Investigating Ellen G. White #2: A Disappointing Start (in Taglish)

Kapag iniisip natin ang kasaysayan ng Adventism, hindi puwedeng hindi mabanggit ang nangyari noong October 22, 1844—yung tinatawag na Great Disappointment. Maraming Millerites ang bumalik na lang sa dati nilang trabaho, at karamihan sumuko na sa ideya ng prediksyon ni William Miller. Pero hindi lahat. Isa sa mga nanatili ay si Ellen Harmon (na kalaunan naging si Ellen G. White).

Ayon sa kanya, pinakita raw ng Diyos sa kanya na malapit na talaga ang pagbabalik ni Cristo. Kaya nag-travel siya sa buong northeastern U.S. para ikuwento ang kanyang mga “visions.” Ang problema, mixed ang naging reactions. Meron na-encourage, pero marami rin ang nag-doubt.

Isang eyewitness nga ang nagsabi:

“I cannot endorse sister Ellen’s visions as being of divine inspiration... I think that what she and you regard as visions from the Lord, are only religious reveries, in which her imagination runs without control upon themes in which she is most deeply interested. While so absorbed in these reveries, she is lost to everything around her.”[1]

Kahit pamilya mismo ni Ellen, duda. At mismong si Ellen umamin na marami ang nagsasabi na ang visions niya ay dahil lang sa “excitement and mesmerism” imbes na galing sa Diyos.[2]

Mga Early Visions: Echoes of Others

Isa sa mga nakasaksi, si Isaac Wellcome, isang Adventist minister, nagkuwento ng ganito:

“Ellen G. Harmon...was strangely exercised in body and mind... falling to the floor... in meetings she would speak with great vehemence and rapidity until falling down... She claimed to have seen that Christ had left the office of mediation and assumed that of Judge, had closed the door of mercy, and was blotting out the names, from the book of life... These visions were but the echoes of Elder [Joseph] Turner and others’ preaching, and we regard them as the product of the overexcited imagination of her mind, and not as facts.”[3]

In short, sabi ni Wellcome: inuulit lang daw ni Ellen ang preaching ni Joseph Turner.

The Failed Prophecies of 1845

Taong 1845, nakilala ni Ellen si James White, na kalaunan naging asawa niya. Nag-travel sila, nag-preach na malapit na raw ang pagbabalik ni Cristo. Ang problema? Nag-prophesy si Ellen na darating si Lord sa June 1845. Wala. Move to September. Wala ulit.

Ayon kay Lucinda Burdick, isang minister’s wife:

“She pretended God showed her things which did not come to pass... At one time she saw that the Lord would come the second time in June 1845... After June passed... she replied that ‘they told her in the language of Canaan, and she did not understand the language...’ September passed, and many more have passed since, and we have not seen the Lord yet.”[4]

Classic move—pag pumalpak, shift the explanation.

At kahit pumalpak, tuloy pa rin ang preaching ng Whites.

Marriage and More Failures

Ironically, noong una, ayaw pa ni James White magpakasal kasi daw “denial of the faith” iyon:

“We look upon it as a wile of the devil. The firm brethren in Maine who are waiting for Christ to come have no fellowship with such a move.”[5]

Pero dahil nagta-travel silang dalawa na hindi kasal, napilitan din silang ikasal para daw iwas “appearance of evil.”

Ang problema, hindi natigil ang mga failed visions. Ayon ulit kay Burdick, nag-prophesize daw si Ellen na maaaresto sila at makukulong, pero wala naman talagang nangyari. Kaya dumami lalo ang mga nag-turn against her.[6]

The Influence of Joseph Bates

At dito papasok si Captain Joseph Bates, isang retired sea captain na respected sa Adventist circles. Noong una, duda rin siya kay Ellen, iniisip na baka dahil lang sa kanyang brain injury kaya may visions siya. Pero nagbago ang lahat nang ma-timingan siya ni Ellen ng “astronomy vision.”

Habang nagvi-vision si Ellen, sinabi niyang:

“I see four moons.”

Sabi ni Bates, “Oh, she is viewing Jupiter!”

Tapos sumunod:

“I see seven moons.”

Sabi ulit ni Bates, “She is describing Saturn.”[7]

Para kay Bates, jackpot ito—lalo na’t mahilig siya sa astronomy. Kaya naging supporter na siya. Pero problema, later discoveries proved na mali si Ellen. Jupiter pala may at least 16 moons at may rings, at parehong Jupiter at Saturn, hindi tirahan ng “tall, majestic people” gaya ng sabi niya.

