Earlier today, an Adventist reasserted to me that "France as the great city fits historically to Rev 11:7-13." I truly wish more Adventists understood how unsound that interpretation truly is.
In my writings, I have already noted that the dates of the French Revelation simply do not add up, requiring that the witnesses be killed during the 1,260 "days" of their prophesying, and raised in 1797 (a year short of 1,260 days ending in 1798). I have also noted that Adventists inconsistently identify "the beast that comes from the bottomless pit" with France in Rev. 11 and Rome in Rev. 17 (despite the fact that the two entities were opponents of one another). This is a glaring oversight by 19th century Adventist students of Revelation, and remains unaddressed by the Adventists on this blog.
However, there are other glaring omissions in the Adventist interpretation of Rev. 11, the first of which I would like to mention today:
The Earthquake
At the conclusion of the prophecy of the two witnesses, an earthquake judges the people of "the great city" (11:13). Ellen White leaves this "second woe" (v. 14) relatively untreated, save for a few lines:
When reading this paragraph, I am tempted to ask: if the earthquake of Rev. 6:12 is literal (GC 304, referring to the Lisbon earthquake), why is the earthquake of Rev. 11 not literal? Why the inconsistency? Furthermore, in Revelation, the earthquake follows the crimes committed by the city as a judgment from God (v. 13-14)? Why then does Ellen White identify the earthquake with the crimes themselves, and attribute it to "the impious hand that had been lifted against the law of God?"
Above all, I am always fascinated by what Adventists often decide to leave conveniently uninterpreted:
Why are these questions not asked, let alone addressed? The fact is, the historic Adventist interpretation of Rev. 11 provides no adequate answers to the above questions, and therefore, does not satisfy the parameters of the prophecy.
If an interpretation cannot explain the most precise details of a prophecy, of what use is it?
In my writings, I have already noted that the dates of the French Revelation simply do not add up, requiring that the witnesses be killed during the 1,260 "days" of their prophesying, and raised in 1797 (a year short of 1,260 days ending in 1798). I have also noted that Adventists inconsistently identify "the beast that comes from the bottomless pit" with France in Rev. 11 and Rome in Rev. 17 (despite the fact that the two entities were opponents of one another). This is a glaring oversight by 19th century Adventist students of Revelation, and remains unaddressed by the Adventists on this blog.
However, there are other glaring omissions in the Adventist interpretation of Rev. 11, the first of which I would like to mention today:
The Earthquake
At the conclusion of the prophecy of the two witnesses, an earthquake judges the people of "the great city" (11:13). Ellen White leaves this "second woe" (v. 14) relatively untreated, save for a few lines:
Those who had chosen the service of rebellion were left to reap its fruits until the land was filled with crimes too horrible for pen to trace. From devastated provinces and ruined cities a terrible cry was heard--a cry of bitterest anguish. France was shaken as if by an earthquake. Religion, law, social order, the family, the state, and the church--all were smitten down by the impious hand that had been lifted against the law of God. (GC 286).
When reading this paragraph, I am tempted to ask: if the earthquake of Rev. 6:12 is literal (GC 304, referring to the Lisbon earthquake), why is the earthquake of Rev. 11 not literal? Why the inconsistency? Furthermore, in Revelation, the earthquake follows the crimes committed by the city as a judgment from God (v. 13-14)? Why then does Ellen White identify the earthquake with the crimes themselves, and attribute it to "the impious hand that had been lifted against the law of God?"
Above all, I am always fascinated by what Adventists often decide to leave conveniently uninterpreted:
- Where or what is "the tenth" of the city that fell?
- Who were the 7,000 killed in the earthquake?
- Did "the rest" of the French people truly "glorify the God of heaven" from the "terror" of this earthquake (and what national event or movement fulfils this point)?
Why are these questions not asked, let alone addressed? The fact is, the historic Adventist interpretation of Rev. 11 provides no adequate answers to the above questions, and therefore, does not satisfy the parameters of the prophecy.
If an interpretation cannot explain the most precise details of a prophecy, of what use is it?
