THE PROPHETIC DATES OF THE TRUMPETS OF REVELATION

A history of interpretation and the confirmatory role of E. G. White1

Dr. Alberto R. Treiyer

www.adventistdistinctivemessages.com
Michigan Conference Pastoral Retreat: July 31 – August 3, 2017

The book of Revelation is prophetic history emphasizing God’s answer to the outcry of those who
suffer persecution “because of the Word of God and the Testimony of Jesus” (Rev 1:9; 6:9-10; 13:17,
etc.). The oppressing power on whom the spotlight is focused is also the last empire portrayed in the
prophecies of Daniel, namely Rome, in her different phases of development throughout history. When
John wrote his book, Jerusalem had been destroyed about a quarter of a century earlier, and Jesus
addressed seven representative Christian churches of Asia, not the Jews or their capital city. The last
messenger sent by God to the nation of Israel was Stephen in the year 34 and the Jews stoned him (Acts
7). From then on, the apostles were sent to the Gentiles (Acts 8-9). Therefore the trumpets of Revelation
(chapters 8-11) imply divine judgments against those who oppress God’s people. They are directed
against Rome, not against the old city of Jerusalem.
The expectation of the earliest Christians centered on the fall of the Roman Empire, followed by the
appearance of the antichrist, and finally the coming of the Lord to put an end to that evil empire. The
antichrist was expected to appear after the fall of Rome, and then to sit with ten kings upon an apostate
church. They based these views on the prophetic warnings of Daniel, Paul, and John. For them, Rome
was a persecuting city. It contained the very throne of the prince of this world.2
In simple and direct words, E. G. White affirmed this spotlight on Rome and located it in its proper
place in Apocalyptic history:

“The line of prophecy in which these symbols [of Rev 13] are found begins with Revelation 12, with the dragon
that sought to destroy Christ at His birth. The dragon is said to be Satan (Revelation 12:9); he it was that moved
upon Herod to put the Saviour to death. But the chief agent of Satan in making war upon Christ and His people
during the first centuries of the Christian Era was the Roman Empire, in which paganism was the prevailing religion.
Thus while the dragon, primarily, represents Satan, it is, in a secondary sense, a symbol of pagan Rome” (GC 438).

However, in the fourth century things began to change. The Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians
decreased, beginning with the nominal conversion of Constantine. From that moment on, some began to
dream of the conversion of Rome. They began to envision how the heavenly city of God could become
associated with that cruel city. If the emperor himself was baptized, the rest of the empire and the world at
large could become Christians too. The same dream lives in the hearts of many Christians today, who are

1
I want to thank my friend Dave Sydnor who voluntarily reviewed the English edition of my two documents dealing with the
prophetic chronology of the trumpets, one from the historical perspective, and the other from the historico-theological viewpoint.
He obtained years ago a Master of Divinity degree at Andrews University, and is well acquainted with the historical and
theological terminology.
I also wish to acknowledge Juan Gabriel Piedra Quirós for sharing with me certain documents which he located from the
internet on our denominational history and on the current Turkish discussion concerning the year of the foundation of the
Ottoman Empire. He is fluent in both English and Spanish, and I am recommending that he study theology at Southern Adventist
University. However, he needs a sponsor for that enterprise. If someone who reads this paper is able to help him, please let me
know. I was impressed by his balanced judgment as a layman on different theological matters, which could rival that of even the
greatest theologians.
2
See Irenaeus of Lyon (c. 130-202), Adversus Haeresus, book 5, chapters 25, 30; Tertullian (c. 155-222), On the Resurrection
of the Flesh, chapter 24; Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386), First Catechetical Lecture, XV, 12; Hyppolytus, Treatise on Christ and
Antichrist, 25-28; Lactantius Firminianous (fourth century), Divinae Institutiones, book VII, chapter 27; John Chrysostom (347-
407), Homily IV, 2 Thess 2:6-9; Jerome (c. 340-420), Commentary on Daniel 7: “We should therefore concur with the traditional
interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be
destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king
will arise…,” the antichrist; Augustine of Hippo (c. 345-430), De Civitate Dei (20, 19)

1
hoping that a supposed Christian unity will convert the whole world and save it from final destruction.
In the fifth century, the dreams many had for the conversion of Rome were shaken by the Barbarian
invasions which had already begun in the first century. But now, for the first time, a barbarian general
was able to penetrate the capital of the empire and burn part of the city. The sack of Rome by Alaric
created a conundrum. If Rome was experiencing conversion, how could she be struck by such a calamity?
Was Christian Rome in fact being punished by God? What answer could they offer to pagans who
claimed that only the gods of ancient Rome could protect the city from foreign invasions?
Roman Christians in general responded by holding fast to the new view of Rome’s impending
conversion. They rejected pre-millennialism which had taught in former centuries that the Lord will come
after the destruction of Rome and the world. “No!”, they said. Rome and the world would indeed be
converted. The reason for God’s punishment by means of the barbarian invasions was the persistence of
paganism and the apostasy of many Christians. These convictions resulted in a severe persecution of
pagans, presumably to avoid the punishment of God. At the same time, the bishop of Rome was exalted
as the supreme representative of God on earth, whose mission must be to establish order in the world.
How did they explain the apocalyptic prophecies which warned of the destruction of Rome? They
simply spiritualized them, disconnecting the visions from concrete historical events and their
chronologically fixed context. Instead of recognizing that the predicted antichrist had already come and
was seated upon the emperor’s chair, they spent the entire Middle Ages projecting the coming of that
antichrist to a time in the indefinite future. This spiritualized and diffused Apocalyptic vision eventually
became the foundation of the prophetic medieval faith.3
Other Christians, however, did not necessarily agree with every detail of this new approach. In the
fifth or sixth century, Andreas of Caesarea recognized in the barbarian invasion of Rome the fulfillment
of the first trumpet of Revelation. He saw that the burning and slaughter of the invading barbarians
dramatically fit the biblical prediction.4
Again, in the eighth century, Beatus of Liebana, a Spaniard monk, realized that the locusts of the fifth
trumpet fit perfectly the Arabian Saracen invasions of Rome. Many upheld his view in the following
centuries, including even Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation in the 16th Century. It became
easier for those in Luther’s time to accept this view because from the beginning of the tenth century, the
Roman pope was already being identified as the apocalyptic antichrist. And the Reformers were
eyewitnesses to how Rome was being punished by God through the Muslim Turkish invasion.
As early as 991 A.D., while presiding over the Council of Rheims, Archbishop Arnulf of Rheims said
that the current pope John XV was the antichrist predicted by Paul, who would sit in the midst of the
church. As in the first centuries, Rome could again be seen as deserving of the judgments of God for her
apostasy. This realistic observation became the classical Apocalyptic view of all those who were
confronted with the popes over nearly the entire new Christian millennium.
In the 16th century, Heinrich Bullinger replaced Ulrich Zwingli in Zurich, Switzerland. He concluded
that the first four trumpets of Revelation were fulfilled by the barbarian invasions of Rome. The fifth and
sixth trumpets were represented by the Saracens and the Ottoman Turks respectively. More than a
hundred interpreters endorsed his view, which became the standard historicist Protestant interpretation
until the 19th century.
We Seventh-day Adventists inherited that Protestant view. Our pioneers took the Protestant prophetic
torch, and proclaimed it to the world. We are supposed to believe that the trumpets of Revelation are
divine punishments against Rome—the last empire—in her three different phases: pagan, medieval papal,

3 W. Strabo in the 9th Century is a typical example of the spiritualization of the trumpets. The first one represented for him, the

blindness of Jews. The second pointed out the turning of the apostles to preach to the gentiles. The third are the heretics. The
fourth are the apostate members of the church. The fallen star of the fifth trumpet is Satan himself, and the smoke refers the
doctrines of the antichrist. The sixth deals with the control of the secular princes by Satan. The seventh envisions the end of
preaching and the establishment of the everlasting rest. For more details on his apocalyptic vision and other equivalent
spiritualized projections of the trumpets, see A. R. Treiyer, The Seals and the Trumpets. Biblical and Historical Studies
(Adventist Distinctive Messages, 2005), 233-236.
4 Cf. Edward Bishop Elliot, Horae Apocalypticae, Appendix 3, 5.

2
and modern Babylon. The trumpets, blown during the Christian era, are seven divine deterrents to hinder
the progress of the last Roman Empire in its bid to prevail against the kingdom of God.

Protestant interpretation of the apocalyptic dates of the trumpets

Protestants adopted the medieval Jewish view that the “days” in the Apocalyptic prophecies
represented years of literal time. This principle is clearly confirmed in the Bible. Since the fifth and sixth
trumpets contained dated prophecies, they understood that the five months of harassing Rome by the
Saracens, corresponded to 150 years. They saw it fulfilled from the time when Mohammed preached his
first inflammatory sermon in 612, to the foundation of Baghdad as “House of Peace” in 762. From that
time on, the hostilities significantly decreased. In the following centuries, until the appearance of the
Ottoman Turks, Muslim attacks against Rome did not cease, but they did not represent a generalized
invasion which could allow them to settle within the empire.
Historicist Protestants also understood “the hour” of judgment determined for the sixth trumpet as
covering 391 years; namely, one day, plus one month [30 days], plus one year [360 prophetic days]. Some
also gave “the hour” an apocalyptic correspondence of 15 literal days [dividing 360 days of one
apocalyptic year by 24 hours of one day]. Investigating the second expansionist wave of Muslims as the
possible sixth trumpet, they found an amazing starting point in the fall of Constantinople in the year 1453.
In fact, the Turks, who until that time had been tied or restrained before the river Euphrates (Rev
9:14), a symbol of Babylon or the literal Roman Catholic Church, were unleashed “to kill” apostate
Christianity. Therefore, the historicists of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries
understood that the Muslims had been restrained for centuries by Constantinople, and concluded that they
were not “released” until 1453, with the fall of that city. Consequently, they predicted that the time of
judgment represented by the sixth trumpet would end in 1844.
Historicist Protestants therefore expected something to happen in the year 1844 that would mark the
conclusion of the 391 years, something related to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Since nothing happened
in that year that brought their attention to the fulfillment of the sixth trumpet, Protestants, little by little,
abandoned the historicism of the trumpets of Revelation. The only notable thing that happened in that
year, was the opening of the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 11:19). But in order to keep
their historicist legacy, Protestants needed to assimilate the great disappointment, and to accept the true
Sabbath that is found within the ark of the covenant in the heavenly temple (Rev 10).5
In other words, to keep historicism alive after 1844 meant to become a Seventh-day Adventist. The
prophecies of the trumpets are connected to the foretold experience of the Millerites and the emerging of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church. This is the clear context of the mission related to the proclamation of
the final hour of judgment, and the need of preparation to meet the Lord. But Protestants at that time
decided to reject both the sanctuary message and the Sabbath. Such disdain implies at the same time, a
departure from historicism as a valuable principle for the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of
the Bible. Many adopted preterism, others futurism, still others dispensationalism, and today, with the
adoption of an idealistic interpretation of the book of Revelation, most of them have returned to the
spiritualized approached of the Middle Ages.

Millerite interpretation

William Miller followed those who assigned 15 literal days to “the hour”, and modified the Protestant
interpretation of the fifth and sixth trumpets. For him, the dates given in both trumpets began in 1298 and
reached their end in 1838. Josiah Litch improved the dates offered by Miller. He dated the beginning of
the five months of the fifth trumpet in the year 1299, taking the English historian Gibbon as a reference

5 “An acceptance of the truth concerning the heavenly sanctuary involved an acknowledgment of the claims of God’s law and

the obligation of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Here was the secret of the bitter and determined opposition to the
harmonious exposition of the Scriptures that revealed the ministration of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary” (GC 435).

