Changing Times (Part 3)
Refresher
Zahakiel: Brother Peter, will you please open our meeting with a prayer?
HappyRock: Dear Father,
We thank you for this time that we can come before you. We thank you for all that you have done in our lives, helping us as we travel through this world, and as we are about to begin our study may your Spirit rest upon us and may your will be done in and through us. May those who are on their way be able to attend likewise. In Your Son’s name we pray, amen.
Rita: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Abraham: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Zahakiel: Today our meeting is a little smaller than usual, as both pastor and Luke are off in Rwanda, and apparently unable to get an Internet connection at this time. Nevertheless, we are blessed by this wonderful day, and find joy in one another’s fellowship.
Over the past two months we have been examining a topic that I had originally intended to present in a single study. It quickly became apparently, however, that there were some details necessary to expand, and therefore the other topics that I had in mind for New Moon studies have had to be put on hold until this series is completed.
This month we are going to go over the final section of the “Changing Times” study series, which specifically deals with some questions about the CSDA position on the National Sunday Law prophecy.
In our first meeting discussing this issue, we saw that many of Ellen White’s statements were intended to be eternal in scope, or at least to last until the close of human history. We find that the three things I consider the “pillars” of CSDA teachings are fully represented under this category, these being, specifically, Victory, Purity and Unity, the essences of the Three Angels’ Messages of Revelation 14.
Regarding Victory
Zahakiel: Every time I read Mrs. White’s words, I find her fully agreeing with the Scriptures regarding the Victory over every known sin that the Christian finds in the abiding relationship with Yahshua. Just recently I came across two I had not seen before:
“If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation we must accept the Bible as it reads and believe that the Lord means what He says. He requires nothing of us that He will not give us grace to perform. We shall have no excuse to offer in the day of God if we fail to reach the standard set before us in His word.” [Testimonies for the Church Volume Five, page 171] Since we know that what He “requires” of us is the character of Yahshua, and tells us this in no uncertain terms, we can know with assurance that He has given us the means to accomplish this goal, first sending His Son as a sacrifice for humanity, and then appointing Him our faithful High Priest until the close of this present age.
Another quotation, “By faith and prayer all may meet the requirements of the gospel. No man can be forced to transgress. His own consent must be first gained; the soul must purpose the sinful act before passion can dominate over reason or iniquity triumph over conscience. Temptation, however strong, is never an excuse for sin. ‘The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers.’ Cry unto the Lord, tempted soul. Cast yourself, helpless, unworthy, upon Jesus, and claim His very promise. The Lord will hear. He knows how strong are the inclinations of the natural heart, and He will help in every time of temptation.” [Testimonies for the Church Volume Five, page 177, emphases added]
I have highlighted the phrase, “His own consent must be gained,” and “every” because these demonstrate beyond question that the CSDA understanding of the difference between known and ignorant sin is no new doctrine. While any may “sin” in ignorance, and all may have errors of character to correct, the kind of “sin” being discussed by Ellen White, and the kind of “sin” that John is concerned with in his first letter is that of known, deliberate transgression, for which the decision must be knowingly made by the person in question. Many are ready to condemn others, even other Christians, for mistakes in judgment, and errors in reasoning, saying, “How can you say you have the victory?” But that question is not an honest one. They are truly asking, “How can you say WE must have the victory?” for this doctrine tries the hearts.
Regarding Purity
Zahakiel: And what of purity of doctrine? We certainly find that represented loudly and clearly in the Scriptures. The letters of the apostles were swift to warn the early Christian Churches of errors in their teachings that would be considered minor compared to some of the sheer nonsense taught in Christendom in these last days. We also find the Spirit of Prophecy writings discussing this at length; for example, “You may be sure that pure and undefiled religion is not a sensational religion. God has not laid upon anyone the burden of encouraging an appetite for encouraging speculative doctrines and theories. My brethren, keep these things out of your teaching.” [Evangelism, page 138]
I have been, until recently, holding a discussion by mail with one gentleman of Adventist background who has made something of a hobby of accepting and attempting to convince others of “speculative doctrines and theories,” for example that God the Father and the angels have something like physical bodies in some “place” in the universe, and that the Son is a Being who may be properly described as “created.” I say “until recently,” because he has not demonstrated an ability to receive input, and would see any further attempts to demonstrate the errors in his reasoning as oppressive.
Individuals such as this, and others whom we have met and dealt with in the past, will never consent to be a part of our fellowship, because their doctrines are impure – and they are content with their current condition. It is not that they are told, or even asked, to leave off communication with us, not at all – but it is the nature of light and darkness that they will be separated. Before light, darkness flees. No force is required; those who are not willing to be corrected… leave when they see that they cannot bend others to their way of thinking. They may either live physically, or they may begin to attack the motives and words of the very ones sent by Heaven to help them until it becomes clear that the messengers are to move on to another city. (Luke 9:5)
Regarding Unity
Zahakiel: And what of unity? It is taught in the Scriptures, and it is taught in Mrs. White’s writings, as we saw in an earlier New Moon study called “Christian Unity.” It is not, however, well taught in Christendom. Now, a kind of unity is taught, one that does not rely upon Victory or Purity. It is built on tolerance, rather than upon harmony, and if any of us does not understand the difference between tolerance and harmony, it is imperative that we learn it. Members of ecumenical groups, or in groups that are so fragmented they seem to have given up all hope of genuine Christian unity, will often tolerate important doctrinal differences for the sake of fellowship and peace.
There is a simple way to tell whether or not an individual with whom you are speaking is interested in tolerance or harmony. There is a passage in Ezekiel that is hated (in principle) by those who are willing to tolerate others, but not willing to come into true unity. We read it thus, “And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of Yahweh came unto me, saying, ‘Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.’” (Ezek 3:16, 17) It then goes on to describe the watchman as speaking against the transgressions of the ungodly, and warning the righteous who make missteps to return to the path from which they were beginning to stray.
Now, what is so hateful about that verse? It is this: Yahweh has appointed individuals as “Watchmen” over Israel. Many of you have read my report of the trip that pastor and I made to the Church of God meeting in Kentucky a couple months ago. The people there are, almost universally, very agreeable individuals. By any standard, they are nice people, and one need not for a moment have any doubt about their personal piety toward God. At the same time, we felt there a sense of sadness, in some cases hopelessness, because of the splits and mini-groups that were represented just at that one gathering. You had people clinging to this doctrine or that doctrine, and almost every teaching had at least one individual who was not convinced of its absolute truth. This is hardly the picture of Christ’s Body so strongly defended by Paul, and hardly a fulfillment of the Gospel’s commission through the apostles, “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” (1Cor 1:10)
And why did Paul write that letter? Obviously, there was some danger of their being divisions and splits… but the early Church held together, as long as the apostles were there, because these were the appointed Watchmen. These were men who warned against dangers, who were able to see ahead, and who were able to understand when things were coming up that were unexpected. And now we draw closer to the meat of this month’s topic, about the conditional nature of Ellen G. White’s prophecies, because this is intimately tied in to the concept of the Watchmen.
But before we turn our attention fully to that topic, let me conclude what I am saying about unity. In the Church of God meetings, it was strongly stated, and repeatedly, that their group had no use for individuals who considered themselves to be Watchmen. Indeed, the “Watchman mentality” was consistently identified as one of the “problems” with the original Church of God collective that led to its fragmentation. Based upon what I know of the Bible and human nature, I am forced to come to another conclusion; we read, “for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1Cor 3:3)
Zahakiel: There may have indeed been some genuine watchmen appointed, to attempt to steer those who were sincere into the channel of light; but because of the carnality of those who had long rejected those ideas, the watchmen were despised, and their legacy tainted for future generations. There was confusion, it seems, between what a genuine watchman is, and the work of a papal figure or a dictator. The two are not the same.
Not to go on too long about any particular group… but it is a fitting example. True unity may be disguised under a banner of tolerance, and without purity of teachings, victory of individual lives, and a respect for the concept of God’s Watchmen, every Church group will eventually fragment and fall apart.
How has it been in Adventism? No better.
There are splits over this doctrine and that doctrine; but worst of all, there has been a consistent denial of the warnings from the pen of Ellen White, and a consistent denial and repudiation of those modern Watchmen who say, “Remember the counsel!”
Consider… had the Watchmen been heeded, the 1888 message would have been accepted, thus there would have been a continuing teaching of Victory in the SDA movement. Had the Watchmen been heeded, had the pioneers’ writings been respected, what force could possibly have compelled the leadership to accept the Trinity doctrine in order to be more like the nations around them? What power on earth could have led them away from the Christian philosophy of organization, medicine, and education? Had the Watchmen been heeded, what evil spirit could have triumphed in leading the men in charge to go to the modern Caesar for protection of Yahweh’s supposed kingdom? No, the warnings are too frequent, too loud, too obvious – had the Watchmen been heeded we would have no need of dealing with any altered prophecies, any new spiritual condition of the “Adventist Christian,” or any Trademark Law to oppress the faithful saints. The Three Angels Message can only be given by the faithful Watchmen, and the Third and Fourth Angels in particular need men and women who have read Ezekiel 2 and 3 and each concluded, “These chapters were written for ME.”
Are there any questions about this long refresher section?
Rita: None.
Crystle: No.
Naraiel: No.
Abraham: No.
Barb: No.
HappyRock: No.
Adventism and Conditional Prophecies
Zahakiel: One of the things the Watchmen have always had to deal with is the tendency of the “Israel” to whom they have been sent to cling to the promises of the past, regardless of the change in their own spiritual state. Those who opposed Jeremiah said, “We have the promise of the Almighty; this is the Temple of the Lord! How can you tell us to surrender to the Babylonians?” Those who opposed Christ and His disciples said, “We are the chosen of God, the sons of Abraham! How can you tell us to accept this suffering Messiah and ignore the threat of Rome? How can you tell us to leave the glorious and revered Synagogues to be joined to your little fellowship?” Now we hear, “How can you tell us the SDA Church has fallen? We have the very oracles of God!” It is the same story at every step; if there were no emergency, no approaching army that can easily change its tactics, there would be no need for Watchmen who can say, “The danger is coming from the East,” or “The danger is coming from the West.” After all, if we knew how and when the enemy would attack, and the fulfillment of every prophecy was always set in stone, why would there be any need of Watchmen?
In our second meeting last month we took a step into these contentious waters, and saw (from her own statements) that some of Ellen White’s counsel was dependent upon either the times in which they were written or the circumstances that existed at that point. When the times changed, or the circumstances no longer applied, the counsel was no longer useful for practice – although it continues to be of importance for study. Consider, by way of example, the writings of the Old Testament. We no longer stone adulterers and Sabbath-breakers to death, because we are not under a theocracy – the circumstances have altered the way in which we apply the principles of the divine law. This does not mean that we cut Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy out of our Bibles, however; we still find light in the way that the principles were applied at their appropriate times. It is the principles that guide the sight of those standing on the towers of watch.
Now we return to one of the most important prophecies of Ellen White, and one that our modern Watchmen have had the most difficult time voicing the warning about – and it is about the Mark of The Beast.
Zahakiel: Some may say, “Yes, we see Mrs. White calling for faithful watchmen, and certainly they are needed to keep us from straying off the path into this error or that, but surely we do not need anyone crying out about the Mark of The Beast? It is so clear from the Spirit of Prophecy that it will be a Sunday Law!” This is what Adventists have been taught for many, many years… and it has become to them a message of “peace and safety.”
They say, “Don’t worry about these things the Conference is doing, God will remove the wicked men from power, just stay in the boat, and when the Sunday Law comes – for we know it will – you’ll be fine.” If that were the way God dealt with religious societies, why did He not remove the pope from power and preserve the organization for the faithful Catholics? Why did He not remove the Sanhedrin and preserve the House of Israel? Why did He not allow Joseph to inherit Pharaoh’s throne, eliminating the need for the exodus, and perhaps saving all of Egypt in the process? Did He love them any less than He loves modern Adventism? There is a problem, you see, with that mindset.
God will indeed remove one or two evil leaders from a congregation or Church… but when the entire leadership has agreed to do something that shows a separation from the perfect trusting walk that Christ requires of His body, in every such case a small remnant has been called out, and in every such case the promises made to that original group are modified to suit the alteration. It has never, never been otherwise.
Are there any questions so far?
Crystle: No.
Barb: No.
HappyRock: No.
Rita: None.
The Characteristics of Conditionality
Zahakiel: If we know some prophecies are conditional, so that we need not dispute that idea, how do we move on from there? Specifically, how can we be so sure that the Sunday Law falls under that very controversial category? Ellen White herself seemed certain (at times) that this was to be the testing issue of God’s people.
But we may know it easily, and we must know it with perfect assurance if we are to be faithful Watchmen. This is the very essence of our New Moon study this month: “What are the signs that any given prophecy is conditional?” We have spoken about conditional prophecies at length in the past, and given many examples, but we have never really examined them in detail to extract a list of specific characteristics. I mentioned in a previous study that we may need to do this at some point, and as we examine the Sunday Law I believe it is vital that we truly understand not only that there are examples of conditional prophecies in the Bible that we can point to, but also why they were conditional in the first place. If we are not able to do this, others may be able to quiet the voice of conscience by simply saying, “Yes, I see that other prophecies in the Scriptures were conditional, but I am not convinced that the Sunday Law is a legitimate addition to that list.”
The prophecies in the Scriptures that proved conditional all met the following six criteria, and we must be able to list and explain these criteria to others, even to the “rebellious House” to which we, like Ezekiel, have been sent.
Conditional prophecies are given by inspiration
Zahakiel: This statement may seem obvious, but it is worth mentioning. It is important that we are able to distinguish between a conditional prophecy and a false prophecy. The Scriptures speak of false prophecies thus, “Then Yahweh said unto me, ‘The prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither have I commanded them, neither spake unto them. They prophesy unto you a false vision and divination, and a thing of nought, and the deceit of their heart.’” (Jer 14:14)
“Likewise, thou son of man, set thy face against the daughters of thy people, which prophesy out of their own heart; and prophesy thou against them.” (Ezek 13:17)
The prophets who give conditional prophecies are true prophets. They have not invented anything in their own hearts that they then proceed to declare in public. They have not been deceived by some falsehood, nor have they misinterpreted the genuine word of the Almighty. Their predictions are accurate according to what would happen if the stated conditions were met.
Now, the Scriptures do say, “When a prophet speaketh in the name of Yahweh, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Yahweh hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously; thou shalt not be afraid of him.” (Deu 18:22) Taken by itself, that would seem to be an “absolute” test of a prophet’s genuineness. What we find in practice, however, is that many prophets said things that did not “come to pass,” including:
Moses – Who said that he would not see Pharaoh’s face again. (Deu 10:28, 29)
Jonah – Who said that Nineveh would fall in forty days. (Jonah 3:4)
Ezekiel – Who said that the heathen would rise up against earthly Jerusalem and be destroyed. (Ezek 39:6)
Zahakiel: In the first case, Pharaoh changed his mind and sent for Moses. In the second case, the Ninevites repented, and delayed the destruction of their city for centuries. In the third, the attack of Gog and Magog will take place against spiritual, not literal, Jerusalem, (Rev 20:8, 9) because Israel never came to the place where they held a consistent and vibrant faith in Yahweh.
In every case the messenger was a faithful and true servant of the Most High, and accurately transmitted the information he had been given. The prophecy was not fulfilled as it was predicted, not because there was any problem with the message, or the messenger, but because the spiritual climate into which the message was spoken was altered.
Does everyone understand that idea?
Naraiel: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
HappyRock: Ok.
Abraham: Yes.
Barb: Yes.
Conditional prophecies do not specify a timeline beyond the prophet’s own lifetime
Zahakiel: Conditional prophecies involve some future event for which the exact time is not specified, unless it is a short-term prediction. One of the most famous prophecies in the Scripture is that which is given by Daniel involving the “seventy weeks” allotted to Israel before the appearance of the Messiah. This is one of the few prophecies in Scripture that was fulfilled precisely as it was spoken. If it was conditional on some level, the conditions were all met, because the very date of the Savior’s appearance was foretold centuries beforehand.
We read, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.” (Dan 9:24, 25)
In another case the flood of Noah’s day was predicted to the very year, (Gen 6:3) and came to pass just as spoken.
Jeremiah specified seventy years of Babylonian captivity, and this well-known prediction proved to be accurate in every detail. (Jer 29:10) Moses accurately received word that Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness would be forty years. (Num 14:33) This seems, therefore, to be a consistent pattern.
Now, Jonah’s conditional prophecy gave a specific time, “forty days,” but this was within Jonah’s own lifetime, and involved a very local set of circumstances (the faith of one city) as opposed to any global situation. Due to the dramatic alteration in the local conditions (a complete rejection of idolatry and total repentance from the king down to the farmers) the punishment was turned aside. This is a unique example, because the prophecy in this case was directly given to the very people who would have been responsible for the just penalty of idolatry, and they therefore had an opportunity to change it. The long-term predictions, on the other hand, outline a fulfillment based upon a more large-scale set of factors.
Does everyone understand this second factor?
Abraham: Yes.
HappyRock: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Rita: Yes.
Conditional prophecies are given to a specific people
Zahakiel: The prophecies in Scripture that proved to be alterable in their fulfillments were always given to a very specific set of individuals. Nineveh, Jerusalem, Israel as a whole, and the Christian Church are included in the list of recipients of conditional promises.
Aside from the examples above we read of this exchange between the Messiah and one of the members of His fledgling congregation, “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Yahshua answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’” (Mat 16:18)
While it is true that the gates of Hell have never prevailed against the Church if it is understood in its spiritual sense – as composed of those individuals who genuinely love and worship the Father and Son – the organizations with which these individuals have been corporately associated has been subject to many a prevailing due to apostasy and neglect.
To more precisely state this element of conditional predictions, these prophecies are generally given to those whose faith in Yahweh has wavered, or was in danger of wavering. It would make little sense to give an encouraging promise to individuals who were fully set on the goal, and for whom receiving the reward was merely a matter of time. Conversely, it would be pointless to give rebukes and warnings to those who were beyond any danger of erring or falling into transgression. The promises and warnings of Yahweh are never spoken idly, but intended to accomplish very specific goals in the minds and hearts of those who hear them. It is only when these promises go unclaimed, and the rebukes unheeded, that wrath finally breaks forth upon humanity.
Next:
Conditional prophecies do not relate to universal judgments
Zahakiel: Related to the above, we find that the flood of Noah’s day, the appearance of the Messiah and – looking ahead – the coming worldwide Judgment, are not subject to any conditions that would feasibly have been changed. The world was already so corrupt in Noah’s time that no effort of evangelism or display of divine glory would change the course of human history. Nothing humanity could do would prevent the Savior’s appearance on the earth; in fact, it is because man had done his worst that the Master’s visit to His creation was so necessary a work for our sakes. Similarly, in speaking of the future spiritual condition of humanity, all indications are that it will only worsen as time draws to a close.
It is important to note, however, that while the judgments may not be conditional, the relationship that it has to individuals may be. Although nothing could possibly prevent the flood from covering the earth with water, any that were willing could have been spared by entering the ark. (1Pet 3:20, 21) Although nothing would prevent Yahshua from dying for all mankind on the cross once His decision was made, only such as call upon His name are ultimately saved, benefiting from that act. (Acts 4:12, Rom 10:13)
As we are going through this list with the intention of seeing how the Sunday Law meets all the Biblical criteria for classification as a conditional prophecy, it is perhaps relevant to note at this point that the Sunday Law, while it will be global in scope, is not truly universal in its “power,” for although it may be accepted by many, it is only “forced” upon those who resist it – and that will be few. The traffic laws, for example, are only applied to those who violate them. Similarly, the Sunday Law has no relevance to those who already keep Sunday as a holy day. In addition, the Sunday Law is not a universal judgment because it is not a judgment at all; it is certainly not a divine judgment, but even if it were divine in origin, it would be a commandment (i.e., “Remember the first day, to keep it holy”) and neither a warning nor a promise.
Naraiel: The Sunday Law was supposed to be a sign of the close of probation. But now, the sign has changed.
Zahakiel: Yes, that is an important distinction. The close of probation itself will be a judgment on the world. The sign of that judgment is not the same as the judgment itself.
Here is an important aspect:
A conditional prophecy is not usually understood to be such by its bearer
Zahakiel: Jonah suspected that Nineveh would, in fact, be spared if the people repented. It is, however, generally the case in instances where the prophecy is not short-term that the speaker of a conditional prophecy is fully convinced that his words will be fulfilled precisely as spoken.
Even Daniel, who gave a very definite prediction of the Messiah’s appearance, did not understand a conditional element of his visions – that his nation was not necessarily going to be the one to represent Yahweh on the earth in the last days. (Mat 21:43) Ezekiel fully expected that Israel would become the faithful nation of His vision some day, and that earthly Jerusalem would see a day of triumph over Gog and Magog. We have a similar situation with Ellen White and the Sunday Law, as we will see in the closing portion of the study.
