nce again, the Sev-enth-day AdventistChurch is convening aGeneral Con ferencesession, this time in

Atlanta, Georgia. There arepositions of leadership to befilled and important deci-sions to be made in order to carry outGod’s work effectively in the world. Itis my fervent hope that the event willbe much more than a political con-vention. I pray that it will be a time ofcovenant renewal, revival of vision,and recalibration of priorities.

Covenant For God’s people in Bible times,

covenant renewal took place at regu-lar times (Deut. 31:10-13) and onoccasions of special need (e.g.,Joshua 24; Nehemiah 8–10). Suchgroup events were characterized byseveral features: reviewing God’scovenant expectations, humbly rec-ognizing failure to live up to the di-vine ideal, and solemnly committingto follow Him more closely in thefuture.

If the ancient Israelitesneeded covenant renewal, itwould seem that God’s end-time covenant communitycould benefit from this aswell. Rejoicing over successthat God has wrought is en-tirely appropriate and im-

portant, but have we fulfilled Hismission in our lives, in the church,and in the world so well that reap-praisal, renewal of vision, andrecommitment are unnecessary?

VisionThere are various kinds of vision.

What our Seventh-day Adventistmovement always needs is the kindthat sees the big picture and thelong-range view, which only Godcan reveal in adequate measure. Vi-sion doesn’t limit the future accord-ing to existing constraints and bud-gets, but trusts in God to provide forthe work that He commissions.

Living by a unified vision, linkedto one another through Christ, andmoving ahead by the guidance andempowerment of His Spirit, our

O

T H E P R E S I D E N T ’ S D E S K

Roy E. Gane

RENEWAL OFCOVENANT,VISION, ANDPRIORITIES

4 5

7

tribal leader, and one of the twofaithful scouts, and commanded theIsraelite army. When the Lord an-nounced His choice, however, Hementioned none of these impressivedetails on Joshua’s résumé, but sim-ply commanded: “‘Take Joshua theson of Nun, a man in whom is theSpirit’” (Num. 27:18, NASB).

In Acts 6, the same qualificationof the Spirit guided selection ofChristian deacons, who were to bethe administrators responsible formanaging material resources. Thetop church leaders were kept freefrom management responsibilitiesso that they could devote all theirtime and energy to more crucialspiritual and theological leadership.

This leadership structure helpedto keep the early church focused onthe divine vision that urgently looks

beyond the things of this world. Ifthe church ever suffers from a short-age of fully engaged spiritual andtheological leadership throughSpirit-filled individuals, it will belike a ship with a defective or miss-ing rudder.

In a spirit of beginning to renewour covenant commitment, vision,and priorities, the present issue ofPerspective Digest reviews some keyaspects of biblical teaching held bythe Seventh-day Adventist movementand affirmed by the Adventist Theo-logical Society. These concepts arenot detached, disparate threads, butare interwoven into a dynamic sys-tem of active faith that is centered inChrist and His mission to rescue us.

6

God-given diversity of gifts (1Corinthians 12) can combine forearth-shaking outcomes. It was thevision of Christ’s gospel commission(Matt. 28:18-20) and the three an-gels’ messages (Rev. 14:6-12) thatimpelled the Adventist pioneers tosucceed in the audacious task ofrapidly reaching millions throughevangelistic, educational, andhealth-care systems that straddle theglobe. Now we need their kind of vi-sion to finish the work they began sothat billions can meet our lovingSavior.

Taking the true gospel of Christ’skingdom of love to all the world as awitness to all nations before the endcomes is the largest single venture inthe history of the human race. It istotally impossible, unless we let itsgovernment rest on the strongshoulder of our Wonderful Coun-selor, the Son of God. We are not incharge; we just work here, and Hemakes amazing things happen.

If we limit our vision to what wecan come up with, we may as wellbegin preparing for Y3K. But Jesuswants us home sooner because Hehas our mansions ready right now,and the title to our promised inheri-tance is already ours. All we need todo is to trust Him and accept His giftby going up to possess our ultimatePromised Land. As Ellen G. Whiteput it (echoing the words of Caleb inNumbers 13:30): “I declare to you,my brethren and sisters in the Lord,

it is a goodly land, and we are wellable to go up and possess it.”i

PrioritiesVision shapes priorities. Human

vision seeks temporal resultsthrough earthly means, such ashuman energy, material things,money—and more money. Humaninfluence and distribution of powerare largely based on money. Topleaders are money managers. It istrue that money is an important re-source that God gives us to managefaithfully for His cause. But if ourdistributions of influence are largelybased on money, we are operating byhuman “politics as usual” ratherthan by divine vision. Divine visionleads through penniless prophetsand sees in five loaves and two fish abanquet for a multitude.

Human vision sees external qual-ifications for leadership, such as tal-ent, education, experience, lookinggood, and sounding good (1 Sam.16:6, 7). Those are all fine things, butfor a leader of God’s people, themost essential qualification is to be aperson in whom His Spirit dwells,who is willing humbly to take direc-tions from the divine King. Saullooked like the king the peoplewanted, but he failed to follow di-vine instructions.

When it was time to replaceMoses, Joshua was the obvious can-didate in terms of experience: Hewas Moses’ long-time assistant, a

“How is it possible that we may grow in grace? It ispossible to us only as we empty our hearts of self,and present them to Heaven, to be molded after

the Divine Pattern. We may have a connection with the liv-ing channel of light; we may be refreshed with the heavenlydew, and have the showers of heaven descend upon us. As weappropriate the blessing of God, we shall be able to receivegreater measures of His grace" ( Our High Calling, p. 217).

REFERENCES1 Early Writings, p. 14.

9

The Essence of ChristianityChrist summarized the essence of

Christianity: “‘This is eternal life, thatthey may know You, the only trueGod, and Jesus Christ whom You havesent’” (John 17:3).i The sum of Chris-tianity is to come to a knowledge ofGod and Jesus Christ. The wordknowledge used here does not refer tomere facts and figures, such as thedistance between two cities. It in-volves the kind of knowledge thatleads to a personal relationship withanother individual. The goal of salva-tion is to enter into a full, rewarding,and mature fellowship with God andJesus Christ that begins in the presentand will last for eternity.

God created us for communionwith Himself. He spent the very firstevening after Creation in the gardenin fellowship with Adam and Eve. Hemade us in His own image so wemay fellowship with Him. When ourcharacter is in harmony with that ofGod, we can relate to Him with nobarriers. The Lord desires such closefellowship with us that the Bibleoften uses the imagery of marriageto describe it (Jer. 3:14).

Unfortunately, sin shattered theori ginal Edenic picture of life in har-mony with God. Our sins have sepa-rated us from God and have hiddenHis face from us (Isa. 59:2). We arelike a branch severed from the tree, alight bulb removed from its socket, awater faucet disconnected from itssource.

Sin is the transgression of thecharacter of God (1 John 3:4). Whenwe violate the character of anotherindividual, we distort or even breakour relationship with that person.Thus we are not at peace with Godbecause our characters are out of har-mony with His. We have chosen tolive independently of Him (Isa. 53:6).

The result is that we cannot rec-tify our situation with God by ourworks, knowledge, meditation, orany other human effort. There isnothing within us by which we cancommend ourselves to Him.

The grace of God is that evenwhile we were sinners—in fact, ene-mies—God reached down throughHis own Son Jesus Christ so that ourfellowship with Him might be re-stored (Rom. 5:8-10). We can nowbe grafted into the vine; we can beadopted into God’s family.

The Role of Doctrine in Christianity

If the essence of Christianity isthe restoration of our original rela-tionship with God, why bother withdoctrine?

To enter a relationship with an-other person, it is essential to knowsomething about that person. Thetwo parties can sit and stare at eachother all day long, but withoutknowledge of each other, the rela-tionship would have no substance.

In addition, when entering rela-tionships, it is essential to under-

8

dventist Christianity is viewedin many ways. For some it is alegal religion: obeying its com-mandments, returning a tithefaith fully, and attending church.

Others see its essence in sociallycorrect living: giving to the poor, es-tablishing schools, caring for thehomeless, and healing the sick.

Yet others view it as the acquisi-tion of knowledge: knowing the 28Fundamental Beliefs, recognizingthat Saturday is the true Sabbath,understanding the investigative

judgment, accepting the literal, visi-ble soon return of Christ.

Adventist Christianity is not acheck list of do’s and don’ts. It cannotbe reduced to meditation or a list ofdoctrines. It is not a human philoso-phy. Though each of these approachesplays an important role, what is at theheart of the Christian message?

IF SALVATIONIS BY FAITH, WHY

DOCTRINE?

B Y E . E D W A R D Z I N K E *

A

who can be sold in the contempo-rary marketplace.

But “the precious, golden links oftruth are not separate, detached, dis-connected doctrines; but link afterlink, form one string of golden truth,and constitute a complete whole, withChrist as its living center.”2

Imagine a beautiful sandy beach.Majestic rocky cliffs tower on eitherend. Waves roll onto the beach andcrash against the rocks along thecliffs. Clouds fleece the sky, paintedred and orange by the setting sun.The rays of the sun glisten in the wetsand and sparkle in the splashingwaves.

Now watch as the scene changes.You are sitting in the same place,looking at the same beach, but thesun has vanished. The sky is darkand gray. The sand does not glisten;no pink tints the sky. Although youhave not moved, are you looking atthe same picture?

All biblical doctrines comprise abeautiful mosaic and must beviewed as a whole. When we removefrom it even one of the basic funda-mental doctrines, it is as if we haveerased the sun from the picture. Wemight be sitting in the same place,but the picture is not the same.

Illustrating the Role of Doctrine inChristian Life

A vital relationship exists be-tween doctrine and Christian living.The Sabbath, for example, tells us

stand oneself. A lack of self-under-standing can easily lead to misun-derstandings, causing relationshipsto flounder.

It is also important to understandthe parameters within which the re-lationship can flourish. For example,relationships vary, depending uponwhether one is relating to a spouse, ason, a daughter, a boss, or a secre-tary. Each of these relationshipsfunctions with unique guidelines.

Doctrines are essential to our re-lationship with God, for they pro-vide the information we need toenter into deeper communion withHim. They tell us about ourselves,and how we may appropriately relateto God. Just as there are varioustypes of unique human relation-ships, so also there is a unique rela-tionship appropriate with God.

A Systematic WholeIn addition to the vital connec-

tion between the doctrines and fel-lowship with God, there is also a re-lationship among the doctrinesthemselves. They form a systematicwhole. Sometimes we approach doc-trine as we do a cafeteria line: I’llhave a lot of righteousness by faith, alittle works, some Sabbath, a little cre-ation, and no judgment. We may at-tempt to choose what suits us best.Since doctrine tells us about God,choosing only what is palatable is todevelop a “designer God,” a Godwho suits us, who fits our culture,

10

Doctrines are essential to our relationship with God,

for they provide the information we need to enter into deeper

communion with Him. They tell us about ourselves, and

how we may appropriately relate to God. Just as there are vari-

ous types of unique human relationships, so also there is a

unique relationship appropriate with God.

in His care just as He rested andceased His labors on the seventh day.

