The title of this week’s overall lesson in the Adult Bible Study Guide—"1844 Made Simple"—is also the title of Thursday’s individual lesson for the same week. Furthermore, this is the same title of a book written eighteen years ago by the lesson’s principal contributor, Clifford Goldstein.1 The fact that the title of a book of almost one hundred pages has become the title of a lesson only seven pages long raises at least three basic questions:

1. From almost twenty years of hindsight, was the book not simple enough and perhaps not even needed as a book-length project?
2. Is the current lesson much too simple or even simplistic, or is it perhaps cursed by cruelly requiring feats of exegetical gymnastics too great to be accomplished by the average reader, given the small amount of space and argumentation in comparison with the previously published book?
3. Or is the title of this week’s lesson perhaps wrong for other reasons?

The fact that the same title graces not only Goldstein’s 1988 book, but also this week’s entire lesson as well as its individual lesson for Thursday, indicates to me that Goldstein actually believes Seventh-day Adventist teaching on the issue and chronology of 1844 is not simple.2 He is correct; it is not simple.

In a new book, Roy Gane, professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Languages at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University, laudably synthesizes the steps he believes one should take in order to derive the year 1844 from the biblical data in Daniel 8 and 9.3 He suggests that one can do this in the following ten steps:4

1. Identify the little horn (Dan. 8).
2. Recognize that the 2,300 days cannot be literal days.
3. Recognize that Daniel 9 explains the vision of Daniel 8.
4. Identify the date when the seventy weeks (490 days) began.
5. Recognize that the seventy weeks are weeks of years and thus 490 years.
6. Find the end of the 490 years.
7. Recognize that the end of Daniel 9 refers to events that would happen after the 490 years, but still during the 2,300 days.
8. Recognize that the 2,300 days, like the 490 days, must represent years.
9. See how the 490 years overlap the first part of the 2,300 years.
10. Find the end of the 2,300 years.

After listing these steps, Gane proceeds to discuss each of them briefly, after which he spends two chapters answering significant objections to some of the points he has previously enumerated.5

Goldstein wants to make the time prophecy in Daniel 8 simple, but he does not succeed at the level of demonstration. He asserts, for example, that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 are "obviously" cut off from the time prophecy of the 2,300 evening-mornings (Sabbath’s lesson), yet this has not been obvious to scores of scholars who have studied this passage in Daniel (check the commentaries).

The fact that numerous scholars have not seen such a conclusion as obvious certainly does not, in itself, imply that it is wrong; rather, it indicates that Goldstein’s assertion is overly optimistic or misleading, at best, for something deemed obvious should be obvious to just about everyone who examines it. Nevertheless, the optimistic term obvious and its cognates show up again at several other points in the discussion of Daniel 8 and 9.6 I assume that this exegetical certainty and confidence on the part of Goldstein is one of the reasons he believes this topic can be made simple.

In another example, Goldstein later asserts that according to this prophecy, "we can show" that Jesus was crucified in 31 C.E. (Tuesday’s lesson). But even William H. Shea, an expert in Daniel who has mounted numerous defenses of the traditional Seventh-day Adventist position, disagrees with this certitude in his commentary on Daniel published in 2005: "Can we prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Jesus died in A.D. 31? Not yet."7 He believes that the date can be narrowed down to 30 or 31 C.E., but that it is nevertheless "difficult to date the Passover of Jesus’ death with precision."8

All of this interpretive optimism appears to imply that the simplicity Goldstein aims at is that of faith: by simply believing a number of assertions regarding the argumentation behind the understanding of this prophecy, one apparently can make this teaching simple. But in a topic as complex and as significant as this, is that the kind of simplicity one would truly desire?

In contrast, Gane’s ten-step approach indicates to me that the need to answer numerous objections underscores the fact that it cannot be "made simple." In fact, a number of Gane’s steps actually involve several steps in and of themselves. But I don’t believe Gane was really attempting to demonstrate or conclude that the subject was simple.

Although one does not need a degree in mathematics to understand the traditional interpretation of the 2,300 evening-morning prophecy in Daniel 8, one does need to have some ability with simple arithmetic—not to mention calendrical calculations. It has been my experience that the whole issue of adequately determining and understanding how to calculate the time of the 2,300 day prophecy—in the words of this week’s lesson, "doing the math"—is often well beyond the abilities of many people who are preparing for baptism.

Scripture indicates that there are different levels of biblical teaching. Some teachings are "milk"—basic or elementary, whereas others are "solid food"—advanced (Heb. 5:11–6:2; compare 1 Cor. 3:2). 2 Peter 3:15–16 indicates that some of Paul’s teachings were difficult to understand and were liable to distortion by ignorant and unstable people. The call for wisdom in Revelation (13:18; 17:9) indicates that the material to follow is not easy or simple.

The topic of the 2,300 evening-morning prophecy in Daniel 8 is in the category I would call "advanced." But we should not despair over that or frantically try to make it simple. We should state up front that: (1) we are the only significant Christian church community that sees it is fundamental to our belief system; (2) it is highly controversial; and (3) it is a difficult subject, so one should put one’s seat belt on and get ready for a bumpy yet profitable ride.

Seventh-day Adventists should stop attempting to make the issue of 1844 simple. It is not—nor will it ever be. Should we attempt to simplify it? By all means! Unneeded complexity is not a virtue. But let’s not deceive ourselves into believing that we can make this complex and detailed topic—one that revolves around a deep and rich understanding of Jesus Christ and his heavenly ministry—a simple one.

Notes and References

1. Clifford Goldstein, 1844 Made Simple (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1988).
2. Goldstein is listed as the principal contributor to the lessons. For this and the rest of the discussion, I assume that he is the author of most of what the lessons say.
3. Roy Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 2006).
4. I have cited these verbatim as they occur in ibid., 62.
5. Ibid., 63–67; 68–86.
6. Besides Sabbath’s lesson, see also the use of the term obvious and its cognates in Wednesday’s and Thursday’s (twice) lessons.
7. William H. Shea, Daniel: A Reader’s Guide (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press, 2005), 169.
8. Ibid., 170.

Visit Spectrum’s Message Board for an ongoing discussion of this quarter’s subject, "The Gospel, 1844, and Judgment"

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE