How long will the little time of trouble last?
Yes, Ellen White called for revival and reformation. But you are aware that she also warned of “a condition of anarchy and wild uncertainty” that “will seek to pervade of all ranks of Seventh-day Adventists”? (Letter 40a, 1897).
In other words, the Seventh-day Adventist church is going to experience an uprising of internal forces that will attempt to break its system of organization and abandon the legitimate, God-ordained authority of its leadership. A spirit of independence will threaten to fragment the church into a disorderly array of autonomous movements. Will members will become wildly uncertain as to the church’s standing and authority.
Unbelief suggests that individual independence increases our impor-tance, that it is weak to yield our own ideas of what is right and proper to the verdict of the church; but to yield to such feelings and views is unsafe and will bring us into anarchy and confusion. . . Let individual judgment submit to the authority of the church.” (Testimony for the Church, vol 4, page 19).
“I know that the Lord loves His church. It is not to be disorganized or broken up into independent atoms. It is not the least consistency in this, there is not the least evidence that such a thing will be.” (The Remnant Church, p 53)
“We cannot now step off the foundation that God has established. We cannot now enter into any new organization; for this would mean apostasy from the truth.” (Selected Messages, vol. 2, page 390.)
“God has a church upon the earth, who are His chosen people, who keep His commandments. He is leading not stray off-shoots, not one here and one there, but a people.” (Review and Herald, vol. 3, p. 82)
“I am instructed to say to Seventh-day Adventists the world over, God has called us as a people to be a peculiar treasure unto Himself. He as appointed that His church on earth shall stand perfectly united in the Spirit and counsel of the Lord of hosts to the end of time” (Selected Messages, vol 2, p. 397; italics supplied).
“No advice or sanction is given in the Word of God to those who believe the third angel’s message to lead them to suppose that they can draw apart. This you may settle with yourselves forever. It is the devising of unsanctified that would encourage a state of disunion. . . .
“There must be no separating [of the faithful from the church] in this great testing time” (Selected Messages, vol. 3, p. 21; words in brackets added for contextual clarity.)
I know there is someone reading this who is worried that such quotations seem to overlook the conditional nature of God’s promises. After all, Israel was God’s chosen nation. He promised her that she would stand forever as His people, but they closed their probation and forfeited the promise. He then called out His faithful ones to form the Christian church. With time, the church became corrupt and God raised up reformers to separate and form Protestantism. Then Protestantism failed and God raised up the Adventist church to call out His true people. Certainly we should not be surprised if Adventism fails and the faithful have to separate again. The pattern is consistent throughout history. Why not now?
But listen. It is precisely here that the end- time scenario is, indeed, dif-ferent.
The cycle of
obviously must be broken before the great controversy between good and
evil can end. Ultimately, God must have a people who will triumph with the gos-pel and not fail. And He will have such a people. The divine agenda reveals that this vital transition from failure to triumph will occur with the Advent movement.
Think it through with me.
While God did call Israel to be His people and did make promises to her, He
also made it clear that her days were numbered to fulfill certain conditions. Daniel 9:24 clearly allotted a time of seventy weeks as a probationary limit for Israel. According to Daniel’s prophecy the coming of the Messiah would constitute the final test for the Jewish nation. When they rejected Christ, and persecuted His follow-ers, their probation closed and the New Testament church was born. Israel’s failure did not catch God by surprise. Prophecy made provision for that tragedy. But no such provision exists in the end-time prophetic scenario concerning the Advent movement. There is no inspired word, either in the Bible or the Spirit of Pro-phecy that foretells the failure of the Advent movement and the rising of another. According to Revelation, which is the last book of the Bible, the prophetic agenda reads like this:
That’s the whole story as it appears in prophecy. There is absolutely no indication that this scenario is conditional or that another movement beyond the remnant will arise.