The Sabbath also describes ourrelationship with God. He is theCreator, and we are the created. Ourexistence cannot be credited to ourintelligence or power. We are not au-tonomous. We are the creation ofGod. Thus the Sabbath is a reminderthat God is God and we are human.We do not relate to God as equals.Our appropriate response to God isworship.

The Sabbath also reminds us thatauthority lies within God’s self-reve-lation in His Word. As such, the Sab-bath plays an eschatological role, de-marcating those who are willing torely on God’s Word in spite of thedictates of our senses, reason, andhuman powers.

Thus, the Sabbath represents ourentire relationship with God (Ex.31:12-17). From creation to re-demption, from sin to salvation,from self-centeredness to God- andother-centeredness, from self-re-

that God is our Creator, our Re-deemer, and the One who holds ourfuture in His hands.

The Sabbath also assures us thatGod is personal. He is not the im-personal God of deism, who setprocesses in motion and then aban-doned His creation. Nor did He re-turn thousands of years after Cre-ation to inform us that we werecreated for relationship with Him.Rather, He was there the very firstday of Creation, to reveal Himself tous and to fellowship with us. Thus,the Sabbath assures us that God isnot some impersonal object, force,or concept; rather, He is a personalGod who created us for fellowship.

The Sabbath also tells us aboutourselves. In our fast-paced world, itis tempting to think that humankindis its own creator and sustainer. TheSabbath reminds us that we werecreated by the hand of God and thatwe are redeemed by His power. It as-sures us that our future is in Hishands, and that we can rest our lives

11

13

Adam and Eve in your image. Fur-thermore, it is pagan to think thatyou sent Your Son to die in my place.Also, I can’t imagine why You wouldsend a prophet into this world justbefore Your second coming, and itmakes no sense to me that Youwould conduct an investigativejudgment in heaven as preparationfor the Second Coming.” Denyingessential characteristics of God andHis activities is just as detrimental toour relationship with God as isdenying key elements in the person-alities of our close friends.

In addition, it is the law of themind and character that we will be-come like the individual, thing, orconcept that we admire most in life.If we have placed God first in ourlives and accept His self-revelationto guide our lives, He will send HisHoly Spirit to transform us in har-mony with His character—and thecloser we can live in relationshipwith Him. On the other hand, if weaccept false concepts of God andallow them to mold our lives, ourcharacter will be out of harmonywith His, and our relationship withHim will be distorted if not eventu-ally destroyed.

The apostle John tells us thateternal life comes from knowing theonly “true” God (John 17:3) as Hehas revealed Himself to us in the liv-ing Word, Jesus Christ (1:18), and inHis written Word, the Bible. TheBible “is the voice of God speaking

to us. The Bible opens to us thewords of life; for it makes us ac-quainted with Christ who is our life.In order to have true, abiding faithin Christ, we must know Him as Heis represented in the word.”3

Christianity is not Christian if itattempts to find its basis in knowl-edge of doctrine, works, meditation,or any other human effort. These doprovide the guidelines and the con-text within which our relationshipwith God can flourish.

But Christianity is fulfilled whenwe are restored to a right relationshipwith God through Christ. It meansthat Christ is the center of doctrine,not simply because the study of doc-trine refers to His name, nor becauseHis words are quoted when teachingdoctrine, but because doctrine leadsto knowledge of Him so that wemight fellowship with Him.

The Adventist Theological Soci-ety is committed to Christ as ourSavior and to the Bible as His Wordand as our guide to life. Doctrine isimportant, not as an end in itself,but as a means of fuller understand-ing of and relationship with God.

REFERENCES1 Unless noted otherwise, all Scripture ref-

erences in this article are quoted from TheNew King James Version of the Bible.

2 Appeal and Suggestions to Conference Of-ficers, p. 26.

3 Fundamentals of Christian Education, p.433.

12

liance to reliance upon God’s powerand Word. The Sabbath is not sim-ply a doctrine; its meaning is ful-filled when it initiates, defines, andprovides the opportunity for restor -ation to fellowship with God.

The doctrine of God’s self-revela-tion and the resultant authority ofthe Bible are also important to ourrelation to God. Imagine Adam andEve waking from creation. WithoutGod’s revelation they would nothave known about the dangers of thetree in the center of the garden,about the meaning or existence ofthe Sabbath, or about God as a per-sonal, loving Being. Without theBible, we are left with guesses aboutthe existence and nature of God andabout His relationship with us. It isthrough the Bible that we can knowGod, understand our own existence,and have the confidence to look for-ward with purpose in our lives.

The biblical doctrine of a recent,literal, six-day creation also illustratesthe importance of doctrine for thedevelopment of our understandingand relationship with God. Theisticevolution, the popular alternate ex-planation for the existence of life onearth, leaves open many questionsabout the nature and relationship ofGod and humankind. Does God exist,and did He create life on earth? If so,is He really a personal God, or is Hesome kind of impersonal force orconcept? If He is a God of love, whywould He take hun dreds of millions

of years of tooth and claw to createhuman beings?

And who are we, the distant resultof a lightning strike that initiated lifein a rich pre-biotic soup? Did we hu-mans ascend through the chain of theanimal kingdom and finally throughour ancestors, the apes? If so, do wehave a soul, and if we do, when, whereand how did it originate? When didGod decide to initiate fellowship withus? Why did it take millions of yearsto make that decision?

The acceptance of evolution forthe origin of life raises many ques-tions about the nature of God andhumankind. We are left without abasis for knowledge of God and anunderstanding of ourselves.

The Results of Denying EssentialCharacteristics of God

Imagine you know someone whois extremely friendly and outgoing.She has excellent people skills. Nowsuppose that you deny her essentialcharacteristic, namely, that she has akeen interest in people. How wouldthis denial impact your relationshipwith her? She would doubtless re-spond by continuing to reach out toyou. But your relationship would beimpacted because you would beginto withdraw from her.

What happens when we deny es-sential characteristics of God? Sup-pose we say, “God, I don’t believethat You created life on earth in sixdays; nor do I think that You created

rom early on, biblical faith tes-tifies the necessity of substitu-tionary death for the salvationof sinners. Seventh-day Adven-tists affirm that Christ’s death

on the cross was an atoning sacrificefor sin that had the character of penalsubstitution. His substitutionarydeath pays the just penalty for sin inour behalf and provides forgivenesson the basis of divine grace.

Of course, the idea of an atone-ment that is made for us throughJesus Christ presupposes that the re-

lationship between God and hu-mankind is disrupted through sin.Reconciliation is not needed if therelationship is intact. The necessityfor Christ’s substitutionary death isrooted in our alienation from God.

To overcome this estrangement,Jesus became one of us and died forus. According to the apostle Paul,Christ Jesus, “although He existed in

CHRIST’SSUBSTITUTIONARY

DEATH

B Y F R A N K H A S E L *

F

Christ’s death in our place

is at the very heart of His justice

—and love.

*Frank M. Hasel, Ph.D., is Dean ofthe Theological Seminary at Bogen-hofen Seminary, Austria.

ART 1

14 15

Christ’s life-giving death was the very purpose of

His coming into the world (John 12:27). It certainly is no

accident that to redeem humanity Jesus died on a Friday, the

very day of the biblical week when God created the human

race. Though our creation was effortless for God, our salvation

cost Him great pain and even His beloved Son.

shall I say, “Father, save Me from thishour”? But for this purpose I cameto this hour.’” The context in whichJesus speaks these words is clearlyHis soon approaching death, for “Hewas saying this to indicate the kind ofdeath by which He was to die” (vs. 33).Jesus was fully aware that His deathwas His purpose for being born.

Though all of us are born to live,Jesus was born to die. We were notredeemed with perishable things,from our futile way of life which weinherited from our forefathers “butwith precious blood, as of a lambunblemished and spotless, the bloodof Christ” (1 Peter 1:19).

Christ’s life-giving death was thevery purpose of His coming into theworld (John 12:27). It certainly is noaccident that to redeem humanityJesus died on a Friday, the very dayof the biblical week when God cre-ated the human race. Though ourcreation was effortless for God, oursalvation cost Him great pain andeven His beloved Son.

the form of God, did not regardequality with God a thing to begrasped, but emptied Himself, tak-ing the form of a bond-servant, andbeing made in the likeness of men. .. . He humbled Himself by becomingobedient to the point of death, evendeath on a cross” (Phil. 2:6-8).1 Butwhat is the meaning of His death?

Jesus did not die from accident,illness, or old age. He purposefullydied for sinners in order to savethem. Jesus came into our world:“‘just as the Son of Man did notcome to be served, but to serve, andto give His life a ransom for many”(Matt. 20:28, italics supplied).

In John 2:4 at the wedding atCana, Jesus said to His mother: “‘Myhour has not yet come.’” In 8:20, “noone seized Him, because His hourhad not yet come.” In John 12:23,however, while having His impend-ing death clearly before Him, Jesussaid: “‘The hour has come for theSon of Man to be glorified.’” In verse27, Jesus utters these words: “‘What

16

The English word ransom stands forthe Greek word that normally de-scribes the thought of deliverancefrom some sort of bondage in ex-change for the payment or compen-sation or the offering of a substi-tute.iii There is a price to be paid forsin. The wages of sin is death (Rom.6:23). That’s why the price had to bepaid by someone who is not guiltybut able to give life.

Forgive Simply Out of Love?But why can’t God forgive the

same way He asks us to forgive? Whydoesn’t God practice what He ex-pects from us: to forgive one anotherout of love?

These questions betray a superfi-cial understanding of the problem ofsin. The comparison between ourfor giveness and God’s misses the im-portant fact that we are private indi-viduals and other people’s sins arepersonal injuries to self and others.God, however, is not a private indi-vidual; nor is sin just a personal in-jury. God is the Creator of the uni-verse and the giver of the law webreak. In fact, His law is an expres-sion of His character (Rom. 7:12),which is love (1 John 4:8). Love isbasic to God’s law and governmentof the universe because it is the onlyprinciple on the basis of which intel-ligent beings with free choice can co-exist without destroying one an-other. Love includes justice/fairnessas well as mercy. If God is to extend

At the beginning of the Gospel ofJohn, Jesus is depicted as “‘the Lambof God who takes away the sin of theworld!’” (John 1:29). The Greek wordfor “Lamb” here is also used in Isaiah53 for the suffering servant of theLord, who takes our iniquities uponHimself. Jesus died a substitutionarydeath for us, taking upon Himself thesin and guilt we deserve. No otherpassage from the entire Old Testa-ment is alluded to by New Testamentwriters more often than Isaiah 53. It isas if they wanted to emphasize pre-cisely this substitutionary aspect ofthe death of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ saw Himself as thissubstitute. In John 15:13 he said:“‘Greater love has no one than this,that one lay down his life for hisfriends.’” In His high-priestly prayerat the end of His life, Jesus describedHis death in language that indicatesthat He saw himself in a sacrifice forus: “‘For their sakes I sanctify Myself,that they themselves also may besanctified in truth’” (John 17:19). TheGreek word for consecrate is commonin sacrificial contexts, where a priestand a sacrifice is prepared and thusvery appropriate for Christ.2

Perhaps no other passage bringsout the substitutionary character ofJesus’ death clearer than 1 Timothy2:5, 6: “There is one God, and onemediator also between God andmen, the man Christ Jesus, who gaveHimself as a ransom for all, the tes-timony given at the proper time.”

