Lou Venden: Graham, you mentioned that Martin Luther couldn’t see this larger perspective of the cosmic war perspective and that he had trouble with the book of Revelation. Why do you suppose he had that kind of trouble?

Graham Maxwell: Why don’t we read it his own words, from his Preface to the book of Revelation, in English translation of course. “The book of Revelation approximates the fourth book of Esdras. I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.” And he gives his reasons. As he looked at it, “Christ is neither known nor taught in the book of Revelation,” even though it’s “The Revelation of Jesus Christ.” And we know what his policy was for evaluating books in the Bible, because in the Preface to James he wrote, “Any book that inculcates Christ deserves to be in the Bible. Whatever does not teach Christ is not even apostolic.” If even Peter or Paul should write a book, it’s not apostolic if it doesn’t teach Christ. And a little later on he writes, “This is the principle that I use in my evaluation of books.” We have a name for that: the “Christomonistic principle.” That’s the “Christ alone” principle. If I don’t find Christ in the book, then it doesn’t belong in the canon. That’s a very good principle in theory. But what if the one making the evaluation doesn’t have a full picture of Christ? Based on his picture of Christ, Luther was ready to rule out four books of the Bible.

Lou: Rather than letting these books expand his understanding and picture of Christ.

Graham: Yes. It was a little backwards for Luther to do it that way. But when you think of the many wonderful things he did, I suppose we should allow him that. But based on what we know today, can we find Christ in the book of Revelation? I think so. So on the Christomonistic principle which Luther laid down, I take all sixty-six books seriously. The principle’s alright, but we’ve made a little progress since then.

Lou: And that would be supported by the book of Revelation’s own claim to be the “revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Graham: Right at the beginning (Rev 1:1). And look at the whole first chapter. It’s all about Christ, in His human form. And later on in the book, it’s about how He’s coming back and what He’s doing in the Heavenly Sanctuary. The book of Revelation is full of Him.

Lou: But now, Graham, in our reading in the book of Revelation, which you shared with us, it seems so clear; there’s a statement here that war broke out in heaven, and so on. But I’m wondering—how widely is this perspective shared by the Christian world in general? That is, the idea of a war, and the great controversy, this “larger view”, as you refer to it.

Graham: It’s strange that not many know about this. It’s as if there is a conspiracy of silence. Yet we’re finding more and more people in the nineteenth century and earlier who did see glimpses of this larger view. Since college days I’ve always enjoyed Milton– Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained. There’s part of the picture there, not the full picture.

One of the best at expressing a larger view was a preacher named Henry Melvill, who lived in England in the mid-nineteenth century. He was a magnificent preacher, and his wife used to neatly write out his sermons for him to present in no less a place than St. Paul’s cathedral in London. Melvill preached about a crisis among the angels, how they needed their loyalty confirmed by the very things God revealed through the death of Jesus. And Melvill was no minor figure, after his death, he was buried in St. Paul’s cathedral, an honor restricted to a very few.

One person who particularly enjoyed his writings was Ellen White. She had his book in her library. I don’t know anyone to this day who has expressed the larger view as well as Ellen White. Her work was based on all sixty-six Bible books and reading the marvelous writings of Melvill and others. Let’s look at one place where she lays out this larger view:

But the plan of redemption had a much broader and deeper purpose, broader and deeper than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth. It was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded, but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice, that is its influence on the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man, the Savior looked forward, when just before His crucifixion, He said, “Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me.” The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God, and would reveal the nature and the results of sin. (Patriarchs and Prophets, 68-69)

The statement of Jesus that she quoted above is from John 12:31-32. Although the King James Bible says “draw all men” here, Ellen White leaves the word men out in this quotation. She says simply “draw all,” which points to a much larger view of things. While there were saints through the years who spoke about this larger view, Ellen White is the one who summed it up the best to date, and seemed to understand it the most clearly.

In the original conversations, Graham Maxwell delivered a monologue on each topic and then Lou Vended (pastor of the Loma Linda University Church at the time) followed up with his own questions triggered by the monologue and questions written down by people in the audience. The questions and answers sometimes ramble, as conversations do, but they are always interesting.

Lou Venden: Here’s a question related to the war in heaven. What about the angel who seems to start the war, the one named “Day Star” or Lucifer? If God knew that there would be all this trouble, and that Lucifer would be at the center of it, why did He create Lucifer?

