Adventism and the Bible

Front matter

Class P)X UN fi<V

Book_Hii_

A STUDY

Preface

THE reader will note that I have omitted sometimes, in all probability, at the expense of the matter considered, the usual "authorities" generally expected in a work of this kind. Books nowadays have grown to be a sort of compendium of what great preachers, great statesmen, great editors, and great professors think on the subjects treated. I have chosen to give a true statement of the views of Adventists, to apply the Bible teachings thereto, and then to draw the conclusions, after the necessary generalizations. What great men have to say on the subjects treated has mattered little with me. Great men have said all sorts of things.

My rule has been: What does the Bible say?

The book has been written on what might be called the "popular" basis. If at times, therefore, the matter may seem to be presented in an absurdly simple form, the reader will be calling in question, if he complains, the one point at which the author aimed from the very beginning.

Seventh-Day Adventism is a mixture of Christianity and Judaism — abnormally in favor of the latter. It is the counterpart of that movement against which the apostle Paul addressed the Galatian letter. While professing to be Christian, it aims constantly to thrust back on to the necks of Christians "the yoke of bondage" from which Christ has set us free. (Gal. 5:1; Acts 15: 10.) There is not a book on the market at the present time that discusses Adventism from a systematic standpoint and in an unbiased manner. I, therefore, in placing this volume before the reading public, trust that its reception will be as cordial and beneficial as has been the sincerity of ^nirit that prompted its production.

Jay Henry Monk.

Washington, D. C, October 1, 1919.

CHAPTER I. The Second Advent

Relative to the second coming of Christ, there are only two things about which any Christian should feel greatly concerned. They are, (1) that he will come again (John 14 : 3 ; Acts 1:11; Acts 3 : 20 ; Acts 20 : 23 ; 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3 : 20 ; 2 Thess. 1:7; Tit. 2: 13; Rev. 1:7), and (2) that his people should be looking for him (Matt. 24: 42) and be ready (Matt. 24: 44).

The Manner of His Coming.

While Christians of all communions are united in the belief that he is to come again, there is a marked difference as to the manner of his coming.

We are told by inspiration that the "same Jesus" who went into heaven will come again "in like manner'' as he went away. (Acts 1: 11.) As he went visibly away, it seems plain that he will visibly return. But, others point out, as he went secretly away (so far as the "world" was concerned), he will secretly return.

This view is severely offset, however, in Matt. 24: 28, where the Lord warned his disciples against believing in a "secret" return of their Master ; and in verse 27 of this chapter we read that "as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man."

The word here translated "lightning" is the word astrapee, the regular word for electrical discharges in the heavens. The same word is found in Luke 10: 31, where it is stated by the Lord that Satan as astrapee fell from heaven.

This passage does not allow of the doctrine, advocated by some, that "lightning" in this passage means a "lighting up," such as the dawning of the day.

John, on the isle of Patmos, foretold that "every eye" will see him when he comes. (Rev. 1: 7.)

Signs of His Coming.

Matt. 24 is the great second-advent chapter in the New Testament. Here the "signs" that foretell his coming are found. They are as follows:

1. "The sun shall be darkened." (Matt. 24: 29.)

2. "The moon shall not give her light."

3. "The stars shall fall from heaven."

4. "The powers of heaven shall be shaken."

5. "The sign of the Son of man in heaven."

6. "Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn."

7. "And they shall see the Son of man coming." Adventists contend that the first three of this

catalogue of six "signs" have come to pass. No one, so far as I know, teaches that the last three have appeared.

Noted Advent Preachers.

Human beings move in schools. Let a Darwin appear, and a group of scientists will attach themselves to him ; let a Columbus arise, and the western waters are flooded with ships; or a Luther, and reformers are seen everywhere. Edward Irwin, of England, 1795, made himself felt on the subject of the second coming of Christ. Immediately there came into being the usual "school" of thinkers on this question. Early Advent preachers are these: Bengal and Kelbar, of Germany; W. E. Davis, of South Carolina; Joseph Wolfe and Edward Irwin, of England; "Ben Ezra," of Spain; and Henzepeter, of Holland. ("Great Second Advent Movement," Chapter V.)

