Ellen White predicted England to war against the Union

How to summarize this? I asked Copilot AI a question about Ellen White and her prediction that England would enter the Civil War and it answered that question incorrectly. That is the first half, getting the AI to revise its position. Then AI noted the Adventist tendency to claim prophecies are conditional and how they link that to Jonah. So I post this for the useful information it contains.

I asked Copilot AI this question and here is our conversation:
 

The SDA prophet Ellen White thought that England would join the south in the civil war correct?

Direct answer: Ellen White did not predict that England would join the Confederacy. What she wrote was that England was considering whether to take advantage of the United States’ weakened condition during the Civil War, possibly by declaring war. She never claimed England would side with the South, and in fact she emphasized that God was not with the Confederacy.

🔎 What Ellen White Actually Said

• In 1861–62, Ellen White reported visions about the Civil War.

• She wrote that England was weighing whether to make war on the United States, fearing that if it did so, other nations might exploit England’s weakness.

• She described England as “studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation” but did not say it would definitely act.

• She also stated: “God is not with the South, and He will punish them dreadfully in the end” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 359, 1863).

📌 Clarifying the Misconception

• Not a prophecy of alliance: Ellen White never said England would join the Confederacy.

• Context: At the time, there was widespread speculation in both North and South that Britain or France might intervene, since they relied on Southern cotton. Ellen White echoed those fears but framed them as possibilities, not certainties.

• Outcome: England ultimately stayed neutral, though it flirted with recognition of the Confederacy early in the war.

⚖️ Comparison: Ellen White vs. Historical Reality

🧠 Why This Matters

• Ellen White’s Civil War comments are often cited by Adventists as evidence of prophetic insight.

• Critics point out that she reflected common fears of the time rather than unique predictions.

• The idea that she thought England would join the South is a misunderstanding—her concern was about England possibly declaring war on the Union, not siding with the Confederacy.

In sum: Ellen White speculated that England might attack the Union during the Civil War, but she did not predict England would ally with the South. Her writings emphasized that the Confederacy was under divine judgment, not divine favor.

I then wrote:

It seems in her quote when she says "when England" that is a prediction after she said England was considering it. The quote: "Said the angel: “Hear, O heavens, the cry of the oppressed, and reward the oppressors double according to their deeds.” This nation will yet be humbled into the dust. England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past and the injustice done them. A portion of the queen’s subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. England is acquainted with the diversity of feeling among those who are seeking to quell the rebellion. She well knows the perplexed condition of our Government; she has looked with astonishment at the prosecution of this war—the slow, inefficient moves, the inactivity of our armies, and the ruinous expenses of our nation. The weakness of our Government is fully open before other nations, and they now conclude that it is because it was not a monarchial government, and they admire their own government, and look down, some with pity, others with contempt, upon our nation, which they have regarded as the most powerful upon the globe. Had our nation remained united it would have had strength, but divided it must fall. "

That’s a sharp observation. The phrasing “When England does declare war…” certainly reads like a prediction, especially coming after the conditional language about England considering war. Adventist historians and critics have debated this very point: was Ellen White reporting a possibility, or did she cross into forecasting an event that never happened?

📖 How to Read the Passage

• Conditional vs. declarative:

• Earlier in the passage she says England is studying and weighing the matter. That’s conditional language.

• Then she shifts to “When England does declare war…” which sounds declarative, as if anticipating inevitability.

• Prophetic tone:

• Ellen White often used visionary language that blurred the line between describing possibilities and declaring outcomes.

• In this case, the angelic voice and the “when” phrasing give it a prophetic flavor, even though historically England never declared war.

🧠 Interpretive Options

1. Literal prediction (failed):

• Some critics argue this was a straightforward prophecy that England would declare war, which did not occur.

• They see this as evidence of fallibility in her Civil War visions.

2. Conditional warning (not fulfilled):

• Adventist apologists often frame it as conditional: “If England did declare war, then…”

• They argue the “when” was rhetorical, describing what would happen in that scenario, not guaranteeing it.

3. Reflection of contemporary fears:

• In 1861–62, many Americans feared Britain or France might intervene because of their reliance on Southern cotton.

• Ellen White’s language mirrors those anxieties, giving them a prophetic cast.

⚖️ Historical Reality

• Britain debated recognition of the Confederacy but never declared war.

• The Union’s naval blockade and Britain’s alternative cotton sources (Egypt, India) reduced the incentive.

• So the “when England does declare war” line was never realized.

✨ Why It Matters

This passage is a good example of how Ellen White’s Civil War writings are interpreted differently depending on one’s stance:

• Believers: see it as conditional prophecy or a warning that reflected real geopolitical risks.

