To illustrate the use of these six principles for Ellen White’s use of Scripture, it may be helpful to examine the statement in Early Writings, 279-280: “An angel with a writer’s inkhorn by his side returned from the earth and reported to Jesus that his work was done, and the saints were numbered and sealed. Then I saw Jesus, who had been ministering before the ark containing the ten commandments, throw down the censer. He raised His hands, and with a loud voice said, ‘It is done.’ And all the angelic host laid off their crowns as Jesus made the solemn declaration, ‘He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.'”
The context of this passage is the close of probation. Ellen White utilizes language reminiscent of Ezekiel 9:1-11 (“an angel with a writer’s inkhorn. . . .”), Revelation 8:5 (“threw down the censer”), Revelation 16:17 (“loud voice . . . it is done”), and then quotes Revelation 22:11. Revelation 16:17 and 22:11 clearly belong in a “close of probation” context. Our interest concerns the significance of her use of the language of Revelation 8:5 in this context. Does Ellen White understand the act of throwing down the censer depicted in Revelation 8:5 to be a reference to the end-time close of probation? The six guidelines sketched above can be applied to this passage.
First, it is not clear that she intended the reader to perceive an allusion to Revelation 8:5 in this passage. The phrase “throw down the censer” is certainly unmistakable. If there is an allusion to Scripture at all when she sees Jesus “throw down the censer” it is clearly an allusion to Revelation 8:5. But a number of indications demonstrate that she is not alluding to Revelation 8:5 in this statement. It is Jesus that ministers the incense, not an angel. He ministers before the ark, not the altar of incense. He throws down the censer in front of the ark, not to the earth. The statement merely echoes the language of Revelation 8:5 without referring the reader to that text. It is precarious to draw specific exegetical information from an echo of biblical language.
Second, there is clearly no attempt to exegete Revelation 8:5 in her statement. It is part of a visionary description of a future event, the close of probation. As such it is a theological or homiletical usage of Revelation 8:5. The meaning of Revelation 8:5 in the original context is not addressed.
Third, the statement occurs in a published work, which was edited with considerable care. However, the reference is unique to this statement, so it may not reflect a settled understanding that Revelation 8:5 is to be associated with the end-time close of probation.
Fourth, as mentioned earlier, the exegesis of Revelation 8:5 is not central to the issue in Early Writings, 279-280. The issue at hand is a description of the close of probation, not the context of Revelation 8. The description of Jesus throwing down the censer could be left out without materially affecting the theological content of the statement.
Fifth, the statement is an early one, thus an interpreter wishing to understand her usage here should be prepared for the possibility that a later statement may decisively clarify this one. The possible implications of this statement should not be pressed in the face of a later one, particularly if the later statement significantly modifies the material at issue.
Finally, the allusion only occurs one time in all of her available works. Even if its meaning appeared clear to all interpreters it could be questioned whether Ellen White’s intention in the allusion had been rightly understood. Certainly, she has not gone out of her way to clarify in what way Revelation 8:5 is related to the close of probation.
To summarize, as much as we would like to have exegetical help in determining the meaning of Revelation 8:5 and its context, Early Writings, 279-280, even if it alluded to Revelation 8:5, should not be used for that purpose. It is not an attempt to exegete Revelation 8, neither is Revelation 8 central to the topic in its context. Neither is it reasonably certain that Ellen White intended the reader to perceive an allusion to Revelation 8:5. The passage in Early Writings should not be used to settle the exegesis of Revelation 8.
Different Ways That Ellen White Used the Bible II (EWB 5)
In the previous blog we looked at two different ways that Ellen White uses Scripture as part of her argument. There are four more factors to consider, which I will number from three to six.
Third, Ellen White herself makes a distinction between her published writings and other material (5T 696 cf. 1SM 66, TM 33). We can best understand her theological intention in the writings that were most carefully written and edited by her. Off-hand comments in letters or stenographically reproduced from sermons may not reflect her settled opinion on timeless issues. Compilations of her writings by others need to be used even more cautiously, since the ordering and selection of material can, in itself, make a theological statement. If something is found only in letters and manuscripts, particularly if it occurs only once, the interpreter needs to be able to demonstrate that it is a true reflection of her considered and consistent intent.
