Lesson 13: “Images of the End”
COLLEEN TINKER | Editor, Proclamation! Magazine
Central Problem With This Lesson: This lesson imposes “present truth” on Jonah and Cyrus, modeling great controversy conditional prophecy and an imperfect Christ figure.
In this last lesson of Shawn Boonstra’s quarter of Sabbath School lessons teaching prophecy from an Adventist perspective, he takes the classic Adventist liberty with Scripture to bolster the great controversy worldview. Boonstra uses well-known Old Testament characters—Jonah and Cyrus—to illustrate the great controversy ideas that all prophecy is conditional and that Cyrus—the pagan God chose to help Israel—is a type of Christ.
Boonstra did reveal his Adventist bias in Saturday’s lesson, though, as he indirectly admitted that he was interpreting these stories through the lens of “present truth”:
As with the other stories we’ve examined, these historical accounts have held profound meaning for every generation. But they also have special relevance to the final generations living before Christ returns. That is, we can mine from these historical accounts various elements that can help us better understand what we call “present truth.”
Present Truth: the Adventist Excuse for Heresy
Present Truth, though, is not a biblical concept. Never does Scripture teach that truth at one time in history is truth for that time, but that truth will morph and change with time. But where did this idea come from?
Ellen White, of course. Here are a few quotes that show how she used the idea of “present truth”:
The health reform is a part of present truth, closely connected with the third angel’s message. Those who are benefited by this reform must receive it in faith and act upon it in faith, as they have other important points of present truth.—1 LtMs Ms 4, 1865, par. 5
Years ago the Lord gave me special directions that buildings should be erected in various places in America, Europe, and other lands for the publication of literature containing the light of present truth…Some will be reached by our literature who would not be reached in any other way. From our books and papers bright beams of light are to shine forth to enlighten the world in regard to present truth.—8 Testimonies, 87.2
I saw that the saints must get a thorough understanding of present truth, which they will be obliged to maintain from the Scriptures. They must understand the state of the dead; for the spirits of devils will yet appear to them, professing to be beloved friends and relatives, who will declare to them that the Sabbath has been changed, also other unscriptural doctrines.—Early Writings, 88.1
Brother Haskell spoke, taking for his subject the Sanctuary question, which is present truth.—12 LtMs, Lt 141, 1897, Par 36
These are only a sampling of the 3525 responses to my query for “present truth” on the EllenWhite.org website. The entire fabric of Seventh-day Adventism is held together by Ellen White’s concept of “present truth”: a fabrication that holds that truth is progressive through time. Ellen established the idea that what was true for one era of time is replaced by new, present truth in another era. In this way she can call every one of her new, great controversy ideas “present truth”.
In just the four quotes I read, for example, she calls health reform present truth—and she even says health reform is closely related to the third angel’s message calling people to come out of Babylon. She calls Adventist teaching in general “present truth” and declares that God told her to establish publishing houses to print present truth into books and papers that would be “bright beams of light” shining in the world. She also said that the Adventist “state of the dead” is present truth because demonic spirits would appear to people, identifying themselves as their departed loved ones and declaring that Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. She also clearly identified “present truth” as the “Sanctuary question”—the doctrine of the investigative judgment and Jesus’ supposed review of the books of record as He applies His blood to the sins people remember to confess.
In fact, Adventists have to believe that truth is progressive and moveable or they would find their beliefs to be blatantly opposed to Scripture. For example, years ago in a discussion I asked my mother-in-law why, if meat was not OK to eat, Jesus ate fish in His glorified body after His resurrection. She responded, “He didn’t have the health message.”
With shock I realized that Ellen White’s vision about the health message was considered to be “present truth” for OUR day—truth which God hadn’t yet delivered to His people when Jesus was on earth. She didn’t even realize that saying God the Son had less knowledge of truth than did Ellen White was not only an impossibility but also pure blasphemy. Jesus Is God—and He never lacked any tiniest part of Truth.
This underlying component of the great controversy paradigm is essential in order to understand the way Adventism interprets Scripture to say whatever they “need” it to say to support their worldview.
