Problems with Doug Batchelor’s double application view of 1335 in Daniel 12


In the year 2004 Doug Batchelor made a presentation at his church mentioning a double application view for the interpretation of 1335 days of Daniel 12:11 and 12.

It is described at Youtube as follows:

“Doug Batchelor, a Seventh-day Adventist pastor, does the Sabbath School lesson at Sacramento, CA church in December, 2004. While believing in the historical application of Daniel 12 of 508AD - 1798AD etc. (as I do), he shows that the 1260 days, 1290 days, and 1335 days may very well be actual, literal days at the end of time”.

After reviewing the Ellen White statements mentioned in his powerpoint in the video and his prooftext used to kickstart him into his idea together with the trend of thinking of the pioneers as represented in The Bible Advocate 1846-1847 online downloadable, I make the following comments regarding this matter:

The double application is definitely not biblical nor present here in Daniel 12. Ellen White definitely did not support a 1335 application beyond 1843. Josiah Litch in his diagram had the 1335 at 1843 (see diagram online at right bottom).

The following critique will elaborate on specific points:


1.     None of the long periods in visions has days as days, why would this chapter suddenly have two long periods as days rather than years?

2.    The argument is preteristic and it is as if one is borrowing from preterism to solve something that one feels is vague.

3.    Batchelor made two errors in his presentation in 2004: the one is related to the double application here of utilizing historicism first and then preterism secondly. The second one is related to his application of the prooftext for his argument or ratio dicidendi from Luke 21:20.

4.    Ford used the same ratio dicidendi in his Daniel dissertation and book to argue for multiple applications of the same prophecy. The so-called “fork-tongue of Christ” approach.

5.    Luke 21:20 does not refer to the same data as Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14 because Luke 21:20 is part of a double utterance of Christ, twice repeating similar statements but from different roots: Luke 21:20 from Daniel 9:26 and Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14 from Daniel 9:27. Verse 26 is about the wings = Romans in 70-73 A.D. and verse 27 is about 538 A.D.

6.    Ford used this ratio dicidendi prooftext and ended with the apotelesmatic principle and was rejected at the conference in 1980 for the preteristic result that spur from it. Batchelor is using the same ratio dicidendi prooftext and ended with a double fusion of historicism plus preterism exegesis.

7.    The view of Batchelor is based on a misreading of a second citation from 6MR of Ellen White. It is more likely that Batchelor misunderstood the reading because if Ellen White was trying to say there is a fulfillment after 1843 more debates and discussion among the pioneers would have clarified that departure from Josiah Litches’ diagram. They are silent about it. Silence means endorsement of Litches’ diagram.



The statement that D. Batchelor was using for his powerpoint presentation is the following one that can be downloaded from the EGW estate online:

6MR 251 she said:

"One week ago, last Sabbath, we had a very interesting meeting. Brother Hewit from Dead River was there. He came with a message to the effect that the destruction of the wicked and the sleep of the dead was an abomination within a shut door that a woman Jezebel, a prophetess had brought in and he believed that I was that woman, Jezebel. We told him of some of his errors in the past, that the 1335 days were ended and numerous errors of his. It had but little effect."

Also in

1850 Manuscript Release Volume 16 page 208.(Letters and Manuscripts vol. 1). (see EGW online archives search). (5 MR 203). 6MR 251.

The commentator at the Estate said the following about the statement:

“He [Hewit] said that it was still in future…” Letters and Manuscripts 960. [undated]

Considering the statement of Ellen White on Hewit cited by Batchelor one can say the following when it comes to syntax analysis in order to see Batchelor’s misinterpretation more clearly:


Syntax of EGW:

EGW Letters and Manuscripts Vol. 1, page 960.27; also page 255.


[Archive commentator following B: that Hewit initially taught the 1335 is still future. So she was correcting that it was already ended.


Doug Batchelor Syntax

A: We told him of some of his errors in the past, he said that the 1335 days were ended and We told him numerous errors of his. It had but little effect.

A: We told him of some of his errors in the past, he said that the 1335 days were ended and numerous errors of his. It had but little effect.

A: We told him of some of his errors in the past, (a) that the 1335 days were ended and (b) numerous errors of his. It had but little effect.


Archivist Syntax

B: We told him of some of his errors in the past, We told him that the 1335 days were ended and We told him numerous errors of his. It had but little effect.

B: We told him of some of his errors in the past, We told that the 1335 days were ended and We told him numerous errors of his. It had but little effect

B: We told him (a) of some of his errors in the past, (b) that the 1335 days were ended and (c) numerous errors of his. It had but little effect.


I conclude from this statement that Ellen White said that Josiah Litch had it correct in his diagram and there is another statement to that effect where she said that the Lord showed her that none of the pegs of Litch should be moved. There will not be another time period [for the 2300 years prophecy] after 1844.

There is evidence that outsiders as well as insiders among the pioneers were constantly year by year shifting the presumably coming of the Lord’s time up and up. The source is the The Bible Advocate of 1846-1847 which is online and can be downloaded.