• Critics: see it as a failed prediction, showing she echoed popular fears rather than divine foresight.

So yes—you’re right to notice that the “when England” phrase shifts from possibility to apparent prediction. The tension lies in whether that should be read as a literal forecast (which history disproved) or as a conditional scenario framed in prophetic rhetoric.

I wrote:

You say "The tension lies in whether that should be read as a literal forecast" At the time it had to be a literal forecast, if it were conditional what would the conditions be? If they are not stated they can not be conditional or you could say every prediction was conditional on some unstated conditions.

That’s a very sharp point, Ron. You’re cutting right into the heart of the apologetic debate.

If we take the text at face value, the phrase “When England does declare war…” is indeed a forecast. There are no explicit conditions stated—she doesn’t say “if England declares war” or “should England declare war.” She moves from describing England’s deliberations to asserting what will happen when they act. By the rules of plain language, that’s predictive.

Why Adventist apologists call it “conditional”

They argue that:

• Prophecies can be inherently conditional even if the conditions aren’t spelled out.

• Example: Jonah’s prophecy of Nineveh’s destruction (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) had no stated conditions, but was reversed when Nineveh repented.

• The defense is that divine warnings often imply “unless circumstances change.”

• Ellen White’s Civil War visions were framed as warnings of what could happen if nations acted, not guarantees.

• Thus, “when England does declare war” is read as shorthand for “if England does declare war, then…”

The problem with that defense

• As you point out, if unstated conditions can always be assumed, then any failed prediction can be retroactively explained away. That undermines the very idea of prophecy having falsifiability.

• In the Civil War passage, Ellen White explicitly describes England’s deliberations and then pivots to inevitability. Without conditions, the natural reading is that she foresaw England’s declaration as certain.

• Historically, England never did declare war, so the statement looks like a failed forecast unless one accepts the apologetic move of “implicit conditionality.”

Scholarly framing

• Critics: call this a failed prophecy, evidence she echoed contemporary fears rather than divine foresight.

• Defenders: insist it was conditional, pointing to biblical precedent for unstated conditions in prophetic warnings.

• Middle ground: she used prophetic rhetoric to dramatize real geopolitical risks, but her language blurred the line between possibility and prediction.

So your critique is exactly right: unless we allow “unstated conditions” to float in the background of every prophecy, this passage reads as a literal forecast that history disproved. The conditional defense is really a theological strategy to preserve her authority, not something inherent in the text itself.

Would you like me to show you how Adventist scholars specifically use Jonah’s Nineveh prophecy as their model for defending Ellen White’s Civil War statements? That’s the most common parallel they draw.

I wrote: 

I point this out to you because you began with: "Direct answer: Ellen White did not predict that England would join the Confederacy. What she wrote was that England was considering whether to take advantage of the United States’ weakened condition during the Civil War, possibly by declaring war"

You’re right to call me out on that, Ron. My opening phrasing was too categorical—it glossed over the very tension you’ve been highlighting.

The passage itself clearly contains two layers:

1. Possibility language: “England is studying whether it is best… She is weighing the matter…”
   – This reflects deliberation, not certainty.
2. Forecast language: “When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve…”
   – This moves into declarative prediction.

So while it’s accurate to say Ellen White never explicitly claimed England would ally with the South, it’s also true that she did forecast England would declare war on the Union. My earlier “direct answer” oversimplified by focusing only on the first part (the deliberation) and not acknowledging the second (the forecast).

Why this matters

• Critics: point to the “when England” phrase as a failed prophecy, since England never declared war.
• Defenders: argue it was conditional, even without stated conditions, drawing parallels to biblical prophecies like Jonah’s.
• Natural reading: as you’ve emphasized, without explicit conditions, the text reads as a literal forecast.

So I’ll refine my stance: Ellen White did not predict England would join the Confederacy, but she did predict England would declare war on the Union. That distinction is crucial. My initial summary blurred it, and you’re right to press for precision. [my emphasis here]

I wrote:

Going back to the Jonah's prophecy. As I recall the Hebrew word for overthrown has a pretty wide meaning. As the King repented and at least in the story changed his ways, would not that make the prophecy true without the need of conditions? I would also assume that Jonah  preached more than those 8 words, so it is likely that that line is more a summation of what he preached rather than all he preached.

You’re remembering something very important about Jonah’s prophecy. The Hebrew verb used in Jonah 3:4 is הָפַךְ (hāphak), usually translated “overthrown” or “turned.” And yes—it has a broad semantic range. It can mean:

• Destroyed/overthrown (as in Sodom, Genesis 19:25).

• Turned/changed/transformed (as in a reversal of fortune or a change of heart).

