6

believers’ legal standing with Godremains despite the sins in theirlives. Another view credits Lutherwith saying that justification is aheavenly declaration of a simultane-ous spiritual transformation. Justifi-cation causes sanctification. Lutherinterpreted Paul as using imagery ofthe law courts and Jesus as using theimagery of the new birth; but theywere both teaching salvation. UntilAdventists come to unanimity onthe teachings of Paul and Luther,how can they see themselves as “thechildren of Luther,” inviting theChristian world to return to “thespirit of the Reformation”?Erwin R. GaneAngwin, California

On “I Rest My Case” (PD 2008:1)I am glad that Richard Davidson

comes out with confidence in Christas he faces the judgment of Daniel 7.

He says this was not always thecase. “While growing up in the Sev-enth-day Adventist Church, I used toshudder at the mention of the inves-tigative judgment.”

Davidson is not the only Ad -ventist who gives this testimony.Many others share his experience. I

raise the question as to the basic rea-son for this testimony. I suggest thatit comes from an early concentra-tion on the chapter, “The Investiga-tive Judgment” in The Great Contro-versy.

A failure to understand the grow-ing Ellen White with her fuller pres -entation of righteousness by faith isoften the root cause of our problem.As early as 1889, Ellen White comesout with gems in “Joshua and theAngel” in volume 5 of the Testi-monies. “He pleads their cause andvanquishes their accuser by themighty arguments of Calvary. . . . Wecannot answer the charges of Satanagainst us. . . . He is able to silencethe accuser with arguments foundednot upon our merits, but on hisown.”

If we accept Ellen White as alesser light, only a panoramic viewof her writings will spare us fromdespair.Eric WebsterCape Town, South Africa

*Roy Gane, Ph.D., is Professor of He-brew Bible and Ancient Near EasternLanguages, and Director of the Ph.D.in Religion and Th.D. Programs at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSem i nary, Andrews University, Ber -rien Springs, Michigan.

What is a Christian to do about God’s very specific instructions that appear

throughout Scripture?

B Y R O Y G A N E *

HOW TO KNOWIF A BIBLE PRINCIPLE

APPLIES TODAY

with Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteron-omy, and chunks of Exodus verysimply: We keep the Ten Command-ments, and the rest of the Law andCommandments do not apply toChristians. One might ask how theysquared that with what Jesus himself

re Christians expected to keepany of the biblical laws, or arethere any from which wewould gain benefit by volun-tarily observing them? We are

not talking about a legalistic, works-oriented approach to salvation, butabout people who are already savedenjoying fuller “new covenant” lifeand service by following divine guid-ance and thereby revealing God’scharacter to others.

For many centuries, Christianshave followed a simplistic approach:“The early Church Fathers dealt

7

A

of timeless, universal moral law, theyare not the only moral laws in theBible. Exodus 23:9, for example, con-tains another one: “Do not oppress analien.”3 This works out part of theoverarching principle of love for fel-low human beings (compare Leviti-cus 19:18; John 15:12), on which thelast six of the Ten Commandmentsare also based (Matt. 22:39, 40; Rom.13:9). Another example is Leviticus19:11, where the comprehensive com-mandment against lying is found,rather than in Exodus 20:16. Ritual law regulates a ritual sys-

tem, by means of which human be-ings interact with entities that areordinarily inaccessible to the mate rialdomain, such as to God (e.g., by of-fering sacrifices) and ritual impurity(by removing it through purifica-tion). The Old Testament ritual lawsthat were required to be carried out atthe Israelite sanctuary/temple, wherethe Aaronic priests officiated (see e.g.,Leviticus 17:3-9), can no longer applybecause this institution is gone.

Laws having to do with regula-tion and treatment of ritual impuri-ties to keep them from contactingthe holy sphere of the earthly sanc-tuary with its resident divine Pres-ence are also obsolete for the samereason: The sanctuary no longer ex-ists. Since the death, resurrection,and ascension of Christ, Christianworship is focused toward God’stemple in heaven, where Christ hasbeen ministering (Heb. 7–10). Nev-

secular domains often appear to-gether. For example, the “religious”laws of Exodus 28a-30; 23:10-19aappear in contexts primarily relatingto secular life. The remarkably di-verse mixture of laws in Leviticus 19gives the impression that distinc-tions between religious and secularare largely irrelevant; what is impor-tant is that God’s people keep all Hiscom mandments.

In the ancient Near East, thiswholistic approach to life under Godis unique to Israel. Only in biblicallaw collections “are moral exhorta-tions and religious injunctions com-bined with legal prescriptions; else-where . . . these three distinct spheresare found in separate independentcollections.”2

Moral law expresses principlesthat modern people would regard ei-ther as religious, e.g., the first four ofthe Ten Commandments regardingresponsibilities primarily to God(Ex. 20:3-11), or secular, e.g., the lastsix of the Ten Commandments cov-ering responsibilities primarily tohuman beings (vss. 12-17).

Two points should be clarified re-garding moral law:

First, any command that God re-quires a given group of people toobey could be viewed as a moral lawfor them in the broad sense that it isrelevant to their divine-human rela-tionship.

Second, though the Ten Com-mandments are towering expressions

3. Civil laws applicable onlyunder the Israelite theocratic gov-ernment.

4. Health laws that have ongoingvalue because human bodies func-tion the same today as they did inancient times.

While such categories have somevalidity and usefulness, the under-standing of them as just summa-rized needs major nuance and qual-ification. Careful examination leadsto a paradigm shift and opens up atreasure trove of practical guidancefor daily living.

To begin with, we should recog-nize that the Bible does not delineatecategories such as those outlinedabove. They are more recent analyti-cal constructs. Biblical law does noteven make the sharp distinction be-tween religious and secular categoriesto which we are so accustomed.

Since every aspect of life of thepeople of God came under His juris-diction, laws belonging to what wewould classify as the religious and

had to say about Torah, that he didnot come to change a single ‘jot ortittle’ of it; further, when asked whatwere the greatest of the command-ments, Jesus gives two, neither ofwhich comes from the ten. Rather,one is from Deuteronomy, and theother from Leviticus. Nevertheless,the Church Fathers deemed thoseextra 603 laws to be superfluous.There were those who thought theyshould be removed from the Chris -tian canon entirely, but fortunatelythey did not prevail.”1

For the purpose of determining ifor how various kinds of Old Testa-ment laws apply today, it is traditionalfor Christians to divide them into cat-egories, such as the following:

1. Moral laws, consisting of theTen Commandments, which expresstimeless and universal principlesgoverning relationships with Godand other human beings.

2. Ritual laws that served as“types” or “shadows” until they mettheir fulfillment at the Cross.

Laws having to do with regulation and treatment

of ritual impurities to keep them from contacting the holy

sphere of the earthly sanctuary with its resident divine

Presence are obsolete: The sanctuary no longer exists. Since

the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ,

Christian worship is focused toward God’s temple in heaven,

where Christ has been ministering (Heb. 7–10).

8 9

gard to which the principle applies:We are liable for damage to theproperty of other people resultingfrom our carelessness or neglect.

Some civil laws no longer applysimply because we lack the social in-stitutions they were designed to reg-ulate, for instance, servitude (Ex.21:2-11, 20, 21, 26, 27) and ancestralland tenure (Lev. 25:8-55). By study-ing these laws in light of their cul-tural context, however, we can stilllearn valuable principles of justiceand mercy to protect those who aresocially and economically disadvan-taged. For example, even when yourworkers are completely dependentupon you and under your control,“Do not rule over them ruthlessly,but fear your God” (vs. 43).

Regarding health law, in connec-tion with Leviticus 11, we found thatPentateuchal laws for which we recog-nize health implications are consis-tently formulated with motivationsother than health. God was con-cerned for the health of His people,but He bestowed this benefit wholisti-cally as a blessing that would come

enforce the law in this way becausethe system no longer exists. So wehave found that the law containsboth ongoing and temporary ele-ments. If we simplistically dismiss itas a civil/Mosaic law and thereforeno longer applicable, we miss thetimeless moral element: You mustnot hit a person in such a way thathe or she dies. A modern court inany country would undoubtedlyagree that such striking is a crime,although it may or may not imposethe same penalty.

In civil laws, timeless principlescome to us in various layers of cul-tural garb. When we get below thespecifics to the underlying dynam-ics, we can find helpful guidelines toclothe in modern dress. For exam-ple: “If a man uncovers a pit or digsone and fails to cover it and an ox ora donkey falls into it, the owner ofthe pit must pay for the loss; he mustpay its owner, and the dead animalwill be his” (Ex. 21:33, 34). Althoughthis could literally apply today, mostof us do not have oxen or donkeys.We do have cars and trucks, with re-

differences between the two laws.First, the civil law is narrower inscope, limited to striking that resultsin death. But this is still a timelessprinciple. Second, the civil law at-taches a penalty, namely, capitalpunishment, that would be adminis-tered by the Israelite system of ju-risprudence within the theocraticcovenant community. We can nolonger count on this court system to

ertheless, the Old Testament rituallaws teach us much about the natureand character of God and human -kind, the dynamics of divine-humaninteraction, and God’s plan of salva-tion through Christ.

The ritual of circumcision origi-nated long before the Israelite sanc-tuary was constructed and was neverdependent upon its function (Gene-sis 17). However, this requirementwas removed for GentileChristians when the newcovenant was trans-formed from a covenantof Israelite election, asJeremiah originallyproph esied (31:31-34),to a universal covenantwithout ethnic bound-aries (Acts 15; Gal. 3:26-29). Civil law can embody

and exemplify timelessmoral/ethical principleswithin the ancient Is-raelite context. Consider,for example, the fol -lowing civil law from the“Cov enant Code” of Exo-dus 21–23: “Anyone whostrikes a man and killshim shall surely be put todeath” (21:12). This con-textualizes the sixth ofthe Ten Commandments,which reads: “You shallnot murder” (20:13).

There are two basic

10 11

“If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover

it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, the owner of

the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the

dead animal will be his” (Ex. 21:33, 34). Although this

could literally apply today, most of us do not have oxen or

donkeys. We do have cars and trucks.

less moral principle of respect forGod-given life that is expressed inthe sixth of the Ten Commandments(Ex. 20:13). So although the bloodprohibition in Leviticus 17:10-14has health and ritual implications, itis more fundamentally a moral law.This explains several pieces of bibli-cal data:

1. In Genesis 9, God gave the pro-hibition to Noah for the entirehuman race before the Israelite na-tion and its ritual worship systemexisted.

2. In Ezekiel 33:25 and 26, eatingmeat with blood is listed with moralfaults such as murder, idolatry, andadultery.

3. Although the early Christiancouncil in Jerusalem recognized thatthe ceremonial requirement ofcircum cision was nonbinding uponGen tile Christians, the prohibitionof eating meat with blood was in-cluded in the “bottom-line” lifestylerequirements that were laid uponGentile Chris tians among other testsof fellow ship (Acts 15:20, 29). Noticethat Acts 15 refers by implication tothe Old Testament, where the onlybiblical requirement for preventingingestion of blood along with meatis to drain it out at the time ofslaughter (Lev. 17:13; Deut. 12:24; 1Sam. 14:32-34).

Although it is impossible to re-move every bit of blood in this man-ner, just as draining the oil out of acar leaves a small amount of oil lin-

ing parts of the engine, basic drain -age fulfills the divine command. Ifthis is done, as is often the case inmodern butchering, it is not neces-sary for Christians to follow addi-tional traditional practices of saltingand roasting to get more blood out.

Can we boil the above discussioninto a single, simple rule of thumb todetermine whether the Bible intendsfor Christians to keep a given OldTestament law? Here is an attempt: Alaw should be kept to the extent thatits principle can be applied unless theNew Testament removes the reason forits application. G. Wenham con-cluded that “the principles underly-ing the OT are valid and authorita-tive for the Christian, but theparticular applications found in theOT may not be.”5

But if we overcome our neglect ofbiblical law, won’t this lead to legal-ism? Not if we understand the pur-pose of God’s law. It is a standard ofacting and thinking in harmonywith God’s character of love. It isnot, cannot be, and never was in-tended to be a means to salvation.Doing right can never redeem usfrom our mortality or past sins.Only God’s grace through Christ’ssacrifice, received by faith, can dothat. God’s commandments are forpeople who are already delivered, asdemonstrated by the fact that Hegave Noah covenant stipulationsafter bringing him through theFlood (Gen. 9:4-6), and He pro-

ritual system is gone?In Leviticus 17:11, the most basic

reason for the prohibition is that theblood represents life. This is why Godselected the blood of certain animalsfor the function of ransom. Evenwhere ransom through animal sacri-fice did not apply, as in the case of agame animal not appropriate to sacri-fice, the Israelites were forbidden toeat meat with blood because theblood of any animal represented itslife (vss. 13, 14). That this was thebasic reason is confirmed by Genesis9:3, 4, where the Lord first allowedhuman beings to eat meat just afterthe Flood (vs. 3), but withheld per-mission to eat meat with its life bloodstill in it (vs. 4). The next two versesread: “‘For your lifeblood I will surelydemand an accounting. I will demandan accounting from every animal.And from each man, too, I will de-mand an accounting for the life of hisfellow man. Whoever sheds the bloodof man, by man shall his blood beshed; for in the image of God has Godmade man’” (vss. 5, 6).

The prohibitions of blood and ofmurder are both based on the time-

from observing all of His commands.Now we are in a better position to

grapple with the question ofwhether the prohibition in Leviticus17:10-14 against eating meat withblood (compare 3:17; 7:26, 27) stillapplies. Is it a moral, ritual, civil, orhealth law? The fact that eating meatwith blood has to do with diet im-plies that health could be involved,and modern science confirms thatblood carries disease.

This could be reason enough toabstain from meat with blood. How-ever, in 17:11 the Lord’s reason forthe prohibition is: “For the life of theflesh is in the blood, and I have as-signed it to you on the altar to ran-som your lives; for it is the bloodthat ransoms by means of life.”4

Mention of the altar indicates a rit-ual element in the law. Indeed,because God assigned the blood ofcertain species of animals for appli-cation on His altar, the Israeliteswere not permitted either to offertheir sacrifices anywhere else or toeat the blood of well-being offer-ings. But does this mean that thelaw has no application now that the

12 13

A venerable Christian fallacy is the idea that the more

Christian we want to become, the less Jewish our religion

must be. This anti-Semitic notion, which has wreaked

havoc on Jewish-Christian relations for more than a millen-

nium and a half, is not supported by Scripture.

other ancient Near Eastern laws hasled J. H. Walton to the conclusionthat the laws given to Israel were not,for the most part, presented as a newmode of conduct: “Israel had lawsbefore to insure the smooth func-tioning of society, and it is logical tobelieve that they would have beenheavily dependent on other culturesof their day for those guidelines. Therevelation, though, had to do withproviding a foundation for thosenorms (the covenant) and establish-ing YHWH as the source of thosenorms. One does not refrain fromadultery merely because adulterydisrupts society. Rather, adultery isprohibited because it goes against anabsolute standard of morality bywhich YHWH himself is character-ized.”9

We need absolute standards. Canyou imagine listening to an orches-tra in which the players have notagreed that A = 440 vibrations persecond? What about transformingplans into a building if the construc-tion workers interpret the basic

and right to which individuals andgroups should conform and whichjudicial authority should enforce.Rules will necessarily play some rolein this order, but there also will beprinciples and values which form aconsistent system, cover all possiblesituations, and belong to the collec-tive conscience of the community.By this definition, explicit rules—laws—are only the tip of the icebergof the phenomenon of Law.”8

Patrick does not deal with thereasons for justice, right, and order,but the possible situations coveredby law are involved in relationships.Relationships can be harmoniousonly if the respective parties showproper respect for one another’swell-being. Thus the orderly, just,right principles of law are based onthe foundational principle of love(compare Matthew 22:36-40), whichis also the basis of God’s grace (seeJohn 3:16). Without love, externallaw-keeping is meaningless (com-pare 1 Corinthians 13).

Comparison between biblical and

claimed the Ten Commandments tothe Israelites after delivering themfrom bondage in Egypt (Ex. 20).

A venerable Christian fallacy isthe idea that the more Christian wewant to become, the less Jewish ourreligion must be. This anti-Semiticnotion, which has wreaked havoc onJewish-Christian relations for morethan a millennium and a half, is notsupported by Scripture. Rather, themore Jews and Christians absorband live up to the essential ideals ofour respective biblical holy books,the more common ground we willdiscover.

