Our Prophetic Heritage

The Seventh-day Adventist Church emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, a period of remarkable social and religious ferment. From a purely sociocultural perspective, it could easily be regarded as just another religious experiment of that era. From a traditional Christian perspective, it might be dismissed as an unorthodox sect with unusual—or even controversial—beliefs. Yet when viewed through a historical-prophetic lens, the movement appears not merely as another nineteenth-century religious development but as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy and a divinely appointed instrument in God’s unfolding redemptive work at the close of earth’s history.

This article revisits the prophetic roots of Adventism, with particular emphasis on its historicist interpretation of end-time biblical prophecy through the year-day principle. Special attention is given to William Miller and his indebtedness to contemporary evangelical historicist interpreters who helped shape his prophetic understanding. Consideration is also given to the continuing significance of the year-day principle as a foundational component of Adventist prophetic identity and self-understanding.

Evangelical Indebtedness

In his tract Apology and Defence William Miller explained that after his personal conversion—when in Jesus he “found a friend”—he laid aside his preconceived opinions and undertook a careful study of the Bible, comparing Scripture with Scripture with the aid of Cruden’s Concordance.[1] Taken in isolation, this statement could easily lead one to conclude that Miller independently devised his interpretation of the 2,300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14. Yet in the very same tract Miller emphasized that his prophetic conclusions were not the product of a novel or purely individual methodology. On the contrary, he insisted that he had built upon established interpretive traditions and widely accepted chronological calculations.

Miller explained, “I saw that as the events predicted to be fulfilled in prophetic days had been extended over about as many literal years; as God in Numbers 14:34, and Ezekiel 4:4-6, had appointed each day for a year; as the seventy weeks to the Messiah were fulfilled in 490 years, and the 1260 prophetic days of the Papal supremacy in 1260 years; and as these prophetical days extending to the advent were given in connection with symbolical prophecy, I could only regard the time as symbolical, and as standing each day for a year, in accordance with the opinions of all the standard Protestant commentators.”[2]

In the same tract, Miller affirmed that he had “rested on received chronology” and even declared, “There is not a point in my belief in which I am not sustained by some one of the numerous writers who have opposed my views.”[3] He then referred to several respected biblical expositors who endorsed the year-day principle, including George Bush (1796-1859), John Howard Hinton (1791-1873), and Nathaniel Jarvis (1787-1869).[4] Even a cursory survey of Miller’s writings reveals that he was acquainted with many of the contemporary discussions on prophetic interpretation and consciously situated his own views within the broader historicist tradition.

As perceptively noted by American historian Whitney R. Cross: “His [Miller’s] accumulating data pointed inescapably to a pre- instead of a postmillennial Advent. Aside from this change of emphasis, shared by several contemporaries, Miller achieved no startling novelty. His doctrine in every other respect virtually epitomized orthodoxy. His chronology merely elaborated and refined the kind of calculations his contemporaries had long been making but became more dramatic because it was more exact, and because the predicted event was more startling. On two points only was he dogmatically insistent: that Christ would come, and that He would come about 1843.”[5]

Miller’s Contribution

William Miller was not merely an inquisitive student seeking to make sense of the apocalyptic portions of Scripture. Rather, he was providentially called by God to play a significant role in reviving interest in the Bible’s end-time prophecies. According to Ellen White, God sent His angel to direct Miller’s attention to the prophetic Scriptures, and angels of God “repeatedly visited that chosen one, and guided his mind, and opened his understanding to prophecies which had ever been dark to God’s people.”[6] Does this mean, however, that all of Miller’s prophetic calculations were accurate? Certainly not. Although the essential framework of his prophetic interpretation proved to be sound, some of his calculations and conclusions required correction and refinement.

An analysis of the contemporary use of the year-day principle reveals two major interpretive extremes. One was the reductionist application of the principle exclusively to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27, interpreting them as 490 years while treating all the other prophetic time periods in the book of Daniel—the “time, times, and half a time” of Daniel 7:25 and 12:7, the 2,300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14, the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11, and the 1,335 days of Daniel 12:12—as literal rather than symbolic. Such an approach raises an obvious question: Why should only the 70 weeks be understood symbolically, whereas all the other time periods should be interpreted literally? Does this not reflect an inconsistent approach to the book of Daniel?

The heritage bequeathed to us by God’s providential leading is not merely a relic of the past to be admired, but a sacred trust to be preserved.

The other extreme was reflected, to some extent, in the writings of William Miller. While he correctly applied the year-day principle to all the prophetic time periods mentioned above—as well as to the parallel periods in Revelation 11:2, 12:14, and 13:5—he also extended the principle beyond its proper limits by applying it to certain nonprophetic time references in Scripture. For example, in his Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology, Miller argued that the “seven times” of Leviticus 26:18, 21, 24, and 28 (KJV) represent a prophetic period of 2,520 years.[7] James White later pointed out, correctly, that these “seven times” do not constitute a prophetic time period but rather describe a sequence of divine judgments increasing in severity. Accordingly, he concluded that those who find a prophetic period in Leviticus 26 “are simply beating the air.”[8]

Our discussion thus far has left two crucial questions unanswered. Does the appeal to Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6 in interpreting the prophetic time periods of Daniel and Revelation amount to little more than a proof-text approach? And how can we determine when the year-day principle should be applied and when it should not? Several Bible expositors contemporary with William Miller addressed these important questions with remarkable clarity.

Miniature Symbolization

When William Miller appeared on the scene, several earlier Bible expositors had already placed the year-day principle on a fairly solid foundation. Yet, as I discuss elsewhere in greater detail,[9] influential evangelical scholars in the first half of the nineteenth century identified a pattern of “miniature symbolization” that helps define more precisely which prophetic time periods should be interpreted according to the year-day principle. The criterion is quite simple: If a prophetic time period appears within a symbolic prophecy in which its principal entity—whether a person, an animal, or a horn—represents a larger collective reality, such as a tribe, a kingdom, or an empire, then the associated time period is likewise presented in miniature, and each prophetic day represents a literal year.

For example, in 1812 Frederic Thruston, an Anglican minister, stated that “a symbolical prophecy is a picture; and all the objects being visible at one view, are of course in miniature. The times must, therefore, be also in miniature, as days for years.”[10] In 1843 George Bush, professor of Hebrew and Oriental literature at New York City University, affirmed that “the grand principle into which the usage of employing a day for a year is to be resolved, is that of miniature symbolization. As the events are thus economically reduced, the periods are to be reduced in the same relative proportion.”[11] Likewise, Edward Bishop Elliott, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, argued that “if day means year in one miniature symbolic vision it seems reasonable so to construe it in all.”[12]

A careful reading of Numbers 14 and Ezekiel 4 reveals that the pattern of miniature symbolization is clearly present in both chapters. In Numbers 14 the 12 spies represent the 12 tribes of Israel; consequently, the 40 days spent spying out the land correspond to 40 years of Israel’s wandering in the wilderness (verse 34). In Ezekiel 4 the prophet Ezekiel first represents the house of Israel, and the 390 days symbolize 390 years (verse 5); he then represents Judah, and the 40 days symbolize 40 years (verse 6).

Likewise, in Daniel 7, 8, and 11, 12, as well as in Revelation 11-13, symbolic entities such as beasts, horns, kings, and a woman represent larger kingdoms, empires, religious systems, and collective realities. Consequently, the associated time periods should also be interpreted according to the year-day principle. It therefore seems entirely coherent to regard Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:4-6 as providing the interpretive key for understanding other prophecies in which the same pattern of miniature symbolization is present.

If this is indeed the case, why do almost all evangelicals—and even some Seventh-day Adventists—reject the year-day principle?

Modern Challenges

There is a human tendency, over time, to surrender our distinctiveness and accommodate ourselves to the spirit of the age. This process was aptly expressed by Alexander Pope when he wrote:

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”[13]

Pope’s observation captures the gradual nature of compromise. What initially shocks the conscience may, through repeated exposure, become tolerated, then accepted, eventually embraced, and finally advocated as something good and desirable.

Something similar has occurred with the downplaying of historicism and its corollary, the year-day principle. In his insightful article “Making Sense of Bible Prophecy,”[14] William H. Shea demonstrates how, in the sixteenth century, biblical historicism was challenged by Roman Catholic preterism and futurism; how, in the nineteenth century, many Protestants gradually accepted these alternative approaches; and how, toward the close of the twentieth century, some Seventh-day Adventists likewise embraced them. Today some Adventists openly reject the year-day principle, while others maintain that although it may have served the pioneers well, the church should no longer regard itself as bound by that hermeneutical principle.

In these last days, when “every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14) is blowing and many no longer “endure sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), a thorough understanding of our historical-prophetic roots is more essential than ever. The heritage bequeathed to us by God’s providential leading is not merely a relic of the past to be admired, but a sacred trust to be preserved. It is the responsibility of each generation of Seventh-day Adventists to understand it, cherish it, live it, and faithfully pass it on to the next until the prophetic mission of the church has been fulfilled and Christ returns in glory.

[1] William Miller, Apology and Defence (Boston: J. V. Himes, 1845), pp. 5, 6.

[2] Ibid., p. 11.

[3] Ibid., p. 34.

[4] Ibid., pp. 34, 35.

[5] Whitney R. Cross, The Burned-over District (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1950), p. 291.

[6] Ellen G. White, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1 (Battle Creek, Mich.: James White, 1858), p. 128.

[7] William Miller, Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology (Boston: Joshua V. Himes, 1841), pp. 43-46. See also William Miller, “Synopsis of Miller’s Views,” Signs of the Times (Millerite), Jan. 25, 1843, p. 147.

[8] James White, “The Seven Times of Lev. xxvi,” Review and Herald, Jan. 26, 1864, p. 68.

[9] Alberto R. Timm, “Miniature Symbolization and the Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 42, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 149-167; Alberto R. Timm, “Miniature Symbolization and the Year-Day Principle,” Reflections 44 (October 2013): 6-12.

[10] Frederic Thruston, England Safe and Triumphant; or, Researches Into the Apocalyptic Little Book, and Prophecies, Connected and Synchronical, vol. 1 (London: Coventry, 1812), p. 145. (Emphasis original.)

[11] George Bush, “Prophetic Designations of Time,” The Hierophant; or Monthly Expositor of Sacred Symbols and Prophecy 11 (April 1843): 246 (Emphasis original.)

[12] E. B. Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, or a Commentary on the Apocalypse, Critical and Historical, 2nd ed. (London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1846), p. 224, n. 2 (Emphasis original.)

[13] Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man (London: Cassell, 1891), pp. 31, 32.

[14] William H. Shea, “Making Sense of Bible Prophecy,” College and University Dialogue 5, no. 2 (1993): 5-8.