Many know that William Miller was a 19th-century false prophet that, to his own chagrin, set a date for the second coming of Jesus Christ. But less are aware of how Mr. Miller arrived at his conclusions. Armed with a King James Bible and a concordance, he developed his own rules of Bible interpretation, some of which were influenced by individuals that came before him. It was these “rules” that he utilized in arriving at his eschatological conclusions.
Speaking on these “rules” in their church paper, the SDA Church writes:
[William] Miller worked out practical rules for the study of the Scripture called “Miller’s Rules of Biblical Interpretation.” These rules grew out of the basic belief that the Bible is the Christian’s sole authority for belief and practice and that the Scriptures are self-authenticating and unified, as well as their own best expositor. He believed that they should be understood in their most obvious and practical sense unless there is a reason from the text itself to believe a symbol, a parable, a figure of speech, or other literary form is being used.
These simple rules and an acceptance of Biblical authority formed the foundation upon which the Millerites built their temple of Biblical truth in the 1830’s and 1840’s, even though some errors of interpretation crept into their construction of this temple. These rules also became the foundation upon which the emerging Seventh-day Adventist Church built its temple of Bible truth. The leaders of this developing movement corrected errors in the interpretation of the Millerites and went on to construct a complete system of Bible teachings. In fact, there would be no basis for the existence of the remnant church except for its reliance upon Scripture as the final authority of faith and practice.
Review & Herald, February 8, 1979
While this sounds nice, the SDA Church also claims that Ellen G. White was divinely inspired and correcting of inaccurate interpretations of scripture. And it was Ellen White who went on to endorse these “rules” where she wrote:
Those who are engaged in proclaiming the third angel’s message are searching the Scriptures upon the same plan that Father Miller adopted. In the little book entitled “Views of the Prophecies and Prophetic Chronology,” Father Miller gives the following simple but intelligent and important [13] rules for Bible study and interpretation…
Ellen G. White, Review & Herald, November 25, 1884, par. 23
It is because of this endorsement and the SDA Church’s attachment and reliance historically on William Miller that these principles are still a key driver in Adventist interpretation.
These 13 rules are:
1. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study (2 Timothy 3:15-17).
2. Every word must have it’s proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible (Matthew 5:18).
3. Scripture must be it’s own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to explain it to me, and he should guess at it’s meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, not the Bible (Psalm 19:7-11; 119:97-105; Matthew 23:8-10; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; Ezekiel 34:18, 19; Luke 11:52; Malachi 2:7, 8).
What’s fascinating about this is William Miller utilized this rule yet he was completely wrong on the second coming and countless passages of scripture he sought to utilize to support his then theory. This further evidences the dangers of completely detaching the Bible from the church in history and thinking you know better than everyone else that came before you. This was wrongfully understood by the SDA pioneers to be what sola scriptura is when, in fact, this is known as nuda scriptura, an entirely different concept.
Ellen White would go on to codify this errant definition where she wrote:
Those who oppressed these followers of Christ called themselves Protestants; but they abjured the fundamental principle of Protestantism,—the Bible and the Bible only as the rule of faith and practice.
Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 4, pg. 183 (4SP 183.1)
Sola scriptura is the belief that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the church, not the only source of authority outright nor is it the belief that scriptural interpretation should be entirely disconnected from history. The SDA Church doesn’t even uphold the definition that Ellen White put forth.
Though William Miller came to his senses and repented of his false date setting, the SDA Church still claims to endorse these principles despite their claim that Ellen White is the infallible interpreter of scripture and that—without her—one will be unable to accurately interpret the Bible.
4. To understand doctrine, bring all the Scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have it’s proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in an error (Isaiah 28:7-29; 35:8; Proverbs 19:27; Luke 24:27, 44, 45; James 5:19; 2 Peter 1:19, 20).
Again, he claimed to do this yet he was wrong about countless portions of scripture leading to violating scripture which tells us no one knows the day or hour.
