Elijah - Number Five

When Elijah had Ahab summon all Israel to Carmel it prefigured God bringing the church out of the Dark Ages in 1798 after three and a half years of persecution and leading them to 1844 and thereafter to 1863. Those three dates are the final three waymarks of the structure of the “seven times” as set forth by Isaiah in chapter seven.

The same history of 1798, 1844 and 1863 was also typified when Moses led the children of Israel out of the slavery of Egypt unto Mount Sinai. The history of the first and second angels represent the Millerite movement which began at the time of the end in 1798 and continued until the movement became a church in 1863. Elijah and Moses are the two primary witnesses of the Millerite history, and they are the two primary witnesses in the book of Revelation during the history of the third angel.

The Millerite movement marks the beginning of the everlasting gospel of Revelation fourteen and Future for America marks the ending. Between the beginning movement of the Millerites and the ending movement, we find the Seventh-day Adventist church. According to Adventist church historians in 1856, the remnant of the Millerite movement entered into the Laodicean condition, thus ending the Philadelphian period that represented 1798 through 1856.

In the previous article we demonstrated that inspiration aligned the disappointment of the Red Sea crossing with the great disappointment of 1844. At that point the test of the Sabbath as represented by the manna arrived in the history of Moses. At the same prophetic point, the light that came from the Most Holy Place began a process of testing and purification starting with the Sabbath, for those who had crossed the sea and entered by faith into the Most Holy Place. The testing process that preceded 1844 began in Moses’ history at his birth and for the Millerites in 1798 with the increase of knowledge that Daniel identified would produce a three-step testing process that led to judgment.

The opening of the judgment on October 22, 1844 was typified by the judgment of Pharaoh beginning with the firstborn of Egypt and ending in the waters of the Red Sea. Once the wise entered into the Most Holy Place by faith, or crossed through the Red Sea, the testing process that had begun at the time of the end in 1798 continued on beyond 1844. In the history of Moses, it was represented by ten tests, which Israel failed at every step. The last of the ten tests was when the twelve spies searched out the Promised Land. The first test in Moses’ history was the manna test that represents the Sabbath, and for the Millerites the Sabbath was identified as the first test after October 22, 1844. The first test being the Sabbath in both parallel histories, the following nine tests in the history of Moses identifies that post-1844, there would be a series of tests that would lead to the entrance of either the Promised Land or the wilderness of death. 1863 represents the final test for the Millerite movement. We will begin this consideration when the twelve spies return with their reports of the Promised Land.

This passage from Numbers has some very important truths to take note of, that might be easily overlooked when not considering the history represented therein as typifying the Millerite movement. One point is that the rebels with the “evil report” were failing their tenth and final test, and at that final test two classes of people were manifested. The two classes which have been developing through the history of the previous nine tests manifested their characters based upon which “report” they choose to accept. In 1863, Millerite Adventism rejected Moses’ report as represented by the prophecy of slavery in Leviticus twenty-six. The report presented by Joshua and Caleb was simply the repetition of God’s “report” throughout the history of their deliverance from slavery. From the birth of Moses onward, God had promised that He would take them out of slavery and into the land that had been promised to Abraham centuries before. Joshua and Caleb represent those who stood upon the foundational report, the other ten spies rejected that God had actually given that report.

When in 1863 James White wrote an article in the Review and Herald rejecting Miller’s understanding of the “seven times” and in the same year Uriah Smith published the counterfeit chart that was void of any reference to the “seven times” of Leviticus, both White and Smith set aside the work of William Miller and employed the biblical methodology of apostate Protestantism. The methodology of apostates who they had recently identified as the “daughters of Babylon,” was employed as the argument to reject the message of Miller that had been directed by the angel Gabriel. At the tenth test for ancient Israel they directly said, “Let us make a captain, and let us return to Egypt.” The failure at the tenth and final test is based upon a rejection of the “report” that was consistent with the report from the beginning, and a desire to return to the slavery of Egypt. When Jeremiah symbolically represented those who had been disappointed at the failed prediction of 1843, God specifically called him to return to God and his previous fervor for the message, but also commanded him to never return to those who had been identified as the daughters of Babylon.

In 1863, James White and Uriah Smith appointed a new captain to lead them back to where they had been commanded not to go. Joshua and Caleb represent those who desired to go forward, White and Smith represent those who desired to go back.

Another point that needs to be marked in the passage from the passage in Numbers is that the final rebellion which condemns all the rebels to die in the wilderness over the next forty years, is one of the two primary references that establish the day for a year principle of Bible prophecy, which was perhaps the most essential prophetic rule that Miller was used to open up the message of the everlasting gospel and the first angel. The other biblical witness to the rule is found in the book of Ezekiel.

What is often unnoticed with the two verses that established the day for a year principle is the historical context of both verses.

The verse in Numbers occurred at the beginning of ancient Israel and represented the rebellion of God’s covenant people, and the verse in Ezekiel occurred at the end of ancient Israel and represented the rebellion of God’s covenant people. The punishment in the beginning was death in the wilderness and the punishment at the end was slavery in their enemies’ land. The day for a year principle emphasizes the rebellion of a covenant people. Two punishments, one at the beginning and one at the ending, but both different. The first was death by attrition while journeying through the wilderness, the last was captivity and slavery in literal Babylon.