The very same conclusion is clear in the earlier prophecy of the seven churches. Each successive church reveals the progressive developments and transitions that God’s people experience down through history. Ephesus introdu-ces the early apostolic church. Pergamus and Thyatira reveal the formation and fall of the papacy. Sardis brings to view the rise and fall of Protestantism. Phila-delphia present the birth of Adventism and the opening of the judgment in heav-en. Finally, Laodicea concludes the picture by describing the lukewarm condition that would paralyze Adventism. A divine diagnosis is made. A remedy is pres-cribed. And a promise of high honor is given to all who overcomes the sleepy plight of Laodicea. But no denunciation is issued.
There are only seven churches, not eight. Seven is the prophetic number for completion, which indicates that God will finish His plan within the framework of the seven churches with no need for an eighth. The cycle of rising and falling churches ends with the seventh
seventh church. Some overcome and some do not, but no new movement emerges.
Both the remnant church in Revelation 12, and the Laodicean church in Re-velation 3 are identified in the Spirit of Prophecy as symbolic representations of the organized Seventh-day Adventist Church. This being the case, logic drives us to the conclusion that the Seventh-day Adventist Church will continue as God’s recognized movement “until the end of time.” To draw any other conclusion would be to believe that God’s prophetic glance failed to see all the way down to our time and beyond. It would also require us to venture out beyond what is writ-ten in prophecy and take a blind leap into a new movement nowhere foretold in the word of God. The One who knows the end from the beginning just does not work this way. “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets” ( Amos 3:7).
Good points. Doesnt the Spirit of Prophecy also say that God's church (the worman in Revelation) will appear that its going to go down, but in the end it wont?
The 1,290 and 1,335 Days of Daniel 12
The interpretation of the 1,290 days and 1,335 days of Daniel 12: 11, 12 as 1,290 years and 1,335 years respectively can be found already among the Jewish expositors of the eighth century A.D. This interpretation, based on the year-day principle (see Num 14:34; Ezek 4:6, 7), continued to be advocated by the followers of Joachim of Floris (1130-1202), as well as by several other expositors during the pre-Reformation, the Reformation, and the subsequent Protestant tradition.1
William Miller (1782-1849), on his turn, believed (1) that both the 1,290 years and the 1,335 years had began in A.D. 508, with Clovis's victory over the Arian Visigoths, which was a
decisive step in uniting both political and ecclesiastic powers for Medieval Catholicism to be able to punish the "heretics"; (2) that the 1,290 years were fulfilled in 1798, with the imprisonment of Pope Pius VI by the French army; and (3) that the 1,335 years would extend for
45 years more, until the end of the 2300 years of Daniel 8:14 in 1843/1844.1 This interpretation was kept by early Sabbatarian Adventists,1  becoming the historical position of the Seventh-day Adventist Churchup to our own days.1 
But in more recent years some independent preachers started to propagate a "new light" on the 1,290 and 1,335 days of Daniel 12. Rejecting the traditional Adventist understanding, such individuals claim that both time-periods comprise "literal" days (and not days which represent "years") to be fulfilled still in the future. Some of them suggest that both periods will begin with the future national Sunday law; that the 1,290 "literal" days are the time-period reserved for God's people to leave the cities; and that at the end of the 1,335 "literal" days the voice of God will announce the "day and hour" of Christ's second coming.1
As interesting as this theory might be, there are at least five basic reasons which do not allow us to accept it.
1. This theory is based on a partial and biased reading of the Spirit of Prophecy.
One of the arguments used to justify the theory of the future fulfillment of the 1,290 and
1,335 days is the false claim that Ellen White regarded as erroneous the notion that the 1,335 days were already fulfilled in the past. Allusions are made to Mrs. White letter "to the Church in Bro. Hastings house," dated as November 7, 1850, in which are mentioned some problems related to Brother O. Hewit, of Dead River. In the original text of this letter appears the following statement, "We told him of some of his errors in the past, that the 1,335 days were ended and numerous errors of his."1 
Some advocates of the "new prophetic light" argue that the conjunction "that" should be understood in the above-quoted statement as bearing the meaning of "such as.'' So they are able to make the sentence say that among the errors Hewit held was the idea "that the 1335 days were ended."