5. God has revealed things to come, by visions, in figures and parables; and in this way the same things are oftentimes revealed again and again, by different visions, or in different figures and parables. If you wish to understand them, you must combine them all in one (Psalm 89:19; Hosea 12:10; Habakkuk 2:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Corinthians 10:6; Hebrews 9:9, 24; Psalm 78:2; Matthew 13:13, 34; Genesis 41:1-32; Daniel 2, 7, 8; Acts 10:9-16).
6. Visions are always mentioned as such (2 Corinthians 12:1).
7. How to know when a word is used figuratively. If it makes good sense as it stands, and does no violence to the simple laws of nature, then it must be understood literally; if not, figuratively (Revelation 12:1, 2; 17:3-7).
The issue with principles like this is that it doesn’t jive with other principles Mr. Miller put forth. Nowhere does the Bible give this standard which means Mr. Miller had to of been getting it from somewhere else or it was his own subjective standard. Because lots of sects through history have claimed this and they contradict one another on what should and shouldn’t be taken as literal.
The truth is the context in which words are used drives the informative root of whether or not a word is being used figuratively of literally, not whether one personally determines it to be such. Words mean what they mean in the context in which they are used.
8. Figures always have a figurative meaning, and are used much in prophecy to represent future things, times, and events; such as mountains, meaning governments; beasts, meaning kingdoms.
Waters, meaning people
Lamp, meaning Word of God.
Day, meaning year.
(Daniel 2:35, 44; 7:8, 17; Revelation 17:1, 15; Psalm 119:105; Ezekiel 4:6).
This is another principle that doesn’t jive with some of the others because nowhere does scripture say this. And it was utilized by Mr. Miller to arrive at an errant prediction. The SDA Church has held on to this concept and has, based on Ellen White’s visions, plugged in to the symbols of prophetic passages whatever God allegedly showed Ellen White.
9. To learn the true meaning of figures, trace your figurative word through the Bible, and, where you find it explained, put it on your figure, and if it makes good sense, you need look no further; if not, look again.
Nowhere does the Bible say or teach this. William Miller and the Seventh-Day Adventists have utilized this numerous times and it led to failed predictions.
10. Figures sometimes have two or more different significations; as day is used in a figurative sense to represent three different periods of time.
1. Indefinite.
2. Definite, a day for a year.
3. Day for a thousand years
(Ecclesiastes 7:14; Ezekiel 4:6; 2 Peter 3:8).
Miller borrowed this idea from some of the Protestant Reformers which was known as the Day Year Principle (DYP) and is an aspect of historicist eschatology. What we were told by the Review & Herald earlier was that William Miller derived these rules strictly from scripture. And as we saw in point 3, Miller claimed he didn’t need a teacher to arrive at these correct conclusions. Yet he was made aware of the DYP because of other people—namely some of the Protestant Reformers.
This concept has to be deduced from texts that do not tell one to utilize a day for a year in any prophetic passage of scripture that mentions a day. It isn’t explicitly stated anywhere to do this. Even the SDA Church recognized this in 1980:
The year-day relationship can be Biblically supported, although it is not explicitly identified as a principle of prophetic interpretation. It seems obvious, however, that certain prophetic time periods are not meant to be taken literally (e.g., the short periods in Revelation 11:9, 11).
Review & Herald, September 4, 1980
But without this “principle,” the SDA system of theology would collapse as it is necessary for this to be true in order for their theories and interpretation of Daniel and Revelation to be true. Something they also recognized in the same paper a year later:
In my opinion the keystone, so to speak, of our interpretation of the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation is the year-day principle. If this principle is destroyed the marvelous edifice of typically Adventist truths collapses. The doctrine of the sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the role and teachings of Ellen White, the origin and growth of the Adventist Church—in brief, our raison d’être [reason for existence] is called into question.
Review & Herald, January 29 1981
11. Parables are used as comparisons to illustrate subjects, and must be explained in the same way as figures, by the subject and Bible (Mark 4:13).