God’s law is a precious gift toprotect human beings for our owngood. Moses explicitly stated this:“Now, O Israel, what does the Lordyour God ask of you but to fear theLord your God, to walk in all hisways, to love him, to serve the Lordyour God with all your heart andwith all your soul, and to observe theLord’s commands and decrees that Iam giving you today for your owngood?” (Deut. 10:12-13; italics sup-plied; compare 32:46, 47).

Jesus agreed, saying of the Sab-bath: “‘The sabbath was made forhumankind, and not humankind forthe sabbath’” (Mark 2:27, NRSV).

In teaching his barber how topray through the Ten Command-ments, Martin Luther emphasizedtheir positive protective function.For example, on “You shall not bearfalse witness,” he commented, “Thus

a wall has been built around ourgood reputation and integrity toprotect it against malicious gossipand deceitful tongues.”6

In their profound and practicalbook Experiencing God: How to Livethe Full Adventure of Knowing andDoing the Will of God, H. T. Blackabyand C. V. King speak of the gift ofGod’s law: “God loves you deeply andprofoundly. Because He loves you, Hehas given you guidelines for living lestyou miss the full dimensions of thelove relationship. Life also has some‘land mines’ that can destroy you orwreck your life. God does not want tosee you miss out on His best, and Hedoes not want to see your lifewrecked. Suppose you had to cross afield full of land mines. A person whoknew exactly where every one of themwas buried offered to take youthrough it. Would you say to him, ‘Idon’t want you to tell me what to do.I don’t want you to impose your wayson me’?”7

Properly viewed within a cov -enant framework of love and grace,God’s law is not legalistic, and obe-dience to it is not legalism. Peopleare legalistic when they put His lawin place of His grace as a means ofsalvation, as in Jesus’ story of a Phar-isee who despised a tax collector(Luke 18:9-14). He failed to discernGod’s free grace.

Dale Patrick points out that law ismuch bigger than the external bot-tom line: “Law is the order of justice

Properly viewed within a covenant framework of

love and grace, God’s law is not legalistic, and obedience to it

is not legalism. People are legalistic when they put His law

in place of His grace as a means of salvation, as in Jesus’ story

of a Pharisee who despised a tax collector (Luke 18:9-14).

He failed to discern God’s free grace.

14 15

sion: “If each of us creates his ownmeaning, we also create our ownmorality. I cannot believe this. For ifso, what the Nazis did was not im-moral because German society hadaccepted it. Likewise, the subjectivemorality of every majority culturethroughout the world could validatetheir heinous behavior. It comesdown to a very simple matter: With-out God there is no objective mean-ing to life, nor is there an objectivemorality. I do not want to live in aworld where right and wrong aresubjective.”10

Postmodernism refuses to recog-nize the possibility that a person sin-cerely following his or her religiousor cultural norms, whatever theymay be, could perpetrate somethingthat should be characterized as evil.So what was it that stared us in theface on September 11, 2001, throughthe eyes of Mohammed Atta?

tates of a human voice that they mis-take for the voice of God.

If we disregard the Bible, ourmoral compass may appear logicaland self-consistent, but it lacks anexternal reference point. It would belike the woman who was traveling byplane over a large body of water atnight. To calm her apprehension, sheasked the pilot how he could navi-gate in the dark. “You see that greenlight on that wingtip?” he replied.Yes, she saw it. “You see that red lighton the other wingtip?” he continued.“Yes,” again. “I just steer the planestraight between them,” he assuredher.

Absolute moral standards are outof vogue in our postmodern world.We are supposed to listen to what-ever voices we feel comfortable with,as long as they do not claim to be ab-solute. Respect for others demandsthat we recognize anyone else’ssource of moral guidance (or lackthereof) as equal to our own. Valuejudgments are strictly forbidden.

Respect for others is crucial. Butmust we purchase it by relinquishingour right to absolute moral stan-dards and assenting to a polytheisticmoral culture that puts anythingclaiming divine authority (includinghuman beings) in place of God?Mas querading as enlightenment,moral subjectivity is not only incon-venient and irritating; it is also terri-bly dangerous, as Rabbi StewartVogel points out with startling pas-

units of measure differently? So whyshouldn’t we enjoy the security ofabsolute moral standards, whichhelp us to get along with one an-other smoothly rather than havingour harmony disintegrate into a ca-cophony of chaos?

If standards were continuouslyleft up to agreement between people,they would suffer from variabilityand circularity, as when a man whoblew the noon whistle at a factoryregularly set his watch to a clock inthe window of a shop, only to learnthat the shopkeeper set his clockevery day by that whistle. This is whywe have Greenwich Mean Time anda Bureau of Standards. It is also whywe have the Bible. Only God is big,wise, and good enough to set ourmoral standards.

In addition to the attempt tomake God’s law into a means of sal-vation, another misuse is to employit as a political tool by making artifi-cial human interpretations into thestandards to which others must ad-here. There is no question that set-ting standards can generate powerand/or wealth (e.g., Bill Gates andMicrosoft computer operating sys-tems). But putting subjective humanauthority in place of God’s absoluteauthority is nothing short of blas-phemy (compare John 10:33), and itis even worse to do this for gain bypreying on people’s legalistic fearsthat they will be eternally damnedunless they measure up to the dic-

16 17

�

REFERENCES1 Minnie Warburton, “Letting the Voice

of Leviticus Speak,” Sewanee Theological Re-view 37 (1994), p. 164.

2 S. Paul, Studies in the Book of theCovenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Bibli-cal Law (Vetus Testamentum, Supplements18; Leiden: Brill, 1970), p. 43.

3 Unless otherwise noted, all Bible refer-ences in this article are drawn from the NewInternational Version.

4 Translated by J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (Anchor Bible 3A; New York: Doubleday,2000), p. 1295.

5 G. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NewInternational Commentary on the Old Testa-ment; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 35.

6 Martin Luther, A Simple Way to Pray(London: Westminster John Knox, 2000), p.54.

7 H. T. Blackaby, and C. V. King, Experi-encing God: How to Live the Full Adventure ofKnowing and Doing the Will of God(Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), p.13.

8 D. Patrick, Old Testament Law (Atlanta:John Knox, 1985), p. 4.

9 J. H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literaturein Its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Library of Biblical Interpretation, Zonder-van, 1989), p. 90, italics supplied.

10 L. Schlessinger, and S. Vogel, The TenCommandments: The Significance of God’sLaws in Everyday Life (New York: Cliff StreetBooks, 1998), p. xxix.

This article is adapted by permission from RoyGane, Leviticus, Numbers, NIV ApplicationCommentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zonder-van, 2004), pp. 305-314.

19

with the people on every point . . .[where they] can consistently doso.”1 The key concept in the previoussentence is consistency. Syncretism isallowing the culture to change thebiblical message and compromisingbiblical doctrines, “the replacementor the dilution of the essential truthsof the gospel through the incorpora-tion of non-Christian elements.”2

Syncretism of Christianity occurswhen the basic content of the gospelis changed by the cultural values ofthe context. Syncretism is the con-scious or unconscious reshaping ofChristian beliefs and practicesthrough cultural accommodation sothat they blend with those of thedominant culture in ways that arenot consistent with the Scriptures.

According to David Hesselgrave,syncretism occurs in two equal andopposite forms: under-contextualiza-tion and over-contextualization.3 Inboth cases the worldview of Scriptureis ignored in favor of a culture. Ahealthful contextualization takesplace at the very center of the contin-uum between these extremes, withroom for a variety of choices movingon either side. What makes things dif-ficult is that there is no sharp bound-ary between good and bad contextu-alization, except faithfulness toScrip ture. Even though one mission-ary’s contextualization is another’ssyncretism, the fact is that there areacceptable and unacceptable ap-proaches.

Doctrines are supracultural, andany attempt to contextualize mustpreserve their integrity. An acceptablecontextualization will not changedoctrines. Doctrines are divine truthsthat should not be confused with the-ology.

At its bare minimum, theology iswhat humans think about what Godsaid. Theological formulation neverhappens in a religio-cultural vac-uum, but a theology that begins withculture will unavoidably lead to syn-cretism. An acceptable theology doesnot begin with the context but withthe text. An acceptable theology willalways be characterized by faithful-ness to the Scriptures.

In the “Contextualization Spec-trum,” the “C-Scale” measures thelevel of contextualization from 1through 6 among “Christ-centeredcom munities” found in the Muslimcontext:

C-1: Traditional church usingoutside language.

C-2: Traditional church using in-side language.

C-3: Churches using inside lan-guage and religiously neutral insidecultural forms.

C-4: Contextualized Christ-cen-tered communities using inside lan-guage and biblically permissible cul-tural and Islamic forms.

C-5: Muslim communities thataffirm they are followers of Isa theMessiah. They still live legally and reli -gi ously within the community of Islam.

18

n Adventist missionary baptizesa Muslim who continues to re-peat several times a day that“Mo hammed is the prophet ofGod” and prays for blessings on

the “prophet” and his family. A newlybaptized convert attends the mosqueon a regular basis, where the divinityof Christ is consistently denied. An-other convert still participates in the“feast of the sacrifice.” How far can wego with contextualization amongMuslims? This is a matter of intensedebate within some sending organi-zations due to the fact that many be-lieve that some approaches have ledto syncretism.

Contextualization refers to theprocess of making the biblical textand its context meaningful and ap-plicable to the thought patterns andsituations of a given people. It coversthe cultural adjustments that have tobe made in cross-cultural evangelism.Syncretism is the fusion of two beliefs.

Frequently, syncretism is born ofa desire to make the gospel relevant.To avoid syncretism, Seventh-dayAdventists are admonished to “agree

HOW SHOULD THECHURCH CONTEXTUALIZE

FOR MUSLIMS?

B Y C A R L O S G . M A R T I N *

When Muslims accept Christianity, how much of Islam should the church expect

them to leave behind?

*Carlos G. Martin, Ph.D., teachesEvan gelism and Missions at SouthernAd ventist University, Collegedale,Tennessee.

A

what conversion is all about differsgreatly among Adventists. Some tendto equate it with a rational acceptanceof a set of doctrines, after which aperson is ready for baptism or for achange of denominational prefer-ence. Others think of it is a sudden,immediate, complete, radical, ab-solute, final change of life. Yet othersmay see it as a process.

Conversion of a non-Christian toChristianity may require a change ofassumptions in several areas. We mayargue about doctrines, but we cannotargue about assumptions. How can aHindu become persuaded that thereis only one God without using theBible? The natures of God, of man,and of sin as shown in the Qur’an aredifferent from the Christian under-standing based on the Bible.

To change the assumptions of aworldview, a non-Christian may re-quire more time than a non-Advent -ist Christian does to accept the Sab-bath. A Muslim who is in a slowprocess of conversion needs time tounderstand the gospel and its re-quirements. A missionary must beginwhere the non-Christian is. “Christdrew the hearts of His hearers to Himby the manifestation of His love, andthen, little by little, as they were ableto bear it, He unfolded to them thegreat truths of the kingdom. We alsomust learn to adapt our labors to thecondition of the people—to meetmen where they are.”4

Instead of beginning with Bible

C-6: Secret/underground believ-ers who are believed to be Muslimsby the Muslim community and saythemselves that they are Muslims.

The question is, At what point inthis scale is the integrity of thegospel compromised? “Faith Devel-opment in Context” (FDIC) min-istries is a new name for Adventistefforts using C-5 strategies.

This categorization is incompletein the sense that it does not describewell the mindset of both outsidersand insiders. It will be helpful to iden-tify and differentiate between threeapproaches to the ContextualizationSpectrum. They could be described asthe “perspective of an insider,” the“perspective of an outsider,” and the“strategic perspective.”

C-5 Muslims—An Insider’s Perspective

It is possible to consider the C-Scale from the perspective of an in-sider. Some believers are in a stage atwhich they are still doctrinally, so-cially, and legally within Islam (C-5).Others, however, have decided toremain culturally within the bound-aries of Islam but are aware of theimplications of their decision to fol-low Christ (C-4).

People arrive at a point of conver-sion through different paths. From anevangelical perspective, conversion isunderstood as a change of heart thattakes place when a person acceptsJesus as Savior. The understanding of

Instead of beginning with Bible studies, a Muslim

may need to receive “Qur’anic studies.” This person and his

or her community may take a slow path toward Christianity.

In time he or she will study the Bible. The transition from

full acceptance of the Qur’an to full acceptance of the

Bible may take years. The process of change might be multi-

generational, meaning that it will begin with individual

conversions, possibly with persecution and martyrdom.

20

missionary, but to describe the Mus-lim’s understanding of the gospel.The following version of the C-Scale, considered from the perspec-tive of an insider, illustrates the factthat Muslims may be in differentstages of maturity:

C-1: Converts who have been up-rooted from their culture.

C-2: Converts who are able totranscend cultural differences andcan worship using foreign worshippatterns.

C-3: Converts who feel at homein worship since they use linguisti-cally and religiously neutral, nativecultural forms.

C-4: Baptized believers in Isa whomake a conscious effort to witness tothe Islamic community by using bib -lically permissible cultural and Is -lamic forms in worship. In someareas, they may need to worship inclosed communities, while in othersthey may even establish “Adventist

studies, a Muslim may need to receive“Qur’anic studies.” This person andhis or her community may take a slowpath toward Christianity. In time heor she will study the Bible. The tran-sition from full acceptance of theQur’an to full acceptance of the Biblemay take years. The process of changemight be multigenerational, meaningthat it will begin with individual con-versions, possibly with persecutionand martyrdom. Ideally, the processwill reach a stage at which a genera-tion may find it easier to move closerto the ideal when an entire commu-nity and even people groups may ex-perience conversion.

Once people are ready for a re-sponsible decision, they should bebaptized. They may begin as Ad -ventist Muslims (C-5); however, inorder to receive baptism, they mustat least be Muslim Adventists (C-4).The C-Scale is used here not to de-scribe the strategy followed by a

21

believers are still legally within thecommunity of Islam, meaning thatthey would repeat many times a dayand at the mosque that “Muham-mad rusul Allah” (“Mohammed isthe messenger of God”).

C-5 communities are considered aMuslim offshoot by the Muslim com-munity, and they do not see them-selves as being part of the church, thebody of Christ. “The work being facil-itated by the Study Centers [spon-sored by FDIC] is resulting in newbeliever groups which are not able,for various reasons, to integrate intothe existing local church. This hasresulted in the establishment of newstructures in order to provide nurtureand allow for new growth among thenew believers.”6

C-5 believers still maintain manybeliefs and practices that are contraryto the gospel or, perhaps, have not yetunderstood the requirements of thegospel. This kind of believer needsfurther instruction and correction

mosques.” Just as the early churchflourished in a spiritually hostile cli-mate, C-4 communities may alsoemerge in an Islamic context.

C-5: Non-baptized believers whostill refer to themselves as Muslimswho are followers of Isa the Messiah.The believers remain “legally, cultur-ally, and religiously within the Mus-lim Ummah.”5 They may attend theMuslim mosque on a regular basis,while at the same time worshipingwith fellow believers on Sabbath.

C-6: Secret/underground believ-ers who are believed to be Muslim bythe Muslim community and whothemselves say that they are Muslim.

An important difference is thatC-4 believers are aware of the factthat they have become Christiansand have joined the Seventh-day Ad-ventist Church. C-5 believers stillrefer to themselves as Muslims. Theyare in a different stage in the processof conversion, with different levelsof understanding of the gospel. C-5

Scripture refers to the church as a body (Eph. 1:22; 4:15, 16;

Col. 1:18). C-5 believers, however, “are by definition not

linked to the local church.” As a result, and against the advice

of the Global Mission Issues Committee, most baptized

C-5 believers are not aware “of the fact that they belong to a

particular worldwide ecclesiastical community—the Seventh-

day Adventist Church.” This is unethical and against the

explicit instructions of Ellen G. White.

22

C-1: Missionaries make no at-tempt at contextualization at all.

C-2: Missionaries offer a Westernchurch service using inside language.

C-3: Missionaries show apprecia-tion for the local culture by incorpo-rating into worship as many neutralinside cultural forms as possible, suchas music, artwork, and ethnic dress.