17

�

as to send his Son, Himself God, tobear and take away our sins.

The persons of the Triune Godfreely commit themselves to redeemhuman sinners. Jesus voluntarilygave His life for us. He says: “‘Thegood shepherd lays down His life forthe sheep’” (John 10:11) and thencontinues: “‘I lay down My life. . . .No one has taken it away from Me,but I lay it down on My own initia-tive’” (vss. 17, 18). Yet “God was inChrist reconciling the world to Him-self” (2 Cor. 5:19).

Understood in the light of God’sTrinitarian love, the substitutionarydeath of Christ is something entirelydifferent from a violent pagan ideathat reflects a revengeful deity, assome surmise. In stark contrast to allhuman-initiated actions of satisfac-tion and propitiation, in which hu-mans come to God with a gift of ap-peasement, the living God of biblicalrevelation comes to humanity in self-giving love to overcome the divine-human alienation.vi God is not onlythe initiator but also the primaryactor in the process of substitutionaryatonement. God not only tells us howto be saved; He Himself provides theonly possible and acceptable sacrifice:His Son Jesus Christ.

“We must not, then, speak of Godpunishing Jesus or of Jesus persuad-ing God, for to do so is to set themover against each other as if they

acted independently of each other orwere even in conflict with eachother. We must never make Christthe object of God’s punishment orGod the object of Christ’s persua-sion, for both God and Christ weresubjects not objects, taking the ini-tiative together to save sinners.”7

Christ’s substitutionary death isnot incompatible with an authenticbiblical understanding of the char-acter of God. In fact, it is thesupreme revelation of God’s holylove and justice. It kindles our deep-est love and elicits genuine gratitude,culminating in our adoration of theTriune God and leading to ourpraise for His salvation throughJesus Christ alone.

substitute for us sinners to pay thepenalty we deserve. We are hopelesslylost and unable to redeem ourselves.

The issue is not why God shouldsimply forgive sinners out of love.The real question is much deeper:How does God find it possible toforgive us at all?

Forgiveness is one of God’s mostprofound problems, for which thereis only one solution: the substitution-ary death of Christ, who lived a sin-less life. With His death, He fulfilledthe work His Father in heaven had as-signed Him (John 4:34) so that God“reconciled us to Himself throughChrist” because “God was in Christreconciling the world to Himself, notcounting their trespasses againstthem” (2 Cor. 5:18, 19).

The Idea of Shedding BloodJesus’ substitutionary death on

the Cross is not cosmic child abuse,as some construe it; nor is it a paganidea. But “God demonstrates Hisown love toward us, in that while wewere yet sinners, Christ died for us”(Rom. 5:8). In Galatians 2:20, Paulwrites that Jesus “‘loved me and gaveHimself up for me.’”

The biblical idea of Christ’s sub-stitutionary death can be under-stood only within a Trinitarian con-cept of God. Only then is the biblicalmessage coherent. The death of Jesuson the cross is not His idea alone, asif to satisfy His ill-tempered Father.Instead, the God-Father so loved us

mercy through forgiveness, He mustfind a way to do it with full justice,or He would damage love, whichwould be disastrous.4

Sin is completely incompatiblewith God’s holiness, which includesHis moral character of love (1 Thess.3:12, 13). God and sin cannot coexistbecause sin is “unlove” and He is love.Our sin has evoked God’s just wrath,and sin separates us from God, who isthe Giver and Sustainer of all life. Sin,therefore, leads to death (Rom. 6:23).Our sin is more than a debt. It is acrime against the only true and livingGod, who is perfectly holy. BecauseGod loves us, He gives us the oppor-tunity to be saved from the just pen -alty through the sacrifice of His Son(John 3:16). By bearing our penalty,Christ makes it possible for God to bejust when He justifies those who be-lieve (Rom. 3:26). In this way, God isable to forgive us without compro-mising the justice part of His love.v

The substitutionary nature ofChrist’s sacrifice is clearly shown inthat He bore our sins as our Priestand then died for those sins (1 Peter2:24). Without a substitutionary sac-rifice, the judicial penalty awaits thosewhose sins are not covered by theblood of Christ. Deep within everyhuman being is a conviction thatgood ought to be rewarded and sinought to be punished. And the trans-gression of the Law deserves a pun-ishment if the Law of God is stillvalid. For this reason, there must be a

18 19

REFERENCES1 Unless noted otherwise, all Scripture

references in this article are quoted from theNew American Standard Bible.

2 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House,1985), p. 807.

3 Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, AConcordance to the Septuagint (Grand Rapids:Baker, 1983), pp. 890, 891.

4 Roy Gane, Altar Call (Berrien Springs,Mich.: Diadem, 1999), pp. 110, 269, 270.

5 Ibid., pp. 110, 237.6 Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life: Sys-

tematic Theology: Volume Two (Peabody,Mass.: Prince Press of Hendrickson Publish-ers, 2001), p. 352.

7 John R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,1986), p. 151.

ART 2

oday the Bible is popularlyevaluated as Christianity’s bestspiritual literature—and thenequated with the writings ofBuddha, the Bagivad Gita of

Hinduism, or other such humandocuments. This implies that eachreligious tradition spawns a few veryspiritual persons who express gener-ally comparable reflections.

Why have Christians insisted onthe absolute nature of the HolyBible? In contemporary thinking,the primary “textbook” of the Chris-tian faith needs to be reconsidered.

Of course, it isn’t a textbook bymodern definition. But the biblicalmaterials must be studied atten-tively, involving appraisal of the fun-

damental assumptions and parame-ters within which the many Biblewriters work. Thankfully, these areoften explicit.

None of the Bible writers ever at-tempts to prove God’s existence.Each one assumes He exists. Biblicalprophets claimed to have realknowledge of an infinite God. Andthey were absolutely certain thatGod was speaking through them.

Moreover, all insist that God

THE WORDMADE FLESH

B Y J O A N N D A V I D S O N *

TThe book that Christians call

“Holy Scripture” is ever so much more

than one of many sacred texts.

*Jo Ann Davidson, Ph.D., teaches Sys-tematic Theology at the Seventh-dayAdventist Theological Seminary,Berrien Springs, Michigan, and is aPast President of the Adventist Theo-logical Society.

20 21

In Deuteronomy 18:19, the Lordspeaks through Moses of the comingprophet through Moses: “‘“Whoeverwill not hear My words, which Hespeaks in My name, I will require itof him.”’” When Saul disobeyedSamuel’s command at Gilgal,Samuel rebuked him: “‘You havedone foolishly. You have not kept thecommandment of the Lord yourGod, which He commanded you.But now your kingdom shall notcontinue. . . because you have notkept what the Lord commandedyou’” (1 Sam. 13:13, 14).

The biblical writers also recordednumerous incidents of God speakingdirectly to human beings: conversa-tions with Adam and Eve after the Fall(Gen. 1:28-30; 3:9-19); the divine callof Abram (12:1-3); the interchangewith Elijah at Mount Horeb (1 Kings19:9-18). The civil code in the Penta-teuch is recorded as words spoken di-rectly by God to Moses.

Old Testament prophets are pic-tured as sent by God to speak Hiswords. The repeated use of the in-troductory formula “thus says theLord”—or its equivalent—clinchesthe divine authority. In fact, a distin-guishing characteristic of trueprophets is that they do not speaktheir own words. God said to Moses:“‘I will be with your mouth andteach you what you shall say’” (Ex.4:12); to Jeremiah: “‘I have put Mywords in your mouth’” (Jer. 1:9).

Extensive evidence suggests that

makes truthful claims. He declaresthat He can foretell the future, andthat doing so indicated His divinity:“‘I am the Lord, that is My name;and My glory I will not give to an-other, nor My praise to carved im-ages. Behold, the former things havecome to pass, and new things I de-clare; before they spring forth I tellyou of them. . . . Indeed before theday was, I am He; and there is no onewho can deliver out of My hand; Iwork, and who will reverse it?’” (Isa.42:8, 9; 43:13).i

Through the prophets God an-nounced time prophecies concerningthe history of nations and the comingof the Messiah. Some modern mindsassume that God could not be so pre-cise, that such prophecies were writ-ten after the fact. This idea, however,appears nowhere in Scripture.

Furthermore, biblical writerswere certain that God could and didcommunicate with human beings.They never argue that human lan-guage is any kind of barrier to directcommunication from God. In fact,with great frequency God is referredto as the actual Person speakingthrough the prophet. Elijah’s wordsin 1 Kings 21:19 are referred to in 2Kings 9:25 as the oracle that “theLord uttered” (NRSV), and Elijah isnot even mentioned.

The message of a prophet wasconsidered equivalent to directspeech from God. And to disobey aprophet’s words was to disobey God.

22

gospel he had preached (Gal. 1:6-9).Apostolic teaching is very “direc-tive,” issuing commands with thestrongest authority (1 Thess. 4:1, 2; 2Thess. 3:6, 12).

The prophets and apostles do notdescribe how they recognized the“word of God” when it came, butthey were clearly certain that Godhad spoken. Sometimes He spoke inways that they not did not under-stand and on occasion even objectedto, yet they never questioned the di-vine origin of the message.

The Bible, however, was not ver-bally dictated by God. The humanmessenger was divinely guided in theselection of apt words to express di-vine revelation, and thus the proph -etic words are called the Word ofGod. The individuality of each writeris evident, yet the human and divineelements are virtually inseparable.

“The Bible, with its God-giventruths expressed in the language ofmen, presents a union of the divineand the human. Such a union ex-isted in the nature of Christ, whowas the Son of God and the Son ofman. Thus it is true of the Bible, as itwas of Christ, that ‘the Word wasmade flesh, and dwelt among us.’”ii

Careful reading of Scripture alsoreveals a basic continuity and unityof both Testaments. The extensiveNew Testament citations of the OldTestament indicate that the earlierwritings were considered by NewTestament writers to be divine reve-

biblical prophets experienced some-thing far more than a “divine en-counter” that merely inspired theirmystical conviction for God. Godgives human beings actual informa-tion (Deut. 29:29). Indeed, it is strik-ing that one Person of the TriuneGod is known as the “Word.”

Numerous times, prophets wrotedown the words of God, which werethen assumed fully authoritative:“Joshua wrote these words in theBook of the Law of God” (Joshua24:26); “Samuel explained to thepeople the behavior of royalty, andwrote it in a book” (1 Sam. 10:25).Even the recording process is di-vinely controlled with the penmanbeing “moved” (2 Peter 1:21).

Both Testaments consistently tes-tify that the truth of God is not theend-product of diligent humansearch for the divine. It comes exclu-sively through God’s initiative. Godspeaks for Himself through Hisprophets. And human language isassumed to be capable of conveyingdivine communication.

The New Testament apostleswrite with the same absolute author-ity as the Old Testament prophets,insisting that they speak by the HolySpirit (1 Peter 1:10-12), to whomthey credit the content of theirteaching (1 Cor. 2:12, 13). Signifi-cantly, the same Paul who urged thatbelievers seek to work togetherpeaceably, often used harsh languageto defend the absolute truth of the

23

and what I should speak’” (John12:49). Paul claims revelation fromGod in 1 Corinthians 14:37.