12. To know whether we have the true historical event for the fulfillment of a prophecy. If you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures are understood) is literally fulfilled, then you may know that your history is the true event. But if one word lacks a fulfillment, then you must look for another event, or wait its future development. For God takes care that history and prophecy doth agree, so that the true, believing children of God may never be ashamed (Psalm 21:5; Isaiah 14:17-19; 1 Peter 2:6; Revelation 17:17; Acts 3:18).
This is a very plug-n-play approach to theology and is one of the primary weak points of historicist eschatology. Miller, like other historicists in history, pointed to events in history that he believed to fit the bill of various biblical prophecies because he believed they best fit with what the text was putting forth. Nowhere does the Bible say to do this and it must be arrived at through interpretation which begs the question. Miller had to assume these principles true to engage in biblical interpretation.
13. The most important rule of all is, that you must have faith. It must be a faith that requires a sacrifice, and, if tried, would give up the dearest object on earth, the world and all its desires, character, living, occupation, friends, home, comforts, and worldly honors. If any of these should hinder our believing any part of God’s word, it would show our faith to be vain. Nor can we believe, so long as one of these motives lies lurking in our hearts. We must believe that God will never forfeit His word. And we can have confidence that He that takes notice of the sparrow, and numbers the hairs of our head, will guard the translation of His own word, and throw a barrier around it, and prevent those who sincerely trust in God, and put implicit confidence in His word, from erring far from the truth, though they may not understand Hebrew or Greek.
By this standard, Miller and the Adventist movement didn’t sincerely trust God and put explicit confidence in His word because they did err from truth and their lack of understanding biblical languages was one of the root problems with their movement. This is one of the problems with thinking you are smarter than everyone else that came before you and pretending that there isn’t real value in understanding biblical languages.
This would go on to influence Ellen White who wrote:
The Bible with its precious gems of truth was not written for the scholar alone. On the contrary, it was designed for the people; and the interpretation given by the common people, when aided by the Holy Spirit, accords best with the truth as it is in Jesus.
Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, pg. pg. 331
Furthermore, she also wrote in 1888:
He who rests satisfied with his own present imperfect knowledge of the Scriptures, thinking this sufficient for his salvation, is resting in a fatal deception. There are many who are not thoroughly furnished with Scriptural arguments, that they may be able to discern error, and condemn all the tradition and superstition that has been palmed off as truth . . . . If we would understand the way of salvation, if we would see the beams of the Sun of righteousness, we must study the Scriptures for a purpose, for the promises and prophecies of the Bible shed clear beams of glory upon the divine plan of redemption, which grand truths are not clearly comprehended.
Ellen G. White, The 1888 Materials, pg. 403 (1888 403.2)
This is precisely what William Miller and all of the SDA pioneers did. They had an imperfect knowledge of the scriptures, thinking it was sufficient for salvation, but it was ultimately a deception. William Miller never embraced what would become the Seventh-Day Adventist “Great Controversy Worldview” which does all of the defining in SDA theology. This uniquely came through Ellen White after the Great Disappointment.
But because of the SDA movements connection back to Miller, they can’t completely detach themselves from the aspects of “Father Miller” that they need to not cut themselves off at the knees. Which is also why they’ve sought to rebrand him as an “American reformer.”
While it is true that much of the Bible can be understood as it plainly reads, this is not universal of all of scripture and nowhere does the Bible put forth such a notion. On the contrary, one qualification for the office of pastor—for example—is the ability to rightly divide the Word of God (2 Timothy 2:15). This is not something every individual can do without the help of anyone else. Only certain people are qualified for this which shows that all of scripture is not common sense. The apostles taught that God gives the gift of preaching (prophesying) to certain men to edify the Body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-12).
While some of Millers “rules” contain general truths and some aspects of common sense, they internally contradict one another and their ultimate basis is in what Miller determined to be foundational. They don’t simply come from the Bible.