Present Truth is their legacy from their prophet, and Adventists assume it and use it to apply proof-texts to support and promote their unique doctrines and practices.
Re-visioning Jonah
Adventism’s doctrine of “present truth” allows them to reinterpret any part of the Bible that will help them to support their great controversy worldview. Importantly, Ellen White herself is at the heart of Adventism’s worldview since she was the supposedly divine channel through whom Adventism’s unique revelations came.
The lesson refers to Matthew 12:38–42 in which the Lord Jesus refused to give the unbelieving Jewish leaders any signs that they demanded. Jesus responded to their request for a sign by saying,
“An evil and adulterous generation eagerly seeks for a sign; and [yet] no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”—Matthew 12:39–41 LSB
Yet the lesson goes beyond the plain application of Jonah’s account which Jesus Himself made and forces Jonah to support Adventism’s “present truth” of the Three Angels’ Messages. Sunday’s lesson says,
There is an important moment in the story that may point forward to the last-day remnant movement. When Jonah is asked who he is, he responds, “ ‘I am a Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land’ ”—a statement much like the first angel’s message (Jon. 1:9, NKJV; Rev. 14:7). Indeed, his emphasis on the Lord as the One “ ‘who made the sea and the dry land’ ” is, of course, pointing to Him as the Creator. This fact is foundational to why we should worship Him, and worship is central to last-day events.
At the same time, we, too, have been charged with preaching a potentially unpopular message in spiritual Babylon. To say “come out of her, my people” (Rev. 18:4, NKJV) is to tell the world they must repent…
Revelation 14:7, first of all, is not the special end-time message which Adventism says it has been raised up to deliver along with the next two angels’ messages. Adventism says that the first angel’s message is the call to worship God on the seventh-day Sabbath as a memorial of creation.
Of course this interpretation is NOWHERE in view in Scripture; this understanding requires the authority of Ellen White and “present truth”. The seventh-day Sabbath is simply not even hinted at in the Revelation passage! Only Adventism’s “present truth” method of interpreting Scripture could ever deliver this idea. Furthermore, the story of Jonah has nothing at all to do with drawing anyone’s mind to the necessity of keeping the seventh day!
The only thing the Jonah account says that can be seen to be an echo of Revelation 14:7 is the declaration that the one true God is the Creator of all that exists. The conclusion of this declaration is not the Adventist first angel’s message and the Sabbath; rather it is the reality that all of Scripture reveals God’s sovereignty, power, and divine nature. All creatures who worship the one true God know who He is, and there is no hiding from this One who sees and knows all things. He is the Author of history—and the Bible is not providing support for Adventism’s spurious doctrines or for Sabbath-keeping by having creatures in the Old Testament as well as in the revelation of the future declaring Him to be God the Creator! Neither Jonah nor the angels of Revelation 14 foreshadow Adventism’s extra-biblical doctrines!
Yet “present truth” permits Adventists to use Scripture this way and to exercise eisegesis by writing themselves into the stories any way they see fit.
Even more, the Teachers Comments end with discussion questions. The first question addresses Jonah’s reluctance to deliver his warning to Ninevah:
In what ways is the example of Jonah a warning against religious biases?
What?! This question makes no sense in the context of the biblical account. Assyria was a frightening, wicked, pagan nation that history remembers as torturing its political prisoners in the most gruesome ways. Furthermore, some years after Jonah’s warning to the city, Assyria came and took the northern kingdom of Israel captive—and those ten tribes have never yet been regathered to the land.
Jonah’s reluctance was not based on a feeling of spiritual superiority or on disdain for Ninevah’s paganism! Quite the contrary! Jonah knew Assyria (of which Ninevah was the capital) was a feared and hated nation because of its violence and ruthlessness.
To be sure, Jonah resented the idea that they might repent—he hated Ninevah’s arrogance, power, and hatred toward other nations. God definitely taught Jonah a lesson in trusting His sovereignty and care for His own creatures. But the issue with Jonah was not “religious bias”. Jonah’s problem was not that he felt superior to Ninevah. His problem was that he did not trust God. God had to teach Jonah to trust His word and commands and to believe that God Himself would deal with the people.
