Graeme Bradford - More Than a Prophet

MORE THAN A PROPHET ... by Graeme Bradford FOREWORD By Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D.

MORE THAN A PROPHET ... by Graeme Bradford FOREWORD By Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D. More than a Prophet is a book that was born out of the raging controversy over the credibility of Ellen White as an inspired writer. Books, videos, and thousands of web sites are attempting to destroy the credibility of the gift of prophecy manifested in the ministry and writings of Ellen White. Surprisingly, most of the attacks against Ellen White come from former Adventists, some of whom were church pastors. Part of the problem has been the failure of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to educate its members regarding the human limitations of the gift of prophecy manifested in Bible prophets as well as Ellen White. To respond to the many attacks against Ellen White, Prof. Graeme Bradford spent twenty years of his life examining and digesting the writing of Ellen White in the light of the manifestation of the gift of prophecy in biblical prophets. By examining the human side of Bible prophets as revealed in scripture, Bradford shows that the problems they encountered, were not much different from the criticism brought against Ellen White. Prof. Bradford clearly states the objective of his book, saying: "Let me say from the outset, I write this book as one having great confidence in the prophetic gift as it has been used in the ministry of Ellen White. After reading and studying the evidence for and against her work, I emerge as a strong believer. However, I also realize that the Adventist Church has not always used this gift wisely. Despite her protests during her lifetime, after her death unrealistic expectations were placed upon her writings by those who saw her as a means to settle questions on a variety of subjects. It is imperative that the Church places her ministry where the Bible would have it placed. If this is not forthcoming then the gift that God designed to be a blessing can become counterproductive." Prof. Bradford maintains that there is a grave danger for Adventism to hold on to a 19th century eschatology and thus become irrelevant to the great issues facing the church in the 21st century. He firmly believes that a rediscovery of the real Ellen White, will lead to a rediscovery of what God intended Adventism to be. I first read the manuscript More than a Prophet about 5 years ago. This study helped me greatly to gain a balanced understanding of the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. In fact, I used some of the material in preparing the Endtime Issues Newsletter No. 88, entitled "A Plea for a balanced Understanding of Ellen White's Writings." Favorable evaluations by respected Adventist church leaders and scholars gave me reasons to believe that the manuscript would be published speedily, in view of the urgent need to restore confidence in the validity of the gift of prophecy manifested in the writings, preaching, and teachings of Ellen White. Unfortunately, the publication of the manuscript has been delayed for several years. Apparently the perception has been that the manuscript was too demanding for the average reader. Eventually the decision was made to repackage the manuscript in an abbreviated and simpler version that was published in two booklets Prophets Are Human and People Are Human: Look at What they Did to Ellen White! These two booklets, published by Signs Publishing Company in 2004 and 2006 respectively, are written in a fiction-style, with a couple asking questions about Ellen White, and a pastor giving answers which are biblical and faith affirming. Both of these 1

books are available in ABCs in Australia, New Zealand and North America. Pacific Press is the distributor for them in North America. The two booklets have a popular appeal and will serve a useful purpose. But, my experience has been that an increasing number of educated Adventists, prefer to put their teeth into a substantive study that examines questions in a more analytical way. This conviction motivated me to ask Prof. Graeme Bradford permission to publish the unabridged manuscript, as part of the Biblical Perspectives series. Bradford enthusiastically accepted my proposal and emailed me the latest edited version of the manuscript. Words fail to express my appreciation to Prof. Bradford for allowing Biblical Perspectives (my publishing venture) to publish More than a Prophet. This book is long overdue and will help greatly in restoring confidence in the prophetic gift of Ellen White. It is my conviction that this book could have prevented the departure of thousand of Adventist members, who claim to have found serious mistakes and contradictions in Ellen White's writings. This book would have helped them to understand what the Bible teaches regarding the gift of prophecy, namely, that prophets are human. There are times when they communicate a message from God, but there are also times when they speak their own mind. This was true for Bible prophets and it is also true for Ellen White. The scope of More than a Prophet extends beyond an analysis of the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. It includes also an informative discussion of the conflicts between Fundamentalists and Liberal Evangelicals in the twentieth century. According to Prof. Bradford this conflict affected the Adventist church, especially in elevating the writings of Ellen White to a higher level of authority that she never intended. What I found most informative is the analysis of the attempts made by Adventist church leaders and scholars at the 1919 Bible Conference and more recently at the 1982 Prophetic Guidance Workshop sponsored by the E. G. White Estate, to deal with prevailing misconceptions over the inspiration of Ellen White. At both meetings it was agreed to take steps to inform the church membership about the borrowing of Ellen White and her inaccuracies in the area of history, science, and theology. It was agreed that a correct understanding of her limitations, did not negate her inspiration, but would certainly affect her function and authority. Tragically, no steps were ever taken, because it was felt that Adventist members would be shaken by the new information, which was so different from what they had been taught. The result has been the deepening of the division among Adventists over the authority of Ellen White. On the one hand, there are Adventists who firmly believe in the inerrancy and verbal inspiration of all what Ellen White wrote. For them Ellen White is the final court of appeal that supersedes even the Bible. But, on the other hand, there are Adventists who have lost their confidence in the authority of her writings, and sometimes choose to leave the church. Antagonism toward Ellen White is especially evident in most European countries where the use of her writings, especially in preaching, has become a taboo. I commend Prof. Bradford for devoting many years of his life to provide answers to many challenging questions Adventists and non-Adventists are asking about the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. He is a man with both a passion for truth and a passion for people. He informed me that he plans to devote his retirement years to reclaim members who left the Adventist church, especially because of troubling questions about the inspiration of Ellen White. It is my fervent hope and prayer that More than a Prophet, the fruit of many years of painstaking research, will help many honest seekers to find honest answers to questions about Ellen White.

2

Introduction Many books have analysed the work of Ellen White. Her ministry has received careful attention from capable church historians and scholars within and outside the ranks of Adventism. So how can we justify the writing of yet another volume? My answer is twofold: First, although there have been numerous volumes in the past, to my knowledge none has tried to incorporate recent biblical scholarship in the area of the gift of prophecy. Over recent decades conservative Bible scholars have given diligent attention to the subject. Some excellent material has been produced in articles printed in scholarly journals and books. Much of this material gives fresh insights and a more meaningful appreciation of the work of Ellen White. Second, her ministry has come under attack in recent times. These attacks can appear to be damaging. Books and videos have been produced that could shake the average believer's confidence in her ministry. It is imperative that this material be given a fair evaluation and response. Some of this material is accurate, but can only be clearly understood if we have in mind a clear biblical expectation of how a prophet should function. God often used the Philistines and the Amalakites to chastise Israel; now, perhaps, He is using the same methodology to cause Adventism to come to a more realistic expectation of the ministry of Ellen White. For generations the gift has been a blessing to those who read her writings wisely. However, at times, the gift has been misused to stifle creative scholarship. In 1 Corinthians chapter 12 Paul makes the point that all God's gifts are needed to produce a healthy church body. He warns about neglecting some and making others more prominent than they deserve. Segfried Schatzmann understands Paul in the following way: "For Paul unity and diversity coincided in the shared experience of the Spirit. . . . Diversity of charismata, therefore, does not destroy the unity of the church. The opposite is true; namely, the unity of the church is contingent upon the 'proper functioning of the whole range of diverse charismata; without the diversity of the charismata there can be no unity"1 Indeed the message of 1 Corinthians 12 is one that Adventism needs to ponder if it is to produce strong healthy congregations. The question must be addressed, Has Adventism allowed this one gift to one person to overpower the many gifts God has given to others? This book is in two parts, with the first section attempting to give a biblical expectation of how a prophet should function. The second section deals with how this matches the ministry of Ellen White. This book has been 20 years in preparation. It comprises material I have shared in workshops with pastors and lay people in Australia, New Zealand, England and the United States of America. Some of it was presented in a workshop in the General Conference Pre-Ministerial Meetings in Toronto, Canada in 2000. Over the past two decades I have read and digested some excellent material produced by the White Estate. Particularly is this true of the early 1980s when my association with Robert Olsen and Ron Graybill helped me to realistically face the material produced by Walter Rea and his claims of plagiarism. Olsen and Graybill were involved in the 1982 "International Prophetic Guidance Workshop" which provided much helpful material. Unfortunately this material was never shared with the Adventist church membership at large. In this respect the 1982 meetings may be compared with the "after-meeting" of the 1919 Bible Conference where denominational leaders and teachers also shared their concerns about the wrong use being made of the gift of prophecy as found in the ministry of Ellen White. At that Conference a few spoke from first hand experience, for they had been involved in producing some of her books. Concerns were raised and valuable material shared. Unfortunately, neither the 1919 nor the 1982 material was ever shared with church membership. At times I will draw upon some of this valuable research and observations. 3

It has been my privilege to sit in classes taught by George Knight, professor of Church History at Andrews University. In those classes I had my eyes opened to how the Adventist Church had evolved, particularly after the death of Ellen White. Later I was sponsored by the Trans-Tasman Union Conference (in the South Pacific Division) to travel in the United States and gather material to further develop what I had learned in Knight's classes. Much of the historical material used in this book comes from these sources. I wish to also acknowledge the help I have received from the followings sub-committee of the South Pacific Division Biblical Research Committee. Dr. Paul Petersen [Field secretary of the SPD, Chairperson] Dr. Steve Thompson [Dean of the Faculty of Theology, Avondale College] Dr. Ray Roennfeldt [Senior Lecturer in Theology, Avondale College] Dr. Arthur Patrick [Former Curator of the White Resource Centre, Avondale College] I have also appreciated the input I have received from some who have read the original manuscript and given me valuable advice. Namely: Dr. John Paulien, Dr. George Knight, Dr. William Johnnson and Dr. Alden Thompson and Dr Barry Oliver. I want to show appreciation to Bruce Manners, Editor of the Signs Publishing Company for his help in making the original manuscript more readable. I wish also to acknowledge that the ideas expressed do not necessarily reflect the personal views of all those mentioned above. At times I have ventured into the subject in areas where I believe Adventism has yet to travel. Doing this can be perilous at times. It may be that others in the future will see more than I can see at this present time. I do not feel I have exhausted this subject. I would like to think that this book will open a door for more to be written on the subject. I hope to learn more from others myself. I write this book as one having great confidence in the prophetic gift as it has been used in the ministry of Ellen White. After reading and studying the evidence for and against her work I emerge a strong believer. I, along with so many others, have personally benefited spiritually from having read her works. Very early in my Christian life I read her book Desire of Ages. The two chapters which dealt with Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross at Calvary, transformed my Christian life. Today I can see the fruitage of her prophetic ministry in my Christian life. To me this is a powerful reason why I accept her prophetic ministry. Although I accept her authenticity; yet at the same time I also realise that the Adventist Church has not always used this gift wisely. Despite her frequent protests during her lifetime, after her death unrealistic expectations were placed upon her writings by those who saw her as a means to settle questions on a variety of subjects. It is imperative that the church place her ministry where the Bible would have it placed. If this is not forthcoming then the gift God designed to be a blessing will become counterproductive. Some will read this book with great comfort. Others will be inclined to say, "But this is not what we were taught." I encourage every reader to heed the counsel that Ellen White gave to the church: "Long-cherished opinions must not be regarded as infallible. . . . Those who sincerely desire to know the truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions are crossed. . . . We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. . . ."2 Part of the thrill of being a Christian is to learn and grow in our understanding. 4

_____________ 1 Seigfried Schatzmann, A Pauline Theology Of Charismata, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989) p. 72. [back] 2 Counsels To Writers and Editors, pp. 36-37. [back]

5

Part One: Prophets Old And New

6

Chapter One

Ellen White under attack Ellen White and her writings are under attack. Any search engine on the internet will find scores of anti-Ellen White sites. The following titles are taken directly from those types of web sites: "Plagiarism. Where did Ellen White get the material for her books? "The Great Controversy: White copied both words and pictures. "Proof that White's 'I was shown' visions were even copied. "Prophesy blunders of Ellen White: In the 1850s Mrs White said Jesus was to return in a few months. Adventists living in 1856 would be alive to see Jesus return. She would be alive when Jesus returns. Christ would return before slavery was abolished. "Mrs White saw Enoch on Jupiter or Saturn. "Mrs White said that we have animal organs in our brains and the wearing of wigs would cause insanity. "Mrs White did not practice what she preached regarding unclean foods. "Mrs White contradicts herself. Pork is a nourishing, strengthening food. Pork should never be eaten under any circumstances. "Mrs White taught the door of salvation is forever shut. "Mrs White taught some races are a mixture of man and beast. "Mrs White said her writings never contradict the Bible! She said, "There is one straight chain of truth without one heretical sentence in that which I have written." "Mrs White taught: There was only one Herod. The Tower of Babel was built before the Flood. "We have clearly shown just a few examples that prove Mrs White does not fulfil the biblical tests of a prophet. A prophet needs only one false prophecy to be disqualified. 7

"Although Seventh-day Adventism claims virtually all of EGW's writings came right from the throne, members are very selective about what portions they decide to heed. If they really went all the way with Ellen White: They wouldn't have photographs of loved ones displayed in their homes. They wouldn't ride bicycles. They wouldn't play tennis. They wouldn't play chess, checkers, or cards. They wouldn't dance. They wouldn't eat meat. They wouldn't wear wigs. They wouldn't eat cheese. They wouldn't eat ice cream. They wouldn't go bowling. They wouldn't attend movies. They wouldn't attend opera. They wouldn't eat between meals. They wouldn't wear a wedding ring. They wouldn't use black pepper. They wouldn't eat vegetables and fruit at the same meal. They wouldn't take out life insurance. They wouldn't drink tea or coffee." There are many thousands of pages on different web sites with these kinds of statements. Added to this are the many books and videos aimed specifically at Seventh-day Adventist Christians with the stated purpose of destroying faith in the integrity and calling of Ellen White. One suspects that often the objections come from former Seventh-day Adventists revolting against a legalistic upbringing by parents who may not have had an enlightened understanding of Ellen White's ministry. In the past when attempts have been made to realistically deal with some of the above material, those who have tried have received responses from members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church not unlike the following: "How much confidence can anyone have in material said to be written by God's inspired prophet to His last church if 'some of what Ellen White wrote was wrong,' and by inference, may sometimes be in conflict with the Bible. And, also, if 'some is not even her own'?" "The comment that 'some of what Ellen White wrote is wrong,' surely would not inspire anyone to overcome their apathy. Busy people don't want to spend time reading books acknowledged to be wrong. If this 'honest' admission is true, then how is anyone to know which of her writings are right and which wrong? Please supply supporting evidence to inform church members of the things known to be wrong. I was taught that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as biblical prophets, and therefore her messages were just as inspired and reliable" "The question I have is. Where is [Ellen White] wrong? I've never found it. She says that her work is either of God or the devil."3 While not all church members would react in this way, the comments reflect where a significant number are in their thinking. On the other hand when some members seriously consider this type of material it has a devastating affect upon not only their confidence in the work of Ellen White, but also in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and for some, their confidence in Christ. A few years ago I received a letter from a woman who had been shaken by some of the material presented to her. Here is part of the letter I received.

8

"Dear Pastor Bradford, "I have left the Adventist Church for good. I cannot be a participant in the deception that is going on in regard to the church doctrines and Ellen White . . . I have never heard the church talk about the problems with Ellen White's unfulfilled visions in all the time I have been in it—that's because the church doesn't give a balanced view of her. It purposefully hides from people what it believes would damage their reputation and lessen the chances of new converts. . . . My daughter was having studies for baptism when I left the church. It was the hardest decision that I think I have ever had to make. I agonized over it for months . . . I know that the church will continue to teach that Ellen White was a prophet . . . but it will not honestly and openly present all the failures with her visions. . . . There is only one reason that the church doesn't teach the full truth of Ellen White. It knows that, when armed with the full truth, people will reject her as a prophet." To many sincere people within Adventism today it is disturbing to read this letter and to the above challenging statements made about the ministry of Ellen White. And yet as you read these statements you say to yourself "Could a deceiver give us books like Desire of Ages, Steps to Christ, and Christ Object Lessons? About 100 years ago there were some in Adventism, like J. H. Kellogg and A. T. Jones, who felt that everything Ellen White wrote had to be believed and would always be the truth. They had a view of her work that could be described as very rigid. On the other hand there were some like Willie White, A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott who held to a more flexible approach to understanding her work.4 They claimed they had a more realistic expectation of her performance and, in their favour, they had worked with her in preparing her books for publication. Eventually information came to hand regarding her work that had an effect on Kellogg and Jones, and those like them. The new information did not fit into their narrow views of her work. Instead of changing their views they chose to leave Adventism. In contrast those who belonged to the Willie White, Daniels and Prescott understanding did not lose their confidence in her writings.5 Today we also have new information coming to hand regarding how Ellen White did her work. Some, as we have seen, go into a state of denial and become angry at any suggestion she could be wrong. Others find their faith is destroyed in Adventism and, often, in Christ as well. However there is a third way we want to explore in this book. That is to build upon the understanding of Willie White, A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott. It is my contention that these men had a correct understanding of how the prophetic gift should function. From their conversations at a Conference we discover that they got their ideas not so much from Scripture as from their association with Ellen White. Prescott, in particular, was surprised when she asked him for help in the preparation of some of her works. It did not fit into his expectation of how the gift should function. He was probably typical of most in his time in having these concepts. After his association with her in preparing books for publication he was forced to change his views. Today we can see from recent scholarship that the concepts they gained from associating with her were biblically sound. These concepts which we will explore if understood and accepted afford a powerful apologetic for her genuine prophetic ministry. In order to correctly evaluate her ministry we need to make an in depth study of what the biblical expectations are of a genuine prophetic messenger. This is what this book is all about. And so we will first develop an understanding of the biblical expectations of the function of the gift of prophecy, and then see how the work of Ellen White matches this expectation. Few Christians, Seventh-day Adventists among them, have given much thought to this subject. In fact, it may be that most Christians have some wrong ideas on the subject. Some readers may wonder why I feel a need to go into biblical inspiration so deeply. Those who have been confronted with what is found on the internet, in books and videos will understand immediately why I labour the point. Hopefully, by the end of this book all will understand how the points made regarding biblical inspiration do have profound bearing on how we understand and appreciate the prophetic ministry of Ellen White. 9

____________ 3 South Pacific Record, May 15, 1999, page 13. Section on Letters to the Editor where some readers are responding to a previous editorial which suggested that Ellen White may not have always got her facts correct. [back] 4 We will read of their conversations in Ch. 18, "The 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath". [back] 5 Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 4, "Ellen White and Doctrinal Conflict: Context of the 1919 Bible Conference", Bert Haloviak and Gary Land. pp. 19-34. [ back]

10

Chapter Two

Steps to understanding biblical inspiration Biblical inspiration! How do you define it? Christianity has never done so in any of its creeds. Maybe the subject is best left in the too-hard basket? We know that the ways of God are past the understanding of humans. God often puzzles us in the way He does His work—He appears to be too hard on Uzzah and too kind to David. No wonder He said through Isaiah, "'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,' declares the Lord. 'As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts'" (Isaiah 55:8-9 NIV). As we consider the topic of inspiration it may be necessary to lay aside ideas we have of how we think God ought to have acted and go to the Bible to see how He did inspire the Bible. In other words, to let the Bible speak for itself on this subject. For some this may be an unsettling experience. We like to have things all neatly packaged and in order. However, we cannot always do that with God and the things of God. Take the universe for example. It is far more living and dynamic than we had ever imagined. There are galaxies that appear to dance and swap partners. Some appear to explode. Some planets have an atmosphere so thin that a cupful of air from earth could be spread over several square kilometers to give an equivalent density. There are some white dwarfs where all nuclear fuel has been burned up, where one teaspoon full of matter would weigh more than several elephants. Why is it like this? Maybe God loves variety. Perhaps He is like my wife in her garden who knows and delights in every plant. Maybe He loves the great explosions. If nature tells us anything about God's character it tells us that He is a living, dynamic God. He loves diversity. He is an exciting Person. Life in heaven will not be boring. We will always be learning more about God and His ways, and marveling. Meanwhile He puzzles us. Why does He not come down and appear as He did at Mount Sinai again? Why does He not make the earth tremble and the mountains quake? Why do we not hear His voice as people did long ago? If only He would come to us and let us know He is around. It would help us to be certain He is there. It would silence the skeptics and confirm the faith of the believers. Could it be that God gives sufficient evidence to believe; but never removes all cause for doubt? Could it be that God has so weighed the evidence that the honest in heart will know He is there; but those who do not want to believe will find hooks on which to hang their doubts? Let us face it, different people can look at the same evidence regarding Christianity and some believe while others doubt and remain sceptical.6 Both belief and disbelief alike can come about as a result of a disposition within the person. Finding God is not so much an intellectual pursuit as it is a heart experience. God says, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).7 God respects human freedom. This is in harmony with the Great Controversy theme well known and understood by Seventh-day Adventists. The light that God gives us is clear enough to guide the honest in heart; but not so blinding as to take away our power of choice. There was a time when God did come and appear in a dramatic way—at Sinai. His voice roared, the lightning flashed and the thunder rolled around the mountain. The effect upon Israel was to overwhelm them. They responded to Moses with the words, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die" (Exodus 20:19). The trouble was that their hearts were not changed. The evidence was so powerful that they responded more from fear than anything else. As a result their obedience to God did not last long. Even while Moses was on the mountain, they worshipped the golden calf.

11

Sufficient evidence for inspiration As with the existence of God, so it is with the inspiration of the Bible. God gives sufficient evidence to believe but never removes all cause for doubt. There is strong evidence that the Bible comes from God in such things as: Prophecy—the ability of the Bible to be able to predict events before they happen. The unity of content of the Bible—with 40 different writers contributing over 1500 years, the harmony of content is miraculous. The survival of the Bible—this book has been banned and burned so many times and yet it remains the bestpreserved book coming to us from the ancient world. These evidences remove some of the intellectual objections and help prepare a person to take the promises of the Bible and experience God. In the end, though, God is not a mathematical formula that can be analysed and explained. He is a person. We can take the promises of the Bible and act upon them to find God. Christianity is a love affair. When two people fall in love they spend time together and get to know each other. As they get to know each other they develop a trust, and love becomes the centre of their experience. But the most powerful evidence that the Bible comes from God is given to us by the Holy Spirit. Paul states this point with the following words: "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory." (Ephesians 1:13-14). With these words Paul takes us to the centre of Christian assurance. This comes from surrendering our lives and allowing the Holy Spirit to work in us and give us new lives. Always we are accepted on the basis of what Christ has done for us8, never on what He has done in us through His Spirit. However, as we look away from ourselves to Christ's death on our behalf we can also find within ourselves a new creation.9 God implants new motives and desires. If we have had this experience we will know it. We will also know that God is with us and that the Bible promises do work when put to the test of experience. So the believer can have powerful evidence that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. Yet despite all this evidence, there are things in the Bible which puzzle us. Such things as: The brutality of the Israelites towards the Canaanites. They did this at the command of God.10 And the imprecatory psalms. Some of the psalmists ask God to do terrible things to their enemies. Many times as Christians we have to say we do not understand what is going on in certain Bible passages; however, we do not throw away our faith. We still have sufficient evidence to believe. If we need to have an answer to every question we will never have room to believe. Often we will just have to say, "Well I can't answer that question; however I still believe." This is not wrong. It is how most Christians have had to live for two thousand years. Future research may supply some answers, but people live and die not knowing all the answers; yet still believe. God could have made the evidence for the Bible more compelling. He could have given us the Bible without any room for questioning. Instead He gave us sufficient evidence to believe without removing all cause for doubt. The honest in heart will have enough to carry their faith. The honest in heart will not let some isolated point rob them of their faith. Understanding this is crucial when we look at inspiration and how it works. There will be times when we will simply have to admit we cannot explain a point perfectly. This will be true of both the Bible and Ellen White. It is important to realise that we do not have to have an answer to every question in order to believe. 12

Defining the terms To begin we need to define some of the terms used. People often argue over semantics without knowing that they are arguing because they have failed to define their terms sufficiently. There are four terms we need to define. 1. Revelation Revelation is the content of what God is revealing. Prophets at times have concepts revealed to them by God's Spirit—a revelation. The objective of God's revelation to us is that we might come to know Him and enter into a relationship with Him. This revelation can be seen as progressive. God spoke in many different ways in Old Testament times through prophets and gave His greatest revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3). 2. Inspiration This involves the methods God uses to give the revelation, record it and preserve it for His people. For example, it may be a vision or a dream that is given orally or written out. Revelation is a vertical action while inspiration is a horizontal action. However, it is possible to have inspiration without special revelation, as seen in 1 Kings 11:41 when the writer tells us where to go for the rest of the story of Solomon—the "book of the annals of Solomon." Inspiration can be Spirit-guided research with the inspired writer guided by the Spirit in writing from their own experience, or what has been revealed to them by others. It is possible to have revelation without inspiration because what was revealed was not written down and preserved for others to benefit. An example of this is found in John 21:25 where John states that not all Jesus did and said has been written down. 3. Illumination When a person studies what has been recorded by a prophet, and the Holy Spirit gives understanding of what is written, this process is illumination. Few can claim that God has given them a revelation by inspiration, but we can claim that God will help us to understand what is written in the Bible by illumination. Jesus gave us the promise "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth . . ." (John 16:13). 4. Authority God is the ultimate authority in all matters. He is the Creator and Sustainer of us all. As such He is able to declare to us right practice and belief. He has delegated this authority to be shared with us through the Bible. Thus we might say that the Bible carries the same authority as if God were speaking to us directly. Peter describes our four points with the following words: "Above all, you must understand [illumination] that no prophecy of the Scripture [revelation] came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit [inspiration]" (2 Peter 1:20-21). Therefore, he says, the writings of the prophets are authoritative for us as Christians. The meaning of the words "carried along" are associated with the idea of wind in the sail of a boat. As the writers of the Bible received revelations from God they were carried along by the Holy Spirit in such a manner that the ideas they wrote out were recorded in a trustworthy and reliable manner. At the same time we know that God respects human freedom. He did not obliterate the personality of the writer or take him entirely out of his cultural background. The Bible is God's Word in human language. Paul, in commenting on the light he received from God, said, "We have this treasure in jars of clay. . . ." (2 Corinthians 4:7). In other words God has chosen to give His revelations to humans who are like clay vessels. Humanity is prone to err and misunderstand; however God does not work apart from humanity. 13

A mixture of the human and the divine This calls for a balanced view of the inspiration of the Bible. It is God's words in human language. Just as Jesus is the Living Word of God and as such He is truly God and Man, so the Bible is the written Word of God. It is God's Word in human language. The Bible is both human and divine. Churches go wrong when they fail to maintain a balance in this subject. Some churches go too far toward the humanity side of the Bible and tend to leave God out of the picture. These are the more liberal churches. They water down the miracles of the Bible and rob the Bible of the presence of God in its authorship. Other churches go too far toward the divinity of the Bible. These are the more fundamentalist types of churches that virtually ignore some obviously human elements of the Bible. Perhaps the most concise and balanced expression is found in Ellen White's description: "The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. "It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."11 There are many reasons why I accept the inspiration of Ellen White, but one powerful reason is her view on inspiration. And her ideas were not the prevailing views among her contemporaries. In reading her writings regarding her own inspiration you find a harmony with what is found in Scripture. The Bible may be likened to an intellectual man stooping over to talk to his young son in a language his son can understand. God talks to us in our language. How else can we understand? He meets us where we are to reveal Himself to us. Another way of illustrating this point can be made by taking a torch and shining the light through a piece of blue colored glass. The light comes as pure white yet on the other side of the glass comes out with a bluish tinge. So the Bible is both human and divine. The human side is found in the language the Bible writers use. Some writers, such as John, have very rough or elementary Greek expressions. Others, such as Paul, have more cultured expressions. Anyone who has worked with the original languages of the Bible is fully aware of the differences of style used by the writers in harmony with their cultural background. It is obvious that God does not obliterate the human element in the giving of His messages. If He had so chosen, He could have used a twelve-year-old schoolboy to write the whole Bible. If He had, the Bible would have been distant and remote from us. Instead, as we read the Bible, the Word comes especially close to us through fellow humans. God has met us where we are. For example who cannot identify with Paul when he cries out, "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. . . . What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? . . . Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 7: 4, 15, 24; 8:1). There is abundant evidence to demonstrate the presence of humanity alongside divinity in the Bible. Take, for example, Paul's forgetfulness. "I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanus; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) (1 Corinthians 1:14-16). The strong words he uses to describe the Cretans are a good example of what Ellen White means when she says that some people, when reading the Bible, will remark that such an expression does not sound like God speaking. "Even one of their own prophets 14

has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply. . . ." (Titus 1:12-13).12 Because of human expressions such as these we have grounds for concluding that although God gave thoughts to the writers, they were given the freedom to express the ideas in harmony with their cultural background. Put another way, God gave ideas and made sure the revelation was recorded in a reliable manner, but the words were chosen by the writers in harmony with their culture. ____________ 6 An example of this is found in Acts 17:16-34. Paul presented the claims of Christ only to be met with cynicism from some and belief from others. [back] 7 All Bible quotations are taken from the NIV unless otherwise stated. [back] 8 Ephesians 2: 8-9 states this clearly with the following words "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." [back] 9 2 Corinthians 5:17. "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation, the old has gone, the new has come!" [back] 10 Joshua 6:21. "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." [back] 11 1SM, p. 21. [back] 12 In this statement Paul is quoting from the Cretan Epimenides who wrote six centuries before Christ wrote: "The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!" See 6SDABC, p. 354. [back]

15

Chapter Three

God speaks in various ways It is important to lay aside ideas of how God ought to have worked, and go to the Bible to draw the information. We will examine the question "How did biblical writers get the information they conveyed in their writings?" The answer is from many diverse sources. Visions and dreams In Numbers 12:6 God promises to speak to His people through visions and dreams to prophets. After receiving the message by vision, the prophet had to express the ideas as best they could using language they were familiar with. Notice how John attempts to describe the creatures portrayed under the fifth trumpet: "The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lion's teeth" (Revelation 9:7-8, emphasis added). God meets people and prophets where they are in their culture, and uses images they are familiar with. For example, Nebuchadnezzar sees the nations as part of an image of a man resembling precious metals. Daniel sees the same nations as beasts of prey (Daniel 2 compared with Daniel 7). Pharoah sees the Nile river, cows and stalks (Genesis 41:1-5). God dictates the words At times prophets such as Jeremiah, were to speak the words that God put into their mouths (Jeremiah 1:9, 2:1). At other times God dictated words for the prophet to write (Jeremiah 36:14, 32). Through the natural senses as guided by the Holy Spirit In one of his epistles, John tells us how he gained the knowledge he is sharing with us. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life" (1 John 1:1, emphasis added). Here John tells us he did not get his message or revelation by a vision or dream, but through personal contact with Christ. What he had seen, heard and touched is the source of his message. Yet in receiving the message and recording it he is still guided by the Holy Spirit. By studying the writings of others Perhaps the clearest statement made on this point is by Luke in his gospel introduction. "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the 16

word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilis, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4, emphasis added). Here Luke tells how he studied the account written up by eyewitnesses to the life of Christ and put it down in an orderly manner. Luke is sometimes referred to as "The Divine Historian." It is doubtful if he ever had a vision or dream. Scholars often refer to Matthew, Mark and Luke as the Synoptic gospels because much of each gospel has parallels in the other gospels.13 Only John's gospel stands out because of it's original material.14 So it would seem that consulting the writings of others is part of how we received the story of Jesus. Scholars have varying ideas of who was the original source for so much of Matthew, and Luke's gospels. Some say they all had access to a source they call the "Q document." Others say that Mark's gospel15 was the original source for the others. Whatever the truth, it is clear that there has been a significant amount of borrowing done by some of the writers of the gospels. Borrowing by Bible writers Of the New Testament writers only Paul and John are known to have had visions. But even Paul still felt the need to refer to the writings of others (2 Timothy 4:13). And it is worth noting that some of the studying and borrowing by biblical writers was from the writings of secular writers. Paul's quotations from pagan scholars are well known. A few examples are: Epimenedes is quoted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live and move and have our being."16 Aratus is quoted when Paul states in Acts 17:28, "For we are also his offspring"17 The Greek poet Menander is quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:33, "Evil communications corrupt good manners." On this occasion Paul gives no indication that this is a quote.18 Even some of the statements made by Christ have a familiar sound to some statements previously made by Jewish rabbis. For example, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof."19 This sounds much like the golden rule found in Matthew 7:12 yet it was said by Hillel a famous Jewish teacher long before Jesus said it.20 Ellen White's comments on this point are also quite significant: "Some of the truths that Christ spoke were familiar to the people. They had heard them from the lips of priests and rulers, and from men of thought; but for all that, they were distinctively the thoughts of Christ. He had given them to men in trust, to be communicated to the world. . . . The work of Christ was to take the truth of which the people were in want, separate it from error, and present it free from the superstitions of the world, that the people might accept it on its own intrinsic and eternal merit."21 One of the puzzles of the New Testament is that it, at times, quotes the Pseudepigrapha with some measure of authority and even as information coming from Scripture. The Pseudepigrapha is a collection of Jewish writings dating from the first and second centuries BC. The name is given to this collection because the names claimed for the authors are not genuine. They sought to have their ideas accepted by taking the names of famous ancient personalities such as Esdras (Ezra), Enoch and Solomon. It is possible that some of the details given in these books could have originated from ancient traditions. 17

Anne Punton summarises the situation in this way: "Paul referred to a verse about the heart of man being unable to conceive what God has planned for those who love him (1 Corinthians 2:9), might be from a composition entitled the Apocalypse of Elijah. . . . Further allusions to matters not known from other Scriptures are how the famine in Elijah's day lasted for three and a half years; (James 5:17) the mysterious role of the angels in the giving of the Law; (Galatians 3:19) and the spiritual rock which accompanied the Children of Israel in the wilderness; (1 Corinthians 10:4) Jewish tradition claims that the rock struck by Moses followed them thereafter and provided water for as long as they needed it. We learn the names of the Egyptian magicians, Jannes and Jambres, who opposed Moses; (2 Timothy 3:8) the way in which some of the Old Testament martyrs died; (Hebrews 11:37) and how Lot deplored the evil of the people amongst whom he lived (2 Peter 2:7). Jude is very interesting in this respect. When he tells us about a controversy between the archangel Michael and Satan over Moses' body, he is probably quoting from a work called The Assumption of Moses. When he compares the false teachers of his day to 'shooting stars bound for an eternity of black darkness', he had the Book of Enoch in mind. There, stars stand for angels, in this case fallen angels. He then mentions a prophecy about the end of the world and coming judgment which was attributed to Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam."22 As Punton has noted, Jude, when describing the coming of Christ, in verses 14-15, appears to take his description straight out of 1 Enoch 1:9—the description appears word for word. It has long puzzled scholars how Jude can use the words of 1 Enoch written about 100 B C and ascribe them to Enoch the seventh from Adam.23 Even John the Revelator, when describing his visions, seems to borrow imagery from 1 Enoch.24 It is unlikely he had a copy of the book with him on Patmos, but it could be that when he tried to describe what he saw, the images of 1 Enoch were etched into his mind and are used either consciously or unconsciously. It is estimated that he used more than 50 allusions to 1 Enoch.25 How much of the Bible would we abandon if we deleted all the allusions to pagan literature? Gerald Wheeler gives us some indication: "Figures of speech in the Song of Solomon show similarities to the religious literature of ancient Sumer, a civilization in existence three thousand years before Christ. . . . Shall we abandon the Book of Proverbs because in places it follows the literary pattern of Egyptian and other ancient near eastern wisdom tradition, on occasion almost word for word? Must we cut the Psalter out of our Bibles because many of the psalms draw from imagery also used in Canaanite Baal hymns?26 Many more examples could be given, in Ecclesiastes 12:9, the writer seems to suggest a search to find many proverbs to use in his writings. M. E. Boring summarises the sources of content of prophetic messengers with the following observations: "The prophet presents all that he utters as a prophet as the immediately inspired present address of the deity to his community. This message may well include material taken from tradition and the prophet's own reflection, consciously or unconsciously, with or without re-interpretation, but it is not presented as material which a past authority once said, but as what the deity now says. The same material may be presented by the non-inspired teacher or 18

preacher, but with the formal and functional difference that this claim to immediate inspiration is not made."27 God uses many diverse ways to convey His revelations to His prophets. Sometimes it is by vision—a supernatural event. Often it is as the prophet consults the works of others, or in observing events. It seems there is an economy of miracles at work in the way God reveals His will. He never does supernaturally what is possible by natural means. Regardless of the methods used, God still oversees the end product to make sure it conveys in a reliable manner the message He wishes His people to receive. ____________ 13 It is estimated that more than 90% of the Gospel of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke. The writers of Kings and Chronicles also use materials from royal archives, prophetic records, and genealogical lists. [back] 14 An excellent work showing the importance of this fact is found in Luke a Plagiarist? By George Rice, (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1983). [back] 15 It is frequently contended that Mark received his material from Peter. [back] 16 See 6SDABC, p. 354. [back] 17 Ibid., p.354. [back] 18 Ibid., p 808. [back] 19 See 5SDABC, p. 356. [back] 20 For more examples see Tim Crosby, "Does inspired mean original?" Ministry, February, 1986, pp. 4-7. [back] 21 Ellen White, Review and Herald, January 7 1890, reprinted Review and Herald, June 2, 1983, p. 7. [back] 22 Anne Punton, The World Jesus Knew, (London, England: Monarch Books, 2000). p. 218. [back] 23 See 7SDABC, p.708. [back] 24 See 5SDABC, p. 88 which states that there is general agreement that 1 Enoch was in circulation by at least the middle of the 1st century B.C. [back] 25 For more details see the articles on 1 Enoch by J. H. Charlesworth in New Testament Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 315-369. Also The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament In English, Vol. 2, Edited in conjunction with many scholars by R. H. Charles, DD., (Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1913), p. 189. [back] 19

26 Gerald Wheeler, "God speaks with a human accent," Adventist Review, July 14, 1983. p. 5. [back] 27 M. E. Boring, What Are We Looking For? Toward a Definition of the Term Christian Prophet, S.B.L. Seminar Papers, Missoula, 1973, p. 149, as quoted in Forbes, p. 273. [back].

20

Chapter Four

Literary assistance for inspired writers Many Bible writers had help in putting their literary works together. For example, the book of Romans plainly says, "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord" (Romans 16:22). Yet the letter begins with a greeting from Paul. Who then is Tertius? Obviously he is Paul's scribe or secretary. At the end of the letter Paul sends greetings to his friends in Rome. Tertius adds his greetings as well. Leon Morris, when commenting on Paul's literary style, makes the following observations: "This complex background complicates our study of Paul's writings. So does the apostle's literary style. He rushes on, often leaving out words he expected his readers to supply (and which they hope they are supplying correctly!). He is an original thinker, sometimes struggling with language to say things that no one had said before."28 Morris accepts the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles even though other scholars argue against it on the basis of the differences in style and expression coming from within the epistles. Morris says the same scholars would accept that Paul could have written some parts because there is evidence for similar style within the epistles to the writing of Paul. In his footnote he gives his reason for accepting the full Pauline authorship for the epistles while explaining the apparent difference in style within the letters. "Donald J. Selby thinks that as time went on Paul probably 'tended to allow his amanuenses [secretaries or literary assistants], who were also his fellow workers and traveling companions, more and more freedom in composing the letters.' Their involvement in the work and their increasing familiarity with what Paul taught 'would make such sharing in the composition of the letters not only feasible but inevitable.' . . . E. Earle Ellis points to the importance of the work of amanuenses and also of the inclusion of 'pre-formed pieces—hymns, biblical expositions and other literary forms that are self contained and that differ from the language, style and theological expression elsewhere in the same and in other letters' he thinks that 'any conclusions about the authorship of the letters on the basis of their language, style and theological idiom are questionable at best.'"29 These scholars, who are held in high repute, suggest that the differences of style within the epistles could well mean that Paul's literary assistants were responsible for some of the content. No doubt they were under Paul's supervision. Some scholars see a difference in style between 1st and 2nd Peter,30 the gospel of John and Revelation31 as evidence of the apostles working with literary assistance. Probably we will never know the full extent literary helpers played in putting together the books of the Bible. We do however, get some glimpses by passing comments such as found in the writings of Jeremiah. 1:1-4 reads like a publisher's introduction. 36:4-6 tells us he dictated his message from God to Baruch who wrote the words on a scroll. Baruch also represented Jeremiah at the temple when he read the words to the people. 43:3 Baruch is accused of having undue influence over Jeremiah. 51:64 seems to state that this now is the end of what Jeremiah had written. This being the case readers may well ponder the source of chapter 52. A careful reading of chapter 52 will show that the chapter has been taken out of 2 Kings 24:18 to 25:30 to show the fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecies after his death. Perhaps it was put in by those we may well entitle "The Jeremiah Estate."