Fourth, the question should be asked, Is Ellen White’s use of a given Scripture text critical to the conclusion she comes to in that portion of her writings? If her use of a particular Scripture is peripheral to her central theme it may not partake of a thought-out exegesis. As is the case with Scripture, we are on safest ground when we refer to passages where the specific topic we are concerned with is being discussed. The book of Revelation is central to her discussion in chapter 57 (pp. 579-592) of Acts of the Apostles and to much of the latter part of the book Great Controversy. But even there, major parts of Revelation are not covered or are only mentioned in passing (for example, the Seals and the Trumpets). So we must exercise great caution in applying peripheral uses of Revelation to our own exegesis of the book.
Fifth, Ellen White’s later writings should be allowed to clarify positions taken in earlier writings. Over time her skills as a writer increased, and her ability to express accurately and clearly the thoughts she received from God correspondingly increased. As earlier statements were opposed or became subject to controversy, she would offer clarifying statements to make her intention clear. A well-known example of this is found in the book Early Writings, pages 85-96 where she offers a series of clarifications of earlier statements and visionary descriptions.
A theological example of her maturing clarity of expression is her understanding of the deity of Christ. No one can mistake her clear belief in the full deity of Christ as expressed in later statements such as 1SM 296, DA 530, RH April 5, 1906, and ST May 3, 1899. But pre-1888 statements such as 1SP 17-18 are ambiguous enough to be read as Arian if the later statements are ignored (She updates and clarifies 1SP 17-18 in PP 37-38). To draw her view from 1SP 17-18 while ignoring the later clarifying statements is to hopelessly distort her intention.
Finally, how often did she utilize a scriptural passage in a particular way? Generally speaking, the number of times a specific concept is repeated is in direct proportion to the writer’s burden that the concept be clearly understood by readers. It is not normally wise to base an interpretation on a single passage. An idea that is repeated in a variety of circumstances and by means of a variety of expressions is not easily misunderstood or misused.
The main reason for suggesting these basic guidelines for determining Ellen White’s intent is the problem of ambiguity in her writings. Her statements are often susceptible of more than one interpretation. This is not due to confusion or lack of clarity on her part, necessarily, it is due to the fact that she often did not address directly the questions that concern us most today. An unbiased reader will repeatedly find statements that answer our concerns with less clarity than we would prefer. The biased reader, on the other hand, when confronted with an ambiguous statement, picks the option, out of several, which best fits his/her preconceived ideas and hammers it home to those who might disagree.
An excellent example of an ambiguous statement can be found in TM 445. She states there that, “The sealing of the servants of God is the same that was shown to Ezekiel in vision. John also had been a witness of this most startling revelation.” She follows with a number of items that are common to both books. Since the visions of John and Ezekiel are analogous, but certainly not identical, two possibilities of interpretation emerge. (1) The events of around 600 BC partook of the same principles that will manifest themselves in the final crisis portrayed in Revelation 7. (2) Ezekiel does not describe the events of 600 BC, but is an allegory of the end-time. While one or the other interpretation will be considered more likely based on the prior assumptions a reader brings to the text, either is possible based on the language she chose to use in that context.
The reality is that many questions of biblical exegesis cannot be clarified from Ellen White’s writings. While it is always appropriate to point out the possibilities inherent in Ellen White’s references to Scripture, the wisest course is to avoid using ambiguous statements as definitive evidence to prove a point.
Different Ways That Ellen White Used the Bible (EWB 4)
When one is examining Ellen White’s use of Scripture, it is critically important to honor her intention in the use of that text. In order to do that, one has to pay close attention to the different ways she uses the Bible.
First of all, it is important to determine whether Ellen White was intending to cite a particular biblical text or was merely “echoing” the language of the text. The same procedure we apply to the Revelator’s use of the Old Testament is helpful here as well. When she merely echoes a text, she is certainly not expressing a judgment on the biblical writer’s intention for that text. She may be drawing a valid spiritual lesson when she echoes Scripture, but it is not necessarily the same lesson the biblical writer sought to impress upon his readers.
Second, where Ellen White clearly refers the reader to a Scriptural passage, one should ask how she is using the passage. Is she using it exegetically–making a statement about the original meaning of the passage in the author’s context? Is she using it theologically–discussing the implication that passage has for a larger theology based on Scripture as a whole (biblical theology)? Or does her theological use focus particularly on God’s will for the recipients of her writings (systematic theology)? Is she using it homiletically–enjoying the effectiveness of the biblical language that moves people to action in a worship setting?