Graham Maxwell: That, of course, raises the question whether God does know everything in the future. And there are good saints who wonder about that. I would rather find an explanation that would allow me to say God can see the end from the beginning. The past, the present, and the future: they’re all alike to Him. And yet I’m still free. My understanding would be that when God created Lucifer, He knew what Lucifer would do. And yet He went ahead anyway. He knew what it would cost Him. He knew what it would cost His children. And yet He went ahead. And when you think of the anguish that has been involved in solving this problem and settling this war, there must be something of infinite value at stake, or God would not have done this.

He certainly had other options that might have seemed easier. When Lucifer began to entertain these rebellious thoughts, God could have eliminated him right there and then. What damage would that have done? Well, the angels looking on might think, “I’d better not have bad thoughts or I might get eliminated, too.” But after eliminating Lucifer, God could then have blotted out all memory of the elimination so no one would know. And He could do that an infinite number of times and no one would know but God.

So why didn’t He do it? Is it that He couldn’t live with the fact that He was doing that? Or is it that He wants us to know what He did do? He definitely did not to take a shortcut. He allowed Lucifer to develop these thoughts, and to spread them among the angels, knowing what it would cost Him and cost His friends on this planet. We’ve all participated a little in the larger view. But knowing the thousands of years it would take, and all the misunderstanding and the anguish, God said “I will go ahead anyway.” And the angels understand this and tell Him, “You did this magnificently. And we’re with you for the rest of eternity.” So what was at stake in this decision? That’s the big thing.

Lou: This perspective that you’re sharing here and throughout this book includes a war, a crisis of distrust, and whether God can be trusted!

Graham: Right. It’s not about power. If it was about God’s power, He could have settled things in a second. It would be easy to show that God is more powerful than Satan. In fact, such a demonstration is hardly necessary, since even the devil is already convinced. James tells us that when the devil thinks about the power of the One who hung the whole vast universe in space, it scares him. He shudders with fear (James 2:19). So I don’t think we should spend too much time arguing about God’s power. Of course He’s infinite in majesty and power. The conflict is not over who has the power, but over who’s telling the truth. God has been accused of abusing His power.

Lou Venden: We should not use the idea of God’s sovereignty as an excuse to ignore issues related to His character.

Graham Maxwell: I think where that idea really comes from is Romans 9, where you have the verse, “who are you to question God? Who are you to answer back to God?” (Rom 9:14-26, especially 20-21) But Romans 9, I believe, has been misunderstood by some very saintly people, including a notable theologian in reformation days. One really needs to put Romans 9 in the whole context of Romans —certainly in the context of chapters 1 through 9.

In Romans 1-8, Paul has been saying to his audience (which is made up of both Jews and Gentiles) “I have great good news for you. God will save all who trust Him—whether you are Jew or Gentile, bond or free, male or female. He’ll save everybody who trusts Him.” And as Paul was developing chapters 1-8, he could sense that certain members of His audience (descended from Abraham) were not taking this too kindly, because they thought that they had a special relationship with God. It was as if God had made a deal with their ancestor in their behalf. That’s why they were so concerned with things like their genealogy.

When Paul got to the end of chapter 8, therefore, he sensed that some of his readers would be quite offended. So in essence he turned to them and said, “I sense that some of you don’t like what I’ve said, that God is the kind of God that would save all who trust Him. But when you think that way, aren’t you suggesting that you would run the universe better than God? Are you saying God cannot save all who trust Him? Let me tell you something: God is going to run this universe precisely as He wishes. Just as the potter takes a lump of clay, and makes of the same clay a vessel for honor, and a vessel for dishonor (Rom 9:21), so God has the right—if He wants to exercise it—to run His universe any way He likes!”

Some people take that out of context and say, “God takes the material we are all made of and makes some to be saved and some to be lost. So, what’s the use of trying to know Him at all? Our destiny has already been determined.” No, what Paul is saying in Romans 9 is that God has just as much authority as the potter—actually much more so. He created this universe. He’s going to run it precisely as He wishes. And He won’t ever change. You can count on it. Does Romans 9 mean that God is arbitrary? Not in the context of chapters 1-8 where Paul has already explained how God runs the universe. God is so infinitely gracious that He values nothing higher than our freedom, and will save all who trust Him. But He doesn’t expect us to trust Him as a stranger, so at infinite cost He has revealed the truth about Himself. And that’s what Paul’s implied audience didn’t like. So Paul is really saying in Romans 9, “You impudent, irreverent people. How dare you tell God how to run His universe! How does God run His universe? Please read Romans 1-8. God’s treatment of the universe is infinitely gracious.”

