Alberto R. Timm
Sometimes we are tempted to start a new project without giving enough thought to its implications and long-lasting consequences. This was the case with the famous Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy. Its foundation started being laid in August 1173, but the tower itself was not completed until about two hundred years later. The building comprises seven regular stories, with a smaller bell chamber on the top. The tower is about fifty-six meters (185 feet) tall and weighs 14,500 tons. It was built on shaky ground composed of soft clay with some intermediate layers of sand. Even during the construction, the ground started to give way and the building began to lean. Many efforts have been made to prevent the tower from tumbling.1
As the Tower of Pisa was built on unsolid clay ground, so the spiritual lives of many professed Christians rest on a superficial and unstable form of subjective religion. Jesus addresses this issue in the closing of His famous Sermon on the Mount. In Matthew 7:21 we read, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”2 But the issue becomes even more explicit in the parable of the two builders (see Matt 7:24–27), with reference to “a wise man who built his house on the rock” and “a foolish man who built his house on sand.” Crucial in the whole discussion is the personal commitment of hearing and practicing God’s word.
Loyalty to the prophetic word means much more than simply professing to accept that word. It means also to overcome the hermeneutical dilemma, the cultural temptation, the selective tendency, and the spiritual dryness so prevailing in our days.
One of the major challenges to our loyalty to the prophetic word is the hermeneutical dilemma of choosing between paradoxical statements. This dilemma began in the Garden of Eden when Eve had to choose between trusting the word of God and accepting the word of the serpent— that is, of Satan (cf. Rev 12:9). God had warned Adam and Eve, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Gen 2:16–17). But the serpent questioned that warning in an engaging dialogue. His first sophistry generalized God’s prohibition, then he accused God of suppressing valuable information, and finally he offered a knowledge that would open Eve’s mind (Gen 3:1–5).
Exposed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Eve had to rely either on God’s assertion, “You will certainly die” (Gen 2:17), or on the serpent’s denial, “You will not certainly die” (Gen 3:4). From a historical-critical perspective, the word of the serpent was much more logical and contextualized than the word of God. After all, the fruit of that tree was not poisoned, and death did not yet exist. So, why should Eve deprive herself of that most delicious and nutritious fruit?
In choosing between the word of God and the word of the serpent, Eve used the most logical reasoning based on the scientific (empirical) method. The inspired record says, “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it” (Gen 3:6). This seemed to be just a simple act, but it carried long-lasting, tragic consequences. Eve ignored that some things may not be sinful in themselves, but they are set apart as tests of loyalty and obedience.
According to Ellen G. White,
Eve really believed the words of Satan, but her belief did not save her from the penalty of sin. She disbelieved the words of God, and this was what led to her fall. In the judgment men will not be condemned because they conscientiously believed a lie, but because they did not believe the truth, because they neglected the opportunity of learning what is truth. Notwithstanding the sophistry of Satan to the contrary, it is always disastrous to disobey God.3
In reality, “age after age the curiosity of men has led them to seek for the tree of knowledge, and often they think they are plucking fruit most essential.” From that tree Satan “speaks the most pleasing flattery in regard to the higher education. Thousands partake of the fruit of this tree, but it means death to them.”4 We should never forget that not all that is logical is also true and not all that is true is humanly logical. God’s word may seem sometimes illogical and senseless, but it is always true and reliable.
Another major challenge to our loyalty to the prophetic word is the cultural temptation of staying with prevalent culture whenever God’s word becomes countercultural.5 One of the most eloquent examples of this temptation was the rejection of Noah’s unpopular preaching about a forthcoming global flood by the antediluvians (Gen 6:11–22). Once again, God’s word was humanly illogical and decontextualized, and its acceptance required faith without any empirical evidence to substantiate it. From a historical-critical perspective, the denial of such a strange catastrophe was logical and suitable. Nothing of that nature had ever occurred in the past, so why should it occur now? No wonder that the antediluvians scoffed about such an irrational weather forecast and about Noah’s crazy plan of building a huge ark on dry land (2 Pet 3:4–6).