Jesus Christ Himself confirmedthe Old Testament as foundationalin His teaching and ethics. Old Tes-tament prophecy was the pattern forHis life, as He declared often: “‘itmust be fulfilled’” or “‘as it is writ-ten.’” He rebuked the Jewish theolo-gians of His time for permittinghuman tradition to cloud and evenfalsify God’s written word in the OldTestament (Mark 7:1-13).

Jesus expected others to acceptthe Old Testament as authoritative:“‘Have you not read’” (Matt. 12:5;21:16; Mark 12:10). In response to alawyer’s question about salvation,Jesus asked: “‘What is written in thelaw?’” (Luke 10:26). The lawyer an-swered with a direct quotation fromthe Ten Commandments, and Jesusdeclared: “‘You have answeredrightly.’”

The apostle Paul similarly refersto the authority of the Old Testa-ment. In the Book of Romans he

lation. Isaiah’s words in Isaiah 7:14are cited as “what had been spokenby the Lord through the prophet”(Matt. 1:22, NRSV); Jesus quotesGenesis 2:24 as words that God said(Matt. 19:5).

Words of Scripture are said to bespoken by the Holy Spirit: in quot-ing the prophet Joel, Peter inserts thewords, “says God” (Acts 2:17). Pauland Barnabas quote Isaiah 49:6 assomething that “‘the Lord com-manded us’” (Acts 13:47, KJV), con-tending that an Old Testamentprophecy placed moral obligationon them also.

New Testament writers also knewit was possible for God to speak di-rectly to people in human language:the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:17); theTransfiguration (17:5; 2 Peter 1:17,18); instructions to Ananias (vss. 11-16); and the revelation to John (Rev.1:11–3:22).

Jesus Himself asserts numeroustimes that He speaks the words ofGod: “‘The Father who sent Me gaveMe a command, what I should say

24

tionable value. No modern writeraddresses this issue more straight-forwardly than Ellen G. White:“Never let mortal man sit in judg-ment upon the Word of God or passsentence as to how much of this isinspired and how much is not in-spired, and that this is more inspiredthan some other portions. Godwarns him off that ground. God hasnot given him any such work to do.”

God Himself expresses the samesentiment: “Thus says the Lord:‘Heaven is My throne, and earth isMy footstool. Where is the housethat you will build Me? And where isthe place of My rest? For all thosethings My hand has made, and allthose things exist,’ says the Lord. ‘Buton this one will I look: on him whois poor and of a contrite spirit, andwho trembles at My word’” (Isa.66:1, 2).

The Christian doctrine of Scrip-ture is about a Book—but truly, morethan a Book. Through its many writ-ers we are confronted with a God whoyearns for His children, who is inearnest to communicate His love tothem, and who loves them more thanHe loved His own life.

builds a powerful argument for thegospel built upon the Old Testa-ment, and in the process demon-strates the paramount principle oflistening to what Scripture saysabout itself.

Moreover, Jesus and the New Tes-tament authors accepted the his-toricity of the Old Testament. Infact, the New Testament writers re-lied on the historical narratives ofthe Old Testament to predict the cer-tainty of future actions of God.

The Bible is impressively self-au-thenticated. Yet it appears to some asan enigmatic collection of seeminglyunrelated materials: narratives, po-etry, legal codes, sermons, letters,prophecies, parables, royal annals,and genealogies. Scripture itselfclearly instructs that it is possible tomisread and misinterpret Scripture.Many of the biblical writers, alongwith Christ, warned against falseteachers and false teaching.

Thankfully, the Lord Jesus pro-vides a vital interpretive key: “‘TheScriptures . . . testify of Me’” (John5:39). The apostle Paul testifies thatwhen seeing Jesus in Scripture, a veilis taken away from the eyes (2 Cor.3:14-16). The two disciples travelingto Emmaus had an authenticatingexperience in the correct under-standing of Scripture through therisen Lord’s interpretation of theOld Testament (Luke 24:32).

Today some suggest that differentportions of Scripture are of ques-

25

“Never let mortal man sit in judgment upon the

Word of God or pass sentence as to how much of this is inspired

and how much is not inspired, and that this is more

inspired than some other portions. God warns him off that

ground. God has not given him any such work to do.”

REFERENCES1 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture

references in this article are quoted from TheNew King James Version of the Bible.

2 The Great Controversy, p. vi.3 The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Com-

mentary, vol. 7, p. 919.

ART 4

n 1999, PBS aired a critically ac-claimed special on the biblicalBook of Genesis. Though it re-ceived numerous favorable re-views, a question that apparently

lurked in many minds was voiced byNewsweek: “But Did It Really Hap-pen?” It is one thing to read and evenenjoy the stories in the Bible; it isquite another to hold that they arehistorical. Certainly, recent conclu-sions of both evolutionary scienceand historical-critical analysis of theBible have cast doubt on the historic-ity of biblical events—especially thosein the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

Dillard and Longman1 point outthat a long tradition of Jewish andChristian scholarship supports the

view that most biblical narrativesimpart information about realevents and characters of the past.Only in the past two centuries, withemerging challenges of modern sci-ence, have alternative genres beenseriously proposed.

During this time, three schools ofthought have emerged concerning aliteral interpretation of Genesis. Thefirst was the historical-critical school.Generally, advocates of this positionargue that the author of Genesis in-

A LITERAL READING OF GENESIS

B Y R A N D A L L W . Y O U N K E R *

IThe first 11 chapters of Genesis

form a solid and consistent reporting

of human history.

*Randall Younker, Th.D., Ph.D., is pro-fessor of Old Testament and BiblicalArchaeology and Director of the Insti-tute of Archaeology, Andrews Univer-sity, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

32 33

though its critics dismiss it as funda-mentalist. Ironically, this schoolagrees with the liberal, historical-crit-ical school that the author of Genesisindeed intended to describe literal,historical events with regards to Cre-ation and the Flood, etc. The differ-ence is that conservative orthodox ad-vocates accept not only the intentionof the author, but the accuracy andveracity of his claims. They accept asix-day creation and a global flood.

This last school of thought isclosest that expressed in EllenWhite’s writings: “We are dependenton the Bible for a knowledge of theearly history of our world, of thecreation of man, and of his fall. Re-move the word of God, and whatcan we expect than to be left to fa-bles and conjectures, and to that en-feebling of the intellect which is thesure result of entertaining error. Weneed the authentic history of theorigin of the earth, of the fall of thecovering cherub, and of the intro-duction of sin into our world.”Clearly, Ellen White saw the Bible’shistoricity as a critical factor in theopening chapters of the unfolding ofthe Great Controversy.

Old Testament View of Scripture’sHistoricity

For several reasons, a significantnumber of scholars, liberal and con-servative, believe that the author ofGenesis meant his accounts of Cre-ation and the Flood to be under-

tended readers to understand the nar-rative as literally and historically true.Historical critics assert, however, thatmodern science and archaeology haveshown that much if not most of theGenesis narrative did not really hap-pen historically.

The second school of thoughtemerged out of the early 19th-cen-tury evangelical movement as a re-sponse to historical criticism. Thisschool of thought continues today,though its name has changed since. Ithas been called “neo-evangelical,” al-though presently it is described aspart of the “young” or “younger evan-gelical” movement. Though some de-scribe it as liberal evangelicalism, de-fenders view it as progressive.

Generally, this school of thoughthas denied that the author of Gene-sis intended the narratives to be un-derstood literally or historically.Rather, these narratives were in-tended to be read in a non-literalway. Some argue that the text ismythological; some say it is poetic—a literary artwork not meant to beunderstood literally; some say it istheological; some say it is symbolic.Some have proposed interpretationsthat the days of Genesis were not 24-hour days, and that the Flood waslocal instead of global—or not realat all. A number of Adventists schol-ars have been attracted to the inter-pretations of this school.

The third school of thought is de-scribed as conservative orthodox, al-

34

tle space to argue over the obviousconclusion that the author intendedit to be read as a work of history thatrecounts what has taken place in thefar-distant past.”2

Historical Content of Extra-Bibli-cal Primeval Histories. A point thatcritics often overlook is that thoseaccounts of origins and earliesthuman events are not necessarilycompletely non-historical. Becausethese ancient stories often includethe activities of gods, secular histori-ans have tended to dismiss them asmythological, legendary, etc. It hasrecently been noted, however, thatelements within Mesopotamianprimeval histories such as theSumerian King List and the Gil-gamesh Epic mention the names ofpeople and places that archaeologyhas actually confirmed.

Interestingly, some of these peo-ple would be considered legendaryby today’s standards—they accom-plish incredible feats and have in-credibly long life spans. Specifically,the name of Gilgamesh himself, and(En)mebaragesi, one of his contem-poraries, have been found on an in-scription that date to the time whenthe later legends say Gilgamesh andEnmebaragesi lived.

(En)mebarabesi, king of Kish,listed as king No. 22 on the SumerianKing List, is credited with havingruled 900 years!

The Gilgamesh epic recounts thebuilding of the wall of Uruk by Gil-

stood literally and historically.The Temporal/Spatial Sweep of the

Story. Most readers can detect theoverall unity of the narrative plot inGenesis that runs from the accountof Creation all the way to the Exo-dus. It recounts past events within anarrative structure (see below). In-deed, Genesis 1–11 clearly serves as aprologue for the rest of Genesis andthe Pentateuch.The Waw Consecutive Verbal

Form. A certain Hebrew verbal form,known as the waw consecutive, isfound throughout the historical nar-ratives in the Old Testament. Inter-estingly, this same verbal form typi-cal of the later biblical historicalnarratives is also used in Genesis1–11. This suggests that the authormade no distinction between Gene-sis 1–11 and later biblical narrativeswith regards to historicity.The toledoth Formulae. Some

scholars have also noted the pres-ence of the toledoth formulae (“theseare the generations of”) in Genesis1–11. This expression points to a“historical impulse” for Genesis.Genre Similarity. There are no

dramatic genre shifts (shifts betweentypes of literature) between Genesisand the rest of the Pentateuch, andnone between the Pentateuch andthe so-called “historical” books(Kings, Chronicles, etc.). “Indeed, ifwe are speaking of the original in-tention of the biblical writer(s), thestyle of the book [Genesis] leaves lit-

35

refuse to believe], . . . to the Jews astumbling block and to the Greeksfoolishness” (1 Cor. 1:18, 23).

Yet, Paul affirms the reality of theresurrection in a stirring appeal thatoccupies all of chapter 15. The cli-max: “For if the dead do not rise, thenChrist is not risen. And if Christ is notrisen, your faith is futile; you are stillin your sins! Then also those whohave fallen asleep in Christ have per-ished. If in this life only we have hopein Christ, we are of all men the mostpitiable” (15:16-19).