To interpret a homiletical usage as though it were an exegetical statement will distort not only her intention in its use but the meaning of the biblical statement as well. While more study needs to be done on this question, it is my sense that Ellen White rarely uses Scripture exegetically (i.e. being primarily concerned with the biblical writer’s intent). A significant cluster of exegetical uses of Scripture can be found in Acts of the Apostles, which contains a number of discussions of New Testament books in their original setting. But generally, as was the case with the classical prophets of the Old Testament, her main concern in most of her writings was to speak to her contemporary situation. This would generally cause her to use Scripture theologically and homiletically rather than exegetically.
To say this is not to limit Ellen White’s authority. To the contrary, her intention in a given statement should be taken with utmost seriousness. At the same time, we must be careful not to limit the authority of the biblical writer. We should not deny a biblical writer’s intention on the basis of a later, homiletical usage of that text. What I am pleading for here is that we respect Ellen White’s own intention in her use of biblical material. Since she often uses Scripture in other than exegetical ways, statements quoting Revelation must be examined with great care before being dogmatically applied in the exegesis of the book.
Where Ellen White appears to use a biblical text exegetically, yet there is a tension between her use of the text and the apparent intent of the author’s language, two possibilities should be kept in mind. (1) It is possible that the interpreter has misunderstood the intent of either the biblical writer or Ellen White, or both. Further study may resolve the tension. But there is another possibility. (2) An later, inspired person can apply a biblical passage to his/her contemporary situation in a local sense without exhausting the ultimate intention of the original writer. Example of this in the Bible are Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21, and Jesus’ use of Daniel 7:13-14 in Matthew 9:6.
We have so far looked at two different ways that Ellen White uses Scripture as part of her argument. There are several more factors to consider in a future blog.
Ellen White’s Use of the Bible (EWB 3)
The role of inspiration is particularly problematic with regard to Ellen White’s use of Scripture. An interpreter with a strong preconceived idea can easily utilize Ellen White’s Scriptural quotations in such a way as to overthrow the plain meaning of the text in its biblical context. Let me provide a couple of examples. 1) When she applied the phrase “touch not, taste not, handle not” to the use of tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco (MH 335) she was certainly echoing the language of Colossians 2:21, but not in the manner in which Paul used it! She used “touch not, taste not, handle not” in a positive way to encourage abstention from harmful substances. The phrase is punchy and memorable for that purpose. But that is not what it meant to Paul as he was writing to the Colossian church. In that context, the phrase represented an unhealthy asceticism that diverted attention from Christ (Col 2:18-23). To impose Ellen White’s use of a phrase in Colossians 2:21 on Paul’s meaning would distort the understanding of that verse in its original context.
2) When Ellen White applied the phrase “God made man upright” to the need for good posture (Ed 198), there is no reason to think that she intended to imply that the original author of the phrase was discussing posture in Ecclesiastes 7:27-29. In Patriarchs and Prophets, page 49, she used the same biblical phrase in harmony with the moral intention of the biblical author. Simply because Ellen White uses language that can also be found in Scripture, does not mean that she is offering the true and original meaning of that text. As she herself often noted, biblical passages need to be studied in their own right before any use of her references to the same texts are brought into consideration.
The dangers of misinterpretation are particularly strong when dealing with a biblical passage or book that is challenging to understand. Where the meaning of Scripture is not self-evident, Ellen White’s reference to such Scripture can be perceived as a short cut to a deeper and clearer meaning. Inferences drawn from the text of Revelation can be creatively combined with inferences drawn from the Spirit of Prophecy to produce a result which neither the Bible nor Ellen White intended. An example of such “hybrid theology” can be found in the book Give Glory to Him, by Robert Hauser, pages 30-32. By comparing statements from the Bible and Ellen White, Hauser seeks to demonstrate that Rev 4:1-5:6 takes place in the Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary, 5:8-14 takes place in the Most Holy Place and that in Rev 5:7 Jesus moves from the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place. As brilliant as this suggestion is, it is rendered extremely unlikely by the simple fact that no such movement between apartments is detectible in the text of Rev 4-5 itself, and Ellen White nowhere describes such a movement in terms of Rev 5. Hauser’s suggestion transcends the intention of both John and Ellen White.
Though usually well-intentioned, such sidetracks divert the people of God from careful attention to the plain meaning of the text, and thus encourage careless methods of interpretation that can damage the cause of God. In the following blog I offer some guidelines for the use of Ellen White in the study of Revelation to follow. When it comes to inspiration, it is important to pay careful attention to the original writer’s intention when writing a given passage. That is true both for the Bible and for Ellen White. We should seek to safeguard the inspired intention of both sources before attempting to create something that neither source clearly supports. Steps toward Ellen White’s intention in her use of Scripture are the topic of the next blog.
Ellen G. White and the Book of Revelation (EWB 2)
Adventist interpreters of Revelation share a deep appreciation of the writings of Ellen G. White. Her comments on the book of Revelation stimulate much productive insight, particularly with regard to the “big picture;” namely how the symbolic visions of Revelation contribute to the cosmic perspective often known as the “Great Controversy.” She was well aware that Revelation brings together language, ideas, and types from throughout Scripture; forming a consummate conclusion to the Bible as a whole (AA 585). Thus, Adventist scholarship would be remiss to ignore her perspective on the symbols and theology of the Book of Revelation.
Having said this, interpreters need to be reminded that the writings of Ellen White can be used in such a way as to obscure the meaning of the Biblical text and make it serve the agenda of the interpreter. “Those who are not walking in the light of the message, may gather up statements from my writings that happen to please them, and that agree with their human judgment, and, by separating these statements from their connection, and placing them beside human reasonings, make it appear that my writings uphold that which they condemn.” Letter 208, 1906. Off-hand comments in various contexts can be universalized or applied in ways that run counter to the implications of the biblical text itself. Such use is really abuse and results in diminishing her authority rather than enhancing it. That she was aware of this possibility is clear from the following instruction:
“Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects which they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them. It is true that there is a reason why some of these matters should be presented; but I would not venture to give my approval in using the testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose.
“The persons who make these propositions, for aught I know, may be able to conduct the enterprise of which they write in a wise manner; but nevertheless I dare not give the least license for using my writings in the manner which they propose. In taking account of such an enterprise, there are many things that must come into consideration; for in using the testimonies to bolster up some subject which may impress the mind of the author, the extracts may give a different impression than that which they would were they read in their original connection.”
“The Writing and Sending Out of the Testimonies for the Church,” p. 26. Quoted in Ellen G. White, Messenger to the Remnant, by Arthur White, p. 86.
Inspiration is truly handled with respect when the intention of an inspired writer is permitted to emerge from the text in its original context (exegesis). We must avoid reading into the text our own interests and presuppositions (eisegesis). Messages from living prophets can easily be clarified upon request. But once the prophet has passed from the scene, we are on safest ground when the intent of each inspired text is allowed to emerge by means of careful exegesis. The interpreter’s need to establish a particular position offers no license to do with the text whatever one wants.
Ellen G. White and the Bible
For Seventh-day Adventists the study of the book of Revelation always comes with a unique challenge. “The Bible and the Bible only” provides a call to exegete the Bible as God’s final authority on all matters of faith and practice. Yet Adventists value very highly the prophetic gift of Ellen G. White (1827-1915). What impact should her comments on a subject like the mark of the beast (Rev 13:15-17) or the three angel’s message (Rev 14:6-12) have on the way one reads these passages? What does one do if what Ellen White says about a biblical passage does not square with the plain meaning of the text?
This is the first in a series of blogs on the use of Ellen White’s writings in relation to the Bible. Before I share my own research, I want you to be aware of the finest explanation of this topic from the Ellen G. White Estate, the authoritative custodian of her writings. In 1982, White Estate directors from all over the world met for an extended conference and drafted the following statement on the respective roles of the Bible and Ellen White in Adventist faith. The words that follow are from this consensus statement of the 1982 conference without any further comment from me:
“In the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists at Dallas in April, 1980, the Preamble states: “Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.” Paragraph one reflects the church’s understanding of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, while paragraph seventeen reflects the church’s understanding of the writings of Ellen White in relation to the Scriptures. These paragraphs read as follows:
1. The Holy Scriptures
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. 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. Support is found in these Bible passages: 2 Peter 1:20,21; 2 Timothy 3:16,17; Psalms 119:105; Proverbs 30:5,6; Isaiah 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Hebrews 4:12.
17. The Gift Of Prophecy
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. Support is found in these Bible passages: Joel 2:28,29; Acts 2:14-21; Hebrews 1:1-3; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 19:10.