2 comments:
The eschatology of Seventh Day Adventism really begins in the book of Daniel chapter 2 and 7. This starts a prophetic chain that runs all the way through Daniel and Revelation. Daniel chapter 2 starts in a very simplistic way with a dream of Nebuchadnezzar. As the book of Daniel progresses into Revelation the prophecies become more involved, and more intricate, building upon themselves and bringing new events into play. Why is this important? I can think of two reasons. The first is that Daniel 2 and Daniel 7are foundational chapters that are built upon throughout Daniel and Revelation. The second is that as the prophecies become more intricate as we progress, the foundation laid becomes an aid to help us keep continuity in our trying to understand their meaning and how prophecy works.
Prophecy does not happen in a vacuum. And yet that is exactly the approach that is being taken in trying to understand Rev. 11. That is why it seems easy to raise doubts in the Adventist view. Events and terms are being tied together that do not go together. A progressive approach with a solid foundation is necessary or context is changed and confusion and doubts result. E.g., Revelation 11 is happening just before the 7th trumpet, Revelation 17 just before the fall of Babylon. Two different events, two different times.
Anyone can criticize and raise doubts, in fact I believe that God does not remove all doubt else there would be no need for faith. However to give credence to doubt it must at least be reasonable. It is unreasonable to assume the doubts raised here in Revelation 11are valid for at least a few reasons. First, The author has an axe to grind with SDA’s prophetic views placing him in a biased position rendering Him unable to be critical. Second the author places too much emphasis on Ellen G Whites writings and ignores historical facts that help in rendering our views true. And third, the author does not explain the prophecies he tries to debunk. This is crucial! Criticism is cheap, Put something better in its place. All the author is doing is proving he doesn’t know what it is, only what it isn’t; Adventism-which brings me right back to my first reason.
Arik,
Nowhere in your response do you directly answer any of my specific questions or challenges--a sign that Adventists have none to provide.
>>>"Prophecy does not happen in a vacuum. And yet that is exactly the approach that is being taken in trying to understand Rev. 11."
Hardly. Is asserting that the identity of "the beast that comes from the bottomless pit" must be consistent across Rev. 11 AND 17 a sign that I am interpreting Rev. 11 in a vacuum? No, rather, your approach, which offers no connection between these chapters, isolates them, interpreting Rev. 11 in a convenient vacuum.
Is requesting that the various "earthquakes" mentioned across Revelation be treated in a less arbitrary, and more consistent, light (literal vs. symbolic, casualty counts, etc.) a sign that I interpret Rev. 11 in a vacuum? Hardly.
>>>"Revelation 11 is happening just before the 7th trumpet, Revelation 17 just before the fall of Babylon. Two different events, two different times. "
I never denied that two different events are in view in these chapters. I do demand, however, that a common entity mentioned in both chapters ("the beast that comes from the bottomless pit") be consistently identified. It is clear the same entity is active in the events of both chapters, precisely because he is identified by the same title. I also demand that an interpretation of a given prophecy account for all details within that prophecy. And so forth.
>>>"First, The author has an axe to grind with SDA’s prophetic views placing him in a biased position rendering Him unable to be critical."
Unable to be critical? I was critical enough to leave the Adventist church over these issues. Where was my "bias" when I was an Adventist frustrated and confused over difficulties in the prophetic interpretations I was taught and believed?
You also confuse criticism with bias. Citing the weaknesses of an idea does not make one "biased." I criticize the view because I realized its inadequacies and abandoned it.
I find it incredible that rather than address any of my answers and objections, you engage in a personal attack on my sincerity. I suggest you focus on the inconsistencies, errors, and unexplained portions of your cherished interpretation rather than my abilities.
>>>"And third, the author does not explain the prophecies he tries to debunk. "
You have not explained the prophecy in its entirety. Would you like to identify the 7,000 who died in the earthquake, or identify a national movement or event of terror-stricken worship? Adventists leave parts of the prophecy uninterpreted and unexplained.
Arik, one must seek an interpretation that actually fits and explains the biblical data. Yours does not. Whether or not I live to offer an alternative, yours is inadequate. I would rather wait for the right answer than propagate a manifestly wrong answer.
Post a Comment