(This lecture outline is adapted from Roger W. Coon, EGW and Hermeneutics: Jemison's Second Rule, April 6, 1995.  For further study, see also Herbert E. Douglass, Messenger of the Lord, pp. 372-415.)
 

Introduction

• The first rule of hermeneutics we have looked at calls for the researcher to study all the available materials on a subject before drawing some conclusions.
• This procedure will minimize the dangers of going off on a tangent and avoiding distortion.

 
• The second hermeneutical rule says,

 

• This second hermeneutical rule recognizes that after all of the available data have been gathered and studied (Rule #1), a seeming inconsistency or discrepancy may appear in some of the materials, statements, initially at least, that do not seem to be in harmony with the general tenor of the counsels overall.
• If such develop, one, then, needs to go further and check the context of the particular statement that seems to perplex.
• Internal Context (within the same document): What did the writer say in the passage under scrutiny, either just before, or just after, the sentences(s) in question which perplex? (The problem is often solved at this point.)
• External Context (historical background): When was the statement written? Where was it written? To whom was it written? Why was it written? What was the background of circumstances which prompted this message and called for this declaration?

 

• Much of the meaning in one's own human experience is bound up with this interesting concept we call "context." (Ellen G. White seldom used this word, preferring, instead, "connection.")
• A portrait of Queen Elizabeth II hangs upon the walls of many school classrooms in Canada (and other former British colonies).
• When I walk past the Queen's portrait on the wall, I quickly recognize it for what it is, and my mind immediately goes on to other things.
• But let the very same portrait be part of the total design of a piece of paper, 2-3/4" x 6", in which the numeral "20" appears prominently in the corners, and it will instantaneously stop me in my tracks, particularly if this $20 currency note is on the floor! For me, money has immediate interest and value, wherever it may be found! The context matters. The place where this portrait appears makes all the difference.

 
• Man's context makes a difference with God too.
• Ps. 87:4-6 tells us that when God writes up the final record of an individual's life, he will particularly note that "this man was born there" (while another was born elsewhere), in making his final judgment. Context makes a difference with God.
• Ps. 103:13,14 tells us that God knows our individual "frame," he "remembers that we are dust." And, accordingly, he shows mercy toward us.
• "Jesus knows us individually, and is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He knows us all by name. He knows the very house in which we live, the name of each occupant. He has at times given directions to His servants to go to a certain street in a certain city, to such a house, to find one of His sheep. Every soul is as fully known to Jesus as if he were the only one for whom the Saviour died. The distress of every one touches His heart.... He cares for each one as if there were not another on the face of the earth" (DA 479-480).
• Luke 12:48 gives Christ's own words to us that context counts with him: "From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

 
• Ellen G. White highlighted the importance of context in human experience in these words:
• "Two people may engage in the same acts of outward worship, yet the service of one, when weighed in the golden scales of the sanctuary, may be found wanting, while the service of the other may be accepted [by God]. Only the service that is performed in sincerity, with a humble, contrite heart, is acceptable to God" (Letter 39, 28 Feb. 1903, in UL 73).
• "When the leaders of God's people depart from principle, and bring dishonor on His cause, their sin is greater than the sin of those whose opportunities and privileges have been fewer" (Ms 119, 7 Oct 1903, in UL 294).

 

• 1875: "That which can be said of men under certain circumstances cannot be said of them under other circumstances" (3T 470; reprinted in 5T 670).

 
• 1884: "In order to sustain erroneous doctrines or unchristian practices, some will seize upon passages of Scripture separated from the context, perhaps quoting half a single verse as proving their point, when the remaining portion would show the meaning to be quite the opposite. With the cunning of the serpent they entrench themselves behind disconnected utterances construed to suit their carnal desires. Thus do many willfully pervert the word of God" (GC 521).

 
• 1904: "God wants us all to have common sense, and He wants us to reason from common sense. Circumstances alter conditions. Circumstances change the relation of things" (3SM 217).

 
• 1911: "Regarding the testimonies [of Ellen G. White], nothing is ignored; nothing is cast aside; but time and place must be considered" (1SM 57).

        (1) Some things may be true at one time, that are not true at another "time."