The following affirmations and denials speak to the issues which have been raised about the inspiration and authority of the Ellen White writings and their relation to the Bible. These clarifications should be taken as a whole. They are an attempt to express the present understanding of Seventh-day Adventists. They are not to be construed as a substitute for, or a part of, the two doctrinal statements quoted above.
AFFIRMATIONS
1. We believe that Scripture is the divinely revealed word of God and is inspired by the Holy Spirit.
2. We believe that the canon of Scripture is composed only of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments.
3. We believe that Scripture is the foundation of faith and the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.
4. We believe that Scripture is the Word of God in human language.
5. We believe that Scripture teaches that the gift of prophecy will be manifest in the Christian church after New Testament times.
6. We believe that the ministry and writings of Ellen White were a manifestation of the gift of prophecy.
7. We believe that Ellen White was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that her writings, the product of that inspiration, are applicable and authoritative, especially to Seventh-day Adventists.
8. We believe that the purposes of the Ellen White writings include guidance in understanding the teaching of Scripture and application of these teachings, with prophetic urgency, to the spiritual and moral life.
9. We believe that the acceptance of the prophetic gift of Ellen White is important to the nurture and unity of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
10. We believe that Ellen White’s use of literary sources and assistants finds parallels in some of the writings of the Bible.
DENIALS
1. We do not believe that the quality or degree of inspiration in the writings of Ellen White is different from that of Scripture.
2. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are an addition to the canon of Sacred Scripture.
3. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White function as the foundation and final authority of Christian faith as does Scripture.
4. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White may be used as the basis of doctrine.
5. We do not believe that the study of the writings of Ellen White may be used to replace the study of Scripture.
6. We do not believe that Scripture can be understood only through the writings of Ellen White.
7. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White exhaust the meaning of Scripture.
8. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are essential for the proclamation of the truths of Scripture to society at large.
9. We do not believe that the writings of Ellen White are the product of mere Christian piety.
10. We do not believe that Ellen White’s use of literary sources and assistants negates the inspiration of her writings.
We conclude, therefore, that a correct understanding of the inspiration and authority of the writings of Ellen White will avoid two extremes: (1) regarding these writings as functioning on a canonical level identical with Scripture, or (2) considering them as ordinary Christian literature.”
The Story of Job and Trivial Prayers
The story of Job may also be instructive here. Job’s experience makes it clear that there is no answer to most of the specific objections raised previously, at least in this life. The tragedies in Job’s life were certainly unexplainable in earthly terms. They came from “nowhere” and made no sense to him. They had to do with complexities in the larger universe that Job never came to understand. The fascinating thing is that even when God came down in person to talk with Job about these issues (Job 38:1 – 41:34), He never mentions the real reason for Job’s suffering, a reason the reader of the story is allowed into (1:6-12; 2:1-7).
From the book of Job we discern that there is a cosmic conflict in the universe that affects all that we do and all that we experience. God’s actions are sometimes limited by larger considerations in that conflict, things we may never understand until eternity. Perhaps God’s intervention in Job’s situation would have upset the whole space-time continuum of the universe in a way even quantum physicists could not understand. In other words, God cannot explain what we cannot understand. What we do understand is that larger divine interventions can change things in a way that causes collateral damage at unspecified times in the future. Major actions of God have ripple effects in the lives of many people and their descendants over decades and even centuries. As those ripples play out in the course of history, they can have consequences that we cannot foresee but God in His infinite wisdom can. He may understand that the good we hope God will do in the present could cause even greater harm than His silence in answer to our prayers.
There is an interesting biblical illustration of this. It is the story of Hezekiah as told in Isaiah 36-39. Hezekiah was one of the most faithful kings in the history of Judah (2 Kings 18:5-6; 2 Chr 31:20-21). He was faithful to God in his personal life and devotions. He expanded the borders of the country. He restored the temple that had fallen into ruins. He restored the priests and Levites to their regular services. He restored the feast days. He removed the rival altars around Jerusalem. He ordered the “high places” of rival worship all around the country to be destroyed. He destroyed the idols and images that the people had come to rely on. His prayers protected Jerusalem when it was surrounding by overwhelming Assyrian forces. It would be understandable, therefore, for people to think that Hezekiah’s premature death would be a tragic thing for the nation and a mistake for God to allow. I can almost see the ancient bloggers and pundits questioning God’s character in relation to this development. But it was not to be.
When the time came for Hezekiah to die, he pleaded bitterly with God on the grounds of his lifelong faithfulness (Isa 38:1-3). If anyone ever were deserving of a positive answer to prayer, it would be Hezekiah. And God came through for him in stunning fashion. God not only granted him an extension of fifteen years of life (38:5), he provided assurance that this would happen through a major astronomical token (38:7-8– how Hezekiah came to have this experience is not explained). Everyone seemed to have gotten what they wanted from God. Yet during those extra years two things happened that undid all the good that Hezekiah had done during his lifetime; the visit of the Babylonian envoys (39:1-8) and the birth of his son, who became the evil king Manasseh (2 Kings 21:1-9). In the context of the cosmic conflict between God and Satan major interventions in people’s lives are very complicated. The ramifications are usually way beyond our understanding.
Having said this, I still want to argue that a believer’s experience in a parking lot is not necessarily imaginary. I cannot explain the timing and the effort involved in God’s actions. But I do believe that God would answer every prayer in a positive manner if pleasing us were the only consideration. If finding someone a parking space or timing a phone call will not upset the space-time continuum of the universe, why wouldn’t a loving God intervene? If a woman makes a full commitment to Jesus just as a rain shower happens to be passing, why wouldn’t God arrange that if the stakes were low enough? I guess what I am saying is that the lower the ultimate stakes, the lower the potential consequences of any particular divine intervention, the more likely that a loving God can use the circumstances of life as a token of his love. We serve a God who delights to please His children whenever so doing would not cause harm to anyone.
Having said that, those of us who have experienced this kind of intimacy from God need to be careful when and how we share such experiences with others. Our well-intentioned testimony can do harm even when God’s gift did not. While we should rightly acknowledge the small tokens of God’s favor in our lives and rejoice over them in the right circumstances, we need to also be aware of how often our testimonies cause pain.
Trivial Prayers and the Silence of God When It Matters
The Bible tells us that our God is a God of love (John 3:16; 1 John 4:8, etc.). He is more willing to give good gifts to His “children” than even the most loving earthly father is (Matt 7:7-11). To put it in other words, God enjoys showering His beloved ones with little gifts. Just to say, “I love you.” And I believe He loves to do this in some of the most personal and practical ways imaginable. Perhaps you’ve just lost hope of finding a parking spot in time to meet a critical appointment. You send up a desperate prayer and suddenly a space appears. A worried mother wonders where her boy is and sends up a quick prayer. Just then the phone rings and she discovers all is well. Or you survive a harrowing experience and discover later that several friends felt impressed to pray for you at exactly that time. Millions of believers around the world have experiences just like this every day. It is reasonable to suggest from this that God is real and that He loves to make His presence known to those who are open to it.
But just now the skeptic in you is saying, Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that God manages the comings and goings in every parking lot around the world just in case one of His followers needs a spot at the last minute? If prayer is sometimes timed to remarkable events, what about all the times when people pray and “nothing” happens? What about all the real heartaches in this world that are met with silence? What about women who are raped and their cries for help go unheeded? What about men who contract terminal cancer in the prime of their life and feel as if their prayers go no higher than the ceiling? What about parents who pray for wayward children and go to their graves without a clear response from God?
These objections have serious weight. Believers often fail to realize how trivial their experience of God’s presence may seem to others who have suffered deeply in this life. Our glib expressions of how God is working in our everyday lives can be like a knife in the heart to someone experiencing the absence of God. I know this from experience. When my father suffered a hemorrhagic stroke, we hovered by the bedside for several days as he fought for his life in a deep coma. On the fourth day the doctor informed us that things had reached a critical phase and imminent death was likely. We assembled the elders and the pastor of our church for an anointing service. I prayed with great passion that God would either heal my father or let him go. The last thing anyone wanted for my father was years of living in a vegetative state. But God chose neither of the options I so earnestly gave Him. My father could neither walk nor communicate for the six plus years that followed. Caring for him all those years destroyed my mother’s health. It has seemed to me that the most serious prayers are also the ones that don’t get answered.
We must never forget that the absence of God in everyday experience can seem the norm to most people. It is even something Jesus experienced when He was on the cross (see Matt 27:46 and parallels). In spite of the deep intimacy with God that characterized every day of Jesus’ ministry, in the 24 hours before His death Jesus experienced increasing darkness to the point where He could no longer see the Father’s reconciling face. The withdrawal of a sense of God’s approving presence caused Jesus the deepest anguish (see Desire of Ages, page 753). To experience the silence of God, then, is no indication that a person is actually forsaken by God or is an incorrigible sinner. But at times like that it can feel as if God answers only trivial prayers.
