Introduction

Shortly after he retired as Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez wrote an article on some of the challenges of understanding the complex language and imagery of the seven trumpets of Revelation 8 and 9.¹ While his main focus was to outline what he labeled “our nonnegotiable hermeneutical principles of apocalyptic interpretation,”² he provided a helpful diagrammatic analysis of seven differing interpretations,³ all of which he felt seemed “to be compatible” “with the historicist approach.”⁴ Rodríguez admitted that “this interpretational uncertainty could be confusing to church members and those interested in finding in this apocalyptic prophecy one clear and final interpretation.”⁵ One item that “tends to complicate the discussion of the prophetic periods,” Rodríguez opined, “is that Ellen White seems to support the interpretation of the Millerite preacher Josiah Litch”⁶ – a matter to be addressed below.

In mid-1838, Josiah Litch, a Methodist Episcopal minister and supporter of the Millerite message, published the following, based on his study of apocalyptic prophecy and the history of the Ottoman Empire: “When will this power be overthrown?” he asked. Using the year-day principle for the time segments of the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9, Litch predicted the collapse of this once-mighty empire, “in A.D. 1840, some time in the month of August”⁷ – that is, more than two years ahead of its fulfillment! He pointed out that “the time when the empire rose” up,⁸ as well as the end-point of this “prophecy is the most remarkable and definite, (even descending to the days) of any in the Bible.”⁹ Evidently taking such factors into account, Litch later on forecast that “the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken” on “the 11th of August, 1840.”¹⁰ Ellen White noted that “the prediction was widely published, and thousands watched the course of events with eager interest.”¹¹ About five months before October 22, 1844, leading Millerites later recalled how that “the entire community were excited, and expectation [was] on tiptoe, in reference to the 11th of August [1840] and its anticipated events, the fall of the Ottoman empire, &c.”¹² Incidentally, in his book, Daniel and the Revelation, Uriah Smith essentially echoed the basic position of Litch.¹³ He likewise concluded that “the exact accomplishment of the event predicted, showing, as it did, the right application of the prophecy, gave a mighty impetus to the great advent movement.”¹⁴

Despite some who urged Ellen White to remove the statements she had made in The Great Controversy, which seemed to support Litch’s position on the fifth and sixth trumpets, she chose to disregard the major challenges raised about what she had written in that 1888 edition, and decided instead to include a more complete account of this matter in the revised and updated 1911 edition of The Great Controversy.¹⁵

In her 1888 Great Controversy, Ellen White stated that this exposition of Litch, “was purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture.”¹⁶ Yet, over the course of time, especially since around the mid-1950s, this understanding of the fifth and sixth trumpets, particularly as to the time aspects, has become the focus of critical challenges.¹⁷ For example, regarding what he identified as Ellen White’s “glowing endorsement of Litch’s prediction in the Great Controversy,” a former Adventist categorically claimed online in 2008: “The truth of the matter is that the month of August, 1840, came and passed without any evidence of Turkey falling.” Then, he alleged that “the Ottoman Empire officially came to an end in 1923, with the establishment of a new form of government called the Turkish Republic.” Finally, this writer concluded his essay as follows: “If Mrs. White was wrong about the prophecies of Revelation 9, what about the other prophecies in the Great Controversy concerning future events? Can you really trust the accuracy of the Great Controversy?”¹⁸ A prolific Adventist writer and editor similarly alleged that, “The Ottoman Empire did not fall on August 11, 1840.”¹⁹ Then, this editor mentioned that “various attempts have been made to explain Ellen White’s endorsement of this obvious error.”²⁰ Finally, promoting a futurist approach, he stated: “Seventh-day Adventists need have no fear of suggesting an end-time fulfillment for the seven trumpets.”²¹ In brief, the question on this matter is simply: Was this a Litch glitch; a Smith myth; or was White right?

Others, especially Adventists who seek to affirm the gift of prophecy, yet are not too comfortable with the statements in The Great Controversy regarding these two trumpets, have taken a different approach. As Rodríguez noted: “It has been suggested that what we seem to have here is a retelling of the experience of the Millerites, including hers, without necessarily providing a final interpretation of the prophetic period.”²² If this assumption can stand up to careful scrutiny, it may help to relieve the challenge of what Ellen White wrote, especially in view of the strong sentiment that this “traditional interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets in Revelation 9 is exegetically and historically not defensible.”²³

Focus of the Current Study

Anyone aware of the intricate nature of the trumpets, would readily recognize that a large encyclopedic publication may be needed to adequately deal with this issue, especially if one addresses the matter of hermeneutics, the scripturally-sound principles appropriate to apocalyptic prophecy, the validity and proper utilization of the year-day principle, the various schools of prophetic interpretation – i.e., preterism, futurist, idealism, historicism, etc.

In addition, there are questions regarding whether or not it is appropriate to directly link the end of the time prophecy of the 5th trumpet with the start of that of the 6th trumpet; whether the five months of the fifth trumpet are a literal 150 days or not; whether a more so-called “symbolic” interpretation should be used for these trumpets instead of the “traditional” historicist perspective; etc.; – to say nothing of the need to engage in original research in the available primary documents from the time, as well as to extensively examine historical accounts (some of which are accessible at present only in languages other than English).

In explaining the reason for publishing five articles related to the fifth and sixth trumpets in mid-1944, Ministry magazine astutely stated: “The farther we recede from the throbbing scenes of 1840-1844, the greater the danger of forgetting the past fulfillment of prophecy. There is a grave danger lest some be influenced by the superficially plausible assertions of a present-day scholarship that has abandoned the clear canons of the founding fathers of the Protestant Reformation, which interpretations were revived by the pioneering leaders of the advent movement.”²⁴

In view of the restriction of time, and recognizing that much ink has already been spilled on these and related concerns, the focus here will be to assess whether there are valid and verifiable responses to certain specific, frequently-mentioned, major challenges to the basic interpretation of Litch on the fifth and sixth trumpets. Hence, this presentation will limit itself to the following four questions, some of which will be dealt with more thoroughly than others.

1. Employing the basic contours of the historical-grammatical method, and taking into account the year-day principle, does the Greek grammar and context of the phrase “the hour and day and month and year” of Revelation 9:15 identify simply a point in time (as in a date-stamp), or does the weight of evidence suggest it refers to an extensive span of time?

2. While there has been some debate regarding Edward Gibbon’s date for the beginning of the Ottoman Empire (i.e., July 27, 1299), is there sufficient tenable historical data, from the writings of other reputable historians, that this is indeed a reliable starting point?

3. Concerning what became known as the “Eastern Question,” what do original newspaper accounts as well as reliable historical records (as published in various countries), explain relative to the decline and/or dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, especially regarding the widely disputed pivotal date of August 11, 1840?

4. Through a comparative analysis of similar language in The Great Controversy relating to the fulfillment of other analogous prophecies, does the weight of evidence reveal that Ellen White was merely reporting how people viewed things at that time, or is there sufficient reason to conclude that she was expressing her conviction that those time prophecies of Revelation 9 were historically concluded on August 11, 1840?

While by no means exhaustive, it is hoped that by taking a fresh look at some challenges raised about the fifth and sixth trumpets, especially as it relates to what is often seen as the Litch-Smith-White perspective, valuable insights may be obtained, and faith may be strengthened in Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega, from this final book of the Bible that deals with the end-times. As Rodríguez urged: “Our eschatology should be placed within the soteriology of the New Testament, emphasizing hope as its primary content.”²⁵

Why Seventh-Day Adventists Employ the Historicist Approach

Almost 30 years ago, the officially commissioned Daniel and Revelation Committee of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists published the following statements regarding the significance of the books of Daniel and the Revelation, as well as the biblically appropriate methodology to be utilized in the interpretation of these important apocalyptic books:

The distinctive frame that holds together the picture of biblical truth as taught by Seventh-day Adventists is their understanding of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. In these prophecies the Adventist people have found their times, their identity, and their task. Jesus Christ is at the center of the prophetic Word, and its dynamic in the Adventist faith (John 14:29; 2 Peter 1:19).
Seventh-day Adventists arrived at their interpretation of Bible prophecy by employing the principles of the historicist school of prophetic interpretation, sometimes called the historicist method or the continuous historical method. The historicist method accepts the assumption that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are intended to unfold and to find fulfillment in historical time—in the span between the prophets Daniel and John respectively and the final establishment of God’s eternal kingdom. The year-day principle (a symbolic day equals a literal year) is an integral part of the method; for it functions to unroll the symbolic time periods, enabling us to locate the predicted events along the highway of history.
Jesus employed the historicist method when He announced the time of His ministry as a fulfillment of prophecy (Mark 1:15; cf. Dan 9:25), and later when He referred to the prophesied ruin of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matt 24:15; cf. Dan 9:26). The Millerites, our immediate forebears, were historicists, as were also the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers....
The Daniel and Revelation Committee wishes to reaffirm to the world church the validity of the historicist approach to these two apocalyptic books. The committee sees it as the only sound method to use. Our pioneers did not follow “cunningly devised fables” when they searched and preached the truths of these prophecies. They have passed on to us a rich heritage. We call our members to a renewed study of these grand prophetic books that continue to give certainty and stability to our personal faith in Christ and His coming and to the worldwide outreach of the Advent people in this solemn era of God’s judgment activity in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 14:6-14; Dan 7:9, 10, 13, 14).
Not all segments of Daniel and Revelation are as clearly understood as others. There is a tendency for some earnest persons to focus on the lesser understood portions to such an extent that they miss the grand sweep of the clearer passages and the important theological truths they present for our times. The desire to unlock these obscure portions prompts the tendency to alter methodology and employ unsound principles in order to find satisfactory solutions. Two sections of Revelation especially fall into this category: the seals (Rev 4:1-8:1) and the trumpets (Rev 8:2-11:17).²⁶

Aware of the caution that “the trumpets” section is part of the “lesser understood portions” of Revelation, it seems nevertheless worthwhile to delve into certain aspects of this topic at a conference specifically convened to address eschatology from a biblical, Adventist perspective. The April-June 2018 Adult Bible Study Guide (titled “Preparation for the End Time”),²⁷ as well as an article on “The Day-Year Principle” in the April 2018 edition of Ministry, seem to affirm the importance of a study of eschatology, which could and should, I believe, include a closer examination of the fifth and sixth trumpets.

