It is impossible to believe that Jesus would associate the Ephesian Era with "a triumphant white horse."

2-1-1: First of all let us note that while the seven messages were originally addressed to the seven churches, they apply with force to the seven eras spanning from the cross to the present. The statement following even seems to indicate that they apply primarily to the latter.

`The names of the seven churches are symbolic of the church in different periods of the Christian Era. The number 7 indicates completeness, and is symbolic of the fact that the messages extend to the end of time, while the symbols used reveal the condition of the church at different periods in the history of the world [i.e. 2nd application].’ (AA585.3)

The following statement relevant to the Ephesians must therefore apply to the original Ephesian church as well as to the Ephesian era that spanned the first century A.D..

"They neglected to cherish Christ's compassion and tenderness. Self, as manifested in hereditary traits of character, spoiled the principles of the grand, good works that identified the members of the Ephesus church as Christians. The Lord Jesus must needs show them that they had lost that which was everything to them. The love that constrained the Saviour to die for us, was not revealed in its fullness in their lives; and hence they were unable to bring honor to the name of the Redeemer. And as they lost their first love, they increased in a knowledge of scientific theories originated by the father of lies." (7BC956.5)

Clearly, therefore, this is no triumphant church and, as such, Jesus had no reason to associate it with a triumphant WHITE horse? Personally, I do not even see a remote possibility here. If this white horse does represent a triumphant church, then surely we would have far more reason to believe that it represents the second church (or era), Smyrna, a church that receives no condemnation whatsoever from Jesus.

2-1-2: CRITIC: I don’t fault you for coming to the conclusion you have here, however, what you have concluded is not based on inspiration as you suggest. The statement on the church of Ephesus (7BC956.5) is quoted out of context in the Bible Commentary.

I say this to bring up another important understanding of the seven churches, that is, the message of the seven churches was also directed to seven specific churches present during John’s time. It is in this context that Ellen White is using the statement you have quoted from. In other words, she is not applying this statement as you do, to the entire Christian church of that era, but to the church in Ephesus specifically. Neither is she suggesting that the entire church had lost its first love but rather “some” in the church at Ephesus.

Here is the context:

“In view of the many virtues enumerated, how striking is the charge brought against the church at Ephesus: ‘Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.’ This church had been highly favored. It was planted by the apostle Paul. In the same city was the temple of Diana, which, in point of grandeur, was one of the marvels of the world. The Ephesian church met with great opposition, and some of the early Christians suffered persecution; and yet some of these very ones turned from the truths that had united them with Christ's followers, and adopted, in their stead, the specious errors devised by Satan” (Sermons and Talks, volume 2, pp. 277, 278).

I will answer to each of your claims below:

CRITIC: [She is not applying this statement as you do, to the entire Christian church of that era, but to the church in Ephesus specifically.]

She tells us specifically that “the symbols used reveal the condition of the church at different periods in the history of the world.” (AA585.3). “Of the church at Ephesus, which the Lord Jesus used as a symbol of the entire Christian church in the apostolic age, the faithful and true Witness declared:  . . .” (AA578.1).

What you say is unsupported, but whether what you say is true or not, we cannot escape from the fact that the condition of the church in that era was representative of the condition of the original church - and that is the primary focus of my argument.

CRITIC: [The statement on the church of Ephesus (7BC956.5) is quoted out of context in the Bible Commentary.]

Let us look at it in context, therefore. You quote above from 2SAT277, but the following is from the previous page in the same article.

“Some of those who claim to follow certain well-defined `principles,’ walk and talk like unconverted worldlings. To such, the words of Christ are repeated over and over again: `I know thy words.’ This is the message sent to the church [not just to some] at Ephesus.” (2SAT276)

Clearly, therefore, the context is speaking of Ephesus and it associates Ephesus with "unconverted worldlings."

Then there is just so much more confirming that the spirit of Ephesus is hardly likely to have nurtured a "triumphant gospel."

On one occasion Paul visited the Ephesians and he spoke boldly in the synagogue for three months, `But when some were hardened and did not believe, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples.’ (Acts 19:8-9). Please note: the Ephesians were so “hardened” that Paul and the disciples actually turned their backs on this church. This was the general spirit of the Ephesian church and, according to AA585.3, of the Ephesian era.

Then, speaking in the light of the fact that Ephesus lost her first love, we are told that “He will not approve of work that is destitute of his Spirit and his love.” (RH11-17-96.8).