William Miller, the founder of Adventism in America, was a sort of "last rose of summer" of this school of second-advent preachers. Not only did he come, in point of time, after all the others, but, so coming, he had the benefit of their labors and views. From a careful study of the many Advent publications and views afloat in his day, Miller formulated his theories of which we are to read in the following pages.

CHAPTER II. Miller and His Mistake

Miller was born in the State of New York in 1782, married in 1803, and began preaching in 1831. He was a farmer. His school advantages had been limited.

Miller read Advent literature. It was plentiful. J. N. Andrews, Advent historian, states that as early as 1842 "Advent publications had been sent to every missionary station in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America." {"Great Second Advent Movement," page 105.) From his reading of this literature his attention was attracted by the following subjects:

1. The fourth kingdom of Dan. 7.

2. The little horn of the same chapter.

3. The little horn of the eighth chapter.

4. The length of the prophetic periods.

5. The commencement of the seventy weeks.

6. Their connection with the twenty-three hundred days.

7. The nature of Christ's second coming.

8. The return of the Jews.

9. The resurrection.

James White, author of a life of Miller, states that "Miller laid no claim to originality in his position respecting any of the above points," since they were "established opinions of the church." ("Life of Miller," Chapter X.)

The only point wherein he differed from this "school" of Advent preachers was in his theory that the world would end "somewhere between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844."

Miller was a close student of the following well-known authors: Luther, Calvin, Mede, Home, Newton, Hale, Clarke, Brown, Faber, Noel, Hopkins. ("Life of Miller" page 189.)

After spending nine years in the lecture field,

Joshua V. Himes said to Miller: "There is but little knowledge on the subject after all you have done." Miller replied: "I know it, Brother Himes. ... I stand quite alone. . . . No one as yet seems to enter into the spirit and object of my mission." ("Life of Miller" page 128.) Miller's movement was limited.

Miller the Founder of Adventism. ' James White contends that time setters and apostates from Miller's views have "departed from the position of Miller, . . . and have left the field to Seventh-Day Adventists, who stand upon the original Advent faith." ("Life of Miller, page 370.)

On April 23, 1845, a company of "Adventists" assembled at Albany, New York, "to consult together," and William Miller was elected chairman of a committee delegated to draw up a declaration of doctrines. Ten articles were submitted, each one of which is held to this day by

Seventh-Day Adventists. ("Life of Miller," pages 59, 3UU.)

Miller's Mistake.

The second-advent doctrines preached by Miller were the following:

1. A "day" as used in prophecy means a literal year.

2. The twenty-three hundred days of Dan. 8: 14 are twenty-three hundred years.

3. The seventy weeks of Dan. 9: 24, 25 are four hundred and ninety years, constituting the first four hundred and ninety of the twenty-three hundred years.

4. The seventy weeks and the twenty-three hundred days began in 457 B.C.

5. March 21, 1844, was the end of the twenty-three hundred years.

6. March 21, 1844, the sanctuary was to be cleansed.

7. Cleansing the sanctuary meant purifying the earth with fire.

Miller's Position Considered.

Rebuilding Jerusalem.

The seventy weeks of Dan. 8: 14 were to be dated, according to the prophecy, from the "going forth" of the "commandment to restore and build Jerusalem." (Dan. 9: 25.) To the uninformed reader this seems to be no problem at all. Find the historical date when the commandment was

Jerusalem was destroyed, 608 B.C., by Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews were carried away to Babylon. There they were to remain seventy years. (Dan. 9:2; Jer. 25 : 12 ; 2 Chron. 36 : 21.) The period of their exile ended, therefore, in the year 538 B.C. Cyrus, king of Persia, who had the meanwhile conquered^ the Babylonians, issued a decree that year (538 B.C.) that the Jews should return to Jerusalem, rebuild their holy city and their temple. (Ez. 1: 1, 2.)

Isaiah had already foretold that Cyrus would give such a decree: "Saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built ; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." (Isa. 44: 28.)

This decree was given in the year 538 B.C. The twenty-three hundred days and the seventy weeks were to be dated from the going forth of this decree. (See Dan. 9 : 24, 25.)

