Category Archives: Contra Men and Movements

The Godhead for Seventh-day Adventists

The Godhead

Introduction A

I’m writing from Malaysia where I have made many Muslim friends in the last couple years from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and, of course, Malaysia. And as I am connected to most of these electronically, it seems likely to me that one or more of them might read this. So, for the rest of you, please endure a word of explanation to them:

Friends, the reason that I am a Seventh-day Adventist is not because I just accepted the religion of my family or nation. It is because I found incredible power in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is because I found incredible prophecies in the prophetic books that proved that those books were still reliable today. It is because I searched for truth and God helped me find it.

And what kind of truth did I find? Truth about history. Truth about world religions. Truth about how to escape from sinful habits. Truth about how to be justified in the Day of Judgment. Truth about the life and work of Jesus.

What I never did find is prophets writing about a “Trinity.” So when I talk to you about religion, I never talk about my views about God. I don’t think it is reverent to argue about ideas that are high above us. I won’t argue about the nature of God.

But recently, some of my friends have begun arguing about the Godhead, about mysterious questions. And this article is written to help them. It may or may not be interesting to you.

Introduction B

You and I can work together if we have the same mission. We need not agree on minor points if our major aim harmonizes well. This is why James White (a non-trinitarian) could work together so finely with William Miller (a trinitarian) before the Great Disappointment. Their message was to lead people to prepare for Christ’s soon return. And little arguments about the great ancient pre-earth past just couldn’t hold a candle to questions about the very near future.

I can work with you for the same reason if you and I share a burden for the Three Angels’ Messages.

Those messages relate to the whole Bible. But they are not the whole Bible. They are the part of the wide Bible message that is particularly at issue today. They include messages about the Judgment, the work of Creation, the fall of Babylon, the Mark of the Beast, the commandments of God and about righteousness by faith. And they include instructions about to whom we should be sharing these messages: to every kindred, tribe and people. (This is why I am in Malaysia far from my mother and brother and in-laws and nephews and nieces).

Those messages were given to unite our efforts, and to unite our hearts, and to keep us away from arguments regarding periphery things.

“These messages were represented to me as an anchor to the people of God. Those who understand and receive them will be kept from being swept away by the many delusions of Satan.”  EW 256.2

Our pioneers worked tirelessly to share these three messages.

Those who read broadly in their writings know that the pioneers of the Adventist message were not trying to convert the mainstream church members to a non-trinitarian position. What message did these courageous men present to the world? They wrote books on the Sabbath, on spiritualism, and on the truths of the sanctuary. They wrote about mortality and about God’s law.[i] These are all themes of the Three Angels’ Messages.

They did not write any books on the Godhead.

Consider this also: The three books designed by Ellen White to warn (GC) and prepare (DA, STC) the world for Christ’s coming can be read with pleasure and appreciation by trinitarians and by many non-trinitarians alike. They just were not written to change the public’s view regarding questions on the Godhead.

I did say that none of the pioneers wrote a book on this topic. Well, J. H. Waggoner almost did. In 1877 he wrote a book titled “The Holy Spirit.” He was a non-trinitarian. And in this book was his perfect opportunity to express his core beliefs on this topic. Instead, he said that Adventists had never dared to even enter the discussion of whether the Spirit was a person. And there were reasons, he said, for not entering into the argument. One reason was the ambiguity of the terms. But the other was this: it was not an issue settled by “direct revelation.”

There is one question, which has been much controverted in the theological world upon which we have never presumed to enter. It is that of the personality of the Spirit of God. Prevailing ideas of person are very diverse, often crude, and the word is differently understood; so that unity of opinion on this point cannot be expected until all shall be able to define precisely what they mean by the word, or until all shall agree upon one particular sense in which the word shall be used. But as this agreement does not exist, it seems that a discussion of the subject cannot be profitable, especially as it is not a question of direct revelation. We have a right to be positive in our faith and our statements only when the words of Scripture are so direct as to bring the subject within the range of positive proof. We are not only willing but anxious to leave [this topic] just where the word of God leaves it.

A person then who read between the lines might have been able to conclude that Waggoner was less than persuaded by the Trinitarian creeds. But one would have been equally sure that the author was not writing the book to contradict them.

In other words, the pioneers were private non-trinitarian persons who took the Three Messages to a trinitarian world. And they rarely, in lectures or books for the public, even alluded to the issue of the Godhead.

In one other of Waggoner’s books did he address his concerns with the Trinity. And there he almost sounded like he would be a trinitarian if the word was only defined differently. He did not want to be confused with those who denied Christ’s divinity.

[Some] take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption.[ii]

This comment comes from his book on the atonement. And it provides quite an insight as to why he opposed the creedal concept of the Trinity. The creeds said some strange things that, to our Biblical-minded pioneers, sounded like so much meaningless gibberish or worse. James White complained that 3 does not equal 1. Joseph Bates couldn’t see how Jesus could be at the same time be the Father and the Son. More significantly, several pioneers thought that the creeds made Christ’s sacrifice into a merely human sacrifice (since divinity can’t die).

And James was right. Three are not one person as some creeds alleged. Bates was right. The Son and the Father do not have interchangeable positions in Scripture.  And the pioneers were right that a merely human sacrifice would never atone for our sin.

But on that last point Smith and Waggoner wrote too much. The blending of Christ’s two natures, his taking humanity so that he could “taste death” for all of us, are mysteries that we cannot penetrate. How Jesus could really die as He was, is not for us to know.

This is something they got right. And I, for the record, wish that our 28 fundamental beliefs were more ambiguous in regard to the Godhead. There are things we just don’t need to know. And consequently, we don’t know them.

I mean, we don’t know anything about the Spirit’s substance. We don’t know anything about the Spirit’s eternal pre-existence. And if we agree that “in the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God” we probably should admit that we don’t know anything about something before that beginning. We don’t know if the Son was a Son at that point. We don’t know that He was. And we don’t know that He wasn’t. And as I said a bit ago, there are some things we just don’t need to know.

On that very topic where Waggoner said “we” did not dare to go, Uriah Smith did go. A question sent to the Review drew it out of him. And the question shows that the readers were not settled on the question at hand as to whether the Spirit was a person. As Editor, Uriah returned answer through the Review. He addressed the question again for the General Conference. In other words, when Smith (twice, in 1890-1891) expressed views of the Spirit that are believed by many today, he did both times for an inside audience.  (As an aside, these very years were a very low point in the spiritual life of Uriah Smith.)

If during his 30 years writing for the church you were to read about 4,000 pages from his pen, only four of those pages would allude to questions regarding the nature of the Godhead. Did he have non-trinitarian views? Yes. Did he promote them in print? For someone who wrote weekly as an editor, he did so only very rarely[iii]. If you, friend, also have non-trinitarian views, I wish you would imitate the good pioneers on this point.

Of course, the pioneers are not our models. And their beliefs are not a criterion for what we should believe. So let’s get to some other points.

New, Old, Original, Orthodox, and a love of Civil Debate

Our lack of Biblical literacy makes us sitting ducks for well-camouflaged error. When we see an apparently compelling study using much scripture in a persuasive way, we are intrigued and, at the same time, clueless. But I have written on this elsewhere.

In the arguments over the godhead, personality gets involved in a subtle way. Some persons are naturally orthodox. They want to defend the church’s position and react bearishly when it is attacked. Others are naturally inquisitive and independent. They don’t want to be controlled or boxed. They want to think for themselves. (I am naturally in the latter of these two groups). The trouble with these internal influences is that they make us easily manipulatable. Satan only need bring up an issue to transform us into brawlers (as Paul calls them in Titus 3:1-3).

Again, much could be written about this. But if you are looking for data on the godhead, that writing would weary you.

So let us study some Bible ideas:

Three Types of Sons:

We, in Romans 8, are sons of God by adoption. (And that adoption is evidenced by our conformity to God’s will, Romans 8:14). Our adoption makes us “joint-heirs” (Romans 8:17) “with Christ.” But unlike us, He was not adopted.

And in Job 38, the angels are called “the sons of God.” There they, holy created beings, are rejoicing as they see the earth being fashioned. They are sons of God by creation. That is what Adam was also, a son by creation (Luke 3:38).

But Jesus is the unique Son of God. Only He is begotten.

A complete offering has been made; for “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,”—not a son by creation, as were the angels, nor a son by adoption, as is the forgiven sinner, but a Son begotten in the express image of the Father’s person, and in all the brightness of his majesty and glory, one equal with God in authority, dignity, and divine perfection. In him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. – ST May 30, 1895.

What this intriguing statement tells us is the same thing that Scripture tells us a hundred times. Jesus is the “only begotten Son.”

But when was He begotten? Some trinitarians would say it was about 4 BC when Mary, impregnated by the Spirit of God, gave birth. Some other creeds would say something quite incomprehensible, namely that he is “eternally begotten.” (See the Nicene Creed. This is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church).

The Scripture speaks directly to this question regarding the timing of the begetting. Surprised? Psalm 2 tells that there was certainly a day when the Father said to the Son, “this day have I begotten thee.”

Psalm 2:7  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Hebrews directly points out this declaration regarding Christ to be the event that separates Him from the angels.

Hebrews 1:5  For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Notice the future tense of the second statement in the verse. “I will be to him a Father…”

But though both verses mention a particular day when the Father spoke to the Son, neither tells us a great deal about when this conversation happened. Psalms 2 does, however, give us some hints. On the same day, apparently, the Father offered to give the heathen to Jesus for an inheritance.

Psalms 2:7  I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. 8  Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

Thankfully the Bible does clearly tell us elsewhere what day this incredible dialogue between the Father and Son happened.

Act 13:33  God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. 34  And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

So what day did the Father say, “Today I have begotten you”? It was at the resurrection. And to understand that curious fact there are a few other Bible ideas we need to follow.

First, sonship in the Bible is frequently unrelated to origin. It is, in such contexts, rather related to character. In these verses, to be a “son” or part of the “seed” of a person (or of the devil) has nothing to do with your ancestry. It is related instead to your activities. Notice in the following dialogue (where references to sonship are in bold for your convenience) that the Jews were Abraham’s children in terms of origin, but not in terms of character. Jesus said they were children of the devil, not because the devil created them or adopted them, but because they did the works of the devil.

Joh 8:31  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33  They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34  Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35  And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36  If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37  I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38  I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39  They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40  But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41  Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42  Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43  Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45  And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

The way Jesus talks in this chapter is a key to many other passages. The enmity (Genesis 3:15) between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent is not about beings that the devil originated, but about those that followed his pernicious suggestions. Those that do his “lusts” are his children.

This is, of course, the sense in which Abraham is the father of many nations. He isn’t the origin of them. But they are like him.

Galatians 3:7  Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. . . . 9  So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

What may be a fresh thought to you is that this idea of sonship pre-existed embryos. Genesis 3:15 was given before human pregnancy had happened.

That brings us very naturally back to our key text, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.”

In what sense was this fulfilled at the resurrection?

First, it was the resurrection that shows Christ’s divinity according to the Holy Spirit, just as his flesh showed his human relation to King David.

Rom 1:3  Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4  And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This verse is not the only one that connects Christ’s sonship to God with his resurrection. Elsewhere he is called, “the first begotten from the dead.” Revelation 1:5.

Some thoughtful readers may have questions about this idea. How, for example, could Jesus be called the “Son of God” in Daniel 3:25 if He wasn’t “begotten” until six centuries later? Those familiar with Ellen White’s writings about the origin of evil know that Jesus was known as the Son of God even before the fall of Lucifer. So how can this harmonize with Jesus being “begotten” at the resurrection? Further, the Father gave his “only begotten Son” to die for us. How could Jesus be the “only begotten” 30 years before he was begotten?

The answer is related to God’s foreknowledge. Notice what Revelation says about Jesus.

Rev_13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Jesus was the lamb “slain” for four thousand years before He was slain. That is because God speaks about things that are not yet existing as if they have already happened. Romans 4:17.

This brings us back to Psalm 2. And what time did the Father say to the Son, “This day have I begotten thee?” That was at the resurrection. He is called the “first begotten from the dead” not because he is the first one resurrected, but because His resurrection is preeminent. And He is known as the Son even before the creation of the world in harmony with how God speaks.

What is apparent is that the Divinity of Jesus was not familiar to the angels at the time Lucifer was spreading rebellion. Earlier, angels obediently worshipped Jesus before they understood the basis of the command to worship Him. Later, they came to understand.

The King of the universe summoned the heavenly hosts before Him, that in their presence He might set forth the true position of His Son and show the relation He sustained to all created beings. The Son of God shared the Father’s throne, and the glory of the eternal, self-existent One encircled both. About the throne gathered the holy angels, a vast, unnumbered throng—“ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11.), the most exalted angels, as ministers and subjects, rejoicing in the light that fell upon them from the presence of the Deity. Before the assembled inhabitants of heaven the King declared that none but Christ, the Only Begotten of God, could fully enter into His purposes, and to Him it was committed to execute the mighty counsels of His will. The Son of God had wrought the Father’s will in the creation of all the hosts of heaven; and to Him, as well as to God, their homage and allegiance were due. Christ was still to exercise divine power, in the creation of the earth and its inhabitants. But in all this He would not seek power or exaltation for Himself contrary to God’s plan, but would exalt the Father’s glory and execute His purposes of beneficence and love. Patriarchs and Prophets 36.2

The life that Jesus had before coming to earth was not the Father’s life. It was his own life. And that is why He could pay for our sins. He was “self-existent.”

No one of the angels could become a substitute and surety for the human race, for their life is God’s; they could not surrender it. On Christ alone the human family depended for their existence. He is the eternal, self-existent Son, on whom no yoke had come. When God asked, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Christ alone of the angelic host could reply, “Here am I; send Me.” He alone had covenanted before the foundation of the world to become a surety for man. He could say that which not the highest angel could say—“I have power over my own life. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” Ms 101, 1897.28

The idea of self-existence is contrary, to many minds, to the idea of a Father-Son relationship. It is completely foreign to the idea of being “begotten.” This is where Psalms 2 comes in and helps us. It shows us that Jesus could be self-existent and be begotten at the same time.

The idea of Christ’s self-existence is denied by many today. They say that His life came from the Father. But that is precisely what the statement above denies. And if we are frank, it is what a better-known statement also denies.

Still seeking to give a true direction to her faith, Jesus declared, “I am the resurrection, and the life.” In Christ is life, original, unborrowed, underived. “He that hath the Son hath life.” 1 John 5:12. The divinity of Christ is the believer’s assurance of eternal life. – DA 530

When I have a son, you could argue that my son’s life is mine. Certainly, he is derived from me and my wife. But with the Son there is no such relation to the Father according to this statement. His life is “underived.”

But suppose you see it another way. I don’t condemn you. I don’t doubt your intelligence. (I try not to doubt your skill at avoiding over independence while searching for truth.) I think we could even work together if we agree on the main thrust of our message, the Three Angels’ Messages as found in Revelation 14.

But let me illustrate our differences (yours and mine if we don’t agree) by a famous Adventist disagreement some decades ago. It was about the “daily” found in Daniel 8, 11, and 12. Some Adventists thought this word to be a covert symbol of pagan Rome. Others thought it to be a subtle reference to Christ’s continuous work as our intercessor. And these two camps argued with such force of character that it seemed the church might suffer a schism! (I know it is hard to imagine that today). Neither could bear the thought of their brothers confounding paganism for Jesus! And when you word it like that, you can see why it seemed so central to the message of Seventh-day Adventists.

But it wasn’t. You can believe in the 490 years of Daniel 9, the 2300 years of Daniel 8, and their fulfillments that pointed to Christ’s work as Sacrifice and Priest. You can believe in the ongoing judgment, the future reward of the saved and, later, of the lost. You can believe and teach that Babylon is fallen because of her false doctrines of soul-immortality and Sunday sacredness. You can believe in Jesus and have faith in His life and in His testimony through Ellen White. You can believe intelligently in all these things without even having an opinion about the meaning of the daily in Daniel 8-12.

And that is why Ellen White said that on that point that was causing such agitation, silence was eloquence.

And so, considering these things, I am content that you and I do not make a mountain out of our molehill of difference.

But, you say, it is a mountain.  You say, “We can’t fear God unless we know who He is.”

Indeed, to know God the Father and His Son is life eternal. There is nothing well to glory in but that you know Him, and that you know that He is the one that exercises loving kindness and righteousness and judgment in the earth. Jeremiah 9:23-24. In the beginning the Word was God and the Word was with God.

You can believe that Jesus left his heavenly throne, came to earth, took the form of a weak man, lived a life of obedience and suffering, gained a victory for us all, took all our sins as a Divine-human man, and paid our penalty. You can believe that He rose again, responding by his Divinity to the Father’s call to him to rise. You can believe that He took up his role as our Advocate and Priest, a comforter who 1800 years later became our Judge. You can believe that He lives with us here on earth by His Spirit, and that He will pour out the Holy Spirit on the sealed persons before leaving His work as Intercessor.

You can believe all these things about Jesus, and thousands of more things about Him, without having any opinion about Him before “the beginning.” You can know him savingly, the way patriarchs and prophets knew him when they had the sanctuary service to teach them the saving knowledge. They feared Him knowing those things.

God’s Plan to Save us from Deception

Generally, God’s plan has been to use the gifts of the Spirit to save us from deception. Those gifts include the Spirit of Prophecy.

Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; . . .13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, . . . .14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

And in the case of the Adventist church and its relation to the truth about the Godhead, it was Ellen White that spurred change.

But she wasn’t the first. Just as she wasn’t shown the evils of the shut-door theory until Bible study had exposed them, just as she wasn’t shown the truth about Sabbath-sundown opening until Andrews had studied it, just so she didn’t start making her surprising statements regarding the Godhead until after Camden Lacey began lecturing on the topic in 1896. (The “life original, unborrowed, underived statement” can be found in Ms 22, 1898. The “self-existent” statement in Ms 101, 1897. The “three great powers of heaven” statements begin in 1900. The “third person of the Godhead” statements began with Lt 8, 1896.) After his lectures, within four years, the primary key statements that slowly led the church towards a belief in Christ’s eternal pre-existence and in three persons in the Godhead, were penned.

Some confusion exists today because Dr. Kellogg eventually tried to piggy-back his pantheism onto the new ideas Adventists were thinking about the Godhead. He had been reproved for spiritualizing God’s personal existence, making God into an ever-present power. When this was strongly opposed by Ellen White (who began at that time to make many statements about God’s “personality” in the sense of God’s “person”) he was stymied. A few years later he tried again. This time he admitted that the Father and Son have personalities, but alleged that the Spirit was everywhere, the very pantheistic lifeforce he had earlier proposed.

But this did not convert his errors into truths. The Spirit moves and chooses to dwell in some hearts while withdrawing from others. The Holy Spirit is not an everywhere-present force as Kellogg alleged.

Ellen White, in Australia where Lacey had already been teaching regarding three persons in the Godhead, had made statements that countered even the future form of Kellogg’s error.

The Lord instructed us that this was the place in which we should locate, and we have had every reason to think that we are in the right place. We have been brought together as a school, and we need to realize that the Holy Spirit, who is as much a person as God is a person, is walking through these grounds, unseen by human eyes, that the Lord God is our Keeper and Helper. He hears every word we utter and knows every thought of the mind. Ms66, 1899.11

Such statements seem to have anticipated the confusion that would come in our day. In Ellen’s day the idea of “three” was itself a new idea to some. And by 1906 it had been accepted by many Adventists. Kellogg went further and tried to illustrate the three by means of nature’s glories. He shouldn’t have done that. God is above discussion. In opposing him Ellen made some of her strongest statements. Emphasis below is supplied.

All these spiritualistic representations are simply nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken and diminish the Majesty which no earthly likeness can be compared to. God cannot be compared with the things His hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering under the curse of God because of the sins of man. The Father cannot be described by the things of earth. The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead bodily and is invisible to mortal sight.

The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested. The Word of God declares Him to be “the express image of His person.” “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Here is shown the personality of the Father.

The Comforter that Christ promised to send after He ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fulness of the Godhead, making manifest the power of divine grace to all who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Savior. There are three living persons of the heavenly trio; in the name of these three great powers—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—those who receive Christ by living faith are baptized, and these powers will co-operate with the obedient subjects of heaven in their efforts to live the new life in Christ. Ms21, 1906, para 9-11

Who is the Holy Spirit?

Though Ellen White turned the tide in the Adventist church by her statements regarding the “three great powers,” she also made many statements to the effect that Christ lives in our heart through the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the clearest of these is below. Here she explains why Jesus said “I will come to you” when referring to the future gift of the Holy Spirit.

Before offering Himself as the sacrificial victim, Christ sought for the most essential and complete gift to bestow upon His followers, a gift that would bring within their reach the boundless resources of grace. “I will pray the Father,” He said, “and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: but ye know Him; for He dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.” John 14:16-18, margin.

Before this the Spirit had been in the world; from the very beginning of the work of redemption He had been moving upon men’s hearts. But while Christ was on earth, the disciples had desired no other helper. Not until they were deprived of His presence would they feel their need of the Spirit, and then He would come.

The Holy Spirit is Christ’s representative, but divested of the personality of humanity, and independent thereof. Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally. Therefore it was for their interest that He should go to the Father, and send the Spirit to be His successor on earth. No one could then have any advantage because of his location or his personal contact with Christ. By the Spirit the Saviour would be accessible to all. In this sense He would be nearer to them than if He had not ascended on high. DA 668-669

When we say that Abraham Lincoln won the civil war, we mean that his armies did the job. When I say, “my knee” I mean part of me. But when I say, “my friend” I mean a person outside of me. In like manner, when the Bible talks about Christ’s followers, they are not part of Him. When it speaks of His hair, that is part of Him.

But what about His Spirit? From the Desire of Ages quote above we learn that the Spirit abides with us as Christ’s representative. But our collective ignorance of Christ’s Spirit (which is at times described as a personal being, as in Acts 13:2) makes it difficult for us (impossible for us?) to comprehend how Christ’s Spirit could represent him so thoroughly as to be called “Christ in us.” Here we are out of our realm.

The newly released writings in 2015 include a few of these statements where the Spirit in us is identified as Christ. And the best I can make of harmonizing these with Desire of Ages is that we are reading about a superhuman representation, that the Spirit represents Christ so well as to be practically Him.

If you harmonize the statements another way, I will not fault you. If you make your way a criterion for faithfulness, or the message for our time, I will fault you gravely.

My Story and Proverbs 8

The antitrinitarian movement that has grown to such large proportions in the last decade, existed 30 years ago also. It was one Mr. Scott Stanley, who had formerly been one of my work supervisors in academy, who approached me in 1990, with his strain of the message. Scott explained that there had been two (from the first page of Patriarchs and Prophets) in the Godhead, the Father and the Son. He explained that an ambitious angel, a ministering spirit, aspired to join that two-some and to make a trinity. He gave me quite a Bible study on this as my young mind tried to wrap itself around the ideas he was presenting.

A prominent passage in his Bible study was Proverbs 8. There, he showed me, was the record of Jesus being born to the Father before the creation of the world. These were the two key verses:

Pro 8:24  When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 25  Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

He showed convincingly that this was speaking of Jesus. And he showed that the Hebrew word for “brought forth” means “to be born.” In the following verse it is rendered “calve.”

Job 39:1  Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth? or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve?

I left that study shaken up. I went home, prayed earnestly for light, and studied as earnestly as I had prayed. Here is what I found:

First, the Hebrew word “khool” doesn’t mean “give birth.” Rather, it means “to twist or twirl” or to “writhe.” It is the latter meaning that lends itself to the pain involved in child bearing. The word also has a figurative meaning, “to wait.” And that is how it is used first in scripture. Khool is rendered “stayed” in the following verse.

Gen 8:10  And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

A little more study convinced me that writhing in pain could not describe any birth prior to the curse, for that is when pain became part of birth.

Before my study was over I had discovered that Ellen White’s use of Matthew 28:19 harmonized well with the idea that there are three persons in the Godhead.

But back then the antitrinitarian movement was more fanatical, even if less successful. Stanley was advocating separation from the apostate Adventist Church. And he alleged tampering with Ellen White’s writings by such persons as Froom or others. Such accusations have largely been muted now, and the accusers have been roundly shown to have been living in violation of the 9th Commandment.

Today, the use of Proverbs 8 remains from what he presented as a common, but misguided evidence used to oppose the idea that Jesus has existed eternally. (Another reading of the passage will show that Wisdom was established from “the beginning” and was like one brought up with God, of similar age.)

But one modern advocate of non-trinitarianism is Mr. Nader of Australia. I mention him by name because he seems to be revising the dangerous argument that some of Ellen White’s materials have been garbled. It began, it seems, with his shock at finding the following statement:

As the saints in the kingdom of God are accepted in the beloved, they hear: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And then the golden harps are touched, and the music flows all through the heavenly host, and they fall down and worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And then what? What next did I see? Ms139, 1906 para 32.

Our bodies are temples for the Holy Spirit, and temples are for worship. But nonetheless, this is the only statement known to include a reference to worshipping the Holy Spirit. And in this particular sermon, Ellen White made several other statements a few minutes earlier regarding these same Three.

This is the work that is to rest upon us. And then what? Why, it says, “Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Three personalities; and these three personalities are the pledged power from God that His people shall have, if they have been baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Now there is no excuse for souls to be left in ignorance and weakness if they will be gospel believers, if they will carry out these principles, and know that the three great Worthies, the Powers in heaven, are pledged to the church of God that will work in harmony with Christ’s teachings. Ms139, 1906, para 15.

When one is offended at this statement to the point of suggesting that it is not inspired, one is on very dangerous ground. That is the ground that others have walked on earlier. And it is fearful. But for everyone to know, Ellen White authorized the transcripts made of her sermons up to a certain point before her death. At that point, some transcripts (like Ms 139, 1906) were yet to be approved and published when she died. There is no good reason to doubt she would have done with this transcript differently than she did with hundreds before it, had she lived.  (Large numbers of articles in the papers were derived from such transcripts and even a section of Counsels to Parents, Teachers and Students was compiled from transcripts of her discussion of its key subjects.)

Ellen White often, in the context of the Kellogg apostasy, alluded to the three persons of the Godhead. It was their “distinct personality” that Kellogg’s early views denied. While the distinct nature of the third person of the Godhead is plain in the following paragraph, and while “personality” simply means “person” in most 19th century writings on such things, still we should admit that there are things hard to be understood in the following paragraph. I do not tell you, non-trinitarian friend, what it means for the Spirit to personify Christ. And I cannot think highly of someone who with great confidence tries to tell me what it means.

