Prophecy
and Scripture
Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the June 3. 2017 Sabbath School Lesson
I want you to recall the words spoken
in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through
your apostles. Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers
will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where
is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on
as it has since the beginning of creation.” 2 Peter 3:1-4, NIV
The interface between faith and prophecy is a difficult
one to navigate. At times, the church itself makes if especially so. Churches
do not usually prophecy. Individuals do, and they often do so in direct
contradiction to the direction the church may be headed. Nonetheless, the
church, whether holy or corrupt, often demands that the individuals submit
their vision to the body of believers for authentication. The church has little
basis for such an assertion based on the evidence of scripture. There are
certainly a few passages dealing with church authority in regards to sin and
predation on the flock, but even Paul makes no case for the prophets being
subject to the church other than for seeking an orderly presentation of
prophecy. He only indicates that the spirits of the prophets are subject to the
prophets themselves.[i]
If we look at the matter historically, we find that in
many, if not every case, the body of believers has opposed, rather than
supported, true prophecies. For instance if Moses had submitted approval for
his prophetic leadership, the Israelites might still be toiling away in Egypt.
Their refrain was a constant litany about how much better they had things in
Egypt.[ii] Those who feel in
hindsight that we would do much better today and faithfully follow Moses
without murmuring might do well to ask themselves, “How much would I be willing
to give up to be uprooted from my current country to experience greater
privation while bringing my faith to a another, spiritually darker place?”
Jesus turned the tables on those who felt that such hindsight made them better
spiritually. He said that those who admitted that their forefathers had been so
rebellious were confessing that they were the children of such people.[iii] Little wonder then that
he said that in order to find righteousness, we must be reborn.[iv]
Moses is not a unique case. In reality it was primarily because
the body of believers had gone astray that God continually sent prophets to rein
them in.[v] But over and over again,
the official authorities, often backed by the body of the people, not only
refused to listen but did all they could to defeat the purposes of God through
His prophets. Tradition tells us that Isaiah was sawn in two. Jeremiah was
thrown in prison and then into a cistern to die. Even when his prophecies
concerning Israel and Babylon were shown to be true, and we might expect the
Israelites to obey the prophecies he uttered, they denied them. Against his
counsel, they fled to Egypt from the Babylonians, forcing Jeremiah to accompany
them.[vi] We also know of Daniel’s
miraculous deliverance from the lion’s den, when powerful enemies sought to
destroy his influence. Suffice it to say that prophets are not usually
voluntarily accorded deference and respect by those they prophesy to.
Perhaps part of the problem with prophets being received
well is the nature of prophecy. It tends to bring people to a fork in the road
where they are asked to decide which path to take. In addition, it may clearly
describe the results of taking either path. However, if the wayward heart is
set upon some allurement down the path, no matter how false that attractiveness
may actually be, the prophet’s words may fall upon ears that are so plugged
with fingers as to be virtually deaf. But even if the prophet is heard, we find
it difficult to recognize prophecy as such except in hindsight. When we look toward
the future, most of us seem to have our own unique perspective on how that will
unfold, evidence notwithstanding. That perspective tends to be shaped by our
experience and education. For instance, if we are taught that the prophets must
submit to the church’s interpretation of the Bible and historical trends, then
we will look first to the church and its response to the prophet, no matter
what it might appear that the prophet is saying to us.
Unfortunately, the church can be dreadfully wrong as it
was in the case of Jesus and his purpose.[vii] At every turn they
opposed Jesus and sought to end his ministry, with Nicodemus being one of few
exceptions. The church was also wrong when they decreed the replacement of the
true Sabbath, the one Jesus created and observed, with
a false, Sunday replacement legitimized by the Council of Laodicea in 363-364
CE. Perhaps it is time that we should weigh the actions and beliefs of the church
against the words of the prophets rather than the other way around. But can the
church accept such an idea that goes so radically against a long established
ecclesiology that demands that prophets submit to ecclesiastical authority?
This is not the only problem prophets face, however.
Another problem may be described as that of the rational
versus the righteous mind. The rational mind tends to view everything as having
a rational basis. For instance, if the Red Sea parted for the Exodus, it likely
was not directly a divine intervention but rather a fortuitous eruption of a volcano
or perhaps an earthquake somewhere that produced the phenomenon. The righteous
mind, on the other hand, has little difficulty believing that God simply rolled
back the waters with a direct act upon the sea. Interestingly, while both may
be experientially derived, even from identical data sets, the problem arises
from the interpretation given to that data. By way of example, suppose you had
a wooden fence surrounding your yard, and one day, while standing in your yard,
you notice that many of the knots have disappeared from the knotholes in the
fence. If you believed strongly in leprechauns, you might be inclined to believe
that those mischievous creatures poked the knots from the holes. This would be
interpreting the data from your mindset based on a history of similar
interpretations that have placed your mind at rest about similar mysteries. Of
course, a rational mind will probably come up with an entirely different
explanation. Perhaps, based on an experience with wood and its properties, the
rational mind might decide that the boards dried out, and the shrinking wood
made the knotholes larger so that the knots simply fell out. But in the end
both perspectives may turn out to be at least partly wrong, for it turns out as
revealed by giggling from the other side of the fence that the neighbor
children poked the knots out with their fingers. (I confess that I naughtily did
this myself as a child, so that has also informed my ability to see that
possibility)
What I am saying here is that our experiences shape our individual
perspectives, and the church as a body is nothing more than a bundled bunch of
perhaps competing perspectives that are fed through a sieve of either majority
vote or authoritarian decree of what perspective is allowed to prevail. Modern ecclesiology
tends to emphasize the idea of “two or three” being gathered as the trump card
against any individual prophets who may feel that God is speaking through them
to the church. Perhaps this is why there seems to be a dearth of prophets and
prophecies today. Since God is consistent,[viii] it may not be likely
that He has ceased to communicate His will in this way. We may simply have
chosen to no longer recognize the work or even the presence of prophets.
This is particularly perplexing for those in the
Seventh-day Adventist Church, as we purport to be founded based on a unique
prophetic ministry. Ellen White has been officially recognized as having the
prophetic gift. Yet as it is also today, even during her lifetime she was
opposed by church authorities of the very church she helped to raise. Within
the denomination there exists a dynamic tension between those who would explain
away much of her ministry by attributing her visions to epilepsy brought on by
her being hit in the face with a rock as a child. While this could possibly
have some bearing on the situation, it does not explain everything. By the same
token, those of a more righteous mindset wish to simply accept without question
literally everything she wrote or said in a similar vein to how the Roman
Catholics view the words of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra. Like with our illustration concerning the fence,
neither answer may be completely accurate.
Interestingly, I doubt she would have been troubled much by all of this. Her
introduction to her book, “The Great Controversy,” took a much more liberal
approach to the whole idea of prophetic inspiration than the literalist might
be willing to allow. But her words are in harmony with the prophetic tradition.
While prophets do have a tradition of divine inspiration, they also freely
invited an examination of their words, believing that truth can stand such an
examination. In contrast, some are not willing to allow such a close scrutiny
of either the Bible or of Ellen White. Their oft expressed fear is that such an
examination will destroy the authority of both. Nonetheless, in spite of many centuries
of such examination, the Bible remains with us, still touching hearts and
changing lives. Also, long after her death a century ago, Ellen White’s
writings continue to be a source of inspiration for many. As was well
illustrated in the case of the prophet killed by a lion for making a wrong
choice,[ix] just like the church, prophets
are not infallible. Perhaps it is time we encouraged, rather than suppressed
the dialectic between the two and let truth prosper as a result.
