Jehovah's Witnesses of the Watchtower False Prophecy - 1874
Where did the 1874 date come from?
Following his conversion, Miller was soon challenged by his Deist friends to justify his newfound faith. He did so by examining the Bible closely, declaring to one friend "If he would give me time, I would harmonize all these apparent contradictions to my own satisfaction, or I will be a Deist still."[7] Miller commenced with Genesis 1:1, studying each verse and not moving on until he felt the meaning was clear. In this way he became convinced firstly, that postmillennialism was unbiblical; and secondly, that the time of Christ’s Second Coming was revealed in Bible prophecy.
Basing his belief principally on Daniel 8:14: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed", Miller assumed that the cleansing of the sanctuary represented the Earth's purification by fire at Christ's Second Coming. Then, using the interpretive principle of the "day-year principle", Miller, and others, interpreted a day in prophecy to read not as a 24-hour period, but rather as a calendar year. Further, Miller became convinced that the 2,300 day period started in 457 B.C.Jerusalem by Artaxerxes I of Persia. Simple calculation then revealed that this period would end in 1844. Miller records, "I was thus brought... to the solemn conclusion, that in about twenty-five years from that time 1818 all the affairs of our present state would be wound up."[8] with the decree to rebuild
Although Miller was convinced of his calculations by 1818, he continued to study privately until 1823 to ensure the correctness of his interpretation. In September 1822, Miller formally stated his conclusions in a twenty-point document, including article 15: "I believe that the second coming of Jesus Christ is near, even at the door, even within twenty-one years,--on or before 1844."[9] Miller did not, however, begin his public lecturing until the first Sunday in August, 1831 in the town of Dresden.[10]
In 1832 Miller submitted a series of sixteen articles to the Vermont Telegraph, a Baptist newspaper. The first of these was published on May 15, and Miller writes of the public's response: "I began to be flooded with letters of inquiry respecting my views; and visitors flocked to converse with me on the subject."[7] In 1834, unable to personally comply with many of the urgent requests for information and the invitations to travel and preach that he received, Miller published a synopsis of his teachings in a 64 page tract with the lengthy title:Evidence from Scripture and History of the Second Coming of Christ, about the Year 1844: Exhibited in a Course of Lectures.
From 1840 onwards, Millerism was transformed from an "obscure, regional movement into a national campaign." The key figure in this transformation was Joshua Vaughan Himes, the pastor of Chardon Street Chapel in Boston, Massachusetts, and an able and experienced publisher. Though Himes did not fully accept Miller’s ideas until 1842, he established the fortnightly paper Signs of the Times on February 28, 1840, to publicize them.[11]
Despite the urging of his supporters, Miller never personally set an exact date for the expected Second Advent. However, in response to their urgings, he did narrow the time-period to sometime in the Jewish year beginning in the Gregorian year 1843, stating: "My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844."[12] March 21, 1844, passed without incident, and further discussion and study resulted in the brief adoption of a new date (April 18, 1844) based on the Karaite Jewish calendar (as opposed to the Rabbinic[13] Like the previous date, April 18 passed without Christ's return. Miller responded publicly, writing, "I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment; yet I still believe that the day of the Lord is near, even at the door."[14] calendar).
In August 1844 at a camp-meeting in Exeter, New Hampshire, Samuel S. Snow presented a message that became known as the "seventh-month" message or the "true midnight cry." In a discussion based on scriptural typology, Snow presented his conclusion (still based on the 2300 day prophecy in Daniel 8:14), that Christ would return on, "the tenth day of the seventh month of the present year, 1844."[15] Again using the calendar of the Karaite Jews, this date was determined to be October 22, 1844.
The sun rose on the morning of October 22 as on any other day, and October 22 passed without incident, resulting in feelings of disappointment among many Millerites. Henry Emmons, a Millerite, later wrote,
“I waited all Tuesday [October 22] and dear Jesus did not come;– I waited all the forenoon of Wednesday, and was well in body as I ever was, but after 12 o’clock I began to feel faint, and before dark I needed someone to help me up to my chamber, as my natural strength was leaving me very fast, and I lay prostrate for 2 days without any pain– sick with disappointment.”[5]
William Miller continued to wait for the second coming of Jesus Christ until his death in 1849. Wikipedia Encyclopedia.
VOL. I PITTSBURGH, PA., OCTOBER, 1879 NO. 4.
==========
ZION'S Watch Tower AND HERALD OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE.
----------
PUBLISHED MONTHLY. 101 Fifth Ave., PITTSBURGH, PA.
----------
C. T. RUSSELL, Editor and Publisher.
The
wonderful equality in the substance of these dispensations as well as
in various measures is familiar to you. From the death of Jacob to the
birth of Christ is equal to the period from the death of Christ to the
Autumn of A.D. 1844, each being 1811-1/2 years. Each of these points
was marked by an important event in reference to the coming of the Lord.
The tarrying of Jesus for 30 years before his baptism and entrance on
the harvest work, has its parallel in the tarrying time between 1844
and 1874, at which later point the harvest of the gospel dispensation
began. Christ's personal ministry of 3-1/2 years, ending at his death,
has its parallel in the 3-1/2 years of harvest from the Autumn of 1874
until the Spring of 1878.
