Editor's Page

Editor’s Page

Randall W. Younker Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews University

With this issue we conclude the 2014 offerings for the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. JATS continues to attract many new, first time writers as well as established veteran scholars–we are grateful for all of their contributions. We have been fortunate to have a regular flow of submissions, and pray and hope that continues. These contributions have been a real blessing to our readers. We also want to encourage you to check out our website, www.atsjats.org, which has a variety of resources available. Under our publications tab you can find past issues of JATS in our archives. The activities tab lists information about the various symposiums which ATS holds each year. The media tab has archived video and audio selections in several media formats. You may also wish to utilize our additional website resources which can be found at: www.perspectivedigest.org. PD is a more popular online journal with shorter articles. ATSAcademy can be found at: www.atsacademy.org and contains video resources explaining important, contemporary theological issues. This issue of JATS offers some excellent theological and practical articles. Adriana Rodrigues examines the important issue of Creation and Theodicy. The question of God’s justice in a world full of pain and death is one that Adventists have focused on for many years and why the SDA church has maintained its stance on a Biblical doctrine of Creation. Adventist Theological Society president, Tom Shepherd, currently director of the Ph.D./Th.D. programs at the SDA Theological Seminary, shares his expertise in the New Testament with his study on the theology

1 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY of Colossians. Kim Papaioannou and Edward Moyo join forces in their review of the “Judgment Motifs in the Messages to the Seven Churches.” Gonzalo Pita next moves us into the arena of church history with part one of his study on the Waldensian and Catholic Theologies of history during the XII-XIV centuries. Our next articles draw us into contemporary issues. John Wesley Taylor offers “A Christian Critique of the Antimodern Quest.” This is followed by Gerald Klingbeil’s “‘United We Stand:’ A Biblical Perspective on Ecumenical Relations.” We conclude this issue with an article by the recently retired–but still very active–director of the Biblical Research Institute, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez. His article is entitled “The Theological and Practical Significance of Heath Reform in the Writings of Ellen White.” We hope you will take advantage of these resources for your professional and personal study.

Randall W. Younker is Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity and Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Andrews University. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in Near Eastern Archaeology from the University of Arizona. He also holds a degree in Religion and an M.A. in Biology. He has served as the editor of JATS since 2009. [email protected]

‘United We Stand’: A Biblical Perspective on Ecumenical Relations

Gerald A. Klingbeil Research Professor Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews University

1. Introduction Unity has become a particularly appealing concept in our economically, socially, and politically fragmented world. In the face of huge global challenges, we hear people say, how can we survive and even thrive if we do not work together? With the growth of Christianity stagnating or even in decline in many parts of the world the idea of Christian unity as a means of meeting the tremendous challenges to evangelism and growth has been the focus for many denominations.1 Advocates for increased ecumenical relations2

1 The current study is a significantly expanded version of a presentation given at a Bible Conference in Prague, Czech Republic, held in early July 2012, that included Seventh-day Adventist pastors from all German-speaking countries of the Inter-European Division (EUD) as well as pastor from the Czecho-Slovakian Union. The context and challenges facing Adventist pastors in this particular geographical and cultural context naturally guided the framework for this study. I would like to express my appreciation to a number of individuals who have critically interacted with this study and have prodded me to continue looking, including my wife Chantal J. Klingbeil, my friend Dennis Meier, my colleague and mentor Gerhard Pfandl, and others. 2 In this study I am trying to consistently use the phrase “ecumenical relations” as it seems to be more neutral than ecumenism or ecumenicalism. Ecumenical relations vary from Christian interdenominational dialogue, cooperation, or even fusion to Christian dialogue and interaction with completely different religious traditions. While pastors ministering in Europe would most likely be more affected by interdenominational dialogue and discussions, the philosophical underpinnings of more macro-style ecumenical relations across the lines of world religions and cultures seem to echo the more low-level ecumenical

104 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS (and the need for Christian unity) are quick to quote Scripture: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:20, 21, NIV). These verses are crucial for the current topic and require a closer exegetical look.3 John 17:1 clearly underlines the prayer framework of the chapter. Yet, packaged as part of this prayer, John 17 represents one of the longest teaching sections of Jesus, associated with the last supper. A close reading of the biblical text suggests that Jesus was worried about what He knew was soon to take place. Jesus knew that He was about to be delivered into the hands of His enemies; that His divided followers were not ready to face the next hours; He felt the weight of sin pressing on His heart. As Jesus prays He also teaches. There is a clear sequence in the prayer, covering Jesus’ own relation to the Father (17:1-5), followed by specific prayer for His disciples (17:6-19), and finally looking into the future and praying more generically for future believers (17:20-26). The call for unity appears throughout the prayer in different forms, but is most explicit in vv. 20-21. Jesus’ concern for unity must have been triggered by noting the sense of disunity among His followers.4 Nobody had stood to wash the feet (John 13) and there are many references in the gospels pointing to the repeated discussions among the disciples concerning leadership, control, and greatness (Mark 9:34; cf. Luke 9:46; 22:24 in the context of the last supper). Was this the group that God had to rely upon in bringing the gospel to all the world? Jesus prays for “all” relations. 3 Note the comments of Gerald L. Borchert, John 12-21 (NAC 25B; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 204-5: “These verses have been the subject of a great deal of explication at least since the fourth century, when the discussion focused on the nature of the unity between Jesus and the Father. The Arians employed this text (especially 20:21) to argue for a moral or ethical unity between the Father and the Son rather than an essential unity (cf. 10:30). The issue involves the pattern of John’s argument. It seems certain that he does not argue from human relationships to the divine but from the divine to the human. Therefore one cannot legitimately propose that human experiences of unity, even in the best ecclesiastical situations, are the pattern for divine relationships in the Godhead.” 4 An important issue associated with Jesus’ prayer for unity involves the question how this ideal of unity is to be accomplished. Is Christian unity based on human projects, proposals, and planning or is it God-centered and ultimately dependent on divine intervention? See for more on this M. Lloyd-Jones, The Basis of Christian Unity (London: Inter Varsity, 1962).

105 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY who would come to believe in Him, i.e., future followers of Christ (and, therefore in this particular context, not all the world) and anchors this unity in the unity between the Father and the Son, i.e., the Trinity. The unity of His followers was to be based on a common foundation (“be one in us”) and would have a surprising effect: when the “world” (that is, the people) would see this unity in purpose and mission they would believe that Jesus was truly sent by the Father (and thus one with the Father) and the Savior of the world. In summary: Jesus’ call to unity is driven by mission5 and is truly radical, as also noted by George Beasley-Murray: “It [the unity that Jesus refers to] is rooted in the being of God, revealed in Christ, and in the redemptive action of God in Christ.”6 Historically, the idea of Christian unity had a missiological focus and clustered around the desire to bring Christ to all the world. However, fast forward more than a century and the missiological focus was replaced by the desire to accomplish unity,7 or in the words of an official document of the World Council of Churches, “a growing number of voices from the churches, especially in Asia but also in Latin America, have spoken of the need for a ‘wider ecumenism’ or ‘macro-ecumenism’—an understanding which would open the ecumenical movement to other religious and cultural traditions beyond the Christian community.”8 As I consider ecumenical relations in this study I hope to keep both the larger attempt at ecumenical relations (or “macro-ecumenism” as called in the above quote)9 as well as the more familiar interdenominational Christian dialogue in view. In both instances the desire for unity and understanding seems to be the driving force, showing a significant departure from the drive for Christian world evangelism that marked ecumenical relations and ecumenical mission

5 Borchert, John 12-21, 206. 6 George R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Dallas, TX: Word, 2002), 302. 7 Regarding this fundamental change in ecumenical outlook see Bert B. Beach, Ecumenism: Boon or Bane? (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1974), 27-28. 8 Cf. “Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches: A Policy Statement,” document adopted by the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches and commended to member churches and ecumenical partners for study and action in September 1997. [cited 25 June 2012]. Online: http://www. oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/porto-alegre-2006/3-preparatory-and- background-documents/common-understanding-and-vision-of-the-wcc-cuv.html. 9 Cf. Herbert Pollitt, The Inter-Faith Movement (Edinburgh: The Banner of Trust, 1996).

106 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS conferences of the late nineteenth century. This shift has also been noted by many authors documenting the change from the “Christocentric universalism” that Willem A. Visser ‘t Hooft (the first general secretary of the World Council of Churches [WCC]) postulated to the understanding of oikoumene as the “one household of life.”10 Since I am not a church historian interested in the historical development of current ecumenical relations,11 nor a systematic theologian who may be better equipped to highlight and evaluate the philosophical or theological underpinnings of ecumenical relations, I would like to return to the biblical foundation for the quest of unity. In the following comments I will discuss relevant biblical data not only because this is my particular area of expertise, but even more so because Scripture’s inherent truth

10 See Ralph Del Colle, “Ecumenical Dialogues: State of the Question,” Liturgical Ministry 19 (Summer 2010): 105-14, esp. 109. Del Colle writes from a Catholic perspective. The notion of the “household of life” as the governing paradigm in current ecumenical endeavors is not only interdenominational and interreligious but is also considered to be helpful in seeking to cross the divide between faith and science, as suggested by Aaron T. Hollander, “Renovating the Household of Life: On the Development of Ecumenical Relations Between Sacred and Scientific,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 45.2 (2010): 265- 87. Compare also Margaret O’Gara, “Witnessing the Ecumenical Future Together,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 46.3 (2011): 368-77. O’Gara, also writing from a Catholic perspective, focuses primarily upon the Christian attempts at ecumenical relations, particularly the relations between the Catholic Church and Protestants. She considers the nature of the church, theological anthropology, and the relationship between Scripture and tradition as hot spots that require urgent ecumenical dialogue. Regarding the large field of inter-religious ecumenical relations note Volker Kuester, “Who, With Whom, About What? Exploring the Landscape of Inter-religious Dialogue,” Exchange 33.1 (2004): 73-92. Kuester provides a very helpful review of issues that separate Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, African religions, etc. He suggests that inter-religious dialogues creates a “third space,” that is theologically located in-between exclusivism and inclusivism and is really a “dialogue of life” (92). 11 Note the contribution of Hans Heinz, “Ökumenische Bewegung und Adventgemeinde,” in Die Gemeinde und ihr Auftrag (ed. Johannes Mager; Studien zur Adventistischen Ekklesiologie 2; Lüneburg: Saatkorn-Verlag, 1994), 103-26, providing a brief snapshot of Adventist relations to the ecumenical movement. Compare also the contributions of Raoul Dederen, “Die Einheit der Gemeinde—Probleme und Spannungen,” in Die Gemeinde und ihr Auftrag (ed. Johannes Mager; Studien zur adventistischen Ekklesiologie 2; Hamburg: Saatkorn-Verlag, 1994), 237-50; and earlier Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Adventists and Ecumenical Relations,” Ministry 81.12 (December 2003): 5-9, 28, and Clifford Goldstein, “Ecumenism: Uniting the Churches,” Signs of the Times (May 2008). [cited 25 June 2012]. Online: http://www.signstimes. com/?p=article&a =40023203364.739; and Walter Douglas, “Unity in Diversity in Christ,” Ministry 70.8 (August 1997): 5-8.

107 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY claim as the only standard of faith and practice needs to drive theological (and other) thinking of Seventh-day Adventists all around the world—particularly those serving as ministry leaders in a part of the world that proclaimed nearly half a millennium ago loudly and unmistakably the call to sola and tota scriptura.12 I realize that the biblical examples selected for this study are only selective, due to limited space and the recognition that final words are usually left to monograph- size research and, even then, should only be “tentative final words.” However, echoing other academic research, the biblical “soundings” will hopefully provide a direction or guide for discovering important underlying principles that are relevant for our thinking about ecumenical relations in the twenty-first century.

2. “Back to Babel”: The Community Project that Divided Leaving aside for a moment the unity of husband and wife as portrayed in the creation narrative in Genesis 1-2, probably one of humanity’s first post-fall attempts to work together in a coordinated manner is recorded in the tower of Babel narrative found in Genesis 11.13 The biblical text highlights in Gen 11:1 the fact that the anonymous builders had one language and one speech—which sounds like a lot of common ground, avoiding misunderstandings due to linguistic (and consequently cultural) differences or even nuances. The pivotal point of the chiastic structure of the story can be found in Gen 11:5 when God comes down to “see the city and the tower that the men were building”

12 As I was developing the ideas contained in this study I became aware of an important collection of Seventh-day Adventist statements and documents regarding ecumenical (or interchurch/interfaith) relations. These documents provide helpful snapshots into historical developments and current thinking but do not provide much help regarding the topic that I was invited to deal with. Cf. Stefan Höschele, ed., Interchurch and Interfaith Relations: Seventh-day Adventist Statements and Documents (Adventistica: Studies in Seventh-day Adventist History and Theology 10; Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang, 2010). 13 I have discussed the literary structure and significance of this important narrative elsewhere. See Gerald A. Klingbeil and Martin G. Klingbeil, “La lectura de la Biblia desde una perspectiva hermenéutica multidisciplinaria (II)—Construyendo torres y hablando lenguas en Gn 11:1-9,” in Entender la Palabra. Hermenéutica Adventista para el Nuevo Siglo (ed. Merling Alomía, Gerald A. Klingbeil, Martin G. Klingbeil and Jorge Torreblanca; Cochabamba: Universidad Adventista de Bolivia, 2000), 175-98. Compare also my comments regarding the importance of a unified language in Gerald A. Klingbeil, “‘He Spoke and It Was’: Human Language, Divine Creation, and the imago Dei,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 36.1 (2014): 42-59.

108 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS (NIV).14 God’s negative reaction at this attempt of human unity is clearly expressed in the divine dialogue found in verses 6 and 7. “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them” (Gen 11:6 NIV) is the final diagnostic. What element of this attempt at unity could God have found so threatening? The tower of Babel narrative does more than highlight the power of human communication. The anonymous human participants of the story speak repeatedly about the need to build a city and a tower—most likely a ziggurat-like temple structure reaching to heaven (Gen 11:3-4)15—and the desire to “make us a name for ourselves” (Gen 11:4). Sailhamer notes that, to “make a name” is a phonetic word play with the name of the godly son of Noah, Shem.16 It also anticipates the divine promise to Abraham in Gen 12:2 ^m,v. hl'D>g:a]w: “and I will make your name great” (i.e., you and your descendants will be renowned and highly esteemed).17 In this sense, “making a great name” is a divine prerogative and not the result of human design and efforts. The tower builders are not only trying to erect a structure reaching heaven,18 they also intend to do so on their

14 When Scripture tells of God’s descending significant things happen: God descends in the giving of the Ten Commandments (Exod 19:11, 18, 20; also in 34:5); when a new administrative structure is implemented God descends to fill the seventy elders with His spirit (Num 11:25; also 12:5). Other references to divine movement from top to bottom can be found in Ps 144:5 and Isa 31:4. 15 Note the many references (both textual and pictorial) of ancient tower-temples in Klingbeil and Klingbeil, “La lectura de la Biblia desde una perspectiva hermenéutica multidisciplinaria (II)—Construyendo torres y hablando lenguas en Gn 11:1-9,” 189-98. 16 John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative. A Biblical-Theological Commentary (Library of Biblical Interpretation; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 134. 17 Note the divine promise to David in 2 Sam 7:9 which refers to lAdG" ~ve “a great name” and the slightly reworded promises to Solomon in 1 Kings 1:47. The result of this promise to David is described in 2 Sam 8:13. 18 The reaching up-to heaven imagery is also used elsewhere in the HB in connection with hubris. It is clear that the phrase ~yIm;V'b; Avarow> “and its [the tower’s] head in heaven” in Gen 11:4 represents an idiomatic expression to describe a monumental and impressive structure. Deut 1:28 and 9:1 read ~yIm'V'B; troWcb.W “and [their, i.e., the cities of Canaan] enclosures [or walls] in heaven.” For the Hebrews it was clear that YHWH was in heaven (cf. Deut 4:39, which utilizes the same phrase; similar also Amos 9:6) and thus, anything intruding “heaven” was considered human infringement. Interestingly Cornelis Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament. Israels Weltbild und Weltanschauung (Oudtestamentische Studiën 30; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 330, suggests that the term ~yIm"V'b; “in heaven” indicates the “Unantastbarkeit Gottes” in the HB. In Jer 51:53 the prophet describes that even if Babylon would go up to heaven, ~yIm;V'h; lb,b' hl,[]t; it would still be under YHWH’s jurisdiction and

109 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY own steam, and openly defy the divine command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 9:1, 7; cf. 1:28). Human hubris is countered by divine judgment, not because God does not like towers or cities. Rather, the builder’s attempt to usurp divine attributes and prerogatives through united coercive action lies at the heart of this swift divine response.19 Scripture seems to fault the ancient tower builders on two accounts: their lapse of a sense of God’s mission—which, at that time, was to spread out and fill the earth—and their attempts to do things their own way, highlighting the danger of man-made attempts at unity.

3. “Familiar” Beginnings Even in a postmodern and genuinely fragmented world families remain to be important building blocks of society—although the notion (or institution) of family is under attack from different sides.20 In the Old Testament world families were even more important. Any attempt at unity would begin with the integration of families. The call of Abraham involved the call of a family, which by faith had yet to be. God’s call is exclusive (Gen 12:1) and yet inclusiveness is emphasized (Gen 12:3). Abraham’s (often dysfunctional) family was called to be different and custodians of the promise—and yet, ultimately, they were called to mission and become a blessing for the tribes and people living around them. In Abraham’s case this meant leaving his father’s home and country and going to an unknown land where he was to remain a “stranger” and not to assimilate with the local tribal groups, even though we find the patriarch at times collaborating with neighboring clans and people (e.g., during the rescue mission of Lot and the people of Sodom [Gen 14]). When Isaac became of marriageable age, the fear of assimilation (or absorption) with the local population groups led Abraham to send his servant Eliezer to find a wife for Isaac from his would surely be destroyed. The same vocabulary (~yIm;v' together with the verb hl'[') is also used in Isa 14:13 in the famous passage against the king of Babylon. A helpful discussion of the links and integration of Gen 11 and 12 can be found in D. J. Estes, “Looking for Abraham’s City,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147.588 (1990): 399-413. 19 Compare Bruce K. Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis. A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 175-84. 20 There is abundant literature documenting this threat to families (including also marriages). Cf. Dennis Rainey, Ministering to Twenty-first Century Families (Swindoll Leadership Library; Nashville, TN: Word, 2001).

110 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS clan and not have him intermarry locally (Gen 24). Even though Nahor’s descendants in Syria apparently had their own struggles in relating to YHWH, Abraham felt strongly to find a wife for the son of the promise, Isaac, within his clan, due to their relationship to YHWH.21 The biblical authors repeatedly emphasize the fact that distinct religious loyalties and values were the key distinguishing factor, since the tribal groups spoke similar (Semitic) languages, practiced similar life-styles (often preferring a semi-nomadic lifestyle), and shared in some instances also comparable cultural characteristics (e.g., importance of family and clan, power of elders, etc.). As we move along in the Pentateuch we find explicit legal data concerning the marriage of Israelites with non-Israelites (Deut 7:1-10).22 Looking forward to Israel’s increasing interaction with foreign nations,23 including the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deut 7:1) during the settlement period, there was a need for clarifying the prior order to execute the ~r

21 See, for example, the reference to the household idols in Gen 31:19, 34, 35, suggesting some type of religious assimilation of Nahor’s descendants within the larger context of Syrian religion. For a helpful discussion of the identity and significance of the t.râpîm see Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 292-96. 22 This section of the paper is relying on an earlier detailed discussion of cross-cultural marriage in the OT with particular reference to the postexilic period. Cf. Gerald A. Klingbeil, “‘Not so Happily Ever After. . .’: Cross-Cultural Marriages in the Time of Ezra- Nehemiah,” Maarav 14.1 (2007): 39-75. 23 It should be noted that I just reflect the language use of the Hebrew Bible. The western notion of a “nation” or a “state” (as an integrated and highly complex entity) is not at all present in the ancient Near East. One should rather consider these divisions in terms of distinct tribal groups. For a good discussion of the relationship between the concepts of “nation/state” and “tribe” see the doctoral dissertation of Zeljko Gregor, “Sociopolitical Structures of Transjordanian Societies during the Late Bronze and Iron I Ages (ca. 1550–1000 B.C.)” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1996), 127-72, esp. 154-61. Compare also the application of the tribal model to Transjordanian LBA society in Øystein Stan LaBianca and Randy W. Younker, “The Kingdoms of Ammon, Moab and Edom: the Archaeology of Society in Late Bronze/Iron Age Transjordan (ca. 1400–500 BCE),” in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (ed. Thomas E. Levy; London–Washington: Leicester University Press, 1998), 399-415.

111 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY only entail military or socio-political connotations but involves definite religious and ritual implications.24 In Deuteronomy 7:2-3 the text highlights the fact that “banning” these tribes meant practically that Israel should not enter into a covenant relationship with these nations [tyrIB. tr:K']. Furthermore, Israel was not to give their sons and daughters in marriage, nor should they seek marriage partners from these groups for their own children. Deuteronomy 7:3 employs the technical term !tx “to marry, become a son in law” that can also be found in the crucial passages found in Neh 6:18 and 13:28, illustrating the severity of the problem. The rationale provided by the text is simple and expressively stated in Deut 7:4:

rhem; ^d>ymiv.hiw> ~k,B' hw"hy>-@a; hr"x'w> ~yrIxea] ~yhil{a/ Wdb.['w> yr:x]a;me ^n>Bi-ta, rysiy"-yKi(

“Because it would turn away your children from following me and they would serve other gods. Then the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and he will swiftly destroy you.”

It would seem that unity with these nations through intermarriage would come at the price of Israel’s unique mission and would involve giving up the truth about the worship of the only true God—even though the issue is not always clear cut. The list of known cross-cultural marriages in the Hebrew Bible is quite extensive. Interestingly, the biblical text includes both positive and negative evaluations of specific cross-cultural marriages. Some positive examples include Rahab and Salmon (according to the genealogy of Matt 1:5), Ruth and Mahlon/Chilion,25 and later Boaz, while negative examples comprise, for example, Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kgs 3:1)26 or Ahab and the Phoenician princess Jezebel (1 Kgs 16:31).

24 This has been argued convincingly (including many further bibliographic references) by Allan Bornapé, “El problema del ~r

112 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS What particular element made the difference in the evaluation of the biblical authors? Let me rephrase the question in the particular context of this study: what would make unity or ecumenical relations acceptable in OT marriage terms? Psalm 45 may provide an interesting take regarding acceptable cross- cultural marriages against the backdrop of a royal marriage scenario (perhaps during the time of Solomon?) and the associated status of foreign wives (or queens). Commentators have entitled this psalm as a royal wedding song27 and verse 11 [English v. 10] is highly relevant for our present discussion: ybia' tybeW %Me[; yxik.viw> %nEz>a' yJih;w> yair>W tb;-y[im.vi “Listen, oh daughter, watch out and incline your ears: forget your people and your father’s house.” I submit that the admonition to forget both family and the “father’s house” suggests not only cultural or sociological reorientation but must have also involved religious loyalties.28 In this sense the ideal for any king marrying outside the tribal group involved a reorientation of the future queen’s loyalties, including also her religious affiliation.29 The Old Testament data concerning cross-cultural marriages seems to emphasize that integration, or unity, is positive only if it does not come at the expense of recognizing YHWH as the supreme deity or sacrificing the truth claims of a “Thus says the Lord of Israel.” God’s special mission for Israel as His people was not to be surrendered. In the following section we will take a closer look at relationships (and unity) between different subgroups of Israel (i.e., the 12 tribes) as well as groups that were somewhat related to Israel (such as the Ammonites,

27 See here, for example, Artur Weiser, The Psalms (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1962), 360; Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59 (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; CC; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993), 450; Luis Alonso Schökel and C. Carniti, Salmos I (Salmos 1-72). Traducción, introduciones y comentario (Nueva Biblia Española; Estella: Verbo Divino, 1992), 644. 28 An important contextual argument for this focus is based on Ps 45:7 where the eternal character of God’s throne is described. Both before and after this reference there are references to the king or his bride. It is God who is the real king with the earthly king (and his bride) representing the shadow (earthly) government. The relationship between original and shadow can also be seen in the sanctuary references (esp. Exod 25:9). In the NT the Epistle to the Hebrews develops this shadow-reality paradigm further. 29 It is interesting to note that Psalm 45:11 seems to represent an inversion of the creation order where man leaves and father and mother and clings to his wife and thus becomes one flesh (Gen 2:24). See here Schökel and Carniti, Salmos I, 651.

113 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Moabites, and Edomites), since these types of relations may better reflect the closer relationship of modern Christian denominations.

4. Unity Between Brothers The previous sections dealt in a canonical sequence with efforts at accomplishing unity involving the tower of Babel narrative (united by language and purpose) and OT concepts of family and marriage relations (focusing particularly upon cross-cultural marriages). In this part of the study I will focus upon the next level of Israelite society, namely tribal relations. How did the 12 tribes interact in the premonarchic period? How was the relationship between Israel and Judah following the division of the Solomonic kingdom? And, finally, how did Israel relate to other, closely related, tribal groups (such as Ishmaelites, Edomites, Ammonites, or Moabites)? The biblical picture of tribal relations in Israel is complex. Beginning with the often-convoluted interaction of Jacob’s twelve sons described in Gen 37-50, the biblical text shows fissures that continuously undermine or even threaten the unity of Israel’s tribal system. Sociological and anthropological research has demonstrated the complexity of tribal societies whose members have to balance family and clan loyalties with the commitment to the tribe and should not be confused with the modern notion of a nation and loyalty of citizens to the state.30 In the context of the Old Testament, leadership issues (and the status of the first-born) made family and tribal relations even more complex. Not surprisingly, there are a number of instances in the Old Testament where the eldest (or firstborn) loses his leadership prerogative.31 Most research dealing with

30 Compare the valuable research found in Daniel E. Fleming, Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors. Mari and Early Collective Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Gregor, “Sociopolitical Structures of Transjordanian Societies During the Late Bronze and Iron I Ages (ca. 1550–1000 B.C.)”; and the slightly dated but still valuable John W. Rogerson, Anthropology and the Old Testament (The Biblical Seminar; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984). The topic has also been covered in Randall W. Younker, “Moabite Social Structure,” Biblical Archaeologist 60 (1997): 237-48; and Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998). 31 Note, for example, Jacob and Esau, or the preeminence of Joseph among the 12 brothers of Jacob. Later examples include David’s election (bypassing his older brothers) or Solomon’s rise to the throne. See the studies of Roger Syrén, The Forsaken First-Born: A Study of a Recurrent Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives (JSOTSup 133; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993); Frederick E. Greenspahn, When Brothers Dwell Together. The Preeminence of Younger Siblings in the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University

114 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS these inversions focus upon theological reasons—and theology is definitely significant in this context. The upheaval of well-established (even divinely-ordained) lines of leadership always highlight God’s prerogative of divine election—yet at the same time do not necessarily represent divine rejection. During the period of the Judges tribal alliances shifted constantly. External threats (or enemies) at times united some tribes while other unaffected tribes (often separated by geography and location) did not get involved. A good example of this can be found in Judg 11 and 12 describing Jephthah’s term as judge over Israel. Of Gileadite origin, he fought the Ammonites possibly with the help of members of the tribe of Manasseh whose territory he had to cross in order to defeat Ammon (cf. Judg 11:29); following his victory, Jephthah is challenged by the tribe of Ephraim, leading to inter-tribal military conflict (Judg 12:1-7). The particular tribal identity is underlined by dialectical differences (Judg 12:6).32 As has been noted by Webb, “the essential bond between the tribes was their common history and their allegiance to Yahweh. He himself was their supreme Ruler or Judge (Judg 11:27), and his law was their constitution.”33 The key constant unifying factor that kept Israel’s tribes together apparently was the Tabernacle and Yahweh worship enforced by charismatic leaders (or judges). While the prologue of the book of Judges portrays Israel as a unity and suggests a “national” or “unified” perspective, the book’s central section describes less the ideal, but more accurate the reality of intertribal conflict, often associated with blatant idolatry or the more subtle religious syncretism.34

Press, 1994); and more recently Merling Alomía, “El motivo del primogénito y su mensaje redentor en el libro del Éxodo,” in ‘Y Moisés escribió las palabras De YHWH’. Estudios selectos en el Pentateuco (ed. Merling Alomía; Investigaciones Bíblico-Teológicas UPeUenses; Ñaña, Lima: Ediciones Theologika, 2004), 163-204. 32 Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., A Commentary on Judges and Ruth (Kregel Exegetical Library; Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2013), 365-67, has noted the important literary role of the Gileadite-Ephraimite civil war for Judges. It reflects the earlier intertribal conflict in Judg 7:24-8:3 and anticipates further bloodshed on an even larger scale in the book’s final chapters (Judg 19-21). 33 Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges (NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 13. 34 Chisholm, A Commentary on Judges and Ruth, 29-34, has discussed, what he has called, the “Pan-Israelite perspective” of Judges. He summarizes his findings as follows: “Judges does insist on viewing Israel as a unity, but it also reflects the disintegration that marred this period in the nation’s history. The linguistic evidence shows that the pan- Israelite perspective, though idealized to some degree and characterized by hyperbole, is

115 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY In the early united monarchy Benjamin (under Saul) and Judah (under David) were at times pitted against each other. External threats continued to unite the tribes until David, following his coronation by all twelve tribes, finally succeeded in establishing Jerusalem as the new capital (2 Sam 5:6-12). The fact that the city had not been under the authority of any Israelite tribe was part of David’s genius. Furthermore, as the coronation narrative at Hebron amply illustrates, David’s divinely appointed kingship and the kinship between the individual tribes was clearly recognized in the offering speech of the ten northern tribes (2 Sam 5:1-5). Following the heydays of David’s and Solomon’s rule, the ten northern tribes separated from the two southern tribes and their Davidic dynasty (1 Kings 12), resulting in the establishment of two kingdoms (i.e., Israel and Judah). The following 200 years witness numerous military encounters between the two kingdoms, while at times coalitions between the reigning royal families meant limited periods of peace.35 God’s prophets were sent to both kingdoms, even though northern Israel had engaged in the idolatrous worship of calves that had been established by Jeroboam I in Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:25-33). Divinely approved engagement between both kingdoms seems to have been predicated on religious reform and a common commitment to the torah and the prophetic word that highlighted the law. The often complex and convoluted relationship between the twelve tribes of Israel provides the backdrop for the even more complex and often antagonistic relationship between Israel and the surrounding tribes (including Moabites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Ammonites, etc.). The close relationships to these tribal groups are repeatedly highlighted in Genesis (Gen 16; 19:34-38; 21:8-21; 25:12-18; 36). All four tribal groups had kinship links to Israel—and yet, a brief review of the history of interaction between Israel and these tribal groups suggests not only disunity or indifference, but also at times plain hatred and animosity. For example, Edom is subjugated by Saul and David (1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 8:13; 1 Kings 11:15-16), but rebels later against Judean control (2 Kings 8:20-22) and is repeatedly mentioned in prophetic texts (Amos 1:11-12 balanced by a realism about the nature of the period” (34). 35 A summary of significant events of this important period of Israel’s history can be found in Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., A History of Israel. From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 289-355; Iain Provan, V. Phillips Long, and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville–London: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 259-77.

116 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS notes Edom’s fury and lack of compassion; cf. Isa 34:5-6; Obadiah). Psalm 137:7 suggests that the Edomites rejoiced over Jerusalem’s destruction. However, at times YHWH is portrayed as coming from the region of Edom to aid Israel (cf. Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4; Hab 3:3).36 Similarly, Israel’s relationship with Moab was also characterized by conflict (Judg 3:12-20; 1 Sam 14:47; 2 Sam 10:1-14; 2 Kings 3:1-27; etc.), with Israel subjugating Moab during the united monarchic period.37 Interestingly, Moab provides also a refuge for those fleeing a famine in Bethlehem (Ruth 1) and a Moabitess (Ruth) becomes part of the genealogy of David and—ultimately—the Messiah, yet biblical law forbids the inclusion of Moabites and Ammonites into the assembly of Israel (Deut 23:3-6). The tension points to the importance of religious commitment. Ruth’s powerful poetic confession “your people shall be my people, and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16) highlights the significance of the commitment to the God of Israel—on YHWH’s terms. The preceding comments have highlighted the highly complex biblical picture of intertribal relations within Israel as well as with surrounding people groups during different times of biblical history. Crucial to interaction and positive engagement was Israel’s faithfulness to the divine commands as well as its ability to resist syncretistic tendencies—both from within and from outside. While modern Christian denominations (or even world religions) cannot just be equated to the tribal realities of ancient Israel within the landscape of the ancient Near East, the importance of faithfulness to the revealed “Word of the Lord”

36 Cf. J. Andrew Dearman, “Edom, Edomites,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; ed. Katherine Doob Sakenfeld; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2007), 2:188–91; and earlier J. R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites (JSOTSup 77; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989); B. Oded, “Israel’s Neighbours,” in The Biblical World: Volume I (ed. John Barton; London–New York: Routledge, 2002), 492-525. An intriguing explanation of the tension between Israel and Edom can be found in Elie Assis, “Why Edom? On the Hostility Towards Jacob’s Brother in Prophetic Sources,” Vetus Testamentum 56.1 (2006): 1-20. Assis argues that behind to the severe hostility (as also expressed in prophetic sources) lies the notion of election. Compare also the earlier doctoral dissertation by Maxine C. Beach, “Edom Among the Nations: The Roles of Edom in the Hebrew Bible” (Ph.D. diss., Graduate School, Boston University, 1994). 37 Cf. J. Andrew Dearman, “Moab, Moabites,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.; ed. Katherine Doob Sakenfeld; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2009), 4:118-26; J. Maxwell Miller, “Moab and the Moabites,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ed. J. Andrew Dearman; Archaeology and Biblical Studies; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1989), 1-40; Younker, “Moabite Social Structure,” 237-48.

117 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY and the devastating effect of syncretism within the covenant people throughout their history suggest careful evaluation when considering modern ecumenical relations—both on the macro-ecumenical, but even more on the micro-ecumenical level.

5. Unity and the Schism between Jews and Samaritans The often strained relationship between Judaism and Samaritans, hinted at in the postexilic texts of Ezra–Nehemiah, provides another useful location for a sounding that may be relevant for the central concern of this study, i.e., the nature of ecumenical relations in the twenty-first century within the larger body of Christian denominations.38 The basic history of Samaritans as a religious group showing homogeneity and shared beliefs is problematic.39 Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom during the divided monarchy, had also been the center of religious diversity. Israelite kings were seldom known for their orthodoxy and Jeroboam’s I installation of calves in Bethel and Dan (1 Kings 12:26-33) should be considered a conscious break with the religio- political establishment in Jerusalem.40 In fact, following the canonical sequence of the biblical text, the earliest reference to specific religious syncretism can be found in 1 Kings 17:24-41 in connection with the resettlement of Samaria following the Assyrian destruction of the city and the complete absorption of Israel into the Assyrian empire. Josephus’ description of the event echoes this biblical statement (Ant. 9.290-291). Interestingly, the self-understanding of their origins in Samaritan sources, claims that the group originated in the eleventh century B.C., during the time of the judges and relate it to the establishment of the

38 I have purposefully bracketed out the larger issue of macro-ecumenical relations between world religions. See above for additional reflections. 39 I am basing my brief observations on Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Keepers: An Introduction to the History and Culture of the Samaritans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002), 9-34. Compare also Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism. A Literary Analysis (JSOTSup 300/Copenhagen International Seminar 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000); Gary N. Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samarian Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period (eds. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 265-90; as well as relevant entries in standard encyclopedias and dictionaries. 40 Cf. S. Lasine, “Reading Jeroboam’s Intentions: Intertextuality, Rhetoric and History in 1 Kings 12,” in Reading Between Texts. Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (ed. D. N. Fewell; Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 133-52.

118 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS cult/tabernacle at Shiloh which was established (so suggest the Samaritan sources) in rivalry to long-established Shechem.41 In this sense, Samaritans (or Israelites, as they prefer to call themselves) recognize only the Pentateuch as the inspired Word of YHWH and claim orthodoxy going back to the premonarchic period. The OT, however, underlines the marginal nature of Samaritan worship and chronicles conflict during the Persian period. The opposition to the reconstruction of the temple and its city is linked to Samaria (cf. Ezra 4:7, 8, 17). During Nehemiah’s period of leadership Sanballat, the Horonite, is one of the key opponents (Neh 2:10, 19) of the reconstruction effort and is closely associated with Samaria (Neh 4:1-2; 6:1-14). Even though the specific nature of the tension between the Jewish returnees and the Samaritans is never articulated, its existence cannot be ignored. Later Samaritan sources highlight theological discrepancies, such as the inspiration of the Pentateuch versus the entire Hebrew Bible (including also the nìbî(îm and the kìtûbîm; the legitimacy of Zion/Jerusalem for the location of YHWH’s temple versus Shechem and Gerizim, etc.). Clearly, there was not much common ground between Samaritans and Jews and the attitude of Jews living in NT times (including also the disciples) toward Samaritans was one of rejection, hatred, a sense of superiority, and complete separation. Jesus’ paradigmatic encounter with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (John 4:1-42) provides an intriguing example of how Jesus’ dealt with those who were considered outsiders. This is not the time and place to exegete the entire chapter that contains significant material for cross- religious and cross-cultural engagement. Suffice to say that Jesus apparently did not share the hatred of his Jewish contemporaries and actually engaged the woman (with dubious ethical standards) in a conversation starting at basic needs (water) and moving rapidly to the more urgent need of water quenching spiritual thirst. The biblical text seems to reflect a number of orthodox considerations about Samaritans. Jews would not speak to Samaritans nor ask a single woman for water.42 They would become unfit to enter the temple (John 4:9, 27). In fact, if possible, Jews would avoid crossing Samaritan territory (cf. John 4:4, “he needed to go through Samaria”). As the conversation moves forward,

41 See Anderson and Giles, The Keepers, 10-13. 42 Gerald L. Borchert, John 1-11 (NAC 25A; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 202.