21

The Hebrew prophets used poetry of thought rather than words rhyming. Some of it, (the psalms, for instance) was put to music so that the people could retain it better. It would be incredible to imagine the prophets speaking in such polished poetry, and that they did not get some literary help in doing this. It is also highly unlikely that Job and his friends could speak and argue with such literary skill without some editing help. The full extent of literary editing given to Old Testament writings will never be fully known. However, the few glimpses we can see give us a strong indication that literary help did, at times, take place._________ 28 Leon Morris, New Testament Theology, (Academie Books, Zondervan, 1990), p. 21. [back] 29 Ibid., fn. William Barclay also adds further thoughts with the following: "Paul's secretary or secretaries were apparently allowed considerable freedom in their work. The pastoral epistles, e.g., use a vocabulary which is quite different from Paul's other letters. There are 902 different words used in the three pastoral epistles. Of these 306 do not occur in any other Pauline letter. There are 112 different particles or enclitics (untranslatable words) in the other Pauline letters, but not even one in the pastorals." William Barclay, The Pastoral Epistles, p. 11. [back] 30 Michael Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude, p. 16. "The Greek of 1 Peter is polished, cultured, dignified; it is among the best in the New Testament. The Greek of 2 Peter is grandiose; it is rather like baroque art." [back] 31 "The vocabulary and literary style of the Revelation are strikingly different from those of the Gospel According to John. The former exhibits an unusual degree of liberty with the ordinary standards of Greek diction and syntax, whereas the language of the Gospel conforms to good Greek usage." SDA Bible Dictionary, p. 938 "It is not difficult to account for the linguistic and literary differences that exist between the Revelation, written probably when John was alone on Patmos, and the Gospel, written with the help of one or more fellow believers at Ephesus." 7SDABC, p. 720. [back]

22

Chapter Five

The problem of differences in the Bible When Paul wrote to Timothy he was most anxious to instruct the young man to show respect for the Scriptures. In doing so he makes perhaps the strongest and clearest statement to be found on the function and purpose of the Scriptures. "From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Notice the following claims that the Scriptures: Help us find Jesus for salvation. Are reliable for teaching doctrines. Are reliable in teaching us how to live. From this we would conclude that the Bible is trustworthy and reliable to fulfil the purposes that God intended. It is perfect for the purposes listed above. All who follow the biblical teachings will find Jesus, correct teachings on doctrine and principles on how to live the Christian life. There is a danger that we may impose upon the Bible our own set of expectations—expectations the Bible does not claim for itself. In the Bible are to be found differences in details that seem to put some parts of the Bible at odds with other parts. Over the years discerning readers of the Bible have noticed these differences. The following are a few examples: After Christ's resurrection Matthew and Mark say that one angel appeared at the tomb of Christ. On the other hand Luke and John say there were two. Regarding Christ's healing of the demoniac in the area of the Gerasenes, Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 say He healed one. Matthew 8:28 says He healed two demoniacs. How far had the disciples rowed when they saw Jesus coming to them on the water (John 6:19)? Did the Holy Spirit not know exactly how far? Why was this exact distance not imparted to John? When Jesus sent the twelve to the villages, Mark 6:8 records He told them to take nothing for the journey— except a staff. Matthew 10:10 tells them to take no staff. When reading John's gospel, where do the words of John finish and the words of Jesus take over? For example, did Jesus or John say the famous words of John 3:16?32 Who has the correct chronology for the life of Christ? There are differences within the gospels themselves. For example Matthew, Mark and Luke put the cleansing of the temple at the close of Christ's ministry; while John puts it in early and states the resurrection of Lazarus as the reason for the death plot against Jesus.33 Numerous examples of chronological differences between the gospels can be added to the few listed.34 What do we do with these differences? Many books written against the inspiration of the Bible list the differences between the gospel stories as some writers attempt to use these discrepancies to show that the Bible is full of mistakes and cannot be trusted. Those with a mature better understanding of the purposes of Scripture—as stated by Paul to Timothy—respond by stating, "These differences are not central to the message of the Bible." The differences do not affect the teachings of the Bible. John tells us why he wrote his gospel (and it is true of the rest of the Bible as well): "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). None of these differences affect our believing in Jesus and finding life in His name. John had more in mind than just reporting the facts; he aimed to change the lives of his readers. We err when we try to impose our Western ideas of logic upon a book written with an Eastern-mindset. In the culture of Bible times, it did not matter to them if the details of a story did not fit exactly so long as the essential 23

ideas were preserved.35 Everett Harrison says, "The scientific age in which we live has put a premium upon precise accuracy. Must we impose our standard on an ancient book? We think we know what truth is. The chances are we are thinking in Hellenistic terms, identifying truth with what corresponds to reality. But the writers of the Scripture were not as greatly influenced by this conception of truth as by the Hebrew conception which identifies as truth what corresponds with the nature and purpose of God. . . . If the gospel writers had been interested in presenting records which would meet the test of verbal agreement, they would certainly have labored to harmonize their accounts. There is nothing superficial or flippant about these accounts. Clearly they were written with all soberness and in the consciousness of handling truth. But that was capable of multiform expression which gained its unity from its great Subject and from its Author, the Spirit of Truth."36 We can see this illustrated for us in the book of Proverbs by comparing the person who has wisdom with the person who is considered a fool. The wise person is not the intellectual giant, rather it is the person who knows and obeys God. The fool on the other hand is not a person who lacks information, it is the person who does not live in harmony with God. The inspiration of the Bible may be compared to parts of our body. What is considered more important, an eye or a little toe? Which would you sooner lose if you had to choose? The answer is obvious. Our eye is far more precious to us than our little toe. So it is with the inspiration of the Bible. The parts of the Bible that deal with the central message of the Bible, are preserved for us in a trustworthy and reliable manner. Some of the lesser details can be portrayed differently within various books of the Bible. We come to this conclusion by reading the Bible itself. Remember, all Scripture is inspired, but not all scripture carries the same redemptive value. If we lost the genealogies of the Bible, would we miss them as much as the Sermon on the Mount? Some Christians find this unsettling. Sometimes they will respond with the statement that if the Bible can have these differences of detail then how can it be inspired? They will try to explain away the many examples that can be produced. However, they are attempting the impossible. It is not necessary to try. If you find yourself straining to try and explain away so much data you should be prepared to accept that your position should be modified in harmony with the facts coming out of the Bible itself. Some will respond by saying, "Perhaps the original copies of the Bible did not have these differences in them." This effort is also futile. Those who spend their time studying biblical manuscripts tell us that while there are some variant readings in the ancient manuscripts, only a tiny percentage of them have variations in readings. Usually they do not affect the problem areas of differences of detail.37 Let us rejoice that God has preserved His Word for us. The Bible is the best preserved book from the ancient world. He has preserved the essential message of the Bible in a trustworthy and reliable manner. Rather than seeing these differences of detail as problems, we ought to see them in a more positive light to strengthen our faith. The fact that they are still in the Bible shows they have not been covered up. The Bible is dealing with real people and real events. In many places it is history as we commonly have it recorded. When we read historians writing on real life events we expect to see some differences of detail. In fact, the differences are evidence that the descriptions come from genuine eye witness history. We would be inclined to question the authenticity if we had witnesses who had exact agreement in every detail. In real life, genuine witnesses usually have some variation on minor matters of detail. The Bible stories are for real. Allowing for human and cultural elements Remember, God meets people where they are to give them His life giving messages about Jesus. In the Bible are some cultural statements that we may not think are accurate for us today. In fairness to the Bible, we must keep in mind that the language used was the popular language of the Ancient East and not that of the scientific world of the 21st century. The Bible is written for common people using the language of the market place and social gatherings. The language within the culture of the times was the medium God used to get across the 24

spiritual truth He wishes His people to understand. If the Bible had been written in the language of science today, it would not have been understood by the millions who have read it prior to our age. God never offers anything faulty or imperfect, however He has to work with the best material He can find— humanity with all its strengths and weaknesses. No wonder Paul wrote, "But we have this treasure in jars of clay." (2 Corinthians 4:7). The following, for instance, only makes sense in certain cultural settings: Was it true that the gospel had been proclaimed to every creature under heaven as Paul claimed in Colossians 1:23? If that was so, why was he still planning to go to Spain? How could John see four angels standing on the four-corners of the earth (Revelation 7:1)? Can the heart really believe as expressed in Romans 10:9-10? Boyce Bennett observes: "People think with their brains, but not all cultures have known this. The ancient Hebrews believed that people thought with their hearts. That does not mean that they believed people 'thought emotionally.' The center of emotion was located elsewhere in Hebrew folk psychology. But the center of thinking was believed to be in the heart. . . . The rise of scientific investigation over the past few centuries has shown that folk psychology is no longer an adequate way of understanding human beings. People think with their brains."38 Can our liver be greatly distressed as expressed in Lamentations 2:11? Can Paul have love for others in his bowels as expressed in Philippians 1:8? The mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds but it was considered so by the Semites of the first century (Matthew 13:31). Could not Paul's advice regarding the covering and uncovering of the head also be considered cultural (1 Corinthians 11:1-16)? How then do we determine what is cultural and what is trans-cultural in the Bible. Bernard Ramm offers the following advice: "1. Whatever in Scripture is in direct reference to natural things is most likely in terms of the prevailing cultural concepts; "2. Whatever is directly theological or didactic is most likely trans-cultural;"39 In other words, Ramm is telling us that the Bible is a book dealing with salvation through Jesus Christ, but it will do so frequently through the cultural concepts of the age in which it was written. The Bible is perfect for the purpose that God intended it to function. ______________ 32 Carl F. Henry ed. Revelation And The Bible, Article by Everett F. Harrison: "The Phenomena of Scripture." (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1976), p.247. "A striking feature of John's gospel is the discourse material. Here Jesus makes not use of the typical parabolic medium of the Synoptics. The addresses are mainly occupied with his own person and credentials. Sometimes they become dialogues between himself and his auditors. In many ways they reveal contrast to the discourses in the other gospels. It is significant that Jewish scholars have experienced less difficulty in receiving these discourses as authentic than many critics of Christian persuasion, for they recognize how closely they parallel Rabbinic examples. Verbatim reporting was not expected on the part of a faithful disciple as he made available the sayings of his esteemed master. This freedom of expression did not necessarily involve unfaithfulness in the fulfillment of his task." [back] 33 Even a cursory look at the gospel of John makes it clear that it is not a history textbook—much less a biography—the historical trustworthiness of the gospels is not to be described in terms of modern historiography, which stresses clear and strict chronological sequence, balanced selection of material, verbatim quotations, and so on. In the real sense the gospel writers are preachers. They select the events of Jesus life and his teachings, guided not by comprehensiveness but by their purpose in writing. They arrange the material not always on the basis of sequential order but with a view to impress upon the readers certain specific truths. Moisés Silva, But These are Written That You May Believe, from An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, Walter Kaiser and Moses Silva, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994). [back] 25

34 For further examples the reader should study "The Question of Inerrancy in Inspired Writings." A paper presented at the 1982 International Prophetic Guidance Workshop by Robert Olsen. See appendix A. [back] 35 "Many of the seeming discrepancies vanish once we understand the literary conventions for writing history or biography in the ancient world. Neither Greek nor Hebrew had any symbol for our quotation marks, nor did people feel that a verbatim account of someone's speech was any more valuable or accurate than a reliable summary, paraphrase, or interpretation. The order of events described in a famous person's life was often arranged thematically rather than strictly chronologically. So we should not be surprised to find minor variations in both the sequence of episodes in Jesus' life form one gospel to the next and in the actual words attributed to Him on any given occasion." Jesus Under Fire. Craig Blomberg "Where Do We Start Studying Jesus?" p. 35. [back] 36 Carl F. Henry, Editor, Revelation And The Bible, Article by Everett F. Harrision "The Phenomena Of Scripture", (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1976), pp 239-243. [back] 37 Sir Frederick Kenyon in his book Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscript, p. 55 has as a footnote the following observation "Dr Hort whose authority on the point is quite incontestable, estimates the proportion of words about which there is some doubt at about one-eighth of the whole; but by far the greater part of these consists merely of differences in order and other unimportant variations, and 'the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation . . . can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text" (Introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 2). [back] 38 Boyce M. Bennett, An Anatomy of Revelation: Prophetic Visions in the Light of Scientific Research, (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1990), p. 3. [back] 39 Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture, Paternoster, 1965, p. 53. [back]

26

Chapter Six

How much do prophets know? There is no single passage in the Bible telling us all we wish to know about the gift of prophecy. In Romans chapter 12, Paul writes regarding the operation of spiritual gifts and, as he mentions prophecy, he makes a remark that could have significant bearing on our understanding of this gift: "We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith" (Romans 12:6). Commentators have pondered the meaning of what Paul means "let him use it in proportion to his faith." How can a prophet prophesy in proportion to his faith? The word translated proportion is the Greek word analogia. This is the only place this word appears in the New Testament. Many commentators have suggested that faith, as mentioned here, is to be taken in a subjective manner tied in with measure mentioned in verse three. Paul here is probably referring to how a person should function.40 David Hill offers this observation: "If that phrase means 'in proportion to our faith' i.e. in proportion to the quality of our faith given or possessed, it could imply degrees of prophetic ability which varied according to the amount of faith one had, 'faith' being the believer's confidence that God's Spirit is speaking in the actual words he is uttering. What Paul is saying then is that the person who exercises the gift of prophecy should speak only when conscious of his words as inspired and presumably only as long as he is confident that God is speaking through him."41 Hill's understanding of the text seems to be reflected in the New Living Translation,42 "God has given each of us the ability to do certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to prophesy, speak out when you have faith that God is speaking through you" (Romans 12:6). Cranfield offers further insights: "Once again we have to choose between different possible interpretations. Many commentators understand by 'the faith' here a special charismatic faith—in fact, something hardly to be distinguished from prophetic inspiration. According to this view, Paul is warning the prophets against the temptation to add something of their own devising, the temptation, when they come to the limit of their own inspiration, to go on speaking. According to others 'the faith' is to be understood in the sense of the 'the faith,' i.e. The body of truth to be believed, and 'according to the analogian' as meaning 'according to the standard' . . . the prophet is to make sure that his message does not in any way contradict the Christian faith. It may be suggested that the simplest and most satisfactory interpretation. . . . They are to be careful not to utter (under the impression that they are inspired) anything which is incompatible with their believing in Christ."43 Recognising the fallibility of prophets For those of us who have never received a revelation from God, it is difficult to understand what is taking place. What we do know is that there are three stages of the prophetic process. 1. The Revelation. 2. The Application. 3. The Interpretation. Regarding the revelation, we would expect there would be no mistakes because God never offers anything imperfect or faulty. However, it is possible that mistakes could be made at stages 2 and 3 in the interpretation and application.44 27

Frederick Harder asks the following hard questions to help us gain some insights into the fallibility of prophets. "A recognition of this fallibility raises several questions. How can personal prejudices and errors be distinguished from the divine word? How far were the prophet's natural faculties overruled or held in abeyance? On the other hand, to what extent were they heightened, sensitized, or strengthened in order to receive and understand the word revealed? How competent was the prophet to accurately communicate the message? Finally, and just as important, how competent am I to understand what he or she said? No simple, definitive answers exist. Certainly the prophet's mind did not become a typewriter or a recording tape used by the Spirit as an inanimate device. The prophet's personality was not absorbed in or merged with the Divine. Prophets sometimes even argued with God over the content of a message, as did Moses, Amos, and Habakkuk."45 That prophets do not always comprehend clearly what God is revealing is made clear by Peter's "wondering about the meaning of the vision" (Acts 10:17). It was some time later that he understood that it meant Gentiles were to be accepted in the same way as the Jews (verses 34-35). Peter seems to indicate that this was a problem for Old Testament prophets as well as they pondered what God was revealing to them about Christ and His sufferings (1 Peter 1:10-11). Prophets cannot perform at the level of Christ. He was always stating what was truth because He was God. As such He was omniscient. Ordinary humans can not perform at the same level. They may move from a statement of faith revealed by God to a denial of the implications of what has been revealed, as seen in the experience of Peter. After having declared his faith in Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus said, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my father in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). Jesus is saying in effect that this was a prophetic revelation given to Peter. Perhaps prophecy can be defined as that gift of the Spirit whereby that which believers need to know at a certain time is revealed to them. If this is correct then this was a prophetic revelation given to Peter. Shortly after, Jesus began to explain to them His death. Peter responded by rebuking Christ. "'Never, Lord!' he said. 'This shall never happen to you.' Jesus then rebuked him by saying, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not say the things of God, but the things of men'" (verses 22-23). This passage should cause us to think carefully of how a person can be used of God to make prophetic statements and yet soon after the human element can take over and be way off course in their statements. It seems that God corrects errors only when the prophet's mistake endangers the central message itself. That is, if the mistake would endanger spiritual welfare. Revelation 19:10 is such an example. John knelt before the angel. This is breaking the second commandment. Immediately the angel intervenes and corrects the error. No doubt if you were a prophet it would take faith to believe that God had spoken, that you as a prophet had understood it correctly, and that you had delivered the message correctly to God's people. What a fearful responsibility! Think of the implications in the lives of the hearers if you got it wrong.46 Added to the statement Paul made in Romans is another statement that can be quite disturbing, particularly for those who always like to see things in black and white, and clear-cut. "For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. . . . Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (1 Corinthians 13:9-10, 12). Commenting on verse 9 the SDA Bible Commentary states, "The gifts of knowledge and prophecy provide only partial glimpses of the inexhaustible treasures of divine knowledge. This limited knowledge will appear to be all but cancelled in the superior brightness of the eternal world, as the light of a candle loses its importance when placed in the bright light of the sun."47 Paul makes an important point here. Even prophets have only partial knowledge. How can finite beings understand the mind of the infinite? The gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience. We must not put the prophet up alongside Christ. He knew everything because He was "God with us." But this is not true of the 28

prophets. G. B. Caird says, "The prophet before all else is a man, and it is by the heightening of his normal human faculties that he attains his depth of insight. But like all men he is fallible. He may imperfectly understand the word that is spoken to him. He may lack the interpretive powers to make clear to others what he has seen. Though he be far in advance of his age, he cannot wholly divest himself of the way of thought in which he has been brought up."48 An example of what Caird is referring to is found in Psalm 121:6: "The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night." We understand how the sun can harm us by day. We could be sun-struck. But how can the moon harm us by night? "This passage is poetic in form," writes George Reid, "meant to assure us that in every circumstance God is our protector. However it illustrates an important fact: While God was revealing Himself and His truth to the ancients, He did not at the same time correct every misunderstanding they had accepted as a part of their culture. This is especially true of their views of the natural phenomena. "Virtually every ancient society believed in a natural world manipulated by gods and demons. One of the Lord's most difficult tasks was to teach His people that He is the only true God. Sunstroke, in the popular mind, was viewed as the act of a demon active at midday. The night demon, it was supposed, inflicted mental derangement or other maladies. Elements of this popular view persist to modern times in our terms, lunacy, lunatic, and the slang term 'loony', words based on luna, a Latin term for moon. . . . The Bible describes the ancients as believing certain things about the operation of nature that we now know to be inaccurate. Even inspired Bible writers, while they received truth from God, were not, in the process of inspiration, purged of all incidental misbeliefs."49 This example given by Reid can be multiplied. There can be no doubt that God does meet people where they are in many of their cultural concepts. Think about the difficulty we have with Old Testament laws such as those that deal with slavery, the treatment of women and blood vengeance. Nor are our concerns limited to the Old Testament. As God unfolds the life-giving message of His Son He uses their cultural concepts in order to speak to them in a meaningful way. He uses a star to guide the Magi to the baby Jesus. The Magi were Eastern astrologers.50 In the ancient world it was believed that the stars were gods who lived in the heavens above the clouds. The Magi accepted that this star-god could move through the sky and guide them as they sought a specific house in Bethlehem. On some occasions when Jesus healed He used spittle. He spat on a blind man's eyes and put spittle on the tongue of a deaf man (Mark 7:32-33; Mark 8:22-23; John 9:1-6). Pliny the Elder explains that it was believed in the time of Christ that spittle had healing properties. Jesus used this thought pattern as He demonstrated His healing power. Just preceding the return of Jesus the Bible describes the stars falling from heaven upon the earth (Revelation 6:13, Matthew 24:29). Today we know that stars do not fall to the earth. If one did we would be consumed. What they thought were shooting stars we now know to be meteors. The Bible uses the language of the culture of the times in which it was written. As Jesus returns the Bible describes how the "heavens will disappear" (2 Peter 3:10) and "rolled up like a scroll" (Revelation 6:14). The ancients believed the sky was a solid vault or canopy therefore it could be parted or rolled up like a scroll.51 Prophets do not have all knowledge Just in case we are inclined to think that prophets used of God possessed the gift of omniscience, consider John the Baptist. Did he have a correct understanding of the nature of the kingdom to be set up by the Messiah? He was the greatest of the prophets. He was God's special messenger to herald the coming of the Messiah and yet when he was put in prison he almost lost his faith. He, along with the other disciples, believed that Christ would 29

set up a kingdom on earth. When Christ did not do this he sent some of his followers to ask Christ if He really was the Messiah (Matthew 11:3). John the Baptist had some things to learn and some things to unlearn. Remember when he was asked what was required for eternal life he did not outline salvation by grace but rather told his inquirers to reform their lives (Luke 3:11-14). Later his converts had to be re-baptised when they grew in their understanding beyond what he had imparted (Acts 19:1-5). In fact prophets may not even understand what the message Gods has given to them in vision really means. For the first decade the Christian Church had a "shut door" view regarding to whom salvation in Christ was to be offered. They felt their message was just for the Jews. Even though Christ said the message was to go the ends of the earth, they did not see the openness of the gospel invitation clearly. So God gave Peter a vision on the rooftop at Joppa (Acts 10). Some unclean animals were paraded before Peter and he was told to arise, kill and eat. Coming out of the vision it says, "Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision . . ." (verse 17). He was not sure what God was trying to reveal to him. Later he said, "God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean" (verse 29). This is an excellent example of a prophet receiving a vision, not knowing what it was supposed to be teaching, but future experience helped him to understand. Of course some of the prophets never understood the vision they were given. Daniel never understood the 2300 evenings and mornings revealed in Daniel 8:14. He says in verse 27, "I was appalled by the vision; it was beyond understanding." Peter comments on the prophets of the Old Testament as having "searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow" (1 Peter 1:10-11). No doubt Isaiah was one such prophet who struggled to understand the sufferings of the faithful servant passages found in his book. Some may wonder if the prophet always had an open line to God. That is, on all occasions they will have God's answer to the situation. The evidence indicates that this is not correct. When challenged by Hananiah, Jeremiah has no answer but walks away. Later he receives the answer (Jeremiah 28:10-11). Again, Jeremiah talks of how on one occasion he meditated for ten days to receive an answer from God (Jeremiah 42:7). Elijah declares he is not under inspiration regarding the problems facing the Shunamite woman when he declares "...the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me why." (2 Kings 4:27). There is even evidence of a need for a type of spiritual tuning in. On one occasion Elisha called for a harpist to help him tune in and prophesy. Walter Kaiser Jr. adds, "[Music] had the effect of quieting the disturbed thoughts and attitudes of the prophets, and of setting theology in the context of doxology."52 King David inquired of his court prophet Nathan regarding the building of a temple. Should he do this? Nathan responded, yes God is with you. It seems that the prophet gave advice that was not from God. That night God told Nathan to go back and tell David he was not to build the temple because he was a man of blood. Solomon his son was to build the temple (1 Chronicles 17:1-4). On one occasion Paul was about to set sail for Rome. The time of year was dangerous for sailing because of the frequency of storms. "So Paul warned them, 'Men, I can see that our voyage is going to be disastrous and bring great loss to ship and cargo, and to our lives also'" (Acts 27:10). Later the storm hit savagely. They were discouraged and now Paul gives a different message, "But now I urge you to keep your courage, because not one of you will be lost; only the ship will be destroyed. Last night an angel of the God whose I am and whom I serve stood beside me and said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul. You must stand trial before Caesar; and God has graciously given you the lives of all who sail with you'" (verses 22-24). It would seem that the statement of disaster was Paul giving his opinion in view of the circumstances under which they were going to sail. He was talking without having received a revelation. Later, when God spoke to him, the revelation gave an entirely different message. 30

We can conclude that what God has revealed to the prophet they can speak with confidence. However there will be many situations where they will be merely giving their own opinion. And when they give their own opinion, they have no greater wisdom than anyone else. Inspiration is not a permanent attainment in the life of the prophet. "In many ways prophets are just like other people," says Kenneth Wood. "They eat, they sleep, they hear, the read, they learn, the speak, they travel. Prophets may be well informed in some areas of knowledge and poorly informed in others."53 A. A. MacRae agrees with Wood when he gives the examples of Nathan giving David wrong advice and Samuel not having the right idea of who was to be next king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:6-13): "Thus the prophet might know a portion of the divine will but be completely incognizant of other portions. (Cf. 1 Cor 13:9. 'For our knowledge is imperfect, and our prophecy is imperfect.')"54 ________________________ 40 See C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, (New York: Harper and Row, 1957, p. 23). Also, A. T. Robertson, Word Studies in the New Testament,. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1931). Vol. lV, p. 403. [back] 41 David Hill, New Testament Prophecy (London,England: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1979), p. 119 [back] 42 New Living Translation, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1996). [back] 43 C. E. B. Cranfield. The International Critical Commentary, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to Romans, (Edinburgh, England: T. and T. Clark, 1979), pp. 620-621. [back] 44 Perhaps an example of this is to be seen in the prophetic activity of Agabus in Acts chapter 21. In verse 1011 he prophesies that Paul will be bind him and hand him over to the Gentiles. When the prophecy is fulfilled [verses 30-33] there are two small mistakes. 1. It wasn't the Jews who bound Paul. They were trying to kill him. It was the Romans who bound him. 2. The Jews did not hand him over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles took him off them and rescued Paul. The general idea of Agabus is correct; but some of the details are wrong. Agabus is a prophet of experience; yet he seems to have some details incorrect. Could it be that God revealed to him the trouble ahead and Agabus had to fill in some of the details? We will never know the answer to this question, however the important point for us to bear in mind is that the looseness here does not seem to worry Luke. He does not apologize for it; nor does he see the need to touch things up to make them look better. [back] 45 James L. Hayward, ed. Creation Reconsidered, (Roseville, CA:. Assn. of Adventist Forums),. 2000. Article by Frederick Harder, "Prophets: Infallible or Authoritative" p. 226. [back] 46 One cannot help getting the impression from Jeremiah's writings in Lamentations of how easy it would be for a prophet to have some self-doubts about their work. In Jeremiah 20:7-9 he seems to express anger at God as he lamented how he has been treated by others because he gave God's message to them. [back] 47 6SDABC, p. 784. [back] 48 G. B. Caird, The Truth of the Gospel, (London, England: Oxford University Press, 1950), p. 59. [back] 49 George Reid, Windows on the Word article entitled "Smitten by the moon?" Adventist Review, April 28, 1983. p. 7. [back] 50 There seems to be a general consensus on this point. For example, The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, IVP, Leicester, England: 1980. Article "Magi" p. 930, Vol. 2. "Both Daniel and Herodotus may contribute to the understanding of the Magi of Mt. 2:1-12. Apparently the Magi were non-Jewish religious astrologers who, from astronomical observations, inferred the birth of a great Jewish King." [back]

31

51 These points regarding the ministry of Jesus are adapted from an unpublished, undated paper by Richard Way entitled "Heaven In Ancient Cosmology." [back] 52 Walter Kaiser, Back Toward the Future: Hints for Interpreting Prophecy, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), p. 76. [back] 53 Kenneth Wood, Hear the Word of the Lord. A Bible study presented at the 1975 General Conference session in Vienna and published in the Review and Herald, July 16, 1975, p. 11. [back] 54 Merrrill C. Tenny, Editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975). See Article by A. A. MacRae, "Prophets and Prophecy," p. 880. [back]

32

Chapter Seven

Testing prophets This is a complex subject. And some of the complexities are shown in the story of two prophets found in 1 Kings 13:1-32. Here, a true prophet courageously makes a prediction before a wicked king who seeks to harm him, but God works a miracle to save his life. On the way home he meets an older prophet who lies to deceive him into coming to his house for a meal. The younger prophet goes against what God had clearly instructed him. While at the meal the older prophet, now under the Spirit of God, makes a prophecy regarding the death of the younger prophet who has disobeyed God. That prediction comes to pass when the younger prophet is killed by a lion. The older prophet appears to be remorseful and gathers the body for burial. This is a puzzling and disturbing story that breaks many of the rules we would think should operate regarding the judging of a prophet to be true or false.55 The older prophet speaks both lies and, as well, gives a true prophecy described as the "word of the Lord." The younger prophet gives a true prophecy, but is deceived into disobedience and loses his life. It teaches, as does the story of Baalam, that someone may have been a true prophet and yet become a false or apostate prophet. How not to judge a prophet How then shall we judge a true prophet from a false prophet? First, Let us consider how not to judge a true prophet. 1. Not by physical manifestations Daniel experienced loss of strength (Daniel 10:8), he did not breathe (Daniel 10:17) and he was given extra strength (Daniel 10:18-19). But it is well known that these experiences can be found in the occult as well as in biblical prophets; therefore the Bible never sets them up as a means of testing true prophets from false. In fact, if we were to judge some biblical prophets by the way they conduct themselves we would be inclined to lock them away in an appropriate place. Isaiah walked naked through the streets of Jerusalem for three years. Ezekiel seemed to be playing war games like a little boy. He took a clay tablet and drew on it the city of Jerusalem and made a siege against it. He lay on his side for many days out in the open. He cut off his hair and divided it up. He threw some of it into the wind and some he burned. He cut a hole in a wall and began to drag furniture through. Jeremiah smashed a pot before his listeners and later wore a wooden yoke around his neck. Day after day he stood at the entrance to the temple and plagued the life out of people with his doomsday predictions. Old Testament prophets can appear to be strange people at times. Why did they act as they did? One answer is that there were cultural expectations made of them. If they did not meet those expectations the people would most likely not take any notice. This explains why Aune56 and Forbes,57 authors of two of the classic works on prophecy in the ancient world and the Bible, spend so much time considering prophecy in the ancient Mediterranean world. Aune makes this observation, "Prophetic or messianic leaders who might arise were expected to conform to various preconceived images of what such eschatological figures should say and do."58 We would expect a prophet to act differently from one age to another in harmony with the cultural expectation of the times in which they live. This we would expect to be true of both true and false prophets. The Encyclopedia of Religion adds, "In ancient Israel, as in every society, the behavior of divinely possessed individuals followed certain stereotypical patterns, although these patterns varied somewhat depending on the historical, geographical, and social setting of the prophet's activities. . . . Individuals who wished to be 33

accredited as prophets were thus subtly pressed to conform to the group's picture of genuine prophetic behavior. Prophetic actions. Biblical writers rarely describe behavior indicative of possession, but the existence of stereotypical prophetic actions can be inferred by the Bible's occasional use of the verb hitnabbe', which seems to mean 'to act like a prophet, to exhibit the behavior characteristic of a nabi.' . . . It is clear, however, that the prophet's characteristic behavior was evaluated positively by some groups but negatively by others. In some cases it was seen as a sign of divine legitimation and favor (Nm 11: 11-29, 1 Sam 10: 1-13), while on other occasions it was considered an indication of madness or possession by an evil spirit ( 1 Sam. 18:10-11, 19: 18-24; 1 Kgs. 18:26-29; Jer. 29:24-28)."59 J. Lindblom shows how the physical experiences and claims of the prophets of Israel were not unlike those of nations around them who claimed to have contact with their own peculiar deities.60 Both true and false prophets can have many of the same physical manifestations. No doubt they often did as there would be an expectation by the people as to how a prophet should act. Acting against expectations could lead to rejection. In the New Testament concept of prophecy, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 14: 32 that "the spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets" makes the point that true prophets are rational and under control as they prophesy. We would not expect them to be acting as did the pagans in their irrational behaviour. While prophets may have visions in an ecstatic state, they were to declare them in a rational manner. 2. Not by prophecies coming to pass in isolation from other factors Jeremiah 28:9 is often quoted regarding the need for prophecies to come to pass in order to tell a true prophet from a false prophet. Is this the right passage of Scripture to use? It deserves close consideration: "The prophet who prophecies peace will be recognised as one truly sent by the Lord only if his prediction comes true." The context of this passage is of a prophetic contest between Jeremiah and Hananiah. Hananiah says there will be peace for Jerusalem and Judah; while Jeremiah says the Babylonians will come and destroy the city of Jerusalem, and the Kingdom of Judah will fall. Jeremiah responds by saying that if Hananiah's prophecy of peace comes to pass then they will know that God has spoken through him. In other words, this is a specific situation being addressed. It ought not to be used as a blanket statement regarding testing prophets if they are true or false on a basis of whether what they say comes to pass. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 shows why this can be dangerous, and gives a more complete picture regarding fulfillment of prediction as a test. "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or a wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, 'Let us follow other gods' (gods you have not known) and 'let us worship them,' you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. . . . That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God. . ." This passage warns that if a miraculous sign or wonder takes place as foretold by a prophet, this is not of itself sufficient to say that that prophet is of God. False prophets, may, at times, predict events that come to pass. We see this through the powers operating within the occult. Evil angels can work through human agencies to foretell the future with greater accuracy than humans left to themselves. This passage tells us that the prophet must also teach us to worship the One True God and give obedience to Him. James Dunn comments about "the problem of false prophecy—the problem of how to discern whether inspiration is of God or not. At first sight the answer seems simple—the test of fulfillment and non-fulfillment: the false prophecy will fail, only the true prophecy will be fulfilled. This was the earliest and most regular test used in the Old Testament (1Sam 3:19; 1 Kgs. 8:56; Jer. 28:9; Isa. 41:21-24; 42:9; Ezek. 33:33), and finds its classical expression in Deut 18:22. The trouble was that sometimes the word of a false prophet did come true, and sometimes the word of a true prophet was not fulfilled; Yahweh could change his mind (2 Kgs. 20:1-7)."61 34

We must be careful in using fulfilment of prophecy to test a true prophet from a false prophet. Do we consider Jonah to be a false prophet because Nineveh was not destroyed as he predicted? Obviously there are, sometimes, certain conditions to be met in the fulfilment of some prophecies even though the conditions may not be stated at the time the prophecy is given. Jonah did not state any conditions and yet in the mind of God there were conditions involved. hen considering the fulfilment of prophecy for judging true and false prophets we must always keep in mind the following statement made through Jeremiah, "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it" (Jeremiah 18:7-10). Sometimes when prophets predict the future they do so in order that something can be done about it—to bring about repentance and a right relationship with God, and so avoid the prophecy of judgment coming upon them. For instance. In Jeremiah 26:16-19 some of the elders argue that Jeremiah should not be put to death because Micah had also prophesied doom for Jerusalem and it did not happen because of a right response from Hezekiah.62 Think of the returning exiles from Babylon. Ezekiel had prophesied of the building of a glorious temple in the last chapters of his book. When they built Zerubbabel's temple some of them wept that it was not as glorious as Solomon's. It certainly was nothing like the glorious temple Ezekiel had predicted. Did this make Ezekiel a false prophet? Certainly not. Their poor response led to a poorer temple than God had promised. God had also promised a glorious future for the nation that was never realised. Another reason why fulfilment must be limited as a test of a true prophet is that sometimes there may be a delay in the fulfilment. A whole generation may live and die and not see the prophecy come to pass as predicted. An example of this would be Ezekiel's prediction that Tyre would be destroyed and cast into the sea. It was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and then lay in ruins for many generations until Alexander the Great unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy. Think of all those who lived and died and never saw the complete fulfilment of what Ezekiel had prophesied. Sometimes when prophecies are given by true prophets there are conditions to be met in order for the prophecy to come to pass. In giving the prophecy there may be built in safeguards that can be difficult to detect at first. For example, Paul appeared to give people in his age the hope that Christ would return in their time. That is, while the present generation was still living. He wrote to the Thessalonians and Corinthians: "According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. . . . After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air . . . ." (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, emphasis added). "Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51, emphasis added). To the first readers and hearers it would appear to be quite clear that Paul was promising them that some would live through to see Christ come. Certainly that is how the Thessalonians understood him as some began to stop working because they felt the coming of Christ was so near. Paul rebuked them for this in his second letter where he appears to modify his earlier statement to suggest the coming of Christ may still be further down the track because the "man of sin" must first arise to do his anti-Christian work. It has often been debated within the ranks of Christians what Paul meant by these statements. Could Christ really have come in the lifetime of those people in the first century? The fact that He did not does not lead us to the conclusion that Paul was a false prophet. Maybe there were some conditions in the mind of God that did not allow the coming of Christ in the first century. In Christ's parables there are hints of a delay. That is, the parousia could take longer than many expected.63 35

Another reason we must be careful in using fulfilment of prophecy as the means of judging true prophets from false is found in the nature of God. God is active and dynamic. If He chooses He may not limit Himself to fulfilling the prophecy the way in which it was originally given. It is possible that God may choose to exceed the original prediction and, because of this, the existing generation may fail to recognise that the prophecies are being fulfilled. A good example of this is seen in how Jesus Christ fulfilled the prophecies concerning His coming as the long awaited Messiah. The Jewish leaders made the point that He could not be the long awaited one because He was a Galileen from Nazareth. They correctly pointed out that no prophet was predicted to come from of Nazareth. They knew Bethlehem was predicted in Micah 5:2. However, the prophecy had been fulfilled when Christ was born in Bethlehem but later He went and lived in Galilee. This they did not expect. It is difficult for us to put ourselves in the mind-set of the Jews of Christ's day because we have the New Testament, which shows us the way in which Christ did fulfill the prophecies. But if we were able to put ourselves into the same situation as the Jews in Palestine in the 1st century with no New Testament to guide us would be have been any wiser? Try this as an exercise some time: Can you find from the Old Testament prophecies about the incarnation of Christ? That is, the fact that the Creator would Himself become a babe at Bethlehem. Can you find in the Old Testament the fact that He would die the death of crucifixion? Can you find from the Old Testament alone that the Messiah would be resurrected? Remember you are to do this without the help of the New Testament. At best, this is not an easy task. And yet these three events are pivotal in the ministry of Jesus. The fulfilment of prophecy can be full of surprises. God is not limited by what He has previously said. He is dynamic, ever moving forward, expanding the scope of His purposes and our understanding of them. Often giving more than what He has promised. 3. Not by inerrancy of lifestyle Although godliness was the usual direction of their lives, we do see the best of prophets stumbling and falling at times. We should be careful not to judge them on their worst times, which may be fleeting compared to the overwhelming amount of their lives which were godly. Note these: Abraham (the first person ever to be called a prophet) denied Sarah was his wife and told the half-truth that she was his sister (Genesis 12: 10-20). Samuel deceived Saul into thinking he was going out to make a sacrifice when in reality he was going out to anoint David as king (1 Samuel 16:2). David lied to the High Priest to get the consecrated bread (1 Samuel 21:1-9). He was also a mass murderer and an adulterer. Jeremiah lied to the people at the king's suggestion (Jeremiah 38:2429). Moses lost his temper and had to be disciplined by God because of his rash actions (Numbers 20: 9-13). Some of the most magnificent prophecies found in the Old Testament regarding the coming of Christ were uttered by Balaam who was an apostate (Numbers 22-24).64 Elijah fled in despair and wished to die (1 Kings 19: 3-5). In the New Testament, Peter is led astray in his judgment by the Judaisers and withdrew from eating with Gentiles. He was later rebuked by Paul for denying "the truth of the gospel" (Galatians 2: 11-14). Earlier, though, he had been given a vision to show that all people were equal in the sight of God (Acts 10:9-48). After realising the significance of the vision and declaring it to others he later fails to live by what had been revealed to him and what he had proclaimed to others. Paul had a sharp disagreement with Barnabas about the future ministry of Mark. He did not think him worthy to go with him on his next missionary journey and they parted company. Paul went with Silas and Barnabas took Mark with him. Subsequent events showed that Barnabas showed better judgment than Paul. Mark performed well when given the chance (Acts 15:36-41).