String of Failures

Kasunod nito, nagpatuloy pa rin ang failed prophecies ni Ellen at James. Example:

• 1849 – Ellen predicted na ang pestilence ay magiging worldwide at “soon the dead and dying will be all around us.”[8] Wala namang nangyari.

• 1850 – sinabi niyang “time is almost finished” at dapat ready na lahat kasi ilang buwan na lang daw natitira.[9] Wala pa rin.

• 1851 – end of Bates’ seven-year testing period. Siyempre, wala pa rin.

Dahil dito, kailangan ni James White mag-edit ng mga lumang articles para itago ang failed predictions.

The Last Prediction (1856)

Noong 1856, Ellen gave her last specific prediction:

“I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.’”[10]

Obvious na fail din ito—lahat ng nasa conference, matagal nang namatay. Pero in-explain ng SDA leaders na “conditional prophecy” lang daw iyon.

Celibacy Testimony (1884)

After decades, Ellen gave another shocking statement—calling for celibacy among Adventists:

“The time has come when, in one sense, they that have wives be as though they had none.”[11]

Grabe. Sobrang chaos ang naging epekto nito. May mga ministers na nag-confess na hindi na raw nila kayang umuwi sa asawa nila kasi baka matukso sila. Eventually, tinago ng White Estate ang manuscript hanggang 1980s.

Conclusion: A Rough Start

Kung tutuusin, Ellen’s first decade as a “prophetess” was a disaster—full of failed predictions, angry reactions, and questionable visions. At imbes na magpakumbaba, she often condemned her critics as “damned and lost.”

Hindi nakapagtataka na maraming na-turn off. Sa totoo lang, mukhang mas marami pang damage ang nagawa ng kanyang early ministry kaysa encouragement.

At gaya ng sabi ng mismong kasaysayan: it was a disappointing start.

---

References

1. James White, Word to the Little Flock, 1847, 22.

2. Ellen White, Early Writings, 21.

3. Isaac Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message (Yarmouth, Maine: Advent Christian Publication Society, 1874); Jacob Brinkerhoff, The Seventh-day Adventists and Mrs. White's Visions (Marion, Iowa: Advent and Sabbath Advocate, 1884), 4–6.

4. Miles Grant, An Examination of Mrs. Ellen White's Visions (Boston: Advent Christian Publication Society, 1877).

5. James White, 1846. Quoted in Arthur Patrick (La Sierra University), “Ellen White, the Adventist Church, and its Religion Teachers: A Call for Transformed Relationships.”

6. Ibid.

7. Mrs. Truesdail’s letter, Jan 27, 1891.

8. Ellen White, Present Truth, Sept. 1849.

9. Ellen White, Early Writings, 64–67.

10. Ellen White, Testimonies, Vol. 1, 131.

11. Ellen White, MS 34, 1885; acknowledged in W.C. White and D.E. Robinson, “Counsels Regarding Parenthood” (DF 360A, 1930s).

---

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

IT'S OCTOBER 22 AGAIN!

It’s Oct 22 again! 179 years ago, Christ supposedly entered the Most Holy Place of the heavenly sanctuary. But did he?

    If Seventh-day Adventism is a house of cards, the Sanctuary Doctrine is the one card that could collapse it all. No wonder why Adventist scholars defended it with all their might, even publishing a 7-volume DARCOM Series with 2,400+ pages of scholarly work. Regardless of their efforts, many truth-seeking Adventists like me still left the Church because they falsified the doctrine for themselves. Others rejected it but chose to remain in the ultra-progressive wing of Adventism.

In this article, I'll be presenting the arguments that made me conclude that the Sanctuary Doctrine isn't biblical.

WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

    As I studied the Sanctuary Doctrine deeper, its fragility became more apparent. It is an intricate and elaborate system of fundamental components. Each of these components has to be true for the whole doctrine to be valid. By refuting just one of these components, the doctrine collapses.

    Chief of these components is the interpretation of Daniel 8:14. But because there is already a wealth of material on this subject, I will not discuss it here. A comprehensive discussion of history and principles of prophetic interpretation is required to point out the errors in the traditional Adventist understanding. I don't think it's necessary to discuss it because there is another component that's far easier to falsify.

    Another component is the concept of an eschatological Day of Atonement, also known as the Investigative Judgement. Many former Adventists identify it as their primary reason for leaving. They believe that the Investigative Judgement compromises the true Gospel and makes Adventism a works-based religion. But since Adventism has evolved to be more evangelical these days, highlighting this issue doesn't make a convincing case against the doctrine. Modern Adventists hold a view of the Investigative Judgement that doesn't contradict what they understand to be the Gospel of righteousness by faith.