Under this decree 43,360 Jews and 3,000 servants returned to Jerusalem and began the work of reconstruction. (Ez. 2: 64.) The next year (537 B.C.) the foundation of the temple was laid. (Ez. 3: 8.) The Samaritans, enemies of the Jews, immediately to the north, petitioned Cambyses and Smerdis in rapid succession, sons of Cyrus and rulers after him on the Persian throne, to have the work of reconstruction stopped. It was stopped.

Darius took the throne in the year 521 B.C. During his second year the Jews succeeded in obtaining his consent to proceed with their work of rebuilding. (Ez. 6: 8.) That was 520 B.C. The temple was finished in the year 516 B.C., "which was in the sixth year of the reign of Darius." (Ez. 6: 15, 16.)

Here, then, not only do we have a commandment given for the rebuilding of the temple, but we have a rebuilt temple as a result of that commandment.

Adventists insist that the decree of Cyrus was for the rebuilding of the temple only. But that will not do. Cyrus was to say to "Jerusalem" that "thou" shalt be built. (Isa. 44: 28.)

Half a century later (458 B.C.) Ezra was permitted to go up from Babylon to Jerusalem, under the commission as "governor" of the Holy Land. He was to "set magistrates and judges," and was to offer sacrifices "upon the altar of the house of the Lord" which was then "in Jerusalem." (Ez. 7: 11-25.)

Ezra did not go up from Babylon to Jerusalem as a builder, but as a governor.

Fourteen years later (444 B.C.) Nehemiah received a commission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem and reconstruct the wall which had lain waste since 608 B.C.

The important dates thus far are these :

538 B.C. Commandment given.

516 B.C. Temple finished.

458 B.C. Ezra sent to Jerusalem as governor.

444 B.C. Walls of Jerusalem finished by Nehemiah.

Application of the Prophecy.

Each day in prophecy meant a year, literally considered. (Num. 14: 34; Ezek. 4: 6.) The seventy weeks, four hundred and ninety days, were four hundred and ninety years. The twenty-three hundred days were twenty-three hundred years. The four hundred and ninety years and the twenty-three hundred "days" were to begin together. They were to begin with the "going forth of the commandment" to restore and build Jerusalem. The only commandment that was ever given for the rebuilding of Jerusalem was given by Cyrus, 538 B.C. The four hundred and ninety years were to reach to the birth of Christ, and the twenty-three hundred years were to reach to his second coming. But four hundred and ninety years taken from 538 B.C. brings one to 44 B.C., and that is a useless date. Just so twenty-three hundred years taken from 538 B.C. brings one to the year 1762 A.D., and that also is a useless date.

The reader can see now the task that Miller was up against. But he believed that the twenty-three hundred years could be made to reach to the day of Christ's second coming; and he was certain, therefore, that 538 B.C. was not the correct beginning point.

The next probable date connected with the reconstruction of Jerusalem was the date when Nehemiah was commissioned to finish the rebuilt city by reconstructing the walls. That was 444 B.C. Had there been no seventy weeks to be considered, Miller, beyond doubt, would have accepted this date as the starting point. But the seventy weeks were to reach to the birth of Christ from the date when the commandment was given. This date, however, had long been established by Prideaux, Sir Isaac Newton, and the list referred to on a recent page, and that date was 457 B.C.* Sixty-nine of the seventy weeks were to reach to Messiah — that is, four hundred and eighty-three of the day-years were to reach to Christ. Hence, four hundred and eighty-three years from 457 B.C. brings one down to 26 A.D., the year Christ was baptized. This, a happy coincident, served the purpose of disposing of the seventy weeks for Miller's predecessors; but it prepared his tomb relative to the twenty-three hundred years.

The year Ezra was sent to Jerusalem as governor, therefore, was the correct beginning point of the prophetic periods of Dan. 8 : 14 and 9 : 24, 25. True enough, there was no commandment given at that time for the rebuilding of Jerusalem; but that which has to be a certain way — well, it just has to be! And here, then, 457 B.C., is where Miller tied one end of the twenty-three hundred years, and 1844 is where the other end had to be terminated. Naturally enough, he began to number the twenty-three hundred years

*The seventh year of Artaxerxes was 458 B.C., not 457. The following- standard works of authority testify that Artaxerxes began to reign in the year 465 B.C.: Twentieth Century Encyclopedia, New Standard Encyclopedia. Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, and Chambers' Encyclopedia. His seventh year, therefore, could not have been later than 458 B.C. The New Standard Encyclopedia says: "In his seventh year, 458."

with the first day of the first month of the year 457 B.C. The last day of the twenty-three hundred years, therefore, just had to be March 21, 1844 (Jewish time considered). On March 21, 1844, therefore, the Lord would come.