Stay tuned for the conclusion of this series.
Does God answer only trivial prayers?
Recently wildfires raged in the relatively Adventist communities of Angwin, Deer Park and St. Helena, California. These communities include Pacific Union College, St. Helena Adventist Hospital, Deer Park Elementary School, and Elmshaven, the last home of Ellen G. White, Adventist visionary and one of the church’s founders. General Conference president, Ted Wilson, tweeted his concern and particularly requested prayer that Elmshaven would be spared from the flames on account of its historical and spiritual value. With the exception of a couple of secondary buildings at the elementary school and the hospital area church, the above institutions were spared. The Ellen G. White Estate in Silver Spring, Maryland tweeted its gratitude for the “miracle” that flames burned all around Elmshaven, but did not harm the property itself.
We, of course, do not know for sure whether the survival of Elmshaven was due to direct divine intervention, but it is certainly a possibility. But many Adventists expressed outrage at this claim in the face of so many Adventists losing their homes in the area. At the time of writing, no member has lost their life, but the loss of property is reported to be significant. The claim that God has acted to spare a historical building while not acting in response to many heartfelt prayers elsewhere was painful to many. What do we make of this reality? Did God answer only a relatively trivial prayer? Was Elmshaven spared primarily because of the courageous work of many firefighters? Or was this a coincidence that should simply have been accepted as such? It is hard to know. But it is likely that many members in the area, praying out of genuine need, were questioning why their prayers were not answered.
A young pastor in his first month of ministry re-connected with a newly baptized member of his church at camp meeting. She had walked in the door of the church without warning a few months before. Being raised in a broken, alcoholic Adventist home, she was not a novice to the Adventist Church, but had had no connection with it for a number of years. As her life apart from God spiraled into chaos she remembered church as a child being a relatively safe and happy place. So one day, in a place far from home, she had made the decision to return.
A couple of weeks before camp meeting, the young pastor was assigned to the church as an intern pastor and got to witness Susan’s baptism. So when she approached him at camp meeting with a request to talk, it was not a surprise. They walked down to the boat dock at the camp and sat down to talk. After some generalities, she suddenly turned the subject to her baptism.
“I need to be baptized again,” Susan said.
“Why would you say that?” the young pastor replied.
“Because there are things in my past I didn’t tell the senior pastor,” she responded.
Realizing that this was not a conversation to have in a public place, the young pastor suggested that they walk down a nearby trail along the wooded shores of the lake to a large rock where they could be away from prying ears. In years past he had actually built that trail as a teen-age summer camp worker. When they arrived at the rock she began a tale of woe; there were many things that she had done and that had been done to her. Whether or not she needed to be baptized again, it was clear that she had rejoined the church, but had no idea about personal salvation or a living relationship with God.
While he had had college training in theology, the young pastor had never led anyone to Christ. In his mind he turned over the various strategies that he had learned in class and in church seminars. Doing the best he could to lay out a biblical approach to connecting with God he led her into the “sinner’s prayer.”
When they were done, Susan said, “That’s it?”
“That’s it, God loves us and is very merciful. He accepts every sincere soul that reaches out to him. He has cleaned the slate and this is the first day of the rest of your life, a life of walking with God,” he assured her.
Susan did not seem sure whether to believe him or not. Just then, they were startled by a sudden clap of thunder. This was unexpected. It had been a sunny and pleasant day up to that point. A moment later a total downpour ensued. Susan and the young pastor retreated under the largest available tree, but it was to no avail. In a couple of minutes they were totally soaked. But instead of being miserable, Susan’s face was shining with joy.
She looked at the young pastor and said, with delight, “I’m being baptized again!” Any doubts she may have had a moment before were gone. The arrival of the rain shower was just the sign she need to truly believe.
What do you make of a story like that? I know that it is true, because I was that young pastor and that was my first “lead someone to Christ moment”. Did God actually bring about that rain shower or was it just a coincidence? When I think about all He would have had to do in order to make that happen, one wonders why He would do it for a relatively trivial result. And what about all the people who might have been inconvenienced by rain shower? Which brings me to the question that is also the title of this blog: “Does God Answer Only Trivial Prayers?” Stay tuned.