Though it is tempting to believethat people were more gullible inthose days, many, if not most, wereas cynical about the resurrection of adead man as people are today. Thecontroversy between the Sadduceesand the Pharisees (Acts 23:6-10)shows the uncertainty among edu-cated Jews about the possibility ofresurrection. Paul’s speech to the in-tellectual elite of Athens on Mar’sHill (Acts 17:32, 33) was being wellreceived until he mentioned the res-urrection, whereupon he wassneered at by some and politely dis-missed by the rest.

New Testament writers, however,viewed Genesis 1–11 as historical. InMat thew 19:4, 5, Jesus introducesquotes from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24with the phrase, “‘have you not read. . .’” indicating the truthfulness, his-toricity, and authority these passagesheld for Him. Genesis 1:27 refers tothe creation of Adam and Eve in a

man ner that suggests this was con-sidered an historic event and the ref-erence from 2:24, that the two “‘shallbecome one flesh’” is used to justifyJesus’ teaching of the permanenceand sanctity of marriage. In Luke17:26-29 Jesus warned that the lastdays would be “‘as it was in the daysof Noah.’” Obviously, the threat ofthe final judgment is seriously di-minished if the judgment of Noah’sday was not considered real and his-torical.

The author of Hebrews cites seam-lessly events from these early chaptersof Genesis along with later, com-monly accepted historic events thatsuggests no distinction of their rela-tive historicity in the minds of theearly church (see Hebrews 11). Peter’sreferences to the time of the Flood as-sumes their historicity (2 Peter 3:3-7).

When viewed together, these andother New Testament passages sug-gest that the historicity of Genesis1–11 was taken for granted by theearly church. So Christians who be-lieve in the New Testament shouldalso accept this.

gamesh. This very wall has also beenfound, which has led some scholarsto caution that just because an indi-vidual’s name appears in ancient lit-erature within a supernatural ormythological context, it should notbe assumed that they did not trulyexist or that they did not accomplishthe achievements ascribed to them.Likewise, that the literature may as-sign them incredibly long life spansor reigns does not deny the possibil-ity that they were historical persons.

A number of elements of the storyof the Tower of Babel have beenrecorded in extra-biblical sources,suggesting that the story was not sim-ply contrived by the biblical writer. ASumerian text from the late ThirdDynasty of Ur (Meso potamia) tellshow the Sumerians had once been apeople of one language, but that agod, Enki, confounded their speech.The Sumerians, of course, had specialtowers, zig gurats, that were supposedto link heaven with earth. The paral-lels between these variousMesopotamian stories and the Bible

have jumped out at scholars. Thoughthe relationship between the biblicalaccount and the Sumerian texts is dif-ficult to determine, there appears tobe a connection between them.

Old Testament View of the Historicity of Genesis 1–11

Before examining evidence thatNew Testament authors believed inthe historicity of the early chapters ofGenesis, it should be noted that manysuch statements occur in a context ofapprehension about the credibility ofthe gospel to a pagan world. Therewas concern about the ideas that Jesusof Nazareth was the Messiah and thatHe had risen from the dead. Peterwrote: “We did not follow cunninglydevised fables when we made knownto you the power and coming of ourLord Jesus Christ, but were eyewit-nesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16,italics supplied).3

In beginning his first Epistle tothe Corinthians, Paul admits that “themessage of the cross is foolishness tothose who are perishing, [those who

A number of elements of the story of the Tower of Babel have

been recorded in extra-biblical sources, suggesting that the story

was not simply contrived by the biblical writer. A Sumerian

text from the late Third Dynasty of Ur (Mesopotamia) tells how

the Sumerians had once been a people of one language, but that

a god, Enki, confounded their speech.

36 37

REFERENCES1 Raymond D. Dillard and Tremper Long-

man, An Introduction to the Old Testament(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994, p.49.

2 Medical Ministry, p. 89.3 Ibid.4 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture

references in this article are quoted from TheNew King James Version of the Bible.

ART 5

he fifth core belief affirmed bythe Adventist Theological So-ciety (ATS) as a teaching ofScripture and of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is as

follows: “I affirm a real sanctuary inheaven and the pre-advent judg-ment of believers beginning in1844, based upon the historicistview of prophecy and the year-dayprinciple as taught in Scripture.”This briefly summarizes Seventh-day Adventist Fundamental Belief24 and adds explicit reference to the

historicist interpretive approach,including recog nition of the year-day principle, which makes it possi-ble to identify 1844 A.D. as the datewhen the pre-advent judgmentbegan.

CHRIST’SHEAVENLY SANCTUARY

MINISTRY

B Y R O Y E . G A N E *

TThe Adventist understanding of the

heavenly sanctuary pertains to the church’s one

unique contribution to theology.

*Roy Gane, Ph.D., is Professor of He-brew Bible and Ancient Near EasternLanguages, and Director of the Ph.D.in Religion and Th.D. Programs at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary, Berrien Springs, Michigan.

38 39

empowerment from the Holy Spirit(Joel 2; Acts 2) to proclaim the lastgospel invitation during the time ofthe Creator’s judgment (Rev. 14:6-12). The Spirit’s power shows itselfin lives transformed by love pouredinto hearts (Rom. 5:5), lives charac-terized by “love, joy, peace, . . .” (Gal.5:22, 23, NIV) that bring healing tobroken relationships (Mal. 4:5, 6).Just as the apostles received theSpirit at Pentecost when they lookedby faith to Christ in heaven at thetime of His priestly inauguration,end-time Christians are to receivethe Spirit from Him where He isnow in the heavenly holy of holies.

Locating ourselves in salvationhistory as living during the end-timejudgment defines Adventist identityand the urgency of our intercon-nected teachings, such as the SecondComing of Christ (soon!), the sev-enth-day Sabbath (end-time pledgeof allegiance to the Creator), and thenon-immortality of the “soul”/life(needing resurrection and/or trans-formation at the Second Coming).Our end-time context depends uponthe historicist approach to biblical ap -ocalyptic prophecies, which prevailedamong Christians for many centuries.Historicism refers to an interpretiveapproach that sees how the apocalyp-tic (meaning “revelatory”) propheciesof Daniel present continuousoverviews of history from the time ofthe prophet to the second coming ofChrist (chapters 2, 7, 8, 11, 12).

Importance of Pre-Advent Judgment

Outside the Seventh-day Adventistmovement, some Christians acceptthe reality of the heavenly sanctuary,priestly mediation of Christ there,and a judgment of believers. How-ever, the biblical teaching of a judg-ment that serves as a second, finalphase of atonement through Christ’smediation in the most holy place ofthe heavenly sanctuary before Hissecond coming, beginning in 1844and continuing through to the pre-sent, is unique to Seventh-day Ad-ventist understanding. In fact, thiscombination of Great Controversyand sanctuary themes comprises theonly unique contribution of Seventh-day Adventists to biblical theology.

Many wish Adventists wouldaban don their distinctive pre-adventjudgment view and be absorbed intothe evangelical mainstream. But theim portance of this sanctuary teachinggoes far beyond the historical factthat it began the Adventist movementwhen some disappointed followers ofWilliam Miller realized the connec-tion between Daniel 8:14 and the bib-lical teaching of a heavenly temple(Hebrews 8–9; Revelation 4–5, etc.).Understanding what Jesus is doing forus now during the final stage of atone -ment helps us to realize the immi-nence of His coming, to get in touchwith Him, and to cooperate with Hisend-time mission for the world.

From Christ we receive the gift of

40

tion (Lev. 4:31; 5:1, 6) and “experien-tial” by giving repentant sinners theexperience of receiving God’s trans-forming grace (Lev. 4:27-29).Judgment of Believers. There is a

phase of judgment concerning thosewho have had a connection withGod through at least nominal beliefin Him (Heb. 10:30). At the Old Tes-tament sanctuary, a second and finalstage of atonement on the Day ofAtonement involved judgment be-tween loyal and disloyal Israelites.Ritual purification of the sanctuaryreaffirmed those who were loyal toGod (16:29-31), but the disloyal re-ceived no benefit and were con-demned (Lev. 23:29, 30).

Cleansing of the sanctuary, God’splace of administration, representedHis justification/vindication as Judge.This was necessary because He con-demned the disloyal but had forgivenguilty people when they accepted sac-rificial atonement throughout theyear (Leviticus 4, 5), which a justjudge normally should not do (Deut.25:1; 1 Kings 8:32). Vindicating theJudge for having saved loyal peopleshowed that He was right in havingforgiven them. For the loyal, whoseforgiveness and unhindered connec-tion with God was reaffirmed, thejudgment was good news.

Similarly, the end-time judgmentin Daniel 7:9-14 benefits God’sfaithful people. In the overlappingparallel prophecy of Daniel 8, thesame event is the ultimate, end-time

Biblical Support for Pre-AdventJudgment and Historicism

There is solid biblical support forthe interdependent concepts in theATS statement regarding the pre-ad-vent judgment and historicism.A Real Heavenly Sanctuary. God

has a real sanctuary/temple center ofdivine administration that has beenin heaven since at least Old Testa-ment times (Ps. 11:4). In this andother passages, “sanctuary” is notsimply a symbol; nor does it refer toall of heaven. The sanctuary on earthwas patterned according to the pre-existing heavenly temple (Ex. 25:9).

When Christ ascended to heavenafter His resurrection, He was inau-gurated as Priest to continue Hiswork of atonement by distributingthe benefits of His sacrificial death tothose who believe (Heb. 4:14-16).This mediation is an essential part ofChrist’s atonement, just as ritual ac-tivities performed by an Israelitepriest following slaughter of an ani-mal victim were an integral part ofthe sacrificial process (Leviticus 1, 4).

Christ’s sacrifice on earth andpriestly mediation in the heavenlysanctuary, illuminated by the dy-namic model of the ancient Israeliteritual system, show us how God savespeople by extending mercy withoutcompromising His justice, the otherside of love (Ex. 34:6, 7). The biblicalsanctuary services teach us a balancedview of atonement, which is both“legal” by removing our condemna-

41

43

the period covers too much history:It reaches from the Persian decree in457 B.C. to restore Jerusalem to theJews as their civil capital (Dan. 9:25)until the coming of the Messiah atthe beginning of the 69th “week.”Confirming that “weeks” are “years”and identifying Jesus as Messiah, Hebegan His public ministry in 27 A.D.(Luke 3:1—15th year of Tiberius,following Jewish inclusive reckoningand with no zero year between B.C.and A.D.), 483 years after 457 B.C.This accurate fulfillment in theRoman period, after even the time ofAntiochus IV Epiphanes whenpreterists say Daniel was written,validates real predictive prophecy.

4. In Daniel 8:14, the 2,300evenings-mornings (= 2,300 eveningsand 2,300 mornings) are “days” thatmust represent 2,300 years: Theycover the period of Daniel’s “vision”(Dan. 8:13), which begins by symbol-izing the Medo-Persian empire (vss.1-4, 20), continues through theGreek/Macedonian domination byAlexander the Great and his succes-sors (vss. 5-8, 21), and keeps goingthrough the oppressive rule of a sub-sequent “little horn” power (vss. 9-12,23-25). If the “days” were literal (= 6and 1/3 literal years), Daniel wouldnot have been so upset when he real-ized that only for this long would the70-year domination of the Jews byforeign power be prolonged.