So when Jonah proclaimed, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the wording itself carries a kind of double edge. The city could be “overthrown” in judgment, or “turned” in repentance.

📖 Implications for Jonah’s prophecy

• Fulfillment without conditions: If Nineveh repented and was “turned,” then the prophecy was fulfilled in the broader sense of hāphak. The city was indeed “overturned”—not by destruction, but by transformation.

• No need for explicit conditions: That linguistic flexibility means the prophecy doesn’t have to be read as failed or conditional. It was fulfilled, just in a different mode than Jonah expected.

• Jonah’s frustration: This explains Jonah’s anger in chapter 4. He wanted “overthrown” to mean destruction, but God allowed it to mean transformation. Jonah knew God’s character was merciful, which is why he resisted preaching in the first place.

🗣️ On Jonah’s actual preaching

You’re right: the eight words in English (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) are almost certainly a summary of his message, not the entirety of what he said. Ancient prophetic accounts often condense the core oracle into a memorable line. Jonah probably preached more detail about Nineveh’s sins and the urgency of repentance, but the text preserves the essence.

⚖️ Why this matters for Ellen White

Adventist apologists use Jonah as a model: they argue that just as Jonah’s prophecy was “fulfilled” in repentance rather than destruction, Ellen White’s Civil War statements could be read as conditional warnings rather than failed forecasts.

But your point cuts deep: Jonah’s prophecy had a built-in semantic flexibility in the Hebrew word hāphak, whereas Ellen White’s “When England does declare war” lacks that kind of linguistic openness. Jonah’s oracle could be fulfilled either way; Ellen White’s forecast was falsified unless one imports the idea of unstated conditions.

So yes—your instinct is right. Jonah’s prophecy can be seen as fulfilled without needing conditions, because the Hebrew verb itself allows for transformation. Ellen White’s Civil War passage doesn’t have that linguistic elasticity, which is why the apologetic move feels much thinner.

When and why is something a Prophetic statement?

There is an interesting article on Spectrum by Alden Thompson entitled Rediscovering Lost Adventist Literature The subject is not really what interests me but rather this information from the article:

Lost-and-Found #1: An Astonishing Ellen White Quote on Conditionality
The astonishing Ellen White quote on conditionality is this one:

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the Word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional.

Her treatment of this quotation is tantalizing. First, it is part of a longer manuscript in which she responds to a critic who quoted this 1851 statement as proving her testimonies false: “I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished, and that time can last but a very little longer.”⁵

After addressing the question of conditionality at some length (the point of the quoted paragraph), she then refers to her critics in vivid language, declaring that heretofore she had “not felt at liberty even to notice their vile speeches, reproaches, and insinuations.” She goes on to say that she “would not now depart from this custom, were it not that some honest souls may be misled by the enemies of the truth who are so exultantly declaring me a deceiver. In the hope of helping the minds of the honest, I make the statements that I do.”
But she apparently had second thoughts, for there is no evidence in the White Estate files that this response (Ms 4, 1883) was ever sent to anyone and the critic is not identified. The manuscript was found in the Ellen White files after her death. Apparently she never used any part of it while she was still alive. A number of such manuscripts were brought to light in the1930s and then step-by-step brought to the attention of the church. In this instance, part of the statement was published in Evangelism in1946. In1958, it was published in full in Selected Messages, Bk. 1, 59-73.

Now I have used the phrase “astonishing” to refer to this quotation because of the reaction of a retired pastor with whom I have had extensive email correspondence in recent years.  He is devout and thoughtful, conservative, but open to new perspectives. I had used the quote several times in dialogue with him, and more than once he read through the SDABC article, “The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy,” described here as lost-and-found item #2.⁶ “I had read it before, but enjoyed it again,” he said. I finally told him that I would answer no more of his questions until he gave me a straightforward answer to my question about Zechariah 14:

I know this is a volatile question, but if Scripture includes an end-time scenario which no SDA would now affirm, shouldn’t we conclude that specific end time plans, including the specifics in the book The Great Controversy, may not happen exactly that way? I have pressed you on that point because if that conclusion is wrong, I would like to know why. If it is correct, shouldn’t we take steps to educate the church – including those ancient preachers who would rather not come to that conclusion?...

