The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 4

XIII. Five-Year Circle of Disputed Time

An advent conference was held December 28 and 29, 1844, where leaders gathered to strengthen one another’s faith and to clarify their thinking. Here Miller’s “Address to Advent Believers” recounted their hopes, noted slanderous charges, extended encouragement, and offered his explanation for the Disappointment—the fallible element of human chronology and the probability of an error of a few years in the computation. Here he said: PFF4 875.1

“The discrepancy, we believe, is in the human part of the chronology, and as there are four or five years in dispute among our best chronological writers, which cannot be satisfactorily settled, we feel that we have a good right to this disputed period; and candid and reasonable men will all allow this to be right. Therefore we must patiently wait the time in dispute, before we can honestly confess we are wrong in time.” ⁴⁸ PFF4 875.2

Although 457 B.C. had been almost without exception held as the joint beginning date of the 70 weeks and the 2300 year-days, this disputed four—or five-year period was now set forth as a “buffer,” to soften the blow of disappointment at the end-year. ⁴⁹ As before mentioned, the question of re-examining the interpretation, or actual meaning, of the “cleansing of the sanctuary” did not seem to occur to them. They appeared to question only the terminal date—the 1844 ending. They still held the cleansing of the sanctuary to involve the “purgation” of the earth by fire. Christ had not come; therefore the prophecy had not ended. Hence the date of the ending of the 2300 years must be advanced. Thus they reasoned at this time-though ultimately they would be forced, on this premise, to abandon all thought of knowing when the prophecy was supposed to end. PFF4 875.3

They were consequently soon forced to abandon Miller’s principal position—that the 70 weeks, the dating of which can be known, constitute the first part of the 2300 years—which position was shared by scores of learned men, in both Old World and New, ⁵⁰ before the publication of Miller’s first book in 1836. This separation of the 70 weeks from the 2300 years -its original prophetic foundation—was a tacit confession to the world that it was built upon a fundamental mistake. Such a repudiation of the basic premise of the 2300 years must follow inevitably upon the repudiation of the seventh-month movement positions. Thus the main prophetic pillar of the movement came eventually to be completely undermined by its veteran leaders. PFF4 875.4

It had all started as an interchurch (or more accurately, an intrachurch) awakening on the doctrine of the near coming of Christ. The ultimate call out of the churches was not with the purpose of bringing another denomination into being, but of preparing a people to meet their returning Lord. No integrated organization was either needed or desired. ⁵¹ And the very freedom of thought and action of the former movement now abetted the subsequent discord. So, alter October 22, the Millerite movement came to a virtual halt as controversies arose, like those following the Reformation—as between Luther and Zwingli, the followers of Calvin and of Arminius, or the Westminster divines and the Dissenters—and confusion abounded. PFF4 876.1

Of course, a large percentage of the Millerite movement slipped away, its adherents disappearing in the world about or returning to the churches whence they came. Branches broke off, some of which were to outlive the main body. Nevertheless, a substantial group was held together for a number of years by the influence of the Albany Conference of April, 1845. PFF4 876.2