CHAPTER III. The Midnight Cry

Miller's prediction was that the world would end "somewhere between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844." ("Life of Miller;' page 363.) He regarded March 21, 1844, as the date for Christ's appearance.

When March 21, 1844, passed and Christ did not come, Miller, confessing that he had been wrong in his calculations, went back to the farm, whence he had come thirteen years before his disappointment, and died without taking any leading part in the new speculations.

But readers of Adventism know that October 22, 1844, is the date that is generally thought of as the Advent disappointment. That is very true, and it came about after this fashion :

The Seventh-Month Movement.

After the passing of March 21, 1844, there began to be preached that the correct date when the Lord would come was October 22 of that year. The promoters of this new theory were S. S. Snow, George Starrs, James White, N. Southard, Stickridge Howland, and a number of others. ("Great Second Advent Movement," page 170.) Miller himself did not accept the theory until "about two or three weeks previous to the 22d of October." ("Life of Miller;' page 36b.)

The reason for this new theory was this: From a study of Ez. 7 it is seen that Ezra did not reach Jerusalem with the commission as governor in the spring (March), but in the autumn (October). Hence, practically speaking, they argued that the decree did not go into effect on March 22, 457 B.C., but on October 22, 457 B.C. For that reason the twenty-three hundred years would not end on March 21, 1844, but on October 22, 1844. {"Great Controversy," page £95, Old Edition.)

Upon the first day of the first month (457 B.C.) Ezra began to go up from Babylon, and upon the first day of the fifth month he reached Jerusalem. (Ez. 7: 9.)

The reader may ask : "Why did they not begin to date the twenty-three hundred years with the first day of the fifth month — the day Ezra arrived in Jerusalem?" It really seems that they would have ; but the twenty-three hundred years, my dear reader, were not begun until two months and ten days later. The twenty-three hundred days were begun with the day of atonement, which was the tenth day of the seventh month. The reader will ask: "Why skip two whole months and ten days ?" The writer of these lines has asked that very question many a time himself, and the question always puts the would-be answerer into a difficult position. Here is the way the question is answered by two leading Adventist writers :

Uriah Smith: "After he [Ezra] had reached the city, the large company that went up with him were to be provided with homes and arrangements made for their living, etc. . . . Two months would certainly be short enough time to allow for this work, which would bring us to the seventh month, or the autumn of the year." ("Looking Unto Jesus," page 196.)

J. N. Loughborough: "As the observance of the tenth day of the seventh month seemed to be the event which marked the beginning of the period, it was shown conclusively that on the tenth day of the seventh month (Jewish time) — October 22, 1844 — the twenty-three hundred days would end." ("Great Second Advent Movement," page 160.)

Here, then, is a loophole of two months and ten days which present-day Adventists would feign fill if they were able. And in all this it is clearly seen that they lost sight of the original statement that the twenty-three hundred days were to be dated from the ' 'going forth of the commandment" to rebuild Jerusalem. Now they have it that the twenty-three hundred days began two months and ten days after Ezra arrived in Jerusalem as governor.

S. S. Snow was the original promoter of this "seventh-month movement." During the summer of 1844 he began to preach the new theory. But "no particular manifestation of its effects was seen until about July." {"Second Advent Movement," page 158.)

About this time, midway between March 21 and October 21, Adventists (Millerites) began to fall into Snow's new prophetical net. The Millerite movement, in other words, came to life. They had fallen into a lukewarm state after Miller's date failed. Their coming to life closely resembled the parable of the ten virgins spoken of in Matt. 25. This confirmed their faith in the new speculations. ("Great Second Advent Movement," Chapter X.; also "Great Controversy" page 398.)

On October 22, therefore, the Lord would come.