119 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Jesus is not sidetracked by the woman’s attempt to “talk theology” when he gets uncomfortably close to the reality of her life (John 4:16-20). “The hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father,” is Jesus’ entry to a masterful introduction to the Kingdom of God, involving Spirit-and-truth worship (John 4:21-24).43 Neither geography nor buildings determine a true relationship with the Creator but rather Spirit-guided worship based on truth—as revealed by Jesus. John’s repeated reference to “truth” points to God’s revelation that shows itself in action (John 1:17; 3:34; 8:32, 36). The significant prayer, already touched upon in the opening paragraphs of this study, includes also the promise of the “Spirit of truth” leading all future disciples into “all the truth” (John 16:13). Jesus’ reference to Spirit and truth at the center of his conversation with the Samaritan woman points beyond engagement to the foundation of true dialogue between (often competing) faiths. Ecumenical relations that do not consider the truth claim of Scripture (including “all the truth”) fall short of Jesus’ ideal. Jesus’ conversation at Jacob’s well underlines the importance of dialogue and engagement; however, Jesus does not model confrontation or debate. He reiterates revealed truth, pointing beyond theological nit-picking to missiological commitment, and ultimately calls for a decision. Amazingly, his venturing into Samaritan territory (and theology) bore rich fruits, for “many of the Samaritans of that city believed in Him because of the word of the woman who testified” (John 4:39-41; cf. Acts 8:4-8).

6. Unity and the New Testament Church The transition from Old Testament people to New Testament church was not an easy one. Yes, the kairos (or timing) was right and had been anticipated by the prophets (cf. Gal 4:4). Yes, Jesus’ death and resurrection had changed the playing field and had challenged key foundations of Israel—but there was no clear-cut division distinguishing easily between Old Testament and New Testament. The early followers of Jesus were steeped in God’s written revelation given by his prophets. They loved the tôrâ, the nìbî(îm and the kìtûbîm. While many read these texts in Greek (in the LXX) others still practiced their Hebrew and

43 Writes Borchert, John 1-11, 207, “The model of Jesus is thus very instructive. He turned the conversation away from place of worship to nature of worship. In so doing, he modeled a correct evangelistic perspective.”

120 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS Aramaic in the synagogal worship service. But something different was about to take place, something that required no great theologians or scholars but the unifying power of the Spirit, working to constitute the new Israel. Israel within the Old Testament world knew clear ethnic and national boundaries and becoming part of Israel meant embracing a Jewish identity—including many ritual and ceremonial prescriptions, circumcision being one of them.44 By New Testament times things had become more complex and the pull to integration with extremely divergent groups a major challenge for the fledgling Christian church. Even within Judaism itself we find a number of intensely opposed factions (or sects), thus making a definition of orthodox Judaism during the time of Jesus more difficult and complex.45 This may have been due to the fact that the Christian community rapidly moved from a group marked by ethnic links (i.e., one people, one land, under one God, which is ironically reflected in the declaration of independence of the USA) to a community of believers that transcended ethnic and social boundaries and, thus, was more vulnerable to external pressures from both the Jewish world in which it had its roots and the pagan communities surrounding it. As can be expected, this transition required careful maneuvering. Even the disciples, who had worked most closely with the Master, were not immune from an ethnocentric

44 Cases of proselytism to Judaism are documented in the Old Testament (Rahab and her family, Ruth, perhaps also Uriah the Hittite). Following the exile and as a response to Hellenistic Judaism and the advance of Hellenism Judaism became an actively proselytizing religion. Literature from the intertestamental period seems to recognize the figure of the proselyte (e.g., in the book of Judith as well as other Greek and Roman sources). See Michael E. Stone, Scriptures, Sects and Visions. A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), 98. Cf. also the helpful discussion of non- Jews in the DSS in Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Non-Jews in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Quest for Context and Meaning. Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (ed. Craig A. Evans and Shemaryahu Talmon; Biblical Interpretation Series 28; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 153-71. 45 The NT reports about Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, while other sources add Essenes, the Qumran community, etc. Compare here the helpful studies found in Jarl Fossum, “Judaism at the Turn of the Era,” in The Biblical World. Volume II (ed. John Barton; London–New York: Routledge, 2002), 125-36, James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), and John J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem. Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (2nd ed.; The Biblical Resource Series; Grand Rapids, MI–Cambridge/Livonia, MI: Eerdmans/Dove Booksellers, 2000).

121 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY perspective when it came to salvation.46 It took God two extraordinary visions and miracles to overcome Peter’s (representing the early believers of Jewish descent) deep-seated distrust and theological concerns just to enter the house of a Gentile (and, far worse, a Roman army officer) and recognize in him a potential Christian brother (cf. Acts 10). Another point in case involves the early Christian church’s dealings with the issue of circumcision and purity laws. As visible in the intense debate during the Jerusalem council (Acts 15) the church struggled with the issue of balancing the centrality of the cross and of Jesus with the cultural and religious reality of most of its Jewish believers and the trajectory of the covenant people in the OT.47 Paul summarizes this dilemma in the following words: “Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ” (Gal 6:12, NIV). Matter of fact, Paul does not reject circumcision per se but echoes many OT references that highlight the importance of “heart” circumcision. “But he is a Jew,” writes Paul, “who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God” (Rom 2:29, NKJV). Paul knew the Old Testament and understood that circumcision included something that went beyond the physical act of removing the foreskin of the male baby—true circumcision, repeat the biblical authors over and over again, involves the heart and mind (e.g., Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:3, 4; 6:10; 9:24, 25; Lev 26:41, 42; Ezek 44:6-9).48 On the other hand, there was the continuous threat of pagan practices (such as using meat sacrificed to idols [1 Cor 10:28] or offering sacrifices to the Roman emperor), which would cause early Christians to compromise their faith and would neutralize their mission to tell of Jesus’ death, resurrection, and soon return.

46 Concerning the issue of ethnocentricity within the NT church see Pieter F. Craffert, “On New Testament Interpretation and Ethnocentrism,” in Ethnicity and the Bible (ed. Mark G. Brett; BIS; Boston–Leiden: Brill Academic, 1996), 449-68. 47 Note the discussion in Bernhard Oestreich, “Meinungsstreit und Einheit in der frühen Christenheit,” Spes Christiana 6 (1995): 14-25. 48 Compare the insightful discussion in Werner E. Lemke, “Circumcision of the Heart: The Journey of a Biblical Metaphor,” in A God So Near. Essays in Old Testament Theology in Honor of Patrick D. Miller (ed. Brent A. Strawn and Nancy R. Bowen; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 299-319.

122 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS The tension between the predominantly Jewish identity of many early followers of Jesus and the attraction to assimilate religious elements found in Greek and Roman culture is visible at many key places in the NT. “There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all” (Col 3:11; NKJV), writes Paul to the Colossians. The fact that Paul had to repeatedly underline the equality of Jew and Greek, or members of the covenant people (insiders) and heathens (outsiders), suggests this tension. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him” (Rom 10:12). Christianity had to discover that they were something new—a community of faith that ignored regular cultural and ethnic markers (“neither Greek nor Jew”) and highlighted the inclusiveness of their community. In this sense, it had to straddle a thin line leading to a type of unity that was not based on ethnicity, locale, or culture—but that focused on Christ’s centrality and His mission to the world surrounding them.49 Despite the storms of persecution, discrimination, and theological debate, the early post-Jesus church kept its unity and, driven by leaders such as Paul, focused on its calling to mission. While they stood apart on some issues of belief and worship practice (e.g., Christians would not, even under threat of death, offer a sacrifice to the Emperor) the NT church engaged society and was not exclusive or monastic—they were truly “in the world, but not of the world” (cf. John 15:19; 17:14-16; Rom 12:2). Paul, who had been trained in rabbinical texts and reasoning but was also at home in Greek rhetoric and philosophy, makes it clear that all he does is for one express purpose: “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22), he writes. Mission drove him—as well as the larger Christian community as they awaited the coming of their Lord.

7. The Rise of Babylon: Babel Revisited Let’s fast forward, for a brief moment, and leave the NT church in order to review our own time. In 1910 at the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh a resolution was passed to “plant in each non-

49 I have argued elsewhere about the identity of the “world” in biblical theology. Cf. Gerald A. Klingbeil, “Finding the ‘World’ in Biblical Studies: God-Talk, Culture, and Hermeneutics in the Study (and Teaching) of Faith,” Scriptura 101 (2009): 219-34.

123 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Christian nation one undivided Church of Christ.”50 It would seem that missionary activities in the various non-Christian countries were being hindered by developing doctrinal tensions and “sheep stealing” instead of Christianizing the non-Christians. The idea of introducing an undivided Church of Christ to the world was laudable but immediately raised the questions of what this undivided church of Christ would look like.51 After an interruption by two World Wars the World Council of Churches was eventually established to promote unity among the different Protestant denominations. Seventh-day Adventists have never officially participated as members in the dialogue and discussion of the WCC. Our philosophy of history, our own past, present, and future is colored by the recognition of the Great Controversy that rages between God and Satan. Scripture traces some key points of this cosmic battle, including its beginning (Rev 12:7-9), its course (Rev 12; passim in Scripture), as well as the final outcome (Rev 19 and 20). As a church we consider ourselves not just another denomination with some peculiar doctrines adding to the patchwork of Protestantism—we recognize that we are part of a prophetic movement and, primed by Scripture, we pay attention to Satan’s strategies revealed in prophecy. This recognition is not cause for pride and arrogance. To the contrary, its commitment to sola Scriptura causes us to tremble at the threshold of the biblical text—to use a phrase used in a volume by James Crenshaw.52 Remnant theology within the context of a cosmic conflict requires humility and a Christ-centered approach that echoes Jesus’ own approach to truth and the Spirit-filled search for truth.53 Revelation 13 introduces two symbolic beasts supporting each other.54 These two beasts refer to a religio-political power based on man-

50 Beach, Ecumenism: Boon or Bane?, 84. Cf. also Gerhard Pfandl, “Unity—But at What Cost?,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 10.1-2 (1999): 185. 51 See Michael Kinnamon, The Vision of the Ecumenical Movement and How It Has Been Impoverished by Its Friends (St. Louis, MO: Chalice, 2003), 51-64. 52 James L. Crenshaw, Trembling at the Threshold of a Biblical Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994). 53 See Ángel M. Rodríguez, “Concluding Essay: God’s End-Time Remnant and the Christian Church” in Toward a Theology of the Remnant (ed. Ángel M. Rodríguez; Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 2009), 202, 203. 54 Gregory K. Beale, The Book of Revelation (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle, U.K.: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1999), 707, has noted the aspect of parody and imitation of the second beast, imitating the messianic lamb. Its “lamb-like” appearance hides a ferocious self. Cf. Jon Paulien, What the Bible Says About the End-Time (Hagerstown, MD: Review

124 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS made traditions rather than God’s Word, with enough clout to enforce their mandates worldwide. In other words, prophecy warns of a conglomerate of different religious groups that will under an extremely good guise be actively trying to derail God’s purposes. Numerous references in Revelation warn the readers to not “worship” the beast. In Rev 16:12-16 (generally considered the sixth bowl), after the drying up of the Euphrates, John sees three unclean spirits—like frogs—come out of the mouth of the dragon, the mouth of the beast, and the mouth of the false prophet. The three-ness has been interpreted as a forgery of the true three-ness, the trinity. This false trinity already made an incomplete appearance in Rev 12 and 13 (dragon, two beasts)55 and has traditionally be interpreted by Adventist commentators as references to Rome (or Catholicism), fallen Protestantism, and spiritualism.56 In the first century AD the Jewish nation rejected Jesus because it refused to believe the prophecies, which so clearly pointed to Him. They just favored a different picture of the Messiah and were not ready to and Herald Publishing Association, 1994), 109-19; Ekkehardt Müller, “The End Time Remnant in Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11.1-2 (2000): 188- 204; William G. Johnsson, “The Saints’ End-Time Victory Over the Forces of Evil,” in Symposium on Revelation: Book II (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; DARCOM 7; Silver Spring, MD: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 20-31; Hans K. LaRondelle, How to Understand the End-Time Prophecies of the Bible (Sarasota, FL: First Impressions, 1997), 291-309. 55 This has been noted by Beale, The Book of Revelation, 831, who writes: “The pouring out of the bowl sets in motion actions by the three great opponents of the saints and leaders of the forces of evil: the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, who represent respectively Satan, the Satanic political system, and the religious support of the political system. This is the first occurrence of ‘false prophet’ (øåõäïðñïöÞôçò) in the Apocalypse. The word summarizes the deceptive role of the second beast of ch. 13, whose purpose is to deceive people so that they will worship the first beast (see on ch. 13, especially 13:12-17).” Compare also David E. Aune, Revelation 6-16 (WBC 52B; Dallas: Word, 2002), 894, who notes: “These three figures are all mentioned in Rev 13, though the beast from the land of 13:11-17 is here designated the false prophet. There is an interesting connection between 1 John 4:1-3 and Revelation; in 1 John 4:1, ‘false prophets’ are referred to, while in 4:3 that which false prophets say is called ‘the spirit of antichrist.’” Note also Robert G. Bratcher and Howard Hatton, A Handbook on the Revelation to John (UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 235, “The dragon … the beast … the false prophet: from now on the second beast, the one that came up out of the earth (13:11-15), is called the false prophet (see verse 19:20; and also, verse 20:10). This defines his role as the spokesman of the first beast, with the task of misleading people with his message. In this case one may also express this as ‘the second beast, the one who gave a false message.’” 56 See F. D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (7 vols.; rev. ed.; Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1980), 7:844. Note also Beale’s comments in the previous note.

125 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY revise their one-sided reading of Scripture. Later on, Judaism and Christianity shared many important truths but Christianity could not sacrifice the cross (i.e., salvation by faith in Jesus’ sacrifice) on the altar of peace and unity. First-century lessons of a movement that focused upon the proclamation (in deeds and words) of the Kingdom of God are surely applicable to a church ministering in a postmodern context where differences are minimized and relevance and experience have become primary indicators of truth.57 The prophetic interpretation informs any question of ecumenical relations now as it did for the early church. Although we may share many common essential truths with many Christian denominations or even some lifestyle components with other religions we cannot brush essential components of our biblical understanding under the rug in light of prophetic end-time scenarios. Prophecy suggests that worship (including the day of worship) will be a crucial test of allegiance to God within the cataclysmic last events. On the other side, millions of Protestant Christians favor a futuristic or dispensational understanding of prophecy and have settled for the rapture while Seventh-day Adventists await the glorious return of our Savior who will “come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Could it be that the crucial dividing line in the final events on planet earth will not put Christian versus non-Christian but rather my way/my truth/my interpretation versus His way/His truth/His interpretation—and thus be not that distinct from the theological battleground of the first coming of Jesus? Clearly, as has become apparent in this brief overview of biblical prophecy (and, more specifically, eschatology), a biblical discussion of ecumenical relations cannot afford to ignore biblical prophecy.

8. Pentecost: The Reversal of Babel From the above comments it may seem that any attempt at unity and ecumenical relations is inherently suspect. However, this is not the case. Jesus’ call to unity in John 17 is still much needed and relevant but, as with salvation, it must be done God’s way and not our own way. Following the resurrection and later ascension of Jesus, the disciples, in obedience to the instruction of the Master, waited in Jerusalem. Acts

57 Note the helpful comments found in V. Philips Long, “Renewing Conversations: Doing Scholarship in an Age of Skepticism, Accommodation, and Specialization,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13 (2003): 227-49.

126 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS 1:14 emphasizes the unity of the early Christian community and their prayerful attitude. Acts 2:1 locates the narrative in time (i.e., the “Day of Pentecost” which is equivalent to the Israelite Feast of Weeks described in Lev 23:15-21) and again underscores the unity of the followers of Jesus. The fulfillment language of Acts 2:1 (and the numerous other fulfillment formulas included in the NT) remind the reader that the divine plan did not come to an abrupt end with the arrival of the Messiah. Rather, it represents a fulfillment of the promise given in Acts 1:4.58 Verse 2 describes a powerful sound “from heaven” that filled the house where the disciples were meeting. The Counselor promised by Jesus (John 14:16-18), the Holy Spirit, fills all present and they begin to speak in other “tongues” (Acts 2:4). This movement from heaven down to earth echoes the divine movement from heaven to earth in Gen 11:5. And in line with Genesis where language became confused, Acts 2 involves speech (glossolalia) that functions as some type of reversal from confusion (and lack of understanding) to understanding.59 Acts 2:6-7 note the surprise and shock of the multitude that gathered when hearing this strange sound, since all the visitors could hear the disciples speak in their own language. The links between Babel (Gen 11) and Pentecost (Acts 2) can be summarized in the following table.60

Babel (Gen 11) Pentecost (Acts)

Preceded by a call to fill the earth Preceded by a call to go into all the world Gathering in disobedience Gathering in obedience God comes down God comes down Confusion results Confusion results People cannot understand (lit. “hear”) one People miraculously hear one another another Scattering Scattering (after some delay)

However, Pentecost does not represent a return to linguistic uniformity. Language and culture still separate people. Rather, the

58 Writes John B. Polhill, Acts (NAC 26; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 96: “The ‘fulfillment’ language bears more weight than mere chronology as the fulfillment of the time of the divine promise for the gift of the Spirit (1:4f.).” 59 Notably, the LXX of Gen 11:7 employs a form of ãë óóá. 60 This is based on the helpful table found in David I. Smith and Barbara Carvill, The Gift of the Stranger. Faith, Hospitality, and Foreign Language Learning (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 14.

127 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY unification is linked to a community—the nascent New Testament church—and to a mission. This new ecumenical unity of Pentecost has a missiological perspective. The gift of “tongues” is given to empower a united community to reach the “world.” Furthermore, it takes down barriers that existed in the early Christian community—barriers between rich and poor, between Jews and non-Jews, between the stranger and the insider. Acts 2:4 reminds us that “all” were filled with the Holy Spirit—not just some carefully chosen leaders. Acts 10:44-46 revisit this important topic as the text describes the Holy Spirit’s falling upon the household of Cornelius—a foreigner and outsider and not a member of the covenant people. As these new Christians speak, the Jewish Christians accompanying Peter are amazed as they see the same phenomenon and understand the worship of their newly found brothers and sisters. Mission needs to be the driving force for our desire for unity. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not just a club of like-minded individuals (like AAA in the USA) sharing a common set of beliefs that meet once (or twice) a week for fellowship and community. It must align itself with God’s great dream, the missio Dei, of saving a sin-sick world and proclaiming the Kingdom of God that has already come and is about to break into our complacency.

9. Conclusion: Between Isolation and Assimilation The Seventh-day Adventist Church in the twenty-first century is experiencing the same tension between exclusivism and inclusivism, faced by God’s people in both the Old and New Testaments.61 Culturally diverse and often challenged by distinct theological perspectives, our unity is at stake and will have serious consequences for our mission as Seventh-day Adventists. At the same time postmodern culture, historical-critical hermeneutics and theology, and increasingly more fervent ecumenical movements in religious circles are challenging our unique identity as the remnant church.62 Jesus’ focus upon truth and the Spirit in His “ecumenical”

61 Note the important study of these concepts and their OT background in Martin G. Klingbeil, “Exclusivism versus Inclusivism: Citizenship in the Pentateuch and its Metaphorical Usage in Ephesians,” Journal of Asia Adventist Seminary 9.2 (2006): 129-44. 62 The remnant motif is rooted in Scripture. Cf. Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant. The History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah (3rd ed.; Andrews University Monographs. Studies in Religion 5; Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University

128 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS conversations help us understand the importance of revealed truth and the blueprint for unity as presented in the Bible. In both the Old and New Testaments God’s people do not exist in splendid isolation, but always seem to be in dialogue with others. However, this dialogue does not happen on the terms of diverse or current political or cultural agendas, but rather on the terms of the revealed will of God. It is the existential interaction (both individually as well as in community) with this divine revelation that will provide a critical filter for all ecumenical activity. As Seventh-day Adventist Christians we do strive for and promote unity with others on common issues (e.g., religious freedom, specific relief projects, or carefully planned public engagement)63—but are cautious of a theologically motivated get-together. Here are four elements that require our attention when we want to think biblically about ecumenical relations:

1. It requires a crystal-clear idea of what our mission is. 2. It needs a clear understanding that the missio Dei is also our mission—and that this mission needs to be undertaken according to

Press, 1980); Kenneth Delinor Mulzac, “The Remnant Motif in the Context of Judgment and Salvation in the Book of Jeremiah” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995); A. Ganoune Diop, “The Name ‘Israel’ and Related Expressions in the Books of Amos and Hosea” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, 1995); Ekkehardt Müller, “The End Time Remnant in Revelation,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 11.1-2 (2000): 188-204; Héctor Urrutia, “El mensaje del remanente final en los libros sapienciales,” in Pensar la iglesia hoy: hacia una eclesiología adventista. Estudios teológicos presentados durante el IV Simposio Bíblico-Teológico Sudamericano en honor a Raoul Dederen (ed. Gerald A. Klingbeil, Martin G. Klingbeil and Miguel Ángel Núñez; Libertador San Martín, Argentina: Editorial Universidad Adventista del Plata, 2002), 71-92. The discussion within the SDA Church of the exact meaning of the remnant concept for the 21st century is fervent and is (at least partially) influenced by hermeneutical presuppositions. Compare Richard Lehmann, “Die Übrigen und ihr Auftrag,“ in Die Gemeinde und ihr Auftrag (ed. Johannes Mager; Studien zur adventistischen Ekklesiologie 2; Hamburg: Saatkorn Verlag, 1994), 73-102; Gerhard Pfandl, “The Remnant Church,” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 8.1-2 (1997): 19-27; Ronald D. Bissell, “Reflections on the SDA Church as the Eschatological Remnant Church,” Asia Adventist Seminary Studies 4 (2001): 69-75; Gideon Duran Ondap, “Diversity in the Remnant Concept in the History of the Seventh-day Adventist Church” (M.A. thesis, Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies, 2003). 63 Historically, Seventh-day Adventists have been strongly supportive of abolition and also prohibition.

129 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY the principles of God’s kingdom (no coercion, no manipulation or compulsory activity, etc.). 3. It may also mean submitting our will and perspectives to be shaped and guided by God’s Spirit and plans. It does us well to remember that the first Christian mission drive was actually a response to persecution—something that does not look very promising or appealing in the rearview mirror. 4. And, finally, any ecumenical relations must be Scripture-based and driven by a vital relationship with Jesus.

When Peter and John were taken before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 they were made a truly ecumenical offer: you can believe whatever you like, you can be another Jewish sect—but you cannot preach the name of Jesus anymore. For Peter and John, who knew Jesus personally, this was not an option. They were not trying to be different for the sake of being different but they knew that wherever the present socio-political winds were blowing they had to “obey God rather than men!” Any ecumenical relations that are guided by our desire to be better known or more widely accepted or recognized and compromise on biblical truth are questionable. We cannot look for the lowest common denominator in our quest for unity. Jesus commanded His disciples to stay and wait for the Comforter who would lead them into all truth (Acts 1:4, 5)—and empower them for mission. Our search for unity God’s way will lead to true John 17 unity and ultimately to the fulfillment of the great gospel commission: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14, NIV).

130 KLINGBEIL: BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE ON ECUMENICAL RELATIONS

Gerald A. Klingbeil is is an associate editor of the Adventist Review and Adventist World magazines and also holds an appointment as research professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University. He earned a D.Litt. degree from Stellenbosch University in South Africa in 1995 and served for more than 15 years as professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at different Adventist universities in South America and Asia. He has published a significant number of research articles in peer-reviewed journals and has contributed to dictionaries and encyclopedias published by Zondervan, InterVarsity Press, Abingdon Press, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, and Oxford University Press. He has written and edited more than 12 books and serves currently as an associate editor of the Bulletin for Biblical Research. He has been a member of BRICOM for the past decade and serves as an associate editor of the forthcoming Andrews Bible Commentary. Gerald is married to Chantal, an associate director of the Ellen G. White Estate at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and they have three teenage daughters who keep them on their toes and flexible. Gerald can be reached at [email protected].

Judgment Motifs in the Messages to the Seven Churches

Kim Papaioannou Pastor, Cyprus

Edward Moyo Lecturer, School of Theology and Religious Studies Rusangu University, Zambia

Introduction Eschatological judgment is a topic relevant to every believer. While there is a consensus among Christians that the righteous will inherit eternal life, there is a divergence of opinions as to what will happen to the wicked. Four main views are discernible. First, the dominant view through the centuries has been that the wicked will be literally tormented by fire in hell for eternity with no respite.1 Everlasting fiery torment is not so palatable to the modern mindset and therefore a second trend has developed whereby hell is perceived as symbolic of a state of conscious existence apart from God.2 Third, a minority of commentators believe that the wicked will be destroyed in the Day of Judgment and whatever suffering hell entails will be temporal and will come to an end. The fires of hell serve primarily to

1 E.g. Robert W. Landis, The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked Carefully Considered (New York, Carlton and Porter, 1859); Harry Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, (Presbyterian and Reformed Pub., 1957); Robert A. Morey, Death and the Afterlife (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2001); David Pawson, The Road to Hell (True Potential Publishing, 2008); Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), 265-74. 2 E.g. William Crockett, et al., Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).

43 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY destroy rather than torment.3 Fourth, an even smaller minority believes that eventually all will be saved, perhaps even Satan.4 Eschatological judgment has been a key doctrine in Christian theology and as such the topic has been frequently approached in a systematizing, rather than an exegetical way. Moreover, discussion often focuses on a sampling of key texts like the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the sayings of Jesus especially in the Synoptic Gospels, the second half of the book of Revelation and a few other scattered texts from the General Epistles and/or Paul. However, judgment is a prominent motif throughout Scripture and the discussion on hell will benefit if a broader Scriptural basis is established. To this end this short study aims to contribute. Our focus will be the letters to the seven churches in Revelation (Rev 2:1-3:22). The letters constitute the first heptadic prophecy of Revelation and one that has received multidimensional interpretations. In the original sitz im leben the seven letters were addressed to seven literal churches in the time of John5 that were facing issues which John wrote to address. As such they have a localized application. Going a step further, the historicist approach maintains a broader historical application whereby each of the seven churches represents one era in the history of the Christian Church beginning with the time of John and the other apostles and reaching all the way to the end of the age.6 A third line of approach that is complementary rather than antagonistic to the previous two, and is foundational to this study, is that the messages to all the churches have an application to believers of all times, i.e., believers or groups of believers may exemplify the characteristics of any of the churches and may therefore need the

3 E.g. Henry Constable, The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment (London: Hobbs and Hammond, 1886); Leroy Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers (2 vols.; Review and Herald, 1965); John W. Wenham, The Goodness of God (Intervarsity Press, 1974); Edward Fudge, The Fire that Consumes: a Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, iUniverse, 2000; David Powys and Graham Stanton, Hell: a Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought, Paternoster Theological Monographs, 1998. 4 E.g. Edward H. Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison. Isaac A. Dorner, System der Christlichen Glaubenslehre. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, III: 2 602-4,587-640; IV: 1 8- 12, 20-25,306,356,550; IV:2 270,296,314,509. Reinhold Niebuhr, The Nature and Destiny of Man. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3:407-418. 5 M. S. Mills, Revelations: An Exegetical Study of the Revelation to John (Dallas, TX: 3E Ministries, 1997), Re 2:1. 6 Mills, Revelations, Re 2:1.

44 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS relevant counsel. This approach is supported by the fact that Jesus promises to come to all the churches, suggesting that they all exist in some form to the end of the age.7 As such, the eschatological dimensions of the messages to all the churches are relevant to a study on the topic of hell. The study will proceed as follows. First it will discuss briefly the literary structure of the seven churches where parallels between churches become evident. Then it will discuss the eschatological dimensions of each parallel group giving emphasis to both warnings of judgment and promises of reward, since one is often juxtaposed with the other.

Literary Parallels Ranko Stefanovic has observed that the order of the seven churches reflects a parallel between the first and last, second and sixth, third and fifth with Thyatira, the fourth, as the apex.8 The following symmetric arrangements are visible in relation to the warnings.

A. Ephesus: removal of lampstand from its place (2:5) B. Smyrna: (no direct warning) C. Pergamum: will come quickly and make war (2:16) D. Thyatira: I will kill her children (2:22, 23) C1. Sardis: come like a thief, not know when I come (3:3) B1. Philadelphia: (no direct warning) A1. Laodicea: spit you out of the mouth (3:16)

As can be noted in the above structure, the message to Ephesus, though worded differently, corresponds to that of Laodicea; that of Pergamum to Sardis; and the absence of a direct warning to Smyrna with a similar absence to Philadelphia. Thyatira forms the climax of this arrangement. The promises manifest a similar structure.

7 Taylor G. Bunch, The Seven Epistles of Christ (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association), 107-108. 8 Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2002), 76. Stefanovic sees the seven churches as corresponding to the seven arms of the lampstand in the temple (cf. Exo d 25:32; 37:18, 19; Num 8:2; Zech 4:2,11). Such a correlation should be seen as loose rather than absolute in view of the fact that Jesus is depicted as walking “among them” (Rev 1:12-13; 2:1).

45 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY A. Ephesus: the right to eat from tree of life in paradise (2:7) B. Smyrna: the crown of life, not hurt by second death (2:10, 11) C. Pergamum: the hidden manna, a white stone, a new name (2:17) D. Thyatira: authority over nations, rule with an iron scepter, give the morning star (2:26, 27) C1. Sardis: not blot out the name from the book of life; will walk in white (3:5) B1. Philadelphia: hold crown, a pillar in the temple, never to leave (3:11, 12) A1. Laodicea: the right to sit and eat with Jesus (3:20, 21)

From the above structure of promises, it is evident that a similar parallel exists between Ephesus and Laodicea, Smyrna and Philadelphia, and Pergamum and Sardis. This again points to Thyatira as the climax. In light of these parallels in warning and promises, we will structure the discussion accordingly, A, A1; B, B1; C, C1; D.

Warnings and Promises to Ephesus and Laodicea Because Ephesus has lost her first live, Jesus gives her the following warning: “I am coming to you” [e;rcomai, soi], “and will remove [kinh,sw] your lampstand out of its place unless you repent” (Rev 2:5).9 The removal of the lampstand and the timing of its removal have been variously interpreted. For some, it has only a temporal dimension and implies that the local church in Ephesus would die out. They see no reference to eschatological judgment.10 For others, the message has an application beyond the immediate historical confines, all the way to the end of time.

9 All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) unless otherwise noted. 10 Steve Gregg, Revelation, Four Views: A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Re 2:1-7. See also Aune, Revelation 1-5:14: Word Biblical Commentary (vol. 52A; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 147. Aune observes that the warning to Ephesus is nothing less than a threat to obliterate the Ephesian congregation as an empirical Christian community. See also Wilfrid J. Harrington, Revelation: Sacra Pagina (vol. 16; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1993), 55. Harrington saw the threat as referring to the church’s falling under the deadening sway of the temple of Artemis.

46 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS

These perceive the promise e;rcomai, soi as a reference to the Second Coming.11 The lampstand threatened to be removed from its place is one of the seven in whose midst John had seen the risen Christ (Rev 1:12, 13; 2:1). They represent the seven churches (1:19). Christ thus warns to visit Ephesus and remove it from its place. To fully grasp the significance of the statement it is important to understand a few key words. The word e;rcomai means “to come” and “to go,” both literally and figuratively.12 It is often used of the occurrence of fateful happenings.13 In the phrase e;rcomai, soi, the dative pronoun is used to imply disadvantage.14 Thus, there seems to be hostility emphasized; Christ comes to judge the church negatively if it does not repent of her sins. The verb kinh,sw is an indicative future active from êéíüù, meaning “to move,” “move away,” or “remove.”15 It appears in the context of a first class conditional statement that assumes truth for the sake of argument.16 This means that if Ephesus does not repent, its removal from among the seven lampstands in whose midst Christ walks will be the sure result (1:12- 13). Hence, a deep seriousness underlies this statement. Ephesus will be rejected if she does not repent.17 She will be separated from Christ who is the source of its life and existence. The removing or putting out of a lamp is a symbol of death, loss and destruction. In 2 Sam 21:17, for example, David is compared to a lamp, “the lamp of Israel.” After David was nearly killed in battle (2 Sam 21:16) David’s men request him not to go to battle with them again lest he die and

11 J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (vol. 20; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 71. 12 Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament: Baker's Greek New Testament Library (vol. 4; Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 173. 13 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) (vols. 5-10; Gerhard Friedrich et al., eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976), 2:666. 14 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 142-143. See Aune, Revelation 1- 5:14, 135. 15 Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament 4: 230. 16 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 450. 17 TDNT, 3:718.

47 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY the lamp of Israel go out.18 Similarly, God and His word are depicted as the light of His people, and when they do not shine, the people perish (Job 29:1; Psa 17:29; 119:105; Prov 6:23). The removal of the lampstand therefore should be understood as a metaphor of removal from the presence of Christ who is the source of life, and therefore death. This is evident also from a comparison with the promise given to Ephesus. The promise given to overcomers is described as follows: “I will grant [dw,sw] to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God” (Rev 2:7). A brief analysis of a few key words will make this promise more vivid. The verb dw,sw is an indicative future active from di,dwmi, “to give.” As it stands in the passage, dw,sw, “I will give/grant,” is a predictive future that shows what Christ will give to the overcomers in the future.19 The tree of life is mentioned four times in Revelation (2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The right to partake of its fruit is a reversal of what happened in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve, having sinned, were denied the right to eat from the tree of life. The end result was death (Gen 3:22-24). Paradise is a loanword from Persian meaning “enclosure” or “park.”20 The Greeks used the term for the parks of Persian kings,21 while in the LXX it refers to the Garden of Eden as a technical religious term.22 In Jewish literature it is portrayed as a future inheritance of the righteous when they shall again receive immortality as a restoration of God’s original intention for humankind that was frustrated by sin.23 It is evident from the above that both the language of warning and of promise revolve around the concept of life. Removal of the lampstand signifies removal from Christ, the source of all life, and therefore removal of life itself. The promise by contrast offers a full restoration to life without the prospect of death as was intended in Eden. No intimations of torment are given to Ephesus; the choice is between life and death. The parallel message to Laodicea entails similar concepts. The warning to boastful Laodicea is “because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth” (Rev 3:16). To spit is a coarse figure

18 Cf. 2 Chron 21:7; Job 18:6; 21:17. 19 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 568. 20 TDNT, 5: 765. 21 Ibid. 22 E.g. Gen 2:8,9,10,15,16; 3:1,2,3,8,10. 23 1 En 25:5; 3 En 23:18; T. Levi 18:11; Apoc. Mos. 28:4. Aune, Revelation 1-5:14,151.

48 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS of speech meaning to completely reject.24 Thus, though the verb “to spit out,” evme,sai, is different from kinh,sw, used of Ephesus, the end result is not dissimilar. Both what is moved from its place and what is vomited are rejected. The idea of spitting out or vomiting harkens back to similar motifs in the OT that refer to the violent destruction of the Canaanites from the land because of their sinfulness, and for rejecting the long suffering of God (Lev 18:25, 28; cf. Gen 15:16); also to the potential fate of the Israelites if they followed the paths of the Canaanites (Lev 18:28; 20:22). The motif of vomit implies that there is no reversal of the verdict (Prov 26:11; 2 Pet 2:22) and may reflect Jesus’ words: “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” (Matt 5:13). The finality of the verdict suggests an eschatological rather than temporal judgment. The image of Jesus vomiting appears undignified and shocking and its use here warns the church that He is not to be taken lightly.25 Laodicea is the last church among the seven. The language of vomit probably entails a sense of urgency. Lukewarm water may cause an immediate reaction in the body. Likewise, the lukewarmness of Laodicea will result in a swift response; judgment will not tarry.26 It at once portrays the decisiveness of God’s negative verdict of a people unfaithful to God’s faithful and true witness, who is in fact the standard of eschatological judgment.27 So in terms of warning, both the messages to Ephesus and Laodicea spell ejection and death. They emphasize a removal from Christ who alone has the key of death. Those in Laodicea who repent and are victorious will fellowship with Christ. This fellowship in described in two complementary statements: “I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with me” (3:20); “I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne” (3:21). The picture of Jesus standing

24 Aune, Revelation 1-5:14, 258. 25 Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, Rev 3:14-22. 26 Grant R. Osborn, Revelation: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 206. 27 Robert W. Wall, Revelation: New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 86. See William Barclay, The Letters to the Seven Churches (Great Britain, London: SCM Press, 1957), 116. Barclay adds that Laodicea will be absolutely and totally rejected.

49 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY at the door seems to point to the end of the age when the saints will be taken to be with Him (John 14:1-3; cf. Matt 24:33; Mark 13:29). At the same time the fellowship meal points forward to the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-9; cf. Matt 22:1-14).28 It also functions as a contrast to the warning of being spat out. Spitting out brings to mind horrible food or drink and an unpleasant, uncomfortable atmosphere both for the one who spits out and for everyone else who might be watching. By contrast, the idea of meal fellowship touches the more sensitive chords of love and warmth. The meal language also points back to Ephesus. While Ephesus is promised to eat from the tree of life so she can now live with Jesus for eternity, Laodicea is likewise promised to dine with Jesus in the eschatological, eternal banquet. The sense of eternity is reinforced by the mention of the throne of the Father and Jesus and the seating of the saints in their presence.

Promises to Smyrna and Philadelphia Smyrna and Philadelphia are the two churches that receive no rebuke or direct warning. The absence of a warning to Smyrna should not lead us to conclude that Smyrna is a church at peace. The text indicates that Smyrna was to go through persecution even to the point of death and is thus admonished to remain faithful (2:10). Persecution perhaps played a major role in purifying the church and may explain the lack of warning.29 The phrase a;cri qana,tou in the phrase “be faithful until death” occurs three times in the NT (Acts 22:4; Rev 2:10; 12:11). The emphasis is that believers were to remain faithful to the point where might actually be killed, not just threatened with death.30 It is also important to note that they are urged to maintain the faithfulness which they already have so as to receive the promise of life. If they do not, they might lose their crowns. Thus, though Smyrna does not receive any direct warning, there is an indirect one in the call to persevere. The promise given to those who remain faithful is that they will not be hurt by the second death; instead they will receive a crown of life (2:10,

28 For reasons why the phrase “I will come into him” should not be understood primarily as an offering of salvation in a temporal context see Wallace, 380-2. 29 Bunch, The Seven Epistles of Christ, 142. 30 In Acts 22:4 Paul explains how he persecuted Christians “until death;” in Rev 12:11 it refers to believers who were willing to choose death over life in faithfulness to Christ. Cf. Stefanovic, 120-21. Cf. Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1986), 71.

