Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission

B. The “Year 1843.”

1. Time calculations

When the year 1843 arrived, the Millerite missionary thrust became stronger than ever, for this was the year of the termination of several time prophecies, ⁶ the year of Christ’s personal return, and the last chance for the church and the world to accept the truth. The Millerites were unanimous that “the year 1843” was the year of the Second Advent. Some, however, expected Christ to come within the regular Gregorian calendar year (January 1 to December 31, 1843), ¹ whereas Miller himself anticipated this event sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. Miller assumed that the “Jewish mode of computation of time” was based on the reckoning from the vernal equinox of 1843 to the vernal equinox of 1844. ² Later in the year 1843, when calculation of the Jewish year was further analyzed, it was discovered that there were two methods for determining the Jewish year. One method, Rabbinical reckoning, regulated the “commencement of the year by astronomical calculations,” and commenced it with “the first day of the new moon nearest the vernal equinox when the sun is in Aries.” ⁴ According to this method, the Jewish year of 1843 commenced on April 1, 1843 and terminated on March 20, 1844, a period which fell within the limits of Miller’s year. The other method was the Karaite reckoning and was derived from the Karaite Jews, a small group who “still adhere to the letter of the Mosaic law, and commence [the year] with the new moon nearest the barley harvest in Judea ... which is one moon later than the Rabinical [sic] year.” The Karaites stressed Leviticus 23:10, 11, which required the Jews to bring a sheaf of the first fruits of their harvest to the priest as a wave offering on the 16th of the first month, a ceremony which, quite obviously, could only be observed when the barley harvest was ripe in Judea. On this basis, the Karaite Jewish year 1843 commenced on April 29, 1843 and terminated on April 17, 1844. The Millerites also learned that most Jews followed the Rabbinical reckoning because it was more practical to calculate the year by astronomical calculations related to the vernal equinox than by the ripening of the barley harvest in Judea. FSDA 84.3

During the year 1843 various dates were looked upon with different degrees of interest as possibilities for Christ’s return, but there was no unanimity of opinion on any one of them. The earliest of these dates were associated with the termination of the 1335 days of Daniel 12:12. ⁸ The 1335 days were considered by many Millerites as extending exactly 45 years beyond the termination of the 1290 days of Daniel 12:11, a date to be identified by either one of two events during the French Revolution. The earliest of these events was the capture of Rome on February 10, 1798 by the French army under General Berthier. The other event took place on February 15, 1798, and indicated “the abolition of the papal government and the erection of the Roman Republic.” ¹ Thus, the 1335 days were regarded as extending to either February 10 or February 15, 1843. As these dates approached, “the expectation with many was on tip-toe, fully believing that the great day of the Lord would then break upon the world.” ² FSDA 85.1

The second group of dates set by various Millerites was associated with the termination of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14, an event taken to be precisely 1810 years after the termination of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27. ³ Many placed the termination of the 70 weeks at the crucifixion of Christ, others, at Ascension or Pentecost; further, there were two schools of thought on the exact date of the Crucifixion, resulting in two sets of dates for the Ascension and Pentecost. FSDA 86.1

The earliest date for the Crucifixion which drew much attention was the 3rd of April in the year A.D. 33 “when many supposed the 70 weeks expired.” ⁴ James Ferguson’s astronomical calculations formed the basis for this date, making it 1810 years to April 3rd, 1843. ⁵ Those adhering to this opinion thought that the calendar change in 1752, when the British dominions adopted the Gregorian calendar, had no effect on calculations based on the original date. ⁷ Consequently, in contrast to others who will be discussed below, they would not accept the 14th of April as the date of Christ’s death as had been indicated by the Gregorian liturgical calendar of 1843. When Christ failed to appear in April, some among this group pointed to the possibility that the 70 weeks terminated at Christ’s ascension, and thought “the 2300 days would expire the middle of May, so that on the anniversary of the ascension of our Lord [May 14], the saints may ascend to meet him in the air.” Bliss, a leading advocate of the April 3rd date for the Crucifixion, favored the Feast of Pentecost. He stated that as the Crucifixion was “April 3rd, A.D. 33 and the 70 weeks seem to have terminated within 50 days after, the 2300 days which extend to the coming of Christ, 1810 years from the 70 weeks, seem to terminate by the 23rd of May, 1843, by which time the righteous have reason to expect to meet their Lord in the air.” ¹ FSDA 86.2

Most Millerites, however, advocated the dates for Crucifixion, Ascension, and Pentecost as found on the Gregorian calendar. Litch said: “The 14th of April was a point of time anticipated with the deepest solicitude by many. They had the fullest confidence that it would not pass without bringing the expected crises.” ² When the time passed they looked toward another possible date and continued their missionary activity “with greater zeal than ever,” being convinced that their hopes would be fulfilled during the rest of the year. ³ Others looked forward to “the season of Ascension or Feast of Pentecost as being the most likely time for the Advent,” ⁴ related not to the third but to the 14th of April. ¹ FSDA 87.1

