Days of Daniel
A popular account of the Allenby campaign by Owen Wister, The Romance of the Last Crusade – with Allenby to Jerusalem, points to the interest in the apparent fulfillment of Biblical prophecy with the conquest coming in 1917.1
First, it is necessary to point out that for the hopes of the Lord’s people comprising the true church, the interpretation of the Days of Daniel – that is the 1260, 1290, 1335 days as explained by Pastor Russell – still satisfies both mind and soul. These dates point to the time of Harvest for the Gospel Church and the presence of the Chief Reaper in 1874 AD.2 In brief, Pastor Russell’s interpretation is as follows:
The date for the establishment of civil and religious power by a false system identifies the starting point. Respecting the church, this was the date 539 AD. All the “days” begin at the same start date (this was one of Bro. William Miller’s problems).
True Church Perspective – Papal Rise, Solar Years for “Days” (Ezekiel 4:6, Numbers 14:34).
Natural House of Israel Perspective – Islam’s Rise, Lunar Years for “Days.”
The count forward from 539 AD uses solar years for prophetic “days.”
This shows the finger of prophecy pointing to the years 1799 AD, 1829 AD, and 1874 AD. However, the deliverance of the natural seed is also of prophetic importance. Here something remarkable was noted about the date of Allenby’s conquest that should be of interest to the Lord’s people since other prophecies also shows a dual application to both houses of Israel and this parallel interpretation has appeared in the Bible Student fellowship much earlier.3 For the natural house, papal Rome only briefly controlled the holy land during the short-lived success of the crusades.
The date for the establishment of civil and religious power by a false system identifies the starting point. For the natural house this is the date 622 AD. This system of reckoning begins the counting Moslem year 1 which marks the time of the Hegira when Mohammed and his followers moved from Mecca to Medinah and he assumed the role of a formidable political and military leader in addition to his role as a false religious leader.
All the “days” begin counting from the same start date. Counting moves forward from that date using the Moslem calendar which counts lunar years rather than solar years.
The year 1917 AD was year 1335 by Moslem reckoning. In rhapsodic praise, Wister quotes from Daniel’s prophecy as seeing its fulfillment in this campaign for Jerusalem:4 “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days” (Daniel 12:12).
Since Allenby’s campaign, the Moslem year 1335 being 1917 AD has been observed by a number of Biblical commenters. They have also seen significance in the Moslem year 1260 as 1844 AD, for in that year the Turkish government was forced by Great Britain to renounce an open policy of executing converts to Christianity. However, they found the fulfillment of Moslem year 1290 as 1874 AD something of a puzzle. Certainly the significance of this date will not be lost on our readers. The Gospel interpretation points to the Fall of 1874; the Natural Israel interpretation points to the Spring of 1874. This dual application of Daniel’s prophecy to both houses of Israel was put forward previously by Bro. Streeter and the emerging position of Islam in the Time of Trouble gives this topic special importance for us today.
1260 days – Rev. 12:6, “a thousand two hundred and three- score days.” Rev. 12:14, Dan. 7:25, “a time, and times, and half a time” (time = 360 days, 360 + 2 x 360 + ½ x 360 = 1260.) Rev. 11:2, 13:5, “42 months” (42 x 30 = 1260).
1290 days – Daniel 12:11
1335 days – Daniel 12:12
– Richard Doctor
(1) Wister, Owen, The Romance of the Last Crusade – with Allenby to Jerusalem, Appleton, New York (1925), pages 177-8.
(2) Russell, C.T., Thy Kingdom Come, Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 3, Study 3 (originally published 1890).
(3) Streeter, R.E., Daniel the Beloved of Jehovah, Pastoral Bible Institute, Pacific Palisades, CA (1998 ed., originally pub. 1928), page 248.
(4) Wister, op. cit.; page 178.