36

We must recognise that prophets are human, like the rest of us. They can make mistakes. They can follow poor advice. They can misjudge a situation. They can be discouraged and irritable. They may be well informed in some areas and not so in other areas. Even prophets used mightily by God are still very human. The danger is that we may expect them to have the perfection we see in Christ. The truth is that no one has lived as He lived. If they fail at times it does not make them false prophets because of their lapses. How then shall we judge prophets? Regarding Old Testament prophets, Craig Evans has some helpful advice: "The difference lay in their hermeneutics. The false prophets and other 'official theologians' (that is, the priests and wise men) maintained a hermenutic of continuity. That is, after reviewing Israel's sacred traditions, they were convinced that the God of Israel who had bought His people out of the land of slavery and into the land of promise would surely preserve His people in that land. If Yahweh had the power to humble mighty Pharaoh, deliver Canaan into Israel's hands and enable David to capture and establish Jerusalem as the holy city, then Yahweh could always be expected to crush Israel's enemies in her hour of need. . . . despite Israel's sin God still remains gracious. . . . It induced the belief that Yahweh was God only of the Hebrews and never of the enemy. Thus the official theologians attempted to limit, localize, and domesticate God for the immediate and short range interests of Israel. Such a hermeneutic sought to manipulate God: 'if we do this then He must do that.' If Israel got into trouble then repentance and reform obligated Yahweh to straighten things out. The false prophet's messages of reassurance which were sweet to the ears—failed to inform Israel prophetically. When crushing events unfolded, the words of these prophets were found to be false. Their messages had failed to explain to Israel who her God was and what He was like. History had judged their hermeneutic to be false. The true prophet, likewise, appealed to these same Torah traditions. He agreed that Yahweh was indeed powerful enough to maintain His people in His land . . . but Yahweh was also powerful enough to take Israel out of the land and put her back into exile . . . . Yahweh was the God of all peoples. . . . Yahweh was also the God of Israel's enemies. To suppose He is not is tantamount to polytheism, that is, in the sense that Israel's enemies have real gods. . . . Those prophets who spoke as true monotheists became part of and contributed to this process and so became 'Bible.' . . . The false prophet, by way of contrast was bound primarily with the interests of the people rather than with God."65 How could a king—sitting on his throne, with two sets of prophets speaking entirely different messages— determine who was speaking on behalf of God? The answer was to be found in the fact that the false prophets offered prosperity without repentance. They preached the gospel without the law. The writings of the true prophets are full of complaint against them. For example Jeremiah complained, "From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:13-14). True prophets stressed that God's people had to turn from their evil ways or face the consequences. They preached "repent or perish" (Ezekiel 14:6; 18:30). As such they were the guardians of the covenant God had made with Israel. They were there to remind Israel of the promised blessings, which come from obedience and the curses that had been promised from disobedience. In New Testament times the classic test of a true prophet is the statement made by Jesus: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. . . . Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord', will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" (Matthew 7:15-23). This passage of Scripture is of vital importance to testing true prophets from false. Here Jesus Himself lays down clear criteria. It is not by laying claim to working in the name of Jesus. It is not by miraculous 37

manifestations whether that may be the physical manifestations accompanying the prophet's work. It is not by driving out demons. The real test is that of obedience. Verse 23 says, literally, "Depart from me the [ones] working lawlessness." The word translated "lawlessness" is anomia. Nomia means "lawfulness" and an "a" before a word in Greek means "against." It is the equivalent of "un" in English and reverses the meaning of an adjective. So the word literally means "against the law" or "unlawfulness". True prophets will uphold obedience to God's law both in their lives and in the lives of others. Jesus illustrates this when He states in verses 24-27 that it was the wise man who built his house on the rock. He obeyed the words of Jesus. It was the foolish man who built his house on the sand and lost it. He was foolish because he did not obey the words of Christ. When prophesying of the coming of the day of the Lord, Peter states another important work of prophets with the challenge to live holy lives. "Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming" (2 Peter 3:11-12). Paul provides some additional ideas on how to test true prophecy from false when he addressed the church in Corinth. First he says they can not be true prophets if they cried out, "Jesus be cursed!" (1 Corinthians 12:3). Second, true prophecy will edify and build up the community of believers (1 Corinthians 14:4, 31). For John the test was that the prophet must acknowledge that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3). For both Paul and John the important test for a prophet can vary according to the local situation and the issues being faced. The great test to be applied to prophets, to determine if they are true or false is, Do they call us to worship the true God and give obedience to his laws by living a holy life? If we have erred from the faith they will call us to repent and give obedience to God's Word. They will call us away from false worship. This puts the test within the understanding of the educated and the uneducated alike. And for Paul, anyone claiming they are from God will preach the true gospel. Even if they are an angel from heaven, if they preach not the true gospel they should be eternally condemned (Galatians 1: 6-11). The gospel Paul claimed was revealed to him by direct revelation is spelt out by him: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. . . ." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). _______________ 55 See D. W. Van Winkle, "1 Kings 13: True and False Prophecy," Vetus Testamentum 29 1989, p. 31. Van Winkle quoted J. L. Crenshaw as saying "At the outset it must be declared that this passage deals the death knell to every attempt to specify absolute criteria by which to differentiate the true from the false prophet." [back] 56 David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985). [back] 57 Christopher, Forbes: Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment, Ph.D. diss., Macquarie University, 1987. [back] 58 Aune, p.121. [back] 59 The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 12 Edition, Mircea eliade, (NY: MacMillan Pub. 1987), article "Prophecy", p.17. [back] 38

60 J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel, (Philadelphia PA: Fortress Press,1976), pp. 29-46. [back] 61 James D. G. Dunn, The Christ and The Spirit, Vol. 2, Pneumatology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 29-30. [back] 62 The prophesy was made in Micah 3:12 and avoided by Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:3-6.[back] 63 Christ gave some parables towards the end of His famous sermon on the end of the world to illustrate the unexpected timing of His return. In them are some hints of the timing being longer than many would think. •

The unfaithful servant said to himself "My master is staying away a long time" Matthew 24:48. In the parable of he Ten Virgins there was a lapse of time which caused them all to "become drowsy and fall asleep" 25:5 In the parable of the talents He stated "After a long time the master of those servants returned. . . ." 25:19. [back]

64 Frederick Harder observes the following "Upon a review of biblical personalities identified as speaking or acting under the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, we must conclude that perfection of character was not a qualification required for their selection. Cain, murderer of his brother, received the first message from God outside of Eden of which we have record. The pagan king, Abimelech, was given a divinely inspired dream. Jephtha—bastard son of a harlot, bandit chief, and killer of his daughter—was victorious recipient of 'the Spirit of the Lord.' The song of the prophetess Deborah was not only one of gladness in victory but also of exultation in vengeance. Creation Reconsidered, (Roseville, CA: Assn. of Adventist Forums, 2000). Article. "Prophets: Infallible or Authoritative", Frederick E. J. Harder, pp. 226-7. [back] 65 Craig A. Evans. Animadversiones Paul and the Hermeneutics of "True Prophecy": A Study of Romans 9-11, Biblica, v. 65, No. 4, pp. 560-570, 1984. [back]

39

Chapter Eight

Change in the prophetic role The gift of prophecy is manifested in a variety of ways in the Bible. But first we need to define the word "prophet" from the Bible and note the different ways the word is used at various periods of biblical history. The first time the word is used is in reference to Abraham where Abimelech is told that Abraham is a prophet (Genesis 20:7). Here the word nabi is used, which is the usual Old Testament word for describing a prophet. More meaning is established in Exodus where, after Moses declared his lack of eloquence, God said to him that He would appoint Aaron his brother to act as his prophet (nabi). "See, I have made you like God to Pharoah, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharoah. . . ." (Exodus 7:1-2). The nabi then was one who spoke on behalf of God. From the experience of Samuel we learn that the nabi was one to whom God revealed Himself and received messages directly from God (1 Samuel 3:7, 21). In the case of Samuel it was information that had contemporary relevance and was not a result of his own meditation or philosophical speculation. During the time of Samuel the period of the Judges gave way to the monarchy. At this time we see two distinct types of Old Testament prophets develop. Samuel takes on the title of seer (roeh and chozeh are the words usually translated as "seer") which seem to be used interchangeably with nabi to describe the work of Samuel. Clifford Hill suggests that during this time the seer was primarily the solitary contemplative figure while the nabi became primarily associated with bands of roaming prophets who had more ecstatic types of experiences. 66 He also notes that the nabi during this time had ecstatic experiences that, on one occasion, were shared by Saul. These prophets would go about in procession from the high places playing musical instruments while they were prophesying. Music appears to have played an important part in their style of prophesying. Later David set apart the sons of Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun for the ministry of prophesying accompanied by harps, lyres and cymbals (1 Chronicles 25:1). Prophecy appears now to have become an attempt to enter the presence of God both to worship and receive guidance from Him. Prophetic activities in the Old Testament appear to include not only receiving messages from God, but also include some forms of music and praise. Samuel joined in with other prophets and it seems that prophesying could come upon people involuntarily at times, as in the case of Saul and his messengers (1 Samuel 19:20-23). Leon Wood builds a strong case to show that these OT experiences were not ecstatic frenzy. "In the first of the two instances regarding Saul (1 Sam. 10), the thought would be that the prophets, coming down from the high place with musical instruments, were again rendering praise to God. They could well have just been dismissed from class, as noted earlier, and they could have had the custom of singing as they walked together to their place of residence. This would account for Samuel's knowing ahead of time that they would be so engaged when Saul met them. Then as to Saul's action when he did encounter them, the thought would be that he simply joined in singing with them. The astonishment of those seeing him, when he did so, would have been due to his otherwise timid nature. They had been accustomed to seeing him standing aside watching such activity, rather than joining in with it."67 The understanding of prophecy developed to include not only a revelation from God; but included people praising God in worship. This is consistent with New Testament usage as well. David Aune summarises the variety of prophets found in the Old Testament: "Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, combined the characteristics of the holy man, the sage, the miracle worker, and the soothsayer . . . they were associated with the holy places and religious ritual. . . . and could combine the roles of priest and prophet like 40

Samuel. . . . they were itinerants and moved about with some freedom, apparently living off the gifts and offerings of those they served. Master prophets were given the title 'father.'. . . And presided over the prophetic guilds called 'sons of the prophets.'. . . . these prophets would often prophesy in groups. . . . "Cult and Temple Prophets. . . . Since priests were primarily attached to sanctuaries and to the temple cult in Jerusalem. . . . many psalms, which were certainly part of the temple ritual appear to have had a prophetic origin. . . . Court Prophets. . . . There are many references to Israelite prophets who convey divine messages for Yahweh to the reigning monarchs. . . . Free Prophets. . . . the phenomenon of 'free prophecy', in contrast to temple and court prophecy developed dramatically during the mid-eighth century BC. These prophets . . . were reformers . . . to call Israel back to the ancient covenant traditions. . . ."68 The writer to the Hebrews correctly said, "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways" (Hebrews 1:1). New Testament prophecy New Testament prophecy commences with the appearance of John the Baptist. In his dress and solitary style of ministry he would appeal to the populace as being a prophet after the tradition of the Old Testament. In addition he denounced immorality and wickedness and demanded repentance in view of the fact that God was about to send His long awaited Messiah, who would punish the ungodly. In doing this he met the Old Testament expectations of prophetic activity. This, with the power seen to attend his work, caused many to accept him as a true prophet. Although Jesus did not claim to be a prophet, many saw Him as such. His disciples saw Him as the fulfilment of what Moses said regarding how God would raise up a prophet like himself (Deuteronomy 18:15, Acts 3:2226). That Jesus expected His followers to have prophetic inspiration is clear from Matthew 10:19-20: "But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." In John 16:12-15, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would still speak to His followers after He has departed. But when the followers of Christ say words, caused by the prompting of the Holy Spirit, it does not necessarily make them prophets. All the followers of Christ are able at times to say words prompted by the Spirit. (Perhaps we could label them "prophetic statements"). This does not necessarily make a person a prophet. We will see that this term seems to be used in the biblical passages to describe those who are especially called and used by God for a prophetic ministry. A useful way of defining prophecy in the New Testament context is by saying it is the Spirit of God revealing to believers what they need to know to meet specific situations. This is now a possibility for all believers; but there are some specially chosen individuals who will receive the prophetic gift.69 As such they will be used more frequently and be recognised as having the prophetic gift. In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament anticipates that the gift of prophecy will become more widespread. It will not be limited to the Hebrew race alone nor to a few select individuals as in the past. The opening of the Christian era was accompanied by a powerful manifestation of the Gift of Prophecy. Peter gave meaning to the outpouring of God's Spirit at Pentecost by saying, "This is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophecy" (Acts 2:16-18). Peter is saying clearly that from now on God is going to pour out His Spirit upon all people regardless of race, gender, age or social standing. The Holy Spirit will now abide in every believer. Ministries of ancient prophets, priests and kings have now passed into the lives of ordinary people (Revelation 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians 14:1). 41

James Dunn reflects upon the significance of Pentecost: "This application of the Joel prophecy to the infant community in Jerusalem undoubtedly reflects the high spiritual enthusiasm which must have marked these days—so rich and varied were their experiences of inspiration, the revelations given to them by God, that it seemed evident that not just one or two had been singled out to manifest the prophetic gift, but all had been anointed as prophets—the end time had come."70 Gerard Friedrich summarises the differences between the new gift of prophecy and the Old Testament gift of prophecy: "The prophets of the NT have much in common with those of the OT and they rightly bear the same name. Agabus, like the OT prophets . . . uses a symbolic action to intimate Paul's imprisonment. . . . The vision of prophetic calling in Rev 1:9ff reminds us of the visions of the OT prophets in Is 6:1ff and Ez. 1:1ff . . . . "But there are also differences between NT prophecy and that of the OT and Judaism. In the OT and Judaism only a few were called to be prophets apart from the prophetic groups mentioned in the historical books of the OT. . . . Now some NT prophets are given prominence, e.g. Agabus . . . Barnabas and Silas . . . the four daughters of Phillip. . . . Fundamentally, however, prophecy is not restricted to a few men and women in primitive Christianity. Acc. to Ac. 2:4; 4:31 all are filled with the prophetic Spirit and acc. to Ac. 2:16ff. It is a specific mark of the age of fulfilment that the Spirit does not only lay hold of individuals but that all members of the eschatological community without distinction are called to prophesy. In Corinth there was obviously a greater number of prophets, for those who spoke at divine service had to be limited to two or three, 1C.14:29. In spite of this, Paul urges the Corinthians to strive after the charisma of prophecy, 1C14:1,5,12,39. It is not the gift of a chosen few. It can be imparted to any man even though in practice it may be limited to a comparatively small circle. "In comparison with OT prophecy the work of the NT prophets has undergone both an extension and a restriction. . . . the NT prophet does not enjoy such unlimited authority as the Jewish prophet. . . . He is not an unrestricted ruler over others. He is subject to their judgment. . . . He does not stand above the community; like all the rest, he is a member of it. Closest to Jewish prophecy in this regard is the prophet of Rev. . . . Here there can be no question of testing the correctness of his sayings . . . since they are declared to be reliable and true by the supreme authority, God Himself . . . criticism of what he says is impossible."71 The Pentecost fulfilment indicates a wider number of people will now experience this gift. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:1 encourages all believers to "eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy." At the same time he states that not all will have this gift (1 Corinthians 12:29). Paul does, however, rank the gift of prophecy over all the other gifts of grace. In 1 Corinthians 14:1 he admonishes them to desire spiritual gifts, especially prophecy. When he mentions the gifts he repeatedly lists prophecy after the apostles (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). Evangelists, pastors and teachers are always listed behind prophets. In Ephesians 2:20 the prophets are with the apostles listed as part of the foundation of the church. There is a wide divergence in the way the gift operates in the New Testament. Wayne Grudem puts forward a proposition, supported by D. A. Carson,72 suggesting that the successors to the Old Testament classical prophets were the Apostles who were also prophets. Grudem gains support for his idea from the Greek form of expressing apostle/prophets in Ephesians 2:20 as signifying the one person. However, although the Greek language does allow for this concept it does not mean this understanding is watertight. His strongest argument comes from the fact that it is the Apostles who are like the Old Testament prophets in that they are the authors of the Scriptures. Luke being an exception. He also argues that because of the widespread use of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament the word prophet does not have the same authority as in the Old Testament, but the word Apostle carries immense authority. Paul never claims authority on a basis of his being a prophet; but always on his apostleship (1 Corinthians 9:1-2). 42

Ben Witherington III adds, "On the issue of the office of prophet, Paul has little to say. He seems strangely reluctant to use the term prophetes as a way of characterizing who he is and what his role is in the churches. This contrasts dramatically with his use of the term 'apostle.' This reluctance is understandable when we recognize that NT prophets did not have the same status, standing, or unquestioned authority as some of the OT prophets. Rather, there is evidence from Paul suggesting that the utterances of Christian prophets needed to be weighed, since it was possible for their prophecy, in the enthusiasm of the moment of revelation, to exceed the proportion of their faith and understanding. Thus, on the one hand, Paul has to encourage even the 'charismatic' Corinthians to seek to prophesy, and on the other hand, he has to urge the Thessalonians not to despise prophecy or quench the Spirit. The prophet, it seems, did not have the highest honor rating in Paul's communities. Yet Paul clearly rated prophets as very important to the early church, placing them behind only the apostles in his lists of church roles and functionaries."73 Paul also clearly pulls rank on local prophets in 1 Corinthians 14:36-38 where he says, "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." Paul sees himself as one who passes on the words of Christ and calls for the local prophets to acknowledge what he says; if not they will be ignored. It does appear that there are different levels of the gift of prophecy operating in the New Testament. Levels of the gift of prophecy It is to these levels of the gift of prophecy we need to turn to understand the different functions and manifestations of the gift in the New Testament. At perhaps the lowest level are some who are given a revelation. There is no record of them receiving another and they are not called prophets. If a person is recognised as a prophet the biblical text will usually stress that they are a prophet. However there are times when believers will make prophetic statements. That is, a statement prompted by the Spirit. For instance: There is a prophetic utterance by Mary (Luke 1:46-55). Zechariah the father of John the Baptist makes a prophetic speech about Jesus (Luke 1:67-79). Simeon makes a prophetic speech also about Jesus (Luke 2:25-35). Even Caiaphas the apostate high priest unwittingly makes a prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ (John 11:49-52). Ananias received a prophetic revelation regarding the life and work of Paul; yet he is not called a prophet. He is simply called "a certain disciple" (Acts 9:10). From these experiences we see that the Gift of Prophecy move upon a variety of individuals who may, consciously or unconsciously, make prophetic statements. This may or may not happen to them again. None of those mentioned here are ever called prophets. However, they gave prophetic messages. All believers are encouraged by Paul to eagerly desire spiritual gifts especially the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:1). He also stated that not all will have this particular gift (1 Corinthians 12:29). According to the statement made by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:17-21) we can expect a widespread use of the gift now that we are in the age of the Spirit. However nowhere in the book of Acts do we find all of God's people exercising this gift. It is reserved for those whom God chooses, 1 Corinthians 14 seems to be laying down the way in which the gift should operate at the local church level. Some would call this congregational prophecy. The gift of prophecy is said to be for "strengthening, encouragement, and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3). This gift includes a revelation (verse 30) and the prophet is in control of his/her mind (verse 32). They must also speak in harmony with what Paul has previously taught (verses 36-38). This form of prophecy operates when the congregation is assembled. It may be personal encouragement or public testimonies.74 It must be a revelation to be a prophecy or it is simply a teaching.75 When prophesying, the local congregational prophets always have control of their minds.76 For the most part, Christian prophecy is not a mindless experience, as often happens in paganism and the occult. At the same time 43

we must remember that John the Revelator seems to have an ecstatic experience when he says he was "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10; 4:2; 17:3 and 21:10). He sees and hears what is beyond the normal comprehension of the senses. Paul also seems to have had an ecstatic experience when he relates his vision of 2 Corinthians 12:14.77 But for local prophets found in congregations Paul infers that there is no such ecstatic experience (1 Corinthians 14:32). Instead they are to be in control of their senses. They are fully aware of what they are doing and, if speaking, can stop and hand over the right to speak to someone else. Some may have been given their content before coming to the meeting. Some may be given their revelation while the meeting is on and feel a compulsion to be given a hearing. The one who is prophesying must be in control sufficiently to be able to bring his revelation to a halt in order to give way to another. Chris Forbes comments on Christian prophecy and its relationship to preaching and teaching: "It seems to have been far more 'for immediate consumption.' It was something about a particular time and place, at that time and place. Was Christian prophecy basically the same as preaching? Probably not. As far as I can tell it wasn't a matter of reading Scripture and expounding its meaning. The two examples in Acts certainly aren't exposition of Scripture and don't even quote it. In fact, you never find prophecy in the New Testament closely linked with expounding the Word of God. They were different things. Teachers and preachers expounded Scripture. Prophets passed on direct revelations from God. . . . It was immediate, verbal, direct, about the congregational situation. It wasn't of long term relevance."78 Ephesians 5:19 admonishes local Christians to "Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord. . . ." Andrew Lincoln understands this as "speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and songs inspired by the Spirit. . . . 'spiritual songs' to snatches of spontaneous praise prompted by the Spirit. . . . the songs which the believers sing to each other are spiritual because they are inspired by the Spirit. . . . Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; Eph 5:14; 1 Tim 3:16 may provide some examples which have found their way into the NT, to snatches of song freshly created in the assembly. . . . Believers who are filled with the Spirit delight to sing the praise of Christ, and such praise comes not just from the lips but from the individual's innermost being, from the heart, where the Spirit himself resides."79 This singing would possibly be the same singing that Paul refers to when he says, "So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind" (1 Corinthians 14:15). No doubt the singing brought spiritual encouragement to the congregation in harmony with what prophecy was meant to do as outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:3. Paul also encourages the Thessalonians to treat this form of prophecy with respect (1 Thessalonians 5:20).80 For those used by God to prophesy on a regular basis, it would seem they are actually called prophets. This could include some at the local church level as pictured in 1 Corinthians 14 or even an itinerant prophet like Agabus (Acts 11:27). It seems that the early church had a good supply of people who were recognised as prophets. Acts 13:1) At the higher level were the Apostles who were also prophets (Ephesians 2:20). Paul uses an authority unlike any other New Testament prophet. For instance, "Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?" (1 Corinthians 4:21). "Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20). If we see the Apostles as the successors of the Old Testament prophets we should not expect to treat their messages with any less respect for they are the conveyers of Christ to us. They were instructed directly by Christ. Paul is conscious of this When he states "For I received from the Lord what I passed on to you. . ." (1 Corinthians 11:23). Paul zealously defends his authority not on the basis that he is a prophet; but an apostle. "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord…." (1 Corinthians 9:1). "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul's authority as an apostle means 44

his writings have become an important part of the Bible. To argue against his teachings would be in defiance of the fact that the apostles were men taught directly by Christ and commissioned by Christ.81 Peter sees that the authority of the Old Testament prophets has been passed on to the New Testament apostles: "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Saviour through your apostles" (2 Peter 3:2, emphasis added). In New Testament times the status of the Old Testament prophet was given to the apostles who had seen Christ in the flesh and been taught by Him. They had also been witnesses to His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22; 1 Corinthians 9:1 Chris Forbes offers a summary of early Christian prophecy with the following observations, "For most scholars early Christian prophecy, like Gaul under the Romans, is divided into three parts. There are said to be wandering Christian prophets, who travel from place to place, staying for differing periods with Christian groups as they go. . . . There are said to be Christian prophets resident within congregations whose ministry does not normally extend beyond those congregations. . . . Finally there are those Christians who, though they are not considered 'prophets' in any regular or official sense, non the less occasionally prophesied. . . . The evidence here is the theological conception of the New Testament writers that in some sense 'all the Lord's people are prophets.'. . ."82 No doubt Forbes has in mind wandering Christian prophets like Agabus who seemed to have others accompany him. (Acts 11:27) Then there would be those who belong to local congregations. (1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Thessalonians 5) and others such as Mary, Zechariah, and Simeon who we have mentioned. It is a mistake to use the word "prophet" in Old Testament times and equate their function with the word "prophet" as it appears in the New Testament. It is true that certain functions of Christian prophets do remind us of Old Testament prophets: They do predict the future (Acts 11:28, 20:23). They do declare divine judgments (Acts 13:11; 28:25-28). They do use symbolic actions when prophesying (Acts 21:11). They do exhort and encourage God's people. (Acts 15:32). Yet to equate prophets in both testaments as being essentially the same is to miss the importance of Acts 2:1721 which implies the gift of prophecy, since Pentecost, will become more widespread and diverse. The New Testament says that all God's people are potentially prophets. Not all will exercise this gift, yet they are encouraged to seek it. Various individuals may be used as the Spirit selects them. They may be used once or many times, or may be so used in a way which enables them to be called prophets. The real successors of the classical prophets of the Old Testament are the Apostles in that they were taught directly by Christ and were used of God to give us the sacred canon. ______________ 66 Clifford Hill, Prophecy Past and Present. An Exploration of the Prophetic Ministry in the Bible and the Church Today. (Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1989). He states that this was only a temporary distinction as a later editorial notes states in 1 Samuel 9:9 ". . . because the prophet of today used to be called a seer." pp. 13-15. [back] 67 Leon Wood, The Holy Spirit In The Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), p. 112. Wood devotes two whole chapters in his book to deal with the question "Were Israel's prophets ecstatics?". He builds 45

a powerful case to show they were not in a state of ecstatic frenzy and as such were distinct from the pagans around them who frequently had ecstatic experiences when prophesying. [back] 68 Aune, pp. 83-85. [back] 69 1 Corinthians 12:29. [back] 70 Dunn, p. 27. [back] 71 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Ed Gerhard Friedrich. Translator and Editor. Article "Prophets," by Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), p. 849. [note: The set is dated 1964 though some individual books may carry a later date.]. [back] 72 D. A. Carson, Showing the Spirit: Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12-14, (Homebush West, NSW, Aust.: Lancer Books, 1988), p. 94. [also published in the United States, same pagination, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), p. 94]. [back] 73 Ben Witherington III, Jesus The Seer, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1999), p. 316. [back] 74 Michael Green, To Corinth with Love, (London, England: Hodder & Stoughton, 1982). Also republished as The Corinthian Agenda, (England: Victoria, 2004). Speaks of this form of prophecy as follows "Prophecy is not the equivalent of Scripture. Prophecy is a particular word for a particular congregation (or person) at a particular time through a particular person. Scripture is for all Christians in all places at all times." p.75. [back] 75 1 Corinthians 14:24, 30 seems to teach prophecy has to do with receiving revelations and making known secrets of people's hearts. [back] 76 1 Corinthians 14: 32 "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the control of the prophets." This seems to infer that prophecy does not involve the surrendering of the mind to another power. Always the prophet is in control. [back] 77 Ecstasy is a vague term open for different meanings. It needs to be qualified as there are many degrees ranging from mild dissociation to extreme uncontrollable frenzy. [back] 78 Chris Forbes, On being, April, 1991, "Straight From God", p. 13. [back] 79 Andrew Lincoln, Word Biblical Commentary, Ephesians, No. 42, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), pp. 345-346. [back] 80 John Stott, The Message of Thessalonians, "This form of prophecy was not considered to be a message which brought the very words of God to the people. It was rather a timely word of instruction, encouragement or rebuke which brought the general thrust of God's guidance to the church in each particular situation." p. 128. [back] 81 Apostles were men taught directly by Christ. Paul argues this way to defend his apostleship in Galatians 1:1, 11, 12. In Acts 2:21-22 it was seen as a necessary in finding a replacement for Judas. [back] 82 Forbes, pp. 292-293. [back]

46

Chapter Nine

The need for discernment In the New Testament we are told to evaluate prophecies. Apart from the authority given to prophets in the Old Testament and that of the apostles in the New Testament, we have seen that prophecy is sometimes given a lower status in the New Testament. For instance, the Thessalonians were inclined to treat it disrespectfully (1Thessalonians 5:20) and that Paul tries to advance it over tongues in the thinking of the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 14:5). The New Testament does not picture prophets as taking over from the apostles after they died nor does it picture them as the ones, who are in particular, to guard the church against false teaching. Jude admonishes all church members "to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). Not that the gift is without some doctrinal authority, however that authority which is to be used to protect the faithful from doctrinal error does not belong to the gift of prophecy alone but is also given to apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers. (Ephesians 4:11-14) In contrast to the authority given to the apostles in the New Testament, prophets are to have their prophecies evaluated. Carson has this observation to offer as he contrasts Old and New Testament prophets, "If a prophet speaking in the name of God was shown to be in error, the official sanction was death. But once a prophet is acknowledged as true, there is no trace of repeated checks on the content of his oracles. By contrast, New Testament prophets are to have their oracles carefully weighed (1 Corinthians 14:29; so also 1 Thess. 5:19-21). The word diakrino suggests that the prophecy be evaluated, not simply accepted as totally true or totally false. The presupposition is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff. Moreover, there is no hint of excommunication as the threatened sanction if the prophet occasionally does not live up to the mark."83 In his footnote Carson agrees with Grudem that the verb used in 1 Corinthians 14:29 which is diakrino translated "weigh carefully" bears "the meaning of sifting, separating, evaluating: whereas the simple form krino is used for judgments where there are clear cut options (guilty or innocent, true or false, right or wrong) and never for evaluative distinction."84 Scholarly consensus for evaluation There is broad consensus among respected scholars for the need to evaluate Christian prophetic messages.85 Although there may be some variation among scholars as to how and who does the evaluation; yet there is basic agreement that the need for evaluation and discernment is important. At the risk of repetition, but because this is such an important point I will quote a few highly respected scholars to show how widespread this point is accepted by scholars who are competent in this subject. David Aune states: "In several places within his letters Paul directly addresses the subject of evaluating Christian prophecy (1 Thess.5:19-22; 1Cor. 12:10; 14:29). These references are all-important since they constitute the earliest evidence that Christian prophecy was subject to some form of community control. . . . The injunction to test everything is a general principle; in all circumstances and situations, including that of congregational prophecy, the will of God must be discerned so that the good may be accepted and the evil rejected. . . . Rather than reject prophesying out of hand, Paul recommends that they allow the Spirit of God to speak through prophets and then retain that which is good and profitable and reject that which is regarded as evil and worthless. . . ."86 Max Turner: "Paul knows that congregational prophecy, by contrast, is sometimes so unprepossessing that prophecy as a whole is in danger of being despised (1 Thess. 5:19,20). Both at Thessalonica and at Corinth he demands that congregational prophecy be evaluated—not that it just be accepted totally as true prophecy or 47

rejected totally as false prophecy (as in the Old Testament, according to Grudem). The presupposition is that any one New Testament prophetic oracle is expected to be mixed in quality, and the wheat must be separated from the chaff. The one prophesying may genuinely have received something from God (albeit often indistinctly), but the 'vision' is partial, limited in perspective, and prone to wrong interpretation by the speaker even as he declares it (1 Cor. 13:9, 12)."87 Turner then goes on to comment on the use of diakrino as being a word to imply evaluating and separating as opposed to krino being a word to say something is wholly true or false. "It is a matter of deciding what is from God, and how it applies, and of separating this from what is merely human interference. Indeed the human element and human error appears to have been so apparent that in 1 Thessalonians 5:19, 20 Paul has to warn the congregation, 'Do not despise prophecies, but test everything hold fast to what is good. Arguably, then, prophecy in the New Testament is thus a mixed phenomenon."88 Commenting on 1 Corinthians 14:29, Anthony Thiselton says, "The most significant Greek word for comment is diakrinetosan, let them sift . . . although many translate test (Barrett), NRSV follows Goodspeed's weigh, while KJV/AV and NT in Basic English have judge; Phillips has think over; and REB, exercise their judgment. However, as BAGD and other lexicographical studies make clear, the most frequent and most characteristic force of diakrino in the active voice is to differentiate or to distinguish between. . . . The authentic is to be sifted from the inauthentic or spurious, in the light of the OT scriptures, the gospel of Christ, the traditions of all the churches, and critical reflections. Nowhere does Paul hint that preaching or 'prophecy' achieves a privileged status which places them above critical reflection in the light of the gospel, the Spirit, and the scriptures. It is never infallible."89 The NEB translates 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 in the following way, "Do not stifle inspiration, and do not despise prophetic utterances, but bring them all to the test and then keep what is good in them and avoid the bad of whatever kind." It is important to note that neither the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:29 nor 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 are talking about testing true prophets from false prophets. Both statements are made in the context of worship services where regular, accepted prophets are operating. The evaluation is not of the prophet who has already been accepted by the congregation, but the message itself, which may be of mixed quality. There can be no doubt that 1 Corinthians 14 is dealing with a worship service. Regarding 1 Thessalonians 5, David Hill, after commenting on Romans 12:6 and how prophets need to prophesy according to the amount of faith that they have, states: "R P Martin (with due acknowledgement to J M Robinson) has drawn attention to certain interesting features of 1 Thess. 5:16-22; in the original Greek the verb in each of the short sentences stands last; there is a predominance of words which begin with the Greek letter 'p,' thus giving a rhythm; and the order of the injunctions 'pray, give thanks' and 'do not despise prophesying, but test everything' (i.e. the utterances) is particularly noteworthy." On the basis of these observations he continues, "When the passage is set down in lines, it reads as though it contained the 'headings' of a church service."90 Wayne Grudem makes this comment: "Each prophecy might have both true and false elements in it. The RSV captures this meaning very well: 'Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. . . . the congregation would simply evaluate the prophecy and form opinions about it. Some of it might be very valuable and some of it not.'"91 Cranfield offers this helpful advice when commenting on Romans 12:6: "The high place he assigned to it [prophecy] among the spiritual gifts is indicated by 1 Cor 14:1, 39. While any Christian might from time to time be inspired to prophesy, there were some who were so frequently inspired that they were regarded as being prophets and forming a distinct group of persons. . . . But Paul recognized the need for prophetic utterances to be received with discrimination. He gives instruction in 1 Cor 14:29 that, while the prophets are prophesying, the rest of the congregation is to 'discern'. . . . And in 1 Cor 12:10 the gift of discerning of spirits . . . is significantly mentioned immediately after the gift of prophecy. For there was the possibility of false prophecy; 48

there was also the possibility of true prophecy's being adulterated by additions derived from some source other than the Holy Spirit's inspiration."92 Witherington adds the following when commenting on Romans 12:6: "This conjures up the scenario of prophets speaking in a fashion that exceeds their inspiration. Such a possibility might well explain why Paul says what he does in 1 Cor 14 about the need for the Corinthians to weigh or sift prophecy offered by other Corinthians. If this is a correct reading of Paul's meaning, then Grudem is likely right that Paul sees the prophecy of the Gentile churches as not having the same degree of inspiration or authority as either OT prophecy or his own teaching or, for that matter, Jesus prophecy and teaching, none of which is said to need weighing or sifting (cf. 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29)."93 An important point coming out of Paul's counsel regarding prophecy is for us not to make the same mistake (as was made in Corinth) of overvaluing prophecy by thinking of prophecies as always being the very words of God. For Paul the test of prophecy was that it exalted Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:3), manifested love (I Corinthians 13: 4-7) and built up the body (1 Corinthians 14:3). Aune agrees with Cranfield on the intent of the gift "discerning of spirits" being mentioned after the gift of prophecy. "The close relationship between prophesying and the evaluation of prophetic utterances in 1 Cor 14:29 indicates that there is a connection between the gift of prophecy and the gift of 'discerning of spirits,' just as there is between the gift of tongues and the gift of interpreting tongues (1 Cor.12:10). The difficult phrase diakrisis pneumaton, usually translated by such expressions as 'discerning of spirits' (AV) or 'the ability to distinguish between spirits' (RSV), is generally taken to mean the gift of discerning whether a particular prophetic utterance is inspired by the Spirit of God or by an evil spirit. . . . The term 'spirits' in the phrase might more appropriately be understood as 'prophetic utterances,' or revelations of the Spirit, on analogy with the use of the term 'spirit' (pneuma) in 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 John 4:1 and particularly 1Cor 14:12. . . . This evaluative process or procedure may lie behind such enigmatical expressions as 'it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us' (Acts 15:28) Similarly, when Paul was repeatedly told of the fate which awaited him in Jerusalem . . . he decided to proceed . . . regardless of what might happen. Paul's decision can appropriately be labeled an evaluation of prophetic utterances."94 A hierarchy of prophets Aune's reference to Paul's decision to still head towards Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 21 is an excellent example of what Paul means when he states we are to evaluate prophesy. Acts 21 has New Testament prophecy operating at the different levels already referred to. First, Paul an apostle who is also a prophet, feels "compelled by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem" (Acts 20:22). On the way he is met by some disciples at Tyre who "through the Spirit"95 urge him not to go up to Jerusalem. It appears that Paul evaluates their message and still decides to press on. These disciples were not established prophets, they are called "disciples." Probably they are operating at the 1Corinthians 14 level. It is possible they were given an insight, by the Spirit, of trouble ahead for Paul. They put their interpretation on it to warn him not to go. Probably they have a wrong interpretation because Paul previously said he was being compelled by the Spirit to go to Jerusalem. Paul exercises his right to do some sifting of the message in harmony with 1 Corinthians 14:29. Paul stays at the home of Phillip who has four daughters who prophesy (verse 8). We are not told the content of their prophecies, however they are probably once again operating at the 1 Corinthians 14 level. The present tense expressed by the word propheteuousai would seem to suggest that they exercised the gift regularly. While he is there, Agabus comes and warns of the dangers ahead ( verses 10-14). It appears that the Holy Spirit has spoken to Agabus and given him an insight to the troubles Paul can expect. He states that the Jews will bind Paul and hand him over to the Gentiles. 49

Notice that Agabus does not put his own interpretation by saying Paul should not go. He merely states what will happen. It is those listening who put their interpretation on the matter and plead with him not to go. Paul overrides their interpretation as he did with the disciples from Tyre. Agabus is a man used so often by God, with the gift of prophecy, that he is called a prophet. Yet, even though he is an experienced prophet, his prediction does not quite work out exactly as he stated. Compare verse 11 where Agabus states that Paul will be taken by the Jews and handed over to the Gentiles. The fulfilment in verses 30-33 shows that what actually happens is the Jews take Paul and try to kill him. They do not hand him over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles rescue him and take him away from the Jews. It does not work out exactly as Agabus stated. Perhaps Agabus had a revelation of trouble ahead. Maybe he did a little filling in himself. All we know is that there is a lack of precise detail here in a true prophecy, made by an experienced prophet. Acts 21 is an important passage to study to come to understand more fully New Testament prophecy.96 Gillespie sees in 1 Corinthians 15 an example of what Paul has been stating about the need to evaluate prophecy in the previous chapter. It seems that some were saying there is no resurrection of the dead, and Paul is using his prophetic revelation in verses 51-55 as a critique of what other prophets were saying. In other words when he states in 14:37 that the other prophets must acknowledge what he is saying as the Word of God or they will be ignored, he is demonstrating what he means in the next chapter.97 Alistar Stewart-Sykes quotes Gillespie and supports him in this concept: "In the description of Corinthian worship which precedes this chapter we are told that prophecies which are given are to be subjected to prophetic judgment and interpretation. In what follows we may have such a prophetic judgment of a prophecy . . . a transition from a prophecy to a judgment of a prophecy in the way that was normal in worship . . . this chapter may give us an idea of what the prophetic judgment might have been like. A brief oracle is delivered, and then subjected to judgment and interpretation by another of the prophets. . . . Forbes correctly argues that these 'others' should not be restricted to a class of prophets, since any member of the congregation is potentially a prophet, but given the strong link between diakrisis and prophecy which Forbes himself notes we may see that interpretation was a prophetic function, and since in practice not all were actually prophets, so it fell to those who were in practice prophets to deliver the verdict."98 Stewart-Sykes adds that the book of Revelation offers another example of a hierarchy of prophets: "Aune suggests that the whole of the apocalypse, since it was intended for delivery in worship, functioned in the place of a prophetic sermon which would otherwise have been delivered by a local prophet; as such it is what we would call preaching. . . . John was a wandering prophet who functioned in all of the churches, there were nonetheless local prophets as well, and yet that John represents a charismatic leader among them, whose voice might rise above theirs, as it did on this occasion. . . . the fact that his message may replace theirs on this occasion is an indication that there is some hierarchy of prophets . . . just as the voice of John rises over that of any local prophet so the voice of those who were congregational prophets would rise above those of others"99 Stewart-Sykes sees John as a visionary prophet, that is, "his means of inspiration are visions revived outside of the context of worship, the contents of which are subsequently reported to the community."100 He also sees John as a "free prophet of the Old Testament type" in that unlike the prophets described in 1 Corinthians he is not subjected to evaluation. "Whereas this may be an indication that the practice of examining oracles is alien to this community it is equally likely, as we have also suggested, to be a reflection of his charismatic authority. Aune picks up hints of opposition to John among the churches at 2:14 and 2:20-23, where other (presumably local) prophets are tarred with the brush of false prophecy under biblical pseudonyms. The fact that John needs to oppose prophecy with prophecy is an indication that only a prophetic message carried authority in these communities, and having been received the prophetic messages of 'Balaam' and 'Jezebel' were acted on. . . . Quite regardless of its date, the Johannine apocalypse thus enables us to see the church functioning at its most primitive level in terms of how the word of God was communicated to the community."101 50

He summarises his arguments: "Herein lies one of the origins of Christian preaching: for when prophecy was delivered it was necessary that the prophecy be judged, interpreted and expounded. Thus it is in this process, it is suggested, that the origins of the homily lie. . . . The practice of the synagogue and the schools however did impact at a later stage upon the development of preaching out of these origins, as Scripture came to replace the living voice, and the process of expansion and application was applied to the written word. . . . The theological development of a growing respect paid to the written canon . . . with the eventual result that Scripture comes to dominate prophecy to such an extent that the prophetic voice disappears altogether."102 The evidence from the New Testament is that prophecy was being looked down upon and despised as it was being abused. The danger the church faced was that they would not hear the genuine messages coming from authentic prophets. Paul counseled the church not to despise prophecies, but to test them. However, even with the genuine prophet there is an expectation at times a mixture of "wheat and chaff" as we see the human element surfacing. We should not therefore necessarily reject as false prophets those who at the lower level of prophecy do not demonstrate infallibility in conveying their messages. This judging of Christian prophets should not be confused with the Old Testament rules about judging false prophets. The New Testament passages deal with judging the prophecies being delivered, and not the prophet themselves. ______________ 83 Carson, pp. 94-95. [back] 84 Ibid., p. 95, footnote 69. [back] 85 Space forbids the inclusion of many of them. But a reader interested in this aspect of the subject should consult Thomas W. Gillespie, The First Theologians. A study in Early Christian Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1994), pp. 33-63. [back] 86 Aune, p. 219. [back] 87 Max Turner, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts Then and Now, (Cumbria, CA: Paternoster, 1996), pp. 213214. [back] 88 Ibid., [back] 89 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 1140. [back] 90 David Hill, New Testament Prophecy, (London England: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, [date ?]) [back] 91 Wayne Grudem The Gift of Prophecy in 1 Corinthians (New York: University Press of America, n.d.), pp. 66-67. [back] 92 Cranfield, p. 620. [back] 93 Witherington, p. 326. The following statements from Witherington are also worth noting "Although prophecy is alive and well in the Pauline churches, Paul's letters do not read like the works of a classical prophet—a collection of oracles offered on various occasions. . . . Texts in both 1 Cor 14 and Romans 12 suggest that Paul thought that it was possible to prophesy beyond the extent of one's inspiration and faith, and so such prophecy had to be sifted or weighed." p. 328. [back] 94 Aune, pp. 220-222. Siegfried Schatzmann A Pauline Theology of Charismata, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), pp 40-41, "the authority which the OT prophet claimed in his message introduced and indicated by the formula, 'thus says the Lord', is nowhere accorded to the Corinthian prophets; nor to any others. Indeed Paul 51

instructed clearly in 14:29 that prophetic utterance was subject to spiritual evaluation of the message and the source of its inspiration." He lends limited support for the concept that "distinguishing between spirits" relates to evaluating prophecy. He sees it as including a wider scope by offering the following observations. "Discernment of spirits. James D. G. Dunn translates diakriseis pneumaton as 'evaluation of inspired utterances' and links it closely to the preceding utterance of prophecy. Diakrisis may indeed be correlated with prophecy; in 1 Thess 5:20, 21 Paul mentioned the necessity of testing or evaluating all things, which follows immediately after the exhortation, 'Do not treat prophecies with contempt.' There may be precedent, therefore, for the restrictive interpretation suggested by Dunn. But against such a narrow conception speaks the fact that Paul did not elaborate on precisely what he meant by this gift in 12:10. The need for Spirit-led evaluation of all charismata is held in abeyance. . . . . In the light of the test which Paul had already established in 12:3, it is more appropriate to stay with the meaning given by most interpreters. Accordingly, discernment of spirits means the Spirit-given ability to distinguish the Spirit of God from a demonic spirit, under whose direction the charismatic exercises a particular gift." [back] 95 A term usually considered to mean the gift of prophecy at work. Compare the expression as it is used when Agabus makes a prophecy in Acts 11:28. [back] 96 Graeme S. Bradford, "Was Paul resisting the Spirit of Prophecy on his way to Jerusalem?" Unpublished MA paper. December 1993. In this paper I suggest that Paul was indeed following the procedure of evaluating prophecy when he still followed his own convictions that God wanted him to witness to his faith in Jerusalem. He still continued on his journey despite warnings given to him through Christian prophecy. Witherington expresses a similar view when he makes the following comment regarding Paul's attitude towards Agabus in Acts 21. "I suggest that, in these two texts, Luke is telling us much the same as what we find in 1 Cor 14. 'NT prophecy would seem to have had an authority of general content and was not to be taken as a literal transcript of God's words, but rather was something that needed to be weighed or sifted (see 1 Cor 14:29). What does have absolute authority, in Luke's view, is (1) the OT prophecies and (2) the words of Jesus, whether during his ministry or as conveyed in visions from the exalted Christ. In the age of prophecy fulfillment, there was indeed new prediction, but it had to be weighed carefully. One might prophesy beyond the measure of one's faith." Witherington, p. 342. [back] 97 Gillespie, pp. 220-221. [back] 98 Alistar Stewart-Sykes, From Prophecy to Preaching: A Search For The Origins Of The Christian Homily, (The Netherlands: Brill, Leiden. Boston, Koln., 2001), pp. 102-3. [back] 99 Ibid., p. 118. [back] 100 Ibid., p. 126. [back] 101 Ibid., p. 131. [back] 102 Ibid., pp. 270-271. [back]

52

Chapter Ten

The post-biblical era Even in the time of the apostles, prophecy was subject to misuse and thus inclined to be looked down upon by Christian congregations. We discover this in the many warnings and counsel found in the New Testament writings. For instance, "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good" (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). It seems there were reasons for the Thessalonians to look down on the gift and treat it with contempt. Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:1-3 encourages church members to eagerly desire this gift and endeavours to elevate it. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, Paul seems concerned that some false prophecies are being made declaring that "the day of the Lord had already come." F. F. Bruce makes the comment, "'Neither by spirit,' i.e. by a prophetic utterance made in the power of the Spirit of God or of another spirit. The prophecy might be a false prophecy or it might be a genuine prophecy misunderstood. . . . Prophecy was encouraged in the Thessalonian church (1Thess 5: 19, 20) and no doubt things to come figured largely in such prophecy: possibly the 'word of the Lord' of 1Thess 4:15 was communicated in this form. But discrimination was necessary (1Thess 5:21, 22) and nowhere more so than with prophecies relating to future events."103 John also finds it necessary to warn his people: "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4: 1). With the close of the Apostolic age, the prophetic gift as exercised by the apostles ended. Those who had been taught by Christ and had passed on the message concerning Christ had died. With that the Scriptures are seen to be complete. Many biblical references indicate that the gift of prophecy will continue on along with other gifts. They are all needed to build up a healthy body of believers and to keep the church on course.104 The church at large was sensitive to the work of false prophets and the abuse to which the gift of prophecy was being subjected. The apostles warned that attempts would be made by false teachers and prophets to lead them astray.105 Revelation 2:2 indicates problems existing near the turn of the first century: "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false." And the church did not always handle it well, "Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols" (Revelation 2:20). The prophets replaced While the apostles were alive they were the first court of appeal regarding the testing of true and false prophets. But now new tests were needed appropriate to the local situation at times. The Didache, which probably originated at Antioch in Syria at the turn of the century, gave tests which were considered appropriate for the time. "If he abide three days he is a false prophet . . . if he asks for money he is a false prophet . . . (Did 11). "Appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons . . . for unto you they also perform the service of prophets and teachers . . ." (Did 15).106 Witherington comments on prophecy as found in the Didache: "Didache 11:12 urges, 'whoever shall say in the spirit, 'Give me money or something else,' you shall not listen to him; but if he urges you to give on behalf of others you shall not judge him.' What this verse must mean is that indeed some words of prophets, even if spoken in the Spirit, are not truly from God and are not to be heeded or complied with. This, in turn, means that our author is not just saying, 'judge what he does, not what he says.' There is to be a sifting even of what he 53

says. The prophet's words are not to be taken as the Gospel if they do not comport with the 'dogma' of the Gospel. The situation here does not seem to be significantly different from that found in 1 Cor 14, for in neither case is it simply assumed that what the prophet says in pneumatic state is necessarily the very words of God. Again, we are dealing with a different situation from that found in the early church when it treated prophecy found in Scripture and apparently also the prophetic teaching and utterances of at least the original apostles."107 He goes on to summarise the work of prophets in the early church: "The impression given by both the material in Luke-Acts and the material in the Didache is that prophets has authority in the early church, but not absolute authority. They are seen as inspired but not infallible, and they are held responsible for what they say."108 He then repeats his summary, "In the literature discussed in this chapter, prophecy appeared as a phenomenon including prediction, but expressed in general or generic terms. It had an authority of general content but seldom offered clear specifics, and in any case, the prophet might say more than his inspiration warranted in the excitement of the moment."109 It would seem itinerant prophets and teachers were taking advantage of the local people and the advice was given to look more to local leadership for church guidance. As we move past the apostolic era and the church becomes more organised it seems that the gift of prophecy virtually disappears and prophets are replaced by administrators. It was an over reaction that led to the banning of prophets. Irenaeus who wrote about 185 AD, complained about "wretched men indeed, who in order not to allow false prophets set aside the gift of prophecy from the church. . . ."110 The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics adds: "Disappearance of the prophetic office. The churches were now put on the defensive and they soon sought to co-operate in the maintenance of their apostolic heritage. Joint action in councils was the most effective means at hand. This brought the bishops together and greatly increased their prestige and power. . . . Prophecy was thus placed under the restraint of written records, and it was considered more important to interpret the old prophecies than to utter new ones. All the unstable, intermittent spiritual gifts shared the fate of the prophetic. . . . There were sporadic efforts to reinstate prophecy as a special function in the life of the church, but it had served its day. . . . Its most important and essential element was absorbed by the teachers and preachers, and the office practically disappeared."111 Teachers and theologians came to the fore to preserve the faith and develop uniform interpretations of the Scriptures and creeds. Ecclesiastical authority developed to safeguard the church against schism. Spiritual gifts became identified with office. Ministers and priests became distinct from laity in order to recognise spiritual endowments. Priest-bishops came in to perpetuate apostolic authority. Traditions of faith and worship took over from the sporadic forms of worship. As this took place many argued that now the canon was complete there was no longer any need for the gift of prophecy. This was in part fuelled by reactions against the prophets found among the Gnostics and Montanists. In addition, Alister Stewart-Sykes in his recent book From Prophecy to Preaching demonstrates that preaching took over from prophecy in the early centuries of the Christian era and was, in part, a cause for the decline and eventual demise of prophecy in worship services. "Herein lies one of the origins of Christian preaching: for when prophecy was delivered it was necessary that the prophecy be judged, interpreted and expounded . . . as Scripture came to replace the living voice . . . with the eventual result that Scripture comes to dominate prophecy to such an extent that the prophetic voice disappears altogether. . . . This phenomenon has been termed 'scholasticisation' a term intended to describe the process whereby the process by which the loose organisation of communication of the word of God in the earliest households through prophecy, and through reactions to prophecy which in themselves are prophetic, is replaced by systematic communication through the reading and interpretation of Scripture. . . ."112 That the gift of prophecy continued on in Christianity during the Reformation and Post-Reformation era is recognised by A G Daniells: "Just what measure of spiritual illumination they received, it is impossible for us to know and declare. From our knowledge of the limitations and blindness of the minds of men at the present time, we cannot conceive how those leaders could see, and understand, and do as perfectly as they did without 54

special guidance by the Holy Spirit. Perversion, darkness, and corruption were universal and supreme. Many of the spiritual leaders of the period sincerely believed that the Lord made Himself known to them in visions and spoke to them in dreams."113 Seventh-day Adventists believe they still live in the age of the Spirit. We believe that the gifts that came into being at Pentecost are to be with the church until Jesus returns. We believe the prophetic gift has been manifested in the life and work of Ellen White. We will now begin to apply what we have seen, from the Bible, to her life and ministry.