CHAPTER IV. Crozier's Sanctuary Question Considered

But October 22 passed and the Lord did not come. S. S. Snow dropped the question late in October precisely as Miller had dropped it late in March of that year.

But just as Snow came to the rescue of the Millerite movement immediately after Miller's disappointment, so Hiram Edson was destined to come to the rescue of the Advent movement immediately after Snow's disappointment.

How It Happened.

Hiram Edson was out in the field praying — behind a shock of fodder, so he stated — on October 22, when the thought came to him that the sanctuary to be cleansed was in heaven. He communicated this thought to 0. R. L. Crozier, and together they carefully investigated the question of the sanctuary from a biblical standpoint. Two years later (1846) an elaborate exposition of the sanctuary question was printed in the Day Star, an Advent paper then published in Canandiagua, N. Y. These two men took the position that on October 22, 1844, Christ began the work of cleansing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he would close this work just before he comes again. {"Great Second Advent Movement," page 193.)

\tr

The Edson-Crozier discovery of the heavenly sanctuary saved the Advent cause. Adventism, as it stands to-day, is a structure built around this theory of the sanctuary.

Edson and Crozier discovered the famous "elastic clause" that saved the day for Adventism. If Christ does not come for a thousand years, Adventists may be found preaching that he is not yet through with his work of cleansing the sanctuary.

The Edson-Crozier Theory.

Crozier assumed that there are two apartments in heaven, just as there were two apartments in the tabernacle built by Moses. These heavenly apartments are the "holy" and the "most holy" places. Crozier again assumed that services are rendered at different times in these two heavenly apartments, even as there were in the earthly tabernacle. It is assumed that Christ ministered in the first apartment, or "holy" place, in heaven from 33 A.D. until October 22, 1844, when he vacated the "holy" place and took up his work in the "most holy." He is there now, has been there for the last seventy-five years, and will continue to minister in the "most holy" place until the end of the world. He is performing a work of judgment, trying the cases of the living and the dead.

Moses' Tabernacle.

Measurements. — Forty-five feet long, fifteen feet wide, and fifteen feet high.

Coverings. — First, fine linen (Ex. 25: 33) ; second, goat's hair (Ex. 25: 4, 5) ; third, red ram's skins and seal skins. (Smith's Bible Dictionary.)

First Apartment. — The "holy" place, fifteen by thirty by fifteen. This apartment contained (1) the table of showbread (Ex. 25: 23-30), (2) the golden candlestick (Ex. 25: 31-33), and (3) the altar of incense (Ex. 30: 1-10).

Second Apartment. — The "most holy" place, a cube of fifteen feet in measurement. This apartment contained (1) the "ark of the covenant," with a lid of gold called the "mercy seat" (Ex. 25: 10-17) ; (2) the two "tables of the covenant," the contract between God and Israel (the Ten Commandments) ; (3) a pot of manna; (4) Aaron's rod that budded; and (5) a copy of "the law" in its entirety (Heb. 9:4; Deut. 31: 24, 25). These articles were all in the ark of the covenant.

Curtains. — There were three curtains connected with the tabernacle. These were termed "veils." The first constituted the door of the outer court, the second constituted the door of the "holy" place, and the third was the middle wall between the "holy" and the "most holy" places. (See McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Article "Veil.")

The Daily Services. — These were performed by the ordinary priest in the "holy" place, and consisted of diverse sacrifices of animals and food materials. The sinner confessed his sins over the head of the animal, the priest slew the animal, and the priest took a portion of the blood into the tabernacle and sprinkled some of it on the "altar of incense," which stood immediately before "the veil" separating the two apartments, and poured the rest of the blood out at the base of the altar of burnt offerings in the court in front of the tabernacle. By this daily service the sins of Israel were transferred from the sinner to the victim, and from the victim, by the mediation of the priest, to the sanctuary.

The Day of Atonement. — This was the last day of the year, the tenth day of the seventh month. On this day the first apartment was closed, and the high priest alone ministered in the "most holy" place. The high priest confessed the sins of all Israel over the head of a goat, slew the goat, and sprinkled of its blood on the ark of the contract between God and Israel, and some on the altar of incense before the veil. The high priest then took another goat, confessed his own sins and the sins of all Israel over the goat's head, and gave this last goat to a responsible man, who led the victim into the wilderness and turned it loose.

