The “Seventh Month Movement” was a significant yet short-lived chapter in the history of the Millerite movement, which arose from the apocalyptic teachings of William Miller in the early 19th century. Following the failed prediction that Christ would return between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844, this movement emerged as a final attempt to pinpoint the Second Coming. The movement ultimately culminated in the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, leaving thousands of followers disillusioned and prompting a reassessment of their beliefs.
Historical Background
William Miller, a farmer and self-taught Bible student, predicted Christ’s return by interpreting Daniel 8:14: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Miller interpreted the 2,300 “days” as years, beginning in 457 BC with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and ending around 1843. Despite widespread enthusiasm, Christ did not return as expected by March 21, 1844. To address this failure, Miller and his followers proposed adjustments to their calculations, eventually extending the window for Christ’s return.
Amid growing uncertainty, Samuel S. Snow, a prominent Millerite preacher, introduced a new interpretation in the summer of 1844. Snow’s theory became the foundation of the Seventh Month Movement.
The Movement’s Birth
Snow’s revised interpretation focused on the Jewish ceremonial calendar, specifically the Day of Atonement. He argued that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” in Daniel 8:14 referred to the earthly sanctuary’s cleansing ritual, celebrated on the Day of Atonement in the seventh month of the Jewish calendar (Tishri 10). Snow calculated that this date would correspond to October 22, 1844, using the Karaite Jewish calendar, which he believed more accurately represented biblical reckoning.
Snow’s message, often referred to as the “seventh-month message,” spread rapidly among Millerites, reinvigorating their hope and sense of urgency. Camp meetings were held, and believers sold possessions, confessed sins, and prepared for what they believed would be the end of the world. The movement’s fervor peaked as October 22 approached, with many convinced this date was the ultimate fulfillment of prophecy.
Why It Was Born
The Seventh Month Movement arose from the Millerites’ deep need to reconcile the apparent failure of earlier predictions. The repeated disappointments had shaken their faith but not their conviction that Christ’s return was imminent. Snow’s interpretation offered a compelling new framework that seemed to provide scriptural and chronological precision. It appealed to their desire for clarity and finality after years of anticipation and public scrutiny.
Additionally, the movement was fueled by the broader context of religious revival during the Second Great Awakening. The Millerites were part of a larger evangelical culture characterized by emotional intensity, apocalyptic expectation, and a focus on personal holiness. These factors created fertile ground for the Seventh Month Movement to gain momentum.
Where They Went Wrong
The movement was built on several interpretive and theological errors that contributed to its ultimate failure:
- Misinterpretation of Daniel 8:14: The central premise that the “cleansing of the sanctuary” referred to Christ’s return was based on a flawed exegesis. The passage’s original context concerned the restoration of the earthly sanctuary, not the Second Coming and the earth being the sanctuary cleansed by fire.
- Overreliance on Typology: Snow’s use of the Jewish ceremonial calendar to set a specific date for Christ’s return was speculative. While typology can offer insights into biblical themes, it becomes problematic when used to predict exact events or dates.
- Date Setting: The repeated attempts to calculate the exact timing of Christ’s return ignored biblical warnings against date-setting. Passages like Matthew 24:36 explicitly state that no one knows the day or hour of Christ’s return.
- Emotionalism and Groupthink: The movement’s rapid spread was driven more by emotional fervor than careful theological reflection. Many followers accepted Snow’s claims uncritically, trusting the collective enthusiasm of the group.
- Neglect of Contextual History: The Seventh Month Movement divorced its interpretation of prophecy from its historical and cultural context. This led to an overly literal and anachronistic application of ancient texts to contemporary events.
The Great Diappointment
When October 22, 1844, passed without Christ’s return, the result was devastating for the Millerites. This event, known as the Great Disappointment, shattered the movement and left many followers humiliated and confused. Some abandoned their faith entirely, while others reinterpreted the prophecy to mean that a different, unseen event had occurred on that date—a reinterpretation that laid the foundation for the Seventh-day Adventist Church and their principle doctrine of the investigative judgment.
The Seventh Month Movement represents a poignant lesson in the dangers of speculative theology and the human tendency to seek certainty in uncertain times. While it was born out of sincere devotion and a longing for Christ’s return, its reliance on flawed interpretations and emotional fervor led to its downfall. The story of the movement serves as a reminder to approach Scripture with humility, caution, and a commitment to sound hermeneutics.