50 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS 11). The promise to the overcomers contrasts with the likelihood of temporal death in persecution. Thus, those who remain faithful and might, as a result, face death, will not be hurt by the second death (2:11). The phrase “second death” occurs four times and only in Revelation (2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). Barclay calls this a mysterious phrase.31 In the three texts apart from 2:11 it refers to the lake of fire. While some have understood the lake of fire to refer to everlasting torment on the basis of Rev 20:10,32 more likely it leads to the complete annihilation of the wicked.33 Four facts point strongly in this direction. First, death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14). These impersonal entities cannot be tormented and the force of the saying is that death and Hades will come to an end, i.e. God will put an end to death since it was not part of His original intent for Creation. Second, the very fact that the lake of fire is called the “second death” indicates that the result is death, not everlasting suffering. Third, immediately after the scene of the lake of fire in Rev 20:14-15 John sees a restored Creation (Rev 21:1-5) in which there are no more tears, death, crying or pain (Rev 21:4) a picture that definitely excludes an everlasting hell of incomprehensible torment. Fourth, within the context of the message to Smyrna, there is clearly a parallel with the faithfulness of believers “until death” and the ensuing promise that they will not be harmed by the “second death.” So while the first one is temporal, the second death is permanent. The escape from the second death is presented in a very emphatic way. The Greek ouv mh. avdikhqh/|, “shall not be hurt” (Rev 2:11) is a combination of ouv mh. plus the aorist. This is an emphatic negation, indeed the strongest way to negate something.34 Thus, not only will those who remain faithful

31 William Barclay, The Revelation of John (vol. 1; Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 2000), 84. 32 The basis for such an understanding is the phrase eivj tou.j aivw/naj tw/n aivw,nwn, often translated “forever and ever.” Though this phrase poses some problems, there is a growing recognition that the noun aivw,n and the cognate adjective aivw,nioj by NT times had more to do with quality than quanity. They refer to things that are of the coming age, where God’s reign is supreme, as opposed to the corrupt current age and as such refer to things coming from that age, to things of divine origin. See relevant discussions see Anthony. Tomasino, ~l[ The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology (vol. 3; gen. ed. Willem A. VanGemeren; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997), 345-50; T. Holtz, An Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament (vol. 1; eds., H. Balz and G. Schneider; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 44-6. 33 Stefanovic, 120. 34 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 468.

51 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY to the point of death not be hurt by the second death, but this emphatic negation rules out even the idea of death as being a possibility in the future in a most decisive way.35 Christ gives further assurances of life when He states that those who remain faithful will receive the “crown of life” (Rev 2:10). Stefanovic observes that this is not the crown of kings but the crown of victory,36 the wreath or garland given to winners in the Olympic and other games. NT writers contrasted the perishable wreath of Olympic winners, with the imperishable wreath believers will receive at the end of the age.37 The former was coveted by those who knew not God but the latter is of much more infinite value for it entails eternal life with God. The phrase “crown of life” occurs twice in the NT (James 1:12; Rev 2:10). In both cases it is a future reality to those who remain faithful to the very end. Overcomers did not fear him who can only kill the body, but He who can as well cast into hell (Mat 10:28; Luke 12:4, 5). Thus, the eschatological promise to Smyrna like the one to the two churches already discussed revolves around the concepts of life and death. The second death which entails the cessation of life will be powerless on them because of their faithfulness to the end. Everlasting torment has no place in this picture. To Philadelphia, like Smyrna, no massage of warning is given. The church is instead admonished to hold on to what she has, just as those in Smyrna were asked to remain faithful until death. What is promised, like in Smyrna, is a “crown” (3:11; cf. 2:10). Furthermore, the overcomers are promised to be made pillars in God’ temple forever (Rev 3:12). The symbolism of being made a pillar in God’s temple reflects Rev 7:15-17 were the saints worship God day and night in His heavenly temple. Thus, living in God’s temple could be viewed as a symbol for eternal salvation (cf. Ps 23:6).38 The Greek for temple is nao,j. It derives from the verb íáßù, “to dwell,” or “inhabit.”39 In non biblical texts it refers to the “abode of the gods.40 The noun has cultic nuances and refers to a temple and more narrowly to the

35 Ibid. 36 Stefanovic, 120. 37 See Cor 9:25; cf Jam 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; 2 Tim 4:8. 38 Michaels, Revelation, Re 3:7. 39 TDNT, 4:880. 40 Ibid.

52 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS innermost shrine that would house the image of the god.41 In biblical usage nao,j, common in both the LXX and NT, refers to God’s abode in His temple, whether in heaven or on earth, primarily the inner structure not the whole complex.42 It can also refer to believers either individually (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19) or corporately (2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; possibly 2 Thess 2:4) but only in the sense that God dwells in them just like He dwells in His literal temple. Thus, the notion of being made pillars in the temple points to dwelling permanently there Overcomer will never be separated from the source of life who is Jesus Himself. Furthermore, the overcomer will “never go out from it [temple] anymore” (Rev 3:11). Clearly, this is not language of restriction but of assurance. David longed to “dwell in the house of the Lord forever” (Ps 23:6) a place He considered safe (Ps 27:4) because the Lord dwells there (Ps 11:4; Hab 2:20) and from there He hears His people’s cries (2 Sam 22:7; Psa 18:6). Also, in His temple, God satisfies with His goodness (Ps 65:4). The temple in view here is the heavenly temple, located in the New Jerusalem where God welcomes believers and gives them a new name (Rev 3:12). As such, in the promise to the faithful Philadelphians, the hopes of the OT saints reach a grander fulfillment. By contrast, exclusion from the city of God leads to destruction (Rev 20:9; 22:15). To be in the city and/or temple as opposed to outside may also reflect the language of exclusion exemplified in the outer darkness sayings of Jesus where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Such language though often associated with the supposed torments of hell, rightly understood points to exclusion from the kingdom with no notion of temporary, let alone everlasting torment.43

41 TDNT, 4: 625. 42 E.g. Ps 45:15; Matt 23:16, 21; Luke 1:21; Rev 3:12; 7:15; 11:19 43 The outer darkness appears three times (Matt 8:12; 22:13; 25:30) and is assumed twice more (Matt 24:51; Luke 13:28), through the use of the locative evkei/, often in conjunction with the phrase weeping and gnashing of teeth. Often overlooked is the fact that the outer darkness always appears in the context of a stated or implied banquet, in which case the outer darkness is the darkness outside the banqueting hall, not a description of hell. Furthermore, weeping habitually describes sorrow, while gnashing of teeth, always anger, never torment of any kind. Taking the above together, the outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth describes the exclusion of sinners from the kingdom and the resultant anger and sorrow they experience, not hell or torments of any kind.

53 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Warnings and Promises to Pergamum and Sardis To the church of Pergamum, the message is that unless she repents, Christ will come quickly and fight them with the sword of His mouth (2:16). This “coming,” like that of Rev 2:5 has a twofold application. First, it may refer to a temporal “coming,” a divine visitation upon Pergamum’s unrighteous conduct.44 In other words Christ would not allow the situation prevailing in the church to go unchecked. Second, in the broader, universal understanding of the messages to the seven churches, the coming can mean nothing less than the Parousia, the coming of Jesus in glory. Thus, the e;rcomai, soi tacu., “I am coming to you quickly,” parallels closely the e;rcomai tacu., of Rev 22:7,12 (cf. Rev 16:15; 22:20), clear references to the Second Coming. The two interpretations are not contradictory since God’s interventions of judgment in history mirror His grander intervention at the end of the age. At His coming, Jesus warns Pergamum that He will “make war against them with the sword of [His] mouth.” The sword coming out of the mouth looks back to the description of the heavenly Christ in Rev 1:16 and, more importantly, ties the warning to Pergamum with the eschatological war of Rev 19 where the sword is mentioned twice (Rev 19:15, 21). The war of Rev 19 is a representation of the Second Coming and the sword signals the utter annihilation of the enemies of God (Rev 19:21). Military language is a common symbol for the Day of the Lord and the result is always destruction.45 As far as the promises to Pergamum are concerned, Christ promises to overcomers the hidden manna, as well as a white stone with a new name on it (2:17). With regards to the hidden manna, some view it as reflecting popular later Jewish expectation that God would again provide manna.46 This would point to a future time but not necessarily to the end of the age.

44 See, for example, Anthony C. Garland, A Testimony of Jesus Christ: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Galaxies Software, 2006; 2006), Rev 2:16. See also Stefanovic, who compares the coming of Jesus to the coming of the angel with the sword against Balaam, a fitting parallel given that Balaam is specifically mentioned in the message to Pergamum (Rev 2:14). 45 James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains (DBLG): Greek New Testament (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), DBLG 4482- 4483, #2; Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 4: 321. 46 Harrington, Revelation, 63.

54 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS For others, however, it is a symbol of eschatological fulfillment.47 This becomes evident when connected with John 6:31-34 where manna is used symbolically to represent both the abundant spiritual life in Christ now, and the eternal life He offers at the end of the age (John 6:32, 33).48 The origin of manna is from the exodus of Israel from Egypt and shows how God lovingly and supernaturally provided sustenance for His people. Manna looked like white coriander seed and tasted like wafers made with honey (Exod 16:31; Num 11:7). God provided manna for a period of forty years (Exod 16:35) until Israel crossed the Jordan (Jos. 5:12). Manna provided life in a barren wilderness and without it Israel might have died (Exod 16:3). The fact that it is called “angel’s food” (Ps 78:23-25) probably indicates that at least in part the fulfillment points to eternal life. Since some manna was kept in the ark of the covenant (Exod 16:33) in the sanctuary/temple, its mention creates a link to the heavenly temple language of the promise to Philadelphia., i.e. those who find themselves in the heavenly temple of God, will partake of heavenly food. As regards the “white stone,” it should be seen as a token of vindication or acquittal, in line with the practice of judges to give an accused person either a black stone signifying conviction or a white stone indicating exoneration.49 Thus the understanding would be that no matter what verdict a Roman court may give to Christians, they will be vindicated at the bar of eternal justice. An alternative view suggests that the white stone was a token given to successful contestants in Greek games, to be traded in later for their actual awards.50 A third alternative is that a white stone with a person’s name written upon it served as a sort of pass for admission to certain functions, like the feasts in temples.51 If this view is correct, the meaning here would be that those who repent will receive “a pass” admitting them into the messianic feast of the kingdom and the heavenly temple of God.52 Therefore, the eating from the hidden manna and the

47 Wall, Revelation, 76. 48 Francis D. Nichol, ed., The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (SDABC) (vol. 7; Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2002), 750. 49 Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, Rev 2:12-17. 50 Taylor G. Bunch, The Seven Epistles of Christ (Washington, DC: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1947), 157. 51 William Barclay, Letters to the Seven Churches (London: SCM Press, 1957), 62, 63. 52 Ibid. See Wall, Revelation, 76.

55 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY receiving of a stone with a new name can only refer to the reception of the gift of immortal life at Christ’s Second Coming. The giving of a new name has reference to past Scripture references where persons’ names were changed. Some good examples include that of Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah (Gen 17:5, 15-16), and Jacob to Israel (Gen 32:27, 28). A name often stands for character, and a new name would indicate a new character. Hence, in the promise of a “new name,” the Christian is being assured of a new and different character, patterned after that of God (Isa 62:2; 65:15). To the church of Sardis, the message is “I will come like a thief.” This thief motif language employs imagery elsewhere associated with the Second Coming of Christ (Matt 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev 16:15). However, some see a possibility that some more immediate visitation of judgment is described here.53 Thus, the failure to watch seems to be the reason that they will not know what hour Christ will come (v. 3) upon them, whereas, in the case of the Second Coming of Christ, even for those who are watching, He will come “at an hour you do not expect” (Matt 24:42, 44). That caveat aside, the emphasis seems to be on preparedness and unpreparedness for the Parousia. Thus, while believers are admonished to always be ready (Matt 24:44; Luke 12:40), Sardis’ potential failure to remain will mean that when Christ appears unannounced, she will not be ready to meet Him. There is also possibly a parallel to the saying of the thief who comes to steal and destroy (John 10:10). Thus, Jesus’ coming to the unrepentant in the eschatological judgment can only bring death. Furthermore, the effects of Christ coming quickly to Pergamum and His coming like a thief to Sardis are the same. To both He comes unexpectedly, at the time they are not looking for Him. To both He comes to potentially judge negatively. Like all other churches discussed above, that of Sardis also receives promises for the overcomers. Thus, for those who have not soiled their garments, the promise is that walk with Christ, “in white; for they are worthy.” The promise continues: “He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels (Rev 3:4, 5). In the above words, a sharp contrast is made between those who have

53 Craig S. Keener, Revelation: The New American Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 144; Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, Rev 3:1-6.

56 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS soiled their garments and those dressed in white. While defiled garments may be a symbol of moral defilement (Matt 22:11; Rev 16:15), white garments refer to the morally faithful and thus clean and unstained, a symbol of purity. The same symbol is again employed in Rev 7:13, 14 where we see the redeemed stand before the throne presented as having washed their garments in the blood of the Lamb. They have received the righteousness that only Christ can give. Elsewhere, both in Scripture and in Jewish literature white garment is depicted as the attire of heavenly beings.54 When applied to the saints, this could symbolize the gift of immortality (1 Cor 15:40-44; cf. vs. 51-54).55 All in all, white garments symbolize a range of positive traits that center on the notion of ritual and moral purity.56 Furthermore, overcomers are assured of the maintenance of their name in the book of life. The idea of erasure of a name from the book of life makes allusion to Moses’ intercession for the Israelites when God was contemplating the destruction of Israel (Exod 32:32). The same notion can be seen in the experience of Paul though he does not use the exact words (Rom 9:2,3).The motif of a Book of Life in which the names of the saved are written and the motif of the erasure of a person’s name from such a Book nullifies the idea of “once-saved-always-saved” (Rev 17:8).57 Finally, rather than erase the name, Jesus promised to instead acknowledge one’s name before His father and His holy angels (Rev 3:5). The term o`mologe,w means “to confess,” or “to make an emphatic assertion” (Matt 7:23; 14:7; John 1:20; Acts 7:17; 24:14).58 In the book of Revelation, the term is only used once. The idea of confessing one’s name before God and the angels is also found in Jesus’ sayings in the Gospels (Matt 10:32; Luke 12:8). Here too, like in Revelation the idea comes in the context of eschatological judgment. So, those whose names are confessed are those judged as worthy for eternal life and fit to live with God and His angels.

54 E.g. Dan. 7:9; 2 Macc 11:8; Matt 28:3; Mark 16:5; John 20:12; Acts 1:10; Rev. 4:4; 6:11; 19:14. 55 SDABC, 7: 757. 56 Aune, Revelation 1-5:14, 223. 57 Ibid. 58 Swanson, DBLG: 3933, #3.

57 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Warnings and Promises to Thyatira The message to the church of Thyatira seems to be the climax of the messages to the seven churches. It is to this church that Christ reveals Himself as the Son of God and informs her that His eyes are like a flame of fire, and His feet like fine brass (v. 18). Both of these characteristics suggest impending judgment.59 Christ’s dealing with the church could be summed up as “penetrative judgment.”60 His piercing vision sees all and His feet, with which He will tread upon the wicked in the winepress of God’s wrath (14:19f; Isa 63:1-4), are of irresistible strength.61 Jesus will judge the wicked in the church with a judgment none can prevent or defy. The message to Thyatira is, “I will cast [ba,llw] her upon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with pestilence” (Rev 2:22- 23). The language of judgment is very strong. The noun qli/yij translated here as “tribulation” is used 40 times in the NT outside the book of Revelation,62 while in Revelation it is used only 5 times (1:9; 2:9, 10, 22; 7:14) making a total of 45. It is used predominantly of the tribulations believers suffered either as a result of persecution or simply by living in a sinful world. Here is the only instance where the cause of the tribulation appears to be Jesus. There is a question as to whether this tribulation is punitive or serves to bring Thyatira to repentance. It could be understood as punitive in the sense that it follows on 2:21 where Jesus declares that Jezebel did not repent.63 Conversely, the last clause of 2:22 which is a warning to repent could be understood to imply that the tribulation is a last resort to get Thyatira to repent, in a similar vain to Hebrews 12:6 where “whom the Lord loves He disciplines, and He scourges every son whom He receives.”

59 Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, Rev 2:18-29. See H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Book of Revelation (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1920), 53. Ironside argues that Christ’s descriptive appearance here speaks of His holiness and righteousness. He must judge all that is evil and yet He never overlooks what can be commended. 60 Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957), 62. 61 Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, Re 2:18-29. 62 Matt 13:21; 24:9, 21, 29; Mark 4:7; 13:19, 24; John 16:21, 33; Acts 7:10, 11; 11:19; 14:22; 20:23; Rom 2:9; 5:3*2,; 8:35; 12:12; 1 Cor 7:28; 2 Cor 1:4*2, 8; 2:4; 4:17; 6:4; 7:4; 8:2, 13; Eph 3:13; Phil 1:17; 14:14; Col 1:24; 1 Thess 1:6; 3:3, 7; 2 Thess1:4, 6; Heb 10:33; Jas 1:27. 63 Joseph J. Battistone, Revelation 1-11, God’s Church in a Hostile World (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1989), 44.

58 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS The tribulation could be either historical or eschatological or both. The fact that the tribulation of Thyatira could suggest a localized, historical tribulation is indicated by the fact that other churches would come to an understanding of the justice of God (Rev 2:23). Conversely, tribulation plays a prominent role in the unfolding events of Revelation before the Parousia (e.g. Rev 13:11-18). In a multidimensional understanding of the letters to the seven churches perhaps the tribulation in view might also be understood as multidimensional. The verb ba,llw translated here as “cast,” is often used in scenes of judgment in the Gospels. In such contexts it can have the idea of “casting” in fire (Matt 3:10), or Gehenna (Matt 5:29), and “casting out” of the kingdom (Matt 5:13).64 Here, by contrast, those associating themselves with Jezebel will be thrown into a bed. Throwing one into a sickbed is seen as a Hebrew idiom that means “to cast upon a bed of illness,” thus punishing someone with various forms of sickness.65 The motif may also point back to Exod 21:18-20 where an injured or sick person falls in bed, contrasting thus the bed of fornication with the bed of affliction.66 While, however, in Exod 21:18-20 there was likelihood for the injured person to recover, here the sure result will be death. The burden of Exod 21:18-20 was that any punishment would be commensurate to the offence. This might indeed be the concept here as well. Jezebel deserved death because of her idolatry (1 Kgs 16:28-19:3) and received her due reward when Jehu destroyed her and those who followed her into Baal worship (2 Kings 9:30-37; 10:1-28). The idea of the punishment being commensurate to the offence is common in the NT in general (1 Cor 3:8; 1 Tim 5:18; 2 Tim 4:14; Heb 2:2; 2 John 1:8) and Revelation in particular (Rev 18:18; 22:12). The reference to Jezebel is clearly symbolic and the casting of Jezebel on the sickbed of suffering depicts judgment that is connected with the coming of Jesus, thus eschatological.67

64 TDNT, 1:527. 65 Aune, Revelation 1-5:14, 205. 66 George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 52; Michaels, Revelation, 79; Wall, Revelation, 78. Wall argues that Christ’s threat to cast Jezebel into a bed of suffering may indicate that the false teacher champions the opposite, which is an end from suffering. 67 Aune, Revelation 1-5:14, 214.

59 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Since the name Jezebel is used symbolically in the letter to Thyatira, the reference to “her children” must also be used symbolically to refer to believers who had followed after the false teachings of the symbolic Jezebel. The followers of Jezebel’s teachings were to be struck dead with a plague. Since children assume a future, their being killed denotes a lack of one. This seems to point to a complete extermination of all associated with Thyatira’s evil. So not only would Jezebel herself be punished; but her children as well, a sign of a complete destruction. There is finality in this language in terms of dealing with evil, once and for all. Again, the question arises of whether temporal or eschatological killing is in view. The fact that other churches come to “know” God’s justice (Rev 2:23) as a result of the destruction of Jezebel’s followers may suggest a temporal context. However, it is more likely that the final judgment is in view. Jesus declares that all the churches will come to know that Jesus will give each one “according to your deeds,” “kata. ta. e;rga u`mw/n” (2:23). The syntactical construction “kata. ta. e;rga” with a relevant pronoun appears nine times in the NT predominantly in an eschatological context with a view to the Day of Judgment.68 As such, it is best understood in the same way here. As already observed, to the church of Thyatira, Christ identifies Himself clearly as the Son of God. In addition, He also mentions His judgment of death to this church when He says, “I will kill her children.” Furthermore, it is only to this church where He clearly gives a warning that has a universal application; “and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds” (Rev 2:23). Here we see that just as Jesus is the Son of God to all the churches, He will punish with death all that will not repent in any of the seven churches which are actually symbolic of the Christian church as a whole.

68 Rom 2:6; 2 Cor 11:15; 2 Tim 4:14; Rom 2:23; 18:6; 20:12, 13. Possible exceptions are Matt 23:3 where Jesus warns believers not to do “according to the deeds” of the Pharisees and Scribes and 2 Tim 1:9 where Paul explains that Jesus offers salvation not “according to the deeds” we have performed and which cannot earn salvation. Though neither of these two texts refers to the recompense at the end of the age, both hint at it; the warnings against the Pharisees and scribes and their deeds is damnable in the context of Matt 23:3, while had Jesus not offered the gift of salvation our deeds would certainly not have saved us from damnation according to the context of 2 Tim 1:9.

60 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS There is a further reference to destruction and death when Jesus promises to give overcomers “authority over the nations.” The nations will be broken as pieces of clay pots struck by an iron rod (Rev 2:26-27). The motif of nations broken as clay points back to prophetic oracles against the nations in the OT that usually spelt their doom.69 The promises to Thyatira also point to a contrast between life and death that we noticed in the other churches. Jesus promises overcomers that He will give them the morning star and power to rule the nations. The promise is primarily eschatological offering believers the right to participate in the triumph of God’s rule over all the earth (Rev 2:26-28).70 This means that believers were not to look forward to a time when they would sit down to rule in this present world, but rather looked forward to the world made anew (Rev 20:6; 21:1). They were to hold fast to what they had until Christ would come, so as to share in Christ’s messianic rule. In the Gospels, Jesus promised the disciples that they would one day sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30). The same idea is also attested by Paul (1 Cor 6:2). The eschatological theme of God’s judgment has the kingdom and its dominion as its climax (Dan 7:14, 26-27; cf. Mat 4:8, 9; Luke 4:5, 6). Thus, the eschatological judgment looks forward to the rightful heirs of the kingdom of God taking their rightful place. The message to Thyatira assures the overcomers authority and rulership over the nations which is the ultimate occupation of the saints with Jesus. Furthermore, though it is rightly understood that of the seven cities of Asia Minor mentioned in Revelation, Thyatira was the least significant, the church here received the longest letter.71 Furthermore, closely tied to what the book is, a revelation of Jesus (1:1), it is to this church that Jesus plainly reveals Himself as “the Son of God” (2:18). This title which attests to the divinity of Christ is used sixteen times in the NT.72 In regard to the giving of the morning star (Rev 2:28) scholars see two possible things. First, they see it as a promise of resurrection. Just as the

69 Bunch, The Seven Epistles of Christ, 175; Grant R. Osborne, Revelation: Barker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 167. 70 Wall, Revelation, 79. 71 Gregg, Revelation, Four Views, Rev 2:18-29. 72 These are Mat 16:16; 26:63; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41; 22:70; John 1:34, 49; 11:4, 27; 20:31; Acts 9:20; 1 John 3:8; 4:15; 5:5, 20; Rev 2:18.

61 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY morning star rises over the darkness of the night, so will the overcomer rise over the darkness of death. Second, they see it as the gift of the risen Christ Himself. Rev 22:16 states: “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am. . . the bright morning star.”73 So, the overcomer will here receive the greatest prize of all, Jesus Christ Himself.74 Hence, this points to being with Jesus never to part again throughout eternity. The morning star motif of Rev 22:16 is closely tied to the “water of life” of Rev 22:17. Thus, those who come to Jesus, the morning star, will drink of the water of life and never die again.

Summary and Conclusion Generations of believers have anticipated the Parousia in their lifetime right from the time of the apostolic age. While the messages to the seven churches of Revelation had firstly been directed to the seven churches in Asia Minor and secondly have been understood to represent seven periods in the history of Christianity, nonetheless, each message has its own diachronic importance for believers of every age. The significance of the judgment language to the seven churches in Revelation 2 and 3 is understood from the perspective of Jesus’ self revelation in chapter 1. This He does by saying; “I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades (Rev 1:17, 18). Thus, depending on whether the churches respond to Him or not, life and death become inevitable respectively. It has been shown that the effect of the message to the seven churches in terms of the threats or warnings and promises forms a chiastic structure. Thus, both the first church (Ephesus) and seventh church (Laodicea) are threatened with rejection or separation from Christ who is the source of life. That which is removed from where Christ is and that which Christ Himself spits out experience the same fate, death. Thus, death is pictured as separation from Christ. In terms of promises, both Ephesus and Laodicea are promised immortality and a life with Jesus. This is pictured in terms of eating from the tree of life in paradise, dining with Him, and sitting with Him on His throne. Thus, while the threats were focused on separation from Jesus, the promises are those of being forever with Jesus. This will be

73 Barclay, Letters to the Seven Churches, 79. 74 Ibid.

62 PAPAIOANNOU AND MOYO: JUDGMENT MOTIFS possible by eating from the tree of life, thus receiving the gift of immortality. In like manner, Smyrna as the second church corresponds with the sixth, Philadelphia. Both receive no threats though they are implied in the promises given. While those who remain faithful in Smyrna will not be hurt by the second death, those who hold on to what they have in Philadelphia will be made pillars in God’s temple. The second death was shown to mean the cessation of all life rather than everlasting torment. By contrast, those made pillars in God’s temple remain with Jesus and dwell with Him eternally. Similarly, the effect of the message to the third church, Pergamum corresponds to that of Sardis the fifth church. While Christ is seen as coming quickly to Pergamum, to Sardis He comes as a thief. In both, the effects to the unprepared are the same. Furthermore, while Christ threatens to fight those who think they can live without Him, Christ’s coming like a thief to Sardis also points to the purpose a thief has for visiting any home. Just as fighting leads to destruction and death, a thief also seeks to destroy and kill. So, in both, death seems to be the ultimate goal. As regards the promises Pergamum is promised to eat from the hidden manna and to be given a white stone with a new name. These symbolize reception of immortality, exoneration and admission into God’s kingdom. Similarly, Sardis will walk in white and the names of the faithful will not be erased from the book of life. The white color of the stone and the white dress both point to the purity that is received from Christ’s righteousness. The new name written on a stone, is similar to having one’s name maintained and confessed before the Father. At the end of the day, the message is that both are worthy to live with Jesus forever. Lastly, Thyatira, the fourth church, forms the climax of the eschatological message to the seven churches. This is also signaled by the fact that though it seems least in significance, it receives the longest letter. Other signals are seen on how Jesus chooses to reveal Himself as the Son of God and the openness of His message to them; He searches all, and gives judgment in proportion to works done. Furthermore, in His judgment to Thyatira, He wants all the churches to listen. In Thyatira, Christ threatens to punish Jezebel and her followers according to their works. Thus because of her adultery, she will be cast on a bed of suffering. The children who are the future of her activities will be killed if they do not repent. In this way Jesus clearly defines what will be

63 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY the fate of those who separate themselves from Him, not only in Thyatira, but also in all the other churches. To the overcomers Jesus promises that they will rule with Him over the nations to the point of destroying them. He also promises the morning star, implying victory over death and the gift of the eternal presence of Jesus. The repeated references to life and death through a variety of motifs and language throughout the messages to the seven churches paint in stark colors what is at stake in the battle between good and evil and what will be the reward of the righteous and the destiny of the wicked: eternal life for the former, and the total and complete loss of all life for the latter. Nowhere does judgment entail eternal or even temporal torment. The concept simply does not enter the picture.

Kim Papaioannou holds an MA in Religion from Newbold College, England, and a PhD in Theology from the University of Durham, in Durham, England, both with an emphasis in the New Testament. He currently pastors in Cyprus. [email protected]

Edward Eddie Moyo is currently serving as a Lecturer in the School of Theology and Religious Studies at Rusangu University, Monze, Zambia. He holds a PhD in Religion and Biblical Studies with an emphasis in the Old Testament from Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies in the Philippines. [email protected]

Waldensian and Catholic Theologies of History in the XII-XIV Centuries: Part I

Gonzalo L. Pita Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD

I. Introduction A fundamental tenet of Christianity states that God exerts his will on history.1 Theologies of history explore the implications of this idea dealing with questions that involve how and why God intervenes in human history, which are God’s purposes for humanity, how human free will affects history, whether history is intelligible, and which sources provide clues to the above questions. In the High Middle Ages there were in the Catholic official milieu some interpretations of history which were fairly accepted and established. However, the serious challenge instantiated by the dissenting Waldensian view attracted increasing attention as witnessed by the growing awareness in the writings of controversists and inquisitors. Common objections were periodically leveled against the Roman Church by people that denounced the corruption of some of the clergy, which led sometimes to the creation of new religious orders. But the Waldensians subscribed to a theology of history of radical arguments that questioned the most fundamental and cherished doctrinal tenets of the Roman Church and the religious and political authority of the papal office from a historical- theological perspective. The Catholic theology of history was undergirded by several sources in addition to Scriptures, that included but were not reduced to Roman

1 E. Breisach, Historiography (University of Chicago Press, 1994), 77ff; E. White, Prophets and Kings (Pacific Press, 1917), 499.

65 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY historiography and the philosophical ideas of some Fathers. Its salient features included the uniqueness and ceaselessness of the Roman Church along with the theocratical character assigned to the papal office by some publicists of the 12th–14th centuries. Conversely the Waldensians grounded theirs exclusively on Scripture within a popular and mostly oral transmission in the vernacular. Despite disadvantages, the Waldensians had an articulated and complex theological system that hinged around a self-appraisal as a chosen remnant, a peculiar conception of eschatology, the dismissal of Fathers’ writings as authoritative, and the prophetical role assigned to the Roman Church as becomes apparent from juxtaposing the surviving documents. By necessity the Waldensian theology in general and of history in particular was not a mere speculative construct but rather a source of meaning and endurance to resist the persecutions throughout centuries. Consequently, a special focus has been devoted in this study to understand the authoritative status that the Waldensians conferred to Scripture. The study of the Waldensian understanding of history provides an important insight into their elaborate theological and philosophical thinking which defined their identity, fueled their confrontation with the Roman Church, and sparked persecutions. This study is presented in two papers that survey these diametrically opposed theologies of history drawing from texts of the 12th-14th centuries. Both papers are organized as follows: first a descriptive survey of each theology of history and its constituting elements is presented and then an assessment of the theological and philosophical presuppositions that underlie the construct are discussed. In both cases texts translated from original sources and numbered for ease of reference. This paper presents the key characteristics of the Catholic theology of history that was challenged by the Waldensians in the High Middle Ages. In the second paper the Waldensian theology of history is explored with detailed treatment of their appraisal of Scriptural authority and a tentative comparison of the resulting points of conflicts between both theological systems is described in the final section.

II. A Note on Documentary Sources and the Origins of the Waldensians Our current knowledge of the history of the Waldensians in the Middle Ages is almost exclusively tributary of the sources coming from the official

66 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY Roman Church such as papal decretals, Council canons, inquisitorial dossiers and manuals, treatises of polemists; and also from acts of the secular arm, decrees and constitutions of Emperors, kings, and princes, and other neutral works such as chronics, letters, and literary compositions.2 G. Gonnet warns that the documentary asymmetry for the study of Waldensians beliefs is also correlated with an inherent partiality, unilateral points of view, incomprehension, superficiality, or falsity in the documents. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, some of the key features of the Waldensian theology of history still can be grasped by superimposing the narratives. In order to get a somehow accurate representation of the Waldensian beliefs from the polemists’ writings, it is important to clarify the different ways in which the former are designated in the documents.3 The available texts blend under the same designation of “Waldensian” a number of disparate religious groups which were not necessarily identical in fact or in doctrine along history, for example Waldensians, Poor of Lyon,4 Leonists,5 and Poor Lombards.6 Specifically the designation of Poor of Lyon (paupere de lugduno) is the most frequently mentioned in the documents. Originally in the mid 12th and early 13th centuries, these were the followers of Peter Valdès7 and had a mostly orthodox Catholic doctrine along with an emphasis on poverty, itinerant preaching, and Bible in the vernacular.8 The Poor in their initial years were a kind of protégé of the Lyonese Archbishop Guichard and also

2 G. Gonnet, Enchiridion Fontium Valdensium I, (EFV I), (Claudiana, 1958), 5ss. 3 Some of the names are: Valdesiani, Valdesianorum, Waldenses, Valdenses, etc. 4 Pauperes de Lugduno, Poverley, Poverleone, Poverlewe, Powerlove, Paupere de Gluduno, Pouer Lion, Ludinenses pauperes, etc. 5 Leoniste, Leonistae, etc. 6 Heresis Lumbardorum, etc. 7 The few accounts of the life of Valdès until his conversion have all the elements of the medieval hagiographyical style. In one of those accounts, the Anonymous of Laon relates how Peter Valdès converted after listening the story of St. Alexis, a rich beggar. See Breisach, 98-100. 8 Peter Valdès asserts in his Confession that whoever says “he comes from us [the Poor of Lyons], but has not this faith [that of the orthodox Confession], you may know with certainty that he is not from us. (“Si forte contigerit aliquos venire ad vestras partes dicentes se esse ex nobis, si hanc fidem non habuerint, ipsos ex nostris non fore pro certo sciatis”) EFV I, 36.

67 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY of Pope Alexander III9 until they died around 1181. Shortly after the Poor of Lyon lost the favor of Rome and were excommunicated by Lucius III in the Council of Verona in 1184 with the Bull Ad Abolendam. It should be noted that the beliefs of the Poor of Lyon of the 12th and early 13th century as registered in the surviving documents, might not be univocally identifiable with those of the group that later came to be known as the Waldensians. Considering the system of beliefs ascribed to them in the documents, it might seem that the Poor of Lyon adopted some of their ideas from pre-existing religious groups. What seems to confer weight to the hypothesis that the “Waldensian” ideas predate Valdès is the theological complexity and coherence achieved in a short time after the alleged defection of Valdès, and also in the practical improbability of deriving such a complex doctrinal building as the Waldensian’s from Valdès’ initial ascetic tenets. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the Poors might have drawn from an already existing group of dissenters. Even though it is difficult, if at all possible, to clearly characterize an independent religious group prior to the Poor of Lyon in the available documents, there are actually a few scattered statements that suggest the existence of such religious group(s) predating the Poor of Lyon. In one of the texts from the early 13th century it is stated that:

[a]fter they were excommunicated from their city [Lyon] and banished from their fatherland, they [Poor of Lyon] multiplied over the earth, scattered in their own province, in nearby regions, and the confines of (1) Lombardy. And when they were cut off from the church, they mingled with other heretics, and filled and fused these heretics’ errors with their own original errors and heresies.10

9 As a matter of fact, Peter Valdès was asked to provide a Confession of Faith which in one of the articles reads that he believed in: “One Church, Catholic (Universal), holy, apostolic, and immaculate, outside of which nobody can be saved.” (“Unam ecclesiam catholicam, sanctam, apostolicam et immaculatam, extra quam neminem salvari”). EFV I, 34. Besides Valdès asserted that he believed in the efficacy of alms, Masses, and other good works for the purgation of the dead faithful: “Helemosynas et sacrificium, ceteraque beneficia fidelibus posse prodesse defunctis non dubitamus.” EFV I, 35. 10 “Exinde excommunicati ex illa civitate et patria sunt expulsi—sic multiplicati super terram, disperserunt se per illam provinciam et per partes vicinas et confines Lombardiae, et praecisi ab ecclesia, cum aliis haereticis se miscentes et eorum errores imbibentes suis adinventionibus antiquorum haereticorum errores et haereses miscuerunt.” v. Döllinger II, 6. See also, EFV II, 49-50.

68 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY Another indication of a mingling with a preexisting group is afforded by Stephen of Bourbon (c. 1220):

Thereafter, since they mingled in Provence and Lombardy with other (2) heretics whose errors they imbibed and propagated.11

Yet another indirect reference to a certain Thomas who supported the authority of Peter Valdès to preach as being granted by the Poor Lombards which predated Valdès:

Thomas a perverted Doctor who claimed that Valdès received the (3) succession from his brethren.12

It must also be noted that in the 12th and 13th centuries, inquisitors and controversists were not interested or able to delineate a sharp taxonomy of the dissenter groups for the sake of it. Their main interest was focused in providing practical resources to those involved in the capture of heretics. Therefore, it might be expected that under the name of Poor of Lyon or Waldensians, the polemists fused everyone falling under a commonly held inquisitorial stereotype of the Waldensian heretic. Lastly, many scholars consider that Waldensian theology originated in the asceticism of Valdès and then subsequently evolved into a sophisticated corpus of doctrines.13 This argument rests in the increasingly detailed accounts of Waldensian beliefs available from the late 12th century onwards. But given the initial inquisitors’ descriptive inability just mentioned, it might seem more plausible to interpret the richer accounts not necessarily as a doctrinal evolution by the Waldensians themselves, but rather as a sign of the increasing understanding that the former gradually gained of the Waldensians’ more or less already established doctrines. To

11 From Wakefield, W. and Evans, A., Heresies of the High Middle Ages (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1991), 210. (WE thereafter). See also Papini, C. Valdo di Lione e i «poveri nello spirito». (Claudiana Editrice, 2001), 79 on the preexistent doctrines from which the Poor of Lyons took. 12 Moneta of Cremona (1244), Adversus Catharos et Valdenses Libri Quinque. (Ricchini, Roma, 1753), p. 406. See also the paragraphs by an anonymous Poor Lombard (number 12) and by Durand of Huesca (number 34) in the next paper. 13 For instance, H. Grundmann, (1935), Religious Movements in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995). E. Cameron, Waldenses: Rejections of Holy Church in Medieval Europe (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2000).

69 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY support this view, the interpretation of heresy that the official authorities developed in time became more stringent and extreme as the inquisitors learned more about the Waldensians.14 Because of the documentary vagueness in the taxonomy of the religious groups related to the Waldensians I have drawn information from documents that refer indistinctly either to Poor of Lyon, Poor Lombards, Waldensians, or similar names. The next section presents a survey of the Catholic theologies of history until the 14th century.

III. Topography of Catholic Theologies of History in the 12th to 14th Centuries A description of the key characteristics of the Catholic theology of history is presented in what follows. The opinion that the post-apostolic church had of the Roman Empire was altogether unfavorable. Tertullian (160-225) and Origen (c.184- c.254) pointed to Rome’s worshipping of false gods as evidence that God could not have intended its greatness.15 However, the Fathers’ attitude towards the Roman Empire changed with the conversion of Constantine. The new more favorable social circumstances produced a historical revisionism which brought forth a profound historiographical shift in the interpretation of the role played by the Roman Empire in God’s salvational scheme, both before and after the Incarnation. The key historian of the time, Constantine’s panegyrist Eusebius (c. 260-c. 341) proposed that the Roman Empire had been the instrument that God deployed to pave the way for the world’s conversion to Christianity (the praeparatio Evangelica). Eusebius held that Jewish religion, Greek Science, and Roman Law coalesced providentially to facilitate the optimum conditions for the blossoming of Christianity.16 Moreover, the very fact that Christ was born under the rule of the Romans was for Eusebius a clear indication that the Roman Empire had been willed, endorsed, and therefore divinely instituted by God Himself. The remarkable achievements of the Roman Empire such as the peace and laws, could not have been the product of chance, reasoned Eusebius, and therefore might have been willed by God himself. Had not those achievements facilitated

14 L. Bosworth, Perceptions of the Origins and Causes of Heresy in Medieval Heresiology, Ph.D. Dissertation, (University of Edinburgh, 1995). 15 Breisach, 80-81. 16 See R. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford University Press, 1945), 51ss.