This is a relatively short section, because the criteria is basically self-explanatory; but are there any questions on this or the previous items in the list?
Naraiel: No.
HappyRock: No.
Rita: No.
Abraham: Good so far.
Barb: No.
Crystle: No.
Conditional prophecies are not based upon spiritual principles, but upon circumstances
Zahakiel: As we saw in the first section of this series, the statements of Ellen G. White that are universally and eternally true are those that are based upon principles. It is always true that effect follows cause, because, “As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse causeless shall not come.” (Pro 26:2) It is always true “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Yahshua, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rom 10:9, 10)
It is not true, on the other hand, that there is anything in Israel, in Roman Catholicism, in Protestantism, or in Seventh-day Adventism, that made them the people of Yahweh as a matter of principle. They were His, for a time, because He chose them out of the world, (Deu 4:37, John 15:19) and that is an act of will and not principle. As a result, the status of these groups – all of them – as faithful stewards of everlasting truths was conditional upon their connection with the source of that truth, with their abiding in the principles given unto them.
When Israel turned away from Yahweh and joined itself to Caesar, making it plain beyond controversy in the execution of the Messiah by Roman means, in that act they violated the covenant that bound them to the Creator as the national oracle of Elohim. As Jeremiah had said so many years earlier, “Trust ye not in lying words, saying, ‘The temple of Yahweh, The temple of Yahweh, The temple of Yahweh, are these.’” (Jer 7:4) As Yahshua said during His ministry, “Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, ‘We have Abraham to our father;’ for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Luke 3:8)
It was not the Temple that made Israel holy, but the God who made Himself manifest within it. It was not the blood of Abraham that made Israel a chosen nation, but the God of Abraham, and His covenant with his descendants. But covenants may be broken; Yahweh does not break His covenants, but neither is He bound to those which are broken by others. We read, “And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.” (Zech 11:10) Note that in this case “breaking” the covenant meant only that He would not fulfill his end of it; the actual covenant itself was already broken, in the sense of being violated, by the people. (Zech 10:2, 3)
Thus we see it laid out; if the prophecy is based upon some eternal principle, such as “the wages of sin is death,” then we may know with assurance that when Yahweh sends some judgment upon the wicked (such as the flood, or the coming flames of cleansing) it is not subject to any circumstances over which mankind as a whole has any ability to control or alter. If a specific event is based upon the acts of humanity, or the political, social, even the religious circumstances, the precedent of Scripture indicates that it is subject to alteration.
Now, one of the listed criteria is not that the conditions of the prophecy’s fulfillment were always clearly stated. No conditions were spelled out to Nineveh by Jonah, and no conditions were spelled out to Israel by Ezekiel – yet both these prophecies proved to be conditional. One of the objects we hear when we try to explain the conditional nature of the Sunday Law prediction in Adventism is that “the prophecy does not declare itself to be conditional.” That is, looking at the Biblical examples, entirely irrelevant.
Does everyone understand these criteria?
Naraiel: Yes.
HappyRock: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
Barb: Yes.
Meeting The Criteria
Zahakiel: Any church-state union makes a beast. This is a sure principle based upon what the very symbolism means. What makes any given beast of importance to the saints of Yahweh whether or not was a true and faithful Church that united with the state. Many churches are united with civil government to one degree or another, but this has no bearing on the closing scenes of earth’s judgment beyond its immediate impact upon those false women themselves.
Of course, one need not be, or have been, a member of the genuine Church of Yahshua in order to see and benefit from understanding the principles involved in identifying conditional prophecies. Some in other groups, in fact, have eyes open to the truths of the Bible, including being able to identify a church-state union for what it is – a violation of Yahweh’s desires for His human family.
I recently read a book that was an account of an individual’s disillusionment with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although he himself had once been an important figure in the society’s hierarchy, he found himself compelled by conscience to withdraw and to speak out against the things he experienced and learned as a member. Interestingly enough, one of the criticisms he has of the Watchtower Society, which is the controlling body of the Jehovah’s Witnesses much as the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is the “head” of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is that they joined themselves to the world. I am quoting a portion of his book here, because I want it to be seen how plainly these things may be seen and understood if one does not have organizational loyalties, and undue ones at that, clouding one’s spiritual eyesight.