At his birth Christ came in the body prepared for sacrifice, tarried
thirty years, and came as Bridegroom and Reaper, and three years and a
half later he rode into Jerusalem as a King. The closing work of that
dispensation completed the pattern. All the Jewish dispensation with
its closing work, under the supervision of Jesus in the flesh, was a
pattern of the gospel dispensation and its closing work under the
supervision of Christ in the spiritual body. That was a fleshly
dispensation for the development of the typical seed, and was the
period of Jewish favor, while this has been the dispensation of the
Spirit for the development of the Gospel church, the true seed, and God
has during this latter half shown the Jews no favor as a nation.
The Anglo-Turkish treaty of 1878, made about the time of the Berlin
Congress, securing certain legal favors to the Jews, opening the door
for their restoration, is certainly in harmony with the application,
and we are not ashamed of our rejoicing at its confirmation. We regard
this whole affair as a remarkable confirmation of the truth of bible
prophecies, and of the gospel of Christ.
No one who is at all familiar with R39 : page 4 this argument, can fail
to see that whatever tends to weaken or set aside the parallelism,
weakens the whole position. As the former closed with its three stages
of the coming of Jesus, so this one closes with three stages. In 1844
he was due to leave the most holy place. (I write for those who, by
virtue of the past education have eyes to see or ears to hear.) He was
expected to come to earth, and to do a great many things that were not
due, by those who had not learned that the law, which was a shadow,
required that the High Priest should tarry in the holy place to cleanse
it (the sanctuary means the holy place,) after he had done his work in
the most holy and left it. (See Lev. 16.) That the tarrying was thirty
years or from 1844 until 1874 has often been shown. This position as
you know was not taken to make it a parallel to the thirty years
tarrying at the first Advent, but was based on the Jubilee argument,
and the days of Daniel 12, but after having seen the arguments, proving
that the Bridegroom was due then, then it was found that the two
tarrying times like all the rest were parallel. Man did not make the
parallels, but with the Lord's help found them. Thus then they stand
related to each other;--at the end of the Jewish dispensation Christ
came first as a babe, second as Bridegroom and Reaper, and third as a
King; at this time, and points of time exactly corresponding, Christ
first came from the Most Holy, and tarried in the Holy place, second as
Bridegroom and Reaper, and third, as King.
What he did at first was necessary to complete the pattern, and what he
did at the second, was necessary to complete the parallel. You have
seen how the Parable of the Ten Virgins belongs in the closing of the
Gospel dispensation; and how clearly the various parts of the parallel
fit the points of time above mentioned.
The movement is a representative one. Not all the church, no not all
living Christians "took their lamps and went forth to meet the
Bridegroom," but it was an important movement in the church, and ended
in disappointment in 1844. "Whilst the Bridegroom tarried they all
slumbered and slept." Observe how closely the tarrying time of the
parable fits the time for the tarrying in the holy place, as indicated
by the prophetic periods. The night of the parable and its tarrying
time are identical, ending when the Bridegroom comes.
That Christ has other offices than Bridegroom is true, and we have
learned that he comes at different stages or turns, in harmony with his
different offices, but be it observed that the coming in this parable
is his coming in the character of the Bridegroom, and so far as this
parable shows, the tarrying was the tarrying of the Bridegroom.
The tarrying of the parable ends where the Bridegroom of the parable
comes. His presence in the character of the Bridegroom is what puts an
end to the tarrying. His presence makes it morning. The cry made at
midnight of the parable points to the morning of the parable, and could
not properly continue after the tarrying had ended by the only way it
could end, the coming of the Bridegroom.
All who understand the arguments, admit that the tarrying of the
parable began in 1844, and ended in 1874, and it has always been urged
in favor of the cry which pointed to 1874, for the coming of the
Bridegroom, being the "midnight cry," because it began at
midnight,--1859--which is a very consistent reason.
But whether or not it was the midnight cry of the parable depends on
whether it was true or not, or in other words, whether or not the
Bridegroom came in 1874. It will not do to say Christ came in another
character in 1874, no other character but that of the Bridegroom would
meet the conditions of the parable. And if the coming of the Bridegroom
is yet future, then the tarrying of the parable is not ended, the
morning of the parable is not come, and that cry in such a case was not
the midnight cry, for two reasons, either of which would kill its
claim: it was not made at midnight, and the Bridegroom did not come
according to the cry. Now it is all right to give up a position when
one finds out he is wrong, but it is neither consistent nor right to
claim that the tarrying ended in 1874, and thus prove that 1859 was
midnight, and yet for some other reason claim that the coming of the
Bridegroom is yet, and may be many years future. Convince me that the
"coming" of that parable is future, and I will try to do what it seems
every honest and consistent man would do, viz: admit the tarrying is
not ended, and therefore the cry we are talking of was not the true
midnight cry.
Now brethren, all who can hear me, I want it clearly understood that I
have not given up the application of the parable, and can see no
sufficient reason for so doing. I believe the going forth ended in
1844, that the tarrying ended in 1874, and therefore the cry pointing
to 1874 was the midnight cry, and I believe it was consistent that the
name "midnight cry" then disappeared from the publication, because, as
stated at the time, it had done its work; but in harmony with that
faith I also believe that Christ came in the character of a Bridegroom
in 1874.