One of the major quotations used is this:
"Virtually Caiaphas was no high priest. He wore the priestly robes, but he had no vital connection with God. He was uncircumcised in heart. With the other priests he instructed the people to choose Barabbas instead of Christ. They cried out for the crucifixion of Christ and, as representatives of the Jewish nation, placed themselves under the Roman jurisdiction, which they despised, by saying, "We have no king but Caesar." When they said this, they unchurched themselves." (MS 111, 1897; in 12MR, p. 388)
On the surface, this quotation can quite easily be asserted to mean that when the Jewish leaders appealed to the arm of the state, they ceased to be God's people. However, we need to ask, "what did Ellen White mean by "unchurched"? In the very same manuscript, she says the following:
"In Christ the shadow reached its substance, the type its antitype. Well might Caiaphas rend his clothes in horror for himself and for the nation; for they were separating themselves from God, and were fast becoming a people unchurched by Jehovah. Surely the candlestick was being removed out of its place.
It was not the hand of the priest that rent from top to bottom the gorgeous veil that divided the holy from the Most Holy Place. It was the hand of God. When Christ cried out, "It is finished," the Holy Watcher that was an unseen guest at Belshazzar's feast pronounced the Jewish nation to be a nation unchurched. The same hand that traced on the wall the characters that recorded Belshazzar's doom and the end of the Babylonian kingdom, rent the veil of the Temple from top to bottom, opening a new and living way for all, high and low, rich and poor, Jew and Gentile. From henceforth people might come to God without priest or ruler." (ibid; in ibid, p. 392.1)
It is the "people" and "nation" that were being "unchurched". But notice, in the second use of "unchurched" here, she says that the Jewish nation was "unchurched" when Christ cried out "it is finished." She points out in the very context the rending of the Temple curtain separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place.
So which was it? Were they unchurched when they said they had no king but Caesar? or was it several hours later when Jesus said, "it is finished"? What we need to do first is ask how else she described this event, especially in connection with the 70 weeks.
"In the spring of A. D. 31, Christ the true sacrifice was offered on Calvary. Then the veil of the temple was rent in twain, showing that the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed. The time had come for the earthly sacrifice and oblation to cease." (DA, p. 233)
She states here that the "sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service had departed." Could it be that this is what she means by "unchurched"? Let's read some others:
"The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews. At the expiration of this period the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of His disciples, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A.D. 34." (GC, p. 410)
"The one week--seven years--ended in A.D. 34. Then by the stoning of Stephen the Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel; the disciples who were scattered abroad by persecution "went everywhere preaching the word" (Acts 8:4); and shortly after, Saul the persecutor was converted and became Paul the apostle to the Gentiles." (PK, p. 699)
Here she states plainly in two separate instances that it was in AD 34 that the "Jews finally sealed their rejection of the gospel..." This agrees with the Bible. So what then of the "unchurched" statements? Well, there is a peculiarity in what she says in both instances. The first one speaks of when the people said they had no king but Caesar. It doesn't say that heaven or YHWH "unchurched" the people at this point. No... It said that "they unchurched themselves". This is something they did in their own hearts. They were calling darkness light and light darkness. The real point of this was that the Jews were committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
The second statement must agree with what she says in Desire of Ages. The "unchurch[ing]" must then be the "depart[ing]" of "the sacredness and significance of the sacrificial service".
This comes around to the Biblical Principles which underlie this whole thing. The argument that probation closed for the Jews when they said, "we have no king but Caesar," contradicts the probationary period that was "cut off" for the Jews.
Dan 9:24 - Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city,
to finish the transgression,
and to make an end of sins,
and to make reconciliation for iniquity,
and to bring in everlasting righteousness,
and to seal up the vision and prophecy,
and to anoint the most Holy.
Ellen White is absolutely consistent with the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of this prophecy, ending in 34 A.D. It was at that time that the Jewish Church passed their probation. And this final act was committed all by themselves. The state did not carry out their wishes.
Coming back to what happened in the "middle" of the last "week" of this prophecy, we see that Ellen White's "unchurch[ing]" again fits with what happened in the Temple itself:
Dan 9:27 - And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:
and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease...
All this was done in anticipation of the close of Jewish probation, but it was not concurrent with it. Just as the CSDA claim of the SDA Church being judged and found wanting flies in the face of the Biblical teaching on the Day of Atonement, this claim that the declaration of "We have no king but Caesar" constituted the rejection of the Jewish Church by God undermines what should be Prophecy 101 for those with a Seventh-day Adventist background - the 70 Weeks prophecy of Daniel.