Zahakiel: Note the parallels between the Watchtower Society and nominal Adventism – it is precisely the same spirit actuating both:
“In thus reorganizing itself, [i.e., by forming a corporation in New York] the [Watchtower Society] sought to ensure that there never would be a recurrence of such scenes as had been occasioned by the death of Charles Russell and the emergence of Judge Rutherford. But in order to achieve permanency as an Organization the Watchtower Society had done that which it had always vociferously condemned. It had, using its own terminology, compromised with the world, or with what they contemptuously termed Egypt. In other words, they had gone to the State of New York for help, rather than to trust in the Lord to perpetuate the Organization.”
A little later he adds, “To all who have eyes to see the Watchtower Society stands visible as an organization which employs the same principle of expediency which guides all political and commercial organizations. In adopting this policy, the Watchtower Society betrays the fact that it is actually an integral part of this present world order. In using the half truth and subversion according to the patterns laid by the world it gives a concrete denial of its claim to godliness.” [William J. Schnell, 30 Years A Watchtower Slave, pp. 176, 177]
Let me know when you have read that.
Abraham: Ok.
Rita: Done.
Crystle: Finished.
Barb: Finished.
Naraiel: Done.
HappyRock: Done.
Zahakiel: Of course, the Watchtower Society forming a beast is not going to lead to the Mark of The Beast itself, because they were never commandment-keepers with the faith of Jesus according to the criteria of Revelation 14:12. As Adventists understand the prophecies of Revelation, the key distinction between those who are wheat and those who are tares is the allegiance of the wheat to the instructions and commandments of the Creator.
Any “test,” therefore, that is allowed to come upon humanity must be able to distinguish between the true worshippers and the false ones based upon “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” In citing, therefore, the Sunday Law prophecy, Adventists believe that they have an obvious way to determine this.
Unfortunately, what was once a cut-and-dried situation is no longer so, for it is Sabbathkeepers that have now united with the state, Sabbathkeepers that have now formed a beast by the Biblical description of this process, and Sabbathkeepers that have become a persecuting power, seeking to restrict the liberty of conscience of those who will not submit to its demands.
Any test, therefore, must be able to separate even Sabbathkeepers into two groups – those who honor the day set aside for holy use, and those who honor both the day and the spirit of rest that it was intended to convey.
Zahakiel: But what of the Sunday Law itself? Even if some other law came forward to test the spirit of the Sabbath commandment, and to demonstrate on a more-than-physical level the faith of those who truly trust Yahweh, and truly believe He will take care of them without resorting to the world and its forces, what of the prophecy. We have a true prophet saying, “There will be a Sunday Law.” But… if the prophecy could be shown to be conditional, that would resolve the matter, for the principles of the final test, the image of the beast, and the separation of the wheat and the tares could continue as expected – but the issue itself would take into account that those who outwardly are keeping the commandments are not truly citizens of a Kingdom whose Monarch once said, “if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.” (John 18:36)
And does the Sunday Law indeed meet the six criteria above for being considered a conditional prophecy?
It does in every point. The Sunday Law:
a) was given by inspiration
b) relates to a time after the death of the messenger without giving a definite date
c) was given to a particular people whose faith would be tested by coming events
d) does not relate to universal judgment in that it is neither universal nor a judgment
e) was not understood to be conditional by its bearer
f) was based upon circumstances, not spiritual principles
Point (e) deserves a little expansion. One of the objections that CSDAs encounter when discussing the Sunday Law with mainstream Adventists is the statement that “Ellen White never foresaw any other course than what she described in The Great Controversy, yet you are teaching that there will not be a Sunday Law to test the people of God, and that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has fallen.”
The reply is simple: Just as Daniel never foresaw the fall of Israel, for it would hardly have been useful for him to receive such devastating news, so Ellen White never foresaw a Trademark Law that would be the sign of a fallen Church. This is quite consistent with the pattern presented in the Bible.
Zahakiel: Point (f) should also be understood in light of the fact that the Sabbath is indeed an eternal principle, so the argument might be advanced that the Sunday Law actually is based upon a spiritual truth, and not merely circumstances.