______________ 103 F. F. Bruce, Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 45, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, General Editor David A. Bubbard, (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982). pp. 163-164. [back] 104 Acts 2:17-21, Ephesians 4:11-14; 1 Corinthians 12-14. [back] 105 Peter had warned the church to be wary "But there were false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. . ." 2 Peter 2:1-2. Paul had also warned the elders of Miletus to be watchful because ". . . after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from you own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!" Acts 20:29-31. [back] 106 These points are gleaned from J. B. Lightfoot, Translator, The Apostolic Father, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1974). [back] 107 Witherington, p. 345. [back] 108 Ibid., p. 347. [back] 109 Ibid., p. 350. [back] 110 Cited in C. Hill Prophecy Past and Present, p. 234-235. [back] 111 Cyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. Edit Hastings. Vol. 10 (Endinburgh, NY: T and T. Clark, n.d.), pp. 383-384. [back] 112 Alister Stewart-Sykes, pp. 270-271. [back] 113 A. G. Daniells, The Abiding Gift of Prophecy, (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1936), p. 221. [back

55

Chapter Eleven

The gift of prophecy in Adventism More than 150 years ago a 17-year-old girl began to give messages to early Adventist believers and said they were from God. Often these messages were not what they wanted to hear. Often they ran contrary to their plans. At times they pointed out weaknesses in the lives of many of the leaders and gave them advice contrary to their own inclinations. But they believed her. Throughout her 70-year ministry, those who were closest to her were firm believers in the fact that God had given her the gift of prophecy. Why was this? There are several reasons. 1. They saw that she was a true Christian. 2. They felt the power of her ministry in uplifting Jesus Christ, and in her calls for obedience to God and His Word. 3. When they were discouraged after the "Great Disappointment" of 1844 she was the one who kept their advent hopes alive. 4. In 1 Corinthians 14: 22-25, Paul declares that the presence of prophecy among God's people is a sign to believers. It confirms the presence of God is with them. She was indeed able to reveal the secrets of the human heart. There could be no doubt that she had revelations in order to come by this knowledge. Over many years she sent out personal testimonies to individuals. Only a handful ever claimed they were irrelevant.114 5. She gave them a sense of purpose and direction, a belief that God was still with them. 6. She expanded their concepts of mission to the world. 7. She gave them a sense of breadth and depth of mission to include health, education and welfare. 8. They witnessed her save the church from theological disaster at the hands of Kellogg, Waggoner and the Holy Flesh Movement. 9. When her counsel was followed, individuals usually prospered. When they failed to follow her counsel, things did not always prosper. Her messages and predictions were timely and practical.115 10. She saved the Church from Arianism by highlighting the true divinity of Christ. They still believed, even though they were also aware of weaknesses in her life. And they could have listed them as well: 1. She did have some problems in her marriage. There were times when she and her husband worked apart.116 2. She had problems with her children. She tended to favour Willie as the "good boy." James Edson, the only other of her four sons who survived to adulthood, turned away from the faith, but she won him back and he became a missionary to former slaves in the south of the United States. 3. She often became despondent over the criticism she faced. She could even doubt her own experience in Christ.117 4. She could be forgetful.118 56

5. She may not have always been as open about her use of other sources as she could have been.119 6. She struggled to give up eating flesh foods and live up to the health counsel she had given to others.120 However, as they applied the biblical tests for a prophet, they saw that she matched the biblical expectation in that she uplifted Jesus and called for obedience to God and His word. (It is also helpful to remember that all of us would like to be judged by the general tenor of our lives and not from a few lapses.) They found that she was in harmony with the major doctrines of the Bible such as Creation, salvation, law and the deity of Christ. And, in hindsight, you can add that she had a view of inspiration that is biblically correct even though it was not the prevailing view of her contemporaries. Her material on the subject was not printed until volume one of Selected Messages appeared in 1958, with more of her material on the topic appearing in volume three in 1980. A large number of Adventists are still oblivious to her views found in these volumes. Why her views on inspiration have not been widely known until recent times will be dealt with when considering the 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath. Support for Ellen White's ministry H. M. S. Richards had tremendous confidence in the prophetic gift of Ellen White because as a young man he heard her preach just three years before she died. About 5000 people were present, most of them nonAdventists. Here is how he described it: "Willie White led her out to the table where she was to speak. Just a little old lady in a black silk dress, with a little cap on her head. But, oh, when she started to preach there came one Bible text after another—at least 100 of them quoted right off just like that. She had no notes. She had her Bible but she never had to look at it but she would just keep turning the pages and quoting the texts. Her voice was like a silver bell as it carried out over that great audience. It started to rain; but above its din on the iron roof, you could hear that silver voice ringing out clearly through it all. "When she had spoken about 45 minutes her son came out and said, 'I think you are getting tired mother. You have talked long enough. I think you had better sit down.' 'No not yet I haven't prayed yet.' Then she began to pray and when she did something happened. Before that she was just a dear old lady, talking. But when she knelt down a great change came over the whole congregation. She was God's prophet then and God honored her. Within 30 seconds we were all in the presence of God. I was afraid to look up lest I should see God standing there by her side. Within minutes you could hear sobs around the congregation."121 That experience stayed with Richards the rest of his life. Later, when troubles over her writings erupted he never lost his confidence in her ministry. He always had a true biblical expectation of what to expect from a person manifesting the gift of prophecy. In his biography of Richards, Robert Edwards comments on Richard's attitudes and understanding of the work of Ellen White: "Although the writings and the character of Ellen White powerfully influenced him, he also had common sense enough to know that she was a fallible human being, that she made mistakes. When the furor over the accusations that she had plagiarized from other authors shook many in the church some years ago, Richards remained unperturbed. 'They haven't discovered anything new,' he said, 'All those charges are old. I heard them all 40 years ago. They were all discussed at the 1919 Bible Conference. . . .' H. M. S. Richards accepted her for what she was and what she herself claimed to be. It protected him from the disappointments some men and women experienced who held an unreal view of what a prophet and prophecy should be."122 Walter Martin123was once interviewed about his concepts of Ellen White. He was critical of her work, on a basis she did not meet up with his private expectations. Toward the end of the interview he said, "I have been pressed and pressed by people to get me to say Ellen White is a false prophet. . . . Mrs. White in my opinion, made false statements. She misused what she claimed was the prophetic gift she had. I believe this, in certain instances. But if you're going to try and say that makes Ellen White the same as the false prophets prohibited in 57

Exodus and Deuteronomy, then you have to demonstrate, that Ellen White was an unbeliever and that it was a deliberate and willful perversion of truth regarding salvation and revelation. That's a very fine line. Of course, technically, I would have to say that the person who prophesies in the name of God and turns out to be wrong, has prophesied falsely. You have to say that. But they want me to go further than that. They want me to make Mrs. White a biblical false prophet which means that she is not a Christian. I cannot endorse that."124 Martin, although critical in many respects, still accepted her as a believer in Jesus Christ and a true Christian. Notes for the honest inquirer There have been many critical of her work. It may also be that those who are most critical have not done their homework in the Scriptures to have a proper understanding of the biblical expectations of how a person functions under the gift of prophecy. Remember, the real test is that the prophet calls people to holy living and obedience to God's word. The true prophet will uplift Jesus Christ as the sin bearer of the world and challenge people to trust in Him. Jesus said that "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7: 15-23). The honest inquirer attempting to make a decision regarding Ellen White's authenticity should read some of her most famous books. As you read books like The Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ you will find the fruitage that Jesus said should be found in a true prophet. Ingemar Linden in his book The Last Trump states, "If EGW had achieved nothing else than write The Desire of Ages she would still merit a place among the outstanding Christian women. Her life provides spiritual food for Christians in all walks of life."125 In The Desire of Ages, the chapter on the Garden of Gethsemane paints such a picture of Christ as to melt the hardest of hearts—as does the chapter on Calvary. The fruitage of this book is to exalt Christ and lead people to trust in Him. The little book Steps to Christ has a marvelous chapter on how a person may know they are a Christian. Here the fruitage of the book is to build Christian hope and assurance. Some will argue that some of this material has been gleaned from other writers. However, as we have already seen, writers under inspiration can do this. Also, as noted, writers under inspiration may see a need to have secretarial help. While Ellen White's husband was alive he helped her with her writing, but after his death she felt very inadequate. This was partly because of her lack of formal education. She said, "I am not a scholar. I cannot prepare my own writings for the press. . . . I am thinking I must lay aside my writing I have taken so much pleasure in, and see if I cannot become a scholar. I am not a grammarian. I will try, if the Lord will help me, at forty-five years old to become a scholar in the science. . . . Oh, that God would quicken the understanding, for I am but a poor writer, and cannot with pen or voice express the great and deep mysteries of God. . . ."126

__________________ 114 For more information see Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord—The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White, (Nampa, ID, Pacific Press,1998), "Some Visions Directed to Secret Problems," pp. 164-166. [back] 115 Ibid., "Timely Instructions and Predictions," pp. 154-166. [back] 116 After James White had a stroke he often became very depressed and difficult to live with. He did not always appreciate having his wife say to him that God had told her what to tell him. For details regarding the frank letters they shared when apart read Ellen G. White (Six-volume biography). Arthur. L. White. (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald), Vol. 2, pp. 425-445. [back] 117 EW, pp. 20-24. [back] 118 George Knight writes "On February 18, 1887, Mrs. White wrote an important letter to Jones and E. J. Waggoner. She pointed out that she had been looking for the testimony she had written to J. H. Waggoner in 58

1854, but could not find it. She recalled that she had written "to him that I had been shown his position in regard to the law was incorrect," but that she could not recall exactly what was incorrect about it, since "the matter does not lie clear and distinct in my mind.". . . . In her letter to Butler and Smith, Mrs. White once again referred to the lost testimony to J. H. Waggoner, pointing out that the counsel may not have been on doctrine at all. "It may be it was a caution not to make his ideas prominent at that time, for there was a great danger of disunion." From 1888 to Apsostacy, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987), pp. 25, 27. [back] 119 Although she frequently recommended to others to read the same books she was using there were times when she appears to be not as open. Robert Olsen, Sec. of the White Estate comments "It is apparent that Ellen White's literary practices were well known by our church members during her lifetime. Yet it is equally clear that she did not encourage discussion of the subject. Why? In my opinion, she did not want her readers to be distracted from her message because of concentrating on her method. Undue attention to how she wrote might raise unnecessary doubts in some minds as to the authority of what she wrote. Robert Olsen, "Ellen White's Denials," Ministry, February 1991, p. 18. See the full article in appendix C. [back] 120 Ron Graybill, The Development of Adventist Thinking On Clean and Unclean Meats, EGW Estate, 10/6/1981." . . . there is evidence of some laxness in the 1870's and 1880's which allowed a little meat to appear on her table when it may not have been essential. Given the difficulties of refrigeration and transporting food in the nineteenth century, it was much more difficult then to gain an adequate diet without using flesh foods." p. 3. [back] 121 H.M.S. Richards, Feed My Sheep, (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1956), p. 41. [back] 122 Robert Edwards, H. M. S. Richards, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), pp. 35-37. [back] 123 Walter Martin was a Baptist pastor and widely acknowledged as an authority on cults before he died late last century. [back] 124 Adventist Currents, July 1983, p. 28. [back] 125 Ingemar Linden, The Last Trump, An historico-genetical study of some important chapters in the making and development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 1978), p. 221. [back] 126 3SM, p. 90. [back]

59

Chapter Twelve

Borrowing to illustrate spiritual truth Even though a great deal of study has been undertaken to find out more about her borrowing from other writers, there still exists, and will always exist, a difference of opinion as to the percentage borrowed. How could anyone ever hope to reconstruct all her sources?127 The truth is that we all borrow from each other, and from many sources of which we are scarcely aware.128 And it is difficult for us to sit in the mindset of those who lived in her age. Today we have tight copyright laws, which, in her day were just coming to the fore. The first person to point out her borrowings from others was a former Adventist pastor D. M. Canright. Yet when the denomination wished to reprint Moses Hull's book The Bible from Heaven,129 they asked Canright to work it over to print it under his name. This he did and followed Hull's work very closely. He even felt free to put in the preface that the book had been written "after extensive reading and careful thought upon the subject."130 Neither James White nor the other Adventist leaders saw anything wrong with using the material from Hull. They all perceived what they wrote as belonging to a pool of common property with anyone free to dip into the pool. This was also true of Ellen White's writings, they took from her and she took from them. Willie White comments: "All felt that the truths to be presented were common property and wherever one could help another or get from another in the expression of biblical truths, it was considered right to do so. Consequently there were many excellent statements of present truth copied by one writer from another. And no man said that ought which he wrote was exclusively his own. In the process of time many things which Sister White wrote and said were used by others without credit, and she in turn when dealing with prophetic exposition or doctoral statements felt free to use without credit the statements and teachings of leading writers among the pioneers when she found in their writings the exact thought that she wished to present."131 When Ellen White used material from other Adventist writers in her book The Great Controversy132 she was doing what they all felt free to do with each other's writings. And although Canright tried to upset the Adventist community with the charges of plagiarism, they were never upset by what he revealed. It could well be that many were already aware of her borrowing practice. The books she borrowed from were often the same books she recommended the Adventist community to read. Vincent Ramik a copyright-law specialist researched the legal aspects of her use of other writers and came to the conclusion in his report that there would have been no legal case against her in her day, and that he had his life changed forever by reading her books.133 William Hanna in the preface to his book The Life of Christ, one of Ellen White's sources for The Desire of Ages states, "Nor has he thought it necessary to burden the following pages with references to all the authorities consulted."134 It seems that Ellen White's time was a state of transition regarding the need to acknowledge the use of the writings of others. The important point to note is that we must not judge her by today's expectations, but see her operating within the context of her time and the expectations of that time. Times and expectations do change. I now look back in horror that when I did my theological training we accepted the fact that the girls at Avondale only received about half the wages of the boys. They had to pay the same fees and all other costs were the same but because they were female they were paid less. No one, to my knowledge, ever questioned it, but looking at it through today's eyes, it was wrong. God meets people where they are. He works within their cultural mindset. Ellen White wrote and borrowed in a way that appeared normal to her and her contemporaries. Today we think differently.135 Her mindset allowed her to borrow freely from other writers—as did others.136 Some of them we regard as great writers.

60

Debate has centred around how much of her work is borrowed from other authors. But the percentage she borrowed is not as important as why she borrowed. The truth is she borrowed to glorify Jesus. She borrowed to move people's heart to have faith in Him.After her death they found in her library a book entitled Sunshine and Shadows Along the Pathway of Life by M. G. Clarke. In the flyleaf of the book Ellen White had written a note that shows us her thinking regarding how she could use what she had read and appreciated so much in the book: "This is a book I esteem highly. Never let it be lost of [sic] this time. I appreciate it, I shall be pleased to keep this book for it has treasures of truth which I appreciate in presenting to many others."137 How Ellen White wrote It is important to understand how she did her work. Insights from her son, Willie, are helpful because probably no one understood her work better than he did, for he worked with her for many years. Willie states, "The great events occurring in the life of our Lord were presented to her in panoramic scenes as also were other portions of The Great Controversy. In a few of these scenes chronology and geography were clearly presented, but in the greater part of the revelation the flashlight scenes, which were exceedingly vivid, and the conversations and the controversies, which she heard and was able to narrate, were not marked geographically or chronologically, and she was left to study the Bible and history, and the writings of men who had presented the life of our Lord to get the chronological and geographical connection"138 It would seem that it was left to her to fill out these "flashlight scenes" and "panoramas" in her visions by studying the writings of others.139 In a letter he wrote to F. M. Wilcox, Willie gives more insights as to why she borrowed ideas from history: "Sister White has often quoted from history. Her descriptions of scenes presented to her in vision, and her use of the statements of historians, have been made for teaching the way of salvation, and not for the purpose of approving or correcting history. Her burden has been to make clear to the common people the character of the great controversy between good and evil, and to arouse in their hearts a hatred for sin and a loyalty to the King of Kings. . . . "From this we may conclude that it is not the will of God that we use these writings to prove the historical accuracy of authors or to correct their errors. But rather that we use them to make clear to the minds of men, the living truths of the Word of God, and the practical meaning of the signs of the times, and the fulfillment of prophecy. History has been used to illustrate the lessons of the book"140 (emphasis added). Willie also makes the following, significant points: "The class of matter written by Mrs White, in which she used the writings of others, is comparatively small when considering the vast field covered by her writings. It is in the delineation in prophetic and doctrinal exposition that we find that she used the words of others or had closely paraphrased them. In the vast field covering thousands of pages of messages of encouragement, reproof, and spiritual instruction, she worked independent of all other writers, also in her divine prediction of future experiences through which the church must pass"141 (emphasis added). It is important for us to note the reason she gathered the material from history, prophecy and doctrine is that she might bring home spiritual lessons to her readers. First and foremost she was fulfilling the role of a prophet as Paul had stated, "But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14: 3). Above all else, she was concerned with upholding a high standard of Christian living. Doctrine was not her main concern unless she saw false doctrine undermining faith in Christ. At the General Conference session in Minneapolis, in 1888, where the leadership was divided on the correct understanding of the law in Galatians and other theological points, George Knight makes the following observation, "The message of 1888, as Ellen White viewed it, is not doctrinal. We do not find her concerned with the law in Galatians, the covenants or the Trinity. Nor do we find her expounding upon the human or divine nature of Christ or sinless living as key elements of the message. She was not even obsessed with the doctrine of righteousness by faith. Her special interest was Jesus Christ, that Adventists might apply the attributes of His loving character to the practical experience of daily life, and that individuals go to Him for forgiveness."142 61

Bert Haloviak agrees: "In Dec of 1888, after noticing the spirit of those who defended the old position on Galatians, EGW noted: 'For the first time I began to think it might be we did not hold correct views after all, upon the law in Galatians, for the truth required no such spirit to sustain it.' Notice how she explained issues to a group of ministers. . . . 'I am afraid of you and I am afraid of your interpretation of any scripture which has revealed itself in such an un-Christ-like spirit. . . . I am afraid of any application of scripture that needs such a spirit and bears such fruit as you have manifested. . . you could never have given a better refutation of your own theories than that you have done. . . . I have nothing to say, no burden regarding the law in Galatians. This matter looks to me of minor consequence in comparison with the spirit you have brought into your faith. . . . The most convincing testimony that we can bear to others that we have the truth is the spirit which attends the advocacy of that truth. If it sanctifies the heart of the receiver, if it makes him gentle, kind, forbearing, true and Christ-like, then he will give some evidence of the fact that he has the genuine truth."143 Here, Ellen White was more concerned with Christian conduct than theological correctness. In doing this she was fulfilling her role as a prophet. She borrows material from history, theology and prophecy with the main aim of helping to press home spiritual truths so that we might become better Christians. This she saw as far more important than being precisely accurate in every detail. In her introduction to The Great Controversy she states that she is using "well known and universally acknowledged . . . facts which none can gainsay."144 That is she is using facts which were commonly acknowledged by people in her era. Her purpose is that of spiritual application. When we look at her writings we see that most of what she had to say is in the area of spiritual application of Scriptural principles to daily living. Comparatively speaking, only a small percentage of her writings have to do with deep theology. She was more concerned that we show the fruits of the Spirit in our daily living and follow in the footsteps of Christ. Raoul Dederen agrees, "As interpreter of the Bible, Ellen White's role was that of an evangelist—not an exegete, nor a theologian, as such, but a preacher and an evangelist. . . . No wonder, therefore, that the prophetic and hortatory mode was more characteristic of her than the exegetical . . . she was, in the typical prophetic attitude, primarily desirous to press the text into service for the immediate objective, that of the spiritual quickening of her hearers or readers. She lived in a century of evangelistic revival, and her main purpose was to arrest attention and to bring conviction and repentance more than merely to relay information"145 (emphasis added). Discussion of Ellen White's writings In the after-meeting of the 1919 Bible Conference, A. G. Daniells146 could speak with authority. He had on many occasions, along with W. W. Prescott, been part of the team that worked with her in the putting together of some of her books. During the course of the after-meeting he made this observation, "Well, now, as I understand it, Sister White never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed to be a dogmatic teacher on theology. She never outlined a course of theology, like Mrs. Eddy's book on teaching. . . . She never claimed to be an authority on history . . . she was ready to correct in revision such statements as she thought should be corrected. I have never gone to her writings, and taken the history that I found in her writings, as the positive statement of history regarding the fulfilment of prophecy."147 At the after-meetings, H. C. Lacey adds an interesting comment: "In our estimate of the spirit of prophecy, isn't its value to us more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy in historical and theological matters? Ought we not to take those writings as the voice of the Spirit of our hearts, instead of as the voice of the teacher to our heads? And isn't the final proof of the spirit of prophecy its spiritual value rather than its historical accuracy? "A. G. Daniels: Yes I think so."148 62

Not only did Ellen White's helpers have this view of her writing, but she supports this concept. Notice in a letter Willie wrote to S. N. Haskell (a letter she signs at the end with the comment, "I approve of the remarks made in this letter, [signed] Ellen White): "Regarding Mother's writings, she has never wished our brethren to treat them as authority on 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. . . ."149 At another time, Willie wrote, "Regarding Mother's writings, I have overwhelming evidence and conviction that they are the description and delineation of what God has revealed to her in vision, and where she has followed the description of historians or the exposition of Adventist writers, I believe that God has given her discernment to use that which is correct and in harmony with truth regarding all matters essential for salvation. If it should be found by faithful study that she has followed some expositions of prophecy which in some detail regarding dates we cannot harmonize with our understanding of secular history, it does not influence my confidence in her writings as a whole any more than my confidence in the Bible is influenced by the fact that I cannot harmonize many of the statements regarding chronology."150 Here, Willie, some of her helpers, and Ellen White herself view her work as it should be seen, and in harmony with the one statement in Scripture which clearly tells why the gift of prophecy was given: "But everyone who prophecies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3). Perhaps we can understand her mindset even further when we read statements like this from The Desire of Ages: "In the story of the Good Samaritan, Christ illustrates the nature of true religion. He shows that it consists not in systems, creeds, or rites, but in the performance of loving deeds, in bringing the greatest good to others; in genuine goodness."151We can also see her understanding of different ideas as expressed in the Bible when she wrote "The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human in imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes."152 To her the Bible was primarily given to help us to find Jesus and tell us how to live. Not just to pass on information. Because of this she never got "hung up" as did some others because of the differences of details found within the Scriptures. She saw her own writings operating in the same manner. Her writings were primarily to help us find and maintain our faith in Jesus and teach us how to live in harmony with His will. In doing this she was fulfilling the role of a prophet. The problem of historical inaccuracies It can be unsettling for some to come to grips with the fact that there are historical inaccuracies in her writings, so let's explore this matter further. In her appendix to a draft copy of Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 2 she makes this comment: "A special request is made that if any find incorrect statements in this book they will immediately inform me. The edition will be completed about the first of October; therefore send before that time."153 When writing The Great Controversy she made this request, "Tell Mary to find me some histories of the Bible that would give me the order of events. I have nothing and can find nothing in the library here" (Letter 38,1885).154 And we know in order to get a chronology for the life of Christ when writing The Desire of Ages, she consulted Samuel J. Andrews The Life of our Lord Upon the Earth.155 The evidence is clear that she was open to help and willing to consult others in regards to historical details. This has not always been widely understood until recent times. In her day there were some well informed on this matter, an inner circle who helped her in her work. Sadly this knowledge was not widely known156 in her time and almost lost after her death. We will investigate how this came about in chapter 18 on the 1919 Bible Conference. In 1982 an Adventist pastor in Czechoslovakia gave a copy of The Great Controversy to Dr. Amedo Molnar of Prague University. He was asked to give an evaluation on her work in his area of speciality, namely the Waldenses, Wycliffe, Huss, and Jerome. In his letter he notes her errors regarding the facts of history and how 63

there are many important historical events omitted. He repeats the idea that it seems to him that she is not writing history but rather is giving a meaning to history. He states, "The impulse of her work lies in the interpretation of the sense of historical events teaching the believing and hoping Christian, i.e. it lies in another field other than proper historical research. As far as her work . . . is not used as a substitute for the strictly historical research . . . it may feed an eschatological hope of the believing Christians"157 In other words, she is not a historian. Rather, she is giving a meaning to history. She is interpreting history for Christians. Today these historical inaccuracies are acknowledged by the White Estate; but this should not be a problem for those who have a correct view of her work.158 In the 1970s, William S. Peterson wrote an article "A textual and historical study of Ellen White's account of the French Revolution." He was very critical of her work from a historian's point of view claiming that she had: Not used the best sources available to her; she had used her sources carelessly; they were strongly anti-Catholic sources; they were weak on factual evidence; sometimes she had misread them; at other times she had exaggerated them; and occasionally she left out crucial facts. Ron Graybill, a research assistant in the White Estate was given the job of checking out the work of Peterson. In the Summer of 1972 Spectrum, Graybill responded to Peterson's work on the "French Revolution" chapter of The Great Controversy. A study of the notes left by Clarence Crisler, Ellen White's secretary, showed that she was not misusing sources at all. The notes showed that she took the history in this chapter straight out of Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Daniel and Revelation. Uriah Smith was the poor historian and she followed his lead.159 It is well known that the 1888 edition of The Great Controversy was revised in 1911. The plates for the older edition had worn and so there was an opportune time for a reprint and revision. She received advice from Prescott and accepted some of his advice.160 Among the changes were: In the 1888 edition she wrote, "The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures." In the 1911 edition she said, "The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures." In the 1888 edition she said the fall of Babylon cannot refer to the Romish Church because it fell in the early centuries. In the 1911 edition she wrote that the fall of Babylon cannot refer to the Roman Church alone. When the new edition was released it was met with a mixed reaction. W. A. Spicer felt there should have been more changes and blamed the editors.161 One gets the impression that, particularly toward the end of her life, she was significantly relying upon the input of others in the production of her books.162 This point is made even stronger when we read a letter written to W. W. Prescott from her secretary Clarence E. Crisler. In this letter he appeals to Prescott to come to give some help in the work of Ezra (which must have been for writing the book Prophets and Kings). In this letter he makes a list of the problem areas they need help and then says at the end, "I am sure that Sister White would be specially pleased and cheered, if she could know that you were coming soon to help us over hard places."163 Understanding her purpose That she had people helping her do her work should not cause too much concern when we understand that Paul's writings also show evidence of such help (see chapter four, "Literary assistance for inspired writers"). And if we also have clearly in mind her purpose in writing was to take material from history to impress home spiritual truth by way of illustration. And, of course, 1 Corinthians 14:3 must remain the theme text: "But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort." Even in her day, not everyone had this idea clearly in mind and they gave her writings an authority beyond what was appropriate. This could account for the protest that Prescott made to Willie in the year that Ellen White died. "It seems to me that a large responsibility rests upon those of us who know that there are serious errors in our authorized books and yet make no special effort to correct them. The people and our average 64

ministers trust us to furnish them with reliable statements, and they use them as sufficient authority in their sermons, but we let them go on year after year asserting things we know to be untrue. . . . The way your mother's writings have been handled and the false impression concerning them which is still fostered among the people have brought great perplexity and trial to me. It seems to me that what amounts to deception, though probably not intentional, has been practiced in making some of her books, and that no serious effort has been made to disabuse the minds of the people of what was known to be their wrong view concerning her writings. But it is no use to go into these matters. I have talked to you for years about them, but it brings no change. I think however that we are drifting toward a crisis which will come sooner or later and perhaps sooner. A very strong reaction has already set in."164 Prescott's letter is indeed a serious one. It seems Willie White and Prescott held to the same ideas regarding how Ellen White's work was produced, their difference lay in the fact that Prescott felt Adventists should be better informed.165 What he says is hinted at in the conversation of the 1919 Bible Conference after-meeting. It seems many Adventists held to a view of verbal inspiration regarding her writings.166 J. N. Anderson asks the question "Is it well to let our people in general to go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the Testimonies? When we do that, aren't we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day?"167 We will return to the subject of Adventists and their views of inspiration later. Meanwhile it is important to keep in mind Ellen White's understanding of her work. Regarding the writing of The Great Controversy, she states in the introduction, the purpose of the book, "To unfold the scenes of the great controversy between truth and error; to reveal the wiles of Satan, and the means by which he may be successfully resisted; to present a satisfactory solution of the great problem of evil, shedding such a light upon the origin and the final disposition of sin as to make fully manifest the justice and benevolence of God in all His dealings with His creatures; and to show the holy, unchanging nature of His law, is the object of this book."168 She also talks in terms of how she viewed the material from history that she borrowed, "The great events which have marked the progress of reform in past ages are matters of history, well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world. . . ."169 (Emphasis added). That is, she is telling us that she is using ideas accepted by the Protestant world of her day to present the Advent message to them. If God had given her information we know to be more correct today her book would have been rejected by many who felt they were well informed in her era. We have seen that God meets people where they are to give to them His messages about Jesus. In doing this she was in harmony with how God has used prophets in the past. We must keep clearly in mind her stated purpose and then we will not stumble on some of the details as she uses history—as it was understood by many in her time—to illustrate spiritual lessons. The Great Controversy was never meant to be the final word on history, prophecy or theology. She borrowed much of her material from other Adventist writers, particularly Andrews and Smith.170 She was willing to make changes when she had input from others and no doubt she would continue to do so if she were alive. The book was prepared for public usage to be sold as an evangelistic tool to win people to Adventism, using concepts that Adventism had at that time of its development.171 Some say that when she states "I saw" her words have special authority. However, we know there were times when she used these words and then quoted from the works of others. It could be that the words "I saw" or "I was shown" mean "she saw" or "was shown" through the study of books. There are even times when she uses the words of authors when describing words she had heard spoken in vision. Ron Graybill an Associate Secretary of the White Estate made the following comments in a series of General Conference Worships in 1981 "Did Mrs. White ever borrow when she was reporting a vision? Did she ever say 'I was shown' and then proceed to borrow? The answer to that is 'yes,' although examples of it are not very plentiful. They are quite rare. I know of only three clear and unequivocal examples."172 Graybill then goes on to give examples and show how the handwritten drafts of her material were even closer to the source than the published versions 65

which followed. This was no doubt due to the work of her literary assistants. Graybill adds further light to her borrowings with the following comments "She also employed extra-biblical comments on the lives of various biblical characters, often turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact. Sometimes similar use was made of their comments on the thoughts and activities of supernatural beings, that is, God, Satan, and their respective angels. . . . These borrowings occurred not only in the historical sections of The Great Controversy but also in its prophetic sections.173 If we continue to see her work in harmony with her stated purpose, and the stated purpose of Scripture for prophets then we should find no problem with the above data. Problems only arise when we claim more for her works than she claimed for them herself. She made this helpful comment: "The written testimonies are not to give new light, but to impress vividly upon the heart the truths of inspiration already revealed. . . . Additional truth is not brought out; but God has through the Testimonies simplified the great truths already given" (5T 665). ___________ 127 It is probably wrong to assert that Ellen White was uneducated. She was self-educated. It is obvious that she was an avid reader with a retentive memory. [back] 128 Edward Young: conjectures on Original Composition quoted in Plagarism W. A. Edwards, Cambridge Press, London. 1933, "So few are our originals, that if all other books were burnt, the lettered world would resemble some metropolis in flames, where a few incombustible buildings—a fortress, a temple, a tower—lift their heads in melancholy grandeur, amid the mighty ruin." p. 14. Perhaps it may help us to think in terms of her age if we think of the following statements: A friend of Samuel Johnson, discussing the subject of criticism with him, remarked that critics of repute labored under a burden: they were expected to be saying witty and meaningful things all the time, and it was a heavy tax on them. 'It is indeed a very heavy tax,' said Dr. Johnson, 'a tax which no man can pay who does not steal. There are, in history of literature, few examples of alchemy as vivid and unassailable as "Kubla Khan" and "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner." Coleridge poured the essence of dozens of strange and obscure travel books into his masterpieces. The more we scan his sources—the greater is our wonder at the supreme skill with which he assimilated and metamorphosed what he took and the keener our realization that the result was irrevocably his. Ibid., p 84-85. "In The Pickworth Paper Dickens sifted Boswell's Life of Johnson, drew more heavily on Washington Irivne (he copied some passages from Irvine verbatim, lifted descriptions with slight alterations, and adapted some of Irving's tales, and plucked freely from contemporary papers and journals, song and travel books, comedies, fiction, poetry, essays, and biography. It has been said that A Tale of Two Cities owes its very existence to Carlyle's French Revolution . . . and that a A Child's History of England is little more than a copy of Goldsmith's History of England. Ibid., p. 86. These statements give us an insight into the mind set of those who lived closer to the world of Ellen White. [back] 129 It could no longer be published under Hull's name as he had left the denomination and become a spiritualist. [back] 130 For a more complete reading of this incident see Ron Graybill's article in Insight, 21 October, 1980, p. 710. [back]

66

131 "Brief Statements Regarding The Writings of Ellen G. White." Prepared by W. C. White and D. E. Robinson. p. 7. [back] 132 She says in the introduction, "In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works." [back] 133 "Was EGW a Plagiarist?" Four articles printed in Adventist Review, commencing September 17, 1981. [back] 134 William Hanna, The Life of Christ, p. 9 as quoted in Roger Coon's article "The Integrity Issue: Was Ellen G. White an Honest and Honorable Person?" White Estate unpublished document. 135 Those wishing to read more on her mindset should read "Was Ellen White a Pious Fraud" by Jack Provonsha. Unpublished article available from the White Research Center. [back] 136 See footnotes 4-7. [back] 137 A photocopy of the original was sent to all Research Centers by Robert Olsen Secretary of the White Estate on March 9, 1983. [back] 138 3SM, pp. 459-460. [back] 139 Ibid., "In some of the historical matters such as are brought out in Patriarchs and Prophets and in Acts of the Apostles, and in Great Controversy, the main outlines were made very clear and plain to her, and when she came to write up these topics, she was left to study the Bible and history to get dates and geographical relations and to perfect her description of details." p. 462. Ron Graybill points out that there are times when she takes "extra-biblical comments on the lives of various biblical characters, often turning the speculations and conjectures of her sources into statements of positive fact. Sometimes similar use was made of their comments on the thoughts and activities of supernatural beings, that is, God, Satan, and their respective angels." E. G. White's Literary Work An Update: General Conference Worship, November 15-19, 1981, p. 11. [back] 140 Letter from Willie White to F. M. Wilcox, April 27, 1915. DF 107d. [back] 141 W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, "Brief Statements Regarding the Writings of EGW." August 1933, p. 1920. Perhaps this concept of her ministry was developed early in her ministry. This seems to be the implications of her statement regarding her ministry with that of her husband. She wrote: "Our meetings were usually conducted in such a manner that both of us took part. My husband would give a doctrinal discourse, then I would follow with an exhortation of considerable length, melting my way into the feelings of the congregation. Thus my husband sowed and I watered the seed of truth, and God did give the increase." 1T, p. 75. [back] 142 George Knight, From 1888 To Apostasy, Review and Herald, 1987, p. 69. [back] 143 Bert Haloviak, "Ellen White and the Pharisees," Two unpublished sermons preached at Beltsville SDA Church, Oct, 23, 1982. [back] 144 The Great Controversy, p. xi. [back] 145 Raoul Dederen was professor of theology, SDA Theological Seminary, Andrews University when he wrote this article entitled "Ellen White's Doctrine of Scripture" in a special supplement to Ministry, July, 1977, p. 24. [back] 67

146 The 1919 after-meeting was held with church administrators and Bible teachers to try and sort out some of the wrong views coming to the fore regarding the use of Ellen White's writings. This meeting was held just 4 years after her death. [back] 147 1919 Bible Conference Minutes printed in Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 1, May 1979, p. 34. [back] 148 Ibid., p. 38. [back] 149 Willie White to S. N. Haskell, October 31, 1912. For the background to the writing of this letter see Ministry August 1997 article by George Knight "The Case Of The Overlooked Postscript: A Footnote On Inspiration." pp. 9-11. In The Great Controversy it is estimated that she quotes from 88 authors but at times she is using secondary sources. For example when she cites Scott, Thiers and Alison in her chapters on the French Revolution, her sources for these quotations was Uriah Smith's Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. Robert Olsen, "Ellen White's use of historical sources in The Great Controversy," Adventist Review, February 23, 1984, p. 4. [back] 150 3SM, pp. 449-450. [back] 151 DA, p. 497. [back] 152 1SM, p. 20. [back] 153 3SM, p. 58. [back] 154 Ibid., p. 122. [back] 155 Ibid., p. 123. [back] 156 Evidence of this is found in a letter to her from W. W. Giles which reads "I enclose $25 [by] bank draft. It is intended as payment to you for composing or writing a small pamphlet embodying answers and explanations to the ten paragraphs on enclosed sheet. . . . In case you think of other tricks of Satan to ensnare sinners who are anxious to be saved, please add it to the work. I suppose it will require about 40 or 60 pages of a pamphlet." Letter W. W. Giles to EGW, 5/7/1890. [back] 157 Prof. Dr. Amedeo Molnar, 21st June 1982 translated by Miloslav Sustek. [back] 158 "Historical Difficulties In The Great Controversy" by Ron Graybill associate secretary of the White Estate. [back] 159 Don McAdams, "Shifting Views on Inspiration." Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 30-31. [back] 160 A little more than half of his 105 suggestions were accepted by her. [back] 161 "It is too bad that the editors of these manuscripts should try to settle some of these controverted questions where authorities disagree. . . .We have had quite a battle, some of us, for several years, trying to make the brethren see that it was not right to claim any extraordinary authority for matters of this kind. While this is conceded enough privately, the difficulty has been, it seems to me, that courage has been lacking to take a straight and consistent position. Years ago, I urged W. C. W. to have a statement in the revised "Great Controversy" that would relieve the whole situation. I hoped it would have been there, but it has not been made. People are left to run across places where the revised edition corrects statements in the old edition, and then some poor soul has a worrying time over it, when it is altogether unnecessary. The trouble is all in the bookmaking, and there has been too much of an effort on the part of the book-makers, I believe, to emphasize the fact that they do it all under observation, as though that would make sure of inspiration and correct work. . . . I 68

believe the editors have been a little hard to deal with in accepting suggestions, . . . A comparison of the new and old editions of "Great Controversy" will show many things changed, although some things should surely have been corrected further. . . . " W. A. Spicer to L. R. Conradi, November 30, 1914. 21bk 63, p. 618, Spicer was secretary of the General Conference at the time of writing. Spicer also was upset with the part the bookmakers had in her book Sketches from the Life of Paul he complains "The charge of plagiarism in Sister White's books was raised by D. M. Canright. Sketches from the Life of Paul was made up, unfortunately, from manuscripts by Sister White, with the gaps filled in by extracts from Conybeare and Howson's Life of Paul here and there . . . those responsible for such a job should never have done what they did, and the book was withdrawn from circulation. I do not suppose Conybeare and Howson, if they are alive, ever heard of the book. I think the book-makers had no right to use the matter as they did, and I think those responsible for it years ago felt the same after they had done it. That is why I suppose the book has not been continued in print." W. A. Spicer to E. W. Webstere, February 14, 1910. 21 bk 53, p.188. [back] 162 For a more complete study "A Response to Two Explanations of W .W. Prescott's 1915 Letter." A paper by Gilbert M. Valentine June 1981, Andrews University. [back] 163 Clarence E. Crisler to W.W. Prescott, December 27, 1907. [back] 164 W. W. Prescott to W. C. White, April 6, 1915. [back] 165 This point has been substantiated by Gilbert Valentine in his paper "A Response to Two Explanations of W. W. Prescott's 1915 letter." June 1981 Andrews University. [back] 166 Verbal inspiration is the idea that God gave the prophet every word to write. It was a view widely held in the Christian world in the days when they were speaking and still held today. This is different to thought inspiration and the methods of inspiration we have been writing about in chapter. . . . If most of our people held to this view then it would mean that it would be difficult to explain to them the way in which she was doing her work. [back] 167 1919 Bible Conference p. 46. [back] 168 Ellen White, The Great Controversy, xii. [back] 169 Ibid., xii. [back] 170 Ibid., She states "In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works. [back] 171 At the same time it must be noted that she never got involved in the concept of Turkey being the "King of the North" as found in the writings of Uriah Smith and others. She does keep to the main theme of the "End Time" as being a religious contest between those who wish to be found loyal to Jesus by keeping His commandments and those who reject the law of God. [back] 172 E. G. White's work: An Update. General Conference Worship, November 15-19, 1981. Ron Graybill, Associate Secretary, E. G. White Estate. [Edited transcript of tape recording], p. 6. [back] 173 Ibid., Graybill also states her sources "She draws upon Uriah Smith in the chapter on the Sanctuary. She draws upon J. N. Andrews on the history of the Sabbath. She draws on her husband, James White, in the history of the Millerite Movement." pp. 19-20. Those wishing to study in detail the nature of her borrowings should study Graybill's worship series which is available from the E. G. White Centre. [back]