The Time-Phrase of Revelation 9:15 and the Year-Day Principle

A rather common concern about Litch’s interpretation of the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet, reads as follows: “Greek scholars, including most Adventist Greek scholars, assure us that the time statement in Revelation 9:15 refers to a particular point in time.”²⁸ Moreover, it is asserted that “the phrase should not be regarded as the sum of chronological units of time…. In other words, the sixth trumpet says nothing about a span of time lasting 391 years and 15 days.”²⁹ Then, it is alleged that “all modern Bible translations express the thought of Revelation 9:15 this way.”³⁰ Strangely, it seems that none of those making these claims actually engages in any exegesis of the passage³¹ – they merely make unsupported pronouncements. Even when stated more ambivalently, such as that, “‘this [phrase] can be understood as ‘a divinely-appointed moment in time,’”³² no actual analysis is done of the Greek text itself.

In commenting on the time-phrase of Revelation 9:5, and 10, the Andrews Study Bible suggests that the five months “may represent the lifespan of locusts, the duration of the flood (Gen. 7:24; 8:3), or 150 prophetic years.”³³ Regarding the time-phrase of Revelation 9:15, “the hour and day and month and year,” the Andrews Study Bible, provides two views: First, that this “has been interpreted as a span of 391 prophetic years (based on 12 months of 30 days).”³⁴ Second, “is that the expression refers to a specific point in time.”³⁵ Such open-ended comments bring to mind the observation of Rodríguez, that “the mention of time periods within the trumpets should be carefully studied to determine whether we are dealing with prophetic time periods or something else.”³⁶ Since there is essential agreement that the “five months” does equal 150 days, the time-phrase of the fifth trumpet will not be addressed further at this point.

Revelation 9:15 reads: “So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind.” Already in a 1945 MA thesis it was recognized that “the temporal phrase has been the subject of considerable controversy; some expositors conclude that it refers to a date while others regard it as a [long] period.”³⁷ Essentially, there is no real debate as to what the original Greek text says.³⁸ Of six interlinear Bibles, only The Emphatic Diaglott has an interlinear text that reads: “for the hour and a day and a month and a year,” a basically literal translation, except for the addition of the indefinite article “a.”³⁹

In 1944 Roland Loasby, Professor of Biblical Languages⁴⁰ at the SDA Theological Seminary, had two articles published in Ministry magazine, in which he focused almost entirely on Greek syntax, particularly on his understanding of the significance of the definite article for interpretation. First, he admitted: “Almost without exception modern Bible commentators state that the time period, ‘an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year,’ (Rev. 9:15), is punctiliar, and not aggregate, cumulative time.”⁴¹ He aptly described the term “punctiliar,” as something “occurring at a precise point of time,” which in this context would be understood to mean that “the ‘four angels’ were prepared unto the hour appointed by God, and that their hour falls on the appointed day and month and year, just as does one’s birthday.”⁴²

Loasby then argued that there is a difference between “combined enumeration” (when a definite article appears before only the first of a list of several nouns),⁴³ and “separate enumeration” (in which separate definite articles are used to sharply distinguish items in a list).⁴⁴ More than half a century after Loasby’s essays, Adventist linguist Tarsee Li published an article titled “Revelation 9:15 and the Limits of Greek Syntax.”⁴⁵ While he made clear that his focus was “on methodology, rather than on interpretation,”⁴⁶ his short essay concluded that the specific terms, “hour, day, month, and year in this passage are viewed as one unit.”⁴⁷

The Significance of Sharp’s Rule

The entire question of the significance of the definite article (“the”) in the Greek New Testament has been long debated, ever since 1798 when Granville Sharp published his research on this matter.⁴⁸ Aware of the ongoing challenges to the proposals of Sharp, Robert Bowman critically analyzed these objections, on the 200th anniversary of Sharp’s original publication. In brief, Bowman concluded that Sharp’s rule is best rendered as follows:

In Greek, when two nouns of the same case are connected by kai (“and”), and the definite article appears before the first noun but not before the second, both nouns refer to the same person if the nouns are (1) personal, (2) singular, and (3) non-proper nouns, and if the nouns are (d) not normally paired semantically as denoting two persons.⁴⁹

From his meticulous investigation of Sharp’s rule, Bowman thus concluded that “no exceptions to it as correctly defined have yet been produced.”⁵⁰ In this context, it seems helpful to emphasize the fact that, according to Bowman, “Sharp’s rule is concerned with constructions in which a single person is the referent. Abstract or impersonal nouns by definition are therefore not covered by Sharp’s rule.”⁵¹

Despite definitive statements such as those noted above, Bowman then introduced a noteworthy distinction: “It may be helpful to distinguish a ‘hard’ sense to Sharp’s rule in contrast to a ‘soft’ sense. In the hard sense, two singular personal nouns linked by kai and governed by a single article refer to one person. In the soft sense, two nouns in the same construction that do not fit the qualifications of the ‘hard’ rule may in some cases describe one and the same thing, but more typically name two things linked together as a single unit for the purposes of the immediate context.”⁵² He explained: “Thus, the expression ‘those who hunger and thirst’ (hoi peinôntes kai dipsôntes, Matt. 5:6) refers to one group, since those who hunger are also those who thirst.”⁵³

Bowman recognized that Murray Harris has articulated “a wonderfully complete summary of the softer version of Sharp’s ‘rule’ that integrates as many as four of Sharp’s rules.”⁵⁴ Harris succinctly stated: “With two (or more) coordinated nouns, the repetition of the article distinguishes, while a single article associates the notions in a conceptual unity (or sometimes an identity).”⁵⁵ In brief, since Bowman has acknowledged that, “for abstract [i.e., non-personal] nouns this ‘softer’ rule applies,”⁵⁶ then it can be concluded that the four nouns as enumerated in Revelation 9:15 – hour, day, month, year – may rightfully refer to a single subject, and the elements of this passage may rightly be “viewed as one unit.”⁵⁷

Consideration of the Greek Syntax

In a revised and considerably expanded essay on Revelation 9:15,⁵⁸ Li addressed the meaning of the Greek expression εἰς + the accusative case. In brief, he pointed out that the accusative case can express either a point in time or a span of time. The genitive case, however, while it can express a point in time (e.g., “at night”), does not identify duration or a span of time (i.e., “through the night”/”night-long”). This begs the question: If the Revelator had desired the reader or hearer to definitively understand that this time-phrase was incontestably intended as a point in time, he could easily have employed the genitive to do so – but, he did not. Instead he used the accusative, which on its own, allows for either option.⁵⁹

Since the preposition εἰς is used here together with the accusative case, some have speculated that this may resolve the issue.⁶⁰ For example, Luke 12:19 has εἰς ἔτη πολλά (“for many years”), and Revelation 14:11 has εἰς αἰῶνας (“for the ages”) – thus denoting a span of time in each text. However, there is evidence in the New Testament that εἰς + the accusative can also be used to indicate that an event continues “until” a specific point in time (e.g., 2 Tim 1:12 has εἰς ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν [“until that day”]; Matt 10:22 has εἰς τέλος [“until the end”]).⁶¹ In sum, all that could be said for sure is that, since John did not use the genitive (which would have excluded the notion of duration or a span of time), but employed the accusative case, the Greek syntax leaves it open for the phrase to be either a point in time or a span of time.⁶²

Reflections on the Time Elements

Since the use of the preposition εἰς + the accusative does not solve the issue, the matter of the sequencing of the time elements needs to be considered. Li expended considerable effort in examining the manner in which both Scripture as well as extra-biblical literature express specific points in time. He concluded: “In the Greek, a date formula would not be expressed as ‘the hour and day and month and year.’ Instead each time element would have its own definite article.”⁶³ Moreover, while the first element (“hour”) is in the accusative case, the next ones “would probably [need to] occur in the genitive case” – and would then read, “until the hour of the day of the month of the year.”⁶⁴ Since this is not the case, Li aptly deduced that “the time expression of Revelation 9:15 does not constitute a date formula.”⁶⁵

Furthermore, if this were to be seen as a point in time, one would expect the sequence “to focus ever more precisely on smaller and smaller units of time, e.g., next year, on Thanksgiving Day [at 7:30 pm].”⁶⁶ In Jesus’ statement that no one knows “the day nor the hour” of His return (Matt 25:13), the sequence goes from the larger to the smaller unit, making the point more emphatic. If it were stated in reverse, that is, that no one knows “the hour nor the day,” this “would appear redundant, since one does not usually know the exact hour without [first] knowing the day.”⁶⁷ More than 150 years ago, E. B. Elliott already complained that, if it is supposed to identify a point in time, this clause is “made up of tautologies: tautologies such that every successive word after the first, instead of strengthening, only weakens the supposed meaning.”⁶⁸ In short, the order of the time elements in Revelation 9:15, which expands the length of the point in time by ever larger units, actually makes the “point” ever less precise.