The next time setting that attracted the attention of Millerites was based on the topological significance of the Jewish ceremonial feasts and was introduced by Miller himself. He pointed out that one “will find all the ceremonies of the typical law that were observed in the first month [Abib or Nisan], or vernal equinox, had their fulfillment in Christ’s first advent and sufferings, but all the feasts and ceremonies in the seventh month [Tishri], or autumnal equinox, can only have their fulfillment at his second advent.” ² Some of his arguments were: (1) “The sanctuary, and worshippers and all appertaining to it, were cleansed on the seventh month tenth to seventeenth day” (Leviticus 16:29-34); (2) “the atonement was made on the tenth day seventh month, and this is certainly typical of the atonement Christ is now making for us” (Leviticus 16:1-34; Hebrews 9:1-28); (3) “when the high priest came out of the holy of holies after making the atonement, he blessed the people. Leviticus 9:22, 23; 2 2 Samuel 6:18. So will our great High Priest. Hebrews 9:28. This was on the seventh month tenth day” ³; (4) the Feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34) was a type of the great day when “Jesus’ voice will call forth the righteous dead” (Jn. 5:28, 29; 1 Thes. 4:16). ⁵ Owing to this reasoning, which explained Daniel 8:14 in the light of Leviticus and Hebrews, he did not expect Christ’s coming until after the autumnal equinox. At this stage of the Millerite experience the seventh month of the Jewish year was most likely determined by the Rabbinical reckoning, yielding as limits for this month September 24 and October 24, 1843. One additional reason why this period was looked upon with great interest was that the Jewish Civil Year ended in the month of October. Miller’s idea on the antitypical significance of the seventh month was so well appreciated by at least one correspondent that a letter appeared in Signs of the Times stating that “father Miller’s seventh month will bring the end.” When the “autumnal equinox approached, the expectations of many were raised, that the Lord would come at the season of the Feast of Tabernacles.” FSDA 88.1

The Millerite leadership rejected the idea of a 1847 return of Christ. Those advocating this date doubted the generally held view of the Crucifixion at the termination of the 70 weeks and interpreted the phrase “in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease” (Daniel 9:27) as meaning that Christ died in the middle of the 70th week. The 70 weeks would then terminate “3 1/2 years after the crucifixion, with the vision of Peter, when he was shown that the wall between Jew and Gentile was broken down, and Cornelius converted. This is the view of Wolff and others, who are looking to 1847 as the end of the 2300 days, and the end of the world.” ¹ FSDA 89.1

2. Calculation adjustments

During 1843, as a result of careful analysis of the prophetic time calculations, several adjustments were introduced which were gradually accepted. The first correction may be designated the “full year” concept. It was discovered that it was a mistake to calculate the period between 457 B.C. and A.D. 1843 by simply adding the figures together as if they were cardinal numbers. They are ordinal numbers, not separated by a zero year, so that only one year separates 1 B.C. from A.D. 1. It was therefore recognized that in order FSDA 89.2

to make out 2300 full years, it is necessary that there should be 457 full years, B.C. and 1843 full years after Christ. It is evident that from a given point in the year 1 B.C., to the same point A.D. 1, would be but one entire year. Upon the same principle, from a given point in the year 457 B.C. to the same point A.D. 1843, would be but 2299 entire years; it is minus one year of 2300 full years.... If, therefore, the 2300 years began at a given point in the year 457 B.C. they will not end till the same point is reached A.D. 1844. ² FSDA 89.3

The second correction was related to the correct year for the parousia. Miller’s “Jewish year” from March 21, 1843 to March 21, 1844 was at first quite generally accepted among his followers. Gradually, however, as attention was called to different Jewish reckonings, the general trend of discussion favored the Karaite reckoning above the Rabbinical as being more biblical. Acceptance of the Karaite reckoning led them to the correction of the date for the Crucifixion, because Ferguson, heretofore the Millerite’s chief authority on the Crucifixion date, had used the Rabbinical reckoning in determining it. ¹ On the basis that the Jewish Passover, according to Rabbinical reckoning, was kept on the day of the first full moon after the vernal equinox and that Christ was crucified on a Friday, Ferguson dated the Crucifixion in the year A.D. 33. According to the Karaite reckoning, however, the Passover was kept at the next full moon one month later, with the result that it could not also fall on a Friday in A.D. 33, making that year an impossible one for the Crucifixion. ² In this light the view of Dr. William Hales, ⁴ an Irish clergyman and chronologist, who determined the year of the Crucifixion as A.D. 31 on the basis of historical accounts about the darkening of the sun, came to be generally accepted. Hale placed the Crucifixion in the middle of the 70th week (Daniel 9:27), making the end of the week fall in A.D. 34. His interpretation became especially acceptable because it fitted into the shift of emphasis from the year 1843 to the year 1844 that was going on at that time. FSDA 89.4

