Keith Hunt - Daniel's 2300 days/Sanctuary #1 - Page One   Restitution of All Things
  Home Next Page

Daniel's 2300 days/Sanctuary #1

Did it start in 1844?


                         E.E. Franke


Answering the Questions ... Did the Judgment Begin in
1844?...What Happened in 1844 ? Is Forgiveness of Sins
Conditional or Absolute?...Was the Atonement Finished Cross?
The matter contained in this writing is intended to call
attention to a most glaring and fatal error taught by Seventh-
day Adventists, viz.: That Jesus did not make the atonement on
the cross; that the atonement is only for those who are finally
found worthy of eternal life, and that it began in the year 1844,
when William Miller and his collaborators preached and expected
second coming of Christ.
By a shrewd and deceitful twisting of Scripture, the advocates of
these false theories have connected the prophecies of the eighth
and ninth chapters of Daniel in such a way as to build up what
they suppose to be an unassailable theory to account for the
mistake of William Miller in his time reckoning and at the same
time prove that the atonement and the judgment of the righteous
began in the year 1844.

This theory is the very keystone of Seventh-day Adventism, and if
taken out, destroys their entire system and forever nullifies the
pretended visions of their church prophetess, Mrs. Ellen G.

We appeal to the honest Christian to seek first the guidance of
the Holy Spirit, and then, laying aside all prejudice, read these
lines in the light of eternal consequences.
Your salvation is more important than any theory, any sect, or
any church, and for that reason, if for no other, you should know
the truth.
Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the
Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the
subverting of the hearers. Study to show thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing
the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:14,15).


There has been so much discussion of the 2300 days mentioned in
the eighth chapter of Daniel that it seems necessary to go over
this prophecy and clarify the events therein brought to view.
Seventh-day Adventists have made this chapter the center around
which their whole system of teaching revolves, claiming that the
2300 days ended in 1844, when William Miller predicted that the
end of the world would come. The Seventh-day Adventist church is
the logical successor of the Millerite movement and hence is
obliged by hook or crook to account for Miller's mistake; so they
have taught for many years that William Miller's reckoning was
absolutely correct, but that his error consisted in mistaking the
sanctuary for the earth, and its cleansing, at the end of the
2300 days, as marking the end of all things earthly.

In the year 1850, one of their ministers, Elder O.R.L. Crosier,
assumed and attempted to prove that the reference of Daniel to
the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days, which
it was claimed ended in 1844, had no reference to the earth, but
to the sanctuary in heaven, and that the cleansing of the
sanctuary, in reality, referred to the work of atonement; that
Christ, our High Priest, entered the Most Holy Place in the
heavenly Sanctuary, October 22nd, 1844, and that the judgment of
the righteous then began.

The Seventh-day Adventist prophetess, Mrs. Ellen G.White, soon
endorsed Elder Crosier's views, by claiming to have seen the
whole transaction in vision. That settled it, and the Seventh-day
Adventists have believed it and taught it ever since.
This view has led to the most extravagant and blasphemous
theories, even to the denial that Christ finished the work of
atonement on the cross. They boldly express this view in a little
tract published by their denominational publishing house, and in
fact, in all of their literature on this subject. We quote as

     We object to the view that the atonement was made upon the
     cross (Fundamental Principles, Page 2).

We do not wish to be understood as saying that they teach that
Christ will not make an atonement at all, but they do not believe
that the atonement even began until Oct. 22nd, 1844, and this
they say in the face of a positive text of Scripture to the
contrary. Paul says:

We have now received the atonement (Romans 5:11).

The Revised Version renders this "reconciliation," but what is
the difference between reconciliation and atonement, as
pertaining to the sinner's relation to God? They are the same.
There can be no reconciliation until the sinner's sins have been
atoned for, and that was fully accomplished when Christ died,
saying, "It is finished."
Commenting on the substitution of the word reconciliation for the
word atonement by some, Dr.Bloomfield in his Greek Testament with
English Notes, says:

     The alteration of the word 'reconciliation' makes no
     difference in the significance of the passage; since the
     reconciliation obtained by Christ's death is the consequence
     of the atonement and expiation made by Him, as is obvious
     from various passages of Scripture (see Hebrews 2:17; 9:26;
     2 Cor.5:13-19). Still it would, I apprehend, have been
     better had our translators employed the more corresponding
     term reconciliation...Though indeed the words atone and
     atonement were, in the time of our translators, regarded as
     equivalent to reconcile and reconciliation. 

Another error that naturally springs from the Seventh-day
Adventist view is, as they state it over and over again in all of
their books and public lectures, that while the sinner is
forgiven on his acceptance of Christ, forgiveness is only
conditional, and that his sins are not blotted out immediately
when he accepts Christ as his Savior, but that the sins that
polluted the sinners are only transferred to heaven to pollute
the sanctuary there, so that Heaven itself will require
cleansing, and that not until the judgment will the sins of the
sinner be blotted out. Yet, there stands the Word of God squarely
against this view, in these words:

     For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their
     sins and their iniquities will I remember no more (Hebrews

This is enough to condemn the whole doctrine, for it is a
complete denial of the Word of God and of the work of our Savior
on the cross.
To accept Seventh-day Adventism, is a denial of Christ and the
cross and the repudiation of His finished work on behalf of the
sinner. Lest any be deceived by their subtle injection of other
serious errors, saying, among other things, that the atonement is
only for those who are saved, it should be noted that Christ died
for all and made an atonement for all men everywhere. The work is
done - it is finished - all can have it and all who accept His
atonement will be saved. Christ did die for all and by His death
He atoned for the sins of the whole world, and completely
finished the salvation of every man who lived or ever will live.
He only asks the sinner to accept what He has provided for him.
If he does, it is his; he has it. If he does not, God will never
force him against his will, and he, by his rejection of the
atonement made and provided for him, is lost; for "there
remaineth no more (other) sacrifice for sins." Jesus is the only
sacrifice for sin and He made that sacrifice once and for all on