A recent volume on Revelation concurred noting: “The particular order of the formula [as it stands] has the opposite effect from intensification, as it widens the time designations from ‘hour’ to ‘year’ rather than narrowing them from ‘year’ to ‘hour.’”⁶⁹ This may be the very reason that some English Bibles have actually illegitimately inverted the entire sequence, to read, as the Revised English Bible puts it, “for this very year, month, day, and hour.”⁷⁰ Also, at least one recent commentator, while advocating the allegedly emphatic rationale for this formula as a point in time, has similarly reversed the original Greek phrase, claiming that it refers to “‘not merely the year, month, and day but the very hour of the fulfillment.’”⁷¹

In short, lacking the definite article before each time element (and without the use of the genitive case) this phrase cannot be a date formula. Moreover, since the sequence of terms goes from the smaller to the larger, it implies that this is not a point in time; if it were, the elements would be in the reverse order, making the “point” more emphatic. Hence, contrary to the repeated claims that the Greek grammar shows that this is a point in time, both the lack of the genitive case, together with the specific sequencing of time elements, provides credible indications that the interpreter needs to consider an option other than a “point in time.” Moreover, as Jón Stefánsson noted in his MA thesis: “If it is interpreted as a point in time, this is the only instance in prophecy where a point in time is mentioned so specifically, without any obvious way of locating it in history – or in other words, the specificity of the moment seems to be superfluous and useless.”⁷²

Some Contextual Considerations

While there has been much debate as to the meaning of the time-phrase in verse 15, it appears (as noted above) that there is a general understanding that the “five months” of the fifth trumpet (Rev 9:5, 10) refers to a specific span of time, irrespective of whether this is taken as literal or as prophetic time.⁷³ The phrase in question, μῆνας πέντε (“for five months”) uses simply the accusative case – the same case employed for the time element of the sixth trumpet. One and a half centuries ago, Albert Barnes pointed out that one of the reasons for viewing the time-phrase of the sixth as a span of time, was due to recognizing that “it is in accordance with the prediction respecting [the fifth trumpet, i.e.,] the first ‘woe’ (ver. 5).”⁷⁴

When one reads further in the biblical passage, but remains within the context of the section on the trumpets, one comes across the time element given in Revelation 11:2, μῆνας τεσσεράκοντα [καὶ] δύο (“for forty-two months”); as well as that of verse 3, ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα (“for one thousand two hundred and sixty days”). Again, in both cases the accusative case is used, and well-recognized as referring to a definite span of time. In addition, at least among Adventist historicist scholarship, there seems to be a basic consensus that the texts in chapter 11 are rightly understood as 1260 years of prophetic time (which were fulfilled from A.D. 538 – 1798). Since these acknowledged prophetic time-phrases in the book of Revelation occur in the section that deals with the seven trumpets, it seems not unreasonable for the interpreter to be cognizant of the fact that the time-phrase related to the sixth trumpet may likewise necessitate the use of the year-day principle in order for the passage to be best understood. Thus, the repeated use of the accusative with time-phrases (as observed in this periscope, both before and after the sixth trumpet), to identify specific spans of times, serves to nudge the contextually-attentive interpreter towards rendering “the hour and a day and a month and a year” in a similar manner.

In view of the danger of superimposing one’s own biases on Revelation 9:15, William Shea proposed considering “just how prophetic time periods are used in the book of Revelation.”⁷⁵ Shea identified 14 other texts that have prophetic time elements, some of which refer to the same periods. Three cases (that of Rev 11:11; 20:3, 7) “refer to the end of their respective time periods,” and each is qualified by a preposition indicating such time.⁷⁶ Of the 11 remaining texts (Rev 2:10; 9:5, 10; 11:2, 3, 9; 12:6, 14; 13:5; 20:2, 4), Shea pointed out that “none of them refer to the beginning of the time period and none of them date the beginning of the time period.”⁷⁷ However, all of these texts “refer to the duration of the time and the action.”⁷⁸

A most interesting and appropriate comparison with the time element in the sixth trumpet can be found in the phrase in Revelation 12:14, καιρὸν, καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ (“a time, and times, and half a time”). It seems that this is most likely an allusion to Daniel 7:25, which reads in the Septuagint [LXX]: ἕως καιροὺ καὶ καιρῶν καὶ γε ἥμισυ καιροῦ⁷⁹ (lit. “for a time, and times, and half a time”).⁸⁰ The above phrase includes two appearances of the conjunction “and” in the LXX, as well as in the Greek text of the New Testament. Moreover, as consistently held by Adventist historicists, the use of “and” here indicates that these three parts of the phrase were intended by Daniel and John to be numerically added together, to equal three and a half prophetic “times” (which equals 42 months, or 1260 days) – thus identifying the 1260 years, which culminated in 1798. This parallel also implies that the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet should likewise be seen as an aggregate of the terms, to identify a span of time.⁸¹

The Year-Day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation

Gerhard Pfandl aptly noted that “the year-day principle, in which one day in prophecy is counted as one year in history, constitutes the backbone of the historicist interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy.”⁸² Clifford Goldstein has provided a succinct summary of the indispensability of the year-day principle, especially as inextricably intertwined with historicism:

Without question, historicism – seeing the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as an unfolding of the ancient past through the present and into the future – provides the prophetic framework upon which the Seventh-day Adventist Church has established much of its identity and message….⁸³ And central to the historicist hermeneutic is the day-year principle. Without it,… historicism [will] self-destruct.⁸⁴

As part of the reason for recognizing the need to utilize the year-day principle, Goldstein noted that when the visions are symbolic, it makes sense that the time element should be symbolic as well.⁸⁵ Also, as Pfandl noted, “the peculiar, distinctive way in which the time periods are expressed”⁸⁶ (e.g., “forty-two months” [Rev 11:2]) shows that they clearly are not to be seen in the usual way in which literal time is given (e.g., “three years” [Lev 25:21]).⁸⁷

An apparently little-known, yet vital methodological key for rightly applying the year-day principle to apocalyptic time prophecies, can be seen in the works of some nineteenth-century Protestant biblical expositors,⁸⁸ such as Frederic Thurston,⁸⁹ George Bush,⁹⁰ T. R. Birks,⁹¹ and E. B. Elliott.⁹² Referred to as “miniature symbolization,” this concept can, for example, be seen in Daniel 8, where two different animals are employed as miniature symbols of larger empires: The ram with two horns is specifically identified as symbolic of Medo-Persia (vss. 3, 4, 20); and the he-goat as representative of the Grecian Empire (vss. 5-8, 21). These entities are thus symbols of broader and long-lasting empires; hence, the related time element, of the 2300 evenings and mornings is to be interpreted as 2300 prophetic years, using the year-day principle. Since there is no such miniature symbolization used of the “seven times” (Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32), the “seventy years” (Dan 9:2), or the “three weeks” (Dan 10:2), these time prophecies do not qualify for the year-day principle of prophetic interpretation, and must thus be understood as normal, literal time.

Since the apocalyptic book of Revelation appears to operate on the same premise,⁹³ it would be well to briefly consider whether or not the time-phrases of the fifth and sixth trumpets qualify to be interpreted as prophetic time. Regarding the prophecy in the first several verses of Revelation 9, Alberto Timm pointed out: “The entire narrative of the fifth ‘trumpet’ (vss. 1-12), in which those references appear is crowded with symbolic entities, such as ‘star,’ ‘bottomless pit,’ and exotic war ‘locusts.’”⁹⁴ When one accepts that this trumpet is a miniature representation of the rise of the Ottoman Empire in A.D. 1299, then the year-day principle is rightly applied, as representing 150 years.

In a consonant manner, the passage in Revelation 9:13-21 includes such symbolic expressions as “the great river Euphrates,” “horses” with heads like lions, “mouths” from which come “fire and smoke and sulfur.” If this sixth trumpet is seen in relation to the Christian church during the approximate time of the Middle Ages, then the year-day principle is also aptly applied. In short, “this miniature-symbolic parallelism [theory] enriches the year-day principle with a meaning that goes far beyond a mere proof-text approach.”⁹⁵

In accord with many Bible prophecy interpreters over the centuries,⁹⁶ Sir Isaac Newton, in his 1733 posthumous book, understood and applied the year-day principle to Revelation 9:15: “The interval is called an hour and a day, and a month and a year, or 391 prophetic days, which are years.”⁹⁷ Apparently taking into account the “hour” as well, Enoch Pond, a theology professor, concluded that “in prophetic time, this amounts to a little more than three hundred and ninety-one years.”⁹⁸ First published in 1829, another commentator concluded: “The duration of this [second] woe is given in the text, and which we interpret agreeably to the prophetic Scripture: thus a year of three hundred and sixty days, a month of thirty days, and a day and an hour, each day for a year (Numbers xiv. 34), is three hundred and ninety-one years and fifteen days.”⁹⁹ As recently as 2001, the same total time has been promoted, by a Presbyterian professor.¹⁰⁰ Could it be, though, that some Adventists are perhaps unintentionally drifting away from our biblically-founded apocalyptic understanding, and moving into treacherous waters?

A few years ago Sigve Tonstad engaged in a fervent challenge to what he termed the “New View” approach to interpreting Revelation,¹⁰¹ in contrast to the “Old View” of basically Uriah Smith. He concluded that, in relation to the trumpets, “the chronological specificity and phenomenological circumscription that are characteristic of the Old View are gone.”¹⁰² Furthermore, he cautioned that “there is a shift from what I will call a symbolic interpretation to a more parabolic and allegorical interpretation. The latter is particularly evident with respect to the many –isms said to be the referents under the fifth trumpet (‘deism, relativism, nihilism, nationalism, and communism’), broadened still more when an attempt at further specification turns into a sweeping generalization.”¹⁰³

Brief Summary and Concluding Reflections

It has been alleged that the Greek language proves that the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet refers to a point in time. However, since the contested phrase is not in the genitive case (which would have excluded it from being a span of time), but rather in the accusative, the Greek syntax allows it to be either a point in time or a span of time. Also, the preposition attached to the accusative can be used for either a point in time or a span of time. As noted above, this phrase does not qualify as a date formula. Moreover, the very sequencing of the time elements (in the reverse order of what is needed to show emphasis for a specific moment), indicates that the phrase is not intended to focus on a point in time – if it were it would be redundant and counterintuitive. In the immediate setting of the seven trumpets, the “five months” of Revelation 9:5, 10 (as indicating 150 prophetic days), as well as the well-recognized 1260-year fulfillment (based on Rev 11:2, 3), both provide contextual indicators for considering that the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet needs to be interpreted through the year-day principle. Finally, consideration of how prophetic periods are identified in Revelation, as well as an analysis of the aggregation of time elements in Revelation 12:14, indicate that the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet should likewise be seen as an aggregation of the four time elements, so as to identify a span of time.

Since the visions are symbolic, and the time elements are stated in such a unique manner, the year-day principle is being recommended. Furthermore, the vital concept of miniature symbolization for prophetic interpretation was noted, with the conclusion that the time-phrases of both fifth and sixth trumpets require the utilization of the year-day principle. In short, the fifth trumpet identifies a 150-year time span; and the time-phrase of the sixth trumpet cumulatively points to a span of time of 391 years and 15 days.

In closing this section, it would be well to make mention as to why time has been spent, and needs to be invested, in this matter of the accuracy of dates, in the context of meticulous exegesis.¹⁰⁴ In an observant analysis of Rodríguez’s article on the seven trumpets, church historian Nicholas Miller shared his concerns regarding how the views of some are “tending towards an idealist position in their handling of the time periods, that is, the five months and the hour, day, month, and year.”¹⁰⁵ Miller warned:

To empty these periods of chronological significance of some sort tends to unmoor the trumpets from actual historical periods. As a historian myself, I know the difficulties presented at times by trying to attach the often sparse symbolism of prophetic outline [to] the messy details of real history. Yet, I think that this is an important part of keeping prophecy grounded in the actual flow of history.
I am concerned that once we decide that the time periods in the fifth and sixth trumpets are symbolic and have no meaningful connection with real history, that this approach will expand to the 1,260 days (which some have already suggested) as well as to other periods. It is a short step from here to a completely idealized, spiritualized reading of prophecy that, in my view, will empty our prophetic message of much of its urgency and power.

The June 1944 issue of Ministry had warned about the “grave danger” of “the superficially plausible assertions of a present-day scholarship.”¹⁰⁶ Could it be that this “grave danger” has reached a critical juncture – one that deserves urgent and careful attention? Perhaps it is time to call on serious Adventist biblical and historical scholarship to reassess and reexamine this matter, for “No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation.”¹⁰⁷

Reliability of the Beginning Date for the Ottoman Empire

In his thoughtful article on Josiah Litch, in The Ellen G. White Encyclopedia, Adventist historian Jerry Moon noted that “in common with other expositors of the time, Litch held that the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9 referred to the spread of Islam, particularly the Ottoman Empire.”¹⁰⁸ Litch similarly viewed the “five months” (Rev 9:5, 10) of the fifth trumpet as representing 150 years. Likewise employing the year-day principle for “the hour and a day and a month and a year” of the sixth trumpet (Rev 9:15), he concluded that this would cover a span of time of 391 years and 15 days, which he understood as being directly connected to the 150-year prophecy of the fifth trumpet, making a total of 541 years and 15 days. As Rodríguez recently noted: “If the reference is to prophetic time periods, we should attempt to find the historical fulfillment applying the year-day principle to them.”¹⁰⁹ This is what Litch tried to do.

Turning to Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the best available historical source for the starting point of the first period, Litch was impressed when he found that Gibbon had commented on the “singular accuracy” (as based on two Latin sources)¹¹⁰ of the specific date of July 27, 1299, for the start of the Ottoman Empire.¹¹¹ Thus, based on this date, Litch proposed, more than two years ahead of the time of its fulfillment, that this extensive empire would lose its power “in A.D. 1840, some time in the month of August”¹¹² – a terminus which he later sharpened to the definitive date of August 11, 1840.¹¹³

Since a precise beginning date for the Ottoman Empire is so indispensable for the interpretation provided by Litch, it has naturally become the focus of attention by scholars. The confusion over this is partly because original records are difficult to access, and challenging to decipher.¹¹⁴ Moreover, when one goes online, the task can become even more daunting. For example, there is an online site called “Quora,” whose “mission is to share and grow the world’s knowledge.”¹¹⁵ While Quora maintains that “it has only one version of each question,”¹¹⁶ when it comes to the issue of the start of the Ottoman Empire, here is what they have claimed. First, in an October 14, 2014 post, they alleged that the “Ottoman Empire was founded in 1302 not 1299.”¹¹⁷ However, in contradistinction to that earlier statement, they stated in a post of the 8th of May 2016 that this empire “was officially founded in 1299.”¹¹⁸

While the specific day and month (i.e., the 27th of July) have not been disputed, various challenges have repeatedly been raised regarding the accuracy of the year 1299, as found in Gibbon’s book. For instance, Joseph von Hammer (who is perhaps the foremost critic of 1299 being the starting date) claimed that “‘Gibbon hypothesizes [i.e., conjectures] the year 1299 without confirmation.’”¹¹⁹ Then, von Hammer alleged that it was the year 1302, and not 1299.¹²⁰ But, how did he come up with that year? Curiously, while von Hammer accused Gibbon of hypothesizing, it appears that he himself engaged in conjecture. In brief, von Hammer simply assumed that the 1302 battle that Osman fought at Koyun-Hisari was the same as the battle of Bapheus in 1299. Halil İnalcık, a foremost Turkish historian of the Ottoman Empire, pointed out that “Bapheus is mistakenly associated with Koyun-hisari by von Hammer and by all who wrote after him.”¹²¹

Adventist chronologist Grace Amadon’s research, as published in Ministry magazine in mid-1944 seems to provide solid internal reasons for the validity of 1299 being the correct date. First, she pointed out that von Hammer had mistakenly concluded that the 1299 first battle Othman had fought against the Greeks was the final one that he had fought in 1302.¹²² She noted that the chronology (as coming originally from the historian Pachymeres), is reliable since it is fixed “by synchronisms and astronomical events.”¹²³ Then, she provided topographical and meteorological evidences that reveal that “the year 1299 exactly harmonizes” with such.¹²⁴ Finally, Amadon concluded her extensive investigation, stating “that July 27, 1299, was the date of the first Ottoman assault on Byzantine territory,”¹²⁵ and hence the beginning of the Ottoman Empire.¹²⁶

While various academics have written about the origins and history of the Ottoman Empire, time and space will permit the mention of only a few resources. Several years ago, Wayne Vucinich (Professor of History at Stanford University, California) referred to “the Ottoman state and dynasty, which were founded by Osman (1299-1326).”¹²⁷ This starting date has been affirmed over time by several other academics.¹²⁸ Moreover, there is ample evidence in several 21st century publications that the 1299 date is strongly affirmed. For instance, in a 2009 publication, Mustafa Kibaroğlu (Chair of the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Mef University in Istanbul, Turkey) and Ayşegül Kibaroğlu (a fellow professor in the same department) stated: “The Ottoman Empire, which was founded in 1299, can be said to be an offspring of the Seljuks.”¹²⁹ Publications produced by various prestigious academic institutions (such as Edinburgh University,¹³⁰ Oxford University,¹³¹ and Princeton University¹³²) concur that the Ottoman Empire began in 1299.¹³³ As a Professor of History at Istanbul’s Bilgi University, and a leading authority on Ottoman history, Suraiya Faroqhi acknowledged: “The accepted date of Osman’s accession to rule/independence” marks “the beginning of the Ottoman dynasty from [the year] 1299.”¹³⁴ As stated in a 2014 history textbook, “The Ottoman Empire was an empire that lasted [for centuries, starting] from 27 July 1299.”¹³⁵

In short, despite some debate regarding Edward Gibbon’s date for the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, there appears sufficient tenable historical data (from the works of other reputable historians) that it is a reliable starting point. As Amadon put it: “The date July 27, 1299, therefore, consistently marks the beginning of the 150-year ‘torment’ in Revelation 9,”¹³⁶ thus confirming the conclusions of Litch regarding the beginning of the time prophecy of the fifth trumpet.

What Transpired on August 11, 1840 Regarding the Ottoman Empire?

The date and event(s) of August 11, 1840 have come under repeated scrutiny, by many. For example, a former Adventist claimed: “History does not validate that the Ottoman Empire fell on August 11, 1840.”¹³⁷ Is it true that “August 11, 1840 is a totally meaningless date”?¹³⁸ First, the question must be asked: What specifically was Litch’s claim, which Ellen White “stated clearly and unequivocally”¹³⁹? As already noted above, Litch specifically stated that it was “on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will be found to be the case.”¹⁴⁰

[Incidentally, until I was given the task, as part of my responsibilities while serving as a conference departmental director, I must admit that I was essentially ignorant of this challenge regarding the time-related prophecies of the fifth and sixth trumpets. But then, since I was called upon to make a thorough search for any documentation related to this matter, I set out on a journey that took me through five research facilities in four states in the USA; stretching over a period of about two years (in between other activities, naturally). My discoveries were intriguing, to say the least – and due to space restrictions, I will share only some findings here.]

A brief overview of major events in Europe, including the Ottoman Empire, need to be considered first, in order to understand the context of what was then called the “Eastern Question.” “In May 1805 Muhammad [also spelled ‘Mehemet,’ ‘Mehmed,’ etc.] Ali was appointed governor of Egypt,”¹⁴¹ which was part of the Ottoman Empire. Shortly afterwards, the Ottomans went to war with Russia in 1806, then with Britain in 1807. This latter Anglo-Turkish war (1807-1809) was terminated by the Treaty of The Dardanelles, on January 5, 1809 (with ratifications on July 27, 1809),¹⁴² by which the British “promised to protect the integrity of the Ottoman Empire.”¹⁴³ Apparently, fully aware of the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the Egyptian governor Muhammad Ali had “one paramount goal,” that of being supreme power; he wanted to “free himself of Ottoman control.”¹⁴⁴ He stated: “‘I am well aware that the “Ottoman” Empire is heading by the day toward destruction,… On her ruins I will build a vast kingdom.’”¹⁴⁵ So, Ali began a land-grab:¹⁴⁶ “from Gaza in the south all the way to Asia Minor.”¹⁴⁷ He was also after the “abundant economic gains in the form of wood, silk, tobacco, soap, olives, and cotton; and, above all, to establish himself as the real power broker in the Middle East and a true successor to the Ottoman Empire.”¹⁴⁸

On June 24, 1839, the Ottoman Empire’s army suffered a crushing defeat by Ali’s forces; one week later, on July 1 the Ottoman leader, Sultan Mahmud II died; less than two weeks after that, on July 14 the Ottoman navy defected to Ali, that rebel governor of Egypt. And now, the new Sultan was Mahmud II’s 16-year-old son (Abdul Mejid) – “far too young a leader for the trying times.”¹⁴⁹ “‘In three weeks,’ summarized the French statesman Guizot, ‘Turkey had lost her sultan, her army, and her navy.”¹⁵⁰

In short, it can be easily seen why the so-called “Christian nations” of Europe were becoming alarmed: “Muhammad Ali was viewed as a dangerous source of international instability. Were the Ottoman Empire to collapse because of the ambitions of the Egyptian viceroy [i.e., governor Ali], a great power-struggle was certain to ensue”¹⁵¹ – part of the concern being over which country would acquire the Turkish Straits (including the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus, etc.), which “have been of urgent maritime strategic importance,”¹⁵² and which “allows maritime connections from the Black Sea all the way to the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, the Atlantic Ocean via Gibraltar,… making them crucial international waterways.”¹⁵³

Now, in this worsening crisis of Ali’s rebellion against his Ottoman leader, “French diplomacy backed Muhammad Ali.”¹⁵⁴ Even Wikipedia recognized that, by early 1840 (by which time the Ottoman army had been beaten, its navy lost, and its leader replaced by his teenaged successor), this once-mighty empire was “on the verge of total collapse.”¹⁵⁵ As Turkish professor of history at Boğaziçi University in Istanbul, Selim Deringil, stated in his 2012 book: “Ironically, the empire had been brought to the very brink of collapse not by Russia or by any Christian power but by a Muslim army commanded by a man who was himself very much an Ottoman.”¹⁵⁶ Middle Eastern historians, Ephraim and Inari Karsh pointed out that the sixteen-year-old “Abdul Mejid implored the great powers to strike a deal with Muhammad Ali on his behalf.”¹⁵⁷ As that Harvard University Press publication noted: “It was left for Britain, then, to act as the sultan's savior.”¹⁵⁸ “London now became a pivot for statesmen seeking to solve the Eastern Question.”¹⁵⁹ “Fearing the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire,”¹⁶⁰ since it was “on the verge of total collapse,”¹⁶¹ “an alliance of European powers comprising Britain, the Austrian Empire, Prussia and Russia decided to intervene on behalf of the young Sultan Abdülmecid I.”¹⁶² As The Morning Herald explained, “They ground their interference between the Sultan and Mehemet Ali upon the assumed right of upholding what, in modern diplomatic slang, is called the general equilibrium of Europe, or what was formerly called the ‘balance of power.’”¹⁶³

It took several months before the “The Treaty of London” was formed on July 15, 1840, which was “a virtual ultimatum to Muhammad Ali,”¹⁶⁴ from the four Christian nations. “He was required to submit to the Sultan’s authority and settle for hereditary rule over Egypt, or else face joint intervention by the Great Powers [i.e., Britain, Russian, Austria, and Prussia].”¹⁶⁵ The very language of this treaty seemed to identify which political entities were “taking control” of the formerly-powerful Ottoman Empire.¹⁶⁶ The scholarly new edition of The Encyclopedia of Islam acknowledged that it was the Four Powers who actually “forced Moḥammad ‘Alī to retreat.”¹⁶⁷

There is basic unanimity among authentic sources, that this Treaty [or Convention] of London was signed (basically in secret) on the 15th of July 1840 – it was 12 days later, on the 27th of July 1840, when the French public was finally informed that they had been left out completely, since their political leaders had been supportive of the rebel governor Ali, as they had been hoping for political gain from such action.¹⁶⁸

So, where and how does August 11 play a role, if any at all?¹⁶⁹ The [London] Morning Herald stated that their office had received “letters from Alexandria [Egypt] of the 7th” of August.¹⁷⁰ Then, in the context of that letter of August 7, The Morning Herald noted: “It must be remarked that the act of the [London] conference has not yet been officially notified to Mehemet Ali. All he has received [i.e., since the signing of the Treaty of London on July 15] has been the non-official information of what was going on.”¹⁷¹ This newspaper comment quite accurately conveyed a vital factor, specifically added on as a “Separate Act to form part of [the] Convention of 15th July, 1840.”¹⁷² Under the sub-heading of “Conditions imposed on Mehemet Ali,” it indicated that this Treaty of London would become effective once “communication thereof shall have been made to him at Alexandria, by an agent of His Highness.”¹⁷³

So, what was the actual itinerary of this official document? The New York Commercial Advertiser noted that the Treaty of London, “signed on the 15th [of] July, was conveyed to Constantinople by Mr. Moore on the 3d of August.”¹⁷⁴ Then, orders were given “concerning the transmission of the treaty to Alexandria, by Refaat [sic] Bey, in consequence of which that functionary left Constantinople on the 7th for Alexandria ... for the purpose of conveying the ultimatum … to Mehmet [Ali] on the Eastern question.”¹⁷⁵ Confirming this basic time-line, the report pointed out that “the Austrian frigates Medea and Guerrero, one commanded by Admiral Baron Bandiera, and the other by Archduke Frederick, quitted [i.e., left the Eastern Mediterranean port of] Smyrna on the 9th [of August] for Alexandria, in order to be present at the ceremonial of delivering the ultimatum.”¹⁷⁶ Recognizing the vital significance of the actual handing over to Mehemet Ali of the formal Treaty of London, The Morning Herald categorically pointed out: “The official note must be transmitted by the Porte [i.e., through ambassador Rifaat Bey] to him, and on his reply to the Porte the future will depend.”¹⁷⁷ So, the key question is, When was Mehemet Ali “officially notified” by ambassador Rifaat Bey regarding the Treaty of London? On what specific day was “the ceremonial of delivering the ultimatum,” thus officially putting into effect the decisions made by Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia?

Some have tried to claim that the records indicate that the “ultimatum” was not delivered on August 11, but only five days later, on the 16th.¹⁷⁸ To begin with, it may be helpful to note the manner in which multiple newspapers (in Britain, Ireland and Scotland) published, in September, the report of what had transpired in Alexandria: “The arrival of Rifat [sic] Bey and Mr. Alison in the Bair-Tahir steamer, from Constantinople, on the 11th instant [i.e., of August] with the ultimatum of the four powers, produced a great sensation here.”¹⁷⁹ Later in their report, each of those newspapers referred to a letter “dated August 11th, 1840,” in which the Consul-General, Colonel Hodges, mentioned “the arrival this morning of a special Envoy [Rifaat Bey] from the Sublime Porte [i.e., the headquarters of the Ottoman Empire].”¹⁸⁰ In mid-September, The Morning Chronicle explained in more detail what had transpired on August 11. It noted that, “the Turkish government steamer which had reached Alexandria on the 11th [of August], with the envoy, Rifaat Bey, on board, had been by his [i.e., Ali’s] orders placed in quarantine.”¹⁸¹ However, the very next sentence clearly noted that “on the very day [August 11, as identified above] on which he had been admitted to pratique [i.e., to quarantine], the above-named functionary [Rifaat Bey] had had an audience of the Pacha [Mehemet Ali], and had communicated to him the commands of the Sultan [in the form of The Treaty of London],”¹⁸² thus technically and officially putting into effect the fact that the European powers were now in control, and that the Ottoman Empire’s “power was broken.” As the distinguished and highly regarded scholar of Islamic history, Ira Lapidus, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of California at Berkeley, accurately concluded regarding this significant 1840 Treaty: “The Ottoman empire had become a protectorate of Europe and a pawn of the great powers.”¹⁸³

Admittedly, all these developments were happening in Europe and the Middle East, from which it took some weeks for news to reach the United States, since this was decades before the first-ever radio transmission across the Atlantic Ocean (on December 12, 1901). Thus, the only way in which news could reach the Millerites, to see if Litch’s prediction had any validity, was by steamship, for “the distance from Constantinople could not be passed without consuming some considerable period of time.”¹⁸⁴ But there was a large interest among the general population in the USA regarding the equilibrium of Europe, as can be seen in various newspapers of the time. For example, The Pittsburg Sun newspaper (of Pennsylvania), noted that “the steamship Caledonia” had brought reports as recent as the 19th of September from Liverpool, in the United Kingdom – “the news of most importance is the probability of the SETTLEMENT OF THE EASTERN QUESTION, AND THE CONTINUANCE OF PEACE IN EUROPE.”¹⁸⁵

Naturally, the question is: Did any specific news of The Treaty of London reach the USA regarding this, especially as to the timing of the official handing over of the “ultimatum”? Under the sub-heading of “Turkey and Egypt,” the New York Spectator, of 26 September 1840, specifically reported that “the arrival of the ‘ultimatum’ at Alexandria, on the 11th of August, created no little stir.”¹⁸⁶ Just three day later, on the 29th of September 1840, the National Gazette (of Philadelphia) reported on “the arrival at Alexandria of Riffat [sic] Bey from Constantinople with the ultimatum of the Four Powers on the 11th of August.”¹⁸⁷

Furthermore, indicating that there was great interest in this “ultimatum,” The Age newspaper in Augusta, Maine, on the 26th of September, reported on “the rejection of the ultimatum of the Four Powers [Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia] by Mehemet Ali, the Egyptian Sovereign.”¹⁸⁸ The article, however, added a hopeful note that somehow “a solution of it would be brought about, consistently with the peace of Europe.”¹⁸⁹ This positive notion seems to have been due to the knowledge that (as another US newspaper concluded), regardless of Ali’s refusal, “the four powers will compel him to accept the offer of the Sultan”¹⁹⁰ – thus, again revealing which political entity now really had control – not the Ottoman Empire, but the Christian nations.

How was the situation understood, especially in Britain, where The Treaty of London had been signed? The Morning Herald, noted that “the Sultan has not the power to make his own decrees effectual. But Russia, England, Austria, and Prussia step in and say they will do it for him.”¹⁹¹ Eleven days later, on the 1st of December 1840, The Morning Herald made the following statement about Mehemet Ali: “We have, in all probability destroyed for ever the power of that hitherto successful ruler.”¹⁹² Then, they rhetorically asked: “But have we done aught to restore strength to the Ottoman empire?” Finally, they directly answered their own reflective query: “We fear not. We fear that the Sultan has been reduced to the rank of a puppet; and that the sources of the Turkish empire’s strength are irretrievably destroyed.”¹⁹³ That particular phrase “irretrievably destroyed,” as already employed in Europe in 1840, around the very time that Litch had predicted the power of the Ottoman empire’s strength would “be broken,” seriously challenges the claims that “nothing happened” regarding the Ottoman Empire in 1840.

Incidentally, while this news article (of December 1) did not specify August 11 as the date that the ultimatum became effective, the conclusion that the Ottoman Empire’s strength was now “entirely destroyed,” was published on the 1st of January 1841 in the Millerite Signs of the Times.¹⁹⁴ The timing of this publication suggests that they had obviously become aware that the Ottoman power had been broken, sometime in the year 1840;¹⁹⁵ as three of them later reported: “When the fact did reach us, it was found that on the very day anticipated, the 11th of August, a transfer was made of the supremacy of that empire from Mahometan hands.”¹⁹⁶

Moreover, if Ellen White’s statements are to be taken at face value (a matter to be addressed in the next section), it appears likely that before the end of 1840, many people had become aware of the precise timing of the ultimatum’s becoming effective (as noted above in various newspapers in at least four countries, including the USA). She pointed out that, “from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended,” when many became “convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates,” after it had been made known that “the event exactly fulfilled the prediction.”¹⁹⁷

By way of recapitulation, the following should be noted: There are some who have alleged: “The truth of the matter is that the month of August, 1840, came and passed without any evidence of Turkey falling.”¹⁹⁸ However, when one takes account of the context, the setting, and the understanding of those acquainted with the “Eastern Question” in Europe at that time, there seems to be sufficient plausible evidence that by late 1839, the Ottoman Empire was “on the verge of total collapse.”¹⁹⁹

In order to maintain the “balance of power” and thus the peace of Europe, the significant Treaty of London was signed on July 15, 1840, in which Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia essentially took control of the collapsing empire. The Muslim scholar, Sayyid Fayyaz Mahmud, in a section dealing with this 1840 treaty, stated: “Clearly the death-knell had rung for the Ottoman Empire.”²⁰⁰ In view of the stated fact that the Treaty of London could only become effective upon submission to Mehemet Ali – as happened on August 11, 1840 (and of which there is ample newspaper evidence that Rifaat Bey did indeed deliver the Treaty on that very day), it seems reasonable to recognize that Litch’s conclusion was apparently accurate. In basic accord, in the volume, The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire, Turkish historian Alan Palmer stated: “In London, Vienna and St Petersburg it was felt that an incompetent and decaying ‘Turkey’ had been saved, not by her own exertions, but by the grace of the major European powers,”²⁰¹ after the youthful Sultan had appealed to them.

Indeed, as history professor Lapidus noted in his volume, which is recognized as a classic work of history: “The Ottoman empire had become a protectorate of Europe.”²⁰² These facts, as recognized by reputable historians, furnishes some validation of Ellen White’s statement that, “Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations.”²⁰³ Contrary to the popular, but unsupportable claim that “nothing significant occurred on August 11, 1840,”²⁰⁴ there seems to be sufficient verifiable evidence that “the death-knell” of the Ottoman Empire had been sounded with the Treaty of London,²⁰⁵ the power of this once-great dynasty was broken when that Treaty became effective on August 11, 1840, thus turning the Ottoman Empire into a “protectorate of Europe”²⁰⁶ and acquiring the epithet of the “Sick Man of Europe,”²⁰⁷ as the expiring empire continued collapsing, until its complete defeat and dissolution in 1922/3.²⁰⁸

In his challenging article on the seven trumpets, Rodríguez rightly included the principle of “single fulfillment,” as follows: “The apocalyptic nature of the vision aims at a fulfillment specific enough to be located in one historical event or process. In other words, multiple fulfillments of the trumpets should be excluded from the discussion.”²⁰⁹ While it is clear that Rodríguez’s concern was with the theory of “dual fulfillments,” or a secondary futurist fulfillment, it seems that his point, that “the vision aims at a fulfillment specific enough to be located in one historical event or process,” could legitimately be applied to the multiplicity of views currently held on the trumpets. Since the fifth and sixth trumpets include terminology related to time, and since they are located in a section of the book of Revelation (i.e., chaps. 8-11) that involves the well-recognized 1260-day prophecy of Revelation 11:2-3, with its historical fulfillment of A.D. 538-1798, should this not spur us on to delving more deeply into these passages in order to find consensus on the specific time of their fulfillment? Perhaps, the above-noted historical documents may contribute to that goal.

Contextual Considerations of Ellen White’s 1840 Statements

While some have suggested, as already noted above, that Ellen White was not necessarily endorsing the interpretation of Josiah Litch, various writers, such as historian Eric Anderson, have concluded that Ellen White’s writing is clearly “affirming that August 11 represented a ‘remarkable fulfillment of prophecy.’”²¹⁰ In order to identify what she was most likely attempting to communicate, it seems prudent to consider her complete statement here:

In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire. According to his calculations, this power was to be overthrown “in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August;” and only a few days previous to its accomplishment he wrote: “Allowing the first period, 150 years [of the fifth trumpet], to have been exactly fulfilled before Deacozes [i.e., actually spelled Dracozes] ascended the throne by permission of the Turks, and that the 391 years, fifteen days [of the sixth trumpet], commenced at the close of the first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will be found to be the case.”--Josiah Litch, in Signs of the Times, and Expositor of Prophecy, Aug. 1, 1840.
At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction. (See Appendix.) When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in preaching and in publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.²¹¹

A quick survey of the terms used reveals that virtually the same eight concepts stated at the beginning of the first paragraph are reiterated in the second paragraph, mostly in the final half of that last paragraph. This echo effect provides plausible initial indications that, for Ellen White, there is no difference in meaning between the phrases “fulfillment of prophecy” and “fulfilled the prediction.”

There has been some discussion (and even dispute) as to what Ellen White most likely meant by the two paragraphs related to Revelation 9 and the Ottoman Empire interpretation. For example, seeming to perhaps minimize its import, one Ellen White scholar who has apparently struggled with this passage, noted that “this is the only known reference to Revelation 9 in all of Ellen White’s writings.”²¹² By the way, the fact that Daniel 8:14 is the “only” reference to the 2300-day apocalyptic prophecy in all of Scripture, and which identifies 1844, does not undermine its vital significance for Adventists. Similarly, the sole appearance of Revelation 9 in The Great Controversy, especially since these paragraphs were intentionally retained by Ellen White for inclusion in the 1911 edition, suggests that they are not merely inconsequential. The same writer referenced earlier, then contended that the statement about the Ottoman Empire was made, “not in connection with an exegetical study of the Bible, but as part of her description of the Millerite movement.”²¹³ This suggestion though, implies introducing a delimitation (into Ellen White’s writings) as to whether something is “an exegetical study of the Bible” or not, which could precipitate a cafeteria-style approach to her works. Another academic has suggested: “It is probably better to understand her account as a historical report and not a theological endorsement” of Litch’s exposition.²¹⁴

Furthermore, more than 60 years ago already, it was categorically claimed that “Mrs. White did not claim that this was a fulfilled prophecy, but a prediction…. Her writings avoided using the term ‘prophecy.’”²¹⁵ It has been proposed that, instead of directly stating that “the prophecy was fulfilled,” she used “neutral terms” such as “‘the event exactly fulfilled the prediction,’”²¹⁶ which purportedly suggests she was simply reporting Litch’s view.²¹⁷ Thus, an academic has summed up, in a somewhat open-ended manner, as follows:

If Ellen White, in The Great Controversy, pp. 334-335, means that John the Revelator’s prophecy was fulfilled on August 11, 1840, she would be giving support to Litch’s interpretation of Revelation 9:15. If she simply means that Josiah Litch’s prediction was fulfilled, then she is not necessarily supporting Litch’s interpretation of the text.²¹⁸

In view of the uncertainty or ambiguity expressed above, it appears that the solution to this “dilemma” may be found by pursuing a careful, comparative analysis of any identical and/or similar terminology in The Great Controversy regarding the fulfillment of other such prophecies – a task that is undertaken here.

The attentive reader of The Great Controversy, will notice that, the very first chapter of this volume deals with the Fall of Jerusalem, including many of the warnings given by various prophets, including Jesus. And, it is within that context that Ellen White states: “All the predictions given by Christ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled to the letter.”²¹⁹ Barely two pages later, she noted: “Again was fulfilled the warning prophecy given fourteen centuries before.”²²⁰ In short, the use of the terms prophecy and prediction as basically interchangeable in the initial chapter of this book, should alert the reader of the potential for such an equivalent usage later in the volume, if the context so requires.

The “Two Witnesses” and the 1260-Day Prophecy

In Chapter 15, “The Bible and the French Revolution,” Ellen White discusses the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11:2-11, including the 1260-day prophecy. After noting that the 42 months (of vs. 2) and the 1260 days (of vs. 3) “are the same, alike representing the time in which the church of Christ was to suffer oppression from Rome,” she adds that, “The 1260 years of papal supremacy began in A.D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798.”²²¹ Talking about 1798 (in a later chapter), she states: “At that time the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled, ‘He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.’”²²²

She points out that, “The two witnesses represent the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament.”²²³ Later she notes: “According to the words of the prophet, then, a little before the year 1798 some power of satanic origin and character would rise to make war upon the Bible. And in the land where the testimony of God’s two witnesses should thus be silenced, there would be manifest the atheism of the Pharaoh and the licentiousness of Sodom.”²²⁴ Right after this paragraph, she states: “This prophecy has received a most exact and striking fulfillment in the history of France. During the Revolution, in 1793, ‘the world for the first time heard an assembly of men, born and educated in civilization, and assuming the right to govern one of the finest of the European nations, uplift their united voice to deny the most solemn truth which man’s soul receives, and renounce unanimously the belief and worship of a Deity.’—Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon, vol. 1, ch. 17.”²²⁵ In short, it appears that regarding these time-related prophecies, Ellen White used the terms “prediction” and “prophecy” as basic synonyms.

The “Great Earthquake,” and Signs Related to the Sun, and Moon

Chapter 17, titled “Heralds of the Morning,” indicates that “Prophecy not only foretells the manner and object of Christ’s coming, but presents tokens by which men are to know when it is near.”²²⁶ Ellen White quotes Revelation 6:12: “‘There was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood.’”²²⁷ Then, she states: “These signs were witnessed before the opening of the nineteenth century. In fulfillment of this prophecy there occurred, in the year 1755, the most terrible earthquake that has ever been recorded.”²²⁸

Just four paragraphs later she points out: “Twenty-five years later appeared the next sign mentioned in the prophecy—the darkening of the sun and moon. What rendered this more striking was the fact that the time of its fulfillment had been definitely pointed out. In the Saviour’s conversation with His disciples upon Olivet, after describing the long period of trial for the church,—the 1260 years of papal persecution, concerning which He had promised that the tribulation should be shortened,—He thus mentioned certain events to precede His coming, and fixed the time when the first of these should be witnessed: ‘In those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light.’ Mark 13:24. The 1260 days, or years, terminated in 1798. A quarter of a century earlier, persecution had almost wholly ceased. Following this persecution, according to the words of Christ, the sun was to be darkened. On the 19th of May, 1780, this prophecy was fulfilled.”²²⁹

The End of the 69th Week of the 70-Week Prophecy

Chapter 18, “An American Reformer,” focuses on William Miller, and his study of Bible prophecy. In discussing the role of the monarchs Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, Ellen White states: “These three kings, in originating, reaffirming, and completing the decree, brought it to the perfection required by the prophecy to mark the beginning of the 2300 years. Taking 457 B.C., the time when the decree was completed, as the date of the commandment, every specification of the prophecy concerning the seventy weeks was seen to have been fulfilled.”²³⁰ In the following paragraph, addressing how the Daniel 9:24-25 prophecy (“to anoint the Most Holy” at the end of the 69 weeks) came about, she observes: “The decree of Artaxerxes went into effect in the autumn of 457 B.C. From this date, 483 years extend to the autumn of A.D. 27. At that time this prophecy was fulfilled…. In the autumn of A.D. 27 Christ was baptized by John and received the anointing of the Spirit…. After His baptism He went into Galilee, ‘preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled.’ Mark 1:14, 15.”²³¹

Though perhaps not as persuasive for determining Ellen White’s use of language, is her account of William Miller’s personal study of Scripture. She quotes a long paragraph which describes Miller’s study of the chronology of the Scriptures. Miller stated: “‘I found that predicted events, which had been fulfilled in the past, often occurred within a given time…. The events limited by these times were all once only a matter of prophecy, and were fulfilled in accordance with the predictions.’—Bliss, pages 74, 75.”²³² It may be somewhat significant that Miller used “prophecy” and “predictions” interchangeably, a practice Ellen White seems to have followed.

The Falling of the Stars – a “Striking and Impressive Fulfillment”

In the same chapter, Ellen White comments on the impact of a celestial event shortly after Miller began to preach: “In 1833, two years after Miller began to present in public the evidences of Christ’s soon coming, the last of the signs appeared which were promised by the Saviour as tokens of His second advent. Said Jesus: ‘The stars shall fall from heaven.’ Matthew 24:29. And John in the Revelation declared, as he beheld in vision the scenes that should herald the day of God: ‘The stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.’ Revelation 6:13. This prophecy received a striking and impressive fulfillment in the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833.”²³³ After quoting various contemporary sources on the reality and impact of the falling of the stars, Ellen White ends this section, stating: “Thus the attention of the people was directed to the fulfillment of prophecy, and many were led to give heed to the warning of the second advent.”²³⁴

The attentive reader of The Great Controversy will have recognized that immediately following the explication of the falling of the stars – a “prophecy [which] received a striking and impressive fulfillment” – Ellen White goes straight to the matter of the trumpets, stating: “In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest.” In view of this direct juxtaposition of prophecies related to Revelation 6 and 9, it seems prudent to make a comparative analysis of how Ellen White writes about these two matters. The following diagrammatic outline can facilitate this process:

Before drawing any conclusions, it may help to briefly consider one final statement relevant to the matter of Ellen White’s use of the words “prophecy” and “prediction.” Addressing the content of Revelation 13:11-16, she stated: “Since the middle of the nineteenth century, students of prophecy in the United States have presented this testimony to the world. In the events now taking place is seen a rapid advance toward the fulfillment of the prediction.”²³⁵ While her first equivalent utilization of these two terms was seen in the initial chapter (thus introducing the reader as to how she uses these words interchangeably), her final employment of these words as equivalents is in the last 15 percent of the book, confirming the manner that she has chosen to use these words, as essentially identical.

Context and Language in The Great Controversy for the Fifth and Sixth Trumpets

As shown above, there are various places in the The Great Controversy where Ellen White employs several terms that are identical and/or similar to that which appears in the two paragraphs dealing with the fifth and sixth trumpets. The most obvious terms are the phrase “fulfillment of prophecy/prediction”²³⁶ (or its equivalent), together with a focus on time, as well as descriptive language, such as “most exact and striking,” “impressive,” and “remarkable.” In addition to the general similarity of language, the diagrammatic outline provided above reveals an intriguing similarity between the manner in which Ellen White wrote about the fulfillment of the “falling” of the stars (of Rev 6:13), in essentially the same manner in which she recorded the “fall” of the Ottoman Empire (as the fulfillment of Rev 9). In short, it appears that the weight of evidence indicates that Ellen White was not merely reporting how others (such as Josiah Litch) may have viewed events at that time;²³⁷ but, there appears to be sufficient credible contextual linguistic support for the conclusion that she was specifically stating that the actual time prophecies of Revelation 9 were historically culminated on August 11, 1840, when “the Ottoman Empire had become a protectorate of Europe.”²³⁸

Based on a meticulous comparative analysis of Ellen White’s statements in the 1888 and 1911 editions of The Great Controversy, Stefánsson perceptively concluded:

Short as White’s comments were, she affirmed many main points in Litch’s explanation: (1) The year-day principle applied both to the five months of the fifth trumpet and the hour, day, month, and year of the sixth trumpet; (2) the first period was correctly computed as 150 years and the hour, day, month, and year as 391 years and 15 days; (3) the two periods were contiguous; (4) the attacking power during the two periods was the Ottoman Empire; (5) the event that closed the five months was the petition of Constantine XI Palaiologus to the sultan in 1449; (6) August 11, 1840, was the accurate terminus for the 391 years and 15 days; and (7) the Ottoman empire surrendered its independence and fell on that very day, in harmony with Litch’s prediction.²³⁹

One cannot help but wonder: Since “Mrs. White was one of those who personally passed through the experience connected with the Advent movement,”²⁴⁰ since, despite some strong opposition,²⁴¹ she chose to include her clarified “endorsement in a major publication work”²⁴² (i.e., of Litch’s interpretation of Revelation 9, in the updated and final edition of The Great Controversy),²⁴³ and since “she designed it [i.e., ‘her most important book’] as a volume to win readers to an understanding and acceptance of the light of present truth,”²⁴⁴ should not we as Adventists be willing to invest time and effort in thoroughly addressing what appears to be Ellen White’s strong support of a definitive factual fulfillment of a distinct prophetic time-line in Scripture?²⁴⁵

Summary and Concluding Remarks

Seventh-day Adventist pioneers were originally in essential agreement that the fifth and sixth trumpets of Revelation 9 referred to the Ottoman Empire, and considered it a very significant prophecy, especially as it served as an evident litmus test, indeed “a public test of the year-day principle of interpreting prophecy,”²⁴⁶ and one which showed the validity of the 2300-day prophecy, which was critical for the Millerites.²⁴⁷ However, as Stefánsson observed: “The fifth and the sixth trumpets went from being one of the clearest fulfillments of Bible prophecy to a passage whose meaning and fulfillment Seventh-day Adventists debated, questioning whether it really was important to know what they meant at all.”²⁴⁸

Yet, the early historians of the Adventist Church testified as to how this fulfilled prophecy had been a powerful stimulus to the Advent Movement, bringing a wave of learned people in to swell the Midnight Cry. Ellen White herself endorsed Litch’s exposition and application as valid, as demonstrated above. Had they all been mistaken? Note what the Daniel and Revelation Committee stated, in the context of discussing the understanding of Adventist pioneers on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation: “Our pioneers did not follow ‘cunningly devised fables’ when they searched and preached the truths of these prophecies. They have passed on to us a rich heritage.”²⁴⁹

The challenges to this “traditional” historicist interpretation of the trumpets began more than 130 years ago. In 1883, a pastor in his early thirties, named Rodney Owen, brought a new perspective on Revelation 9 before the General Conference “in order to get their counsel and advice on the subject.”²⁵⁰ A ten-member committee was elected to examine Owen’s views.²⁵¹ After doing so the committee affirmed they saw no reason to abandon the traditional interpretation and rejected Owen’s ideas as “unscriptural,” stating that if his interpretation were accepted, it “would unsettle some of the most important and fundamental points of our faith.”²⁵² The study committee’s conclusions, formally voted by the 22nd session of the General Conference in 1883, in essence endorsed the position that the fifth and sixth trumpets referred to the Ottoman Empire, a view later included by Ellen White in The Great Controversy.²⁵³

Regarding the prophecies of the books of Daniel and the Revelation, Ellen White makes this challenge, together with a reminder of key promises contained in them:

As we near the close of this world’s history, the prophecies recorded by Daniel demand our special attention, as they relate to the very time in which we are living. With them should be linked the teachings of the last book of the New Testament Scriptures. Satan has led many to believe that the prophetic portions of the writings of Daniel and of John the revelator cannot be understood. But the promise is plain that special blessing will accompany the study of these prophecies. “The wise shall understand” ([Daniel 12] verse 10), was spoken of the visions of Daniel that were to be unsealed in the latter days; and of the revelation that Christ gave to His servant John for the guidance of God’s people all through the centuries, the promise is, “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein.” Revelation 1:3.²⁵⁴

After tabulating an impressive list (of more than 120 expositors of prophecy, from the 12th till the 20th century), who had used the year-day principle for the time-phrases of the fifth and sixth trumpets, Froom concluded that “superficiality is the bane of scholarship. Truth has nothing to fear from thorough investigation. It thrives on scrutiny. Its very nature courts the light. It is superficial investigation that is overawed by the glitter of a few names of modern scholars who have largely abandoned the canons of sound Biblical interpretation.”²⁵⁵ And, I wonder, is this perhaps one of the key reasons for the disarray, and disunity over the trumpets?