This was cleansing the sanctuary.

Three Steps.

William Miller. — The Jews spent seventy years in the Babylonian captivity— 608-538 B.C. During this time the sanctuary was not in existence. For seven years, therefore, it had not been "cleansed." Daniel prophesied that "unto twenty-three hundred days" the sanctuary would again be cleansed. (Dan. 8: 14.) Miller warped this entirely out of its setting (which was nothing more than a prophecy of consolation for the exiled Jews in Babylon), and used it as a basis for his belief that, according to 2 Pet. 3 : 10, the world was to be burned with fire, and that in the year 1844.

S. S. Snow. — Snow had the same idea.

Edson and Crozier. — These men adopted Miller's original application of the length of the period, but denied the burning of the world at the end of the time. It is interesting to know that both Edson and Crozier repudiated the entire sanctuary theory which they developed and gave to Adventism almost immediately.

Inconsistencies.

In accepting the Edson-Crozier theory of the sanctuary, Adventists had of necessity to accept the many inconsistencies that came along with it. This is the price one has to pay for his devotion to error. A few of the inconsistencies :

1. In Rev. 3: 21 we read that when Christ ascended he sat down on the throne with his Father. In the Mosaic tabernacle Jehovah's seat (throne) was over the mercy seat in the "most holy" place. (Ex. 25: 21-31.) Following the analogy, therefore, the Father's seat, in the heavenly sanctuary, must be in the "most holy" place. Therefore, when our Lord ascended, he must have begun his work in the "most holy" place. But the Edson-Crozier theory places him in the

"holy" place, or first apartment, until October 22, 1844, when he left the "holy" place and began his work in the "most holy" place. In order that this may be so, the Father's throne must have been in the "holy" place, or first apartment, in the heavenly sanctuary, when our Lord ascended, and must have remained in the first apartment until 1844, when it moved back into the "most holy" place. And, strange as it may seem to the casual reader, this theory is precisely what Adventism teaches. Hear this :

"He began his ministry in the holy place, and at the termination of the prophetic days in 1844, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, he entered the most holy place to perform the last division of his solemn work — to cleanse the sanctuary." ("Great Controversy," Old Edition, page 266.)

"When Christ commenced his ministry above, on the throne of the Father, that throne was in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary." {"Looking Unto Jesus," page IS If.)

2. But our Lord went into the "most holy" place in heaven when he ascended. (Rev. 3: 21 Heb. 1:2; Col. 3:1; Acts 2: 34; Heb. 1: 13 Heb. 8:1; Heb. 10 : 12 ; Heb. 12 : 2 ; Eph. 1 : 20 Acts 7: 55, 58; Heb. 9: 24.)

3. From Lev. 16 : 17 we read that there was no man in the tabernacle of the congregation on the day of atonement ; and from Rev. 15 : 8 we learn that when the work of judgment is being performed in this dispensation the temple will be filled with smoke, so that no one will be permitted to enter while the work of judgment is proceeding. This means that probation will have closed. Putting these passages together, it is easy to see that if Christ is now performing the last work of judgment, then the tabernacle in heaven is closed and mercy also has been withdrawn. In the next short chapter we shall learn of the surprise that awaited the Advent movement on this point.

The Veil.

"Within the Veil." — Paul, in Heb. 6: 20, tells us that when Christ ascended he went "into that which is within the veil." We propose to show that "within the veil" means within the "most holy" place.

1. "The veil shall separate unto you between the holy place and the most holy." (Ex. 26 : 33.)

2. "Within the veil the ark of the testimony." (Ex. 26: 33.)

3. "Within the veil, before the mercy seat." (Lev. 16: 2.)

4. "Within the veil, . . . the mercy seat." (Lev. 16: 12, 13.)

There is not a single passage in all the word of God that uses "within the veil" so that it could possibly mean anything other than in the "most holy" place.

"Without the Veil"— If "within the veil," then, means at all times and under all circumstances within the "most holy" place, beyond doubt "without the veil" means out in the "holy" place.

1. "Set the table without the veil." (Ex. 26: 35.)

2. "In the tabernacle of the congregation without the veil." (Ex. 27: 20, 21.)