It needs to be realized, however, that while a Sunday Law, should it have come to pass, would test a person’s loyalty to the Sabbath, the Law itself is not based upon any divine principle. In fact, the Law would be based upon the Luciferian notion that mankind is able to determine its own means of serving God. This was the error of Cain, who brought the best of his own works to God, but not what Yahweh requested. So often is this error repeated in modern Christendom... We hear, “It’s not important what day you choose (if you choose a day at all) only worship God.” We hear, “The Roman Catholic Church transferred the dignity of the seventh day to the first.” We hear, “We don’t need the Sabbath anymore… we have Jesus!”
Yahshua came to explain the gift of the Sabbath to humanity, not to give us an excuse for casting it aside. The Roman Catholic Church had no authority to make any such transfers as it claimed. It is not we who choose the day, but respond to an invitation to participate in a day that is already chosen – and has been from the beginning of the creation. That is the truth of these matters.
A Sunday Law, while inadvertently testing the letter of the Sabbath commandment, is not truly based upon any spiritual laws, only upon the condition of men who, in thinking they were doing God a service, actually sought to trample upon the freedom of human conscience. Does everyone understand that? The law would test an eternal principle in those who opposed it, but the prophecy of the law is not itself based upon that, or any other, eternal principle.
Rita: Yes.
Abraham: Yes.
Naraiel: Yes.
Crystle: Yes.
HappyRock: Yes.
Zahakiel: Of course, some who read this transcript may be tempted to say, “It is easy to believe a prophecy is conditional, and then go back and look for criteria that support this view.”
It is true that this is one method, and an unreliable one, of doing Bible studies. Yet in this case it is not a matter of hand-selecting some criteria and ignoring others. We can see that we have a broad set of resources (i.e., the record of prophecies and their fulfillments) from which to draw our precedents, and to understand the principles that have governed the gift of prophecy from the beginning of humanity’s relationship with the Almighty.
That being the case, it is hardly unreasonable to conclude that, if the Sunday Law is similar to previous conditional prophecies in six key ways, and dissimilar to unconditional prophecies in all ways that distinguish them from the conditional ones, it is, itself, conditional.
To put that in plainer language: the Sunday Law is similar to the conditional prophecies in the Bible in every aspect I can find that identifies them as being “conditional.” At the same time, the Sunday Law has nothing in common with unconditional prophecies except in ways common to all prophetic statements.
The fact that it is not explicitly identified in the Spirit of Prophecy writings as being conditional is not at issue – neither were the conditional prophecies of the Bible that are so identified. The fact that the messenger herself, Ellen White, did not realize it was conditional, is not an argument against its conditionality – neither were the Biblical messengers of conditional prophecies aware of that aspect of their statements.
The two main objections we hear, therefore, that “Ellen White never said the Sunday Law was conditional,” and “Ellen White never foresaw the consequences of the Trademark Law being enforced rather than a Sunday Law” is of no use in identifying the Sunday Law as being conditional or not.
What is useful is comparing this prediction with those in the past that were of conditional natures. What we find, upon doing so, is that it matches those other predictions aspect-for-aspect, point-for-point.
Based, therefore, upon the results of this comparison, it should be at once obvious that the Sunday Law is a conditional prophecy.
Are there any questions?
Rita: No.
HappyRock: No.
Naraiel: No.
Crystle: No.
Abraham: Clear.
Barb: No.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: To conclude, I would like to re-state something I have mentioned a number of times now. The writings of Ellen G. White are useful as inspired commentary upon the Word of God. It is without a doubt one of the most dramatic examples of the modern gift of prophecy, and useful for instruction and study. It is not, at the same time, a crystal ball or a roadmap of the future; prophecy does not, and has never, functioned in such an unqualified manner.
Some of the things found therein are universal in scope and eternal in relevance. Others are limited by time, circumstances or audience. One of the blessings that we of the Church of Yahshua are privileged to receive is the insight of the Holy Spirit, and a clear view of the principles in the Bible, which help us to determine which is which, and to act accordingly.
If there are no questions about any of the things we have discussed over the last three meetings, then let us close our meeting with prayer.
Brother Abe, will you offer the prayer?
Abraham: Father in heaven,
We are very grateful for your continued presence with us. Thank you for expanded light on this subject. May all true believers be blessed with this knowledge. Dismiss us from this meeting in the certain knowledge that you are leading us. In Yahshua’s name we pray. Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Naraiel: Amen.
Rita: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
HappyRock: Amen.
Barb: Amen.
Kimberly: Amen.