        (2) Just so, upon a given day, some things may be true in one place and yet may not be true, in another place, on the very same day!

    b. Thus, some things may be applicable to one context, and not applicable in another.
 

III. Case Studies in "Time"

A. "Not one in ...." Statements

    1. In 1893, EGW wrote that "not one in 20" of SDA members were ready to face their Creator in the final judgment (ChS 41 ).
 

    2. In 1895, she wrote in similar vein: "Not one in 100" in the church were doing enough missionary work (8T 148).
 

    3. And some in our midst, today, quote these (and similar statements) as if they were applicable today.

        a. Now there are three possibilities, as regards present application:

            (1) The situation today quite possibly could be identically the same as when the statement was uttered in the 1890s; and, if so, the statement would apply equally.

            (2) The situation today, however, might (hopefully!) be a bit better than in the 1890s. (If so, the statement, then, would not apply today.)

            (3) The situation today might conceivably be even worse than in the 1890s.
 

    4. And there are perhaps two important considerations to be kept in mind as we think through this whole question:

            (a) It would take the same divinely-inspired insights of the prophet, who, by revelation, uttered the original statement, to know whether or not the situation today is identical, better, or worse, than the time in which the statement was originally made; a non-prophet cannot know for sure.

            (b) If the 1890s statements are true today, it certainly is not because they were true then!
 

B. The Time When Probation Closes

    1. In Letter 20, Jan. 16, 1898, EGW wrote: "We are still in probationary time."
 

    2. Is that statement true today--nearly a century later?

        a. Some-and I am among them--hold that this is still true, that probation lingers yet.

        b. Others would take exception:

            (1) Jeanine Sautron, the French woman who claims to have been given EGW's prophetic gift, alleges that probation, for all SDAs, closed in the Spring of 1991!
 

    3. But whether or not that declaration-that we are "still" in probationary time-is still true today, we also know that the time is coming when that which was true on Jan. 16, 1898, will no longer be true-because of subsequent intervening developments.

            (1) Because "Michael" [Christ] will one day "stand up" (Dan. 12:1) and declare that those who are "unjust" and "filthy" will forever remain such, and that all those deemed "righteous" and "holy" now, also have their eternal destiny irrevocably fixed, as well (Rev. 22:11).
 

C. Is the "Voice of the General Conference" to be Equated With the "Voice of God"?

    1. Manifestly, some things true at one time, are not true at another time, as, witness, statements made by EGW concerning "the voice of God."

        a. In 1875 she wrote, concerning the General Conference: "When the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered" (3T492).
 

    2. However, in the 1890s two situations, in particular, began to develop; and the prophet now took a position diametrically-opposed to that of 1875:

        a. 1895: "The voice of the General Conference has been [note: past tense!] represented as an authority to be heeded as the voice of the Holy Spirit. But when members of the General Conference Committee become entangled in business affairs and financial perplexities, the sacred, elevated character of their work is in a great degree lost" (Ms 33, 1895, in MR #1118).

            (1) (Note that one of the two particular problems cited here is waning spirituality on the part of members of the GC Committee-and note, also, the stated cause.)

        b. 1896: "The voice from Battle Creek which has been [again, note: past tense] regarded as authority in counseling how the work should be done, is no longer the voice of God" (Letter 4, July 1, 1896).

        c. 1898: "It has been some years since I have considered the General Conference as the voice of God" (Letter 77, Aug. 26, 1898.)
 

    3. The GC Session of 1901, however, began to mark a further transition, back to the earlier, 1875, position.

        a. It opened April 2 (and closed April 23), with 267 delegates, representing 75,000 church members (four-fifths of which lived in North America).

            (1) And during this Session, EGW began to change her mind, again!, on the "voice-of-God" issue.

        b. On April 1^st, the day before the Session officially opened, EGW twice addressed church leaders who had gathered early for this landmark occasion. (And no change in the 1890's negative stance is yet discernable.)

            (1) In a morning talk, in the Review & Herald chapel, she said:

         (a) "The people [in the church] have lost confidence in those who have the management of the work [G. C. leaders]. Yet we hear that the voice of the Conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the Conference ought to be [the ideal goal] the voice of God, but it is not, because [1] some in connection with it are not men of faith and prayer, they are not men of elevated principle. . . . [2] Two or three voices are not to control everything in the [whole world] field" (Ms 37, April 1, 1901, pp. 1, 8). [Note the two problems identified: a lack of personal piety, and organizational deficiencies.]