I have to admit I did not know that she never published or even sent out her statement "It should be remembered that the promises and the threatening of God are alike conditional." I have to give her more credit then her followers because if that statement were true then the promise of a second coming becomes no longer a surety but a conditional promise. It may or may not even happen because when phrased the way the quote is "are alike conditional" there is an implied "all" in the statement. It probably would have assured her position as a false prophet. Particularly in light of the context which was to try and explain why her own predictions did not come to pass. Because if a so called prophet is allowed to explain away why their predictions failed then there would no longer be any objective test of prophetic ability. They simply say that the conditions were not met. Which is way to easy if you say that everything is conditional and what those conditions are is never given. (in his article Thompson mentions the Jonah parable, don't put a whole lot of wait on that since it is highly unlikely that Jonah only said those eight words to the people of Nineveh, it is a greatly misused book by those trying to defend Ellen White and condition-less conditional prophecy).

Which leads to the second area of concern which is why her followers and supporters use the quote that she herself did not publish or send out. What gives it any authority or truth to be used at all if the prophet in question did not feel it to be a worthy piece of instruction for people? That strikes me as the assumption that everything someone believed to be a prophet said has to be inspired. Something which in fact even the supporters of EGW say is not true. It does appear to me to be something that should have in fact never even have been published at least not until there is a change in the understanding about how to view her writings and the removal of her writings as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction." (Fundamental SDA belief 18)

A Response to Alden Thompson on Conditional Prophecy

In the most recent issue of Adventist Today (Fall 2011) Alden Thompson has an article entitled Conditional Prophecy and Last-Day Events. I had mentioned to a friend that he seemed to waste a lot of the article on talking about the Sabbath. My friend who knows Alden and thus I suspect has a bit more insight into his thinking, but is also a bit less critical of what he actually said, suggested that the underlying reason for the Sabbath inclusion in the article was to develop subtly the idea that the Sabbath is not an end time Seal of God and the conditional prophecy was a method of planting those ideas into the reader.

Thus I had to re-read the article to see if I could see those subtle connections as my friend explained it. If there I thought I would be in substantial agreement though likely not with his conditional prophecy position.


Alden Thompson introduces us to his subject after explaining through the process of some rather gratuitous assertions the solid foundation of the Sabbath and that “the New Testament is equally clear pressing the question of how to keep the Sabbath but never quarreling over the fact of the Sabbath.” True enough but what does the “fact” of the sabbath really mean. That the New Testament acknowledges the Sabbath is true but does not in any way seek to endorse it as a continuing obligation, leaving it up to the conscience of people (Rom. 14:5). But when someone says the fact of the sabbath to an Adventist I think they often have a different understanding, the fact to them being the continuing obligation of Seventh day Sabbath keeping as their proof of true commandment keeping. I will come back to that after I cover the next area of Thompson's article where he recounts the conflict of 1888 through Ellen Whites perspective.
The article covers an area of all or nothing thinking which he seems to want to use to develop his concept of conditional prophecy. He recounts this incident from the 1888 Ellen White Materials page 220 I will give the full two paragraphs:

I told them I had been shown that some of our brethren had educated themselves as debaters. The process of this education and the mold received by such an education were not after God's order, neither did they meet the approval of God. In many respects men trained in this kind of school unfitted themselves to become pastors of the sheep and lambs; and in combating an opponent, as in the way of discussions, usually harm is done with but little good results. The combative spirit is raised in both parties, and a defiant, hard spirit becomes habitual when their track is crossed. They become criticizers and do not always handle the Scriptures fairly, but wrest the Scriptures to make their point.

The remark was made, "If our views of Galatians are not correct, then we have not the third angel's message, and our position goes by the board; there is nothing to our faith." I said, "Brethren, here is the very thing I have been telling you. This statement is not true. It is an extravagant, exaggerated statement. If it is made in the discussion of this question I shall feel it my duty to set this matter before all that are assembled, and whether they hear or forbear, tell them the statement is incorrect. The question at issue is not a vital question and should not be treated as such. The wonderful importance and magnitude of this subject has been exaggerated. For this reason--through misconception and perverted ideas-- we see the spirit that prevails at this meeting, which is unchristlike, and which we should never see exhibited among brethren. There has been a spirit of Pharisaism coming in among us which I shall lift my voice against wherever it may be revealed." Full 1888 materials in PDF

The brother who says we don't have the third angel's message is on the side that says the law in Galatians is the Ceremonial law (which by the way is an entirely artificial designation the Jews did not separate the law as moral or ceremonial). The brother was working against the position of Jones and Waggoner that the law in Galatians was the moral law (by which Adventists mean the 10 commandments, again a fictional law division).