69

Chapter Thirteen

A multi-gifted prophet The subject of spiritual gifts has only come to the fore in Christian thinking over recent decades. It was placed, for the first time, in the Fundamental Beliefs during the General Conference session at Dallas in 1980. Before this, most Adventists probably thought of spiritual gifts as being the gift of prophecy as manifested through Ellen White. Adventism has now come of age regarding this subject and teaches that every believer has at least one of the gifts mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12; Romans 12 and Ephesians 4.174 There is also a general consensus that not all gifts are mentioned by Paul. The point laboured by Paul in 1Corinthians 12 is that all the gifts are necessary for the healthy function of the body. Even the gifts we do not think are so necessary are important (1 Corinthians 12:14-26). Willie White called for better understanding of the gifts. "Regarding the effort that should be made to emphasize in the minds of our people the importance, the sacredness, and the authority of the apostolic gifts, my brethren will find me fully in harmony with an effort to uplift confidence in this gift. It is my conviction that the gift of prophecy will be better understood when there is a better understanding of all the other gifts in the church"175 (emphasis added). The message of 1 Corinthians 12 is that we must not let any one gift dominate and think that other gifts are not necessary. If we allow this to happen, we are out of harmony with clear New Testament teaching and we will never have a healthy body. There is a grave tendency in Adventism that while admiring the gift of one person, used mightily by God one hundred years ago, we may allow other gifts God has also given to His people to be eclipsed. Some in early Adventism were determined to use their own gifts while still being true believers in Ellen White's gifts. One such highly respected person was Uriah Smith. Ingemar Linden states: "It is surprising that Uriah Smith could preserve his position in the Adventist denomination, when he at times rejected some views of EGW. [He references this statement with A. V. Olsen's book Through Crisis to Victory, chapter 9.] "Correspondence from 1883 reveal that Smith could be rather frank and independent in his attitude towards the 'Spirit of Prophecy.' . . . Smith defended the Protestant sola Scriptura view and saw no need for 'additional light' for doctrinal instruction. . . . He informed Canright: 'The idea has been studiously instilled in the minds of the people that to question the visions in the least is to become at once, a hopeless apostate and rebel; and to many, I am sorry to say, have not strength of character enough to shake off such a conception; hence the moment anything is done to shake them on the visions they lose faith in everything and go to destruction.' Thus Smith directly criticized EGW and her far-going claims."176 More than a prophet There can be no doubt that Ellen White did show evidence of having the gift of prophecy, however, her own statement seems to indicate that she sees herself as being more than a prophet. "Some have stumbled over the fact that I have said I did not claim to be a prophet; and they have asked, Why is this? I have no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger. . . . Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. . . . Why have I not claimed to be a prophet? Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies. "To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger. . . . My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend"177 (emphasis added). It is clear that she saw her work as being much more than a prophet, and gifts often come in clusters. 70

Quite probably she also had the gifts of: Wisdom and discernment; insight and encouragement; leadership and faith. Some have wondered if another of her gifts to be included should be the gift of apostleship. This is quite possibly a correct view if one understands the gift to be as one who pioneers new work for the church. This gift is mentioned in 2 Corinthians 8:23 where the original Greek language calls these people "apostles of churches." Roy Naden prefers to call this gift the "gift of pioneering" and clarifies what he means, "In recent years there has been quite a debate over whether or not this gift is still operative. As long as we use the usual term 'apostleship' to describe this gift we will have difficulty resolving such questions. But it seems to me that if we focus our attention on the function and not the title, we will conclude that this gift must be found today if the gospel is to reach the entire globe. We need tens of thousands of Christians gifted 'to pioneer' God's work. . . ." He goes on to discuss more fully the meaning of the word "apostle" as he understands the function of this gift in the church today. He begins with a translation of 1 Corinthians 12:28: "Now you are Christ's body, and its respective organs, and God has placed these in the Community as follows: first envoys [pioneers]" (1 Corinthians 12:28, Schonfield). . . . The Greek noun apostolos means, 'a messenger' or 'an agent of another.' The verb means 'to send out in action' or 'to give a message.' The New Testament meaning, therefore, is quite plain: pioneers are those sent out on a mission with a special message."178 Using this definition of the word 'apostle' we find that Paul and Barnabas are called apostles in Acts 14:14 and Paul, Silas and Timothy likewise in 1 Thessalonians 1:1, 2:6. This use of the gift is not to be confused with others who were called "apostles" on a basis that they had been taught directly by Christ in the flesh and had been witnesses to His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Paul lays claim to being an apostle with special authority because he had been a witness to the resurrection and taught directly by Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1). He also demonstrated his apostolic calling with signs and wonders (2 Corinthians 12:12). Today we do not have such people in the church beyond the first generation of Christians. Nowhere do we find Ellen White laying claim to such authority or exercising it.179 We do, however, find her opening up "new work" as does an apostle in the sense of being a pioneer. In the early years she along with her husband were both pioneers. For many years they traveled large distances to open up new areas to the newly found faith. In this way they were gifted as was Paul, Silas, Timothy and Barnabas. Later, after her husband's death, she pioneered the founding of many of our institutions such as Loma Linda University and Avondale College. Multi-giftedness seems to be part of the New Testament teaching regarding the receiving of the gifts of the Spirit. And so it is that Paul can write of himself, "And for this purpose I was appointed a herald [preacher] and an apostle . . . and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles" (1 Timothy 2:7, emphasis added). In Acts 13:1 Barnabas is linked with prophets and teachers yet in 14:1-4 he along with Paul is called an apostle. From this we can see that prophets along with others also teach and preach. They can at times open up new work as did Barnabas. There is a definite overlapping of ministries. E. Earle Ellis after wrestling with multi-giftedness of leaders in the early church comes to the conclusion, "It is not always easy to distinguish the role of the prophet from that of other ministries. . . . there is no clear division in Judaism or the primitive church between the teaching of a prophet and of a teacher. . . . There is also an overlapping of the roles of apostle and prophet. . . . In summary, the ministries of the apostle and the prophet in Acts may be compared to two concentric circles, in which the circle of the prophet's activities is somewhat smaller."180 Applying Ellen White's multi-giftedness The question then is, Are we always to regard Ellen White as acting as a prophet? We have seen that inspiration does not work with a prophet constantly. We have previously seen there are times when prophets give their own 71

opinion on matters—such as Paul's perception that the boat was going to sink and there would be a loss of life (later he was corrected by an angel), or Nathan giving advice to David only to be corrected later on by God. The prophet knows what God reveals, beyond that they know no more than anyone else. At one time when the magazine the Health Reformer was struggling and rapidly losing subscriptions, James, Ellen White's husband, took over as editor to save the magazine. He requested that she furnish up to six pages a month as her contribution. This she did with some articles from her own pen and others, which she clipped from other periodicals. It was while acting in this capacity that many of the statements she made regarding health, which we would consider to be wrong today, were made. Statements such as the wearing of wigs causes insanity and the claim that women tightening their waists into what was called "wasp waists" could be passed on to their daughters. The question is, Was she acting as a prophet during this time or was she using some other spiritual gift? Both Arthur White and Robert Olsen took the position that she was not wearing the "hat" of a prophet but that of an editor.181 Olsen goes on to put forth a dilemma regarding her writing which is, "How can we determine what is inspired and what is not?" Then he asks, "Who makes this determination? The White Estate? The GC? Does the church need to go through a process similar to the canonization process of the New Testament in order to ascertain this?"182 This is a valid point. It is obvious that in the area of health she was, for the most part, a product of her time. She does, at times, borrow from current health reformers for many of her ideas. This she uses freely as well as ideas given to her in vision. Previously we have seen that originality is not a test of inspiration and that prophets are prone to be part of their culture in areas where God has not given them special knowledge. It is obvious that some of the concepts she borrowed from health reformers were not correct.183 Even if she is acting as a prophet in these cases it is helpful to remember the need to evaluate prophecy, to understand that wheat and chaff may come out. God does not expect that we will lay aside our minds, we must use common sense. Most of what she wrote in the area of health is still of great value. We must not let a few minor points invalidate the many good points she makes. After all, she never claims to be infallible: "In regard to infallibility, I have never claimed it; God alone it infallible. His word is true, and in Him is no variableness, or shadow of turning" (Letter 10, 1895). Once, when a believer was upset because she spoke of one of our hospitals as having 40 rooms and he stated there were only 38, she responded by saying, "The information given concerning the number of rooms in the Paradise Valley Sanitarium was given, not as a revelation from the Lord, but simply as a human opinion. There has never been revealed to me the exact number of rooms in any of our sanitariums; and the knowledge I have obtained of such things I have gained by inquiring of those who were supposed to know. . . . But there are times when common things must be stated, common thoughts must occupy the mind, common letters must be written and information given that has passed from one to another of the workers. Such words, such information, are not given under the special inspiration of the Spirit of God."184 Inspiration does not stay with the prophet for 24 hours each day. God may reveal things to them in certain areas, but in other areas they may know no more than others. Our problem is how to sort out the sacred revealed messages from what is common or not revealed. This is not any easy task, which is why Paul exhorts us to evaluate the prophet's messages—all prophetic messages must be evaluated by the biblical messages and be subservient to them. Another thing to keep in mind is that she may be speaking when another one of her gifts is operating, such as the gift of wisdom or discernment. When this is happening we would anticipate she would not have the same authority as when she has something directly revealed from God. How then can we know what is revealed from what is her own wisdom? How can we sort out what is revealed from what is borrowed? We may never have satisfactory answers to these questions. There are good reasons to follow the biblical injunction to evaluate prophecy. We do not lay aside our minds, we use our common-sense enlightened by a knowledge of the Bible. 72

If we keep in mind the biblical concepts as to why the gift of prophecy is given, from New Testament times onward, we have no problem facing these issues. Paul tells us that the gift was for "strengthening, encouragement, and comfort" (1 Corinthians 14:3). Ellen White frequently took ideas that were common knowledge in her day and culture and applied a spiritual lesson to the lives of God's people. Recognising this, we will not become too disturbed regarding the data she uses, but continue to uphold the principle behind what she is saying. Understanding her prophetic ministry So how do we understand how her prophetic ministry operated? This question will always be hotly debated within Adventism and we may never have full agreement. Even she seemed ambiguous about her function. When she said her work included more than a prophetic ministry it would have been helpful if she had said more to guide us. When we look at the prophetic ministry of Ellen White we see a range of things happening. At times her ministry resembles that of Daniel and John the Revelator. She does have apocalyptic visions. She also showed the physical manifestations of Daniel—particularly in her early years. Under this prophetic mantle she claims an authority of one who has a message from God that needs to be heeded by God's people. In this mode she is similar to the classic prophets of the Old Testament who believed God used them in a special way. They confidently stressed that if the people refused to listen and heed their call it would be to their great loss. There are times when she appears to have a ministry similar to that described in 1 Corinthians 14 when she reveals the secrets of people's lives. However, unlike the Corinthian prophets she is not restricted to a local congregation and is not one of many local prophets operating at the same time. Instead she moves around to different churches encouraging the believers. In this ministry we can see a similarity to the prophetic ministry of Agabus. At times she bears messages that need to be evaluated by the hearers as to their appropriateness. Some of these messages need to be understood in the light of the cultural setting of the time when they were first delivered. We also have to bear in mind the human aspect in receiving and delivering the messages (as previously stated in reference to Romans 12:6). That is, there is a chance she may not get things quite right in every precise detail. Remember she never claimed infallibility.185 Mingled with the above is the fact that she may be using gifts given to her by God other than the prophetic mantle. How her multi-giftedness coordinates is a subject that invites further study. Perhaps Arthur White and Robert Olsen have opened that door when they stated that she was not working in the prophetic office when acting as a sub-editor of the Health Reformer at her husband's request. Although some issues above may be hazy, other matters are clearly important. The main one is that Ellen White repeatedly said we ought to go to the Bible and not her writings for church teachings. She says she is only the "lesser light" to lead people to the "greater light." She does not claim the authority of a biblical writer.186 Rather than claiming this authority, she is grateful to have the help of others in understanding biblical material (more on this later). Perhaps it is best to stay with her own definition of her work—as God's messenger. She was especially called and equipped with the appropriate gifts needed to do a work in helping to establish the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Her calling and equipping was unique and in harmony with the task God had in mind for her. There is no one to whom she can be compared. That makes it difficult to tie her role down neatly, even if we do like neat packages.

____________________ 174 It is strongly implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:12-30, that all believers are part of the body of Christ and as such have a function according to their particular spiritual gift. [back] 73

175 Letter from Willie White to A. G. Daniels, 31/12/1913, p. 10. [back] 176 Smith to Canright, April 6, 1883 as quoted in The Last Trump, pp. 208-209. [back] 177 1SM, pp. 31-32, 34, 36. [back] 178 Roy Naden, Your Spiritual Gifts - Making The Great Discovery, (Berrien Springs, MI: Instructional Product Development. 1989), pp. 115-117. [back] 179 Sinclair B. Ferguson and Dasvid F. Wright, Editors, New Dictionary Of Theology, (Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, 1988), article "Apostle". [back] 180 W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin, Editors, Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F. F. Bruce on his 60th Birthday. (Devon England:. paternoster, 1970), pp. 64-65. [back] 181 "Current Issues On Ellen White's Writings" by Robert Olsen, March 28, 1986. p. 10. [back] 182 Ibid., p. 11. [back] 183 George W. Reid, A Sound of Trumpets, Americans, Adventists, and Health Reform, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982). Is an excellent work to describe how she borrowed some material from current health reformers in her day. It seems that orthodox medicine in her day was in a terrible mess. She does borrow much of what was good from the reformers but not infallibly. Some ideas had to be discarded and other ideas carried on as they were of great benefit. Proof of this is the fact that many surveys in the late 20th century have shown Adventists to be far healthier than the general population. Her warnings against the use of tobacco and vegetarianism have become well respected in our day. Her book Ministry of Healing upholding natural living is just as valid today as ever. [back] 184 1SM, pp. 38-39. [back] 185 Ibid., pp. 24, 37. [back] 186 Thus she wrote "The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God." Letter 12, 1890. "Little heed is given to the Bible, and the Lord has given a lesser light to lead men and women to the greater light." Ev, p. 37. [back]

74

Chapter Fourteen

Ellen White's spiritual growth All of us are on a journey. We grow in our understanding. All of us can look back and see how different we understand things now compared to how we saw them twenty years ago. Prophets are human and go through a process of growth. We saw earlier that even John the Baptist had some things to learn and unlearn regarding his special area of ministry, the coming of the Messiah and His setting up of His kingdom. Ellen White was no different. We can see a huge difference between: The frail young girl, so timid that she would rather die than have another vision; the middle aged woman who could look church leaders in the face and carpet them; and the older woman who needed help in getting around and continue to function in her ministry. We must allow Ellen White to be a normal human. She was no super-woman. She experienced remarkable spiritual growth during the course of her life. The young Ellen White was a sensitive person who thought of God as being cruel and a tyrant. She felt if she failed in her duties, His frown would be upon her. She suffered long bouts of depression when she wanted to die. She did not seem to enjoy the peace that comes with knowing the good news of the gospel. She certainly did not enjoy passing on the messages that God gave to her and would often soften them down. She felt envious for those who felt they only had their own souls to care for.187 She once wrote to her husband, "I wish self to be hid in Jesus. I wish self to be crucified. I do not claim infallibility, or even perfection of Christian character. I am not free from mistakes and errors in my life. Had I followed my Saviour more closely, I should not have to mourn so much my unlikeness to His dear image."188 Later in life she could reflect, "For sixty years I have been in communication with heavenly messengers, and I have been in constantly learning in reference to divine things. . . ."189 Alden Thompson observes regarding her growth in understanding, "The visions that God sent Ellen White were always designed to be understandable to her at her level of growth at the moment of reception. . . . As she became capable of seeing more, God showed her more. That is why she did not tell the great controversy story just once in 1858 but kept retelling the story throughout her life and making some significant changes along the way."190 The early years In the earlier years of her work she tended to be very charismatic and had many visionary experiences. When she was called as a young girl in New England she was only one of many hundreds who claimed to have the prophetic gift. The whole atmosphere of the area was supercharged as many of the early Adventist believers had come out of the Millerite movement. Methodist connections were quite strong as well. This was in a time and area when Methodists were often called the "shouting Methodists." It was common to find among them shouting, swooning, trances, and healings. Speaking in tongues appeared at times also. Some, looking back today, might well call the cradle of Adventism a "primeval soup." The early Ellen White did not stand apart from the community of believers. She was in harmony with the culture of the time. Prophets seem to act in a way that the people receiving their messages would expect them the act. If this were not true then they would never get a hearing. In recent times we have learned of the Israel Dammon trial. This was brought to light with the discovery of a newspaper account of the trial of an Adventist elder, Israel Dammon, who was brought to trial in Dover, Maine, on February 1845 for vagrancy, neglect of family and disturbing the peace after leading out in an Adventist home meeting. One witness said, "I never saw such confusion, not even in a drunken frolic."191 It seems as 75

though what was going on was real fanaticism. There was crying and shouting, people swooning, kissing and crawling around on the floor. In the midst of it all Ellen White was lying on the floor going in and out of vision. Apparently the noise was such as to disturb a neighbor who called the police. The police came and Dammon was arrested, but only after some resistance when some women took hold of him and prevented the police from taking him. Before we judge this incident too harshly, from a distance, remember again that God meets people where they are. From this distance, it seems like fanaticism. However, they were part of the frontier culture of North America in the early 19th century. Early Adventists were part of a religious culture with a strong Shouting Methodist influence. Some Bible prophets acted strangely at times, but they acted in harmony with the culture of their time. Likewise with Ellen White's behaviour. Importantly, no witness of the event ever accused her of any impropriety. It is a fact that some of the early Adventists did have some fanatical tendencies and she was called to witness to them. However this does not mean that she was part of their fanaticism or condoned it. We must also bear in mind that out of these experiences she was able to emerge and lead a movement. If she had not been charismatic in the sense that they expected a prophet to act, they may have ignored her. As time went on she and others moved away from these experiences. The movement matured and she matured with it. Later she would use her influence to counter extreme manifestations such as were found in the early years. It is a tribute to her that she was able to forge a movement that would eventually envelop the world. Some two hundred other New England prophets of her time192 have disappeared from history but her work was especially blessed of God and endured. Signs of a maturing ministry The earlier part of her ministry is marked with many visions and charismatic experiences; but the visions had all but disappeared in the latter part of her ministry. As the movement became more organised and institutionalised so she matured and, indeed, she was part of the church's maturing process. When fanaticism rose again in the "Holy Flesh Movement" she stood out against the extreme manifestations and called for more balanced expressions of faith and worship. In the early years of her ministry she, along with others, taught that the door of opportunity was closed to all who had not accepted the preaching of the Millerites regarding the soon coming of Jesus. She was part of the "Shut Door Adventist" group that emerged out of the Millerite movement.193 We have to bear in mind that prophets do not always understand what God is revealing to them in vision. We have already noticed that Peter pondered in his heart what the vision on the rooftop at Joppa was meant to convey to him. Subsequent experience at the home of a Gentile made it clear that he was to treat the Gentiles as equals with the Jews. On the Shut Door she, like Peter, found that subsequent experiences taught her what God was saying to her in vision. As children were born to the Shut Door group and people wished to join up with them they were brought out of this error. The truth is, she often had trouble understanding what her visions were meant to teach. Willie White states that sometimes the vision was repeated to her in order to clarify the message.194 He also stresses the immense difficulty that she and others had in understanding what God was getting her to say, "Oftentimes when we go to Mother and ask her to explain the things she has written, she will say, 'I cannot explain it; you should understand it better than I. If you do not understand it, pray to the Lord, and He will help you.'"195 Bert Haloviak adds, "There were times when Ellen White herself could misinterpret a vision or misstate or imperfectly express what had been revealed to her. Note what her son, W C White stated to Kellogg: 'Sister White was not infallible in stating things revealed to her.' There are at least three examples where Ellen White apparently misstated or misunderstood something revealed through vision: Eve touching food in the Garden of Eden and death as the result; the number of generations contemporaneously living at the time of the flood; the use of Southern Publishing facilities as a depot."196 76

As a middle-aged woman we find her leading a rapidly growing movement. She pioneered the setting up of medical and educational work. She encouraged welfare and temperance activities. She was in constant demand as a speaker. She was a counselor to church leaders and various individuals. But above all she wanted to make the church centred in Christ and committed to uplifting Him in all areas of its work. We find differences between her early and later writings as her own understanding of God's grace became more fully developed. Later in life she does not seem to fear God as she had when a young girl. In her later works we see a clearer portrayal of the goodness and mercy of God. An interested reader should compare her books to see the change in emphasis and style—compare Early Writings with The Desire of Ages and Steps to Christ. The Aging Problems Later, as a woman in her 80s, she acted as other elderly women and needed to rely on others more. Willie White once had to explain to Prescott that he had difficulty in passing on to her some information from him because she was not able to comprehend. He said he would wait for an opportune time.197 After her death S N Haskell wrote to Willie, "If I believed even what you have told me about having to tell your mother the same thing over three or four times in order that she might get a clear idea of things, so that she could give a correct testimony on some points, it would weaken my faith, mightily; not in your mother, but in what comes from her pen."198 Gilbert Valentine adds, "Rumors had apparently reached Mrs White that Daniells and Prescott were revising church books in order to introduce new ideas. In actuality it was W C White who was coordinating the revision of The Great Controversy, but this was another period when the aging Mrs White was not in good health. Periods of depression clouded her days, and W C White had to be very diplomatic and sensitive with regards to the various problems he brought to her."199 It is difficult to get a clear picture of her mental deterioration towards the end of her life. Jerry Allan Moon maintains that her mind was clear on spiritual matters right to the end even though she was confused on local and minor matters.200 One does get the impression, from the letters of Prescott and Crisler however, that there was an attempt by her helpers to assist and not give any impression of mental deterioration. Books were still being rushed out for publication just prior to her death, and after as well. Many Adventists, as well as those who are antagonistic to Ellen White's writings, have failed to take into account that she did start out a young and in many respects immature girl to whom great responsibility was given. Nor do they take into account that she did grow old and suffer with the frailties that accompany those who live into their 80s. Most tend to see her as always being a woman in her prime. Failure to understand this has caused many to overlook her personal spiritual journey and growth to spiritual maturity. This accounts for the fact that some can produce statements from the earlier Ellen White and match them against the latter Ellen White, and make them appear to be contradictions. __________________ 187 This is how she describes her early experiences when called to deliver God's messages in 1T, pp. 58-74. [back] 188 Ellen G.White to James White, May 16, 1876. Letter 27, 1876. [back] 189 This Day With God, p. 76. For more information on Ellen White's spiritual journey read From Sinai to Golgotha. A five part series in the Review by Alden Thompson, commencing December 3, 1981. see www.sdanet.org.atissue/white/alden. [back] 190 Ibid., December 24, p. 8. [back] 77

191 For a fuller description see Jonathan Bulter's article "Prophecy, Gender, and Culture: Ellen Gould Harmon White and the Roots of Seventh-day Adventism," Religion and American Culture: Journal of Interpretation, Winter 1991, pp. 3-29. Also Scandal or Rite of Passage? Historians on the Dammon Trial, edited by Rennie Schoepflin, Spectrum, Vol. 17, No 5, pp. 38-50. [back] 192 This information was shared in "The History of Adventist Theology" Andrews University class by Dr. George Knight. It would also help to clarify why she did not particularly wish to be called a prophet but rather chose the title "messenger of the Lord". It seems the many who were claiming to be prophets (when she first began to receive visions) were bringing the title into disrepute. [back] 193 Some would argue that this teaching is an embarrassment to the Seventh-day Adventist Church today. Those who use such an argument should be reminded of the fact that a similar "Shut Door teaching" was applied by early Christians (including Peter) for the first 10 years of the existence of the newly formed Christian Church. For the first 10 years they only preached to the Jews as being worthy of God's grace. That is the purpose of the vision given by God to Peter in Acts 10: 9-34. All movements raised up by God still have the imperfections common to humanity. [back] 194 Willie states, "Several times we thought that the manuscript of the book was all ready for the printer, then a vision of some important feature of the controversy would be repeated, and Mother would again write upon the subject, bringing out the description more fully and clearly. Thus the publishing was delayed, and the book grew in size." 3SM, p. 442. [back] 195 W. C. White, "The Integrity of the Testimonies to the Church." Remarks at College View, Nebraska, November 25, 1905, F. C. Gilbert Personal Collection, Box 4, untitled fld. [back] 196 Sligo Series, Oct. 22 and 29, 1980. Unpublished paper, pp. 7- 8. A series of talks given by Bert Haloviak the General Conference archivist. [back] 197 Willie wrote to Prescott. "Sometimes I tried to talk with Mother about the things which have been such a burden on your heart, but she could not understand me, and so I put the matter off, thinking the time would come when her mind would be led out upon this matter." W. C. White to W. W. Prescott, March 12, 1915 [back] 198 S. N. Haskell to W. C. White, November 27, 1918, WEDC. [back] 199 Gilbert M .Valentine, The Shaping of Adventism, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1992), p. 208. [back] 200 Jerry Allen Moon, W. C. White and Ellen White, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1993), pp. 344-345. [back]

78

Chapter Fifteen

Ellen White's theological growth Ellen White's growth theologically is a fascinating journey to trace. Take, for example, her understanding on the meaning of the law in Galatians. In the 1850s J H Waggoner had written a book in which he took the position that the law in Galatians was the moral law. Stephen Pierce opposed him arguing that it was the law system including the ceremonial law. She opposed Waggoner and supported Pierce. Later the denominational position accepted that the law in Galatians was the ceremonial law alone. She supported this position. She published this view in her book Sketches from the Life of Paul. At the time of the debate over the subject at Minneapolis in 1888 she began to doubt the position she had held that it was the ceremonial law. When hearing E J Waggoner, "For the first time I began to think it might be we did not hold correct views, after all upon the law in Galatians." It seems she did change her position again later when Acts of the Apostles was published in 1911. She wrote of the moral law as the schoolmaster. (Some scholars today would say this position is incorrect and would contend that the law referred to in Galatians means the Torah as a covenant and national system.) In the context of the debate over the law in Galatians around 1888 she came out with statements like: "We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed."201 This illustrates well that we find her changing her position on the basis of others pointing out a more correct position from the Bible. She was prepared to change her own previously published position on a basis of further Bible study.202 She also refused to let her writings be the final arbiter in the matter; instead she requested that the matter be resolved from the Bible alone. This was also her way of handling the controversy over the "Daily" which raged for decades in Adventism. She had previously written that the pioneer position was correct. The pioneer position was that the Daily mentioned in Daniel chapter 8 represented Pagan Rome.203 A new position was put forward that it represented the Papacy in their counterfeit of the work of Christ through the mass. The new view was opposed by old stalwarts who appealed to the statement in Early Writings as having settled the matter forever. Ellen White eventually took herself out of the contest by declaring that she had no special light on the matter and that they should work it out from the Bible and not her writings.204 We find that she could also change her position on: The proper time to open and close Sabbath. She, for a time, felt it should be kept from 6 pm to 6 pm. However others convinced her it was more biblical to observe the Sabbath from sunset to sunset.205 At first she felt it was acceptable to eat pork and proclaimed it to be "a healthy and nourishing food." Later, when it was pointed out to her that this was not the case, she changed her position.206 Some have criticised her for requesting oysters in a letter she wrote to her daughter-in-law in 1882, but they fail to understand that the distinction between clean and unclean foods was largely an undeveloped concept in Adventism in the nineteenth century.207 Early Adventists had in their copy of the Bible the books of the Apocrypha. Most Christians in her era probably thought that although the Apocrypha did not rate on the same level as the Bible yet these books did contain some wisdom and truth. Today Protestants have these books removed from their Bibles and they are usually found only in Roman Catholic Bibles. It comes as a surprise to some Adventists to see in her writings, such as "A Word to the Little Flock," references to 2 Esdras. These references were added by James White in the footnotes. That she would refer to the language used by an Apocryphal book would not appear strange or wrong to her, her husband or early Adventists. The later writings of Ellen White do not contain such allusions or 79

references. She, along with the rest of the Protestant world, gradually saw a clearer distinction between these books and the Bible.208 These points are important. To fail to detect her theological growth means you may be able to see inconsistencies within her writings. You can pit the early Ellen White against the later; but that would be unfair and constitute a failure to see what really was one of her strengths—her ability to grow in her understanding. But in seeing her strengths we must also acknowledge her weaknesses. As an ordinary human being, we must let her be what she was and honestly accept that. At times she does not always appear to be consistent in what she says. The importance of context It is true that she encouraged openness to finding out more from the Bible. But there are times when she seems to put the dampener on more investigation and growth. The following few examples demonstrate this. First a sampling of the statements which seem to invite open inquiry: "Our brethren should be willing to investigate in a candid way every point of controversy. . . . We should all know what is being taught among us; for if it is the truth, we need it. . . . If the pillars of our faith will not stand the test of investigation, it is time that we knew it. . . . We must study the truth for ourselves. No living man should be relied upon to think for us. . . ."209 On the other hand she wrote: "As a people we are to stand firm on the platform of eternal truth that has withstood test and trial. We are to hold to the sure pillars of our faith. . . . No line of truth that has made the Seventh-day Adventist people what they are, is to be weakened. We have the old landmarks of truth. . . . Woe to him who shall move a block or stir a pin of these messages. . . . Not one pin is to be removed from that which the Lord has established. The enemy will bring in false theories, such as the doctrine that there is no sanctuary. This is one of the points on which there will be a departing from the faith. Where will we find safety unless it be in the truths that the Lord has been giving for the last fifty years?"210 In Adventist history, whenever the church is about to look at some new point of view from the Scriptures, both types of statements are appealed to. Usually those who are for the new ideas will quote the former and those who are against the new ideas will quote the latter. So, which is the real Ellen White? Generally speaking, the statements she makes appealing for openness are dated around the 1880s and 1890s. This was during the discussions over the meaning of the word "law" in Galatians. It was a time when the gospel news was about to make a greater impact on Adventism. At this time she stood with those advocating uplifting Jesus. She is saying to the old vanguard to open up their minds and allow this uplifting of Jesus to bring us back into a more balanced position. She did this even though it would appear that not all they were saying was correct—for instance, recent studies indicate that both Jones and Waggoner were advocating a form of sinless perfectionism.211 On the other hand the statements that appear to close the door against new understandings come at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. This was the era of Kellogg and his teachings. Kellogg's teachings were coming close to pantheism. If he was right, then it would lead to the teaching that there was no sanctuary in heaven. These new ideas would have brought confusion to the Adventist movement. She personally stood against them and saved the church from being shipwrecked. There were other times when she used her prophetic office to put people down and effectively end discussion. Such was the case with A F Ballenger and his ideas on the sanctuary. She said that he had gathered together a mass of Scripture and his application of these passages was misleading. She appears not to have attempted to show where he was wrong from the Bible rather she defended the traditional views on a basis of "the remarkable beginnings and the long history of the doctrine, and the confirmation of the doctrine given to her in her own visions."212 It is significant that she does not even try to exegete the passages of Scripture used by Ballenger rather she says this truth had been "sought out by prayerful study, and testified to by the miracle working power from the Lord."213 It is to her visions that she makes the final court of appeal.214 80

In 1906 she wrote to an evangelist W. W. Simpson: "The visions that the Lord has given me are so remarkable that we know that what we have accepted is the truth. . . . The power of God would come on me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth, and what is error. . . . under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision, and explanations would be given to me. . . . All these truths are immortalized in my writings. . . . I am thankful that the instruction contained in my books establishes present truth for this time. These books were written under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit."215 She also wrote in a letter to her son Willie, "For there is instruction that the Lord has given me for His people. It is the light that they should have, line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little. This is now to come before the people, because it has been given to correct specious errors and to specify what is truth"216 (emphasis added). These statements have serious implications. She appeals to her experiences as the final authority for the teachings of the church. If this is true then the experiences of the church through her prophetic gift becomes the final authority for Adventist doctrines. If that is so then the church may be said to have another authority outside of the Scriptures. This is not consistent with what she says elsewhere. It could be that when she sees the future of the church at stake and threatened, she sees the need to use the full weight of her prophetic authority to keep everything in place. But, there are those other statements where, in many other places she says we are not to use her writings to settle doctrinal issues. For instance, "The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The Testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. . . . Let all prove their positions from the Scriptures and substantiate every point the claim as truth from the revealed Word of God."217 And "But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. . . . Before accepting any doctrine or precept we should demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord in its support."218 Indeed she seems condemned by her own counsel when she says, "But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's Word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative and seek to avoid discussion.219 There is an inconsistency in these statements. And in this we find a revelation of her humanity. What human can pass the test of always being consistent in what we say and what we live—now stretch that over a 60-year ministry. However, that does not invalidate the fact that she has been genuinely used of God. Remember, earlier we discovered that some of the great men, used in the Bible by God, were not always consistent either. She certainly was using all her prophetic authority to protect Adventism against what she perceived to be threatening teachings, in doing this she may not have always been consistent with her often made statements regarding the importance of recognising no other authority than the Bible. The issue of Ellen White's authority There are some important principles at stake here. Are Seventh-day Adventists truly Protestants as they claim? If so then we are to have no other authority in doctrine outside the Bible. Fundamental Belief number one states: "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of his will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." The church's first baptismal vows states: "Do you believe that the Bible is the full, sufficient and only basic rule of faith and practice for the Christian?" Do new converts have to give assent to this only to be told later that they must bow their judgment to Ellen White? When asked to explain further the authority of Ellen White, the General Conference put out a statement of "Affirmations and Denials." Here are a few: "We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final 81

authority in all matters of doctrine and practice." "We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture." "We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine." And, "We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White."220 It is important to note that what is at stake is not her inspiration, but her authority. At the present time there is going on in the church widespread discussion among members that take into account issues such as: What if she is not always totally original? She did borrow from others, who can sort out what is borrowed and what has been shown to her? What if she is not always totally accurate? We know she did not always use the best sources available or use them correctly. What about the fact that she lived in a world so different to us today? That was a world when Adventism was mainly in North America. She only lived fifteen years into the 20th century and never saw most of the big issues we have to face today. Then, in what way is she an authority for the church today? Authority today is not something that can be claimed it must be earned. We have a division of opinion at the present time to these questions. While some will say she is an authority and we must not question her right to prescribe to us, there is a growing number (particularly among the younger generation) who would say she has no relevance today. This discussion has been going on in the homes and hearts of thousands of Adventists since the early 1980s. So what is Ellen White's function? This is a question we will continue to wrestle with here, in this book, and in other places. A lot is at stake. The question must be asked, Are we a free people? Free to grow in our understanding of the Bible? Free to disagree with what she has written in the areas of science, health, history, prophecy and education, etc. What should a person do if they find they have come to some other conclusion than what she has written? Do they surrender their private judgment? These questions are crucial to the future of Adventism. Here again we must keep before us the statement in Scripture telling us the purpose of prophecy. This passage is the only place in the New Testament that defines the purpose of prophecy. "But everyone who prophecies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement, and comfort"(1 Corinthians 14: 3). There can be no doubt that she earned tremendous respect from her contemporaries in Adventism as they found her able to give advice and counsel that was so often correct and timely. When a person is in close contact with God over so long a period of time, as she was, their abilities in the area of wisdom and discernment can be sharpened. She herself was conscious of this when she wrote to her critics, "For the last forty-five years the Lord has been revealing to me the needs of His cause and the cases of individuals in every phase of experience, showing where and how they have failed to perfect Christian character. The history of hundreds of cases has been presented to me, and that which God approves, and that which He condemns, has been plainly set before me. . . . With the light communicated through the study of His word, with the special knowledge given of individual cases among His people under all circumstances and in every phase of experience, can I now be in the same ignorance, the same mental uncertainty and spiritual blindness, as at the beginning of this experience? Will my brethren say that Sister White has been so dull a scholar that her judgment in this direction is no better than before she entered Christ's school, to be trained and disciplined for a special work? Am I no more intelligent in regard to the duties and perils of God's people than are those before whom these things have never been presented? I would not dishonor my Maker by admitting that all this light, all the display of His mighty power in my work and experience, has been valueless, that it has not educated my judgment or better fitted me for His work."221 82

She earned the respect of her contemporaries and, in turn, they gave her authority. She was established, in their minds, with prophetic authority because of her wise counsel. However, an umpire in sport can have authority even when they make a wrong decision. Today we can see that, in hindsight, she did at times make some wrong calls. But that does not rob her of her prophetic authority anymore than Nathan lost his when he gave the wrong advice to David regarding the building of the temple. Or when John the Baptist got it wrong regarding the nature of the kingdom that Christ was setting up. So what sort of authority does she have with the Adventist community? We know that some would want to give her formal authority. That is, her words are always taken to be true simply because she says so. To them she is the last word on the sciences of biology, geology and history, as well as theology. They would say she can tell you how tall was Adam, how old is the earth and what causes earthquakes. But that type of authority is now gone forever as more Adventists become aware of her sources in some of those areas. No longer can she speak outside of her culture as a timeless voice of authority. Many others in Adventism would say that they prefer to give her "internal authority." That is when she speaks we will listen to what she has to say and treat her words with respect as one so often used by God. However, when she speaks, they declare that they will weigh up the "intrinsic truthfulness" of what she has to say. They are saying that they will have to be convinced by the strength of argument that she presents. As such they are wittingly or unwittingly following Paul's counsel of 1 Corinthians 14: 29 and 1 Thessalonians 5: 21 where Paul admonishes believers to "judge" or "test" the ideas that come from prophets. In doing this they also follow the counsel of Ellen White herself who when rebuking those who took an inflexible approach to what she had previously written concerning the age children should commence school, said, "That is how it is, and my mind has been greatly stirred in regard to the idea, 'Why, Sister White has said so and so, and Sister White has said so and so; and therefore we are going right up to it.' God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things."222 Accepting her prophetic authority does not involve laying aside our mind or personal judgment. It means that we will listen carefully to what she has to say and, guided by the same Spirit who gave her a prophetic ministry, we will make valued judgments as to the wisdom of the counsel as Paul admonishes in 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21. ____________________ 201 CWE, p. 37. [back] 202 For further study on this point read: Ellen White's Role In The Resolution of Conflicts in Adventist History, by Ron Graybill of the White Estate. Also "The Law And The Prophet. Ellen White's struggle to understand the law in Galatians." A four part series in Adventist Review by Tim Crosby commencing May 8, 1986. For understanding her refusal to allow her writings to be used as an authority to settle the differences in 1888 over the law see Ministry, February, 1991, pp. 6-11. Crisis In Authority, by George Knight. [back] 203 EW, pp. 74-75. [back] 204 1SM, pp. 164-165. [back] 205 For an excellent understanding of how she changed her mind on the time to open and close Sabbath see Herbert Douglas, Messenger of the Lord: The Prophetic Ministry of Ellen G. White, (Nampa, ID: Pacific Press, 1998), pp.157-158. [back] 206 "The Development Of Adventist Thinking On Clean And Unclean Meats," Ron Graybill, Ellen G. White Estate, June 10, 1981. p. 1. [back] 83

207 Ibid., pp. 2-3.[back] 208 An excellent account of Ellen White's relationship with the Apocrypha is found in "Sixty-six Books—or Eighty one? Did Ellen White Recommend the Apocrypha?" By Denis Fortin. Adventist Review, March 28, 2002, pp. 9-12. [back] 209 CWE, pp. 43-45 [back] 210 Ibid., pp. 52-53. [back] 211 See papers by Kerry Hortop and Milton Hook in Towards Righteousness by Faith, Arthur Ferch, Editor, (Warburton Victoria, Australia: Signs Publishing Company, 1988). [back] 212 Graybill. Ellen White's Role in the Resolution of Conflicts, p. 11. [back] 213 Manuscript 44, 1905. It is interesting to note that although she opposed Ballenger on the meaning of "within the veil" as mentioned in Hebrews 6:19; yet the Seventh-day Adventist Church's "Glacier View Consensus Document" of 1980 accepted Ballenger's position that the expression did apply to the second veil; not the first as we have traditionally taught. See "Christ in the heavenly Sanctuary," Ministry, October 1980, p 17. "The symbolic language of the Most Holy Place, 'within the veil,' is used to assure us of our full direct, and free access to God (chaps. 6:19-20; 9:24-28; 10: 1-4). [back] 214 Ron Graybill comments "She seems not to have sensed that such arguments contradicted her own rule that no authority outside Scripture should have any weight in deciding what the Bible taught. Ballenger, undeterred rejected her arguments. To accept them, he said, would place the thousands upon thousands of pages of your writings in books and periodicals between the child of God and God's book. If this position be true, no noble Berean dare believe any truth, however clearly it may seem to be taught in the Scriptures, until he first consults your writings to see whether it harmonizes with your interpretation. "The Power of Prophecy: Ellen G. White and the Women Religious Founders of the Nineteenth Century," Degree draft by Ron Graybill, University Microfilms International, 1983, p. 128. [back] 215 Letter 50, 1906, as found in MR. 760, pp. 22-23, " The Integrity of the Sanctuary Truth," White Estate, March 12, 1981. [back] 216 Ellen White to W. C. White, November 22, 1910. [back] 217 Letter 12, 1890. [back] 218 GC, p. 595. [back] 219 5T, pp. 706-707. [back] 220 "The inspiration and authority of Ellen G. White's writings—A statement of present understanding," Ministry, February, 1983. p. 24. [back] 221 5T, pp. 685-6. [back] 222 3SM, p. 217. For a more complete understanding of her statement consult George Knight, Myths In Adventism, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1985). chapter one "The Myths of the Inflexible Prophet." and of particular helpful and valuable counsel is Knight's later book, Reading Ellen White, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1997), in his chapter, "Use Common Sense". [back]