5. In Daniel 9:22-27, the angelGabriel answers Daniel’s distress over

the “vision” of 2,300 evenings-morn-ings in chapter 8 by explaining its firstsegment (“cut off ”/ “determined”;9:24) regarding the near future of theJewish people, which lasts “seventyweeks.” These are weeks of years, sothe longer period of 2,300 to whichthey belong must also consist ofyears. Since the “seventy weeks” seg-ment began in 457 B.C., the 2,300began at the same time and lasted(with no zero year) until 1844 A.D.1

We have found that interpreta-tion of Daniel 8:14 in its contextyields 1844 as the beginning of theend-time justifying of the heavenlysanctuary through the pre-adventjudgment. Thus 1844 is not a self-standing doctrine based on a singletext; it is one important detail re-garding an event that is well-attestedin Scripture. It is important forGod’s people to know when thejudgment begins so that they can co-operate with Him (Rev. 14:6-12),just as the ancient Israelites neededto know when the Day of Atone-ment began so that they could par-ticipate (Lev. 16:29-31).

42

Day of Atonement in that it justi-fies/vindicates God’s sanctuary (vs.14). This event is good news forthose who stay loyal to God.

The judgment is not to find outwho has sinned. God doesn’t need ajudgment for that. Neither is it forfor His own information because Healready knows everything. The pur-pose of the judgment is to show theuniverse of God’s created beings thatHis love (= justice + mercy) is notcompromised when He saves theright people because Christ’s sacri-fice makes Him just when He justi-fies those who believe (Rom. 3:26).This means that they keep on believ-ing, as shown by the fact that theirfaith works through love (Gal. 5:6).Works are used in the judgment(Eccl. 12:14) as evidence of faith. Location of Judgment in Heavenly

Sanctuary. The judgment of believ-ers takes place in God’s heavenlysanctuary, where One like a humanbeing (Christ) comes to the divine“Ancient of Days” to receive Hiskingdom through a judgment thatdetermines who His subjects will be(Dan. 7:9-14). Because the judgmentis an end-time event, the sanctuarythrough which it is justified inDaniel 8:14 cannot be the earthlytemple in Jerusalem, which was de-stroyed long ago (in 70 A.D.).

Judgment Before Christ’s SecondComing. The judgment of believersoccurs before Christ comes to earthagain. Use of books/records (Dan.

7:10) indicates investigation ordemonstration of evidence before an-nouncement and execution of theverdict. Final destruction of God’shuman archenemy (symbolized as the“little horn” in Daniel 7–8), who op-poses His rule and law, will come atChrist’s second coming (Dan. 8:25).Therefore, the investiga tive/de m on s -trative phase of judgment must pre-cede Christ’s second coming.Judgment Beginning in 1844,

Shown by Historicist Year-Day Prin-ciple. Timing the pre-advent judg-ment more precisely, it begins in1844 at the end of 2,300 yearsprophesied in Daniel 8:14. Histori-cism recognizes that Daniel includessome predictions of long time peri-ods in which expressions for “days”represent years (8:14; 12:11-12).Though a year-day or day-year prin-ciple should not be applied indis-criminately, several factors supportthe possibility of “years” and requirethis meaning in these contexts. Thefollowing factors are most relevantto Daniel 8:14:

1. The Hebrew word for “days”can also mean “years” (1 Sam. 27:7).

2. Periods of years correspondingto the same number of days appearelsewhere in the Bible (Num. 14:34).

3. In Daniel 9:24-27, “seventyweeks” (NKJV) must be weeks ofyears, that is, 70 sabbatical year cy-cles of seven years each (compareLeviticus 25) = 490 years. They can-not be weeks of literal days because

1 For more information on the meaningand timing of the pre-advent judgment, seeRoy Gane, Who’s Afraid of the Judgment? TheGood News About Christ’s Work in the Heav-enly Sanctuary (Nampa, Idaho: Pacific PressPubl. Assn., 2006) and other works citedthere.

ART 6

he Paraná River is the secondin size of the South Americanrivers, and it runs throughBrazil, Paraguay, and Ar-gentina. Before emptying into

the Río de la Plata and the AtlanticOcean, the river splits into severaltributaries and forms the ParanáDelta, with a length of some 320 kmand a width varying between 18 and60 km. When a foreign vessel arrivesat Buenos Aires and has to sailthrough the delta, a national pilot isusually hired to guide it through the

navigable canal, avoiding the possi-bility of running aground in one ofthe lower tributaries.

The history of the world can becompared to a lengthy river thatforms a huge ideological-religiousdelta before emptying into the ocean

INSPIRATIONOF

ELLEN G. WHITE

B Y A L B E R T O R . T I M M *

T

A full understanding of the role

of Ellen White’s writings is vital to the mission of

the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

*Alberto R. Timm, Ph.D., is Rector ofthe Latin-American Adventist Theo-logical Seminary (LATS) and Spirit ofProphecy Coordinator for the SouthAmerican Division of Seventh-dayAdventists, Brasilia, Brazil.

44 45

God, or it is not. God does nothingin partnership with Satan. My work,for the past thirty years, bears thestamp of God or the stamp of theenemy. There is no half-way work inthe matter. The Testimonies are ofthe Spirit of God, or of the devil.”3

Undoubtedly, she was fully con-vinced about the genuineness of herprophetic gift.

Another basic evidence for theinspiration of Ellen White’s writingsis the acknowledgment by many ofher contemporaries. Already in Au-gust 1845, James White referred toher in following words: “There isone Sister in Maine who has had aclear vision of the Advent peopletraveling to the City of God.”4 InApril 1846, Otis Nichols wrote toWilliam Miller that “God called herand told her to go out and tell theflock what he had revealed to her.”5

Many other Seventh-day Adventistpioneers expressed their trust in thedivine origin of her visions.6 Morerecently, even the famous archeolo-gist William F. Albright qualifiedEllen White as a true modernprophetess.7

As meaningful as both EllenWhite’s personal conviction and thewitnesses of her contemporaries are,however, they alone cannot prove theinspiration of her writings. Crucialfor the whole discussion is, indeed,their inner witness to Scripture.Though many self-alleged prophetstend to replace the authority of

of eternity. Based on an analogy sug-gested by Uriah Smith, we can con-sider the Bible as “a book of direc-tions” for the “whole journey,” andthe prophetic gift of Ellen G. White asan additional “pilot” for the last partof the voyage. The mission of thatpilot is not to replace the instructionsof the book, but rather to assist in ap-plying them to the complex end-timeeschatological context.1

Recognizing the devotional rele-vance of Ellen White’s writings forour days, some people place them onthe same level as those of MartinLuther, John Calvin, and John Wes-ley. But Seventh-day Adventists ac-knowledge her writings not only asdevotionally inspiring but also asprophetically inspired.

Evidences of InspirationThere are three basic evidences

for the inspiration of Ellen White’swritings. One is her own supernat-ural experiences and propheticclaims. She began to report her firstvision (December 1844) with thewords, “As God has shown me inholy vision.”2 Many of her otherprophetic experiences were intro-duced with similar terms.

By claiming to have receivedprophetic visions, she placed herselfunder judgment in regard to theirorigin. In 1875, she wrote: “God iseither teaching his church, reprovingtheir wrongs and strengthening theirfaith, or he is not. This work is of

46

Prophetic inspiration is a mysterious divine-human

process, with the Holy Spirit providing the ideas and assisting

the prophet in expressing them either in written or oral

forms. Although the words are usually chosen by the prophet

himself or herself, there are instances in which they are

provided by a divine agent.

which they are provided by a divineagent. Reflecting on her own experi-ence, Ellen White declared, “al-though I am as dependent upon theSpirit of the Lord in writing myviews as I am in receiving them, yetthe words I employ in describingwhat I have seen are my own, unlessthey be those spoken to me by anangel, which I always enclose inmarks of quotation.”10 Such divineassistance makes all inspired writ-ings fully trustworthy and authorita-tive.

Yet, there is a modern tendency toread the inspired writings from a di-chotomous perspective, restrainingtheir trustworthy range only to mat-ters of salvation, and leaving outsidethat range all other themes. Unques-tionably, the primary purpose ofthose writings is to build up faith forsalvation (John 20:31). But salvationis so integrated into the overall the-matic interrelationship of the in-spired writings that it is almost im-possible for someone to speak of

Scripture by their own teachings,Ellen White uplifted consistently,throughout her writings, the Bibleand its authority. Mrs. S. M. I. Henrycompared those writings to a tele-scope, which does not add stars tothe skies but only helps us to discernbetter the ones already in existence.8

It is only from such perspective thatone can harmonize the propheticrelevance of Ellen White’s writingswith her own statement that in thelast days: “God will have a peopleupon the earth to maintain theBible, and the Bible only, as the stan-dard of all doctrines and the basis ofall reforms.”9

Scope of InspirationProphetic inspiration is a myste-

rious divine-human process, withthe Holy Spirit providing the ideasand assisting the prophet in express-ing them either in written or oralforms. Although the words are usu-ally chosen by the prophet himselfor herself, there are instances in

47

While dealing with inspired writings, one should not

overlook the contrasting experiences of John the apostle and

Judas Iscariot. Under the influence of Christ and His

teachings, the humble John was gradually transformed into the

likeness of his Master, but the proud Judas was not.

questions must be answered. Weconverse about houses and lands,trades to be made, and locations forour institutions, their advantagesand disadvantages.”13 The balancebetween these two statements can bereached only by avoiding any confu-sion of the sacred and the common.

Enlightened by the Inspired Writings

There are many subtle ways onemight confuse the faith-uplifting in-fluence of the inspired writings (in-cluding Ellen White’s) in his or herlife. One of the most common is toallow form (writing style) to replaceessence (message). This is usually atemptation for those concerned withsuch issues as literary borrowings,grammatical mistakes, and secretar-ial assistance. Another way is to dis-tort the overall thematic balance ofthe inspired writings by overempha-sizing some teachings in detrimentof others. A third way is to subordi-nate the inspired writings either tothe prophet’s ancient surroundingculture or to the reader’s modernculture. Instead of being allowed to

them as reliable in some topics andnot in others. Despite their selective-ness in some areas of human knowl-edge (John 16:12, 13; 20:30; 21:25),the inspired writings cannot be con-sidered as untrustworthy in thoseareas.11

With emphasis on plenary inspi-ration (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Peter 1:19-21),Ellen White stated in 1882: “In theseletters which I write, in the testi-monies I bear, I am presenting toyou that which the Lord has pre-sented to me. I do not write one ar-ticle in the paper expressing merelymy own ideas. They are what Godhas opened before me in vision.”12

In regard to common, non-in-spired matters, she added in 1909:“But there are times when commonthings must be stated, commonthoughts must occupy the mind,common letters must be written andinformation given that has passedfrom one to another of the workers.Such words, such information, arenot given under the special inspira-tion of the Spirit of God. Questionsare asked at times that are not uponreligious subjects at all, and these

48

judge culture, those writings becomejudged by culture, losing their nor-mative function.