70 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY the spreading of the gospel? Augustine (354-430) also developed a favorable role for the Roman Empire. He considered that the universal empire was entrusted to the Romans because of the unmatched civic “virtus” and “pietas” they achieved. As such, Augustine reasoned, they were given the task of uniting the world prior to the coming of Christ.17 In another example of the change of historiographical mentality, Lactantius (c. 240-c. 320) the Christian advisor to Constantine, considered that the regency of Augustus was the “Golden Age,” a human equivalent to the Earthly Paradise.18 As such the Roman Empire was then regarded by historians and theologians from the 4th century onwards as the unparalleled epitome of the human achievement, instituted by God himself. It was considered that no previous or posterior political entity could ever surpass the Roman Empire as the optimal human organization, for this had achieved unique power, it had developed a legislation capable of uniting heterogeneous states (vinculum societatis), and had also raised the civic, moral, and cultural virtues of those nations. In addition to the favorable reappraisal of the Empire’s role before the Incarnation, a key historiographical and theological innovation was afforded by Jerome (c.340-420). Based on Daniel’s prophecy, Jerome made the key proposition that the last beast of the sequence symbolized the Roman Empire, and that as a result Rome had been prophesied to last until the end of times.19 This very idea became paradigmatic and remained more or less unchallenged until the Renaissance. Thus, by the end of the 5th century most theologians of history considered the Roman Empire to be divinely endorsed. This theological idea attributed fundamental qualities to the Roman system that spanned three dimensions: political, geographical, and temporal, i.e. uniqueness, universality (catholicity), and perpetuity. This meant that these three dimensions were postulated as cohering in the Roman political power, which was deployed universally and would last until the Parousia in order

17 De Civitate Dei, V. 15 in A. Pagden, The Lords of all the World. Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain, and France c.1500 – c.1800 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 30. 18 See Pagden, 26. 19 C. Mierow, (1928), in the Introduction to Otto of Freising’s The Two Cities, Columbia U.P. 2002, p. 29.

71 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY to assist the Church with the mission it had been entrusted by Christ himself through Peter.

Theologies of History in the 12th to 14th Centuries Two theologies of history became predominant in the official schools of thought by the 12th to the 14th centuries. They were rooted either in Orosius or Augustine. Orosius (c.375-418), a personal acquaintance of Jerome and Augustine, upon gathering and studying political events prior to the advent of Christ, concluded that no meaningful pattern was ascertainable from a mere chronological ordering of events.20 The only feasible explanation that Orosius found was the Eusebian thesis, namely that the peace and social stability achieved by Augustus were providentially ordained to welcome the birth of Christ. Moreover, the fact that Christ consented to be born under the Roman rule, Orosius held, had conferred legitimacy and even some sanctity to it.21 This legitimacy would later manifest itself in an intertwinement of Empire and Church. In regards to the unfolding of history, Orosius followed Jerome by interpreting history as a sequence of empires under the Danielic scheme in which the power (potestas) was granted by God to specific empires and passed down from one empire to the next. Again following Jerome, Orosius also held that the Roman rule would reach to the end of times, although in a Christian phase.22 However, even though the Orosian perioditization of history outwardly rested on the Danielic narrative as the locus classicus, it seems to have actually drawn from Roman sources instead,23 especially the 1st century roman historian Trogus.24 In any case, several objections were leveled against the Orosian scheme in view of the recent crimes of the Roman Empire after

20 Pocock, J. G. A., Barbarism and Religion: Vol. III The First Decline and Fall (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 84-85. 21 Pocock, 92-93. 22 Mierow, op.cit., Breisach, 86-88. See also, S. Bodelón, (1997) Orosio, una Filosofía de la Historia. Memorias de historia antigua, 18, 59-80. 23 J. Swain, (1940), The Theory of the Four Monarchies Opposition History under the Roman Empire. Classical Philology, 35 (1), 1-21. 24 Trogus held that history is driven by two forces, (1) the conflict of freedom and domination, and (2) the world empires have suceeded from east to west. Trogus proposes that the sequence of empires have been Assyria, Media, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome. See Mierow, 28-29. Similarly, Polybius presented a similar succession ending in the Roman Empire.

72 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY Constantine, and the sack of Rome by the Goths. But he explained them away as mere local historical disturbances that did not impinge upon the grand providential scheme for the Roman Empire. The influence of Orosius was significant, for his interpretation of history was adopted by medieval theologians as the standard scheme25 with its core tenet regarding the Roman Empire as the essential ingredient to the continuity of sacred history: history from Constantine until the Final Judgment would be a Roman history in its Christian phase, grounded in a providential unity of Empire and Church.26 The other key thinker in the construction of the other key theology of history was Augustine (354-430) who built his system upon the dualism of the City of God (Civitas Dei) and the Earthly City (Civitas Terrena). Similarly to Orosius, Augustine conceded that the empire is given by God to whom He pleases. However, Augustine noticed, He who gave it to the both gentle Vespasiani, also gave it to the cruel Nero; he who gave it to the Christian Constantine, did so to the apostate Julian.27 Therefore, the true underlying causes remain hidden in God’s inscrutable but just purposes, and so Augustine asserted, the earthly city does not have any legitimate divine endorsement and the interpretation of secular history is therefore meaningless. This Augustinian detachment of both cities did not convince the majority of theologians of the High Middle Ages.28 But what was indeed influential was Augustine’s mystical schematization of history through a sequence of six ages corresponding to a man life stages, i.e. infancy, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, mature, old age, spanning from Adam to the Second Coming. This mystical sequencing lent itself to the historiographers with a Platonic bent. By the 12th and 13th centuries, the prevailing interpretations of history had departed little from the views of Augustine and Orosius. Among the theorists influenced by the latter was bishop Otto of Freising (c.1114- 1158), one of the most important representatives of high medieval

25 J. Alonso-Nuñez, (1994), La metodología histórica de Paulo Orosio. Helmántica, 45, 373-379. Martínez Cavero, P. (1990), Los Argumentos de Orosio en la polémica pagano-cristiana. Cristianismo y aculturación en tiempos del Imperio Romano, Antigüedad y Cristianismo. VII, 319-331. Ediciones de la Universidad de Murcia. 26 Breisach, 86, 89. 27 Pocock, 94. 28 Breisach, 86.

73 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY historiography. Otto advocated the unity of history reached with the advent of Constantine:29 I think, regarding the two cities: how one made progress, first by remaining hidden in the other until the coming of Christ, after that by advancing gradually until the time of Constantine. . . But from that time on, since not only all the people but also the emperors (except a few) were (4) orthodox Catholics, I seem to myself to have composed a history not of two cities but virtually of one only, which I call the Church. . . the city of Earth was laid to rest and destined to be utterly exterminated in the end; hence our history is a history of the City of Christ. . . .30

For “Otto the civitas Dei on earth” indicates E. Mégier, “is realized by means of the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire as such that Christ transforms, with his advent as citizen of the Empire, from civitas mundi into civitas sua. Christ is the new king with which the Church inherits all that the Roman Empire involves. As such, the Church is nothing but the Roman Empire itself become from civitas mundi to civitas Christi, from pagan to Christian.”31 The Empire became a “typos” of the Church. What about the Hebrews? Otto considered that the realization of the Church was linked not to them which were “politically weak, but to the Romans, the masters of the world.”32 Otto’s views are also important because they represent the understanding that theorists of the day had of the place of heretics in the City of Christ. This and similar views influenced the legal rigors to the Waldensians, Jews, and Cathars. Otto considered that the City of Christ did not encompass the whole world, but:

. . . the faithless city of unbelieving Jews and Gentiles [including (5) heretics] still remains. . . [but is] insignificant not only in the sight of God but even in that of the world, hardly anything done by these

29 M. D. Chenu, Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 189. 30 Otto von Freising, (Ottonis episcopi frisingensis Chronica; sive, Historia de duabus civitatibus) Intr. to 5th Book. In Mierow, 323-324. 31 E. Mégier, (2001), La Chiesa cristiana, erede della Roma antica o dell’Antica Alleanza? I punti di vista di Ugo de Fleury e di Ottone di Frisinga. In Roma antica nel Medioevo. V&P Universita, 528. 32 Mégier, 528.

74 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY

unbelievers is found to be worthy of record or to be handed on to posterity.33

Otto participated of the common inquisitorial view that heretics did not belong to the Christian order. As such, the step between this and their proscription, was short.34 In another example of the merged Cities framework, the premonstratensian Abbot Bernard of Fontcaude (d.c. 1192) prohibited the Waldensians to preach:

. . . nobody should presume to teach other way of perfection, but being (6) in the City, that is the Holy Church.35

Among the theorists influenced by Augustine’s mystical scheme of history were the “neutral” chroniclers like John of Salisbury (c. 1120- 1180), author of the Historia Pontificalis, and also mystical theologians like Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075-c. 1129), Gerhoch of Reichersberg (1093- 1169), Hugh St. Victor (1096-1144) who posited a mystical flux in history, and Anselm of Havelberg (1100-1158). These men propounded allegorical eschatologies as their interpretation of history.36 The Orosian and the Augustinian theorists converged into a common conception of an Aristotelian version of God, more specifically Parmenidean, as a distant mostly indifferent, and irate deity37 that had

33 Ibid. 34 Some legal entailments included: death penalty as the general remedy for heresy, the mere suspicion of heresy incurred outlawry, etc. See M. Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Later Middle Ages: The Papal Monarchy with Augustinus Triumphus and the Publicists (Cambridge University Press, 1963), 511ff, 446ff. 35 “. . . nullus praesumere debet docere aliquem viam perfectionis, nisi sit in civitate, id est in sancta Ecclesia” Bernardus Fontis Calidi, Adversus Waldensiaum sectam, II, iv in EFV I, 68. 36 A particular interpretation of historical events arose around the year 1000. Many were expecting the coming of the Antichrist and Satan was expected to be set free from his captivity around that year. Portents in the sky, miracles, and interpretations abounded. Among them Raoul (Rodulphus) Glaber (985-1047) - Historiarum libri quinque ab anno incarnationis DCCCC, Ademar of Chabannes (988-1034), Thietmar of Mersebourg (975-1018), Richer of Reims (c.950-1000), Aimoin (c.960-1010) Historia Francorum, Bernard of Angers (f. 1013-1020) Liber Miraculorum Sancte Fidis. For a detailed study of the mental habits of these chroniclers see G. Duby, L’an mil (Paris: Julliard, 1967). 37 See A. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being: A Study of the History of an Idea. (Harvard University Press, 1936), 39.

75 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY abdicated in favor of the Pope.38 While Parmenidean most of the time, God was viewed by some as intervening in human affairs in an immanent, Heraclitean sense, mostly through miracles and portents. However, there were not ascertainable ways that linked these random providential interventions with the coarse-grained overall purpose of God as exhibited in the periods of history. As such, some events were interpreted as providential interventions and utilized in a fine grain sense as endorsements for specific endeavors or persons. Although devised mainly to explain trends in a large historical scale, the common entailment of both historiographical schools was the priority of the Church over the secular. This idea quickly impinged onto the political plane of the quotidian (small scale) working relationship between both, Church and Empire. It was Pope Gelasius I (494-496) who picked up the idea of the supremacy of Peter and developed the political theory of the “two swords” which ultimately dealt with the temporal power of Church and State. The Gelasian doctrine asserted mildly but decidedly that each power has its own autonomous sphere, but that ultimately the religious prevails over the political. This view acquired its full relevance in the Investiture Controversy starting with Gregory VII and Henry IV in the 11th century.

IV. Commonplaces in the Catholic Theologies of History of the Period Beyond their dissimilarities, both Catholic theologies of history in the 12th to 14th century shared fundamental elements that were more or less undisputed commonplaces such as that history was organized in ascertainable metahistorical periods;39 history after Constantine had reached a standstill;40 that the Roman Empire in a Christian phase would last until the end of times as the vehicle of the Church for the spread of the Gospel; that God was posited as a Parmenidean-Heraclitean deity who had completely delegated the economy of salvation (dispensatio salutis) onto the Roman Church in the person of Peter; that the Roman Church in the

38 The idea that God rarely intervened in the world is of Aristotelian origin, and was used repeatedly in the 14th century for many practical reasons. See Wilks, 294-296. 39 Pocock, 127-150, Chenu, 194. 40 In a way somehow resembling F. Fukuyama , The End of History and the Last Man (Free Press, 1992).

76 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY person of the Pope was the recipient of both, the transference of power by previous empires, and the priesthood from the Jews. A particularly interesting and explicit account that elaborates the commonplaces listed above is afforded by the song to Archbishop Anno II of Cologne (das Annolied) composed around 1080 by an anonymous monk of Siegburg Abbey. The Annolied refers the sequence of Empires of Daniel 7, in which the fourth creature is considered a wild boar, that “stood for the courageous Romans. . . He was so large and frightening: the whole world paid tribute to Rome”:

In the days of Augustus it came about that God looked down from Heaven. Then a king was born who was served by the angels of Heaven: Jesus Christ. . . At once, God’s sacred signs appeared at Rome. Pure oil sprang from the earth and ran everywhere across the ground. Around the sun there appeared a circle, bright red like fire and blood. For a new kingdom was approaching, bringing God’s grace to all of us. The whole world must succumb to it. St. Peter, the sacred apostle, defeated the Devil at Rome. (7) He set up the sign of the holy cross there; he declared the city to be in the vassalage of Christ. From there he commissioned three holy men to preach to the Franks: Eucharius and Valerius; the third (Maternus) died on the cliffs. They commanded him to rise from the dead and accompany them to the Franks as St. Peter instructed. When he heard his master’s name he obeyed them at once. . . There in Franconia they won over many men to God’s service in a better war than that in which Caesar had previously won them.41

The Annolied exemplifies the above-listed conjunctural aspects in the medieval theology of history: (1) by being born under Rome the “king” Christ replaced the “excellent” Augustus in the temporal throne, (2) God subsequently anointed the Roman Empire with “pure oil” and portents, (3) Christ bestowed onto Peter all his authority on heaven and earth (omnis potestas) who as a result defeated the Devil in Rome (conquered Rome-vassaled her to Christ), and spiritually became Christ on earth. Later in history, Constantine too would bestow his temporal power (potestas terrena) onto Peter, through Pope Sylvester; (4) Peter commissioned bishops to preach (translatio sacerdotii) to the Franks who will later be the

41 Das Annolied, XXXI – XXXIII. Translation of G. Dunphy. Univ. of Regensburg.

77 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY heirs of the Empire (translatio imperii); even a man was raised from the dead in the name of Peter; (5) Peter’s envoys fought a spiritual battle which anticipated the temporal struggle. The salient issue exemplified in the Annolied is that for medieval Catholic theology of history Peter and his successors were the single depositaries of the total power (omnis potestas), the point of confluence of the temporal with the spiritual, the point in the universe at which the human and the divine connect with each other.42 Ultimately, both Christ and Constantine43 (a type of Christ for Eusebius) had divested themselves of their potestas and bestowed it onto Peter and his successors from whom all the authority streamed down within the Roman Church and the Empire.44 A brief description of the processes of power transference onto Peter follows.

Transference of Temporal Power–the translatio imperii Medieval theologians considered that human order depended fundamentally on two powers: the spiritual and the temporal. As J. Pocock observes “both church and empire were conceived as sacred entities transcending time and circumstance, modes of divine action upon, rather in, secular history.”45 The prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7 were adopted as the metahistorical prototype that revealed God’s ordering of time and described the historical process of power transference from one empire to the other.46 The idea of transference of temporal power was known as translatio imperii.47 As J. Harrison indicates, “[o]ne of the characteristics of this

42 As Augustinus Triumphus (Summa, xliv. I, 240) declared: “Papa est vicarius et minister, potissime cum secundum Dionysium lex divinitatis hoc habeat, ut eius influentia non transeat ad inferiora nisi per media. Medius autem inter Deum et populum christianum est ipse Papa.” Cited in Wilks, 274ff. 43 Pocock, 130, observes that “Constantine’s apparent Donation was really a recognition that Peter’s successor enjoyed it already.” 44 “Data est mihi omnis potestas in cælo et in terra” Matt. 28:18. 45 Pocock, 128. 46 Pocock, 127. 47 The term translatio had a juridical usage in Ancient Rome and literally means “transference of the charge.” In the specific Roman legal context it has been rendered as “competence” by Butler in Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 3.6.23n2, 5.13.2n1, 9.2.106n2. Loeb Classical Library. The first rendering seems adequate for translatio imperii. There are, at least two, encyclicals which seem to imply this usage: viz the Quanta Cura (Pius IX on 12/8.1864) and Notre Charge Apostolique (Pius X, 08/10/1910) in which officium and charge (in French) as “transference of the charge” are pivotal to the encyclical line of

78 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY theory is that while the nations entrusted with world political power may change, the power itself does not. . . . The power itself never perishes, even if a pagan nation in which it resides does. The authority given by God remains constant; only the carrier changes.”48 Following Trogus and Polybius, the translatio imperii was considered to have moved from East (Babylon) to West (Rome), and as proposed by Jerome, Rome would keep the temporal power until the end of time. To accomplish the incorporation of Rome into the salvational scheme of history, theologians and historians of the day had to laboriously exonerate it from the responsibilities of the crucifixion of Christ and the death of the martyrs, which they transferred to the Jewish nation instead.49 All the subsequent transfers of political power in medieval Europe were not necessarily seen as a refutation of the translatio imperii thesis, but were rather interpreted as local transfers confined within the political realm of the Roman Empire.50

The Ceaselessness of the Roman Empire As a logical consequence of the role assigned by Jerome to Rome, later theologians saw in the Roman Empire the attributes of indestructibility, perpetuity, and ceaselessness. This was no ideological innovation, but a transposition of Rome’s original mission from a pagan role, as originally conceived by Roman panegyrists, to a Christian role. The same attributes that pagan thinkers had already assigned to Rome were now accommodated to the Catholic theology of history. For many, pagan and Christian, Rome represented the epitome of human achievement in power, peace, arts, and sciences. As such, theologians of history posited that Rome had been divinely instituted to expand the Kingdom of God on earth until the Parousia. Therefore, Rome was considered as the legitimate heir of Israel. The conversion of the Roman Empire by Constantine was the argumentation around the dogma of Church authority. Moreover, insofar translatio imperii and translatio sacerdotii both entail a dynamic aspect of transference of charge, by the same token officium, charge, and auctoritate entail the static possession of that charge by the Pope at any given moment of his pontificate, and which is considered to have been “divinely conferred” (divinitus commissa) upon him. 48 J. Harrison, (2013), The Myth of the Eternal Return and Its Reflexes in Medieval German Literature: Time in the Annolied. Unpublished essay, 10. 49 The arguments of Moneta of Cremona in regards to this topic will be covered in Part II. 50 Harrison, 9.

79 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY consummatory historical act in the sanctification of the Empire. The temporal and spiritual authority converged in the Roman Church. As such the Empire was considered an extension of the Church, the consummatio, the marriage of the secular and the sacred. For medieval theology, Rome reached what Israel could not accomplish. In fact, Israel was but a small remnant (reliquiae Iacob) whereas the Roman Church was conceived as destined to span the orb (populorum multorum). Gregory VII triumphantly claimed that Christ had succeeded Augustus,51 as such the successor of Peter was credited the universale regimen.

Delegation of Salvation onto the Roman Church–the translatio sacerdotii Jerome and Orosius considered that Israel was an imperfect and temporary vehicle for the Church because it was absent from the Danielic sequence of world empires.52 Moreover, Otto of Freising stated that the Hebrews were politically too weak to be the temporal ancestors of the Church—and so definitely absent from the unfolding of the translatio imperii. However, theologians recognized, that despite being left aside from the temporal power, Israel had been entrusted with its counterpart the priesthood which it possessed until the Ascension. Yet after that, they held, God had removed the administration of salvation from the Jews and had bequeathed it onto Roman Church. Hence it was posited that the Jews had been emptied of their original possession of the priesthood in favor of the Roman Church by means of a transference of priesthood, the translatio sacerdotii. So in parallel with the translatio imperii, a salvation gradient had occurred from the East (Israel) to the West (Roman Church).53 Other transferences also followed the alleged depletion of the Jews’ commission in favor of the Roman Church in the medieval theological ideology which were encompassed translatio religionis.54

51 . . . quibus imperavit Augustus, imperavit Christus. P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ii, 75, 237. 52 Molnar, 48. See also, Mégier, 505-536. 53 See note 24. 54 Along with the translatio imperii, there was also associated with it the translatio studii, or translatio artium, the transfer of culture and studies from Antiquity to the Romans, and from them to the Church. Another idea was that of the translatio linguae which posited the transfer of Hebrew to Latin. It was believed that Adam spoke Hebrew until the tower of Babel. The people of God, including later the Jews, preserved Hebrew until the Dispersion.

80 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY Therefore, the transference of priesthood from Israel to the chief apostle Peter inaugurated the successio apostolica whose administration was granted to the Pope. The apostolic succession is the uninterrupted temporal sequence of men in charge of the priesthood, but what it is ultimately transferred is the potestas ligare et solvere that originates in the Pope. Consequently, both translationes were the vehicles of the same dual object: the omnis potestas. For the publicist Augustinus Triumphus (1243- 1328), this meant that the Pope became the personification of Christ and stood in the line of Melchisedech, granting him the status of Priest and King (sacerdos et rex),55 “the Supreme Pontiff has every and all kinds of power in the temporal world.”56 As a result, Pope’s power was considered to be complete and total (plena et totalis).57 By founding the Church of Rome, Peter was posited to have inaugurated the new salvific phase of history, a new dispensatio. The merging of the temporal with the spiritual was not immediate though, for it involved a period of adjustment that was consummated in the reign of Constantine the Great. However a new Neoplatonic metahistorical realm was thus inaugurated signed by the co-extensiveness of Christianity with the temporal power (Imperium). In addition, a new system of social ordines or groups with special functions was established, a symbiotic temporal- spiritual Pax Romana composed of a clerical order (ordo clericalis or sacerdotalis) and the lay order (ordo laicalis).58 So, the fusion process of the spiritual and the temporal realms involved the passage from the Roman orbis terrarium to a Roman orbis Christianum in the fifth century, which developed afterwards in an Imperium Christianum, which in turn became, at least conceptually, in the 6th century a sancta respublica, equivalent to

But afterwards Hebrew was no longer fit to serve as the lingua franca of the world. And so a translatio linguae occurred from Hebrew to Latin as the language of the People of God. See e.g. Vance, E. (1986) Marvelous Signals: Poetics and Sign Theory in the Middle Ages. U. Nebraska Press. 55 Augustinus, De duplici potestate, 499. 56 Summus pontifex habet omnem et omnimodam potestatem in temporalibus. Aegidius Spiritalis, Libellus contra infideles, 112. 57 Augustinus, Summa, xlv, 2, 247 in Wilks, 259n3. 58 See Robinson, I. (1991) Church and Papacy. The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought c.350–c.1450, Cambridge U.P., 261ss. It is interesting to note that the concept of ordines is rooted in the platonic notion of a cosmic hierarchy of beings (and ideas) having a predetermined function. This notion was articulated by pseudo-Dyonisius the Areopagite.

81 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Cicero’s respublica totius orbis,59 and finally to the Gregory VII’s theocratic and coercive societas christiana.

The Petrine “auctoritas”: the Point of Confluence of the Human and the Divine The single most important element which provided coherence to Medieval Catholic theology of history was ultimately the papal office. Medieval theologians posited that the Pope was the point of confluence of both translationes. The Petrine order was seen as an eschatological point of arrival where the translatio imperii and the translatio sacerdotii had asynchronically converged. This idea was at the base of the doctrine that held the Pope to be the ultimate source of omnis potestas on earth. As M. Wilks observed: “. . . there is a “point” in the universe at which the divine and the human connect with each other. This point is the Pope as the vicar of God, half human and half divine–verus Deus et verus homo. We cannot overestimate the importance of the mediatory role assigned to the Pope in the Middle Ages. He becomes the bridge between heaven and earth, and this not only means that mankind cannot attain God except through the medium of the Pope, but equally that the divine wisdom as expressed in the Christian faith is obtainable only through the same channel.”60 The new dispensatio embodied a fundamental transposition of the roles in the history of salvation from Israel to Rome. This meant an inversion of the scheme in which the Law as the expression of God’s character was at the base of the covenant with Israel. In the new dispensatio the Pope was the source of the Law.61 So the Law was not at the base any more in the new dispensation: the Pope was. This idea led to important theological implications such that the former obedience to the Law as the requisite for salvation (obedientia legem) was replaced with the obedience to the Pope as the ultimate requisite for salvation (obedientia papae): “all Christians must obey the Pope” (omnis christianus papae obedire).62 The role and authority of the Law as the source of Israel’s raison d’etre, was now

59 Pagden, 24. 60 Wilks, 275. 61 “The law cannot be more than the legislator” (Non potest esse magis lex quam legislator). Augustinus, Summa, lxvii. 3, 354 in Wilks, 173n4. 62 Augustinus, Summa, xxii, 4, 132 in Wilks, 156n1.

82 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY replaced by the Pope’s auctoritas whose prerogatives were placed above the Law:

The Vicar of Christ is the source, origin, and rule of all the ecclesiastical principalities from whom derive the entrusted power (8) from high, to the weakest members of the Church.63

The entrustment of the translatio religionis onto the papal office brought forth a transposition and an augmentation of religious and temporal functions for the Roman Church: Israel’s dispensatio had been based upon the following premises: (1) the authority of the Mosaic Law and ceremonial laws upon living, (2) the Judaic imperium was local, and (3) the regime of Israel was Theocratic. Whereas for the medieval theologians in the new dispensatio: (1) the role of the Law was absorbed into the authority of the Pope, (2) the imperium turned universal (katholikos), and (3) the Theocratic aspect in the Old Testament remained, but now mediated by the abdication of God in favor of the Pope as witnessed by the power of the Keys. So the new dispensatio became in time essentially a Papal theocracy. As such, the obedience to the Popes (obedientia papae) was posited by canonists and theologians as the only ineludible requisite for personal and collective salvation.64 Therefore as father and Lord of all (communis pater et dominus)65 the new regime demanded unqualified obedience (obedientia) to the Pope.66 Even the emperor did not escape the due obedience to the Pope, which was considered by some as the vicarius papae:

63 Christi vicarius, fons, origo et regula omnium principatum ecclesiasticorum, a quo tamquam a summo derivatur ordinata potestas usque ad infirma Ecclesia membra. Bonaventure, Breviloquim, vi. 12 in Wilks, 382. 64 A recurrent objection against this requirement was naturally the moral idoneity of the Pope. However, that aspect was taken out of the equation by the reasoning of e.g. Bernard Clairvaux, Alexander St. Elpidio, Lambertus Guerrici, John of Viterbo, etc. who separated the moral character of the individual and his office. Augustinus Triumphus declared that the Pope could commit any mortal sin, except heresy, and then grant himself an indulgence: Papa potest dare indulgentiam sibiipsi. . . sed ut est membrum Ecclesiae recipit et ut est caput day. (Summa, xxix, 2, 176) in Wilks, 366. 65 Reg. ii, 25, 67 (p. 157, 223) cited in W. Ullman, (2013), The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. Routledge, 277. 66 Ullman, 277ff. Some panegyrists even claimed divine honors for the Pope as: Dominum Deum nostrum Papam and Optimum, Maximum, et Supremum in terris Numen. Cited in Gieseler, Compendium 73ff.

83 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Peter the key bearer of the earthly and heavenly kingdoms; he has all the earthly and ecclesiastical authority. There is no authority in the material word which does not come from the spiritual.67 In regards to the total and (9) universal jurisdiction, the complete and universal spiritual and temporal dominion are Christ’s and of his vicar the Supreme Pontiff.68

The theocratical tenets led to the attribution of divinity (plenitudo deitatis)69 to the Pope.70 In like manner the Catholic faithful were asked to believe by faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist via transubstantiation, in the same way they were also supposed to accept by faith the real presence of God in the Pope, similarly to transubstantiation. As Innocent III stated:

. . . a mediator was constituted between God and men, below God but (10) above men, less than God but superior to men.71

Or as Alvarus Pelagius who said that “no simple man, but like God on earth.”72 Moreover:

67 . . .claviger Petrus terreni et celestis regni; omne posse quod habet terrena potestas abet et ecclesiastica. Nulla est itaque potestas in materiali gladio que non sit in spirituali. 68 . . . quantum ad universalem et totalem iurisdictionem, totalis enim et universalis dominus spiritualium et temporalium est ipse Christus et vicarius eius summus pontifex. Augustinus Triumphus, Summa xxxvi. 3, 214. cited in Wilks, 382. 69 Augustinus, Summa, xix, 2, p. 118; Also plenitudo divinitatis, according to Ptolemaeus de Lucca, Determinatio compendiosa, c. 6, p.17, in Wilks, 169 n.1. 70 The following statements are commonplace in the literature of the period: not a common man, but God on earth (non homo simpliciter, sed Deus in terris) Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesiae, c. 37, p. 47; in a way the pope is God, i.e., the vicar of God (papa quodammodo est Deus, id est, Dei vicarius) Aegidius Romanus, De renuntiatione papae, iii, 4; Dominus Deus noster papa Zenzellinus de Cassanis, ad Extravagantes ad Io. XXII, xiv ante c. 5. 71 . . . inter Deum et hominem medius constitutus, citra Deum sed ultra hominem, minor Deo sed maior homine. PL, ccxvii, 658. 72 Non homo simpliciter sed quasi Deus in terris.

84 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY

Only the pope is the Vicar of God, for he alone binds and looses. . .73 one and the same is a judgment from the Pope and a judgment from (11) God . . . there is one council between God and the Pope . . . same judgment and same seat, God and pope . . .74 the dominion of God and the Pope is the same.75

These claims, although not shared by all theologians, certainly percolated in the interrogations, accusations, and charges against the Waldensians for their active refusal to obey the pope as we will show in Part II. Augustinus Triumphus76 summarizes the entailments of the ideas related to the authority of the papal office:

Only the authority of the Pope comes unmediated from God. . . the Pope’s jurisdiction is major than any of the angels’, for to him was entrusted the authority and curate of the whole world . . . Nature77 (12) is but a single principality; and all the principalities of the world belong to Christ, whose vicarius is the Pope according to

73 The authority to bind and loose was conceived to operate both on the living and also on the dead: papa sit iudex vice Christi vivorum et mortuorum (Summa xlvi I, 249); on earth, heaven, and hell: coelestium, terrestrium, et infernorum (Summa dedicatio) by administering the treasury of the Church: papae committitur cura et custodia omnium universaliter, et hoc non solum dum vivunt, sicut committitur sicut committitur angelis, sed etiam post mortem per communicationem suffragiorum Ecclesiae. (xviii, I-II, 113). See Wilks, 355-361. Also, as Wilks indicates “for all practical purposes, and as far as mankind is concerned, the Pope is Christ himself. . . a reincarnation of Christ,” Wilks, 360. 74 Solus papa dicitur esse vicarius Dei, quia solum quod ligatur vel solvitur . . . Sententia igitur Papae et sententia Dei una sententia est...unum consistorium est ipsius papae et Dei. . . una sententia et una curia Dei et papae. . . , Augustinus Triumphus, Summa vi, I, 57. 75 Augustinus Triumphus, Summa xlv, ii, 247. 76 Augustinus Triumphus, Summa de potestate ecclesiastica q.1, art.1. 77 The arguments in this paragraph are crafted from a Platonic framework and draw from translatio imperii. Augustinus resorts to the doctrines of unity and continuity, cosmic and earthly hierarchy, and the downward flow of authority. As such he explicitly references the pseudo-Dionysius as authoritative. Cf. Aquinas, Quaestiones de quolibet XI, Q. 1, Art. 1, a6: dato quod tota machina mundialis esset unum corpus continuum, constat quod illud corpus esset ubique. Non ergo est solius Dei proprium esse ubique. O. von Gierke, (1900), Political Theories of the Middle Age. Cambridge University Press, 105. The term machina mundialis was used by diverse authors to signify the cosmos or the physical world (Bonaventura of Bagnoregio see Di Maio, A. (2008), Piccolo glossario bonaventuriano, Aracne, 75ff), the newly created planet earth as a system (i.e., Petrus Comestor, Historia, 1, q. II.1; Bernard Clairvaux, De passione, 7).

85 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

Dan. vii . . . The laws of the pagans owe obedience to the Pope. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and so nobody can evade legal obedience to him, just as nobody can evade obedience to God . . . The imperial authority of the Popes was transferred from the Greeks to the Romans. Constantine made such transfer of authority to the Supreme Pontiffs, who by virtue of their being the Vicars of the Son of God the celestial Emperor, have universal jurisdiction over all kingdoms and empires . . . All fair laws proceed from divine Law. Therefore, all imperial legal right (12) proceeds from the Pope’s authority, insofar law proceeds from divine law of which the Pope is its vicar and minister, and according to Dionysius the influence of the divine Law does not reach the lower, but through the mediator. The mediator between God and the Christian people is the Pope, therefore no law will be given to the Christian people, save under the Pope’s authority. It is now evident that the Pope is the interpreter and regulator of the Law, on account of him being the architect of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy in the place of Christ.78

These theological statements provide a necessary background to understand the Waldensian refusal and challenge to the ecclesiastical authority of the day, and the persistence with which they were charged with heresy.

78 (Q1,art.1) Sola potestas Papae est immediate a Deo. . . (Q18,art.3) Major est jurisdictio Papae quam cujuslibet angeli.-Pape totius mundi jurisdictio et cura commissa est. . . (Q22.art.3) Tota machina mundialis non est nisi unus principatus: princeps autem totius principatus mundi est ipse Christus, cujus Papa vicarius existit juxta illud Dan. vii. (Q. 23, art. 1) Pagani jure sunt sub Papae obedientia.—Vicarius Christi est Papa, undo nullus potest se subtrahere ab ejus obedientia de jure, sicut nullus potest de jure se subtrahere ab obedientia Dei. . . (Q. 37, art. 3) Auctoritate Papae Imperium a Romanis est ad Graecos translatum.—Constantinus hujusmodi translationem fecit auctoritate summi Pontificis, qui tanquam vicarius Dei filii, caelestis Imperatoris, jurisdictionem habet universalem super omnia regna et imperia. . . (Q.44, art.1) Omnis justa lex dependet a lege divina.—Illo ergo jure lex imperialis dependet ab auctoritate Papae, quo jure dependet a lege divina, cujus ipse Papa est vicarius et minister, potissime cum secundum Dionysium lex divinitatis hoc habeat, ut ejus influentia non transeat ad inferiora nisi per media. . . Medius autem inter Deum et populum Christianum est ipse Papa, unde nulla lex populo Christiane est danda, nisi ipsius Papae auctoritate. . . (q.73, art.3) Planum est autem, quod Papa est omnis juris interpres et ordinator, tamquam architector in tota ecclesiastica hierarchia vice Christi. . . .

86 PITA: WALDENSIAN AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES OF HISTORY V. Summary The documentary scarcity and unconnectedness from which we must draw the description of Waldensian beliefs is often aggravated by the fact that the questions, descriptions, and refutations that their opponents presented were frequently made within a set of theological postulates that were either taken for granted or just obliterated for the sake of conciseness. Moreover, the target audience was composed of educated readers imbued in the theological thought of the day. In addition, the very Waldensian statements that have survived in a few texts were also targeted to an audience well versed in the theological minutiae of the day which assumed a detailed understanding of the Catholic dogma. Consequently, it has been necessary to survey the main medieval Catholic theological tenets about history and salvation in order to provide the conceptual framework to better appraise the Waldensian declarations that will be studied in Part II. This very succinct survey of the ideas about hierocracy and papal theocracy in the 12th to 14th centuries has a double objective: first, to understand some individual Waldensian belief statements that are frequently repeated in many of the documents from polemists and inquisitors such as that they “ought to obey God rather than men” as will be discussed in Part II. Secondly, this survey also provides a systemic picture that allows locating the loose Waldensian statements in a coherent whole. Part II will survey in some detail the Waldensian understanding of the history of Salvation and the authority they conferred to the Bible as elicited from the available texts today.