[NOTE: When the GC Committee was created, in 1863, it consisted of but three members. Some 20 years later it increased to five. In 1887, seven; in 1889, nine; in 1893, 11; and by 1899, there were 13 members. But, these 13 were widely scattered, and the full committee seldom met: six were "District Leaders" (Union Conference presidents), scattered across the USA; two were based overseas; and only five were resident in Battle Creek, plus the GC Secretary-Treasurer, and thus available to transact most of the business of the world church.]

            (2) In the afternoon meeting, speaking to leaders in the Battle Creek College library, she added: "In reference to our Conference, it is repeated o'er and o'er, that it is the voice of God. . . ." (But, from the context of the remarks which immediately followed, it is obvious that she thought that time had now passed.) (Ms 43a, Apr. 1, 1901, p.2)

        c. On April 2 (opening day), she addressed the delegates immediately after the first item on the agenda, the address of the GC President. And she was still very clearly in the 1890s mode of opposition:

            (1) "That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believe [note, again: past tense] the General Conference to be, that day is past. What we want now is reorganization [the 2^nd problem]. We want to begin at the foundation, and to build upon a different principle" (1901 GCB, p. 25, col. 1).

        d. By the afternoon of April 4, a "Committee on Plan and Organization" had not only been created, but was already beginning to report back initial proposals regarding line-and-staff structural change; and EGW warmly, enthusiastically approved:

            (1) "I want to say, from the light given to me by God, there should have been, years ago, organizations such as are now [being] proposed" (ibid., p. 68).

        e. When the Session finally closed, on April 23, with a "Missionary Farewell Service" at 3 p.m., EGW noted with amazement, and deep personal satisfaction:

     (1) "Wrongs - serious wrongs - have been committed in Battle Creek. I did not know how we would get along at this meeting. The Lord gave me instruction regarding this. . . .

"Who do you suppose has been among us since this Conference began? Who has kept away the objectionable features that generally appear in such a meeting? Who has walked up and down the aisles of this Tabernacle? The God of heaven and His angels. . . . They have been among us, to work the works of God. . . .

"Angels of God have been at work here. The Lord knew our needs, and sent us food, . . . showing us how we should work. We have been trying to organize the work in right lines. The Lord has sent His angels, . . . telling us how to carry the work forward.

"I was never more astonished in my life than at the turn things have taken at this meeting [Session]. This is not our work. God has brought it about. Instruction regarding this was presented to me [as the Session progressed], but until the sum was worked out at this meeting, I could not comprehend this instruction. God's angels have been walking up and down in this congregation. I want every one of you to remember this, and I want you to remember, also, that God has said that He will heal the wound of His people" (ibid., pp. 463, 464).

        a. Only two months later (June, 1901), EGW became aware, and very concerned, that her eldest surviving son, Elder J. Edson White, was now, erroneously, taking pre-1901, Session statements of his mother, and misapplying them in the post-1901-Session milieu.

        b. From what she wrote him, you see, the old statements no longer applied now, in the new, altered context:

       (1) "Your course would have been the course to be pursued, if no changes had been made in the General Conference [Session just closed]. But a change has been made, and many more changes will [yet] be made [and they were, at the 1903 Session, and subsequently], and great developments will [yet] be seen. No issues are to be forced.

"It hurts me to think that you are using the words which I wrote prior to the Conference [to apply them now]. Since the Conference great changes have been made.

"A terribly unjust course has been pursued in the past. A want of principle has been revealed. But in pity to His people, God has brought about changes. . . . The course of action which before the Conference might have been a necessity is no longer a necessity, for the Lord Himself interposed to set things in order. . . ." (Letter 54, June, 1901).

    5. 1909: By this year, EGW is very clearly out of the 1890s mode, and very definitely back in the 1875 mode:

        a. "God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General conference [Session], shall have authority" (9T 261).
 

    6. 1911: and two years later, she added, finally:

        a. "God has invested His church with special authority and power which no one can be justified in disregarding and despising, for he who does this despises the voice of God" (AA 164).

        b. And she never changed her mind again, as far as the record evidences.
 

