Understanding Ellen White

The New Testament prophet and current Adventist issues

Ultimately all authority is grounded in God Himself. As Creator, God is the final authority in the universe. But God has chosen to express His authority through self-revelation. So the question that matters most is, Where can we find a reliable account of God’s self-revelation? UEGW 24.4

The Bible is certainly such a revelation of God. Since Christians accept that claim, they should submit to its authority and make it their rule of faith and practice. Many, however, have difficulties with the fact that so many different interpretations of that same Bible are in circulation. Is there a reliable way to interpret the Bible? How can a book speak with authority if it is not perceived clearly? UEGW 24.5

Many Adventists have endeavored to attack this problem by suggesting that Ellen White provides God’s final inspired commentary on the biblical text. Human nature being what it is, however, the commentary often supersedes the Bible in many minds, and this she herself refused to allow: “The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.” ²⁸ UEGW 24.6

But while the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested, many wrest that Word to their own destruction: “Some who profess to make the word of God their study are found living in direct opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without excuse, God gives plain and pointed testimonies, bringing them back to the word that they have neglected to follow. . . . If you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the Testimonies.” ²⁹ UEGW 25.1

Thus Ellen White saw her writings as subject to the Bible, but if the visions come from God, they have authority. “The waymarks which have made us what we are, are to be preserved, and they will be preserved, as God has signified through His Word and the testimony of His Spirit. He calls upon us to hold firmly, with the grip of faith, to the fundamental principles that are based upon unquestionable authority.” ³⁰ UEGW 25.2

How should Seventh-day Adventist Christians relate to these two authorities? The New Testament evidence gives us a few clues. In addition to the authority of the Old Testament and the earthly life of Jesus, there are three further sources of authority in the New Testament. These are the apostles, the prophets, and the “prophesiers.” “Prophesiers” are “driven by the Spirit” to speak for God on specific occasions but not in terms of a formal office. UEGW 25.3

Of the three sources, apostle was the highest and most universal authority, a position that was unquestionable once established. Then came the prophet, whose authority might be more local and was usually noncanonical, but was equal in inspiration as a recipient of revelation. The messages of the prophesiers were questioned because there was often doubt about the divine origin of a particular message. UEGW 25.4

The Old Testament has three similar groups: Moses, the prophets (canonical and noncanonical), and the occasional “prophesiers” (1 Sam. 10:5-13; 19:8-24; 1 Kings 20:35-43; 2 Kings 2:3-7; etc.). It is tempting to equate these with the three that have been suggested in the New Testament: (1) apostles (source of the New Testament canon), (2) prophets (noncanonical prophets of the New Testament era), and (3) prophesiers (agents of the Holy Spirit’s work throughout the New Testament era). UEGW 25.5

However attractive this neat division might be, there are problems with it. Chief among these is the fact that, in terms of revelation, there is no clear distinction made between apostles and prophets in the New Testament. ³¹ But if the apostles, as sources of revelation, are limited to the first century (as many suggest), then a clearer distinction might be a division between the “founders”— made up of both apostles and prophets—whose work is complete (Eph. 2:20), and those New Testament prophets whose work, though not canonical, would continue to the end of time (cf. Rev. 10, 11, 12). UEGW 25.6

In this context, Ellen White’s gift can be equated with the noncanonical prophets of both Old and New Testaments. She counsels both individuals and the church at large. She reveals the secrets of people’s hearts. She describes heavenly perspectives and places through dreams and visions. She exhorts and encourages, and she speaks with authority in local situations. More than this, she foretells the future, including scenes at the end of history, as did the prophet John in Revelation. Her work is distinguished from the “founders” (apostles and prophets), who wrote the New Testament. It is also distinguished from the “prophesiers,” whose authority is more pastoral. Ellen White doesn’t fit the latter category because of the clear and continuing prophetic nature of her gift and the consistent regard with which her contemporaries treated that gift. UEGW 26.1

How shall we relate her direct authority in the immediate situation to the need for general authority in the Adventist Church today? Here the same principles should be used as would apply in biblical interpretation. Whereas the written words of the dead prophet are normally less clear in application than the direct word of the living prophet, they still bear witness to God’s explicit instruction in a specific context. ³² Guided by the Holy Spirit, the church will use biblically informed discernment, testing, and careful evaluation (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-21; Rom. 12:6) as it applies the message (sometimes for another time and place) to its own living challenges. ³³ UEGW 26.2

In conclusion, Ellen White’s claims are very clear; she was a messenger of the Lord and her words have divine authority. This does not allow us to treat her casually. Some have argued that she was a deceiver (knowingly misleading her audience). Others have suggested that she was brain-damaged or suffering from delusions of grandeur. Neither her life nor her writings are consistent with such negative evaluations. It is better to take her claimed role at face value, a role for which the New Testament calls. Her best intention for everything she wrote must be weighed, using correct principles of interpretation, while also giving thanks to God for the additional clarity her writings bring to our understanding of His will. UEGW 26.3