If Ellen White's intention was really to correct Brother Hewit for believing that the 1,335 days were already fulfilled, then we are left with the following questions: Why did Ellen White
limit herself to correct, in 1850, in a partial and biased form, only the personal position of that brother, without any rebuke to other Adventist leaders who also believed that this prophetic period was already fulfilled in 1844?1 Why did she not reprove her own husband (James White) who stated in the Review, still in 1857, that "the 1,335 days ended with the 2,300, with
the Midnight Cry in 1844"? Why did she not reprove him for continuing to publish in the Review several articles of other authors advocating the very same idea?1  And more, how could Ellen White declare in 1891 that "there will never again be a message for the people of God that will
be based on time"1  if the fulfillment of the 1,290 and 1,335 days were still in the future?
Evidences that Ellen White believed that those prophetic periods were already fulfilled in her own days can be found also in her statements saying that Daniel was already being vindicated in his lot (see Dan 12:13) since the beginning of the time of the end.1  Thus, it seems evident that P. Gerard Damsteegt, Professor of Church History at the Theological Seminary of Andrews University, was correct when he declared that "already in 1850 E. G. White had written that 'the
1,335 days were ended,' without specifying the time of their completion."1 
2. This theory breaks the prophetic-literary parallelism of the book of Daniel.
In order to justify the alleged future fulfillment of the 1,290 and 1,335 days, the advocates of this "new prophetic light" claim without any constraint that the content of Daniel 12:5-13, where those time-periods are mentioned, is not part of the prophetic chain of Daniel 11. Yet, a more careful analysis of the literary structure of the book of Daniel does not confirm this theory.
William H. Shea explains that in the book of Daniel each prophetic period (1,260, 1,290,
1,335, and 2,300 days) appears as a calibrating appendix to the basic body of the respective prophecy to which it is related. For instance, the vision of chapter 7 is described in verses 1-14, but the time related to it appears only in verse 25. In chapter 8, the body of the vision is related in verses 1-12, but the time appears only in verse 14. In a similar way, the prophetic time-periods related to the vision of chapter 11 are only mentioned in chapter 12.1
Such parallelism confirms that the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11, 12 share the same prophetic-apocalyptic nature of "a time, two times, and half a time" of Daniel 7:25 (RSV), and of the 2,300 "evenings and mornings" of Daniel 8:14(RSV). So, if we apply the year- day principle to the prophetic periods of Daniel 7 and 8, we should also apply it to the time- periods of Daniel 12, for all these time-periods are in someway interrelated between themselves, and the description of each vision points only to a single fulfillment of the prophetic time-period related to it.
Besides this, the allusion in Daniel 12:11 (NIV) to the "daily sacrifice" and the "abomination that causes desolation" connects the 1,290 and 1,335 days not only with the content of the vision of Daniel 11 (see v. 31) but also with the 2,300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14 (see 8:13;
9:27). The very same apostate power that would establish the "abomination that causes desolation" in replacement to the "daily sacrifice" is described in Daniel 7 and 8 as the "little horn," and in Daniel 11 as the "king of the North."
Therefore, the attempt to interpret some of the prophetic periods of Daniel (70 weeks, 2,300 evenings and mornings) as days that symbolize years and others (1,260 days, 1,335 days) as
mere literal days is completely inconsistent with the prophetic-literary parallelism of the book of
3. This theory rests on a non-biblical interpretation of the Hebrew term tamid ("daily," "continuous").
The theory that both the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days begin with the future Sunday law is based on the assumption that in Daniel 12:11 the expressions "daily sacrifice" and "abomination that causes desolation" mean Sabbath and Sunday respectively. But also this assumption lacks biblical foundation.
The expression "daily sacrifice" is the translation of the Hebrew term tamid, which means "daily" or "continuous," to which was added the word "sacrifice," which does not appear in the original text of Daniel 8:13 and 12:11 . This term (tamid) is used in the Scriptures in regard not only to the daily sacrifice of the earthly sanctuary (see Exod 29:38, 42) but also to several other aspects of the continuous ministration of that sanctuary (see Exod 25:30; 27:20; 28:29, 38; 30:8;
1 Chr 16:6). In the book of Daniel the term refers obviously to the continuous priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary/temple (see Dan 8:9-14). The expression "abomination that causes desolation" implies the whole counterfeit system to that ministry, built upon the anti- biblical theories of the natural immortality of the soul, the mediation of the saints, the auricular confession, the sacrifice of the mass, etc.