The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, in Christ’s name. He personifies Christ, yet is a distinct personality. We may have the Holy Spirit if we ask for it and make it [a] habit to turn to and trust in God rather than in any finite human agent who may make mistakes. Ms93.1893.8

For more on the idea of “three” see Ms27a, 1900.  Let’s move on to somethings we can easily agree on.

What my Friends Get Right:

My non-trinitarian friends are certainly right that there is only one God, the Father. (See John 17:2-3). The word God is used that way very many times in Scripture. And in those many cases it means “the ultimate executive of the universe.” So there is just one, and that is the Father.

(There is another sense to the word “God” that means simply “one with the attributes of Divinity.” That sense would include Jesus as you see in John 1:1 and Hebrews 1:8. And the Spirit is the third person of the “godhead” in that sense. That is why our bodies are temples to the Spirit.)

But we shouldn’t deny to our non-trinitarian friends the pleasure of showing us that there is One True God, again, in that ultimate sense.

And our friends are correct that when the Bible says the Father and Jesus are one, it is a reference to their purpose, not to their person. So the middle-age dark ideas of one head with three faces, we all consider to be badly misguided.

And non-trinitarians show correctly that in the future even Jesus will be subject to the Father. That is true. It is the plain teaching of 1 Corinthians 15.

1Co 15:28  And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Our friends are also basically right that we should not be directing our prayers to the Holy Spirit. Our instructions are to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus.

(But on that last point, some non-trinitarians makes a mistake. When the Bible says that Jesus is the one mediator between God and man, that does not mean He is the one intercessor. A mediator makes peace. An intercessor prays. And so men and angels and the Holy Spirit may all make intercession. But only Jesus is the mediator. The Catholic idea of many mediators is completely unlike the Adventist idea of many praying persons.)

Summary and Conclusion

Some of the more radical non-trinitarians say that we should not worship the same God as Rome. That is a tricky idea. It would be like Jesus telling the Jews not to worship the same God as the Sanhedrin. It would be like Paul telling the Athenians that they were worshipping the wrong God when he mentioned the altar to the unknown God.

In reality, the Bible calls men to come to higher understanding of God. But it does not ask Luther to accuse the Catholics of worshipping a separate deity. It does not ask James White to accuse Luther of doing that. And it does not ask non-trinitarians to talk that way either. If they do, they do it on their own initiative.

There is far more that could be written relative to this subject. (And books have been written). But here are my key points in review:

First, the Three Angel’s Messages are to unite us in an outward aiming mission to the whole world.

Second, the pioneers didn’t understand part of that mission to be to spread their non-trinitarian ideas.

Third, Ellen White became the agent of God in muting those non-trinitarian sentiments in a number of ways.

Fourth, it was a strange view of the Trinity found in many creeds that bothered several of the pioneers.

Fifth, only the sloppiest reading of the actual documents regarding the alpha of apostasy would lead a thoughtful person to think that Kellogg’s acceptance of the Trinity was a key component of it. On the contrary, his views were the dangerous alpha both before and after he became trinitarian. And his views of the Spirit in both cases were closer to non-trinitarian views held today than to Ellen White’s view of a distinct third person.

Sixth, the non-trinitarians get a lot of things right. Only the Father and the Son are to be exalted in our teachings. The Spirit has neither instructed us to exalt the Spirit, nor given us a model of the apostles doing so. We certainly want more of the Spirit in our lives, but we should yet follow our directions when praising God.

Seventh, we should know the Bible teaching about the timing and reality of the Father begetting the Son. We should understand the idea of Sonship related to character that predated the idea of birth.

Finally, it is Satan that would take us away from our work. And I hope I haven’t helped him by giving you 30 minutes of reading on this topic. My aim is to get you back to helping me with the work.

The End. Amen.   Godhead Document no appendix  <= this is a link to downloadable version.

[i] Take the titles of publications authored by J. H. Waggoner, J. N. Loughborough, J. N. Andrews, and Joseph Bates, for example. Not counting periodicals, they authored a total of 79 printed items with about 8,500 pages of material. We select these four men as four that wrote on the issue of the Godhead and who also published widely for the church. How many of those 79 publications were dedicated to key topics?

There were seven on the sanctuary and on Investigative Judgment. Twenty-four on the Sabbath. Then another nine on two or more ideas from the Three Angel’s Massages. Four were written on the Law of God or on the Covenants. Ten were written about death or hell or spiritualism. Three were on apocalyptic prophecy. Two each addressed the ministry of Ellen White, spiritual gifts, church finance, church order, America in Prophecy, the Second Coming, personal salvation, or autobiographies of the authors. One was Haskell’s Bible Handbook on all kinds of topics. The other five included one each on Advent History, Baptism, Health, Religious Freedom, and the Story of Redemption. Haskell’s 1905 Daniel the Prophet directly referred to “the Great Trinity,” showing how much influence Ellen White’s statements had had. (Earlier and later editions of that book do not have this wording.) Some have also noted that the 1908 hymnal designed and published by the General Conference included a section of praise for the “Trinity.”

[ii] J.H. Waggoner, The Atonement In The Light Of Nature And Revelation, 1884, pp. 164, 165

[iii] He even neglected some excellent opportunities to distance himself from Trinitarians. See TRIMM 2.2 where he compares the Godhead to a firm of three persons acting in concert. This is in a refutation of Greek Orthodox triple baptism. On another occasion, it seems that he actually did become a Trinitarian by 1896. See Review and Herald,

1896, Vol. 73, No. 43, pg.685. But later statements (1898) counter this idea, though he at least maintained believe in three persons rather than two. See Looking unto Jesus, pg. 10

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Congregational Adventism

Congregational Adventism

 

Your local church just might enjoy a congregational style or organization. Imagine what you could accomplish, as a local church, if you retained all of the tithe and offerings that were not used to pay your minister. And imagine if you, as a church, were free to determine whether you would ordain women? And what if your congregation were as free to hire and fire ministers of its choosing as it was to ordain local elders?

 

Another benefit would be freedom to develop doctrine without fear of losing your church building, or being disbanded, by a disapproving conference.

 

Congregational churches were common in New England where Adventism was born. The congregational mode of organization there was adopted as the best way to avoid the overbearing control of central organizations. Many viewed the Roman papacy as a natural consequence of structure above the local level. Power corrupts. You get the idea. And so it was that many of the puritans established self-governing churches.

 

Congregational churches today are often associated together in loose forms of higher organization. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, is a collection of self-governing churches. The liberal United Church of Christ, with just over one million members, and the more conservative bodies knows as the Churches of Christ, with just over five million members, are all congregational in polity.

 

Adventism began as a collection of believers that retained their previous denominational connections. And while this might naturally tend to produce a congregational structure, another large force was also at work to keep Adventism from becoming thoroughly and legally organized.

 

The followers of Miller didn’t want to become Babylon. And if Babylon were defined as the union of church and state, then it was difficult for many to see how an organization could legally organize (and thus be recognized by the state)  without imitating the dread union.

 

So when Sabbatarian Adventism arose, it inherited Millerite Adventism a lack of authoritative organization. This lack of order brought no boon of evangelistic success, no financial benefit to the cause. After 1844 the message of Adventism lost its ability to inspire droves of people to spontaneous giving. Some ministers, with no means of regular support, returned to secular means of making a livelihood. And so, after a dozen years of congregationalism, James White argued for church order after recounting the financial woes of itinerant ministers:

 

It is true that these are hard times, and that many of the brethren are poor, but we do think that if they felt the importance of church order and systematic benevolence, they would sustain the cause among them. Bro. Ingraham received $1 at this conference, Bro. Sanborn nothing, and we, of course, expected nothing, and were not disappointed. Our expenses from last conference in Iowa were $8. – James White, ARSH November 13, 1860

 

Ellen White offered other observations in favor of establishing church order. The fear of  structure and administrative order was leading to “self-sent men” teaching the gospel abroad, but without proper oversight. These persons, trusted prematurely, were bringing the church into disrepute by their blunders.

 

The Lord has shown that gospel order has been too much feared and neglected. Formality should be shunned; but, in so doing, order should not be neglected. There is order in heaven. There was order in the church when Christ was upon the earth, and after His departure order was strictly observed among His apostles. And now in these last days, while God is bringing His children into the unity of the faith, there is more real need of order than ever before; for, as God unites His children, Satan and his evil angels are very busy to prevent this unity and to destroy it. Therefore men are hurried into the field who lack wisdom and judgment, perhaps not ruling well their own house, and not having order or government over the few that God has given them charge of at home; yet they feel capable of having charge of the flock. They make many wrong moves, and those unacquainted with our faith judge all the messengers to be like these self-sent men. Thus the cause of God is reproached, and the truth shunned by many unbelievers who would otherwise be candid and anxiously inquire, Are these things so?  {EW 97.1}

 

Workers that would not have been ordained by “the brethren generally” can easily be “the most confident that they are . . . called [of God] and that their labors are very important.” Even if “souls receive the truth by hearing them talk it, this is no evidence that they are called of God. . . . These self-sent messengers are a curse to the cause.” And how might this problem be alleviated? “I saw that this door at which the enemy comes in to perplex and trouble the flock can be shut. I inquired of the angel how it could be closed. He said, ‘The church must flee to God’s Word and become established upon gospel order, which has been overlooked and neglected.’” EW 98-100.

 

By 1907 the church was ready to publish a book on the topic of church order. An excerpt from that book forms another chapter of this edition of Adventist Affirm. In that book Loughborough rehearses how the brethren of experience shuddered when they heard W. W. Prescott promote at the 1899 General Conference a view of church order similar to that of the opposition in the 1860’s. It was a view of church order that would replace representative voting with direct dependence on the Spirit’s guiding.

 

When those who back in the “sixties” witnessed the battle of establishing church order now hear persons, as conscientious no doubt as those back there, utter almost the identical words that were then used by those opposing order, it need not be wondered that they fear the result of such statements as the following:

“Perfect unity means absolute independence, – each one knowing for himself. Why, we could not have outward disorganization if we all believed in the Lord. . . . This question of organization is a simple thing. All there is to it is for each individual to give himself to the Lord, and then the Lord will do with him just what he wants to, and that all the time. . . . Our only safety, under God, is to go back to the place where God is able to take a multitude of people and make them one, without parliamentary rules, without committee work, without legislation of any kind.” – Prescott in the General Conference Bulletin of 1899.

 

Prescott’s ideas did not prevail in 1899. Nor were the opposers able to prevent organization in the 1860’s. Ministers began to receive regular support. Erratic workers were identified. Heretical ones were hushed. Institutions came into legal existence and received support.

 

Yet almost one century later the question of congregationalism resurfaced in three Adventist movements. None were alive who remembered firsthand how mission, finance, and discipline had floundered before the development of the structure. The recent congregationally organized congregations fall generally into one of the following camps.

 

Historic Seventh-day Adventists

 

On the conservative side, “historic” Adventist churches have risen up. In 1996 John Grosboll, the leader of a Wichita-based ministry called Steps to Life, wrote an insightful article titled “Who and What is the Church.” This article developed the truth found in the following paragraph:

The church is God’s fortress, His city of refuge, which He holds in a revolted world. Any betrayal of the church is treachery to Him who has bought mankind with the blood of His only-begotten Son. From the beginning, faithful souls have constituted the church on earth.—Acts of the Apostles, pg. 11

 

This definition of the “church”, often today called the “invisible church”, corresponds to the “wheat” in the phrase “let the wheat and the tares grow together.” John Grosboll developed this idea into part of a theological justification for promoting a congregational approach to church order. Two such congregational churches, congregations with no affiliation with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, have been planted south of Wichita.[1]

 

Large Policy-Flaunting Congregations

On the other side, some (large, affluent) churches have adopted a congregational approach in ignoring denominational policies. Several churches in North America have hired a female to be their head minister. A notable example of these is Sligo, near Washington D.C. Though the senior pastor there is, at the time of writing, a male (Charles Tapp), three of members of the five-person pastoral team are females.

 

These congregations, at least for a time, differ from historic Seventh-day Adventists in that they maintain their organizational connection to the larger structure. While legally organized as part of the structure, they operate in certain lines, as congregational structures. And by failing to separate from the structure they save themselves legal hassle that has hounded “historic” Seventh-day Adventist churches.[2]

 

Mission Catalyst

On the liberal side, some congregations have joined the Mission Catalyst movement. Ron Gladden, the founder of the Mission Catalyst movement, is raising independent churches.

 

Though not thoroughly congregational (10% of donated receipts are committed to the stewardship of the parent organization, making them similar to congregational associations mentioned in the head to this article) Ron’s organization is not shy about its congregational nature:

 

Why are we independent? The churches we plant are not officially affiliated with any denomination because an independent structure allows the churches flexibility, freedom, and funds to invest more in winning people to Christ.[3]

 

And that brings us to the crux of the matter. Is the work of God’s church on earth better served by congregational flexibility or by denominational oversight and order?

 

—1682 words to here. ½ of the following words need to be erased:

Several years ago I was working with the Three Angels Seventh-day Adventist Church in Wichita. I learned that one of my classmates from academy was working nearby with Steps to Life organization, mentioned above as a leader in the home church movement.

 

The night that I visited, the leader of Steps to Life (John Grossboll) was preaching on Revelation 18 to an audience of not-yet-Adventists that had presumably been listening to a fairly standard series of evangelistic sermons.

 

But the sermon on Revelation 18 was not standard. Grossboll advised the audience that there was no denomination that kept the commandments of God and had the Testimony. In view of this, each listener was invited to seek to covert his own local congregation into a remnant congregation. And if this should fail, to leave that local congregation and seek the fellowship of fellow believers in a congregation that had the qualities of the remnant.

 

Is the nature of the world-wide church that is described by scripture? Is it a loose association of fellowships and congregation? What about ordination and respect of traveling teachers? And what about apostasy of the head of a congregation if the members support him?

 

In this, one of her first visions of the early church, Ellen White saw that church organization was intended to resolve these issues:

 

This is indispensably necessary in order to bring the church into the unity of the faith. I saw that in the apostles’ day the church was in danger of being deceived and imposed upon by false teachers. Therefore the brethren chose men who had given good evidence that they were capable of ruling well their own house and preserving order in their own families, and who could enlighten those who were in darkness. Inquiry was made of God concerning these, and then, according to the mind of the church and the Holy Ghost, they were set apart by the laying on of hands. Having received their commission from God and having the approbation of the church, they went forth baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and administering the ordinances of the Lord’s house, often waiting upon the saints by presenting them the emblems of the broken body and spilt blood of the crucified Saviour, to keep fresh in the memory of God’s beloved children His sufferings and death.  {EW 100.2}

 

The Bible gives abundant evidence in favor of a world-wide structure with delegated authority.

 

Evidence in Scripture for Organization above the Local Level

 

Jethro’s organizational plan in Exodus 18 with captains of tens, fifties, hundreds, and thousands (Ex 18:21), mimics our own reasonably well, if we consider ten to be ten fairly large families.

 

Jethro’s ‘Tens’ would be equivalent to our churches; the three administrators of the two fifties that make a hundred in Jethor’s time would be roughly similar to the administrators of a small conferences a century ago; and a thousand large families would roughly similar to our smallest unions then and even now.

 

Aside from this Old Testament model of a multi-tiered organizational level we find abundant evidence that the New Testament church also had a multi-level form of organization.

 

The clearest evidence is found in Acts 15. There, after Gentile churches had suffered under confusing and contradictory teachers, the world church made a pronouncement in Jerusalem that would have authority around the world.

 

The nature of the proceedings show that the decision of the council was the result of deliberative process. Paul had a chance to present his views. Messianic Pharisees had a chance to present their case as well. (Acts 15:4-5). In the actual meeting we find no pope-like pronouncement. Rather, “when there had been much disputing” (Acts 15:6) Peter rose up and shared undeniable practical evidence in favor of Paul’s position. (v. 9-12) After a period of quiet James rose and presented scripture evidence in favor of the same position (v. 13-18). With that he made what we could call “a motion.”

 

That his “sentence” (v. 19) was not autocratic can be seen from the fact that it had to please the brethren and from the fact that the council’s decision was published as coming from them as a group. They reported hearing of the details of the problem as a group.

 

22  Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: 23  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: 24  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

 

The decision was made and finally presented as that of the leading brethren working in concert, “with one accord”. A representative delegation was sent to communicate the decision to the churches:

 

It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26  Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

Another evidence for multi-tiered organizational authority can be seen in the third epistle of John. Somewhere a rogue local church elder with domineering tendencies had gained control of his own congregation. Such was his hold on that body that he was able to prevent the proper administration of church order there. Representatives from “the brethren” (presumably with messages, perhaps like those sent in Acts 15) were “refused.” And more than that, faithful persons who tried to respect such brethren were disfellowshipped from the church.

 

Someone might ask, “This sounds like congregationalism to me, so where is the evidence of authority above the local level?” Listen to what John (3John 9-10) says about the waywardness of Diotrephes.

 

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

 

This plan of John, to “come” and “remember his deeds”, shows an authority at a distance with ability to hold local leaders accountable. That is the antithesis of congregationalism.

 

Paul’s method of setting up church order also demonstrates authority above the local level. Elders were ordained “in every city,” but by who? By Titus, someone who was not a member of those churches but who had been appointed to “set in order” the things that “lacked” in their organization.

 

Titus 1:5  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

 

And when Paul lists the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12, he assigns ordinal numbers to three of the gifts:

 

1Co 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

 

Apostles and prophets, of course, are inspired. Their authority is God’s. It is interesting that teachers, after these two, are set “thirdly” in the church. These, we learn from another list of gifts, are the pastors. They are pastoral teachers and they have authority in the church. They are part of a body and bodies are, of course, organized above the organ level.

 

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; Ephesians 4:11

 

Paul perceived authority in Jerusalem above the local level. He spoke of “James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,” and who affirmed the work that he and Barnabas were doing. Gal 2:9. And when seven deacons were appointed in Jerusalem, these were not local figures only. Philip was recognized much later, while doing international evangelism, to be “one of the seven.” Ac 21:8.

 

From these and other passages it is clear that the early church had an authoritative organization that extended beyond the local level.

 

Benefits to Escaping Congregationalism

 

And what about the view of Mission Catalyst that congregationalism promotes greater mission efficiency? Notice what Ellen White was shown regarding the health institutions of the church and their relation to church structure. In her prophecy you might recognize a picture of present conditions:

 

The medical missionary work should be a part of the work of every church in our land. Disconnected from the church, it would soon become a strange medley of disorganized atoms. It would consume, but not produce. Instead of acting as God’s helping hand to forward His truth, it would sap the life and force from the church and weaken the message. Conducted independently, it would not only consume talent and means needed in other lines, but in the very work of helping the helpless apart from the ministry of the word, it would place men where they would scoff at Bible truth.  {CH 514.1}

 

When Ellen White calls the independent-of-church-control medical system “a strange medely of disorganized atoms” we can gather that the church was intended to work together very efficiently. Congregationalism, the bringing in of such atomized structure, is one the mid-level delusions that we could have and should have known would be coming:

 

Again I say, The Lord hath not spoken by any messenger who calls the church that keeps the commandments of God, Babylon. True, there are tares with the wheat; but Christ said He would send His angels to first gather the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into the garner. I know that the Lord loves His church. It is not to be disorganized or broken up into independent atoms. There is not the least consistency in this; there is not the least evidence that such a thing will be. Those who shall heed this false message and try to leaven others will be deceived and prepared to receive advanced delusions, and they will come to nought.  {2SM 68.3}

 

And just as certainly, for the church to expand into new areas requires a high level of organized cooperation between congregations.

 

United action is essential. An army in which every part acts without reference to the other parts, has no real strength. In order to add new territory to Christ’s kingdom, His soldiers must act in concert. . . . He calls for a united army, which moves steadily forward, not for a company composed of independent atoms. The strength of His army is to be used for one great purpose. Its efforts are to be concentrated upon one great point–the magnifying of the laws of His kingdom before the world, before angels, and before men (MS 82, 1900).  {4BC 1146.4}

 

While church order and structure confer a great deal of efficiency to the church, they do not transform church leaders into mini-popes. Let us conclude our study of weaknesses of congregationalism with a reference to a vaccine for the same. It has often been an overbearing use of church authority that has prompted men to slide towards congregationalism. As we affirm the value of church structure at various levels, let us coat that pill with the sweetness of meekness in administrative styles.

 

[Members and workers] are not to be treated in a lordly, commanding manner. Laws and rules are being made at the centers of the work that will soon be broken into atoms. Men are not to dictate. It is not for those in places of authority to employ all their powers to sustain some, while others are cast down, ignored, forsaken, and left to perish. But it is the duty of the leaders to lend a helping hand to all who are in need. Let each work in the line which God may indicate to him by his Holy Spirit. The soul is accountable to God alone. Who can say how many avenues of light have been closed by arrangements which the Lord has not advised nor instituted? The Lord does not ask permission of those in responsible positions when he wishes to use certain ones as his agents for the promulgation of truth. But he will use whom he will use. He will pass by men who have not followed his counsel, men who feel capable and sufficient to work in their own wisdom; and he will use others who are thought by these supposedly wise ones to be wholly incompetent. Many who have some talent think that they are necessary to the cause of God. Let them beware lest they stretch themselves beyond their measure, and the Lord shall leave them to their own ways, to be filled with their own doings. None are to exercise their human authority to bind minds and souls of their fellow-men. They are not to devise and put in practice methods and plans to bring every individual under their jurisdiction.  {RH, July 23, 1895 par. 1}

For the Word Doc, click here:Congregational_Adventism


[1] One of these is in Winfield, KS.

[2] The Seventh-day Adventist church has trademarked the name Seventh-day Adventist. Despite Biblical injunctions to suffer being defrauded rather than to take church issues to court (I Corinthians 6) some of these congregational movements have been sued. It is the opinion of this author that such suits have done disservice both to the defendants and to the plaintiffs and should long ago have been frankly abandoned. We ought, even now, to compensate those we have sued and offer to pay them back for their legal fees in defending their right to choose for themselves a name for their church.

[3] Drawn 6/13/10 from: http://www.missioncatalyst.org/article.php?id=2

EGW on Divorce and Remarriage

Marriage, Remarriage, and the Truth of God as Expressed by Moses, by Jesus, by Paul, and by Ellen

 

Introduction

 

The work of Satan has always been to undermine the authority of the Word of God. This is often done by pitting one truth against another in such a way that one must appear wrong. Man finds the most motivation for reasoning this way when he is in danger of being reproved by the Word. It is the purpose of this paper only to show that God has ever been clear and unchanging in the requirements of the moral law regarding the married state of man.

 

The Civil and Moral Codes of Israel

 

The books of Moses provided both the Moral Laws that were to govern all men for all ages, as well as a set of civil laws that formed the national constitution of the nation of Israel. The moral laws governed even the thoughts and intents of the heart. The national laws extended only as far as the judicial system of the nation could oversee.

 

These codes were related to each other in many spheres. For example, the Law of God commanded the faithful Israelite to honor his mother and his father (Exodus 20) while the civil code specified that the son that cursed his mother should be put to death by the congregation (see Exodus 21).

 

The moral code specified that adultery is evil. The civil code also dealt with the civil rights of a bigamist and his first wife. While it did not condone the practice of having two wives, it made provision for the judges of the nation to know how to deal with the case. They were not to regard the first wife as a property to be bought and sold. Her husband would have “no power” over her of that nature. See Ex. 21:6-10.

 

The moral code was exceeding broad. It condemned attitudes, pride, selfishness, even impure motives for noble actions. National law could never take cognizance of these things. But God does.  In the judgement men will meet the precepts of His Law again.

 

It is a spiritual law and carnal minds are not subject to it. Ro 7:14; 8:7. Indeed, they can not be. It is for these carnal minds that civil codes have been ordained by heaven.

 

Those civil codes presupposed no converted heart. The system of them was designed, not to prevent the breaking of the moral code, but to limit the rights of men that would break it. It placed boundaries on the wicked choices of evil men. For this superficial appearance of permissiveness it has been faulted as condoning the evils that it restrained.

 

The laws of divorce and remarriage given by Moses were part of this civil code. To require an unbeliever to remain with his faithful spouse is more than even the enlightened apostle Paul would do. He wrote “let him depart.” I Cor. 7:15. Paul did not mean that the unbeliever is excused for his departing, or that the divorce that may follow is sinless. His counsel was only that the church was not to compel, either by its own authority or by civil action, the unbeliever to remain.

 

His counsel was in harmony with the civil code of Moses. Erring men were not to be forced by the state to fulfill their marriage vow. Because of the hardness of their hearts and because of their moral freedoms they were given national guidelines to govern even their ill behavior. The law was cognizant of their decisions and placed restrictions against the abuse of society by those that would choose the evil and hate the good.

 

Those that have misunderstood the sense of Christ’s statement about Moses’ law could be helped by a statement by Ellen White on Ezekiel 20:25. Adventist have been faulted at times for teaching Jewish fables. Against the Sabbath has been raised the argument that it was part of the law that was “contrary to us” in Colossians 2:14. A text many times cited by authors making this attack is Ezekiel 20:25, quoted in the following passage.

The Lord said of the children of Israel, “Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols, wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.” Because of continual disobedience, the Lord annexed penalties to the transgression of his law, which were not good for the transgressor, or whereby he should not live in his rebellion. By transgressing the law which God had given in such majesty, and amid glory which was unapproachable, the people showed open contempt of the great Lawgiver, and death was the penalty.—1SP p. 265

God has never given laws that “were not good” in the sense that they were morally defective. His ways are perfect. When Jesus connected the civil divorce code of Moses with the hardness of the people, He was no more faulting Moses’ law than Ezekiel was faulting the Law of God.

 

Jesus was simply explaining that the civil code made provisions for evils that were never intended to afflict the human race—divorce being notable among them. The nature of these provisions should be of interest to those that are studying this sacred topic.

 

Here is the text of one of those civil laws.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. Deuteronomy 24:1-4

This was God’s civil law and reflected His values.[1] Only He could define an “abomination before the Lord.” While divorce is allowed by God to wicked but civilized men, experimental marriage was not. No one was to think that they would be permitted to say “I am going to try marrying someone else, you can too. If it isn’t as good as our marriage, we can get back together.” God set a limit, the very best possible limit, that could be set for the civil law of the Jews.

 

Other views of the passage (Matthew 19:18) place us in great difficulty. If it is true that a prophet of God may give faulty counsel because of the hardness of God’s people, then the Bible is a faulty book and the Testimonies must be judged by a higher standard of righteousness than themselves. If inspired books may be faulty in their moral content, then our standard for judging has been removed, unless it becomes the opinions of our learned leaders.[2] Be careful reader before you judge a text of scripture.

 

There is another principle of interpretation that we should consider before approaching the issue of what the Bible teaches regarding Christians and Divorce and Remarriage. We can illustrate the principle by a statement Jesus made on this very topic.

 

Jesus and Marriage

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Luke 20:34-35.

If this were our only passage by Jesus on the subject, there would be some ground for Christian celibacy. The contrast is between the “children of this world” and “they which shall be accounted worthy” to enter heaven. Members of the first class “marry and are given in marriage.” Those of the second do neither.

 

Luke left out some important information. Do we dare say it was by mistake? The Holy Spirit’s Breath ought not to be subject to criticism. What Luke left out, a basis for determining when the second class would not “marry” is found in most simple terms in two collateral passages.

 

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.” Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25.

What Jesus had to say about adultery and divorce is similarly stated various ways in the different gospels. Luke again presents the succinct version. The story around it he omits.

 

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18

If this were our only passage by Jesus on the subject, there would be some ground for believing in indissoluble marriage. The crime mentioned in both the case of the man seeking divorce and the victim of a divorce is the crime of remarriage. That remarriage is adultery.

 

Luke left out some important information. Matthew and Mark give more, and what they say throws light on Luke’s quotation of our Savior. This is in harmony with God’s chosen method of teaching. See Isaiah 28:9-10.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, [Mark, “What did Moses command you?”] that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Matthew 19:3-5. See Mark 10:2-8.

The question being answered was “Is it lawful to divorce a woman for a whim?” When Ellen White quotes these passages, this is precisely the issue that she deals with. Jesus answered the question first by enforcing the commands of Moses.

The apostles asked why Moses had given a  “command” to give a “writing of divorcement,” (Matt. 19:7) but Jesus softened the word and replied that Moses “suffered [allowed] you to put away your wives.” Moses never justified a divorce over trivia. See Matthew 19:6-8; Mark 10:9-10. This is important. He that justifieth the wicked is an abomination in the sight of God.

On the other hand, the civil code that God gave through Moses permitted divorce. Most governments do today. We do not fault our nation for allowing legal divorce. Legal divorce is better than illegal divorce or a cruel and neglectful polygamy.

But the civil law of Moses can not be rightly taken as a guide for Christian living. Moses allowed it for who? The regenerate? No. Jesus said it was for the hard-hearted. If a man stays with his wife out of principle, it is a very good thing. But if stays married because it is legally impossible to do otherwise, that legal impossibility is an unkindness, even a danger, to the unloved spouse.

Then Jesus came to the subject matter of Luke’s quotation.

“Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” Matthew 19: 9. Mark 10:11-12.

The exception clause, “except it be for fornication,” is addressed by Ellen White a number of times, and was addressed earlier by Jesus, near the opening of His ministry.[3] When Jesus says “Whoever will divorce his wife, unless it be for fornication, and will marry another, commits adultery,” His words beg the question “and what if the cause is fornication?”

 

If the fornication of the guilty spouse is “adultery” while she is married to her husband, plain reading leads to the conclusion that it is adultery still when she marries her fornicating partner. This is the ground of the second clause in Matthew 19:9.

 

The woman that marries a divorced man risks adultery. If he has no grounds for his divorce, he has no right to remarry. And if he was the guilty partner in his divorce case, he has no grounds to remarry.

 

Jesus goes on with his point and does not restate the exception so apparent in the previous verse. The man has put away his wife for trivial reasons. The divorce is not moral. Then “whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

 

He had already answered in the first clause the case of the woman whose husband had committed adultery against her. By exempting her from an accusation of “adultery” in her remarriage Jesus gave her grounds for another holy matrimony.

 

Mark’s quotation presupposes a trifling divorce, whether by the man or woman, and explains the last phrase of Luke’s quotation. In the Ethiopic version, the two verses are nearly identical in this way. [4]

 

Neither Luke nor Mark mention the exception of fornication, and there is more than one good reason. It really is no exception at all. Adultery nullifies the marriage covenant by breaking it. When commenting on the ability of the covenant to be broken, Ellen White uses that familiar phrase that should warn us against being wise above what is written. “I saw,” she wrote to Brother Day,

 

“that the church [at Monterey] has not taken the right view of scripture. A woman may be legally divorced from her husband by the laws of the land and yet not divorced in the sight of God and according to the higher law. There is only one sin, which is adultery, which can place the husband or wife in a position where they can be free from the marriage vow in the sight of God. Although the laws of the land may grant a divorce, yet they are husband and wife still in the Bible light, according to the laws of God.” 17MR 156

And she saw what that freedom entailed.

I saw that Sister _____, as yet, has no right to marry another man; but if she, or any other woman, should obtain a divorce legally on the ground that her husband was guilty of adultery, then she is free to be married to whom she chooses. . . .Sister Johnson is not clear in this matter. She has not been right or felt right. God’s Spirit has not guided you or her in this matter. You have prayed over it, Brother Albert, but your desire and wish to follow in a certain course has led you to take for light and evidence that which is no light and evidence, and the enemy has wrought here greatly to your disadvantage but to his own great advantage. – Part from the Adventist Home p. 344. Taken from 17 MR 155 where the whole text may be found.

That freedom is a right, and the removal of it belongs to no man. Not only had she seen the freedom in vision, but she saw nothing contrary to it in scripture.

Walter did not put his wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another man. I see nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord. He has a right to the affection of a woman who, knowing his physical defect, shall choose to give him her love. The time has come when a sterile condition is not the worst condition to be in. I see wives who have borne large families of children, and they are unable to give them proper care. These women do not have time to recover from the weakness of bearing one child before they are with child again.—TSB p. 68

Paul on Marriage and Divorce

And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? I Corinthians 7:10-16

Separation, while not condemned as adultery, is made by Paul to be a not-optimal solution to marital problems. Remarriage is forbidden, and reconciliation enjoined as an alternative. Some might object that this is the very abomination that the Lord forbade through Moses, but I Corinthians 7:10 is recommending reconciliation to separated yet still-married people.

The departure or threatened departure of an unbelieving spouse should not prevent the conscientious practices of the believer. She should let him depart rather than feeling under bondage to submit to his authority in such cases, in cases of conscience. Paul does not contradict Jesus here in making a new rule that would authorize divorce for a reason other than fornication. We live in a wicked and adulterous generation, and it is doubtful that the unbelieving one will remain chaste, but to suppose he has done wrong it unwarranted. The time when she would be free to remarry, aside from the dissolution of the vow by adultery, is at the death of her husband. See verse 39.

Your ideas in regard to the marriage relation have been erroneous. Nothing but the violation of the marriage bed can either break or annul the marriage vow. We are living in perilous times, when there is no assurance in anything save in firm, unwavering faith in Jesus Christ. There is no heart that may not be estranged from God through the devices of Satan, if one does not watch unto prayer.—AH p. 341

Among the Jews a man was permitted to put away his wife for the most trivial offenses, and the woman was then at liberty to marry again. This practice led to great wretchedness and sin. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus declared plainly that there could be no dissolution of the marriage tie except for unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. “Every one,” He said, “that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.” – AH  340

The illustration in Romans 7, the first man being our old rebellious self and the second man being Jesus in the heart, assumes faithfulness on the part of the men. Nothing else makes sense in the illustration. As long as we are married to self, self does not commit fornication with anyone else. If we want to marry Christ, self must die.

And if this is taken too far as an illustration of Paul’s teaching on marriage, then it says that killing your husband is a fair way to be freed from the marriage law. Bible illustrations are truthful and accurate for what they are intended to say, and not for anything else that could be drawn out of the same illustration. Illustrations are picked for their power to express a thought in a most simple way. For that reason details added, assumed, or read into them may not express truth at all. Romans 7 makes no commentary on whether or not fornication is a Biblical grounds for divorce and/or remarriage.

Singleness Preferred in I Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Matthew 19:10-12.

There are men that are “given” the gift of being able to bear singleness. These should “receive it.” The gift itself can not lesson the truth that Paul expressed.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4

The reason that some, including no doubt a few of the apostles themselves, are given the gift is explained by Paul as well. There were two reasons, neither of which was the one that occurred to the disciples. They thought the vow too galling. The first reason given by Paul is the state of persecution the church would suffer from time to time and from place to place.

Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. I Corinthians 7:25-26.

To be married today, have a child on the way a few months from now, and to be burned in Rome before the child is born, that was the kind of grief from which Paul wished to save some. But he does not make a moral requirement out of his logic. “If a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.” But in time of great persecution, she has exposed herself to “trouble in the flesh.” In the midst of the great work that must be done, Paul would rather have some “without carefulness.”

 

Who is this counsel for? Jesus said “for those that can receive it.” Paul explained that those that are very attached to their loved friend and are behaving in a way that makes that love apparent are among those that can not bear it. And those that might not realize how much of their energies will be absorbed by entering into marriage are invited to consider the cost before deciding.

 

Getting married, for them, is “well” though not getting married for some would be “better” as he/she could better devote his/her energies to gospel work. See I Corinthians 7:32-38. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor Ellen tried to make this a norm, though, for Christian life. It is the papacy that “forbiddeth to marry.” And “a well-disciplined, well-ordered family exerts a more powerful influence in favor of Christianity than all the sermons that can be preached.” ST 12-11-01.

 

That some would be marrying during the scenes of the last distress was foretold by Jesus. Matthew 24:38.

 

The Letter about a Remarriage

 

Most of the New Testament is written in the form of letters. If we were to limit the authority of these letters to the portions of them that begin with a reference to a divine revelation, we would lose much of God has given us. The same is true for the writings of Ellen White. She wrote to one,

You might say that this communication was only a letter. Yes, it was a letter, but prompted by the Spirit of God, to bring before your minds things that had been shown me. In these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision–the precious rays of light shining from the throne. 5T p. 67

An involved letter by Ellen White, perfectly in harmony with the statements quoted earlier in this paper, also shines on the subject under discussion. The situations leading up to the letter are described generally in the letter.

 

Some have criticized the authority of its counsels based on the personal outcome of affairs in the lives of those mentioned. Let us not fault God for Lucifer’s fall, or for Adam’s. Let us not place the corpse of Judas at the feet of Jesus as an accusation. Obedience today and cherished sin tomorrow will never reveal the blessings that might have been derived from today’s obedience.

In regard to the marriage of your daughter with A_____, I see where you are troubled. But the marriage took place with your consent, and your daughter, knowing all about him, accepted him as her husband, and now I can see no reason why you should carry any burden over this matter. Your daughter loves A_____, and it may be that this marriage is in the order of God in order that both A_____ and your daughter may have a richer Christian experience, and be built up where they are deficient. Your daughter has pledged herself to A_____ in marriage, and to break her marriage vows would be far from right. She cannot now disannul her obligations to him. . . . I had a personal knowledge of his former relations with his first wife B_____. A_____ loved B_____ far too well; for she was not worthy of his regard. He did all in his power to help her, and sought in every possible way to retain her as his wife. He could not have done more than he did do. I pleaded with her, and tried to show her the inconsistency of her course, and begged her not to obtain a divorce; but she was determined and willful and stubborn, and would have her own way. While she lived with him, she sought to secure all the money possible from him, but she would not treat him kindly as a wife should treat her husband.

A_____ did not put his wife away. She left him, and put him away, and married another man. I see nothing in the Scripture that forbids him to marry again in the Lord. He has a right to the affection of a woman. . . .      I cannot see that this new union should be disturbed. It is a serious matter to part a man and his wife. There is no Scriptural ground upon which to take such a step in this case. He did not leave her, she left him. He did not marry again until she had obtained a divorce. When B_____ divorced herself from A_____ he suffered most keenly, and it was not until B_____ had married another man that A_____ married again. The one he has chosen I feel certain will be a help to him, and he can be a help to her. . . . I see nothing in the Word of God that would require her to separate from him. As you have asked my advice, I will freely give it to you.  [The whole letter is also in 17MR, this paragraph following is taken from it. 17MR p. 152, the initial is changed, the subject is the same]

I am truly sorry that you have taken upon yourself unnecessary burdens. Do you not see that in separating J and your daughter you would create two evils instead of curing one? Your daughter has married J, and there is no reason why she should be separated from him. You have no just excuse for desiring them to cease living and working together as man and wife. You may give publicity to the evil reports that may come to you, and be the means of making yourself, your daughter, and her husband miserable. Let those two, as children of God, unite their interests as their marriage vows require them to do;  let them consecrate themselves to God to do His will, to be vessels unto honor, meet for the Master’s use.  Letter 50, 1895, pp. 1-6; 1MR 162

How Jesus Relates to an Offending Spouse

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. . . .Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that thou hast transgressed against the LORD thy God, and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice, saith the LORD. Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion: Jeremiah 3:8. See Isaiah 50:1, written about 80 years earlier.

The right of the offended partner to seek for reconciliation, even after divorce, may not be specified in scripture, but it is exemplified.

 

Summary

 

The civil codes of Israel allowed wicked men to divorce their wives for trivial reasons. This was not God’s intention for His children. He does not permit them to do so. Marriage is a mutual contract for life. That contract includes a promise of purity, a promise to reserve sexual intimacy for one’s lawful wedded spouse. When one party commits fornication, the contract is broken. Adultery is the dissolution of that contract by the breaking of the promise that solemnized it.

 

This was recognized by Jesus through Matthew and by Jesus through White. The breaking of the covenant may be rightly followed up with either forgiveness and a renewing of the vows, or by forgiveness and a legal divorce from the offending party. The legal divorce ratifies the dissolution of the should-have-been-life-long vow. That vow abolished, there is no reason, spiritually or legally, that the injured party may not seek again secure and intimate companionship. If a man, “he has a right to the love of a woman.” If a woman, to the love of a man.

 

No other view of the topic can harmonize with all the statements in inspiration. No other can both satisfy the law that forbids breaking the vow and the moral right of man to faithful intimacy.

 

It will never do to say of a prophet “he (or she) didn’t have the light.” Perhaps they did not understand what they wrote, but they wrote precisely the truth.

 

–The end

 

 

Addendum

 

The following materials have not been put together yet into an article form but may be of interest to the reader.

 

A joint plea, issued by James and Ellen and signed by both, can be found in Adventist Home, page 346-347. It is an interesting call for thoughtfulness before marriage in view of the complications and perplexities of a broken vow, and a defense of one who might chose to stay with an offending spouse.

-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#

 

{Counsel given in response to the endeavor of a father to break up a long-standing marriage of his son to his second wife because many years before he had, without Bible grounds, divorced his first wife to make legally possible the second marriage. –Compilers.}

I have just read your letter concerning M. I regard the matter in the same light that you do, and think it a cruel, wicked thing that the father of M should take the course that he is taking. . . . I would say that his {M’s} case cannot be improved by leaving the present wife. It would not better the case to go to the other woman in the question.

I consider the case of the father one that is singular, and his record is one that he will not be pleased to meet in the day of God. He needs to repent, before God, of his spirit and his works. The best thing for him to do is to cease to stir up strife…. Let the father and brother make diligent work for themselves. They both need the converting power of God. May the Lord help these poor souls to remove spot and stain from their own characters, and repent of their wrongs, and leave M with the Lord.  {2SM 341.5}

I am so sorry for the man; for his course is in such a shape that it will not answer to be meddled with, for there are difficulties upon difficulties. I would say that the Lord understands the situation, and if M will seek Him with all his heart, He will be found of him. If he will do his best, God will pardon and receive him.

Oh, how precious it is to know that we have One who does know and understand, and will help the ones who are most helpless. But the rebuke of God is upon the father and the brother who would drive to destruction and perdition one who stands in the sight of God under no worse condemnation than themselves; and yet they will so use their gifts of speech as to dishearten, discourage, and drive M to despair.

M may hope in God and do the best he can to serve God in all humility of mind, casting his helpless soul upon the great Sin Bearer. I have not written a word to either father or son. I would gladly do something to help poor M to make things right, but this cannot be done as matters are now situated, without someone’s being wronged.–Letter 175, 1901.

 

Statements about marriage not related to the divorce issues above:

 

I do hope you will not be deceived, Addie, as this poor child is. I hope you will be an earnest, true Christian day by day, seeking God in prayer. Do not be so busy you cannot give time to read the Bible and seek the grace of God in humble prayer. Follow no one’s example or custom in dress or in actions. If they lead to indifference and worldliness, do not express vanity in dress, but dress becomingly, neatly; but seek earnestly to be meek and lowly of heart and be obtaining a rich experience in the things of God. Learn to overcome vanity which exists in the heart that is not sanctified through the truth. Do not be forward, but be retiring and modest.{DG 160.1}

You will now be looked to by many and criticized to see how you will come forth from Sister White’s teachings. Do not misrepresent me, but seek to give influence by your course of action. Ever be true, open, sincere, and frank. All affectation despise. Keep yourself aloof from young men. Let them know that there is one girl who will not be crazy and bewildered at their first notice and attentions. I want you to be prepared to travel with me and help me, if I want you.{DG 160.2}

 

I am surprised to hear that a mother forty-six years of age will imperil her happiness, her welfare, and her influence by marrying a young man of twenty. This is a strange matter, and reveals lack of sound judgment. The Lord would have this sister consider carefully the sure result of such a course of action.  {TSB 37.3}

In this matter, our sister must be under a strange influence–an influence contrary to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As the mother of three children, she should feel her accountability to God to move discreetly in all respects, that she may hold her influence over her children, and not pursue any course that they and many others would regard as so questionable. She should realize that her duty to her God and to her children demands the most serious consideration.  {TSB 37.4}

My sister, the Lord is not in this matter. Such a marriage would bring strange results–results that would destroy the influence that a mother should earnestly seek to maintain over her own children. This influence I entreat of you to guard sacredly. God has solemnly charged you, as the mother of your children, to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For you at this time to take a youth of twenty as your husband would be strangely inconsistent with your responsibilities as a mother of three sons now grown to manhood.

For the Word Doc, click here: Notes_on_EGWs_views_on_marriage,_divorce,_and_remarriage


[1] Not His values regarding marriage, but regarding the role of the state in enforcing morality. Regarding divorce itself, the Lord’s values are better revealed in His rebuke by Malichi.

“Yet ye say, Wherefore [will you cut us off?]? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Mal. 2:14-16.

In this passage (see verse 12) God speaks of judgements, not from the state, but from heaven that would “cut off” the adulterer, the teacher and the student together.

[2] Our only safety is to rely on our prophets’ plainest teachings. No inspired statement of progressive truth has ever made the inspired writings of an earlier prophet faulty. But man has often fought against the plain statements of prophets. Regarding those that fought the fourth commandment we read:

Such, I saw, have the carnal mind, therefore are not subject to the holy law of God. They are not agreed among themselves, yet labor hard with their inferences to wrest the Scriptures to make a breach in God’s law, to change, abolish, or do anything with the fourth commandment rather than to observe it. They wish to silence the flock upon this question; therefore they get up something with the hope that it will quiet them and that many of their followers will search their Bibles so little that their leaders can easily make error appear like truth, and they receive it as such, not looking higher than their leaders. EW  69

[3] “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Matthew 5:31-32.

[4] Matthew Gill writes “The Ethiopic version reads this last clause, quite different  from all others, thus, “and whosoever puts away her husband, and joins to another, commits adultery”, agreeably to Mr 10:12.”

Separation and Intercession

 

Separation and Intercession

An Essay on Numbers in Type and Antitype

 

Yesterday[1] I was speaking with a man named David who was promoting separation from the Seventh-day Adventist denomination. He is one of perhaps a dozen that have appealed to me in the last few years to join one or another movement. My general response to such movements is described in a paper I have written regarding the Shepherd’s Rod[2].

 

We have no reason to be surprised at the calls being made by David and others. In the prophetic history of the Egypt-to-Canaan travels of Israel God foretold:

  1. That such calls would come repeatedly
  2. That such calls would be bolstered by legitimate evidence of truly wicked practices of the congregation
  3. That the glory of God would be involved in our response to those calls.
  4. That we will be tested by those calls

 

The setting for the calls to separation from Israel was the aftermath of a God-ordained separation from Egypt. In each case Moses received the call to “come out.” Why he heeded the first and refused the latter invitations will be the subject of this brief essay.

 

When Moses left Egypt he led behind him a mixed multitude. On one hand there were the few and the faithful that had preserved their spiritual heritage while in slavery. Then there were the pliable majority who had wished for freedom while continuing to submit to evil pressures and influences.

 

Finally there were Egyptians and wayward Jews that left a doomed nation behind to escape its plagues and benefit from association with the miracle-working sons of Amram.[3] These reasoned that the same God that would take his people out of Egypt in such a marvelous way would lead them swiftly and surely into a luxurious land.

 

The latter class led the entire body into repeated scandals. Apostasies on a national scale litter the book of Numbers.

 

The Intercession Stories

 

Three of these scandals are found in Numbers 13-14, 16, and 20.  In the first Israel follows the counsel of the faithless spies. In the second Korah, Dathan and Abiram, and afterwards the people at large, rebel against the authority of Moses and Aaron. In the third the congregation wishes to return to Egypt and provokes Moses to strike a rock representing Christ.

 

Key verses in these three stories are found in the chart on the next page. From these passages, and others, I would propose the following:

 

  1. The history of the Exodus was selectively recorded. Those portions only were written that would parallel the history of the church in the last age. After mentioning five specific stories from the wilderness wandering, with their lessons for today, Paul wrote “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” I Cor. 10:11.

 

  1. God recorded repeatedly a pattern of history that would mimic church history at the end of time.

 

  1. That pattern could be summarized as a national event of rebellion followed by the singling out of a few faithful as objects of popular wrath.

 

In the pattern this persecution is followed by a test designed to reveal the extent to which love has endured in the hearts of the faithful. They are encouraged, apparently by God, to separate from the wicked body and to form a new organization of the faithful.

 

But in the invitation to separate they hear a call to intercession. Rather than removing themselves from those threatened with slaughter, they risk their own life to plead for that of the wrong-doers.

 

The call to intercession is so subtle as to be noticed only by those that have drunk deeply at the wells of Christ’s sacrificial compassion. It is found in the words “let me alone that I may.” These words virtually say that the judgments are waiting for the departure of the innocent.

 

Those hoping to justify self are gratified by the separation call and leave the sin-bearer behind as they exit his church. But those sharing Christ’s character “weep between the porch and the altar” for God to spare his people.

 

In a different essay we explore the relation between this intercession and the latter rain. Here we want to notice a few more details regarding our stories.

 

Aaron’s Revival

 

In two of them (Numbers 11 and 16) intercession brings an end to an already on-going judgment. The sufferings of God’s rebellious people alert us to wake and actively intercede for them. The latter of these two chapters is particularly interesting.

 

There Aaron, the same that led out in the apostasy of the golden calf because of his fear of the people, has truly repented. Rather than saving his own skin at the expense of thousands of his people as he had done before, in Numbers 16 he recklessly disregards his own safety and God’s call to get out of the camp of the rebels. Instead, at the urging of Moses, he takes a censor and runs into the middle of the camp and stands between the living and the dead, v. 48, and “the plague was stayed.”

 

This remarkable transformation on the part of Aaron is not allowed by many apparently faithful today. When they see a leader fall as Aaron did, they judge him as ever unworthy of spiritual trust. They respect not his position or his piety. His repentance is, to them, ever suspect of being a mere political maneuver.

 

Thank God that He allowed Aaron to change.

 

An Anomaly

 

One anomaly in the pattern is the story proceeding Aaron’s active intercession. In the prayers of Moses for the people Moses ever urges powerful arguments. He pleads with God to forgive the people because of God’s own character. He argues that he has forgiven them before and urges this fact as a reason he should do it again. He presents God’s own reputation as depending on his treatment of the people.

 

But in the early part of Numbers 16 he urges a weaker argument. “Will you destroy all the church for the sin of a few leaders?” In effect Moses separated the leaders of the people from the people themselves. God accepted Moses’ position and directed that the church separate from the guilty leaders. Then the guilty were destroyed.

 

In this scenario the rebels and Moses had something in common. The former had said “the whole church is holy, every one of them.” The latter said by his intercession, “the common people are consecrated, unlike the rebellious leaders.”

 

But Moses soon learned how ineffective his argument had been. The very body that had been spared by Moses’ call to separate from Korah and company, the very next day, turned on their prayer warrior. They accused him of murdering their dearly loved “people of the Lord.” This is how they styled the deceased rebels.

 

We can not well argue in prayer for God to spare the church because of the faithfulness of the 7,000 that have not bowed their knee to prevailing apostasies. It is not love for these that we are being tested on.

 

Moses’ prayers worked wonders in preserving the church of his time when those prayers were based on the character and love of God.

 

Conclusions[4]

 

There is much to be gained from a study of the chapters discussed here. Why did God’s glory appear each time? Why was the pattern so often repeated? What movements in the history of Adventism appeared as legitimate calls to abandon the Seventh-day Adventist church for its wickedness?

 

From the brief data here we may learn to expect such calls to come again. We may be preparing our hearts for these tests by engaging in earnest intercessory prayer even now. We may come close to our brethren, even to the point of standing between the living and the dead.

 

No doubt some reading this will feel that this paper is the torch of false prophecy undermining God’s call to save his faithful from the plagues that doom the Seventh-day Adventist church. If you are one of these, be careful before you make your own conclusions.

 

Moses himself became frustrated with the church for which he prayed. After falling on his face and asking grace for them in Exodus 32 and later in Numbers 11 and again in Numbers 14 and twice in 16, he finally felt that he could take little more. After praying for the people again in Numbers 20 he became angry and struck the rock.

 

And he didn’t enter Canaan.

 

It is only those whose love for the erring endures to the end that will be saved.

 

Numbers 14

10 But all the congregation bade stone [Caleb and Joshua] with stones.

 

 

10 the glory of the LORD appeared in the tabernacle of the congregation

 

 

11 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them?

12  I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they.

 

19  Moses said “Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”


Numbers 16

19 And Korah gathered all the congregation against [Moses and Aaron.]

 

19 the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the congregation.

 

 

20  And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,

21  Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.

 

 

 

 

 

22  And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?


Numbers 16

42 the congregation was gathered against Moses and against Aaron

 

 

42 they looked toward the tabernacle . . . and the glory of the LORD appeared.

 

44 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

45  Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment.

 

 

 

 

 

45 And they fell upon their faces. 46  And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them:
Numbers 20

2 there was no water [and] the congregation gathered themselves . . . against Moses and . . . Aaron.

 

6 the glory of the LORD appeared unto them.

 

 

[Moses and Aaron Interceded before the glory appeared, and there was no invitation to separate.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6  And Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and they fell upon their faces:

 

 

 

 

 

Exodus 32

 

1 the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods

 

 

 

 

[Moses was speaking to God face to face in the mountain—God’s glory was seen by Moses before the end of this story…in chapter 34. But most relevantly, the entire mountain lit up as on fire…the mountain being the equivalent to a sanctuary, the meeting place with God and the location of the Ten Commandments.]

 

9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

10  Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

 

 

11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, . . .  Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.


Number 11

 

1 And when the people complained, it displeased the LORD:

 

 

 

 

 

and the LORD heard it; and his anger was kindled;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the fire of the LORD burnt among them, and consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of the camp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2  And the people cried unto Moses; and when Moses prayed unto the LORD, the fire was quenched.


Deuteronomy 9

 

16  And I looked, and, behold, ye had sinned against the LORD your God, and had made you a molten calf: ye had turned aside quickly out of the way which the LORD had commanded you.

 

 

15  So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13  The  LORD spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

14  Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.

 

18  And I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and forty nights: I did neither eat bread, nor drink water, because of all your sins which ye sinned, in doing wickedly in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.


The Pattern

 

 

Israel Rebels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God’s Glory Appears

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God Convicts and Sentences the People to Judgments

 

 

God Calls Moses to Separate and Escape the Judgments

 

 

God Calls Moses to become the Father of a Righteous Offshoot

 

 

Moses Refuses to Separate, and Rather Pleads and Intercedes for the Fallen Body



 

The History

 

“My soul is stirred within me. I shall trust in God with heart and soul. I shall proclaim the messages that He has given me to proclaim. I testify in the Lord that our youth should not be encouraged to go to Battle Creek to be made infidels. God will help us to see what can be done to prevent this. We are now to work earnestly and intelligently to save our youth from being taken captive by the enemy.”(LLM, 70)

 

“Sister Magan worked with her husband, struggling and praying that he might be sustained. And God did sustain them, as they walked in the light. From her small store of money, Sister Magan gave five hundred dollars, to erect the Memorial Hall. She strove untiringly to maintain a perfect home government, teaching and educating her children in the fear of God. Twice she had to nurse her husband through an attack of fever.

But it seemed to her as though some of our brethren had not a heart of flesh. After the General Conference in Oakland, a report was circulated that Sister White had turned against Brother Magan. There was not a word of truth to this statement. But his poor wife, who had toiled and sacrificed and prayed with him was informed that Sister White had taken a stand against her husband. O why did any one ever say such a thing? Sister White never turned against Brother Magan or against Brother Sutherland. But Sister Magan was so weighted down with sorrow that she lost her reason.”(PC, 84)

 

The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Prov. 29:18). Satan will work ingeniously, in different ways and through different agencies, to unsettle the confidence of God’s remnant people in the true testimony.—1SM 48 (1890).

 

 

 

 

 

For the Word Doc, click here:

[1] Written December 14, 2003

[2] Available at www.canvassing.org/docs

[3] Moses and Aaron were, at the same time, grandsons and great-grandsons of Levi. Jochebed was Levi’s natural daughter and Amram his natural grandson by one of Joghebed’s brothers.

[4] This paper is a companion paper to the studies titled “Laodicea” and “Intercession and the Latter Rain.”

The Godhead — for John

Note: The following letter was written to a student of mine who was confused on the topic of the Godhead. There is a movement that would teach Adventists that (A) our pioneers did not believe in three members of the Godhead (B) that Ellen White did not teach the existence of three members of the Godhead [until her writing were altered] (C) that the Bible shows plainly that Jesus was born in the days of eternity past and that the Spirit is not a third person, but the mind of the Father and/or the Son [as the Spirit of man is not another entity apart from man].

 

The letter below was written early in the morning while I was traveling between appointments and is lacking in documentation. Also, it relies on two letters from other brothers that I have not been able to recover. For that reason I am adding documentation and information as a preface to the letter now. Likely, that preface will exceed the letter in length. It takes more space to prove something than to state it.

Relevant Facts:

Regarding EGW’s views:

The accusation that writings have been changed is solemn. The Ten Commandments forbid false witness. The New Testament forbids (I Tim 5:19) one to receive an accusation against an Elder except in the presence of two or three witnesses. The burden of proof in accusation lies with the accuser. Anyone daring to allege that the inspired books have been altered by Froom or others must prove their accusations with photocopies of Ellen White’s original handwriting.

If the proof exists, then this can be readily done by anyone who cares to do it. The originals are available for reading and copying. But the originals bear testimony that it was EGW’s own pen that wrote “heavenly trio” and “three persons” and “three dignitaries” of heaven.

In short, making the accusation of change is an open violation of the command “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Those who have not perceived the baseness of the proposal might be helped by this realization. The “changed writings” argument is lightly disguised infidelity.

EGW’s views can be found compiled in the book Evangelism pp. 613-617. Key phrases found there and that undermine the false Godhead doctrine are:

“There are three living persons of the heavenly trio—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” [1905]

“Christ is the pre-existent, self-existent, Son of God.

“There never was a time when He was not in close fellowship with the eternal God” [1900]

“Had been with God as one brought up with Him.” [1900]

“Equal with God,” “self-existent” [1897]

“From everlasting He was the mediator of the covenant.” [1906]

“In Christ is life original, unborrowed, underived.” [1898]

“The eternal heavenly dignitaries—God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit.” [1901]

“The Holy Spirit is as much a person as God is a person.” [1899]

“The Holy Spirit is a person [and] has a personality [and} is a Devine person.” [1906]

“The third person of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit.” 1897

“Three highest powers in heaven—The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” [1905]

A statement from the first chapter of Patriarchs and Prophets is often used to show that Ellen White envisioned a two-person Godhead. The statement lends itself to the idea, but certainly does not say it. The Spirit is not mentioned. Christ is presented as the co-worker with the “Sovereign of the Universe” and as the “only being” that could understandably enter into God’s work of Creation. Genesis 1 makes it clear that the Spirit of God was active in the planning of the work of Creation. The Spirit, while having personality, appears to have no bodily existence. This makes the Son alone the “being” that could cooperate with God (the Father and the Spirit). The Spirit inspired the pages (PP 33-34) and we should not be surprised if the page devoted to exalting Jesus would not at the same time exalt the Divine Author of the page.

The PP 34 statement makes use of Proverbs 8 as a reference to Christ. The verses there that speak of Christ being “brought forth” are favorites of anti-trinitarians.

Dear John,

About eleven years ago I was with a group of young people at a spiritual
retreat. There I was confronted with an old acquaintance of mine. Scott
Stanley was a traveling preacher and was staying at the home of a Mr. Brown
or another man that has two daughters with very very long hair. I have
forgotten their names. This happened in North Carolina, and I bring it up
because the pages that you sent me (I received them yesterday) look so very
familiar that I can not but believe that it was written by one of them, or
by one that they had talked to. Like Dan, I know that you did not write it.

I do not know if you remember that in class I began to give the same Bible
study that you sent out, but then went on to show its falsehood. If you look
through your notes on the Arian controversy from History class, you will
find helpful material. I am so busy but am taking precious moments to write
to you and to let you know that I am praying for you.

In that retreat I was confronted with the same arguments and they were
given, not by a paper, but by a charismatic and persuasive individual. I
went home and cried (literally) and prayed for God to give me light. For
several days I fasted on fruit and studied and studied. What I share below
is what I found in that study. It was one of the clearest times in my life
that I knew that God was speaking to me.

But first I want to share with you, in a public way, your two biggest
mistakes. These are more important than the doctrinal issue, and as you
recognize them, that realization will save you much grief and trouble later.

1) You were not careful and cautious enough. You did not have enough fear of
teaching error even though we are told that teachers will have greater
condemnation (James 2:1). Reread the experience of William Miller in the
Great Controversy. It was not until he had studied the doctrines that he was
teaching earnestly for 13 years that he dared to teach them. His attitude,
recognizing the ease with which a man may be deceived, saved him from
teaching error, on one hand, and from being repelled away from truth by
powerful arguments on the other. Not hours, not a few days, but a great deal
of research might have been done by you before sending out your e-mail that
would have saved you the trouble.

2) You did not first humbly submit your startling truths to brethren of
experience to see if they had found any light in it. I am sure you are aware
of this quote so will not take the time to find it. If your e-mail was an
attempt to do that, it should have been prefaced that way. It was sent as if
you had written it yourself (which was also a mistake, credit should be
given where credit is due, and readers have a right to judge the tree by its
fruits. If the author’s name had been available, it might have saved someone
from unnecessary trouble.)

But to the doctrinal issues:

Here are a few questions that deserve answering that are brought up by the
forwarded tract.

1. What is the Omega of apostasy? What was the Alpha? How are they related?
2. Did Ellen White change her views on the nature of the Godhead?
3. Why were early writers in the church not rebuked for their views if their
views were errant on this topic?
4. What is the meaning of Proverbs 8 in relation to the Deity and
preexistence of Christ?
5. What day did the Father say to Jesus, “This day have I begotten thee?”
6. How should we arrive at scriptural truth? (This is important)
a. Relation of obscure to plain passages
b. Relation of a papal claim that their doctrine is built on the “trinity.”
c. Relation of inferences to statements
d. Relation of views on inspiration and the use of Ellen White.

I must limit myself to these for time constraints. Let me say that what Dan
has written I have read and am choosing not to present again the things that
he has presented. The other gentlemen that replied to all included an
important reference to the mystery of the Holy Spirit that would be worthy
of meditation. And one other point. John, you are treading in an area that
is spiritually hazardous. The Devil has a simple trick that goes like this
(beware of it). 1. Lead a man into an error regarding the personality of the
Holy Spirit. 2. If he becomes convinced of the truth later, remind him that
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the unpardonable sin. 3. Drive him to
distraction with the thought that his case is hopeless. That is the trick.
If you come to point number 2 or 3, remember that the blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit is not committed in a week or a month. You have been deceived,
but you have not hardened your heart in rebellion. Believe that the Father,
for Christ’s sake, has seen fit to help you and be thankful for the new
chance to teach the truth.

1. What is the Omega of Apostasy? What was the Alpha?

These questions are related. See the book Omega and the book Hindsight (and
call Dave Fiedler) for more information on this topic. Let me greatly
summarize by saying that the following logic is faulty. Given: The omega
will be startling. Given: The ideas presented are startling. Concluded: They
unmask the omega.

If the logic went like this, is would be less faulty, but
would be faulty still: Given: The Omega will be startling. Given: The ideas
in this paper are startling. Concluded: The ideas in this paper are the
Omega. (I do not believe that to be the case, but wrote it to show you that
at the least it was better logic. There is a grave difference between a
startling truth and a startling apostasy. Don’t confuse them.)

2. Did Ellen White change her views on the nature of the Godhead?

Here is a remarkable point that deserves attention. Ellen White did not
write false views that she held as Testimony. If she believed in error on
this point, she did not write it. When she began to write about the Godhead,
her writings were clear on the point of three Persons.

3. Why were early writers in the church not rebuked for their views if their
views were errant on this topic?

The argument drawn from silence is weak. Early pioneers were not rebuked for
their pork eating either. There is a line of wisdom that we should realize.
If God, through his prophet, had presented truth that was obnoxious to the
early pioneers in the first days of the message, they likely would have
rejected White rather than accept the truth. And if they had accepted the
truth at THAT time, it would have been a startling truth and would have
drawn the attention away from the three steps that your early quote
mentions, the three angel’s messages. The truth about the Godhead was
brought to the body when the church was ready for it, and in such a way as
to not draw the attention away from the truths that were to be our message.
For an interesting study on the nature of new truth entering the body, see
Ellen White’s counsel to Haskel regarding the use of pork in the first
volume of the Testimonies. (all references in this document are from my head
and are accordingly very fallible).

4. What is the meaning of Proverbs 8 in relation to the Deity and
preexistence of Christ?

Dan has shown some interesting things regarding “chuyl.” Here are a few
more. The first instance of the Hebrew word is in Gen. 8:10, “And he stayed
yet other seven days.” The word “stayed” is chuyl. One of its meanings
includes “to wait” or “to be waiting.” Its use in reference to birth is
derived from the fact that it has a meaning of “writhing in pain.” Such a
reference would be a poor one to describe a Birth taking place before the
curse that made birthing painful.

5. What day did the Father say to Jesus, “This day have I begotten thee?”

I am sure that you remember this. While the author of your paper indicates
that it was ages ago, and while Hebrews one indicates the timing of the
decree “Let all the angels worship Him,” it is Acts 13:33-34 that tells us
when the Father said “This day have I begotten Thee.” It was at the
resurrection. This is why Jesus is referred to not only as the Only
Begotten, but as the First Begotten from the Dead. Isaac was also called
the only begotten, and Lazarus among others was begotten from the dead
before Christ in point of time. But our Savior’s resurrection was the
condition of the salvation of all other resurrected saints. Their
resurrections would have been void without His. The resurrection of Jesus
was different than that of any other Being in that he alone had life in
Himself to rise from the dead.

6. How should we arrive at scriptural truth? (This is important)

More important than answering each of the objections in the paper is this
section. Study it well.

a. Relation of obscure to plain passages

A common trick of the Devil is to take obscure passages and use them to
explain away plain passages. In this context he does it often. So when Jesus
said “There is none good but one, and that is God” was he saying “you have
called me God” or was he saying “You should not call me God?” It is not very
clear from the context. But Jesus received similar worship from Thomas (“My
Lord and My God!” Jn. 20:28-29). If Jesus was consistent, then Jesus was
(see DA) drawing from the man a fuller statement of his confidence in Jesus
as the Messiah. That is the very opposite meaning assigned to the verse in
the study. Satan always attacks plain passages with obscure ones. That is
how he can get pride and self into the argument, and that works on his side,
When a difficult passage is used, a man must take a stand on it before he
can use it. And once he takes a stand on it, his pride and selfishness are
ready to defend the stand.

b. Relation of a papal claim that their doctrine is built on the “trinity.”

There have been a lot of papal writers in the last two thousand years. Some
would say that the church doctrine rests on the mystery of the Eucharist.
Others would say that it rest on the teaching of Jesus himself. Others on
the plethora of wisdom as represented in the Apostle’s creed. The claims of
the papal church are no evidence either for or against any point of
doctrine. The only exception would be a point of doctrine about what the
Roman church teaches. On that point Roman dignitaries might teach with
authority.

But it is nonsense that the Roman doctrine is built upon the mystery of the
Trinity. The Roman church was constructed in doctrine through the ages
while the very nature of God was a continuing argument. The idea that the
SDA church is doubtfully the Remnant based on the arguments drawn from
Johnson and the Romish document is a serious claim to place on such a sandy
foundation.

c. Relation of inferences to statements

“There are three that bear witness in heaven.” 1 Jn. 5:7 (higher criticism
has manhandled this passage.)

“With my Father on his throne.” Rev. 3:21

“Whose going forth has been from everlasting.” Mic. 5:2

“Only begotten.” (many places)

Compare these. The first and third are statements regarding Jesus and the
Godhead. They say that there are three members, and that Jesus has existed
from eternity. The second and forth are statements on other topics that seem
to have a bearing on the truth about the Godhead. The Spirit is not
mentioned in Rev. 3:21, so we infer that there is no third person. There is
the problem. Inference is just another way of adding human reason and
tradition to our method of finding truth. What we infer is based on what we
think. Acts 13:2 speaks plainly about the Holy Spirit as a person. When we
form a doctrine we should make a wide distinction between arguments drawn
from statements on the topic under discussion, and arguments drawn from
inference.

d. Relation of views on inspiration and the use of Ellen White.

The author of the paper quotes Ellen White. Scott Stanley did also. But he
did not have faith in her writings. He picked the things that he believed
in, and found evidence that the rest was “influenced” or was outdated light.
If a man quotes EGW as an authority, but does not accept her authority, his
quoting of her is itself dishonesty. Think about that.

John, put together, yourself, and in your own words, the Biblical arguments
against the Three-person Godhead that seem unanswerable, and send them to me, and I
will find time to deal with them one by one. I did read the whole paper, and
every paragraph creates a burning in me to write so much. But it takes much
truth to extinguish a little error, so I have written this to show the
underlying principles that may save you from similar bouts with error in the
future.

Let me know what you think.

Pray and study, study and pray.

Your servant in Christ,

Eugene

PS Don’t “run” with anything before serious study and counsel and prayer and
time.

For the Word Document, click here

Commentary on the Methods of Jeff Pippenger

A Summary of Thoughts and Concerns regarding the Teaching of Jeff Pippenger

  I have only met Jeff one time in my life. I attended a symposium on Daniel 11 at the Lifestyle Center of America. The meeting was sponsored by several persons that favored Jeff’s teachings on Daniel 11, though persons with varying views were invited to attend. It is fair to the organizers to say that they never thought to invite me. But how and by whom I was invited is beyond the scope of this short paper.

Before attending the seminar I was favorably inclined to believe what Jeff had to share. I had heard, as far as I knew, only positive things about his theology and his knowledge of prophecy. And to his credit, I heard that he had avoided the pitfalls of “futurism” that have ruined the usefulness of so many would-be prophetic expositors.

More than that, I heard (and am still impressed) that Jeff has a high-level of respect for the Testimonies. And more than this, that he has made a diligent study of the pioneers. This is an important point. The average Adventist doesn’t realize the difference in Biblical quality between the writings of the pioneers and modern writings. The former are logical, Biblical, earnest, and to the point. The latter deliver less of these qualities. And so, again, Jeff has made a good study of the pioneers and on the points on which they are well agreed with each other, he tends to agree with them also.

Another positive point is that Jeff reminds Adventists of their duty and need to know and teach their message. He reminds us of the coming Sunday Law, the coming change in the USA, the coming Latter Rain and the final “rise and fall” of the Papacy. In terms of our belief about the end of time and about Daniel 11, we share the following views: The Man of Sin, the Leopard-like Beast, the Little Horn, etc., represent the Papacy.

The 1260 days began in 538 and ended in 1798. Clovis led pre-France into becoming the first Catholic nation in 508. The France-led invasion of Italy brought an end to the Papal rule over Rome in 1798. France is represented by Egypt in Revelation 11. Atheism, as nationally represented by communism, is the extension of the principles of the French Revolution, and spiritually, of Egypt. The Latter Rain will add power to the church and cause our message to swell to the Loud Cry. The tidings from the East and North in Daniel 11:44 are the Sealing messages of the Sabbath and of the Fourth Angel. Daniel 12:1 is the close of human probation. There are many other points that I could add to this list. The points well established by the book Great Controversy are held in common by us, and this means a lot of points.

If I ended here I guess this paper would amount to a recommendation of Jeff’s lectures and of his printed materials. I wish I could stop here.   In the future we will be brought before tribunals. There we will be asked to give reasons for our faith. If our reasons are sound, our enemies will be vanquished by the power of the Word. The power of the Spirit will add conviction to what we share.

This Spirit-powered conviction characterized the teaching of William Miller. He held crowds spell-bound under the searching power, not of exciting antics, but of calm reasoned explanation of the scripture. Authors wrote that if you accepted his suppositions that his conclusions were inescapable. This is how our writings on prophecy should be. Scripture should interpret scripture. Clear passages should illumine obscure ones. This is how the introduction to Jeff’s book advertises the rest of it, as a Bible study that lets scripture interpret itself.

Discussing the weaknesses of Jeff’s book, “The Final Rise and Fall of the King of the North”, carries certain risks. I think of three of these dangers: First, argument is always risky. We are prone to be proud and biased. A desire to “smite with the fist of wickedness” characterizes the devotional persons of our church according to Isaiah 58. I, as a Christian, must be kind and considerate in my presentations. Second, Jeff has built his interpretations around a framework of truth. Any discussion of the weaknesses of his reasons could be easily misunderstood as an argument against the framework itself. If Jeff has given faulty reasons for believing a true fact, an attack on the faulty reasons could appear as an attack on the truths they were used to buttress. Third, the power of the Ellen White statements that fill the book is strong. Many persons could well be benefitted by those statements in a powerful way. They could be awakened to a closer sense of their need to prepare for Christ’s coming. To show the weaknesses of the book could be perceived by them as an attack on the beauty of the spiritual revival they, as readers, have experienced.   If the reader understands the nature of these dangers it will make my work safer.

When I point out logical fallacies (there are a few) and faulty principles (there are a couple) and faulty parallels (there are many), the reader can understand that I still believe in the soon coming National Sunday Law. Any doubts regarding my own teaching may quickly be settled by listening to my sermons at www.audioverse.org or reading my materials at www.bibledoc.org.   What follows immediately is a summary of concerns with the Jeff’s book already mentioned. After the summary you will find a partial detailing of issues related to the book and expanding on the summary.

Point One:           How is history repeated?   That history is repeated, especially in our day, is absolutely established by the prophets. But the nature and cause of that repetition needs to be understood before that repetition is a helpful element in our interpretation of prophecy.   The work of God in the earth presents, from age to age, a striking similarity in every great reformation or religious movement. The principles of God’s dealing with men are ever the same. The important movements of the present have their parallel in those of the past, and the experience of the church in former ages has lessons of great value for our own time.  {GC 343.1}

History repeats because God, and even men and demons, operate on basically the same principles from age to age.   God does not force evil men to repeat the history of their ancestors. In fact, God warns them against doing so. He does, however, encourage faithful persons to imitate the faithfulness of ancient worthies. In every age mercy pleads with both camps until hope for the former is lost through the hardness of their hearts.

Ps 78:8  And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God.

Eze 20:17  Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness. 18  But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols:

In every age there is given to men their day of light and privilege, a probationary time in which they may become reconciled to God. But there is a limit to this grace. Mercy may plead for years and be slighted and rejected; but there comes a time when mercy makes her last plea. The heart becomes so hardened that it ceases to respond to the Spirit of God. Then the sweet, winning voice entreats the sinner no longer, and reproofs and warnings cease.  {DA 587.1}

The law of cause and effect doesn’t change. So the type of behavior exhibited by Abel produced persecution by persons like Cain. Holy living by Jesus led to his persecution. In fact, all that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. Revivals are collective growth in holy living. Therefore a great revival will be followed by a serious persecution. Thus history repeats itself.   The apostle Paul declares that “all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” 2 Timothy 3:12.

Why is it, then, that persecution seems in a great degree to slumber? The only reason is that the church has conformed to the world’s standard and therefore awakens no opposition. The religion which is current in our day is not of the pure and holy character that marked the Christian faith in the days of Christ and His apostles. It is only because of the spirit of compromise with sin, because the great truths of the word of God are so indifferently regarded, because there is so little vital godliness in the church, that Christianity is apparently so popular with the world. Let there be a revival of the faith and power of the early church, and the spirit of persecution will be revived, and the fires of persecution will be rekindled.  {GC 48.3}

As an example of how history repeats we may consider the story of the Exodus. When Moses’ followers rebelled against God, Moses was tested over his love for them by an invitation to separate from their company. This happened in Numbers 14. It happened twice again in Numbers 16. It happened also in Numbers 20. God used the rebellion of the rebellious to cultivate the faithful intercession of the faithful. And this happened repeatedly on the way to Canaan, a trip representing our journey at the end of the world.

The question is: Does history repeat in numerical patterns? Or does it repeat rather as men of one age make choices similarly to men of another? Should I expect that, in our day, there will be four such intercede-or-leave tests, each with characteristics of the four in Israel’s history, and in the same order? Should I expect 10 unfaithful men (against two faithful peers and two faithful leaders) to spearhead the first rebellion (as Num 14); three unfaithful men (two with families, one, like Korah, without his family) to spearhead the second (as Num 16); the third to be the entire nation (as Num 16 also), and the forth to irritate the faithful (as Moses struck the rock in Num 20)?

Or should I expect that in the end of time that there will be repeated tests of men’s love for their brethren by calls to leave the denomination because of its sins? In the same way, shouldn’t I expect that most rebels will take their families with them, but that being a child of a rebel doesn’t doom a man (as it didn’t doom Korah’s children)? And shouldn’t I expect that I am under obligation to guard my spirit, even while interceding, so that I am not irritated by the church’s unfaithfulness (as was Moses) and so, like him, forfeit my chance at translation?

The latter paragraph, and not the former, is the proper way to view the repetition of history. In the latter case we understand that God selected snippets of history that would well represent the spiritual condition of our age. That is how Paul used the Exodus stories in 1 Corinthians 10:

5  But with many of [the Israelites] God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 ¶  Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7  Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8  Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9  Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10  Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11  Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12  Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

But the other way of understanding historical patterns is one used by Jeff regarding Daniel 11:30-36, regarding the timing of numerous events, and regarding number-oriented patterns and parallels. He looks for numbers of “enemies”, order of obstacles, and short patterns in history, and reads these as prophecies, as principles of how the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan works.

Yet this idea is flawed. The reason that there were three horns to pluck up by the influence of the little horn was not that God was making it happen that way to produce a prophetic pattern. The little horn uprooted the very tribes it needed to, and unless a prophet says otherwise, that is all we should assume. In summary of this first concern, a misunderstanding of how history repeats creates many false prophecies out of perceived patterns planned neither by God nor orchestrated by Satan.

Point Two:          How much should we trust an author?

Jeff repeatedly makes suggestions as to the meaning of passages of scripture. He states his convictions as matters of fact. The Libyans and the Ethiopians, he explains, represent the poor and the rich. He gives a little evidence in the form of some anecdotal history. And then he expects his readers to believe him.

This isn’t safe. Our pioneers adopted another course. They took the various views, along with the scriptural evidence for each, and logically eliminated all but the true view. You could read their writings starting with a differing view and see, by the end, that you were wrong. You didn’t need to trust the authors to follow their logic.

The method of suggesting a meaning works best for passages which people know that they don’t understand. That is why I, like many, was anxious to read the section on the Libyans and the Ethiopians. I had ideas about their meaning, but had not been able to settle on any conclusion with certainty. I thought Jeff might present compelling Biblical data that would throw light on the subject. And neither have I settled on a meaning for these two nations now.[1]

Point Three:        What role does a Lexicon play in Biblical interpretation?

Words change in meaning over time. “By and by” today means “eventually.” In 1611 it meant “immediately.” And “let” today means “allow.” But in 1611 it often meant “hinder.” In cases like these lexicons can be helpful to persons unaware of the ancient meaning of a word.