Lou: But that raises another question, why would a God who is infinitely powerful, who can run the universe any way He wants to, allow a conflict like the one we read about in the twelfth chapter of Revelation? Why would He allow a war in heaven to happen?

Graham: That’s a great question. If God has that much authority and power, how could a war in heaven even take place? This question is the reason why those who stress the sovereignty of God have great difficulty allowing for a war in heaven. And it’s the reason many of the reformers really couldn’t use that sixty-sixth book of the Bible. Luther, for example, says “it was fancied that there was a war.” He just couldn’t wrap his mind around the idea. But to me it’s one of the most wonderful things about God. Though He had the infinite power necessary to stop such a war before it even started, He did not do so. God must consider something else of far greater value than our mere submission to His power, because He allowed Lucifer’s rebellion in heaven to grow and grow. By secular standards of good administration, God was weak. It was bad management. I mean, how long would a pastor last in our church, if there was such chaos in the membership? The committee would meet!

Lou: The pastor would move on, wouldn’t he!

Graham: Yes. Shall we ask God to move on, then, because of weakness on His part? We know He has infinite power, yet He allowed this war to develop. He allowed the questions to arise. That tells me there is something of even greater importance to God than our mere submission to His infinite power.

In the original conversations, Graham Maxwell delivered a monologue on each topic and then Lou Vended (pastor of the Loma Linda University Church at the time) followed up with his own questions triggered by the monologue and questions written down by people in the audience. The questions and answers sometimes ramble, as conversations do, but they are always interesting.

Lou Venden: We’re calling this book Conversations About God. But just above you said that Jesus is the one who reveals God; if we’ve seen Him, we’ve seen the Father. Then why shouldn’t this book be called “Conversations About Jesus”?

Graham Maxwell: I’ve run into that question several times. Since Jesus is the one who came to reveal the truth, why don’t we talk more about Him? This implies some interesting things. If we believe that Jesus Christ is God, when we talk about Christ we are talking about God anyway. If the whole purpose of His coming to this earth is to reveal the truth about His Father, He is also revealing the truth about Himself. So whether we talk about God or Christ, we’re talking about God. But I think it adds focus to our discussion to say that the ultimate question really is about God. It is God who came in human form as Christ; this is the ultimate method He used to reveal the truth about Himself. In a sense it is much ado about nothing when someone asks, “shall we talk about God, or shall we talk about Christ?”

Lou: If I’m hearing you rightly, you’re saying that Jesus Himself would really be happiest if we’re talking about the One He came to reveal.

Graham: I’m impressed that when Jesus was here, He would suggest, “Don’t look to Me, look to the Father” (see John 5:19, 30; 8:28-29; 14:6-11; 15:15; 16:26-27) It suggests to me that we should always outdo one another in giving honor. The Trinity does that. The Son is always outdoing Himself to give honor to the Father. But I have noticed that it comes back the other way as well—the Father gives the Son a name above every other name (Phil 2:9-11). And the Holy Spirit, in a self-effacing way, is always drawing our attention to the Father and the Son (John 4:23-24; 15:26; 16:13-14). The way those three divine persons behave is a model to us.

Lou: Here’s a related question: How can you really have a conversation about God? After all, how can we really know God? Take Paul’s statement in Romans 11:33 (RSV): “How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable are His ways.” If that’s the case, who are we to question? God is sovereign, so why should we be sitting here having conversations about God?”

Graham: Ah, who are we to question the inscrutable ways of God? And that’s in Romans. But we need to balance that with Romans 1:19-20, where Paul says (in my words) “you’re without excuse if you don’t know God.” So on the principle of taking the Bible as a whole, and not just “here a little and there a little,” I would have to put Romans 1 alongside Romans 11.

I think when Paul is saying that God’s thoughts are so far above ours (see also Isaiah 55:8-9), that is a reverent recognition that God is infinite. Think of all He knows! We’ll never fully understand God; we’re mere creatures. And at times we need to be reminded of His infinite superiority. But then it’s marvelous that the Infinite One would want to be known.

All through the Bible He says things like “Israel is destroyed because they don’t know Me” (see Hos 4:6) and “I’ve come to this earth that you may know Me” (see John 17:1-5). So it’s pretty clear God wants to be known. But we shouldn’t pretend we’re gods who could know everything that He knows.