The history represented in these verses became a biblical symbol that is called “the day of provocation.” The “day of provocation” is referenced in Psalm ninety-five, Jeremiah thirty-two and Hebrews three, but we will not address that symbol at this time. There is an important principle identified in the previous passage that must be recognized. The principle is also illustrated by the prophet Samuel, Lucifer, Ellen White and of course Moses in this passage.

In this passage ancient Israel rejected God as their king, and the history points forward to the time when they proclaimed they had no king but Caesar. They rejected God’s theocracy, and insisted that they be given a king from their own people, only to ultimately proclaim that their king was a Roman king. The Roman king in the last days is the pope of Rome.

The rejection of the theocracy was so offensive and personal to Samuel that he understood it as a rejection of his prophetic office. But God made sure that Samuel understood that their rejection was of God, and not the prophet. These two passages which set forth Moses’ and Samuel’s prophetic relationship to the rebellion of ancient Israel, the punishment for the rebellion that followed was not the end for ancient Israel. There was still a group represented by Joshua and Caleb that would enter the Promised Land, and in the story of Samuel the end of ancient Israel was at the conclusion of Israel’s kings, not the beginning.

Moses reasoned with God to continue to work with ancient Israel, for Moses reasoned to bring them to a conclusion at that point would misrepresent the sacred history of the deliverance of His people and His promise to lead them into the land God had promised to Abraham. The point here is that God chooses to allow rebellion to both occur and continue when He intends to use the rebellion as witness of the truth.

The attitude of righteous indignation manifested by Samuel was also manifested by Ellen White.

Sister White paralleled Samuel’s attitude and was told to remain with the rebels and their rebellion and “stand at” the “post” of her “duty.” She was commanded to stand her post, after she (the prophetess) had determined to leave the rebels and their rebellion unto themselves.

The rule of first mention, which is a primary component of the principle of Alpha and Omega, identifies that the first time a subject is mentioned is of supreme importance. Connected with the very beginning of Lucifer’s rebellion was the fact that if God had wanted to, He had all the power necessary to eliminate Lucifer at Lucifer’s very first selfish thought that had originated within Lucifer’s mind. God could have removed Lucifer from the creation and He has the power that had He chosen to do so, He could have done it in such a fashion that no other angels would have even known what had happened. Of course, He did not do that, for among other things it would have been a denial of His character, but He does possess the creative power that would have allowed Him to do that very thing. But he didn’t do it. He patiently allowed the rebellion to become part of the witness of His character, part of the testimony of the controversy that had begun in heaven and was to ultimately come to the earth. This is what Moses’ dialogue accomplished for ancient Israel. God allowed the generation of rebels to die in the wilderness and used that history as a biblical example to further the truths connected with the everlasting gospel.

So too, with the rejection of God as king in the days of Samuel. Samuel was instructed to go ahead and stand his post of duty, in spite of Samuel’s personal convictions and prophetic knowledge. This element of God’s prophetic and historical oversight is also recognized in the rebuilding of the temple after the Babylonian captivity. God predicted and governed every element of the seventy years of captivity; the return to Jerusalem, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the temple and the streets and walls. He set forth the time prophecies that identified when they would be freed from captivity. He identified how many decrees there would be to mark the beginning of the twenty-three hundred years. He identified Cyrus by name, the heathen king that would begin the process with the first decree. All the elements of rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple were specifically identified and He raised up righteous men and prophets to accomplish the work.

In spite of all the obvious divine prophetic foreknowledge and intervention, the rebellion that had led to the captivity in Babylon had already brought to a conclusion His personal presence with the people of God. The shekinah glory never returned to the temple that was rebuilt. The entire history was employed to provide prophetic structure to the history at the end of the world, though the temple never again was blessed by the presence of the shekinah in the Most Holy Place. In that sense, the temple that was rebuilt was testimony not of God’s presence, but of Israel’s rebellion. Yet the prophets of that history, like as Samuel and Sister White at Minneapolis continued to serve in the capacity of prophets.

The rebellion of Lucifer is the first thing mentioned in the great controversy between Christ and Satan, and God allowed the rebellion to continue for His own purposes. Samuel, in spite of his righteous indignation against Israel’s desire to be like the other nations was directed to participate in anointing the first two kings. And the prophets of God participated in rebuilding God’s temple, the temple that would never again have the shekinah presence of God.

Those that employ their “dishes of fables” against the prophetic Word, in an attempt to cover up the rebellion of Adventism in 1863, and who choose to base their argument upon the logic that if anything happened wrong in 1863, the prophetess would have forbidden it, are willfully ignorant of the first principle that is identified in the very first mention of rebellion against God. God allows rebellion for His own purposes and if He chooses for His prophets to remain neutral or silent in the rebellions that might arrive, that is His choice.

As we begin to consider the testing process of 1844 through 1863, that has been typified by the ten tests ancient Israel failed after they crossed the Red Sea, it is essential to understand this biblical fact. God’s prophets function as His prophets in times of obedience and disobedience, and at times they do not protest issues that would appear on the surface as something a prophet would be expected to protest. At times they are obviously aware of the rebellion but are restrained and at other times the Lord holds His hand over their eyes in regard to the rebellion. When that perspective is recognized, 1863 becomes a significant waymark in the history of the sixth kingdom of Bible prophecy, for both the horn of Protestantism and the horn of Republicanism.