3
for the battle of Bapheus on July 27 of that year, which Pachymeres specified as the beginning of evils for
the Byzantine Empire. 150 years later he found that the last Byzantine emperor was crowned after
requesting authorization from the Turkish sultan. This happened on January 6, 1449. Litch interpreted this
fact as proof of the surrender of the Byzantine emperor to the Ottoman authority, and the consequent loss
of independence.
But, what about the 391 years, 15 days of the sixth trumpet? He located that at the end of the 150 years
to form in total with the former trumpet, 541 years and 15 days. Beginning July 27, 1299, it would reach
to August 11, 1840. Two years before the expiration date, he predicted a significant event concerning the
Ottoman Empire. Many came to expect perhaps even the fall of the Ottomans on that day. When the day
arrived, the newspapers announced the submission of the Turkish sultan to the high powers of Europe.
The impressive fulfillment of this prophecy on the exact day anticipated by Litch two years before
gave strength to the Millerite message which announced the coming of the Lord in the year 1843, and
after that, with a better calculation, on October 22 of the year 1844.6 So, for the Millerites, the submission
of the last Byzantine emperor to the Sultan and conversely the later submission of the Turkish sultan to
the European nations became fulfilled prophecy.
What led the Millerites to modify the historicist Protestant interpretation? I find three possible reasons.
One of them would be their initial belief in the Second Coming of the Lord in the year 1843. Therefore,
the Protestant view of a culmination date in the year 1844 couldn’t fit their prophetic chronology. Even if
this reason is plausible, I don’t think it was their primary motivation.
A second possible reason would have been to place the 150 days/years historically, which after the
establishment of the Ottoman Empire in 1299, required a fulfillment in 1449. They needed to
chronologically locate the second Muslim wave against Rome. And the events which corresponded to
those two dates were amazingly fulfilled. But the third and principal reason in my view which led them to
link the dates given in the fifth and sixth trumpets, has to do with the need to find a fulfillment which
allowed them to place “the hour” (15 days) somewhere. For Josiah Litch, the date July 27, 1299, was the
strongest choice of a starting point.

Seventh-day Adventist interpretation

After the great disappointment of 1844 the Millerites were scattered like the disciples of Jesus when
they were disappointed after seeing their Lord die on the cross (Luke 24:18-21; Matt 26:31). And just as
the Lord confirmed their faith after His resurrection, He likewise confirmed the faith of a remnant
of Millerites through the “testimony of Jesus” which is the “Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev 12:17; 19:10). The
first disappointment separated the Christian church from the Jews (for whom the cross became a
“stumbling block”), as well as from the unbelieving Gentiles (for whom the message of the gospel was
“foolishness”). The second disappointment separated the end-time Adventist community from both
apostate Christians (for whom the priesthood of Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary and the true Sabbath
became a “stumbling block”), and secular unbelievers (for whom the exaltation of that disappointment is
“foolishness”) (1 Cor1:23). But “to those who are called by God, the disappointment of the year 31 and
the disappointment of the year 1844 is “God’s power and God’s wisdom” (v. 24).
Why did the Lord build the Christian faith on a foundation associated with a disappointment? For the
same reason that he built the Adventist faith on a similar foundation. “So that no one may boast before
him... So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Cor 1:29; 2:5). We
need to obtain an experience with God and with our history as a prophetic denomination that can claim
along with the apostle Paul, “I am not ashamed of the gospel” (Rom 1:16).
Those who were called by God after the great disappointment didn’t lose their faith. They spent entire
nights studying the Bible, and God confirmed their findings through visions given to a young lady named
Ellen Harmon, who was later married to James White. They reached the conclusion that all the prophetic

6
This date is corroborated not only biblically and historically, but also astronomically. See A. R. Treiyer, The Apocalyptic
Times of the Sanctuary (Adventist Distinctive Messages, 2014), lessons V, VI, and IX.

4
dates were correct, including that of August 11, 1840, but the event expected for the year 1844 was
wrong. The cleansing of the sanctuary foretold in Dan 8:14 had to do with the final work of Jesus our
High Priest in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. 7
In 1848, as a result of the Adventist Bible or Sabbath Conferences, the new end-time Adventist
movement also affirmed that the Protestant view of the first four trumpets of Revelation was correct, and
adhered to the Millerite interpretation for the dates assigned to the fifth and sixth trumpets. Since that
time, both prophecies have been considered fulfilled prophecies in Adventist milieus. But they also found
in Revelation chapter 10 a prophetic anticipation of their disappointment and the announcement of the
blowing of the seventh trumpet (v. 7). This would be realized in Rev. 11:15-19, punctuated with the
opening of the Most Holy Place in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 11:15-19).
In 1883 the trumpets of Revelation were studied again at a General Conference session, in the context
of a futurist proposition by R. S. Owen. The chair of the Conference appointed a committee of ten, with
Uriah Smith among them. In the twelfth and thirteenth meetings (Nov 19), it was reported to the assembly
that the committee saw “no occasion to change from the views we have formerly entertained, especially
as the proposed view was, in their judgment, unscriptural, and would unsettle some of the most important
and fundamental points of our faith.”8 The next year there was another General Conference session, and
that view was reiterated.9 The interpretation which sees the fulfillment of the sixth trumpet on August 11,
1840, was declared foundational for the prophetic faith of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
E. G. White was informed of that resolution, and she corroborated that report in her book The Great
Controversy, which was published a few years later in 1888. After this confirmation by the Spirit of
Prophecy, several General Conference Sessions were marked by an unwavering testimony on the
fulfillment of the fifth and sixth trumpets, namely, in 1901,10 1903,11 and 1905.12 The dates of 1833 (the
meteor shower), August 11, 1840 (Turkey’s submission to the High Powers of Europe), and October 22,
1844 (the disappointment of Rev 10 and the beginning of the seventh trumpet with Jesus’ ministry in the
Most Holy Place [Rev 11:19]), were considered at these conferences to be “Landmarks in Adventist
history.”
The general view was that the vision of the angel of Rev 10 which announces the coming of the
seventh trumpet is placed between the conclusion of the sixth trumpet (which is connected to the Holy
Place) and the great disappointment and beginning of the seventh trumpet (with the transfer of ministry of
Jesus to the Most Holy Place [Rev 10; 11:15,19]). S. N. Haskel summarized this standard view in the
following words:

“The little period between 1840 and 1844, during which the message of Rev 10:1-11 was delivered, was the

7 In addition to the chapters mentioned in the former footnote related to my book The Apocalyptic Times..., we can add here

lesson or chapter X.
8 General Conference Bulletin of that congress.
9
See the master thesis of Jón Steffánson prepared at Andrews University in 2013, entitled From Clear Fulfillment to Complex
Prophecy: The History of the Adventist Interpretation of Revelation 9, from 1833 to 1957.
10 S. N. Haskell, in the thirty-fourth Session of the GC, said in a Bible Study, April 4, 1901, 10:45 am: “It is the truth contained

in these words [Rev 11:19], developed by other portions of Scripture, that lies at the very foundation of our existence as a
denomination,” General Conference Bulletin. He mentioned the dates of 1833 for the fulfillment of the sixth seal (Rev 6), 1840
for the fulfillment of the sixth trumpet (Rev 9), and 1844 for the initial fulfillment of the seventh trumpet (Rev 11).
11
W. W. Prescott, in the Thirty-fifth Session of the GC, in his sermon “The Time and the Work” (March 27, 1903, 7:30pm),
considered the events of August 11, 1840, and October 22, 1844, “landmarks in Adventist History.” For him, the first four
trumpets had to do with the downfall of Western Imperial Rome and the setting up of the ten European kingdoms under papal
apostasy. The fifth and sixth trumpets had to do with the downfall of Eastern Imperial Rome and setting up of the other apostasy,
the “Mohammedan” Religion (Islam). To meet both of these apostasies, God raised the Seventh-day Adventist Church with
God’s final message.
12 A. G. Daniells, president of the General Conference, in the Seventh Session of the Ministerial Institute (May 19, 11am,

1904), gave a message entitled: “The Ministry and the Field. Inspiring the People to finish the work in both Home and Foreign
Fields.” He emphasized that the sixth trumpet of Rev 9 reaches to August 11, 1840. Revelation 10 announces the seventh trumpet
and the great disappointment (from 1840 to 1844). Revelation 11 deals with the Seventh trumpet: from October 22, 1844 to the
coming of the Lord. Cf. Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald.

5
 time between the close of the sixth trumpet and the sounding of the seventh.”13

E. G. White also kept that faith in the midst of the Battle Creek apostasy in April 1903. She wrote:

“Nothing is to be allowed to come in that will disturb the foundation of the faith upon which we have been
building ever since the message came in 1842, 1843, and 1844. I was in this message, and ever since I have been
standing before the world, true to the light that God has given us. We do not propose to take our feet off the
platform on which they were placed as day by day we sought the Lord with earnest prayer, seeking for light” (GCB
April 6, 1903; Review & Herald, April 14, 1903).
“The announcement that the temple of God was opened in heaven and the ark of His testament was seen
points to the opening of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 as Christ entered there to perform
the closing work of the atonement. Those who by faith followed their great High Priest as He entered upon His
ministry in the most holy place, beheld the ark of His testament. As they had studied the subject of the sanctuary
they had come to understand the Saviour’s change of ministration, and they saw that He was now officiating before
the ark of God, pleading His blood in behalf of sinners” (GC 433).

At this point, it will be useful to include two statements (among many which are similar) of E. G.
White regarding pins and pillars that are not to be changed. The following statement from her pen was
placed under the headline, Protest Against Removing Landmarks.

“When men come in who would move one pin or pillar from the foundation which God has established by His
Holy Spirit, let the aged men who were pioneers in our work speak plainly, and let those who are dead speak also,
by the reprinting of their articles in our periodicals. Gather up the rays of divine light that God has given as He has
led His people on step by step in the way of truth. This truth will stand the test of time and trial” (Ms 62, 1905, p. 6.
[“A Warning against False Theories,” May 24, 1905]; 1MR 55.1).
“Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will
drift into erroneous theories, and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of
what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings” (Letter 395, 1906, 4: To Elder S.
M. Cobb, December 25, 1906; 1MR 55.3).

The dates challenged and the role of E. G. White in the confirmation of those dates

Before publishing the second edition of her book The Great Controversy in 1911, E. G. White
requested to review the material to make any necessary refinements, especially regarding editing and
grammar. She wanted to provide better support for certain historical issues and if necessary, even to
correct any errors which could have been passed over in the former edition. She wrote what she saw in
vision, but she needed to read historical works to place the events in time and location. Therefore, a better
documentation of what she wrote, by competent historians, would be helpful.14 She wrote later:

“When I learned that The Great Controversy must be reset, I determined that we would have everything closely
examined, to see if the truths it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith
that the Lord had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages” (Letter 56, 1911).

A comparison of the first edition of 1888 and the second of 1911 shows how divine inspiration works
in a prophet. In her first edition, she mentioned the moment when “the great bell of the palace” to kill the
Huguenots sounded (GC88 272). Later on she found that another historian placed the bell in a cathedral.
The bell could have sounded in more than one place, but for her second edition she preferred to write,
simply, “a bell” (GC 272). She saw the bell, but God didn’t tell her on what building. For this reason, E.
G. White exhorted that we “distinguish between that which is common and that which is holy... For one

13
S. N. Haskel, The Story of the Seer of Patmos (Nashville, Southern Publishing, 1905), 204.
14 She said the same regarding certain scientific statements from her pen, like that of amalgamation between man and beast
before the flood. She never retracted her statements on this issue. But she was instructed by the Lord not to answer those
questions. The confirmation of her scientific statements is the responsibility of others. Though what she received in vision was
correct, she should not be regarded as a scientific authority. See Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord. The Prophetic
Ministry of Ellen G. White (PPPA, Nampa, 2000), chap 43.

