Mark,

Sorry for the delay. I've been ill.

It appears that Ellen White used this type of expression, "scroll" and "unroll*", in several ways, though we have but a few examples. From 5 BC 1103.5 I get the idea that scroll could refer to any book, for in this reference it is a book used in the judgment.

In ST 6-24-97.1-2 it refers to the Bible.

It appears that the statement you refer to from 6T was first written on 2/3/1898, probably to Kellogg (8T 158, 159).

Contrast this with 6T 133, where it is said that we are the ones who are unrolling the scroll to the world. This sentence was part of a discourse given 10/21/1888 at Minneapolis (1888 133; by coincidence the same page number!).

Since the 6T 133 statement was written 10 years before the 6T 17 statement, assuming they are referring to the same thing, then the 6T 17 statement might mean that once we have finished taking the gospel to the world, we will understand more fully certain aspects of the matter regarding the mark of the beast.

That's the best I can do with it with speculating, and I try not to speculate.

I checked the Words of the Pioneers and Master Christian Library CDs to see if I could find any usage of the phrase, since perhaps Ellen White was using a common phrase. The only thing I turned up was Weymouth's translation of Rev. 10 which talked about a "scroll unrolled," but it wasn't published until 1903, 5 years after the statement was made.

[This message has been edited by Pickle (edited December 01, 2001).]

Mike,

This will be a short reply, since I have been ill and lack time right now.

As you can see from Mark's question to you, many don't stop where you stop. And why should they? What safeguards are there to keep them from going further?

If you feel free to propose second applications when specifications in the prophecies as they were written rule out such a possibility, specifications you say won't be part of future fulfillments, why can't they go further?

Some Lose Their Way

Those who start with dual applications often end with rejecting the historicist interpretation. As it has been brought out already somewhere here, since the vs. about the 42 months comes after the vs. dealing with the healing of the deadly wound, some wrongly conclude that the 42 months must be future and NOT past. There are those who wrongly deny that the 4 beasts of Daniel 7 are Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome because Dan. 7:17 says "shall arise." There are those who wrongly say that the ram and the goat can't be Persia and Greece because the passage says the vision is for "the time of the end."

More on Exegesis

No prophecy is of private interpretation, the Bible must interpret itself, etc.

If Revelation might have a fulfillment that doesn't meet all the specs of the prophecy, how are we to know if it is a fulfillment or not? Obviously, we have just ruled out the use of Scripture in the determination process. No Bible book written after Revelation tells us what specs are to be part of a future fulfillment and specs are not to be. I can't see how we can avoid private interpretations with such an approach.

So what are you suggesting that we use to determine whether an event is a future fulfillment? How can all God's people come into agreement that such and such was really a fulfillment?

Some might think that the historicist view of the trumpets was along the lines of a private interpretation. My paper, The Seven Trumpets of Revelation: Were the Later Reformers Right? attempts to show how letting the Bible interpret itself will cause us to arrive at the same conclusions that the reformers did.

We don't have to guess or speculate regarding the historicist view. What futurist view can we in similar fashion arrive at without speculating or guessing?

Lightnings, Thunders, Voices

I think it would be profitable to examine this further. Compare each usage in Revelation.

The first usage pictures voices, thunders, and lightning, but not hail or an earthquake, coming out of God's throne. This makes me think that these phenomena are associated with the voice of God.

The historicist view would have God's voice delivering His people at the 2nd coming connected with an earthquake and hail occurring in Rev. 8, 11, and 16. The historicist view can explain these verses. What explanation can a futurist view give?

Specifically, you suggested that the ark in Rev. 11:19 had to do with the 10 COmmandments in the sky at the second coming. Please give your idea of what the voices, thunders, lightning, earthquake, and hail would be in connection with that.

I'll examine your other thoughts later. God bless.

[This message has been edited by Pickle (edited December 01, 2001).]

Bob, about 20 years ago I had some questions on some of Ellen White's statements regarding the timing of the Investigative Judgment. I wondered why she put 1844 as the first time Jesus entered the Most Holy Place, when Hebrews seemed to make the ministry of Christ a transcendental event. It says in other places that Christ was offered from the foundation of the world. I never doubted her inspiration, and I deferred to her judgment as a better Bible scholar, but I was puzzled. Eventually, after about 7 years of searching I found the answers I was looking for, and because I never doubted her inspiration and deferred to her judgment, my faith in her inspiration is stronger than ever.

You seem to think that because I question some of our SDA assumptions that I am on the slippery slope. I appreciate your concern, and I don't think I can convince you otherwise about myself, but I have concerns for you. It looks like we'll have to disagree for now.

I haven't heard from the moderators on my Unfulfilled Fall Feasts thread. I am wondering if they would consider posting it in under the challenges to Adventism section. I apologize for miscalculating your reaction. Feel free to repost anything, for example my Practices of the Early Church thread, but hopefully any of my threads will meet the criteria of the challenges section.

[This message has been edited by Mark Shipowick (edited December 02, 2001).]