If one is reading at the online site of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and tries to learn about the “Treaty of London” of 1840, this is what shows up: “THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic.”²⁵⁶ Perhaps, it is time for us, as Seventh-day Adventist Bible scholars, who may be aware of the evident prophetic significance of this Treaty of London, to provide an historically-accurate, balanced, and well-documented article, for this prestigious resource.

Now, to a personal level: What significant lesson is to be learned from a study of the fifth and sixth trumpets, in relation to why the “pioneer” historicist view seems to have been “forgotten”? It appears that, “only truth that is able to be continually brought out by research both as old and new, remains truth to the body of believers. Any truth that rests on affirmation alone will be questioned and eventually abandoned, for as time passes, new questions invariably arise.”²⁵⁷

Aware that these findings may not answer every issue, it is hoped that the evidence proffered will stimulate further interest in an area which could benefit from some more rigorous research. This is especially so since, if our traditional view proves sufficiently valid, it could provide a major missiological opportunity – to connect with Muslims. “‘Is it possible that the Muslim peoples are mentioned by the prophet Jesus?’” an Arab friend once asked an Adventist expositor of apocalyptic prophecy. “‘It is possible and probable,’” she responded.²⁵⁸ Indeed, some expositors believe that, just as God used Nebuchadnezzar to chastise ancient Judah, so God similarly utilized the Muslim powers to hamper and hinder the spread of apostate Christianity.²⁵⁹

Gerard Damsteegt noted: “Litch’s prediction was a great stimulus to the missionary zeal of the Millerite movement. Years later a participant commented that it was to ‘the advent movement what the power of steam is on the machinery of the railroad locomotive.’”²⁶⁰ Could this happen again? In addition, further study may provide answers to the challenges raised regarding the accuracy of Ellen White’s statements on this matter in the Great Controversy.²⁶¹

Jon Paulien wisely cautioned: “If you read the book of Revelation and think it’s primarily about politics, primarily about battles and wars, you’re not reading it correctly. You’re not seeing the deeper significance of the symbols.”²⁶² Then he aptly added: “In the end, it’s the revelation of Jesus Christ. It’s about the slain Lamb. It’s about the One who shed His blood so we can live.”²⁶³

In the conclusion of his article on the issues related to the interpretation of the seven trumpets, Rodríguez suggested that “as long as this particular methodology [of historicism] is not undermined, the [Adventist] church should allow for a diversity of interpretations.”²⁶⁴ Then, he added: “Acknowledging this should immediately rule out dogmatic interpretations and heated discussions that could easily sacrifice Christian humility and love.”²⁶⁵

While I may have shared my findings with fervor and conviction, I hope that my zeal will not be seen as a dogmatic approach.²⁶⁶ I trust that discussion of these matters will enhance our appreciation for each other, but mostly, that it will increase our love for Jesus Christ, to whom the entire book of Revelation ultimately points!²⁶⁷

Allow me now to return to a question I raised near the beginning of this study: “Was this a Litch glitch, or a Smith myth?” Based on what I have discovered thus far, I would answer: “No, it does not appear so. And, it seems that White was right, after all!” If this interpretation of the time-phrases of the fifth and sixth trumpets is indeed, what Ellen White labeled a “remarkable fulfillment of prophecy,” and one which was “exactly fulfilled,” then I would like to end with this query: Are we as Adventists “giving the trumpets a certain sound?” Or, are we perhaps neglecting our duty to “Lift up the Trumpets”?

APPENDIX

Comments Relating to Josiah Litch in The Great Controversy (1911)

In the Appendix of the final edition of The Great Controversy there is a section of “General Notes,” that is classified as “Revisions adopted by the E. G. White Trustees November 19, 1956, December 6, 1979, and January 8, 1993.”²⁶⁸ Addressing primarily Josiah Litch’s position relating to the fulfillment of the sixth trumpet, one finds three paragraphs, which read in full:²⁶⁹

Page 335. Fall of the Ottoman Empire.—The impact of Moslem Turkey upon Europe after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was as severe as had been the catastrophic conquests of the Moslem Saracens, during the century and a half after the death of Mohammed, upon the Eastern Roman Empire. Throughout the Reformation era, Turkey was a continual threat at the Eastern gates of European Christendom; the writings of the Reformers are full of condemnation of the Ottoman power. Christian writers since have been concerned with the role of Turkey in future world events, and commentators on prophecy have seen Turkish power and its decline forecast in Scripture.
For the latter chapter, under the “hour, day, month, year” prophecy, as part of the sixth trumpet, Josiah Litch worked out an application of the time prophecy, terminating Turkish independence in August, 1840. Litch’s view can be found in full in his The Probability of the Second Coming of Christ about A.D. 1843 (published in June, 1838); An Address to the Clergy (published in the spring of 1840; a second edition, with historical data in support of the accuracy of former calculations of the prophetic period extending to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was published in 1841); and an article in [The] Signs of the Times and Expositor of Prophecy, August 1, 1840. See also article in The Signs of the Times and Expositor of Prophecy, February 1, 1841; and J. N. Loughborough, The Great Second Advent Movement (1905 ed.), pp. 129-132. The book by Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. of 1944, discusses the prophetic timing of this prophecy on pages 506-517.
For the earlier history of the Ottoman Empire and the decline of the Turkish power, see also William Miller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Successors, 1801-1927 (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1936); George G. S. L. Eversley, The Turkish Empire from 1288 to 1914 (London: T. Fisher Unwin, Ltd., 2d ed., 1923); Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des osmannischen Reiches (Pesth: C. A. Hartleben, 2d ed., 1834-36), 4 vols.; Herbert A. Gibbons, Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1403 (Oxford: University Press, 1916); Arnold J. Toynbee and Kenneth B. Kirkwood, Turkey (London, 1926).²⁷⁰

The Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the 1888 Great Controversy

As far as is known, this was the first time that Ellen White published anything related to the time prophecies of Revelation 9, together with Josiah Litch’s interpretation, including the impact on the Millerite movement, after the fulfillment of the prediction made by Litch.

In the year 1840, another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman empire, and specifying not only the year but the very day on which this would take place. According to this exposition, which was purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture, the Turkish government would surrender its independence on the eleventh day of August, 1840. The prediction was widely published, and thousands watched the course of events with eager interest.
At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction. When it became known, multitudes were convinced of the correctness of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates, and a wonderful impetus was given to the Advent movement. Men of learning and position united with Miller, both in preaching and publishing his views, and from 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.²⁷¹

The Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the Devotional Book Maranatha

While the first paragraph (as in The Great Controversy [1911]) has been reproduced in full in the Morning Devotional called Maranatha,²⁷² the second paragraph has been excerpted, so as to read as follows:

At the very time specified, Turkey, through her ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction.... A wonderful impetus was given to the advent movement.²⁷³

The Fifth and Sixth Trumpets in the “Condensation” From Here to Forever

In 1982 the volume called From Here to Forever was published.²⁷⁴ The Publishers indicated that this is “a condensation of The Great Controversy,” and that “this condensation is not a paraphrase,” but that “the author’s own words are retained throughout.” Regarding the fifth and sixth trumpets, the following is then selectively quoted:²⁷⁵

In 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman Empire “in A.D. 1840, sometime in the month of August.” Only a few days previous to its accomplishment he wrote: “It will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power in Constantinople may be expected to be broken.” [Footnoted: Josiah Litch, Signs of the Times, August 1, 1840.v.]
At the very time specified, Turkey accepted the protection of the allied powers of Europe and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The event exactly fulfilled the prediction. (See Appendix) Multitudes were convinced of the principles of prophetic interpretation adopted by Miller and his associates. Men of learning and position united with Miller in preaching and publishing his views. From 1840 to 1844 the work rapidly extended.

In the “Appendix” of this book, From Here to Forever, the Trustees of the Ellen G. White Estate add the following comments relative to the statement that “the event exactly fulfilled the prediction:”²⁷⁶

Page 209. Fall of the Ottoman Empire. Throughout the Reformation era Turkey was a continual threat to European Christendom; the writings of the Reformers are full of condemnation of the Ottoman power. Christian writers since have been concerned with the role of Turkey in future events, and commentators on prophecy have seen Turkish power and its decline forecast in Scripture.
For the “hour, day, month, year” prophecy, as part of the sixth trumpet, Josiah Litch worked out an application of the time prophecy, ending Turkish independence in August 1840.
A book by Uriah Smith, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation, rev. ed. of 1944, discusses the prophetic timing of this prophecy on pp. 506-517.²⁷⁷