Cyrus: Not a Messiah
Finally, the week’s lesson ends with Boonstra and the Teachers Comments developing the idea that the Persian King Cyrus, whom God raised up to assist Israel in returning to Judea and in rebuilding the temple after their Babylonian exile, with Christ the Messiah.
Thursday’s lesson, for example, says this:
Cyrus foreshadows what will happen when Christ returns for His church: He is the King who comes from the east (compare with Matt. 24:27), waging war against Babylon, and liberating His people finally to escape from Babylon and return to the Land of Promise. (See Rev. 19:11–16.) This is why God refers to Cyrus as “His anointed” (Isa. 45:1, NKJV); not only did this famous Persian liberate God’s people, but his campaign against Babylon is also a type of Christ’s second coming.
Furthermore, the Teachers Comments assert this:
Cyrus is the only Gentile person who receives the title of “Messiah,” or anointed (Isa. 45:1, NKJV).…Indeed, the messiah Cyrus supports the historical character of the Messiah Jesus Christ and His event of salvation.…The messiah Cyrus played a decisive role in the fall of Babylon, the archenemy of Israel…Cyrus prepared the ground for the future coming of Christ and the salvation of humanity. Moreover, Cyrus was a type of Christ. The role Cyrus played in the first coming of Christ may well hint at the scenario that may take place at the end of time in connection with the second coming of Christ.
This equation of Cyrus as a type of Christ relies entirely upon Adventist “present truth”. Contextually, Cyrus is not a type of Christ—although he is a pagan prince whom God appointed to protect and establish His people in the land He gave them.
First, we have to question the lesson’s assumption that Cyrus is given the title “Messiah”. The authors argue that because Cyrus is called the “anointed one” that we can therefore apply the title “Messiah” to him—because “anointed one” was the prophetic title used in the Old Testament for God’s Messiah whom He had promised to Israel. Look at this quotation from GotQuestions.org:
Of course, context is always important when we interpret Scripture. Not every mention of an “anointed one” in the Old Testament is a reference to the promised Messiah. King Cyrus of Persia is called God’s anointed one in Isaiah 45:1, and so is King Saul in 1 Samuel 24:10; both those kings were chosen by God for special work, which is the underlying meaning of being “anointed.”—https://www.gotquestions.org/messianic-prophecies.html
Importantly, King Saul was never considered a type of Christ. In fact, he is a biblical example of a person who fell into apostasy after God had him anointed as Israel’s first king. Yet he, like Cyrus, was called “anointed one”.
Cyrus, like Saul, was chosen by God and set apart for special work on behalf of God’s chosen people, Israel. The title did not make either of them a messiah figure!
Cyrus was a Persian pagan. Yes, God used him to protect and help Israel, but there is no hint that Cyrus ever acknowledge Yahweh as even Nebuchadnezzar did. He was God’s “tool”, but he does not represent Christ who identified with His sinful creatures in order to bear their sin and buy them back from their eternal death sentence! Cyrus was a good king, but he was not a Christ figure! In fact, Isaiah 45:1a, 4, 5 reveals God’s call and understanding of Cyrus:
Thus says Yahweh to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken hold of by his right hand,…For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen [one], I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me. I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me”—Isaiah 45: 1, 4, 5 LSB
God actually said that He called Cyrus and honored him—“though you have not known Me”. God is not limited to accomplishing His purposes using only those who know and honor Him. He used Babylon, for example, to discipline Judah. He used pagan prophet Balaam to bless Israel, putting His words in the man’s mouth—and he could not utter a curse against the nation. Nowhere does Scripture ever say that Cyrus acknowledged and believed in Yahweh.
Yet the lesson falsely attributes the label “anointed one” as a direct correlation with the title “Messiah” in the same sense this title was used of the Lord Christ! This equation of Cyrus with God’s Messiah is not illustrative of God’s redemption of His people through the substitutionary death for sin that the Lord Jesus accomplished for sinners.
In fact, saying that Cyrus was a type of Christ completely misses the biblical picture of self-sacrifice and trust in God that is part of being the true Messiah.