6
to mix the sacred with the common is a great mistake…” (1SM 38).
But we have to be careful as not to discredit her for this in her historical assertions. She also wrote in
her first edition of the Great Controversy, that “there were Waldenses… who kept the true Sabbath” (GC
88 65). This she asserted again in her second edition, saying: “some of whom were observers of the
Sabbath” (GC 577). She did not obtain this information from another historian. For this reason, many
questioned in recent times those statements. Today however, historical evidence is available to support
the accuracy of her statement.15
E. G. White’s own explanation regarding her use of other authors appears in the introduction to the
1888 edition of The Great Controversy. It was not her intent to cite them “as authority,” which would
have implied the writings of historians and commentators were a basic source rather than the visions.
Rather it was because their statements afford “a ready and forcible presentation of the subject” (GC xii).
In reference to the sixth trumpet, E. G. White declared that “in the year 1840 another remarkable
fulfillment of prophecy…” took place (GC 334). In the same chapter she also pointed out the years 1833
and 1844 as signs for the nearness of the end. Unfortunately, Robert W. Olson, when he was the director
of the White Estate in Washington D.C., thought that E. G. White referred to what the Millerites believed,
not to what she herself believed.16 This opened the door for William Shea, Gerhard Pfandl and others to
break from the official interpretation of our church on the subject of the trumpets. For them, “Ellen G.
White is recording what happened at that time. She is not saying that John’s prophecy was fulfilled, but
that J. Litch’s prophecy was fulfilled.”17
If we accept this view of Olson and his followers on the prophetic fulfillment of 1840, would we not
open the way to say the same thing regarding the other prophetic dates in 1833 and 1844? What about the
1260 days/years? This is what W. W. Prescott did in his attempt to correct or rather eliminate the
prophetic dates from the book The Great Controversy. For him, the dates 538, 1798, 1840, and 1844 were
the product of Adventist writers. But E. G. White did not accept his recommended revisions.

“About half of his suggestions might be classified as minor, such as having to do with a precision of wording, or
calling for a supporting reference. The other half were more significant, some challenging prophetic dates—such as
the dating of the 1260 years—and calling into question the autumn termination of the 2300-day prophecy. His
suggestions, which called for a change in teachings in the book, were not accepted (e.g., the relation of Revelation
9 to Josiah Litch’s prediction of August 11, 1840, and Revelation 11, having to do with the two witnesses and the
French Revolution). These were carefully reviewed for soundness of position and buttressed with reliable
documentation.”18

Around that same time, two pastors had been having problems with how God’s inspiration works in a
prophet. They were S. N. Haskel and W. W. Prescott, who believed in “verbal inspiration.” W. C. White,
the son of E. G. White, exchanged some messages with them, specifying that this had never been the
position of the pioneers of our church or of E. G. White. He also stated that she never intended to be
considered an authority on historical matters, and that she valued the work of competent historians. Willy
wrote to Haskel:

“Regarding Mother's writings, she has never wished our brethren to treat them as authority on the dates or
details of history... When ‘Controversy’ was written, Mother never thought that the readers would take it as an
authority on historical dates and use it to settle controversies, and she does not now feel that it ought to be used in
that way... I can not see consistency in our putting forth a claim of verbal inspiration when Mother does not make
any such claim, and I certainly think we will make a great mistake if we lay aside historical research, and endeavor
to settle historical questions by the use of Mother's books as an authority when she herself does not wish them to

15 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
16
Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White (Washington, DC: Ellen G. White
Estate, 1981), 50.
17 Preface of G. Pfandl to the book of H. Heiks, Satan’s Counterfeit Prophecy (Teach Services, 2013). Pfandl went further on a

note sent to a friend of mine on Jan 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM. For him, “the interpretation of the 5th and 6th trumpets of Rev 9 by J.
Litch and Uriah Smith was taken over from the Protestant interpreter A. Barnes, it did not come out of the biblical text” [!!!].
18
Arthur L. White, The Prescott Letter to W. C. White. April 6, 1915, 15. This doesn’t mean that “in some of our important
books... there may be found matters of minor importance that call for careful study and correction” (Ms 11, 1910; 1 SM, 165).

7
 be used in any such way.”19

Because E. G. White signed her son’s letter, approving what he wrote, Haskel misunderstood the
letter and replied saying that she was old and didn’t know what she had signed. Prescott, however, went
to the other extreme and, for the rest of his life became (in modern terminology) “liberal.” He rejected
most of the prophetic dates, and opposed the interpretation of the apocalyptic number 666 as
corresponding to the title Vicarivs Filii Dei.20 Both trends are represented today in our church,
misinterpreting what Willy wrote. Some try to place her before unbelievers as an authority in history, and
others play the role of unbelievers, saying openly that we cannot take her seriously regarding historical
matters.
Time does not allow us to consider several letters written by E. G. White to Prescott. But in the light
of the current confusion of some regarding the role of the Spirit of Prophecy today, even in connection
with the dates offered for the sixth trumpet, it will be useful to bring out one point. In two letters to
Prescott she wrote:
“At times, Elder Prescott, you have come very near making shipwreck of your faith. Only the grace of God and
the confidence you have had in the messages He has sent through the Spirit of Prophecy have held you back. I was
shown that... you are still in danger of making grave mistakes...” (Letter 166, 1908). “You have many times
escaped from the snare of the enemy. But you are not beyond the danger of making mistakes... I write this to
caution you” (Letter 224, 1908).

To A. G. Daniels, the president of the General Conference, she wrote:

“Message after message has come to me from the Lord concerning the dangers surrounding you and Elder
Prescott. I have seen that Satan would have been greatly pleased to see Elders Prescott and Daniels undertake the
work of a general overhauling of our books... But neither of you is called of God to that work...
“The enemy of truth, through the ministry of fallen angels, would be pleased to introduce uncertainty in the
minds of many in regard to the doctrines that have been established by the sanction of the Holy Spirit. Disguised as
one who has a deep understanding of truth, Satan will seek to point out supposed errors in that which needs no
revision, and it will take much time and patient labor to restore confidence in those whose minds are unsettled by
unnecessary changes. God forbids His servants to alter that which needs no change” (Letter 70, 1910).

E. G. White recommended that it would be helpful to them to do evangelism. Daniels accepted the
divine correction and successfully held some evangelistic conferences. He even proposed leaving the
presidency of the General Conference to devote himself to evangelist work. However, she advised him
not to leave his position. But regarding Prescott, she insisted of the leaders of the General Conference that
they move him from editorial work and send him to preach in New York. He reluctantly went, and under
a negative spirit, his success was moderate. Eight years later he referred to that experience as a “shock.”
The last letter written by W. C. White about Prescott was in answer to many students and pastors who
were accusing him of teaching heresies. The letter proves that a former message of his to Haskel, which
stated that his mother didn’t want to be quoted as an authority in historical matters, is misinterpreted by
many today. As a matter of fact, what Willy wrote had nothing to do with a presumable freedom to
correct her statements on prophetic dates, something she never approved. Willy wrote:

“I am truly sorry that anyone should say that Elder Prescott teaches heresy. I think there are some things which
he teaches regarding the prophetic dates that many of our other ministers and teachers do not accept. I and many
others that I highly regard, question very seriously that part of his teaching which seems to unsettle a few of the
historical dates that our ministers have used heretofore in their expositions of prophecy.”21

W. C. White had been writing to Prescott for some weeks before his mother died, expressing hope that
future studies in history would confirm what his mother had written on historical matters.

19
Sanitarium, Cal., Cot. 31, 1912.
20 See E. de Kock, The Truth about the 666 and the History of the Great Apostasy (1911). See my review of that work in:
http://adventistdistinctivemessages.com/English/Documents/TreiyeronDeKock666.pdf
21 W. C. White to Miss Hulda Gunther, Feb 20, 1931.

8
 “I am hoping and expecting that a further study of history will develop confidence in the work which God has
done through revelations given to Mother [and] in correcting those extravagant and fanatical views regarding her
work which are injurious to Christian experience and to the advancement of the truth” (May 7, 1915).

Two different attitudes toward incomplete evidence

W. W. Prescott and W. C. White had two different attitudes in their approach to understanding
incomplete evidence. Prescott concluded that because he didn’t have all the answers, the Spirit of
Prophecy was wrong, and without mincing words began to expose what he considered to be wrong.
Willie however acknowledged that despite the evidence gathered to support the fulfillment of the
prophecies, there was need for more historical information. However, he believed that what God revealed
to his mother on historical matters would be confirmed in the future. Like Daniel and other prophets in
the past, he didn’t lose patience, but inquired as he could, and trusted that the light not yet available,
would eventually be forthcoming. One sought to prevail over all others with his short-sighted
conclusions. The other kept a reverent attitude toward the divine revelation, confident in God and in the
direction of His church.
We must acknowledge that divine truth, whether prophetic, doctrinal, or even historical, requires the
consent of the heart to be appreciated. Jesus referred to this fact when he said: “I praise you, Father, Lord
of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them
to little children” (Matt 11:25). We must be careful, because what Paul said about unbelievers may prove
true for us if we trust in human parameters to measure what is truth. “The god of this age has blinded the
minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel” (2 Cor 4:4). I think of what E. G.
White wrote to Prescott: “I write this to caution you.”
Daniel was highly esteemed in heaven when through faith, fasting, and prayer he tried to scrutinize the
divine revelation, and was highly rewarded because an angel came to help him (Dan 9:23-23). But he was
admonished to wait for truths that God did not intend to reveal him yet, and accept his personal
limitations to understanding them in his day. Would heaven esteem any less the one who today believes
in the divine revelation, and inquires for answers with prayer and fasting like Daniel, even when heaven
doesn’t reveal everything to him, but reserves some revelations for others at a later time? This is how we
deal with the historical truths of the Bible which modern criticism denies. Through archeology we search
for proofs to confirm the historical truth.
Later studies which took years of research were appearing in our church, which opened the range for a
wider understanding of the historical matters involved in the prophetic periods, and could prove the
soundness of those predictions which tormented Prescott. There was room for growth, and great light
came from Leroy Froom, who spent 15 years researching in the best libraries of Europe and the USA,
about what our spiritual forefathers believed from the first centuries of Christianity till today. He made
three trips to Europe, and received the acknowledgment of many authorities in history for the tremendous
work he did. Even today we can refer to his great four volume work entitled, The Prophetic Faith of our
Fathers,22 to confirm the prophetic legacy that we received from those who came before us.
The 1260 and 1290 years of the prophecy of Daniel, as originally adopted from Protestant historicism
by Uriah Smith, were in fact quite sound. Nevertheless, D. A. Augsburger23 and C. M. Maxwell24 later
expanded our historical evidence regarding that subject. And yet more recently in 2009, a doctoral
dissertation of the Andrews University was prepared by Dr. Jean Carlos Zukowski from Brazil, entitled
The Role and Status of the Catholic Church in the Church-State Relationship within the Roman Empire
from A.D. 306 to 814. His thesis is a gold mine of historical information. I myself had the opportunity to

22 It was being published around the year 1950. See http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Books/PFOF1950-V01.pdf

23
D. A. Augsburger, The Beginning of the 1260 days of prophecy (Washington, 1952).
24 C. M. Maxwell, An Exegetical and Historical Examination of the Beginning and Ending of the 1260 Days of Prophecy with

special attention given to A.D. 538 and 1798 as initial and terminal dates (Theses of Master of Arts, Faculty of the Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary, Washington DC, 1980).