Sunday Laws and Bible Prophecy (16): Summary and Conclusion
We began this series with the observation that many Seventh-day Adventists have a unique sign of the End that they feel uniquely prepares them to be ready for the return of Jesus. That sign is the passage of a national Sunday law in the Congress of the United States of America. Unlike many prophecies in the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, this one is specific and measurable. If it happens or does not happen, we will all know. Members in far-flung parts of the world are probing both the news and underground “sources” to weigh the likelihood of such a law in the USA from year to year. This has been going on now for many decades, probably as much as a century. But is such an outcome in its Great Controversy context the absolute certainty that many deem it to be?
We examined the principles of prophetic interpretation that can be observed through the study of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible (for detail see The Deep Things of God, chapter two). These underline that prophecies regarding specific historical events are conditional. God meets people where they are. Prophecies are, therefore, couched in the language of the prophet’s time and place. The details are a natural extension of the prophet’s time and place. God does not always carry out every detail of prophetic predictions. Those awaiting a Sunday law in the US Congress are assuming that Ellen White’s historical predictions are different from those of the Bible, they are not conditional. They must be fulfilled in detail exactly as projected. But this assumption contradicts Ellen White’s own counsel: “. . . the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional” (LDE 38). Conditionality warns us not to take the historical details of prophecy as absolute certainties ahead of time. Prophecy is best understood as or after it happens (John 13:19; 14:29).
We then examined Revelation 13, the passage in the Bible that is cited as evidence of such a Sunday law. We noted that Sunday laws at the end of time are a plausible reading of Revelation 13, but they are not the only possible reading of the mark of the beast passage. Seeing Sunday laws in Revelation 13 is exegetically defensible, but it is not exegetically compelling. The mark of the beast concept is open-ended enough to allow God the freedom to fulfill the prophecy in more than one way. So caution is advised in advance of the fulfillment. We should not close our understanding of a prediction before the fulfillment comes.
We then looked at Ellen White’s Sunday law statements in light of the history of her time. The idea of a national Sunday law in Congress was very relevant in the 1880s and her statements to that effect all occur around the year 1888, when there was a bill in the Senate to impose a national Sunday law. She makes no such statements in earlier years, but sees local laws as evidence of something bigger to come (the something to come is not specified). We noted that the conditions in the United States that made the the Senate bill plausible faded away in the decades that followed and have not returned. The United States no longer has a Protestant government, and the return of such would not be a natural extension of the current scene. So the expectation that the exact scenario of Great Controversy would be re-enacted in today’s world is unlikely. The constant expectation of a national Sunday law in the US Congress leads to speculation and conspiracy theories rather than sound biblical and historical study.
Sunday laws in our future remain, however, a viable reading of Revelation 13 and certainly of Great Controversy. But they may well come from a surprising direction. As an example of the possibilities I referenced Clifford Goldstein, who offers a path to international Sunday laws that would make sense in today’s world. All the world religions anticipate some future figure that will dramatically impact the course of history. For the Christians, his name is Jesus. For the Jews, he is the Messiah. For the Muslims, he is the Mahdi (although many Muslims also anticipate a major role for Jesus). For the Hindus, he is Kalki. For the Buddhists, he is Matreiya. Second Thessalonians (2:8-10) and Revelation (13:13-14; 16:13-14) anticipate a great end-time deception in which Satan impersonates Christ before the world (GC affirms this idea). His dazzling, end-time appearance could evoke the hopes and dreams of people of all faiths. Seizing upon these expectations, Satan could call the world to worship God on Sunday as a sign of loyalty to Jesus/Messiah/Mahdi/Kalki/Matreiya and the highest hopes of their faiths. Such an outcome would fulfill Great Controversy and Revelation 13, but in an unexpected way, something fulfilled prophecy in the Bible would lead us to expect.
My concern is that by focusing on a prediction that seems to specific and measurable as a national Sunday law in Congress, we could distract ourselves from the real thing when it happens. We need hearts that are open to revelation and open to the Holy Spirit as we navigate the challenging waters ahead. The desire for certainty causes us to focus on specific details rather than on understanding the larger picture of prophecy. That understanding is difficult work, but it will keep us safe in the perplexing times ahead of us. Prophecy was not given to satisfy our curiosity about the future, it was given to prepare our hearts to meet the one that we worship and adore. I suggest we prioritize that task.