Chapter IThe Standard

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.

Isaiah 8:20

t the very start of this first chapter it would be appropriate to look at the biblical model for a prophet. It needs to be established, by direct

scriptural instruction or pattern, how the calling and work of a prophet is established and then carried out. The calling and work of Ellen White and other extra-biblical prophets needs to be compared to the exemplar of the Bible prophets to see where parallels or contradictions might exist. The aspects of the physical signs, when in vision, the example of the prophets life (integrity, etc.), whether their teaching is in accord with the ‘law and the testimony’/the scriptures (Isaiah 8:20) and whether their work truly edified and brought about unity of faith, etc., all need to be examined.

A

Based on the evidence of this study, we will be able to come to a conclusion as to the similarities and/or differences between the call and labour of Bible prophets, Ellen White and other prophets that will be considered.

1

It is not my intention to cover every detail of the prophetic calling and execution of labour as it pertains to each and every prophet contained in and outside of Scripture. Rather, I will look at the broader representation and then focus on certain aspects that are most relevant to what we will be examining throughout the rest of the book. Although I want to approach this work in a scholarly fashion, I also want it to be easily understood by everyone. In so doing, I will leave room for all to do their own additional research.

Indeed, I would encourage everyone to do exactly that. If I was simply going to publish my own conclusions without encouraging further investigation or confirmation, I would, rightfully, be viewed as supercilious and closed minded. So, having said that, let us proceed to the first section of this chapter.

THE SCRIPTURES AND THE PROPHETS

Jude records that Enoch was the first prophet of God:

‘And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard [speeches] which ungodly sinners have spoken against him’ Jude 1:14,15.

The Bible does not state whether Enoch received his views of the future while in vision or as a direct communication from God. However, it might be safe to assume, based on the fact the Enoch ‘walked with God’

2

(Genesis 5:22 – 24), that he may very well have been communicated to face to face at some time prior to his being translated to heaven.

The next person, according to scriptural evidence, to be called to the prophetic office, is Noah, who warned the Antediluvians of the impending deluge and called them to repentance.

The succession of prophets/prophetesses, after the flood, is also quite clearly recorded in the Bible, starting with Abraham (Genesis 20:7), from there to Moses (Hosea 12:13) and on through the whole Old Testament, both male and female, fulfilling the specific tasks which God had called them to. Other well known prophets in the Bible are, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, to mention a few. Old Testament prophetesses include, Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Hulda (2 Kings 22:14) and Deborah (Judges 4:4).

Of course, there are also the New Testament prophets and prophetesses: John the Baptist (Luke 7:26), Philip’s four daughters (Acts 21:9), Simeon (Luke 2:26), Anna (Luke 2:36), Agabus (Acts 11:28), and Barnabas (Acts 13:1). Paul can also be included as a New Testament prophet and, very significantly, John, author of the book of Revelation.

These are just a few of the prophets mentioned in Scripture. God revealed Himself to them in different ways. Sometimes via impressions given by the Holy Spirit, direct communication, as a voice in the wind, through dreams as they slept and then at other times, while awake, they were taken off in vision.

In the book of Numbers God speaks to Miriam (a prophetess) and Aaron and there mentions some of the ways in which He chooses to communicate to His chosen instruments:

3

‘And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud, and stood [in] the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam: and they both came forth. And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, [I] the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, [and] will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold . . .’ Numbers 12:5-8.

These Godly men and woman, yet prone to weakness as all humans are (their failings are in the biblical record), were especially selected by God. Some remained faithful and others failed at certain times during their ministry. Still others, in the end, apostatized and even ended up operating against God – Balaam being a prime example of this.

There was no blanket clause stating that once someone answered the prophetic call and worked for God that they would forever remain a true prophet.

No doubt, for this very reason, God gave specific tests so that the calling and labour of those who claimed to be speaking on His behalf could be verified and tested.

This was not just for those who were suspected of being false prophets. The tests were to be applied to all who claimed to be speaking as messengers for God. Thus, it is not only expedient, in fact, it is even commanded in Scripture that all prophets be tested. This would include anyone from Nostradamus to Joseph Smith and, indeed, Ellen White – tested according to the evidence of the Word of God. Or, as Isaiah 8:20 puts it, ‘to the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.’

4

In Old Testament times (to the Jew) and on till the time of Christ and after, the ‘test’ standard would have been, as Jesus put it in Luke 24:44, Moses, the prophets and the Psalms (the writings of the Old Testament). In our day this constitutes the Old and New Testaments – the whole Bible. Thus, as I analyze the various prophets and make comparisons, I will continually bring us back to the scriptures – the final test.