9
gather strong additional historical information for my book The Seals and the Trumpets, and The
Apocalyptic Times of the Sanctuary. Also Heinz Shaidinger in Austria (one of my most brilliant students
years ago at our French seminary in Collonges), wrote a little book which was published by the BRI and
documented well the prophetic dates for papal supremacy.25 Today, those prophetic dates are an
undeniable truth that Prescott could not deny and would hopefully even appreciate.
The prophecy of the 2300 days presented a challenge when we did not have extra-biblical proofs to
confirm the proper method of reckoning the years for the time of the Babylonian exile. But our church
waited, trusting that the answers would come. And they did come, in the middle last century, with the
discovery of the Elephantine papyri, which could accurately establish how the ascension years of Israel
and foreign kings were reckoned in the time of Ezra. In 1951 Edwin Thiele wrote his doctoral thesis on
The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, a book which is still being praised by the greatest experts
on the matter, because he could prove the veracity of biblical chronology when it was considered an
impossible task.26 Shortly thereafter, Siegfried Horn found astronomical proofs which confirm the date of
departure for the prophecy of 2300 days in the year 457 BC. Juarez de Oliveira,27 an engineer from Brazil,
provided advanced evidence to support this and I can confirm it myself through an astronomer uncle of
mine named Adolfo Lista. In my book, The Apocalyptic Times of the Sanctuary, I demonstrate how we no
longer need to discuss on which day and month modern Jews celebrated the Day of Atonement in the year
1844. Astronomy has come to assist us to confirm not only modern times but the chronology of Ezra.
And my brief list omits so many contributions from theology, science, and many other branches of
study which touch our faith. But, what is the attitude many are taking today when they cannot solve a
theological, historical, or ecclesiastical problem as they might wish? Do we show reverence by the way
God leads His church? Are we humble and patient to await for more light, when we don’t have it?

Followers of W. W. Prescott and W. C. White

W. W. Prescott and W. C. White had followers throughout the 20th Century and even today as we are
now well into the 21th Century, regarding several points of doctrine and prophetic interpretation.

a) In the first half of the 20th Century

The official view regarding the dates for the fifth and sixth trumpets was challenged by W. W.
Prescott (former president of the GC) and W. A. Spicer (Secretary of the GC) in 1914, and (after the death
of E. G. White) at a Biblical Conference that took place on July 17, 1919.28 W. C. White was not invited
to the 1919 Conference, but Prescott was there. Matters of inspiration regarding E. G. White were brought
into question, as well as the historical fulfillment of the fifth and sixth trumpets. (We will answer those
questions on the trumpets below). But although no resolution was taken to reject the official interpretation
of our church, many questions remained unanswered.

25
H. Shaidinger, Historical Confirmation of Prophetic Periods (BRI, Washington DC, 2010).
26 Wikipedia introduces his book, saying that “it is a reconstruction of the chronology of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. The
book was originally his doctoral dissertation and is widely regarded as the definitive work on the chronology of Hebrew
kings. The book is considered the classic and comprehensive work in reckoning the accession of kings, calendars, and co-
regencies, based on biblical and extra-biblical sources.”
27
Chronological Studies Related to Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27 (Unaspress, 2004).
28 See http://essaysbyellenwhite.wordpress.com/2008/04/ and

http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RBC/RBC19190717__B.pdf#view=fit.
Spicer, Beacon Lights of Prophecy (Takoma Park, Review & Herald, 1935), does not mention at all the prophetic dates of the
trumpets, and Prescott denied the dates given by our church. They are followed in recent times by H. LaRondelle, Roy. C. Naden,
and today by J. Paulien, R. Stefanovic, G. Pfandl, and E. Mueller. H. K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time
Prophecies of the Bible: A Biblical-Contextual Approach (Bradenton, FL, 2007), 189, 193; R. C. Naden, The Lamb Among the
Beasts. Finding Jesus in the Book of Revelation (Hagerstown, Review & Herald, 1996), 41-42, spiritualized the dates of the
trumpets; J. Paulien never included the prophetic dates of the trumpets in his books and papers (cf. G. Quispe, 225); R.
Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ. Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, Andrews University Press, 2002
and 2009).

10
 In June and July of 1944, Ministry magazine published an article by Grace Amadon which intended to
prove the historical accuracy of the dates of the trumpets, especially the one which deals with the battle of
Bapheus. It appeared under “immediate release.” Such an urgency seems no longer to exist in our day
regarding the trumpets. Reading today what Amadon wrote, we can say that she did the best that she
could at that time. But she didn’t believe in the way our church had interpreted the trumpets. She wrote an
unpublished paper proposing a new interpretation of the trumpets, but without attracting any followers.29
We need to keep in mind that all had the same problem regarding the works of Pachymeres. That
byzantine author offered much detail on the battle of Bapheus and the time when the Ottoman Empire
was founded. However, he wrote in medieval Greek, and his work was never translated into English. I
was able to study the subject carefully only because I have received a doctorate in France and taught at
our French seminary, and the great volumes of Pachymeres were translated into that language about 15
years ago. But I don’t know how many would be willing to spend the 500 dollars (and that being a
discounted price to me) to buy them. Moreover, the majority of the historical documents related to the
topic coming from the 13th and 14th Centuries, were translated partial or totally into French about two
and even three centuries ago. Even so, we cannot find them easily without the internet. Today, if not all,
almost everything can be obtained at home, without moving from our desks, thanks to brother Google.
In 1941, H. M. S. Richards Sr. emphasized in his message to the General Conference Session, that we
are living in the last part of the seven churches, of the seven seals, and of the seven trumpets.30 This was
the last time the trumpets were mentioned at a General Conference Session. It was evident that the
message of the trumpets was being eroded in the church, especially in our theological seminaries in most
parts of the world.31

b) In the second half of the 20th Century

A new front was opened by E. Thiele in the 1950s on the interpretation of the trumpets. For him, the
first trumpet was the destruction of old Jerusalem by the Romans, not a barbarian invasion of the Roman
empire. He was more concerned with the literary form of the book of Revelation than with the very
purpose of the trumpets. Since the churches and the seals began in the first century, he tried to find a
fulfillment of the trumpets also in the first century. But the destruction of Jerusalem didn’t occur in the
year 31 when Jesus died. It came about 40 years later. And at that time, the world didn’t reckon the years
and the centuries beginning with the first coming of Jesus as we are accustomed to today. The churches of
Asia were raised several years before John received the vision. The concern of those churches was not the
Jews, but the persecuting pagan Roman Empire, the last empire prophesied by Daniel.
Thiele was followed by other interpreters, among them, C. M. Maxwell. By so doing, they began to
spiritualize other trumpets (see below in this paper). Anyway, concerning the dates of the fifth and sixth
trumpets, they kept, with some modifications, the interpretation confirmed by E. G. White. Maxwell
adopted the view of most Protestant historicists of the 18th and 19th centuries for whom “the hour” had
no prophetic significance regarding 15 literal days.32 William Shea shared his views, and (with some
variations) they adopted the dates offered by Protestants for the five prophetic months, beginning with the
Saracen invasions on the Roman Empire.33

29 See Jon Hjorleifur Stefansson, From Clear Fulfillment to Complex Prophecy: the History of the Adventist Interpretation of

Revelation 9, from 1833 to 1957 (Master Thesis, Andrews University, 2013), 117-128.
30 H. M. S. Richards, Sr., gave the second Friday evening sermon (June 6, 1941, 7:45pm) of the GC Congress. Cf. Adventist

Review and Sabbath Herald.

31 See the Master Thesis of Jón Steffánson quoted above.
32
M. Maxwell, God Cares, 262-265. The conjunction kai, “and,” is for him explanatory, which means “that is to say.” The
complete phrase would be rendered, in this way: “For the hour of judgment; that is to say, for a period of judgment extending
over a day and a month and a year, symbolic of 391 years.”
33
W. Shea, Daniel and the Judgment (Washington, 1980), 311-312. I agree with W. Shea that the dates offered by Protestants
may also be applied to a military execution of what was preached by Mohammed, implying the dates 632 (first military
expansion), and 782 (last Abbasid military incursion to the doors of Constantinople, with a peace treaty). See A. R. Treiyer, The
Seals and the Trumpets..., 310-311; The Apocalyptic Times of the Sanctuary..., 267-269.

11
 In 1990 the Daniel and Revelation Committee nominated by the Biblical Research Institute of the
General Conference confirmed the historicist interpretation of the trumpets, yet did not publish a paper
dealing with the historical fulfillment. I participated in two of their discussions. Though we could see
their firm determination to give definite answers to the questions raised, they were unable to reach an
agreement for (in my view) four reasons.

1. They invited believers and unbelievers regarding the classical interpretation of the trumpets
in our church to work together.
2. Several questions that our church received from most of the 20th century, remained
unanswered.
3. The new propositions prepared for those who attended the meetings did not satisfy the
committee. Those of Shea and Paulien were not accepted, and despite the request to work on the
history of interpretation to better understand the way Christians and pioneers understood the
matter, no one worked on these issues.
4. Except for the last meeting, the attendants didn’t have the opportunity to receive beforehand a
copy of the issues to be considered. There was not enough time to weigh the different views.

The outcome was a near bankruptcy in the interpretation of most of the first half of Revelation. They
had to conclude, honestly, that:

“The committee at present has not developed a satisfactory interpretation of these prophecies that solve all the
problems inherent in them... While the church may never fully understand these portions of the larger prophecy, we
can learn important lessons from them, and we would discourage no one from study.”34

When small steps are taken away from what was once firmly believed, a second generation, and still
worse a third generation, take more steps to depart from the platform of truth. J. Paulien was also invited
to the Daniel and Revelation Committee and proposed modern philosophies to be trumpets 4-6. But as G.
F. Hasel told me in one of the meetings of DARCOM (Daniel and Revelation Committee), “the trumpets
are armies, not philosophies.” Later on, G. Pfandl supported the view of Paulien, which totally severs the
classical historicist interpretation of the prophetic dates from the trumpets.

c) Already in the 21th Century.

R. Stefanovic followed Jon Paulien in the interpretation of the fourth, five, and sixth trumpets. The
embarrassment of some of these new propositions which begin the trumpets with the destruction of
Jerusalem seems to reach a climax in what he proposes. Amazingly, the Biblical Research Institute did
not require him to change these views for his second edition. In those new approaches we can see the
complete loss of historicist literary and historical structure concerning the trumpets that came to us as a
legacy from Protestant Reformation. That literary and historical framework is this:

Trumpets 1-4: judgments against Imperial Pagan Rome

Trumpets 5-6: judgments against Medieval Papal Rome (including Eastern Rome).
7th trumpet: time of the end (final judgment upon papal Rome resurrected and the world which follows her).

I wrote this in my book, The Seals and the Trumpets. Biblical and Historical Studies (Adventist
Distinctive Messages, 2005), 264:

“R. Stefanovic, in his book Revelation of Jesus Christ, 296-297, considers the Age of Enlightenment to be more
darkened than the Dark Ages. He places in the fourth, fifth and sixth trumpets contemporary philosophies that
appeared during and after the beginning of the time of the end...

34
F. B. Holbrook, “Issues in the Book of Revelation,” in Ministry (January, 1991), 10. His article was reprinted in F. B.
Holbrook, ed., Symposium on Revelation (BRI, Review and Herald, 1992), 171-185.

12
 “Thus, when Stefanovic has to deal with the fifth trumpet, he does not know how to interpret its symbols,
concluding that ‘it is uncertain whether John intended every detail of this description to be interpreted,’ ibid, 304. If
we follow his proposition, we have to reach the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which open the door to the
prophetic “time of the end,” already in the fourth trumpet, to return to the Islam which appeared at the beginning of
the Middle Ages, ibid, 296-297, 306-307. Neither are we able to know when to place the sixth trumpet which,
moreover, he places at the very end of the time of the end. In addition, he forgets that the locusts represent armies,
not philosophies.”

