|
||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Commentary on "The Authority of the Prophets"
Day 6: Thursday, February 19, 2009
The present lesson attempts to make a difference between the canonical and non-canonical prophets, prophets whose writings are included in the canon of the Bible, and non-writing prophets like Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, and Iddo. The lesson states that inspired writings of the apostle Paul such as the letter to Laodicea remained outside the Bible, and if they were to be discovered today, they would be left outside the Bible, having less authority than the Bible. Ellen White’s writings have less authority than the Bible because, they argue, even if they are inspired, they are not canonical.
Problems
There is an underlying assumption that the historic context of Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, and Iddo has no relevance to the present discussion of Ellen White’s authority. Any parallels between Ellen White and these extra-canonical prophets, however, should acknowledge the different historical-redemptive context in which these people operated. Further, all these prophets are Old Testament prophets, with a mission before the coming of Christ, and there is a difference between that period and the 19th century AD.
“So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” Ephesians 2:19,20.
The writings of the Old Testaments prophets and the New Testament apostles constitute the foundation of the faith. Since the foundation was established, people can build on it, not modify it. With the coming of Christ, the revelation of God comes to its final Prophet, Jesus Christ, the final revelation of God, the revelation of the last days. There is a distinction made between the past, when God spoke through prophets and revealed himself in that way, and the present reality of the coming of the Son himself who brought the revelation of the past to fullness.
“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.” Hebrews 1:1,2
With the coming of Christ, and the writings of the apostles which constitute the content of the New Testament, the foundation for the faith was established.
“Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 1:3
From this moment on, the faith “once for all delivered” cannot be modified. The foundation is complete; the finality of it is above dispute. All that people can do is to build on this foundation. They have no permission to modify it, to extract or add to it (Revelation 22:18,19). A new epoch in the redemption history starts at this point—a different historical context.
Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, and Iddo operated before the final revelation brought by the coming of Christ. It was a time when God revealed himself progressively until Christ had come, and these prophets worked in a different time-frame than the post-apostolic era. The claim that Ellen White was no different than the other OT prophets does not take into account that the work of these prophets was recorded in the Bible even if their writings were not, and their work was part of a larger work which culminated in the supreme revelation of Christ. They were part of a period which no longer exists, a time when the work of revelation was incomplete, when the written word went in parallel with the spoken word. This is true also about the formation of the New Testament. The gospel circulated first orally, and afterwards was embodied in the writings of the apostles. Once this work of revelation was finished, anything that comes afterward with claims of inspiration, even extra-biblical, inevitably adds to the already completed revelation, flying in the face of a clear command forbidding any addition to the Word of God.
Another problem is raised by the assumption that inspired books outside the canon carry less authority than books included in the Bible:
“We know, for example, that Paul wrote more inspired letters than we have in the New Testament today (1 Cor. 5:9, Col 4:16). Now, if we found one of these letters today, it would not become part of the Bible. It would remain an authoritative, inspired letter outside of the canon.
Ellen White’s authority can be compared to the authority of the extracanonical prophets. The inspired messages she received for the church are not an addition to the canon. Her writings are not another Bible, nor do they carry the kind of authority found in the Bible. In the end, the Bible and the Bible alone is our ultimate authority.”
This view implicitly affirms that inclusion in the canon raises the authority of the inspired writings. Notably missing in the picture is the fact that inclusion in the canon does not confer any kind of authority to the already inspired writings, it is only an acknowledgment, a recognition of the inspired character of the writing. Inspiration itself confers to these writings the highest authority possible, the authority of the God-breathed word (the true meaning of the word “inspired” is God-breathed, from the greek theopneustos). When the post-apostolic church assembled in order to establish the canon, it only recognized what was obvious, and this act did not enhance the book’s authority. For example, the church recognized that the book of Romans was inspired and consequently put it in the canon. But in this act the Epistle to the Romans had not been given a higher position than it already had. It was as authoritative as the inspired Word of God before inclusion in the canon, as it was afterward. The church had not conferred any authority to the book of Romans which it had not previously had when it was not yet listed in the canon.
Summary
- The distinction Pfandle tries to make between inspired writings outside the canon and inside the canon does not hold water. He’s not at all resolving the problem of the ultimate authority in the SDA Church: is it the Bible or is it the Ellen White’s writings. His attempts to eat the cake and also have it are futile: either Ellen White’s writings are inspired and carry the same authority as any other inspired book of the Bible because they are the Word of God, no matter what form it takes (spoken or written), or her writings are not inspired and fall in the same category as any other uninspired literature. However, it is doubtful that the church will opt in the future for any of these inevitable choices because the consequences are pretty serious. In one case, if Ellen’s writings are acknowledged as carrying the same authority as the Bible, the SDA church will openly place itself in the same category with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who have their own extra-biblical writings that prevent them to offer the Bible supreme authority. On the other hand, recognizing that Ellen White’s writings are not inspired as the Bible, will lead to a massive lost of authority with unforeseen consequences. Consequently the inevitable public policy is to allow contradictory statements as the present lessons exhibits.
Copyright 2009 BibleStudiesForAdventists.com. All rights reserved. Revised February 14, 2009. This website is published by Life Assurance Ministries, Glendale, Arizona, USA, the publisher of Proclamation! Magazine. Contact email: BibleStudiesForAdventists@gmail.com.
The Sabbath School Bible Study Guide and the corresponding E.G. White Notes are published by Pacific Press Publishing Association, which is owned and operated by the Seventh-day Adventist church. The current quarter's editions are pictured above.
Official Adventist Resources
Standard Edition Study Guide Week 8
Teacher's Edition Study Guide Week 8
Easy Reading Edition Study Guide Week 8
Search the Complete Published Ellen G. White Writings