Mark,

I'm not sure I understand your reply. What bearing did it have on my response to your question regarding the meaning of "unrolling of the scroll"?

Ellen White never said that Jesus entered the Most Holy for the very first time in 1844, as far as I know. It is always possible that He went within the Most Holy sometime between its construction and 1844. But from AD 31 to 1844 His ministry was in the Holy.

His ministry being transcendental doesn't mandate that He be ministering in the Most Holy instead of the Holy prior to 1844.

I could be misunderstanding you, but I think you are saying that some of the above are SDA assumptions. This is quite incorrect. There is nothing assumed about it at all. Ellen White in vision saw Christ and the Father leave the Holy and enter the Most Holy in 1844.

What we have to do as much as possible is stand on a plain "Thus saith the Lord." We have such for these points.

I will tell you what I think is a slippery slope. Dick Winn blessed many people with his talks on family life, etc. In the spring of 1983 in Prophetic Guidance class at Weimar, he told us that Ellen White MIGHT have eatne squirrel on a camping trip, that she was wrong in her interpretation of certain verses in Is. 28, and that the phrase "testimony of Jesus" doesn't mean the gift of prophecy.

Today he is out of the church and divorced. Some say he questions the existence of God. Why? A former colleague of his told me that when he went off to get a PhD he got wowed by the theologians at that non-Adventist insitution.

It made sense to me. Long before the theologians got to him, he had given up his only defense, an unquestioning faith in what God has said through His prophets.

"It is written" is how Jesus combatted the devil successfully. The devil knows that if we give up faith in the Word and the Testimonies, it's only a matter of time before he's got us in his cruel clutches.

Where you stand on this question I do not know and I hesitate to judge. But if in discussing these matters either one of us persists in holding on to some personal opinion when the other has presented a clear, unequivocal statement from the Word or the Testimonies to the contrary, then we truly are in danger of at some point stumbling down a slippery slope.

I had a couple at a church I pastored who felt for sure that Christ didn't die in our place for our sins and that being saved by the blood is an idea from paganism. At some point after the gentleman interrupted thrice a sermon I preached with contrary ideas, the brethren at the conference office sat down with us. After the meeting was over, the brethren left, and this couple offered me additional material dealing with their views. I declined, for I already could spout off the stuff pretty well, having gone round and round about it for some time already. The gentleman's reply was that there then could be no harmony between us since I was not open minded.

I tried to tell them that I could never accept idea that contradicted clear, inspired statements. But they didn't seem to care about my conviction on this point.

I didn't realize it fully at the time, but Dick Winn was in to the same kind of theology as this couple.

I do not want to be deceived by Satan. Sure, God has blessed me with a good mind and a lot of knowledge. More than average. Nothing to boast about. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Nebuchadnezzar found that out.

But if I ever get to the point where I elevate some personal opinion of mine above what God has plainly said, I will be among the biggest, dumbest, stupidest fools there ever has been.

We are saved by faith. If we refuse to believe, how can we be saved?

Eve disbelieved. Her smarts were more than any of us, but they were no match for Satan when she let go of her hold on the Word of God. And the human race at that point became eternally lost.

Which touches on one point you brought up. Christ at that point pledged Himself to die in our place. For that reason, though He died not till 4000 years later, He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Adam and Eve were told that if they ate, they would die. They didn't die then. Gen. 3 & 4 implies that the sacrificial system started at that point, and that coats of skin were made from the slain animals to cover them.

And this was to teach us and them that it is the robe of the righteousness of Christ, provided through His death, that covers our nakedness.

Mike,

"What thinkest thou?" Sounded pretty good to me.

I like Ed Reid's idea, that God has set an outer limit for everything, and could end it sooner if the work was finished. And my understanding of that outer limit is that the Lord would bring to pass circumstances that would wrap things up. I can't fault the concept.

9/11 has gotten me thinking, though, that there have been certain things falling into place for the last 100 years. Maybe it's like conversion. Some conversions seem instantaneous, but are really a culmination of years of the Holy Spirit's work. Likewise, the final movements will be rapid, but there has been a lot of groundwork.

Take Protestantism's rejection of the Bible for one. In the 1880s and 1890s, they still believed, and so we could use the Bible to show them that Sunday was the wrong day. Now it's more difficult since we first have to prove to them that the Bible is trustworthy, that evolution is wrong, etc.

I believe that Christ can and will have a perfected people in the last days. Why? Because He said I would. And the only way that it can become a reality in my own life is by faith, by believing what God hath said. See my last post above for ramifications of this thought.

Pickle, thank you for those inspiring words about trusting in the prophetic utterances handed down to us from generation to generation. Indeed, we who are living in these last days are more than blessed with the Old and New testaments, and the Spirit of Prophecy. God forbid that I should deviate from so great a witness!