    7. Thus, we note in summary, that "Time" factors do make a difference: (a) in 1875 EGW took a position; (b) in 1895, 1896, 1898, and in early 1901, she totally reversed the 1875 position. But after the 1901 GC Session (c) after significant changes had been made in both leadership personnel and operating machinery, she now reverted to the former 1875 position. In 1909 and in 1911, she is clearly back in the 1875 mode, having abandoned the positions of the 1890s.
 

    8. "Time" factors are sometimes quite crucial, when a prophet says something may make a difference; for things true at one time may well not be true at another!
 

IV. Case Studies in "Place"

A. The Case of "Church A" and "Church B"

    1. If we think of "Time" factors as being represented by a vertical dimension, then we may also think of "Place" factors as being represented by a horizontal dimension
 

    2. We note that:

        a. The present spiritual condition of "Church A" (whom we will characterize as "Reluctant" and "Hesitant") is some Five Miles distant from the "Goal" (which we will further identify as a "Balanced View of Truth").

        b. The present spiritual condition of "Church B," (whom we will characterize as "Eager" and "Zealous"), however, is only Two Miles distant from the same "Goal" (a "Balanced View of Truth").
 

    3. Both churches need help from the Prophet; but, quite understandably, each congregation needs a somewhat different message in order to enable it to arrive at the same Goal.

        a. So the Prophet writes a "Five-Mile" message to "Church A" ("Reluctant" and "Hesitant")-which, if followed faithfully, will bring it right up to the Goal (a "Balanced View of Truth"); but writes only a "Two-Mile" message to "Church B" ("Eager" and Zealous"), which, if faithfully followed, will also bring them right up to the same Goal (a "Balanced View of Truth").

• But a problem develops: the office secretary has two letters, and two addressed envelopes. But, unwittingly, inadvertently, she switches the letters, and mails them in the wrong envelopes!

 

        a. "Church A," which originally was Five Miles from the Goal (and, therefore, needed a Five-Mile Message), received, and faithfully followed, a Two-Mile Message; but it is still Three Miles from the Goal (a "Balanced View of truth").

        b. "Church B," however, originally only Two Miles distant from the Goal, received, and strictly followed, a Five Mile Message (intended for "Church A"). And, now, "Church B" finds itself to be Three Miles beyond the goal (a "Balanced View of Truth")! And "Church B," thus, is now farther from a Balanced View of Truth than it was before it started its journey, it is now more unbalanced that it was before it started its journey toward the Goal! And that isn't good, either.

            (1) Counseled the prophet in 1872: "We should be very cautions not to advance too fast, lest we be obliged to retrace our steps. In reforms we would better come one step short of the mark than to go one step beyond it. And if there is error at all, let it be on the side next to the people" (3T 21:0).
 

• This was the problem to which James White alluded in his Review and Herald editorial of March 17, 1868. Speaking of his wife's unique ministry - which was often unnecessarily made more difficult - he said: "She works to this disadvantage, namely: she makes strong appeals to the people, which a few feel deeply, and take strong positions, and go to extremes. Then to save the cause from ruin in consequence of these extremes, she is obliged to come out with reproofs for extremists in a public manner. This is better than to have things go to pieces; but the influence of both the extremes and the reproofs are terrible on the cause, and brings upon Mrs. W. a three-fold burden. Here is the difficulty: What she may say to urge the tardy, is taken by the prompt to urge them over the mark. And what she may say to caution the prompt, zealous, incautions ones, is taken by the tardy as an excuse to remain too far behind." (For the complete text of James white's remarks, see Sourcebook, Sec. D-4.)

 

B. Other Topics in Which Context is Crucial

    1. Assurance of Salvation:

        a. At the turn of the century, EGW wrote words that have perplexed more than one: "Those who accept the Saviour . . . should never be taught to say, or feel, that they are saved" (COL 155; cf. 1SM 314).

        b. Internal Context: EGW is here speaking within the framework of the false "Doctrine of Eternal Security" ("Once saved, always saved!"). (See COL 155) There are, however, many other statements in her writings in which she makes it abundantly clear that if the Christian maintains a daily connection with the Lord, living up to known light, he/she may yet have confidence and assurance of their personal acceptance with God.