We cannot agree with the theory that in Daniel 12 the "daily" represent simply the Sabbath and that the "abomination that causes desolation" represents only Sunday. To believe in this way
we would need to empty those expressions from the broad meaning attributed to them by the
biblical context in which they appear and by the overall consensus of the Scriptures.
4. This theory reflects the Jesuit futuristic interpretation of the Roman Catholic Counter- Reformation.
The defenders of the literal-futuristic interpretation of the 1,290 and 1,335 days pretend that their position is genuinely Adventist and plainly endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy. But if we analyze the subject more carefully in the light of History we will perceive that this theory actually rejects the Historicism and the year-day principle of the Protestant tradition, aligning itself openly with the literalistic Futurism of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation.
The Protestant Reformers of sixteenth century identified the "little horn" as the Papacy, from which would originate the "abomination that causes desolation" mentioned by Daniel.1 With the intention of freeing the Papacy from such accusations, the Italian Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), the most able and renown of all Jesuit polemicists, suggested that the "little horn" was a mere king and that the 1,260 and 1,335 days were only literal days to be fulfilled only in the time-period just prior to the end of the world.1  So contemporary Papacy could no longer be identified with the "little horn" or the "king of the North" and, consequently, could no longer be made responsible for the "abomination that causes desolation."
Many contemporary advocates of the futurist interpretation of the 1,290 and 1,335 days do not acknowledge the indebtedness of this theory to the Futurism of the Roman Catholic Counter- Reformation. But even so such individuals should at least recognize that "these futurist proposals rest essentially on a misunderstanding of the thought patterns of Hebrew prophecy," and that "they represent a reading of the Hebrew idiom through Western eyeglasses."1 
5. This theory disregards the warnings of the Spirit of Prophecy against the attempt of extending the fulfillment of any time-prophecy beyond 1844.
If this theory would be correct then, as soon as the Sunday law would be promulgated, we would already know in advance when probation would end and when Christ's Second Coming would take place. This is, therefore, another subtle and tricky way of setting the time for the final events. As original and creative as these attempts might seem, they are nothing else than speculative proposals that ignore and/or despise, in the name of the Spirit of Prophecy, the
proper warnings of the Spirit of Prophecy on this matter.
As early as 1850 Ellen White warned, "The Lord showed me that TIME had not been a test since 1844, and that time will never again be a test."1 Later on she added that "there will never again be a message for the people of God that will be based on time." "The Lord showed me that the message must go, and that it must not be hung on time; for time will never be a test again." "God has not revealed to us the time when this message will close, or when probation
will have an end."1  It will be only after the close of probation and shortly before the Second
Coming that God will declare to the saints "the day and hour of Jesus' coming."1  Commenting the expression "there should be time no longer" (Rev 10:6, KJV), Ellen White
stated in 1900 that "this time, which the angel declares with a solemn oath, is not the end of this world's history, neither of probationary time, but of prophetic time, which should precede the advent of our Lord. That is, the people will not have another message upon definite time. After this period of time, reaching from 1842 to 1844, there can be no definite tracing of the prophetic time."1
Being this the case, why then some professed Adventists still continue to insist on reapplying the 1,290 days and the 1,335 days of Daniel 12 to the future? Only God can judge the degree of sincerity of such people. But one thing is certain, "Faith in a lie will not have a sanctifying influence upon the life or character. No error is truth, or can be made truth by repetition, or by faith in it. . . . I may be perfectly sincere in following a wrong road, but that will not make it the right road, or bring me to the place I wished to reach."1
It is therefore evident that the theory of a future fulfillment of the 1,290 and 1,335 days (1) is based on a partial and biased reading of the Spirit of Prophecy; (2) breaks the prophetic- literary parallelism of the book of Daniel; (3) rests on a non-biblical interpretation of the Hebrew term tamid ("daily," "continuous"); (4) reflects the Jesuit futurist interpretation of the Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation; and (5) disregards the warnings of the Spirit of Prophecy against the attempt of extending the fulfillment of any time-prophecy beyond 1844.