When a prophecy embraces two fulfillments it is understandable that the symbols must necessarily be flexible enough to accommodate both scenarios. For example, Isaiah 66:22-24 and Ezekiel 39:8-15:

Isaiah
66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Ezekiel
39:8 Behold, it is come, and it is done, saith the Lord GOD; this [is] the day whereof I have spoken.
39:9 And they that dwell in the cities of Israel shall go forth, and shall set on fire and burn the weapons, both the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears, and they shall burn them with fire seven years:
39:10 So that they shall take no wood out of the field, neither cut down [any] out of the forests; for they shall burn the weapons with fire: and they shall spoil those that spoiled them, and rob those that robbed them, saith the Lord GOD.
39:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the [noses] of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call [it] The valley of Hamongog.
39:12 And seven months shall the house of Israel be burying of them, that they may cleanse the land.
39:13 Yea, all the people of the land shall bury [them]; and it shall be to them a renown the day that I shall be glorified, saith the Lord GOD.
39:14 And they shall sever out men of continual employment, passing through the land to bury with the passengers those that remain upon the face of the earth, to cleanse it: after the end of seven months shall they search.
39:15 And the passengers [that] pass through the land, when [any] seeth a man's bone, then shall he set up a sign by it, till the buriers have buried it in the valley of Hamongog.

Who can argue that these prophecies will be fulfilled exactly like as described here? Obviously we are forced to modify these prophecies to reflect a future application. We can't throw them out altogether. Instead, we must interpret them according to the future view as described in the Revelation. Thus we must apply some details and ignore others, and so on.

This is what I believe we must do with the seals and the trumpets in the Revelation according to our marching orders in Rev 10:6 and 11. We must allow both applications to stand independently of each other. For example, if the white horse symbolizes the preaching of the gospel during the early rain in the first century, it stands to reason that it will symbolize preaching the 3AM's during the latter rain at the end of time.

The trumpets are another story - whereas historically the symbols taken from nature depict the fall of Rome, in future they must necessarily symbolize natural disasters associated with a catastrophic event. Just because the same symbols describe different situations does not mean that they contradict one another. They must be examined from two separate yet similiar scenarios.

At any rate, these things make sense to me. I don't expect everyone to agree. Besides the future is close enough that we'll all know the truth about it soon enough. In the meantime, I do not plan on abandoning my faith or accusing Ellen White of being a false prophet. I will toss my future musing before I do that.

Mike,

What specific part of the prophecy of Is. 66 do you think cannot be literally fulfilled?

Bob, I asked you earlier what you thought this quote meant:

"The mark of the beast is exactly what it has been proclaimed to be. Not all in regard to this matter is yet understood, and will not be understood until the unrolling of the scroll." 8T p. 159.

You replied with a speculation, but what about the context of her statement which is prophecy and the mark of the beast? Why can't her quote mean what it appears to mean. Mrs. White would have understood how this statement would be taken. She would have known that Adventist would think she was talking about the scrolls of Daniel and Revelation. That is her most likely meaning. The closest contending interpretation is a remote possibility at best. So, we have her endorsement of dual applications here again.

The concern I mentioned above that I have for you is that you want a certain outcome, and so you try to make the evidence fit the outcome. We all have that tendency. Henry VIII asked his court jester one time about the title “Defender of the Faith” that the Pope had just given him for his defense of Catholicism. (This title is still conferred on the reigning British monarch. As you might have guessed, the title was given before King Henry demanded a divorce from the Pope.) The jester replied something like, "Good heavens Harry, lets defend each other. The truth can defend itself!" This is an overstatement, but Sister White endorses the idea that we should avoid confrontational debate. Sharing our testimony is often more effective.

That was the motivation for my story above about my experience with Sister White. I wanted to say that I was thankful to God that He allowed me to question her position in a constructive way, testing her views against the Bible and being strengthened in my belief of both.

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Mark Shipowick ]

Mark,

I fail to see how my research on "unrolling the scroll" was speculative. In fact, I specifically said that that was all I could come up with without speculating.

quote:

---

1 Kings 17:22 And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.

---

Consider your reply. Using the same approach you took, someone could tell you that the dead can't be dead because of this verse.

What we have to do with both the Bible and the Testimonies is determine for certain what the words used by that particular author meant. One can easily show that nephesh means "life," etc., and that "life" is a more appropriate translation in this verse than "soul."

Likewise, we should avoid speculating what "unrolling the scroll" means. If it means the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, then please provide a passage where it obviously means such. The passage in question does not specify what is meant.

I admit that I am looking for a particular outcome. I am looking for further support of the interpretations of prophecy that the Holy Spirit through the prophets has stamped His approval upon. But we all do this to some extent. Probably you will catch yourself sometime looking for support for dual applications.

Thank you for sharing your testimony in the previous post.

What "SDA assumptions" were you speaking about?

Pickle wrote:

"What specific part of the prophecy of Is. 66 do you think cannot be literally fulfilled?"

I can't imagine that in the New Earth we will spend Sabbaths and New Moons viewing the burning remains of the unsaved. Nor can I imagine spending 7 months piling up their dead bodies, or spending 7 years burning their weapons of war to heat our houses.

How do you interpret these details?