In the winter of 1843-44 the last correction was introduced by Samuel S. Snow. ⁶ His calculations were based on the assumption that the decree “to restore and to build Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:25) had been issued toward the latter part of 457 B.C. and that the 69th week (Daniel 9:25), according to the “full year” concept, terminated in the autumn of A.D. 27 when Jesus began His ministry as the Messiah. ⁷ He concluded that if, then, the 69 weeks ended in the autumn of A.D. 27, when may we expect the 2300 days so end? The answer is plain. Deduct 483 from 2300, and the remainder is 1817. So many years remained to be fulfilled in the autumn of A.D. 27. Then add to that date, these 1817 years, and we see it brings us to the autumn of A.D. 1844. ¹ FSDA 90.1

Calculations depending on the year of the Resurrection (Daniel 12:11, 12) Snow also adjusted to the year 1844; ² but although he published his views prior to the spring of 1844, they were not accepted widely until some time after the first disappointment. FSDA 91.1

3. The first disappointment

The Gregorian calendar year 1843 passed without the hopes of many at the beginning of that year having been fulfilled. ³ However, because Miller’s year and the other Jewish years had not ended, expectations of an imminent return of Christ remained high and missionary activity did not slow down. Announcements of conferences were introduced with the phrase “providence permitting” or “if time continue.” ⁴ Furthermore, the name of the major periodical, the Signs of the Times, was changed because the advent of the Lord being “at the door” we “herald” its approach with joy. As this paper was in face the first Herald of the Advent cause as proclaimed by Mr. Miller, and his friends, we now adopt the appropriate title “THE ADVENT HERALD, and Signs of the Times.” We shall “herald” the Bridegroom’s approach by the prophetic word, as God shall give us light, and note the “signs of the times,” which show the event at hand. ⁵ FSDA 91.2

Just before the disappointment in the spring of 1844, the editors of the Advent Herald adopted the name “Adventists” as a suitable name for those participating in the Millerite movement. The rationale for it was as follows: FSDA 91.3

Convenience and propriety demand that we should have a name that will convey to the world as true an idea of our position as distinct from that of our opponents, as may be. We have no particular objection to being called “Millerites,” the current name applied to us by those who are in the habit of using nicknames, in speaking of their neighbors; but there are many of our number who do not believe with Mr. Miller in several important particulars. It is also his special wish that we should not be distinguished by that appellation. “Believers in the coming of Christ at hand”-which would express the true idea, is quite too long. Adventists, the personal advent (or coming) of our Lord Jesus Christ being understood, is both convenient and proper. Its convenience is sufficiently apparent. It is also proper, because it marks the real ground of difference between us and the great body of our opponents. ¹ FSDA 91.4

Although the Karaite reckoning which indicated the end of the Jewish year at the new moon on April 17, 1844, was favored in the major Millerite periodicals, ² the majority of believers looked to March 21, 1844 as the time for Christ’s return. Outside the Millerite movement March 21 was well known and there was “a very general expectation of an entire overthrow of the whole system of Adventism” on that date. ³ Immediately after it passed, Miller wrote that “the time, as I have calculated it, is now filled up; and I expect every moment to see the Savior descend from heaven. I have now nothing to look for but this glorious hope.” ⁵ The disappointment was very real and acknowledged by many (including Miller), who frankly confessed their error. Yet, many remained faithful to the imminent expectancy of Christ’s return, and the leaders could state that “our faith is unwavering respecting the reality of those events being already to burst upon us at any moment. And this we can never give up.” Not only Millerites, but also the English “Millerites” experienced a disappointment when the Second Advent did not occur in the spring of 1844. FSDA 92.1

Various reasons explain the fact that the faith of many remained strong. First, although the majority of Millerites were convinced that the Second Advent would take place during the year 1843, there were various opinions on the specific date. Millerite periodicals warned strongly against the setting of a specific date; yet, so great was the freedom of expression, that articles were printed advocating the specific times. This diversity of opinion prevented an over-confidence on the definite time element. Secondly, various time adjustments were introduced which, although not generally accepted during 1843, avoided a too explicit position. Among these, as we have seen, were: (1) The discussion on the Rabbinical versus Karaite reckoning and their influence on the calculation of the Crucifixion, which in turn created some uncertainty about the validity of the end of the 70 weeks as a norm for the termination of the 2300 days; (2) the introduction of the “full year” concept, which led to a shift of emphasis from the year 1843 to the year 1844. Finally, there was Miller’s allusion some weeks before March 21, 1844, to a possible delay: “If Christ comes, as we expect, we will sing the song of victory soon; if not, we will watch, and pray, and preach until he comes, for soon our time, and all prophetic days, will have been fulfilled.” ¹ FSDA 92.2