Please also notice that we are told that “we are seeing the fulfillment of these warnings [to Ephesus and Sardis]. Never have scriptures been more strictly fulfilled than these have been.” (8T99.1). Now if these warnings are being so “strictly fulfilled” today (in the 3rd application), then we have every reason to believe that they were “strictly fulfilled” in the Ephesian era (2nd application).

In short, and in summary, `when this church [Ephesus - in general] is weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, it is found wanting, having left its first love.’ (1SM370.2)

On what basis, therefore, can we believe that Jesus would associate such a church or era with a triumphant white horse?

CRITIC: Neither is she suggesting that the entire church had lost its first love but rather “some” in the church at Ephesus had lost their first love.

What I have stated above confirms that you have no support for this claim. When EGW speaks of the “condition of the church,” she is obviously speaking of the general condition of the church during the apostolic age – i.e. to +/- A.D. 100 – notwithstanding the fact that some were faithful and notwithstanding the fact that the church was spiritually alive “at first..”

If AA585.3 tells us that the spirit of each era reflects the spirit of each church, then the spirit of “Laodicea” today cannot be that much different to the spirit of the church at Laodicea? Does the fact that there are more than a few lovely Christians in “Laodicea” today significantly altar the general spirit that prevails in Laodicea today? Was the “Ephesian” spirit of the Ephesian era that much different to the spirit that prevailed in the church at Ephesus? Not according to inspiration.

While we must accept that some were faithful in Ephesus, the underlined portion from 2SAT276 above is directed at “the church” and addresses the general spirit of the church. And if that was the general spirit of the church/era, then why on earth would Jesus associate it with a triumphant white horse?

In summary, therefore, other than a short initial period, Ephesus was largely made up of a people who walked and talked like worldlings - a people who were unable to bring honor to their Redeemer – a people that Paul even turned his back on. They were unrepentant, selfish, coldhearted, hard, and destitute of God’s Spirit and His love. As such, there is simply no reason whatsoever why Jesus would attach “white horse status” to this church or to this era, and no reason whatsoever why we should believe that the gospel triumphed significantly “in the first century of the Christian dispensation.” If the gospel never triumphed significantly within the church, there is absolutely no reason why we should believe that it triumphed significantly outside of the church. Some historians might say otherwise, but this conclusion is drawn from Scripture and from the writings of an inspired historian.

CRITIC: This is definitely not an easy issue to unravel but I will make another attempt. The apostle Paul as well as the other disciples of Jesus were filled with the Holy Spirit and went forth to preach the gospel to every creature which is under heaven. This is the white horse under its rider Jesus Christ going forth conquering and to conquer. [You have provided no support for this claim]. As time went on and many of the disciples died, a transition began to take place. This transition is described in Revelation 2:1-7. This does not negate the work of the early church nor lessen its application to the white horse. The conditions that were developing when Paul was alive did not negate his success or make those who were the true followers any less a symbol of the white horse just like the apostasy that has been taking place in Adventism since our inception does not lessen our identity as the "church militant."

The primary focus of Scripture and EGW is on the "lost love" of Ephesus that prevailed for the most part of an era spanning about a century. In other words, the general spirit of the era is best described as "lost love." Yet you are asking us to believe that Jesus assigned "white horse status," to this era simply because they were faithful for a short period at the beginning of the era? This is not in harmony with the inspired word which states  . . .

“Of the church at Ephesus, which the Lord Jesus used as a symbol of the entire Christian church in the apostolic age, the faithful and true Witness declared: . . .” (AA578.1).

Your statement, "This does not negate the work of the early church nor lessen its application to the white horse," is therefore without foundation.

If this type of reasoning were acceptable, then we could stretch a point and state that the Laodicea era is unjustly described as "lukewarm" because, ultimately, Laodicea is going to be led to victory. In all seven cases, the focus is on the general spirit that characterized an era - not on some condition that prevailed for a short period within that era.

Should my reader wish to contribute to this discussion, please click here to send an email. Should you wish to make an extensive contribution then press Edit, Select All and copy this entire page to MS WORD. Now, in the resultant MS WORD document, you may insert your comments into the copy in a unique color and then save this document as REV2-2 and attach it to the email above before sending it. TO ENSURE THAT YOUR EMAIL IS NOT REJECTED AS SPAM, PLEASE ENTER THE WORDS "REVELATION INSIGHTS" IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR EMAIL.