of Daniel was revised by editors Raymond F. Cottrell, Don F. Neufeld and Francis D. Nichol. In a taped address (given around 1985) Cottrell remembers stormy sessions where "we really struggled" to make sense out of Daniel 8 and 9 and wondered "what are we going to put into the Commentary?"
As a result, Cottrell researched the position of non-SDA scholars and discovered that no reputable Christian scholar has ever accepted Adventism's sanctuary doctrine! Highly regarded cult watcher, Walter Martin, examined Bible texts presented by SDAs and wrote in his book, The Truth About Seventh-day Adventists: "None of these texts has anything to do with any judgment now going on. Neither the grammar, nor the context supports such a contention. ... (The SDA sanctuary doctrine) relies on out-of-context quotations. The Adventist error is that they draw from the Scriptures interpretations which cannot be substantiated by exegesis, but rest largely upon inference and deduction." Writing in Eternity magazine, Martin's associate, Barnhouse, said: "The (SDA sanctuary doctrine resulting from the Great Disappointment of 1844) is the most colossal, psychological, face-saving phenomenon in religious history! We personally do not believe that there is even a suspicion of a verse in Scripture to sustain such a peculiar position. And we further believe that any effort to establish it is stale, flat, and unprofitable."
The More One Knows About the Bible the Less Likely One is to Accept 1844!
Cottrell's research led him to exclaim: "Time and again non-Adventist Bible scholars have examined Adventist beliefs and have given all of them a bill of health as having some roots in Scripture. ... But without exception, and often in the most emphatic terms, they denounce our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 as 'eisegesis of the worst kind' (that is, reading into the Bible something that is not there). Perish the thought, but the invariable rule appears to be that the more a non-Adventist knows about the Bible and how to study it, the less disposed he is to look with favor on the Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14!
"Now, if only minor matters were involved, we could dismiss these criticisms. But when the keystone in our theological 'arch' has been the target of these criticisms — you knock the keystone of an arch out — what's going to happen? You don't have an arch there! That has been the target of these attacks, so in a certain sense, the integrity of our church is at stake! And, unfortunately, we have never faced up realistically, yet, to this fact!"
Revising Bible Readings Shocked Cottrell
A second opportunity for Seventh-day Adventism to resolve their doctrinal errors occurred in 1958. Here again are Cottrell's taped recollections: "In 1958 ... it fell to my lot, as a Review and Herald Publishing Association editor, to revise the perennial classic Bible Readings (published for nearly 100 years). ... The old plates had worn out and we had to make new plates. ... The Review and Herald thought it would be highly desirable to bring Bible Readings into harmony with the (Seventh-day Adventist Bible) Commentary so that we wouldn't be saying something out of one corner of our mouth and something else out of the other corner. So it fell to my lot, then, to come to Daniel 8:14, the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment. And with all of these statements — of Martin and Barnhouse and Lindsell and DeHaan and you name them — reverberating in my mind just like an echo that kept going back and forth ..., I decided that I would try to find some way to say what we wanted to say about the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in a way that would take the ammunition out of these people's hands so they couldn't criticize us like they were — present it as Biblical. And after struggling, I found that it couldn't be done!
"So I went to Elder Nichol one day and I said, 'Elder Nichol, what do you do in a case like this?' I was really trying my very best to present the Sanctuary and the Investigative Judgment in the book Bible Readings — I couldn't do it! He said, 'Well, what do (our) college Bible teachers have to say? ... Write them a letter.' So I composed a letter in which I asked a number of key questions on getting the sanctuary doctrine out of Daniel 8:14. And I sent this questionnaire out to every teacher of Hebrew in our colleges — we didn't have any universities at the time — and to the head of every Bible department and a number of other Bible teachers I was personally acquainted with. And I protected them by assuring them their names would never be associated with any responses they made.
"I asked these questions and all twenty-seven I wrote to replied. Without exception the responses expressed the opinion that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for applying Daniel 8:14 to the antitypical Day of Atonement and the Investigative Judgment. There was not one college Bible teacher who came out and said there is a basis in exegesis — that is in the language or the context.
"And then I had asked another question: 'What reason, other than language and context can you offer?' And thirteen, half of the twenty-seven, said 'There is no other basis.' In other words, half of them were saying there is no basis whatever! Then there was a little scattering among the other half — two people replied this way and I was really taken back by those replies — two of them proposed that the English word 'cleansed,' in the King James Version, was 'a fortunate accident!' How about having the most important of our doctrines based upon a 'fortunate accident' in translation! ...