Evidence of shifting starting dates for the 2300 years prophecy after 1844 by surrounding scholars of the pioneers. Outside sources also said the same. The following was said by E. R. Pinney about their shifting dates in 1848”


Source: E. R. Pinney, The Purpose of God in Creating the World. Etc.Rochester, 1848.


"Now, inasmuch as the faith of the church ever has been and still is that the present dispensation must close at the end of 6000 years, and inasmuch as their own chronology, when corrected, shows the world to have attained that age, is it not time to cease scoffing at and finding fault with Adventists for proclaiming Christ's coming and the end of the world near, and unite with us in solemnly warning this doomed world to prepare for the judgment of the great day of God Almighty?" (E. R. Pinney 1848: 52).


"But the question arises, How came Mr. Miller to date the 2300 days (70 weeks) from 457 B.C.? Was it original with him? Was it his time exclusively? Certainly not. It was his only by adoption. This date was affixed to that commandment hundreds of years before Mr. Miller had an existence. The year 457 B.C. was the date assigned for the going forth of that decree by Blair, Prideaux, Ferguson, Horne, Watson, Ptolemy, and the great majority of Commentators."


"1843 passed and the Lord did not come. Immediately the cry was raised, "Mr. Miller's time has failed." But how came it all at once to be Mr. Miller's time? O consistency! Was it not the time of the church? Certainly as much as Mr. Miller's? The only difference between the Adventists and the church at large, was simply, the former were honest and confessed their faith - while the latter were dishonest, and, when the test came, denied their faith. Hence we see the reason Mr. Miller looked for Christ in 1843, was because he supposed the chronology adopted by the church in our Bibles to be correct; but the time passing, proved that chronology wrong. Then it was not Mr. Miller's time that failed, but the time of the church - the chronology placed on the margin of our Bibles failed, and Mr. Miller, and all who had confidence in it were disappointed." (E. R. Pinney, 1848: 53).


"But it may be asked, Why, then, do you still look for the coming of Christ? I answer: Because there were other chronologists equally wise and good, who had given a later date for the commencement of the 2300 years. To wit: Hengstenberg [famous Lutheran scholar and commentator in the year 1831] dated it B. C. 455, terminating A.D. 1845. Hence we looked for the end in '45. When that passed we took the chronology of Petarius and Usher, who dated it B.C. 454, ending the period in A.D. 1846. When time proved that incorrect, we then (as we were in duty bound to do) took the last and latest date given by any chronologist of any note from Christ's day to the present time, 453 B.C. Which date, if correct, brings the termination of the 2300 days this year. For it is evident, if that period began in 453 B.C., it must end in 1848 A.D. ....Therefore we look for the end this year. But, says the objector, Suppose 1848 should pass and Christ not come, will you then give up looking for his coming? Certaining not. The passing of this time cannot affect our faith in the event of Christ's coming, nor in the time that God has given for his coming; it will simply prove all human chronology wrong - the wisdom of this world a failure."

Some questions that I will need to look at in the future relates to the following aspects:

1.     What is the stop action of the tamid in verse 11?

2.    What is tamid in this verse since the temple in 31 CE lost its value and tamid was Christ and His function as Priestly Advocate on behalf of individuals on earth for salvation in the heavenly sanctuary. What on earth is “stopping” the tamid of Christ’s function in heaven?

3.    The second or last question asked by Daniel is important: what shall be the last of last? That seems to be the connection to 1335 and the blessed.

4.    Rambam understood it in the Middle Ages as the coming of the Messiah thus eschatological.

5.    What cue is there that the interpreter is going forward but then retreating back to be finally in 1843? Does the syntax supports this or the semantics of each phrase?

6.    508 is a “silent event” contrary to what the requirement for proper historicism is. 1844 was Worldwide passion. 1798 was Worldwide shock. 538 was a Worldwide change from Soldier to Theologian on his numismatics. Exodus in 1450 BCE was a Worldwide surprise. 1410 BCE with the Entry was a Worldwide scary event with mixed colonialists and squatters in Canaan fleeing. 723 BCE was a Worldwide shocking event in Israel. 568 BCE was a Worldwide shocking event in Judah. Contrary to 508 A.D.

I feel that more investigation is needed and wonder if Clovis is a satisfactory answer to the importance of 508 A.D. I expect some “wow” event that had the whole world in surprise at that time. I will have to search more into that.

From the decree to rebuild Jerusalem unto…… and the period is historicistic not literal.

From the taking away of the tamid…and the setting up of the abomination of desolation…1290 days. My expectation is that the period is historicistic and not literal as well.  

The pioneers seemed to suggest that the end of the 2300 days and end of the 1290 days fell on the same year.

Rufus Pike March 1947, The Bible Advocate The Spring of 1847 page 99.

“The other period of 1335 days is nearly equally clear”. Syntax negative or positive. Positive means “same” but negative means “incomplete”.

“However the time is made known, for the termination of both the 2300 and 1335 days within one year but before I go into an elucidation of the evidence on this subject, I would draw your attention to the subject of the special signs, which were foretold by our Lord, to precede his coming; and by which we were to know that his coming is near.”