The fundamental or foundational standard for testing a ‘thus sayeth the Lord . . .’ is the whole Bible – ‘For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little.’ (Isaiah 28:10).

A further principle with relation to ensuring a ‘full-proof’ testimony is found in Deuteronomy 19:15 where it states that, ‘. . . at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.’ In the matter of testing the prophets the ‘witness’ of ‘three’ needs to be found in Scripture.

At the risk of repeating the obvious, this means that overwhelming evidence, in favour or against any prophecy/teaching/doctrine, etc., must be established by the Bible. By following this instruction we can fully understand and then apply Paul’s admonition to Timothy:

‘All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works’ 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

By ‘the Bible and the Bible alone’ (Sola Scriptura, as the reformers stated), is how everything is tested and verified.

5

Whether we are listening to a message being given (by prophet, Bible scholar or simple lay-member) or whether we ourselves are the one delivering the message, Scripture should be the means for determining whether it is authentic or not.

No wonder Paul continues his instruction in the very next chapter, chapter four, by bringing Timothy’s attention back to what he had just said in the closing verses of chapter three.

‘I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry’ 2 Timothy 4:1-5 (italics supplied).

To be sure that our message/ministry (our ‘thus sayeth the Lord’) is sound and ‘full-proof,’ we have to be able to sustain it clearly and with sufficient witness from the Word of God. Although (in this specific context) Paul warns of teachers that will say what people’s ‘itching ears’ want to hear (what the people themselves may wrongfully desire), it is quite clear that the warning can apply to any teacher’s instruction that is not in accordance with the Bible (whether it is what the people desire or not).

6

I realize I have taken great pains, by repeating the same basic theme in different ways and using a variety of proofs to press home the point. But, it has been for the purpose of making it abundantly clear and, in a practical way, putting the instruction into practice myself.

From the early years, the pioneers of the SDA faith, based on what they found in Scripture, outlined a series of proofs that could be applied when establishing the existence of extra-biblical/end-time manifestations of the prophetic gift. They, according to their profession, used the same standard for ‘proving’ the authenticity of this gift. James White, Ellen White’s husband, comments on some of these proofs. Firstly, he quotes Acts 2:17,18 (Peter was quoting Joel 2:28,29) in order to establish that the gift will be found among God’s people in the ‘last days.’

And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants, and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.

A Word to the Little Flock., p. 13

He then points out:

As the signs of that day have been, and still are fulfilling, it must be clear to every unprejudiced mind that the time has fully come when the children of God may expect dreams and visions from the Lord.

Ibid

7

He continues, referring to the Bible as the ‘complete’ and, thus, ultimate revelation of God:

The Bible is a perfect and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice. But this is no reason why God may not show the past, present, and future fulfillment of His Word, in these last days, by dreams and visions, according to Peter's testimony. True visions are given to lead us to God, and His Written Word; but those that are given for a new rule of faith and practice, separate from the Bible, cannot be from God, and should be rejected.

Ibid

Later on, as editor for the Review and Herald, James, once again, made a similar point in reference to the ‘gifts’ (in particular the prophetic gift):

The position that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the rule of faith and duty, does not shut out the gifts which God set in the church. To reject them is shutting out that part of the Bible which presents them. We say, let us have a whole Bible, and let that, and that alone, be our rule of faith and duty. Place the gifts where they belong, and all is harmony.

Review and Herald, October 5, 1854

What James White is saying in the above two statements is of great significance and in accordance with Bible teaching on how the ministry of a prophet is to conform to

8

the ‘law and the testimony.’ Later on, when we examine the biblical teaching in comparison to how it was carried out in the work of Ellen White, I will resubmit these quotes as primary evidence.

Consistent with her husband’s view, Ellen White spoke of the prophetic gift’s function (in specific reference to her calling as God’s messenger to the church) as bringing people back to the Bible as the supreme standard. In Early Writings, she makes this comment:

I recommend to you, dear reader, the Word of God as the rule of your faith and practice. By that Word we are to be judged. God has, in that Word, promised to give visions in the "last days"; not for a new rule of faith, but for the comfort of His people, and to correct those who err from Bible truth.

Early Writings, p. 78

She also states:

The Word of God is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, 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.’

Testimonies 5, p. 663, 664

9

J. N. Andrews was one of the church’s greatest theologians in the early years (it is said that he had memorized the entire New Testament). In 1870 he published his perspective of the prophetic gift – its function. It will be noticed that his view is essentially in accordance with the view expressed by James and Ellen White. There are a few added comments (in italics) he makes though that will be examined in more detail later on.

. . . Now it is plain that those who reject the work of the Spirit of God under the plea that the scriptures are sufficient, do deny and reject all that part of the Bible which reveals the office and work of the Holy Spirit . . . In short, their work is to unite the people of God in the same mind and in the same judgment upon the meaning of the scriptures. Mere human judgment, with no direct instruction from heaven, can never search out hidden iniquity, nor adjust dark and complicated church difficulties, nor prevent different and conflicting interpretations of the scriptures.’

Review and Herald, February 15, 1870 (italics supplied)

Above we have a fair representation of how, since the early years, the leaders of the SDA faith, including Ellen White, understood the continuation of and function of the prophetic gift, after Bible times. I could supply many more statements by leading SDA pioneers and present leadership and will share some later on in the book. What has been quoted will suffice for now.

10

There is no debate that the SDA pioneers, rightfully, understood, on most points, the Bible teaching on the gift of prophecy, as it related to the unambiguous scriptural instruction for testing prophets (the official position of the church at present remains generally the same). As already alluded to however, what we will yet have to establish, is whether, indeed, Ellen White, through her prophetic ministry and the level to which the brethren supported and endorsed her did stay true to the clear teaching of Scripture – ‘to the law and to the testimony.’ Or, was there a discrepancy between the Bible-based position of the church on the calling and function of a prophet (i.e. Ellen White’s prophetic work) and how things actually happened in real life?

Another aspect we need to look at, in relation to the message of the prophet has to do with predictions. How much of what a prophet predicts, when the claim is made of divine revelation, needs to come to pass. We do not need to spend an inordinate amount of time on this as it already goes without saying that when God says something will come to pass, it does. Yet, having said that, are there any exceptions to this basic rule? If there are, then what are they? Firstly, the Bible does give a general rule by which a prophet can be tested in this area:

‘When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him’ Deuteronomy 18:22.

Barring some ‘exceptions,’ which we will consider shortly, the Bible teaches quite emphatically that when a

11

prophet makes a prediction it must come to pass. If it does not, then it will be known that the prophet is false – ‘thou shalt not be afraid of him.’ God would not give such a test for nothing and thus, it presupposes that this must be applied as a general rule/test.

We have a clear example in Scripture where this test was put into actual practice. In Jeremiah chapter twenty eight we read about the confrontation between Hananiah and the Jeremiah (two prophets). Hananiah claims that God Gave him a message that the Israelites would be freed from Babylonian captivity within two years. He addresses Jeremiah and uses the phrase that Bible prophets are so famous for using: ‘Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts . . .’ In response Jeremiah says:

‘The prophets that have been before me and before thee of old prophesied both against many countries, and against great kingdoms, of war, and of evil, and of pestilence. The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass, [then] shall the prophet be known, that the LORD hath truly sent him’ Jeremiah 28:8, 9 (italics supplied).

Clearly, unless some ‘conditions’ are either made plain by God or are inherently obvious in how God generally deals with mankind (as revealed in Scripture), a true prophet does not make a prediction that does not come to pass. Indeed, God Goes out of His way to make this a definite test.

Having said this though, there are examples in the Bible where God attaches a condition to the fulfillment of prophetic statements. One example of this is the condition of obedience. God made a covenant with Israel, right back

12

to the time of Abraham and Jacob – that involved their offspring. Wonderful promises were attached to this. Yet, when God addressed the nation during their time in the wilderness, he made the condition of obedience, for the fulfillment of those promises, clear:

‘But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for [it is] he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as [it is] this day. And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God’ Deuteronomy 8:18-20 (italics supplied).

Often the Israelites lost sight of the primary spiritual connection to the fulfillment of God’s promises. Israel was, above every other consideration, called to be a spiritual nation – a ‘peculiar’ people, followers of Jehovah. They were to be a living example to the world and thus, God commanded them not to follow the practices of the pagan nations that surrounded them. It must be noted though that in making these promises/predictions, regarding Israel (the Jewish nation), God made the condition clear, alongside the promise – no guesswork is involved.

The Bible is also clear that God is a God of love and mercy and that it was His desire (through the witness of His people) that other peoples also become part of Israel (spiritually, where it counted the most). It was and still is his desire that all shall be saved. Thus, when individuals

13

or whole collective bodies or communities of people repented, He had mercy on them. It is in this type of context that we understand the conditional nature of God’s ‘prophetic’ curses or promises.

Jonah was sent to prophecy to Nineveh that the city would be destroyed in forty days because of the great wickedness of the people (Jonah 3:4). But, on hearing the message, the people repented in ashes and sackcloth, hoping that God would change His mind. God did (Jonah 3:8-10). It almost seems that they were aware of the compassionate nature of the God of Israel. Jonah certainly was, because, in His disappointment at God’s act of mercy towards that city, the scriptures record:

‘But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry. And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, [was] not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou [art] a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil’ Jonah 4:1, 2 (italics supplied).

This is exactly why Jonah ran away from God – he already knew that it was not in the character of God to destroy people if they repented. He was afraid of them repenting, God forgiving them and then, as a result, making a fool of himself. He knew that prophets were deemed true or false by the accuracy of their predictions. But, he also knew that God’s destruction of people was on condition that they remained rebellious.

Thus, the condition of obedience or repentance and turning to God is an important factor in whether God does or does not carry out a ‘promised’ blessing or curse.

14

If God had told Jonah to tell the city of Nineveh that some people would repent and be saved and some would rebel and be lost but still the city would be destroyed, it would put the whole prophecy in a different category. The condition of repentance, in conjunction with the gracious nature of God’s general dealings with man, would be forfeited. In this case God would be making it clear that He has chosen to destroy the city and that those who would be repentant would be spared while the rebellious would die. In this case it would happen as God said.

God does not arbitrarily change His mind about prophecies He has made – especially if the statement is categorical and does not hinge on the obvious condition that Jonah, e.g., clearly understood. They always come to pass and, when they do not, we can find grounds, based on an established condition (clearly stated or relating to the obvious way in which God deals with mankind) for it not happening. We will revisit this issue again when we examine the prophecies of Ellen White, in later chapters.

What I would like to bring our attention to next, in the last category of this chapter, are the physical signs that accompany the prophet while in vision. The physical manifestations, while Ellen White was in vision, according to James White and other pioneers of the church, were in harmony with that which is found in the biblical record. I would like us to consider this because it is in the area of the physical manifestations, while in vision, that great significance was placed by James White and the early pioneers.

15

PROPHETS IN VISION

Were the physical manifestations of prophets while in vision meant to be an important test for determining a true prophet? Because of the significance placed on this aspect by our SDA pioneers (still presented, by some, as a primary proof), it needs to be ascertained if, indeed, the physical signs were that critical as far as testing the prophets was concerned.

The question may well be asked, is any type of miracle, wonder or extraordinary physical manifestation a fool-proof factor in determining whether someone is of God or not? Is it not possible for many of these manifestations to be counterfeited? In addition, how often did the Bible prophets publically, in religious assemblies or other large gatherings, receive visions from God, to prove (via examination of these physical signs), that they were genuine prophets, as regularly happened with Ellen White? Was it the norm for prophets to have their visions in public or was it an extremely unusual occurrence when they did? And, indeed, whether in public or not, was the mention/record of any physical phenomena in Scripture, presented in such a way as to designate that these physical symptoms be used as a so-called ‘check-list’ to prove the prophet true or false? These are some of the questions we will address in greater detail in the following chapter. Firstly though, let’s try to establish a ‘list’ of symptoms that the Bible records were manifest in the ‘vision experience’ of some prophets.

There is, what some may call a ‘Bible-based check-list,’ that establishes exactly what physical signs the true prophet will manifest when taken off in vision. The essential points of this list are as follows:

A. Falls face down (according to the text).

16

B. Has eyes wide open (literally).

C. Is raised up (physically) and strengthened by God.

D. Has no breath but can speak.

In the book of Numbers, in connection with Balaam, the once true prophet who had become a false prophet (when he blessed Israel instead of cursing them), we have this record (mentioning two of the signs):

‘And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding [in his tents] according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: He hath said, which heard the words of God, which saw the vision of the Almighty, falling [into a trance], but having his eyes open’ Numbers 24:2-4 (italics supplied).

This portion of Scripture is one of the ‘proofs’ used to show the physical condition of a prophet when in vision/trance. The words that I have put in italics are the key portions we will consider.

A few points would be worth considering when using this text as an example for the physical signs prophets manifest when going into vision.

