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.

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.

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.