84

Chapter Seventeen

Ellen White and the end times Almost 20 years ago Donald Casebolt in Spectrum challenged Ellen White's interpretations of biblical prophecy. He wrote, "Early Adventist leaders were convinced that a great many of the end-time prophecies were being fulfilled very rapidly. The Lisbon earthquake of 1755, the Dark Day of 1780, the captivity of Pope Pius V1 in 1798, and the falling of the stars in 1833 had all taken place within recent memory. Even more striking, however, was the fact that Turkey had lapsed into impotency in 1840, apparently on the exact day that Josiah Litch had predicted, according to his interpretation of Revelation 9. . . . prophecy seemed to be unerringly homing in on the world-like successive cannon blasts, with the next shot due to explode at the climax of earth's history."245 Casebolt then attacks the understanding early Adventist leaders and Ellen White had regarding these prophecies. He shows how the date Litch set had both exegetical and historical problems. He claims that "the hour, day, month, and a year of Revelation 9:15 refer to a point of time rather than a period of time. . . . Furthermore, Turkey still exists as a modern state, never having lost its independence."246 Casebolt also shows how the supposed "Dark Day of May 19, 1780 was caused by smoke from huge forest fires burning in the New England states combining with a dark storm front passing through the area."247 He then shows how the supposed "Falling of the stars" in 1833 is a regular occurring event which is the shower caused by the tail of the Leonid meteor as it passes by the earth every 33 1/3 years with records going back to 902 AD. He also gives evidence that the 1966 shower was 2 1/2 times greater than the shower of 1833.248 Casebolt claims regarding the early Adventists, "Their lack of knowledge concerning the nature of meteor showers and weather inversions led then to ascribe these 'strange events' to a supernatural cause, much like primitive peoples think of solar eclipses."249 Since Casebolt wrote his article other voices have also challenged the traditional interpretation of the Dark Day and Falling of the Stars. One such person was Hans LaRondelle who stresses that these events occur not prior to but at the actual coming of Jesus to this earth again. He quotes other Adventist scholars as supporting him, "A number of contemporary Adventist expositors admit the exegetical problems with the old interpretation of the cosmic signs. . . . (See Marvin Moore, The Crisis of the End Time . . . S. Bacchiocchi, The Advent Hope for Human Hopelessness) . . . these books no longer articulate the traditional application of the cosmic signs."250 He then quotes George Knight's exposition of Matthew 24 from his Matthew commentary: "The pattern of Matthew 24 appears to be that the real signs are not signs of nearness but signs of coming."251 Knight is correct in what he says, for anyone reading a modern translation will find the Greek text clearly translated in such a way as to forbid the interpretation that the cosmic events could be anything other than what occurs at the actual coming of Jesus. For example, after listing the sun being darkened and the falling of the stars, the NIV renders Matthew 24:30: "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky. . . ." (emphasis added). It would appear from Matthew 24:30 that these cosmic signs accompany the personal, visible coming of Christ with His angels causing the nations on earth to mourn. In addition natural reading of Revelation 6:12-17 suggests that the cosmic signs accompany the coming of Christ. We appear to be forcing the issue to fit in a gap of hundreds of years between verses 13 and 14. LaRondelle challenges the significance of the Lisbon earthquake: "Throughout the centuries earthquakes have killed 'on average some 15,000 people every year.' Before 1755, three earthquakes were of even greater intensity; the 1456 earthquake of Naples, Italy (30,000 dead) the 156, the 1556 Shensu earthquake in China (820,000 dead); the 1737 earthquake of Calcutta ( 300,000 dead). After 1755, the Tokyo quake took 200,000 lives in 1803; in 1920 the quake of Kansu, left 180,000 dead in China; and the 1923 quake of Kwanto, Japan, killed 140,000. In 1976 earthquakes caused 650,000 deaths in China alone."252 85

139 Today you would be hard pressed to convince people that Jesus is coming soon on the basis of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, the 1790 dark day and the 1833 falling of the stars. To our pioneers it appeared these were the signs that Jesus had spoken to indicate His soon return. This had an effect upon them for good to build and nourish the Advent hope. And there is no doubt that Ellen White endorsed the traditional view of the early Adventists in her book The Great Controversy (see pp. 305-308, 334). Today, few, if any, Adventist scholars would support her on these points. Casebolt declares, "She did err in borrowing mistaken prophetic expositions."253 At the same time, she encouraged further study, particularly in the books of Daniel and Revelation. One wonders if her gift is not being misused when her understanding of end-time events is used to hold back further growth in understanding of the books of Daniel and Revelation. It could be ironic to think that she called for more study and growth in our understanding of these books declaring that when we do we will have a revival; yet all the while her writings are being used to stifle further growth in understanding.254 In The Great Controversy, the interpretation of Revelation chapter 11 focuses upon the French Revolution and the war upon the Bible—by having it banned. Today there are several problems upholding this the traditional view of this chapter. The French Revolution has no longer the same impact upon we who live 200 years after the event as it did our forefathers. We also know that the Bible was not banned for 3 1/2 years as applied to the prophecy in The Great Controversy. However, the more closely we study chapter 11 the more we see similarities between this chapter and chapter 13. There may be some important points for us to learn from this chapter when it is better understood, that will benefit God's people in the end time. How tragic if she, who was so forward looking in the search for truth, should be used as one who holds back our growth in the understanding of God's Word. If we keep in mind the reason she wrote the book which was to win people to Christ using the prevailing ideas among Adventists of her era, we have no problem with this. The real problem emerges only if we try to use the book as a type of textbook to lock us into the interpretations she upholds. The Great Controversy was meant to be an evangelistic tool to win people to Christ and Adventism.255 And it uses the ideas in Adventism accepted at the time of its writing. As already noted, Ellen White borrows much of her prophetic material from Uriah Smith and J. N. Andrews.256 Her borrowing was primarily in the areas of theology and prophecy. When she applies lessons spiritually she is basically working by herself. She takes prophecy and doctrine to apply them to the lives of the believer. This is the work of prophets as outlined in 1 Corinthians 14:3. In doing this she helps us to see the real purpose of prophecy. Jon Paulien supports this idea of prophecy, "Although our human curiosity is God-given, the central purpose of prophecy is not to satisfy our curiosity about the future but to teach us how to live today"257 (emphasis added). She revised The Great Controversy when she was given advice from scholars in 1911. If she were alive today there is every reason to suggest we would still be open to revise it again. She was ever open to receive more light, and encouraged more study on the books of Daniel and Revelation.258 The Adventist Church and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy There can be no question that every generation must be, in a certain sense, a first generation. That is, each generation must feel free to study the Bible for themselves to discover "present truth" in order to keep the Advent hope alive and fresh. By insisting on events that impressed our forefathers many generations ago as being the fulfillment of prophecy may indeed have a counter effect and serve to deaden the Advent hope rather than nourish it. A study of the history of the Christian Church over two millenniums indicates that each generation was able to look at current events and see in them fulfillment of prophecy. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary 86

makes this observation regarding the fulfillment of biblical prophecy: "That a single prophetic passage may embrace more than one fulfillment is evident (see on Deut 18:15). Some such prophecies have both an immediate and a more remote fulfillment, and in addition contain principles that are generally applicable at all times. Furthermore, 'it should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional' (EGW MS 4, 1883)."259 In his book, End Time, Jon Paulien shows how end time events can undergo adjustments as time goes on and new situations arise. He illustrates this by comparing the end time expectations of: Noah, Abraham, Israe, before after the captivity, Jewish Apocalyptic writings between the Testaments; Jesus, Paul, and John the Revelator.260 Thus, it would seem, we have a biblical model set before us on the need to adjust our expectations of the fulfillment of prophecy appropriate to the age in which we live. God's purposes will be fulfilled; but how and when can undergo development and change. Other voices may also be heard in Adventism calling for the need to reinterpret biblical prophecies in harmony with the present age. One such voice is Alden Thompson: "A direct corollary exists between the concept of delay and that of re-application. With increasing delay, the need for re-application of the imagery becomes more pressing as a means of maintaining a sense of imminence. As culture changes, the symbols must be reapplied. "In North American Adventism, however, an Essene-style approach to Adventist mission tends to postpone the felt need for re-interpretation. Adventists who know only Adventists and who live in their own American subculture do not concern themselves with relevance and adaptation. They are convinced that their interpretation of Adventist eschatology has been God's plan from the foundation of the earth. . . . the delay of the Advent means re-interpretation with a vengeance. . . . Israel's history should inform us that if we delay long enough, a radical re-ordering could be in order."261 Tim Crosby writes regarding the need to see truth as having a moment in time when it becomes relevant and may be termed "present truth." He builds upon a statement made by Ellen White and applies the principle of reinterpretation to theology, prophecy and Christian standards of living. He takes seriously the principle stated by Ellen White in one of her sermons at Minneapolis where some people were upset that she appeared to be taking a different understanding on the use of the term "law" in Galatians. The statement she made is, "That which God gives His servants to speak today would not perhaps have been present truth twenty years ago, but it is God's message for this time."262 This does not mean that we shall act as some, during World War I and II, by running with every wind of political event and seeing in them the fulfillment of prophecy. It does mean that we should keep in mind that there is a moral purpose in prophecy. It was given to help us maintain our hold on Christ.263 Correctly understood and interpreted it leads us to trust in Christ and understand His purpose for our lives. Seventh-day Adventism was born in the early 19th century with a message relevant to the needs of the world. Many streams of theological thought fed into Adventism. Considering there was not one trained scholar among them it is amazing how they arrived at some of the key theological concepts such as: The Sabbath; the nature of humankind in death; the great controversy theme; and the coming of Christ before the millennium. They saw themselves raised up by God to preach these and other great truths in relationship to the times in which they lived. To them the French Revolution had been an earth-shaking event. They saw prophecy fulfilled in this event and events surrounding it. They lived in the United States of America at a time when there was an immigration wave of Catholics threatening to overthrow the Protestant heritage of the country. The harddrinking Catholic laborers were coming in droves and threatening to unsettle city life and the observance of Sunday. In response the Protestant world of their day was trying to bring in laws to maintain the Puritan ideas within Protestantism. 87

Jonathan Butler describes how Ellen White related to the situation of her age: "Within her own lifetime, Mrs White allowed for the conditional nature of prophecy. Christ might have come 'long ere this,' she remarked. He might have come in the Civil War era when slavery was the sign of a failing democracy and an imminent Second Coming. He might have come about 1888 when a beleaguered Adventist minority in Tennessee chain gangs and jails indicated America's doom and the world's demise. In both cases, the prophetess spoke eschatologically with one eye on the morning newspaper. She inspired a sense of relevance or 'present truth.' Like other prophets before her, Mrs White implied the conditional nature of earlier prophecies my making more current applications. This continual reapplication of Adventism of new times and places was vital to her prophetic ministry, and remains absolutely essential to the life of the movement since her time. This is the way the 'Spirit of prophecy' operates in every era. One hopes that David Stannard's provocative analysis of the decline of Puritanism will not apply to Seventhday Adventism: '. . . if in a given situation social structure continues to change without complementary changes in a particular group's cultural life, that group in time becomes anachronistic, its cultural institutions lose their potency, and a sense of profound loss may well set in.' There must be an on-going interaction between the Adventist community and the changing social order for Adventism to remain viable. The prophetess stimulated this interactive process in her own time. It would be only sadly ironic if her writings were now used to stultify the creative process they once stimulated. This would be to retain the 'letter' while losing the 'Spirit of prophecy.' . . . An apocalyptic people—to remain Adventist—must prophesy the end of the present world, not a past era or a remotely future one. . . . By insisting on only the 'sign of the times' of an earlier Adventism, one may actually weaken belief in an imminent end of our time."264 (emphasis added). To see how prophetic interpretations can undergo development with time one only needs to compare Ellen White's description of the coming of Christ in Early Writings with that found in The Great Controversy. In Early Writings she pictures slaves and their masters. This description is not matched in The Great Controversy. Slaves are no longer mentioned because the Civil War has been fought and slavery in North American has ended by the time The Great Controversy was written. Robert Johnston gives an excellent summary of the true spirit of Adventism with a description of openness to grow in understanding and expression of the faith with changing times: "So the young faith continually advanced, not only in numbers but also in understanding. It changed its ideas about organization and the ministry, deepened its understanding of the third angel's message of Revelation 14, and revised its interpretations of prophecy. It corrected its understanding of Christ and the Trinity, reclaimed the great truth of salvation through faith, and found much else to learn or to unlearn. But while it corrected, amplified, and reclaimed, it never lost touch with its roots, the 'waymarks.' . . . "This, then, is how the Lord led Seventh-day Adventists in the past. They are still pilgrims on a doctrinal journey who do not repudiate the waymarks, but neither do they remain stopped at any one of them. . . . They realize that tradition can be a useful servant but a dreadful master, so they shun traditionalism, ever eager to learn present truth and perform present duty."265 It is important that we bear in mind what Johnston had said regarding the true spirit and genius of Adventism, particularly when we think of how different our world today is to that of Ellen White's. In her day some of the great issues were: Slavery and the Civil War, which divided the nation. Catholic immigration came like a deluge into North America. Sunday laws were aimed at the Catholics because of their relaxed attitude towards the observance of Sunday. This was seen as a threat against the Protestant way of life in North America. Adventists were caught up in a cross-fire primarily aimed at the Catholics. The Catholics also brought with them "grog shops." Protestants saw their stand upon temperance as vital to the welfare of the nation. 88

The growing influence of trade unions as the rise of urban-industrialised America developed. The influence of the hard-drinking Catholic laborers was an unsettling influence in city life. The impact of the French Revolution in its revolt against religion and the bloodshed that followed was still very fresh in the minds of those who lived in the 19th century.266 In Ellen White's day Adventism was confined almost entirely to North America. It would be natural for Adventists to think in terms of Bible prophecy being fulfilled largely in their country. Adventists were caught up in the spirit of their country, for they saw North America in terms of a type of Israel. They saw their country as one giving new hope to the world. Not surprising, then, that they would see Bible prophecy being primarily fulfilled in their nation just as it was to be for Israel, when it was God's chosen nation. A discerning reader will notice how often in The Great Controversy Ellen White writes of the end times in the present tense. The end times, to her, were primarily focused on the immediate future in North America. Adventists were worried, as were other Protestants, that the purity of the nation and its destiny was being lost. They, along with others, saw their nation gone astray as the second beast power coming up out of the earth. Gordon Balharrie shows that this concept was first developed by the Baptist historian Isaac Backus (17241806). It was later taken up by Adventist leaders including James White and John Andrews.267 From Andrews the idea became a part of The Great Controversy. Bringing "end times" to our times Our 21st century world is vastly different to that of Ellen White: The North American continent has changed from being dominated by Protestantism, into a society, which can be termed multicultural. It is a society fast becoming secular and post-modern. Only some 10 per cent of Adventism is found on the North American continent. The new centres for Christianity and Adventism are to be found in Central and South America, Africa and Asia. Just as early Christianity had to move away from Jerusalem and adapt to the Gentile world (see Acts 15 where this important decision was made) so Adventism needs to adapt to the world outside North America. It is important that Adventist eschatology be meaningful to the vast numbers of Adventists living in all countries of the world. What is believable to Adventists living in North America is not so believable if you live in Russia, India or even Europe. Today the challenge is not Catholic immigration, but Eastern mysticism, which is invading the West. The rise of Islam in its fundamentalist form is also a threat to the stability of the world. Today's issues are dominated by threats to the environment such as pollution and overpopulation. Humankind is concerned at the threat of global terrorism using nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons. Worldwide, end-time events must also today be able to embrace meaning when one considers one billion followers of Islam and one billion Chinese. John Stott's recent New Issues Facing Christians Today outlines some of the dominant issues we face in the 21st century. They seem so foreign to the world of Ellen White in 19th century North America. Stott summarises them: "There is a massive dearth of leaders in the contemporary world. Massive problems confront us, some of which we have looked at in this book. Globally there are still the terrifying size of nuclear arsenals, the widespread violations of human rights, the environmental and energy crisis, and the North-South economic inequality. Socially, there are the tragedy of long-term unemployment, the continuance of conflict in industrial relations, and the outbreaks of racial violence. Morally, Christians are disturbed by the forces which are undermining the stability of marriage and the family, the challenges of sexual mores and sexual roles, and the scandal of what is virtually abortion on demand. Spiritually, I might add, there are the spread of materialism and the corresponding loss of any sense of transcendent reality. Many people are warning us that the world is heading for disaster; few are offering us advice on how to avert it. Technical know-how abounds, but wisdom is in short supply. People feel confused, bewildered, alienated. To borrow the metaphors of Jesus, we seem to be like 'sheep without a shepherd', while our leaders seem to be 'blind leaders of the blind"268 89

Some issues dominating the church have come to be: The role of women in ministry; acceptance or rejection of homosexuality; the morality of cloning and genetic engineering; ecology; is there a case for a "just war"; The wealth of developed nations compared to undeveloped nations and The challenge of Fundamentalist Islam. Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University states in his new book The Next Christendom, about the present and future state of the Christian world with the following observations: "Over the past five centuries or so, the story of Christianity has been inextricably bound up with that of Europe and the European-derived civilizations overseas, above all in North America....Over the past century, however, the center of gravity in the Christian world has shifted inexorably southward to Africa, Asia and Latin America...If we want to visualize a 'typical' contemporary Christian, we should think of a woman living in a village in Nigeria or in a Brazilian favela."269 He goes on to show the numbers of Christians now found in developing countries. Africa has 360 million (42% of its population). Latin America 480 million. Asia 313 million. He states that in some of these countries Christianity is mutating as it embraces tribal religions and extreme forms of Pentecostalism. In some nations the form of Christianity developed has been made a state religion. In many nations of Africa, Asia and the Middle East Christianity and Islam are at each other's throats in on going conflicts." He concludes that by 2025, 50% of the Christian population will be in Africa and Latin America and another 17% will be in Asia. He sees a split dividing Christians in developed countries from those in the developing world. This split he says will be as significant as the split caused by the Protestant Reformation. There can be no doubt to the fact that we can see emerging today a Christian world very different from that of 19th century North America. Ingemar Linden offers his observation on the book The Great Controversy as follows : "The reader notices how the scene for the cosmic struggle gradually moves west in Great Controversy, from the Orient to the Continent and England, to end up in North America. The focus on the United States is so characteristic that the description is difficult to comprehend for readers lacking adequate knowledge of American history. It is evident that EGW wrote primarily for Americans in her own time, with a provincial perspective, or emphasis on domestic problems, which meant the 'world' to many readers in America."270 It is important that Adventism take its message to the present world in relevant terms; or else it will finish up becoming a 19th century North American relic. The central ideas of Adventism271 must be presented in a meaningful way to the present generation of Adventists to give them a sense of mission to their world and culture. While not losing contact with our roots, we must stand on the shoulders of early Adventists and see things they were not able to see. In this sense we must be a first generation and be free to go to the Word of God to find present truth relevant in our world. If we fail to do this then we may find the Adventism of our day going through its own "Great Disappointment." Fritz Guy speaks of people who have chosen to leave the Adventist Church with the following observations: "In previous generations those who left the Adventist Church tended to be careless, rebellious, or embittered. Now they are often serious and thoughtful women and men whose personal pilgrimage leads them away from Adventism. "Previously, when people gave up Adventism they usually gave up Christianity along with it. Now, however, more and more young people give up only their Adventism, and remain seriously Christian—as Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics. Some express appreciation for their Adventist heritage, even as they leave it. . . . we certainly ought to be interested in the reason. From observations and conversations, I have identified several that I consider significant. "1. They think that Adventism is not entirely believable. For one thing, Adventism has been talking about the soon coming for more than 140 years. After all this time, it is not clear what soon means. The prophetic time periods and "signs" plausible in the mid-1800s don't seem to matter much to them in the late 1900s. 90

"For another thing, some people who leave the church are convinced that literalistic interpretations of the Bible are no longer viable. Such interpretations, they believe, are contradicted by an overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. Adventism has always understood itself as being committed to the truth, but some of our sons and daughters think that is no longer the case. For them Adventism is not credible. "2. They think that Adventism is not relevant to today's world. On the one hand, it seems stuck in the past, trying to preserve the culture of another century and perpetuate the thinking of an earlier generation. On the other hand, Adventism doesn't seem to have anything to say or do about the current problems of the world. . . ."272 More recently Guy made even stronger observations: "One hundred fifty-five years after the 'great disappointment' of 1844, an essential task of Adventist theologians—and of all Adventists who think theologically—is to face as honestly and creatively as we can the question of whether an Adventist vision of the future can be sustained in and for the twenty-first century. . . . We are not, and cannot be, Adventist in exactly the same way as were our spiritual and theological great-great-grandparents a century and a half ago. . . . Our world is different—technologically, culturally, religiously—and so are its inhabitants (including us). Not only has it become a global village in a way that was unimaginable in he mid-nineteenth century, but it has also become increasingly obsessed with nonstop, seven-days-a-week consumerism. Furthermore, since the Second Vatican Council (1963-1965) everything previously written about the character of Roman Catholicism has to be re-examined. . . . "Our Advent hope is historically realistic. It recognizes, for example, not only that the expectations and predictions of Millerite Adventists before the 'disappointment' were not fulfilled; but also that neither were the expectations and predictions of Sabbatarian Adventists after the 'disappointment.' . . . There is something paradoxical about celebrating for more than 150 years the successive anniversaries of the beginning of a movement that proclaims, 'Jesus is coming soon. . . .' "Our hope recognizes, for example, that the Greek words ton loipon (Rev 12:17), translated 'the remnant' in the King James Version, mean simply, 'the others' or, collectively, 'the rest'—of the offspring of the woman symbolizing the Christian community of faith. The words carry no necessary implication of chronological posterity or even numerical minority. More broadly, our hope sees with increasing clarity that the Book of Revelation is largely a right-brain, holistic composition to which many people have insisted on giving a left-brain, reductionistic interpretation. . . . The Book of Revelation is not a piece of encryption to be decoded, but a song of hope by which to be captivated, an epic poem by which to be inspired and energized. . . . "With this insight into the nature of biblical apocalyptic, our hope can sit more lightly on interpretations and applications of specific periods of time, whether half an hour (Rev 8:1) or forty-two months (11:2; 13:5) or a thousand years (20:2-3). . . . but the Advent hope is not gnostic, claiming secret, inside knowledge about the future. Prophecy is not 'history written in advance' (a misconception which goes back more than three centuries). People of hope know that the future belongs to God; but about exactly what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, or next century, they know no more than anyone else. . . . Our Advent hope does not predict the future, but looks forward to it eagerly (which is spiritually more important); for it knows that the future is, in the most profound sense, God's future, that what is coming is the activity and presence of God, and that in everything God will be working for good. (Romans 8:28)"273 Jon Paulien perceives that changes have already begun to happen in the Adventist approach to the Book of Revelation. He summarises what has been happening since the death of Ellen White with the following observations: "In spite of the lack of exegetical rigor, unity of understanding was largely maintained as long as Ellen White was alive. By the time of the 1919 Bible Conference, however, concerns were being expressed as to how the Bible should be handled in the absence of a living prophet. The problem with a dead prophet is that the prophet's work becomes subject to interpretation just as much as the biblical materials do. . . . 91

The material in the Our Firm Foundation volumes (1953) indicates that the Adventist Church arrived at this half of the century with essentially the same approach to Revelation as the 19th century pioneers. The assumption was made (but never argued) that the sevenfold sequences of the churches, seals, and trumpets represented stages of history from NT times to the second coming. The method of study was systematic and text-selective rather than exegetical. The goal seemed to be conclusions compatible with the church's traditional positions rather than fidelity to the text of Revelation itself. As the 1950's wore on. . . . the traditional Adventist consensus for Revelation was also beginning to break down. There remained a consensus regarding the historicist approach to interpretation, but various individuals were becoming more and more creative in their use of the Bible and Ellen White to offer interpretations that differed from those of Uriah Smith. Meanwhile more and more individuals seeking academic degrees were seeing value in subjecting Adventist evangelistic and theological use of the Bible to the standards of exegetical procedures. The approaches to Revelation taught and utilized in societies like SBL and SNTS were greeted with various levels of interest. The fragmentation that was feared in 1919 and began to be discernable in the 1950s has reached full-blown maturity as we approach the new millennium. Today, there are perhaps a dozen or more different versions of Adventism. It is now clear to most Adventist scholars, at least, that in the absence of a living prophet, the traditional Adventist hermeneutic cannot do the job.274 To understand what Paulien is saying we must now go back and retrace Adventist history for most of the past century to understand more clearly the present situation. _______________________ 245 Donald Casebolt, "Is Ellen White's Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy Final?", Spectrum, Vol.12, No.4, p. 2. [back] 246 Ibid., pp. 5-6. In addition, Litch himself is pictured as having acknowledged his errors in applying this prophecy. He later wrote "Perhaps that which has gained for itself the largest number of adherents among the advocates of an historical interpretation of this book is, that these locusts symbolize the Mohammedan invasion of Europe and other lands...there are points of coincidence which have given a certain coloring of plausibility to the theory; but it can bear no searching analysis. "Josiah Litch: Herald Of "The Advent Near". A paper presented in partial fulfillment of the course CH570, History of the SDA Church, Andrews University, Theological Seminary, May 1973, p. 31. Held in EGW Research Centre, Cooranbong NSW, Aust. DF332. Ronald Numbers comments "Litch offered a specific commentary on the sixth trumpet in an 1873 work entitled A Complete Harmony of Daniel and the Apocalypse. No longer did he read deep secret meanings in Revelation 9:15. . . . Neither the oblivion to which Litch eventually condemned August 11, 1840, nor the triumph Loughborough bestowed upon the day accurately reflects the actual events relating to Litch's prophecy. Contemporary accounts preserve certain awkward details about this paradoxical day, helping to explain the mentality of the Millerite movement. The Disappointed, Ronald Numbers, Jonathan Butler, (Bloomingotn; IN: University Press, 1987). p. 81. Kai Arasola writes "In spite of the fact that later judgment has failed to single out the Millerite dates as outstanding for the history of Turkey or Islam, the Millerites experienced this "fulfillment" as a boost for their morale and it certainly proved an effective means of creating interest in prophetic timekeeping.....It would be a mistake to regard this interpretation as one which converted thousands to Millerism. This idea would not explain Litch's dismay over people's reluctance to accept the events of August 11 as a "convincing sign from heaven". Kai Arasola ,The End of Historicism, Revised edition of an earlier mimeographed dissertation submitted to the Theological Faculty of the University of Uppsala for the degree of Doctor of Theology. 1989. p 143. [back] 92

247 Ibid., p. 7. He finds support from articles by Merton E. Sprengel in the Adventist Review, May 22, 29, and June 5, 1980 which makes this point very clear and explains how many Adventists got the idea it was something that was unexplained by natural phenomena. [back] 248 The next year in the Adventist Review there was an article supporting Casebolt's assertions regarding the 1833 display by Harold Wright. 24, November, 1983, pp. 4-6. [back] 249 Casebolt, p. 7. [back] 250 Hans LaRondelle, Ministry, September, 1998, p. 27. [back] 251 Ibid., [back] 252 Ibid., [back] 253 Casebolt, p 9. [back] 254 She wrote this a few years after Uriah Smith had finished his work on the book Daniel and Revelation. "When the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood, believers will have an entirely different religious experience." TM, p. 114. [back] 255 I first heard this expressed at pastor's meetings in Canberra National Church by the then Secretary of the White Estate, Dr. Robert Olsen. The meetings were open for all local members to attend along with the Pastors of South NSW Conference. [back] 256 Jon Paulien observes that "62% of the text [in Uriah Smith's "Daniel and Revelation"] is in quotation marks, being culled from earlier historicist writers. This leads to the suspicion that Brother Smith himself never did any serious work in the text. Jon Paulien, "The Book Of Revelation At The Crossroads: Where we've Been And Where We're Going", ASRS, Annual Meeting Papers. 1999. p. 30. In her introduction to The Great Controversy she claims that she is making use of material "well known and universally acknowledged by the Protestant world" [p. xi] She also goes on to state how she has made use of contemporary Adventist writers with the following words "In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our time, similar use has been made of their published works." [p. xii] [back] 257 Jon Paulien, What The Bible Says About The End Time, ( Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1994). p. 92. [back] 258 She wrote "When we as a people understand what this book [Revelation] means to us, there will be seen among us a great revival. . . . There is need of a much closer study of the word of God; especially should Daniel and Revelation have attention as never before in the history of our work. We may have less to say in some lines, in regard to the Roman power and the papacy . . . study Revelation in connection with Daniel, for history will be repeated. . . .We, with all our religious advantages, ought to know far more today than we do know." TM, pp. 113, 112, 116. [back] 259 7SDABC, p. 726. [back] 260 Jon Paulien, pp. 41-105. Here Paulien goes to great length to explain the unfolding and changing expectations of the end time over the milleniums. Paulien shows how God's ultimate plan was never changed. That is, His plan to have this planet inhabited by a holy people. However the details of how that plan was to eventuate did significantly change with the passing of time. It went from the descendants of Abraham to the Christian Church, from the land of Israel to the whole world. [back] 93

261 Alden Thompson, "Old Testament Apocalyptic And Adventist Eschatology." An address given at the West Coast Bible Teacher's Conference, May 1, 1982, p. 7. [back] 262 Ms. 8a, 1888 and 1888 Material, p. 133. Quoted in A Study in the Dynamics of Present Truth, by Tim Crosby, p. 46. [back] 263 Revelation 16:15. [back] 264 Jonathan Butler, "The World of E.G. White And the End of the World", Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 11. [back] 265 Adventist Review, p. 7, "A Search for Truth" by Robert Johnston. [back] 266 See Gary Land, The World of Ellen G. White, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987). [back] 267 Gordon Balharrie, A Study Of The Contribution Made To The Seventh-day Adventist Movement By John Nevins Andrews. MA Thesis. SDA Theological Seminary Washington, DC: 1949, pp. 33-40. [back] 268 John Stott. New Issues Facing Christians Today, (London: Marshall Pickering, 1999), p. 421. [back] 269 Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 1-2. Jenkins also shows that if the present trends continue" By the 2050, only about one-fifth of the world's 3 billion Christians will be non-Hispanic Whites. (p. 3). He sees by current trends that by 2050 there will be one billion Pentecostal believers. That is as many as the number of Hindus and twice as many as Buddhists. (p. 8). He also berates Christian writers for neglecting these facts as they project the future "In North America at least, most visions of the coming century are based firmly on extrapolating familiar domestic conditions. The imagined future looks more like the American present. . . ." p. 5. [back] 270 The Last Trump, p. 233 [back] 271 Ideas such as: The gospel The law of God The Sabbath as a memorial of creation The Great Controversy theme The soon return of Jesus Christ The nature of mankind in death The emphasis on health [back] 272 Fritz Guy, "We're Majoring in Minors" Adventist Review, June 19, 1986, p. 9. [back] 273 Fritz Guy, "How We Are Adventist As We Enter the Twenty-First Century (Or What Would I say To Uriah Smith On The Way To The Airport?)" Adventist Society For Religious Studies, Annual meeting papers, November 18-20, 1999. p. 101-105. [back] 274 Jon Paulien, "The Book Of Revelation At The Crossroads: Where We've Been And Where We're Going." ASRS 1999, pp. 30-31. [back]

94

Chapter Sixteen

Ellen White and her culture Prophets may be ahead of their times in what God reveals to them, but what God has not revealed still leaves them a product of the times in which they live. God meets people where they are to give to them the good news about His Son. This can be seen in the writings of Ellen White from the following examples: Education George Knight, in Myths in Adventism, lists as one of the myths to be demolished the idea that Ellen White was one hundred years ahead of her time in the area of education. He states, "It is extremely important to realize that Ellen White never made such claims about her educational (or other) writings. The responsibility for the myth lies with some of her misinformed followers who have mistakenly thought they were doing her a service. . . . Other nineteenth-century educators also espoused Ellen White's educational reform concepts. . . . Ellen White knew she was in harmony with the educational reform ideas of her age. For example, her writings on the role of physiology in education and on proper ventilation and lighting in the classroom resemble some of the ideas in Horace Mann's annual reports. But then, why shouldn't they, since both Mann and Mrs. White were fighting the same health-destroying educational abuses. . . . Mrs. White never pretended to be unfamiliar with Mann's work. On the contrary, some of his material was published along with hers in Health: or How to Live in 1865. . . . What is special about Ellen White's contribution to educational reform is the total salvation package in which she couched it.223 (emphasis added). Knight's observation is in harmony with what we have so far established from Scripture: the Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament is primarily concerned with the spiritual life of the recipients. Health Much of the material she gathered on health came from current health reformers of her age. When Ronald Numbers first published his book Prophetess of Health224 he demonstrated this point. He went even further by showing that her ideas were not always correct and that she had to undergo some development in her ideas. At the time the book was published (1976) it caused a great stir within the ranks of Adventism. Numbers was treated as an outcast; however, time has shown that much of what he was saying in regard to her ideas on health were correct.225 Up until this time books such as Prophet of Destiny by Rene Noorbergen226 and The Story of Our Health Message by D. E. Robinson227 had given the impression that she had received her messages on health by visions and that the information given was a hundred years ahead of the times. Some of the ideas she had on health (even if not original with her) were excellent and would still be upheld today by modern medical science. People interested in health should be encouraged to read The Ministry of Healing as an excellent source of general health principles. It would be a pity if people seized upon the mistakes she made (which are not many in comparison to the amount of material she wrote) and ignore the fact that she was far more right than wrong in an age when orthodox medicine was in the wilderness. Don McMahon's research is of interest. Being a physician, he wanted to test her statements on health when compared to her contemporaries. He did this by measuring the correctness of her statements and gave a percentage both to her and her contemporaries. He found she was twice as correct as the next best and three times more correct than most. For example she was 87 per cent correct while Kellogg was 43 per cent. She was uneducated in medicine while Kellogg was considered to be an outstanding medical man of the times.228

95

It must also be acknowledged that some of the ideas she adopted would not be looked upon with favour today. Some of the ideas she published include: Support of phrenology, the study of the bumps on the head as a guide to intelligence.229 She opposed the wearing of the current fashionable wigs, which were massive and made up of bunches of curled hair, cotton, sea grass and wool. She claimed that they covered the base of the brain, causing heat and excited the spinal nerves centering in the brain. This caused recklessness in morals, "the animal organs are excited and the morals are enfeebled".230 She also wrote that the use of swine's flesh, under certain circumstances, can cause leprosy.231 She indicated that self-abuse (masturbation) could cause imbecility232 Such ideas fit in well to the prevailing views of the 19th century, but they have been discounted by modern science. God does not take a prophet out of their culture. He meets them where they are. For the most part her ideas on health were sound, with evidence for this found in the many surveys made on Seventh-day Adventists showing that they have longer life expectancy when they live out the principles of health given to them through her gift.233 What is important is the reason she wrote on health. Good health keeps the mind clear and the spirit in good condition—it is linked to our spiritual well being. This, as we have seen, is the main function of a prophet's work according to 1 Corinthians 14:3. Genetics A statement she once made, which has caused much comment over the years in Adventism, is: "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man with beast which defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere. . . . The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men"234 (Emphasis added). With scientific progress made over recent years we can see that it is possible to mix the genes of animals and mankind. So she would not be out of harmony with modern science on that account. However, it is the statement made about the mixture giving us certain races that creates a problem. It was commonly believed in her day that there were certain races as a result of this amalgamation—for instance, the wild Bushmen of Africa.235 Chronology Warren Johns236 wrestles with statements Ellen White made regarding chronology. He notes that her statements are inconsistent. She uses two different time periods for the time Israel spent in Egypt before the Exodus. He also notes the loose way she can refer to 6000 years for Creation. For instance, she can say for "over 6000 years" and on another occasion "for nearly" 6000 years. He also notes: "The function is not to establish a date for Creation, but to show the extent and intensity of the great controversy between good and evil. . . ."237 In this observation he is in harmony with the work of prophets as expressed in 1 Corinthians 14:3. He also notes that she uses Ussher's chronology, which has long been discredited. He concludes, "If Ellen White were alive today, she would no doubt advocate that chronology that holds the closest fidelity to the scriptural record."238 He might well have also added the material cited from Willie White, where he states his mother did not consider herself an authority in the area of dates and chronology. This concept has not always been clearly understood in Adventism. However it has widespread ramifications not only in Adventism, but also the more conservative elements of the Christian world. For example, Ronald Numbers in The Creationists239 shows how up until the mid-20th century most conservative Christians did not think they needed to defend the 6000 years since creation concept. But with the work of George McCready Price, an Adventist, the idea took hold and remains in conservative Christian circles. Numbers shows how Price felt he had to believe what Ellen White had said and, in doing so, influenced many others. 240 Price accepted her chronology of 6000 years and succeeded in bringing it in as something to be defended in the conservative Christian world. 96

135 Gerhard Pfandl in his paper prepared for the 2002 Faith and Science Conference finds a clear link between Ellen White and the cultural setting of her times when he comments on her statements regarding the age of the earth: "There is no indication that she was ever told in vision that the earth is only six thousand years old. Why then six and not eight or ten thousand years? The explanation is most likely found in the fact that whenever she opened her King James Bible she saw on every page in the margins Ussher's dates. On the first page of the Bible next to the creation account she, like every Bible believing Christian at that time, read the date 4004 BC. Short of a revelation from heaven, why should she have used any other date? If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the history of man upon earth was actually ten thousand years, could we really expect God to have revealed this fact to Ellen White and had her incorporate this figure into her writings? How would this have been accepted in the nineteenth century by Bible believing Christians who, with their backs to the wall, fought off the attack of 'infidel geologists' and the rising tide of liberal theologians? . . . Could we expect Ellen White to come out with something different and demolish what was for them an important pillar in their defense of the Bible?"241 Geology Numbers also shows how Price accepted White's ideas regarding buried coal beds that occasionally ignited to produce earthquakes, and volcanoes242 This concept was largely believed in her day but now has no credibility. Astronomy Alden Thompson in Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers gives a classic example of how God works within the cultural concepts of the day when giving His revelations. In the early years of Ellen White's ministry, Joseph Bates was undecided regarding her manifestations. One evening in his presence she went into vision and began to describe what she saw regarding some of the planets. She said "I see four moons." Bates, who knew something about astronomy, said, "She is describing Jupiter!" She then continued to describe other parts of space and gave a description of beautiful belts and rings and said "I see seven moons." Bates said, "She is seeing Saturn." Then came a description of Uranus with its six moons. This description convinced Bates of her contact with God in her visions. Thompson then tells us that the number of moons she was describing for the different planets was in harmony with the number known to exist in her day. Today we know that each of these planets have more moons than what she described. Thompson lists the number of moons of some of these planets and how the number grew as more powerful telescopes were able to detect them. 243 The point he makes is valid. God meets people where they are. If she had been given the number we know to be more correct today, Bates would never have accepted her and her messages as from God. Thompson explains, "The limitations of time and circumstances, culture and human knowledge, set certain boundaries within which revelation can be effective. If Jesus the supreme revelation, took humanity 'in order to reach man where he is' (1SM, p.20), would not the same principle apply to all lesser revelations as well? That means that while we cannot claim absolute scientific validity for prophetic messages, their practical value is significantly enhanced. Good teaching always involves effective illustrations, illustrations that are concrete, understandable, adapted to the needs of the learner. They point to the truth but should not be mistaken for the truth itself."244 When dealing with the above listed subjects we must be careful not to give a wrong impression of her work. The danger is that when we talk of some erroneous concepts where she reflects her culture we may forget that this is not generally true of her work. Much time could easily be given to consideration of how she could as a relatively uneducated person in the 19th century be so right when her contemporaries were wrong. This we have done in part in quoting from the McMahon report in the area of health. 97

________________ 223 George R. Knight, Myths in Adventism, (Washington DC: Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 1985), pp. 34-36. [back] 224 Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White, (New York: Harper and Row, 1976). [back] 225 For more on this point read Jonathan Butler, "The Historian As Heretic", Spectrum, Vol. 23, No 2, pp. 4364. Butler shows how there was a "Holy War" between Numbers and the White Estate who felt threatened by his book. [back] 226 Rene Noorbergen, Ellen White: Prophet of Destiny. (New Canaan, CT: Keats Publ.Co., 1972). After the revelations of Walter Rea and others, Noorbergen wrote a stringing letter of rebuke regarding the White Estate accusing them of not giving him accurate information and stating he would never have written his book as he did if he had been more accurate information. [back] 227 D. E. Robinson, The Story of Our Health Message, (Nashville, TN: Southern Publ. Assn, 1943). [back] 228 Dr. Don McMahon, "Ahead of Her Time: A Critical Analysis of Ministry of Healing. A book by Ellen G. White," May 2001. Unpublished document. [McMahon has now published his book, Acquired or Inspired, (Signs Publishing Company, Warburton, Australia and Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2005.)] [back] 229 She wrote "Phrenology and mesmerism are very much exalted. They are good in their place, but they are seized upon by Satan as his most powerful agents to deceive and destroy souls" 1T, p. 296. She wrote that in 1862 and in 1864 she took her sons Willie and Edson to a phrenologist to have the bumps in their heads examined. [back] 230 Ellen White, Words to Christian Mothers, Health Reformer, October, 1871, p. 121. We have previously stated the belief that while working as a sub-editor of this magazine she was not working as a prophet but exercising other spiritual gifts. [back] 231 2SM, p. 417. [back] 232 Appeal to Mothers, p. 62. [back] 233 Gary Fraser, Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Loma Linda University states regarding his research that ". . . a non-smoking, relatively thin Adventist who emphasises fruit and vegetables and exercises moderately may reasonably expect an extra 10 to 12 years of life as compared to a relatively obese, non-exercising, high fat/meat consuming Adventist." SCOPE, July-September, 1991, p. 52. The former mentioned Adventist who lives longer is following the counsels on health given by Ellen White. [back] 234 3SG, pp. 64, 75. [back] 235 For a more complete discussion on this subject see "Amalgamation of Man and Beast," Gordon Shigley, Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 10-19. [back] 236 Ministry, April 1984, pp. 20-23. [back] 237 Ibid., p. 22 [back] 238 Ibid., p. 23. [back] 98

239 Ronald Numbers, The Creationists, (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1993). [back] 240 Ibid., pp. xi, 72-101. [back] 241 International Faith and Science Conference. Sponsored by the General Conference of SDA, August 23-29, 2002. Ogden, Utah. "Ellen G. White and Earth Science." A paper prepared by Gerhard Pfandl, p. 18. [back] 242 Ibid., p. 74. [back] 243 Alden Thompson, Inspiration: Hard Questions, Honest Answers, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1991), p 296. Even Thompson's figures are now behind the times. Today it is recognized that Jupiter has 52 moons, Saturn 30, Uranus 21 and Neptune 11. Central Coast Herald, Wednesday, March 21. 2003. p. 29. Article "Astronomer's discovery brings Jupiter's moons up to 52". [back] 244 Ibid., p. 297. [back]

99

Chapter Eighteen

The 1919 Bible Conference and its aftermath275 The death of the founder of any movement is often of great significance. This was certainly true for the Seventh-day Adventist Church with the death of Ellen White, in 1915. History shows that when this has happened to other movements of the past the tendency is for the next generation to "pull down the shutters" and strive towards conserving rather than exploring. Bull and Lockhart maintain that this also happened to the Seventh-day Adventist Church. "At the turn of the twentieth century, Adventism underwent significant change. Ellen White died in 1915, and the church was robbed of its chief means of authorizing innovation. The liveliness and flexibility that had characterized the Adventist theological debate in the nineteenth century evaporated. The church became more cautious. . . . Consolidation rather than experimentation was the order of the day. . . . The intellectually disciplined theological debates that had filled the pages of The Review now disappeared. . . . They were also accepting new ideas, usually without arguing them out in the way their forebears would have done. . . . The writings of Ellen White and the Bible now functioned not as a source of new ideas but as a compendium of truths to be expounded and memorised. . . . Adventist theology has developed in parallel with that of the mainstream. It was at its most distinctive during a period of great diversity; it became fundamentalist in the era of fundamentalism; and softened with the rise of evangelicalism"276 (emphasis added). The history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reflects many eras of change. Bull and Lockhart have correctly observed that after the death of Ellen White there were forces at work in society that pushed the movement into an unnatural Protestant fundamentalist stance. Later, the forces in society would also push it back toward what many would claim to be its more natural position, that of Evangelicalism. These same forces were also at work in the Protestant world and affected other denominations in a similar way. The 1919 Bible Conference Little was known of the 1919 Bible Conference until December 6, 1974, when Donald Yost, the senior archivist at the General Conference headquarters in Washington, DC was setting up the newly formed archives. He accidentally discovered two packets of papers containing some 2400 pages of typewritten material that were stenographic notes taken at the Bible Conference held in Takoma Park, Maryland, in July 1919. The subsequent publication of those minutes in Spectrum277 gave Adventists a unique opportunity to see how some of the contemporaries of Ellen White viewed her function and authority. This was a world of thought that few, if any, of even the best-informed Seventh-day Adventists knew existed. We will not focus on the conference itself, but on a smaller after meeting called The Bible and History Teachers Council attended by 22 delegates, some of them prominent church leaders, including: A. G. Daniells, president of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference. G. B. Thompson, field secretary of the General Conference. F. M. Wilcox, editor of the Review and Herald, later Adventist Review, the major church magazine. M. E. Kern, formerly president of the Foreign Missionary Seminary in Washington DC—later to become Columbia Union College. W. W. Prescott, former editor of Review and Herald and then a field secretary of the General Conference. 100