            (1) (See, additionally, 1SM 382, 392, and 394; COL 157; SC 64; 3SM 195-196; OHC 49; FE 135, from RH, Aug. 21, 1888; RH, May 12, 1896; and UL 320, for balancing statements.)
 

    2. Whether Ministers Should Ever Use EGW's Words in the SDA Pulpit:

        a. EGW wrote, upon various occasions:

            (1) "The words of the Bible, and the Bible alone, should be heard from the pulpit" (PK 626, 1969).

            (2) "In public labor do not make prominent, and quote that which Sister White has written. . . ." (3SM 29)

            (3) "The Testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's word is the unerring standard" (Ev 256).

        b. Do these words teach (or even imply) that the writings of Ellen White should never be quoted from the pulpit? No!

        c. Internal Context:

            (1) Statement #1, above, is addressed to the nominal Christian churches of our world-not to SDA preachers!-and she here draws a contrast between preaching the philosophy and traditions of man vs. The inspired word of God.

            (2) Statements #2 and #3, above, were specifically addressed to SDA evangelists, in the context of their need to prove the doctrines they were teaching from the Bible, rather than from the Spirit of prophecy writings--since God's Word is where SDA's obtained them in the first place!

        d. Another statement, purportedly from EGW's pen, but not yet authenticated by the White Estate (which believes it to be spurious), and which is sometimes used to "prove" that EGW herself said that her writings should never be quoted from the SDA pulpit, allegedly appeared in "The Proper Use of the Testimonies," pp. 4, 5, of "The Greatest Thing in the World," p.5. But there is no documentary proof that EGW ever wrote this probably apocryphal statement.

        e. Nowhere does EGW even intimate it would be improper to mention her, or her writings, from an SDA pulpit.

            (1) Now, how this is done may well be even more important than what is done, we must always, of course, be "wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

            (2) And it may be instructive to note that the collective title of the largest multi-volume series of EGW writings is known as the Testimonies for the Church!
 

V. The Question of Compilations

    1.The question of the legitimacy and acceptability of preparing thematic compilations of Ellen White's writings is frequently raised because of the admittedly substantial potential for misrepresenting her views by quoting them out of original context.

        a. We have already addressed, in prior lectures, Ellen White's own compilations and those produced since her death by the Ellen G. White Estate as specified in her last will and testament.
 

    2. Ellen White was herself conscious of the substantial potential for misrepresentation of her views in compilations--especially those prepared by private individuals with personal theological axes to grind. And during her lifetime she, at times, forbade some individuals, who had requested her permission to prepare and publish such privately-prepared works, from pursuing such activity.

        a. To a church member who wrote, asking such permission, she expressed her misgivings forthrightly:

I can see plainly that should every one who thinks he is qualified to write books, follow his imagination and have his productions published, insisting that they be recommended by our publishing houses, there would be plenty of tares sown broadcast in our world. Many from among our own people are writing to me, asking with earnest determination the privilege of using my writings to give force to certain subjects which they wish to present to the people in such a way as to leave a deep impression upon them.

It is true that there is a reason why some of these matters should be presented; but I would not venture to give my approval in using the testimonies in this way, or to sanction the placing of matter which is good in itself in the way which they propose.

The person who makes these propositions, for ought I know, may be able to conduct the enterprise of which they write in a wise manner; but nevertheless I dare not give the least license for using my writings in the manner which they propose. In taking account of such an enterprise, there are many things that must come into consideration; for in using the testimonies to bolster up some subject which may impress the mind of the author, the extracts may give a different impression than that which they would were they read in their original connection" (1SM 58).

Conclusion

    1. While context clearly is a very important consideration to aid our understanding of background, cause-effect relationships, etc., context, too, can be misused.

        a. And Christians must be exceedingly careful that we beware of too much explaining, lest in the end we wind up by doing too much excusing.
 

    2. Ellen White waged a life-long fight against the misuse of her writings, especially the practice of removing them from their original context.

        a. During her lifetime some well-intentioned members misquoted and misconstrued her thought, making it appear that she taught things which, in actuality, were positions against which she was unalterably opposed.