    In my case, I found that the component that's easiest to falsify is the idea that Jesus commenced the 2nd phase of his heavenly ministry in 1844. If the Bible precludes this idea, then the whole doctrine fails. SDA interpretation of Daniel 8:14 will look forced, and rescuing it by defending the historicist approach can't help. The Investigative Judgement will also have no technical basis as it depends on the 2-phase ministry of Jesus in Heaven.

    So, did Jesus enter the 2nd compartment of the heavenly sanctuary on Oct. 22, 1844? This contention hangs on three fundamental premises. The first premise is that there is a literal sanctuary in Heaven. Second, this Sanctuary also has two compartments like the earthly one. Third, Jesus has a 2-phase ministry like the Levitical Priests. If these premises are false, then Jesus didn't move anywhere in 1844, and the whole Sanctuary Doctrine fails.

WHERE ADVENTISTS WENT WRONG

    The Bible is clear that the earthly sanctuary is a copy of heavenly things (Heb. 8:5, Exo. 25:40). So for Adventists, it's only logical to think that the heavenly sanctuary must also have two compartments. They postulated that the heavenly sanctuary is a literal structure in Heaven with the same layout as the earthly sanctuary. But is this really what the Bible says about the heavenly sanctuary?

    If this structure in Heaven also has two compartments, then Jesus must also perform a 2-phase ministry like the Levitical Priests. This premise assumes that Jesus must follow the pattern of the Levitical Priesthood. But is this really what the Bible says about the ministry of Jesus?

    By reading Hebrews 6-10, we'll get a clearer understanding of what the heavenly sanctuary truly is and what the ministry of Jesus is all about. A closer look at these chapters could show us why we can't depend on these premises.

Premise #1: The Heavenly Sanctuary is a Literal Structure in Heaven

 Each element of the earthly sanctuary is a shadow (σκιᾷ/skia) of heavenly things (ἐπουρανίων/epouraniōn) according to Heb 8:5. By using the term "shadow," the author is pointing out that they are lesser copies, not exact copies. So we have to be careful how we imagine what these shadows mean. It's better to let the Bible identify what they meant.

- Lamb = Jesus the Lamb of God (Jn. 1:9)

- Priests = Jesus, the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:17,26, 9:11)

- Shewbread = Jesus, Bread of Life (Jn. 6:35)

- Menorah = Jesus, the unquenchable Light (Jn. 1:4-5, 8:12)

- The Veil/Curtain = The Body of Jesus (Heb. 10:20)

- Incense = Prayers of Saints through the Holy Spirit (Ps. 141:2, Rom. 8:26, Rev. 5:8, Rev. 8:3)

- Rod of Aaron that Budded = The Messiah, the rod of God (Ps. 110:1-2)

- Manna = Jesus, the Bread from Heaven (Jn. 6:51)

- The Tablets of the 10 Commandments = Jesus, the fulfillment of the Law (Mat. 5:17, Psa. 40)

- Covering Cherubs and Shekhinah = God the Father on His Throne (Heb. 9:24)

- The 1st Compartment (Holy Place) = Present Age or the Old Covenant (Heb. 9:2,8-10)

- The 2nd Compartment (Most Holy Place) = Heaven itself, the Sanctuary of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15,24)

    When we put all these symbols together, what we get is not a location nor a structure, but the whole Plan of Redemption as implemented by Jesus in unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The "heavenly things" that Moses saw were a pattern and not an actual sanctuary in Heaven (Heb. 8:5,9:23, Exo. 25:40).

    To say this is not to deny the fact that there is a heavenly sanctuary. It's just that the terms "heavenly sanctuary" and "sanctuary in Heaven" need to be differentiated. "sanctuary in Heaven" connotes a literal structure within Heaven, while "heavenly sanctuary" can mean something more direct: Heaven itself. We will never find any verse in the Bible that could give us the idea that Jesus went to Heaven to enter a sanctuary within it. As Heb. 9:24 said, Jesus entered a sanctuary not made with hands, Heaven itself. The concept of two compartments in the heavenly sanctuary can only come from the mix-up of these two terms.

    As the symbolisms suggest, the earthly sanctuary is a pattern of the whole Plan of Redemption, not just of a sanctuary in Heaven. In this grand plan, the ascension of Jesus is akin to the high priest's entry into the Most Holy Place (Heb. 6:19-20, 9:6). There is no reason to think that Jesus still has to fulfill a 2-phase ministry in Heaven. It will become more apparent in the next section, where we'll study the verses that show that there are no compartments in the heavenly sanctuary.