H. C. Lacey, religion teacher at the Foreign Mission Seminary. W. E. Howell, editor of The Christian Educator, a journal produced by the church for the benefit of parents and teachers. W. G. Wirth, a religion teacher at Pacific Union College, the church's major institution of learning on the West Coast of North America. M. C. Wilcox, book editor for the Pacific Press, the church's major 153 press situated on the West Coast of North America. Added to this were others who held prominent administrative, educational and publishing responsibilities. It is surprising to read of these respected leaders and scholars, making statements like those shown in the following extracts: "Every Christian is therefore in duty bound to take the Bible as a perfect rule of faith and duty. He should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts."278 "Well, now, as I understand it, Sister White. She never claimed to be an authority on history, and never claimed to be a dogmatic teacher on theology, like Mrs Eddy's book on teaching. She just gave out fragmentary statements, but left the pastors and evangelists and preachers to work out all these problems of scripture and of theology and of history."279 "Those who have not heard you, as we have here, and are taking the other side of the question—some of them are deliberately saying that neither you nor Professor Prescott believe the Testimonies."280 "In our estimate of the spirit of prophecy, isn't its value to us more in the spiritual light it throws into our own hearts and lives than in the intellectual accuracy in historical and theological matters. Ought we not take those writings as the voice of the Spirit of our hearts, instead of the voice of the teacher to our heads? And isn't the final proof of the spirit of prophecy its spiritual value rather that its historical accuracy?"281 "Wouldn't it be a splendid thing if a little pamphlet were written setting forth in plain, simple, straight-forward style the facts as we have them—simple, sacred facts—so that we could put them into the hands of inquiring students? "Voice: Our enemies would publish it everywhere."282 "Really, that is my biggest problem. I shall certainly be discredited if I go back and give this view. I would like to see some published statement given out by those who lead this work so that if that thing should come up there would be some authority back of it, because I am in for a lot of trouble on that thing. I would like to see something done, because that education is going right on, and our students are being sent out with the idea that the Testimonies are verbally inspired, and woe be to the man out where I am that does not line up to that. . . ."283 "Is it well to let our people in general go on holding to the verbal inspiration of the testimonies? When we do that, aren't we preparing for a crisis that will be very serious some day?"284 "If we had always taught the truth on this question, we would not have any trouble or shock in the denomination now. But the shock is because we have not taught the truth, and have put the testimonies on a plane where she says they do not stand. We have claimed more for them than she did.285 To the reader of these minutes it is obvious that the leaders of the church, along with the Bible teachers present, did not feel comfortable in presenting what they knew to be the truth regarding the subject of the inspiration of 101

Ellen White's writings to the laity of the church. Although most present at the conference were pleased with the open and frank discussion about some sensitive issues regarding inspiration, the subsequent reaction by some who were also present shows that not all were in agreement with presenters like Daniells, Prescott and Lacey. Among those not pleased with the conference, two stand out in particular: J. S. Washburn, a well-known preacher; and C. E. Holmes who was the Washington correspondent for the denomination's Southern Watchman magazine. Although Holmes was present he did not openly challenge the General Conference president in the discussions for, if he had, it would have become obvious that he was out of his depth. Daniells had been dealing with these issues for many years and had personal contact with Ellen White, and could draw from these experiences. Willie White, although invited to the conference, chose not to do so because of his heavy involvement in compiling the book Counsels on Medical Work. If he had attended, the evidence suggests he would have supported what those like Daniells were saying.286 His letters of response to questions asked by Leroy Froom, as recorded in the appendices of Selected Messages Vol. 3, show his views of inspiration and indicate that he saw the role and function of his mother similar to that of Daniells.287 Even though opponents of the views being openly expressed did not challenge them during the conference, they certainly did afterwards. Washburn produced a tract written to Holmes entitled The Startling Omega and Its True Genealogy. In it he labels the ideas expressed at the conference as "the new theology" and states that he and others were going to "stand by the old landmarks."288 He also sees as part of "this deadly heresy" the issue over the Daily in Daniel chapter 8 as being part of this new theology in as much as it was challenging the old view of the pioneers as endorsed by Ellen White in her first book, Early Writings. Washburn continued his allegations by saying that changing a point of teaching so vital in the area of prophetic interpretation is to open the flood gate for all sorts of new ideas and undermine the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy. This, he continued, surely was the "Omega of Apostasy that Ellen White had warned against."289 In "An open letter to Elder A G Daniells," Washburn claimed that the ideas expressed at the Bible Conference were part of the Omega apostasy as forewarned by Ellen White: "In one of the most terrible warnings that God has ever sent to this people through the Spirit of Prophecy, on p. 211, Vol. 4, of the Testimonies, 'Satan's chief work is at the headquarters of our faith.' Then the Omega must develop in Washington, for that is the headquarters of our faith. The Alpha centered and developed in Battle Creek, the old headquarters. The Omega must centre in the new headquarters, Washington, DC, the logical centre, in harmony with the prophecy of Revelation 13th chapter, for the last struggle for truth and liberty. The Omega will develop and centre in Washington, DC."290 He called the 1919 Bible Conference a "diet of doubts" and claimed the work of higher criticism was being applied to the writings of Ellen White.291 He continually used this term "higher criticism" when talking of what he calls the new theology. In doing this, he played on the fears that many loyal Seventh-day Adventists of the time would have heard about the inroads being made into Protestantism by the more liberal churches that had tried to reconcile Darwinism with their faith. This was a subtle ploy used by Washburn and Holmes that, when used in a Seventh-day Adventist setting, was sure to strike a chord of response considering the religious and political climate of the day. As a result of what was shared at the Bible Conference in 1919, Holmes wrote a tract to Washburn and had it published. In it he stated: "There is a dangerous doctrine that is rapidly permeating the ranks of our people. I feel that it ought to be met and met squarely. It is this: that Sister White is not an authority on history. Some, as you know,go even further, and claim that she is not an authority on doctrine or health reform: That was practically the position taken last summer, and stands as a sort of unwritten law. During the Bible Conference in the summer of 1919 I heard it stated again and again by a number of our Bible and history teachers that Sister White is not an authority on history. If it were to go no further than these persons it would be bad enough, but think of the possibilities for evil when these men stand as teachers. These erroneous views will be poured into 102

the receptive minds of our young people to undermine their faith in the Spirit of Prophecy and this message."292 Those who had spoken so freely of their convictions at the 1919 Bible Conference, particularly Daniells, were targeted. This would come to a head at the 1922 General Conference session. Those who opposed them had the advantage of the social, economic, political and religious climate of the day. In addition, their views of inspiration probably reflected the majority view in Adventism, and this they could use to their advantage. The social, political, economic and religious climate of the 1920s The 1920s were a time of cultural instability in North America. Since their founding days by the Pilgrim Fathers, North Americans had a sense of destiny that God was using them to set up a new Israel. The United States of America would be a truly Christian nation and perhaps the world's last hope. Their early society had been dominated by white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants—WASPS. Seventh-day Adventists shared this heritage and reflected closely this American dream.293 However, the 1920s saw many different forces threatening to destroy this dream. Prominent among concerns conservative Christians shared at the time were the effects of Darwinism. Although Darwin had begun to publish his works on evolution in the 1850s, it took several decades for the full implications of what he was teaching to take effect. A new school of thought takes time to work its way through the universities to colleges, high schools and on to the arts and sciences. This was certainly true of Darwin's ideas and, eventually, they began to challenge the religious scene. The thought that humans had evolved from a lower order of species and could control his own evolution gained new impetus from the ending of World War One. A spirit of optimism arose that this was the "war to end all wars." It was believed that humankind had learned its lesson and a better world would develop. This philosophy became attractive to those churches who decided to adjust their faith to incorporate the "new Darwinism." This impacted particularly on mainline churches, which became "liberal" or "modernistic." They felt the Christian faith and its understanding of the Bible should be adjusted to incorporate the latest teachings of science. It led them to question many supernatural aspects of the Bible story, especially the creation account. Some set about to demythologize the Bible. Foremost were the German scholars who utilised the techniques of "scientific history" to picture the Bible merely as a compilation of various types of literature gathered over a period of one thousand years. Others saw this as selling-out the Christian faith and firmly resisted it. An alleged example of the fruitage of Darwinism was seen in the 1917 Russian Bolshevik revolution, with its slaughter and opposition to the Christian faith. Many conservative Protestants believed these new ideas must be firmly resisted or else they would erode the Christian heritage of the nation and pave the way for Communism to take hold in North America. In addition, one million immigrants were pouring into the country each year. Large numbers of them were Roman Catholics and Jews. This alarmed many WASPS into thinking that the USA was losing its Protestant identity. At the same time rapid urbanisation and industrialisation was changing the face of what had been rural North America. With this came problems of an increase in crime, poverty and secularism—another cause for concern among the WASPS. Against this background, arose a Fundamentalist movement among WASPS that gained great appeal from the fact that it was attempting to preserve the American dream. For 40 years this movement had been developing, but in the 1920s their battle against the liberals reached new heights. The New Dictionary of Theology describes early USA Fundamentalism in this way: "Many Fundamentalist groups had lists of fundamental doctrines, though no list was ever standard. The commonest points were the inerrancy of scripture, the deity of Christ, his virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement, Christ's resurrection, and his second coming. 103

"During the 1920s Fundamentalists fought hard against modernist gains in the major northern Presbyterian and Baptist denominations. Smaller Fundamentalist controversies occurred in other denominations, and parallel splits between conservatives and liberals took place in a number of churches in the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, Fundamentalists took on a cultural as well as an ecclesiastical dimension as they attacked aspects of moral erosion after world war 1 [sic]. . . . The spread of evolutionary teaching was seen as undermining the authority of the Bible in American life and fostering moral relativism. Marxism, Romanism, alcohol, tobacco, dancing, card playing and theatre attendance were other major targets for Fundamentalist attacks."294 George M. Marsden adds: "Between 1917 and the early 1920s American conservative evangelicals underwent a dramatic transformation . . . after 1920 conservative evangelical councils were dominated by 'fundamentalists' engaged in holy warfare to drive the scourge of modernism out of church and culture. . . . After 1920, fundamentalism became conspicuously associated with a major component of social and political alarm—most evident in the effort to save American civilisation from the dangers of evolutionism. This perception of cultural crisis, in turn, appears to have created a greater sense of theological urgency."295 The militant Fundamentalists of this era crusaded against a wide range of ills, including: alcohol; tobacco; immodesty; the wearing of jewellery; labour unions; dancing; attendance at movie theatres; bowling; card playing; and gambling.296 It is obvious that so much of what Fundamentalists were pushing would find a ready response in Adventist ranks. It was as if a choice had to be made between two camps—Liberalism and Fundamentalism were the only two alternatives. There was no middle ground. (See Appendix B for an example of how this was illustrated at that time.) That Seventh-day Adventists should readily identify with the Fundamentalists of their day would be expected, particularly when you consider that Fundamentalists were defending the Bible account of Creation against the liberals.297 To lose the Bible account of Creation would mean to lose the Sabbath. The issue over creation versus evolution was of great significance in helping to align Seventh-day Adventists to the Fundamentalist mode, particularly as they had a prominent champion fighting the creationist cause in George McCready Price.298 He, in fact, became the most frequently-quoted name when Fundamentalists were pressed to give scientific evidence for their creationist ideas. As well, Fundamentalists upheld Christian standards almost as much as Seventh-day Adventists, liberals were changing them to the apparent spiritual hurt of their congregations.299 (See also appendix C which is extra material on fundamentalism etc.) An examination of Seventh-day Adventist periodicals of this era, until the 1950s, reveals constant quotations from Fundamentalists, and distancing themselves, with horror, from what was happening in denominations with liberal leanings.300 Sympathy toward Fundamentalism was greatly strengthened in the Seventh-day Adventist church during this period leading up to the early 1920s. The moment of truth arrived for Seventh-day Adventists at the 1922 General Conference Session. At that time a conservative thrust effected an alignment of Seventh-day Adventism with Fundamentalism. The issue of inspiration Through much of its history, Seventh-day Adventism has been a sub-culture of American Protestantism. Coming out of conservative Protestant denominations and having a leadership that was not usually highly educated, there was a natural tendency toward the anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalism. Most Seventh-day Adventist members held a view of inspiration closely aligned to that of the Protestant Fundamentalists, namely, verbal dictation and inerrancy. Evidence for this is seen early, when church leaders set about to revise Ellen White's Testimonies in 1883. The reaction was strongly negative.301 Compared to the comments of the well-informed church leaders at the 1919 Bible Conference, most church members were not well-informed and few were willing to inform them for fear of being misunderstood. At the time, the indications are that there was an inner group who understood the nature of inspiration correctly (mainly through their contact with Ellen White) but they did not feel free to share what they know with the community at large, perhaps for fear of career reprisals. If it had not been for the 104

influence of Ellen White, Seventh-day Adventists would probably have always been the strictest of Fundamentalists. However, the availability of some of the original copies of her writings, plus what she has written on the subject of inspiration has been an influence on the church. While the rest of the Protestant world has struggled with issues of inspiration, Seventh-day Adventists have struggled with the subject as it applies to the inspiration of Ellen White. A long list can be cited by those who have endeavoured to understand her concept of inspiration, with a variety of understandings.302 Others, like Prescott, Daniells and Willie White, were helped by associating with her in her writing and had a realistic view of the subject. But they were never really willing or able to educate the rest of the Seventh-day Adventist community. Undoubtedly there was polarisation in the church over this subject, and over issues such as: What was the exact nature of her inspiration? What was her function and authority? These issues have been fought inside Seventh-day Adventism since the earliest days and carry on to this present time.303 It became a central issue at the 1922 General Conference Session when conservative (it may be even more correct to say Fundamentalist) forces worked to have Daniells removed from the General Conference presidency. It seems there were a variety of reasons why Daniells was removed, including the fact that he had been in office for some 20 years and he had alienated some union conference presidents and the Columbia Union Conference. But more significant was the pressure applied at the conference by leading conservative forces working through Washburn and Holmes. Both these men had actively attempted to discredit the leadership of the church centred in Washington since the 1919 Bible Conference. They tried to associate the leadership with the higher critics of the more liberal Protestant churches and felt it their God-given duty to preserve the religion of the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers by purging out the corrupt influences. They, and others, were writing letters that were freely circulated to expose and embarrass church leadership. Holmes had previously been dismissed from church employment because he stole letters from the General Conference vault addressed to Prescott and Daniells from Ellen White. He had then used extracts from them to destroy the reputations of both men in the pamphlets he published.304 In his We Have an Infallible Spirit of Prophecy tract—dated April 1, 1920—addressed to Washburn, but widely circulated, Holmes claimed that although Ellen White had not learned at the great schools of the world, yet she had knowledge directly from God and as such was always accurate in any subject on which she wrote whether it be astronomy, geology, dietetics, theology, medicine or history. He accused the leaders and teachers present at the 1919 Bible Conference of destroying confidence in her works.305 Within a few days Washburn published his thirty six page tract, The Startling Omega and Its True Genealogy. In it he mentions that Washington College had become "a nest of Higher Criticism." He mentions students by name who had almost had their faith destroyed at the college and rejoices that Albertsworth, Lacey, Sorenson and Field had been removed. He blames all the theological problems on Daniells and Prescott and claims that they along with all the other higher critics are the Omega heresy that Ellen White had spoken of in 1904.306 During the 1922 General Conference session in San Francisco, both men circulated open letters to the delegates. Washburn's letter attacked Prescott and Daniells declaring that their new theology was part of the "Waggoner theology." It was also the "deadly heresy" and Omega apostasy that Ellen White had warned would come to the church. Because of this he challenged Daniells to meet him on this issue at the next General Conference session.307 Holmes's letter lists twelve areas where he believes Daniells has gone against and undermined the counsel of Ellen White. He concludes: "I firmly believe that the deplorable conditions found in the church today are due largely to the course you have followed. In all seriousness I ask: Should men be leaders in our work year after year who neglect to follow God's counsel and persist in following their own ways."308 Daniells and Prescott were clearly at a disadvantage. Holmes and Washburn had an unrealistic understanding of the role and function of Ellen White and did not have knowledge sufficient to match Prescott and Daniells who had developed their concepts by direct association with Ellen White herself. However the 105

vews held by Holmes and Washburn were the prevailing views held by most church members at the time. A price was about to be paid for not informing the rank-and-file membership of what they knew to be the truth as they had expressed it at the 1919 Bible Conference.What took place at the session is not known in detail because the minutes are not to be found in the General Conference archives. In fact, Daniells' files from 1920 through to 1925 are strangely missing. Some references are available in letters written after the event by W. A. Spicer, but more informative still are San Francisco newspaper reports. These show Daniells emotionally defending his leadership against the bitter attacks being made against him while holding a handful of documents he claimed showed the charges were wrongfully laid. The San Francisco Bulletin reported: "William A Spicer, former secretary, will succeed A G Daniels [sic] as president of the Seventh Day Adventist Church [sic] and Daniells will become secretary of the organization, an office which Spicer has held for the last twenty years. Spicer's election came as a compromise following a struggle between opposing factions of the church. . . . Much criticism and bitter denunciation of 'dirty politics' followed by resolutions condemning 'all un-christian propaganda, vilification and false charges,' preceding the selection of the candidates."309 Washburn considered his open letter had indeed saved the church from higher critics.310 The newspapers show Daniells greatly distressed and moved to tears and withdrawing from the nomination for presidency and pledging to work for the church to the best of his ability. They seem to show Spicer reluctant to take over as his successor. These men were close friends. However, at the urging of the delegates Spicer agreed in order to attempt to bring unity. It would be doubtful if this move entirely pleased the Washburn and Holmes camp because Spicer's ideas in regard to Ellen White were not too different from those of Daniells.311 So the roles of the two men were reversed with Daniells the secretary of the General Conference, and Spicer the president. Removing Daniells was a turning point in the denomination. Daniells operated as secretary in name only and began to occupy himself in other areas such as the newly-formed Ministerial Association, and writing. Possibly because of the recent trouble, and the prevailing climate in the religious world of North America against liberal tendencies, neither Spicer or others tackled contentious topics as had been freely discussed at the 1919 Bible Conference. Seventh-day Adventism was being pushed in the direction of the Fundamentalism, particularly in the area of the inspiration of both Ellen White and the Bible. Bull and Lockhart summarise their convictions regarding this era of Seventh-day Adventist history in this manner: "The crucial issue of the First World War and the 1920s was the Fundamentalist-modernist controversy. Many mainstream churches were divided, and smaller independent groups like the Adventists usually gave their support to the fundamentalist cause. In the nineteenth century, the primary concern had been to find a space and to stake out theological boundaries. At the dawn of the twentieth century, most religiously minded Americans felt compelled to take sides for or against evolution, biblical criticism, and secular liberalism. Adventists were no exception, and they placed themselves firmly in the Fundamentalist camp. . . . But it would be wrong to equate this stabilization with an increase in Adventist intellectualism. Quite the reverse. The intellectually disciplined theological debates that had filled the pages of the Review now disappeared. . . . They were also accepting new ideas, usually without arguing them out in the way their forebears would have done. Adventists, like the fundamentalists with whom they now identified themselves, quietly accepted Trinitarianism: took a stronger line on inerrancy of the Bible; accepted, in line with the penalsubstitutionary theory that the cross was a place of atonement; and re-affirmed their belief in human perfectibility in less mystical terms than had been current in the 1890s. . . . "A misleading picture of Adventist history can be derived from concentrating solely on the changes that have taken place since the Second World War. It can appear that the central dynamic of Adventist development has been the move away from historic certainties toward accommodation with the mainstream of American religion. But what many authors take to be historic Adventism is in fact the creation of the twentieth century—a synthesis that took place in the 1920s and remained dominant till the 1960s. It was, moreover, a synthesis that in itself represented an accommodation to the newly formed fundamentalist movement 312(emphasis added). During the next few decades other factors would combine to cause conservative reactions. One such force was the great depression. History shows that in times of hardship or uncertainty society tends to become reactionary. 106

The Christian Church tends to reflect its culture and this certainly was the case with Adventism. The presidents who followed Daniels and Spicer tended to be more conservative. Possibly they felt a greater responsibility to preserve the church now that Ellen White was dead, especially since other denominations were being eroded by modernism. Her death brought about a period of consolidation where the primary focus was not the exploration of anything new, but a time of solidification of the ideas that are already in place and well accepted. __________________ 275 This and the next chapter is a condensation of my fuller work, In the Shadow of Ellen White. Readers wishing to have more information should consult the original work. [back] 276 Malcolm Bull, and Keith Lockhart, Seeking A Sanctuary: Seventh-day Adventism and the American Dream, (New York: Harper and Row, 1989), pp. 88-89. [back] 277 Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 1, May, 1979; "The 1919 Bible Conference. [back] 278 Ibid., 33. F. M. Wilcox quoting James White from Review and Herald, April 21, 1851. [back] 279 Ibid., 34. A. G. Daniels. [back] 280 Ibid., 37. H. C. Lacey to A. G. Daniels. [back] 281 Ibid., 38. H, C. Lacey to A. G. Daniels. [back] 282 Ibid., 38. H. C. Lacey. [back] 283 Ibid., 40. W. G. Wirth. [back] 284 Ibid., 46. J. N. Anderson. [back] 285 Ibid., 49. G. B. Thompson. [back] 286 This conclusion is supported by "A Response to Two Explanations of W. W. Prescott's 1915 Letter" by Gilbert Valentine. Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI. June 1981. At the same time it could be argued that he was a mixed person on this issue. The material that has come out in the appendix of 3SM seems to suggest he had a clear understanding of her function and authority. However at the same time it must be admitted he did not share this with the Adventist community at large. He chose to do it privately with certain individuals. This seems to apparent in Prescott's letter of complaint to him. He also chose not to release the material she wrote on her inspiration in 1SM. [back] 287 3SM, Appendix A, B, and C. [back] 288 J. S. Washburn, Tract, The Startling Omega And Its True Genealogy, April 18, 1920. [back] 289 The statement he refers to is found in Special Testimonies, Series B, No.7, p 57. Readers today may finds the statement in 1SM, pp. 93-208. On p. 203 it can be clearly seen that she was talking of the Kellogg apostasy as being both the Alpha and Omega. However Washburn and Holmes like so many others since their time have seen their theological opponents as being the Omega that she spoke of. For further study on this point see The Sanctuary And The Atonement prepared by the Biblical Research Committee of the Gen. Conference of SDA, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald 1981), pp. 533-537. [back] 107

290 J. S. Washburn "An Open Letter to Elder A. G. Daniels and an appeal to the General Conference", May 1, 1922. pp. 26-27. [back] 291 Ibid., p. 29. [back] 292 Claude E. Holmes, "Have We An Infallible Spirit Of Prophecy" Tract written to J. S. Washburn, April 1, 1920. p. 1. [back] 293 Bull and Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, develop this theme extensively throughout their book. [back] 294 Sinclair B. Ferguson, and David F. Wright, New dictionary of Theology, (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), article Fundamentalism. [back] 295 George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, (Oxford: Oxford Uni Press, 1980) p. 142. [back] 296 Ibid., pp.156-163. [back] 297 It must be recognized that there was still considerable difference between SDAs and other fundamentalists in the 1920s over how to interpret "the biblical account of creation". Among non-SDAs the doctrine of the Sabbath was not necessarily connected with a literal six-day creation. [back] 298 Although many non-SDAs did not accept his account of earth's history regarding the flood geology. [back] 299 Gary Land gives a summary of the reasons why SDAs were more inclined to sympathise with Fundamentalists than modernists. ". . . Seventh-day Adventist gave short shrift to modernism, as they called liberal Christianity . . . . Rather than accept higher criticism, Adventist affirmed strongly the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible. As an editor of the Review put it: 'when we stop to consider it, it is a terrible charge which the critics have brought against God in the declaration that his word is inspired but not infallible. That would make God the inspirer of that which is fallible, faulty, false, for it is only the infallible that is certain and true.' Seventh-day Adventists also allied themselves with Fundamentalism on a nontheological issue—prohibition. . . . "Despite their agreement on such issues as the inspiration of the Bible, evolution, and prohibition, however when it came to the Fundamentalist movement itself, Adventists spoke both approvingly and critically. On the one hand, the church affirmed that it was fundamentalist, with Francis Wilcox saying that Adventists 'should count themselves the chief of Fundamentalists today'. Adventists also gave the Fundamentalist movement one of its leading antievolution writers in the person of George McCready Price, who according to one scholar, moved Fundamentalists towards the affirmation of the six-day creation, universal deluge, and six-thousand year old earth....the Adventist Church also had to distinguish itself clearly from the Fundamentalist movement in order to maintain its identity. Therefore, Adventist writers attacked Fundamentalism on the issue of God's law. . . . By aligning themselves with fundamentalism, yet maintaining their individuality through their emphasis on the Sabbath, Seventh-day Adventists continued to believe that they had indeed a unique purpose in God's plan." Gary Land, Adventism in America, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 167-169.[back] 300 Ministry, July 1928, 16, a report is given on the world Fundamentalist congress. It shows how they highly regarded McCready Price. Ibid., Oct. 1933, 3, Branson shows how SDA's are fundamentalists of the fundamentalists.

108

Ibid., July 1939, 38 McCready Price fights against the traditional attitude of fundamentalists towards education by saying we ought not to be afraid to train our youth in advanced science as all true science is in harmony with the Bible and quotes Spirit of Prophecy for support. Ibid., Feb 1941, 7, Thiele makes a plea for higher learning. He claims that higher critics are more willing to study than us and makes a plea for us to be intelligent critics. Ibid., Index 1928 to 1947 shows a large number of articles on Modernism but nothing from 1947 to 1961. Ibid., April 1965, 16, article by Wilbur Nelson "Are Adventists Fundamentalist? He shows how fundamentalism has changed and we ought not to use this term to describe SDA's. This article is significant as after a long silence it shows a new departure in our attitudes to Fundamentalists. I will endeavour to show later that it is not so much a change in Fundamentalists as a change in SDA's in the 1950s which has caused us to write this way. In these Ministry articles we can detect a transition taking place in Adventism from naive primitive fundamentalism in the early 1920's to considering education during the 1940's. This trend towards education will eventually be embraced and lead the church along with other Protestant churches out of fundamentalism [in the 1950's] to a more middle of the road approach. There is not too much to comment on in the Review and Herald regarding this subject which would seem to indicate that the SDA church as a whole was looking from a considerable distance at what was happening at the other churches and not getting too involved. [back] 301 Alden Thompson has a lengthy discussion of what took place when the Testimonies were revised. He outlines the shock of the Adventist community, the criticism of Adventist enemies and the attitude of Ellen White. Adventist Review, September 12, 1985, p. 14. [back] 302 Men such as D. N. Canright, A. T. Jones, A. F. Ballenger, and J. H. Kellogg, etc. [back] 303 Issues over the "Daily", the "Law in Galatians", the 1888 controversy over righteousness by faith, right up to this present era with issues over the date 1844 for the commencement of the Investigative Judgment were basically over the roll and function of Ellen G White in relationship to scripture. The issue being for the most part as to whether Seventh-day Adventists are to accept her as the final word on interpreting the Bible or whether they are free to differ with her. [back] 304 Gilbert Murray. Valentine, "W. W. Prescott: Seventh-Day Adventist Educator" (PHD. dissertation, Andrews University School of Graduate Studies, Aug 1982), 481. [back] 305 Holmes, Infallible, p. 5. [back] 306 Washburn, Omega, pp. 1, 6. [back] 307 "Personally I have nothing against Prof. Prescott. But I do know that many will agree with me that his influence is a menace to this denomination and that he is perpetuating the ruinous theories of Dr. E. J .Waggoner, in part at least . . the core, the root, the seed theory of all our modern Washington new thought, and Adventist new theology, that is the new doctrine of the Daily. . . . The new doctrine of the Daily and the Prescott new theology. . . . This "deadly heresy" will change the original truth, and it is a startling fact that the new Daily doctrine moves "Personally I have nothing against Prof. Prescott. But I do know that many will agree with me that his influence is a menace to this denomination and that he is perpetuating the ruinous theories of Dr E J Waggoner, in part at least...the core, the root, the seed theory of all our modern Washington new thought, and Adventist new theology, that is the new doctrine of the Daily... The new doctrine of the Daily and the Prescott new theology... This "deadly heresy" will change the original truth, and it is a startling fact that the new Daily doctrine moves nearly all our prophetic dates, and opens the way for other theories that draw men forever away from all the message of 1844. 109

On page 53 this testimony further states: `Living Temple contains the Alpha of these theories. I knew that the Omega would follow in a little while, and I trembled for our people' ...are a few among many other startling indications that this awful prophecy is fulfilling in Washington today...the Omega will be of a most startling nature. The Omega has startled me and my friends beyond expression...because I have forever renounced the Waggoner theology, a part of which you are defending today. You were my true and faithful friend until the Waggoner theology of the Daily gripped you, and you were in the coils of the Omega... In my veins flows the blood of those who knew the Advent movement from its infancy. On my father's and mother's side, the Washburns and Butlers, not only father and mother, but both grandfathers and grandmothers were pioneer Seventh Day [sic] Adventists. I will by the grace of God go through with this people to the kingdom of God. You nor any committee can ever take away my credentials or stop my work. I stand just where my sturdy old warrior uncle, George I Butler stood. If he were to rise from the dead he would stand with me against you and Prescott. I know that he feared that you and those who were following the Waggoner and Prescott theology were leading the work over the precipice to ruin... I challenge investigation, not before a small committee, but before the whole General Conference... I am not at all afraid that the representatives of our people will turn me down or out for standing for the original message and the Spirit of Prophecy. You tried me before a small committee. I will gladly meet you before the whole General Conference..." Washburn, Open Letter, pp. 2334.[back] 308 Holmes to Daniels, May 1, 1922, "Open Letter." 8, RG33; Inactive Sustentation files, J. S. Washburn Folder. Quoted in Bert Haloviak and Gary Land's paper "Ellen White and Doctrinal Conflict: Context of the 1919 Bible Conference", Spectrum, Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 31 . [back] 309 The Bulletin (San Francisco), May 23, 1922, p. 2. [back] 310 Washburn to F. M. Wilcox, November 27, 1931. [back] 311 W. A. Spicer to L. R. Conradi, November 30, 1914. Here he explains to Conradi his convictions that there was need to put in the revised edition of Great Controversy an explanation of how the book was put together. He blames the bookmakers for not making enough changes in areas where he still feels the book needs improving. [back] 312 Bull and Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, pp. 89-91. [back]

110

Chapter Nineteen

Building an inerrant Ellen White Don McAdams describes this occurrence the following way: "It is the task of the second generation leaders to hold the movement together without the charisma and prestige of the founding fathers. Faced with the possibility of disintegration, the second-generation leaders elevate the symbol of the movement on to a lofty pedestal and claim great virtue, wisdom and authority for the now dead founder. Nothing gives the second generation leaders more authority than to claim all wisdom for the founder and claim for themselves the exclusive right to interpret his legacy."313 Increasing authority for Ellen White's work It is possible also that they were still living too near the point of time to the criticisms of Ellen White made by men like A. T. Jones and J. H. Kellogg. Perhaps they saw how the church, having recently escaped from pantheism, was now facing another attack from higher criticism, which was undermining not only the Bible but also Ellen White. They could see the eroding influences of higher criticism in mainline churches and were determined not to allow this to come into the Seventh-day Adventist church. Gary Land describes the attitudes of church leaders toward Ellen White in the period just prior to and after her death: "Besides criticizing the ideas of Jones and the Kellogg circle, church leaders over the next few years began to instruct readers through the pages of The Review about Ellen White's role in the church. Comparing Jones's criticism of Mrs. White with 'higher criticism of the Bible' implied equating White's writings with the Bible. Church leaders fought against this implication; yet their fear that these testimonies might be taken lightly moved them, however unconsciously, toward regarding the statements of the Bible and those of Ellen White as of equal force. The protests that Seventh-day Adventists did not regard Ellen White's writings as equal to the Bible were many. In replying to Jones, The Review stated that 'we do not place the Testimonies above the Bible.' (emphasis mine in bold print) "To explain the phenomenon of this modern prophet more clearly, Daniel H Kress compared the work and message of Ellen White with that of John the Baptist. Other writers said much the same thing: that Ellen White only 'magnifies the truths of the Bible' and confirms 'believers in conclusions they had already reached from a study of the scripture'. Francis M. Wilcox played a significant role in defining the Adventist position on Ellen White. During his Review and Herald editorship of thirty-three years, he wrote many articles and editorials affirming the prophet's inspiration and role in the church. Wilcox argued that White served God the way, Samuel, Elijah, and John the Baptist did. She was a woman, he said, 'whose work has been to point mankind to Christ, the Saviour of men, to lead them to search the scriptures of Truth with greater diligence.' "Furthermore, her writings 'constitute a spiritual commentary upon the scripture, a divine illumination of the word.' "Despite the protests against equating Mrs White's writings with the Bible, many statements implied otherwise—or said otherwise straight out. Roscoe Porter wrote that 'the Testimonies sent are God's word.' Many published statements admonished church members "to study the written word and the spirit of prophecy." "Although these writers probably did not realise it, they implied by their arguments that the Bible alone is insufficient to guide the believer into all truth. In their effort to defend Ellen White's work from criticism, they began to emphasise her work to a degree considerably greater than in previous years. Although it is difficult to document precisely, the years after 1906—as reflected in the contents of The Review—show rapid increase not only in the number of articles about the spirit of prophecy but also in the number of times the magazine's writers referred to White for support of their arguments on theological issues of all kinds.

111

"When Ellen White died in 1915, it appears that many church members wondered whether God would choose another prophet for His people. . . . In her absence, Wilcox advised, the church should continue to follow the Bible and her writings. "Four years after her death, the debate, begun publicly by Alonzo T. Jones in 1906, came to a close. In the summer of 1919, the church called its leading ministers and college teachers together for a Bible conference. . . . On the second day, however despite their apparent agreement in rejecting both the verbal inspiration and infallibility of Ellen White, the participants backed off from taking any concerted action. Fearing that the membership would be shaken, they concluded that caution was advisable . . . . as a result, the discussion remained essentially unknown. . . . Thus the 1919 conference ended the public discussion that Jones had initiated. The debate closed ambiguously, however, and Jones' questions were left dangling, unsatisfactorily answered. Nevertheless, Adventist leaders affirmed their belief in Ellen White's prophetic gift and placed increasing emphasis on her writings. Although they made the Testimonies theoretically subordinate to the Bible, they also considered them indispensable to Seventh-day Adventists. As a result, Ellen White continued to gain greater theological authority within the church." 314(emphasis added). Herold Weiss agrees: "After Ellen White died, her son W C White took over the production of her books, continuing to do what she had done before her death. Her own books had been compilations of paragraphs from testimonies, letters and articles; the only thing now missing was the approval of the final draft by Mrs White herself. But another very significant change took place as well. The demand for her authoritative word began to come from a new quarter. She had produced her books to meet the demands of the general reading public. Now they were being produced to meet the demands of a General Conference committee that had decided the church needed something about a particular subject, such as stewardship or parenting. Now others were handling the formal authority Mrs White had formerly employed for herself. Those who needed an objective authority had found one in her. "During the 1920s and the 1930s many of those who had worked with Mrs. White in the production of her books were still alive. But with the death of that generation the claims made on her behalf gained new heights" 315 (emphasis added). The discussions on inspiration at the 1919 Bible Conference are almost buried and forgotten for the next few decades. Daniells had been so upset by the conservative reactions to the conference he did not even circulate the minutes. They were lost amidst a multitude of other documents in the General Conference. Those who knew the most on the subject were intimidated into going quiet. In fact the whole denomination appears to have been dominated by Fundamentalist thinking during this time. With this came an anti-higher education attitude. Terrie Aamodt's history of Walla Walla College records the suppression of theological faculty members who were viewed with suspicion because they had outside doctoral degrees. She shows how difficult it was for many to accept that the church may need to go outside its own ranks in order to receive an education. It is obvious from what she records that Fundamentalist minds dominated the thinking of others during this time. This was particularly true regarding the subject of inspiration and the function and authority of Ellen White.316 M. L. Andreason describes the attitudes of the ministry in 1942 in a letter to the General Conference: "If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital—and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. . . . The ever present question of the position which Sister White should hold among us is a prolific cause of difficulty"317 (emphasis added). Richard Hammil once stated that he was taught "thought inspiration" by 0. Schilling while at Walla Walla at a time when verbal inspiration was commonly taught in the denomination. "Inerrancy was not discussed by 112

Schilling; but everyone thought inerrancy was correct. However because of the troubles, teachers like Schilling were forced to 'clam up.' It was dangerous to teach thought inspiration during the 1930s. Although other issues dominated the scene at the time such as the Daily, Armageddon, and the identity of the king of the north. Verbal inspiration and inerrancy were the ideas commonly held."318 Raymond C. Cottrell states "After the removal of Daniells from the General Conference presidency the church also moved away from his position on inspiration. The material that Ellen White had written on inspiration found in Selected Messages, Vol. 1, 15-21 was not available. For years the White Estate would not release it. Not even when it was requested to be made available for printing in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary series." It was only in the late 1950s, Cottrell stated, that the manuscripts were finally released.319 Robert Olsen, retired secretary of the Ellen White Estate, states that "the two leaders who contributed heavily towards a Seventh-day Adventist view of verbal inspiration and inerrancy for EGW were S. N. Haskell and J. N. Loughborough, both well respected and living till the early 1920s. Each had experienced the days of EGW and were looked upon as authorities. During the 1930s and 1940s there were many who did believe as did Daniells, but they dared not raise their voices. In 1935, D. E. Robinson and W. C. White wanted to get a pamphlet out and tell the Seventh-day Adventist people the truth about the subject, but it was squashed by the incumbent administration because it was so different from what was generally believed."320 H. M. S. Richards recalls another side There is evidence that some pastors in North America did remember the 1919 conference and retained a clearer understanding of Ellen White's work. Such a person is the highly respected H. M. S. Richards. In his biographical account of Richards, Robert Edwards (once a member of the Voice of Prophecy Quartet) states, "Although the writings and the character of Ellen White powerfully influenced him, he also had common sense enough to know she was a fallible human being, that she made mistakes. "When all the furore over the accusations that she had plagiarized from other authors shook many in the church some years ago, Richards remained unperturbed. 'They haven't discovered anything new,' he said. 'All those charges are old. I heard them all 40 years ago. They were all discussed at the 1919 Bible Conference.'. . . In addition, they examined Ellen White's statements on history and science, some of which had been shown to be incorrect. They referred to Willie White's statement in which he said, 'regarding Mother's writings and their use as an authority on points of history and chronology Mother has never wished our brethren to treat them as authority regarding details of history or historical dates.' . . . "Elder Arthur Daniells wanted to bring these things out in the open, but some of the more conservative leaders were afraid if would shake the faith of the people. Against the advice of Daniells, the General Conference president, they elected to keep the whole issue quiet (a decision Richards always thought was wrong. It was his view that the Adventist people have a lot of common sense and can be trusted with the truth). 'If they had opened the issue up in 1919, much of the trouble that plagued the church in the 60s would have been avoided,' he said."321 "Not long after the 1919 Bible Conference, the next General Conference session voted Elder Daniels [sic] out as General Conference president. Many think it was at least partly because of the stand he took at the 1919 Bible Conference. Richards recognized that Ellen White was a human being, subject to human frailties and mistakes. Even in her writings she sometimes made errors. "He was aware that Ellen White read history and science books widely, and that she sometimes quoted passages that were incorrect. . . . And it didn't shake his faith in her prophetic gift that she didn't understand the underground workings of volcanoes. . . . He recognized that she used material from those books in an intelligent way to form a bed on which she presented God's messages to her. "He applauded F. D. Nichol's 1951 book on Ellen G. White and her critics, but felt it was not necessary to try and show that she never erred. . . . H. M. S. Richards accepted her for what she was and what she herself 113

claimed to be. It protected him from the disappointments some men and women experienced who held an unreal view of what a prophet and prophecy should be."322 Ellen White's position is clear How many others believed as Richards and could remember the 1919 conference we have no way of knowing. It would be difficult to believe that there were none, but the prevailing view of the conservatives certainly held sway over the denomination. It is amazing indeed that Daniells was removed partly for his views on the subject of inspiration which in reality were very similar to that of Ellen White's. She had written, "The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. . . . "The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God as a writer is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penman, not His pen. Look at the different writers. "It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."323 Tragically, this material did not become generally available until Selected Messages was printed in 1958. More was released with the printing of the third volume in 1980. Although some significant material regarding her views on inspiration are found in the introduction to The Great Controversy and, as such, has long been freely available, up until recent years the other material has gone relatively unnoticed.324 Her views on this subject are very important for Seventh-day Adventists. She places herself neither in the camp of the liberals or fundamentalists of her day. She likens the process of inspiration to that of the incarnation of Jesus: that is, God condescends to reveal His thoughts through fallible human minds and methods of expression. She also has a balance between faith and reason and never tries to depreciate one against the other. We are still to use our minds; while we must realise that there will still be some things in God's word that will always remain a mystery to us. Roy Graham states some important concepts as he summarises her attitudes toward the Bible, particularly as it relates to her own function. "The early SDAs were sensitive to some of the problems created by their acceptance of EGW as one who received visions, and thus, through this means, what she and they considered as counsel from God. They had to deal especially with the question, 'How can you maintain your avowed position of "the Bible and the Bible alone" while you give EGW's writings a significant place in your faith?' "Their response was to reaffirm their stand on 'the Bible and the Bible alone as our rule of faith and duty,' and then to emphasize the following points. First, the EGW writings were not placed above the Scriptures but were in fact to be tested by them. 'Every Christian, declared James White, 'should pray fervently to be aided by the Holy Spirit in searching the Scriptures for the whole truth, and for his whole duty. He is not at liberty to turn from them to learn his duty through any of the gifts.' . . . Third, there was no intention that spiritual gifts, and thus in their evaluation the writings of EGW, should take the place of initiative and personal Bible study. . . . "A careful study of her writings indicates that throughout her life she maintained this position. The Bible is supreme. 'The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrine, and the test of experience . . . the spirit was not given—nor 114

can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible;' she declared, 'for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.' . . ."325 Jerry Hoyle states that the subject of the inspiration of the Bible is not one that has had a lot of treatment in Adventist circles over the years. Apart from Ellen White and G I Butler no one else seems to have paid much attention to it. The inspiration of the Bible has always been assumed, but never spelt out in detail. Possibly because it has tended to be "overshadowed by other more pressing issues."326 In 1926 a significant book appeared in which, for the first time, Seventh-day Adventism began to give a treatment of the subject in detail. The book, edited by Benjamin L. House, included contributions by H. S. Bunch, J. N. Anderson, Meade McGuire, C. A. Burman, E. H. Emmerson and others who were part of the General Conference Education Department. This publication, Analytical Studies in Bible Doctrines for SDA Colleges. A Course in Biblical Theology was sponsored by the General Conference Education Department and was destined to have a moulding effect upon the thinking of large numbers of Seventh-day Adventist ministers in the twentieth century.327 House rejects the idea of dictation inspiration as well as the other idea of thought inspiration (the view of Ellen White as referred to previously in this manuscript) and settles on what he terms verbal inspiration. By this he means, "This view, sometimes called verbal inspiration holds that all scripture is inspired, 2 Tim.3:16, that the selection of the very words of scripture in the original languages was overruled by the Holy Spirit. . . . (He then quotes from Great Doctrines of the Bible by William Evans.) We may therefore, safely say that in a very real sense the words as well as the thoughts have been given . . . that infallible guidance was given to those who wrote it, so as to preserve them free from error in the statement of facts . . . that God in the fullest sense is responsible for every word. . . ."328 (emphasis added). In the 1928 edition he claims that Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in thought inspiration.329 There is not much to go on by way of denominational material in print during this time and college lecturers do not usually print their class notes. However, one gains the impression what is in print and from comments by older, retired pastors that the position taken by House was generally accepted. Ministry,330 the magazine for Adventist clergy, ran one article in 1931 under the monthly feature "Valuable quotations from reliable sources," which was printed without comment from the editors: "[The Bible] is a book of divine information concerning the way of salvation, and without a flaw or error in the documents as written by the inspiration of the Spirit. Not only is every word of the document true, but there is also no mistake in the historical data offered nor in any point of divine human knowledge."321 _____________________ 313 Donald R. McAdams, "Shifting Views of Inspiration, Ellen G. White Studies in the 1970's", Spectrum, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 27. [back] 314 Gary Land, Adventism in America. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 158-161. [back] 315 Herold Weiss, "Formative Authority, Yes; Cannonization, No," Spectrum Vol. 16, No. 3. p. 9. [back] 316 Terrie Dopp Aamodt, in her book Bold Venture; A History of Walla Walla College. (Walla Walla, WA: Walla Walla College Publication. 1992). Has an extensive account of the trials of the theology faculty of the college in chapter 6 "Keeping the Faith". The suspicions raised against some men on the theological faculty simply because they had advanced doctoral degrees from outside universities shows a mind set against advanced education which is typical of many Fundamentalists of the day. Harold Bass, Frederick Schilling and William Landeen are interesting case studies. While we would hesitate to judge each case from such a distance yet it is interesting to note the mind set of one board member of the college Lemuel Esteb who said to Harold 115