Thompson then begins on the Conditional prophecy portion by saying that the Adventists had two pillars which can be found in the simple covenant that Adventists first signed when they formed as a church in 1861. “covenanting to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus Christ [Rev. 14:12] Central to the commandments is the Sabbath;”

So even though Ellen White thought the brother was exaggerating his thinking, that if the law in Galatians was our school master to lead us to Christ and then fade we can't be correct in our statement of the third angel's message which is that last part of the verse in Rev 14:12. Thus the brother's offering is not really all or nothing but the recognition that if our faith is in our understanding of the Seventh day Sabbath observance as our special mission (to preach the third or three angel's message) the position would be in error and faith based on error is not terribly useful. Ellen White is not even able to refute the brother but threatens to, as we continue to read that letter we see she never deals with the issue only criticizes the spirit of those involved. Which by the way is usually a truism when any two or more people get together and argue strongly held views religious or otherwise.

Alden Thompson's conclusion to the illustration of history is:

“Let's be clear: whatever we do with conditional prophecy or end-time events does not move a pin from those landmarks, the ones reflected in our name Seventh-day Adventists.”

That would not be the conclusion I would draw from the illustration from Adventist history of this event. But then I don't see the brother as giving an all or nothing position either. He seems quite rational and deserved a bit more rational response then he received. I might accept the conclusion that from our history we accept certain pillars as unmovable because we ignore any reasons to move them. Which strangely enough seems to be Thompson's case, as he continues:

“I hope the long preamble makes it clear that there is no point in going further unless the Adventist landmarks are in place. When they are secure, however, we can begin to nibble on “conditional prophecy” in bite-size chunks.”

He then covers some of the ideas of the “last days” as being a nebulous term that does not fit all that well with the New Testament and contemporary interpretations of Christians. That some see conditional prophecy as things that must be fulfilled in the last days such as the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem etc.

Next he points to the article The Role of Israel in Old Testament Prophecy (I did an Internet search to give you a link to this article but being an important article it appears to not be anywhere on the Internet). Alden writes:

“All Adventists know about the Sunday law. But very few know how the Bible, the Great Disappointment, and Ellen White come together in this remarkable article that takes “conditional prophecy” seriously in exploring God's original plan for Israel.”

His next point is to direct our attention to Ellen White's own all or nothing statement:

The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short. Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never! It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike conditional. Selected Messages Page 67 from MN 4 1883

Notice her position is either the Saviour did not appear as soon as we hoped or God failed. No possibility for the messenger being presumptuous or making something up quite apart from anything God ever said or simply wrong interpretations. After all it had been nearly 2000 years since those New Testament last day prophecies. It does seem a little presumptuous in the 19th century to assume they are all talking about her century. This would be a good example of all or nothing thinking. But if one did believe that the promises and threatenings of God are conditional and you have to admit there is an implied “all” in that statement. In fact the implied “all” would make the statement fall in the category of a logical fallacy known as the false generalization (sweeping or hasty generalization). 
 
The whole possibility of the second coming becomes conditional and may never happen. What are the conditions, who knows? A conditional prophecy without the conditions stated somewhere is worthless. Now ancient Israel had loads of prophecies and from the start of the nation state there were conditions set for all the prophecies. (Read Deut. 28) Is it really logical to assume the same conditions for a ancient nation to modern people in so many different nations? If one accepts that all promises and threatenings of God are conditional and the conditions are not stated then whenever anyone makes a prediction that fails to come to pass they can say the conditions of God were not met and most likely after the fact they will name some conditions. In this way people like Harold Camping could continue setting dates for Christ's return and continue to create excuses for the prophetic failures. The so called prophet could never be shown to be wrong, if something comes true it will show them as a prophet if it does not it shows nothing except conditions were not met.


Alden Thompson continues by saying:
“It was the 1844 Disappointment that forced Adventists to come to grips with conditional prophecy—reluctantly.” Going on to say that Ellen White never published her statement about conditional prophecy while she lived, it was in the form of a letter defending herself from certain charges.  I would ask should the letter be taken as inspired or the statement as inspired? Did Adventists come to grips with 1844 as a conditional prophecy? Well no it was assumed that the date was correct but the event was wrong and 1844 became integral to the novel SDA only doctrine known as the Investigative Judgment. He then moves on to Jonah, a favorite of Adventists who want to assert all prophecies are conditional. You can read a response to that position in my article Ellen White's Food for worms, Is it Conditional.


He finishes back with the Sabbath:


“Anywhere and everywhere Adventists can preach that the beast of Revelation 13 is coercive and deceptive. Anyone who coerces and deceives is in league with the beast. Today, however the great threat to our Sabbath is not coercive Sunday legislation, but secularization. Almost no one takes sacred time seriously anymore.”