Gonzalo L. Pita, a native of Argentina, is an Adjunct Assistant Scientist at Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Pita’s interests include the history of the Waldensians, history of philosophical and theological ideas, medieval Latin, and the thought of Ellen White. Other interests include the metaphysical relationships between Science and Theology, characteristics and validity of inductive reasoning, and mathematical modeling of deep uncertainty. [email protected]

Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy

Adriani Milli Rodrigues Adventist University of Sao Paulo, Brazil

There are different positions regarding the understanding of the doctrine of creation in the face of the challenge of the evolutionary concept of origins. In broad terms, while some deny the theory of evolution1 in favor of a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, many scholars attempt to comprehend this doctrine in certain consonance with that theory.2

1 The present study acknowledges the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. The references to evolution in this text imply the concept of macroevolution. While microevolution refers to small changes within one species, macroevolution describes “the evolution of major new characteristics that make organisms recognizable as a new species, genus, family, or higher taxon.” Stanley A. Rice, Encyclopedia of Evolution (New York: Infobase, 2009), 253. This distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is used, for example, by Stephen Jay Gould. See S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History, reissued ed. (New York: Norton, 1992), 187-192. 2 Edward B. Davis indicates “four main patterns” that “govern most religious responses to evolution today: complementary” (“theological truths exist in a higher realm apart from scientific truths”), conflict against evolution (“rejection of evolution”), conflict against Christianity (“rejection of Christianity”), and “doctrinal reformulation” (“rejection of divine transcendence and the wholesale reformulation of traditional Christian doctrine”). Edward B. Davis, “The Word and the Works: Concordism and American Evangelicals,” in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, ed. Keith B. Miller (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 56. Three of the four patterns mentioned by Davis accept the theory of evolution. Likewise, among the four models of relationship between theology and science (conflict, independence, dialogue and integration) proposed by Ian Barbour, the majority of them (independence, dialogue and integration) accepts evolution as a valid understanding of origins. See Ian G. Barbour, When Science Meets Religion: Enemies, Strangers, or Partners? (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2000). Clark Pinnock indicates three different evangelical interpretations of the Genesis creation account, two of them (broad concordism and nonconcordism) attempt to harmonize exegesis and the evolutionary concept of origins: (1) narrow concordism, (2) broad concordism, and (3) nonconcordism. The first group “takes 3 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Nevertheless, considering that the understanding of creation affects the comprehension of other doctrines,3 the conception of God’s character and His purposes seems to be significantly impacted by the notion of evolutionary creation.4 In fact, it appears that the most perplexing task for the days of Genesis 1 to be literal twenty-four hour days and appeals to the tradition of flood geology to explain the difficulties this creates.” In their turn, broad concordists are described as “more liberal in exegesis and more comfortable with the present scientific consensus, they construe the days of Genesis 1 as long periods of time as intermittent days of creation amidst the lengthy process of billions of years. In this way they are able to accept much of the evolutionary picture.” On the other hand, nonconcordists “do not read early Genesis to gain scientific information or to discover history as it really was. They read it more as a theological text, best understood in its own context, and therefore do not come into such severe conflict with modern knowledge.” Clark H. Pinnock, “Climbing out of a Swamp: The Evangelical Struggle to Understand the Creation Texts,” Interpretation 43, no. 2 (1989): 144-145. 3 See Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985), 366- 367. John Webster clearly connects the doctrine of creation with the doctrine of God by saying that “what Christian theology says about creation is a function of what it says about God.” John B. Webster, “Trinity and Creation,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12, no. 1 (2010): 6. 4 According to Denis Lamoureux, “there is difficulty with the term ‘theistic evolution.’ It has become a catch-all category that is applied loosely today.” He adds, “It is for this reason that the categories ‘evolutionary creation,’ ‘evolutionary creationism,’ and ‘evolving creation’ are beginning to appear in some evangelical circles.” Denis O. Lamoureux, “Gaps, Design, and ‘Theistic’ Evolution: A Counter Reply to Robert A. Larmer,” Christian Scholar's Review 37, no. 1 (2007): 101. For further instances of the use of these categories, see Dorothy F. Chappell and E. David Cook, Not Just Science: Questions Where Christian Faith and Natural Science Intersect (Grand Rapids: MI: Zondervan, 2005), 220-221; Keith Miller, ed. Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), xi- xii. Lamoureux provides the following summary of evolutionary creation: “(1) The creation is radically distinct and different from the Creator (Gen 1:1, John 1:1-3, Heb 1:10-12). God transcends the creation, yet He is immanent also to His works (omnipresent) and knows their every detail (omniscient). Also, the Lord enters the world to interact with His creatures at any time and in any way He so chooses (omnipotent). (2) The creation is utterly dependent on the Creator (Acts 17:24-28, Col 1:15-17, Heb 1:2-3). God ordained the universe and life into being and He continues to sustain their existence during every single instant. (3) The creation was created ex nihilo (Rom 4:17, 1 Cor 8:6, Heb 11:3). Absolutely nothing existed before God made the world. (4) The creation is temporal (Gen 1:1, John 1:1-3, Matt 24:35). It has a beginning and an end. (5) The creation declares God’s glory (Ps 19:1-4, Rom 1:19- 20). Through beauty, complexity and functionality, the Creator has inscribed a non-verbal revelation into the physical world, disclosing some of His attributes such as His divine nature and eternal power. (6) The creation is very good (Gen 1:31, 1 Tim 4:4, Rom 8:28). The cosmos offers the perfect stage for experiencing love and developing relationships with each other and between ourselves and the Creator. The doctrine of creation asserts that God created the world, not how He created it. His creative method, ultimately, is incidental to Christian faith.” Lamoureux: 102. 4 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY those who adopt this concept of creation is to construct an evolutionary theodicy.5 As Christopher Southgate and Andrew Robinson emphasize, although the best theodicean arguments are usually based on eschatology,6 “any theodicy that rests purely on the promise of some future compensation would be, in effect, to separate the God of creation from the God of redemption.”7 To put it differently, a legitimate theodicy must draw connections “between God’s purposes as creator and God’s purposes as redeemer.”8 Based on the assumption that the consistency of evolutionary theodicy relies on this compatibility between God as creator and God as redeemer, the present paper aims to analyze the main protological presuppositions9 which underlie evolutionary theodicy, in order to observe how they depict the divine purpose in creation. This task will be undertaken in the following steps: (1) a discussion of theodicy in the context of evolutionary creation; (2) a presentation of protological presuppositions in evolutionary theodicy; (3) a brief description of their theological implications.

5 See J. C. Polkinghorne, Theology in the Context of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 111; Robert J. Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology: From Conflict to Interaction,” CTI Reflections 8 (2004): 5; Christopher Southgate, “God and Evolutionary Evil: Theodicy in the Light of Darwinism,” Zygon 37, no. 4 (2002): 804. Theodicy may be defined as “the task of affirming the righteousness of God in the face of the existence of evil.” Christopher Southgate and Andrew Robinson, “Varieties of Theodicy: An Exploration of Responses to the Problem of Evil Based on a Typology of Good-Harm Analysis,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 67. 6 That is particularly true for evolutionary theodicy. See Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 5. 7 Southgate and Robinson, 83. 8 Ibid. 9 In this study, protological presuppositions refer to key concepts of reality that influence the understanding of the origin of life on Earth. These concepts will be specified below. 5 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Theodicy in the Context of Evolutionary Creation In spite of the fact that the term theodicy was used for the first time in 1710, by Gottfried W. Leibniz,10 the necessity of defending God’s goodness and power in the face of the existence of evil did not begin in the modern period.11 In fact, several centuries before Leibniz, Lactantius indicated that the Greek philosopher Epicurus (342-270 BC) questioned these divine attributes because of the existence of evil:

God . . . either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both

10 See Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Theodicy (Teddington, England: Echo Library, 2008). The concept that God created the best of all possible worlds, which is mainly characterized by human free will, is central to Leibniz’s theodicy. For a helpful summary of this theodicy, see John Hick, Evil and the God of Love (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 154-166; Niels Christian Hvidt, “The Historical Development of the Problem of Evil,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 23-29. 11 Some scholars argue that theodicy is primarily a product of the modern times, because only in the Enlightenment God is “the one in the court of justice accused by the problem of evil with the possible outcome that people can reject belief in God if the theodicy project does not yield enough evidence in favor of God’s innocence.” Hvidt, 2. See Kenneth Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Oxford; New York: Blackwell, 1986), 13; Terrence W. Tilley, “The Problems of Theodicy: A Background Essay,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 41-42. However, in a sense, theodician questions appear in pre-modern writings, especially the Bible. As Marcel Sarot highlights, “the typically modern form of theodicy as a whole is nowhere to be found in the Bible. Nevertheless, the divide between the Bible and Enlightenment theodicy is much less sharp than is sometimes suggested.” Marcel Sarot, “Theodicy and Modernity: An Inquiry Into the Historicity of Theodicy,” in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 22. For a helpful historical overview of theodicy in pre-modern and modern times, see Gary A. Stilwell, Where Was God: Evil, Theodicy, and Modern Science (Denver, CO: Outskirts, 2009), 40-251. 6 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY

willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? or why does He not remove them?12

These questions seem to indicate the basic premises implied by the logical problem of theodicy: (1) God is omnipotent; (2) God is perfectly good; (3) Evil exists.13 This problem assumes that “a good being will always eliminate evil as far as it is able.”14 Hence, the understanding of God is fundamental to theodicy. For instance, in Reformed theology God’s sovereignty is beyond questioning. It means that the acceptance of the second premise (the perfect goodness of God) does not necessarily demand human comprehension.15 On the other hand, “some versions of process theology modify” the first premise (the omnipotence of God) “by suggesting that, by virtue of the divine nature rather than by voluntary self-limitation, God’s power over nature is limited.”16 In both cases the problem of theodicy seems to be avoided, whether because God’s goodness does not need to be understood or whether because God is not omnipotent. However, that avoidance is incompatible with several instances of theodicean questions found in the Bible, which assume and claim God’s power and goodness.17

12 Lactantius A Treatise on the Anger of God 13. Translation taken from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325, American Reprint of the Edinburgh ed., 10 vols., The Master Christian Library ver. 5.0 [CD ROM] (Albany, OR: AGES Software, 1997), 7:564-565. In the eighteenth century David Hume argued that those “Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered.” David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (London: n.p., 1779), 186. 13 See Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 3-5; Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 7-11. 14 Southgate and Robinson, 68. 15 See Eric Carlton, Dancing in the Dark: Reflections on the Problem of Theodicy (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005), 129. 16 Southgate and Robinson, 68. See, for instance, David Ray Griffin, “Creation out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis and John B. Cobb (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 101-119; David Ray Griffin, Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991); David Ray Griffin, God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 251-310. 17 For example, biblical authors and characters frequently attempt to understand and ask for God’s justice. As Marcel Sarot points out, “in the so-called ‘innocence psalms,’ . . . the psalmist underlines his own innocence and integrity as an argument to convince God to deliver him from his enemies [see Pss 17, 26, 59]. It can also be clearly seen from the book of Job, which is about the question of why a just man must suffer. An example of the way in which God’s providence could be doubted is that of Gideon, who, when the angel 7 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Another essential notion for theodicy is the concept of evil. Traditionally, theodicists maintain a distinction between moral (sin) and natural evil (suffering).18 The former refers to human actions, such as “cruel, unjust, vicious, and perverse thoughts and deeds,” whereas the latter defines the evil that seems to originate “independently of human actions: in disease bacilli, earthquakes, storms, droughts, tornadoes, etc.”19 Obviously, natural evils appear to be the most problematic category in the context of theodicy, which may be exemplified by the following question: why does not God eliminate the suffering of innocent victims of diseases, natural disasters, and so forth?20 Nevertheless, the task of evolutionary theodicy appears to be even more formidable, because it does

greeted him with the words ‘The Lord is with you,’ replied, ‘But sir, if the Lord is with us why then has all this happened to us? And where are his wonderful deeds that our ancestors recounted to us[?] . . . (Judg. 6:13).” Additionally, “we find numerous examples in the Psalms, for instance when the author of Psalm 10 complains that the wicked who renounce the Lord and believe that there is no God, prosper (3-5), whereas the believer finds himself in trouble (1).” Sarot, 23-24. For further information about the concept of theodicy in the Bible, see Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, eds., Theodicy in the World of the Bible (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 151-469, 605-684; Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., Suffering and the Goodness of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 47-140. 18 See Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 12-13; Leibniz, 71, 99, 121; Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 30. Leibniz also mentions the metaphysical evil which is understood in terms of intrinsic limitation, finitude, and therefore imperfection. Since only God is not characterized by limitation and finitude, “anything other than God must therefore be imperfect to some extent.” Pauline Phemister, Leibniz and the Natural World: Activity, Passivity, and Corporeal Substances in Leibniz’s Philosophy (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2005), 244. It means that moral and natural evils derive from the inherent nature and structure of creation, that is, from the metaphysical evil. Actually, this is a problematic part of Leibniz’s theodicy. As Pannenberg points out, “the limit of finitude is not yet itself evil . . . we are to seek the root of evil, rather, in revolt against the limit of finitude, in the refusal to accept one’s own finitude, and in the related illusion of being like God (Gen. 3:5). We thus need to reconstruct the thought that would see the possibility of evil in the very nature of creaturehood. Not limitation but the independence for which creature were made forms the basis of the possibility of evil.” Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 2:171. 19 Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 12. 20 Nancey Murphy, introduction to Physics and Cosmology, xiii. 8 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY not only need to explain why God does not eliminate natural evil, but also why God uses natural evil in his method of evolutionary creation.21

Models of Theodicy Considering the fundamental importance of the relation between God’s goodness and natural evil for the theodicean task, three broad models of theodicy may be drawn from three different conceptions of good-harm analysis: (1) Property-Consequence, (2) Developmental, and (3) Constitutive models.22 According to the first conception, “a property of a particular being or system, is the possibility that possession of this good leads to it causing harms.” Following this perspective, traditional theodicies based on free will defense23 assume that “the existence of the property of free will in humans (a good) gives rise to the possibility of its deliberate or accidental use in such ways as may cause harm.”24 In this way, moral evil is the fundamental cause of natural evil. The names of Augustine25 and most recently Alvin Plantinga have been associated with that position. On the other hand, the Developmental approach conceives that “the good is a goal which can only be produced by a process that may or must give rise to harms.”26 Whereas in the Property-consequence view the good is a property that already exists, in the Developmental understanding the

21 Certainly, theodicy is a great challenge to Christian theology as a whole, but “the difficult task of the theodicist becomes even more formidable when the biological world is viewed from a Darwinian perspective according to which, both across all currently living species and far into the evolutionary past of the Earth, it is seen that the very process that has given rise to such diversity of ways of being alive is accompanied by pain, suffering, and extinction.” Southgate and Robinson, 67. 22 Ibid., 70. 23 For a helpful distinction between theodicy and defense, see Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 27-29; Tilley, “The problems of Theodicy: a background essay,” 35-37. Concisely, a theodicist “attempts to tell us why God permits evil,” while in the defense “the aim is not to say what God’s reason is, but at most what God’s reason might possibly be.” Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 28. In this sense, “a defense is not used to show that” beliefs about God and evil are “true, but to defend them from an attack of incompatibility.” Tilley, “The Problems of Theodicy: a Background Essay,” 36. 24 Southgate and Robinson, 70-71. 25 For further information about Augustine’s theodicean ideas and his conception of evil, see Anne-Marie Bowery, “Plotinus, the Enneads,” Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, ed. Allan Fitzgerald and John C. Cavadini (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 654-657; Gillian Rosemary Evans, Augustine on Evil (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 38-89. 26 Southgate and Robinson, 70. 9 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY good is being produced via a process. In this context, suffering plays an educative role, since it “is necessary to our individual moral or spiritual development.”27 As Niels Hvidt highlights, “in developmental theodicies, God allows destruction and suffering as means towards the refinement of both biotic and non-biotic nature, and especially human character, both individual and collective.” Hence, “destruction and suffering [are understood] as fruitful catalysts in the development towards greater goods.”28 In its turn, the Constitutive position presumes that “the existence of a good is inherently, constitutively, inseparable from the existence of harm or suffering.”29 It means that, in opposition to the Developmental understanding, “the good does not derive from a process leading to a goal, with the suffering as instrumental to the process: the good finds its meaning only in relation to the harm.”30 In other words, suffering is intrinsic to life, rather than an instrument to the good. Furthermore, according to that notion, God is not normally regarded as a loving personal agent, but is conceived as the “ground of being,” that is, “the ground of both creation and destruction.”31 Generally speaking, proposals of evolutionary theodicy adopt the Developmental and/or the Constitutive model, but tend to reject the Property-Consequence conception and the Free Will Defense. Robert Russell points out that “traditional Augustianian theodicy” is not

27 Ibid., 75. Hick argues that Irenaeus and Schleiermacher held this position. See Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 211-235. 28 Hvidt, 30. From a philosophical perspective, the modern ideas of development and process were strongly influenced by Hegel. In fact, he believes that his entire philosophical account of the history of the world “is the true Theodicea, the justification of God in History.” George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Philosophy of History (New York, NY: American Home Library, 1902), 569. See also Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel’s Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987), 383. 29 Southgate and Robinson, 70. 30 Ibid., 76. 31 Ibid., 77. Wildman labels Paul Tillich as “one of the best-known ground-of-being theists,” and affirms that Tillich “uses many pages in the third volume of this Systematic Theology to say that there is no overall direction of progress in the universe as a whole even though there is abundant meaning.” Wesley J. Wildman, “Incongrous Goodness, Perilous Beauty,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 290. See Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 300-426. 10 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY “intelligible to contemporary theology as it wrestles with biological evolution,” due to the fact that “it seems too closely tied to the now abandoned Biblical depiction of the Fall as an actual event in the past.”32 Similarly, although acknowledging that the Free Will Defense is logically undefeated, Terrence Tylley criticizes Plantinga’s explanation of natural evil because it implies the action of fallen angels.33 For evolutionary theodicy, the idea of Fall is part of a pre-scientific worldview. According to John Hick, this idea “is radically implausible,” since

for most educated inhabitants of the modern world regard the biblical story of Adam and Eve, and their temptation by the devil, as myth rather than as history; and they believe that so far from having been created finitely perfect and then falling, humanity evolved out of lower forms of life, emerging in a morally, spiritually, and culturally primitive state. Further, they reject as incredible the idea that earthquake and flood, disease, decay, and death are consequences either of a human fall, or of a prior fall of angelic beings who are now exerting an evil influence upon the earth. They see all this as part of a pre-scientific world view, along with the stories of the world having been created in six days . . . .34

32 Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 15. 33 Tilley, “Towards a Creativity Defense of Belief in God,” 199, 207. In fact, Plantinga maintains that this Augustinian explanation of natural evil is logically consistent. In other words, it is possible but not necessarily true. See Alvin Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (New York, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 150; Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, 57-59; Alvin Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1979), 191-193. The ambiguity of Platinga’s position is also evidenced by these two statements: (1) “consider that list of apparent teachings of Genesis: that God has created the world, that the earth is young, that human beings and many different kinds of plants and animals were separately created, and that there was an original human pair whose sin has afflicted both human nature and some of the rest of the world.” Alvin Plantinga, “When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible,” in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, ed. Robert T. Pennock (Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001), 121. (2) “God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go . . . I am not hostile to evolution as such, but to unguided evolution.” Alvin Plantinga, “Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 11, 2010, Letters to the Editor. http://chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990 [accessed April 3, 2011]. 34 John Hick, “An Irenaean Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis and John B. Cobb (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 40-41. See also Christopher Southgate, The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 28-29. 11 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY In contrast, the Developmental and the Constitutive models are considered coherent with biological evolution. To Hvidt, scientific theories portray “destruction and subsequent suffering as part of” the “inherent fabric” of the natural world.35 This concept is associated with the Constitutive model. Moreover, he points out that in agreement with evolutionary biology, “destruction is a necessary requirement for the refinement of races and species.”36 This notion is more related to the Developmental model.

Proposals of Evolutionary Theodicy Many scholars deal with evolutionary theodicy.37 However, not all of them work on the protological issues as a fundamental part of that theodicy. In this section, I will shortly describe some relevant proposals of evolutionary theodicy, as far as they discuss or imply how protology fits in their proposal. Firstly, I will show how the Developmental model may be observed in John Hick’s theodicy. Secondly, I will depict how Robert Russell and Nancey Murphy deal with the Developmental and the Constitutive models. Finally, I will explain how Wesley Wildman understands protology and theodicy from a Constitutive framework.

John Hick John Hick is one of the most important theistic evolutionists to articulate theodicy and protology. His theodicy is presented prominently in the book Evil and the God of Love (1966). Before a description of the theodicy advanced in this book, a methodological note must be introduced here. After Evil and the God of Love, Hick had a shift in his methodological approach, particularly in publications from 1981 onwards, that was characterized by the influence of Kantian philosophy. Even though a reflection about this shift may indicate some implications for his theodicy developed in Evil and the God of Love, this methodological turn does not seem to have affected his earlier basic theodicean arguments. Rather, he essentially sought a more nuanced terminology for God, namely “the Real,”

35 Hvidt, 30. 36 Ibid. 37 For a helpful taxonomy of evolutionary theodicies, see Ted Peters and Martinez J. Hewlett, Evolution from Creation to New Creation: Conflict, Conversation, and Convergence (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2003), 115-157; Southgate, “God and Evolutionary Evil.” 12 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY and proposed that “the ‘Real is equally authentically thought and experienced as personal and non-personal.’”38 Hick’s approach is normally known as the soul-making theodicy.39 In fact, he claims to follow an Irenaean theodicy. According to his perspective, Irenaeus built “a framework of thought within which a theodicy became possible which does not depend upon the idea of the fall, and which is consonant with modern knowledge concerning the origins of the human race.”40 Basically, there are two protological ideas in Irenaeus’ theology that are particularly important for Hick: (1) the purpose of Creation and (2) the method of Creation. First, the fundamental purpose of God’s Creation is the development of creatures. For Irenaeus, he points out, “man was created as an imperfect, immature creature who was to undergo moral development and growth and finally be brought to the perfection intended for him by his Maker.”41 Consequently, the fall of Adam is not “an utterly malignant and catastrophic event, completely disrupting God’s plan.” Rather, “Irenaeus pictures it as something that occurred in the childhood of the race, an understandable lapse due to weakness and immaturity rather than an adult crime full of malice and pregnant with perpetual guilt.”42 Second, Hick emphasizes the Irenaean two-stage method of human creation, which is based on the distinction between the image and the likeness of God. In his modern interpretation of this method, the author thinks that “the first stage was the gradual production of homo sapiens, through the long evolutionary process.” Therefore, “existence ‘in the image of God’ was a potentiality for knowledge of and relationship with one’s Maker rather than such knowledge and relationship as a fully realized state. In other words, people were created as spiritually and morally immature

38 John Hick, “Straightening the Record: Some Response to Critics,” Modern Theology 6, no. 2 (1990): 1991. For further information about Hick’s Kantian shift, see Paul R. Eddy, “Religious Pluralism and the Divine: Another Look at John Hick’s Neo-Kantian Proposal,” Religious Studies 30, no. 4 (1994): 467-478; Hick, “Straightening the Record: Some Response to Critics,” 187-195; Haejong Je, “A Critical Evaluation of John Hick’s Religious Pluralism in Light of His Eschatological Model” (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 2009), 72-100. 39 For helpful interpretations of Hick’s theodicy, see David Cheetham, John Hick: A Critical Introduction and Reflection (Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003), 40-66; R. Douglas Geivett, Evil and the Evidence for God: The Challenge of John Hick's Theodicy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993); Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski and Timothy Miller, Readings in Philosophy of Religion: Ancient to Contemporary (Chichester, England; Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009), 369-379. 40 Hick, “An Irenaean Theodicy,” 41. 41 Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 214. 42 Ibid., 214-215. 13 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY creatures.” Afterwards, in the second stage, “of which we are a part, the intelligent, ethical, and religious animal is being brought through one’s own free responses into what Irenaeus called the divine ‘likeness.’ The human animal is being created into a child of God.”43 In the context of the development of this second stage of human creation, natural evil is necessary because “with no interaction with a challenging environment there was no development in its behavioral patterns.”44 To put it in another way, “the development of human personality–moral, spiritual, and intellectual–is a product of challenge and response.”45 Hence, sin and suffering are instruments by which God is gradually creating children for himself out of human animals.”46 Furthermore, Hick thinks that God creates on the basis of “epistemic distance.” It means that the world “functions as an autonomous system and from within which God is not overwhelmingly evident.” Actually, he argues that only in that situation “there is the possibility of the human being coming freely to know and love one’s Maker.”47 Indeed, this idea assumes that freedom and development demand distance. In short, Hick adopts the Developmental model for his theodicy. Suffering exists because it is an essential instrument used by God in His creation. Thus, natural evil precedes moral evil, since natural evil constitutes the environment in which human development takes place. And that development is characterized by the practice of moral evil.

Robert Russell and Nancey Murphy Roughly speaking, Robert Russell and Nancey Murphy attempt to provide scientific arguments for evolutionary theodicy. It seems that, in comparison with Russell and Murphy, Hick’s ideas are essentially based only on philosophical and theological assumptions. However, in spite of differences between them, they agree with Hick in some important points. Robert Russell To Russell, the most relevant aspect of Hick’s theodicy is the idea of epistemic distance. He argues that this concept is not only necessary for “faith and moral freedom,” as Hick maintains, “but also for scientific

43 Hick, “An Irenaean Theodicy,” 41-42. 44 Ibid., 47. 45 Ibid., 46. Hick believes that “in the context of this struggle to survive and flourish, that they can develop the higher values of mutual love and care, of self-sacrifice for others, and of commitment to a common good.” Ibid., 48. 46 Ibid., 45. 47 Ibid., 43. 14 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY research.” Since science is based on methodological naturalism, “a scientific explanation of the processes of nature should rely on natural causes alone without the introduction of divine causation.”48 Nonetheless, Russell prefers to refer to it in terms of “non-interventionist divine action,” which means that “God acts not by suspending or breaking into the processes of nature but by acting in, with and through them.”49 On the other hand, he disagrees with the instrumental understanding of natural evil. In his perspective, the gravest challenge to Hick’s “‘moral growth’ theodicy . . . is both excessive suffering in the world and the attempt to justify it by a ‘means-end’ argument.”50 According to Russell, God did not choose natural evil as a means for the development of His creation, rather “natural evils are an unintended consequence of God’s choice to create life through natural means.”51 In other words, “God had no choice but to permit biological natural evil because God’s intention is to create life.”52 The fundamental presupposition that underlies this argument is the idea that the present biological conditions, which are characterized by natural evil, represent the only possibility for life in this world. In a sense, Russell’s conception of suffering assumes the Constitutive model of theodicy, since suffering is intrinsic to life.

Nancey Murphy Whereas John Hick explains natural evil essentially in terms of moral growth, and Russell attempts to understand suffering on the basis of

48 Robert J. Russell, Cosmology: From Alpha to Omega, the Creative Mutual Interaction of Theology and Science (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 262. 49 Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 12. Russell explains that “there are at least four ways to render non-interventionist divine action in light of science. Top- down (or whole part) causality involving God’s relation to the mind/brain problem and God’s relation to the universe-as-a-whole (cf., Arthur Peacocke); lateral amplification, involving God’s action in relation to chaotic processes in the macroscopic world (cf., John Polkinghorne); bottom- up causality involving God’s action in relation to quantum processes in the microscopic world (cf. Nancey Murphy, George Ellis, Tom Tracy); a process philosophy–based discussion of divine action at every level in nature (cf. Ian Barbour).” Ibid. 50 Ibid., 21. 51 Robert J. Russell, “Physics, Cosmology, and the Challenge to Consequentialist Natural Theodicy,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 109. 52 Ibid., 110. 15 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY scientific arguments, Nancey Murphy seems to employ both approaches. She agrees with Russell’s conclusion that a moral conception of suffering is insufficient for theodicy. In opposition to Hick’s suggestion that God permits suffering “in order to create a morally challenging environment for human development[,] . . . the disorders of nature seem to go far beyond what is needed for human learning.” In addition, natural evil “cannot be justified as leading to moral development for themselves or for the human race,” because “the disorder and waste in natural processes long preceded human existence.”53 Hence, in consonance with Russell, Murphy argues that “suffering is seen not so much as a means to good for humans but as an unwanted but unavoidable by-product of conditions in the natural world that have to obtain in order that there be intelligent life at all.”54 Thus, she assumes that “any rich and complex world will be one in which there will be waste, damage, destruction.”55 Nevertheless, Murphy also agrees with Hick that this condition is necessary for a loving response to God. In this sense, she indicates the choices of God as creator in terms of non-interventionist action,56 with its necessary results and implications: (1) Fined-tuned world: necessary for the existence of life, but requires the presence of the second law of thermodynamics; (2) Complex life: necessary for the existence of free will, but demands the reality of pain. Overall, these choices are necessary for a free response to God, nonetheless the “unwanted but necessary by-products of those choices” are the existence of moral evil (sin), of metaphysical evil (limitation), and of natural evil (suffering).57 Therefore, it appears that Murphy combines the Developmental and the Constitutive models of theodicy, by saying that suffering is inherent to complex life (a constitutive idea), and that this heavy cost for the existence of complex life is, in a sense, an instrument to achieve a goal: “the free and

53 Nancey C. Murphy and George Francis Rayner Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cosmology, and Ethics (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1996), 245. 54 Nancey C. Murphy, “Science and the Problem of Evil: Suffering as a by-Product of a Finely Tuned Cosmos,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 131. 55 Ibid., 138. 56 For further information about Murphy’s conception of non-interventionist divine action, see Nancey C. Murphy, “Divine Action in the Natural Order: Buridan’s Ass and Shrodinger’s Cat,” in Philosophy, Science and Divine Action, ed. F. LeRon Shults, Nancey C. Murphy, and Robert J. Russell (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009), 263-304. 57 Murphy, “Science and the Problem of Evil,” 137. 16 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY intelligent cooperation of the creature in divine activity”58 (a developmental idea).

Wesley Wildman Even though Russell and Murphy conceive suffering from a Constitutive perspective, they seem to describe God as a moral and personal entity who makes choices. For them, God made the good decision to create life, and that choice implied the existence of natural evil. In opposition to that notion, Wesley Wildman defends that God must be understood as the “ground of being,”59 which implies the “rejection of a personal center of divine consciousness and activity,” and consequently the “refusal to align God with a particular moral path.”60 This comprehension allows “both suffering and blessing to flow from the divine nature itself.”61 As a result, Wildman adopts a radical view of the Constitutive model of theodicy. According to his idea of creation, suffering “is part of the wellspring of divine creativity in nature.” In contrast to Russell and Murphy, “suffering in nature is neither evil nor a by-product of the good.”62 Taking into account the assumptions that God is the ground of being and that suffering is “fundamental to the whole of reality,”63 Wildman does not need to defend the goodness of God. Rather, his purpose is to suggest that people must accept “the world as it is.”64 Perhaps, Wildman’s proposal could not even be considered a theodicy, since the character of God is not

58 Ibid., 135. 59 This concept may be found passim in his works. See Wesley J. Wildman, Fidelity with Plausibility: Modest Christologies in the Twentieth Century (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998); Wesley J. Wildman, Religious and Spiritual Experiences: A Spiritually Evocative Naturalist Interpretation (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Wesley J. Wildman, Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry: Envisioning a Future for the Philosophy of Religion (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2010); Wesley J. Wildman, Science and Religious Anthropology: A Spiritually Evocative Naturalist Interpretation of Human Life (Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009). He acknowledges that that notion is “close to some forms of religious naturalism, to some forms of apophatic mysticism, to some forms of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, to some forms of Chinese philosophy, and to some forms of atheism.” Wildman, “Incongrous Goodness, Perilous Beauty,” 280. 60 Wildman, “Incongrous Goodness, Perilous Beauty,” 279, 282. 61 Ibid., 279. 62 Ibid., 294. For further information about Wildman’s distinction between evil and suffering, see Wildman, “The Use and Meaning of the Word ‘Suffering’ in Relation to Nature,” 53-66. 63 Wildman, “Incongrous Goodness, Perilous Beauty,” 285. 64 Ibid., 280. 17 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY at stake. Even though his ideas do not represent the traditional understanding of evolutionary theodicy,65 they will be helpful in the analysis of the use of the Constitutive model in evolutionary theodicy, especially in the context of its theological implications.

Protological Presuppositions of Evolutionary Theodicy On the basis of the discussion above, the main protological presuppositions underlying evolutionary theodicy may be divided in three parts: (1) the concept of evil; (2) the understanding of the world; (3) the notion of divine activity.

The Concept of Evil The concept of evil comprises many specific assumptions. First, evolutionary theodicy essentially denies the existence of malevolent spiritual entities, namely, Satan and the fallen angels.66 As a result, natural evil seems to be caused by God’s activity in His creation, which means that evil is part of divine creation. In this context, there are four possibilities for the meaning of natural evil: (1) an instrument for human development (Hick); (2) a by-product of God’s creation (Russell); (3) a by-product of God’s creation and, in a sense, an instrument for human development (Murphy); (4) or fundamental to the whole of reality (Wildman). The first option seems to imply that God intended natural evil in order to achieve His moral goals for His creation. In contrast, the other options appear to suggest that natural evil is physically necessary for creation, but not intended by God.67

65 Southgate highlights that “the good-harm analyses most commonly found in evolutionary theodicies are developmental.” Furthermore, he argues that the solution for theodicy proposed by Wildman, in terms of ground of being theism, does not agree with the God of the Bible, which portrays God as “knowable–insofar as God can ever be knowable –in Jesus . . . That includes the conviction that the God who raised Jesus from the dead–and so made the ultimate personal statement of the vindication of self-sacrificial love–is both the origin of all things and the universe’s ultimate hope.” Southgate, The Groaning of Creation, 22, 42. 66 Terrence Tilley points out that “pre-Enlightenment thought . . . presumes the possibility of preternatural ‘spiritual’ entities whose choices before or beyond the creation of the world have determined that the natural world must be afflicted with evil, effectively making them agents in the world.” Tilley, “Towards a Creativity Defense of Belief in God,” 207. In his turn, Hick thinks that the existence of the devil is “a mythological idea.” Hick, Evil and the God of Love, 369. 67 The second and the third options assume that God intended to create the world. In the fourth option, God is not an entity that makes choices but is the ground of being. 18 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY In the first case, Hick’s developmental approach needs to show how God’s moral goals for humanity justify the presence of natural evil in His creation. Three main arguments may be drawn against this kind of justification: (1) if natural evil existed before the creation of humans, there is no developmental purpose for this evil; (2) the amount of suffering in the world goes beyond what is needed for human learning; (3) the lack of evidence for a progressive spiritual and moral development in the world.68 With regard to the first argument, following an evolutionary perspective, David Griffin argues that

Hick provides no reason why God should have wasted over four billion years setting the stage for the only thing thought to be intrinsically valuable, the moral and spiritual development of human beings. And the high probability that hundreds of millions of years of that preparation involved unnecessary and unuseful pain counts against Hick’s defense of the omnipotent God’s total goodness.69

Frederick Sontag considers Hick’s theodicy as a bizarre training program, due to the amount of suffering involved: “if God designed this training program we need a new coach. We would not be able to develop without danger, it is true, but my problem is why the dangers were designed so that they actually break and destroy so many?”70 In addition, John Roth asks, “how is the Holocaust compatible with the plan of person-perfecting that he describes? How does Auschwitz fit the claim that there is divine intent ensuring evolutionary progress where human character is concerned?”71 The third argument highlights the fact that there is “no convincing evidence that the human race is improving morally or spiritually” in terms of “a gradual spiritual evolution till human beings reach a full state of God-

68 Nancey Murphy agrees with the first two arguments. See “Nancey Murphy” above. 69 David R. Griffin, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis and John B. Cobb (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 53. 70 Frederick Sontag, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis and John B. Cobb (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 56. 71 John K. Roth, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis and John B. Cobb (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 61. 19 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY consciousness.”72 Griffin emphasizes that “our lives are simply too short for the soul-making process to reach completion, at least for most people.”73 Concisely, these assertions reveal two major flaws in Hick’s developmental theodicy. The first two arguments indicate that this theodicy tends to legitimatize evil through a means-end logic, while the third argument infers that this approach is heavily dependent on eschatology.74 In order to avoid the risk of justifying evil,75 most recent evolutionary theodicists have concluded that natural evil must be understood in consonance with “natural law, and not in conformity to a moral principle.”76 In this way, the Developmental model needs to be replaced by the Constitutive approach, which allows the possibility of conceiving natural evil as physically necessary for creation, but not intended by God. However, by using the Constitutive model, Russell, Murphy, and Wildman need to deal with the premises and implications of the belief that the existence of any form of complex life is not possible without suffering. Actually, this belief is related to another significant presupposition of evolutionary theodicy, namely, the evolutionary comprehension of the world.

The Understanding of the World According to the Constitutive model of theodicy, complex life cannot exist without suffering. Hence, suffering must be an essential factor in the understanding of the world. Murphy maintains that “the better we understand the interconnectedness among natural systems in the universe, and especially their bearing on complex life, the clearer it becomes that it would be impossible to have a world that allowed for a free and loving

72 Stephen T. Davis, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis and John B. Cobb (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1981), 58. 73 Griffin, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” 55. 74 See Roth, “A Critique of John Hick’s Theodicy,” 62. 75 Tilley points out that “the modern discourse of theodicy tends to claim that all evils, or types of evil, are instrumental. They implicitly deny that real evils are genuine evil.” Tilley, “Towards a Creativity Defense of Belief in God,” 198. In this sense, “theodicies may have a power that is practically demoniac.” Tilley, “The Problems of Theodicy: A Background Essay,” 47. See also Terrence W. Tilley, The Evils of Theodicy (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1991). 76 Thomas F. Tracy, “The Lawfulness of Nature and the Problem of Evil,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 165-166. 20 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY human response to God, yet one without natural evil.”77 Likewise, Russell emphasizes that “biological and physical evils” are “constitutive of life and not the consequences of a primordial human choice.”78 This conception comprises two basic notions: (1) suffering always existed in the world; (2) there is no creation without suffering. Nevertheless, even though it is possible to say that suffering is part of life as we know it now, it is not possible to affirm with absolute certainty that suffering was, and always will be part of life. In order to support this conjecture it is necessary to assume the principle of uniformity, which is “the belief among scientists that the natural processes we witness today also operated in the past and will continue as they are into the future.”79 As Reijer Hooykaas points out, uniformity is “the methodological principle underlying modern geology and evolutionary biology.”80 Secondly, if the creation of the world automatically implies the creation of suffering as well, it is impossible for God to create complex life without suffering. According to that perspective, God’s power in creation is limited by the current assumptions of evolutionary biology. Indeed, Russell acknowledges this problematic implication by saying that “in principle any biologically framed response to natural evil must ultimately be an insufficient response to natural evil,” since “God’s choice is not grounded in the stand-alone requirements of evolutionary biology.”81 Still, his theodicy tends to be essentially restricted to eschatology,82 because he believes that currently there are “limitations in fundamental scientific theories in physics and cosmology”83 for a theodicy somehow framed by protology.

77 Murphy, “Science and the Problem of Evil,” 132. 78 Russell, “Physics, Cosmology, and the Challenge to Consequentialist Natural Theodicy,” 123. 79 Peters and Hewlett, 206. For further information about the principle of uniformity, see Reijer Hooykaas, Natural Law and Divine Miracle: A Historical-Critical Study of the Principle of Uniformity in Geology, Biology, and Theology (Leiden: Brill, 1959); A. M. Celâl Sengör, Is the Present the Key to the Past or Is the Past the Key to the Present? James Hutton and Adam Smith Versus Abraham Gottlob Werner and Karl Marx in Interpreting History (Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America, 2001). 80 Hooykaas, 1. 81 Russell, “Physics, Cosmology, and the Challenge to Consequentialist Natural Theodicy,” 123. 82 See Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 5; Russell, “Physics, Cosmology, and the Challenge to Consequentialist Natural Theodicy,” 128-130. 83 Russell, “Physics, Cosmology, and the Challenge to Consequentialist Natural Theodicy,” 128. 21 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY The Notion of Divine Activity A significant presupposition related to the principle of uniformity in the world is the notion of non-interventionist divine action. As Thomas Tracy indicates, “creation involves a particular sort of divine kenosis, a self- limitation or restraint in the uses of God’s power.” Hence, “God creates an order of natural causes and respects the integrity of that order by allowing it to operate according to its own immanent lawful structure with little or no divine intervention that would disturb its causal history.”84 In this way, evolutionary theodicists tend to think about God’s action at the quantum level.85 This notion of divine action is fundamental for evolutionary theodicy to support God’s creation in an evolutionary framework.86

Theological Implications Among the several theological implications of the protological presuppositions discussed so far, this section will briefly deal with the main implications for the doctrine of creation and eschatology.

