In the long and complex history of Adventist literature, few books have been as influential as The Great Controversy by Ellen G. White. For many believers, this book is not just a piece of religious writing; it is regarded as inspired counsel that shapes theological understanding and denominational teaching. However, what happens when the author herself changes the wording between editions? Can the addition of just one word alter the meaning, and even the theology, of a passage?
To explore this question, we turn to two editions of The Great Controversy: the 1888 edition and the 1911 edition. By comparing key textual differences, particularly in the chapter “A Warning Rejected,” we can observe how subtle editorial changes significantly influenced Adventist interpretation and the authority of Ellen G. White’s writings.
The Key Textual Difference
1888 Edition, “A Warning Rejected” (Page 383)
“...the truth and the approval of God, to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14 announces the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries.”
1911 Edition, “A Warning Rejected” (Page 437 / Centennial Edition Page 383, 1950)
“...the truth and the approval of God, in order to form an unlawful alliance with the world. The message of Revelation 14 announces the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries.”
At first glance, the change seems minor; only the word “alone” has been added. But this addition dramatically shifts the theological interpretation.
How One Word Changed the Meaning
In the 1888 edition, Ellen G. White’s statement appears to exclude the Roman Catholic Church from being identified as “Babylon” in Revelation 14. Instead, the term is applied to Protestant churches that have become spiritually corrupt. This interpretation placed the primary prophetic warning on Protestantism itself, suggesting that the churches which once upheld truth had now compromised with worldly powers.
However, in the 1911 edition, by inserting the single word “alone,” Ellen White effectively included the Roman Catholic Church once again in the prophetic symbol of Babylon, but now shared with other corrupt religious bodies. The implication was that both Roman Catholicism and apostate Protestantism together represented the fallen state described in Revelation.
This change aligned the text with what many Adventist teachers already believed that Babylon symbolized a broader spiritual apostasy led by the papacy but encompassing others as well.
The 1919 Bible Conference: A Shift in Orthodoxy
The significance of this editorial change came to light during the 1919 Bible Conference, where church leaders discussed doctrinal unity and the authority of Ellen G. White’s writings.
W. W. Prescott, one of the participants, noted that before The Great Controversy was revised, the 1888 version was “unorthodox on a certain point,” but after revision, it became “perfectly orthodox.” When questioned, Prescott explained that the 1888 version denied that Babylon could refer to the Roman Church, but the 1911 revision, through the addition of “alone,” corrected this.
“After the book was revised, although the whole argument remained the same, it said that it could not mean the Roman Church alone—just one word added.” — W. W. Prescott
Prescott went on to express his discomfort, saying that no one should have had the right to make such a change. His statement reveals a deeper issue: if even minor wording alterations can modify doctrinal interpretation, how should readers assess the divine authority attributed to Ellen G. White’s writings?
More Examples of Doctrinal Adjustments
Another significant example of revision can be found in the discussion of the papacy’s “abolition.”
1888 Edition (Page 439):
“At that time when the papacy was abolished and the pope made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled.”
1911 Edition (Page 501):
“At that time the pope was made captive by the French army, the papal power received its deadly wound, and the prediction was fulfilled.”
In the 1888 version, Ellen G. White claimed that the papacy was abolished in 1798, a historical inaccuracy, as the papal institution never ceased to exist. The 1911 edition corrects this by removing the word “abolished,” presenting a more historically accurate statement. This shows that later editors or even Ellen White herself recognized the need to align her writing with historical reality.
What This Means for Readers and Theologians
The comparison between the 1888 and 1911 editions reveals more than just stylistic edits. It shows how even the smallest word changes can reshape interpretation, align doctrine, and influence how believers view prophetic authority. For Adventists, these revisions raise an important question: were these changes the result of divine inspiration, or editorial correction?
Whether one sees these edits as improvements or as problematic, it cannot be denied that The Great Controversy evolved over time, both linguistically and theologically. Understanding these differences helps modern readers approach the text with historical awareness, theological balance, and intellectual honesty.
Final Thoughts
The evolution of The Great Controversy from 1888 to 1911 demonstrates the delicate relationship between language, theology, and authority. When a single word can alter centuries of interpretation, readers are reminded that even inspired works exist within human history, shaped by context, understanding, and sometimes, revision.
For researchers, theologians, and readers of Adventist history, this comparison offers a valuable lesson in textual study and the power of language in shaping belief.
Former Adventists Philippines
“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”
For more inquiries, contact us:
Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com
Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph
No comments:
Post a Comment