White explains,
They [the antediluvians] reasoned, as many reason now, that nature is above the God of nature, and that her laws are so firmly established that God himself could not change them. Reasoning that if the message of Noah were correct, nature would be turned out of her course, they made that message, in the minds of the world, a delusion—a grand deception… . They asserted that if there were any truth in what Noah had said, the men of renown —the wise, the prudent, the great men—would understand the matter.6
The notion of a worldwide flood did not make any sense for the antediluvians and it is still considered illogical by those who accept the uniformitarian axiom that the present is the key to the past,7 and consequently the key to the future. Even so, several canonical prophets (Ps 104:6–9; Isa 54:9; Heb 11:7; 1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5; 3:6) and even Christ Himself (Matt 24:37–39; Luke 17:26–27) corroborate the historicity of that unique catastrophe. But the apostle Peter foretells that a similar incredulity will prevail before Christ’s Second Coming: “In the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, ‘Where is this coming he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation’“ (2 Pet 3:3–4). Christ Himself warns, “However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).
It is worthwhile to notice also that “some of the carpenters he [Noah] employed in building the ark, believed the message, but died before the flood; others of Noah’s converts backslid.”8 In reality, all “the men and women who helped to build the ark”9 heard his preaching and could have accepted his saving message, but most of them did not fully commit themselves to the cause they were working for. Likewise, today professed children of God may “act a part in the preparation of the truth that is to fit a people to stand in the day of the Lord,” but “they will perish in the general ruin like Noah’s carpenters who helped to build the ark. God help you that you may not be of that class.”10
A third major challenge to our loyalty to the prophetic word is the selective tendency of accepting from that word what one likes and disregarding what one dislikes. This was the problem of King Ahab, who chose four hundred false prophets to flatter him with pleasing words—regardless of whether or not they were true (1 Kgs 22:6–13; 2 Chr 18:5–12). At the same time, he hated the prophet Micaiah because, in his own words, “he never prophesies anything good about me, but always bad” (1 Kgs 22:8; 2 Chr 18:7). The same selective attitude was taken by the pre-exilic Israelites, as stated by the prophet Isaiah: “They say to the seers, ‘See no more visions!’ and to the prophets, ‘Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!”‘ (Isa 30:10–11).
White sees the same problem as affecting our own generation:
Hypocrisy is peculiarly offensive to God. A large majority of the men and women who profess to know the truth prefer smooth messages. They do not desire to have their sins and defects brought before them. They want accommodating ministers, who will not arouse conviction by speaking the truth. They choose men who will flatter them, and in their turn they flatter the minister who has shown such a “good” spirit, while they revile the faithful servant of God.11
Yet, this selective tendency is reflected not only in the picking and choosing from the inspired writings, but also in the human predisposition of praising ancient prophets while rejecting contemporary ones. Christ addresses this very same issue in His woe to the scribes and Pharisees (Matt 23:1–36). He declares,
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, “If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.” … Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. (Matt 23:29–30, 34)
This was one of the major problems of the scribes and Pharisees in the days of Jesus, and it is still an issue for our own generation now in regard to White’s prophetic ministry and writings. Many reject those writings under the excuse that their acceptance would undermine the commitment to the Protestant sola Scriptura principle.12 Some of them may take this position not realizing that her writings do not replace or add to the biblical canon, but rather lead people to it. Others feel more comfortable reading the prophetic rebukes to ancient people—which we should accept as examples and warnings to us as well (1 Cor 10:1–11)—than accepting White’s admonitions for us in these last days of human history.
The real issue regarding White is not simply whether to accept or to reject her writings, but rather to recognize whether she was a true or false prophet. If she was a false prophet, we should reject her; but, on the other hand, if she was a true prophet, we should recognize the danger of consciously rejecting someone God has chosen to assist us in our spiritual journey. To the twelve, Jesus stated, “Whoever welcomes a prophet as a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward” (Matt 10:41). To the seventy, Jesus added, “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). This principle is applicable to whoever God puts in our way, including prophets.
As Christ’s followers, we cannot feel free to either add or take away from the inspired writings (cf. Rev 22:18–19). In His teachings, Christ clearly states that His faithful followers are those guided by the Holy Spirit “into all the truth” (John 16:13), living “on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt 4:4), and teaching others “to obey everything” He has commanded us (Matt 28:20).
In addition to the hermeneutical dilemma, the cultural temptation, and the selective tendency, spiritual dryness also conspires against our loyalty to the prophetic word. Among the followers of Jesus there were two disciples who developed, over time, significant contrasting behaviors. One was the unrefined John, one of the two “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17), and the other was Judas, a man of “commanding appearance, … keen discernment and executive ability.”13 Both had the same privileges and opportunities of being taught by Jesus Christ, the very incarnation of God’s love. But by the end of Christ’s earthly ministry, John had become the beloved disciple (John 19:26; 20:2) and Judas the cold betrayer of Jesus (Matt 26:20–25, 47–50).