But Lexicons are merely dictionaries. They describe part of the range of meanings that a word may have. Let me demonstrate a faulty use of a lexicon by taking an actual statement by Ellen White (in English) and using an English lexicon like a foreign person unfamiliar with English might erroneously do when trying to understand a translation of the passage into his own language. Supposing that the translation was a good one, it would read something like this, but in a foreign language:       

My attention was then called to William Miller. He looked perplexed and was bowed with anxiety and distress for his people. The company who had been united and loving in 1844 were losing their love, opposing one another, and falling into a cold, backslidden state. – EW 257

Looking up key words in his English lexicon, our foreign speaking person might find the following definitions for original English words:

  1. Attention: n, attentiveness, as “attention to a teacher”; affection for an ailing person; military: standing upright as a sign of respect;
  2. Call: v., to beckon with a voice; to make a song, as a “bird call”; a telephone communication or attempted communication;
  3. Bow: v., to kneel, usually as a sign of respect; to bend at the waist, as “the artist bowed to the clapping persons.”; to bend;
  4. Company: n. Group; Companions, as “they make good company”; an organized business;

So now our foreign student tries to understand the passage. He might conclude that Ellen White heard a voice calling her to be kind to William Miller who was having a rough day and was nervously kneeling, apparently under pressure from his people. These companions had been united and loving in 1844 but were losing their kindness [as is obvious earlier in the passage when they lead William to “bow.”]

But we, as English speakers, wouldn’t conclude that. You see, we know the language. It is easy for us, very easy, to know what “attention”, “call”, “bowed”, and “company” mean in that Early Writings paragraph.   This is like the difference between Bible translators and us. They knew the language. Many times it was very easy for them to know which definition of a word (for many words have more than one) ought to be understood in a passage.

And we? We don’t. And we are likely to guess wrongly and to make up fanciful interpretations if we do guess using a lexicon. [2]   A safer way (than correcting a text via lexicon) to see if there are alternate ways to read the Hebrew or Greek is to look at a variety of translations based on the same Greek Text and to check the marginal readings in the KJV. Looking to see how the word is used in other similar contexts may also provide insights. The translators of the KJV did a tolerably good job of giving literal translations and alternate readings in the margin. And other translations based on the same family of manuscripts as the KJV include the Rotherham, Webster, Weymouth, Young’s Literal, and much of the NKJV.

There is another and graver mistake in using a lexicon that is often made, and sometimes made by Jeff in this book. Men use the history of the development of the word to help them understand its meaning in a passage. Let me illustrate.

Joh 11:9  Jesus answered [611], Are there not twelve hours in the day [2250]? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.

The two words, Strongs numbers 611 and 2250, are two of the most abundantly used words in the new testament (used 250 and 389 times respectively, compared to an average occurrence of 5 uses per word.) It is easy to look at the definitions and see that they mean “answer” and “day.” And it is easy to look up other passages that use them and see that they are translated that way all through the New Testament. But if you look at the introduction of their definitions you will find that the word “answer” is derived from two Greek words, “apo” and “krino.” These words mean, “away from” and “judgment, or condemnation.” It seems that at some time the word “apokrinomai” came from replying to an accusation. Yet by the time of Jesus it was used simply to mean “answer.”

And in the passage quoted above the word “day” is haemera. This is what my lexicon says about it: from (with 5610 implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit, akin to the base of 1476) meaning tame, i.e. gentle; Now this is all very interesting. The word day was derived from a word that meant “to sit” and that was related to a word meaning “tame” or “gentle.” It implies the Greek word for “hour” (5610).

One could get the idea that “day” means “an hour for gentle meditation, or sitting.” But this would be a faulty conclusion. The word just means “day.” Its meaning developed and changed over time. By the time of Jesus it had lost all meaningful connection with its historical sources. When prophets use words, they use them as those around them currently understand them, not in accordance with their ancient derivations. One of my friends, reading the first draft of this document, was concerned that I was pushing Biblical interpretation back into the dark ages where only the learned could do it.

But it is not so. In fact, William Miller studied the Bible with a Cruden’s Concordance[3] and by making use of the marginal readings. This was sufficient. He was dependant, you might say, on the scholars that translated the Bible into English. We all are, of course, unless we make diligent study of the languages ourselves. These great men translated the scripture into our language to free us so that we could read and interpret the Bible without depending on scholars. The misuse of the Lexicon actually creates an unhealthy dependence on men. When common men see that a lexicon has been referenced they often suppose that the writer is more learned than they. They assume that what he says about the Greek or Hebrew words is true since he quotes it from a lexicon. And so they repose in the conclusions of his studies being neither inclined nor able to follow him into the maze of a foreign language.

Point Four:          Does repetition transform speculation into study?

Jeff, after making a point about the interpretation of Daniel 11, often refers back to that point again and again. This is a fine method of teaching. It helps settle points in the mind. But if the initial point was made with a deficient amount of evidence, or with an improper use of parallels or of a lexicon, that fact may be readily forgotten by the reader a few pages later. This is particularly troublesome if the point made was speculative. By “speculative” I mean that Jeff selected one of the ways that a passage or word could be understood to the exclusion of others, but without evidence that he had good reason to exclude the others. The repetition gives the impression that there is a lot of material and many ideas in the study even when there is little data and few evidences. Instead of the pioneer method of evidence-evidence-evidence-evidence-conclusion, Jeff sometimes uses a conclusion-evidence-conclusion-conclusion-conclusion-conclusion pattern.

Point Five:           Does plausibility mean dependability?   Let me illustrate this with an actual point from the book. The following is a quotation from the section on the first 39 verses of Daniel 11:   After the delineation of the history of pagan Rome, verse 29 describes the closing scenes of pagan Rome’s authority.  Here we see Constantine moving the capital away from Rome at the “time appointed.” In verse 30 we see his “indignation against the holy covenant” as he introduces the first Sunday laws. So here is the plausibility. Perhaps Constantine’s Sunday Law of 321 AD is what is meant by “indignation against the holy covenant” in verse 30. Perhaps it is so. And it fits well if you believe Daniel 11 to be about Sunday Laws later on in the chapter.   But do plausibility and a nice fit in connection with end-time scenarios help us know if this is the right interpretation of the prophecy?

I say “no.” We need to look at reasons, arguments, data, and to compare scripture with scripture. Consider the following:

  1. Constantine did not live at the time of the “closing scenes of pagan Rome’s Authority.”
  2. Constantine’s Sunday Law was pagan, not Christian, in nature and wording
  3. The first part of verse 30 speaks of the “ships” that both Jeff and I understand to refer to the Vandals. They began their work against Rome after being chased from their homeland by the Huns, and this was long after the time of Constantine.
  4. Time wise, this passage parallels the introduction of the little horn in Daniel 7 where it seeks to “change times and laws.”
  5. Conclusion: It is the papacy that has indignation against the Holy Covenant in verse 30.

Conclusion   These are my concerns with the book. It does have merits. It connects Rev 14:12 and 17:3. And it connects Dan 11:36 with 2The 2. It makes a good point regarding Rev 13:2 and Rev 17. There are other valid observations.

But there is also too much creativity and speculation. Men are invited to adopt interpretations without sound reasoning. And this habit of uncritical thinking in the face of doctrinal teaching does not bode well for the time in which we live.

If someone wants more specifics on my relation to Jeff’s teachings, my comments on the following book are highlighted in blue [see the Word Document for blue highlighting] so as to be easy to find. (Items not in blue, below, are quoted from Jeff’s book.) Most of Jeff’s book is not found below. But in the numerous places where portions (many large) have been omitted, an ellipsis is inserted, usually after one of my comments in blue.

———  WORDPRESS DID NOT SUPPORT THE FORMATTING OF THIS PART OF THE DOCUMENT WITHOUT ME INVESTING A LOT OF TIME TO FIX IT. TO READ THIS PART, DOWNLOAD THE DOC OR CLICK ON THE LINK AT THE END. — EUGENE, 8-22-13

 


[1] It is not central to the purpose of this paper to explain what I found regarding these two nations. Yet, as example of how Bible-study works, I will here share a few of my observations: 1.             In Jeremiah 46:1-11, the same nations in this verse, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Libya, are confederate against Babylon. Though rooted in a historical event, the wording sounds apocalyptic. There is the gathering of the nations to destroy a city but only to be themselves destroyed in a sacrifice by God [given to the birds, etc.] 2.             The words for Libya in Dan 11 and Jer 46 are different, the former meaning “empty-hearted” and the latter meaning “afflicted.” 3.             Phut, the father of the Libyans of Jer 46, was a son of Ham and a brother of Canaan. Gen 10:6 4.             In Eze 27-28 where Tyre represents the papacy, and the King of Tyre represents the Devil, we find these two words for Libya used together, showing perhaps that they are not precisely the same, but that they are similar in origin and location. They are represented as composing, with “Persia” the army of Tyre. Eze 27:10. 5.             In Eze 30:4-6 Egypt is prophesied to fall by the sword. There the nations that are round her borders, those “confederate” with her, including both those of “Ethiopia” and “Libyan” fall with her. 6.             In Eze 38, in the representation of the battle of Armageddon under the figures of Gog and Magog, we find again “Ethiopia” and “Libya” with “Persia”, as forming the manpower of the army fighting against God’s city. 7.             The bloody city Nineveh, when threatened by destruction, is warned by the history of Ammon, the city of “No.” She is told that No had as defenders Egypt, Ethiopia, and both of the groups, Phut and Lubim that are translated “Libya” elsewhere. 8.             King Asa had victory with a small force against more then one million soldieries of “Ethiopia” and Libya, (called “Lubim” in the passage). This great victory was to teach him not to depend on the arm of men, a lesson he did not learn well. 2Chro 16. 9.             Earlier than this, when Rehoboam was threatened by Egypt, Egypt was buttressed with an innumerable company from Ethiopia and Libya. These were sent to punish Jerusalem. But when Jerusalem humbled itself, God sent deliverance. 2Chro 12. 10.          These are all the passages that refer to the Libyans by means of these two words in scripture. In them we note several patterns: They (Libya and Ethiopia) are always confederate with Egypt, both against Jerusalem and against Babylon or Tyre. They form the shield-wielding soldiers and forces of Egypt. They are often connected to stories that represent Armageddon. These seem to be the repeated, and hence, Biblical points.
[2] This has been done by persons of other faiths. I had an interesting discussion regarding the Sabbath with two young men about a year ago. They promised to get back to me on why they kept Sunday. The next week they brought me a document. I can not quote it, but I can rewrite its main thesis:   In Matthew 28:1 we find the following words in the King James Version of the Bible: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.” What the average reader doesn’t know is that the word translated “week” is the same word translated “Sabbath” earlier in the verse.  And also, that the word “day” is supplied. Read literally the passage would be rendered “At the end of the [Jewish] Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first [Christian] Sabbath, came Mary Magdalene…” The reading shows that the resurrection Sunday was the “first” of the new Sabbaths.   The problem with the above is that the word “first” is feminine and Sabbath is neuter. That is why the word “day” is supplied, because it is a feminine word. Greek readers knew that “first” couldn’t refer to Sabbath. More than that, the word “week” (the word for Sabbath can be translated either as Sabbath or week) is in the genitive, showing that it should be translated “of the week/Sabbath.” All first-grade Greek pupils knew that. When we say “It will come on the sixteenth of the month” no one thinks we are saying “It will come on the sixteenth month.” Everyone understands that the word “day” is intended to be understood.
[3] Cruden’s is a fairly thorough concordance, but it contains no lexicon. It differs, in this way, from Strong’s and Young’s.
[4] Daniel Fontenot challenged this point is a private email dated 9-8-2008. So here is some data related to the point: “according to his will” is used in reference to God (Dan 4:35), twice in reference to Alexander the Great (Dan 8:4; 11:3) and once in reference to the papcy (Dan 11:36). And this is just in the book of Daniel. When EGW uses a phrase from 2 Thes, she uses quotation marks. But “according to his will” is not in quotation marks. In Ellen White’s writings it is used in reference to “Satan” CG 93; CC 165; DD 38; GC 35;GC 595. And if you will now reread the GC 50 statement you will see that “Satan” rather than “man of sin” is the antecedent of “according to his will.” Though Satan works through the papacy to accomplish his will, we would not want to confound Satan and the papacy. If our principle says “using the phrase is interpretive” then we are stuck with a Jewish period on page 35 fulfilling Dan 11:31. When I write “generic” what I mean is that none of the words in the phrase are specialized enough to keep the phrase from being used in many different situations and in reference to many different entities. Generic phrases, for this reason, when not in quotes, should not be assumed to be quotes. If we do assume the phrase is a quote, why do we quote it from Daniel 11:31 and not from 11:3 or 8:4 or 4:35?

Jeff Pippenger and The 2520 and Prophecy

The Seven Times or 2,520 Year prophecy

A Historical Survey and Bible Study by Eugene Prewitt

I have, on the wall in my study, a facsimile of one of the more prominent Millerite charts. For more than fifteen years I have been interested in this chart and particularly in the more obscure portions of it. I might have been about to leave my teen years when I first realized that Miller and others taught about a time period that was 2,520 years long.

This short article will survey the early Adventist teaching on the 2520 and will then offer several Biblical observations to those interested in understanding what the Bible teaches in regard to the 2520.

Historical Survey

For those that are not familiar with the facts of this case, Miller believed that there were two 1260 year periods that, together, made a 2520 year period. (2520 is 7 times 360, seven prophetic years.) One of these 1260 year periods is familiar to Adventists. It began in 538 and ended in 1798. It was the period of papal civil supremacy.

The other is less familiar. It is what Miller called the “times of the Gentiles.” Lu 21:24. He understood this to be the first of the two periods brought to view in Revelation 11. And he thought this to be the period pictured in Daniel 12.

For the timing of this period he took 677 BC as the beginning of the Jewish captivity under Assyria-Babylon, and brought this forward 1215 years to 538 AD. Then he added 45 years of non-Catholic Roman (European) control of Jerusalem, and came to 1843.[1]

One of the most interesting features of this period, as Miller understood it, was that it coincided with the Jubilee release and with the 6000th year[2] of the earth’s existence.

Miller opposed, on solid grounds, those persons who looked for a rebuilt Jerusalem as a fulfillment of covenant promises. He argued that Christ’s Coming, to reign on the throne of David, would be the event of the Jubilee that would free the Jews from their 2520 years of bondage under a succession of five great world empires.

James White later quoted the Advent Shield, an early Millerite paper, to show that Sabbath keeping Adventists were justified in holding to the original Millerite dates while other Adventists were setting new and untried dates.

The paragraphs that he quoted from the Advent Shield included a passing reference to the 2520 and to the “Great Jubilee” (the 2450 year prophecy alluded to above, 49 x 50 years) showing that both terminated in 1844. These paragraphs were quoted no less than seven times, three during the first year of publication of the Sabbath Herald, two during the first year of publication of the Review and Herald, and two during the tenth year of the Review and Herald.

The seven-year prophetic period of Jewish captivity Miller found in several Bible passages. He found it in Leveticus 26. He found it also in Deuteronomy 15 figured under the “seven year” release, the Sabbatical year.  He found it also, albeit in typological fashion, in the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s grass-eating period. And he found it also in an obscure interpretation of Ezekiel 39:9.[3]

Seventh-day Adventism on Miller

When Adventism was splintering, the Sabbath-keeping portion held to more of Miller’s original teaching than any other branch. They held to Daniel 2, 7, 8 and 9 as taught by Miller. They adopted his understanding, though slightly refined, of the latter portion of Daniel 12 and more or less to his understanding of large portions of Daniel 11.

But we didn’t follow Miller on Leveticus 26. That is why you never grew up hearing about the 2520 year time prophecy.

Hiram Edson did make a stab at reinterpreting the 2520 in a way that could fit with Adventism. (For it was clear that Christ did not, in 1844, bring an end to the Jewish captivity—Miller’s expectation.) Edson’s article was printed, at the request of James White, before it had been “matured.” It was long, nearly 30,000 words. That is 47 single-spaced sheets of typing paper.

Edson differed from Miller significantly in that he dated the 2520 from 723 BC rather than from 677. The earlier date of Edson was based on the captivity of the ten tribes and extended to 1798. In Edson’s view, then, the first 1260 years were finished inclusive at the commencement of the second 1260 year period. Thus it was the Christian church, not the Jews, that were released in 1798.

Edson’s article, in all fairness to him, was nothing like a statement of what the pioneers believed, either before its publication, or at its publication. It was the result of his personal investigation and he presented it with a request for his brethren to evaluate whether or not it would be useful.

As I have not time at present to mature the subject, I send you a portion of the broken, unmatured ideas as they are.  I do not ask that they now go out as adopted or sanctioned by the Review, but merely for the examination and inspection of the brethren; and if the subject by them be judged to be of service to the church and worthy of further investigation, then it may hereafter be revised, improved, and carried out in its further bearing and extent. – Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Aug 27, 1857.

Much of Edson’s article[4] was a response to the First-day Adventists’ attempts to find in prophecy an allusion to an “age to come” of peace and prosperity on the earth, especially for the Jews.

For the most part, it was these Sunday-keeping Adventists who held to much of Miller’s teaching on the 2520. They expected  an “age to come” at the conclusion of that time that would bring an end to the Jewish captivity and would see a renewed Jewish state. Uriah Smith addressed these expectations in the appendix of Daniel and Revelation, pp 784-785.

THE “SEVEN TIMES” OF LEVITICUS 26.

Almost every scheme of the “Plan of the Ages,” “Age-to-come,” etc., makes use of a supposed prophetic period called the “Seven Times;” and the attempt is made to figure out a remarkable fulfillment by events in Jewish and Gentile history.  All such speculators might as well spare their pains;  for there is no such prophetic period in the Bible.

The term is taken from Leviticus 26, where the Lord denounces judgments against the Jews, if they shall forsake him.  After mentioning a long list of calamities down to verse 17, the Lord says:  “And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.”  Verse 18.  Verses 19 and 20 enumerate the additional judgments, then it is added in verse 21:  “And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me:  I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.”  More judgments are enumerated, and then in verses 23 and 24 the threatening is repeated:  “And if ye will not be reformed by me these things, but will walk contrary unto me;  then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins.”  In verse 28 it is repeated again.

Thus the expression occurs four times, and each succeeding mention brings to view severer punishments, because the preceding ones were not heeded.  Now, if “seven times” denotes a prophetic period (2520 years), then we would have four of them, amounting in all to 10,080 years, which would be rather a long time to keep a nation under chastisement.

But we need borrow no trouble on this score;  for the expression “seven times” does not denote a period of duration, but is simply an adverb expressing degree, and setting forth the severity of the judgments to be brought upon Israel.

If it denoted a period of time, a noun and its adjective would be used, as in Dan.4:16:  “Let seven times pass over him.”  Here we have the noun (times) and adjective (seven):  thus,  shibah iddan;  but in the passages quoted above from Leviticus 26, the words “seven times” are simply the adverb sheba, which means “sevenfold.”  The Septuagint makes the same distinction, using [the noun in] Dan.4:16, etc.,  but in Leviticus simply the adverb.

The expression in Dan.4:16 is not prophetic, for it is used in plain, literal narration.  (See verse 25.)

Besides these references to Miller, Edson, the Advent Herald, and Smith, one other pioneer early after the disappointment mentioned the 2520 period – Joseph Bates.

In his 1847 Second Advent Waymarks and High Heaps, Bates recounts how it came as a shock to Adventists that they and their critics had somehow missed the fact that the periods (2520, 2450, 6000, 2300) would be fulfilled in 1844, not 1843. This he recounts under the head of his second of seven “waymarks.”

Then, after the seventh waymark, Bates confronts Miller’s view that the “mystery of God” is the resurrection. Bates comments cogently that if that was the mystery that was to be finished, it would not be finished until after the 1000 years. Bates argues rather that the mystery of God refers to the time of redemption and probation that had closed in 1844. Under this understanding the “times of the Gentiles” were the times of Gentile probation that closed in 1844. Bates makes no reference to a change or end to captivity in 1844.

In the 1860’s Joshua Himes recommended First-day Adventists to read the work of one Dr. Schmeal. The doctor found that the world would end in 1868 at the conclusion of the 2520 year prophecy, dated from a different captivity than that chosen by Miller or Edson. The Review and Herald mentioned this simply to refute it.

Conclusion of the Historical Survey

Miller early published a series of lectures that discussed what he believed to be every time prophecy in the scriptures and the fulfillment of each. Believing the “seven times” of Leveticus 26 to be a time prophecy, he wrote about it.

Millerite charts of the time prophecies included, originally, references to the 2520 period.

As the movement approached October 22, 1844, preaching on Daniel 8 took precedence over other time prophecies. The disappointment led to a splintering of views of the time prophecies. Sabbath keeping Adventists continued to emphasize Daniel 8 (making over 2000 references to the 2300 days in the Adventist Pioneer Library).

But the only Sabbath-keeping Adventists pioneers who ever wrote about the 2520 directly were Bates, Edson and Smith. The first used the 2520 as evidence that probation had closed. The second suggested a changing of the dates on the chart to terminate in 1798, and the third argued that the 2520 was not an actual time prophecy at all. None of the three taught Miller’s view of the prophecy.

Smith’s view became standard and no one after him ever published another allusion to the 2520 as a legitimate prophecy.

The Bible Study

The Old Testament time prophecies that are familiar to Seventh-day Adventists are clearly time prophecies.

There are “2300 days”, literally, “2300 evenings and mornings.”

There are “1260 days” and “1290 days” and a coming to the “1335th day”.

There is a “time, times, and half a time” and “time, times and a half”

And the phrase “seven times” appears in 33 passages. Additionally, the phrase “seven years” appears in 40 passages. I was interested in Smith’s argument that the “seven times” of Leveticus 26 differed significantly from the “seven times” of Daniel 4. Here is what I found:

When the Bible writers want to say “seven years” they use two words – sheba for seven and shanah for years. This pattern is 100% consistent in the Old Testament for all 39 Old Testament instances of “seven years.” The references for you to check in your concordance are:

 

Ge 5:7; Ge 5:25; Ge 5:31; Ge 11:21; Ge 25:17; Ge 29:18; Ge 29:20; Ge 41:26; Ge 41:27; Ge 41:29; Ge 41:30; Ge 41:36; Ge 41:48; Ge 41:53; Ge 41:54; Ge 47:28; Ex 6:16; Ex 6:20; Le 25:8; Nu 13:22; De 15:1; De 31:10; Jud 6:1; Jud 6:25; Jud 12:9; 2Sa 2:11; 2Sa 5:5; 2Sa 24:13; 1Ki 2:11; 1Ki 6:38; 2Ki 8:1; 2Ki 8:2; 2Ki 8:3; 2Ki 11:21; 1Ch 3:4; 1Ch 29:27; 2Ch 24:1; Jer 34:14; Eze 39:9

And when the writers want to say “seven times” to express so many years, they use two words, — shibah for ‘seven’ and iddan for ‘times.’

Da 4:16  Let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven <shibah> times <iddan> pass over him.

Da 4:23  And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven <shibah> times <iddan> pass over him;

Da 4:25  That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven <shibah> times <iddan> shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Da 4:32  And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven <shibah> times <iddan> shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Further, the words iddan and mowed are sufficient to indicate a year without the help of a number.

Da 7:25  until a time <iddan> and times <iddan> and the dividing of time <iddan>.

Da 12:7  that it shall be for a time <mowed>, times <mowed>, and an half;

Finally, when the writers wish to express seven items, or seven occurrences, or any such use of seven that might be translated “seven times” the writers typically use two words, ‘sheba’ for ‘seven’ and paam for ‘times.’

For examples, see Ge 33:3; Le 4:6, 17; 8:11; 14:7, 16, 27, 51; 16:14, 19; 25:8; Nu 19:4; Jos 6:4, 15; 1Ki 18:43; 2Ki 4:35; 5:10, 14

The phrase “seven times” appears in Leveticus 26 and in four other passages.

In none of these four passages is the phrase a reference to seven periods of time. The passages are:

Ps 12:6  The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times <shibathayim>.

Ps 119:164  Seven times <sheba> a day do I praise thee because of thy righteous judgments.

Pr 24:16  For a just man falleth seven times <sheba>, and riseth up again: but the wicked shall fall into mischief.

Da 3:19  Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times<shibah>[5]  more than it was wont to be heated.

The only other place in scripture where the phrase “seven times” is derived as it is in the passages above is Leveticus 26. The following verses fill out the remaining Old Testament uses of the phrase “seven times.”

Le 26:18  And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times <sheba> more for your sins.

Le 26:21  And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times <sheba> more plagues upon you according to your sins.

Le 26:24  Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times <sheba> for your sins.

Le 26:28  Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times <sheba> for your sins.

Conclusion Regarding the Phrase

There is no evidence that I can see in scripture that the number seven has even been used substantively (that is, as a noun) to indicate seven periods of time. There is abundant evidence that when seven periods of time are intended, the number is used with a noun to indicate the fact.

And there is evidence outside of Leveticus 26 that when seven is used without a noun that it refers to intensity or completeness. There may even be “seven times” in “one day” of David or in one life of a “just man” or in one cycle of purifications in a furnace.

And when time is indicated by one word, it is by a word for “time” rather than by a number. So we find Daniel 7:25 and 12:7.

So of the pioneers that wrote about Leveticus 26, Bates, Edson, and Smith, the latter appears to be closer to right than the others.

But as of yet, we haven’t even begun to study the content of Leveticus 26.

Leviticus 26

The chapter begins with one of the most beautiful summaries of the covenant made with Abraham, the covenant that we call the New Covenant today.

Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God. Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD. Lev 26:1-2.

God reminds Israel of their obligations to the second and fourth commandments, the very commandments that contain the gospel content in the Decalogue, the very ones altered by the papacy. To a reminder of these precepts God adds “and reverence my sanctuary.”

Here are focal truths for our age. Many distracting and side issues often claim our attention, but these deserve the attention that the side issues claim.

And in the symbolic economy of the Jews, giving attention to these things, walking in God’s statues and in accordance with his commandments, brings rain in due season and a fruitful harvest. It is easy to perceive which kind of rain and which kind of fruitful harvest the church should look forward today in response to the same conditions of faithfulness.

If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them; Then I will give you rain in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit. Le 26:3-4.

What God promised was an Old Testament blessing of always fresh produce. The two harvests would each last for months, food would be in abundance, and Israel would be safe. They would not, however, be passive. Their dominions would grow by unnatural victories, five persons putting 100 to flight.

And your threshing shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing time: and ye shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land safely. And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword. Le 26:5-8

From this promise as much as from the story of Gideon we are taught that God can accomplish his purposes through many or by few.

The summary of the blessing is found in verses 9 through 13. God promises that they will be pressured to eat their stored food just to make room for the new. God would “respect” them, and for the same reason that he had respect to Abel’s offering. And what is more, God would dwell with them.

And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people. I am the LORD your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright.

Following these wonderful promises we find a solemn denunciation, and after that, a gospel promise that was claimed by the prophet Daniel.

The Denunciation

But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; Lev 26:14-16

The items in the denunciation include:

Appointed terror

Consumption

The burning “ague” that destroys the eyes and brings misery

Harvests eaten by enemies

Death in battle

Under hated and hating rulers

Running when no one is chasing

These items are promised before the first “seven” in verse 18. The harvest thefts remind us of Gideon. The running when no one is chasing reminds us of the armies in the time of Saul. Hated rulers are a theme of the book of Judges.

And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. Le 26:18.

The threat of verse 18 is for refusing to be reformed by the judgments listed above. A man that will not be reformed must needs be more thoroughly disciplined. The further discipline continues:

And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass: And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits. Le 26 19-20.

This part of the curse sounds like that of De 28 and especially of verses 23-24.

And what if Israel does not respond to these events, God’s communication. He says that he will bring “seven [times] more plagues.” This is why, and for reasons noted below, that Uriah Smith understood these periods to be successive.

But before we get that point, observe the last part of verse 21.

And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins.

The curse foretold by the term seven is not only finite, it is proportional to the sins of the people. Items of the curse already listed can be like that. A famine appropriate to the rebellion, a captivity commensurate with the evil, a military loss as the result unfaithfulness – all can be “upon you according to your sins.”

But what about 2520 years that span two different bodies of God’s people? Was a two millennium series of captivities a punishment threatened to a certain generation if it would not hearken?

The Ten Commandments speak of a visitation of sins to the third and fourth generation. That kind of visitation is apparent in the captivity that followed Hezekiah and in the one that followed Josiah. But it is God’s mercies that extend to a “thousand generations.” De 7:9.

In addition to the “seven times more plagues” of verse 21 God added, “I will also send wild beasts among you….and your high ways shall be desolate.” The word “also” gives credit to the Smith’s reasoning. What is the “also” referring back to? The last item prior is the “seven times more plagues.”

And it becomes clearer. Continuing from the word “desolate.”

And if ye will not be reformed by me by these things, but will walk contrary unto me; Then will I also walk contrary unto you, and will punish you yet seven times for your sins. Lev 26:23-24

What are the “these things” of verse 23? They can be no other than the curses of verse 22 that began with “I will also.” The word “yet” is but another indicator of a chronologically connected discourse.

The next step in the disaster includes pestilence that helps break up the defenses of a besieged and starving city. And a refusal to respond to this curse is followed up with words that were fulfilled as least twice in Jewish history.

And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me, but walk contrary unto me; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat. Le 26:27-29

But the easiest fulfillment to pinpoint is that of verses 34-35.

Then shall the land enjoy her sabbaths, as long as it lieth desolate, and ye be in your enemies’ land; even then shall the land rest, and enjoy her sabbaths. As long as it lieth desolate it shall rest; because it did not rest in your sabbaths, when ye dwelt upon it.

This was fulfilled, indeed as Miller understood, during the Babylonian captivity.

To fulfil the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years. 2Ch 36:21

Four more verses of curses (36-39) are followed by a wonderful promise:

If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; And that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: Then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land. The land also shall be left of them, and shall enjoy her sabbaths, while she lieth desolate without them: and they shall accept of the punishment of their iniquity: because, even because they despised my judgments, and because their soul abhorred my statutes. And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD. Le 26:40-45

This was the promise that formed, with the prayer of Solomon, the basis of Daniel’s prayer in Daniel 9. His prayer was one of acceptance. He acknowledged the fairness of the sentence of captivity in light of his sins and of those of his fathers.

And he asked for a reprieve. He had been studying the 70 year captivity mentioned by Jeremiah.

Think, dear reader. Would he have been encouraged by the approaching end of the 70 year captivity if he thought that the promise he was claiming from Leveticus 26 was connected to a 2,520 year captivity?

We have praying to do, judgments to accept, sins to confess, and promises to claim. We have truth to proclaim. But Daniel wouldn’t join us in proclaiming the “2520.”

Conclusion

The pioneers became right. As they studied during the formative years of 1833 to 1863 many of their ideas changed. From the timing of Sabbath to the timing of the 2300 days, from the identification of the two-horned beast, to that of the scarlet beast, from the shut door of probation to the shut door of the holy place, the pioneers were learning. Their publications show it to be so. They were glad to admit.

It is ironic that we have picked up a teaching that they, for good reason, were dropping. We would do well to leave it where the first pioneer to ever really examine the source of the 2520 day prophecy left it. That was Uriah Smith.

There are many other teachings that the pioneers were picking up when they were putting this one down. These deserve more of our study: The Seal of God, the Mark of the Beast, the Laodicea Message, the Third Angel’s Message and Righteousness by Faith.

Amen.

Appendix

 

What if the “seven” items or repetitions are years?

It is not possible for me, a man who does not know Hebrew, to rule out the possibility that the terms in Leveticus 26 refer to seven years. And while it appears that there is no ground for understanding the substantive adjective “seven” as anything more than “thoroughly” as in “a righteous man falls seven [times] and rises again”, still some doubt can be justified regarding the meaning of the phrase.

If one assumes that the passages do refer to years, however, there is no reason to read them as more or less than literal years. The other blessings and curses in the chapter are manifestly literal.

And we could ask ourselves, were there several “seven year” periods of catastrophe in the history of Israel that were the result of wrong doing? There were.

And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years. Judges 6:1

Then spake Elisha unto the woman, whose son he had restored to life, saying, Arise, and go thou and thine household, and sojourn wheresoever thou canst sojourn: for the LORD hath called for a famine; and it shall also come upon the land seven years. 2Ki 8:1

A third incident could have occurred during the reign of David if he had chosen it from a list of terrible alternatives.

So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. 2Sa 24:13

In summary, if Leveticus 26 is read literally, as Adventist standard principles of prophetic interpretation would require, and if we understand “seven” in the chapter to mean “seven years” then we could find in the days of the judges and of the prophets several fulfillments of the prophecy.



[1] Later, presumably 1214 and 46 were added to reach 1844, though I find no reference to the 2520 or the two 1260’s during that incredible movement that we call the Midnight Cry, the seventh-month movement. In fact, Miller’s most thorough discussion of the 2520 is found in his “Lecture 17”, first published in 1836. Other more succinct references can be found in his “Trilogy” and in his “Reply to Stuart” and in a commentary on “Ezekiel 39.”

[2] He differed from Usher on this point, arguing that Usher and others missed about 150 years during the time of the judges.

[3] A chief problem with the last incidence in Ezekiel is that it finds the fulfillment of a prophecy of a future war and post war clean-up beginning so early that the war is ended and the clean-up is ongoing for decades before Ezekiel ever makes the prophetic prediction. Presumably this is why the 2300 days never shows up in Revelation while the 1260 day prophecy does. If one thinks this through he will also see that it is an argument against Miller’s understanding of Revelation 11:2 as well.

[4] The article takes a number of unfamiliar positions. Among them: Revelation 17 was fulfilled between 1798 and 1844, the eighth head being the short-lived dynasty of Napoleon. This dynasty is the “scarlet” colored beast. The ten horns are the powers that surrendered to Napoleon. He teaches that the Mountain of the Lord’s House in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 is the United States. He teaches that the two questions in Daniel 8:13 have different answers, one a reference to the 2300 days, the other to the 2520 (or second 1260). He teaches that the hidden mistake in the ’44 chart was the timing of the 2520. He gives a spiritualized interpretation to Ezekiel 37-39 that is fascinating. The “coming” of the “Ancient of Days” in Daniel 7 he finds, not in the 1844 judgment scene, but in the 1798 judgments on the Roman Catholic church. He teaches that the time prophecies in Revelation were also sealed like those of Daniel until 1798. Some of these positions have merit enough to warrant investigation. It does not appear that even one of them was adopted by any other of the pioneers, nor were any of them ever mentioned in writing a second time by Edson.

[5] Shibah is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew sheba.

For the Word document, see:

For the Word Version, see: The_2520 and Prophecy

The Shepherd’s Rod and Related Issues

 

My Stand Regarding the Movement Known As

The Shepherds Rod

 

Eugene Prewitt takes responsibility for this document

 

Take heed therefore how ye hear

Luke 8:18

 

Introduction

Adventist generally are aware of a shaking that is to take place among God’s people. Those that can be shaken will be shaken. Those, who on the contrary, are settled into the truth intellectually and spiritually so that they can not be moved, will remain with the truth.

I have, in my brief lifetime, received many studies, books, and articles that asserted that my salvation would hinge on whether or not I accepted the propositions set forth in them. Many of them were charitable enough to say that God would wink at the times of my ignorance. But precious few of the authors believed that an honest searcher for truth, led by the Holy Spirit, could read the documents and be unconvinced.

If I were only to take into consideration those studies that met the following guidelines, there would still be more than you might guess.

  1. The author is a firm believer in the Spirit of Prophecy as manifest in Ellen White
  2. The author is very knowledgeable
  3. The author has carefully examined the arguments urged against his views
  4. The author has prayerfully and humbly pleaded for guidance from heaven
  5. The author has a disdain for sin, avoids display, advocates helpful reforms
  6. The author has a very significant list of statements from inspiration proving his/her position.
  7. The author has a theory that makes many otherwise difficult passages easy to harmonize with each other.
  8. The author has more than one passage from inspiration that indicates that one’s salvation may hinge on how one receives the message being presented

Yet, if I were to believe only the studies that meet these qualifications, I would at one time believe that our God is three persons and two. I would believe that we should keep the feasts, and that we should not. I would believe that we should stay in the SDA church, join the SDARM church, leave both, start a third. I would believe that modern prophets that rejected each other were both true. I would pronounce God’s name in Hebrew with great care. I would believe that the movement to pronounce that Name aright is the 4th angel of Revelation 18. I would also believe that the Shepherds Rod is that 4th angel. I would also believe the literature work of the SDA denomination is that angel. I would also believe that the call to leave the SDA denomination for non-denominational Sabbath-keeping is that angel. I would also believe that the Reform Movement is that angel. And I would believe more things than can be well recounted about Daniel 7 through 11.

With that said, I propose that one acknowledge that having these eight identifying marks is not sufficient evidence that a matter is true. And from that I would suggest that if I conclude from my study that I would rather say “I don’t believe that matter” in the judgement, that I am not accusing the document of lacking any of these eight evidences.

This introduction nearly states the direction the paper is going, and for that I am not ashamed. We will have to give account in the judgement for the use of our time and energies. That is reason enough to motivate me to “take heed how [I] hear.”

 

Charity in Judging

I fear men, not because they are a member of one group or another, but because they are men. Men, the best and most honest of them, are erring and contradictory. They make mistakes and retract them or defend them to the bitter end. The evangelist Bunyan, breathing the very atmosphere of heaven,
wrote with ability against the 7th day Sabbath. Luther and Carlstadt attacked each other. On nearly every point of difference, Luther was in the wrong. A few of our pioneers opposed Andrew’s opinion that Sabbath begins at sundown. And nearly all early Adventists kept it wrong in that respect for several years.

We ought, then, to be charitable in judging. Men may be sincerely wrong, and while we must strenuously oppose the worst of their errors, we may count the erring men as better than ourselves.

But there is a class with whom we can not be as charitable, in the social sense of the word, as with others. That class is made up of prophets, true and false. A person that speaks for God is His servant or His enemy. His ministry is not a harmless mistake; it is of the Devil or of God. Most prophets acknowledge this.

Victor Houteff falls into this last category. Speaking of his own material, Houteff wrote “It can not be anything else but some wonderful, plain, clear-cutting Bible truth which could not be contradicted.” SR p. 95. A man that claims to be a prophet (see page 196) makes a statement about inspiration, and thus about the Bible. If he is mistaken in detail, then the Bible may be also. If he can change his views over time, then portions of scripture may be outdated. The Bible has no kind words for false prophets.

Yet false prophets may repent and be converted. Two young ladies in Ellen White’s day were self-deceived until instructed by her. They both returned to their position as learners in the school of Christ.

If there is one passage quoted more often by Houteff than others, it is Ezekiel 9. Repeatedly he represents that the slaughter of Ezekiel 9 will happen prior to the loud cry and will be the means of purifying the church. Ellen White presents the truth on this issue, and it is very distinct from the Rod’s interpretation.

The slaughter of Ezekiel 9 is parallel with the releasing of the four winds in Revelation 7 and the destruction of the unfaithful by the four “sore judgments” of Ezekiel 14 and the Time of Trouble of Daniel 12:1. The advent movement is purified prior to this as the following passages point out.

The time is not far distant when the test will come to every soul. The mark of the beast will be urged upon us. Those who have step by step yielded to worldly demands and conformed to worldly customs will not find it a hard matter to yield to the powers that be, rather than subject themselves to derision, insult, threatened imprisonment, and death. The contest is between the commandments of God and the commandments of men. In this time the gold will be separated from the dross in the church. True godliness will be clearly distinguished from the appearance and tinsel of it. Many a star that we have admired for its brilliancy will then go out in darkness. Chaff like a cloud will be borne away on the wind, even from places where we see only floors of rich wheat. All who assume the ornaments of the sanctuary, but are not clothed with Christ’s righteousness, will appear in the shame of their own nakedness.  {5T 81.1}

When trees without fruit are cut down as cumberers of the ground, when multitudes of false brethren are distinguished from the true, then the hidden ones will be revealed to view, and with hosannas range under the banner of Christ. Those who have been timid and self-distrustful will declare themselves openly for Christ and His truth. The most weak and hesitating in the church will be as David–willing to do and dare. The deeper the night for God’s people, the more brilliant the stars. Satan will sorely harass the faithful; but, in the name of Jesus, they will come off more than conquerors. Then will the church of Christ appear “fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”  {5T 81.2}

As the storm approaches, a large class who have professed faith in the third angel’s message, but have not been sanctified through obedience to the truth, abandon their position and join the ranks of the opposition. By uniting with the world and partaking of its spirit, they have come to view matters in nearly the same light; and when the test is brought, they are prepared to choose the easy, popular side. Men of talent and pleasing address, who once rejoiced in the truth, employ their powers to deceive and mislead souls. They become the most bitter enemies of their former brethren. When Sabbathkeepers are brought before the courts to answer for their faith, these apostates are the most efficient agents of Satan to misrepresent and accuse them, and by false reports and insinuations to stir up the rulers against them.  {GC 608.2}

Then where does Ellen White place Ezekiel 9? She places the slaughter 50 pages later in the same book, the Great Controversy, well after the commencement of the time of trouble (p. 613) and the deliverance of God’s people (p. 635), in the midst of the “Desolation of the Earth.” (p. 656).

“The Lord hath a controversy with the nations;” “He will give them that are wicked to the sword.” The mark of deliverance has been set upon those “that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done.” Now the angel of death goes forth, represented in Ezekiel’s vision by the men with the slaughtering weapons, to whom the command is given: “Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My sanctuary.” Says the prophet: “They began at the ancient men which were before the house.” Ezekiel 9:1-6. The work of destruction begins among those who have professed to be the spiritual guardians of the people. The false watchmen are the first to fall. There are none to pity or to spare. Men, women, maidens, and little children perish together.  {GC 656.2}

“The Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity: the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain.” Isaiah 26:21. “And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the Lord shall be among them; and they shall lay hold everyone on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor.” Zechariah 14:12, 13. In the mad strife of their own fierce passions, and by the awful outpouring of God’s unmingled wrath, fall the wicked inhabitants of the earth–priests, rulers, and people, rich and poor, high and low. “And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried.” Jeremiah 25:33.  {GC 656.3}

For other references were Ellen White applies Ezekiel 9 to the time of trouble, see GC88 p. 656, CET p. 185, 4SP p. 473, Mar. p. 296, 5T p. 207-210.

But after failing to teach the truth on these issues, Houteff dares to say of Ellen White:

“[She] has failed to point out the exact company by assembling the references together and clear the mystery.” Shepherds Rod, vol. 1, p.

It is Houteff who has failed. By pure speculation on page 36  he places the slaughter of Ezekiel 9 as preceding Revelation 18 in point of time. This would place the giving of the 4th angel’s message after the experience of Ezekiel 9. But the experience of Ezekiel 9 will come after it is too late to give the message! Sad deception this is.

Houteff does not hesitate to say that the truth about the 144,000 was not understood prior to his writings. Yet a great deal of material by Ellen White, and by other pioneers, has been written on this subject. (See article, Ellen White on the 144,000.) See SR p. 14-15 for the statements about how the key messages explained soundly by our pioneers (ie. Haskell, Smith, White) have “never been understood at any time, nor proclaimed by this denomination or any other people, and only theories have been advanced.”

Only those who have never thoroughly studied the biblical writings of the pioneers should be unashamed of this last statement. Houteff contrasts his studies with the pioneers’ theories. But the contrast could not be more reversed. While the early Adventists, such as Bates and Miller and Haskell and White and Andrews and Loughborough present connected thought and strong arguments, Houteff repeatedly urges the thought that his doctrines can not be proven wrong as evidence that they are right. Ellen White wrote the following

We are to pray for divine enlightenment, but at the same time we should be careful how we receive everything termed new light. We must beware lest, under cover of searching for new truth, Satan shall divert our minds from Christ and the special truths for this time. I have been shown that it is the device of the enemy to lead minds to dwell upon some obscure or unimportant point, something that is not fully revealed or is not essential to our salvation. This is made the absorbing theme, the “present truth,” when all their investigations and suppositions only serve to make matters more obscure than before, and to confuse the minds of some who ought to be seeking for oneness through sanctification of the truth. {14MR 178.3}

Your ideas of the two subjects you mention do not harmonize with the light which God has given me. The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery not clearly revealed, and you will never be able to explain it to others because the Lord has not revealed it to you. You may gather together scriptures and put your construction upon them, but the application is not correct. The expositions by which you sustain your position are not sound. You may lead some to accept your explanations, but you do them no good, nor are they, through accepting your views, enabled to do others good.  {14MR 179.1}

You need to come into harmony with your brethren. You may take certain views of Scripture and, searching the Bible in the light of your ideas, may gather together a large number of texts and claim that they mean this and that, and call for anyone to prove to you that your views are incorrect. But what influence could anyone have upon your mind, when he takes the same scriptures and interprets and applies them differently? Both of you claim to found your views on the Bible.  {14MR 180.2}

Houteff was not careful enough in making his assertions. His arguments are often based on the false premise that prophets have been inspired verbally. An example of this is on page 21 of SR vol. 1. Houteff argues from the words “come down” in Revelation 18, and speaks of how it does not say “descended.” But Ellen White quotes this same passage in Early Writings p. 277 and refers to the angel “descended.”

Houteff had certainly read Early Writings p. 277, for he quotes it on the same page and draws on the word “addition.” He presents his work as the “addition” to the message of the third angel. However, the context indicates how the 4th angel is an addition to the first. It is a delineation of “additional corruption” that have entered the fallen churches.

And on the same page (p. 21) he reinterprets “mid-heaven” in Revelation 14 to mean “not as powerful.” Interestingly, Ellen White also referred to the meaning of the angels being “in heaven.”

The warning of the third angel, which forms a part of the same threefold message, is to be no less widespread. It is represented in the prophecy as being proclaimed with a loud voice, by an angel flying in the midst of heaven; and it will command the attention of the world.  {GC 449.2}

When God sends to men warnings so important that they are represented as proclaimed by holy angels flying in the midst of heaven, He requires every person endowed with reasoning powers to heed the message. {GC 594:2}

On the next page (p. 22) SR teaches that “The sealing can not begin until the angel (of Rev. 7) arrives.” “we must await his arrival.” Did Ellen White place the sealing in the future from her time? No, she wrote that it was already in progress in her time (see below). Houteff (p. 32) says it began in 1929.

There is a spirit of desperation, of war and bloodshed, and that spirit will increase until the very close of time. Just as soon as the people of God are sealed in their foreheads,–it is not any seal or mark that can be seen, but a settling into the truth, both intellectually and spiritually, so they cannot be moved,–just as soon as God’s people are sealed and prepared for the shaking, it will come. Indeed, it has begun already; the judgments of God are now upon the land, to give us warning, that we may know what is coming. Ms 173, 1902, pp. 3-6

On page 27 Houteff writes that “It is positive that the sealing of the 144,000 is Ezekiel 9, — the separation (sifting in the church — the godly from the ungodly.)”

This is dealt with thoroughly in the first page of this document. The experience of Ezekiel 9 describes the experience of the faithless during the time of trouble. Then what does cause the shaking and sifting? The statements quoted earlier show that it ends with the work of the Sunday Law. And it begins now by the giving of the message to the Laodiceans. This is the cause of the shaking today.

I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen and was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the True Witness to the Laodiceans. This will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver, and will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. Some will not bear this straight testimony. They will rise up against it, and this is what will cause a shaking among God’s people.  {EW 270.2}

The Seal of God, explained thoroughly in scripture as the experienced Sabbath, and given as a sign from the time of Moses, is very important to Adventism. Houteff, on page 28, indicates that this is not the seal of Revelation 7. See Publishing Ministry p. 16 where James White quoted Ellen White as confirming Joseph Bates study on the Sabbath being the seal of Revelation 7. Houteff adopts a maxim that would make any present truth into “the seal” and would thus muddy the waters regarding the great Sabbath issue. He writes “Whatever the present truth is, that is the seal.” p. 28.

A clear example of reasoning that would never proceed from a true prophet is found on page 30 of SR, vol. 1. Houteff reasons as follows:

“Those who are sealed (marked) and escape the ruin are the ones that will constitute the number which prophecy declares to be the 144,000. Our denomination numbers about 300,000. This means the denomination will be divided in half and suggests the ten virgins, five of whom were wise and five were foolish. In other words, half and half.”

That nice ratio of 144,00 to 300,000, which was about equal to the ratio of 5 to 10, formed the basis for interpretation of the parable! But how would he interpret it today? By his reasoning there should be one wise virgin and 89 foolish. Or the parable was only valid for the years 1933-1937 and was not possible to be understood either before or after. This is a sad commentary on how to interpret the Bible. Houteff made it worse by indicating that there was hope that the ratio might be made better.

His determination to find something new and odd led him to negate important truths. He wrote on p. 32 that if we do not know the timing of Revelation 7 and 18 that we have no message. This is so contrary to revelation. We have a message, for example, about Christ’s coming. We do not know when it will happen, but we have it. Revelation 10 and Habbakuk 2 were fulfilled by the advent movement when they had no idea there were fulfilling them. This did not negate the value of these passages. They came to be a great source of comfort to the Advent people.

Numerous other little errors, some more or less significant, fill the book. They are listed below, but are not commented on in great detail. One reason: Our counsel is to not allow ourselves to be caught up on all these little details, which is just why Satan brings them all up. The key points presented above should be reason enough to reject the claims of a pretended Messenger of God.

–Eugene Prewitt   April 9, 2002

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Page references below are to Shepherds Rod, Volume One

p. 236-237. Accused brethren because no letter in five months. How much time does it take a group of men to study so many ideas and conjectures and suggestions? It would take much more than five months, and it is not reasonable to expect that they would lay aside their duties to devote full time to this project.

p. 216   Makes “deadly wound” into the reformation. This is false. p. 221 makes various entities of Protestantism into the heads of the beast! This can only be derived by speculation, and false speculation at that. Reading a few pioneer works on Daniel and Revelation would clear up these misconceptions.

p. 185   Hollow argument that heaven is in “north” as answer to Indian’s infidel arguments. Orion is not in north. And the example is thoroughly silly. The Indian would not have been any more impressed by one pointing to the arctic. This page also says that Lucifer was “honest in his deception.” John 8 says he was a liar from the beginning.

p. 195    After arguments to show the church is ignoring the SOP, brings up TM 475 as another example that we should be teaching our people to expect another prophet. Ellen White was speaking of her own ministry and was quoting scripture when she said “he.” She was specifically asked repeatedly if there would be a successor to her work. She never indicated that there would. To say that the church was amiss for not teaching that there would be one is misleading.

p. 203   Here Houteff “proves” with faulty math. He used a poor sample as the basis of his calculations. True growth (from births) in the church is same as the population growth of the nation, about 12% in four years. In actuality the church has grown faster than the world’s population, which is evidence that it has converted more people each year than it has lost to apostasy. He forgets that the children he was counting (ages 2 to 7 for example) are born nine years prior to their baptism and membership. This places his calculations off by nine years. A little checking with someone better at math would have solved the problem, and reveals with how little care the work was done.

p. 210  Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, Papacy, France/Reason, America/Image—heads of blasphemy. Not true of Luther, Wycliffe, White, etc.

p. 213 Argument from absence of info—weak argument regarding “crownless” heads. They are “kings” in Dan. 7:24. Hollow argument.

p. 151     Reasoning from Is. 59…There was no intercessor…therefore God clothes himself with zeal and recompensed the people while clothed with the “garments of vengeance.” SR says “Had there been a man, God would let the man do the work, but as there was no one, He does it himself. This reveals one of God’s working principles. He will use one man or a nation to help correct or punish another.” “This…takes place before probation closes.”

At the commencement of the holy Sabbath, January 5, 1849, we engaged in prayer with Brother Belden’s family at Rocky Hill, Connecticut, and the Holy Ghost fell upon us. I was taken off in vision to the most holy place, where I saw Jesus still interceding for Israel. On the bottom of His garment was a bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate. Then I saw that Jesus would not leave the most holy place until every case was decided either for salvation or destruction, and that the wrath of God could not come until Jesus had finished His work in the most holy place, laid off His priestly attire, and clothed Himself with the garments of vengeance. {CET 100.1}

Then Jesus will step out from between the Father and men, and God will keep silence no longer, but pour out His wrath on those who have rejected His truth. 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. {CET 100.2}

See also p. 185, 229; 8T 42; EW 36. Many more

And what about the idea of “one man” correcting being a “working principle” of God? The man being sought for was an “intercessor.” See Ez. 23:30-31, Ps. 106:23, Job 42:7-11. False application by SR.

p. 153-154            Is. 61:2—Makes the “year” literal and the “day” prophetic. The acceptable year was the fulfillment of Daniel 9 at Christ’s baptism.

When Jesus in the synagogue read from the prophecy, He stopped short of the final specification concerning the Messiah’s work. Having read the words, “To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” He omitted the phrase, “and the day of vengeance of our God.” Isa. 61:2. This was just as much truth as was the first of the prophecy, and by His silence Jesus did not deny the truth. But this last expression was that upon which His hearers delighted to dwell, and which they were desirous of fulfilling. They denounced judgments against the heathen, not discerning that their own guilt was even greater than that of others. They themselves were in deepest need of the mercy they were so ready to deny to the heathen. That day in the synagogue, when Jesus stood among them, was their opportunity to accept the call of Heaven. He who “delighteth in mercy” (Micah 7:18) would fain have saved them from the ruin which their sins were inviting.  {DA 240.4}

p. 162-163  Explains “gardens” “bricks” “swine’s flesh” “in the graves” all by assertion. What does he say graves are? “Man made devices of which there are no resurrection.” This is anything but proof, anything but sound.

Robbing Christ of His Glory (after reading pp. 85-91)

Moses was a type of Christ. . . . God saw fit to discipline Moses in the school of affliction and poverty before he could be prepared to lead the hosts of Israel to the earthly Canaan. The Israel of God, journeying to the heavenly Canaan, have a Captain who needed no human teaching to prepare Him for His mission as a divine leader; yet He was made perfect through sufferings; and “in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted” (Heb. 2:10, 18). Our Redeemer manifested no human weakness or imperfection; yet He died to obtain for us an entrance into the Promised Land.  {CC 111.5}

“And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, . . . but Christ as a son over his own house; whose house we are, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Heb. 3:5, 6).  {CC 111.6}

Compare to: p. 91 “Ancient Moses is a symbol of modern Moses (present leadership).” The page speaks of Moses fleeing Pharaoh because “he was too cowardly and feared Pharaoh.” Contrast this to:

By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. Hebrews 11:27

Assertions regarding God’s Purposes

If I say that my middle name is Bethel, you could find evidence against it by looking at my birth-certificate or by asking my mother, or looking at my passport. But if I said that my middle name William was chosen by God and placed in the mind of my mother because I will do a work of reformation like William of Orange, and that the proof is that I teach the same as he did regarding our duty to risk death in the cause of God, it would be impossible to prove that I am wrong.

Assertions regarding meaning and the purposes of God can not be proved or disproved, and this is why Satan uses them to great advantage in interpreting the Bible. But we are not to follow cunningly devised fables.

You need to come into harmony with your brethren. You may take certain views of Scripture and, searching the Bible in the light of your ideas, may gather together a large number of texts and claim that they mean this and that, and call for anyone to prove to you that your views are incorrect. But what influence could anyone have upon your mind, when he takes the same scriptures and interprets and applies them differently? Both of you claim to found your views on the Bible.  {14MR 180.2}

Houteff argues that all scripture must be understood at the end of time. This does just what God has asked us not to do…it encourages speculation and focus on side issues.

For the Word version, see here: The_Shepherds_Rod_and_Related_Issues1

Thoughts on the Lunar Sabbath

Thoughts on the Lunar Sabbath

By Eugene Prewitt

In the last decade several persons have approached me with data that they understood to promote  lunar Sabbath calculation. They believed that the weekly cycle gets a fresh start each month so that the Sabbath always falls on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of a given lunar month.

Practically, this means that while there are generally seven days from Sabbath to Sabbath, there are eight or nine days between the 29th Sabbath and the next 8th Sabbath. The last of these days, the eighth and/or ninth day, as lunar Sabbath proponents understand, is a new moon day. As such it is not counted as a work week.

I have concluded that the data in support of this idea is faulty. Various parts of it are either speculative, strained, inference-based, or uninspired. Whether approached Biblically or from the Testimonies, the idea has not stood up to scrutiny.

The Assertions

First, let me summarize the nature of evidence that I have seen so far as given in support of the idea.

1.  It is suggested that Sabbath falls on the 15th of three Biblical months in a row (the three months beginning with the Exodus from Egypt). As moon cycles are only 29.5 days long, the Sabbath could not fall on three of them in a row unless the Sabbath was lunar based.

2.  It is asserted that no Sabbath in scripture can be shown to occur on any day other than an 8th, 15th, 22nd, or 29th of a lunar cycle. As only about 15% of Gregorian-style Sabbaths fall on those days, this is taken as corroborative evidence for lunar Sabbaths.

3.  It is asserted that the lunar calendar was essential to the determination of the date October 22, 1844. As this calendar has been affirmed by Ellen White when she validated that date, it must be a valid calendar. And if the calendar is right for calculating feast-day dates, it must be right for calculating Sabbath dates as Sabbaths are among the feasts.

4.  It is asserted that ancient authorities trace the seven-day week to Babylonian sources and that the Jews anciently kept the Sabbath on a lunar basis. This Jewish habit was changed by the Roman power and is the reason that Jews currently honor Saturday as found on the Gregorian calendar.

5.  Circumstantial evidence, it is asserted, points to Lunar Sabbaths in the time of Joshua, Solomon, and Hezekiah, and Paul.

6.  The New Moons do not count as “working days” and so there are still 6 working days in each weekly cycle in the new moon calendar.

While other thoughts have appeared here and there in lunar documentation, these are the ones that appear repeatedly in the documents I have read. What appears in not one of the documents is a “thus saith the Lord” teaching that new moons interrupt the weekly cycle.

The Evidence

 

The most intriguing argument, to me, in the six listed above was item number two. The word “Sabbath” appears more 100 passages of scripture. It seems, at first thought, that if not one of those can be shown to fall on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, etc., day of the month, that that would be fairly significant evidence in favor of the lunar Sabbath theory.

 

Here are the facts:

 

There are many passages that refer to the Sabbath in a precept in such a way as to provide no precise and certain information regarding the correlation of days with months. See Ex 20:8-11; De 5:12-15; Ex 31:14-16; Ex 35:2-3; Le 24:8; Nu 28:9-10; [Neh 9:14]; [1 Chr 9:32]; Ps 92:1; Amos 8:5; Jer 17:21-27; Is 56:2, 6; Is 58:13; Matthew 24:20; John 7:22-23; Colossians 2:16

There are 20 Stories in scripture that refer to the Sabbath, but without dating it in terms of a day of the month. See Nu 15:32; 2Ki 11:5-9, 2Chr 23:4-8; 2Ki 16:18; Neh 10:31; Neh 13:15-22; Matthew 12:1-12, Mark 2:23-3:4, Luke 6:1-9; Mark 1:21; Mark 6:2; Luke 4:16; Luke 4:31; Luke 13:10-16; Luke 14:1-5; Acts 1:12; Acts 13:14-44; Acts 15:21; Acts 16:13; Acts 17:2; Acts 18:4; John 5:9-18[1]; John 9:14-16[2].

There are only two stories in all of scripture that mention Sabbath in a context that can be dated in relation to a day of the lunar month. These are the giving of the Manna and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. (Ex 16:23-29 and Mt 28:1; Mr. 15 42; 16:1; Lu 23:54-56; Jo 19:31.)

So how many Sabbath stories in scripture are datable? Two. This fact neutralizes the first two arguments. (In the appendix I address other passages that are asserted to be dateable correlations between the lunar calendar and days of the week.)

The third point, regarding the Lunar Calendar being used to establish October 22, is accurate as far as that goes. In other words, it is obviously true in scripture the feast days were calculated based on the Jewish lunar calendar.

But the extrapolation that says “if dates of the year must be calculated on an annual calendar, therefore days of the week must also be so calculated” is unwarranted. No prophet says anything of the kind. History does not back it up. Muslims today use a lunar calendar but keep a weekly day as honored. The argument is purely speculative.

 

The fourth point, strictly speaking, is not a Biblical one. But the history is faulty. The fact is that from the time of the book of Acts that there were Jews in “every city” that read the Torah on Sabbath.

Acts 15:21  For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

There is no way that one million Jews scattered all over the world could, simultaneously, be convinced to change their method of Sabbath keeping without abundant historical evidence being left behind to prove it.

But more than this, the gospel was carried to every part of the known world during the first century.

Colossians 1:23  If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Lunar weeks predict that when the apostles traveled to India, Ethiopia, and the British Isles, that these places began keeping lunar Sabbaths. None of these were under the influence of Rome by the 3rd century. This is why they kept the Seventh-day Sabbath so many centuries after Rome had stopped.

And there is no way that Christians around the world, faithful Sabbath keepers, could be convinced to change their day of worship without it showing up in history. The change of the Sabbath to Sunday shows up abundantly in history and proves, by this very appearance, that the other change never occurred.

 

The fifth point is circumstantial. We do not want to ever turn an observation into a command. But even the observations are faulty as can be seen in the appendix where these stories are examined. If we were to admit circumstantial evidence we would have to observe that the first day of the month was not treated as holy in the following passages:

Genesis 8:13    Noah removed the covering of the ark, a great feat.

Numbers 1:1   The men of Israel were counted on the first day of the week.

Ezra 7:9           Ezra was traveling on two new moons.

 

The sixth point is based on a verse in Ezekiel:

 

Ezekiel 46:1  Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened.

The reasoning goes like this: If the gate is shut on the six working days and open on the new moon, then the new moon can not be one of the six working days. And since it is not one of the six working days, it must not be part of the week.

The fault lies in the fact that the verse is a perfectly natural way to write even if the new moons did occur on random days of the week. The inference that lunar Sabbath proponents make is unwarranted. It would be similar in character to reading “God loves a cheerful giver” and concluding that God doesn’t love other grudging givers.

The Bible is brief and well written. We can not impose on it a demand that enough details be given to prevent us from making false inferences.

Rather, we should demand a “Thus Saith the Lord” for our articles of belief.

Summary and Settling the Issue

Not one of the six primary lines of evidence for lunar Sabbaths holds up under investigation. That could settle the issue for me. No evidence for a life-changing idea is evidence enough that it is false.

But there are some facts that settle the matter more substantially. Let us consider them.

1.  The facts relating to the Mark of the Beast and the Seal of God demand that the issue be one easy to settle on the basis of scripture. Simple minded persons must be able to stake their life on the fact that they are right.

And simple minded persons the world over have flocked to the simple truth that showed their willingness to brave opposition to be faithful.

But the Lunar Sabbath theory is not one that can be traced to a command or a simple statement. It is complex, and this is a sign itself that there is something fishy about it.

2.  The week began before the moon was created. This settles the fact that the week was not based on the lunar cycle.

3.  The phrase “seven weeks” should be 49 days, or 51-52 days, depending on whether weeks are consecutive or lunar. Leveticus 23 and Daniel 9 both establish that seven weeks are 49 days.

4.  The timing of the 1260 year prophecy (538-1798) is entirely too late for changing the nature of the week. When the papacy was established as a civil ruler of the Roman empire it began a historically documented assault on Sabbath keeping. That assault eventually changed the way churches from India to Ethiopia to Ireland related to the Sabbath.

5.  Acts 20 does not harmonize with a Lunar Sabbath model. See Appendix A where this is discussed in detail. The short of it is that the “first day” of the week in Acts 20 follows the feast of unleavened bread; then “after” that, five days until arriving in Troas; then seven days in Troas. Even if the last of the five is the first of the seven days, even if the last of the seven days is the first day of the week, this still places the first day of the week on the third day of the month.

Ellen White on Lunar Sabbaths

Ellen White makes a number of inspired statements that relate to the issue at hand. While the Bible truths discussed in this short article are sufficient to show the murky nature of the lunar-Sabbath teaching, it would be a mistake to think that Ellen White’s writings should not have a bearing.

How did God intend to protect the members of His church from cunning and crafty falsehoods? He does so by the spiritual gifts given to the church.

Ephesians 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; … 14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

So the gift of prophecy was given, among other reasons, to preserve the church from being carried about with various false ideas.

God, in several statements of the Testimonies, uses the word “Friday” when telling us to prepare for the “Sabbath.” Ellen White writes, “Friday is the day of preparation.” (CG 528-529). “Friday is to be the special preparation day.” (CCh 263). And, in fact, “employers should give their workers the hours from Friday noon until the beginning of the Sabbath.”

And so far is this from being a modern innovation that “The Lord told [the Israelites that were cooking manna] that this work must be done on Friday, the preparation day.” (CCh 263). They were “obliged to gather every Friday a double portion of manna in preparation for the Sabbath.” (PP 297). On a lunar calendar Friday would only rarely be the day to prepare for the Sabbath.

And in like manner, Ellen White identifies the day of Christ’s burial as “Friday.” (Ctr 295.) This makes the Sabbath of Christ’s day in the grave a Saturday and mutes the testimony of that Sabbath also being the 15th of the lunar month.

The Great Controversy also testifies that in every age there were keepers of the true Sabbath. (GC 61). Even those that were early regarding Sunday as a day of “recreation” were at the same time “still sacredly” observing “the Sabbath.” (GC 52). And “amid the gloom of the dark ages” Sabbath keepers “for many centuries” enjoyed freedom to keep their faith in Abysinnia. (GC 577).

And inspiration clearly identifies the origin of the “week.”  “Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and he then blessed this day, and set it apart as a day of rest for man.” (CE 190)

These statements by Ellen White are found in their full paragraphs of context in Appendix B.

Conclusion

The week was being counted before the creation of the time-keeping pieces of the sun and the moon.  The Sabbath, like marriage, comes to us from the Garden of Eden. It has always had faithful observers. When light shown on the Law of God after 1844 the Sabbath truth was revealed to God’s prophet, Ellen White, and to God’s movement, the Adventists.

The confusion that the lunar Sabbath ideas have created is not sensible. The arguments regarding “three months in a row” and “all Sabbaths in scripture on the 15th, 22nd, etc.” are only so much misunderstandings and speculations.

The gifts given to preserve the church from such winds have been despised.

A “thus Saith the Lord” for lunar-Sabbath keeping has not been demanded. And it can not be produced.

One organization has offered a substantive reward for a Biblical refutation of the lunar Sabbath doctrine. Appended to that offer was a quote of Luther, “By the mercy of God, I conjure you, . . . to prove from the writings of the prophets and apostles that I have erred. As soon as I am convinced of this, I will retract every error . . . .”

This is a noble position, and a rare one. May it be the sincere position of those who have been erroneously carried away with the pseudo-history of the lunar-Sabbath proponents.

Amen.

Eugene Prewitt

January 9, 2010

Appendix A

Comments on Passages used as Evidence of Lunar Sabbaths in History

—-

Some studies indicate that Exodus 12 is an example of a weekly Sabbath on the 15th. The argument runs, “The first day of the feast of unleavened bread was on the 15th which was a Sabbath (See Leviticus 23: 4-16). This makes the Sabbaths for the first month (Abib) to have fallen on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and the 29th.”

But look at the passage quoted, Lev 23:4-16. Specifically note verses 7-8. Not only does it make the first day a Sabbath, but it also makes the seventh day of the feast a Sabbath.

In the first day ye shall have an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.8  But ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD seven days: in the seventh day is an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.

What verse seven and eight prove is that not all ceremonial holy convocations that involve rest from work can correlate with weekly Sabbaths. And so the fact that there are also holy convocation seven days apart in the seventh month (the 15th and the 22nd) loses its significance in view of the fact that holy convocations are only six days apart in the first month.

Some studies indicate that Exodus 19 is an example of a month where Sabbaths correlate well with the lunar calendar. The argument runs like this: “Israel left Egypt the night of Abib 15. Three months later, on the very same day, the 15th, they rested before the mount. (See Deuteronomy 16:1; Numbers 33:3; Exodus 19:1-2.)”

But when we read the passage we find that the 15th, and 16th were days of cleaning up and getting ready for a meeting with the Holy God on the 17th. If one of these three dates must be chosen for a Sabbath from the narrative, better the 17th.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the LORD. 10  And the LORD said unto Moses, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to day and to morrow, and let them wash their clothes, 11  And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.

But really, there is not enough data to make a Sabbath of any day. The argument, as worded above, might lead the reader to think that the Bible associates the 15th with “rest”, but the passage rather associates it with “camping.” As a preparation day, the 15th and 16th do not seem like Sabbaths.

At least one study refers to Leveticus 23:15-16 as evidence of Lunar Sabbaths. This is the argument: “Leviticus 23:15-16 tells us that Pentecost always takes place on the first day of the week on the 9th of the third month. . .”

If this was true, namely that the 9th of the month was always a “first day” of the week, it would be a very strong argument indeed for Lunar Sabbath keeping.

But you may read Leveticus 23:15-16, its context, and even the whole Bible, and you will find no such idea as is asserted in this argument. There is no passage that says that the Pentecost fell on the 9th day of the third month. Here is the passage:

And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: 16  Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.

Now consider these two verses carefully. Seven Sabbaths plus one day is “fifty days” inclusive. That is seven complete weeks (first day through Sabbath) plus an additional first day. That is exactly 50 days with a continuous cycle of sevens. But interject into that mix two new moons and you suddenly have 52 days. In truth, Leviticus 23:15-16 is significant evidence against the Lunar Sabbath idea.

One study finds evidence of Lunar Sabbaths in the fact that the manna stopped falling on the 16th of the first month. But the passage, Joshua 5:10-12, says nothing about whether the 15th had been a Sabbath. (Indeed, if the 15th was a Sabbath, then the last day of manna falling was the 14th rather than the 15th.)

The same study finds evidence of the 8th being a Sabbath is Exodus 40:2, 17. The argument runs like this: “Aaron and his sons were sanctified for seven days beginning on New Moon Day (See Exodus 40: 2, 17). On the eighth day (which was also the 8th of the month), there was an assembly of the congregation. During the preceding seven days, they were not to leave the tabernacle.”

So the evidence of a Sabbath is found in the “assembly of the congregation” on the 8th day.

What does Exodus 40:2, 17 show? It shows that the first day of the week was the day that the temple was constructed. The remainder of the chapter shows the immense volume of physical work that Moses did in raising up the temple.

2  On the first day of the first month shalt thou set up the tabernacle of the tent of the congregation. 17  And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up.

The priests were sanctified for a week. If we have to assign a seventh-day Sabbath to the story, the best place would be the seventh-day of their temple stay. But even this would be a stretch. The truth is that the story (Lev 8-9) doesn’t have any information about when the Seventh-day Sabbath occurred.

The 22nd of the seventh month was always to be a holy convocation, the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. So when Solomon kept it that way in 2 Chronicles 7:8-10, it doesn’t throw any additional light on the question of whether that holy convocation also coincided with the seventh-day Sabbath.

Some find evidence in Esther 9 for a Sabbath on the 15th of the 12th month. But the passage indicates that both the 14th and 15th were kept as special days, and so the passage provides no information about whether the 14th, or the 15th, or neither of those days, was a seventh-day Sabbath.

The story of Hezekiah describes sixteen days of cleaning the courtyard and temple. On the eighth day they started on the temple itself. They finished on the 16th. But there is no evidence here regarding the location of a seventh-day Sabbath. Indeed, it is quite apparent that if some day was kept holy, it was not the 8th.

The healing of the blind man on Sabbath in John 9 is believed to be evidence for a Sabbath on the 22nd of the seventh month. The argument runs like this:Christ attended the Feast of Tabernacles. (John7:10.) On the last day of the Feast, the 21st of the seventh month, Christ stood and spoke. (John 7:37.) Christ spent that night on the Mount of Olives. (John 8:1.) The next morning, the 22nd of the seventh month, Christ returned to the temple. (John 8:2.) At the temple, Christ healed a blind man. (John 9:6.) The healing of the blind man caused great anger for it was the seventh-day Sabbath. (John 9:14.) This places the weekly seventh-day Sabbaths on the 8th, 15th, 22nd, and 29th of the month yet again.”

John 8:1 is, very likely, the 21st of the 7th month. Granted. But that it is the same day as John 9:14 is a great stretch. While Jesus went into the temple in 8:2, he was wandering in 9:1, fifty-nine verses later. By chapter 11:55 you are already all the way to Passover. There is no sensible way to know how much time elapsed between 8:2 and 9:1. Even if John 9:6 did say that the man was healed in the temple it would be no evidence that it was the same day, for:

John 18:20  Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

The fact is that we have no way of knowing the date of John 9, even if we do know the date of John 8:1-2. And John 9:6…says nothing about the blind man being in the temple.

Paul’s Journey in Acts 20 is alleged to provide evidence for the lunar-calculation of the Sabbath. The reasoning goes like this: “The seventh day of their stay at Troas was the second day of the month which Paul refers to as the first day of the week.” And so if the first day of the week is the second day of the lunar month, then the month matches lunar-calendar expectations.

The problem is that the math doesn’t work out right. If you count the days inclusively (as Jews always did) then they were in Philippi for the 21st. A plain reading of the passage makes it appear that they traveled on the 22nd (which would be an argument against the Lunar Sabbath reckoning).

But let us assume that they rested on the 22nd and began traveling on the 23rd and only traveled four days. Those days would be the 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th. Now they are in Troas for a week. Let us start that week on the 26th (as Jews would). That week is the 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd. And Paul leaves the next morning, the day of the 3rd, the first day of the week.

A first day on the third does not fit at all with a lunar Sabbath reckoning. And as this is one of only three stories in scripture that allow us to decently correlate a day of the weak with a day of the month, this is significant indeed.

Appendix B — Ellen White’s Comments

Ellen White on Friday

On Friday let the preparation for the Sabbath be completed. See that all the clothing is in readiness, and that all the cooking is done. Let the boots be blacked, and the baths be taken. It is possible to do this. If you make it a rule, you can do it. The Sabbath is not to be given to the repairing of garments, to the cooking of food, to pleasure seeking, or to any other worldly employment. Before the setting of the sun, let all secular work be laid aside, and all secular papers be put out of sight. Parents, explain your work and its purpose to your children, and let them share in your preparation to keep the Sabbath according to the commandment.  {CG 528.2}

In many families [on Sabbath] boots and shoes are blacked and brushed, and stitches are taken, all because these little odds and ends were not done on Friday. They did not “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” . . .  {CG 528.3}

On Friday the clothing of the children is to be looked after. During the week they should be all laid out by their own hands under the direction of the mother, so that they can dress quietly, without any confusion or rushing about and hasty speeches.  {CG 528.4}

There is another work that should receive attention on the preparation day. On this day all differences between brethren, whether in the family or in the church, should be put away.  {CG 528.5}

When the Sabbath commences, we should place a guard upon ourselves, upon our acts and our words, lest we rob God by appropriating to our own use that time which is strictly the Lord’s. We should not do ourselves, nor suffer our children to do, any manner of our own work for a livelihood or anything which could have been done on the six working days. Friday is the day of preparation. Time can then be devoted to making the necessary  preparation for the Sabbath and to thinking and conversing about it. Nothing which will in the sight of Heaven be regarded as a violation of the holy Sabbath should be left unsaid or undone, to be said or done upon the Sabbath. God requires not only that we refrain from physical labor upon the Sabbath, but that the mind be disciplined to dwell upon sacred themes. The Fourth Commandment is virtually transgressed by conversing upon worldly things or by engaging in light and trifling conversation. Talking upon anything or everything which may come into the mind is speaking our own words. Every deviation from right brings us into bondage and condemnation.  {CG 529.3}

But still the disciples seemed unbelieving. Their hopes had died with Christ. And when the news of His resurrection was brought to them, it was so different from what they had anticipated that they could not believe it. . . . From eyewitnesses some of the disciples had obtained quite a full account of the events of Friday. Others beheld the scenes of the crucifixion with their own eyes. In the afternoon of the first day of the week, two of the disciples, restless and unhappy, decided to return to their home in Emmaus, a village about eight miles from Jerusalem. . . . {CTr 295.3}

When the Sabbath is thus remembered, the temporal will not be allowed to encroach upon the spiritual. No duty pertaining to the six working days will be left for the Sabbath. During the week our energies will not be so exhausted in temporal labor that on the day when the Lord rested and was refreshed we shall be too weary to engage in His service. {CCh 262.5}

While preparation for the Sabbath is to be made all through the week, Friday is to be the special preparation day. Through Moses the Lord said to the children of Israel: “Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake today, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.” “And the people went about, and gathered it [the manna], and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar, and baked it in pans, and made cakes of it.” Exodus 16:23; Numbers 11:8. There was something to be done in preparing the heaven-sent bread for the children of Israel. The Lord told them that this work must be done on Friday, the preparation day. {CCh 263.1}

On Friday let the preparation for the Sabbath be completed. See that all the clothing is in readiness and that all the cooking is done. Let the boots be blacked and the baths be taken. It is possible to do this. If you make it a rule you can do it. The Sabbath is not to be given to the repairing of garments, to the cooking of food, to pleasure seeking, or to any other worldly employment. Before the setting of the sun let all secular work be laid aside and all secular papers be put out of sight. Parents, explain your work and its purpose to your children, and let them share in your preparation to keep the Sabbath according to the commandment. {CCh 263.2}

We should jealously guard the edges of the Sabbath. Remember that every moment is consecrated, holy time. Whenever it is possible, employers should give their workers the hours from Friday noon until the beginning of the Sabbath. Give them time for preparation, that they may welcome the Lord’s day with quietness of mind. By such a course you will suffer no loss even in temporal things. {CCh 263.3}

A scene passed before me. I was in our restaurant in San Francisco. It was Friday. Several of the workers were busily engaged in putting up packages of such foods as could be easily carried by the people to their homes, and a number were waiting to receive these packages. I asked the meaning of this, and the workers told me that some among their patrons were troubled because, on account of the closing of the restaurant, they could not on the Sabbath obtain food of the same kind as that which they used during the week. Realizing the value of the wholesome foods obtained at the restaurant, they protested against being denied them on the seventh day and pleaded with those in charge of the restaurant to keep it open every day in the week, pointing out what they would suffer if this were not done. “What you see today,” said the workers, “is our answer to this demand for the health foods upon the Sabbath. These people take on Friday food that lasts over the Sabbath, and in this way we avoid condemnation for refusing to open the restaurant on the Sabbath.”  {CH 489.4}

In the circumstances connected with the giving of the manna, we have conclusive evidence that the Sabbath was not instituted, as many claim, when the law was given at Sinai. Before the Israelites came to Sinai they understood the Sabbath to be obligatory upon them. In being obliged to gather every Friday a double portion of manna in preparation for the Sabbath, when none would fall, the sacred nature of the day of rest was continually impressed upon them. And when some of the people went out on the Sabbath to gather manna, the Lord asked, “How long refuse ye to keep My commandments and My laws?” PP 297

Amid the gloom that settled upon the earth during the long period of papal supremacy, the light of truth could not be wholly extinguished. In every age there were witnesses for God–men who cherished faith in Christ as the only mediator between God and man, who held the Bible as the only rule of life, and who hallowed the true Sabbath. How much the world owes to these men, posterity will never know. They were branded as heretics, their motives impugned, their characters maligned, their writings suppressed, misrepresented, or mutilated. Yet they stood firm, and from age to age maintained their faith in its purity, as a sacred heritage for the generations to come.  {GC 61.1}

Like the Sabbath, the week originated at creation, and it has been preserved and brought down to us through Bible history. God himself measured off the first week as a sample for successive weeks to the close of time. Like every other, it consisted of seven literal days. Six days were employed in the work of creation; upon the seventh, God rested, and he then blessed this day, and set it apart as a day of rest for man.  {CE 190.1}

In the law given from Sinai, God recognized the week, and the facts upon which it is based. After giving the command, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” and specifying what shall be done on the six days, and what shall not be done on the seventh, he states the reason for thus observing the week, by pointing back to his own example: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” [Exodus 20:8-11.] This reason appears beautiful and forcible when we understand the days of creation to be literal. The first six days of each week are given to man for labor, because God employed the same period of the first week in the work of creation. On the seventh day man is to refrain from labor, in commemoration of the Creator’s rest.  {CE 190.2}

The spirit of concession to paganism opened the way for a still further disregard of Heaven’s authority. Satan tampered with the fourth commandment also, and essayed to set aside the ancient Sabbath, the day which God had blessed and sanctified, [Genesis 2:2, 3.] and in its stead to exalt the festival observed by the heathen as “the venerable day of the sun.” This change was not at first attempted openly. In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and, believing that his law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts. But with great subtlety, Satan worked through his agents to bring about his object. That the attention of the people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Religious services were held upon it; yet it was regarded as a day of recreation, the Sabbath being still sacredly observed.  {GC88 52.1}

To prepare the way for the work which he designed to accomplish, Satan had led the Jews, before the advent of Christ, to load down the Sabbath with the most rigorous exactions, making its observance a burden. Now, taking advantage of the false light in which he had thus caused it to be regarded, he cast contempt upon it as a Jewish institution. While Christians continued to observe the Sunday as a joyous festival, he led them, in order to show their hatred of Judaism, to make the Sabbath a fast, a day of sadness and gloom.  {GC88 52.2}

In the early part of the fourth century, the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. [SEE APPENDIX, NOTE 1.] The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects, and was honored by Christians; it was the emperor’s policy to unite the conflicting interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition, and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and the heathen, it would promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans, and thus advance the power and glory of the church. But while Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness, they still held the true Sabbath as the holy of the Lord, and observed it in obedience to the fourth commandment.  {GC88 53.1}

A striking illustration of Rome’s policy toward those who disagree with her was given in the long and bloody persecution of the Waldenses, some of whom were observers of the Sabbath. Others suffered in a similar manner for their fidelity to the fourth commandment. The history of the churches of Ethiopia and Abyssinia is especially significant. Amid the gloom of the Dark Ages, the Christians of Central Africa were lost sight of and forgotten by the world, and for many centuries they enjoyed freedom in the exercise of their faith. But at last Rome learned of their existence, and the emperor of Abyssinia was soon beguiled into an acknowledgment of the pope as the vicar of Christ. Other concessions followed. An edict was issued forbidding the observance of the Sabbath under the severest penalties. But papal tyranny soon became a yoke so galling that the Abyssinians determined to break it from their necks. After a terrible struggle, the Romanists were banished from their dominions, and the ancient faith was restored. The churches rejoiced in their freedom, and they never forgot the lesson they had learned concerning the deception, the fanaticism, and the despotic power of Rome. Within their solitary realm they were content to remain, unknown to the rest of Christendom.  {GC88 577.3}

The churches of Africa held the Sabbath as it was held by the papal church before her complete apostasy. While they kept the seventh day in obedience to the commandment of God, they abstained from labor on the Sunday in conformity to the custom of the church. Upon obtaining supreme power, Rome had trampled upon the Sabbath of God to exalt her own; but the churches of Africa, hidden for nearly a thousand years, did not share in this apostasy. When brought under the sway of Rome, they were forced to set aside the true and exalt the false Sabbath; but no sooner had they regained their independence than they returned to obedience to the fourth commandment. [SEE APPENDIX, NOTE 12.]  {GC88 578.1}

These records of the past clearly reveal the enmity of Rome toward the true Sabbath and its defenders, and the means which she employs to honor the institution of her creating. The Word of God teaches that these scenes are to be repeated as papists and Protestants shall unite for the exaltation of the Sunday.

Appendix C – The Days of the Lunar Month

Following is a list of Bible passages that are dated according to their placement in a lunar month. They are organized, as lunar Sabbath proponents might organize them, according to their position in a lunar week. Day “zero” corresponds to the “New Moon” and Day Seven to the Lunar Sabbath.

An examination of these passages reveals that the first day of the month was often quite a day of activity, as was the day after Passover. On a lunar calendar these fall on the New Moon and on the lunar Sabbath.

Day 0

Genesis 8:5  And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Genesis 8:13  And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Exodus 40:17  And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up.

Leviticus 23:24  Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation.

Numbers 29:1  And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work: it is a day of blowing the trumpets unto you.

Deuteronomy 1:3  And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the LORD had given him in commandment unto them;

2 Chronicles 29:17  Now they began on the first day of the first month to sanctify, and on the eighth day of the month came they to the porch of the LORD: so they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days; and in the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end.

Ezekiel 26:1  And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 29:17  And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 31:1  And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the third month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 32:1  And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 45:18  Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the first month, in the first day of the month, thou shalt take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the sanctuary:

Haggai 1:1  In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, in the first day of the month, came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet unto Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, saying,

 

Day 1

Leviticus 23:32  It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

1 Samuel 20:27  And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David’s place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day?

Jeremiah 52:6  And in the fourth month, in the ninth day of the month, the famine was sore in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land.

2 Chronicles 29:17  Now they began on the first day of the first month to sanctify, and on the eighth day of the month came they to the porch of the LORD: so they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days; and in the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end.

Day 2

Genesis 7:11  In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Genesis 8:4  And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Ezekiel 20:1  And it came to pass in the seventh year, in the fifth month, the tenth day of the month, that certain of the elders of Israel came to enquire of the LORD, and sat before me.

Ezekiel 24:1  Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 40:1  In the five and twentieth year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the selfsame day the hand of the LORD was upon me, and brought me thither.

Haggai 2:20  And again the word of the LORD came unto Haggai in the four and twentieth day of the month, saying,

Day 3

Jeremiah 52:4  And it came to pass in the ninth year of his reign, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, that Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon came, he and all his army, against Jerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it round about.

Day 4

Jeremiah 52:12  Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem,

Jeremiah 52:31  And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,

Ezekiel 1:1  Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God.

Ezekiel 1:2  In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity,

Ezekiel 8:1  And it came to pass in the sixth year, in the sixth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I sat in mine house, and the elders of Judah sat before me, that the hand of the Lord GOD fell there upon me.

Ezekiel 29:1  In the tenth year, in the tenth month, in the twelfth day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 33:21  And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth month, in the fifth day of the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came unto me, saying, The city is smitten.

Day 5

Esther 3:12  Then were the king’s scribes called on the thirteenth day of the first month, and there was written according to all that Haman had commanded unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and sealed with the king’s ring.

Esther 3:13  And the letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.

Esther 8:12  Upon one day in all the provinces of king Ahasuerus, namely, upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar.

Esther 9:1  Now in the twelfth month, that is, the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king’s commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of the Jews hoped to have power over them, (though it was turned to the contrary, that the Jews had rule over them that hated them;)

Esther 9:17  On the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness.

Day 6

Exodus 12:6  And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Exodus 12:18  In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

Leviticus 23:5  In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD’S passover.

Numbers 9:3  In the fourteenth day of this month, at even, ye shall keep it in his appointed season: according to all the rites of it, and according to all the ceremonies thereof, shall ye keep it.

Numbers 9:5  And they kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month at even in the wilderness of Sinai: according to all that the LORD commanded Moses, so did the children of Israel.

Numbers 9:11  The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

Numbers 28:16  And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.

Joshua 5:10  And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal, and kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month at even in the plains of Jericho.

2 Chronicles 30:15  Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD.

2 Chronicles 35:1  Moreover Josiah kept a passover unto the LORD in Jerusalem: and they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month.

Ezra 6:19  And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month.

Esther 9:15  For the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and slew three hundred men at Shushan; but on the prey they laid not their hand.

Esther 9:17  On the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same rested they, and made it a day of feasting and gladness.

Esther 9:19  Therefore the Jews of the villages, that dwelt in the unwalled towns, made the fourteenth day of the month Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day, and of sending portions one to another.

Esther 9:21  To stablish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly,

Ezekiel 30:20  And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first month, in the seventh day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 45:20  And so thou shalt do the seventh day of the month for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye reconcile the house.

Ezekiel 45:21  In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

Haggai 2:1  In the seventh month, in the one and twentieth day of the month, came the word of the LORD by the prophet Haggai, saying,

 

Day 7

Exodus 16:1  And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after their departing out of the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 23:6  And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.

Leviticus 23:34  Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.

Leviticus 23:39  Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath.

Numbers 28:17  And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.

Numbers 29:12  And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days:

Numbers 33:3  And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.

1 Kings 12:32  And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing unto the calves that he had made: and he placed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.

1 Kings 12:33  So he offered upon the altar which he had made in Bethel the fifteenth day of the eighth month, even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel: and he offered upon the altar, and burnt incense.

2 Chronicles 29:17  Now they began on the first day of the first month to sanctify, and on the eighth day of the month came they to the porch of the LORD: so they sanctified the house of the LORD in eight days; and in the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end.

Esther 9:18  But the Jews that were at Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth day thereof, and on the fourteenth thereof; and on the fifteenth day of the same they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness.

Esther 9:21  To stablish this among them, that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly,

Ezekiel 32:17  It came to pass also in the twelfth year, in the fifteenth day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

Ezekiel 45:25  In the seventh month, in the fifteenth day of the month, shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin offering, according to the burnt offering, and according to the meat offering, and according to the oil.

 



[1] During the Passover trip. The specific day is not specified.

[2] Some Lunar Sabbath proponents list John 9 as an example of a 15th of the month Sabbath. This is based on the Feast of Tabernacles of John 7.  The argument goes that the morning after the feast Jesus went into the temple and found this blind man. John 8:1 is, very likely, the 22nd of the 7th month. Granted. But to say that John 9:14 is the same day is a great stretch. While Jesus went into the temple in 8:2, he was wandering in 9:1, fifty-nine verses later. There is no way to say where day divisions are in the narrative. By chapter 11:55 you are already nearing Passover. The day-break verses just don’t often show up in the gospels.

For the Word Document, click here: Thoughts_on_the_Lunar_Sabbath

Jeff Pippenger Articles — The Old One

Fresh Concerns Related to the Recent Teachings of Jeff Pippenger

Several years ago I wrote a paper on the methods used by Jeff Pippenger to interpret the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. That paper was more or less a critique of a book Jeff wrote long ago.

In that paper I commended Jeff for his respect for Ellen White, for his avoidance of time-setting, and for his great respect for the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. All of these virtues are yet to be commended.

And I still recommend reading that paper (www.bibledoc.org). There I explain some of the inherent dangers in critiquing a man’s teachings when the man has the virtues just mentioned.

But to save time I will not rewrite my reasons for being hesitant to oppose Jeff’s teachings.

It is also fair to say that since the time that I wrote that paper that Jeff and I have corresponded via email. There have been a series of misunderstandings that have threatened to alienate Jeff and I even more than our doctrinal differences might. While Christian duty and courtesy demand that Jeff and I try to harmonize as Christian brothers, that duty is a private one. For everyone else the questions should take on a distinctly non-personal character.

In other words, the question should be, “Is Jeff correct? Or is Eugene correct? Or are they both wrong?” rather than “Is Jeff kind and sweet? Or is Eugene kind and sweet? Or as they both obnoxious?” The question of our character is one that can not well be evaluated at a distance and has always been a nearly useless one when judging the truthfulness of a proposition. (In other words, a Jehovah’s Witness might be very sweet and self-sacrificing and humble, and a Seventh-day Adventist might be coarse, suspicious, and exacting. And yet for all that, the Adventist would be right on many points where the Witness was in error.)

Recent Developments and Sources

Recently (December 2008) Jeff gave a series of prophecy lectures at an Ozark camp-meeting. As I have listened to this series I have realized that my earlier paper is inadequate. Jeff’s teachings have certainly progressed and so I offer this updated critique.

No one should lightly evaluate Jeff. His claims are too solemn for that. He believes he is teaching (with others) the present truth message. He believes the Latter Rain is the Spirit empowering the messages that he is teaching. This is no laughing matter. At least in the abstract, it is plausible. God did indeed, for example, send a message in 1888 that came with a power that was the beginning of the Latter Rain.

And if Jeff is right, then in opposing his special teachings I am opposing the Latter Rain. That would place me in a dangerous and utterly unenviable position.

So what am I saying? If you have heard Jeff’s teachings you owe it to yourself to love the truth enough to calmly study and slowly conclude. Do not let Jeff nor I nor an angel pressure you to decide before you have had time to prayerfully and thoughtfully weigh the evidence.

Here is some evidence to consider.

The Time of the End

Jeff teaches that the time of the end for Adventists began in 1989 at the fall of communism.

Is this a Biblical truth? Phrases that mean an equivalent of the “time of the end” occur ten times in Daniel (8:17; 8:19; 11:27; 11:35; 11:40; 12:4; 12:6; 12:8; 12:9; 12:13).

In these ten verses a few thoughts are shared repeatedly:

First, a section of the book of Daniel has been sealed until the time of the end (8:17; 12:4; 12:9; 12:13); then that section will be unsealed and understandable.

Second, the time of the end concludes a period of noted for persecution (8:17; 11:35; 12:7-8).

Third, the time in the phrase “time of the end” has been set or appointed to be at a certain time (8:19; 11:27; 11:35).

 

Affirming two of these points, Habakkuk 2:2-3, says the vision “is yet for an appointed time” and that “at the end, it shall speak.” There we are admonished to “wait for it” when it appears to tarry. So Adventist, on the basis of the teachings of Daniel unsealed “at the end”, were waiting for a fulfillment of the prophecy that appeared to “tarry.”

And Hebrews 10:35-39 shares what ought to be obvious, that what the early Adventist were waiting for was the Second Coming.

Taken together these twelve scriptures show the relation between the “time of the end” and the Second Coming. When the appointed “time of the end” arrives men are enabled to understand Daniel and are expected to conclude that Christ’s Coming is near. This is why Daniel 12:12-13 connects the special “waiting” of the Advent movement to the “speaking” of the vision at the end.

And this is why 2Th 2:2-3 warns first-century Christians not to be “shaken” in mind by any false epistle that might indicate that the Second Coming is near. Rather, “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed.”

So the “time of the end” is that specified period  of earth’s history when men can know that Christ is coming soon on the basis of the unsealed prophecies. Children can understand this.

Contrasting with these ideas is the thought that there are multiple times of the end. A simple truth (that Christ’s coming will not be “nigh” until the “time of the end”) that anyone can understand is replaced by a fuzzy one.

What happened in 1798, the beginning of the “time of the end”? Since 1798 light has been shining on Daniel 8-12 so that men can come to understand it by study just as they come to understand other never-sealed portions of the Bible.

This explains why Adventism rose at the time that it did. But add something to this profound Adventist idea and the waters are muddied. Are there two times of the end? Or more? Then are they all “appointed”? Then at which one is Daniel unsealed?

And while a dozen passages above combine to make a “rock solid” Adventist doctrine that is easy to locate on a time-line, easy to explain by making the visions of Daniel plain upon tables, which of the ten verses referring to the “time of the end” can be shown to mean something different or something more?

In his eighth Ozark lecture Jeff goes so far as to say that there is a “time of the end” for every generation. And on the basis of what, pray tell, scripture or testimony can we say something like that? The scripture is of no private interpretation. And the 1989 “time of the end” for Adventist is the one point that he wants us to remember in lecture eight.

The Time of the Latter Rain

We live during the time of the Latter Rain. On this Jeff and I are agreed. But did the time of the Latter Rain begin in 2001? The Bible testifies that the time of the Latter Rain corresponds with the time of the blotting out of sins. If we want to get even more specific than that, the times of “refreshing” in Acts 3:19 are the times when the sins of the righteous are blotted out.

And that period of time corresponds to the judgment that began in 1844. Indeed, the world could have ended in the 1860’s, and again in the 1890’s. And the Latter Rain abortively began to fall in 1888. And all these things confirm what is implied in the statement below, namely that Ellen White could say in her own life time, “now”, “in these last days” is the time to look for the promised Latter Rain. We have been in the times of the Latter Rain since 1844 and since that time men have been bidden to pray earnestly for that gift.

So it may be now. Let Christians put away all dissension and give themselves to God for the saving of the lost. Let them ask in faith for the promised blessing, and it will come. The outpouring of the Spirit in the days of the apostles was “the former rain,” and glorious was the result. But the latter rain will be more abundant. What is the promise to those living in these last days? “Turn you to the stronghold, ye prisoners of hope: even today do I declare that I will render double unto thee.” “Ask ye of the Lord rain in the time of the latter rain; so the Lord shall make bright clouds, and give them showers of rain, to every one grass in the field.” Zechariah 9:12; 10:1.128 {CCh 98.6}

But Jeff places the time of the Latter Rain as beginning in 2001. But since we both agree that we are now in the time of the Latter Rain, that point is not as significant as the next one.

The Timing of Revelation 18:1-3

The Fourth Angel’s Message , the Loud Cry, will lighten the earth with its glory. Ellen White comments on this event:

“Now comes the word that I have declared that New York is to be swept away by a tidal wave. This I have never said. I have said, as I looked at the great buildings going up there, story after story: ‘What terrible scenes will take place when the Lord shall arise to shake terribly the earth! Then the words of Revelation 18:1-3 will be fulfilled.’ The whole of the eighteenth chapter of Revelation is a warning of what is coming on the earth. But I have no light in particular in regard to what is coming on New York, only I know that one day the great buildings there will be thrown down by the turning and overturning of God’s power. From the light given me, I know that destruction is in the world. One word from the Lord, one touch of His mighty power, and these massive structures will fall. Scenes will take place the fearfulness of which we cannot imagine.”  {LS 411.5}

Let us observe this statement for a moment.

What will the Lord do? He will “arise to shake terribly the earth.” What will happen next? The words of Revelation 18:1-3 will be fulfilled.

What will happen in New York City? The “great buildings there” will be thrown down by the “turning and overturning of God’s power.”

Now the timing of these things is vital to the purpose of this study. Jeff sees in this statement reason to connect Revelation 18 to the date 9-11-01.

But when will it be that the Lord will arise “to shake terribly the earth”? This terrible shaking of the earth precedes the fulfillment of Revelation 18:1-3, and the whole of the chapter. And when does the Lord arise to “shake terribly the earth?” This happens, interestingly, in connection  with the universal Sunday Law.

The substitution of the laws of men for the law of God, the exaltation, by merely human authority, of Sunday in place of the Bible Sabbath, is the last act in the drama. When this substitution becomes universal, God will reveal Himself. He will arise in His majesty to shake terribly the earth. He will come out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the world for their iniquity, and the earth shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain. –Testimonies, vol. 7, p. 141.  {ChS 160.2}

Is 2:19  And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.

In short, when the Sunday law becomes universal then it will be true that Babylon will have become the habitation of every unclean and hateful birds, then it will be that the earth will be lighted with the glory of the Lord, and a Loud Cry will go forward.

Jeff has a lot to say about the first of the two statements above, however. He connects the collapse of the world trade center with the fulfillment of Revelation 18 and, if I am not mistaken, makes this connection a test of one’s prophetic legitimacy.

Yet the connection seems, in terms of simple timing, to be wholly a false conjecture that reasons that since buildings fell in NYC that the prophecy was fulfilled.

It wouldn’t be fair, however, in my opinion, to hold Jeff to his statement that if this point is in error, then he is into deep fanaticism and those that follow him are also. A man may be mistaken even in his accidental self-condemnations.

The Only Way to Warn the World

We have a message to take to the world. In a thousand different ways God calls on us to use our talents to do this work. Jeff has apparently been criticized (I have never heard such criticism, only I have heard Jeff respond to it) for having a non-evangelism-oriented ministry.

I am not one to say that every ministry must be evangelism oriented, so I would not level this criticism at Jeff. But I am very concerned with how Jeff responds to it. He quotes the following powerful statement from Ellen White.

The work of the Holy Spirit is to convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. The world can only be warned by seeing those who believe the truth sanctified through the truth, acting upon high and holy principles, showing in a high, elevated sense, the line of demarcation between those who keep the commandments of God and those who trample them under their feet. The sanctification of the Spirit signalizes the difference between those who have the seal of God and those who keep a spurious rest day.  {7BC 980.8}

When the test comes, it will be clearly shown what the mark of the beast is. It is the keeping of Sunday. Those who, after having heard the truth, continue to regard this day as holy bear the signature of the man of sin, who thought to change times and laws (Letter 12, 1900).  {7BC 980.9}

Quoting this is great. This statement is like many others that Ellen White has written. I think of the one in Ministry of Healing where she writes:

It is our own character and experience that determine our influence upon others. In order to convince others of the power of Christ’s grace, we must know its power in our own hearts and lives. The gospel we present for the saving of souls must be the gospel by which our own souls are saved. Only through a living faith in Christ as a personal Saviour is it possible to make our influence felt in a skeptical world. If we would draw sinners out of the swift-running current, our own feet must be firmly set upon the Rock, Christ Jesus.  {MH 469.3}

The idea that our character determines the influence that we carry, this is a profound truth.

The original statement, quoted by Jeff, takes the principle to its logical conclusion. Those that are sealed, who have the character of Jesus, will be plainly different from those with the mark of the beast.

But the idea that “only” a character contrast can make our work effective must not be read as if we the world will be warned without evangelism by the character contrast.

Personal sharing of the truth with unbelievers is one the very means chosen by God to develop in us the character needed to give a proper warning to the world. The fact is that the world only sees that holy character when we are in the field meeting the wordlings.

The 2520

I have written a separate paper on the 2,520 year prophecy that is directly related to the teachings of Jeff Pippenger. That article is available at www.bibledoc.org.

The Fall of Babylon

In one of his lectures on Revelation 18 Jeff early mentions that Adventist in the end of time will understand the fall of Babylon. This he immediately explains to be the “judgment” on Babylon, the “execution” and punishment of that power.

That the word “fallen” can be used this way it should be readily admitted. It is used in a manner similar to this in Revelation 17:10.

But that the word can be used in other ways should also be admitted. It is used to describe a spiritual fall, a loss of moral strength or standing, in Revelation 2:10.

Re 2:5  Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

That the latter sense is to be understood by “is fallen, is fallen” has been established by Ellen White and attested by the pioneers. Observe in the following statements from the Great Controversy how the Catholic church fell, and then the Protestant bodies fell. The recent fall of Protestantism was announced in 1844 and in view of the fact that Babylon is already “fallen” men are called leave her so as not to receive “of her plagues.”

Babylon is said to be “the mother of harlots.” By her daughters must be symbolized churches that cling to her doctrines and traditions, and follow her example of sacrificing

the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14, announcing the fall of Babylon must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the judgment, it must be given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the Roman Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries. Furthermore, in the eighteenth chapter of the Revelation the people of God are called upon to come out of Babylon. According to this scripture, many of God’s people must still be in Babylon. And in what religious bodies are the greater part of the followers of Christ now to be found? Without doubt, in the various churches professing the Protestant faith. At the time of their rise these churches took a noble stand for God and the truth, and His blessing was with them. Even the unbelieving world was constrained to acknowledge the beneficent results that followed an acceptance of the principles of the gospel. In the words of the prophet to Israel: “Thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy beauty: for it was perfect through My comeliness, which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God.” But they fell by the same desire which was the curse and ruin of Israel–the desire of imitating the practices and courting the friendship of the ungodly. “Thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown.” Ezekiel 16:14, 15.  {GC 382.3}

“I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.” “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Revelation 18:1, 2, 4.  {GC 603.1}

This scripture points forward to a time when the announcement of the fall of Babylon, as made by the second angel of Revelation 14 (verse 8), is to be repeated, with the additional mention of the corruptions which have been entering the various organizations that constitute Babylon, since that message was first given, in the summer of 1844. A terrible condition of the religious world is here described. With every rejection of truth the minds of the people will become darker, their hearts more stubborn, until they are entrenched in an infidel hardihood. In defiance of the warnings which God has given, they will continue to trample upon one of the precepts of the Decalogue, until they are led to persecute those who hold it sacred. Christ is set at nought in the contempt placed upon His word and His people. As the teachings of spiritualism are accepted by the churches, the restraint imposed upon the carnal heart is removed, and the profession of religion will become a cloak to conceal the basest iniquity. A belief in spiritual manifestations opens the door to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, and thus the influence of evil angels will be felt in the churches.  {GC 603.2}

Of Babylon, at the time brought to view in this prophecy, it is declared: “Her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” Revelation 18:5. She has filled up the measure of her guilt, and destruction is about to fall upon her. But God still has a people in Babylon; and before the visitation of His judgments these faithful ones must be called out, that they partake not of her sins and “receive not of her plagues.” Hence the movement symbolized by the angel coming down from heaven, lightening the earth with his glory and crying mightily with a strong voice, announcing the sins of Babylon. In connection with his message the call is heard: “Come out of her, My people.” These announcements, uniting with the third angel’s message, constitute the final warning to be given to the inhabitants of the earth.  {GC 604.1}

Only once have I heard Jeff speak of Babylon’s fall as being the judgments on Babylon. It may be that this is not a hallmark of his teaching. It may have been a slip, an anomaly. And as the Bible indicates that we ought not to condemn a man for a “word” Is 29:21, I advise no one to reject Pippenger’s teachings generally on the basis of this. On the other hand, I advise everyone to reject this particular incident of teaching as untrue.

Conclusion

In my first article I argued that Jeff uses unreliable methods in the interpretation of prophecy. Yet, I suggested, he borrows most of his conclusions from the pioneers and so generally concludes correctly.

Now I reverse the latter of these assessments. The most recent teachings, regarding 1989 and 2001 and the Loud Cry and the Latter Rain, are faulty conclusions. And to this end faulty methods will, it must be admitted, typically lead. There are other concerns, other doctrinal issues, that could be addressed. But these are the center, Jeff and I are agreed. And so they are addressed.

— Eugene Prewitt

April 3, 2009

For the Word Document, see here: Thoughts_Regarding_Jeff_Pippengers_Teachings