But the inspired writings are a“lamp” to the feet and a “light” to thepath (Ps. 119:105) of all those whoacknowledge them not only as devo-tionally inspiring but also asprophetically inspired. Aware of theexistence of human pitfalls and tech-nical difficulties in those writings,the sincere readers are not satisfiedjust with dry issue-focused analyses.They still have enough faith to dis-cern, in the human person of theprophet, a divinely sent messenger;and, in the prophetic writings, theinfallible message of the Lord.

While dealing with inspired writ-ings, one should not overlook thecontrasting experiences of John theapostle and Judas Iscariot. Under theinfluence of Christ and His teach-ings, the humble John was graduallytransformed into the likeness of hisMaster, but the proud Judas was not.Unfortunately, “Many accept an in -tel lectual religion, a form of godli-ness, when the heart is notcleansed.”14 In order to avoid thedry ness of mere intellectual religion,one has to “read,” “hear,” and “take toheart” the inspired messages (Rev.1:3, NIV). Only so a person can begenuinely sanctified “by the truth”(John 17:17, NIV).

49

REFERENCES1 U[riah] S[mith], “Do We Discard the

Bible by Endorsing the Visions?” Advent Re-view and Sabbath Herald (Jan. 16, 1863), p.52.

2 Ellen G. Harmon, “Letter From SisterHarmon,” Day-Star (Jan. 24, 1846), p. 31.

3 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 230.4 James White, “Letter from Bro. White,”

Day-Star (Sept. 6, 1845), p. 17.5 Otis Nichols to [William] Miller (Apr.

20, 1846), Center for Adventist Research, An-drews University.

6 See Witness of the Pioneers Concerningthe Spirit of Prophecy: A Facsimile Reprint ofPeriodical and Pamphlet Articles Written byContemporaries of Ellen G. White (Washing-ton, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate, 1961).

7 William F. Albright, From the Stone Ageto Christianity: Monotheism and the Histori-cal Process, 2nd ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Dou-bleday Anchor, 1957), pp. 18, 19. Cf. RogerW. Coon, A Gift of Light (Washington, D.C.:Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 1983), p. 52.

8 S. M. I. Henry, “My Telescope,” TheGospel of Health (Jan. 1898), pp. 25-28.

9 The Great Controversy, p. 595.10 “Questions and Answers,” Advent Re-

view and Sabbath Herald (Oct. 8, 1867), p.260.

11 Alberto R. Timm, “Understanding In-spiration: The Symphonic and Wholistic Na-ture of Scripture,” Ministry (Aug. 1999), p.14.

12 Selected Messages, book 1, p. 2713 “A Confusion of the Sacred and the

Common,” Ms 107, (March 5) 1909; pub-lished in Selected Messages (Washington,D.C.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 1958),Book 1, p. 39.

14 Steps to Christ, p. 35.

�

ART 7

he Seventh-day AdventistChurch has, from its incep-tion, seen itself as a movementprophetically identified asGod’s “remnant” for the last

days. Is this in harmony with thebiblical concept of remnant?

The concept of “remnant” may bedefined basically as “the portion of acommunity which is left, in case of adevastating calamity.”1 The futureexistence of that community portionwould depend on the remnant.

The Old Testament refers to the

remnant concept using mainly de-rivatives of six Hebrew stems thatare translated: (1) “remain, be leftover”; (2) “escape, get away”; (3) “es-cape, make for safety”; (4) “be leftover, remain”; (5) “survivor”; and(6) “rest, remainder, balance.”

Though the occurrence of any ofthese terms in the Old or New Testa-ment may not necessarily designate

THE SEVENTH-DAYADVENTIST CHURCH

AS REMNANT

B Y B R E M P O N G O W U S U - A N T W I *

T

Seventh-day Adventists see

themselves as fulfilling a unique part of

prophecy for the end-times.

*Brempong Owusu-Antwi, Ph.D., isVice Chancellor of Adventist Univer-sity of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.

50 51

52

the remnant motif or contrariwise,they generally connote a smallergroup remaining or surviving after acal amity to ensure the continuity ofthe community. Where the termshave a religious connotation, theymay refer positively to a faithful rem-nant or negatively to an unfaithfulremnant.

Altogether the terminology ofremnant in the Bible may be viewed ascovering three categories or perspec-tives of the remnant concept: histori-cal, faithful and eschatological.2 Ac-cording to Hasel, the historical rem nantis “made up of survivors of a catastro-phe.”3 These may not necessarily befaithful to God, as was Judah’s histor-ical remnant from the Babylonian in-vasion who fled to Egypt against thecommand of God. They did not carryany covenant promises (Jer. 6:9, 29).The faithful rem nant is set apart fromthe historical remnant “by their gen-uine spirituality and true relationshipwith God; this remnant is the carrierof all divine election promises” andresponsibilities.4

Out of the faithful remnant arisesthe eschatological remnant who will“go through the cleansing judg-ments and apocalyptic woes of theend-time and emerge victorious” toreceive the everlasting kingdom.5

The three categories may overlap.Noah was both a historical and afaithful remnant (Gen. 7:3).

Israel’s collective unfaithfulnessto the covenant not only affected

their covenant relationship but alsobreached the apparatus for the ful-fillment of God’s redemptive pur-poses for humankind. The remnant,therefore, is God’s solution to carryon the covenantal relations. Thecharacteristics of the remnant arethe critical element for the continu-ity of God’s plan of salvation andalso the group that becomes the es-chatological remnant.

Characteristics of the FaithfulRemnant in the Old Testament

The remnant concept permeatesthe Old Testament, and certain char-acteristics emerge in relation to thefaithful as well as the eschatologicalremnant. They are faithful to thecommandments of God.

Noah, the remnant after the Flood(Gen. 7:23), “found grace in the eyesof the Lord” (6:8),6 and was said to berighteous. This implies that he keptGod’s commandments, though itshould be pointed out that Ham, whowas part of the remnant, displayedsome unrighteousness. During Eli-jah’s time, God reserved a remnant of7,000 in Israel (1 Kings 19:18), whohad not bowed to or kissed Baal. Isa-iah declares that the remnant shallhave faith, trust, willing obedience,and holiness (Isa. 1:18, 19). In addi-tion, they possess covenant promisesof salvation (Isa. 28:5), preserve thefaith of God (Dan. 7:25-27), are givena mission (Isa. 2:1-4), and are inclu-sive (Isa. 45:20).

53

Characteristics of the Remnant in the NT

In the New Testament, metaphorsand imagery like “shepherd,”“sheep,” “few,” “the chosen” conveythe remnant idea. The preaching ofboth John the Baptist (Matt. 3:2, 8)and Jesus (Matt. 4:17) put “the few,”“chosen” or “the little group,” whoare saved, in contradistinction to thelarger population who are lost. Theyare depicted as accepting the graceoffered through the gospel as well asliving by obedience inspired by faith.

Paul uses the remnant theme topropose the idea of the new Israel,which will comprise those of physi-cal Israel and others who will acceptthe gospel and live a life of obedi-ence induced by faith in Christ (Ro-mans 9-11).

Generally, therefore, the faithfulremnant in the Bible is characterizedby its acceptance of the grace thatcomes through faith in God and thecommitment to a life of obedience.Those of the faithful remnant who gothrough the end-time cleansing andpersecution become the eschatologi-cal or end-time remnant, whichwould be expected to have the samecharacteristics. Seventh-day Adven-tists in their self-understanding iden-tify with the end-time remnant.

Characteristics of the End-TimeRemnant

The end-time remnant, propheti-cally the last in the history of salva-

tion, exemplifies the characteristicsof the remnant of the people of God.These are explicit in Revelation12:17 and 14:12. Revelation 12 be-gins with a woman ready to givebirth to a child. The woman repre-sents the people of God, while thebirth of the child “is the fulfillmentof the messianic prophecies of theOld Testament in the incarnation,life, ministry, death, and resurrec-tion of Jesus.”

A dragon, the devil according toverse 9, stood before the womanready to devour the child whenborn. She bore a male child who wascaught up to heaven. The dragon,not able to get to the child, perse-cuted the woman, who fled to thewilderness and remained there for1,260 days (vs. 6). Then “the dragonwas enraged with the woman, and hewent to make war with the rest ofher offspring, who keep the com-mandments of God and have thetestimony of Jesus Christ” (vs. 17).

Revelation 12:17 delineates twoidentifying marks of the end-timeremnant: (1) they keep the com-mandments of God, and (2) theyhave the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The first, “keep the command-ments of God” is repeated in 14:12.The question is: Which command-ments are being referred to here? Inthese two cases are indicated that the“commandment” is given by God. Ina number of New Testament texts,this word, “commandment,” clearly

outlined by prophecy for the identi-fication of the end-time remnant.Significantly, it acknowledges that itis commissioned to call out God’speople, who are part of the invisible,universal church, from Babylon intothe visible remnant church.

They must be brought into the visi-ble remnant church of God.

Seventh-day Adventists and theEnd-time Remnant

From the inception of the de-nomination, Seventh-day Adventistshave understood themselves as aprophetic movement fulfilling thespecifications of the end-time rem-nant identified in the Book of Reve-lation. Joseph Bates portrayed thechurch as the remnant in 1874,7 W.H. Littlejohn in 1883,8 Uriah Smithin 1891,9 and John N. Loughbor-ough in 1892,10 among others. Thisunderstanding was based on thechurch interpreting and identifyingwith the characteristics specified inRevelation 12:17 and 14:12.

The Seventh-day AdventistChurch upholds the entire TenCommandments of God, includingthe Sabbath commandment. This issignificant because the Sabbathcommandment is rejected by mostof the rest of Christianity. It also haswithin it the testimony of JesusChrist, the Spirit of prophecy, recog-nized in the prophetic ministry ofEllen G. White. The Church keepsthe faith of Jesus and proclaims theeverlasting gospel in these last days.Furthermore, in harmony with thespecification of prophecy (Rev. 6:6,13-17), the church arose after 1798,the end of the 1,260 years.

The Seventh-day AdventistChurch fulfills all the characteristics

prophecy” and the gift of prophecyin 1 Corinthians 12:10, as well as inRevelation 22:9, where the expres-sion “prophets” substitutes for“spirit of prophecy,” points to themeaning of the “spirit of prophecy”as the spirit that inspires the wordsof the prophets.

The end-time remnant will alsokeep the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14:12),which is interpreted as the holdingon to the doctrinal content of theChristian faith in its entirety. Fur-thermore, they possess patience.They have the resilience to remaincommitted and loyal to God and HisWord while suffering persecution.

Finally, the end-time remnantarises after the 1,260 prophetic days’wilderness experience of the woman(Rev. 12:6, 13-17). The 1,260prophetic days, which symbolicallyrepresent 1,260 years, began in 538A.D. and ended in 1798. The impli-cation is that the end-time remnantarises after 1798. They are portrayedin Revelation 14:6-12 as given themission of bearing the everlastinggospel during the last days to all na-tions. Furthermore, Revelation 18:4specifically mentions that there areGod’s people outside the remnantwho should also be called into thefold: “‘Come out of her, my people,lest you share in her sins, and lestyou receive of her plagues.’” Theseare part of the people of God whoare scattered among the apostatizedentities represented by Babylon.

refers to the Ten Commandments(e.g., Matt. 15:3, 6). In Revelation12:17 and 14:12, the only two occur-rences in the Book of Revelation, thepossibility of the reference being tothe Ten Commandments is height-ened by the introductory vision inRevelation 11:19, which displays theArk of the Covenant, which con-tained the Ten Commandments.This would depict the involvementof the Ten Commandments in thefollowing events described in Reve-lation 12:1-15:4. This would estab-lish that keeping the Ten Command-ments is one of the characteristics ofthe end-time remnant.