As well-stated by popular wisdom, “the same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay.” This is what happened in the lives of John and Judas in the presence of Jesus Christ, “the Sun of Righteousness” (Mal 4:2, NKJV). In reality, “self-surrender is the substance of the teachings of Christ.”14 Jesus Himself told His disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). While John humbly surrendered himself to Christ, Judas self-sufficiently resisted the transforming power of Jesus.
Addressing the spiritual dryness of many professed Christians, Charles H. Spurgeon warns, “It is not all who go to church or meeting that truly pray, nor those who sing loudest that praise God most, nor those who pull the longest faces who are the most in earnest.”15 In the footsteps of Judas, many Christians today, in the words of White, “accept an intellectual religion, a form of godliness, when the heart is not cleansed.”16 Indeed, “a man may hear and acknowledge the whole truth, and yet know nothing of personal piety and true experimental religion. He may explain the way of salvation to others, and yet himself be a castaway.”17
No wonder that Jesus prayed, “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17). The apostle Paul confesses, “But I strictly discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27, NASB). And White adds, “Dare not to preach another discourse until you know, by your own experience, what Christ is to you.”18
Jesus concluded His Sermon on the Mount identifying a true disciple of His as “one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 7:21) and “who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice” (Matt 7:24). So, loyalty to the prophetic word means much more than simply professing to accept that word. It means also to overcome (1) the hermeneutical dilemma of questioning God’s word when it seems illogical, (2) the cultural temptation when that word becomes countercultural, (3) the selective tendency of accepting from that word what one likes and disregarding what one dislikes, and (4) the spiritual dryness of a mere intellectual religion.
We need to allow the inspired writings to transform our minds (Rom 12:1–2) and to sanctify our lives (John 17:17). After all, “who may ascend the mountain of the Lord? Who may stand in his holy place? The one who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps 24:3–4). But while humbly growing in our experiential knowledge of God and His word, we should always keep in mind that “sanctification is not the work of a moment, an hour, a day, but of a lifetime… . So long as Satan reigns, we shall have self to subdue, besetting sins to overcome; so long as life shall last, there will be no stopping place, no point which we can reach and say, I have fully attained.”19 May the Lord help us to have this experience today and every day of our lives.
__________
1 “Leaning Tower of Pisa,” https://www.towerofpisa.org/ (accessed May 9, 2021).
2 All Bible quotes not otherwise identified are from the New International Version (NIV).
3 Ellen G. White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1913), 55.
4 Ellen G. White, Counsels to Parents, Teachers, and Students Regarding Christian Education (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1943), 12.
5 A classic exposition of different approaches to the relationship between religion and culture is provided in H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper, 1951).
6 White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 97.
7 The principles of geological uniformitarianism were laid down by James Hutton, A New Theory of the Earth, Read Before the Royal Society of Edinburgh in March and April 1785 (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1786); idem, Theory of the Earth; with Proofs and Illustrations, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: William Creech, 1795); idem, Theory of the Earth, with Proofs and Illustrations, vol. 3 (London: Geological Society, 1899); Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1830–1833).
8 Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing Association, 1923), 504.
9 Ellen G. White, Christ Triumphant (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1999), 95.
10 Ibid.
11 Ellen G. White, This Day with God (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1979), 55.
12 See, e.g., Merlin D. Burt, “Ellen G. White and Sola Scriptura” (paper presented at the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Presbyterian Church USA Conversation, Office of the General Assembly PC [USA], Louisville, KY, August 23, 2007), https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/Burt-Ellen-White-Sola-Scriptura.pdf (accessed May 16, 2021); Alberto R. Timm, “Sola Scriptura and Ellen G. White: Historical Reflections,” in The Gift of Prophecy in Scripture and History, eds. Alberto R. Timm and Dwain N. Esmond, (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2015), 289–300; John C. Peckham, “The Prophetic Gift and Sola Scriptura,” in Biblical Hermeneutics: An Adventist Approach, ed. Frank M. Hasel (Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2020), 377–404.
13 Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1940), 294.
14 White, The Desire of Ages, 523.
15 C. H. Spurgeon, John Ploughmen’s Talk; or, Plain Advice for Plain People (Philadelphia, PA: Henry Altemus, 1896), 171.
16 Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1956), 35.
17 Idem, Evangelism (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1946), 682.
18 Idem, Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1944), 155.
19 Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press, 1911), 560–561.