Premise #2: The Heavenly Sanctuary has Two Compartments

    The 1st compartment of the earthly sanctuary is “symbolic of the present age” (Heb. 9:2,8-10). Furthermore, Jesus our great priest removed the concept of divisions in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 9:24, 10:20).

- The present age (Old Covenant) is now obsolete (Heb. 8:13, 9:26)

- On the death of Jesus, the curtain was torn open (Mk. 15:38)

- The curtain represented the Body of Jesus broken for us (Heb. 10:20, 1 Cor. 11:24)

- The throne of God (symbolized by the Most Holy Place of the earthly sanctuary) is now accessible because the curtain is the Body of Jesus. His flesh doesn't separate us from God but brings us to Him (Heb. 10:19-20)

- Therefore there is no more 1st compartment in both earthly and heavenly sanctuary.

    Since the 1st compartment typifies the Old Covenant, the idea that it typified the 1st phase of Jesus's ministry in the heavenly sanctuary has no basis. If the Old Covenant is now obsolete, then the heavenly sanctuary has no more divisions. If the Body of Jesus is an open curtain (Heb. 10:19-20), then there truly is no reason to think that the heavenly sanctuary has two compartments. When Jesus went to Heaven, he had nowhere else to go but the Most Holy Place, where the presence of God is (Heb. 9:24).

Premise #3: The Ministry of Jesus is like the Levitical Priesthood

    The author of Hebrews contrasted the superior ministry of Jesus against the Levitical Priesthood. First, he pointed out that Jesus is the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20). Then, he identified Melchizedek as the type of Jesus (Heb. 7:1-22). Finally, he gave more examples of contrasts between Jesus and the Levitical Priests.

- Jesus does not need to offer sacrifices daily or yearly like the Levitical Priests (Heb. 7:27)

- Every year, the Levitical High Priest offers a blood sacrifice before entering the Most Holy Place (Heb. 9:7)

- Every day, the Levitical Priests stand to offer blood sacrifices at the outer court (Heb. 10:11, Heb. 9:6,9,10)

- Once and for all, Jesus sat down at the right hand of God after performing a single High Priestly sacrifice (Heb. 9:11-12, 10:12)

    Because of these examples of contrasts, we don't have a reason to think that the Levitical Priesthood is a type of Jesus's ministry. The ascension of Jesus to Heaven and the entry of high priests into the Most Holy place was the only similarity that the author of Hebrews mentioned. (Heb. 6:19-20, 9:7,11,24). And even this similarity could not give us a hint that Jesus went to Heaven for a 2-phase ministry.

    Jesus only needed to offer one sacrifice to accomplish a complete and final atonement, and for that, he is also our most worthy mediator (Heb. 9:15). He did all of that through his passion, death, resurrection, and ascension. In Heaven, his intercession and mediation for us will never cease until he comes back. The superior priesthood of Jesus accomplished what the inferior 2-phase Levitical Priesthood couldn't.

Conclusion

    By contrasting shadows versus reality, earthly versus heavenly, the Old versus New Covenant, and Levitical versus Melchizedekian Priesthood, the author of Hebrews emphasized how the earthly sanctuary is similar to but also different from its heavenly counterpart. It is more reasonable to think that the biblical verses we studied suggest that the earthly sanctuary is a pattern of the whole Plan of Redemption. Imagining it as a miniature copy of a sanctuary in Heaven is too literalistic and frankly has no basis.

    The ascension of Jesus to Heaven is akin to but unlike the high priest's entry into the Most Holy Place. He went there as the High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, not as a Levitical priest. The earthly sanctuary's compartments were types of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The idea of divisions in the heavenly sanctuary is now obsolete because of Jesus's ministry. Furthermore, because the author of Hebrews contrasted the Levitical Priesthood against the superior priesthood of Jesus, we can't reasonably infer a two-phase ministry of Jesus from it. Jesus's priesthood is far superior to the Levitical, in that he can do the two phases all at once with just a single sacrifice and a once for all entry into the real presence of God.

    The 2-phase ministry of Jesus in a literal sanctuary in Heaven is the concept that allowed some Millerites to save face in the Great Disappointment of 1844. Later on, they evolved to become the Seventh-day Adventist movement. If this concept is unbiblical, then the Investigative Judgement has no technical basis, and there's no point in showing how it obscures the Gospel. Additionally, interpreting Dan. 8:14 through the lens of a historicist becomes an exercise of futility. There is simply no ground for these ideas to stand on.

    The implications of a debunked Sanctuary Doctrine for Adventists are devastating. It's why they had to hold on to it no matter what. Many of their other doctrines and their very reason for existence hang in the validity of this foundational doctrine. Simply put, if the Sanctuary Doctrine is false, their whole theological framework totally collapses.