"Actually, it was not an accident, the Septuagint has the word 'cleansed,' ... and they put the word 'cleansed' in because they thought it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. So the (Seventh-day) Adventist doctrine of the Investigative Judgment, the interpretation of 'cleansed,' is based on an ancient translation made by Jewish people into Greek believing that Antiochus Epiphanes had fulfilled the prophecy. So if we take the word 'cleansed' there, we really ought to say that it applied to Antiochus Epiphanes.
Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel Stymied
"Well, I went to Elder Nichol. Since he had gotten me into this fix, it was up to him to get me out of it. You know what he did? He took them (the responses) over to the President of the General Conference, Elder Figuhr. And the General Conference appointed the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel to try to find some answers to these questions. Well, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel met for five years. I was a member of the committee. We studied forty-five prepared papers for the committee and adjourned without finding any answers!
"Now, there was a majority on the Committee and a minority, altogether fourteen people. Nine of them, the majority at the end, wanted to issue a formal report in which we wouldn't say one word about any problems or any questions. Now remember, the name of the committee was Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel. And they wanted a report that would just make everybody happy and say some nice things. Well there were five of us that didn't think that was intellectually honest. We didn't think that the church would be well served by such a report.... The majority insisted on that 'unanimous' report to which we would have to sign our names — and we couldn't conscientiously do that because we would be to blame for a report that didn't deal with any of the problems!
"So we made several proposals. We made a proposal that would deal honestly with the facts and the different proposed solutions — the reasons for them — and let people make up their own minds. Well of course that didn't meet the desire of the majority. Another proposal we made was that there be no report and any member of the committee, on his own initiative, could submit any article for publication in the Review or Ministry or any other journal, under his own name and without mentioning the committee. That way people could say what they wanted to. No, those weren't acceptable. So we came out with a facetious suggestion. We proposed that they let us five step out into the corridor, and then the majority could have a unanimous vote just as they wanted it." — Raymond F. Cottrell in taped address, circa 1985.
A Challenge to Seventh-day Adventist Theologians
In the end, the Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel had no solutions! This insight into the inner workings of Seventh-day Adventism answers a number of questions as to why the church has continued to teach their non-Biblical sanctuary doctrine for another half century. Without question reputable non-Adventist Bible scholars and the overwhelming majority of Adventist Bible scholars agreed the entire doctrine of 1844 is not Biblical. Those wishing to study this subject further will find ample inspiration in the following twenty questions contributed by former Seventh-day Adventist pastor Phillip Wilson:
It is a fact that the majority of reputable Christian Bible scholars believe the "2300 evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14 refer to the events leading up to the desecration of the temple in Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes on December 4, 168 B.C. and on through its reconsecration on December 14, 165 B.C.
Cottrell Was Mistaken About the Septuagint's Use of "Cleansed"
The Septuagint was written between 285 B.C. and 246 B.C. Therefore, the translators could not possibly have known about the defilement and "cleansing" of Jerusalem's temple — an event which occurred at least 81 years after the Septuagint was written. Thus Elder Cottrell was mistaken when he stated the writers of the Septuagint used the word "cleansed" (thus apparently manipulatating the intent of Scripture) because they thought Daniel 8:14 applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. Seventh-day Adventists continue to have difficulty coping with the inerrancy of God's Word — particularly when their own prophet Ellen White is so error-prone.
The historical evidence is clear that the earthly temple was defiled and cleansed — reconsecrated — nearly two centuries before Christ. In the light of history, is it logical to assume Daniel was predicting an event which would not occur until A.D. 1844 in heaven — some 2,500 years after the angel spoke with him in vision? Or is it more likely that Daniel 8:14 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes' desecration of the temple (fulfilled just 500 years after Daniel wrote) and followed immediately by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and thus the fulfillment of Daniel chapter 9?
Seventh-day Adventists have long claimed to be the successors and completers of the Protestant Reformation. But they have long departed from the Reformation's battle cry of "Sola Scriptura — The Bible Alone!" The Sanctuary Doctrine, the 2,300 days, the Investigative Judgment and the Great Disappointment all evolved not from the solid rock of Scripture, but from the miasmic writings of Ellen G. White. And that is the "keystone in the arch" of Seventh-day Adventism!
Back to White-Washed Order Form
Copyright © 1998 Sydney Cleveland