- The symbols of the fifth and sixth trumpets

But why should we reach such a conclusion when every single symbol found in Rev 8 & 9 has a
corresponding fulfillment in history, within the historicist legacy that we received from our spiritual
ancestors? The fifth trumpet of war against Rome (in the Middle Ages) is immersed in a typical eastern
imagery of wilderness. For this reason, its application to the Islamic invasions enjoyed one of the greatest
interpretative consensuses of the second Christian millennium, especially among Protestants.
John sees a star that had fallen from heaven, which suggests an eastern origin, because stars come
from the east. The key of the abyss is given to that star, from which smoke and armies of horsemen come,
that multiply like locusts, and hurt like scorpions. Even the armor of the horsemen is clearly detailed, as
well as “something like crowns of gold” that Muslims wore on their heads. All this I detail in my books
and illustrate using PowerPoint when I give seminars.
Every page of the Koran threatens its enemies with horrible portrayals of hell. Mohammed and his
followers felt that God called them, explicitly, to cause “terror,” which is the role depicted in the fifth
trumpet against apostate Christians in particular. Their ferocity is strengthened by the teeth of a lion. The
angel of the abyss is their king, and he is called Destroyer.
Look at what secular historians said of the Muslim expansion.

“The conquests of Islam broke the political, economic, and Christian unity of the Mediterranean ...”35 “Islam
could not reconstruct the maritime economic unity that the Roman world enjoyed; what he did was to break it.”36
“As a factor in European history, the rise of Islam must be considered as a destructive force.”37

The sixth trumpet retains the basic characteristics of the former trumpet. This shows us that it has to
do with the same Islamic power which did not change its war style because it was founded, in addition, on
the same theological ideology. From the mouths of the horses whose heads resembled lions came fire,
smoke, and sulfur (Rev 9:17). This description of the sixth trumpet is a clear reference to gunpowder
which had been previously unknown, and is composed of sulfur (or brimstone), charcoal, and potassium
nitrate. The Byzantine capital fell under the fire of the Turkish cannons on April 12, 1453. Even the three
dominant colors of the Turkish horsemen’s clothing—red, blue and yellow—was foretold by the apostle
John with admirable precision. Should it amaze us, if we take into account that the colors of the great
harlot in the book of Revelation, is impressively represented in the clothing and apparel of the Roman
Catholic Church? (Rev 17:1-5).

- In the same innovative line

E. Mueller, a current vice president of the BRI, wrote a German paper on the trumpets where he
follows Paulien and Stefanovic.38 Amazingly, their view was rejected by the BRI in the 1980’s, and now
is being accepted by two of the BRI members, namely, Pfandl, who is retired, and Mueller, who
completely neglects the still existent official interpretation of the trumpets. Since no other General
Conference session rejected the view of the GC of 1883, I assume that I can continue referring to the
35 J. Pirenne, Historia Universal (Ed. Éxito, Barcelona), I, 455-456.
36
Pirenne, II, 41.
37 C. F. H. Hayes-M. W. Baldwin-Ch. W. Cole, History of Europe (The Macmillan Company, New York, 1949), 137-8.
38
Die Sieben Posaune [“The Seven Trumpets”]. I reviewed his views in 2014, on my web page:
www.adventistdistinctivemessages.com, in the section “articles,” under the title, Die Sieben Posaune (The Seven Trumpets.

13
former Protestant and Millerite interpretation as the official view of our church.
In Mueller’s paper we can again see a clear trend toward certain modern methodologies that are more
interested in literary structural motifs and imaginary parallelisms than in theology and history.39 When
idealistic or spiritualized trends are adopted as historical applications of the prophecy, rather than realistic
and concrete historical facts, the prophetic dates are subsequently made relative if not totally dismissed.
This is the case with these new propositions for the interpretation of the trumpets. They neglect the span
of time assigned by revelation to the fifth and sixth trumpets,40 and participate in the typical
spiritualization of the prophetic times accepted by the modern theological world. This denial of the
prophetic dates within a presumed historicist scheme is the most dangerous introduction of an approach
that has ended with the destruction of historicism in Protestant and Evangelical milieus, and will likewise
end by undermining the foundation of our prophetic faith.
E. Mueller presumes even that “Adventists... are convinced that the present generation lives at the
verge of Christ’s Second Coming, in the time of the sixth seal and the sixth trumpet.”41 But Adventists
have never believed this concerning the sixth trumpet, nor do they believe it even today. The sixth
trumpet is placed in the context of the altar of incense (in the holy place: Rev 9:13), and this ministry
culminated in 1844 when the door was opened to the Most Holy in connection with the seventh trumpet
(Rev 11:15-19). How then can we place the sixth trumpet after 1844 when the door to the Holy placed
was closed? After quoting Lev 16:17, E. G. White wrote:

“When Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His
ministration in the first apartment. But when the ministration in the first apartment ended, the ministration in the
second apartment began... One part of His ministration had closed, only to give place to another” (GC 428-429)..

Those who advance these new propositions no longer believe in the spatial correspondence between
the earthly and the heavenly sanctuary.42 If the door to the Most Holy is opened in 1844, then the seventh
trumpet that culminates with the assumption of the kingdom by God and the Lamb also needs to be linked
to the opening of that door, which is what our pioneers and E. G. White believed. Contrary to what
Mueller now affirms, Adventists have always believed that the beginning of the seventh trumpet began
after 1840/44. When in Rev 10 the seventh trumpet is announced, it is because the sixth trumpet is already
over (e.g. it is no longer mentioned because we are between 1840 and 1844).
Mueller's concern here is the same as that of many who try to fit the churches, seals and trumpets of
Revelation into a parallel historical framework. In the book of Daniel, the different empires were
chronologically paralleled in the different visions. Therefore some expect that in Revelation the septet
visions are likewise to correspond temporally. However, the book of Revelation does not reveal different
empires. It only deals with different events that transpire within the last empire. Although all the events
are expected to happen during the Christian dispensation, Protestants and the pioneers of our church were
more concerned in understanding the purpose of the visions than in finding presumable symmetric
parallels.
By the way, are the seven thunders and the seven plagues (Rev 10, 16), also to be placed within the
same historical framework as the seven churches, the seven seals, and the seven trumpets? And what
about the seven heads, seven mountains and seven kings in Rev 12 and 17? The fact that the first four
decisive blows against the Roman Empire climaxed during the fourth and fifth centuries doesn’t mean
that there was no prior activity. The Barbarian invasions began as far back as the first century. We should
also note that the plagues of Egypt occurred in a relatively short period of time, after four long centuries
of oppression (Gen 15:13-14). The seven plagues of Revelation will also take place in a short period at
the end of time (Rev 16). What then forbids God from representing the first four trumpets with these

39 For the problems found in the interpretation of Mueller on the trumpets, see my web page referred in n. 38.
40
A. M. Rodriguez, Issues in the interpretation of the seven trumpets of Revelation (Ministry, January 2012).
41 “A New Trend in Adventist Eschatology: A Critical Analysis of a Recent Eschatology,” in Reflections (BRI, October 2013).
42
See my analysis of the problems found in G. Pfandle on the heavenly sanctuary, at
http://adventistdistinctivemessages.com/English/Documents/Pfandlproblemsheavenlysanctuary.pdf

14
critical and decisive invasions that led to the fall of Rome in the fifth century?
Let me illustrate some of the most difficult problems facing those who associate the first trumpet with
the destruction of Jerusalem. Ekkehardt’s propositions, on page 3 of his paper, confirm that the trumpets
are a response from God to the persecution of His children. Good! But we cannot clearly see in his paper
who God restrains or how He restrains them. Did God punish His people with apostasies and
philosophies? For instance, he presumes that in the third trumpet Satan is the star which leads to the
apostasy of Christianity, with its intolerance and persecution of dissidents. Besides the fact that this kind
of spiritualized interpretation of the trumpets ruled practically the entire Middle Ages, we must ask
ourselves: is God there punishing the dissidents of the Roman antichrist, that is, the faithful remnant,
through apostates? (!!!).
We are not questioning the sincerity of Mueller who concludes that his own interpretation is just a
suggestive contribution to the discussion on the trumpets, and not necessarily the truth (pp 33-34). He
deals with his particular interpretation of prophetic matters in terms of probabilities. Therefore, we should
bid him return to the old safe paths, to the tried and true scheme which we as Seventh-day Adventists
inherited from the Protestant Reformation and the pioneers of our church (in spite of the unfortunate
deviation of other Protestant churches from this message by the Rationalistic Protestant Reformation).
There is no reason to wander about with empty rationalistic spiritualizations of Revelation when we have
a wonderful interpretive legacy that is backed by centuries of history.

Summary of the three principal problems found in these new interpretations of the trumpets

1. A neglect of the spatial correspondence between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries. This fact
hinders 21st Century innovators to see the difference between the sixth trumpet connected to the Holy
Place, and the seventh trumpet projecting the Most Holy Place. The year 1844 when the heavenly temple
opened the door to the Most Holy Place becomes, in this way, irrelevant for the dated times of the
trumpets.

2. A neglect of the prophetic dates which lead to the prominence of the Seventh-day Adventist church
with the great disappointment of 1844, revealed in Rev 10 in connection with the sounding of the seventh
trumpet.

3. An emphasis on the literary form of the visions disconnected from the purpose of the trumpets.
They start with the destruction of Jerusalem because they want to connect the seven churches and the
seven seals with the seven trumpets. But the destruction of Jerusalem took place 40 years after the year
31, and time back then was not reckoned the same way we do today, using centuries after Christ. In
addition, there are seven mountains, seven thunders, and seven plagues, which cannot be placed in the
same periods of time as the other septet visions of John. By the way, when did the plagues of Egypt affect
the Egyptians? At the end of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt for 400 years. The same happened with the
destruction of Jerusalem which took place 40 years after the crucifixion of the Lord.

Answers to questions raised over the years

Jón Steffánson prepared a Master’s Thesis at Andrews University in 2013, entitled From Clear
Fulfillment to Complex Prophecy: The History of the Adventist Interpretation of Revelation 9, from 1833
to 1957. He realized that our church never responded to several questions arising during the 20th century.
For him, this was one of the reasons for the departure of many today from our prophetic legacy. I
summarized his answers with some modifications and several additions in my book, The Apocalyptic
Times of the Sanctuary. Biblical, Historical and Astronomical Confirmation (2014). Let us briefly answer
the basic criticism on the dates related to the fifth and sixth trumpets.

15
 1) If the fifth trumpet deals with the Saracens, why look for 150 years to mark the beginning of the
second expansionist wave under the Ottoman Turks centuries later?43

Answer: The fifth trumpet mentions five months twice (Rev 9:5,10). One period of time was assigned
to the Saracens, and the other to the Turks.44 During that time, both the Saracens and the Turks were
restrained by the Byzantine Empire. In the second case, at the end of the five months, under the
submission of the last Byzantine emperor to the Turkish sultan, the Ottomans were unleashed to kill
apostate Christians, and harass the Holy Roman Empire.