So here at the end I grant my friends observation is probably correct. But all along the way I see numerous problems with the article's positions. But if this is the only way we can get Adventists to leave behind the 19^th century theology of Ellen White and realize that so far she has been wrong on most every prediction she made, I guess I will have to say Amen. Though I wish we could be more honest with ourselves. But I am not an all or nothing person so it is not either lie to ourselves about conditional prophecy and Ellen White or continue to accept Ellen White and teach the outdated prophecy scenarios, I think honesty demands more. There is a place for subtleness but even being subtle with incorrect facts is not really a winning formula.

All Christians are prophets

This is how our lesson study guide begins for the week of Feb. 15 2009:

Memory Text: “Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:20, 21, NKJV).

All through the Bible, a theme recurs: God talks to people through His prophets, and the people either accept or reject what’s being said. Of course, by rejecting the words of the prophets, they’re not rejecting the prophets; they’re rejecting the One who sent them.

It’s a very serious thing, then, to claim to speak in the name of God. If you claim it, and are, then you are a mouthpiece for the Creator of the universe, no small responsibility. People have been delegated authority to speak for the boss of the company, or the president or prime minister—but to speak for the Lord? That’s heavy. Unfortunately, much of biblical history is a story of God speaking through His prophets and of people rejecting what was said. How careful we need be not to make the same mistake today.

What strikes me about this is how they have taken the New Testament statement on prophets and applied it to Old Testament prophets. I think that perhaps they are right and also wrong. Right in that the text used is applicable to everyone. Read the text :

(1 Th 5:16-22 NIV) Be joyful always; 17 pray continually; 18 give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good. 22 Avoid every kind of evil.

God communicates with His followers but they have to test what they think God reveals to themselves and others. It is common sense isn’t it? Wrong however in assuming the ultimate authority of prophets. The lesson goes on to say that Moses was God’s spokesman as if God was speaking to Aaron and Pharaoh. This is very similar to the New Testament where Paul says:

(2 Cor 5:20 NIV) We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

The prophets are God’s ambassadors; Christ’s followers are God’s ambassadors. We are just as much prophets as Moses and Elijah, but of course we don’t live under a Theocracy where a prophet acts as a ruler who sets up kings and declares what to do in a battle with an enemy nation. Time and circumstances change and we simply cannot carry forward into our time the things of thousands of years ago.

So let’s say a prophet receives a message from God, does it have to be new and original to him or can God give multiple times the same message to prophets. Well that is pretty easily answered because the Old Testament is filled with prophecy which are basically the same thing that Moses first gave. Repent and follow God or trouble will follow. So prophecy does not have to be novel. Can a prophecy be derived from something previously said by God? Again I think the Old Testament has frequently shown to have prophets using what other prophets have said and applying the message to their times.

So far we have seen prophets to be simply followers of God, the messages are pretty straight forward in that they usually relate to obedience to some command or other that God through some other prophet had given. For the most part dealing with the nation of Israel with the later prophets dealing a lot more with ideas such as justice and mercy, yet they were still centered upon the nation. So it was not too hard to test these prophets; as they were pretty consistent in telling people to return to God in one way or another. If as in Jeremiah you have a prophet going about saying how well you all are doing and how pleased God is with you, you probably don’t have a real prophet, probably not someone who really is a follower of God. Now back to Paul:

(1 Cor 14:29-33 NIV) Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.

The spirit of the prophets appears to be what the intent of the prophet is. That is he/she is in control of the things he/she does and says. What is there motivation is probably as important as what they said. John says:

(1 John 4:1 NIV) Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

So not everyone who claims to be a prophet is one and not everyone who claims to be a follower of God is a follower of God. We have to test not only what they say but their motivation. So clearly the idea of the authority of a prophet is becoming pretty dicey. We can’t simply trust them we have to test them carefully. We are no longer dealing with a nation and what happens to a nation but to people living out in multitudes of nations. The common factor is that they are followers of God not because they are part of a chosen nation for some specific purpose.

Martin Luther wrote:

But why does he say: “We have a sure prophetic Word”? Answer: I believe indeed that henceforth we shall not have prophets like those the Jews had in times past in the Old Testament. But a prophet must really be one who preaches about Jesus Christ. Therefore although many prophets in the Old Testament foretold future things, they really came, and were sent by God, to proclaim the Christ. Now those who believe in Christ are all prophets; for they have the real and chief qualification prophets should have, even though they do not all have the gift of foretelling the future. For just as through faith we are brothers of the Lord Christ, kings, and priests, so we are also all prophets through Christ. For we can all state what pertains to salvation, God's glory, and a Christian life. In addition, we can also talk about future events insofar as it is necessary for us to know about them. For example, we can say that the Last Day will come and that we will rise from the dead. Furthermore, we understand all Scripture. Paul also speaks about this in 1 Cor. 14:31: “For you can all prophesy one by one.”⁴ [Martin Luther, (1999, c1967). Vol. 30: Luther's works, vol. 30 : The Catholic Epistles (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (vol. 30, page 164). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.]