The Doctrine of Creation The idea assumed by evolutionary theodicy that natural evil precedes moral evil has a major implication: death is part of God’s creation (whether in the Developmental or Constitutive approaches). As Murphy indicates, “natural history shows that there must have been millions if not billions of years of death before humans entered the scene.”87 In this sense, John Baldwin correctly points out that, “generally, theistic evolutionists claim

84 Tracy, “Towards a Creativity Defense of Belief in God,” 162. 85 See Murphy and Ellis, 214-218; Lou Ann Trost, “Non-Interventionist Divine Action: Robert Russell, Wolfhart Pannenberg, and the Freedom of the (Natural) World,” in God’s Action in Nature’s World: Essays in Honour of Robert John Russell, ed. Robert J. Russell, Ted Peters, and Nathan Hallanger (Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2006), 205-216. Some evolutionary theodicists propose that the divine activity also occurs at the spiritual or mental level. See Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp, “Divine Action and the ‘Argument from Neglect,’” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 186, 189. 86 For limitations of space, it is not possible to analyze this concept of divine activity in this paper. However, this concept should be analyzed in future studies. 87 Nancey Murphy, introduction to Physics and Cosmology, xii. 22 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY that God indeed is somehow involved in the creation of species and the development of the geologic column over 3.7 billion years.”88 The development of the geological column portrays a terrible story. According to David Raup, “there are millions of different species of animals and plants on earth–possibly as many as forty million. But somewhere between five and fifty billion species have existed at one time or another. Thus, only but one in a thousand species is still alive–a truly lousy survival: 99.9 percent failure!”89 This picture of creation seems to be incoherent with two biblical ideas usually affirmed by Christians: (1) the goodness of God and (2) the goodness of creation. The first incoherence raises theodicean questions about the character of God, such as “Does God create through death and extinction as his method of choice? Is God, thereby, involved in the serial genocide of species?”90 As a matter of fact, evolutionary theodicy does not seem to provide “a satisfactory response to the problem of evolutionary suffering and extinction.”91 Furthermore, the Genesis account affirms the goodness of creation. After God finished His creative work on the sixth day, He declared creation to be very good. As a result, he rested and blessed the seventh day (cf. Gen 1:31- 2:2). However, for the sake of consistency, evolutionary theodicy needs to reinterpret this biblical teaching. In this case, the goodness of creation is “understood in terms of fruitful potentiality . . . rather than initial perfection.”92 In other words, “creation is good in its propensity to give rise to great values of beauty, diversity, complexity,”93 and so forth. Secondly, creation is interpreted as “a continuous process, rather than something completed at the beginning.”94 Following this conception, the goodness of creation can be affirmed “only in the light of the eschatological

88 John T. Baldwin, “Telos and the God of the Geologic Column: Toward Mapping Theodicean Questions as a First Step in the Discussion of What God Purposes to Do, Chooses Not to Do, or Cannot Do,” a paper presented at the Gloria Patri Creation Conference, June 4-8, 2009, 7. 89 David M. Raup, Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 1992), 4. 90 Baldwin, “Telos and the God of the Geologic Column,” 7. 91 Southgate, The Groaning of Creation, 15. 92 J. C. Polkinghorne, Reason and Reality: The Relationship between Science and Theology (London: SPCK, 1991), 99. 93 Southgate, The Groaning of Creation, 15. 94 Ibid. See also John F. Haught, God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2008), 153-172. 23 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY consummation.”95 To Southgate, creation “will finally be very good at the eschaton . . . and God’s Sabbath rest will be with God’s creation.”96 According to that interpretation, the doctrine of creation is basically absorbed by eschatology. This means that it is almost impossible to see God’s purpose with creation apart from eschatology, which implies that theistic evolution seems unable to find arguments for theodicy in creation, apart from eschatology. As David Hull emphasizes,

What kind of God can one infer from the sort of phenomena epitomized by the species on Darwin’s Galapagos Islands? The evolutionary process is rife with happenstance, contingency, incredible waste, death, pain and horror . . . Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory and the data of natural selection may be like, he is not . . . the loving God who cares about his productions . . . The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.97

The incoherence of evolutionary theodicy appears to be evident when the conception of creation as a continuous process, which reaches its completion only in the eschaton, is compared with the understanding of natural evil as a by-product of God’s creation. If the whole creation will be very good in the eschaton, which implies the extinction of natural evil, how can Murphy and Russell say that suffering is intrinsic to complex life, and that God did not intend evil in evolutionary creation? If life without natural evil is possible in the context of eschatology, why did God include suffering, death, and extinction in His creation? These questions appear to push evolutionary theodicy to developmental arguments,98 but Murphy and Russell know that Hick’s soul-making approach is not a consistent position.99

95 Pannenberg, 645. 96 Southgate, The Groaning of Creation, 16. 97 David L. Hull, “The God of the Galapagos,” Nature 352 (1991):486. 98 Murphy acknowledges that, in this respect, soul-making arguments are relevant for evolutionary theodicy: “if Christians are looking forward to a new creation, the eschaton, understood as a radically transformed cosmos no longer subject to the laws of nature, why not create it this way in the first place? . . . Soul-making arguments are relevant here.” Murphy, “Science and the Problem of Evil,” 146. See also Polkinghorne, Theology in the Context of Science, 158. 99 For Murphy’s and Russell’s critique of Hick’s developmental theodicy, see “Nancey Murphy” and “Robert Russell” above. For other critiques of Hick’s theodicy, see “The Doctrine of Creation” above. 24 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY Finally, theistic evolutionists generally claim that the Genesis account of origins is a “primeval saga,” because it has “the same pre-scientific view of the visible universe as the Mesopotamian creation stories.”100 However, at the same time, they believe that death is part of God’s original creation. In a helpful comparative study between Mesopotamian texts and the Eden narrative presented in Genesis, Tryggve Mettinger indicates that the fundamental difference between the biblical and the Mesopotamian theodicies is the understanding of death.

What we have in Mesopotamia is a type of theodicy in which death is not the result of human guilt but is the way that the gods arranged human existence . . . on the other hand, what we have in the Eden Narrative is a theodicy that derives the anomic phenomena from human guilt. Death is not what God intended but is the result of human sin.101

Ironically, by affirming that death is part of God’s creation, evolutionary theodicy seems to be closer to Mesopotamian creation stories than the Genesis account of origins.

100 Denis Edwards, “Evolution and the Christian God,” in Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Cosmology and Biological Evolution, ed. Hilary D. Regan, Mark William Worthing, and Nancey C. Murphy (Adelaide, Australia: Australian Theological Forum, 2002), 175-176. Randall Younker and Richard Davidson point out that this “common understanding among most modern Biblical scholars . . . is built around the idea that the Hebrew word raquia’, which appears in Genesis 1 and is usually translated ‘firmament’ in English Bibles, was actually understood by the ancient Hebrews to be a solid, hemispherical dome or vault that rested upon mountains or pillars that stood along the outer most perimeter of a circular, a flat disc–the earth.” Randall Younker and Richard M. Davidson, “The Myth of the Solid Heaven Dome: Another Look at the Hebrew ['yqir,”; Andrews University Seminary Studies 49, no. 1 (2011):125. For helpful arguments against that conception, see Ibid., 125-147. Gehard Hasel argues that Genesis cosmology “represents not only a ‘complete break’ with the ancient Near Eastern mythological cosmologies but represents a parting of the spiritual ways which meant an undermining of the prevailing mythological cosmologies. This was brought about by the conscious and deliberate antimythical polemic that runs as a red thread through the entire Gen cosmology. The antimythical polemic has its roots in the Hebrew understanding of reality which is fundamentally opposed to the mythological one.” Gerhard F. Hasel, “The Significance of the Cosmology in Genesis 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 10, no. 1 (1972):20. 101 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2-3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 133 (emphasis supplied). Mettinger also acknowledges that “we should not overlook the role of the serpent” in the understanding of Eden Narrative’s theodicy. For further information about the conception of death in Genesis, see Jacques B. Doukhan, “When Death Was Not Yet: The Testimony of Biblical Creation,” a paper presented at Andrews University, October 20, 2010. 25 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Eschatology Eschatology is probably the most important issue for evolutionary theodicy. Since eschatology is the final step in the process of evolutionary creation, only the last things may reveal God’s purposes with creation. In other words, evolutionary theodicy appears to be totally dependent on eschatology.102 Nevertheless, as Russell acknowledges, the prognosis indicated by physical cosmology is that “the future of the universe is endless expansion and cooling, and with the eventual and irrevocable extinction of all life in the universe.”103 Considering the presuppositions of a non-interventionist divine action and the principle of uniformity, “how can Christian eschatological hope be reconciled with cosmology’s bleak predictions about the future of the universe?”104 Russell’s response to this question is based on Jesus’ bodily resurrection: “just as Jesus’ body was transformed into a risen and glorified body, God will transform . . . the universe, into the new creation.”105 However, that answer raises the following challenging question, “how precisely can resurrection be thought of in noninterventionist terms?”106 Based on his Developmental approach, Hick describes his conception of eschatology by saying that the “person-making process, leading eventually to a perfect human community, is not completed on this earth.” He assumes “a continuation of our lives in another sphere of existence after bodily death.”107 Therefore, Hick avoids the scientific challenge for eschatology by using the concept of immortality of the soul, which presupposes a dichotomous human nature. However, it seems that this option is not viable for current theistic evolutionists such as Nancey Murphy and John Polkinghorne.108

102 See Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 21. 103 Ibid., 2. 104 Denis Edwards, “Why Is God Doing This? Suffering, the Universe, and Christian Eschatology,” in Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil, ed. Nancey C. Murphy, Robert J. Russell, and William R. Stoeger (Vatican City State; Berkeley, CA: Vatican Observatory Publications; Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 2007), 265. 105 Russell, “Eschatology and Scientific Cosmology,” 25. 106 Edwards, “Towards a Creativity Defense of Belief in God,” 265. 107 Hick, “An Irenaean Theodicy,” 51. 108 Leading theistic evolutionists, such as Murphy and Polkinghorne, reject the idea of immortality of the soul and the dualistic conception of human nature. See Nancey C. Murphy, Bodies and Souls, or Spirited Bodies? (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006); Polkinghorne, Theology in the Context of Science, 74, 152-155. 26 RODRIGUES: CREATION AND THEODICY Nonetheless, the Constitutive approach does not offer a solution either. If natural evil is intrinsic to life, the logical conclusion is that the eschatological hope (understood in terms of complete eradication of death and suffering) cannot be accomplished. In this sense, Wildman presents a conclusion coherent with the presuppositions of the Constitutive model: “there is no science-supported basis for picturing a new heaven and a new earth that is free of suffering.” To put it differently, “a new heaven and a new earth without suffering would be so spectacular a transformation that it would have to be supernatural in character, so we should probably assume that our scientific knowledge should be ignored as irrelevant.”109 Since the complete eradication of death and suffering is the core of biblical eschatology and the center of the Christian hope (cf. John 3:16; Rom 6:23; 1 Cor 15:26, 54-57; 2 Tim 1:10; Rev 21:4), I do not conceive Wildman’s position as a Christian approach to the problem. However, I do think that his conclusion reveals the inconsistency of evolutionary theodicists who assume a Constitutive understanding of natural evil and attempt to defend an eschatological goal of God’s creation.

Conclusion Protology is essential for evolutionary theodicists because they need to explain why God uses natural evil in His evolutionary creation. Nevertheless, their basic presuppositions–such as the non-existence of Satan and fallen angels, evil as intrinsic to life and/or as an instrument to human development, the non-interventionist divine action, and the principle of uniformity–imply that God’s creation does not have any purpose apart from eschatology. According to the Developmental approach, God’s purpose with creation is the moral development of the creatures. This approach tends to legitimize evil, and its means-end logic is highly dependent on eschatology. By affirming that evil is a by-product of creation and that God did not intend evil, the Constitutive model (as employed by Russell and Murphy) implies that God’s purpose with creation is found only in eschatology. Yet, its protological presuppositions prevent the possibility of a world free from death and suffering. Conversely, if its proponents want to affirm this possibility, they need to explain the fact that if life without natural evil will be possible in the context of eschatology, why did God include suffering, death, and extinction in His creation. The response to this question probably will be developmental, which means that this answer will ultimately attempt

109 Wildman, 291. 27 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY to justify evil, and will be unable to explain why the suffering in this world goes beyond what is necessary for human development. In short, this study indicates the inconsistency of evolutionary theodicy and calls for a different model of theodicy. However, such model needs to carefully articulate the foundational concepts of evil, the world, and divine activity. In fact, the present study can be used as a preliminary step in the articulation of these concepts, in the sense that it provides ideas and implications that could be explored or avoided.

Adriani Milli Rodrigues is a professor of theology at the Adventist University of Sao Paulo (Brazil). He is a PhD candidate in systematic theology at Andrews University. His doctoral dissertation deals with the doctrine of Christ’s priesthood from a systematic and hermeneutical perspective. He is married to Ellen and has a beautiful little daughter, Sarah. [email protected]

The Theological and Practical Significance of Health Reform in the Writings of Ellen G. White1

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

I. Introduction For Ellen G. White, health reform is an ambitious and aggressive program of global proportions with very specific goals and firmly grounded in biblical-theological convictions. It addresses one of the most fundamental problems of the human experience, namely, disease, illness, and their concomitant human suffering. It is not simply about what to eat or not to eat; it is about the impact of sin and evil on human beings as well as on their rationality and physicality. It is about the apparent absence of divine sovereignty in the presence of sickness and suffering. It is about God’s justice in the setting of the cosmic conflict. Although there were other

1 The following abbreviations are used for the books of Ellen G. White: CCh—Counsels for the Church; CD—Counsels on Diet and Food; CG—Child Guidance; CH—Counsels on Health; CME—A Call to Medical Evangelism and Health Education; COL—Christ’s Object Lessons; CT—Christ Triumphant; CTBH—Christian Temperance and Bible Hygiene; Ev—Evangelism; HL—Healthful Living; HP—Heavenly Places; Hvn—Heaven; MH—Ministry of Health; MR—Manuscript Releases; PHJ—Pacific Health Journal; PP—Patriarchs and Prophets; RH—Review and Herald; SM—Selected Messages; T—Testimonies for the Church; TMK—That I May Know Him.

132 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE health reformers in the days of Ellen White,2 there is nothing in the history of Christianity comparable to the magnitude of the health reform program formulated and promoted by her. Under the influence of Jesus’ concern for the sick, the Christian church has always cared for the sick. In the early church deacons and deaconesses were appointed to care for them and after the conversion of Constantine hospitals were established to provide for the sick.3 This is still the case among Catholics and Protestants. Most Christians consider rational medicine to be the primary means to care for the sick although charismatic healings are promoted by many. Disease is considered to be an evil to be opposed by finding ways to overcome it. But little attention has been given to a theology of healing. Prevention is to some extent promoted but we rarely find Christians aggressively speaking against, for instance, the use of tobacco and the consumption of alcohol. Ellen White is interested in healing, but she looks at the complexity of the problem and emphasizes prevention in order to bring healing and not only to avoid sickness. For her prevention is a means of healing and restoration. Her program integrates science, religion, and moral responsibility, that is to say the rational, the spiritual, and the ethical dimensions of human beings. Since her interest in health is grounded in biblical theology, it has become part of the Adventist message. Never before in the history of the Christian church has such significance been

2 For a study of the health reform movements in the times of Ellen G. White and their contribution to the Adventist emphasis on health reform see, among others, D. E. Robinson, The Story of Our Health Message (3rd edition; Nashville, TN: Southern Publishing,1965); John B. Blake, “Health Reform,” in The Rise of Adventism: Religion and Society in Mid- Nineteenth-Century America, ed. Edwin S. Gaustad (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 30- 49; Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), who concentrated so much on the trees in the forest that lost sight of the beauty of the forest—the health system promoted by E. G. White and its theological significance. A response to his book was prepared by the Ellen G. White Estate, “A Critique of the Book Prophetess of Health Prepared by the Staff of the Ellen G. White Estate,” 1976. Others who have written on the reform movements are, George W. Read, A Sound of Trumpets: American, Adventists, and Health Reform (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1982); and Rennie B. Schoepflin, “Health and Health Care,” The World of Ellen G. White, ed. Gary Land (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 1987), 143-158. 3 For an introduction to the Christian interest in caring for the sick see, Norman E. Thomas, “Medical Missions,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity, ed. Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley (5 vols.; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 483.

133 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY attached to the question of health. In what follows we will explore the goals White sets for her program and the theological presuppositions that undergird it.4 We will also discuss other theological concepts that contribute to the foundation of the health program promoted by her.5

II. Purpose of Health Reform and its Theological Foundations Ellen White provides a clear statement of purpose for the health reform envisioned by her. The statement also includes elements of a plan for action in the implementation of the program (notice the use of the verbs “teach,” and “show”). We will carefully examine the statement in order to explore its implications and theological assumptions. We will do this by examining other places in her writings where these ideas are further developed. Here is her statement of purpose:

In teaching health principles, keep before the mind the great object of reform—that its purpose is to secure the highest development of body and mind and soul. Show that the laws of nature, being the laws of God, are designed for our good; that obedience to them promotes happiness in this life, and aids in the preparation for the life to come.6

The simplicity of the statement is deceiving. It highlights the significance of the subject and provides the underlying assumptions upon which the program itself is built. I will begin the analysis with the first part

4 Because of the purpose of this paper, we will not discuss the specifics of the health reform. But perhaps it may suffice to say that, although she promotes the ideal of a vegetarian diet (lacto-ovo vegetarian diet), she supports the biblical law of clean/unclean animals, and rejects the use of alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea. She emphasizes physical exercise and the moderate use of that which is good. White also writes about the dangers of overeating, the use of highly seasoned foods, rich desserts, and the benefits of light and fresh air. For a useful summary see Reid, Trumpets, 132-140. 5 For a study on a theology of healing in Ellen G. White see, Read, Sound of Trumpets, 116-122. For an earlier reflection of the topic see, T. R. Flatz, “Health and Gospel Message: Our Bodies a Living Sacrifice,” Our Firm Foundation (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1953), 339-364; and J. Waybe McFarland, “Health and Gospel Message: The Laws of Health,” ibid., 365-390. For a discussion of a theology of health in the Bible see, George W. Reid, “Health and Healing,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 751-778. 6 MH 146.

134 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE of the second sentence: “. . . the laws of nature, being the laws of God, are designed for our good.”

A. Health Reform is Theocentric For Ellen White health reform is not a secular or humanistic program but a fundamentally religious one that integrates religious convictions and the scientific study of the laws of nature. White uses the phrase “law of nature” in a religious-scientific way meaning by it the laws that regulate the operations of the natural world under the guidance of God.7 According to her these laws are an expression of God’s will for His creation, including humans.8 For her, God constitutes the center around which the program is developed thus transforming it into a well-integrated health system and philosophy of health.9 Without a center we would not have a system of health but pieces of information about health. She offers at least two main arguments to support a theocentric understanding of the health reform program.

1. God is the Creator of the Laws of Nature The theocentric nature of health reform is first manifested in the fact that God is the creator of the laws of nature: “In infinite wisdom, the world which God had newly formed was placed under fixed laws. Laws were ordained, not only for the government of living beings, but for the operations of nature.”10 The fact that God created these laws as an expression of His will imbues them with a moral content—they are to be

7 She also refers to the laws of nature as “the unchangeable principles of nature” (CTBH 109). 8 She writes, “The material world is under God’s control. The laws of nature are obeyed by nature. Everything speaks and acts the will of the Creator. Cloud and sunshine, dew and rain, wind and storm, all are under the supervision of God, and yield implicit obedience to His command. It is in obedience to the law of God that the spire of grain bursts through the ground, ‘first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.’ Mark 4:28. These the Lord develops in their proper season because they do not resist His working” (COL 81-82). 9 She writes, “Those who study and practice the principles of right living will be greatly blessed, both physically and spiritually. An understanding of the philosophy of health is a safeguard against many of the evils that are continually increasing” (CG 362). 10 PHJ February 1, 1901, par. 2.

135 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY obeyed. Since they are an expression of love, they aim at the well-being of humanity.11 They were designed “for our good.” In the context of her discussions on health reform she specifically uses the expression “laws of nature” to refer to the laws that God implanted in our being in order for it to function properly.12 She encourages us “to study that marvelous organism, the human system, and the laws by which it is governed.”13 These laws are “the manifestation of God’s love and wisdom in the works of nature.”14 Her understanding of natural law as established by God and aiming at our well-being lays close to the center of the health reform program she is promoting and removes it from any secular approach to the study of health.

2. Only God/Christ Can Heal We find in her writings a second argument supporting the theocentric nature of health reform. This argument rejects any understanding of nature along the lines of deism and pantheism. She writes,

Through the agencies of nature, God is working, day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment, to keep us alive, to build up and restore us. When any part of the body sustains injury, a healing process is at once begun; nature’s agencies are set at work to restore soundness. But the power working through these agencies is the power of God. All life-giving power is from Him. When one recovers from disease, it is God who restores him.15

11 She comments, “But God’s laws are not merely an expression of His selfish or arbitrary authority. He is love, and in all that He did, He had the well-being of humanity in view. He would have been glorified in the work of His hands had man retained his first perfection, and had all his varied capabilities of mind and soul and body been developed so as to reach the highest possible degree of excellence” (Ibid.). 12 CH 39. 13 Ibid., 40. 14 Ibid. 15 MH 112-113. See also PP 114, where she states: “Many teach that matter possesses vital power—that certain properties are imparted to matter, and it is then left to act through its own inherent energy; and that the operations of nature are conducted in harmony with fixed laws, with which God Himself cannot interfere. This is false science, and is not sustained by the word of God. Nature is the servant of her Creator. God does not annul His laws or work contrary to them, but He is continually using them as His instruments. Nature testifies of an intelligence, a presence, an active energy, that works in and through her laws.”

136 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE

The first thing to notice in this statement is that in a world of sickness and suffering God is always actively working to keep us alive and to restore us to health. He is dynamically involved in restraining the damage that sickness and suffering are inflicting on the human race. It is indeed amazing to observe the human body fighting diseases through built-in systems of defense. These are “nature’s agencies set at work to restore soundness” to our bodies. They are part of the laws of nature established by God for our good. Second, for Ellen White the power to heal observable in the operations of nature is not inherent in nature itself. The system is there but it lacks the power needed to heal. Healing power exclusively resides in God who makes it available to us through the agencies of nature. In other words, nature lacks life-giving power because it is part of creation itself and, more specifically, because it has also been damaged by sin and is consequently sick (cf., Rom 8:19-23). To the superficial observer it would appear that it is the forces of nature that bring healing but, according to White, what we witness in the operations of nature is the power of God preserving and restoring human life on the planet. This is an unapologetic rejection of a secular and of any mechanical understanding of the operations of nature. The theocentric nature of the health reform promoted by Ellen White is at the same time Christ-centered: “There is in nature the continual working of the Father and the Son. Christ says, ‘My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,’ John 5:17.”16 He came to give us “health and peace and perfection of character.”17 She adds, “From Him flowed a stream of healing power, and in body and mind and soul men were made whole.”18 The healing power of God that is active through nature’s agencies is indeed the power of Christ manifested on the cross. The physicians try to work with nature to bring healing but the truth is, White says, that Christ is the one who imparts health and life.19

16 PP 114; for a fuller discussion on the Ellen White’s Christ-centered understanding of the health reform see below under “Soteriology.” 17 MH 17. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 111.

137 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

For her ultimate reality and knowledge or truth are found in God; a personal God. It is through His self-revelation that we come to understand Him, creation, and ourselves. Any approach to nature and healing based on rationalism and/or humanism is considered to be too narrow and ultimately ineffective in bringing true healing. Only the one who created nature and who, in the context of sin, sent His Son to redeem us is capable of preserving and restoring life to the human race. True healing is always a manifestation of the power of God.20

B. Health Reform and Biblical Anthropology Let us return to Ellen White’s statement of purpose for the health reform program. The second theological element present in the statement is biblical anthropology. Her understanding of health reform is incontestably grounded on the biblical understanding of human nature. We are dealing now with the object of healing—the human being. Who is this creature in need of healing? It is impossible to develop a theology of healing or a system of healing without first understanding the nature of the person who needs healing. In the statement of purpose this is made quite clear: “Its purpose is to secure the highest development of body and mind and soul.” It is assumed that humans, as created by God, are in need of development in an integrated way because they are an indivisible unity of life in bodily form (body, mind, and soul). We will develop these ideas under two main headings: Humans as embodied potentiality and humans as embodied life.

1. Humans as Embodied Potentiality In biblical anthropology humans were created with a potential to be developed. In a sense they came from the hands of the creator as “unfinished” beings. Without this quality they would have been frozen pieces of art to be admired by other creatures but lacking freedom. Perhaps it could be said that humans were beings heading to a fuller expression of their beings. At creation they possessed all the characteristics that defined

20 See, Reid, Trumpets, 118-125.

138 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE them as human beings and as such they were perfect.21 But the potentiality that also defined them constituted them into free beings that in the exercise of their freedom were becoming, in union with God, what they would want or like to become. This capacity for further development belongs to the very essence of human nature and should not be identified as a post-fallen condition.22 White writes, “He [God] would have been glorified in the work of His hands had man retained his first perfection, and had all his varied capabilities of mind and soul and body been developed so as to reach the highest possible degree of excellence.”23 God created humans as a potentiality that could actualize itself through self-development “reaching the highest possible degree of excellence.” In other words, “every man has the opportunity, to a great extent, of making himself whatever he chooses to be.”24 This is indeed about human freedom, but it is also about assuming responsibility for our actions as beings traveling to a fuller expression of our beings. Since development belongs to the essence of being humans, it should not surprise us to find Ellen White indicating that the goal of the health reform is precisely the development of the potential that God granted us at creation. God has not changed His plans for the human race. This potential has been damaged by sin and can only be

21 Notice how Ellen G. White describes the condition of humans immediately after creation: “Man came from the hand of God perfect in organization and beautiful in form. All his faculties of mind and body were fully developed and harmoniously balanced. His nature was in harmony with the will of God. His affections were pure; his appetites and passions were under the control of reason. His mind was capable of comprehending divine things. He stood before his Maker in the strength of manhood, the crowning glory of the creative work” (PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 1). When she states “his faculties of mind and body were fully developed” she is not denying the need for further development but affirming that the faculties did not lack what was needed for them to be humans. 22 White writes, “If it were possible for created beings to attain to a full understanding of God and His works, then, having reached this point, there would be for them no further discovery of truth, no growth in knowledge, no further development of mind or heart. God would no longer be supreme; and men, having reached the limit of knowledge and attainment, would cease to advance. Let us thank God that it is not so. God is infinite; in Him are ‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.’ And to all eternity men may be ever searching, ever learning, and yet they can never exhaust the treasures of His wisdom, His goodness, and His power” (CCh 88). 23 PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 1, par. 2. 24 CH 107.

139 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY restored through the power of Christ. He is the one who could motivate us to take proper care of our bodily existence. Perhaps the questions we should address now is, why do humans need to develop the potential they have? Ellen G. White provides a direct answer:

Our first duty toward God and our fellow beings is that of self- development. Every faculty with which the Creator has endowed us should be cultivated to the highest degree of perfection, that we may be able to do the greatest amount of good of which we are capable. Hence that time is spent to good account which is used in the establishment and preservation of physical and mental health.25

She has raised the issue of personal development to the level of a moral responsibility. Self-development is not narcissistic neither is it an attempt to merge with the powers of nature in a pantheistic mystical rapture. This is to be done for the benefit of others. We owe it to God and to others to develop our potential as much as possible in order to increase the amount of good in the world. When humans look around they tend to see the evil that is there, but Ellen White challenges us to look for and increase the good in the world. The value of self-development is not grounded on ethical egoism, whereby the person seeks to increase personal benefits, but it is grounded on ethical universalism according to which everyone should seek the increase of good in the world for the benefit of others. Ethical decisions related to self-development are to be made in answer to the question, would this increase the amount of good in the world? According to White, personal development enables us to increase the amount of good in a world of sickness and suffering in accordance to our personal capacities. She also identifies another important ethical value: “Hence that time is spent to good account which is used in the establishment and preservation of physical and mental health.” In other words, it is ethically correct to spend time studying the laws of nature and taking care of our physical and mental health because in doing such things we are aiming at doing maximum good for others. Therefore the health reform is not incompatible with the gospel, the three angels’ messages (Rev 14:6-12) or with the

25 Ibid.

140 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE

Christian life.26 This same value was manifested in the life of Jesus and consequently “our Lord Jesus Christ came to this world as the unwearied servant of man’s necessities.”27 The potential we received from the Creator is to be developed in order to benefit the human race.

2. Humans as Embodied Life: Wholistic Anthropology28 The goal of health reform, according to Ellen White, is “to secure the highest development of body and mind and soul.” Humans are defined by her as an indivisible unity of body, mind, and soul. According to the Scriptures, humans were created by God as a fragment of indivisible life in bodily form.29 Humans do not have body, mind, and soul but they are body, mind, and soul. This biblical view provides an unshakable foundation for what Ellen White has to say about the importance of the health reform she is endorsing and promoting. Since these different dimensions of the human being are deeply interconnected in the one person, whatever damages one

26 She is very explicit on this matter: “As a people we have been given the work of making known the principles of health reform. There are some who think that the question of diet is not of sufficient importance to be included in their evangelistic work. But such make a great mistake. God’s word declares, ‘Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.’ 1 Corinthians 10:31. The subject of temperance, in all its bearings, has an important place in the work of salvation” (CH 443). 27 MH 17. 28 For a brief history of wholeness in Adventist thinking and life see, Ginger Hanks- Harwood, “Wholeness,” in Remnant and Republic: Adventist Themes for Personal and Social Ethics, ed. Charles W. Teel (Loma Linda, CA: Loma Linda University Center for Christian Bioethics, 1995), 127-144. 29 For the biblical evidence see, Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, “Health and Healing in the Pentateuch,” in Health 2000 and Beyond: A Study Conference of Adventist Theology, Philosophy, and Practice of Healing, ed. Eugene Durand and Gary Swanson (Silver Spring, MD: Health and Temperance Department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1994),17-29; and Niels-Erik A. Andreasen, “Death: Origin, Nature, and Final Eradication,” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 314-334. Christian anthropology is basically dualistic (humans have an eternal soul that exist by itself independent of the body). Neuroscientific studies are providing evidence to support the wholistic anthropology found in the Bible and that evidence is beginning to have an impact in theological circles. For a discussion of the evidence from neurology as well as from the Bible and how the two could interact see, Joel B. Green, Body, Soul and Human Life: The nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).

141 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY of them would also damage, at least to some extent, the unity of the person. She comments:

Since the mind and the soul find expression through the body, both mental and spiritual vigor are in great degree dependent upon physical strength and activity; whatever promotes physical health, promotes the development of a strong mind and a well-balanced character. Without health, no one can as distinctly understand or as completely fulfill his obligations to himself, to his fellow beings, or to his Creator. Therefore, the health should be as faithfully guarded as the character.30

This connection is so intimate that:

They react upon each other. In order, then, to reach a high standard of moral and intellectual attainment, and to secure a strong well-balanced character, the laws that control our physical being must be heeded; both the mental and the physical powers must be developed. Such a training will produce men of strength and solidity of character, of keen perception and sound judgment,—men who will be an honor to God and a blessing to the world.31

White refers to the human body as “a living machinery” in which “every function is wonderfully and wisely made” and which, among the works of God in the natural world, is “the most wonderful.”32 It is a “marvelous organism.”33 It is the dwelling place of God34 and is to “be presented to Him a living sacrifice, fitted to render Him acceptable service.”35 In order to keep it in good health it is important to study human physiology and practice the laws of nature that govern it: “The Lord desires us to obey the laws of health and life. He holds each one responsible to care properly for his body, that it may be kept in health.”36

30 CG 360-361. 31 PUJ February 1, 1902 par. 14. 32 CG 103. 33 CD 457. 34 CH 382. 35 Ibid., 206. 36 Ev 261.

142 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE

“Mind” and “soul” are closely related. The “mind” emphasizes the rational dimension of human beings while the “soul,” in the context of the discussion of health in Ellen White, seems to point to the inner life of the person and in particular to the spiritual aspect. According to her, mind was created by God on the sixth day. “It was a wonderful thing for God to create man, to make mind. He created him that every faculty might be the faculty of the divine mind.”37 “Mind” is on this planet a unique a piece of matter. Endowed with self-awareness and the abilities to reason and feel, humans were to rule over the world and to be able to communicate and commune with the Creator. Every faculty of the human mind was to “be the faculty of the divine mind,” that is to say the point of contact or access between the human mind and God. He was interested in using it to communicate with us and in allowing us to talk to Him. The divine Mind was to touch the human mind: “The brain nerves which communicate with the entire system are the only medium through which Heaven can communicate to man and affect his inmost life. Whatever disturbs the circulation of the electric currents in the nervous system lessens the strength of the vital powers, and the result is a deadening of the sensibilities of the mind.”38 The deterioration of the reasoning powers of the mind as a result of bad eating habits and the indulgence of evil passions has done serious damage to the human race. Ellen White specifically states:

The bad eating of many generations, the gluttonous and self-indulgent habits of the people, are filling our poorhouses, our prisons, and our insane asylums. Intemperance, in drinking tea and coffee, wine, beer, rum, and brandy, and the use of tobacco, opium, and other narcotics, has resulted in great mental and physical degeneracy, and this degeneracy is constantly increasing.39

37 HL 12. 38 CG 446. She also writes, “It must be kept before the people that the right balance of the mental and moral powers depends in a great degree on the right conditions of the physical system. All narcotics and unnatural stimulants that enfeeble and degrade the physical nature tend to lower the tone of the intellect and morals. Intemperance lies at the foundation of the moral depravity of the world” (CME 38). 39 CH 49. For her, intemperance meant lack of self-control and more specifically the “indulgence of perverted appetite” (CME 39).

143 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

She considers this condition to be a threat to our humanness. The rationality with which the Creator endowed humans—the mind—is at risk and consequently the existence of the human race is also at risk. She states it this way:

The present enfeebled condition of the human family was presented before me. Every generation has been growing weaker, and disease of every form afflicts the race. . . Satan’s power upon the human family increases. If the Lord should not soon come and destroy his power, the earth would erelong be depopulated.40

Perhaps it would not be wrong to say that the human race is facing a pan-epidemic of mental illnesses. The violence that prevails around the world in the name of religion, political ideologies, financial concerns, or rage testifies to the fact that the human mind, as created by God, has been seriously damage. “Mind” is at risk on the planet. The health reform is one of God’s instruments for the restoration and preservation of the human mind in a world of physical and moral depravity and degeneration. She clearly states, “Abstinence from the things that God has prohibited is the only way to prevent ruin of body and mind.”41 Therefore, it is required that the principles of health reform be agitated in the public arena.42 This work is to go together with the proclamation of the three angels’ messages for at least a couple of reasons (cf., Rev 14:6- 12).43 First, instructing the public on proper health care will destroy prejudices against the message making people more willing to accept it. The reliability of the health message would tend to predispose people to accept

40 Ibid., 18. Notice how intemperance is connected by her with the enemy: “The enemy is trying to drag human beings down by leading them to indulge perverted appetite” (Ev 530). “Intemperance is at the foundation of the larger share of the ills of life. It annually destroys tens of thousands. We do not speak of intemperance as limited only to the use of intoxicating liquors, but give it a broader meaning, including the hurtful indulgence of any appetite or passion. Through intemperance some sacrifice one half, and others two thirds of their physical, mental, and moral powers and become playthings for the enemy” (CG 394; emphasis mine). 41 CH 135. 42 “Health principles must be agitated and the public mind deeply stirred to investigation” (RH, Feb 11, 1902). 43 See CH 20-21.

144 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE the biblical reliability of the message itself. She points out that “when properly conducted, the health work is an entering wedge, making a way for other truths to reach the heart.”44 Secondly, and perhaps more important, the mind of many are so damaged that it is impossible for them to understand or perceive the beauty of the message. White states, “He [God] designs that the subject shall be agitated and the public mind deeply stirred to investigate it; for it is impossible for men and women, while under the power of sinful, health-destroying, brain-enervating habits, to appreciate sacred truth.”45 She goes so far as to say that improper diet could lead to animalism and “a development of animalism lessens spirituality, rendering the mind incapable of understanding the truth.”46 What these individuals need is not instruction about biblical teachings but instruction on the principles of health reform that will bring healing to their minds and would make them more sensitive to the work of the Spirit and the message of salvation. Thus will the inner life—the soul—be renewed and character developed into the similitude of our Lord.

C. Health Reform and the Value of Human Life Let us return to the statement of purpose quoted at the beginning of this paper. Let me quote it again in full:

44 Ibid., 434; also 487. 45 Ibid., 21. 46 RH, May 27, 1902 par. 4. Writing to Adventists she states, “You need clear, energetic minds, in order to appreciate the exalted character of the truth, to value the atonement, and to place the right estimate upon eternal things. If you pursue a wrong course and indulge in wrong habits of eating, and thereby weaken the intellectual powers, you will not place that high estimate upon salvation and eternal life which will inspire you to conform your life to the life of Christ; you will not make those earnest, self-sacrificing efforts for entire conformity to the will of God which His word requires and which are necessary to give you a moral fitness for the finishing touch of immortality” (2T 66). 47 MH 146.

145 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

We will comment on the last clause of the statement: “that obedience to them promotes happiness in this life, and aids in the preparation for the life to come.” For Ellen White life, and particularly human life, is good and extremely valuable. “Life is a gift of God.”48 Sin has devalued human life and every evil practice devalues it even more leading many to conclude that life on this planet is a miserable burden; even hell. Sickness damages the quality of our lives and deprives us of happiness. White states, “There is sickness everywhere, and most of it might be prevented by attention to the laws of health. The people need to see the bearing of health principles upon their well-being . . . .”49 She goes on to say that “the decline in physical vigor and power of endurance is alarming. It demands the attention of all who have at heart the well-being of their fellow men.”50 Notice that what should move us to promote health reform is our interest in the well-being of others; a well-being that is being seriously damage by their eating habits and their intemperance. The health reform promoted by Ellen White procures to improve the quality of life on the planet: “There is a great work to be done for suffering humanity in relieving their sufferings by the use of the natural agencies that God has provided, and in teaching them how to prevent sickness by the regulation of the appetites and passions.”51 The model offered by her is the ministry of Jesus.