Bass. "Harold, if Mrs. White had written that your black hat is white, it would be white to me". "Lem", I answered, "God gave me eyes to see things white and things black and things in between, and as long as I am normal I will not substitute the word of Mrs. White or anyone else for what my eyes tell me. If I do not use the senses with which I am equipped, I cease to function as a man." p. 104. [back] 317 M. L. Andreason letter to J. L. McElhany and W. H.. Branson, December 25, 1942. Andrews University Heritage Room, Andreason file 5. [back] 318 Interview the writer had with Richard Hammill March 1993. He also stated the difficulty so many of our theology lecturers had in getting approval to take doctoral degrees in outside Universities. Most tended to get degrees in history or archaeology. Edward Heppenstall was one of the few to get a doctoral degree which involved theology. The actual degree was in the area of religious education. [back] 319 Interview the writer had with Raymond C. Cottrell, March 1993. Cottrell was one of the editors of the SDA Commentary series. [back] 320 Interview the writer had with Robert Olsen, March 1993. [back] 321 Richards no doubt is referring to the theological issues over the sinful nature of Christ and the teaching of sinless perfection and the special experience available to believers since 1844 as was being promulgated by an Australian Robert Brinsmead. Brinsmead's main thrusts were built upon key Ellen White statements. [back] 322 Robert E. Edwards, H.M.S. Richards, (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1998), pp. 35-37. [back] 323 2SM, pp. 20-21. [back] 324 Ellen G White, in The Great Controversy states in the introduction, pp. v-vii. "The Bible points to God as its author; yet it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers...The Ten commandments were spoken by God Himself, and were written by His own hand. They are of divine, and not of human composition. But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that `the word was made flesh and dwelt among us.' (John 1:14). God has been pleased to communicate His truth to the world by human agencies, and He Himself, by His Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was entrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, nonetheless, from heaven. The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language, yet it is the testimony of God. . . ." [back] 325 Roy Graham, E. G. White Co-Founder of the SDA Church, (Peter Lang, NY: American Uni Studies, 1985) 140-151, The attitude of Ellen White towards this subject is well summarised by Roy Graham in these pages. [back] 326 Jerry Hoyle, "An Historical Study Of The Development Of The Doctrine Of Inspiration In The SeventhDay Adventist Church. 1869 -1966". This project towards an M.A. Degree Loma Linda Uni; La Sierra Campus May 1973 is a worthwhile document to read as he shows how over our history we have not given much attention to this subject. Because of this, we have often produced conflicting positions in our publications. On page 42 he states that we did not have an official statement until 1966 when in our SDA Encyclopedia we rejected verbal inspiration and upheld thought inspiration. [back] 327 B. L. House [ed.], Bible Doctrines for Seventh-day Adventist Colleges (Washington, DC: General Conference Dept. of Education, 1926). [back] 116

328 Ibid., p. 66-67. [back] 329 Ibid., 1928 edition, p. 71. [back] 330 Olsen interview. He stated that he graduated from PUC in 1943 and Walter Rae in 1944. Both were taught verbal inspiration and inerrancy by W. R. French who was also an Arian and had great influence. Not until the 1960s did Robert Olsen begin to understand the subject of inspiration differently. [back] 331 Ministry, (Washington, DC: General Conf. Min. Assn., June 1931), pp. 20-21. "F. M. Wilcox also has a statement which echoes the conviction of many regarding EGW. "The writings of Ellen White constitutes a great commentary on the scriptures. . . they are inspired commentaries, motivated by the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and this places them in a separate and distinct class, far above all other commentaries." Review and Herald, June 9, 1946. p. 62. No doubt for many years the influence of Haskell's Bible Handbook which clearly reveals a verbal view of inspiration was also having an effect. [back]

117

Chapter Twenty

Post War Adventism While Seventh-day Adventism was moved from its more natural Evangelical stance by the political and religious climate of the 1920s, toward Fundamentalist positions on the inspiration of the Bible—and on Ellen White—other more pressing external subjects332 occupied their attention. At the same time, forces within and outside eventually caused the church to come back to the more balanced approach to inspiration, as expressed by Ellen White and the 1919 Bible Conference participants. 1. After the Great Depression and World War II, society became more open and progressive in this era of economic revitalisation. After the war the United States became increasingly active in world affairs and began to move into the role of being the world's policeman. The Seventh-day Adventist Church also became more conscious of global issues, rejoicing in the new freedom gained since the end of the war, and finding good success in countries where America's influence was strong. 2. Broader communications and travel greatly enhanced Seventh-day Adventists global consciousness. Further, non-Americans began to take prominent positions in leadership. One significant appointment, that of W. R. Beach to the position of secretary of the General Conference, during the time of the presidency of R. R. Fighur (1954-1966) is generally looked upon as developing an era of openness and progress.333 The appointment of R. A. Anderson, an Australian, as secretary of the General Conference Ministerial Association would also prove to be of great significance. Anderson's influence was felt also when he was able to arrange for his good friend Edward Heppenstall, an Englishman, to have a denominational teaching position in the United States.334 3. The accreditation of Seventh-day Adventist educational institutions became a powerful influence in extricating the church out of its Fundamentalist mould. Fundamentalism is often (but not always) suspicious of higher education. Since the 1930s there had been strong differences over whether the church should apply for accreditation. To a large degree the issue involved the College of Medical Evangelists in California (later to become Loma Linda University). The question arose as to whether the church should seek accreditation for this institution and train doctors of medicine with fully recognised degrees. This was important to enable the church to have a reputable university with different schools of medicine. With the denominational health message described as the "right arm of the message," the church's commitment to overseas medical evangelism, together with the counsel of Ellen White, regarding the need for higher education, it was inevitable that those who were in favour of accreditation would win.335 Once it was agreed that the college would seek accreditation, it followed that they needed to have students from other accredited church institutions. These students in turn would have to be taught by well-qualified teachers. The door was opened for higher education and the Seventh-day Adventist church began to make contact with the wider world of learning. The founding of The Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary meant that the church would have better academic education for its ministry. Up until the presidency of R. R. Fighur it was usual to find that anyone who had a doctoral degree from a non Seventh-day Adventist institution, and who taught Seventh-day Adventist theology students, generally had the degree in an area like archaeology (for instance S. H. Horn) or Semitic languages (for instance W. G. C. Murdoch). In the 1940s R. F. Cottrell, while teaching Bible at the denomination's Pacific Union College, applied five times for permission to study toward a doctorate, but was refused and told that his Master's degree was sufficient for church teaching needs.336 Edward Heppenstall was one of the first to earn a doctorate in religious education from a non Seventh-day Adventist institution.4. The influence of Edward Heppenstall became significant. As Andreasen had been the giant in Seventh-day Adventist theology in the 1940s and 1950s; so Edward Heppenstall became the dominant figure at the seminary and in the theological world of Adventism from the mid-1950s onwards. His ideas, in significant areas of theology, differed from those of Andreasen. During my interview with him I was conscious that he was 92 years old and suffering from 118

Alzheimer's disease. However, I found him on an exceptionally good day. His wife, who is 12 years younger, still had an excellent, clear mind and responded well to many of my questions.337 She was exceptionally helpful, and willing to supplement her husband's answers to my questions. Like Andreason, Heppenstall authored many significant books, including: Our High Priest (1972); Salvation Unlimited (1974); and The Man Who Is God (1977). In these volumes, as well as in his teaching at the seminary, Heppenstall was aware that he was taking different positions from those of Andreasen (see the next chapter), especially in areas such as: The sinless nature of Christ, and the impossibility of sinless perfectionism being found amongst God's people just before the return of Jesus. During the interview he repeatedly stated, "Andreasen was overboard on this. Sinless perfectionism! The idea just does not hold up. We can't be sinless before Christ comes. A man coming to Christ just a week or two before Jesus returns can't do it. His relationship to Christ, that is what matters. We must be total in our relationship to Christ. If you commit yourself to Christ you are saved. If a man dies and has committed himself to Christ he will be saved even if he has not kept Seventh-day Adventist doctrines. Some of the great preachers of today are genuine Christians." He kept repeating, "Christ has got to be central, He is the supreme person." Judged from his writings, Heppenstall appears to have a more realistic approach to the use of the writings of Ellen White. He summarises his convictions in the following words, "Ellen White calls upon us to make sure that all the truths we hold are firmly established upon the scriptures. Therefore we deplore the idea that anything else should have prior authority over the Bible. Let her writings be our guide but not our jailer, our shield but not our straightjacket. The scriptures comprise God's final word to us"338 (emphasis added). Heppenstall had an advantage over Andreasen in that he lived to see more evidence released of how Ellen White actually did her work before he wrote this article. 5. The 1952 Bible Conference. With the Second World War finished, church leaders were anxious to know if the effects of the war and the isolation had made differences to the beliefs of church members. The 1952 Bible Conference was to be the first Bible Conference held since 1919. Some also suspect it was Branson's intention as president of the General Conference to use this conference to settle the Armageddon issue, which had been causing some division. An additional reason was, no doubt, that the church felt a need to respond to the perceived threat of Weiland and Short's submissions on righteousness by faith. The fact that Seventh-day Adventists could once again hold a Bible Conference where ideas could be openly shared was a step forward. "Compared with the one in 1919, this conference put greater emphasis on the doctrines of salvation and the nature and work of God's Remnant and less emphasis on the specifics of prophetic interpretations of history. . . . The General Conference afterward appointed a standing committee for biblical study and research [sic], 'to encourage, organise and coordinate . . . Biblical exegesis and research and then to function as a body of counsel to give guidance to those who in any part of the world field make what to them appears to be significant discoveries of truth.'"339 The subject regarding the inspiration and authority of Ellen White does not seem to have been of great priority in this conference. The topic was covered by D. E. Rebok who, while denying the verbal inspiration and infallibility of Ellen White, is obviously unaware of the type of material and discussions that had taken place at the 1919 Bible Conference.340 6. The Printing of the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Series. Seven volumes of a Bible Commentary series, comprising some seven thousand pages, were produced by the denomination between 1953 and 1957. It was the largest single publishing project in the history of the church. The set received surprising acceptance from a wide range of Seventh-day Adventists. It was a step forward in that it recognised that, in some areas, there was room for differences of opinion. One such example was the fact that there could be an acknowledgement of more than one view regarding the nature of Armageddon.

119

Developments in the Protestant world Meanwhile in the wider Protestant world significant changes were also taking place under the influence of Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism and Liberalism. For the purposes of this book I define these terms as applying to the Protestant world in the following ways: Liberalism as an attempt to account for the Bible as the product of merely human sources. Fundamentalism as an attempt to account for the Bible as the product of purely Divine sources and Evangelicalism as an attempt to account for the Bible as the product of both human and divine sources. Many claim that evangelical theology dates back to the early Christian church or at least to the Protestant Reformation and that it was only in the late nineteenth century, as a reaction to liberalising tendencies of some Protestants that Fundamentalism arose a defence.341 John R Rice, a leading Fundamentalist, describes fundamentalism as "a vigorous defence of the faith, active soul winning, great New Testament type churches going abroad to save multitudes, having fervent love for all God's people and earnestly avoiding compromise in doctrine or yoking up with unbelievers . . . all true Fundamentalists today affirm the inerrancy of the Bible and the premillennial return of Christ, and deny all biological evolution. . . ."342 He describes its two most distinguishing features as militant defense of the faith and soul winning. George Marsden says of Fundamentalists: "They were conservative evangelicals, dedicated to soul winning and conscious of a need for militancy for defending the faith . . . almost all nineteenth-century American Protestants had been evangelical, that is, part of a coalition reflecting a merger of Pietists and Reformed heritages and growing out of the eighteenth and nineteenth century awakenings in America. . . . All Fundamentalists wanted to preserve this nineteenth century heritage, and so all Fundamentalists were evangelicals . . . [on the other hand] many who still called themselves evangelicals were liberals or modernists who had abandoned most of the distinctive emphases of the awakening; so the term evangelical had lost its usefulness. Fundamentalists nonetheless thought of themselves simply as preserving the evangelical heritage. . . . A Fundamentalist is ready to stand up and fight for the faith. . . . Central to being a Fundamentalist is perceiving oneself to be in the midst of religious war. . . . Spiritually enlightened Christians can tell who the enemy is. In such a war, there can be no compromise. . . . Fundamentalists universally see the war as primarily a war over the Bible. To this extent, they would agree with outside observers who claim that fundamentalism is, in its distinctive aspect, a modern movement. Though Fundamentalists see this battle for the Bible as recent, they insist that their inerrancy doctrine is the historic position of the church. For Fundamentalists, the battle for the Bible almost always has two fronts. They are fighting against modern interpretations of the Bible that they see are destroying most American civilization, which they see as founded on the Bible. . . . The way of getting at this point that has become virtually universal for Fundamentalists is to assert that the Bible is 'inerrant.' For Fundamentalists, this means that the Bible not only is an infallible authority in matters of faith and practise, but also is accurate in all its historical and scientific assertions." (emphasis added).343 Marsden talks further of the two points that would traditionally separate Fundamentalists from the rest of the Protestant world—inerrancy of Scripture and the premillenial hope of the return of Jesus. Talking about inerrancy of scripture as a test of faith was rare before the late nineteenth century, though most earlier Protestants probably assumed it. Fundamentalism in North America had relative success and strength up until the "Scopes Trial," of 1925 when they were nationally discredited as the evidence given at the trial was made public. "After that year, fundamentalism steadily lost its national influence in America and began to retreat into separatist sectarian minorities which became increasingly isolated from the mainstream of society."344 Because of this setback, the late 1920s saw the Fundamentalist movement reorganising itself. They had been discredited inside mainline denominations. Two schools of thought developed as to how they could regain their strength. One group said that "they should simply continue to champion their cause within the major 120

denominations, building individual Fundamentalist congregations that could resist liberal influences of denominational leadership. Other Fundamentalists increasingly concluded that the movement should form its own separate institutions, which could be freed from corrupting entanglements with the major denominations. Dispensationalists especially were inclined in this separatists direction, since one of the dispensationalists teachings was that the major churches of this age would become apostate. Many, though not all, dispensationalists carried this teaching to the conclusion that Christians must separate themselves from any such apostasy. . . ."345 The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia states: "To a considerable extent, Fundamentalists have ignored or rejected the valid findings of Biblical scholarship, a feature of the movement deplored by its more well informed leaders. Furthermore, there seems to be a predisposition, especially among the more radical fundamentalist groups, to take an obscurantist, irrational attitude on various matters. . . . Since about 1940 a group of fundamentalist scholars has arisen calling for a more enlightened attitude towards modern culture, especially in the areas of science and sound Biblical scholarship. Those sympathetic to this trend call themselves Evangelicals. . . ." [Emphasis added].346 Among some of the more important catalysts to cause this new evangelical movement were in the 1950s were: first, the influence of Billy Graham, who started out in the fundamentalist camp, but gradually moved away to work with a more broad based group of churches. Second, Carl F. Henry and his work as founding editor of Christianity Today. This publication became the most influential magazine in the new evangelical movement. The founding of Fuller Theological Seminary. This was destined to become the catalyst of mission for the evangelical world. Early Evangelicals attempted to distance themselves from the extremes of the Fundamentalists and they did this in many areas such as: (a) opposing liberal theologies; (b) de-emphasising some of the strict prohibitions of the fundamentalist moral code; (c) abandoning separatism; and (d) dropping dispensationalism, while remaining premillenialists. However, there was one important issue, they could not agree on, which was to cause serious rifts. Dayton and Johnston state: "The question of Biblical inerrancy soon split neo-evangelicals themselves into two major camps. Progressives thought inerrancy too narrow a way to define Biblical authority; more fundamentalistic neo-evangelicals insisted on inerrancy as a test of faith. Fuller Theological Seminary, the leading neoevangelical educational centre, split over this question and fell into the hands of the progressives. More fundamentalistic neo-evangelicals, usually supported by Graham and Christianity Today, took the lead in promoting the inerrancy test for as much of the evangelicalism as possible. Most influential in these campaigns was Harold Lindsell, editor of Christianity Today from 1968 to 1978, whose Battle For The Bible, published in 1976, was the Uncle Tom's Cabin of the inerrancy movement . . . .fundamentalist influences remained strong." (emphasis mine).347 George Marsden describes evangelicalism in the following way: "While fundamentalism has become a fairly precise designation for a particular type of Protestant militant, it should be apparent that evangelicalism describes a much more diverse coalition. Roughly speaking, evangelicalism today includes any Christians traditional enough to affirm the basic beliefs of the nineteenth-century evangelical consensus. The essential evangelical beliefs include: 1. The Reformation doctrine of the final authority of the Bible. 2. The real historical character of God's saving work recorded in Scripture. 3. Salvation to eternal life based on the redemptive work of Christ. 4. The importance of evangelism and missions. 121

5. The importance of a spiritually transformed life."348 There can be no doubt that Seventh-day Adventists could subscribe to the above definition. However, those who have a proper understanding of Seventh-day Adventism belong more with the progressive evangelicals, particularly in the area of Scriptural inerrancy. Russell Staples of Andrews University arrives at a "yes" and "no" answer while noting, "An extremely high value of Scripture is held by both, but evangelicalism tends to accept verbal inspiration and inerrancy—although perhaps a more flexible view is held by some. Adventists adhere to a more dynamic view. . . . Evangelicals appear to be moving away from dispensationalist fundamentalism, and the differences between Adventist and evangelical eschatology appear to be narrower than previously. Both are faced with the challenge of maintaining a sense of expectancy. . . ."349 Seventh-day Adventism lives in the same world as the rest of the Christian church. It faces similar issues and pressures. As other Christian churches respond, so does the Seventh-day Adventist Church, although usually a little later in time. Today there are militant, fundamentalist Seventh-day Adventists who are quick to point out the changes that have taken place in Seventh-day Adventism since the end of World War Two. However, they seem unaware of the changes that also took place in the 1920s. Bull and Lockhart are quick to point this out: "The changes that have taken place in Adventism since the Second World War have been far more self conscious than those at the start of the century. In consequence these developments have received a disproportionate amount of attention. But in fact the changes have been less dramatic than those of the earlier period, involving a dilution rather than a transformation of Adventist belief. . . . "A misleading picture of Adventist history can be derived from concentrating solely on the changes that have taken place since the second world war. It can appear that the central dynamic of Adventist development has been the move away from historic certainties toward accommodation with the mainstream American religion. But what many authors take to be historic Adventism is in fact a creation of the twentieth century—a synthesis that took place in the 1920s and remained dominant until the 1960s. It was, moreover, a synthesis that in itself represented an accommodation to the newly formed fundamentalist movement. . . . "Adventist theology has developed in parallel with that of the mainstream. It was at its most distinctive during a period of great diversity; it became fundamentalist in the era of fundamentalism; and it softened with the rise of evangelicalism. Throughout this process Adventist theology has served as a barrier between the church and its opponents. The nature of the competition has changed—from rival sects to liberal Christianity to secular humanism—and Adventist theology has adjusted accordingly. But the changes have served to maintain the distance between Adventism and the most threatening ideological formations of the day. . . .350(emphasis added). __________________ 332 Adventism in America, Chapter 6 is written by Keld J. Reynolds and entitled "The Church under Stress, 1931-1960". Reynolds states, "Whereas the troubles of earlier days had been primarily internal, the ones the denomination faced after 1930 were largely external. International economic depression, a truly worldwide war, and a rapidly changing postwar world strained Seventh-day Adventism to the utmost. . . . Although not all the problems were resolved, the events of these years broadened the Seventh-day Adventist conception of mission in a more humanitarian direction and to some degree broke down its sectarian exclusiveness." p. 170. [back] 333 On this point there was general agreement among those who I interviewed in March 1993. [back] 334 Interview with Mrs. R. A. Anderson. March 1993. who stated that they were good friends, and tended to agree theologically and spent a lot of time together. [back] 335 Terrie A. Aamodt, in Bold Venture, chapter 6 has some reference to the struggle over accreditation during this period and the suspicions against anyone who had an outside doctoral degree. [back] 122

336 Interview with R. F. Cottrell 21/3/93. [back] 337 Interview with Dr. and Mrs. Heppenstall at their home March 1993. [back] 338 Edward Heppenstall's article "The Inspired Witness of Ellen White" From Adventist Heritage Centre, James White Library. Andrews University. The unpublished article is undated, however the fact that it introduces him as now retired as well as the fact that he has written it to answer the plagiarism charges currently being made prominent would suggest that he is writing it during the early 1980s when Walter Rae is making allegations against Ellen Whites borrowings of the writings of others. [back] 339 Gary Land, Adventism in America, p. 184. [back] 340 Our Firm Foundation. Vol. 1, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald. 1953). Article, "The Spirit of Prophecy in the Remnant Church" by D. E. Rebok. [back] 341 Ferguson and Wright, New dictionary of Theology. The article "Evangelical Theology" has an excellent discussion on this point. [back] 342 Donald Dayton, and Robert K. Johnston, The variety of American Evangelicalism. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP. 1991), pp. 22-23. Quote from Rice on this point. [back] 343 Ibid., pp. 23-27. [back] 344 John Scopes was a young biology teacher teaching in Dayton, Tennessee who faced a court trial in 1925 because he taught Darwinism in a public school. The Scopes trial [often called the "Monkey Trial] became a debate between an agnostic, named Clarence Darrow who defended him and a well known orator named William Jennings Bryan who was the prosecutor. Scopes was eventually found guilty but the decision was reversed on a technicality. However it was perceived by many that the real winner was Scopes and the material used by Darrow to defend him. The ideas used by Bryan to prosecute Scopes was perceived to be very inadequate when put through the process of the court procedures. An excellent account of this is found in Steve Daily's How Readest Thou. (M. A. Thesis. Loma Linda Uni, 1982), pp. 30-31. [back] 345 Dayton and Johnston, American Evangelicalism, p. 28. [back] 346 SDA Encyclopedia, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1966), Article "Fundamentalism". [back] 347 Dayton and Johnston. American Evangelicalism, pp. 30-31. [back] 348 George M. Marsden, Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1991), p. 4. Recommended reading under this topic is an excellent article by A. Patrick. "An Adventist and an Evangelical in Australia. The case of Ellen White in Australia." Lucas number 12. Dec 1991. He suggests that EGW was indeed an evangelical because of her positions on primitive Christianity, the Scriptures, the Cross, righteousness by faith, and activism. [back] 349 Dayton and Johnston, American Evangelicalism, p. 68. [back] 350 Bull and Lockhart, Seeking a Sanctuary, pp. 90-91. [back]

123

Chapter Twenty One

Evangelicals and Adventists meet With changes taking place in both Evangelical Protestantism and Seventh-day Adventism it is not surprising that when a meeting between both groups took place in the mid-1950s many were surprised, from both sides, at the amount of agreement to be found. These meetings took place commencing in the North American spring of 1955 and continued until the summer of 1956. Those present were: T. E. Unruh, Conference President of East Pennsylvania who made the initial contact; D. G. Barnhouse; a Presbyterian pastor and editor of an evangelical magazine called Eternity, and W. R. Martin; a Southern Baptist research writer on American cults and member of the editorial staff of Eternity. Martin was in the process of writing a book about Adventists and had a desire to be accurate and fair in what he published; LeRoy E. Froom, author and former director of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Ministerial Association and editor of Ministry for 22 years, Walter E. Read, Seventh-day Adventist General Conference field secretary and chairman of the Seventh-day Adventist General Conference Biblical Research Committee; and Roy A. Anderson, an experienced evangelist and the director of the Seventh-day Adventist Ministerial Association, and editor of Ministry magazine. After the conference, Barnhouse wrote in Eternity: "In the past two years several evangelical leaders have come to a new attitude towards the Seventh-day Adventist church. The change is a remarkable one since it consists in moving the Seventh-day Adventists, in our opinion, out of the list of anti-christian and non Christian cults into the group of those who are brethren in Christ; although they must still be classified, in our opinion, as holding two or three very unorthodox and in one case peculiar doctrines."351 It was obvious that until this time their information about Adventists had come from those who had left the church, such as D. M. Canright, E. S. Ballenger, L. R. Conradi and E. B. Jones. 186 Martin and Barnhouse presented forty-eight questions to the Seventh-day Adventist leaders at the conference. In the answers that they were giving Martin and Barnhouse could see that they were upholding: The gospel and not legalism; salvation only through Christ, and not by observing the Sabbath; the Seventh-day Adventist stand on assurance before God was solely on a basis of Christ's imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven; and the sinless nature of Christ and His full deity. Keld J. Reynolds notes: "These 1955-56 dialogues were of considerable historical importance, because they forced the Adventists to sort out their beliefs: a first basic category that they shared with conservative Christians of all ages, a second category in which Adventists shared with some Christian bodies but not with others, and a third category representing Seventh-day Adventists alone and justifying their separate denominational existence. The dialogues drew from the participating Evangelicals an unreserved acknowledgement that Adventists who believed as those with whom they had talked were indeed Christians."352 While noting some areas of agreement and disagreement Barnhouse records that in regard to the role and function of Ellen White, "The Adventist leadership proclaims that the writings of Ellen G White, the great counsellor of the Adventist movement, are not on parity with the Scripture. While the Adventist church claims to have received great blessing from the ministry of Mrs White, they admit her writings are not infallible, but in all fairness do revere her writings as special counsels from God to their movement."353 Martin and Barnhouse noted that there were some Adventist books still being sold in Seventh-day Adventist book shops that were saying some things different to what they were being told. Froom, Anderson, and Read replied that this was because the church does give some measure of freedom of expression and that what they had shared was held by all except a "lunatic fringe". This was a serious misrepresentation, although the answers given were generally held by Seventh-day Adventists.354 Yet there were a significant number of Seventh-day 124

Adventists who did not hold to the positions that were presented. Both the Evangelicals and the Adventists involved in the discussions were aware that what they were doing was destined to cause controversy within their own ranks. The Influence Of M. L. Andreasen Adventist history shows that, for the most part, theological divisions and conflicts have arisen over the misuse of and misunderstanding of Ellen White's writings. These conflicts show an unbiblical understanding and abuse of her prophetic role. The church has paid a heavy price over the wrangling and multiplying of quotations to prove a point instead of settling the issues from the Bible. The church is still divided and the theology mapped out by M. L. Andreasen is a good example of the improper use of her writings. Andreasen was undoubtedly a pre-eminent Bible scholar and a devout follower of the writings of Ellen White during the 1930s and 1940s. As an author of some 15 books, he had a profound effect on the thinking of many Seventh-day Adventist ministers during this period and into the 1950s and 1960s. Although he had a deep conviction that Seventh-day Adventists were to be truly Protestant in their approach to developing theology from the Bible only, his writings show no evidence that he had correctly understood inspiration from the Bible or Ellen White's writings.355 Andreason developed a final-generation theology based, to a large degree, upon a statement found in Christ Object Lessons.356 His "harvest theology," developed in the 1930s, emphasising four main points: 1. The cleansing of the soul temple is an experience available in the antitypical Day of Atonement since 1844. 2. Ellen White indicates in her book The Great Controversy, in p. 614, how the final generation is to go through the "Time of Trouble" without an intercessor. 3. Ellen White states in Christ Object Lessons, p. 69, that Christ will not come until His character is fully reflected in His people. 4. Revelation 14:12 shows how at the end there will be a final demonstration to the universe of a people who will keep the commandments of God.357 In The Sanctuary Service he develops this theme further as he shows the process of how he believes the final generation of Christians may become victorious over each sin in turn until they are ready for translation.358 Regarding the nature of Christ—whether He had a nature like Adam before or after the fall—Andreason made no comment in his publications during the 1930s, 1940s and early 1950s. Possibly this is because the sinful nature of Christ—being like Adam after the fall and thus being like us today, in a poor sinful state—was an assumed tenet and thus was not an issue. It was not to become a contentious issue until the late 1950s with the printing of the book Questions on Doctrine.359 In his volume The Book of Hebrews Andreasen divides the atonement up into three phases: The perfect life lived on earth by Jesus; Gethsemane and Calvary where Jesus became our sin bearer; and the final demonstration when other saints show that they can achieve what Jesus achieved with the same help. He claimed that this final phase of the atonement was in the act of being carried on now in the Sanctuary above and that it was up to each Christian to cleanse their own soul temple so that Jesus could come.360 His line of reasoning had many weaknesses, for example: It held an inadequate and non-biblical view of the nature of sin. He read too much into some Ellen White statements while ignoring the context and other statements that say something different. And he ignored the fact that the Bible has little to say on the subject while giving too much pre-eminence to Ellen White.

125

One cannot help but wonder whether Andreasen would have gone the same route in his eschatology if he had been aware of the 1919 Bible Conference discussion about the role and function of Ellen White. During the years of his greatest influence, little was being said in Seventh-day Adventism which reflected the ideas expressed at the 1919 Bible Conference. Many of the ideas of Andreasen were later taken to their logical conclusion by an Australian, Robert Brinsmead, who caused havoc and division in the church during the 1960s. The battles were largely fought with both sides lining up statements and counter statements from Ellen White. Both sides assumed you could do your theology through her writings and that she would always be found to be consistent in her theological expressions. Now the evidence is that she was not always consistent and that she did, along with the rest of us, make significant theological advancement during her lifetime. Failure to understand this means you can, at times, use the older Ellen White statements against the younger Ellen White. Trying to use her writings to do theology then becomes a wilderness of quotes and counter-quotes and shows a lack of understanding regarding the biblical purpose of the gift. The frustrating fact was that both sides found powerful quotes to confront the opposition. Theology became a matter of trying to match Ellen White quote with Ellen White counter quote. However, those who were most successful in countering Brinsmead did so by asking him to prove his positions from the Bible alone.361 This, we have seen, is the only safe way to do theology and is in harmony with her counsel for us. Little was understood about how indebted she was to others in the thoughts and words she used to express her ideas. Later the White Estate released a document showing that she had used a significant amount of material from Henry Melville. He was her favorite preacher. She had a well-marked book of his sermons from which she drew ideas and expressions. In the document an effort is made to explain what Henry Melville meant by such expressions as "fallen human nature." This was seen as a way of trying to understand what Ellen White meant by the term.362 Once this front was opened up, Adventist theology became a complicated mix of not only trying to understand the mind of Ellen White, but also of those she used as sources. Andreason first became concerned about the dialogue between Adventists and Evangelicals with the printing of the answers in the book Questions on Doctrine. Published by the Ministerial Department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, this was the official recording of the answers given to the questions. Andreasen had not been invited to join the consulting group, or even given a copy of the draft of the intended book as were some 250 scholars and administrators. There were some reasons for this: He was 83 years of age and well into retirement. He had recently written a Sabbath school lesson study guide on the book of Isaiah, which had not been published. He was upset and demanded compensation for his efforts. This was granted and he was paid $3000. However, it left some hard feelings between him and some of the church leaders. And, it was possibly perceived that he would not have agreed to the answers. He was not theologically in harmony with the rest of the consulting group and so was put on the sideline. He could have been one of those described as being on the lunatic fringe. Bypassing Andreasen proved to be a great mistake. When he read Questions on Doctrines, he printed a series of tracts entitled "Letters to the Churches" in which he claimed that the leaders of the church, in order to please the Evangelicals, had sold the church out. The two main theological areas of his concern were: First, the nature of Christ. He claimed church leaders had departed from the historic position where Christ is like ourselves—one who had a sinful, moral nature. Second, the atonement. Questions on Doctrine said it took place at the cross and Christ thereafter applied for us the benefits in the heavenly sanctuary. maintained that the atonement was a process still going on in the heavenly sanctuary and it depended upon a final generation to bring it to completion. Andreason stated, "The Spirit of Prophecy makes it clear that Christ was not exempt from the temptations and passions that afflict men. Whoever accepts the new theology must reject The Testimonies. There is no other choice" [emphasis added].363 He argued that the: Seventh-day Adventist church had a body of doctrine which could not be altered because it had been authenticated by the writings of Ellen White. Part of this body of 126

doctrine teaches that Christ came to earth to be just like us with sinful passions. Furthermore as He overcame them, so can His followers, and there must be a final demonstration of this victorious living before Jesus can return. He added that there will be an apostasy from the truth in the last days, as Ellen White foretold, and his church's swing towards Evangelicalism was that apostasy. These apostates, he continued, would downgrade the sanctuary and Ellen White and must be removed from the church. Changing of doctrinal positions From the discussions, then, had the Seventh-day Adventist church changed its teachings in these areas? Martin and Barnhouse said yes. Some evangelicals who were angry with them said, No this church still teaches legalism and is a cult. R. R. Fighur, president of the General Conference said, No, the church has still maintained its distinctive theology and has not compromised. Andreasen said, Yes, the church has changed and this is apostasy. The truth was that the church had changed some of its teachings, but these changes had been developing over a longer time period than many realised. Martin and Barnhouse had been relying on old sources going back to D. N. Canright who accused Seventh-day Adventists of legalism. There was some truth to that allegation then. However, since 1888, with the help of Ellen White, the church had developed a more Christ-centered theology. Other evangelical Christians, not aware of this, had continued to rely on Canright. The church had changed from its ideas on the nature of Christ, sinless perfectionism and the atonement due largely to the teachings of Heppenstall. A true understanding of Seventh-day Adventism allowed for this growth in understanding which has been going on throughout its history.364 Although Froom, Anderson and Read were anxious to impress the evangelicals it was not with the idea of watering down the faith, but rather that they might open the door to bring the Seventh-day Adventist message to the evangelical world.365 Unfortunately, Barnhouse and Martin, it would seem, belonged to those evangelicals who had a fundamentalist approach to inspiration and this clouded their appreciation of Ellen White.366 Once again, in theological debates, the role of Ellen White would come to the fore. There was a vast difference between the answers as given in Questions on Doctrine about her role and function in contrast to what Andreasen fought to defend. Froom, Anderson, Reid and Heppenstall were much closer to the position taken by Daniells and Prescott at the 1919 Bible Conference. On the other hand, Andreasen, held a view closer to that of Washburn and Holmes in their tracts against Daniells and Prescott. There has been and continues to be within Seventh-day Adventism two distinctly different approaches in understanding theology and Ellen White. The Evangelical line comes through 1919 Bible Conference presenters like Daniells and Prescott who overlap with, and continue on through, Froom. Froom feels convicted that Daniells, after his defeat in 1922, placed his mantle on him as the one who would restore Evangelicalism. In the introduction to his book Movement of Destiny he states: "Back in the spring of 1930 Arthur G Daniells, for more than twenty years president of the General Conference, told me he believed that, at a later time I should undertake a thorough survey of the entire plan of redemption—its principles, provisions, and divine Personalities—as they unfolded to our view as a Movement. . . . Elder Daniels recognised the serious problems involved, and sensed almost prophetically certain difficulties that would confront [sic]. He knew that time would be required for certain theological wounds to heal, and for attitudes to modify on the part of some. Possibly it would be necessary to wait until certain individuals had dropped out of action before the needed portrayal could wisely be brought forth. He likewise envisioned the vast toil and time involved. He pressed me to lay long-range plans to that end, and never to give up. Such was his solemn charge in 1930."367 In context, Froom is talking of the righteousness by faith issues commencing in the late 19th century within Seventh-day Adventism. However, that he should also absorb from Daniells, a man he admired, a true concept of how Ellen White's inspiration worked, should also be reasonably expected. In fact, he seems to show 127

evidence of this in his book when he labours the tenet that the Bible is our only rule of faith and practice and that we must not let Ellen White come to the fore, ahead of the Bible.368 When I was in the General Conference archives (March, 1993) researching this topic the assistant archivist, Bert Haloviak, went to some cartons of papers that had belonged to Froom (they had been placed there many years ago by his son Frenton) and found additional notes on the 1919 Bible Conference that had been overlooked. They appear to be notes taken by some unknown scribe of Daniells' talk at the conference. Haloviak feels they were taken by Prescott and later typed by a secretary. It is as if the typist does not always understand the words and, at times, there are blank spaces. It is possible to take the Bible Conference minutes and place them by the side of these notes and see they do follow the same address. The title at the top is "Use of Spirit of Prophecy." What it does show is an overlapping from Daniells to Froom regarding knowledge of how Ellen White's writings were to be used. Although the 1919 minutes were lost, or suppressed, Froom was aware of what was said. This is reflected in his book Movement of Destiny and to some extent and in the book Questions on Doctrine, to which he contributed. It would be difficult to believe that Daniells had not taken him aside on occasions and explained to him of how he, along with others, had associated with Ellen White in preparing her books for publication. Most likely he and many others struggled with how this knowledge should be shared, given the mood of the church and the high expectancy placed upon her writings by so many sincere Christians. It seems that every time a theological controversy erupts in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the basic issue of the use of Ellen White's writings comes to the fore. Until this is settled there can be no progress toward unity. The issues raised in the objections against Questions on Doctrine still remain. However, in the 1970s some momentous events occurred to help provide some solutions. Eventually Martin became painfully aware that there were serious divisions within Seventh-day Adventism between Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. In retrospect he wrote, "After I started doing the research, I saw definite division in Adventist theology. There were the people who really were believers and held to the foundations of the Gospel. Then there were those who were downright legalists—worshippers of Ellen G White—who had exalted her beyond the role that she ever claimed for herself, and, in effect were the loud voice that the evangelical world was always hearing."369 No one should be surprised that Seventh-day Adventism should have two wings: Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, for almost all Christian churches face this situation to varying degrees. However, in the case of Seventh-day Adventism, throughout the history of the church this division has been partly over the function and authority of the writings of Ellen White. There has consistently been a group that has a more enlightened understanding of her role but they have not felt free to share what they know with the larger body of believers. This has always put them at a disadvantage because they do not want to be accused of doubting the inspiration of Ellen White. For this reason, many in the church were content to allow things to drift on up until the 1970s. Then events forced the hands of the leaders to confront again issues addressed at the 1919 Bible Conference. ______________________ 351 D. G. Barnhouse, "Are Seventh-day Adventist Christians?" Eternity Magazine, September, 1956, p. 6. [back] 352 Gary Land, Adventism in America, p. 186. [back] 353 Barnhouse, Eternity, September, 1956, p. 7. [back] 354 A draft copy of the 55 questions was sent to 250 leaders in North America and around the world. "A committee of fourteen with Rueben R. Fighur, President of the General conference, as chairman supervised the distribution of these documents and an evaluation of the replies, which demonstrated a substantial consensus." 128

Raymond F. Cottrell, unpublished manuscript. "Questions On Doctrine: A Historical-Critical Evaluation", p. 9. [back] 355 M. L. Andreason, in his book A Faith To Live By, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1943), talks affirmingly of his visit with EGW and how he was able to spend many days reading the original manuscripts yet nowhere does he show evidence of his knowledge of her borrowings or how her book keepers helped her. For example he says; "She wrote nothing that was cheap or questionable, but only the purest of wheat, throughly winnowed. Mature counsel, earnest exhortation, pure morality, sound theology, correct and authoritative information, are all imparted in correct and beautiful English. Viewed purely as literary productions apart from any divine or spiritual gift, Mrs White's writings deserve and are given a place among the best religious literature." p. 268. In fact knowing what we now know of the way her writings were put together by way of borrowing from others and the part played by Marion Davis and others in producing the final product it sounds a little ironic to read what he said in a chapel talk at Loma Linda 30/11/1948. (To be found in the MLA file in the Andrews University Heritage room. After reading Desire of Ages, he declared "I found there a beauty of expression that caught my attention, and I said to myself, `I do not see how Sister White could ever have written that; she was a woman of but little education, and hence would be unable to produce such a work. I said to myself again and again `she never wrote that'." [back] 356 Ellen White. Christ Object Lessons. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Pub. Assn, 1941). On p. 69, she states "Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own." Standing as it does alone as I have quoted it this statement can give the impression as though Christ is waiting for a sinless generation to be produced before He can come again to gather up His people. However a reading of the context shows that sinless perfection is not the subject being discussed rather the producing in the life the "fruits of the Spirit". [back] 357 These four points are taken from my [MA Andrews University] class notes made in a lecture given by Dr. George Knight, January, 1991. [back] 358 M. L. Andreason, in his book The Sanctuary Service. (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1947), p. 302 states, "Many a man who has been a slave to the tobacco habit has gained the victory over the habit. . . . On that point he is sanctified. As he has been victorious over one besetment, so he is to become victorious over every sin. When the work is completed, when he has gained the victory over pride, ambition, love of the world—over all evil—he is ready for translation. . . . "Thus it shall be with the last generation of men living on the earth. Through them God's final demonstration of what he can do with humanity will be given. He will take the weakest of the weak, those bearing the sins of their forefathers, and in them show the power of God. They will be subjected to every temptation, but will not yield. They will demonstrate that it is possible to live without sin. . . ." This teaching seems to have its roots in Adventism from the 1890s when A. T. Jones along with Anna Rice (claiming to be a prophetess) spoke of the final generation theology. In the years 1899 and 1900 MLA was a student of A. T. Jones at Battle Creek according to his autobiographical manuscript quoted in Without Fear or Favour by Virginia Steinweg, (Washington, DC: Review and Herald 1979), 29, Andreason states his regard towards Jones: "I immediately fastened myself to him. While not impressed with Uriah Smith who was one who "knew all things, and that others knew very little if anything." [back] 359 Further evidence on this is found that Ralph Larson in his book The Word Was Made Flesh: One Hundred Years of Adventist Christology 1852-1952. (Cherry Valley, CA: Cherrystone Press, 1986), has listed all the statements he can find on SDA comments regarding the subject but apparently cannot find any from Andreason as there are none listed. [back] 129

360 From M. L. Andreasen, in his book The Book of Hebrews (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1948), pp 59-60. I have paraphrased the thoughts. [back] 361 Pastor Frank Basham was one such pastor who did this successfully and advised the writer (as a young pastor) that this was the only way to meet Brinsmead's followers. [back]