In a time when the winds of false doctrines will be blowing with strong intensity (see Eph
4:14 ) "to deceive, if possible, even the elect" (Matt 24:24, NKJV), we will be secure only if we are grounded on the clear and unmovable Word of God. All "new lights," to be true, need to be in perfect harmony with the overall consensus of the Scriptures and of the inspired writings of Ellen White.1 The watchmen of God's people should never allow human conjectures and speculations to hinder them from giving the trumpet the right sound (see Ezek 33:1-9; 1 Cor
I think you're right regarding the day and hour being spoken AFTER the close of probation. I think you're probably right about the thief in the night statement as well.
That said, though we may not know the day or hour, I do believe we can know the season (or when its at hand). Noah most likely didn't know the day or hour, but he knew the season. If anyone was studying during that time and followed Providence and the signs, they would have been more prepared. Even understanding what Methuselah meant back then would have helped if they were 'in Christ'.
I think the Pagan wise men didn't know the day or the hour, but they were there for Christ's first coming.
I believe the same for John the Baptist and the start of Christ's ministry. He recognized the Messiah when others didn't. Plus Christ was baptized right 'on time'. Not early, not late.
But if the enemy can know his time is short, God's children cant know that its at hand?
Here's the thing, having an understanding of the season is not necessarily the message to be preached. Because we are to know the time is at hand just by watching the signs. In other words, even if Noah knew it would be 120 years, the message is still REPENT. Not really 'the world is about to change, get on the boat'. The proclamation of exactly when He is coming is done by God and God alone.
Our message is not a time setting message.
Now I can take this explanation deeper, but I feel its really only for the present truth Christians who have a deep passion and love for the service of Christ. In fact, those Christians don't even need this explanation because in time the Holy Spirit will reveal more and more to those who are serving Him. SOP says the 144,000 (whoever they are) will be 'perfectly' united. But I read some things that are really out there on this forum. So Im careful what I say here.
Jason, this post seems to be right on point... That's what I believe, 1290 and 1335 begins at the same time which is 508AD. and ending in 1798 and 1843/44 respectfully. The 1290 ends the same time as 1260. It amazing how GOD use these numbers and when understood correctly they fit right in place with facts of history in certain years. Thank you brother Jason!!
Not much longer.
i cant wait !
Most people would have heard the name Methuselah and would know that he was the oldest man presented in the Bible other than Enoch who never died. It is not as widely known that Enoch the prophet was his father or that his name was very, very prophetic. What does the name Methuselah mean? We shall soon see.
The name “Methuselah” comes from two Hebrew words one meaning “death” and the other meaning “spout.” His name has therefore been translated “When he shall die the Flood (or spouting) shall come.” The +Bible says that Methuselah lived for 969 years at a time when all the other patriarchs were living a few decades less than that. The Flood was in the 1656th year after Creation and not in the 2000th year as so many people think. All the data is in Genesis 5. No matter how you count the data you see that Methuselah died in the 1656th year, the same year as the Flood.
If you thought that the 120 years probation that God gave the antediluvian world was very long during Noah’s day then bear in mind that this son, Methuselah, born to the prophet Enoch had a name that meant that the world’s probation would last until he died – for 969 years! No wonder he lived the longest in Genesis 5! His life was the embodiment of God’s great mercy to a wicked world. However, though God is merciful, He is also just so after the warning as well as providing the Ark for all to run to safety, the rain came down and the floods came up. Only those who went into the ark
i heard this years ago!
Amen to everything you said, Man Flower. I never thought of a 'technical' 969 year probation... but that sure makes sense. Wow.
We are seeing it now, so not much to wonder about..
I don't believe we are told how much time we got left in the little time of trouble.