The question above seems so foolish that we almost feel like
apologizing for asking it; yet it seems necessary to give a
candid answer sometimes to even foolish questions.
During past years people have heard from speakers in halls,
theatres and tents all over the country, the cry that the
atonement and the judgment of the righteous began in 1844, the
date set by William Miller for the "end of the world." It seems
only right for those who have more light and knowledge of the
Scripture to correct this gross error.
These same teachers are shocked when Mrs.Eddy says that the blood
of Jesus is not efficacious to cleanse from sin, and similar
statements; and they denounce Christian Science (so-called) as
blasphemous, unchristian, etc., when they read the following from
Science and Health, the "cure all" fetish of that cult:

     The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to
     cleanse from sin, when it was shed upon "the accursed tree,"
     than when it was flowing in His veins (Science and Health,

     One sacrifice, however great, is insufficient to pay the
     debt of sin. The atonement requires constant self-immolation
     on the sinner's part (Science and Health, P.328).

We would, in all candor, ask if Mrs.Eddy's statements are any
worse than their own, when they say that "the atonement was not
made upon the cross." We honestly believe that these teachers are
as bad as the ones they condemn and that it is simply a case of
"the pot calling the kettle black."

Let us now consider the claim of Seventh-day Adventists that the
judgment of the righteous began in 1844, and their statement
that, "Christ did not enter the Most Holy Place in the heavenly
sanctuary until that year."

We hold with Paul that the atonement was finished on the cross
and that there is absolutely no judgment for the righteous, for
"the Lord knoweth them that are His." To even suggest that the
righteous will be judged or that they will enter into judgment is
not only ridiculous, but also a straight denial of the words of
God's own Son, our Savior. He said:

     He that believeth on Him is not condemned (John 3:18). [The
     Revised Version renders this text...[He that believeth on
     Him is not judged].

The Greek word rendered condemned in this passage of Scripture is
"krino," and is defined, "To judge or pronounce judgment." The
same word is rendered "to judge," or "judged," no less than
eighty-one times in the New Testament.

     For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
     perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of
     God [1 Corinthians 1:18].

To deny that the atonement was finished on the cross is to make
the blood of Christ of no effect and is a blasphemous doctrine,
against which we can never say enough.
To assume that Jesus, who is our High Priest, did not enter into
the Holy of Holies in heaven until 1844, is equally a denial of
God's Word and a gross error.

God's throne, which was symbolized by the ark in the Most Holy
Place in the earthly sanctuary, would thus have been shut off by
the veil from the Son of God and He could not have taken His
place "at the right hand of God" until 1844, if the views we are
opposing are correct; and Paul would have been in error when he

     ...Which hope we have as an anchor to the soul, both sure
     and steadfast and which entereth into that which is within
     the veil: whither the Forerunner is for us entered, even
     Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of
     Melchisedek (Heb.6:19,20).

If Christ entered within the veil even before Paul's time, then
it is certain that His priestly work began for His people when He
ascended up on high and all theories to the contrary are
It might not be amiss here to quote the words of Paul, who said:

     For Christ is not entered into the Holy Places made with
     hands which are the figures of the true; but into heaven
     itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet
     that He should offer Himself often, as the other high priest
     entered into the Holy Place every year with the blood of
     others: for then must He often have suffered since the
     foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the
     world hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of
     Himself (Hebrews 9:24-26).

The words, "end of the world," in this instance mean "end of the
age" (see Revised Version) and must not be taken to signify the
time near the coming of Christ, but the time of the end of the
Jewish dispensation and Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. The
Twentieth Century New Testament renders it, "at the close of the
age," as does also The New Testament in Modern Speech, by 
Dr.Weymouth; meaning, of course, the close of the Jewish age.
Bloomfield, in his notes to his Greek New Testament, refers to
these words as meaning " the conclusion of the Mosaic
dispensation." However, the tense of the verb, hath, is
sufficient to clear the matter up as to the time Christ entered
into the heavenly sanctuary to appear "in the presence of God."
Every person knows, or should know, that God's presence in the
earthly sanctuary was above the ark in the Most Holy Place and is
now in the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, and that is
just exactly where Christ went after the sacrifice of Himself on
Calvary. If He did not begin the atonement until 1844, and if He
did not enter the Most Holy Place "in the presence of God" until
that date, then must He again "have suffered" and again shed His
blood that year. If this conclusion is not true, then Paul did
not mean what he so plainly said. The whole 1844 scheme as
presented by these teachers is wicked, and every honest person
should know these facts so that he will not be deceived.

We wish to have it most distinctly understood that we have no
manner of enmity against the people who thus teach, nor against
the people of any other cult, whether they be in error or not. It
is not the "ist" but the "ism" that we oppose.

We know that thousands are being led astray by such teaching and
our heart goes out to them and we cannot feel that we have done
our whole duty until we have exposed some of these errors, just
as we must expose "Christian Science" and Spiritism, and every
other false concept (including false teachings of the Fundamental
Protestants - the RC church - the old and new WCG church - and
others - Keith Hunt).

It is the intense yearnings of our heart to see people saved; and
knowing that error never can save any person, we are obliged to
present the truth. May God bless the reader to see the light and
to shun error.



  Home Top of Page Next Page

Navigation List:

Word Search: