Editorial – The Meaning of Prophetic Endorsements

The message of William Miller concerning 1843 (the error in the date was later corrected to 1844) was, we believe, the truth of God and was the message He wanted His people to receive. However, this message was eventually rejected by almost the whole religious world of that time, including all of the mainline churches. It was opposed as an erroneous, date-setting message. We still believe in the date 1844 just as much as Miller did. We are certain that the interpretation of Daniel 7, 8, 9, and 12, with the dates of 27 a.d., 31 a.d., 457 b.c., 538 b.c., 538 a.d., 508 a.d., 1798 a.d., and 1844 a.d. is just as true as when he published the 1843 chart.

William Miller has been attacked on several fronts by our theological opponents, past and present, who believe that the historic Adventist theology, which we hold dear, can be destroyed by, first of all, destroying the credibility of William Miller. One of the two issues in the attack on Miller will be briefly discussed in this editorial.

It is thought by many, including former Seventh-day Adventist ministries, that since Ellen White endorsed Miller, if Miller’s exegesis or methodology of Scripture study can be proved wrong, then Ellen White is a false prophet for endorsing him and historic Adventism is no longer credible. As explained in the first paragraph, we still believe the principle thrust of the 1843 chart, though not espousing all data or explanations. Ellen White and our pioneers acknowledged some mistakes in the 1843 chart, too, and yet Ellen White endorsed it and said that it was of God. This is very perplexing to some “black and white” thinkers, including some who used to be Seventh-day Adventist ministers.

So what does a prophetic endorsement mean? We go to the Scriptures to find the highest possible prophetic endorsement for the Christian—that of Jesus Christ Himself. In Matthew 11, Jesus said, concerning John the Baptist, that (1) He endorsed the ministry of John the Baptist; (2) He called him a prophet; (3) he was even more than a prophet; and (4) among those who were born of women there had not arisen one greater than him. It would seem impossible for a human being to obtain a higher endorsement than this or an endorsement based on a higher authority. Was the theology of John the Baptist without any major mistakes or flaws? No, we know that he was mixed up on some major issues, such as his understanding of the work of the Messiah—which caused him to doubt whether Jesus was the Messiah. Without doubt, there were people who rejected Jesus as being the Messiah as a result of their views about John the Baptist. (See Matthew 21.)

We see, in the instance of John the Baptist, that a prophetic or a divine endorsement does not mean that the person endorsed could not have a misunderstanding of prophecy or of some Scriptures. This would be true not only of William Miller but even of John the Baptist! In both cases their work was divinely endorsed, and they were led of God to proclaim the messages they proclaimed—one concerning preparation for the first advent and the other concerning preparation for the second advent. We see, then, that the same methodology by which William Miller was discredited would also, in the hands of a skillful debater, discredit major figures in God’s work in Bible times.

Objectors counter that William Miller used a faulty methodology in Bible study. We will look at that next.

“It is never best for one to think that he understands every phase of truth, for he does not. Then let no man flatter himself that he has a correct understanding of all portions of Scripture and feel it his duty to make everybody else understand them just as he does.” Testimonies, vol. 5, 533, 534.