The same day I released my article on this I received the following critique from Pastor Kevin Paulson. I am publishing it because 1) my reading of Ellen White’s manuscript on the thunders is not widely held among any group, futurist or historicist, 2) Kevin’s critique is a fair representation of the historicist view, and 3) I want to encourage open dialogue with those who disagree with me.
I’m hoping the futurists who disagree will also respond. I’ll publish them as well.
So here is his critique, unedited, with a brief response following. Kevin wrote:
Several points:
First, a key principle of inspired self-interpretation is that more than a single statement is required to establish a doctrine or understanding of a given passage. The Bible speaks in both Testaments of two or three witnesses being essential to establish such matters (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; I Cor. 14:29; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28). One passage, in other words, does not a doctrine make.
Second, following up on the first point, it is not enough to quote statements from this single Ellen White manuscript as proof positive for a future application of the seven thunders. When she speaks of future events in this manuscript, she could just as easily be speaking of events subsequent to the utterances of the apostle John. More inspired evidence is needed if one is to establish an interpretation of this passage different from what we have hitherto believed.
Third, your belief in a future application of the seven trumpets is problematic as well. Many use her statement that "trumpet after trumpet is to be sounded" (3SM 426) as evidence that the seven trumpets have a future application. But without other statements likewise pointing to such an application, this is an unsound understanding, especially since the trumpets include time prophecies and Ellen White is absolutely clear that no time prophecies can be applied beyond 1844 (10MR 270; TM 55).
Let us also keep in mind another inspired interpretive principle spelled out by Ellen White, where she writes, speaking of inspired language: "Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea" (1SM 20). This means Ellen White can speak of trumpets and vials in a metaphorical sense, not necessarily referring to the precise events foretold in Revelation.
At the bottom line, it is the consensus of inspired counsel which must guide our study of every issue. One statement is not enough to establish an entirely new school of thought in the church. Far too many allow their creativity to get the best of them, especially when studying Daniel and Revelation. In nearly every case, such creativity inevitably invites new applications of the time prophecies which people want to project at some point into the future. One way or the other, such speculation devolves into time-setting, against which we are decidedly warned.
God bless!
Kevin
Response:
I agree with all of the principles Pastor Paulson outlined. Where we differ is in how they should be applied.
The first principle of interpretation is to give the words of inspiration their most probable meaning based on the surrounding context. Historicists, with good intentions, tend to do what Pastor Kevin has done with her statements - take them in isolation and construe them to conform to their understanding rather than to their evident meaning.
For example, Paulson suggests her statement of “trumpet after trumpet” doesn’t refer to the trumpets of Revelation; that she is using a metaphor. But if you look at that statement in its context and then consider the multitude of her other statements in which she reapplies every passage in Revelation that historicists place exclusively in the past to the future it becomes painfully evident that historicists are in denial. Like our Catholic brothers and sisters, they have more reverence for church authorities, past and present, than they do for inspiration itself.
Over the years I’ve asked historicists about this manuscript and pointed out that if Ellen White is saying the thunders have no future application but that apply exclusively to the Millerite movement we should be able to clearly identify all seven. None of the historicists I’ve spoken to have attempted to identify them but still insist they’re all to be found in the history of the Millerites! Effectively they are saying, yes, they are unsealed, but no, we don’t know what they are. So which is it?
Regarding there being no time periods beyond 1844, we have to be careful to not make her statements say more than they do. For example, Paulson cites this manuscript:
Our position has been one of waiting and watching, with no time-proclamation to intervene between the close of the prophetic periods in 1844 and the time of our Lord’s coming. We do not know the day nor the hour, or when the definite time is, and yet the prophetic reckoning shows us that Christ is at the door. {10MR 270.1}
The above statement doesn’t say there will be no time periods between 1844 and Christ’s return, it says there will be “no time-proclamation”, which agrees with her other statements that there will be no divine message of date-setting in the future. Time will never again be a test of faith.
This is evident in the unsealing of the little book by the seven thunders: The little book is progressively unsealed, including the time periods, but the wicked will not understand them. The remnant’s message to the world is not time-based and contains no time-based test.
On the other hand, the prophet Amos assures us: “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” Amo 3:7. Perhaps nowhere is that more evident than in the unsealing of the little book which the righteous understand, including the time periods, but to the wicked, the little book remains sealed. Dan 12:10.
I agree with Pastor Paulson, it’s important for us not to fall into date-setting. We are clearly warned against it. Rather, we should study these things so that we are working in close cooperation with Michael the mighty angel who is sealing us in the New Testament covenant of his blood and who, on his personal oath, promises that his atoning work for us will be fully complete “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound.” Rev 10:12.
If we are diligent students to understand and obey his word, we’ll recognize and rejoice to hear the sound of the seventh trumpet. And we’ll know it’s the seventh trumpet because we’ve heard, understood and followed all seven of the thunders that preceded it.
I believe Sister White didn’t receive much light re: revelation because we would then apply her writings to a specific time or place and thereby reject any new light or understanding. The use of principles as described in this article will lead to truth as it is in Scripture. I caution against pigeon holing ourselves into an “our thinking is the only way” type of understanding. As God is leading you Brother Mark you should continue to share! Blessings!