Second, the end-time remnant ischaracterized by “the testimony ofJesus” (Rev. 12:17). The Greek phrasetranslated “the testimony of Jesus”lends itself to two interpretations:“our witness to Jesus Christ” or “theself-revelation of Jesus that movesChristian prophets.” The phrase in12:17 must be taken as referring tothe self-revelation of Jesus that Hegives to the church through prophets.

The parallel passage, Revelation19:10, offers further explanation tothe phrase “the testimony of Jesus”:“I fell at his feet to worship him. Buthe said to me, ‘See that you do notdo that! I am your fellow servant,and of your brethren who have thetestimony of Jesus. Worship God!For the testimony of Jesus is thespirit of prophecy.’” The parallelismbetween the expression “spirit of

54 55

REFERENCES1 E. Jenni, “Remnant” in The Interpreter’s

Dic tionary of the Bible, G. A. Buttrick, ed.(Nash ville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1962), vol.4, p. 32.

2 Hans K. LaRondelle, “The Remnant andthe Three Angels’ Messages,” in Handbook ofSeventh-day Adventist Theology, Raoul Ded-eren, ed. (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Her-ald Publ. Assn., 2000), pp. 860-863.

3 Gerhard Hasel, “Remnant,” in The Inter-national Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Geof-frey Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerd-mans, 1988), vol. 4, p. 130.

4 Ibid., p. 133.5 Ibid., p. 130.6 Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture

references in this article are quoted from TheNew King James Version of the Bible.

7 Angel Manuel Rodriguez, “ConcludingEssay: God’s End-Time Remnant and theChristian Church,” in Toward a Theology ofthe Remnant, Angel Manuel Rodriguez, ed.(Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Insti-tute, 2009), p. 205.

8 George I. Butler, “Visions and Proph ecy,”Review and Herald (June 2, 1874), p. 193.

9 W. H. Littlejohn, “Seventh-day Adven-tists and the Testimony of Jesus Christ,” Re-view and Herald (August 14, 1883), p. 14.

10 Uriah Smith, “The Spirit of Prophecyand Our Relation to It,” General ConferenceDaily Bulletin (1891), p. 150.

11 John N. Loughborough, The Rise andProgress of Seventh-day Adventists (BattleCreek, Mich.: General Conference Associa-tion, 1892), p. 388.

had apparently expected tofind a malfunctioning trans -ponder on a boat or smallplane, the usual problem inincidents like this.

As the response team left,they told Chris not to turn on his TVset or he’d be facing a $10,000 finefor “willingly broadcasting a falsedistress signal.” (Up till that time, ofcourse, he hadn’t been broadcasting“willingly.”) And fortunately, themanufacturer of the TV offered toprovide him with a free replacement.So now Chris van Rossmann can getback to Letterman!

With the frequent misunder-standings many of us have withDVD players and laptops and scan-ners and fax machines, some of usoccasionally feel the upsetting needto be rescued. Keeping up with thepossibilities in cutting-edge technol-ogy—not to mention trying to stayahead of the curve—is sometimes adaunting challenge.Or, to take the concept a step fur-

ther, with the quality of broadcasting(e.g., so-called reality shows, social

ollege student Chris vanRossmann answered anabrupt knock at thedoor of his apartmentin Corvallis, Oregon, to

find police and civil air patroland search-and-rescue personnelstanding there, demanding to knowwhy he was sending out a distress sig-nal. Dressed comfortably in hisbathrobe and slippers, Chris clearlywasn’t in any apparent distress, andhe was completely unaware that hewas doing anything whatsoever tosummon help.

After a little investigation of thepremises, the crack response teamwas surprised to discover that thesignal was being emitted sponta-neously, and completely unknownto Chris, by his year-old flat-screentelevision. The distress call had beentransmitted into the stratosphere,received by satellite, and routed tothe Air Force Rescue Center at Lang-ley Air Force Base in Virginia.“They’d never seen a signal come

that strong from a home appliance,”the 20-year-old told reporters. They

have learned) Timothy, because youknow the source. You know me!

Even more directly, Paul exhortsthe young theologian, “Watch yourlife and doctrine closely. Persevere inthem, because if you do, you willsave both yourself and your hearers”(1 Tim. 4:16, NIV).

Life and theology are inseparable.Adventist theologians understandhow their own moral spiritual per-sonhood impacts both their theo-logical enterprise and the power oftheir theological influence truly tospiritually transform lives in faithfulsupport of the church’s message andmission. There is both modeling andmentoring. Only personal faithful-ness to the body and the Lord of thebody accomplishes these.

Faithfulness is an enduring bibli-cal value, which mirrors the verycharacter and personal commitmentof God Himself (Deut. 7:9; 1 Cor.1:9). We are never more like God thanwhen we personally manifest unwa-vering, consistently loyal, conscien-tious, reliable, and committed faith-fulness to the church God Himself sodearly loves. “I thank Christ Jesus ourLord, . . . that he considered me faith-ful, appointing me to his service,”Paul told Timothy (1 Tim. 1:12, NIV).

Would not God desire such oftoday’s Adventist thought leaderswho have been placed in the serviceof His church? “What you haveheard from me through many wit-nesses entrust to faithful people who

will be able to teach others as well”(2 Timothy 2:2, NRSV).

Who theologians are in characterand spiritual life influences who thechurch sees itself to be in its characterand spiritual life (2 Tim. 2:2; 3:10,14). Who theologians are in characterand spiritual life influences the the-ologians they are working alongsideof and those they are mentoring asfuture thought leaders in the church.This is how theologians’ characterand spiritual life effectively touchesthe church’s nature, mission, andunity. This is why personal faithful-ness to the Seventh-day AdventistChurch along with the pledge to con-tinue personally supporting itthrough tithes, offerings, personal ef-fort, and influence are so important.

Personal faithfulness to God’schurch and a trustworthy messageever go hand in hand. As Solomonobserved: “Trustworthy messengersrefresh like snow in summer. They re-vive the spirit of their employer”(Prov. 25:13, NLT). May every Ad-ventist student of Scripture be so per-sonally refreshing to the church thatcalls them to steward God’s truth intheir midst. This we affirm!

REFERENCES1 Edward M. Bounds, Power Through

Prayer (New Kensington, Pa.: WhitakerHouse, 1982), pp. 8, 9.

2 Peter Forsyth, Positive Preaching andModern Mind (London: Hodder andStoughton, 1907), p. 305.

3 Philip E. Hughes, “The Creative Task of

C A BOLD,NEW STEPFOR PD

Gary B. Swanson

W O R K S T A T I O N T W O

6160

Overflow on p56

They did do some letter writing—pretty much the only readablemedium of the time. But the Pax Ro-mana offered new roads to spreadthe Christian message.

Philip, one of the first to preachthe gospel outside Jerusalem, wentto Samaria. Peter and John traveledto Samaria and to other places aswell. And, probably most notably,Paul—joined by Silas, Barnabas,John Mark, Timothy, and others—took the mission, literally and figu-ratively, to new frontiers.

At this point in human history—in the first decade of a new millen-nium—humanity seems to have en-tered well into a new era. Thecultural changes being issued in bycommunication and technologymay well rival those of the 15th cen-tury, when the print medium galva-nized Western culture and paved theway for the Reformation and the En-lightenment.

There is no certainty that theprint medium will, anytime soon, gothe way of cuneiform and papyrus.(We don’t see too many people at thebus stop, in the aisles of our airlin-ers, reading cuneiform or papyrus orother pre-movable-print mediatoday.) In fact, if we’re to listen tosome of our futurists, we may beginto wonder if reading itself will be-come an outmoded way of learning.

Yet technology offers new roadsfor the proclamation of the gospeltoday. And this has prompted the

Adventist Theological Society tomake a decision regarding Perspec-tive Digest. Effective with the fourthquarter 2010 issue, PD will transi-tion to a solely online publication.This present issue is to be the lastone that will appear in print.

There are, of course, some eco-nomic reasons for this decision. Butthere are also some very compellingpositive considerations as well. Anonline publication can be exponen-tially more accessible, more interac-tive, more engaging, and moretimely than a quarterly print publi-cation. And we look forward to theseimmediate kinds of constructive im-provement.

In setting out on this road, we areaware that we must trust in the con-tinuing support of our readers. Wewill place our hope that PD readerswill uphold our efforts in prayer andtake advantage of every opportunityto share with others the resourcethat an online PD will be able to pro-vide. Accessibility, interactivity, en-gagement, timeliness—these will bethe stars by which we guide our edi-torial efforts as we set out on thisnew road. And we invite you tocome along.

1 http://www.quotationspage.com/ -quotes/Robert_Wilensky, accessedApril 24, 2010.

and political commentary, and evensome news programming) that arebeing provided on the air waves andthe Internet these days, maybe we’dall be a bit better off if our TVs—and our computers—sent out an oc-casional distress signal. As RobertWilensky, computer science profes-sor at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley, said in a 1996 speech:“We’ve heard that a million monkeysat a million keyboards could pro-duce the complete works of Shake-speare; now, thanks to the Internet,we know that is not true.”1

But as we are all aware, technol-ogy has brought us a great manyblessings too. Consider, for example,all the good that comes from suchfields of study as fiber optics, mag-netic resonance imaging, microwavetechnology, artificial intelligence,and others.

Even these, of course, also havetheir negative applications. Such isthe nature of humankind. Every giftthat God has bestowed on human-ity—except His very own Son—hasbeen perverted horribly in someway. Yet each of those gifts,prompted by His love, is meant to befor the betterment of individualsand humankind in general. Each isan expression of His love. Each hasits intended applications in God’skingdom on this earth.

For this reason, there is no roomfor a Neo-Luddite in the Christianfamily. Anyone who would seek to

prevent the full utilization of everytechnology to carry out the missionof the church is simply refusing ablessing proffered by God.

In 1972, Larry Norman, a con-temporary Christian musician, re -corded a song that asked theprovocative question, “Why shouldthe devil have all the good music?”Without venturing into the divisiveissue of Christian music, a similarquestion might be paraphrased:Why should the devil have all thegood technology?

In 20/20 hindsight, most of hu-manity would probably be thankfulthat Gutenberg was willing to askthe same question back at the earlypart of the 15th century. It may bedifficult to imagine, but there wereprobably people of the time who,considering the possibility of usingGutenberg’s innovative combinationof movable type, oil-based ink, andwooden presses, said, “No thanks.The only way to communicate thetruth is through illuminated manu-scripts!”

But Gutenberg surely recognizedthe potential that this new printmedium promised for the proclama-tion of the gospel.

The history of Christian missionbegan in the time of the New Testa-ment itself. The apostles were com-pelled to take the message of Christthe Messiah to a waiting world. Thiswas a truth that could not be storedprotectively in backwater Palestine.

62 63