56. Revelation 11 and the French Revolution

Was Ellen White wrong in her Great Controversy explanation of Revelation 11? Ford claims that “it is not possible to support The Great Controversy exposition of Revelation 11 either exegetically or historically” (Page 575), and “the application [of the year-day principle] made to the French Revolution is certainly incorrect.” He says he prefers the application of Revelation 11 found in Testimonies for the Church 4:594 (Ford, pages 575, 326).QSEW 51.1

In Testimonies for the Church 4:594, Ellen White is not giving an exegesis of Revelation 11. She is simply using the language of Revelation 11:3 as a matter of convenience. In The Great Controversy, 265-288 she discusses Revelation 11 in considerable detail and gives the impression that she is really telling her readers what that chapter means.QSEW 51.2

Ellen White did make some minor changes in the 1911 edition of this chapter of The Great Controversy. “The great bell of the palace” in the 1888 edition was changed to “a bell” in 1911; “The Word of God was prohibited” became “The Worship of the Deity was abolished.” “The decree which prohibited the Bible” was altered to read “the decrees which abolished the Christian religion and set aside the Bible,” etc. (See The Great Controversy, 272, 273, 286, 287.)QSEW 51.3

These changes did not affect the exposition of the chapter, however, which remained the same in 1911 as it had been in the 1888 edition.QSEW 51.4

Although certain minor historical points needed revision, this can hardly be used as an argument against the basic exposition itself. No better or more satisfactory interpretation of Revelation 11 has been written than that found in The Great Controversy.QSEW 51.5