So we being good protestants can agree with Luther here, the importance of a prophet is to be declaring Jesus Christ. What about this predicting stuff. Were the Old Testament prophets particularly good at it? No, they did not even predict the coming of the Messiah so anyone could really notice it. There are scores of unfulfilled predictive prophecies in the Old Testament. So we say they are conditional prophecies designed to lure the nation into following God which of course as all the other prophets reiterated the nation did not follow God. So we end up with prophecies that did not come to pass and it is highly likely that God knew they would never come to pass. We see this in the New Testament where the Apostles clearly thought and taught the soon return of Christ. No doubt for the purpose of making the expectation of something better in life more immediate. Because saying that in 2000-4000 years Jesus would return would put a heavy damper on the idea of spreading the gospel. Of course one of the techniques people use to attempt to shore up the Old Testament unfulfilled prophecies is to move the fulfillment to some time yet in the future.

All in all with predictive prophecy which can be conditional or can be transferred way beyond what it originally appeared to suggest there is very little one can do to test it. We end up with saying here is a prediction that did not come true thus they are not a prophet, we can do that with a modern authoritative prophet such as Ellen White but it can be done with Isaiah or Ezekiel also. But we have to do it with the Old Testament Prophets because we are still reasonably instructed that we have to test all prophets. Just because something is in the Bible does not make it true, does not make it the express instructions of God or a correct understanding of God.

Adventists I think are currently at the crossroads in understanding both how to interpret the Bible and how do deal with the prophecies of God. We made the fundamentalist mistake of making Ellen White an authoritative Old Testament prophet of the nineteenth century. It has proven to be a disaster for our church; it keeps our church stuck in nineteenth century eschatology and a self importance based upon wrongly interpreting the Bible from Miller to the SDA formation. Maybe all we had to do was open our minds to what a prophet is they way Martin Luther describes it; someone who directs the attention of others to Jesus Christ because that is where the authority is not in the prophet.

Ellen White Food for worms, is it conditional

I am going to interrupt the review of the book previously mentioned because this weeks Lesson Study Guide is designed to counter the type of criticism mentioned in my last post review of It’s Okay Not To Be A Seventh-day Adventist. Specifically I will deal with February 3 lesson because unlike many other lessons in our history this lesson deals with a specific statement of Ellen White which many cite as a false prophecy. Here is what the lesson says:

The fulfillment of most prophecies (exceptions are the end-time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation) is dependent on the actions and attitudes of the people concerned. Jonah made the clear-cut statement, given him from God, that in 40 days Nineveh would be “overturned” (Jonah 3:4, NIV). Yet, it never happened. Was Jonah a false prophet? Of course not. Instead, the prophecy was conditional; its fulfillment depended upon how the people responded to the message God had given them.

This principle may explain why a particular prophecy made by Ellen White in 1856 did not come to pass. In 1856, Mrs. White declared: “I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.’ ”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 131, 132.

All who were alive way back then are now, of course, dead. How do we explain this? The answer is conditional prophecy. We must remember that she was told God’s kingdom could have come in her lifetime. In 1896 she wrote: “If those who claimed to have a living experience in the things of God had done their appointed work as the Lord ordained, the whole world would have been warned ere this, and the Lord Jesus would have come in power and great glory.”—Review and Herald, Oct. 6, 1896.

In the last volume of the Testimonies for the Church, published in 1909, she wrote, “If every soldier of Christ had done his duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion had given the trumpet a certain sound, the world might ere this have heard the message of warning. But the work is years behind. While men have slept, Satan has stolen a march upon us.”—Testimonies for the Church, vol. 9, p. 29. If we apply the principle of conditionality to her 1856 vision, the problem disappears. See also Friday’s lesson.

First of all does overturned in Jonah 3:4 mean destroyed? If we look up the word overturned in a lexicon we see this definition:

Definition

1. to turn, overthrow, overturn
1. (Qal)
1. to overturn, overthrow
2. to turn, turn about, turn over, turn around
3. to change, transform
2. (Niphal)
1. to turn oneself, turn, turn back
2. to change oneself
3. to be perverse
4. to be turned, be turned over, be changed, be turned against
5. to be reversed
6. to be overturned, be overthrown
7. to be upturned
3. (Hithpael)
1. to transform oneself
2. to turn this way and that, turn every way
4. (Hophal) to turn on someone