2) Current historians don’t agree with Edward Gibbon who dated the battle of Bapheus in the year
1299. All agree that it took place in the year 1302. Therefore, the beginning of the 150 months and
eventually, of the 591 years 15 days, is an incorrect date.45

For those who don’t link the dates of the two trumpets, there is no problem. The second 150 years of
the fifth trumpet began with the foundation of the Ottoman Empire in the year 1299, as most Turkish
historians agree, and ends in 1449 under the submission of the Greek emperor. From the fall of
Constantinople in the year 1453 until March 21, 1844, when the Turkish sultan decreed not to kill
apostate Christians, there are 391 years.46 We could also take the year 1449 as the starting point of the
sixth trumpet, and 1840 as its terminal date.
However, a careful study of the only source available for the battle of Bapheus allows us to keep the
date given by Gibbon for that battle in the year 1299. The overwhelming evidence confirms July 27,
1299, as the correct date of that battle which Pachymeres declared to be the beginning of evils for the
Byzantine empire. Read my paper entitled, The Chronology of Events in the History of Pachymeres.
Related to the Battle of Bapheus and the Beginning of the Ottoman Empire (July 2017). By the way, the
greatest authority on the chronology of Pachymeres upon which modern historians build their theories,
reacted to my paper in the following words:

“It is true that the chronology of Pachymeres that I set about thirty years ago remains fragile, especially for book
X. I am glad to see that the subject is being discussed again and I wish for stronger conclusions to be reached” (July
18, 2017).

3) The Byzantines would have lost their independence before 1448/9 AD, with similar acts of
submission.

Answer: If the emperors were already vassals, why did the Turks continue fighting to conquer them?
No one disputes the fact that the Byzantine strength had long been decreasing while the Ottoman power
was increasing. According to Jón, the increasing weakness of the Byzantines would fit the announcement
of the prophecy which said that during those days (150 years), the people would be tormented (Rev 9:10),
and in their affliction, they would “seek death but” without finding it; “they will long to die, but death
will elude them” (Rev 9:6). In this context, we can add the striking fact that after the brutalities performed
by the crusaders in their passage through Constantinople, the Byzantines preferred to fall under the Turks
than under the papacy. The same had happened earlier with many Christians in the first Muslim expansive
wave in reference to the oppression of the Eastern Roman Empire.47
Constantine XI was the last Roman emperor to be crowned. His submission to the sultan marked the

43 W. W. Prescott raised this critique in the Conference of 1919. See Gluder Quispe, The Apocalypse in Seventh-day Adventist

Interpretation (Doctoral Thesis, Andrews University, published by Universidad Peruana Unión, 2013), 69.
44
George McCready Price, The Greatest of the Prophets: A New Commentary on the Revelation (Unpublished MS, Loma
Linda, 1951), 94-100; R. A. Anderson, Unfolding the Revelation : Evangelistic Studies for Publich Presentation (PPPA, 1953),
85-97.
45 Criticism raised in the Conference of 1919.
46
See A. R. Treiyer, The Seals and the Trumpets..., 341.
47 Ibid, 302-304.

16
end of the empire as an independent state. Those among Adventists who look for other former dates to
show the weakness of former Eastern Emperors, do not seem to realize that this is what skeptics also do
with the dates we offer for the beginning of papal supremacy. There are antecedents and consequences.
But we do not have to lose sight of the big picture comprehended in the prophecy.

4) The sultan gave authorization for Constantine XI to be crowned at the end of the year 1448 AD,
not in 1449.

Answer: This is true but does not deny the fact that the authorization came the following year and
Constantine XI was crowned then in fulfillment of that permission, on January 6, 1449. Since the
prophecy had to fall within the last prophesied year, as for the other prophetic dates of the Bible, there is
no need to discuss this point.
Stefánsson reminds us of similar examples. Artaxerxes gave authorization for the reconstruction of
Jerusalem in Spring (Ezra 7), but the decree was issued in the fall (Ezra 8), beginning the prophecy of the
70 weeks and the 2300 days of Dan 8 and 9. Justinian I issued a decree of supremacy for the papacy in the
year 533 AD which was not in force until the Ostrogoths (the third of the kingdoms that had to fall
according to the prophecy), were definitively expelled from Rome in the year 538 AD.

5) Why choose July 27, 1449 AD to begin the time of the sixth trumpet when the prophecy was
fulfilled on January 6 with Constantine XI’s coronation under the sultan’s authorization? Nothing
important happened on July 27 of that year.48
Answer: This criticism is still less valid for those who like me believe that it is not necessary to give
the “hour” a prophetic value, although we cannot deny that option either. Let me share with you the
answers given from the perspective of the 541 years and 15 days.
The prophecy of five months of years (150 years), according to what we saw, was fulfilled on January
6, 1449. Other dated prophecies like that of the 1260 days/years were fulfilled within the year, according
to Stefánsson, not necessarily on the last day of the year. In relation to the 1260 years, it would have
begun in March and ended in February.
Why do we not need to expect anything specific to happen on July 27, 1449? Because if we are going
to link the two prophecies, according to Jón, we are not required to find a fulfillment for the beginning of
the sixth trumpet, at the exact expiration day of the fifth trumpet, but only at the conclusion of the 541
years and 15 days. The specification to be added to the former prophecy, in terms of 15 days, is given in
the sixth trumpet, not in the fifth trumpet. While the separate prophecy of five months is fulfilled on
January 6 of 1449, the linked prophecies adding 541 years and 15 days would be fulfilled between July
27, 1299, and August 11, 1840.

6) There would be no reason to link the fifth and sixth trumpets into 541 years 15 days, because
both prophecies are different.
Answer: The linking of both dates suggested by Litch adds 541 years and 15 days (150 plus 391 and
15 days). Beginning on July 27, 1299, we arrive at August 11, 1840. He and Miller rightly saw that the
terminology and images of the two trumpets are similar, and thought it fitting to link them. Concerning
the historic perspective, I bring out in my three books on the trumpets how there are historians that speak
about the two waves of Muslim expansion as a similar type of war, due to the fact that they were united
by the same religious theology.
In confirmation of what Litch did, Jón Stefánsson asserts that the text seems to require the linking of
the two dates. While the fifth trumpet says that the Muslims would torture without killing, the sixth one
specifies that they would be released to kill. When the torture without killing ended, the release for killing

48 Criticism raised in the Conference of 1919.

17
would begin. Would we wonder at the union of the two prophecies when other prophecies like those of
the 2300 days/years and the 70 weeks were also linked, because the text implied it? (Dan 8-9).

5th Trumpet 6th Trumpet, sliding scale

1453

7/27/1299 to 8/11/1840 = 541 years + 15 days

150 years 391 years

5th Trumpet 6th Trumpet

1299 1449 1840 1844

The prophecy of the 70 weeks didn’t require it to be completed on an exact day equivalent to the day it
began. However, the prophecy of the 2300 days required it to be fulfilled on a Day of Atonement
equivalent to the date of its beginning. Let us consider also the fact that even the 1335 days/years of Dan
12:12 was related by the Millerites to the 2300 days/years, as we also do today.49 And both the 1290
days/years and the 1260 days/years are likewise linked in the terminal point.

2300 years of Daniel 8

70 Weeks (490 years) of Daniel 9

-457 34 DC 1844

1844
2300 years

1335 years

1290 years

1260 years

-457 508 538 1798 1843/4

Year 1335
January 1843 to January 1844 Year 2300
September 1843 to October 1844

7) The date 1453 AD would be more important than the submission of the new and last Byzantine
emperor to the Ottoman sultan, because Constantinople fell in that year.

Answer: Again, Stefánsson reminds us that the end of the Israelite submission to the Egyptians took
place on the Passover evening, not when they crossed the Red Sea under Egyptian persecution, even if the
Egyptian threat ended when the Egyptians died in the sea (Exod 12:41). Also the prophecy of 70 weeks
ended when the Jews stoned Stephen, not when they crucified the Son of God in the year 31 AD, or when

49 See A. R. Treiyer, The Apocalyptic Times of the Sanctuary. The 2300 days began in the old Jewish calendar and end on a

Day of Atonement of the same calendar. The 1335 days began in the Julian calendar and concludes in the same calendar. Both
prophecies are linked for the terminal point in the same year 1844.

18
Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 AD and the Jewish nation reached its end.

8) The sixth trumpet employs the term “year.” Why should we interpret it in terms of 360 prophetic
days? We do not do this when we read the prophecy of the millennium.

Answer: There are two different dispensations implied in these two temporal projections. One has to
do with our dispensation where princes and kingdoms are projected in symbols. The other deals with a
time in the future when the Lord will speak no more in symbols, parables, or prophecies, but face to face
(1 Cor 13:8-10,12; see John 3:12). On the other hand, the manner of specifying the temporal dimension of
the sixth trumpet requires us to interpret the one year in terms of apocalyptic days. The prophecy indicates
a sum of one day, one month, one year, that is, 391 days. In other words, the year is to be considered in
terms of 360 prophetic days, as the month is to be considered in terms of 30 prophetic days, and as the
five months of the fifth trumpet requires to be considered also in terms of 150 prophetic days.50

9) The change from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar in 1582 AD meant a correction
of ten days that the Millerites would not have taken into account.51

Answer: In the American colonies, the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752 AD, some decades
before the birth of Josiah Litch. Since the Millerites had to calculate the prophecy of the 2300 days and of
the 70 weeks, it is hard to imagine that they didn’t know about the change in the calendar. Several nations
delayed its acceptance. Turkey adopted the Gregorian calendar for tax purposes in 1917, and in 1926 they
abandoned the Muslim calendar.
In other words, the Millerites did not see a reason for including the correction of the calendar in the
prophetic calculation. No days were lacking for the years. It had to do with an adjustment of a solar
calendar. Moreover, God could have taken into account the Gregorian correction as He did with the
regular corrections of the old Hebrew calendar.
If the Millerites would have attempted to make their prophetic calculations by taking into account the
days involved in the Gregorian correction, they would have been criticized today for not knowing that the
prophecies of the Bible are not based necessarily on an astronomical year. Actually, we now have a leap
year every four years, but that correction every four years does not change the reckoning of the year.
Should the Millerites be required to add all the days of the leap years according to the astronomical data,
to date the prophecy? Would a God who can predict centuries and millenniums of history, not also know
that a change would take place in the calendar?
Other cultures had systems which also required a regular correction to the yearly reckoning. The
Babylonians and the Hebrews fixed their calendar every two or three years adding a thirteenth month. But
this fact did not change the reckoning of the prophecies which in one year could have less than 365
astronomic days, and in other years more. In order to avoid these problems God simplified the reckoning
into 360 thematic days as a basis for the prophetic calculation. For this reason, the Millerites and the
pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church did not feel that the Gregorian correction of the calendar
could affect the prophetic reckoning.

10) Nothing important happened in the year 1840.52

Answer: I believed the same until I studied history, and found that modern historians confirmed what
E. G. White had written. I include those statements in my book The Seals and the Trumpets, 339. Let us

50
For additional arguments, see A. R. Timm, “Miniature Symbolization and the Year-day Principle of Prophetic Interpretation,”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 42/1 (Spring 2004): 149-67; and “Miniature Symbolization & the Year-day Principle,” in
Ron du Preez, ed., Prophetic Principles: Crucial Exegetical, Theological, Historical & Practical Insights, Scripture Symposium,
No. 1 (Lansing, MI: Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 2007), 233-70.
51
Criticism brandished by Desmond Ford.
52 J. Paulien’s argument in a 3ABN Symposium on the Trumpets, February 18-20, 2012.

19
quote three of them in brief.

“The quadruple alliance of 1840... to protect the Ottoman empire’s integrity, also implied an unwelcome foreign
solicitude about the empire’s internal affairs. From then on, European intervention became a regular practice...”
“Externally and formally, the Ottoman empire by entering the Concert of European powers, had given up its specific
character of a Muslim state.”53
“The years 1840-1870 were indeed revolutionary in bringing Turkey and Europe into close contact and in
furnishing conditions under which Europe began to exert its influence directly.”54
“All signed the Convention for the Pacification of the Levant in 1840... In this fashion, the Ottoman Empire was
first admitted into the workings of the European state system.”55

11) The representative of the high powers of Europe could not meet with the Pasha of Egypt before
August 17, 1840, to deliver to him the European ultimatum.

