Ellen White’s perspective on the seventh trumpet is problematic for exegesis at first glance. In EW 36 she alludes to Rev 11:18 as follows: “I saw that the anger of the nations, the wrath of God, and the time to judge the dead were separate and distinct, one following the other, also that Michael had not stood up, and that the time of trouble, such as never was, had not yet commenced. The nations are now getting angry, but when our High Priest has finished His work in the sanctuary, He will stand up, put on the garments of vengeance, and then the seven last plagues will be poured out.”

In this passage she “saw” that the anger of the nations is a developing process climaxing at the close of probation, which is followed by the seven last plagues (wrath of God) and the judgment of the dead. This statement appears to reject equating the “judgment of the dead” with the investigative judgment that begins in 1844. It is in harmony with her usual practice of placing the seventh trumpet in the future from her perspective (EW 85-86, 279-280). While the nations “are getting angry,” they are restrained by the four angels who hold the four winds in Rev 7:1-3 (EW 85-86, RH Jan 28, 1909, RH Nov 17, 1910, 1SM 221-222, 6T 14).

Some fifty years later, however, she seems to suggest that the “nations are angry, and the time of the dead has come, that they should be judged.” (6T 14) Since the onset of the Investigative Judgment precedes both statements, they appear to be in tension with each other. The problem can be resolved, however, by a number of considerations. 1) The language of the first statement is more directly exegetical (she is unfolding the meaning of the text), while the latter is more an echo of the language of Rev 11:18. 2) The former statement clearly harmonizes with the close of probation language of Rev 10:7. 3) The context of 6T 14 expresses her expectation of an imminent conclusion of history. She uses such statements as, “We are standing upon the threshold of great and solemn events. . . . Only a moment of time, as it were, yet remains.” Thus, an exegetical statement such as EW 36, describing events which are future in fulfillment, will naturally appear to be in tension with a statement of imminent expectation, where those events are described as “at hand.”

Conclusion to the series of blogs on Ellen White and the Seven Trumpets of Revelation:

The examination of these few occasions when Ellen White seems to engage the seven trumpets of Revelation well demonstrates the problem of ambiguity in dealing with the writings of a dead prophet. From our perspective it would have been extremely helpful had she clarified the issues regarding the timing and meaning of the trumpets which are of such interest today. But assuming that she had the kind of direct line to God that I don’t have, the Lord did not see fit to provide such information through her writings. If she had a view on the exegetical meaning of the seven trumpets, she has left no clear, unambiguous evidence of it. As has always been the case, revelation comes to a prophet within his/her time, place, circumstances, interests, and concerns. When the questions of a later period are addressed to an inspired text, the text is often silent or ambiguous regarding those matters. At such times the soundest approach is to avoid the use of ambiguous texts as “missiles” to confuse or confound the “enemy” (those holding a different view). With regard to the meaning of the seven trumpets of Revelation, most of her relevant statements are less than crystal-clear with regard to the issues that emerge from the biblical text. The meaning of the trumpets must be established on the basis of careful exegesis of the biblical text. Somehow, I get the feeling that Ellen White would have wanted it that way.