When Christ saw the multitudes that gathered about Him, “He was moved to compassion on them. . . .” Christ saw the sickness, the sorrow, the want and degradation of the multitudes that thronged His steps. To Him were presented the needs and woes of humanity throughout the world. Among the high and the low, the most honored and the most degraded, He beheld souls who were longing for the very blessing He had come to bring; souls who needed only a knowledge of His grace, to become subjects of His kingdom.52

48 CH 41. 49 CME 32. 50 CD 441. 51 CH 206. 52 Ibid., 13.

146 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE

This depressing vision of human suffering was one of the reasons for His interest in healing the sick. Humans have ruined their health through intemperate habits and many of them tend to “feel that they are without hope either for this life or for the life to come. . .” Some even “speak of these erring ones as hopeless; but God looks upon them with pitying tenderness.”53 God “calls upon His people to be His helping hand in relieving their wants.”54 Health reform is not the final cure for the problem of sickness and suffering, but it contributes to alleviating and preventing suffering; thus helping the human family to enjoy a little more of the divine and precious gift of life. The holy ambition of Christians should be “to make the world better for their having lived in it. This is the work to which they are called.”55 We should teach “that health is to be secured through obedience to the laws that God has established for the good of all mankind.”56 The enjoyment of life is inseparable from the religious dimension of the human being. The experience of the divine in the human mind, soul, and body brings with it healing power. Our spiritual connection to God is not detrimental to our health but fundamental for it. “The influence of the Spirit of God is the very best medicine for disease. Heaven is all health; and the more deeply heavenly influences are realized, the more sure will be the recovery of the believing invalid. The true principles of Christianity open before all a source of inestimable happiness.”57 God wants us to be happy and to enjoy life to its fullest. The following statement establishes a direct connection between the love of God and its healing power in the totality of the human being:

The love which Christ diffuses through the whole being is a vitalizing power. Every vital part—the brain, the heart, the nerves—it touches with healing. By it the highest energies of the being are aroused to activity. It frees the soul from the guilt and sorrow, the anxiety and care, that crush the life forces. With it come serenity and composure. It implants in the

53 Ibid., 14. 54 Ibid. 55 MH 398. 56 Ibid., 113. 57 CH 28.

147 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

soul joy that nothing earthly can destroy,—joy in the Holy Spirit,—health- giving, life-giving joy.58

The power of the love of God poured into our hearts is experienced not in the soul as an entity detached from the material body but on the human being as an indivisible unity—the brain, the heart, the nerves. The love of God touches the human body—the totality of the person. We could call this a spiritual-psychosomatic experience of healing. The health reform has the purpose of increasing the well-being of every human being in order for them to enjoy life as much as possible in a world that is still under the tyranny of sin.

III. Other Theological Concepts Associated with Health Reform In addition to the biblical doctrines of God and humans and the divine concern for the enjoyment of life, there are several other biblical concepts that are directly connected by Ellen White to health reform. We will explore three of them that appear to be particularly important to her.

A. Soteriology Any attempt to promote health reform should be always connected to the redemptive work of Christ on behalf of the human race or it would lack lasting value. Without Him any possibility of true healing is simply impossible. He is “the Great Healer.”59 It should be clearly stated that “it is only through the grace of Christ that the work of restoration, physical, mental, and spiritual, can be accomplished.”60 This is possible because He did the unimaginable for us:

Christ alone was able to bear the afflictions of the many. “In all their affliction he was afflicted.” He never bore disease in His own flesh, but

58 MH 115. Notice how carrying for others brings healing: “If the mind is free and happy, from a consciousness of right doing and a sense of satisfaction in causing happiness to others, it creates a cheerfulness that will react upon the whole system, causing a freer circulation of the blood and a toning up of the entire body. The blessing of God is a healing power, and those who are abundant in benefitting others will realize that wondrous blessing in both heart and life” (CH 28). 59 CME 34. 60 MH 142-143.

148 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE

He carried the sickness of others. With tenderest sympathy He looked upon the suffering ones who pressed about Him. He groaned in spirit as He saw the work of Satan revealed in all their woe, and He made every case of need and of sorrow His own. . . . The power of love was in all His healing. He identified His interests with suffering humanity.61

This statement suggests that somehow Jesus vicariously bore on Himself the diseases of those He healed. Vicariously because it is said that “he never bore disease in His own flesh” and yet He “alone was able to bear the afflictions of the many” or “he carried the sickness of others.” His healing miracles were performed in anticipation of His own suffering on the cross. In fact, we are told, that “as He witnessed the suffering of humanity, He knew that He must bear a greater pain, mingled with mockery, that He would suffer the greatest humiliation. When He raised Lazarus from the dead, He knew that for that life He must pay the ransom on the cross of Calvary.”62 Herein lays the mystery of the healing power of the cross, “in coming to the world in human form, in becoming subject to the law, in revealing to men that He bore their sickness, their sorrow, their guilt, Christ did not become a sinner. He was pure and uncontaminated by any disease. Not one stain of sin was found upon Him. . . . He stood before the world the spotless Lamb of God.”63 Yet, He experienced in His own person and as our substitute the ultimate fate of our sickness; death. It could be said that sickness is the incursion of death in the sphere of life in order to end life. It is because the Sinless One, the one in whom there was no disease, took our place that the cross has become the place from which the healing power of God flows to suffering humanity. The one who did not need healing was wounded in order for us to be healed. Atonement is the ultimate solution to the problem sickness, suffering, and death. Meanwhile, “Christ is no longer in this world in person, to go through our cities and towns and villages, healing the sick; but He has commissioned us to carry forward the medical missionary work that He began.”64 Ellen White is referring here to what she calls the health reform

61 CTr 251. 62 Ibid. 63 TMK 67. 64 9T 168.

149 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY program which includes teaching and practicing the health principles, use of rational medicine, and praying for the sick. The Scriptures clearly teach that healing can take place through prayer in the name of Jesus. But we know through personal experience that this is not always the case. In such cases we can affirm that healing takes places at a deeper level: “When the sick pray for the recovery of health, the Lord does not always answer their prayer in just the way they desire. But even though they may not be immediately healed, He will give them that which is of far more value—grace to bear their sickness.”65 What is offered here is a deeper understanding of healing. The healing power of God is manifested in this situation through His sustaining grace that enables us to carry the burden with courage and full confidence in His love.66 “Sickness and pain may test and try our patience and our faith, but the brightness of the Presence [the Shekinah] of the universe is with us and we must hide self behind Jesus.”67 The idea seems to be that in such cases we can find refuge in Christ thus strengthening our relationship with Him. The message of salvation through faith in the atoning work of Christ has in itself healing power. “If all would accept the righteousness of Christ, we should not see so much sickness in our world. Everyone would strive to take care of the house he inhabits. He would purify his soul by obeying the truth.”68 This is based on the fact that through His death Christ redeemed us and consequently our body, mind, and soul belong to Him. We are not our own but were “purchased with a dear price . . . . If we could understand this and fully realize it, we would feel a great responsibility resting upon us to keep ourselves in the very best condition of health, that we might render to God perfect service.”69 Our bodies should be used to glorify our Creator and

65 HP 82. 66 This idea comes very close to the distinction made in medical anthropology between cure and healing. Curing “is the strategy of destroying or checking a pathogen, removing a malfunctioning or non-functioning organ, restoring a person to health or well-being;” while healing “is the restoration of meaning to life. It is the strategy of restoring social and personal meaning for life problems that accompany human health misfortunes” (John J. Pilch, Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical Anthropology (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2000), 153, 155. A person can heal without being cured of an illness. 67 2MR 37. 68 RH, April 30, 1901, par. 9. 69 CH 43.

150 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE

Redeemer.70 We are God’s appointed stewards of our bodies because He redeemed us as one unity of indivisible life. From the soteriological perspective our ultimate victory over sickness and death will take place at the Parousia: “When Christ comes, sorrow and sighing will be forever ended. Then will be the Christian’s summer. All trials will be over, and there will be no more sickness or death.”71

B. Eschatology Ellen White, as we should have expected, connects health reform to end-time eschatological expectations. She counseled that “as we near the close of time, we must rise higher and still higher upon the question of health reform and Christian temperance, presenting it in a more positive and decided manner.”72 She argues that health reform will assist us in growing in holiness before the Lord by bringing into subjection our appetites and submitting the passions of the body to the mind in the power of the Spirit.73 It is the divine intention to preserve our bodies holy and our spirits pure in a world packed with corruption.74 At a time when the human body is abused by many, we are exhorted to understand our physical bodies in order to proclaim with the psalmist, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps 139:14). In other words, the study of human physiology as part of the health reform will result in these last days in a recognition and proclamation of God as our Creator. There is healing power in praising the Lord.

70 She indicates that “the knowledge that man is to be a temple for God, a habitation for the revealing of His glory, should be the highest incentive to the care and development of our physical powers. Fearfully and wonderfully has the Creator wrought in the human frame, and He bids us make it our study, understand its needs, and act our part in preserving it from harm and defilement” (MH 271). 71 Hvn 60. 72 CH 467. 73 RH, April 30, 1914, pars. 5-6. She specifically states that “God’s elect must stand untainted amid the corruptions teeming around them in these last days. Their bodies must be made holy, their spirits pure. If this work is to be accomplished, it must be undertaken at once, earnestly and understandingly. The Spirit of God should have perfect control, influencing every action. The health reform is one branch of the great work which is to fit a people for the coming of the Lord. It is as closely connected with the third angel’s message as the hand is with the body” (CH 20-21). 74 CH 45.

151 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY

It is in the context of the last days’ deceptions that Ellen White establishes a clear connection between eschatology and health reform.75 One of the most important points of controversy at the close of the cosmic conflict will be miraculous healings. Satan will appear to “the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies.”76 He will appear as “a benefactor of the race, healing the diseases of the people and professing to present a new and more exalted system of religious faith.”77 Perhaps we can refer to this as a false health reform, probably based on emotionalism, that is totally detached from the rational elements that characterize the true reform that seeks to heal the totality of the person—body, mind, and soul. The healing miracles of Jesus healed the whole person and brought them into harmony with God’s will: “From Him [Jesus] flowed a stream of healing power, and in body and mind and soul men were made whole.”78 This, the false health reform will not be able to achieve. Jesus “made each work of healing an occasion for implanting divine principles in the mind and soul.”79 In the ministry of Jesus “deliverance from sin and the healing of disease were linked together” and this ministry has been committed to His people.80 The new religion promoted by evil powers does not bring this type of biblical healing because it lacks the power to transform human beings. The end-time confrontation between true and false healing will test the people of God. She seems to be suggesting that it will require from them a clear understanding of the biblical teachings on health and healing that will help them distinguish between truth and falsehood.

C. Theodicy: The Act of Justifying God Theodicy (theos, “God” and dike, “judgment”) attempts to demonstrate that God is love and all powerful in spite of the fact that there is evil and suffering in the world. The problem of human suffering is complex and only during the final judgment we would be able to gain a complete

75 The best exposition of the views of Ellen G. White on eschatology is found in her book The Great Controversy, 563-678. 76 CH 461. 77 Ibid., 460. 78 MH 17. 79 Ibid., 20. 80 Ibid., 111.

152 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE understanding of the divine interaction with it. Nevertheless, there are many things we can say to defend the loving nature of God and His power in the context of suffering and death. It is interesting and perhaps surprising to find Ellen White arguing in favor of the love of God in her discussions on disease, sickness, and human suffering. To certain extent health reform is used by her to defend the divine character and to assign responsibility for the suffering caused by sickness to others except God. Her theodicy, if you please, is offered to the reader in the form of a narrative. This is understandable because in the Bible God reveals His character within the movement of history; in the interaction with human beings. Ellen White takes us to the moment when God created Adam and Eve; when humans came from the hand of the Lord. Then the human “faculties of mind and body were fully developed and harmoniously balanced” and human nature “was in perfect harmony with the will of God.”81 The “appetite and passions” of the first couple were “under the control of reason” and the “mind was capable of comprehending divine things.”82 In other words, God brought into existence a human being perfect in body, mind, and soul untouched by the corrupting presence and power of evil and suffering. God established laws to regulate His creation and, since He is love, in everything He did “He had the well-being of humanity in view.”83 The theodicy begins emphasizing the original goodness of God’s creation. There was nothing in the constitution of humans that would by nature lend itself to corruption. The legitimate action of the appetites of human nature “would have prompted health and happiness.”84 The goodness of creation was a reflection of the essential goodness of the Creator. The beginning of suffering and disease on this planet is traced back by White to the fall, when humans, influenced by the enemy of God, lost their moral and spiritual uprightness and the appetites and passions were perverted bringing with it death. According to her, “sin is the cause of physical degeneration; sin has blighted the race, and introduced disease, misery, and death.”85 The clear implication is that God should not be

81 PHJ, February 1, 1902 par.1. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid., par. 2. 84 Ibid., par. 3. 85 Ibid.

153 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY charged with the emergence of disease and misery on the planet. Unfortunately, since then the tendency of the human race has been downward, the effect of sin has become “more marked with every successive generation.”86 After the flood, the life span of humans began to decrease. By the time of Christ “humanity had so degenerated that many endured a terrible weight of misery.”87 The situation today, she says, is still more deplorable.

Diseases of every type have been developed. Thousands of poor mortals with deformed, sickly bodies and shattered nerves, are dragging out a miserable existence. The infirmities of the body affect the mind, and lead to gloom, doubt, and despair. Even infants in the cradle suffer from diseases resulting from the sins of their parents.88

Sadly, this situation has prevailed for so long that many have concluded that this is the “appointed lot of humanity;” the natural condition of every human being. To this she responds, “This is not the case.” She is rejecting fatalism. Then she proceeds to exculpate God—He is not the author of disease and it is not His desire to see His creatures suffering. She also argues that Adam’s transgression “is not the only cause of our unhappy lot. A succession of falls has occurred since Adam’s day”89 and consequently we find ourselves in the condition in which we are now. The enemy, who enticed Adam and Eve, has been working to deface the image of God by depraving humanity.90 What we witness is the success of his work “in the indulgence of depraved appetites and lustful passions, in defilement and corruption, deformity and sin.” The work of Satan, the fall of Adam and Eve, and the successive falls of human beings are the causes of the mental and physical degeneration of the race and therefore it would be wrong to attribute the present condition of the world to God’s providence.91 Through the indulgence of perverted appetite humans “have declined in virtue” and

86 Ibid., par. 4. 87 Ibid., pars. 5-6. 88 Ibid., par. 7. 89 Ibid., par. 8. 90 She clearly states, “Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer” (MH 113). 91 PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 9.

154 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE become weakened “through their own immoral practices and their violation of physical law.”92 She is placing responsibility where it belongs in order for humans to acknowledge and assume responsibility for it. The idea seems to be that one of the ways to assume responsibility is to start practicing the principles of healthful living. Ellen White passionately argues that the sickness that comes as a result of the violation of natural law is not a punishment from God but something that humans bring on themselves.93 They experience the result of violating natural law. Nature protests against any violation of the laws of life and “bears abuse as long as she can; but finally retribution comes, and the mental as well as the physical powers suffer. Nor does the punishment fall on the transgressor alone; the effects of his indulgence are seen in his offspring, and thus the evil is passed on from generation to generation.”94 She acknowledges that in the world in which we live the innocent suffer as the result of the decisions and actions of others. But, where is God and what is He doing for the human race? The most important thing he did for us was to send His Son as “the great sacrifice made for the uplifting and ennobling of the human race.”95 While the enemy of God has been working corrupting humans, God through Christ has been doing the opposite. Today, in the midst of the present chaos of sickness and suffering, God is constantly working to keep us alive and to build up and restore us.96 In His providence He has also raised awareness of the need to care for human health and interest in the study of the laws of nature that regulate our physical being and that, if obeyed, would alleviate human

92 Ibid., par. 10. 93 RH, May 27, 1902 par. 7. 94 PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 11. She has practically personified nature by describing it as bearing abuse and finally bringing retribution or punishing those who abused her. In the statement, she is obviously referring to the laws of heredity as one of the sources of disease but for her this is not the only one. Her etiology of sickness deserves careful study. One should keep in mind that even those who care for their health would get sick because we live in a world of sickness and death and our bodies have not yet been redeemed. She indicates that human social solidarity contributes to the suffering of the innocent: “You are not the only sufferer from a wrong course. The society you are in bears the consequences of your wrongs, in a great degree, as well as yourselves” (CH 45). 95 Ev 530. 96 MH 112.

155 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY suffering and in many cases illnesses would be avoided.97 It would be correct to say that God is using scientist around the world who are studying the issue of health and how to overcome diseases in His battle against illness and suffering. He has also entrusted to believers His self-revelation in Scripture. “Compliance with its requirements will be a blessing to both soul and body. The fruit of the Spirit is not only love, joy, and peace, but temperance also,—health of body as well as health of mind.”98 Ellen White is totally aware of the complexity of human suffering caused by diseases. She identifies the primary agent of suffering as Satan, Adam as the initiator of it in our world through the fall, and its increase through the succession of falls by his descendants. The responsibility for the misery and pain that we see today is to a large extent placed by her on the shoulders of human beings who, instigated by the enemy, have chosen to violate the laws of nature. God is not responsible for this situation at all. On the contrary He is constantly working to preserve life on the planet and to alleviate pain and suffering in anticipation of the moment when He will remove them forever from the planet.

IV. Conclusion It may be good to reexamine the role that a concern for health should play in the Christian church and in the world at large. The purpose of the health reform promoted by Ellen White is broad and universal in scope because the problem it addresses—sickness and suffering—is also universal; no one has been able to avoid its painful sting. For her, health reform is theocentric and Christ centered because God is the only one who can truly heal. He is the Creator of the laws of nature that govern the proper performance of the human body and the one who through these laws provides the power needed for true healing. This healing power reaches us through our Lord Jesus Christ. The health reform makes it possible for us to work harmoniously with God in the preservation of human health. The health program promoted by Ellen White is also supported by biblical anthropology. As a being endowed by God with the capacity to reach fullness of being, that is to say, to develop and grow as a single unity of life, humans are to care for their bodies in the realization of that

97 CH 21; and PHJ, February 1, 1902 par. 15. 98 Ibid., par. 16.

156 RODRÍGUEZ: HEALTH REFORM IN THE WRITINGS OF E. G. WHITE potential. The health reform contributes to the preservation of humanness and rationality. This is necessary because humans are an indivisible unity of life in bodily form in which body, mind, and soul are so interconnected that what damages one of these dimensions damages the others. The biblical theology of the value of life is also part of the theological foundation of the health reform. God created human life to be enjoyed and not to be a burden and He is doing all He can for us to enjoy it as much as possible in a world of sickness, suffering, and death. The health reform makes a contribution to the enjoyment of life. The health reform program of Ellen White is inseparable from biblical soteriology. Without Christ there is no true healing. He took the ultimate destiny of human disease, death, upon Himself in order for us to enjoy freedom from it. The health reform alleviates the present suffering of humanity while waiting for the moment when Christ’s victory over sickness, suffering, and death will be consummated. Eschatology is also important in the study of health reform in Ellen White. The forces of evil will offer their own health reform program to the human race. They will offer human beings a new way of overcoming the predicament of sickness and human suffering without transforming the inner being of sinners. The true health reform aims at unmasking this end-time deception. White emphasizes in a unique way theodicy in the context of sickness and suffering. God is not the originator of this cruelty and neither is He using it to punish the human race. The health reform program contributes to manifest God’s loving concern for humankind.

Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, Th.D, is the former Director of the Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. He held that position for ten years and that of Associate Director for ten years. At the present time he continues to work part-time for the Institute. He has published over twelve books and pamphlets and hundreds of articles in books, journals, and magazines. During his years of service at the Institute, Rodríguez participated in dozens of Bible Conferences and Theological Symposiums around the world and in several interfaith conversations with theologians from other Christian communities. [email protected]

“We Thank God for You” How Thanksgiving Transforms Our Walk: A Study in the Theology of Colossians1

Thomas R. Shepherd Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Andrews University

Introduction–A Shared Experience Giving thanks is a complex social concept and construct. It is an expression of appreciation from someone who has received a benefit, to the giver of that benefit. It implicitly involves a power differential between the individuals, where one has a need which the other supplies. It is a recognition that the benefit was not only received, but valued by the recipient. The expression of gratitude modifies the relationship between the receiver of the benefit and the giver. It indicates that the benefit has created goodwill within the recipient toward the giver, a sense of friendship which the very expression of appreciation deepens. Giving thanks is as much a modification of outlook as it is an active expression. On the theological level giving of thanks is even more complex. It involves thanking God for some benefit or experience through which the person has gone. Or it may involve thanking God for someone who is in some way special to the petitioner or has been the agent of God in helping the recipient. In this case a triad of relationships is involved. When we thank God for an individual, or in light of something they have done, we express to the Almighty our appreciation for His action in

1 Presidential Address, Adventist Theological Society, San Diego, California, November 21, 2014.

29 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY bringing about the cause of the prayer. At the same time, if the person for whom we thank God in some way becomes aware of our prayer, it can create within them a deepened sense of relationship, friendship and gratitude for the person praying. The bond of friendship is deepened by the theological context in which it occurs. Both individuals have relationship to God and the thanksgiving indicates a shared theological understanding and relationship to the Almighty. This in turn deepens the ties between the individuals.2

Paul’s Use of Thanksgiving in Epistles It is no small matter, therefore, that the apostle Paul uses the concept of thanksgiving so often in the opening lines of his epistles.3 He is in effect deepening his ties to his churches through the shared relationship to God.4 He indicates that he appreciates in some way what the recipients

2 This is nicely illustrated in 2 Corinthians 9 where Paul describes blessings God gives that then become a source of giving to others who return thanks to God and pray for the human agents who gave the gifts. I call it the Circle of Blessing. 3 For a discussion and bibliography on Paul’s use of thanksgiving in his epistolary openings see Jeffrey T. Reed, “Are Paul’s Thanksgivings ‘Epistolary’?,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 61 (1996): 87-99. For a discussion of formulae relating to thanksgiving in introductions of letters in the ancient world see Peter Arzt, “The ‘Epistolary Introductory Thanksgiving’ in the Papyri and in Paul,” Novum Testamentum 36 (1994:1): 29-46. Reed’s article critiques Arzt’s. 4 Cf. Raymond F. Collins, “A Significant Decade: The Trajectory of the Hellenistic Epistolary Thanksgiving,” in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Sean A. Adams (Boston, MA: Brill, 2010), 159-184. On p. 180 he states, “Paul, his addressees, and God constitute the essential thematic elements of Paul’s thanksgivings. . . . Paul thanks God for what God has effected among his addresses.” On p. 172 Collins notes, “Paul’s thanksgiving [in 1 Thessalonians] shares with the thanksgivings of the earlier papyri letters a similar function, that is, an appeal to the good will of the addressee(s). In the papyri letters and in Paul’s thanksgiving the motivation for the thanksgiving is an experience of the addressees, an experience of (at least presumed) good health in the papyri letters, a religious experience in the case of Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians.” David W. Pao in his article in the same book titled “Gospel within the Constraints of an Epistolary Form: Pauline Introductory Thanksgivings and Paul’s Theology of Thanksgiving,” 101-127, on p. 121 states, “. . . the Hellenistic formula valetudinis [health wish] aims at securing the relationship between the author and the recipient, thus providing the groundwork for the main point of the letter. In Paul’s letters, however, the focus on God’s work among the churches, as well as their responses to God, points to the fact that Paul is more concerned with the relationship between his audience and their God.” Certainly, Paul is more concerned for the relationship between the recipients and God than to him, but the linkages are three way, with Paul bonded to the believers as well. That he is praying for them, and they know of his prayer,

30 SHEPHERD: A STUDY IN THE THEOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS of the letters mean to him. A review of the openings of his epistles indicates that he most often uses the terminology “I thank God” (åÛ÷áñéóôä ôè èåè ) combined with a reference “for you” (ðåñÂ ßìäí) and some reference to prayer.5 Thus in the very opening address of his epistles, Paul cements his relationship with his churches through the thanksgiving link to God.6 Most of us do not write letters today following this pattern of thanksgiving to God or blessing Him, so we may be tempted to consider this as rather flowery, even superfluous religious language.7 We may also cements the bond between Paul and the believers. Second Corinthians 9, again, illustrates this nicely where there is mutual good will created in the Circle of Blessing. 5 In the 13 epistles, Romans through Philemon, 3 do not have thanksgiving or blessing, Galatians, 1 Timothy and Titus. Excluding these, of the other 10, 6 make mention of prayer, 8 make reference to thanksgiving, and 8 make reference to “you.” In Colossians åÛ- ÷áñéóôÝù is in the plural since Paul and Timothy are listed as authors. The terms for prayer vary (ðñïóåõ÷Þ, äÝçóéò, ðñïóåý÷ïìáé). There is great debate on how much of Paul’s thanksgivings in his letters follows any pattern in ancient Hellenistic letters, whether there is even such a pattern in Hellenistic letters of the period, and whether one can even speak of a pattern in Paul’s letters. Note Pao’s comment on Arzt’s and Reed’s articles, “. . . both Arzt and Reed conclude that one can no longer speak of the Hellenistic epistolary ‘introductory thanksgiving.’” Pao, “Epistolary Form,” 109. Reed, it seems to me, would disagree with this assessment, cf. Reed, “Paul’s Thanksgivings,” 90-94, but Pao critiques him well on pp. 108-109 of his own article. 6 The glaring exception is Galatians where the apostle is so upset by the heresy sweeping the Galatian churches that he omits traditional friendly greetings to move directly to what shocks him. The lack of thanksgiving reduplicates in the reader Paul’s own alarm. In fact, one could almost call the opening of Galatians an “anti-thanksgiving” as Paul uses the terminology of shock and pronounces a double anathema (cf. the use of èáõìÜæù “I marvel,” v. 6, and íÜèåìá “accursed,” v. 8-9). Cf. Peter Arzt-Grabner, “Paul’s Letter Thanksgiving,” in Paul and the Ancient Letter Form, 129-158. On p. 156 he notes, “When the relationship between Paul and a community is really bad, there is no reason at all for Paul–as for any other letter writer–to express thankfulness at the beginning of the letter body. On the contrary, Paul expresses his astonishment for the community’s bad behavior, which is the function of the èáõìÜæù clause in Gal 1:6-7.” 7 We are more influenced by our culture than we typically are willing to admit. Western society today has a secular worldview. The Greco-Roman culture had a sacral worldview. It was common in letters in the ancient world for people to give thanks to a god or the gods for the health of the person they were writing to or to thank the gods for helping them escape danger. See Collins’ delineation of examples, Collins, “A Significant Decade,” 160-162. Note also the parallel he draws to 2 Macc 1:10-12 on p. 167. It might be argued that Paul is simply using a typical form, therefore, that does not have great significance. But this would seem odd for such a careful writer like Paul, particularly since his thanksgivings are longer than in most ancient letters. Cf. Collins, “Significant Decade,” 172. Pao responds to the

31 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY be drawn to scan down the page to find where the “real theology” begins. But in this we would be quite mistaken. Pauline scholars have noted how the apostle typically introduces the major themes of his letters in the thanksgiving or blessing section that follows immediately on his epistolary introduction.8 Thus the role of the thanksgiving section is twofold–to confirm and build the bond between Paul and his churches, and to introduce the themes of the letters.

The Surprise in Colossians However, Colossians goes beyond the typical pattern of thanksgiving in the opening section of the book and a reference here or there. Six times in this short epistle Paul uses the thanksgiving word group.9 It is a striking departure and caught my attention. 10 As is well known, the exact form of the heresy that Paul was fighting in Colossae is disputed.11 We are at a disadvantage since we only have focus on form that has predominated in New Testament scholarship on this topic as follows, “More than half a century after Shubert’s study [Paul Schubert, The Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1939)], many still feel the need to emphasize the form over the content of Paul’s letters. To do so, however, not only leads one to ignore the emphasis of the content of Paul’s letter openings, it also prevents one from noticing the significant connections between Paul’s act of thanksgiving and his own emphasis on thanksgiving in the body of his letters.” Pao, “Epistorlary Form,” 119. This phenomenon of the interconnectedness of Paul’s thanksgivings is what we will note below regarding Colossians. 8 Cf. David E. Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, Wayne A. Meeks, ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 184-186. A primary example is 1 Cor 1:4-9 where Paul uses words such as “knowledge, spiritual gift, revelation, fellowship,” all terms that will reappear later in the book. 9 One can add a seventh occurrence in 3:16 with the use of the term ÷Üñéò typically translated “grace,” but in this context probably best translated as “gratitude.” In contrast to the many uses of words of thanksgiving in Colossians, in the much larger book of Romans, Paul only uses the word group 5 times, 7 times in 1 Corinthians, 4 times in 2 Corinthians, 3 times Ephesians, 2 times Philippians, 4 times 1 Thessalonians (a bit of a theme there as well), 2 times 2 Thessalonians, 1 time 1 Timothy, 2 times 2 Timothy, 1 time Philemon. 10 Cf. James Dunn’s words, “This repeated emphasis [on thanksgiving] in Colossians makes it one of the most ‘thankful’ documents in he New Testament (1:3, 12; 2:7; 3:17; 4:2).” See James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, NIGTC (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 262. 11 See for instance, Markus Barth and Helmut Blanke, Colossians, Anchor Yale Bible, vol. 34B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994), 29-39 for a summary of options. They conclude that “the Colossian Religion [their name for the heresy described in Colossians] remains an unsolved puzzle,” 39.

32 SHEPHERD: A STUDY IN THE THEOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS half of the conversation as illustrated in the book of Colossians and do not have much other information as to what was going on. The reference to the Sabbath in Colossians 2:16 clearly illustrates that there was at least some aspect of Judaism (or a distortion of it) in the teaching that Paul counters, but other characteristics of the false teaching are confusing and suggest the possibility of a syncretic heresy.12 What comes across quite clearly in Paul’s argumentation is the centrality and supremacy of Christ. The false teachers seemed to consider Jesus insufficient to meet the salvation needs of the congregation. So they added on manmade regulations to insure that their followers would succeed in their journey heavenward.13 The problem is, when you add on to Jesus you actually subtract from Him.14 You suggest He is insufficient, you need something more. When I began to study this book I expected strong theological arguments dealing with the heresy, and they are there, particularly in Colossians 1-2 (the Christ hymn in chapter 1, and five wonderful pictures of redemption in 2:11-15 alone). So I was surprised when I came across so many references to thanksgiving. What does this have to do with the topic of heresy? It does not seem to be a theological argument so much as a liturgical one.15 Thus I set forth to map Paul’s theology of thanksgiving in Colossians.

Mapping Paul’s Theology of Thanksgiving Working on Biblical theology requires that the categories of meaning arise from what the text says. In reading the text one can begin with rather open questions, but then allow the patterns there to steer the development of classifications. Mapping the thanksgiving words within their context in Colossians led to a division of the data into four descriptive categories of giver/recipient of thanksgiving, antecedents/causes of thanksgiving, contexts of thanksgiving, and

12 Cf. David W. Pao, Colossians & Philemon, ECNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 30. 13 Cf. Col 2:18-23 with reference to worship of angels and asceticism which suggests a lining up with spiritual forces, doing what it takes to verify salvation. One might call it a type of “fire insurance,” protection against being lost, just in case Jesus was not enough. 14 I credit my Colossians teacher, Ivan Blazen, with this catchy phrase. 15 Cf. Pao’s description of the thanksgiving as worship, Pao, “Epistolary Form,” 121- 122.

33 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY implications of thanksgiving. What follows is a brief delineation of the ideas in each of these categories that Paul teaches in Colossians. Giver and Recipient of Thanksgiving Paul uses the verb, noun and adjective for thanksgiving in Colossians. Since the adjective is only found here in the entire New Testament (Col 3:15), there is no other book that has this breadth of usage.16 Whenever the apostle uses the verb he always notes that thanks is given to God and always designates Him as Father (1:3, 12; 3:17). This emphasis points to two aspects of Paul’s theology of thanksgiving. First, God is the recipient of the thanks.17 Consequently, He is the one who has given some benefit or gift to the believers, as we will see below. Second, if He is Father, then when we praise Him using this appellation we are calling on Him as His children and are a community of saints linked together in bonds of love (1:4).18 In the three uses of the verb “to give thanks” in Colossians the first in 1:3 has Paul and Timothy as the ones giving thanks for the believers in Colossae for what God has done in their lives. In the other uses in the book, the Colossian believers are the givers of thanks. Indeed, the second use of the verb (1:12) parallels the first with the Colossians themselves being called on to thank the Father who has qualified them for a share in the inheritance of the saints in light.19 Furthermore, the last usage in 4:2-3 serves as an inclusio with the first usage in 1:3. Whereas in 1:3 the apostle gives thanks for the Colossian believers, in 4:2-3, Paul asks the Colossians to pray for him

16 The verb is åÛ÷áñéóôÝù (“I give thanks”), the noun åÛ÷áñéóôßá (“thanksgiving”), and the adjective åÛ÷áñéóôüò (“thankful”). As noted earlier, in 3:16, ÷Üñéò should probably be translated “gratitude,” adding a seventh usage in Colossians of words referring to thanksgiving. 17 This is typical of Paul throughout his writings. See Pao, Colossians, 50. 18 Cf. the implication of calling God Father in the Lord’s prayer with the concomitant responsibility to forgive those who sin against me, Matt 6:9-15. Cf. also Matt 18:15-18 and the father’s plea in the story of the prodigal son, Luke 15:29-32 with “this brother of yours,” v. 32. 19 Paul sets up the parallel via a second prayer starting in v. 9. This prayer, in place of being a prayer of thanksgiving as in 1:3-4, is a prayer of intercession, that the Colossian believers may walk (live) a life worthy of the Lord. Part of that worthy walk, it is clear from the series of participles in vv. 10-12, is with joy to give thanks to the Father who qualified them for a share in the inheritance of the saints in light. The communal sense of calling God Father is illustrated via the linkage to the idea of inheritance with the saints.

34 SHEPHERD: A STUDY IN THE THEOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS and Timothy so that a door may be opened for the Word of God, in order to speak the mystery of Christ.20 These reciprocal details, emphasized via the inclusio, point toward a very communal sense of experience between Paul and this church, a communal sense of fellowship allied with thanksgiving.

Antecedents/Causes of Thanksgiving As we noted above, thanksgiving implies a power differential between the one giving thanks and the giver of the benefit. Some benefit has been received for which thanks is given. Allied with thanksgiving throughout Colossians is a profound emphasis on the gift of salvation. Over and over the apostle returns to this theme. He thanks God for the Colossians because he has heard of their faith in Christ and the love they have for all the saints (1:3-4) which is based on the hope laid up for them in the heavens (1:5). That hope is rooted in the gospel message they heard earlier which produces fruit within their lives (1:5-6). It is the Father who has empowered them to share in the inheritance of the saints (1:12). He redeemed them from darkness and transferred them into the kingdom of His beloved Son (1:13). They were taught the gospel and now are rooted, built and established on Christ (2:7). They have taken off the old person with its pagan practices and have put on the new person as the chosen of God, holy, beloved, full of the virtues of Christian character including thanksgiving (3:5-15). Paul is crystal clear in describing the change that has taken place in the lives of these people. They were in darkness and pagan wicked practices, and were redeemed from all these vices and evil by the power of God. The power differential, therefore, is soteriological in nature – from darkness to light (1:12-13), from uncircumcision to the circumcision of Christ (2:11), dead in trespasses, brought back to life with Christ with trespasses forgiven, the debt of sin erased, and the powers of darkness defeated (2:12-15). Thanksgiving in Colossians is based on a power transaction of redemption where the person has moved from the wicked world to the kingdom of God’s beloved Son in whom the believers have redemption,

20 Cf. Dunn, Colossians, 261.

35 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY the forgiveness of sins (1:13-14).21 Thus, it is no surprise that the book of Colossians emphasizes the power of Christ and His victory over the forces of evil (1:15-20, 2:11-15). It is participation in Christ’s victory that calls forth thanksgiving from the believers as they acknowledge what God has done for them and in their lives.

Contexts of Thanksgiving Whereas salvation is the antecedent of thanksgiving it is a large part of the context surrounding the idea of giving thanks to God in Colossians. Paul describes that salvation experience as a past event, something God has already done in the lives of the believers. However, there are current realities, both positive and negative, that are also linked with the experience of giving thanks. On the positive side, the believers have faith in Christ and love for all the saints in their lives (1:4). It was this that came to Paul’s attention and called forth his prayer of thanksgiving (1:3-4). The word of truth in the gospel also resides with these people and bears fruit in their lives (1:5-6). Much of what Paul says about thanksgiving is couched in words of intercessory prayer (1:9-12) or in exhortations to live in accordance with Christian ideals (2:6-7; 3:12-15; 4:2-3). These calls to action imply a situation where such typical Christian behavior is under threat from outside sources. Paul focuses attention on the positive to counter the negative. He speaks of the worthy walk (1:9-11; 2:6-7) in which the believer is rooted and built on Christ and established in the faith. But the negative is not absent from his discourse. Threat arises from without and within. In chapter 2 it is the false teachers who threaten the church with their “add on to Jesus” type of philosophy in which much activity is intended to align the person with the angels and elemental spirits of the universe (2:8, 16-23).22 The false teachers disseminate a doctrine of strict asceticism probably with the idea of preparing their

21 Cf. Pao’s words concerning Paul’s introductory thanksgiving formulae in general, “In the Pauline introductory paragraphs, Paul repeatedly points back to Christ’s redemptive act on the cross as the grounds of thanksgiving: . . .” Pao, “Epistolary Form,” 122. 22 See Pao, Colossians, 160-161 for a helpful discussion of the óôïé÷åÃá, the elemental spirits of the heavenly realm. Paul teaches that all rulers, powers and authorities are in subjection to Christ (1:15-20; 2:15).