E. G. White didn’t mention the Pasha of Egypt. She spoke, however, of the submission of the Ottoman
sultan to the high powers of Europe. History confirms that Abdulmecil surrendered his independence to
the high powers of Europe exactly on this day. It began a secular modernization patterned on western
practices which changed the face of his empire. The Treaty of London signed on July 15, 1840, by the
four high powers of Europe (England, Austria, Prussia, and Russia), was considered literally an
“ultimatum”, which prescribed the terms under which the Ottoman Empire had to submit if they wanted
to count on European protection from the Pasha of Egypt who was threatening to destroy it. That
agreement reached Alexandria the very day of August 11, 1840.
The Sublime Porte in Constantinople immediately supported the European ultimatum, but there was
continued resistance from the Pasha of Egypt. The newspaper London Morning Chronicle of September
5, 1840, states that “the arrival of [the envoy] Rifat Bey and Mr. Alison in the Bair-Tahir steamer from
Constantinople, on the 11th instant, with the ultimatum of the four Powers, produced a great sensation
here.” On the same day, Admiral Sir Robert Stopford ordered Captain Charles Napier to proceed to
Beirut, which was captured on August 11th.56
In commenting on the answer given by the four ambassadors to the Turkish sultan about how the
situation with the Pasha of Egypt would be solved, James White wrote:

“Have we any evidence... that Ottoman supremacy died, or was dead, that day? Read the following..., dated,
‘Constantinople, August 12th, 1840:’ ‘The manner... of applying the force, should he [the Pasha of Egypt] to comply
with these terms... is the point which still remains to be learned; nor does a note delivered yesterday by the four
ambassadors, in answer to a question put to them by the Porte, as to the plan to be adopted in such an event,
throw the least light on this subject. It simply states that provision has been made, and there is no necessity for the
Divan alarming itself about any contingency that might afterwards arise.’
“Let us now analyze this testimony. 1. The letter is dated ‘Constantinople, August 12.’ 2. ‘Yesterday,’ the 11th of
August, the Sultan applied in his own capital, to the ambassadors of our Christian nations, to know the measures
which were to be taken in reference to a circumstance vitally affecting his empire, and was only told that ‘provision
had been made,’ but he could not know what it was; and ‘that he need give himself no alarm about any contingency
that might afterwards arise!’ From that time, then, they, not he, would manage that.
“Where was the Sultan’s independence that day? GONE! Who had the supremacy of the Ottoman Empire in
their hands? The great powers. According to previous calculation, therefore, Ottoman Supremacy did depart on the
eleventh of August, into the hands of the great Christian powers of Europe.”57

12) The events of 1840 AD would be insignificant because the Ottoman Empire was already
weakening prior to that year, and it was not totally disintegrated before 1922 AD.

53
H. Sched, “The Ottoman Empire from 1774 to 1918 (Chater One,” in The Muslim World. A Historical Survey. Part IV.
Modern Times (E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1981), 14.
54
R. H. Davison, “Tanzimat,” in Encyclopaedia of Islam. New Edition (E. Brill, Leiden, 2000), X, 201.
55 Ibid, 203. See for more references The Seals and the Trumpets..., 338-9.
56
British Royal Navy, Historical Background for British Worldwide Military Actions 1800 - 1850.
57 James White, The Sounding of the Seventh Trumpets of Revelation (1859).

20
 Answer: We find here again the same problem that some have had regarding the date 1449 AD, which
could be foreshadowed within the warnings of Jesus in relation to the parables (see Matt 13:10-17). Those
who want to understand this fulfillment can read the testimonies of a number of secular historians who
bring out the importance of the ultimatum of 1840 AD in terms similar to those of E. G. White. Some
years ago I also felt uncomfortable with that date, until I read those secular historians. This fact forced me
to study the matter more carefully, and I found strong support for that.
In addition, as already seen, it is obvious that an empire does not fall at once. The gradual weakness of
the Byzantine Empire first, and then the increasing weakness of the Ottoman Empire later, each finally
reached a decisive moment. In the case of 1840 AD, the turning point was marked by the ultimatum of
submission to the higher powers of Europe that the Ottoman and Muslim authorities were forced to
accept.
The Ottoman Empire did not lose its independence before 1840 AD. In my book The Seals and the
Trumpets I provide many historic references to modern historians, even Turkish sources published in the
21th century, who confirm the importance of what happened in 1840. At that time Turkey began to give
up the characteristics of a predominantly Muslim state by the adoption of secular principles of
government, in order to be accepted within the system of the European nations. Differing from what some
of our critics believe, one century and a half after 1840, historians continue recognizing the importance of
what happened in that year, in a similar way as E. G. White did 70 years after that date.
Anyway, let us keep in mind with Jón Stefánsson that many secular historians do not see the year 538
AD as being relevant to history. In the religious world today, Christians do not see relevance in the year
1844 AD. The year 31AD means nothing for others who do not even believe in the existence of Jesus. But
for the divine purpose projected in prophecy, those three dates are supremely important.

13) Exegetically, the specification of the sixth trumpet means a point in time not a period of time.

The majority of the historicist Reformers from the 17th Century to the middle of the 19th Century
understood that the temporal reference of Rev 9:15 made application of the prophetic day for a year
principle.58 But under the influence of the Enlightenment and the subsequent rise of “biblical criticism,”
that approach was being discarded by the majority of the contemporary interpreters of Revelation. On
what basis? On no basis, because the exegetic criticism employed by those interpreters to deny a temporal
projection in Rev 9:15 lacks foundation.
Several modern versions still keep the meaning of duration in time.

“The four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a
third of men” (NKJV, YLT, RV, ASB, NASB).

Since the only word containing a definite article is “hour,” the text could be also translated, always
within a projection in span of time:

“The four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour [of judgment] were released: [even or for or that is]
a day, a month, and a year.”59

If we want to interpret the passage as a point in time, it would not have to do with a limited moment of
one hour or one day or one month or one year, but with a time that is expanded from one hour to 391
years corresponding to the entire span of time implicated in the sixth trumpet. If we feel uneasy with the
manner chosen by God to determine an extension in time (a formulation of day, month, and year), it is
because we forget that God chose a similar formulation for the 1260 days or 42 months, that is, “time,
times, and half a time.”
For practical purposes if we choose to see in the sixth trumpet an answer to “when,” it would be “in

58
See my book, The Seals and the Trumpets..., Excursus III, 239-261.
59 W. Shea, Daniel and the Judgment (Washington, 1980), 309-323.

21
the specific time of 391 days/years”. If we choose to see the text as an answer to “how long,” the
interpretation could be expressed as being “for 391 days/years.” The conclusion then can come out the
same. It is for this reason that Dr. Lee concludes that “one cannot use this text [Rev 9:15] as an argument
against the historicist method of interpretation.”60 No grammatical rule may be invoked to deny a
prophetic time implied in the prophecy of the sixth trumpet. Contrary to what some want to make us
believe, the historicist interpretation of the sixth trumpet is perfectly defensible exegetically.

14) The papacy received a deadly wound in 1798 by the secular French government. Why did the
trumpet-punishment of God against the papacy last till 1840?61

The political authority of the papacy received a mortal wound in 1798 after the atheistic French
revolution. Differing from the judgments of the trumpets which represent armies which invade from
outside the Roman territory in her different phases, the French Revolution took place within the ten tribes
that supported the papacy for more than 12 centuries. Only a tenth part of the great city (a reference to the
historical Holy Roman Empire) suffered first from the French political earthquake that convulsed Europe
expelling both the monarchy and the papacy (Rev 11:13). And the blow came, this time, from within the
Holy Roman Empire.
It is interesting to note that France didn’t sign the European treaty which submitted the Muslim empire
to the will of the European nations in 1840. On the other hand, we have the example of the destruction of
Jerusalem which in God’s patience, did not take place at the moment when the Jewish nation delivered
the Son of God to the Romans to be crucified. We find there a delay in the punishment of about 40 years.
That extends even beyond the expiration date that “cut” and “determined” (Dan 9:24) the fate of the
Jewish nation in the year 34, when the last of God’s messenger to the Jewish nation was stoned to death.
Would not God do the same for an empire such as the Ottoman, which was becoming increasingly weak,
before allowing it to be subjected to other rulers of the world?
Moreover, the expiration of the second “woe” takes place after the French Revolution and the deadly
wound to the political authority of the papacy in the year 1798. It comes even after the two witnesses
representing the Old and New Testaments are exalted (Rev 11:7-14). In fact, the vindication of the Word
of God was seen immediately after the French Revolution, by the foundation of different Biblical
Societies in the following century (GC 287), and the “great religious awakening under the proclamation
of Christ’s soon coming” (GC 354). The date given for the sixth trumpet expired, actually, in the year
1840, or 1844 if we adopt a principle of sliding scale for most of the prophetic dates.
After the specification of the conclusion of the second woe and the exaltation of God’s Word, the
seventh trumpet sounds with the opening of the Most Holy Place (Rev 11:15,19). The great
disappointment also takes place after the conclusion of the sixth trumpet which is connected to the Holy
Place (Rev 9:13). When “the hour” of judgment corresponding to that trumpet expired, the beginning of
the seventh trumpet was announced (Rev 10:7).

15) E. G. White was not a specialist in historical matters, so we should discard her endorsement of
Litch’s proposed dates.62

Answer: She never accepted correction on prophetic dates, nor on the prophecy of the sixth trumpet
which reaches to August 11, 1840. Despite attempts to discard the dates, she herself remained firm on this
point. For a careful analysis of the statements of her son on this point, with her approval, see above in this

60
Tarsee Lee wrote an article of five pages entitled “Revelation 9:15 and the Limits of Greek Syntax,” in Journal of Adventist
Theological Society (1997), 100-105. He proves there that there is no exegetical foundation to deny a prophetic period of time
indicated by this quadruple expression “hour, day, month, and year.” In a most recent study prepared in 2013, he increased his
manuscript to 19 pages. He shared his unpublished document with me, entitled, The Hour, Day, Month, and Year in Revelation
9:15. For more details, see A. R. Treiyer, The Apocalyptic Times of the Sanctuary..., 270-271.
61
I didn’t hear this question from others, but I had it in my own mind.
62 J. Paulien’s argument in a 3ABN Symposium on the Trumpets, February 18-20, 2012.

22
paper.

16) E. G. White was not actually intending to say that the sixth trumpet of Revelation had been
fulfilled. She instead was simply portraying what the Millerites believed at the time, and how the events
taking place in Turkey strengthened their faith.63

Answer: The context of her statement does not permit this conclusion. She wrote: “In the year 1840
another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest” (GC 334). In the same chapter,
she spoke about the fulfillment of the sixth seal in the year 1833, and of the fulfillment of the prophecy of
Dan 8:14. She was not simply explaining what the Millerites believed, but expressing her belief in the
prophetic fulfillment. See above for more details.

17) E. G. White’s endorsement of Josiah Litch’s interpretation concerning those dates (in the two
versions of the book The Great Controversy) has hindered the ability to expand upon different
interpretations.64

Answer: This is an implicit recognition that the rejection of the prophetic dates of the fifth and sixth
trumpets, means the rejection of the gift of prophecy. What is the current outcome of that rejection?
Interpretational chaos! Is this what we want to have in our midst to give the world the last judgment
warning? Moreover, our pioneers were right when they affirmed in the General Conference sessions of
1883, that a change on this matter would unsettle the fundamental faith of our denomination. How is it
that most of our current theologians today who deal with this prophecy don’t realize it?

18) The Adventist Church has never had an official interpretation of the trumpets.