To be sure, the Old Testament does tell us of men who were types of Christ. The most well-known and direct type of Christ was Moses who led God’s nation Israel at great cost and loss to himself. He left the royal family of Egypt for a menial shepherd’s life before God sent him as His mediator to deliver Israel from slavery. Moses mediated God’s giving of the Mosaic covenant which defined the nation, gave them a system of worship which included blood atonement, and revealed His provision for redemption and deliverance.
Even more, Moses told Israel that “Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers; you shall listen to him.”—Deuteronomy 18:15 LSB
Importantly, the real Messiah would be like Moses in that He would be an Israelite! Moses said that the the Messiah would be a prophet like him—one of Israel’s own brothers!
Cyrus cannot be said to be a type of Christ because his character does not fit any of the requirements of Christ. He was not an Israelite; he did not know God. He did not sacrifice his wealth, honor, or position to rescue Israel. Rather, he was a benevolent pagan dictator whom Yahweh used to provide means and protection for His people to return to their wasted land and to rebuild it. There is nothing in the account of Cyrus that equates him with Christ!
Yet this scenario subtly supports Adventism’s great controversy present truth. The Adventist Jesus was fallible, not God Almighty in human flesh. The Adventist Jesus could have sinned and failed in his mission. He was a man with a fallen nature from his mother, and he came to show benighted humans how they, like he, could keep the law. He came to indicate God’s character against Satan’s powerful lies, and he came to encourage humans to support him so that he could finally win in the final battle against his ultimate foe: Satan.
Of course Adventism’s great controversy needs a type of Christ who is not almighty God! Of course they need a type of Christ who does not know and fear the Lord God! Of course they choose a type of Christ who is not from the line of David and the seed of Abraham! Cyrus fits none of the biblical requirements of a Messiah—but he fits Adventism’s present truth model: the great controversy.
If one looks closely at Daniel’s prophecies of the coming antichrist, Cyrus might even be said to fit that identity better than the real Christ: an unbelieving man who makes a covenant with Israel and establishes their temple again before God’s final outpouring of wrath on an unbelieving world.
Yet God chose the Persian pagan Cyrus to do His will for His people at a particular time. He fulfilled God’s plan and purpose, and God was glorified.
Adventism hides behind its unbiblical doctrine of Present Truth and applies meanings to Scripture that are not there. It uses the excuse of present truth to reinforce its doctrine of a fallible Jesus and a powerful Satan, a Jesus who was not perfect in nature but who managed to do the right thing anyway. Using Cyrus as a type of Christ validates Adventism’s view of its Jesus who is less-than-almighty-God.
Conclusion
As we end this quarter’s lessons endorsing the Adventist, great controversy view of eschatology and the work of Jesus, I have one question for you: do you know the real Jesus? Do you know the One who took human flesh while never giving up any of His God-power and identity? Do you know the Jesus in whom all the fulness of deity dwells bodily (Col 2:9)? Do you know the Jesus who took your sin in Himself by imputation and endured God’s wrath for your sin as He hung on the cross?
Do you know that the Lord Jesus fully completed everything necessary for sin’s atonement on the cross? Do you know that when Jesus rose from death, His resurrection was God’s public confirmation that the full price had been paid by His Son’s blood?
Have you trusted the real Lord Jesus with all of your sin? Have you been born again?
If not, come to Him now. Admit you are a sinner and cannot please Him on your own. Admit that you need a Savior—and trust the One who bore your sin and died for you. Then rejoice as He gives you new life because He has broken your curse of death!
Trust Jesus now—and you will pass now out of death into life! †
This weekly feature is dedicated to Adventists who are looking for biblical insights into the topics discussed in the Sabbath School lesson quarterly. We post articles which address each lesson as presented in the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, including biblical commentary on them. We hope you find this material helpful and that you will come to know Jesus and His revelation of Himself in His word in profound biblical ways.
- Should I Be Baptized? - June 19, 2025
- June 21–27, 2025 - June 19, 2025
- We Got Mail - June 19, 2025