C-4: Missionaries create contextu-alized Christ-centered communitiesthat not only use local language andincorporate neutral cultural forms inworship, but also biblically permissi-ble Islamic forms, such as prayingwith arms raised, touching the fore-head on the ground while praying,and separating men from women.

C-5: Missionaries believe that aMuslim can be saved without leav-ing Islam. Some baptize Muslimswho are not even aware that they arejoining the body of Christ. Somemissionaries go so far as legally tobecome a Muslim by repeating theShehadah in front of witnesses.

C-6: Secret/underground believerswho are believed to be Muslims by theMuslim community and who them-selves say that they are Muslims.

Missionaries with a C-5 mindsethave developed a theology that pro-poses that God created all religions inwhich there are kernels of truth. Asthe result of a subsequent apostasy,however, a remnant must be raised torestore the truth (just as happenedwith Christianity). God “desires aremnant in the Hindu community, in

(Acts 18:24-26). Even though duringa few decades of early Christian his-tory, believers worshiped in the Jer -usalem temple (Acts 2:46; 3:1) and at-tended Jewish synagogues until theywith drew either voluntarily (19:8-10)or under duress (Acts 13:45, 50; 18:5-7, 14-17), the New Testament also re -cords the rebaptism of an entire com-munity of believers that was baptizedwithout knowing the essential aspectsof the Christian doctrine (Acts 19:1-7).

Scripture refers to the church as abody (Eph. 1:22; 4:15, 16; Col. 1:18).C-5 believers, however, “are by defi-nition not linked to the localchurch.”7 As a result, and against theadvice of the Global Mission IssuesCommittee, most baptized C-5 be-lievers are not aware “of the fact thatthey belong to a particular world-wide ecclesiastical community—theSeventh-day Adventist Church.”8

This is unethical and against the ex-plicit instructions of Ellen G. White9

and of the Seventh-day AdventistChurch Manual.10 A baptized personshould not be disconnected from thebody of Christ (Rom. 12:4, 5).

C-5 Missionaries—An Outsider’sPerspective

Another adaptation of the C-Scale can be used to describe differ-ent levels of willingness to adapt inthe missionary’s mindset. This sec-tion describes the C-Scale from theperspective of the outsider, i.e., themissionary.

23

gions. “In all ages, philosophers andteachers have been presenting to theworld theories by which to satisfythe soul’s need. Every heathen na-tion has had its great teachers andreligious systems offering someother means of redemption thanChrist. The trend of their work is torob God of that which is His own,both by creation and by redemp-tion. And these false teachers robman as well. Millions of human be-ings are bound down under false re-ligions, in the bondage of slavishfear, of stolid indifference, toilinglike beasts of burden, bereft of hopeor joy or aspiration here, and withonly a dull fear of the hereafter.”13

Cain’s offering had a kernel oftruth in it, but his alternative ap-proach missed the mark. Thoughkernels of truth may be found invarious religious systems, they arenot proof that the movement wasraised by God, but an evidence thatGod was at work in spite of Satan’sefforts to lead people away from thetruth in its entirety.

Adventist Church on this matter:“Adventists understand that in thegreat controversy between God andSatan, God has acted through a vari-ety of people and nations to effectHis purposes in history, and, further,that God has been active in revealingtruth through chosen messengers,some of them known to us throughwritings that have been preservedunder the guidance of God’s Spiritand others unknown to us today. Inthis context, it is understood that theoriginal intent of Islam has in God’spurpose contributed to the restora-tion of certain important truth[s].”12

Serious implicit assumptions inthe preceding paragraph reflect themindset of C-5 missionaries. Thefirst is that God raised Islam to re-store certain important truths. It isonly within this context that theconcept of a remnant within Islamafter a “falling away” makes sense.This reasoning begins with a wrongassumption—that God created dif-ferent religions.

A correct assumption, however, isthat 600 years after Christ, Satan de-liberately raised a movement thatmixed truth and error in order tocreate an alternative religion toChris tianity that currently hasnearly 1.5 billion followers who denywhat Jesus did on the Cross.

Since the days of Cain and Abeland throughout history, Satan hasbeen very effective in using the ap-proach of raising alternative reli-

the Buddhist community, in the secu-lar developed community, in theMuslim community. Each of thesemust be culturally relevant and com-municating effectively the truth forthis time to that community.”11

The implication is that, followingthe Muslim pattern, a Hindu could bebaptized without leaving Hinduism,and a secular person could be saved inthe remnant that God is calling out inthe secular community. This conceptis based on an assumption for whichthere is no solid biblical support. Theremnant concept of the C-5 approachis a radical departure from the histor-ical Adventist understanding of theremnant as a body of believers whohave “come out” of their religiouscommunities (Rev. 14:6-12; 18:1-4)and have identified with a separateand visible group of people who havedetermined to be loyal to everythingGod has revealed—the remnantchurch (12:17). A missionary with aC-5 mindset reduces the church towhat Islam can reasonably tolerate.This is an erosion of Christianity andan open form of syncretism, an ap-proach that threatens the unity of thechurch as the body of Christ. Withthe existence of baptized believerswho have not developed a full fellow-ship with other sister communities inthe world, the stage has been set for afragmented world church.

C-5 supporters have even madestatements that seem to convey anofficial position of the Seventh-day

24

A second implicit assumption inthe paragraph is that God revealedtruth through the writings of chosenmessengers. At the end, this is a jus-tification for a Muslim legally to re-main in the mosque by repeatingthat “Allah is the only God and Mo-hammed is the messenger of God.”The simple fact that Mohammedwas exposed to Christianity and re-jected it, and that his teachings con-tradicted previous inspired New Tes-tament writings should be enoughevidence for his rejection as a prophet(messenger) of God.

A third assumption behind thatstatement is that the Qur’an, writtenby a messenger of God and pre-served under the guidance of theHoly Spirit, is as inspired as theBible. This assumption also providesthe foundation for a remnant withinHinduism, Buddhism, and virtuallyany religious or secular movementin which kernels of truth may befound. A vague and wide under-standing of inspiration may leadRoman Catholics to justify the role

25

Cain’s offering had a kernel of truth in it, but his

alternative approach missed the mark. Though kernels of

truth may be found in various religious systems, they are not

proof that the movement was raised by God, but an

evidence that God was at work in spite of Satan’s efforts to

lead people away from the truth in its entirety.

27

of the FDIC approach. Biblical examples do not justify

the approaches of a C-5 missionary.Paul did use the synagogue to launchevangelism, and he circumcised Tim-othy (Acts 16:1-3). But 1 Corinthians7:17-24 indicates that this does notmean that if Paul were alive today, hewould advise Muslims to “remain inthe condition in which [they were]called.” Though the doctrine of thesynagogue was valid, the doctrine ofthe mosque is wrong. Though theteachings of the Law and the Prophetswere the foundation for the New Tes-tament, the teachings of the Qur’annegate biblical doctrines. ThoughPaul’s writings were based on teach-ings of the Old Testament, Mo-hammed’s writings were not based onthe teachings of the New Testament.Islam cannot be equated with Ju-daism, nor the assumptions of C-5missionaries with Paul’s mindset.

Missionaries could use the C-5strategy in the ContextualizationSpectrum to help Muslims arrive atan understanding of the gospel wherethey can make a responsible decisionfor Jesus and His church. When ad-dressing the Epicurean and StoicGreek philosophers, Paul beganwhere the Athenians were as he madereferences to “‘the unknown God’”(Acts 17:23, KJV); then he used C-5strategies as he quoted from paganGreek poets (vs. 28). Then he movedto the C-4 level as he forcefully con-fronted his hearers with the death and

resurrection of Jesus, even at the riskof suffering persecution.

A C-5 strategy is not an end in it-self, but rather a transitional ap-proach that aims to help Muslims(C-5 believers) become Christians(C-4 believers). These “followers ofIsa the Messiah” still live within thecommunity of Islam, legally and re-ligiously. Eventually they may arriveat a point at which, individually oras a community, they will becomeaware that their identity as “follow-ers of Isa” makes them part of theuniversal body of Christ and, specif-ically, Seventh-day Adventists with aMuslim background.

People who are still at a stage intheir process toward conversion atwhich they are not ready to make aresponsible decision to join the bodyof Christ are not ready for baptism.Of course missionaries must meetpeople where they are. But theyshould not baptize Muslims whostill believe that Islam is the true re-ligion, accept the Qur’an as theWord of God, believe that Moham -med was a true prophet, and thinkthey are still Muslims—just to helpthem move toward Christianity.

Only people who understand theimplications of their baptism shouldbe baptized. According to Mark 16:15,Christians must “preach the gospel toevery creature” (KJV). In the “GreatCommission,” however, Jesus askedHis followers to make disciples by“teaching them to observe all things”

26

of “tradition,” or Mormons to stay intheir church even after havingknown the gospel. This does notmean that kernels of truth found inthe Qur’an may be utilized to attractMuslims to the message of Isa theMessiah.

Missionaries with a C-5 mindsetdo not represent the Adventist mis-sion and message. A C-5 missionary(who believes that Islam is a true re-ligion, that Mohammed was a mes-senger of God, and that the Qur’anis one of the holy writings) is a the-ological contradiction. A missionarywith a C-4 mindset may, however,use C-5 strategies to lead non-be-lievers to a point at which they maymake a responsible decision for Jesusand His truth.

C-5 Strategy—The Strategic Perspective

A third way to see the C-Scale isfrom a strategic perspective. Differ-

ent strategies should be followed forpeople in different stages of growth.The ap proach suggested in this arti-cle does not eliminate the usage ofIslamic forms. A C-4 missionary(some one who wants to be faithfulto the Scriptures and is not willing tocom promise the integrity of the gos -pel) can use C-5 strategies (such asuse of the Qur’an) to help a C-5Mus lim (who is still attending themosque).

In an extended conversation in2004 with an Adventist who workswithin the C-5 scale, he insisted thatwe should not aim to make an Ad-ventist out of a Muslim and that hisconverts would remain in Islam.This person has theological prob-lems relating to the doctrine of thechurch, the doctrine of the remnant,the doctrine of inspiration and reve-lation, and the doctrine of baptism.Though sometimes this is not clearlyspelled out, this is in the background

People who are still at a stage in their process toward

conversion at which they are not ready to make a responsible

decision to join the body of Christ are not ready for baptism.

Of course missionaries must meet people where they are. But

they should not baptize Muslims who still believe that Islam is

the true religion, accept the Qur’an as the Word of God, believe

that Mohammed was a true prophet, and think they are still

Muslims—just to help them move toward Christianity.

29

significant number of publica-tions came out during the 1950suplifting the reliability of theBible and the writings of EllenG. White. Of the books dealing

with Ellen White, Francis D. Nichol’sEllen G. White and Her Critics (1951)was the most outstanding. In this 702-page volume, Nichol responded to al-most all charges raised against EllenWhite since the days of Canright.

It was also during the 1950s that agroup of Seventh-day Adventistscholars combined their efforts toproduce a Seventh-day Adventist BibleCommentary (1953-1957). With thehelp of such groups as the Committeeon Bible Chronology and the Com-mittee on Problems in Bible Transla-

tions, the commentary integrated in asingle project the views of its variouscontributors. It was stated that whilerejecting the position that “the writersof Scripture wrote under verbal dic -tation by the Holy Spirit,” the com-mentary was carried out under the as-sumption that the writers of Scrip ture“spoke and wrote according to theirown individualities and characteris-tics, as is indicated by the varied stylesof writing that they display, but free of

ADVENTIST VIEWSON INSPIRATION

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

AThe last half of the 20th century provided

a continuation of the debate in the Adventist Church over the nature of inspiration.

*Alberto R. Timm, Ph., D., is Directorof the Brazilian Ellen G. White Re-search Center and Professor of ChurchHistory and Historical Theology atBrazil Adventist College (CentralCampus).

(Matt. 28:20, KJV). In obedience tothe Great Commission, Paul states, “Ihave not shunned to declare unto youall the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27,KJV). As a result of evangelism in theearly church, baptized believers “con-tinued steadfastly in the apostles’ doc-trine and fellowship” (2:42, NKJV).Those who were being saved were“added to the church” (vs. 47, KJV).The guidelines from the Church Man-ual are in harmony with the Scrip-tures.14 All policies related to the Gen-eral Conference should be in har monywith them.

There is an appropriate use of C-5strategies. These strategies should beviewed, however, as catalysts formovement into the next stage of thescale. The underlying issue is whetherthe use of C-5 strategies is an out-reach technique or is the mindset ofthe missionary. A mindset that seeksand is willing to accept and baptizeconverts who remain at this level isnot faithful to the Scriptures or to thechurch. An Adventist missionary oran Adventist sending organizationshould not compromise the integrityof the gospel for pragmatic purposes(i.e., to see church growth wherethere has been no success). A mis-sionary with a C-5 mindset does notadequately represent the Seventh-dayAdventist theology and message. Thesearch for and use of strategies shouldbe creative, but they should be basedon a solid foundation—faithfulnessto the Scriptures.

28

REFERENCES1 Evangelism, p. 140. 2 A. Scott Moreau, “Syncretism,” in Evan-

gelical Dictionary of World Missions, A. Scott

Moreau, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker,

2000), p. 924.3 David J. Hesselgrave, “Syncretism: Mis-

sion and Missionary Induced?” in Context -

uali zation and Syncretism, pp. 71-98.4 Evangelism, p. 484.5 Jerald Whitehouse, “Issues of Identity,”

Global Center for Adventist-Muslim Rela-

tions (2005), Appendix 3, p. 27.6 __________, “Developing New Church

Structures for More Effective Mission, Nurture,

and Growth of New Believers,” Global Center

for Adventist-Muslim Relations, October 1997.7 Ibid.8 Global Mission Issues Committee, “Guide -

lines for Engaging in Global Mission” (Silver

Spring, Md.: General Conference of Seventh-

day Adventists, 1993), GM/BRI/AD COM to

MLR.9 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 95;

Testimonies to Ministers, p. 128.10 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual

(Silver Spring: General Conference of Sev-

enth-day Adventists, 2005), pp. 30, 31.11 Jerald Whitehouse, “Contextual Ad -

ventist Mission to Islam: A Working Model,”

in The Three Angels and the Crescent: A

Reader, Jonquil Hole and Børge Schantz, eds.

(Bracknell, England: Seventh-day Adventist

Global Centre for Islamic Studies, 1993), p.

257.12 _________, “Key Issues Foundational to

Comparison of Seventh-day Adventists Be-

liefs with Beliefs of Islam Leading to Sum-

mary Relation Statements,” Global Center for

Ad ventist-Muslim Relations, 2000, p. 15, ital-

ics supplied.13 The Desire of Ages, p. 478.14 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual,

pp. 30, 31.

29

significant number of publica-tions came out during the 1950suplifting the reliability of theBible and the writings of EllenG. White. Of the books dealing

with Ellen White, Francis D. Nichol’sEllen G. White and Her Critics (1951)was the most outstanding. In this 702-page volume, Nichol responded to al-most all charges raised against EllenWhite since the days of Canright.

It was also during the 1950s that agroup of Seventh-day Adventistscholars combined their efforts toproduce a Seventh-day Adventist BibleCommentary (1953-1957). With thehelp of such groups as the Committeeon Bible Chronology and the Com-mittee on Problems in Bible Transla-

tions, the commentary integrated in asingle project the views of its variouscontributors. It was stated that whilerejecting the position that “the writersof Scripture wrote under verbal dic -tation by the Holy Spirit,” the com-mentary was carried out under the as-sumption that the writers of Scrip ture“spoke and wrote according to theirown individualities and characteris-tics, as is indicated by the varied stylesof writing that they display, but free of

ADVENTIST VIEWSON INSPIRATION

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

AThe last half of the 20th century provided

a continuation of the debate in the Adventist Church over the nature of inspiration.

*Alberto R. Timm, Ph., D., is Directorof the Brazilian Ellen G. White Re-search Center and Professor of ChurchHistory and Historical Theology atBrazil Adventist College (CentralCampus).

(Matt. 28:20, KJV). In obedience tothe Great Commission, Paul states, “Ihave not shunned to declare unto youall the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27,KJV). As a result of evangelism in theearly church, baptized believers “con-tinued steadfastly in the apostles’ doc-trine and fellowship” (2:42, NKJV).Those who were being saved were“added to the church” (vs. 47, KJV).The guidelines from the Church Man-ual are in harmony with the Scrip-tures.14 All policies related to the Gen-eral Conference should be in har monywith them.

There is an appropriate use of C-5strategies. These strategies should beviewed, however, as catalysts formovement into the next stage of thescale. The underlying issue is whetherthe use of C-5 strategies is an out-reach technique or is the mindset ofthe missionary. A mindset that seeksand is willing to accept and baptizeconverts who remain at this level isnot faithful to the Scriptures or to thechurch. An Adventist missionary oran Adventist sending organizationshould not compromise the integrityof the gospel for pragmatic purposes(i.e., to see church growth wherethere has been no success). A mis-sionary with a C-5 mindset does notadequately represent the Seventh-dayAdventist theology and message. Thesearch for and use of strategies shouldbe creative, but they should be basedon a solid foundation—faithfulnessto the Scriptures.

28

REFERENCES1 Evangelism, p. 140. 2 A. Scott Moreau, “Syncretism,” in Evan-

gelical Dictionary of World Missions, A. Scott

Moreau, ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker,

2000), p. 924.3 David J. Hesselgrave, “Syncretism: Mis-

sion and Missionary Induced?” in Context -

uali zation and Syncretism, pp. 71-98.4 Evangelism, p. 484.5 Jerald Whitehouse, “Issues of Identity,”

Global Center for Adventist-Muslim Rela-

tions (2005), Appendix 3, p. 27.6 __________, “Developing New Church

Structures for More Effective Mission, Nurture,

and Growth of New Believers,” Global Center

for Adventist-Muslim Relations, October 1997.7 Ibid.8 Global Mission Issues Committee, “Guide -

lines for Engaging in Global Mission” (Silver

Spring, Md.: General Conference of Seventh-

day Adventists, 1993), GM/BRI/AD COM to

MLR.9 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 95;

Testimonies to Ministers, p. 128.10 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual

(Silver Spring: General Conference of Sev-

enth-day Adventists, 2005), pp. 30, 31.11 Jerald Whitehouse, “Contextual Ad -

ventist Mission to Islam: A Working Model,”

in The Three Angels and the Crescent: A

Reader, Jonquil Hole and Børge Schantz, eds.

(Bracknell, England: Seventh-day Adventist

Global Centre for Islamic Studies, 1993), p.

257.12 _________, “Key Issues Foundational to

Comparison of Seventh-day Adventists Be-

liefs with Beliefs of Islam Leading to Sum-

mary Relation Statements,” Global Center for

Ad ventist-Muslim Relations, 2000, p. 15, ital-

ics supplied.13 The Desire of Ages, p. 478.14 Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual,

pp. 30, 31.

3130

emphasis on the personal content ofrevelation—that it consists in an ‘I-Thou’ relationship in which Godcommunicates Himself to man. Shedid not share Brunner’s hesitancy toaccept the revelation of specifictruths, for these, she believed, con-tribute to the ultimate reconciliationbetween man and God.”4

While acknowledging that EllenWhite recognized the communica-tion of specific truths in the processof revelation, Harder did not empha-size her understanding of that com-munication as an actual impartationof propositional truths. Although“the line between the natural and thesupernatural is almost nonexistent sofar as the attainment of knowledge isconcerned,” there is still a need for theWord of God because that Word was“communicated by methods less sub-ject to the distortions of sin” than innatural revelation.5

In regard to the inspiration ofScripture, Harder stated that for EllenWhite “inspiration reveals thought,but it does not set the mold for itsform of expression.”6 Harder recog-nized, however, that for Ellen Whitethe Bible was “a correct record” of bi-ography and history because (1) “thescribes wrote under direction of theHoly Spirit,” and (2) “this influencecounteracted the human biases whichcause biographers to gloss over manyderogatory facts about their heroesand thus present only a partialtruth.”7 “Inasmuch as both science

and the Bible have the same author,there can be no conflict betweenthem when they are rightly under-stood.”8 Varieties of “styles and sub-ject matters” are seen by Ellen Whiteas “a strength rather than weakness,”because they provide “varying em-phases” to the many aspects of truth“which would not be presented in atoughly uniform work.”9

Another slight move toward en-counter revelation was taken by JackW. Provonsha, professor of Chris -tian Ethics at Loma Linda Univer-sity, in his article “Revelation and In-spiration,” published in 1964 in theAndrews University Seminary Stud-ies. In this article, Provonsha spokeof encounter revelation in a muchfriendlier way than previous tradi-tional Seventh-day Adventists. Theoverall tenor of the article seemedeven to suggest a certain via-mediaposition between the propositionalconcept of revelation and the en-counter revelation theory.

The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia (1966)came off the press with a specificentry on the “Inspiration of Scrip-ture.” After quoting the statement onthe “Holy Scriptures” of the Funda-mental Beliefs that had been officiallyaccepted since 1931, the entry statedthat Seventh-day Adventists “do notbelieve in verbal inspiration, accord-ing to the usual meaning of the term,but in what may properly be calledthought inspiration.”10 This statement

the errors found in other writings.”1

In the mid-1950s, Carl W. Daggycompleted his M.A. in which he ex-plicitly suggested that Seventh-dayAdventists were not in full agree-ment with the Fundamentalist viewof inspiration. According to Daggy,“Fundamentalists and Seventh-dayAd ventists are in agreement that theBible is the Christian’s sole unerringrule of faith and practice. Theysharply disagree, however, on thequestion of verbal inspiration. TheFundamentalists generally take theposition that the words of Scrip-tures, as such, were inspired by God.Seventh-day Adventists, on the otherhand, believe that inspiration func-tioned in the minds of the Biblewriters, but that their choice ofwords was their own. At the sametime, they insist that this choice wasguarded so that the writers did notexpress error.”2

In 1957, the book Questions onDoctrine came out affirming that Sev-

enth-day Adventists believed that theBible “not merely contains the word ofGod, but is the word of God.”3

In the following year (1958) EllenWhite’s Selected Messages, Book 1,came off the press with an insightfulsection compiled from the author’swritings on inspiration.

Although Seventh-day Adventistshad traditionally held the proposi-tional view of revelation, a perceiv-able move toward the encounterview of revelation was taken byFrederick E. J. Harder in his 506-page Ph.D. dissertation, “Revelation,a Source of Knowledge as Conceivedby Ellen G. White,” defended in 1960at New York University. In this dis-sertation, Harder studied Ellen G.White’s concept of revelation in thelight of Thomas Aquinas, JohnCalvin, Friedrich Schleiermacher,Augustus Strong, and Emil Brunner.

In interpreting Ellen White’s con-cept of revelation, Harder suggestedthat “White agreed with Brunner’s

30

The first edition of the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia

(1966) came off the press with a specific entry on the

“Inspiration of Scripture.” After quoting the statement on the

“Holy Scriptures” of the Fundamental Beliefs that had been

officially accepted since 1931, the entry stated that Seventh-

day Adventists “do not believe in verbal inspiration,

according to the usual meaning of the term, but in what may

properly be called thought inspiration.”

necessarily in “the accuracy of wordsper se.”17

Thus, the years 1950 to 1970 sawthe emergence of some moves towardencounter revelation and a thoughtview of inspiration that was largelyinformed by a particular understand-ing of Ellen White’s phenomena. Notuntil the 1970s and early 1980s, how-ever, did these trends reach their cli-mactic expression.

Challenges of the Historicization ofInspired Writings (1970-1991)

While conflicting views of inspi-ration had been previously nurturedwithin Seventh-day Adventism, itwas in the early 1970s that Seventh-day Adventist scholars became morecontroversially divided on this par-ticular doctrine. The main forums tofoster those discussions were the As-sociation of Adventist Forums (offi-cially established in the fall of 1967)and its Spectrum magazine (first is-sued in the winter of 1969).

As a non-official church publica-tion, Spectrum assumed a revisionist-

critical stand, which would eventuallybe denounced by Neal C. Wilson,General Conference president, at the1984 Annual Council of the GeneralConference. Several articles advocat-ing encounter revelation and the useof the historical-critical method cameout in Spectrum, setting the agendafor many discussions on inspirationduring the period 1970-1991.Encounter Revelation. The theory

of encounter revelation was a neo-orthodox reaction to the traditionalconcept of propositional revelation.It perceives revelation as a subjectivepersonal divine-human encounterrather than as an objective commu-nication of propositional truth. TheBible is, therefore, reduced to a merehuman testimony of that encounter.

The Autumn 1970 issue of Spec-trum came out with several articlesdealing with Ellen White. Amongthose articles was one by F. E. J.Harder, dean of the School of Grad-uate Studies at Andrews University,in which he further elaborated somebasic concepts of his Ph.D. disserta-

The years 1950 to 1970 saw the emergence of some

moves toward encounter revelation and a thought view of

inspiration that was largely informed by a particular

understanding of Ellen White’s phenomena. Not until the

1970s and early 1980s, however, did these trends reach their

climactic expression.

was followed by some quotationsfrom Ellen White’s writings.

Also in 1966, Arthur L. White,sec retary of the Ellen G. White Estateand grandson of Ellen White, pre-sented a lecture at Andrews Univer-sity under the title “Toward a FactualConcept of Inspiration” (published in1973). In that lecture, he stated that“Seventh-day Adventists are uniquelyfortunate in approaching the ques-tion of the inspiration of theprophets. We are not left to find ourway, drawing all our conclusionsfrom writings of two thousand yearsor more ago that have come down tous through varied transcriptions andtranslations. With us it is an almostcontemporary matter, for we havehad a prophet in our midst. It is gen-erally granted by the careful studentof her works that the experience ofEllen G. White was not differentfrom that of the prophets of old.”11

Arthur White also said that “EllenG. White’s statements concerning theBible and her work indicate that theconcept of verbal inspiration is with-out support in either the Bible writ-ers’ or her own word.”12 He declaredalso that while “the Scriptures pro-vide an infallible revelation,” “the lan-guage used in imparting it to man -kind is not infallible.”13 He admittedthe existence of factual discrepanciesin “details of minor consequence.”14

The Sabbath school lesson forOctober 11, 1969, stated, however,that not only “the actual impartation

of the divine revelation of truthcame to the prophet under theSpirit’s guidance and control” (cf.Num. 12:6; Hosea 12:10; Rev. 1:10,11), but also that “the communi-cation to the people of the lightreceived by the prophet, was alsodirected by the Holy Spirit” (cf. 2Peter 1:21; Rev. 1:2, 11).15

Aware of the new critical trendsthat were slowly leading Seventh-dayAdventism into a crisis on inspira-tion, Edward Heppenstall, professorof systematic theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary,Andrews University, pointed out inMinistry magazine for July 1970 thatSeventh-day Adventists had simplyaligned themselves “with the evangel-ical or traditional position,” withouthaving a “clearly defined and devel-oped doctrine of revelation and in-spiration.”16

After blaming the encounter the-ory of revelation for confusing revela-tion with regeneration, Heppenstallaffirmed that “God’s communicationis addressed to the mind of man in ra-tional concepts and verbal proposi-tions.” “By inspiration,” according toHeppenstall, “God kept the Biblewriters within the conceptual truthsof His revelation,” so that “both thewriters and the message were God di-rected” (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16, 17). Heppen-stall affirmed also that Scripture is“without error in what it teaches, inthe historical facts basic to the truthsthey are intended to unfold,” but not

32 33

plained that “one’s encounter withChrist is effected only through hear-ing the prophetic and apostolicproclamation consigned to Scrip-tures. These fragile words of Scrip-ture passed down to us from the OTand the NT writers are intrinsic tothe revelational process. They are astrue as the Christ event they expli-cate, and they share in the ‘once-for-all’ character of the divine revela-tion.”21

After describing how “the age ofenlightenment” questioned theChristian traditional view of Scrip-ture as “a divine communication toman cast in written form under theexpress inflow of the Holy Spirit,”Dederen qualified any attempt to re-ject “the testimony of Scripture re-garding itself” as “unscientific.”22

Dederen read a paper entitled“Toward a Seventh-day AdventistTheology of Revelation-Inspiration”at the 1974 Bible Conference. In thispaper, Dederen again pointed outthat revelation “is more than a meremeeting or encounter, it is also aknowing, it implies a knowledge ofthe Lord and of His will.”23

The Historical-Critical Method.The historical-critical method is amethod of literary analysis used tostudy documents from the perspec-tive of their indebtedness to the par-ticular socio-cultural milieu in whichthey were produced. The methodgrew out of the Enlightenment as-sumption (or basic presupposition)

that history can be understood with-out taking into con si deration super-natural intervention.

The question whether the methodis adequate for the study of “in-spired” writings divided Seventh-dayAdventist scholars eventually intothree major groups: (1) Those whoaccept the method with its basic pre-supposition; (2) those who believethat a modified version of themethod can be used apart from itsbasic presupposition; and (3) thosewho hold that the method is unac-ceptable because it cannot be isolatedfrom its basic presupposition.

The existence of so-called “mod-ified” versions of the classical his-torical-critical method would re-quire a much more detailed study toidentify particular understandingsof the method by different Seventh-day Adventist scholars. However, noclassification of such variant under-standings are provided in the pres -ent article beyond the endeavor ofpointing out a few Seventh-day Ad-ventist studies that attempt to fosterthe use of the method and criti-cisms of those attempts.

Historical-critical studies ofEllen White’s writings were encour-aged by the Autumn 1970 Spectrumarticle “Ellen White: A Subject forAdventist Scholarship,” written byRoy Branson, then assistant profes-sor of Christian ethics at AndrewsUniversity, and Herold D. Weiss,then assistant professor of New Tes-

tion (1960). Seventh-day Adventistswere challenged by Harder’s articleto move beyond the 19th-centuryProtestant view of special revelation“as propositionally embedded withinan ancient book.” For Harder, specialrevelation was a “continuing conver-sation and communion betweenGod and living people” in personaland communal bases.18

In 1975, Herold Weiss, chairmanof the Department of Religious Stud-ies of St. Mary’s College, Indiana, andformer assistant professor of NewTestament at Andrews University,moved even more explicitly towardthe encounter theology of neo-ortho-doxy in his Spectrum article entitled“Revelation and the Bible: BeyondVerbal Inspiration.” Under the as-sumption that “both revelation andinspiration take place outside andprior to the Bible,” Weiss argued that“to equate God’s Word with a book isthe work of a corrupted faith that setsup for itself an idol. The words of thebook are the words of the prophetswhich only tangentially reflect the

Word of God. Nothing on earth is theultimate expression of God. To makethe Bible such is bibliolatry, just an-other form of idolatry.”19

Weiss rejected the “verbal inspi-ration” idea that “the Bible has oneAuthor” because “historical, gram-matical and literary” studies haveshown that “it is impossible to lumpall the books of the Bible under oneauthor.” Based on such an assump-tion. Weiss argued that “the Bible asa book can and must be studied asany other book.”20

Meanwhile, the most significantSeventh-day Adventist critical re-sponses to the encounter revelationtheory were penned by Raoul Ded-eren during the 1970s. In a paper en-titled “Revelation, Inspiration, andHermeneutics,” which came out inthe Symposium on Biblical Hermen -eu tics (1974), Dederen qualified theidea of setting “revelation-encounterover against revelation-doctrine” asa false dichotomy. While admittingthat revelation is indeed “an event,an encounter,” Dederen also ex-

34 35

Dederen read a paper entitled “Toward a

Seventh-day Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration” at

the 1974 Bible Conference. In this paper, Dederen again

pointed out that revelation “is more than a mere meeting or

encounter, it is also a knowing, it implies a knowledge of the

Lord and of His will.”

trum magazine. There, John C.Brunt, professor of New Testamentat Walla Walla College, argued thatthe use of the historical-criticalmethod does not necessarily lead to“liberal conclusions.” Brunt furthersuggested that “virtually all Advent -ist exegates [sic] of Scripture do usehistorical-critical methodology, evenif they are not willing to use theterm. The historical-critical methoddeserves a place in the armamentar-ium of Adventists who are seriousabout understanding their Bibles.”29

Larry G. Herr, then professor ofOld Testament in the seminary ofthe Far Eastern Division in thePhilippines, argued in the same linethat “the ‘historical-critical’ methodof Bible study, used properly, can bea valid and powerful tool for Sev-enth-day Adventists.”30

Meanwhile, some of the most sig-nificant Seventh-day Adventist criti-cisms of the historical-criticalmethod were penned by E. EdwardZinke and Gerhard F. Hasel. Duringthe 1970s, Zinke, then research assis-

tant and assistant secretary of theBiblical Research Committee of theGeneral Conference, came out withseveral articles on the subject. Ofspecial significance was his supple-ment to Ministry magazine of Octo-ber 1977, entitled “A ConservativeApproach to Theology.” After sur-veying different approaches to theol-ogy from a historical perspective,Zinke stated that “method in theol-ogy must not be determined by an apriori consideration of the nature ofman, of the universe, or of any as-pect of these two. Rather, methodmust be determined totally by Scrip-ture itself. The method by whichScripture is studied must not be thesame as that applied to human liter-ature. Since God’s revelation is dis-tinct from that which takes placewithin the human sphere, themethod applied to its interpretationis not the same as that which is ap-plied to what is produced within thehuman sphere. Thus the nature ofrevelation itself must be consideredwithin the context of the method for

Zinke stated that “method in theology must not be

determined by an a priori consideration of the nature of

man, of the universe, or of any aspect of these two.

Rather, method must be determined totally by Scripture itself.

The method by which Scripture is studied must not be the

same as that applied to human literature.”

tament at the same university. Inthat article, Branson and Weiss chal-lenged Seventh-day Adventistsscholars to study Ellen White’s writ-ings with a four-step historical-criti-cal hermen eu tics, intended (1) “todiscover the nature of Mrs. White’srelationship to other authors,” (2)“to recover the social and intellec-tual milieu in which she lived andwrote,” (3) “to give close attention tothe development of Ellen White’swritings within her own lifetime,and also to the development of thechurch,” and (4) “to apply in our daythe words she spoke in her day.”24

Such hermeneutics set the trendfor several historical-critical studiesthat came out during this period(1970-1991) charging Ellen Whitewith historical errors, plagiarism,psychological trances, and theologi-cal pitfalls.

In the fall of 1979, BenjaminMcArthur, professor of Americanhistory at Southern Missionary Col-lege, pointed out in his Spectrum ar-ticle, “Where Are Historians Takingthe Church?” that Seventh-day Ad-ventism was “witnessing the firstgreat age of Adventist historical revi-sionism.” McArthur explained thatthe new generation of Seventh-dayAdventist revisionists worked underthe common presupposition that“the cultural milieu in which EllenWhite lived and worked to a largedegree shaped her writings on his-tory, prophecy, health and, by impli-

cation, every other topic she dis-cussed.” As a result, “the nature ofher inspiration” and “her authorityin the church” were at issue.25

McArthur explained that since“orthodox belief and critical histori-cal judgment are incompatible,” “theproblem is not that the Adventisthistorian lacks faith in God’s provi-dential leading, but that there is noway for him to include it in histori-cal explanation.”26 Thus, the use ofthe historical-critical method ledSeventh-day Adventist revisionistsnot only to deal with Ellen White’swritings as “historically condi-tioned”27 but also to a large extent togive up the Great Controversy themeas a philosophy of history.

In March 1980, Donald Mc -Adams, president of SouthwesternAdventist College, published an arti-cle in Spectrum under the explana-tory title “Shifting Views of Inspira-tion: Ellen G. White Studies in the1970s.” In that article, McAdams ex-plained how critical studies of EllenWhite during the 1970s tried toshow that her works were “not en-tirely original” (because she “copiedfrom other sources”) and were “notinfallible” (because she “made state-ments that were not correct”).28

The use of the historical-criticalmethod was also encouraged in re-gard to the study of Scripture. Ofspecial significance was the sectionentitled “Ways to Read the Bible” ofthe December 1982 issue of Spec-

36 37

unacceptable to Adventists.”35

The use of the historical-criticalmethod was also criticized in severalarticles by Gerhard F. Hasel, Leon I.Mashchak, Richard M. Davidson,and Mario Veloso.Further Developments. Since

1970, a significant variety of defini-tions of inspiration have been pro-posed in Seventh-day Adventist cir-cles. Those definitions have oscil latedbetween attempts to accommodateapparent “discrepancies” of inspiredwritings and concerns of uplifting theinfallibility of those writings againstthe challenges imposed by revisioniststudies.

In 1972, Rene Noorbergen’s EllenG. White: Prophet of Destiny describedthe prophetic ministry in strongterms. According to Noorbergen, a“true prophet is not a psychic whoperforms with the aid of a mental or‘spiritual’ crutch, but is someone whohas no degree of freedom either inturning in or controlling the pro - phetic impulses or prophetic recall.These impulses are superimposedover the prophet’s conscious mind bya supernatural personal being, havingabsolute knowledge of both past andfuture, making no allowance for erroror human miscalculation.”36

Also in 1972, Hans Heinz’ Glau -benslehren der Heiligen Schrift cameout with a special chapter on “TheHoly Scripture.” After rejecting thetheory of verbal inspiration, Heinzdefined inspiration as “a positive di-

vine impact on the mind, will, andimagination of the author, who useshis means in order to write as Goddesires, whereby the author is underthe guidance of God, which preventserror.”37

Of special significance was the1974 Bible Conference, which wassummoned “to focus on the Bible asthe foundation of Adventist faithand doctrine, and to study soundprinciples of hermeneutics.”38 Thedoctrine of inspiration was ad-dressed in Raoul Dederen’s two pa-pers, “Revelation, Inspiration, andHermeneutics” and “Toward a Sev-enth-day Adventist Theology ofRevelation-Inspiration.”

In the latter, Dederen defined in-spiration as “the controlling influencethat God exerts over the human in-strument by whom His revelation iscommunicated. It has to do with thereception, by the prophet, of the di-vine revelation and the accuracy withwhich it is transmitted, whether in anoral or a written form. At the sametime it gives the record of revelationits authority and validity for us.”39

To this he added, “We can hardlybelieve that God, having performedthe mighty acts and revealed theirtrue meaning and import to theminds of prophets and apostleswould leave the prophetic and apos-tolic ministry to take care of itself.The same Holy Spirit, we hold, whocalled them to share God’s knowl-edge and plans, also aided their ef-

its interpretation.”31

In 1980, Gerhard F. Hasel, profes-sor of Old Testament and biblical the-ology at Andrews University, pub-lished his book Understanding theLiving Word of God, in which he criti-cized the historical-critical methodfor its “totally immanent view of his-tory on the horizontal level withoutany vertical, transcendent dimen-sion.”32 Hasel not only charged thatmethod with undermining the au-thority of the Scriptures, but also ar-gued in favor of an approach to Scrip-ture that could recognize its divine,supernatural element.

In 1985 the Biblical Research Insti-tute published Hasel’s book, BiblicalInterpretation Today, in which the au-thor strongly criticized the historical-critical method for “disallowing di-vine, supernatural intervention inhistory.”33 Under the assumption that“the Bible must remain the masterand the method the servant,” Haselargued that in the study of Scripture

the “method must always be subjectto the judgment of Scripture.” Thus“the study of Scripture must follow amethod that derives its philosophicalconceptuality, its norms and proce-dures from Scripture itself.”34

Concerns about the use of thehistorical-critical method by Sev-enth-day Adventist scholars also ledthe 1986 Annual Council of theGeneral Conference, which con-vened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote adocument on “Methods of BibleStudy.” In this official document,Adventist Bible students were urged“to avoid relying on the use of thepresuppositions and the resultantdeductions associated with the his-torical-critical method.” Under theassumption that “human reason issubject to the Bible, not equal to orabove it,” the document stated that“even a modified use” of the histori-cal-critical method “that retains theprinciple of criticism which subor-dinates the Bible to human reason is

38 39

Concerns about the use of the historical-critical

method by Seventh-day Adventist scholars also led the 1986

Annual Council of the General Conference, which

convened in Rio de Janeiro, to vote a document on “Methods

of Bible Study.” In this official document, Adventist Bible

students were urged “to avoid relying on the use of the pre-

suppositions and the resultant deductions associated with the

historical-critical method.”

White did not support the views ofverbal inspiration and inerrancy ofthe original autographs, Dederen ex-plained that Ellen White’s concept ofinspiration is that “the whole man isinspired, not just his words.”45

Meanwhile, Arthur White pre-pared two series of articles for theReview, trying to counteract some ofthe tensions unleashed by revisioniststudies of Ellen White. The first se-ries came out in early 1978, underthe general title “Toward an Advent -ist Concept of Inspiration.” In thisseries, Arthur White suggested againthat Seventh-day Adventists were ina better position to understand themodus operandi of inspiration, be-cause they still had the autographs ofa modern prophet (Ellen White),while those of the Bible were nolonger available.

White admitted that while “therevelation of God’s will is authorita-tive and infallible,” “the language usedin imparting it to mankind is humanand hence is imperfect.”46 He saw theprophet as under the influence of the

Spirit of God not only in receiving“his message through the visions” butalso in bearing testimony. Despitecertain occasions in which “the verywords to be used are impressed uponhis mind by the Spirit of God,” the in-fluence of the Spirit does not lead theprophet to “the point of being me-chanically controlled, or of beingforced into a mold.”47

Arthur White began his second se-ries, “The E. G. White Historical Writ-ings” (summer of 1979), explaining ina euphemistic way that probablynever before, since the death of EllenWhite in 1915, had Seventh-day Ad-ventists been so interested in thequestions of “inspiration in generaland the inspiration of Ellen White inparticular,” as well as “Ellen White’s‘sources’ for the Conflict of the Agesbooks in general, and The Great Con-troversy and The Desire of Ages in par-ticular.” He promised that this seriesof articles would lead the readers“some distance from the narrow con-cepts held by some of a mechanical,verbal inspiration according to which

forts to convey such a revelation tothose to whom they ministered.”40

Dederen also pointed out the ex-istence of a tendency in certain cir-cles “to caricature” as “some sort of adictation theory” the position ofthose who believed that the Biblewas “fully inspired” “in all its parts.”While recognizing that on “some oc-casions” God actually spoke andman just recorded the words (Gen.22:15-18; Ex. 20:1-17), Dederenstated that “in the main” inspirationfunctioned in such a flexible way asto allow for “human personalities.”41

After quoting Ellen White’s clas-sic statement, “It is not the words ofthe Bible that are inspired, but themen that were inspired” from Se-lected Messages, Book 1, page 21,Dederen raised the crucial question,“Since the thoughts rather than thewords are inspired, shall we con-clude that we are at liberty to treatthe text of Scripture as being of littleimportance?” Answering the ques-tion, he explained that “some, infact, do maintain that God suggestedthe thoughts and the general trendof His revelation, leaving theprophet free to express them in hisown language, as he liked. Quiteapart from the fact that ideas are notmost usually transferred by meansother than words, this scheme ig-nores the fact that if the thoughtcommunicated to a prophet is of theessence of a revelation, the form inwhich it is expressed is of prime sig-

nificance. The exegetical study of theScriptures in their original languagewould lose much of its meaning ifGod has not guided the prophet inthe writing of his message.”42

In regard to Ellen White’s posi-tion on the matter, Dederen assertedthat “Ellen White herself, who soclearly emphasizes that the thoughtsrather than the words of a prophetare inspired, stipulates: ‘While I amwriting out important matters, He isbeside me helping me . . . and whenI am puzzled for a fit word to expressmy thoughts, He brings it clearlyand distinctly to my mind.’ ‘I trem-ble for fear,’ adds the servant of theLord, ‘lest I shall belittle the greatplan of salvation by cheap words . . . .Who is sufficient for these things?’Everything points to the fact thatGod who imbued the prophets’minds with thoughts and inspiredthem in the fulfillment of their taskalso watched over them in their at-tempts to express ‘infinite ideas’ andembody them in ‘finite vehicles’ ofhuman language.”43

Such a view of inspiration “doesnot nullify,” according to Dederen,“the significant human authorshipof the biblical writings. It simply af-firms that the prophetic message aswe find it in Scripture is the testi-mony of God.”44

In 1977, Dederen came out withan insert in Ministry, under the title“Ellen White’s Doctrine of Scrip-ture.” While declaring that Ellen

40 41

[Arthur] White admitted that while “the revelation of

God’s will is authoritative and infallible,” “the language used

in imparting it to mankind is human and hence is

imperfect.” He saw the prophet as under the influence of the

Spirit of God not only in receiving “his message through

the visions” but also in bearing testimony.

them word by word, except in certaininstances in which God or an angelspoke or voices were heard by theprophet.” In regard to the difficultiesof the Bible, the same documentwarned that “it is well to rememberthat such difficulties in Scripture maybe the result of imperfections ofhuman understanding, or lack ofknowledge of the circumstances in-volved. Some diffi culties may be re-solved by further research and discov-ery. Others may not be understood orresolved until the future life. How-ever, we must guard against sitting injudgment on the Scriptures. No mancan improve the Bible by suggestingwhat the Lord meant to say or oughtto have said.”50

The second document (far moreinfluential than the first one) was thenew 1980 “Statement of Fundamen-tal Beliefs,” officially accepted by thedelegates of the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church at the 1980General Conference session in Dal-las, Texas. The new statement on theScriptures (statement 1) of that doc-ument reads as follows: “The HolyScriptures, Old and New Testa-ments, are the written Word of God,given by divine inspiration throughholy men of God who spoke andwrote as they were moved by theHoly Spirit. In this Word, God hascommitted to man the knowledgenecessary for salvation. The HolyScriptures are the infallible revela-tion of His will. They are the stan-

dard of character, the test of experi-ence, the authoritative revealer ofdoctrines, and the trustworthy rec -ord of God’s acts in history.”51

The new statement on the gift ofprophecy (statement 17) affirmedthe following: “One of the gifts ofthe Holy Spirit is prophecy. This giftis an identifying mark of the rem-nant church and was manifested inthe ministry of Ellen G. White. Asthe Lord’s messenger, her writingsare a continuing and authoritativesource of truth which provide forthe church comfort, guidance, in-struction, and correction. They alsomake clear that the Bible is the stan-dard by which all teaching and expe-rience must be tested.”52

Also published in 1980, GerhardF. Hasel’s book Understanding theLiving Word of God included a wholechapter on the inspiration of Scrip-ture. In that chapter, Hasel arguedthat the witnesses of Peter (2 Peter1:19-21) and Paul (2 Tim. 3:16) at-test that “’all Scripture is inspired byGod.’” “Having received the divinerevelation, the human penman wasinspired,” according to Hasel, “by theHoly Spirit to communicate thesedivine ideas and thoughts accuratelyand authoritatively in the languageof men.” The divine authorship ofScripture was seen as the source forboth “the unity of Scripture” and“the supreme authority of Scrip-ture.”53

In 1981, William G. Johnsson, as-

Ellen White wrote only what was re-vealed to her in vision or dictated toher by the Holy Spirit.”48

In recommending this series,Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review,suggested that readers keep in mind“four facts”: (1) “Inspired writings donot come to us ‘untouched by humanhands’”; (2) “in communi cating withthe human family, God inspired per-sons, not writings”; (3) “inspirationinvolves a variety of meth ods in com-municating truth and God’s will”;and (4) “the message of an inspiredwriter does not depend for its author-ity on whether it is accompanied bythe label, ‘This is God’s Word.’”Woodalso pointed out that “because Satanis today making supreme efforts toundermine confidence in the writ-ings of the Spirit of Prophecy, we feelconvinced that the end of all thingsis near.”49

Within the context of the con-temporary revisionist challenges,

Seventh-day Adventists published,in 1980, two major consensus docu-ments in order to confirm their faithin the trustworthiness of the in-spired writings. The first one, titled“Revelation and Inspiration of theBible,” was produced “over a periodof several years, involving scientists,theologians, administrators, teach-ers, and others throughout the worldchurch.” Although “numerous re -visions” in its text had been madetaking into consideration the sug-gestions received, the document ap-peared in the Adventist Review ofJanuary 17 with a special note askingfor additional “comments and sug-gestions” to be addressed to W. Dun-can Eva, a vice-president of the Gen-eral Conference.

The document under considera-tion recognized that “the writers ofthe Holy Scripture were inspired byGod with ideas and concepts,” but“He did not dictate His message to

42 43

Kenneth Wood, editor of the Review, suggested that

readers keep in mind “four facts”: (1) “Inspired writings do not

come to us ‘untouched by human hands’”; (2) “in com -

municating with the human family, God inspired persons, not

writings”; (3) “inspiration involves a variety of methods in

communicating truth and God’s will”; and (4) “the message of

an inspired writer does not depend for its authority on

whether it is accompanied by the label, ‘This is God’s Word.’”

45

Scripture can be fully understoodonly from the perspective of two dis-tinctive models of inspiration.

The first of those models wastermed “prophetic model,” by whichRice referred to “divine revelationcoming to the prophet throughdreams, visions, thought illumina-tion as seen in the psalms and thewisdom literature, and the recordingof these theophanies (divine mani-festations) un der the guidance of theHoly Spirit.”59

While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended to see theprophetic model as “a big umbrellaunder which we gather all of thebooks of the Bible,” Rice pointed outthat this model “is inadequate to ex-plain the variations in the gospelportrait,” as well as the content of “1and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, andother Old Testament books.” Roomwas, therefore, left for a secondmodel of inspiration that wouldfunction as “the complement to andcompanion of the prophetic model.”60

That second model of inspirationis called the “Lucan model” (cf. Luke1:1-4), which Rice saw as “based on

research—reading and oral inter-views.”61 He explained that “the Biblewriter who operated under thismodel was an author and a theolo-gian in his own right. As an authorhe shaped and arranged the materialhe re searched so that the end prod-uct ex pressed his interests. As a the-ologian he worked with the materialso that the end product expressedhis the ological understanding. Yetthe Spirit guided throughout thewhole process.”62

In 1985, Richard Rice, professorof theology at Loma Linda Univer-sity, included a whole chapter on“The Doctrine of Revelation” in hisbook The Reign of God. Regardinginspiration as “one aspect” of “thelarger dynamic of God’s communi-cation to human beings,” the authorpointed out that “the doctrine ofrevelation” should not be reduced“to the phenomenon of inspira-tion.”63

Richard Rice saw the biblical doc-trine of inspiration as containingtwo important ideas: (1) “The divineauthority of Scripture,” and (2) “thedivine-human character of Scrip-

inconsequential errors of minor, in-significant detail.” He then listed afew examples of “errors” in the Bibleand in the writings of Ellen White.Among the “errors” in Scripture hementions: (1) the allusion to Jere-miah (instead of Zechariah) as theauthor of the quotation found inMatthew 27:9 and 10 (cf. Zech.11:12, 13); and (2) the differentwordings of the inscription placed atthe top of the cross (cf. Matt. 27:37;Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John19:19). The “errors” of Ellen Whiteare seen as including (1) a referenceto the Paradise Valley Sanitarium ashaving 40 rooms (instead of 38); and(2) a mentioning of the apostle Peter(instead of Paul) as the author of thesaying, “the love of Christ con-straineth us” (2 Cor. 5:14).57

Rejecting the theory of “degreesof inspiration (or revelation)” and“degrees of authority,” Coon statedthat “Ellen G. White is best under-stood in the role of the literary butnoncanonical prophets of the Bible.”Thus, though the writings of EllenWhite have the same level of inspira-tion and authority as the Bible, theyare not “an addition to the sacredcanon of Scripture.”58

In response to the charges of pla-giarism raised against Ellen White,George E. Rice, then associate pro-fessor of New Testament at AndrewsUniversity, in 1983 published hisbook Luke, a Plagiarist? In this bookhe suggested that the inspiration of

44

sociate editor of the Adventist Re-view, stated in a Ministry article,“How Does God Speak?” that “defin-ing inspiration is like catching a rain-bow. When we have put forth ourbest efforts, there will remain an elu-sive factor, an element of mystery.”54

Also in 1981, Roger W. Coon, as-sociate secretary of the Ellen G.White Estate, began a three-part se-ries on “Inspiration/Revelation” inThe Journal of Adventist Education.In this series Coon advocated “ple-nary (thought) inspiration,” in ex-clusion to both “verbal inspiration”and “encounter inspiration.”55

In addressing the subject of in-fallibility, Coon mentioned two the-ories: (1) The “strait-jacket” theory,in which true prophetic writings areregarded as “prevented from mak-ing any type of error,” and (2) the“intervention” theory, which holdsthat “if in his humanity a prophet ofGod errs, and the nature of thaterror is sufficiently serious to mate-rially affect (a) the direction ofGod’s church, (b) the eternal des-tiny of one person, or (c) the purityof a doctrine, then (and only then)the Holy Spirit immediately movesthe prophet to correct the error, sothat no permanent damage isdone.”56

Taking his stand on the side ofthe “intervention” theory, Coonstated that “in inspired writings, an-cient [the Bible] and modern [thewritings of Ellen White], there are

While recognizing that Seventh-day Adventists tended

to see the prophetic model as “a big umbrella under which we

gather all of the books of the Bible,” George E. Rice pointed

out that this model “is inadequate to explain the variations

in the gospel portrait.”

47

and dissertations defended at theSeventh-day Adventist TheologicalSeminary at Andrews Universityduring the late 1980s and early1990s. Among them is “Issues inBiblical Inspiration: Sanday andWarfield” (1987) by Peter van Bem-melen, which provided some in-sights on the relationship betweenthe claims and the phenomena ofScripture: “Once Scripture is ac-cepted as the only legitimate start-ing-point and source of reference inour quest, we must face up to thequestion whether the effort to estab-lish the doctrine of inspiration byletting the Bible speak for itselfshould proceed primarily from themultifarious phenomena of the con-tent and structure of Scripture orwhether it should start from the ex-plicit assertions of the Biblical writ-ers or whether both should receiveequal standing. It is evident that thedecision we take at this junction iscrucial. We suggest in view of con-siderations presented earlier that theinherent logic of the principle to letScripture speak for itself requiresthat the teachings (or assertions,claims, or whatever other terms maybe used) should be given priorityover the phenomena. We use advis-edly the word priority, for the phe-nomena cannot and should not beignored. Whatever conclusions maybe reached from a thorough study ofthe assertions must be examinedand evaluated in the light of the phe-

nomena, but just as surely, the phe-nomena must be examined andevaluated in the light of the conclu-sions derived from the assertions.”70

But all those discussions pre -viously mentioned have provedthemselves unable to bring generalagreement to the Seventh-day Ad-ventist scholarly circles on the mat-ter of inspiration. Those debateswould actually continue through the1990s.

This article is the second of three parts.

46

ture.” “The Bible,” according to Rice,“is not a combination of the wordsof God and the words of men” butrather “the word of God in thewords of men.”64

The same author regarded thedoctrine of inerrancy as “unbiblical”because: (1) “It seems to overlookthe human dimension of Scripture”;(2) “it sometimes leads to distortedand unconvincing interpretations ofthe Bible”; and (3) “it miscasts thefundamental purpose of Scripture.”He then stated that “Seventh-dayAdvent ists have never advocatedbiblical inerrancy, although theysupported the divine authority andcomplete reliability of the Scrip-tures.”65

In 1988, the Ministerial Associa-

tion of the General Conference cameout with a representative expositionof the 27 Fundamental Beliefs, enti-tled Seventh-day Adventists Believe.. . About Inspiration of the Scrip-tures, this book emphasized (1) that“God inspired men—not words”66;(2) that “the Bible is the writtenWord of God”; (3) that “the Bibledoes not teach partial inspiration ordegrees of inspiration”67; and (4)that the guidance of the Holy Spirit“guarantees the Bible’s trustworthi-ness.”68 While the Bible is regarded as“the supreme standard,” the writingsof Ellen White are seen as (1) “aguide to the Bible,” (2) “a guide inunderstanding the Bible,” and (3) “aguide to apply Bible principles.”69

Noteworthy also are a few theses

In 1988, the Ministerial Association of the General Confer-

ence came out with a representative exposition of the 27 Fun-

damental Beliefs, entitled Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . .

About Inspiration of the Scriptures, this book emphasized (1)

that “God inspired men—not words”; (2) that “the Bible is

the written Word of God”; (3) that “the Bible does not teach

partial inspiration or degrees of inspiration”; and (4) that the

guidance of the Holy Spirit “guarantees the Bible’s trustwor-

thiness.” While the Bible is regarded as “the supreme stan-

dard,” the writings of Ellen White are seen as (1) “a guide to

the Bible,” (2) “a guide in understanding the Bible,” and (3)

“a guide to apply Bible principles.” REFERENCES1 Siegfried H. Horn and Earle Hilgert,

“‘Lower’ and ‘Higher’ Biblical Criticism,” inSeventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol.5, p. 177.

2 Carl W. Daggy, “Comparative Study ofCertain Aspects of Fundamentalism WithSeventh-day Adventism” (1955), p. 61.

3 Seventh-day Adventists Answer Ques-tions on Doctrine (Washington, D.C.: Reviewand Herald Publ. Assn., 1957), p. 27, (italicsin the original).

5 Frederick E. J. Harder, Revelation, aSource of Knowledge, as Conceived by Ellen G.White, Ph.D. diss., New York University,1960, p. 485.

5 Ibid., p. 486.6 Ibid., p. 235.7 Ibid., pp. 150, 151.8 Ibid., p. 405.9 Ibid., pp. 234, 235.10 See Don F. Neufeld, ed., Seventh-day

Adventist Encyclopedia (Washington: Reviewand Herald Publ., Assn., 1966), p. 585.

11 Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. WhiteWritings (Washington: Review and HeraldPubl. Assn., 1973), p. 15.

12 Ibid., p. 13.

49

wording of this particular statement has beenslightly changed in some translations.

53 Gerhard Hasel, Understanding the LivingWord of God, pp. 66-82.

54 William G. Johnsson, “How Does GodSpeak?” Ministry (Oct. 1981), p. 4.

55 Roger W. Coon, “Inspiration/Rev e -lation: What It Is and How It Works—Part I,”The Journal of Adventist Education (JAE) 44:1(Oct./Nov. 1981), pp. 24-30: http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae198850051616.pdf.

56 __________, “Inspiration/Reve la tion:What It Is and How It Works—Part II,” JAE44:2 (Dec. 1981/Jan. 1982): pp. 18, 19 (italics inthe original): http://circle.adven tist.org/files/ jae/ en/jae198144021715.pdf.

57 See ibid., pp. 19, 24-26.58 __________, “Inspira tion/Rev e la tion:

What It Is and How It Works—Part III,” JAE44:3 (Feb./March 1982): pp. 20, 21: http://circle.adventist.org/files/jae/en/jae198244031717.pdf.

59 G. E. Rice, Luke, a Plagiarist? pp. 11, 12.60 Ibid., pp. 11, 19.

61 Ibid., p. 25.62 Ibid., p. 27.63 Richard Rice, The Reign of God: An In-

troduction to Christian Theology From a Sev-enth-day Adventist Perspective (BerrienSprings, Mich.: Andrews University Press,1985), pp. 20-46.

64 Ibid., pp. 25, 26 (italics in the original).65 Ibid., p. 33.66 Seventh-day Adventist Believe. . . A Bibli-

cal Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines(Washington, D.C.: Ministerial Association ofthe General Conference of Seventh-day Ad-ventists, 1988), p. 8.

67 Ibid., p. 11.68 Ibid., p. 10.69 Ibid., pp. 227, 228.70 Peter M. Van Bemmelen, “Issues in Bib-

lical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield” (Th.D.diss., Andrews University, 1987); idem, Issuesin Biblical Inspiration: Sanday and Warfield,Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dis-sertation Series, vol. 13 (Berrien Springs,Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1987).

48

13 Ibid., p. 23.14 Ibid., pp. 26-48.15 Sabbath School Lesson Quarterly, Senior

Division, No. 298 (4th quarter 1969), p. 9.16 Edward Heppenstall, “Doctrine of Reve-

lation and Inspiration—Part 1,” Ministry(July 1970), p. 16.

17 Ibid., Part 2, pp. 28, 29.18 F. E. J. Harder, “Divine Revelation: A Re-

view of Some of Ellen White’s Concepts,”Spectrum 2 (Autumn 1970): pp. 53-54.

19 H. Weiss, “Revelation and the Bible,”Spectrum 7:3 (1975), p. 53.

20 Ibid., pp. 49, 50.21 Raoul Dederen, “Revelation, Inspiration,

and Hermeneutics,” in Gordon M. Hyde, ed., ASymposium on Biblical Hermeneutics ([Wash-ington, D.C.]: Biblical Research Committee ofthe General Conference of Seventh-day Ad -ventists, 1974), pp. 7, 8.

22 Ibid., pp. 8-11.23 Raoul Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day

Adventist Theology of Revelation-Inspira-tion,” 8, in North American Bible Conference,1974 ([Washington: Bible Research Commit-tee], 1974).

24 Roy Branson and Herold D. Weiss,“Ellen White: A Subject for Adventist Scholar-ship,” Spectrum 2 (Autumn 1970), pp. 30-33.

25 Benjamin McArthur, “Where Are Histo-rians Taking the Church?” Spectrum 10 (Nov.1979), p. 9.

26 Ibid., p. 11.27 Ibid., pp. 12, 13.28 D. R. McAdams, “Shifting Views of Inspi-

ration,” Spectrum 10 (March 1980), pp. 27-41.29 John C. Brunt, “A Parable of Jesus as a

Clue to Biblical Interpretation,” p. 42, in“Ways to Read the Bible,” Spectrum 13 (Dec.1982), pp. 30-62.

30 Larry G. Herr, “Genesis One in Histori-cal-Critical Perspective,” ibid., p. 51.

31 E. E. Zinke, “A Conservative Approachto Theology,” supplement to Ministry (Oct.1977), pp. 24A-24P.

32 Gerhard F. Hasel, Understanding the Liv-ing Word of God (Mountain View, Calif.: Pa-

cific Press Publ. Assn., 1980), pp. 24, 25.33 __________, Biblical Interpretation

Today: An Analysis of Modern Methods of Bib-lical Interpretation and Proposals for the Inter-pretation of the Bible as the Word of God([Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Insti-tute], 1985), p. 97.

34 Ibid., p. 99.35 “Methods of Bible Study Committee,”

Adventist Review (Jan. 22, 1987), p. 18.36 Rene Noorbergen, Ellen G. White:

Prophet of Destiny (New Canaan, Conn.:Keats, 1972), p. 21 (italics in the original).

37 Hans Heinz, Glaubenslehren der Heili-gen Schrift (Bern: Europaeisches Institut fuerFernstudium, 1972), pp. 159, 160.

38 Kenneth H. Wood, “The 1974 BibleConference,” Review and Herald (Aug. 1,1974), p. 2.

39 Dederen, “Toward a Seventh-day Ad-ventist Theology of Revelation-Inspiration,”in North American Bible Conference, 1974, p. 9(italics supplied).

40 Ibid., pp. 9, 10.41 Ibid., p. 11.42 Ibid., p. 12.43 Ibid., p. 13.44 Ibid.45 R. Dederen, “Ellen White’s Doctrine of

Scripture,” supplement to Ministry (July1977), pp. 24G-24H.

46 A. L. White, “Toward an Adventist Con-cept of Inspiration—3,” Review and Herald(Jan. 26, 1978), p. 6.

47 Ibid., p. 8.48 A. L. White, “E. G. White Historical

Writings—1,” Adventist Review (July 12,1979), p. 4.

49 Kenneth H. Wood, “An Important Seriesabout Ellen G. White,” Adventist Review (July12, 1979), pp. 11, 12 (italics in the original).

50 “Study Documents on Inspiration andCreation,” AtR, Jan. 17, 1980, pp. 9, 10.

51 “Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-dayAdventists—Church Manual Revision,” Ad-ventist Review (May 1, 1980), p. 23.

52 Ibid., pp. 25, 26. The original English

�

51

the brain’s pathways dedicated tothat memory while overshadowingmore positive, balanced memories.

Roger Pitman, professor of psy-chiatry at Harvard University, de-scribes it this way: “In the aftermathof a traumatic event, you tend tothink more about it, and the moreyou think about it, the more likelyyou are to release further stress hor-mones, and the more likely they areto act to make the memory ofthat event even stronger.”4

Ellen White summa-rized the brain-bodylink this way: “Therelation that existsbetween the mindand the body is veryintimate. When oneis affected, the othersympathizes. The con-dition of the mind af-fects the health to a fargreater degree than many realize.Many of the diseases from whichmen suffer are the result of mentaldepression. Grief, anxiety, discon-tent, remorse, guilt, distrust, all tendto break down the life forces and toinvite decay and death. . . . Courage,hope, faith, sympathy, love, promotehealth and prolong life. A contentedmind, a cheerful spirit, is health tothe body and strength to the soul.”5

Always balanced, she also affirmedthat the treatment of our body has apowerful effect on mental state: “Ifour physical habits are not right, our

mental and moral powers cannot bestrong; for great sympathy exists be-tween the physical and the moral.”6

What Ellen White penned soplainly long ago is now the talk ofthe town in scientific circles. Re-searchers are now learning that thebrain and body have a profound ef-fect on each other and that the con-dition of one to a large extent affectsthe health and function of the other.

Noted neuropsychiatristJohn Ratey from Harvard

University states it thisway: “Exciting re-search has recentlychallenged severallong-standing as-sumptions aboutemotion. For yearspsychologists havemaintained that emo-

tions are purely mentalactivities, some of which,

such as fear, elicit a physical re-sponse by the body. But while a fewunique emotions, such as altruism,are dominated by mental proc es ses,the rest are equally due to the body.

“What the public, at the hands ofsome scientists, clinicians, and pop-ular movements in psychology, hasmissed for so long is the fact thatemotion wells up from the brain andthe body acting together. The role ofthe body has been discounted. . . .The other leading historical idea isthat emotions are all localized in onesystem in the brain, commonly re-

50

arbara was meticu-lous—almost com-pulsive—about herhealth habits. She ex-ercised and ate her

greens and beans. Butsince the age of 43 she had beenhelplessly watching her bone densityscores steadily decline until now, atage 50, she was suffering from severeosteoporosis.

“How can this be?” She wailed toa physician-friend. “It just isn’t fair.I’ve done everything I know to do—diet, weight-lifting, vitamin D. Ihave followed all the lifestyle advice,and nothing has worked!”

Osteoporosis is an endocrine dis-order that can develop for variousreasons and is not always pre-ventable. But in Barbara’s case, onepiece of lifestyle advice may havemade a difference, but she had over-looked it. It’s found in the Bible: “Aglad heart makes a healthy body, buta crushed spirit makes the bonesdry” (Prov. 17:22).1

Barbara had failed to detect thesubtle but habitual worry, anxiety,

and negativism that charac-terized much of her out-look on life. It didn’t showso much on her face, buther bones were now tellingthe story.

Science is also beginning to rec-ognize the importance this often-overlooked link. Ellen White wrote:“True science and Inspiration are inperfect harmony.”2 Since God is theAuthor of both, combining theirlessons provides powerful encour-agement and instructions for build-ing a better brain, better habits, anda better life.

Barbara had overlooked—or atleast underestimated—the powerfuleffect of her state of mind on herphysical health. The counsel of EllenWhite affirms this mind-body rela-tionship: “That which brings sick-ness of body and mind to nearly all,is dissatisfied feelings and discon-tented repinings.”3

One of the scientific terms for“discontented repinings” is “rumi-nating,” or mentally rehearsing nega-tives over and over again, deepening

B

S C I E N C E A N D T H E S P I R I T

Vicki Griffin

THE BRAIN-BODY

CONNECTION

5352

endocrinologists call ‘action at a dis-tance.’

“We made a radical discovery thatevery neuropeptide receptor we couldfind in the brain is on the surface ofthe human monocyte (immunecells). . . . Immune cells also make,store, and secrete the neuropeptidesthemselves. In other words, the im-mune cells are making the samechemicals that we conceive of as con-trolling mood in the brain. So, im-mune cells not only control the tissueintegrity of the body, but they alsomanufacture information chemicalsthat can regulate mood or emotion.

“We know that the immune sys-tem, like the central nervous system,has memory and the capacity to learn.Emotions are at the nexus betweenmatter and mind, going back andforth between the two, and influenc-ing both.

“A major conceptual shift in neu-roscience has been wrought by therealization that brain function ismodulated by numerous chemicalsin addition to classical neurotrans-mitters. Many of these informa-tional substances are neuropeptides,originally studied in other contextsas hormones, gut peptides, orgrowth factors. Their number pres -ently exceeds 50, and most, if not all,alter behavior and mood states.

“Neuropeptides and their recep-tors thus join the brain, glands, andimmune system in a network ofcommunication between brain and

body probably representing the bio-chemical substrate of emotion.”9

How true and inspiring, whatdepth of meaning the words of EllenWhite hold when she exhorted: “Thepower of the will is not valued as itshould be. Let the will be kept awakeand rightly directed, and it will im-part energy to the whole being, andwill be a wonderful aid in the main-tenance of health. It is a power alsoin dealing with disease. Exercised inthe right direction, it would controlthe imagination, and be a potentmeans of resisting and overcomingdisease of both mind and body.”10

So today, if you feel there is some-thing missing in your wellness jour-ney, remember: A simple change inattitude can have a dramatic impacton your health—spiritually, physi-cally, and emotionally.11

REFERENCES1 The Bible in Basic English.2 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 584.3 Counsels on Health, p. 631.4 “Targeting the Brain,” Time (Sept. 18,

1998).5 Counsels on Health, p. 344.6 Temperance, p. 13.7 John Ratey, User’s Guide to the Brain

(New York: Vintage Books, 2002) p. 223.8 Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, pp. 69,

70.9 Candace Pert, Molecules of Emotion

(New York: Scribner Press, 1997), p. 179.10 The Ministry of Healing, p. 246.11 Visit http://LifestyleMat ters.com for

more information about books and materials.

ferred to as the limbic system. How-ever, we are learning that emotionsare the result of multiple brain andbody systems that are distributedover the whole person. We cannotseparate emotion from cognition orcognition from the body.

“It has always been our need ashumans to divide and conquer, toseparate out two kingdoms asheaven and hell, but separating thebody and the brain is rapidly comingto be seen as ridiculous.”7

Writers of Scripture support thisconnection. The psalmist talks of hisgrief and guilt as so all-consumingthat it resulted in fever (Ps. 32:4,NASB) and inflammation (38:7,TLB). Conversely, joy is linked to in-creased strength of mind, body, andspirit (Neh. 8:10).

In a stunning testimony, EllenWhite described this amazing rela-tionship in incredible detail: “If yourmind is impressed and fixed that abath will injure you [as a treatmentfor illness], the mental impression iscommunicated to all the nerves of thebody. The nerves control the circula-tion of the blood; therefore the bloodis, through the impression of themind, confined to the blood vessels,and the good effects of the bath arelost. All this is because the blood isprevented by the mind and will fromflowing readily, and from coming tothe surface to stimulate, arouse, andpromote the circulation. For instance,you are impressed that if you bathe

you will become chilly. The brainsends this intelligence to the nerves ofthe body, and the blood vessels, heldin obedience to your will, cannot per-form their office and cause a reactionafter the bath.”8

Fascinating scientific investiga-tions have revealed the precisemechanism that Ellen White de-scribes. Specific molecules of com-munication called neuropeptides aredeeply rooted in our biology that arehighly responsive to habits of mindand body. These neuropeptides aremajor players in the brain-bodyconnection to disease and health.The Bible and Ellen White have de-scribed this link in simple languagefor years, and science is just now val-idating this profound truth.

Noted biophysicist Candace Pert,Ph.D., research professor in the De-partment of Physiology and Bio-physics at Georgetown UniversityMedical Center, has pioneered re-search that unraveled the mystery ofhow the chemicals in our bodiesform a dynamic information net-work, linking mind and body sys-tems in health and disease.

Pert’s description of this processis a scientific version of EllenWhite’s, but reveals the sameprocess: “Pockets of peptide juicesare released from both glands andbrain cells, after which they bindwith specific receptors that enablethem to act at sites far from wherethe juices originated. This is what

55

yearly conference will meet in Prov-idence, Rhode Island, dealing withthe subject of “Text and Canon.”Presenters will come from the Ad-ventist Theological Seminary at An-drews University and from WheatonCollege’s Graduate School. The pa-pers will address issues in the booksof Genesis, Numbers, Daniel, Eze -kiel, 1 Corinthians, and Revelation,as well as one on the role of the com-munity in determining the canon.

The Bible symposium will takeplace on Sabbath, November 22, inthe Stoneham Memorial Seventh-day Adventist Church, just outsideof Boston. The theme for the presen-tations will be “The Spirit ofProphecy in Scripture and AdventistHistory.” The schedule of speakersincludes Gary Swanson, from theGeneral Conference (GC), IsaacOlatunji, from Oakwood University,Gerhard Pfandl, from the GC’s Bib-lical Research Institute, Merlin Burt,from Center for Adventist Researchat the Seminary, and Jon Paulien,from Loma Linda University.

Presenters will answer questionsfrom the audience in a panel discus-sion at the end of the program.

The mission of ATS is to be a the-ological resource for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Perhaps oneof the most significant services ren-dered by members of ATS, then, hasto do with the many Bible confer-ences and ministerial councils orga-nized and conducted all over the

world. In 2008 alone, ATS led in noless than a dozen symposia in eightworld divisions, including meetingsin the Dutch Antilles, Bangladesh,Zambia, the Czech Republic, Russia,Angola, Madagascar, Kenya, Leba -non, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico.

In most cases, local divisions andunions team up to bring as manypastors, theology professors, andtheology students from a designatedunion as is feasible, to meet for threeor four days of theological meetings.Many presentations are followedwith a time for questions, and alonger Q & A period is held on thelast day. Pastors and church admin-istrators often express deep thanksfor the work ATS does, in bringingclarity, depth, and conviction to bib-lical and theological issues relevantto the Adventist Church.

As an example, a recent Bibleconference was held in Huambo,Angola. Angola is a large country insouthwest Africa with a compara-tively small population, in part, dueto a 30-year civil war that raged until2002. The church there, however, ishealthy and growing, with some400,000 current members.

Drs. Moskala, Mueller, andPfandl and I made the ATS team thattraveled from the United States, viaSouth Africa, to Luanda, the capital.After spending one night at Dr. Ben-jamin Paiva’s home, third vice-presi-dent of the National Assembly and acommitted Adventist lay leader, the

he Adventist Theo-logical Society (ATS)has grown consider-ably over the past 25years. From a small

group of scholars fromBerrien Springs and Col-legedale to a worldwidemembership involving many localchapters, dozens of institutions, andthousands of Bible students at everylevel, the Lord has opened the doorswide for the society’s expansion.

The society’s constitution calls foran executive board to run its interestsled by the president, four vice-presi-dents (Communications, General,Global Outreach, and Pub li ca tions),an executive secretary, a treasurer,and a president-elect. The boardmeets every November, in conjunc-tion with yearly international schol-arly meetings, and, whenever possi-ble, in the spring. The board’smembership, aside from the officersmentioned, is made up of scholarsand leaders from North America,Europe, Asia, Latin America, andAfrica, including young scholars fin-

ishing their terminaldegrees.Each year, ATS meets

for an entire day in con-junction with the Evangel-ical Theological Society’s(ETS) annual conferenceto read and discuss papers

that are heard by Adventist as well asinterested evangelical scholars. Thisoften leads to further interest byevangelical thought leaders in theareas of research that Adventistspursue, and in some cases, to colle-gial relationships that have ledscholars to a better understanding,and even acceptance, of Adventisttheological positions. A Bible sym-posium is also planned every yearand conducted in an Adventistchurch in the area where ETS andATS scholars meet. Symposium at-tendance consists of ATS membersand is open for any Seventh-day Ad-ventist pastor, leader, or lay personinterested in the subjects.

In 2008, these meetings will takeplace in the Boston area. On Novem-ber 20, the ATS section of the ETS

T

T H E P R E S I D E N T ’ S D E S K

Ron E. M. Clouzet

WHAT DOBOSTON AND

HUAMBO HAVE INCOMMON?

5454

5756

n an election year, reli-gion in the U.S. be-comes a very publicmatter. Every presiden-tial candidate has pro-

fessed faith in Christ,

taken to heaven at the timeof the secret rapture get asecond chance during theseven-year period. At thesecond, visible coming,Jesus also destroys the ene-

knowing that there is a sizable con-stituency of evangelical voters theycannot ignore. The theology thatbinds most of these evangelical be-lievers together from many differentdenominations is called dispensa-tionalism.

Dispensationalism teaches thatthe second coming of Christ takesplace in two distinct phases. First,Jesus comes invisibly to remove Hischurch (the secret rapture) prior to aseven-year period during which therest of humanity must face the an-tichrist.

At the end of the seven years,which according to dispensationaltheology is the fulfillment of the lastweek of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24,Jesus will again return, but this timevisibly to deliver those who becameChristians during these seven years.This means those who were not

mies of Israel at the Battle of Ar-mageddon.

Foundational to the raptureteaching is the concept that God hastwo separate plans—one for the Is-raelites or Jewish people and an-other for non-Jews, or Gentiles. Theplan for Israel is revealed in the OldTestament. However, when the Jewsrejected the Messiah, the propheticclock for Israel stopped and theChurch Age began. When the Chris-tian saints are taken to heaven in thesecret rapture, the prophetic clockbegins ticking again and God’s planfor the Jews takes its course. Thismeans that the prophecies in the OldTestament are meant only for theJews, not for Christians.

What makes this theology so ap-pealing to conservative Christians isthe fact that several events that dis-pensational theologians predicted

I

T H E A S S O C I A T E E D I T O R ’ S D E S K

Gerhard Pfandl

AMERICANPOLITICS AND

RELIGION

team flew to the interior. Huambo isthe nation’s second city, and near thearea where the first missionariesbrought the three angels’ messagesto Angola in the early 1920s. There,the team met with leaders from theSouthern Africa-Indian Ocean Divi-sion, as well as about 200 pastors,local leaders, and seminary profes-sors.

Subjects included biblical her-m en eu tics, Spirit of Prophecy, theBook of Revelation, the ministry ofthe Holy Spirit, and exegesis of theOld Testament. The schedule is de-manding and the travel, at times, canbe grueling. After spending threedays traveling to Huambo, for exam-ple, before we boarded the return

flight, my luggage was misplaced.Due to miscommunication andother mishaps, I could not get itback for another week, only on myreturn to the U.S. In the meantime,we had gone to Madagascar for an-other Bible conference. So, I had towash clothes every day and lackedsome essentials most of us are usedto. In addition, at one airport, au-thorities confiscated all my currency,appealing to some questionable law.

But the setbacks are all worth itwhen one sees the impact these pres -entations have on local pastoralleadership and students. God is atwork, and it is the privilege of ATSmembers to put their resources towork for God.

5756

n an election year, reli-gion in the U.S. be-comes a very publicmatter. Every presiden-tial candidate has pro-

fessed faith in Christ,

taken to heaven at the timeof the secret rapture get asecond chance during theseven-year period. At thesecond, visible coming,Jesus also destroys the ene-

knowing that there is a sizable con-stituency of evangelical voters theycannot ignore. The theology thatbinds most of these evangelical be-lievers together from many differentdenominations is called dispensa-tionalism.

Dispensationalism teaches thatthe second coming of Christ takesplace in two distinct phases. First,Jesus comes invisibly to remove Hischurch (the secret rapture) prior to aseven-year period during which therest of humanity must face the an-tichrist.

At the end of the seven years,which according to dispensationaltheology is the fulfillment of the lastweek of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24,Jesus will again return, but this timevisibly to deliver those who becameChristians during these seven years.This means those who were not

mies of Israel at the Battle of Ar-mageddon.

Foundational to the raptureteaching is the concept that God hastwo separate plans—one for the Is-raelites or Jewish people and an-other for non-Jews, or Gentiles. Theplan for Israel is revealed in the OldTestament. However, when the Jewsrejected the Messiah, the propheticclock for Israel stopped and theChurch Age began. When the Chris-tian saints are taken to heaven in thesecret rapture, the prophetic clockbegins ticking again and God’s planfor the Jews takes its course. Thismeans that the prophecies in the OldTestament are meant only for theJews, not for Christians.

What makes this theology so ap-pealing to conservative Christians isthe fact that several events that dis-pensational theologians predicted

I

T H E A S S O C I A T E E D I T O R ’ S D E S K

Gerhard Pfandl

AMERICANPOLITICS AND

RELIGION

team flew to the interior. Huambo isthe nation’s second city, and near thearea where the first missionariesbrought the three angels’ messagesto Angola in the early 1920s. There,the team met with leaders from theSouthern Africa-Indian Ocean Divi-sion, as well as about 200 pastors,local leaders, and seminary profes-sors.

Subjects included biblical her-m en eu tics, Spirit of Prophecy, theBook of Revelation, the ministry ofthe Holy Spirit, and exegesis of theOld Testament. The schedule is de-manding and the travel, at times, canbe grueling. After spending threedays traveling to Huambo, for exam-ple, before we boarded the return

flight, my luggage was misplaced.Due to miscommunication andother mishaps, I could not get itback for another week, only on myreturn to the U.S. In the meantime,we had gone to Madagascar for an-other Bible conference. So, I had towash clothes every day and lackedsome essentials most of us are usedto. In addition, at one airport, au-thorities confiscated all my currency,appealing to some questionable law.

But the setbacks are all worth itwhen one sees the impact these pres -entations have on local pastoralleadership and students. God is atwork, and it is the privilege of ATSmembers to put their resources towork for God.

5958

enter the temple in Jerusalem anddemand to be worshiped as God.Thus Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalo-nians 2:4, “[The antichrist] sets him-self up in God’s temple, proclaiminghimself to be God” (NIV) will be lit-erally fulfilled. Therefore, the templein Jerusalem has to be rebuilt so thatthe Antichrist can literally sit in thetemple. He will begin a reign of ter-ror against the Jews, who after therapture have accepted Christ (the144,000 are all Jews), but he will alsopersecute the Gentiles, who have ac-cepted Christ since the rapture ofthe church.

The linchpin of this theology isthe restoration and well-being of Is-rael today. This is the reason forAmerica’s total commitment to Is-rael. The evangelical lobby in Wash-ington is constantly pressuring thegovernment to support Israel and itsexpansion at all costs—no matterwhat happens to the Palestinians.

In January 2006,Ariel Sharon, theprime minister of Israel, suffered amassive stroke. A few days later, PatRobertson, one of the best-knownevangelical leaders, stated that Godhad punished Sharon for withdraw-ing from Gaza and giving the land tothe Palestinians. Robertson had toapologize a few days later, but hisview reflects the teaching of dispen-sationalism that all the land of Pales-tine belongs to the Jews.

There are basically four reasonsthat Seventh-day Adventists cannot

accept dispensational theology:1.� The Bible does not teach that

the 70 weeks can be split into twotime periods, the first 69 weeksreaching to the death of Christ andthe 70th week still in the future. The70th week begins with the baptismof Jesus and ends with the death ofStephen in A.D. 34. This was theteaching of conservative Christiansuntil John Nelson Darby in the 19thcentury introduced this new theol-ogy.

2. The rapture of the saints willnot be a secret rapture with peopledisappearing while life goes on hereon Earth. The Rapture will happenwhen Jesus comes back visible forthe entire world with the voice of thearchangel according to 1 Thessaloni-ans 4:16, 17, “The Lord Himself willdescend from heaven with a shout,with the voice of an archangel, andwith the trumpet of God. And thedead in Christ will rise first. Then wewho are alive and remain shall becaught up together with them in theclouds to meet the Lord in the air.And thus we shall always be with theLord” (NKJV).

Before the real rapture occurs, theresurrection of the dead in Christwill take place. After the dead areraised, the living saints will be trans-lated, and together the two groupswill be raptured, that is, “they will becaught up together to meet the Lordin the air.” Nowhere does the Bibleteach a secret rapture before the res-

would take place before Jesus can re-turn, have come to pass. Their end-time scenario rests on five pillars: (1)The Jews have to return to Israel[fulfilled during the first half of the20th century when hundreds ofthousands of Jews returned to Pales-tine]; (2) Israel must be restored as anation [fulfilled in 1948 when theState of Israel was created, and mil-lions of Jews from around the worldmoved to Israel]; (3) The city ofJeru salem must again be in Jewishhands [fulfilled in 1967 during theSix-Day War]; (4) The temple mustbe rebuilt and the temple service re-stored [what they are all waiting fornow, but the The Dome of the Rock,one of the holiest places for Mus-lims, stands where the temple is sup-posed to be built]; and (5) The an-tichrist must rule over a unitedEurope, which will be the revivedRoman empire [The European par-liament and the events in Europetoday are seen as a prelude to therule of the antichrist].

It is remarkable how the firstthree of the predicted events havebeen fulfilled. It is if a supernaturalpower were guiding these events;and this may well be, but it is notGod who is guiding them.

Undergirding dispensational the-ology is its understanding of the 70-week prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27.The first 69 weeks are seen as point-ing to the Messiah, but the 70thweek is believed to still be in the fu-ture. The “he” in verse 27, therefore,is not Christ but the antichrist of thefuture.

According to this theology, soonafter the rapture of the church, theantichrist will be revealed. He willmake a covenant with God’s people,the Jews, pledging to protect themfrom their hostile neighbors, but inthe middle of the seven years, he willbreak that covenant, outlaw all reli-gious prac tices of the Jews, who bythen have rebuilt the temple in Jeru -salem and have begun to sacrificeanimals again. The antichrist will

60

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

Gary B. Swanson

mean that he was theworld record holder forthe highest intelligencequotient?

“After Jesus was born in Bethle-hem of Judea in the days of Herodthe king, behold, wise men from theEast came to Jerusalem, saying,‘Where is He who has been bornKing of the Jews? For we have seenHis star in the East and have come toworship Him’” (Matt. 2:1, 2, NKJV).

It would surely be accurate to saythat the wisdom of these men re-sulted at least in part from theirknowledge of astronomy. Even in atime long before the technology ofoptics and telescopes and radio tele-scopes, they knew enough to recog-nize an unidentified flying objectwhen they saw it. Clearly, it appearedto be moving in a way that was un-characteristic of the other heavenlylights.

Further, their wisdom is evi-denced by their recognition that thisobject was surely a fulfillment ofprophecy. Scholars tell us that theyprobably came from Arabia or Per-

uring the Christ-mas season in theWest, our culturebecomes enrapt ina mythical world of twinkling

lights, snowmen, decorated trees,Santa Claus, reindeer, wrapped gifts,and sleigh bells. Among all these fa-miliar icons, thankfully, a few Chris-tian symbols have endured: themanger scene, a bright star, shep-herds, the Magi.

Even in secular, materialistic soci-ety, the Wise Men are a part of theChristmas atmosphere. They are pic-tured as intrepid and inspired seek-ers of truth, traveling by night, bear-ing gifts.

But what was it about the WiseMen that in Scripture they should becalled wise? Was it because they werelearned? Was it because they were onthe cutting edge of their time in thedisciplines of mathematics and as-tronomy?

For that matter, what does Scrip-ture mean by the word wisdom?We’re told that Solomon was the wis-est person who ever lived. Does this

61

THE WISDOMOF THE MAGID

urrection of the dead.3. The Bible does not teach that

the Jews as a nation will again beGod’s people after the church is rap-tured. The special status of the Jew-ish nation as God’s people came toan end in A.D. 34 at the end of the 70weeks (Matt. 21:43). Ellen White wasvery clear on this: “I saw that Godhad forsaken the Jews as a nation;but that individuals among themwill yet be converted.”1 Similarly, inSpiritual Gifts she wrote, “Individu-als among the Jews will be con-verted; but as a nation they are for-ever forsaken of God.”2

�4. Nowhere does the Bible teachthat people who have not acceptedChrist will get a second chance dur-ing the seven years between thesecret rapture and the Second Com-ing. Why would only the last genera-tion get a second chance, why notthe rest of humanity from Adam on?

Dispensational theology is notscriptural. Nevertheless, most con-servative Christians subscribe to itand support modern Israel in any

way they can, including politicalpressure on the White House.

The Jews, of course, do not acceptthe dispensational theology, but theyare happy for the support they re-ceive from evangelical Christians.Nathan Perlmutter, director of theAnti-Defamation League of B’naiB’rith, is not concerned about thedispensationalist teaching that mostJews will be killed by the antichristand that the rest will convert toJesus. He said, “We need all thefriends we have to support Israel. . . .If the Messiah comes, on that daywe’ll consider our options. Mean-while, let’s praise the Lord and passthe ammunition.”3

“There is a downside to the dispensationalist/Israeli friendship.

In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in

directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are currently

supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society”

(Timothy P. Weber).

REFERENCES1 Early Writings, p. 213.2 Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 107.3 Nathan Perlmutter and Ruth Ann Perl-

mutter, The Real Anti-Semitism in America(New York: Arbor House, 1982), quoted inTimothy P. Weber, On the Road to Armaged-don: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s BestFriend (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Aca -demic, 2004), p. 232.

60

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

Gary B. Swanson

mean that he was theworld record holder forthe highest intelligencequotient?

“After Jesus was born in Bethle-hem of Judea in the days of Herodthe king, behold, wise men from theEast came to Jerusalem, saying,‘Where is He who has been bornKing of the Jews? For we have seenHis star in the East and have come toworship Him’” (Matt. 2:1, 2, NKJV).

It would surely be accurate to saythat the wisdom of these men re-sulted at least in part from theirknowledge of astronomy. Even in atime long before the technology ofoptics and telescopes and radio tele-scopes, they knew enough to recog-nize an unidentified flying objectwhen they saw it. Clearly, it appearedto be moving in a way that was un-characteristic of the other heavenlylights.

Further, their wisdom is evi-denced by their recognition that thisobject was surely a fulfillment ofprophecy. Scholars tell us that theyprobably came from Arabia or Per-

uring the Christ-mas season in theWest, our culturebecomes enrapt ina mythical world of twinkling

lights, snowmen, decorated trees,Santa Claus, reindeer, wrapped gifts,and sleigh bells. Among all these fa-miliar icons, thankfully, a few Chris-tian symbols have endured: themanger scene, a bright star, shep-herds, the Magi.

Even in secular, materialistic soci-ety, the Wise Men are a part of theChristmas atmosphere. They are pic-tured as intrepid and inspired seek-ers of truth, traveling by night, bear-ing gifts.

But what was it about the WiseMen that in Scripture they should becalled wise? Was it because they werelearned? Was it because they were onthe cutting edge of their time in thedisciplines of mathematics and as-tronomy?

For that matter, what does Scrip-ture mean by the word wisdom?We’re told that Solomon was the wis-est person who ever lived. Does this

61

THE WISDOMOF THE MAGID

urrection of the dead.3. The Bible does not teach that

the Jews as a nation will again beGod’s people after the church is rap-tured. The special status of the Jew-ish nation as God’s people came toan end in A.D. 34 at the end of the 70weeks (Matt. 21:43). Ellen White wasvery clear on this: “I saw that Godhad forsaken the Jews as a nation;but that individuals among themwill yet be converted.”1 Similarly, inSpiritual Gifts she wrote, “Individu-als among the Jews will be con-verted; but as a nation they are for-ever forsaken of God.”2

�4. Nowhere does the Bible teachthat people who have not acceptedChrist will get a second chance dur-ing the seven years between thesecret rapture and the Second Com-ing. Why would only the last genera-tion get a second chance, why notthe rest of humanity from Adam on?

Dispensational theology is notscriptural. Nevertheless, most con-servative Christians subscribe to itand support modern Israel in any

way they can, including politicalpressure on the White House.

The Jews, of course, do not acceptthe dispensational theology, but theyare happy for the support they re-ceive from evangelical Christians.Nathan Perlmutter, director of theAnti-Defamation League of B’naiB’rith, is not concerned about thedispensationalist teaching that mostJews will be killed by the antichristand that the rest will convert toJesus. He said, “We need all thefriends we have to support Israel. . . .If the Messiah comes, on that daywe’ll consider our options. Mean-while, let’s praise the Lord and passthe ammunition.”3

“There is a downside to the dispensationalist/Israeli friendship.

In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in

directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are currently

supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society”

(Timothy P. Weber).

REFERENCES1 Early Writings, p. 213.2 Spiritual Gifts, vol. 1, p. 107.3 Nathan Perlmutter and Ruth Ann Perl-

mutter, The Real Anti-Semitism in America(New York: Arbor House, 1982), quoted inTimothy P. Weber, On the Road to Armaged-don: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s BestFriend (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Aca -demic, 2004), p. 232.

6362

mere knowledge—mere informa-tion? As we study and discuss theSabbath school lesson, as we partici-pate in any Bible study group, as weread Scripture personally and devo-tionally, as we recount Bible storiesto our children and grandchildren,are we merely exercising intellect?

“Modern knowledge is character-istically noncommittal. Much isknown, but all is consequence-free.What we know and what we doabout it are two different things. . . .What matters for our thought-styleis not simply doctrine but the Chris-tian responsibility of knowledge ex-hibited in all our knowing. . . .Knowledge for the Christian is nevernoncommittal nor consequence-free. Knowledge carries responsibil-ity.”3

Any encounter with Scriptureshould affect our hearts as well as ourheads. Learning should lead to trans-formation, else it’s just an intellectualexercise. By their own account beforeKing Herod, the wise men summedup their reason for being inJerusalem: “‘We have seen His star inthe East [information] and havecome to worship Him [transforma-tion]’” (2:2, NKJV). The Magi didn’tsay they had come to confirm a hy-pothesis or prove a doctrine.

“The best-informed man,” wroteDietrich Bonhoeffer, “is not neces-sarily the wisest. Indeed there is adanger that precisely in the multi-plicity of his knowledge he will losesight of what is essential. . . . Thewise man will seek to acquire thebest possible knowledge aboutevents, but always without becomingdependent upon this knowledge. Torecognize the significant in the fac-tual is wisdom.”4

Let’s be reminded in the comingChristmas season that the knowl-edge of Jesus is more than mere in-formation. Knowledge of God’s rev-elation through Scripture and thestar is important—but more signifi-cant is our response to this informa-tion. It should make a difference inour lives. It should cause us to go be-yond our library research, our paneldiscussions, and our publication ofpapers. It should cause us to get onour camels and hit the road. Itshould prompt us to worship.

�

REFERENCES1 The Desire of Ages, pp. 59, 60.2 Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 48.3 Os Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1994),pp. 145-148.

4 Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York:Macmillan, 1955), p. 69.

sia, an interesting irony for our time.The way the religious establishmentin Jerusalem responded would becalled profiling today.

But they had apparently studiedthe available Hebrew Scripturesclosely enough to know that this starwas significant. The prophecy ofBalaam in the Book of Numbersspeaks of the “star of Jacob” (24:15,KJV). “As these magi studied thestarry heavens, and sought tofathom the mystery hidden in theirbright paths, they beheld the glory ofthe Creator. . . . In their own landwere treasured prophetic writingsthat predicted the coming of a di-vine teacher. Balaam belonged to themagicians, though at one time aprophet of God; by the Holy Spirithe had foretold the prosperity of Is-rael and the appearing of the Mes-siah; and his prophecies had beenhanded down by tradition from cen-tury to century.”1 Almost certainlythe Wise Men drew on Balaam’sprophecy, and there were others aswell.

The wisdom of the Magi musthave surely derived from somethingmore than knowledge of the celestialuniverse and scholarship on the sub-ject of prophecy. Their wisdom wasdemonstrated in the fact that theysaddled up their camels and headedwest. They acted on what they hadlearned. They embraced and livedthe truth as they discovered it intheir study.

Throughout the writings of theSpirit of Prophecy, the term “experi-mental knowledge” occurs a greatmany times. This expression maysound at first like a kind of knowl-edge in which you dabble with thisand experiment with that, rather likean emphasis on trivia. But a carefulreading of the context of this phraseshows that consistently Ellen Whiteis writing about what is called today“experiential knowledge.” It is farmore than information.

“There are very many who claimto serve God,” she says, “but whohave no experimental knowledge ofHim. Their desire to do His will isbased upon their own inclination,not upon the deep conviction of theHoly Spirit.”2

Have you ever wondered whyHerod’s theological experts inprophecy could have known that theMessiah was to be born in Bethle-hem—yet they hadn’t responded tothe star? It’s probable that they hadn’teven seen it. They readily rejectedthe prophecy in their own Scriptures(Micah 5:2), that precisely pin-pointed the location of the Messiah’sbirth. And they looked upon the vis-iting Magi as heathen!

Truth doesn’t always come fromthe establishment. Sometimes itcomes from unexpected sources. Alltruth is God’s truth.

But how do we respond to truthwhen it presents itself to us? In anystudy of Scripture, do we stop at