The phrase, ‘whose eyes are open,’ is used in verse three (the first of the physical signs mentioned by Balaam). The Hebrew word used here for ‘eye’ is, ‘ayin,’ which can mean the physical eye or can be a reference to mental and spiritual faculties. The word ‘open,’ is from the Hebrew, ‘shatham.’ The exact meaning of the word is

17

dubious and thus commentators vary in their opinions regarding it. Many render it, ‘whose eyes are shut.’ This would mean that the natural/physical sight is not operational. Taken in context though, it could well imply that the eyes may be physically open, not seeing the literal world but rather, with ‘spiritual eye-sight,’ the vision that God is revealing – the spiritual realm.

The part of the text (verse four) that speaks of the prophet ‘falling into a trance, but having eyes open,’ is not, in its entirety to be found in the original. The word in the Hebrew for ‘falling,’ is ‘naphal.’ It can mean to ‘fall to a violent death’ or to ‘lie prostrate,’ etc., but, in this context it can literally mean that the prophet falls down to the ground and then remains lying there. Based on the other evidences of Scripture where this ‘falling’ is referred to the prophet seems to always fall ‘face-down.’ The part of the phrase that says ‘into a trance,’ is supplied and not in the original. Literally translated, the phrase would thus read, ‘falling down and his eyes uncovered.’ Uncovered (‘open,’ in the Old King James English Bible), would mean the same as what we noted in verse three.

A number of other portions in Scripture talk about the aspect of falling down or lying on the ground. The first is to be found in relation to Saul, in the book of 1 Samuel:

‘And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah: and the spirit of God was upon him also, and he went on, and prophesied, until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, [Is] Saul also among the prophets?’ 1 Samuel 19:23, 24 (italics supplied).

18

Of course, the term ‘naked,’ in reference to Saul, does not need to mean, literally without any clothes, but can simply mean that he stripped off his outer garments. The important thing to note, however, is that Saul was lying down. Apparently, all day and all night while in vision.

Another experience is that of Ezekiel:

‘As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so [was] the appearance of the brightness round about. This [was] the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw [it], I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake. And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me’ Ezekiel 1:28, 2:1, 2 (italics supplied).

The first thing to notice here is that Ezekiel (after the vision had begun and then when finally beholding the Throne of God) fell face down. We do not have a specific mention of the ‘face down’ aspect in the experience of Balaam or Saul, yet (without being dogmatic about it), it could be inferred, based on the fact that if these men were possibly being confronted by the glory of God (albeit, perhaps, in a veiled sense) that they would instinctively have fallen, face down. This did not always happen at the very start of the vision.

In this instance, Ezekiel does not remain lying down, but is made to stand on his feet by the spirit of God. In Saul’s case he was in a prostrate state for a day and night.

There is the case of Abraham in Genesis 15:12 where it simply says that ‘a deep sleep fell upon Abraham,’ and

19

then God communicated with him regarding the future captivity of Israel in a strange land (Egypt). The implication is clear that Abraham seemed to have remained lying down. Indeed, his experience seems to be more in line with a dream rather than a vision in the usual sense. Based on other texts we will look at, it does not seem to be that the prophet is always made to stand.

There is also the experience of Daniel, recorded in Daniel chapter eight where, on the bank of the River Ulai, he saw the vision of the ram and goat (Medo-Persia and Greece):

‘So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end [shall be] the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.’ Daniel 8:17, 18 (italics supplied).

Here we see some of the same characteristics as that of Ezekiel when in vision. The difference here seems to be (according to the text), that Daniel was actually standing for the first part of the vision, observing the ram and goat. The word for ‘vision,’ used in reference to the first part, where Daniel is observing the Ram and goat, is ‘chazon’ (verse 1&2). Then when he seeks the meaning of what he has just seen (which seems to imply that Daniel was actually asking a question/speaking), Gabriel is sent to give him ‘understanding.’ At that point, when he is confronted with the glory of the Angel Gabriel, he falls face down to the ground and is then lifted ‘upright’ (this is the second part of the vision). This second part, where understanding is given by Gabriel is referred to in the original as the ‘Mareh’ (verse 16, 26, 27). Later, in Daniel

20

9, when he is told to consider the ‘vision’ (so that he can better understand what he was addressing in his prayer), Gabriel (who spoke to him in the vision of Daniel eight) uses the word ‘Mareh,’ for vision. Gabriel does this in order to bring his attention to the second part of the overall vision of Daniel eight – the part that he did not understand. This is important to mention because although (for those who might be aware of these two different Hebrew words being used for ‘vision’ in chapter eight) it might seem to imply two separate visions, it is not. In verse sixteen Daniel is still in vision, standing on the bank of the River Ulai, when Gabriel is commissioned to give him understanding. Gabriel immediately approaches him and then Daniel falls on his face. Clearly there is simply a transition that is taking place in the whole vision. In regard to Daniel’s physical manifestations: in the first part he is standing and in the second he falls down and then stands, when strengthened. Even if they were two separate visions, the fact would still remain that he stood throughout the first (no scriptural evidence implies he fell down) and then fell down at the start of the second.

John’s experience, in the book of Revelation, records the same physical reactions as Daniel and Ezekiel ( as far as the falling down is concerned):

‘And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last’ Revelation 1:17 (italics supplied).

Although John does not mention falling face-down, he seems to imply it with the expression, ‘I fell at his feet as dead.’ The fact that he must have been facing him and falling ‘at his feet,’ suggests falling forwards rather than

21

backwards. John does not either say whether he was made to stand. It seems quite probable that he remained lying down for the duration of the vision. Due to the lack of textual evidence in this regard, any dogmatic position taken in favour of him standing would best be avoided.

Based on the evidence we have considered here, it would seem that the vision experience of these various prophets, although similar in many key respects, also differ from time to time. It does not seem that there is a ‘set recipe’ in exactly the order of standing, falling or, for that matter, that the eyes were always literally open or closed. In all accounts, other than Balaam, the eyes are not mentioned at all. Some translators choose to render the ‘eyes open’ as figurative for ‘spiritual vision’ – not to be taken literally. Due to lack of explicit biblical evidence and only the one account given by Balaam in the book of Numbers, it is better not to be overly dogmatic on this point. Of course, in the figurative sense we can safely say, ‘the eyes were always open’.

Then, finally, there is the biblical record of Daniel describing his experience in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, when he was taken off in vision while on the bank of the Great Hiddekel River. There are some significant features to note in this account as, barring the matter of the eyes being open, Daniel covers all the other manifestations and also refers to something else we have not touched on before. Below are the portions of the biblical text (Daniel 10:7-19) which pertain specifically to the physical manifestations:

Verse 7: ‘And I Daniel alone saw the vision . . .’

Verse 8: ‘. . . I retained no strength . . .’ Verse 9: ‘. . . in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground . . .’

22

Verse 10: ‘. . . hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and [upon] the palms of my hands . . .’

Verse 11: ‘. . . O Daniel, a man greatly beloved . . . stand upright . . . when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling . . .’

Verse 15: ‘And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb.’

Verse 16: ‘ . . . then I opened my mouth, and spake . . . I have retained no strength . . .’

Verse 17-19: ‘For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? For as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me. Then there came again and touched me [one] like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace [be] unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me’ (italics supplied).

Here we have a far more comprehensive account of the physical experience of the prophet when he was in vision. Daniel seems to have the full range of symptoms in this vision and mentions them in the general sequence they occurred (adding in something that we do not read about anywhere else – the no breathing but yet talking symptom). The only one he does not refer to is the eyes being ‘open.’

23

It is also of interest to note that Daniel ‘stood trembling’ (Verse 11). Make a mental note of this point as I will be referring to it in the next chapter.

In further reference to Daniel, it might be mentioned here that he had received visions on a number of occasions prior to the one referred to above. Thus, it is certain that he was quite familiar with the kinds of physical phenomena accompanying the vision experience. What strikes one about this account in Daniel chapter ten though, is not just the fact that he mentions in fair detail, the physical aspects he is experiencing but seems to be expressing surprise at the fact that he is not breathing but yet can speak. It is almost as if there is something happening on this occasion that he has not experienced in visions prior to this event.

The point can be debated, of course, but non-the-less, his surprise at this specific phenomena and his deliberate mention of it, does raise the question as to whether all the physical phenomena that are associated with a prophet in vision are always manifest in just that way and in just that order (as questioned already) or if it happens in different ways depending on how God wills. We also need to bear in mind, as mentioned before, that Daniel does not mention what Balaam mentions in relation to the eyes being ‘wide open.’ This may be seen as a minor deletion or detail, but is this or any of the other points, like Daniel’s surprise, really minor? After all, Daniel seems to be specific about the other physical symptoms he is experiencing, so why would he leave that one out? Can it be glossed over when one considers that these physical signs were very carefully examined on various occasions when Ellen White was in vision, to see if they were exactly as the Bible says (under encouragement by James White). This would suggest that because these signs were manifest, just as the ‘biblical list’ described, she must be a true prophet?

24

As we continue we will take a closer look at these and other questions and will also submit and carefully consider (as vital evidence) the other tests of a prophet presented in this first chapter.

25