So even if Jonah thought, or hoped Nineveh would be destroyed; to turn away, turn from, to change or reverse their course are all legitimate meanings for the word used. Jonah may have thought his prophecy failed but that would only be if a certain meaning is used to the exclusion of other meanings. The story is pretty clear that Jonah wanting the city to be destroyed even if God did not. There are also the other problems with the book of Jonah used to compare to Ellen White’s food for worms quote. First there are only 8 words recorded of Jonah’s message. If we assume that those were the only 8 words then we have a problem logically because why would anyone listen to a stranger in town repeating those words. At some point you would have to assume he identifies who he is and who his God is. The other problem with using Jonah as a comparison is that there is a pretty even split between Biblical scholars whether the book is supposed to be literal history or an analogy; a parable to demonstrate the grace of God over the nation of Israel’s tendency to self importance. Since there has never been any evidence that Nineveh worshiped the God of Israel I tend to think it is meant as a parable.

Next there is the possibility of conditional prophecies, but they are not all conditional and simply saying the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are not conditional because they say so is pretty poor reasoning. In any case the verse which is most applicable to Jonah’s prophecy is found in Jeremiah as the lesson study guide mentioned:

Jeremiah 18:6-10 (New International Version)

6 "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it.

Is that applicable to Ellen White statement where she said:

I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said (132) the angel: "Some food for worms, [SISTER CLARISSA M. BONFOEY, WHO FELL ASLEEP IN Jesus ONLY THREE DAYS AFTER THIS VISION WAS GIVEN, WAS PRESENT IN USUAL HEALTH, AND WAS DEEPLY IMPRESSED THAT SHE WAS ONE WHO WOULD GO INTO THE GRAVE, AND STATED HER CONVICTIONS TO OTHERS.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." {1T 131.3}

Solemn words were these, spoken by the angel. I asked the angel why so few were interested in their eternal welfare, so few preparing for their last change. Said he: "Earth attracts them, its treasures seem of worth to them." They find enough to engross the mind, and have no time to prepare for heaven. Satan is ever ready to plunge them deeper and deeper into difficulty; as soon as one perplexity and trouble is off the mind, he begets within them an unholy desire for more of the things of earth; and thus their time passes, and, when it is too late, they see that they have gained nothing substantial. They have grasped at shadows and lost eternal life. Such will have no excuse. {Vol 1 Testimonies to the Church p. 132.1}

Clearly the angel gives no conditions in fact Ellen White asks the angel why people are not preparing for their last change and makes it clear there is no excuse if they are not ready and lose eternal life. It is quite the opposite of a conditional prophecy. The lady mentioned here and in Ellen White’s book “Spiritual Gifts” certainly did not think it was conditional as Ellen White writes:

Sr. Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, "I feel impressed that I am one that will soon be food for worms.” The conference closed Monday. Thursday Sr. B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to help get off the paper. In about two hours I was sent for. Sr. B. had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better. The next morning we had her brought home in a large chair, and she was laid upon her own bed from which she was never to rise. Her symptoms became alarming, and we had fears that a tumor, which had troubled her for nearly ten years, had broken inwardly. It was so, and mortification was doing its work. {Vol 2 Spiritual Gifts p. 208.2}

Jeremiah’s statement is specifically for a “nation or kingdom” Ellen White is addressing a group of people at a conference, not even the SDA church because they did not exist yet. Jeremiah also says that if someone prophesies something good then you really know they are true because it is too easy to prophecy troubles:

(Jeremiah 28:8 NIV) From early times the prophets who preceded you and me have prophesied war, disaster and plague against many countries and great kingdoms 9. But the prophet who prophesies peace will be recognized as one truly sent by the LORD only if his prediction comes true."

Ellen White’s food for worms prophecy also includes the very best news; “translated at the coming of Jesus”. Ellen White’s statement fails to meet any of the conditions of Jeremiah’s statements.

What about the method the Lesson Study guide uses, it is the same method the White Estate uses when it quotes Ellen White’s explanation that if people had done their duty Christ would have returned before the time she made the statement. How would we verify the accuracy of that statement? If we allowed that type of reasoning then it would be impossible to ever show anyone to be a false prophet. All that so called prophet would have to do is give an excuse why their prophecy did not occur (the excuse being in the form of another prophetic statement). Rather like the Jehovah’s Witnesses saying that Armageddon and the consummation of the age would occur in 1914. When Armageddon did not occur it became the invisible return of Christ and began to rule in heaven. Click here for more.

There is no doubt if Jeremiah’s conflict with the false prophet Hananiah had used the rules as interpreted by the Lesson Study guide above prophets would have lost all meaning as what they said could or could not happen and their would be no consequence either way. Any so called prophet can prophesy their way out of any failed prophesies.

Ultimately it makes prophecy meaningless and testing of prophets worthless.