Answer: This is what Angel M. Rodríguez implied in an article that appeared in Ministry published in
January 2012.65 But he is wrong. No person would have dared to say this some decades ago. As already
seen, from the very beginning of the Advent movement, even before Uriah Smith, the Millerite
understanding regarding the dates of the trumpets was supported consistently by that emerging Advent
movement, and endorsed by more than one General Conference session. For more documentation see
above in this paper.

Warnings about futurist inroads into our church

Various futurist inroads regarding the trumpets of Revelation appear in our church from time to time.
Attempts have also been made to give the trumpets a double fulfillment, in a mix of historicism with
futurism.66 But John is absolutely clear on the matter. The last three trumpets are projected by “woes.”
The prophet recorded:

“The first woe has passed. Behold, two woes are still to follow. (Rev 9:12). “The second woe has passed; the
third woe is coming soon” (Rev 11:14).

In other words, the trumpets are successive and are not to be repeated again in the future. When the
150 years of the fifth trumpet expires in time, the sixth one comes. When the 391 years of the sixth
trumpet concludes, the seventh one “comes soon.” Then the announcement of the third woe is given,

63
R. W. Olson, W. Shea, G. Pfandl already cited.
64 Criticism raised in the Conference of 1919. See references in G. Quispe, 69.
65
See A. R. Treiyer, A Response to Ministry magazine’s article entitled: Issues in the Interpretation of the Seven Trumpets of
Revelation (Jan 2012), in http://adventistdistinctivemessages.com/English/Documents/Ministry-trumpets.pdf
66
Erwin R. Gane, Trumpet After Trumpet (PPPA, 2012). See my review of this book in my web page,
http://adventistdistinctivemessages.com/English/Documents/Trumpetaftertrumpetgane.pdf

23
which does not contain dates.
In this context, it is useful to keep in mind the warnings of E. G. White on Apocalyptic matters which,
in the case of the three angel messages, are related to three prophetic dates given by Daniel and John,
namely, the 591 days/years of Rev 9, the 1335 days/years of Dan 12, and the 2300 days/years of Dan 8.

“There are those who are searching the Scriptures for proof that these messages are still in the future. They
gather together the truthfulness of the messages, but they fail to give them their proper place in prophetic history.
Therefore such are in danger of misleading the people in regard to locating the messages. They do not see and
understand the time of the end, or when to locate the messages” (Ms 136, 1897).
“We have a sleepless adversary, and he is constantly at work upon human minds that have not had a personal
experience in the teachings of the people of God for the past fifty years. Some will take the truth applicable to their
time, and place it in the future. Events in the train of prophecy that had their fulfillment away in the past are made
future, and thus by these theories the faith of some is undermined.
“From the light that the Lord has been pleased to give me, you are in danger of doing the same work, presenting
before others truths which have had their place and done their specific work for the time, in the history of the faith
of the people of God. You recognize these facts in Bible history as true, but apply them to the future. They have their
force still in their proper place, in the chain of events that have made us as a people what we are today, and as
such, they are to be presented to those who are in the darkness of error” (2 SM 102-3).

What E. G. White wrote and what she did not concerning the fifth and sixth trumpets

A summary of what E. G. White wrote in connection with the prophetic days of the trumpets, could be
expressed in a few sentences. We don’t have to present her historical statements before the world in order
to prove history. The methodological approach is different. We are to prove her writings by history. We
don’t have to prove scientific matters by what she wrote, but rather prove her assertions, documenting
them by science. We don’t have to prove a doctrine by what she said, but by the Bible. And this doesn’t
mean that she is wrong in her assertions, or that we need to correct her on these issues
Now let us briefly deal with E. G. White’s actual statement so that you may see for yourselves whether
or not she wrote it with the intention of confirming the prophetic fulfillment of Revelation 9. Since I have
already dealt with the details of 1840 in my three aforementioned books (where I review both the biblical
and historical perspectives in fulfillment of what E. G. White wrote), I will simply point out the core
issues involved:

1) Ellen G. White wrote: ”In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited
widespread interest” (GC 334). Notice that she speaks here of a remarkable fulfillment of prophecy, not
about a fulfillment of Josiah Litch’s prediction. Notice also that she makes reference to the year, not to a
specific date in that year.
She also says “another remarkable fulfillment.” What were the other remarkable fulfillments of
prophecy? As expected, these are also referred to in the context of that same chapter of the book Great
Controversy, and include the stellar signs of the sixth seal (especially the last one that took place in 1833)
and the fulfillment of the seventh trumpet in connection with the prophecy of the 2300 days of Dan 8 that
took place in 1844. So this begs the question, was she also depicting those other remarkable fulfillments
of prophecy as merely descriptions of what the Millerites believed without actually intending to endorse
them either, or was she instead referring to the fulfillment of prophecy in those events? No wonder that
some in our church, like Prescott in the former century, are now also neglecting these other fulfillments of
prophecy!

2) In referring to Josiah Litch’s interpretation she says: “According to his calculations” (1911), “which
was purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods of Scripture” (1888). Here she is not
necessarily endorsing everything that Josiah Litch wrote about this prophecy. Litch took the “hour” of
Rev 9 as a prophetic period of time of 15 days as some former Protestant interpreters had done in the past
(something exegetically acceptable, though perhaps not necessary), and in doing so he arrived at August
11, 1840. These were his calculations.

24
 3) “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” (GC 335).
In this second statement she is referring to the prediction of one of the different expectations of Josiah
Litch. History confirms that what happened at that time fulfilled the specific prediction referred to in her
statement, in connection of course with what was expected to take place in that year according to the sixth
trumpet.

4) A possible reading of the Great Controversy statement has been interpreted in this way:

“In the year 1840 another remarkable fulfillment of prophecy excited widespread interest... At the very time
specified (by Litch), 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.”

We cannot necessarily infer from this statement that E. G. White adopted the view of Litch on the
battle of Bapheus in July 27, 1299. She never forcibly confirmed the link between the two trumpets by
Josiah Litch. She mentioned what Josiah Litch did, but she didn’t assume everything he did. For instance,
she never said that the Ottoman Empire fell at that time. Let us take her for what she affirmed, not for
what Litch suspected.
What is it that she affirmed, on which she did not accept correction, because she was right? That
Turkey “placed herself under the control of Christian nations” in the year 1840. This is an undeniable
historical fact. What happened at the conclusion of the 150 years and the beginning of the 391 years of the
fifth and sixth trumpets? The last Byzantine emperor was crowned by placing himself under the
leadership of the Turkish Sultan (in order to be crowned, he had to wait for his authorization). Again, this
is historical fact.
“The event exactly fulfilled the prediction.” What prediction? The prediction of Josiah Litch or the
prediction of the sixth trumpet? Both. It was fulfilled in the year 1840 as “another remarkable fulfillment
of prophecy.” The fact that it took place on August 11, fulfilling Litch’s prediction concerning the date,
doesn’t change the matter. The Pasha of Egypt rebelled, but had to surrender likewise to the European
powers before the end of that same year 1840.
However, the inference that she confirmed the link of both trumpets is plausible, and seems to be
implied. This was the way her statements were understood in the history of our church. And there is
overwhelming evidence to prove the accuracy of the dates given for the events implied in the three
specific dates: July 27, 1299 – 1449 – August 11, 1840.

Conclusion

The Millerite interpretation of the dates of the fifth and sixth trumpets was adopted by the Seventh-
day Adventist Church soon after the great disappointment. It was confirmed at the General Conference
session of 1883, and reaffirmed the next year at a new session. E. G. White endorsed that interpretation in
her first edition of the book The Great Controversy (1888). Despite being advised to remove that view
from the next edition in 1911, she was still more definite to declare that the prophecy was fulfilled in the
year 1840.
It is true that she was not an authority regarding history, and she requested not to be presented to the
world as such. The task to prove what she wrote from history belongs to others, and for that, she
recommended the support of recognized historians. Some historical details and references could require
refinement and verification for accuracy. But the historical facts she brought for consideration are not to
be changed. We don’t have to mix sacred things with common or secondary matters. Concerning the
prophetic dates, she never accepted correction.

25
 Many of our brethren in the tradition of W. W. Prescott still presume that the historical facts witnessed
to by our pioneers and confirmed by E. G. White cannot be proved by history. We need to place before
them the historical evidence which overwhelming supports today what she wrote. We now have much
more information to do so. The prophecies of the fifth and sixth trumpets were fulfilled in two separate
phases, one between the years 1299 and 1449, and the other between the years 1449 and 1840 (with a
perspective inclusive of 1843 to 1844). When linked together as a single unit, which gives to the “hour” a
prophetic value, these prophecies also have an impressive fulfillment between the specific dates, July 27,
1299 and August 11, 1840.
There will not be a third Muslim expansionist wave capable of overpowering the influence of the
United Nations. The Destroyer could continue working through Islamic entities to bring affliction on the
world. But its time of dominion reached its end in 1840/44. What is coming now is a religious resurgence
where Muslims and the religious world in general will participate to form the great apocalyptic Babylon
whose head will be the Roman papacy.
In the end, the world will not pay heed to God’s historical warnings, the partial judgments He has
brought against the last oppressing empire in its pagan and papal phases (see Rev 9:20-21). The earth will
unite again in a world empire to dishonor God, making void the commandment which acknowledges Him
as Creator, and supplanting it with another which honors the bishop of Rome. God will be then justified
before the universe to send the seventh and final trumpet war which His angels will blast at the Second
Coming of Christ (Matt 24:30-31; 1 Cor 15:56; Rev 11:15-19). That last trumpet which announces the
judgment of God will be consummated with the coming of the heavenly army, which will destroy all the
kingdoms of the world, and will establish the kingdom of the Lord forever (Dan 2:44-45; Rev 19:11-19).
This is the most extraordinary moment in history to preach on the trumpets of Revelation because we
are living in the time when nations and religions are uniting without knowing the spiritual background of
that convergence. The last attempt of the devil to unite the world to dishonor the Lord, making void the
commandment which acknowledges him as Creator, and supplanting it with another which honors the
bishop of Rome, will be unmasked and finally crushed by God.
We have, moreover, an extraordinary prophetic and historical legacy in the understanding of what
those divine judgments mean. That legacy is confirmed by the Spirit of Prophecy in our midst. Is it not
time to reflect upon the warnings of the apostle Paul, when he said, “each one must be careful how he
builds upon” the foundation received? (1 Cor 3:10). Is it not time to “stand by the roads, and look, and ask
for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it”? (Jer 6:16). Therefore, “since we are
surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders” (Heb 12:1-2), and
let us give to the world the message of judgment that was entrusted to us. Let us lift the trumpet! Let us
exalt the Lord, whom the universe will crown soon as King of kings, and Lord of lords! (Rev 17:15).
We are a prophetic movement called out by God to fulfill a specific mission. The prophecies that bring
out the time and mission of our church are to be preserved. “Believe in the LORD your God, and you will
be established; believe his prophets, and you will succeed” (2 Chr 20:20). We need to be firm on these
points, even if we can be flexible in facing opposition, by emphasizing first the year, and then the day. In
order to facilitate the understanding and assimilation of the dated prophecies of the trumpets, we may start
by placing the emphasis on the year 1840, without necessarily discarding a fulfillment in 1844. From
there we can move into greater detail to demonstrate how through specific days in the year of fulfillment,
that prophecy was also fulfilled.
Let us conclude with two statements of the Spirit of Prophecy written in 1893 and 1907 respectively.

“We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and His teaching
in our past history... We are handling the mighty truths of the word of God” (General Conference Bulletin, 1893, 24;
3 SM 162). “The church is to increase in activity and to enlarge her bounds... While there have been fierce
contentions in the effort to maintain our distinctive character, yet we have as Bible Christians ever been on gaining
ground” (Letter 170, 1907; 2 SM, 396-7).

26