36 SHEPHERD: A STUDY IN THE THEOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS adherents for meeting the angels (2:18, 20-23).23 It is a harsh lifestyle meant to gain one access to heavenly or spiritual realities. It sounds like anything but thanksgiving. Paul counters all this false teaching with the overwhelmingly positive and joyous message of salvation in Christ and the thanksgiving that flows from believers in recognition of that gift. Thus thanksgiving is an antidote to heresy.24 And not surprisingly so, since thanksgiving focuses the attention on God and the fullness and completeness we have in Christ (2:9-10). If you are worshiping God in thankfulness and are full of Christ, there is no room for false teaching to slip in. But Paul does not naively describe the group of faithful believers as one homogeneous group without internal challenges. From within the apostle notes the threat of strife that can arise in the community of faith (3:12-15). He calls for patience and forgiveness if someone has a complaint they bring. Complaining is the opposite of thanksgiving. Paul reminds the believers that God has forgiven them, so they must follow His example and forgive others (3:13). They are to wear these gracious attributes like a garment, topped by love, the bond of perfection (3:14), with the peace of Christ reigning in their hearts (3:15). It is in this context that Paul indicates that the believers are to “be thankful” (3:15).25 Thankfulness is not to be simply something Christians express from time to time. It is so to permeate their character that it can withstand the blows of trials and troubles that arise in any congregation or community.26 Paul goes on to express that the word of Christ is to dwell richly in their lives, in teaching, singing in the heart to God (3:16). The permeation of the Christian’s life with thanksgiving is expressed in the

23 Cf. Ibid., 194-195. 24 Thanksgiving is part of the group boundary formation or at least a marker of that boundary. Paul thanks God for the believers, not the false teachers. 25 This is the one use of the adjective åÛ÷áñéóôüò in the New Testament, allied with the verb ãßíïìáé (“to be, to become”), used frequently, as here, to express a state of being. 26 The use of ãßíïìáé (“to be, to become”), in place of åÆìß (“to be”) may simply be stylistic variation. But O’Brien indicates that it points toward a constant striving toward the goal of “becoming” that thankful person. This concept expresses the active nature of such thanksgiving. See Peter T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon, WBC, vol. 44 (Waco: Word Books, 1982), 206. Cf. Dunn, Colossians, 235, “We could translate ‘Be thankful people,’ those who are characterized by their thankfulness, or indeed, ‘keep being or becoming (ãßíåóèå) thankful,’ the verb indicating an ongoing responsibility . . .”

37 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY capstone statement of 3:17, “And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.”27 One more interesting note in this section is the flavor or manner in which Paul calls for thanksgiving. When he opens his description of thanksgiving in 1:3, he notes that he gives thanks “always” (ðÜíôïôå) in his prayers. In 1:11-12, the thanksgiving is to be given to the Father “with joy” (÷áñÜ). In 2:7, the believers are called on to be “abounding” (ðåñéóóåýù) in thanksgiving. And as we noted above, in 3:17, it is in “whatever you do in word or deed” that they are to thank God the Father.28 It is a rather exuberant, dynamic, extensive view of thanksgiving. It suggests a powerful force bubbling forth from the person’s life.29 No wonder it is part of the antidote to heresy.

Implications of Thanksgiving Interestingly, Paul presents one more view of the theology of thanksgiving in 4:2 as he comes to the end of his discourse. As noted above, the call to prayer and thanksgiving in 4:2 is an inclusio with the prayer of thanksgiving in 1:3. In 1:3 Paul and Timothy pray for the Colossian believers. In 4:2 the saints are called on to pray for Paul and Timothy. The interconnection of the community is reiterated, but with a striking addition.30 In this closing section Paul calls on the believers to persist in prayer.31 He emphasizes this idea of persistence by use of the term “watching” which he ties to thanksgiving “watching in it with thanksgiving.” The Greek verb for “watching” is ãñçãïñÝù which means

27 My translation. 28 The phraseology includes the concept of “all” – êáÂ ðí Ó ôé ¦í ðïéôå “all, whatever you do.” 29 Contra Dunn who sees the emphasis on “always” praying for you (1:3) and “abounding” in thanksgiving (2:7) as mere “Pauline flourishes.” Dunn, Colossians, 56, 142. The evidence against Dunn’s perspective is the way that Paul rather consistently modifies the concept of thanksgiving with a variety of terms like “always” “with joy” “all that you do” throughout the book. It is as though Paul is building a consistent wall of joyful thanksgiving against false teaching. 30 We will see below that actually the “addition” in 4:2 has a parallel in 1:3-5. But Paul uses more terms in chapter 4 than chapter 1, and allies them more closely with thanksgiving in chapter 4. 31 The verb is ðñïóêáñôåñÝù, which means “to persist obstinately in, adhere firmly to, devote oneself to.”

38 SHEPHERD: A STUDY IN THE THEOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS “to stay awake.” It is a term that appears on the lips of Jesus when He refers to readiness for the Eschaton (Matt 24:42-43; 25:13; Mark 13:34- 37; Luke 12:37). And Paul uses the term the same way in 1 Thessalonians 5:6 where he allies the term with sobriety.32 These contexts suggest that thanksgiving in Colossians also has an eschatological perspective. Because of its focus on God, as we have noted above, it is not surprising to see thanksgiving include this eschatological nature. That is to say, facing towards God, the Christian is facing towards the eschatological fulfillment of the salvation hope embodied in the present experience of the kingdom of God (1:5, 13).33 Thanksgiving helps the Christian stay awake to the promise of Christ’s soon return. This aspect of 4:2 also contributes to the inclusio with 1:3-5. In 1:3-5 Paul thanks God for the Christians because he has heard of their faith in Christ and their love for one another. But he goes on to say that these traits are based on the hope laid up for the Christians in heaven.34 Thus in both contexts thanksgiving is set within an eschatological context.

Summary We notice therefore the impressive depth of Paul’s theology of thanksgiving. It is communal, linking saints to one another through their bond to God the Father and Jesus Christ. At the same time, as a boundary marker it separates them from the false teachers. It is deeply rooted in the experience of salvation brought in Christ. Nothing can be added to His

32 Cf. 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 3:2; 16:15. Cf. also Jesus’ words to His disciples to stay awake and watch in Gethsemane with Him (Matt 26:38-40; Mark 14:34-38). Cf. also the other eschatological phrase in 4:5 “redeeming the time” (ôÎí êáéñÎí îáãïñáæüìåíïé). Dunn notes, “That êáéñüò often has the sense of significant time, in the New Testament eschatological time (as in Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:15; 13:33; Luke 21:8; Rom. 3:26; 8:18; 13:11; 1 Cor. 4:5; 7:29; 2 Cor. 6:2; 8:14; Gal. 6:10; 1 Pet. 1:5), also helps focus the thought on the present time as a unique climactic period in which every minute is precious . . .”. Dunn, Colossians, 266. Dunn also notes other phrases in 4:2-6 that suggest an eschatological perspective, “the mystery of Christ,” “that I might reveal it” and äå “it is necessary,” in Dunn’s expression, “the divinely ordained necessity.” See Dunn, Colossians, 262. 33 Cf. Pao’s words, “. . . for Paul thanksgiving can be forward-looking as it represents a call to respond to God’s future act as if it is already an accomplished reality.” Pao, Colossians, 291. 34 Note the typical Pauline triad, faith, love, hope. Cf. 1 Cor 13:13 and 1 Thess 1:3 and 5:8.

39 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY work of redemption and thus the Christian’s thanksgiving is devoid of any personal merit. But in that complete dependence on the Lord Jesus, thanksgiving is also allied with the call to a holy and stable life of walking in the same way in which the Christian received Christ. Thanksgiving is very practical in nature, facing both the joys and difficulties of the present. It is exuberant and dynamic in character. It so fills the life that heresy finds it difficult to enter. The Christian imbued with thanksgiving reaches out to others in the community with whom some complaint resides and seeks forgiveness and reconciliation. Finally, while thanksgiving is rooted in the salvation provided by Christ in the past, and helps the Christian face the present, it is, nevertheless, forward facing, looking for the fulfillment of the hope God has set before the believer.35 As such it is an antidote to the temptation to settle down and lose the vision of the soon return of Jesus Christ.

Applications I want to take just a few moments to suggest how this profound theology in Colossians addresses us as biblical and theological scholars of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in 2014. I am sure you can think of other applications.

Community Reconciliation We live in a time when tensions exist among us over various theological issues. We study diligently and produce thoughtful papers addressing the different facets of the topics. The recent Theology of Women’s Ordination studies are a case in point where three positions were the end product. Having friends in each of the three groups respectively, I am aware that there are strongly held positions in each case and that strong words have been spoken in some cases. When we disagree sharply in a community of faith, I believe it can hamper our worship. It is time for reflection and reconciliation. This does not mean giving in on truth, but I believe it is possible to be thankful for

35 Cf. Pao’s concluding words in his article, “. . . the form of these introductory paragraphs [in Paul’s letters] is inextricably tied with their content when thanksgiving is considered as an act that draws one’s attention to God. This focus on God would then explain Paul’s emphasis on what God had done in the past and what he would do in the future for his own people. God’s people are in turn called to be faithful to him in the present age.” Pao, “Epistolary Form,” 127.

40 SHEPHERD: A STUDY IN THE THEOLOGY OF COLOSSIANS the contributions of others, particularly those who differ from me. None of us sees all the truth. We need someone else pointing out other aspects of a teaching in order to arrive at a better grasp of where God is leading us. For this we can be thankful and even find bridges for understanding each other. I am struck with the number of words emphasizing peace, forgiveness, reconciliation and worship that occur in Colossians 3:12-17, with that capstone of thankfulness to God.

The Flavor of Our Scholarship As scholars we pride ourselves in being objective in our research. If the postmodern critique has taught us anything it is that we each come at our work from a perspective, from a background that colors how we see data and report it. It is important for us to recognize this fact (we might say the “contextual perspective”). But I believe we need to move beyond a recognition of our background that influences our investigations and actively pursue thanksgiving as a pattern of thought within which to do research. As thanksgiving, according to Paul, is rooted in soteriology it is devoid of personal merit. The scholar imbued with this principle of thanksgiving can set aside personal glory to pursue studies that create networks of understanding and growth. We also know that research is more than the ideas and the publications. It is about the network of colleagues and collaborators that we build in actively pursuing a subject. Thanksgiving opens the door of connection and mutual respect which fosters deeper ties, better collaboration and richer studies. Thanksgiving does not remove realism. We cannot thank God for falsehood or wickedness, error or evil, death or destruction. But Colossians teaches us that these forces were defeated at the cross (2:15). As a conquering general, Christ brings even these maleficent powers under His sway.36 Thus in our research we need not fear the forces arrayed against us. Light dispels darkness.

36 The colorful verb Paul uses to create this word picture in 2:15 is èñéáìâåýù which means “to triumph over.” It was used to describe a conquering general returning from a successful battle, bringing the trophies of war with him. In Col 2:15 the ironic picture is of the cross as Christ’s victory chariot with the demon forces dragged behind Him in open shame.

41 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Thanksgiving–Our Eschatological Roots Finally, I believe we must allow Paul’s theology of thanksgiving to revitalize our eschatological expectation and imbue our scholarship with forward-looking anticipation. Thanksgiving is an expression of trust and hope in what God is still going to do. Paul calls on us to “redeem the time” (4:5). It is the êáéñüò, the “opportune time” in which we live. We have the privilege of researching, teaching, mentoring, publishing at the End of time, letting God work out His plan through us. May God use our talents to His glory. I thank God for you today.

Thomas R. Shepherd, PhD, DrPH, is the President of the Adventist Theological Society. He is Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, where he is also the Director of the PhD in Religion and ThD programs. He enjoys time with his family, walking, cycling, and playing the cello in the Seminary String Quartet. [email protected]

A Christian Critique of the Antimodern Quest: Challenge and Opportunity

John Wesley Taylor V Department of Education General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Since the mid-twentieth century, a remarkable paradigm shift has lead to an increasingly pervasive worldview. For lack of a better term, and because the paradigm continues to evolve, we describe it simply as antimodernism. With the term antimodernism, we encompass both the early stages, which have frequently been identified as “postmodernism,” as well as more recent developments, which some have labeled “post- postmodernism.” The latter, however, are in many ways but an extension of the fundamental reaction against modernism. Antimodernism was anticipated in the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger, among others. Leading the way into postmodernist philosophical thought were individuals such as Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, and Richard Rorty, as well as other philosophers, such as Michel Foucault, Hilary Putnam, Jürgen Habermas, and Willard Quine, who did not necessarily see themselves as postmodernists. It was Lyotard, in his work The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge,1 who first popularized the term “postmodernism” in the domain of social theory. By the turn of the century, however, there was an ongoing debate among self-labeled postmodernists as to what actually qualified as postmodernism and how a true postmodernist should approach life and inquiry.2 There were progressive and conservative postmodernists,3 as

1 J. F. Lyotard (translated by G. Bennington and B. Massumi), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984). 2 F. L. Canale, Back to Revelation-Inspiration: Searching for the Cognitive Foundation of Christian Theology in a Postmodern World (Lanham: University Press of America, 2001). C. Falck, Myth, Truth and Literature: Towards a True Post-modernism (New York:

88 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST well as postmodernists of “resistance” and those of “reaction.”4 Clearly, a gamut of postmodern views had emerged. In the first decade of the new millennium, antimodernism has continued to evolve into what some analysts label as “post- postmodernism” (PPM), “ultra-postmodernism” (UPM), or the “Integral worldview.”5 While retaining many features of postmodernism, this development has emphasized the unpredictability of history, the destruction of the self, the reconstruction of society, the valuation of performance over facts, a fascination with the mythical and mystical, and a particular antagonism toward Christianity. Antimodernism is, of course, not just a philosophical movement or an intellectual mood. It has branched out from the realm of academia to find cultural expression in architecture, art, theatre, film, and literature, where it embodies such attributes as the challenging of convention, the mixing of styles, emphasis on diversity, tolerance of ambiguity, a celebration of innovation and change, and emphasis on the constructedness of reality.6 Stanley Grenz,7 for example, notes that the shift from the popular TV series “Star Trek” to “Star Trek: The Next Generation” was symptomatic of the shift from modernism to an antimodern worldview. Similarly, works such as Rowling’s Harry Potter

Cambridge University Press, 2011). E. Nicholson, “Postmodernism, Feminism, and Education: The Need for Solidarity,” Educational Theory, 39, 3 (1990): 197-205. 3 S. Aronowitz y H. A. Girous, Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1991). 4 Nicholson, “Postmodernism, Feminism, and Education.” 5 D. Fusco, Ahead of the Curve: Preparing the Church for Post-Postmodernism (Mustang, OK: Tate Publishing, 2011). G. Iggers, “A Search for a Post-Postmodern Theory of History,” History and Theory, 48 (2009): 122-128. M. Kaplan, “Post-Postmodern Science and Religion,” International Journal on World Peace, 18, 1 (2001). T. Tuner, City as Landscape: A Post-Postmodern View of Design and Planning (London: Chapman & Hall, 1996). 6 C. Allan, Playing with Picturebooks: Postmodernism and the Postmodernesque (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012). C. Beck, “Postmodernism, Pedagogy, and Philosophy of Education”, Philosophy of Education Society Yearbook (1993). Retrieved from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/eps/PES- Yearbook/93_docs/beck.htm on January 17, 2012. C. Jencks, The Story of Post-Modernism: Five Decades of the Ironic, Iconic and Critical in Architecture (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011). L. Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism (London: Routledge, 1989). T. McEvilley, The Triumph of Anti-Art: Conceptual and Performance Art in the Formation of Post-Modernism (Kingston, NY: McPherson, 2012). 7 S. J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996).

89 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY series and Cameroon’s Avatar depict post-postmodernism’s increasing enchantment with the mythical and supernatural. This transcendence beyond mere philosophical debate has provided contemporary antimodernism with poignant cultural intensity.

Features of Antimodernism In antimodernism, a number of constructs have emerged to take the place of the deposed philosophical foundations of modernism. These include the rejection of meta-narratives; the affirmation of pluralism, contextualization, and constructivism; and the celebration of diversity.

Renunciation of Meta-Narratives In antimodernism, there is skepticism of meta-narratives,8 overarching stories that seek to provide comprehensive explanations for reality. Sample “grand narratives” include the Christian perspective on the Great Controversy between good and evil; the secular explanation of human origins via evolutionary theory; the Enlightenment view that rational thought, linked to scientific and technological progress, will lead to social advance; and the Marxist account of social emancipation. Antimodernism rejects meta-narratives because they are seen to overextend themselves. It also holds that meta-narratives promote exclusivity, which can lead to violence. It is, after all, belief in a meta- narrative that led to the horrors of the medieval Crusades and that fuels the extremism of al Qaeda. In place of the meta-narratives of modernism, antimodernism proposes a whole range of competing “small stories,” narrated by special interest groups (such as environmentalists, feminists, advocates of Intelligent Design, homosexuals, and a whole array of ethnic and religious communities). These groups formulate collections of conflicting and at times mutually exclusive beliefs and goals, which are then paraphrased in terms of micro-narratives and political agendas. With an embargo on meta-narratives and the Enlightenment quest for rational universal knowledge abandoned, Allen9 notes that there is an inevitable conclusion that every understanding of reality is but a function of history and culture. Consequently, reality is not only formulated

8 Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition. 9 D. Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World: The Full Wealth of Conviction (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989).

90 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST differently in different eras and societies, but ultimately each individual must construct reality in his or her own unique way.

Pluralism Pluralism, in part, is a result of the demise of meta-narratives. Derrida,10 an early advocate of antimodernism, postulated that there was no fixed metaphysical center (as in the case, for example, of realism or essentialism), but rather, an infinite number of alternatives come into play. This multi-centrism, coupled with Heidegger’s existentialism, yields pluralism. In a pluralistic approach, for example, there is no central tradition of scholarship, but rather multiple viable traditions. Eurocentric historical interpretations (with their white, middle-class, male bias) thus give way to a plurality of views–African, Islamic, feminist, and indigenous, among others. Each of these perspectives should be considered as equal, with a scholar from any tradition expecting to learn from other interpretations, as much as to contribute. “Uni-versities” become “multiversities”– supporting multiple agendas and perspectives, rather than seeking to formulate a single “approved” interpretation of reality.

Significance of Context Contextualization resulted from an epistemological shift in antimodernism. Based on the linguistic work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and J. L Austin, a new perspective on language emerged. This posited a shift from “meaning as reference” to “meaning as use.” Rather than a statement having an objective meaning based on the declared definition of its words, the statement might have a variety of meanings, depending on the contexts in which it was used. Meaning in language thus became contextual, and understanding occurred only when context was taken into account. Similarly, developments in quantum theory bolstered the significance of context. Science found itself no longer able to support the Newtonian physics of particles as entities with fixed essences, but rather as quantum entanglements in which an object can only be described in reference to other objects.

10 J. Derrida (translated by G. C. Spivak), Of Grammatology (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976).

91 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Culture is perhaps the best representation of the influence of context. In antimodernism, the self is not autonomous, but varies with the surrounding culture.11 In a sense, it is not we who think, speak, and act, but culture who expresses itself through us. Under antimodernity’s contextual thesis, all human knowledge is mediated through the lens of culture, and is thus contextual. A corollary of contextualization is the role of community. Antimodernity is post-individualistic. Relationships, in fact, become more important than knowledge, at least in terms of knowledge at the level of the individual. It is through relationships that we build the holistic web of experience and understanding. Thus, antimoderns have a strong need for community, and building community becomes a prime goal.

Constructivism In classical, pre-modern views, such as in Idealism and many world religions, knowledge of truth and reality was received. In modernism, truth was discovered and reality confirmed through the scientific process. In antimodernism, truth and reality are constructed.12 In this anti-realist metaphysics, we do not encounter a world that is simply “out there,” but one that is dependent on our experience and thought, one that we actively construct by the concepts that we bring to it.13 This stance requires realignment in our conception of inquiry. No longer are we passive recipients or mere discoverers of preexisting knowledge. Rather, we are actively engaged in the interactive and iterative process of knowledge creation. In essence, truth is not found primarily in science, logic, or doctrine; but in relationships and the telling of stories. This construction of truth and reality leads to tentative and autobiographical knowledge. As individuals interact with their environment and with one another, and as they reflect upon these episodes, they begin to develop “working understandings” of life and reality. Intuition, feeling, and metaphor are key elements in this process.

11 J. Collins, Uncommon Cultures: Popular Culture and Post-Modernism (Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2013). 12 Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism. 13 Derrida, Of Grammatology.

92 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST The result is a personal narrative, a description of view from one’s particular site in the world. There are several implications of this constructivist view. First, qualitative, ethnographic, and narrative modes of inquiry are to be preferred over quantitative, analytic, or deductive modalities. Second, understanding is best communicated illustratively, rather than propositionally. Third, expertise and “top-down” forms of interaction must be questioned.14 While some individuals clearly have understandings that others do not have, the latter may have insights that the former have not perceived. Thus, in place of expert to novice transmissions, exchange of knowledge is best seen as a dialogue, a conversation among individuals of difference in which there is mutual exchange.

Celebration of Diversity Antimodernism does not simply tolerate or affirm differences. It celebrates diversity. Foucault, in his classic work Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason,15 argues that modernism and its attendant rationalism brutally excluded whole segments of society–the insane, the socially deviant, the challenged, the illiterate, even the devoutly religious–anyone who was viewed as “unreasonable.” To be truly human was to be rational, and those who were irrational were in some way subhuman (not so identified perhaps, for the sake of political correctness, but treated thus in the way they were marginalized). These had no societal value except as a warning to those tempted not to conform. Society, in the antimodern view, must not only accept but give voice to the downtrodden, the exploited, and the neglected. The community is inclusive and each member must be treated with respect and as of inherent value. Scholarship must be open to divergent views and the exploration of non-rational topics, including emotion and spirituality. Minority communities must be provided with latitude to seek out and sustain their particular conceptions. Individuals must be offered

14 For example, D. Boyle, The Age to Come: Authenticity, Post-Modernism and How to Survive What Comes Next (Cranbrook, UK: Endeavour Press Ltd., 2013). 15 M. Foucault (translated by R. Howard), Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (London: Routledge, 2001).

93 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY differentiated approaches and multiple pathways to reach personally relevant goals within the community.

A Christian Commentary Just as rationalism has been critiqued by antimodernism, so antimodernism must itself be thoughtfully reviewed. One must be careful, however, not to simply endorse or reject the package as a whole, but to reflect on areas of opportunity and aspects of concern, particularly from the vantage of a Christian worldview. Clearly, there are certain tenets of antimodernism that are inimical with basic Christian assumptions. These include its strident skepticism, the abolition of meta-narratives, and the rejection of objective, universal truth. On the other hand, antimodernism is also post-individualist, post- dualist, and post-rationalist, rejecting reason as supreme. How then does a Christian relate to a paradigm that brings welcome relief from many of the vexing problems of modernism, while at the same time undercutting core premises of the Christian worldview? Early on, Beck16 had suggested that postmodernism might best be viewed as a rich quarry in which one can search for gems of insight, while not feeling obliged to take home the rubble. It is with this spirit of discernment and respect that we seek to assess antimodernism from a Christian framework.

The Rejection of Meta-narratives and Objective Truth Understanding the Great Controversy between good and evil (Genesis 3; Revelation 12) is central to a Christian worldview. As a meta-narrative, it seeks to provide a coherent explanation of reality for all aspects of life. While antimodernism may not subscribe to overarching explanations, the fact remains that meta-narratives, such as organic evolution, remain pervasive in contemporary society. In the antimodernist view, a variety of alternative perspectives are needed–one of which can be the Christian narrative.17 While the Christian meta-narrative centers on a cosmic conflict between good and evil, we must beware of searching for conspiracy and

16 Beck, “Postmodernism, Pedagogy, and Philosophy of Education.” 17 A cogent presentation of the Christian worldview in the context of the postmodern attack on meta-narratives can be found in K. McRoberts, A Letter from Christ: Apologetics in Cultural Transition (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2011).

94 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST intrigue in every event and intent. Such suspicion can quickly degenerate into “witch hunts,” in which we imagine an extremist behind every beard, a communist under every placard. We must also beware of exclusivity, which can easily morph into religious intolerance and oppression. While Christians have truth, they do not, in the Christian worldview, have a monopoly on truth. Rather, because God causes the sun to shine on both the righteous and the unrighteous (Matthew 5:45) and would have all come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4), non-believers also discover truth. Thus a Christian cannot be exclusive in the claim of truth. There is a related aspect, however, which must be considered. Antimodernism has announced the death of objective truth. For decentered antimodernists, truth has become elusive, a personal commodity at best. They prefer to think of “many truths,” a “diversity of truths,” or “truth for me.” By contrast, the biblical view holds that God is trustworthy (1 Corinthians 1:9), and that His revelation of Truth is objective and reliable (John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19). Christians, however, must still interpret and apply truth to the contexts of their lives. In this process, it is indeed possible to arrive at false conclusions (2 Corinthians 4:4). Consequently, cross-checks with fellow searchers (Proverbs 11:14) and guidance from the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) are vital in arriving at correct understandings of truth.

Pluralism and Moral Relativism Antimodernism maintains that there is no center. Christianity holds that God is the core from which all things derive meaning (Acts 17:28). Antimodernism asserts that all views be considered equal. Christianity affirms that God’s perspective and His revelation of reality, truth, and value must supersede all others (1 Chronicles 29:11; John 3:31; Ephesians 1:21). Antimodernism further proposes that morality is relative, that each person weaves his own ethic from the web of his mind. Richard Rorty, for example, describes the moral self as “a network of beliefs, desires, and emotions with nothing behind it…. Constantly reweaving itself… not by reference to general criteria… but in the hit-or-miss way in which cells readjust themselves to meet the pressures of the environment.”18

18 R. Rorty, “Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism” in Hermeneutics and Praxis, ed. R. Hollinger (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1985), 217.

95 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY This relativism finds common expression in phrases such as “It may be wrong for you, but it’s OK for me” or “Who are we to judge others?” In contrast, Christianity observes that moral relativism results in ethical anarchy and societal decline. The cause of the corruption and senseless violence rampant in the historical period of the judges, for example, is highlighted in observation that “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).19 How does a Christian relate to the pluralistic stance and attendant relativism of antimodernism? First, we must recognize that pluralism, while freeing society from the potential tyranny of one voice, has also resulted in the fragmentation of knowledge and the fracturing of values. Furthermore, we must beware that one runs the risk that pluralism may plunge into anarchism, rejecting any form of order. On the other hand, Christianity cannot be arrogant or elitist. We can learn from each other, perhaps especially from those who see things quite differently from the way we do. Each of us has limited perspectives and cultural “blinders.” It is thus imperative that we hear and seek to understand the views of other religious and cultural traditions. There is, however, an added dimension. While all human perspectives may, in a sense, be considered equal–each with significant insights as well as “blind spots,” God has proactively shared His own divine perspective through His Word–and this revelation supersedes all others. Consequently, while we as Christians endeavor to understand viewpoints different from our own, we seek above all to see life from God’s point of view (Matthew 6:33). Another concept emerging from the discussion of relativism is an understanding of the difference between principles and rules. Principles convey universal values, such as respect, compassion, and integrity. Micah 6:8, for example, highlights several of these principled values– “He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?” (see also Philippians 4:8). Rules, by contrast, are explicit applications of underlying principles (and this should always be the case!). As such, however, they are context

19 All Scripture passages, unless indicated otherwise, are from the New King James Version (NKJV). Copyright © 1979, 1980, 1982, by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations credited to NIV are from The Holy Bible, New International Version, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

96 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST bound. Respect, for example, may find varying expression in diverse cultures–such as whether one looks another in the eye or takes off one’s shoes in a sacred place. The problem is that we sometimes impute the universality of moral principles to specific rules. This leap can cause us to fall into insensitive legalism. Finally, we should perhaps note that absolute relativism is untenable –it is an inherent contradiction of terms. Furthermore, in praxis, individuals seem to need a certain degree of structure and continuity. Across the age spectrum, we search for a sense of identity, stability, and belonging. Unfortunately, plurality and relativism have resulted in a world with few secure intellectual or psychological markers. Precisely because we do live in a changing and fragmented world, we need sources of stability. In the Christian worldview, Jesus Christ can provide that universal rallying point, that secure frame of reference (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8). In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ summed up His teaching with a reference to a wise man and a foolish man (Matthew 7:24-27). He noted that the difference between wisdom and folly was in the foundation– anchored in bedrock or situated in shifting sand. One might note that rock and sand are, in fact, similar elements. Sand, however, has been broken into fragments; rock is unified and intact.

Community, Culture, and Context In the Christian perspective, community is essential (Psalm 133:1; Acts 2:1, 46; Romans 15:1; Galatians 6:2). Forging relationships and building community are key activities, both within the body of believers (1 Corinthians 12:12-27) and in fulfilling the gospel commission through outreach and friendship evangelism (Matthew 25:31-46; 28:18-20). Service to others is, in fact, a God-given responsibility (Acts 20:35; Galatians 5:13). While community is vital, we stand, nonetheless, as individuals before God (Ezekiel 18:17-20; 2 Corinthians 5:10). We each have individual responsibilities, which we cannot simply leave for others in the community. In essence, while individuals may not be more important than the community, neither are they less so. We must not emphasize community to the neglect of those who make up the community. Furthermore, the importance of relationship does not preclude the role of knowledge, as antimodernism would have us to believe.

97 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Relationships are, in fact, often predicated upon knowledge. Trust, for example, is based upon evidence of trustworthiness (2 Timothy 1:12). Antimodernism reminds us of the role of culture, and that culture may vary from one community to another. In highlighting cultural differences, however, antimodernists may have inadvertently minimized the importance of common ground. Even though certain aspects differ from culture to culture and among subcultures, we are more alike than we are different. We are a web of humanity, and there are values, such as life, well-being, and the pursuit of happiness, which are prized across cultures. Human societies thus have a certain degree of commonality and continuity. Antimodernists correctly prompt us, however, that we must be careful of hasty generalizations. It is altogether too easy to create stereotypes and labels, and deceive ourselves regarding the complexity and variety of human culture. As a corollary of community and culture, antimodernism emphasizes context. When interpreting biblical passages or historical events, it is necessary that we consider context. The Jerusalem Council in apostolic times (Acts 15), for example, illustrates the importance of understanding culture, and of taking context and background into account. On a personal level, the Christian also recognizes the influence of environment (Psalm 1:1; John 1:46). Man, however, is not simply a pawn of circumstance. While not autonomous, he does possess freewill, and has been granted the power of choice (Joshua 24:15; Proverbs 3:31; Isaiah 7:15-16), which rises above the grip of context.

Constructivism and Authenticity In the antimodern view, knowledge is a human construction. In the Christian perspective, God is the source of all knowledge (Proverbs 2:6; Daniel 1:17). There are multiple avenues, however, for attaining this knowledge. While knowledge may be received through divine revelation, other knowledge is discovered through scientific research, confirmed by logic, or constructed through experience and reflection (Job 29:16; Psalm 77:6; Ecclesiastes 1:13; Revelation 1:1). Similarly, Christianity proposes both external and internal dimensions of reality. Antimodernism, however, reminds us that we cannot be mere spectators in the process of knowing. Rather, we learn best when we are actively engaged in sense-making. The antimodern view aptly emphasizes the importance of intuition, reflection, feelings, interactions,

98 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST metaphors, and narratives. While not minimizing propositional expressions of knowledge, such as theory and doctrinal systems, as antimodernists tend to do, Christians can learn much from the antimodern emphasis on illustrative presentations, story telling, and autobiographical knowledge. A master communicator and teacher, Jesus Christ frequently utilized narratives (Matthew 13:34), and asked His hearers for the take from their “site” in the world (Matthew 16:13-17). In the antimodern view, all knowledge is tentative and there is a profound skepticism of expertise. The Christian, however, holds that universal Truth does exist (Psalm 100:5; Isaiah 43:9), and that God takes the initiative to communicate truth to humanity (Daniel 2:47). In a sense, though, Scripture resonates with the tentative nature of knowledge–“we see in a mirror, dimly” and we know only in part (1 Corinthians 13:12). Our understanding of truth is, in fact, a work in progress (Psalm 86:11; Ephesians 4:15; 3 John 4). Not even the greatest scientist or the most erudite theologian can thus claim to have arrived at a full understanding of truth or to have a definitive grasp on knowledge. Each of us has but a subset of the larger picture, with ample room for learning and growth. Antimodernism’s disbelief toward expertise then is a reminder not to blindly follow or too readily acquiesce to “authorities,” but as the first- century Bereans, to study things out for ourselves in order to ascertain “whether these things were so” (Acts 17:10-11). A Christian should continually ask questions and probe beneath the surface (Ecclesiastes 1:13; Isaiah 1:18; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). This view further suggests that it is a personal responsibility to share with others the insights of truth that we each have gained (Matthew 28:19-20). Moreover, it behooves those who may have gained advanced training or experience in a particular field of knowledge to speak with humility, acknowledging that the frontiers of knowledge are also the horizons of one’s ignorance. This implies that while one may speak with measured confidence within his or her area of expertise, one should not presume to pontificate as an “authority” on all topics. Humility, honesty, and authenticity are Christian virtues (Isaiah 57:17; Matthew 18:1-4; James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:5), and should be widely promoted within the Christian community.

99 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Diversity and Creativity Antimodernism celebrates diversity and promotes inclusiveness. It maintains that minority communities have rights and merit respect. It holds that each individual should be able to attain personally meaningful goals. It sustains that the community must function as a support network for the individual members of society. These concepts find resonance within the Christian worldview. Christ’s mission was to break down barriers of exclusivity, to set the oppressed free (Isaiah 58:6; Luke 4:16-21). In His ministry, He reached out to the marginalized, to those rejected by mainstream society (Matthew 11:19; Mark 2:16). He is our example (1 Peter 2:21). As Christians, we must become a voice for the exploited and oppressed. We must treat each person with respect, irrespective of ethnic, cultural, or religious affiliation. We must recognize that each individual, regardless of talent, ability, or social status, is of inherent worth, both by creation and by redemption (Isaiah 43:1; Jeremiah 1:5; John 3:16). We must treat others as we would wish to be treated (Matthew 7:12). How does diversity fit with the Christian view? Christianity’s focus is on unity (John 17:21), not uniformity. It centers on transformation, not conformity (Romans 12:2). It also recognizes that God has “made from one blood every nation of men” (Acts 17:26), despite their diversity. Paul’s description of the body and its various members (1 Corinthians 12:12-28) is, in fact, an apt metaphor for this concept of unity in diversity. Such a perspective suggests that while there are fundamental beliefs, the Christian paradigm must be open to consideration of multiple, divergent views. In these dialogues of faith, however, the Word of God serves as the ultimate criterion (Isaiah 8:20). While recognizing specific groups (ethnic, religious, socio- economic, etc.) within the larger culture, we must be careful not to emphasize these categories to the neglect of individuals. It is possible, in fact, for two individuals from separate groups to share greater commonalities than two individuals from the same ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Individuals are only in part identifiable in terms of the social categories to which they belong.20 Closely connected to diversity and the construction of knowledge is antimodernism’s openness to imagination, innovation, and creativity. A focus on creativity is biblical. Jesus indicated that a Christian is to bring

20 Beck, “Postmodernism, Pedagogy, and Philosophy of Education.”

100 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST “out of his treasure things new and old” (Matthew 13:52). Such freshness of ideas implies creative thought. An intriguing characteristic of creativity is the tolerance of opposites, the embracing of polar truths. Here again, there is biblical precedent. Whereas Greek-based modern logic saw the opposite of a truth to be false, Judaic thinking could see truth as a tension between contrasting ideas: “There is one who makes himself rich, yet has nothing; And one who makes himself poor, yet has great riches” (Proverbs 13:7). “When I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Corinthians 12:10). “Whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:44). Thus, Christ was not either human or divine, but both human and divine (Colossians 2:9; 1 Timothy 2:5); and we are saved entirely through faith (Ephesians 2:8), yet instructed to “work out your own salvation” (Philippians 2:12). Paulien21 notes that this rejection of the “either/or” categories of Greek philosophy may make it easier for antimodernists to understand the Bible, compared with previous generations.

Emotion and Spirituality In the age of Reason, modernists tended to suppress feelings. In rejecting rationalism, antimodernism has chosen to highlight emotion– thus the emphasis on attitudes and self-esteem, and the ubiquity of comments such as “How can it be wrong when it feels so right?” or “Just go with your gut feeling.” The result is the antimodern tendency to elevate feelings above rationality and objective truth. In the Christian perspective, the emotions are of importance (Nehemiah 8:10; John 11:35). Too often, we have denigrated emotion into a sign of intellectual weakness, and have reduced the gospel to a sterile set of postulates and proof texts. As Christians, we should affirm feeling as well as reason. The emotional and the rational must work together. We must make the gospel not only logically compelling, but also emotionally attractive–particularly for antimoderns. In the antimodern world, there is a new openness to spiritual themes and dialogue. Spirituality is no longer banished to the fringes of society, but has become a social commodity. This surge in spiritual consciousness, however, should not be confused with a renewed interest

21 J. Paulien, “The Post-Modern Acts of God” (2004), paper presented at the Adventist Society for Religious Study. Retrieved from http://www.secularpostmodern.org/resart9.php4 on November 25, 2007.

101 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY in religion. Antimoderns are spiritual, but not necessarily religious. Many, in fact, are suspicious or openly antagonistic toward religion, seeing institutionalized religiosity (i.e., traditional denominations, particularly those Christian) as exclusive and intolerant. To complicate matters, antimodernists also view the Bible as oppressive–filled with violence, the subjection of women and minorities, and an ever-burning hell. This perspective poses a monumental challenge to the Christian church. It suggests that Christians must be ambassadors of generosity, benevolence, and tolerance. It implies that witnessing may best be formulated as relational–developing conversations about God, sharing one’s personal experience with God, and seeking a deeper understanding of spirituality. Finally, antimoderns must see that Christianity is a vibrant community of faith, experiencing the joy and peace of a Spirit-filled life.

In Conclusion As we have noted, there are certain tenets of antimodern thought that clash with basic Christian assumptions. Consequently, as Christians, we cannot agree with the full scope of the antimodern position–such as its relativism, fragmentation of knowledge, and rejection of religious doctrine. Such premises can ultimately lead to conclusions far removed from those of a biblical worldview. While we cannot surrender the non- negotiable truths of our faith, we must seek to truly understand antimodernism and its endeavor to address crucial issues in society. The antimodern paradigm has indeed raised valid concerns–the role of community, the importance of personal experience and reflection, the need for authenticity, the value of emotion and creativity, the call for inclusion, the openness to spirituality. These matters, among others, can provide points of contact with antimoderns, presenting fresh opportunities for sharing Christian understandings. Such conversations respond to the Christian mandate given by Christ Himself when He declared, “You will be my witnesses” (Acts 1:8, NIV). As Christians living in an antimodern world, we must think systematically and deeply regarding our beliefs and convictions. We must be able to speak clearly, coherently, and persuasively regarding our Christian worldview (1 Peter 3:5). Ultimately, we must share a Hope for the future.

102 TAYLOR: CHRISTIAN CRITIQUE OF THE ANTIMODERN QUEST

John Wesley Taylor V, Ph.D., Ed.D., is an associate director of education at the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Previously, he served as professor and Reynolds Endowed Chair for Philosophy of Christian Education at Southern Adventist University. He may be reached at: [email protected].

103